#dominance theory | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

for-horsemens · 3 months ago

Text

THINGS YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE NOTICED IN THE NYSM 3 TRAILER

*SPOILER WARNING* Of course, we know in trailers they put scenes in the wrong order, splice audio/video, and edit things out to not give away the plot so in this post I have tried to deduce the plot of Now You See Me: Now You Don't. Because of my extreme genius this may contain spoilers for the film. Please proceed with caution. This is a long post of my theories, observations, and expectations for the third film so I can sleep at night and be normal about it until November. For the purpose of this long post I have color-coded the characters of Henley, Jack, Merritt and Daniel, their group name the Horsemen, and separated them from the new Horsemen which I have affectionately named the Ponies who will all individually have the same color (none). So feel free to only read about the characters you care about :) I, obviously, love each character the same without any favouritism to the old ones. Under the cut you shall find the ramblings of a completely normal person.

The trailer begins with a shot of a large stage with The Horsemen and their logo projecting from the building with the words "In the world of magic everything that disappears reappears..." spoken by Daniel Atlas. I think this is the first misdirect in the trailer as the scene they show directly after those exterior shots does not take place in that specific building.

This scene is a flashback that occurs before the events of this movie. That's fairly obvious, but when? If it takes place during the first movie, we can assume they have kept the canon of the first two movies because we can see them wearing costumes resembling their show in New Orleans during NYSM1. They have even tried to replicate their appearance (hair and makeup) during this time.

We know that Henley was not present during the events of NYSM2 so if this performance occurred after that movie, The Horsemen must have reunited and made a reappearance some length of time after that (assuming around 9 years have passed).

If they are ignoring the canon of NYSM2, then this easily takes place sometime after the first movie, with Jack making his reappearance within the group (after his fake death in NYSM1).

Whatever happened after this, the group broke up. Or at least, Daniel has separated himself from them.

The first location we meet The Ponies is Japan, I believe. Daniel finds them in a Karaoke bar. There are Japanese letters written on the screen behind them. Also, the exterior shot shows the Mode Gakuen Spiral Towers--a building in Japan. I don't believe they actually shot in Japan but this most likely takes place there.

There is a microphone on the table so we might get a goofy scene of The Ponies singing a song, which could be cute or really annoying. They have money on the table so it is possible they won a karaoke competition using some kind of trickery/mimickery. We already know Bosco does an impersonation of Atlas so this could be hinting that he has a similar 'mimicking' skill to Jack in NYSM1 à la "We're all good at six, move to seven."

{ note: i have to also mention i think that the horsemen’s appearance we see at the beginning at the trailer may be a hologram created by the ponies to get some money—as in the whole thing is a scam concocted by them to get money from loyal fans of the horsemen. a bit crazy if that’s the case because that defeats their entire message if they are scamming the public but this is only another theory }

I believe that Daniel Atlas walks in ready to recruit them to which we get the exchange of "I'll be the judge of that." I know I wrote in my notes I thought that might have been a fake interaction spliced together for the trailer but I think he actually does walk in saying this remark lmao.

The three Ponies seem like they are classic grumpy-sunshine trio. With Charlie (Justice Smith) being the ditzy one -- aka young Jack, Bosco (Dominic Sessa) being the witty one -- aka young Daniel, and June (Ariana Greenblatt) being the badass one, not necessarily a younger one of The Horsemen but very on par with how Ruben Fleisher writes young women, if you've seen Zombieland.

The card Daniel shows them is the Judgement tarot card. These cards have only occasionally had meaning with Jack, Dylan and (potentially, depending on the development of Henley/Daniel in this film) Daniel's holding any plot significance. However this card's reading implies that The Ponies will be taking over in the franchise from this point forward, assuming NYSM:NYD does well enough in cinemas.

One small confusing thing is that June has tattoos. I know this is not super crazy as some young people have tattoos underage. But, could this imply she's meant to be over the age of 18? Extremely strange decision to cast 17-year-old Ariana Greenblatt for this part. Unless they are all meant to be teenagers (17-19) and Dominic Sessa and Justice Smith are playing younger? Because if not it begs the question what is a 17-year-old girl doing with these two twenty-something-year-old men in Japan all by themselves? But let's smile and wave until the film releases hopefully with a good explanation.

{ note: ariana greenblatt mentioned in an interview on the zach sang show that she is in fact “playing older.” i think this is extremely strange casting decision, and i don’t understand casting a minor to play an adult if that’s the case. my thoughts might change when i see the film, however. }

Anyway, so they fly to Belgium with Daniel to track down the Heart Diamond. I assume in disguises judging by those BTS photos. I have a theory Daniel dresses up as a guy in a beard (assuming he is a fugitive) but that could just be a random passerby from Antwerp (Belgium) because they did film in public areas. They may also have stolen intel from him for the heist they are planning (or that Daniel is forcing these children into, lol).

So we are still in Belgium when we arrive at whatever location they are holding this event for the Heart Diamond (to the surprise of everyone it is shaped like a heart). I assume it's an auction.

Veronika Vanderberg (Rosamund Pike) is the name of the main British villain in this movie. She has two main henchmen beside her a lot of the time. The main one I have labelled as 'Hench #1' (Thabang Molaba) in my notes.

The Ponies and Daniel get into the event using disguises. I'm guessing this is a similar to how they hijacked Octa in NYSM2. One interesting this I noticed is that they had to switch the real diamond for the fake one at some point. I think they do this by posing as the camera men for Veronika. Bosco has a fake beard and can be seen taking pictures in the trailer.

I feel Daniel can't help showboating which ruins this heist. He shows the diamond, creating a scuffle. Security then attacks them, and probably gets the diamond back for the movie. Ego has always been Daniel's downfall so this is unsurprising. Veronika is escorted out by her bodyguards/henchmen.

The Horsemen show up to save Daniel and The Ponies from disaster. I have predicted a Jack card trick similar to that of NYSM2 with the raining cards (in their London performance) to create diversions as they try to escape. Charlie is also seen creating a puff of smoke, and of course, Henley shows up and hits some henchmen in the head with a bottle.

They meet up with Merritt, who is waiting with an escape onto a boat. If they were sent to save Daniel I am guessing they all individually got tired of him (I think he lied to The Ponies and this will be revealed as the key divide in the group) or another theory is they all did just grow apart and we will get a bit more about this tension while they travel on the boat. I think they travel on the boat to France.

I believe there may be a significant conversation or runtime spent on the boat as they changed outfits before they reached France. Or, this scene at the French Eye HQ takes place towards the end of the film (I am more confident in the former theory).

We get some classic Merritt-Daniel playful banter. I believe at this point there is still some kind of divide between The Horsemen.

Now these scenes once they reach the Eye HQ are hard to decipher but I have come up with two possible storylines.

STORYLINE 1: THEY ESCAPE THE POLICE

They get there and do not know how to get inside. I find this strange because surely they would be apart of the eye by now, but it's possible they were given a new address they haven't been to. I maybe I think Daniel snaps at Merritt because he is making fun of his 'open sesame' gag from his failed Heart Diamond heist earlier but it could just be their usual 'I hate you so much my brother' banter. I believe it does work and the door opens, which is meant to be a funny and frustrating coincidence. Or, either way it is a secret door because you can see in the background it looks like a bookshelf has been opened.

So they get inside and are greeted by Thaddeus. He gives them their mission. Then, they practice magic tricks and Henley changes her dress as an example to the Ponies.

Somehow the French Police manage to find them in this top secret location and get inside the building. They split off into groups accidentally while trying to run from the police.

Jack and June end up fighting together in what looks like a music room, Henley and Charlie end up fighting in a hall of mirrors and Daniel and Bosco end up evading the police in a rotating hall way.

(Also, Thaddeus and Merritt, but I talk about this later.)

Jesse Eisenberg explained during an interview that he and Dominic Sessa were running from the French police (so this portion of the film definitely takes place in France) and that he broke his finger during it.

Jesse can be seen wearing a cast in multiple set photos. This is a small thing but I believe that speech he gives on TikTok was because it was his birthday on that day of filming (he appeared in costume in his trailer at the 62nd New York Film Festival for A Real Pain in his 'birthday tux' back in October 2024).

I think they all break off into little 'teams' being Pony/Horseman so they can bridge the gap between the two a little more. They could successfully avoid the police this way.

After the police disrupt them, they either make their way to another location with the Penrose illusion (doors/stairs/mirrors) or this is a secret room in the Eye HQ and it gives them their idea for their final trick which I am theorizing involves mirror magic.

Merritt may have taken edible gummies at some point between the boat to France from Belgium, after the fight with the French police or when he last sees Thaddeus. This is the only way I could understand this line and I think it was meant to be humourous. It makes sense with both Woody Harrelson and Merritt as a character, I think.

STORYLINE 2: SOME GET ARRESTED

Mostly the same prior to the police showing up. But, I believe either Merritt, Jack or June get taken into custody or Thaddeus Bradley does. Another theory is Thaddeus sacrifices himself for The Horsemen/Ponies and possibly dies (it's possible Morgan Freeman asked to be killed off, but I don't know think they are ready to make the franchise that 'dark' per se, but it's Ruben Fleischer so you never know). I only guess this because there is a particular scene where the police break into a room where only Thaddeus is standing and Merritt calls out to him from the open door. This could be why only Henley, Charlie, Bosco and Daniel are seen in this Penrose room as they are the ones who managed to successfully avoid the police.

However, Merritt is also seen in this room. This could mean he was in there before the others or that this is in fact simply a new location they all go to after the Eye HQ.

Although there is some kind of scene I think at a police station where he and June are fighting the French police. Or, maybe he somehow sets fire to the room with the Penrose illusion.

The final act may take place in Abu Dhabi, specifically in the Lourve Abu Dhabi. There are scenes of some kind of underground meeting between Veronika Vanderberg and war dealers/arms dealers she must be selling diamonds to or whatever. I couldn't quite figure out where to place this specific sequence with this underground into the story but I am fairly certain it is in Abu Dhabi as this is probably the Vanderberg base of operations.

At some point I believe near the end of the film, The Horsemen arrange to meet with Veronika Vanderberg. I'm guessing to arrange some confrontation (probably in an attempt to get her to fall into their trap à la Walter Mabry Potter style).

The Horsemen confront her face-to-face and leave The Ponies at home for the day. They get tricked and are dropped into a tank of water to drown. They all work together to get out of the tank. This may be the moment where they finally come back together (as friends). However, I hope they have patched this up before this.

If this is the moment they patch things up. They might have dried off then called Veronika Vanderberg, but that depends.

{ note: they might have indeed dried off because i’ve noticed that the ceiling is the same as the destination for what i believe is the final “showdown” at the louvre abu dhabi }

I have another theory that there is another character in the tank scene. Atlas might have called for help from the Eye before hand (another theory for the phone call) and Dylan Shrike will show up fashionably late, or just dressed in clothes. Veronika has a gun in one scene, perhaps ready to shoot them after they survived the tank so I'm guessing that's where Dylan swoops in.

In an interview, Isla Fisher explains they were filming that tank scene for a week and one cast member peed inside the tank. She explains that herself, Jesse, Woody, Dave and one other cast member she 'can't mention' because it could get her into trouble if they are not announced to be in the movie. I believe this is Mark Ruffalo making a cameo. I think they intentionally left him out of the trailer as a surprise, despite having announced him in several cast lists and having listed his name on IMDb.

Other cameos may be Walter Mabry (Daniel Radcliffe) because apparently he is credited in this film. It would be fun if all the British villains in this universe were related somehow lmao. Sadly, I do not think Lula May (Lizzy Caplan) is in the movie. However, if Walter Mabry is in the film, this is good as they haven't completely ignored NYSM2 and we may yet have an explanation for her absence.

The shots we see at the beginning of the trailer I think are at the end of the movie during this confrontation. BTS images show that Bosco and June (and we can assume Charlie as well) are present during filming at the Louvre Abu Dhabi. So, I am betting this is where the final show takes place. It makes sense that the projections appear out of nowhere, as we've seen this before. And, they have gone with the name "THE HORSEMEN" instead of The Four Horsemen as The Ponies are now a part of the group.

{ note: they have actually gone by the general name the horsemen loosely since the second film, because they had the addition of lula. however they are still referred to several times as the four horsemen in nysm2. although i think there will still be a moment where they hand over the torch to the ponies, essentially. though it's still unclear if they are ignoring all or some events of the second film as they have state it's a soft reimagining in the past. }

As a final thing. I must talk about the graphic design of this movie. They have changed the font/style of the title card three times and they picked the ugliest one for the poster.

The first movie's poster is undoubtedly the best poster, with the order of quality going down in order of release. It's a shame because I think the NYSM1 poster is so iconic and quite gorgeous, really. The only thing I hope for is another score by Brian Tyler. Let's see if I get anything right.

82 notes · View notes

shaxgirlsummer · 24 days ago

Note

hiii :) i’ve read and seen hamlet lots of times, but i’ve never picked up on the ophelia being pregnant/abortion theory. i see you wrote a paper on it, & i’m very curious. would you be interested in explaining your thoughts on it?

thank you xx

thank you for sending this ask (im so sorry it took me 5369 business days to respond), the ophelia & pregnancy/abortion reading is SUCH a favorite interpretation of mine and i’ve long been frustrated at the misogyny and puritanism of hamlet scholars at how hamlet scholarship frequently insists that just because the text of hamlet contains allusions to pregnancy and abortion regarding ophelia doesn’t mean we can read the text as implying ophelia induced an abortion.

to which i say: bullshit. why is this reading, and (frequently) this reading alone, wholly unviable for ophelia’s character? if the text allows for such a reading, which these scholars indirectly admit, then why not study it fully?

i don’t want to reproduce my entire paper here (especially because my professor recommended that after a bit of revision i should submit it for publication, exciting!!), so my argument about ophelia, abortion, and the text of hamlet can be broken down into three simple parts:

in the text of hamlet, ophelia possesses sexual desire and agency

in the text of hamlet, references are made to ophelia and pregnancy

in the text of hamlet, ophelia is associated with (and explicitly claims) an herbal abortifacient

allow me to walk through each point!

1) in the text of hamlet, ophelia possesses sexual desire and agency

let me just provide ophelia’s first (extended) dialogue in hamlet in response to her brother telling her that she should break up with hamlet because, as a prince, he can’t put her above his stately priorities, and all he really wants from her is her virginity (which, of course, would be ever so bad to premaritally lose!):

I shall the effect of this good lesson keep watchman to my heart. But, good my brother, Do not as some ungracious pastors do Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven Whiles, a puffed and reckless libertine, Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads And recks not his own rede. (I.iii.44-50)

one: ophelia calls laertes a hypocrite, implying that laertes is off to have sex with whomever he wants in france while she’s expected to remain a virgin (an incisive critique of the sexual double standard between men and women reinforced by the harsh alliteration of “recks” and “rede” in the last line). two: ophelia declares that celibacy is “the steep and thorny way to heaven,” i.e. celibacy is difficult and not enjoyable. three: ophelia tacitly describes sex as “the primrose path of dalliance”—listen to that positive alliteration!! those popping p’s before “dalliance” emphasize that sex is fun! desirable! delightful!

in other words, in her first conversation in the entire play, ophelia calls out the unfair sexual (virginal) expectations only women are held to and suggests having sex is the more enjoyable route in life, thus implying she herself desires sex.

if this scene wasn’t evidence enough, we need only turn to the (in)famous mousetrap scene and hamlet’s many many sexual innuendos toward ophelia. when writing my paper, i read a lot of scholarship that tried to make me believe that ophelia did not understand any of hamlet’s double entrendres—BULLSHIT!!! she fully engages with him and makes her own sexual references!! (as floyd-wilson puts it, ophelia “flirtatiously displays her own sexual awareness” during this bawdy tête-à-tête with hamlet.) toward the beginning of their charged rapport, hamlet inquires if ophelia thought he “meant country matters,” glossed as “[r]ustic doings (with an obscene pun on ‘cunt’),” and ophelia quips back, “I think nothing, my lord.” as most shakespeare nerds know, “nothing” is famously early modern slang for female genitalia, an innuendo hamlet highlights in his response: “That’s a fair thought to lie between maids’ legs” (III.ii.104-106). ophelia clocks hamlet’s reference to women’s private parts, meets it with her own, which hamlet promptly calls out. they’re literally on the same (erotic) page here.

in other words, the fact that hamlet and ophelia are flirting in overtly sexual terms in this scene is lowkey already implication enough that they’ve been fucking, especially in tandem with the fact that we meet ophelia when she defends that sex is fun and it’s not fair that her brother can fuck anyone he wants when she can’t. BUT THERE’S STILL MORE!

ophelia’s mad songs have honestly been talked to death in terms of their erotic elements, but to reiterate:

Tomorrow is Saint Valentine’s day, All in the morning betime, And I a maid at your window To be your valentine. Then up he rose and donned his clothes And dupped the chamber door, Let in the maid that out a maid Never departed more. (IV.ii.48-55)

this song depicts a loss of virginity (a maid entered the room to spend time with her valentine, but when she departed, she was no longer a maid), and scholars are divided as to whether ophelia is literally reflecting on her own sexual relationship with hamlet (and his subsequent betrayal—y’know, killing her father and emotionally abandoning her) or simply an imagined loss of virginity that symbolically echoes how she feels betrayed by hamlet. whether literal or imagined (although i think my preference for the former interpretation is clear), ophelia is once again engaging with topics of sexual betrayal and virginity—clearly a consistent thread for her throughout the play.

after the first song, the second is sung almost immediately:

By Gis and by Saint Charity, Alack and fie for shame, Young men will do’t if they come to’t, By Cock they are to blame. Quoth she, “Before you tumbled me You promised me to wed.” He answers: “So would I ha’ done by yonder sun An thou hadst not come to my bed.” (IV.ii.58-66)

here, ophelia once again discusses sexual betrayal, where the song literally declares “[y]oung men… are to blame” for illicit sexual affairs, narrating a woman accusing a young man of breaking a promise to her: he vowed to get married before they had sex, to which the young man responds that the premarital sex they shared was the woman’s fault because she came “to [his] bed.” (i guess he just couldn’t resist… eye roll.) again, scholars are divided as to whether ophelia is literally reflecting on her relationship with hamlet and his rejection of their long-term relationship or, as marino notes, merely “her father’s and brother’s fears” about her relationship with hamlet (i.e. him stealing his virginity and abandoning her, as laertes expresses concern over in act i), but regardless ophelia is once again criticizing the sexual double standard between men and women and observing a tale of sexual betrayal.

in effect: ophelia understands the sexual dynamics of her station and (rightfully) thinks they are unfair, and—as hunt notes—“[a]uditors cannot help but wonder whether this story of sexual betrayal resembles a dark reality that Hamlet created for Ophelia.” while the pregnancy/abortion reading (that i’m about to get into) more pushes the boundaries of what hamlet scholars feel comfortable acknowledging, there is a not insignificant strain of scholarship that already contends hamlet implies that hamlet and ophelia had a sexual relationship (some specify before the events of the play, though i counter that—at least based on the heavy flirting during the mousetrap scene—there’s not necessarily evidence that suggests they also couldn’t have had sex “during” the events of the play as well).

so we can see how hamlet portrays ophelia as someone who possesses sexual desire and sexual agency (though her mad songs imply her sexual relationship with hamlet perhaps did not end favorably). onto the next point!

2) in the text of hamlet, references are made to ophelia and pregnancy

something i think scholars who don’t want to consider the possibility of ophelia inducing abortion similarly refuse to consider (at least in depth) is that hamlet both explicitly and implicitly connects ophelia and pregnancy. i love hunt’s quote that the text of hamlet “successfully gets auditors to imagine that she [Ophelia] is pregnant, or has strong carnal appetites,” because yes! exactly! the play not only provides ophelia with sexuality but also links her to the potential consequences of a man and woman having sexual relations: pregnancy.

first, hamlet tells polonius: “Let her not walk i’th’ sun. Conception is a blessing, / but as your daughter may conceive, friend—look to’t” (II.ii.182-193). yoking ophelia and “conception”—however hypothetically—places the notion of ophelia becoming pregnant into audiences’ minds, and this possibility is promptly reinforced in (you guessed it) the mousetrap scene. hamlet comments to ophelia that “[i]t would cost you a groaning to take off mine edge,” to which she replies, “Still better and worse” (III.ii.231-232). hamlet’s “groaning” marks a reference to the sounds of both sex and childbirth, and in turn ophelia’s “[s]till better and worse” suggests one of those scenarios is “better” and the other “worse”—that she later only keeps rue (of all her plants/herbs) for herself, a known abortifacient, perhaps reveals which circumstance she preferred…

3) in the text of hamlet, ophelia is associated with (and explicitly claims) an herbal abortifacient

ophelia possesses sexual desire. she has sexual agency and can very easily be interpreted as having had sex with hamlet even if his bitch-ass betrayed her after. ophelia is distinctly linked to the notion of pregnancy, she herself implying that she doesn’t much enjoy the thought. so what, then, if ophelia got pregnant as a result of her sexual relationship?

There’s rosemary: that’s for remembrance. Pray you, love, remember. And there is pansies: that’s for thoughts. … There’s fennel for you and columbines; there’s rue for you, and here’s some for me. We may call it herb of grace o’Sundays. You may wear your rue with a difference. There’s a daisy. I would give you some violets, but they withered all when my father died. They say ’a made a good end. (IV.ii.170-171, 174-178)

ophelia’s flowers have also been talked to death in hamlet scholarship: rosemary for repentance and pansies for thoughts (likely handed to laertes, imploring her brother to remember her father’s death rather than getting entangled in the corruption of the danish state); fennel for flattery (potentially handed to claudius because of his ego); columbines for infidelity and ingratitude (could be handed to claudius or gertrude because of their questionable marriage); rue for repentance (also could be handed to claudius or gertrude, implying they need to repent for incest, for courtly corruption, etc.); a daisy for dissembling love (also could be handed to claudius or gertrude because of their “love” concealing their desires for power) and/or innocence (could be handed to laertes as a cry for him to protect himself within the danish court); and violets for faithfulness (of which she has none—and no faith left in denmark).

so why, of all these plants, does ophelia only keep rue for herself? and why does she specify that the person she hands it should wear their “rue with a difference” (i.e. for a different reason)?

i obviously don’t buy the argument that rue is meant to symbolize repentance for both ophelia and the person she hands it to, or else she’d have no reason to declare the recipient needs their rue for a different reason than she does. similarly, i don’t buy the argument that ophelia needs rue for repentance, because literally what does she have to repent for? one could argue premarital sex, but as ophelia’s introduction and her mad songs make clear, she clearly doesn’t see premarital sex to be particularly illicit—her problem is that women are expected to preserve virginity until marriage while men are not held to this same standard. so i don’t read her as feeling the need to repent for her sexual relationship with hamlet.

however…

throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, numerous herbals, pharmaceutical guides, and apothecary recipe books discuss abortifacients, and among these, painter and parker reveal that rue is frequently cited as the “most effective of all.” given that shakespeare was—as painter and parker also put it—“a countryman with a proven fascination for plants, it seems unlikely that [he] would be ignorant of” this medicinal connection. in other words: a strong majority of early modern audiences knew rue was an abortifacient, and it’s almost guaranteed that shakespeare himself was also aware of rue’s properties as a potent abortifacient and emmenagogue. whether or not shakespeare “intended” to imply ophelia induced an abortion through rue is a moot point—the widespread cultural recognition of rue as an abortifacient (in tandem with the play’s emphasis on ophelia’s sexuality and the play’s linkage between ophelia and pregnancy) means audiences would have recognized the possibility that ophelia used rue in such a way, and moreover such a reading remains available for us today.

recalling the line from the mousetrap scene, if between sex and childbirth one is “[s]till better and still worse” for ophelia, that she explicitly claims rue for herself (and specifies that the other person requires rue for a different reason than her) potentially suggests sex is “better” for ophelia and the idea of childbirth “worse”—thus the necessity of using rue to terminate the pregnancy that resulted from her sexual relationship with hamlet.

again: of all the plants/herbs she describes, ophelia claims only one for herself, and it’s a plant that was known to be a powerful, effective abortifacient. after all the narrative buildup that emphasizes her sexuality, we’re supposed to take her association with rue as mere coincidence? i don’t think so!

basically: ophelia liked sex because sex was fun, had sex with hamlet, and when ophelia realized she was pregnant (and did not want to be) she used rue (a well-known abortifacient) to induce abortion.

and thus my paper! (or half my paper; the other half is about images that proliferated in the 18th century that repeatedly visually linked a sexually open ophelia with rue—also recognized as an abortifacient in the 18th century, though censorship around reproductive autonomy was definitely increasing—which suggests 18th century artists were also aware of the possibility that ophelia had sex and used rue to induce an abortion as a result. so modern scholars who want to suggest otherwise can suck it, because artists of the 18th century agree with me!!)

to conclude, this was the final paragraph of my paper:

“I can imagine resistance to my reading of Ophelia, particularly in telling her story as one of both text and image: criticism that I am trying to be both historicist and presentist in this analysis, that the mere presence of rue in tandem with implicit sexual desire is not enough to make the case for pregnancy and abortion, that cultural knowledge of abortifacients and emmenagogues was in fact less common than I and other scholars imply, that even if the linkage between Ophelia and rue holds merit, the furthest we can take this textual and visual yoking is to ‘speculate that she [Ophelia] is worried by amenorrhea (i.e. absence of menstruation, which is frequently a symptom of depression) and that in her breakdown she associates this with seduction’ (Painter and Parker 44). Truth be told, I care little about rebutting these arguments, in part because many of them—to me—come across as bad faith. Why is it so frightening, both to how we construct history and how we perceive the present moment, to suggest that Ophelia may have had an abortion, and that we can find viability for this reading in both the original text and a plethora of eighteenth-century visual afterlives? As such, if the only story Ophelia can tell is ‘the history of her representation,’ then I hope this paper succeeds in both adding to and—messily, radically, wonderfully—complicating Ophelia’s (hi)story (Showalter 79, emphasis in original).”

i hope this is a satisfactory explanation, my friend!! i am literally so obsessed with ophelia and all of hamlet 🥹

~*~

the sources i mentioned in this post:

Floyd-Wilson, Mary. “Ophelia and Femininity in the Eighteenth Century: ‘Dangerous Conjectures in Ill-Breeding Minds.’” Women’s Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, vol. 21, no. 4, 1992, pp. 397–409. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1080/00497878.1992.9978953.

Hunt, Maurice. “Impregnating Ophelia.” Neophilologus, vol. 89, no. 4, Oct. 2005, pp. 641–63. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11061-005-5284-0.

Marino, James J. “Ophelia’s Desire.” ELH, vol. 84 no. 4, 2017, p. 817-839. Project MUSE, https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/elh.2017.0031.

Painter, Robert, and Brian Parker. “Ophelia’s Flowers Again.” Notes and Queries, vol. 41, no. 1, 1 Mar. 1994, pp. 42-44. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1093/nq/41-1-42.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. 1599-1601. The Norton Shakespeare, edited by Stephen Greenblatt et al., 3rd ed., W.W. Norton & Company, 2016. The Norton Shakespeare, digital.wwnorton.com/shakespeare3.

Showalter, Elaine. “Representing Ophelia: Women, Madness, and the Responsibilities of Feminist Criticism.” Shakespeare and the Question of Theory, edited by Patricia A. Parker and Geoffrey H. Hartman, Taylor & Francis Group, 1985, pp. 77-94. ProQuest Ebook Central. (lost the link somewhere, can’t be bothered to find it rn)

(my full paper has about 20 million citations that i’m happy to share if anyone wants more recommended readings! although be warned that some of them i cite explicitly to disagree with, lol)

#so anyways this is on my mind 24/7 #ophelia #hamlet #william shakespeare #shakespeare #analysis #shaxgirlspeaks #rowleianlove #me finding another way to argue with dominant hamlet scholarship lol #waving my fist at tenured academics like 'you don't understand her the way i do!!!!'#i also think about ophelia/abortion/madness CONSTANTLY #like there's so much (and so little) there about the notion of ophelia as a madperson choosing abortion #particularly in conversation with the history of disability justice and eugenics #idk all my thoughts there yet #but they're simmering #also this blog is definitely still shadowbanned (my fault for posting too soon back when i made it)#so pls feel free to rb with thoughts and so more people can be exposed to my theory 😈

26 notes · View notes