thebuffslayer

[thebuffslayer]

“When I was little, I asked my pastor if Judas had been in love with Jesus. He sent me back to my mother early, with a note for her to explain “things.” But no matter what anyone said, I couldn’t be convinced that the Bible was anything less than a love story. (I kissed your cheek in front of them all and in doing so, I think that I damned the both of us. You, to be left crucified and bleeding and paying for my sins. Me, to be left wandering and wanting and never to see your face again.)”

— K. Wright, Judas  (via chazeatsbrains)

[thebuffslayer]

If you see me in a few months reposting Luwser truther content kindly get me banned

Oh yeah, Luigi x Bowser shippers just got some grade A material in that new trailer.

[thebuffslayer]

how Goncharov (1973), unlike its protagonist, got away with that perfect “crime”

Goncharov (1973) is finally getting the recognition it deserves! Like, this movie meant so much to a lot of people even if it wasn’t widely distributed. It was groundbreaking in so many ways… it’s super cool by today’s standards but back then it was revolutionary. 

From a historical perspective, lgbtq+ characters have been portrayed in cinema ever since its invention. But how they were portrayed was the big deal. The Hays Code, which was established in the 30s, forbade any positive portrayals of “deviancy”- which included homosexuality or nonconforming gender expression. However, some degree of this “deviancy” was allowed- as long as it reinforced that “deviant” was what it was. In other words, queer had to mean bad.

“Queercoded villain” or “negative” representation was (and still is) a common way for writers and directors to write queer characters, as villains are generally “bad” characters that the audience doesn’t empathize with. They’re terrible people who do terrible things- thus associating “evil” with “queer”. (There are plenty of cinema history videos on youtube that explain this much better than me.)

Another common way to write gay characters without getting punished by the movie industry was (and is) the “bury-your-gays” trope, (which y’all on tumblr know very very well). Any sympathetic, protagonistic queer story (which had to relegate to side stories!) had to be end in tragedy- usually death. Thus, “being queer” gets associated with “being dead.”

BUT BACK TO GONCHAROV!

I mean, with the Hays Code freshly abolished five years prior, the movie industry was really hesitant to portray openly queer relationships or characters at all, so having not one but four queer(coded) main characters was completely unheard of. Plus, on a film development timeline, this had to be in development at least two or three years prior- probably more since producers wouldn’t pick this one up so easily- so it was probably being written when the Hays Code was in place. Post-Hays, queer films were “allowed”- but usually rated in a way that would forbid any young impressionable audiences from viewing something so scandalous as- gasp- gay people!

But Gonrachov’s genius here isn’t even in its writing, or inclusion of queer characters. It’s in the use of genre to do those things.

The mafia movie is the perfect way to subvert both of these practices. Yes, the queer characters are “bad” people who do monstrous things and meet tragic, lonely fates. But so is every other character in any other mafia movie! Everyone’s villainous in mafia movies, protagonists and antagonists alike! And that rating’s going to be high- for mature audiences only- but so is literally any other serious mafia movie. It’s not getting on the Family Learning Channel, but that’s not because of the gay people, that’s because of Fucking Ice Pick Joe! 

Goncharov accomplished something that no other film had before- by creating sympathetic queer main characters who were treated the same as any other main character- all while flying under the radar!

[thebuffslayer]

everyone on stranger things outacting themselves to get an emmy but noah's out here trying to get that glaad award