#but I feel like he's more blatantly portrayed as a villain in a few specific routes. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ectonurites · 3 years

Note

Okay, so I kinda wanna know your thoughts about how weird the fandom portrays the bat characters. Canon is ... not my favorite, but it actually offers a lot of nuance to the characters that I think makes them all interesting. Unlikable, but interesting. I noticed fanon tends to boil the batkids all into these superflat caricatures. Like, cereal obsessed manchild Dick Grayson or bad boy who's literal crimes are only because of the lazarus pit Jason Todd. Its not really a major problem, just weird

Oh I have a LOT of thoughts about this. I try so hard not to shit on how other people interact with content because like, it’s comic books! We’re all just here trying to make the best out of a mess of stuff and have fun, but admittedly a lot of fanon stuff drives me fuckin’ nuts as someone who reads a ton of comics.

Like, I like memes, obviously, I draw tons of memes with the batfam (+ yj) characters and make lighthearted jokes etc etc, and honestly if it’s just for jokes then I don’t mind people having whack interpretations of the characters quite as much. The thing that drives me up a wall though is like... when serious works and analysis and discussion are very clearly based on just the fanon interpretations without any bearing on canon aside from what you could skim from a wiki page, and it’s spoken like it’s fact! There’s ‘having fun with jokes that aren’t taking things that seriously’ and then there’s ‘blatantly mischaracterizing based on misinformation’. Way too often I see things fall into that second category.

Now, a lot of people in the batfam fandom don’t... actually read comics (or at least not frequently) and that’s not even a bad thing necessarily, like you’re 100% allowed to enjoy content however you want to! (I don’t wanna be gatekeepey, especially since comics are confusing to get into)

But the problem is that when a lot of people aren’t reading the comics, then the people who do’s opinions have a lot more influence if they’re loud enough. All it takes is one person who read something and interpreted it a specific way that might not even be correct, and then it can echo chamber and suddenly half the fandom thinks it’s 100% canon that way because ‘oh so and so said that and they actually read it’.

I also think that’s a problem with the popularity of out of context panels/blogs, while they are super funny sometimes, when people make assumptions about characters based on just a few things without context... it can lead to problems. If enough people say something enough times people just... start to think it’s true, even if it exists entirely devoid of context which changes the meaning.

Like, for example, according to canon there’s no actual confirmation Tim stalked Batman on foot for an extended period of time! We know from Lonely Place of Dying that he followed him once to get a picture to convince DIck that he still needed a Robin. Otherwise his ‘stalking’ & how he figured out Batman’s identity was more through media appearances (like newspapers and tv). This is wildly different from the common fanon idea that little Timmy was sneaking out regularly to follow Batman & Robin around with his camera.

I primarily blame Geoff Johns for this misconception because of these panels in in tt 2003 (from issue 29)

But like, think about it for a second, literally how would Jason know that? This is one of the first times he’s ever interacting with Tim, and he was dead/catatonic when that would have been happening! He is either making a wild assumption or perhaps Talia told him this when she told him about Tim, whichever of those it was it’s secondhand information not something he witnessed. Taking his word as fact here makes no sense, he was just trying to get under Tim’s skin while fighting him. But seeing those panels out of context if you haven’t actually read Lonely Place of Dying/only read a vague summary of it, and don’t necessarily know the details of the Jason situation, it could absolutely lead you to believe otherwise!

Dick as a cereal manchild is a weird one because like... okay yeah sure he likes cereal, I can think of like two panels I’m too lazy to find right now off the top of my head of him having it, but... that’s not something we see all the time! Its not like Ollie & his chili (which IS a running joke- seriously I have not read that many Green Arrow comics but the amount of times I’ve seen that man bring up chili in just in the few things I have read is wild. there’s even an official recipe. his chili has it’s own dc wiki page). Then, because Dick isn’t quite as emotionally closed off in the same way the rest of the batfam tends to be, people project literally all the pent up feelings onto him, making him this hug-crazy crybaby manchild... again it’s just very clear people who perpetuate those ideas (outside of like, maybe as jokes) haven’t actually fully read that many comics with him. I’d also even blame the Young Justice cartoon version of Dick for some other traits fanon Dick has, bc that version of him is def a bit of a Hot Mess™️ once he’s Nightwing

Jason I understand misconceptions about probably the most because of how wildly inconsistent his writing was before the new 52 and how consistently Not Great it was once Lobdell took over. Jason’s one of the few characters I have read like, 90% of appearances for so I’m speakin’ from experience here. But still... acting like Jason as Red Hood is just a ‘bad boy rebel’ that could have a relatively happy connection with the whole Batfam is fun but unrealistic. You can not blame everything on the lazarus pit... he still has killed people! Lots of people! Willingly! Yes he has reasons and when he’s being written well it’s clear that he’s not just ‘random murder happy’ but rather ‘I kill when I feel they deserve it and that it’s necessary’ which is what keeps him an anti-hero rather than a full fledged villain most of the time, but that still keeps him so at odds with the rest of the Batfamily! Writers in more current continuity have had him compromise by only using rubber bullets in Gotham so they can have him interact with the family, but he’s still killed and will do it when he deems it necessary.

Also like... at the time of Under The Red Hood in the comics... theoretically... he hadn’t even been in the lazarus pit for well over a year. Go read Lost Days (it’s short! And except for the thing with him & Talia towards the end of the last issue it’s pretty good!), he spends a lot of time traveling the world and learning things/training before the events of UtRH. Yes you could interpret there still being some Lazarus influence going on there but I think the movie version of UtRH especially leads people to believe there’s a lot less time between his dunk in the pit and his first actions as Red Hood.

Fanon also has a lot of ideas about pit madness that vary wildly from what we have seen in canon, like yeah it’s been said to be a thing to some extent, but there’s not really the Danny Phantom Glowing Green Eyes™️ or anything like that... it’s fun to explore cool new ideas for sure but I just think it’s important to recognize the distinction between things that are actually canon and things that are popular fanon. (Also there are things that fall somewhere in between, there’s definitely stuff that isn’t 100% confirmed canon but could still be plausible/has been hinted at by some writers/is only canon in some settings)

Other things that drive me nuts are ‘quiet does-no-wrong angel Cass’ and ‘the Normal One™️ Duke’ because those just make literally no sense if you’ve read any comics with either of them... but fan content either does those versions or just completely ignores their existence a lot of the time! So! That’s a whole bigger problem!

In general though, this is fandom it’s not like this... matters that much on the grand scheme of things in life, we’re just people on social media talkin’ about comics. And this kind of misconception/flattening of characters does happen in literally every fandom ever. But it still does suck to see characters that have a lot of nuance and interesting history to play around with get reduced to a few traits that aren’t even actually that relevant to who they are.

#batfam #pls dont kill me for sayin al this again im not telling anyone how to enjoy stuff JUST my thoughts

39 notes · View notes

skylights422 · 5 years

Text

Thor 1 Rewatch Commentary

Having recently seen Avengers: Endgame, I was feeling the need to reminisce and revisit the beginning of my mcu obsession, which started and was most prominent with the first Thor film. The thing that stood out to me most during this rewatch was something I’ve always been fairly aware of, and that is the frankly excess ambiguity surrounding many of the character and world building elements of the film, most notably everything around Asgard and Loki’s character arc, so that will be the focus of this review. Before I dig into it though, I want to briefly go over my other reactions to seeing the film again:

- I forgot how fun Jane and co. were. They were all plenty likable, their actions made sense, Jane was a real go-getter and Darcy and Selvig both filled their roll well, and Jane’s scenes with Thor were actually pretty nice! Sure the pacing and generally confused focus of the film meant that their plot and development sometimes felt a little... jarring or slow? But that is more of an issue with the film’s structure in general and not so much an issue of how the characters were used/portrayed.

- THE MUSIC WAS SO EMOTIONAL AND GOOD OMG. It really made the atmosphere strong, and added a distinct kind of feeling to a lot of the scenes that seemed more...emotionally charged than the stuff that came later? At least from memory, I still need to rewatch the other stuff they’ve been in.

- My goodness have I ever missed how Thor was written in this film, I forgot how much I loved the more old-fashioned speech style that was kind of dropped Ragnarok onwards, and how much I enjoyed Thor as the well-meaning but arrogant prince who learned like, so much in a very short amount of time (maybe too much for 3 days lol but in fairness they were some fairly extreme days from Thor’s perspective and it can be read as being evidence of how much inherent goodness Thor actually had as well how spoiled he must have been for a few days of normal expectations and consequences to bring out such a difference)

- I missed Sif and the Warriors 3 being characters that were like! Acknowledged!

- I already knew this but this film really is more focused on character drama than action, but like it’s all scrunched up and/or alluded to character drama a lot of the time due to the short run time and aforementioned ambiguity so it really gives a kind of weird tone/feel to the film where a lot of the time you’re kind of just like, “huh????”. Or at least that’s how it was for me.

Okay! General thoughts out of the way, now on to the analysis, which I will put under a read more because the general thoughts got longer than I expected.

Alright. So from the beginning, a few basic things are made known. Jotunheim exists, Jotunheim once invaded Earth for Reasons Not Given, and Asgard exists as a realm that observes/protects the other realms (or at least Midgard) from the Jotuns/other threats but really the jotuns because at this point they are the only threat discussed as being a Thing. Then we obviously see Thor and Loki as kids; they themselves don’t really interact with each other in the scene, but they interact with Odin and a few generalizations can be made. Thor was more confident and aggressive/assertive while Loki was more nervous/insecure and more observant (he asks for more info about the Jotuns, Thor makes a quick decision about what to do about the Jotuns).

So far so good as far as intros go - but then things first start to dabble in ambiguity, both from a ‘first time watching’ perspective and ‘in hindsight’ perspective. First off, the first time viewing perspective: Odin says Thor and Loki were ‘both born to be kings’; is this...metaphorical, and supposed to be comforting to Loki as the second born that he can be a king in spirit? Is it supposed to be a world-building element to show Asgardian monarchies have their children compete for the throne instead of automatically assigning it to the first born? It’s unclear, but which it is definitely influences how you perceive the later parts of the film (did Loki have a real chance at the throne in theory but Thor was still always talked about in a ‘when he is king’ way, making the supposed favoritism seem more blatant? Or did he know from the get go he wasn’t meant for the throne due to tradition and only really ever competed for Odin’s approval, which leaves more room for the favoritism to be more perceived/due to miscommunication)

Now the ‘in hindsight’ part of the scene that is kind of ‘???’. First off, Odin nowhere corrects Thor on the Jotuns being monsters (he wouldn’t have had to get angry or anything, it would have been easy to fit in a correction with his general ‘don’t seek war’ message), which when you first watch it is like ‘okay these are the Generic Bad Guys of the film so we aren’t supposed to feel anything for them, suspension of disbelief sure they’re evil ice monsters got it’ but when you know that Loki is a Jotun and that his trying to kill the Jotuns is supposed to be the big thing Thor stops him from doing at the end of the film it just seems weird.

On the character building front it doesn’t make Odin look great and shows that Loki didn’t get his later anti-jotun sentiment from thin air I guess, but from the narrative perspective why the heck would you introduce a group of people as ‘evil cuz evil’, have one of the main characters learn he was born one, and then have said main character’s primary villainous act be getting rid of the ‘evil cuz evil’ group of people without doing anything in the film at any point to humanize the supposedly evil group or prove to the viewers that Odin and Asgard was actually wrong in their view of them. Like, it is a no-brainer that genocide is an atrocity, full stop, but despite that being Loki’s worst crime in the film objectively it’s the one that evokes the least amount of feeling and the one that almost no one in the film gets mad at him about or betrays him for. Thor tries to stop it in the end, but this like a Fresh Hot Take for him and apparently the rest of Asgard too, because when Thor was banished it wasn’t for killing dozens of Jotuns for no reason, it was for bringing war to Asgard - because then Asgardians would suffer. Only that’s not really addressed and no one in Asgard is ever called out for thinking of the Jotuns as monsters, and when 80% of the good-guys are on board something and nothing contradicts them, it’s kind of hard to get mad at the villain for doing the same thing even if you know by all means you should. (Also another reason the film needed to be longer, we see Thor learn humility and it is done very well, but there’s no real conversation about seeing other species as lesser unless we assume it was covered with the blanket statement of ‘I had everything backwards’)

The next point of ambiguity I want to bring up in keeping with a loose chronology of the film is ‘Loki in part 1 of the film, also, Sif and the W3′. The first real scene we see adult Loki speaking is when he talks to Thor after the coronation is ruined - before that he just observes all of Thor’s conversations with Odin. Here it is pretty much impossible to say with any Real Certainty if Loki was trying to edge Thor on into making an extra stupid decision or if he was just trying to be placating and actually get things to calm down afterwards, because there’s loose evidence to support both interpretations. On one hand, we do eventually find out Loki let the Jotuns in in the first place, so it isn’t far-fetched to assume this was part 2 of Proving Thor Needs To Not Be King Right Now. But on the other hand, at this point Loki had already basically achieved his goal - the coronation was postponed, and Odin told off Thor for poor ruling decisions which kind implied Odin was reconsidering the idea of crowning him so soon - and we know Loki wants to be validated by his family so it also makes sense to assume he was trying to just stay on Thor’s good side (this is, admittedly, a more likely assumption to make with the extended version of the scene where Loki much more obviously reacts to being included by Thor and then stands to voice his support of him, but it can still be drawn from the scene as is in the film as well).

On the subject of the W3 and Sif, since we see almost no other Asgardians outside of the royal family and Heimdall, I assume they are supposed to represent a bit of what the average or majority of Asgardians think/how they view things. This is important mostly because they make a few view-points clear in regard to how they (and so presumably People) see Thor and Loki. First off, they do tease/belittle Loki a number of times, and again due to lack of context it’s wildly unclear on if this is well-intentioned teasing that Loki takes too personally (since the W3, esp in deleted scenes, do rib each other quite a bit) or if it comes from genuine disrespect/malice (Loki IS a prince and most of the other ribbing doesn’t end in the teased one falling silent, so it is possible but again, unconfirmed). Secondly, they clearly worship Thor a bit and don’t see anything wrong with his arrogant and violent behavior (they don’t really see anything wrong with Thor starting a war other than inconvenience, and they want Thor back from Earth right away even though that would fix pretty much nothing, maybe they thought they needed their best fighter for the war but that is never brought up so it comes off more as them just being unhappy with the sentence in general). They also blatantly distrust Loki - they assume he is a traitor because he has magic and because... he’s Loki, I guess, but especially as a first time viewer it just seems like total paranoia since we haven’t seen anything to support their view.

Which leads me to a specific line of theirs: ‘Loki’s always been one for mischief’. Most writing advice says to ‘show, not tell’, and while there are obviously moments where telling is fine or even better than showing, this is an instance that would have been infinitely better to show rather than just tell. Mischievous how? To what extent? Since when? Kid Loki seemed obedient and quiet. Everything about Adult Loki we see in the film is either reserved or desperate, not mischievous (deceitful absolutely, but that isn’t the same thing). In fact unless you include the deleted scene where Loki makes wine into snakes to spook a servant that was laughing at him (which, is a pretty minor, albeit petty, instance of mischief), Loki doesn’t actually do anything for the sake of mischief at all in the movie. It just seems like a really weird decision to write a character known broadly for being mischievous, have him not act out of mischief once in the film, but still include a single line telling us that actually is mischievous, really, so suspecting him of treason makes sense, yeah?

Like, Sif and the W3 literally betray Loki, who was supposedly their friend(-ish) and currently their rightful king not because they have any proof of misdeeds (they only suspect him about the Jotun thing, they don’t know about Loki lying to Thor, and this is BEFORE the Destroyer was sent or Jotunheim was being destroyed, which we don’t even have hard evidence that would have bothered them) but because...they don’t like Loki and Really Don’t Like that Loki won’t bring Thor back, I guess? The way it’s framed they might also be assuming he did something to Odin and/or Frigga to get the throne but like...where the heck would that assumption even come from??? There’s nothing on-screen to back that up other than the ominous camera-work (and again, the deleted scene provides possible textual evidence that Loki was given the throne by Frigga after Odin fell asleep and did not expect to gain anything throne-related to de-crowning Thor). Also I am really unclear on if Heimdall deciding to behead his current king for tricking him/messing with inter-realm defenses is culturally appropriate or not, but from an uninformed viewer’s perspective it seems like a wild overreaction, which is another thing that could have been built on (in general Asgard’s culture could have been explored more like, a lot).

As for the second half the film/the final battle, my main question in hindsight was ‘what...exactly was Loki OR Thor expecting to gain from their confrontation???’ because Thor entered the arena basically just going “What the heck? What the heck!?!?!?!?!?” and Loki was in full-scale mental breakdown mode so I kind of don’t think he was planning anything coherently at this point, aside from maaaaybe stalling Thor long enough to let Jotunheim be destroyed (except, he didn’t really see that as something that could even be done and was visibly shocked to see Thor trying to break the Bifrost, so probably not even that). It just makes, narrative-wise, for a really weird final fight where neither combatant has any real Desired Outcome (Thor is kind of trying to talk Loki out of his freak out while also wanting to talk/argue about the whole Destroyer thing, but is too out of the loop and hot-headed to do a very good job at this and Loki I think just wants to vent/panic/finish his plan). And I mean part of that does play into the tragedy element of the story, but it also plays into the overarching ambiguity of the entire film.

I think...those are the main points I wanted to cover? More or less. Conclusion: I love the film to pieces but it is a structural dumpster fire that leaves way too many major character and world-building elements up to interpretation. And yet also this was the golden days and I miss them and have too many thoughts about these characters. But still, narrative anarchy at least half the time. SO THAT’S THAT.

If I missed anything or you want join the discussion or ask me anything regarding Thor, Loki, and their arcs absolutely feel free to do so!

#thor #marvel cinematic universe #loki #mcu #thor 1 #mcu meta #analysis #kind of negative?#but also I adore this film so kind of positive?#mixed feelings #so many mixed feelings

10 notes · View notes

mandaloriangf · 6 years

Text

the reylo batb au debacle

long post ahead. tw: racism

i. preface

i dont make call out posts. i think a lot of people abuse call outs, like that one reylo who made a post about me that just consisted of screenshots of me venting on my own blog in the proper tags. i dont know if i would call this a call out, per se. most people (antis, reylos, and bystanders) probably already know the gist of this situation. my reason for making this post is primarily because the original post of mine has gotten rather long with me reblogging it and adding on (you can see the most recent version here) and i would like to have more of a masterpost of sorts, since im a petty bitch who can’t let things go.

ii. the story

i was alerted by an anon to a fic, which is an a/b/o beauty and the beast retelling with rey as belle and kylo as the beast. in gaston’s place is finn. i haven’t read the fic word for word nor do i want to, but i searched finn’s name in the fic and this is what came up.

(note: most of these screenshots are from my original post, but i’ve added on with chapters that have been published since then)

“Myself if necessary; somewhere out there is my mate, and I will wait for them.” She said resolutely, holding her breath against the smell of pine and charcoal rolling off him. She had never found Finn’s scent a pleasant one.

“I believe Rey is missing,” Finn said with a scowl. “and I don’t like it when my things go missing.”

“Rey has never been yours.” Obi snapped. “She’s not a piece of property.”

“Details.” Finn smirked. “Now, are you going to tell me where she’s really run off to? Or are you holding fast to your ridiculous story of monsters and secret castles?”

Obi narrowed his eyes, refusing to entertain the brute anymore than he had to. “I think it’s time you were on your way, Finn. Please feel free to head in the opposite direction should you feel the urge to call upon me again.”

Finn shook his head, rolling his eyes heavily. “I’ll be back, Obi. I will find out where Rey is hiding.”

Obi shut the door in his face quickly, eager to be rid of the boorish oaf. He leaned against the wood, pinching the bridge of his nose and rubbing gently to ease his frustration. He should have been more open to Finn’s help, he could take all of it that he could get. Still, seeking aid in Finn felt like escaping the hounds to land in the fire. Hardly an improvement.

“She’s the only one who’s rejected me. Me. The nerve of her. No. This won’t stand. I’ll track her down if it’s the last thing I do.” Finn snarled.

Finn took a long swig from his freshly filled tankard the server had just finished capping off, a small smile playing at his mouth as his plan gained more and more merit in his mind. Rey would not allude him for much longer. He would find her, and show her exactly who she belonged to.

Charles frowned. “I don’t want Finn anywhere near Rey. I don’t trust him. He’d sooner force her into mating with him as rescue her.”

They crept deeper into the forest, making sure to maintain vigilance as they scanned the forest for anything strange. Finn wondered idly how Rey would have even made it through this woods, a mere woman. When he brought her back home, he would be sure to have a talk with her about what is and isn’t acceptable.

She scrambled backwards then, her back meeting Artoo’s haunches as he pranced away. She felt distress coursing through her, wanting no part of Finn or his strange obsession with her. “You’ll not touch me.”

“Shh.” He whispered. “You’re only confused. All will be well.”

“Leave, Finn. Go back to Jakku. No one wants you here, least of all me.” She spat.

He growled low, yanking her up by her hair. “You’ll learn your place, Rey. Once I bring you back to Jakku. First though, I will take care of the bastard who dared to touch what was mine.”

“I. Am. Not. Yours.” She ground out, her scalp smarting from the grip he still kept on her hair.

“You will be.” He assured darkly.

He didn’t realize he had lost until it was too late. He glanced down, the iron bolt plunged deep into his chest. For a moment he merely stared at it, his breath coming out in heavy pants as he tried to process what he was seeing. A gurgle sounded in his chest, coughing up a spray of blood. His mouth fell open in disbelief, taking a step backwards as his hand went to the bolt.

He gripped it in his fist, tugging it outwards and throwing it to the ground. His hands pawed at the hole in his chest, blood pouring over his fingers as he swayed slightly. His knees trembled, falling to be ground and kneeling. He gave a final shuddering breath, falling forward in a slump and going still. Rey dropped the bow as if it burned her, leaning her back against the tree she’d used to steady herself and gasping for breath. She felt relief and remorse in that moment, the knowledge that she’d taken a life outweighed only by the knowledge that she’d saved one.

(context: the above is rey murdering finn to save kylo)

as you can see, finn, star wars’ first ever black lead, is portrayed as a violent, aggressive, rapey misogynist who threatens rey psychically and sexually. he believes rey, a white woman, is his property and rey must kill him to save her lover, a white man. i mean, this whole thing should be very obvious. i dont care that its fiction, i dont care that its fanfiction. fiction does not exist in a vacuum and if you believe so, biases like this WILL go unchecked.

i was infuriated after reading this and found a note where the author addresses previous accusations of racism

I was more or less labeled as a racist today for my characterization of Finn, and I felt the need to briefly address that. It was never my intention to lead anyone to believe that my dislike of Finn has anything to do with his race. I dislike his character canonically purely for reasons that have nothing to do with the color of his skin. I obviously realize he’s not a villain, and that he’s out of character. I will not apologize for the way that I’ve written him, as I know in my heart I meant no malicious intent, but I will apologize to anyone who has thought even in the slightest that I was being oppressive or insensitive. I know myself and that’s not who I am, and that was never my intention. I want to go ahead and post this because I don’t know when my next will be and I wanted to leave it on a good note. I don’t foresee a long gap, don’t worry, but at this moment I don’t feel good about the story and I need a few days to reassess where it is going.

iii. the comments

while i easily could’ve just moved on since there are a number of reylo fics out there much like this one, knowing that this one had such popularity and such a tone deaf author, i decided to venture into the comments and lo and behold, the amount of hate for finn was blinding.

there are plenty more, but i hope this can give you a taste of what the comments section looks like.

the author’s hate for finn basically boils down to this: he’s indecisive and he lied to rey. that’s it. that’s what the author uses to justify writing finn in a vicious, anti-black stereotype.

at some point, an anonymous commenter called out the racism.

a concerned citizen: So are you ever gonna address how racist your characterization of Finn is or what.

ktf: Oh lord. No because it’s blatantly not true. He is characterized heavily in concordance with the classic Gaston character. Possessive, arrogant, pig headed… Your complaint is reaching and you can take it elsewhere. Jeez Louise. So silly. Have you even seen Beauty and the Beast? I don’t like Finn as a a character in canon for reasons that have nothing to do with his race (because I admittedly love John Boyega irl as well as in Pacific Rim, the only other film I’ve seen him in) and as such I characterize him as an asshole for my own self satisfaction.

a concerned citizen: Look I love Reylo as much as the next guy but if you need explaining why it’s racist to make the black character who is, in canon, nothing but a kind and supportive friend, into a sexually aggressive misogynist then I don’t know what to tell you. It costs zero dollars not to demonize black characters for your own “self satisfaction.”

ktf: So, to be clear, if I had used ANY other character from the film who had been kind and supportive, Poe, Han, Holdo, Leia, Snap, Kaydel, Luke… as long as they hadn’t been a POC it would totally fine? Do you see my confusion? It’s an alternate universe.

a concerned citizen: A: Demonizing black men as sexual aggressors bent on possessing/raping white women is a long-standing trope used by white supremacists. It’s done to dehumanize black men and drum up fear in white folk so that they feel threatened enough to commit acts of violence. This is one of the most basic tactics of antiblack racism.

B: Gaston was never a part of the original fairy tale. He was made up for the Disney adaptation to add tension and to counterbalance the Beast to make the message crystal clear for the little ones watching– don’t fear The Other. Gaston represents the cultural hegemony of masculine behavior in Belle’s culture; the Beast, on the other hand, is The Other, the outsider, the marginalized force. Black people have practically been The Other in Western media for centuries. Now I’m not telling you that you have to make Finn the Beast or else it’s bunk, just that you have to be aware of the characters’ roles and what they fulfill in the narrative. Making Finn the Gaston character was a conscious decision you made– you took a black character and plopped him into a role that was specifically made to be the representation of toxic masculinity, that decision isn’t made in a vacuum.

C: Absolutely no one is holding your feet to the fire to make sure that you follow the plotline of the source material verbatim. Certainly you took liberties with what form of beastliness Kylo had, so you could have similarly chose to alter Gaston’s characterization in some way or you could have made Finn a different character entirely. Like I mentioned before, Gaston was not in the original fairy tale and so the narrative works fine without him. Finn exhibits none of Gaston’s character traits in canon so you chose willingly to sand him down so you could fit a square peg in a round hole– an action that, as mentioned previously, reflects the rhetoric of white supremacy for the past few centuries.

ktf: Okay. You know what? You obviously woke up this morning itching for a soapbox. So, may the force be with you and may your crusade keep you warm at night. This is a fan fiction, not a doctoral thesis, so if you don’t mind I’m just going to continue living my life. I can assure you no thoughts of “demonizing” a race ever crossed my mind while writing this. It’s not who I am. This doesn’t deserve my time because you, A. Know nothing about me. B. Obviously have way too much time on your hands. C. Aren’t worth the stress you’re causing. Have a blessed day!

iv. the aftermath

since my original post, i have been silently blocked by the author. antis who are poc have gotten anon hate, which has often been radicalized while i, a white anti, have not received anything wrt this fic. the author has gotten cocky about the whole situation, she has a bunch of adoring readers who coddle her, and she refuses to listen to any form of criticism.

now that i’m at the end of this post, i’m not really sure what i want to come out of it. i wanted to include more, but there’s so much shit to wade through in the comments and that doesn’t even account for what’s on the author’s tumblr. reylos, this shit has to fucking stop. you need to hold each other accountable, you need to call each other out bc this is exhausting.

#anti reylo #this is basically a summary with all the receipts i have

323 notes · View notes

theonceoverthinker · 5 years

Text

Season 3 Overview

Another season has come and gone. And now that the season is over and I’m all Smash Bro’d out, it’s the perfect opportuni-THREE to talk about it! XD

Season 3 was a whirlwind, but in the best way possible. Once Upon a Time really took this season to come into its own, blending the real emotions of a drama with the fantastical elements of a fairy tale. And with two seasons of developed dynamics at its back and the buildup of having all of our main characters finally on the same side though still with the same qualities that allowed for real and interesting conflict, this was shaped up to be an incredible season.

And what an incredible season it was!

Damn, it feels so sad closing the book on Season 3. Look, this is my favorite season, both critically and emotionally and rewatching it only proved that twice over for me. In terms of its final score, it got 94%, the highest of the three seasons I’ve reviewed so far. Additionally, HALF of the season scored Golden Apples, the highest honor I can bestow on an episode!

So, with all that, what more specifically did I like about it and what (if anything) went wrong? Well, let’s get into it under the cut with our Pro/Con lookback!

Pros

The Concept of Belief - Often in other seasons, belief is something that acts as a platitude and while it doesn’t bother me as much as other platitudes on the show, it wasn’t especially effective either. However, Season 3 did something different. Here, belief was made both tangible and intangible. To elaborate, it’s more than a meaningless platitude. It’s belief in something real and exuding the energy to make it happen. In Neverland, believing in each other was a strong point and that belief came through trusting others that they normally wouldn’t in pursuit of a grander cause (Saving Henry). It’s the belief that everyone wants the same thing and that there might be some strength in the others’ mindsets. This continues in the Wicked Witch Arc and it’s the reason why Regina is able to defeat Zelena with light magic. This concept is present all throughout the season and the practical terms and language that the characters use as well as the actions that follows them transforms that belief into something that can actually be used to solve problems rather than something vague that is just said because it sound right. It’s like Tiana’s dad says in the opening of “The Princess and the Frog,” wishing is only half the deal. You have to make the rest happen and by trusting each other, that’s exactly what the Nevengers did.

Villains – Season 3 had the best villains, plain and simple. I wrote an entire essay about Pan and I wanted to write one about Zelena, but to put it simply, both villains had big and hammy personalities that made them intimidating and memorable, strong connections to our main cast that allowed for them to be characters in their own right with a thematic presence, strong effects on both the plot and story, interesting motivations that lent themselves to high stakes, and satisfying defeats and “deaths.” Rebecca Mader and Robbie Kay both additionally contributed performances that positively OWNED their interpretations of The Wicked Witch of the West and Peter Pan. They were intimidating, but at the same time, had their own bits of charm that still made them villains that I wanted to see on screen. Like, they still did terrible things – their villainy was never questioned – but at the same time, I never felt an urge to fast forward past their scenes because it was so engaging to watch them do their things.

Redemptions – I feel like I could talk so much about Rumple, Regina, and Killian’s individual redemption arcs in Season 3. There’s this understanding among the writing staff of the people these characters are and what they want them to be and with that cohesion, they put their all into making that happen this season. Because of that, all three characters got emotionally satisfying developments that were carefully built up over eleven episodes. And, what I like about these developments is that those changes did account for bumps in the road and allowed for some pretty sensible deviations from those roads to redemption. At some point in the season, Rumple, Regina, and Killian do villainous things to some degree that take their redemptions down a few notches, but it doesn’t undo the work they’ve done.

Cinematography and Locations - I feel like Season 3 was the most diverse the series ever got with its locations and camera work. The camera work this season allowed for the locations, moods, and characters come alive. Storybrooke has such a rich geography and so often in later seasons as I was watching this one, we don’t get to see it. The mirror shot lake stands out the most to me and I want to give out more honorable mentions, but…well, this is why you don’t wait so long to do an overview XD! But if you’ve read my reviews, then you know that there were too many locations that I called pretty and amazing and I feel like it’s a failing that a lot of locations in the coming season just stick to the some of the more common places. The woods never look so beautiful afterwards.

Cons

Walsh’s Framing - ...Look, I had very little to complain about this season. Thematically, shit just came together nicely. BUT there was a failing or two, as small as they were and Walsh’s was a really small but strange fuckup. Like, Walsh is supposed to be framed as a bad man who got his just desserts by being turned into a monkey and later killed. The latter part of this works well enough since he does attack Emma before he dies, but the former half…well, it doesn’t. Glinda’s justification for finding Zelena’s punishment of him to be appropriate is that Walsh promised hope he could never fulfill. The only thing is that in the one instance of Walsh being the Wizard that we see, he is not only helping Zelena, but gives her something that physically allows her to do what she wants them to do, only asks for a payment as an afterthought, AND advises Zelena about her jealousy, which is just needed advice for her. He’s not shown to be callous or make unfulfillable promises. He lies about his abilities, yes, but how he keeps up his ruse still enriches the lives of others, and if it’s not, it should have been better shown. Have Walsh not give the advice, or maybe set a deadline for when Zelena has to get the item from Rumple. Like, make him more of a douche! As it stands, I just feel bad for Walsh and hope he moves on to the better place in the afterlife.

The Island of Machismo - This isn’t a critique of Neverland, per se, but dammit, this aspect of the arc was just frustrating! It feels like if one was a male in this series and present on this island, they got affected with a bug far more dangerous than Dreamshade: Machismo. At least once per episode, the men of this show would argue over something stupid for no other reason than showing that they’re a “real man” to either their opponent of the object of their affections. The dumbest example was of course the lighter fight in “Dark Hollow,” but dishonorable mentions to a lot of David’s behavior prior to and during “Good Form” and the attitude of the Lost Boy’s at Pan’s camp. Just...it really shows that this show was made by guys and as a show that normally doesn’t do this, it’s really disappointing.

...And honestly, that’s really it. As I said, in terms of broad strokes, this season gave me very little to complain about. While some episodes or scenes were off in either their framing or the sturdiness of their stories, they were more or less one offs!

Okay! Now that we’re done talking about some of the season’s less than stellar qualities, let’s go back to talking about the good shit again! That’s right, it’s time to talk dynamics! Now, like last season, these are in no particular order, and that’s because...well, when you spend the better part of two weeks playing Smash Bros, you kind of forget some of the intricacies of dynamics and thus which ones you think are better! XD But honestly, there were so many good ones this season that I could’ve extended this to a top ten without even trying (Honorable mentions go to Emma and Regina, the Charming Family, Zelena and Regina, Regina and Snow, and Killian and Henry).

Captain Charming - Killian and David’s dynamic is mostly a dynamic that develops under the surface, save for “Good Form” where it’s given its day in court. What I like about it is how David’s never portrayed in a negative light for his distrust of Killian. It comes from a sensible place given Killian’s misdeeds, but is still shown as something that he’s better off for moving on from. And Killian’s struggle to get his approval is not without its merit. Killian’s real effort is portrayed. Additionally, they have a nice bit of snark between them. Seeing these two guys grumble as they work together and comment on their budding friendship is funny and quickly becomes endearing as the snipes become just a little kinder over the season. I finally want to point out how David warming up to Killian is one of the few instances of The Island of Useless Machismo failing in that regard as by the end of “Good Form,” they trust each other enough to let the fucking toxic masculinity go for half a second.

Swan Believer - Believe it or not, a lot of what makes the Swan Believer dynamic so good is the fact that Emma and Henry are separated for so much of it. Through each other’s absences, we see so much of their feelings for each other come through. That’s not to say I like them apart but every moment that that was the case, we saw further just how much that separation made Emma determined. Henry blatantly informs every decision she makes and allows for her character to explore her magic, understanding of morality, and identity. And in the latter half of the season, we get this fantastic mix of frustration and love from Henry as he deals with the truth being kept from him. He knows his mother has his best interests at heart, but every piece of information that he knows isn’t being shared and every time he’s left on the sideline proceeds to make him angrier. And on Emma’s side, no matter what her approach is to where she wants to be, what doesn’t change is how much she wants Henry with her. But when they are together, we see just how close the two of them can be. “New York Serenade” has so many great moments where we see a possible life that Emma and Henry could’ve had and they’re so emotionally comfortable and aware of each other. One can understand why Emma wants to return to their simpler life upon seeing how cozy they were in their New York apartment. To summarize, the Swan Believer dynamic was one of the most subtle and loving dynamics of the season and I happily ate it up!

Regal Believer - Like with Swan Believer, so much of the season doesn’t involve Henry and Regina being together. But unlike Swan Believer, they get a different means of development. There are certainly similarities between the two, but I want to focus on what makes them unique. First, I’m gonna do that by pointing out a similarity! XD Just like how Henry’s absence informs all of Emma’s choices, the same can be said for Regina’s too. She puts up with the Charmings for far longer than she normally would like to, explores the type of role she can play in the group dynamic (A mentor to Emma’s magical skills and a willing user of dark magic), and faces off against all manner of dangers without a moment’s hesitation. Her determination is so fierce that one can completely understand when she’s had too much of the group and needs to hit the highway. And of course, I have to touch upon the “Save Henry” flashback. We really see that for as much growth as Regina is doing and for as much remorse as she has for her sins, she can never fully regret any of it because she loves Henry that much and we know exactly why. He gave light and purpose to her life and was enough that she was willing to put herself at a disadvantage in order to give him the love that he deserved. And that love, while held back by two seasons of villainy, finally gets to show itself from Henry’s side. Now that Regina’s doing better, Heny reciprocates her love fully. And in the latter half of the season, watching every small interaction between the two of them as Henry doesn’t know his mother, but still really likes her company is so heartwarming and makes the moment where he reclaims his memories and they break the curse together a moment of utter triumph. They fought so hard to be together and now that they are, I couldn’t be happier.

Pan and Rumple - I could go on and on about Pan’s dynamics with practically all of our mains, but let’s focus on the best one. Rumple is a character so steeped in nuance that one has to wonder about his origins. With Pan, that was partially delivered on and so effectively at that! Pan is an utter monster who knows every one of Rumple’s buttons to push and partially because he laid the foundation for some of them. Even as Rumple tries to be noble in order to save his grandson, Pan presses those buttons relentlessly and without mercy, no matter if it comes at the cost of destroying his son’s confidence or severing Rumple’s tepid connection with Neal. Nothing is sacred. And Rumple reaction to this is fascinating as well. His hatred for Pan is without question present, but at the same time, Rumple is not entirely immune to Pan’s powers of suggestion. He nearly falls for the fake Belle’s scheme and when the doll first shows up on the island, Rumple meets it with tears. With the possible exception of Cora, no villain has ever intimidated Rumple like this before. And watching Rumple have to use every supply in his arsenal to take Pan down as it culminates in Rumple realizing the sacrifice he must make is such an integral part of his character growth this season. And every time that happens, Pan just becomes more and more of a threat to the audience. It’s a dirty, disgusting, and utterly despicable dynamics that they share and I love every second of it.

Rumple and Neal - I feel like Rumple and Neal’s dynamic really gets the attention this season that it deserved last season but didn’t get. While their time together was shorter, every second of it counted. Neal’s distrust of Rumple really gets to be explores and it was further kicked into high gear as a result of the urgency of their mission. Because Henry was taken, both an initial alliance was able to take place and in the same breath for that same reason, destroyed. And then, it was rebuilt. Rumple and Neal’s reconstructed parent/child relationship is so satisfying for me because Rumple really has to earn trust back from a situation that he got himself into. That entirely deserved bitterness on Neal’s half is given the attention it’s deserved in an entire episode dedicated to it as well as a few follow up scenes in future episodes. And it’s brutal. Nothing is held back as Neal tells Rumple exactly how he feels and why he’s worried about a chance at betrayal and every word cuts like a knife. Because of that, the moments when Rumple disproves those doubts feel so satisfying to behold and the ensuing reconciliation is applause worthy.

Okay, not that all’s been said and done about dynamics, it’s that time again! Yes, it’s time to tackle the best writer of the season! And may I just say, this season was FANTASTIC for everyone! We had TWO writers get a perfect score and A&E were just one point off from joining them! But as they did not, let’s crown our winners!

And the best writers of Season 3 are…

Christine Boylan and Robert Hull!

Both writers finished off the season so remarkably! When looking back at their work, not only did every episode get a 10/10, but ALL of them received the Golden Apple, a score I reserve for episodes of exceptional quality and a first for writing accomplishments for this rewatch. These are classic episodes like “Save Henry,” “Think Lovely Thoughts,” and “Snow Drifts,” as well as two new absolute favorites of mine like “Nasty Habits” and “The Tower.” All of these episodes have powerful and effective themes, compelling character interactions, and risks that take the story to new heights.

Well, that’s everything for you. We can close the door on this season and move on forward!

So now that Season 3, often regarded as OUAT’s best season (By myself included) is over...where do we go from here?

I love the Frozen Arc, and I’m really excited to watch it again. In fact, I’ve already started it, and I just finished reviewing “White Out!” XD The Frozen cast rocks, I get some fantastic dynamics and storylines out of it, and it feels quite balanced. I’m also excited to start this season as well because this is the point where I started watching the show live when it aired and because of that, I think my reviews and rewatch will transform into more of a discussion of my experiences and changes with these episodes and less as basically reviewing them for the first time. As you’ve already noticed if you’ve been reading my most recent reviews, I’ve condensed the format so that I can spend more time focusing on the core elements of episodes.

That said, I know there is a drop in the quality of OUAT going forward. I’m positive, but not naïve in that regard. That also having been said, I’m going to go into this new season like I always do: With anticipation for the good! And I hope you’ll be there to join me!

Thanks as always to @watchingfairytales and @daensarah! See you all...well partially through the next season! XD Puns, critiques, and gushing galore await you there!

#ouat #once upon a time #watching fairytales #season 3 overview #ouat rewatch #jenna watches ouat

14 notes · View notes

our2ndstreet-blog · 5 years

Text

Bohemian Rhapsody: You’re Bad, Not Problematic

Bohemian Rhapsody: You’re Bad, Not Problematic If there's one thing that can be agreed on about Queen, it’s that their frontman, Freddie Mercury, is an icon of his era and his life and legacy are a story most certainly worthy of being told. So when I sat down to watch Bohemian Rhapsody a couple of weeks ago, I was ready to enjoy a movie mainly focused on just that, despite some negative press I had heard a while back about the state of this movie's production. Unfortunately, I left the theater with the negative press confirmed rather than debunked. Not only did I spend 134 minutes watching a frustratingly inaccurate retelling of Queen and Freddie Mercury's history, I watched a movie that was clearly robbed of its potential by obvious sanitization of the band’s past (perhaps accentuated by the surviving, active members of Queen having a hand in the production of the film). If you went into Bohemian Rhapsody hoping for a heart-wrenching tale of a fascinating musician taken too soon, you were probably as disappointed as I was, if not more. That is not to say the movie didn't have its moments, nor that it wasn’t completely unenjoyable. Rami Malek's performance as Mercury was fantastic and easily the most admirable aspect about the movie at all times other than the soundtrack. However, Malek's embodiment of the legendary singer could not save this movie in its entirety. These two aspects of the film, while undeniably important, are not the only ones. Aside from a few moments of humor, the nice things about this movie end here. Unraveling this fun trip of singing along to Queen in the theater, you get just about nothing of substance. The movie suffers from a lack of dramatic impact, with the only moments where you are supposed to feel tension being fabricated for the purpose of this film’s story, which is, of course, not appropriate if one is trying to create a biopic. Bohemian Rhapsody centers around Queen's formation in 1970, their rise to prominence, and the “struggles” of the band, culminating with their astounding performance at the Live Aid benefit concert in 1985. This means that the film must also cover these years of Freddie Mercury’s life, from his meeting Roger Taylor and Brian May when they were part of the band Smile, to his romantic relationship with Mary Austin, the end of their physical relationship due to his series of male lovers (and not his AIDS diagnosis, as the film would have you believe). Mercury and Mary Austin remained friends for the remainder of his life, often referring to her as his “common law wife” and his “only friend.” Bohemian Rhapsody shows promise of solidly developing Austin and Mercury’s relationship (perhaps even to the point wanting to see a movie dedicated solely to the premise of how the pair's relationship evolved over time), but throws this away as soon as the film starts to dwell on Freddie's sexuality. When he comes out as bisexual to Mary Austin, she automatically concludes that Mercury is gay and the question is never highlighted again in the movie, aside from passing moments where Mercury is visibly hurt that Austin has moved on after they split up. Their continuing relationship after he came out to her, and giving more weight to the idea that Mercury likely was bisexual is pushed away in exchange for focusing more on the band’s story, which in itself would have been fair enough if they had not been so lackluster in telling both stories, because the exchange made is not worthwhile. However, before covering the relationship to the band in terms of just Mercury, I feel it necessary to first discover the point where all three major flaws of the film converge: Paul Prenter, the film’s de facto antagonist, a former manager/lover of Mercury, who, to be fair, is cited as the influence on Freddie that caused most of the internal conflict over the sound of Hot Space. In reality, that is where Prenter's purview of the era covered by the film would end. However, in the film, Prenter is responsible for far more than he can really be held accountable for in the real world, and the way he is portrayed gives way for the most heinously inept parts of the movie. Prenter is the culmination of “taking liberties” with the history of the band and mischaracterization. Bohemian Rhapsody does a lot with Prenter, and being professionally and romantically involved with Mercury as he was, it’s somewhat believable that he could have done certain things mentioned in the film as things he did (with a certain event being a distorted version of something he actually did). However, he is simply everywhere in the film. He is simultaneously Mercury's lover, manager, and so obsessed with keeping him to himself that he does comically “evil” things. He is the one to notify Freddie of the possibility of a solo record deal, double-crossing Mercury's former manager (leading to the former manager's firing), he's also the one that keeps Mercury away from the band once they “break up,” staying with him in Germany throwing extravagant parties filled with promiscuity, drugs, and alcohol, he also keeps Mary Austin away from Freddie by intercepting phone calls and lying to Freddie, as well as intercepting a phone call about the Live Aid concert, effectively trying to keep Queen from getting back together for the concert. This mountain of tasks, I remind you, all fall on Prenter as he is represented in the film, despite there being little proof that any of these things were Prenter's responsibility. It is after all of these cartoonishly ridiculous acts of villainy that Mary Austin flies to Germany to bring Freddie home, with him then catching wind of Prenter's duplicitous behavior, deciding to fire him there, leaving him in Germany in 1985, leading a fuming Prenter to out Mercury on national television. The problem, as with most of Prenter’s representation (and most of this part of the film) is that in the real world, the events mentioned did not happen as they are portrayed. Mercury actually fired Prenter in 1986, after Live Aid. Prenter would then out Mercury to the tabloids the following year, in 1987, also disclosing Mercury’s relationship with Jim Hutton. While it is clear that the real Paul Prenter was by no means a “good guy,” the film chose to portray him as a villain for all the wrong reasons, again conveniently dodging further discussion of Mercury’s sexuality by pinning all sorts of other deeds to the antagonist, rather than highlighting the more than suspicious things he actually did (including blackmailing Mercury with the threat of outing him). However, while Prenter crystallizes many of the problems of Bohemian Rhapsody, he isn’t all of them. The rest of the major problems come in with the bulk of the interactions of the band, specifically Freddie’s interactions with the rest of the band, or, seemingly, against them. In covering the majority of Queen’s history, the film has a lot to go through, including but not limited to, 11 albums, 12 tours, and key moments in the band's road to fame, such as their first television appearance, the massive success of the titular song, and their internal conflicts relating to the 1982 album Hot Space. Obviously, the film cannot do all of this in its runtime, so it understandably covers at length the key moments with tours and album publishings serving more as intermediate segments to blast music in and sing along to. This decision in the film is not the problem, the problem is the decision to move certain events in the band's history around in attempts to kind of magic plot points out of nowhere. Much of the band's early history is also glossed over, aside from their first success in Killer Queen and the making of Night at the Opera and consequently, the making of Bohemian Rhapsody. In terms of the band's relationship with Mercury (which constitutes most of the movie), many missteps are made in both the characterization of Mercury relative to the band, as well the bulk of the “liberties” taken with the band timeline coming into play here. In the scenes leading up to and including the band’s (non-existent) break-up over Hot Space and Mercury’s solo deal, Mercury is increasingly portrayed as the only diva of the group, consistently making snide remarks at his bandmates while they are supposedly calm and level-headed, completely inoffensive. Am I expected to believe that for a second, especially in a movie that Brian May and Roger Taylor took part in producing? The idea that Freddie Mercury is the only divisive member of the band at this point in time is a thinly-veiled attempt at sanitizing and deifying the rest of Queen, perhaps in a failed effort at amping up the embattled state of Freddie Mercury, or perhaps in a genuine effort to make the rest of the band look good. This becomes even more unbelievable when taking into account the next big slip-up in terms of continuity: Freddie’s solo deal. The way Bohemian Rhapsody makes things seem, you would be well within your right to believe that Queen’s frontman was being a self-centered snob when he threw an outburst over being confronted about the lackluster sound of Hot Space and decided to sign his own solo album deal without telling the other members, and that the rest of the band was taken aback by the blatantly underhand move, leading to differences that in that moment could not be settled, ending in a “break-up” of Queen for the next 2-3 years. However, as per the pattern of Bohemian Rhapsody, this is not at all what happened. Yes, the band was conflicted about the awkward-sounding album they were working on, but there was no split over it, and certainly not over Mercury going to work on his first solo album, Mr. Bad Guy. In fact, both Brian May and Roger Taylor had begun successful solo careers by the time of the film’s “break-up,” with no issue from the band, as was the case when Mercury went to work on his solo debut. Unfortunately, this is not where the diverging timeline created by Bohemian Rhapsody converges back into the main timeline. After the film’s Queen break-up, the series of events in Germany happens, and we are brought to a meeting in manager Jim Beach’s office (Beach became the band’s manager in 1978), where Mercury apologizes for his actions towards the band, and expresses interest in performing at Live Aid with them. In actuality, the band got right to work on their 11th album, The Works, right after Hot Space, and was touring for the former when they were contacted about Live Aid. The lead up to Live Aid produces the most egregious inaccuracy created, and left me frustrated through much of the otherwise enjoyable recreation of the iconic concert. Freddie Mercury’s AIDS diagnosis being moved up to 1985 for the sole purpose of giving extra weight to his performance at Live Aid is an appalling, enraging decision that should have been shot down immediately, but alas, it made it into the final, theatrical cut of Bohemian Rhapsody. There was much negative press around the film when it was revealed that the era covered would (in an accurate representation) not extend to Mercury’s battle with AIDS. What was the production team’s answer to this, you ask? Instead of deciding to cover the 6 years of Mercury’s career they cut off, or simply emphasizing other, related struggles of the singer (such as his SEXUALITY) in the set time to still construct an accurate story, they decided to lazily throw in two scenes in sequence where Freddie gets diagnosed and reveals it to the band, with the band then giving condolences and deciding to throw their full support behind him and help him keep it under wraps, and add a few slides at the end of the film saying Freddie Mercury died due to complications from AIDS in 1991, and don’t forget to donate to Jim Beach’s AIDS charity! It is apparent that the team behind Bohemian Rhapsody added the AIDS scenes as an afterthought to save face with the public, and the way it is incorporated into the rest of the film is transparently without effort or skill. The story of Farrokh Bulsara ceases to be gripping or emotional (if any other inaccuracies didn’t do this already). In trying to fit within the time frame the makers of the film set for themselves, they completely miss any of the thematic depth of Mercury’s legacy and diverge off a much more compelling and believable storyline. Of course, the famous Live Aid concert closes out the movie and we end on the dreaded aforementioned end cards, but the concert does close the story rather excitingly, again leaving me to wonder what potential was lost when they decided to mix facts with fiction in Bohemian Rhapsody, and leaving me both, craving a movie focused on Freddie Mercury’s relationship with Mary Austin, and more Queen music (and judging by the film’s soundtrack bringing Queen back to the charts, it seems more clear that the movie’s financial success was all that was in mind when creating it). In conclusion, Bohemian Rhapsody is a failure as a biopic retrospective of one of the greatest bands in rock history, but if you just want to sing along to Queen songs for 134 minutes, this movie is absolutely the one for you. Watch this with friends who will be just as frustrated as you are about the lapses in storytelling, but will also sing with you at the top of their lungs, and you’ll have a good time. ----END---- P.S.: This next part is a bunch of things that don’t totally fit in with the big blocks of criticism, but still observations I had about the film. Freddie’s identity and family life are minor subplots of the film, with half-hearted emphasis during early Queen days and Live Aid (with just about nothing in the middle). It’s cute that Freddie and his father reconcile after many years of conflict and disagreement over Freddie “rejecting his heritage,” and much like the relationship with Freddie and Mary, it’s things like this that should have been more prominent in Mercury’s story. Also, a truly comedic emphasis is put on Freddie Mercury’s passion for cats, to the point where I questioned whether they focused on the cats more than they did Freddie himself. This problem brings to light the other relationship that Freddie was in, you know, the gay one. Jim Hutton does appear in Bohemian Rhapsody, and his relationship with Mercury is present, but for a rather small amount of time, as Hutton becomes involved with Freddie in 1985, at the tail end of the movie. Also, songs in the film come about a little too conveniently. Brian May has everyone and their wives in the studio, and in an effort to create a song “that the audience can participate in” (this part is somewhat true, an oddity for this movie), gets everyone together to do the iconic stomp-stomp-clap of “We Will Rock You,” and Freddie walks in late to the recording session (cue canned cheering), listens to the beat, and asks if May has written the lyrics. Boom, “We Will Rock You” exists.There’s another scene where the band is in a heated argument, and John Deacon hushes everyone from the corner as he strums the bassline to “Another One Bites the Dust.” Classic made. While these scenes of serendipitous song creation fit with the film’s general tone, they only help in making the film feel more disconnected from reality, and it’s a shame that the songwriting process for some of the more thought provoking Queen songs is glossed over in exchange for moments of musical magic in writing the immediately recognizable hits.

#Freddiemercury #bohemianrhapsody #dec102018fun #dec102018 #fun #danieldiaz

0 notes

twopointthreeninetoone · 7 years

Photo

Wonder Woman (2017)

Part One

(Caution: Here be Spoilers. And a very long, rambling post in general.)

Two weekends ago I finally saw Wonder Woman, and watched it again yesterday. As you might be able to discern from the influx of Wonder Woman posts since then, I really enjoyed it, with a few (perhaps niggling) exceptions.

First, some background. (And I apologize for this digression. You can skip down to the actual movie review if you’d like.) I was a casual comic book reader as a kid–I read Superman and the X-Men (and even delved into X-Men trading cards in elementary school) and loved Batman. As time went by my interest in comics pretty much narrowed down to Batman and Hawkeye, i.e., superheroes without actual super powers (unless you count being rich and being a train wreck, respectively.) I still make forays into other superhero comics (the amazing Superman comic Red Son being a prime example) but I’ll be the first to tell you that I’m not a super hero fanatic. I have a barely passing knowledge, if even that. Please keep that in mind.

I never felt much of a desire to get into Captain America or Wonder Woman because I considered them so blatantly jingoistic in their patriotism. I subsequently found that the Captain America movies offered the former layers and didn’t spread the jingoism on so thick (one of the upsides to presenting a character in the post-Watergate, post-Bush era, I guess.) I was somewhat skeptical when I heard they were introducing Wonder Woman to the DC movie fray. Partly for the aforementioned reasons, and partly because Batman v Superman looked like a shit show. I don’t remember thinking a lot about the upcoming Wonder Woman movie. I think I had just mostly given up on the idea of a good DC adaptation after the brilliance of Chris Nolan’s Batman movies. (That’s another long, rambling, gushing post.)

Then I started to hear feedback for Patty Jenkins’ Wonder Woman. And I started getting curious. Really curious.

Let’s get the negative thoughts out of the way. Because this was very nearly a perfect movie, save for some aspects that, perhaps, are inherent to super hero movies in general. And because I’m not doing well with structure tonight, I’ll just make a list.

1. The setting. I generally like when World War I is used as a backdrop for, well, anything really, because it was such an interesting point in time and it really gets short shrift, especially in film. Also, World War I affords a style that is aesthetically attractive and unique (see A Very Long Engagement, which was not a great movie but was visually stunning) but is widely ignored, but which Wonder Woman really presents well. And I understand why the film was set during World War I, as opposed to WWII–it’s generally seen as the last “gentlemanly” war, yes, but it also introduced chemical warfare and mass casualties to the global stage, ramping up the innate viciousness (or “evil,” for lack of a better word) of humanity. It would, theoretically, be a good time for Ares, God of War, to sink his claws into humanity. That being said, the general concept that “Germans Are Bad” just doesn’t jibe with the prominent image of World War I, for the most part. The Germans certainly were not saints during WWI, and Danny Huston’s General Ludendorff was in fact a real person, and just as bloodthirsty as portrayed in the movie; but ideologically Ludendorff was actually somewhat ahead of his time, and fit in much more comfortably once Hitler and Nazism rose to power. Nazis make wonderful cookie-cutter villains because they were in fact so rabid in their ideology. German soldiers and officers in WWI are generally seen as being decidedly less so. There was a fervent nationalism, sure, but I don’t know if it really warrants Villain status for a superhero movie (which, by its nature, requires a lack of dimension that Nazis conveniently afford.)

But I really don’t mind this too much. The perks of the WWI setting outweigh the negatives, I suppose.

2. The message. This is, I think, an inherent flaw for superhero movies in general–specifically, that the superhero by nature fights for good and against evil, and by default, against violence and war. This message is heralded by Wonder Woman through out the movie. She’s left her home to fight Ares and by defeating him will (in theory) end all war forever. She’s very big on ending wars. She sees humans as pawns of Ares who must be saved. Wonder Woman frets over both the soldiers who have been thrust into battle by unconcerned officers and civilians caught in the crossfire. To complete her mission and save humanity, she kills a lot of people. There is, obviously, a lack of logic in this, but it’s something that honestly can’t be avoided in a super hero movie. Super hero movies hinge upon a good amount of violence (not necessarily gore, which Wonder Woman thankfully lacks); it’s the nature of the beast. An anti-war message in a superhero movie is a bit like an abstinence message in a porno, if you think about it. But, paradoxically, you can’t not have an anti-war message in a super hero movie, because war and violence are inherently evil. So it’s a puzzler. To emphasize the anti-war message to the extent that this movie does is to emphasize the hypocrisy, and it’s hard to leave Wonder Woman without acknowledging that problem.

3. The villain. I’ll say right now that the big reveals in this movie are not particularly big or revealing–if you’ve seen a movie like this then you’ll quickly figure out that Wonder Woman is, in fact, the prophesied “god killer” meant to take down Ares, and not the sword that she’s been entrusted with. And if you know anything about the Law of the Economy of Characters then you’ll realize that David Thewlis’ Sir Patrick, the soft-spoken pacifist who conveniently arrives to help Wonder Woman and her team of mercenaries, is not as innocent as he seems. It’s almost a cliche to make the peace-monger the most evil character in the film, but it’s a level of irony filmmakers (even Hitchcock, hell) embrace without hesitation. That being said, Thewlis’ Sir Patrick is so milquetoast that it’s hard to see him as threatening when he’s revealed to be Ares himself, even after he dons metal armor not unlike Elmer Fudd’s in “What’s Opera, Doc?” and tears up an airfield while combating Wonder Woman for the future of mankind. After much thought I blame not Thewlis’ acting (his acting is always good) but his push broom mustache. It’s very hard to feel threatened by someone who looks like a middle manager, even after he’s wrapped the caterpillar track of a tank around your protagonist.

All of this being said–I did actually really enjoy this movie, and these problems I had with the film really don’t detract from its positive qualities. I’ll get to Part Two tomorrow, hopefully. It will contain a lot of gushing and non-words meant to denote affection, probably. If you made it this far, then good for you! I didn’t even make it this far. I stopped writing about halfway through.

#Wonder Woman #Patty Jenkins #Gal Gadot #movie review

0 notes