#at this point everyone should just be wholly familiar with my oeuvre

[comradekatara]

What do you think of Ozai as a villain? 👀 i'm seeing people saying the live action Ozai is better and i'm like "nah". They missed the point of the character

i mean i think a lot of people misunderstand ozai because people want a compelling character (especially a compelling villain) to be “layered and complex” in a very specifically emotional sense. but i do think ozai is layered and complex, simply in a different way that people expect. azula, for example, is a great villain because she is psychologically complex, and every action and motivated is entrenched in layers of nuance. but ozai is thematically complex, functionally layered. his underlying emotional motivations, however, are beside the point.

ozai’s narrative function is primarily to be metonymically figured as the embodiment of patriarchal and imperialist violence. ozai performs this function through interconnecting the domestic (his abuse of his wife and children) with the national (his role as sovereign of an empire). zuko’s disavowal of ozai in “the day of black sun” very explicitly ties his personal abuse to the logic of imperialism, and zuko denounces both logical tracks through acknowledging their interrelation. it’s hardly an uncommon character construction either: the domestic (specifically, the patriarchal nuclear family model) as microcosmic of the societal (specifically, patriarchal societies that are otherwise organized along unjust hierarchies) is prevalent across plenty of narratives, from the house of atreus to king lear to succession.

my personal favorite example of this trope as it is employed is in palace walk by naguib mahfouz, because al-sayyid does function as sovereign of his house, but he is also grappling with the consequences of being a colonized subject, and that colonial shame and humiliation both complicates his relationship to power but also reifies his patriarchal role within his family, his very real pain and disempowerment leading him to exacerbate his domestic abuse and tighten his control over his wife and children. al-sayyid is also, notably, not strict and controlling beyond the purview of his family, but within his own house, he very deliberately positions himself as an inviolable patriarchal authority.

however, unlike al-sayyid, ozai is a sovereign in every sense of the world, and even positions himself as akin to a god. but, as we can infer from “zuko alone,” ozai is not impervious to patriarchal abuse (or he wasn’t before ascending the throne), and thus has suffered his own shame and humiliation fostering his god complex due to compensation (and through the internalization of the logic of patriarchal abuse). ozai perpetuates the cycle of abuse as he, too, once suffered it (much like logan roy, to name another excellent example of this archetype). so while ozai is no longer a victim in any sense of the term, it is important to understand the psychology underlying his belief that he is ontologically deserving of the undivided respect and submission of the entire world due to his position of power.

ozai genuinely believes that he was teaching zuko respect, because respecting his authority is one of the values ozai holds most dear. because, of course, to speak out against ozai as an individual is to speak treasonously of the fire nation, and vice versa. and he expects his children to display their unquestioning loyalty to the Father(land) above all. the second they question him or confuse that priority in any way, they have irrevocably forsaken him and thus must be discarded. that is the logic of (to quote utena) a man who has made himself “end of the world.”

moreover, the other most crucial aspect of ozai’s character is how he is framed. until book 3, we never actually see his entire face. he is always a goatee, a spaulder, a disembodied smirk, a voice echoing through the flames, a crown. ozai as metonym goes both ways. and it serves to emphasize his ominous nature, as someone who is so powerful that we cannot truly view him head on. he’s framed in an almost godlike way.

and then, in “the awakening,” we see him without reservation. he is a tall, imposing man, but he is also, fundamentally, just a man. in “the headband” we see his face through a fire nation propaganda poster, as if to imply that his face is not more sacred than any other face. his poster is immediately followed up with aang’s recreation of his portrait with noodles. before book 3, holding ozai’s gaze is impossible, as he is merely a looming spectre. but book 3 immediately and ruthlessly undermines the notion they have been building up for two seasons, and through comedy, no less. ozai may be uniquely powerful and uniquely evil, but he is still just a man, and by the time he crowns himself phoenix king, destroyer of worlds, we are well-aware that he is not innately, divinely superior in any way, and his fascistic performance simply looks ridiculous.

unlike azula’s claim that “the divine right to rule is something you’re born with,” there is nothing unique or ontological about the role of the emperor. there is nothing ontologically superior about the colonizer’s relationship to the colonized besides the material dynamics of power informing their relationship. the father as head of his family is not ontologically necessitated any more than the structure of the nuclear family is predicated on innate anthropological roles rather than being socially constructed and maintained through systemic violence. ozai is not ontologically special, and his claim that he is seems even sillier as he goes up against the avatar, who actually truly is.

when ozai faces aang in the final battle, it is a significant fight because it represents the culmination of all the ideals aang has constantly fought for and asserted within ozai’s imperialist paradigm. and by refusing to submit to ozai’s logic of domination, aang disempowers ozai wholly. not because lack of firebending makes one totally powerless, but because lack of bending makes one powerless within ozai’s logic. aang renders ozai victim to his own ideology, playing his own imperialist dogma against him. instead of killing ozai in combat, as ozai expects, aang humiliates him by asserting his cultural values and their continued relevance over ozai’s values. the culminating battle against ozai, with the spiritual light that threatens to overtake aang, is a battle of one ideology winning out over another. it is the culmination of a century of genocide and colonialism by an imperialist power. it is the undermining of ozai’s entire worldview.

ultimately, we don’t need to see a lot of ozai to understand him. we can understand ozai perfectly through zuko and azula, because he positioned them as extensions of himself and thus their respective embodiments are simply their ways of performing him (azula is obviously a better actor). his complex psychology is beside the point, because his narrative function is to represent the imperialist forces that aang must battle. and they do this by establishing him as an ominous and terrible deified man, and then undermining him as little kore than a human being with an incorrect worldview. so he is interesting, not because he’s “complicated,” but because he reflects the central tension of the show in a satisfying way, and that’s what matters.

#lilith-91 #asks #analysis #ozai #synthesis #azula&ozai #ozai&zuko #azula #zuko #putting this under a readmore even tho it’s only 10 paragraphs….. for shame #im on mobile rn but if u go thru my ozai tag you’ll also find a lot of other posts and more in depth analyses of the things i cover here #im sick of linking to other posts tho #at this point everyone should just be wholly familiar with my oeuvre #(im lazy)

[tudorscharlot]

Bohemian Rhapsody (Bryan Singer/Dexter Fletcher, 2018)

31 Halloweens of October #34

(An important note about the following tirade: I know that this film was written by Anthony McCarten and Peter Morgan and that it was directed by Bryan Singer and Dexter Fletcher. But it is obvious from the course of its labored, years-long development and from the final product itself that this film was made in strict accordance with the views of Brian May and Roger Taylor. And I hold them ultimately responsible for the film that was made.)   This is the most deeply offensive film I've seen in years (probably since I saw Nymphomaniac: Vol. II). The music of Queen is so important to me on an emotional level and on a fundamental, worldview level that it would be fair to describe my devotion to it as religious. And I know I'm not alone on planet earth in feeling that way. Fuck this movie and everyone responsible for it forever. Do not go and see this. Don't give them your money and don't give them any sense of validation that what they've done is acceptable. (After seeing the cringe-inducing trailer, I vowed to never give this film a cent of my money. But then I was unexpectedly given a free ticket to see it. I went to see Suspiria for the second time in 24 hours with my best friend, but the theater it was showing in was having technical problems. The theater manager gave us tickets to a later showing of Suspiria and offered us free passes to anything that was playing right then, as well as free concessions. Even though I was now essentially being paid to see this film, I still only reluctantly accepted the situation.) It feels like a cheap shot to come at this movie over the chronological inaccuracies. The last thing I ever want to be is one of those "ACTUALLY..." guys who misses the poetic forest for the literal trees. I don't think it's critically important in a non-documentary, narrative film to be 100% accurate on dry, historical details, especially when it benefits the narrative structure to make slight revisions and combinations of events. Liberties taken in service of the spirit of the larger truth are fine by me. But the extremity of what they did in this film is egregious, lazy, and ultimately just confusing. So yes, I am going to go there, right now. The vocal version of "Seven Seas of Rhye" was not recorded during the sessions for Queen. "Another One Bites the Dust" was recorded three years after "We Will Rock You". Freddie Mercury did not release his first solo album until four years after Roger Taylor released his first solo album and one year after Roger released his second solo album (which goes some way toward debunking the notion that the band viewed Freddie's solo projects as a betrayal). Freddie did not return from an extended period of isolation in Munich and beg the band to perform at Live Aid. Queen just had completed the massive, nearly year-long world tour for The Works less than two months before their appearance at Live Aid - it had not been years since they played onstage together. The band did not decide to start sharing all writing credits equally until they recorded The Miracle three years and two albums after Live Aid. And, as far as is publicly known, Freddie Mercury did not find out that he was HIV-positive until 1986 or 1987. (And this is all off the top of my head.)

None of this should matter, but it does matter. Because the moment that Brian May and Roger Taylor slapped their names on this thing as executive producers, the nature of the project and its relationship to the Queen oeuvre changed. What is this movie, and who is it for? Queen is one of the biggest bands ever, but I would still argue that a biopic about Freddie Mercury ought to be aimed primarily at people already familiar with him and Queen and the music they made. It should be for the fans, and the filmmakers should assume a certain basic level of familiarity with their story among viewers. And in that case, they should know that having all of these historical inaccuracies is only going to irritate devotees like me who have a deeper-than-Wikipedia knowledge of the subject matter. And, whether or not these inaccuracies irritate me, I'd certainly expect them to irritate the two men who lived these experiences and who exercised serious executive control over this movie from start to finish. Why would Brian and Roger sign off on such an error-riddled version of their own story? I mentioned Wikipedia up there, and I've read at least one review that snarkily described this film as an adaptation of the Wikipedia entry for Queen. I think that even that is giving it too much credit. This film is like an adaptation of a Buzzfeed "25 Things You Might Not Know About Queen" list (with an emphasis on the factual inaccuracies those lists always have). Bohemian Rhapsody is clearly not intended as a thoughtful love-letter to serious fans of Queen. So does that mean it is aimed at the widest common denominator - a promotional item designed and deployed to attract record-buyers (or Spotify-streamers) unfamiliar with the band? And to stoke nostalgia among extant fans who may then be enticed to buy whatever new reconfiguration of Queen's Greatest Hits is being released along with this film? On the one hand, yes, obviously. I'll never fault living artists (or the estates of deceased artists) for working to keep their valuable bodies of work alive in the public consciousness and available to new generations of potential fans. But there are tasteful, thoughtful, discerning ways to do this (see the recent John Lennon Imagine boxed set or Queen's own Made in Heaven album). Careful and caring artists or estates share archival or celebratory releases that add substance. Greedy people who've lost the plot completely offer up crass, sloppy, tasteless cash grabs. And that's what this goddamned movie is. And what virtually everything Brian May and Roger Taylor have done in the name of Queen over the last two decades has been. I say "greedy" and "cash grab," but I don't think this is just about money. It's also more abstract. There's an idea and an image of Queen that is very real for them and for me and for so many people in the world, and it is precious. But Queen is in the past. Queen as we know them and want them ended when Freddie Mercury left us. It's not right and it's not fair, but what was can never be again. No matter how many Queen + whatever asshole tours or holograms or biopics are shoved at us. On the other hand, though, this film is a far more dangerous thing than just a promotional cash grab. It is a piece of propaganda. When Brian May and Roger Taylor made themselves executive producers of this film, it became canon. Which confers on this film and its creators a much higher level of responsibility with regards to the legacy of Queen. And every person who made this film failed to be honest or faithful to Freddie and the idea of Queen. It's shameful. Even if Brian and Roger set out to share an honest but loving account of the story of Freddie and Queen, such an endeavor is impossible in their hands. It is impossible for two members of a four-person group to present their own version of events and group dynamics to the world as though it were an official and objective record of what happened and get it right. Even free of conscious, questionable intentions, they are too close to be objective. But I do not believe they are free of conscious, questionable intentions. This film never disputes Freddie Mercury's genius talents as a performer or songwriter. And it is generous in its portrayal of his kindness, sweetness, and wit. But it also presents him as a pill-popping sexual deviant whose pursuit of a solo career in the 1980s was an ego-driven affront to the unity of Queen, rather than the healthy and fairly standard outlet for expression that any artist a decade in with a massively successful band tends to engage in (see also: Roger Taylor, for fuck's sake). And it also presents him as the only real source of discord in the band. This is all in striking contrast to the presentation of Brian and Roger as blandly stable family men dedicated wholly to the vision of Queen. (There are a couple of winking references to Roger cheating on his wife, but these references lack the weight of similar events in Freddie's story.) An important side-note: It should also be mentioned that John Deacon is presented as basically a non-entity whose only contribution is to frequently make silly faces that are eerily like Andy Samberg mugging (seriously, find a still or clip of this actor in this movie - it's fucked up). In real life, John Deacon more or less permanently parted ways with Brian May and Roger Taylor in the late 1990s. It has been widely assumed (he may even have said so at some point) that this was because he didn't like the way they were handling the legacy of the band. Fast-forward to 2018 and this film's portrayal of John seems to be grinding a major axe of butt-hurt at him. It's so fucking petty. But back to Freddie. What do we know about Freddie Mercury, the private citizen? We know he was extremely private and largely refused to ever discuss his personal life with the press. That doesn't mean that it's strictly off-limits and inappropriate to discuss his private life in a film about him now. There are private things about Freddie (both personal and professional) that the surviving members of Queen definitely knew. Jim Hutton and others have shared personal things about Freddie over the years since his death, as well. I believe it's okay to respectfully reveal private details in the service of telling a great artist's story. The problem here is that Brian and Roger have shot any credibility they had as reliable or unbiased sources. If they can't even get the decade and order in which two of their biggest hits were recorded - if accurately representing something as verifiable and relevant to the development of their work as that isn't important for this film, why should and how can we believe anything this films tells us that can't be verified beyond "the executive producers say it happened"? If major events in their recording and performing career can be juggled around willy-nilly to fit the desired narrative arc, how we can trust that the same wild liberties aren’t being taken with unverifiable closed-door meetings and private arguments? I'm SURE that Freddie Mercury was sometimes flamboyantly egotistical in the studio and backstage. But I'm equally sure that every other member of Queen was just as egotistical, just as often. They never would have accomplished the things they accomplished if there weren't huge amounts of ego and ambition and personal investment between them. But I do not buy that this film accurately represents Freddie's temperament, his ego, or his behavior in many of the specific situations it reenacts. It doesn’t get his style. Watch any video of Freddie performing or being interviewed - this film doesn't get him at all. I'm not queer and I'm not Parsi, but the way this film handles Freddie's relationship with his ethnicity, with his family, and with his sexuality feels pretty boilerplate and cliched. It doesn't strike me that any particularly negative stereotypes are being indulged, but it does feel like a lot of simplistic movie tropes are employed to quickly dispense with these matters. I am glad that so much attention is given to Freddie's relationship with Mary Austin, but it nonetheless feels tonally wrong. I think that their relationship was beautiful and I don't think this movie quite gets it. And sure, what the fuck do I know? Very little. But I know they were lifelong companions in ways that went far beyond sex, and that she was the love of his life. And I know that I can't trust that the two guys who were there are representing it truthfully now. I'd rather take Freddie's word for it. And UGH. What the ever-loving fuck is up with Rami Malek's prosthetic bucked teeth in this movie? Let's get something straight: Freddie Mercury was a physically beautiful man. My god, he was. It is an obnoxious insult to have some guy prancing around like fucking Nosferatu playing at being Freddie Mercury. No serious actor would need fake teeth to play this role, and no serious filmmaker would ever even consider such a thing. All this heavy, meta shit aside, this is also just a bad movie on the most basic level. It is so bloated with unnecessary show-off shots, rock and roll biopic cliches, embarrassing dialogue, and one-dimensional performances that even hearing some of my favorite music ever at high volumes in a movie theater couldn't transport me. Some serious acting talent was assembled here, and some of the cast do an admirable job with what they were given, but this movie has no heart. Bohemian Rhapsody makes Freddie Mercury a caricature. It tries not to, and it really is mostly a very flattering caricature. But it's a reduction that fails terribly in its mission to show us who Freddie Mercury was. Freddie Mercury deserves infinitely better than this film. This film should not have been made. If they had gotten everything perfectly right, it would still be a pointless and distasteful exercise. Go watch any video of Freddie Mercury performing or just talking and the emptiness of this film becomes instantly clear. (Note: I’ve tagged this film with my October horror film viewing because this film is horrible.)

#bohemian rhapsody #bryan singer #dexter fletcher #rami malek #31 halloweens of october