#also picture nathan when he makes his character initially being into it | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mwolf0epsilon · 3 years

Text

“Eps’s Notes on The Illusion of Living”

It's taken me nearly three months to get this done due to writer’s block kicking my sorry butt. But, as promised, here are my notes on the "Illusion of Living". Good god has this been painful… But I did have a lot of stuff I initially thought of Joey somewhat confirmed for me, and got a few extra interesting tidbits of info that I feel are very curious...

--{Key}--

Italics are my opinion

--{Key}--

--{Quick retelling of the book’s contents}--

The Drews were among the more impoverished families in New Jersey, and Joey's father briefly worked in the silk industry to make end's meet before opening his own shoe store (that his mother oversaw profits for as the accountant). As such there were obvious limitations to a lot of Joey’s upbringing (like a lack of toys to entertain him with, and very few family vacations/trips that were memorable).

According to Joey, the shoes sold at his family’s store were primarily designed for people in the working class (clunky shoes and boots that would endure wear and tear rather than be flashy or comfortable to wear, which Joey complained never really fit him right), and had one singular design that was simply improved upon rather than any variety (I suppose the saying here would be “don’t fix it if it ain’t broke” but Joey really seemed to have some sort of issue with this, as he disliked his father’s works).

Joey's mother was a hardworking housewife and the primary parent when it came to rearing her child. She educated and played with him more than his father, so Joey was much fonder and emotionally close to her than to him and, while Joey’s father wasn’t an absent parent by any means, he was definitely more engrossed in working to sustain the family.

This family dynamic definitely had some impact on Joey, especially since his mother got him interested in the art of storytelling in general, and he seemed to have a lot more respect for her than for his father. In fact he even had a few reservations regarding his father’s mental integrity when he discovered his talent for making voices in a rather odd manner.

It should be noted here that, while Joey's father was strong, he looked deceptively frail and wasn't considered a particularly brave man by any means. He was however regarded as a bit of an entrepreneur, and Joey was very concerned that he may not be sane (which was a bit of taboo at the time, considering treatment for mental health issues hadn’t advanced past lobotomies and other disturbing medical malpractices) because he talked and sang to himself in curious little voices while he worked. Curiously enough, while a patient and loving man, Joey's father wasn't aversed to cursing around his young son (although Joey himself doesn't seem to use crass language, even if it was normalized in the household). Another curious thing to note is that Joey greatly dislikes mud, and especially hated it as a child (alluding to his later obsessive cleanliness as an adult).

Because of the financial issues his family suffered through, Joey didn't have a radio or many books growing up, and was thus more fond of Vaudevilles (specifically theatrical comedy, tragedy, and bizarre/surreal acts) which were pretty common in his city of birth. This interest for theatrics and third person story perspectives mixed terribly with later events in his life, like how at age 10 he witnessed a potential murder/suicide (Jesus christ...). Through this event he realized that there were different kinds of people in specific situations, especially when faced with the finality of death. Joey goes so far as to describe how theatrical the death was (Almost sounding disconnected from the reality of the situation as he noted that the crowd and even his own father seemed more like characters to him than real people). However, since Joey's neighborhood was ripe with strange people, he wasn't unfamiliar with bizarre events happening around him. Seeing a motorized ambulance was more amazing to a 10 year old him than actually caring for the death of a stranger at the front of his father's store.

At age 12, Joey went to Coney Island for the first time, and the journey excited him greatly since he didn't get to leave home very often. The trip to Coney Island was magical in a sense, and later in life he hoped to replicate it in Bendyland to a more permanent degree (the trip back home ruptured the magical effect, which he didn't want to happen with Bendyland).

Joey has his own set of rules he plays by which he considers his life’s philosophy that he calls "The Illusion of Living". This was inspired by several events in his life, including his father passing the time by playing make believe (the Shoemaker and the Elves). This unique perception of what illusion and reality are (“the same thing”), seems to point to Joey having developed a dissociative personality disorder from a young age, which got progressively worse as he grew older. This in addition with the ADHD patterns he displays in his confusing rambling writing (and Joey rambles a LOT), and the almost OCD behaviour in regards to cleaning up after himself, indicates Joey lacked impulse control and was more prone to listening to intrusive thoughts.

Joey's view of reality was often confusing to others and he greatly enjoyed poking fun out of slowly getting them to his point of view. Conversations with Joey were thus quite frustrating to some, but no less curious to others that actually tried to understand what the “Illusion of Living” was about (Like Nathan). According to Joey, only a few people ever got close to understanding it.

Joey enlisted to fight in the first war after he lied about his age (He was 15 years old, a year younger than the required age to enlist at the time). Out of all the positions in the army, he seemed most interested in comms, and considered himself more decent in communicating than actually fighting in the front lines.

It seems like Joey greatly enjoyed how he looked in uniform, and was also particularly finicky about his looks in general despite being in boot camp.

He made friends in the army, Private Donaldson and Private Eckhart, which Nathan (who worked at the tech lab that Joey later worked for) attests to being accurately described in the book. They were slightly older than Joey and were also interested in communication tech and shared his sense of humor. They also influenced Joey's social life, and tried to get him to date some gals that he wasn’t remotely interested in (the first indication that he may not be straight).

Another close friend Joey had in the army was Lottie (a communications officer) and he used to "chaperone" her whenever the four went out to party. He seemed to have a considerable amount of respect for her (which is likely a result of growing up observing his mother, thus understanding that women were competent in positions where other men would scoff at the idea of them working at all). As such he was quite supportive of the War's “Hello Girls” (comms female officers). Interestingly enough this contradicts Joey's sexist persona that he seems to take on in Dream Come to Life (a mask that seems to be among many others he employs to fit in with the rest of society).

Lottie was his special gal pal in the platonic sense and, while he often ate alone to be left with his thoughts, she usually sought him out to talk to.

Joey only ever empathized with people he was close to, often reserving telling stories to comfort his friends specifically. It was the only way he could brighten their day (which later supposedly helped a disillusioned Lottie when she was sent to serve in London). What one could take away from Joey’s days as a soldier was that he was incredibly perceptive in terms of studying people. He easily recognized people’s handwriting, and was greatly fascinated by others’s personalities.

He could also easily charm people just from reading into what they might be interested in, and liked the thought of subliminally impressing others (which he later incorporated into his cartoons). It’s never mentioned, but Joey was likely honorably discharged since the war ended in 1918 and didn’t need to return to the service of the military when the second world war hit (keeping in mind Joey appears to have mobility issues later in life, he might have not been fit for field duty).

At age 19 Joey ended up involved in investigating the murder case of Walter Richmond, a signal corps soldier Joey met briefly in his service days. The victim in question was responsible for documenting the war efforts, not being necessarily that great of a photographer, but taking a certain amount of pleasure in capturing the most viscerally gruesome pictures possible for shock value. How Joey got involved was a curious thing in of itself, since he didn’t know the victim all that well, nor cared to get to know him. Detective Adam Sinclair (a tall hulking man wearing the typical trenchcoat and fedora combo, who’s most noticeable features were his aged face and unshaven 5’o’clock shadow) tracked him down to his little minimalistic (and obsessively clean and tidy) apartment to question him. Joey was initially unsurprised that an ex-soldier ended up dead (not from the war, but likely ptsd), and was instead surprised that it was a murder case. He ended up inserting himself into the case as Sinclair’s shadow to help solve it. The reason was mostly out of self-interest, but his perspective did seem useful to the detective in the end. Throughout the investigation Joey displayed a few particular traits that indicate his attentive and peculiar nature, such as the way he reads others (their way of dressing and upkeep of posture), the manner of which he judges a good handshake, his distaste for smoking (which was taught to him via the idea that if something smells bad it’s usually bad for you) and drinking (he tries to be careful with alcohol intake in general, as he’s more accustomed to beer than drinks like champagne which one could over-indulge recklessly without noticing). Joey’s fascination for taboo subjects (war, violence, and death specifically) is also noted when he observes the victim’s photographic works.

This is a prevalent theme in an art gallery event where these particular subjects seemed to linger strongly in his mind, to the point where he noticed when one of the photos he recalls having seen before during his brief meeting with Richmond, appeared to be missing from the display. A detail that appeared to be dismissed by others, but of great interest to Sinclair.

During this same gallery event, there was an incident set up by the murderer that involved a firecracker and a crowbar that set off a lot of panic. Joey’s work at the signal corps labs saved him from the brutality of the trenches, but he's apparently familiar with the effects of severe PTSD (And ironically notes that reliving the same painful event over and over again is his definition of true horror/personal hell).

It became very apparent to both Joey and Sinclair that the murderer was amongst them, and that this onslaught of panic was a message: That the murder of the frontline photographer was personal.

They did in fact come into contact with the perpetrator and, after a while of radio silence between Joey and Sinclair, the case was solved with...Minimal success. While Sinclair knew who killed Walter Richmond, he unfortunatelly did not have enough proof to convict her (the sister of a casualty of war that could have easily been saved, had Richmond not left him for dead because it fit his narrative of the war just fine), thus allowing her to get away with literal murder. Worse yet, the resolution of the case seemed to further disconnect Joey from reality and consequence. He gained a disdain for Adam Sinclair where once he’d respected him as an authority figure of sorts, finding that he’d accomplished his role and still failed miserably. In the end, the only thing to come out of teaming up with Sinclair was learning a social skill that Joey employed later on, by mirroring back certain aspects of a person so they’d be more comfortable around him. Otherwise the detective became nothing more than a distant memory. Unimportant in Joey’s later narrative.

Two years later, Joey started working for a bookstore where he began satiating his vast hunger for knowledge, now that he had access to all sorts of books he could never afford as a child. Joey is fairly well read with an interest in various genres, although it was previously noted that during his army service people made fun of him for especially liking fictional novels. Joey being Joey however, wasn’t overly fussed about others’s opinions on what he sought enjoyment from, especially when it came to storytelling. Aside from getting his reading quota filled out, his bookstore job also helped him develop his salesperson skills through reading his customers. Through his experiences with his father’s shop and shadowing Sinclair, he had by now understood that people were highly superficial, and that he could apply whatever knowledge he gathered from them into how he sold his pitch to them. His charisma seemed to lure in customers.

While working at the store he met Abby Lambert who he immediately noticed had an eye for art. Joey quickly became friends with her and seemed to greatly appreciate her no-nonsense attitude towards life in general, going so far as to respect her capabilities as a working lady where other men would be disdained with her difficult attitude. In fact, he wondered why anyone wouldn’t hire her to do a job she could clearly handle, just because she was a woman (again contradicting his sexist persona). As a connoisseur of the arts, Abby was the one to fully introduce Joey to her favourite craft. He especially took an interest in Impressionism and its influences.

Abby also supposedly introduced Henry to Joey, which the latter insists wasn’t really that remarkable of an event since Henry was “unimaginative” and “lacking in talent” due to his specialty in cartoon caricatures, and not the richer awe inspiring paintings Joey seemed to prefer (basically Joey spends any given time in the book trying to make Henry seem as insignificant as possible out of pure unadulterated pettiness, which physically pains me).

Ironically, in terms of entertainment, Joey later favoured cartoons as the more appealing form of films since most other mediums didn’t really spark his interest, even if the genres were ones he found fascinating (I suppose that despite films being works of fiction most times, Joey likely thought real life actors were far too limited in their acts due to the natural limitations of the human body).

Returning to Abby, her friendship seemed to be more impactful to Joey than most others. Like with how he preferred his mother’s company to his father’s, Abby seemed to be one of few people he actually felt comfortable around, to the point where her criticism didn’t bother him. She was also mindful of him, where she could recognize Joey’s “preferences” and made it a point to clarify to him that their outings were purely platonic so he wouldn’t get uncomfortable in those situations.

Three years after meeting Abby and Henry, Joey became a manager at the bookstore and Henry began working there as well (by Joey’s suggestion it seems), and only then did they sort of start developing a meek little friendship of sorts (although Joey seems very dismissive about it and focuses primarily on Abby).

During that time, the idea to start his own business came about from two different events that happened that year. The first being his first ever theatrical script that he wrote and performed with Abby at a gallery event. During the performance of this little play (the theme of which was an angel and a demon discussing their role in influencing a mortal’s life), Joey discovered that he greatly enjoyed controlling situations and got way too into it (even considers what he could get away with in the name of entertainment, such as if he could act out actual violent or scandalous behaviours if he proclaimed it a part of the show).

The second event was his father sending him shoes once a year (which, because Joey disliked the make of his father’s shoes, he tried to get him to stop by pretending they weren’t arriving at his address or that they were getting stolen). As a means to ensure he got them, Joey's father started sending the packages to the bookstore. A doodle and writing on the package ended up inspiring Joey to create his own studio as he wanted to take flight in the entertainment industry.

Having thus decided that he wanted to open up a film studio of some kind, Joey immediately set off to get himself a memorable mascot. He had a vague idea of what he needed and what might be appealing to an audience, but he wasn’t particularly skilled in character design and openly admitted to this. Abby, who was also not particularly good at drawing cartoons, understood that her more realistic style wouldn’t really help (or appeal to) Joey, so she enlisted Henry’s help. Knowing that Joey was a bit picky in regards to how he evaluated art, she thought perhaps she could persuade him to take a liking to Henry’s works (which he wasn’t particularly fond of, due to Henry mostly working with pen-drawings of cartoon characters and caricatures that looked very unremarkable to him) if he could only see him actually work his “magic”. Joey was reluctant to bring Henry into his business plan, but upon actually reaching a design within a few minutes (that took a few tries experimenting with animal and human features in more detailed and then simplified ways) of Joey giving some directions, he seemed to be sold on bringing Henry on board.

Henry designing the company mascot was thus the final push to open up Joey Drew Studios.

The two began their partnership not too long after, and from then on out things got interesting very quickly.

The history behind the studio is...Not an easy one to validate in terms of whether or not Joey is sincere or even really knows certain dates (the more I look into the beginning of the book and the later exposition of information, the more I realized either Joey was starting to trip himself up on dates or his memory was visibly failing him). There are a lot of discrepancies in the dates provided, with some going back on how long Henry remained in the studio (even claiming to have at some point surrounded him with other animators and even a lead artist a year prior to his departure), when Sammy and Jack were hired (He says he hired Sammy in 1929 during the Wallstreet Crash, but later says he hired both him and Jack after the Wallstreet Crash), among other things... Joey Drew Studios was primarily funded by Mrs. Richmond (the mother of Walter Richmond), as Joey had forged friendships with the people involved in the case he’d helped Sinclair investigate (including the murderer whom he had grown to respect).

While other investors aren’t really brought up, it’s implied Nathan also had a hand in helping the studio taking off, as Joey often met up with him at the Russian Tearoom whenever he could. During these private meetings, Nathan would impart advice on Joey. Advice which he seemed to not care for, as he already had his own concerns at the time.

It seemed that his main plan was to acquire a talented and capable team to achieve his dream. A team Joey thought he wouldn’t need to "baby-sit", as he specifically wanted to hire individuals that were as studious and capable as he saw himself (curiously Joey mentions that Henry’s work ethic was exactly what he wanted, as Henry had never held work back or needed to be checked up on, which to Joey was an invaluable attribute).

For at least two years, the Bendy Cartoons were nothing but silence and sound effects (something we actually see in-game in BatIM Chapter One when the projector suddenly turns on and we hear nothing but the clicking of the projector and Joey’s whistling), which put them at a bit of a disadvantage when it came to competing with other animation studios.

This soon changed when Joey came across Sammy Lawrence and Jack Fain at a party he was attending on his 30th birthday (which he wasn’t celebrating, the party was a completely different event so supposedly Joey doesn’t care much for his own birthday).

He was already familiar with Sammy’s musical skills (mostly playing the piano quite masterfully), as he’d seen him perform at the theater when Sammy was still a teenager. Noticing him and Jack at the party was entirely accidental and was mostly due to the fact that, while Sammy was trying to keep out of the spotlight as he played, Jack’s showmanship shone through and caught Joey’s eye with how boisterous he was in their musical performance.

Joey approached them once their act was done and managed to convince them to work for him. Jack seemed to be immediately on board, while Sammy was a little more guarded in his agreement and immediately set up his stipulations for the job. This seemed to lean Joey’s interest towards Sammy (who Joey was unhealthily fascinated with because he was clearly not an easy man to control) more than Jack (who he likely considered too easy a read in terms of character, thus not much of a challenge to sway or condition).

By 1933 Joey officially bought the entire building the studio was set up in (which up until then was occupied by other people seeking their own ventures). Expansion and new hires likely started a year or so later and continued on despite financial instability, and between 1941 and 1942 Joey was already starting to work out how he’d get Bendyland to be just as perfect and spectacular as he had always envisioned (which was difficult because he never really got it to feel just right in his eyes, and something felt off to him).

In between listing several different projects, vaguely describing an innovative techniques (Sillyvision which seems to be linked with the Golden Ink?), and even setting up his own 7 rules on how to animate to help set up a guide for aspiring animators, Joey slowly drifts away from the studio topic and finalizes his book rather abruptly.

He insinuates there’s a lot more for him to tell but little to no connection with the “Illusion of Living” philosophy and he’d rather focus on his actual physical work with the Studio than sit down and write further, so he finishes off on a rather...Vague note.

--{On Joey Drew}--

Year of Birth - 1901 (Day and month are never mentioned, but it's possible that his favouring of the autumnal season alludes to a fall month) Year of Death - ??? (Supposedly he's died, hence why Nathan claimed the Bendy IP) Birth City: Born and raised in Paterson "Silk City", New Jersey (Joey doesn't seem to have an accent, so he likely masks it, or made an effort to lose it). Physical Characteristics: As a child he used to have curly hair (Considering the era’s general fashion and style, it’s very likely that Joey either cut his hair too short to see the curls, or simply uses too much gel to seem more presentable) Sexual/Romantic Preferences: Homosexual with Demiromantic subtones (Joey seems to be closed off in general, but more appreciative of the male figure. Could be interpreted as demisexual however, since Joey himself doesn't seem to like wasting time around people he doesn't have much of a bond with) Notes: Here are several notes I’ve compiled about Joey and his opinions on certain things and people. There’s a lot to look at as this man rambles like an old lady at a friday night bingo event, and thus I had a lot to take in!

Laughter is important to him.

Seems to be a dog person.

Likes Cheerios (yes this was a super necessary detail I had to jot down).

Considers having his ideas disclosed without permission to be disloyal.

Seems to have some sort of dissociative personality disorder (likely brought on by trauma or another undiagnosed mental disorder).

People-Watcher by nature.

Was taught by his father that the shoe makes the man (aka the art of studying people through their shoes).

Joey believes in the saying "The Truth is in the Pudding", a saying his mother often employed.

Never had enough money to own a pair of nice fitting shoes until he was 26.

Is narcissistically vain. Easily takes insult if people assume he can't look presentable.

His service in the army gave him experience with "experimental tech".

Enjoys music a lot, and he was considered a great dancer.

Finds modern feminine fashion standards appealing.

Disliked the way those with money romanticized lacking material gains. Found it personally disrespectful in a way, since he himself came from a poor family.

Seems appalled by too much color on one's wear (Joey is the goddamn fashion police).

Very picky about the arts.

Apparently disliked Henry's art style(???).

Lets people believe Henry is the creator of the toons, in an act of being holier than thou. (You lying son of a gun, stop lying to everyone and yourself whaddahell).

Joey's analogy of Henry starting a journey but Joey being the one to reap the benefits, is likely the truest thing he's said in this nightmare of a novel (boastful bastard...).

Thinks of Bendy as his firstborn, muse and messenger.

Took an art class with Abby (likely not a full art course, just a simple class to get the gist of it?).

Considers art the doorway to immortality.

Doesn't like post-mortem success (it frightens him, even). He'd rather be successful in his lifetime.

Admits to making mistakes, but not many. He also thinks mistakes don't need to be permanent.

Doesn't know what true rest is like, and is unsure if he'll ever be content enough to rest. On that same note he seems to really hate sitting still and his mind tends to wander, which he notes Nathan recognized with ease, even reserving a specific look for him (It’s the ADHD baby).

His friend Kyle was a lazy person and a gossip, which were traits Joey found annoying.

On their first meeting, Joey described having a desire to shove Sammy off a roof to see a more human reaction from him.

Assumes Jack is jealous of the attention he gives Sammy, or that the duo's relationship is strained, despite him barging into their lives out of the blue and making him feel like a third wheel.

Seems to think of himself as some sort of a messenger (going so far as to akin himself to the god, Mercury). His life’s mission is to help those who don't know they need to be helped (mostly through spreading happiness and laughter in such a dark and dreary era of human history). Bendyland is essentially Joey's means to fulfil this desire, as well as to chase his own need for a properly realized mixture of immersion and illusion.

He wanted Bendyland to be perfect, even the plot of land it might be built in needed to be perfect, so he inspected it himself with Nathan once he bought the deed.

Appears to refuse to call Bertrum by his proper name once he’s corrected the first time. Referring to him instead as either Bertie or Bert (toying with him perhaps? Testing boundaries?)

Doesn't drive. He instead hired a personal driver, Simmons.

For a little while he was living the American Dream, but thought of how he lived as less of a shared goal and more of a personal one (again setting himself apart from others).

His days were quite flexible and he seemed to despise set routines. He also doesn't like sleeping in. He liked to take a walk in central park early in the morning.

Joey used to make his rounds around the studio but the installation of the Ink Machine changed that habit a bit.

Nonchalantly notes that Shawn Flynn got a little defensive if he needed to be corrected on his work (OCD much, Joey? He was painting a lot of dolls by hand, slipups happen...).

He had priority meetings with Sammy, "meetings" with Jack (Sir what are these quotation marks for, are you snogging Jack while no one’s watching???), then met with the art department preceding the writing department, and finally he met with Grant Cohen in accounting to discuss finances and budget.

He had the final say in ALL paperwork regarding studio affairs.

Upon reading about it, found the concept of bringing in real animals to produce Disney's Bambi as funny, and joked about how trying to do so with Bendy and Boris would be chaotic.

Noted that Abby and Sammy were likely the only two people who closely understand the philosophy of the illusion of living, but not quite…

Was terrified of being misunderstood. Joey didn’t want to only be able to show half-truths, like a mirror reflecting the world darkly. Rather ironic considering he was quite deceitful in his adult life.

His desire for the world to love Bendy seems to be a projection of wanting to feel loved himself (quite honestly if one were to apply the theory of the id, ego and superego, it seems to me that Bendy is essentially Joey’s id, while Joey himself could be considered the Superego. The chameleonic social mask he wears is thus the ego. At the end of the day Bendy and Joey are and aren’t the same entity...).

Originally he didn't want to make a memoir (likely because he can't be direct and needs to work around the truth to fit him). It could also be that Joey didn’t want to linger on the past nor in death. He wasn't sure where it fit with his philosophy and thus tried not to explore too deep into it (existential dread?).

He wore custom tailored suits, and as of beginning writing TioL he had recently taken to wearing cravats (ever the vain man I suppose…).

Despite considering revisiting the past unnecessary, he couldn’t deny doing so if the time called for it. In fact, the Archives are Joey's memories of the past and he's sentimental enough to collect mementos of bygone eras.

Joey has trophies at home, the deeply personal things he couldn’t bare part with. Like the first sketch of Bendy, a napkin with the design of Bendyland, a letter from Henry, a ticket from a Vaudeville show, and his set of shoes he wore when he was surveying the plot of land where he planned to build Bendyland.

--{On Bendy}--

Notes: Here are a few notes I’ve compiled about the Little Devil Darling himself, and a few curiosities about his creation and the inspiration behind his character.

Bendy was officially created in 1928. According to Joey he was born of a dream, supposedly out of necessity, and he always had this idea of a little devil character doing mischief.

Bendy started off as a realistic little boy with a tail and horns (Abby’s attempt to bring to life Joey’s vague idea). Then, when Henry got involved, he became a cartoonish goat creature. The concepts were quickly worked out from a toony clothed amalgamation of both previous concepts, to a more intermediate design more closely resembling Bendy, and then finally, after Joey requested a simpler more shapely and less detailed toon, Bendy became the iconic little imp clad in only gloves and bowtie.

Joey named him upon seeing the completed design. There are two origins for his name: That of Walter Benjamin Richmond, who’s nickname in life was “Bendy” (a rather morbid homage considering what happened to him), and the mere fact that in Joey’s eyes, his little cartoon imp “bent all the rules”. Henry seemed to appreciate the name.

Bendy is meant to be the devil on one’s shoulders, much like the devil in Joey’s first theatrical play. He is however, a lot more like a little kid playing pranks on people. He is also a sort of embodiment of both the population and human morality (society at its most flawed point, but also quite relatable).

Buster Keaton was an inspiration for Bendy’s many shenanigans and movements, which were always meant to be fluid and a bit bouncy.

--{On Henry Stein}--

Year of Birth - ??? (It’s never mentioned how old Henry is, but I assume he’s around the same age group as Abby, since they were friends and likely went to the same art course. It’s likely that he’s younger than Joey, but not likely by much.) Year of Death - 1963 (It’s not really confirmed if Henry died when he was put into the Cycle, as he doesn’t seem to notice anything odd about himself, but it’s safe to assume the process very likely involves human sacrifice). Birth City: ??? (Unknown, it could be that he was born and raised in New York but Henry lacks a noticeable accent) Physical Characteristics: Average looking? (Irrelevant, he could honestly look like anyone really...) Sexual/Romantic Preferences: Presumably Heterosexual (He’s a married man in the 1930s-1960s, he’s either straight or hiding his sexuality, he seems to really like Linda however so could go either way really...) Notes: Here the few notes I could gather of the Henry info we got from TioL. It’s not much but its at least something to work with!

Henry is unremarkable appearance wise (to the point Joey forgot his face easily at first).

The way Henry dressed (mismatched and ill-fitted) indicates he likely grew up in poverty and likely only had hand-me-downs.

He mostly worked with pen-drawn cartoon character designs that were unremarkable but distinctly caricature-like (the Butcher Gang concepts were likely displayed in the gallery Joey attended, as noted by a comment he makes about them). Even if Joey apparently didn’t particularly like his style, Henry’s artwork was one of the final inspirations for the creation of Joey Drew Studios.

He is described as able to draw quite fast, great at taking directions, and as being a good animator. Overall Henry never really had any real need for someone to keep an eye on him which made him an exemplary worker.

According to Joey, Henry used to give pep-talks before he left the studio. This seemed to annoy Joey considerably for some reason (perhaps he was envious that Henry was generally a more likeable person).

Henry is remembered as forgettable, whereas Joey is flashier and more memorable.

Interestingly enough, Henry never claimed to own the design of Bendy, and was more interested in being business partners with Joey than starting a fuss about who owned the rights to Bendy’s creation (It’s very likely that he willingly gave Joey the design because Bendy was his character, and that instead the designs Joey did steal were that of Boris the Wolf, Alice Angel, and the Butcher Gang, the five other more notorious characters in the Bendy franchise).

--{On Abby Lambert}--

Year of Birth - ??? (It’s never mentioned how old Abby is, but I assume she’s around the same age group as Henry, since they were friends and likely went to the same art course. It’s likely that she’s younger than Joey, but not likely by much.) Year of Death - Possibly 1946 (Upon finally losing himself to the ink, Sammy seemed to have been actively hunting the Art Department and any stragglers that he encountered in the studio, so it can be assumed she died in the chaos) Birth City: ??? (Unknown but more likely to be born and raised in New York than Henry) Physical Characteristics: Frizzy hair, even when bobbed. Sexual/Romantic Preferences: Potentially Bisexual (She seemed to be acutely aware of Joey’s “peculiarities” so it’s possible she’s either a member of the LGBTQ community or perhaps an ally. Whatever the case it’s up for debate and interpretation.) Notes: Here are several notes I’ve compiled about Abby and some of her traits and mannerisms. There was surprisingly a lot more to work with than I expected.

She wasn’t really into the typical female fashion of the time. In fact, Abby wasn’t exactly fond of the typical mannerisms associated with women and was both notoriously rude and dressed herself in a “scandalously” modern manner (which is basically code for more practical less femenine clothing).

According to Joey, Abby is a very focused and determined person, which is why he admired her greatly. She didn’t know when to quit, however, and sometimes took things too far or involved others in situations or projects they didn’t want to be involved in.

She wasn’t very good at drawing original cartoon characters, and Joey was apparently not overly fond of her attempts at putting his ideas to paper due to her more realistic art style.

Abby was very insistent on Joey looking at Henry's works, even if he wasn't particularly interested in them (While it’s never said if she enjoys his art herself, it can be assumed she appreciates it enough that she’d want their mutual friend to see the potential Henry had).

She didn’t join the studio as the replacement Director of the Art Department until 1931, as during its founding she was still finishing art school. She and Henry never worked together. Despite this, she and Henry remained in touch even after he left for Pasadena.

--{On Sammy Lawrence}--

Year of Birth - ??? (From how Joey describes him, it can be assume Sammy was a teenager around either Joey’s early or late 20s before they officially met on Joey’s 30th birthday) Year of Death - 1946? (Sammy is one of few people who was turned without being killed first so it’s hard to tell if he’s really dead even within the Cycle since it’s a time loop...) Birth City: ??? (Sammy lacks a noticeable accent so it’s hard to tell where he’s from). Physical Characteristics: Has been described as bird-like and insect-like, with either brown or blond hair that’s kept longer than the typical fashion of the time (Not much more is known about his actual appearance but it can be assumed he’s either average sized or on the tall side considering his in-game height and build) Sexual/Romantic Preferences: Potentially Biromantic with a lot of Demiromantic subtones. Possibly Asexual? (Again this is pure speculation on my part because he did seem interested in Susie but isn’t really a people person in general. Does seem to know how to reign in people tho, so ???) Notes: Here are a few curious notes I’ve compiled about Sammy, the circumstances behind his hiring, and how much control he actually had as the music director.

He has an unusual appearance that, while not necessarily described as ugly, was clearly outstanding enough that some people were put off (Buddy) and others thought him handsome (Susie). His hair is also described as messy.

Sammy is an avid smoker.

He was among a few other musicians employed by the theater to drown out projector sounds and match the mood in silent films. Because he was good at improvising music on the spot, Sammy was excellent at carrying the story presented on screen through his melodies, which was what caught Joey’s eye when he first saw Sammy perform.

Sammy also recognized Joey and didn’t believe his dismissal that he was a “town person”. In fact, Sammy pinpointed the recognition to the fact Joey was that one loner that sat in the front row of the theater he played at.

It becomes very apparent that Sammy is suspicious of people in general. The way he observes others indicates he’s had some sort of struggle growing up. As such, he’s not big on sustaining conversations and he managed to aggravate Joey slightly by the way he addressed him on their first proper meeting.

Sammy had a songbook he shared with Jack, meaning they had a strong trust bond, which is why he only agrees to work for Joey based on Jack’s willingness to also be hired. Even so, he immediately set up professional boundaries for his position. He hired his own people without Joey’s interference, and he only ever indulged him if Joey was being particularly exasperating.

It’s very likely that since Sammy was the one hiring who worked for the music department, that he was the one who hired Norman Polk. This theory is made stronger by the fact he immediately demanded a projector and projectionist booth so he could better do his job.

Despite his surly disposition, Sammy is a no nonsense sort who wants things done and over with, rather than sit around and stall. As such Joey considered him one of the best decisions he made in terms of career.

Funnily enough, because the band seemed to be skittish around Joey, Sammy specifically prohibited his presence in the music department unless they had a scheduled meeting. This likely meant Joey was scarcely ever seen in the music department so as to not aggravate Sammy in person.

Alice Angel’s bigger (and failed) presence in the franchise is likely a consequence of another one of Sammy’s stipulations upon being hired. He had immediately noted that if the studio wanted to go anywhere, they’d need a female character (Perhaps Sammy really believed what he told Susie due to despising Bendy and actually favouring Alice as a character).

--{On Jack Fain}--

Year of Birth - ??? (Possibly around the same age as Sammy or a little older?) Year of Death - ??? (He was gone long before a few other people in the studio, likely in the first few experiments Joey performed) Birth City: ??? (Hard to tell, he doesn’t have an easily identifiable accent). Physical Characteristics: Has been described as an atrocious dresser (This man likes wearing bright colors!) Sexual/Romantic Preferences: Potentially Homosexual subtones (Not enough information provided to tell) Notes: Sadly lacking in the information department for Jack.

Jack is incredibly sociable and trusts easily. He's described as making bad jokes but laughing genuinely at them. His smiles are contagious.

Jack is an optimist sort who sees the good in any situation (even when being led around in a dark creepy room by a peculiar stranger).

--{On Bertrum Piedmont}--

Year of Birth - ??? (He was retired, so it’s likely he was around his 60s or early 70s when Joey first met him) Year of Death - ??? (It’s unknown when exactly he ended up in the Ink Machine but it’s very possible he was killed when all hell broke loose in the studio) Birth City: ??? (No clue). Physical Characteristics: Joey describes him (rather rudely) as a very portly man. Sexual/Romantic Preferences: ??? (No idea, chief...) Notes: Lacking in the information department like Jack, but what we get is a lot more substantial.

Bertrum was actually retired when Joey managed to get a hold of him. It took a bit of detective work on Mrs. Rodriguez's (Joey's secretary) part to actually find him as well, so he was not an easy man to get an appointment with.

His creative vision impressed Joey enough that the latter he ignored his apparent dislike for reminiscing so as to get him on board of the Bendyland project.

While discussing the Bendyland Project, Bertrum confidently jokes about it being quite the catch. He agrees to joining forces with Joey as long as he gets full creative control of the entire project. Although Joey agreed to this, he still managed to fight Bertrum on a few ideas, which annoyed him greatly.

It’s very likely that it didn’t take long for their initially friendly relationship to sour into open hostility on Bertrum’s part.

--{On Wally Franks}--

Year of Birth - ??? (No clue, but he was very likely in his late teens or early adult years when he was first hired as the studio Janitor) Year of Death - Supposedly still alive (I really do hope he got outta there like the letter insinuates...) Birth City: Brooklyn, New York. Physical Characteristics: ??? (All we know is he likely wears overalls and a sport’s cap) Sexual/Romantic Preferences: Possibly Heterosexual (Unless the letter is a forgery, he apparently has a wife, kids and grandkids) Notes: I’ll admit I didn’t expect to get Wally lore, but here we are!

Wally's actually quite skilled with maintenance. He can tinker with the projectors, other machinery and even plumbing. His schedule is a little off however, but Joey turns a blind eye to it because he gets the job done without question.

--{On Allison Pendle}--

Year of Birth - ??? (No idea! But she was relatively well known when she was hired!) Year of Death - ??? (She was likely lured back to the studio after everything went down but before Henry) Birth City: ??? Physical Characteristics: She’s a beautiful tall blonde according to DCTL Sexual/Romantic Preferences: ??? (She and Thomas are married but I honestly have no clue how to feel about her, she’s a mystery to me.) Notes: Extra minimal Allison lore for your Allison Pendle lore needs.

She was a famous Broadway actress before joining the studio. Interestingly enough, Joey was the one to hire her to replace Susie, not only breaking Sammy’s stipulation on the matter but also stirring Susie into becoming resentful towards Sammy and actually trying to recover her former role at all costs (even her own life).

--{On Nathan Arch}--

Year of Birth - ??? (He was likely a little older than Joey since they were in the army at the same time but Joey lied about his age to enlist earlier) Year of Death - N/A (Still alive and kicking) Birth City: ??? Physical Characteristics: ??? (I guess Boswell Lotsabucks is sorta modeled after him so go off on that???) Sexual/Romantic Preferences: Heterosexual (He has a wife and son and doesn’t give me any other vibes besides and overall instinctual distrust) Notes: Oh boy...I do NOT trust this man...

Immediately upon beginning reading TioL you get the impression that Nathan is not only trying to appear friendly and trustworthy by referring to himself as Nate A, but also that he’s trying to cover for Joey and make him appear more personable to the reader. But to what gain exactly?

Nathan is, like Joey, very narcissistically vain, and is also writing a book of his own (an autobiography maybe?)

He’s a smoker and prefers cigars.

When Joey discusses his childhood, Nathan is unable to contradict or confirm anything as he noted that Joey was always very private about his origins.

Nathan seemed truly surprised and impressed with Joey’s ability to make up uncannily believable stories, even suspecting that his accounts of “Lottie” might have been false as he couldn’t find any of the supposed letters Joey sent her when he started working on republishing TioL (it’s likely he could see that Joey often lied to himself just as much as he lied to others).

It seemed to Nathan that Joey was rather oblivious of subtle compliments.

By the manner of which Nathan phrases it, he seems to think of Joey as a professional and kind man, capable of seeing the good in others. That said, Nathan remarks that Henry's departure was a great betrayal for his friend, and that the latter shouldn't have been so "gracious" and "forgiving" towards him…

When the studio began to struggle financially, Nathan worried that Joey might not be aware of the issue at all, or that perhaps he was lying to himself to cope. He also later notes that Joey’s memories seemed to have deteriorated in his old age. He was often mixing up information and seemed rather guilty, which Nathan considering to be very unbecoming of the man he knew Joey to be.

A lot of the deeply philosophical Joey and Nathan interactions seen in the book might actually have occured between Joey and Henry (the "I think therefore I am" conversation is an especially telling one for me), hence why Nathan doesn't recall them. It also seems more likely because they contradict the way Joey portrays Nathan, but seem to fit his portrayal of Henry better.

#Bendy and the Ink Machine #BATIM #The Illusion of Living #TIoL #Notes #Reference

23 notes · View notes

inkabelledesigns · 3 years

Text

Where does Bendy in Nightmare Run fit into the Bendy Universe?

Let me ask you this: does anyone else find it odd that we don’t see any of the content from Bendy in Nightmare Run within the Crack-Up Comics? Like the game has four great bosses, three standard enemies, and a bunch of costumes, and not ONCE do they make another appearance (save for one Easter egg of Chester in BATIM’s Chapter 5). We got parallels to our Chapters 3 and 4 enemies with Cameraman/Projectionist, Miss Twisted/Twisted Alice, and Brute/Brute Boris, but like, absolutely nothing from the game that arguably has more toons in it than the source material it’s based on. I know not a lot of people think about Nightmare Run anymore (hell, it’s only on my radar because I still log in everyday for the soup), but I feel like there should’ve at least been a nod to it there.

And that got me thinking: Souper Boris deals with radioactive bacon soup, right? And it’s teased at the end that Alice gets some too, right? Humor me here: is it possible that Canoodle is also a result of that radioactive soup? I mean this is a cartoon world, I don’t think it’d be much of a stretch to say that “radioactive” could serve as an explanation for a soup can becoming sentient, nor growing to a massive height. I can already picture the story, he was the can that wasn’t bought, got stuck in the back and never saw the light of day, so he had time to be brought to life, as opposed to other produce that was opened too quickly for that to happen. Maybe he passed his expiration date, got thrown away, ended up at the dump and made it his home. Who’s to say?

Though then again, is Canoodle’s stage a junkyard, or a graveyard? And how does that change things?

https://twitter.com/BendyRun/status/1049237972288266241

https://twitter.com/BendyRun/status/1038426739435655168

I was looking around for Canoodle’s beef with Bendy (it’s that Bendy trespassed on his property and didn’t leave), and I stumbled upon this from the promotional material for the game. I thought Canoodle’s stage was a junkyard this whole time, you’re telling me it’s a graveyard? Well hang on a moment. The game was released in August of 2018, and both of these tweets are from September of 2018. All the other posts with the bosses for the initial marketing make sense within the context of their stage, but Canoodle’s is inconsistent. Everywhere else, he’s listed as living in a junkyard. So why then, is it called a graveyard here?

So I loaded up the game real quick and played through the first act. Still looks like a junkyard to me. But then THIS happened.

My phone is a bit slow (as is my reaction time) so I couldn’t get a clear screenshot, but the other side of this barrel has a radioactive waste symbol on it. You see where I’m going with this? I predict Canoodle has some kind of link with the content we saw in the Souper Boris comic, it makes too much sense for it to be the same radioactive soup. The promotional material referring to this space as a graveyard could be insight into how Canoodle feels about it. I mean if you were a piece of trash that got thrown away, wouldn’t you feel like the scrapyard was your final resting place? Much like the studio is hell itself for its inhabitants, Canoodle’s “home” is here.

But that leads to the question that I’ve had about Nightmare Run for a while: where in the timeline does it fall? And that’s a really difficult question to answer, because there’s two timelines we need to talk about: the real world of JDS, and the fictional world of the cartoons and comics. And in truth, I don’t have a good answer for it. I think the logical place for it to be is somewhere after the Souper Boris comic, meaning if it’s part of a story told in some kind of Bendy media, it’s gotta be after or alongside the period of 1936-1940.

The thing is, we don’t really know what Nightmare Run IS within this universe, and that’s the bigger question to answer. Sure, here and now in our reality, it’s a mobile game, just as Bendy and the Ink Machine and Boris and the Dark Survival are games, but mobile games didn’t exist back then. There’s also that weird callback to Joey’s whole shtick about “there’s something I need to show you” when you first boot up the game. What is this trying to tell us? What IS Nightmare Run? For us it’s a game, but what is it to the studio employees? What is it to the cartoons? What is it to Joey? There are lots of things we could make of this, but my mind goes to a few places. We could say that it’s just a game that has no bearing on the story. We could say that Joey was ahead of his time, or that maybe Nathan did some development with the JDS property that permeated the modern era. We could say that this was a series of shorts or cartoons where Bendy and friends are having weird dreams.

Or we could turn to what The Illusion of Living tells us about Bendyland and Sillyvision. I haven’t given you all my thoughts on the book yet (I really should, because damn did it rock), but one thing I found fascinating was the look into Bendyland and Joey’s conversations with Bertrum Piedmont. We learn what Joey’s plans were for the park, that each section was meant to represent aspects of each of his core characters. I can absolutely see Nightmare Run fitting in as an attraction for Dark World, Bendy’s area of the park. Think of it like Disney’s animatronic dark rides, like Mickey and Minnie’s Runaway Railway, or one of the things I miss, Disney Quest. If you’re not familiar with Disney Quest, it was a five floor arcade that lived within Disney Springs (then called Downtown Disney). It’s since been replaced by an ESPN attraction, but when it was still there, it had all kinds of stuff. Early forms of VR (that were nauseating to play with those heavy helmets), lots of old arcade machines, and newer technology that blended virtual and physical gameplay together, like the Pirates of the Caribbean attraction that had you shooting cannonballs at a virtual screen (or Toy Story Midway Mania, if you want a more common comparison).

But this was the 40s, technology for this kind of thing wouldn’t exist, right? And that’s where I turn to Sillyvision, Joey’s special process of editing the inks on the animation cells. Combine that with the advanced technology of harnessing living ink’s properties that Gent had going on, and you have yourself some plausible ways to create an attraction where guests can help Bendy (or be in his shoes) to run from some not-so-friendly faces. It doesn’t sound too far fetched for this universe, and given this man was working on “living cartoons” for the purpose of folks being able to meet them in the park, I wouldn’t put it past him to try this too. It still leaves some questions as to what content Canoodle and friends came from within the universe (were they in a cartoon or comic, or were they made specifically for an attraction?), but one thing is for sure: there’s possibilities. Besides that, we still never got an explanation as to what that hand is in the game.

If you tap the hand on the top of the screen there, it opens and closes, but we still have no idea what it does or who it belongs to. It’s 2021, and we still haven’t cracked it! It could be Bendy’s or Boris’ hand (not Alice though, doesn’t have a circle in the palm), or it could be someone else’s. I don’t know. All I know is that I’m probably thinking too hard about this. X’’’D And I’m okay with that. I’d like to revisit Nightmare Run again, I have some thoughts about our enemy characters (Krawl, Stickle, and Gwen), but that’ll be for later. X’’’D I was gonna post cute headcanons about Sammy today and somehow ended up here, what is my life?

#bendy the illusion of living #bendy in nightmare run #bendy crack up comics #bendy crack up comics spoilers #bendy the illusion of living spoilers #tiol #tiol spoilers #the illusion of living spoilers #crack up comics spoilers #bendy theory #batim theory #binr theory #tiol theory #joey drew

18 notes · View notes

dalekofchaos · 5 years

Text

My problems with LIS:BTS

I love Before the Storm, but I do have some problems with the game in relation to the first game. Here I will explain the problems i had with BTS and why I think Deck Nine did not understand the characters. This is very long, if anyone has the time to read it all, I’d like you to finish to the end!

1. Continuity issues

Rachel’s parents. I always got the feeling Rachel’s parents were neglectful, which REALLY showed when Chloe said they are in denial that Rachel is missing. Rachel having neglectful parents and Chloe having an abusive stepfather and abuse enabling mother, would show just why Rachel and Chloe wants to leave Arcadia Bay. What happens in BTS? Rachel has kind and loving parents and a bio mom that is a horrible representation of drug addiction(everything about how D9 wrote Sera sends a horrible message, wtf D9?) and all of sudden James just pretends that Rachel isn’t missing? The fuck? Also, Rachel’s parents are not called James or Rose. Rachel’s student information we see in Episode 3 about her parents is not readable, but he Initial letters of the names written within the Parent(s) field on Rachel’s file do not appear to match the names James or Rose (or even Sera)

Rachel’s address. Rachel’s Blackwell Student Information Sheet shows Rachel’s home address. Rachel Amber has an address of “6 Sa(?)u/n(?)tle Road, Arcadia Bay, Oregon”. There is a piece of paper covering the Home Address field, but we can make out a “gon” from the end of “Oregon”, so we know it is within the state. As her address in the top-right corner is different to what appears to be the dormitory address on the other student files, we can assume that “6 Sa(?)u/n(?)tle Road” is implying her home address (just like on Chloe’s file). However, in Before the Storm, her home address is 2420 Blackfriars Road, Arcadia Bay, Oregon.

My friend/one of my Amberprice favs @thelittle-scribbler‘s idea of Rachel’s parents makes more sense. “the idea I had of Rachel is that she was a relocated student from Cali from a very problematic absent family who didn’t give a fuck about her, coz well they gave up looking for her! And if her dad was the city da, he would have never gave up on the search and also, he would have known about her being involved with drug dealers. Unless he got his ass fired after hiring those guys to kill his ex wife lol”

Chloe’s blue hair. In Episode 3 of Before the Storm, Chloe is shown dyeing her hair blue for the very first time. However, we know that in Life is Strange, Chloe had been dyeing her hair with a blue streak on or before her 16th birthday (two months before Before the Storm takes place). indicating that Chloe had already been using blue dye in her hair by the time of her 16th birthday. It would have made more sense if we had seen Chloe with a blue streak in Before the Storm Episode 1.

Max’s contact of Chloe. "You were happy to wait five years without a call, or even a text.“ In Before the Storm’s Episode 1, "Awake,” Chloe’s phone clearly shows that Max has been texting her during her time in Seattle and had even initiated text messaging after admitting to being “bad about emailing”. Max has texted Chloe on the following dates in November 2009: 2nd, 13th, and 28th. Max was supposed to have not emailed, called or text Chloe ever since she left for Seattle, it should end in 9/28/2008, but it began again a year later.

Joyce and David’s relationship. In Before the Storm, David and Joyce are currently unmarried and had started dating not that long before the game’s events that are set in May 2010 (Chloe is 16 years old at this time). David is also about to move in to the Price household, which is seen happening by Episode 3. But in Life is Strange, a chronological timestreammontage shows that Joyce and David were already married before Chloe’s 16th birthday. A picture of a married Joyce and David appears prior to an image of Chloe on her 16th birthday in this timestream montage

The Blackwell problem. Victoria Chase’s sole reason for being at Blackwell is Mark Jefferson. Jeffershit is not in BTS. Victoria is introduced as a sophomore at Blackwell Academy in Before the Storm and wants to be in theater for…reasons, but the age for Victoria in the first game suggests she should be a freshman in BTS. Warren is a Blackwell student at age 13. Max is said to be a sophmore with Chloe in her own school in Seattle at the time, but problem there is Max turned 14 in 2009 after the September 1st cutoff date. This means that she wouldn’t be starting high school until September the following year (fall 2010). The normal age requirement to start high school as a freshman is age 14 (i.e. turning 14 before the September 1st cutoff). It is currently unknown why Max has advanced two grades in 2010. She has a 2.8 GPA on her 2013 student information sheet, which suggests she is a low B / C / high D student (not an exemplary student). Her GPA is also said to fluctuate and she acknowledged in 2013 that she should be doing better. and there’s the fact that Chloe is in Blackwell with some of the characters in the first game and dialogue (or text messages) between these characters seems to suggest that she did not know them as fellow students or even classmates prior to the original game’s events. For example, Stella is in Chloe’s class photo, problem with that is that Stella doesn’t even know who Chloe is, she just refers to her as “some girl” Warren. Warren does not know who Chloe is at the beginning of Episode 2, yet in BTS class photo he is seen with Chloe. Other dialogue gives the impression that Warren does not know Chloe beforehand. For example, the text messages Max receives from Warren in Episode 4 if she kissed Chloe/but declined Warren’s invitation to the drive-in or didn’t kiss Chloe/ but accepted Warren’s invitation. There is no mention of the fact he knows Chloe from when she was going to Blackwell, her complete change of appearance, or that he’s surprised that Max knows her too! There are also a couple of points in Life is Strange where, if Warren knew Chloe from the past, he would have likely opened a dialogue with her about that it’s good to see her again or even asking how life is outside Blackwell. Not even Chloe seems to recognize Warren, as she refers to him simply as “your friend” to Max. Justin. When Max encounters Justin at the Blackwell Campus in the first episode of Life is Strange, “Chrysalis”, she has the option to talk with him about Rachel and “her punk friend”, as Max does not yet know the identity of the blue-haired punk girl that she had saved in the bathroom earlier. "I can’t remember her name… But she was hot. Tats. Blue hair. Hardcore. She stopped hanging out with us after Rachel disappeared… or ran away.“ As we see in Life is Strange, Justin refers to Chloe in a very vague way as Rachel’s "punk friend” and as though he only knows her second-hand through Rachel. Yet the Before the Storm prequel game puts Justin in the same Blackwell student photograph as Chloe (standing directly in front of her), furthermore implying they are in the same classes. He would have had frequent contact with Chloe as a classmate of just that handful of students. Also in Before the Storm, Chloe interacts with Justin at Blackwell and they seem very familiar with each other. Justin refers to her as both “Chlo-ee” and “Price”, so he definitely knows both her first name and surname. They also are texting with each other in Before the Storm. Then again, they ARE friendly with each other in episode 4, Justin not remembering who she is in episode 1 might be the case of him being blazed and just narratively teasing Max of the girl she saved. Nathan. In Life is Strange Episode 1’s Cliff chapter, Max will ask Chloe about Nathan. Chloe will tell Max:“I met him in some shithole bar that didn’t card me. He was too rich for the place and too wasted. And he kept flashing bills…” in Before The Storm, Chloe knows Nathan from Blackwell. but the way she describes her predicament to Max sounds like she is describing her first impressions from the first time she ever met or had one-to-one dealings with him (i.e. no previous encounters before that).

Chloe is left handed in the first game and right handed in BTS. Yes she does use her left in some points, but Chloe’s dominant hand in the first game is her left hand. Throughout BTS, Chloe smokes and drinks with her right hand, lights the Amber House candles with her right hand and even writes graffiti with her right hand. In the first game Chloe smokes and drinks with her left hand and lockpicks with her left hand. DONTNOD confirmed she was left handed. I am just baffled by this decision. The only time I remember Chloe using her left hand as her dominant hand in BTS is when she burns evidence for Damon.

Chloe is expelled in 2011 in the first game. Chloe is expelled in 2010 for BTS. Max looks at a report card in Chloe’s bedroom which shows that Chloe was still attending Blackwell Academy up until the end of her junior year, which was in May 2011. BTS gives us the choice to defend Rachel and get expelled or suspended if you don’t. There is also no mention by the Principal of a recent suspension for “spray-painting graffiti in the parking lot” as was clearly mentioned on her school file in his office in Life is Strange, nor any mention of the “police reports.” Although the suspension is temporary and she is to be hopefully reinstated in the fall to start her junior year on condition of her good behavior, the suspension was not over graffiti. Being expelled in 2010 completely contradicts the circumstances of the original game, and the suspension (although being the least non-canon consequence) is over the wrong reasons. Even if Chloe was suspended, it is not unreasonable to believe that she would be expelled anyway over the extensive graffiti she left in the bathroom.

Chloe being good at chemistry. It is never stated in her report card in the first game if she were ever good at chemistry. Chloe comes off as someone who doesn’t care about getting grades, hell Chloe seems only interested in the Arts class as shown in her report card. A friend pointed out to me it kind of feels like “BtS took away a lot from Warren, as if it were a "competition" "Warren is good at chemistry" and so the BtS crew thought "Let's make Chloe good at chemistry too!" Another point is also that Warren has green as his personal color, and in Farewell Chloe he wears a green shirt. Chloe in episode 1 uses Warren's phrase "Power". I don't know, I felt like they took things from Warren to give to Chloe, and that really pissed me off.”

Chloe knows about Pompidou’s name despite not knowing the pupper’s name in the first game. Also "The only way you know my dog’s name is if you broke into my RV.“ Why would he say that if he told Chloe Pompidou’s name?

Frank was just a drug dealer to Chloe and who she and Rachel hung out with in the past. Now Frank kills someone to protect Chloe. Chloe and Frank are not friends.

2. The first LIS game told a different story for Chloe and Rachel’s relationship

Chloe’s “Rachel was my angel” comment showed a lot to how Chloe loved Rachel and how much she meant to her. Chloe tells Max that Rachel entered her life when was at her absolute lowest and that it was she who helped her deal with the grief of having lost her father but the entire game is centered around Chloe being the one who is supporting Rachel as she deals with a serious family drama of her own. What Before The Storm should have been. Rachel helping lift Chloe through the worse point of her life. If Rachel had stopped Chloe from committing suicide… as was the commonly believed interpretation to what happened between Chloe and Rachel up until BtS, then Chloe’s ”“she was my angel” would have meant it was truly special and real. But instead they bump into each other at an illegal concert and Rachel distracted some thug who works for Damon and we spend the game finding out who Sera is in a reveal we all saw it coming and only to have Rachel taken out of the third episode where Rachel never talks to her and makes the whole thing feel pointless. What the game should have been was Chloe and Rachel together having fun rocking out, becoming girlfriends and Chloe starting to live again and show that Chloe Price loves Rachel Amber and Rachel loves Chloe.

3. Deck Nine did not understand Chloe.

I don’t feel that Deck Nine did Chloe justice. The writers attempt to evoke empathy with Chloe feeling grief which is done via exactly one emotion- which is a very childish understanding of how loss and coping works. She had no character arc, considering she was the exact same character that we already knew in LiS Episode 1 (A bitter disaffected teenage youth with no regard for authority) so we didn’t get to see Chloe evolve into the character we loved in the first game. She just already was it. The gameplay undid the narrative we were given about Chloe being a loner in that you can talk to and make friends with pretty much anybody and they all acted like they liked and were genuinely happy to see Chloe. Very rarely were there interactions with Blackwell students that ended with Chloe’s presence not being welcomed, only Wells, Victoria and Nathan showed contempt for Chloe(even with Nathan that goes away when he claps for her at the play) The reason this is done is because the game wouldn’t be fun if Chloe actually was a loner. The core mechanic of Life is Strange is being able to talk to people and experiment with your surroundings. A game where nobody wanted to talk to Chloe works against the core mechanic. But in making her the main character it undoes the weight of the narrative of Chloe being alone until Rachel/Max. I just strongly feel that Deck Nine did not understand Chloe as a character and did not do her justice. We should’ve gotten Chloe at her lowest, evolving from Max’s best friend to the character we know in the first game and Rachel helping lift Chloe through the worse point of her life. Chloe and Rachel together having fun rocking out and Chloe starting to live again and show that Chloe Price loves Rachel Amber and Rachel loves Chloe. Chloe losing Rachel and showing how Chloe has to deal with Rachel missing, how she became in debt to Frank and how she got involved with Nathan and how Chloe ends up in the bathroom.

4. There is no plot...until the last minute

The biggest problem I have with BTS is there is absolutely no plot. In the first game we absolutely KNEW what the plot was. There was a storm, a missing person/serial killer and all of our friends have problems that Max has to help them with. In Before The Storm....there really is nothing. We go to a concert and because we ruined an asshole’s shirt, we were threatened and saved because Rachel was there. Then the rest of episode 1 spends on spending time with Rachel. Same with episode 2. They only gave the plot at the last minute cause Deck Nine probably went “oh shit, we just realized we don’t have a fucking plot” then we spend the majority of the game trying to get the identity of the woman Rachel’s scumbag father was seen kissing. Turns out the girl is Rachel’s biological mother! James and Sera's story doesn’t make any sense. He still loves her, gives her a final goodbye kiss and then orders some drug dealer to kill her because she was a drug addict?! Damon was hired to kill Sera and protect Rachel, but stabs her instead?! He wants Sera to die because she was a former addict....despite Sera wanting to be clean and Sera doesn’t want her to ruin Rachel’s life???? What kind of fucking message is that to send to people struggling with addiction??? They dropped the fact that Sera was supposed to have powers and it was passed down to Rachel and that Rachel is the storm. Hell, Rachel was taken out of the final episode 90% of the fucking episode. Damon was a lazy thrown at the last minute villain. The first game shows you what’s at stake right away, with Before The Storm there’s no clear danger, conflict or mystery. We only get it halfway through the second episode and even then it’s a bad mystery and conflict and if it takes that long to add conflict or mystery, then I really think they failed the game. The best parts about the game are Amberprice, episode 2, Steph, Mikey & Drew and Samantha. But that’s kind of it. Before The Storm was kind of a disappointment.

5. Forced to give David a chance

Deck Nine doesn’t understand that Chloe does not have a good relationship with David, or even Joyce. Deck Nine forces us to be nice to David and every time we choose to pick the most Chloe like choice we are punished. The game outright makes us look like jerks for being true to Chloe’s character regarding David. Deck Nine screwed up everything when it came to Chloe and David. Before even meeting David in episode 1, Chloe’s only complaint is he calls her “girly” that...that’s it? The only thing I felt they got right was his comment about “vacation from not having a father figure” and saying he’ll show what a stable home is like. The way he said that he can FINALLY show Chloe what a stabilized home looks like…..like she didn’t have a stable home when her father was alive. That really got under my skin. But let me explain, Deck Nine did not understand Chloe’s relationship with David and did their best to villainize Chloe for not giving him a chance. I do not want to feel bad for David. Stop trying to make us feel bad for this abusive piece of shit and make Chloe out to be the villain for not giving this asshole a chance. He emotionally, mentally and physically abuses her and joyce normalizes it, violates her privacy, installs cameras in the house without her or Joyce’s knowledge cause he will not trust her and Rachel, David makes Chloe feel like a prisoner in her own home. David getting a job at Blackwell makes her want to get expelled, whenever he is around she does not feel safe. He makes her so afraid that she feels like she’s living with a Nazi. They are not meant to have a good relationship. As for Joyce. The fandom likes to paint Joyce as this great mother to Chloe, and she was when William was alive but she chose her own happiness and interests over the safety and well being of her own daughter. Joyce enabled an abusive stepfather and ignored her daughter being hit and verbally abused (and there is a word for that: culpability. Joyce is guilty of child abuse. If we do not back up Chloe in episode 1 and we tell Joyce David hit Chloe, Joyce just brushes it off like it’s not a big deal…and this is who the fandom perceives as a good mother? What Deck Nine should have done is have it open with it stated that Joyce and David are married. Chloe’s life is a living hell. David does not understand nor does he care about Chloe’s depression and grief for losing William and Max moving away. Show that David physically, mentally and emotionally abuses her. Joyce normalizes it like saying “you keep pushing him, what did you think was gonna happen” you might think that’s out of character for Joyce, but she put her own interests over the safety and stability of her own child. Joyce didn’t want to be alone anymore, so she settled down with the first guy that came her way. The abuse is normalized in their household and Chloe’s definitely internalized it. Keep in David’s comment about “vacation from not having a father figure” David violates her trust and feelings and boundaries and bosses her around and calling her a loser who has no friends and burdens her mother. Show why Chloe is terrified of him to the point where she labels him a Nazi and to the point she feels like he will kill her if he finds Max in her room, so make a hint that David starts to put surveillance around the house because of his unwillingness to trust Chloe and Rachel. Chloe and David do not have a good relationship and fuck Deck Nine for making us feel bad and look bad for not giving David a chance. Fuck you.

6. The choices D9 made with Nathan make no sense.

I already explained why Nathan being in Blackwell with Chloe doesn’t make any sense, but the choices Deck 9 did with Nathan doesn’t explain anything about the character he would become in the first LIS. If Nathan had to be in the game, I don’t think Samantha should’ve been in the game. Nathan’s social circle is Rachel, Victoria and Hayden. There is no missing persons posters in Arcadia Bay aside from Rachel. Samantha being the first Dark Room victim does not hold up. And that’s the problem, we don’t get to see Nathan being friendly with Rachel, Victoria or Hayden. We see him being bullied by Drew North. Wouldn’t it make much more sense for Nathan and Victoria to be bullying Drew and Mikey and Chloe and Steph defending them and Nathan and Victoria trying to get Chloe expelled for that? Okay if what they were trying to do was a timid Nathan who slowly gets to become the king of Blackwell who was being mentally and emotionally abused by Sean and Jefferson, it did not work. We never see Nathan with his friends. We never see Nathan with Rachel aside from one picture. We do not get to see Nathan and Hayden. Nathan and Victoria are as close as brother and sister, we never get to see that and I think that’s where BTS failed Nathan. Hell, if they were to keep Nathan’s character as it were in BTS, I think Chloe and Nathan should have been friends. I cannot find the video because the person who made it deleted their YouTube account, but a few years ago when BTS was first out, someone made a video suggesting that Chloe and Nathan could’ve been friends in Blackwell. The video was SO convincing that I was so on board with the idea and Samantha pointing out how similar they are. If Hell Is Empty wasn’t a bad episode, maybe they could’ve gave Chloe and Nathan a chance to talk. depending on our choices it could go good or bad. If it goes bad, then they remain on bad terms. But if they are on good terms depending on our choices, you are given a choice to choose to become friends with Nathan. They bond over their similar music taste, their mutual love for Rachel and find common ground with everyone expecting the worst out of them and their abusive father/stepfather. And Nathan could thank Chloe for stepping up for him. And they share a smoke together. I think Chloe and Nathan being friends before their lives goes on a downward spiral and hits rockbottom would’ve been nice and sure as hell would’ve been better than giving Chloe, Stalky McFuckboy as a “friend” instead

7. Deck Nine does not understand Rachel Amber

I don’t feel that Deck Nine understands Rachel Amber as a character or understands what made the fanbase love her from the first game. Rachel is a character shrouded in mystery. The vibe I got from Chloe indicates that Rachel Amber saved her at her lowest and made her feel like she could live again. I also got the vibe that Rachel had neglectful parents who cared very little of her and Rachel was tired of the pressures of being little ms perfect and the bullying she suffers at Blackwell. So Chloe and Rachel wanted to be free from Arcadia Bay. Chloe wanted to be free of an abusive step-father and her mother who allows the abuse to go on and Rachel wanted to be free from everything at Arcadia Bay. Started a knew life as a model in LA. It was their Santa Monica Dream. The characterization of Rachel Amber in BTS just feels like D9 does not understand Rachel. Rachel Amber is meant to be a morally grey character. There are hints that she wasn’t this perfect angel Chloe thought she was and then backed away from that perspective out of fear fans would be angry at their depiction of Rachel. Rachel Amber who I knew in the first game was just not there. She had no interesting perspective or enlightenment to offer to Chloe or be the positive force to Chloe or even showed why she was this mysterious chameleon who fit in so perfectly with everyone who was adored by everyone. She was just a pretty looking character model with a great voice actress that would sometimes say very wistful, wide-eyed things. She would also quote boring poetry. Rachel in BTS has no aspiration to be a model and instead of Rachel helping Chloe deal with her grief, the game makes it about Chloe helping Rachel with her family drama. We never get to see Rachel meet Joyce(Joyce in LIS makes it seem like her and Rachel got along) we never get to see Rachel defending Chloe from David or Rachel as this ambiguous character. She’s portrayed as this character that must be protected at all costs, like she’s neither ambiguous nor does she have any agency. It is perfectly okay to show her drift away from Chloe. Yes they were in love and had this great relationship and they loved each other. It’s important to see and know the people we romanticize are not who we thought they were. Rachel was looking for a way out of Arcadia Bay. She first thought both her and Chloe can escape to LA together. But over time she did not think that was possible anymore. Chloe dodges her car payments and her family is in debt and Chloe is in debt to Frank. She still wants to leave with Chloe, but Rachel needed an alternative way so she and Chloe can escape. So Rachel turned to Frank, she used him for her drugs because as time goes on, Rachel turns to drugs to numb the pain. She parties with The Vortex Club and as Nathan said “Rachel partied like a fiend on her own.” Hell, she was so desperate to leave Arcadia Bay she even asked the trucker to take her to LA. Then, Rachel meets Mark Jefferson. Rachel saw him as her way to LA. She wanted to have her pictures modeled by a professional, which he was, but Rachel never saw him for what he was. A sheep in wolf’s clothing, a monster. He saw her as the perfect subject. A human chameleon with many visual possibilities and he felt they had a connection. Manipulating her into believing that he is the father figure that James never was for her. Rachel wrote a letter to Chloe in the shack but discarded it. She feels that he changed her life but the discarded letter shows that she felt ashamed about the whole relationship. Her shame indicates that she was apart of the Dark Room. At first she just saw it as a big photography project outside of school, but then Rachel started to look into Jefferson’s past models and figured out something was wrong. In Jefferson’s own words “Not like Rachel, who was always looking in the wrong places. Poor Rachel.” Jefferson of course finds out because The Dark Room is under 24 hours surveillance. So out of fear of Rachel telling everyone, Jefferson kills Rachel, doses Nathan and poses Nathan’s unconscious body with Rachel’s lifeless body. The vibe I got from the first game is that Rachel and Chloe have this very important and special bond. But Rachel just wanted to be free of Arcadia Bay by any means necessary. Rachel would go far to get what she wanted. Someone who is willing to lie to the people she cared about to satisfy her own needs and goals. Personally, I see Rachel as being okay with manipulating everybody BUT Chloe, which gives everybody a foothold to try and gaslight Chloe and Max about her, trying to get them to doubt that Rachel genuinely cared about Chloe. Rachel wanted a way out and she thought she had her way out, but in the end she played with fire and got burned.

8. The last episode

It was lazily thrown together. The actual GOOD aspects were cut altogether. Rachel does not dye Chloe’s hair. Chloe and Rachel do not work on the truck together. Rachel does not stand up for Chloe against David. Rachel and Chloe do not kick Eliot’s fuckboy ass. Rachel has to be taken care of instead of Chloe and Rachel working together to save Sera. All the good Amberprice stuff is in the montages. Hell Is Empty was a huge disappointment.

9. Unlike Max, Chloe has no agency in defeating the villain of the game.

The difference between LIS and BTS is the player has a hand in defeating their villains, while in BTS, we do not. Max Caulfield who was tied up and was about to be killed, guides David in defeating and capturing her abuser and villain of her story Mark Jefferson. Max is instrumental in defeating the villain of her story. Chloe Price is knocked unconscious and saved for doing nothing while Frank kills Damon Merrick off screen. Chloe is not instrumental or has any agency in leading to the defeat of the villain(the rushed villain at the last second) of her story

10. Farewell.

While Farewell is cute and tragic to play, it ultimately does not make any sense. If this is the same day as Max’s last moment with William and before Joyce comes home to tell Chloe the news of William, WHY are Max and Chloe in different outfits? Wouldn’t it make more sense for this to be Max’s last day in Arcadia Bay instead of the last day of William? I feel this especially cause in the BTS Graffiti side of the notebook, it is shown that there is one final episode under episode 3, I kind of feel like this was meant for Farewell and it was meant to be Max’s Farewell, but something changed. It also kind of comes off as wanting the player to hate Max for not staying to say goodbye. What I would prefer is this takes place on Max’s last day in Arcadia Bay and despite William’s accident, Chloe wants to do her best to make sure her best friend gets the best damn send off before her farewell. And Max and Chloe part on good terms instead of Max’s asshole father preventing Max from saying goodbye lol

#Life Is Strange #Amberprice #Life Is Strange Before The Storm #Chloe Price #Rachel Amber #Max Caulfield #Victoria Chase #Nathan Prescott

54 notes · View notes

stop-breaking-my-heart-telltale · 4 years

Text

I Need to Talk About “Problematic Faves” within TWDG [3/?]

Character design, being drawn towards characters we find visually attractive, and how big of a role in plays in our feelings towards them.

“He's a murderer but like.... a cute murderer, y’know?”

This goes hand in hand with the whole first impressions thing we’re talking about, but rather than talking about the character’s traits, dialogue, history, and overall character, we’re talking about physical appearance.

This is something I want to touch on even though I already know the answer to it. It’s just a food for thought sort of idea that I wanted to explore given how much we talk about our favorite characters appearances while discussing them with one another.

Let’s face it: We’re all a little shallow at some point in our lives.

“Don’t judge a book by it’s cover” is bullshit. I pick up that book in the first place because it’s pretty and has sprayed edges. The only reason I put it back it is because I can’t find an actual summary of the book because publishers think we want to read a bunch of “Best book of da year!” by Who The Fuck Cares written all over the place rather than an actual summary...

....What was my point?

Oh, right, character design.

When we’re first introduced to a character, we immediately make a judgement of them based off their looks.That’s not to say that our opinions remain the same based on our first impressions after only looking at them, but it’s something we do initially.

Game developers, artists, writers, and directors will usually strive to make their characters as visually appealing to us as possible because that’s what makes us go “ohhh they pretty *picks thing up.*”

There are issues that develop from this, such as unrealistic expectations of what true beauty is and how it actually affects the audience. After taking in so much of this content, I started to wonder if it had any affect on why we have “Problematic Faves” and if there IS something linked within the way we view them as physically attractive.

While I believe that appearance is an important factor in character development and is what draws us to them, it’s also a bit more complicated than that.

One of the many things I adore about the final season is it’s character design for all the students at Ericson. All of the Ericson kiddos have their own unique looks and manners of which they hold themselves.

Sure we’ve got Louis and Violet, who we all gush about all the time on how beautiful they are. How many times have we talked about Louis’ freckles or Violet’s eyes or just how gosh darn pretty we think they are while incorporating it into writing our fanfics or headcanons or creating out artworks of them?

But what’s great is that they aren’t all “conveniently attractive” or someone a shallow Hollywood director would look at one time and say “there’s our star!”

Willy is a fan favorite among many in our community. What I love about his design is his teeth. He’s a kid growing up in the apocalypse without proper dental care. His teeth are crooked, there are gaps between them, and he’s even missing some. If that same Hollywood director were to look at him, they’d either slap some extreme braces on him or cast him as a tree troll.

But not everyone has those perfectly straight pearly whites. Some of us have crooked teeth, or we’ve had painful braces to try and straighten them, or we’ve lost or broken a tooth at some point. You know how refreshing it is to see a character as likable as Willy show up with that smile of his while still being considered a fan favorite?

Speaking of refreshing, what about Ruby? Everyone loves Ruby. She’s not tall and thin, she’s short and thicker.

I remember seeing nasty posts questioning why someone like Aasim would have any interest in her because of the way she’s built, and that that pisses me off.

It’s so damn great to see someone like Ruby portrayed the way she is in this game. As someone who IS more on the shorter and heavier side, it’s hard to find a character like this who doesn’t suddenly become slim therefore “prettier” over the course of the story or who isn’t a terrible or whose weight and build is all their character is. The last movie I watched that featured a plus size main character was that god awful Sierra Burgess movie on Netflix and that character made me want to punch things.

All I can say is thank god for Ruby.

Speaking of which, how about Omar? He’s short and stocky, too, but y’know what? We made this dude a GOD. What does that tell you?

These are examples using more minor characters that fall into that non-”Problematic Fave” tier, but what about our characters that do?

I used to have a strong theory that some characters got more love and attention JUST because they’re more attractive to the audience, even if their character is boring, holds little to no plot relevance, or is an “evil” being beyond forgiveness.

It’s a theory that I believe still holds some truth, though I think that truth lies more with the younger fans, or those who aren’t quite as mature.

As someone who has worked around elementary school children, as well as 13-14 year olds, I think I can safely make the assumption that they tend to take things at face value a good chunk of the time.

Pretty person = Good!

Not pretty person = Bad!

That sort of deal.

So, the question I pose is:

Does a character’s level of attractiveness have an effect on our willingness to forgive some of their more problematic behaviors?

I’m sure most of you read that and said “Uh, is this a trick question? No?”

When you think about the kinds of stories that we’re always told about the beautiful princesses who are pure and good and the ugly stepmothers who are evil and bad, it’s not hard to see why the younger ones would see things as more black and white rather than a shade of gray.

If the pretty princess poisons her “evil” stepmother during their morning tea, how easily do we forgive her just because we’re told that she’s a pure, pretty princess? We know poisoning someone is bad, but... if the stepmother was ugly and evil, then the princess must have had a reason for doing this, right? So... it’s okay... right?

Is the princess justified in her actions, even if the stepmother wasn’t doing anything more than drinking her morning tea?

I look at that and say, “No,” whereas a much younger person might say, “Yeah. The stepmother was evil.”

Young children are fascinating to talk to, by the way. They’re sponges who absorb knowledge like you wouldn’t believe but somehow they still take everything at that face value and believe whatever the “good” person says in a story until you help them see the bigger picture. That’s why they tend to be more susceptible to falling for twists.

But once you explain to them the more complicated elements of the princess and the stepmother, they’re intelligent enough to grasp that the princess is wrong.

I believe once we grow older and open ourselves up to more complex stories full of gray characters, learning about them through experience, we start to see that beauty isn’t just in the eye in the beholder, but also that it doesn’t mean shit at the end of the day.

You can have the most beautiful person in the world be your main character, but if that beautiful person drowns a bag full of kittens, suddenly they aren’t so attractive, now are they?

One of a kid’s favorite example of a good-looking antagonist is Hans from Frozen.

While I think the whole “he was actually evil the whole time haha we fooled you” thing in that movie is garbage, I give it credit for being the first exposure of this concept to young kids, sending them down a path of looking at different characters they see in a new light.

We like characters who are attractive because, well, they’re attractive. But we’re also mature enough to know that their attractiveness isn’t solely based on their appearance. It’s merely the seed that only grows with development, personality, and an arc. It only makes up a small portion of why we like a character in the first place. We know that just because someone is good-looking, it doesn’t justify their actions.

But for those who are still growing out of those black and while fairy tales and just starting to expand their views of different characters while learning that looks can be deceiving, are they more likely to forgive a character or not fully understand that they’re in the wrong just because they’re visually pleasing?

Another example outside of TWDG that I can give you is Nathan Prescott from the game Life is Strange. I’ve mentioned this game several times before, and even wrote a whole segment on it in my Louis and Violet essay from a while back.

When I was a young lass, I picked up this game and really liked it. I wasn’t as into it as I am TWDG, but I liked it enough to play every episode as it came out and then check the tag to see what everyone thought.

While browsing this tag, I noticed that a lot of the fan base seemed young. Makes sense, it IS a game starring teens set in an academy setting and I was young, too.

But with that, one thing that always bothered me was how a number of young people talked about Nathan.

Nathan who, if you haven’t played the game, is one of the antagonists. They would gush about this kid, seeming to make up excuses for the appalling things he did and it felt very tied to his looks.

I’m sorry to any Life is Strange fans who might’ve been one of these young fans... but that really is the impression I got at the time.

Maybe I just didn’t get the hype about this dude who drugged girls so he could pose and take pictures of them because of his weirdly under-explained relationship with the surprise villain of the story, but he doesn’t seem like the type of guy to get all “Poor, precious, beautiful baby boi didn’t deserve this !” about.

Then again, if writing this has taught me anything, I might have missed something by not being involved with that fandom, but what I gathered was that he didn’t become the redeemable character they all thought he would be and they didn’t like that, so it becomes harder to try and justify the things he did because he didn’t end up being good in the end even though they all thought he would be. I guess.

But, gathering that a lot of them were so young and going off the content I predominately saw... I don’t know. It didn’t ever feel right. I had suspicions that lead to this theory. That’s what I’m saying.

This can apply to other fandoms, too, where a group of people will take a character/person they find attractive and gush about how pretty they are rather than anything else that makes them interesting. Not everyone, of course, but I get the feeling you all know what I mean and have come across something like it before. I’m just trying to explain it.

Or maybe it is just me and you have no idea what I’m talking about.

Either way.

Returning back to our “Problematic Faves,” lets ask this question about them in particular.

How much of David’s attractiveness plays into my love of him?

I mean, he’s not a bad looking dude. In fact, I dare say that the Garcia brothers are both very attractive guys. I give ‘em both a 10/10.

But does that actually aid in my actual feelings towards him at all?

What about the others we’ve talked about so far?

I don’t see many people talking about how pretty they think Kenny is... though his mustache IS majestic and that’s something we all agree on.

And Lilly’s okay. I guess.

Nate could be a good-looking dude if he’d just put his crazy eyes away.

I believe our best bet it in getting a more clear answer to this question would to be take a quick look back at Minerva.

Remember how I said Minerva was so hyped up based on a two second appearance in the ep3 trailer? Granted, we did have more than JUST her appearance to form this hype around.... but admit it, a huge part of the hype was how good she looked.

She looked awesome.

Hell, just seeing her had me excited to see what she would do in ep3, even though I had the feeling she wouldn’t be an ally.

I used to have a hard time wrapping my head around why so many people love her as much as they do, and I previously thought it was based a lot on her appearance.

Is it ignorant and shallow of me to think y’all loved her based solely on her looks?

Probably. Yes. Yes, it was.

Now that I’ve looked into this further, I see that there’s more to the love and interest surrounding her, but..... it’s kind of what my first thought was? In the beginning?

Either way, it’s still an interesting idea to consider when thinking about a character you love.

With that said, what if we apply this question to a character who is less of a “Problematic Fave” and more of my “God Tier Fave.”

You all know that Louis is my favorite character across ALL the games. My love for him is vibrant, but one of the many things I love about him IS his character design. He’s a visually appealing guy, and his personality, different traits, dialogue, flaws, and character arc only build onto the attractiveness of his character.

If Louis didn’t look like this, would I still love him?

Assuming that everything else about him is the same, then yeah.

What if the developers went with the concept art of him that looked like a odd Harry Styles knockoff? Would I still love him?

Again, I want to say that I would, assuming that everything else about him be the same. But going with that certain concept art does take away an important aspect of his character and his relationship to Clementine.

Many of you have told me how much you appreciate the fact that Clementine and Louis represent a sweet, healthy black couple. That’s important to all of us. If we went with the first concept art, then that’s something we’d lose. Would we still ship clouis? Probably, but again, that important element and representation is lost and that would affect our overall opinion of it, even if just a bit.

But, what if Louis looked exactly as he does now, but were to do something awful? Would I still love him?

Well, my first instinct is to say, “Yes.”

In ep3, Louis tells us that he purposely broke up his parents marriage because his father wouldn’t let him take singing lessons. He broke into his father’s credit cards and made it look like he had a mistress, then made sure his mother knew about it. He did this over the course of a year. Then, when the divorce was finalized, he threw his father’s words back in his face: “You get to be happy or you get to be rich. You can’t be both.”

Knowing this, I still love Louis.

What he did was awful, but the reason I don’t hate him or even like him any less is because of how he acted while telling us. You can feel the guilt and remorse in his voice, the shame that he was once a person who thought that was okay to do.

He did that a long time ago, he learned from this terrible mistake he made, went as far as to punish himself by taking on a irresponsible, piano-playing jokester persona who anyone rarely ever took seriously. Louis changed for the better and he’s still a likable, relatable, lovably character despite this.

But in order to dig a little deeper into this idea of attractiveness and just how far we’ll go to try and justify a character based solely on their looks, I then thought:

“Okay, then consider this: What if Louis and Minerva switched places with him doing all those things she did that made me dislike her? Would I still love him?”

And things got a little complicated.

Because my immediate first thought was “Yes.”

That shocked the hell out of me.

Why the fuck would I be okay with LOUIS acting the way Minerva did, but not MINERVA herself? That makes no sense.

Louis betraying us on the boat by knocking Clementine out and locking her in the cell isn’t suddenly okay because it’s LOUIS.

Louis showing up on the bridge to try and murder Tenn isn’t suddenly okay because it’s him and not MINERVA.

The reality is this: If Louis and Minerva traded places, I wouldn’t love Louis. I don’t care how attractive his character design is, I would feel the same way about him that I feel about Minerva. I love Louis for who he is within the context of the canon game, but if Louis traded places with Minerva, he wouldn’t be that Louis that I love.

The problem with asking myself this is I know Louis’ character and I want to think the best of him. I’m attached to him. I don’t want to imagine him doing anything that horrible because I know that would be an breaking of his character. His appearance has nothing to do with it.

But my first instinct was to side with him.

That’s when it all came together.

A character’s appearance is important in the first impression, but our perception of that character’s attractiveness is only elevated or lowered based on the important things: personality, backstory, relationships, flaws, fears, regrets, change, and complete character arc.

So how does this apply to my love for David?

Well, it eliminates any possibility that I only like David just because he’s pretty.

Perhaps I’m not so shallow after all.

Yeah, that’s the conclusion of this segment: something I already knew. But, I felt it was a concept that could spark some thought about what attractiveness really means while debunking any idiots who may grasp at straws with the insult of, “You only like [blank] and excuse their toxicity because you think they’re hot!”

... except the Life is Strange community might come after me for implying a nicer version of that towards one of the antagonists... but hopefully you understand the point I was attempting to make in bringing that up as an example.

I like David’s design, but him being an attractive dude isn’t why I like him. If anything, his looks being appealing to my eye is at the end of my long, complicated list of why I like him.

Conclusion:

Looks matter initially, and our perception of a character’s attractiveness is either elevated or lowered based on the more important qualities of their character, problematic or otherwise.

[continued in 4/?]

32 notes · View notes

clarasimone · 4 years

Text

IAIN GLEN in ANCHOR ME, a meta

ANCHOR ME

I’m not sure why @bellahadar and I chose this film to begin our series of metas on Iain Glen’s work, but it soon became evident that this production resonated deeply and personally with us… for reasons explained at the very end. No, don’t scroll down ;-)

Though this production is lacking in budget and directorial flourishes (made-for-tv productions had not come into their own in 2000), its screenplay, narrative structure and performances, by IG especially, amply make up for it. We have rarely come across a narrative showing such a deep empathy for human frailties and understanding of the effect of family trauma and the ways we can heal from them.

Bella and I have discussed the what and the how, concentrating on a few tropes, motifs, symbols and stylistic figures. For your enjoyment, we hope! Under the broken line !

PARADISE LOST and THE RETURN OF THE PRODIGAL SON

Bella:

If your favorite actor is Iain Glen, you don't expect something easy and lightweight. And Anchor Me is no exception. Dr. Freud and Dr. Jung would be proud. The film is about "Lost Paradise". About a man, who can't be happy in his adult life because of some horrible thing that occurred in his childhood. It's about trauma. And as therapists say, it's not the trauma itself that breaks us; it's unresolved trauma. It traps us in that period, and in that moment. Nathan was a teenager when his younger brother Michael died tragically, an accidental death his family believes he could have prevented, and a big part of Nathan's soul, his personality, remains stuck in that era, not able to get over the trauma, returning to that incident again and again, like an anchored ship. Anchor me... And we can clearly see that Nathan sometimes acts like a teenager: when he decides to "pause" his relationship with his wife and live apart for a while, he expects SHE’LL be the one to tell their son, not HIM. He is clearly afraid of responsibility.

Nathan’s trauma IS unresolved: after the death of his youngest brother, his parents refused to speak about the event. They avoided the subject, tried to resume their lives as if nothing happened, but implicitly, the feeling was: this DID happen. Only Nathan tried again and again to speak about it, to make things clear, and to get the confirmation that it wasn't his fault. But nobody responded. Even when he started crying at the dinner table, as a boy, repeating "It wasn't my fault" - his mother just told him, poker faced: “Nathan, go get a tissue and return when you're ok.”

Nathan feels guilty about his brother's death. Well, it's normal for children to feel guilty about bad things that happen in their lives. But somehow - his parents felt he was guilty too. And that is not normal at all. Because of this dysfunctional situation, Nathan yearned from a young age to leave his parents' house, and he did - went to London and became an architect. Becoming once more a "bad son", because he then rarely visited his parents. Given how his father and brother treat him when he does come back, it’s no wonder he stays/stayed away. And Nathan’s brother Billy, of course, completes the “prodigal son” narrative: he stayed home, was the dutiful brother, and of course resents his older brother’s success and the effect he has on their mother when he visits.

Clarasimone:

Bella, I love your notion of Paradise Lost and if I were to paraphrase your observations and maybe add to them, I would talk about how IG's character Nathan and his childhood sweetheart Jackie try to regain this lost paradise as Adam & Eve.

Nathan especially is very nostalgic when he comes back. I love the details that communicate this. He's not "allowed" into the family house (he rings, no one is there) BUT he knows how to get in regardless, and he's very excited to find the key under the flowerpot (love his smile and his exclaiming in French: Voilà! ;-) It's like entering back into the Garden of Eden uninvited, isn't it? And he almost tiptoes through the house like one does through a secret garden. When he peeps into a bedroom, he compulsively opens his hand, his nervousness showing through (thank you for reminding me bellahadar). He double takes on family pictures showcasing past happiness. He enters his bedroom like one enters Ali Baba's cavern, with joy and awe.

Do you recall when he finds his old artist's crayons and material? He caresses his old tattered tools. He WAS so happy as a young person before the tragedy. And the next thing he finds (a fishing bubble) gets him to remember Jackie, and his own sexual and romantic awakening. His nostalgia and yearning for Paradise Lost is palpable when we see him not being shy about telling Jackie how fondly he remembers their time together. His past is so very near the surface. One scene in particular shows this beautifully. Nathan and Jackie are walking in the green field (Eden) and though Jackie has just told Nathan that she never indulges in reminiscing, Nathan opens up to her. The moment starts at 33M50: Nathan playfully attacks Jackie to tickle her, a spontaneous but love-hungry attempt at intimacy. Then, the music starts and the mood shifts. Nathan goes into himself and tells a moved Jackie he remembers how proud he was to be in the football team as a kid, knowing he was going to walk her home and his mom was going to make them a special treat for tea. IG's face and voice soften so much then (he moves me to tears) and he says: "I remember thinking: I'm as happy now, as I'm ever gonna be." And then we learn he was just 8 years old! My God, such prescience! And his acting, dear God…

He does it again, on the construction site, before the characters run off to make love. When Nathan tells Jackie how sometimes he thinks he's happy and then suddenly he'll feel this heaviness, in the pit of his stomach, and he knows, and he remembers. My God, that childhood trauma not giving him one moment's peace, you know. God how I feel for him... And how AMAZING he is delivering those lines. His pause, the tears welling and his voice breaking and getting lower... Kill me Ser.

So much pain. No wonder his character suffered a form of arrested development when tragedy shattered Eden… to the point of pushing him to exile himself. Nathan is, in effect, banished from Paradise, pushed away from the green countryside community where he grew up and fell in love, and I felt so deeply for him and Jackie as they tried to recapture what they once felt. But not as a futile act of juvenile make-believe (like recapturing one's youth) but as a healing process, in order to actually feel complete. Their young love was cut in the bud and they want to achieve the closure they were never allowed… this closure being tightly linked to the closure Nathan is looking for with his family, his mom in particular.

I thought it was one of the many deep truths and daringly original propositions of the screenplay to have Jackie tell Nathan, up front, that she wants this affair between them because they never got the ending they deserved. It's so very surprising to see her being so level-headed, and say she's initiating this because she wants to end things between them, not pursue them. What a mind-blowing concept :-) It has nothing to do with sexual or emotional frustration on her part. She loves her husband (though one may sigh at the thought; see the end notes). So, it has nothing to do with him, Billy. It has everything to do with her. She needs this experience with Nathan to close a door that needs to be shut for her to move on with her life. A life without regrets. And, of course, it's a similar experience for Nathan. The fact that the intimacy he longs for with Jackie is not rooted in lust is well communicated through casting. Jackie is played by an actress who has a very homey, girl next door look. It’s Nathan’s wife who is exotically beautiful. So, truly, Nathan yearns for Jackie not because of some sexual mid-life crisis but because he needs to rekindle their intimacy to recapture who he was, who he is, and to move forward from some kind of arrested development.

Bella, you added that Nathan’s plea for a break from his wife, in order to find himself, and sort himself out, is therefore not the usual cop-out, but a very real need, and I agree. The film makes sure we understand that Nathan loves Sarah. There is no one else in Nathan’s life when he asks for a break. Or, if there is, well, it’s him. He needs to find, not another woman, but himself… to find Paradise again.

Also, I love the fact that though Nathan must learn to become a more mature man, he is the only one brave enough to try and try again to make his siblings talk about the incident and do it with sensitivity (like the artist that he is: nice touch to have made him an artist, an architect !). I never perceived it as an egoistic impulse on his part, not the way IG plays him. There’s even something of the valiant knight in him! Nathan and Jackie's first kiss, for instance, comes after the scene where Billy is especially cruel and abusive to his wife (throwing mashed potatoes to her face). The kiss is Nathan’s way to rescue Jackie from the humiliation she has just suffered at the hands of her husband. It’s like Adam nurturing Eve.

Also, I think Nathan’s courage rubs off Jackie when, after telling him she never recalls their childhood crush, she comes clean and admits she remembers everything about it. That was such a beautiful moment. The actress was shaking as she was communicating this: “I remember every second! (…) I remember the way your fingers felt on my skin and your lips on my body and the way your mouth tasted.... and I remember how ecstatic I was just being next to you and just to breathe the same air as you!" OMG... That, again, is very much akin a chimeric dialogue which Adam and Eve could have shared after their banishment from Eden.

And Nathan deserves this testimony, this show of love from Jackie, you know? It's the first time in the film when someone from his past tells him he mattered, he had value, he brought them joy. I'm crying as I'm writing this… How not to feel for Nathan? Especially when we learn, from the father, at the end, as he spills the truth to Nathan's wife, that Nathan did not imagine the hurt he was inflicted. His mother DID push him away. Though her mind knew better, her whole being thought her son responsible and acted accordingly. Obviously, she suffered from this as much as Nathan did. It's terrible because she's a good person, but these things happen in real life, don't they? The unspeakable happens. And the film does not shy away from these truths, while showing one way out of them, one way to heal. One way to recapture paradise.

EROS VS THANATOS

Clarasimone:

One of my favorite things about the film is the way it uses the juxtaposition of Eros and Thanatos, Love & Death, to build the narrative and the characters’ arcs. It's made abundantly clear in all love scenes of the film.

First, the moment of the “original sin”: Michael dies because both his parents and his older brother Nathan were too involved in romantic trysts to notice him endangering himself. His parents kiss under the fireworks, and Nathan gets distracted by Jackie. And it’s THE great injustice in Nathan’s life that his parents should have displaced their own (never avowed) guilt unto him. They believe he should have kept an eye on his brother, but they were there! It was their responsibility to make sure all their children be safe. Eros distracted them but only Eros’ pull on Nathan was considered punishable. How unfair and tragic. But how typical to see this type of displacement, isn’t it?

Then, of course, Nathan and Jackie make love where Michael died. The symbolism is overpowering, and of course deeply cathartic.

And, finally, they make love again, so joyously, so beautifully while Nathan's mother's dies!

The same is true of the teenagers who also come together in almost perfect synchronization with their adult counterpart.

Fighting death with sex, this unstoppable life force, there is nothing more primal, more beautiful. I was floored by this proposition! And IG excels in expressing this, doesn't he? :-) Not only in the raw emotional nakedness of the first sex scene when he cries... but later through the sensual hunger he demonstrates when he lunges for Jackie, devouring her with open-mouthed kisses, his tongue darting out and his hand digging under her panties when they try to make love in their enchanted cottage. It's a wonderfully playful moment how the erotic fire of their embrace is thwarted by Nathan's chili infected fingers come to burn Jackie's intimate flesh. From spicy food to spicy sex; this scene almost prefigures DELICIOUS ;-) It's perfectly hedonistic and life-affirming. And a few minutes later, IG excels again at showing the joy in sexual prowess when he smiles a bit devilishly into Jackie's eyes as his thrusts lift her to make her climax. It comes at 1H31H00-02, just before they kiss. And all of this, all of this amazing show of emotion and joy and sexiness occurring while Nathan's mother is dying. OMG! The contrast is heart shattering!

I thought that it was also immensely brave of the screenwriter, who manages to make us root for the adulterers, to then seemingly punish them by having them miss the mother's death because their tryst occurs at the same time. I literally screamed with my hand on my mouth when I realized the parallel. Nathan is not there when his mother forgives him! And missing this crucial family event threatens to plunge the lovers in an even deeper experience of shame and regret than the accidental death of Michael... In the final act of the film, I was reeling! But you see them surmounting this new ordeal with great emotional courage, and the whole family actually benefits from having to go through this ultimate blow and "hour of truth". Wow. I've really rarely seen such a mature, wise, empathic look at the human heart. Everyone in this film is multidimensional and flawed and terribly human.

Bella, you have this esoteric theory (your words ;-) that by making love, Nathan changes the paradigm of his life and enables/births his mother’s pardon during the parallel montage… whereas I felt the editing rather suggested that the delirious mother seemed to dream her son’s liberation ;-) It’ll be interesting to see what they ladies think…

MIRROR EFFECTS

Clarasimone:

There are multiple mirror effects in the film, which beautifully complexify the narrative structure and inform the heroes’ arcs. The main one occurs between two generation of lovers: Nathan and Jackie, and their respective children, Michael and Cassie. The first time I perused the film, I did it by fast-forwarding (of course, to get to the love scenes ;-) and I thought I was seeing flashbacks when we see the teenage lovers, when, in fact, we’re seeing Michael and Cassie in the present tense of the film. In a way, they are reenacting Nathan and Jackie’s childhood flirt. It’s a great narrative device, especially to show the pull of fatality. Because, how foreboding to see Michael and Cassie’s own affair spiral down into possible tragedy in the final act of the film, while Nathan and Jackie’s tryst is also being discovered. All their fates seem intrinsically linked because somewhere in time, a great injustice occurred.

Did you notice that the moment the two couples’ story almost come crashing into each other occurs perfectly mid-point into the film? I rarely do this, but I checked the time code and sure enough, we're perfectly at the half mark in the narrative when the kids see their adult counterparts make love on the construction site. It’s actually the original ending of part 1 but our copy reedited the film into one seamless work. In this moment, the kids get to experience a fall from grace. THE most important moment in all of their lives in this story. How disappointed Michael and Cassie are at seeing their parents as adulterers… and how upset they look at having lost their innocence. Because it is a “textbook lacanian mirror phase moment” to have them cease to be kids the very moment they get to witness the primal scene...

Of course, the moment is also life-altering for Nathan and Jackie, who never truly consummated their love for each other when they were kids and get to, finally, but on the very site of Michael's death. The symbolism isn't lost on us: their cathartic sex scene occurs where the original sin/trauma of the family took place, and where Nathan's development came to a stop. Maybe we can see hope in the fact that this place isn't a graveyard (the original barn) but the site of something being constructed anew. And so, of course, IG's character would be crying as he finally makes love to Jackie! I couldn’t understand why when I fast-forwarded the film, but he's both mourning his brother and celebrating life, finally making love to the girl he was forced to leave behind and, most of all, reconnecting with who he is, or trying to be!...

Bella:

…and because he’s returning to himself. To that teenager, who was SO HAPPY before his brother's death... It’s probably why Nathan doesn't disgust us but why, on the contrary, we sympathize with him very much.

It’s also interesting how, when Michael and Cassy see Nathan and Jackie having sex – it’s the boy who can't handle it and runs away. How do you think, why? Why not the girl? (clarasimone: later on, I proposed a metaphorical answer: that line which Ygritte tells Jon, “Girls see more blood than boys!” so of course Cassie is better equipped to handle this ;-) Oh, Cassy understands her mother very well, I think. The way she’s looking at her uncle, a bit provocatively, calling him Nathan instead of "uncle Nathan", trying her young awakening sexual charms on him - she finds him very attractive… She even tells her mother “I reckon you married the wrong one” after asking “How come Nathan is better looking than dad?”

Though Nathan and Jackie long for inner catharsis, and not simply for physical pleasure, the relationship between their children, Cassy and Michael, is clearly about sex, the awakening of it, the irresistible pull and force of it. After they saw their respective parents making it - it kinda gave them permission to do the same, it opened this door for them. They couldn't forget what they saw, and when Jackie went "to a friend" on the weekend, and Nathan went "working" - their children knew of course, that these two were secretly getting together. Michael asks: "What do you think they’re doing now"? And Cassy answers: "You KNOW what they are doing now" and, she starts to kiss him...

Interestingly, the next scene shows us Nathan and Jackie NOT doing it (contradicting their respective children), but TALKING... Because, let’s repeat it, their coming together is not about sex per se, but a very therapeutic moment for both of them...

Another mirror effect concerns Sarah, Nathan’s wife, who plays the role of the nurturing spouse/mother which Nathan's mother should have played but has been unable to for many years now. She’s the one who inspires Nathan to make things right with his mother, and to bring their son Michael along, so he can learn what lies behind the heritage of his namesake. And, it's a wonderful testament to Sarah’s maturity and level of empathy that, though she is deeply hurt by Nathan's tryst with Jackie, she not only forgives him but understands him.

In fact, she understands so much from the first. Triggering the whole story. Later telling Nathan, in a beautiful field of green (Eden again), that she understands why he needs this time away from her. She loves him, but she won’t beg. He must come back whole or not at all.

Of course, she did not guess what the healing process would entail but… near the end of the film, when she confronts Jackie, what really gets to her is not the infidelity but learning that the reason Nathan did what he did was that he needed to recapture how he felt before Michael's tragedy. So Sarah was right, all along, and in that moment, where she cries the hardest, she does so because she feels the depth of Nathan's pain... and her own too, at realizing that this means she never knew her husband as a truly happy person. All she had access to, was this deeply injured man.

Sarah’s moment of epiphany comes soon after Nathan mother’s death, who herself lived a similar epiphany since she was able to acknowledge Michael’s passing in her delirium. The woman dies peacefully… and Sarah knows joy when, having mended her relationship with Nathan, she knows he’ll come back to her as a happy, whole, person.

HOW STYLE INFORMS DISCOURSE

Clarasimone:

Though it chagrines me that this profound and nuanced work is “trapped” in the shape and form of tv-movie aesthetics, there are nice cinematic moments that do inform and enhanced the discourse and performances, and they merit to be singled out.

One of them comes very early in the film. The scene occurs after Nathan gets the phone call informing him of his mother’s dire condition. We don't know what he hears but we understand, from his expression and the cut to a flashback, that something terrible has happened.

That flashback is interesting for many reasons: it gives us access to Nathan's interiority and therefore establishes him as the main protagonist, especially because it's shot in pure subjective POV (a rare instance) and the mise-en-scene insists on symbolic elements: the town's church is being repaired (links to the film's biblical references?) and the scaffolds possibly foreshadow Nathan trying to repair his family, and becoming an architect (to repair and construct ? the wheel goes round). The construction workers whistle at Nathan's mother, which sexualizes her, and I like the fact that the character is/was therefore not simply a mother but a woman. And that Nathan was exposed to this. It's not developed and does not impact the narrative much but, being a parent AND a sexual being is clearly something that inhabits Nathan's psyche.

The most important aspect of the flashback of course, has to do with how Nathan's mother is caring, how she helps him when he falls from his bicycle and smiles lovingly at him to calm his tears. It's the mother he lost after the death of Michael. It's the mother he longs for. It's the feeling of being loved and safe that he was robbed of at a crucial time in his life. When we exit the flashback, Nathan's wife impresses on him that he could use this opportunity (going to see his mom) to mend things with her. His fear to commit to this "mission" is well communicated when the camera then dollies into IG's face. A rare event in the film, composed mainly of shot counter-shots and very functional, invisible cam movements.

A second dolly-in occurs much later, when Nathan suffers as he explains how his mother won’t address Michael’s death: "She's dying, and she won't talk about it!" The two dolly-ins bookend Sarah's insistence that he broach the subject to his mother.

There’s another nice little cinematic moment soon after the first reminiscing scene between Nathan and Jackie: when the camera first captures her, in profile, looking out the window as she does the dishes and there's this pan to the right showing Nathan just looking at her. All this time, and unbeknownst to us, he was gazing at her longingly :-)

Other nice use of camera movement:

There's a dolly-in on Jackie the first time she says "We never had an ending. I want an ending." It marks the moment, obviously, and helps us engrave it in our memory.

There's another dolly-in when Jackie prepares to tell Nathan that his mother died. This too acts like a bookend to the earlier shot of him getting the phone call informing him of his mom's illness. I'm glad the director took the time to shoot these moments like this. I just wish there were more of them…

For example, he really was inspired when Nathan rejoins his dad after the mother's death, and we’ve seen the older man caress and smell his wife’s clothes. A loving moment which, alas, Nathan does not see, as you so justly pointed out Bella. Their reunion is shot in one take and it creates a wonderful emotional tension, suspense and release. It goes on for about a minute and a half at 1H45M22 - 1H46M51. The shot starts on the father's hands packing his wife's belongings, while Nathan appears in the background, out of focus, coming up the stairs. He comes into the bedroom, they speak, Nathan tries to help his dad who's too distraught to register Nathan's love and pain, and then, the director has this wonderful idea: he makes the father walk left, and tracks with him, leaving Nathan behind, who disappears from the frame. The father speaks and speaks and then he turns around and pauses. He's seeing Nathan. We don't. But his silence creates a moment of suspense which shatters when the father comes back to his son, the camera tracking once more… revealing IG in tears! Wow! And, bonus: Nathan is holding his mom's yellow raincoat, the one from his childhood flashback! The happy flashback when she smiled and cared for him as he cried. UGHHHHH my God. And the way IG cries with abandon, chocking on the word "mum," and the way his father embraces him, with his whole body engulfing him like a papa bear. Wow!

Final detail: I love how one of the last scenes of the film is a flashback to Paradise Found: the 3 brothers with young Jackie running in the green near the flowing river on a golden sunny day. Though it shows the past, the scene has the power to impress our mind as emotionally occurring now. The ghosts are happy :-) And then we cut to another bookend scene: Nathan and Michael in the car, but going back to London, their faces all battered but smiling, and in harmony as father and son. Beautiful!

THE ONE REALLY ANNOYING WEAKNESS? ;-)

We mentioned how Nathan’s brother Billy completes the Return of the Prodigal Son trope of the narrative. Watching the film, Bella and I were acutely aware that we were supposed to feel for Nathan's brother and though one can accept the proposition --it makes sense, he was so dutiful-- our heart couldn't. Because the film fails to give the character enough introspective moments to make us feel for him, truly. Actually, he only gets one scene that shows him as an exceptional person, when he reads to his younger kids. This lack, plus the filmmakers’ decision to have Billie humiliate Jackie twice, through a form of public spousal abuse (the mashed potatoes and the beer throwing) just made us shut down. The filmmakers were possibly trying to stretch the envelope, to see how far they could go in showing this brother’s faults while still making us understand how Jackie can love him, regardless, and forgive him. But it didn't work for us. We believe that if they redid the film today, they would either balance the brother a bit better or have Jackie leave him at the end. But not for Nathan. Leave him to be self-partnered ;-)

***

Personal notes on the personal “anchors” we felt with this production:

Bella has experienced the heartaches that come with the “Return of the Prodigal Child”; and I have experienced the healing process which IG goes through in the film, being intimate with someone else than my life companion in order to find myself and feel whole. Can we call this being unfaithful, when it has everything to do with finding faith in oneself? The film turns this question into a beautiful and heartfelt narrative.

#Iain Glen #anchor me #clarasimone #bellahadar

40 notes · View notes

lamiralami · 5 years

Text

TMA Retro 4: Page Turner

I was touched to see some tag commentary on yesterday’s post! Honestly, it gave me an emotion - I am traditionally very anxious about engaging online, it speaks to my immense love of TMA that it brought me to Make A Post At Last. It’s very affirming and reassuring to get some response to my lunatic treatises. Y’all are all right. 💜

Anyway, grab some lighter fluid and a sturdy wastepaper basket, time to torch your haunted novel in MAG 4: Page Turner

It’s ironic that this statement is about the Vast when it is one dense motherfucker. so many dangling plot threads are introduced here, each ready to hook you and start reeling. we’ve been into the meta plot since episode one but this episode is the first time the audience is made aware of such.

seriously: Jurgen Leitner and his library, Gerard Keay and Mary Keay, Michael Crew. the figures introduced in this one thirty-minute installment loom large over the rest of the entire run

you could, your first time through, even file this away as a one-off scary story if not for the fact that Jon knows what’s going on (enjoy it while it lasts, my son). He’s heard of Jurgen Leitner. He alludes to an incident with his library in 1994. Deeper than that, he immediately takes the statement at face value and treats the claims within it as authentic, which is a complete 180° on the first three episodes

and this is such a smart story choice? Jon shapes our perspective into this universe and up until now he’s been utterly dismissive of the validity of the stories he’s telling. To go from practically rolling his eyes to scheduling a meeting with his boss about tracking down more haunted books - that tells us that Jon takes this seriously as a threat. And that makes us take it seriously too, makes us take note that strange books are dangerous things in this world. Any offhand mention of books in future statements will be enough to make us sweat

And! It starts winding the narrative tension on a character level. Why and what does Jon know about Jurgen Leitner and his library? Why does he say his name with such venom? And if he’s so sure about the supernatural nature of these books, why is he so loath to believe the other statements?

(and then it takes 80 + episodes to fully answer these initial questions. Jonny enjoys a slow roasted torment)

love that the statement giver presents, as proof of his iron-clad sanity, the fact that he works as a theatre technician. speaking as someone with an unfinished theatre degree: theatre people are feral my good buddy, try again. I mean, we refuse to say the name of one of the most famous plays in the English language because we think a ghost will trip us for the indiscretion. this is not the trump card you think it is.

a quick sidebar for the Red String Brigade: The Trojan Women is an ancient Greek tragedy that involves a baby being thrown off a city wall. The Seagull’s first published English translation was done by Marian Fell, and also a seagull is a bird and birds can fly. Much Ado About Nothing is very good and you should all watch the version from 2011 with David Tennant and Catherine Tate.

it’s interesting that these early episodes seem to take a cue from urban legends in some respects. Nathan Watts gets extremely drunk at a party and then is almost skinned by a monster while having a smoke. Joshua Gillespie is approached while engaging in a whirlwind of debauchery and has to take care of a cursed coffin after accepting money for what he thinks is a drug trafficking gig. Amy Patel regularly spies on her neighbour for her own entertainment and then has to watch him be replaced by a malevolent entity only she can perceive. and now Dominic Swain pushes past his guilty conscience to score a valuable book off an unknowing charity shop and...gets a bit dizzy and haunted by a phantom stink for a few days then gets ‎£5,000, well anyway, the point is he got spooked! spooked after doing something kind of iffy! that is pure urban legend procedure; modern day fairy tales imparting dire consequences onto societal transgressions. in a horror story this structure offers a false sense of safety - if you’re a good person, the monster won’t come for you. I can’t recall which upcoming statement yanks the rug out from under us with the first completely random victim.

cannot comprehend how this guy didn’t start plugging the book into google translate the second he got home. that probably saved him from being taken by the book but I am still judging him for not even trying it. yeah you’d be sucked into some sort of sky hell but at least you’d know what’s in the book!! could never be me

(yes I am aware in this universe I would have been eaten years ago. I’ve made my peace with that)

grbookworm1818 slays me. I don’t know which is better, the idea of Gertude carefully curating the most sixty-five-year-old-on-goodreads username she could as a cover for her cursed purchase history, or her actual sixty-five-year-old brain just expressing itself naturally because Gertrude is a very busy woman who doesn’t have time to immerse herself in the ins and outs of internet culture, she just wants to buy the demonic tomes she’s selected for destruction and get on with her day thanks.

did Gertrude know what a meme was? which Archivist could convincingly pose as a millennial best, Gertrude Robinson or Jonathan Sims?

The Key of Solomon and its former keeper, Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers, are both real historical figures. the book is basically Renaissance-era magical au fanfic of the Bible, and the man was a 19th century British occultist (and likely drinking buddy of Jonah Magnus) who founded a Very Serious Secret Society. this is a picture of him whiiiiiich rather dispels any sense of menace he’s meant to invoke. what kind of cosplaying nonsense

Mary Keay is such a striking figure. “She was very old and painfully thin, but her head was completely clean shaven, and every square inch of skin I could see was tattooed over with closely-written words in a script I didn’t recognise.” a Look, a vision!

I’m guessing that Our Gerard was blasting heavy metal at 2 am to try to drown out his undead mother while waiting for her manifestation to dissipate. I like to imagine him frequenting Reddit advice posts about dealing with toxic family members, poor lad

oh my gosh Mary refers to Gerard as “her Gerard” is that where Jon got “our Gerard” from?? I feel betrayed??

whatever, I’m reclaiming it. Our Gerard is meant with affection now babey!

the eye portrait is a bit puzzling. the inscription - ‘“Grant us the sight that we may not know. Grant us the scent that we may not catch. Grant us the sound that we may not call.”’ - could almost be read as an invocation against the Eye? But in general Gerry is fairly Eye-aligned, so...shrug emoji

(honestly my main takeaway from the eye portrait is that it’s finely detailed and near photorealistic so we can add “tortured artist” to our list of Gerard Keay traits and is it any wonder that he’s so Fandom Beloved?)

Mary is Not Good at negotiating sales. her main technique involves terrible tea, bringing up repressed childhood trauma, and getting her magic book to drop animal bones onto customer’s shoes. I’m guessing Pinhole Books was in bad shape even before the police investigation and murder charges.

hahaha, the Vast pushes Dominic down the stairs. classic. you gotta grab what opportunities are available

so did Gerard have to follow Dominic back to his flat and wait awkwardly on the doorstep at like 3 in the morning, hoping none of his neighbours would notice and call the cops

the revelation that Mary’s been dead the whole time! this episode may be more intent on world building and plot set-up but damn if it isn’t still a good little ghost story.

kind of rude of Gerry to just burn a book in this guy’s flat without asking and then steal his wastepaper basket.

Jon may not call the statement giver a liar for once, but never fear, he’s still our petty bastard man. accuses Gertrude of filing statements without reading them, has Sasha double-check Martin’s research, grumps about his general misfortune . he’s stressed from the Archives’ disorder and having flashbacks to a certain picture book but by Jove, that won’t stop him making snide comments on what’s supposed to be an official audio transcription!

#tma retro #the magnus archives #tma spoilers #tma meta #I love love love all the little dominos being set into place in this episode #but I am looking forward to an episode about the Vast that really dives in deep #(pun absofuckinglutely intended)

16 notes · View notes

timeagainreviews · 5 years

Text

The Fabric of Time and Space

Hello friends! It's been quite a busy time for me. Not only did we have a houseguest for about a week, we got a dog! She's an adopted Irish greyhound named Aoife, and she's a good old girl. Needless to say, lots of things happening. I wanted to write sooner so that I could talk about the death of Terrance Dicks, but finding the time was difficult. While Dicks was a bit of an old school writer when it came to women, I absolutely love "The Horror of Fang Rock." However, one of the things for which Dicks was most beloved was his Doctor Who prose. Whether it be the Target novels, or even the BBC range, chances are that if you've read much Doctor Who prose, you've read some Terrance Dicks. Which is why I plan to do something I've never done on here, and that's to review a Doctor Who novel, specifically- The Eight Doctors. Mind you, I'm going to re-read it, just after I finish these Dark Crystal books.

Speaking of Dark Crystal, how many of you have been watching the new prequel? I've been a bit obsessed, myself. It's captured my imagination in a way I haven't felt in years. For those of you not in the know, I was born in the far off year of 1983, just one year after "The Dark Crystal," entered theatres. However, it wasn't until around 1994 that I even became aware it existed. I remember this because the night I bought two Flintstones movie books, there was a display for "The Dark Crystal," in enticingly green Disney style VHS cases. All of these things released around 1994. I was perplexed by this Jim Henson movie that somehow went completely under my radar. I took my books home that night. The Dark Crystal would have to wait a bit longer.

One of the things I loved most about my copy of "The Flintstones: The Official Movie Book," was the pictures of the Jim Henson Creature Workshop fabricating the dinosaur puppets. Something about their ability to create something realistic while still looking like a cartoon resonated with me. I wanted so much to do that job. Since then I've always had a passion for filmmaking and movie magic. Watching "The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance," has rekindled that childhood love I have for the Creature Workshop and character design. As per usual, this got me thinking about Doctor Who. Specifically, its costume design. So I thought I might keep it simple and talk about the costumes of each Doctor. Where better to start than at William Hartnell?

First Doctor

Style: "Edwardian Grandad"

To me, the First Doctor will always look the most like the Doctor the first time we see him in "An Unearthly Child." Topped with an Astrakhan hat and shrouded in a black cape, he cuts a mysterious figure framed by the door of the TARDIS. His costume was a team effort between Maureen Heneghan and William Hartnell who was adamant as to what he would and would not wear. The decision was to make him slightly Edwardian, as the time period would look somewhat out of place, yet not too far removed from the 1960's.

There's something delightfully camp and yet simple to the way he dresses. Nothing about his wardrobe seems out of place. Even his slightly manky fingerless gloves make sense for an old traveller twisting knobs and flicking switches on his fantastical machine. Sometimes leaning on a cane, and other times standing tall holding onto his lapels with his dark ring glinting against the light. He's an enigma and just a touch out of time.

Second Doctor

Style: "Cosmic Hobo"

When the 60's counterculture movement had started to shake up the status quo, we saw learned men like Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert abandon their stuffy collegiate positions for newfound roles as acid gurus. Much like these wild professors, we see the same thing in the Second Doctor's attire. It's as if the First Doctor partied so hard that he regenerated, and his disheveled clothes were whatever he was wearing when he woke up the next morning.

At the time, we had men like Maharishi Mahesh Yogi popularising words like "cosmic," and I believe it caught on in the Doctor Who production offices. Costumers Daphne Dare and Alexandra Tynman really brought a sort of anarchic spirit to the Doctor's attire that I believe has really carried on throughout the series. While I'm glad the stove pipe hat was annexed early on, I loved the additions of things like his giant fur coat held closed with twine. There's something so very Doctory about a man who looks like he sleeps in boxcars that can also attune his mind to build a perfect white cube. He really is far out, man.

Third Doctor

Style: "Space Dandy"

I've heard it said that there are two men that can pull off ruffles- Jimi Hendrix, and Jon Pertwee. And my god, does he ever? Primarily designed by Christine Rawlins, he was influenced by Adam Adamant's wardrobe. However, the biggest inspiration behind his crushed velvet and scarlet lined capes was colour television! Colour! Colour! Colour!

There's a lot of timeliness tied up in his garb. The increasing abundance of colour TV mixed with a post-60's desire to cut loose. This new night-time apparel was a way for gents to relax after a long day in their office suits. Leave it to the alien time traveller to completely ignore this fact and wear said nightwear in the middle of the day. Not only does the Third Doctor introduce a trend of the Doctor stealing his clothes from hospitals, he also marks the first major shift in apparel. The First and Second Doctors may have worn different ties, or trousers, but their overall look remained consistent. The Third Doctor's look adhered more to a wardrobe, or a style of dress. And boy does he have style!

Fourth Doctor

Style: "The Bohemian"

Once again, we see a continuation here of the style of the previous two Doctors. There's a bookishness, mixed with counterculture. Costume designer James Acheson, based a lot of the Fourth Doctor's look on Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec’s painting of his friend Aristide Bruant. Bruant was a man known for his wide brimmed hat and long scarf. As legend has it, Acheson commissioned a woman named Begonia Pope to knit the famous scarf. Only instead of stopping at a sensible length, this witty little knitter used every last spool of yarn she was provided.

As much as I love Tom Baker's costume in it's versatility and appropriate alienness, I am less a fan of the series 18 redesign by June Hudson, which was notoriously meddled with by John Nathan-Turner. While I rather like the new scarf, the all burgundy ensemble with question mark lapels seems to me like the first time the costume felt like a costume. That being said, there is something timeless about Tom Baker's look that even carries on into its various redesigns such as in "The Talons of Weng-Chiang," or "The Horror of Fang Rock." So much so, that even today if I go out in my Thirteenth Doctor cosplay, you always get some joker saying "Hey, where's your scarf?"

Fifth Doctor

Style: "Beige Cricketer Dad"

Before I had ever watched the Fifth Doctor's episodes, I used to look at his costume and contemplate what kind of guy would dress like that. The cricketer uniform with that red piped coat, and those garish pinstripe pyjamas over white trainers is a definite statement, but what is up with that celery? You can imagine my further confusion when I discovered Davison's portrayal was slightly more subdued and less eccentric. It made him almost the weirdest Doctor in that such a normal seeming guy would dress like his five year old picked out his clothes.

Hell, even the celery is there for a pretty mundane reason. It changes purple in the presence of certain poisonous gases. Very practical. They didn't even illustrate this purpose, we were told about it in his last episode! And you know how I feel about "show, don't tell." Regardless, I can't help but kind of love this outfit, question marks and all. I don't know if it's because I'm a fan and we grow to love this show, warts and all, but there's a reason it's on my list of costumes to cosplay. It's unmistakably the Fifth Doctor, even if it doesn't really make much sense.

Sixth Doctor

Style: "Hot Alien Mess"

Out of all of the Doctor Who costumes, I don't think a single one has been more notorious than this one. Unlike the Fifth Doctor's costume which piqued my curiosity, my initial thoughts upon seeing the Sixth Doctor's costume was "Well that was a mistake." And I wasn't wrong, it definitely was too much. Though in many ways, it also marries so well with the rest of his tenure. John Nathan-Turner's goal was to have a completely tasteless costume to match his tasteless vision for the show. He gave poor Pat Godfrey the thankless task of bringing this monstrosity to the screen.

Though, like I said, you do get used to it, as it does fit Colin Baker's irascible narcissist. I totally believe that an alien might find something like that fashionable. Even his little cat badges on his lapels inspire something I think is essential to his character. He's a big loud tomcat yowling until people stop what they're doing and recognise his brilliance. This is another one of those "I can't help but want to cosplay it," outfits. I especially like his tropical look in "The Two Doctors." It would have been nice to see more this variation in his run, such as the original black design or even the blue one we got in other media. Sigh.

Seventh Doctor

Style: "Tweedy Eccentric"

Remember how I mentioned in previous articles that the Seventh Doctor era was a series of course corrections? This is a definite one of those. We're back to something a lot more subtle, like the First or Fourth Doctor's eccentric professor vibes. But my god, those question marks just won't die! You ever have one of those friends who just can't help themselves? You can give them good advice, but at the end of the day, they're still going to do things their way? That's JNT with these goddamn question marks.

I really love the Seventh Doctor's era as I feel like the show was on the up and up. The writing was getting back on track, and Ace and Seven's chemistry was brilliant. So when you look at the Doctor's jumper, it's a kind of visible evidence of JNT being dragged kicking and screaming into this new era. Yet, funnily, when we see the Eighth Doctor movie, the Seventh Doctor's new waistcoat seems somehow less exciting. There's a certain playfulness sacrificed for realism. Perhaps JNT was onto something with his campy vision.

Eighth Doctor

Style: "Anne Rice Vampire Boyfriend"

It's going to be hard for me to view this costume without rose-tinted glasses. The Eighth Doctor is my first Doctor, so his costume will always have a place in my heart as one of the greats. But which costume? Well, of course I mean the first one from the TV movie, but my god has the man had some costume changes! Be it book, comic, or audio, the man has changed his clothes. My favourite being the unjustly maligned "Dark Eyes," variant, as I had always wondered why the Doctor never wore jeans.

Marking the second time the Doctor stole his wardrobe from a hospital, his original costume, designed by Jori Woodman, seems geared toward evoking a more classic look. A little Hartnell, a little Pertwee. For the most part it works, but I could see the argument some have made that it is a bit "costumey." In its defence, it is a costume. By the time we see McGann again in "The Night of the Doctor," we get a more subdued version of the movie look, befitting the modern series. Gotta love a man who can pull off a neckerchief.

War Doctor

Style: "Metrosexual Post-Apocalyptic"

Sadly, there's not a lot of information on the War Doctor's ensemble. But I believe you can learn a lot simply by looking at it. It's design by Howard Burden (who also did the Eighth Doctor redesign), is meant to be a sort of dark in-between of the Eighth and Ninth Doctors. Which makes a lot of sense, really. His costume looks like the clothing of a man at war. Utilitarian in it's form an function, it looks designed for durability and versatility.

I've often felt the War Doctor would not look out of place in the Fallout universe. He still wears the bandolier of a woman he couldn't save in a previous life. So much of his costume is meant to tell a visual story of a Mad Max-style road warrior. Funny then that the man still has the time to form the perfect faux-hawk coiffure and manscaped goatee with just the right amount of neckbeard. It's more of that visual storytelling I love so much- the Doctor may be a man lost at war, but he's still a bit of a narcissist. Brilliant.

Ninth Doctor

Style: "Navvy Bloke"

Christopher Eccleston has been in the news a lot these last few days due to the release of his new book "I Love the Bones of You." We've learned so much about his time as the Doctor that talking about the look of his character has become a bit of a tough subject. A lot of the man's look is now intrinsically tied in his body dysmorphia, which was at its worst when in the role as the Doctor.

I say it's "tough," in that I do want to talk about how he looked like no other Doctor Who came before him. His northern bloke look and sound almost dared the audience to reevaluate the Doctor they thought they knew. His costume is almost a non-costume. Black leather on black trousers with an assortment of dark coloured v-neck jumpers were a far cry from the question marks and long scarves of the Doctors before. Yet despite all of these differences, he quickly dispelled any doubts many longtime viewers had. He was the perfect Doctor to breathe new life into the show. These last few days have shown us just how lucky we are to still have such a man with us.

Tenth Doctor

Style: "Hipster Geek"

People often times call Matt Smith's Doctor a hipster. But who's the one wearing horn rimmed glasses and Chuck Taylors with a form fitting suit? You want to talk about first impressions from a photograph, my first thought was "hipster geek." And I love him for it. David Tennant's Doctor is such a charismatic goofball, that it's hard not to love him. And I honestly can't think of a better costume for him. I will say however that I think this one falls under that "costumey," look I've mentioned before. There's something very Scooby-Doo about a guy who owns two of the same suit in reverse colour.

I also love the simple fact that he's wearing actual Chuck Taylors. I'm surprised more Doctors haven't. Even with the logos on the sides whited out, you can spot the real McCoy (or Tennant) a mile away. Top all of this off with that marvellous coat of his, and you've got a real super hero look. Just picture it- his coat blowing in the breeze as it clings to his matchstick frame, his hair and eyes trembling with Time Lord fury. He's iconic as hell and it's no wonder he's caught the hearts and minds of so many fans.

Eleventh Doctor

Style: "Young Old Man"

I absolutely love Matt Smith's Doctor, especially his early look with the tweed and floppy hair. Ray Holm really came out swinging with this costume as it bred countless one-liners about his bow-ties and love for a good fez. If you've ever seen pictures of other Eleventh Doctor costume concepts, you'd realise what a stroke of genius that bowtie really was. He just doesn't look like the Doctor without it. I believe it was Smith himself who suggested the bowtie.

I would not say I am as onboard with the later purple suit the Doctor wore with Clara. It just lacked the subtlety of the tweed. And that top hat looked especially out of place, which is funny when you consider how good the black top hat looked on him in "Let's Kill Hitler." While I would not say the purple ensemble was a total failure, it's got nothing on his original look. Which, if you'll recall, was also stolen from a hospital.

Twelfth Doctor

Style: "Punk Magician"

Peter Capaldi is the first Doctor I ever had to wait to see the costume reveal. I had gotten into Doctor Who around the tail end of Matt Smith's first series. I remember my first reaction to Howard Burden's costume being something like "Huh." I didn't really love it. Perhaps it was the mixture of it being new, and not having already been established as the Doctor's clothes, but I was slow to come around to it. Capaldi's inspiration behind the costume was David Bowie's "Thin White Duke," persona, which is a telling bit of inspiration considering what a dark point it was in Bowie's life.

For me, the Twelfth Doctor's look truly comes together over time. I think it's somehow tied to his hair. The wilder it got, the more I liked his look. I absolutely love the hoodies and the First Doctor inspired trousers. There's something so perfect about a black jumper bespeckled with holes allowing the white shirt beneath to shine through like stars. The cosmic hobo is back in a punk rock fashion. There's something very lived in about the Twelfth Doctor's style that really resonates with me. He may be the eldest Doctor of the modern series (unless you count John Hurt), but there is something undeniably youthful about him

Thirteenth Doctor

Style: "Godspell Casual"

Jodie's costume was another one of those "Huh," moments for me. It was such a departure from anything before it, bar maybe the Ninth Doctor's jumpers. However, it only took me a few days to get used to, as compared to multiple episodes with Capaldi. A female Doctor was something I had pondered over for such a long time, that I had some expectations as to what she should and shouldn't be wearing. I definitely wanted her in sensible footwear and no floofy skirts. I wanted her like an adventurer. Think Rachel Weisz in "The Mummy." So when she showed up with a pair of high water trousers and comfortable boots, I was pretty happy. It was her t-shirt I was most taken aback by. It seemed a little more casual than I expected, but when you consider she's been a bloke her entire life, having no nonsense clothes is very much the Doctor.

It's not hard to imagine why this was the second Doctor I've cosplayed (the other being Four). There's lots of symbolism tied into the coat that Ray Holm and Whittaker devised together, and I love that they put that much thought into it. At this point it's still early days in her character. Aside from a blink and you miss it scarf or a red shirt, we've not seen a whole lot of wardrobe variation. Rumour has it she'll be donning a pair of black trousers is series 12, which I'm all for. I'd also love to see her wear some grey checked trousers like Hartnell and Troughton. Or even a black and white version of her current look. There's so much versatility possible in her costume. I hope they explore a bit of it.

And that's it for now, friends. I hope you enjoyed this article. I tried to put a little bit of research into it. While I was writing it, this blog turned one year old! I can't believe I've been doing this for a whole year! It's such a wonderful sight to see when you all like the posts and share them. Knowing I've resonated with someone like yourselves feels a little less lonely. Expect to see a Sixth Doctor review corresponding with his blu-ray (I missed the Third Doctor Blu-ray/Pertwee 100th birthday). I'm also planning on covering "The Edge of Time," VR game if they ever decide to release it! Oh and I might start covering the Dark Crystal as well, because I really love that show. I hope you are having a great weekend!

17 notes · View notes

hiilumaru · 6 years

Photo

when i first wrote it in 2011, adventures in anvaria kinda sucked, so I’ve been rewriting the chapters considerably. A lot of the characters have more backstory and their initial personalities and designs better suit who they turned into after developing organically. Nathan needed a huge overhaul, both in personality and design, mostly because I actually hadn't even planned out his design before I threw him in the story. This is just what he looks like upon being introduced, though, and his gradual design changes are still going to be the same.

coincidentally, though, once he grows a little mid-story, he looks like his original design, minus antennae and plus big exo arms and black hair. Not pictured: Both old and updated versions have a ridiculously long tail, which i can't be arsed to draw.

Physically, revised nathan looks the way I started drawing him once i had actually solidified his design. His health is obviously a lot worse though (and a lot more fitting of how he was introduced to the story), specifically in how he shows emaciation; that being, there's no fat layer under his skin, so his exoskeleton shows through and the connective tissue between the plates in his chest is visible. He also has a lot of self-harm scars on his arms, though those will fade throughout the story. When I introduced him, I hadn’t yet decided that Shataran portal jumpers have grey skin, so eventually, that change will become observable too.

In terms of personality, original Nathan was super timid and afraid of people, and only really trusted Alex and Lumina. Revised nathan still only really trusts Alex and Lumina, but he's not timid at all, though he doesn't like loud noises. He also doesn't dislike people, but he still doesn't like being touched. He carries a gun at all times, and is a lot more attached to Lumina the more he sees her violent nature come to the surface. He’s also a lot more sarcastic, and makes jokes about his trauma and appearance a lot.

#Adventures in Anvaria #nathan #self harm tw

4 notes · View notes

cookiedoughmeagain · 6 years

Text

Lloyd Segan, Executive Producer: I think one of the most important aspects of being an executive producer on a show such as Haven is the selection of the director. The director is really the person that, whether they are the visiting person for the very first time and has to get used to a whole new situation, or someone who’s a veteran director, it’s a very important choice; it’s a very difficult schedule and very few directors are qualified to do that. And so part of my responsibility is to help facilitate the selection. And we’ve been very very blessed with some extraordinarily talented directors.

Adam Fratto, Co-Executive Producer: We all look closely at the reels, at previous episodes of directors; we want to make sure they have the right approach for the material. And then we always call and check them out. We want to make sure that we’re working with people who are reliable, and decent, and fit the sort-of family atmosphere that we have going on in the crew.

Lloyd: A great example of a repeat director, someone who we’ve had the pleasure and privilege of working with now over quite a number of years is Lee Rose who is directing this episode, the finale. And we chose Lee for this episode specifically because of our history with her.

Lee Rose, Director: I’m fortunate enough that this will be my third episode directing Haven. So I know everyone and sort of know the trajectory of the show. My relationship with Lloyd and Shawn and all the guys is great. I’ve delivered for them so they trust me, they’re friends of mine, we have a shorthand with each other, there’s no power play; it’s just ‘we want the best show possible’. Which is really, essentially what it should always be and doesn’t always end up that way.

Shawn Piller, Executive Producer: I can defer to her on certain things. Certain things I definitely won’t; things I have responsibility for. You still need a producer to help, but with her, we have such a shorthand and we’ve worked together enough times that she can pick up some of the slack on her episodes. It just takes longer to build up that trust and that shorthand that Lee and I have. It’s a major advantage to me and to the show.

One of the most important pieces of production, from a creative standpoint as well as logistically, is cinematography. Eric Cayla is not only an artist but ends up becoming the core constant on the set. Directors come in, directors go. Writers come in, writers go. But every week, at the end of the day there’s the crew, led by the DP.

Eric Cayla, Cinematographer (aka Director of Photography): The main work of the cinematographer is the lighting, that’s why we say painting with light. So I do all of the colouring with lighting, the contrast with lighting, lighting interiors, exteriors; controlling the image. And I’m also working with the director on shots; how we’re going to move the cameras, the angles, the choice of lenses. And I also direct the crew, the grip, electrics and camera crews.

Shawn: I had the pleasure of working with Eric Cayla for the last season of the Dead Zone in Montreal and he just wowed me from our first meeting and he has this French, European, East Coast feel to him, which is perfect for Haven.

Lee: We sort of bounce off each other; I’ll tell him what my notion is and what I think the shot is for the scene, and he’ll say, ‘Well what about this’ or ‘We can’t do that because of this’. Eric and I became very close on the first episode. It really is a sort of symbiotic, siamese-twin kind of a relationship for me with DPs, if they’re good. So it’s a true partnership. On set it’s the biggest partnership for me.

Eric Cayla: Since I’m constantly on set, I can’t be there to scout the locations.

Shawn: He’s got a team of people that help us with our tech scout. And they represent his interests when he’s on set shooting and can’t come to the scout, they go and check our homework and say ‘oh yeah so we’re here in the morning, the crane’s gonna be here’.”

Eric Cayla: As much as we can, on this kind of show (which is very fast), we go through either pictures that they take and bring on set so I can look at them, or in meetings during lunch time, we work through all the locations of the next show to come. It’s fast-paced, you know.

Sam Ernst, Executive Producer: The actors are learning a lot in the finale. They’re learning where we’ve been going this whole time.

Emily Rose, “Audrey Parker”: I usually try to call up one of the show runners, as well as the writer on the episode, and say ‘OK, this is what I’m thinking regarding the episode, but before I do that, what’s important to you thematically? What is the thing you’re trying to stress?’ Nine times out of ten, I get something new, a fresh perspective on the story. Or, if they’re going in a direction that’s kind of opposite of where I feel Audrey is, it allows us to kind of connect.

Lucas Bryant, “Nathan Wournos”: Because we shoot out of sequence, you know like now we’re shooting the climax of the finale on the first day of shooting the finale. Ideally, I draw a little trajectory of what is going on, where I am over the course of the episode, you know: happy, sad, angry, in love, why, so that I can refer to that easily when I’m shooting scene 25 I can look at a note that says, ‘You just left the house, you were pulling your pants on, you were very upset because…’ so you know exactly where you are because as I said we’re shooting out of sequence and it can be ridiculously confusing. But to be honest a lot of it is seat of your pants, you know because we’re shooting so quickly and the turnarounds between scripts are so quick that often it takes everyone to remind us what the heck is going on, you know, ‘Where are we? Did I know that he was the bad guy?’.

Emily Rose: The luxury with film or theatre is you get a lot of time to rehearse and we do not. And it’s also getting changed frequently, or we’re changing things or we’re trying to make things fit and work. So we try to either run lines with each other, or step aside and talk about the scene and run it again, or really guard that time of just trying to run it as much as possible. We initially always go ‘OK so what happened right before this? Where am I emotionally with this? Is there anything subtextually we could put in to our relationship or where we are?’

Lee Rose: For an episodic television director, you are a guest artist. Yes, it’s your job to bring to screen what someone else has put in front of you. But it’s not your medium in the sense that it’s not your final say; it’s the showrunners, the executive producers.

Sam Ernst: In television, the director’s there to effect the vision of the writers. In movies they’re there to effect the vision of the directors, using the script as a springboard. And that’s a big distinction. And the reason being that we have lots of directors and there has to be one unified vision for the show.

Jim Dunn: There’s a whole week of prep before we begin shooting. There’s one key meeting that happens in that part of the process, which is the tone meeting with the director. The idea is to let the director understand what the intent of each scene is, what the characters are feeling and why. But if we can really connect with the director about it, so they understand, they can then answer questions that production has on set.

Lee Rose; On the day of shooting, every day you get out of the van and you go ‘how do I regroup now?’ because that’s essentially what it is; narrowing what you want, as opposed to what you get. I know because I love editing and I’m pretty good at it, I know what I need to cut and what I can get away with not having if we get into trouble, if we’re rained out, if something happens; you have to be prepared to punt at all times.

Eric Cayla: The greatest challenge and sometimes frustration, is the time. It’s so fast to do a 45 or 44 minute episode of that scope, of what has to be done and achieved in a 7 day shoot, and sometimes even 6. So you have to shoot fast, and well. And there’s always a compromise. We do as much as we can in 7 days and I must admit, it’s gruelling.

Emily Rose: The biggest challenge of being an actress on a TV series is just trying to maintain your stamina and your energy and your health and your mental wellbeing.

Lucas Bryant: Pacing. Longevity. Maintaining my greek-like physique. [laughs] Er; yes, yes, and no. It’s a marathon; knowing how much energy you can afford to use every day or every week to get through each episode. Because you finish one and it’s a big sigh of relief and maybe you finish it on a tuesday and wednesday morning you’re starting the next one.

Emily: The most rewarding part to me is hopping on twitter or hopping on any sort of review and seeing that the fans really connect with Audrey, you know. ‘Oh my gosh that scene was so great’ or ‘I wanna hang out with Audrey’. I feel like that’s a success because I feel like, ‘Good, I didn’t just look like I was memorising my lines and I didn’t know what that Trouble was about.’

Eric Balfour, “Duke Crocker”: The reward of being on a television show is hands down the camaraderie of it. It’s the family of it. Me, Lucas and Emily have I think (I hope they’ll agree!) have formed a really amazing bond together. And, we film in rough conditions here; it rains, it snows, it’s cold. And so this crew, they work their butts off. Everyone can see when someone’s having a hard day, or sick. There’s been days where everyone on the show’s had to work when they’re sick and not feeling with and everyone, you know ‘Hey, can we get you some tea? You wanna sit down? Hey let me get that for you.’ It’s a neat place that way.

Eric Cayla: The love of making shots, and the love of lighting. And since the locations are great; beautiful locations, so inspiring. And the camera crews, they’re fun to light. And then using the medium of film too, as a cinematographer it’s fascinating because you have to be much more instinctive since you don’t see the result on set. You have to rely on your instincts, and knowledge. It’s much more creatively challenging. And rewarding once you’ve got results that are really satisfying. That’s a fun way to work, I find.

Lee Rose: What I love most about directing is the challenges you face every day of having to creatively solve problems. And a lot of them. You have a hundred people coming up to you asking questions and you’d better have an answer. So I find that that puzzle making for me is interesting as a director. And I’m engaged by the creative process. So I’m engaged by crew members or DPs that have ideas, or are excited by my ideas, or actors who are there to just lay it all out on the floor when you’re there. So, that’s why I keep doing it, thirty-some odd years later.

#haven syfy #haven dvd extras #haven season two extras #directing cinematography acting

4 notes · View notes

bluewatsons · 4 years

Text

Nathan Abrams, A Jewish American Monster: Stanley Kubrick, Anti-Semitism and Lolita (1962), 49 J Am Stud 541 (2015)

Abstract

This article presents a case study of the filmmaker Stanley Kubrick, considering how his films can be considered an emotional response to the Holocaust, the legacy of European anti-Semitism, and stereotypes of the Jewish American woman. It will argue that there are various clues in Kubrick's films which produce Jewish moments; that is, where, through a complementary directing and acting strategy, in particular one of misdirection, the viewer is given the possibility of “reading Jewish,” albeit not with certainty, for Jewishness is “textually submerged.” Its focus is Kubrick's 1962 adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita (1955), in particular the character of Charlotte Haze, played by Shelley Winters, especially in light of Kubrick's choice of casting for the role, and Winters's subsequent performance of it. It will conclude that Holocaust and anti-Semitic stereotypes/reverse stereotypes haunt Kubrick's version of Lolita as an emotional, yet sub-epidermis, presence

Introduction

Filmmaker Stanley Kubrick was rarely thought of as a Jewish director who made Jewish films (however that may be defined). Yet, born in 1928, and growing up as the Holocaust was taking place in Europe, the awareness of the inescapability of his Central European Jewish heritage arguably had a significant emotional impact upon him. Although Kubrick said very little about the Holocaust, its presence is felt in his films, but it is approached obliquely, often via analogies and metaphors, sometimes by overt, albeit brief, moments which explore the very same issues raised by the Shoah. Frederic Raphael, who collaborated with Kubrick on the screenplay for his final film, Eyes Wide Shut (1999), suggested, “S.K. proceeds by indirection ... [his] work could be viewed, as responding, in various ways, to the unspeakable (what lies beyond spoken explanation).”1 And John Orr and Elżbieta Ostrowska have pointed out, “Kubrick, who never realised his Holocaust film project, nonetheless had a post-Holocaust vision of the contemporary world.”2 This may well have been amplified by his third marriage, in 1958, to Christiane Harlan, the niece of Veit Harlan, who had directed the notoriously anti-Semitic propaganda film, Jud Süss in 1940. Kubrick had met Harlan in 1957 and wanted to make a film about him, and Kubrick therefore was surely sensitive to the impact on the Harlan family of Harlan’s decision to work so closely with the Nazi leadership.3

How this post-Holocaust sensibility operated in Kubrick’s films will be explored via a detailed case study of a key character in one of his films, namely Charlotte Haze, played by Shelley Winters, in his 1962 adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita (1955).4 She has been chosen because in casting and performance Winters’s real-life Jewishness and her performance of Haze’s onscreen persona provide a key prism through which to consider Kubrick’s own ethnicity and attitudes towards it, as well as his post-Holocaust sensibility, at a crucial stage in his career and in postwar Hollywood. It will be argued here that, if, as Daniel Anderson has suggested, “The language and the visible world of Lolita are so deeply conditioned by their post-Holocaust circumstances,” then they must have also influenced Kubrick.5 Consequently, the Holocaust haunts his version of Lolita as an emotional, yet submerged, presence, producing an intriguing representation of the Jewish American Mother.

Scholars have already detected the novel’s underlying concerns with the Holocaust.6 Susan L. Mizruchi, for example, has elucidated the novel’s “holocaust subtext”; that is, “a consistent pattern of references to Nazi persecution and genocide in Europe.”7 Many of the metaphors and descriptions in the novel evoke the trains, camps, and other details of the Holocaust, both directly and subtextually. Nabokov refers to “the brown wigs of tragic old women who had just been gassed” or “the ashes of our predecessors.”8 In 1935, the year of Lolita’s fictive birth, Hitler passed the Nuremberg Laws and Anderson reads an imaginative equation between the Nazis’ obsession with race and therefore sexual reproduction and Humbert’s paedophilia, while Mizruchi posits that Humbert’s “case” parallels the ongoing trials of Nazi war criminals in Nuremberg from 1946 to 1949.9 The repetition of twins and twinning in the novel – the twin beds and the picture of twins in the motel, the twin girls in blue bathing suits who almost discover Lolita and Humbert Humbert (itself a twinned name), the four pairs of twins in Lolita’s class list (at least one of whom, “Cowan”, may be read as Jewish as it was common to alter the name “Cohen” to that) – evokes the notorious pseudoscientific medical experiments of Dr. Josef Mengele at Auschwitz. Kubrick would later go on to make use of twins in The Shining (1980), which like the famous Diane Arbus photograph Identical Twins (1967) that inspired him, also prompts audience reference to Mengele and Auschwitz.10

Mizruchi also observes Lolita’s “attention to American anti-Semitism.”11 Humbert is often mistaken for being Jewish. Before marrying him, Charlotte first wants to find out precisely how “foreign” Humbert is: “Looking down at her fingernails, she also asked me had I not in my family a certain strange strain.” She can tolerate a “Turk” as one of his ancestors, as long as he himself is truly Christian; however, “if she ever found out I did not believe in Our Christian God, she would commit suicide.”12 Likewise, her friends, John and Jean Farlow, also have a vague suspicion he may be Jewish because of his dark looks and exotic name. So when John is about to make disparaging remarks about Jews in Humbert’s presence, “Of course, too many of the tradespeople here are Italians . . . but on the other hand we are still spared,” she cuts him off.13 Humbert attempts to check in to the Enchanted Hunters Hotel but is initially refused entry because it is restricted, advertising itself as being “Near Churches,”14 a coded expression used in adverts to indicate its discriminatory, restrictive practices.15 Nabokov also makes continuous use in the novel of the number 42, as the workings of what Humbert regarded as “McFate” stalking him to his doom. The number also recurs in his Lolita screenplay.16 Cocks suggests that 42 was “conscious and unconscious cultural shorthand for the Holocaust.”17 Consequently, Anderson argues that “the novel’s rich amalgamation of post-war America with pre-war Europe” evokes the “unbearable memory of genocidal holocaust.”18 Yet Kubrick omitted many of these details, consistent with his practice of writing Jews out of his films, although he did reference them indirectly by various means. For example, he did use 242 as the number of the room at the Enchanted Hunters Hotel in which Lolita and Humbert first have sex (and 42 as a reference to the Holocaust throughout The Shining, which is set in the haunted Overlook Hotel).

These concerns may have been one of the motivating factors behind Kubrick’s desire to film the novel in the first place, although, given his refusal to be explicit on the subject, we will never know for certain. Kubrick solicited writer Calder Willingham to produce a screenplay, but Kubrick rejected it on the grounds that it was “not worthy” of the book, its “most serious fault not realizing characters.”19 Kubrick subsequently approached Nabokov himself, telling him, “you are only one for screen play. If financial details can be agreed would you be available quick start for May 1 Production appreciate cable.”40 Nabokov then began the laborious task of adapting his own novel, producing various draft screenplays, little of which Kubrick ultimately used.21 Instead, what became the final screenplay was written by Kubrick and his producer, James B. Harris, using the book, Nabokov’s various drafts, and their own ideas, as well as those generated from the rehearsals and the process of shooting itself. Nonetheless, they decided to give the screenwriting credit to Nabokov.22

The Holocaust was much in the news and in popular culture at precisely the same time as the film was in preproduction. The Diary of Anne Frank had been published and serialized in the leading New York intellectual magazine Commentary in 1952.23 It was subsequently adapted for the stage, and then made into the 1959 film (directed by George Stevens) for which Winters won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. The following year, in 1960, high-ranking Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann – one the chief architects of the Nazi genocide – was captured in Argentina, kidnapped and transported to Israel, where he was imprisoned while awaiting trial. Incidentally, at some point during his incarceration, one of Eichmann’s guards gave him a copy of the recently published German translation of Lolita (1959), as German Jewish émigré philosopher Hannah Arendt puts it, “for relaxation.”25 After two days Eichmann returned it, visibly indignant, telling his guard, “Quite an unwholesome book.”25 (Is it possible that Eichmann rejected Lolita not only because of its sexual content but also because he detected it as being somehow “Jewish”?26) In 1961, Judgment at Nuremberg (Stanley Kramer), with camp footage, was released and Raul Hilberg published his magisterial and ground- breaking Holocaust study, The Destruction of European Jews, which Kubrick subsequently read.27 That same year, with much publicity and international attention, Eichmann’s trial for war crimes began in Jerusalem. As a result, secular Jewish intellectuals, particularly in the United States, became much more conscious of the devastation of the Holocaust. Furthermore, they were vocal about it, using the Shoah to mould public opinion, increasingly making explicit comparisons between the Nazi genocide and nuclear mass death in the 1950s and early 1960s. Even Kubrick suggested it in his next film, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), for example.28 The 1960s were also a time when American Jewish filmmakers began to introduce a wider range of Jewish themes and characters, including the Holocaust, into their films in a fashion not seen since the 1920s.29

Kubrick’s decision to cast Shelley Winters as the pseudo-intellectual suburban housefrau, Charlotte Haze, is perhaps the most significant clue to reading this film as an emotional response to his own Jewishness, as well as to the Holocaust, and goes some way to recovering Nabokov’s underlying concerns in the novel. It is certainly hard to ignore Winters’s own ethnicity and previous roles as a consideration in Kubrick’s casting of her as Charlotte. Winters was born Jewish, as Shirley Schrift, in 1923, but took her mother’s maiden name. She had already played Natalia Landauer, a German Jewish girl, in I Am a Camera (1955), based on Christopher Isherwood’s Berlin Stories (1945), about the doomed intelligentsia in prewar Berlin. Winters had lost an aunt and cousins in the Holocaust: “our family had missing relatives who, we found out later, died in the concentration camps.”30 As a result, she refused to film exterior shots in Germany “because I could not reconcile the thought of doing so with the image of my Holocaust-survivor uncle Yaekel.”31 Winters then played a variety of roles, in which she specialized as lower-class blondes murdered halfway through the film.32 Thereafter, she progressed to “more matronly roles.”33 As mentioned above, she eventually won an Oscar for her portrayal of the Jewish refugee Mrs. Petronella Van Daan in The Diary (a part for which she gained twenty-five pounds). From then on, comments J. Hoberman, “Winters would never return to glamour roles.”34

Arguably, Winters’s role as Van Daan influenced all of her subsequent performances. She recalled,

When we started shooting the film, Stevens had all the adult actors come to a projection room. He showed us the films his unit in the Special Services had taken of the concentration camps. His Army unit had been the first into Dachau. Watching those horrendous films possibly made me play that role so that I won the Oscar, but I believe that shooting that film scarred me for life. I can never read or watch anything about the Holocaust.35

Winters spent almost six months on the set of The Diary.36 “I learned something about acting that I was to use for the rest of my life.”37 She also stated that it was “Anne Frank whose memory and words have inspired me all of my adult life.”38 Winters, then, brought what she had learned on The Diary to her performance in Lolita.

Given the prominence and success of this role, only three years before Lolita, it seems impossible to ignore that this was a consideration in her casting. Furthermore, Anderson argues that the circumstances surrounding Lolita “so perfectly reverse” those of the manuscript of Anne Frank that “Nabokov envisioned Lolita as a fictional mirror image, an opposite twin, of her celebrated nonfictional contemporary.”39 He points out that Lolita’s forerunner, Annabel Leigh, “died of typhus–the endemic disease of the concentration camps in the closing months of the war, and perhaps not so coincidentally the cause of Anne Frank’s death in Bergen–Belsen early in 1945.”40 He further notes how The Diary appeared in 1952 and Lolita was published in 1955.41 In a further twist of uncanny symmetry, The Diary was made into a film in 1959 and Lolita in 1962– again three years apart – and both featuring Winters as a supporting actress.

Winters also recalled that her Jewishness came through on the set of Lolita. She wrote how, refusing to drop a silk robe with her back to the camera and instead hitting the microphone with her head, mixing up her lines and breaking James Mason’s glasses (Mason was playing Humbert), she was named “the klutz”, as a specifically Jewish put-down of herself.42 Furthermore, she remembered, “At one point, when I was squirming with embarrassment under the covers with just panties on, Mason whispered to me: ‘Would it make you feel more comfortable if I tell you that a long time ago my name was Moskowitz, and not Mason?’”43

Winters was certainly essential to Kubrick’s thinking; so much so that he was willing to cast her despite the obstacles to doing so. The first potential hurdle was the Eady Levy that came into effect on 9 September 1950, which provided indirect funding to film producers but only if a film qualified as “British.” In order to qualify as a British film no less than eighty-five per cent of the film had to be shot in the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth, and only three non-British individual salaries could be excluded from the costs of the film, ensuring the employment of British actors, technicians and film crew. The other two principal actors – Mason as Humbert and Peter Sellers as Clare Quilty – were British where Winters was not, and she had to be flown over and put up at considerable expense. Second, the daily production reports indicate that she proved to be a pain on the set.44 “Winters tried Kubrick’s patience,” wrote Kubrick’s biographer, Vincent Lobrutto.45 “Winters was very difficult,” recalled Oswald Morris, Lolita’s cinematographer,

wanting to do everything her own way. She was very nearly fired off the film. At one point Kubrick said to me, “I think the lady’s gonna have to go” – which would have been very serious halfway through production. But he’d have got rid of her, he really didn’t care about the consequences.56

She was also ill with stomach problems and diarrhoea, delaying the shoot.47 Nonetheless, Kubrick persevered with her either because the cost of replacing her so late into the shoot was prohibitive, or because of what Kubrick valued that she specifically brought to the role. Frustratingly, however, Kubrick’s archives contain no explicit reference to his reasons for casting her, or to her ethnicity, so we will never know for certain what it was that Kubrick specifically valued about what Winters brought to the role.

Although there is no indication in the novel that Charlotte is Jewish, nor is there any other explicit evidence in the film beyond the fact of Winters’s own ethnicity and previous roles, a series of clues combine to allow us to read her as Jewish. First, Charlotte is the embodiment of the stereotype of the Jewish American Mother (JAM) that began to emerge in postwar American Jewish literature at exactly the same time as Lolita was published. In 1955 Herman Wouk’s best-selling novel Marjorie Morningstar produced a stereotype that would be much copied over the coming years. Unlike her pre-Second World War counterpart, the yiddische Mama, who was viewed with affection, the Jewish Mother was not. She was presented as meddlesome, domineering and controlling. Toward the end of the decade, the Jewish mother and her spoiled suburban daughter became the objects of literary ridicule, as evidenced by Philip Roth’s Goodbye Columbus (1959), a template which, in many ways, fitted Charlotte and Lolita Haze.48 According to Susan Bordo, Charlotte is “the monster of the story.”49 Like the JAM, Charlotte is pretentious, irritating, bossy, “a behemoth mom.”50 Charlotte is a baalebusteh who cooks and kibitzes, nagging her daughter incessantly, and henpecking Humbert, as her husband, into desperation and longing for a means of escape.51 In return, Humbert describes her as a “brainless ba-ba,” a designation attributed to his first wife in Nabokov’s novel but attached to Charlotte in the film.

It is surely no coincidence that, following Lolita, Winters was thereafter typecast. She played Jewish women/mothers in A House Is Not a Home (1964), Enter Laughing (1967), Wild in the Streets (1968), Buona Sera, Mrs. Campbell (1968), The Poseidon Adventure (1973), Blume in Love (1973) and Next Stop, Greenwich Village (1976). As J. Hoberman put it, “No actress since Gertrude Berg has been more associated with the Jewish mother than Shelley Winters.”52 Significantly, he continues, she “was a Jewish mother for the 1960s: blowzy, strident, and generally overwhelming.”53 Although Hoberman does not list Lolita in his discussion of Winters, his description neatly fits the role of Charlotte.

Charlotte manifests other stereotypical Jewish tics. She is zaftig (Yiddish: plump). Her taste in clothing and interior decoration is vulgar. She wears fur wraps and leopard-print dresses and belts. Her kitchen is hideously decorated with very loud wallpaper covered in food motifs. Similarly, her taste in art and artefacts–a porcelain cat sits on a dresser beneath a painting at which Humbert contemptuously stares – reveals the levels of her vulgarity. Indeed, her house is littered with so many tshatshkes (Yiddish: ornaments, trinkets, knickknacks) that it might well have come straight out of a Mad magazine caricature. She displays a lack of civility and decorum and her body language lacks the required reserve. She stuffs her mouth with a hotdog at the summer dance. She encroaches upon the personal space of others and is unaware of their discomfort. She talks too much and fails to read the cues, particularly when alone with Humbert, who does all he can to reject her sexual advances, which, however, she fails to notice. At one point he simply walks out of the frame and Winters keeps yakking. As Norman Podhoretz wrote, the “association of Jewishness with vulgarity and lack of cultivation” is fairly widespread, “not least among Jews.”54

Furthermore, Charlotte is desperate to hide her origins. Consequently, she is determined to mimic her idea of a cultivated and sophisticated suburbanite. She affects a French accent, referring to Humbert as “Oh M’sieur.” She smokes through a cigarette holder. She belongs to a book club, is “Chairman of the great Books Committee,” and decorates her house with her idea of high art and artefacts. She name-drops at every opportunity, citing Dufy, Van Gogh, Monet, Schweitzer and Zhivago as evidence of her insistence on just how cultured, progressive and advanced she really is. She informs Humbert, “We’re really very fortunate here in West Ramsdale. Culturally, we’re a very advanced group with lots of good Anglo-Dutch55 and Anglo-Scotch stock and we’re very progressive intellectually.” At the same time, Charlotte’s choice of words, which were taken verbatim from the novel and retained by Kubrick, suggest an implicit postwar racism of the genteel Gentleman’s Agreement type in which covenanted neighbourhoods prevented Jews from buying or renting property there.

Charlotte’s multiple references to culture reveal her attempt to pass – and to make a pass at Humbert – but in reality they suggest an excess, a trying too hard to be the same but failing, becoming, in Homi Bhabha’s famous formulation, “almost the same, but not quite.”56 It is revealed, for example, by the fact that her artworks are merely reproductions or simulacra, as well as by her mispronunciation of the name Van Gogh as “Van Gock.” Charlotte’s mimicry, which surely can be described as “undisciplined,” has long been felt to mark the Jewish condition. For Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, “undisciplined mimicry” was “engraved in the living substance of the dominated and passed down by a process of unconscious imitation in infancy from generation to generation, from the down-at-heel Jew to the rich banker.”57 This was because “Jewish Emancipation involved Jews in collisions with the differentiations of Western society [and] Jews were being asked, in effect, to become bourgeois, and to become bourgeois quickly.”58 Charlotte here is desperately trying, but failing, to pass by masking her Jewish roots through her failing mimicry (a faux posh accent, use of words, intellectual/ cultural airs and graces), but it is the very excess of her mimicry that gives her away, revealing her failure to pass, and echoing the Jewish saying that “Jews are like everybody else, only more so.” As if to stress the point, and to make sure that the translators and dubbing directors understood his intentions, Kubrick annotated the Dialogue Continuity script with instructions. For example, when Humbert is shown around Charlotte’s house, Kubrick has written, “Note to translators and dubbing directors: Charlotte Haze’s choice of words in English are pretentious and awkwardly pseudo-intellectual. Try to retain that feeling because it is the basis of much of the comedy.” When she says, “Oh Paris ... France ... Madame,” Kubrick noted, “a good example of her pretentious and awkward choice of words.”59 These mannerisms precisely fit the emerging JAM stereotype of the 1950s and 1960s as described by Martha A. Ravits: “she personifies garish ethnic manners and materialistic, middle-class pretensions.”60 In this respect, it certainly seems very illuminating that Winters drew upon someone she knew (although whom she does not actually reveal) in playing the part of Charlotte. “I had known a pseudointellectual suburbanite like Charlotte, the character I played, during my childhood days in Jamaica, Queens, and Stanley Kubrick knew what acting buttons to press in my acting computer to bring her back.”61

Charlotte also affects a Christian/Catholic religious identity. In her letter of love and confession to Humbert she writes, “Last Sunday in church, my dear one, when I asked the Lord what do about it . . .”. She keeps her late husband’s ashes in an urn on a sideboard, in a bedroom shrine, complete with a crucifix and flanked by Catholic icons, as if copying Tennessee Williams in Rose Tattoo, noted the Brooklyn Tablet.62 This display again reveals the excess of her mimicry, for arguably only a Jew could conceive of such a Christian/Catholic shrine and indeed the shrine is the product of the Jewish imagination: Kubrick’s. Furthermore, as the Brooklyn Tablet further noted, while Charlotte “prattles about God” she “gives daughter Lolita neither religious training nor good example.”63 As if recognizing this fact, John Baxter has written that Kubrick replaced a crucifix with a triptych of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, following complaints about the juxtaposition of Mr. Haze’s ashes with a crucifix in Charlotte’s bedroom, resulting in “a Byzantine image that probably looked sufficiently exotic to count as Jewish or Middle European.”64 Making Charlotte Catholic/Christian and have her attend church is Kubrick’s misdirection.

Where the novel, as mentioned above, was full of allusions, both direct and indirect, to the Second World War and the Holocaust, the film removes these, but their traces remain. The one explicit remaining reference is when Charlotte tells Lolita (Sue Lyon) off and orders her not to disturb “Professor Humbert.” In reply Lolita mimics a Hitler salute, albeit with her left hand, and says “Sieg heil.” As if responding to the gesture, in the scene that immediately follows, Charlotte informs Humbert that she has been “too liberal” and is sending Lolita off “long-distance” to a “camp” for “isolation.” The phraseology here, through its close juxtaposition with the direct invocation of Hitler, uncannily echoes the Nazis’ euphemistic language (“final solution,” “solution possibilities,” “special treatment,” “cleansing operation,” “deportation,” “displacement,” “resettlement,” and “evacuation”),65 as well as anticipating Betty Friedan’s striking comparison of Nazi concentration camps to American suburban homes one year later. In one of the most potentially shocking passages of her The Feminine Mystique (1963), Friedan claimed that “the women who ‘adjust’ as housewives, who grow up wanting to be ‘just a house- wife,’ are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps.”66 Friedan went on to explore this analogy for several pages, and then continued to use the phrase “comfortable concentration camps” to refer to suburban homes throughout the rest of the book.

Furthermore, in another shift from the novel, in the film Humbert lies on the marital bed contemplating murdering Charlotte. In the foreground, a gun is on the bedside table. The following conversation, transposed almost verbatim from the novel, takes place:

Charlotte: Darling, you’ve gone away.

Humbert: Just a minute, darling, I’m following a train of thought. …

Charlotte: Am I on that train? Humbert: Yes.

Humbert’s thoughts, in the form of a voice-over narrative, confirm the suspicion: “No man can bring about the perfect murder. Chance, however, can do it. Just minutes ago she had said it wasn’t loaded. What if I had playfully pulled the trigger then? She said it wasn’t loaded. It belonged to the late Mr. Haze.” The proximity of the gun, and Humbert’s assumed thoughts, suggest a connection between trains and killing, what Cocks refers to as the “association with Nazi mechanics of murder that would show up in The Shining.”67 Again, to repeat a key point, in light of Winters’s starring in The Diary only three years earlier, both of these conversations are particularly poignant and suggestive.

Significantly, Kubrick made various other changes which deviated from Nabokov’s novel. In his close textual comparison of the novel and film, Greg Jenkins registered that

Kubrick’s few changes work to the detriment of Charlotte, magnifying her undesirable qualities . . . the Charlotte of the film is more brazen than the original, practically launching herself at Humbert. She is more noxious, rambling angrily in Winters’ diva voice; the fictional Charlotte condemns her daughter in nothing but indirect quotations, a device that distances the reader from her fury. Again, the film craftily maneuvers us away from Charlotte; it asks us to take sides, to view her unsympathetically.68

These alterations served to emphasize the negative aspects of Charlotte’s character. As Jenkins put it, “All these adjustments undercut the image, not sterling to begin with, of Charlotte . . . rendering her less sympathetic, more vulgar.”69 Richard Corliss adds, “Winters does appear to be twenty pounds heavier, fifteen decibels higher and ten I. Q. points lower than Charlotte deserves.”70

Contemporary reviewers, especially those who were part of the intelligentsia, certainly picked up on this characterization. Writing in Partisan Review, Pauline Kael described Charlotte as “the culture-vulture rampant . . . Shelley Winters’ Charlotte is a triumphant caricature, so overdone it recalls Blake’s ‘You never know what is enough until you know what is enough.’”71 Arthur Schlesinger Jr. felt, meanwhile, that “Winters, as Lolita’s mother, gives the performance of her life, laying bare with delicate exactitude the genteel pretension, the tremulous hope and prurient passion of what Nabokov apparently regards as the typical American middle-class woman.”72 Finally, Dwight Macdonald opined, “Miss Winters plays her so fortissimo that she becomes a brawling Bronx fishwife whom one cannot imagine having poor Charlotte’s cultural pretensions.”73 Indeed, he labelled her a “Monsterette.”74

Macdonald misses the point that her casting intentionally transformed Charlotte from genteel to brawling, but he does inadvertently pick up on the implicit Jewishness of her character in locating her in the Bronx, where Kubrick grew up. Again, a brief glimpse of Kubrick’s intentions is seen in his notes, where he refers to Charlotte’s “ugliness.”75 At the same time, Kubrick coaxed a performance out of Winters that emphasized Charlotte’s worst qualities. This led her to reflect,

I think the role of Charlotte in Lolita is one of the best performances I ever gave in any medium. She is dumb and cunning, silly, sad, sexy, and bizarre, and totally American and human. Until I saw the whole film cut together, I did not realize the gift that Kubrick had given me. I was enchanted with Charlotte and very proud of her. Kubrick had the insight to find the areas of me that were pseudointellectual and pretentious. We all have those things in us.78

A later, and similar, Kubrick casting decision supports this reading. Winters’s role anticipates a comparable choice he took concerning the casting of Miriam Karlin in his A Clockwork Orange (1971). Before attacking Miss Weathers, the “Cat Lady” (played by Karlin), Georgie (James Marcus) justifies robbing her because her house “is full up with like gold, and silver, and like jewels.” Cocks comments,

That this might be an echo of a common stereotype of Jews is suggested by the fact the woman is played by Miriam Karlin. Karlin is a British actress active in Jewish causes and a prominent member of the Anti-Nazi League, which was one of the responses to the stirrings of neo-fascism in Britain at the time. Her mother came to England from Holland, and had lost her entire family at Auschwitz.77

Furthermore, as Cocks has argued, since the Cat Lady is “by conventional Hollywood standards a less than physically and personally attractive person,” the audience is not encouraged to sympathize with her – just like it is not with Charlotte Haze.78 Thus she fits into a pattern of “Kubrick’s indirect insinuation of the issue of Jews and anti-Semitism.”79 In this respect, it is certainly significant that when Winters saw the film, she wrote to Kubrick praising it and jokingly asking why she had not been asked to play “the very British woman who gets raped in this film.”80 Winters recalled, “He did not get the joke. He sent me back a very stern reply and informed me that he would cast me in any role I was suited for in any one of his films. And that was final.”81

The question remains, then, why did Kubrick create such a negative caricature of a Jewish woman and mother? One answer would be to suggest an emotional and psychological impulse of misogyny and self-hatred; that is, that after two marriages to two different Jewish women – he divorced Toba Metz in 1955 and Ruth Sobotka in 1961– Kubrick took a dim view of Jewish femininity, buying into the caricature of the JAM that had begun to emerge in the mid-1950s. Evidence that might fit this last assertion may lie in the fact that Kubrick married Christiane Harlan, a non-Jewish German woman, who grew up during the Third Reich, for his third (and last) wife. Christiane recalled how “I was the little girl who moved in where Anne Frank was pushed out.”82

However, this answer seems far too easy. Kubrick was close to his (Jewish American) mother Gertrude (and she to him). According to Kubrick’s third wife, Christiane, his mother was still buying him clothes as late as 1957 and was “more up on his films” than his father.83 According to LoBrutto, she was an “intelligent” and “well-spoken woman” from whom “Kubrick had inherited his looks.”84 Indeed, in the sole film in which Kubrick allowed someone to make the only formal record of him at work – Making The Shining (1980, directed by his daughter Vivian, Gertrude appears, paying an on-set visit to her son. She is seen discussing with Jack Nicholson the daily script changes and the meaning of the colour of the script pages. Kubrick played a heavy hand in its editing, so the final cut had his approval, indicating a certain warmth towards his mother.

Rather, an alternative suggestion will be posited here, that it may well be that Kubrick was deliberately playful with that very JAM stereotype, using an underlying and Jewish-inflected humour to make emotional, cogent and deeply serious points about anti-Semitism. Much has been written about the function of stereotypes in general and Jewish ones in particular, especially how they perform cultural work in demonizing minority groups from the outside, and emotionally perpetuating group solidarity and continuity from the inside. As Bhabha suggests, the stereotype offers “a secure point of identification”;85 that is, emotional reassurance. Daniel Boyarin called this form of comfort “Jewisssance.”86 Itself a play on the French term jouissance – literally translating as “orgasm,” but also referring to physical or intellectual pleasure, delight, or ecstasy – Boyarin defined Jewissance as “a pleasure” that “brings to many men and women an extraordinary richness of experience and a powerful sense of being rooted somewhere in the world, in a world of memory, intimacy, and connectedness.”87

Yet, on a deeper level, stereotypes contain a “surplus value,” which provides “enjoyment or jouissance [and] enables us to understand the logic of exclusion.”88 Bhabha similarly suggested that the stereotype is characterized by a “productive ambivalence” between “pleasure and desire” and “power and domination.”89 In other words, stereotypes are enjoyed because they allow us to see contested images at work and understand their ideological implications. They entertain us, as well as serve to ridicule the logic of exclusion.90 This use of Jewish stereotypes by Kubrick, then, reveals a deeper strategy beyond Jewissance and pleasure. The reversal of insult, or “victim humour,” is a technique against anti-Semitism, to “disguise the aggression and hostility by turning it on oneself.”91 This is comparable to what Michel Foucault labelled a “reverse discourse,” which seeks to “demand that its legitimacy . . . be acknowledged, often in the same vocabulary, using the same categories by which it was . . . disqualified.”92 Bhabha pointed out how “the same stereotype maybe read in a contradictory way or, indeed, be misread.”93 This “reverse stereotype,” then, achieves the status of what Foucault called “a hindrance, a stumbling block, a point of resistance and a starting point for an opposing strategy.”94 Or what Sigmund Freud described as “a rebellion against authority, a liberation from its pressures,”95 glossed by Bhabha as “a strategy of cultural resistance and agency committed to a community’s survival.”96

As we have seen with the character of Charlotte, reverse stereotypes may take the form of “mimicry,”97 which “is never a simple reproduction of those traits. Rather, the result is a ‘blurred copy’ . . . that can be quite threatening. This is because mimicry is never very far from mockery, since it can appear to parody whatever it mimics.”98 The reverse stereotype and mimicry, therefore, was a means for Kubrick to draw upon his Jewish background and Yiddishkeit (Yiddish: “Jewishness” or “Jewish culture”) as a means to mimic, mock and critique the representation of the Jewish woman, particularly at a time when explicit Jews, played by Jews, were not much in evidence in Hollywood cinema and when representations of the Holocaust and anti-Semitism were only really beginning to emerge into mass media in the United States. Furthermore, if, as has been argued, the way that Kubrick adapted Nabokov’s novel retained its concerns with the Holocaust and anti-Semitism, it fit into a period from the early to mid-1960s when various Jewish American intellectuals, who had grown up while the Holocaust was happening, used Nazism to forge emotional and deeply personal expressions of identity.99

Footnotes

Raphael, Frederic, Eyes Wide Open: A Memoir of Stanley Kubrick (London: Orion, 1999), 150Google Scholar; see also Cocks, Geoffrey, “Indirected by Stanley Kubrick,” Post Script, 32, 2 (2014), 22–35Google Scholar.

Orr, John and Ostrowska, Elżbieta, The Cinema of Roman Polanski: Dark Spaces of the World (London: Wallflower, 2006), 142Google Scholar.

Cocks, Geoffrey, The Wolf at the Door: Stanley Kubrick, History, and the Holocaust (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), 70Google Scholar.

Reasons of length preclude a consideration of other characters and elements in the film, especially those that are also integral to a post-Holocaust sensibility. This may include a reckoning with the relationship between sexuality and perversity and “Jewishness,” so central to anti-Semitism as played out through Humbert in particular. The casting of Peter Sellers was yet another interesting and significant casting choice; Seller's maternal Jewishness was also, I would argue, important to his selection. Furthermore, there are many possible ways and “coded clues” to reading his character/performance as Jewish. In both cases, then, there is certainly the implication that Humbert and Quilty might also be coded as Jewish, connecting their “inappropriate” sexuality to anti-Semitism.

Anderson, Douglas, “Nabokov's Genocidal and Nuclear Holocausts in ‘Lolita’,” Mosaic, 29, 2 (1996), 75–89, 82Google Scholar.

Abrams, Jerold J., “The Logic of Lolita: Kubrick, Nabokov, and Poe,” in Abrams, (ed.), The Philosophy of Stanley Kubrick (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 2007), 109–29Google Scholar; Mizruchi, Susan L., “Lolita in History,” American Literature, 75, 3 (2003), 629–52CrossRef | Google Scholar; Pitzer, Andrea, The Secret History of Vladimir Nabokov (New York: Pegasus, 2013)Google Scholar.

Mizruchi, 631.

Nabokov, Vladimir, Lolita (London: Transworld, 1961; first published 1955), 267, 210Google Scholar.

Anderson, 78–79; Mizruchi, 637.

See also Cocks, “Indirected,” 28–29, on Kubrick's use in The Shining of a painting by Paul Peel, After the Bath (1890), which depicts two naked little girls in front of a fireplace.

Mizruchi, 639.

Nabokov, 79.

Ibid., 83–84.

Ibid., 275.

Appel, Alfred Jr. (ed.), The Annotated “Lolita” (London: Penguin, 1971), 423Google Scholar.

See Cocks, The Wolf at the Door, 103 for a full list.

Cocks, “Indirected,” 29.

Anderson, 275.

Calder Willingham, Lolita screenplay, SK/10/1/1, the Stanley Kubrick Archives, University of the Arts, London (hereafter SKA); Kubrick, telegram to Vladimir Nabokov, 8 Dec. 1959, MSS Nabokov, the Berg Collection, New York Public Library (hereafter Berg).

Kubrick, telegram to Nabokov, 8 Dec. 1959, Berg.

Nabokov later published his version, enabling comparisons to Kubrick's film.

James B. Harris, interview (Fall 2002), at www.hollywoodfiveo.com/archive/issue2/exclusive/harris/harris.htm, accessed July 2013.

“The Diary of Anne Frank,” Commentary, 13, 5 (1952), 419–32; “The Diary of Anne Frank – II,” Commentary, 13, 6 (1952), 529–44.

Arendt, Hannah, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, revised and enlarged edn (New York: Penguin, 1964), 49Google Scholar. See also de la Durantaye, Leland, “Eichmann, Empathy, and Lolita,” Philosophy and Literature, 30, 2 (2006), 311–28CrossRef | Google Scholar.

Arendt, 49.

However, de la Durantaye, 312, notes, “given Eichmann's radical conventionality one could hardly imagine him liking – or even very well understanding – much of the book.”

In 1975 Kubrick asked his brother-in-law Jan Harlan to read Hilberg's book; in 1980 he sent a copy to Michael Herr, describing it as “monumental.” Herr recalled how Kubrick was “absorbed” by it. Herr, Michael, Kubrick (London: Pan, 2000), 10Google Scholar, original emphasis; Cocks, Geoffrey, “Death by Typewriter: Stanley Kubrick, the Holocaust, and The Shining,” in Cocks, Geoffrey, Diedrick, James and Perusek, Glenn (eds.), Depth of Field: Stanley Kubrick, Film, and the Uses of History (Madison: Wisconsin University Press, 2006), 185–217, 196Google Scholar.

See Petrie, Jon, “The Secular Word HOLOCAUST: Scholarly Myths, History, and 20th Century Meanings,” Journal of Genocide Research, 2, 1 (2000), 31–63CrossRef | Google Scholar.

29 See Erens's, PatriciaThe Jew in American Cinema (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987)Google Scholar; and Friedman, Lester D., The Jewish Image in American Film (Secaucus, NJ: Citadel, 1987)Google Scholar.

Winters, Shelley, Shelley II: Best of Times, Worst of Times (London: Muller, 1990), 55Google Scholar.

Ibid.

These were A Double Life (1947), A Place in the Sun (1952) and Night of the Hunter (1955).

Philips, Gene D. and Hill, Rodney, The Encyclopedia of Stanley Kubrick (New York: Hill & Wang, 2002), 400Google Scholar.

Hoberman, J., “Shelley Winters,” in Hoberman, J. and Shandler, Jeffrey (eds.), Entertaining America: Jews Movies, and Broadcasting (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003), 176Google Scholar.

Winters, 55.

Ibid., 224.

Ibid., 233.

Winters, Shelley, Shelley: Also Known as Shirley (London: Granada, 1980), 391Google Scholar.

Anderson, 83.

Ibid.

42 Winters, Shelley II, 349.

Ibid., 350.

“Lolita Daily Production Progress Reports,” 22 Nov. 1960–29 March 1961, SK/10/3/2, SKA.

LoBrutto, Vincent, Stanley Kubrick: A Biography (New York: Donald I. Fine, 1997), 208Google Scholar.

Ibid., 209.

“Lolita Daily Production Progress Reports.”

See Antler, Joyce, You Never Call! You Never Write! A History of the Jewish Mother (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

Quoted in Webster, Patrick, Love and Death in Kubrick: A Critical Study of the Films from Lolita through Eyes Wide Shut (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2011), 17Google Scholar.

Corliss, Richard, Lolita (London: BFI, 1994), 40Google Scholar.

Incidentally, Winters would play an explicitly Jewish version of this stereotype in Next Stop, Greenwich Village (1976), directed by Paul Mazursky, who acted in Kubrick's very first film, Fear and Desire (1953).

52 Hoberman, 176.

53Ibid.

Podhoretz, Norman, Making It (New York: Random House, 1967), 161Google Scholar.

Is this a sly reference to the role she played as a Dutch Jewish refugee in Amsterdam in The Diary?

Bhabha, Homi, The Location of Culture (London: Routledge, 1994), 123Google Scholar; emphasis in the original.

Horkheimer, Max and Adorno, Theodor, Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. Cumming, John (London: Allen Lane, 1973), 182Google Scholar.

Cuddihy, John Murray, The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Lévi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity (Boston: Beacon, 1978), 12–13Google Scholar.

“Lolita” Dialogue Continuity, Sept. 1961, labelled “S. Kubrick corrected copy,” containing notes to translators and dubbing directors, SK/10/3/3, SKA.

Ravits, Martha A., “The Jewish Mother: Comedy and Controversy in American Popular Culture,” MELUS, 25, 1 (2000), 3–31, 8CrossRef | Google Scholar.

Winters, Shelley, 401.

The Tablet (Brooklyn), 3 June 1962, SK/10/6/3i, SKA.

Ibid.

Baxter, John, Stanley Kubrick: A Biography (New York: HarperCollins, 1998), 163Google Scholar. That Mr. Haze was, in Charlotte's words “in insurance,” “left [her] well-provided for,” and “was a lovely human being” (i.e. a mensch), could also be read as further Jewish clues.

Hilberg, 668, 652, 658. In this respect, it is significant that the daily continuity report for this shot, dated 24 Jan. 1961, reported, “The dialogue off screen is not the dialogue used in the shot – that is only very approximately – Humbert speaking with a German accent, and calling himself Rommel etc. simply to give reaction to Lolita.” Daily continuity reports, SK/10/3/4, SKA. As if reinforcing this underlying German subtext, prior to Lolita, Mason had starred as Field Marshal Erwin von Rommel in The Desert Fox (1951) and The Desert Rats (1953).

Friedan, Betty, The Feminine Mystique (New York: W. W. Norton, 1963), 294Google Scholar.

Cocks, The Wolf at the Door, 103.

Jenkins, Greg, Stanley Kubrick and the Art of Adaptation: Three Novels, Three Films, (Jefferson: McFarland, 2007), 43–44Google Scholar.

Ibid., 39–40.

Corliss, Lolita, 41.

Kael, Pauline, “Movie Chronicle: Little Men,” Partisan Review, 29, 4 (1962), 564–77, 571Google Scholar.

Schlesinger, Arthur Jr., “Little Women,” Show Magazine, July 1962, 29Google Scholar.

Dwight Macdonald, “Of Nymphets and Monsterettes,” Esquire, Sept. 1962, Press Binder, SK/10/6/3iii, SKA.

Ibid.

Kubrick, “Last Scene Notes,” n.d., SK/10/1/11, SKA.

Winters, Shelley II, 348.

Ibid., 126–27.

Cocks, The Wolf at the Door, 8.

Ibid., 126.

80 Winters, Shelley II, 360.

Ibid.

LoBrutto, Stanley Kubrick, 147.

Cocks, The Wolf at the Door, 26.

LoBrutto, 434.

Bhabha, 99, original emphasis.

Boyarin, Daniel, Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), xxiiiGoogle Scholar.

Ibid.

Žižek, Slavoj, The Sublime Object of Ideology (London: Verso, 1989), xiGoogle Scholar.

Bhabha, 96.

Neofotistos, Vasiliki P., “The Muslim, the Jew and the African American: America and the Production of Alterity in Borat,” Anthropology Today, 24, 4 (2008), 13–17, 16–17CrossRef | Google Scholar.

Berger, A. A., Jewish Jesters: A Study in American Popular Comedy (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2001), 9–18, 9Google Scholar.

Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality, Volume I, An Introduction, trans. Hurley, Robert (London: Penguin, 1990), 101Google Scholar.

Bhabha, 100.

Foucault, 100–1.

Freud, Sigmund, Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1994), 149Google Scholar.

Bhabha, xvii.

Bhabha, 123.

Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, Post-colonial Studies: The Key Concepts (London: Routledge, 2000), 139Google Scholar.

See Fermaglich, Kirsten, American Dreams and Nazi Nightmares (Waltham, MA: University Press of New England, 2006)Google Scholar.

#lolita #yiddishkeit #jews #jews in media #the holocaust #shelley winters #vladimir nabokov #stanley kubrick #stereotypes #antisemitism #jewish-american women #identity

0 notes

dalekofchaos · 6 years

Text

Why I wish DONTNOD made Before The Storm

I love Before The Storm, but apart of me wishes DONTNOD made BTS. Mainly because there are a lot of things BTS contradicts about Life Is Strange.

Rachel’s parents. I always got the feeling Rachel’s parents were neglectful, which REALLY showed when Chloe said they are in denial that Rachel is missing. Rachel having neglectful parents and Chloe having an abusive stepfather and abuse enabling mother, would show just why Rachel and Chloe wants to leave Arcadia Bay. What happens in BTS? Rachel has kind and loving parents and a bio mom that is a horrible representation of drug addiction(everything about how D9 wrote Sera sends a horrible message, wtf D9?) and all of sudden James just pretends that Rachel isn’t missing? The fuck? Also, Rachel’s parents are not called James or Rose. Rachel’s student information we see in Episode 3 about her parents is not readable, but he Initial letters of the names written within the Parent(s) field on Rachel's file do not appear to match the names James or Rose (or even Sera)

Rachel’s address. Rachel’s Blackwell Student Information Sheet shows Rachel’s home address. Rachel Amber has an address of "6 Sa(?)u/n(?)tle Road, Arcadia Bay, Oregon". There is a piece of paper covering the Home Address field, but we can make out a "gon" from the end of "Oregon", so we know it is within the state. As her address in the top-right corner is different to what appears to be the dormitory address on the other student files, we can assume that "6 Sa(?)u/n(?)tle Road" is implying her home address (just like on Chloe's file). However, in Before the Storm, her home address is 2420 Blackfriars Road, Arcadia Bay, Oregon.

Max’s contact of Chloe. "You were happy to wait five years without a call, or even a text." In Before the Storm's Episode 1, "Awake," Chloe's phone clearly shows that Max has been texting her during her time in Seattle and had even initiated text messaging after admitting to being "bad about emailing". Max has texted Chloe on the following dates in November 2009: 2nd, 13th, and 28th. Max was supposed to have not emailed, called or text Chloe ever since she left for Seattle, it should end in 9/28/2008, but it began again a year later.

Joyce and David’s relationship. In Before the Storm, David and Joyce are currently unmarried and had started dating not that long before the game's events that are set in May 2010 (Chloe is 16 years old at this time). David is also about to move in to the Price household, which is seen happening by Episode 3. But in Life is Strange, a chronological timestreammontage shows that Joyce and David were already married before Chloe's 16th birthday. A picture of a married Joyce and David appears prior to an image of Chloe on her 16th birthday in this timestream montage

Blackwell problem. Victoria Chase’s sole reason for being at Blackwell is Mark Jefferson. Jeffershit is not in BTS. Victoria is introduced as a sophomore at Blackwell Academy in Before the Storm and wants to be in theater for...reasons, but the age for Victoria in the first game suggests she should be a freshman in BTS. Warren is a Blackwell student at age 13. Max is said to be a sophmore with Chloe in her own school in Seattle at the time, but problem there is Max turned 14 in 2009 after the September 1st cutoff date. This means that she wouldn't be starting high school until September the following year (fall 2010). The normal age requirement to start high school as a freshman is age 14 (i.e. turning 14 before the September 1st cutoff). It is currently unknown why Max has advanced two grades in 2010. She has a 2.8 GPA on her 2013 student information sheet, which suggests she is a low B / C / high D student (not an exemplary student). Her GPA is also said to fluctuate and she acknowledged in 2013 that she should be doing better. and there’s the fact that Chloe is in Blackwell with some of the characters in the first game and dialogue (or text messages) between these characters seems to suggest that she did not know them as fellow students or even classmates prior to the original game's events. For example, Stella is in Chloe’s class photo, problem with that is that Stella doesn’t even know who Chloe is, she just refers to her as “some girl” Warren. Warren does not know who Chloe is at the beginning of Episode 2, yet in BTS class photo he is seen with Chloe. Other dialogue gives the impression that Warren does not know Chloe beforehand. For example, the text messages Max receives from Warren in Episode 4 if she kissed Chloe but declined Warren's invitation to the drive-in. There is no mention of the fact he knows Chloe from when she was going to Blackwell, her complete change of appearance, or that he's surprised that Max knows her too! There are also a couple of points in Life is Strange where, if Warren knew Chloe from the past, he would have likely opened a dialogue with her about that it's good to see her again or even asking how life is outside Blackwell. Not even Chloe seems to recognize Warren, as she refers to him simply as "your friend" to Max. Justin. When Max encounters Justin at the Blackwell Campus in the first episode of Life is Strange, "Chrysalis", she has the option to talk with him about Rachel and "her punk friend", as Max does not yet know the identity of the blue-haired punk girl that she had saved in the bathroom earlier. "I can't remember her name... But she was hot. Tats. Blue hair. Hardcore. She stopped hanging out with us after Rachel disappeared... or ran away." As we see in Life is Strange, Justin refers to Chloe in a very vague way as Rachel's "punk friend" and as though he only knows her second-hand through Rachel. Yet the Before the Storm prequel game puts Justin in the same Blackwell student photograph as Chloe (standing directly in front of her), furthermore implying they are in the same classes. He would have had frequent contact with Chloe as a classmate of just that handful of students. Also in Before the Storm, Chloe interacts with Justin at Blackwell and they seem very familiar with each other. Justin refers to her as both "Chlo-ee" and "Price", so he definitely knows both her first name and surname. They also are texting with each other in Before the Storm. Nathan. In Life is Strange Episode 1’s Cliff chapter, Max will ask Chloe about Nathan. Chloe will tell Max:"I met him in some shithole bar that didn't card me. He was too rich for the place and too wasted. And he kept flashing bills..." in Before The Storm, Chloe knows Nathan from Blackwell. but the way she describes her predicament to Max sounds like she is describing her first impressions from the first time she ever met or had one-to-one dealings with him (i.e. no previous encounters before that).

Chloe is expelled in 2011 in the first game. Chloe is expelled in 2010 for BTS. Max looks at a report card in Chloe's bedroom which shows that Chloe was still attending Blackwell Academy up until the end of her junior year, which was in May 2011. BTS gives us the choice to defend Rachel and get expelled or suspended if you don’t. There is also no mention by the Principal of a recent suspension for "spray-painting graffiti in the parking lot" as was clearly mentioned on her school file in his office in Life is Strange, nor any mention of the "police reports." Although the suspension is temporary and she is to be hopefully reinstated in the fall to start her junior year on condition of her good behavior, the suspension was not over graffiti. Being expelled in 2010 completely contradicts the circumstances of the original game, and the suspension (although being the least non-canon consequence) is over the wrong reasons. Even if Chloe was suspended, it is not unreasonable to believe that she would be expelled anyway over the extensive graffiti she left in the bathroom.

Chloe knows about Pompidou’s name despite not knowing the pupper’s name in the first game. Also "The only way you know my dog's name is if you broke into my RV." Why would he say that if he told Chloe Pompidou’s name?

How Frank got Pompidou. Frank used to bet on dog fights before having a revelation and saving a bunch of dogs, keeping one for himself. in BTS Damon gave Pompidou as a gift to Frank.

Chloe and David do not and should not have a good relationship. Deck 9 forces us to choose to be nice to David and if we choose the most Chloe choice, Chloe is demonized for being who she is.

Frank was just a drug dealer to Chloe and who she and Rachel hung out with in the past. Now Frank kills someone to protect Chloe. Chloe and Frank are not friends.

Chloe’s “Rachel was my angel” comment showed a lot to how Chloe loved Rachel and how much she meant to her. Chloe tells Max that Rachel entered her life when was at her absolute lowest and that it was she who helped her deal with the grief of having lost her father but the entire game is centered around Chloe being the one who is supporting Rachel as she deals with a serious family drama of her own. What Before The Storm should have been. Rachel helping lift Chloe through the worse point of her life. If Rachel had stopped Chloe from committing suicide… as was the commonly believed interpretation to what happened between Chloe and Rachel up until BtS, then Chloe's ""she was my angel" would have meant it was truly special and real. But instead they bump into each other at an illegal concert and Rachel distracted some thug who works for Damon and we spend the game finding out who Sera is in a reveal we all saw it coming and only to have Rachel taken out of the third episode where Rachel never talks to her and makes the whole thing feel pointless. What the game should have been was Chloe and Rachel together having fun rocking out and Chloe starting to live again and show that Chloe Price loves Rachel Amber and Rachel loves Chloe.

But mainly I wanted DONTNOD to make BTS because they know how to make a good story. In the first game we get this great mystery and a coming of age story. The first game shows you what’s at stake right away, with Before The Storm there’s no clear danger, conflict or mystery. We only get it halfway through the second episode and even then it’s a bad mystery and conflict and if it takes that long to add conflict or mystery, then I really think they failed the game. The best parts about the game are Amberprice, episode 2, Steph, Mikey & Drew and Samantha. But that’s kind of it. Before The Storm was kind of a disappointment.

I do feel that if DONTNOD had done Amberprice, then it would have been respectable about it. Not Deck 9′s “haha yeah sure Amberprice *one episode later* hahha we’re just gonna take this back, not reference it and cut all the content we planned, no it was all about how toxic Rachel was” fuck Deck Nine we would’ve been shown just how much Chloe and Rachel loved each other and no take backs. Ideally we could’ve gotten 4 episodes or seasons to explore the years that evolve Chloe and Rachel’s relationship and just show how much they loved each other.

I don’t feel that Deck Nine did Chloe justice. The writers attempt to evoke empathy with Chloe feeling grief which is done via exactly one emotion- which is a very childish understanding of how loss and coping works. She had no character arc, considering she was the exact same character that we already knew in LiS Episode 1 (A bitter disaffected teenage youth with no regard for authority) so we didn't get to see Chloe evolve into the character we loved in the first game. She just already was it. The gameplay undid the narrative we were given about Chloe being a loner in that you can talk to and make friends with pretty much anybody and they all acted like they liked and were genuinely happy to see Chloe. Very rarely were there interactions with Blackwell students that ended with Chloe's presence not being welcomed, only Wells, Victoria and Nathan showed contempt for Chloe(even with Nathan that goes away when he claps for her at the play) The reason this is done is because the game wouldn't be fun if Chloe actually was a loner. The core mechanic of Life is Strange is being able to talk to people and experiment with your surroundings. A game where nobody wanted to talk to Chloe works against the core mechanic. But in making her the main character it undoes the weight of the narrative of Chloe being alone until Rachel/Max. I just strongly feel that Deck Nine did not understand Chloe as a character and did not do her justice.

We should’ve gotten Chloe at her lowest, evolving from Max’s best friend to the character we know in the first game and Rachel helping lift Chloe through the worse point of her life. Chloe and Rachel together having fun rocking out and Chloe starting to live again and show that Chloe Price loves Rachel Amber and Rachel loves Chloe. Chloe losing Rachel and showing how Chloe has to deal with Rachel missing, how she became in debt to Frank and how she got involved with Nathan and how Chloe ends up in the bathroom.

#Life Is Strange #Life Is Strange Before The Storm #Chloe Price #Rachel Amber #Amberprice #DONTNOD

81 notes · View notes