#like i had like amanda seyfriend in mind | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

pynkhues · 2 years

Note

Okay, this is cheating, but I just want to mention that I am a giant wimp who avoids horror films at all costs, 😅 but the one "scary" film I've seen is Jennifer Body, which I absolutely love and I just think it deserved so much better. If you don't mind, I'd love to hear any thoughts you have on the movie.

Ahaha, it's not cheating at all, anon! I love getting asks about movies in general, that horror meme was just a fun way of getting to do that.

And oh, man, I love Jennifer's Body a lot. I think it's an incredibly sharp script from Diablo Cody elevated by brilliant direction from Karyn Kusama, a director I really love, and some really strong performances from Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfriend. It touches on so many deep themes of femininity and girlhood and the way it utilised the tropes of horror - from possession to body horror to virgin/whore paradigms - was just !! Honestly perfection!!

One of the things I think about a lot at the moment is about this rise in what I tend to think of as 'reclamation horror'. It's this idea that horror, at least cinematically, has historically belonged to white men, but they've capitalised on stories of minority trauma to create that horror, whether it's been in the violation of women's bodies, or through the desecration of Indigenous sacred sites, or through the bastardisation of real cultures and practices like voodoo or Aboriginal myths, or even just the reliance on misogynystic or racist tropes like the woman who has sex or the Black man being the first to die.

Over the last few years though, there's been a real shift in horror cinema where more diverse storytellers are having the opportunities to tell their stories, and to explore the genre with agency and that's felt increasingly big. There are so many First Nations directors (Warwick Thornton, Jeff Barnaby, Shirley Cheechoo), Black directors (Jordan Peele, Nia DaCosta, Remi Weekes) and women (Karyn Kusama, the Soska Sisters, Julia Ducournau) who are making thrilling stories that shift the focus on who horror as a genre really belongs to.

That's exciting, and while there had been a number of women-directed horror movies before Jennifer's Body came out (The Hitch-Hiker in 1953, The Slumber Party Massacre in 1982 and American Psycho in 2000 being especially formative for those interested in the history of women-directed horror), I think Jennifer's Body changed the tone.

Where so many of the women-directed horror that came before it felt it had to lean into the hyper-masculine nature of the genre (I love both these films, but American Psycho and Kathryn Bigelow's Near Dark absolutely fit that bill), to me Jennifer's Body showed that horror itself could be an unapologetically feminine genre and that, well, as Needy says in the movie: "Hell is a teenage girl."

Even though it flopped on its release, it's cemented itself as a cult classic with a huge legacy and I do think it empowered a generation of women filmmakers, and I do think it showed that not only horror about women had an audience, but that the feminine and the horrific could be deeply, thrillingly entwined.

Raw, The Love Witch, A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night, Knives and Skin, MFA and who knows however many more to me feel like they've sprung up out of the earth Jennifer's Body dug, and so yeah - I love Jennifer's Body, both in its right, and for what I think it's done for the genre.

Horror's being taken back right now by the people who were always punished in it, and to me that's honestly making it one of the most exciting genres to watch right now. In that sense, I think Jennifer's Body and Get Out have been the two most crucial horror movies of the last twenty years, so even if you're a little squeamish for the genre, anon, it's a good one to have watched.

#jennifer's body really said we're not just going to make a movie that caters to teenage girls #we're going to make one that's truly #narratively and symbolically #FOR them #and i love it for that #jennifer's body #welcome to my ama #film asks

1 note · View note

claudia1829things · 3 years

Text

"MANK" (2020) Review

"MANK" (2020) Review When it comes to biopics about Hollywood history, I must admit that I have a slight addiction to them. I really enjoy reading about Hollywood history. And I especially enjoy reading about the industry's so-called "Golden Age". So, when I learned about the upcoming release of "MANK", a biopic about Hollywood screenwriter, Herman J. Mankiewicz, I was pretty eager to see it.

However . . . I never got the chance to watch "MANK" in movie theaters during the fall/winter of 2020-2021. "MANK" had the bad luck to be released while the entire world was in the grip of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although Netflix had released the film in theaters for a limited period in November 2020, the streaming service/production company eventually released it on its streaming service the following month. Because of this, a good number of months had passed before I had eventually watched it on television. "MANK" began in 1940, when the then young wunderkind Orson Welles hired veteran screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz to write the screenplay for his new movie, "CITIZEN KANE". Unfortunately, Mankiewicz is in Victorville, CA; recovering from a broken leg he had sustained in a car crash. With the assistance of his secretary Rita Alexander, he becomes aware of the similarities between the movie's main character and newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. This awareness not only inspired Mankiewicz to work on Welles' screenplay, but also led him to recall his history with Hearst, the latter's mistress, Marion Davies; and the smear campaign against Upton Sinclair's 1934 California gubernatorial campaign. Since "MANK" is not a documentary, but a historical drama, I knew that its narrative would not be completely accurate. However, I do believe that screenwriter Jack Fincher and his brother, director David Fincher, took a lot of liberties in regard to historical accuracies. Perhaps too much. Yes, the movie featured historical accuracies that included Mankiewicz's car accident and broken leg, his employment with both Paramount Pictures and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Upton Sinclair's bid for Governor of California in 1934 and of course, Mankiewicz's collaboration with Welles and John Houseman on "CITIZEN KANE". However, the main problem with "MANK" is that Jack Fincher tried to connect the efforts to undermine Upton Sinclair's gubernatorial campaign with Mankiewicz's screenplay for "CITIZEN KANE". And it did not exactly work. It failed to work due to Mankiewicz's political beliefs. Considering that Sinclair had ran for governor as a Democrat, it seemed implausible that Mank would have been that upset over the state's business leaders - which included movie studio chief Louis B. Mayer, studio producer Irving Thalberg; and newspaper magnates like Hearst and Harry Chandler - going out of their way to undermine Sinclair's campaign. Mankiewicz's politics tend to skewer toward conservative, except when it came to fascism. It seems quite obvious that Jack Fincher needed an explanation for why Mankiewicz had been willing to write "CITIZEN KANE", a scathing portrait of William Randolph Hearst. So he invented one. But you know what? I find myself wondering what topic had really caught the Finchers' attention - Mankiewicz's connection with Hearst, Davies and "CITIZEN KANE"; or the 1934 California gubernatorial election. Because honestly . . . it seemed as if both screenwriter and director were more interested in the latter. If that was the case, then the Fincher brothers should have solely focused the movie's topic on the election. I have another quibble about "MANK". One I found some of the dialogue in the film's first half hour a bit too stylized for my tastes. In one early scene, it seemed as if the Finchers had tried too hard to recapture a West Coast version of the Algonquin Round Table. Also, why did the Finchers shot this film in black-and-white? What was the point? Because to me, this decision to film in black-and-white seemed like another attempt at a homage to Hollywood's Golden Age via a gimmick. And I am getting weary of gimmicks - especially unnecessary ones in Hollywood productions. Otherwise, I did not have a problem with "MANK". There are at least three reasons why I ended up enjoying this film. One, the movie featured a first-rate character study of Herman J. Mankiewicz. I have read a good deal about him. Granted, the movie was not completely honest in the writer's characterization. The latter's political beliefs would have never led him to get upset, let alone outraged over the campaign against Upton Sinclair. However, David Fincher's screenplay did a very admirable job in capturing Mankiewicz's other traits - including his wit, his addictions and air of weariness. If I must be frank, I believe Gary Oldman's superb performance achieved this even more than the Finchers' screenplay and direction. Two, although I found the creation of "CITIZEN KANE" rather interesting, it did not strike me as particularly unique. Well . . . I take that back. "MANK" did tell this story specifically from the screenwriter's point-of-view. The 1999 HBO film, "RKO 281", told this story mainly from Orson Welles' point-of-view. However, the movie's depiction of Hollywood's connection to California's 1934 gubernatorial election struck me as the film's more interesting and original aspect. This was especially apparent in scenes that featured a montage of the phony newsreels criticizing Sinclair and the election's final night. One aspect of "MANK" really impressed me - namely the performances featured in the film. They either ranged from competent performances from the likes of Tom Pelphrey as Joseph Mankiewicz, Charles Dance as William Randolph Hearst, Ferdinand Kingsley as Irving Thalberg, Joseph Cross as Charles Lederer, Toby Leonard Moore as David Selznick, Sam Troughton as John Houseman, Bill Nye as Upton Sinclair and Arliss Howard as Louis B. Mayer. Mind you, I believe there were times when Howard's performance threatened to become a bit too theatrical. But I still enjoyed it. I was very impressed by the performances from Tuppence Middleton as Sara Mankiewicz, Tom Burke as Orson Welles and Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies. As much as Seyfriend's performance impressed me, I do not believe she had deserved an Oscar or any other acting nomination for her performance. I do not believe her performance was that exceptional. There were a handful of performances that I really enjoyed. I thought Jamie McShane gave a very emotional performance as test director Shelly Metcalf, who shot the anti-Sinclair newsreels. Frankly, Lily Collins' performance as Mankiewicz's no-nonsense secretary Rita Alexander impressed me a lot more than Seyfriend's performance. And I thought she and the leading man had managed to create a superb screen chemistry. Although I believed that Seyfriend's acting nominations were undeserved, I cannot say the same for Gary Oldman's performance as Herman J. Mankiewicz. I thought he was superb as the screenwriting icon agonizing over his earlier apathy toward the governor's election, while struggling over his alcoholism and creation of the "CITIZEN KANE" screenplay. He truly deserved his acting nominations - especially in one scene in which the main character went into a drunken rant against the Hollywood machine and Hearst. "MANK" was definitely not the best movie of 2020. Perhaps it was one of the better ones. I still believe it could have been a better film if David and Jack Fincher had not attempted to connect the creation of "CITIZEN KANE" with California's 1934 governor election. But its re-creation of the latter proved to be one of the film's highlights. And the movie also benefited from excellent direction from David Fincher and excellent performances from a cast led by the always superb Gary Oldman. Honestly, I would have no qualms about buying a DVD copy of this film.

4 notes · View notes

elliepassmore · 4 years

Text

A Court of Thorns and Roses Review

5/5 stars Recommended for people who like: fantasy, trials, 1st POV, vague fairy tale retellings, Fae, strong female leads In this first book, Maas weaves a bleak world of humans who either struggle to survive or live in opulence. Feyre and her family have done both, having lost their fortune several years prior to the beginning of the book. The human side of things is what you'd expect from a fantasy village, and reading about it brought to mind the village from the movie Red Riding Hood with Amanda Seyfriend...only with fewer trees, less religion, and more ice. When we get to the Fae side of things, the world turns on its head and it becomes bathed in jewel tones. Through Feyre, we only really get to see a lordling's manor, which is naturally extravagant and lovely. I loved the balance between the beautiful and the downright creepy in this one, because despite the beauty, the world is full of snarling creatures with fangs and claws that are just raring to get a mouthful of a human for the first time in decades or centuries. It's a vague retelling of the original Beauty and the Beast, where the father loses his merchant fortune and the three sisters must move with him into a less wealthy area. Unlike the original, it's the main character, Feyre, who offends the 'beast' and must offer herself as the price. Further flipping the original, Feyre can't really read or write all that well, so her spending time in the library is substituted by her spending time in a paint studio where she tries to capture the beauty and terror of the land. As is typical, though, the curse is complex and the way it wends brings the characters down a dark path for a while. However, for most of the book, it's Feyre with Tamlin or Lucien enjoying the Fae lands of Prythia. Feyre is an interesting one. As much as she struggles and fights to survive each day, she's also content to let Tamlin and Lucien handle things, even if she does sometimes protest and ask to come, she never really takes the initiative to anything to help herself, already exhausted from taking care of herself and her family. She later realizes this is her downfall and does her best to correct it, but it was super interesting to see how her whole perspective shifts after a few months in Prythia. Tamlin is the main love interest, though I can't exactly say I see the appeal since he isn't really around that much. When he is around, at least for the first third of the book, he isn't even all that nice to Feyre, yet somehow the two end up in love...I suppose it happens during some of those afternoon outings, but I didn't feel as though we were really shown why they fell in love, it was more inevitable than anything. When Tamlin attempted to be kind he was, offering up a room in the house for Feyre to paint in and making sure she had plenty of canvases and paints and brushes to use. He also seems rather welcoming to Fae and Faeries from other courts, allowing them to reside or seek sanctuary at the manor. Lucien is the other main Fae that Feyre comes into contact with, and he's decidedly less nice than Tamlin. He makes little effort in terms of Feyre, but somehow their friendship seems more realistic than Tamlin and Feyre's romantic relationship, perhaps because it grew more obviously out of time spent together and reluctant respect. Lucien makes a couple bad calls, but he does attempt to make up for them. Some of the side Fae/Faeries Feyre comes into contact with are Alis, Rhysand, the Suriel, the Attor, and Amarantha, the villain. Alis is Feyre's maidservant and sort of friend. She helps Feyre navigate the ways of the Fae and tries to help her in some of her 'curse breaking' tasks too. Rhysand is the High Lord of the Night Court and not a very nice dude, though he does go to great pains to help keep Feyre alive and healthy, so I'd say he's more of a morally grey character than a villain in this one. The Suriel is a fun recurring character in the series, he can give answers to those who catch him, and he's pretty lenient with Feyre, despite his monstrous appearance. The Attor is just a downright villain, evil because it wants to be, and is described as basically a giant mutant bat monster. Amarantha is the beautiful villain who is basically planning on taking over the world and delights in torturing innocent Fae, Faeries, and humans. The only other humans we really get to know other than Feyre are her sisters and father. Elain is the oldest (I think??) and is a total sweet-heart, even if it doesn't quite sink in for her in the beginning that the money she's spending so freely came from Feyre's hardwork. Nesta seems like the exact opposite until Feyre realizes that Nesta's mostly just angry at their father for giving up on them, and that Nesta might very well be the most loyal of the lot. The father doesn't get much of a characterization, other than that he's spacey and doesn't really bother to help lift the family out of poverty, even when Feyre starts hunting when she's still a child. The world of ACoTaR is complex, with Feyre figuring out one thing only to find there's another issue or obstacle or unknown event. It's fun to try and puzzle out what's going to happen next, even if some of it is more obvious to the reader than it is to Feyre. There's a decent mix of characters who you're not sure if they're good or bad or where they fall in between. It has a pretty different feel compared to ToG, despite both having Fae in them, and I think that despite the similar elements, there's enough of a difference to appreciate one without necessarily liking the other. Overall, I think it's a good book, and a good springboard for the rest of the series.

18 notes · View notes