#i also found out that some viewers like to read the stories without necessarily listening to the CDs | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thedeadhandofseldon · 3 years

Text

The Anti-Mercer Effect

On the Accessibility of D&D, Why Unprepared Casters is so Fun, and Why Haley Whipjack is possibly the greatest DM of our generation.

(Apologies to my mutuals who aren’t in this fandom for the length of this, but as you all know I have never in my life shut up about anything so… we’ll call it even for the number of posts about Destiel I see every day.

To fellow UC fans - I haven’t listened to arc 4 yet, I started drafting this in early August, and I promise I will write a nice post about how great Gus the Bard is once I get the chance to listen to more of his DMing).

Structure - Or, “This is not the finale, there will be more podding cast”

So, first of all, let’s just talk about how Unprepared Casters works. Because it’s kind of unusual! Most of the other big-name D&D podcasts favor this long, grand arcs; UC has about 10 hours of podcast per each arc. And that’s a major strength in a lot of ways: it makes it really accessible to new listeners, because you can just start with the current arc and understand what’s going on!

And by starting new arcs every six or seven episodes, they can explore lots of ways to play D&D! Classic dungeon delve arc! Heist arc! Epic heroes save the world arc! Sportsball arc! They can touch on all sorts of things!

And while I’m talking about that: Dragons in Dungeons, the first arc, makes it incredibly accessible as a show - because it lets the unfamiliar listener get a sense of what D&D actually is. (It’s about telling stories and making your friends feel heroic and laugh and cry, for the record). If I had to pick a way to introduce someone to the game without actually playing it with them, that arc would definitely be it.

And I’d be remise not to note one very important thing: Haley Whipjack and Gus the Bard are just very funny, very charismatic people. Look. Episode 0s tend to be about 50%(?) those two just talking to each other about their own podcast. It shouldn’t work. And yet it DOES, its one of my favorite parts, because Haley and Gus are just cool.

And a side note that doesn’t fit anywhere else: I throw my soul at him! I throw a scone at him - that’s it, that’s the vibe. The whole podcast alternates between laughing with your friends and brooding alone in a dark tavern corner - but the laughs never forced and the dark corner is never too dark for too long.

Whipjack the Great - Or, the DM is Also a Player!

I think Haley Whipjack is one of the greatest Dungeon Masters alive. The plots and characters! The mechanical shenanigans! The descriptions!

Actually, let’s start there: with the descriptions. (Both Haley and Gus do this really fucking well). As we know, Episode 0 of each arc sees the DM reading a description - of a small town, or the Up North, or the recent history of a great party. And Haley always strikes this tricky balance - one I think a lot of us who DM struggle with - between giving too much description and worldbuilding, and not telling us anything at all. She describes people and events in just enough detail to imagine them, but never so much they seem static and unreal - just clear enough to envision, but with enough vagueness left to let your imagination begin to run wild.

While I’m thinking about arc 3’s party, let’s talk about a really bold move she made in that arc: letting the players have ongoing control of their history. Loser Lars! She didn’t try to spell out every detail of this high-level party’s history, or restrict their past to only what she decided to allow - she gave them the broad outlines, and let them embellish it. And that made for a much more alive story than any attempt to create it by herself would have - but I think it takes a lot of courage to let your players have that agency. Most Dungeon Masters (myself included) tend to struggle with being control freaks.

And the plots! Yeah, arc one is built of classic tropes - but she actually uses them, she doesn’t get caught up in subverting everything or laughing at the cliches. And it’s fun! In arc 3, there really isn’t a straight line for the players to follow, either - which makes the game much more interesting and much trickier to run. And her NPCs are fantastic and I will talk about them in the next section.

Above all, though, I think what is really impressive is how Haley balances mechanics, and rules as written, with the narrative and rule of cool - and puts both rules and story in the service of playing a fun game. And the secret to that? She’s the DM, but the DM is a player, and the DM is clearly having fun. Hope Lovejoy mechanically shouldn’t get that spellslot back, but she does, and it’s fun. The changeling merchant in Thymore doesn’t really make some Grand Artistic Narrative better, but wow is it fun. And she never tries to force it one way or the other - the story might be more dramatic if Annie didn’t manage to banish the demon from the vault, but it’s a lot cooler and a lot more fun for the players if Annie gets to be a badass instead - and the rules and the dice say that Annie managed it.

Settings feel like places, NPCs feel like people, and the narrative plot feels like a real villainous plot.

Anyway. I could go on about the various ways in which Whipjack is awesome for quite a while - she’s right, first place in D&D is when your friends laugh and super first place is when they cry - but I’m going to stop here and just. Make another post about it some other time. For now, for the record I hold her opinions about the game in higher esteem than I do several official sourcebooks; that is all.

Characters - Or, Bombyx Mori Is Not an Asshole, And That Matters

Okay, I said I would talk about characters! And I will!

Just a general place to start: the party! All of the first three parties are interesting to me, because they all care about each other. Not even necessarily in a Found Family Trope sort of way, though often that too. But they generally aren’t assholes to each other. The players create characters that actually work together, that are interesting; even when there’s internal divisions like SK-73 v. Sir Mr. Person, they aren’t just unpleasant and antagonistic all the time. Listening to the podcast, we’re “with” these people for a couple hours - and it isn’t unpleasant. That matters a lot. (To take a counter-example: I love Critical Role, but the episode when Vox Machina pranked Scanlan after he died and was resurrected wasn’t fun to listen to, it was just uncomfortable and angering and vaguely cruel).

All of the PCs are amazing, and the players in each arc did a great job. If you disagree with me about that, well, you have the right to be incorrect and I am sorry for your loss. Annie Wintersummer, for one example: tragic and sad and I want to give her a hug, but also Fuck Yeah Wintersummer, and also her familiar Charles the Owl is the cutest and funniest and I love him. And we understand what’s going on with Annie, she isn’t some infinite pool of hidden depths because this arc is 7 episodes and we don’t have time for that, but she also has enough complexity to be interesting. Same with Fey Moss: yeah, a lot of her is a silly pun about fame that carries into how she behaves, but a lot of how she behaves is also down to some good classic half-elven angst about parenthood and wanting to be known and seen and important. (Side note: if your half-elf character doesn’t have angst, well, that’s impressive and also I don’t think I believe you).

There are multiple lesbian cat-people in a 4-person party and they both have requited romantic interests who aren’t each other. This is the future liberals want and I am glad for it.

Sir Mister Person, the human fighter! Thavius, the edge lord! Even when a character is “simple,” they’re interesting, because of how they’re played as people and not action-figures. And that matters a lot.

In the same way: the NPCs. There really aren’t a lot of them! And some of them come from Patreon submissions, so uh good work gang, you’re part of the awesomeness and I’m proud of you! The point being, the NPCs work because enough of them are interesting to matter. It’s not just a servant who opens Count Michael’s door, it’s a character with a name (Oleandra!) and a personality and history. They’re interesting. Penny Lovejoy didn’t need to be interesting, the merchant outside the Laughing Mausoleum didn’t need to be interesting, but they ARE! And Haley and Gus EXCEL at making the NPCs matter, not just to the story but to us as viewers. I agree with Sir Mister Person, actually, I would die for the princesses of the kingdom. I actually care about Gem Lovejoy of all people - that wouldn’t happen in an ordinary campaign! That’s the thing that makes Unprepared Casters spectacular - and, frankly, it’s especially impressive because D&D does not tend to be good at making a lot of interesting compared to a lot of other sorts of stories.

And, just as an exemplar of all this: Bombyx Mori. Immortal, reincarnating(?), and described as the incarnation of the player’s ADHD. I expected to hate Bombyx, because as the mom friend both in and out of my friend-group’s campaigns, the chaos-causer is always exhausting to me. And yeah, Bombyx causes problems on purpose! But! She is not an asshole.

And that’s important. Bombyx goes and sits with the queen and comforts her. Bombyx gives Annie emotional support. Bombyx isn’t just a vehicle to jerk around the DM and other players; Bombyx really is a character we can care about. To compare with another case - in the first couple episodes of The Adventure Zone, the PCs are just dicks. Funny, but dicks. Bombyx holds out an arm “covered in larva” to shake with a count, and robs him of magical items, but she also cares about her friends and other people! She uses a powerful magical gem to save her fertilizer guy from death! Yeah, Bombyx is ridiculous, but she’s not just an asshole the party has to keep around for plot reasons; you can see why her party would keep her around. And one layer of meta up, she’s the perfect example of how to make a chaotic character like that while still being fun for everyone you’re playing with, which is often not the case. And I love her.

The Anti-Mercer Effect - Or, “I think we proved it can be fun, you can have a good time with your friends. And it doesn’t have to be scary, you can just work with what you know”

The Mercer Effect basically constitutes this: Matthew Mercer, Dungeon Master of Critical Role, is incredible (as are all of his players). They’re all professional story-tellers in a way, remember, and so Critical Role treats D&D like a narrative art-form, and it’s inspiring. Seeing that on Critical Role sets impossible standards - and people go into their own home games imagining that their campaigns will be like Critical Role, and the burden of that expectation tends to fall disproportionately on the DM. And the end result, I think, of the Mercer Effect is that we get discouraged or intimidated, because our game isn’t “as good as” theirs. (And I should note - Matt certainly doesn’t want that to be our reaction).

So the Anti-Mercer Effect is two things: it’s D&D treated like a game, and it’s inspiring but not intimidating. And Unprepared Casters manages both of those really freaking well. Because they play it like a game! A UC arc looks just like a good campaign in anyone’s home game. They have the vibes of 20-somethings and college students playing D&D for fun because that’s who they are (as a 20-something college student who plays a lot of D&D, watching it felt like watching my friends play an especially good campaign). They’re trying to tell a good story, sure, and they always do. But first and foremost, they’re trying to have fun, and it shows, and I love the UC cast for it.

And that’s the other half of it: it’s inspiring! It’s approachable; you can see that Haley and Gus put plenty of work into preparing the game but it also doesn’t make you feel like you need hundreds of pages of worldbuilding to run a game. Sometimes a cleric makes Haley cry and she gives them back a spell-slot from their deity! That’s fantastic! It’s just inspiring - listening to this over the summer, when my last campaign had fallen apart under the strain of graduation, is why I decided to plan and run my new one!

That quote from Haley Whipjack that I used as the title for this section? That’s the whole core of this idea, and really, I think, the core of the podcast.

The Mercer Effect is when you go “that’s really cool, I could never do that.” But Unprepared Casters makes you look at D&D and go “wow, that looks really fun. I bet I can do that!” And I love the show for it.

And I bet a lot of you do too.

#unprepared casters #bombyx mori #haley whipjack #long post #this is really rough but I don't have time to keep working on it and it's already a month later than intended

85 notes · View notes

mexcine · 3 years

Photo

2 Cinematic Stalkers: I Wouldn’t Be in Your Shoes (1948) and Feliz año, amor mío (1955) I recently watched I Wouldn’t Be in Your Shoes (1948), and Feliz año, amor mío (Happy New Year, My Love, 1955). Each of these films was based on a literary source: “I Wouldn’t Be in Your Shoes,” a novella by Cornell Woolrich (as William Irish), and “Letter from an Unknown Woman,” a story by Stefan Zweig which had been filmed at least 8 times before 1955, often without crediting Zweig. Both films are woman-centric, and--more importantly for the purposes of this essay--both have a romantically-obsessed stalker as a major character.

Popular culture, and notably Hollywood cinema, generally reflects the society in which it was created, and thus the depiction of stalkers has evolved over the years. In the last few decades, such individuals are often vengeful “exes” (Fatal Attraction, for instance) or obsessed fans (The Fan, 1981 and 1996—different plots but a similar premise). However, this has not always been the case—what pop culture cinema of the past often portrays as “cute” or “persistent” behaviour (e.g., a young man “won’t take no for an answer” until finally the object of his affections realises she loves him) can often—viewed through 21st-century sensibilities—appear inappropriate.

In I Wouldn’t Be in Your Shoes, the male “stalker” is eventually exposed as a murderer, but prior to this reveal, he’s chiefly depicted as a lonely and opportunistic middle-aged man who has a crush on a younger (and married) woman. Not appropriate, even for 1948, but not necessarily evil. The protagonist of Feliz año, amor mío, on the other hand, is a teenager who--as the film opens--is romantically obsessed with an older man and devotes her entire life to this crush. In the context of this film, her obsession is depicted as “romantic” and—while not normal—not necessarily wrong. Consequently, while both films contain a stalker character, they are portrayed quite differently; however, 21st-century viewers might not necessarily agree with the viewpoints expressed by the filmmakers.

I Wouldn’t Be in Your Shoes has a film noir-ish premise—innocent man condemned to death for a crime he didn’t commit; Ann could also be considered a sort of inadvertent noir femme fatale, inasmuch as she’s indirectly responsible for Tom’s conviction--but is short on the type of moody visuals one has come to expect from this film style.

The film is told in flashback as Tom sits on Death Row awaiting execution…Dance team Tom and Ann have fallen on hard times; they dream of moving to the West Coast where they’re sure their luck will change, but at the moment Ann supports them by working in a “dance school” (which appears to be one step removed from a dime-a-dance operation) and Tom pounds the pavement hoping to get a booking. One evening Tom tosses his dance shoes out the window at a noisy cat, then goes out to retrieve them but they’re gone; the next morning, the shoes are outside their apartment door. This seems suspicious to me, but Tom and Ann shrug it off.

A short time later, Tom finds a wallet stuffed with $2000 cash while waiting for Ann to leave the dance school. Tom intends to turn it in to the police but Ann convinces him to hold on to it and see if the owner advertises in the newspaper for its return. Tom reluctantly goes along, and after a few days they decide to spend some of the cash. Little do they know that one of their neighbours, a noted miser, has been murdered and his reputed stash of savings is gone. The police discover a footprint near the man’s home, and the distinctive shoe is traced to Tom, who is arrested, convicted of murder, and sentenced to die. As the date of Tom’s execution draws near, Ann offers herself to Inspector Clint Judd if he can save her husband’s life. Judd arrests a suspect but the man has an alibi. On the night of the execution, Ann tricks Judd into confessing that he committed the murder and framed Tom, so that he (Judd) could get Ann on the rebound. Judd is shot by the police and Tom is freed.

Early in the film, Ann tells her husband that one of her students regularly gives her a cash tip after each lesson; she mockingly refers to him as “Santa Claus,” and appears to have not given him much thought, other than as a something of a sucker. As it turns out, Judd is “Santa Claus,” and he’s also the detective who discovered the incriminating footprint. After Tom is arrested, Judd confronts Ann:

Judd: “Why didn’t you tell me you were married?” Ann: “You didn’t ask.” Judd: “As long as the $5 bills held out, you weren’t volunteering any information.” Ann: “I didn’t think it mattered. I didn’t take you that seriously.” Judd: “It mattered to me.”

This is an interesting exchange—Judd’s first comment suggests he was originally unaware Ann was married (when he was her dancing “student”) but clearly at some later point he later found this out and began his scheme to frame Tom and win Ann for himself. At the film’s conclusion, he tells Ann he’s purchased a luxurious apartment for her, and Ann (having picked up on a clue that points to Judd’s guilt) agrees to go there with him.

Judd says he’s “been working on this place for months,” and the apartment is furnished to her specific tastes, because “I know all about you.” He says “On my vacation I went back to Ohio, to your home town. I saw the house you lived in, the school you went to…I even saw the scrapbook you’d gotten together when you were 10…I even talked to people who knew you…I didn’t want there to be anything about you that I didn’t know. I loved you before you ever saw me. I used to go up to that dancing school at night because I was lonesome—then one night I saw you. I knew right away, but I watched you a long time…it took all the nerve I had to ask you to dance the first time. You didn’t even notice, but always the next day I could still smell your perfume…and I made plans, for us. And they’ve come true.”

Ann accuses Judd of being the murderer: “The only reason I kissed you was because I was desperate for any help I could get, and the only reason you agreed to help was because you thought you’d have me….you killed him, didn’t you? Why don’t you admit it?!”

Judd: “What does all that matter now? He [the murder victim] was no use to anybody. I wanted you to have everything in the world, don’t you understand? What difference does that make now? I love you.” At this point the police, having heard everything, enter from another room; Judd pulls a pistol and is shot to death.

Regis Toomey’s final scene as Judd is played out in an interesting fashion. Reading the quotes above, one might reasonably assume they’d be delivered in a manic, even evil manner, but Toomey delivers Judd’s lines sincerely, smiling fondly at times, proud to reveal his stalking of Ann (decades before Google & Facebook!) so that he’d know everything about her. At no point does he raise his voice or appear irrational or violent (he pulls his pistol but this seems to be a case of “suicide by cop”—there’s no indication he’s threatening Ann or attempting to escape). The closest he gets to anger is when Ann bitterly assails him for robbing and killing someone, then framing her husband for murder—he seems slightly annoyed that she doesn’t understand why he did what he did: “I love you.”

Judd’s actions are right from the stalker textbook: fall in love with a stranger; assume you are their perfect match and that you (and only you) can make them happy; research their life, likes and dislikes; try to win them over with gifts; if that doesn’t work, try to impress them by being “a hero”; exert control over them, using your specialised knowledge; if confronted, justify your actions by asserting everything you did was for “love.”

And yet, somehow Judd doesn’t come off as a wholly sinister character. This might be partly attributed to differing perceptions in 1948 and 2021; perhaps audiences in 1948 did find Judd far more unsympathetic than we do today. We have the benefit of comparing him with various over-the-top psychos we’ve seen in more recent films, and he doesn’t seem quite so bad. Also, Ann is not an entirely admirable character. She loves Tom and is emotionally affected by his arrest, but as noted above, in several ways she contributed to this situation. It’s not her fault that Judd falls in love with her and frames Tom, but the script makes it clear that she did not overtly reject Judd’s attentions: her claim that his repeat visits and cash tips “didn’t matter” to her rings true, but it also makes her seem as if she doesn’t care about anyone except herself and Tom. By not discouraging Judd (or at least pointing out that she’s married), Ann indirectly encourages him, apparently for the sake of the money. Similarly, Ann is the one who convinces Tom to not do the right thing and turn in the wallet and cash to the police. This is a crucial piece of evidence that leads to Tom’s conviction, and while one assumes Judd would have somehow ensured the same result even if Tom had turned in the cash (which only represents part of the stolen money), it’s not entirely a given. Neither of these are deliberately wrong, amoral actions on Ann’s part, and she shouldn’t be blamed for Judd’s obsession, but the film makes a point of showing Ann is not a perfect person and this slightly mitigates Judd’s guilt.

Feliz año, amor mío flips the gender of the stalker, from middle-aged police detective to young woman. María is a teenager who has a crush on celebrity violinist Ricardo, constantly listening to his recordings, reading about him, and drawing his portrait in her art class. She’s delighted when Ricardo rents a neighbouring house, sneaking in with the moving men to admire the furnishings. Caught by Ricardo’s major-domo Pedro, she leaves, self-consciously retrieving a drawing of Ricardo she’d left on the mantel. Later, María spies on Ricardo as he practices, and there’s a running gag in which she turns on a light outside of his front door so she can watch him as he arrives, only to have the Pedro turn it off again. María is sad when her widowed mother remarries and the family relocates to Pátzcuaro, a town about 350 miles away from the capital.

Several years later, María moves back to Mexico City to attend art school, and resumes her stalking of Ricardo. He spots her leaving the courtyard outside his home one New Year’s Eve, and introduces himself to her; they visit a nightclub, then return to his home where they sleep together. María leaves while Ricardo is asleep, but returns later in the day...only to discover he’s taken an emergency job overseas; she reaches the airport too late to talk to him. In true melodrama fashion, María is now pregnant and gives birth to Ricardo’s son—she refuses to convey the news in a letter, deciding to wait until Ricardo returns to Mexico…which takes several years. She then confronts Ricardo after a concert but he doesn’t recognise her, she learns he’s engaged to someone else, and she says nothing about their son.

More time passes (probably at least a decade). María anonymously sends Ricardo red roses every New Year’s. María plans to respond to her boyfriend’s proposal of marriage on New Year’s Eve, but spots Ricardo in a nightclub and goes home with him instead. She still doesn’t identify herself, and shortly after their (second) one-night stand is diagnosed with a fatal illness. Before she dies, María writes Ricardo a long letter—this rekindles Ricardo’s will to live, since he discovers he has a son.

Feliz año, amor mío is told from María’s point of view—most of the film is a flashback, representing her letter to Ricardo. Although María at one point fantasizes about what married life to Ricardo would be like (pretty great, she thinks), she apparently has no regrets about her missed opportunities: she has a son (suffering no social stigma because she’s an unwed mother), becomes successful in business, and dies happy—in the presence of her mother, stepfather, and longtime servant/friend--knowing Ricardo and his son will always remember her. Ricardo, on the other hand, clearly suffered because he didn’t marry María—he’s ill, unable to work, and has no romance in his life (his first wife and child died, and his second wife doesn’t love him or even live with him). That’ll serve him right for...leaving the country the next day and staying away for several years? Marrying someone else? Not recognising María after spending one evening with her years earlier? He’s considering suicide when the film opens, but María’s letter saves him.

Despite the fact that María is the protagonist of the film and her suffering and self-denial is portrayed as noble, her actions do meet many of the stalker criteria. She’s obsessed with someone she doesn’t know; she sneaks into his house; she spies on him; she sends him flowers anonymously; she’s jealous of the other women in his life; she dreams of being his wife. But when she has the chance to forge a real bond (other than two one-night stands more than a decade apart), María backs off, “honourably” choosing to remain unknown and depriving Ricardo of his company of his son until she’s dead. Her reasons for this are not clear, but the film doesn’t examine them or challenge their righteousness in any way. Her love is pure and noble, don’t you dare criticise it.

In addition to María denying herself and Ricardo the chance for a life together, she also prevents her son from knowing his own father for the first 10+ years of his life (Ricardito is probably at least 15 years old when María dies). Additionally María’s treatment of her suitor Manuel is extremely cruel. Manuel is a nice guy, gets along with Ricardito, and María coyly indicates she’ll accept his marriage proposal “at the stroke of midnight” on New Year’s Eve. However, when FATE places María in the same crowded nightclub as Ricardo, all it takes is an exchange of glances and a brief note from Ricardo (who, remember, has no idea who María is—she’s just a random pickup, unless he perhaps subconsciously recognises her from their brief meetings, years apart, more than a decade previously) and--BOOM--María leaves Manuel stranded without a word of explanation (he’s never seen or mentioned again—if there were any repercussions, the viewer never learns about them).

Although María’s actions are at times stalker-like, her character does deviate from the standard image of a stalker in an important way: although she does fantasize about marriage to Ricardo in one scene, she not only never takes steps to achieve this, but (as noted above) actively backs away from taking any steps to convert her fantasy to reality. Most cinematic stalkers—including Judd in I Wouldn’t Be in Your Shoes—would stop at nothing to make their dream come true, convinced that Fate has meant for them to be together with the one they love, and that they are the only ones who could make the object of their crush happy. María shows a bit of this magical thinking early in the film: after observing Ricardo bring a woman home and seeing them embrace in silhouette, María is angry and jealous, but subsequently rationalises to herself that these “romances” mean nothing to Ricardo, and only she could be his true love.

Feliz año, amor mío—and the earlier Hollywood version, Letter from an Unknown Woman, 1948, which has the same basic plot but is considerably different in the details—are both romantic melodramas about a woman obsessed with a man, as opposed to thrillers with the same basic premise, such as Leave Her to Heaven and Fatal Attraction. While the female protagonists of these films take similar actions—up to a point—the adaptations of Zweig’s novella are told from the woman’s viewpoint (although written and directed by men) and appeal to a female audience, whereas obsessed-woman thrillers portray the leading female character as a threat to the male protagonist.

Are “sympathetic stalkers” extinct in popular culture today? One would think so; perhaps not all obsessed men and women on screen are portrayed as evil, dangerous and unbalanced--there might be some that are played for comedy--but too many real-life tragedies have probably tainted this type of character beyond redemption.

#film noir #Letter from an Unknown Woman #stalkers #I Wouldn't Be in Your Shoes #Cornell Woolrich #Stefan Zweig #Feliz año amor mío #melodrama

3 notes · View notes

aion-rsa · 3 years

Text

Inside the Mortal Kombat Movie’s Bloody Love Letter to Martial Arts

https://ift.tt/3sPd50L

About 10 hours into a November 2019 flight to Australia and the set of Warner Bros. Mortal Kombat reboot, I started to ask myself whether this was all worth it. I loved the original Mortal Kombat movie about as much as anyone unironically can, but the fact remains that the history of live-action video game film adaptations is paved with disappointment. Even the best movies in that field have earned their reputation largely by exceeding low expectations.

After nearly 30 years of failed attempts, it’s hard to even picture what a good live-action video game movie might look like. What is it about the transition from sprites to screen that makes this process so difficult? Is this a pursuit that is, in some ways, doomed to be dictated by those who see such films as another piece of merchandise? What will it take to finally break the curse? Those questions raced through my jetlagged brain as I finally made it to Adelaide and prepared to see what awaited me on the other side of the world.

Shortly into my visit, I was taken off my feet by a line that hit me like an MK player mercilessly spamming a leg sweep. It came in the form of this line from producer Todd Garner that reshaped my expectations and set the tone for what proved to be something that was very much worth the trip and perhaps worthy of your own wait:

“I think it’s great that there are a lot of characters, a lot of lore, and let’s do it all well. But really, people want to fuck each other up.”

Gore and Lore

Garner was, of course, mostly joking. Yet, there is a truth in many jokes, and the truth in this one seemed to be that managing what the Mortal Kombat canon has become can be a daunting task. It’s certainly not made any easier by the fact that there haven’t been many undisputedly great video game movies for the team to work with and use as precedent.

In lieu of notable live-action video game adaptations that made good on their ambition, the film’s production team turned to a source that most would agree has.

“It’s like the Marvel Universe…it’s endless,” says Garner of the Mortal Kombat game franchise. “So we started from the premise ‘What would Marvel do?’”

It’s a useful question that the upcoming Mortal Kombat movie answers in fascinating ways. For instance, as Garner noted, the MCU didn’t start with The Avengers; it started with Iron Man. That film allowed Marvel Studios to ease viewers into a project that was, in its own ways, also somewhat unprecedented. Similarly, the Mortal Kombat movie uses the character of Cole Young as a kind of audience surrogate. He’s a new face in this universe who is also trying to figure all of this out.

It’s all part of a delicate balancing act that requires the cast and crew to constantly ask themselves how this movie looks to a diehard fan and how it will look to someone who is just coming into this.

“There are five million people that play this game religiously, but there are 100s of millions of people in the world,” Garner says. “We didn’t want the other 95 million people to go, ‘What the fuck is this. What is this tone, what the fuck is happening?’”

It’s easy to understand how fans could quickly become overwhelmed. If you haven’t played the more recent Mortal Kombat games, you may be surprised to learn that they’ve adopted a complex serial storytelling narrative that combines years of mythology as well as the events of the most recent games. If you tried jumping into Mortal Kombat 11’s interdimensional, time-jumping story, without at least an explainer of what came before, you’d probably think it was madness. Amusing madness, perhaps, but madness nonetheless.

As it turns out, even Mortal Kombat director Simon McQuoid had a lot of catching up to do.

“I feel like I went to Mortal Kombat university,” says McQuoid regarding the experience of learning the intricacies of the franchise. “I also surrounded myself with a lot of people who know a lot more about this than me.”

In the same way that 1995’s Mortal Kombat benefited from director Paul W.S. Anderson seeking and utilizing fan and crew feedback, McQuoid’s own desire to surround himself with lifelong MK fans is just one of the ways that the crew is determined to ensure they don’t make the mistake others have before them by straying too far from the desires of those who helped make the Mortal Kombat franchise worthy of adaptation in the first place. His efforts ultimately come down to honoring an important word.

“The word I use a lot is ‘respect,’” says McQuoid. “Respect for the fans, respect for the characters, and respect for the canon. The execution ultimately takes that into consideration from the absolute bedrock of listening to and understanding the fans.”

Games

Mortal Kombat: The Definitive Video Game Movie of the ’90s

By Matthew Byrd

Games

Mortal Kombat Characters Ranked

By Gavin Jasper

Of course, as Garner previously eloquently noted, what many Mortal Kombat fans are looking for is over-the-top violence executed with flair. That is a big part of what made the original Mortal Kombat stand out in a crowded arcade scene, and it is certainly one of the qualities that have stayed with the series as it has evolved into this surprising vehicle for complex narratives and diverse characters.

Fatality!

Of course, you can’t talk about Mortal Kombat violence without coming around to fatalities. What began as now strangely humble decapitations and spine extractions has evolved into a bloody ballet of highly choreographed violent ends that account for the lore and ability of every character. It’s something that was largely missing from the 1995 adaptation, and it’s something that Garner admits can be tricky to get right.

“There’s crazy shit you can do in the game,” Garner says. “The problem with the fatalities, in general, is…I’m under the restrictions of the Motion Picture Association of America so I have to live inside those rules.”

In case you haven’t seen the recently released trailer, let me assure you now that the MPAA has not scared the team away from incorporating fatalities and MK’s other, bloodiest elements. In fact, McQuoid is practically at sea with the amount of blood on set.

“I don’t know the gallon number, but I’ve seen drums of blood sitting around,” McQuoid informs his audience of gorehounds with a smile.

So yes, there will be blood and lots of it in the Mortal Kombat reboot, but the team isn’t relying on the presence of blood alone to fulfill their equally important mission of telling a Mortal Kombat story as compelling as the ones featured in the games. Actually, they recognize that there are times when extreme amounts of violence can work against the dark tones that help make the franchise’s universe so compelling.

“When I wanted a serious moment I didn’t want it to get comedic because we’re swashing blood,” McQuoid says. “It’s a tonal thing…you really need to feel it all instead of having people say ‘Oh, that’s funny.’”

Besides, there are other ways to convey the series’ violent nature and brutal style that doesn’t necessarily require a drum of blood. From the first game in the franchise, Mortal Kombat has nodded to at least the cinematic history of martial arts. Whereas that series initially struggled to convey the fluidity and complexity of the best martial arts fights, though, the MK movie team has set a high bar for themselves.

“The first thing I said to [stunt coordinator Kyle Gardiner] was “Okay, Kyle, you have to make the best fights that have ever been on film,” reveals McQuoid.

To anyone with a passing familiarity with the best fight scenes in film history, that idea has to come across as an absurd bit of hype. However, it starts to make a lot more sense when you look at the cast they’ve assembled.

Choose Your Fighter

For a generation of fans raised on ‘80s action films and many major Hollywood genre productions that came after, it’s become somewhat easy to buy into the idea that untrained or largely untrained actors, bodybuilders, and models are the biggest badasses on the big screen. There’s a degree to which that’s what actors are supposed to do, but anyone who grew up on Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee or later found films such as The Raid and Ong-Bak can tell you that there’s nothing quite like watching uniquely talented martial artists push the boundaries of fight scenes by translating their real-world talents into cinematic splendor. In fact, the original Mortal Kombat arcade game was partially inspired by a desire to make a game that felt worthy of a John Claude Van Damme action film.

When it comes to getting Mortal Kombat right, then, there’s little doubt that the only way to go was to cast an all-star collection of martial artists and trained fighters rather than teach a cast of movie stars to look like they can do the things these guys can. However, I can’t emphasize enough just how crazy it was to watch even just snippets of what this essential superteam of martial artists push themselves to do when you put them in a room. Even those who have spent a considerable amount of time around the cast still express awe at what they’ve seen.

“I’ve never made a movie like this before with this much fighting in it,” says Garner. “I don’t know what’s going on half the time, but they really are the best in the business…It’s so fast and even the camera is like, ‘Guys, can you slow down a little bit?’”

In some ways, the heart of this assembly feels like Sub-Zero actor Joe Taslim. As a renowned martial artist who many of us first saw in The Raid: Redemption, many action fans know that Taslim is the real deal. What you may not know is that Taslim is something of a Mortal Kombat superfan. His name was even tossed around a few times on the shortlist of best MK players on-set, as well as by some who suggested that Taslim helped set the pace (and raise the bar) for the speed of the action sequences.

Then you have Tadanobu Asano as Raiden. As a legend of the Japanese film scene who has garnered more international acclaim in recent years by virtue of his work in 47 Ronin, Battleship, and the Thor films, Asano feels uniquely capable of playing the thunder god whose abilities sometimes set the standard in a universe of powerful fighters. He embodies the character so clearly that he’s already got his eye on the out of universe competition

“Yeah, I can fight [Chris Hemsworth],” suggested Asano with a smile at the prospect of a Thor vs. Raiden film.

There also Max Huang who portrays Kung Lao: a beloved fan character who was sadly missing from the previous live-action adaptations. For him, the chance to finally bring that character to life echoes his own desire to further his transition from a celebrated stunt coordinator to a bonafide action hero.

“People like Bruce Lee were my heroes,” says Huang. “The ultimate goal was to become an actor, but there were few chances. A lot of times, it would just be a one-liner and that was it. These last few years I figured ‘you only have one life,’ so I just went for it.”

Few people are more qualified to speak on that subject than Liu Kang actor, Ludi Lin. As an advocate for representation in Hollywood, Lin has previously said how a lack of representation or even the wrong kind of representation can lead to feelings of shame and even isolation. For Lin, working with this many talented martial artists on a major Western production isn’t just a chance to showcase his own abilities; it’s a chance to help millions feel like they’re being seen.

“Look, 60% of the world is Asian. A quarter of the world is Chinese,” says Lin. “I just don’t understand why there can only be one [in Hollywood films].”

Increased representation is always important, but at a time when violence against Asian Americans is on the rise, it stands to reason that the portrayal and prominence of Asian actors on film may be on more minds than ever before. So far as that goes, Mortal Kombat is uniquely positioned to not only showcase Asian heroes but pay respect to the clear Asian influences on the Mortal Kombat series in a way that the MK titles (especially the older installments) didn’t necessarily do before.

Movies

Mortal Kombat Trailer Breakdown and Analysis

By Gavin Jasper

Movies

Could the Mortal Kombat Reboot Finally Give Us the Sub-Zero vs. Scorpion Fight We Deserve?

By John Saavedra

“From my experience working with Simon [McQuoid], I’ve never worked with someone that’s so serious about being that authentic for another culture,” says Lin. “Just walking on set…on this film, there are so many different types of people of different ethnicities, different origins, and different backgrounds. It really represents the world.”

I could go on. Legendary Japanese action star Hiroyuki Sanada as Scorpion, the beloved Chin Han as Shang Tsung, rising star Mehcad Brooks as Jax…even non-action stars or martial artists like Kano actor Josh Lawson have found how they fit into this legendary assembly of cast and characters.

“I was just saying to Asano-san, ‘Kano, he’s only funny because he’s balancing you guys,’” notes Lawson. “On his own, it’s nothing. But as a see-saw, the more seriously these guys take the mysticism and the power, the less seriously I can take it. That’s where the comedy exists. He can walk in and tell them, ‘Fucking hell.’”

Who is Lewis Tan?

With so much of the fun for fans coming from watching their favorite MK fighters come to life and battle on the big screen, it’s hardly a surprise that it’s one of the new characters, Lewis Tan as Cole Young, who has attracted so much early attention. How will he fit into a roster of such established characters? It’s a question that Tan is relieved to finally be able to answer.

“It’s just nice to even be able to talk about the character because there was so much speculation and hype up until this point about which character I’m playing,” Tan says with noted relief. “I wear Ray Bans a lot so people were like, ‘Oh, he’s Johnny Cage. [laughs]’”

He may not be Johnny Cage, even if Tan’s effortless charm and movie star looks make him a prime candidate for the role, but it’s incredible how easily the Cole character seems to fit into this universe of iconic characters. Along those same lines, Tan seems to have quickly established himself among a roster of top-tier martial arts and action actors. In some ways, his vocal enthusiasm for the project best captures the set’s general vibe.

“I don’t want to jinx it either but I can truthfully tell you, I felt magic when I got here and it’s been crazy ever since then,” says Tan of his experience until that point. “It’s crazy because I’m really hard on myself and I’m really hard on the work that I do. Sometimes I’m like, ‘Oh, this wasn’t it.’ And then I’ll see a little of a rough cut of what Simon was doing and then I’m like, ‘Oh. It’s amazing.’ There’s some stuff that I wasn’t on set for and then I saw that stuff and I’m like, ‘That’s the best thing I’ve ever seen.’”

Of course, it’s hard to talk about bringing Mortal Kombat to life without the people who quite literally help do just that.

Exploding Heads and Blown Minds

At one point during my set visit, I found myself standing on a stunning recreation of the bridge that crosses the chasm on the iconic Mortal Kombat stage known as The Pit. It was a massive construction impressively built to serve as both a showcase piece and an actual set practically designed as the stage for one of the film’s fight scenes.

The team informed us that the general philosophy was to ensure that (almost) anything that could be done practically was done practically. A green screen was used sparingly to solve otherwise impossible problems. It’s an approach that appeases the old-school movie fans among us while honoring the raw nature of the older Mortal Kombat games which typically emphasized visceral visuals over more refined sensibilities.

The Mortal Kombat movie actually finds a fascinating middle ground between those concepts. For instance, the film’s costumes showcase the kind of wear and tear that you’d expect to see in outfits worn by warriors locked in an eternal battle, but they’re also designed to not only honor cultural concepts but the idea that some of this armor was designed to be somewhat ornamental at one point in time. They’re refined but appropriately ugly.

The film’s weapons are really on another level. Weapons have become increasingly important to the Mortal Kombat fighting styles over the years, and this film honors that concept through an arsenal of carefully constructed instruments of death that somehow treat even the most seemingly impractical of weapons with a logic that has perhaps only previously been dwelled on by the series’ biggest fans.

No detail was overlooked in pursuit of making sure every character had a weapon that the actor could hold in their hand and feel the power of. From ornate katanas to swords made of ice, the props team clearly fell in love with the opportunity to make even the absurd a reality. We even saw a garden gnome suspiciously snuck into the small arsenal they had crafted.

Again, though, what stood out most is the prop team’s insistence that many of these weapons didn’t just need to look good on-screen. Many of them needed to be balanced and practical enough to be used in battle simply because many of them were actually going to be used in the film’s fight scenes. I don’t know how the weapon designs will come across in the final film, but my gut feeling is that the fight scenes that they allow for will immediately be appreciated.

One other area where those efforts will almost certainly be immediately appreciated by everyone watching the movie is the makeup and practical effects. The makeup trailer I stepped in was loaded with masks, body parts, and the carnage of many early morning marathon makeup sessions. It looked closer to a horror movie than an action film or video game adaptation. That should be music to the ears of any fans that recognize that one of the things that helped the Mortal Kombat series stand out over the years are the horror tones that were used to help craft characters, stages, and most certainly the fatalities.

While we weren’t treated to a fatality viewing while on-set, the team was good enough to describe an exploding head that they were working on for an upcoming shoot. Where that exploding head will rank among the best of all-time (a list that includes films like Scanners, Maniac, and The Prowler) remains to be seen, but their approach sounded fascinating. By utilizing a silicone glass head filled with blood and guts and triggered by an air cannon, the scene figures to pay homage to the techniques of the best such effects of old while utilizing modern advancements designed out of necessity and perhaps a desire to help raise the bar.

It wasn’t long into my trip that the cast and crew emphasized the number of practical effects being utilized, and I certainly understand why. They not only look great, but the fact that so much effort went into ensuring these design elements offer something so much more than good looks seems to perfectly capture the spirit of the movie’s mission to make something that is so much more than it has to be.

Flawless Victory?

If the biggest “advantage” of low expectations is the idea that even lesser efforts can somehow exceed them, then the biggest disadvantage of the expectations set by many live-action video game movies to date is getting people to genuinely feel excited. There’s a big difference between crafting something that makes you think “That could have been worse,” and making a movie that inspires the genuine belief that this isn’t just going to be something different; this is going to be something special.

The highest compliment I can pay to Mortal Kombat is that the genuine excitement expressed by everyone on-set went well beyond a cast and crew that were just happy to be there or felt that what they were doing was good enough. From those who couldn’t wait to play some of their favorite characters to those who were eager to finally showcase what they do best via a production that’s scale equaled the scope of their talents, there was a smile on everyone’s face as they told you what they were working on with the full knowledge that what they were about to say was something so far beyond what you expected.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

I don’t know if Mortal Kombat will “break the curse.” I don’t even know if it will satisfy a legion of MK fans who have had their expectations forever raised by the recent games’ own increasingly cinematic efforts. What I can tell you is that it’s ok to feel excited about Mortal Kombat. Actually, you probably should be excited about Mortal Kombat. I can assure you that everyone working on the film very much is. That, in and of itself, is a victory.

The post Inside the Mortal Kombat Movie’s Bloody Love Letter to Martial Arts appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3kGV41W

#aion-rsa #Den of Geek

1 note · View note

weasley-gal · 4 years

Photo

Cindy’s Top Ten Movies of 2019!

Ahhh...2019. In the interest of building suspense, I could be all cagey about this countdown, but let's face it: For me, 2019 was the Year of Rocketman. As lousy as the real-world year was, it was salvaged by Rocketman. Someone suggested in jest (maybe?) that Rocketman should be numbers one through ten on my year-end list, and that would be fair enough; HOWEVER...I did like some other movies this year, so I'm gonna give you--yes YOU, dear reader(s)--ten of my favorites. Just know in your hearts that the other nine fall way behind number one. Way, WAY behind.

The usual disclaimers:

A movie's position on my year-end list does not necessarily reflect its original Weasley score. Some films age well, bear up, and even improve under repeat viewings. Some...well...some do not. Also, I live in a rinky-dink town, so great movies like JoJo Rabbit and 1917--pictures that almost certainly would have found spots here or gotten very close--have not made themselves available to me yet. This is disappointing, but unsurprising. I'd hung my entire holiday break on the prospect of seeing 1917, only to discover on Christmas Day that its Christmas opening was limited release, and I have to wait until January 10th. Humbug. Finally, I think three or four of these movies already made Variety's "worst of" list for 2019, so kindly do not be too shocked when I diverge from The Serious Critics (TM).

Without further ado, presenting my top ten films of 2019:

TEN

"The most important qualification for any leader is not wanting to be leader."

THE TWO POPES

2019 threw me a nice surprise on its way out the celestial door, with the Netflix original The Two Popes. It's a deliberate, thoughtful, and timely film carried by a pair of the year's most exquisite performances: Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis and Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict XVI. While the subject matter is weighty, this movie is an absolute delight.

NINE

"I'm glad I'm a revelation and not a disappointment."

DOWNTON ABBEY

This big-screen adaptation of the popular television series Downton Abbey, is, in fact, something of a revelation. A totally new story in the familiar and much-loved setting, with just the right amount of fan service, it is a joyful exercise that hits nearly every note perfectly. Making its case for the big screen are breathtaking costumes and production design...and Mr. Barrow finally seeing a bit of happiness doesn't hurt, either.

EIGHT

"We're gonna bury Ferrari at Le Mans."

FORD V FERRARI

At a glance, Ford v Ferrari might seem like a film appealing exclusively to car enthusiasts; however, that assumption does a great disservice to both the film and the viewer. Ford v Ferrari is an inspiring story about people. It's a nail-biter from start to finish, it has heart to spare, and it's fronted by great turns from Matt Damon and Christian Bale. Beautifully filmed race action makes this one to see on the biggest screen you can find.

SEVEN

"It always fits...eventually."

SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE

Technically, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is a last-year movie, but for me it's a this-year movie, and--despite its being the very first film I saw way back in January, 2019--it's far too great to leave off my best-of list. A Marvel property in the hands of Sony, Spider-Verse is smart, funny, touching, and better than the entire Avengers catalog combined.

SIX

"This is a twisted web, and we are not finished untangling it, not yet."

KNIVES OUT

Knives Out is a great piece of original cinema crafted from artful twists, clever humor, and terrific performances, layered with a gorgeous Gothic setting and an ominous score. Written and directed by Rian Johnson, this perfect murder mystery is a huge creative and financial win for the cinema, and I recommend it without hesitation or qualification.

FIVE

"This is the worst...and best...and most terrible...excellent thing that's ever happened to me!"

THE KID WHO WOULD BE KING

Hands up if you missed the Kid Who Would Be King at your local cinema? Yeah, I see you, ALL of you. The good news is that one of the year's most wonderful pictures is now available for streaming and download, and you shouldn't make the same mistake twice. The Kid Who Would Be King is a charming movie, great fun for people of all ages. Truly one of the year's best.

FOUR

"Si vis pacem, para bellum."

JOHN WICK: CHAPTER 3 — PARABELLUM

The John Wick franchise has become quite the phenomenon, and deservedly so. Continually upping the action ante in Fast-and-Furious-like fashion, these movies are so much more than just your garden-variety shoot 'em ups and beat 'em ups. John Wick is the role Keanu Reeves was born to play, and Parabellum raises the stakes for Wick while doubling down on masterful fight choreography and stunning cinematography. Here's to many more adventures for John Wick!

THREE

"Bruce is the direct line to all that's true in this world!"

BLINDED BY THE LIGHT

Blinded by the Light is another terrific picture that didn't exactly set the box office on fire. Inspired by the true story of one Springsteen superfan, and built on the Boss's epic catalog, it's a hopeful tale about overcoming prejudice and the limitations set for us by ourselves and by others, one of the year's most inspiring movies.

TWO

"Tell the truth to everyone, whenever you can."

YESTERDAY

Yesterday is yet another of 2019's under-appreciated gems, a beautiful, unique movie fashioned around the timeless music of the Beatles. Himesh Patel is a delight in the lead, and--while the premise requires suspension of disbelief--Yesterday is a charming picture that captivates with its "what ifs?" as well as its iconic soundtrack and enchanting cast.

ONE

"You were never ordinary."

ROCKETMAN

My number one movie of the year, and of the decade, was set on May 31st, when I saw Rocketman for the first time. I saw the movie at least twice a week as long as it was at my local cinema. I've watched at least part of it every day since it became available for home viewing. Outside of a week or so around each of the wonderful concerts I saw this summer, I've listened to nothing but the Rocketman soundtrack since the end of May. My phone and all my desktops have Rocketman wallpapers. I've joked (hmm?) that I only speak Rocketman now. The truth is, I'm not interested in speaking anything else. Pre-Rocketman, it had been a decade since a new movie made its way into my all-time top ten. Then there was Rocketman. Pre-Rocketman, my favorite acting performance hadn't changed since 1993. Then there was Taron Egerton's astonishing turn as Elton John. Pre-Rocketman, I was finding reasons to stay away from the movies. Then there was Dexter Fletcher showing us the beauty of real imagination. Rocketman is more than just a well-crafted film that reflects on an iconic artist's inspiring life. It is a film that uses Elton John's art to tell his story in fantastic, creative fashion. It is a film that uses exquisite detail in its styling and costumes to further its vision. It is a film that draws something sparkling and new out of a classic discography. It is a film that is not bound by dull, linear timelines or small minds. It is a film that surrounds a performance for the ages with others that bear it up. It is a film that shows, however dark the times, you will find the light. In doing all these things, it is a film that is saving lives. Rocketman is a film that is, in every way, magnificent. Thank you, Dexter Fletcher and company, for giving us this beautiful movie. Whatever the critics say and whoever wins the prizes as Awards Season bears down upon us, nobody has done anything more valuable this cinema year.

A few Honorable (and Dis-Honorable) Mentions:

While Taron Egerton deserves all the awards, all the time, for his work in Rocketman, there were some other performances this year that also gave me life:

Jamie Bell (Rocketman): Without Bell's Bernie Taupin as his stalwart cornerstone, Egerton's Elton could not have flown. It's a lovely, understated performance that has been grossly underappreciated.

Tom Holland (Marvel Cinematic Universe): Holland is a real gem, a standout who consistently steals the show from bigger names who get weightier work in the MCU. No matter how good, bad, or painfully bloated the movie, Holland is an absolute delight.

Renee Zellweger (Judy): Who knew it was even possible for me to stop hating Renee Zellweger? Well played, 2019.

Rebecca Ferguson (The Kid Who Would Be King/Doctor Sleep): There was little I enjoyed more this year than watching Ferguson chew her way through this pair of pictures. Oh, and if I start walking around wearing a hat, don't ask, m-kay?

Chris Evans (Knives Out): God, I love seeing Chris Evans do *anything* besides Captain America. Bonus points if he gets to be funny. He's really funny, despite his obscenely gorgeous mug.

John Boyega/Oscar Isaac (Star Wars: Episode IX — The Rise of Skywalker): These two, individually and together, draw joy out of what's otherwise a fairly mundane exercise. If Finn and Poe somehow jumped to another saga in the Star Wars universe, I wouldn't complain.

The Cast of Jumanji: The Next Level: Top to bottom, a perfectly cast film, and a lesson in how the right actors can elevate any property.

As a matter of interest, if you watch the Irishman and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood back to back, you can effectively calculate how many hours you'll wish you had back when you're on your deathbed.

I would like a word with Gary Oldman's and Sebastian Stan's agents, please.

Cats: Make. It. Stop. Please, just...make it stop.

As this most challenging year winds to a close, I wanted to offer a sincere thank you to everyone who takes the time to read my reviews, and especially those who engage on any of our various platforms. Special thanks to Daniel for allowing me to be a part of his great page, and for tolerating my unceasing randomness. (Hotel Transylvania 4 in 2021, my friend!) I take no one's support for granted, and I’m ever grateful for you all. I wish our readers many blessings as this festive season comes to a close and we roll into 2020. See you at the movies!

#movies #top ten #rocketman #yesterday #blinded by the light #john wick #the kid who would be king #knives out #spider-man #into the spider-verse #ford v ferrari #downton abbey #the two popes

20 notes · View notes

arabellaflynn · 4 years

Text

Text of a test monologue. Would you like to see me deliver this on camera, with no makeup, no lighting equipment, and using Notepad as a TelePrompTer? Head on over to my https://www.patreon.com/ArabellaFlynnPatreon, and for a dollar a month you too can see me waffle on in real time.

Hi, all. You may notice that I am on video now. I was going to shoot a couple of tests and apologize for the poor quality of the footage, and explain that I want to start vlogging and streaming in addition to writing, but I need some equipment to do it properly and for that I need to raise some funds... But fuck it. This is going out first instead.

As I record this, it is the fourth of July. You can probably hear the fireworks outside my window. I know I can. There are a lot of those, because we've all been inside and bored for the past four months.

I know a lot of people who have opted not to observe the holiday this year. The 4th of July is often viewed as a celebration of the American institution, which is a little bit on fire right now, with a few people determined to squirt lighter fluid all over the flames like a bored suburban dad at a barbecue. On the other hand, it's also Independence Day, and marks the end of the long, painful process by which a population broke free of distant, uncaring overlords who cared mainly about the financial dividends of their colonies, and ignored the grievances of the people until they started breaking shit. So YMMV.

I would comment on some of the details, but I don't know them. The Late Show is on hiatus, and John Oliver doesn't air until tomorrow. I, like a lot of my demographic, get most of my current events from comedians. There's a reason for that.

I actually watched a lot of news as a teenager.

Well, "watched" might be too strong a word. It's easier for me to fall asleep if there's some sort of droning noise in the background. When I was about fifteen, I discovered that, unlike the main CNN channel, which has actual shows and documentaries, CNN Headline News just runs the day's top stories over and over again in an unending 30 minute loop. Interesting enough to keep me from falling into a train of thought that will prevent me from sleeping, boring enough that I don't want to stay up and listen.

I have no memory of the desk anchors. I'm sure they were consummate professionals, but they also had no distinguishing human characteristics whatsoever. I know they were updating the loop live, because occasionally a story would be added to the list and another one would drop off the back, and occasionally one would flub the text on their prompter, but other than that there was no hint that the face at the desk was attached to a living, breathing person.

I do remember a couple of the correspondents. One was Christiane Amanpour. Her voice stood out; CNN is an American news station that was originally restricted to American cable networks, and the vast majority of the staff is from the US. Amanpour is British-Iranian, having split her childhood between Tehran, before the revolution, and London, after. They liked to send her to the bowels of Eastern Europe to report from the war-torn streets of Citygrad in Countrystan. She had already caught some criticism on her reporting of the Bosnian War, for advancing the apparently controversial opinion that genocide was bad. I didn't know that at the time; I just thought she sounded more like she told real stories than read off lists of facts.

Another was Anderson Cooper, who was not nearly such a big deal then as he is now. Cooper, a self-described adrenaline junkie, was a war correspondent at the time, with a habit of ducking only briefly for explosions before standing back up to continue his piece to camera. He wouldn't be infamous until his coverage of Hurricane Katrina years later, both for the overall stellar job he did, and also for that one time he got tired of getting non-answers from some government toad in a live interview and very professionally flipped his shit at the lady, asking if she realized how tone deaf it was to sit there thanking other politicians for doing essentially nothing while there were still bodies in the street.

I quit watching the news when I moved away to college. It wasn't necessarily that knowing was worse than not knowing, but I felt a lot of pressure to be "adult" about it at that point, and watching proper news shows made me anxious to the point where I wouldn't sleep. I outright avoided it to the point where I made it to a canceled class at 4 pm, Mountain Standard Time, on September 11, 2001, before anyone told me what was going on.

I wasn't able to put my finger on why I found the news so horrible until many years later. I can't remember what rabbit hole I'd fallen down, but I ended up sitting on YouTube watching segments of the live news coverage of the 1981 assassination attempt on President Reagan. Reagan was shot in the side and later recovered without complications, but his Press Secretary, James Brady, was struck in the head and sustained considerable neurological damage. Brady, together with his wife Sarah, later went on to be a noted advocate for gun control, but at the time was reported to have died on the scene.

I wound up watching a lot of one of the news desks -- ABC, I think. It started out like all the others, until the anchor tripped up a couple of times and referred to Press Secretary Brady as "Jim", and I realized: He knows these people. Personally. He's a member of the White House Press Corps, or a friend of the Bradys, or both. I'm watching a journalist reporting on a moment of historical significance to the American people, and a human being who has to tell the entire nation about someone's personal tragedy. His investment did not make him any less professional or informative than any of the others, but it did make his coverage feel very grounded in reality in a way that most news, then and now, does not.

The older I get, the more disquieting I find it to have a talking head behind a shiny desk read me a list of horrible things that have happened today without any apparent reaction. It makes it seem like these things are a randomized representative sample of the cruelty of the universe, rather than what they are, which is a list of things so unusually terrible they made the news. I realize that this is part of an effort to remain impartial so that the viewer can decide how they feel about events, but it's also disturbingly normative. Yes, everything is on fire, everything is always on fire, this is nothing new.

I can't say I'm any more enamored of the opposite, either, the more recent style where the news anchor's entire job is to tell you that entirety of human existence is awful and here's what you should prioritize being afraid of this week. Everything around you is on fire, the fire is racing right at you, and here's whose fault the fire is.

A lot of Americans, especially younger ones, have taken to getting their news mostly from political satire because-- well, one, because for about the past twenty years, our comedians have been better at fact-checking than our actual newsrooms. You can thank Jon Stewart for getting a bee in his bonnet over that. But also because their coverage of major issues takes neither of those paths. The Daily Show alumni write up stories like they actually live on the planet they're reporting from. You're on fire? They're on fire too! Holy shit, let's all find some water!

The conceit behind the comedy of The Daily Show and the Colbert Report and Full Frontal and Last Week Tonight and now the monologues on The Late Show is not that this is a normal amount of fire for everything to be on so it's fine, nor establishing that someone has set you on fire on purpose and here's who should be punished for it. It's bewilderment and frustration at the way we somehow keep catching on fire over and over again. Yeah, they crack jokes, because it's their job, but all the jokes are predicated on the idea that this is, above all, just very, very, inexplicably stupid. We can, and we should, be better than this. And the hosts stubbornly refuse to just give up and internalize as immutable all the reasons why we aren't.

You wouldn't know it to look at him, but Jon Stewart has accumulated "fuck you" money from his time on The Daily Show, among other things. I really hope the rest of them are doing the same. Because we need some figureheads who are able to say "fuck you" to a lot of authority figures right now without having to worry about how their family is going to survive the next month. John Oliver has HBO backing and I'm pretty sure Last Week Tonight has roughly equal budgets set aside for handling lawsuits and shoveling money at charity. Stephen Colbert has been insulting Donald Trump as hard as he possibly can since day one, and he just re-upped until 2023. Samantha Bee has her husband holding the camera to shoot her monologues out in the woods.

They've all figured out how to produce their show over the internet, so at least we have something to watch in the After Times.

I really hope the neighbors run out of fireworks soon. Aside from not wanting the neighborhood to be literally on fire at any point, one of my housemates has a dog, and the dog has epilepsy, so this has been an interesting evening. Sorry about the fireworks, sorry about the camera, sorry about the country, sorry about the state of the world. Imma go find my Xanax. G'night.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2ZKD4d6 via IFTTT -------------------- Enjoy my writing? Consider becoming a Patron, subscribing via Kindle, or just toss a little something in my tip jar. Thanks!

#IFTTT #Blogger #Unsolicited Advice

2 notes · View notes

thewolfisawake · 4 years

Note

Critical Role

Favorite character:

In CR1, Percy and Scanlan. And gonna sound so hipster but I did legitimately like Percy prior to the Briarwood arc. I liked his place as the more subdued person that didn’t need fanfare for his support. And then I was scared and intrigued when he was more...forthcoming in that arc since he was quieter before (I think I read this was also because Taliesin was bit shy starting out but got comfortable). And Scanlan, was the man I shed tears for because I kept crying ‘oh god, someone please notice. Someone HELP HIM.’ They both had some serious gut punches and their stories did shift the dynamics (of the story and the party respectively) permanently. They are also great support and yet also had some amazing solos.

In CR2, Caleb and Fjord. I just like me some sad boys apparently. I think Caleb’s bumbling and trying to do right but struggling with doing what’s good for you so painfully relatable. As of writing this, I haven’t caught up yet but I’ve seen him make such leaps and bounds in terms of letting people in and being a support to others. I also think mechanically he’s a show of how the drawbacks like his fear can make for good moments. As for Fjord, he’s just in general how I think a moral compass or herder character can be done without irritating both the player and viewer. I mean morals of this cast is more wonky but in general Fjord seems to put forward a general ‘we all get through this’ and respect towards the team.

Least Favorite character:

In CR1, Keyleth. And no, it’s got nothing to do with Marisha. She’s cool. I honestly felt bad for her because Keyleth had to pick up the moral slack whenever Pike wasn’t there, which was often. Some of her best moments were when she had to draw the hard line. But it was far outweighed with having this moral high horse for some reason even though they promptly do something just as low down as the ones she looked down on. Also, I feel it’s hard to do a character that is naive but also very likable so again, sorry for Marisha.

In CR2, I like so many but I’ll go with Mollymauk. And it was a bit of a shame because he was like the one person I heard so much about. I did like that he was the one that tended to push into some of the best shenanigans I’ve listened to. However, he was just fine. There wasn’t much to push him into love him so much nor much to say I dislike him. I’m a little disappointed of not being able to know what his deal was I guess was what I would choose if I have to say what made him least favorite.

5 Favorite ships (canon or non-canon):

Vax’limore - Their interactions just oozed banter and playfulness. There was no intro to how that this happened, it just jumps into their flirtations. And it was that cute banter and the real ‘I’d do anything for you, my friend’ that ended up hurting seeing Gilmore have his heart strings pulled as they did. Like if you love him, let him go. For real. Don’t dangle it in front of him like that.

Pike/Percy - Weird thought but I thought it was pretty clear that Pike liked Percy. Everyone sees her as a stalwart beacon but she still has wants and falls off from time to time. But she tries. And she saw something within Percy that was dark and I don’t think it was necessarily ‘I want to fix him’ but ‘I want to save him.’ And Percy find a light in Pike like many do but also seeing her as just Pike.

Perc’ahlia - I mean, it’s canon. Thing is that I can’t pinpoint a moment when it began. Just that it happened and that felt okay. I think they’re both maniacs in their own right and it’s kind of cute how they indulge each other’s passion/excitement. Gifts feels like Percy’s love language and he shows it so much in how he tinkers for Vex and her glee in what new way she can fuck shit up is enough for him. And also it’s really delicious the parallel with them and the Briarwoods and Laura has stated that if Percy had died died, that it was possible Vex end up the same kind of menace Delilah was.

Vex/Zahra - In some other life, they would have been the femme fatale couple. All of their interactions were enjoyable and they so clearly enjoy each other. Just looking over and it’s the eyes with them.

Widobrave - Partners in crime. I think that their dynamic isn’t simple and that’s what’s so interesting. They see each other as someone to protect and don’t exactly see how the other views them as the one to be protected. And they have ‘without question’ sort of trust in each other and are genuinely awed and so happy when they witness one do something great. It gets sad with more of their backstory. And it gets me that both immediately felt guilty for keeping it a secret from them. Not the entire party, their partner. They both have seen past appearances and see the strength, the zaniness and the brilliance the other possesses and I can’t wait to get to more of their moments.

Character I find most attractive:

CR1: Gilmore. My god he was gorgeous. Vax why did you just walk away from that? Raishan. Look, she was hot and smart and even if she fell eventually, she made the most of when she was there.

CR2: Cali is so frickin’ adorable. Like she’s so cute and hey, if not for the whole cult chasing her thing, it’d be nice to stick around and sightsee. I am also a ‘Jester is really cute’ person.

Character I would marry:

I don’t really think there’s anyone I’d actually--well, I think maybe Pike because stronk lady that can get into mischief with but at the same time just be able to be content with.

No one in this campaign so far.

Character I would be best friends with:

I would LIKE to be friends with Cassandra because everyone continues to ignore how this woman has been tormented and then thrust into very important position. All while harboring guilt for what she had to do to survive. The girl needs a break and I’m here with a blanket and some tea.

I would like to be friends with Nott actually. She’s really cool and I think it’s fun to let her be her zany self.

a random thought:

So who is really credited as the inventor of firearms, Percy, who did technically make it, or Ripley, who is the one that sold the schematics to make them mass-produced?

Is there just an abundance of mysterious magic ladies in Wildemount or what?

An unpopular opinion:

Scanlan deserved his anger and feelings of being unappreciated. Even if he was brought back, it does not lessen that there was uncertainty nor the lack of respect towards his body. Vox Machina had gotten cocky and it drove one of their members away. Vex and Vax were the only ones that took Scanlan’s frustration to heart and did not mess up with Tary for that reason. Also Tary was a parallel of the worst of the party, which is why most of them couldn’t stand him.

The small races are not fucking children. I don’t get why they get called children or thought of like that. They’re just short, goddammit!

My Canon OTP:

CR1: Perc’ahlia for above reasons.

CR2: None to be seen so far?

My Non-canon OTP:

CR1: Because I’m hella fucked up, I am enamored by the thought that Percy had a crush on Ripley. Because she paid attention to him, one of the younger and less interesting of his family. And to him she was brilliant and she took advantage of that, which is how he survived or why they got in. And Percy never forgot or forgave her.

CR2: “And they were roommates” “oh god they were roommates.” * whispers * I kind of liked Fjord and Molly. They felt like foils that were amicable with each other aaaaannndddd actually had nice interactions?

Most Badass Character:

CR1: NO MERCY PERCY

CR2: Shakaste is pretty awesome and Khary Payton is awesome.

Most Epic Villain:

CR1: Raishan. Like I wish she could’ve been a bigger villain but alas the dice were not on her side. I think her arc was the most interesting as she was the true threat in the party’s eyes despite there being a dragon terraforming their home.

CR2: At this point? There hasn’t been a major villain for the party.

Pairing I am not a fan of:

I don’t really have anything I can’t ship in this one.

Character I feel the writers screwed up (in one way or another):

Can’t really say anyone ‘screwed up’ since this is a lot of improv and all that. So I guess miss chances I think would only really be Molly since y’know, he’s dead.

Favourite Friendship:

CR1: Pike & Grog - They’re Best Buddies, y’all. I can’t get over how much they just pal around like that’s just the usual for them. And technically it is. They can go get wasted together and then kick ass after. It’s just the casualness of their relationships and how much respect and lack of reverence that I like. Pike is just Pike to Grog so he finds no reason to hold back or hold her as a light unlike the rest of the party. But he does want to do good by her because she’s his friend and he doesn’t want to disappoint her. And Pike never insults Grog’s intellect and actively works to help him improve and deflects the party’s remarks of how he is.

CR2: Empire Kids - They’ve come a long way from their seats of mistrust and standoff-ishness. I think there was a post that put it best that they’re ‘learning how to human.’ And because they both are at the same point of it, they are struggling together. As a result they’ve come to lean on each other to keep themselves from going to far. They’re not perfect but they’re trying to keep this found family of theirs together.

Character I most identify with:

CR1: Keyleth. Being the one to try to keep people together or on the straight on narrow isn’t easy. It sucks and I’m not usually the person that should do it but here I am.

CR2: Caleb. I am very off-beat and odd but I do want to have friends and the like....just not stellar at showing that...

Character I wish I could be:

I mean, this is D&D where awesome shit goes on all the time. So anyone I guess?

#answered #wolfatrest #shctteredillusions

2 notes · View notes

abadzone · 5 years

Text

A Weekly Song: Episode 8 - Joe Hisaishi

A Weekly Song: Episode 8

Joe Hisaishi – Procession of the Gods

“When’s he going to do a movie composer?”

“He’s always going on about film soundtracks.”

It’s true, I am, I do. The reason is this – I listen to a hell of a lot of them. I’m an aficionado. When you’re writing and drawing all day and night, whether it’s writing articles for magazines or scripts for other artists, or just drawing your own comics and illustrations, you listen to a lot of music.

About five years ago, other than corporate work, I changed my professional emphasis from both writing and drawing to predominantly writing (largely because I make more money from writing than from doing both. Making comics and graphic novels is slow, hard work where you do about ten jobs for the price of one. Plus, anyone in comics publishing will tell you how little most artists make, but that is not the purpose of this essay so I’ll leave that story and observations on same for another time).

I’ve always found that I can’t listen to music with lyrics or indeed a human voice of any kind while writing – I find it distracting. This leaves instrumental music – Jazz and Classical, sure, Ambient definitely, but most often – soundtracks. Film and TV scores.

Perhaps the reason for this is that the part of my brain that I use to create stories and voices of characters is also the part that listens to and processes speech and singing. I don’t know that for sure, but whatever the reason, because most of my time is now spent writing, there’s much less time to listen to listen to podcasts, talk radio and the like.

When I was doing the more “automatic” tasks in the creation of a page of comics, like lettering, inking or colouring, I always found myself listening to something with a human voice – a play, a podcast, radio documentaries. My inking was actually better, both looser and slicker, if I was slightly distracted by listening to radio plays or discussion of some kind. (Hi, BBC Radio 4, NPR and Big Finish. I miss you.)

Correspondingly, my appetite for soundtracks has increased, but they’ve always been an important – nay, essential part of my creative process. They are both mood setters and emotional emollient, both starting points and helpful compositional markers in the creation of a story.

It goes something like this: you think of a scene, what the purpose of it is, how you want it to play, what the characters are saying and doing and you choose a piece of music that sets the temperature of that set of incidents. I think every book and every comic I’ve ever written has had a temp-track of sorts, a tracklisting that serves as a guide for the mood and atmosphere I’m looking for.

In many cases, this temp-track evolves and changes as the story does, with some pieces of music being dropped in favour of others as the shape of the narrative develops. I imagine it’s a similar process in an editing suite; as you revise and modify the focus of different elements of a story, the linguistic accompaniments necessarily change too. In film or TV, it might be the Foley sounds, a change of emphasis in lighting via colour grading; in comics it might be the layout, the way the guttering of a page affects the pace at which a reader scans it, and where their eye is led; the tempo at which it subtextually guides a reader to the turn of the page and an emotional turning point, all the while preserving a sense of immersion. Every small detail the author employs affects everything else, and everything has to be right and constantly rejigged to create the illusion of the real world within the story.

This is the kind of constant balancing act common to all forms of visual storytelling. While comics don’t have the luxury of sound and motion, it is still a supremely nuanced and sophisticated language in its own right. What I always liked about comics as both art form and means of expression is how accessible they are and that they can be created relatively cheaply in comparison to film or TV. Anyone can make a comic; you really can be a sole creator, whereas film and TV are collaborative media. A graphic novel really can be one person’s creative vision, unlike a film, which although it may be steered by one overall captain, the authorship really is shared by many (despite what the director’s credit would have you believe: “A Film By…”)

I digress. The point is, one art form and means of cultural expression runs into the next; none of them stand alone. Everything influences everything else and in my case, I’d go so far as to say, these days, music probably influences me more in terms of the kinds of stories I like to tell than many other comics do. Storytelling is a free-flowing activity that inhabits every possible mode of human expression.

Obviously, all this means I have a lot of favourite soundtracks and film composers. How to pick one, and just one track from so many, for this week’s song?

Well, first time around, I’m gonna do the easy thing. I’m going straight to someone who supplies music for one of the greats in a related field: animation. The greatest living animator, in my humble opinion, is Hayao Miyazaki. One of Miyazaki’s constant and most consistent collaborators is Mamoru Fujisawa AKA Joe Hisaishi, who has composed scores for every Miyazaki movie but one. Not to compare Miyazaki to a Spielberg or a Lucas, but Hisashi is Miyazaki’s John Williams.

It’s really difficult to pick a favourite Miyazaki film, and equally difficult to pick a Hisaishi score. He is, predictably, a composer who can match the depth, vision and moods of Miyazaki, one who seems as comfortable with experimental electronica as he is with the orchestra.

My admiration for Hisaishi is a fairly usual reaction to his music; sometimes it’s interesting to look at exactly why a composer is beloved. His association with one of the best storytellers in the world is partially the reason, but composers are of course storytellers in their own right. There is a line of thinking that viewers shouldn’t really notice movie music – that it’s a subtextual support to the emotion and action of the story being told onscreen. While there’s an element of truth in that, there are just as many examples to the opposite. What I think a good film score should do is complement and highlight the story, help make it an immersive emotional experience; be textural as opposed to specific. It should help you, the viewer, get caught up in the characters and story without necessarily calling attention to itself, which calls for a lot of nuance and is a very neat balancing act. You can still notice it – I sometimes do, but what’s fascinating about it is that, when it’s working well, I often don’t do it consciously. The opposite is true also – I notice it when it’s intrusive or overly sentimental, signposting emotions rather than being an integral part of them.

Something that interests me is that Hisaishi is on record as thinking many modern Hollywood soundtracks don’t have enough “space” or silence in them – that quiet is as much a tool of the composer as loud is. This is a man whose comprehension of emotional colour and silence as a tone in his palette is second to none. I love his work in film and beyond it (which is why I’m also going to cheat a bit and also recommend his Minima Rhythm series, the first of which you can listen to here).

That’s not today’s pick though, which I agonised over. I almost went for the opening of Princes Mononoke, Attack of the Tatari-Gami, which is both great action music and one of the most sinister themes in animation history. In the end, I settled upon a piece from Spirited Away, which is possibly one of Hisaishi’s most sweeping, yearning scores.

Variously known as Procession of the Gods (on the US pressing of the soundtrack I have), Procession of the Spirits and The Procession of Celestial Beings, the cue is actually seriously truncated in the movie and not allowed to fully bloom the way it does on the soundtrack album. You’re going to have to take my word for that, because unfortunately there is no official Studio Ghibli channel that I can find on YouTube that showcases Hisaishi’s work, but you can do a search and find several cover versions that attempt to recapture its ominous majesty. Here’s a link to how it sounds in the film, but I’d encourage you to seek out the soundtrack album and listen to it in all its pomp,

The scene it accompanies is shortly after the main character, a ten-year old girl called Chihiro, finds herself stranded in a magical world. Her parents have turned into pigs (yes) and she attempts to find the tunnel that is a gateway back to her reality, only to find that she is now separated from it by a newly-appeared river. A boat begins crossing the water towards her and this music begins to play, all string-plucked notes and magical portent. There are no visible passengers until the boat hits the shore, where Chihiro stands watching. Doors open, the music swells, heralding the arrival of beings that no human child should witness. They appear as masks that float around head height and, floating above the deck, file off the boat one by one. As they disembark, cloaks flow from the masks, like paint tipped from a bucket, flowing down to describe the shapes of their intangible bodies…

…And Chihiro flees, the music fades. On the soundtrack album it reaches a magnificent crescendo and ends on a playful note, punctuated by human voices. It’s a scene that goes from a foreboding menace to awe and wonder, from fear to celebration and back again.

If you’ve never seen the film, see it. It is far, far from being merely a children’s entertainment and occupies a place among the most visionary films ever made.

I have another version of Procession from the Spirited Away Image Album, which I think might be a demo rather than the more usual “song in character” pieces you get on those kinds of tie-ins (but I can’t read Japanese, so I might be completely wrong about that. Feel free to correct me if so via Twitter or email or if you have any further information about this particularly sumptuous film score).

To get a flavour of Joe Hisaishi’s imaginative brilliance, you can watch and listen to a whole concert here.

More info on Studio Ghibli (n English) available here.

#aweeklysong #spirited away #joe hisaishi #miyazaki #spiritedaway #studioghibli #studio ghibli #joehisaishi

2 notes · View notes

magicalcrapulent · 6 years

Text

Captain America and how he discards his title in CA:CW

Once I have lain in bed one morning and thought about CA:CW. Let’s just say that I have feelings about this movie. I analyzed the movie and Steve’s and Tony’s actions during the plot. I decided to write it down to order my thought, and it somehow became an essay (oops?). And now I want to share my new insights with the world; the insight that Captain America discards his title as Captain America as early as CA:CW.

Okay guys, hear me out! Captain America: Civil War is not about the Sokovia Accords or an argument between Steve and Tony. It’s much more than that underneath the surface. It’s about Steve’s abandonment of his Captain America persona. And this is how it goes:

What does Captain America stand for? Democracy and freedom. He is/was the ideal human being in terms of Nazi standards: big, blonde, blue eyes, intelligent, the perfect soldier. And he punched Hitler in the face. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do. Steve acts on the premise that what he does is good and right, because that’s what he’s been doing all this time since WW2, that’s why he was chosen for Project: Rebirth in the first place: because of his inherent goodness, and Steve delivered (rightfully so). He is used to do what is good and right, because that’s who he is, that’s what Captain America is, what he stands for: The Good Fight.

And then the Accords came. Suddenly somebody tells him that he was acting out of order, that his actions may not be as positive as he was led to believe. Of course he denies it for a while, but CA:CW is not really about the Accords, at least not for Steve. But by brushing those Accords aside he also starts brushing aside everything he stands for: Democracy and freedom. 117 nations decided that the Avengers couldn’t continue the way they were doing. 117 nations decided that they had enough of having an American team of ‘superheroes’ just come into their country, cause mayhem and then disappear again, leaving those nations in shambles, all in the name of the greater good. They had enough, and they used their rights and freedoms to do something against it. They stood up and said “It’s enough”. By denying those nations’ right to say ‘No’, by saying “The safest hands are our own”, by claiming everybody in a position of power is (basically)corrupt and has a secret agenda, Steve denies those countries’ freedom and democratic rights.

Steve is not completely wrong. He has personal experience with hidden agendas. Negative experiences. We have seen it in The Avengers and CA:TWS. SHIELD has, on multiple occasions, withheld information and had their own secret agenda and their reasoning wasn’t all that sound. It starts in The Avengers, where SHIELD lies to Steve’s face about clean energy while secretly making HYDRA weapons. This is the first crack in Steve’s trust towards the established power systems. The second is when the Security Council fires a nuke at Manhattan, at their own civil population. That is the second crack. The next one comes in CA:TWS. Already at the beginning Fury withheld mission parameters from him, and we can see how pissed Steve is that people are not telling him everything he (thinks he) needs to know. His trust is completely shattered when it turns out SHIELD was corrupted from the very beginning. HYDRA has grown inside Shield from the start, and it turns out for Steve that even the organization with the hidden agenda has even MORE hidden agendas. I think we can say that Steve worked for SHIELD because it is the only organization he marginally trusts (and knows), and he only continues to trust them after The Avengers is probably because they weren’t the ones who fired the nuke and they came clean to him when he confronted them with the hidden HYDRA weapons.

So Steve’s skepticism towards established governments and organizations is justified. What he doesn’t seem to understand is, that even he himself has a hidden agenda: Bucky. Rumlow is right by saying that, whenever Bucky is mentioned, Steve’s brain does a full stop and everything else loses importance. So by saying that he can’t trust governments with hidden agendas to give the commands, he is a hypocrite, because he himself has a hidden agenda himself that he tries to protect and fulfill. Because not only does he want to protect Bucky, but he also wants to neutralize the threat the additional Winter Soldiers in Siberia pose, something he doesn’t really tell anybody about who doesn’t necessarily have to know about it. And Tony obviously isn’t somebody who needs to know in Steve’s opinion. The thing he so despises in other – the secret keeping, the lies, the hidden agendas – are all things he does himself through the length of CA:CW. But we get to that again later.

This is actually a reoccurring theme in comics; it’s a thing that especially authorities like the police criticized after WW2 about the way they are depicted in comics. The Lone Hero, most of the time some kind of vigilante who acts outside of the law, defeats the bad guys and lets the government, military and police look bad. People feared that especially children would read those comics and disregard local authority, because obviously they are completely incompetent, and why should children even listen to them?

And that’s exactly what Steve does! After the UN bombing in Vienna every evidence they had at that time led to Bucky being the culprit. We, as the viewers, know that something else is going on and that it wasn’t Bucky who planted the bomb, but the characters in the movie don’t know what we know. They only have the means and knowledge given to them, and, like I said, the evidence points towards Bucky. And so the police, no, more than the police, the fucking GSG9, a German special ops team, goes to apprehend the man who bombed the UN in Vienna. And what does Steve do? He decides that they are not good enough and that he can do better and sweeps in himself, verifying everybody’s worst fears and complains to be true. Like Tony said later in the movie, Steve’s actions prove that something like the Accords is necessary, because obviously Steve knows no boundaries. No matter what Steve claims, acting the way he did wasn’t the best for everybody and he was following his own agenda: saving Bucky. The only one profiting from his actions was Bucky, nobody else.

Then comes a time of calm, of conversation and of diplomacy, where Tony and Steve have a long overdue conversation. And Tony brings out the pens he found in his attic (?). But what do these pens symbolize? Tony said that they were used to sign the Lend-Lease Bill, but what does this have to do with the story? What does this Bill contribute? They could have chosen any other Bill or even a Peace treaty that those pens could have signed, but they chose this specific Bill. Why?

This Bill basically allowed Roosevelt to continue his own agenda – involving America in WW2 – while still acting in the boundaries of the law. By loaning and not selling the UK weapons and supplies he acts in the parameters set by his own government while still helping those who need it. It is symbolic to the Accords and Tony’s role in it. He signed the Accord because he thinks it’s the right thing to do, because his own actions (Ultron for example) show that even Superheroes need regulations. They can’t just run around and do as they please without any kind of consequences. In Lagos Cap and his team did their thing, and when people got hurt and died they just left again like “Well, shit happens life goes on”. A normal human being wouldn’t have been able to get away with something like that, and Superheroes shouldn’t be an exception.

No. Tony signed the Accords to take up responsibility for his action, but he isn’t delusional. He knows Ross. In the after Credit scene in The Incredible Hulk we see him talking to Ross. He knows that guy and what to expect. But Tony is a clever dude. He signed the Accords, but he is also manipulating them to suit himself and what he wants to accomplish. It sounds shifty, but so does Steve with his “the safest hands are our own” bullshit. Tony acts in the parameters set by the Accords, just like Roosevelt acted in the parameters set by the American Government and Congress, while still working towards their own ultimate goals.

That is what those pens symbolize, the acting in set rules while having the freedom to follow your own morals. A practical example for this is Wanda’s confinement. Many may shout “Tony imprisoned her!”, but what do you expect? She’s an illegal immigrant without any kind of legal papers, an ex-member of HYDRA, helped Ultron, and got some people in Lagos killed. Do people really think that all those things don’t have consequences? Do they really think that she can get away with all of those things with a simple “Oops, my bad”? It was either house arrest in a comfortable environment, her own home, with all its luxury like privacy, TV, Internet, fitness facilities, and all alone with the guy she has a crush on, or being imprisoned in a cell with a straightjacket and a collar. Tony acted in the parameters of the Accords, but he managed to manipulate them according to his will by having Wanda in confinement, but still giving her luxury and a certain kind of freedom and amenity. Not to forget that Steve didn’t even think to ask about Wanda. Only when Tony brought her up did he care to think what is going on with her. Another evidence is that, at the moment, Steve is single-mindedly focused on Bucky and nobody else, no matter their (maybe shitty) situation. With those pens Tony subtly tells Steve that he can still follow his own goals and still keep his integrity and follow his own morals while still complying with the law, just like Tony has done with Wanda.

But all of this goes right past Steve. All he says concerning the Lend-Lease Bill is that it brought America closer towards war. And again he acts like a hypocrite. Wasn’t it Steve who applied for enlistment through all of New York and even New Jersey so that he can participate in said war? Wasn’t it Steve who said that bullies weren’t allowed to remain in power? Wasn’t it Steve who fought the Good Fight by punching Hitler in the face? As much as WW1 was a senseless bloodshed, the Second World War was, in a way, necessary. People like Hitler weren’t allowed to remain in power. They weren’t allowed to achieve world domination. And to be frank, it wasn’t really America that stood in Hitler’s way. It was Churchill and the UK. They were the only ones standing in Hitler’s way of completely controlling Europe. Not America, not France, not Russia (who were Hitler’s allies), it was the UK. As much as Roosevelt wanted to participate in the war and help his British friends, he couldn’t. The American people didn’t allow it; his congress didn’t allow it. The only thing he could do was trick the laws and his government as much as he could to support Churchill as much as he could.

By not only forgetting that, but by also first thinking about the (somewhat) negative implication those pens brought up – America joining WW2 – Steve not only disregards the sacrifices the UK brought during that very lonely year where they were the only ones standing in Hitler’s way, but he also insinuates that it was wrong from Roosevelt to sign this Bill. We can compare it to his own situation with the Accords. He thinks that signing those Accords is a mistake, something that will tear the Avengers apart, something that will get them into trouble, something that could be avoided by not signing. But at the same time he betrays everything he stands for in that sentence. By implying that (in a way) joining the war was a mistake he betrays his former believes that you have to stand up to bullies, that you can’t let somebody like Hitler or HYDRA continue as they are. At the same time he thinks that he is honoring those very same ideals with not signing the Accords, because he thinks that the people who support those Accords are the real bullies. But that is, like Rhodey so wonderfully put it, “dangerously arrogant”. To think you are the only person in the world to be in the right and everybody else’s opinion and reasoning is wrong, is indeed dangerously arrogant.

In that moment he represents the American imperial belief, the thought of America as the world’s police force. America comes into a country where there is a problem and gets themselves involved despite the protests of its inhabitants. They think they have the right of it because they say they fight for something bigger like freedom and democracy. And that’s what Cap does, too. He gets into a country in the name of the mission and the protection of the world, does what he wants, and says he has the right of it because he does it for something bigger like freedom and democracy. So it’s doubly hypocritical of him to say that joining the war was the wrong decision to make, not only because he represents the American imperialism, but also because, as we have seen in Age of Ultron, that Steve’s biggest fear is the end of the war. That’s his biggest fear, that the war (no matter which one, WW2, war with the Chitauri, war against HYDRA, war with Ultron) ends and that he is no longer needed. Steve fears peace, and almost craves war, because it gives him purpose. And isn’t that sad? That your only purpose in life is to go to war?

By disregarding the pens, by disregarding the Lend-Lease Bill, Steve is disregarding every single one of his accomplishments as Captain America: his help in defeating the Nazis and HYDRA, the victory at the Battle of New York against the Chitauri, HYDRA’s defeat in Washington, Ultron’s defeat in Sokovia. By implying that joining the war wasn’t worth it he practically says that all those accomplishments and victories weren’t worth it. Tony is right, though. By signing the Lend-Lease Bill Roosevelt helped Steve become Captain America, and thus helped to achieve all of those victories. And Steve is brushing them aside because he has a) no idea about political maneuvering and b) he is unable to compromise and make a detour to achieve his ultimate goal.

But why can’t he make those compromises? What is it that stops him from thinking this through properly? You know the Answer. It starts with a B and ends with an –ucky.

Steve has a certain picture of Bucky, and that picture sometimes doesn’t align with reality. For him, Bucky is his friend, his partner in crime, his brother in everything but blood. They grew up together, fought together, they had each others’ back from the moment they became friends. The problem is that this version of Bucky doesn’t exist anymore, at least not in the beginning. Since the end of CA:TWS Bucky was nobody. He wasn’t Steve’s long lost friend, but he also wasn’t the Winter Soldier. He was nobody, had no identity, no memories, everything that makes a person who they are has been erased by HYDRA, over and over again. But Steve saw him and only saw his long lost brother, when in reality he wasn’t. He was nobody. But throughout the movie Steve tries to protect this friend, even during a time where he wasn’t this friend, not until after Bucky went on a rampage and Steve knocked his head real hard (neuronal recalibrating). Only after that did Bucky really become Bucky. But before that he was the (ex-)HYDRA assassin who bombed the UN. Steve, of course, doesn’t believe that, because he has faith in Bucky and knows he would never do that, that he only ever became the ‘villain’ because HYDRA kidnapped him and brainwashed him over and over again. And Steve is right, Bucky wouldn’t do that. But Nobody-the-ex-Hydra-assassin might. In theory of course, the viewer knows that he wasn’t the culprit, but like I said above, the characters can’t know that because they don’t have all the information the viewer has. The point is that Steve expects Bucky to think and act in a certain way that he is familiar with and that he knows and can predict, but at that certain point of the story that is not who Bucky is. Only after he regains some part of his memories and part of himself, are those predictions Steve made true. Before that Steve predicted the behavior and steps of a different person, not of Nobody-the-ex-Hydra-assassin.

Steve’s predictions get verified then. He always knew that it wasn’t Bucky who planted the bomb but somebody else, that something more sinister is going on, but he didn’t predict that out of empiric evidence but because of a personal, subjective opinion. But now, with Bucky regaining part of his memory, with an actual clue that there is a very real and very big threat on the horizon that could very well make HYDRA or whoever it is take control of those additional Winter Soldiers a very real contester for world domination, what does Steve do? HE KEEPS IT TO HIMSELF!!!

Before CA:CW Steve had a real problem with authorities keeping information from him, even accused the UN and 117 Nations of being corrupt, and here he is, doing the exact same thing! It already started in CA:TWS where Steve found out that HYDRA killed Howard Stark and opted not to tell Tony about it. In Age of Ultron Steve accused Tony of keeping too many secrets from the team, while at the same time he is the one who keeps a pretty big secret from Tony. This is already were it started, this is where Steve starts abandoning his own ideals. He demands honesty and transparency from everybody, because that is how democracy works, but at the same time he doesn’t offer any of that himself.

Steve believes the worst of other people – probably because he was told that he himself was inherently good, which would imply that everybody else wasn’t good enough and thus he was better than them– and in CA:CW he also believes the worst of Tony. He doesn’t tell Tony about this new threat because he thinks he wouldn’t believe him, that he will try to stop Steve from doing the right thing, from stopping those Winter Soldiers. And in the end he feels vindicated (again), because Tony does try to stop him, but not because of the reasons Steve predicts, but because Tony can only act on the information he has, which means that, for Tony, Steve is trying to help Bucky escape and hide him until he can clear his name. That is all the information Tony has, and he cannot act differently because Steve is withholding information. And the airstrip of an airport when tensions are high and people are preparing for battle is probably not the best time or place to discuss this new potential threat. It’s not like they had hours upon hours of time to meet up or talk over the phone about those Winter Soldiers… Oh! Wait!!! THEY DID!!! You cannot tell me that Steve had time to fly two (completely uninvolved) parties from as far as San Francisco (!) over to Germany, but at the same time didn’t have the time to tell Tony (at least over the phone) that there are five killing machines about to be released in Siberia. Tony would have at least had somebody check that out, or would have even gone himself to take a look at those potential Winter Soldiers.

Some may complain now: “Tony was off collecting his own little army! How was he supposed to reach him? Steve had to defend himself so that he could go and stop those Winter Soldiers!” Yes, Tony did collect an army. Why? Because he has seen what Steve was willing to do in Bucharest when people started to become a ‘threat’ to Bucky. He has gotten 36 hours to bring Steve and Bucky in, and he knew that he could only do that properly and with as little violence as possible when he could overpower them. Spider-Man’s task for example was only to web them up so that they could collect them later on. Tony only wanted to stop a wanted fugitive from escaping and stop Steve before the situation could become any worse for him because Steve was helping and abetting an escaped fugitive. Tony couldn’t really know that Steve was collecting allies and a small army himself.

And then, of course, everything goes to shit. Rhodey is paralyzed, Steve and Bucky escaped to god knows where, half of the Avengers is in prison. Of course they blame Tony for that (I’m looking at you Clint and Scott), but let me ask you: WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD HAPPEN??? You probably saw in the News what happened in Vienna, that Bucky was probably the culprit, that you were basically helping a prime suspect for a terroristic bombing at the fucking UN escape, and you thought that didn’t have consequences?!?!? That’s the exact reason why the Accords are necessary. Team Cap thinks they are right, just like Steve does, that they were fighting The Good Fight and that this justifies their action. But that’s not true. They helped a wanted fugitive and – as far as the world knows – a wanted terrorist and destroyed an entire airport in the process. And they think they are going to get away with it.

It’s like with Wanda and the incident in Lagos: Steve made a mistake by getting distracted, Wanda moved in, but she didn’t have enough control of her power, too little training for a mission like that, and people died. And although it wasn’t her intention, and that she only wanted to help, it still doesn’t change that she and the Avengers made a mistake and people died because of it. There need to be regulations and consequences, or so-called ‘superheroes’ can do whatever they want in the name of the greater good without reporting to anybody but themselves. Tony is right with what he said, that “without rules we are no better than the bad guys”. Because if there are no rules, then ‘superheroes’ can destroy an entire airport or, like in Age of Ultron, half a city, and face no kind of consequences. Again, Rhodey’s comment about being “dangerously arrogant” comes to mind, and it fits wonderfully into the Raft scene as well. Both Clint and Scott act as if they were in the right and that their imprisonment is a huge injustice because they were fighting The Good Fight, and that they got imprisoned by no fault of their own (and what is it with Marvel’s fathers that they just abandon their kids in a heartbeat? Oh yes Clint, retiring and spending more time with your family by going golfing and water skiing is so boring). They are the ones the Accords try to protect the world from, because they have gone out of control.

The only one who acts reasonable and logical and like he has even a stint of common sense is Sam. When Tony talks to him and tells him that new evidence has come up and that he now knows that Bucky was framed and that something else is going on, Sam tells him everything. It has basically taken two days for the allegations against Bucky to be proven false. Tony isn’t on some kind of vendetta, a hardliner of the Accords that can’t play with anybody acting outside of them (we have already concluded that above with the pens and the Lend-Lease Bill). He knows what he has to do so that Ross and anybody else who might be out for blood doesn’t get a hint that he is about to meet Captain America and The Winter Soldier. We see that Tony can compromise and prioritize. He is going now to help Steve and Bucky neutralize the other Winter Soldiers so that Tony can regain Steve’s trust he seemed to have lost when Tony signed the Accords, and so that they can have time later to discuss every other issue they have without the threat of world destruction.

And, again, everything goes to shit. Bucky become Zemo’s instrument with which he can tear the Avengers apart. And Steve lets him.

By keeping the truth about Howards (and Maria’s) death a secret ‘to save Tony the heartache and spare his feelings’ and by being to single-mindedly focused on Bucky, Steve has brought by the destruction of the Avengers as they knew it. He may claim that he has kept that knowledge a secret to spare Tony’s feelings, but in reality he was protecting Bucky once again. Again Steve probably feels vindicated when Tony attacked Bucky in grief and rage. He has probably predicted such a reaction from the moment he found out Howard was murdered by HYDRA, probably by Bucky, probably predicted that Tony would try to find the murderer of his parents and make him pay. And again, Steve expects the worst of Tony. What was Tony supposed to do? His parents’ murderer was standing right there, right in front of him while he just saw this very same man murder his fucking parents on video! And Steve, somebody who Tony thought of as a friend, was protecting him. How many other people has Bucky killed? How many other people was Steve denying their justice by protecting a single man? I know – and Tony probably knows, too – that it wasn’t really Bucky’s fault, that he got brainwashed and exploited as a weapon. But in that moment, freshly overcome with grief and rage, Tony can’t see reason. Just like Steve loses any kind of objectivity when Bucky is in danger, it’s the same with Tony when the people he loves are in danger (like when he builds the Iron Man army in IM3 to ‘protect what he can’t live without’, or earlier when Rhodey fell out of the sky and appeared dead). Tony loses any kind of objectivity and reason, and after the break-up with Pepper and Rhodey’s fall he is at his breaking point. He has enough.

But all of that following fight might have been avoided if Steve had just come to Tony and told him that Howard’s death wasn’t an accident but that HYDRA had him murdered. Maybe then Tony might have been able to vent his anger and rage into the right direction, especially when you think about that between CA:TWS and Age of Ultron the Avengers were basically raiding one HYDRA facility after the other. That would have been a good way for Tony to make those suckers pay for the death of his parents. But no. Steve didn’t tell Tony, even dares to excuse his behavior and secret keeping, something he oh so despised in others like SHIELD or Natasha or Fury.

Transparency and the sharing of information are the foundations on which a good democracy is build, so that people can make educated decisions, so that people can regard every aspect of a situation. But Steve denies Tony that right over and over again. By his unwillingness to compromise and meet other people halfway, by always expecting the worst of everybody else, he became the very thing he fought against: despots who only follow their own moral code and agendas. He demands the sharing of information from everybody else while he is not forthcoming himself. He criticizes others for following their own moral code and doing what they think is right while he does the exact same thing. He demands others to be reasonable while he himself is dangerously compromised and biased. Captain America is the symbol of freedom and democracy, the right for people to voice their opinions and their right to tell others ‘No’, but by ignoring their voices – the voices of 117 nations – out of more or less personal reasons, by withholding (vital) information and not offering transparency, he is betraying everything Captain America stands for.

And I think Steve knows that.

Tony’s quip ‘My father made that shield, you don’t deserve it’ is almost pitiful in the given situation, but that sentence has a far deeper connotation. Howard has been Steve’s friend, just like Steve has been Tony’s friend, and by protecting his murderer, the murderer of Tony’s parents, he was betraying them in a way. At the same time Tony indirectly tells him that he isn’t Captain America anymore, that he has become someone not worthy of that shield and the title of Captain America that goes along with it. And I think that Steve knows and realizes that. That final fight against Tony, when Tony tells him that he has been Steve’s friend, too, I think that was the moment when Steve realized that he has fucked up. That he has become so biased and compromised that he disregarded everything and everyone else. But he couldn’t stop anymore. Through his mistakes Tony is about to kill Bucky, his Bucky, and he has already gone too far in protecting his brother than to stop now, even at Tony’s costs. At the end Steve could have been petty or all righteous and say that he was Captain America no matter what so he is keeping that shield, but I think that he has gained at least a little bit of self-reflection and realized that what he did wasn’t okay, that he made some mistakes down the line, and that he can’t go back now, at least not for a while. So he lets that shield drop because he doesn’t deserve it.

So he drops that shield, because he knows that he isn’t worthy of it, not after everything what happened. And it wasn’t Tony who ripped the team apart by signing the Accords; it also wasn’t really Steve who ripped it apart by prioritizing Bucky above everything else, but it were the two of them together. Tony (though by no fault of his own; he couldn’t guess that Bucky killed his parents, and his reaction was entirely human) and Steve (by keeping all of this a secret and by withholding important information) gave Zemo the ammunition and the instruments to pit the avengers against each other.

But Steve has shown throughout the movie how he is unable to think clearly when Bucky is involved, how he can’t analyze the situation properly when somebody just so much as mentions his name, how Steve is willing to break the law and get in the way of proper law enforcement to help him, how he prioritizes him over everbody else in his team. Steve is unable to accept other’s opinions and decisions when they are opposite of his own or deviate from it. He is unable to submit to any kind of governmental oversight, even if it’s a humanitarian one like the UN. He can’t accept that his own opinion may differ and may not be in accordance to popular and political opinion and that some countries may not want him and his involvement in his country. He ignores them and continues to do his own thing, breaking the law, getting innocent people in danger, being responsible for the death of innocent people, and being overall subjective and compromised in his decision making. He overall disregards ideals he stands for (freedom from oppression, democracy, free will, exchange of information to make educated decision), and by doing so he casts away his title of Captain America.

What is left is just a kid from Brooklyn. Not a symbol, not a hero, not even a soldier, just another human being.

#ca:cw #steve rogers #tony stark #sokovia accords #captain america #iron man #marvel #analysis #I have feelings about this movie #okay?!?!#in my head it all started with the analysis of the symbolism of the pens #and then it spiraled out of control #I actually had to write three term papers #instead I wrote this #I'm a horrible student #bucky barnes #the winter soldier #avengers

11 notes · View notes

milquetoast-on-acid · 6 years

Text

Sharon Raydor's life, death and what the hell was point?

Like many of you, I've gone through a variety of emotions from Sharon's death. I'm finally in a better place emotionally. And I have a much clearer head so that I can talk about everything that happened from a much calmer point of view. As I really wanted to respond to her death (and the manner of it) without just pure anger. Like so many others I was angry, very angry at what happened. I still am angry but I am much calmer. I also think listening to Mary's podcast helped correct some interpretations that I had.

I'm so glad to Mary to have her and her podcast. To be able to get her point of view on Sharon. I think it was very much needed for a lot of us. If you haven't listened to it yet, I really really recommend it. It may help you as it did me. I am also very glad to learn that the podcast will be continuing in some form. I have a lot to say so get cozy and grab your favorite drink.

How I found Sharon Raydor & Major Crimes A few years ago I finally got around to watching Deep Space Nine. I had been a huge Trek fan since Voyager was on and so many people said that DS9 was the best Trek. And boy where they right. It had amazing characters, great relationships (oh my god the relationships) and excellent writing.

One of the writer/producers of DS9 was a man by the name of Ronald D Moore. Who I had heard created Battlestar Galactica, which was hailed as one of the greatest Sci-Fi shows of all time. I finally got around to watching it and I was blown away by it. Laura Roslin and William Adama captured my heart on that show. From there I found a few shows the actors were in afterwards. I had planned to check out a few of them and Major Crimes was first on my list. It was a crime drama (which was right up my alley). I pretty quickly got hooked and I still haven't seen any of the other actor's shows from BSG.

Why? What is the point?

I asked myself this question before her death and so many times after it. There have only been 3 big character deaths between The Closer and Major Crimes. Willie Ray, Taylor and Sharon. In those 13 years we have only had those deaths. It is such a very rare thing to have, when so many other shows these days don't think anything of killing off one of their major characters. Each death has had a point to it within the context of the story. Willie Ray's death was meant to teach Brenda that her family was more important than her job. That time is precious and that you may not get another chance with them. That was the whole point of Willie Ray wanting to speak with Brenda. But Brenda was much too busy to take the time to sit down with her mother. And you do end up seeing Brenda rethinking her behavior.

Taylor's death pushed a completely new dynamic into the show. One that was very much needed at the time. His death left us in a place where we didn't necessarily know where the characters were going to end up. We didn't know if Sharon would have ended up being the chief or if someone else would have. Not to mention that the actor was ready to leave. Both Robert Gossett and Duff had felt that the character had gone as far as it could go.

For now, I don't see any point in Sharon's death. I don't see how it drives the plot forward. I don't see any lessons to be taught. Andy, Rusty and Provenza did not needed her death to teach them to be better people. They became better people because they loved her and she became a better person because she loved them.

Mary talks about how death in real life is very often pointless. Very often there is never a point in someone's death. I respect and acknowledge that point of view, but I think that my problem with it is it is a very odd choice for a show that was never built around reality. It certainly has it's moments of reality. For so many people it was always a comfort show. It was never a dark show like BSG or The Walking Dead. It was a show that so many of us could escape to.

So for the show to take such a drastic turn at the end. Such as killing it's main character in such traumatic way as is a HUGE blow. I also think that the deaths in this show (and TC) make more of an impact on it's audience because they are so rare. It is also a show and not reality. So we want there to be a point to her death. Especially because she was the main character and because so many of us connect to her emotionally.

For us and the characters. It casts such a huge shadow and instead of having any kind of happy ending the show will ultimately end with tragedy. I think it's a very odd and bizarre choice to have to end your show in this way. With so much grief. For the fans and for the characters. I think that, that may have been Duff's intent. Was to help us grieve for the show by having such a huge intrigal loss in the show. And that is probably why he intended to have her die a few episodes before the end. So that we can grieve along with the other characters for the loss of Sharon and the show. I personally don't think that having her die helped us deal with the loss of the show at all. I think it makes it so much harder.

But I can't help feeling that her death felt so completely unnecessary. To have her death be pointless and be the most traumatic death. Just feels very cruel. It feels cruel to Sharon. Because of how happy she finally was. It feels cruel to her family. Emily and Ricky that finally saw their mother happy. Rusty, that finally had a stable family life and a mother that loved him unconditionally. Andy who had never found happiness until he found her.

It feels cruel to the squad and it feels cruel to the fans. I'm not sure what sort of ending I would have chosen for Sharon Raydor. I agree with Mary. I would not have wanted Sharon to retire at the end of MC however if I had a choice between her dying and retiring I would definitely have chosen retirement. I think my ideal ending for her would have been for her to keep her job as the head of MC. Because she loved her job so much and loved the people that she worked with. To keep fighting for another day. And what is wrong with ending a show where the main character keeps her job and is happy and healthy?

I have also thought that Sharon's death may have been a bit of revenge on TNT. Her death was shocking, it was tragic and it was very traumatic. And it got a lot of press. For Mary's performance and for Sharon's death. It's been no secret that TNT gave MC almost no support and for years has tried to sink the show. Mostly because MC is not the type of show that TNT wants on their network anymore. So I think that Duff thought that he could show the network that he could do dark and edgy.

But I think the problem that I have with that is. Ultimately who does her death impact the most? The cast, crew, characters and the fans. Tony talked about how he thought that the network was going to push Duff not to kill Sharon. I thought that was so sweet but it seems clear to me that TNT does not care one wit about the show and has not for years.

The Intention of Sharon's Death

How it was written verses how we interrupted it. Many of us (myself included) interpreted Sharon's death as a suicide. I am very glad to learn that, that was not the case. From Mary's podcast, it really sounded like she was taken aback at learning that was how so many of us saw it as a suicide. I think that because she knew JD's intent and was so involved in the storyline that, that was the reason why she never saw it that way. And why this reaction surprised her. Sometimes when you create something your original intent or meaning may end up being lost or misinterpreted by the viewer.

I'm going to go into why I was so convinced that Sharon had committed suicide and what (I thought) her reasons were for it. For me, it goes way beyond Sharon asking Father Stan for Last Rites.

1. Sharon's Goodbyes "I'm almost done." It was her conversations with Provenza, Rusty, Father Stan and Andy throughout those last two episodes. Some of which were written as the character's goodbyes to each character and so I interpreted them as Sharon's intentional goodbyes to the people she was the closest too.

Provenza begging Sharon to slow down and her dismissal of that. Her telling him that she has every intention of keep doing what she's always done and that she has no plans to change any of that. As much as it probably killed him to let her keep doing her thing. I know he understood it because he has every intention of working until he can't anymore.

Sharon telling Andy that she thought that it would have been better for her family if she had just died the first time that she collapsed. Really felt to me like she was thinking about suicide to spare her family more trauma and the burdens of her illness.

Sharon telling Father Stan about not wanting to take a heart away from a woman who had not fully lived their life. Felt that she had given up fighting her disease. And yes she did. But now I realize that the intent was for her to just let the disease take it's course. And to give her life up to fate and when it was her time it was her time.

Her other conversation with Andy in the electronics room. Her thanking him for taking care of her. Felt again very much like she was tying up loose ends. To me it read like: I know this is the end of my life and I want you to be aware of how much I appreciate everything that you have done for me. Her telling him "I'm almost done." Really struck me.

hey say that when a person is about to commit suicide they tell their loved ones goodbye. Sometimes it's a letter. Sometimes it's in conversation, possibly a coated message that you may not understand until after they are gone. So when Sharon told Andy that she was "almost done." Sounded a lot like she was telling him goodbye and that her life would be over very soon. That he wouldn't have the burden of taking care of her anymore.

2. Asking for Last Rites "I've lived my life as a Catholic and if possible I'd like to die as one." As soon as Sharon asked for last rites, that's when the thought popped into my head that she was planning to kill herself. I am not Catholic or religious at all myself. So I had no idea that asking for last rites was something that someone could ask for as many times as they wanted. If they had felt that they may have been close to death. Or needed it to help them deal with their mortality. It really felt like (to me) Sharon tying up some loose ends. And her wanting to be there for the ritual.

3. Her behavior: Peace and Recklessness Finding peace with her mortality. Her willfull disregard of her doctor's orders and coming to the point in her life where she gave absolutely zero fucks. Both felt to me like because she had made her decision to kill herself that meant she wasn't going to let anything stop her from doing what she wanted. Let me tell you, her giving no fucks I thought was so fabulous. I loved it. By that I am specifically refering to her behavior towards Mason. Not her ignoring her doctors orders. All of this screamed suicide to me. The intentions were just intrupited incorrectly for so many of us. So much of what was happeneing was really just supposed to be some HEAVY foreshaddowing. The shows way of trying to prepare us for her death in the best way they could without actually coming right out and telling us.

Why her choosing suicide confused me.

The Manner of her Death I was confused as to why she would commit suicide in front of all of the people she loved (and loved her). Her son most especially. I was baffled and utterly confused because Sharon is first and foremost a mother. Intentionally killing herself in front of her son, who she was always protecting just didn't make any sense. It felt like character assassination. Because I as much as (come to know about her) is that is something that she would never do. She would never want to put her family through that kind of pain.

The Disconnect between her Happiness and her Intention to kill herself Sharon has mentioned so many times throughout season 6 just how happy she is. She's talked about how she's never been happier in her entire life. And so it is a bit odd to want to kill yourself if you are really and truely happy in life. The way that I explained this away. Was what I thought were her intentions. I had thought that she did not want to put her family though anymore worry and the burden of taking care of her. How many times did she talk about how she did not want anyone to put her life on hold for her and her illness? She never wanted to inconvenience her children (Emily and Ricky most specifically because they lived away from her). She didn't even want them contacted when she was in the hospital that one time.

Another reasoning that I had for her intention towards suicide. Was her not wanting to give her family any false hope. She talked about how the pacemaker was only a temporary measure and how she decided she did not want another person's heart. So instead of having her family live through chance after chance, of hope and heartache for her just to ultimatly die. She took it upon herself to end it all earlier. So that her family would not have to keep living between hope and trauma.

Sharon vs Laura JD made a point of comparing and paralleling the two characters. But I really think that Laura's death works much more for the character than it does for Sharon. The very first thing that you learn about Laura is that she is terminal. THE VERY FIRST THING. It is built into the character and so we have a long time to prepare for her death. It was still devastating but it was always her fate, her destiny to die at the end of the story. And so we knew that it wouldn't end for any other way.

Another point of comparison is Sharon and Laura's behaviors at the end of their lives. Laura became ruthless AF near the end of her life (and the times she knew she was dying). She closed herself off and made the hard decisions because she knew she had to in order to ensure the survival of the human race before her death. Sharon also ended up not giving a fuck and did what she wanted. Sadly though it seems that hastened her death. Laura knew that she was going to die. Sharon was very aware of her mortality and made peace with it. But she pushed herself and that caused her death.

Their death scenes were also very different. Laura died at the very end of the story. In a raptor, flying above Earth next to her soulmate. It was sad but it was a peaceful death. She was happy and had died just as she saw the fruits of her labor. Sharon on the other hand died a horribly tragic death that makes it easy on no one. She got pissed off at a suspect and had a heart attack. While the suspect was screaming at her, the team all rushing to her to save her life. While Rusty is frantic on the phone with her doctor and being dragged out of the room. Laura's death was inevitable and it was made easier because of how peaceful of a death she was allowed to have. It's just confusing to me as to how Sharon's death is supposed to make things easier on us when her death is the most traumatic of all of the deaths on MC. And one I don't think I'll ever be able to watch again.

While Sharon is a similar character to Laura. She is not Laura. And we did not need for her to have the same fate as her. So many of us wanted Sharon to live the life that Laura could not. And now there both dead. And now I'm bitter AF about that.

All I can think is... A man kills, yet another strong woman and her death was pointless. I see no positivity and no happiness in that. It was unnecessary and it was traumatic. All I see is the squad grieving for her death for the rest of the season. Andy who's happiness has been cruely ripped away from him only two weeks after they got married. And it seems he is destined to be alone after all. And that is depressing.

What's next? And moving forward. Right now, I won't be able to watch the rest of the season live. I'm still very emotionally cut up about Sharon's death that I don’t think that I will be able to watch the rest of the season. I know that eventually I will get around to watching the remaining four episodes. Because I am not ready to say goodbye to Sharon Raydor and Major Crimes, I will be continuing my episode reviews. From here on out I will be picking up where I left off at in season 3. I hope by the time I am done with season 4 that I will be able to pick up on the rest of season 6.

#major crimes #mc spoilers #sharon raydor #meta sharon #mc analysis

44 notes · View notes

dweemeister · 6 years

Photo

Movie Odyssey Retrospective

Oliver! (1968)

It would be wrong to read any of the reviews on this blog as unbiased. When biases are personal, reviewers should not be afraid to reveal their biases, so here are mine. Some months after Carol Reed’s Oliver! was released to North American theaters, my paternal grandfather – an honor guard unit in the South Vietnamese military – saw the film, presumably with Vietnamese subtitles or someone over-dubbing the audio. Upon fleeing to the United States and settling in Indiana after the Fall of Saigon on April 1975, my grandfather passed along his love of Oliver! to my father when the film aired on television. And, as you might guess, my dad passed along arguably his favorite movie musical to me at an early age. Oliver! is an early childhood favorite (being an easily scared kid, the movie somehow never creeped me out, and today I can sing the songs from heart), and almost certainly the first non-Disney musical I was ever exposed to. Based on Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist and the West End musical based on the book, how remarkable that Oliver’s story and Lionel Bart’s beautiful musical score found its way to South Vietnam amid a year of international political turmoil and the deadliest year for North and South Vietnamese and American forces.

I avoid writing on Academy Awards history in these reviews, too, so this paragraph will be an aberration. Films that win Best Picture are, in a way, burdened with the title. They are subject to greater outrage and scrutinized more closely than other nominees and non-nominees are. Oliver!, by virtue of being released the same year as 2001: A Space Odyssey (and also by being more popular in Britain than in America), has suffered with this burden. In an Internet culture that discourages nuance while talking about Oscar history and rewards proclamations for how much smarter one is than the Academy for recognizing one movie over another, this subsequent statement might be unpopular. I think 2001 is the better film and deserves its masterpiece status, but I think Oliver! is fantastic and, if given the choice to watch one or the other, give me Oliver! every single time. For those behind and in front of the camera during Oliver!, they should be nothing but proud of what they brought to this movie.

We first meet Oliver Twist (Mark Lester; singing dubbed by Kathe Green) at a workhouse outside London alongside his fellow orphan boys. They are served gruel every day – much to their disdain. As a stunt and for drawing the longest straw, Oliver will go up to the overseer Mr. Bumble (Harry Secombe) and utter those immortal lines: “Please sir, I want some more” (”WHAT?!”). The workhouse’s board of directors quickly decide that Oliver should be sold off. Bumble will sell Oliver to an undertaker, but the young boy will escape and make his way to London. Minutes after arriving, Oliver encounters another young boy named the Artful Dodger (Jack Wild), who makes Oliver feel welcome and promises him a place to stay for the night. Dodger leads Oliver to a near-abandoned corner of London – abandoned with the exception of a cadre of young boys working for the aging Fagin (Ron Moody) as pickpockets. Even for those unfamiliar with this narrative, I think you can see where this is going. Also critical to the plot are the violent, abusive criminal Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed); Nancy (Shani Wallis, Nancy is Bill’s lover); and a gentleman named Mr. Brownlow (Joseph O’Connor). Hugh Griffith cameos as a magistrate.

Charles Dickens, being the writer that he was, might be horrified by how Lionel Bart adapted his novel for the West End. The original novel – touching upon class disparities, skewering characters profiting from child labor, and even attracting justified accusations of anti-Semitism in its depiction of Fagin – is necessarily simplified here, offering comedic angles where there previously were none. Bart, who wrote the music and lyrics for Oliver!, made Fagin more sympathetic (Bart was Jewish) and shifted his focus from early nineteenth century British class tensions (which remains in the film adaptation as well, but is deemphasized due to its specificity) to themes of belonging and the importance of families – surrogate and otherwise. Other musical adaptations have done a better job retaining their source material’s darker themes, but given that Oliver’s arc from overworked and underfed child slave to a misguided “criminal” to a fully loved and welcomed member of a family remains, not all is lost.

There is no one character that ever dangles far from actual belonging, but their relationships to those who they feel they belong with vary. Oliver is physically and spiritually itinerant in the opening minutes, searching for someone or someplace willing to respect and nourish him. He believes he has found it with Fagin’s gang – it would be wrong to deny whatever positive feelings he keeps with his time with Fagin and his young pickpockets – but will realize the violence, personified by Bill Sikes, lurking underneath the surface. The most complicated case is Nancy, who clearly loves Bill even if his behavior is finally beginning to break her. Decades before the ideas of toxic relationships and hamstrung by Dickens’ near-predestined treatment of his characters, Nancy is a woman who has outgrown from her love with Bill, but that same love renders her unable to see life without him. She is a tragic character that never understands the agency she might have until the very end (in which she is punished for it, but the punisher pays dearly) – Oliver! may be no feminist triumph, but it clearly respects Nancy as a character and her dreams even if she never breaks from the poisonous masculinity impacting her life.

When adapting stage musicals for Hollywood productions, the norm is to cut a handful of songs; in rare instances, like West Side Story (1961) and My Fair Lady (1964), none of the songs are cut even if a few lyrics are rearranged. Carol Reed cut three songs for his adaptation of Oliver! – a decision which strengthens and streamlines the movie – including the Bumbles’ “I Shall Scream!”, “That’s Your Funeral” (sung by the Sowerberrys, the undertaker family, to intimidate Mr. Bumble and Oliver), and “My Name” (sung by Bill as a sort of introductory song). All of these cuts are made in service of decisions where the ideas in each of these songs might better be represented visually. Cutting “I Shall Scream!” is Reed’s decision to maintain the focus on Oliver in the early minutes and downplaying the Bumbles’ role in the film. The points in “That’s Your Funeral” and “My Name” are made obvious enough by the actors – Mark Lester, who looks fearful throughout the movie, captures Oliver’s fear of the Sowerberrys and the movie already hammers home the idea that everyone is terrified of Bill Sikes.

The strength of Lionel Bart’s musical score to Oliver! endures. The singing is excellent, and thankfully it is only Mark Lester who has to have his singing voice dubbed (for the record, I largely do not consider dubbing singing voices as a sin for movie musicals – maybe I am lenient to a fault) “Food, Glorious Food” (sung by the Temple Choir of London under the direction of Sir George Thalben-Ball; they also sang “Consider Yourself”) barely needs an introduction, even for those tangentially aware of this musical’s existence. No political diatribes needed, just desperate, bony boys fantasizing about food that is not gruel. As Bumble, Harry Secombe – an established tenor – can belt out “Boy for Sale” and display his masterful pipes. It takes a little bit to find a character-building song in “Where Is Love?”, but the song is a success in its simplicity and heartrending lyrics.

After Oliver escapes the Sowerberrys and finds himself in London, Bart’s songs are empowered: Onna White’s choreography. Making use of space that could not be possible on a theater stage, White gifts the film with choreography respective to the workers (the meatpackers move in ways that make sense given their job, as do the high-strung policemen) seen in “Consider Yourself” – the dance direction is never tedious, and there is so much interest packed into the screen on this busy London day while keeping some sense of distance and geometric sense (there is no rapid cutting or close-up cinematography to disorient the viewer from location). And if that was not enough, “Who Will Buy?” is a valedictory, post-intermission triumph as morning vendors gradually populate the streets just outside of Mr. Brownlow’s home. Fans of Pete’s Dragon (1977) will recognize White’s choreographic style in the two excellent pub songs led by Shani Wallis as Nancy: “It’s a Fine Life” (which serves to introduce the audience to Nancy and develop the character and her relationship with Bill Sikes) and “Oom-Pah Pah” (another celebratory song, but it doubles as having a function for the resolving scenes). White contributes to the scope of Bart’s score, lending an intrigue not as apparent in the stage musical.

Not as ambitious or essential to characterization or plot progression but closest to my heart is “I’d Do Anything” – a more modest song still benefiting from White’s dance direction. Like so many songs in Oliver!, it is pure unadulterated joy to watch and listen to. There may be minimal clever wordplay, but the score wears its emotions on the sleeve and expresses them honestly, and is beautifully orchestrated and arranged.

For the performers, Mark Lester is slightly disappointing as Oliver – a bit of a blank slate, but Dickens did not care to enrich his eponymous protagonist with much character either. Beyond that, Harry Secombe is great for the short time Mr. Bumble is in the film and Oliver Reed (Carol Reed’s nephew) is a physical menace as Bill Sikes. The young Jack Wild has the perfect surname and is a natural as the rapscallion Dodger – a character more mature than the adults probably give him credit for. But the two best performances belong to Shani Wallis and Ron Moody. Wallis, as Nancy, is luminous despite having to put up with the indiscretions of the men surrounding her. Wallis embodies Nancy totally: she shows us how Nancy clearly cares for the young pickpockets in Fagin’s gang and, seeing Oliver’s gentleness, wants only the healthiest and happiest possible life for our title character. I am just surprised Wallis did not become a bigger star following the film’s release. Opposite her, Ron Moody is a riot as Fagin. The fourth choice behind Peter O’Toole (too expensive), Peter Sellers (who declined the part after a late stage in negotiations), and Dick Van Dyke, Moody (regarded in Britain; unknown in the United States) is a shining example how those who originate stage musical parts – usually not the first choice among movie studio executives – excel when given the damn part. Moody’s comedic timing is incredible, and his ability to make a villainous character so sympathetic without being a punchline is something I am not sure O’Toole or Sellers could have accomplished.

Also of note behind the camera: Oswald Morris’ fluid cinematography and Ralph Kemplen’s editing are most noticeable during the musical segments and keep the narrative flow at a brisk pace that emphasizes the scope when needed to and cuts down on the excessive pomp. The production design by art director John Box and set decorator Terence Marsh and the costume design by Phyllis Dalton places us in the mid-nineteenth century – going beyond a movie soundstage (okay, aside from the fact the production is quite large and never emphasizes confined spaces) and inundating the seedier parts of London with detail. For Oliver!, the film uses a greater proportion of open-air sets than the average stage-to-screen musical adaptation, and the film feels more lived-in as a result.

The producers at Romulus Films and the distributing executives at Columbia lavished their expenses on Oliver!. They permitted a long six months of rehearsal before any film shoots began. That is more than double, sometimes triple, the preparation time needed for a new production of a stage play or musical – resulting in a movie adaptation of Oliver! that exceeds the limitations of the source material and confines of a theater.

1960s movie musicals represented the last remnants of a Studio System Hollywood – where the immense theatricality in such wholesome (Oliver! is not without some darkness) musicals matched their scope. Oliver! arrived after the end of the Studio System, but was created by individuals who had long operated in that environment. It is a tremendous film, regardless of the adapted material. For children, the film can serve as an introduction to Dickensian England and the injustices and indignities the most societally vulnerable faced in those times. Oliver, having lived in the workhouse all of his life, has never understood love before fleeing to London. He finds fragments of love with Dodger and Fagin, and pieces them together with the help of Nancy and Mr. Brownlow. The first acts of kindness are overdue, but it is to the film’s credit that Oliver is a gracious recipient.

My rating: 9/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found here.

This is the eleventh Movie Odyssey Retrospective. Movie Odyssey Retrospectives are write-ups on films I had seen in their entirety before this blog’s creation or films I failed to give a full-length write-up to following the blog’s creation. Previous Retrospectives include Dracula (1931), Dumbo (1941), and 12 Angry Men (1957).

1 note · View note

alexanderwrites · 7 years

Text

Thoughts Roundup - Twin Peaks: The Return, Part 12

“Let’s Rock”

If anything can be learned from the disparate range of reactions after each episode of The Return, it’s that nobody can fucking agree on whether an episode is a return to form or a major letdown. Almost each episode has someone arguing that it’s the first real disappointment of the series, while someone else argues that it’s the show really hitting its stride. The canyon between people who hate this series and insist that anyone who likes it is a blind kisser of Lynch Ass, and the people who love the series and insist that anyone who doesn’t like it is simply doesn’t get Lynch is smaller than it appears, and both sides of the argument are about on the same level of pointlessness. On each side, there’s a lot of condescension and meritless arguing that few other shows have generated. If you don’t like it? Cool. You’re not an idiot for disliking a TV show. It doesn’t automatically mean you don’t “get” it. If you do like it? Cool. You’ve got a show you like and that’s nice. Surely we can accept that some people like a show, and some don’t. That disliking it doesn’t make it shitty, and liking it doesn’t suddenly make you a better person. It’s a little tiring, and distracting from the show itself. And i’ve just found myself distracted by admonishing the distraction. Oops!

Back to the show itself. This doesn’t seem to be a very popular episode. I can understand why. It’s not as strong as last week, and there are a couple of scenes that fall onto the dull side of frustrating. We’re used to the show being frustrating, and in fact, that’s what we love about it, surely? We’re not watching the show for easy answers or we would’ve given up before we even started. But there is a frustration in this episode’s glacial pacing, and it’s a frustration not as delightful as the frustration we feel when, say, a teenager puking up green slime on themselves is left unexplained. There is gold in this episode though, enough to make the episode worth it overall. And the most golden of the gold?

. Sarah Fucking Palmer. Every moment of her in Part 12 isn’t just a highlight of the episode, but of the entire return. Grace Zabriskie is an actress whose face tells its own story. She doesn’t have to say a word and we understand that this is a haunted woman, still living in the house where that unspeakable evil happened decades ago. Seeing the Palmer house again carries weight and meaning, and the shots of the ceiling fan reminded me of just how scary that ceiling fan can be. So, this season i’ve been made fearful of Ceiling fans, electrical sockets and radios. I really hope toasters aren’t next. I couldn’t handle that. Sarah giving it the ol’ Joe Strummer treatment and getting Lost in the Supermarket is a great scene, and heartbreaking too. Nobody expected Sarah to be well, but to see her so troubled by past demons is upsetting. How in touch with the lodge spirits is she? We don’t know for sure, but she feels the evil returning and senses that the men are coming, and of course there was that unforgettable “I’m in the black lodge...” moment with her back in Season 2. Why her? Was she the girl who the frogbug claimed as its host back in the 1950′s? It’s hard to say, but for their own good, the townsfolk should listen to her. She knows something - and I’d probably have the same reaction as her to Turkey Jerky. Good ol’ Hawk knows she knows something, and the scene with them interacting at her front door is effectively tense. And it leaves us with a question that we kind of don’t want to know the answer to: what was in her kitchen?

. Diane enters through thick red curtains, texts Doppelcoop again and says “Let’s Rock”. Unless she pulls out a guitar moments after this scene ends and slaps down some sweet fuckin’ riffs, it’s safe to say her “Let’s Rock” has Lodge connotations. We’re not much closer to understanding exactly what has gone on with Diane, but Laura Dern’s performance is so good that I don’t mind waiting. Even watching her pour herself a drink while the other three agents watch her is interesting, and never has she felt so other amongst her colleagues. She’s not even there while Albert tells Tammy the secret history of Project Blue Book and The Blue Rose. For those of us who’ve read The Secret History of Twin Peaks, this isn’t new information, but it’s damn cool to hear it laid out for us in an actual episode - even cooler that it’s Albert who does the explaining. Seeing so much of him in the Return has been a real treat and such a fitting send off for the great Miguel Ferrer, who is at his best in tonight’s episode. I really loved the disparity in the reactions of Albert and Gordon to the elongated sequence in which Gordon’s date(?) leaves, and that scene, as ridiculous as it was, worked for me. Its absurdity and inappropriateness was stupidly funny, and it was also a pretty clear comment on what a (sometimes creepy) dolt Gordon can be. Sure, he has a zest for life and loves a good joke, but that doesn’t necessarily make him professional or good at his job. Is he a good agent? Have we ever got proof of that? Albert seems to be the more competent of the two, and he has no time for Gordon’s womanising. Poor Albert. I think i’d be driven mad if Gordon were my partner, too. It’s a funny, slow and strange scene, and Albert and Gordon are the audience stand-ins: Albert the viewer who wants to get to the bottom of the damn case already, and Gordon the viewer who, in addition to wanting this, is also content to make jokes about Turnips or to follow any incidental thing that comes his way.

. There isn’t much to say about Tammy Preston. It feels like they’re laying the groundwork for her to get more screen-time and have more relevance, but it also kind of feels like she’s another audience stand-in, and a device that exposition can be dumped onto. I was glad to see her get a promotion tonight, and I hope it leads to a bit more characterisation.

. I really enjoyed Ben’s scene, and i’m so glad that he stayed on the path of goodness. He and Carl both demonstrate a kindness, Carl offering money and free rent to a Fat Trout resident who has sold his blood for money, and Ben insisting on paying for Miriam’s surgery as she has no health insurance. There’s some commentary in here about the lack of care and attention that the poor of the town receive, and this is heightened by Jacoby’s monologue later on. Back to Ben though - I like his slow and deliberate monologue about his old bike, and finally the key resurfaces again. It’s a strong scene, and we’ll see whether the key will give the plot some momentum.

. The Jacoby scene, while interesting the first time, is an almost word-for-word repeat of an earlier scene, complete with the same advert. It felt like a waste of time, and simply repeated what we already know about him and his beliefs. What he says is relevant to the episode and the financial inequality that surfaces in the episode, but there’s no getting around the fact that the scene is almost identical to an earlier one.

. Coop is playing baseball with Sonny Jim and the baseball bounces off his head. And that’s it. Abnormal normality in the suburbs for our Coop.

. And then suddenly, without a dramatic reveal, without fanfare, we see Audrey. I don’t think Lynch and Frost could’ve made a more disappointing character return if they tried, and that might just be the point. It’s such a casual introduction, and we don’t really know who or what the fuck she is talking about throughout the scene. She is not the Audrey we knew, and she, like the entire Return, has obliterated expectations. There is a feeling of stasis in her and her husband’s argument, and by the end of it, Audrey (and us!) are no closer to finding out where Billy is - and we still don’t really know who he is, besides the fact that she has been sleeping with him. While it doesn’t tell us much narrative wise, it does tell us about who she is now, and about how fractured and ugly her marriage is. She is angry, unhappy and frustrated by her husband who seems a pretty miserable shit, and someone who gets off on withholding. Look at him, getting off. The scene has a loaded Chekhov’s gun in the form of a phone call that we only hear one side of. We wait for it go off, we wait for the answer to what is so incredible that her husband is being told. And then, it ends. It’s painfully frustrating but I kind of like what that says about expectations, and I like the uncomfortable, edgy state it leaves us in. We’re not given the comfort of answers and are instead left hanging, cold, uncomfortable and pissed off. Overall, I don’t know if I enjoyed the scene too much. It does feel endless, and while great to see her again, and I like the final moment, it’s hard to care too much about what they’re talking about.

We think we want the answer to what has happened to Billy, but then we realise something: why do we desperately need an answer to a riddle that his been posed only one minute ago? We’ve been trained to expect answers, and that everything has an answer. Twin Peaks is out to make you wonder why you’re wondering in the first place. So while not an immensely satisfying scene, this is the first time we’ve seen Audrey in 27 years. It is just a re-introduction, and it’s too soon to say that the scene is totally fruitless. As a standalone scene, overall, it didn’t do a hell of a lot for me, but I don’t want to be too hard on it.

. And then we have the roadhouse scene, which sees a couple of characters we’ve never seen talking about people we’ve never heard of. It’s not a very good scene, and while I kind of understand the intention, it doesn’t make it interesting in the least. I think with the last couple of scenes, we’re supposed to think that there is a domestic drama running underneath Twin Peaks and that we’re getting peeks at it through torn curtains. That everyone is unsettled and there is a fundamental rot, deep down. I like this concept, and it’s one i’d like to see explored - but we need a scene more lively, better acted and better written than this last roadhouse scene if we’re going to care about that concept. It’s such a nothing scene, and it does feel like we could be spending the precious minutes somewhere better. At the end of another episode it might not’ve been so noticeably uninteresting, but after the frustration of Audrey’s scene, the dull repetition of Jacoby’s scene, and a pacing that was incredibly slow, the scene was a real dud. They say that the opening and closing of any piece of entertainment has to be strong, and that if it has to coast, it can be in the middle - and really, with this episode, it’s largely the ending that’s weak.

Thinking back on the episode, i’m reminded of how much I loved the Sarah Palmer and Ben Horne scenes, and that I did enjoy the FBI story. But with the last act being so underwhelming, it brings down the quality of the episode, and instead of being a great episode, it feels like a fairly good episode with great moments. I’m not too disappointed. It feels like an establishing episode, the kind that’s setting up a final 6 episodes that I am hopeful and excited about. It does constantly feel like huge events are moments away, but then, who can tell with this series? The next episodes might be like Albert and dig into the show’s mystery, or it might be like Gordon, and watch a French woman spend 10 minutes pantomime acting putting on makeup. Hopefully, ideally, we’ll get a bit of both.

“What fucking crystal ball are you looking into?”

#twin peaks #twin peaks spoilers #twin peaks: the return #B episode #david lynch #TV

17 notes · View notes

georginamacmillanphotograph-blog · 5 years

Text

How is meaning portrayed in portraits?

By Georgina MacMillan

Migrant Mother by Dorothea Lange

“The eye should learn to listen before it looks.” – Robert Frank 1924. This quote shows us what we should consider before taking an image and think about the deeper inlying meaning behind the person’s expression and speak to our subject’s story before capturing it. Robert Frank provides an outsiders look into American society in his book The American’s, I will explore this in more detail throughout my paragraphs. In this essay, I am planning to consider what really people intend to convey in their images. Some examples I have found to support my theory are from Life Magazine, with works by Gordon Parks, Nina Leen and Leonard McCombe. I will also explore works by Magnum photographers, who document society, culture and war. I am also planning to look at published books that give an insight into certain photographers works and how they portray how a portrait is shown. I will explore the feelings and emotions that are shown within images, such as, joy, excitement, fear, loneliness, forcefulness and defeat. A few examples of these emotions expressed is an image taken by Grey Villet of Estes Kefauver, who paints his picture of emotions of prosperity and excitement through his actions to people, when giving a handshake. It is proven that this is what won him his many votes for the 1956 Democratic Party.

Thomas Ruff has created passport style portraits that he has exhibited in Whitechapel gallery on a large scale of two metres high. Ruff wanted to capture the idea that people all look the same when it comes to a blank expression and one does not defy a meaning of thoughts and feelings. A quote I have found to support this is “I think that historically photographs may have been made in a naive and honest way, when photographers believed in the ‘pencil of nature’ and recording what was in front of the camera,” he reflected. “But photography quickly came to be used in a prejudicial way, losing its innocence and consequently its ability to communicate.” Ruff also suggests that these portraits have been frozen in time.

In August Sanders images he has tried to capture and document different segments of people’s lives and job varieties in Germany during the mid-1920s, these are the citizens of the Weimar Republic. He called this project ‘People of the 20th Century’, he evolved his work around seven distinct groups: ‘The Farmer’, ‘The Skilled Tradesman’, ‘The Woman’, ‘Classes and Professions’, ‘The Artists’, ‘The City’ and ‘The Last People’. Sanders had a theory that the characteristics could be revealed through their social societies, jobs and political views. ‘The portrait is your mirror. It’s you.’ In this image to the right Sanders has captured this image (The Chef) doing his skilled profession and the expression on his face shows the fact that he is proud of what he is creating, this gives us his sense of identity. He also looks startled by the fact that he has been interrupted in his work and his expression expresses the fact that he looks like he is ready to start a fight if he was to be interfered with from the expression of his face. In David Bate’s book (Photography) he describes cinematic film stills which can create portraiture. This could look like it was taken out of a film from this simple portrait which almost looks like a staged position; wearing a traditional cooks white apron and a tall rounded body which suggests a lot of tasting to get perfection.

In Philip Lorca Di Corcia’s images titled Hustlers, where he made five trips to Los Angeles he would pay the prostitutes of Santa Monica the charge they would expect for sex so that he could take photos of them. He would photograph them in places you would expect to find them, such as on dark street corners and cheap motel rooms. These images were on film 6x7 Linhof view camera. These images show the plain expressionless emotion on the man’s face, this could be the affect of having the man being paid to be a model and this could be the result you would expect to see him pose. Not showing his identity.

This image gives off a surreal feel to the subject as he looks like he is unrealistically glowing and it feels very staged. However this could be the perspective diCorcia was aiming for. The shallow depth of field emphasizes the setting of this image and hinting that it is set in in a petrol station or a car park.

In i-d magazine article ‘understanding America now through its photographic past’ the writer Felix Petty highlights the idea that throughout America’s past societies identity has been shown by the effect of politics and how it has consequence people’s lives from the likes of William Eggleston and Mark Cohen’s creative compositions. This could also show us that diCorcia’s image have therefore been a result of politics in America.

On the other hand in this image by Mark Cohen (Karate Stance, 1977), he has evidently come across this young boy on the street and has asked the boy to express himself. This contrasts with the previous image by diCorci, as this boy is innocent and therefore has not got to think about his future and what hr will do as a career. On the opposite side it is too late for the male prostitutes to decide their future resulting in their own personal innocence being taken away from themselves. This image was taken in the year of the New York City Blackout, which affected many people’s lives due to the loss of power for 25 hours, causing an influx of crime, vandalism and theft in every poor neighbourhood. In this image from the look of the quality of the pavement this could suggest that the area to where this portrait is taken could suggest that the street that the boy is within is one that is not necessarily a high economically stable area. The fact that the boy is doing a karate stance could suggest that he has been educated on the culture of other countries in a mind of defence. In this image I feel that the meaning behind the portrait is not necessarily portrayed in the image and you would not know the context of the image without reading about it. In this image the boys facial expression does not necessarily reflect on his social class status, however one could say that his expression could suggest that he is in pain but trying to hide it. The meaning behind the image could also to be to capture the boy in freedom without an adult with him who is confident enough to play on the streets by himself. The position the boy is standing in could indicate that he is quite guarded and knows when to stand his ground and protect himself and this could mean that he can sense danger.

To link to my previous paragraph I have chosen the image to portray the different types of people in society. This image by William Eggleston, (Memphis, Los Almos series 1965-68) at the time of the image being taken the Vietnam War was taking place affecting American society and culture due to the huge number of casualties of soldiers. In David Bate’s book of ‘Photography’. However, the meaning behind this image does not necessarily reflect this look into this image, as this man does not necessarily look as if he is struggling with life. We can pick up these hints from the fact that he is filling up his car, which happens to be very shiny which therefore gives us a sense that he can afford to keep his car in good condition. From the man’s expression it looks as if he is joking with someone out of the frame. This gives off the impression that he is quite confident with a slight sense of arrogance due to his slicked-back hair. He does seem to contrast with the background, which seems to look slightly run down, with worn out roads and simplistic buildings. I think that this means that the contextual meaning is not showed in this image and that the images meaning is in fact about society and social class as the image is quite bright and his expression is one of content. The meaning behind the image could also be one of strong stable economy in Memphis and how even with the contextual factors taken in to account may not affect this area of America.

This image by Eve Arnold is called ‘a bartender on strike’ 1950 New York. It also says as a side note that women were not allowed in bars during this time. ‘The 1950s is often viewed as a period of conformity, when both men and women observed strict gender roles and complied with society’s expectations.’ (Khana academy). The look on her face could portray the idea that she is concerned of her future and is therefore looking ponderously in the distance. In David Bate’s book of Photography he says that identity is shown through clothing and context. This shows us that she may come from quite a modest background due to her simplistic clothing and only wearing a simple chain watch on her hand could signify the idea that woman higher up in society would tend to wear more jewellery and elaborate clothing. I think that the meaning behind the image is being portrayed as the woman looks how a woman should look like if they were to go on strike during the 1950’s. At this time there was a huge inflation effecting the economy and subsequently effecting people’s wages, however woman from 1950-1959 were being employed by 18%. (http://homepages.gac.edu/~jcullip/workexamples/mea.html). This could therefore show woman as a gender were doing quite well for themselves and equality of gender was rising.

In these images I have selected, have a deep meaning behind their look at first glance, but if one looks closer they can pick up on their identity, from the place they are shot in and what they are wearing in the image. There expression also plays an important part in the image and how the lighting falls on their face. The angling of the image is also important in the making of the image. ‘An instant photographed can only acquire meaning in so far as the viewer can read into it, a duration extending beyond itself. When we find a photograph meaningful, we are lending it a past and a future.’- (Understanding a photograph, appearances- John Berger) This quote suggests that we can only interpret the meaning of the image as we could picture it in our mind without knowing the economic and current affairs going on in the location and how this is affecting the expression expressed on the model or point focus in the image.

‘The Americans is terrific and, it must be said, quintessentially American. In the summer of 1955, Robert Frank bought a car, a used Ford Business Coupe, and starting driving. To Detroit and Dearborn and Savannah and Miami. New Orleans, Houston and LA. Butte, Montana. Salt Lake City, Utah. Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, Chicago, New York City. He drove for about a year, sometimes with his wife and two children, sometimes alone, always taking pictures. Seven hundred and sixty rolls worth of pictures, as turns it out. That's about 27,000 photographs, which he then edited down to the 83 shots found here, in this Met exhibit, The Americans.’ – Glenwood article. In Robert Frank’s images he has focused on looking at people’s expressions on their faces and this is how he can reveal meaning in their location on the street and clothing.

In conclusion I believe that meaning can be portrayed in portraits from the expressions, clothing and location of the image. These three factors are there to help us interpret an image so that we can relate to it and help us form a closer connection to it by the recognition of it that one could see in society. Either that being someone we see in the street, a friend, a relation or a colleague. I feel that this is how we can examine an image to make it something we can look at in intrigue and stop and stare at to then understand the meaning of the image as it has gone through your thought process. In some images photographers aim to create a narrative behind their image so that you can get a feel for the image and what the effect is. An example of this is Matt Stuart:

“Sometimes, especially with street photography, stories can be implied, and in this particular picture

I think there’s an interesting collision between these two people. There’s a man who is pretty evidentially lost in the foreground, and you can tell he’s lost due to the fact he has a map, he’s on the telephone and he’s covering his mouth. Body language is something that I’m quite interested in and something that I look at a lot when I’m out on the street, so I realize when people appear to be lost. The two young men behind him know exactly where they’re going, or at least that’s the implication because one of them is pointing confidently. The difference between the two has made this strange swirl of gestures of two men who know where they’re going and one man doesn’t.” (Matt Stuart Magnum Photos Telling stories: the single image vs. the series.) This passage shows that there is meaning behind the image as long as you can decipher it yourself.

On the other hand one could have their portrait captured intentionally especially when portraiture first became a thing that was a revelation. In David Bate’s book he quotes “To be captured holding a learned book, or photographed in front of the backdrop of a stately home, revealed the aspirations of the sitter more than their own actual status.” (Mass portraiture pg.70)This could express the meaning behind the image through the character of the person in the portrait and how they want to have their image being viewed. This suggestion of how people want to show their identity could reflect their character. Another aspect picked up by David Bate is the idea that a photographer can deceive the meaning of the image by recreating the models face and appearance “Thus, if a client was considered ‘ugly’, for example, the photographer may rearrange their appearance” (pg.75).

Bibliography

David Bate, The Key Concepts of Photography, Oxford

http://homepages.gac.edu/~jcullip/workexamples/mea.html

Understanding a Photograph, John Berger

Khana Academy

Magnum Photos, Matt Stuart, Telling Stories: the single image vs. the series

0 notes

oykusuba2 · 5 years

Text

Answering Questions for Further Diagnosis

I found these questions during my research. I thought this might answer some questions that I haven’t thought about and help me see something I have missed.

Questions taken from: https://www.scriptmag.com/features/craft-features/short-film-craft-features/tips-writing-short-film

What is the unique point of view on the subject matter?

As much as the basic research goes, there’s no mainstream animated version of Jekyll & Hyde story or something that takes direct inspiration from it. The story of duality and “secret identities” go as far as Marvel superhero films. When it comes to Jekyll’s character himself, he is usually treated as a very minor character or a background character. The direct adaptations of films seems to be just lackluster straight-up adaptations or add romance so it becomes more mainstream.

These are quite understandable. As I read the book, I see why this book is quite hard to adapt. It is more of a mystery or a psychological thriller than straight-up horror in my opinion (depending on if you take it from Utterson’s or Jekyll’s perspective) and the very psychological struggles and the despair of Jekyll is hard for a visual medium to adapt at times. But Animation is a medium where you can make up your own rules, which gives space to make-believe things that are otherwise unexpected from live-actions.

I want to give my own twist to the Jekyll’s character, and see if there’s any better way to end the story, with the power of FAMILY (because we have enough hetero-romantic interests. Please end them.) I also explore the Id more deeply, and how it affects you, if you only listen to that part of your brain.

Whose point of view is the story told?

Herko Jovvset, the Jekyll-like main character of the film.

What is the world of the film and how do the characters function in this world?

The film is set in Rovaniemi, north of Finland in our modern time. There’s nothing fantastical about the world but some “paranormal” elements can be founded, just to add to the drama. So our characters function just the same as us.

What makes this story and characters different or special?

It’s an animated, psychological take on Jekyll’s perspective. There’s also no nonsensical love interests so that makes this version already 60% more unique as far as my research goes.

The character of Herko is an everyman who just wants to have pleasure from his life. But Id never gets satisfied. This opens way for a wild-ride of deteriorating psyche for our main character.

What’s at stake in the story? What do the characters have to win or lose if they do not achieve their goals?

Herko loses his reputation, his sanity and his ability to function as a human being. Nihkko loses his dear brother and his dignity.

What are the characters’ empathetic traits that an audience will root for?

Herko is like most of the incels or even college kids in the West I guess. He wants the puss and the eggplant (if you know what I mean) but he doesn’t want to get caught or get wrecked in his reputation. He is an everyman with a boring job so bit of spice during the nights will be understandable for some.

Although maybe audiences will not necessarily “root for” him, they will be interested to see the dumpster fire unfold in front of them.

Does the world and plot that you are creating feel authentic?

I think this question kinda depends on how the viewer thinks. But why I think it feels authentic, is that it’s modern story and a psychological take that really goes into the darkest parts of human mind and how far it can get corrupted, something we see much more in the modern world with the Internet; like the surfacing incel blogs, mass shootings and Islamic terrorism.

What do the characters want versus need?

The goal of Herko is to be able to continue his pursuit of pleasure without getting caught. What they need, is some actual love (and not necessarily the romantic one.)

What do the characters learn at the end of the script?

Herko finally sees the unhealthiness of his lifestyle, going so hard on his Id even in the most “savage” places. He will definitely give up on this lifestyle at the end and hopefully will start building healthy, sturdier relationships.

What are the characters’ flaws?

Herko is one horny, greedy dude who has no idea how to end this madness. He is closed to the outside world. He doesn’t have friends, except his brother Nihkko.

How do the characters’ flaws change as the plot unfolds?

It gets so much worse to the point it’s almost helpless. But that’s kinda the point. Even if you can’t seem to help yourself, someone who you love and trust, especially a family member, will help you to stand up.

What is challenging the characters’ flaws and compelling them to transform?

The fact that Herko’s unending hunger for lust is breaking his life and ultimately, himself, and him trying to hurt his brother because of this lust, will obviously make him wanna change after what he tries to do with his own brother.

What are the major questions posed for the characters?

I think there isn’t a major question posed to Herko. I guess the greatest challenge is how long will it take for him to see the fault on his ways. He only pleases his manly bits but never gets a long-term relationship or even has friends. Will he ever fix himself? When will he realise the fault in his ways? Guess that’s the overarching question.

What is the inciting incident: What event sets the plot in motion?

Herko decides to “take a risk” when it comes to feeding his hunger for lust. It doesn’t look very big at first but it starts a snowballing effect of wanting more adventure, more risk, more pleasure and more and more.

What makes today different than any other day for the main characters?

Today as in the beginning of the film is just a normal day for Herko. Only in the other “today”, where Herko decides to go risky, is when things will start to go downhill.

What are the characters’ secrets and when is the best time to reveal them?

Herko’s biggest secret, is the fact that he is a very horny guy who wouldn’t want his secret to go out, because outside he is basically an incel who can’t even make friends. That’s why I think the reveal should be rather sooner than later.

The important bit is that the beginning should be as bland and casual as it can be, so the reveal can be more shocking for some. A “trained” viewer, who consumed and analysed many media will probably pick on it quick but an explicit take on Herko’s pleasure-adventures and his fall can definitely catch their attention.

These questions actually helped me a bit to clear up some more plot-points right now. Onto fine-tune more parts then!

#narrative strategies

0 notes

never-relaxed · 7 years

Text

On the Persona 5 translation

I’ve read a lot of extremely hot takes on the Persona 5 translation today. So many, in fact, that it’s difficult to address everything wholesale. To the their credits, the critics are both thorough & well-articulated, and their arguments are strong enough to get me thinking - strong enough, even, to kickstart me pushing out this writing blog I’ve been wanting to get off the ground.

I want to respond to the myriad of issues listed on the website being currently used as a sort of rallying-cry, http://www.personaproblems.com/ . It’s well-designed, and organizes the issues well. I’ll start at the top, then:

- “Yet no other form of media would ever get away with the number of errors found in Persona 5's English script.”

This is a very minor nitpick, but actually, yes. Other forms of media would, indeed, get away with any number of similar errors; viewers of foreign films, for instance, can tell you all about how perfect-world this sentiment is. Additionally, classic books aren’t retranslated for no reason; direct translation is not actually a Thing, and any translated work is going to display the biases, quirks, and language tendencies of its writer(s). This is why people learn dead or archaic languages just to read Cicero or Plato in the original text. It’s a bizarre claim, to say grammar issues are not a problem throughout other media. (Also, try reading a novel translated from a Slavic language, if you don’t like stiff dialog. Have fun.)

- “The baseline for any translation is this: readers of the translation should receive the same experience as readers of the original, as if the original creators had written it natively in both languages.“

If this is the writer’s goal when they go about their own work, it’s admirable. It’s also completely impossible. What does a “native” English speaker sound like? Are they American? British? Australian? Here’s the short of it: by translating a work in your own native tongue, you are co-authoring the piece. It is never, ever, going to be a 1:1 situation when facing down the realities of character limits, cultural differences, & even personal backgrounds. Some works get closer, some works get further, and it’s down to the writers to decide whether a strict or a loose translation better fits the text.

To a certain degree, the way we think - the actual way we formulate & process our thoughts - is influenced by language itself. If you ever communicate with folks who speak English as a second, third, fourth, or so on language - you’ll notice that, even when extremely proficient, they don’t just totally entirely lose the speech quirks that come with their parent language. Eliminating those quirks of speech already changes the context of the work. Is this a bad thing? No, not necessarily; but it’s presumptuous at best to believe yourself capable of understanding how another person would write “if only they were native” in your language.

- “Translation can be a murky concept, so first I'll define a standard to measure against: imagine if translation weren't necessary at all.”

I absolutely despise this. The assumption made is that any story could be told completely, and just as enjoyably, in any language, in any culture, without any change to structure. It is simply not how language works.

- “Translators do not convert words from one language to another: they convert ideas.”

Okay. Let’s keep this in mind.

- The entire “Why aren’t more people complaining?” section

This is one of the most bizarre, difficult-to-follow explanations I have ever seen. It makes totally weird assertions, such as the idea that people hold early, loose translations against current-day translators. That’s a really strange idea, considering the popularity of things like NA Kefka, or bounty-hunter-Samus. The truth is that if the translation was good back in the 90s, no one cared if it was inaccurate. Outside of Usenet, none of us really had a point of reference. The writer seems to have some sort of personal beef with Working Designs leaving Bill Clinton jokes in their work, or something. I am especially confused by the TV Tropes links here, and what they have to do with the point.

Cutting down on this section, we could just apply Occam’s razor: most people have no issue with the translation.

- I’m not going to go through all the examples. There are some I think are silly, some that I haven’t seen yet, some that are definitely awkward.

One thing that does frustrate me about these examples - it’s noted by the writer that the script does a fine job of getting _the idea_ across. There are few, if really any, examples of the game actually failing to convey meaning. By the author’s own definition of what a translator does, the script succeeds. No, it doesn’t flow the way it would if it were written by an American. Translate dialog this way, and it sounds weird for English speakers elsewhere in the world. It’s a give and take - we don’t all speak the same English. “But these are factual errors!” is a really silly argument here; if they are, why isn’t this an issue for everybody?

- “Unfortunately, while it's possible for a translation to be stiff but understandable, stiff but accurate translations are pretty much a myth.”

I hate this idea, too. “If it doesn’t sound right in American English, it’s incorrect, & doesn’t get the idea across.” The other thing I really don’t like about this is the vast majority of dialog in Persona 5 flows very smoothly for native English speakers! The writer even seems to be aware of that fact, as I’ll address later.

- “It's definitely great to get to experience the cultural aspect of a piece of foreign writing. However, that foreign nature should be expressed by the text's content, not by the text's awkwardness. This goes back to creator intent. If the original creator were perfectly fluent in English, would they have made their writing intentionally awkward just so readers could feel how “foreign” it is?”

I really fucking hate this! How are you ‘expressing’ the cultural aspect of a text by eliminating the speech quirks of the parent language - is the implication that you intentionally add lines to express the character’s nationality? It really feels like ‘thing that detracts from my experience by taking me out of my personal cultural & linguistic comfort zone should be removed and replaced with, y’know, something.’ And that final claim! People who write in two languages - or speak fluently two languages - will very, very often include quirks, stiffness, or other eccentricities in their own personal English. If the author means “fluent in the brand of English I speak and write,” that’s extremely irritating!

- “Consider—how would readers react if George R. R. Martin released his next book and every third sentence was awkward, with every fifth sentence containing an objective error? Writing is hard, and his novels are long, after all.“

I wish this author had simply not written this blurb, I was so much warmer on the criticism beforehand. George R. R. Martin works in an entirely different medium, in one language, with years and years between each published work. The criticisms even this writer has with Persona 5 do not extend to “every third sentence,” “with every fifth sentence” containing some sort of grand, inexcusable error. People would be far, far more upset if this were actually the case. This comparison fails in every conceivable way, & is just outright ignorant.

- “One reason someone might use this defense is that they genuinely don't see a problem, because to them those flaws aren't flaws. And that's valid, so long as they accept other people's right to believe otherwise.”

I like this. I wish the author didn’t hide this at the end, behind all of the assertions of objective “failure” and “outright errors.”

- “I haven't listed every mistake in Persona 5, or even a substantial fraction of them. I've also been forced to focus on the translation aspect of localization, which means I haven't properly addressed other failings such as bad typography, untranslated images and video, and voiced lines that are unsubbed even when Japanese audio is enabled.1 Nor have I dedicated time to the sometimes strange handling of honorifics.“

The typography complaint is valid, though one of the pettiest things I’ve seen in awhile now, and the untranslated images are a series staple, but the honorifics thing HAS bothered me since P3. Just commit or don’t, guys.. Anyway, not much to say about this chunk. I just wanted to say, man that honorifics stuff can be weird (& has been for years).

Listen: If you take nothing else from this write up, understand that I have no issue with people disliking the P5 translation. That’s totally fine. My problem is with the concept of there existing a ‘correct’ English, or a ‘correct’ translation. My problem is with the repeated emphasis this writer, and others expanding on them, place on their definition of “objective” errors. The vast majority of the moments picked out by this writer are not selections of terrible grammatical errors - and I’d argue that it’s /completely fine/ for a couple of those to exist in a fucking video game - but of what the author calls stiff language. That is to say: Neither meaning nor soul are impaired by the P5 translation.

The reverence with which this author refers to the text - referencing how the translation has ruined one of the ‘greatest RPGs of the last ten years’ for them, and so on, so forth - speaks to a kind of pedestal-hoisting that does no good for anyone. For example, in the Sae moment detailed on the site from the start of the game, with the “psychic detective”; what makes the original so good? In Japanese, the detective says “There’s been a call for you” right before she receives a call on her cell phone. Is this not silly as all fuck? Why is it so much better? Why did Sae’s boss call the detective first, why didn’t he just call her cell phone if he had it the whole time? The English script changes the moment to make the detective seem aware that she’s about to receive the call - emphasizing that the detective and Sae’s boss are working together no one in the scene can be trusted, while also positing Sae as an outsider. Watch the scene again and see if you get what I’m saying. https://youtu.be/f3bVM2mxh4k?t=876

It’s super frustrating that a changes like this get flak from this writer, while the worldview being pushed is one of ‘capturing the spirit, not the words.’ It’s also frustrating that many of the game’s legitimate, real problems (that aren’t fucking, the font used to spell out ‘hello’ on a calculator, god damn guys it’s okay most people have done that before) are ignored - such as the constant battle chatter every time you hit a weakpoint in a game centered on repeatedly exploiting weaknesses, or the intensity of the writing game’s first chapter. The writing is held in extremely high regard, & the translation is being used to try to assert the truth of controversial axioms without actually needing to discuss said assumed “truths.”

I just want to leave with one assertion: There is no “correct” English. It’s okay for a text to sound awkward (especially in visual media) _with the caveat_ that it must get the spirit of the original work across. It’s all right, for sure, for a foreign text to challenge or disrupt the expectations of a native English speaker in its translation. In some ways (and not even all), Persona 5′s translation does this. Is it a perfect translation? No, no translation is. Do you have to like it? No. Should you respect the opinion of players who do (as well as ESL players & those abroad!) enough to avoid making sweeping, generalized statements about the failure of the script to appeal to your individual sensibilities, complete with long, detailed theories as to why other people don’t seem to mind? Please. _Please_. Honestly, y’all make this game sound like it’s Chaos Wars, or Arc Rise Fantasia. The hyperbole is unreal, and it simply needs to stop.

#persona 5 #personaproblems #april 2017

31 notes · View notes

haleyfury · 4 years

Text

June was another transitional month into my new normal, with plenty of books in tow. I’ve been keeping busy, between starting my remote jobs and grad school. It’s crazy to think I finished my first round of grad school classes, and my second round started this week. I started experiencing some Zoom burnout this month, so reading and taking my eyes away from my laptop screen with books helped things. I actually have to read two YA books for my grad school classes in July, and I’m so excited to be getting to read YA for school – I read two YA books for undergrad, but that was purely because I decided to do my capstone projects on them.

My reading and TV watching were all over the place this month. I read a lot of contemporary and reread a few books, while I still dove into a reality TV this month. I often had trouble really concentrating on TV, movies especially – I had one night where I tried watching three different movies and then ended up rewatching Cheaper by the Dozen 2 and an episode of Queer Eye.

What is also improving my reading mood even more is that my local library re-opened for door side pick up! I may or may not have put 15 books on hold as soon as the online catalog re-opened. Although there are plenty of good things going on personally right now, there’s definitely still some uncertainty this summer, to say the least. While my state’s covid-19 cases have significantly decreased over the past two months, we’re seeing multiple states have huge increases in cases. Between work and school, I’m typically home Monday through Friday but these increases has made me rethink a few weekend plans and curious to see how my state moves forward with re-opening plans. I went to my first outdoor restaurant and first trip back to Barnes & Noble last week, but my family and friends and I are still being cautious and smart about where we go.

Beach Read by Emily Henry | 5/5 Stars

Like me, I’m sure you’ve seen Emily Henry’s Beach Read EVERYWHERE, but I’m here to confirm that the hype is more than worth the read! There’s such depth to this contemporary romance.

Love at First Fight by Sandhya Menon (novella) | 5/5

I’m a firm believer that Sandhya Menon is the queen of novellas, with Love at First Fight as no exception. You don’t have to read it before picking up 10 Things I Hate About Pinky this July, but it was a really fun addition to the Dimpleverse!

Attachments by Rainbow Rowell 5/5 (reread)

One of my best friends IRL is reading Fangirl, aka honestly my all-time favorite book, which led me to make the decision to reread Rainbow Rowell’s contemporary books this summer. Attachments still reigns as my favorite adult fiction novel of hers.

Slay by Brittany Morris | 4/5

If you’re looking to read more YA books by black authors, as well as books that reflect some of the conversations we’re currently having about race in the U.S., Slay is definitely worth checking out.

Landline by Rainbow Rowell | 5/5 (reread)

I forgot how much I loved Landline, including its many one-liners and sarcasm. I also loved the cameo from one of my all-time favorite fictional couples.

10 Things I Hate About Pinky by Sandhya Menon (ARC) | 4.5/5

Over the past four years, my summer reading has not been complete without a new YA contemporary from Sandhya Menon. 10 Things I Hate About Pinky was such a summery take on the enemies-to-lovers trope.

The Play (Briar U #3) by Elle Kennedy | 4/5

Elle Kennedy’s Off-Campus and Briar U series reign among my favorite new adult romance novels. It wasn’t my absolute favorite, but The Play was still a fun and flirty installment.

The Boy on the Wooden Box by Leon Leyson | 5/5

The Boy on the Wooden Box is one of those books I can’t believe I didn’t read until 2020, but I’m so, so glad I read this Holocaust memoir from child survivor, Leon Leyson, who worked for Oskar Schindler during the war.

Thirteen Doorways, Wolves Behind Them All by Laura Ruby | 4/5

Thirteen Doorways, Wolves Behind Them All’s critical praise really caught my attention. If you’re looking for an often untold story from the World War II period, I recommend checking this YA book about a girl living in a Chicago orphanage out – did I mention it’s also narrated by a ghost?

You Deserve Each Other by Sarah Hogle | 5/5

I am not joking when I say that You Deserve Each Other might be the funniest and most clever contemporary romance I’ve ever read.

My Life Next Door by Huntley Fitzpatrick | 4/5 (reread)

As you might be able to tell, I was on a small rereading kick in June, My Life Next Door included. I didn’t LOVE this one as much as I had the first time around – a lot more unresolved issues than I remembered – but it is such an atmospheric summer contemporary.

Jenna Takes The Fall by A.R. Taylor (ARC) | 3/5

Jenna Takes The Fall wasn’t necessarily my favorite read, but it made for a really entertaining read while floating around my pool.

The Sullivan Sisters by Kathryn Ormsbee | 2.5/5

I really wanted to love The Sullivan Sisters because I tend to seek out books about sisters, but it was just a miss for me.

The Politician S2 (Netflix) – The Politician was my favorite show of 2019, so I could not wait for its second season to air. I’ve realized that this show is slightly ridiculous… but that doesn’t make it any less good!! Once again, I was so impressed by the acting, and this season had a few more politically relevant themes than last season.

Athlete A (Netflix) – If there’s one thing that you must watch on Netflix, it’s Athlete A. This documentary walks viewers through the several sexual abuse cases involving Larry Nassar and USA Gymnastics. To say the least, it is such an infuriating and emotional watch, as we hear from several gymnasts about USA Gymnastic’s abusive environment. I found tears rolling down my face throughout, especially because of Maggie Nichol’s story. This is such an important watch that demands more from USA Gymnastics and overall how female atheletes are treated in sports.

The Bachelor GOAT (ABC) – I’ve been loving putting on these wrap-up episodes while I work as background noise, and even more, I love listening to Here to Make Friends‘ recap episodes on my walks.

Below Deck Mediterranean (Bravo) & Outdaughtered (TLC) – Reality TV is still one of my favorite forms of escapism. My Below Deck obsession is still alive & well, while I’m bummed that Outdaughtered was only 5 episodes long -although I completely understand why in order to protect the Busbys and the camera & crew.

Lenox Hill (Neftlix) – Let it be known that I am one of the most sqeamish people when it comes to medical things and, let’s face it, the sight of blood. I learned quickly that being a nurse or doctor was not for me while taking anatomy in high school. However, I found myself obsessed with Lenox Hill, a docuseries following Lenox Hill Hospital in NYC. It was such a fascinating watch, following the neurosurgery, OB-GYN, and emergency medicine departments of the hospital.

Some other random things I watched include Shtisel S2 (Netflix), The West Wing S1 (Netflix/NBC), and Clueless (Netflix).

Reviews

NEW ADULT FUN: The Play (Briar U #3) Review

SUMMER MUST-READ: Beach Read by Emily Henry

WAS IT WORTH THE HYPE? : Where the Crawdads Sing Review

MUST READ NOVELLA: Love at First Fight Review

NEW ADULT REVIEW: Until the Last Star Fades

June 2020 Mini Reviews: Books I Should’ve Read A While Ago

FINISHING THE THOUSANDTH FLOOR: The Dazzling Heights & The Towering Sky Review

Bookish & Other Fun:

Summer Reading Recommendations: The YA Edition

Mid-Year Book Freak Out Tag: 2020 Edition

If We Were Having Coffee: June 2020 Edition

TBR & JUNE READING PLANS: The Stuck At Home Book Tag

Summer Reading Recs: Based on What I Read in 2019 Edition

Gravity is Heartless Q&A with Author Sarah Lahey

What did you read and watch in June? Anything that I mentioned? Share in the comments!

BOOKS, TV, & MY CURRENT NORMAL: June 2020 Wrap Up June was another transitional month into my new normal, with plenty of books in tow. I’ve been keeping busy, between starting my remote jobs and grad school.

#June 2020 #June 2020 Wrap Up #Wrap Up

0 notes