I'm writing an analysis of gender performativity in The Silence of the Lambs for my gender and sexuality class and in the course of my research I have encountered so many bad takes!! I can't not say anything so I've come to Tumblr to rant.
The most common criticism I see is that the ending of "Hannibal" discredits, undoes, or diminishes Clarice's feminism, autonomy, or power, or that it ruins the message of SOTL. That indicates a complete misunderstanding of Clarice and the point of the books! The point of "Hannibal" is to show that it does not matter how amazing, powerful, or how much of a feminist you are: if you are a woman in a career, especially a federal career, the system is designed to put you down and keep you quiet. I think there is nothing more she could have done and nothing she could have done differently to prevent her disgrace. When the system is set up to put men in power and keep them in power, your talent and integrity do not matter if they decide they don't want/need you anymore. There is nothing she can do to prevent the label of "female officer" from haunting her credibility. Even Crawford, who respects her and fights for her, sees her with the caveat of "woman." The one man who does not consider her gender any sort of detriment or a reason to treat her differently is Hannibal Lecter. They have genuine mutual respect. When she chose to be with him, she chose respect, love, and comfort over a life of fighting to be recognized, respected, or listened to. Just as much as it is respectable for women to fight for their right to be recognized in their careers, we must also recognize that that fight should not need to exist in the first place. So, why should there be any shame about choosing not to fight that fight anymore? She spent years in an uphill battle, and she probably never would have escaped it (to no fault of her own!). The ending of "Hannibal" is Clarice raising a middle finger to the system, the FBI, misogyny, and the patriarchy by recognizing that she deserves unconditional love and respect and that the system she fought so hard for was, in fact, completely undeserving of her talent or presence. Her decision is powerful and empowered!
"She was brainwashed!" she literally wasn't. Hannibal tried that (I believe because he was so unfamiliar with the idea of love or family that he didn't know how to understand Clarice outside of the lens of Mischa) but he was unsuccessful. If she was able to resist his efforts of brainwashing while in an altered state she certainly had the strength of mind to make her own decisions. Her decision was not impulsive. Also, I think it serves as a testament to her influence and power over him. She gained control of the situation and he didn't resist that. Ultimately, Clarice chose to spend the rest of her life with the one man who ever truly saw her as more than just a woman, who admired her intellect, and who respected her enough to challenge her. That is not weak, submissive, or misogynistic. Quite the opposite. She chose to leave behind the life she put years of effort into building (because she knew it would be fruitless) in favor of being finally honored and appreciated. That takes courage! She knew her worth, and she knew the FBI didn't deserve her.
Also, anyone who paid any attention to the books saw the romantic tension throughout the story. It didn't come out of nowhere. She really just needed an opportunity or an excuse to be with him, and she was finally presented with it.
I think reading the ending to "Hannibal" as anything other than empowering is a mischaracterization of both Clarice and Hannibal and shows a lack of understanding of the message of the books. I think it reflects a shallow understanding of not only the books, but of how feminism operates IRL (especially during the 80s/90s).
I also must give the disclaimer that I do not think these books are epitomes of feminism or representation. The transmisogyny, racism, queerphobia, etc., are obviously inexcusable. Just because I interpret their message as a story of caution about how misogyny operates, and how it is respectable to choose a path that does not work within that system, does not mean I agree with everything presented in them or any of their harmful rhetorics or stereotypes. I have a STRONG love/hate relationship with these stories and I don't ever mean to undersell the "hate" part of that lol.
268 notes
·
View notes
I’ve seen a lot of people saying that norris and chester can’t be jmart because you’re able to listen to tmagp without any knowledge of tma. Here’s why I disagree
I feel like it’s fairly common for sequels to be written with the intention that it’s still understandable from an outside perspective. With movies especially this makes sense since i at least don’t think it’s uncommon for people to watch sequels without seeing the original (I mean really, how many of us have seen every marvel movie. Or with the new hunger games movie, a lot of my friends who watched it had never seen the original triology)
From a monetary standpoint, you want to make your sequel accessible to as many people as possible. With tma, there’s 200 episodes. That can be really overwhelming for someone unsure if they want to listen to protocol. By making it possible to listen to tmagp without having listened to tma, they are way more likely to listen, and might even go back and listen to tma. Marvel is a good comparison here: there’s a lot of marvel movies. It’s overwhelming for someone to have to watch all of them to understand the plot, so marvel makes their sequels work as standalones, while it is obviously more enjoyable if you’ve watched others. Same deal with hunger games. Also the friends I mentioned before who had never watched the original movies now really want to see them, bringing more money to the franchise
Jmart being in tmagp really wouldn’t be that alienating for new listeners. The main thing that would make tmagp difficult to listen to without context from tma is worldbuilding. However, this problem is avoided due to tmagp taking place in a completely different universe. Even original tma fans don’t have much world building to go off of. This is actually a big reason why I think the fears will be different in tmagp. It took so long for that world building to occur, it’d be boring for old listeners to hear the same thing again, and confusing for new ones to go on without it. Jmart is different because they’re just two characters. Sure, we’ll have a better understanding of who they are if we’ve listened to tma, but I feel like it’s not that difficult to quickly sum up their realtionship and their past in a way that’s understandable to new listeners. Plus we would need some backstory anyways since we don’t really know how they ended up in the tmagp universe
I almost think it’d be a missed opportunity if they didn’t have jmart or some other direct connection to tma in tmagp because one big reason for making sequels is bringing more attention to the original piece of media. Having a direct connection to tma, especially if it’s explained in a way that’s brief and intriguing could make new listeners more likely to go back and listen to tma
TLDR: tmagp could have jmart because it’s pretty common for movies and other media to make their sequels understandable for new viewers, and it wouldn’t take that much effort for there to be a quick explanation of who jmart is for new listeners
This wasn’t meant to attack anyone who’s been saying this, I’m just providing a counterpoint. If you disagree, that’s completely fine, I’m not here to start beef with strangers on the internet. Feel free to leave your thoughts agreeing, disagreeing, or otherwise, just be nice about it :) (this goes for all posts of people posting their thoughts and theories btw, we have so little info to go off of, just let people speculate without shutting them down)
(also I realize this post kinda sounds like I’m saying rusty quill is only making a sequel for money and attention. This is absolutely not what I’m saying, these are just often reasons that sequels are made, in addition to loving the story, characters, fandom, etc)
46 notes
·
View notes
some progress shots of a comic ive been working on for my sequential art class (tired thumbs up) some of u (?eh) may recognize the blue seeker as the oc i posted a while back. this comic is like his...backstory...thing i guess
some color tests and the script for these pages is under the cut...the dialog is a bit different but im too lazy to sort it out at the moment.
1.
1) far out perspective on a warehouse of identical robots. they stretch on in a large horizontal panel, a box full of similar bodies. light leaks into the crowd, illuminating nightlight. he stares upward.
(some kind of narration..?)
2) thin, long panel showing hole in ceiling. the night sky shimmers. a moon glows yellow.
3) nightlight stares up from a crowd of automatons at the sky
4) zoom in on nightlights face. yellow eyes reflect the moon. long thin panel. bg is stars
(hardcoded to kill.) (born to die)
[high priority: eliminate target at cost of self.]
2.
[i never had to learn. i knew everything from the start]
--
[how to assemble my rifle.]
[a fatal crunch under its stock.]
[how to tear the plating from another living machine]
[the squealing snapping of broken bones.]
--
[i was good. good at following orders. i had gone so long without fulfilling my primary assignment that i had, ironically, become useful for my experience.]
3.
[ i was reassigned--a nearly abandoned fuel outpost that no one was really supposed to know about.]
[alongside two others who had outlived their mission, just like myself.]
--
(kid, cmon. everyone has a name.) [redlyne]
(take it easy. they just pulled this one off the lines. give him some time.) [dawnbreaker]
[i didnt have one. i never needed one until now.]
[i tried to think--]
(my name?)
[nightlight.]
--
[i couldnt comprehend it at first. i didnt understand.]
(ext. a run down outpost.)
[
4.
[no one was supposed to know about our outpost.]
--
[we had lulled ourselves into a sort of mundanity. finally, our unremarkable existence had begun to show its advantage.]
--
(chess game pieces are rattled by gunfire, redlyne goes to check door(?))
--
(he is shot down.)
[of course, even the small amount of fuel we were guarding was worth killing over.]
--
[i dont know who killed him who killed ether of them. our side? the other one?]
[deep in my circuts, in the hardcoding of my frame, all i knew was that they were gone.]
71 notes
·
View notes