Performative Badassery & Women in Kdramas

When I said I wrote an essay, I meant essay. This is a long one! Grab a snack and venture below the read more. I’ll see you at the end!

----------

You know the feeling. The drama begins. Our female main lead walks onto screen. She’s a successful businesswoman, a hotshot detective, clever lawyer, smartass retail worker, etc, etc. She stares down a random man to prove she’s the powerful one here. Or kicks some ass. Or rattles off a bunch of demands to her workers. Or talks fast to show off her intelligence.

Then she meets the male lead. There’re fireworks. Slowly we find our female lead has a softer side. Good to know. 3-dimensional and complex characters are important. It’s nice to see women on-screen who are both capable and emotional. Kick ass and feminine. 

But slowly... something starts to go wrong. She seems to be crying more than showing literally any other kind of emotion. And is it just me or is she getting saved and manhandled and flustered quite a lot for a woman who we were told was so well put together? Sure, the circumstances are extreme. But they’re extreme for the male lead too and he seems to be managing just fine for some reason. Also, if both of them are ordinary people with no on-screen fighting experience, how come he’s so great at throwing fists out of nowhere and she’s busy keeping hidden or needing rescuing? Exactly how many times can one person just faint like that without anyone checking to see if she has a medical condition?

By the drama’s end our lead has gone through trials and tribulations. She’s fallen in love too, I’m happy for her. But... now that the story’s ending and she’s getting in one last chance to show us she’s a “badass”, why am I left feeling hollow? She’s showing us how tough she is but... we ALL spent this whole drama watching her have absolutely no agency or such a little amount that she might as well have been trying to put out a fire with a water-pistol. It’s almost like her previous badassery (in whatever form it may have been - I don’t mean badass only in terms of being able to throw a good punch) was just a façade. A way to hook in female viewers like me who want to see something more than a wilting wallflower or one-trick Cinderella. But the tiniest knock and the cardboard house collapses.

And no matter how many times we get throwaway lines about her being “the smartest/toughest/scariest/most capable one here” it doesn’t ring true compared to the actual character we’re watching.

Rom-coms, melos and sagueks especially (but many more genres besides), have a real problem when it comes to performative badassery in their female characters. The writers give us a female lead they claim is hyper competent, but the reality is totally different. Any plot that features romance, almost always features this. Honestly the way the start of the relationship in dramas actively MURDERS the female character’s agency could be its own essay so I won’t go deep, just know the two are 100% linked.

The “Faux Action Girl” Problem 

A Faux Action Girl happens when a writer wants the popularity that comes with having a cool action girl character, or they want the praise that comes with writing a lead that breaks gender norms, or they want to be lauded for writing a FL whose more capable & progressive than the female kdrama lead we’d imagine, but they don’t end up actually giving us her. Instead we get the fake or faux version. The reasons are usually a combination of:

Relying on outdated tropes. Wrist grabs, damsels in distress, a girl fainting so she misses some vital plot related moment to increase runtime etc...

Sexist worldviews. As a by-product of being Korean which is still a heavily sexist country because of the holdover of Confucianism mixed in with the Christianity westerners brought over that leads many writers to (often without even realising) inserting moments that inadvertently reduce their female leads because they think that’s what correct or natural for the female character based on their opinion of women in general. Even if it doesn’t actually fit the type of character they’ve set out to create.

Executive meddling. Producers who think their demographic wouldn’t be able to handle a real badass but also know their female viewers want more complexity and agency in their FLs these days and so give us the paper-version instead of the 3D model.

This character’s more “badass” traits are nearly always just an Informed Ability (the writers tell us via other characters what she can do but never actually show us on-screen these same things) or we only ever see her utilise them once/twice at the beginning and maybe if we’re lucky once at the end, but never again. 

It really hurts.

The “Badass Decay/Chickification” Problem

Sometimes she really is a legitimate action girl though. She’ll be a cop whose good at her job or an ordinary citizen whose well-versed in taekwondo. She has actual moments on-screen to prove herself. 

Well. She has moments in episodes 1 and 2. Then she almost always goes through Badass Decay/Chickification. Which means that writers (& producers) believe that if we don’t see her having a softer side, she’ll become unrealistic or unlikeable. 

They fix her. So she becomes more vulnerable. As the only girl on the team (usually), she becomes the one who ends up injured more often or needs rescuing most. Her life begins to revolve entirely around her romance and nothing else. (Meanwhile the male leads gets to have the romance and keep his side-quest - have you noticed that? If the FL is really lucky she gets to keep one side-quest too, maybe a dream job or solving some family mystery. Never more though.. only men get to be complicated here). Once she was competent... now it feels like she legitimately had a personality transplant. 

Is this even the same person we began with?

The “Worf Effect” Problem 

Worf Effect is when the danger/power level of a villain is shown to the audience by making him successfully attack/hurt/ruin the plans of someone that the audience knows is skilled. This isn’t a bad thing alone and writers use it all the time. We need to acknowledge the villain as a proper threat and this is a useful way to do it!

But in kdramas it’s something used almost always against the lead female character. The one we’ve seen is intelligent, or strong-willed or quick-witted. 

And because it’s always her, this character begins to look weak. If this writing trope is abused, her reputation as the "biggest, toughest" etc. begins to look like it never existed and we’re back to her having an informed ability. 

That this is something that happens to the female characters not only more often but almost exclusively is a sign of sexism. Plain and simple.

Competent, Real Badass Female Characters Aren’t Scary

 If you’re going to sell me a capable woman, give me her. 

Not someone who has one very unique, specialised skill but otherwise can do nothing else except for that one time when her one skill is useful. 

Or has built up her own empire, implying a certain level of smarts, business ability or networking skills, but then once she’s removed from it she becomes so utterly useless it begs the question how she built that empire in the first place. 

Or has a rep as the detective whose taken down the toughest guys off-screen, but whatever skills she used to do that seem to disappear the moment anything really challenging happens on-screen. 

I’m not saying she needs to win all the time. Of course she doesn’t, how boring is that? All I’m asking is that when she loses, it’s in keeping with the character I’m supposedly watching. A woman that can kick ass can still be outwitted. A clever woman can be physically beaten. A street-smart girl can be foiled by rules and regulations. A leader-type can be beat by someone whose more unconventional.

It’s not difficult to write someone like this. I know the writers can do it because every male lead is written this way. I’ve never once, whilst watching a badass male lead lose, get beaten and cry, thought “oh no, his badassery was fake all along!”

Because when he loses it makes sense. It’s in character. There’s a solid plot reason behind why it happens.

Meanwhile my ladies who are meant to be able to kick ass and take names somehow just got kidnapped out of nowhere?

Make it make sense!

Consistent Characterisation is Good Writing

I get wanting moments where one is injured and the other fusses over them. I love those moments! All I ask is more imagination taken to get us to that point. Make it in-character. If my taekwondo black belt is kidnapped, I want to see her really fight. I want the kidnapping to be shown as genuinely tough on the people trying to nab her. Imagine how much more satisfying it would be to see her fight off all these bad guys, yet still end up losing? How much more heart-breaking?

We’d be so much more invested in the mind games or politics the villain is playing if the female lead we’ve been told is good at that stuff is playing the game just as hard. When she loses it’ll hurt more.

Writers need to stop being afraid that her remaining capable in some way diminishes the masculinity, attractiveness, prowess or “hero” status of the male lead. Trust me. It doesn’t. Ever. 

It’s not a case of either/or. We don’t think less of the male lead because his partner is as capable as him in whatever way that may be. Instead, we think more of them both. Once a romance begins, the heightened worry both characters have for each other should only make both of them stronger in whatever area they’re skill lies in. Not just make the man a sudden defence wall and the woman a worrying mess. 

I’m sure everyone who reads this can immediately think of at least one drama with a FL who is a Performative Badass. I know I had about ten in mind as I wrote this. 

There are exceptions. Cases where the badass gets to stay a badass. Usually these cases happen in genres without romance because like I said above, those problems are linked. But I can think of a few romcoms/sageuks/melos where it happens too. 

But those are the minority.

Women in kdramas. Give them agency. Make their characterisation genuine, not just a bit-part for the sake of a cool trailer. Not just one moment someone can edit into a “badass multifemale” video edit - only for us to watch the drama from the clip and discover we’ve been sold a lie. 

How satisfied would we be?

Writers! Give us a story we enjoyed because of the excellent characterisation. A new female character we can add to our lists of faves. Women who proved themselves as consistently badass as their first scenes claimed. Women in kdramas who, no matter what problem they faced, don’t become echoes or paper-thin versions of who we were promised.

Actual, complex, layered, enjoyable, KICK-ASS AND BADASS female leads.

Wouldn’t that be a miracle.

----------

PS. This is an open notice that it’s OKAY to reblog with added commentary/thoughts/rambles of your own. I would *love* to see it if you have anything to add.

---------- 

(Disclaimer: This essay was written with a specific female character type in mind. I am not saying every FL needs to be a badass or hyper competent. Soft, shy, physically weak female characters exist and can be just as realistic and complex. There’s a few I can think of who I adore. Instead my essay is very specifically about characters who are *meant* to be badass from the start but then... don’t end up being. So, yeah, before anyone claims I’m some angry feminist who needs every FL to be some tough martial artist or something. Absolutely not! Diversity is amazing and interesting. All I ask is that when I am told I’ll be getting a badass in a drama I get her. Not have my heart broken by the fake wilting flower I find in her place. Ok. End disclaimer. ^^)

----------

Also I’m tagging a bunch of you because you reblogged my post saying you wanted this so here! TY for making it to the end ^^

@kdramaxoxo​ @islandsofchaos @storytellergirl @vernalagnia-blog @lostindramas @salaamdreamer​ @planb-is-in-effect​ 

Heyyy. With all this supposed romantic jealousy and like you said ‘dick measuring’ game that Nick and Rio are playing, I think about the scene in the car after Beth got Rio arrested and Nick got him out. Rio said: “so what do you want to do about [Beth?] and Nick said “not what you want to do.” This scene makes it seem like they have a plan that they’re BOTH in on to deal with Beth. I’m at first I thought they were playing good cop/bad cop (I still think they are) but now Rio is clearly uncomfortable with Nick’s plan. What the fuck is going on because I am confused?

Also do you think the dynamic between Nick and Rio will become clearer by the finale? They seem to have a very complex relationship and wow, who would have thought utilising one of your best and most underused character that LITERALLY DRIVES THE WHOLE MAIN PLOT would make the show interesting again 🤔

Hi, doll! Ok, you’re gonna have to bear with me because my brain is messy at the best of times and I’ve had a non stop headache since yesterday morning, so making sense of my thoughts is hella difficult right now lol. I’m just gonna break this up into sections to help me keep track of everything!

P.s. I’m sorry this got long 🥴

Rio and Nick’s dynamic

So, from what we’ve seen so far, Nick is extremely narcissistic, manipulative, and selfish. In my opinion, he doesn’t really seem to have a very strong sense of self or morality, he just becomes whoever he needs to, in order to achieve the goal at hand. Whether it’s kissing ass at the golf club, playing politics, or having Rio thrown in jail/beaten with a stool. He’s always thinking about the long game, always about the bigger picture, he likes to use every situation/person to his advantage. He seems to have some sort of resentment and/or jealousy towards Rio and that comes out a lot in his desire to take from Rio. He took his dreams of being a boxing a boxer, his freedom, trivial stuff like the burger and the basketball. I also think he wants to take Beth but they’ve not made it clear in what capacity he wants to take her. Whether it’s because he’s clocked that Rio has/had genuine feelings for her, or because he thinks Beth is a business asset. Either way, he sees that Beth is a sore spot and he’s going to keep pushing as a way to exert power and feel like a man.

Rio, on the other hand, likes to see immediate results, and he can be pretty impulsive. He’s also very self-assured, he is who he is and he doesn’t change that for anyone. He literally has a giant tattoo across his throat which he displays proudly because he doesn’t care how anyone else sees him. But he has a natural charm and charisma that he can use when he needs it, without having to become a completely different person. I think he’s a very emotional person, regardless of how much he tries to hide it, which can make him pretty reactive to situations – see: basically every interaction with Beth.

They’re wildly different people and this would cause conflict in itself because they immediately want to handle situations differently, like with Annie being kidnapped. The girls owed him money, Rio was mad about it, and he wanted an immediate resolution to that problem, whereas Nick didn’t care so much about the short-term financial issues, in comparison to the long-term benefit to him of keeping Beth onside. Within their organisation, the structure is still kinda murky because he doesn’t seem to be the boss, but then he does and ehhh. Supposedly Rio handles all the illicit stuff and then Nick pushes through city contracts to shell corporations he owns and also makes money from that, as well as keeping Rio out of jail. The actual power imbalance between them still irks me because Nick is literally a councilman. He has no real clout. There’s no reason for him to have such a hold over Rio, especially when Rio knows exactly what Nick is and he also knows that Nick wouldn’t have dick without him. But I digress.

The conversation in the car

I definitely think that conversation is very relevant to what’s happening with Beth right now. In that moment, I think Rio wanted revenge, plain and simple but he was also thinking long term. I don’t think he was planning on going out to kill her, but that’s where Nick’s mind went because he severely underestimates how much of a “big picture guy” Rio can be hence telling Rio, “not what you want to do”. Presumably, there would’ve been a discussion between them off screen where Nick decided exactly what was going to happen and how they were going to use her. My guess is that going forward they were basically going to play a game of ‘good cop bad cop’. Nick offers himself up as the friendly local councilman, shows concern for Beth, helps her etc, while Rio is more menacing than ever. Rio is reluctantly going along with this plan because of the stupid power imbalance, but I think he’s got something up his sleeve. I think the discomfort we’re seeing from Rio stems from their difference in opinion on how to handle Beth, Rio chafing under Nick’s control and also the resentment Rio holds because of Nick’s constant routine of taking what’s his. I kinda spoke about it in this post.

Last time Beth got Rio arrested, he shot Dean - he’s not shy when it comes to payback. Typically, he’s always quite reactive to situations and that can (has) come to bite him in the ass but he knows this. He was there. He knows that every time he pushes Beth, she pushes back with equal force, so he needs to immobilise her. While Nick just wants to use Beth to benefit himself financially, by using her to push through contracts for shell corporations etc, I think Rio wanted to kill two birds with one stone. He can use Beth as a shield for his business and make money off her, then later on, I think he probably wants to use her to get rid of Nick and potentially let Beth go down with him as payback for her betrayal (at least, I think that was his original plan but he may soften to her and end up forming an alliance once Nick is out of the picture).

Romantic Jealousy?

As for the jealousy, it’s still not the word I’d choose to describe Rio. It probably fits, to a degree, but I always associate it with pettiness and wanting stuff you don’t have - i.e. Nick. With Rio, it feels more possessive over what he already has because he knows Nick wants to take it. This now extends to Beth because she was and is his, at least in a business sense. I don’t think he’s ever been particularly jealous of her in their personal relationship because neither of them ever truly gave into whatever it was. In business, she worked for him, she answered to him, if she needed help – she came to him, and he’s created that dynamic with Beth by keeping her isolated from his wider organisation. He was effectively trying to mentor her and make her in his image. Now, Nick comes along and suddenly Beth’s going to Nick for help, Beth’s doing what Nick says, and she’s looking to Nick as a mentor. So, once again, Nick is taking what belongs to Rio. That’s why I think he reacted the way he did in the strip club. He realised that he was about to lose to Nick again, and he wasn’t willing to let that happen, so he pulled out the ol’ carrot and stick. He took her money away as a punishment, made her think on her feet, and then rewarded her for a job well done. He showed her that she doesn’t need Nick because then Nick has no hold over her. He’s showing Beth that she can get shit done on her own, but also reminding her that he essentially made her what she is. He taught her. He believed in her. He asked her what she gained from being on the city council and doing what Nick tells her, knowing full well she gets fuck all out of it because he knows Nick. Then he gave her a reward to make ‘team Rio’ all the more appealing. Yes, there could well be some romantic feelings under that but I don’t think that’s what’s driving Rio right now. I think this is firmly about him and Nick, while Beth has become another toy for them to fight over.

Ok the last thing I care about is Dean’s storyline with Gayle, but I think you mentioned something about it not working, to which I so agree. So why did they just jump right into it instead of building the relationship up on screen. Presumably they have time. Why do you think the rush?

Yeah, it’s not working for me at all, anon. 

I understand what they’re going for and I actually do think it’s a really solid way of making Dean face up to his actions and his bad behaviour, and to tease out character growth without putting the onerous of that on Beth (particularly since the show has well-established across the last two seasons that Beth and Dean are incapable of growing with each other). It actually separates their arcs and frees them from each other both narratively and thematically in a way that I actually do like, even if I’m not liking the scenes themselves.

I think there are three reasons for why it’s not working, and I actually don’t think it’s the speed of the storyline. The show’s always moved at a break-neck pace, and I don’t think it’s ever hindered a relationship set-up as badly as Dean and Gayle’s. I also, perhaps shockingly, don’t think the issue is Dean as a character either. 

This show has proven it can make scenes with unlikeable characters incredibly watchable and compelling multiple times - I mean, even just off the top of my head, think about the scene where Marion calls Boomer a loser in s1 (a scene I really love, despite not loving either character), or when Mary Pat confronts Boomer at the end of s1 about the recording device, or - - well, any Mary Pat scene actually, haha.

Dean’s not the issue here, at least not as a character; the issue is a lack of story world grounding, tone, and I’ve unfortunately got to say Ione Skye herself. So let’s unpack that. 

1. Lack of story world grounding. 

This show actually has a lot of story worlds, and it typically does a really good job of introducing those spaces and using those spaces to inform character, and those characters to inform spaces. Think of Dean and Boland Motors and the yellow corvette - a gaudy, failing business used to underscore Dean’s incompetence, his immaturity and the way that he views himself, or even Fine and Frugal which is used very starkly to explore Boomer and Annie’s potential (Fine and Frugal being the absolute culmination of Boomer’s, while representing wasted potential for Annie).

When it comes to these characters, we have a strong sense of where they’ve come from because we know how they exist in the story, even before we know them. Mary Pat is probably the best example of this - she’s introduced not only through the secret shopper scheme - something the show established as having a very particular employee base, but through Beth’s house. It instantly positions Mary Pat as a foil to Beth, because she could be Beth - right down to the four children. 

It’s hard to place Gayle within the story because Four Star Pool and Spas isn’t established enough for us to understand how it informs her character and vice versa. We aren’t grounded in that location enough to understand how she exists in it, nor are we getting enough visual cues in the location to be able to infer information about her as a character. 

Think of it this way - how was Boland Motors introduced? Through that terrible ad with Dean in a pig suit clutching Amber to him in a sequined dress. It told us so, so much about not only what that business was, but about Dean - a shameless, goofy, tacky, car salesman, likely sleeping with his secretary (a fact properly established shortly after). That’s a lot of information quickly and effectively shared!

Now think about how Four Star Pools and Spas was introduced - a cutaway scene of Dean staying back at work while everyone else left, and him pausing to look at Gayle’s trophy. 

There are no establishing shots, no information on the business itself, we haven’t even seen anyone actually - y’know, sell a hot tub. We know Dean places importance on the trophy, but we don’t have any context for whether that’s a deserved importance because we don’t know the business. We don’t understand how it operates, we don’t know if it’s a classier place or a tackier one, we don’t know if Dean’s good or bad at the job, and we don’t know how he functions in the space, or what that space is telling us about where and who he is at this point in the story.

Like - - even compare it to the other car dealership he worked at at the end of s2 which was established very quickly as well, and again very effectively through the bubbly, pointedly younger co-workers, cult-like chanting, and Dean’s inability to play into it. We’re getting none of that with Four Star, which means we have no context for any of the relationships or storylines that take place there.

2. Tone

All the characters on this show are written in a way that emphasises not only their characterisation and their arcs, but the specific balance of tones that they bring to the show. It’s often backed up with music and visual cues, but more than anything it’s grounded in each of the actors’ performances. Watching these different tones interact is one of the best, most fun parts of the show, embodied probably best of all in Beth and Rio’s incredibly contradictory, and yet somehow still complimentary energy. 

As a character, Dean has always had a very, very specific tone about him, and it’s delivered pretty impeccably by Matthew, who - even though I dislike Dean immensely - imbues him with a lot of complexity and satisfying, human contradiction. Dean brings a constantly-close-to-hysteria energy to the show, a fractured, toxic masculinity, and delusions of grandeur, as well as a genuine throughline of real loneliness and insecurity.

In Dean (and Matthew’s) best scenes, the show balances all of this in a way that is both comedic and dramatic, ridiculous and vulnerable. Think about the exceptional “Who is HR?” confrontation at the end of 2.04, his and Beth’s fights across s2, his scene with the spaghetti at the end of 2.12, even his work out in 3.03 (which was by far his best scene this season because it embraced the tone he offers the show).

The scenes with Gayle are completely void of that tone, and as a result, you lose not only the compelling complexity of what makes Dean (and Matthew) so watchable, but also the crux of Dean as a character. With that tone sucked out of those scenes, we’re left with a dryness that doesn’t fly narratively, but especially doesn’t fly with a character that’s so unliked, and on top of that, you lose a key part of the show’s overall balance.

Character tones do evolve - just look at the girls’ - but that’s not what’s happening here. Even beyond that, the show should have, in my opinion, utilised Dean’s tone to better establish what Four Star Pools and Spas is - and they could do it as either a compliment (Boland Motors) or a contradiction (the second dealership he worked at at the end of s2). Either way, it would’ve told us a lot more about the location, how both he and Gayle function in that location, a lot more about what Gayle sees in him, and beyond all of that - it could’ve made those scenes fun.  

3. Ione Skye. 

I hope this doesn’t come off as too harsh, but on re-watching the series so far last night, I honestly think Ione Skye is unfortunately a big part of the issue. This is such a charismatic cast across the board - from the leads to the supports to the minor characters - and literally all of them have unreal chemistry with each other. In that sense, Ione just sort of...pales in comparison? She doesn’t command the screen in a way the rest of the cast does, doesn’t ground scenes, at least not to me, and she and Matthew just don’t have the chemistry that I think they need to make these scenes and this storyline work. 

Like, she’s had as much screen time I’d say as many of the other new cast members like Jackie Cruz (Rhea) and Rob Heaps (Dr Josh Cohen), and certainly more time than Charlyne Yi (Lucy), and yet Gayle as a character hasn’t had the same presence as any of them. The setting and the tone are certainly a part of that, but...I don’t think Ione’s helping. 

Particularly with re-watching her in 3.02, I think that a different actress could’ve done something different with the role and with the writing, and probably, dare I say it, something more.

The Real Story Behind The Annabelle Doll, And The Other Haunted Dolls You Need To Know About

If you’ve been living under a rock for like, the last, I don’t know, 6 years, then you won’t know squat about the creepy doll phenomenon that’s currently haunting our TV and cinema screens (and at this rate, our nightmares too).

Even though this newer trope combines all the basic-bitch horror movie plot lines – and holes – worthy of scoring a solid ‘rotten tomato’ on IMBD, it turns out that there is a good deal of truth to these tales of terror.

And this is bound to continue with the release of the newest instalment in The Conjuring universe: Annabelle Comes Home (2019).

This film seeks to document her existence in Ed And Lorraine Warrens Occult Museum – an actual place where she still is – and centres around the Warren’s daughter unleashing the dark spirits (and/ or demon) contained within this spooky-ass doll.

And so, it is time to reflect on the real story behind Annabelle herself, and the other haunted dolls in existence.

#squadgoals.

But first, here’s a quick recap of the Annabelle film saga:

Annabelle’s done pretty well for herself.

She’s featured in 4 horror hits, and has even starred in 3 self-titled movies to boot. We meet her first in The Conjuring as an introduction to the Warrens and she is effectively used to combat a classic horror film trope: all scary movies start with the obligatory first 30 minutes where they introduce the characters, the peaceful home setting, and the references to past trauma which will be once again inflicted later on. Then they get going with the stuff you actually paid for.

But not here, not in The Conjuring.

Annabelle is used to give us a taste of the terror that awaits us once we get past the opening titles. And lord, she does it well. We also get introduced to the basic-bitch doll hauntings that go hand in hand with any horror film; doors moving, writing on notes and on the ceiling, the classic rocking chair, and any other generic hauntings you can pull out of your ass and type up into a screenplay.

Anyway, the story of Annabelle across the films so far is that a child called Annabelle dies, and the parents call upon all the higher powers – yes, all the higher powers – in the midst of their grief to allow her to return.

‘Something’ pretends to be their daughter, and upon witnessing such things, they give this ‘Something’ permission to enter the doll.

The ‘Something’ then proceeds to fuck shit up, and thankfully the parents lock away the doll with all of the protections necessary. Round of applause, everyone.

Cue entrance of young, innocent girls – who, just so happen to be orphans because tropes – who accidentally unleash the terror of the doll. That special ‘something’ trapped within Annabelle is unleashed and possesses one of the girls; she escapes, gets adopted whilst pretending to not be a demon (easier said than done, actually), and years later kills her adoptive parents after she hunts down the original Annabelle doll, and cries onto it to re-possess the doll.

This takes us to the first movie – which, yeah, it’s not great, not worth a watch – and ends with Annabelle being purchased from an antique shop, supposedly as a gift for the owners we met in the first Conjuring flick.

And it turns out that whilst the totality of the events aren’t completely true, the tagline of ‘based on a true story’ isnt too far-fetched.

The real-life Annabelle is one of the most renowned paranormal objects in the world, and her fellow haunted friends all seem to tie into the theory that is brought up in The Conjuring: Vessel theory.

Simply put by the Warrens, the doll (like any object) is a vessel for spirits and demons, namely those that want to enter you.

I mean, they could at least take you out for a drink first, god.

The films focus on this invitation aspect, channelling the vampiric vibe of being allowed in, and stick to the classic line of thought: the entities want your soul for a purpose to become idk alive again and no one really understands why but goddamnit it sounds intense.

And as it is a film, it sticks to a simplified version of the actual theories behind haunted dolls in order to cram in as many empty jump scares.

In actuality, there’s a lot more to the theories behind haunted objects, and the rumours of the objects themselves, than is given attention to in Annabelle’s film saga.

The actual theories behind haunted dolls

There are 3 sides to theory that we need to consider here: that of cursed objects, ceremonial objects, and a concept called ‘spirit binding’.

The film groups Annabelle in with the first category, but makes mention of the second group when it comes to introducing the Warren’s museum. Cursed objects come about when energies become attached to objects, and these vessels also are utilised in the ceremonial world.

The earliest history of haunted dolls sticks to this purpose, and its only when the age of the occult hits in the 20th century that stories like Annabelle’s start popping up.

Think effigies or voodoo dolls; anything that can be used for mystical purposes, was. It was believed that spells could transfer person to poppet, and were used to place curses on unfavourable community members.

This enforced binding of spirits to objects is the core of the theory, and still continues today under that rather obvious alias of ‘spirit binding’. Nevertheless, today’s process is rather more positive, and involves rather less-terrifying-small-children-horror-film tropes.

Vessels are laid out, and attachment or banishment rituals are applied. These objects can be taken with you on your adventures to ensure spiritual protection, or to channel some serious spirit squad goals.

And this is what the film gets wrong; the objects discussed here are spirit-based. Nowhere in the theories are demons mentioned, and even in the Bible it is claimed that demons cannot attach themselves to inanimate objects.

It’s this ambiguity used in the films to mis-mash the human possession and object possession together, and the ‘based on the true story’ spiel stops there. And speaking of true stories, it’s now time to discuss all the terrifying tales surrounding our favourite haunted dolls.

The actual Annabelle story

The true story behind this infamous doll sticks closely to the brief encounter detailed in The Conjuring.

Basically, a nurse is given a doll in the twilight years of the occult, in 1975. And shit gets weird. Think the normal hauntings, from noises, to the doll moving by itself.

Concerned, they go to a medium who claims it’s the spirit of Annabelle Higgins. Believing it to be an innocent girl, they treat the spirit and doll nicely. Unfortunately, shit gets weirder.

In a time of desperation, they turn to the Warrens, who say that this is not an innocent spritely spirit. It’s a demon.

The doll is then stored away in the Warren’s museum in a case from which the doll cannot be touched, and it is here that she still resides.

But before you turn out the light to sleep knowing she is stowed away somewhere safe, bear in mind that there are quite a few cases that mirror Annabelle’s story, and although they are rather diverse in the doll-spirit relationship, they are all creepy as fuck.

The true stories behind the rest of Annabelle’s Spooky Squad

Annabelle’s rival in the paranormal world is none other than Robert the Doll. This little fella is reportedly possessed by ‘spirits’, but don’t let the vagueness of this possession fool you. As the original inspiration for Chucky, this doll certainly upholds a level of fame among those intrigued by the paranormal, and the backstory to our least favourite horror film villain starts with a bloke called Otto.

In 1906, Otto was presented a doll – fit in Robert’s sailor’s uniform – by a servant who was known to practice black magic and voodoo.

Yep, that was a definite red flag.

It was believed that the servant’s worship and frequent summoning of spirits possessed this creepy-ass doll. Indeed, he is so haunted that it is rumoured that you must ask to take a picture of him, or you will be haunted by those that take up residency in him.

Next up is Lotta the Doll.

It’s 1972, and some bloke called Kerry Whalton decides to wander around an abandoned building because why not. And its inside this building that he finds a marionette doll.

A quick trip to the archives, and a chance flick through the library books later and he calculates that this doll is believed to contain the spirit of a boy who once lived an odd 200 years before. The building he walked into that fateful day was the property of a man whose son drowned, and his final resting place is inside this doll.

It moves, it emits a pulse, dogs bark at it and attempt to attack it, and paintings fall when in its presence.

Oh, and when it’s put outside, it starts to rain.

Another famous doll is known as the Paula Ubin Barbie.

In 1914, a girl fell of a cliff and subsequently died.

In memoriam of her tragic death, a monument was constructed, and in it was her personal crucifix and a rather large amount of her hair.

Following her passing, a local resident began to have rather peculiar dreams. And in these dreams, a little girl would lead him to a toy shop, and pick out her favourite toy – a barbie.

He took the doll to the monument, and upon setting it down claims he felt the spirit transfer into the barbie and it is believed that her spirit found peace.

Our two final dolls stick to pretty standard supernatural goings-on.

Mandy does the usual: you hear the sound of footsteps, other dolls are knocked over, and she even has her own display case. And Pupa? She bangs on the case, changes position, and even fucks off when she wants to.

Honestly, do they not know how haunted dolls are supposed to behave?

On the meta stuff with Meena:

DAVE: ebubbles theyre awesome #how is this not awesome DAVE: its just some ridiculous shit i figured out how to do here DAVE: this whole place runs on memories so ive been messing around with that #just as long as you dont ask me how #we are cool DAVE: turns out i dont even really need the internet for shenanigans i can just exploit the afterlife

/

DAVE: you want to "be me"? #air quotes MEENAH: yeah why not DAVE: ok well without getting too deep into the issue of how absurd that request is on the very face of it #a face presently being palmed DAVE: its just not going to happen DAVE: i mean not yet anyway not this early in your little dream bubble quest you got going on here

/

DAVE: i really dont think we should get too meta about this DAVE: just #ok DAVE: look DAVE: youre on a mission to gather up all your dead friends and build an army or something #cant believe im even explaining this DAVE: personally i think thats a shitty idea but you are clearly motivated to do that MEENAH: yea #tru dat DAVE: so why would you waste time going around "being other people" it doesnt make any fucking sense #air quotes DAVE: for instance you cant be anybody in this fucking sandy beach area because ostenibly youre just charging through this place looking for your friends DAVE: dammit try to play the part at least somewhat #ahahaha #already too meta #i give the fuck up

Dave has this weird note again of the narrative and meta without going full ham. He understands roughly what the concept of “being someone else” is, but the actual idea of it seems to be ridiculous to him. There’s a feeling that he doesn’t quite believe what she’s saying (without getting too deep into the issue of how absurd that request is on the very face of it), and then that he’s just playing along with her weird idea (#cant believe im even explaining this, so why would you waste time going around "being other people" it doesnt make any fucking sense).

It’s like he gets it, but he also doesn’t. He’s talking in the way as if he can understand the key concepts of what’s happening and even what she’s trying to ask, but thinks the whole thing is bogus. He even says she can’t be anyone in the beach area because she’s just wandering through it - as if he doesn’t recognise that it’s acceptible for her to shift narrative however she likes, or as if his understanding of the narrative is completely different (she can’t be anyone there because they’re not relevant to her quest, even though she’s been other people for lesser reasons before).

It’s weird. He gets it, but he’s still skeptical of it. Like he doesn’t want to accept the fact that there’s this person out there that can just go around being someone else, as if someone can just suddenly be him.

Even when you look at the e-bubbles thing, notice how he says it.

It’s something “ridiculous” that works based on memories (which is a fair part of Time’s capabilities, I’m so frustrated I didn’t figure that out before). It’s an exploitation of the Afterlife.

Not the narrative. None of the things they’re doing now - the tags, the bubbles themselves, the way things work - he sees as being an effect of the physical narrative that we’re seeing. He allocates it to the dreambubbles themselves instead, and his ability to play with anything related to Time.

What comes after that, then, is the stuff about Time being related to the narrative.

Here’s the thing. Time isn’t about the journey, or the beginning. Time is actually just the End. That’s why it’s so heavily associated with Doomed Timelines and death; those are things that have ended, that are no more. It’s only one part of a whole narrative.

Space, the beginning, starts this. Then we have Life, which is the rising action, and Doom, which is the falling action. One that shows the growth of the plot and one that shows its stagnation to the finish. Then, of course, you have Time, which is the conclusion.

Logically, this means that each of these four Aspects should have SOME influence on the narrative, but not total. It’s only when all four come together that you get a whole story, after all; so how can you have a fully effective understanding of the narrative when you only influence one Aspect?

This is why Caliborn can control Homosuck; he’s the Lord of Time, the Master of the Ending. That whole timeline he creates is about that one specific Game Over; that’s him changing the story to be the defeat he’s always needed. He can’t influence the narrative sooner because it’s simply too early for him to play his part; it’s only when we’re getting to the Ending that he can clutch it in his claws and fuck it all up.

This is also why Calliope can control the Epilogues - or, one of them, anyway. If Space is about Beginnings and Creation, we need to think about what an Epilogue is; a continuation after something as Ended. This is Calliope playing up to her Aspect and reviving Homestuck from the ashes of its End, creating a new storyline and a new plot. Her influence is strongest here because we’ve come full circle.

In addition, note how Calliope can’t influence a timeline where the plot continues. Dirk rekindles Homestuck in Meat and sends John back into it, thereby continuing the same old story and forcing it back to life, which goes completely against Space’s control of the narrative. This isn’t the new Beginning she needs; it’s not even an Epilogue so much as a time-skipped sequel.

In Candy, however, the Homestuck plot is very much dead and done. Everything that happens after is completely inconsequential and could be an entirely new story in and of itself - which is exactly what she needs to bank on for it to be usable for her.

I think this, even, is why Sollux is able to tap into the narrative in some degree - such as with the code that destroys the universe - without actually being... aware? And why Meena is a lot more accepting of the idea of just “becoming someone else”. Both of their Classpects have connections to narrative control, with Sollux suffering from it (though we don’t see this in full potential because of how little he’s on screen) and Meena stealing it (what else could “becoming someone” be seen as except for Stealing their Life? We’re basically in control of them in that moment; we’re guiding them through the narrative regardless of what they would have, or should have, been doing, all so we can just see what happens on-screen.)

So, back to Dave. Lord and Muse have much better control over the narrative, likely because they’re masterclasses, and we can tell that, to some degree, the other Narrative Aspects can have awareness. Dave, being only a Knight, wouldn’t really be able to tell what’s going on fully simply because it’s not important enough for him to know, not part of his duties as a Knight; he can influence the narrative only in a very distanced sort of way, utilising it to create in-world effects rather than controlling it personally.

Dave could never be a narrative speaker, but he can definitely utilise parts of it to effect in the Homestuck universe. Things that they can interact with and see.

So, that might be a reason why Dave can interact with it, but not fully - and seems aware without being aware. His class is so rooted in the concept of the in-universe that he can only influence the narrative that way; even to the degree that narrative voices are audible for him, rather than subconscious.

As for Terezi, yeah, she’s a Seer of Mind. If we consider that what Dirk’s doing is destroying the sense of Self in order to destroy Individuality, and therefore leaving this big, gaping space of Heart behind, it makes sense that in its absence Mind will rule - albeit fractured. It’s essentially Mind control Lite.

It’s well within reason that Terezi can See this sort of control when it’s so heavy-handed. By that point, Dirk isn’t even trying to hide himself. His personality shines so brightly through the narrative that Terezi can probably smell the orange soda right off the page. I think for her it’s less metaphysical, though; she knows she’s being influenced, but maybe doesn’t know it’s through the narrative specifically - at least, not in the way that she understands it.

Name/Handle/Alias

rlogarbagech1

About how long would you say you’ve been rooting for Reylo?

I tend to dive into things intensively, so while I knew there was an intriguing dynamic to Rey and Kylo's TFA interaction and I enjoyed what was teased in TLJ when it came out, I think it was a random wading into Reylo fanfic circa Aug 2019 that really got me into the fandom in a deep way. (Throwback to me thinking: eh maybe I'll give Reylo oneshots a try? And BOOM four months later I'm in a daze wondering how I've read like 80 fics, ended up in a writing discord - shoutout to The Writing Den! - and have five stories cooking in my head at one time.)

I like that the fandom takes what was on film in TLJ and expands the contours of that universe, stretching it into all sorts of configurations that somehow still made sense thematically for what Rey and Ben were going through. Whether that's in the context of warring lawyers (eversoreylo), Kyril Ren and Irena (voicedimplosives), archaeology Rey and Ben (disasterisms), a Harry met Sally AU (slipgoingunder), or Canadian politics (saint_heretical)... the creativity of the fandom and how it grapples with SW themes through all these different lenses of interpretation blows my mind. IMO it shows how SW's story themes can be individually interpreted, yet utterly universal.

What did you think of the way Rise of Skywalker handled Rey and Kylo’s relationship?

It felt like a backstep/retcon to what had happened in TLJ. I think CT and JJ wanted to make certain narrative choices but couldn't fully commit to them for whatever reasons, and the story suffered overall in a big way 'cus of that.

TRoS clearly went into the enemies -> lovers arc but leaned way too far into 'enemies', making the arc to 'lovers' within 2.5 hours way very weirdly paced, so it didn't feel like it was earned. The reaction of the audiences I was in for both screenings validated that. At the first screening, there was awkward laughter because it felt so left-field in the context of the film. In the second screening, the GA people I was watching it with felt 'this is really unnecessary' which I can understand because of the lack of buildup in TRoS to that moment.

Reylo in TLJ was at its best because there was time for it to breathe. I rewatch the force skype scenes often and the complete silence, the subtle acting, and the framing of those scenes, is so unusual and bold for a blockbuster at that level. There was also so much gorgeous subtext in what was going on, you could read into it what you liked, but there was definitely an attraction or a pull there for both characters.

You could tell that Adam and Daisy were delivering equally layered acting work in 9, but it was extremely rushed and weirdly edited. The ensemble could also have been a greek chorus for the audience/a bellwether for how we should be feeling towards Rey and Kylo in 9 but they didn't really utilise them that way and Palpatine ended up overshadowing the entire story as the big bad. The more interesting choice obviously was Kylo as the conflicted big bad and a redemption arc, but maybe Disney just isn't ok with that or was pushing for a different direction.

Overall, 9 made me wish we had more time to live in the push-pull dynamic between these two characters and the longing they have for each other despite all the odds, but luckily we have fanfic and art for that, which is why it's so great. Just a shame the film couldn't line those pieces up well enough for a satisfying landing.

Do you think the film understood why you, and other people, felt like Rey and Kylo had something together? Did it get their chemistry?

I'm sure they understood it on some surface level but CT was the wrong person to write that story imo. And JJ on some level disliked RJ's choices so he was trying to wind it back to the TFA dynamic which was more enemies-enemies with a subtext of them being compelled by each other, but not necessarily with a romantic resolution.

I think it's testament to the intelligence of the fandom that we saw the train tracks being laid in ep8 for a more interesting ending, just that whatever story-wrestling/behind the scenes drama/ego was going on at DLF meant nobody was able to actually able to execute that story with the justice it deserved. Locking out the story group also seems like a huge mistake and would've avoided a lot of the larger plot holes they seem to have ended up with, the dissatisfying Reylo arc in ep9 being just one symptom of it. 

What about the handling of Kylo’s redemption? Was it something you had to think through in your stories? 

How I envision Kylo/Ben's redemption and Rey's response to it is summarised by a lot of the fic that's already out there! And in the fanfic thread I've pinned on my Twitter. e.g. Starstuff by voicedimplosives, Morning by disasterisms, Astrometric Binaries by pontmercy44, Tactical Surrender by Trebia... there are a lot of ways it could have gone. A recent comic (08 Jan?) by Miss Bliss is also a great example and she distilled it down to 15 simple panels, not to say she simplified the ethics of the redemption arc of course.

The biggest effect that TRoS had on me as an aspiring creator/writer is because the film DIDN'T give me the redemption arc, I'm interested to explore how that looks like in fanfic. So maybe that will become a theme in my writing. Let's see!

I'm still laughing about how they yeeted Ben into the pit though. Can't believe those leaks were actually true. 

What did you think of where Rey landed at the end? There had been a lot of excitement around Star Wars having a female protagonist. Do you think she lived up to the promise of her character?

A lot of the discourse has already covered this but my take is: in TLJ Rey was the centre of the story, all of her actions were driving the plot and it was a female-centric story about incredible themes like self-discovery, belonging, loyalty, 'lightness', 'darkness', attraction, sexuality. And TLJ was very nuanced in presenting how Rey's role shaped the overall story, the symbolism in the film (all of which had meaning or at least tried to), and her clear growth through it.

With TRoS it felt like her needs took a backseat and were kind of ancillary to the action of what was happening. Or that she was a lot more of a passenger to the story. I guess that's how I would sum it up. If I think back to how TRoS ended I don't think there was a satisfactory character conclusion for ANY of them... and don't even get me started on how they did Rose completely dirty. 

There’s criticism of the movie that argues it’s akin to “fan fiction” and that is has too much fan service. As fans and fan-fiction writers, how do you react to that?

It doesn't actually bother me that much. I think it comes from a place of negative stereotyping and misunderstanding of what fandom is all about, especially for the Reylo community – because apparently believing in romance, redemption, and love is meaningless, simple, and weak.

The people that are in the fandom and know it well know that the fandom has a lot of diverse views in it, different perspectives, and some of the most startlingly intelligent and thoughtful people across the spectrum including creators, readers, analysts, community organisers etc.

The fact that there's a WHOLE ECOSYSTEM with fanfic and fan art and discord servers and gift exchanges and comedy memes and metas and all of this stuff just enhances my enjoyment of it overall. And it's an ecosystem that despite critics' attempts to dismiss it since 2015, continues to thrive.

I challenge those skeptics to look at some of the novel-length Reylo work on Ao3, the detailed sketches and concept art, the hours of thoughtful podcasting and REVIEWS OF FANFIC and say this community's not worthy of credit or attention. Even if you don't like Reylo, there's a discussion worth having about why people want to engage with it on a deep level and the transformative work that's come out of it.

We are doing this for free. Out of enjoyment and fun and discovering meaning. The level of artistry and engagement in this fandom is really astounding in that way.

I wish people would talk more about *that* side of the Reylo fandom rather than dismissing it as 'fluffy romance 50 shades in space y'all are rabid crazy' or whatever.

TLDR the question of whether Rey and Kylo have/had toxic and abusive dynamics is an interesting one to ask and we need to continue having the discussion, because from my POV it wasn't 100% clear cut from TFA, and it evolved in TLJ and in TRoS. BUT it should be situated in the context of the broader fandom and the range of views within it, + the many other interpretations of the Reylo relationship through fic and art, which The Atlantic's article missed. 

Are you still writing any Star Wars fanfic? Tell us about it! (Don't forget your Ao3 handle!)

I'm late to the game but am interested in writing SW fanfic as a way of exploring my own capacity to write and create, so yes! Did my first drabble in mid December and have a few ideas cooking, the first which looks like a two-chapter modern AU oneshot. Watch this space…

Thanks to rlogarbagech1!

“a bitter draught” impressions

{Quick request to anyone reading: I’m watching OUaT for the first time, and I want to avoid spoilers. So, if you want to discuss something spoilery, I’d be grateful if you could start a new post for that. Thank you!}

Dear OUaT,

you can’t keep doing this. Seriously, I’m already busy trying to get one horribly camp musical score out of my head, you can’t just go and add another one.

::”Hell To Your Doorstep” plays in the distance::

Though I call shenanigans on Edmond’s age. This babyface is NOT old enough to have been of an age to take over a captain’s position before being arrested and spending fourteen years in jail.

…yes, I have very specific niche problems. It happens. Anyway, short version of this one: fantastic character episode that was not-quite buried under somewhat mediocre pacing. More under the cut.

So, to elaborate on that unkind statement: I liked the episode. A lot. What I didn’t like was the pacing of the first 20 minutes or so before the dock scene, which had me drifting off more than once, even though I enjoyed what was actually on screen.

For example, I did like the fact that Emma got some “sequel” scenes to process what happened last episode, but either they were too long or they were in the wrong place or whathaveyou, but for whatever reason, they made the plot screech to a sudden stop every. Damn. Time. And I’m all for depicting these characters as actually getting professional help with their issues, but the framing isn’t really working for me and slid right over into navel-gazing. Good idea, OUaT, but try again.

“this is my anxious face. it’s currently doing triple duty as my excited face and my angry face, as well.”

I’m also not super in love with the whole “I’m worried Regina is under that hood” twist, because 1) really, Emma? At this point? And 2) it seems a little trite.

Oh, and one more very important question:

What in the name of sanity are you wearing, woman?

Anyway, on to the good stuff, which was pretty much entirely going on at wherever Regina was. This episode delivered on some of the more obvious promises of this arc, and it did so excellently.

For one, this episode very clearly externalised Regina’s usually internal conflict and it also comes with a bonus villain who’s actually competent and knows how to get under the protagonist’s skin.

It also touched on a topic that I personally was hoping for, specifically the idea that Good/Evil (or Light/Dark, as it may be) aren’t just fixed passive qualities a person has, but rather the result of their decisions and actions. The show goes a bit back and forth on this (looking at you, Judgey Season Four Tree), but I definitely like this approach a whole lot more and it’s nice to see that we seem to be going that route for this particular arc.

This episode also establishes clearly that, yes, the Evil Queen is still very much out for revenge on Snow, which puts Regina’s actions in the show since around season 2 in an interesting light. Obviously, you don’t just “get over” a decade-long grudge, but that’s not what this is. The Queen isn’t just angry with Snow, she still wants her dead. Which means that part of Regina wanted her dead all this time. Again, it has been implied, but seeing it out in the open like this gives a new dynamic to this internal conflict.

Oh, and just so I don’t forget it: Lana Parilla was fantastic in this episode. Are you kidding me? Sure, on this show, most people play more than one “version” of their character, and often within the same episode, but I could actually see differences between “Evil Queen Regina” and “Evil-Queen-without-Regina” and I’m sure if I went back to the end of s5 and compared “Regina-without-the-Queen” with “regular Regina”, I’d find differences there, too. Just… wow. Good work. Kind of makes me wish these people got to interact with their “old/other selves” more often. (Rumple/Imp-faceoff is what I’m saying here, mostly. I want one.)

All of this also makes me really curious about how they will resolve this. I’m still hoping for the Star Trek theory of split personalities, myself, but that brings other problems with it. Whatever happened before, the Queen is now out there, making choices and forming memories of her own. She’s a fully realised person, albeit a pretty evil one. Would recombining with Regina “kill” that person? Am I jumping to conclusions by assuming that Regina’s “good” half would even be the dominant one? …yeah, I know, watch to find out what happens and all that.

I did like the backstory reveal about the Land of Untold Stories. I’m definitely excited and at least a little morbidly curious to see who else is going to get screwed over when their story plays out, now. (I mean, I’ve read the Musketeer sequels and I wouldn’t want to live through those, either…)

good for you, my friends

I feel like Edmond’s story was a little under-utilised, but I admit, I wasn’t expecting that much more. I suppose I’ve gotten used to the “ooh, shiny” effect.

::looks at Rumbelle plot::

::long sigh::

This is stupid. And I really hope for Belle’s sake that she’s one of the few women who don’t suffer from pregnancy-induced morning sickness.

Also, that was definitely one of the more mealy-mouthed apologies on this show. I get that it was a case of “better late than never”, but the framing was so lacklustre and forgiveness so easy (yeah, he’s changed… sure he has.) that maybe “never” actually would have been the better option here. (I’m also less than happy how this was put into direct contrast to Belle’s current troubles with Rumple, because that didn’t seem relevant at the time, but I will admit that I’m just not objective on that topic.)

::even longer sigh::

Though I did get one hilarious screenshot from this:

context? what context?

Only 9 episodes to go…

And while we’re on the topic of “this is stupid”:

There’s… uh, a Thing that gets introduced this episode, and while “retroactive continuity” is basically at the heart of this show’s mode of storytelling, and it’s often a good thing, I’m calling shenanigans on the Regina/Rumple thing. That’s not filling an unexplored space in the backstory, and it actively contradicts how they were treating each other up until this point.

I mean, I’m guess I’m stuck with it for the time being, but it’s weird and I don’t like it. In fact, I think I’ll just… ignore it really intensely until it either a) becomes relevant to the plot, b) goes away by itself, or c) both.

…ahem. Anyway. Very good episode. Could still have used another revision on the pacing.

So, I’m doing a module on Kubrick, and I’m bringing you along for the ride

Context; I’m required to upload weekly blogs about the lectures and screenings and readings from the week. This is that.

Okay, so first is the lecture; one of the first things Nathan said is that Kubrick is that he has a film in every genre other than a western - we were not given a reason why; I guess he just hates them.

After my first introduction to Kubrick, I didn’t really know what to think about him - he seems a little high maintenance because he was very nit-picky about something changing on his set, whether that was a slight difference in the lighting or a prop had shifted. It should come as a surprise to no-one that Kubrick was an avid photographer as a young man because the skills he learnt whilst as a photographer at Look Magazine have bled through into his film-making. I also enjoy photography, so I connected with him at least on a very surface level. His other hobbies, like chess and other physical sports, also can be seen manifesting themselves through his work - some good, brief examples are his three short docu-style films. Day of the Fight illustrates his passion for sport and shows how he experimented with his photography at the same time; a good example of this is what I am calling the ‘under-the-fight’ shot, where the boxers are shot from underneath - we can see both of their faces and where the blows are hitting, and it gives the audience a glimpse into what it might have been like to see the fight live. Perhaps his strength and talent in photography lead people to see him as a “New York Intellectual” - part of me thinks that the deep and entwining themes came along after his experience as a photographer.

As most filmmakers do, Kubrick responded to the debates and ideas of his time, and made films within the context of those issues (more on this later). He seemed a little stuck up, especially when considering that he did not compromise his stylistic or intellectual integrity; some might say that that is noble of him, that he remains true to himself and the standards he upholds, but try thinking about it from the other crew’s point of view - he might have turned down their ideas because they did not align with his. This is, of course, speculation and I have no evidence to prove either way. Also, I’ve been informed that he had to check everything himself and didn’t trust other people to make his imagination come to life, which seems controlling to me - for example, he would often insist on holding the camera himself in order to effectively portray a point of view or something. I think if he could direct, hold the camera, do all the edits, record the sound, and act all the characters, he would. It would appear that he wanted everything to be just how he wanted it - but maybe that’s my pessimistic mindset coming through.

Let’s talk about the first three shorts Kubrick was commissioned to do. The first was called “Day of the Fight” in 1951 and is a documentary about Walter Cartier, an Irish middleweight boxer preparing for a fight. The narration, paired with the footage shot by Kubrick himself, informs the audience of how a semi-professional boxer prepares for a fight. Through this short piece, we can see Kubricks interests creep in - his enjoyment of sport and passion for chess is represented by the boxing itself, but also his love for animals can be seen through his inclusion of Cartier's dog. It is in this piece that the first ‘under-the-fight’ shot is used, emphasising his love for interesting shot and photography. His next short is called “The Flying Padre” (also 1951) and is another docu-piece about the priest Father Fred Stadtmuller who used his plane to spread the word of God and reach as many people as possible. He is portrayed as a lawful good hero, a Superman type. This is the shortest of the three, and there isn’t much more to say about it. The final short Kubrick released was made in 1953 called “The Seafarers”, and contained information about the perks that these navy-esque men receive for their service. It sheds an innocently positive light on the domestic aspects of their work and the options available for them (although they do say the word ‘seafarers’ far too much). It looks like some of the short were staged, especially as Kubrick probably would have had only one camera, but that is a common method to use when creating docu-style pieces. One question I did have though, nothing to do with Kubrick though, is how are the families of the seafarers perceived? Are they judged or pitied for not having a man around (because it was the 50′s, ya know)?

I’ll briefly (or not) discuss the other two feature-length films that Kubrick released about the same time. In 1955 he released “The Killers Kiss” whose story revolved around an ex-boxer and a dancer who fell in love and wanted to run away together to escape her creepy boss. As is the case with all of Kubrick’s films so far, this one started with some internal monologuing. The first 15 minutes or so heavily mirror “Day of the Fight”, from the vanity inspection beforehand to the ‘under-the-fight’ shot, which makes sense - Kubrick was only in his 20s when both of these films were released and his experience (like most of ours) was limited at the time (also we all draw inspiration from previous work/real life or whatever). Other than the glaring social issues (gotta love the 50′s) and peculiar plot holes, I felt that the music offset the desired atmosphere during scenes that were meant to be particularly tense - we learned that Kubrick enjoyed his music, jazz, in particular, so I find it strange that he would not try to better match the music with the intensity of the scene; perhaps it was that he did not have much music to work with. Kubrick uses a lot of noir features in this film e.g. harsh shadows, casting light through slatted blinds, utilising the aesthetic of smoking and fedora hats standing at street corners and at the ends of dark alleys, which I always enjoy. The second film we were introduced to was “The Killing” from 1956 - according to Nathan, this film inspired Tarantino to use split narrative, and this is one of the worlds first heist films. I don’t have as much to say about this one, both sport and chess can be seen within it illustrating Kubrick’s love for them both, it has a lot of noir tropes, and I think there was a gay couple in it? But I might be reading into it a little too deeply. There was an interesting switch of gender roles between two couples - in one, the man was dominant and overbearing, but in the other couple it was the woman who essentially bullied her partner, which was potentially quite progressive when considering the time in which it was released.

Here’s a brief (actually, this time) intro to the film I want to focus on - “Fear and Desire” was the first Kubrick film I watched, I had no expectations or thoughts about it beforehand and didn’t really know what to make notes on. After doing some reading, certain things became clearer, so I’ll pair the reading with some of my notes on the film itself.

In the introduction of the reading, James Enyeart talks a lot about the implications and developments of photography in the mid 19th century - these are some of the attributes he gives it;

- highly graphic and structures

- photographers had a keener eye

- composition gave structure and harmony

- gave a more aesthetically pleasing view of the world

- the more graphic an image and the more dramatic it’s presentation, the stronger the emotion

I agree with these conclusions - obviously, technology has advances since then, but these comments still ring true today. Additionally, Enyeart discusses photos in relation to the context they provide, and I have a theory; if a collection of photos can give more context than a single image, therefore a film (which is a series of photos shown in quick succession) can give the maximum amount of context? Alternatively, it could have the opportunity to convey multiple contexts, which could be considered themes?

Word of the day; Apotheosis – a perfect form or example of something, the highest or best part of something, elevation to a divine status.

I also agree with Enyeart’s comment suggesting that the overlap of cinematic photography, fiction, reality, and documentary style is the apotheosis of film.

Cherchi Usai’s chapter on Kubrick and “Fear and Desire” is more tailored to discussing the film – also I didn’t read any of the other chapters because I didn’t have time and that shit is long.

One of the biggest things discussed is how Kubrick hated the film in question (and I have to partially agree – it’s not great), but what is interesting is that no one can seem to agree whether it is a masterpiece or not. After the film was made and ready to be distributed, Kubrick was in love with it, as any young creative is with their most recent work. It is said he called “it’s structure; allegorical. It’s conception; poetic.” However, soon after its public release, critics called it “amateur” and said nothing more. However, after the initial hype, Kubrick ignored the fact that it ever existed, and it was after that that critics and fanatics thought the work to be more than it’s original worth. To me, it feels like a stranger wandered into Kubrick’s childhood bedroom and riffled through his GCSE artwork to find something for a museum – I do not understand why “Fear and Desire” is obsessed over.

It was at this point that I debated whether I wanted or even cared about the origins of the film, but my degree told me yes.

Also, keeping a camera in a paper bag is terrible camera care and hurts my physically.

One of the main points that were discussed was the theme of obsession – Kubrick had obsessions in his life, and he made films surrounding obsessions of different themes; death, lust, war, money, fear (also narration and film noir for Kubrick himself). In the film “Fear and Desire”, those obsessions are made manifest through Mac’s conversation with Corby about the Governor – he is obsessed with killing the enemy and winning the war, so much so that he died for his cause.

The final point to discuss is the double use of the actors – the actor for Corby also plays the Governor, which adds an air of humanity. Additionally, the narration played over their images is existential and inward-looking, therefore humanising both sides of the war.

MED 1444 Animation   Research into Pixilation

PES’s YouTube Channel 

Intro

Pixilation is a form of animation using humans. It works in the same vain as stop motion except you use real people as the puppets. It is often used alongside traditional stop motion to create scenarios and affects that couldn’t be done through live action without special effects. Some Pixilation films combi+ne the animation with live action while others are made entirely out of individual shots. In this assignment we will be creating a pixilation short film using techniques such as; timing, pace and control and utilising at least two to three of the Twelve Principles of Animation. We will also portray a narrative to do with ‘A Bad Habit’.

Pixilation Techniques

Because Pixilation is a branch of stop motion, they share a lot of methods, although there are some techniques that are used a lot within Pixilation, these include: Flying, which is done by getting your actor to jump around in slightly different places and taking pictures of them while in the air; Sliding on any surface by taking shots of the actor in the same position but moved along slightly each time; Taking photos of the actor in one place then taking pictures without them before taking more with them some place ells in the same shot can make them appear to teleport and making duplicates of parts of your actor to use when you can’t fit the entire actor in a small place but want to get the illusion that you can. Or when you only need a part of them to be seen somewhere but can’t get the entire person there just for the shot. These are just examples of what you can do with pixilation, like stop motion if you can imagine it there’s always a creative solution to give the illusion of it happening.

Animation basics: Homemade special effects - TED-Ed

Pros and Cons

One thing I find fascinating about pixilation is the affect you can get with the uncanny valley. Using real life people and getting them to move in strange unnatural ways can be disconcerting. For example, in the beginning of The Secret Adventures of Tom Thumb when the wife is in labour the expecting parents have shaky jolty movements from the pictures being put together. Some of their actions can also seem unexpectedly sharp and fast. This gives the viewer a feeling of discomfort even when nothing strange is directly happening in the scene. This affect when intentional or not can give a film a surreal atmosphere that would leave an impression on the audience.                      Another pro for pixilation is it’s use in live action and how it can be an easy and officiant way to add affects. Because it’s all done through practical affects you won’t need to do much editing after footage, depending on the film you mostly only need to edit together the pictures.                                                    Something I noticed works well in pixilation is how it can be used with traditional stop motion to create a divide between words and characters. A good example of this can be found in the advert “Change 4 Life”. In the advert they use a combination of pixilation, clay stop motion and 2D animation to create a divide between the mum’s word and her children’s. It also means they can use a human actor to remain relatable to the viewer while at the same time using more exaggerated movement and a stylistic approach to make it more interesting for the viewer there for making it a more memorable advert.  

Change4Life: Smart Restart TV ad

There are some draw backs to pixilation however, for example it’s a lot more limited then other forms of animations. This is because you are working from the human frame instead of from scratch meaning you won’t have as many creative liberties as if you where doing a more traditional form of stop motion.              You are also restricted to working on a larger scale, (unless you are planning on using green screen). Meaning you’ll have to source props and backgrounds in full scale, there for taking up more space and material.                                      Not only this but because your using a real living person they can be more difficult to work with, rather than an inanimate puppet. This is because it’s much harder for them to have to stay in the same position for as long as you need them to be and can be lot more unpredictable.

Exploring

For as long as there have been films people have used pixilation to add in affects. You may have noticed it in a lot of early films before digital affects became fully developed. It’s still used a lot this day, but despite its frequent use it only really made a name for itself in the 1950s with the help of the director Norman McLaren. One of his shorts made in 1952 titled Neighbours was a satirical short about two neighbours fighting over a flower outside their house. They use pixilation techniques to create varying levels of tension cutting frames to make the movement faster and more violent compared to the more peaceful scenes in the beginning. They also use goofy sound effects and music that was used a lot in cartoon shorts at the time to give it a silly light-hearted tone that then clashed with the darker themes as the animation that made the message of “love your neighbour” at the end more powerful because the conflict of tone was so memorable.  

Norman McLaren - Neighbours

PES is an animation studio that uses pixalation to create creative and comedic sketches and posts them online. My favourite videos by them are the cooking videos where they’ll use all kinds of inedible objects to re-create recipes. Although both PES’s and Norman McLaren’s use the same method of animation their videos both capture drastically different styles. For example the comedy in Neighbours comes from the surreal goofiness of the characters and their surrounding with it’s use of exaggerated movements and it’s use of cartoonish sound affects. While PES use a more visual language-based humour, a great example being when they dice up the rounders ball and with each cut it turns into actual dice.                                                                                      Neighbours has a very fast paste in your face style, with fast paste frames and exaggerated comedy while Fresh Guacamole keeps a slower calmer pace keeping its humour contained into visual gags and the surrealness of everyday objects corresponding with the sounds of cooking. But in my opinion the main difference between the two of them is the way they present themselves. The animation Neighbours gives out the feeling that it knows it’s strange and follows through with that until the end, whilst Fresh Guacamole with it’s simple concept and realistic sound affects has the sense of bizarre normality. It gives of the impression that nothings abnormal at all and this is just how your supposed to cook.

Fresh Guacamole by PES | Oscar Nominated Short

Submarine Sandwich by PES

Girlhouse (2014)

Directed by Trevor Matthews

Written by Nick Gordon

Music by Tomandandy

Country: Canada

Language: English

Running Time: 100 minutes

CAST

Ali Cobrin as Kylie Atkins

Adam DiMarco as Ben Stanley

Slaine as LoverBoy

James Thomas as Gary Preston

Chasty Ballesteros as Janet

Alice Hunter as Kat

Alyson Bath as Devon

Elysia Rotaru as Heather

Nicole Fox as Mia

Zuleyka Silver as Anna

Erin Agostino as Liz

Wesley MacInnes as Alex

Camren Bicondova as Girl #1

Isaac Faulkner as Young LoverBoy

Girlhouse’s misleading ad image on my streaming content provider (NB: not the poster above) shows some shabby backwoods cathouse about to be laid waste by a maniac who probably smells of unwashed socks, but Girlhouse the movie is in fact a far more polished and modern product. I was hoping for some kind of Tobe Hooper-esque grim lunacy instead I was treated to the most entertaining sociology essay I’ve ever encountered, mostly because sociology essays generally don’t take the form of a movie in which a boiler suited maniac kills his way through a house full of women.

Unlike most slasher flicks what Girlhouse wants to explore is not just the malleability of the human body when exposed to repeated blunt force trauma or the rapid and persistent insertion of sharp objects (although it gleefully explores all that too) but also the possible links between pornography and violence; which was a sticky subject before the Internet sashayed nonchalantly into existence and is now an intellectual tar baby only the hardiest of souls can extricate themselves from with any dignity. So it’s a bold, bold move indeed to make a slasher movie not just about slasher movies (that’s old hat; Scream, Hatchet etc.) but about what slasher movies are about: sex and violence; or more precisely in this particular case the punishing (violence) of moral transgression (pornography).

Does the punishment fit the crime or is the punishment actually the crime, or, wait, is the crime punishment enough, no, maybe the crime creates the punishment? Difficult questions all and if Girlhouse doesn’t answer any of them (unless Girlhouse is itself the answer; maaaybe so) it does at least raise them, which is more than Stab Mask XIII ever will. Crucially for an audience far more likely to be interested in wet work than the soft sciences, Girlhouse is an entertainingly nasty slasher movie in and of itself. Fret not, gorehounds, Girlhouse successfully secretes its brain throbbing questions organically within the slasher movie framework; the framework of a very good, very grisly slasher movie actually. Essentially Girlhouse somehow finds a way to be intelligent while also including an eye watering death by dildo and Clingfilm.

Like all good sociology essays Girlhouse starts with a quote it will address in the main body of what follows. Unlike most sociology essays it’s a quote from Ted Bundy; Ted thinks there’s a link between pornography and violence and Ted, the inference is, should know. Of course, Ted wasn’t the full shilling, so it’s up to the rest of the movie to back up its case. Ali Cobrin plays Kylie Atkins, a wholesomely attractive, intelligent student whose father has recently died leaving the university tuition fees out of her mother’s reach. She hesitantly accepts the lucrative offer from super suave porntropeneur Gary Preston (a well-groomed James Thomas) to become a resident of “Girlhouse”, an on-line real-time upmarket porn site. It’s a high-tech, classy cathouse with web cams in every room, on-line chat rooms and private shows, all basically utilising more technology than took us to the moon so that someone can whack one off. The subscribers to “Girlhouse” run the basic onanistic male range from white collar office man to Chinese laundry owner to furtive teen. Thus far the set-up conforms to the “no one is getting hurt” argument, even Kylie accepts of her own free will, and it’s all in a good cause; paying to educate the head on her commodified bod. Kylie and the girls are being exploited of course, but it’s such a civilised sort of exploitation, why, it seems almost churlish to object.

It is of course still exploitation, the grotty reality overlaid with a load of glibly seductive shuck and jive. Seductive enough to attract a paying audience which, alas, includes “Loverboy” (musician Slaine; very good); this being his login name rather than evidence of a cruelly ironic parental exercise in naming. While Loverboy remains content to watch his worst impulses are kept in check, but unfortunately Loverboy has some pretty bad worst impulses. The worst in fact, as we see at the start of the movie and also in a powerful interlude at Loverboy’s work which addresses the “asking for it” bullshit head on. Even if a woman is flashing her knick-knacks, your reaction is your responsibility; sorry, guys, but no one said being civilised was easy. Tough titty. The only time a woman is “asking for it” is when she is asking for it. Like the ladies in “Girlhouse”? No. Because “Girlhouse” (the site) is a fantasy. The women are being paid to “ask for it”. Which is fine, fantasy has its place; well, it’s fine as long as no one mistakes fantasy for reality. Unfortunately Loverboy makes this mistake. Ironically it’s Kylie’s sincerity which tips him over the edge. Unused to actual, genuine interaction Loverboy stops watching and starts interacting. With wholly regrettable results for many of the women.

Of course, once Loverboy enters the fantasy of “Girlhouse” the subscribers are no longer watching “Girlhouse” but they are now watching Girlhouse, along with the viewer. Because, obviously, Girlhouse is another fantasy but a very different one to “Girlhouse”, because killing the girls is Loverboy’s real fantasy. The movie has a lot of dark fun in this latter part as Loverboy stalks the girls using the interactive “Girlhouse” app on his phone, and the users (how apt) watch first in puzzled disbelief and then horrified alarm. Some of them even stop fapping. Reality isn’t what they paid for, after all. Girlhouse the movie adroitly and innovatively uses the surveillance devices of “Girlhouse” to fine effect, ramping up the suspense and punching home the horror as it tears away the veil and reveals harmless voyeurism as just another form of stalking.

Girlhouse, both the site and the movie, is slicker than snot on a doorhandle but not slick enough to hide the horror beneath. The movie starts off with a child murder, not a quick off-screen one either and then works hard to wipe it from your mind with a smooth, extended middle part field with clean, beautiful people expressing only the mildest of concerns about the apparently harmless men’s magazine lifestyle section they inhabit. It’s all good, clean, sexy fun. But all the time, at the back of your mind, scratching away like a inbred relative at an attic door should be that early child murder where someone learned a lot of wrong lessons about sex and violence. And in Girlhouse those lessons get put into practice. How was your schoolin’, bubba?

season 5 in my read through of every who novelisation in television order!

doctor who and the tomb of the cybermen by gerry davis this is probably the best of the davis novelisations i’ve read so far - there just feels like there’s a great attention to detail and prose here. it also does nothing to resolve the very obvious racism of the original. in fact, it has the same ‘describing the character played by a black man as a giant’ and various other things that seem to establish toberman as different/alien to other humans, although he’s now apparently turkish, and at least they don’t have the physical gags about the doctor cowering away from him as he would one of the show’s monsters, anymore. kaftan is also now explicitly arab (she gets described as such), so take that utilisation of the scary foreigners trope how you will. as a result, i can’t really recommend this wholeheartedly, but i will tell you some things i liked. there’s lines like ‘the archaeologists had momentarily forgotten the dead man. it interfered with their work’, the doctor speaking ‘in that bright irritating voice that adults use to settle children’s quarrels’ which i love. we get some nice referrals back to jamie and victoria’s cultural contexts, including victoria thinking about her father. there are bass-reliefs of various invasions in the tomb, and the tenth planet cybermen are apparently a particular dynasty, which i thought was interesting. we learn that the professor knew one of the men who died as a ‘promising young student’ which is a nice touch of poignancy, and there’s a sombreness to the ending that feels like More than on screen. victoria ‘had been very struck by kaftan’s great beauty and self-assurance’ which i’m going to wilfully interpret as supporting my lesbian victoria agenda. on the other hand, i do think some of the attempts to look into klieg’s head and give him doubts feel at odds with the ‘ranting madman’ characterisation, which weakened them for me. general changes: we get a very different opening scene, cybermen are THREE METRES TALL (i doubt that’s conveyed on screen), the doctor looks up the cybermat in his alphabetically arranged diary (who journals like that??), this book takes place in an alternate reality where victoria has fair and jamie red hair.

doctor who and the abominable snowmen by terrance dicks after having Too Much to say about the last one i think i might end up saying Too Little about this one. the number of novelisations i’ve read has given me some appreciation for ones which aren’t particularly special or different from the source but remain competent and engaging, and that’s a category this falls into. as per a lot of these novelisations there’s a bit more violence than usual (the captured yeti’s escape involves blood and explicit deaths); dicks adjusts a few of the special effects (robotic yeti have teeth and snouts, whereas the real yeti looks materially different from them); some parts are cut or altered (jamie doesn’t refuse to change into warmer clothing but does consider scottish mountains superior, the doctor now actively courts his idea about the yeti rather than running away from him when he says he has one); we get some insights into what characters are thinking and how they feel about each other. i hate the ‘it was in the nature of females to be contrary’ line - i know jamie’s from the 18th century but what with the war games too i can’t help but feel dicks likes giving him sexist lines. the narration refers to tibetan food as ‘strange’ and jamie and victoria are wary of it, which i’m aware might tow too close to ‘haha weird asian food’ comments for some people’s comfort. the food machine’s back, and doesn’t just produce weird blocks this time but actual food! the jewel in the lotus prayer (also seen in planet of the spiders, btw) is not something i recall from the original, but equally could be there and i’ve just forgotten - either way i’m glad dr who has an example of it where it’s not being used by villains, but is rather a source of beauty and a way to hold off mind control from the great intelligence. 

doctor who and the ice warriors by brian hayles again, fairly straightforward stuff. some things are curtailed (not so many ‘tardis landing’ shenanigans, penley’s journey with jamie isn’t detailed), some things are expanded on (for instance, we learn about scavenger shanty towns and garrett and penley were apparently good friends before he left, the frequency the doctor attacks the ice warriors with is apparently used in martian prisons), some things are changed (dr no longer refers to himself as a genius - i think that’s this one? - instead of the conversation about the women’s short skirts jamie and victoria mess about with a high-tech massage chair). i appreciated the ‘oh no, not africa!’ thing is qualified as ‘we’ll be away from the tardis’ but the line does mistakenly refer to the ‘country’. clent’s walking stick not being mentioned is frustrating because it’s erasing a televised instance of disability; victoria being described as ‘doll-like’ is weird and there’s one passing female character who’s just referred to as ‘an attractive girl’, which i found annoying, but other than that the book’s fine on that front. the doctor sometimes sounds more like jon pertwee when hayles throws a few ‘old chap’s in there. heads up for a bit more violence than on screen, including a brief description of how badly storr’s arm is actually injured. overall, if you read this one go ahead. it’s a good novel, but like a lot of those written in the seventies it’s mainly there to provide an alternative to an audience who couldn’t re-view a story, rather than to expand what we saw on screen.

doctor who and the enemy of the world by ian marter i feel really mean for this because there’s nothing technically wrong with this novelisation, and ian marter’s a good writer, but now that the aired story actually exists out there in the world i don’t think this is actually...worth it? unless you’re really desperate to learn the full names of several supporting characters. most of the changes are stuff that’s cut to fit in to a <130 page novelisation - so the beach scenes are shorter, for instance, the chef has fewer scenes, the scene on the helicopter is shorter, and (most tragically for me) victoria no longer tries to elbow slam ‘salamander’. on the other hand (and i may be wrong here, i’ve thought stuff is additional material that’s turned out to be on tv before) i don’t remember her THROWING A SOUP TUREEN AT THE GUARDS SO HARD THAT IT KNOCKS ONE OF THEM UNCONSCIOUS. moving on to other topics: astrid’s dad was killed by salamander, we’re told that the central european zone authority hq used to be tisza palace, i’m like 90% sure that jamie represents victoria as his girlfriend to salamander on tv whereas here he says ‘a friend of mine’ instead, it apparently takes place around new years’ because there’s celebrations that leave the building where they meet fariah mostly empty, the cliffhanger stuff is resolved before it actually BECOMES a cliffhanger but marter gets some nice slightly surreal stuff about the effect of the time vortex on humans with the tardis doors open. as per with these novelisations, it’s more violent than on tv (my notes inform me that kent might have caught on fire?); not as per, benik calls someone a bastard! i’m sure that caused some pearl clutching in 1981. as a last note, this is at least the second novelisation that establishes victoria as wearing victorian clothes at the start, something that she literally does not do on tv after her very first moments in the tardis. what’s going on dudes!

doctor who and the web of fear by terrance dicks fun fact if you at all care about me or my life, this was the first dr who book i ever read and my first exposure to this particular serial (and maybe classic who as a whole? i’m not 100% sure, it’s been over a decade). anyway, bogstandard dicks stuff, we get some nice insights into characters, how they think and how they think about others (for example, jamie grouping trains and spaceships in the same category). given that this is related to a previous story, we also have moments where he recaps the plot of the abominable snowmen for us. mr silverstein has his name changed to mr julius, presumably to avoid any intimations of antisemitism which is definitely a net positive; in what i’m assuming is an attempt at a similar vein the not-yet-brigadier thinks to himself that ‘the welsh usually make such splendid soldiers’, but i don’t think that works quite so well as an apology for evans. i do like the comments about him finding reserves of courage at two points, though, because it gives him a little more depth, even if he is still the worst part of this story. however, he does still get described as reacting to the sphere ‘like a girl frightened by a mouse’ which i hate, and which brings me onto a few moments that read as sexist to me: anne is part of a long line of who women that the novelisation writers see fit to introduce as ‘an attractive young woman’ rather than actually describing her as an individual , and i strongly dislike the alteration of the line from ‘i wanted to become a scientist’ to ‘i wanted to become a scientist like my father’, it feels like she’s no longer allowed to be intelligent on her own terms as opposed to relating to a man. on the note of travers, it’s explained that he became an expert in electronics in his attempt to study the spheres, which is why he’s now well-renowned; he also came under suspicion for mr julius’s murder but anne provided an alibi and he was so obviously horrified that the police left him alone. aside from that, the most obvious addition is that colonel lethbridge-stewart and the doctor now meet ‘on screen’, as it were, and there are both comments about their future friendship in the narration and an extra line where the colonel mentions sending a memorandum to the government about an organisation that will sort out things like this in future. less significant but which i definitely picked up on: it predictably skips the enemy of the world cliffhanger, victoria is wearing very different clothing (a jacket and slacks), jamie gets emotionally attached to the yeti he controlled (he thinks it’s brave, aw), the doctor tells evans smoking is bad for him in what i’m 99% sure is a ‘terrance dicks trying to model for the kids’ addition. not so much an addition as something i find hilarious: jamie is described as ‘towering over’ the second doctor, so either terrance dicks thinks frazer hines is taller than he is or patrick troughton is significantly shorter because there’s really not that much of a height difference lol.

fury from the deep by victor pemberton ok stand by i have a lot of thoughts on this one. sorry. first of all the opening’s quite different and i love it, so much so that i almost don’t mind parts of the rest settling down into more standard novelisation form afterwards, because it sets up the atmosphere so well - it’s a minor thing but i also like the attention the writing repeatedly draws to how cold it is (the balcony floor of the harrises apartment has cracked because of it; it snows; victoria’s bundled up in wool) which i think adds to that. in terms of the opening we’ve got some minor differences - the foam fight is reconstituted, the doctor no longer explains the sonic to anyone, etc. BUT the main thing that stands out to me is that the stunning is spaced out so jamie and victoria are initially still conscious, and jamie tells victoria that he thinks the doctor’s dead. thanks buddy, as if she wasn’t having a hard enough time as it is. so now she has a solid amount of time where she thinks she’s all alone in the world and encounters the seaweed for the first time on the beach before going down herself, and like, we all know that victor pemberton is not actually going to kill off all 3 leads in the first chapter of this doctor who novelisation, but i like that he tried to convince us he would. on a lighter note, jamie is now apparently allergic to the seaweed because it makes him sneeze every time it shows up. the weed also ages people it possesses supernaturally. a few minor details reveal stuff about character relationships - and i feel the need to highlight the fact that van lutyens apparently doesn’t speak english with any trace of a dutch accent, just because it feels like a pointed jab at the one we got on tv. also his first name is pieter in case anyone cares. in contrast the chief engineer doesn’t have a name at all because everyone associates him so strongly with his job and the machinery that most of them don’t know his actual name. minor things: we’re allowed to say damn and hell now, so everyone takes advantage of that; jamie is so musically talented that he can snore a highland reel; megan jones is the daughter of a welsh miner; for some reason pemberton decides to suggest that the weed creature might have a soul so do with that what you will, spirituality wise; jamie and victoria explicitly see each other as siblings; there’s some stuff where jamie makes fun of victoria’s scream which i thought was cute (she treads on his foot in response). both ‘fury from the deep’ and the original vetoed title of ‘colony of devils’ get their titles dropped in narration, which i personally thought was neat. now for the stuff i don’t like: robson gets a fridged wife (he was driving the car in the crash that killed her) which was totally unnecessary and just kinda sat there, an uncomfortable point of misogyny ALONG WITH this book’s incredible amount of weirdness about megan jones. DID YOU KNOW ‘being put on the defensive made her look more attractive’, and ‘one could sense that she was a far more vulnerable and attractive woman than she had ever revealed before’. you wouldn’t do that for a male authority figure, stop it. also when they’re arguing harris concedes to her because apparently ‘the woman’ always uses seniority not reason to get her own way (which is kinda not true, she has logical reasons not to bomb the rigs - there are still people there!) which left a bad taste in my mouth as being at least very close to ‘ooh look at this irrational woman who can’t be relied on’. also when we get to the people in the weed, there’s this really weird line about ‘and one of them was a woman’ like ok great...why are we singling her out? describing the useless secretary of jones as ‘effete’ was also not great (i know pemberton was queer but it’s still a narrative of ‘this guy isn’t manly and he’s useless’). finally, in the scene where they’re checking the weed in the harrises apartment, it’s split into two parts: at the end of the first we have something new to the novelisation (victoria mentioning she saw the weed on the beach) but the beginning of the second feels like it was taken straight from tv without adjusting to this change and it feels slightly inconsistent. i have no idea how much this is just me seeing things. i would like to emphasise though that i did mostly enjoy this book, especially since i like victoria a lot and it had some nice insights into her and her relationship with the other two - plus, something that isn’t super common with these novelisations, it has some prose passages that i really loved and will be keeping for my little quotes blog :)

the wheel in space by terrance dicks sometimes i look up these novelisations on tardis wiki, just to check i’m not imagining if something is/isn’t an addition, and, encouragingly, for this one it just says ‘to be added’. great. look, i get that it’s hard to squeeze a 6 part story into 40, 000 words, but this really wasn’t interesting to read, for the most part - it’s another one where large portions are just dialogue, for one thing. i will admit that there are minor things i like - the description of the tardis collapsing, the description of the cyber pods as ‘like soap bubbles from the bubble pipe of a child’ effectively takes the playful and associates it with danger, jamie comparing the wheel to a spinning top, the birth metaphor for the cybermen’s emergence. my standards have been dragged down so much by these novelisations that frankly i’m grateful at least one man’s handsomeness gets commented on, and it’s not just the women who get singled out. also, i know a lot of people like the ‘logic, my dear zoe’ line but it always slightly frustrates me because she is right in this case, so i appreciated that the dr mentally admits that. there’s a neat detail where zoe stares blankly ahead of her when she reels off facts, which makes her seem like she’d been programmed and works well with what we know about the way she interacts with the world in her own time - obviously this might be something i didn’t notice in the original because it’s missing. i could rattle off a bunch of small stuff like this (i find it hilarious that the doctor knows zoe’s in the tardis because he sees her crawling in behind jamie on her hands and knees; i do legitimately think it has a better ‘cliffhanger’ than the tv version by ending with the tardis in flight, rather than just the lead-in to an evil of the daleks rerun) but like...for the most part i don’t find any part of it particularly illuminating to the original, unless you count ‘illuminating how much of the back end is just people standing around in rooms’ without the charisma of actors performing the lines. it’s not bad, but for the most part it was just there  - gemma’s death especially was something i thought could’ve been done far better in prose. what we have is almost completely tensionless, cutting from her overhearing the cybermen’s plans to her calling the others immediately, without showing any uncertainty or even foreknowledge that she’ll be killed (her knowing this is only mentioned after she dies). it just doesn’t work for me on any level. uh, aside from that...jamie is shirtless for his medical examination? if you like that kind of thing, i don’t know. also, at the end jamie thinks while looking at zoe that it’s already getting harder to remember victoria’s face. not particularly notable, i just found it a bit rude.

#863: ‘The Last Seduction’, dir. John Dahl, 1994.

Well, the mid-90s were certainly a weird time for filmmaking. This film is one of the temporary resurgence of the neo-noir in American filmmaking, when the rigid gender policing was less enforced and filmmakers were more interested in dissecting the role of the femme fatale. Most of these films have fallen out of popular favour because, for them, ‘dissecting the role of the femme fatale’ meant ‘make a sexy woman who the male audience will find attractive because she can crush your gonads with a cold gaze, but it’s okay! She’s fictional’. These films have not really grappled with the female character on a deep level, is what I’m saying. Sadly, despite some whip-cracking dialogue, The Last Seduction is no exception. I was willing to go along with its absurdity, but the film decided to take a hard turn into the weeds at the end and I just refused to follow it.

The Last Seduction had a lot going for it: Linda Fiorentino as the femme fatale, Bridget Gregory/Wendy Kroy; Bill Pullman as her devious husband, shrugging off his usual role as the dependable father/President; Peter Berg as the well-meaning schlub who quickly becomes Bridget’s target. All these actors have great agility within their roles, and in the case of Fiorentino, if she hadn’t been immediately typecast as the ‘sexpot’ (to quote most synopses of this film) she would have been pretty effective in most comedy hybrids throughout the decade. She could more or less have taken the same career trajectory as Anjelica Huston.

These three are working in the confines of a plot that beggars belief, though. Bridget steals the money from her husband’s heist, and moves to a small town where she immediately grabs hold of Mike (Berg), quite literally, and tries to sway him to kill her husband. In doing so, we learn a few things about Bridget: she’s cunning, she’s amoral, and she has a neat party trick in that she can write legibly, both upside-down and backwards. This last fact is repeated so often in this film that it is the only reason that the plot actually lifts off: Clay (Pullman) discovers Bridget’s alias as a result of this.

Before I go further into detail here, it’s worth raising the concept of limited diegesis, which is a quick way of saying that the only things that seem to exist in this film’s world are those that are shown on screen. It’s something that usually escapes audience attention until later, and it’s a pretty common source of fridge logic. The Last Seduction suffers from a terminal case of it. So, Bridget takes the alias ‘Wendy Kroy’. She comes up with this so readily that it’s clear to the viewer that she’s considered it before, but it’s clearly not something Clay knows about, as he doesn’t immediately search for his larcenous wife under this name. It’s only when he sees a ‘New York’ poster reflected in the bathroom mirror that he remembers Bridget’s party trick and realises: weN kroY. A nice detail to utilise again, right? A nice payoff?

Okay, hold on. Clay sees this poster explicitly, as part of a scene in the film. There are no doubt dozens of other reflections he sees in his everyday life, but only this one seems significant to him. Likewise, the letters weN kroY don’t seem to mean much, but Clay immediately fishes the ‘dy’ out of thin air and starts hunting for ‘Wendy’. This works, on the surface, because we already know the name and are just waiting for Clay to catch up. We don’t see the massive leaps of logic required.

Time for a spoiler, which I don’t care about because this film is not great: Bridget kills Clay and Mike goes to prison for it. Once again, limited diegesis comes into effect. There is one thing Mike can think of that might get him off the hook for murder: a label on a mailbox. Cut to Bridget retrieving and burning the label. There must be dozens of details that implicate Bridget, or at least indicate that she’s stolen nearly a million dollars. Because the film only shows us one, and because Mike can only think of one, that’s all that is assumed to exist.

This needn’t be fatal, but The Last Seduction does this again and again, and the dialogue is not good enough to distract from it. There are good moments: a local is hired by Clay to watch Bridget’s new house, and Bridget immediately offers him cookies while laying tyre spikes behind his car. A few moments aren’t enough to make this compelling. And then there’s the big twist.

Somehow, Bridget had found out that Mike’s short-lived Vegas marriage was to a trans woman. The way the film plays out suggests that Bridget knew this on her first meeting with Mike, but the film doesn’t establish how she knows this. This reveal is played to awful transphobic effect, as it somehow drives Mike to buy fully into what he sees as Bridget’s rape and murder ‘fantasy’ (which is just a ruse to get Mike to ‘confess’ to the murder, because of course it is). Quite how this triggers Mike into behaviour he’s previously steered well clear of is also never explained. In any event, it’s an awful, meaningless reveal, there only because a neo-noir should have plot twists. It makes no sense. It’s offensive. It left a bitter taste in my mouth.

In an interview with Vulture, Peter Berg suggested (as well as outright saying that Fiorentino was a real-life awesome sexpot) that nobody on the set told him that the actress playing his Vegas wife was a trans woman, which in itself feels symptomatic of a bigger issue. It’s as though they couldn’t make a compelling female character without finding another minority to play for cheap shock. Berg seems like a decent guy about it all, and the interview reads like he wants to play into the reader’s fantasy without offending his co-stars or his sensibilities, but it’s still kind of gross.

Oh man, The Last Seduction. I wanted to like this film. I like neo-noir as a concept. But I don’t think anyone thought any of this through.

I, just... ugh. Avoid. Avoid avoid avoid.