#and i want to contrast those themes with.... THE EPIC HORROR? | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

maxwell-grant · 3 years

Note

What are your thoughts on Jekyll/Hyde and his archetype of the human periodically changing into a monster ?

Jekyll & Hyde was the 2nd horror story I read following Frankenstein, I got it off the same library and it always stuck very strongly with me even before I got into horror in general. I even dressed up as Jekyll/Hyde as a kid for a school fair by shredding a lab coat on one side and asking my sister to make-up claw gashes on my exposed arm and paint half of my face, although in hindsight I think I ended up looking more like Doctor Two-Face than Jekyll/Hyde, but I was 12 and didn't have any Victorian clothing to use so I had to make do. The first film project I tried doing at film school was intended to be a modern take on Jekyll & Hyde, and I didn't get much farther than a couple of discarded scripts

Much like Frankenstein, Mr Hyde as a character and a story is something that's kind of baked into everything I do artistically. And it's not just me, as even in pop culture itself, none of us can escape Mr Hyde. I would go so far as to argue Mr Hyde may be the single most significant character created by victorian fiction, if only by the sheer impact and legacy the character's had.

(Fan-art by guilhermefranco)

Part of what makes Mr Hyde such a powerful and lasting icon of pop culture is that the very premise of the book invites a personal reading that's gonna vary from person to person. Because everyone's familiar with the basic twist of the story, that it's a conflict of duality, of the good and evil sides, but everyone has a more personal idea of what those entail. Some people make the story more about class. A lot of readings laser-focus on sex and lust as the driving force, and there's also a lot of readings of Mr Hyde that tackle it to explore a more gendered perspective, and so forth.

I don't particularly take much notice of the Jekyll & Hyde adaptations partially because the novel's premise and themes have become baked so throughly into pop culture and explored in so many different and interesting ways, that I'm not particularly starving for good Jekyll & Hyde adaptations the way I am for Dracula and Frankenstein. The Fredric March film in particular is one that orbits my head less because of the film itself (although I do recommend it), but because of one specific scene, and that's when Jekyll first transforms into Hyde on screen.

Out of all the things they could have shown him doing right that second, they instead took the time to show him enjoying the rain.

Just Hyde taking off his hat and letting it all cascade on his face with this sheer enthusiasm like he's never been to the rain before, never enjoyed it before, and now that he's free from being Jekyll, he gets to enjoy life like he never has before. It's such an oddly humanizing moment to put amidst a horror movie, in the scene where you're ostensibly introducing the monster to the audience, and it makes such a stark contrast to the rest of the film where Hyde is completely irredeemable, but I think it's that contrast that makes the film's take on Hyde work so well even with it's diverging from the source material, even if I don't particularly like in general interpretations of Hyde that are focused on a sexual aspect.

Because one, it understands that Jekyll was fundamentally a self-serving coward and not a paragon of goodness, and two, it also understands one of the things that makes Hyde scary: He wants what all of us want, to live and be happy. He's happy when he leaves the lab and dances around in the rain like a giddy child, he's happy when he goes to places Jekyll couldn't dream of showing up, he's happy as a showgirl-abusing sexual predator. Hyde is all wants, all the time, and there's not that much difference between his wants, his domineering possessiveness, and the likes exhibited by Muriel's father and Jekyll's own within the very same film, which also works to emphasize one of the other ideas of the original story, that Edward Hyde doesn't come from nowhere. That no monster is closer to humanity than Mr Hyde, because he is us. He is the thing that Jekyll refused to take responsability for until it was too late.

(Art by LorenzoMastroianni)

While many of the ideas that defined Mr Hyde had already been explored in pop culture beforehand, Hyde popularized and redefined many of them in particular by modernizing the idea. He was the werewolf, the doppelganger, The Player On The Other Side, except he came from within. He was not transformed by circumstance, he made himself that way, and the elixir merely brought out something already inside his soul. To acknowledge that he's there is to acknowledge that he is you, and to not do that is to either lose to him, or perish. Hyde was there to address both the rot settling in Victorian society as well as grappling concerns over Darwinian heritage, of the realization that man has always had the beast inside of him (it's no accident that Hyde's main method of murder is by clubbing people to death with his cane like a caveman).

I've already argued on my post about Tarzan that the Wild Man archetype, beginning with Enkidu of The Epic of Gilgamesh, is the in-between man and beast, between superhero and monster, and that Mr Hyde is an essential component of the superhero's trajectory, as the creature split in between. That stories about dual personalities, doppelgangers, the duality of the soul, the hero with a day job and an after dark career, you can pinpoint Hyde as a turning point in how all of these solidified gradually in pop culture. And I've argued otherwise that The Punisher, for all that his image and narrative points otherwise, is ultimately just as much of a superhero as the rest of them, even if no one wants to admit it, drawing a parallel between The Punisher and Mr Hyde. And he's far from the only modern character that can invite this kind of parallel.

The idea of a regular person periodically or permanently transforming into, or revealing itself to be, something extraordinary and fantastic and scary, grappling with the divide it causes in their soul, and questions whether it's a new development or merely the truest parts of themselves coming to light at last, and the effects this transformation has for good and bad alike. The idea of a potent, dangerous, unpredictable enemy who ultimately is you, or at least a facet of you and what you can do. That these are bound to destroy each other if not reconciled with or overcome.

You know what are my thoughts on the archetype of "human periodically changing into a monster" are? Look around you and you're gonna see the myriad ways The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde's themes have manifested in the century and a half since the story's release. Why it shouldn't be any surprise whatsoever that Mr Hyde has become such an integral part of pop culture, in it's heroes and monsters alike. Why we can never escape Mr Hyde, just as Jekyll never could.

It is Nixon himself who represents that dark, venal and incurably violent side of the American character that almost every country in the world has learned to fear and despise. Our Barbie-doll president, with his Barbie-doll wife and his boxful of Barbie-doll children is also America's answer to the monstrous Mr. Hyde.

He speaks for the Werewolf in us; the bully, the predatory shyster who turns into something unspeakable, full of claws and bleeding string-warts on nights when the moon comes too close… - Hunter S. Thompson

There is a scene in the movie Pulp Fiction that explains almost every terrible thing happening in the news today. And it's not the scene where Ving Rhames shoots that guy's dick off. It's the part where the hit man played by John Travolta is talking about how somebody vandalized his car, and says this:

"Boy, I wish I could've caught him doing it. I'd have given anything to catch that asshole doing it. It'd been worth him doing it, just so I could've caught him doing it."

That last sentence is something everyone should understand about mankind. After all, the statement is completely illogical -- revenge is supposed to be about righting a wrong. But he wants to be wronged, specifically so he'll have an excuse to get revenge. We all do.

Why else would we love a good revenge movie? We sit in a theater and watch Liam Neeson's daughter get kidnapped. We're not sad about it, because we know he's a badass and he finally has permission to be awesome. Not a single person in that theater was rooting for it to all be an innocent misunderstanding. We wanted Liam to be wronged, because we wanted to see him kick ass. It's why so many people walk around with vigilante fantasies in their heads.

Long, long ago, the people in charge figured out that the easiest and most reliable way to bind a society together was by controlling and channeling our hate addiction. That's the reason why seeing hurricane wreckage on the news makes us mumble "That's sad" and maybe donate a few bucks to the Red Cross hurricane fund, while 9/11 sends us into a decade-long trillion-dollar rage that leaves the Middle East in flames.

The former was caused by wind; the latter was caused by monsters. The former makes us kind of bummed out; the latter gets us high.

It's easy to blame the news media for pumping us full of stories of mass shootings and kidnapped children, but that's stopping one step short of the answer: The media just gives us what we want. And what we want is to think we're beset on all sides by monsters.

The really popular stories will always feature monsters that are as different from us as possible. Think about Star Wars -- what real shithead has ever referred to himself as being on "the dark side"? In Harry Potter and countless fantasy universes, you have wizards working in "black magic" and the "dark arts." Can you imagine a scientist developing some technology for chemical weapons or invasive advertising openly thinking of what he does as "dark science"? Can you imagine a real world leader naming his headquarters "The Death Star" or "Mount Doom"?

Of course not. But we need to believe that evil people know they're evil, or else that would open the door to the fact that we might be evil without knowing it. I mean, sure, maybe we've bought chocolate that was made using child slaves or driven cars that poisoned the air, but we didn't do it to be evil -- we were simply doing whatever we felt like and ignoring the consequences. Not like Hitler and the bankers who ruined the economy and those people who burned the kittens -- they wake up every day intentionally dreaming up new evils to create. It's not like Hitler actually thought he was saving the world.

So no matter how many times you vote to cut food stamps and then use the money to buy a boat, you could still be way worse. You could, after all, be one of those murdering / lazy / ignorant / greedy / oppressive monsters that you know the world is full of, and that only your awesome moral code prevents you from turning into at any moment. And those monsters are out there.

They have to be. Because otherwise, we're the monsters - 5 Reasons Humanity Desperately Wants Monsters To Be Real, by Jason Pargin

(Two-Face sequence comes from the end of Batman Annual #14: Eye of the Beholder)

For good or bad, Hyde has become omnipresent. He's a part of our superheroes, he's a part of our supervillains, he's in our monsters. He lives and prattles in our ears, sometimes we need him to survive, and sometimes we become Hyde even when we don't need to, because our survival instincts or base cruelties or desperation brings out the worst in us. Sometimes we can beat him, and sometimes he's not that bad. Sometimes we do need to appease him and listen to what he says, about us and the world around us. And sometimes we need to do so specifically to prove him wrong and beat him again.

But he never, ever goes away, as he so accurately declares in the musical

Do you really think That I would ever let you go...

Do you think I'd ever set you free?

If you do, I'm sad to say It simply isn't so

You will never get away FROM MEEEEEE

(Art by Akreon on Artstation)

#tw: injury #tw: blood #tw: disfigurement #replies tag #dr jekyll and mr hyde #the strange case of dr jekyll and mr hyde #robert louis stevenson #two-face #batman #monster tag #universal monsters #horror tag

61 notes · View notes

doomedandstoned · 3 years

Text

Spiral Grave Match Powerful Singing to Damning Riffs on Their Debut LP

~By Tom Hanno~

As we all dealt with the enormity of the Covid-19 pandemic, there were many bands who were taking the down time to write, record, or were making preparations for their completed works to be released upon the masses. Among these was the Maryland based purveyors of doom, metal, and power, the mighty SPIRAL GRAVE. On July 16th, the band released their debut album, 'Legacy of the Anointed' (2021), via Argonauta Records.

You'll know this talented singer as soon as the vocals hit, because you're hearing ex-Iron Man frontman, "Screaming Mad" Dee Calhoun, a man whose vocal work is influenced by legendary guys; guys like Rob Halford and Dio. He brings with him the surviving members of Iron Man: "Iron Lou" Strachan on bass duties and Mot Waldmann pounding the skins.

Spiral Grave also utilizes guitarist Willy Rivera (ex-Lord), and he really brings the goods on their debut album. His riffs draw from the normal doom/stoner influences, but he is able to put a spin on that sound that is refreshing to my ears. I'll let his quote from the bio explain a bit better:

I wanted to step away from the extremity of my former band and get back to writing songs that were heavy but had hooks and a strong vocal presence. For this band, I wanted to draw from bands such as Dio-era Sabbath, Candlemass, Metal Church, Armored Saint, Mountain, UFO and Judas Priest with enough experimentation that would allow us to branch out on future releases.

I think that desire to be different, while keeping future music in mind, is a big part of why this record has grabbed ahold of me so perfectly, you can just hear that these guys are out to make you remember their music long after you initially hear it.

Legacy of the Anointed by Spiral Grave

On to my picks for the standout tracks! "Nightmare on May Eve (Dunwich Pt. 1)" opens the album up and is among the best songs on this record.

I hear some Thin Lizzy in certain parts, particularly in the melody lines that are used throughout the track, a bit of Iron Maiden in the guitars, and a pretty distinct heavy metal tone overall. Plus, Lou's bass guitar has the sound that I like to call the "ping pong ball effect", that bouncy, DD Verni (Overkill) tone that is one of my favorite bass sounds ever.

I really love the way Dee has worded it his lyrics for this track, for example:

Young Master Whateley – growing up so fast To see you it’s so hard to think just fifteen years have passed The Wizard would be proud of you were he alive to see Destiny fulfilled – you set your father free

Since I'm not usually very good at deciphering lyrics, I asked Dee what this track was about. He told me:

It's an adaptation of HP Lovecraft's 'The Dunwich Horror.' It tells the first half of the story (hence the "pt. 1"), and the Iron Man song, "Thy Brother's Keeper," tells the second half.

That description also explains the old style of wording used, and makes the track even more interesting.

Legacy of the Anointed by Spiral Grave

Another song that I feel is worthy of chatting about, is called "Tanglefoot." What I love about this one is that old school, doomy, guitar intro. It doesn't last long before bursting into an energetic riff that drives everything forward, and the contrast between the riffs is so powerful.

Dee sounds amazing here too, there's a definite Dio meets Rob Halford feel that is aided by the way the guitars move underneath his vocals; but my favorite section of this track is when everything shows down.

As the music drops it's distortion, and the band settles back for a more subtle approach, is where I feel Dee shines the most.

So many promises each night – vows to make it right Can you tell me what I’d really like to know? So many mirrors in the smoke – the true reflection always cloaked Misdirection hides the nature of the game.

I just love those lyrics, and the way they're performed is absolutely perfect for the section, and the track as a whole. As it turns out, these first tracks that we've discussed are also Willy's two favorite tracks, I'll let him explain:

As cliche as it sounds, I’m proud of all the songs on the album but if I’m forced to choose. It’s a tie between “Tanglefoot” and “Nightmare.” I love the former because it breaks the convention of what people should expect from a “doom” band and it has that cool Budgie section in the middle, which is a contrast to the rest of the track. But at the end of the day "Nightmare" is my favorite.

It was one of the last songs written for the album and is a cool amalgamation of everything you’re about to experience in the album.I wanted a strong opening track to the album and was thinking of something like Ozzy’s “Over The Mountain,” but with touches of Mercyful Fate and Iron Maiden. I think it’s the perfect way to break expectations right out of the gate and it opens up the possibilities for us as songwriters.

Now we can move on to my personal favorite, "Abgrund," which is also Dee's pick for his favorite on this album. Since that's the case, I'll start by letting Dee expand on why he picked it, and then I'll try to do the same. Take it away, Dee!

"I'd probably go with Abgrund. It's heavy and epic, and the idea of staring into the abyss until finally the abyss stares into you was always a concept I wanted to write about. At the end of the day it's a song about being your own worst enemy, and realizing that the abyss is actually you, staring back at yourself. Plus, it's great fun to sing and scream my fool head off in."

I must say that the lyrical theme is one that I myself can identify with, as could many others. I believe that anyone who spends their life attracted to the darkness , will eventually attract that darkness to themselves, and once the black sees you, it can never unsee you.

"What does it see – has it found the crack in the armor? What does it know – the ghost in the blackness above me? What do you want from me?"

Musically, this is one heavy track, perhaps the heaviest on this album. The riffs are written for maximum effect, and once you hear how Dee screams over them, you'll stick around for repeated listens.

There are five other tracks on Legacy of the Anointed, and not one of them is bad, but I feel that I've held your attention for long enough. Now, do yourselves the favor of going to check out this magnificent album, because a disservice will be done if you deprive your ears of these mighty songs. The album can be found here, and physical copies can be ordered at Argonauta Records. Enjoy!

Follow The Band

Get Their Music

#D&S Reviews #Spiral Grave #Baltimore #Maryland #doom metal #hard rock #Tom Hanno #Argonauta Records #Doomed and Stoned

2 notes · View notes

greycappedjester · 4 years

Note

kuroo, oikawa, and suga's fav books? headcanons for the first year boys hufflepuff dorms (so hinata and kageyama's dorm)? headcanons for tendou and ushijima's relationship in All in the Cards? also, have oikawa/hinata met the other's Fate (tendou/ushi), and what do they think of them? are they even aware that the other has a Fate?

Hey, these are all such cool questions. Sorry, this one has taken a bit for me to answer almost entirely because I could not think of a single book that would be Kuroo, Oikawa, and Suga’s favorite--for a large part because Kuroo and Suga weren’t raised in the Muggle world so are unlikely to have Muggle books as their favorite (except maybe ones Suga had to read for Muggle Studies) and Oikawa has had limited interaction (only summers) with the Muggle world since he was eleven. With that, I’ll try to answer type/ genres of readers I think they are.

Gonna be long so I’m putting it under a read more

Hq at Hogwarts

Kuroo, Oikawa, and Suga's favorite books/ genre?

Kuroo is the type of person who just really likes knowing a bit about everything and being able to show off/ surprise people with random facts. He’s 1,000% the type of kid who read the magical equivalent of thesauruses and random fact books when he was young and was super smug when he brought up a fact that his dad didn’t know. For fiction, I think he’d like epic dramas, specifically ones with dramatic monologues and smart heroes that were able to trick the system. The magical equivalence of Count of Monte Cristo, the Scarlet Pimpernel, and V for Vendetta would probably be his favorites for fiction.

Oikawa once he got to Hogwarts (and before with the limited amount of books he can find) heavily enjoys magical theory books--it’s really, really important to him to know how his magic and the magical world works. I’d say he’s hardcore the most voracious reader of the series (Kuroo being a close second). With that, without growing up in the magical world, he’s really not particularly good at being able to tell what’s common knowledge and what’s not which he finds particularly irritated. For him, I really think he does focus primarily on non-fiction theory and application books; but, I think when he was a kid he probably had a few favorite books generally in modern fantasy, sci-fi, or magical realism (Matilda, E.T., Jurassic Park, Ender’s Game)

Suga is the definition of a secret goth in his book taste. I think Suga really does enjoy a good horror book and especially if it focuses on psychological horror themes or the fallibility of man. If he ever got exposed to them in Muggle Studies or if the Wizarding World had an equivalent, he would absolutely love Poe’s short stories (esp. Fall of the House of Usher, Mask of the Red Death, the Tell Tale Heart). He’d also like the wizarding equivalence of those creepy short stories that stay with you (”The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson, “All Summer in a Day” by Ray Bradbury) Of these three characters, I think Suga would be the one that enjoys fiction the most.

Headcanons for Kageyama and Hinata’s dorm?

1.) The chill, friendly dorm by far. So, this dorm is like Hinata, Kageyama, Inuoka, Shibayama, Sakunami who are all just ridiculously nice people. In contrast to Yamaguchi’s dorm, this dorm is the kind that’s just like “oh, well, it looks like Kageyama and Hinata are gone again, they’re either involved in something dangerous or probably playing Quidditch.” Smiles. “Oh, well, hope it’s Quidditch”. They just go with the flow by now and doesn’t let it stop their weekly games of gobstones.

2.) Dorm most likely to forget snacks in their dorms over the summer and get a lecture from Takeda about making work for the elves.

3.) Most of them have a tendency to be kind of messy, even Sakunami. The exception is actually Hinata, who is the cleanest about shared living spaces due to legitimately living almost his entire life sharing rooms either at Hogwarts or the orphanage. A+ roommate Shouyou Hinata....except for being loud and getting up way too freaking early.

4.) With that, Inuoka and Hinata are the early birds of the group and the rest of them despise them for this fact.

Cards

Headcanons for Tendou and Ushijima's relationship in All in the Cards?

1.) Centuries and centuries of Tendou trying and sometimes succeeding in getting Ushijima to make bad decisions. Oikawa hardly stood a chance at getting Ushijima to budge on anything, Tendou is a master at finding the right buttons to push....which Ushijima secretly appreciates.

2.) Way, way too chill about letting the other do absolutely whatever method they want without any interference. Ushijima thinks it an appropriate measure to almost start a decade long battle of bureaucratic paper work to fix a minor tax loophole that used the wrong verb tense a few centuries earlier? Yeah, Tendou’s fine with that, whatevs, have fun. Tendou thinks it would be funny to collapse a bridge in the middle of a snowstorm in front of a horse that just lost its shoe in order to delay a message going from a soldier to his wife who happens to work at a bakery that just happens to be the favorite breakfast place of a squire that just happens to work for a knight who happens to be looking for his squire to relieve him of guard duty when he just happens to be momentarily blinded by the sun and not notice when all of the palace curtains were suddenly swapped to the worst, most awful shade of nauseous orange that anyone had ever witnessed? No, Ushijima’s good as long as Tendou was making the most of his day...and the orange is Tendou’s favorite color.

....cannot stress enough that Ushijima and Tendou really do not have normal human sensibilities in this series.

Have Oikawa or Hinata met the other's Fate and what do they think of them? are they even aware that the other has a Fate?

Nope, they are completely unaware that any one else alive has ever personally met a Fate (it really is exceedingly rare) and no one they’ve mentioned it to (Iwaizumi for Oikawa and Tsukishima for Hinata) has quite believed them because it really does sound kind of crazy.

Whelp, that’s what I got this time! Hope you enjoyed them!

#Hq at Hogwarts #asks #cards #my writing

21 notes · View notes

mattbrothersscriptwriter · 5 years

Text

My Top 20 Films of 2019 - Part Two

I don’t think I’ve had a year where my top ten jostled and shifted as much as this one did - these really are the best of the best and my personal favourites of 2019.

10. Toy Story 4

I think we can all agree that Toy Story 3 was a pretty much perfect conclusion to a perfect trilogy right? About as close as is likely to get, I’m sure. I shared the same trepidation when part four was announced, especially after some underwhelming sequels like Finding Dory and Cars 3 (though I do have a lot of time for Monsters University and Incredibles 2). So maybe it’s because the odds were so stacked against this being good but I thought it was wonderful. A truly existential nightmare of an epilogue that does away with Andy (and mostly kids altogether) to focus on the dreams and desires of the toys themselves - separate from their ‘duties’ as playthings to biological Gods. What is their purpose in life without an owner? Can they be their own person and carve their own path? In the case of breakout new character Forky (Tony Hale), what IS life? Big big questions for a cash grab kids films huh?

The animation is somehow yet another huge leap forward (that opening rainstorm!), Bo Peep’s return is excellently pitched and the series tradition of being unnervingly horrifying is back as well thanks to those creepy ventriloquist dolls! Keanu Reeves continues his ‘Keanuassaince‘ as the hilarious Duke Caboom and this time, hopefully, the ending at least feels finite. This series means so much to me: I think the first movie is possibly the tightest, most perfect script ever written, the third is one of my favourites of the decade and growing up with the franchise (I was 9 when the first came out, 13 for part two, 24 for part three and now 32 for this one), these characters are like old friends so of course it was great to see them again. All this film had to do was be good enough to justify its existence and while there are certainly those out there that don’t believe this one managed it, I think the fact that it went as far as it did showed that Pixar are still capable of pushing boundaries and exploring infinity and beyond when they really put their minds to it.

9. The Nightingale

Hoo boy. Already controversial with talk of mass walkouts (I witnessed a few when this screened at Sundance London), it’s not hard to see why but easy to understand. Jennifer Kent (The Babadook) is a truly fearless filmmaker following up her acclaimed suburban horror movie come grief allegory with a period revenge tale set in the Tasmanian wilderness during British colonial rule in the early 1800s. It’s rare to see the British depicted with the monstrous brutality for which they were known in the distant colonies and this unflinching drama sorely needed an Australian voice behind the camera to do it justice.

The film is front loaded with some genuinely upsetting, nasty scenes of cruel violence but its uncensored brutality and the almost casual nature of its depiction is entirely the point - this was normalised behaviour over there and by treating it so matter of factly, it doesn’t slip into gratuitous ‘movie violence’. It is what it is. And what it is is hard to watch. If anything, as Kent has often stated, it’s still toned down from the actual atrocities that occurred so it’s a delicate balance that I think Kent more than understands. Quoting from an excellent Vanity Fair interview she did about how she directs, Kent said “I think audiences have become very anaesthetised to violence on screen and it’s something I find disturbing... People say ‘these scenes are so shocking and disturbing’. Of course they are. We need to feel that. When we become so removed from violence on screen, this is a very irresponsible thing. So I wanted to put us right within the frame with that person experiencing the loss of everything they hold dear”.

Aisling Franciosi is next level here as a woman who has her whole life torn from her, leaving her as nothing but a raging husk out for vengeance. It would be so easy to fall into odd couple tropes once she teams up with reluctant native tracker Billy (an equally impressive newcomer, Baykali Ganambarr) but the film continues to stay true to the harsh racism of the era, unafraid to depict our heroine - our point of sympathy - as horrendously racist towards her own ally. Their partnership is not easily solidified but that makes it all the stronger when they star to trust each other. Sam Claflin is also career best here, weaponizing his usual charm into dangerous menace and even after cementing himself as the year’s most evil villain, he can still draw out the humanity in such a broken and corrupt man.

Gorgeously shot in the Academy ratio, the forest landscape here is oppressive and claustrophobic. Kent also steps back into her horror roots with some mesmerising, skin crawling dream scenes that amplify the woozy nightmarish tone and overbearing sense of dread. Once seen, never forgotten, this is not going to be everyone’s cup of tea (and that’s fine) but when cinema can affect you on such a visceral level and be this powerful, reflective and honest about our own past, it’s hard to ignore. Stunning.

8. The Irishman

Aka Martin Scorsese’s magnum opus, I did manage to see this one in a cinema before the Netflix drop and absolutely loved it. I’ve watched 85 minute long movies that felt longer than this - Marty’s mastery of pace, energy and knowing when to let things play out in agonising detail is second to none. This epic tale of the life of Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) really is the cinematic equivalent of having your cake and eating it too, allowing Scorsese to run through a greatest hits victory lap of mobster set pieces, alpha male arguments, a decades spanning life story and one (last?) truly great Joe Pesci performance before simply letting the story... continue... to a natural, depressing and tragic ending, reflecting the emptiness of a life built on violence and crime.

For a film this long, it’s impressive how much the smallest details make the biggest impacts. A stammering phone call from a man emotionally incapable of offering any sort of condolence. The cold refusal of forgiveness from a once loving daughter. A simple mirroring of a bowl of cereal or a door left slightly ajar. These are the parts of life that haunt us all and it’s what we notice the most in a deliberately lengthy biopic that shows how much these things matter when everything else is said and done. The violence explodes in sudden, sharp bursts, often capping off unbearably tense sequences filled with the everyday (a car ride, a conversation about fish, ice cream...) and this contrast between the whizz bang of classic Scorsese and the contemplative nature of Silence era Scorsese is what makes this film feel like such an accomplishment. De Niro is FINALLY back but it’s the memorably against type role for Pesci and an invigorated Al Pacino who steals this one, along with a roll call of fantastic cameos, with perhaps the most screentime given to the wonderfully petty Stephen Graham as Tony Pro, not to mention Anna Paquin’s near silent performance which says more than possibly anyone else.

Yes, the CG de-aging is misguided at best, distracting at worst (I never really knew how old anyone was meant to be at any given time... which is kinda a problem) but like how you get used to it really quickly when it’s used well, here I kinda got past it being bad in an equally fast amount of time and just went with it. Would it have been a different beast had they cast younger actors to play them in the past? Undoubtedly. But if this gives us over three hours of Hollywood’s finest giving it their all for the last real time together, then that’s a compromise I can live with.

7. The Last Black Man in San Francisco

Wow. I was in love with this film from the moving first trailer but then the film itself surpassed all expectations. This is a true indie film success story, with lead actor Jimmie Fails developing the idea with director Joe Talbot for years before Kickstarting a proof of concept and eventually getting into Sundance with short film American Paradise, which led to the backing of this debut feature through Plan B and A24. The deeply personal and poetic drama follows a fictionalised version of Jimmie, trying to buy back an old Victorian town house he claims was built by his grandfather, in an act of rebellion against the increasingly gentrified San Francisco that both he and director Talbot call home.

The film is many things - a story of male friendship, of solidarity within our community, of how our cities can change right from underneath us - it moves to the beat of it’s own drum, with painterly cinematography full of gorgeous autumnal colours and my favourite score of the year from Emile Mosseri. The performances, mostly by newcomers or locals outside of brilliant turns from Jonathan Majors, Danny Glover and Thora Birch, are wonderful and the whole thing is such a beautiful love letter to the city that it makes you ache for a strong sense of place in your own home, even if your relationship with it is fractured or strained. As Jimmie says, “you’re not allowed to hate it unless you love it”.

For me, last year’s Blindspotting (my favourite film of the year) tackled gentrification within California more succinctly but this much more lyrical piece of work ebbs and flows through a number of themes like identity, family, memory and time. It’s a big film living inside a small, personal one and it is not to be overlooked.

6. Little Women

I had neither read the book nor seen any prior adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s 1868 novel so to me, this is by default the definitive telling of this story. If from what I hear, the non linear structure is Greta Gerwig’s addition, then it’s a total slam dunk. It works so well in breaking up the narrative and by jumping from past to present, her screenplay highlights certain moments and decisions with a palpable sense of irony, emotional weight or knowing wink. Getting to see a statement made with sincere conviction and then paid off within seconds, can be both a joy and a surefire recipe for tears. Whether it’s the devastating contrast between scenes centred around Beth’s illness or the juxtaposition of character’s attitudes to one another, it’s a massive triumph. Watching Amy angrily tell Laurie how she’s been in love with him all her life and then cutting back to her childishly making a plaster cast of her foot for him (’to remind him how small her feet are’) is so funny.

Gerwig and her impeccable cast bring an electric energy to the period setting, capturing the big, messy realities of family life with a mix of overwhelming cross-chatter and the smallest of intimate gestures. It’s a testament to the film that every sister feels fully serviced and represented, from Beth’s quiet strength to Amy’s unforgivable sibling rivalry. Chris Cooper’s turn as a stoic man suffering almost imperceptible grief is a personal heartbreaking favourite.

The book’s (I’m assuming) most sweeping romantic statements are wonderfully delivered, full of urgent passion and relatable heartache, from Marmie’s (Laura Dern) “I’m angry nearly every day of my life” moment to Jo’s (Saoirse Ronan) painful defiance of feminine attributes not being enough to cure her loneliness. The sheer amount of heart and warmth in this is just remarkable and I can easily see it being a film I return to again and again.

5. Booksmart

2019 has been a banner year for female directors, making their exclusion from some of the early awards conversations all the more damning. From this list alone, we have Lulu Wang, Jennifer Kent and Greta Gerwig. Not to mention Lorene Scafaria (Hustlers), Melina Matsoukas (Queen & Slim), Jocelyn DeBoer & Dawn Luebbe (Greener Grass), Sophie Hyde (Animals) and Rose Glass (Saint Maud - watch out for THIS one in 2020, it’s brilliant). Perhaps the most natural transition from in front of to behind the camera has been made by Olivia Wilde, who has created a borderline perfect teen comedy that can make you laugh till you cry, cry till you laugh and everything in-between.

Subverting the (usually male focused) ‘one last party before college’ tropes that fuel the likes of Superbad and it’s many inferior imitators, Booksmart follows two overachievers who, rather than go on a coming of age journey to get some booze or get laid, simply want to indulge in an insane night of teenage freedom after realising that all of the ‘cool kids’ who they assumed were dropouts, also managed to get a place in all of the big universities. It’s a subtly clever remix of an old favourite from the get go but the committed performances from Kaitlyn Dever and Beanie Feldstein put you firmly in their shoes for the whole ride.

It’s a genuine blast, with big laughs and a bigger heart, portraying a supportive female friendship that doesn’t rely on hokey contrivances to tear them apart, meaning that when certain repressed feelings do come to the surface, the fallout is heartbreaking. As I stated in a twitter rave after first seeing it back in May, every single character, no matter how much they might appear to be simply representing a stock role or genre trope, gets their moment to be humanised. This is an impeccably cast ensemble of young unknowns who constantly surprise and the script is a marvel - a watertight structure without a beat out of place, callbacks and payoffs to throwaway gags circle back to be hugely important and most of all, the approach taken to sexuality and representation feels so natural. I really think it is destined to be looked back on and represent 2019 the way Heathers does ‘88, Clueless ‘95 or Easy A 2010. A new high benchmark for crowd pleasing, indie comedy - teen or otherwise.

4. Ad Astra

Brad Pitt is one of my favourite actors and one who, despite still being a huge A-lister even after 30 years in the game, never seems to get enough credit for the choices he makes, the movies he stars in and also the range of stories he helps produce through his company, Plan B. 2019 was something of a comeback year for Pitt as an actor with the insanely measured and controlled lead performance seen here in Ad Astra and the more charismatic and chaotic supporting role in Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood.

I love space movies, especially those that are more about broken people blasting themselves into the unknown to search for answers within themselves... which manages to sum up a lot of recent output in this weirdly specific sub-genre. First Man was a devastating look at grief characterised by a man who would rather go to a desolate rock than have to confront what he lost, all while being packaged as a heroic biopic with a stunning score. Gravity and The Martian both find their protagonists forced to rely on their own cunning and ingenuity to survive and Interstellar looked at the lengths we go to for those we love left behind. Smaller, arty character studies like High Life or Moon are also astounding. All of this is to say that Ad Astra takes these concepts and runs with them, challenging Pitt to cross the solar system to talk some sense into his long thought dead father (Tommy Lee Jones). But within all the ‘sad dad’ stuff, there’s another film in here just daring you to try and second guess it - one that kicks things off with a terrifying free fall from space, gives us a Mad Max style buggy chase on the moon and sidesteps into horror for one particular set-piece involving a rabid baboon in zero G! It manages to feel so completely nuts, so episodic in structure, that I understand why a lot of people were turned off - feeling that the overall film was too scattershot to land the drama or too pondering to have any fun with. I get the criticisms but for me, both elements worked in tandem, propelling Pitt on this (assumed) one way journey at a crazy pace whilst sitting back and languishing in the ‘bigger themes’ more associated with a Malik or Kubrick film. Something that Pitt can sell me on in his sleep by this point.

I loved the visuals from cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema (Interstellar), loved the imagination and flair of the script from director James Gray and Ethan Gross and loved the score by Max Richter (with Lorne Balfe and Nils Frahm) but most of all, loved Pitt, proving that sometimes a lot less, is a lot more. The sting of hearing the one thing he surely knew (but hoped he wouldn’t) be destined to hear from his absent father, acted almost entirely in his eyes during a third act confrontation, summed up the movie’s brilliance for me - so much so that I can forgive some of the more outlandish ‘Mr Hyde’ moments of this thing’s alter ego... like, say, riding a piece of damaged hull like a surfboard through a meteor debris field!

3. Avengers: Endgame

It’s no secret that I think Marvel, the MCU in particular, have been going from strength to strength in recent years, slowly but surely taking bigger risks with filmmakers (the bonkers Taika Waititi, the indie darlings of Ryan Coogler, Cate Shortland and Chloe Zhao) whilst also carefully crafting an entertaining, interconnected universe of characters and stories. But what is the point of building up any movie ‘universe’ if you’re not going to pay it off and Endgame is perhaps the strongest conclusion to eleven years of movie sequels that fans could have possibly hoped for.

Going into this thing, the hype was off the charts (and for good reason, with it now being the highest grossing film of all time) but I remember souring on the first entry of this two-parter, Infinity War, during the time between initial release and Endgame’s premiere. That film had a game-changing climax, killing off half the heroes (and indeed the universe’s population) and letting the credits role on the villain having achieved his ultimate goal. It was daring, especially for a mammoth summer blockbuster but obviously, we all knew the deaths would never be permanent, especially with so many already-announced sequels for now ‘dusted’ characters. However, it wasn’t just the feeling that everything would inevitably be alright in the end. For me, the characters themselves felt hugely under-serviced, with arguably the franchise’s main goody two shoes Captain America being little more than a beardy bloke who showed up to fight a little bit. Basically what I’m getting at is that I felt Endgame, perhaps emboldened by the giant runtime, managed to not only address these character slights but ALSO managed to deliver the most action packed, comic booky, ‘bashing your toys together’ final fight as well.

It’s a film of three parts, each pretty much broken up into one hour sections. There’s the genuinely new and interesting initial section following our heroes dealing with the fact that they lost... and it stuck. Thor angrily kills Thanos within the first fifteen minutes but it’s a meaningless action by this point - empty revenge. Cutting to five years later, we get to see how defeat has affected them, for better or worse, trying to come to terms with grief and acceptance. Cap tries to help the everyman, Black Widow is out leading an intergalactic mop up squad and Thor is wallowing in a depressive black hole. It’s a shocking and vibrantly compelling deconstruction of the whole superhero thing and it gives the actors some real meat to chew on, especially Robert Downy Jr here who goes from being utterly broken to fighting within himself to do the right thing despite now having a daughter he doesn’t want to lose too. Part two is the trip down memory lane, fan service-y time heist which is possibly the most fun section of any of these movies, paying tribute to the franchise’s past whilst teetering on a knife’s edge trying to pull off a genuine ‘mission impossible’. And then it explodes into the extended finale which pays everyone off, demonstrates some brilliantly imaginative action and sticks the landing better than it had any right to. In a year which saw the ending of a handful of massive geek properties, from Game of Thrones to Star Wars, it’s a miracle even one of them got it right at all. That Endgame managed to get it SO right is an extraordinary accomplishment and if anything, I think Marvel may have shot themselves in the foot as it’s hard to imagine anything they can give us in the future having the intense emotional weight and momentum of this huge finale.

2. Knives Out

Rian Johnson has been having a ball leaping into genre sandpits and stirring shit up, from his teen spin on noir in Brick to his quirky con man caper with The Brothers Bloom, his time travel thriller Looper and even his approach to the Star Wars mythos in The Last Jedi. Turning his attention to the relatively dead ‘whodunnit’ genre, Knives Out is a perfect example of how to celebrate everything that excites you about a genre whilst weaponizing it’s tropes against your audience’s baggage and preconceptions.

An impeccable cast have the time of their lives here, revelling in playing self obsessed narcissists who scramble to punt the blame around when the family’s patriarch, a successful crime novelist (Christopher Plummer), winds up dead. Of course there’s something fishy going on so Daniel Craig’s brilliantly dry southern detective Benoit Blanc is called in to investigate.There are plenty of standouts here, from Don Johnson’s ignorant alpha wannabe Richard to Michael Shannon’s ferocious eldest son Walt to Chris Evan’s sweater wearing jock Ransom, full of unchecked, white privilege swagger. But the surprise was the wholly sympathetic, meek, vomit prone Marta, played brilliantly by Ana de Armas, cast against her usual type of sultry bombshell (Knock Knock, Blade Runner 2049), to spearhead the biggest shake up of the genre conventions. To go into more detail would begin to tread into spoiler territory but by flipping the audience’s engagement with the detective, we’re suddenly on the receiving end of the scrutiny and the tension derived from this switcheroo is genius and opens up the second act of the story immensely.

The whole thing is so lovingly crafted and the script is one of the tightest I’ve seen in years. The amount of setup and payoff here is staggering and never not hugely satisfying, especially as it heads into it’s final stretch. It really gives you some hope that you could have such a dense, plotty, character driven idea for a story and that it could survive the transition from page to screen intact and for the finished product to work as well as it does. I really hope Johnson returns to tell another Benoit Blanc mystery and judging by the roaring box office success (currently over $200 million worldwide for a non IP original), I certainly believe he will.

1. Eighth Grade

My film of the year is another example of the power of cinema to put us in other people’s shoes and to discover the traits, fears, joys and insecurities that we all share irregardless. It may shock you to learn this but I have never been a 13 year old teenage girl trying to get by in the modern world of social media peer pressure and ‘influencer’ culture whilst crippled with personal anxiety. My school days almost literally could not have looked more different than this (less Instagram, more POGs) and yet, this is a film about struggling with oneself, with loneliness, with wanting more but not knowing how to get it without changing yourself and the careless way we treat those with our best interests at heart in our selfish attempt to impress peers and fit in. That is understandable. That is universal. And as I’m sure I’ve said a bunch of times in this list, movies that present the most specific worldview whilst tapping into universal themes are the ones that inevitably resonate the most.

Youtuber and comedian Bo Burnham has crafted an impeccable debut feature, somehow portraying a generation of teens at least a couple of generations below his own, with such laser focused insight and intimate detail. It’s no accident that this film has often been called a sort of social-horror, with cringe levels off the charts and recognisable trappings of anxiety and depression in every frame. The film’s style services this feeling at every turn, from it’s long takes and nauseous handheld camerawork to the sensory overload in it’s score (take a bow Anna Meredith) and the naturalistic performances from all involved. Burnham struck gold when he found Elsie Fisher, delivering the most painful and effortlessly real portrayal of a tweenager in crisis as Kayla. The way she glances around skittishly, the way she is completely lost in her phone, the way she talks, even the way she breathes all feeds into the illusion - the film is oftentimes less a studio style teen comedy and more a fly on the wall documentary.

This is a film that could have coasted on being a distant, social media based cousin to more standard fare like Sex Drive or Superbad or even Easy A but it goes much deeper, unafraid to let you lower your guard and suddenly hit you with the most terrifying scene of casually attempted sexual aggression or let you watch this pure, kindhearted girl falter and question herself in ways she shouldn’t even have to worry about. And at it’s core, there is another beautiful father/daughter relationship, with Josh Hamilton stuck on the outside looking in, desperate to help Kayla with every fibre of his being but knowing there are certain things she has to figure out for herself. It absolutely had me and their scene around a backyard campfire is one of the year’s most touching.

This is a truly remarkable film that I think everyone should seek out but I’m especially excited for all the actual teenage girls who will get to watch this and feel seen. This isn’t about the popular kid, it isn’t about the dork who hangs out with his or her own band of misfits. This is about the true loner, that person trying everything to get noticed and still ending up invisible, that person trying to connect through the most disconnected means there is - the internet - and everything that comes with it. Learning that the version of yourself you ‘portray’ on a Youtube channel may act like they have all the answers but if you’re kidding yourself then how do you grow?

When I saw this in the cinema, I watched a mother take her seat with her two daughters, aged probably at around nine and twelve. Possibly a touch young for this, I thought, and I admit I cringed a bit on their behalf during some very adult trailers but in the end, I’m glad their mum decided they were mature enough to see this because a) they had a total blast and b) life simply IS R rated for the most part, especially during our school years, and those girls being able to see someone like Kayla have her story told on the big screen felt like a huge win. I honestly can’t wait to see what Burnham or Fisher decide to do next. 2019 has absolutely been their year... and it’s been a hell of a year.

#top 20 #films of the year #films of 2019 #10-1 #toy story 4 #the nightingale #the irishman #the last black man in san francisco #little women #booksmart #ad astra #avengers endgame #knives out #eighth grade

77 notes · View notes

silver-wields-a-pen · 5 years

Text

Tag game: 11/11/11

Tagged by @hyba ^=^

1. If you had to choose one color per OC, what would they be? Nyima: Blue Ghenha: Yellow Voon: Green Belias: Red Eren: Silver Ji-hoon: Teal Yueliang: Lavander Ndiaye: Rainbow (it counts) Anna: Charcoal

2. Do you enjoy writing at a desk or on your bed / couch / floor / etc.? I prefer writing at the table because my back hurts otherwise

3. Tell us anything you want about a current WIP / OC! Thaw: I’ve written about six different “final battle” scenes for it and there’s a joke to that effect in chapter 25. Brotherhood: My fave thing about all the boys is how they start off as unlikable assholes and through the power of character development turn into decent people — but they couldn’t do that if they didn’t have it in them in the first place to be decent, it just takes someone caring enough to point out the obvious.

4. What’s one way, in your opinion, to effectively describe a setting that is completely imaginary so that readers can also see it in their minds? I get together general images of what I want. Like, when I needed to describe Tan Shun’s apartment there wasn’t an exact image that had all the elements I wanted and others I need for scenes I’ve already drafted. I put together pictures that made up the whole how I liked it and then gave it a single decorative style in the description. For fantasy locations it’s not much different. If you can image search the main elements you want to describe then collage them and build the rest of the room or area around it. So, if you need a glade with a tree. Find a picture that fits how you want your tree to look and then fill the other details around it.

5. What are some favourite words of yours? Snicker: It’s one of those amused sounding words that isn’t quite a laugh, but doesn’t sound sneery or mocking either, like snigger does. Quip: Fast paced banter or joking. Makes me think the person quipping is whip smart and wears a constant smirk. Lover: Cute, a bit old-fashioned, but definitely no hiding what that person is to the other.

6. What are some things you notice when you first start reading a story? (Do you look at the diction, the writing style, the dialogue, the descriptions, etc.?) I like strong characters. Especially strong women, and not just in the sense of them being in charge, but emotionally and mentally strong. These are women who aren’t going to fold in a stiff breeze, but they’ll still take help when they need it. They don’t hate men or think they don’t need them. They’re the kind of women who know they’re everyone’s equal and don’t need to prove it. Besides that I can’t help noticing grammar, but I ignore it because I’m not being paid to pick holes in people’s writing, unless they pay me, or ask nicely lool

7. What’s one scene that has been very hard for you to write? Frozen: Caleen’s miscarriage and her sister-in-law’s death killed me and just thinking about it makes me tear up! Frozen Flame: The scenes with Gehail were kind of tough because it’s hard to balance writing how insane she is and make her come across reasonable. Thaw: The backstory with Sylmy and Ifrit wasn’t pleasant, but I think I rushed it, so that’s going to get another go over when I edit.

Brotherhood: Nothing so far, since I’m only two chapters into Divinely Volatile and the other books are just random scenes. I’m expecting things to get tough when I get to the middle and all the mystery comes undone.

8. Do you have a favourite OC? Frozen: Caleen. She’s Nyima’s mom and I adore her. She’s tough, badass, doesn’t give up even when the odds are stacked against her. She loves her tribe, family and baby with her whole heart and deserved better than the story I wrote. Frozen Flame: Nyima. She’s my bby. Thaw: Belias. He’s a fire demon, so the total opposite of Nyima and I love the contrast their personalities have. He’s a saucy bamf and knows it.

Brotherhood: Overall I just love Ji-hoon. He’s a cynical asshole who’s over pretty much everything. At the same time he’s also throwing a big why me pity party. He’s a mess and I adore him.

9. Favourite music to listen to while you write? I don’t listen to music most of the time because it stops me thinking of the right word I want. When I’m writing specific scenes, I use theme music and repeat it until I’m done. For Nyima’s epic entrance in Frozen Flame I had the intro to Final Fantasy: Type 0 on because bby is dramatic af and it fit the mood. I’ve had a few different final battle songs for Thaw, which might explain why I’ve got so many drafts loool

10. What is one genre you don’t think you’ll ever want to write and why? Horror. No thnx. Don’t like scary.

11. Do you share your writing on a platform other than tumblr? Ao3 has most of my fan fiction. I also signed up to beta books, but I don’t have any readers yet.

Questions:

What, in your opinion, are the most important elements of good writing?

How do you do research?

When you’re writing an emotionally draining (or sexy, or sad, etc) scene, how do you get in the mood?

What is the key theme and/or message?

What was a highlight point?

What is your writing kryptonite?

What’s your go to writing snack?

Would you kill off a major character for shock value?

Favourite type of scene to write?

Pantser or plotter?

What’s an interesting thing you’ve learned while researching?

Tagging: @illthdar @whimsicallytwisted @raylenequinn @els-writes @scottishhellhound @mvcreates @aslanwrites @soul-write @focusdumbass @waywordwriter @ghoulei

#writeblr #writeblr community #tag games #11/11/11 tag #brotherhood #frozen

13 notes · View notes

drkandraz · 6 years

Text

Why Hirohiko Araki Is a Great Writer

Note: add writing saying “I am only going to be addressing JoJo because 1) I have not read his older works, 2) His works before and including Phantom Blood lack what I am talking about here and 3) I include JoJo spin-off manga under the “JoJo” moniker”

As the man behind one of the most influential manga of all time, Hirohiko Araki is already a highly praised writer and artist. However, I believe what lies at the heart of Araki-sensei’s writing style is not explored often enough. What I think are the most important factors in the writing of JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure are the extremes to which the author takes his creative freedom and his skill in writing relationships between people.

Phantom Blood is the most conventional part of JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure. It has a structure very similar to other shounen manga at the time: hero has a rivalry, rival becomes obscenely powerful, hero learns martial art to defeat rival, ally dies, other ally narrates, hero wins etc. Phantom Blood’s writing only succeeds in the outlandish concepts introduced throughout: vampires appearing as a consequence of mayan blood rituals with magical stone masks, vampires somehow sucking blood by introducing their fingers inside a human’s skin, the power of the sun channeled (or created) by breathing, medieval warrior zombies, people being cleft in half by chains… frog punching. What also comes out here is a hint of the strategic battles the series will come to be known for, with Dio’s defeat at the hands of a burning sword.

A lot of the quality of the writing comes in the relationship between Jonathan and Dio, two characters who could not be more polar opposites who supposedly die together. While Jonathan is a typical nice guy shounen protagonist, Dio is a somewhat complex villain; he is irredeemably evil, but not unjustifiably so.

The decision to change protagonists was in itself an unheard of prospect at the time, each part bringing its own atmosphere and self-contained storyline, facts which allow Araki-sensei to explore all of them at length.

In comparison, Battle Tendency goes completely off the rails. If Phantom Blood is a cautious dip into the water, then Battle Tendency is a cannonball jump right into the deep end. This is where JoJo starts going from typical shounen manga to a manga characterized by battles of wits and skill rather than of pure brawn; and this change is reflected in its protagonist. Where Jonathan was the perfect gentleman who would never face his enemy anything less than head-on, Joseph likes to screw with his opponents’ heads. To show this change in character, his first major fight is against an enemy comparable to Dio, who is taken out a lot more easily thanks to Joseph’s fighting style. The insanity present in Phantom Blood is taken up to 11: the vampires are mere distractions to the new Pillar Men, Nazis are turned into Cyborgs and Hamon now apparently works on bubbles.

The relationship built between Joseph and Caesar is perhaps the most natural growth displayed in the series until this point. Their friendship grows gradually and culminates not with perfect teamwork, but with a realistic ideological fight between the two, one that Joseph would come to regret for many years to come. Caesar’s death is one of the most natural and powerful scenes in manga history, from the desperate dedication he displays even in his final moments, to Wamuu’s respect for him and to Joseph’s desperate cry for his best friend.

Stardust Crusaders is the start of Araki-sensei’s complete creative control. Stands now allow him to explore any fun and interesting idea he has in battles and to make stands that fit with their characters. The change of the format from single story to monster of the week supports the author’s writing style of throwing ideas at the wall and expanding them to his heart’s content. However, the clunkiness of his inexperience with such creative control is obvious. He is obviously pressured to come up with cool designs and powers for the stands (some of which he will later forget). In the second half of Part 3, getting used to the concept of stands, he starts writing interesting and fun ideas for his battles, like the D’Arby Brothers and Vanilla Ice. The insanity is punctuated by the increasing number of musical references (from Captain Tennille to Oingo Boingo).

Sadly, the characters take a backseat for the duration of this Part. Except for certain minor moments between the Crusaders, the characters don’t really have arcs (except for perhaps Iggy and Polnareff). For this reason, Jotaro, Kakyoin and Avdol are often criticized for having little to no character, which is a fair point. Jotaro himself is more of a superpowered version of the most barebone characteristics of Sherlock Holmes.

Dio’s return recontextualizes Part One as a tragedy rather than a story of sacrifice for the greater good, as well as making Part Three more of a culmination of generations of fighting rather than another story about saving the world. Jotaro vs Dio is still one of the best battles in shounen history because of the weight behind every single action the characters take feeling like the climax of the story.

Diamond is Unbreakable, in contrast to its predecessor, is not in the least an epic story about cleansing evil. It is, for the most Part, a slice of life. Therefore, its stand users have abilities more suited to everyday life (Bad Company notwithstanding), or rather their own special needs. The town of Morioh truly feels like a real (albeit bizarre) place, with a community comprised of people with their own personal goals. The advantage of Part 4 in Araki-sensei’s writing style consists of the fact that the author is no longer chained by the needs of the lengthy story structure that plagued Part 3. He himself pointed out in an interview that he could always go back to continue Part 4 if he wanted to (I could not find the interview again, sorry. If you can find it or correct me, it would be most appreciated).

The character’s relationships in DiU are quite evidently better defined than in Part 3. The main crew of Part 4 is smaller and it never feels restrained to keep everyone around at every point in the story (like Part 3 was somewhat forced to). In this way, characterization and character relationships are better crafted within stories that emphasize only those characters and relationships. Jousuke is never forced to be the main character of an episode; rather, he only is when the story demands it, making for a much better experience. Of note are Koichi, whose growth is signaled within his stand’s abilities, Rohan, whose growth is exhibited throughout the series and within his spin-off series, Joseph, whose appearance is bittersweet to old fans, as the sneaky and crafty Joseph becomes senile and unable to do anything worthwhile and Kira, whose chillingly normal demeanor doesn’t betray his dark tendencies.

After Part 4’s gleeful atmosphere, Part 5 dives right back into the horror-inspired roots of JoJo. Giorno Giovanna, Dio’s son, is a far more dark and cunning figure than Jousuke. Indeed, Giorno and the rebellious cell of Passione he becomes part of are a reflexion of past characters painted in a new, more sinister light, fitting with the new Mafia theme. They are a family, led by Bruno Bucciarati just as the Part 4 gang was led by Jotaro, but because of their jobs, they live in a world almost completely devoid of the fun antics of DiU. However, their relationships are just as well developed: Abbachio and Giorno’s one-sided rivalry is resolved organically, Bucciarati and Giorno’s hatred of immorality is what binds them together and Fugo’s “betrayal” is completely in character for him etc. As a villain, Diavolo is well written insofar as we recognize that his main attribute is his megalomania and his relationship with Doppio is magnificently fucked up in the best way possible.

The fights in Part 5 are brutal bouts for survival. The enemy stand users are trained assassins who will stop at nothing to get their revenge on The Boss. What makes this change even more effective is their motive for chasing the gang, the murder of their “family members” at the hands of Diavolo. Therefore, each ability is more valuable than each of the ones in Stardust Crusaders, since there are just a lot less of them. Each stand is that much more developed and consistent in its use (with the exception of King Crimson, but I’m not going on that rant right now) On the other hand, the concepts introduced for them are just that much more insane: a turtle in which one can enter by putting a key in a hole in its back, a stand that dehydrates everything at long range, a stand that can put zippers on anything etc.

Part 6 is a much more plot focused arc. The whole part focuses on Jolyne’s search for her father’s memory and stand discs with the help of Stone Ocean’s gang of reluctant helpers. This gang feels less like a pseudo-family, more like a bunch of people chasing their own goals and helping each other along the way. This, by the end of the story, is what will bring their demise at the hands of Pucci, Dio’s best friend. Despite this, I can’t say they are not well-written characters. Foo Fighters’, Weather Report’s and Pucci’s characters and arcs particularly are very compelling.

Within this story driven part, the villain of the week format just does not fit anymore. This is why, despite their great ideas and executions, a lot of villains from Stone Ocean are made forgettable especially by the ending, which left almost no hope for a direct continuation to be made. In many ways, it can be said that one of Araki-sensei’s strong points eclipsed the other one completely. The creative freedom which used to be a leading factor in why the series was so great was now taken to too many extremes (Looking at you, Heavy Weather and Bohemian Rhapsody) which detracted from the story more than they added.

On the other hand, the reboot Part 7 brought was exactly what JoJo needed, in my opinion. Now that stands had been grounded as more akin to abilities than the ghosts they were originally, there was no need to keep them as anything more than representations of the user’s skills. The bizarre nature of JoJo was also given almost complete freedom with the abolishment of continuity and concepts like stand arrows. Instead, Araki-sensei introduces pseudo-scientific and pseudo-philosophical concepts that fit in perfectly with JoJo. To explain the level of insanity, I will summarize the premise of SBR in one sentence: two men, one crippled and the other with the power of ball hamon, compete in a cross-country horse race in 1880s USA, while fighting dinosaurs and the president using powers granted by Jesus Christ. While the stand battles in the middle section are almost as forgettable as Part 6’s, it matters less because the most important aspect is the development of our two main characters.

The characterization in Part 7 is the best it’s ever been in JoJo. Johnny’s hopeful nihilism contrasts perfectly with Gyro’s playful jackassery. The main cast – now smaller than any that came before it – only consists of two characters (if we don’t include the very well written reccuring side characters). Every character gives a feeling of having their own agenda, while also each contributing to one side of the battle between Johnny and Gyro and President Valentine. Interestingly, Funny Valentine is probably right from an ideological stand point, which is an unexpected turn out from a mostly childish manga up to this point.

Part 8 brings Steel Ball Run’s ideological musings into the 21st century with a return to Morioh. Araki’s style has retained its mature edge, but shifted them into science-fiction territory. The characters retain the moral ambiguity found in Part 7. Jousuke would do anything for Yasuho, even torture somebody. Yet the familial aspect that had long been missing from JoJo returned in full force with the Higashikatas and their rival pseudo-family, the divided Rock Humans. This makes Joubin a perfect antagonist despite his seemingly underpowered ability.

The bizarre atmosphere of JoJo’s fourth part returns with the Shakedown Road and the Milagro Man arcs which have almost nothing to do with the overarching plot of the series, but enhance the sense of a world existing beyond the characters. The battles in JoJolion are realistic and brutal to the extent not even Vento Aureo was willing to go, despite the relative bizarreness of the enemies’ stands.

This is how Hirohiko Araki’s writing style changed over the years from simple and restrained to bold, philosophical, dark and bizarre. The overall mundanity of Hamon was slowly replaced by stands and other special abilities, allowing the author to indulge in outlandish ideas that complimented the intelligent, consistent and thoughtful structure of his battles. To conclude, I believe Hirohiko Araki is a great writer because of the balance between his strange, out there ideas and his calm and logical understanding of his concepts (with a few exceptions), combined with his ability for writing strong and believable arcs and relationships for characters.

Edit: If you want more details about the first four parts of JoJo, I wholeheartedly recommend Super Eyepatch Wolf’s videos on the subject, as he can go into much more detail in those.

2K notes · View notes

quarantineroulette · 6 years

Text

Minor Disappointments’ Least Disappointing Releases of 2018

Preamble: I had a bit of a low (not Low, although that would’ve been preferable) period in 2018 that went on for several months. I didn’t really listen to music during that time, and so I missed out on a lot of things. I’m kind of too scatterbrained from holiday hysteria to really take in anything new. So these lists probably don’t designate “the best”, but they’re decent documents of what I wasn’t too distracted or down to take serious notice of.

Secondly, my own band released an album this year, and that occupied a large amount of time normally reserved for listening to other bands. I won’t rank it because I don’t want to be that conceited...but if you want to check it out for yourself, the highlights for me are “For the Rest to Rest”; “Open Up the Ways”; “Screen Test”; and “Suspend Disbelief”. One of my favorite reviews of it described our sound as being a “unique blend of post-punk, brit-pop, indie, and a little post-rock too.” and said we’re “one of the smartest bands to come out of Brooklyn in a very long time.” This is both why people should listen to it and also why they might not.

Thirdly, one of the things I listened to the most this year was Protomartyr’s Consolation EP, but I’m refraining from listing it as it’s not a full-length. That said, I think it’s as good as nearly anything I’ve heard this year, Protomartyr are the best and both of their live sets I caught were my favorite gigs of 2018. TLDR: Protomartyr = good. Most other things on this list = equally good but not Protomartyr. Let’s get started shall we?

10 Songs That Were Good:

10) Neko Case & Mark Lanegan - Cures of the I-5 Corridor. How has a Neko Case / Mark Lanegan duet not existed until 2018?? No matter the year, something this gorgeous and heartbreaking is always worthy of making the cut.

9) Lana Del Rey - Mariners Apartment Complex . I remember Spencer Krug tweeting something kind of snarky about “Venice Bitch” a few months back, then deleting it, and damn well he should’ve because both that and “Mariners Apartment Complex” are blinders. “Venice” may be the most low-key epic ever, but the way “Mariners” takes hints of Leonard Cohen and Lee Hazlewood / Nancy Sinatra and places them in a pop context is perhaps even more admirable. It’s truly inspiring to hear mainstream music this nuanced.

8) Parquet Courts - Tenderness . I love the jaunty piano, and how Andrew Savage’s vocal take is simultaneously forceful and lax. But most of all I love how all its elements converge to create a sense of hard-won optimism.

7) Iceage - Thieves Like Us . Iceage do a swamp cabaret song and I just can’t love it enough.

6) MGMT - Me and Michael . Yes, it’s ridiculously ‘80s, but you would have to be a very dour person to not smile whenever that opening synth riff kicks in.

5) Shame - One Rizla . Riff of the year. Hands down.

4) Bodega - Jack in Titanic . One of the great things about 2018 was witnessing Bodega’s success. To me, they’ve always been one of the few up-and-coming indie bands with the charisma to be actual stars, and it’s been a joy seeing the rest of the world take note of this. From the moment I heard “Jack in Titanic”, I just knew it was destined to show up on a BBC Radio 6 A-or-B list at some point in the near future (and it did!). And yeah, they’re my good friends, but even if they were strangers I’d appreciate the smartness, melodic hooks, and sexiness all the same:

youtube

3) Preoccupations - Disarray . Click on that link because the song is really good, but be warned -- the vocal melody is never, ever going to leave you.

2) Protomartyr - Wheel of Fortune . This song has everything: a nerve-wracking stop and start guitar part, an at-once badass and terrifying refrain, Kelly Deal, and the exact sense of urgency that’s needed right now. Powerful, timely, and a rare example of a song that puts its guest star to highly effective use.

1) Janelle Monae - Make Me Feel . This song combines about five different Prince songs but Janelle Monae’s personality is so strong that the end result is something wholly her own. And if the song weren’t a blast on its own, the technicolor video is almost lethally fun:

youtube

10 Albums That I Loved A Lot:

10) Arctic Monkeys - Tranquility Base Hotel and Casino . I really loved this album but I’m ranking it as 10 just because it’s the Arctic Monkeys and I can’t believe I enjoyed anything they’ve produced *this* much -- especially a lounge album about a casino on the moon. I find Alex Turner overrated as a lyricist and cosplaying a Bad Seed isn’t endearing to me, but he obviously loves Scott Walker a lot so I guess he gets some sort of pass.

9) Moonface - This One’s of the Dancer and This One’s for the Dancer’s Bouquet . The only reason this isn’t ranked higher is because I haven’t been able to give it the attention it deserves. This is a concept album where some songs are sung from the pov of the Minotaur and others from Spencer Krug, and both these creatures are enigmatic are too enigmatic to be given mere surface reads. This all said, I’ve listened enough to glean that, as always, Spencer’s lyrics are awe-inspiring, the marimba is implemented well, the alternate version of “Heartbreaking Bravery” is excellent, and comparing and contrasting its themes with those found on Wolf Parade’s 2017 release Cry Cry Cry is a fun past time if you’re me or seven other people. Looking forward to delving deeper in 2019.

8) Janelle Monae - Dirty Computer . To be honest, I *was* a little disappointed in this. It’s not as cinematic or stylistically adventurous as Monae’s previous full-lengths, but I think Monae herself is extremely talented and I wish she was a much bigger star. Furthermore, when considered against the drek of the general pop landscape, this is still a bold, unpredictable, and intelligent pop record from a true enigma.

7) Luke Haines - I Sometimes Dream of Glue . Like “Kubla Khan” if it had been written after huffing a river full of glue, but instead of Xanadu it’s an English village full of miniature people having a orgy:

youtube

6) Parquet Courts - Wide Awake! . No other song better captures the frustrations and anxieties of living in NY in 2018 than “Almost Had to Start a Fight / In and Out of Patience”, and for that alone this album would make the year-end cut. But it also happens to be brilliant start to finish, with the two closing statements, in the form of “Death Will Bring Change” and “Tenderness” respectively, being among PC’s best.

5) Low - Double Negative . Mimi Parker’s voice emerging from a sonic cocoon on “Fly” is one of the most gripping moments of Low’s fantastic career. This album challenged me the most in 2018, but it’s also one I frequently returned to, determined to crack its code.

4) Preoccupations - New Material . I suppose some would dismiss this as too trad. post-punk, but holy hell - these trad. post-punk songs have got some hooks! And there isn’t quite another singer like Matt Flegel, who somehow manages to channel Bowie and Mark Lanegan at the same time. I’ve listened to this so much that New Material already feels like a well-loved classic.

3) Gazelle Twin - Pastoral . I would argue that Pastoral is the closest anyone’s come to making something comparable to PJ Harvey’s Let England Shake. An electro-pagan examination of Britain’s heritage and history (and the whole Brexit thing) that manages to feel thorough despite only being 37 minutes long, Pastoral moves beyond being just “a record” and becomes something closer to contemporary art. Elizabeth Bernholz’s vocals, whether warped or unconstrained by processing, are remarkable throughout. A mash-up of folk traditions and modern beats that somehow works shockingly well:

youtube

2) Idles - Joy as an Act of Resistance . Boyfriend / bandmate James and I have discussed this album more than any other this year, and it’s been a pleasure hearing his love for it and forming my own appreciation of it in the process. What sealed it for me was James’ description of “Idles” as pagan, and how the band’s use of repetition and simple melodies (as well as their bacchanalian stage presence) created an air of ritualism. In their primalness, they even remind me of The Birthday Party - a “woke” Birthday Party, but a Birthday Party all the same. My favorite musical moment of the year may very well be Joe Talbot’s first shout of “UNITY!” in “Danny Nedelko”, primordial, raw, unpretentious, and completely punk. We *need* these guys right now:

youtube

1) Suede - The Blue Hour . There is a joke in the TV show 30 Rock in which Jack Donaghy -- Alec Baldwin’s network head character -- says he attended Harvard Business School, where he was voted “Most”. The Blue Hour could be considered “Most” -- it’s meant to be taken as one piece, it’s insanely grandiose and, like its predecessor Night Thoughts, listening to it makes everything in my life seem 18 times more dramatic and tragic. I don’t know how, but this bizarre mashup of Kate Bush, Jacques Brel, Pink Floyd, Scott Walk, Gregorian chanting, classic Suede, spell books and (of course) David Bowie somehow seems bizarrely in step with 2018. Seeing as this top three consists of albums that are arguably “pagan”, and folk horror’s representation in popular 2018 films like Hereditary, The Blue Hour feels accidentally on trend. It’s crazy to think that a band whose first release happened 25 years ago could still be relevant in 2018, but Suede somehow are so please give these dads a hand and then listen to The Blue Hour’s glorious closing trio of songs a lot, because boy are they “Most”.

3 notes · View notes

jennacha · 6 years

Text

here’s a big rant about The Child Thief

ok i have a big confession to make

I’m kind of obsessed with the book The Child Thief.

It’s not a particularly good book. In fact, I would go as far to say it’s poor. The writing has the cadence of 15-year-old-going-through-their-novelist-phase. I guess I could say it reads like fan fiction. The plot is very messy. The characters are badly written. It feels like a book that wasn’t edited. The word “magic” is used a lot, and it’s embarrassing. There’s a part where a character slams their fist on the ground and yells “WHY?!” and it’s embarrassing. The dialogue feels like it came out of a 1990s teen adventure fantasy movie trying to imitate the success of a Corey Feldman/Haim movie. Several times throughout the book the thought, “Why did the author do this?” popped in my head. However, the author is a fantasy illustrator, so the descriptive writing is a plus. He knows how to illustrate the landscape with words as well as he would in painting. The book is not a special unit dumpster fire piece of shit insult to literature; in fact, as far as I know a lot of people like it and it has gotten a decent amount of praise. It’s just not very good, in terms of the surface level writing. But I can easily see a lot of people enjoying it for basic entertainment value.

So that would be my YA-focus blog summary review of the book.

My public outcry summary review of the book is this:

I’m obsessed with the book because it’s so fucking weird.

It’s so fucking weird in that it’s a perfect shitstorm of the author not knowing what he’s doing, and thinking he’s knowing what he’s doing. Like a perfect bad B-movie that exhibits textbook schlock where the director is incompetent and clueless but lacks any self-awareness, in terms of style, layout, and production.

But also, the author thinks what he’s doing is…cool.

The book is about evil Peter Pan.

I could end this whole thing right there. But I must release these hounds. I’ve been needing to let all this out.

My wretched insanity craves affirmation.

This book should be a carbon copy of every other average to below average dark fantasy novel that you see on the bookstore shelves and never heard of and wonder what the author is doing now with all their not-fame. This book should be one that could’ve been written by anybody and it wouldn’t have made a difference. This book should be one of sixty million examples of nothing special. In a way, it is definitely 100% yes definitely yes all those things. The universe decided that I would be the bearer of the burden of having much stronger feelings about it then necessary. I probably feel more strongly about it than the author ever did. It is in my life now.

The biggest thing about this book being so fucking weird is the mind boggling tonal inconsistency. There are a number of shifts in universe-encompassing moods, which go from “Christopher-Nolan-but-also-kind-of-Stephanie-Meyer-dark-gloomy-the-world-is-unhappy-and-I-like-it-that-way”, to “David-Fincher-the-world-is-ACTUALLY-awful”, to “Oh-right-this-is-a-Peter-Pan-story-whimsical-fun-Goonies-meets-Disney-Channel-original”, to “A-worse-version-of-The-Hobbit-movies-with-some-redeeming-qualities”, to “Quentin-Tarantino-literally-wrote-this.” This isn’t hyperbole. The writing language can be REALLY EMBARRASSING and straight out of a Disney movie. That tone of a fun romp for the whole family is cradled by an abundance of swearing, unsettling fantasy-horror, and extreme, shocking violence.

You know when you’re watching Beetlejuice, and you’re like “Okay this movie is for children” and then out of nowhere Michael Keaton goes “NICE FUCKIN’ MODEL” and grabs his dick.

In The Child Thief, THAT washes over you every time you finish reading a sentence. Only, it’s as if you’re watching Hook, and at one point Robin Williams slices a person’s face off, and the camera stays on the faceless person for a minute and Steven Spielberg walks into frame and points to the gurgling faceless head and describes to you how you can still see the holes where the mouth, nose, and eyes were.

(Yes that actually happens in the book.)

Or if you’re watching Neverending Story and at one point you get expository dialogue explaining how Atreyu was pimped as a boy and had to live on the streets because his mother was, uh, a drug addict or something?.

(That also happens.)

Or if you’re watching Indian in the Cupboard and the film opens with a little girl about to get raped by her dad.

(I’m serious.)

Or if you’re watching Hocus Pocus and Bette Midler is a vampire and she preys on a 6-year-old kid and neither of them have shirts on.

(I swear to god.)

Or if you’re reading a modern re-imagining of Peter Pan and the story involves blatant themes of gore in acute descriptive detail, mass murder, torture, and scenes with naked women and perverted fantasy-creature-men.

(Oh, wait.)

You’re probably thinking, “All those themes are found pretty much everywhere in every medium, especially the naked women and perverts. Big whoop.” I’ll add, then, all those themes, involving children.

Now you’re thinking, “Jenna don’t you love that movie Drag Me To Hell which involves a child being murdered within the first 2.5 minutes?”

Just hear me out and yes.

The Child Thief is entertaining in how CAPTIVATING the strangeness is. The tonal mishmash of kid-friendly meets rated-R is something I actually like, when it's a hit. I like things that have a quality of whimsy amidst dark themes. Movies such as Temple of Doom, Gremlins, Return to Oz, Darkman have this quality…basically almost every movie from the 1980s during the period when audiences had grown up with movies after censorship was abolished and half the world said “think of the children” and the other half said “no.” There are tons and tons of other examples in every medium of how general tonal contrast makes for unique and effective works of art. My point is, this specific type of tonal contrast also can be done well.

But those movies don’t open with attempted child rape, and they don’t end with children literally being mowed down in a grisly battle scene (I’m serious). I’m making a lot of comparisons to movies because the book almost feels like a movie, in that the author isn’t a novelist, he’s a visual story-maker who wrote a book because he knew that no movie studio would pick this shit up. Maybe the films I listed didn’t intend for tonal contrast to be a calculated driving element for their stories, but the subtlety of tones in those movies allows for one encompassing, harmonious tonal blanket to wrap them in. There is no subtlety in The Child Thief.

The tonal confusion of The Child Thief is, I almost wanna say coincidental. I think the author just didn’t know how to write well, but he’s a very dark visual guy and had all these dark visuals in his head ready to be unleashed. All the horrible violence and awful themes are fine in and of itself, but they aren’t earned if the attitude of “I’m gunna turn the children’s book foundation on its head” isn’t committed to, and “I’m gunna subvert everything you know and love about Peter Pan” isn’t calculatedly plotted out. The author has a bad sense of humor, a poor understanding of what is required of an epic storyline, and treats violence, horror and revenge less like a literary device and more like a fetishization of coolness in a vulgar display of power as a writer.

The misguidedness goes as far as the character writing. None of the characters’ motivations make sense. The author couldn’t keep track of either committing to one motivation or the other, a lot of the times for the sake of the plot. Especially with the Peter Pan character. He’s basically literally the anti-christ (this is 100% canon, if the author says it isn’t then he’s a liar and an idiot) and written like a “troubled villain” but then gets these VERY polarized directions of unrelenting psychopathic Cause It’s Die Motherfucka Die Motherfucka Still, Fool villainy and ham-fisted humanism and victimhood. It’s a case of like, the author meant for him to be the charming bad guy who tricks the audience into being on his side because that’s what Peter does to the characters in the book. But the author found him too cool and wanted to be his friend, but in order to justify being friends with a character who wants to murder everybody, he inappropriately gives him remorse and forces the reader to feel bad for him.

And like all the kids in the book are supposed to super love Peter Pan but the version of Neverland is like this horrific, NIGHTMARE HELL of a place and the kids are basically being used to fight in a war, and all the kids are totally okay with it, because their lives in the real world were really awful and the whole thing is that Peter “saves” them and they’ll do anything for him. And it’s like, okay???????????????????? But wouldn’t it be cooler if the kids were like okay this guy is a fucking psycho and Neverland is a horrific, nightmare hell and I’m learning a lot about myself right now having once trusted him???? And then in their retaliation Peter would show his true colors and enforce aggression onto them in serving as his personal enslaved militia? And it becomes like this inner circle of conflict? And since Peter is the only person who can bring them back to the real world, they play ball but hope to steer their own agenda out of the situation? OH, right, that DOES happen, but with ONE of the characters. ONE. Conveniently, the main character. And god knows there can’t be more than one smart human being at a time.

But if you want to SUBVERT the BELOVED CHILDREN’S STORY FORMAT wouldn’t it be fun to do PETER PAN VS. THE LOST BOYS? Instead of MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE PETER PAN AND THE HOT TOPIC LOST BOYS VS. THE ONLY SEMI-SMART MAIN CHARACTER? Like wouldn’t it be GREAT if the characters WEREN'T DUMB? And the author put in some CONSTRUCTIVE, CHALLENGING CREATIVE EFFORT and treated the interactions like a CHESS GAME instead of a CONTRIVED MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN JOEY, ROSS, CHANDLER, RACHEL, MONICA AND THE OTHER ONE? Wouldn’t it be GREAT if ALL THE CHARACTERS TURNED AGAINST PETER but then Peter SLOWLY CHARMED SOME OR ALL OF THEM BACK IN, to make him MORE like an UNEARTHLY MONSTER? Like the lost boys became SELF-AWARE LITERAL VICTIMS OF THE ORIGINAL TALE FORMAT, where Peter Pain is this IMPOSSIBLY CHARMING CHARACTER THAT IS BELOVED BY THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE? ALSO, the MAIN CHARACTER is supposed to be the MODEL OF REASON FOR THE READER TO RELATE TO, but the main character still gets CHARMED BY PETER PAN, WHILE WE KNOW AS RATIONAL ADULTS WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING TO HAPPEN? LIKE THAT’S SUPPOSED TO BE HOW READING BOOKS IS? When we KNOW WHAT’S GUNNA HAPPEN? BUT THE AUTHOR WANTS TO BE PETER’S FRIEND SO HE DOES IT ANYWAY? AND LIKE SEVERAL OTHER CHARACTERS THAT THE MAIN CHARACTER IS FRIENDS WITH ARE ALSO SUPPOSED TO BE FIGURES OF REASON BUT THEY’RE ALSO 100% PARTISAN IN SIDING WITH PETER? SO IT’S LIKE HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO LIKE ALL YOU DUMB, DUMB KIDS?

LIKE OKAY, SO HOW IT GOES IS THAT PETER CAN LIKE WALK ACROSS THE DIMENSION BETWEEN NEVERLAND AND THE REAL WORLD AND THAT'S HOW HE GETS THE KIDS? SO AT ONE POINT IN NEVERLAND THEY ALL HAVE TO SCAVENGE FOR FOOD BECAUSE THE VEGETATION IN NEVERLAND IS DYING, AND THEY MENTION HOW PETER USED TO BRING THEM FOOD FROM THE REAL WORLD? AND IT'S LIKE, HOW ABOUT YOU JUST KEEP DOING THAT? OR LIKE, WHY DON'T ANY OF YOU WANT TO JUST LEAVE? YEAH THE REAL WORLD SUCKS, BUT IS IT WORTH STARVING TO DEATH JUST SO YOU CAN STICK IT TO THE MAN? LIKE ARE THERE PEDIATRICIANS IN NEVERLAND? ARE THERE AT-RISK YOUTH SHELTERS? FOSTER CARE? NEVERLAND SOUP KITCHENS? NEVERLAND SOCIAL WORKERS? NEVERLAND CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES? NEVERLAND POLICE? NO? JUST MONSTERS THAT PAINFULLY KILL YOU, ZOMBIE PIRATES, NO FOOD, AND LITERALLY THE ANTI-CHRIST?

AND THEN THERE’S RIDICULOUS SHIT LIKE, AT ONE POINT ALL THESE MAGICAL FANTASY CHARACTERS HIJACK A NEW YORK CITY FERRY TO GET TO THE HARBOR AND IT’S LIKE, THIS IS SO RIDICULOUS IT SHOULD BE AWESOME, BUT IT ISN’T AWESOME BUT IT SHOULD BE SO WHY ISN’T IT?

AND LIKE ONE OF THE CHARACTERS IS A FAT USELESS KID NAMED DANNY AND THERE IS NO REASON FOR HIM TO BE IN THE BOOK BESIDES TO BE THE TOKEN FAT USELESS KID NAMED DANNY?

BUT DANNY IS LIKE ALSO THE ONLY OTHER SMART CHARACTER IN THE BOOK BECAUSE HE’S LIKE WHY DID I SAY YES TO THIS WHY ARE WE STILL FOLLOWING THIS GUY WHY DON’T WE JUST LEAVE AND IT’S LIKE YEAH PUT DANNY IN CHARGE BUT NOBODY LISTENS TO HIM AND HE’S JUST COMPLETELY UTTERLY USELESS?

AND THEN CAPTAIN HOOK ADOPTS DANNY AND IT’S LIKE OH MY GOD THE AUTHOR FORGOT HE NEEDED TO GIVE DANNY SOMETHING TO DO?

AND LIKE I DON’T EVEN REMEMBER THE MAIN CHARACTER’S NAME?

AND THEN AT THE END OF THE BOOK, SO, THERE’S THIS BIG HUGE BATTLE SCENE WHERE CHILDREN DIE LEFT AND RIGHT, LIKE THE “ANTAGONIST” (NOT PETER) HAS A HUGE SWORD AND IS SWINGING AT THE KIDS LIKE HE’S HARVESTING WHEAT, OH AND YEAH, BY THE WAY, AGAIN, THE REAL WORLD IS LOCATED IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE BATTLE HAPPENS ON LIKE THE FRONT LAWN OF A LIBRARY OR SOMETHING. LIKE THE STORY KIND OF TOTALLY GOES OFF THE RAILS INTO FANTASTIC SCHLOCK. AND AT ONE POINT THE BATTLE IS ABRUPTLY INTERRUPTED BY NYC POLICE AND IT’S LIKE ARE YOU SHITTING MY NUTS THE NYC COPS ARE INVOLVED IN THIS FANTASY BATTLE THIS IS AMAZING, BUT THEN THAT DOESN’T HAPPEN AND IT GOES NOWHERE. AND ALL THE MAIN CHARACTERS ARE DYING, AND NONE OF THEM HAD ARCS, LIKE NONE OF THEM REALIZED WHAT THEY GOT THEMSELVES INTO OR WHAT PETER REALLY WAS, AND AT THE ACT 3 POST-LOW POINT THE MAIN CHARACTER DIDN’T GO OFF TO DO HIS OWN THING AND TRY TO SAVE THE DAY, HE JUST GOES WITH PETER TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, AND THEN HIS ARC IS BASICALLY NOTHING AND THEN HE DIES. AND *PETER* WINS. AND AGAIN HE’S LITERALLY THE ANTI CHRIST SO THE BOOK ENDS WITH HIM BRIDGING THE REAL WORLD WITH NEVERLAND, AND BASICALLY BEING THE BRINGER OF HELL UNTO THE EARTH. AND UP UNTIL THEN THE BOOK HAD ABOUT 68 INSTANCES OF THE READER SWITCHING BETWEEN FEELING BAD FOR PETER AND THEN ACCEPTING THAT HE IS HITLER NURSE RATCHED MAO STALIN. SO WHEN ALL THE KIDS DIE, HE HAS A SCENE OF FEELING REALLY BAD AND THE READER IS SUPPOSED TO BE ALL LIKE AW HE REALLY DOES CARE! AND THEN NEVERLAND GETS BRIDGED INTO NEW YORK CITY, AND HE’S LIKE HA HA HA HA I DID IT I WON. BUT IT’S WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY THAT LIKE, THE AUDIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE, WHEEEEEE! LIKE THIS THING THAT HAPPENED IS THE DOOM OF MANKIND, AND THE TONE SHOULD REALLY BE “OH GOD NO.” BUT THE AUTHOR WAS HAPPY THAT PETER WON IN THE END BECAUSE HE WANTS TO BE HIS FRIEND, EVEN THOUGH LIKE FIFTEEN PAGES AGO PETER CAUSED THE DEATH OF AN ARMY OF CHILDREN (AFTER ANOTHER 600 PAGES OF ALL KINDS OF OTHER AWFUL SHIT). SO NOT ONLY ARE WE SUPPOSED TO FEEL SAD THAT PETER FEELS SAD, BUT THEN WE’RE SUPPOSED TO FEEL HAPPY THAT PETER FEELS HAPPY. HOW ABOUT GO FUCK YOURSELF? HOW ABOUT IF YOU’RE GOING TO MAKE PETER A CHALLENGING UNRELIABLE ANTI-HERO, DON’T MAKE HIS DARK QUALITIES SO INCONTESTABLY EVIL, OR, EITHER CHOOSE TO MAKE PETER HATED BY THE AUDIENCE, OR MAKE THE AUDIENCE FEEL FOOLISH FOR BEING CHARMED BY PETER AND PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE BAD SHIT THAT HAPPENED AND GO FUCK YOURSELF?

...

I’ll give a different example of both tonal incongruence and bad character writing.

So, the opening scene of the book that involves attempted child rape, so. What happens is that Peter saves the little girl in time by killing the dad, and gains her trust to go to Neverland. The way the story regards the introduction to Peter is that of wonder and curiosity through the little girl’s eyes, as if it was derived from the original children’s tale. So the opener is meant to establish: a gritty “realness” to the book (which is never earned but i digress), and Peter as a mysterious magical hero. Then, the story carries on into describing Peter’s motivation in saving (the book uses “stealing”) children, which vaguely mentions his villainous indulgence (he’s saving children to recruit them in an army in Neverland to fight captain hook because his mommy is the president of neverland and there’s almost-Oedipal themes going on). Fine. However, the cadence of Peter actually being villainous is very very…undermined. Like the actual voice of the NARRATION is misinformed. Like the narration sounds more like Peter’s inner monologue speaking in the third person. Like the third person is in on it. Like the author is painting Peter as this wicked wrongdoer as if it’s a cool thing and he wants to be his friend (Oh wait).

This is how the voice of the opener is handled: Child rape —> Peter prevents child rape and saves child —> Peter is a good guy for doing this —> Peter is still a good guy for doing this but he did it maybe not for the right reasons. As it turns out, Peter is unquestionably the bad guy. Peter was the bad guy from the start, Peter was the bad guy while he was saving the little girl.

The rest of the book is handled like this: Peter is cool and badass —> Peter is mischievous but still the person we want to follow —> Peter is a psycho...but still cool —> Oh shit Peter has a super awful past and his psycho-ness is the result of being a victim so I forgive him —> Wow Peter’s both a psycho and an asshole—> Okay I dunno about Peter —> The author keeps having Peter save people from being raped as if he’s not an asshole but he’s still a psycho and an asshole so I still don’t know —> The plot has a a lot of stuff so I guess I’m still with Peter —> Okay Peter won but everyone is dead because of him and he’s still an asshole so I still don’t know.

Peter tricks victims of rape, abuse, slavery, etc. into thinking they’re being saved when in fact he objectifies them for his personal needs. Remember how I said this book’s insane tonal confusion isn’t subtle? Well, from the book’s perspective, putting a finger on Peter’s good side and bad side...is subtle. Problematically subtle. Which, on a literary standpoint, sounds like a good thing, but...

This is the part when I say the thing you ACTUALLY SHOULDN’T BE SUBTLE ABOUT is PETER. You CAN be subtle about his tragic backstory. Be subtle about sprinkling his good qualities over his CAKE TOWER of BADNESS. Give him some KICK. Have the flavors INTERACT. Make the audience be like “OOOH, is that cumin?? Interesting! HMMMM! INTERESTING! CUMIN! ON DORITOS! YEAh I am definitely eating Doritos, this is absolutely Doritos, but there’s some CUMIN in there! Okay, back to eating my DORITOS! OOOOH, IS THAT CAYENNE?????” But whatever you do, make it CLEAR what you are SERVING. You should not have a MIXED BAG, a MEDLEY, and try to sell it like not-a-medley. You should NOT make half your plate super spicy and half your plate super sweet and make the audience roll the dice on each bite they take. Peter Pan isn’t some complexass Faustian character study, it’s SUBVERSIVE HYPERVIOLENT DARK FANTASY PORN. IT’S DORITOS

This is how the voice of the opener should've been handled: Child rape —> Peter prevents child rape and saves child —> Peter is the bad guy.

This is how the voice of the rest of the book should've been handled: No matter what happens —> Peter is the bad guy.

I don’t have and never will have the literary criticism credentials to say anything with credible boldness, but I’m going to say this anyway: Using child rape to force the reader to feel a certain way about the tone of the world and the first heroic impression of a character is wrong. Forcing an act of heroism (especially for you to then later say “Just kidding not the hero”) in that context is inappropriate and wrong. That’s like throwing 9/11 into the background of a love story to force the audience to feel extra emotional. 1) There are many, many, many, many ways you can establish “realness” in your opener with or without violence. I’m not saying there is a hierarchy of what kind of awful things involving children are okay to write about, but opening your story with attempted child rape is an unnecessary extreme if parts of your story reads like an episode of Saved By The Bell. Revenge alone isn’t cool. John Wick is cool because of the way revenge is handled. Writing about attempted child rape and then immediate revenge on the rapist is the Epipen-shot-to-the-brain method of forcibly getting your audience to go “I LIKE PETER!”, which isn’t at all earned and probably shouldn’t be in your story… 2) ESPECIALLY if you don’t simultaneously establish with slats nailed on a wall that Peter is the bad guy. The author basically deceived the audience into liking Peter in the worst way possible, ironically, which is what he had Peter do to the other characters. If you want to cleverly deceive the audience into liking Peter, do it through his dialogue, personality, the externalized product of the relationship between him and his environment. Be inventive about it. It’s a book. You got words. Use...words to your advantage. If you want to open your story with attempted child rape at the very least as a way to tell the audience this shit’s serious, don’t.

Just don’t. It’s fine.

The Child Thief can’t be pinned as So Bad It’s Good. It’s poor, but it’s not Tommy Wiseau-acclaim-bad. The only way I can describe it is So Disorderly It’s Weird. But it has potential for being SO Weird It’s Kind Of Genius. Which makes it So Almost SO Weird It’s Kind Of Genius It’s Frustrating.

The book’s biggest detriment is that it takes itself too seriously. The author’s motivating in writing the book (this is fact) was that he recognized that the beloved original tale of Peter Pan has a lot of dark elements, but continues to be celebrated as a children’s story. And he wanted to take that notion and run with it. What happened was that he selectively fell in love with elements of that concept, and instead of writing a story that was meant to pull the rug from under us, he ended up writing a run-of-the-mill edgy dark fantasy that he was obliged to pepper with Peter Pan references. Instead of pulling the entire rug beneath our feet and hauling us onto our asses, he took a small handful of rug here and there and just occasionally tugged at it roughly, so that we’d almost lose our balance and get annoyed and tell him to stop.

The book lacks its own conceptual self-awareness that it built for itself, and the result is two different bodies trying to be forcibly shoved into the same book-sized box, when it should’ve been a new gross, satirical, humorous, unique body entirely.

In that sense, I really think this book could’ve been truly unironically awesome. I love the idea of cartoonishly exaggerating the dark elements (especially the violence) of the original tale that have been culturally ignored, like a lot of (or most) (or all) old children’s tales. My ideal solution to this book would actually be making it even more ridiculous in every way, but strung together with self-awareness and intention, where the author could acknowledge that the absurdity is instrumental, not indulgent. There are many aspects of the book that I really like thematically, and none of them are fully (or at all) seen through to their potential. These ideas aren’t really intentionally presented in the book, but: I like the idea that Peter is a sadistic volatile killing machine because he’s cursed with being riiiiiight on the cusp of hitting puberty, and his body is trapped without that natural sexual/psychological release, turning him into an aggressive animal constantly teased by unfulfilled subconscious heat. I like the idea that the lost boys element would be subverted into an inevitable Lord of the Flies esque shitstorm. I like the idea that the danger and villainy are at first generalized in adults but eventually presented in the children. I like the idea that every single possible fucking thing in the world—both the real world (mostly nyc LoL!) and Neverland—are a threat and are actively trying to kill the children, and the children treat it like an adventure before the horror becomes real. I like the idea of illustrating the outcome of blindly following fun naive figures of leadership. There are even a number of character interaction scenes that I like format wise. Just minus the embarrassing dialogue. That stuff's easy to rewrite in your head as you read it. Also I would take out that part in the book that I described as Bette Midler not having a shirt on while preying on a 6 year old. That part was really fucking uncomfortable. Seriously wtf, Gerald Brom.

I must concede this notion: The writer didn’t set out to create a masterpiece. He wrote the book to have fun. He succeeded, and his readers expected the same thing and received the experience they wanted. Of all the things that could’ve landed in my hands and tickled me in a weird enough way to make me wish it was better, for some reason it had to be this.

I could keep going, but...eh, (sigh).

But lastly—again, the descriptive writing of the world is very lush, and at times effectively horrific. The reading experience is a constant stop and start call-and-response of really great potential, really clumsy writing, and really misunderstood tonal directions. All those things put this book directly on the edge of FRUSTRATING. Uniquely frustrating. It couldn’t have been salvaged by the hands of a more competent writer, because the product came to light specifically out of the author’s unintentional confusion, not his laziness. A lazy product with potential can be salvaged through additions and tweaks, but The Child Thief cannot because the story was seen through the way it existed in the author’s head and heart. It is exactly what it...is. It can’t be imitated, or inspired by, or re-re-imagined. This weirdass fucking book is just sitting on this planet, being read by people, and shit.

…..Anyway. This was all just meant to be the caption for my fan art. http://jennacha.tumblr.com/post/172559227502/i-made-fan-art-of-a-book-i-both-love-and-hate-lol

#the child thief #brom #gerald brom

12 notes · View notes

aion-rsa · 4 years

Text

Saint Maud and the True Horror of Broken Minds and Bodies

https://ift.tt/36P7Are

Spoilers for SAINT MAUD to follow

If there hadn’t been a pandemic one of the horror movies everyone would be talking about this year would be Saint Maud. We’d be talking about it in the same breath as Hereditary, The Witch, The Babadook and Raw, but we’d know that it isn’t really like any of them. We might mention Repulsion, The Exorcist, Rosemary’s Baby, but we’d know what we’d seen is new and exciting.

Release in UK cinemas on October 9 after getting pushed back and pulled forward several times, Saint Maud can finally find its way to audiences who feel comfortable going to the pictures – with a digital release to follow.

This is director Rose Glass’ debut film, an incredibly confident first feature which sees Morfydd Clark’s pious palliative care nurse believe she is on a mission from god to save the soul of her dying patient, former dancer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Set in a squalid seaside town this is a film that pits faded glamour and rough reality against the beatific visions of the troubled Maud – it’s at once beautiful and hellish.

We caught up with Glass to talk about minds and bodies, a Welsh God and the horrific true story behind Maud’s past.

Would you describe Saint Maud as horror?

I don’t know, I’m having less and less of an opinion on the whole genre thing now, to be honest. I guess it’s somewhat subjective. Why do people put such rigid labels on things? It’s a film. I’ve been told people find it scary. It’s not like some of the bigger, more mainstream, jump scares every minute ones. And neither is better or worse, I guess they’re just slightly different styles. But yeah, it’s more horror than it is not.

What were the origins of Maud, where did the concept first come from?

I started coming up with the early version of the idea just as I was finishing film school in 2014. It was just a premise that I thought would be fun. It was going to be a two-hander of a young woman who hears the voice of God in her head and falls in love with him. It was going to be some sort of twisted romance between her and God, but it started to go quite gimmicky quite quickly. That was what set me off down that path. But it was always about a woman who had this voice in her head.

At first I didn’t question at all how literal that was or not, or whether or not that meant God or mental illness. So then I started wondering a bit more about that and started realizing there are two different ways you could be doing this same scenario, depending on whether you have faith or not, which I thought was quite interesting and deliberately a bit provocative and fun. It’s an amalgamation of lots of stuff that I’m interested in, mental illness and religion, and brains and bodies going wrong and all that sort of stuff.

It struck me as about a conflict between mind and body and soul…

The ridiculousness of being a human and at once the world in our brains being able to encompass such huge concepts and be so far reaching and epic, and apocalyptic within our minds, but then the mundane reality of life. Not to mention the fact that all of us are walking around in weird fleshy body things that can go wrong, and the brain’s just an organ. And what the fuck is consciousness? It’s all mind-boggling, so for me I guess, storytelling and films and art is often just trying to find weird varied ways to make sense of all that.

The settings and your locations really help with that. The comparison between these lofty ethereal visions and these squalid moments of hell in the flat. Can you tell me a bit about the locations and what you were looking for when you were hunting down those places?

I think that, what you said, that was it. I wanted to find ways for the visual language and setting of the film to reflect what’s going on. So yeah, when she’s on her sacred mission and trying to help Amanda in her house, that’s high above the town looking down on everybody and that’s kind of how she is. And then her crappy little bedsit is meant to have the feel of a hermitage or some kind of, I don’t know, not monastic, but something very basic.

How did you manage to achieve that terribly oppressive, hellish look and feel to the film?

I always wanted the whole film to be incredibly subjective, and for the audience to always be very much aligned with Maud’s experience. And for me, the whole challenge of the film was to see if I could get the audience to connect with and understand somebody who goes on to do such seemingly inexplicable, awful things. There’s a version of the story that could have been told and shot like a very bleak, social realism drama about an unemployed nurse who’s struggling with mental health issues. And while that is definitely in the story, I wanted to tell it from her perspective. Because obviously, she doesn’t see herself as this unfortunate downtrodden victim. She sees herself as somebody incredibly important. She’s in direct communication with God. This is all massive high stakes stuff. Otherwise you don’t get what’s driving her.

Her day-to-day life, job, is quite mundane and she’s looking for the thing that makes her feel important and seen and special. So her relationship with God and the whole journey that she thinks she’s going on with Amanda, it had to feel as important, sexual and exciting as the character finds it. Then the whole drama comes from the conflict between what she thinks is going on, and what’s actually going on.

The look of it had to be super sensual and stylized. I work with Ben Fordsman who’s my DOP, it’s his first film as well. He’s fantastic. We talked a lot about making the visual style reflect her unraveling mental states. At the beginning things were a lot more controlled, in terms of camera and lighting and camera movement, and then gradually as she unravels throughout the film, the style of the whole film gets more and more extreme.

The fact that Maud is very strong, believes she’s on a mission from God and doesn’t feel sorry for herself makes this a very different film.

She’s a very contradictory character, which to me just seems more realistic. None of us are just one thing. I wasn’t so aware of this until I actually watched, with editing the film and shooting, and Morfydd said the same thing when she watched it for the first time. Because we both are physically small women, it’s not something you’re conscious of but in terms of how you come across in the way she looks there’s already like a natural frailty or vulnerability which makes you want to go, “Oh.” and help her. But then actually everything else beyond that, beyond how she looks, in her performance, and how she interacts with people, it’s quite spiky and tough, quite arrogant. I like these neurotic characters, with weird levels of arrogance and self-loathing. Neurotics with stomach aches, and arrogance and self loathing. Encompassing lots of things, contradictory, multifaceted, she’s chameleon and very funny.

To me this feels like a really female film. Was that something that you were really conscious of and deliberately wanted to do? Or was that just because you happen to be a female?

Yeah, the latter. I don’t know. I feel like with the horror vibe, sometimes feel like I’m not saying what I should. No, I’ve never thought of myself as a female filmmaker, and what is the thing I have to say as a woman. I just come at things as an individual. I think it’ll be good when audiences can think more like that as well. But at the same time, I don’t want to be ungrateful. I’m really aware of the fact that I’m really fortunate to be coming up at this time where, because of the hard work that a lot of other people have done before me, audiences and the industry are more open than they have been before to stories about women. So I’m certainly benefiting from that. I wish I didn’t have that little bit of voice in my head that’s like, “Oh, so are you just ticking a box…”

There are certainly themes of how these two women connect to their bodies.

I’m very interested in weird relationships that we all have with our bodies, and obviously, I’m coming at it from a female perspective, because I am a woman. [I’m interested in] the contrast between his alternate epic inner world and how limiting bodies are sometimes.

When Maud hears the voice of God it’s actually Morfydd’s own voice we are hearing, I gather?

Yes. And it wasn’t in the original script. Going in to shoot the film, that scene didn’t exist. I think I’d been a bit too ruthless with trying to cut the script down so it would be short and contained. There are things that you think come across because you’ve written it and you’re familiar with it, and then you look in the edit and you’re like, “Oh shit, we need this scene.” It felt like we needed an unambiguous scene where God reveals himself to her and talks. So then it was like, “What does God look and sound like?” So I’d already had this beetle that we’d done some stuff with, so I was like, “Great, get the beetle in.” And then it’s like, “How does the beetle sound?”

I’d been listening to Morfydd talking on the phone to her sister in Welsh throughout the shoot, and it’s just this lovely sounding language, which I think is unfamiliar to most people. I probably wouldn’t have recognized it. Everyone’s kind of, “Is it Latin? Is it Aramaic?” Then you go, “It’s Welsh.” And then you’re like, “It’s Morfydd’s voice pitched down and everyone goes, “Ooh.”

Movies

A24 Horror Movies Ranked From Worst to Best

By David Crow and 3 others

Movies

Saint Maud Review: Elevated Horror That’s a Revelation

By Rosie Fletcher

Where did Maud’s backstory originate?

It’s a story I actually nicked from a woman that I met at a friend’s birthday party who was a nurse. I was talking to her a bit about the film before we’d shot it. I was running it by her, the idea of this traumatized nurse, who’s left the public sector and gone to work as a private carer. And there’s this kind of unresolved, untreated trauma that she’s gone through. She’s basically losing her mind and no one’s realized. “Does that sound plausible?” And she was like, “Yeah, totally.” I’d already read a lot of stories about nurses and doctors and public health workers grappling with mental health issues, because it’s a great, insane field to work in.

This woman told me this thing that happened to her, where she’d been working on a intensive care unit for people with lung problems. There was a guy, an old man, who was recovering from some major chest surgery and he was either in a coma or asleep, I’m not sure. He’d been sort of, sliced and stapled here [gestures down the centre of her chest] and this nurse was doing the night shift and he crashed, went into some kind of cardiac arrest. She had to start doing CPR and he was so frail, and he’d just had this surgery, which was sort of open. And yeah, her hands just kind of, went inside and he died…

Wow.

Awful, yeah. Fortunately, in this woman’s case, she got a ton of therapy and worked through it, but had PTSD. So to be honest, the real thing that happened to her, I think, is more horrifying than what actually did in the film, because we tried to do that effect, but it didn’t work. In our film you see the chest, there was a cavity inside that fake chest. It was meant to be that Morfydd’s hands went all the way inside, but it didn’t quite work. Then actually, the first take that we did where it didn’t break it just crushed, that actually made the whole crew wince. So actually we just ended up using that. Putting in a little bit of fake blood, so it’s less gory than the real thing that happened. But I think it’s more effective in the film anyway. So yes, that lady’s awful trauma, I’m making a film out of it. I’m not sure about the moral implications of that but… Anyway, that’s what I did.

When you were at film school till 2015, and you’ve made quite a lot of shorts before, I wondered if you see common themes or preoccupations within your work?

You start to work out what your things are. For me, they definitely seem to be bodies and brains going wrong, always loved bodies and brains. Insects are getting in there as well. At least two of the next projects are definitely quite body focused.

What can you tell us about those?

Only that there’s one which is set in America and that’s going to be a rather horrible romance, or lovely romance, depending how you look at it, I guess. And the other one is the sort of, slightly more body horror one, which I was writing mostly during lockdown, but I can’t say any more.

In terms of the title, is there a real Saint Maud?

There is. That’s not who she’s named after though. Initially, the film was just called, “Maud”. Then “Saint Maud” only came about once I worked out that she isn’t actually Maud, she’s Katie, and Maud’s kind of an identity she’s created for herself. I think there was one, I want to say she was something like the patron saint of naughty school children, something like that.

Your film is finally coming out in cinemas and I know it’s been moved around a bit. So how does it feel that you’re finally getting your release?

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

Great. Very weird. Very nice. I keep forgetting that the main thing hasn’t happened yet, with coming up in festivals and all of that stuff. To me, it sort of feels like Maud’s kind of done, so I’m thinking about the next stuff now. I keep forgetting that it’s not actually been released yet. I’m curious to see what regular audiences think of it.

Saint Maud is out now in UK cinemas

The post Saint Maud and the True Horror of Broken Minds and Bodies appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3lvGD00

#aion-rsa #Den of Geek

0 notes

sleepyskunk · 7 years

Text

Deconstructing the 2017 Movie Trailer Mashup

Why deconstructing a mashup? Because these videos are often perceived as a random mess of pretty images from movie trailers. While that’s absolutely true, there’s an opportunity to explore themes and also pay a few obscure tributes to elements that don’t belong in the video itself but that are generally widespread within pop culture. These montages have been going on for a few years now, and it’s hard to edit the footage in a way that won’t feel reminiscent of one of the many great retrospectives put out by other talented editors in years past. I have to say that trying to build a narrative with all that footage has now become more enticing to me than to highlight the moments that made the year in cinema within their proper context. Let’s get right into it, shall we?

Someone on Reddit commented: “starting off with GEOSTORM, that’s a bold move!” and it didn’t even cross my mind. The shot was exactly where I wanted to go right off the bat - a blend of childlike wonder and eerie caution reminiscent of earlier Tim Burton films. The track was composed for a television spot called “A Wonderful Day” from IT and it showcases major Danny Elfman influences. Thus, this was my small tribute to the Burton/Elfman collabs happening under snowfalls like EDWARD SCISSORHANDS or BATMAN RETURNS. I loved the contrast in dialogue from PERSONAL SHOPPER which was such an under-appreciated indie film this year. Every mashup has its horror section, but I am gently sneaking you in by the supernatural door this time around. It’s just innocent enough to deceive those who hate horror.

Childlike wonder flawlessly captured in one shot, from the lens of Matt Reeves. I can’t say I connect emotionally with his APES movies, but the quality control on every frame, CGI or otherwise, it pretty much above and beyond all industry standards. That facial expression is exactly what I needed, you can tell she’s not too sure whether she’s safe or not but without feeling properly scared either. This is like the part in the original POLTERGEIST where kitchen chairs are moving on their own and the family still thinks it’s kind of fun. Kind of.

KING ARTHUR is the best type of release when it comes to trailer mashups because 1) it had a fantasy undertone 2) it was tracking poorly and 3) it went way over budget. Big studios know months in advance if they have a major bomb on their hands, and they have two choices at that point: either stop spending a penny on it and dump it for a quick theatre run and VOD release (more common if the movie didn’t cost that much) or, like in this case, spend extra millions of dollars to sell the shit out of that movie on opening week-end before everyone realizes it’s bad. Those extra millions go towards CGI money shots like the one above, which is really meant to make the marketing more attractive and oh dear lord, did KING ARTHUR have some last minute money shots to offer or what? It was a joy to pick and choose from its nine trailers.

This is where I put my cards on the table, whimsy never happened and I am taking you all to creepytown. That shot from ANNABELLE: CREATION is one of the many that upstages the featured evil doll in that wonderful movie and the film’s cinematographer Maxime Alexandre reached out because he was happy so much of his work was featured. You never know in front of who your videos can end up and industry people are keen on celebrating the year in film, especially if their own works are included. This is just a top notch unsettling shot clearly inspired by THE SHINING (the girl’s dress and the way her arms look lifeless.) On a side note, I always manually add all sounds including that floor cracking. If anyone reading this is starting off editing mashups, I promise you one thing: using professional, isolated, studio-recorded sound effect packages such as BOOM library is much superior to the original trailer track (unless you get a clean sound within the trailer.)

Another random insight (if you’re interested in making your own movie mashups) is to try as much as possible to avoid that one marketing shot everyone recognizes. You can revisit a memorable moment but going straight to the most oversold shot of a film hurts you. While you’re eager to make everyone relive the most epic imagery of the year, some value gets lost when a studio bombarded the same shot over and over and you go for it. Two quick examples: Giant hologram JOI pointing at Ryan Gosling in BLADE RUNNER 2049. I wanted that moment, but the original side-scroller shot was so overused that I went with her from a closer angle (see video thumbnail). Another example is that uncomfortable sniffle from Daniel Kaluuya in GET OUT which I favored over the super overplayed mouth open crying paralyzed shot from every marketing piece. In both cases, I assume you know which shots I am referring to without having to show them. Trying the alternative makes us relive the moment without its obviousness. It gives that other shot they didn’t choose its moment to shine (and more often than not, it’s just as effective.)

Someone’s not getting much sleep. A CURE FOR WELLNESS is a gorgeous-looking film no matter what you think of its bizarre plot points. I spend much of the first segment flirting with the creative key points from IT. One I tried to play around with is the idea of Pennywise as a half-real/half-fiction monster, and how similar to Wes Craven’s A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET his realm of terror extends. A few winning concepts in both films: 1) He isn’t real but he can really hurt you so you have to stay on your guard at all times and 2) Only a select few have been cursed with having to deal with him, adding a psychological layer to an already spooky premise. Dane Dehaan looks like a kid from Derry, or Elm street if you prefer, whose mental focus seems affected by the fact that he saw something, and his friend saw him too. Meanwhile, I throw in a completely out of context quote from Vanessa Redgrave which ties in that mysterious “sickness” from Verbinski’s film.

A shot from PROFESSOR MARSTON AND THE WONDER WOMEN from a trailer edited by Kees van Dijkhuizen Jr. for Annapurna Pictures where he works as an in-house editor now. In 2015, I talked about Gen Ip’s storytelling approach and last year I praised Matt Shapiro’s famously epic crescendos, so this year, let’s talk about Kees a little bit because I find all their influences fascinating. My first observation is how far his much-adored Cinema series has taken him, and that one of the top production houses in the business (if not the top, sorry A24 and Fox Searchlight) hired him so he could bring his own distinct style onto their major features. The whole trailer mashup craze started off only a few years back and so many editors were recruited right off YouTube to turn their passion into a livelihood down in Los Angeles. I can think of at least six editors whose names you’d recognize and who are now living the dream, and I consider this to be really inspiring because none of them initially got into it thinking something like that was ever possible. (side note: I also moved to L.A. and was poached by a trailer house but prefer to keep things on the low-end until it’s been long enough. I wouldn’t want to jinx it.)

The second observation about Kees is how much influence he’s had on every mashup that gets uploaded on a daily basis every December (me included) - I will link his Cinema series below. Instead of pairing clips into a horror bit, an action bit, a laughing and dancing bit, a kissing and crying bit, Kees was always out to create new feelings and nothing ever seemed more important than proper flow. Many shots would pop-up that you would never expect thematically, images of moving objects like a breaking glass transitioned with a girl’s hair waving through the wind (also see the lie detector in the previous shot.) He would connect nature documentaries right along with major superhero blockbusters and the movements flowed so perfectly that nothing ever felt out of place, quite the contrary. He was the best shot curator we’ve ever seen, and the order in which he put them together was beyond logic and predictability. Imagine “One Perfect Shot” but with 275 perfect shots back-to-back. If you want a prime example of what I’m referring to (random objects and flow), check out 2:49 - 2:52 from his Cinema 2011 (links below). Kees set the bar so high that attempting an end-of-year mashup certainly felt foolish at times, but hoping to improve made the editing process all the more inspiring.

CINEMA 2008 | CINEMA 2009 | CINEMA 2010 | CINEMA 2011 | CINEMA 2012

So apparently, they have the internet and flat-screen TV’s in RINGS but landline phones are still a thing. Quite frankly, I haven’t seen RINGS and I bet it’s aggressively ordinary, but how retro horror is that shot? Paired up with the voice of THE SNOWMAN saying “Mister Policeman” it’s a throwback to Nancy being terrorized by Freddy in the original Nightmare of Elm Street (minus the tongue.) I was also pleased with the aesthetic of HAPPY DEATH DAY, clearly the product of horror fans who grew up during the low-budget slasher craze of the early ‘80s. It’s got MY BLOODY VALENTINE written all over it (meanwhile their poster was paying homage to APRIL FOOL’S DAY.) Retro horror, in all its disturbing practical gore glory! Rick Baker, Tom Savini, how much we missed you in our modern times where only a few major productions have enough VFX money to escape the uncanny valley (and even then... *cough* JUSTICE LEAGUE.)

I always tend to edit right on tempo, which means switching shots at the exact moment the music beat tells you to. But over here, I thought this elevator drop from FLATLINERS looked so frenetic and out of control that I started it half a second before as if the beat couldn’t keep up! Like in cartoons when the car accelerates so fast that it takes off but their eyeballs are standing still for a little fraction. This whole mashup sequence is meant to be a little cartoony and tongue-in-cheek. To anyone who found this to be disturbing (and yes, I heard from a few viewers who said it was too much) I must admit that it wasn’t my intention. I won’t apologize for my work, people choose to watch if they want to or not. But if I really tried my best to scare the crap out of you, I can assure you THE LEGO NINJAGO MOVIE wouldn’t have made the cut.

Now channeling a CHILD’S PLAY vibe thanks to this retro television shot from the highly underrated BRIGSBY BEAR. A kids program works well as an element of fear because it’s supposed to be a safely protected zone of positivity and care, just like a doll or a clown for that matter. Once that turns on its head and begins to attack, you basically have nowhere else to hide. It also makes for great contrast, and Andy Muschietti must have had an absolute blast this year incorporating this component into his remake of IT. The bear costume was one of the many shots that wasn’t from a horror movie and yet I used to great effect in this section. I know there was a new CHILD’S PLAY movie this year but sadly, it didn’t hold a candle to the Hitchcockian original.

“At the end of the day, people are out for themselves.” That’s not true, and only people who are out for themselves could believe that. Because if you’re weighing low on the morality scale at some point in life, you still wanna go to bed thinking you’re a good person. So if you can’t justify what you did, the best logical next step is to convince yourself that human nature is to blame, that everyone else would have done the same as you. Ask people who were charged with insider trading on the stock market, they’ll always say “everybody was doing it.” I could refer to a certain World War to keep hammering that point but instead, I’d like to point out the interesting contrast between this and Part 3. I try to disprove that very statement by showing in the finale that everything we do that matters is for others, and others are the only thing that matters once everything else has come and gone.

The KING ARTHUR studio spending extra millions of dollars to sell the shit out of that movie on opening week-end before everyone realizes it’s bad money shot festival continues. EPIC! In fact, that shot is so gorgeous, you could place it anywhere in any mashup ever and it would probably work.

Having a bit of fun giving a more literal visual cue to IT’s “We all float down here” with Guillermo Del Toro’s hypnotically beautiful THE SHAPE OF WATER. However, it’s not the tudum tssshh, get it? movie connection that works here. It’s the underwater sound effect and the incredible sound mixing by trailer house Buddha Jones so that Georgie’s voice seems to come from the bottom of the ocean. This is likely the best sound work you’ll hear in the entire mashup, and I didn’t mix it, the editors behind that teaser trailer did. In fact, their work was so effective at scaring people that it earned twice the amount of views on YouTube than what Avengers: Infinity War received. A fact Kevin Feige will likely never admit.

That moment when you realize your manic pixie dream girl wears white socks! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I've used vulgarity in the past but not every year, depends whether it brings value. Some of you may remember “Game on, c***suckers” from KICK-ASS 2 in 2013 or “Nap time, motherf***ers” from COOTIES in 2015. Perhaps there’s another guilty pleasure at play here, however, which is that feeling of pure creative freedom. As mentioned earlier, not everyone digged the horror undertone of this year’s Part 1 and that’s okay because it went exactly where I wanted to go and no compromise was made. No client notes. No studio revisions. No censor beeper (which makes it worse because we seek to find out what the word was.) If you get into professional careers that are creative in nature, you’ll find that teamwork, compromise, and not taking anything personally are all essential components for success. But when the movie trailer mashup comes around, I report to no one. And that moment from THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING MISSOURI is one I wanted included as soon as the red band trailer came out.

This shot comes from a small movie you should seek out called MY NAME IS EMILY starring Evanna Lynch (aka Luna Lovegood in the Harry Potter movies.) The film was directed by Simon Fitzmaurice who was diagnosed with Motor Neuron Disease (ALS) a few years ago, the debilitating disease for which the viral ice-bucket challenge was based on. He wrote the screenplay for this movie while his body was entirely paralyzed, and the only way he could communicate with the cast and crew while shooting the film was through eye gaze technology. There was a documentary following his brave journey that played Sundance called IT’S NOT YET DARK. Check it out if you need some real work ethic motivation and want to feel truly inspired about overcoming challenges. Much better than THE DISASTER ARTIST which is a spoof about a millionaire with no talent who mistreated the people who worked on his film. Okay, it’s still very entertaining and James Franco is hilarious but I don’t get a ‘never give up’ vibe from it, more like ‘maybe this isn’t for you.’

With the second segment, I was going for a British Gangster film vibe, hence the music cue Main Offender by The Hives. No movie captured that feeling better than Ben Wheatley’s FREE FIRE this year. I find the criminals in British movies are equally as clever in their quips as they are dangerous and often have the appearance of fair, well-behaved citizens until they have a reason to go mad. Jon Hamm’s performance in BABY DRIVER was also a textbook definition of that archetype, because all the build-up scenes where he acts friendly and discusses music with the titular character only bring an element of surprise at the end of his arc (spoilers: he’s not that nice in the end) I am aware that BABY DRIVER takes place in America but it’s directed by a Brit so it counts!

If Kubrick only knew his famous jump cut from 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY that connects a flying bone to a space shuttle would lead to this fifty years later. What a shit show jump cuts have become! But they’re fun, and let’s be honest here: 7 minutes of serious quotes about life would get a little heavy. The way you edit jump cuts is the same way to solve a puzzle with over a thousand pieces. Extract dozens of short action clips onto your timeline and try to make them fit with one another over and over until you’re entertained. I mean, the music stays the same in the background, all I am doing here is deciding which projectile this pair of underpants from CAPTAIN UNDERPANTS will become. The answer was a tranquilizer from the underground mall chase sequence in Bong Joon-ho’s excellent OKJA. Maybe we should try one really long domino of jump cuts one day. Should take forever to edit, but how much fun would it be?

Did you know that Academy Award winner Alicia Vikander was a professional ballet dancer before she started acting? Work ethic applies in everything you do. When you hear about successful actors, you often discover people who are world-class at delivering under pressure and dedicating themselves to their craft with an insane amount of work. Acting is hard and yet so many people think they can do it, which makes it even harder. At least ballet puts constraints right off the bat, you need flexibility and a specific body frame. Part 3 is about finding your passion AND putting in the work. Just finding your passion is hard! It’s not always the bottomless pit one could hope for, especially when it becomes a real job with hours upon hours of work. Many people don’t even know what their passion is, they know what they’re good at but don’t love it. “Without your passion, it’s very hard to find our place in the world.” I don’t think you need your income to come from your passion in order to find said place, but I wish everyone that many of the limited hours they have each day goes towards their passion, and not towards something that feels like a waste of time. Wanting to wake up has everything to do with what happens after your first cup of coffee. Put your time towards something meaningful to you, even if it’s only on evenings and week-ends and you’ll never make a penny from it. If you love animals, volunteer at a shelter. If you love to travel, just GO!

But what happens when your family conflicts with your passion? Would you leave them behind to pursue your dreams? We all remember the tragic scene from DEAD POETS SOCIETY where a young scholar gets forced by his father to become a doctor instead of his passion and commits suicide. And then we have this year’s COCO, Pixar’s big comeback, where music is prohibited in Miguel’s family but it’s all he dreams about. But that conundrum doesn’t even have to be confrontational in nature. What if you wanted to work in a low-paying field like online journalism because it’s what you love but your single parent (who always took care of you) became sick and needed you to take care of their treatment. What happens then? What comes first? I humbly try to answer that later in the segment, of course.

We always told you Daniel Radcliffe... you’re special. That’s why you have a scar on your forehead that looks like a bolt... Just kidding, poor guy. I look at Mark Hamill in THE LAST JEDI and keep thinking that if studios are still a private enterprise in 40 years, some new Harry Potter movie will come out in which an old bearded Radcliffe will be teaching at Hogwarts. (PS: he keeps making bold choices, so much so that I am willing to watch anything he’s in.)

A man’s reach... (or woman, btw) should exceed his/her grasp. Words from a poem by Robert Browning, suggesting that, to achieve anything worthwhile, a person should attempt even those things that may turn out to be impossible. The downside with attempting the impossible is two-fold, however. 1) You may spend your life trying and never succeed. 2) If you do get there after so much sacrifice and effort, the world will expect you to do it again, or to keep doing it at the same level or better. If you won a Gold medal at the last Olympics, what are the expectations for the upcoming Olympics? That’s where passions and dreams enter a darker road, one many people choose to avoid altogether. But whatever happens, it’s worth the risk as long as you have the one thing along the way that’s a hundred times more important. And that thing is...

...people who love each other! Look at this guy, he just figured it out!

Kate Mara in MEGAN LEAVEY really seems to be the one thinking out loud in this shot while we hear a quote from THEIR FINEST. I had a blast with the Freddy Krueger references earlier but this is my favorite part. Audiomachine make the best tracks to bring that crescendo to its proper peak. You can say this part of the mashup is more in my comfort zone. And the influences from Kees that I discussed earlier can be felt here. Some shots of objects and landscapes that aren’t thematically connected but keep a nice flow. I also handpicked the best cinematography of the year all at once here. MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS was a damn pretty movie, then SHAPE OF WATER, then THE MAN WHO INVENTED CHRISTMAS, then OKJA. Every shot looks like a million bucks. Notice the use of paper, letters and ink. I want to see you again, a character from EVERYTHING EVERYTHING writes on a sheet.

Family comes first is nice, but along with family comes conflict and distance at times. Things we said that we regret. Times we let each other down, or weren’t there when we needed to. All the papers dropping from the bridge, all the shots that refer to letter writing, that’s where I was going with that. Not always obvious because it moves so damn fast which is why I do this deconstruction blog post every year!

The final big lift from Disney’s BEAUTY AND THE BEAST! Also, the first frame I added onto my AVID timeline. This is how I organize my work basically. I pick the right songs, then I identify the exact moments in that song where a big moment should happen - if you use trailer music, it will be crystal clear what those are. And then I try money shots in each of these spots over and over until one really, really fits. Then, I ask myself how did we get here, how can I get to that point? And build around these big moments. The second shot I added into the mashup was the little girl in Part 1 under the bed who points to another version of herself sleeping in her bed and says “Shhh! That’s not me.” I put that in right when the music stopped, it became a big moment, and then I built around it in order to get there. Every editor works differently, but I am just sharing how I personally prefer to do it. Back in 2012, the first clip I added onto the timeline was “I have an army. We have a Hulk.” from THE AVENGERS which means I’ve been editing this way for five straight years.

Those letters of reaching out to people you care about. Apologies or wondering how they’re doing. Flying everywhere around Winston Churchill (that’s my dog’s name, he’s a Pembroke Welsh Corgi!) I guess you should always be the one to reach out in difficult situations with important people. The mistake is to not reach out, or convince yourself that they were dragging you down and you’re better off without them. That’s rarely the case, and you’ll never get over them when you know that’s not the case. Maybe they will reply someday, maybe they never will. But you swallowed your ego and you decided to give it one more shot. That’s the bravest thing we can do in this life, and I hope you’ll see it that way if the time comes. Happy New Year! Achieve your passions, take care of the ones you love and make it a wonderful day! (Halle Berry: “Aaaarrh!")

- Sleepy Skunk

#2017movietrailermashup

10 notes · View notes

kenrik · 7 years

Text

Conflicted - that was what I felt after my first viewing of TLJ.

My journey from “???” to “WTF!!”. Comparing my insight from my first viewing of TLJ to my second.

1. I am Reylo shit. But after watching TLJ, I couldn’t process what I’d just seen. I felt like there was nothing bridging the gap from “You’re a monster!” to “Let’s work together, Ben Solo~” So, I thought, initially, that their relationship was poorly constructed. And, I felt conflicted because - although I would love Reylo to happen, I didn’t want it to happen in a mucked up sort of way.

2. The first scene - the bombing scene. I couldn’t understand it. Where the hell did those vessels come from? Who the hell was that woman. And why the hell do we care about the medallion around her neck? Just - who the faq?

3. Poe is an idiot. A dolt. A trigger happy fool. (A stark contrast to his soundness from TFA.)

4. Then, after the first scene - I guess everything happened and my brain went haywire - thinking - W.T.F.????!!!??? My brain proceeded to shutdown afterwards, I think. And just let the images pass.

5. Holdo’s sacrifice was very cliche. Best sacrifice scene for me was Lelouch’s. Going back to it, I guess anime’s sacrificial themes make western ones pale in comparison. Anyway, I didn’t appreciate this scene so much - even with the spectacular cinematography - because it was what it is - cliche. Also, there would be zero casualties other than herself. I mean, as far as logic went - anyone with half a brain would’ve done what she did. “It’s only logical.” lol

6. Too many jokes. Hux became a punchline which I found annoying. I felt it was forced (lol). Also, the recurring about Poe being trigger happy - wanting to bomb everything in sight. That was just, very cringeworthy. (And I understand why they did it, though. Curse you Marvel! And your many jokes! DAMN-IT.)

7. Luke’s snarkiness. Maybe I need a refresher course on his character. Last we saw him, he’s been battling with incredible shit as a kid. Then now, we jump to his old master type guy who smirks a lot... BRIDGE. THE. GAP.

8. Kylo Ren - the GIGANTIC. PAIN IN THE ASS. CRYBABY. One of the reasons I left the movie house utterly conflicted was this character. When I though he had progressed (somewhat) - he goes reverse psycho mode and losses all his shit - and with it, all that development he made in the middle part of the film. As a Kylo Ren buff - this was incredibly frustrating to say the least.

8.5 Rey’s constant rejection of Kylo Ren. But who can blame her?? That guy’s a mess! One of the reasons I left the movie house conflicted was Kylo’s flipflopping character development. By the end - I was like - of course she’d leave you - you’re an idiot! Two rejections in one movie plus that one rejection in TFA... how many times does Rey have to reject you before you clean your act up, stupid Ren?! I felt angry and sad for Kylo, for being conflicted, lost, close to something certain, solid, then all out batshit crazy and lost and conflicted again. It was a rollercoaster for me and my rooting for Ben Solo’s character. Damn did that guy take me for a ride.

9. Phasma v Finn scene. Phasma is an incredible baddie. I loved their fight scene. My comment is, though, - that it was minute. Ever so tiny. And her “death” was so anticlimactic - I can’t even. It was cliche. The fight could have been longer.

10. Finn and Rose - IDIOTS. What were those two thinking sharing their plans to an absolute stranger?? And they get shocked that the thief sold them out the first chance he got. Seriously - their whole subplot was like stepping on dogshit. I get the message the team wanted to bring across. But seriously, that same message could’ve been said with a better subplot. There was no answer as to who the man with the rose pin was - no recall to the past story, to any story in SW. Use the old characters for some substance! We have so many more of them at the team’s disposal. :/

Cookies (Parts I loved since the first viewing.)

1. Leia is kween. That force stunt she pulled was epic. It was incredible. I can’t even. (Proves to show you how strong she is with the force - and FU fanboys whining - “The force ain’t werq dat wei betch!”) 2. Luke and his liberal approach to the force. Preach!! 3. Rose’s message about weapon dealers (AKA AMERICA, RUSSIA, CHINA. H8CHU FUCKERS - fighting each other when you’re basically on the same fucking boat - HU U THINK UR FOOLING). 3.5 Rose hitting deserter Finn with a stunbaton/gun. 4. That immaculate contrast of white and red minerals. 5. BB8 DOING ALL THE WORK IN ROSE and FINN’S ARC. I mean - GIVE THE DAMN DROID/ROBOT AN OSCAR! 6. Rey’s druggy self-discovery scene. That was just crazy good. 7. The bitchy fish nuns. 8. Chewie roasting porgs while porgs watch in tearful horror. 9. Luke’s leap from one hill to the next. 10. Ben’s slide/glide when he first talks to Rey via force bond. 10.25 Rey’s incessant bitching to Ren via force bond about how Ben is a monster. How she beat him. How she found Luke before him. How she beat him. How he’s a loser. How he’s an idiot. How she hates him. (During that scene, I just can’t help but laugh at her intense lashing out at him HAHA) 10.5 Rey shooting Ren the first opportunity she got. 10.75 Ren standing in the bridge? looking at the platform thing? And Ren being all savage and unforgiving and shooting the fighter planes of the resistance. 11. Snoke’s labyrinth scene!!!!*#*#JMNFUWNF!!!*@(#*$ 12. Epic Yoda is epic. I watched the film with my blockmates, impromptu right after our last finals exam. His quote "Failure is the best teacher.” literally made us ball out in tears. DAMN IT. Yoda got us again! “Do or do not, there is no try.” is so good it’s unfair. 13. Kylo ren practically throwing a tantrum when he faced his uncle Luke. 14. “You came from nothing.You are nothing... But not to me.” 15. Luke’s deep backwards dip in his face off with his nephew Ben. 16. Hux’s screaming repeat of Ben’s order to proceed, earning a “dafuq” look from Kylo. 17!!! Kylo Ren and Anakin = obvious blatant parallels! The hair, the attire, the anger in their expressions!

My SECOND VIEWING gave me clarity. So, here is my feedback after not having been taken by a shitload of surprise. 1. The scenes had okay pacing. Just unnoticeable because a lot was shoved to our face in less than three hours. 2. Finn/Rose subplot was meh, not exactly the worst thing in the world. And, it makes sense that they get that type of subplot. Rose was a low-ranking member, delegated to catching deserters. Finn knows next to nothing about the Resistance. And Poe is a loose canon. Of course the quest they’d end up in is only as good as what their character’s can make up. This is very realistic actually. 3. It’s a kid’s movie. Of course it would be riddled with cliches. 4. Vulnerability - that’s what bridged the gap between Rey and Ren. 5. Captain Phasma is coming back! *hopefully* She deserves a better send off! 6. Kylo Ren’s character development. I was devastated after my first viewing. I thought he had regressed to the point of no return. Man, I was so ready to throw all my Reylo hopes away because dammit if an idiot ends up with Rey. But, I failed to appreciate that last scene between them properly.

Ren is kneeling, head bowing low in remorse. And Rey were eyes hard and unforgiving, her expression, swelling in disappointment of him. Wow. That said a lot. This is a huge step. After Rey left him (wow it’s like leaving a lover after having had sex), Ren just catapults himself into a raging fit. How could he not? How could he not lose all of his shit after having LOST ALL HIS SHIT. HAHA (Shit is such a good placeholder for the dumb.) I mean - he just killed his Supreme Leader. He offered his heart out to Rey - to this stranger. For once in his life, nothing had been clearer to him - he wanted to join forces with Rey. Forget everyone else. So long as she joined him, nothing would ever be unattainable. But she rejected him. And then - he lost all his shit. He was so certain for once - that Rey would join him. That she saw the same future he saw of her, of them, standing together towards the same goal. With her rejection - he was thrown back to confusion. To that irrational conflict he could never make sense of. Everything that happened after was an intense blur that he could do nothing more but work in automatic mode. And his automatic mode is work like a bitch baby. Imagine this - everything happened so fast after than one moment of clarity - The resistance found a safe haven. The Millennium Falcon was shooting at them. And that one person he’s been searching for all his life resurfaces out of thin air. All the lies that Snoke told him, all the hatred that scum put in his mind, just exploded.

Everything happened so quickly. He had no second to think straight. He went to what was natural - what Snoke taught him. Which is why~ that moment of realization at the end, of regret, remorse, guilt - towards Rey, towards this person who seemed to genuinely believe in him - is so important. It makes me believe that he’ll be thinking of his actions more rationally. And this makes me happy for my favorite character.

A lot have said this, but I think a year or a few will pass in the timeline before we rejoin the characters. We’ve seen their conflict. Now, we’ll see them in their fullest form - allowing for the ultimate battle. This, I’m really excited for. And I give zero fucks whether or not Kylo will be good or bad. I just want him to know who he is and what he is fighting for. And for the briefest moment, we saw it in TLJ - the death of the past - of the Republic and of the Jedi Order - and hopefully of the ashes of the Empire - the First Order.

TLJ was a really good film. I can’t say it was a really good SW film, but it was an incredible film. You haters need to get your shit together and progress with everyone else. Also, I hate you all for crying Mary Sue on Rey. We women had to deal with countless Mary Sue men in our blockbusters. Now we have one of our own, you’re bitch crying at Disney. FU.

Stay calm. Stay chill. KenRik.

11 notes · View notes

cameoamalthea · 8 years

Text

Power Rangers All Grown Up

I enjoyed it.

As stated in my pervious post, between the ages of 4 and 7, I loved the Power Rangers. It was the best thing ever when I was in Kindergarten. Really my first fandom, with Kimberly/Tommy as my first ship insofar as a 6 year old can understand and enjoy romance. So there’s a nostalgia factor.

From what I’ve seen online, this series had a wide following back in the 90s. Kids as young as 3 to as old as 13 liked the Power Rangers. It was definitely a “kid’s show” but it could appeal to younger and older kids alike. So you have a nostalgia factor for a lot of adults from mid twenties to late thirties. Not to mention the kids who had later versions of the Power Rangers as the series continued to run. So what you have is adults who loved something as a kid who are now old enough to bring kids of their own.

But this isn’t a “kid’s movie”. They wanted the PG 13 rating (in contrast, the original movie was PG for action). They wanted the adult and teenage market, and kids who beg parents to take them. They wanted to be edgy, and earn the rating with sexual jokes likely thrown specifically to insure the higher rating. They also add some genuinely heavy and relevant topics for modern teens including revenge porn/leaking nudes (i.e. maliciously distributing someone else’s nude photos given to you privately) and being gay/coming out.

The original Power Rangers were teenagers as written for little kids, ideal role models and mentors who did community service and actively mentored kids on the show, kids who were a stand in for the show’s target audience. They were wholesome kids who were popular and untroubled, the ideal babysitters and what parents would hope their kids would grow up to be as teens. The new version are teenagers as written for teenagers and adults who remember high school, written to be like real people with real depth and real struggles.

They’re older than original characters too. While the original series began with Freshmen (yes, those 20 year old actors were supposed to be 14 year old kids), the new Power Rangers are Seniors. They’re uncertain about their future and also awash in their current problems. They’re very far from perfect, and that makes the story relatable.

However, the story remains wholesome, it’s message is at it’s core the power of friendship and being there for each other. About feeling misunderstood and finding understanding and acceptance. It’s about standing up the kid who is bullied, but also acknowledging that bullies aren’t “bad guys” because even a bully can find redemption “doing something awful doesn’t make you an awful person, you can make better choices and become a better person if you choose to”.

The film has a diverse cast, as did the original, but whereas three out of the original five were white here ever single ranger is a different ethnicity. The characters avoid stereotypes. The Asian character isn’t a genius/nerd, that role goes to the African-American character, Billy.

Billy is also Autistic, and not in an ambiguous disorder way, he identifies as “on the spectrum” and explains it as his brain works differently so there are things he can’t do as well (social things and understanding sarcasm) and things he does better (he has an excellent memory). As someone who is nuerodivergent and possibly on the spectrum myself, I liked Billy and how the portrayed him.

Trini is a lesbian, making her the first LGBT super hero on the big screen, and while it’s not explicit or explored, it’s there. She’s an outsider, her family moves around a lot, her parents want conformity (dress more feminine, be the sort of girl they expect her to be). She can’t talk to them about liking girls. She doesn’t even say she likes girls herself, but it’s clear in context.

To me it didn’t seem like “queer baiting” but more like showing a closeted character who isn’t ready to out yet but knows she doesn’t like boys and is worried that she admitting it make finding acceptance even harder. It feels authentic and fits with the narrative theme of troubled kids who are all outsiders one way or another but find “A family” in each other. Furthermore, being gay isn’t used just for drama or to create angst, Trini’s problems are complex and there’s a lot of them. Her parents don’t understand her, she’s moved around a lot, she doesn’t fit in and being gay is just another factor in that rather than falling into the “tragic gay” trope.

I think there’s a lot of good here and while the movie itself is a bit cheesy as the original intended, it’s still a good time. Even if you laugh at some of the “epic moments”, the awesome theme plays as a bunch of giant robots piloted by teenagers run across the background and you’re laughing at how it wants to be cool but is a bit silly now that you’re all grown up, you still enjoy it. There are also some actually cool moments. Early on Rita looks straight of a Japanese Horror Film and is legitimately pretty creepy.

Over all, I’m glad this movie exists and wouldn’t mind seeing it again. I say if you ever liked Power Rangers it’s worth indulging in a bit of nostalgia and checking out a film that really is made just for you.

5 notes · View notes

trulycertain · 8 years

Text

Tru’s Writing Notes

I’ve had people ask me after seeing my feedback on stories if I’m as overanalytical with my own stuff. The answer is yes. My stuff may often be written at 4 AM and typo-laden, but yes.

Because of that and @thesecondsealwrites talking about process (though unlike her post, this is more the why/how than the everyday practicalities of writing), here are some of the notes I’ve left myself in my journal. These apply mostly to the way I write my original rather than my fic, but they can apply to both. Can I add: a lot of these probably seem very obvious, I know, and I don’t always manage to bear them in mind. Also, I’m not a pro or even a talented amateur, and these aren’t addressing an audience, they’re addressing me - and they apply more to the way I write than writing in general. But if anyone might find this interesting or wants to know if I worry about my writing, here’s your answer.

People tend to like a strong story, with good reason. The best plots tend to be simple, and then you build outwards and maybe twist. A compelling central arc, certain genre tropes or something familiar tend to be what work: forbidden romance, or an unsolved murder and a maverick. We have a fair idea of what’s going to happen, but it’s the anticipation - and/or the eventual subversion - that brings the fun. Plot and drive.

Again, try to have a strong idea of where it’s going, or the spirit of it. Terry Pratchett once said that you want to be able to write your own blurb: it’s a good sign if you can distil the essence of your story into a hundred words or so.

Just like real people, characters have verbal tics, peculiar turns of phrase and certain mannerisms. Learn them, and use but don’t overuse. Keep it natural.

Some people just don’t like present tense, or past, or first person, for whatever reason. You may be buggered from the start, and sometimes all you can do is try. Try and know your audience, try your best. Try not to bang your head against a wall.

However, present tense is a slippery bastard. At its best, there’s almost nothing that can match it for immediacy and visceral intensity. At its worst, it can either be staccato, bleak and overly clinical - or at the other end of the scale, it can be overwrought sensory overload. Either way, a reader will be put off. Ideally, I try to balance the two and end up somewhere in the middle: punch and verve, but with restraint and room for the reader to infer. I rarely manage this, but God do I try.

Speaking of inference: don’t assume the reader is an idiot. Sometimes the best punchline or explanation is the one that’s never given. Myself, my favourite horror stories are the ones that don’t go for shlock and shocks: they’re the ones where I finish them feeling mildly unsettled, go and do the washing-up while my mind puts the pieces together, and then go, five or ten minutes later, “Oh God, it was behind the door the whole time! That’s... Argh.”

People are terrifyingly complicated. Every reader brings something to the text, whether they’re aware of it or not. This can add unexpected beauty or poignancy, but it can also make implication, idioms, dialect and offence into total minefields. People can come out with things that would never have occurred to you. Something might fly over someone’s head, or something might turn out to be an incredibly offensive phrase in their country and perfectly innocuous in yours; someone might find your happy ending the most depressing thing in the known universe, and someone else might hate your likeable romantic hero because he reminds them of their arsehole ex. Sometimes you can anticipate this and take countermeasures for clarity’s sake; often you don’t need to because theirs is a perfectly valid interpretation and part of the joy of making a cake is seeing people eat it; and mostly you just can’t know, because people come in so many different permutations and you’re not actually psychic, so leave them to it. Gah.

Watch your tenses. Things like flashbacks are nightmare territory and ripe for grammar slippage. Never be afraid or too proud to read up on usage.

Same with semicolons. Tricky little gits.

People mangle language. Doesn’t matter whether you’ve had the “perfect” education, everyone does it at least sometimes. People lose words, misuse vocabulary (me, all the time), go for double negatives, mix metaphors. You always want your dialogue to be readable, and you don’t want your portrayals to be hackneyed or offensive, but it’s generally unnecessary to aim for perfection in dialogue unless it’s for effect: say, if you want to make a character less approachable, if you want to show they’re not human, or if rose-tinted dialogue is a stylistic choice. Generally, true-to-life dialogue is inherently descriptive rather than prescriptive.

Sometimes said mangling leads to fascinating new quirks, dialect and expressions.

Speech is very different from thought. A character’s narrative voice is often quite different to their dialogue voice. Thought is much faster than speech, and sometimes someone will answer their own question before they’ve finished saying it. Thought is by nature more disjointed, and thought is also a monologue, unless everyone’s suddenly turned telepathic or you’re dealing with dissociation/multiple personalities. In contrast, speech has a listener, which changes it. Nerves can make phrases choppy or make them fail completely. Often people interrupt each other. Realistic dialogue should reflect this.

On a similar note, let your characters talk. Know where to draw the line - no-one wants the tension ruined by a half-hour conversation about socks - but very few people are all business or all dramatic emotion all the time. (Those who seemingly are will have reasons for it, and those are often worth exploring, too.) Unless you’re on a particular word and/or time limit, let your characters occasionally be real people whose eyeliner runs, or who dislike artichokes, or who make bad jokes - and people who don’t revolve completely around your protagonist, with their own internal lives. When done right, relateable is not boring - especially if you’re working in a fantastic or dramatic canon. The odd anchor to reality can grab your heart and tug.

But do know where to draw the line. Let them be enigmatic and heroic when they need to, because often the magic is in that contrast between the epic and the mundane. Characters can do and be what we can’t. Don’t take away all their mystery and more idealised qualities.

There’s no one way to do funny, and there’s no way to write an instruction manual for it. Again, like most other things, it’s a matter of interpretation: everyone’s tickled by different things. But often humour relies on the subversion of expectation - bathos and anticlimax, for example, or giving an established word/phrase an entirely new meaning - or it relies on particular character idiosyncrasies, or on the other side, the utter, crushing fulfilment of expectations. (”Save the world, they said. It’ll be fun, they said.”) A good source of jokes is often that “I bloody knew it!” feeling.

Characters have biases, too. Always try and account for this in the narrative.

Foreshadowing is your friend, and often a key to emotional closure for the reader. Unless you can do some serious, stylish authorial sleight-of-hand, deus ex machina endings will prompt pissed-offness rather than satisfied applause. Even if you don’t introduce your secret weapon/s early on - best right near the beginning, if possible - at least get the key themes and characters down. You want to get an, “Oh, of course,” not “Well, that was a total arse-pull.”

Screenwriters sometimes talk of an A-plot and a B-plot. The A-plot’s the main one, and B is a seemingly separate subplot that inevitably turns out to be all tangled up with A. It’s pretty standard for detective dramas: there’s a murder, they start investigating, and the seemingly unrelated corpse on the other side of town always ends up being central to the case. A and B always converge. Often, if it’s a story with depth and a well-reasoned plot, the B plot will grow naturally. Of course, that’s only one way of doing it: some stories have a strong, driving A plot that drives everything and stands on its own, and have some C, D, E, F, so on plots. I admit, I’m not much good at the A + B plot thing, so I don’t tend to do it. If I have subplots, they tend to be less connected and a bit more character-driven, rather than about world-saving/murder-solving like the A plot. (I tend to half-jokingly call these C plots, where the C stands for “character” or “crying.”) Good characters usually write their own C plots - they have ulterior motives, hidden aspects, unexpected connections, and if you let them wander off they’ll make trouble for themselves. C plots are connected to the main plot, but unlike B plots, not a fundamental part of it. Sorry, screenwriters, for the terminology mangling.

Another trick to nick from Hollywood: the meet-cute. Sometimes you want someone to enter the narrative sneakily and unobtrusively, but often, especially with protagonists and love interests, never underestimate the power of a good, memorable character introduction. Audiences remember the ways they meet your characters, and the ways that characters meet eaxch other.

It’s not necessary for every story, but often it’s good to have a rock-bottom moment where everything looks hopeless. It reminds your audience viscerally of the stakes and penalties for failure, and it makes eventual victory even sweeter because it’s against the odds. Unless the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train. In that case, rock on with your downer-ending self.

Often the best plot comes from character. (After all, Greek dramatists went on about this all the time with concepts like hubris and hamartia.) Even when nations clash, nations are run by flawed, corrupt people. Antagonists ought to have strong motivations unless you’re writing senseless violence/cruelty intentionally. So on. People often talk about the heart of drama being conflict, and some people, taking that to heart, write a war or their couple arguing. Yeah, that can work brilliantly, but there are other ways to do it, and conflict can be smaller-scale, too. It can be as simple as different aspects of the same character clashing; for instance, if they’re torn between love and duty (there’s a reason that one’s so popular), or the conflict between their past and present selves.

#writing #tru talks #tru rambles #long post #god i probably sound so bloody arrogant #but did i mention this is mostly me prodding myself and my stories?#not anyone else necessarily

31 notes · View notes

corkcitylibraries · 4 years

Text

Book Review: Julian Barnes’ The Noise of Time

by Dr. Sorcha Fogarty

At only 184 pages, The Noise of Time is a brief but compelling novel dedicated to the Russian composer Dmitri Shostakovich. His first novel since the best-selling, Man Booker Prize-winning The Sense of an Ending, The Guardian states that with this compact work, Barnes “has given us a novel that is powerfully affecting, a condensed masterpiece that traces the lifelong battle of one man’s conscience, one man’s art, with the insupportable exigencies of totalitarianism.”

The book centers on the Russian composer, Dmitri Shostakovich, and gives us a fictional account of the life of Shostakovich under Stalinism. It seems that Barnes “borrows” the title of his novel from the Russian poet Osip Mandelstam’s prose work of 1925, The Noise of Time. Osip was arrested by Stalin’s government during the repression of the 1930s and sent into internal exile with his wife. Later, he was sentenced to five years in a corrective-labour camp in the Soviet Far East. He died that year at a transit camp near Vladivostok. The theme at the centre of Mandelstam’s The Noise of Time is the problem of remembering across the void of revolution:

“Where for happy generations the epic speaks in hexameters and chronicles I have merely the sign of the hiatus, and between me and the age there lies a pit, a moat, filled with clamorous time, the place where a family and reminiscences of a family ought to have been.”

The Soviet composer Dmitri Shostakovich is the man remembering in Barnes’s The Noise of Time, a novel that mixes fiction and biography, memory and myth. As noted by one critic, Barnes follows Mandelshtam's example by writing in brief sections – some no more than a sentence or two long. The novel is set in 1936, and Shostakovich, just thirty, fears for his livelihood and his life. Stalin, hitherto a distant figure, has taken a sudden interest in his work and denounced his latest opera. Now, certain he will be exiled to Siberia (or, more likely, executed on the spot), Shostakovich reflects on his predicament, his personal history, his parents, various women and wives, his children - and all who are still alive themselves hang in the balance of his fate. And though a stroke of luck prevents him from becoming yet another casualty of the Great Terror, for decades to come he will be held fast under the thumb of despotism: made to represent Soviet values at a cultural conference in New York City, forced into joining the Party and compelled, constantly, to weigh appeasing those in power against the integrity of his music.

In 1984, Julian Barnes’s Flaubert’s Parrot presented us with a narrator who astutely observes that history often behaves like a piglet evading capture, making those who chase after it look ridiculous in the process:

“How do we seize the past? Can we ever do so? When I was a medical student some pranksters at the end-of-the-term dance released into the hall a piglet which had been smeared with grease. It squirmed between legs, evaded capture, squealed a lot. People fell over trying to grasp it, and were made to look ridiculous in the process. The past often seems to behave like that piglet.”

We all have a desire to understand the past - its people, its events, the feelings shared, the beliefs held - but it evades us, at every turn. We have always been fascinated by musical figures in particular, holding our heroes dear, and mourning their passing as if they were close friends. Music has a way of infiltrating our souls like no other art form – and musicians become at once Gods and companions, as their work sits so closely within us that we feel we know them. For example, David Bowie’s touring museum exhibit, “David Bowie Is”, displaying history, artifacts and information about the life, music, films, tours, and art of the musician, ran for five years, stopped at 12 museums around the world and attracted over 2 million visitors. Guided tours flood the street outside his old Berlin apartment, and it is just an example of the significance we attach to the accoutrements of the hero cult. In a desperate attempt to know our heroes better, we seek out as much as we can about their private lives and their methods of working. However, despite the many material items left behind: death-masks; instruments once played; locks of hair; manuscripts; letters and memoirs, they themselves remain stubbornly unknowable.

The Noise of Time is an intimate narrative of the workings of Shostakovich’s mind, as we see Shostakovich at the worst times of his life: his night-time vigils at the elevator door in May 1937, waiting for the NKVD to come and arrest him; the humiliating trip he was forced to undertake to America in 1949, as part of a Soviet “peace delegation”; and the occasion of his being pressured into joining the Communist Party in 1960. But because his mind constantly flits back to earlier years, the narrative offers us - even if only in fictionalized form - something we do not already have: a steady line which presents a connection of the young Shostakovich with the old. Barnes’s aged Shostakovich “wondered what the young man with the skittering mind would have made of the old man staring out from the back seat of his chauffeured car.” This, precisely, is what we want to imagine when we read this book. What happened to the vibrant, brilliant boy as he survived the horrors of Stalinism and war, found himself embraced by Soviet power, and grew into his difficult, infirm old age? Shostakovich’s music is full of perturbations and characterized by sharp contrasts, and it seems to be one of the primary reasons why the figure of Shostakovich himself is simultaneously so attractive and enigmatic, as we endeavour to understand the brilliant but tortured mind behind the music. Typically of any published work, the novel is not without its detractors; however, the negative criticisms of the book can point us in the direction of discovering even more about Shostakovich’s remarkable life. As one critic writes,

“Those who seek to better understand the era in which Shostakovich lived and its repressive impact on the arts may love this book. Those who want to understand Shostakovich may gain more insight by reading his published letters to his friend, Isaak Glikman. Those who seek an innovative approach to writing biographically of the composer might go to Wendy Lesser's Music for Silenced Voices: Shostakovich and His Fifteen Quartets.”

The Noise of Time is, nonetheless, a riveting and bold piece of work, and more than worth reading for its depiction of how tyrants irrationally exerted their authority over artistically creative geniuses, and Barnes’s estimable efforts to give us a rare insight into a relentlessly fascinating man.

Available now on BorrowBox

#corkcitylibraries #lovereading #JulianBarnes

0 notes