#I have complicated feelings about how women are portrayed in this film | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

minaminokyoko · 2 years

Text

Fuck you, Love and Thunder: A Rant

Massive spoilers for Thor: Love and Thunder below.

I know this is going to fall in deaf ears, but I’m gonna fucking say it anyway—the decision to completely sideline, ignore, and downgrade Valkyrie in Love & Thunder was goddamn bullshit.

Look, I get it. Natalie Portman left the Thor franchise originally probably feeling underused and written as not much more than a cute damsel. I am fine if they decided that they wanted to bring her back and end Jane’s arc on what’s supposed to be a high note.

But that’s no excuse to demote Valkyrie into a fucking extra.

There was room for both of those characters to have had equal screentime and importance to the overall story. But they didn’t do that. They basically shoved Valkyrie into the Black Best Friend trope, like she hasn’t been there right by Thor’s side the entire time since he changed her mind and helped her value herself after years of being a bitter, angry drunkard on Sakaar. After all that they went through from Ragnarok to Endgame, Love and Thunder just decides that she doesn’t matter. She is given no meaningful scenes with Thor, or even on her own. She is literally cast in Jane’s shadow for the entire goddamn fucking film, like she isn’t even remotely important or relevant, and Jane is everything. The movie LITERALLY puts Jane Foster on a fucking pedestal to the point where she is Jesus—she “sacrifices” herself for our fucking sins and dies and the movie worships her for two straight hours while giving Valkyrie less than the bare minimum of screentime. She’s in the film so little and matters so little that I am enraged that they even decided to include Valkyrie in the movie at all.

And the final betrayal for me was gaslighting the audience by acting as if she had no sexual tension or romantic links to Thor.

I didn’t make that shit up. You didn’t either. None of us did. Thor and Valkyrie are the quintessential enemies to friends trope and had Natalie Portman not entered the picture, I am more than fucking certain they’d have gone from enemies to friends to lovers. There was a kiss filmed in Ragnarok that didn’t make the cut and then there was a deleted scene in Endgame where Thor wants to kiss Valkyrie, but she’s not emotionally ready yet and while she doesn’t go for it, she isn’t angry or upset with Thor for his feelings. She doesn’t reject him. She isn’t repulsed by him. She’s just not ready for that and it’s not portrayed in a light suggesting there isn’t a wealth of affection and trust between them. Prior to this film, Tessa Thompson, Chris Hemsworth, and Taika Waititi had said in interviews that there was sexual tension and attraction between the characters. Ragnarok itself has more than one teasing scene that there is an undercurrent of romance as they got to know one another.

And it’d be one thing if the film decided to let Valkyrie have her own damn arc with another woman or if she were interested in both Thor and Jane, given that she’s bisexual, but she didn’t get ANYTHING. She is literally so sidelined there is an actual scene of her just watching the two main leads wax on about their love while she has nothing to do with it, like she’s a goddamn glorified extra.

And I am goddamn fucking tired of watching black female characters get this kind of fucking treatment.

Do you know how many times as a black fangirl I have had to watch black women be sidelined or written out of the story or killed in favor of a white counterpart? The Thor franchise should fucking know better. Valkyrie is and always has been a phenomenal character. Everything she’s gone through with Thor should mean something and this movie spits in the face of all the black women who, like me, felt seen and appreciated and loved with how she was written in Ragnarok. It feels exactly like we’re being told we’re inferior to white women and we always will be because white women are the golden standard. Thor can’t possibly be polyamorous and be interested in a beautiful, strong, complicated black woman as well as Jane! No, no, he can only have eyes for perfect little Jesus Jane! If you were shipping him with Valkyrie, you’re wrong! Worship the Mighty Jane and forget you ever cared about Valkyrie at all because she’s a fucking second fiddle to the real hero of the Thor franchise, Jane.

And here’s the thing—I don’t even dislike Jane. She’s okay. She’s not given a fully formed personality and quirks and things that make her anything other than just an average character. Yes, she’s exceptionally smart and motivated, but other than that, what is it that makes her so interesting that the writers decided to ditch any development or relevance for Valkyrie? What in the hell made them feel that they couldn’t develop both women equally? Hell, what was even wrong with a love triangle where they ALL had reciprocated feelings for one another? We’ve seen love triangles before and we live in a world where polyamorous relationships can be healthy and the throuples can thrive and make each other happy. What the fuck would’ve been wrong with that idea?

I can’t fathom after all the work Taika and the writers of Ragnarok put into Valkyrie that they thought it was okay to just fucking ignore her and gaslight the audience into thinking she isn’t on Thor’s radar and that she isn’t important to him after being in the trenches with him. I wanted to know how things were going with her as king. I wanted to know how the relationship and friendship with Thor progressed. I wanted to know more about her past. I wanted to know more about her future.

But Love and Thunder essentially told me to go fuck myself. Instead of all that representation and relevance, I should just know my place and worship at the altar of Jesus Jane.

So fuck you, Love and Thunder. From the bottom of my heart, kiss my black ass. I am tired of being treated this way as a black fangirl. Black women are magic. We are just as fucking worthy as anyone else and I am furious the franchise wrote such an incredible character and then did a 180 and bailed on everything about her in order to elevate Jane instead of devoting equal time to both women. As far as I’m concerned, this movie doesn’t exist. I’ve wiped it from my memory and don’t acknowledge it.

#Thorkyrie #rant

303 notes · View notes

archduchessofnowhere · 7 months

Text

I'm finally back home so more thoughts about Sisi & Ich:

This movie was screened as part of a German Film Festival and while I'd never been to one before I felt it was exactly what you would expect for a film festival. Like I can't imagine this movie doing well with a general audience.

The movie is so anachronistic (completely made up fashion, modern pop music, modern hairstyles, the actors look nothing like their historical counterparts) that it's really easy to forget this is supposed to be about Empress Elisabeth and Irma Sztáray; because of that I was able to enjoy it mostly as a story about a very toxic, manipulative and dependant relationship between two women. If you like stories about fucked up people doing fucked up things to each other "out of love" you'll like this one.

This, however, made me wish they had gone full AU because every time the story actually did adapt things from real history it did it in a way it annoyed me: so Elisabeth's eating disorder became in a full on screen portrayal of bulimia (something she never had), and her complicated but mostly amicable relationship with her husband was turned into an abusive marriage. From a historical perspective these were the things I disliked the most, since to me they felt tasteless and only for shock value.

Archduke Ludwig Viktor is a character here, and while the close friendship he has with his sister-in-law in this movie is completely fictional (Elisabeth had been fond of him when he was a child but they had a fell out years later and never again got along), I actually liked it; he is kinda like Ludwig II in Corsage but without the weird kissing scenes.

But the character that completely takes the spotlight is Irma. Sandra Hüller is fantastic as her, easily the best actress in the movie. She portrays both Irma's utter devotion for the empress as well as her rage against her in such a gripping way. Really I think the movie is worth it just for her.

Elisabeth, however, was a bit underwhelming. She feels like a manic pixie dream girl for most of the movie; it's probably on purpose, since we see the story through Irma's POV and she idealised her, but personally I couldn't really connect with her character with how unrealistic she felt sometimes. It was a refreshing take, I'll give it that: it's rare to see an elder Elisabeth who isn't a mater dolorosa who's always sad and miserable.

FJ was done so dirty, they just keep making him more and more evil lol.

Every time they made a joke about Katharina Schratt... keep my wife's name out of your fucking mouth!

The England segment should've been cut out because it felt like a completely different movie that pops out of nowhere, and not only isn't even the right time (the England trips were in the 1870s), but also the only thing that achieved was making me loose my respect for Elisabeth's character (the squire was cute tho).

I've seen this movie as LGBT/recommended for LGBT folks so to not disappoint you I'll give you the heads up that the only gay content we get are two hours of unresolved sexual tension between Irma and Elisabeth (and also between Ludwig Viktor and a guy from Elisabeth's staff, the gays just weren't getting it in this movie). That being said Irma is clearly a lesbian (even tho she is never referred as such) and Ludwig Viktor is also openly gay, so there are LGBT characters.

These are just some of the things I have to say off the top of my head, but I'll try to write a full review this weekend!

#sisi & ich (2023)#tw eating disorder #tw bulimia

18 notes · View notes

drones-of-innocence · 1 year

Note

Hi Drones! Love your Mareach fanfics (literally top notch💯). I was wondering, what are your thoughts on the movie (assuming you’ve seen it😅)? I have a few thoughts on it, but would love to hear yours!

Hey there!! I appreciate the ask! (And OMG thank you for reading my fics, that's so sweet of you 😭)

I have finally seen the Mario movie and I do have a lot to say haha, and I'm cool with sharing my broad thoughts this way, but if you're looking for a more in-depth discussion then I'm happy to discuss more in a PM!!

Just a brief disclaimer; my opinion reflects only my personal preference! I don't have any problem with disagreement or anyone who feels differently.

I will say the movie was a lot of fun! It was so surreal to see the Mushroom Kingdom on the big screen, and to hear such familiar melodies in cinematic arrangements. It was downright magical, actually. There was plenty to laugh and be amazed at, and so many references that had me grinning the entire time!

About the plot though 😅 There are pacing and some narrative critiques that I've seen so I won't say anything beyond that. The most important thing for me is I believe in the merit of a children's movie being all fun and silly, but I also really feel like this film went out of its way to avoid social commentary at its own expense. Not for no good reason; I know Nintendo does everything possible to keep the Mario franchise as family friendly as possible. But in terms of an impactful story, it fell sort of flat in my view. I feel as if it could have benefitted from some kind of social commentary beyond it's shot at subverting the damsel-in-distress trope.

(That in particular felt like performative feminism in a sense. Maybe it wasn't, maybe it was a sincere attempt at empowering an iconic character. But the default answer in a lot of media to empowering women these days seems to be "make her strong the way that the men characters are." A girlboss, I guess. It feels performative for me because it reaffirms with the idea that strength in character can only be relevant/seen within masculine qualities, and writers can just say "but it's a woman!" while continuing to disregard more feminine examples of strength. It's like a Get Out of Jail Free Card to acknowledging gender inequality.

Like, the problem wasn't that she's a damsel-in-distress; the problem is how pervasive the trope of damsel-in-distress used to be across the board. Except now, pop culture has sort of swung the other way. The problem isn't the girlboss character, the problem is that the girlboss character is perceived as the only correct way of writing "strong women characters." It's just sort of missing the point. The problem is still the same; women characters are stuffed into the same small box of behavior, attitude, and ultimate role depending on what's trendy at the time. I love the damsel-in-distress trope. I also love the girlboss. But it can be tiring to see that same story over and over again, feeling as if there are only a few options for writers to portray women, and realizing that it represents a sort of confinement of understanding for what women are allowed to be in real life for social acceptance, too.)

I get the desire to avoid politics and social issues. I really do, but in my position (studying social sciences), I see social issues as unavoidable. To go without acknowledging them is to ignore them, and from a story perspective, to go without them also kind of makes it boring?

I've seen the argument that it's a children's movie, therefore it doesn't have to be complicated. That's absolutely valid. I wish I could go back to having no thoughts lol. But it's my personal preference to watch a film that makes me think and consider the world from another point of view. And in response to that argument, all I can really say is basically my favorite genre is children's films that have social commentary. (See The Iron Giant, Wall-E, The Little Prince, Megamind, Beauty and the Beast, literally any given Studio Ghibli film. All of these have something to say about society contained within them.) I kind of wish the Mario movie had an interesting point to make in that context, but it didn't really, and that's okay. That's just why it's not one of my favorite movies.

That being said, there is plenty to love. The character designs were absolutely adorable. The Mushroom Kingdom was more than I could have ever dreamed of, and the way Mario and Luigi's brotherly relationship played out was just so beautifully written 🥺 I love that this will undoubtedly expand pop culture's regard for Mario, and maybe draw others into my silly little corner of the internet where I just sit here and publish my fluffy Mareach fanfiction 😆

#Mario Movie Spoilers #Kind of?#Not really anything specific #But anyway #Like I said I do have a LOT more to say #And I'm still having debates in my own head over it #Like how important is it REALLY to have social commentary?#Does struggles for family approval/validation/acceptance count?#(Not enough imo)#Not looking to be controversial #But this is one of the few things I feel mildly qualified to talk about #“ACTUALLY I've been writing Mario fanfic since I was ten so 🤓”#CLEARLY I am a relevant authority on this topic /s #It's literally Mario #It's not that deep #(But I want it to be)#(And that's my problem)#(So I will continue to make my own goofy fanfic over here)#(mine does have some social commentary sometimes)#Just saying I would be down to help write the next film lol #@ Nintendo and Illumination #Sorry for this preachy take but I do have opinions haha #Diary of Drones #Thank you for the ask!!!

22 notes · View notes

roseofblogging · 9 months

Text

I've now seen Barbie twice and Oppenheimer once. They both left me with a lot of thoughts. It's also interesting how this cultural moment has got us comparing them due to releasing on the same day despite how different they are.

But not for the reasons we thought!!!

And I have my own thoughts!

I mean, yes, I knew going into Oppenheimer I was going to leave feeling heavy. I'm no expert on World War II history (I focused my history studies on the Cold War, and specifically Central/Eastern Europe), but we know the US bombed Japan, changing Japan forever. I've also watched the original Godzilla film in Japanese, Grave of the Fireflies, and plenty of other films focused on Japan's response to that traumatic and horrible experience. I can't shake all of that going into Oppenheimer.

I've seen some responses that the biopic goes too easy on Oppenheimer and the US, and while I never expected the film to have a specific anti-war bent (that would have been at odds with the person the film this is centering), it really effectively communicates the weight of the US possessing weapons of mass destruction. The pounding of the auditorium steps after the successful Trinity test, the shots of Oppenheimer imagining the audience dying as well as him stepping onto and breaking a charred body, the cacophony of cheers and terrified screams and stomping, and just...it was so, so much. I felt myself folding into myself, just so overwhelmed. It's such a good scene that carries through that emotional weight for the rest of the movie as Oppenheimer transitions into strongly advising against creating the hydrogen bomb in a race with the USSR. Not to mention all of the tension that underlies all US politics post-WWII in the era of McCarthyism, which still influences us today. Oppenheimer is not an easy film to watch.

But it's also strangely dreamy. Oppenheimer was a man who was wrapped more in ideas than in people themselves, and there are so many unreal, beautiful shots of particles, ripples on water, etc. There are also plenty of awesome (in the old sense of the word) shots of violence and impact from the atomic bomb.

Oppenheimer as a film is both complicated in how it portrays a complicated man, but it's also pretty straightforward in its morals and messaging, whereas Barbie hit me in ways I wasn't really expecting.

Barbie starts off incredibly dreamlike, and it sells the fantasy of Barbieland very well. The willingness to commit to the bit is one of the film's strengths in how it depicts that world (and then Kendom). But the movie, in my opinion, becomes less about Gender and more about our place in the world. Yeah, you can look at that through a gendered lens (both for the Barbies and for the Kens), but it's Margot Robbie's Barbie who decides to become a Creator, a Dreamer and not the Idea that others make. There's actually something very powerful about being an idea, but people will always be more complicated than ideas (maybe that's Oppenheimer the character's issue with women?). On her first foray into the Real World, Barbie sees that things are nowhere near as sunny as she expected. Women are of course not treated well, but even beyond that, from her spot at the bus stop, she sees a couple fighting, kids playing, two men laughing together in joy, and a person in intense concentration, ambiguous to me as to whether he's reading something and focusing or grappling with a heavy decision internally. The complexity of the world hits her as a tear rolls down her cheek (and mine!!!).

When I talk to people about Barbie, we all have such different thoughts on the film--especially for us women, nonbinary people, and both trans men and trans women. The doll is such a huge part of our culture and impacted us in different ways. Barbie has a complicated history that Greta Gerwig actually does a pretty good job of addressing. The Oppenheimer movie does not particularly look at the atomic bomb and its history with the same level of complexity; rather, Oppenheimer himself pivots from singlemindedly leading the research and creation of the bomb "for science" to then later singlemindedly protesting the hydrogen bomb. Yes, it shows him as a human capable of changing his mind, but doesn't get into the more specific nuances of it. He's first very for the atomic bomb and then very against the hydrogen bomb. Barbie, on the other hand, represents SO MUCH. Femininity both as power and as critique. Being everything (all of the different Barbies as a group) vs being one thing (Barbie as an individual, the character; made for a specific idea). Barbie as the trappings of gender roles vs. Barbie as uplifting. Barbie is everything, good and bad.

Yeah, there are issues with both films. Oppenheimer has some very weak dialogue, and Oppenheimer himself is, uh...problematic, as we say? Barbie has pretty paper thin Feminism 101. It never gets into how capitalism specifically impacts feminism and seeks to uphold gender roles and gendered expectations. It's definitely not Marxist, h aha. (But I also never expected it to tackle that. After all, it's still produced by Warner Bros and Mattel.)

I didn't expect Oppenheimer to be so dreamlike. And I definitely didn't expect Barbie to give me so many emotions about mothers and daughters and becoming your own person, going beyond the story made for you. That's what made me cry in Barbie during the final montage of childhood memories from all the staff/cast members on the project.

#rose rambles #rose reviews #I guess we're making that a tag now for me to ramble about stuff I watch and play #not so much a review-review as it is just my rambley thoughts #oppenheimer #barbie

3 notes · View notes

denimbex1986 · 9 months

Text

'I am begging the people of Film Twitter to read a book. Any book will do, really, but specifically American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Kai Bird’s 721-page doorstopper of an Oppenheimer biography.

That book is the source material for Christopher Nolan’s upcoming film Oppenheimer, about the life of the physicist who led the team that created the atomic bomb, only to call for the end of nuclear warfare following World War II.

I bring this up because Oppenheimer is the latest film to be caught in a cycle of Twitter outrage before its release. It seems there’s no escaping it these days. Some Brave Little Poster will see a movie trailer and inevitably grade a movie based on the supposed morality of its characters instead of the actual content of the film.

What are people attacking Oppenheimer for, you ask? Is it for any scenes of violence that might be in the film, since it’s about the creation of the most destructive weapon in the history of mankind? Why, no. People are up in arms about the age gap between Cillian Murphy and Florence Pugh, who play Oppenheimer and Dr. Jean Tatlock, respectively. Tatlock was Oppenheimer’s girlfriend before he met his wife, Kitty.

“Not to be that person, but there’s a 20 year difference between Cillian Murphy and Florence Pugh. Why does Hollywood keep doing this?” Twitter user @ginagemeni wrote. “Let womxn age! Cast womxn that are the same age as their co-star!”

Bear in mind these are two real people, who lived two real lives. This relationship is not a spoiler of the movie; it’s all history. Tatlock was 22 and Oppenheimer was 32 when they first met at Berkeley and got involved. He was a physics professor and she was a medical school graduate student. Historians credit her with introducing Oppenheimer to radical leftist politics in the 1930s. She died by suicide at the age of 29, a fact that haunted Oppenheimer for the rest of his life, according to American Prometheus.

Cillian Murphy is 47; Florence Pugh is 27. So, yes, the age gap of the actors is double, but Twitter users were just as up in arms about Oppenheimer and Tatlock’s real-life relationship as they were Murphy and Pugh’s age difference.

All this for a film hardly anyone has seen yet (the critics who have seen it have praised Pugh’s performance). I’m sure Pugh, a grown woman, had full input into how she portrayed Tatlock. Is there a broader conversation for us to have about how Hollywood treats older women and the types of May-December romances that often show up in films? Of course. But applying today’s cultural standards to relitigate events that happened nearly a century ago helps nobody.

Oppenheimer (the film) is also under attack from leftist Twitter spaces who fear Nolan may not devote enough time to Oppenheimer’s Communist ties in his early life or his anguish about creating the atomic bomb. People also seemed worried that Nolan would somewhere use this source material to make an unequivocally pro-nuke film.

Again, if y’all would read a book and stop viewing life through Twitter eyes, you would know that Oppenheimer’s conflicting feelings about nukes and Communism are easily half the material in American Prometheus. The man was conflicted about the bomb and Communism. In real life, people are complicated, and we should have art that reflects those complications.

‘Napoleon Bonaparte was a TERRIBLE PERSON’

Elsewhere, Twitter users are shocked that anyone would want to make a movie about Napoleon Bonaparte, because…Napoleon was a bad guy.

Big, if true.

The follwoing tweet came after Apple dropped the first trailer for Ridley Scott’s biopic of Napoleon:

“Napoleon Bonaparte was a TERRIBLE PERSON,” historian @ProfDaveAndress tweeted. “He was a TYRANT. He betrayed every ideal he ever claimed to stand for. He was a shameless pathological liar who killed millions of people for his own insatiable vanity. He is literally one of the worst people in history. You think he looks cool because he paid people to make him look cool. He used the entire resources of state and empire to make himself look cool to future generations. And meanwhile millions of people died, because peace amongst equals was alien to him.”

Look, I don’t know what to tell you. I’m sure Scott, who excels at making nuanced movies about bad people (The Last Duel, Kingdom of Heaven, American Gangster, among others) knows what he’s doing by making a Napoleon movie at this point in history.

If we only made and consumed art about good people, art would be boring. We can learn something about ourselves by watching movies with messy protagonists. Depiction does not equal endorsement, but that seems to be lost on a lot of people who want everything they consume to line up with their views.

Come on, Barbie, let’s go party in the South China Sea

You thought Barbie would get out of the #outrage cycle unscathed? Think again.

This outrage is bigger than Twitter, though. A map in the Barbie film features a dashed line drawn on a map off the coast of Asia. The line, which critics have identified as the oft-contested nine-dash line—a boundary more than 1,000 miles off the coast of Beijing that Beijing uses in order to claim a majority of the South China Sea as its own. The United Nations ruled the nine-dash line in 2016, but China has refused to acknowledge this.

Vietnam disputes the border and has for a while. As such, Barbie is now banned in Vietnam, according to a state-run newspaper: “We do not grant license for the American movie ‘Barbie’ to release in Vietnam because it contains the offending image of the nine-dash line.” Vietnam has banned other films, like Uncharted, for the same reason. The Philippines, however, has said it will allow Barbie to be screened.

American GOP senators like Texas’ Ted Cuz and Tennessee’s Marsha Blackburn have criticized the map, saying that it panders to Chinese censors.

A Cruz spokesperson told the Daily Mail that Barbie is trying to “appease the Chinese Communist Party,” while Blackburn alliteratively tweeted that Barbie is “bending to Beijing to make a quick buck.”

“The map in Barbie Land is a child-like crayon drawing,” a spokesperson for the Warner Bros. Film Group said. “The doodles depict Barbie’s make-believe journey from Barbie Land to the ‘real world.’ It was not intended to make any type of statement.”

Sadly, these types of news cycles before a film’s release are nothing new (remember what happened to The Last Temptation of Christ?). But it seems these are part and parcel for every film now, and the reactions range from stupid to political clout-chasing. The Barbie outrage has more merit than the Napoleon or Oppenheimer clamoring, but the world will forget all of this in a few weeks. Then the internet will have something else to be pissed about. Calling it now: PETA will be up in arms about The Meg 2 and Strays, and video gamers will be mad that Gran Turismo doesn’t portray them in a good enough light. Or something

Funnily enough, a tweet sums it up the best:

“If you’d told me that between Barbie and Oppenheimer, one would start online discourse about on-screen age gaps and the other would lead to international controversy rooted in 1940s Asian geopolitics, never in a million years would have I guessed which one would yield which,” Siddhant Adlakha tweeted.

So go outside. Read a book. Touch some grass. And always remember to never comment on a movie without seeing it first.'

#Oppenheimer #Cillian Murphy #Florence Pugh #Film Twitter #Napoleon Bonaparte #Barbie #Margot Robbie #American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer #Kai Bird #Martin J. Sherwin #Christopher Nolan #Jean Tatlock

1 note · View note

claudia1829things · 2 years

Text

“LITTLE WOMEN” (1933) Review

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1933) Review There have been many adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's 1868-69 best-selling two-volume novel, "Little Women". And I mean many adaptations - on stage and in movies and television. I have personally seen three television adaptations and four movie adaptations. One of the most famous versions of Alcott's novel is the 1933 movie adaptation, produced by Merian C. Cooper and directed by George Cukor.

Although I have seen at four adaptations more than once, I had just watched this version for the very first time. Judging from the reviews and articles I have read, Cukor's "LITTLE WOMEN" seemed to be the benchmark that all other versions are based upon. So, you could imagine my anticipation about this film before watching it. How did I feel about "LITTLE WOMEN"? That would require a complicated answer. "LITTLE WOMEN" told the story of the four March sisters of Concord, Massachusetts - Margaret (Meg), Josephine (Jo), Elizabeth (Beth) and Amy - during and after the U.S. Civil War. Since second daughter Jo is the main character, the story focuses on her relationships with her three other sisters, her parents (especially her mother "Marmee"), the sisters' Aunt March, and the family's next-door neighbors, Mr. James Laurence and his grandson Theodore ("Laurie"). Although each sister experiences some kind of coming-of-age throughout the story, the movie focuses on Jo's development through her relationship with Laurie and a German immigrant she meets in New York City after the war, the charming and older Professor Friedrich Bhaer. Jo and her sisters deal with the anxiety of their father's involvement in the Civil War, genteel poverty, scarlet fever, wanted and unwanted romance, and Jo's fear of dealing the family breaking apart as she and her sisters grow older. I must saw that the production values for "LITTLE WOMEN" were certainly top-notch. One has to credit producer Merian C. Cooper in gathering a team of excellent artists to re-create 1860s Massachusetts and New York for the movie. I was especially impressed by Van Nest Polglase's art direction, Sydney Moore and Ray Moyer's set decorations and art direction team of Hobe Erwin, George Peckham, and Charles Sayers. However, I simply have to single out Walter Plunkett's excellent costume designs for the film. I doubt very much that Plunkett's costumes were an accurate depiction of 1860s fashion, I believe he came close enough. Plunkett's career also included work for 1939's "GONE WITH THE WIND", "RAINTREE COUNTY", from 1957 and the 1949 version of "Little Women". I suspect that this film marked his debut for designing costumes for the mid-19th century. I did have a problem with the hairstyles worn by three of the four leads. A good deal of early 1930s hairstyles seemed to have been used - with the exception of the short bob. At least three of the actresses wore bangs . . . a lot. Bangs were not popular with 19th century women until the late 1870s and the 1880s. Until the release of the 2019 film, George Cukor's adaptation of Alcott's novel has been considered the best by many film critics. Do I agree with this assessment? Well, I cannot deny that I had enjoyed watching "LITTLE WOMEN". One, producer David Selznick and director George Cukor did an excellent job in their selection of the cast - especially the four actresses who portrayed the March sisters. All four had excellent chemistry. The movie's portrayal of the U.S. Civil War and the years that followed it immediately struck me as pretty solid. And although there were moments when the film threatened to border on saccharine, I must admit that Cukor and the screenplay written by Victor Heerman and Sarah Y. Mason kept both the narrative and the film's pacing very lively. And finally, I enjoyed how the movie depicted Jo's friendship and romance with Professor Friedrich Bhaer. I found it warm, charming, romantic and more importantly . . . not rushed. However, I do have a few issues with "LITTLE WOMEN". There were times when the movie, especially during its first half hour, seemed in danger of wallowing in saccharine. I get it. Alcott had portrayed the Marches as a warm and close-knit family. But Alcott had included minor conflicts and personality flaws in the family's portrait as well. It seemed as if director George Cukor, along with screenwriters Sarah Y. Mason and Victor Heerman were determined to whitewash this aspect of Alcott's novel as much as possible. This whitewashing led to the erasure of one novel's best sequences - namely Amy March's burning of Jo's manuscript in retaliation for an imagined slight, Amy's conflict with her schoolteacher, the development of Amy and Laurie's relationship in Europe, and Meg's conflict Aunt March over her relationship with tutor John Brooke. These deletions took a lot out of Alcott's story. It amazes me to this day that so many film critics have willingly overlooked this. Do not get me wrong. "LITTLE WOMEN" remained an entertaining film. But in erasing these aspects of Alcott's story, Cukor and the two screenwriters came dangerously close to sucking some of the life out of this film. Ironically, Mason and Heerman repeated their mistake in MGM's 1949 adaption with the same results. Most critics and movie fans tend to praise Katherine Hepburn's portrayal of Jo March to the sky. In fact, many critics and film historians to this day have claimed Hepburn proved to be the best Jo out of all the actresses who have portrayed the character. Do I agree? No. Although I admired Hepburn's performance in the movie's second half, I found her portrayal of the adolescent Jo in the first half to be a mixed bag. There were times when I admired her spirited performance. There were other times when said performance came off as a bit too strident for my tastes. I honestly do not know what to say about Frances Dee's performance as Meg March. My problem is that I did not find her portrayal that memorable. I barely remember Dee's performance, if I must be honest. I cannot say the same about Joan Benett's portrayal of the youngest March sibling, Amy. Mind you, Bennett never received the chance to touch upon Amy's less pleasant side of her nature. And it is a pity that the screenplay failed to give Bennett the opportunity to portray Amy's growing maturity in the film's second half. But I have to admit that as a woman who was roughly three years younger than Hepburn, she gave a more subtle performance as a pre-teen and adolescent Amy, than Hepburn did as the teenaged Jo. The one performance that really impressed me came from Jean Parker's portrayal of Beth March, the family's shyest member. I thought Parker did an excellent job of conveying Beth's warmth, fear of being in public and the long, slow death the character had suffered following a deadly bout of scarlet fever. I can honestly say that Mrs. "Marmee" March would never be considered as one of my favorite Spring Byington roles. Mind you, the actress gave a competent performance as the March family's matriarch. However, there were times when she seemed too noble, good or too ideal for me to regard her as a human being. As is the case in most, if not all versions of "LITTLE WOMEN", the Mr. March character barely seemed alive . . . especially after he returned home from the war. I cannot blame actor Samuel S. Hinds, who portrayed. I blame the screenwriters for their failure to do the character any justice. On the other hand, I did enjoy Henry Stephenson's portrayal of the complicated, yet likeable Mr. Laurence. I enjoyed how Stephenson managed to slowly, but surely reveal the warm human being behind the aloof facade. Edna May Oliver gave a very lively performance as the irascible, yet wealthy Aunt March. In fact, I would go as far to say that her performance had breathed a great deal of fresh air into the production. Not many critics were impressed by Douglass Montgomery's portrayal of the March sisters' closes friend, Theodore "Laurie" Laurence. I can honestly say that I do not share their opinion. Frankly, I felt more than impressed by his portrayal of the cheeky, yet emotional Laurie. I thought he gave one of the film's better performances - especially in one scene Laurie reacted to Jo's rejection of his marriage proposal. I thought Montgomery did an excellent job of reacting emotionally to Jo's rejection, without going over the top. I also enjoyed Paul Lukas' interpretation of Professor Bhaer. There were moments when his performance threatened to get a little hammy. But the actor managed to reign in his excesses - probably more so than Hepburn. And he gave a warm and charming performance as the romantic Professor Bhaer. Yes, I have some issues with this adaptation of "LITTLE WOMEN". If I must be honest, most of my issues are similar to my issues with the 1949 adaptation. This should not be surprising, since both movies were written by the same screenwriters - Sarah Y. Mason and Victor Heerman. However . . . like the 1949 movie, this "LITTLE WOMEN" adaptation proved to be a solid and entertaining adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's novel. One can thank Mason and Heerman, director George Cukor and the fine cast led by the talented Katherine Hepburn.

5 notes · View notes

allyear-lff · 1 year

Text

She said

Summary: two female journalists uncover the abuses of Harry Weinstein by interviewing his victims and discovering a network of deceit, cover ups and coercion around him.

Plot and musings: we all know about the "Me Too" movement and many perhaps have been waiting for a detailed, digestible presentation of its genesis, the fall of Hollywood mogul film producer Harry Weinstein.

This film attempts to fill that void but I was left with a sense that an opportunity has been missed, it is easy to say this now that the film hasn't done very well at the box office, but it was my genuine feeling when I watched it early on its general release, as a pro film critic commented "the reaction has been polite rather than enthusiastic", but why?

The main problem is the formulaic nature of the film, we know how a reporter gets her history: research, relentless pursuing of the truth often at great personal cost and recognising when a turning point about the reporting being pursued has been reached. All this is in the film, and we have seen it all before in several other high profile films about journalists exercising their craft, the format isn't new and this film doesn't add much new to the mini genre.

The second problem is perhaps the difficulty of using a medium and format that is more related to make-believe to reflect on real events, it isn't impossible but it is difficult, for example Gwyneth Paltrow, one of the more recognisable victims of Weinstein, lingers over the film but she is never seen, we hear her voice over the phone and we see a body double, this felt silly, there is no reason no to represent her in film as a fully fledged character.

The actors are likeable and committed, I felt Zoe Kazan had better luck at portraying Jody Kantor than Carey Mulligan at portraying Megan Twohey, the journalists behind the investigation and the article that damned Weinstein, Mulligan's Twohey feels aloof and somehow detached, I found her rather laboured and sometimes unconvincing although in some crucial parts she managed to drag us into how things where for the real journalist, the film is carried more by the women portrayed as victims of abuse, one could feel the pain, the shame, the confusion, they conveyed excellently the state of anguish in which the real women were living but their interventions where like oasis of drama into a complicated and somehow convoluted plot.

So the plot, the first scene in the film follows a young woman, a girl really, she is being recruited to work in a film set she encounters almost by chance, then we have a harsh switch to the girl running in the middle of the road of a small town confused and distressed, this sets the scene of all what will follow.

Attention turns now to New York, our two main characters, NY Times journalists Jody Kantor and Megan Twohey, are writing about different issues, Kantor about immigration and Twohey about one of the several (many?) allegations of sexual misconduct against Donald Trump pre his election as US president, Trump is not charged and the Fox scandal about sexual abuse (also dealt with by a film in "Bombshell") starts to unfold, the NYT's hacks talk about a wider issue at play and the idea of casting their net in Hollywood as an example of a larger malaise takes hold, and nobody most infamous than Harry Weinstein against whom there are lots of rumours and a serious allegation from actress Rose McGowan, which as far as they can tell have not been investigated with journalistic rigour.

With this basis they interview people starting with McGowan, Paltrow (on the phone...) and close associates to Weinstein that have freedom to talk, little by little they uncover what has been going on, first the victims intimate about the abuse they have suffered, but that isn't enough, when one of them decides to go public and gives them the settlement she reached with Weinstein in order not to pursue legal action they find the opening they needed, with this appalling document in hand (it feels like a form of life punishment because all the restrictions placed on the victim) they pursue people close to Winstein, thus it transpires that there are many more settlements and that they have been reached with the help of industry insiders of all kinds.

All the interviews portrayed with victims are very dramatic, the most poignant one perhaps that of the woman that appeared at the beginning of the film as a young distressed girl.

Now that the journalists have corroborated the evidence they embark in writing the article that we know brought Weinstein down, this is cinematographically undramatic, the tension is taken away by what we all know about the case and the Me Too movement, there are a few poignant moments like when Twohey meets Weinstein and his associates in the NYT's HQ, something that adds colour but not drama.

Perhaps we know too much about the real life situation in order to appreciate a dramatisation, I felt it didn't add much to the topic in spite of the efforts of all people involved, it is still a film worth watching but there were higher hopes for it, although to be fair the general public seems to like it in spite of its flaws.

Rating: 3.5/5

66 of 168

Date: 29 November 2022

Venue: Curzon Bloomsbury

The list of films in the LFF 2022

#lff2022 #lff

0 notes

zurcurxo · 2 years

Text

IT Girls in Austen’s Emma

Urban dictionary: “The "It Girl" is the girl that EVERYONE wants to be. She has everything that you want so you tend to envy her. She does all the things that you can't do so you grow to hate her. Being an "It Girl" is having the latest sh**s, (the best clothing and always stays fly) and the prettiest face. Her attitude can be f**ked up or perfect like her looks. Her presence is always appreciated, ALL the guys Want her and ALL the girls want to be her!”

The “IT” Girls: Emma, Harriet, and Jane in 2022

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=it%20girl

Fashion nowadays is somewhat strange. We stan clothing from the eras before us. Take the current wave of “Y2K Fashion,” where we take the fashion of the early 2000s (that we once made fun of) and style it to be fun & fresh. Believe it or not, the outfits of these women on the left have begun to inspire us.

This all leads to adventures like “thrifting-” where most clothing that catches the eye feels a little older. If it was new, there’d be less of an appeal (or at least I say so).

When reading Emma for a second time, I could not help but to think about the film Clueless. With this film in mind, I thought a lot about the fashion it shows and how each character is portrayed through their clothing styles. This led me to wonder… What would Austen’s characters wear in 2022? Keep in mind, I am no fashion expert and these are all purely opinionated.

Emma Woodhouse: https://www.pinterest.com/zurcur/the-emma-woodhouse/

When thinking about Emma, it shocked me just how many modern day heroines that a lot of us grew up with are just like her. It makes me wonder if they were all somehow made in the image of Emma Woodhouse. Emma, as a character, is headstrong, independent, and fearless- just like the women I grew up watching on television, that is why I have made her 2022 outfit inspo in their image. A few examples include Blair Waldorf and Serena Vanderwoodsen of Gossip Girl, Carrie Bradshaw of The Carrie Diaries and Sex in the City, the entire squad of Mean Girls, and of course Cher of Clueless. I designed Emma’s modern day style in the image of these influential (and iconic female characters of my upbringing. For reference, top left is Blair and Serena, top right is Carrie Bradshaw, bottom right are the women from Clueless and Mean Girls. 💋💋💋

So, back to Emma. I tried my best to read her vibes through the lenses of 2022 when reading about her. I believe that today, Emma would fall under the “preppy” modern fashion category. This “preppy” style falls in between the totally classy plaid of Cher, Blair, and Serena and the sexier and in your face fashion of the Mean Girls and Carrie Bradshaw. In fact, I may even call it the perfect blend.

Please DO NOT confuse Emma's preppy style with the other version of preppy fashion. Emma Woodhouse would not put this on:

Now, I don’t shame the stylistic choices of my fellow ladies… in fact I own a few fits like these, but Emma does. And these are crimes in her eyes. She would make you her next project.

Harriet Smith: https://www.pinterest.com/zurcur/harriet-smith/

Harriet can be a bit complicated. She’s not a little shirt little skirt type like Emma, but she’s more of a big pant big shirt girl.

Maybe even a little shirt big pant on occasion. Harriet is a fun & loving character. However, as displayed in how easily the popular Emma was able to change Harriet’s viewpoints on things (like loving Robert Martin), Harriet follows the trends of those around her. This being said, she falls under the Y2K Streetwear category. This style consists of graphic tees, any jean but a skinny jean (God forbid), chunky & colorful & beaded jewelry, maybe a nice hair clip or antique hat and closed toe shoes at all costs. Harriet isn’t your typical Y2K girl because she wouldn’t wear a pink crop top, a fluffy jacket, a mini-skirt, or anything of that sort. To clear things up further, Harriet would be more of a Rihanna Y2K rather than a Britney Y2K.

Harriet’s modern Y2k Streetwear style is reminiscent of Tai’s style in Clueless. The vibes remain the same. Without Emma’s slightly misguided guidance, Harriet is what you may call a cool girl. She minds her business and takes dope pics- a very uncontroversial girl.

Jane Fairfax: https://www.pinterest.com/zurcur/jane-fairfax

Lastly, we have Miss Jane Farifax, lover of Frank, an accomplished and classy queen. She radiates a simple yet pretty sort of vibe. Jane is calm, reserved, and peaceful- her 2022 style reflects such traits. She’d wear earthy toned clothing and stray from a regular jean. She is not quite grungecore- I would place her in the “cottagecore” fashion style. Cottagecore is the modern rendition of what my parents call “boho” or “hippie.” It is a bit more girly and is centered around the earthy tones pictured and flowery patterns. Jane probably has my favorite fashion style. The absolute opposite of Emma but in the best way possible.

IT Girl Glossary

Preppy: Inspired by the wealthy classes before us, just not as official. The modern preppy style has been credited to fictional characters like Blair Waldorf… a true legend and the epitome of peppy. Her style has been reimagined to the plaid prep style Gen Z takes on today.

“The appeal of preppy fashion is that it looks clean, intentionally styled and- above all- is not swayed by fleeting trend cycles. Preppy fashion is its own genre of classic, so by wearing it, you are, too. One of the best parts about classic pieces is seeing how every generation chooses to style them.” (www.stylecaster.com)

Y2K x Streetwear: “Every few years, our fashion trends get a ‘blast from the past’ where some of our favorite items from decades ago make a resurgence in stores, streetwear, and popular fashion. The current Y2K fashion trend is just that- a reappearance of clothing and aesthetic trends from the late 90s and the year 2000.” (www.collegefashion.net)

This definitely is a style that I wish I could rock, but can’t because I’m not that cool. Anyways, a lot of the time the clothing we see in Y2K Streetwear styled to be more feminine comes from the “men’s” section of clothing stores. Looks better restyled anyways! The style includes a lot of oversized clothing and pieces that may seem more masculine- thereby the clothing type isn’t made for the feminine style very often, and if it is it’s probably cropped or way too tight or cut with a deep v-neck because for some reason that’s the only thing people think we want.

Cottagecore: Honestly, people have just begun putting words in front of “core” to describe new fashion styles: grungecore, cottagecore, fairycore… the list goes on. Cottage core feels the most similar to and symbolic of Austen’s time. The regency era fashion of those who weren’t quite of the higher class but weren’t dirt poor- much like Jane. This fashion has just been changed to be more fashionable in our eyes- but you can definitely see the influence.

“Cottagecore is a fashion aesthetic popularized by teenagers and young adults celebrating an idealized rural life. It was developed throughout the 2010s and was first named cottagecore on Tumblr in 2018.” (www.wikipedia.com)

Thrifting: A wild goose chase that young adults like to go on for clothes that feel vintage and fun. Can either go really well or absolutely terrible.

Little shirt/skirt vs Big shirt/pant: I don’t know how to describe this. If you know you know

IT Girl: Inspired by Megan the Stallion Check 0:46: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77ZCb8tILCw

“Sorry H**s hate me cause I’m the It Girl…”

0 notes

izloveshorses · 3 years

Text

here’s a thought: anastasia was the embodiment of what it means for a story to be told from the female gaze and a lot of its criticisms were about those exact characteristics

actually, u know what, i had a lot of cherry moscato and i talked about this for hours with leah the other night as i typed the above paragraph, and the more i think about it the more there is to say. so i’m gonna write this essay now instead of later when i think i’m more coherent. here’s a quick summary of my rationale and the expansion of my thoughts will be under the cut because i got a little wordy, as usual :)

listed below are characteristics that fall under the female gaze theory:

the main lead is one of the most complicated characters out there and yet her desire is so simple and therefore so universal: she wants love. she wants to belong. she wants to figure out who she is.

the main lead is looking for a matron, whether she’s aware of it or not, and the matron is looking for her.

the other women in the show are also complex and are allowed to have relationships with one another.

it’s implied that anya endured a lot of trauma, not just from the massacre but from her years on the streets, and yet we don’t need to see any of that stuff to understand and feel empathy for her.

the hottest man in the world wears a tank top and his sleeves rolled up and other slutty but not slutty looks. a win for all boytoys out there.

the love interest is also a three-dimensional character that exists for his own journey but he learns and tries to better himself because he knows it’s the right thing to do, not just to ‘impress’ the lead with a temporary fix.

the romance story, arguably the most important relationship of the show, isn’t about physical attraction or being good enough for the other, it’s about mutual respect and learning how to communicate.

her other traveling companion is a lovable father figure who supports her through their whole journey together.

the other man of the show exists to show why this breed of a man, the authoritative figure who uses political ideals and expectations of his patriarchal figure to justify violence and specifically violence against women, is... well, scary.

in the musical at least, anya’s appearance is never mentioned at all, and she’s never expected to change how she looks to “appear” like anastasia. the only time her appearance is sexualized is by the resident villain.

all of that being said, a lot of the critical reviews of the show stem from the above aspects, which says something about the demographic of theater audiences and who controls what gets higher remarks (which,,, does this affect ticket sales?). do with that what you will.

many think the female gaze is just the reverse of the male gaze, which means it’s just objectifying men (à la magic mike). which, honestly, could be true. but according to my whopping 3 minutes of wikipedia research, the female gaze is “the perspective a female filmmaker (screenwriter/director/producer) brings to a film that would be different from a male view of the subject... The films are meant to represent the desires of female protagonists and, therefore, are to represent the desires of the female movie-viewer.” Jill Soloway has a really neat talk about this subject and she says stories told with the female gaze are formatted with the heroine’s journey as a template, which is more about feelings and internal emotions and stuff inside bodies and what it feels like to be seen, than their outward actions. it’s about people’s impact on the world and on each other. this theory applies to three different viewpoints: the writer/creator, the character portrayed, and the spectator.

that was a really long-winded definition of something y’all probably know and it still doesn’t quite capture everything about the subject lol but now that we’re on the same page... how does this apply to anastasia?

other than like, idk the obvious stuff like the main character is a woman and she doesn’t exist as a visual or physical prop for the male costars, there’s so much more to it. anya was written for girls. but not just for girls, she was written for anyone trying to find themselves or seeking love of any kind. she is complicated and three-dimensional and messy and real. but, still, her desire and goal for the show is relatively simple. she’s looking for someone to belong with, and in turn thinks that will help her discover who she is. which, honestly, is pretty universal. it’s about the internal feelings! lead characters under the female gaze theory are about being relatable to the audience, not being an idealized, flawless caricature.

not to mention, whether anya is aware of it or not, the home she is looking for is the matron of her family. so the core relationship of the show is about two women wanting to find each other again! how rad is that!

it’s also implied that anya endured a lot of trauma before the show starts. i mean of course there’s the trauma of surviving the massacre that killed her family, the emotional toll of being alone for so long, etc, but there’s still the implication that she had a lot of unpleasant encounters on the streets in the ten years between the murder and her entrance. even so, these implications are just that. implications. because we as an audience don’t need to witness her being assaulted or attacked in any way to feel empathy for her!

the three most influential male figures of the whole show represent simplified versions of the type of men women experience: vlad, the found father figure. dmitry, the love interest who grows on his own accord. and gleb, the man we are afraid of.

yes, dmitry has sex appeal™ and linda cho put him in all these thirst outfits for us, which... thanks queen <3 (and even so, this is a period piece so his costumes are still period appropriate, and not unjustifiably revealing, which says something about the female gaze’s taste in what women want to see men wear vs the opposite, but i digress), but in this perspective, he as the love interest has a responsibility. he takes care of her, but maintains boundaries. he senses danger when they encounter the ruffians and doesn’t get offended when she says she doesn’t like them, he just tries his best to remove her from the situation entirely before it escalates. yeah, she proved she didn’t really need protection, but when we’re walking alone at night or something don’t we all wish we had someone there to use their privilege to protect us? and sure he was rude to her at first but he always sees her as an equal and as a partner in this dangerous task of escaping russia together. it’s mutual. they look out for each other and learn how the other communicates along the way. the more he learns to respect her the more vulnerable he becomes (aka the more he feels!). when he realizes he has feelings for anya he doesn’t put her on this unreachable pedestal and mope about it (we could argue he does brood, but in a handsome angsty way, not in a self-pitying way), he tries to better himself by making choices he’s learned are right and still prioritizes her happiness. and finally, he leaves it up to anya to pursue a relationship, because he doesn’t want to distract her from her individual goals, even if his own priorities and desires have changed. mmm. top tier man.

in all of gleb’s scenes with anya, he always has the higher ground, the higher authority, the upper hand. he infantilizes her in his solo songs (“she’s nothing but a child, a waif who needs protection”) and his infatuation is clearly one-sided. his whole motivation is about filling his father’s shoes, and more broadly, the shoes of patriarchal expectations. he makes his Politics™ and War™ his personality, blinding him to the nuances of individuals and how his Outward Actions affect the underprivileged lives. the confrontation moment is so alarming not because we’re afraid he’s actually gonna shoot her, it’s scary because it’s something out of a woman’s worst nightmare. like you’re left alone for One second and you turn to leave and a man who is obsessed/infatuated with you is waving a gun around and using his political ideals to justify his violence against you. and the show portrays this as bad. rightfully so! i mean it’s obviously not great, and they still take the time to make sure the audience understands his motivations with careful writing, but he’s ultimately portrayed as the villain. gleb’s violence against women, no matter how “unhappy” he is about it and no matter how dramatic his monologue is and no matter if he doesn’t follow through, is still a villainous action. that being said, he is still a complex character with many layers and motivations. not a top tier man at all but a well-written one for the most part.

anya’s physical appearance is never mentioned in the musical. i think dmitry compliments her at some point, but other than that, it’s never a plot point that she’s “just as beautiful” as anastasia or has to alter how she looks to appear like anastasia, other than buy finer clothes and take a shower lol. when they get to paris she’s glammed up, but it’s not presented as a ~transformation~ where the girl takes off her glasses and suddenly she’s beautiful and worthy of the journey she’s on. her blue and red dresses are gorgeous and a little more revealing but they’re period appropriate and more about her getting to go on this exciting and emotional journey, not about what dmitry will think when he sees her or whatever. (while we’re here, i think it’s worth noting that none of the other characters are sexualized beyond what’s period appropriate. even the hussies aren’t sexualized!) but you know the only time her appearance is sexualized? it’s when she’s in front of gleb. he grabs her arm and then he grabs her chin and says “your eyes, a man can look right into them,” and he sings “she trembles like a flower” (ew aslhjkdf). his infatuation is clearly presented as one-sided and the narrative tells us this is more than uncomfortable.

the romance between anya and dmitry isn’t about physical attraction. they’re both very attractive people but the root of their relationship is about learning to communicate. it’s about being vulnerable and letting someone else heal with you. it’s about seeing past the presuppositions of a person and choosing to find the other again. it’s about swallowing pride, a character flaw for both of them, for the sake of expressing feelings. it’s about mutual respect and seeing one another as an equal. all of this is internal growth, not external action. the ideal romance.

all that being said... how does this apply to my claim that the root of most of the show’s criticisms lies in criticizing the female gaze?

someone who knows more about the inner workings of broadway and how reviewing shows affects ticket sales and stuff can probably articulate this better than i can (and should, please consider this an invitation to drop stuff in the comments!), but i mean... when you read the negative reviews of a show whose whole heart beats with female influence, they follow a pattern. the majority of the audience is made up of women in their teens to around their thirties, but i imagine, like hollywood, the majority of producers and reviewers are older (white) rich men. the few reviews i read said stuff like, “it’s only good if you like fairytales,” “this show has no identity and turns from cinderella into the princess diaries to every other princess story,” “it’s too sentimental,” and other things that criticize what’s geared towards female audiences. songs like crossing a bridge, which expand on the heroine’s emotions, are slashed away because “it’s too boring and doesn’t push the plot forward.” all of these characteristics are what make the show fall under the female gaze theory, and all of which are what were criticized the most.

i’m not here to preach to y’all about feminist theory or whatever. but these are just some characteristics i noticed recently and the connections were too good to not discuss. thank you for reading this far <3

#anastasia #anastasia broadway #anastasia musical #idk what to tag this as tbh #meta #?#dimya #pls pls pls feel free to drop stuff in the comments bc idk how successfully i articulated any of this lol #if any of y'all have taken feminist theory classes feel free to add on too! or anyone who knows more about the theater demographic #bc i'm curious #idk it's just really interesting to me #and if i missed something pls add on lol there was a Lot more than i initially thought

349 notes · View notes

eastasiansonwesternscreen · 3 years

Photo

Why did Miyoshi Umeki, the only Asian actress to ever win an Oscar, destroy her trophy?

(By Shirley Li)

Growing up on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido, Miyoshi Umeki was obsessed with American pop music and dreamed of making it to the United States after World War II. She practiced singing with a bucket over her head to avoid annoying her parents, taped piano-key patterns to the dining-room table to rehearse, and sang with a GI band for 90 cents a night in her teens.

It worked. She moved to New York in 1955, and within a few years, she had made her American dreams come true. In 1957, she starred opposite Marlon Brando and Red Buttons in Sayonara, playing Katsumi, the submissive, doomed wife of Buttons’ American airman. Her heartbreaking performance won her the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, making her the first Asian actor of either gender to win, and still the only Asian actress to earn an Academy Award. She accepted her Oscar in a kimono, and her speech was gentle and tentative. “I wish somebody would help me right now,” she said, seeming to struggle with the language barrier. She then thanked “all American people” and bowed to the audience.

It was not, in other words, the kind of speech we would expect today from someone who has just crashed through Hollywood’s glass ceiling, and in ways large and small, Umeki’s career would be shaped by that passive, reverent image of her. The few parts available to Asian actresses in the years after World War II often were stereotypes — Japanese women, in particular, were seen as coy and doll-like — and Umeki learned to lean into that cliché to keep getting jobs.

After her Oscar win, Umeki starred in the Broadway musical Flower Drum Song, for which she nabbed a Tony nomination in 1959. (She later scored a Golden Globe nod in 1962 for the film adaptation.) She portrayed a shy, lovelorn Chinese immigrant promised to a nightclub owner in San Francisco’s Chinatown. And for Gen-Xers, she remains best known for her supporting role on the sitcom The Courtship of Eddie’s Father, where she played the kind, demure housekeeper Mrs. Livingston. In most scenes, her role is to serve Eddie (Brandon Cruz) and his father (Bill Bixby).

It can be a little cringe-inducing now to watch this Oscar-winner in a role that does little more than reinforce a Western fantasy of Asian women, but like most minority actors of her era, Umeki — who died in 2007 at 78 of complications from cancer — faced what must have been an agonizing choice between being visible, in roles that were beneath her, or being unseen altogether. She chose the former, remaining an enigma in the public imagination, but her true feelings about Hollywood may have been more complex. “I asked her, ‘Why did you agree to do the pidgin English?’” her son, Michael Hood, says now. “Her answer was very simple: ‘I didn’t like doing it, but when someone pays you to do a job, you do the job, and you do your best.’”

Still, she found ways to express how she really felt. Cruz, who starred as Eddie on Courtship until he was 10, remembers Umeki’s commitment despite her thankless part. “From growing up around Miyoshi for four years, I didn’t sense a lot of joy, but I felt her strength and her determination,” he says, adding that instead of complaining, Umeki used her standing to open doors for fellow Asian actors — including Pat Morita and George Takei, who both guest-starred on the series — and to improve on-set life. Once, after noticing how Bixby relocated his dressing room closer to the stages, she made her own request. “Miyoshi just looked around, saw what was happening, and said to the producers, ‘I want a trailer, and I want it parked outside,’ and she got it,” Cruz says, noting that Umeki began helping to negotiate them for everyone else. “Miyoshi got what she wanted by just being smart and quiet.”

Quiet, sure, but never meek. Hood says she chose to retire from acting after Courtship was canceled in 1972. “I know it sounds weird nowadays, but she wanted to be a housewife and a mother,” Hood says. “When I asked her why years later, she said she had achieved everything she wanted to achieve. Her dream was to come here and entertain.”

That dream, though, seems to have come at a cost to her spirit. Shortly after her husband, Randall Hood, passed away in 1976, Umeki etched out her name on her Oscar and then threw the trophy away. To this day, her son isn’t sure why she disposed of it, though he says the circumstances of her life at the time — as a newly single mother raising a teenager — probably didn’t help. (“When my father passed away, Mom took it real hard,” he remembers.) But even though it seemed to have been an act of rage, her explanation to him at the time appeared to avoid any expression of strong emotion. “She told me, ‘I know who I am, and I know what I did,’ ” Hood says. “It was a point of hers, to teach me a lesson that the material things are not who she was.”

(Entertainment Weekly, February 22, 2018)

#Miyoshi Umeki #media representation #representation in media #classic hollywood #article #photos #long post

282 notes · View notes

chlorine-tangerine · 3 years

Text

Ride or Die (Netflix) Review (1?)

First off: If you don’t know, this movie was based off the manga named Gunjou by Nakamura Ching. It’s one of my favorite lesbian mangas I have ever read. It’s a painful, gruesome, violent, complicated fine line between love and hate. I had doubts about it having such a special place in my heart but I started rereading and it’s just great.

I really really really REALLY wanted to like the movie, since I freaked out in joy when I knew that a movie adaptation was being made and almost cried when I saw the trailer. I went in with anticipation but also told myself that it won’t be as good as the manga. These are my thoughts not even halfway through the movie.

TW for violence and murder

***spoilers for both Gunjou and Ride or Die below!!! ***

1. They start off with Rei (her name wasn’t revealed in the original until the end) in the bar seducing Nanae’s husband, then to an agonizingly long sex scene, then the actual murder. The manga starts out after the deed was done and a phone call between the two because it’s the story about these two women, not Rei and Nanae’s husband. A lot of the scenes are one-shots which was cool but it definitely went on for too long.

(Not gonna show that one cause yeah I hated that scene tbh)

2. The “returning money” scene was placed before the longer high school flashback. Why? We had no idea why Nanae was paying back such a big sum and when we learn about it later it holds less weight. Not to mention the “I’ll buy the rest of your high school life” line isn’t as powerful and insulting as I wanted it to be (but that’s just personal opinion).

3. It’s interesting that there’s such a big change in tone when comparing this to the manga. The manga was gloomy and they were always on edge since she just killed a man, and all the violence kind of make sense with the tone. However, the movie is making it a fun road trip where they laugh, get McDonalds, play some games, and then suddenly Rei is on the verge of beating Nanae up. I’m not saying that they can’t have fun moments, but that big of a shift is very jarring and confusing, unlike the original where they know this isn’t the time to have fun.

4. Nanae was written as a character who didn’t feel remorse for what she asked Rei to do (or at least we weren’t shown), which is really weird because she ruined Rei’s entire life. The manga Nanae was at least up front about it and says “yeah she’s so stupid she’d do anything for me” which is what makes her so interesting because she’s desperately calling for help yet she acts cold towards Rei. Nanae in the movie acts like she’s also been in love with Rei for the past 10 years which isn’t true.

5. There were some one-time characters that I really loved, such as the gyaru they met on the road (there’s also the mother later as well). Though their appearances were short, they felt really important to the story and Nakamura-sensei was able to make the unnamed Gyaru girl one of my favorites in a short amount of time. They do a lot to set the mood and removing them from the story made me a little disappointed.

6. some comparisons because I like that some lines and scenes are kept the same, but the context they’re in and the delivery are completely changed:

(Here the manga feels a lot more subtle and used for the opening scene, as if she’s laughing at herself for how stupid she is. The movie changed it to the bathtub scene which is fine, but meh)

(The “dead end” map was found by the gyaru side charater in chapter 1, and the black panel portrayed it as a striking, unsettling thing. The movie made it a fun little game as if they aren’t ON THE RUN????)

I’ll finish it and come back since Rei’s brother and sister-in-law are characters I like. I’m told there’s a wlw sex scene later on that’s filmed from the male gaze but we’ll see. So far it’s... mediocre.

rachel

#gunjou #ride or die netflix #ching nakamura #lesbian #wlw #netflix #review #lesbian manga #yuri manga #wlw movie #rachel writes things

84 notes · View notes

imaginariumpod · 3 years

Text

Studio Ghibli; and the aesthetic of comfort and the mundane.

When it comes to animation movies, Studio Ghibli movies are still some of the long standing staples of the genre, and for a good reason. A lot has been said about these films, their thematics, their characters, their stories and the studio that made them, as well as one of their elusive and yet most well known creators : Hayao Miyazaki. I will try to focus on the ways Studio Ghibli views comfort as well the coziness in these little slower moments that fill the universe of Ghibli films. These movies are generally universally loved by the public, despite the fact that they are aimed toward a younger audience. These movies are definitely created with the goal of showing it to a public of children and families, and yet they still are very complex and layered pieces of art and animation that all audiences can appreciate. These movies also do not look down on their audiences, they do not shy away from touching upon more difficult themes such as war, loss, and fear, in a manner that’s adequate for the public it is targeting. With this article, I want to write an extension on the article I have already written on the subject of slowness in cinema and that has been asked by one of my subscribers on patreon. If you haven’t read that article yet, you can read it HERE on my blog.

The films that have been created by Studio Ghibli, are, and with reason, a cornerstone of the animated movie industry. Despite the fact that these movies are definitely intended and made for a younger audience, I think we can all agree that these particular movies can be appreciated by everyone, at any age, and that anyone can find meaning and solace within these movies. Studio Ghibli movies are truly an excellent example of filmmaking that manages to capture a slower pace in media, slowing down the action to just offer a moment to breathe. Between all of the grand adventures and events that are happening in those movies, there are always moments of slowness to be found. Of calm. Of quietness. The characters of the Ghibli universe are permitted to simply exist sometimes.

The concept of slowing down in media is one that I deeply appreciate for the way it brings depth and serenity in stories. This is a very personal point of view of course, I find the modern pace of capitalist life deeply alienating at times, and sometimes I think we just need a moment to slow down and enjoy simply being. Doing nothing is a very anti-capitalist thing, in my opinion, and I greatly appreciate seeing this concept in books and movies. While being productive is always a nice feeling, and god knows I always enjoy being busy and having things to do, it is always in these moments where I feel submerged by everything I have to do that I yearn for some peace and quiet. While it is not always possible to have this, it is always possible for me to simply … start a movie, and try to escape a bit the weight of the world.

I personally think having these moments to be able to just breathe and be truly enriches a movie. Those moments of simple mundanity and ordinariness ground the story in reality even when the story is about a wizard living in a moving castle. Studio Ghibli movies are the epitome of films that can focus on fantasy and the imaginary and telling incredibly original stories, while also including this measure of the mundane, the routine and the ordinary in between the louder and more action-packed parts of the film. This way of constructing these films, makes it so that the universe feels more lived-in, real and comforting, the characters feel more grounded and rooted in reality.

Studio Ghibli: a brief history

Even though Hayao Miyazaki started working as an animator in the 1960s, working in TOEI animation and learning the tricks of the trade, it is only later in 1985 that he established Studio Ghibli as we now know it, with the partnership of Isao Takahata and Toshio Suzuki. It is with that previous working experience that he got to truly construct an identity as the type of animator he wanted to become, and the type of movies he wanted to produce. Before Ghibli, Miyazaki got involved with different animation projects such as Heidi (1974) , and Anne of Green Gables (1979) and a project that would never see the day : Pippi Longstocking. This project is quite interesting in how it simply … never got made, its a bit like a lost part of history, a what-if. Despite the fact that Hayao Miyazaki had drawn a lot of concept arts as well as storyboards for this project, they never got the green light from the swedish author Astrid Lindgren.

Nonetheless, it is obvious how all of these projects forecast how Miyazaki and his business partner Isao Takahata will more often than not try to center young girls as the main protagonists of their movies. A trend that will continue on for the most of their careers to this day. They will continue to focus on young girls and women as the main characters of the stories they are telling in such a complex and intricate way, all of their female characters are different from each other, with their own complicated inner lives, dreams and goals. It seems like such a basic requirement to request from our media, and yet even now, it is still not something that… will be guaranteed in the stories we consume. It is not to say that ghibli’s portrayals of women is perfect, but I do appreciate their very complex heroines and their adventures.

I will not try to pretend that I can totally understand the type of person that Miyazaki is, he’s a complicated figure at the helm of Studio Ghibli, the man behind the curtain. He is definitely a hardworking and self-critical person, but also deeply critical of others as well, wanting to set up very high standards of work that can be extremely difficult to achieve in a very high pressure environment. Thus is the complex personality of Miyazaki. I do not want to pretend he is a perfect man, and I do think some of his choices are things i don't quite agree with. There are some very valid and legitimate criticisms to be made about him, some by the closest people he works with as well as his own sons, especially Goro Miyazaki, who say that his father was always very distant, working long hours even by the era’s standards, and whose heart was obviously more into his work than his home life. Hayao Miyazaki valued work and putting in the time and effort into his art and job, pushing for very unhealthy job practices and work culture.

He is far from perfect, and seek perfection in his work, both from himself and the people he works with. There’s a lot to be said on that aspect, and yet I still very much think that he is that he is still a very fascinating person to reckon with, someone who brought very important and beautiful stories and revolutionized the world of animation in a really significant way. The universes he created are some I keep coming back to times and times again. I also highly recommend the documentary A Kingdom of Dreams and Madness (2013) if you have not seen it, as to have a glimpse of the way this animation studio functions on a daily basis. I find it always so very inspiring personally, each time I watch this documentary, I feel hugely motivated to create and to make something, no matter how small. Sometimes, it is simple about the sheer act of creating something, of spending some time away on the roof, looking at the skies while a cat is sleeping next to you.

His involvement with the Union during his early animator years left him with a leftist tendency that will continue on during his career and seep through the themes of his movies.From the very firmly anti-war stances to the pro-environmentalist and anti-capitalist and anti-consumerist themes, Ghibli movies are a proof that you can tackle these subject matters in a very conscientious way even in children’s media. It can be seen in the movie Grave of the Fireflies (1988), a heart-wrenching movie about two children trying to survive the last months of World War II. Even though Isao Takahata, who directed this movie, says the movie was not made out to be an anti-war movie, this stance is still very much woven in the very fabric of the movie, from its beginning to its ending.

This specific theme is very important here in terms of the experience of the mundane and the ordinary in Ghibli movies. Even within the most devastating of events, smaller moments of slowness can be found, and appreciated. Quiet moments of peace that feel even more poignant in the midst of struggle. Despite everything, I think we have all come to the conclusion that even when world-shattering events are happening, life truly must go on. And it does find a way to go on, and it feels mind-boggling that we all have to do our groceries, cook dinner, wash our laundry while terrible events keep happening, and yet, these mundane moments still occur. It is still possible to find a moment of respite and peace in the midst of uncertain times and terrible events.

But also, as Marco says it in Porco Rosso, « I’d much rather be a pig than a fascist » and I think this really does say it all.

The aesthetic of comfort

Despite being usually an animated movie set in a very obviously fantastical universe, Studio Ghibli movies tend to be very realistic in the way they portray the characters, their complexity, and also what are the real underlying conflicts. For example, in Kiki’s Delivery Service (1989) «The primary conflict isn’t about magic—it’s internal and invisible and wholly human: Kiki’s brief period of lost motivation and artist’s block. She gets it back when she wants to help Tombo, whom she loves. Simple as that. She doesn’t have to wage an epic battle to prove her worth» The stakes might seem lower in this movie compared to other stories, very mundane and ordinary, there is no war, there is no significant conflict, but I think this is what makes it so special in the end.

One of the particularities of Ghibli movies is how they deal with the notion of childhood, a notion that few animation movies have approached with such delicateness and seriousness. One of the things I really appreciate from Ghibli movies is that it does not shy away from treating children as complex beings. It does acknowledge the fact that children are also able of complexities and of understanding more than we think they do, and yet creating media that is easy for them to comprehend and appreciate, which I think is no small feat.

There is definitely also a definite focus on working class characters instead of the more “prestigious” ones in Ghibli movies, there is a desire to center normal people, whatever that means, in their stories. Most of the characters have to work for a living, earn their lives, and the value of hard work is definitely something that is highlighted in the Ghibli universe. In Kiki’s Delivery Service (1989), the baker’s wife tells the young witch that work is work no matter how small and insignificant you might think it is, and all work should be paid, and it is a truth that should be remembered.

In that movie, here is no world shattering events, no wars or massive destruction, only a young witch trying to make something out of herself, losing her will and creativity and gaining it again. That particular theme is one that resonates a lot with people on a very basic level, especially in this current day and age where so many of us are trying to monetize our creative work. So often, trying to capitalize off a hobby and enduring the bone deep dreary weight of capitalism is what will make artists lose their original inspiration and will to create, when a hobby turns into labor, and this is, at its core, the journey that Kiki went through.

As Robert Ebert told Miyazaki, during an interview with him « I told Miyazaki I love the "gratuitous motion" in his films; instead of every movement being dictated by the story, sometimes people will just sit for a moment, or they will sigh, or look in a running stream, or do something extra, not to advance the story but only to give the sense of time and place and who they are.»

And he was right, Ghibli movies have these moments where the action is not something that is strictly essential to the plot of the movie, and yet it is essential to the essence of what Ghibli movies do. Miyazaki then explained what this concept for him meant for him :

«"We have a word for that in Japanese," he said. "It's called ma. Emptiness. It's there intentionally."»

Those slow moments between the actions are thus very deliberate, they mean to slow down the story and to slow down the pace. Unlike the generally accepted school of thought in modern Hollywood cinema, where every single scene and dialogue needs to move the story forward, Miyazaki lets his story and movies breathe and exist. This way of building a story does give it an added sense of calm and soothingness, but also it gives it a sense of realism. Instead of following a strict narrative outline, this fluidity makes the story feel more real and relatable.

These quiet moments and details that might seem innocuous and useless at first glance, and maybe look like they would slow and hinder the pace of the movie in itself, are ultimately what gives it this feeling of genuineness, of sincerity. It lets the characters as well as the plot have the space to breathe, evolve and grow.

« Although these scenes may seem slow or unimportant, they give space to develop the characters and to heighten dreams or feelings the characters are having such as feelings of isolation, wonder, or anxiety. It is in these moments of stillness that the audience can contemplate with the characters and feel what the characters are feeling. These moments remind the audience the importance of stillness in such a fast paced world and highlights the beauty of a slower paced life»

Studio Ghibli movies insert those slo

wer moments in between their more faster paced and action packed scenes, but also in the midst of world-changing events such as wars, as shown in Howl’s Moving Castle (2004). This demonstrates how people still live on during those crises, even with the danger looming over their heads. This kind of media gives me hope that we can live through this, that moments of happiness and peace are still to be found even within the madness of our very fast capitalistic and hyper consumerist life.

From visibly established routines to a focus on the mundane, the daily. the ordinary, Ghibli movies will definitely bring these seemingly unimportant acts and integrate them as essential to the general experience of the movie. You see the characters inhabiting the Ghibli universe working, studying, sleeping, eating, in a way, you see them being alive. In a manner of speaking, of course, these are fictional characters in fictional universes, but it is obvious that the universe and the lives these characters lead extend beyond what we’re seeing on the screen. They have whole lives and experiences that we might not be privy to, as the audience, but it is apparent that these characters are fully formed. They are going on and about with their lives, and it is this emphasis on the ordinary that makes them appear so realistic.

Falling and getting up again. Jumping and stumbling. So often, Ghibli’s characters are not perfectly graceful beacons of dexterity and elegance, quite the opposite even, their demeanor and posture will inform the character and their place in that world, and yet it is not always perfect and flawless. Sometimes, the characters will run and stumble and trip and fall and this mundanity of being.

This representation of the realness of what it is to be a person, that sometimes we trip and stumble, that we fall and get up again and yet, we continue to walk or run. It’s also a way of defining the different characters, of imbuing them with their own personality and mannerisms and be able to distinguish them even with such small details as the way they walk and carry themselves. This is definitely not exclusive to Studio Ghibli, animation as a whole uses movement and mannerisms as an essential tenet of character, but it is still very rare to see this sort of flailing included voluntarily in the films. Since the medium that these movies are created in is two-dimensional animation, it means that every single frame had to be carefully planned and executed, before being drawn and painted frame by frame. These movements could have been easily not included in the final cut of the movie, they could have been considered superfluous to the film, and yet they were. These imperfect moments are what ultimately makes it better.

Ghibli movies do that, not only in terms of physicality and concrete elements, but also when it comes to feelings and emotions. Emotions that we all feel and experience, from the feeling of restlessness to loss and fear, to love and courage. Ghibli movies really do showcase all of these feelings that we all feel, even though in a manner that is easy to understand for all audiences.

“Only Yesterday does not hit the dramatic highs of Miyazaki’s work, but that’s partly the point. It’s less concerned with presenting a grand thesis about the nature of being human than it is navigating the heartbreaks, triumphs and regrets that make us. But it’s still comforting for a film about the relentless march of time, the title even invoking both the speed with which childhood can pass us by and how close those memories stay with us.

It’s immensely relatable in how it evokes these little tragedies: the feeling of being a fraud; of missing out’ of wondering if you’ve left your childhood self behind; idealism; dreams and all. It asks us not to mourn what might or might not have happened, but to keep those memories close, and use them to move forward. That Only Yesterday makes this feel as wondrous as a castle in the sky or a land of spirits is nothing short of miraculous, and why it ranks among Ghibli’s best.”

The act of eating is one that is heavily emphasized in Ghibli movies, one only needs to read all of the articles dedicated to the mouth-watering food that fills its universe to understand that this simple act, of eating and of preparing food, is one that is very important. Countless of people have made videos on how to recreate some of the most iconic dishes and meals of the Ghibli universe, from Howl’s Moving Castle’s tempting breakfast to Spirited Away’s feasts, both the one that Chihiro’s parents eat at the beginning of the movie and the ones served to the bathhouse’s guests, and the simple snacks that are eaten throughout the movie, from the onigiri Haku gives Chihiro or the food she shares with Lin. Ghibli movies are very well known for how pretty and appealing its food looks, and simply taking the time to showcase the act of preparing and eating food, thus slowing down the pace and creating a break during the plot of the movie. There’s a certain type of media that does put a lot of importance on the act of slowing down, taking the time to cook, such movies such as Little Forest : Summer & Autumn and Little forest : winter and spring, for example. A lot of media that’s just about not doing much and preparing some food, which somehow has a very soothing effect. The act of eating and cooking is part of the greater character narrative and storyline when it comes to Ghibli movies, but also the act of sharing a meal and of eating together.

Food, the preparing of food as well as the sharing of a meal, is a love language in itself, in my very humble opinion, taking the time to prepare all of the ingredients and then a dish for someone else or for one self is an act of care. And it is definitely one of the ways it is used in Ghibli movies, from My Neighbor Totoro (1988) in which the eldest daughter is often seen having to prepare lunch and food for her younger sister and her father, since her mother is sick and hospitalized. I will not be talking here about eldest daughter syndrome here, but it is very much a Real Thing™️. It is simply in this representation of the act of cooking, and the care she puts in it, that we can understand not only the love she has for her younger sister and father, but also the very real responsibilities that she has to shoulder as such a young age.

In every single Studio Ghibli movie, this pattern appears, someone will make food, and it will be obvious how much time, effort and love it takes to prepare this dish, or someone will simply take a break from whatever they were doing and take a bite of a small but tasty snack. Somehow, the usage of food in the Ghibli universe is central to the way the characters will experience and move through the world.

It is in these small moments of respite and calm that the characters, and by extension, us, are allowed to breathe. Moments that are quiet, where two people will share a meal and just be. I always terribly appreciate whenever a movie, or any piece of media really, simply takes the time to let the story expand and move at its own pace. Studio Ghibli movies are always ones I love to go back to whenever the world feels overwhelming and slightly unbearable. I hope that we can all have more moments of peace and quiet, that things can slow down enough for us to catch our breath.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Hayao Miyazaki interview | Interviews

The Magic and Artistry of Studio Ghibli's Films

The Low-Stakes Pleasure of KIKI’S DELIVERY SERVICE

Wings and Freedom, Spirit and Self: How the Filmography of Hayao Miyazaki Subverts Nation Branding and Soft Power Shadow

Miyazaki’s Magical Food: An Ode to Anime’s Best Cooking Scenes

Food in Spirited Away: Consuming with Intent

Grave of the Fireflies: The haunting relevance of Studio Ghibli's darkest film

NAPIER, Susan. Miyazakiworld : a life in art. Yale University Press, 2018.

#text

74 notes · View notes

passionate-reply · 3 years

Video

youtube

Great Albums is kicking off Pride Month with a special feature on one of the weirdest and wildest queer artists of the New Wave era: the one and only Klaus Nomi! Combining glam, synth-pop, and opera, of all things, Nomi’s tragically short career is nothing short of mystifying. Check out the video or read the full transcript, below the break!

Welcome to Passionate Reply, and welcome to Great Albums! In this installment, I’ll be looking at the self-titled debut album of one of the most unique, incomparable, and unforgettable artists in music history: the one and only Klaus Nomi. What is it that makes Nomi so noteworthy? Perhaps the most obvious thing is his background as a classically trained opera singer. While a lot of pop vocalists have some degree of classical training, it’s rare to find one who worked so hard to bring ultra-mannered, literally operatic lead vocals into an otherwise pop context.

The other thing I should mention is that Nomi’s voice part was the “countertenor,” giving his vocals an even more unusual dimension. Countertenors are men who sing in a high range usually covered by women, and even in the operatic tradition, they weren’t necessarily all that common, particularly since the rise of opera coincided with that of the infamous castrati--male singers who were castrated to preserve their prepubescent voices. The combination of partially electronic, New Wave compositions with these bizarre, but ultimately “traditional” vocals results in something that sounds simply otherworldly.

Music: “Total Eclipse”

“Total Eclipse” is probably Nomi’s best known track, due in part to being featured in the seminal concert film Urgh! A Music War, which sought to capture the diversity of the early 80s New Wave scene. Like a lot of classic songs of this era, it tackles the subject of nuclear annihilation, albeit with a nearly depraved, gleeful tone, that makes it feel like more of a party. For the verses, Nomi adopts a sort of rhythmic speak-singing, which was much more par for the course for “New Wave” music, only to shockingly explode into a powerful operatic rendition of the refrain. It reminds me a bit of how, in musical theatre, tension builds through spoken dialogue, before characters are so emotional they feel compelled to burst into song--or, of course, how recitative blossoms into arias in opera. In the context of this particular track, it’s easy to interpret it as an embodiment of how “cold wars” can suddenly burst into flame. While “Total Eclipse” was a new composition, written specifically for Nomi by Kristian Hoffman, this album also features several covers of past hits, such as “You Don’t Own Me.”

Music: “You Don’t Own Me”

Nomi’s covers of the Midcentury pop ditties “Lightning Strikes” and “You Don’t Own Me” repeat the structure of “Total Eclipse,” showing that this signature pattern of increasing tension leading to increasingly mannered vocals is just as effective when retroactively applied to pre-existing compositions. What’s also significant about “You Don’t Own Me” is that it was originally written for a woman, Lesley Gore, and its defiant assertion of self-confidence has long been associated with women’s liberation. Being openly gay, Nomi sees fit to leave the lyric “play with other boys” just as it is, and could be interpreted to be deliberately emphasizing that last word, intentionally queering his rendition of the song. Nomi’s ability to sing in a traditionally female voice range, combined with his eccentric, gender-bending personal aesthetic, makes the interrogation of traditional concepts of gender an integral part of his art. Some of the other covers on the album are even older than the Midcentury, coming from the golden age of opera, such as “The Cold Song.”

Music: “The Cold Song”

Also known by its opening lyrics, “What power art thou?”, “The Cold Song” is a rare operatic aria that was actually designed for the countertenor voice part. It was written by the English composer William Purcell, a noted fan of countertenors who lived outside the influence of the Italian castrati, for his 1691 opera King Arthur. Well, King Arthur is actually what’s sometimes called a “semi-opera”: not all characters sing, and those who do often tend to be supernatural entities. “The Cold Song” is sung by a winter spirit called the Cold Genius, when reluctantly awakened from icy slumber by Cupid. His lines are sung so as to stutter, as he shivers from the freezing cold of his surrounds. Unlike the pop covers on the album, the arias are actually played pretty straight, almost as if they serve as evidence of Nomi’s actual chops doing traditional opera the old-fashioned way. “The Cold Song” is certainly a great fit for Nomi’s unique stage persona, which presented him as a fey or elfin non-human visitor from some mythical Otherworld, or perhaps an extraterrestrial from outer space. This theme is addressed most directly by the one track on this album composed entirely by Nomi himself: “Keys of Life.”

Music: “Keys of Life”

“Keys of Life” is the album’s opening track, and perhaps serves as Nomi’s personal introduction to the people of our realm--a sort of musical “we come in peace” message. Its lyrics seem to portray Nomi as a benevolent visitor, but one with a dire warning for mankind: we need to get our act together soon, for our actions now are of great import, as we humans “hold the keys of life.” Perhaps Nomi’s mission is to prevent climate catastrophe on Earth, or, given the context of “Total Eclipse,” a nuclear apocalypse. With its warbling synthesiser backdrop, and Nomi singing fully in the operatic style throughout, “Keys of Life” is arguably the most experimental piece to be had on the album, and putting it as the very first track certainly pulls no punches.

It is, of course, difficult to fully address the significance of Nomi’s persona without getting into his visual identity. The cover of Nomi’s self-titled debut features his most iconic outfit: an oversized plastic tuxedo, with hugely exaggerated shoulders, and a pointed hairstyle with a bit of Streamline Moderne flair. I mentioned earlier that Nomi’s work seems concerned with gender, and in that context, I’ve often interpreted this look as a sort of caricature of masculinity, parodying men’s formalwear and calling attention to Nomi’s receding hairline. There is certainly something absurd about a high-pitched, perhaps feminine-coded voice emerging from a ludicrously masculine sort of character. The use of thin, shiny, reflective plastic, and the aforementioned Midcentury feel of the hairstyle, make me also consider interpreting it as less of a parody, and more of an alien’s bad attempt at adopting the appearance of an “ordinary,” upstanding, conservative human male in attire, using space-age materials to cobble it together.

The oversized, geometric appearance of Nomi’s garb reminds me of the great Dada poet, Hugo Ball, founder of the legendary Cabaret Voltaire. Ball was the inventor of what he called “sound poetry,” and enacted lively readings of poetry that consisted of entirely nonsensical words. He did this while wearing a strange, cylindrical-shaped cardboard suit, said to restrict his movements so much that Ball needed to be ceremoniously carried off stage when he was finished reciting. Given their shared German heritage and cabaret avant-gardism, I can’t help but wonder if Ball’s striking costume was something of an influence on Nomi here.

This album is, of course, self-titled, but that, too, is an artistic choice that can be analyzed. The artist was born Klaus Sperber, but adopted the stage name “Nomi” for his creative endeavours. In the context of the track “The Nomi Song,” the name is often used punningly in comparison with the English phrase “know me.” Nomi’s choice of stage name is almost a dare or a challenge, a request for us to attempt to know and understand this seemingly inscrutable being before us. As with many other portrayals of queerness as alien or otherworldly, the messaging here seems to be that Nomi may seem different at first, but his intent is ultimately benign, should mere mortals like ourselves be kind enough to give him a chance.

Nomi’s follow-up to this debut album was 1982’s Simple Man, an album which is much more similar to its predecessor than different. It has a wider variety of contributing musicians and different instruments employed, but it’s got a similar overall feel, and mix of tracks. You’ll find more covers, like “Falling In Love Again” and even “Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead,” more original compositions, like the Hoffman-penned sequel to “Total Eclipse,” entitled “After the Fall,” and even some more arias, like this stunning rendition of another work of Purcell’s. Referred to here as simply “Death,” it comes from Purcell’s Dido & Aeneas, and is sung by the titular Carthaginian queen, Dido, as she prepares to commit suicide. Also called “Dido’s Lament” or “Thy hand, Belinda,” its darkly descending melody is as captivatingly ominous today as it was when it was written, over three centuries ago.

Music: “Death”

Sadly, Nomi became gravely ill at around this time, and his own untimely death was just around the corner. He died of complications of AIDS in 1983, at the age of just 44, leaving behind an unfinished opera of his own creation, Za Bakdaz, which would go unreleased until 2008. That, and a posthumous live album released in 1986, would be the only other works under Nomi’s name. As with all artists who die tragically young, we will always be left wondering what else Klaus Nomi might’ve accomplished in the ensuing decades. I find it hard to imagine a timeline in which this sound ever became particularly mainstream, but anything else Nomi came up with would have undoubtedly been fascinating.

My favourite track on Nomi’s debut is “The Twist.” Yes, this is indeed Chubby Checker’s “The Twist,” another one of those Midcentury covers that Nomi was so fond of. But compared to the rest of Nomi’s covers, this one is much more of a deconstruction, perhaps even a “piss take,” featuring a sparse instrumentation, centered around a lethargic bass guitar, and the overall pace is slowed to a crawl. Add in Nomi’s piercing vocals and some nearly demonic, chittering laughter, and you’ve got a track that turns a fun, light-hearted dance craze into a surreal nightmare. As difficult as it is to be the strangest track on an album like this, I have to give that honour to “The Twist.” That’s all for today--thanks for watching!

Music: “The Twist”

#music #great albums #album review #album reviews #klaus nomi #new wave

24 notes · View notes

theflikchic · 3 years

Text

Obscure Pop Culture I Love That Nobody Talks About

Consider this entire post a series of recommendations, especially if you're bored in quarantine.

1. Quantum Leap

Starring Scott Bakula and Dean Stockwell, "Quantum Leap" is a sci-fi show from the 80s and it's one of the most progressive shows I've ever seen. The plot's a bit complicated so I'll be quick: A scientist named Sam- in an attempt to travel back in time- accidentally gets trapped in the bodies of different people throughout time. He can only leap from body to body when he changes a point in history (most often, he has to stop a death).

The reason this show is so amazing is because of fact that no matter what body he leaps into, we always see him as him. My favourite episode (called "What Price, Gloria?") is about how Sam gets stuck in the body of a beautiful female secretary. We watch him undergo the sexual harassment of the workplace and see how ridiculous it really is as every guy thinks he's a girl. It's terrific seeing him in women's clothing because it's very normalized in the show and is used to further explain sexism in gender constructs of clothing.

There's about five seasons and sadly, it never got a proper ending. It's quite sad and can be difficult to watch but it's beautiful and I love it.

2. The RED Movies (RED and RED 2)

I love these movies. And sadly, there's only two of them. A lot of people dislike the second one and whild it isn't as good as the first one, I still think it's a lot of fun. They're funny, they're action-packed, and they've got an incredible cast and yet no one's seen any of them.

The movies follow ex-CIA agent Frank Moses and his adrenaline-hyped girlfriend Sarah Ross as they travel the globe with other retired agents and contract killers to stop bad guys and it's AMAZING. I originally watched them because of Anthony Hopkins being in the sequel but then it turned out that I loved them both so much.

They're also very well-written and require a lot of attention. And the jokes make that really rewarding. Both of these films are on Amazon Prime and they're so much fun. If you need more convincing, there's a scene when Helen Mirren tasers Anthony Hopkins and then several scenes after, they kidnap a pizza guy-

3. Dinotopia

The books by James Gurney reign supreme but I love the five episode (or six??? I dunno, there weren't a lot) TV series. It's very mediocre and super low budget but I enjoy the characters and the overall world (even if the books are better).

I'd like to mention that there's also a three hour-long miniseries featuring the same characters but with different actors. While there's more dinosaurs and David Thewlis, the acting is really bad and that's where I prefer the TV show.

I'd also like to mention that the TV show has the character of LeSage, a morally grey antagonist who hates dinosaurs and will occasionally team up with the mains when the rules suit her. She's an excellent character and the highlight of the show.

4. V (1984)

Hey, so, you know Freddy Krueger? Yeah, of course you do. Well, this was the show that made him famous.

Two miniseries (a two-parter and a three-parter) and a fourteen-episode TV series. This show was HUGE in the 80s and yet, for some reason, everyone seems to have forgotten it (but we did get Funko Pops so...victory!).

The show is about an alien invasion of earth but it's not just an alien invasion: it's an invasion from evil alien lizards that serve as an allegory for Nazis. It's got amazing characters, especially amazing female characters. It deals with moral decisions and the horrors of war. While it does get more campy as it progresses and doesn't have a proper ending, 90% of it is low-budget but compelling sci-fi with great characters (and the found family trope, especially once they bring Robert Englund aboard).

Be aware: there are some elements of body horror regarding a pregnancy and an ab*rtion attempt in the second miniseries so if that stuff bothers you like it does me, I promise that it has a happy ending and everything turns out okay. I love love LOVE this show and I wish more people watched it.

If you're curious, it's located all on archive.org.

5. Monk

One of the only three cop shows I actually watch, "Monk" is an incredible show starring Tony Shaloub as an ex-homicide detective who suffers from OCD. As someone with a diagnosed anxiety disorder, I just feel so...seen with this show. Tony Shaloub does an excellent job at portraying someone with anxiety and he's written so wonderfully that I often find myself saying out loud- "Me too, man. Me too."

Don't let the fact that it's a comedy throw you off. They take Monk's illness pretty seriously and most of the laughing comes from the sadness that comes with the way he reacts to the world. Often when something goes wrong because of his anxiety, it funny but also doesn't shy away from the character trying to deal with the way his mind is wired. No characters really laugh at him in the show and those who do are portrayed as jerks (because they are). And Monk is incredibly courageous and it's inspiring to see him triumph.

It has 8 seasons and it's on Amazon Prime. It's brilliant and fun and sad all at once. It's also set in the same universe of "Psych" (another amazing show) but this wasn't established until years later once both shows were over.

The bonus to watching this show is for the character of Monk's friend Captain Stottlemeyer played by severely underrated actor Ted Levine. And if that name sounds familiar, it's because he made a mark back in 1991 as a serial killer who owned a pet poodle and went by the name of Buffalo Bill. He's so funny in this show and his friendship with Monk is one of my favourite parts.

So that's the post! I hope you found something that you're interested in and that your quarantine remains filled with fun, fictitious content! Stay safe!

68 notes · View notes

jocia92 · 3 years

Link

...“It was a challenge on top of a challenge on top of a challenge,” the 38-year-old Stevens says about playing Tom. “It’s a very interesting, complex role for any nationality but some of the dialogue is, I think, even for a German, quite complicated.”

He was receiving intricate instructions from his director, interacting with the crew and then performing on camera as a robot – and all in a language that he studied long ago at school “and continued it a little bit at university” but spoke only on family holidays in North Rhine-Westphalia.

... Filmmaker Maria Schrader (star of Deutschland 89 and also the director of the Emmy-award winning Netflix drama Unorthodox) chose Stevens to play the robot not just for his charm and good looks but because, as she puts it, he “was not specifically known in Germany.”

However, his co-star Maren Eggert admits that, when she was pregnant, she watched every episode of Downton Abbey on German TV. She was so taken aback by Matthew’s death that she had to call her sister for solace.

In person (or at least via Zoom), Stevens is very like his character in the film. That is not to say he is robotic but he shares Tom’s fluency and easy charm. He jokes about the robot’s skin, insisting that Tom is not made out of cheap plastic but of “very high-grade silicone.”

He clearly enjoyed the technical challenge of playing a non-human. “It’s interesting that bridge between what he [Tom the robot] is pre-programmed with, the algorithm that has been calibrated by Alma… and then there is the Tom that must be learnt. In the inter-personal relations with Alma, he is improving or trying to improve. Each situation, it was looking at, well, is this a pre-programme he is running here, is this something he knows how to do or has to learn how to do?”

Ask Stevens an awkward question and he will parry it just as deftly as Tom bats away Alma’s inquiries about just what makes him tick. In the UK, fans and journalists have not let Stevens forget Downton Abbey. They still wonder why he was so keen to leave the series. Doesn’t he sometimes wish that he could exorcise the memory of Matthew Crawley for good?

“‘Exorcise’ suggests Downton Abbey occupies some demonic status in my consciousness which it definitely doesn’t,” Stevens protests.

“There is no way I would wish to erase the memory of it. In fact, it has been the bedrock of my career and so I am very, very grateful to it. Very often as an actor, you have to explain [to people] what you have been in – and very often they haven’t seen anything. It can be a bit demoralising. It’s lovely to have something you can connect all over the world with people on.”

... “For me, I’m Your Man was just a delightful screenplay. I could see the playfulness with which it was written but also the big, big questions it was asking underneath. That, for me, is always attractive,” he says of the way the film deals with love, masculinity, identity and AI. Part of his preparation, he explains, was to watch old Cary Grant screwball comedies.

Stevens didn’t bring his own “baggage” or “preconceptions” but tried hard to be exactly what director Schrader and co-star Eggert wanted, he says. The women were calling the shots with Schrader turning old sexist movie stereotypes on their head. Stevens is the object of the gaze, the eye candy, not Eggert’s Alma.

The film offers a satirical, not altogether flattering, view of masculinity. Stevens confides that he used to have a postcard on his fridge at home which summed up the difference between the sexes. “[With] men, it was one switch and then [with] women, it was an entire board of knobs and dials and things like that,” he says. “I am not sure that my wife would want a robot version of me. I think if she was going to get a robot, she would probably go for something that was entirely alternative.”

Portraying the robot, he adds, gave him new insight in how to treat women. “That’s a very, very important question and it has been in the zeitgeist really, how can men be better,” he reflects. Tom exists to improve Alma’s life. Whether that means ensuring she feels truly loved or tidying her apartment or making her a better cup of coffee, he shows the same dedication. “That’s why Tom was quite so fun to play because it was going between these big philosophical questions and the minutiae of the comedy.”

... Stevens takes his craft seriously. “Comedy is very, very difficult,” he says earnestly. “Performing comedy in a foreign language… I have to say, to make anybody laugh in a foreign language is an absolute dream. It really feels like a great achievement, to be able to bridge that gap and find humour.”

Ask him the most important thing he learned from making I’m Your Man and he replies with even more extreme mock seriousness. “One lesson I took away, whether you’re a robot or a human, is regularly to update your software.”

#ich bin dein mensch #i'm your man #dan stevens #interview #long post

35 notes · View notes