#also it's called a hotel in the stage directions until the very end when C & H get into the car it's 'motel'. significant? | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

michibikionmain · 3 years

Text

This isn’t THE tommyinnit villain essay but it sure is one of them

Ok ok so 4 those of u who aren't on discord with me: i have two main essays that have been in the works for MONTHS, these being my Complete Dream character analysis essay going in-depth for nearly all of his canon interactions and finding his character traits and motivations through the story, and my Tommyinnit (and Wilbur Soot) were Always The Villains on the server essay talking about how the only reason so many people view them as the good guys or heroes is because we see the story from their perspective mainly. This essay? Is not either of those. BUT, it does go through a lot of my thoughts on Tommy and Dream’s characters so I figured I’d post it. maybe itll help me organize my thoughts 4 my Mega Projects lol

@ranboocore bc u helped me pop off on this so hard LMAO

Warning, it’s VERY Tommy Critical, what a suprise. I do not like Tommy as a character lol. idk what triggers yall might need me to tag but if u need one in particular pls lmn!

My biggest issue with tommy's character is that he SAYS hes learned but he never does he is exactly the same person he was at the start of the server just More Sad and with Trauma, when out of all the characters he's had the most push to change. c!Tommy is a very tell-don't-show character which can make it hard for some people to connect to him, especially those who don’t directly share his trauma or see themselves in his character. Of course, there is still a MASSIVE amount of people who relate to his struggles and thus love him regardless of his writing, but those who can't relate to him will always feel some kind of barrier until the things they've talked about are actually shown to the viewer instead of being spoon-fed to them.

It is a very beginner writing thing, and I'm hoping that Tommy is figuring out how to fix this, maybe with support from the many other writers on the server. There's the 3 you mentioned, plus fundy, niki, and maybe tubbo who also play dnd, plus Dream who said he would've been an English major and does a lot of personal writing for fun. I think the biggest issue in the writing lies in the individual ccs being inexperienced in the medium, particularly with planning out their own character growth.

Another glaring issue I have with c!Tommy is how he's framed to be sympathetic and he goes through all these horrible things without acknowledging his role in any of them. The things that have happened to him are a direct result of his actions, but the thing is HE won't acknowledge and so it falls flat. This isn’t to say that being abused is his fault, because it’s NEVER the vicitm’s fault, but being exiled? His multiple fights with c!Dream? His friendships falling apart? Losing the disks in the first place? They’re the direct consequences of HIS OWN actions, but he never acknowledges this and constantly just... brushes off any accountability by either saying that it’s Dream fault or simply SAYING he feels bad without properly showing it through redemption and GROWTH.

Denial is useful in storytelling sometimes, but Tommy's character has been in denial since the very beginning of the server and at this point it's just exhausting. He only ever switches between denial and depression, not really going through all 5 stages of grief properly. His violent/upset reactions would be more powerful if they were any different from how tommy usually acts, but this is always how he is. When he “lashes out” because he’s reached the end of his patience, it doesn’t SEEM like the snap it is because that’s just... it’s seriously just his standard reaction to everything. It hold no WEIGHT to see c!Tommy yell at someone violently or threaten to fight them because he does that anyways!

Static characters can be a good thing, and can be interesting if done correctly, but not every character SHOULD or CAN be static in a story.

Static characters need to have their position or behavior challenged and question, where they look into if the way they see and interact with the world is really the 'correct' one or just evaluated to see if they truly believe in them. This questioning period is CRUCIAL! and NEEDS to be well done in a way that ACTIVELY SHOWS the conflict between the two ideals. If they decide to hold onto their beliefs/continue their behavior then, it feels deserved, because rather than just being a flat "they do thing its who they are" they have defined WHY. WHY is a very important question to think of when telling the difference between dynamic and static characters. The why of a character is ESSENTIAL to developing them as a relatable, sympathetic person rather than a flat story telling device. It makes them a human rather than a puppet. When a character's motives aren't well defined or discussed, they're doomed to fall flat in everything else, because the WHY is the foundation of what makes them who they are.

c!Tommy has an underdeveloped "why", his motivations are weak, rarely properly discussed and when they are it doesn't particularly stick with him. His motivations change without showing us the internal struggle that should come from literally shifting your driving principles. There are some good MOMENTS of him reevaluating the importance of certain things, but they're so spread out and contradictory and immediately spat one that they're hard to piece together. He TELLS us what his motivations are as well, which is another big flaw when it comes to all that but we don't have time to unpack all THAT Anyways, the key to static story telling is reaffirmation. The character goes through a complete journey and ends with the same beliefs because they've looked into why they have them and determined that they still matter to them. A great example of static writing in my eyes is c!Techno, who since the beginning has believed that governments are bad. c!Techno enters the server to destroy a government, and still ends up doing that because he sees and we see him experience that the reasons he didn't like government before still hold true and he has no reason to support them any more than before, and so his anarchist beliefs are REAFFIRMED, proving to him that they way he handles things is the right one for him.

c!Tommy’s attachments are all just... they're all so weird. like he LITERALLY SACRIFICES HIS LIFE MULTIPLE TIMES for L'manburg. By action of sacrifice it seems like it should be the most important thing to him, but then he throws it away for some disks that mattered less to him just a minute ago. But then it's all about how c!Tubbo is worth more than Anything and maybe he's found something more important! but then he shoves THAT out the window for the discs again ig!!! but then it's about l’manburg again? Make it make sense.... pls....

Here's smth that really irks me about Tommy's character, and is kind of weird but give me a second to explain: Tommy has never actually permanently lost much of anything on the server. Every punishment he's ever received he's tried to find some way around. And like... I'm not expecting him to be HAPPY to face the consequences of his actions but seeing him constantly have his cake and eat it too is very irritating, especially when there are characters who DO have to deal with actual permanent sacrifices. The whole thing with the disks. where he WILLINGLY OFFERED THEM UP AND GAVE THEM AWAY THEN SPENT FOREVER TRYING TO STEAL THEM BACK WHILE CLAIMING DREAM STOLE THEM FROM HIM, is the biggest example of this, but it's generally his characters way of dealing with things. He's very backhanded and conniving, constantly calling himself "big man" except for when he wants things from people and he plays up the "iM a MiNoR" card to try and get them to give him things or feel bad. He's not just some sweet innocent kid like people paint him, he knows damn well he's messed up and while he SAYS he feels bad about it, he has never once really shown, with his ACTIONS, regret for what he's done except for the stuff with c!Sapnap, which could it could be argued he did because he thought it would help get c!Sapnap on his side to fight Dream and he knew c!Sapnap was a skilled warrior and could possibly be persuaded to fight with dream.

c!Tommy is in NO way some sweet innocent child, he knows what he's doing. He KNEW l'manburg was a drug empire, and wanted to turn his hotel into the same He was FULLY prepared to just murder c!Schlatt for legally winning an election that he KNEW was rigged AND INTENDED TO HELP RIG HE LITERALLY TEAMED UP WITH c!TECHNOBLADE KNOWING THAT HE INTENDED TO BLOW UP L'MANBURG AND ONLY LEFT WHEN HE REALIZED IT WASN'T GOING TO ACTUALLY HELP HIM--

The line of c!Wilbur saying "Tommy, are we the bad guys?" wasn't him mentally going batshit it was him realizing that the entire time they've been doing terrible things. c!Wilbur was literally ALWAYS Vilbur but the time people CALL Vilbur is when c!Will himself realized he was a villain.

#like. VERY critical #i do not like the child can you tell?#im sorry tommy fans but i am not one of you #and before you ask: Yes I have and do watch his perspective of the SMP just so i can try to understand his thought process #dream smp #dsmp #dream smp analysis #dsmp analysis #critical analysis #prince/pea and i pop off about this so much LOL #this is the first of MANY essays/collective analysis bits ive written about Tommy #lets see how many ill have by the time i finish going through the discord #tommyinnitcritical #discourse #ig. i saw a lot of ppl asking 4 this tag on similar posts so i thought id add it?

31 notes · View notes

kaleid-tay-scope · 6 years

Text

"Delicate" Music Video Analysis:

Here's what I saw and the connections I found. I was going to use pictures but there were too many. This list is in order so you could read it while watching, pausing in between notes. 😘😘

The first two seconds shows a black screen with lowercase letters spelling "delicate" and on the third second we see Taylor Swift's forlorn face close-up with bright lights shining on her and she slowly comes out of her depressed dream stare instantly with a smile when she sees the camera flashes and hears the crowd and reporter.

Next we see Taylor standing on the red carpet and the camera focuses in on someone handing her a folded note. The man who hands the note is the same height as Taylor wearing in heels. We see Taylor's face up close lit in a more soft and defused light and her eyes are looking in wonder and curiosity.

Taylor walks into the Millennium Biltmore Hotel (known for serving alcohol during prohibition in the Gold Room, being of great lgbt importance, as well as having a security guard to turn people away who were only trying to meet celebrities.)

Millennium Biltmore Hotel hosted a very gay-friendly bar through both World Wars and was the site of an early milestone in gay rights advancement. In 1971, the Biltmore hosted the International Psychologists & Psychiatrists conference, which was going to declare electroshock therapy as the “cure” for homosexuality. The meeting was disrupted by the Gay Liberation Front, which effectively forced one of the first dialogues between mental health professionals and the gay community. Within two years of that incident, “homosexuality” was removed as a mental disorder after decades of stigma and official misclassification.

We immediately see that the same people in the crowd outside are now inside waiting. On the right side there is a statue of a female angel with what looks like a mermaid tail.

We see Taylor walking through the lobby surrounded by four guards and we see that some of the people have taken out their phones to record her. As Taylor walks by one of the guards is motioning to blonde woman wearing a dress with stars all over.

We see her taking selfies with her younger fans (as shown with their lollipop t-shirt, baby doll length sequined dress, and a crinolin tutu) but as soon as she's grabbed by a guy they seem to only care about how their selfies were ruined. They aren't looking at Taylor or asking if she's OK but instead they seem only disappointed they were interrupted.

The man who attacked her and tried to push her down is dressed as a service professional; a bellboy.(There's an incredibly gay film called the "Bellboy" where a man named Jake discovers gay sex and an erotica lifestyle at the hotel he works at.

After this altercation we see Taylor look between her fans not caring about her wellbeing and to the bellboy being carried away. We see Taylor's upper lip curled in a display of disgust at her fans behavior.

One of her bodyguards is taking her away while looking forward and Taylor is looking up in resigned annoyance.

We see Taylor next walking in the middle of four men who appear to be security guards. We see that they each have a full beard or a goatee. There are four but reflected in the mirrors (mirrored door the mirror in the cabinet) there are 8 men and 2 Taylors.

Every step forward means a few steps backwards if Taylor decides it so and we see Taylor testing her ability to control them by moving this way and that while they do the same thing each time. Eventually we see Taylor sigh upwards in resignation again. Taylor also stops right in front of a large bouquet of white flowers including lilies.

We next see Taylor examining herself in a mirror at the Los Angeles Theater's ladies room. We are shown that she feels like a puppet with strings

(In Pinocchio we have Geppeto wish on a fallen star to have his puppet be real and come to life. The blue fairy helps him grant this wish and Pinocchio becomes real. Pinocchio ends up at a pleasure island after being lead astray by Honest John.

When Taylor gets "pulled" like a puppet into looking foolish it doesn't quickly go away as seen with the same expression no matter how she's moving her head.

Knocked out of her focus she sees three pretty women and coyly smiles - they weren't there to see her faces in the mirror she's relieved but doesn't realize yet that they can't see her. Even though she's alone and it's not a work thing she'd hope that they'd at least say hi.

After she sees the women is when she becomes invisible but she's in disbelief. She looks at the sparkling note but leaves it on the dressing room counter.

Taylor gets up and motions her arms in front of the women but they don't respond, they aren't seeing her so she exits the dressing room and appears back at the Millennium Baltimore Hotel carrying her shoes down to the lobby she flings them away.

Snapping her fingers and waving in front of the four guards she discovers that not even the four men can't see her and her motions get larger and more dramatic with less inhibition.

After seeing that the guys are more interested in looking forward and or talking intimately with each other, Taylor finally smiles.

Taylor realizes she's finally in charge of all of her actions and rips off the bottom of her dress so she can not be confined anymore (Dress vibes) and starts to dance but before she exits the area she makes sure to check left and right just one more time.

We see Taylor quickly move past two men and one women to dance between two women for "do the girls back home touch you like I do." During this dance between the two women Taylor shimmys and touches her body including her breasts. (In January 2017, protesters took to Mike Pence's neighborhood:

‘Queer Dance Party’ shakes and shimmies to send a message to Mike Pence “We want to send a strong message to Pence that we’re a united queer community,” Firas Nasr, an organizer, told the Washington Post. “We’ve always stood united. There’s always space to dance.”)

Then we see Taylor dancing more elaborately and she shows the camera her left hand with a ring on her ring finger.

she is reaching out to someone and her expression is showing loss and like that she's suddenly in another room. (I feel like this is a pattern symbolizing Taylor's tendency of running after she starts to have feelings.)

Taylor walks backwards and then we see her try to shake off her bad mood she sashays (chases) and pivots (changes directions) but she's in the same 3 feet of space.

(This is another pattern of Taylor being able to shake off her angry or sad emotions but being able to do that doesn't mean she's not feeling the negative emotions.)

As the song continues about her bad reputation Taylor is seen grabbing her head in distress, again she's showcasing her hurt feelings.

It should be noted that again we see the same people from the beginning scene.

Hopping up to be in ballet fifth position arms (without first in preparatory) we see her legs in passe/retire positions interchanging and then again (after frustration) we see Taylor happy again in front of an island themed mural.

Next she quickly bourrees (double-time) off screen.

As Taylor pops up on top of the check-in counter to march, the first thing seen is her knee (CIWYW gif from on the roof vibes) seemingly to her own beat and then she hops left and right. The front desk clerk seems to be checking-in a man with a closed duffel bag.(Getaway Car vibes)

Quickly she's seen hopping again side to side in front of a stone fountain when she shakes her fist at the bellboy who is seen being carried off by one of her security guards. The bellboy is seen shouting as the guard carries him off stage. It should be noted that he does not move his legs at all while he's yelling (CH Twitter rant symbolism?)

After the bellboy is off screen we see Taylor fouetté pivot into miming drinking tea with a saucer for a quick moment until again we see Taylor's emotions changing suddenly ("so happy then I turn back to sad" -Gorgeous) Taylor seems annoyed when a couple walks past and then holds her head with one hand and walks away grudgingly pushing against an invisible wall.

The invisible wall manifests into a real wall (wooden toy puppet into a real boy symbolism?) of the Millennium Biltmore ballroom and we see Taylor disoriented and giving into feeling sorry for herself for a beat. Falling against and sliding slightly down the dark mahogany paneling she pauses and then realizes that it's useless to just mope we see a resolute Taylor shrugging off the wall and pushing away to get back up and dance.

The next scene we see Taylor dancing with a Latin flare leading with her hips and heels as she playfully circles her arms and fingers around her body.

She's shown feeling free and smiling when suddenly she's tied down again with her arms behind her and her legs again in more reserved choreography and then she screams.

After she screams she looks like she's shocked that the confinement bothered her so much and her expression shows that she's not sure how she feels about any of it. Taylor runs forward off camera.

Next we see Taylor sprinting in the elevator lobby to leap into an open elevator where there is a woman Taylor thinks can see her.

We see Taylor smiling at a smiling woman and then realizing that the other woman is actually using the elevator mirror to apply her lipstick and doesn't actually see Taylor even though Taylor seems to be coming to terms with her emotions.

The next scene Taylor stays in the elevator and is genuinely sad and then she looks like she's made a decision to get out of the hotel and go somewhere, anywhere. (Running away again seems to be her MO)

We see Taylor at crossroads inside the 7th Street Metro center where she seems to switch between hip-hop and power-step dancing and then again loses the hold onto her distraction and holds her head but this time it's with both hands.

Next we see Taylor choosing a direction by instinct (with her eyes covered by her hands) we see Taylor enter an open Metro Rail car.

Taylor falls into the open rail car which considering her destination to 417 W 8th St Los Angeles, she shouldn't actually take the rail but the bus.

We see Taylor fall to her knees on the floor of the rail car and then as she's slowly rising we see her walk her fingers suggestively from her hips over her chest to her shoulder and then finally we see that she's pretending someone else is doing the touching. With one hand on her shoulder and her other covering the hand again in fantasy we see a satisfied smile.

When Taylor inhales/gasps quickly we see the rail line door close.

After Taylor mimed being physically satiated in the rail car she's shown in the next scene soaking wet in an alley hopping over obstacles. I feel like Taylor taking the rail line (which has a map of its lines in a dot of rainbow colors) and not the rail bus (which was the direct route to her final destination) shows that Taylor has had to go out of her way to get where she is now.

After hopping over the obstacles she has her feet in the air and then when she's past the obstruction signs she leaped over she gives herself a "well-done" bow.

Next we see Taylor playfully dancing with no regard to style, hand poses, or beat and she hops from the sidewalk to the street over puddles in front of graffiti writing out "Reputation" (with a capital letter) and she bows more deeply, showing her back, letting the camera focus on the phrase "Choose Your Pitstops." (Karlie has used 2x the word pitstop in her insta of the girls' road trip as well as the word pit 1x in the tweet she wrote defending Taylor saying she'd always have her back.)

We then see Taylor dancing a bit similar to the beginning of this adventure but this time including he her signature flamingo poses as she makes her way forward. We never see Taylor's expression change back to sad (Gorgeous) like we have for this entire music video.

She's seems ready to take on the world and follow through with her decisions. She dances now on top of the roof of a stopped car with its headlights on on, reaching for the stars. Next we see Taylor sliding down from the roof into the splits and seems to emphasize that Taylor still feels happy with this journey even though she's not as high up.

The next scene shows Taylor calmly walking into the Golden Gopher, a gay bar in Los Angeles that survived the prohibition and was once owned by former president, Teddy Roosevelt. (Taylor's a history nerd)

We see that Taylor has arrived inside the bar and is somehow holding the note again showing us that not every action of hers is on display even if recorded you will not know all the facts.(Making Of A Song)

Out of breath and slightly shivering Taylor stops focusing on the magical note and as soon as she does it changes to a regular piece of paper with no magic.(Dumbo vibes where Dumbo feels like he needs the feather in order to make it across the tightrope but he realizes that he doesn't; his strength and talent is within himself and has been all along.)

Now we see the patrons and bartender looking back at Taylor but they don't have their phones out and they aren't looking at her like she's something but someone; someone regular, in fact.

She seems to look around past the first four, the fourth patron seems to be blocking the fifth patron from Taylor's eyeline at first, she continues to search until she looks in recognition and smiles the genuine smile of knowing (Dress vibes "I know what you know") .

The final shot shows Taylor smiling with brightest of lights behind her with soft diffused light on her face as she looks forward. (Are we seeing her last big hurrah?)

And then the screen is black with "delicate" the only thing on display, just like the beginning. The beginning and ending also parallel with close-up shots of Taylor with three different expressions on her face.

#delicate music video #Delicate music video analysis #Delicate analysis #reputation analysis #kaylor #personal #writing #analysis #long post

277 notes · View notes

mrleopard25 · 6 years

Text

James Bond Series Revisited: SPECTRE (2015)

Directed by Sam Mendes

Starring Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Ralph Fiennes, and Léa Seydoux

Yes, this has taken years to complete, and for that I apologize. In part it was due to me seeing the film during its opening run and then not again until very recently. I like to be fairly familiar with the film before giving it my full thoughts. Also I like hearing what other people had to say, and well...some of it wasn’t so kind. But I’ve also gone through each of the other Bond films in deep analysis so, like Quantum of Solace, maybe I could give the film a better appraisal. Was it terrible? Was it great? Well...

The film opens on Bond engaging in some good old fashioned espionage in Mexico City, during the Day of the Dead celebrations. Some nefarious types are meeting in a hotel room talking about bombing a stadium, and Bond decides he’s going to assassinate all these guys. They get wise to the attempt at the last second and several explosions later, the block is leveled. But Bond’s target, a man named Sciarra, survives and decides he’s going to escape Bond by the most inconspicuous way he can think of: a helicopter in a crowded town square. Bond’s having none of that, takes his octopus ring, and shoves him out of the helicopter.

But uh oh – why was Bond even there? That’s what M wants to know because, from his point of view, a vacationing agent demolished a couple city blocks and did some aerial tricks in a helicopter above several thousand people. So M wants an explanation, but Bond gives him nothing. This is especially frustrating, as there is a new centralized intelligence agency, the Joint Intelligence Service headed by a man named C, that wants to merge with MI6 and has made no secret about wanting to shut down the 00 program. Why? Because it’s the future!

Meanwhile, Bond reveals to Moneypenny that M, the last M, sent him one of those tapes that says “If you’re seeing this, that means I’m dead, so do this because I’m dead.” Unfortunately M has grounded Bond, but Bond also enlists Q to help him out, and soon Bond has gone to Rome to go to Sciarra’s funeral. He makes an acquaintance of Sciarra’s wife, and later that night saves her from assassination. In response, she informs him of where he can take that octopus ring.

Bond finds himself at a meeting of a clandestine organization engaged in operating terrorist activities around the globe. The leader of the organization notices Bond is there, and soon Bond has to go on the run through the streets of Rome. Based on some word clues, Moneypenny informs Bond that this organization has ties to Mr. White. Bond tracks him down to a remote cabin where he finds the man dying. Bond gets some information about this organization, SPECTRE, and their involvement in global affairs. White makes Bond swear to protect his daughter, then commits suicide.

Bond finds his daughter, Madeline Swann, as a doctor in a special treatment clinic in the mountains. He reveals her father’s fate and her role in this, and she spurns him. On his way out, he bumps into Q, who is feeling chagrinned at working with Bond illegally. Bond gets Q to identify some DNA samples on the ring (not sure why they’re there), and we get links to all the previous Craig movie. More on that later.

SPECTRE tries to abduct Swan and a long chase sequence ensues. After recovering Swann, she takes Bond to a hotel that White used to take his family to, as Bond believes White left information there. Bond tears the room apart, and eventually finds a hidden room that contains information detailing Quantum / SPECTRE activities, including coordinates to a secret base in the Sahara.

Travelling there by rail, Bond and Swann get to know each other a little better, but this is interrupted by Hinx, a SPECTRE assassin, who nearly succeeds in killing them both. After finishing him off, the pair arrive at the SPECTRE base where they are confronted by the leader, Franz Oberhauser – the son of the man who took Bond in after the death of Bond’s parents. Oberhauser killed his father and staged his own death, and has lay hidden as SPECTRE’s leader, calling himself Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Blofeld lays out his objective in overseeing the new global intelligence community, and how C is one of his agents. He then decides to torture Bond by drilling into his brain. Luckily, Bond has an exploding watch that allows him to escape and destroy the compound.

Returning to the UK, Bond meets up with the remains of the 00 program: M, Tanner, Q, and Moneypenny. Their goal is to dismantle the intelligence network before it is activated, and time is running out. Unfortunately, Blofeld kidnaps Swann and keeps her tied up in the old MI6 headquarters, which are rigged to blow. The former MI6 teams now has a limited amount of time to stop Blofeld, C, and SPECTRE.

So SPECTRE isn’t a bad movie. If anything, it’s biggest flaw is that it follows Skyfall. But it’s also not a great film, and I’m pretty sure it boils down to the script. Sam Mendes returns to directing, but we’re missing the fantastic cinematography of Roger Deakins, and he is sorely missed. Not to say that Hoyte van Hoytema is a bad DOP; certainly his work on Interstellar and Dunkirkwas fantastic, but there was something visually stylistic that was missing, and this film just feels like it was filmed as a normal action film.

But on to the script. There are some things taken as granted in the script that rub people the wrong way, myself included. First is that we had a build up in the first two Craig films about an organization called Quantum, that was clearly supposed to be the reboot’s version of SPECTRE at the time. And I was fine with that. It seemed to have the same goals and methods, but be updated for the 21st century. Now we learn that Quantum was really taking orders from SPECTRE this whole time. That could have been an interesting development, if it made sense. But it doesn’t. It only really seems to be done because Blofeld has an anger-boner for Bond. For the fourth movie in a rebooted franchise, having Blofeld be the evil mastermind behind all of it just because he has daddy issues is not good enough for me.

Second are the leaps in logic that serve only to move the story. I really didn’t know how Bond located White’s cabin so quickly. There’s a reference that the Pale King is actually Mr.White, and he was last spotted in some certain place, and then we cut to Bond finding this remote outpost. The average audience member might forgive this, but I found it nonsensical in how fast it happened.

Very glaring is C, played by Andrew Scott (perhaps best known as Moriarty in the BBC Sherlock series). Nobody was fooled by his betrayal, and I think the story would have been better served by this being a genuine surprise that he was working for SPECTRE. I don’t want to denigrate Scott as an actor, but I really feel that he was cast because he has such a sinister presence, not because it would service the story.

And finally is a scene at Blofeld’s Sahara compound where we get a twist on the cliché. Blofeld goes to explain his whole evil plan to Bond, but Bond just explains it to him instead. Blofeld kind of nods and smiles, and basically says “Yeah you got it.” Now, I am completely for us bypassing this cliché, but the way it was written, it seemed more like the movie was getting impatient with itself.

I don’t want to harp on the film too much, because it’s certainly far from the worst in the franchise. And although it’s easy to only focus on the things you don’t like in the movie, we shouldn’t forget the good stuff.

Right at the beginning of the film, we get a great long shot of travelling through Mexico City, which must have included some fantastic trickery, including getting on and off cranes and going through false walls. That whole opening sequence is pretty stellar. This is then paired with an unfortunate credit sequence which borders on uncomfortable the entire time. Apparently Radiohead was involved at some point to do the opening theme but this fell through. The song, “SPECTRE”, is a dark and moody piece with some moments of levity, but has a very grand and sweeping cinematic feel to it (and fits in amazingly with the “A Moon Shaped Pool” tracks they were working on at the time). The replacement, “The Writing’s On The Wall” by Sam Smith is too much for me. The verses work all right, but then he keeps hitting this painful falsetto in the chorus. Meanwhile some of the imagery is great, but then we get some nutty allusions to tentacle porn. It’s a shame, because the title sequence is always a golden opportunity to set the stage for the film.

We are given some interesting questions at this point, and that is: what is the role of the 00 program in the 21stcentury? Skyfall gave us a pretty good answer about using raw tools against advanced technology, but this film picks up that thread by asking what if the good guys have that advanced technology? Do we still need the blunt instruments? C brings up a good point – why use assassins when it’s more effective to destroy their reputation and limit their resources? Don’t make them a martyr, and instead let them fade into obscurity. Remove their power. We do see this with White. He wasn’t killed at the end of Casino Royale, while he was a powerful and influential man, and was allowed to degrade into a recluse with very little standing. Sadly, we really don’t get much discussion about this topic, as the movie goes through the same motions as the last few, wherein the blunt instrument Bond just blows everything up and wins.

Continuing on the theme of technology, watch this film against an older Bond film, and the filmmakers made a logical and interesting use of cell phones. Sometimes you’ll watch a film and if it’s an older film, you are chagrinned that so many of the issues that could be solved with a quick call on a cell phone, or if it’s a newer film you might be shouting at the screen to make a quick phone call and fix the issue. This film does not have this issue, as it uses the technology of the day appropriately.

There are a few chase sequences in this film, and those are Bond staples, but the real task was to make them interesting and compelling. And it’s successful! These were great chases with some inventive ideas, and even a way to incorporate some useful information via a phone call with Moneypenny thrown in.

My final point I want to touch on is casting, and this is the most complicated issue. Daniel Craig continues to really seize the role of Bond and own it. The screenwriters and Craig continue to develop the psychological destruction of Bond was a sure treat. After Bond has demolished the suite at the hotel, we see him devolve into a drunk just barely hanging on to sanity. He is used to being an unstoppable force, and when that doesn’t seem to be the answer, he begins to lose cohesion with his psyche. Seeing the mouse scuttle on the floor, a weak animal that lives under cover of darkness, amuses him and challenges him – especially when it gives away the location of the room. Going on with that thought, whenever we see Bond lose composure, it can make the scene gripping.

The supporting cast are mostly very good. Fiennes is an excellent M in this film, and Harris as Moneypenny has the type of relationship with Bond that we expect, in that it borders on romantic, but never gets going. But it’s more realistic than the condescending / paternal relationship that the Bond / Moneypenny relationship danced in the original run. Bautista as Mr. Hinx is brutal. As with his other roles, he conveys a real presence while on screen and his punches look like they hurt. There is a raw masculinity and physicality in his motions, and it really creates an impression. Naturally the fight scene on the train is reminiscent of the fight with Red Grant in From Russia With Love. That has to be one of the best homages.

Christoph Waltz delivers despite some pretty bad dialogue given to him. His allusion to Bond as a cuckoo chick, with him making cuckoo noises to taunt him are a little grating and not at all sinister. Where Waltz delivers is in his mannerisms and the cold in his eyes, and he has such amazing potential to really develop further as Blofeld. Again though, his character is undermined by the lackluster motivation of daddy issues.

Also, during the big SPECTRE meeting, we get a call back to previous SPECTRE members in the last run with two characters who seem to be visual callbacks to Klebb and Mr. Big. I actually had to double check IMDb to see if the characters had actually been named that.

But now for the elephant in the room: Léa Seydoux as Swann. I haven’t seen Seydoux in anything else, so I really am not qualified to give a review of her as an actor in general (although apparently she was good in Blue Is The Warmest Colour). And it is not without precedent to have a French girl in a Bond film. But there’s two ways in which her character portrayal lets the film down, and I’m not sure if its her fault or Mendes’. The first is that she has no chemistry with Craig. I don’t at any point buy their relationship, either romantically or sexually. There is no fizzle between them. There was something really serious and real with Eva Green in Casino Royale. And secondly is her stoicism with her father. I never really came away with the sense of her emotional state towards her father, and that should have been a major component of her character. She should have extremely complex feelings towards him. She should love him dearly but have an anger at him for bringing so much death and destruction into her life. It should drive her character.

Okay, so let’s break this film down.

Mission Completed?

Bond was grounded after failing to have a vacation. He received an unofficial mission near the end to stop the launch of Nine Eyes, the global intelligence network. The MI6 team really kind of did it all together to be honest.

Dastardly Scheme

So by using a subsidiary organization, Quantum, SPECTRE has been achieving two goals: one to slowly convince world governments to reconcile their intelligence services into one network, and the second to slowly convince the British government that the MI6 agency (in particular the 00 program) is obsolete and to disband it.

SPECTRE mostly succeeded, but was undermined by Blofeld’s endless pursuit of Bond.

Best Buds

The entire MI6 team stands behind Bond and helps him out whenever they can. Naomie Harris continues in her support of Bond as Moneypenny, being a reliable source of information to keep him moving. Ben Whishaw steps up as Q, going into the field to lend forensic aid to Bond, and even getting involved in a chase sequence himself. He really should be more careful out there. Bill Tanner and M also show up at the end to take a hands on approach to stop the Nine Eyes.

The Bad Guy and His Goon

I already spoke about Christoph Waltz’s cold portrayal of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, a man who uses humour to mask his insane revenge plot and obsession with having eyes everywhere. Waltz is supremely charismatic, even if some of his writing is subpar.

Dave Bautista plays Mr. Hinx, an assassin who fills a vacancy in SPECTRE for being the go-to for dispatching enemies. Again, I’m a big fan of Bautista, as each role I’ve seen him in is completely unique. He’s strong but funny in Guardians Of The Galaxy, and strong but tragic in Blade Runner 2049. I almost wish we saw more character from him here because his portrayal is just... strong and brutal?

An interesting take on a villain role is Andrew Scott as C, head of the Joint Intelligence Service, but not because of his portrayal. It’s because he is an antagonist for M, not Bond. His arc revolves around M, and the conflict is with M. It is resolved through M’s actions and confrontations. That’s a welcome addition.

Booty Snatched

Two again. The first was Sciarra’s wife, Lucia, played by Monica Bellucci. She had been a name floating around the franchise for years but only now has finally landed as a Bond girl. She’s the oldest woman cast in such a role, but you know what? It really doesn’t matter – she absolutely fits the profile. Bond gives her a contact to help her get out of the country and into safety and... hey what happened with that? Did she make it?

The second was with Swann, after they dispatch Hinx. Apparently there is no bigger turn on than barely surviving a big sweaty fight. Well...and her dress.

Baddies Dispatched

An astounding 31 killed by Bond, a strong percentage of which during his escape from the SPECTRE compound.

Gadgets Trashed

Bond dumps his car into a canal in Rome, after exhausting all the bonus options. He then hijacks a plane to chase down Swann’s kidnappers, and thoroughly demolishes it. And finally his watch explodes spectacularly. I would actually be really hesitant to wear something with that much yield on my wrist.

It Goes BOOM

Eight explosions, including an absolutely spectacular fireball in the middle of the Sahara.

You Misogynistic Pig

I realize as someone who must use every tool at his disposal to save the world, this falls in line with Bond’s objective, but it still feels really slimy that he immediately sets his sights on, follows home, and seduces Lucia on the day of her husband’s funeral.

White Man’s Burden

This is a weird one. While this film was being made, there were no such Day of the Dead celebrations in Mexico as depicted in the film. It’s really reminiscent of Carnival in Brazil with Day of the Dead imagery thrown in but apparently Mexico City was so enamored with the idea of it, it’s actually become a real celebration in this manner in recent years.

Best Line

“Your word?! The word of an assassin?!” White is incredulous that Bond is promising anything, much less protecting someone.

Worst Line

“He’s everywhere – everywhere! He’s sitting at your desk, he’s kissing your lover, he’s eating supper with your family!” White, during the same scene, trying to beef up how scary a villain Blofeld is. It’s too hammy and making Blofeld sound like a metaphysical demon stalker isn’t intimidating, it’s a cartoon.

Bond Moment

During a fight scene at the clinic, one of the security guys gets up and approaches Bond. Bond gives him a look, raises his hand and says “No! Stay!” The man immediately obeys, probably seeing it’s not worth the trouble.

Special Awards:

Another Number:

Bond’s car (Aston Martin DB10) was to be reassigned to 009, who apparently has questionable tastes.

Scrooge McDuck’s Heir:

Blofeld is so rich, he has a massive compound in the middle of the Sahara desert with a fully landscaped and maintained yard, that is fully staffed with enough supplies to easily sustain at least a hundred people, with the most cutting edge technology at their disposal.

Worst Spy Ever:

When M is grilling Bond at the beginning of the movie about why Bond just blew up Mexico City, it is painfully obvious Bond is lying which forces M to ground him, hindering his objective. Bond really should have brought M in on it – the last film already established Bond could trust him.

Lately there’s been a question as to whether or not we still need to have the Bond franchise, and what it should look like. “Why can’t Bond be a black man?” some say. Others press on and say “Why can’t Bond be a woman?” And it’s really hard to argue against that when you have mediocre movies as evidence.

And that’s what this film is: an average Bond film at best. The film fails in its script and execution, but succeeds in some of its themes, acting, and quiet moments. So what do I think about radically changing the Bond franchise? I’m really against it, but hear me out.

Bond is a depiction of toxic masculinity. He’s an embodiment of it. Those who glorify him as someone to aspire to miss the point entirely. When Bond films are done well, we get the image of a man who can not hold himself together when he has time to himself. So he perpetually endangers his life. The irony is he hates his job. He drinks himself to numb his pain at having love only once, and having that love taken away from him by his work. He uses people for his ends, and his ends are the tool of a government he’s not even that attached to.

The best Bond films explore this. Even this film shows some of it, in that scene at the hotel with the mouse. Bond is a man who needs to be in control at all times, but drinks himself stupid. He is a white male because he is the worst of the white males. He’s a killer, a tool by a higher power playing by old rules, a man who does not value life, he hates every minute of it, but he will never leave it. The end of this film shows him and Swann leaving together, but that’s part of what makes this movie so unsatisfying – it’s not a logical end point and seems tacked on.

The Bond films aren’t glorifying the lifestyle; they’re a warning. At least... they should be.

2.5 / 5

#James bond #007 #spectre #blofeld #Daniel craig #mi6 #m #sam mendes #Ralph fiennes #Christoph waltz #rome #Andrew scott

14 notes · View notes

isakwon · 6 years

Text

Torrent Nightmare

Pairing: Mark x Reader x Jackson

Genre: Fluff, suggestive but not smutty

Inspired by: Jasmine Cephas Jones’s “Say No To This”

Summary: He thought you were having an affair behind his back until he woke up.

The plane was ready for the passengers waiting in line to board on. You and your boyfriend Jackson are wrapped up in each others embrace. Jackson counted the days on the calendar to his tour in Thailand , now he is leaving three days in advance. You understood how performing was a living for him, and no matter how far he would go you’d always support him. Except the tours were usually short now this time he would have to work on this tour for 90 days. Jackson pulls his head away to meet your gaze pouting his lips like a puppy, you twirled a lock of his hair as you smile softly.

“I’ll miss you.” His little whine wasn’t something he showed off, he felt guilty about leaving you by yourself.

“It’ll go by fast you know how time is.”

Jackson continues pouting his lips, as he tightens his arms around you. “Once I get back I promise I’ll spend all my time with you. We’ll have all the time to ourselves just kicking back and be as fat as we can with all the chips and soda, whatever saves our allowance.”

You smirk, “Once you get back, I’m going to start going to the gym with you. I’ve been looking kinda chubby when I saw myself in the mirror at work.”

“Ay, I like my woman regardless especially with a little meat on her bones.”

You laughed aloud and with that, both of you bid goodbye with a kiss on the forehead.

A month later…

Jackson’s first stage performance ended. As soon as he arrived at the hotel room Jackson removes his face mask and reaches for his phone, thinking of you and how you’re doing. He falls on the giant fluffy bed, unlocking the screen and sliding his finger on the pop up keyboard. He taps the send button on the screen making sure to hear that ‘swooping’ noise before allowing himself to instantly fall asleep.

“There’s nothing like summer in the city…Someone under stress meets someone looking pretty.” -Leslie Odom Jr.

The night was getting older as the street lamps automatically turned on and the sky was growing darker. You thought working double hours throughout the next few months could help you get certified, so your boss agreed to let you take some paperwork home.

You hadn’t slept in a little over a week, you were bright eyed and bushy-tailed, willingly to take the stress. Now you’re filled with regret,fatigueness, bitter black coffee, you were more in need of a break.

Jackson wouldn’t be back until another three months. Other than your untouched bed, you longed for his back hugs and his sweet-yet also annoying aegyo-even if he only did it while drunk.

“It would be nice to have him here.” You say.

His arm would be wrapped around you, watching a movie on the loveseat together, the both of you relaxing from both physical and mental exercising. Suddenly, your phone makes a ‘ding’ sound, you lift it up and a message from him appears on the screen.

9:29 p.m. Text Messages:

Jackson: Hey Baby, just checking up ,I miss you <:(

You smirk at the at the text.

…

He could move no more than a foot, nor speak a word. All he did was stand outside the door with another unknown man beside him.

…

Your thumbs fumble over the screen when suddenly three knocks on the door startles you with a whip of your head. You check the time on your phone, 9:30 p.m.

You get up from your chair, after yawning once again and stretching your back, as you walk to answer the door-with a hint of suspicion.

People from work, your friends and your Dad knew how hard you were working but they didn’t know about the all-nighters-they all assumed you’d be hitting the hay before sunset. As you unlock the door and pull it open, that’s when you see Mark Tuan from Department 3.

Looking at the man from head-to-toe, wondering, ‘Why is he here?’

All around the office Mark Tuan was another skyscraper with an outstanding IQ, most likely to become C.O.O or right chairman of his department. He was calm in the most difficult cases, trustworthy, but naive on the other hand.

Other male associates either admired or envied him, the female associates perk their shoulders up at his name. The very first time you saw him…he may have been-just may have been the handsomest man you’ve ever seen.

You and Jackson just started dating at the time, and you rarely ever talked to Mark,he probably never remembers the sound of your voice nor you with his voice.

It was definitely not the first time he attracted a woman’s attention at first sight, but he never realized the many times his eyes stayed put towards your direction, nor the nervousness around you before. Even right now he’s trying not to break a sweat.

Mark greets you with a sincere smile.

“Good Evening Y/N. How are you?” He says lowly.

You greet him back with a sincere smile.

“Mr. Tuan, I’m pretty good. How are you?.” You whisper.

“I’m so sorry to come at a time like this, but I’m missing several files so I called the chairman and he told me about accidentally handing them to you.”

“Files?…Oh yes I have them!”

You walk over towards your desk,stacking the papers neatly. Mark stands at the foot of the door with both of his hands in front of him.

“P-Please c-come in.”

“There’s trouble in the air, you can smell it.”

Mark takes them from your hand, your feel a bit of heat rise on your cheeks as he smiles sweetly at you; some reason you can only shyly glance back at him.

“Thank you Y/N,” “You worked on all these and you really jotted down everything correctly. I’m quite impressed.”

‘Correctly? After 72 hours of scribbling and erasing those three packets of listings, appointments, open houses, leasing forms and commissions I’ve never seen before; I had everything on them done right?’ You sigh contently to yourself feeling a strip of pride within you, Mark keeps the smile on him.

“You did an amazing job. Broker Yang would surely raise your status higher.” He says, “I always knew you are a super smart person.”

You try hiding your shy grin. “Uh Thank you. The small giggles die down to an awkward silence. Mark fidgets with his earlobe. “I understand how you’re very busy with the job and trying to very hard to get certified,” He blushes brazenly, half of the place was dark so luckily you didn’t notice. “But I’d like to-I mean-I’ll..” He mumbles.

“Sorry?”

“I-! I can buy you a meal or, or anything to drink?” Mark had been asked out by various people on a date or for a drink but he’d politely turn them down. Right now he forgot the last time he asked someone out for anything. You don’t speak at first. “Um…”

He quickly shakes his head, “As a way of saying thank you” No matter how much attention he gained, he was afraid of rejection himself especially from you. “And how sorry I am that you just did six months worth of mortgages that I was supposed to do.” He interrupts.

Jackson turns his head in his pillow.

He laughs nervously sliding his fingers in his coat pockets.Your eyelids drop down as you politely smile. You say, “Okay.”

Thankfully, instead of now bland instant noodles with heavy soda or bitter coffee, like you presumed, Mark takes you a block away from your apartment bringing you to parked food truck vendors. The block was lively active so many pedestrians and lit up mason jars dangling tree to tree, about twenty trucks of an entire earth of foods.

You had isolated yourself for so long between home and work, now you’re back in the outside world, you almost forgot how going out felt relaxing and inviting. You felt so alienated only a small block of the area you lived in was like you were touring a street in a new country.

“They didn’t accept debit so, I only had enough to buy a full plate of just for you.” He sits next to you on a curb while handling the bottles of lime soda after insisting on sharing the tacos.

Mark lets you alone for a moment leaving you on the spot a reminder comes to mind when realizing you haven’t responded to the message earlier. Your hands go through your pockets but you realized you left your phone on the desk. You curse under your breath &”Jackson was probably really occupied at the moment. ”Y/N.”

Mark comes back holding a smoothie in a large glass out before you. You flicker between the handsome smiling face and the glass.

He generously smiles at you unable to hide the pink in his cheeks when your fingers graze upon his when you accept the smoothie telling Jackson how he’s too kind.

Meanwhile Jackson remains asleep in the bed. His eyes scrunch open, turning on his stomach in bed and drifts back to sleep.

You lift your lips off the straw turning your head to Mark after being asked if you’re seeing anybody. His expression looked innocent and he scooted back a bit laying his hands on the concrete. “Yeah,I..well…”

You clear your throat, “I actually am…having something with someone for about almost a year.” Your relationship was more likely a restart you and Jackson had been on and off for that year. He began going on the road with his friends and his music more often a real disadvantage to have a relationship, too risky to be considered an “official” couple.

He wanted to make it work between you two, he begged for forgiveness after finding out him and another young woman getting a little tangled with each other. The morning after Jackson pounded on your front door begging for you to open explaining how he wasn’t drunk just had a few drinks and the girl was the one toxicated, nothing went further than a back hug and never meaning to hurt you. His friends stood on his side with his innocence while understanding your ‘jealousy’ at the time.

Mark nods his head looking at the street life ahead without another word, parting his lips like he wanted to ask anything more. It was getting awkward again as you lift your lips off the straw.You ask, “Are you?” He smirks ahead of him before turning his attention to you again.

…

The blanket slid off his shoulders bundling around his hands keeping them warm except for his foot poking out. The temperature set in the room was at a low number however he felt a drop rolling down his temple.

….

Mark looks at you the entire walk home,“I actually never dated before.” His response struck you like lightning how is someone so very attractive single for his life?

“Really?”

“Well, I did have something with someone too, however it was complicated then. She was my very first date, she had a liking to me and I thought she liked me back as much, but after a few weeks of seeing each other she treated me wrong in many ways.”

“What were the things that she did if you don’t mind me asking?”

He looks down to his feet holding his hand up to his head. “For starters, she nearly tore my hair off literally.”

Your eyes stretched wide open.

“There was one time we were eating at a beach themed place and I accidentally spilled a drink on the table. Luckily it wasn’t big yet she pulled my hair and yelled at me for ‘getting her new sweater wet’. Not a drop was on her, thankfully we were the only ones on the patio and no one watched it happen.”

You exhale, “And so, because of the way she treated you, you weren’t considered a couple to you?”

He nods looking back towards you.

“I’m sorry..”

You arrived at your door inserting the keys in the hole You eyes remain on Mark most of the time neither of you able to contain the shy grins, you kept thinking how creepy you must’ve looked the entire time. Out of nowhere, you felt the need to possibly pay manners back, what you think of doing and are about to do heats your face entirely.

“No, no, Y/N the pleasures’ all mine.” His brows knit upwards holding his palms out before him keeping the smile. He’s stopping the twenty bucks in your hands whacked out your pocket.

“No,no, you’re being so kind in buying me lunch and I just have to do something in return, I really-”

“Y/N..it’s okay.” He blushes lightly and you both snicker as you put the money away. He tilts his head a little thinking if he should head back home your chin stuck in your neck.

“If you do need help on any uh..paperwork you can always ask me and we can work on it during our Lunch hour.”

He holds his earlobe, fondling with it again.You look at each other for a bit not saying a word suddenly making the atmosphere awkward around the apartment-which was more like a dorm. Nothing but a small room with a bed in the living room which led straight to the tiny play kitchen and the small bathroom with a closet inside as the only other room.

You clear your throat before stuttering, “Actually there were a few details that I was going to ask the Chairman about but if you don’t mind staying I could use help now.”

Mark accepts your little request sitting beside you. “Sure.”

“She turned red, she led me to her bed, let her legs spread and said…” -Lin Manuel Miranda

“Steven thinks business is all about style which is true, but the top priority is our guests, our buyers who come to us.”

“The way Steven treats them was never to my liking nor do I think anyone else’s. His sarcasm towards Julia is so vicious, how does she still treat him as if he isn’t her junior?”

The conversation started with sending files to correct residents and customer service now you two are talking smack about the people that are disliked in your departments. Mark had never seen you smile before. Smiling widely that is, the ones he did see before were petite and polite. The ones he sees now are genuine that stretched eye to eye showing the top row of her teeth. Your eyes were like upside down crescents, the lamp’s light reflected in her orbs and he learns that she has a single dimple. The more you two exchange smiles and jokes to one another the faster their heart beated and the more their timidating desires increased.

All of a sudden you’re more than close to Mark’s face, he stares at you completely shocked nothing came out of him much like how you are right now only face inches away, taking your hands off his face. You’re silent on the outside but in your mind all you can say is “Shit! Shit! Shit! Fuck!” now your face is beet red. You had just pulled his face to yours, sucking the next breath out of him.

“I-uh-I am so so sorry Mar-er, Mr.Tuan I don’t-”

You get cut off by Mark with his mouth crashing against yours and you instantly flutter your eyes close and you begin to follow his actions. His lips massage yours gently, butterflies breach in your stomach and the kiss rapidly heats up causing a few little mewls transporting from him to your throat. p>

Her lips were plump and the flavor of them were savory, he doubted kissing them again would happen, so he began to take full advantage. He slowly steps forward while you step backwards, holding onto his arms.

The way he used his index finger to stroke your cheekbone makes the blood in your cheek rush rapidly. His hands grasp the hem of your shirt.Your lips never detached as he moves his hand flat on your back, his other hand trails down your back stopping at your upper hip at the same time. You pull him down to kiss him deeper, scratching the hair on the back of his neck, scratching the hem of his hair. You use your teeth to gently pull his lower lips, earning a moan from him.

…

And all Jackson could do was watch. He couldn’t move, he tried to speak, to yell, but nothing came out. He wanted to run before them to shove them off each other, to punch Mark but all he could do was watch his girl and the scene play in front of him. Watching the guy’s thumb draws small circles on her temple shriveled his skin, his throat held a choking pain.

She would’ve told any stranger, ‘No’, to get out of her face if he wasn’t respecting her. He waited and waited for Y/N to come to her senses and push Mark away.

...

Once you removed Mark’s jacket, he loses grasp of you, grazing lips against each other as he tore off his buttoned up polo shirt. His bare arms were masculine and structured nicely it surprised you how such arms hid under his long sleeve dress shirts worn at work. “I wish I could’ve been yours.” You gasp at his sentence as soon as he catches your lips again. You gripped his shoulders leaving little nail marks on him and your breath hitched in your throat. Hearing their moans back to back repeatedly throughout the night.

...

Y/N was infatuated by someone who wasn’t him He was being ignored completely, it boiled his skin as he tightens his closed eyes. “Pathetic.”

Jackson opens his eyes and he finds himself in a familiar room with his head down on something soft. He wanted to be resting on top of Y/N’s hair inhaling the scent that lingered on him and exhaling with relief, his arm hugging her waist as he pulls her in closer. Lifting his head up to get a short glimpse of her face, but once his vision cleared he let go of the large pillow whom he thought was Y/N. He got up in sitting position, he ran his fingers through his damp hair then looks around the hotel room. “Y/N!”

He reaches for his phone thats charging once he pressed the on/off button he still doesn’t have a text back. She sent him a picture of her desk scattered with paper above a text banner saying, ‘I regret this now. I’d rather have your hugs’ sided with a crying face. He exhales he notices that the picture she sent had been sent yesterday.

Meanwhile, the same word was moaned back and forth, in the entire little condo. “Y-yes.”

“Yes.”

“Yes”

Mark wasn’t able to stop his finger from stroking your cheekbone because you held his wrist up, loving the way it moved side to side and in rainbow like motions. His long smooth looking skin was wet and covered with fresh red spots on one side something that he began to work on now. He stops and gazes up at you, “So god damn beautiful.”

No.

He asks, “May I?”

Even in the most personal moments he’s still too nice. Instead of saying ‘shut up’ you say, “Yes..” He ghostly traces an upside down crescent over your collarbone. “Yes.”

No.

Your palms spread over his hovering firm torso there was a fiery erratic beat of a heart and you knew it wasn’t from you. It couldn’t last long. Mark pants against your skin at the crook of your neck.

And finally…

“Ah! Yes!”

“Y-Yes!”

-Fin...

A/N: Not much to say but Thank you SO very much for reading! Please lemme know what ya’ll think <3

#mark tuan #got7 mark #mark fanfic #got7 jackson #jackson wang #got7 fanfiction #got7 fanfic #jackson fanfic #got7 jinyoung #got7 scenarios #got7 yugyeom #got7 jb #got7 fluff #got7 angst #got7 smut #got7 au #gif not mine #update

66 notes · View notes

its-just-like-the-movies · 6 years

Text

Tom & Viv (94, C+)

Why this film: Because it lined up so perfectly with this month’s Smackdown! So how could I not?

The Film: Who exactly was the predicted audience for Tom & Viv back in 1994? I don’t mean this exclusively as a dig on the source material or the finished product, but it’s hard to picture that the story of T.S. Eliot’s tumultuous marriage would’ve inspired that much fervor back in the day. The adaptation of the original play began nine years after it debuted on the West End, receiving one Laurence Olivier nomination before getting an off-Broadway run and vanishing from the stage for over twenty years. This lack of fanfare seems even more exasperated by its legacy nowadays, if it can be called that, saved from obscurity by way of two surprisingly high-profile Academy Award nominations that would still only attract those who’re deeply invested in either of the nominated women, Oscar completists who are doing it just cuz, folks who like watching period dramas about unstable women, or T.S. Eliot fans.

Of those groups, I’d imagine that the Eliot fans interested in a portrait of the artist would be the most consistently underwhelmed by the film, if only because his work is kept strictly in the film’s periphery. It’s talked about but rarely read aloud or shown, the focus on the Eliot’s marriage so predominant that his rising success and the income that comes with it is dramatized through their material wealth more that it is explicitly referenced, at least not to the degree of any of their personal lives. In fact, Eliot’s personal life and family ties don’t seem to exist outside of Viv until his fames grows, while Viv’s relationships to her family is one of the film’s central points of tension. The repercussions of Eliot’s fame are certainly discussed, as Viv worries that Tom is replacing her with his new poet friends and having affairs with women in those circles who’re dazzled by his work. There’s also the complication that Viv frequently claims to be his muse, his editor, and his sounding board, demanding credit for having given The Wasteland its name. This is not a hagiography of the artist, but the film’s focus on Eliot’s marriage and interest in Viv’s artistic credentials might keep this from being the deep plumbing of the artist someone might be hunting for.

Then again, an even bigger preclusion for Eliot fans to get into the film is how unfathomably dull Willem Dafoe is in the part. Any potential into getting a portrait of the man alongside or even superseding a portrait of the artist is stopped in its tracks by Dafoe’s soft-spoken, milquetoast take on the part. The man simply comes off as boring and stuffy, never worthy of the intrigue posed by Viv, his fellow poets, adoring fans, or anyone who presumes him to be a worthwhile figure. Dafoe is so passionless in the part, speaking his lines as softly as possible while infusing them with zero emotion, refusing to cling to any sense of intellect or to make his accent sound remotely natural, that there’s simply no believing that he might be having an affair with any of the women Viv is terrified of and antagonistic towards. What on earth could have drawn Viv to him in the first place?

Dafoe’s performance represents one half of the dichotomy of problems that best defines what makes Tom & Viv such a palpably uneven experience. If he stands in for the moments where the film could easily shape itself up more, Miranda Richardson’s energized but dangerously overmannered take on Vivienne Eliot emblematizes the film’s worst indulgences into overstatement. Richardson is more than capable of conjuring an air of instability and roiling inner turmoil, writing our her character’s thoughts through the darting glances of her eyes and jittery movements, but her madness becomes so prescriptive that it loses almost all spontaneity. In her best moments, which see her being more clearly guided by the director or by her costars, Richardson is able to temper herself slightly without sacrificing her tics, though it’s clear in these moments how little modulation is actually in the performance, aside from the moments where she makes a point of showing us that she’s modulating the performance in a lower tempo. True, she genuinely calms down in the film’s last act, but her impact before this point is ultimately limited, her scene-by-scene choices too obvious for them to build in any interesting way.

The film itself seems to follow a trajectory from being too hopped-up on its own, sporadically ostentatious filmmaking techniques all the way to almost dangerously non-cinematic, not so much a filmed play as just unimaginatively put together. This is not to say that the film is ever a showcase for its makers - director Brian Gilbert seems more than happy to slap his actors in period wares and let them carry the picture - but it’s still noticeable when the editing or the score become the primary method for the film to goose our responses. Its earliest scenes are by far the worst, as the almost 40 year old Dafoe is so heavily made up to impersonate a college-aged youth that his face loses any and all distinguishing features. He looks like a doll whose face has had any gendered characteristics smoothed away, as if he were an uncanny valley animation of an androgynous doll. Richardson’s makeup is fine, but she’s forced to pantomime the free-spirited behavior of a young person by running around with her arms outstretched as though she were a plane, galavanting on a lawn with a sign asking passerby not to galavant on it. In the next scene they meet, and in the next they pack their bags to get married. These scenes are relatively calm, something the film compensates for by showing Viv undergoing an abject breakdown, destroying their hotel room and taking a lot of her prescribed medication after an unsuccessful roll in the honeymoon sack, dramatically cross-cut with Tom’s furrowed brow contemplatively paces the shoreline of a beach.

If the establishing third of Tom & Viv is ultimately its shakiest segment, there’s something to be said for the film’s middle third, as all the pieces start sparking against each other in unexpectedly bracing ways. Even if Dafoe is unforgivably bland and Richardson semi-predictable in her brazenness, the shifting textures of their relationship are more interesting to watch play out than expected. It helps that Brian Gilbert’s direction finds an appropriately undemonstrative but still semi-active mode of shaping his story. Neither truly imaginative nor fully perfunctory, he finds the right distance from Richardson’s whirlwinds that they become more impactful as character beats rather than harried actressing. Watching her mix a boiling vat of chocolate, grow more and more vocally irate at a dinner party, draw on a mannequin with lipstick, all these actions are more compelling for how they’re shot. Simple and effective, enhancing Richardson’s work and feeding into the story with unexpected poignancy as we start to grasp how threatened Vivienne must constantly feel by these invaders who can provide something for her husband she cannot, knowing all the while that they know it too and are talking about it behind her back. This is not to suggest too much of a sudden transformation in the film’s overall style or impact - Dafoe is still left to softly murmur on in his scenes, and the cadres of artists and admirers that pop up around him are never as distinct or entrancing as they might be. Especially as he starts to seriously consider kicking Viv in a sanitarium, growing increasingly weary of her behavior, Dafoe’s performance remains as damp and demure as ever. Her fears of adultery never ring as plausible, Dafoe even drags down Richardson and the script with as little effort as possible on his part. A hot-blooded Tom might’ve really tapped in to the script’s dramatic potential, but the sight of Viv fighting so hard against people who could all have a legitimate claim to her husband’s attention, borne from paranoia that doesn’t seem borne from absolutely nothing is frankly more compelling than it has any right to be. There’s clearly a version of this story about an unreliable man sending his unreliable wife to a sanitarium on dubious grounds, one stifled by a weak leading man and half-baked direction but still able to burst through the interpretation we’re getting at odd, unexpected angles.

There is at least one unabashed bright spot in the film, in the form of Rosemary Harris’s subtly affecting performance as the matriarch of the Haigh-Wood clan. Without ever working to undermine Tom & Viv’s leading actors, she nevertheless coaxes stronger, more consistent performances from Dafoe and especially Richardson, stabilizing the latter without forgoing Mrs. Haigh-Wood’s own characterization. The film is at its best when it follows the lead of her perfectly contained but still very palpable anxiety, and is never better than in the uncomfortable sequence of Tom having dinner with Vivienne’s immediate family for the first time. Viv spends most of the meal asking provocative, blatantly upsetting questions of her loved ones. Her family telegraph exhaustion at having had this kind of dinner table conversation too many times already but still irritated by her behavior, before Rose takes her daughter aside and gets her to actually calm down, only for her lucid confession about her feelings for Tom to startle her poor mother. It takes real intelligence to project a stable grasp of her daughter’s neuroses, worrying about her future with this new man while still finding room to be elated and disappointed by both of them without overacting. Particularly in her last scenes, hurt and confused after realizing that Viv tried to stab her - even if it was with a fake knife - but perhaps even more wounded that Tom packing Vivvie off to an asylum has proven how badly this man has failed Rose and her daughter, Harris proves herself an unfussy and emotionally sincere performer within a film less stable than its central marriage.

Harris is more of a face in the crowd in her second-to-last sequence, as one of several family members and doctors present for a verbal test to see if Vivienne is certifiable for sanitarium care. This is surprisingly the film’s weakest stretch, beginning with Tom trying to warn Viv before the doctors arrive as the two engage in unexpectedly romantic talk about the state of their relationship. Here, Richardson is the primary source of that romance, which comes across as sentimental and unearned considering that Viv is suddenly without her livewire physicality and higher pitched emotions. Now she speaks in a soft voice, speaks warmly, but she undermines any of the film’s complications by stating its theses in such a loving way. She’s not wrong to judge Tom for his own lies and put-ons and for not being able to face the music the way she wanted him to, but the fact that the Viv who’s saying this is so radically unlike the Viv we’ve spent the previous hour with undermines these ideas. And yet, her affectations return in an oddly performative key once the doctors arrive, as if she’s a deer caught in headlights and trying to hurl herself at them as the last defense mechanism she has left. That they even bother with the test instead of carting her right off after Viv attempts to stab her mother with a rubber knife is pretty bizarre in itself, but Richardson’s playing strips the scene of any dramatic potential or ambiguity as she intentionally answers one of the questions incorrectly. More than that, the filmmaking is complicit in romanticizing her last act of self-sabotage, as the score swells under close ups of Tom and Viv exchanging meaningful glances before she gives the wrong answer, the scene abruptly ending as if the test actually ended on the second question.

I said earlier that the film transitions from Viv-like over-enthusiasm to Tom-ish stultification, and though the scene above certainly fits that bill, a better description for the last third might be that they simply have no other function except as being the end to a story. Both partners, gracefully made up into middle age, speak of their devotion to each other despite the fact that Tom has not visited his wife or made any attempt to contact her at the sanitarium in ten years. Dafoe’s last scene is almost completely carried by the overwhelming, piano-heavy score as he gives the cold shoulder to an old friend Viv once said wanted to sleep with her. Meanwhile, Richardson finds the right tempo between containing the energy that’s defined her performance for most of the film while suggesting some genuine recovery over the past ten years. She’s relaxed and unsentimental in her final scene, giving a fond yet forceful line reading to “Chin up.”, as her brother tries not to cry, that’s more impactful than a line so blatantly structured as a farewell forever aimed at the heartstrings has a right to be. There’s little here that’s interesting in the way that the preceding half hour was, and Gilbert ranking the volume on that orchestra as the credits roll certified that I was far less moved than he was clearly expecting. If Tom & Viv ends as unevenly as it began, I’m not sure if what painfully doesn’t work is enough to dismiss the moments where it comes to some kind of bracing life. In the moments where Harris shows the pain of a mother watching her child implode, where Richardson’s neuroses click into place and the script’s darker subtexts are able to be furnished show the rich potential that this story ultimately has. Tom & Viv isn’t crying out for any retreads, and I’m not sure how much this story deserves to be saved from the unusual legacy of almost complete anonymity that only pedigreed English adaptations of biographies of poets resulting in two high-profile Oscar nominations can truly earn. But it’s not without its merits, and something this uneven has the kind of quiet but sturdy highs that can stand against its more visible and ungainly lows.

#my posts #my reviews #where were they then?

2 notes · View notes

amdoca-blog · 5 years

Text

diane arbus: in the beginning

I don’t know why the gallery has used lower case lettering in its promotional material.

Hayward Gallery, 13 February to 6 May 2019

Organised by The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Curated by Jeff L Rosenheim, Curator in Charge of the Department of Photographs: with Karen Rinaldo, Collections Specialist, Photographs; Martha Deese, Senior Administrator for Exhibitions; and Emily Foss Registrar.

Supported by Cockayne – Grants for the Arts and The London Community Foundation and Alexander Graham, with additional support from Michael G and C Jane Wilson. (Hayward Gallery, 2019).

This exhibition primarily features photographs made with 35mm cameras in and around New York City between 1956 to 1962. Most of the exhibition photographs are gelatin silver prints made by Arbus. Most are held in private collections, and in the Diane Arbus Archive at Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

There is also one room displaying A Box of Ten Photographs, a project she worked on between 1969 and 1971. These photographs, on loan from the Victoria and Albert Museum, were printed posthumously by her assistant and student Neil Selkirk (Guggenheim, 2019).

I wondered why nine of these later works are being displayed in a separate room at an exhibition subtitled ‘in the beginning’. Xmas Tree in a living room in Levittown, L.I. 1962 is in the previous room. There is no explanation why. Were they included to show how her work changed over time? They are already kept in London.

There are two rooms of photographs arranged on grids of white columns, “…visitors are free to follow any path they choose as there are only beginnings – no middle and probably no end…” (Hayward Gallery, 2019). I found myself first walking to the back of the room, up and down ‘aisles’ in the opposite direction to other exhibition-goers, to avoid crowding around the prints and to get a better view. Also, what does this statement mean; that her work endures? After visiting the exhibition, I did some reading. I found this quote from a letter she sent to friends in 1957,

“… I am full of a sense of promise, like I often have, the feeling of always being at the beginning…” (Arbus et al, 2012: 141).

I do not know if the organisers of the exhibition are alluding to this remark. I learned that Arbus committed suicide a year after A Box of Ten, a limited portfolio of special prints, with inscribed vellums, was published (Smithsonian, s.d)

Only four sets are known to have been bought in her lifetime, “...by an elite group..” . (Hayward Gallery notice). The notice tells us Marvin Israel designed the packaging, but does not explain who he was. During my reading after the event I learned he was her partner; an artist and, from 1961, art director of Harper’s Bazaar which published her work during the period the Hayward exhibition mainly focusses on.

Between 1956 and 1962 Arbus stopped using a medium format Rolleiflex in favour of a 35mm Nikon (Arbus et al, 2012: 139). Unlike bulky 2 ¼ cameras which “…require the subject’s cooperation and participation…” (Arbus et al, 2012: 59), 35 mm SLRs allow photographers to capture moments and quickly disconnect from the subject.

Images such as:

Old Woman in hospital bed, NYC 1958

Lady in the shower, Coney Island, N.Y. 1959

Man in hat, trunks, sock and shoes, Coney Island 1960

Two girls by a brick wall, NYC 1961

raise the question in my mind about whether these people gave their consent to be photographed, or if some were staged.

In a letter to Marvin Israel she confessed that when visiting the shrine of a disinterred saint , she,

“…got a terrible impulse to photograph her and I tremulously did which wasn’t legal so I pretended to be praying and pregnant…” (Arbus et al, 2012: 146)

In a postcard she sent to Marvin Israel in 1960 she wrote,

“…This photographing is really the business of stealing… I feel indebted to everything for having taken it or being about to…” (Arbus et al, 2012: 147)

I took some notes during my tour of the exhibition of images I found noteworthy. This image Mother Cabrini, a disinterred saint in her glass and gold casket, N.Y.C. 1960 was not among them. I found the story behind the image more interesting. Knowing the photograph is a furtive snap changes its meaning; the exhibition does not explain much. I don’t remember if there was an audio guide. How many people were there like me wa/ondering around the grid?

I did not buy the catalogue, priced at £35, but noted that Revelations was priced at £75. I thought the price was quite high. However, I thought the reproductions were of a better quality and saw that one of the editors was her daughter. I assumed Doon Arbus would be able to share more information about her mother than any other writer. I bought a cheaper copy online.

On reading Revelations I found out that, up until 1958, Arbus experimented with cropping. Photographers and art editors at the time used this technique retrospectively to reveal an image within an image. It could,

“…impose a sense of immediacy, or of a privileged, almost private view after the fact…” (Arbus et al, 2012:52)

Boy above a crowd NYC 1957 illustrates this idea but I do not know whether Arbus cropped it, not having seen the contact sheets. The title does not indicate to the audience what the audience depicted are looking at. They are looking to the left, the boy Arbus wants us to focus on is looking directly at us.

In 1956 Arbus ended her photographic partnership with her husband. She felt her role in their commercial business was as “a glorified stylist” (Arbus et al, 2012: 139). She joined two photography courses taught by Lisette Model (1956 and 57). In the 1940s, Model photographed ordinary people in the streets of New York City.

In 1971 Arbus told students in a master class,

“…In the beginning… I used to make very grainy things. I’d be fascinated by what the grain did because it would make a tapestry of all these little dots…Skin would be the same as water would be the same as sky and you would be dealing mostly in dark and light not so much in flesh and blood… It was my teacher…who finally made it clear to me that the more specific you are, the more general it’ll be…”

(Arbus et al, 2012: 141)

I do not remember seeing Coney Island 1960 (Windy Group) in the exhibition. It is in Revelations, but I am unable to locate the image online. It shows a group of people on a windy beach; a woman is bending over away from the camera and her stripy dress is blowing in the wind. It is extremely grainy; did Arbus intend the grain to suggest a sand storm?

Towards the end of her life Arbus told her students,

“…I remember a long time ago when I first began to photograph I thought, There are an awful lot of people in the world and it’s going to be terribly hard to photograph all of them, so if I photograph some kind of generalized human being, everybody will recognize it…And there are certain evasions, certain nicenesses that I think you have to get out of..” (Arbus et al, 1992:10)

At the Hayward exhibition, I noticed that,

Kid in black face NYC, 1957 is exhibited near, Lady on a bus NYC, 1957.

Was the year-long (1955-6) Montgomery Bus Boycott in Arbus’s mind? Around this time Arbus was trying to find photographic editorial work and took some photographs of litter for a magazine, for which she was unpaid.

“…I followed flying newspapers…running like mad to keep up with dick tracy…” (Arbus et al, 2012: 142)

Windblown headline on a dark pavement, NYC 1956. Most of the photographs in this exhibition are of people. I did not understand the appeal of some of the photographs lacking them, such as those of “…psuedo places…” (Arbus et al, 2012: 163) for example, A castle in Disneyland, cal., 1962, or Rocks on heels, Disneyland, Cal., 1963, but I thought this particular print was inspiring.

I noted a number of photographs taken inside and outside cinemas. Several are of the screen, taken at some distance from it, from the audience’s viewpoint;

A Dominant Picture 1958

Man on screen being choked 1958

had a personal resonance. There is also a close up, probably taken in a cinema, of a scene from the controversial film Baby Doll, 1956.

In Movie theater usher standing by the box office NYC, 1956 an usher stands by the box office in an oversized uniform. It occurred to me, after seeing an online reproduction of this photograph away from the exhibition, that it is reminiscent of a Soviet style uniform. Was Arbus intending to remind us of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising?

In 42nd Street Movie Theater Audience NYC 1958 Arbus’s camera is placed some distance away from the scene. A projector beam cuts through the fug of cigarette smoke. It is not easy to tell what people are doing; there is some blurring, perhaps there are people asleep and a couple kissing. A print made by Neil Selkirk, her student and assistant, is valued at between $20,000 - 30,000. I quite liked the photograph at the exhibition, but I do not think it is that extraordinary.

It seemed to me that Arbus’s intention was to make the ordinary extraordinary and the extraordinary ordinary. In The Backwards Man in his hotel room, 1961 a man is standing in a standard hotel room. His head is directed to the left of the frame, his feet to the right. He is wearing a full length clear plastic mac indoors. Is this to draw attention to his body? After the exhibition I learned he was a contortionist from Hubert’s Dime Museum and Flea Circus in Times Square called Joe Allen;

“… Joe Allen is a metaphor for human destiny – walking blind into the future with an eye on the past…” note in her appointment book (Arbus, 2012:154)

Sontag offered a suggestion as to why Arbus chose her subjects.

“…At the beginning of the sixties, the thriving Freak Show at Coney Island was outlawed; the pressure is on to raze the Times Square turf of drag queens and hustlers and cover it with skyscrapers. And the inhabitants of deviant underworlds are evicted from their restricted territories – banned as unseemly, a public nuisance, obscene, of just unprofitable…”

(Sontag, 1973. 43-44)

There are many photographs of female drag artists in the show. Two different interpretations of ‘woman’ can be seen in the fleshy beauty of Girl in her circus costume backstage, Palisades Park, N.J. 1960, and the haughty and fabulous Blonde female impersonator standing by a dressing table, Hempstead L.I 1959, a coded appropriation of ‘womanliness’.

In October 1959 Arbus started work on a project about aspects of New York life for Esquire magazine, photographing “…the posh to the sordid…” (typewritten letter to Robert Benton, art director of Esquire (Revelations, 2012: 333)

I made a note of the title, Woman in white fur with cigarette, Mulberry Street NYC 1958, at the time of visiting the exhibition, but did not really reflect on the photograph. I felt pressurised by the crowd to move on. The unnamed woman’s stance could be interpreted as expressing her annoyance at being photographed, self-confidence, or self-entitlement. Is she scowling? She fills the frame, and appears quite large. The lights in the background, possibly Xmas street lights, appear to surround her head. Are we meant to see a Valkyrie? The location is Mulberry Street, NYC; the street name made me think of expensive handbags. Is the woman in the background, who I have only just noticed, smiling obsequiously or simply smiling?

For me, Arbus’s titles often suggest a deadpan or sardonic humour, which I enjoy. This title, Miss Maria Seymour dancing with Baron Theo Von Roth at the Grand Opera Ball, NYC 1959, is similar to captions of photographs in society magazines. I don’t know now why I thought this was funny; I did not make adequate notes at the exhibition because I thought I would be able to access the image online at home afterwards.

For some of this work she obtained a Police pass (Revelations, 2012:144); Corpse with receding hairline and a toe tag, N.Y.C. 1959

Looking at photographs of Israel after the exhibition, (Revelations, 2012:145), could this photograph be an inside joke? A notice on the wall at entrance of the Hayward states,

“…This exhibition contains images that some visitors may find upsetting and some that contain nudity. If you require further information, please speak to an exhibition host…”

In postcards sent to Marvin Israel in January 1960 she wrote about a disturbing scene she had photographed,

“… I am not ghoulish am I? I absolutely hate to have a bad conscience, I think it is lewd…Is everyone ghoulish? It wouldn’t anyway have been better to turn away, would it…?” (Revelations, 2012: 145-6).

All layers of society are portrayed in the exhibition. Among the photographs of society people are photographs of performers at the Hubert’s Dime Museum and Flea Circus in Times Square, such as Hezekiah Trambles, ‘The Jungle Creep’. The close up of ‘The Jungle Creep’ is a powerful image. He played a ‘Wild Man of Borneo’ racist stereotype for a living. Tramble’s face fills the frame; the photograph is blurred and grainy. A light source catches highlights in his eyes, perhaps a button over his Adams apple, and a tooth. How many teeth does he have? Are their tears in his upwardly directed eyes? His eyes appear unfocussed. He is photographed from below; he looks monumental.

Arbus photographed various people who she described as ‘freaks’, ‘The Sensitives’ and ‘singular people’. In 1971 she told her students,

“…Freaks was a thing I photographed a lot… There’s a quality of legend about freaks…Most people go through life dreading they’ll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They’ve already passed their test in life. They’re aristocrats…” (Arbus et al, 1992:3).

By making us look up at Trambles’ face, did Arbus intend us to see someone deranged? Or a Man with human dignity?

In a notebook she wrote,

“..If we are all freaks the task is to become as much as possible the freak we are...” (Revelations, 2012: 54) and in a postcard to Marvin Israel in 1960 she wrote,

“..Freaks are a fairy tale for grownups. A metaphor which bleeds…” (Revelations, 2012: 54)

In 1961 Arbus completed a story, “The Full Circle” which included portraits of six people including Stormé de Larverie from the Jewel Box Revue’s touring drag artist show, ‘Twenty-Five Men and a Girl’, Miss Stormé de Larverie, the Lady who appears to be a Gentleman NYC 1961.

Neither Esquire nor Harper’s Bazaar published the story with de Larverie. Esquire wanted to leave out Stormé “…due to lack of space. Infinity, the publication of the American Society of Magazine Photographers published the story in 1962 which included de Larverie. Was the de Larverie photograph initially excluded because it depicted a lesbian, or because editors regarded the print as being unremarkable? The Hayward gallery offers no information about de Larverie’s historical importance.

I wasn’t sure if the exhibition was presenting Arbus as a feminist;

Barbershop interior through a glass door, NYC 1957

Blurry woman gazing up smiling, NYC 1957-8

Mood meter machine, NYC 1957

In the barbershop interior we can see men looking at a woman taking photographs in the street at night. Their various expressions include puzzlement, amusement and incredulity. The presence of the woman photographer is only suggested by her reflection in the glass. I am that woman now looking from the outside in. Am I obliged to become involved with what I photograph?

Of the Box of Ten photographs, one of my favourites is,

Retired man and his wife at home in a nudist camp one morning NJ 1963

I see this as a cosy and affectionate. Soft sunlight filters through the net curtains; it is a domestic scene with a twist.

Arbus described her experience of taking photographs in nudist camps in 1971, where she was required to take photographs naked,

“…You may think you’re not (a nudist) but you are…” (Arbus et al, 1992: 4-5)

As a suburban, semi-educated, left-leaning liberal standing in a contemporary Western art gallery, the wall notice warning about nudity surprised me a bit; I wasn’t concerned by the nudity displayed within this context.

Neil Selkirk, who printed the Box of Ten, believed Arbus’s prints look different from other photographers’. She did no dodging or burning,

“…If she ever had the urge or the knowledge to make the print beautiful in a conventional sense, she resisted it. The unique quality of Diane’s prints seems a direct response to what is required if one is extremely curious and utterly dispassionate...” (Revelations, 2012: 275)

He thought she had intended to make the final image look like snapshots or newspaper photographs. To me, the 35 mm photographs in the exhibition generally look like snapshots; the Box of Ten artworks look like beautiful parodies of photographs specific to glossy magazine features. Arbus’ photographs could be seen as diverting, rather like a day out at an art gallery

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arbus, D (edited by Arbus, Doon, Israel, M) (1992) Diane Arbus, London, Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd.

Arbus, Diane, Arbus Doon, Phillips; S, Sussmann E, Selkirk N, J L Rosenheim (2012) Revelations: Diane Arbus, Munich, Schirmer/Mosel

Guggenheim, K (2019) Diane Arbus: An interview with Jeff L. Rosenheim and Karan Rinaldo. At: https://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/blog/diane-arbus-interview-jeff-rosenheim-karan-rinaldo-hayward-gallery (Accessed on 24 March 2019)

Hayward Gallery (2019) Hayward Gallery Exhibition Guide, London, Hayward Gallery

Metropolitan Museum of Art (2019) diane arbus in the beginning [online] At https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2016/diane-arbus (Accessed on 30 March 2019)

Smithsonian American Art Museum (s.d) A box of ten photographs [online press release] At: https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.saam.media/files/documents/2018-04/wall%20text.pdf (Accessed on 30 March 2019).

Sontag S (1973) ‘America seen through photographs, darkly’ in On Photography (1979) London, Penguin Books Ltd

0 notes

leominster1941 · 5 years

Text

Travel by road in the early 19th Century.

Historical sources which give plenty of factual details are often more informative. It is much better to know how much it costs to travel rather than bland statements like ‘road travel was not affordable and was very slow’. Better to know, how much it cost and how long the journey took.

The following article focuses on transport links in the Leominster district circa 1800 to 1900. It is also explaining how people and goods could travel to all parts of England and Wales.

I did not record the source of the article used in this Post. If anyone recognizes it, please let me know.

On the last mile of its journey from the direction of Worcester, a large stage waggon, drawn by a team of six horses, lumbers past the White Lion Inn, with a dovecote built into its west wall, into Etnam Street.

There were no navigable rivers near Leominster, although it was not for the lack of trying. Attempts to make the River Lugg navigable had been costly mistakes. The diversion of the Pinsley Brook by monks centuries earlier had been far more successful.

The Leominster Canal did operate for over 60 years until its closure in 1858. It was only 18 miles long and did not connect to other waterways. It was used to transport coal but never made a profit. In hindsight it would have been wiser to invest in better roads.

The White Lion holds many good memories for me. My mother and father would take me for ‘pop and crisps’ in the 1960s. The White Lion was a good choice as children could sit out in the garden. Children were not allowed to enter a Public House. Even more special was its location. The railway ran past the end of the garden. A steam locomotive could pass at any time. A glass of fizzy lemonade, a packet of crisps and a steam train! What bliss.

The author of the following article is unknown to me, although it does include an entry from the Hereford Journal published in 1809.

Massively built waggons could carry heavy loads of up to eight tons and ran on wheels with rims nine inches wide with sixteen-inch hubs. Wheels of this size were needed to cope with the severe jolting caused by uneven road surfaces. These were reduced to a quagmire in wet weather when the fragile, badly-maintained surface frequently broke up. The waggoner had to walk beside the lead horse for he could be heavily fined for riding on the horse or the waggon. Freight charges varied between ls. 6d. to 2s. per hundredweight. Travelers who could not afford the stage-coach fares sometimes travelled under the canvas cover amongst the bales of freight. Like the stage-coach routes, a similar web of waggon routes covered the country, with staging posts to change the horses.

In the example which follows a Waggon leaving Worcester on Tuesday arrived at Brecon on Sunday morning via Bromyard and Leominster.

Some idea of the extensive network and the time the waggons spent travelling from London can be gleaned from this extract taken from an advertisement in the Hereford Journal of 18 January, 1809:

The proprietors of the Cambrian Waggon Company beg leave most respectfully to inform the public that they have established a regular conveyance to and from London, Oxford, Cheltenham, Glocester [sic], Worcester, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Halifax, Saddleworth, Huddersfield , Wakefield, Sheffield, Birmingham, Ludlow, Chester, Shrewsbury and all parts of the North of England and Scotland. For Herefordshire , Monmouthshire and all parts of South Wales and the South of Ireland, their London waggons set out from the Cambrian Warehouse, Bell Inn, Smithfield, London every Saturday morning and will call going out and coming in at the Dolphin, Oxford Street, Pack Horse Inn, Worcester Tuesday night, Cambrian Warehouse Bromyard Wednesday morning, Hereford Thursday morning, Hay Thursday night, Brecon Sunday evening, Llandovery Monday morning ... and arrive at Carmarthen Tuesday Noon, from where all goods for Cardiganshire, Pembrokeshire and the south of Ireland will be regularly forwarded. All good intended for this conveyance from Manchester., Birmingham etc. are particularly requested to be directed and forwarded from Manchester and Stockwell from Birmingham to the Pack Horse at Worcester and also from Glocester [sic] and the clothing country, by Page to the Cambrian Warehouse Hereford and return via Bristol return from the Cambrian Warehouse Brecon on Saturday evening, Abergavenny Saturday night and arrive at the Moderator Warehouse Newport on Monday Morning, when all goods for Bristol, Bath and the West of England will be regularly forwarded by the Moderator boat to Bristol and from there by different carriers.

In 1801 North's Cambrian Waggon Company called at the Talbot Hotel in Leominster, but by 1808 they had a warehouse in Corn Square from where a network of other carriers radiated. Horse-drawn transport persisted until it was replaced by motorized delivery vans. As late as 1902, on market days a network of 39 carriers based at pubs in Leominster carried supplies to the surrounding villages, despite the penetration of the county by the railway. Very rural areas like Leominster could not be well served by the sparse railways infrastructure and stations built across Herefordshire. Road transport always remained the means of travel in rural areas.

My wife and I held our wedding reception at the Talbot Hotel in 1975. At that time, it was owned by Mr. Burke. It was not difficult to imagine it full of travelers in the 19th Century. The low ceilings and timber framed rooms and open fire places added to the medieval feel. Public Houses and Hotels in Leominster were hit hard by the arrival of railways. Instead there was a rapid growth in Railway Pubs and Hotels in urban areas.

Until the arrival of the railway, stage-coaches carried passengers around the county. In 1808, Broome, Whitney and Co. operated a twice-weekly service from Hereford through Leominster to Shrewsbury on Tuesdays and Fridays, taking all day for the journey. Travelling inside, the fare from Hereford to Shrewsbury was £1 2s., and outside was 12s. A labourers wages were £12 a year. From Hereford to Leominster the fare was 6s. inside and 3s. outside; parcels were carried at 1d . per pound.

Assuming the journey from Hereford to Leominster took 8 hours it means the stage-coaches travelled a 7 m.p.h. on average. Clearly a coach with passengers and luggage could have attained much faster average speeds. A casual walking speed is 3 m.p.h. It gives an indication of how poor roads around Leominster were. Also consider these were the main roads, not the village tracks. It is also possible country lanes and tracks were in better condition as they were not being constantly battered by heavy coaches and wagons.

This all changed with the construction of the railways. The journey time from Hereford to Shrewsbury was reduced to an hour and a half by train instead of a whole day by stage-coach. It would also have been far more comfortable. We can never overestimate the changes brought about by the arrival of the railways.

0 notes

webpostingpro-blog · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on Webpostingpro

New Post has been published on https://webpostingpro.com/swift-university-teaches-you-how-to-build-android-apps/

Swift University Teaches You How to Build Android Apps

Apple had open sourced its very own programming language known as Quick in December 2015. On account that then, Apple has been making efforts to make Quick more famous amongst programmers to expand apps for Android. Now, Apple’s efforts ultimately appear to be coming to fruition as an Italy-based college has started out a primary-of-its-kind course to construct Android apps using Speedy programming language. However, it’s now not supposed for beginners but the programmers who already recognize Speedy, Java, C#, Objective-C and different programming languages.

The Italian university

Called Quick college, is supplying the intermediate level path for Android app improvement written particularly in Apple’s Quick language. “By using attending this direction you may learn to application App for Android devices through the Android SDK, however, traditionally written in the Rapid language. Thanks to this modern direction can effortlessly be ported your iOS initiatives on Android and/or develop the multi-platform app without the use of a middleware,” reads the route description on university’s website. This route will assist coders to increase Android apps the usage of Swift, whilst presumably reducing the want of a go-platform middleware like Xamarin, which comes with obstacles. It is constructed the use of Incorporated development Environment (IDE) in preference to a converter to be able to allow the coders use Speedy rather than Java at the same time as the usage of the everyday instructions of Android SDK.

As we noted, the direction is open to the builders who have a few know

How of any of the programming languages to object – Speedy, Java, C#, and Goal-C. The direction, as seen on the website, lasts approximately three days eight hours for a total of 24 hours of training, samples, initiatives, and private institution put up course support. It is being presented at a price of EUR 599 (more or less Rs. forty-one,000) in Milan, Italy.

Baguio Central University – Premier Educational Institution in Baguio City

Baguio Important College is a top of the line instructional group in Baguio Town that gives high fine baccalaureate tiers, companion guides, in addition to graduate tiers. This tertiary school has one of a kind campuses in the Town, but, its principal campus is situated along Magsaysay Avenue, which is one of the most available areas within the region. For those who are new to this college, they can effortlessly find its primary campus due to the fact numerous jeepneys have routes that generally bypass the Road. Moreover, this location is also several minutes far from famous purchasing areas like SM Baguio and attractions together with Burnham Park.

This inviting tertiary school in Baguio City has nine collegiate divisions,

Which include College of Criminology, University of Liberal Arts and Public Management, in addition to College of Bodily Remedy. Students who want to excel in the subject of data era, Baguio Imperative College can clearly assist them because it offers diploma guides which include Bachelor of Technology in Laptop Technological know-how. Further, College students also can sign up in any of its baccalaureate degrees in the fields of Administration, commerce, and management like Bachelor of Technology in Public Administration, Bachelor of Technological know-how in Enterprise Management, in addition to Bachelor of Science in Trade. Furthermore, folks who want to join partner guides, this instructional organization gives accomplice in Laptop technology, in addition to a companion in Hotel and Eating place control.

Baguio Significant University was established by Godofredo Fernandez in 1945. It turned into first named as Centro Academy and in the course of this time, it’s miles only considered as a vocational college. With the need for enhancing the first-class of schooling in the location, this tertiary faculty in Baguio Metropolis introduced undergraduate stages like Bachelor of Regulation and Engineering and Bachelor of Technology in Secondary and Basic education within the early Fifties. The addition of new degree packages on this instructional organization endured until in 2002, this faculty presented Bachelor of Technology in Nursing.

For college kids who need to sign up in any of the degrees and academic

Packages at Baguio Important University, they need to allow 10,000 pesos to fifteen,000 pesos for his or her lessons expenses and miscellaneous costs. but, financially challenged Students to have nothing to fear because it presents scholarship presents and economic useful resource packages to them. For inquiries approximately the other degree applications at this tertiary college in Baguio Town, Students can touch the college individuals of this group at (047)-444-9247 and (047)-442-4949. To have a glance at the facilities of this college, it’s miles first-rate if College students go to its campuses alongside Magsaysay Street.

Why Android Is a Popular Choice Among Developers

On this booming world of the mobile era, Android has become out to be the favored choice, not simplest some of the customers, however, additionally the developers. cellular gadgets across the world numbering in extra than 1,000,000 are being powered by way of this working system. With consistent development to the machine and progressive capabilities being introduced once in a while, this cellular OS is exact to occupy a vast function in the market over the coming years. Android Improvement Schooling has grown to become out to be the hot favorite among people who wish to build their careers as app developers.

Android and Its Specific Variations

Android occurs to be a Linux based totally cell working machine which helps smartphones in addition to pill computer systems. more than 80+ leading corporations like Samsung, Sony together with various Google led software program agencies are answerable for creating the standards for One of a kind mobile devices that use Android.

So, some distance several Variations were released which include: Donut, Éclair, Froyo, Gingerbread, Honeycomb, Ice Cream Sandwich, Jelly Bean, KitKat, and Lollipop.

So, What Makes Android a Massive favored?

There are lots of reasons as to why Android has grown to be a lot famous in one of this quick span of time. A number of the motives were mentioned under:

Available free of charge

Right from its inception, Android has been To be had without the cost and it’s far anticipated that Google will keep it that manner inside the future additionally. The availability of this loose cellular running machine involved hardware manufacturers everywhere in the global because it spread out new opportunities to expand Smartphones at low costs.

Open Source Platform

Any other motive at the back of its large acceptance is that it is an open Supply platform. As compared to other running systems which can be bound through numerous copyrights, laws, Android faces no such restrictions. Due to that, an energetic community of programmers is continuously including extra fee and innovations to enhance its functions and functionalities.

Each person can Create Their App

The first-class component about developing applications with it’s far that it would not require superb coding talents. Bundle of gear is supplied by way of Google which may be used without cost for developing applications. builders get the lots needed freedom and flexibility to do anything with the apps they increase.

How App Development Can Boost Competitiveness

Over the last 10 years, the advent of clever cellular devices has impacted enterprise dynamics. Most enterprise owners nowadays rather emphasized that it is now not just a competitive benefit for them to be reachable online to their target audience thru clever gadgets; rather, this is already a complete necessity or a have to.

Aside from that, smart generation has modified how purchasers behave. today, an increasing number of people are using their smartphones, tablet Pcs, wearables and different compact devices in order to complete transactions and no longer their computing device Pcs.

What Companies Can Gain From App Development

it is in reality due to those technological improvements that aggressive Corporations these days can significantly Gain from app Improvement. Dependable digital provider organizations emphasised that with apps, the online presence of a employer can in reality turn out to be more on hand. Furthermore, transactions can be faster and simpler to carry out on account that there may be no need for his or her clients to undergo the search engine and type the call of the website online that allows you to get to the site.

Clicking the app’s icon on their device is the handiest factor they must do. This could robotically gift all the beneficial features for something transaction they need to perform. Aside from that, apps can end up an delivered income producing platform for the commercial enterprise, Most specially when they may be sold at a completely inexpensive rate.

Every other Advantage that apps provide to Businesses is the truth that they may be higher for client engagement.

In spite of everything, shortening or simplifying procedures will usually work well with the impatient online users of these days. Organizations also can turn out to be extra innovative with their on-line presence in order to correctly enhance consumer experience in addition to domesticate client loyalty.

App builders can also present sparkling ways of imparting the commercial enterprise efficiently and creatively to customers to be able to toughen the significance of products and services. Furthermore, they are able to advise high acting features and functionalities. those encompass discount codes and scanners for merchandise with a purpose to make shopping faster.

It’s miles no doubt that app Improvement for Organizations these days is a totally brilliant method in relation to increasing competitiveness and income. For that reason, it’s far a ought to so one can hire the pleasant builders who can ensure that relaxed all of the above cited advantages. You should maximize this clever era. Most importantly, you need to adjust it as your business keeps to develop and as the requirements of the customers evolve.

0 notes

s0020061a2film-blog · 7 years

Text

Creative Investigation -Stage 5

Primary Sources:

[1] A clockwork orange (1971) Directed by Stanley Kubrick USA

One of Kubrick’s most memorable and famous films, originally a novel by Anthony Burgess about a group of hooligans who terrorize innocent people until their leader, Alex gets caught. He ends up in a correctional facility where they ‘cure’ his violent and sexual tendencies. It had a $2,200,000 budget and grossed $26,589,355.

[2] The shining (1980) Directed by Stanley Kubrick USA

The shining is about a man, Jack who becomes corrupted by an evil presence in a hotel. His son Danny begins to see horrific flashbacks of past events in the hotel, this gift is called the shining. The Shining had a budget of $22,000,000 and grossed $44,017,400.

[3] Full metal jacket (1987) Directed by Stanley Kubrick USA

Full Metal Jacket is set at first in an army boot camp where we meet characters who have decided to join the Marines. The second half of the film shows the Marines in Vietnam, depicting the horrific scenes of the war and what it was like to be a Marine. It had a budget of $17,000,000 and grossed $46,357,700.

Secondary Sources:

[4] Borders, M. (2016) Book vs. Film: A clockwork orange.

Available at: https://litreactor.com/columns/book-vs-film-a-clockwork-orange

(Accessed: 1 November 2016).

Talks about the movie in relation to the film, this source shows quotes from author of a clockwork orange, Anthony Burgess and explains why he was critical of the movie. It also looks at how Kubrick’s adaptation of the book differs from the novel and how he decided to leave out key scenes.

[5] Ciment, M. (2001). Kubrick on the Shining.

Available at: http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview.ts.html

(Accessed: 17 October 2016). (Ciment, 2001)

An interview with Kubrick about his adaptation of the novel by Stephen King, The Shining. This source is useful as it is Kubrick talking about his own film, this gives a key insight into what he thinks and what he was trying to say through this film.

[6] Ed (2011) Stanley Kubrick’s legendary film techniques.

Available at: http://www.lavideofilmmaker.com/filmmaking/stanley-kubrick-film-techniques.html

(Accessed: 7 November 2016).

This source is a vague overview of Kubrick’s filming techniques. It is helpful when looking at his style as it shows that many people agree that he uses similar cinematography in many, if not all of his films.

[7] Ferrari, A. (2016) Stanley Kubrick - breaking down the masters directing style.

Available at: https://www.indiefilmhustle.com/stanley-kubrick/

(Accessed: 1 November 2016).

This is a very helpful source as it includes a detailed breakdown of almost every film he has made and looks at the links between his style and themes. It also provides link for the educational use of Kubrick’s screenplays.

[8] Stanley Kubrick: A life in pictures (2001)

Directed by Jan Harlan [Documentary]. (Harlan, 2001)

This source is extremely useful when looking at authorship and Kubrick as it includes some of the biggest names in film, giving their opinions on him and his films. This is also useful as it looks at his early work and his most recent work and any collaborations he had.

[9] Harmetz, A. (1978) Kubrick films ‘The Shining’ in secrecy in English studio.

Available at: http://

www.nytimes.com/library/film/110678kubrick-shining.html

(Accessed: 17 October 2016). (Harmetz, 1978)

This source is very useful as it not only looks into the making of ‘The Shining’, but also has quotes from answers given by Diane Johnson, a novelist who collaborated on the script for the film.

[10] Labrecque, J. (2014) Malcolm McDowell on Stanley Kubrick: An all-too-human artistic genius.

Available at: http://www.ew.com/article/2014/11/29/malcolm-mcdowell-stanley-kubrick-clockwork-orange

(Accessed: 10 November 2016).

This source was very useful as it is an interview with Malcom McDowell, who played the part of Alex in ‘A Clockwork Orange’. He speaks about what Kubrick was like as a person and what he was like as a director. This interview gives an insight into Kubrick’s work, from someone who worked with him. Although it was useful, it wasn’t the best source as it the interviewer focuses more on McDowell’s career and work, rather than Kubrick. It also looks more into Kubrick’s personality and quirks rather than his technical ability.

11] Mather, P.D. (2006) ‘Stanley Kubrick: Photography and Film’,

Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 26(2), pp. 203–214.

This source is useful as it looks at links between Kubrick’s photography and his films, it also looks at some of the technical aspects of his work and how he has developed them throughout the years. Although it’s a very informative source that looks in detail at Kubrick’s work, it isn’t useful when just looking at his films and authorship as it looks at the connections between his work from ‘Look’ magazine and his later work like ‘Killers Kiss’ and ‘The Shining’.

[12] Papish, B. (2016) Stanley Kubrick: What you need to know about his films.

Available at: http://www.highsnobiety.com/2016/08/19/stanley-kubrick/

(Accessed: 7 November 2016).

This source is exceptional when looking at the personal life of Kubrick and his journey to the status he gained. It looks at some technical and aesthetic aspects of his films like his one point perspective. However, when analysing Kubrick’s work in relation to film theories and critics views of the technical aspects, it isn’t as useful.

[13] Various (2012) what is the definitive style of Stanley Kubrick?

Available at: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-definitive-style-of-Stanley-Kubrick

(Accessed: 1 November 2016).

This source is not very useful as it is written by the general public, rather than film critics. It does look at some of the technical aspects of his films and does list some of the key stylistic choices Kubrick makes, but is not a trustworthy source as it is mostly personal opinions on Kubrick and his work.

[14] A clockwork orange (philosophical films)

Available at: http://www.philfilms.utm.edu/1/clock.htm

(Accessed: 1 November 2016).

This source is useful when looking at the themes and issues of Kubrick’s ‘A Clockwork Orange’, it doesn’t look at the technical aspects of his films but does look more closely into the ideologies and the philosophical issues that they believe are evident in this film.

[15] Full metal jacket (philosophical films)

Available at: http://www.philfilms.utm.edu/1/fullmetal.htm

(Accessed: 1 November 2016).

This source is also useful as it looks at the themes and issues raised in Kubrick’s ‘Full Metal Jacket’. It looks into and develops the ideologies and issues shown in the film.

[16] Unknown (no date) Opening shots: A clockwork orange.

Available at: http://happyreflex.tripod.com/Clockwork_Orange.html

(Accessed: 14 November 2016).

This is a very weak source when looking at the content, it takes us through a step-by-step explanation of the opening scene of ‘A Clockwork Orange’ though it doesn’t talk about the technical aspects of the scene. It is not very developed and doesn’t seem to be written for educational purposes.

[17] LLC, S. (2015) A clockwork orange.

Available at: http://www.sparknotes.com/film/clockworkorange/canalysis.html

(Accessed: 18 November 2016).

This source gives a deep analysis of the main character, Alex and the main themes of ‘A Clockwork Orange’ it is very helpful when looking at the themes and characters in the film. It also looks at the directing from Stanley Kubrick and goes into detail about how he made the film and what he was like as a director.

[18] Brothers, W. (1994) A clockwork orange - analysis.

Available at: http://dramatica.com/analysis/a-clockwork-orange

(Accessed: 18 November 2016).

This is a very in depth source when looking at ‘A Clockwork Orange’. Written by a trustworthy source that is well worded and has formed a deep analysis of different aspects of the film, including Alex and the themes shown in the film.

[19] Sarris, A. (1962) Notes on auteur theory. Available at: file:///C:/Users/Emilie/Documents/College%20work/Film/Notes%20on%20Auteur%20Theory%20in%201962%20-%20Andrew%20Sarris.pdf (Accessed: 12 December 2016).

This is useful and trustworthy as it is the original note on auteur theory written by Sarris. It gives direct links to the original theory and builds on it showing how it can be developed and interpreted in different ways. It also reaffirms what has already been said about who and what and ‘auteur’ is or should be.

[20] Truffaut, F. (1954) A Certain Tendency of the French Cinema. Available at: file:///C:/Users/Emilie/Documents/College%20work/Film/A%20Certain%20Tendency%20of%20the%20French%20Cinema%20-%20Francois%20Truffaut.pdf (Accessed: 12 December 2016).

This source is very helpful as it is the original auteur theory written by Francois Truffaut.

[21] Gritten, D. (2006) Battle zone Hollywood: The writers fight back. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3653322/Battle-zone-Hollywood-the-writers-fight-back.html (Accessed: 8 December 2016).

This is a very helpful source as it explains David Kipen’s ‘The Schreiber Theory’ in detail and in relation to many well-known films. It explains about how instead of the director being considered the author of a film, a scriptwriter may be seen as the true author for various reasons.

[22] Corliss, R. (1973) Notes on Screenwriters Theory, 1973. Available at: file:///C:/Users/Emilie/Documents/College%20work/Film/Notes%20on%20a%20Screenwriters%20Theory%201973%20-%20Richard%20Corliss.pdf (Accessed: 12 December 2016).

This theory outlines the idea of the screenwriter as the auteur, rather than the director as the auteur.

[23] Petrie, G. (1973) ‘Alternatives to Auteurs’, Film Quarterly, 26(3), pp. 27–35. doi: 10.1525/fq.1973.26.3.04a00060.

This theory is helpful as it looks at the original idea of auteurship and how it’s relevant of irrelevant in the modern cinema. It Petrie talks about how there are many other roles in a film and therefore the director couldn’t possibly oversee or direct every single role. He also talks about how in some cases the director isn’t involved in a part of the making of his or her film and how credit is not always given where it is due. It also briefly talks about the screenwriter and their role in the making of a film.

[24] Keating, S. (2008) The Balance of Order and Chaos in Full Metal Jacket. Available at: http://www.stevenkeating.info/Steven_Keating/Steven_Keatings_Portfolio_(Flash_Site)_files/The_Balance_of_Order_and_Chaos_in_Full_Metal_Jacket.pdf (Accessed: 2 January 2017).

This source looks at the two ‘acts’ in Full Metal Jacket, while also analyzing the order and chaos in the film and how it is shown throughout. It is useful when looking at the themes in the film.

[25] Goldstein, P. (1999) “The Kubrick Mystique”. Available at: http://articles.latimes.com/1999/mar/10/entertainment/ca-15709/2 (Accessed: 5 January 2017)

I found this source very useful as it gave an unique insight into Stanley Kubrick as a director and looked into his styles and techniques.

Could Stanley Kubrick be viewed as an auteur even with his status as not only director, but writer as well?

The term auteur is someone who has ultimate control of a film. Film critics such as Andre Bazin developed the original theory that said the director of a film should have the same artistic influence over their films as an artist would have over their paintings. This means that they would also have the most influence over their film, giving them the status of auteur. A director who is seen as an auteur, should also be making consistently high standard films and their films should be instantly recognizable.

Does Stanley Kubrick have a recurring style?

Auteur theory states that to be a true author of a film, one must have technical competence, distinguishable personality and interior meaning. [19] Specifically a director should “exhibit certain recurring characteristics of style, which serves as his signature” meaning that if a director does not have a continuous style or elements of style that reflect his personality, than he is no auteur at all. When looking at Kubrick’s individual works, many would agree that each have their own strengths and weaknesses, despite these differences they all carry specific stylistic elements that connect them to Kubrick. [6] Although his style is consistent throughout his body, is it enough for him to be labeled an auteur?

Stanley Kubrick has never stuck to the same genre of film, from ‘Paths of Glory’ an antiwar film set in the First World War to A Clockwork Orange, a dystopian crime film set in a near-future society. Though the genres have never matched, he has been credited with using similar styles in the mise-en-scene and the cinematography [6]. Focusing specifically on A Clockwork Orange [1], The Shining [2] and Full Metal Jacket [3] I am going to look at the similarities and differences of style in each of these films to assess if they are enough for Kubrick to be considered the auteur.

One of the elements of style that Kubrick was known for were his camera shots. [6] In a Clockwork Orange [1] the beginning shot is a long pull shot/zoom out from the main character, Alex. This shot (below; left) is very conventional to Kubrick and his previous work. The one point perspective can be found in most of Kubrick’s films, this is a stylistic choice that has never changed throughout his body of work. The one point perspective can also be found in The Shining [2] when Wendy and Danny are walking through the Overlook Maze (below; middle). These scenes in his films are long cuts, this also is a technique frequently used in his work. In Full Metal Jacket [3] the beginning scene, although not the one point perspective, is a long cut. This shot (below; right) pulls the character, Sgt. Hartman around the army barracks as he gives his speech.

The long tracking shots [6] are can also be seen in A Clockwork Orange [1]. The extremely long, drawn out shot of Alex walking through a record store is again a feature of Kubrick’s films that is consistent in most of his work (below; left). The tracking shot in The Shining [2] where we see Danny riding around on his tricycle is one of the most famous shots in any of Kubrick’s films (below; right). These shots can be linked to the themes of metal stability and man vs himself in Kubrick’s films, this is because they all are filmed in real time as none have any cuts. They manipulate time and make the scenes seem extremely slow. They also bring the audience into the narrative as we are watching what is happening as they are, there are no cuts to make the scene more interesting, we have to endure everything the characters do.

Another stylistic choice Kubrick makes in his films, is his use of contrapuntal sound. This is frequently used in most of his films and becomes a key motif as it follows him throughout his films. The sound played in some scenes is often completely opposite to the actions of the scene itself. In Full metal Jacket [3] the end scene of the film (below; left), the soldiers are marching out in the war zone which is dark and destroyed. This is a harrowing scene showing the reality of war, however the soldiers are singing a song about Mickey Mouse, a figure that is seemingly happy and associated with the innocence of childhood. This is used again in A Clockwork Orange, during the scene where Alex is abusing a woman and man (below; right), Singing in the Rain plays in the background, which eventually becomes a part of the diegetic sound when Alex begins to sing along. This becomes a motif in Kubrick’s work. In this scene it again legitimizing the violence and making it seem less disturbing.

Each of these stylistic qualities associated with Kubrick are developed throughout his body of work but all remain true to their original form. As Kubrick became more skilled, his films became better, however his style remained. From ‘Paths of Glory’ to

‘Eyes Wide Shut’ his work followed a consistent style and constant quality. However there are some slight differences in his work. As he developed his work and became a more popular the budgets for his films increased, allowing him to make better use of technology, this allowed him to experiment with new techniques and to refine his style.

After looking at the links in style and the differences between A Clockwork Orange [1], The Shining [2] and Full Metal Jacket [3] it could be argued that Kubrick did have key elements of style that followed him throughout his career and were used frequently enough for the audience to know they are Kubrick. Since Kubrick didn’t collaborate often, the techniques are obviously developed by himself, however it could be argued that his early connections with James B Harris could’ve had some influence as Harris was the producer on three of Kubrick’s earlier films ‘The Killing’ (1956), Paths of Glory (1957) and ‘Lolita’ (1962). Kubrick’s controlling nature could however show that he was the final decision maker in his films and therefore oversaw every element of style there was regardless of any collaborators [8]. To conclude, I believe that after looking at his style, Kubrick could be seen as the auteur of his films by the standards of Andrew Sarris [19] as Kubrick has all of the three things Sarris believed a director should have to be considered the auteur. [20] However, in relation to the original auteur theory he may lack some of the qualities that Francois Truffaut believed a director should have to be the auteur.

In relation to Schreiber Theory can Kubrick be considered an auteur?

In most explanations of Auteur Theory, the Auteur referred to is usually the director of the film. [20] This is because, based on the original auteur theory that stemmed from the French New Wave in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s a director has the most control over their films. Directors like Alfred Hitchcock were credited by French critics like Francois Truffaut as he has a continuous style throughout his career that was influenced by his own personality. Though this is the original views on what an auteur should be, there have been many more recent theories that suggest other members of a film crew could be the true auteur of a film. One of these theories by David Kippen, the Schreiber Theory [22] suggests that the screenwriter could be the auteur of a film. Using this theory, I will look at whether Stanley Kubrick could be classed as the auteur of his films with his screenwriter status. Stanley Kubrick was very involved in the making of his films. He was mainly the director, but also wrote/co-wrote most of his films. He has also been credited as the producer of some of his films. Though this may be enough to suggest he could be the true auteur of his films, the original auteur theory may disagree as it suggests a director should have the most influence on their film without having to take on other roles.

Kubrick wrote the screenplay for A Clockwork Orange (Kubrick: 1971) along with the co-writing of Full Metal Jacket (Kubrick: 1987) and The Shining (Kubrick: 1980). Because of this, according to Schreiber Theory he has the most input into his films, even without his director status it would be enough for him to be seen as an auteur. The Schreiber Theory suggests that the screenwriter of a film is the most important person in the film as they have the ability to create the mood and develop the narrative and characters through their writing. [22] The similarities between my three focal films show mostly within the style and characters. As Kubrick wrote his films, based off of literary works of the original authors he has some ability to influence them with his own personality. The main characters in my films, Alex Delarge (A Clockwork Orange; 1971) Private Joker (Full Metal Jacket; 1987) and Jack Torrance (The Shining; 1980) all have very similar characteristics that could arguably be because of the script. Kubrick has his own personal way of writing, this would dictate what type of personalities his characters would have. Arguably this is more influential than what a director could do as they have the ability to control emotion and the overall narrative.

The similarities in Kubrick’s characters can be seen in the way they speak. They all have a distinctive way of communicating, their condescending and slightly witty way of talking is something that can be seen in many of Kubrick’s characters. This is something developed in his writing, and from his personality. The conversations Kubrick writes in his films help show his signature character personalities. In The Shining when Jack is talking to the bartender (Below; Left) we see a prime example of the personality that Kubrick tends to write, this personality is also seen when Alex in A Clockwork Orange is talking to the police, he answers in a very condescending way that makes him seem like he’s better than them. In Full Metal Jacket, Private Joker also has this kind of personality, although his character is friendlier than Jack and Alex. These characteristics are shown when we first meet Private Joker, (Below; Right) he makes a joke while the Sargent is talking.

One problem when looking at Kubrick’s screenwriter role is that some of his writing is collaborative, meaning that however much he influences those films, someone else also has the ability to influence them. For example on Full Metal Jacket he co-wrote the script with Michael Herr and Gustav Hasford. This means that he did not have full control of his film, although it could be argued that as he also directed them, he still had the ability to input his personality regardless of collaborations. Kubrick did not like the idea of collaborating, as “he didn't believe in collaborating any more than if he were the author of a novel or the composer of a symphony.” According to Sony Pictures Chairman John Calley [25].

Although the screenwriter could be seen as incredibly important in a film, they can sometimes be overlooked by the directors, editors and other members of a film crew as they may interpret the script or dis-guard the script and rewrite sections to suit themselves. [23] The script is sometimes only used as an outline or not used at all as the director may prefer having more freedom. If a director dictates the personality of a character, it will give the actor more freedom in how they play the part meaning each character will have many differences. However, it could be argued from the view point of the original auteur theory that despite what the screenwriter creates, a director will always influence the final edit of a film.

Do Stanley Kubrick’s films have continuous themes?

According to the original auteur theory, a film should have a signature associated with the director which can be found in all of their films, this can include continuous themes. [19] Stanley Kubrick has some themes that can be found in his films, two of these themes include ‘the necessity of evil in human nature’ and freedom/free will [17]. In all three of my focal films, this can be assessed as each film addresses the violence in human nature and how the characters struggle with it.

In A Clockwork Orange, this theme is a main theme throughout the whole film. The character Alex addresses this as “he gives free rein to his violent impulses”. [17] He does not suppress his urges to maim or kill, he embraces it and allows himself to become a form of evil. The evil in his character is shown through the explicit scenes of rape and murder. (Below: Left) Explicit scenes are used in all three of my focal films in order to show the evil in each of the main characters nature. In Full Metal Jacket, there are two ‘acts’ that break up the film. The first being the training camp where we meet Private Pyle. The end of this ‘act’ Private Pyle kills Sargent Hartman and then himself, this shows the transition from the order and strict training camp to the chaos of war. (Below: Centre) [24] In the Shining, Jack seems to become corrupted as a result of staying at the hotel. The theme of evil is conveyed through the Overlook Hotel, specifically the ‘visions’ Danny and Jack see throughout the film. The visions of the blood in the elevator and the twin girls lying dead on the floor are explicit ways of showing the evil in the hotel. (Below: Right)

These themes can be argued to have been developed by Kubrick through his screenwriting and directing. As a scriptwriter and director, Kubrick has the ability to control most aspects of the films narrative according to the original auteur theory [20] and the Schreiber Theory [21]. Because of this he has the ability to influence the themes addressed in his films, based on themes and issues he may have struggled with in his own life.

The theme of evil is shown explicitly in Full Metal Jacket throughout, as the film is about war most of the film is about making men into killers. During the first ‘act’ of the film, in training the Sargent says “If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training, you will be a weapon” [3] he refers to the marines numerous times as murderers, killers and weapons. This is an explicit way of addressing the evil within people and how marine training is a way of bringing that evil out in the soldiers in order to make them ‘killers’.

The theme of free will is obvious in all three of the films I am looking at, in a Clockwork Orange Alex could be seen as trapped. He is seen as a criminal and a deviant as his acts are not socially acceptable, however he feels the things he does are okay and ‘normal’. He could also be seen as stuck in his ways as he cannot control his violent urges, this becomes the only way he can live and at the end of the film the treatment he received to make him good only drives him to feeling ill, it becomes clear that there is no way out of the life he leads. He also becomes trapped when he is arrested and subject to correctional treatment to end his sexual and violent tendencies. The theme of free will and imprisonment is also found in Full Metal Jacket, the marines are all shown as trapped when in training as they either do as they are told or go home. This is shown again when the soldiers are at war, when one of the soldiers tries to get away from the gun shots and ends up getting killed. This could symbolize how the soldiers have two options, fight or die.

The theme of free will is also prominent in The Shining [2] as throughout the film each of the characters finds themselves trapped in the confines of the hotel. Danny bikes through the same parts of the hotel unable to go outside or go home, he is confined to the hotel like a prisoner as is Wendy. She and Danny become more confined when they find themselves stuck in the hotel when the only way out is broken. This leaves us and them wondering if they will ever get away. This theme is also prominent in the character Jack as he slowly becomes stuck in his own subconscious when he loses control and succumbs to his violent urges.

Conclusion

After looking at Stanley Kubrick’s Style, Themes and Screenwriter status I have come to the conclusion that Kubrick cannot be seen as auteur. I have come to this conclusion because despite his full involvement on his films, in relation to the original auteur theory, Kubrick doesn’t have what Francois Truffaut believed a director should have. Many of his films, including the three I have studied were written originally by other authors. This could be used to argue that he doesn’t have full control of his films as they are not his original ideas. Although Kubrick doesn’t conform to the original auteur theory, he does fit Andrew Sarris’ theory that a director should have distinguishable personality, interior meaning and technical competence. All three of these, Kubrick exhibits in all of his work. In relation to Schreiber Theory, he could be considered auteur however because he always co-wrote the screenplay it could be difficult to agree that all of the screenplay is Kubrick’s ‘vision’. There are many influences when making a film, therefore in any circumstance it could be difficult to name someone ‘auteur’. However the influence Kubrick has on all of his films is prominent and has been noticed by international audiences. There is no doubt that Kubrick is the main influence on his films and has full control of most aspects of filming and distributing. Although he can be established as the main influence, according to original auteur theory, he cannot be seen as auteur.

0 notes

webpostingpro-blog · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on Webpostingpro

New Post has been published on https://webpostingpro.com/swift-university-teaches-you-how-to-build-android-apps/

Swift University Teaches You How to Build Android Apps

The Italian university

As we noted, the direction is open to the builders who have a few know

Baguio Central University – Premier Educational Institution in Baguio City

This inviting tertiary school in Baguio City has nine collegiate divisions,

For college kids who need to sign up in any of the degrees and academic

Why Android Is a Popular Choice Among Developers

Android and Its Specific Variations

So, some distance several Variations were released which include: Donut, Éclair, Froyo, Gingerbread, Honeycomb, Ice Cream Sandwich, Jelly Bean, KitKat, and Lollipop.

So, What Makes Android a Massive favored?

There are lots of reasons as to why Android has grown to be a lot famous in one of this quick span of time. A number of the motives were mentioned under:

Available free of charge

Open Source Platform

Each person can Create Their App

How App Development Can Boost Competitiveness

What Companies Can Gain From App Development

Every other Advantage that apps provide to Businesses is the truth that they may be higher for client engagement.

0 notes