#(( the irony of the last line when the crux of his story is running away… but not running from love! never that. ))

[luminarot]

WHAT KIND OF LOVE ARE YOU?

Love as a Threshold.

Your love does not ask for much. Your love does not take. Your love is free, and unquestioned, and here for wherever needs it. When you fall in love, it is as gentle as a breath in the night. It is quiet, and it is effortless. It is tender. If your love was a house, it would readily welcome all who come through. If your love was a hearth, it would warm the hands of whoever stopped by, whether for a day, a month, a year, or forever. When you fall for someone, it is without strings, without conditions, without need. You love for the sake of loving, for the sake of caring for those who need it. You love with a giver’s heart and a giver’s hands and are made so much stronger for it. Being loved by you is to always feel at home. Your love may not always be well-received by those unprepared to linger, but it is unforgettable all the same.

[cogentranting]

Arrow 1x05 Rewatch

. Oliver’s little smirk when Lance is interrogating him. I live for it. 

“You can speak to Mr. Queen’s attorney when he gets here.” He? Where’s Jean Loring? 

“He also thinks I dress up in a mask and a green hood and shoot people. With arrows.” The audacity of Oliver. 

“she knows me better than anyone. She knows I could never be this guy.” OLIVER. I mean. Again. the audacity. Especially because he reveals later that he planned this. That he WANTED to get arrested. And he just has this whole plan revolving around this front of “Laurel knows me so well. She’s the only one who really knows me and she knows I’m not a killer.” When really the crux of the plan is how much Laurel does NOT know him and he plans on exploiting that. Amazing. 

“He raised her to do the right thing and that includes representing an innocent man.” Okay. So. My indiscriminate glee with the irony and Oliver’s attitude aside. This whole set up is really interesting. It reminds me actually of the moment in the season 5 flashbacks when he goes to see Galina (Taiana’s mother) and lies to her and manipulates her with this nice persona which is actually at that point more a mask than his Kapiushon identity. And that scene has always been really interesting to me because it’s Oliver pretending to be a good man at a time when he’s not, and while he lies a lot and puts on masks throughout the series, that particular aspect of it is fairly unique because it comes at what is basically Oliver’s lowest point (morally). And this episode (1x05) is similar in it bringing out this very manipulative side of Oliver that we don’t see in this way all that often (and remember that moment in 5x17 and this moment in 1x05, are actually very close together chronologically. Somewhere between 2 and 7 months apart.) The idea that Oliver, knowing full well that he is attacking and killing people, gets Laurel involved on the basis of this very emotionally laden appeal, citing their history and the connection they had, especially considering the role that Laurel believing oliver to be more moral than he really was played in Oliver cheating on her, and using not only her perception of him, but the way that him reaching out to her would be perceived... it’s cunning, and it’s effective, and it’s kinda messed up. 

But like.... legally... can Laurel represent her ex-boyfriend who her father arrested?

It’s ALL so calculated to manipulate how people perceive him. Appearing in court without a lawyer until Laurel agrees to do it. Protesting the tracking anklet. Throwing the party. His response to the plea deal. 

Speaking of calculated. Oliver knows what that blue sweater is doing to make his eyes pop. He knows. 

But Malcolm and Walter acting like they have no idea why Quentin would have a grudge against Oliver. LIke come one guys. You know. 

I just. I love the polygraph scene. For so many reasons. 

In the same vein about Oliver manipulating people’s perception of him in this episode, what makes this episode great are the places where it’s unclear even to the audience how much of Oliver’s reactions are genuine and how much is purposefully done to affect how Laurel and Quentin see him. Even in the polygraph scene-- did he get pushed into revealing that he was tortured on the island? Or did he see a way around that answer and reveal it anyway to gain sympathy? Did he actually get hung up on his guilt over Sara’s death (which is of course very real) or did he use that guilt as a way of covering up the answer to “have you ever killed anyone” because he knew he couldn’t beat the polygraph on that one? Did reliving his torture and Sara’s death actually overwhelm him to the point that he had to run out, or was he able to keep those reactions in check but put on the act to convince them?  The same idea is present in the scene later in the episode where he shows Laurel his scars and talks about how damaged he is. And we know that there is intentional manipulation going on because Diggle and Oliver’s conversation at the very end-- “So you lied. Or maybe you just gave her a version of the truth.” “I told her what she needed to hear.”-- and we know that there is truth (Oliver IS damaged, he IS guilt-ridden over Sara’s death, he IS traumatized by the torture he suffered) but we don’t know exactly where the line is between the two. 

I also think that Laurel and Quentin’s different reactions are interesting. When Oliver says that he was tortured, Laurel’s mouth is literally hanging open, she’s so shocked. But Quentin doesn’t react. Unlike Laurel he already knew about the scars so part of it is probably just that he put together that either Oliver was tortured in some capacity or he was horrifically cutting himself. But even if he had forewarning of it, just the idea that at this point he is so broken and angry over Sara’s death that he can look at someone who, even if he never really liked, he’s probably known since Oliver was in jr high. To hear this kid you watched grow up say he was tortured and not even react...

Love how little effort everyone at this party put into the theme

“If you think this is what prison’s like you are in for a rude awakening.” So i think this is mainly a joke because clearly Oliver doesn’t think prison is like his little rave thing. But. I do think that even though Diggle has some sense of what Oliver’s been through, because he still thinks Oliver spent those entire 5 years on the Island, Diggle thinks that Oliver doesn’t have a great sense of the real world. Just the world of the fabulously wealthy and the world of deserted islands. While in reality Oliver actually has spent time in some very different walks of life between Russia and Hong Kong and Hub City. 

“I just don’t like being played. Now you might have gotten used to lying to everyone else in your life but I’m the one guy you don’t lie to.” And here we are with that manipulation motif again. Oliver who at this moment actually has no reason to lie to Diggle, can’t trust enough to actually just present his plan to Diggle. He has to pull strings and manipulate to get him to go along with it. At this point trust is so hard for Oliver that it’s easier to just have a different mask for everybody. 

“I can’t remember the last time that I was in this room.”  “I can. Halloween 2005.”  But that’s 2 years before the Gambit sinking. Why was Laurel not in this room for 2 years prior to  that? she was dating Oliver? this is presumably his room? and if it’s NOT his room then its... just a random one? And why would she even comment on it? 

“There were times that I wanted to die. In the end there was something I wanted more.” The clear implication that Oliver is making is that Laurel was sort of his inspiration to keep going throughout his five years. And I’m not so against the Laurel Oliver ship that I’d deny that that is a factor of Oliver’s motivation during his time there. Particularly during the seasons 1 and 2 flashbacks, and at the very end of season 5 (which, if we understand the story chronologically, is probably the specific moment that Oliver is referring to here-- when he was drugged and in pain and had a gun to his own head and hallucinated Laurel convincing him not to kill himself. Which was only like 2 months prior to this conversation). But Laurel and getting back to her is really only referenced a handful of times throughout the flashbacks. That’s probably in part due to the series moving away from her as the main love interest/female lead. But I think its also a disservice to Oliver as a character to reduced his motivation down to that. Oliver is much more driven by 1. a general will to survive (something that is a dominant trait of his but also often in conflict with his suicidal ideation) 2. a concept in his mind of owing his life to others-- he feels he has to fix his father’s wrongs, he has to protect his mother and sister, he has to come make amends to Laurel etc.-- what he owes to others takes utmost priority (and that’s why often his suicidal thoughts come in this form and also have to be combatted in this form-- he thinks he should die because others would be better off without him, vs he should live because they love/need him) 3. a need to atone for his own sins. Interestingly, I think that even when Laurel is serving as Oliver’s motivation, it’s not as much his love for her driving him as a need to make things right with her (in the flashbacks. In the present in season 1 and somewhat season 2, his love for her is more dominant, and often in conflict with his desire to set things right which is why, especially early on, you get weird back and forth between pushing her away and trying to get close to her). 

“Impressive. you have resolve I didn’t credit you for.” Oliver’s iron will is such a central part of his character and contrary to what a lot of people believe, its not something forged into him on the island. It’s something he starts with. And I wonder what that looked like in his youth? Probably a lot more like season 1 Thea (who has that same iron will). 

This arms dealer looks like a discount Vince Vaughn. 

It hurts my heart to see Quentin and Oliver at odds like this. 

“But if any member of my family so much as gets a papercut... I will burn your entire world to ashes.” I love the Queen family so much. 

Oliver: “Good heart to heart Diggle. I’m gonna go kill someone now.”

[centrally-unplanned]

The Phantom of the Opera Movie: How (not) to Adapt Your Fanfic to Stage & Screen

I recently watched the infamously-maligned trainwreck that is the 2004 Phantom of the Opera film adaptation of the stage musical, which lived up to its reputation! Rehashing the atrocious casting of literally-sang-for-the-first-time-two-weeks-before-filming-Music-of-the-Night Gerard Butler as the Phantom is well-trod territory, but I don't think that is the real crux of the film's failings. Instead, I think it serves as a quintessential example of the failure to transition from stage to screen - and how lucky the stage adaptation was.

For the "PotO" uninitiated, despite the endless shipping the titular Phantom and the female deuteragonist Christine do not have a romantic relationship. Oh the Phantom is trying to get down with that, for sure, but she sees him as either a ghost, an angel, or a terrorist at various points, never a credible love interest. In the original novel this is extremely explicit, and it is actually preserved in the stage adaptation - though as you realize with this film not intentionally.

In a stage musical, audiences don't really "suspend disbelief" the way they do for something like movies. There is one or more human beings, right in front of them, being real people in a wooden box with minimalist decour - the artifice is inescapable. Which is fine, actually! Instead of being immersed in the worldbuilding the audience can appreciate the craft of it all, the acting chops of the leads and the high notes they hit and the cool set designs around them. As such strong plots for musicals aren't really required; details are skipped over in exchange for focusing on other aesthetic elements. More importantly for our purposes, in a musical like Phantom of the Opera the audience isn't set up to expect a tight directorial vision, with instead the characters being the a product of the choices of the actors themselves - people even look out for the different interpretations different leads will bring to the same script. Each performance is itself an adaptation.

This lack of verisimilitude does wonders for the musical version of Phantom of the Opera. Honestly, plot-wise and arc-wise? Phantom of the Opera isn’t that great. Christine, one of the supposed leads, has no motivation for like 90% of run-time, instead being buffeted about by the whims of other, more powerful characters (just like early 20th century France ooooh, eat it Leroux), and Raoul, her earnest, wealthy suitor-cum-fiance, is the dried cement of love interests with no arc to speak of. Lots of plot elements are covered quickly and left vague as to their meaning. But really, who cares? You get to watch a tortured, corrupted genius offer a panoply of shadowed delights to a beautiful ingenue in a rock-opera baritone, and Rage Against The System so hard when spurned they drop a God-damn chandelier on the stage - that’s really all you need!

In the stage musical there is often - lets be honest very often - sexual subtext between the Phantom and Christine. But that is the choice of the actors, it's not in the script, it stays subtext. You are there to watch those actors put their spin on it and take it to the limit - let them have fun with the material! On stage it serves a great metaphorical function; to be tempted by music, by the mystery of darkness, has been metaphorical sex for so long it needs no more explication. 

Now, however, we loop back to the movie adaption, with two key points to establish. First, movies do not work like musicals. There is no live person in front of you, every shot is the product of a dozen takes and as many hours of editing choices, and as a viewer you are dragged along lockstep seeing the results of these choices. All of this is in the service of building a cohesive vision that allows the audience to fully suspend disbelief. The price for this immersion is that now every moment of the film is imbued with intent. Everything has to be there for a reason, the way things in reality are - or more accurately the way we want reality to be. To quote Best Girl Mizusaki:

(Just when you thought I was going to write a media essay without being a huge weeb for once, huh?)

What's true for animation is almost as true for film, all of which means that how characters act is no longer an actor on stage doing their spin but the cohesive narrative of a story.

Second, the movie takes all of that fanshipping sexual subtext and cranks it all the way up the nosebleed seats, while changing none of the relevant plot points. In fact, it adds plot details to strip away the musical’s ambiguity! One of Christine's opening scenes, only briefly touched on in the stage musical, explains cleanly that she considers the Phantom the angel of her dead father come down to protect and guide her. Later in the show, as the Phantom's villainy becomes more apparent, when propositioned by Raoul her only objection is to how the Phantom might hurt her if he found out. Well after all of his temptations, rage, and villainy, near the climax of the film, she still sings in a graveyard about her uncertainty over whether or not he is a literal ghost or spirit of her father. So the plot structure is preserved and explicit - Christine is drawn to him due to his musical talent and offerings of instruction, is unsure if he is even human, but realizes his corporeality, villainy, and fundamental pitiable humanity at the end. Raoul throughout is her explicit, engaged-to-be-married romantic partner.

So then why are her and the Phantom fucking??

Seriously, I cannot undersell how sexual their scenes are.They are all over each other, fingers gliding over skin, and the next scene after this one is her in his bed with sex-hair all over the place! This subtext is continued in every scene they have together, long after he has been revealed as a murderer. At one point he confronts her in public, with her fiance watching, and it's still played like he is the Tuxedo Mask to her Sailor Moon. Even the scene where she takes off his mask is shot like it was foreplay-gone-wrong, and the Phantom just forgets to say his safeword in time (This is why you pre-negotiate about your kinks, all!).

Any movie-goer understands what the intent of scenes like these are, why a director would choose these actions & shots; they want us to know that they are getting busy off camera, even if only by implication. We know they don't actually do that because there is a book to refer back to but damn does this movie want us to forget that...in these scenes. Which is the problem, of course - the rest of the movie operates as normal! In the above scene Christine thinks the Phantom is, again I must emphasize this, the ghost of her father; apparently she is going for the reverse-Oedipus achievement but no one told the rest of the script. Is she lying to Raoul about her love and her reasons? Is she actually tempted? Stop telling me you are unlovable via haunted monologues Gerard Butler, you look like testosterone on a stick and y'all boned literally five minutes ago, I am not buying it!

The subtext and the text are at war with each other - and given that, as we established, the dynamic between the Phantom & Christine is really the only interesting part about this story, strip that down to a muddled mess and you really have nothing left. And in a movie, subtext like this is just another form of text - the director chose these shots, it's intended. Beyond the terrible vocal performances and sometimes baffling shot direction, the movie's biggest failing is this schizophrenic mismatch between the script and the actions on screen which is a problem the stage musical honestly didn't have to worry about. These scenes are not set up like this, and the ability to add subtext by the actors is just fundamentally limited by the medium; it cannot touch the story itself, which isn't even the focus of the audiences. Even if these contradictions did exist more in the stage musical, they wouldn't doom it due to the nature of said medium.

Which is very, very fortunate, because there is one final point to make - Andrew Lloyd Weber, the creator of the stage musical, wholeheartedly approved of this direction for the movie. He produced the film, wrote the screenplay, chose the director, the works - this is his film. And, as is apparently from interviews and a...not fondly remembered stage sequel to the musical that he wrote, he ships the Phantom and Christine hard. Not in the "oh I love their dynamic on screen way", but in the Ao3 sort-by-fetish-tags "they are my Trash'' way. And I would never begrudge a man his ships, but apparently he was not content to keep it away from the canon. He absolutely reads the stage musical this way as well!  It's just one of those interesting ironies of life - one of the most successful adaptations of a book to a stage musical was made by someone who, in my opinion, did not grasp the fundamentals of the story he was adapting. We just didn't notice because the medium didn't care, and also damn can he write a score that slaps.

I would not be the first person to say that this movie for Andrew Lloyd Weber is something of a George Lucas moment for him, a creator completely missing the appeal of his own work; but after seeing it the comparison rang deeply true. The Phantom of the Opera movie is truly the Phantom Menace of musicals.

No, I don't feel bad for that last line, why do you ask?