#People who deny it exists because their knowledge of it is from horror movies and conspiracies | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

villainsandvictimsalliance · 2 years

Note

Dude…. Toumura/AFO is a world threat that can’t be hold down by any prison in the world. Why wouldn’t she try to kill him? I mean, if there was a being so powerful that it can destroy city’s just by touching the ground and there was a good chance it might come to your home, wouldn’t you tried to stop it?

In fact anon, I don't think death is the answer to any of this and I'm really really thankful for this ask! It gives me the opportunity to explain it.

See, I understand why so many defend Star and Stripe's point of view. Tomura is very dangerous, there's not denying it. He has killed a lot, make a lot of people suffer, destroy thousands of lives and homes. And this new being that's a mix of Tomura and AFO is worst.

However, we can't bring this whole situation out of context. Star and Stripe understand very little about the whole AFO/Tomura conflict. Like the manga said, less knowledge can drive a person to make poor decisions, it's normal. She is trying to help, we can't deny that either, but we have seen this a million times in other hero movies. Sending giant missiles and having a giant fight is rarely a satisfying answer. Specially when the narrative is telling you that violence only generates more violence, and that Tomura's pain is only leading the world to its destruction.

What I'm trying to say is that, following the narrative, it's actually a bad move what Star and Stripe is doing out of ignorance. Aaaaaand there are also many problematic aspects of her whole character. But let's see it point by point.

First of all, we need to acknowledge too how exactly Tomura ended up in that situation. Not as an excuse, because there's no excuse for that, but there's also no way of understanding the problem by ignoring what caused it.

All his life violence has been the answer to his questions. The only thing he knows is violence, people trying to deny his existence, people ignoring him, looking the other way because it's not their problem, stuff like that. This is how a neglected and abused child became a murderer at a short age. After that, AFO nurtured hatred and violence within Tomura with gross and fucked up strategies like making him wear his dead family's hands all over his body.

What I need you to understand is that at this point Tomura can be seen as an ordinary person. He was raised in isolation, like those horror cases of kids being kept in basements. He gave little to none human contact, both because he couldn't touch and because he was exiled from society. There was a mad doctor wanting to experiment on him, his care taker was a half living being created from a dead boy and he had a skin condition that made propel fear him just by his look.

Added to it, he saw his whole family die in a horrible way by his own hands. He felt guilty and was looking for someone to ease his pain, because he only wanted to be happy, to be himself, to be truly loved and defended.

Instead, AFO took him.

There's no character in bnha that understands completely this situation, except for AFO (and he doesn't care). The person that comes closer is Midoriya Izuku, who has also seen similar cases over the years. Of course this happens because he's the main character, but all his education and experience tells him that Tomura is not wrong when he talks about how rotten society is. Deku heard Lady Nagant, he knows about Endeavor, he has seen the discrimination to mutant people and he has lived the discrimination against quirkless people.

I understand the fear of Tomura being too far gone. Trying to save him can end up with the whole planet dead, I know. But we, the readers, know that's not true. Horikoshi is showing us what the characters within can't see, he's expecting us to root for Tomura, to be afraid of him dying, to feel complicated about it. Because we know what only Deku knows, and Deku as the main character wants to save Tomura.

Why? Because that's what the greatest heroes do: what other heroes can't. And in bnha case, it's not a matter of having more strength or quirks or speed, but a matter of who is capable of saving the people who no one else can save.

Why Star and Stripe is not like All Might, even when she wants to be?

It's actually an easy answer. Like Stain told Toshinori, he was not All Might thanks to his quirk and muscles. It was his heart, his complete devotion to save others and bring peace to the world by saving (not killing) people, which made him who he was. Deku is more like him. Even when Bakugou was really mean with him, even when Shouto acted like he didn't care (to give a few examples), he kept trying to help them. Because heroes save people who "doesn't want to be saved", they go beyond the barriers, they try every single method and if they run out of options, they create more.

One perfect example was the situation with Nighteye and Deku. Both Star and Stripe and Nighteye were inspired by All Might, they both were highly respected pro-heroes and they had both good hearts. However, they couldn't catch the essence of All Might like Deku could. Nighteye saw the future of All Might and took it as the only option, what kept him from changing the future. The same way Star and Stripe takes as an absolute that Tomura is too far gone, Nighteye took as an absolute that All Might was going to die. Deku changed that tho. Because he's going to try until the very end.

The other thing you need to take into account is the fact that AFO is possessing Tomura.

Imaging AFO possesses Deku. Wouldn't you like to see his friends trying until the last minute to save him? Well, it's the same right here. We saw All Might always trying until the very end, so it's normal that people consider Deku more heroic than Star and Stripe because he's not giving up on Tomura just yet.

The whole problem here is how to see Tomura.

We know from the narrative that the titles of heroes and villains can be very damaging, because they can deshumanize characters. Take All Might and Nana Shimura for example, who lost themselves in the hero title. Or take Tomura, who is not longer seen as a person or a young man, but a demon king of some sorts.

Ultimately, they are just people. Strong people for sure, but people. They fear, they hate, they love, the celebrate... More important than anything else, they learn. Deku already found out about that. We saw in the War arc how much he regrets not knowing that before, because he could have saved other villains like Gentle Criminal or La Brava if he had seen them as human beings and not mere enemies.

He doesn't want to make the same mistakes all the people around him and before him have made. If he only tries to kill AFO, it could end up just like it ended up for the Vestiges, with AFO surviving and the cycle repeating itself. Instead, if he saves Tomura, that's going to weaken AFO. And since Tomura is so powerful, and because Tomura is the closest human being to AFO, there's a golden opportunity of using all that strength and knowledge against AFO himself. To kill Tomura is a foolish move.

Star and Stripe can't know anything of this because she doesn't know the context, just like I explained before. She's reckless and a little selfish, just like Deku was selfish for leaving UA behind and going by his own against AFO. Both Deku and Star and Stripe could get themselves and many many people killed with those decisions. What if AFO stole New Order? What if AFO took OFA? It's not just their fight, it's the whole world's fight.

They can't afford recklessness.

The difference between the previous fights against AFO and the recent fight is that the OFA user is not alone anymore. The whole world being invested in such fight is a good thing. When you can't rise against a challenge on your own, you ask for help.

I don't totally hate Star and Stripe. I consider she could have been more interesting if presented in other forms. I find personally annoying her whole persona because I find way too heavy the USA symbolism on her. Also I would like to see a N. 1 world woman hero inspired by All Might who was not more of a copy of All Might, nor a living personification of her country. Her quirk is super interesting, but I don't like how it was presented either. But that's personal taste.

Also, one of my other problems with her is that introducing a new super powered character by the end of the story is never a good idea. It feels anticlimactic. So in terms of writing, I don't like hers. Even if Horikoshi is writing her as a parody, I still don't think it was the best decision.

I'm really sorry for the long post. This was original longer lol, but I figure out here you have enough good points to support my discourse. You are free of thinking about Star and Stripe and Tomura as you like, but I hope you understand why the people who likes to see Tomura alive is also valid, and we we can be annoyed by Star and Stripe.

With that said and done, I hope you're having a nice week and please remember to take care of yourself, okay? Thank you so much for your ask!

128 notes · View notes

catharsis-in-a-bottle · 3 years

Text

My thoughts on Chernobyl (2019 HBO series)

I watched the entirety of Chernobyl, and I want to make a disorderly list about it. Okay, here goes:

First of all, holy shit. Holy fucking shit. This is easily the best thing I have ever watched, ever. I will give my reasoning below, I just want to get that out of the way: holy. fucking. shit. I have so many feelings.

Okay, okay. *Deep breath* Let's start off with the actual real-life event itself. Of course I'd heard of the Chernobyl disaster beforehand, but I had never learned about it beyond vague internet articles that I read years ago. This show knocked me away with the horror that holy shit, that actually happened, and it also re-strengthened my already skyrocketing fear of radiation / nuclear disaster / the works. Now I am obsessed with learning more, even with all that I've learned from the show itself.

Next: the acting. The goddamned ACTING!!!!!! There was ZERO cheesiness, and I felt every SECOND of terror and grief and the split-second, occasional relief that characters like Legasov got to feel. To put it simply, the acting felt real and authentic.

And as a side note, I liked that they didn't try to fake Russian accents. They didn't need to, and I am glad they did not, as that definitely would have made it feel cheesy with the use of non-Russian actors for the leads.

Valery Legasov. I want to learn more about Valery Legasov. I feel so sad for Valery Legasov, because he died without witnessing the reform of the RBMK reactors; he died thinking he was alone, discredited, and essentially wiped from existence. I am so profoundly glad that his story got recognized via his audio recordings, and eventually more so by this show. Jared Harris as an actor just blew this out of the fucking ballpark. I especially loved his nonverbal gestures - the constant head-in-the-hands, all the signals of deep stress, and the occasional smiles that signified a small amount of relief.

Because fuck, who would not be terrified out of their goddamned minds at the splitting open of a nuclear reactor? What scared me along with that was the initial denial - "Oh, the reactor isn't open. That's impossible." The signs were there, but so many surrounding people simply denied that it had occurred, until they actually saw what was happening. Even then, the explosion was inexplicable until the knowledge of the graphite-tipped control rods came to light.

Valery and Boris as a duo were fantastic, because truly, they could not have accomplished what they did without the other - Valery worked out the science behind possible solutions to the problem, and Boris used his political authority to actually work through those solutions and get the resources required to work through them.

Ulana and Boris watching Valery on that podium in episode 5, giving that testimony, essentially consigning himself to death - that hit me right in the gut. And even though Valery did not get shot by the KGB, they still ended his life, didn't they? From his perspective, he was no longer an influential scientist; by speaking up, he reduced himself to a nobody.

The fucking.... blue beam in the sky above the reactor??? The radiation ionizing the air????? This entire series is literally more nerve-wracking than any horror movie

Alright, now for the paragraph I've been waiting for: the MUSIC. Oh my fucking god, the music. How can I even describe it? All those wobbly bass notes that sound like a ship rending apart in the ocean... just... they did it right. They did it correctly. What I really loved was that at some points, I couldn't tell what was the music and what was the noise of the action occurring in the show. For instance, in the last episode, there was a sort of humming-buzzing noise in the flashbacks to the control room before the explosion, and I couldn't tell if that was the machinery or the music, or perhaps a blend of both. I looked on Spotify, and my favorite track is definitely the one titled 'Evacuation' - I think it plays in a couple of episodes, perhaps the end of the first / second? And the chord progression at the end there with those bass notes just fucking slamming in. Holy shit. Oh AND the choral composition at the very end of the last episode!!!!!! My brain's reaction to that was literally just exclamation points. !!!!!!!!!! Creepy singing chord progressions!!!!!!

The dogs in episode four - do I really have to explain the feelings of disgust and horror that just slithered within me the entire time

Really, the two scariest things were this: the disaster + radiation itself, and the inability to contradict the state or show any sign of weakness within Soviet Russia. Those were the two main antagonists presented, and though the first one more directly scared the shit out of me, the latter definitely contributed to an overall chill.

I could definitely talk more, but I choose to end here. I just. Holy shit. (I have said that a lot now). I'll say it again. Holy shit. I'm just going to stop talking and write the goddamn tags

#chernobyl #chernobyl hbo #hbo chernobyl #hbo #thoughts #brain dump #review #i suppose #valery legasov #boris shcherbina #ulana khomyuk

178 notes · View notes

surveys-at-your-service · 3 years

Text

Survey #396

“every time i leave, you say you won’t be there, & you’re always there”

So, is it gif with a hard G or soft G? I used to say "jif," but now I pronounce it as "gif." If you use libraries, what is the largest overdue fine you’ve ever had? *shrug* Do you ever borrow things other than books from the library? I remember back in the day, they used to offer educational computer games, and I bought a dinosaur one as a kid that I was madly obsessed with. Are there still any movie rental places left where you live? Just Redbox things outside of some stores. Do you ever buy secondhand books (or DVDs, video games, CDs)? Yeah; Ebay is my friend. Or do you prefer them to be brand new? I mean yeah, but it's not a massive deal to me so long the thing is operational or not falling apart. Do you ever write fanfic? Of what? Nah. Do you ever READ fanfic? Of what? Also nah. Do you have a favorite classical composer? No. Have you ever had multicolored/rainbow hair? No, but I would LOVE to. What kind of hats, if any, do you like to wear? I don't wear hats. What is your #1 deal-breaker with friendships? If you're manipulative, byyyyyeeeee~ Who is your favorite character on Bob’s Burgers and why? (If you watch it) I've seen some episodes, but I don't actually watch it. Have you ever had a retro celebrity crush? Like a crush on an “old” celebrity who was most famous a long time ago or is long dead? Audrey Hepburn, for one, is drop-dead GORGEOUS. When you buy/receive new clothes, do you instantly wear them or wash first? It depends on what I bought and where it's from. What’s the weirdest item you’ve seen for sale on Ebay? Idk. Are parents to blame for what their kids do on the Internet? No; kids make their own choices. I do, however, believe the parents should monitor what they do until they reach a certain degree of maturity, as well as the child's history with what they've done on the Internet. Do you use acronyms to remember things? Sometimes. Do you take pills like Tylenol for the littlest aches and pains? No. Only if I'm really in pain will I take Ibuprofen/Advil. Don’t you think Crocs are ugly? Big time. I don't know why they're in vogue now when they used to be so widely hated. When was the last time you went roller skating? Oh, it's been years. Who was your favorite Ninja Turtle? I was never into the franchise. Horror flicks make you: laugh, scream, or squirm? I prefer the ones that make you uneasy. I'm not a big fan of the nasty ones, and I want to feel on edge when I'm watching a horror film, but it's EXTREMELY rare I become legitimately scared. If you could become a doctor, what would you specialize in? Uhhhh. Maybe genetic disorders. What’s the cutest thing a little kid has ever said to/in front of you? I'm sure it was something my niece or nephew said, but I'm unsure of what. They've said many adorable things. Did any characters from TV shows scare you as a kid? Which one(s)? FUCKING KING RAMSES FROM COURAGE THE COWARDLY DOG. FUCK he gave me nightmares. What’s the saddest thing you’ve heard on the news recently? I was very saddened to hear about the giraffe that died giving birth. Do you believe that acupuncture works? I'm not educated enough on this subject. Have you ever been hypnotized? No, and I don't believe it's possible to be. What’s the first food you can smell when you enter the mall? The soft pretzels, omg. That little stand is my favorite part of our local mall. They make DELICIOUS pretzels. What is the worst hurt you’ve ever experienced? Jason leaving. Are huge muscles gross or sexy? Like serious body builders, it's gross to me. I prefer a natural musculature. Have you ever fished and caught something weird? I know I have, but what isn't coming to mind. Do you use an umbrella when it rains? Unless it is absolutely pouring, no. Do you like getting caught in the rain? No. What is the hardest part of cleaning for you? It requires physical exertion and I am INCREDIBLY weak with non-existent stamina. Do you have any fake flowers in your room? No. Do you own any succulents? No. What is your favorite thing about spring? The only thing I like about spring are all the flowers. What is something you find hard to draw? HANDS. UGH. Was it sunny for your senior prom pictures? Sigh. It was a beautiful sunset. I REALLY wish I didn't delete all those pictures from existence. Have you ever seen a double rainbow? I've seen like, a triple rainbow. What’s one thing you want to learn how to make? Your ordinary meals. I really want to be able to cook my own food from scratch. Do you have stomach issues? Maybe TMI, but it's been questioned but not fully examined that I may have IBS. My stomach is very sensitive. When was the last time you apologized and didn’t mean it? I'm not sure. Do you prefer to be the “talker” or the “listener” in a conversation? The listener. What’s a movie that you think everyone should see? Johnny Got His Gun. If you could have any hair color, what color would you want? Either pastel pink or light creamsicle orange. When was the last time you saw your “first love”? February of 2017. Who’s the smartest person you know personally? My best guy friend Girt. What makes them so smart? He's just very intelligent. Book-smart. Are there any bands/artists that get you all emotional? Ozzy. He and his music are so important to me. What’s your favourite aunt or uncle’s first name? Robert. Have you ever done a first aid course? No. What time do you generally wake up in the morning? It varies from like, 6:00-8:30ish. If you could have one superpower, what would it be? Definitely shapeshifting. I'd love to be a druid, man. Do you ever make surveys? If so, are they long or short? No, but I combine them because I don't like surveys that are too short by my standards. When is the next time you’ll change your hairstyle? Will you color it? Honestly, probably never. I love my current hairstyle, but I most certainly plan on dyeing it maaaany more times. As a child, what was your favorite game to play? I was hooked on the first three Spyro games. I would play 'em over and over. Do any of your siblings have significant others? Do you like them? My older sister is married, and I am NOT a fan of her husband. He's WAY too conservative and bigoted and racist and misogynistic, etc. etc. He's wonderful as a dad, like holy shit he loves his kids, but his beliefs are abhorrent. Dad's daughter is also married, and her husband is awesome. Mom's eldest daughter is also married, and her husband seems cool. My brother has a fiancee that I've never met. Do you believe in the concept of global warming? No fucking shit I do. It's impossible to logically deny, especially as the years go on. When was the last time you took a picture of something? Was it yourself? I took some pictures of this beautiful hydrangea bush outside the TMS office a few days ago. When drinking soda, do you prefer bottles or cans or poured in a glass? Cans, because it stays colder. Do you wear deodorant? Um, yes? If you had a pet pig, what would you name it? Probably something very unoriginal, like Wilbur. Do you like Led Zeppelin? I LOVE "Kashmir." "Stairway to Heaven" was madly important to me, but yeah... I can't listen to it anymore. Like seriously, I haven't in years. Do you like hugs? I do. Have you read the Constitution of the United States of America? Only the Bill of Rights for school. Do you have your own computer or use a family one? I have my own laptop. Do you take out the trash? Sometimes. Is there a calendar in the room you’re in? Outdated meerkat ones. What is your best friend’s name? Sara Jane. :') Have you ever seen a real-life cop chase? Maybe? What is your favorite shape? Circles. Are pigs adorable or dirty? They're precious! And pigs are actually a lot cleaner than people think, if they're not muddy. Anything moldy in your house? Not to my knowledge. Our old house had a serious mold problem, though, which is the primary reason we had to move. Especially with Mom having cancer at the time, she needed to be in the most sterile environment possible. Have you ever been in an earthquake? No. Do you enjoy history? No. Are you watching TV right now? No, but rather GameGrumps on YT. Could you ever be a mortician? True shit, it actually doesn't seem THAT bad. Can you solve a Rubik’s cube? Never seriously tried. How many pets do you have? Just two right now. Are you more close with your mom or dad? My mom. Who is the person that has impacted your life the most? Jason. Or Mom. Have you ever had a pet fish? Yeah. Poor things, they had terrible husbandry. I've learned a hell of a lot from a YouTuber/streamer that is like obsessed with fish about just how misinformed people are on how to take care of various fish. Your goldfish in that little bowl died for a reason, you know. Do you believe in ghosts? Yes. Do you prefer tea or coffee? Both suck. Have you ever vaped? No. How did your parents meet? They were co-workers. What was your first word? "Dada." Have you ever had a kinky dream about a celebrity? ... I mighta lmao. When was the last time you had Nutella? A long time ago. It reeeeaaaally needs to stay out of my house, because I will eat it straight out of the jar. Name someone with a sexy sounding voice. So I don't know where this was, but Mark was once credited in something as "if chocolate had a voice" and I was like YOU FUCKIN BET YOUR SWEET ASS.

#survey #surveys #random questions #lyrics: ''jet city woman'' by queensryche

1 note · View note

primasveraas-writing · 4 years

Text

Everyone Lives Prequel AU

Request: "Because fluff is my one true love and I enjoy beating the hell out of Star Wars with it can we get nothing bad happened ever in the galaxy far far away becasue the reader watched the movies,gets thrown into prequels despairs because these people are too pretty to be dead,crippled or depressed and is like well if no one else will save the hotties I will oh and others too"

Thanks for the request! I changed it a little so instead the reader is a member of the Rebellion, but still knows the prequel gang and what causes the fall of the Republic. I hope you enjoy!

All requests are open!

XXX

The galaxy falls into despair, and because you know nothing else to possibly do, you join the Rebellion alongside Bail Organa

You had been close to Padmé and consequently known Anakin and Obi-wan. Since Padmé’s tenure in the Senate, the four of you were inseparable, bonded by your wit, humor, and kindness

When everything is destroyed, you are left alone and devastated

It seems as if the darkness will never end, but then Ahsoka Tano saunters into your life and brings an opportunity to change everything

As it turns out, she is one of the few surviving Jedi, but her misadventures with the Rebellion efforts on Lothal brought her to a way of changing the past

She tells you about apparent portals in the Force discovered in an ancient Jedi Temple on the grassland planet

Few others remain who know your old friends as the two of you did, and Ahsoka feels as if you are the best candidate to travel through time

She tells you that if things go wrong in the current reality, she needs to be there to hold it together

So you are left to change the past. It takes some convincing- you know that the fate of your friends and millions of others would lie on your shoulders

But all-out war with the Empire is an ever-looming possibility, and this is a chance too great to let fall to cowardice and nerves

You accept the offer, pushing aside the doubts and every idea of what could go wrong, and stride into the Lothal temple at Ahsoka’s side

The journey through the Force is like nothing you’ve ever experienced, but you feel a dull pull from within you during the long, winding trek through the starry path. You are the one to lead Ahsoka to your mysterious destination in the world between worlds

The pull leads you to a door; in it, you see a circular picture of the halls of the Jedi Temple on Coruscant, bustling with life, and pawadans and the Force, and so much light

Ahsoka peers in, and tells you with a shaking voice that this is the Jedi Temple as it was during the Clone Wars, before the Jedi and their home fell to ruin

There are no more doubts or hesitations: this is the way to bring everything and everyone back. Each innocent life will be returned if you succeed

Ahsoka hugs you, which is surprising at first, but when she looks at you, there are tears in her eyes

“May the Force be with you” is all she manages to say, but that is enough. No words could quite encapsulate what is at stake anyways, nor the danger and urgency of your mission

But you nod, take a deep breath, and step through the portal onto the stone floor of the Jedi Temple

Instantly, calm pervades you; the tension of your daily life dissipates as the steady hum of calm and order surrounds you

Since it is still war, albeit in a time of less chaos, you can only guess that Padmé will be on Coruscant, even if Obi-wan and Anakin aren’t

Luckily for you, your final days of the war were originally spent alongside the 501st, so there are few concerns over running into a past version of yourself as you resolve to change the future, and your plan is set into motion

Somewhat reluctantly, you leave the Temple behind. It fell with the Republic, and on your way to Padmé’s apartment, you fight an uneasy feeling from leaving what was once a great sanctuary

Padmé greets you with warmth, then surprise as you embrace her wordlessly and quickly upon seeing her. Between the tears in your eyes and the lump in your throat, you are too overwhelmed and inhibited from speaking

As you hugged, there was an unusual distance between you. Padmé is already pregnant; you felt her the large curve of her stomach against you

However strange your arrival is, not to mention your appearance and increased weariness, Padmé sits you down on her couch, comfortingly close, and asks what’s wrong

It’s so difficult not to pour your heart out to her; you have ached for years to update her on your life and the hardships you’ve faced. Every horror and injustice flashes before your eyes, but there is a carefully set plan it must be followed if everything is to be saved

Instead, you tell her you know. You say you know about her and Anakin and the baby, and you know in your heart that it will lead to disaster

She is stunned, then relieved. Padmé can’t deny it; her pregnancy is getting harder and harder to hide each day and her marriage is nearly obvious to anyone who has seen her and Anakin in the same room together

But finally, someone understands, and you offer an ultimatum: if she doesn’t tell Obi-wan, you will

Her hesitation is palpable, Although eased by your sympathy and understanding of the situation, as well as the consolation of having someone outside of her handmaidens to confide in, Padmé cannot betray the secret of her marriage without Anakin’s consent

But you also inform her that you know Anakin has been struggling with thoughts of the Dark Side, especially under Palpatine’s influence

You cannot quite reveal how you know all this, but your proximity to your friends is answer enough. Much of what you say has already been suspected by Padmé, yet her fear of the truth and the tumult it would bring prevented her from doing anything

The trust in you and your friendship seals the deal. She resolves to let Obi-wan in and begin an investigation into Palpatine, and with the seeds of securing victory successfully planted, you return to the Temple to caution the Jedi about Palpatine’s deeds and true identity

Getting an audience with high-ranking Jedi is exceedingly challenging. Most of the Jedi that you know are deployed throughout the galaxy

Yet luck brings you to Plo Koon on his leave, and he senses both your confusion and distress as a clear outsider, not only to the Temple, but to this time itself

There is little choice but to confess what you know about Palpatine, despite the suspicious amount of knowledge you have

However, the continued misgivings about the Chancellor added to your accusations are enough for Plo to call an emergency council meeting

When you explain your story, the Jedi do not wait to poke holes in your story, but Yoda stays curiously quiet for the majority of the meeting

Between Obi-wan vouching for you and the certainty of your claims, the Council resolves to investigate Palpatine despite any of their reservations

They say there isn’t enough evidence for an arrest, but a start is a start

A week trickles by, and you remain at Padmé’s side to help gather evidence into Palpatine’s corruption, becoming ever more nervous as the day the Empire will rise creeps closer

But at last, Anakin is called back to Coruscant, and instead of rescuing the Chancellor, he assists in his arrest

The Jedi’s investigation into his misdeeds, supplemented with Padmé’s own findings, amounts to a pile of corruption with the Trade Federation and endlessly shady dealings with the Separatists

Relieved from Obi-wan’s assurances that they will stand together and that he will vouch for Anakin and Padmé for whatever they will face when the baby is born, Anakin finds the strength to turn against his longtime mentor Palpatine

It still comes down to a duel, and Anakin still ends it, but this time, he kills the Sith and stomps out the evil in the galaxy

Further inquisition into Palpatine’s doings reveal his puppeteer-like control over the war, and the stringing along of both sides. Acting quickly, the Jedi manage to prevent Order 66 from happening and apprehend many of Palpatine’s allies in and outside of the Senate

Dooku is arrested and tried and Grievous is killed

Padmé gives birth to two healthy babies, and Anakin decides not to live in secrecy

The Jedi are upset and cautious about the whole affair, yet the Chosen One has just eliminated the last of the Sith. Additionally, Palpatine’s reign has shaken the foundations of the Jedi organization to its core, and the Council agrees that it might finally be time to rethink many of their policies

Anakin’s struggle with the dark has not been lost on them, and Yoda in particular senses that their future could have been much worse

Perhaps you encourage this line of thought as much as you can. After all, the blindness of the peacekeepers and leaders allowed Palpatine to take control in the first place

Yet at last, there is peace. Calm begins to settle over the galaxy; timelines converge and you exist only in the new, hopeful reality

There is still much to be fixed, many wrongs to be righted. But you have ensured that one day, all will be well and as it should be

174 notes · View notes

aristeianet · 4 years

Text

P-6, 2020/07/08, 10:37am, IST

THE FABRICATED IDEA OF GIVING A DAMN TO EVERY MOVE

PART THREE OF THREE

"KASHMIRI PANDITS - INTROSPECTIVE JOURNEY"

Disclaimer: “This draft neither endorses nor complaints against any political party, any country, any individual, any religious sentiment or religion.

30 years of a dreadful event that still frightens the sufferers and the ensuing tales are substantial to press the redemption of dues. 19th January of 1990 is a horror for thousands of Kashmiri Pandits, who await rightful affirmation.

There has been a long history of atrocities faced by the Kashmiri Hindus even before the day of the exodus. The genocide took place after a Srinagar based newspaper Aftab published a message asking all the Hindus in the valley to leave immediately. Masked goons with armed weapons used to force the locals to reset their time to Pakistan Standard Time. On the night of 18 January, a blackout took place in the Kashmir Valley to instil fear inside Hindus who lived there, asking for their purge.

We all have a different kind of emotional attachment to our homeland, places from where we belong. Something nobody can take away from us, somewhere we are always welcomed. But what do you do when one day, everything is taken away from you?

We’re all privileged in one way or another, there are always going to be people who have it worse than you, which is the ultimate argument people bring every time we face hardships, but when it comes to the horrors these righteous people went through, they have the utmost right to call other people privileged and claim that they did have it worst. So many of these people had to leave their women behind. When does it ever happen that you stop feeling safe in your own home? The pain of leaving everything behind is enough, but the pressure and fear of starting over? Enough of overlooking their sufferings. When your fight for a cause is restricted to support one particular community, then your fight is meaningless and futile.

30 years later, some would say that it has been long enough and these people are well settled but that’s just the proportion of them that have made themselves able to share their stories. Many of them didn’t even survive the exodus. And it was never about being settled with your new life, it was and always will be about their inability to go back to their homes, or rather houses that turned into ash.

Many Kashmiri pandits who were born after their families had fled Kashmir, feel a strong affinity for Kashmiri culture. Just like Punjab, Kerala, Rajasthan and many other Indian states, Kashmir also has a separate culture. Kashmiris have their own prominent dishes cooked at different Kashmiri festivals and their very own music. We surely do remember studying about dance, food, language, and clothes of different states but why did our textbooks lack this evidence about Kashmir? Where did the Kashmiri culture go? Kashmir has its very own language known as Koshur which isn’t spoken a lot, as, over these years the circumstances have snatched Kashmiris of their mother tongue, making them distant from their own culture.

Aayush Raina a Kashmiri Hindu student said “I never got to live in Kashmir. I was born post exodus and my parents never talked about it, at least in front of me. I used to ask them why we don’t live in Kashmir if we’re Kashmiri, they would say that we migrated out of Kashmir and digress from the subject. Little did I know the things they had to face. We’ve lived in exile for 30 years now, refugees in our own country. My people were forced to leave their homes overnight due to the outbreak of militancy in Kashmir. The place they were fleeing for their lives was once their home and the people standing against them were once their own. The people you see on the streets these days opposing a mere shut down of internet, yeah, they weren’t there at that time. Our elders protested as much as they could but they were less in number. Their voices went unheard. For years, life moved on and the pain was suppressed with responsibilities to give their families a better life but the wounds are still open. They seek justice. They seek their homeland. Our genocide is finally getting acknowledged. But there are many who disregard this brutal ethnocide with false narratives. This disheartens me. They ask us to forget it because we’ve lived privileged lives. Well, I can’t! I’m not privileged enough to forget the brutalities my people faced. The men killed, women and children abducted, raped and slaughtered. I’m not privileged enough to forget that while most of us, including my parents, were able to build a life out of the ashes, many weren’t, they’re still living in refugee camps.I’m not privileged enough to forget the pain.”

Our Kashmiri brothers have demanded justice at every step but they were always denied the same. People even failed to acknowledge their history. Indians who flee Pakistan prior the partition were given all kinds of aid from the government, they were provided with land to start a new life when they came prepared with resources, but what did the Government do for Kashmir Pandits when all they could bring with them was themselves alive? Kashmiri Pandits are the most suffered yet neglected group of people. The Government completely ignored their existence and saw them as nothing but vote-banks.

After decades of struggle and striving for recognition, finally when the history of Kashmiri Pandits came to the knowledge of the common man, a lot of people very easily overlooked it that it happened long ago, or see it as an act of publicity or gaining sympathy. A fraction of India still looks at them as the problematic committee. A trailer for a movie called Shikara which is based on the story of KPs, tried to play with theme and ultimate reality of that time. Shame on such directors who erect a propaganda just for their own benifit and money. No one has a right to make a mock of the loathsome incident which took place with my kashimiri brothers. That speaks volumes.

Kashmir has its very own language known as Koshur which isn’t spoken a lot, as, over these years the circumstances have snatched Kashmiris of their mother tongue, making them distant from their own culture.

We as a nation have failed them multiple times. They deserve nothing but our utmost support and respect always. We will never forget the horrors they faced and shall hope one day, they return to their homes that await them.

I’ll end this by quoting a sher of Basheer Badr whose house was burnt by rioters during Muzaffarnagar riots-

“Log toot jate hain ek ghar banane mein,

Tum taras nahi khate bastiyan jalane mein!”

-Basheer Badr

~R.

14 notes · View notes

bluewatsons · 4 years

Text

Steven Schneider, The Paradox of Fiction, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1995)

How is it that we can be moved by what we know does not exist, namely the situations of people in fictional stories? The so-called “paradox of emotional response to fiction” is an argument for the conclusion that our emotional response to fiction is irrational. The argument contains an inconsistent triad of premises, all of which seem initially plausible. These premises are (1) that in order for us to be moved (to tears, to anger, to horror) by what we come to learn about various people and situations, we must believe that the people and situations in question really exist or existed; (2) that such “existence beliefs” are lacking when we knowingly engage with fictional texts; and (3) that fictional characters and situations do in fact seem capable of moving us at times.

A number of conflicting solutions to this paradox have been proposed by philosophers of art. While some argue that our apparent emotional responses to fiction are only “make-believe” or pretend, others claim that existence beliefs aren’t necessary for having emotional responses (at least to fiction) in the first place. And still others hold that there is nothing especially problematic about our emotional responses to works of fiction, since what these works manage to do (when successful) is create in us the “illusion” that the characters and situations depicted therein actually exist.

1. Radford’s Initial Statement of the Paradox

In a much-discussed 1975 article, and in a series of “Replies to my Critics” written over the next two decades, Colin Radford argues that our apparent ability to respond emotionally to fictional characters and events is “irrational, incoherent, and inconsistent” (p. 75). This on the grounds that (1) existence beliefs concerning the objects of our emotions (for example, that the characters in question really exist; that the events in question have really taken place) are necessary for us to be moved by them, and (2) that such beliefs are lacking when we knowingly partake of works of fiction. Taking it pretty much as a given that (3) such works do in fact move us at times, Radford’s conclusion, refreshing in its humility, is that our capacity for emotional response to fiction is as irrational as it is familiar: “our being moved in certain ways by works of art, though very ‘natural’ to us and in that way only too intelligible, involves us in inconsistency and so incoherence” (p. 78).

The need for existence beliefs is supposedly revealed by the following sort of case. If what we at first believed was a true account of something heart-wrenching turned out to be false, a lie, a fiction, etc., and we are later made aware of this fact, then we would no longer feel the way we once did—though we might well feel something else, such as embarrassment for having been taken in to begin with. And so, Radford argues, “It would seem that I can only be moved by someone’s plight if I believe that something terrible has happened to him. If I do not believe that he has not and is not suffering or whatever, I cannot grieve or be moved to tears” (p. 68). Of course, what Radford means to say here is: “I can only be rationally moved by someone’s plight if I believe that something terrible has happened to him. If I do not believe that he has not and is not suffering or whatever, I cannot rationally grieve or be moved to tears.” Such beliefs are absent when we knowingly engage with fictions, a claim Radford supports by presenting and then rejecting a number of objections that might be raised against it.

One of the major objections to his second premise considered by Radford is that, at least while we are engaged in the fiction, we somehow “forget” that what we are reading or watching isn’t real; in other words, that we get sufficiently “caught up” in the novel, movie, etc. so as to temporarily lose our awareness of its fictional status. In response to this objection, Radford offers the following two considerations: first, if we truly forgot that what we are reading or watching isn’t real, then we most likely would not feel any of the various forms of pleasure that frequently accompany other, more “negative” emotions (such as fear, sadness, and pity) in fictional but not real-life cases; and second, the fact that we do not “try to do something, or think that we should” (p. 71) when seeing a sympathetic character being attacked or killed in a film or play, implies our continued awareness of this character’s fictional status even while we are moved by what happens to him. This second consideration—an emphasis on the behavioral disanalogies between our emotional responses to real-life and fictional characters and events—is one that crops up repeatedly in the arguments of philosophers such as Kendall Walton and Noel Carroll, whose positive accounts are nevertheless completely opposed to one another.

Finally, Radford thinks there can be no denying his third premise, that fictional characters themselves are capable of moving us—as opposed to, say, actual (or perhaps merely possible) people in similar situations, who have undergone trials and tribulations very much like those in the story. So his conclusion that our emotional responses to fiction are irrational appears valid and, however unsatisfactory, at the very least non-paradoxical. Summarizing his position in a 1977 follow-up article, with specific reference to the emotion of fear, Radford writes that existence beliefs “[are] a necessary condition of our being unpuzzlingly, rationally, or coherently frightened. I would say that our response to the appearance of the monster is a brute one that is at odds with and overrides our knowledge of what he is, and which in combination with our distancing knowledge that this is only a horror film, leads us to laugh—at the film, and at ourselves for being frightened” (p. 210).

Since the publication of Radford’s original essay, many Anglo-American philosophers of art have been preoccupied with exposing the inadequacies of his position, and with presenting alternative, more “satisfying” solutions. In fact, few issues of The British Journal of Aesthetics, Philosophy, or The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism have come out over the past 25 years which fail to contain at least one piece devoted to the so-called “paradox of emotional response to fiction.” As recently as April 2000, Richard Joyce writes in a journal article that “Radford must weary of defending his thesis that the emotional reactions we have towards fictional characters, events, and states of affairs are irrational. Yet, for all the discussion, the issue has not.been properly settled” (p. 209). It is interesting to note that while virtually all of those writing on this subject credit Radford with initiating the current debate, none of them have adopted his view as their own. At least in part, this must be because what Radford offers is less the solution to a mystery (how is it that we can be moved by what we know does not exist?) than a straightforward acceptance of something mysterious about human nature (our ability to be moved by what we know does not exist is illogical, irrational, even incoherent).

To date, three basic strategies for resolving the paradox in question have turned up again and again in the philosophical literature, each one appearing in a variety of different forms (though it should be noted, other, more idiosyncratic solutions can also be found). It is to these strategies, and some of the powerful criticisms that have been levied against them, that we now briefly turn.

2. The Pretend Theory

Pretend theorists, most notably Kendall Walton, in effect deny premise (3), arguing that it is not literally true that we fear horror film monsters or feel sad for the tragic heroes of Greek drama. As noted above, Walton’s defense of premise (2) also rests on a playing up of the behavioral disanalogies between our responses to real-life versus fictional characters and events. But unlike Radford, who looks at real-life cases of emotional response and the likelihood of their elimination when background conditions change in order to defend premise (1), Walton offers nothing more than an appeal to “common sense”: “It seems a principle of common sense, one which ought not to be abandoned if there is any reasonable alternative, that fear must be accompanied by, or must involve, a belief that one is in danger” (1978, pp. 6-7).

According to Walton, it is only “make-believedly” true that we fear horror film monsters, feel sad for the Greek tragic heroes, etc. He admits that these characters move us in various ways, both physically and psychologically—the similarities to real fear, sadness, etc. are striking—but regardless of what our bodies tell us, or what we might say, think, or believe we are feeling, what we actually experience in such cases are only “quasi-emotions” (e.g., “quasi-fear”). Quasi-emotions differ from true emotions primarily in that they are generated not by existence beliefs (such as the belief that the monster I am watching on screen really exists), but by “second-order” beliefs about what is fictionally the case according to the work in question (such as the belief that the monster I am watching on screen make-believedly exists. As Walton puts it, “Charles believes (he knows) that make-believedly the green slime [on the screen] is bearing down on him and he is in danger of being destroyed by it. His quasi-fear results from this belief” (p. 14). Thus, it is make-believedly the case that we respond emotionally to fictional characters and events due to the fact that our beliefs concerning the fictional properties of those characters and events generates in us the appropriate quasi-emotional states.

What has made the Pretend Theory in its various forms attractive to many philosophers is its apparent ability to handle a number of additional puzzles relating to audience engagement with fictions. Such puzzles include the following:

Why a reader or viewer of fictions who does not like happy endings can get so caught up in a particular story that, for example, he wants the heroine to be rescued despite his usual distaste for such a plot convention. Following Walton, there is no need to hypothesize conflicting desires on the part of the reader here, since “It is merely make-believe that the spectator sympathizes with the heroine and wants her to escape. .[H]e (really) wants it to be make-believe that she suffers a cruel end” (p. 25).

How fictional works—especially suspense stories—can withstand multiple readings or viewings without becoming less effective. According to Walton, this is possible because, on subsequent readings/viewings, we are simply playing a new game of pretend—albeit one with the same “props” as before: “The child hearing Jack and the Beanstalk knows that make-believedly Jack will escape, but make-believedly she does not know that he will. It is her make-believe uncertainty.not any actual uncertainty, that is responsible for the excitement and suspense that she feels” (p. 26).

3. Objections to the Pretend Theory

Despite its novelty, as well as Walton’s heroic attempts at defending it, the Pretend Theory continues to come under attack from numerous quarters. Many of these attacks can be organized under the following two general headings:

A. Disanalogies with Paradigmatic Cases of Make-Believe Games

Walton introduces and supports his theory with reference to the familiar games of make-believe played by young children—games in which globs of mud are taken to be pies, for example, or games in which a father, pretending to be a vicious monster, will stalk his child and lunge at him at the crucial moment: “The child flees, screaming, to the next room. But he unhesitatingly comes back for more. He is perfectly aware that his father is only ‘playing,’ that the whole thing is ‘just a game,’ and that only make-believedly is there a vicious monster after him. He is not really afraid” (1978, p. 13). Such games rely on what Walton calls “constituent principles” (e.g., that whenever there is a glob of mud in a certain orange crate, it is make-believedly true that there is a pie in the oven) which are accepted or understood to be operating. However, these principles need not be explicit, deliberate, or even public: “one might set up one’s own personal game, adopting principles that no one else recognizes. And at least some of the principles constituting a personal game of make-believe may be implicit” (p. 12). According to Walton, just as a child will experience quasi-fear as a result of believing that make-believedly a vicious monster is coming to get him, moviegoers watching a disgusting green slime make its way towards the camera will experience quasi-fear as a result of believing that, make-believedly, they are being threatened by a fearsome creature. In both cases, it is this quasi-fear which makes it the case that the respective game players are make-believedly (not really) afraid.

To the extent that one is able to identify significant disanalogies with familiar games of make-believe, then, Walton’s theory looks to be in trouble. One such disanalogy concerns our relative lack of choice when it comes to (quasi-)emotional responses to fiction films and novels. Readers and viewers of such fictions, the argument goes, don’t seem to have anything close to the ability of make-believe game-playing children to control their emotional responses. On the one hand, we can’t just turn such responses off—refuse to play and prevent ourselves from being affected—like kids can. As Noel Carroll writes in his book, The Philosophy of Horror, “if it [the fear produced by horror films] were a pretend emotion, one would think that it could be engaged at will. I could elect to remain unmoved by The Exorcist; I could refuse to make believe I was horrified. But I don’t think that that was really an option for those, like myself, who were overwhelmedly struck by it” (1990, p. 74).

On the other hand, Carroll also points out that as consumers of fiction we aren’t able to just turn our emotional responses on, either: “if the response were really a matter of whether we opt to play the game, one would think that we could work ourselves into a make-believe dither voluntarily. But there are examples [of fictional works] which are pretty inept, and which do not seem to be recuperable by making believe that we are horrified. The monsters just aren’t particularly horrifying, though they were intended to be” (p. 74). Carroll cites such forgettable pictures as The Brain from Planet Arous and Attack of the Fifty Foot Woman as evidence of his claim that some fictional texts simply fail to generate their intended emotional response.

Another proposed disanalogy between familiar examples of make-believe game-playing and our emotional engagement with fictions focuses on the phenomenology of the two cases. The objection here is that, assuming the accuracy of Walton’s account when it comes to children playing make-believe, it is simply not true to ordinary experience that consumers of fictions are in similar emotional states when watching movies, reading books, and the like. David Novitz, for one, notes that “many theatre-goers and readers believe that they are actually upset, excited, amused, afraid, and even sexually aroused by the exploits of fictional characters. It seems altogether inappropriate in such cases to maintain that our theatre-goers merely make-believe that they are in these emotional states” (1987, p. 241). Glenn Hartz makes a similar point, in stronger language:

My teenage daughter convinces me to accompany her to a “tear-jerker” movie with a fictional script. I try to keep an open mind, but find it wholly lacking in artistry. I can’t wait for it to end. Still, tears come welling up at the tragic climax, and, cursing, I brush them aside and hide in my hood on the way to the car. Phenomenologically, this description is perfectly apt. But it is completely inconsistent with the Make-Believe Theory, which says emotional flow is always causally dependent on make-believe. [H]ow can someone who forswears any imaginative involvement in a series of fictional events.respond to them with tears of sadness? (1999, p. 572)

Carroll too argues that “Walton’s theory appears to throw out the phenomenology of the state [here ‘art-horror’] for the sake of logic” (1990, p. 74), on the grounds that, as opposed to children playing make-believe, when responding to works of fiction we do not seem to be aware at all of playing any such games.

Of course, Walton’s position is that the only thing required here is the acceptance or recognition of a constituent principle underlying the game in question, and this acceptance may well be tacit rather than conscious. But Carroll thinks that it “strains credulity” to suppose that not only are we unaware of some of the rules of the game, but that “we are completely unaware of playing a game. Surely a game of make-believe requires the intention to pretend. But on the face of it, consumers of horror do not appear to have such an intention” (pp. 74-75). Although he disagrees with Walton’s Pretend Theory on other grounds, Alex Neill offers a powerful reply to objections which cite phenomenological disanalogies. In his words, what philosophers such as Novitz, Hartz, and Carroll miss “is that the fact that Charles is genuinely moved by the horror movie.is precisely what motivates Walton’s account”:

By labeling this kind of state ‘quasi-fear,’ Walton is not suggesting that it consists of feigned or pretended, rather than actual, feelings and sensations. Rather, Walton label’s Charles’s physiological/psychological state ‘quasi-fear’ to mark the fact that what his feelings and sensations are feelings and sensations of is precisely what is at issue. .On his view, we can actually be moved by works of fiction, but it is make-believe that we are moved to is fear. (1991, pp. 49-50)Suffice to say, the question whether objections to Walton’s Pretend Theory on the grounds of phenomenological difference are valid or not continues to be discussed and debated.

B. Problems with Quasi-Emotions

In arguing that Walton’s quasi-emotions are unnecessary theoretical entities, some philosophers have pointed to cases of involuntary reaction to visual stimuli—the so-called “startle effect” in film studies terminology—where the felt anxiety, repulsion, or disgust is clearly not make-believe, since these reactions do not depend at all on beliefs in the existence of what we are seeing. Simo Säätelä for example, argues that “fear is easy to confuse with being shocked, startled, anxious, etc. Here the existence or non-existence of the object can hardly be important. When we consider fear [in fictional contexts] this often seems to be a plausible analysis—it is simply a question of a mistaken identification of sensations and feelings. Thus no technical redescription in terms of make-believe is needed” (1994, p. 29). One problem with turning this objection into a full-blown theory of emotional response to fiction in its own right, as both Säätelä and Neill have suggested doing, is that there seem to be at least some cases of fearing fictions where the startle effect is not involved. Another problem is that it is not at all clear what equivalents to the startle effect are available in the case of emotions such as, say, pity and regret.

A similar objection to Walton’s quasi-emotional states has been put forward by Glenn Hartz. He argues not that our responses to fiction are independent of belief, to be understood on the model of the startle effect, but that they are pre-conscious: that real (as opposed to pretend) beliefs which are not consciously entertained are automatically generated by certain visual stimuli. These beliefs are inconsistent with what the spectator—fully aware of where he is and what he is doing—explicitly avows. As Hartz puts it, “how could anything as cerebral and out-of-the-loop as ‘make believe’ make adrenaline and cortisol flow?” (1999, p. 563).

4. The Thought Theory

Thought theories boldly deny premise (1), the old and established thesis, traceable as far back as Aristotle and central to the so-called “Cognitive Theory of emotions,” (see Theories of Emotion) that existence beliefs are a necessary condition of (at the very least rational) emotional response. At the heart of the Thought Theory lies the view that, although our emotional responses to actual characters and events may require beliefs in their existence, there is no good reason to hold up this particular type of emotional response as the model for understanding emotional response in general. What makes emotional response to fiction different from emotional response to real world characters and events is that, rather than having to believe in the actual existence of the entity or event in question, all we need do is “mentally represent” (Peter Lamarque), “entertain in thought” (Noel Carroll), or “imaginatively propose” (Murray Smith) it to ourselves. By highlighting our apparent capacity to respond emotionally to fiction—by treating this as a central case of emotional response in general—the thought theorist believes he has produced hard evidence in support of the claim that premise (1) stands in need of modification, perhaps even elimination.

Even before the first explicit statement of the Thought Theory in a 1981 article by Lamarque, a number of philosophers rejected existence beliefs as a requirement for emotional response to fictions. Instead, they argued that the only type of beliefs necessary when engaging with fictions are “evaluative” beliefs about the characters and events depicted; beliefs, for example, about whether the characters and events in question have characteristics which render them funny, frightening, pitiable, etc. Eva Schaper, for example, in an article published three years before Lamarque’s, writes that:

We need a distinction.between the kind of beliefs which are entailed by my knowing that I am dealing with fiction, and the kind of beliefs which are relevant to my being moved by what goes on in fiction. .[B]eliefs about characters and events in fiction.are alone involved in our emotional response to what goes on. (1978, p. 39, 44)

More recently, but again without reference to the Thought Theory, R.T. Allen argues that, “A novel.is not a presentation of facts. But true statements can be made about what happens in it and beliefs directed towards those events can be true or false. .Once we realize that truth is not confined to the factual, the problem disappears” (1986, p. 66).

Although the two are closely related, strictly-speaking this version of the Thought Theory should not be confused with what is often referred to as the “Counterpart Theory” of emotional response to fiction. As Gregory Currie explains, according to this latter theory, “we experience genuine emotions when we encounter fiction, but their relation to the story is causal rather than intentional; the story provokes thoughts about real people and situations, and these are the intentional objects of our emotions” (1990, p. 188). Walton himself provides an early statement of the Counterpart Theory: “If Charles is a child, the movie may make him wonder whether there might not be real slimes or other exotic horrors like the one depicted in the movie, even if he fully realizes that the movie-slime itself is not real. Charles may well fear these suspected dangers; he might have nightmares about them for days afterwards” (1978, p. 10). Some variations of this theory go so far as make their claims with reference to possible as opposed to real people and situations. Regardless, it is important to note that Counterpart theories have at least as much in common with Pretend theories as with Thought theories, since, like the former, they seem to require a modification of Radford’s third premise (it is not the fictional works themselves that move us, but their real or possible counterparts).

5. Objections to the Thought Theory

Somewhat surprisingly, the Thought Theory has generated relatively little critical discussion, a fact in virtue of which it can be said to occupy a privileged position today. In a 1982 article, however, Radford himself attacks it on the following grounds:

Lamarque claims that I am frightened by ‘the thought’ of the green slime. That is the ‘real object’ of my fear. But if it is the moving picture of the slime which frightens me (for myself), then my fear is irrational, etc., for I know that what frightens me cannot harm me. So the fact that we are frightened by fictional thoughts does not solve the problem but forms part of it. (pp. 261-62]

More recently, film-philosopher Malcolm Turvey criticizes the Thought Theory on the grounds that it appears to ignore the concrete nature of the moving image, instead hypothesizing a “mental entity as the primary causal agent of the spectator’s emotional response” (1997, p. 433). According to Turvey, because we can and frequently do respond to the concrete presentation of cinematic images in a manner that is indifferent to their actual existence in the world, and because there is nothing especially mysterious about this fact, no theory at all is needed to solve the problem of emotional response to fiction film.

Even if it is correct with respect to the medium of film, however, what we might call Turvey’s “concreteness consideration” does not stand up as a critique of the Thought Theory generally. In the case of literature, for example, the reader obviously does not respond emotionally to the words as they appear on the printed page, but rather to the mental images these words serve to conjure in his mind.

It is also debatable whether the Thought Theory cannot be revised so as to incorporate the concreteness consideration, by simply redefining the psychological attitude referred to by Carroll as “entertaining” in either neutral or negative terms. In order for us to be moved by a work of fiction, the revised theory would go, all we need do is adopt a nonassertive—though still evaluative—psychological attitude towards the images which appear before us on screen (while watching a film) or in our minds (when thinking about them later, or perhaps while reading about them in a book). Turvey himself makes a move in this direction when he writes that “the spectator’s capacity to ‘entertain’ a cinematic representation of a fictional referent does not require the postulation of an intermediate, mental entity such as a ‘thought’ or ‘imagination’ in order to be understood” (1997, p. 456).

Arguing on behalf of the Thought Theory, Murray Smith invites us to “imagine gripping the blade of a sharp knife and then having it pulled from your grip, slicing through the flesh of your hand. If you shuddered in reaction to the idea, you didn’t do so because you believed that your hand was being cut by a knife” (1995, p. 116). In part due to its intuitive plausibility, in part due to its ability to explain away certain behavioral disanalogies with real-life cases of emotional response (for example: although he frightens us, the reason we don’t run out of the theater when watching the masked killer head towards us on the movie screen is because we never stop believing for a moment that what we are watching is only a representation of someone who doesn’t really exist), few philosophers have sought to meet the challenge posed by the Thought Theory head on.

Perhaps the biggest problem for the Thought Theory lies in its difficulty justifying its own presuppositions. In his original article, Radford asks the following questions in order to highlight the mysterious nature of our emotional responses to fiction: “We are saddened, but how can we be? What are we sad about? How can we feel genuinely and involuntarily sad, and weep, as we do knowing as we do that no one has suffered or died?” (1977, p. 77). These are questions the Thought theorist will have a tough time answering to the satisfaction of anyone not already inclined to agree with him. That is to say, where the Thought theorist seems to run into trouble is in explaining just why it is the mere entertaining in thought of a fictional character or event is able to generate emotional responses in audiences.

6. The Illusion Theory

Illusion theorists, of whom there seem to be fewer and fewer these days, deny Radford’s second premise. They suggest a mechanism—whether it be some loose concept of “weak” or “partial” belief, Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s famous “willing suspension of disbelief,” Freud’s notion of “disavowal” as adapted by psychoanalytic film theorists such as Christian Metz, or something else entirely—whereby existence beliefs are generated in the course of our engagement with works of fiction.

In Section 1, we came across one of the most powerful objections to have been levied against the Illusion Theory to date: the obvious behavioral disanalogies between our emotional responses to real-life versus fictional characters and events. Even when the existence beliefs posited by the Illusion theorist are of the weak or partial variety, Walton argues that

Charles has no doubts about the whether he is in the presence of an actual slime. If he half believed, and were half afraid, we would expect him to have some inclination to act on his fear in the normal ways. Even a hesitant belief, a mere suspicion, that the slime is real would induce any normal person seriously to consider calling the police and warning his family. Charles gives no thought whatever to such courses of action. (1978, p. 7)

The force of this and related objections has led to a state of affairs in which Gregory Currie, in a lengthy essay on the paradox of emotional response to fiction, can devote all of two sentences to his dismissal of the Illusion Theory:

Hardly anyone ever literally believes the content of a fiction when he knows it to be a fiction; if it happens at moments of forgetfulness or intense realism in the story (which I doubt), such moments are too brief to underwrite our often sustained responses to fictional events and characters. Henceforth, I shall assume the truth of [Radford’s second premise] and consider the [other] possibilities. (1990, pp. 188-89)Notice, however, that a tremendous amount of weight seems to be placed here on the word “literally.” Is it really true to the facts that when normal people—not philosophers or film theorists!—talk about the “believability” of certain books they have read and movies they have seen, the notions of belief and believable-ness they have in mind are metaphorical, or else simply confused or mistaken? And that everyday talk of being “absorbed by” fictions, “engaged in” them, “lost” in them, etc. can be explained away solely in terms of such non-belief dependent features of the fictions in question as their “vividness” and “immediacy”?

It certainly isn’t clear whether the Illusion Theory in any form can be salvaged as a possible solution to the paradox of emotional response to fiction. It isn’t even clear whether what we have here really qualifies as a “paradox” at all. As Richard Moran (1994) argues, with reference to what he takes to be non-problematic cases of emotional response to modal facts (things that might have happened to us but didn’t) and historical facts (things that happened to us in the past): “our paradigms of ordinary emotions exhibit a great deal of variety., and.the case of fictional emotions gains a misleading appearance of paradox from an inadequate survey of examples”(p. 79). What is clear, however, is that the various debates surrounding the topic of emotional response to fiction continue to rage in the philosophical literature.

7. References and Further Reading

Allen, R.T. (1986) “The Reality of Responses to Fiction.” British Journal of Aesthetics 26.1, pp. 64-68.

Carroll, N. (1990) The Philosophy of Horror; or, Paradoxes of the Heart. New York, Routledge.

Currie, G. (1990) The Nature of Fiction. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Hartz, G. (1999) “How We Can Be Moved by Anna Karenina, Green Slime, and a Red Pony.” Philosophy 74, pp. 557-78.

Joyce, R. (2000) “Rational Fear of Monsters.” British Journal of Aesthetics 40.2, pp. 209-224.

Lamarque, P. (1981) “How Can We Fear and Pity Fictions?” British Journal of Aesthetics 21.4, pp. 291-304.

Moran, R. (1994) “The Expression of Feeling in Imagination.” Philosophical Review 103.1, pp. 75-106.

Neill, A. (1991) “Fear, Fiction and Make-Believe.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 49.1, pp. 47-56.

Novitz, D. (1987) Knowledge, Fiction and Imagination. Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

Radford, C. (1975) “How Can We Be Moved by the Fate of Anna Karenina?” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplemental Vol. 49, pp. 67-80.

Radford, C. (1977) “Tears and Fiction.” Philosophy 52, pp. 208-213.

Säätelä, S. (1994) “Fiction, Make-Believe and Quasi Emotions.” British Journal of Aesthetics 34, pp. 25-34.

Schaper, E. (1978) “Fiction and the Suspension of Disbelief.” British Journal of Aesthetics 18, pp. 31-44.

Smith, M. (1995) “Film Spectatorship and the Institution of Fiction.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 53.2, pp. 113-27.

Turvey, M. (1997) “Seeing Theory: On Perception and Emotional Response in Current Film Theory.” Film Theory and Philosophy, R. Allen and M. Smith (Eds.). Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 431-57.

Walton, K. (1978) “Fearing Fictions.” Journal of Philosophy 75.1, pp. 5-27.

#aesthetics #judgment #writing #paradox #fiction #reading fiction #paradox of fiction #emotional response #rationality #art and emotion #pretend #make-believe games #theories #literature #communication #quasi-emotions #thought theory #illusion theory #literary analysis

6 notes · View notes

taeyong-bububu · 4 years

Text

Haunted, h.r.j pt. zero

Genre: “Horror”, mistery, kinda, supernatural, I wrote this for fun

Warning: As much as I don’t want to write about things that I don’t have enough knowledge on, there are mentions of things that I myself am not willing to try. I am a believer in the paranormal and most of the things that are going to be mentioned here, and don’t encourage any of you to try any of the things mentioned. I always write with mentions of alcohol, drugs and cussing.

Plot: Huang Renjun, the biggest skeptic alive, as he called himself, realizes there’s more in this world than what we can see. After a streak of bad luck, he founds out that someone might be haunting him, and he wants it to stop now

Huang Renjun had never been the kind of person that believed in demonic things, or ghosts and entities, or whatever they called them. He told himself from a very young age that if those things were real, they would have better things to do than messing with humans, so he was never afraid of ghosts stories, or haunted houses, or cursed games, and scary movies.

He remembered very well playing the ouija with his friends at summer camps, and trying to summon the dead. All of his friends were always scared, but he was never, not because he was brave, as everyone said he was, but because he simply never believed.

For some time he thought that not believing was some sort of shield, and that was the reason why he never feared the paranormal. On addition, he thought that people who did, were delusional, dumb and immature, and he had never wanted to be labeled as any of that.

His friends, on the other hand, were the biggest cowards on Earth. Every single one of them believed in ridiculous different things, like Tarot, some of them based their lives in the Zodiac, some of them were too terrified of spirits that when they heard a noise slightly unusual, they’d start praying at whatever was in Heaven to keep it away from them.

He had participated in an innumerable amount of rituals that in the end couldn’t even make him shake on his seat. Even if he had Satan sitting right infront of him, he would still doubt his existence, probably making Satan doubt about himself, too.

It was a Friday night, he had been invited to a sketchy bar to see his friend’s band perform. The place was bigger than what they were usually performing in, and the crowd was much larger than what they usually had. He was happy that his friend’s talent had finally been attractive to people.

He sat in a table as close to the stage as he could, hoping that they would see him among all of that people. When the waiter asked if he was ready to order, he asked for a glass of vodka with juice, and french fries. He came back with his food after too long, but just on time before the band came in. Not only the bar itself was sketchy, but the people in there were too. He asked for two more drinks, before the waiter even had the time to ask if he needed anything else.

The sound was as awful as usual, the guitars louder than the voice of the singer, the drums were kinda off and the bassists couldn’t care less about what was going on, but he knew that’s how all of his performances went.

The feeling of being watched gave him goosebumps, but it was a bar after all, and even if someone was staring at him, it was probably normal and nothing to worry about, unless it was someone tipsy that wanted to talk, in which case he’d pretend to not speak the same language and play dumb until they left.

He couldn’t concentrate in the song playing at all, feeling like this time he was being watched by more people. He panicked that there was something wrong with him that made everyone stare, this thought made him anxious, and unable to handle it, he rushed to the restroom, pushing people out of his way. He checked that nothing in his appearance was off, he washed his face and hands to calm down, and when he did, he went back to his table, hoping that his friend didn’t notice he left.

On his way back, trying to walk as calmly and confident as he could, he noticed a girl in a short black dress, she wore a red leather jackt and really tall shoes, he felt like she was calling him with the look of her eyes, but he rejected the invitation, turning his head back to his spot.

He sat and finished his drink in a single sip, feeling the alcohol hit as he did, his legs feeling warm and tingly, making him giggle a litte.

The stares continued but now he was too tipsy to do anything about it. Suddenly, he felt that someone was too close to him, surprised to see it was the girl he saw before.

“Is this seat taken?” she asked, her voice strangely clear, as if she had a better microphone than the singer did.

“Not exactly” he replied quietly, but she was able to hear him, too.

“Can I stay with you?” Renjun was too sensitive, he could feel people’s aura, even though he always brushed it off as a coincidence and denied his sixth sense, but he had learned to trust his gut a little more, and this time, it was saying that he shouldn’t trust her at all.

“Sure, but I’m leaving soon”

“Oh, don’t lie, it’s okay if you don’t want me here” she giggled an a flirty way “should I leave?” He noticed an odd glow in her eyes that made him shiver.

“I mean, you do you” he had a special talent of pushing people away, but he felt like this time it was not working at all “I’m leaving with the band, and they’re about to finish”

“Well, it’s a shame, I thought that maybe you’d ask me to go to your place if I was persistent enough”

He wasn’t sure if it was because of the alcohol, but suddenly he felt too tired, the rush the vodka gave him totally gone, he felt wasted and sick.

“I don’t do that, sorry”

The band thanked the audience and he knew it was his chance to leave such awkward moment.

“Well, there goes my friend, I have to go”

“I hope to see you again, Renjun” as she said his name, he felt dizzy and like having a fever. He couldn’t even speak, so he didn’t ask, he could only nod his head, he ran to his friend that was seeing the scene waiting for him.

“Woah, little Renjun got a girl, huh?”

“She was just asking if I knew the song, you were amazing tonight, man”

“Yeah, it was pretty cool, right? I got nervous, i forgot most of my parts, I’m glad nobody noticed”

He and the other guys used to drink before going on stage, something very on brand for his band, of course he thought nobody noticed.

They left in some guy’s car, they drove him home, after refusing to go with them to have some drinks, he usually agreed because they always payed for him, but he wasn’t in the mood to have more alcohol.

He went to bed with his shoes on, amazed that he could be so tired, he couldn’t remember if he locked the door, he felt like he fainted before his head even touched the pillow, he knew he’d have the worst headache the next morning.

He heard a knock on his window, but he couldn’t get himself to look, his body completely disconnected from his brain. A fire could start at any time and he wouldn’t be able to move, he considered for a moment that he was dying, and that thought gave him confort to let go completely.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.N: So I finally got myself to write this, I’m really excited. Because this is a new blog, I am worried that you guys won’t like it as much as what I wrote at @crappygenius so I would REALLY appreciate if you let me know what you think of this. Thank you so much for reading if you did, I hope you have a nice day/night/afternoon/morning.

9 notes · View notes

tominostuff · 4 years

Text

Tomino x Hosoda on Wolf Children

Source - https://char-blog.hatenadiary.org/entry/20140720/1405889329

Date: April 2013

--What was the reason behind Mr. Tomino giving this movie such high praise when it was released?

Tomino: Anyone who has experienced child-raising understands that children are an uncontrollable “wolf-like” existence to parents. I saw some opinions that marrying a “wolf” is disgusting but there are times when a boyfriend/girlfriend who seemed beautiful during the romantic stage suddenly changes into an existence even harder to understand than a wolf. In this way, [Hosoda] took a very normal story that everyone experiences and skillfully used an animation metaphor to keep the film within a very easy to watch time frame. It's frustrating to admit but Director Hosoda has become very capable.

Hosoda: I was very encouraged by your earlier comments so I’m sincerely grateful to you.

Tomino: In preparation for this interview, I read many reviews of the film and was reassured by what I saw. Mothers who are currently raising children would write, “this film is a very accurate portrayal of a mother.” I thought, finally animation has produced a “film” that could appeal to a wide audience. There’s something revolutionary in a different way from Miyazaki films. For example, among the reviews, there were some wondering whether the director was conscious of Waldorf Education while making the film.

Hosoda: To get straight to the point, no, I was not aware. The main mother character, being placed in the special situation where she could not rely on general medical institutions to raise “the wolf children”, had no choice but to prepare for children's illness with books, ranging from the classics like "Childcare Code", "Encyclopedia of Childcare" and "Pediatric Medicine", to books on natural remedies. It was simply a matter of Waldorf Education being among those books but what’s interesting is the audience noticing this book cover in the corner of the screen and debating the theories written in those books on their blogs. I think it represents how urgent of an issue child-rearing is for parents.

Tomino: I will not affirm or deny that particular theory of education, but I was surprised that mothers, who have a deep knowledge of children's literature and education, made statements that captured the work to this pedigree. As I thought, this work is seen by a fairly wide range of people. However, when I heard the opinions of the anime industry, I got the sense that they were discussing within the narrow confines of genres. In the first place, I don't really understand the tendency to organize media by identifying people into markets or generations and I think this tendency is making recent works lacking.

Hosoda: I too, think that this newest work has come to a place outside of the usual anime context. Up until Summer Wars I wanted to find out how far I could take world building and see what’s beyond that, while staying within the genre film. On the other hand, there are "movie fans" who have a wide field of view and on the other, there are also many people who like genres films like action, horror, romance, etc. From those people I received criticism which prioritized the laws of genre films, for example, "If you write a werewolf character, that character has to be persecuted and shot by the police and die.”

Tomino: That’s exactly what someone caught up in genres would say. Anime has a narratology centered around action, but I felt Wolf Children went outside of that. The very fact that unfamiliar terms such as “Waldorf Education” came up is proof that there are people who believe this movie goes beyond the confines of anime. In other words, it was conveyed that Hana, the mother character, is not as anime-like and pretty/delicate as the picture, but a woman who carried out strong child-rearing with considerable knowledge and insight. When I saw those reviews that touched upon the very core themes of the plot, I thought that anime was finally established as a medium.

Hosoda: Exactly. This time, I was very happy to see women, especially those in the middle of child raising, discuss this film from the viewpoint of a fellow mother. There was sound debate, including criticism. It's proof that the motif of this film is universal. After all, in both movies and anime, world building and expressions have wider potential than genres.

Tomino: That's exactly right. In my case, I’m very greedy, so if I am to express something to the world, I want it to become popular. I'm not interested in producing something that is only accessible to a narrow group of people who like certain genres. If you start making pandering work for niches, you will become a niche yourself and you will set up a flag to be discriminated against and beaten by society. If you are given the opportunity to express yourself in a public place and show your will, it’s better to be liked by everyone. Of course, being accepted is the premise that business is built upon as well. So, people tend to go in the direction of "it is easier to sell if you specialize by genre", but a work created upon that idea will last for at most two to three years. If I am spending a lot of money to make it, I want to do big business, show a concept that will last 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, and make it sell for a long time. There are quite a lot of works that are forgotten after the momentary box office profit. In that sense, Wolf Children definitely showed a new frontier of "things to express to the public" and I believe that the evaluation and recognition in the next 10 or 20 years will be much higher than it is now.

--What kind of expectations does Director Tomino have for Director Hosoda for the future?

Tomino: I don't have any particular expectations, but more what I would like people to pay attention to is the fact that not everything was made by Mr. Hosoda. The existence of scenario writer, Ms. (Satoko) Okudera is huge and it must’ve only been possible because they were in a realistic space where they could observe children. To the point where you might not have been able to make it if the timing was off by about a year or two. This is a realistic work. So while I think, wow you did really well, unfortunately I also think you’ll never have another chance like this. The moment you are told, "that was a hit, let's do it again!", you may fall with a boom so watch out for that. *tl note cough cough* mirai no mirai *cough*

Hosoda: I may have obtained credibility from the box office hit but I believe every movie comes down to the original project proposal. In the future as well, it will depend on the spirit of challenge and fun imbued in each and every proposal. Instead of thinking, “This particular one was a hit so the next one has to go even higher,” I would like to seek a unique enjoyment of movies to share with audiences for each project. So even if I am asked to make another installment of this movie…

Tomino: I mean you can’t, can you?

Hosoda: Yeah, it is a complete work as it is. I will move on to the next new work. At that time, I have to forget all the previous works and start from scratch thinking about what is interesting in this world.

--How do you feel about Mr. Tomino’s previous statement about making work for the public?

Hosoda: In the case of Wolf Children, the starting point of my idea was from a very familiar place. At the time, my wife and I were having a hard time making children. Therefore, the desire to raise a child and become a parent is directly reflected in the movie. At the same time, I thought that the motif of "raising children" is universal not only to us Japanese but to all over the world. Anyone in any country experiences it. Even if you have no children, you experience being raised by your parents. It's a story common to all humankind, so I thought this was a project that had the potential to be viewed by everyone. That's why I said something like the "child-rearing" film genre, but I realized that there is no such movie (laughs). In the first place, it is difficult to film a live-action movie of a situation like "growing up slowly", and I can't find a movie about a child where the parent is the main character. It’s always the conflict filled story of “overcoming parents in order for their children to grow up." I planned it as a "story from an observational perspective" about how parents watch the growth of their children, but I was really in trouble because there was nothing to refer to. Originally, movies originated from counterculture, so I think that is also related.

Tomino: I was surprised to hear that, but it again reaffirmed the superstition that we could express freely, it’s actually not free at all. The fact that Wolf Children is taken for granted even though it’s doing such special things is amazing. Because at the end of the day it's a cliché story, isn't it? But due to the fact that it is universal …….

Hosoda: Yes, it's a very cliche story you can find anywhere.

Tomino: But the moment it was illustrated through animation techniques, it looks revolutionary. This is actually an embarrassing story because something too obvious should not look innovative. It's a tremendous work because even that aspect can be learned from it.

Hosoda: No no, as a creator, I just started from a very straightforward ideal and aspiration, thinking, "I want to do something like this, something like that, when I have a child," in line with the feelings of my wife and I. When I interviewed fathers and mothers who are raising children as references, they talked about hardships like "I can't sleep at night, I'll run out of personal time", but it all sounded enviable to me. “The fact that you are carrying all of that on your back is amazing!” is how I felt.

Tomino: I see....I couldn't have imagined cutting in from that angle. Even though your own children aren’t that old yet, each one of the scenes are neatly arranged by age. While I was watching the film, I couldn’t understand how you could possibly depict the children’s growth so accurately but listening to your story just now, I think I understand half of it. Were you yearning to be a parent to that extent?

Hosoda: Yes, I was aspiring for it. If I didn’t hold ideals toward the idea, I don’t think this movie could’ve been made. If I had actually experienced a sleepless night with a newborn child, I don’t think I would’ve been able to make a film out of it. Because I had a longing for it, that became the power behind the realism. Even though there are some weaknesses to it not being a lived experience, I felt this was the only time I could make this film. Rather than my personal feelings when I first wrote the plot, I am amazed and grateful towards the secretary company and distribution company that took on such a challenging story.

Tomino: It’s exactly as you say. After all, in the anime industry, we, the creators, are contaminated with the preconceived notion of anime. The staff who had the sensitivity to identify such potential in this film only with that title and proposal is certainly amazing.

--Which scene was the most memorable for Director Tomino?

Tomino: It's rare for me, but I smiled at the last cut. Even though it was a cut with a loose composition without any ingenuity, I giggled, mimicking Hana. It’s because I thought, “Parents are just like that, aren’t they.” As the conclusion of a movie, this was really amazing because usually one would want to include something message-like here. If it were me, I’d be too scared to keep her just seated at the table and would make her look towards the mountains and say “Are you doing well?” There aren’t many movies that end so neatly like that. After all, it is a film that raises the story of the movie and the overall representation theory in a fairly dramatic way. However, looking at director Hosoda's career, you've improved your skills for the pursuit of the genre of anime, and you also love anime as an audience member, right? When trying to pursue such a versatile story with a natural theme, Mr. Hosoda's strength of "animation lover" may turn into a weakness and become a double-edged sword.

Hosoda: It's exactly as you pointed out. But I don't think it's possible to stop liking anime anymore.

Tomino: Of course you can't. Therefore, there is no choice but to plan movies in a straightforward, rule abiding way. In my case, I had the same kind of trouble with Gundam, so I know it's harsh. That’s the extent to which Mr. Hosoda hit the nail on the head and got out of the environment where just making work for the sake of doing the job would pass.

Hosoda: However, while there are hundreds of thousands of movies in the history of movies, from many different people from many different cultures, I still think there is something out there that hasn’t been depicted yet. That is my "hope" that I have to keep making for my son who was born.

Tomino: That's the right line of sight. If you have that perspective, I think you can still make many works in the future. Those are probably words that can only be spoken by someone who felt “maybe what I’m creating is not anime?” since The Girl Who Lept Through Time. Because I personally have never come up with the logic that "there may be something that hasn’t become a movie yet."

Hosoda: What? That has to be a lie. Director Tomino was the one to provide that concept. We have been encouraged by that for over 30 years.

Tomino: No, I have the confidence to say that I don't have that kind of creativity or writing abilities.

Hosoda: There’s no way that’s possible. If so, why did we enjoy the thrill of going “I would've never thought up of this!” every time Director Tomino’s new work came out?

Tomino: That's because, in my case, I'm only thinking about the responsibility of "expressing to the public." Regardless of the fact that there were restrictions due to having sponsors involved with big robots, I have come so far only thinking about the narrow exit of, “if other people make it like this, I will do it this way.”

Hosoda: However, as far as I can see, it seems that Mr. Tomino's work pushes itself beyond and is located far above that, while being aware of the public consciousness.

Tomino: Yes, to that, I can be very clear. Because I don't trust the modern public. How can we raise the public to highbrow and make them Newypes? I desire to continue thinking about these feelings towards the future through the theory of communication. Am I overreaching? That's why I'm taught that "a writer must have a perspective like Mr. Hosoda." I couldn't become a fiction writer because I didn't have that sense. Even looking at the relationship between Hana, Yuki and Ame, I realized that "Drama is something that must be assembled like this."

Hosoda: To me this is an unbelievable story. That relationship between Hana, Yuki and Ame could easily be replaced with the path taken by Commander Doba and Haruru and Karara of Space Runaway Ideon. However I couldn’t write the fierce drama of that parent and child as is…

Tomino: If you say Wolf Children feels lacking because it’s simply about child-rearing without the fierce drama, then you are wrong. Things that everyone already knows. Things that everyone actually has hidden deep inside of them, to be able to just say those things straight out and lay it bare in public. Things like the sensual sense of distance in human relationships, you depict so naturally. I personally can't do that, so I forced it through with an easy-to-understand structure and logic. Passionate feelings required for a drama originally requires a sense of distance, and it should be drawn within that. Whether the distance when a hand stretches out and touches another person is true or good, false or true… that sense of distance is a wonderful way to show the goal of the story naturally. Director Hosoda is allowed to have confidence in his ability to direct those kinds of scenes.

Hosoda: I believe that great directing is not in the skills but luck. There was an intangible something that fit the content and tone of the movie. It was good that I was able to stick it out until the moment when I thought "this is good!" for each cut. Those kinds of moments are luck, and the director is the type of person who has to wait for those moments to happen. I think the directors are blessed with their each individual type of luck.

Tomino: I think that as well and also think that, ideally, a play cannot be made unless you are prepared to make it after understanding the whole world.

Hosoda: That being said, while I think the motif I chose this time is good, I also realized that my ability as a director was not caught up with it, but I still had to go through the pain of making it anyway. I don't really understand the whole world, and I don't have enough expressiveness…

Tomino: if that is the case, then I think you’re okay. What’s important is the awareness that “my abilities may not be enough.” There are certain things that can only be built upon that awareness and even if it's making scenes, it’s not something that can be done by one person. Overcoming obstacles with brute force, saying, "There is no choice but to do it like this," sometimes becomes a form of expression that exceeds one’s own ability. The better the movie, the more I think that the camera is set up with the humility that “I can't do it all by myself,” and you can see the power of the group that one doesn’t see in individual work.

Hosoda: For sure, and that’s important in animation as well.

Tomino: Even with desk work like anime, not everything can be controlled by oneself. With such humility in mind, please continue to create soft Hosoda works that everyone can enjoy.

Hosoda: I’m very honored to receive these words. I will continue to use them as encouragement.

#yoshiyuki tomino #mamoru hosoda #wolf children #translations #interview

2 notes · View notes

planetsam · 5 years

Note

Prompt: Canon divergent of 1x09 when Malex see each other again. Maybe Alex doesn’t walk away when he realizes how afraid Guerin is of him doing just that... again. Whatever you want to write/can picture out of it. That scene broke me a little bit with Michael whispering “is this really how it ends?” like he was desperate for Alex to really see him/understand him/love him. I LOVE YOUR WRITING! THANK YOU.

Alex has just realized he needs something a lot stronger than beer when Michael saunters in.

There have been moments like this in his life before, moments of realization and epiphany that are so life altering he can’t imagine being the same person he was before he knew them. The self blame is easy. He’s pretty great at it. The truth is the truth. Alex has never been one of those people who believes it’s subjective. Somethings true or it’s not, there is no grey area. He is still trying to wrap his head around the truth when the biggest lie of his life saunters in wearing a black hat and a smirk and sits next to him. Alex’s only thought is that he has to get out of there. He can’t get drunk and risk spilling the truth, not to anyone here and especially not to Michael. He tries to get out and Michael picks this, of all times, to come after him.

“Is this really how it ends?” Michael says, like he hasn’t been lying to Alex’s face every moment of every second since the day they met. He has no right to look as anguished as he does. He smiles, but it’s tortured, “the sex was epic.”

Alex feels sick.

He’s had sex that is literally out of this world, because that sex was with an actual alien. All the movies he’s seen that have scenes of probing flash before his eyes. None apply, thank god, but that doesn’t make it better. He’s had sex with an alien, but more importantly he’s had sex with someone who lied to him the whole time. Does the man he loved even exist? Michael leans forward and Alex forces himself not to react. He refuses to give Michael even this fraction of something. He’ll keep his hurt if that’s the only thing he gets.

“So shouldn’t the breakup involves some pyrotechnics? Scream? Break some stuff?”

Alex decides he’s going to kill him. That’s all there is to it. He’s going to kill him because this beautiful, smug, god damn telekinetic alien is standing in front of him asking if he’s going to break stuff. Michael is a genius but Alex isn’t stupid and he wants to question when Michael forgot that. Does he think Alex’s brain is in the desert with the rest of his leg and a few pints of his blood? His brain is fine, he’s undergone a lot of testing after everything. He’s fine. But apparently Michael thinks otherwise.

“Really make it feel over,” Michael says, his voice dropping.

This close, it’s impossible not to look at all of him. He’s shades of honey and gold and Alex wonders how it’s possible to love and hate someone in the same way, at the same moment, in the same breath. He’s been betrayed before, but it’s always been easier to switch off the love portion. He’s always been able to guard himself against the pain. He takes what he can when the truth comes out. But there’s no satisfaction, no promise of anything soothing. There’s just Michael and all of his sharp edges. Alex can see the plea underneath, the same look he always gets when they reach this moment and have given everything they have to what is between them. The moment before they have to push apart and return to whatever they came from. Before they do it all over again.

“Sometimes the world ends with a whimper, Guerin.”

He knows the exact moment he breaks Michael’s heart, but there’s no satisfaction in it. Actually the look on Michael’s face is an exact mirror of what he’s feeling. Only Michael wears his heart on his sleeve and Alex has long since learned to tuck it away. He’s hurt Michael in the same instant as he’s being hurt by him. It’s a low, bully move. But Roswell does that to people, it brings out the worst and the hurt. He pulls away and makes it almost to the door before he glances back and sees that Michael is still standing there.

He looks lost.

Alex never looks back. His mom told him that looking back only made you want what was left behind. Michael looks small and lost as he stands there, he looks like he doesn’t know where to go now. Alex thinks of that kid sitting in the back of his truck, the one who couldn’t fathom why anyone would be nice to him just because. He thinks of his father and what that kindness cost Michael in the end. The bullied become bullies, that’s always how it’s supposed to go. The good ones like Kyle fight back but it’s a part of you. He knows Michael played an instrumental role in keeping him from that. All the hurt parts of him say to go and leave him standing there.

Alex storms back over.

“So the world—“

“I know,” he says and everything stops.

Maybe the world has ended.

Michael’s has. All the color drains out of his face before he actually has the audacity to smile that stupid smile. Only now Alex can see it for the lie that it is. His whole posture changes as he tries to inflate, make himself bigger like that’s going to cover the lie. It’s a bullshit, well honed move but Michael still tries.

“You know what?” He says.

“Oh spare me,” Alex says and look purposefully at the movie poster for Cowboys & Aliens that MiMi hung up the year they all turned legal, “the hats a nice touch.”

It’s a struggle to keep up but he lets Michael drag him out of the bar, pausing only long enough to grab his hat though Alex isn’t sure he’s close enough for it. It occurs to him that he’s being dragged out by a literal cowboy alien. But it’s less funny when Michael gets them into the alleyway and makes sure he’s got his feet under him. Any mask he has on falls away as he stares at him, looks away and then looks back at him. Alex doesn’t expect an explanation from him. He isn’t sure he wants one. Or that there is even one to give. How the hell do you explain something like this?

“How do you know?” Michael asks.

“Massive government conspiracy,” Alex says, “I’ve known for months.”

Some of the color comes back into Michael’s face.

“Is that why you’ve been avoiding me?” Michael demands, stepping forward. Alex steps back. Everything shifts and Michael becomes small again, “are you afraid of me?” Michael asks, toying with the edge of his hat.

“No!” Alex says, “would you stop doing that? You lied to me for our entire relationship—“

“That’s not—“ Michael cuts in.

“Did you think I wouldn’t find out? This whole town thought I was stupid, I never thought that you felt the same way—“ he keeps going.

“Alex—“ Michael’s face goes from scared to confused.

“But I guess it makes sense, I couldn’t protect you from my father so why would you—“

“Alex, stop!”

The dumpster lid bangs shut, making Alex whip around. He looks from the lid to Michael, whose eyes move from the lid to him. It’s one thing to read it on paper, it’s another for Michael’s powers to occur in front of him. The thing that keeps rolling through his mind, even more than the fact that Michael is an alien and thinks he would never notice, is the fact that Michael hasn’t used his powers. If Alex had the powers that he has, his father would never lay a hand on him. But he’s watched his father literally break Michael’s hand with a hammer and nothing happened. Michael is looking at him with complete horror.

“You think you couldn’t protect me?” He says.

Alex blows out a breath.

“We’re not talking about that,” he says.

“The hell we’re not,” Michael shoots back, “what did you mean—“

“We’re talking about you being an alien,” he cuts him off.

Michael shuts his mouth and Alex wonders, belatedly, if that’s somehow a bad term. Michael hates being called all sorts of things. But figuring out if alien is off limits is, admittedly, not a bridge that Alex ever thought that they would have to cross. He can see the spark of that same defiance as the kid who tried to deny a sleeping bag was his bed. Back then maybe secrets were okay between them but this, this is something else. Alex wishes he could logic his way out of the hurt, but he knows that isn’t how the world works.

“What?” Alex says, knowing that he’s not going to get answers if Michael shuts down more.

“It’s weird hearing you say that,” Michael says carefully.

“You’d be used to it if you told me the truth!” Alex says.

Michael is suddenly a lot closer and his back is literally against the wall. Alex was determined to rip the band aide off and walk away, not call Michael out on is bullshit. He doesn’t give him anything and pulls himself up to his full—and slightly higher—height. It doesn’t seem to bother Michael as much as it’s important to get him to understand. Alex would be annoyed if he wasn’t trying to not be affected by Michael’s proximity and contact.

“If you know, then you know why I couldn’t tell you,” Michael says, his eyes searching for the truth.

“I wouldn’t have said anything,” he says.

Michael gives him a look and Alex has to admit he might have a point. Nothing is ever a secret in this place for long. Except, apparently, stuff like that. He refuses to admit that though.

“I wanted to tell you,” Michael says.

“But you didn’t,” Alex shoots back.

“Not like you were around much,” Michael says and Alex opens his mouth, “you were trying to protect me.”

“I said we weren’t talking about that,” Alex snaps.

“You can’t win every argument from now on with ‘but you didn’t tell me you were an alien, Michael’,” he says, his eyes searching Alex’s face intently. He doesn’t know how the air is suddenly electrified.

“Watch me,” Alex shoots back.

Michael dives forward closing the already minuscule space between them, but Alex is dragging him forward already. Kissing an alien with full knowledge of what they are is, as it turns out, secondary to kissing a man you’re in love with. Michael’s lips are warm and dry and he tastes like cheap whiskey. The stronger stuff that Alex was thinking about leaving to go and get. Michael pushes him back against the wall, intent on kissing him senseless but his arm remains shoved there, just to make sure Alex can balance. They never kiss in public and somehow the adrenaline of it makes Alex weak in the knees.

“Door,” he pants out.

“On it,” Michael says and there’s the sound of a lock turning before their back to kissing each other.

His leg is going to kill him and they have a lot they need to talk about, but Alex can only think of Maria’s description of not bringing Michael home to his non existent mother, especially as he fights to stay quiet when Michael kisses his neck and works a leg in between his. Alex grips his shoulders and tries not to moan as Michael pushes them together. He may or may not have had several fantasies about something along these lines. So for the moment, he puts all the other stuff aside and focuses instead on kissing the man holding him up against the wall.

The lights go out.

All of them.

“God damn it,” Michael breathes against his neck and then turns, “what?!” He snarls over his shoulder.

“We need to talk,” Max says, “it’s about Isobel.”

In the dark Michael’s hands tighten on him, even as a Alex prepares to go. Isobel is Michael’s sister and despite everything, Alex knows that means the world to Michael. But Michael’s hands hold firm and the leg still pressed in between Alex’s doesn’t move. His eyes go from Max to Alex, Alex nods to show it’s okay. Michael steps back and they rearrange their clothing and as many signs of what they were doing as possible. Alex accepts Michael’s arm for balance as they make their way over to Max. He and Max acknowledge each other quickly, but before he can move past them Michael grabs his hand.

“Alex knows so he can stay,” he says. Max looks less than thrilled, “He’s a spy, like he’s not going to be just as helpful as the geek squad.”

Max looks at him and Alex wonders if it’s normal to be just as taken aback by having his hand held as it is to be in a staring contest with an alien. Two aliens.

“There’s a healer in Texas who might be like us,” Max says.

Make that three.

#michael guerin #alex manes #malex #malex fic #roswell new mexico #roswell nm fanfic #malex fanfic #prompts #michael x alex

156 notes · View notes

amplesalty · 4 years

Text

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge (1985) & Scream, Queen! My Nightmare on Elm Street (2019)

One, two, Freddy’s coming for you...

I feel like I’ve mentioned Nightmare 2 a few times on here but it never had it’s own dedicated entry so I’ve had a rewatch of it on my mind for a while now. That was only hastened when I recently learned of ‘Scream, Queen!’, a documentary cantered around Mark Patton who plays the lead character Jesse in 2.

Amongst the less than favourable reviews Nightmare 2 has, it also has the reputation of the ‘gayest horror movie ever’ which lead to the typecasting of Patton and him walking away from his acting career. It’s not something I was immediately aware of on my initial viewing of it, certainly there are a lot of moments that with that in mind stand out upon rewatching and a few that are less than subtle, such as Jesse going to a gay bar in the middle of the night only to run into his gym teacher. Some of it seems a little too much like people trying to read into things that aren’t there, like it seems people point out an early scene where Jesse gets into a tussle with one of his classmates Grady during a softball game. Grady rips Jesse’s trousers and they have a bit of a roll around on the grass before being separated. There are doubtless hundreds of examples of kids getting into fights like that across TV and cinematic history that people wouldn’t point out as examples of homoeroticism. But when you couple that with moments like a later scene where Jesse runs away from his girlfriend as they’re about to have sex, only to seek solitude with Grady and they have this exchange:

“There’s something inside of me. And last night it made me go into my sister’s room. And tonight with Lisa in the cabana, it started happening again.” “I think you are seriously losing it, bro.” “I’m scared, Grady. Something is trying to get inside my body.” “Yeah, and she’s female, and she’s waiting for you in the cabana. And you wanna sleep with me.”

You can perhaps see why people might start drawing conclusions from other scenes.

That ‘something’ is Freddy who is seemingly manifesting himself through Jesse into the real world. Up until that point though, the lines have been very blurry as to whether or not Freddy is actually back or whether Jesse is just going crazy, caught up in the wild stories of this vengeful killer from beyond the grave and becoming some sort of copycat.

It’s that part of the movie that I really like, this gray area where you’re not sure exactly what’s happening. It’s something the Nightmare series is able to explore with its switching between the normal and dream worlds but it’s taken to another level here, rather than just use that to build suspense as to whether a character is in danger due to Freddy being present in the dream world, you can see Jesse descending into this madness and are left to wonder whether or not he’s the one actually the one committing these murders.

Things can be a little disorientating at times due to the editing which I’m not sure is intentional or due to them making cuts. I think there’s a couple of occasions where things will pick up in the morning with Jesse wearing one set of clothes, then jumping to lunch time at school or in the evening back home where he’s wearing different clothes, inplying a day or more has passed. I suppose it does add to the atmosphere in a way but it also comes off a bit weird to me.

The movie is pretty much entirely in the real world so it lacks the creative and unique kills that often arise when people slip into slumber and into Freddy’s realm. But it does feature a scene where Freddy finally emerges into the real world and terrorises a high school party. You don’t really get that widespread sense of panic elsewhere in the series, there’s often that sort of low level of ongoing dread once the group of kids realise what’s happening and fear the next time they fall asleep but Freddy often kills people when they’re alone so it’s a change to see dozens of kids trying to escape, trampiling each other as they try and break through a gate or climb a wall. Apparently Wes Craven didn’t like this scene as it made Freddy look silly by having him surrounded by a bunch of muscular jocks. I find that a little strange though since, yeah Freddy might not be the most imposing figure size wise but his body is pretty much one giant, oozing sore complete with knives for fingers so I’m pretty sure he’s going to come out on top in terms of intimidation. Not to mention all the supernatural shit he’s seemingly conjuring like turning the pool into a boiling pot and summoning up pillars of fire.

I feel like this is where things take a sharp downturn, having the manifestation of Freddy emerge kinda removes all doubt and also takes Jesse out of the movie until the very end. It just feels a little anti climatic to have this big final battle suddenly fought by Jesse’s girlfriend who falls back on the trope of ‘I know you’re still in there, I love you!’ as she implores Jesse to fight back and finally overcome Freddy. So much for that gay subtext if it’s hetro love that finally saves the day.

Going into this rewatch, I had this built up very highly in my head which I don’t think it was able to live up to. Possibly because this years Invisible Man has surpassed it in my head as the really good example of that ambigious horror I like so much. Like Elisabeth Moss in that film, Patton has a real good look to him here in getting across the anxiety that Jesse is going through.

And to draw comparison to another Universal horror, there’s something of a Jekyll and Hyde or Wolfman to Jesse, the way he worries about this transformation that he’s going through and about the thing inside him coming out. During that scene at Grady’s place, Freddy emerges from Jesse’s body almost like a butterfly breaking free of it’s cacoon. Maybe that’s what everyone is talking about when it comes to the gay themes, that sense of discovery taking place amongst young adults and the angst surrounding whether or not they really want to reveal their true selves to a world that, as we’re unfortunately discovering more and more these days, still isn’t ready to accept everyone even nearly 40 years after this movie came out.

So for the documentary – Scream, Queen is an appropriate name for more than just the play on the ‘scream queen’ moniker given to notable horror movie actresses like Jamie Lee Curtis, and the obvious double meaning with it being focused around Patton’s sexuality. There’s quite a few instances of him delivering screams during Nightmare 2 which is a little unusual for a male character in a horror movie, not least a lead like he was. Plus it’s a little unusual for a male to be the lead at all, ‘last girl’ and all that, especially in the Nightmare franchise, all the other ones I’ve seen so far are female led.

They talk about the negative reputation the movie has and highlight a lot of internet comments about the sexual themes, a lot of slurs in there and comments like ‘Jesse screams like a girl’. Well wouldn’t you if some burn victim grabbed you in your house, ran knived fingers across your face and then ripped the top of his head off to expose his brain? I don’t doubt for a second that there are scores of people out there who would write this off due to this, I would hope that those are just a minority and if people don’t like it that they have legitimate reasons for that.

It’s a very eye opening story because even after learning about all this ‘gay subtext’ surrounding the movie and Patton’s departure from acting, I hadn’t really thought about the wider reasons behind that. Like, you hear about him being typecast and you just think that he doesn’t want to be pigeon holed into just playing one type of character or that it was hard to find work in those roles because not many of them existed. But it’s much deeper and more disturbing than that, delving into the emergence of the disease into the wider public knowledge during the 1980’s and the panic surrounding that. They show archived headlines and TV clips, with one member of the public being interviewed on the news saying “what they’re doing is abnormal...they’re not fit, they’re not human beings”. It’s painted as a bit of a witchhunt, with tabloids trying to out any closeted Hollywood stars and Patton tells a story of being duped into divulging information on his own boyfriends illness. With blood tests implemented for any prospective actors and him being advised to look and act a certain way to be more palatable to casters, he’s being asked to deny who he truly is.

For as much as the movie looks at the darker period of his formative years and him walking away from Hollywood, it’s encouraging to see his re-emergence into the public eye and embracing the fandom surrounding the movie, taking part in conventions and screenings that shun the negativity and instead see the role as empowering, encouraging people going through similar situations and being something of a role model.

The film culminates in a sit down talk between Patton and Nightmare 2’s writer David Chaskin who he feels has thrown him under the bus whenever talk of the ‘gay subtext’ has come up, having long denied any such thing before slowly changing his story and claiming that it was the casting that ruined the movie. Just before this there is footage of Patton and Jack Sholder at a convention where Sholder comes across as a little condescending. He’s basically telling Patton that directing his ire at Chaskin is misplaced and that he should drop the whole thing given it’s been 30 years. There’s an element of truth to that but I think it’s understandable that Patton would feel that way, especially when he points out that it’s only recently that Chaskin has taken ownership of the subtext now that we’re living in a more understanding time where it’s perhaps viewed as a brave move to introduce this kind of element. It’s going to be hard to look past someone enabling more vitriol by pinning problems on you.

The talk between Chaskin and Patton is a little awkward and it comes across like they’re there for different purposes, Chaskin trying to lighten the mood periodically where Patton keeps a serious tone, challenging Chaskin on some of the comments he’s made.

There’s one in particular where Chaskin suggests that the movie could be played at conversion camps....yikes.

Patton openly saying beforehand that he’s looking for an apology but I don’t know if he exactly got that. Chaskin says he hopes Patton can forgive him and that there are previous comments he made that he regrets but it comes across a little laboured. Maybe there was more said whilst the cameras weren’t rolling or maybe Patton is just accepting what little he can get from the experience in order to bring some closure to the whole thing.

#A Nightmare on Elm Street #A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 #Freddy's Revenge #Scream Queen #My Nightmare on Elm Street

3 notes · View notes

venus-says · 4 years

Text

Kamen Rider Ghost Movies and Specials

It's very amusing that I'm covering a horror movie here, but that isn't a part of the Ghost series.

It is time to (kinda) close the book on the Ghost season.

I gotta be honest, I wasn't looking forward to doing this, and I was both very disappointed and also very surprise. It was a fun journey, with a few questionable choices, but still fun nonetheless.

But before I get to the works that belong under this umbrella, we'll dive into something a bit different at first...

Kamen Rider: THE FIRST & Kamen Rider: THE NEXT

So, while looking at the list of Ghost's movies I saw that Kamen Rider 1 was on the list and that it was also technically part of the canon. I debated if I should watch it or not since, after all, my knowledge of the OG Kamen Rider is pretty much below basic and I was very afraid I would be missing in a lot of stuff. I was well aware I wouldn't be able to watch the actual show right now and I didn't want to read the wiki so I was about to give up on the idea when I looked at my notes and I saw that Kamen Rider THE FIRST and THE NEXT were a thing, and I thought this would fit in perfectly with the amount of time I have right now. I knew THE FIRST was a remake/adaptation of the original TV show and the manga and THE NEXT was its sequel so this would probably give me enough context to watch Kamen Rider 1.

And I wish I had done some more research before watching these movies because I feel like watching THE NEXT was a mistake.

Like, while I can't attest how truthful to the source material THE FIRST is, it was pretty much one of those compilation movies. The impression I had was that they choose the most crucial moments in a "The Best of" format and just glued that together and sold it as a movie. Which was not really a problem because it was pretty much a very solid movie, despite the cuts that leave a lot of gaps between each point. It lacked a lot of information, like how Hayato got to Shocker, and it kinda wasted time with the plotline of the kids from the hospital that didn't get a proper payoff, but it was still an entertaining movie. I love the action scenes, I'm not a specialist in this matter but it was really refreshing seeing a fight scene that was pretty much all done with practical stunts and very little CGI. This movie made me really curious to watch the original show, I know this is not exactly what I'll get whenever I watch it, but it left the "I want more" taste in my mouth.

THE NEXT on the other hand, while it was more of a "film" rather than a "compilation", it was also less of a Rider movie, they had riders on it, but it felt like they weren't the main focus. The feeling I had while watching it was that the producers either read the Helter Skelter manga, or watched Perfect Blue, or they saw one of those conspiracy theories of artists who don't seem to age that died and were replaced and wanted to make a horror movie that would deal in with the cruelty of the entertainment world, but they got denied and were put in to make the sequel of THE FIRST without wanting it, so they picked their original idea and shoved Kamen Rider into it as a secondary element that feels like it doesn't belong in that movie, and in the end, it fails at both. Admittedly, the horror portion was pretty good, I would be interested in watching it. It was the rider portion that was a letdown, it was pretty much just some random action, and while watching that girl fighting with a chainsaw was cool as hell there wasn't much background stuff to justify all of that and put some meaning on it. And there's also the terrible final scene with that awful CGI fire that was cringy as hell. If you want some advice, skip this one, it's not worth it.

Kamen Rider Ghost: Legendary! Riders' Souls!

Because I was left with the feeling that I got no useful information after watching THE NEXT, I decided to do something that I never do that is watch the web specials they release for each movie in the hopes that I would have enough context to watch Kamen Rider 1 without a problem. And well... I didn't expect them to be so pointless. Like, they have enough content to be its own TV movie and it's all just to explain how they got the Rider Eyecons, AND THAT'S IN THE MOVIE FOR LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES!!!!!!!!!! And like, these form changes are so useless that if they had taken that out of the movie it wouldn't make a difference!!! I swear to god, why do they still think this kind of stuff is cool? UGH

I don't have much to say because this was pretty much just a boss rush, but I have to say this. PLEASE STOP BRINGING FINAL BOSSES BACK, they're final bosses for a reason goddammit, they're not cannon fodder! When you bring a final boss back anytime you have a chance it just loses the cool effect it could have. Please, Kamen Rider, stop, we get it, you love your own franchise, you don't need to keep doing this circle jerk all the time when you wanna do something cool that serves as an homage to your own history.

Kamen Rider 1

Complains aside, finally the actual first Ghost movie, in the Ghost Movies and Specials post.

And this was a great movie, probably my favorite thing that came out of Ghost. This movie is exciting, it has things for both old and new fans, the plot is pretty decent, the action is a lot of fun, and the emotional beats work very well. I felt in love with Takeshi after this movie, he's such a cool guy, and I really like the actor, it was always a joy seeing him on the screen, his whole thing with Mayu was great, it was very endearing, and when Takeshi dies I really felt it, and the only reason why I'm okay with them bringing him back is that I like him so much and I didn't want to see him die. If THE FIRST made me want to watch the original series, seeing Takeshi in this movie made me want that even more.

I expected the Ghost cast to be the low point of this movie, and while my biggest complaint is about a thing related to the Ghost lore, I overall liked seeing Takeru tag along with Takeshi. To the surprise of a total of 0 people, Makoto was useless again, but honestly, his participation in this movie is so minor it doesn't even bother me. I also like that the villains of the movie were Shocker and Nova Shocker and not that white-suit guy from the specials. Having both Shockers there fighting not only the riders but also each other earned a lot of points with me, I particularly love how Nova Shocker decided to do their thing by embracing capitalism and becoming a corporation because corporative people are the scariest and I love when they make villains based on that.

But I think what I like the most of this movie is that brings up to discussion a theme that I always thought the show should've tackled on TV that is the importance of life, and all that Love&Peace talk about how we're all connected, and that we're connected to nature, that is connected to the world, and yadda yadda yadda. Yes, it's a pretty old speech and everything, but it's one of the subjects that match the most with what I believe is the premise of this show, and while I love that this is a part of this movie, it's pretty sad that none of this bleeds out to the TV show.

And talking about things that are pretty sad, the element I liked the least was the thing that Mayu had a very powerful Eyecon that has been dormant inside her. I understand this is a Ghost movie and they wanna use their gimmick, but they could've used Takeru's gimmick of going full ghost mode and start fo follow Mayu while invisible instead of making the final villain just another MOTW. I honestly think the conflict between Shocker and Nova Shocker was enough to make everything they wanted to do, on the scale they envisioned, without having to add anything related to the villains of this season.

Regardless of the complaints, this is worth watching, for sure, and I wish I hadn't wasted my time with THE NEXT and the specials because I wish I could've met this movie way sooner. XD

Ghost: The 100 Eyecons and Ghost's Fateful Moment

This movie... was a choice. I feel like I have nothing to say about this movie, it was empty, it was pretty much a copy of the Wizard and the OOO's movies merged together, there were a lot of depiction of historical figures that would probably leave some people turning on their graves, they tried to make not just one but TWO familiar dramas and both of them failed in being interesting or having a good pay off at the end, and if all of that wasn't bad enough, guess what? Takeru died again! And was "revived" once more! Yay! I swear, this movie is so frustrating, I just wanna forget it exists.

Well... at least the new Napoleon and Darwin forms looked good I guess.

The Legend of Hero Alain

Now, what wasn't a frustration was Alain's special series! I absolutely love being able to see different points of view of the same story, and being able to see that from the perspective of who became my favorite among the riders of this season was a true delight. I do think episode 4 was a bit useless and if they wanted to make an epilogue they could've done something better, but the other 3 episodes are pretty good.

In particular episodes 2 and 3, that are from the time around his redemption arc, were very touching and a huge part of that is obviously from the presence of the best character of this show, the #1 takoyaki lady, Fumi-san, who once again was here giving her wisdom and passing down some of the messages the TV show tried to pass but that it failed completely. And even though I knew they would eventually hit a point where they would talk about her death, I was still hit by the feels like if they were a truck and I cried.

If I have to say two things that I don't like about these specials it would be that "Human Life Course" Takeru, Akari, and Onari had in episode 3, that was just ridiculous. And I'm not the biggest fan of having this thing of Alain and Fumi having a story that goes way back than what we saw in the show. But honestly, even with these problems, this is one of my favorite media that came out of Ghost.

Kamen Rider Ghost RE:BIRTH: Kamen Rider Specter

Last, and deservedly the least, is Specter's movie. And talk about a bad movie,

You would think that at least on his own movie Makoto would be important, play a big role, but even though he defeated the big bad in the end, he actually did nothing that couldn't have been done for another character. Heck, if you think about it, the real hero at the end of the day was Onari because it was sneaking around and stealing that gem that solved the main problem about clearing the sky atmosphere in the end. All Makoto did here was take a dumb decision after the other and is dreadful to watch.

I think the biggest problem of this movie is that it depends on us believing in feelings developed between two characters that know each other for less than three days and one of those characters is framed by the movie SINCE THE BEGINNING as a maniac villain. And our pay off of this is to believe Makoto forgive the guy who was conducting crazy experiments and that threatened to kill his beloved sister because he considered her a failure. Thanks, I hate it!

Oh yeah and we had power-ups for Necrom and Specter that came out of nowhere and we just have to buy it. At least Spector's new form looks pretty cool, despite me not buying the "sin" motif, I would like to have an opinion on Necrom's form, but it happened on a shitty rain scene and I couldn't distinguish any memorable feature while watching it.

All in all, this movie was another disappointment.

Well, that's it for Ghost. I wish I could have something good to say to sendoff this series, but I honestly don't so I'll just wrap-up here after all this post is already long enough. What are your thoughts on these? Have you watched any of them recently? Let me know in the comments down below. Stay healthy, stay safe, never stop resisting, thank you so much for reading, and until the next time. Bye~

#Kamen Rider Ghost #Kamen Rider THE FIRST #Kamen Rider THE NEXT #kamen rider

2 notes · View notes

dingoes8myrp · 5 years

Text

Alien Franchise Thoughts

This weekend I happened to catch and rewatch Alien: Covenant. Right after that I caught and rewatched Aliens. This was sheerly through channel surfing luck that I watched these movies in this order. But, in doing so I connected some dots and had some realizations that gave me a new appreciation for the prequel series.

A Bit of Background

I can’t remember if I saw Alien or The Terminator first, so Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor get equal billing for being “the first” female action heroes I ever encountered. Prior to them I’d seen Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Bruce Willis watching action films with my dad. So seeing not Tom Skerrit’s Captain Dallas or John Hurt’s Kane but Sigourney Weaver’s Ellen Ripley take on the role of Action Hero was essential to my development as an eleven-year-old girl. I’m not even exaggerating for the sake of drama. Watching Ripley in Alien was one of the first examples I saw in media of a woman in a role I’d only seen taken on by male characters before. For this reason alone, the original Alien holds a special place in my heart.

The Original Series

I have mixed feelings about the franchise as a whole. I loved Alien and Aliens to me was just as good and is one of the few sequels that measures up to the original. It lost me at Alien 3 when they killed off Newt and Hicks in the opening crash land. Forcing Ripley into the “sole survivor” role becomes formulaic here and… honestly I’ve had no desire to rewatch Alien 3 and completely forget the entire plot other than the fact that it takes place in a prison setting and Ripley had to shave her head. And they killed off Ripley! I remember being very upset all around at Alien 3 and I think I mentally disowned it.

Alien: Resurrection brought me back around because Ripley was back! And there was Winona Ryder! However, Ripley wasn’t the same Ripley we remembered. She was some clone or hybrid or… I don’t really know what they were going for there. But, I looked at this film as a standalone almost AU installment and I’m actually very okay with it. Not my favorite by a longshot, but a slight redemption from Alien 3’s mess.

Alien vs. Predator

No. Just no. Denied. Why? What even? WHY?!

I’ve seen a few of these movies and if you’re a fan of big monsters fighting one another with a bunch of random humans caught in the middle, these movies might be your jam. If you’re a Predator or an Alien fan, though, it kind of doesn’t fit in with either in my opinion.

The Prequels

When I watched Prometheus I hadn’t done any research on it at all, so I had no idea it had anything to do with the Alien franchise. I saw a space-themed action-horror film with Charlize Theron, Idris Elba, Noomi Rapace, and Michael Fassbender involved and I was IN, man. Honorable mention to Logan Marshall-Green, who is also awesome but I didn't catch in the trailers. So he was a nice surprise.

The opening scene was unworldly and gorgeous, much like the opening of The Mists of Avalon, which is a weird comparison, I know. But I was enchanted by this opening scene much like I was as I watched Morgaine Le Fey float through the mist that served as a doorway to a magical world. We see an unknown being on an alien planet perform a mysterious ritual and then plummet into the water. The first clue was the title card, which even then I thought “Oh, cool! They did the Alien thing!” but hadn’t connected it as directly related. I’d just thought it was a subtle nod because of the Ridley Scott connection.

I loved Prometheus as a film. I had a very similar reaction to it that I had to the original Alien movie. We had an ensemble of characters, all with their own personalities and enough development to make us care. Noomi Rapace became the reluctant hero as opposed to the expected Charlize Theron, who had been in the Ripley role (“He’s not coming on my ship.”). As the Alien clues dropped, I picked them up and quickly (excitedly) realized the film was somehow connected – it had to be. For me, that was just the cherry on top of a fantastic film.

Alien: Covenant made me feel much like Alien 3 did. The ending of Prometheus had been hopeful, echoing both the endings of Alien and Aliens. Our hero Elizabeth Shaw had survived and would bring android David along to find the Engineers and get her answers. Ridley Scott himself spoke about a possible sequel involving Elizabeth and David trying to do just that.

And then we got Alien: Covenant. Elizabeth and David were nowhere to be found and instead we were (hastily) introduced to an entire new crew of characters whose development was severely lacking in the film. We don’t even know everyone’s paired up in romantic couples until people start dying. When David did finally appear to rescue everyone I was excited. Yes! Finally, a tie-in to Prometheus. And then we learn Elizabeth died suspiciously and the franchise is turned over to David. To say I was infuriated would be an understatement.

I was more excited about the project Sigourney Weaver and Michael Biehn spoke about at a comic-con panel that would’ve followed Alien and Aliens (and maybe retconned some stuff) than I was about whatever Ridley Scott did next (I still kind of am, if I’m honest). Why would someone take a franchise helmed by a powerhouse female action hero and then make its lead an insane android and his pet virus? Why would I want to follow this asshole instead of Shaw, Daniels, or even Vickers?

Final Analysis

Watching Aliens right on the heels of Alien: Covenant made it easier for me to make some connections and parallels. In Aliens, a group of marines attempts to travel to a space colony that lost contact to see what’s going on. Ripley is brought along (with Burke, that shit) as a consultant “just in case” (even though everyone treats her like she has a case of the vapors when she tells them about the xenomorphs). The premise makes little sense on the outset. However, when we later learn Burke’s true motivation it makes perfect sense. Burke believes Ripley, although he makes a show of the opposite. And he wants to bag an alien to bring home and sell to the highest bidder. When the soldiers start stomping carelessly around blowing holes in things with there big dumb weapons, it’s infuriating to the audience, knowing what we know. However, it’s also infuriating to Ripley and we’re reminded why she’s there. These are soldiers who, of course, have no idea what to do with an alien species and probably aren’t used to exploring alien environments.

This is very similar to what’s going on in Alien: Covenant. Not made clear in the film due to the character development scenes (such as “the last supper” prologue) being cut, this crew are explorers and colonists. They’re not astronauts or scientists. A few of the characters appear to be military escorts or officers. Of course they’re tromping around without a care in the world. They don’t know any better. Their captain, Jake Bronson, dies mid-journey and his second-in-command, Billy Crudup’s Oram, is super insecure about his new position. This is frequently shown in his interactions with Katherine Waterson’s No First Name Daniels, who was also Bronson’s wife. Daniels has a comradery and respect with the crew not present with Oram. So, when Oram has to start making decisions he’s acting more on his insecurity and his need to Do Something and be taken seriously than acting on the information and advice he’s given. Also, once we know the relationships between characters everyone’s bizarre anti-survival behavior makes a ton of sense. After a certain point in the film, everyone has lost a spouse and/or a ton of friends. Everyone is grieving, scared, and not at all trained to be doing what they’re doing, and they don’t have a Ripley on board to help guide them. “Game over, man! Game over!”

Yeah, Alien: Covenant is what happens when you make every character a Hudson.

Watching Ripley’s reaction to Bishop in Aliens reminded me how iffy Ash the A.I. was in Alien. You know, he got all murdery and everything.

Then I remembered – oh, yeah – Alien: Covenant is a prequel. This means David is an A.I. precursor of some kind to Ash… which means he’s a faulty A.I. Also, Ripley encountered creatures and situations no one had discovered before to our knowledge (due to everyone’s reaction to Ripley’s story in Aliens). This ultimately means no one can make it out of these prequels alive or it compromises Ripley’s established story.

David is a faulty A.I., which hasn’t yet been experienced by anyone living who has encountered androids in space exploration if we go by the example of Ash in Alien. Failsafes haven’t been given to androids yet to limit their emotional depths or put rules in place to prevent them from harming humans. He’s creating creatures that are new. No one knows they exist, so no one is prepared for them (just like the crew of the Nostromo wasn’t prepared for the xenomorphs in Alien). Even heavily trained soldiers, scientists, and astronauts will be encountering deadly things they don’t know are out there: a highly intelligent rogue A.I. capable of experiencing emotion and evolution, mutated weaponized creatures unlike anything they’ve ever seen before, and an alien virus that mutates its host and is undetectably ingested.

Guys, ain’t nobody emerging as the lone heroic survivor of anything in this franchise (except the fucking xenomorph).

Having digested and accepted that information, I am grimly awaiting what happens next, and I really hope with all my giddy little heart that theorized Aliens sequel Sigourney Weaver and Michael Biehn teased is going to happen. I’ll even take a video game version.

Hicks and Newt deserved better and I stand by that.

#alien #aliens #alien covenant #dingometa

9 notes · View notes

spacetimewraithwrites-archive · 5 years

Text

Requested by @pen-in-hand, all the even numbers of this ask game. The rest is under the cut!

02. What is one of your character’s biggest insecurities? Are they able to hide it easily or can others easily exploit this weakness?

Warren struggles with his self-worth in general. He often feels like he has no place in the universe, that he doesn’t belong, and he’s pretty good at hiding it from people who don’t know him really well (or, you know...those who can read his feelings just by touching his skin UWU lol)

04. What are their favorite traits about their lover? (one psychological and one physical)

It goes without saying that Warren is enamored with almost every part of Thrive mentally and physically, but his favorite physical trait would probably be his eyes (that’s something I include in a lot of my writing...I have a thing for characters with things for eyes lmao. mostly green and blue, too....huh). He loves their color and the fact that he can read him pretty darn well despite the fact that Thrive is very good at masking his true mental state.

I know it said one of each but I’d say he loves Thrive’s hands as much as he favors his eyes. He’s quite fond of their shape and bone structure, as well as the fact that when they’re not completely upending the laws of physics they’re twitching or flexing as if he’s not sure what to do with them at any given time.

Psychologically, the biggest thing that attracts Warren to Thrive is his intelligence. Over eight thousand years of knowledge exists within him and he’s extremely adept at putting that knowledge and wisdom to good use, and that’s a big turn-on for Warren lmao.

06. Do they have any hobbies that their lover finds unusual, odd, or otherwise annoying?

Hmm...Warren’s only real hobbies are coding/programming and dancing, and I think because Thrive comes from a planet and culture that never discovered the impact of dance, he finds it a bit unusual. More intriguing than annoying, I believe. He’ll humor Warren with a slow dance sometimes (twice in the books so far, once during a pretty emotionally heavy scene in...Eternal? maybe? maybe Aurora. I dunno yet. and once leading into their first big love scene in Rebirth).

08. What is, perhaps, their biggest flaw? Are they aware of this or oblivious to it?

Warren’s biggest flaw may be a little bit subjective but in my opinion, it’s the fact that he’s so willing to throw himself into the fire for good causes. His jumping headfirst into being on Thrive’s side before they even met, running headlong into the Milky Way war, going against Thrive’s explicit wishes (orders. they were orders.) and ███████ ███ ██ █████████, that kinda thing.

10. Is your character more feminine or masculine?

He’s more masculine in the “traditional” sense, but he’s not ashamed of his more “feminine” qualities. He’s been brought to tears on a few occasions and it’s important to him to maintain a good channel of open communication and honesty when it comes to emotions within any kind of relationship.

Except, you know...with Brayden when it comes to Thrive lmao WHOOPSIE

12. Is there some particular talent, skill, or attribute that they simply could not give up?

His gift with computers and tech has always kinda been expendable to him, he loves doing it but if he woke up one day and forgot how to do any of it he wouldn’t be as torn up as, say, one day he woke up and forgot how to dance. He got through his teenage years (though he almost didn’t) because of dance, and he could never in a million years willingly give that up.

14. Do they live alone or with family? How do they feel about their family/roommates?

If you were to get smartass-y, for like 99% of the first two books he lives with the entire universe since he technically is homeless. The once-uninhabited Tournaltis becomes his home in book 3, and while he doesn’t spend much time there over the course of the next books, it’s always an option in the background.

He ends up with seventy-one roommates and while I can’t say...well, anything about them (other than Thrive obvs), I can and will say that he isn’t sure what to make of them, in the most affectionate way possible lol.

16. Is your character the athletic type or more of a couch potato? What are some sports/games that they like?

Warren isn’t much of a sports guy, but he’s also not really a couch potato. He loves the outdoors and doesn’t like being cooped up in one place for too long, which is why being put up in the Destiny is especially hard on him. He doesn’t mind spaceships so much since they’re always moving from point A to point B.

18. What kind of home would they want to live in? Where would they place this abode?

To be true, his dream home is his grandparents’ cabin in Alaska. Off the grid for the most part, deep in the forest, right by the lake...’kay maybe not the lake so much, but he’s a loner at heart and always will be.

20. Does your character like animals? What are some of their favorite animals? Would they want pets? What about mythological creatures?

Warren doesn’t mind animals, but he’s not a big pet person. Interestingly, I think his favorite animal is the desert lights that come out at night over the beach on Tournaltis. They’re phosphorescent orange glowing insect-like creatures that float in the air over the shore, stretching from the water all the way back to the cliff face. He thinks they’re so interesting and they create a beautiful landscape, especially when the sky is clear and the Milky Way makes an appearance.

22. What kind of tattoos, piercings, birthmarks, freckles, and other such unique physical features do they have?

He’s still got a hole in his right ear (I think, yikes) from when he was fourteen and got it pierced, though he hasn’t worn an earring since, and he wouldn’t mind a tattoo if he ever came across a memorable or one with enough meaning. He’s got various freckles on different parts of his body, but no birthmarks.

24. In their own words, how would your character describe what their lover is like?

“Full of love and passion, unbelievable wisdom and an overwhelming sense of spiritual righteousness that only doesn’t come off as arrogance because he himself does not seem to be able to cope with the fact that he can’t save everyone in the universe.”

26. What is their lover like sexually? How do they feel about their lover’s quirks, needs, etc?

Thrive is not a sexual being normally. In fact, he’s only interested in the act when he’s physically interacting with someone who’s feelin’ some type of way, but he gets enjoyment out of Warren’s satisfaction and his unique emotional signature, so truthfully he only does things for him as they both equally benefit.

Warren feels a little guilty about this since he’s hardwired to believe that it’s important to make sure all parties are left feeling taken care of during intimacy...it takes a bit for him to get used to the fact that Thrive gets his kicks from him getting his kicks, lmao

28. If your character became a celebrity, what would they be famous for?

Well...he kinda is a celebrity? At least in the year 2272. I mean...he helped save the galaxy for cryin’ out loud. Truthfully not as well-known at Thrive, but the textbooks all mention Warren at some point.

30. When it comes to the arts (music, film, theater, etc), what does your character like?

He likes mostly indie stuff and some hip-hop and rock, both residual from his middle- and high-school years. He surprisingly doesn’t watch a lot of movies. He can appreciate art and actually dabbled a bit in painting when he was a kid, but he ultimately decided it was better left to those with a talent for it.

32. If your character’s lover offered to take them out on a dream date, what would they want to do?

Warren is pretty classically romantic in the sense that just some time under the moon(s) and stars is perfectly fine with him.

I’ve been thinking of including a scene in like, Eternal or something that likens to Mass Effect 3′s Citadel DLC...I kinda wanna put Warren and Thrive on a dinner-and-activity sort of date on the Node and play with how uncomfortable or surprisingly comfortable they may and/or may not be in that situation. Also kinda for a purpose as they’d be discussing the goings-on and their next plan or whatever.

34. Does your character have favorite foods? (breakfast, lunch, dinner, dessert, snacks, etc)

Warren likes all food at all times. Really, that’s truly it lmao

36. Does your character have any medical conditions? Are they serious or minor? Do they affect their day to day life?

He doesn’t have any medical conditions that I can think of off the top of my head...well, I mean...there may or may not be some stuff after Rebirth....

38. What kind of weather does your character like? Cloudy skies, rainy days, sunshine, etc?

He’s particularly fond of cloudy, snowy or rainy weather where you just wanna curl up under a blanket and sleep.

40. Does your OC have any guilty pleasures they enjoy? Hobbies, past times, music, etc that they wouldn’t want known by others?

Not really. Warren feels (like I do) that anything you enjoy should be done without shame, within reason.

42. Is there anything in your character’s past that they regret, haunts them, or they wish they could change?

He does regret how he could’ve left his grandparents. He regrets putting them through the horror of almost losing him, especially not that long after losing their son and their daughter-in-law to illnesses.

Not saying goodbye to the rest of his family, or anyone really, before the end of Destiny is a big one. Everything that happened on the Destiny, definitely.

44. Is there a particular event that would emotionally devastate your character?

WELP. I can’t quite...HUH. I can’t exactly...well, I can’t talk about it lol

Maybe losing Thrive somehow????????? and I cannot confirm nor deny that this happens. lmao

46. What is some random affectionate thing that your character always does to their lover?

He calls him “babe” a lot, which like...always makes my knees weak ngl lol

Also, he likes to try to get ahead of Thrive’s needs, waiting in their room to give him neck rubs after a stressful day on Tournaltis, for example. Or letting Thrive reach into his mind to be reassured or comforted or whatever it is he’s looking for at the time.

He also loves to flirt with him because his reactions are amusing lmao

48. Is there anything in particular that would ignite your character’s jealousy? Or does your character not get envious?

Warren is the most jealous before he’s officially in a relationship with Thrive. After that threshold’s crossed, not so much. His feelings toward Sussa in regards to Thrive before fully understanding the nature of their situation is uhh not great.

I mean sure, if he saw Thrive mackin’ on someone else right in front of his face he’d have QUESTIONS....

But he trusts him and knows that they could talk through anything if feelings shifted or began leaning a certain way.

50. If your character confessed love to their crush, boyfriend, girlfriend, etc, what would they say?

Warren would say, “I’m crazy about you. Insanely, tragically in love with you.”

And Thrive would say nothing. Cuz that’s canon lmao

#honestly thank you for this #gave me a chance to refresh my Thriving shit #ask games #profile: Warren #if I left something out or typoed or misread a question or anything I'm so sorry #I'm running on four hours of sleep but I'd be damned if I wasn't gonna finish this!!

5 notes · View notes

cinephiles-delight · 6 years

Text

Guilt, Grief, and the Inescapable Nature of Family in “Hereditary”

Before today, I had never known what it feels like to sit staring at a movie screen with a gaping jaw for two hours straight, locked in a permanent state of complete shock and amazement. Today I had the privilege to watch Hereditary in theaters, and it is not an understatement to say that this movie will become known as “this generation’s The Exorcist”. I have never before seen a film so seamlessly blend painfully beautiful family drama with a truly grotesque and devilish horror story. For me, the film breaks down into those two basic elements–the horror plot and the family plot–and quite possibly the most amazing feat that Ari Aster accomplishes in this film is that not only is neither plot dominant or more interesting, neither plot works without the other. Horror is the vehicle Aster uses to tell the story of a family that falls apart at the seams when besieged by the forces of grief, guilt, and hereditary insanity, and it is the vehicle by which he gives the audience a truly terrifying, personal, and heartbreaking film.

One of the most prominent themes in the film is guilt and the transference of guilt. We are introduced to this theme explicitly when Annie goes to grief counseling for the first time, and she, in a tearful confession, declares that she feels guilty for “all of it”. Annie expounds on this rather cryptic confession later in the nightmare/sleepwalking sequence when has an imagined conversation with her son, Peter. In her dream, Annie screams at Peter that she never wanted him in the first place, that it was her grandmother’s idea to have him, and that she tried to have a miscarriage to prevent his birth. The fact that this comes out only in Annie’s dream, her moment of psychological vulnerability, represents just how deeply she represses her guilt in relation to her son, and how much she fears having to accept the reality of her own actions. The “reality of her actions” also includes trying to set fire to her daughter and son using paint thinner and a box of matches during a sleepwalking episode, something Annie laments doing while conversing with Joan, saying that she fears she can never win back her son’s trust. Annie’s guilt, and her avoidance of it–think about the dinner table scene in which she rants about no one accepting blame, to which Peter responds by pointing out her own blame that she vehemently denies/represses–acts as the driving engine for the family drama story, but she is far from the only character who must struggle with feelings of remorse and helplessness.

Probably the most tragic victim of psychological scars is Peter himself, who must cope with the knowledge that he was directly responsible (on several levels) for his sister’s death. Peter’s speeding, inattention to the road, letting Charlie roam the party on her own, not bringing her epi-pen, smoking weed while ignoring Charlie, etc. all contributed to her death and were all Peter’s fault, something Charlie’s ghost will not soon let him forget. Peter is haunted by visions of Charlie, appearing in his room, and in one scene her head even falls off, rolling towards him across the room as it turns into a toy ball. Peter is literally being haunted by the consequences of his actions. Later, as Peter is smoking marijuana under the bleachers at school, he begins to have a serious allergic reaction in which his throat swells and he struggles to breath. The audience will immediately recognize this as strange, because for one thing we have seen Peter smoking weed before with no ill effects, and for another as the reaction reaches its climax he begins to weep and asks his friend to “hold his hand”. This suggests that (barring any supernatural explanations), Peter’s reaction was a physical manifestation of his own feelings of guilt in relation to Charlie’s death. Here, the manifestation of his grief is an allergic reaction to marijuana because those are the two contributing factors that Peter links most closely with his culpability in Charlie’s death: his leaving her alone and allowing her to eat the cake with nuts in it, and his driving while high on marijuana. The fact that Peter collapses in an hysterical fit as he has the reaction further lends weight to the idea that it is a direct consequence of his emotional distress. (Side note: another interesting break in Peter’s psyche occurs when he sees his own reflection in a closet door smiling back at him in class one day. The “real” Peter is frowning, while the reflected Peter–the one everyone else sees–is smiling: a visual representation of Peter concealing his own grief and guilt.)

Finally, and maybe most importantly, both Peter and Annie’s guilt are the driving forces behind the father’s distress throughout the film, and through his character the audience is offered a perspective from which to view the events of the film removed from any supernatural elements. The husband is a skeptic, and any time that we are given a glimpse into his point of view we are allowed to see the effect Annie’s erratic behavior and Peter’s descent into hysterics have on a normal person removed from the horror elements of this movie. This is because, as the story progresses, and Annie descends deeper into her own madness and exasperation, her husband is the one who must bear the brunt of its most immediate consequences. He is resigned to watch helplessly as his wife, in a desperate attempt to alleviate the pain of her grief, resorts to bizarre and insane occult rituals, dragging innocent Peter into her madness in the process. For example, in the scene where Annie attempts to conjure the spirit of Charlie in the presence of Peter and his father, the father is forced to watch his son grow increasingly terrified and emotionally hysterical as his mother talks about crazy cult ideas and begins to speak in a vocal imitation of his dead sister. Not only does this incident throw Peter into a fit of convulsive sob-screams, it breaks the father’s heart as we watch him helplessly bear witness to not only his wife seemingly losing her mind, but also witness his son’s psyche torn apart in the process. As the movie goes on, and he receives more and more frequent calls from Peter’s school reporting erratic and emotionally unstable behavior from Peter, the father begins to lose the last shred of self-restraint he has left with regards to his wife and her neurosis’ influence on the family. His ultimate frustration and anger is shown to the audience in the quiet and restrained image of him pulling into the driveway, having picked up Peter from school after an episode resulting in a broken nose, and completely ignoring the shouts of his wife at the car window, pounding and trying to get his attention as he simply drives on by. Finally, after spending the entire first act and most of the second act being consumed by the roaring inferno of his family’s dysfunction, the father’s character arc comes to an end in spectacular and symbolic fashion: as Annie tosses Charlie’s journal into the fireplace he spontaneously bursts into flames, burnt alive on the spot. The father ends his journey in this film as he spent most of it: being consumed in the flames produced by the disintegration of his family.

This leads me to the film’s most obvious, and probably most important, theme: the inescapable nature of family. The audience begins to notice, that in this movie the most terrifying place to be is, in fact, in the home (and not just because of the scary, naked, old people)–I’m borrowing that phrase from another critic. The dread that accompanies the image of the home is a product of its association with what lies within it: family. Homes represents our ties to the past, our ancestors, and the vestiges of our parents and grandparents. Homes are where the most tragic dramas are acted out by unwitting players just trying their hardest to make a family work. Home represents for Peter the battlefield on which were fought all the altercations with his mother, it represents the presence of a combative, possibly psychotic mother who once tried to murder him. For the father home represents being trapped with his wife and her delirium. And for the mother, home represents the place that once was inhabited by her beloved Charlie, and that is still inhabited by the insidious influences of a manipulative mother. Images of homes pop up all over the place in this film; whether it be the very stately treehouse, the several dioramas displayed in the family room, or the miniature house being constructed in Annie’s workshop, the motif of the house plays an important role in this film. The images remind us of the associations I listed above, and the repeated image of the miniature house harkens back to the idea of the home being a place of oppressive familial claustrophobia. Specifically, there is one display right near the entrance to the real house that features a small home on a plot of land on top of a tower of dirt in which are embedded several more miniature houses.

In my opinion, this display is a symbol for the central theme of the film as a whole, and the one that is featured in the title: hereditary traits and what we receive from our parents and grandparents. Just like how the house on top of the patch of land could not have been built without the several houses buried beneath its foundation, no member of the family in Hereditary–and indeed, no family member ever–can exist completely independent from the quirks, idiosyncrasies, and little insanities of their parents and relatives. People are irrevocably shaped by their experiences in the home, and the most significant shapers of a person’s psyche are most always their mother and father (take Norma Bates from Psycho, for example). In Hereditary, several characters are doomed to their fates by the actions of their forebears, especially Charlie, Peter, and Annie. Charlie and Peter both fall victim to the satanic plots of their grandmother, groomed from before birth to be the human hosts of a biblical, hellish entity. This idea of being destined to some predetermined fate is explicitly hinted at towards the beginning of the film, when Peter’s literature teacher tells the class the story of Pericles going to the Oracle and having his tragic fate pronounced. The teacher posits: “Does it make it more tragic, then, to know that no matter what he does, he cannot change the ending?” (paraphrasing, of course). This idea applies most topically to the horror plot of Hereditary, since it is obviously reflective of the set-in-stone nature of the events that unfold according to the sinister machinations of Annie’s mother and her cult, but it also applies to the family plot as well. To some degree, Annie’s susceptibility to emotional distress and extreme, hysterical behavior is a direct result of the mental health issues of her family. In one of the grief counseling sessions we learn that Annie’s father died by starving himself to death during a severe bout of depression, and her schizophrenic brother hung himself in his mother’s bedroom, blaming his mother for “putting people in his head”. (An interesting observation about that line: Annie prefaces that by saying that her brother “of course, blamed his mother”, suggestive of her own feelings of regret and guilt towards her son’s distrust of her) These psychologically traumatic childhood events shaped Annie into the women we see in Hereditary, and her inability to cope appropriately or effectively with the violent death of her daughter most likely stems directly from those defining childhood moments. The emotional constipation exhibited by Annie is part of what makes her such easy prey for both the spirits of Charlie and Paimon to possess, and what makes her such an easy target for Joan to lure into the world of occultism and spiritualism. In these examples we see how the characters of Hereditary are haunted not only by the spirits of dead relatives and the 10th Prince of Hell, but more poignantly by the specters of grief, guilt, and the painful legacies left by those that came before them.

#movie review #movies #Movie Reviews #review #critique #analysis #hereditary #ari aster #horror #horror movies #family #essay

182 notes · View notes