#because it was the 90s and it really should have been a modern adaptation full of bad computer science where everyone wears too much leathe

[dandelionsandderivatives]

I've just realized that my greatest Scarlet-Pimpernel-related disappointment is that we've never gotten a vaguely-Matrix-inspired adaptation where he's a hacktivist

[gothicprep]

it’s honestly very odd to me that disney has been retconning their iconic properties for 7 odd years now, if my memory is serving me correctly & maleficent was the first time they’d done this, and their fans, the Disney Simps, if you will, seem pretty unaffected by this. the decision to do a cruella deville backstory is stupid for obvious reasons – let’s turn the woman who’s name is effectively Cruel Devil into a girlboss – but i dont really get what their angle with the remakes is in general, aside from trying to ensure they keep their shit copyrighted until Yellowstone explodes.

I would sincerely love to sit in the focus groups wherein they decide what elements of the source material to doctor – “we have to cut the pink elephant scene from dumbo, even though it’s the only one that anyone remembers, because we can’t have an... underaged elephant... get turnt. and the circus eventually becomes cruelty free and stops using animal performances. jasmine already marched to the beat of her own drum in the animated aladdin, but we should throw a musical number in there to drive home how Fierce she is. gay representation is what people want to see right now, so let’s make a minor character from beauty and the beast that everyone forgot about gay and call it a night.”

the things they choose to overhaul aren’t details that anyone was criticizing to begin with. like someone in the marketing department saw “disney princesses drawn as CEOs” clickbait and just assumed the entire representation debacle online was a question of revisionist mad libs.

I spent an irresponsible amount of time yesterday binge watching YouTube essays about how the simpsons declined and atrophied, and the one thing I didn’t see pointed out in any of them was that the simpsons was very inherently a product of its time: when it aired in ’89, it served as an absurd and caricatured portrayal of an american family, but close enough to the actual picture to remain relatable. but the simpsons is still airing in 2021, and it doesn’t make a lot of sense when viewing it through the lens of homer being born in the mid-80s and growing up with an N64 and being raised on nickelodeon. a millennial homeowner supporting a family of five on a singular income. and since the in-universe canon has surpassed the point where you could just say “well, the 90s just never ended in springfield” you couldn’t effectively modernize it without burning the whole damn thing to the ground

it also calls to mind the old joke about comics (“the only one who stays dead is uncle ben”) which are similarly repackaged and rebooted with each new generation of consumer. batman gets meaner, or nicer, gets a new batmobile, a touchscreen batphone, whatever, but there’s never going to not be a batman.

and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. im not even going to get into stuff like dark fuck archie, aging disgruntled powerpuff girls reboot, the ill-conceived television adaptation of heathers, and the rest of it. there’s this weird phenomenon going on right now, like media necromancy or something. I don’t even know what to call it. endless retooling of existing properties even when they’re inextricably products of their time, to some extent. It’s like executives just threw their hands in the air and exclaimed “welp, this is as good as its ever going to get”

i dont know if it speaks to the purchasing power of nostalgia, or that people are generally creatures of habit and their media tastes reflect that to an extent, or that these corporations are just banking on these familiar titles knowing they’re a safer bet than something new. maybe a little of all of it to varying degrees – im not going to pretend I know the full answer to this. maybe I’m just getting old and becoming one of those old people who bitches about “aint used to be like this...” from my wooden rocking chair on the porch. either way, i wish people would stop, like, enabling this stuff with their wallets. it’s difficult for good media that makes contemporary sense to get as much traction as it deserves when the waters are this polluted

[kaile-hultner]

Nihilism is so easy, which is why we need to kill it

(I initially published this here a couple weeks ago.)

So last night it dawned on me that, after over two years of being relatively symptom-free, my depression snuck back up on me and has taken over. It’s still pretty mild in comparison to other times I’ve been stuck in the hole, but after 24 months (and more) of mostly being good to go, I can tell that it’s here for a hot minute again.

How do I know? Well, it might be the fact that I spent more time sleeping during my recent vacation from work than I did just about anything else, and how it’s suddenly really hard for me to stay awake during work hours. I don’t really have an appetite, and in fact nausea hits me frequently. I don’t really have any emotional reactions to things outside of tears, even when tears aren’t super appropriate to the situation (like watching someone play Outer Wilds for the first time). And I’ve been consuming a lot of apocalyptic media, to which the only response, emotional or otherwise, I can really muster is “dude same.”

For a long time I was huge into absurdist philosophy, because it felt to my depressed brain like just the right balance between straight up denying that things are bad (and thus we should fix them, or at least try to do so) and full-blown nihilism. This gives absurdism a lot of credit; mostly it’s just a loose set of spicy existentialist ideas and shit that sounds good on a sticker, like “The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”

In the last couple years, while outside of my depressive state, I went back to Camus’ work and found a lot of almost full-on abusive shit in it. Not toward anyone specifically, but shit like “nobody and nothing will care if you’re gone, so live out of spite of them all” rubs me the wrong way in retrospect. The philosophy Camus puts out opens the door for living in a very self-destructive fashion; that in fact the good life is living without care for yourself or anyone/anything else. The way Camus describes and derides suicide especially is grim as fuck, and certainly I would never recommend The Myth of Sisyphus to anyone currently struggling with ideation. That “perfect balance” between denial and nihilism is really not that perfect at all, and in fact skews much more heavily towards the latter.

Neon Genesis Evangelion has been a big albatross around my neck in terms of the media products I’ve consumed in my life that I believe have influenced my depression hardcore. It sits in a similar conversational space to Camus’ work, in that it confronts nihilism and at once rejects and facilitates it. A lot of folks remark that Evangelion is pretty unique – or at least uncommon – in its accurate portrayal of depression, especially for mid-90s anime properties. The thing I notice always seems to be missing in these discussions is that along with that accurate portrayal comes a spot-on – to me, at least – depiction of what depression does to resist being treated. This is a disease that uses a person’s rational faculties to suggest that nobody else could possibly understand their pain, and therefore there’s no use in getting better or moving forward. Shinji Ikari is as self-centered as Hideaki Anno is as I am when it comes to confronting the truth: there are paths out of this hole, but nobody else can take that step out but us, and part of our illness is that refusal to do just that. Depression lies, it provides a cold comfort to the sufferer, that there is no existence other than the one where we are in pain and there is no way out, so pull the blanket up over our head and go back to sleep.

Watching Evangelion for the first time corresponded with the onset of one of the worst depressive spirals I’ve ever been in, and so, much like the time I got a stomach virus at the same time that I ate Arby’s curly fries, I kind of can’t associate Evangelion with anything else. No matter what else it might signify, no matter what other meaning there is to derive from it, for me Eva is the Bad Feeling Anime™. Which is why, naturally, I had to binge all four of the Evangelion theatrical releases upon the release of Evangelion 3.0+1.0 Thrice Upon A Time last month.

If Neon Genesis Evangelion and End of Evangelion are works produced by someone with untreated depression just fucking rawdogging existence, then the Eva movies are works produced by someone who has gone to therapy even just one fucking time. Whether that therapy is working or not is to be determined, but they have taken that step out of the hole and are able to believe that there is a possibility of living a depression-free life. The first 40 minutes or so of Evangelion 3.0+1.0 are perfect cinema to me. The world is destroyed but there is a way to bring it back. Restoration and existence is possible even when the surface of the planet might as well be the surface of the Moon. The only thing about this is, everyone has to be on board to help. Even though WILLE fired one of its special de-corefication devices into the ground to give the residents of Village 3 a chance at survival, the maintenance of this pocket ecosystem is actively their responsibility. There is no room or time for people who won’t actively contribute, won’t actively participate in making a better world from the ashes of the old.

There are a lot of essentialist claims and assumptions made by the film in this first act about how the body interacts with the social – the concept of disability itself just doesn’t seem to have made it into the ring of safety provided by Misato and the Wunder, which seems frankly wild to me, and women are almost singularly portrayed in traditionalist support roles while men are the doers and the fixers and the makers. I think it’s worth raising a skeptical eyebrow at this trad conservative “back to old ways” expression of the post-apocalypse wherever it comes up, just as it’s important to acknowledge where the movie pushes back on these themes, like when Toji (or possibly Kensuke) is telling Shinji that, despite all the hard work everyone is doing like farming and building, the village is far from self-sufficient and will likely always rely on provisions from the Wunder.

As idyllic as the setting is, it’s not the ideal. As Shinji emerges from his catatonia, Kensuke takes him around the village perimeter. It’s quiet, rural Japan as far as the eye can see, but everywhere there are contingencies; rationing means Kensuke can only catch one fish a week, all the entry points where flowing water comes into the radius of the de-corefication devices have to be checked for blockages because the water supply will run out. There is a looming possibility that the de-corefication machines could break or shut down at some point, and nobody knows what will happen when that happens. On the perimeter, lumbering, pilot-less and headless Eva units shuffle around; it is unknown whether they’re horrors endlessly biding their time or simply ghosts looking to reconnect to the ember of humanity on the other side of the wall. Survival is always an open question, and mutual aid is the expectation. Still: the apocalypse happened, and we’re still here. The question Village 3 answers is “what now?” We move on, we adapt.

Evangelion is still a work that does its level best to defy easy interpretation, but the modern version of the franchise has largely abandoned the nihilism that was at its core in the 90s version. It’s not just that Shinji no longer denies the world until the last possible second – it’s that he frequently actively reaches out and is frustrated by other people’s denials. He wants to connect, he wants to be social, but he’s also burdened with the idea that he’s only good to others if he’s useful, and he’s only useful if he pilots the Eva unit. This last movie separates him and what he is worth to others (and himself) from his agency in being an Eva pilot, finally. In doing so, he’s able to reconcile with nearly everyone in his life who he has harmed or who has hurt him, and create a world in which there is no Evangelion. While this ending is much more wishful thinking than one more grounded in the reality of the franchise – one that, say, focuses on the existence and possible flourishing of Village 3 and other settlements like it while keeping one eye on the precarious balancing act they’re all playing – it feels better than the ending of End of Eva, and even than the last two episodes of the original series.

I’m glad the nihilism in Evangelion is gone, for the most part. I’m glad that I didn’t spend roughly eight hours watching the Evamovies only to be met yet again with a message of “everything is pointless, fuck off and die.” Because I’ve been absorbing that sentiment a lot lately, from a lot of different sources, and it really just fuckin sucks to hear over and over again.

It is a truth we can’t easily ignore that the confluence of pandemic, climate change, authoritarian surge and capitalist decay has made shit miserable recently. But the spike in lamentations over the intractability of this mix of shit – the inevitability of our destruction, to put it in simpler terms – really is pissing me off. No one person is going to fix the world, that much is absolutely true, but if everyone just goes limp and decides to “123 not it” the apocalypse then everyone crying about how the world is fucked on Twitter will simply be adding to the opening bars of a self-fulfilling prophesy.

We can’t get in a mech to save the world but then, neither realistically could Shinji Ikari. What we can do looks a lot more like what’s being done in Village 3: people helping each other with limited resources wherever they can.

Last week, Hurricane Ida slammed into the Gulf Coast and churned there for hours – decimating Bayou communities in Louisiana and disrupting the supply chain extensively – before powering down and moving inland. Last night the powerful remnants of that storm tore through the Northeast, causing intense flooding. Areas not typically affected by hurricanes suddenly found themselves in a similar boat – pun not intended – to folks for whom hurricanes are simply a fact of life. There’s a once-in-a-millennium drought and heatwave ripping through the West Coast and hey – who can forget back in February when Oklahoma and Texas experienced -20 degree temperatures for several days in a row? All of this against the backdrop of a deadly and terrifying pandemic and worsening political climate. It’s genuinely scary! But there are things we can do.

First, if you’re in a weather disaster-prone area, get to know your local mutual aid organizations. Some of these groups might be official non-profits; one such group in the Louisiana area, for example, is Common Ground Relief. Check their social media accounts for updates on what to do and who needs help. If you’re not sure if there’s one in your area, check out groups like Mutual Aid Disaster Relief for that same information. Even if you’re not in a place that expects to see the immediate effects of climate change, you should still consider linking up with organizing groups in your area. Tenant unions, homeless organizations, safe injection sites and needle exchanges, immigrant rights groups, environmental activist orgs, reproductive health groups – all could use some help right now, in whatever capacity you might be able to provide it.

In none of these scenarios are we going to be the heroes of the story, and we shouldn’t view this kind of work in that way. But neither should we give into the nihilistic impulse to insist upon doing nothing, insist that inaction is the best course of action, and get back under the blankets for our final sleep. Kill that impulse in your head, and fuck, if you have to, simply just fucking wish for that better world. Then get out of bed and help make it happen.

[flyingdeskset]

My Guide to Romantic Academia

I have to admit, I’m only new to this myself. I feel like a bit of a hypocrite, trying to teach about something I am myself only learning. But I suppose, I have always been an academic, and I am a bit of an expert in hopeless romanticism. After extensive research, here is what I have come up with (should I put this in two parts? I don’t think so. If you really want to be a romantic academic, you’ll read to the end):

Fashion:

Tops:

Turtlenecks! Any academic’s best friend, they are not only soft and cosy, they are also really cute!

Cowl necks. These are great for winter, and go with literally anything.

Blouses. Specifically with poofy sleeves.

Cardigans. Either the thin, fitted kind or the chunky-knit, over-sized kind; both are great.

Blazers. Don’t know if this should go into outerwear or not. Anyway, these are lovely and go great with fitted skirts and dresses (or jeans, or trousers, if you’re not a skirt-wearer)

Vintage jumpers. I especially love faded mens’ v-necks.

Bottoms:

Pleated skirts. These give off great Catholic school-girl vibes (it doesn’t matter if you’re not catholic. I go to an actual Irish all-girl Catholic school, and I’m not Catholic [nor do I wear pleated skirts, to my dismay])

Woolen skirts. So cosy, and so romantic.

Tweed trousers. I personally don’t own any of these because I don’t really wear trousers, but I intend to buy a pair.

Jeans. Nothing wrong with jeans once in a while! Try to style them with more academic-type tops and outerwear, though.

Outerwear:

Overcoats. Just soft, woolen winter coats. Impractical (since they don’t generally have hoods and I live in the rainiest country ever), but the things we sacrifice for the aesthetic, eh?

Trench coats. These are great for spring.

Hats: berets and caps.

Scarves: honestly, anything. Scarves in and of themselves are very romantic academia.

Gloves: I personally prefer leather, with cotton houndstooth detailing, but this is up to you!

Shoes: oxfords, loafers and pumps (specifically patent) are all great choices. I also love knee-high boots, especially for winter.

Nightwear:

Flannel suits. Stripy flannel. So soft. So cosy. Mine are pink.

Silk suits. Very classy and debonair, and they feel great.

Silk/cotton nightgowns. Another step up with the class! These are great for the summer.

Robes. Any robes, all robes. I recommend having at least three, in various colours, styles and fabrics (you think this is a joke. It’s not. I have four.)

Miscellaneous/Tips:

Dresses (I didn’t know what category to put them in). Vintage is great, but any style that isn’t overly modern is fine.

Fabrics: tweed, wool, cotton, the like. Also, lace. Lace is great.

Colour dos: Muted colours (greys and beiges). Cream is always a win. Jewel tones (emerald, ruby). You can’t go wrong with black, though I try not to go overboard with it.

Colour don'ts: Neon colours are a big no-no. Pastels are a hit-and-miss situation. For example, soft dusky pinks are great, but too much baby blue and you’re straying away from the tortured-academic look. Try and avoid bright scarlets and royal blues.

When wearing basically any top that isn’t a cardigan or a blazer: tuck it in! Whether tucked into a skirt or trousers, this gives off a put together, I-know-what-I’m-doing vibe that is essential (even if you don’t know what you’re doing). It’s also very flattering on a lot of body types.

Of course, fashion isn’t essential to the aesthetic. Adjust this to your tastes!

Media:

Writers/Poets:

Jane Austen

William Blake

Brontë sisters

Lord Byron

Donna Tartt. You know I had to put her in here.

Oscar Wilde (he’s not actually Romantic, but he is Oscar Wilde)(and he’s Irish!)

Maria Edgeworth

Victor Hugo

John Keats

Edgar Allan Poe

Mary Shelley

Henry David Thoreau

William Wordsworth

Feel free to add to this; it’s nowhere near complete.

Composers:

Tchaikovsky

Chopin

Schumann (Clara and Robert)

Liszt

Brahms

Offenbach

Dvořák

Again, not complete!

Movies (because we can’t be 19th century nobility all the time)

Jane Eyre

Dead Poets Society

Kill Your Darlings

Pride and Prejudice

Any other Jane Austen adaptation

Clueless (because of the Jane Austen affiliation!)

10 Things I Hate About You (Taming of the Shrew!)(can you tell I’m making excuses to put 90’s chick flicks in here?)

Becoming Jane

Good Will Hunting

The Princess Bride

Maurice (Hugh Grant!)

Les Misérables

Breakfast at Tiffany’s (honestly, the classy, vintage feeling you’ll get from watching an Audrey Hepburn movie is irreplaceable)

Edgar Allen Poe’s Murder Mystery Dinner Party (not even a movie, it’s just really good)

To be honest, this isn’t even trying to be a complete list. These are just my favourite movies that I can squeeze into the genre.

Lifestyle (the most important bit!):

Carpe Diem. The number one tip for any academic. I feel it’s important to note, this is different for everyone. For some people, ‘seizing the day ’ is skydiving, or dropping everything and travelling the world. For others, it’s simply getting out of the house in the morning, and neither is any better than the other!

Create. This, again, is different for everyone. If you’re a writer, write! This could be a poem, a full blown novel, or just some Oliver/James fanfiction (did I mention I love If We Were Villains?)! If you’re an artist, do art! Whether it’s an oil portrait or a sketch of Richard Papen looking like the lovesick idiot he is, it’s all the same!

Be Mysterious. Honestly, I don’t even know how. I’m still getting the hang of this myself.

Read! Read everything! You don’t have to limit yourself to classics. Also, reading in public is great.

Be polite. Of course, this is a given for everyone. But, if you have the manners of a Victorian lady, it’ll give you definite Mysterious Points.

Drink tea. Or coffee. Or even hot chocolate. And it doesn’t have to be black tea and dark chocolate, because we’re not as bitter as the dark academics.

Take up an instrument. People seem to think this has to be the violin, but it doesn’t. I play the clarinet, and also the ukulele! Whatever is right for you!

Well, I hope this helped people. Remember you don’t have to follow this to the word! Feel free to adapt to your personality, add things, and ask questions!

[bytheangell]

If you are still taking prompts, what would you think about writing something(s) based off of this, either/both, the Professor/TA, or the Writer/Editor?

Dedication (modern AU, Herongraystairs, check the link in the ask for full writer/editor prompt, a wonderful plot idea by @high-warlock-of-brooklyn!) (Read on AO3)

This is the first book Will and Tessa are collaborating on. They’ve written plenty of books individually and Jem’s worked with each of them in turn. But this is the first time they’ve co-authored, an experience that’s proving unique and challenging for all of them.

Being with Will and Tessa while they work on a new project is always a blessing and a curse. They’re two of the best writers of their generation and when they work on their own they’re brilliant, but when they work together - well, they’re also brilliant, but that brilliance is coupled with the occasional near-catastrophic clash of opinions and emotions.

Which is where Jem comes in.

Where Will and Tessa are so driven by passion and feelings, Jem finds it much easier to distance himself from their project (and from the writers themselves) enough to see the bigger picture and find solutions before the issues build up. Like many things about the three of them, it’s a perfect balance - they just work, better than anyone (including Will, Tessa, and Jem) ever imagined possible when they first got together.

It’d been a messy start, with Will and Jem already together but both developing serious feelings for Tessa after they met during a book event. The three of them quickly became very close. There were whispers of which of them would end up leaving, then confusion when the answer was none: instead of two of them growing closer and shutting the third out, they all seemed to adjust and adapt naturally around the three of them coexisting. They aren’t perfect, but they are perfect for each other, at least as far as Jem’s concerned.

Jem knows that what they have is special, which he reminds himself of over and over as Will and Tessa sit on opposite sides of the sofa, voices quickly elevating to nearly shouting over an issue with one of the characters Will is in charge of writing: one he’s chosen to give a pretty damning curse from a trickster faerie in this land of magic their current collaboration is set in.

“Tell him he needs to make the changes, Jem,” Tessa insists, the third time she’s repeated the demand now.

“Tell her that this plot adds depth, and without it, he’s boring,” Will counters. “Sometimes people - characters - need to be brutally honest about their own faults and issues. Sometimes people are disappointing.”

That’s how Jem can tell things are spiraling: when Will and Tessa - who have effectively communicated and collaborated on half a dozen bestsellers and who love each other more than Jem’s ever seen two people experience love - refuse to speak directly to one another. The moment they start talking around each other and at Jem instead is when he knows he has to step in and diffuse.

Usually, it’s a matter of taking a break, getting some fresh air, and coming back with clear minds. Jem normally isn’t one to pick sides, but this is different. He isn’t worried about the direction of the book… but after reading the latest draft from Will, which Will wrote while refusing to speak to either of them for a full week, he’s worried about Will. And he knows Tessa is, too.

“Perhaps a good starting point would be admitting this isn’t really about the character at all,” Jem says softly, gazing closely between Will and Tessa. Will looks a bit guilty and Tessa looks away entirely, which tells Jem that he’s right in guessing their concerns are also less plot-based.

“...what else would it be about?” Will asks defensively. But they can all sense how he’s been pushing them away lately, much like the cursed character undeserving of love he’s written in. It’s obvious that Tessa isn’t sure how to bring it up or else she would’ve already. Or maybe she already had and it hadn’t gone well.

“Tessa, would you mind making some tea?” Jem asks, waiting until she’s out of the room to turn back to Will.

“Will… you know this is about you. You barely talk to anyone for a week then come back with this character in such a self-deprecating mindset…”

“That’s ridiculous. He’s just a character,” Will says, but Jem can tell he’s entirely unconvinced of his own words.

“So if Tess came back having written Evangeline that way?” Jem counters, and there’s that look of subtle guilt, right back on Will’s face as he frowns and pieces together why Tessa’s so upset with him.

“I fucked up, didn’t I?” Will sighs.

“We’re not mad at you,” Jem’s quick to point out. “We’re just worried. It’s been a while since you tried to push us away like this, I just want to make sure you’re okay. We both do. Take it out in the writing if you want, but talk with us, too. Alright, my love?”

Jem’s tense as he waits. This has one of two options: Will relents and listens to him and they all have tea and talk this out, or Will storms out and they don’t see him again for another day or two.

Will stays. “I’m just letting the pressure get to me,” he admits. “I’m sure that’s all it is... But yeah. Okay. Tea.”

Tea, meaning ‘I’ll stay. I’ll talk. I’ll try.’ Jem leans over and places a barely-there kiss on Will’s lips before he relaxes back in his seat. Reaching out a hand that Will readily takes, Jem gives it a tight squeeze as they both wait for Tessa to return.

They talk.

In the end, the character arc stays. With a few redeeming modifications at Tessa and Jem’s entirely unbiased suggestion, of course.

---

A little over halfway through the first draft things seem to stall out. They have a progress deadline that week with the publisher and they’re cutting it close - mostly because Tessa keeps tossing everything she writes without giving Jem the chance to look it over. Recently she’s let her curiosity get the best of her, delving into research she should be allowing Jem to help with.

...and when he says ‘delving’, what he really means is stubbornly obsessing over, nitpicking bits of lore to streamline, and doing hours and hours of research for single-line references.

“When was the last time she slept? Like, an actual night of sleep?” Jem asks Will one day after a quick touch-base meeting that went… not terribly, but not particularly great, either.

“You need to get her out of here. No books. No wifi. I tried to kick her out but… well, you can imagine how well that went,” Will admits, and Jem winces in sympathy.

“The Time Out Cottage?” Jem asks, referring to a small cottage they own for unplugged getaways, where the wifi signal is nonexistent and a landline exists for emergency calls. “That means we’ll both be out of easy reach, and with that Friday deadline-”

“I can handle it,” Will cuts him off. “She’s been getting in her own way for days now, but she refuses to listen to me.”

A few minutes later Jem tentatively knocks on the door to the small study that does, in fact, look more like a makeshift research library. He nearly doesn’t see Tessa behind the small mountain of books on the floor, but he hears her pen tapping rapidly against the hardwood. No, not just rapidly - anxiously. He knows that action all too well.

“Tessa, what number is that?” he asks, the question needing no further explanation past his accusatory tone and pointed look at a coffee mug, which is next to a second coffee mug, which is next to a cup of black tea.

“Four? No, wait… what time is it?” she glances around and seems surprised by the height of the sun in the sky. “It’s afternoon already?”

Jem sighs. “It’s nearly four o’clock, Tessa, and your blood is probably about 90% caffeine. Come on, get your things, we’re taking a trip.”

Tessa looks immediately horrified. “No! I can’t, we can’t! The deadline, and I still have to streamline the fae lore between the two-”

“Will has it handled for 24 hours. That’s all we’re asking. 24 hours without research.” “Jem, you know-”

“-that you’ll be twice as productive once we’re back and you’re refreshed instead of running on fumes and fever dreams?” Jem cuts her off, his tone kind but insistent. He bends over and picks up a piece of paper. “Tessa, my love, this is nearly incoherent.”

Tessa reaches up to take the page from him and frowns. “I… okay, I can make out some of this, but I’m pretty sure that bit talks about aliens which isn’t any more reassuring. Will did say I was writing myself in circles, but I thought he was just, well, being Will, so... Yeah. Okay. Maybe I need to step back for a bit.” Tessa sighs. “The Time Out Cottage?”

“I already packed you a bag,” Jem confirms with a soft smile, leaning down to kiss the middle of her forehead before reaching out a hand to help her up off the floor.

When they return exactly 24 hours later, Tessa gets back to work and the lore practically falls into place between the two of them.

They meet the Friday deadline without a problem.

---

Jem spends his free time playing violin while Will and Tessa go through the first draft and begin to brainstorm fixes for plotholes, new minor characters to add to scenes that feel a bit lacking, and other small improvements to really round out the story and the world they’re weaving. They both claim to think clearer with his music in the background so he stays, even if he doesn’t feel particularly useful for this stage of the process until they have a single, coherent draft to hand over to him.

These are the moments Jem’s own insecurities and flaws float to the surface. The moments he watches Will and Tessa, so alike, so perfect for each other, connect on a level he isn’t privy to. He knows it’s a silly thought, that he and Will have their own things, as do he and Tessa. But sometimes he wonders if they truly need him around, or if he’s simply just become too much a part of the routine to actively get rid of.

He watches them sit next to each other with shoulders touching, hunched over a small screen, whispering back and forth. There’s a small smile on his face, one that’s wistful and tinged with hints of longing that, much to his dismay, they pick up on.

“I know that look,” Tessa says, catching Jem’s gaze and drawing Will’s attention before Jem can wipe the expression from his face. “Get over here. I think we’ve done enough work for today.”

Will is the first to move over, making room for Jem in the middle of them. After placing his violin back in its case Jem heads over to join them on the sofa, embracing the way Will and Tessa immediately crowd into his space once he’s settled, both placing a comforting kiss to his temples simultaneously before resting their heads on each of his shoulders and a placing a hand in each of his own.

They talk a bit, not about the book, but about anything and everything else, and fall asleep there, still entwined together.

---

It’s rare for any part of one of their books to be a surprise to Jem upon publication. He sees all the drafts, talks them through the acknowledgments and dedications, double-checks the reference pages against the chaotic piles of books and notes around their home.

So he’s immediately (and rightfully) suspicious the moment they hand him the first advanced copy and tell him to open it, watching his every move with eager expressions. Excited, but anxious.

‘A dedication to the one most dedicated to us:

This book would not be what it is without the kind heart, encouraging words, and infinite patience of James Carstairs. Neither would we. Jem, you are a light in our darkest hours, and we don’t know where we’d be without you.

We hope we’ll never have to find out.

Jem, our love, will you marry us?’

Jem reads, then re-reads the dedication. He closes the book, then opens it again, reading it a third time for good measure.

“Well?” Will asks impatiently, earning himself a nudge in the ribs from Tessa. Will huffs.

“I see you’re as dramatic as always,” Jem says quietly, instead of answering the question posed in the book. He knows his answer. He’s known for a while now what his answer would be, should the topic ever present itself, but he gets a bit of joy from making Will wait in anticipation just a short while longer.

“He wanted to be even more dramatic and show you at the event tomorrow,” Tessa admits. “But we decided against it. We thought you deserved the chance to say no without two hundred sets of eyes on you.”

Jem raises an eyebrow. “You think I’ll say no?”

“You haven’t said ‘yes’ yet,” Will points out, but he doesn’t sound nervous about it. Nor should he be.

“Yes,” Jem says, smiling brightly. “Of course it’s yes.”

[365days365movies]

March 12, 2021: Jason and the Argonauts (1963) (Part One)

I am so goddamn excited for this one.

Back to Greek mythology, my first mythological love! And not just Greek mythology, because this...THIS...this is the first true Avengers story. Oh, yeah, like The Avengers.

After all, mythology produced the first equivalent of our modern superheroes, with demigods and legends that wield fantastic abilities and powerful items to fight the forces of evil. I mean, it’s the most superhero thing I can think of, and it’s literally a story as old as time. Fact of the matter is, I love superheroes, and I love mythology. Which is why I’m excited to finally see an adaptation of one of the biggest superhero team-up stories ever: Jason and the Argonauts!

See, it all starts with Hera, queen of the Olympians and petty as FUCK.

See, the newly (and wrongfully) ascended king of Iolcus, Pelias, honored the gods after stealing the throne from his brother. Well, all of the gods except Hera. So, Hera, rightfully pissed off, decides to fuck Pelias over by recruiting his nephew, Jason. Jason’s a naturally hot blonde kid who was raised by the centaur Chiron, also making him wise...theoretically.

Hera tests this kid, and he passes, so she gives him her favor, and tells him to fuck up his uncle. Jason arrives in Iolcus, and demands the throne from Pelias. His uncle agrees, IF he can bring back the Golden Fleece, a legendary treasure that is guarded by a vicious monster and a zealous king. Pelias didn’t think Jason had any chance, but Jason had the gods on his side. They sent their best subjects to his aid, and Jason procured an awesome ship, the Argo. So, who’s coming to help? Oh, you ready for this? ARGONAUTS ASSEMBLE

Now there are anywhere between 46-85 heroes that are assembled in the Argonauts, with different members in different iterations of the myth. But the big members are:

Heracles, son of Zeus, with the strength of a thousand men

Orpheus, son of the muse Calliope, and master musician

Calais and Zetes, sons of the North Wind, with the ability to fly upon it

Atalanta, the swift-footed huntress, and only female member

Castor and Pollux, twin half-brothers (yeah, really) and horse-riders

Theseus, son of Poseidon, and slayer of the Minotaur

Tip of the iceberg there, but you get the point: we’ve got a superhero team on our hands! And these heroes would perform MANY great deeds on their journey to the Fleece. They fought the Harpies to defend an oracle, they passed the dangerous Clashing Rocks, they battled the Stymphalian Birds, with feathers of metal. Sirens, fire-breathing bulls, and a giant bronze man named Talos.

Different one. Eventually, they procured the Golden Fleece on the island of Colchis, where they fought a dragon with a help of the young sorceress (and niece of Circe), Medea. She fell in love with Jason, and the two fled the island, married, and had twins. Only for Medea to reveal herself as a stone-cold sociopath, and only for Jason to ditch her for another woman. That goes...VERY badly for Jason. Breaking off his marriage pisses off Hera, THE GODDESS OF MARRIAGE, and he dies sad and alone after Medea does...Medea does a lot, I’ll just leave it at that. Jason, completely fucked at that point, takes a nap at the foot of the now rotting Argo, which collapses on top of him and kills him.

For the record, I truncated that story A LOT. There’s a lot to it, but I have a movie to watch, goddamit! And I’m really excited because this is my first Harryhausen movie! You know, Ray Harryhausen, one of the early greats of practical special effects in film? A specialist in stop-motion from its earliest days, he revolutionizes the art throughout films in the 1950s and 1960s, with this one being one of the most successful. You’ve definitely seen his influence, from stuff that he’s done directly...

...to those inspired by him and his methodology...

...to the arts that were descended indirectly from his groundbreaking effects.

Oh yeah, I’m fucking GOING THERE. Fun fact: Ray Winston Studios, a stop-motion group active during the ‘80s and ‘90s, and a descendant of Harryhausen’s works, were originally going to do the animation for the dinosaurs in this movie, in Claymation. However, the recent advent of advanced animatronics, alongside ILM’s founding, caused them to take some of those principles, and apply them to CGI and animatronics. So, yeah, I’m claiming an indirect connection here!

Anyway, enough being a nerd, LET’S WATCH THE GODDAMN MOVIE! SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

Recap (1/2)

As the bombastic and epic score plays, the credits role of a Greek-style fresco, detailing the various adventures of the Argonauts. And before the movie starts, I come to a realization: there is a high chance that I’m going to hate this movie’s inaccuracies to Greek mythology. It’s not impossible. I’m real persnickety about my mythology adaptations, just warning you all now. I’ll probably get into it in this Recap, too. Full goddamn warning.

We begin with a seer, reading the future for the treacherous Pelias (Douglas Witmer). He sees first a Golden Fleece at the end of the world, but Pelias ignores this, and asks of his upcoming conquest of the kingdom of...Thessaly. Not, uh...not Iolcus. Mmmkay.

The seer fortells that Pelias will seize the throne, by force, from his brother and the king of Thessaly...Aristo...not Aeson. OK then. The seer says that he will be successful, but will eventually fall to one of Aristo’s kids, who will take his throne. He has two daughters, Philomena and Briseis, and one son, Jason. Looks like they’re gonna die, too.

The invasion begins! Amongst the chaos, Briseis (Davina Taylor) takes her baby sister, Philomena, into the temple of Hera, and pleads to her for her protection. However, they’re found by Pelias, who asks who she is. He’s interrupted by a priestess of Hera, who claims that the Queen Goddess has answered the girl’s prayer for protection.

Pelias responds in kind.

Well...I’m sure that’s gonna piss off Hera. He claims it to be the will of Zeus, but she states that it is his will, not Zeus’. The gods have abandoned him, and he will one day fall to a one-sandaled man, Jason. And as the woman reveals this...she disappears. Nice. FUCKIN’ NICE.

This “priestess” is Hera (Honor Blackman), of course. She goes to her husband, Zeus (Niall MacGinnis), and asks if he ordered Pelias to destroy and profane her temple. He says no, as that was Pelias’ attempt to stave off his inevitable fall by Jason. However, Jason has escaped Pelias’ wrath, as has his sister Philomena. Hera decided, however, that she wants to take down Pelias, and Jason is the best was for that to happen. Hence, she wishes to sponsor Jason.

However, Zeus, being the classic misogynist, says that he will allow it, but she may only help Jason 5 times, once for each time that the fallen Briseis prayed to her. She agrees, and waits 20 years to start fuckin’ with Pelias. Pelias, meanwhile, is growing more paranoid over the one-sandaled man prophecy that Hera gave him.

One day, on the bank of a river, Hera appears to make Pelias fall off of his horse into the river. He’s saved from drowning by a young man, who loses his sandal in the process. This is, of course, Jason (Todd Armstrong), who was already on his way to see Pelias for some reason.

For the record, this is an adaptation of the original story, in which Hera disguises herself as an old beggar-woman, and Jason proves himself to her by helping her across the river, after which she gives him her favor. To be honest, I like this a bit more, or at least as much.

Pelias brings Jason back to a camp for a celebration, with him as an honored guest. Jason reveals exactly who he is, and that he was raised outside of the city by one of his father’s loyal soldiers. He has come to reclaim his right place as king of Thessaly, and to restore it to it’s rightful glory. However, Pelias hasn’t revealed himself as king, and asks Jason how he plans to accomplish these feats. Jason replies with his ultimate plan: obtain the Golden Fleece.

Here’s the deal about the Golden Fleece. One of the most legendary items in Greek mythology, the fleece is essentially a symbol of royalty, and is the coat of a ram with wings found on the island of Colchis. Now, the meaning of the fleece has long been debated, with the main consensus stating that it’s a symbol of royalty. However, some claim that it’s a symbol of prosperous farming (golden grains of wheat), the forgiveness of the gods for some unknown deed, Zeus in the form of a ram, or simply the promise of the unknown at the edge of the world.

What it DEFINITELY ISN’T is a magical healing garment, as Jason claims it to be. But OK, whatever, we need a good reason to get the Fleece, sure. Pelias, not revealing himself, says that Jason should try to get the Fleece, with a boat and a crew, and bring it back to Thessaly, returning and killing Pelias in order to take the throne. Of course, Pelias thinks that this is impossible, which he says to his son Acastus (Gary Raymond). He also knows that if he kills Jason, he it will mean his own destruction, as Hera told him.

Jason goes to ponder this journey, only to encounter the seer. The seer asks if he has come to pray to the gods, to which Jason states that he doesn’t believe in them, nor does he have cause to. The seer offers to give him that cause, and reveals himself as Hermes (Michael Gwynn), the swift-footed messenger god, god of medicine, and trickster god of the Olympians.

Hermes isn’t usually directly involved in the myths of Jason, but that’s OK. He also does something particularly unusual, and brings Jason TO Olympus to meet the Gods themselves. Which, uh...yeah, hot damn. Zeus and the rest arranged for Hermes to bring Jason to them. They ask how they can help him on his quest. Zeus offers him a ship and crew, but Jason refuses, much to the gall of EVERYBODY.

Hera helps him by telling him where to find the Golden Fleece: the island of Colchis, at the other end of the world. To get there, though, Jason’ll DEFINITELY need a ship. He decides to go to the shipbuilders of Greece, and tell them that great treasure lies on Colchis, and they may receive some for their aid. As for the crew, he’s got a similar tactic. Offer the reward to the athletes and heroes of Greece, who will compete in games to determine their eligibility.

Not from the original myths...but it actually makes a lot of sense. Goddamn, is this going to be a good adaptation? I’m excited! The games are held, and many athletes win their place on the journey. They include: Castor and Pollux (Ferdinando Poggi and John Crawford), Acastus, and of course, Heracles (Nigel Green). And yeah, he’s called Hercules here, but I don’t care.

When Hercules arrives, this grabs the attention of the young Hylas (John Caimey), who arrived to late to compete in the games. He challenges Heracles to something, believing that beating Heracles in something will guarantee him a place on the ship. 

While everyone mocks this, Heracles agrees to go up against him in a discus-throwing contest. They must hit or pass a rock in the ocean by throwing their discus. Heracles hits it easily, of course. And the frail Hylas...

...Nice. Did not see that coming, and that’s actually very smart. Also takes a lot of skill, because I could NOT do that. Hylas wins his place in the ship, to the delight of both the crowd and the Olympians. And yes, Hylas actually is a companion of Heracles in the original stories, so that’s neat!

Now for the boat, being built by master builder Argus (Laurence Naismith), who is coming on the ship with them. He notes that something appears to have guided his hand during the ship’s construction. In the original myth, that would be Athena. However, here, it’s probably Hera, as the figurehead is specifically carved in her image. And is also...alive?

Well...to be fair, in many myths, the ship contains wood built from a magical tree that could speak, and see the future. So, OK, magic ship, fair enough. Well, hopefully, that ship’s guidance will happen soon, as the voyage immediately proves difficult. No water, no rest, and frustrated men.

Jason asks the figurehead for help (which would be help #3) and Hera speaks through it to tell Jason to head to the Isle of Bronze, where Hephaestus once had his forge. However, the island is lorded over by a powerful something called Talos. I know what Talos is, but the movie hasn’t revealed him yet.

The Argo makes its way to the island, and the men head ashore to get food and water. They see goats there, which will provide them both food and drink, and Heracles and Hylas chase after them for just that aim. And that’s when they blunder into a giant bronze statuary, lorded over by the statue of Talos.

The two enter a chamber in the statue’s base, which is filled to the brim with gold and treasure. However, Jason warned the men of the Argo not to take anything from the island but food and water. Hylas remembers this, but Heracles doesn’t care, and takes a golden staff from the chamber. And Talos...Talos doesn’t appreciate that.

Oh, that’s a great place to take a break! See you in Part Two!

[talesofafangirlwithadvr]

October/November Picks

Long time no see! So...it’s been a little bit since I’ve posted a wrap up. I had all intentions of posting one after October, but then you know life gets ahead of you and before you know it it’s Thanksgiving. Not much has changed in my viewing habits for these past two months, so I thought I’d group them together for a mega wrap up. Hope you enjoy :)

Without further ado here come some spoilers.....

…..

….

SECRET SOCIETY OF SECOND BORN ROYALS

This Disney + original movie was one of my highly anticipated watches for the fall. I am disappointed to share that it was a let down. The concept was such a cool and creative one. Having the second born in a royal family not simply be the “spare” but be the protector...with superpowers! (In a very YA way, getting their powers at a specific age.) They just should have gone about the story in a better way. I wanted more time with them learning about the powers and to make the villain stronger. Overall the acting wasn’t bad (which is good for a Disney + original), but it was just lacking. The movie was LONG and yet much did not feel like it happened. It was cool seeing Casa Loma (the castle they filmed at) as I was just there two summers ago. Sadly, I will not be watching this movie again.  

VIOLETTA SEASON 3

We all already know how pumped I was when season 3 of Violetta was released on Disney Plus in September. I couldn’t believe it after waiting so long for the second season. I really enjoyed the beginning of this season and knew we would be headed down a road where I would grow tired of the storylines. 

We have hit that point. 

Quick Violetta rant. Things I am done with:

Roxy and Fausta plot

Fran and Diego being a secret

Herman and Priscilla

Pablo not at the studio

Milton being evil

Ludmilla lying

Recently, my sister is catching up to where I am in the season, so this has pushed me to watch more. I am on episode 43 and some of the above venting has been solved, so that is super exciting. I am finding myself wanting to watch it more now, so fingers crossed it continues to get better. 

JULIE AND THE PHANTOMS

Kenny Ortega has done it again! When I first heard the premise for this show and watched the trailer on Netflix I wasn’t too sure. Then both of my sisters watched it and they wouldn’t stop talking about it, so that was a sign that I needed to watch it. Since then, I have watched the show twice and can’t stop listening to the music. THIS. SHOW. :) I get the hype. It’s just so wholesome and feel good. The characters are well crafted and the episodes go way too fast. They are the kind of characters (and cast) that make you wish you were a part of the show. I can’t wait for the next season (because there better be one). Definitely add this one to your list if it’s not on their already. 

THE OUTPOST

The Summer CW shows were pushed to the fall line up due to delays in filming of the originally planned shows. I hope this means that they’re getting a little more love this year. The Outpost deserves it, as it is currently in its third season. (I think it might have gotten a little more now that the 100 is over and the commercial aired during the 100′s last season. Maybe people heard Black-blood and decided to give it a go.) This season has seen a new threat and during the first eight episodes there’s been MANY twists and turns, making it hard for me to remember how this season started. There’s been a lot of unrest in the Outpost and changes in who is in charge. While there are some unnecessary plot-lines (like that Tobin had to be married), I’m really enjoying others. Like how important Janzo is, his relationship with Ren, more Munt and that TALON AND GARRETT FINALLY GOT TOGETHER!!! It makes me so happy and is what we deserve after these three seasons. I love how strong both of their characters are and how they are both Warriors. I hope the season ends strong. 

PANDORA

Just like The Outpost, Pandora was originally a Summer CW show that is now airing its second season. I really enjoyed the first season (like more than I was expecting), so I went in with higher hopes for this new season. Unfortunately, I have been let down so far. With the first season, there were parts that left me confused and my biggest review of this show has always been how there were gaps or moments where I didn’t know how much time had gone by. Those kind of things I could overlook, but this season the overall plot just seems weaker. I think this in part because of so many new characters. I know a lot of the season 1 cast ended their characters’ plots away from the Academy, but I wasn’t expecting them not to be a part of this season’s story. That has been a difficult adjustment. I also feel like I only understand Jax’s story and not so much about the other government/rebellion points. It’s getting a little better, but I hope it gets to be more enjoyable. 

THE SPANISH PRINCESS--SEASON 2

When I originally was creating this list I had just started this season, and felt completely different than I do right now. I just finished this season last week. Much like my above review on Pandora, The Spanish Princess wasn’t sucking me in. I had a few episodes gather on the DVR. Then once we hit episode 3 or 4 and more drama was starting/Henry was starting to show glimpses of the Henry VIII we all know, I was growing more interested. In season 2 of the Spanish Princess, we do not see a loving Catherine and Henry for long. Problems Catherine have in conceiving a boy (male heir) are one of the main focal points, as is Woolsey’s growing influence on the king. With several sub-plots this season, I specifically enjoyed learning more about Meg in Scotland (as a big Mary Queen of Scots/Reign fan, I liked seeing a portrayal of her grandmother) as well as Princess Mary Tudor (who I was unfamiliar with. I loved her and Charlie Brandon’s relationship and wish we could have gotten more.) Each week I watched this show, I found myself Googling a lot. That is always one of my favorite parts of watching a historical drama based on true events. I know right now it looks like the producers aren’t continuing with the Tudor line and might have a different part of history as their next show, but I wish they would. I’m feeling the call to watch the Tudors as it’s on Netflix and I haven’t seen it before. I want to learn more about his wives. 

BLOWN AWAY

In a complete shift from a period piece, here is another Netflix show I thoroughly enjoyed watching last month. Do you find the act of glass blowing to be extremely interesting, but you would never dream of trying yourself? Or do you like competition game shows that are not like anything else you’ve watched before? Then Blown Away might be for you! It’s a very fast watch with only a handful of episodes that are about a half hour a piece. (I honestly wished they were a bit longer because it was SO GOOD!) Each contestant is a glass blower and they get to show off their skills by competing in a specific challenge. Each episode you see someone get eliminated until the final where the winner gets a residency at Corning Museum of Glass in upstate New York. This show came out in 2019 and I am hoping a second season comes out.   

LIFE IN PIECES

This CBS comedy was one that I remember loving when it first came out. But I only remember watching the first season because then I couldn’t remember which day it was on. (It’s going to sound weird, but because I don’t watch a lot on this network I often forget it exists. We also only had a one room DVR at the time, so we couldn’t tape more than 2 things. Oh, the joys of multi-room DVR). After I finished my re-watch of Derry Girls in September, I was looking for another sitcom to re-watch. This was when I stumbled on the full series of Life in Pieces on Amazon video. (It’s free to watch with Prime.) I was so surprised to see there were 4 seasons! Since then I have been watching a good amount of episodes when I sit down to watch it. Now I’m about mid way in the second season. I highly recommend this show if you haven’t seen it before. It gives vibes of Modern Family. Very short episodes that include four storylines. The format is one that I haven’t seen done before in a sitcom.

SUPERMARKET SWEEP

The revival of the beloved game show from the early 90s is now hosted by Leslie Johns and is the best thing you should be watching on Sunday nights. If you know your grocery shopping list like the back of your hand then you are all set for this show. Leslie Johns is hilarious as are the cast of characters that are regulars in her supermarket. I think it would be a great TV show to be on and I’m not just saying that because I want one of the sweatshirts (although that would be great). If you want (another) feel-good watch, look no further! You catch up on demand. 

RE-WATCHING

ANNE WITH AN E

It’s hard to believe that we only got the third season of Anne with an E at the beginning of this year (as this year feels like its been going on forever and when I watched the third season I was in a much less stressed place). Currently, I am teaching a class involving Little Women and Anne of Green Gables. The main focus is on how these stories get adapted in recent times and include such modern plots (and sub-plots). Naturally Anne with an E is perfect for this topic (and after watching season 3 at the start of the year) was one of my major reasons for choosing this topic. (The other being Greta Gerwig’s latest Little Women.) As I’ve been planning my schedule, I’ve re-watched this show. There is something so great about watching it from season 1 all the way through to season 3. You get to watch them grow up and it’s crazy to see how young they first were. Comparing it more to the novel has been a fun time, but also analyzing it more has been great and made me appreciate it even more. With all the stress of our current situation watching this show has made me escape and feel good. (Yes, I know I’ve used that word a lot in this wrap up, but it’s true.)

***

******

Hopefully my next wrap up isn’t as delayed. Wishing everyone a happy holiday season! 

[lucyreviewcy]

The Three Three Musketeers (or Where The F*ck Did All The Stupid Hats Go)

I read The Three Musketeers and then I watched the 1973, 1993 and 2011 adaptations. Which one wins tho?

Adaptation is a fascinating concept, especially of texts which are frequently adapted or parodied. After I rewatched the 2005 Pride and Prejudice I was reminded how weirdly divisive the two dominant adaptations of that book are. A lot of people consider the 2005 to be an inferior betrayal of the 1990s BBC version. I actually prefer the 2005 because I think Matthew McFadyen’s Mr Darcy is a wonderfully complex character. McFadyen imbues Darcy with social awkwardness and anxiety, which Lizzie misinterprets as his pride. To overcome the “Lizzie doesn’t fancy him ‘til she sees his house” debate, director Joe Wright includes a moment where Lizzie glimpses Darcy alone with his sister. He’s comfortable, his body language is completely different, and he’s smiling broadly. That moment really sold me on the entire film because it made Darcy a full character and was a really simple addition that rounded out the story. I still like the 90s version but for me, it’s the 2005 that takes first place.  (Although an honourable mention for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies because it is an excellent romp.)

Look: adaptation is always a complicated topic. You can’t untangle one adaptation from another, because it’s pretty rare that somebody adapting a classic text like Pride and Prejudice or The Three Musketeers is not already familiar with existing adaptations. The most recent adaptation of any classic text is not simply an adaptation of that text, but the next step in a flow chart that includes all the previous adaptations and the cultural context of the newly created product. These three adaptations of Dumas’ 1844 novel are all texturally and stylistically very different, and two of them diverge significantly from the original text. What I found truly fascinating was what all of them had in common, and what each new era (these were made at around 20 year intervals) decides to add or remove. What do all these movies agree are the essential parts of the story, and what are some adaptations more squeamish about including from Dumas’ original narrative?

Before we dive in, no I have not seen every single adaptation of the story, that would be a dissertation level of research and I do actually have things to do right now (although, I will admit...not many.) I’m looking at these three Hollywood adaptations because they all had star studded casts (for the era they were made in), they’re all English language, and (crucially) they were all easily available on the internet for me to stream.

What are the essential ingredients of a Three Musketeers adaptation?

Firstly, there should be at least three musketeers. Secondly, D’Artagnan (Michael York 1973, Chris O’Donnell 1993, Logan Lerman 2011) should be a young upstart who is introduced part way through a sword fight. He should also have silly hair. He is also consistently introduced to the musketeers in all three films by challenging them each individually to duels at noon, one o’clock and two o’clock. 

The films all maintained some elements of the original “Queen’s Diamonds” storyline, and featured the Queen, Milady and Constance. The characterisation of these three varied a lot.

Our villains in each case are invariably the Cardinal, his pal Rochefort (who always has an eyepatch, although this trope is not in the book and is actually attributable to the way Christopher Lee is styled in the 1973 film), and Milady de Winter. Satisfyingly, at least two of the villains usually wear red because they’re bad. Red is for bad. 

All three are very swashbuckling in tone, have elements of physical comedy, and two of them include one of the three valet characters Dumas wrote into the original story, Planchet (1973 Roy Kinnear, 2011 James “ugh why” Corden). They also all bear the generic markings of the movies made during the same era, our 70s D’Artagnan feels like a prototype Luke Skywalker. The 90s version features a random martial arts performer. The 2011 version has CGI and James Corden in equal measure (read: far too much of both.)

What are the big differences?

I’m going to divide this category into three main segments: character, story and style. My own three musketeers, the three musketeers of movie making.

Character

D’Artagnan

D’artagnan in the book comes across as a pretty comical figure. He’s nineteen and there’s something satisfying about how similar Dumas’ caricature of a nineteen year old is to a modern character of the same age. He’s overconfident, has a simplistic but concrete set of morals, and falls in love with every woman he sees. If D’Artagnan were a 2021 character, he’d really hate The Last Jedi, is what I’m saying. He’d definitely have a tumblr blog, probably a lot like this one, but perhaps a scooch more earnest. He really loved The Lighthouse but he can’t explain why. Isn’t it nice to know that awkward nineteen year olds have been pretty much the same for the last three hundred years at least? 

In all three films he’s kind of irritating, but at least in the 1973 this feels deliberate. This version has a certain “Carry On Musketeering” quality to it and D’Artagnan is your pantomime principal, he’s extremely naïve and he takes himself very seriously. This is the closest D’Artagnan to the book, and the 1973 is, in general, the film which adheres most faithfully to that source material. 

The 1993, which is (spoiler alert) my least favourite adaptation, has Chris O’Donnell as the least likeable D’Artagnan I’ve come across. I’ve only seen O’Donnell in one other thing, the Al Pacino movie Scent of a Woman. He’s bearable in that because he’s opposite Al Pacino, and so his wide-eyed innocence makes sense as a contrast to Pacino’s aged hoo-ah cynicism. Rather than being introduced in a practice sword fight with his father, as in the other two films, D’Artagnan is fighting the brother of an ex-lover. This captures the problem with the film in general: this adaptation wants D’Artagnan to be cool. He is not. The comedy of the 1973, and indeed the book, comes from D’Artagnan being deeply uncool, and from his blind idolisation of the deeply flawed Musketeers who actually are cool, but not necessarily heroic, or even good people. Their moral greyness contrasts with D’Artagnan’s defined sense of right and wrong, but he still considers them to be role models and heroes. 

2011′s version also suffers from “Cool D’Artagnan” syndrome, with the added annoyance of that most Marvel of tropes: the quip. One of the real issues with this film is that the dialogue has a lot of forced quippery that doesn’t quite land, and the editing slows the pace of the entire film. D’Artagnan’s first interaction with Constance is a bad attempt at wit which Constance points out isn’t very funny. The problem is that Constance has no personality so there’s no real indication that she’s in any position to judge his level of wit. She’s just vague, blonde and there: three characteristics which describe an entire pantheon of badly written female characters throughout the ages. Cool D’Artagnan also means that Constance should be additionally cool, because in the book, Constance is older than, smarter than and over-all more in charge than D’Artagnan. 

Female Characters

Let’s go into this with an open mind that understands all these films were made in the sociological context of their decade. The 1973 version would absolutely not be made in the same way now. Constance is a clumsy cartoon character who is forever falling over and accidentally sticking her breasts out. This is not the character from the books, but does at least leave an impression on the viewer one way or another. 

In contrast, the 1993 has a Constance so forgettable I literally cannot picture her. I think she holds D’Artagnan’s hand at the end. That’s all I can say on the subject. 

The 2011 has Gabriella Wilde in the role, and absolutely wastes her. Anyone who’s seen her in  Poldark knows that she can do sharp-tongued beautiful wit-princess with ease. It’s the writing of this film that lets her down, in general, that’s the problem with it. The storyline and design are great, but the actual dialogue lacks the pace and bite that a quip-ridden star vehicle needs. This Constance is given simultaneously more and less to do than the Constance of the original book, who demonstrates at every turn the superiority of her intellect over D’Artagnan, but doesn’t get to pretend to be a Musketeer and whip her hat off to show her flowing golden hair like she does in the 2011. 

The best character, for my money, in The Three Musketeers is Milady de Winter. Even Dumas got so obsessed with her that there are full chapters of the book written from pretty much her perspective. In the book, she’s described as a terrifying genius with powers of persuasion so potent that any jailor she speaks to must be instantly replaced. My favourite Milady is absolutely Faye Dunaway from 1973. She’s ferocious and beautiful and ruthless, but potentially looks even better because the portrayals in the other films are so very bad. 

The 1993 version has your typical blonde 90s baddie woman (Rebecca De Mornay), she wouldn’t look out of place as a scary girlfriend in an episode of Friends or Frasier. 2011 boasts Milla Jovovich who presents us a much more physical version of the character, even doing an awkwardly shoe-horned anachronistic hall of lasers a la Entrapment except instead of lasers its really thin pieces of glass? The “yeah but it looks cool” attitude to anachronism in this film is what makes it fun, and Jovovich’s Milady isn’t awful, she’s just let down by a plot point that she shares with 1993 Milady. Both these adaptations get really hooked on the fact that Athos used to be married to Milady at one time (conveniently leaving out the less justifiable character point that Athos TRIED TO HANG HER when he found out she had been branded as a thief - doesn’t wash so well with the modern audiences, I think.) Rather than hating/fearing Milady, the two modern adaptations suggest that Athos is still in love with her and pines for her. This detracts from Athos’ character just as much as it detracts from Milady’s. Interestingly, and I don’t know where this came from (if it was in the book I definitely missed it), both films feature a confrontation between the two where Athos points a gun at Milady but she pre-empts him by throwing herself off a cliff (or in the 2011, an air-ship.) I think both these versions were concerned that Milady was an anti-feminist character because she’s so wantonly evil, but I disagree. Equality means it is absolutely possible for Milady to be thoroughly evil and hated by the musketeers just as much as they hate Rochefort and the Cardinal. If you want to sort out the gender issues with this story, round Constance out and give her proper dialogue, don’t make Milady go weak at the knees because of whiny Athos (both Athos characters are exceedingly whiny, 1973 Athos is just...mashed).

The Musketeers

These guys are pretty important to get right in a film called The Three Musketeers. They have to be flawed, funny but kind of cool. Richard Chamberlain is an absolute dish in the 1973 version, capturing all those qualities in one. Is it clear which version is my favourite yet?

Athos is played variously by a totally hammered Oliver Reed (1973), a ginger-bearded Kiefer Sutherland (1993) and a badly bewigged Matthew McFadyen (2011). They all have in common the role of being the most level-headed character, but the focus on the relationship between Athos and Milady in the 93 and 11 editions undermines this a lot. Athos should be cool and aloof, instead of mooning over Milady the entire time. The 2011 gives Athos some painfully “edgy” lines like “I believe in this (points at wine) this (flicks coin) and this (stabs coin with knife.)...” which McFadyen ( once oh so perfect as Mr Darcy) doesn’t quite pull off. 

Porthos seems to be the musketeer who is the most different between interpretations. A foppish dandy in the 1973, a pirate (!?!) in the 1993, and then just...large in 2011. I think the mistake made in the 2011 is that large alone does not a personality make. There are hints at Porthos’ characterisation from the book: his dependence on rich women for money and his love of fine clothing, but these are only included as part of his introduction and never crop up again through the rest of the film. Pirate Porthos in 1993 is... you know what, fine, you guys were clearly throwing everything at the wall and seeing what stuck. 

Aramis is our dishy Richard Chamberlain in 1973, followed by womanising Charlie Sheen in 1993 and then strikingly suave Luke Evans in 2011. I actually didn’t mind Luke Evans’ interpretation, his dialogue is forgettable but his sleek charm stuck in my head. For some reason, this version has Aramis working as a parking attendant for horses, it worked for me as a fun A Knight’s Tale-esque bit of anachronistic character development. Charlie Sheen has never managed to appear likable or attractive to me and so his role in the 1993 falls flat. In fact, in that edition there’s not much distinction between the musketeers as characters and they’re all just very 90s and American. As anyone who’s read this blog before will expect, I think Keanu Reeves as Aramis would have really upped this film’s game. In fact, Keanu Reeves as Aramis, Brad Pitt as Athos and Will Smith as Porthos could have been the ultimate 90s adaptation, throw in DiCaprio as D’Artagnan and Roger Allam as the Cardinal and I’m fully sold. 

The King and Queen

All three films try and do the “Queen’s Diamonds” storyline, but only the 1973 actually includes the Queen’s affair with Buckingham. The queen, played by Geraldine Chaplin, is a tragic romantic figure (she doesn’t have a tonne to do besides being wistful and sighing over Lord Buckingham). The king is played as a frivolous idiot by Jean-Pierre Cassel (voice dubbed by Richard Briers). He doesn’t really think of the queen as a person, more as a possession that he doesn’t want Buckingham to have. 

In the 1993 version, Buckingham doesn’t really feature, and it’s the queen’s refusal to get off with the Cardinal that prompts his fury at her. The book does touch on the Cardinal’s desire for the queen, but it’s placed front and centre in 1993. This is definitely the boobsiest version, with quite a lot of corsetry on show and a cardinal who hits on literally all the women. The king is shown as a stroppy teenage boy under the thumb of the cardinal, who just wants to ask the queen to the dance but doesn’t have the nerve. The king is, essentially, a Fall Out Boy lyric. 

The 2011 also seems to be really squeamish about the idea of the queen having an extramarital affair. It paints Buckingham (played with excellent wig and aplomb by Orlando Bloom) as a stylish villain, who’s advances the queen has rejected. Like the 1993 version, the King is a feckless youth rendered speechless by the presence of his wife. Both these versions want the King and Queen to be happy together, while the 1973 doesn’t give a fuck. 

The Cardinal and his Cronies

The cardinal is kind of universally an evil creepy guy. One of the characters from the 1973 version who actually left the least impression on me, played by Charlton Heston. I think he’s overshadowed in my recollection by cartoonishly evil Christopher Lee as Rochefort. Lee’s Rochefort is dark, mysterious and wonderfully bad, and so influential that all other incarnations’ design is based on him. The 1993 version had truly over the top Michael Wincott as a character I could honestly refer to as Darth Rochefort from the way he’s framed, while 2011 boasts a chronically underused Mads Mikkelsen in the role. 

Cardinal-wise, 1993 was my favourite with Tim Curry in all his ecclesiastical splendour. It was disappointing that everything about this film, including the Cardinal’s sexual harassment of every single female character, really didn’t work for me. Tim Curry is a natural choice for this role and gives it his campy all. 

2011 has not one but two trendy bond villain actors, with Mikkelsen working alongside Christoph Waltz who was...just kind of fine. I was really excited when he appeared but he didn’t really push the character far enough and left me cold. 

Story

The story is where the different adaptations diverge most completely. 1973 follows the plot of the novel, D’Artagnan comes to Paris, befriends the Musketeers and becomes embroiled in a plot by the Cardinal to expose the Queen’s affair with Buckingham through the theft of two diamond studs. D’Artagnan, aided partially by the musketeers, must travel to London to retrieve the set of twelve studs gifted by the King to the Queen, and by the Queen to Buckingham. He does so, the plot is foiled, he’s made into a musketeer! Hurrah, tankards all round.

The 1993 version drops D’Artagnan into the story just as the Cardinal has disbanded the Musketeers. I found the plot of this one really hard to follow and I think at some point D’Artagnan ended up in the Bastille? There was this whole plot point about how Rochefort had killed D’Artagnan’s father. In the original, and in the 1973 version, D’Artagnan’s entire beef with Rochefort is rooted in a joke Rochefort makes about D’Artagnan’s horse. I guess for the producers of this one, a horse insult is not enough motivation for a lifelong grudge. That is really the problem with the entire film, it forgets that the story as told by Dumas is set in a world where men duel over such petty things as “criticising one’s horse”, “blocking one’s journey down a staircase” and “accusing one of having dropped a lady’s handkerchief.” The colour palette and styling are very 90s “fun fun fun”, but the portrayal of the cardinal and the endless angst about D’Artagnan’s father really dampen the mood. 

The 2011 version, this is where the shit really hits the fan. We meet our musketeers as they collaborate with Milady to steal the blueprints for a flying ship (it’s like a piratecore zeppelin). Milady betrays them and gives the plans to Buckingham, they all become jaded and unemployed. D’Artagnan arrives on the scene (his American accent explained by the fact that he’s from a different part of France) and befriends the Musketeers. The cardinal tries to frame the queen for infidelity by having Milady steal her diamonds to hide them in Buckingham’s safe at the tower of London. Something something Constance, something something help me D’Artagnan you’re my only hope. MASSIVE AIRSHIP BATTLE. The king and queen have a dance. James Corden cracks wise. 

It seems like as time has passed, producers, writers and directors have felt compelled to embellish the story. I think, specifically in the case of the two later versions, this is because they wanted the films to resemble the big successes of the period. Everybody knows no Disney hero can be in possession of both parents, so D’Artagnan is out to avenge his father like Simba or Luke Skywalker. In the 2011 version, the plot is overblown and overcomplicated in what seems like an attempt to replicate the success of both the Sherlock Holmes and Pirates of the Caribbean franchises. Remember the plot of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End? No, me neither. 

Style

The style of these films grows increasingly wild along with the plots as time passes. The 1973 features a lot of slapstick comedy, some of which really made me cackle, and some of which was cringeworthily sexist (Constance’s boobs through the window of a litter.) That’s the 70s though! I love The Godfather but Diane Keaton’s character is unbelivably dull and annoying. Star Wars features a pretty good female character but she does end up in that bikini. The 70s seems to be a time of movies that were great except for their occasional headlong dive into misogyny. That doesn’t mean the entire movie is bad, it just means it’s suffering from the consequences of being made in the 70s. There were other consequences of this, I doubt many modern productions could get away with physically injuring so many of it’s cast members. From a glance down the IMDB trivia page, this film yielded a higher casualties to cast ratio than the My Chemical Romance Famous Last Words music video, and that’s a hard figure to top. 

The 1993 version is a Disney feature and suffers from having a thin sheen (not Charlie in this instance) of “Disney Original Movie” pasted over every scene. It looks like The Parent Trap might be filming in the adjacent studio a lot of the time. The vibrancy of the colours makes the costumes look unrealistic, while the blandness of the female characters means this movie ends up a bit of a bland bro-fest. Also occasionally the sexual and violent moments really jar with the overall tone making it an uneven watch. One minute it’s Charlie Sheen cracking jokes about trying to get off with someone’s wife, the next minute you see Milady throw herself off a cliff and land on the rocks. Weird choices all round. 

The 2011 version, as I’ve already mentioned, was trying to borrow its style from the success of Sherlock Holmes and Pirates of the Caribbean, with a little Ocean’s 11 thrown in. The soundtrack flips between not quite a Hans Zimmer score and not quite that other Hans Zimmer score, and after the success of Stardust it ends with a Take That song (for it to match up to the story it should have been Take That feat. Harry styles imho). Visually, there’s some fantastic travel by mapping going on, there’s far too much CGI (one of my friends pointed out that the canal in Venice seemed to be full of Flubber). Everyone is dressed in black leather, and there are not enough big hats at all. One of the best things about Musketeers films is that they’re an excuse for ridiculous hats, and in a film with a quite frankly insane visual style, I’m surprised the hats didn’t make it through. The cast, unfortunately, really lack chemistry which means the humorous dialogue is either stilted or James Corden, and the editing is just very strange. It’s one of those films that feels about as disjointed as an early morning dream, the one where you dream you’ve woken up, gotten dressed and fed the cat, but you actually are still in bed. 

Conclusion

Adaptations focus on different things depending on the context they were created in. The 2005 Pride and Prejudice is deliberately “grittier” than its 1990s predecessor, at a stage when “grit” was everywhere (The Bourne Identity, Spooks, Constantine). The Musketeers adaptations demonstrate exactly the same thing: what people wanted in the 70s was bawdy comedy and slapstick with a likeable idiot hero, the 90s clearly called for... Charlie Sheen and bright colours, and the 2010s just want too much of everything and a soundtrack with lots of banging and crashing. The more modern adaptations simplified the female characters (although the 1973 version definitely is guilty of oversimplifying Constance) while over-complicating the plot. There’s a lot of embellishment going on in the 2011 version that suggests the film wasn’t very sure of itself, it pulls its plot punches while simultaneously blindly flailing its stylistic fists. 

The film that works the best for me will always be the 1973 because it’s pretty straight down the line. Musketeers are good, Milady is evil, falling over is funny and the King’s an idiot. The later adaptations seem to be trying to fix problems with the story that the 1973 version just lets fly. The overcorrection of Milady and the under characterisation of Constance is the perfect example of this. If you want your Musketeers adaptation to be more feminist, don’t weaken Milady, strengthen Constance. Sometimes a competent female character is all that we need. A Constance who is like Florence Cassel from Death in Paradise or  Ahn Young-yi from Misaeng could really pack a punch.

I adored the energy of the 2011 adaptation, I loved how madcap it was, I loved how it threw historical accuracy to the wind. I thought the king was adorable, and I really enjoyed seeing Orlando Bloom hamming it up as Buckingham. I was genuinely sad that the sequel the ending sets up for never came, because once they got out of the sticky dialogue and into the explosions, the film was great fun. It was a beautiful disaster that never quite came together, but I really enjoyed watching it. I love films that have a sense of wild chaos, some more successful examples are The Devil’s Advocate, Blow Dry and Lego Batman. I think the spirit of going all out on everything can sometimes result in the best cinematic experience, it’s just a shame the script wasn’t really up to muster for 2011 Musketeers. 

I’m excited to see what the next big budget Musketeers adaptation brings, even if I’m going to have to wait another ten years to see it. I hope it’s directed by Chad Stahelski, that’d really float my boat (through the sky, like a zeppelin.)

[aragima]

hannibal questions! 🍖🔪

@nietzscheantrout @horrorlesbians and @hanniba1 wanted me to answer these hannibal questions and i wrote too much but oh well! thanks to all 3 of you ilu!!!

favorite episode and why: oh we’re just goin straight to the hard questions huh um OKAY so i think i can only do an ep a season - s1: SORBET SUPREMACY! you get to see the exact moment will looks at hannibal and thinks “.........shit. it’s him isn’t it. he’s The One. SHIT.” and that is so important to me - s2: this one is really hard maybe naka-choko? it’s so fucking gay and sexy. but tome-wan... but mizumono............ yeah idk - s3: torn between digestivo and the wrath of the lamb cuz they both hurt SOOO good much; i love will breaking up with hannibal and hannibal manipulating the situation so will can’t leave asldkjansk it’s so toxic we have to stan..... and for twotl i mean do i really have to give a reason every scene LIVES in my mind and it contains my favorite shot in the whole show:

that is LOVE baby! that is DESIRE! that is being ENTHRALLED!!!!

least favorite episode and why: i feel like they’re all so necessary that it’s kind of impossible to say but probably antipasto. i get sick of hannibal and bedelia’s shenanigans really quickly and as much as i hate to admit it... i miss will. i also think it was an extremely weak season opener and i blame it for getting the show canceled sjshshsgsg the resentment...

favorite side character: chiyoh or jimmy or actually wait— RANDALL TIER 🖤

if you could bring back one character who died, who would it be?: RANDALL FUCKING TIER. i want there to be a weird thing with him and hannibal and will going on. but also i love what his death did for will so idfk, other than him it’s gotta be beverly

dish prepared in the show that you would like to try eating/making: i was supposed to make hannibal’s osso bucco recipe like 3 weeks ago but it completely slipped my mind so i guess i’ll get on that my next grocery trip  

which side character would you kill off?: chilton just because for god’s sake just let the man DIE ALREADY poor guy <- i’m taking ava’s answer because YEAH

was there any scene that you didn’t like to look at?: nah. the skin ripping scenes at the beginning of either kaiseki or sakizuki (idk i don’t remember, i hardly watch s2a) are particularly brutal but i tough it out

biggest ship: i mean do i even have to say

why did you start watching hannibal?: my wife, who was my girlfriend at the time, and her dad were watching it as it was airing and i was like “oh cool hannibal lecter origin story” but due to inconsistent access to the episodes i would just watch it randomly and that is... not the way to watch hannibal. i gave up around the end of s2 but knew hannigram was It regardless. i decided to watch s3 for the first time earlier this year just to have finished it and was like HOLD UP and did an immediate rewatch that left me... well, how i am now

favorite hannibal fic if you’ve read any?:

oh boy. yall ready for this? all of these can be found on ao3 obviously (i’m so sorry this is so long but i guess i’ve been asked to put together a fic rec anyway)

as soft, as wide as air by blackknightsatellite, the ladders series by emungere, blackbird by emungere, consenting to dream series by emungere, taken for rubies by emungere, at first meeting by emungere, protect me from what i want by @alienfuckeronmain, god of the cold, cold wars by highermagic, the abyss smiled back by highermagic, pomegranate seeds by highermagic, absolute zero by highermagic, in the truly gruesome do we trust by sidnihoudini, TKO by sidnihoudini, oh dear by lunarwench, each according to its kind by chapparral_crown, a flood in our hearts by nanoochka, let me sinful be by darlingred, uncomplicated by stratumgermanitivum & youaremydesign, good bones by @damnslippyplanet​, like they do in babylon by @damnslippyplanet​, your obedient servant by kareliasweet, past our satellites by shotgunsinlace, only the tender meat by isagel, the shape of me will always be you by missdisoriental, a white-walled room by rodabonor, spleen et idéal by rodabonor, the paper doll series by rodabonor, a common point of interest by rodabonor [i do NOT like a/b/o stuff but if i did... it’s this fic], just thought you should know by earthsickwithoutyou, the sacrificial lamb by princesskay, transcendent suffering by itsbeautiful, not something polite by moistdrippings, leave your message after the tone by onewhositswithturtles, holes in the floor of the mind by feverdreamblood, crossing caina by feverdreamblood, the archipelago series by melusine10, but seas between us braid hae roar’d by kareliasweet

have you watched any of the hannibal films?: yeah all of them except manhunter! i grew up watching silence of the lambs because my mom loved it and i went thru a big edward norton phase as a teen so i’ve seen red dragon like 10 times

have you read the thomas harris books?: no and i’m not going to lmao #fakefan

favorite murder tableau: if we’re talking just hannibal’s- the judge. if we’re talking Murder Bad But Kinda Pretty like in general probably the mushroom people or the totem

favorite blood spill: will imagining hannibal while he beats randall to death or The Gutting of Will Graham

what’re some of your headcanons?: - will is good at shibari (backed up in canon: his fishing knots, the firefly man’s full body hishi karada harness) - hannibal rarely listens to modern, non-classical music but he’s a björk fan and he saw one of her chapel performances during the vespertine era and was Moved - will listens to classic rock (zeppelin, the doors, pink floyd) with some classic country (patsy, merle, johnny) and blues (billie, muddy, bessie) thrown in. he’s also a sucker for early/mid-90s college rock/alternative/grunge - will plays the piano (because of the piano in his living room) and the harmonica (because he’s country white trash); he’s kind of shit tho - hannibal fell for will somewhere between “my thoughts are often not tasty” and “you won’t like me when i’m psychoanalyzed” (love at first sight! at last sight! at ever and ever sight!!!) - will’s circumcised, hannibal isn’t 🤪 - hannibal’s a gemini!!!! adaptable, creative, intelligent, outgoing, impulsive, etc - will’s an aquarius!!!!! analytical, a loner, temperamental, unique, compassionate, etc - will’s mom was jewish go read my fic about it https://archiveofourown.org/works/26774326 - hannibal is an agender man (tbh i think of this as canon, it’s just unstated/undefined) - hannibal can speak russian, spanish, and a teensy bit of portuguese in addition to the other languages we know he speaks (lithuanian, english, french, italian, japanese) - will speaks limited amounts of french; he learned it as a kid in louisiana - ED TW will sometimes has a Difficult relationship with food due to food instability by the way of poverty as a kid and goes through periods where it’s hard to keep himself fed, but hannibal is so good for him in that way because he keeps him from going hungry 😓 (yes this is me projecting but also it makes SENSE) - hannibal typically bottoms but THEY DEFINITELY ARE BOTH VERS and will never stops being surprised by how much he loves catching a dick. every time is like religious experience. okay? okay - they’re also both very kinky and switches but tbh.... will was made to Dom hannibal like that’s the reason he exists he could drag that old bitch around by a leash and hannibal would be in heaven HANNIBAL WOULD CALL HIM SIR - the first time they have sex hannibal comes like immediately but he isn’t embarrassed because he’s hannibal fucking lecter and hannibal lecter doesn’t get embarrassed - i have a hc for their favorite sex positions but i’m not gonna put that here because i don’t want yall calling me crazy any more than you probably already do but if you wanna know just DM me all i do is think about them fucking it’s a curse - okay no more dirty stuff abigail called hannibal “dad” on more than one occasion and it was half-joking but it also felt comfortable to her; she never thought to call will “dad” because he’s a weirdo and never knew her as much as he knew his idea of her - hannibal taught her to play piano at the cliff house - beverly is pansexual!!! - brian and jimmy kissed one time when they were drunk and they NEVER talk about it EVER - chiyoh is straight probably. i know, i know, everyone says she’s a lesbian and if she’s a lesbian to you that’s awesome! she’s a lesbian! but idk i just think she’s SO fucking straight and tbh i mourn bc that’s my wife. she could MAYBE be bicurious... - chiyoh is non-monogamous and doesn’t do serious relationships, she doesn’t like the idea of being tied to one person ever since she left the lecter castle - she helped hannibal and will escape after The Fall; she told hannibal she would continue to watch over him and i think she did, she got them a boat and got them the fuck out of there - MOLLY IS DOING SO MUCH BETTER WITHOUT WILL. SHE’S SO GLAD SHE GOT OUT OF THAT WHEN SHE DID. she has a good, long talk with alana and finds out all the shit about him and hannibal that will never told her (and it was a lot), gets drunk and burns all his shit, and then washes her hands of the whole thing; moves to a different state, gets a girlfriend, and never thinks about will again

okay i’m capping it there or i’m never gonna stop!! i’m not tagging anyone cuz i think everyone has done this by now lmao but if you’re a mutual who hasn’t and you want to just do it and say i tagged you!! mwah!!!!

[shellku]

Film Challenge

Okay guys. Finally did it. As requested.

Have you ever left a theater before the movie was over?

Yes. Only once.

If you ever left a theater what was playing: Savages

Craziest (Random) movie you’ve ever seen:

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

“And thanks for all the fish” -Dolphins

Most disturbing film you’ve ever watched:

Crimson Peak

A film you only watched because (Tom Hiddleston ) was in it: Crimson Peak

A minor role (or movie) with a major actor you greatly enjoyed: Sebastian Stan as Jefferson/The Mad Hatter in Once Upon A Time.

A minor role (or movie) with a major actress you greatly enjoyed: Emma Watson as Pauline Fossil in Ballet Shoes

A movie everyone should see at least once: The Princess Bride

A movie you thought everyone has seen but apparently not: Who framed Roger Rabbit?

A movie you’ve tried multiple times to watch but never get through it: Silence if the Lambs

A movie that legitimately surprised you:

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. While it came out in 1980 I didn’t see it until much later obviously. I wasn’t even ten when I watched it the first time, I and was genuinely shocked.

Movie that you enjoy, that surprises people you enjoy: Scream (1996)

A movie you associated with Religion and it turns out that tracks: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe

A movie you watched a lot as a kid but your not sure why exactly you watched it so much:

Hook. (And) The Sandlot.

My first movie that made me question my sexualité: The Priâtes of the Caribbean.

Sections

Anime

First Anime: Fruits Basket. Vampire Knight.

Anime I watched with my (brother): Full Metal Alchemist

Anime I tried to get into and couldn’t: D Gray Man

Anime I was surprised I enjoyed: The Neverland Promise. (And) Soul Eater

Anime I always liked (even when it confused people): Black Butler

Anime that makes me cry: Your lie in April

Anime that I love but now makes me sad too: Sword Art Online

Anime I’m just not into: One Piece

One that was recommended that I enjoyed:

Blue Exorcist

One that was recommended that I was ehh on and did not finish: Attack on Titian

One I probably should watch: Pandora Hearts

One I watched Randomly : Castlevania

One that I did not watch until (college) that everyone seems to have watched: Sailor Moon

Cartoons

Cartoons Everyone should see:

- The Peanuts.

- Garfield.

- Scooby Doo.

- Tom and Jerry.

- Pink Panther.

Cartoon I never liked: Spongebob

Cartoon I hate now: Kiayu? Idk. The one with the bald kid that whines a lot. Ugh.

Cartoon I can make myself ‘watch’ with the (niece/nephews): Paw Patrol

Films you would Recommend:

80s: The Breakfast Club

Book Adaption 80s: The Outsiders

Murder Mystery:Murder on the Oriental Express

Jim Henson pick: Labyrinth

(Suicide) Satire:Heathers

Romance: Titanic

‘Horror’ Movie: The Lost boys

Horror Movie: The Nightmare on Elm Street

Spy Flick: Saint (1997)

Mind trips: The Sixth Sense.(1999) Donnie Darko.

Stephen King: The Dark Tower

Stephen King Miniseries: Rose Red

Studio Ghibli: Howls Moving Castle. Or. Kiki’s Delivery Service.

Action Comedy: Miss Congeniality

Adventure Comedy: Jumanji

‘Dark’ Comedy: The Addams Family

Romantic Comedy: Legally Blonde

Tim Burton

Tim Burton Animated: The Nightmare Before Christmas

Tim Burton Live Action: Edward Scissorhand

Tim Burton Musical: Sweeney Todd

Dreamworks

Favorite Dreamwork’s Film:

Rise of the Guardians (and) How to Train your Dragon

Disney:

Unpopular Recommendations:

The Black Cauldron (and) The Great Mouse Detective

One that is still rather disturbing: Pinocchio

Best Soundtrack (Golden Age): Fantasia

Best Soundtrack (Modern): IDk?!

Classics (Golden) everyone should see at least once: Snow White (and) Bambi.

Wartime Era Pic: The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr.Toad

Silver Age or Bronze Age: Both!!!

Disney Renaissance or Post Renaissance: Both! If I absolutely had to choose though, Renaissance.

Moana or Lilo and Stitch: Lilo and Stitch

Frozen or Tangled: Both

Soul or Monsters Inc: Monsters Inc

Toy Story I and 2/ or/ 3 and 4? Toy Story I and 2.

Underrated: Candleshoe

Disney Holiday:

Live Action Halloween - Hocus Pocus

Live Action Halloween Series- Halloweentown

Animated Halloween- Frakenweenie

Live Action Christmas- Miracle on 34th Street (and) Eloise

Animated Christmas- Mickey’s Once Upon a Christmas, Mickey’s Twice Upon a Christmas, (and) Winnie the Pooh: A very merry Pooh year.

New: The Nutcracker and the Four Realms. (2018)

Disney Reimagined/Live Action:

First that made you rethink the story: Maleficent

Favorite ‘Princess’ Story: Beauty and the Beast

The Surprise: Cruella

The one you worried about but we’re happy with in the end: Lady and the Tramp

The one you worried about but ending up enjoying anyway: Aladdin

The one that was good but you could have done without: The Lion King (which really surprised me!!!I like it but I didn’t love it. Which for me was so strange since I’m a fan of the original and the play.)

The one you had high hopes for and had a mixed reaction too: Mulan. (Ended up really liking it, but I miss Mushu. )

‘Modern’ Shakespeare Adaption:

10 Thing I hate About You (The Taming of the Shrew)

Clueless (Emma)

and

The Lion King Series. (Kid appropriate)

The Lion King: Hamlet

The Lion King 1 1/2: Rosencrantz and Guildenstein

The Lion King 2: Romeo and Juliet

Vampire Pictures:

90s: Interview with a Vampire

2000+: Twilight Series

Tv Series: Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Vampire Action Series: Underworld

Classic: Bram Stoker’s Dracula

Dracula with a Twist: Dracula Untold (2014)

Fun Supernatural Flicks :

Witches: The Craft

Male Witches: The Covenant

Fairytale: Red Riding Hood (2011)

Ghost Hunters: Ghostbusters

Multiple Supernatural: Van Helsing (2014)

Werewolf Romance: Blood and Chocolate

Kid Friendly Live Action: Casper

Kid Friendly Animated: Hotel Transylvania

Supernatural Series:

Multi: Supernatural

Animated: Sabrina The Teenage Witch. (And) Scooby Doo.

Witches: Charmed

Fairytale: Once Upon a Time

Darker Fairytale: Grimm

‘Superhero’ Movies:

90s: Batman. (And) The Crow.

Series: Marvel’s Cinematic Universe

Classic Animated: Batman the animated series

Modern Animated: Harley Quinn

Girl Power: Wonder Woman. (and) Birds of Prey.

Something Different: Deadpool

Younger Audiences/Nostalgia: Teen Titans (animated)

Harry Potter

Favorite Film: Idk. Can’t choose honestly.

Least favorite character portrayal: .. Ginny Weasley?

Someone you loved: (so many..) McGonagall

Someone you loved hating: Bellatrix LeStrange

Someone you just hate: Dolores Umbridge

First time you cried: I cried for Sirius and Remus in Prisoner of Azkaban.

First time you jumped: Snakes or Basilisk. Chamber of Secrets. (I think I was 12?)

Someone who was so spot in acting on you can’t see them as anyone else now: Luna Lovegood

Someone who was so good even if the look wasn’t perfect: Emma Granger as Hermione OR Alan Rickman as Severus Snape.

Someone who’s injury hit you harder than the books: Colin Creevy.

Someone who’s death hit you harder than in the books: None. They hit but not as much as the books.

A scene you found just breathtakingly pretty: Christmas at Hogwarts

A scene you found creepy (even when you knew it was coming): Nagini uses a corpse as a mask.

For any Potter heads. Some things that bothered you about the Harry Potter films:

- Where is Charlie Weasley?

- Where is Peeves?

- Where are Neville’s parents?

- The green/blue/brown eye thing. (This is not against Radcliffe. Some special effects could have fixed this easily)

- HarrY DiD YOu PuT YoUR NaMe IN tHe GoBlET of FIRE?! 🔥

- In Sorcerers Stone, Why did you change the snake at the zoos breed??

- “Voldemort” versus “Voldemor”. The silent t.

- Hermione’s. Yule. Ball. Dress. Color. Blue. Not pink. She specifically changed the color.

- Fluffy. Hagrid’s adorable Cerberus was originally bought from a Greek man. Why change it to Irish? I like Ireland but it was a Greek man due to where Cerberus’s initially came from right???

- Harry’s first Weasley sweater color

- Why does Harry only see his parents in the Mirror of Eirsed? Where’s the rest of the family?

- The Underage magic rules aren’t well explained in the movies making the 3rd year summons even more bonkers sounding

- The Patil Twins Yule Ball Outfits. They could have been soooo beautiful. Like this is the Yule Ball! The Twins would have (in my opinion) much more elaborate traditional Indian styled dress robes?? Idk.

- Love Movie Hermione! But some moments take away from Ron. Like when Ron defended her in the Chamber of Secrets. Hermione didn’t know what the slur “Mudblood” meant in the books. Ron had to explain it.

- Dobby needed more screen time. Some stuff Dobby did went to Neville because so many Neville scenes were cut.

- Where’s all the secrecy from the books when communicating with Sirius- “Snuffles”? Something Harry’s godfather insisted on to keep him safe.

- Snape’s title of “The half-blood Prince” is not explained. Neither is it made clear that Severus was also abused horribly at home throughout his childhood. Also that like Harry Dumbledore did nothing to help Severus when he was a student. (Or maybe Tom Riddle when he grew up in an orphanage. I’m sensing a pattern)

- Dumbledore should have still spelled Harry during Dumbledore death scene. No way would Harry just stand there if given the choice.

- Ron was not quite as ‘dumb’ in the books and a lot of his funny moments were cut from the movie. Which makes his jealousy moments all the more unbecoming. He also comes off a bit more arrogant in the movies. (This is not against R Grint. Who is awesome) The movies gave Ron the short end of the stick.

- Weasley/Malfoy Fued. Who else wanted to see Arthur and Lucius have a fist fight in a bookstore? Exactly.

- Albus Dumbledore isn’t all Sunshine and Daisys. He does some really messed up stuff yet no one ever seems to question this.

- Remus was the last Marauder. Yet his and his wife, Tonk’s, deaths are barley acknowledged.

- Also Teddy. Harry’s Godson.

- Harry’s and Ginnys relationship is not built on. It’s just there. Ugh. Heck Movie Ginny isn’t that great. You don’t know much about her except: She’s the only girl in Ron’s family. She’s the youngest Weasley. She’s obsessed with Harry. She’s a good Quidditch player. She has a temper. She was possessed by Riddle’s Dairy when she was eleven. She’s obsessed with Harry.

- Draco is essentially Harry’s antithesis. Where is he in some critical scenes in the movies?

- Where’s the Luna love???? Harry’s pretty rude to her in some scenes.

- There is no S.P.E.W. And Hermione’s more ruthless side is gone.

- The guys hair in The Goblet of Fire. Get a hair cut. Please.

- Some of Molly’s less than Stellar Moments. (Ex. When she believed rumors about Hermione and so treated he coldly. How horrible she was to Fleur. Ect)

- Fleur. Fleur and Bill still get married but the objections to the wedding aren’t as presented in the movies. Not is Molly’s and Ginny’s extreme dislike of Fleur. Or when Arthur apologizes to Fleur. Or really any of Fleurs best moments. The whole courting process is skipped.

- House Elves. The House Elves of Hogwarts.

- Percy Weasley. The ‘betrayal’. The returned Weasley sweater. Him turning to protect his family and fight for Hogwarts at the last minute. All gone. Which involves being forgiven by the Weasley Twins not an hour before Fred dies.

- The connection of the Black sisters. Specifically Adromeda - mother of Tonks. Who is Sirius cousin. Who married Remus Lupin. Tonks and Remus the parents of Teddy.

- Dean Thomas is pretty much gone.

- Rita Skeeter. Illegal Animagus. Hermione kept her in a jar.

- The movies didn’t allow Radcliffe to be sassy and sarcastic enough. Harry Potter is one of the sassiest boys to ever walk through the halls of Hogwarts!

- Harry didn’t fix his wand in the last movie.

- The history of the Marauders.

- The history explaining why Snape could never be comfortable around and trust Remus Lupin.

[vbeserk]

I recently participated in a discussion about the A-10 and it's retirement from service and a few points caught my eye and really made me think about it, so i decided to make a post to share with all of you and know what you guys think about the subject.

So, what was my opinion BEFORE the whole thing. I had the solid opinion that the A-10 should remain in service for as long as possible, benefiting from upgrades like new engines and electronics. To me, it was a crucial piece for CAS and ground attack role.

Then the discussion happened and some really good info popped up, even though i think some of the things that people said were a little bit off but they were all true or close to it.

I'll break this down into two points, to be more organized:

1 - The A-10 was conceived during the Cold War, between the 60's, to fight a large-scale invasion from the Soviet Union. It was good then but now it is not so useful.

This one is what really makes me think about the subject. With it's first flight happening in 1972, the A-10's development happened during the 1960, that was roughly fifty years ago, a different era, a different time and different technologies. The primary role of the A-10 is to take out tanks with it's 30mm GAU-8A Avenger cannon and as secondary to mop up some other ground targets with missiles, rockets and bombs.

The thing is, it was intended to fight T-55s, T-60s, T-72s, T-80s and i even reach out to say that it can go after T-90s. If we look at it, apart from the T-90, all other ones are now considered old and obsolete tanks, mostly used by nations with low defense budget or with troubles to have an up-to-date MBT (Main Battle Tank). One of the comments said that in a modern, full-scale war scenario, the A-10 would face modern MBTs to destroy such as the T-14 Armata but the thing is that these units can hold their own against the 30mm shots, unlike it's older, Cold War counterparts and this would nullify the Hog as a viable primary attack option, all of this without including the fielding of modern SAM units like the S-400 and radars that can detected stealth and is fully able to track a big, slow moving, straight wing, attacker.

2 - Modern multirole planes can take over the CAS and ground attack roles.

This one is quite controversial but flexibility has been the key element with operational combat aircraft, the F-16 is a lightweight fighter but is capable of ground attack and CAS with the latest iterations being classified as multirole rather than fighter, this also happened with the F-15 with the E variant being a multirole but the A-10 remained a single role, attacker, not having the wide flexibility of other planes. Some comments compared the Warthog with the B-52 and it's long service life but with a more analytical view on the operational service and development of the Stratofortress, it started as a nuclear bomber, switched to conventional, high altitude bombing role and today is a weapons platform, capable of using a huge array of missiles and bombs, it adapted to the newer techs and advanced along with the time and despite it's age, it is one of USAF's most important combat assets, the Hog on the other hand, has made little changes in it's roles due to it's not so great flexibility.

One of the comments also brought up that during the last wars, the A-10 only participated in 10% of the CAS and ground attack operations because other multirole aircraft have been taking part in these sorties due to the greater flight speed of such aircraft. I don't know how much of this is true but i believe that it is not far from the actual numbers. And now with stealth planes coming into action, this should push the A-10 out of these missions even more.

These were some of the points that popped up and made me think about if the A-10 should really remain in service.

My opinion now has slightly changed, i still want the A-10 to remain in service with upgrades and service life extensions but all of this has limited effect due to the original conception of the aircraft and that can't be changed without significant cost, the A-10 was built to be a ground attack, tank killer and only this.

I think that if other multirole planes like the F-15E, F-35 and F-16 can take up CAS and ground attack roles with success then it is not worth to spend millions into an equipment that won't be used as much and also including the safety of the pilots since the Eagle, F-35 and the Viper have the necessary A2A abilities to defend itself from hostile combat aircraft.

What do you guys think about this? It seems that it is a subject with tons of information to be discussed and many points of view.

[wandaposting]

Can you talk about the whitewashing controversy? I think it's a shame, but some people are acting like the people looking forward to WandaVision killed their dog lol.

They were originally white from 1964 until 1978/1979 where the Magneto connection was retconned in. Then from the late 1970s to 2014 their boilerplate backstory was that they were children of Erik/Max/Magnus/Magneto of 12 names (obv German/Jewish) and Magda Eisenhardt (usually Polska Sinti), and raised by Balkan (specifically fictional country Transia) Roma Django and Marya Maximoff with no discernible Jewish influences.

In 2014, during the height of Disney-Fox corporate childishness, it was once more retconned that Django and Marya were their birth parents, thus making them full Romani still with no discernible Jewish influences which is their current status quo.

It’s a messy situation stemming from their whiteness being carried over from the era where they were, in fact, generically white Europeans. It wasn’t until the late 1990s that George Perez revamped her design to give her the ample curls and “Transian” superhero costume, perhaps inspired by the recent release of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. The Transian costume didn’t last, though the hoop earrings have been known to reappear ever so often. Notice, of course, how they were still colored as white people.

Some people frequently point to this era for proof that Wanda has historical pre-2010s instances of being drawn with darker skin after all — well, no, that’s just the palette they used for white characters at the time.

That one Avengers vs X-Men: Infinite issue definitely looked promising at a glance, until you realize it was the lighting all along and the colorist made no effort to make her palette distinct from Tony’s and Hope’s.

Same goes for Olivier Coipel art. Same even goes for the gorgeous Daniel Acuna panels where she’s famously known for not looking pasty white, in the context of lighting and how every other (definitely white, not counting fanon and headcanon) character gets drawn and colored.

It really wasn’t until the era of modern Representation Matters (specifically those All New All Different 2015/2016 halcyon days) and a couple of conscientious artists like Kevin Wada decided to take a serious look at that Romani backstory, and present her as how she should really look. And that redesign was amazing. You can go into my archives and see 2015/2016 me fangirling over how 🔥🔥🔥 it was.

Unfortunately, this too did not last. The outfit is still (mostly) in use from artist to artist, but the darker skin and the distinct Roma features- not so much.

*And, before you get on my case about colorism, which has been an issue for Sunspot and Storm, that argument is less compelling here when Wanda is literally white in her initial appearance.

The whiteness is still very much entrenched in the Scarlet Witch brand. You can see this in all of her merchandise and every pre-MCU adaptation she’s ever had. Unlike Mickey Rooney’s Breakfast At Tiffany’s role or Emma Stone pretending to look like her last name could be Ng, none of these adaptations are perceived as embarrassing or dated transgressions. They are all Wanda, for better or for worse. (Update: In an anonymous ask I recently received, someone likened the 70s Romani inclusion and the 90s Perez and Busiek interpretation of her “Romani roots” to a bad case of cultural appropriation. I’m inclined to agree. They really did just retrofit a white character into culturally appropriating a real group of people so that they could give her that exotique “g*psy witch” aesthetic.) 

Some people will counter with: Well, just because she’s been whitewashed before doesn’t mean it’s okay for her to be whitewashed now. And that all of this is a result of systematic racism and is gross and everyone who supports it is part of the problem.

Well, sure, but all those versions are part of the tapestry that make up her character. You can take a revisionist’s paintbrush to try and make that tapestry align more with your ideals, but at that point she becomes more your own personalized creation than what she actually is. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with stubbornly supporting a personalized, idealized take on a character, but all of that other content isn’t suddenly going to lose its fan following and vanish from the mainstream.

And the specifics of how the Romani elements were included in her backstory kind of actually were shadowed by this blissfully ignorant 1970s American kind of racism. The “g*psy witch” trope most of all. And the kind of ignorance that permeates in presenting that sort of character as levitating criss-crossed over her bed while reading tarot cards surrounded by candles all mystic-like.

If you can recall any of this or perhaps the one George Perez era panel where she’s screaming to Pietro about how “my father was a kind g*psy man named Django,” or how she’s casually written into referring to herself and her family as that slur over and over again, you can recall that 99% of Marvel Writers’ other sparse attempts at reminding audiences that Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are, indeed, Roma made them out to be blindly romanticized caricatures that I suppose creatives behind adaptations would prefer not to tackle.

I don’t have a solution for the people who are hurt by this, and for the people who expect and demand for Wanda to become a vehicle for authentic Roma storytelling— something she’s never really been before, aside from a few shaky glimpses in the Robinson run. It’s not my place to tell them what to do or think, and I definitely wouldn’t tell them to stop being upset.

Different people feel strongly about different things. I don’t expect I’ll be seeing Mulan in theaters due to its pandering to China’s very problematic government with their literal concentration camps, but I don’t expect everyone to have the same feelings as I do, or hold it against them if they don’t. It’s a movie. I’m personally not comfortable supporting it, but who made me the God of Consumer Morality?

That’s the thing with MCU Wanda and with WandaVision or every other verse or artwork where Wanda is Still White. A mass snub of it isn’t happening with or without my help. If you’re excited for it, stay excited for it (with an understanding of why some may be upset)! If the thought of it breaks you out into hives, I’m very sorry to hear that (and I’m also impressed you got this far), hope you can focus on the things you enjoy instead.

[incarnateirony]

Hey dude! Do you have any recommendations for LGBTQ+ movies in the romance genre that have like a happy ending. I really don't care how old they are. I'm feeling the Gay™ hence I need the Gay™. You feel me?

HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII NONNIE

First sorry for taking so long, not only did I have to timeline this :) but :) my computer :) froze :) after writing like :) 2 pages :) and I had to do it again :)

So anyway let it be said, the LGBT dialogue is one of osmosis and shared growth and awareness. Some of these films will be very poorly dated, but as you (thankfully) mentioned that them being old wasn’t a *problem*, expect a lot of old stuff. Because one of the most important things to have under your belt when talking about the LGBT media representation battle is the actual journey from A to B – be that incrementalization, subtextual inclusion, text-breeching features, outright evocative and groundbreaking films at the time (which is what MOST of this list will be) and an improvement in our dialogue; let us never forget that while tr*nss*xual is considered a slur and transgender is proper, tr*nss*xual was at one point the politically correct way to speak it – things like that breach in our growing understanding of the spectrum of human sexuality. 

I *WILL* disclaimer these aren’t all romance, so if you explicitly want romance, google them and take a look if it sounds to appeal, but I’m taking this as a general cinema history plug considering what a confused mess fandom conversation about LGBT history in film or modern text as applicable, accepted or not.

Wonder Bar (1936) (I wouldn’t really call this queer cinema, but if you have the time to watch it too, I think it was the first explicit mention of homosexual engagement even if it was fleetingly brief. You might even call it Last Call style. A blink and you’ll miss it plug that was still decades ahead of its time)

Sylvia Scarlet (1936) (Again, I wouldn’t call this queer cinema, but a lot of the community takes it as the first potential trans representation on TV due to the lead literally swapping gender presentation, even if the presentation is… not what we would modernly call representation IMO)

Un Chant d'Amour (1950) (Worth it for the sheer fact that it pissed off fundies so bad they took it all the way to the US supreme court to get it declared obscene.)

The Children’s Hour (1961) (also known as the 1961 lesson to “don’t be a gossipy, outting bitch”)

Victim (1961) (The first english film to use the word “homosexual” and to focus explicitly on gay sexuality. People might look on it disdainfully from modern lenses, but it really helped progress british understanding of homosexuality)

Scorpio Rising (1964) (Lmao this one deadass got taken to court when it pissed people off and California had to rule that it didn’t count as obscene bc it had social value, worth it for the history if nothing else)

Theorem (1968) (Because who doesn’t wanna watch a 60s flick about a bisexual angel, modern issues and associations be damned)

The Killing of Sister George (1968) (by the makers of What Ever Happened To Baby Jane)

Midnight Cowboy (1969) (…have I had sassy contagonists in RP make a Dean joke off of this more than once, maybe)

Fellini-Satyricon (1969) (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA THIS)

The Boys in the Band (1970) (This… this… this made a lot of fuss. Just remember leather)

Pink Narcissus (1971) (a labor of love shot on someone’s personal camera)

Death in Venice (1971) (This is basically a T&S prequel but whatever, based on a much older book)

Cabaret (1972) 

Pink Flamingos (1972) (SHIT’S WILD)

The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant (1972) (The title doesn’t lie, be warned)

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) [god I hope you’ve at least seen this]

Fox and His Friends (1975) (some really hard lessons that are still viable today, that just because someone acknowledges your sexuality doesn’t mean they give a shit about you as a person, and that some will even abuse the knowledge for gain)

The Terence Davies Trilogy (1983) (REALLY interesting history look it up, it’s sort of one of those “drawn from own experience” story short sets)

The Times of Harvey Milk (1984) (Documentary)

Desert Hearts (1985) (Pretty much the first film to put lesbianism into a good light as a true focus based on a novel from the sixties)

Parting Glances (1986) (the only film its creator got out before his death from the aids epidemic)

Law of Desire (1987) (two men and a trans woman in a love triangle, kinda ahead of its time)

Maurice (1987) (This one’s really interesting, cuz it was based on a book made about 15 years before it, but the book itself had been written half a century earlier and wasn’t published until after the guy died, he just thought it’d never get published Cuz Gay, so basically it’s based on a story written in like, the 20s finally getting screen time. It has a bittersweet but positive-leaning-ish ending without disregarding the cost that can come with it and even addresses class issues at the same time 100% DO RECOMMEND)

Tongues Untied (1989) (a documentary to give voices to LGBT black men) 

Longtime Companion (1990) (This one’s title alone is history, based on a NYT phrasing for how they talked about people’s partners dying, eg longtime companion, during the AIDS epidemic)

Paris Is Burning (1990) (Drag culture and related sexual and gender identity exploration as it intersected with class issues and other privileges explored in a documentary)

The Crying Game (1992)( I should correct this that I guess it’s more, 1992 considered, “SURPRISE, DIL HAS A DILL!” – I guess I really didn’t do that summary justice by modern language and dialogue as much as how people in the 90s were talking about that and that’s a my bad. LIKE. SEE, EVEN I CAN FUCK UP MY LANGUAGE I’M SORRY CAN I BLAME THE STRAIGHTS T_T) #90skidproblems – I guess I should call it a trans film. And this alone tells me I should go watch it again to recode it in my brain modernly rather than like circa de la 2000 understanding.

The Bird Cage (1996) (So you mix drag culture, otherwise heterosexually connected lovebirds, and then realize the girl comes from an alt-rightish house and the guy comes from a Two Dads Home and does cabaret, how to deal with the issues OF this conflict when it’s between you and your happiness, even if the fight isn’t even your own as much as it is that of the person you love. The answer is PROBABLY NOT to dress in drag and pretend to be straight, but what are you going to do? – while played for laughs we’d consider modernly crude, the fact that they even dared to approach this narrative was pretty loud)

The Celluloid Closet (1996) (Ever heard of the Vito Russo test for LGBT representation? This is based on a book by Vito Russo.)

Happy Together (1997) (Ain’t this shit an ironic name; a mutual narrative, via chinese flick, of hong kong ceding to china and an irrevocably tangled MLM pairing as a giant mirrored metaphor)

Boys Don’t Cry (1999) (one of the most groundbreaking films about trans identity at the time)

Stranger Inside (2001) (As easy as it is to recoil to the idea of “black gays in jail”, the film makers actually went and consulted prisoners and put a great deal of focus into intersectional african american issues that really weren’t around even in straight films at the time)

Transamerica (2005) (While it made a bit of a fuss for not casting an actual trans actor, it was one of the first times a big budget studio really tried to tackle it which really pushed us forward)

Call Me by Your Name (2017) (since I’ve apparently leaned really heavy old cinema throw in a modern one lmaooooo)

Also honorable The Kids Are All Right (2010) mention for the sake of the fucking title alone. 

And to any incarnation of “On the Road” by Kerouac, which

Was originally a book

Released a sanitized de-gayed edition because of the times

Later released the full homo manuscript

had a few film adaptations

Was one of Kripke’s founding inspirations for Supernatural once he left behind “Some reporter guy chases stories” and took the formula of Sal and Dean (and tbh later, Carlo) in a beat generation vibe gone modern as we know it today.

Reading both versions of this can actually help some folks currently understand that when you get confused over some shit (WHY IS CARLO SO UPSET? WHY IS HE ACTING LIKE AN UPSET GIRLFRIEND??? WHY IS HE SO JEALOUS AND SAD WHEN DEAN IS AROUND GIRLS???? WE JUST DONT KNOWWWWWWWWWWWWW) it’s because some big money asshat bleached the content, and sometimes, it takes a while for the full script to come out and again, surprise, it’s been GAY, they just didn’t want to OFFEND anybody. *jazz hands*

Now if you wanna go WAY WAY BACK, during 191X years, a bunch of gender role flicks came out like Charley’s Aunt, Mabel’s Blunder and the Florida Enchantment.

Also where is @thecoffeebrain-blog to yell about the necessity of watching Oz, for the next few hours? But no, seriously, just look into the entire LGBT *HISTORY* of Oz.

Beyond that though I’m gonna stop here cuz hi that’s a lot. I really don’t know how much counts as “happy ending” but if I had to give an LGBT cinema rec list, that’s it as a sum. I don’t really have like, a big portfolio of UWU HAPPY ENDING GAYS because 1. there aren’t a lot of those but 2. to me, it’s not about the ending, it’s about the journey. Be that in flick or through culture and history itself.

If you want more happy ending stuff, you definitely have to look at 2010+, but it’s not like we’re in a rich and fertile landscape yet so honestly just googling that would probably serve you better since I don’t explicitly explore romance genre or happy endings to really have a collection. LGBT life is hard and film often reflects that if we’re making genuine statements about it and really representing it, and we’re just now getting to a point of reliably having the chance at a happy ending. That or maybe someone can add like “Explicit happy endings” lists after this that has more experience in that subgenre.

Also, I can’t emphasize ENOUGH to remember what was progressive then is not what is progressive now, and frankly, what some people think is progressive now they’ll probably look back on what they said and feel really fuckin’ embarrassed. See: “It’s not text because by alt right homophobic dialogue, M/M sex isn’t gay if you do the secret handshake” MGTOW kinda crazy ass dialogue or parallel narratives they inspire that encourage self-closeting and denial based on the pure idea that being gay makes you somehow lesser, so It’s Not That. Like. I am. 99% sure. At least half of the people talking in this fandom. Are going to regret that the internet is forever. And maybe hope hosting servers end in the inevitable nuclear war that will annihilate this planet.

Also, edit: Speaking of mistaken dialogues and words aging poorly, I’d like to apologize from the poor description I rendered “The Crying Game” with, but that really goes to show how deep-seated the issue is we can so casually fuck up identifying a trans narrative as SURPRISE DICK IS GAY when we were all absorbing the content like 20+ years ago and HOW HARD it can be to de-code yourself from that kind of programming because here I am, writing a giant assed rep post and fucking it up because my brain hadn’t soaked that movie since Y2K. Guess what, time for me to go watch the Crying Game again.

[bellarxse]

Get to know: Cesca Joyce (TMOHB)

100 Questions (https://the-moon-dust-writings.tumblr.com/post/159843387908/100-oc-questions) to get to know Cesca Joyce, MC in The Motion of Heavenly Bodies

1.    How do they present themselves to others? Soft femme – she has had the importance of femininity and her appearance drilled into her from an early age by her mother, but she has withdrawn from the idea of high-maintenance femininity as much as she feels she can

2.    Do they like animals? Cats and marine life. She doesn’t like dogs.

3.    How do they dress? Often as casual as she can manage, and often in something which hides her chest.

4.    How many language do they know? Fluent in English and German. proficient in French. Likes to watch K-dramas with subs, so she can pick up on the odd phrase now.

5.    How big is their family? Parents divorced. Two full siblings, two paternal half-siblings.

6.    What is their purpose in the story? Uh..they’re the main character. Ha. No, Cesca’s “arc”, such as it is at this point, is going to be about the importance of recognising and pursuing your own desires rather than letting people tell you what you should want.

7.    Do they know how to fight? The extent of her knowledge is basically that you should tuck your thumb into your fist if you throw a punch. That’s basically it.

8.    What is their back story? Distant father (working in international finance), mother (thwarted model, pregnant too young and unable to cope) at home with children she never wanted in the first place. She wants them to be the successes she never was, to shine with radiance that blinds the world. Sarah, their first daughter, is genial and hard-working but painfully plain, and the youngest, Alice, is manipulative and cruel, and looks it. But sweet little Franze, with her angelic curls and innocent blue eyes? Yes, she will do nicely. But it isn’t long before she rebels. Skinned knees and grubby hands (“Mutti, look what I found!”), and a profound disinterest in how to make herself more beautiful. So Julia tries again, taking away her rocks and microscopes and replacing them with vanities and lotions and potions, until Franze is a dejected little doll – almost literally, listless and lifeless. A teacher at school flags up “Cesca’s” (Franze’s) behaviour as being a “concern”, and threatens to involve child protection services. But how could it possibly be a concern? This is what little girls are supposed to be like.

9.    Why is their name their name? Conceived on holiday in France – and it’s generally considered an upper middle-class name in both countries

10.Do they have any nicknames? Francesca (anglicised), Franze (German diminutive), Cesca (English diminutive – her favourite), C (school friends)

11.Do they have a romantic interest? …I mean, yeah, that’s the point – but that would be telling. So instead, let’s talk about her only other long-term relationship, Julian, when they were both 17. A son of Father’s friend—and Father is friends with some of the best society has to offer, he’s told her himself—he is sure of himself and charismatic enough to make Cesca believe it as well. She thinks he loves her, though he only ever really loved chasing her, and she cries when he breaks up with her, not one week after they had had sex for the first time.

12.How do they cope with struggles? At work, depends on the struggle. She tries to judge carefully what the best course of action would be – either she’ll take some time away to let it simmer; or she’ll keep at it until she finds another way in. In her personal life, she avoids whatever she can get away with.

13.Do they have anyone they can lean on? More than she knows – she’s never tested it with anyone else other than Sarah. She isn’t always sure how her friends feel about her, not truly, especially after she is selected to go on the show without them.

14.How do they react to someone dying? Lot of numbness. She can seem insensitive or uncaring, but it takes a while for it to sink in.

15.Can you name 5 personality traits they have? Reserved, analytical, emotionally perceptive, avoidant, sensitive

16.How did they become a character? Because I was fed-up of the S3 MC being just different flavours of the same bold, confident person. I mean, it’s a CYOA game, there aren’t exactly many opportunities to feed in complex hopes/wants/fears, but even the S2 MC could choose to be “cool and mysterious” or “all out”.

17.Do they get along with others? She often chooses the path of least resistance – so often people think they get on with her better than they actually do, because she isn’t always honest with how she feels about things or people

18.What flaws do they have? Arrogant (mostly at work), naïve, perfectionist, practical, rigorous/over-zealous

19.How do they influence the story? A little too spoiler-y for now…

20.What do they look like? Honey blonde curls (usually pinned back), blue eyes, 5’ 3”. Quite pale, even after weeks in the Spanish sun – it would take a lot more time and effort for her to tan. Some freckles, but not many. Looks delicate at first blush, but is deceptively strong for her build. Bottom hourglass.

21.What are their hobbies? Collecting and listening to old vinyl records. Swimming and free diving.

22.What are their ticks? She blushes at the drop of a hat, and she bites her lip. She doesn’t intend it to come off as sexual or flirty (quite the opposite) but people don’t believe her.

23.Do they like children? If you ask her, she’ll laugh and tell you no, loudly. But Sarah has just had twin boys, and Cesca thinks that she might just die for them anyway, even if they don’t need her to.

24.How do they react to being around wild animals? Aquatic animals – loves it, very affectionate/serene (even when she went cage diving with sharks). Land animals? More of a mixed reaction, depending on how physically large/imposing they are.

25.If they were given the task to prank someone, who would it be, what would they do and would it work? She doesn’t so much prank people as plot to ruin their lives, particularly careers.

26.Do they have survival skills? Not really – her mother didn’t think it was necessary for girls, and she has thrown herself into science since.

27.Are they more book smart or street smart? More socially savvy than she gives herself credit for, but mostly book smart

28.How do they get out of a difficult situation? Depends on the situation. In a dangerous situation, she will call for help. In a socially awkward position, she’s like to use her looks to get out of the situation (e.g. sending someone off to get her a drink from the bar and then disappearing into the crowd). In a romantic situation, she’d use her intellect and talk through in excruciating detail why they’re not compatible.

29.Do they use their body, mind, personality or force to get what they want? See 28

30.What music do they enjoy? Older music, from the 1960s-1980s (90s at a push). She does like some more modern things, but usually if they’re either drawing inspiration from older trends or europop. Trashy Europop is a guilty pleasure of hers.

31.How do they overcome obstacles? Grit and determination, mostly.

32.When faced with a difficult decision do they get stronger or break? At work, stronger. Emotionally, she’s never fully broken down but she’s come close a few times.

33.Do they have any special powers? Just her brain.

34.How do they change throughout the story? She gets a little more assertive in articulating what she wants – but there will still be some room for growth

35.Do they have any friends? If so, are they close knit? Two close friends from school, who would do anything she asked of them (in terms of emotional support), but she is too scared to ask them. So their friendship appears more superficial than it actually is, in terms of what they do together

36.How is their family life? She only really sees her older sister. She avoids Alice (younger full-sister) like the plague and doesn’t make an effort to see her father’s new family. Will basically shut down if she has to see her mother. Christmas is not a happy time for her.

37.Are they likable? I certainly think so, but she’s my ambitious little alien baby so…

38.Are they the hero, or anti-hero? Depends on your viewpoint – certainly some of her “competitors” wouldn’t see her as the hero…!

39.Do they make questionable choices? I mean, we’ll see.

40.How do they become who they are? Through putting her head down and ploughing on. Ultimately running away from…

41.How was their childhood? …being made to feel like the only thing that mattered were her looks. Her mother tried to enter her for pageants and the like, and it was actually one of the terms of the divorce – her father wouldn’t give her mother any alimony if she made Cesca compete in anything like that.

42.Are they close with anyone who is going to screw them over? Again, we’ll see, don’t want to get into plot elements too much…!

43.How do they adapt to different situations? Do they adapt at all? She adapts because she has to, but she’s not particularly good at it.

44.How do they speak? (e.g. soft-spoken, hot-headed, vulgar) Usually soft-spoken, which makes a genuine laugh all the more startling.

45.Are they opposed to violence? There’s something about having been raised to be a good girl and knowing how people should behave in polite society which makes taboos like violence more exciting.

46.When is their birthday? 1st January 1997

47.Are they quick to judge? She tries not to, but she can make snap judgements based on appearances or actions that she finds hard to shake

48.Do they have anything they are trying to hide from others? How she doesn’t like being complimented on her looks, because they just wouldn’t understand.

49.Do they act different around different people? She is much more confident around her work colleagues, because she feels like she can show off her processes, rather than dumb herself down for people. She is very reserved around people she doesn’t know well and most of her family.

50.Do they enjoy the arts? Not a huge fan of reading, unless it’s science-related. Loves music, especially on vinyl. Likes films, usually action/thriller/horror.

51.Do they like science? Loves it. There’s a kind of beauty about it, about how it lets her order the world, and how she can see the world reflected in her microscope.

52.Are they more emotional or logical? I mean I don’t agree with the premise of the question, because it’s a false dichotomy, but she would say she’s more logical. Make of that what you will.

53.How do they deal with their emotions? Distraction tactics. Which means that there’s some stuff that she’s just…never dealt with. Massive issues with her mother.

54.How do they cope with sadness? She’s almost constantly sad, and she’s never really let the weight lift from her shoulders. It doesn’t bother her personally – it only really bothers people that care about her.

55.What is something they care about? She cares about the environment – she tries to be as sustainable as her budget allows, and she’s almost fanatical about saving water. (So she’s clean but she showers only as often as she needs to)

56.Would they die for anyone/anything? Probably her nephews.

57.What do they do when they are happy? Being happy looks very like being sad – she behaves much the same way, but she might fidget less or smile slightly.

58.How would they come across to other characters? E.g. messy, lazy, caring, childish Calm, shy (especially in the context of Love Island, since she doesn’t cope well with being flirted with overtly), clinical

59.Do they have a phrase they use over and over? No? Not yet, anyway

60.In a crowded room are they in the corners, sides or middle? She would gravitate to the sides, so that she can see everyone more clearly. If she’s with friends she trusts (and particularly if she’s had some alcohol) she’s not averse to being in the middle of the room, but it’s not her first option.

61.Are they comfortable being in a crowded room? She can find it overwhelming.

62.How do they relax? Listen to records, watch TV. She usually needs to relax by herself and “de-person” for a bit.

63.Have they ever harmed anyone and regretted it? Verbally or physically? She is usually the one to break off any budding relationships, usually before they become sexual. So for some of these early relationships, they were hurt because they thought she was really into them, but they were usually at an early enough stage that it was fairly minor emotional pain.

64.Do they like to dance? Not unless she’s drunk some alcohol. She doesn’t feel like her body moves very naturally, she needs her inhibitions to be much reduced before she even considers it.

65.How do they get around their environment? (vehicle use) She cycles a lot. She learned to drive when she was 17, but she’s a nervous driver and she doesn’t like it.

66.What about pet peeves? Loud chewers. It’s a sensory thing, she really doesn’t like it. Linked to this – people who talk with their mouths full constantly (she’ll allow it if you’re surprised or if you didn’t expect to be asked a question but if it’s your default? Get in the bin)

67.Do they have a disability? No.

68.How do they react to getting flowers? It depends on the person – if they’re someone who she would like to receive flowers from, it can make her month. If it’s from someone she wasn’t expecting, she can be a bit unsure of how to react – are they are thank you? Are they a proposition? She really doesn’t like receiving flowers from a “secret admirer” or something like that.

69.Would they ever wear a flower crown? Not usually, maybe for something like a wedding? And definitely not if she’s the only one.

70.Do they like themselves? Sometimes. She likes herself when she’s at work and successful. She usually likes herself when she spends time with friends. If she’s left on her own for too long she can start to doubt herself.

71.Who do they dislike? People who aren’t genuine/honest. People who focus on their appearance too much.

72.What is their motto? When she read “If I look back, I am lost.” in the first ASOIAF novel, she had to take a few minutes.

73.Do they have any markings on their body? A few minor scratches from falling off her bike a couple of times. Some freckles, more on her arms than her face.

74.Have they ever been abused? Physically, not at all. Emotionally? Most of her interactions with her mother and her sister are hostile in some way or another, and her father’s attitude can best be described as neglectful.

75.What is their biggest fear? Not to get too body horror about this, but her recurring nightmare is that she makes someone (and the person changes depending on what’s happening in her life) and they push/hit her and she’s hollow, or she smashes to the ground like porcelain.

76.What are their goals? She wants to finish her research into biodegradable plastic, and ideally start a second study to see if the same desired results can be achieved with fewer/cheaper resources.

77.How do they go about achieving their goals? She keeps her head down and ploughs on.

78.Do they have a fight or flight response? Yes, but she almost exclusively chooses to flee.

79.Is there someone in their life that they care about more than themselves? Her sister and her nephews. I don’t necessarily think that her having fewer people she cares about more than herself indicates that she’s selfish or overly arrogant. It’s just that her feelings are a little more subdued, so she doesn’t necessarily think about most people in that way.

80.How would they fare in a zombie apocalypse? Pretty badly, probably – unless she was in an area that hadn’t been affected yet, and she was able to work on a cure/”silver bullet”.

81.Do they have any tattoos? If so, are they significant? No, but she’s not averse to getting them. But if she gets one, she wants it to be significant, and she doesn’t want it to be linked to something that she might regret (like a relationship)

82.Are they good at mental math? Frighteningly so.

83.Do they get along with others? Again, she often takes the path of least resistance, so she seems to get along with lots of people, but she can get quite resentful.

84.Are they lazy? No

85.Are they self-motivated? Yes

86.How do they cope with anger? Short answer, she doesn’t. She was told from an early age that girls don’t get angry, and that means she struggles now to pinpoint when she is feeling angry. She often experiences other symptoms, like headaches or nausea, which she will treat instead of expressing herself.

87.Have they ever been in a situation where they were helpless? Physically, no – she’s been lucky. Emotionally – she felt helpless for a lot of her childhood, and then worries now about letting someone else make her feel helpless again.

88.Are they organized or messy? Pathologically organised – think Monica from Friends.

89.Can they remember a lot of information at once? In the right context, yes. At work, she’s like a machine, remembering formulae and compounds. In her personal life, she often gets overloaded. But she picks up on a lot, and it’s a sign that she likes you if she notices or remembers little details about you.

90.What is their occupation? Environmental scientist (specialising in chemistry, but her degree is in biochemistry).

91.Do other characters respect them? Yes, I think so. Especially at work, she’s seen as one of the key members of the team. In her personal life, it depends – she chooses friends carefully, and her friends respect her. Her father and siblings (aside from Alice) respect her more than she’s willing to notice. Her mother doesn’t, and Alice (younger full sister) loathes her.

92.If they were given minutes to live, what would they do? Who would they want to see and say? She would want to spend time with her sister. She wouldn’t want to talk about her feelings, but she would be more physically affectionate.

93.How do they deal with stress? Burying herself in work. Also, free diving is a good stress-reliever for her, because it requires so much of her concentration that she cannot afford to think about what is stressing her out.

94.Do they have a more submissive or dominant personality type? Depends – very dominant at work, less so among family and friends. I’ll cover NSFW stuff in a different post, but the short answer is, “it’s complicated”

95.Do they have a pet? No – she would like a cat, but she feels bad about leaving it in a London flat all day.

96.Do they have a stash of weapons? …no?

97.Where do they live? Who do they live with? She used to live in Putney with Ellie and Tina; now she lives alone in a small one-bedroom flat in Westminster that’s really meant for students.

98.How do they calm themselves down? Listening to music, staring at a wall. I’m a little worried that I’m making her sound crazy, but she can feel the tension leak out of her, and she can move on, at least in the short term.

99.Are they co-dependent? She makes an effort not to be – she is so affection- and touch-starved, though, that she is in danger of seeing another person as a source of self-worth.

100.                 Are they a day or night person? Day person – she wakes up very early (probably at about 5am), even when she doesn’t need to, and so she struggles with late nights. She isn’t usually smug about being an early bird, but she will let herself be a little more overt if there’s a particularly annoying Morgenmuffel…!

[animepopheart]

Ranking Every Studio Ghibli Movie

Studio Ghibli's contribution to anime (and animation in general) cannot be understated. Founded by directors Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata, and producer Toshio Suzuki, the studio has produced many of Japan's most hallowed films, movies that are both critically acclaimed and monsters at the box office. In 1996, Disney partnered with Studio Ghibli to bring their movies to North America, developing a new audience that has since come to age; now, Ghibli is as much a part of American childhood as Pixar and Dreamworks releases.

On Anime Pop Heart and @beneaththetangles, we are commemorating the studio with Ghibli Month all September long! I’m kicking things off by ranking Ghibli's twenty-one releases, plus Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, which is often honorarily included among the studio's slate, ranked from first to worst (including alternate viewpoints on a couple of the selections).

22. Tales from Earthsea

Miyazaki famously quarreled with his son, Goro, over the latter's ability to direct Tales from Earthsea, and indeeed, the final product feels like the result of a young man who was in over his head. The movie deserves its ignominious reputation, as it is inconsistent, poorly staged, and often terrible. It's a shame, too, for there are some strong elements to the film and enormous potential, with the outlines of an epic tale and compelling characters in Sparrowhawk and Cob (who are wonderfully dubbed by Timothy Dalton and Willem Dafoe, respectively)—it just never comes quite together and totally unravels at the end, resulting in the only bad film in Studio Ghibli's outstanding run.

21. The Cat Returns

Most Studio Ghibli films are family features, made for children. However, they still capture the imagination of youth and adults as well. The Cat Returns, the only "sequel" in Ghibli's film catalog, doesn't do the same however. It is purely for kids, and aside from flourishes here and there that speak of fantasy adventures and feature whimsical characters, fails to engage viewers of a certain age—maybe anyone older than about twelve. A neat companion piece to Whisper of the Heart, it's worth watching, showing to your children, and then giving away to parents who need better-than-average entertainment to busy their children.

20. Ocean Waves

At one time, Ocean Waves was considered a black eye in Ghibli's filmography, an overpriced television movie that wasn't all that good. In retrospect, the intial judgments were only partially right. Ocean Waves is very much a TV movie, melodramatic and small in scale. The animation, too, is sometimes shoddy, but more often than not it's far better than it has the right to be. Ocean Waves is lovingly made, and the characters are almost frustratingly sincere—and oh so early 90s. While on the lowest tier of the Ghibli scale, Ocean Waves is far better than a simple curiosity.

19. Arrietty

Like Poppy Hill before it, there's nothing terrifically wrong with Arrietty—it just lacks the magic of the great Studio Ghibli films, making it rather forgettable. It's also sometimes dull. While beautiful colors, a foreshadowing of the spectacular animation to come of Yonebayashi in Mary and the Witch's Flower, shine through in the film, and some of the action sequences are highly engaging, our hearts are never fully in it. Maybe that's because we lack a loving connection to many of the characters, particularly to the pensive Sho. A nice watch, but one that's lacking.

18. From Up on Poppy Hill

Much maligned for our lowest ranked movie, Goro Miyazaki returned from that entry with a stronger film, one that functions as an ode to historic preservation while presenting one of the studio's most lovely relationships—that is, until it gets a bit tricky, unfortunately begining to enter a zone unusual for Studio Ghibli, if standard fare for other anime. But that's a relatively minor issue in what's a perfectly lovely film that does well in evoking nostalgia in a movie that reminisces about the past and a Yokohama that no longer exists. Not every emotional moment hits as it should, but enough do to make the film Ghibli's best "date night" entry.

17. Pom Poko

Often criticized for being too over-bearing in its ecological message, Pom Poko's main issue instead is that it's meant to a collection of stories that to flow into one another, based on one group of tanukis' fight against urban development, but the movie doesn't feel cohesive, partly because there is no central protagonist. We only get to know each main tanuki so much, and none feel central to the tale—any could step in and play the necessary roles. Still, Pom Poko is unreservedly charming and often hilarious. It's also a peek into Japanese culture that we often don't get, a look at a country transforming in landscape and in values.

16. Ponyo

Why is Ponyo the low point of Miyazaki's output, the only film of his that doesn't attain the level of classic? It is wonderfully animated, bursting with energy and featuring a story that is never disingenuous and a heroine that is funny, cute, and breathtaking even. However, the film proved that Miyazaki was on a downward trajectory after Spirited Away. Repetition seen in Howl's Moving Castle was on full display in Ponyo, a new movie that too often feels like a rehash, featuring characters that other than the title heroine, fail to connect, and a story that is muddled and often just strange. Ponyo is a fun film and a better one after repeated viewings—the problem is that such defenses do not have to be made for any of Miyazaki's other works.

15. When Marnie Was There

The last feature film from Studio Ghibli to date is both quietly personal and a surprising risk. When Marnie Was There is the studio's first true mystery tale, and has a tone that's slightly haunting. The lead characters, also, are unusual for Ghibli—neither Anna nor Marnie are as embraceable as most of the heroines from Ghibli's past, but that seems be purposeful. What they demonstrate to us is not as much of "who we can be" but "who we are" and even so, how we can overcome. The creative energy of past Ghibli films is missing, but the replacement here by a surprising intimate tone in a modern setting is welcomed.

14. The Tale of the Princess Kaguya

While this notoriously expensive film flopped at the box office, The Tale of the Princess Kaguya was well-received by critics, and for good reason. Adapting a famed folk tale, the film is animated in style befitting its origins, creating the sense that the viewer has fallen into a some traditional Japanese painting. But the movie is not as pastel as its colors indicate—the storytelling is bold. It doesn't sit in the past, instead feeling remarkably current in the fable of a princess imprisoned by seemingly everyone and everything, without ever feeling worn or heavy-handed. Mystical and fantastical elements are both woven into the foundation of the story and come alive in key moments, keeping the film compelling (for the most part) throughout its two hour+ run time.

13. Howl's Moving Castle

An underrated aspect of Studio Ghibli's brilliance is in how they often adapt already-beloved works. Adapted by the master, Howl's Moving Castle, based on the novel by Diana Wynne Jones, is gorgeously animated and bold in both design and character—Howl and Calcifer, particularly, are memorable (and give strong emotional weight to the tale). While it suffers in comparison to its predecessor, Spirited Away, by being a little unwieldy, it remains a classic and an example of how well Miyazaki can bring themes and plot points across subtly (think of the flashback of Howl) in a movie that's otherwise fierce and larger than life.

12. The Wind Rises

From conception, The Wind Rises was a challenging film—how do you tell the story of the man who designed a fighter essential to Japan's WWI efforts, and show him as a patriot and dreamer without excluding the crimes of the nation, or making a film that goes against Miyazaki's anti-war values? It's difficult to say if he succeeds, but the film itself is beautifully crafted. The supporting characters here are less important than in other works, so it's vital that the audience admires Jiro Horikoshi, and we do—his character and positivity make him easy to root for, and dream sequences in the film both flesh out his thought process and keep us captivated. Once believed to be Miyazaki's last film, if it had been, The Wind Rises would have been worthy of that designation.

11. My Neighbors the Yamadas

The oddball in Ghibli's filmography, My Neighbors the Yamadas is presented through half-a-dozen or more short stories in the style of comic strips come to life, with animation that matches. The magic in the film is that the Yamadas are as over-the-top as the movie's aesthetic is, yet maintain an authentic feel. Think of some of the most popular family sitcoms of the 1980s and 1990s, but with an addition those shows could not feature—fantastical sequences that break in without warning and bind the ties of family further. We may not want to live like the clumsy Yamadas, but the heart of the family will make you consider whether they're the ones who really have it all together.

10. Porco Rosso

Studio Ghibli films share animation styles and themes, but one can never say they lack in variety when it comes to story. The tale of Porco Rosso is of an ace pilot cursed into living as a pig—but not to worry! He is still adored by women as he flies fantastic missions while running from fascists, pirates, and fame-seeking assassins. Porco is gruff and unattractive, but both he and the tale are sweet, as what's already a compelling story of WWI aces and dogfights is buffeted by grief, romance, and two strong heroines of very different types and roles. Perhaps the film with the largest range of opinion among the Miyazaki classics, Porco Rosso is nonetheless fantastic, and require viewing if you haven't watched it already.

9. Whisper of the Heart

Ghibli's most unabashedly romantic film is one of its most formulaic, but still among its best. The debut film by Yoshifumi Kondō, Miyazaki and Takahata's proposed successor before he died just a few years after the movie's premiere, is at once encouraging while also refusing to shy away from the melancholy experienced by children—and adults, too—when one doesn't seem to have what it takes to become great. In joy and sadness, Whisper of the Heart lets the kids at the center of the film be kids. They are at times stubborn, silly, and immature, and by treating them that way, the movie never drifts into something banal (with the possible exception of the famously abrupt ending)—it's a lovely lesson in growing up and meeting challenges, and a personal favorite.

8. Kiki's Delivery Service

The charm of Kiki's Delivery Service is two-fold—in the setting, a northern European-style town that is alive, forcing the events of the story through its residents, cozy cafes, and early 20th-century transportion, and in Kiki's journey itself. Her community's tradition of sending of young witches to live by themselves at the age of thirteen sets the story in motion, and Miyazaki captures the spirit of a girl that age perfectly—in all its confusion, energy, enthusiasm, and difficulty. Kiki is not a subtle character, but her growth is. When she takes to the air for the finale, Kiki isn't experienced enough to know if she can save the day—and so we cheer when she realizes what the rest of us already know, what we've all experienced ourselves, that it takes time and failure to mold us into becoming the hero.

7. Castle in the Sky

Miyazaki created classic film after classic film for decades, in a streak that started with Lupin III and ended, I'd argue, with Howl's Moving Castle. Often forgotten among the wonders is Castle in the Sky, a steampunk entry that is a joyous adventure, akin to Treasure Island but developed for an audience of both boys and girls. Sumptuous cloudscapes fill the screen, as do colorful characters with meaty roles, including a group favored by Miyazaki—pirates (in this movie, air pirates led by Dola, an older female). Reflective of Miyazaki's ability to master genres, Castle in the Sky again crosses fantasy and sci-fi in perfect proportions, underscoring an uplifting tale with an apocalyptic story line.

6. Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind

Unofficially part of of Ghibli's canon, the success of Nausicaa, based on Miyazaki's own manga and exploring the ecological, anti-war, and feminist themes for which the studio's future films would be noted, launched Studio Ghibli. Nausicaa herself remains one of the studio's most iconic and compelling heroines, a physically powerful and feminine hero who must grow into adulthood very quickly while putting aside deep flaws to offer salvation to her people and land. The beautiful landscapes speaks to the epic story, better fleshed out in the manga, while reminding us that Ghibli films are giants not only in animation, but in fantasy and sci-fi realms as well.

5. Only Yesterday

How do you create an animated film about a twenty-something woman that waxes nostalgia while on a trip to the countryside, and at the same time make it entertaining and accessible? It's not an easy task, but Only Yesterday accomplishes it fully. Taeko, the protagonist, explains, "I didn't intend for ten-year-old me to come on this trip, but somehow, once she showed up, she wouldn't leave me alone." We experience her nostalgia for and complicated feelings about the past through a family that's genuinely flawed, while experiencing her visit to relatives in the countryside in the present, a trip that is subtly life-altering, one that pushes her to consider who she is and who she wants to be. Oh, and the film also features one of anime's most wonderful endings, set to a cover of a now-classic love song.

4. Grave of the Fireflies

It's a testament to Miyazaki's stature that the first three Ghibli films on the list are all directed by him, and also to the supreme talent of the other directors that their films rise above some of his other tremendous work. Directed by Studio Ghibli co-founder, the legendary Isao Takahata, Grave of the Fireflies is the most painful and emotional movie in the canon; it is also one of the greatest war movies ever made, using animation to deftly explore the how war victimizes children. Opening and closing shots, both of which express the uncaring nature of bystanders (and by extension, the world) toward children cause us to wonder what we really feel about the world's most vulnerable population.

3. My Neighbor Totoro

It's often said that nothing really happens in My Neighbor Totoro—but that's part of the magic of the film. A child's movie in all ways, including in the action, which revolves around a sick mother, a move to a new house, and a lost child, the film finds its center in a magical being that never says a word (Totoro only growls), and about whom many theories abound. If Totoro is a figment of Satsuki and Mei's imaginations, he is then similar to Winnie the Pooh, a necessary presence in the lives of a child character (two of them, sisters, in this case) who is growing up in a difficult situation, not to adulthood, but to the next step in the journey of life.

2. Spirited Away

Miyazaki has retired and unretired several times—when did so following Princess Mononoke, he returned with what is often considered his magnum opus, Spirited Away. At once deeply Japanese and completely accessible, the movie takes viewers on one of the most remarkable visual journeys ever put to film, a feast that never relents through its entire run time. Perhaps underrated is Miyazaki's decision to move the action away from the bathhouse for much of the final act, a quiet last leg that is key to Chihiro's journey, as well as for many of Spirited Away's supporting characters. Absolutely deserving of all love and acclaim.

1. Princess Mononoke

Studio Ghibli's finest film is also perhaps its most surprising. Visceral, violent, and conflicting, Princess Mononoke is no easy tale to absorb. There is no "good guy," not in the traditional sense, as Miyazaki explores hist favored ecological theme but through the lens of humanity struggling to survive in a world where they are just surpassing nature, the beast gods and goddesses who had previously ruled. It is an epic in the vein of films from decades before with vibrant and complex characters, ground-breaking animation, and an English voice track that is second to none. The studio's most intricate work, Princess Mononoke requires multiple viewings to fully appreciate.

--

All Studio Ghibli movies are available for sale, including many in special collectible editions. We encourage you to go check them out!

[carat82]

To my readers I ask a question- “What is the most important aspect you look for in a historical era heroine?”

Her wit? “Why should I be embarrassed I was fully clothed?”

Tenacious spirit? “My courage always rises with every attempt to intimidate me.”

Intelligence? “It is not what we think or feel that makes us who we are. It is what we do...or fail to do.”

Her ability to stand up for herself? “I have as much soul as you-and full as much heart!”

Hair?

Clothes?

“Wait what?!”

“I though we were discussing aspects of the heroines endearing qualities? Her hair? Isn’t that kinda superficial?” Yes,yes it is. Yet even in our day and age despite the need for us to see strong independent women portrayed on screen, some tend to nit pick the appearance of our heroine more then anything else. People have become experts about an era they never lived in or rely solely on what they have seen in portraits of that time period or perhaps read. Let’s face it we all have done this to a certain extent. But when such things as hair styles or perhaps even some costume choices in film or TV adaptations are different from what have been taught are indictative of that era, is this a valid enough reason to insist the story is no longer worthy to watch or to discourage or disparage others from entertaining themselves with that series or movie? To some the answer to that question is an unequivocal yes. To others the answer is a resounding no. The purpose of this latest blog is to broaden our horizons as to why certain choices are made in regards to the outward appearance of our heroines - at perhaps the expense of “historical accuracy”. For those who stand by their views of 💯 accurate, this is in no way meant to offend or upset you. Just a different perspective.

So without further adui let’s begin shall we?

(*note- when I use the term “many” this does not imply that there there are not those who completely diagree with my assessment. I know the examples I’m using have some or perhaps many who do not regard such as good adaptions and even have issues with the acting. Again just using these examples as a whole)

Many adaptations of the Regency era have been done on film and TV over the past 80 years. One of the first was Pride and Prejudice with Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier

This is regarded by many as a fine and worthy adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. But let’s face it anything with Sir Olivier is perfect in my book🥰. Both these actors do a fine job portraying these classic characters. But look closer....what is she wearing?? Wait is that dress from the 1830-1840’s. Yes it is. Isn’t this is supposed to be 1813? Yes, yes it is. So what happened? Well movie studios, back in the golden age, were known to reuse costumes in an attempt to save on the bottom line. Since MGM had produced several movies set in the middle to late 1800’s up to that point and had plenty of costumes to therefore reuse, we have Elizabeth Bennet wearing a full style dress that would come into fashion years from when the book was set. However, this in no way takes away from the performance of the actors and the movie as a whole. Even the most strict historical accurate fans still watch and enjoy this film for what it is. Yet, when other adaptations of novels come along and choices in costuming and hair are made that are more “modern” and deviate somewhat from that time period, those films and shows are chided for not following the rules. Why? How is what the studios did back in the in 40’s to Pride and Prejudice different from what is done now? Why the double standard? Let’s skip forward to the 80’s and 90’s. We saw costume dramas stick very closely to the correct rules of dress and grooming. Several adaptations were delivered to our TV and movie screens that are now considered the gold standard- Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensability, Emma,etc. Majority of us still enjoy and praise these adaptations 20-30 years later. But I must admit that when I rewatch these now, there is a dated feel about them. Now don’t get me wrong, they are still wonderful but it is quite obvious that they were produced 20-30 years ago. The musical score, if it had one, was fairly basic. Nothing that really stayed with you. The costumes were fine and the hair was... OK. Again most of these things stayed the same from one adaptation to the next . What stood out in these movies and series was the acting! Regardless of what they wore or how their hair was styled, we loved these adaptations because of how the actor embraced these roles and delivered to us the audience a memorable version of a beloved character.

So as we entered the 2000’s, filmmakers, who love these stories as much as we do, decided that it was time to “update” the look and feel of a period piece. They wanted to reach a younger more modern audience that perhaps had never watched a classic period piece before. And there was nothing wrong with that! These directors wanted others to enjoy the classics as much as they did. But they were wise and realized that a fresh take was needed to entice and draw a new audience in. This could not be a costume drama that their mothers and grandmothers watched. No, they needed to appeal to a younger audience. Which is what ALL filmmakers do, regardless of the genre. It’s how the big and small screen survive. So out went the hair and wigs with the historically accurate styles. The costumes had a few more modern cuts to them but all in all stayed relatively the same. Some of the dialog had a few updates so that an audience with not much experience in 1800’s literature ( which let’s face it is majority of us) could understand. Musical scores were updated so as to play on our emotions and draw us deeper in the story. And the result- some very fine and worthy adaptations- Joe Wright’s 2005 Pride and Prejudice. Andrew Davies 2008 Sense and Sensabilty. Jim Hanlon’s 2009 Emma. Let’s just focus on one of these adaptations- 2005’s Pride and Prejudice.

Kiera Knighly delivers to us the audience a fine portrayal of Elizabeth Bennett. But notice her hair. It’s down in some scenes.

We had not seen this before in other adaptations yet here we have Lizzy approaching Netherfield with long flowing hair. Why? We as the audience need to connect with Elizabeth. Again remember- new audience, younger demographic. This tells us that she really doesn’t care what the opinions are of a certain Mr. Darcy and the Bingleys. She is being herself-walking to the house alone and not caring about the state of her tresses. Does this detract from the story and Kiera’s acting? No. It gave me the audience a new fresh way to appreciate her character. Joe Wright wasn’t trying to mimic adaptations of years past. Why should he? His Pride and Prejudice was a much needed change from that we had seen before. And guess what? It paid off. A younger audience who had never seen Pride and Prejudice came to love this movie and 15 years later this is still their go to PP. After all isn’t that what we all want? For more people to experience Jane Austen’s stories? Who says that they have to be portrayed the same way each and every time. Isn’t that kinda... boring? Predictable?

Now let’s skip ahead to 2019. If you have read my other two blogs you know where this is going. So if you don’t want to hear about my defense of Sanditon I suggest you turn back now.

Andrew Davies introduces to us a character of Jane Austen that has never been portrayed on the screen before-Charlotte Heywood.

And as such we do not know who or what her character is like. We find out that at 22 she had never left home, having grown up on a farm with 12 siblings. That alone tells us that her appearance is going to be what some call “modern” and out of place but what I call practical and normal. Her father,while respectable and gentleman, is a farmer. She more and likely had chores like anyone else. Do you really think she had the time to care if her hair is pinned up. Uhh...nope. The first scene we see her in she is shooting rabbits! This tells us she is not Elizabeth Bennet or Marianne Dashwood or Anne Elliot. And Miss Austen wasn’t trying to write her as such. She is her own person. And as such will have things that set her apart from other Austen characters. As the series progresses we come to to learn she is practical, intelligent, sweet, but naive and inexperienced. Davies also decided to make a choice that would serve as her hallmark- her shoulder length hair that she wears down most of the time. Again, filmmakers have to appeal to their current audience. And again, like Joe Wright, he was hoping to get a younger more modern audience to tune in and enjoy a period piece or perhaps a Jane Austen adaptation for the first time. Frankly, this was a clever move on his part. He needed to show throughout the series that this adventure to Sanditon is truly unlike anything she has ever experienced. Charlotte is full of youthful exuberance with those doe-like eyes that are longing to experience life outside sleepy Willingdon. But remember, that while we love her, she has a lot to learn and is truly out of her depth at first around some of the situations and people she encounters. However, despite that she is true to herself- which is also a hallmark of all Jane Austen heroines. So as such there is no reason Charlotte needs to change her hairstyle when she comes to Sanditon. She is accepted as who she is by those around her. She is our Charlotte Heywood- using her ingenuity to help with the growth of Sanditon, trying to be a good friend, and exploring her new surroundings. Her hair is the least of anyone’s worries. And as an audience we find that Charlotte’s unpinned tresses make her approachable.Unpretentious. Human. More like us. Is there anything wrong with that? No. Being historically accurate is all and well, but when that is placed above all else in a series or movie it runs the risk of being just another adaptation. And that does not draw in a new, younger, more modern audience. Regardless of whether you agree with that statement or not, that is how the entertainment business is run today. So please if any readers are on the fence to watch this series because of some more modern uses in hair and grooming I ask that you to accept why the production crew made these choices and give it a try. As us fans wait on baited breath to see if another network will pick up our beloved Sanditon and continue with a second season-just remember you may get your heroine wearing her hair up. After all, Jane Austen characters usually go through a metamorphosis of some kind due to the need to adapt, grow, and perhaps even survive. Our Charlotte may find herself more grown up and guarded after a summer spent in Sanditon and this could well show in her appearance next time we see her... or not. I guess we will have to wait and see.