#just because their characters are made interesting because of all le dramas
Text
I watched the first episode of Kate Winslet's "The Regime" and had a few thoughts.
First, the good:
- Really excited to see Matthias Schoenaerts (Booker in The Old Guard) in it, so that was already a huge plus.
- Kate Winslet is definitely acting her ass off.
- A lot of worldbuilding and research about dictators both historical and modern definitely went into the script. I could see snippets of many known dictator affectations, like germophobia, on display.
And now the... not exactly bad but the ???:
(Cut because we start to get into some actual spoilers)
I really don't know where the show is trying to go just yet. I can't quite tell if it's a flat out comedy in the style of Death of Stalin, as advertised, or if it's actually going for a deeper dramedy where we're supposed to feel some level of pathos for Winslet's and Schoenaerts' characters.
Basically, it feels like a fictionalization of a historical dramedy.
However, in Death of Stalin and other dramas and satires based on real historical events, we know where this is all going, to some extent. We can tell if the Bumbling Advisor's advice is, well, bumbling because we know how things are going to turn out.
Right now, in The Regime, we don't have any grounding in reality to be able to determine if the decisions being made are bad or good or simply incompetent and doomed to fail.
We've got a lot subjective view points like the various ministers and Schoenaerts' character to give their perspective on what the country should do next, but we don't have any objective birds eye view, historical knowledge, or even an actual person average person in the this fictional country to tell us what they're really thinking, unfiltered through the subjective POV of all these characters with very pronounced agendas.
In a way, I do consider that quite clever from a writing craft standpoint. I feel just as isolated and wrapped in cotton wool as Winslet's character. Which is part of why I wonder if I'm supposed to sympathize with a figure that, to my eyes, reads like Marine le Pen from a dystopian world where she actually won in France.
As an American, I can't tell whether or not the country turning away from America (who was clearly trying to take advantage, in a cobalt deal that to my ears echoed the British oil interests in Iran at the beginning of the 20th c.) is meant to be seen as a good or a bad thing. Truly. I don't mean that as saying I want or expect America to be the good guy, but I can't tell if I'm relatively anti-American compared to the creator of the show (ie, that America is just assumed to be a good guy so it's meant to be a negative harbinger of bad things to come that they turned away) or relatively pro-American (ie, that it's a show made by non-Americans so by not seeing this as a clear good thing that they reject America using terminology that echoes current Russian rhetoric) and I should be cheering on their choice to turn away.
On the one hand, this ambiguity if intentional is quite masterful! I can't quite tell if I'm supposed to see Schoenaerts as a straight-shooter who is supposed to help this rather hapless dictator maybe achieve some good, or if he's a violent MAGA-type thug who is going to get her ear and put their country down the path to atrocities. I just don't know yet, because this isn't a historical dramedy so I don't know how these events play out.
And I can't tell quite yet if that's a good or a bad thing from the writerly perspective. On the one hand, I'm personally more baffled than intrigued as to why I should care about anything going on in it so far. It's not all that funny, so I'm not entertained or amused just at the nonsense happening, because I can't tell what I'm supposed to see as nonsense and what I'm supposed to see as serious worldbuilding leading towards an actual fictional country narrative that will allow some commentary on our own global situation, or if it's just intrigue for the sake of intrigue, or if it's a character study and I shouldn't care about the actual events in the fictional country because it's the absurdity of the personalities I should be focusing on. Or if I am supposed to be laughing, what aspects I'm supposed to be laughing at.
Basically, it hasn't won my trust yet. I'm mildly intrigued, mostly because of Winslet and Schoenaerts adding complexity to what in a normal satire might just be flat comedic characters. But I can't even really tell yet if the story thinks it's a comedy or if it just has comedic elements (like, say, Succession).
Maybe I'm just basic, but I wouldn't have minded a bit more signposting and a bit less of a feeling that I'm supposed to grasp what point the story is trying to make on its own. I don't really know what the thesis is yet, because it's not based in real events, there's no objective truth for me to look at and say, "Ah, they're saying this historically terrible person was misunderstood, or bumbling, or actually heroic, or well-intentioned," etc etc. I only have their word for it and they haven't actually told me yet what their word is trying to say, y'know?
Verdict: I'll probably watch a bit more, but I am a little perplexed at present as to what the takeaway should be.
22 notes
·
View notes
Note
This is kinda random. But as a fellow Jason enjoyer and classic Doctor Who enjoyer. What do you think about the difference in narrative treatment and framing of Adric and Jason? They both got blown up (in the 80s) trying to do something noble that didn't really mean anything (the ship wasn't going to wipe out humanity/Sheila betrayed Jason to the Joker for trying to save her). Adric is characterized as not well liked by his peers and Jason is but post-mortem the treatment of Adric is very much a tragedy. They didn't feel a need to aggressively (pretty much every time mentioned) victim blame Adric (as far as I remember I haven't done a proper rewatch, outside of that one bad audio drama that I refuse to engage with) to justify future companions. Not even future teen companions. Meanwhile Jason was seemingly loved but post-mortem was incredibly disrespected and victim blamed by the people who allegedly cared for him. Most mentions of Jason were accompanied with an element of victim blaming.
Also interesting that in Doctor Who the Fifth Doctor thinks that Adric's 'deprived, delinquent upbringing' makes him naive. (There is logic to it. He would likely to be more used to desperate people than malevolent in his difficult situation. Also in this specific case, his trauma seemingly involving a lack of food the robot body no food requirement would make sense.) While Batman says Jason is destined to be a criminal and then characterizes his death as recklessness when there is actually a stronger argument for Jason's death as being the result of naivete. Him trusting in Sheila.
I have thought about Jason and Adric parallels! I'm not familiar with EU Adric content so I can't (yet) comment on it, but I will talk about how the show deals with it.
Adric's death isn't really dwelt upon as much as you'd expect. There's no "Lonely Place of Dying" arc for the Doctor, there's no spiral, he even directly says that Adric wouldn't want them to mourn unnecessarily (which I assume means get lost in grieving rather than meaning any mourning is unnecessary). This is partly because the show, at the time, wasn't really concerned with pulling at your heartstrings too much and following through emotional development plots. Sure, you'd get sad moments, but they wouldn't really deal with them properly after it happened (Katarina's death, Jamie and Zoe getting their memories erased, Turlough's suicide attempt, etc). It's also because the Doctor is a very different, and tbh more emotionally stable character. He's not preoccupied with his own grief or (at least in the Classic series) at risk of going off the deep end without people around to ground him.
Batman, by contrast, was originally more stable but as comics got darker when the Comics Code Authority's censorship got less stringent and writers also actively wanted to fight against the perceptions of comics as childish, he became darker and more brooding, so the writers actively wanted to dwell on traumatic moments where Fifth Doctor era Doctor Who didn't. So part of the reason we didn't get a victim blaming arc for Adric was because they just didn't talk about it.
And Adric didn't have a replacement character to take his role in the narrative. Sure, the Doctor got new companions but none of them took Adric's role. They weren't trying to tear him down to lift someone else up like "See, aren't they so much better at being Adric?"
So yeah, outside a few scenes, Adric doesn't get dwelt so there's no real opportunity for the writers to victim blame him post death, but Jason became a ghost in the narrative that haunted Batman, and a character for Tim to supercede, which gave them a lot of chances to shit talk him, which they did take.
Additionally, Jason got resurrected (which was a decision that wasn't made for his character but rather to create a new villain for Batman) so to justify this darker turn, they made a point of going "See, he was destined to be criminal. Here's all this foreshadowing." Well, it's less foreshadowing and more backshadowing since it was inserted after the fact. Adric doesn't have that.
There's really nothing to motivate them going "See, Adric was always bad and he's worse now." He's just a character that a lot of people didn't really like who's only really remembered positively in the context of his death. Which is apparent in Tales of the TARDIS where Five and Tegan can't seem to say anything nice about him.
FIVE: "He was so..."
TEGAN: "Oh he was a nightmare."
FIVE: "He was daft and silly and sulky and... He was just a kid."
I've talked before about how I don't like how certain DW writers will make the Doctor straight up unreasonable to his companions or overly mean, and how Adric was treated def falls into that sometimes. Like yeah, him and Five arguing over going through the CVE to get home in Earthshock is in character tetchiness from the Doctor, but Five calling him a naive idiot in Four to Doomsday without giving him a chance to explain himself (which you brought up, and I thought the writers had him side with the villain for no reason but you do bring up a good point about hunger, I wish his motives were more focused on in narrative and he was given more sympathetic characterisation) and Five berating him for losing control of the Total Survival Suit in Kinda was just unnecessarily mean to me and I think part of it was because the writers just didn't like Adric so the Doctor didn't either I guess.
This moment is another case of that because that's not how you talk about a teenager who died violently in an attempt to save people, one who was also smart and determined (along with his negative traits). The writers just don't seem to notice it as mean because they don't like him.
Which is more in line with how Jason is talked about post death. "Yeah, we don't like him but his death was sad." Noteworthy that this is written in retrospect in an era where DW is much more concerned with ~emotional moments~ and it was written by RTD, who is A Fan of a Certain Generation who probably never liked Adric and can't bring himself to describe him nicely in any way (but still wants to use his death to pull at people's heartstrings), so of course Adric gets more of the Jason treatment.
And that, fundamentally, is the fate of Jason and Adric. To be disrespected as characters but have their deaths used as Emotional Moments (please get out the violins) by writers who don't see them very sympathetically outside of that.
I hope that wasn't overly long or meandering, thanks for asking!
9 notes
·
View notes
Note
Omg im so dumb. I should’ve been asked you rhis: what’s your opinion on Tycutio??? Personally it’s not for me…. but maybe that’s because i just don’t like Tybalt 🤷🏾. You already kniw my feelings for that guy 😂. Otoh I loveeee Mercutio.
Also, what’s with the while Mercutio’s gay thing? I mean, i like it, i accept it as my own headcanon and what not but i didn’t see too much bookcanon to support it… Tho it’s possible i’ve missed something.
Yeah, both Tycutio and Gay Mercutio are 100% fanon. I have a feeling it’s Mercutio’s truly intense side character energy that encourages this fanon, since the Gay Best Friend trope is still ubiquitous. It’s not the most egregious headcanon…except when they try to make Mercutio a Sad Gay, as some adaptations have done (the French Canadian modern version and that Prince of Shadows book come readiest to mind). Whatever else he is, Mercutio is not a tragic character, gay or otherwise.
I think Gay Mercutio, apart from your standard representation motives, functions as an attempt to make Mercutio a main character by giving him something apart from his role in the main drama. Unfortunately that only ruins the fun and mystique of his character for me. Transforming a beloved side character into a main character often ends up making the character boring or at least les interesting (see: Nicolai the Grishaverse character). Mercutio just doesn’t have that level of drama, either internal or external. You could do much more with, say, Benvolio, if just in terms of him being a survivor to all this tragic madness (which the French musical did to heartbreaking effect).
As for Tycutio, I think it’s more popular in French musical circles, particularly the Hungarian and Revival RetJs that leaned heavily into their rivalry. That “Depuis notre enfance/Since our childhood” line does a LOT of heavy lifting in terms of fanon. For the Shakespeare side, though, there are a few that insist their banter has sexual tension (even though it’s less banter than Mercutio snapping at Tybalt and trying to antagonize him while Tybalt is coolly aloof). None of Mercutio’s wordplay to him, however, are sexual or romantic in nature—very telling when you remember to his previous bawdy taunting of the Nurse and Romeo.
That said, some adaptations have tried to emphasize the feud have made him a kind of Riff to Tybalt’s Bernardo, which lends itself very easily to an enemies-to-lovers slash pairing in fanfiction. So yeah, Migratory Slash Fandom + “R&J is actually about the feud!!1!” + side character energy = Gay Mercutio and Tycutio.
#kaleb-is-definitely-not-sane#ask#romeo and juliet#rj meta#r&j meta#tycutio#and then there is the academic fanon of shakespeare ‘forced to kill off’ mercutio#nah son#the mercutio fandom is older than you think#and coming up with unsubstantiated shit as well#but i prefer that fanon to this one
7 notes
·
View notes
Text
Here we are on the 16th of April, the day of the last newsies performance with the OG cast and as I journey towards the theatre I’m thinking - I have a load of random (probably unfinished) notes I’ve made from the different performances I’ve seen since the very first show and I’ve never actually posted them… so guess what I’ll be posting today…
Like I said above - random - unfinished - and totally my personal interpretations based on that specific performance of the day… enjoy…
(29th Nov - the very first preview - sat in FLUSHING AA01)
Ryan as Davey is incredible - he felt like a merging of film and Broadway (the whole show feels like that which I love SO MUCH!) - the moment I realised how incredible his portrayal actually was was in seize the day - specifically when he starts seize the day… with the Broadway version it’s Jack who spurs him on - almost passing the baton to see if he can rally the troops… here Jack is about to call on davey but gets cut off by davey starting to sing - when it happened I thought they’d messed up the timings (and who knows - maybe they did and played it out well - I will find out tomorrow) but I don’t think they did (they must have because for me it’s never happened since) - davey sees how things are falling apart, jacks losing control and makes his position heard - he believes in this cause and he is going to make his position know - he doesn’t need Jack to convince him to help - he takes his moment and his courage, his voice is what successfully rally’s the troops. His boldness even catches Jack off guard - this shows davey taking charge - just like he does in the film.
Love having the Newsies playing in the balconies before the show started (something that also never happened again!) and then having race be the one who essentially starts the show - calling the other Newsies to order - it was really cool. This race doesn’t have the youngsters energy Ben cook has in the Broadway version, he’s very much alike with 92sies race - has his own sense of authority amongst the newsies that’s separate from Jack.
(30th nov - MANHATTAN)
While sat in Manhattan I was able to notice crutchie sat hiding in one of the side spaces during the snyder entrance - when the scene started I did notice him being there but then didn’t think anything of it and watched the scene taking place on the stage - it wasn’t until all the commotion starts with Snyders arrival that I realised crutchie was still there and reacting to the drama on stage… as snyder shouts his threats to jack, you can see crutchie curling up in the corner he’s sat in looking utterly terrified - the dread in his face is heartbreaking to see and visually establishes crutchies fear of snyder and the refuge. This choice of staging is such an interesting inclusion which adds so much to crutchies character - it continues to establish this anxiety within him that’s always growing with each day he isn’t in the refuge - he’s never free from his belief that he’s gonna end up in the refuge and it terrifies him. Beyond that it’s interesting because there’s no acknowledgement or emphasis made to it - other than there being light on him so he can be seen - but that part of the performance space isn’t even visible below a certain point of Manhattan seating - so most don’t even know he’s there - including Jack and crew. In this moment we see (or for those who do actually see him) how isolated he is - whilst Jack, davey and les bond and interact and are watching out for each other when trouble arises, crutchie is totally alone and unnoticed but still hearing and reacting to everything that’s going on over on the main stage. I really love it as a detail!
(Unspecified dates - MANHATTAN)
When the bulls join the fight and knock down one of the newsies (splasher? ( it is in fact splashed)) crutchie’s there trying to help with some of the others - they fight off the cop but everything is heating up - Crutchie is still trying to help but Albert is there and takes responsibility for the fallen Newsies Splasher, he tells crutchie - “I‘ll take care of him, you get out of here crutchie!” Albert leaves with the newsie splasher but crutchie stays amongst the fighting - and we all know how that ends. Albert looking out for crutchie is one of my favourite things to see in the show!
There’s just something really interesting with Tommy boy - he’s the one I’m kinda obsessed with watching and wanna know more about. He’s always isolated from everyone else prior to the scab situation… (a lot more on him later…)
TBC… as the train is now in London…
#Newsies uk#my random thoughts#newsies#uksies#newsies spoilers#crutchie morris#Tommy boy#racetrack higgins#davey jacobs#jack kelly#text post
24 notes
·
View notes
Text
I am dismayed to see that there’s a new feature-film biopic of Emily Brontë coming out soon, and my, does it look a mess.
Actually no, it looks pretty gorgeous, and I’m a sucker for the aesthetic. So I’ll probably wait until it’s streaming so I can watch it at home with the sound off (a wonderful way to enjoy a beautiful, but stupid, movie or show...try it sometime!).
Based on the trailer, the premise of this claptrap appears to be that Emily Brontë was a simmering volcano of repressed sexual desire that might have erupted into a full-blown love affair with a young man (who appears to be William Weightman, a real-life curate who served in her father’s parish). And of course, she was a total smoke show, a dark-eyed beauty who wandered windswept moors with her brunette locks tumbling past her shoulders in perfect beachy waves...or I suppose that would be “moory” waves.
The last time I saw something this idiotic about the Brontës, it was an unintentionally hilarious 1979 French film, Les Soeurs Brontë, that starred Isabelle Adjani as Emily. This movie seems to be borrowing heavily from that one, at least in terms of style. Isabelle Adjani (at the time considered one of the world’s most beautiful actors), portrays Emily the same way: a passionate enchantress of smoldering, near-Byronic temperament. She’s most often seen gallivanting across desolate Yorkshire in a getup that looks like a Victorianized version of Diane Keaton’s menswear-inspired outfits in Annie Hall. Egregiously, the French movie implied (or maybe made it explicit, I can’t fully remember) that Emily Brontë’s great romantic attraction was for...her own brother, the troubled Branwell (I actually think they might have even suggested that Branwell’s drinking and drug problems were a direct result of thwarted lust for his sister).
I know you need money to make movies. The producers of this film wouldn’t have gotten much backing for a costume drama about a plain, and by all accounts, rather odd spinster who only wrote one book in her life before she died of tuberculosis. But is there really no way to make Emily Brontë interesting without sexing her up in this ludicrous way?
I can’t express all the reasons why I find this so irritating. In part, because it was actually Anne Brontë, not Emily, who really was in love with William Weightman, and might have married him if not for his early, sudden death. It seems shitty and dishonest to rob Anne of her own story and give it to Emily, just because Wuthering Heights is more famous than Anne’s books (including Agnes Grey, whose male leading character was actually based on Weightman).
But mostly, it’s irritating because the filmmakers obviously think that the real Emily Brontë is boring or, at least, would bore a modern audience. And they can only think of one way to make her interesting: by fanficking her into a wild-at-heart hottie. That’s lazy in two ways: It takes a hackneyed old shortcut to telling a woman’s story and it borrows shamelessly from Emily’s own creation, Cathy Earnshaw. In fact, from what I’ve seen in the trailer, they basically just conflated Emily with Cathy and called it a day.
There’s a story to be told about Emily Brontë and no one’s ever put it on film. Part of that is because she really was a mystery, sometimes even to the people who knew her best. Her own sisters were often confounded by her behavior. She could be gregarious, witty, and outspoken, and then withdrawn and incommunicative. She seemed to have been deeply intelligent with a fearless streak that, in her day, was often praised as a “masculine” virtue (I guess that’s why the French saw fit to dress her in tweedy waistcoats and neckties). She shunned any form of attention and refused to publicly link herself to Wuthering Heights, but she was still mortified by the book’s negative reviews. She was, in short, fascinating all on her own. I don’t understand why, in 2022, filmmakers can’t tell a story about that woman, and instead have to make up some chick-flick drivel about a windblown beauty with a case of the hots for the sexy curate. Definitely one to watch with the sound off.
#emily bronte#wuthering heights#emily movie 2022#anne bronte#agnes grey#dark academia#sort of dark academia
81 notes
·
View notes
Note
what are your favorite heroines written by fitzgerald? and by thomas hardy? and by dickens? and by your other favorite authors? ♡
i cannot believe i’ve had this blog for 84 years and i've never done an official ranking of my girls! i limited myself to twenty characters (one per author), but if an author has more than one amazing heroine, i will be talking about all of them. so let’s start at the beginning, a very good place to start! 💗
1.) estella havisham. my forever girl, my number one heroine when it comes to serious literature, and the blueprint for all my bitchy rich girl faves - of which there are many on this list. but no one compares to estella! you might be a spoiled brat, but have you been bent and broken into a better shape?
2.) natasha rostova / kitty shcherbatsky. i think i would ultimately choose natasha if it ever came to that - she’s just a richer character, and one of the only major literary heroines who has a killer sense of humor - but kitty is my sweet pink marshmallow. it’s a very close call!
3.) cosette / eponine. again, i can’t choose. i think eponine is the more complex and sophisticated character, but cosette is so GOOD! she’s just loveable, which is a very hard quality to pin down. i love them both so much. 10/10 for each!
4.) eustacia vye, followed so closely by tess that the difference is infinitesimal. tess is the greater heroine (goodness made interesting - name a bigger challenge in literature!), but god, i fucking love eustacia. the chapter introducing her in return of the native is still the single best in-depth breakdown of a character’s personality that i have ever encountered in a novel.
5.) anne shirley, because she’s been with me my entire life and has taught me more about happiness than any other character i’ve ever come across. “the iron has entered into my soul, diana!”
6.) isabel archer. does she make poor decisions? yes. would she have been better off without the money? double yes! but the drama is what makes her shine. i know this book is dense, but read it anyway - because if you don’t, you’ll never meet isabel, and you will miss out on one of the richest experiences of your life. it’s not a light read, but it is my favorite read.
7.) emma bovary, my favorite mess. she’s mean and unrealistic and a little stupid, but that scene at the end where she just cracks open and all her anger comes spilling out is what makes her amazing. the french have a flair for tragedy (c'est dans le fucking titre in the case of les mis!), but nothing compares to the heartbreak of watching emma, who thinks that death will be like falling asleep, when she feels the arsenic start to work and realizes she was wrong: “oh! it is beginning!” it will not be an easy death. she is not an easy character. but mon dieu, i adore her!
8.) catherine barkley. brett ashley is hemingway’s best female character, but catherine is the one who has my heart. she’s incredibly romantic and feminine and starry-eyed (with the most beautiful hair in all of literature!), but what makes her great is that this dreamy quality is a deliberately willed reaction to intense trauma. she CHOOSES to love. she is proof that you can be a girly girl and still be made of iron and steel. she’s so smart and courageous, and i am forever obsessed with her!
9.) sibyl vane, the girl who died for believing in fairy tales.
10.) tatyana larina rounds out my top ten for leaving onegin on read after he left her on read. the russians have the best heroines. i will not budge on this!
11.) yvonne de galais. she’s a ten (or in fournier-speak: “the fairy, the princess, the dream of love itself!”), but she can’t hold on to her man. 💔
12.) emma woodhouse. i’m not a huge austen fan, but i feel like out of all the girls on this list, emma would “get” me the most and go out of her way to befriend me. we are, unfortunately, very much alike.
13.) beatrice. do you know how much i suffered over choosing just one shakespeare heroine? an impossible task, but a girl who loves to laugh as much as bea does deserves to be number one. (it’s why the très witty rosalind is a close second, followed by the more tragically-inclined ophelia.)
14.) rosemary hoyt. this was the hardest one. i ultimately went with rosemary because she has all the qualities of the quintessential fitzgerald girl (young, fun, glamorous, spoiled, beautiful), but she’s much more likeable than rosalind, gloria, daisy, or even my beloved jordan. also in the top three are eleanor savage, who would be number one if she had her own book (“here am i with the brains to do everything - too bright for most men, and yet i have to descend to their level!”), and cecilia brady, hollywood princess extraordinaire and the west coast equivalent of nick carraway.
15.) amy march, america’s least favorite sister - and my personal favorite. this country has no taste. no wonder amy left!
16.) linda radlett. a little awful, but terribly funny and, in a weird way, kind of admirable in her single-minded ~pursuit of love. my mom wanted to watch the lily james version, thinking it would be a nice downton-esque period drama, and i had to tell her v. bluntly that there is nothing nice about the pursuit of love and that i couldn’t watch it with her because i knew she would hate linda. some things are just too sick-making!
17.) miss holiday golightly, travelling!
18.) lucy honeychurch. aside from being a genuinely cool girl who rejects the second-worst man in all of literature (the ultimate worst being angel clare), she also has the greatest name in the canon, which guarantees her a position in my top twenty.
19.) marguerite gautier, just because she’s actually marie duplessis and my love for marie is boundless and obsessively documented.
20.) franny glass. there aren’t many girls who possess the crazy level of self-confidence required to order a glass of milk in a restaurant while wearing a glam raccoon coat, but franny is one of the few. i related to her an embarrassing amount when i was a teenager, and while the association has faded, she remains my favorite glass sibling to this day.
72 notes
·
View notes
Text
So, I have a few thoughts about the Spera storyline.
It’s a very bold choice in terms of writing. It might not have landed for some people and I totally get that but it did land for me. I agree with people who said that we should have watched this topic with Viola or Federica as mains. It’s a too important and heavy topic that it would be better if we watched it through the eyes of a main instead of a love interest and a friend. However, I get why they did it. This storyline gave Federica a plot of her own before truly saying goodbye to the original generation, and if they want to make a new generation it gave the audience a more in depth look into a member of the new gen.
I do think despite being from an outsider’s perspective they did the storyline justice. We actually get to hear how Viola felt shame, how she was afraid of being judged, how she tried to tell herself that she had consent in it. Elia’s reaction to everything was as it should be. He never once thought about judging her and judged Spera instead. He didn’t even question Viola too, that’s important because he saw Sperra as a friend. When he told the boys about it, they just asked him if he was sure and after he said yes they didn’t question it further. When they asked who it was Elia didn’t give Viola’s name, same way Viola didn’t give Federica’s name. Viola repeating Carmela’s words about being manipulated, both the girl squads supporting their friends at the police station, and Federica’s words at the radio urging people to speak and not be silent are super important. I think they showed the side of Viola and Federica as much as they could with Elia as a main.
But the main reason I’m okay with this being set in Elia’s season is because it’s not used as a storyline for Elia to grow as a person. Like I said Elia already gave the best and the proper reaction. Viola’s and Federica’s plots weren’t used for Elia’s sake. Rather from his perspective it was a plot of seeing the world as it is, realizing the people you trust are not always as they are. I think in the end it helped Elia and their relationship that Elia and Viola both opened up to each other.
And finally coming to the fact that it’s Spera. Like I said it’s a bold choice. It completely changes the way I view the scenes with him in season 2 that I used to adore. I think if this storyline was happening the best choice was Spera instead of a random teacher which would have made the plot pointless and just for drama. Here instead we have Elia and the boys faced with actually having to grow up. Their world at 17-18 is literally shattered when they learn about Spera, the man who was their friend, who helped them. He was such an integral part of Marti’s journey and suddenly he is gone and everything he knew is gone too. I think, as the show truly lets go of these characters forcing them to grow up is a good way to let them go because were are not in season 1 anymore where they were teenagers. They are on their way to be young adults and their world is gonna shatter again and again.
The silver lining is that they have each other. That’s what the hug in the cafeteria showed. No matter what happens contrabbandieri have each other and they don’t need anyone else. And le matte have each other. And all of them have each other.
44 notes
·
View notes
Text
My 2024 in Film: March, part. 1
It would seem that I watched too many movies in March for Tumblr to handle!
By which I mean that it turns out there's a limit on the number of images you can attach to a single post and I watched more than that.
But I've been liking having a picture to go with each entry, so I'm gonna have to just split this one into two posts. Which means that you get two big posts instead of one monstrous post.
So really this is probably for the best?
Anyways, it was a month of extremes. Some soaring highs and some rage inducing lows.
So join me as I ramble about such things as: classic documentaries, experiments in gender, why the Academy can die in a fire, the difference between bad movies that are interesting and bad movies that make you wonder why you did this to yourself, and more!
* = rewatched
37.
Scream VI
(2023)
— Meta Horror
Directed by: Matt Bettinelli-Olpin & Tyler Gillett
The people who were still alive after Scream 5 are back, weirdly not harboring any sort of PTSD from what they lived through, and living in NYC. That's right: Scream is lost in New York.
Both these new Screams want to create a new franchise with a new cast of characters. Cool. I always appreciate when someone tries to move the timeline forward instead of just remixing the original.
But it's hard for me to care about these new characters, because there's shockingly little character development. I'd swear the last movie never happened, because the new crew seem utterly unfazed from having narrowly survived being brutally slaughtered and having witnessed the deaths of close friends and family.
And the two main characters are the most boring of them all!
I know a lot of people would disagree with me and love this one. So clearly there's a difference of opinions out there.
I will say that I liked this a LOT more than 5. Moving the location from Woodsboro was a great move and was a lot more fun than I was expecting.
And, I know this isn't what I should have been focusing on, but the Halloween costumes in this movie?! They are fantastic. There are so many great ones lurking in the backgrounds of shots. Far and away my favorite part of the movie was trying to identify all the Halloween costumes.
38.
An American Pickle
(2020)
—Comedy Fantasy Drama
Directed by: Brandon Trost
Based on: “Sell Out” by Simon Rich
An immigrant to America falls into a pickle vat in 1919 and is preserved until it is opened 100 years later. Now lost in the strange new world of the present he tracks down his last living descendant and the two try to find common ground.
There's actually a really interesting idea at work in this movie. But more often than not the whole thing was just played as a bit instead of really developing the metaphor.
I'm not really the target audience for this one though, so I'm open to the idea that parts of it were just going over my head.
39.
Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio
(2022)
—Animated Fantasy Adventure
Directed by: Guillermo del Toro
Based on: Le avventure di Pinocchio. Storia di un burattino by. Carlo Collodi
A woodcarver's drunken wish is granted when a godly being brings one of his creations to life.
Eagle-eyed readers might be thinking, "Hey! Didn't you previously say that you had beef with Netflix and would never give them money? Then how, pray tell, did you watch this Netflix original?"
Well, dear readers, it's because my local library had it due to it being released in a physical format from the Criterion collection. So there!
I'm going to be upfront and let you know that I am biased against this, because I have never liked the story of Pinocchio. In fact, that's why I never went to see it in theaters even though it was playing at the theater I worked at and thus could have watched it for free.
[In a particularly memorable day at the theater I made a man cry when I had to tell him he couldn't bring his dog to this movie. Then he went around telling everyone in the lobby that I broke his heart and ruined his day. So...yeah, that was a weird day.]
But I digress! [surprising no one]
I still don't love Pinocchio, but I will say that this is far and away my favorite adaptation. del Toro adds a lot of depth to the story by setting it in Mussolini-era Italy. Plus I love when people attempt stop-motion animation.
That being said, I have some issues on the animation in this though. I really love the animation of the non-human characters, but the human characters faces didn't match the level of emotions the voice actors were giving and the result was a discrepancy that had me convinced I was watching a dub.
I looked into it and it seems to be because the non-human characters were generally done by swapping the model's face plates between frames [a style of animation you might recall from films like The Nightmare Before Christmas and Coraline]. Meanwhile the human characters had models with faces that were built to be physically manipulated to change their expression [like in Fantastic Mr. Fox].
There's pros and cons to both methods, but I can't say I'm a fan of them both being used simultaneously. It was really breaking my immersion when different characters had completely different limits on their ability to emote. And there were so many times a voice was giving tons of emotion and the character's face was giving like 20% of it.
Okay, I'll stop ranting now...
Ewan McGregor was miscast in this and they had Tom Kenny in the movie and gave him like a line or two? What's the story there?!
Okay, okay, I'll be done for real now.
40.
Dick Johnson is Dead
(2020)
—Documentary
Directed by: Kirsten Johnson
Having already lost her mother to Alzheimer's and with her father now beginning to succumb as well, filmmaker Kirsten Johnson seeks to create a record of who he is while also trying to document what it's like dealing with the inevitable death of a loved one.
"Netflix again!" you say to yourself. "Truly he is lying to us and doesn't want people to know that he actually has Netflix!" Wrong! Once again I got this from the library, because once again it had a physical release from the Criterion collection.
Suck it, Netflix!
Libraries for the win!
In more relevant news, Kirsten Johnson is ruling the top of the my movie rankings for the year. First there was Cameraperson and now this! She is out here doing fascinating things with the medium of documentaries.
I wish it was easier to say why you loved something than it was to say why you disliked something. Because this is such a hard movie to convey the tone of.
It's funny and heartbreaking, morbid and sweet, reverent and irreverent all at the same time.
Johnson is like a magician who tells you exactly what's up her sleeves. She'll show you what the trick is and how she's gonna do it. Then somehow she still manages to surprise you when she does it.
And it's not a true documentary in the sense that she's basically going in the exact opposite direction of cinema verite style. But she's also always documenting her process of breaking the rules.
In someone else's hands this could be a mess, but she's just such a master of the form that she knows exactly what rules she can't break, which ones she can bend the shit out of, and which ones she can ignore altogether.
41.
Dioses de México
[English title: “Gods of Mexico”]
(2022)
—Documentary
Directed by: Helmut Dosantos
An unspeaking look at the resistance to modernization in Mexico as we witness the people still versed in the old ways.
This was one of my roommate's picks for our theme of: "Oh!...So That's a Thing".
The fact that there was no narration or really any dialogue made the whole thing rather fascinating. There were times I was dying for someone to tell me exactly what people were doing in a scene, but then again that's kind of the point, isn't it?
It's so easy to take modern machines for granted, that when you see someone making something the old fashioned way it almost makes the steps seem like a kind of magical alchemy.
42.
Oklahoma!
(1955)
—Musical Rom-Com
Directed by: Fred Zinnemann
A woman gets mad that her pseudo boyfriend assumed she was going to the local dance with him instead of asking her and tries to make him jealous.
Although I watched a lot of musicals growing up, this was one that I was aware of, but never saw.
I know that this is true of many older musicals, but there's a lot of crazy shit going on in this. And yet there is practically no story or character development at all...and the movie is over 2 hours long?
How does almost nothing happen in nearly 2.5 hours?
And then against the grain of everything else in the movie, you've got this girl [woman? how old are they supposed to be?] having a whole subplot about how she just wants to sleep around?
Probably a good one to watch with a friend, because you can talk to each other and not have to worry about missing anything.
43.
Grey Gardens
(1975)
— Documentary
Directed by: Ellen Hovde & Albert Maysles & David Maysles & Muffie Meyer
A look into the lives of a reclusive mother and daughter, who once belonged to high society, but now live by themselves in a dilapidated house of questionable safety.
Since documentaries have been dominating the top of my best of the year list, I've been making an effort to watch some of the famous documentaries that I've never bothered checking out before.
I never bothered with this one because it sounded a little bit cringe.
One of the inherent questions of journalism and documentary filmmaking is what is the ethical line for documenting something as it is instead of trying to change it? For instance is documenting someone dealing with mental illness encouraging their delusions? Or is it bringing to light the ways a detachment from society can have on a person's life?
I don't have the answers. But you can find some very interesting arguments as to whether or not this documentary crossed an ethical line.
But I do now understand why this has had such an impact on people. I don't even know what to say about it. It is one of things you have to see to truly understand.
44.
Dating the Enemy
(1996)
— Sex Shift Rom-Com
Directed by: Megan Simpson Huberman
A former couple wakes to discover they have swapped bodies and are forced to try and navigate lives in the other person's shoes.
So on a whim a started making a list of movies I've been calling "Experiments in Gender." Because an esoteric subgenre of movies I love is movies that play around with ideas of gender. Things like Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde, She's the Man, Titane, etc.
And so sex shift fantasy movies are likely candidates for the category. HOWEVER, a lot of them are Freaky Friday style movies that aren't about learning about life in a different gender, but specifically learning about life in someone else's shoes. Which interests me considerably less.
The trouble is that the specific nuance of how this is tackled is usually not apparent from just a trailer or a synopsis. So the only way to find out where they land is to watch them.
"Why are you telling me this?" some of you might be wondering. Well, if you plan to keep up to date on these movie lists o' mine this is relevant information, because there's more of them coming.
Anyways, it turned out that this is not an experiment in gender, it is just a Freak Friday body swap scenario.
And there was no point in a Freaky Friday scenario because their relationship failed, not because of mutual misunderstanding, but because the dude was TERRIBLE and treated her like shit.
Also I think it made me realize that I don't like Guy Pearce.
Post swap, Claudia Karvan is acting like Guy Pearce's character is in her body. But Guy Pearce is just acting like his generic idea of a woman is in his body. He's not even trying to act like her character at all! And this made me start to question everything I've ever seen him in.
I will give it bonus points because they do have sex with other people while in their swapped bodies. But minus the bonus points again for the film moving right past this and ignoring the fact they both technically just had gay sex.
Things like this are why you aren't on the list. You gotta deal with the nuance of the situation!
Further proof that it doesn't count is that he didn't even get a period while in that body. Because, as previously discussed, the movie is a coward.
45.*
Waiting for Guffman
(1996)
—Mocukmentary
Directed by: Christopher Guest
Cameras follow a small town's attempts to create a play about the history of their founding.
Rewatching Best in Show last month gave me a nostalgic taste for mockumentaries, so here I am.
I think I've only seen it once before so my memory on it wasn't the best. But when I heard the stool song I specifically remember watching that with my best friend's family back in the day.
It's definitely not the best of Christopher Guest's movies, but it's also not the worst. Although I will say that I've noticed that a bad habit of Guest's is making native american jokes. And I know he's not specifically making jokes at their expense per se, but through them he is still perpetuating the racist stereotypes from old westerns and they haven't aged well at all.
On the brighter side Parker Posey is in it and every scene with her is a delight.
If you love mockumentaries I think it's definitely worth watching. But if you only watch one Christpher Guest movie this isn't his strongest outing.
46.
The Aggressives
(2005)
— Documentary
Directed by: Daniel Peddle
A look at the subculture of masculine presenting people of color in New York City.
I combined my documentary kick with a @gayverlyearp recommendation, because I am a master of efficiency!
Anyway it was a quality recommendation and a really interesting movie. It's especially interesting when you see the ways that gender expression has changed over the years. I hear the director made a follow up movie somewhat recently and I'm really curious to see if I can find that somewhere.
47.
Pachyderme
[English title: “Pachyderm”]
(2022)
—Animated Drama Short
Directed by: Stéphanie Clément
A woman looks back at her childhood through memories muddled by time and trauma.
I attempted to go down the rabbit hole of watching the Oscar nominations for Best Animated Short. I couldn't find them all, but I did find the majority.
And I started off strong, because this one was my favorite of the lot. It's just beautiful and heart breaking and sticks in the crannies of your brain after you're done watching it.
And can we talk about the way it uses a picturebook illustration art style? That was such a brilliant choice. The way they use it portray childhood memories that have faded with time and become these stories we tell ourselves? The subtle way they use the composition to give scenes nuance?
It's so friggin' good. Highly recommend giving it a watch.
48.
Ninety-Five Senses
(2022)
—Animated Drama Short
Directed by: Jared Hess & Jerusha Hess
A man on death row reflects on his life through each of his senses.
Another best animated short nominee.
It didn't hit with the weight that Pachyderme did, but I like how they both use really creative ways of talking about memories.
Specifically looking at a life through the lens of memories you associate with a particular sense is such an interesting prompt. I have some issues with this one that I can't go into without entering spoiler territory, so I didn't l love it, but I do respect it.
[I do get chatty about the films on these lists, and one can't talk about a movie with "spoiling" something. But I do purposefully steer away from just telling you the entire plot.]
49.
WAR IS OVER! Inspired by the Music of John & Yoko
(2023)
—Animated Short
Directed by: Dave Mullins
Two soldiers discover that war is bad by playing a game of chess via carrier pigeon.
Don't even talk to me about how the Oscars handles the category of Animated Shorts unless you want to hear me rant at length. I'm still not over the fact that they give the tritest, most Hallmark Card-iest, cliche Inspirational Poster-iest entry the Oscar last year.
And they did it to me again!
Is this some sick joke on me? Is this personal, Academy? Did you hear me talking tons of shit about you and decide to get some revenge using a smaller category that the average viewer doesn't care as much about, but that I love?
Please keep in mind that I hold nothing against the animators who had to work on this project, because the animation is not on trial here. But this short SUCKS.
Some nepo baby pulled the sentiment "War is bad, okay? Don't do war" out of their ass...and they gave it an Oscar?
It is LITERALLY the worst entry in the category!
50.
Our Uniform
(2023)
—Animated Short Memoir
Directed by: Yegane Moghaddam
The filmmaker reflects on the ways her uniform shaped her past.
Using the uniform as the animation medium to talk about uniforms is a truly brilliant move. It lacked the real emotional depth that Pachyderme and Ninety-Five Senses had, so I didn't think it would win. But I really liked it. And for a directorial debut? For a filmmaker that wrote, directed, and animated it herself? Fantastic work. Really curious to see what she makes next.
51.
Poor Things
(2023)
— Fantasy Drama Adventure
Directed by: Yorgos Lanthimos
The result of a bizarre experiment goes on a grand adventure of self discovery.
I have a love-hate relationship with Lanthimos' films and I never know if I'm going to love them or just be utterly baffled by them. But with all the Oscar noms and wins I figured I had to check it out.
I actually don't have anything of note to say about this. As an asexual I felt thoroughly out of my depth here. The film has such a strong focus on sexuality that I can't really relate to most of it. I asked a couple ace friends what they thought of it and they had similar takes of enjoying elements of it, but feeling disconnected from it on the whole.
So yeah. I dunno! Go ask an allosexual if you want an in depth take on this.
52.*
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy
(2004)
—Comedy
Directed by: Adam McKay
A local anchorman in the 70s has his world flipped upside down when the station hires a woman to be his co-anchor.
I loved this movie back in the day. But it doesn't make me laugh nearly as much these days. There's still some parts I love, but it just doesn't hold the same magic for me that it once did.
53.
The Sex Trip
(2016)
— Sex Shift Comedy
Directed by: Anthony G. Cohen
A womanizing pickup artist is cursed with a new body by witch until he can learn to respect women.
Ohhhhh, what to say about this one...
I kind of want to force someone to watch this with me, because it is just so wild and I want someone else to stare into the abyss and witness the madness that I have seen.
One nice thing about sex shift movies is that in most of them if you don't like the person playing the main character, you can wait a little while and they'll get a new actor in there.
And that's something you can't say about most movies.
There's this weird thing that can happen when bros accidentally wander into queer territory, because sometimes their extremely "no-homo" way of thinking can lead them into accidentally nuanced territory. And other times it will just be dumb and offensive.
But you know what? I'm counting it as an experiment in gender. Our protagonist gets a period, he realizes how annoying breasts can be at times, he experiments with his new set of genitals. He's got a best friend who is either secretly bi, or possible straight but specifically gay for his friend? I certainly don't think the writer/director was aiming for the best friend to be queer, but no straight man would be so eager to accept a threesome with his best friend. You can't convince me otherwise.
Would I recommend this to the average movie fan? Uh, no. It is not a great film. It is a weirdly interesting film, but I wouldn't say it's by any means a film of quality. In spite of it accidentally wandering into interesting territory, it's still very clear that some bros wrote this movie. There's plenty transphobia and misogyny and just plain cringe.
But I've learnt that while most people watch movies to enjoy them, I watch movies like a field researcher. I'm like a biologist in the field, looking under rocks and climbing trees to see what kind of weird stuff I can find. So if you're like me, well, this a fascinatingly fucked up little specimen for sure! You can see such odd little features such as: Tom Hanks' brother, Sylvester Stallone's brother, a man getting cursed for having the gall to not want to kiss a stranger he just met, a man try desperately to sleep with his best friend in a way that won't be gay, the worst blooper real I have ever seen, and more!
54.
Rubber
(2010)
— Meta Horror
Directed by: Quentin Dupieux
An audience gathers in the desert to watch the live performance of a story about a tire coming to life and killing people with its psychokinetic powers.
While I love movies that are so bad they're fun, I hate movies that purposefully try to be bad movies. I assumed that that is what this was, and thus I never bothered with it.
However, it turns out that this is not really a movie trying to be a bad movie...it's...
I don't really know what this is actually. And I'm not entirely sure what it was trying to say....
But I do know that I didn't like it and don't plan to ever watch it again.
55.
Grizzly Man
(2005)
— Documentary
Directed by: Werner Herzog
After Timothy Treadwell was killed by a bear while creating videos to help protect bears, Werner Herzog used his footage to create a documentary about Treadwell himself.
Another classic documentary that I had never bothered watching. I was slightly uncomfortable with the concept potentially being a little too close to a snuff film.
But I get it now. I get why it's acclaimed. This was not what I was expecting.
I was especially certainly not expecting Herzog to just periodically drag this dude? I was also not expecting that this dude clearly has issues.
56.
Victor/Victoria
(1982)
— Musical Rom-com
Directed by: Blake Edwards
A female singer creates a hit act by pretending to be a male female impersonator, but along the way learns to love the lifestyle.
Oh ho ho, dear reader, this one came close to glory. If I liked the songs in this more, and if they didn't force a weird romance angle in there? This would truly be top tier.
That being said I still love it. Definitely an experiment in gender. It goes so much harder on the subject than I was ever expecting.
And the cast? The cast is exquisite!
Do I wish it was just sliiightly different? Yes.
Did I have a great time regardless? Yes!
57.
Tootsie
(1982)
— Monstrosity
Directed by: Sydney Pollack
After burning every bridge he ever came across, a pretentious actor finds that he can no longer find work. Instead of bettering himself in order to repair his image and professional relationships, he decides to pretend to be a woman and steal some jobs from them.
Now do you see why I spent that time all those movies back explaining my quest to create an experiments in gender list? Has it not given you a peek into the process and important context for multiple films on this post?
Anyway, this is not an experiment in gender. This is just a fucked up movie.
I've heard about this movie a fair bit over the years, but all I've heard was that, A) it was really funny, and B) that Dustin Hoffman is amazing in it.
I was surprised to learn neither of those things is true. I was too busy being horrified to laugh at the terrible jokes. And Dustin Hoffman is either terrible in it, or doing an amazing job portraying a terrible, terrible person. You be the judge!
I hate this movie so much, y'all don't even know.
It's so fucking reductive, yet it acts like it's progressive. The whole movie is based on the premise that of course he's able to get the role, because he's a man while everyone else auditioning for the role were mere women.
Oh! And don't even get me started on the bizarre headgames and manipulations this dude pulls on the women in his life.
Ugh...I could rant about this movie forever. Truly terrible. I feel personally offended for having sat through it. And look at some of the weird shit I've watched so far this year! I watched a movie where a pack of people ravenously consume a rotisserie chicken with their hands while watching a tire kill people in the desert!
And the fact that I seem to be the minority in thinking it's terrible drives me even crazier.
We are 57 movies into the year and you better believe I threw this into dead last so fast.
And the very bottom of the list is the stuff that I wouldn't even watch with a friend. I would have to be bribed extensively to even consider seeing this again. You better be bringing plenty of booze and food or some cash and even then I'd have to really think hard about wanting to do that to myself again.
——————
——————
Previous Month's Posts:
Jan | Feb
1 note
·
View note
Note
#1, #4, #25 character meme for Javert?
Original ask game post is here - Please do send me more! LM characters greatly preferred, but I'll take Anna Karenina and other such lit characters, try me!
All for Javert! children_shouting_yay.wav
Why do you like or dislike this character?
Everything? No? Too easy of an answer? Puts hands on my cheeks… Man… I just… I think Javert's so cool. Pathetic in his own way, purposefully ignorant, sad, but cool and confident nonetheless. I looooove characters who are incredibly confident and faithful to something that isn't good for them. I love characters who are misguided but nonetheless noble in their own right. I love characters that double down on the worst versions of themselves, only to have a big crushing crisis later. I could go on.
I also just really like detective stories, not only cop dramas but all sorts of mysteries. I think they make for compelling storytelling...
I also just really like how he looks, 40-50 years old, masculine, tall, stern, well-dressed, BIIIIG SIDEBURNS (favorite bit tbh), top hat… I really like that sort of thing… Characters with lots of clothes. Big facial hair, collars, hats, and sleeves especially. Pointing at Javert. This is my hole it was made for me
If you could put this character in any other media, be it a book, a movie, anything, what would you put them in?
Hmmm… I do think about this a lot, but the answer I have for you is perhaps a bit odd. I've been reading a lot of books lately, and I often think about throwing all the book characters of a general time period into a big crossover hangout. LM, Hugo's other works, Anna Karenina, Phantom of the Opera, all those sorts of books. Putting them all in a box and shaking them around. In particular, I think Javert would be fond of (or perhaps just suck up to) Minister Karenin from AK. "A magistrate is never wrong" etc.
I also have a Blade Runner au where Javert is a replicant Blade Runner himself. Maybe one day I'll do art of that!
What was your first impression of this character? How about now?
There are certain characters that have floated into my life through one channel or another that IMMEDIATELY leave a strong impression on me. I will hear a character speak, read a character's intro, or see their design, and it's like a lightbulb of "Oh I am going to fall in love with them, aren't I?" … I say this because Javert was one of those characters.
I was very, very young when I saw a production of the LM musical (mom took to me a lot of musicals when i was a baby) and because of my burgeoning uniform appreciation (due to Barbie and the Nutcracker viewing at a critical moment) I saw the Javert come in and was like… Ooooo.
I tried to read Les Mis when I was about 10 and simply lost interest somewhere in the MsurM chapters because of how awkward the translation was (it was that godforsaken purple paperback. you know the one). Still, Javert remained in my heart for all this time, albeit in the shadows until the surge of 2012 fandom... let's not talk about that time... and then, now.
He's one of the foundational characters in my collection of blorbos.
Now, I feel even "closer" to him, insofar as one can get close to a fictional character. The previous bouts of Javert Appreciation have been naught but fleeting things… Now. I am fully obssessed. This is my final form. Etc.
5 notes
·
View notes
Note
genuinely curious, how could louis be having a more respectful or open relationship with armand when armand started his whole relationship with louis by luring him towards himself with mind control and by doing away with everyone else (claudia, even lestat) who louis loved? lestat is an easier target to criticise because he opens himself up for that, but the implication that the armand/louis relationship is somehow built on better foundations doesn't make sense to me
MY FRIEND these are some very excellent points LOL.
If this is in reference to the post I made yesterday I want to qualify first of all that I did say in the post that “even though it's LMAO ALSO QUITE FUCKED UP but it's VC so heyyyy” and I also did say I was edging a little bit into headcanon territory so I want to ask before we continue that everyone buckles their seatbelts and gets ready to accept VC lore & canon as “People who live for a very very long time and have more space for atonement and forgiveness in their relationships because they have TIME for it where regular humans typically do not.”
On that note I’m also not interested in denying that any of the ships in VC aren’t somewhere on the scale between “toxic” and “abusive” LOL so like. No excuses here!!!!!!!!!!! Armand killing Louis’s daughter/lover is Not Great LOL but I wanna get into why I still think this is better than what he had with Lestat. (If it helps, please remember that I'm not a big Lestat fan so basically you just can’t do worse imo, take me with as many grains of salt as you need.)
So Armand and Lestat are both traumatized abused people who are doing their best and tend to fuck up. Because I think at the end like, VC is ultimately about how people just want to be loved, and I think one of the big themes of the books is that, by making all of these characters terrible people, we still always ask like, do our worst deeds define us and are we still worthy of being loved?
(Cut for length YA REALLY GOT ME GOIN ON THIS LOL)
On Armand’s end sometimes I think about like how we see this progression in the way he treats his lovers (starting with Nicki, leading up to Louis, then Daniel) and alongside we get some insight to how he treats his human pets (Denis, (also Daniel), and then Benji & Sybelle.) He grows a lot and it feels like his emotional growth is super stunted when we meet him in TVL because he’s like this feral cult creature who has not been allowed his own identity or feelings for hundreds of years and it takes meeting Lestat to inspire him to cut the shit.
Even then, freed from the cult, he stays with the theatre. It’s this baby step of like, not feeling he needs to adhere to weird religious zealotry that he doesn’t quite believe, but also not exactly ready to be independent or live his life without the role of the leader. (He learned this from Marius lmfao.)
When Lestat meets Louis, from what he tells us, he loves him immediately because he’s ? beautiful and grumpy? And Louis lets us know that it was because Lestat wanted his home. (Put a pin in this because it goes towards the WHO WAS LYING drama between the two of them because I don’t put it past Louis to make excuses like that instead of being truthful about their feelings.) Lestat is freshly bereaved and super traumatized. He’s also an abuse survivor, caring for his ailing abuser, and it’s very normal for abused people (especially children) to try to CONTROL others so that they feel some sense of control over their lives. Lestat isolates Louis, lies to him, babytraps him, and in all their years together—even times when they’re being otherwise kind to each other—he never gives Louis the answers he needs. Lestat also has drunk from Marius and Akasha at this point and knows how it works to drink older Blood and boost your power, and he never offers it to Louis. He even knows Louis is so weak that he doesn’t even have the Mind Gift. We know from later canon that Louis never drinks from other vampires until Merrick so we know that Lestat never shared his blood and that he kept Louis weak and dependent on him as a means to possess him.
(If we get into later canon I also want to point out other ways in which Lestat treats Louis like an object, comes and goes in Louis’s life as he please, expects Louis to be there when it’s convenient, and doesn’t seem to care that people have entire lives when he’s not around. It’s like having object permanence for other people.)
When Armand meets Louis, though, I just think there’s this moment of spiritual growth for him and he SHARES it with Louis. Whether Armand nudged him to get him there at all, I think it goes towards Armand being imperfect and reckless with people but I don’t think it makes his love and admiration less real. Armand at this point (that we know of) has never been in a respectful relationship with someone who loves him, so I really don’t think he knows how to behave. So Armand, like Lestat, is a wounded abuse victim and his bad behavior shows it in some ways, but there’s a mutual respect between them even though they got off to a rough start. Louis shows up and treats Armand like a person, and respects him, and gives a fuck about things, and Armand wants that. He’s spent the past whatever fuckin 400 years in a cult or in the theatre with these useless tools and Louis walking into his life is like such a breath of fresh air. A REAL PERSON! And it’s kind like the way Marius was Armand’s first vampire, this like elegant man who lived like a regular person, and then when he meets Lestat it reminds him that they’re allowed to live like real people, and then Louis shows up and he’s doing the same but he’s this like, softer version of those two idiots who might actually be his friend.
And on the flip side, on Louis’s end, he’s a bit broken & despondent for the early parts of his relationships with Armand and Lestat both. I think this parallel is important because we can see the way Armand and Lestat each respond to it, even if Louis isn’t completely present.
Lestat: lies to him, isolates him, controls him, etc blah blah mentioned all this already.
Armand: Cares for him, travels around the world to show him things and learn with him, and most importantly at THE INFAMOUS GRASS EATING BREAKUP SCENE, Armand accepts it and LEAVES. He’s like, do you need anything else? Bye.HE LEAVES!!!! He sets Louis free when Louis wants to be free!!!!!!! I’m bawling lmao
That just shows me a lot about the way each of them treat Louis and whether they see him as an object/accessory or not or something to be controlled. A lot of this is like very subjective reading because it’s kind of subtextual/off screen but I think these parallels are important and it’s important to compare Lestat & Armand’s differences and similarities here.
BUT WAIT
I HAVE MORE TO SAY
I think it’s important to look at the way the story frames love/abuse and like the way we sometimes love our abusers. And like this is something I’ve talked about at length before so don’t let me add an extra 10k to this post LOL but like I think IWTV does a great job at like portraying the messy feelings after an abusive relationship and how much you mourn the IDEA of the person even when it doesn’t match reality. (It’s something Anne kinda got sloppy with in the later books and I’ve complained about it a ton but I think it’s shows a lot of goodness and strength in Louis to see the good in Lestat even when it’s an I CAN FIX HIM victim mindset.)
Like the first half of the book we get to see how much he dislikes Lestat, he’s NOT charitable in the way he talks about Lestat, calls him a fool etc lol, and yet the moment Claudia rescues him from that relationship, he spends the next quarter of the book mourning Lestat and feeling guilty about the way it ended. He also starts really seeing that Claudia is a monster and his feelings towards her become very complicated.
SO MY UNPOPULAR OPINION HERE is that Claudia was ALSO quite abusive to Louis. The power dynamic between them is fascinating, because she’s small and dependent on people for help navigating the world, and yet she has Louis COMPLETELY under her thumb because she knows how to push his buttons and weaponize his own guilt against him.
In that light, you can also view Armand disposing her as another way he’s been liberated from an abuser.
Of course the complication here is like, she was ready to head off with Madeleine so it’s possible that they could’ve just broken up like regular people and she didn’t have to die LOL. Oops!
But the way he checks out mentally after he loses Claudia isn’t unlike how he checks out after he loses Lestat. And again this is a parallel—Claudia keeps him around and continues to use him, and Armand actually cares for him and shows him respect. (AT LEAST I LIKE TO THINK SO LOL.)
Was KILLING CLAUDIA the best way to resolve this? Probably not. But we’re gonna circle back to Armand being a messy & imperfect person who is trying his best to learn how to behave. I think there’s a few things here that are pretty telling:
- He also kills Denis (who, while not as close to him as Claudia was to Louis, still perhaps they are framed in the text as these children/pets)
- He spends half the convo with Louis telling him how most vampires are useless and can’t survive immortality. I think he looks at Claudia and immediately knows she isn’t going to survive, and so I wonder if his approach has the mentality of euthanizing a pet.
- HE CUT OFF NICKI’S HANDS AS A METHOD OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION LMAO
(Were he and Nicki lovers? Stay tuned, don’t let me talk about that right now, but I think he loved Nicki so if he treats people he LOVES like that, if he thinks the resolution is tough love and to euthanize pets. Well. ??? )
Listen he is my son he’s done nothing wrong.
I think Louis and Armand must have had plenty of time to talk through all of this. They were together for a super long time! Louis’s entire attraction to Armand began with the idea that he could learn about their kind and have meaningful conversations. I can’t imagine a version of them where Louis didn’t understand this about Armand, and even though he’s devastated that Claudia was killed, I wonder if it’s the same way he was devastated when he thought Lestat was dead. He’ll be okay, he’ll get over it lol. It’s the guilt talking.
Anywhoo.
I’m gonna stop here because this is getting ridiculous but like I’VE ONLY GOTTEN INTO PART I OF LOUIS/ARMAND. I was talking in my post about IWTV era L/A and tried to focus MOSTLY on IWTV information even though some extra series-wide context popped up but like. This isn’t even getting into when they try again in THE 21ST CENTURY with a Post-Merrick Ultra Louis.
Part II: TRINITY GATE ERA , after they’ve both been further traumatized, have each attempted suicide, and can come together in peace in the modern world. Armand has had even MORE practice being human with Daniel, HAS LOVED & LOST, and Louis…………… Anne didn’t really tell us that much about him tbh but we know he was having a rough time and feeding on drunk people on purpose so idk man. Lestat is bouncing around harassing him and David and it just feels like Trinity Gate is this oasis, this quiet space where people can go when they need a Lestat break.
(also please omg Ultra Louis has mind gift like that will make it so much easier I’m BAWLING)
Look they’re a great ship I love them so much.
#vampire chronicles#armand/louis#very mild MTD and merrick spoilers sorry!#'ive read IWTV 300 times and I still don't think I understand it but this is how it sounds to me LOL
29 notes
·
View notes
Note
Soo about art history! Well I studied a lot about applied art history - I really hope that's the right word but it's like furniture and stuff as well around architecture, sculpted and painted art (boii oh boi I really don't know the English terms sorry!!) And that was really interesting and I love learning more bc there's always so much more to know! I think my studies mainly focused on being able to put dates on art pieces and sort them into a time period - but also.. random funny artist stories my beloved XD Also for my thesis I had a look at Soviet war memorials so that's up my alley as well!
Hbu? Do you have any fav periods/genres/artists? :3
ooh applied art history sounds great! i wish my courses covered more architecture and practical crafts like furniture, it's pretty centered on painting and sculpture for the most part. and Soviet war memorials?? damn that's such a good topic, and hey hell yeah, congratulations on writing a thesis!!
and YES i do have favourites, putting it below a read-more sdkfgh:
RIGHT so my favourite movement is absolutely Impressionism, i love the depiction of light and the painting style of lots of small distinct brushstrokes is Such a wonderful effect. i'd have to say Claude Monet is one of my all time favourite artists, i especially love his sunsets:
Impression, Sunrise, 1872, oil on canvas, 48 × 63 cm, Musée Marmottan Monet, Paris
Also really like his snowy landscapes, and how he paints water, as well as his colour choices! it's not really displayed in these paintings, but in a lot of his more natural landscapes- especially the floral ones- the colours are so vibrant :D
Train in the Snow, 1875, oil on canvas, 59 x 78cm, Musée Marmottan Monet, Paris
The Magpie, 1869, oil on canvas, 89 x 130cm, Musée d'Orsay, Paris
The Water Lily Pond (Nymphéas), 1904, oil on canvas, 90 x 92cm, private collection
The Bridge at Argenteuil, 1874, oil on canvas, 60.5 x 80cm, Musée d'Orsay, Paris
Similarly, I really like J.M.W. Turner, particularly for his dramatic seascapes and his paintings of ruins! Some favourites would be:
Fishermen at Sea/The Cholmeley Sea Piece, 1796, oil on canvas, 91.4 x 122.2cm, Tate Britain, London
The Burning of the Houses of Lords and Commons, 16th October, 1834, 1934, oil on canvas, 92 x 123cm, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia
Melrose Abbey, 1822, pencil and watercolour on paper, 19.6 x 13.3cm, private collection
and these are some more things I've studied that I ended up really liking!
Edouard Manet: he was So controversial in nineteenth century Paris it's ridiculous, and i found it fun to look at all the layers of constructed identity in his works! Most well known for Olympia.
Chez le père Lathuille, 1879, oil on canvas, Musée des Beaux-Arts Tournai
Caravaggio: LOVE the horror and detail and drama of his works, third life enjoyers might like all the beheadings skjfhdg. highly recommend looking into this guy's life story and historical context because he. man. he sure was a character! it's also hilarious to read about how hated he was for painting in a naturalistic style. (and. the murder but honestly it seems like they hated his painting more)
Saint Jerome Writing, c. 1605-6, oil on canvas, 112 × 157 cm, Galleria Borghese (one of the tamest of his works skjdfh)
Hiroshige Utagawa and Katsushika Hokusai: had a unit on Japanese print making and !!! i hadn't known much about print as a medium but Holy Shit it's so versatile and the works by these artists are just stunning! want to look more into print for sure :D
Utagawa Hiroshige, Plum Garden, Kamata (Kamata no Umezono), in One Hundred Views of Edo, 1856–59, woodblock print, 34 x 24.1 cm, Brooklyn Museum
Awa Province: Naruto Whirlpools, in Famous Places in the Sixty-odd Provinces, 1855, woodblock print, 36.5 x 24.4 cm, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
Hokusai made SO MUCH work but his most famous work by far is:
Katsushika Hokusai, Under the Wave Off Kanagawa, in Thirty-Six Views of Mount Fuji, woodblock print, 1830-1832, 25.7 x 37.8 cm, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City
Gothic architecture: haven't gone into much depth with architecture, really liked what i learnt though, and the round arches, ribbed vaults, and tall windows with stained glass are beautiful.
St. Francis Xavier Church, c. 1840, Amsterdam, Holland
and thank you so much for the ask!!! i'd love to hear more about anything art history related from you (or anyone else!), as specific or in depth as you like :D
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Ghosts of Rose Hill
Author: R.M. Romero
First published: 2022
Rating: ★★☆☆☆
Just because
I write a normal sentence
like this
it does not mean I
write
quality poetry.
World is pain
or something.
Sorry, but this one did not do it for me in spite of having friggin GHOSTS in PRAGUE and the history of my country woven in it somewhere. the main characters came across as whiny and annoying rather than spirited and passionate, the "verse" oscillated between good and very artless. Overall I was not happy. Thankfully it was short, which is not a good kind of praise. Also, Vltava does not flow into Austria. It flows north and then into the Elbe, going on from the city of Mělník to Germany.
Les v domě
Author: Alena Mornštajnová
First published: 2023
Rating: ★★★★☆
Po podprůměrném Listopádu jsem ráda, že zase mohu dát Mornštajnové o něco více hvězd. Jak už je zvykem, slova od této autorky člověk zhltá během jednoho dne, o tom žádná. Bohužel nafouklá kontroverze kolem knihy zcela vyzrazuje hlavní bod, k němuž by si člověk měl dojít - a k němuž Mornštajnová velmi šikovně sype cestičku z oblázků bolestivých vzpomínek. Proto i mé první čtení knihy působilo spíše jako druhé a dojem, který si odnáším, zkrátka něco postrádá.
Prevail Until the Bitter End: Germans in the Waning Years of World War II
Author: Alexandra Lohse
First published: 2021
Rating: ★★★★☆
More of a study than a book (if that makes sense), this publication offers an enlightening glimpse into the German psyche in the latter years of WW2, based mostly on correspondence and unguarded statements of the German POWs (noted down by spies). I would have wished for a longer, more comprehensive book based on more sources, but all in all, this is a good and mostly successful attempt at explaining something many still find incomprehensible.
City of Girls
Author: Elizabeth Gilbert
First published: 2003
Rating: ★★★★☆
A little in the vein of Taylor Jenkins Reid and her Evelyn Hugo universe, City of Girls is one of those books which offer a view of the personal on the background canvas of the historical. I admit that the first half of the book felt like an overlong introduction before the main event and it definitely took me a while to truly rouse my interest. But once it was there, I was interested till the very end. Perhaps it is a shallow book with a shallow main character, but it was this shallowness that made it all feel quite real.
Yellowface
Author: R.F. Kuang
First published: 2016
Rating: ★★★☆☆
An interesting piece of literature that manages to be quite fascinating (with regard to the inner workings of the book industry), somewhat satirical, and yet not at all artful. I had a feeling that R.F. Kuang had a fantastic idea for a book and then wrote it in a week, without really delving into much detail of anything. This could have been both a fantastic psychological thriller/drama or a laugh-out-loud book (if chiseled to ad-absurdum), but it ended up being... fine.
Messalina: A Story of Empire, Slander and Adultery
Author: Honor Cargill-Martin
First published: 2023
Rating: ★★★★☆
How could you possibly write an account of a woman who was supposed to be forgotten? A woman whose name was systematically wiped out, her likenesses erased, her story twisted into a salacious myth? There is precious little to go on when it comes to Messalina, which would hold serious historical value. Honor Cargill-Martin thus pursues the course of trying to introduce the most logical and probable version of the woman based on the cultural, social, and political climate she had occupied, and frankly, it works. Naturally, this means this is not really a biography of Messalina and she herself truly appears only from about halfway point. However, I personally find the Roman Empire and the whole messy (weak word, I know) Julio-Claudian dynasty fascinating, so I did not mind.
A Conjuring of Light
Author: V.E. Schwab
First published: 2017
Rating: ★☆☆☆☆
I read half of this and felt like being stuck in one place where everything is action but at the same time, absolutely nothing really happens. I skimmed the rest only to find out there is no twist or anything unexpected. the chapters were haphazardly thrown together and I did not care for a single character. Controversial opinion: this whole trilogy should have been one book about Holland. I just feel so tired now.
In the Lives of Puppets
Author: T.J. Klune
First published: 2023
Rating: ★★☆☆☆
I am so so so sorry but unlike T.J. Klune´s other two books in this little "series", this one felt never-ending and too on-the-nose with everything that happened in it. Or perhaps the similar formula that worked for me before simply failed to enchant me again. Also, the robot bordello was just too much for me.
The Courtship of Princess Leia
Author: Dave Wolverton
First published: 1994
Rating: ★☆☆☆☆
Well, this was pretty bad, wasn´t it?
Dempsey & Makepeace
Author: John Raymond
First published: 1986
Rating: ★☆☆☆☆
Look, as a kid I loved this TV show and if you don´t take it too seriously it can still be enjoyable to watch. that was the only reason why I read this thing, which is a novelization of 9 (out of 30) episodes. And boy, it´s BAD. BAD BAD. BAD. Pushed through for a laugh. Interestingly enough this makes the characters absolutely insufferable - when the characters in the show really made it what it was.
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
I am selective of those I will interact with, if I don’t follow you back please do not take it personally, I may follow you down the road or I just am unsure how to interact. I’m used to only interacting with a few select people I trust so I’m working on opening up more. I have a tendency to write a lot, given the fact I let my mind run a bit. However I do check with my partners to make sure that my writing is okay for them and within their comfort, so that’s usually why I throw a message out asking if ‘was it okay’ or such as.
I don’t mind anyone correcting me on lore points that I get wrong and maybe Goku might be shipped, I’m not sure. it’s a possibility but not something I’m leaning into. He will be a slow burn or a plotted ship at best, I don’t feel comfortable immediately throwing him loving someone due to my own personal experiences and just how his character feels. That and also he has Chi-Chi.
I also have a bit of ADHD and can be prone to drop threads suddenly due to lack of interest or being unable to pick up an idea or find something to go off of. I will not tolerate bullying nor do I want to be dragged into any drama that doesn’t concern me, I come here to relax, not to worry myself. That being said I’m still here to talk to if needed. Triggers will be placed in the TW in General tag as things can get pretty dark.
This blog is going to be rated Mature because dark themes, TW or even more could take place. I’m not gonna shy away from blood and neither is Goku, if he has to do so to protect his friends, given that the franchise has it’s tendency to be downright dark to the core. However this is going to be mostly nice things around this place, isnt gonna be all doom and gloom. However please remember that this is an anime about fighting, it will get brutal.
Now let's dive to the Canon divergence.
Goku didn't exactly change until he had Gohan. While he wanted to train him he also understood that Chi-Chi wanted their son to be successful in a world he would never truly understand. He also began trying to understand more of a world that he never truly participated in but also defended fiercely. He wanted to grow in strength for that was his goal, his very blood called for battle and he could never truly abandon it. Gohan was a bridge, Saiyan and Human. Yet his power was tremendous at a young age and he wanted to teach him how to harness it. Namek only made that more, especially when he came back with the heart disease. Cell was an incredibly strong opponent and his son had power that could overshadow it. However, he made a promise and he swore to keep it. He would fight until his last breathe but the sight of his father about to die threw Gohan into the fight, doing his best to fight alongside him. Even still, Goku ended up sacrificing himself. He wanted to go home but thought it better to stay away. If he did maybe nobody would keep trying to attack earth?
Buu changed that outlook. He changed everything and ignited a fury set deep in his bones. Goku was overjoyed to be given life so he could rush down and save his family. It was too late. While Goku himself is prideful, he does bonk heads with Vegetta more or less about that pride. It has many times caused issues and he won't let him live that down. Not that he hasn't acknowledged his own mistakes. Goku tries to be active in his sons lives but does argue with Chi-Chi about how he will do the farm. He just also needs to keep training, he needs to keep getting stronger so he can protect them all.
Super is a mess all around so I will try my best here. Beerus comes and Goku argues big time with Chi-Chi about getting stronger, they all could have died had Beerus really decided to. He's not sure what changed the destroyers mind but now there are gods out there who will hurt his family if he doesn't find a way to climb the ranks. Yes he does take off to train with Whis, apologized to chi-chi later on. He continues rigorous training and starts opening his mind to being less careless. Goku Black introduces more intensity to his way of thinking but a brighter burning drive to protect his loved ones. Frieza nearly killing Gohan? Goku will never forgive Frieza and their fights are always aim to kill at that point. He disgusts him.
He never hires Hit to kill him. He starts the tournament of power hoping it'll save his universe, all that stuff. God's super is just a maze.
-
GT was awesome with it's ideas and transformation. Too bad that's not Canon. But I do have it where Goku found it and is slowly abandoning the super transformations in favor of SSJ4. It's design is just too cool to pass up along with all the abilities.
#Rules#OOC#Mobile Bound#Muse Lore#I am stuck on mobile so cutting posts is impossible for me#which is very annoying#tumblr please fix ur mobile
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
So in my breaks at work over the last few weeks, I’ve read the first four books of Earthsea by Ursula K. Le Guin. Today I gave in to curiosity and watched the Ghibli movie Tales of Earthsea. I knew it wasn’t going to be a good adaptation. I knew that Le Guin herself found it disappointing. I knew that Miyazaki himself walked out of the theater when seeing it for the first time and publicly expressed his displeasure with the director. That director is his own son. But I wanted to know.
And I want to talk about it so if not here, where? This will assume you’ve read the books, so spoilers will come up, I suppose.
So the movie takes the third and fourth books and adapts them together. This is really something, because those books follow immediately on one another, but the movie uses elements of both set at the same time. This is especially interesting, since the third book is a classical adventure story about the greatest wizard of all time and the boy who would be king, while the fourth is a pastoral tale of small town bigotry and getting older.
I think it goes without saying that it fails to do either.
The adventure story is muddied, in particular losing its climax in the literal land of the dead. The whole thing is made more mundane, compared to the book’s story about magic, both literal and figurative, being drained from the world. Instead of a villain who is overturning life and death because he fears his own end, we have a mean sorcerer with incompetent minions in a castle fortress. An adventure module appropriate for a party of third level PCs.
The pastoral drama is almost completely lost. A few scenes of our heroes working the farm persist as a second act lull in the action and one scene of small minded townspeople made it through the revisions. But what was a slow romance of two people in their fifties overcoming trauma and accepting that their greatest heights are behind them becomes... nothing? They sort of hold hands at the end of the movie and I guess he’s moving in with her?
Also, since in the fourth book Sparrowhawk has lost his magic and position as Archmage, he’s free to retire to the countryside. But in the movie, he’s explicitly identified as Archmage and never loses his powers, so not only does he simply sit out the climax for no apparent reason, but his move to the farm would also mean that he’s just abandoning that position.
Arren is made into a strangely unpleasant young man, gloomy and violent. He doesn’t feel capable of being the prophesied redeeming king of the land. Indeed, he ends the story by saying he’ll return to his homeland to face justice for killing his father, something he does in the first ten minutes of the movie with no explanation ever offered.
Then there’s the issue of Therru. Genuinely horrifying, half-body burns that take months to even partially heal are replaced by a slightly darker pink patch on one eye. Zuko’s scar in Avatar is more unpleasant. That feels emblematic of the movie’s unwillingness to actually engage with the text.
All of which comes to the most basic issue, the one that’s hounded Earthsea since the cover of the first edition of the first book: nobody is willing to take Le Guin’s work at face value and make the characters not white. They’re dark skinned, period. For the English dub, which is broadly competent, we have Timothy Dalton as Sparrowhawk. He has the right demeanor, the right confident whisper of a voice, but in no way does he sound like anything other than a white Brit.
I could go on. But when an adaptation is made and there are changes, before even considering whether the result is any good, it’s worthwhile to think about why they were made. And several hours after finishing the movie, I have no earthly fucking idea why this movie is like this. These aren’t books I read as a kid, they’re not core memories. I’ve read them since late October. But their craft is clear, their intent obvious. This is just a mess.
And I’m not even thinking about touching the Sci-Fi Channel miniseries. I watched that piece of shit as a kid and knew it sucked then.
10 notes
·
View notes
Text
Okay so I do have a certain habit of creating mutiple sketches and never finishing them so I decided to post them and add some context as well because why not?
1. This drawing is just a ship art from the cartoon pilot of 3 Dog Band which was a pilot that submited along with some other pilots on a contest to see which one would make it to a show and Regular Show won. I did watch Regular Show but I was unaware there was a competition with also other pilots and that 3 Dog Band even existed, I rrally like the concept and my favorite is the german blonde dog seen in my ship art with a random fox lady that was present dancing in the pilot. The pilot is avaliable on youtube too for those more curious:
https://youtu.be/SNx8WwiOwzM
2.
This is another ship art this time from french comics named "Les Nombrils"(The Bellybuttons in english)which is about 3 friends and their dramas Jenny,Vicky and Karine. Its really good to read and I have read it online and love it, and this girl in blue Vicky is in love with the goth girl that her parents forbid her to be with because they are homophobic. If u want to really undersand anything that I just said the better to do is to read the actual comics:
https://readcomiconline.li/Comic/The-Bellybuttons/Issue-1?id=57950
I have also wanted to read another french comic but so far I cant see to find "Le blog de Tamara" anywhere online in english so, guess Ill have to wait.
3.
Not much to explain, I created a SU gem called "moonstone"the basic backstory about gems that live on the moon completly unaware of human life, they also seem to be directly created by moon dust and rocks. However, they are not happy about the regime in the gem empire and decided to stay hidden on the moon.
4.
A sketch about 2 of my OCs that I lost inspiration to continue, they were dacing,they ar a sheep who is a singer named Hilda and a mean wolf called Arthur who is a mafia boss and rules over the city(this takes places in the 50-60s). Hilda is requested to sing at a night bar in visit of Arthur who is considered someone really important and dangerous, so Hilda is forced to sing and Arthur begans to have interest in her and later fall in love with her.
(Not gonna give up spoilers about the full story but there is a plot twist in it)
5.
I like Euphoria and Metal family and once I saw the actor of Cassie doing a photoshoot to Paper Magazine I could only think of Lydia so I decided to draw Lydia as her. They look realy alike.
6.
This might sound immature but when I was little I used to watch a lot o LPS and even own some (I used to own 50 to 60 LPS but ater gave them away as I grew up), and recently rewatched the whole LPS Popular series and still liked it.I was suppose to make Savannah and Brooklyn as human in their prom outfits(I also ran out of inspiration on this one after finding out theres a massive cliffhanger and the series were left unfinished 3 years ago and to this day theres not much information about it continuing ever again so.)
7.
I really like Pickles,especially the fem version made by @mtllica (I love their art) and all they make about Pickles HCs and AUs is perfect <3 inclusing their octopus/demon versions of Pickles liKE PLEASE-
9,10,11.
Its all SNB Pickles BBECAUSE IDK I LOVE HIM SO MUCH? AND IDK I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE A SPECIFIC POSE WITH HIM AND FALLING AND I JUST LISTEN "Lost in the fre BY THE WEEKND AND I JUST IMAGINE PREKLOK PICKLES SINGING AND SEDUNCING PREKLOK NATHAN SOMETIME BEFORE PICKLES QUIT THE BAND AND THEY JOINED DETHKLOK?? ?? ok Ill shut up now...
11.
Just a silly sketch of my character sleeping :)
#myart#metalocalypse#metalfamily#metal family#metalfamilylydia#picklesthedrummer#3dogband#lpspopular#stevenuniverse#stevenuniverseoc#lesnombrils#thebellybuttons
41 notes
·
View notes
Text
youtube
youtube
@asongofstarkandtargaryen
The première event of Un Asunto Privado was n Friday 19th in the Callao cinema of Madrid, just a week before the première, with the member of the cast and some other guests.
The interviews are mainly about a little description of the charactersand their roles, they mention the mix of several genres like mystery, comedy, action, drama, romance and adventures.
I have read the first critics and they are very positive, one of the best things of the show is Marina and Héctor's relationship.
I read that the intro will be different in each one of the 8 episodes, with different drawings or pictures related with the events or clues of each episode, but with the same music.
Apart from this I found a bit more info about the characters.
Set in Galicia in the 1940s, its main character is Marina, the daughter of a deceased police officer who educated her in a freedom that was inappropriate for women at the time. He gave wings to her fantasies, to her desire to be a police officer and made her her best student. The problem, with which the character of Aura Garrido deals throughout the season, is that she is a woman. That closes the doors of the police station. What is expected of her is that she behave like a calm young woman, get married, start a family and not give trouble. But, of course, she has other plans and conformity and submission are not among them. The character has a point of naivety. She's a free spirit who rebels from her comfortable position against the norms imposed by the time – a dictatorship about which fiction does not even tiptoe. Although she has a family who insists on getting her married, they consent to her 'eccentricities'. Money is also not a concern for her. This allows her to dedicate body and soul to fighting for a freedom that is denied her, impulsively and recklessly getting into all kinds of trouble in her efforts to solve a case that has shaken Galician society.
A serial killer is on the loose and she's determined to get ahead of some agents she considers, because they are, much worse than she is at her job. Thanks to her father's training, her ingenuity, her scientific interests and the invaluable help of Héctor, the family butler, Marina ridicules with her detective skills an entire police department led by her brother, recently promoted to commissioner.
Héctor (Jean Reno) is a discreet and helpful man whose sensitivity and audacity always place him at the key point of the investigation.
The couple formed by Aura Garrido and Jean Reno exudes chemistry. Some particular Sherlock and Watson where the comedy is very present and is one of the best of the series. It works with the two of them and even better when Pablo (Gorka Otxoa) enters the equation, the best official student (he was able to go to the academy) of Marina's father.
Beyond his contribution to comedy, the character of Otxoa, who responds to the archetype of a good, formal and trustworthy guy, introduces the three-way romantic component of the series, which could not be missing. Pablo and his handsome, mysterious and dangerous 'opponent', about which it is not convenient to say more so as not to anticipate events, give shape to the classic love triangle. The cast includes such interesting names as Ángela Molina, who plays Marina's mother; Tito Valverde, also a policeman and his father's former partner; and Pablo Molinero, who gives life to her brother. And with them, Alex García, Irene Montalá and Andrés Velencoso along with a long list of secondary characters.
Apart from this there's a curious story related with Ángela Molina and Jean Reno. The recent winner of the Goya of Honor in 2021 and Reno share an admiration for many years that also involves their respective families. “My kids watched the Reno movies 80 times. I knew them by heart”, declares Molina. "Even my grandson is named after the character he played in Le grand bleu," she adds, referring to Enzo Koa, son of Mateo Tirmarche, one of the three children the actress had with Hervé Tirmarche. For his part, Reno confesses that his father had all of Angela's father's records, the singer Antonio Molina, which means that "over time, parents are here."
(Edit: I found some more videos of the premiere)
youtube
youtube
youtube
youtube
#un asunto privado#premiere#aura garrido#jean reno#ángela molina#pablo molinero#gorka otxoa#andrés velencoso#interviews#a private affair#Youtube
3 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
space-soul
All Or Nothing
ygoarc-v
Magical Card Games
jochy07
Untitled
sammystonehouse-blog
Three review Ripoffs And How You Can Avoid
c0unting-w0rms-blog
billy