#we can have more rounds if you want to add more bad portrayals

[best-habsburg-monarch]

Marie Antoinette in The Chevalier: While there is no shortage of bad portrayals of Marie Antoinette, this one is particularly confusing. The movie seems to imply that she is at fault for *checks notes* not solving France's racism problems (the movie does not acknowledge how much she was a target of French sexism and xenophobia.) It seemingly faults her for choosing her family's safety over a friendship that is maybe an emotional affair. It also introduces Mozart as an entitled dickhead in the first scene for some reason.

Marie-Theresa of Spain in Versailles: While this show certainly does some things well (the costumes are wonderful, Liselotte, Princess Palatine gets a reasonably good portrayal), it fumbles Marie-Theresa rather badly. She is introduced giving birth to a black baby fathered by a court dwarf (yes really.) She spends the rest of the series being swarthy, judgemental, and strictly religious, because that's just what Spaniards do in period dramas.

Archduchess Sophie in Die Kaiserin: Technically she is a Wittelsbach, but given that this show seems convinced that she was puppeteering the whole Habsburg state after 1848, it feels like it deserves inclusion on this list. While giving Franz Joseph no personal agency is not exactly a new take, nor is making Sophie an evil mother-in-law, this show ramps it up, invents affairs, makes Franz Joseph a bastard, and implies some very strange psychosexual stuff with her and her sons.

Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria in Maria Theresa: If you, like me, were excited to actually get a show about the most iconic female ruler in Central European history, you were also disappointed. Do you enjoy the insistence in Sisi media that she had an affair with Andrassy? No? Well, too bad, we are doing it again with Esterhazy and Maria Theresa. They can't possibly portray a strong woman without making her marriage garbage and showing affairs that didn't historically happen. (I also will not shut up about how bad that wig is)

These are the admins opinions and you're free to disagree

[capricioussun]

"what is their favorite meal like?? you can answer anyone but I'm in particular asking about papyrus and ht papyrus"

So tbth I tend to be pretty bad at favorite food hc bc I pretty much love all food and struggle to really determine what kind of food prefs characters would have, so I'll usually just completely make stuff up, which is nyot how I usually do things!! Of course w/ some of the UT characters thankfully we do have SOME input of their canon preferences...

However. As is the way w/ most things Papyrus I have thought abt the implications of the QnA waaay too much. As we know Flowey states Papyrus' favorite food to be dinosaur egg oatmeal, whereas nobody else knew and Papyrus himself stated not remembering. We also know, despite fandom portrayal, Papyrus has never actually eaten his own spaghetti, so we don't really know his thoughts on it.

The trick with Papyrus is that he lies all the time. He lies all the time! So does Flowey actually know his favorite? Or does he just think he does? Maybe he just made it up to sound knowledgeable. Flowey also lies (but possibly less so, or at least less smoothly than Papyrus, since usually Flowey will eventually state if he'd lied).

As a big fan of oatmeal myself, I do like to believe this is true, though, and it's fun to imagine that, while his favorite remains the dinosaur egg kind, that he gets very excited about the variety of other flavors once surfacing.

^ longest winded way possible to say that I like to hc Papyrus' fave food is oatmeal, BUT. I also like to imagine he likes fruity flavors, too! Like blueberry pecan or strawberries and crème <3

As for ht Papyrus, my interp Dove, I generally imagine having lived through a famine, amongst other things lol, it really changes the way you perceive food. While I definitely can't relate on that front, I do have experience having an incredibly limited diet bc of health reasons for several years. And now, I've always been a little bit of a """foodie""" (I really wanted to be a chef for most of my childhood), but coming out of that, I can say the way I perceive and appreciate food is undoubtedly different.

So with all of that completely unnecessary context, I imagine the types of foods and flavors Dove tends towards are very rich and rounded flavors, as opposed to how I'd imagine UT Papyrus seeks out brighter, sharper flavors. Not necessarily heavy, as I do still believe he'd be opposed to particularly greasy foods, but hearty stews, casserole type dishes, slow cooked oatmeal, rice pudding, you know what I mean? Probably mostly things that cook for a long time, things that thicken and develop complex flavors.

And, body willing when the chronic pain isn't too bad, I think he'd really enjoy making things as much from scratch as possible. I definitely think he’s more of a chef than a baker or patissier, so he tends toward savory more often than not, and avoids meats usually (not always an issue, but sometimes a strong aversion), so he'd probably cook a lot with rice and potatoes, all sorts of them and other root vegetables or squash.

I can't say I think he'd have any singular favorite food, but he would probably say all sorts of dishes are his favorites if he can smell them or is making it atm lol

I knooow you said I could add Papyri but I'm still going to apologize for this lmao, but I'm sorry, I have to add him or I'll Die / j but the aforementioned stuff I added abt my own experiences has really influenced how I write UF Papyrus post surfacing.

I've always been fond of the idea of things being worse in UF's underground in technical aspects too, like the CORE not functioning as well amongst other things that can cause complications in supply chains and production of necessary things, including food. Growing up with food scarcity constantly waxing and waning and never really ever being definably good wound up stunting most monsters knowledge of food.

So, suffice to say, once surfaced, there's a whole world of new things to discover and try and learn about. It's such a different experience than with HT, where they did have a reliable source of food and access to information about it, lost it, and then got it back (though I'm sure there still was plenty new stuff all the same).

Like, could you imagine having only ever seeing two colours for most of your life, and then seeing everything in full spectrum? So that's a driving force in what gets Edge so invested in cooking and baking. More than anything he wants to learn. It's exciting! And he can finally provide the ones he cares about with a surplus of high quality, well prepared nourishment. It's wild!

So similarly, he wouldn't really be able to choose one singular dish (might even say smth silly abt having to try every dish in the world before knowing for sure)...though I do love to hc that he has and always will have a soft spot for oatmeal made with a little honey and cinnamon <3

[sleeplesslionheart]

Although I am wary of wading into Edelgard Discourse, I feel compelled to make a few simple comments that have been on my mind for a while. I’m not going to write a big essay on this right now, though—just a few quick observations.

I’ve noticed that some Edelgard fans have a tendency to dismiss—if not outright eliminate—Edelgard’s character flaws as part of efforts to justify and account for her actions. It appears that this often occurs as a result of ongoing arguments with the so-called “Edelcrits” (i.e. Edelgard’s detractors, from what I have gleaned). There seems to be some habits among these kinds of commentators, then, to respond to criticisms (which, let’s be clear, are very often in bad faith and, therefore…don’t really need to be honored with responses at all) of Edelgard by interpreting and asserting all of her actions as altruistic, caring, or selfless.

However, the effects of these rhetorical maneuvers are not as supportive of Edelgard as their proponents seem to think.

Sadly, they all too frequently whitewash and sanitize her characterization…and not uncommonly in ways that function to recuperate her into conventional, expected, mandated (according to cisheteronormativity) understandings of femininity and of how women are supposed to think and behave. The result is that these defenses of Edelgard portray her (perhaps we could say even tame her) according to safer, more typical understandings of femininity. (And, in fact, my observation is that these kinds of interpretations of Edelgard have been most strongly propagated by male fans…Although the uptake of these analyses certainly exists among her women fans as well).

Even more disappointingly, these kinds of defenses of Edelgard can leave little space for or tolerance of actual, open, nuanced discussions or representations (e.g. in the form of fanfic) of her faults. By which I mean: as someone who adores Edelgard and for whom Edelgard means a great deal, sometimes I feel like I can’t even just…acknowledge that she’s a flawed, complicated human being (or that there are also ways that the game's writing genuinely does her a disservice), because I risk running up against this corner of the fandom’s popular, “canonized” understandings of her as being Always Right, Never Wrong. And that bums me out!

However…Edelgard is rad, but she’s also flawed. And we could have plenty of discussions about those flaws from numerous angles—whether blunders and shortcomings in the game’s writing, or as faults that add roundness and nuance to Edelgard as a messy human being (and both of those things are possible). The potency of Edelgard as a character and, importantly, as a representation of femininity is that she IS flawed, and in ways that can subvert traditional media portrayals of women. That is, in essence, why I have Feelings about this, and why I want to raise concerns about these trends. I think it’s a bummer that we can’t seem to just embrace Edelgard as an imperfect woman (often, it seems, ‘cause we gotta worry too much about what “the Edelcrits” are saying). Edelgard doesn’t need a redemption narrative—whether in the game or from her fans (especially the male ones).

In short: y’all, please let Edelgard be a flawed human being. And don’t let your arguing with “the Edelcrits” lead you to over-determine who she is as a perpetual response to bad faith claims…Especially when that over-determination leads to justifications that just wind up “safely” feminizing her.

(I’ll conclude by pointing out one other thing, though I’m not gonna unpack it right now: I believe that these trends are also related to reductive, oversimplified understandings of trauma that are rampant in the fandom, with attendant issues pertaining to the whitewashing of trauma as well. Maybe I’ll comment on this more sometime, but not right now.)

[cabottombingo]

RULES/FAQS

What is a bingo?

A bingo is a type of fandom challenge during which participants are given a 3x3 or 5x5 card where all but one square are filled with creative prompts and the last, middle square acts as a free space. A bingo encourages people to create new fanworks for a certain fandom, theme, or ship. By filling out your bingo card you will receive bingo badges that you may use on your social media pages with varying requirements for different badges.

What is the goal of this bingo?

The goal of this bingo is to produce fanworks that feature bottom Steve Rogers. That’s it! The rating, genre, ships included and type of fanwork you produce are decided by you. As long as the fanwork prominently features bottom Steve Rogers, it fits a card prompt and it’s done during the bingo schedule then it works!

Are there any specific rules for participating?

Most importantly, this bingo is an 18+ only event. We want to keep this a laid-back event, but to make everyone 18 or over feel welcome, we do have a few basic rules: 1. No ship, character, or kink bashing.   2. No harassment towards other content creators or bingo mods. 3. No hate speech against any sexuality, gender, creed, or identity. If your content has any of this because it fits with a Marvel character’s portrayal or you need an OC villain, check with a mod to make sure it’s okay. Essentially, be kind to one another! Just because something is not listed here does not mean we welcome hate speech against it or any other kind of bad behavior.

What fanworks are accepted?

The Captain Bottom Bingo accepts all kinds of fanworks, including but not limited to fanfic, fanart, playlists, gifsets and so on! If you’re not sure about your fanwork and want to double check, feel free to email us.

What are the minimum requirements for fanworks?

This is a low-pressure event where we hope everyone will have a great time and let their creativity take them where it will. That said, we do have minimum requirements for content. Remember, these are only minimums. If you want to do more than what’s listed below, feel free! Art: 300 x 300 pixels if digital, 3 inches x 3 inches if traditional Fanfic: 100 words Fanvids: 30 seconds Moodboard: Three images Playlist: Five songs, including cover art Podfic: Five minutes in length with clear permission from the author use for the bingo Rec lists: Three fanworks, with an explanation for each, detailing why you’re reccing them. Tell us why you love it. Now’s your chance to gush! Translations: The work translated must be at least 100 words, whether new or pre-existing, and you must have clear permission from the author to translate AND use for the bingo. All other fanworks: If it’s complete, you put your best effort into it, and it fits the theme of the bingo, you’re good to go. <3

What are the requirements for filling a square?

You cannot reuse old content for this event. If you want to dust off an old WIP that has never been posted, we’ll accept that, but you cannot reuse anything publicly posted. You are, however, allowed to use new chapters in an already posted WIP to fill your squares.  You cannot combine squares for a single work since we’re trying to create as much new content as possible. However, multiple squares can be used in a multi-chapter work as long as only one square is used per chapter.

How do I post my work once I’ve completed a square?

1) Follow this formatting guide. 2) Complete the Submission Form. 3) Add your work to our collection (if on AO3). The Submission Form helps us keep track of what you’ve done so you can receive your badges at the end of the round. This is also where you can tell us there’s something for us to promote in case Tumblr or Twitter decides to eat your mentions. If you don’t fill out the Submission Form for each fill the mods are not responsible for any missing reblogs, retweets or badges. 

Can I use my work for another fandom event, or can I use something from another event for filling a square?

As long as the other fandom event is okay with it and you make an effort to fill ALL requirements for this and any other events where your fanwork is used. Remember, bottom Steve must be a prominent feature for this bingo, and the other events will also have their own requirements, too! Find a way to do all this with your work, and we’ll be happy as clams.

I finished my card, can I get a new one?

Absolutely! Once you’ve completed your previous card, fill out the Blackout Form. By the end of that month (at the latest), we’ll email anyone who’s requested one their brand new card. Additionally, you don’t have to pick the same card or prompt types unless you really want to. So if you had a 5x5 card with angsty prompts, you’re free to switch to a 3x3 card with fluffy prompts instead. It’s entirely up to you! Note: Late sign-ups can pick the size of their new cards, but they still won’t be able to get custom prompts. Sorry!

[mostlymovieswithmax]

Movies I watched in July

Once again I’m doing my monthly round-up of movies I’ve watched. This was a good month for the cinema getting back on track and seeing new releases including the new M. Night movie, Old and James Gunn’s The Suicide Squad. Pretty sure Marvel put out a new movie also. I’m hoping that this list can help in guiding a decision about what to watch (or what to avoid) and introduce people to movies they may otherwise not have heard of or bothered to see. These short reviews are my own subjective opinions on each individual movie and maybe a more informal approach to movie criticism can help include others who are just passing through. Here is every film I watched from the 1st to the 31st of July.

Bridesmaids (2011) - 4/10

Off to a good start. I won’t say Bridesmaids is a terrible movie but I don’t think I’m exactly the target audience. As far as I know, this is a beloved comedy but I just can’t get on board with all the boring, juvenile humour; with Maya Rudolph shitting in the street, with Rose Byrne and Kristen Wiig trying to one-up each other at a toast that went on forever, with Melissa McCarthy shitting in a sink… the conflict is so done to death and makes the movie feel unspecial. I do understand the appeal of the film, especially for women in that before this movie the likelihood of seeing something like this, where women play up the more crass and gross side of comedy, was probably few and far between. But the story is very tired and while I did appreciate some moments, namely a couple of decent jokes and some of the more intimate scenes, for the most part it felt like they wanted to corner a more quiet type of line delivery in a way that was supposed to be understated but very funny so as to not rely on over the top body language or musical cues, and it ended up being super dull.

Spectre (2015) - 7/10

As far as I can tell, a lot of people don’t like this instalment of the James Bond franchise… but I really enjoyed it! I’ve really taken a shine to these Daniel Craig-era Bond movies and while I can’t say any of them are the most amazing thing, I have a lot of fun with them. The biggest problem I have with Spectre is the villain being utterly pointless and uninteresting in basically every way. The idea of every villain Bond has fought before being tied to this one organisation controlled by this one guy is ridiculous, and what makes it worse is that the villain is barely in it! There’s so much that doesn’t come together in this but as it goes, I still had a really good time. Daniel Craig holds the whole thing together; he is excellent as 007 and the main reason I’m up for each of these movies is because of him. Sam Mendes directs again after the previous instalment and for what it’s worth I do think he does a good job with some of the action set pieces and the locations. I’m so ready for No Time To Die.

Shazam (2019) - 7/10

Shazam is a genuinely fun superhero movie that doesn’t take itself seriously at all. I was having a great time throughout and while it could conform to some of the same tropes we’re used to with these kinds of movies, it still remained playful and used the character of Shazam to his fullest potential in a way that showed an understanding of just how silly the idea of a kid who can turn into an adult and shoot lightning out of his hands is.

High School Musical (2006) - 6/10

So as you may or may not know, I co-host a podcast: The Sunday Movie Marathon. It’s a film podcast and every week I get together with my other co-hosts and watch movies. For episode 38, we watched the High School Musical trilogy. This first movie blew me away. I was really surprised with just how much fun I had, and if you want to hear more of my thoughts on the film, please listen to episode 38 of the podcast.

High School Musical 2 (2007) - 4/10

We then jumped into the second and while it’s certainly not as good as its predecessor, there are still some brilliant songs that manage to top the last movie. Again, more of what I have to say can be heard on episode 38 of the podcast.

High School Musical 3: Senior Year (2008) - 3/10

Senior Year was pretty hard to get through. I don’t remember it being as bad as it was, but then I didn’t really remember it anyway. It did however have one redeeming quality, which you can discover on episode 38 of the podcast.

The Piano Teacher (2001) - 9/10

What the fuuuckkkk. The Piano Teacher is horrendously affecting and I was so upset when it ended, maybe not because it’s not what I wanted but because it’s just so fucking dour and unrelenting. This is the second Haneke movie I’ve seen (after the original Funny Games) and I’m so impressed with how well executed it is. Following a woman who teaches piano, we get a glimpse into the life she lives, how sheltered she is from living with her mother at an age where you’d reasonably expect a person to be living alone or with a partner or friends (even going so far as to be sleeping in the same bed as her), and how repressed she is sexually. It’s clear she’s never experienced any kind of sexual interaction or romantic love with another person, so she goes out of her way to take control and make that happen. The upsetting nature of it comes from just what she does in pursuit of it or as a result of her repression, and what is done to her. It is by no means a movie to recommend to your parents but The Piano Teacher offers so much in terms of the ideas it presents (and I’ll admit there seems to be a lot more going on than I think I picked up on a first go round) about women in modern society, and about the portrayal of sex and expectations of people when it comes to how that is represented in a person’s character depending on their gender. I really enjoyed this movie but it is not for the faint of heart.

Sharpay’s Fabulous Adventure (2011) - 1/10

My podcast co-hosts decided it’d be a right laugh to add Sharpay’s Fabulous Adventure to this episode and that might have been a fun idea for them because they got to watch it together, but I was just watching it alone. Just a 24-year-old man watching Sharpay’s Fabulous Adventure alone and having a miserable time, I might add. But for a short and sweet ramble on what we all thought, please listen to episode 38 of The Sunday Movie Marathon podcast.

Dr. No (1962) - 6/10

A lot of very iffy parts of this movie. A lot of discomfort arising from how black people are portrayed that really didn’t sit right with me. As far as a Bond movie goes, this first instalment in the series is one I’ve seen before and it’s not wholly engaging but it plants the seeds for the rest, with Sean Connery breathing life into the role and making an otherwise lacklustre plot bearable.

Black Widow (2021) - 6/10

I think probably the best part about Black Widow is the experience I had while watching it. It was great being back in the cinema with a couple of friends in a packed theatre. The energy was high and I’m sure for a lot of people, this is the first time they’d been to the cinema since Endgame. For what it’s worth, I did have a lot of fun with Black Widow and I’ve explained more of what I thought about the movie in episode 39 of the podcast.

The Climb (2020) - 10/10

The Climb was added to Now TV recently and I already knew I loved it, having seen it in an empty cinema theatre last year, which I had an absolute blast with. The Climb details the years of a rocky friendship told over scenes filmed as one-shots. Not only is the presentation something to gawk at, but the performances by the two leads playing these friends with a terrifically dysfunctional dynamic is truly captivating. They’re both trying to figure out their own lives and where one can come across as being rather selfish, the opposite is true in his counterpart, whom everyone loves. This is a truly funny and heartwarming movie with a lot to say about how we choose to live our lives and who we choose to be with. It’s a shame the distributors of The Climb didn’t do a very good job because if not for it being available on Now TV, it would be near impossible to watch without forking out more money than is necessary to purchase a film.

From Russia With Love (1963) - 5/10

The second Bond movie. I thought perhaps I’d change my mind on it with another watch, having seen it for the first time maybe a year ago. But no, it’s still largely boring and it treats women like absolute garbage. From Russia With Love is one of those movies I forget as I watch it, and I was trying very hard (in the middle of the day!) not to fall asleep.

The Good, The Bart, and The Loki (2021) - 1/10

I don't usually talk about the short films I watch but for this I'll make an exception. As we all should know, Disney owns The Simpsons now, through their acquisition of Fox, so, coupled with another of their properties, that being Marvel, they decided to make a six-minute animated film wherein Marvel’s Loki is stranded in Springfield. This felt as though it was a minute long due to the horrendously jarring pacing; it is a movie that feels adamant that it needs to exist, while trying as hard as it can to be over as soon as possible. It serves only to stare the audience directly in the face and say “look, characters from The Simpsons are dressed as Avengers”, shit out three credit scenes, then end before you’ve even processed the atrocity you just bore witness to.

Russian Ark (2002) - 8/10

For this next episode of the podcast, we watched a few Russian movies, starting with Russian Ark, a film shot completely in one take as the camera moves about a luxurious museum in a first-person perspective as this main character watches what is happening around him, seeing people moving about the place but unable to interact with them, guided only by another man who seems to be just slightly out of his own perception of reality. This is a tremendous feat in filmmaking and more can be heard about what I have to say in episode 39 of The Sunday Movie Marathon podcast.

Ivan’s Childhood (1962) - 7/10

For my own pick of Russian movies to discuss on the podcast, I chose the debut feature from one of my favourite directors, Andrei Tarkovsky. It’s amazing that while this is not his best film by far, Ivan’s Childhood is still such a stellar debut, jumping around in its timeline as it details a child’s experience in the second world war. Again, I do go into more depth in episode 39 of the podcast, so be sure to check that out.

Outlaw (2019) - 1/10

The third movie chosen for this marathon is apparently the fourth Russian LGBTQ+ movie ever made. I’m unsure of the ultimate goal of this movie but what seems to be clear is that it hates the LGBTQ+ community. This is perhaps the worst film we’ve discussed on the podcast to date, so listen to episode 39 to understand exactly why it’s such trash.

Almost Famous (2000) - 7/10

I too love heavy music and also studied journalism so it stands to reason that a movie about a teenager who makes his way onto a band tour, following them through America and interviewing them as they hang out and play shows is going to be a premise that resonates with me. This certainly did. I enjoyed Almost Famous a lot; this kid is living the dream and I was so along for the ride, seeing a lot of myself in what was being portrayed. That said, the story itself is at times a bit by the numbers and I really would’ve been more on board if the visual component was more interesting. For what it is, technically it’s fine enough but nothing in that department ever jumped out at me.

Minari (2021) - 8/10

It’s crazy that this didn’t get a theatrical run where I live in the UK. It feels as though I complain about film distribution all the time but I really don’t understand the process by which a movie gets no cinematic release and yet, months later will pop up on the front shelf of hmv, taking pride of place. But of course I got the blu-ray straight away. Minari has a lot to say about the immigrant experience, specifically in America as a family comes over from Korea and tries to start a business and make something of themselves. You get to see a lot of what you might not think twice about when you think about immigration: the hardship of coming from a place where you know everyone to somewhere rural and sparsely populated, having to make friends with locals and integrate within the community; the strain it can put on a family and on a marriage where this idea is presented about the importance of making it on your own in order to live and not just survive, while also taking into account why you’re doing it in the first place and the value you place on being part of a family that you decided to make because that was more important than money, than economy, than proving you were good enough to make it in a place that gave you very little advantage from the offset. This concept of the promised land, of the American dream is a construct. There are times when it’s not pretty, when you have no running water, or you’re in debt, or a family member is dying and it just feels like you’ve been dealt as bad a hand as you can get. But it is better to know you’re not facing all that alone.

Roma (2018) - 10/10

This was my recommendation for the podcast episode on Alfonso Cuarón movies. Roma is as beautiful as it is heart-wrenching and I would recommend listening to episode 40 of the podcast to find out more about my thoughts.

An American Werewolf In London (1981) - 8/10

In all fairness, London is enough to make anyone a little crazy at the best of times. An American Werewolf in London showcases some fantastically grotesque effects, akin to something like Carpenter’s The Thing, in showing the dead brought back to life and a horrifically gory transformation scene. Although the film is from the perspective of an American protagonist, directed also by an American, the depiction of British culture and climate is something I’ve not seen many films pull off quite so well, and I was pleasantly surprised at the more comedic tone the film has overall, which is something that works more in its favour than straight horror would.

The Party’s Just Beginning (2018) - 6/10

Karen Gillan’s directorial debut is… pretty good! There are a lot of ideas I like in this movie: a woman living life and through convenient circumstances, is confronted with death in many ways. Gillan obviously knows her homeland as well as she can, imbuing the whole thing with an intensely Scottish vibe (though maybe not in the same vein as something like Trainspotting) that makes it a bit more unique than a more run of the mill movie of this ilk, backed up in no small part by her own main performance. The plot itself is no great diversion from the kind of story I’m used to with these smaller movies and for something that’s trying to include messaging about transgender issues and suicide, it probably could have been handled better or done in a different way.

Solaris (1972) - 9/10

Another Tarkovsky joint, one I thought I’d revisit to see if there was indeed more to get out of it a second time. Well, it’s no surprise that yes, there was certainly more to get out of it. Solaris is a crazy trip of a movie and I would liken it to Kubrick’s 2001 in terms of how grand the scale of it feels. Yet this is a film that comes across as deeply personal, choosing to focus on a specific character as he goes to a space station to help those on board who are experiencing some kind of emotional crises, only to feel the effects of the planet, Solaris invading his own mind as it has the crew. To many, I can see this lengthy Russian sci-fi being a tad slow but my personal experience is one of deep engagement. Solaris pulls its viewer in a lot of different directions and it is always doing something unexpected in terms of where its narrative goes. There’s a lot to think about with the movie and thankfully it’s no chore to watch again.

Y Tu Mamá También (2001) - 9/10

Another recommendation for the podcast episode on Alfonso Cuarón movies. This is a very relaxed experience, following three young people as they go on a road trip, visit different places and have sex. Listen to episode 40 of The Sunday Movie Marathon podcast for more of my thoughts.

Children of Men (2006) - 10/10

My favourite Cuarón movie, one that never stops being tense as its characters are constantly moving towards the end goal. Set in a future where humans are infertile, the oldest living person is 18, and London is the last city in the world that’s still keeping it together, somewhat. This is masterclass filmmaking. Listen to episode 40 of the podcast for more insights.

Minority Report (2002) - 5/10

I’m really not the biggest fan of Spielberg… Minority Report is an interesting movie in terms of its concept of stopping crimes before they happen by way of prediction, but I just didn’t connect with the heart of it. The colouring is way too overexposed in a way that’s supposed to be eliciting a futuristic vibe but instead feels so early-2000’s in the worst way. My biggest problem with Minority Report is just how long it is, clocking in at two hours and twenty-five minutes which allows for a lot of meandering, all while never quite developing characters enough for you to care about.

Caché (2005) - 9/10

Oh god! Another Michael Haneke movie! Here we see a couple periodically sent video tapes featuring hours of footage of the outside of their house. The anxiety ratchets up and the mystery gets deeper with every minute. There’s always at least one moment in any of his films that have so far made me realise just how out of my depth I am. Caché is no exception, and I won’t spoil anything here because I think it’s better just to watch the movie and see for yourself. He is a director that wants the audience to know something and that something is never what is explicitly shown at face value; it is pressed into the fabric of the film - plainly evident, yet hidden. Caché is so stupidly clever in displaying its themes and messaging - making reference to the Siene Massacre of 1961 as well as a deeper study of colonialism - and there’s no way to change a single detail of it without risking the Jenga tower crumbling to the ground. It all works in tandem. It is passion and fury and haunting.

Coco (2017) - 7/10

Pixar had a string of around seven forgettable movies before this point so thankfully Coco emerged to show the company still had something good in them. Coco deals a lot with themes of death and legacy, remembering those who are gone in order to preserve them and while its plotting is quite basic and there are certainly moments that either drag or cannot escape the same Pixar formula, most of what the movie has to offer is a lot of fun, with creative, colourful animation and emotional beats that resonate the way they’re supposed to.

Incredibles 2 (2018) - 5/10

Oh, they almost had it! There's a lot here that could have been explored in far more interesting ways. Setting Incredibles 2 directly after the events of the first movie was not a good idea. If it had taken place five or ten years after, the characters could have been in different places in life and it would feel as though they'd actually changed and developed. But instead of trying to be a film that actually cares about its characters and the journeys they go on, a lot of the film is wrestling with the idea that Bob isn't supportive of his wife and Jack-Jack has to fight a raccoon… They have to shoehorn in a villain that in no way compares to the genius of the original. The ending of the original introduces another antagonist that gets wrapped up within this film's first ten minutes, except they don't catch him and he's never mentioned again. It's a real shame because the animation is fantastic and the acting is superb and there are great ideas sprinkled throughout. It just doesn't come together.

Toy Story 4 (2019) - 6/10

I was rather reluctant to watch Toy Story 4 because from the get-go I’m not really here for sequels being made just for the sake of it. Everyone loves Toy Story and making another one is a sure fire way to make money. This is the first time I’ve seen Toy Story 4 and for what it’s worth, I did enjoy it. The animation is immaculate and that alone feels like a huge flex from Pixar who tend to step up the game when it comes to animation in film, despite not having the best track record for films generally at this point. While it was nice to see these characters again, I found a lot of them to be side-lined (namely Buzz) in favour of a story that focuses mainly or entirely on Woody, who I just don’t like as much as in the previous movies. Generally the movie is good and decent enough but there’s no real antagonist and the plot is quite loose… it doesn’t feel as though it needed to be made from a story point of view.

Onward (2020) - 6/10

And with that I have seen every Pixar movie. And Onward is a fine one to go out on. While I don’t think it compares to the likes of earlier Pixar it’s still pretty fun. Or maybe I’m just a sucker for a medieval setting filled with bright colours and magic! Speaking of which, the animation was super and the medieval quest element is something that hooked me with the film. Again, plot-wise it does feel very familiar and I don’t know, maybe I’m past the point now of expecting Pixar to mix it up where their formula for story-telling is concerned but the movie is quite predictable. Nonetheless, while I’m not rushing back to see Onward I would hardly turn it off or refuse if someone wanted to watch it.

Old (2021) - 3/10

Oh boy! New M. Night movie dropped and my word, was it fun! For more of my thoughts on this… masterpiece (?) of a movie, please direct your attention to episode 41 of The Sunday Movie Marathon podcast.

T2 Trainspotting (2017) - 5/10

Trainspotting is perhaps one of my favourite movies and I had never bothered with the sequel, 20 years on, because the ending of that first movie is so conclusive. T2 felt more an excuse for these guys to get together again and in that, I probably would have preferred a couple of pictures on Twitter of the main cast and director, Danny Boyle having dinner or something. This is a fine movie - very arty in its presentation but meandering and dull in its story that doesn’t offer much in the way of proof that it had to exist.

Taste of Cherry (1997) - 9/10

What makes life worth living? This is a central question and theme of Taste of Cherry, and one that leaves such interpretation not only up to its central character but to the viewer as well. This film got me thinking about times in my life when I truly have had no answer to hard questions. Because it’s hard to convince people of things they are so adamantly against and harder still to rationalise what you believe if you’re not even entirely sure why you believe it in the first place. We are all of us alive and in recognising that, does that make it precious? And if indeed living is not a happy thing, why then should we fight so hard to preserve it? I felt upset as I watched this movie because I’ve been asked these kinds of questions before and it makes me feel stupid when I’m unable to answer. But the only real answer I can give is, everything. And if you can’t see the point then you’re not looking hard enough. Taste of Cherry is beautiful in its exploration of these topics and in its overall presentation, offering some of the best visuals in any movie I’ve seen - fitting for a feature with so much to say about the beauty of life - and an ending that as much pulls the rug out from under you as it does pull you out of the dark and make you realise just how lonely you’ve felt.

Bones (2001) - 2/10

Snoop Dogg is Jimmy Bones! This film is super funny but I’m not sure it’s trying to be and I really didn’t love it overall. But I do talk more in depth about it in episode 41 of the podcast.

The Duchess (2008) - 5/10

Another recommendation for the podcast. The Duchess was pretty much exactly what I thought it was going to be and there’s a lot to like about it but generally it’s a bit sparse. For more chat on the movie, listen to episode 41 of the podcast.

The Man With One Red Shoe (1985) - 1/10

This was another one for the podcast and man, was it awful. We had to watch it at 1.5x speed towards the end because it just wasn’t getting finished otherwise. To find out more, make sure to listen to episode 41 of the podcast.

The Emperor’s New Groove (2000) - 7/10

Pull the lever, Kronk! Haha! Slays me. I do quite miss this era of Disney, where the animation was hand-drawn and the stories were actually compelling and funny. The Emperor’s New Groove is vibrant, it’s got great characters and memorable moments that will forever be ingrained in the memory of culture. All in all, it’s just a solid flick that doesn’t waste time, developing the standard fall from glory type of arc but smoothly and in an entertaining way.

The Suicide Squad (2021) - 8/10

Oh, bloody hell! They actually made a good one! The Suicide Squad is not only better than the ‘Suicide Squad’ of 2016 in every way, it’s a genuinely great film! This time, James Gunn (director of Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy movies) is at the helm and it seems clear that Warner Bros. basically let him do what he wanted with the movie, as it doesn’t seem to bog itself down with the restrictions of a more family-friendly rating. The result of this is a far cleaner, colourful film with a clearer vision that takes from early Vietnam movies and uses that style to craft a superhero/villain movie that differentiates itself among the copious amount of existing films of the genre.      The Suicide Squad wastes very little time, introducing fun, crazy characters we’ve not seen on the big screen before and isn’t worried about killing a whole bunch of them, with standouts being Elba’s Bloodsport, Melchior’s Ratcatcher 2, Stallone’s King Shark (expertly rendered with fantastic visual effects), and Robbie’s returning interpretation of Harley Quinn.      A lot of Gunn’s trademark sense of humour is laced throughout and more often than not, it hits. The audience at the cinema were truly loving this movie and I’ll admit, I was right there with them. This mix of the gritty, gory and absurd is not something that should work as well as it does but the basic premise of the film is already so silly (and boy, do they know it) that it just works! Certainly one of the best DC movies since The Dark Knight and one I’d be more than happy to watch again. This is what the modern comic book movie should be: just balls to the wall fun!

[sk1fanfiction]

the many faces of tom riddle, part 4

-attachment, orphanages, and yet more child psych: time to add yet another voice to the void-

FULL DISCLAIMER THAT THIS IS JUST MY OPINION OF A CHARACTER WHO DOESN’T HAVE THE STRONGEST CANON CHARACTERIZATION, AND THUS ALL THIS IS BASED ON MY CONCEPTUALIZATION.

I'm going to be super biased, because my favorite portrayal of Tom Riddle is actually Hero Fiennes-Tiffin as eleven-year-old Tom Riddle, in HBP and I get to chat about child psych in this one, sooo here we go.

First of all, I’m just so impressed that a kid could bring that much depth to such a complex character.

This is the portrayal, I feel, that brings us closest to Tom’s character. Yes, Coulson’s brought us pretty close, but by fifth year, the mask was on.

We don't really get to see Tom looking afraid very often, but it's fear that rules his life, so it's really poignant in our first (chronologically) introduction, he looks absolutely terrified.

The void being the fandom's loud opinions on a certain headmaster. I wouldn't call myself pro-Dumbledore, but I'm certainly not anti-Dumbledore, either. (Agnostic-Dumbledore??)

Since I'm not of the anti-Dumbledore persuasion, I decided to poke around in the tags and see what the arguments were, so I don't make comments out of ignorance.

Most of the tag seems to be more directed towards his treatment of Harry and Sirius, but a few people mentioned that Dumbledore should have treated Tom with ‘exceptional kindness’ and tried to ‘rehabilitate’ him.

As I said in Parts 2 and 3, I am 100% in favor of helping a traumatized kid learn to cope, and I don’t think Tom Riddle was solidly on the Path to Evil (TM) at birth, or even at eleven. Not even at fifteen.

Could unconditional love and kindness have helped Tom Riddle enough for the rise of Lord Voldemort to never happen? Possibly, but...

Yes, I'm about to drag up that Carl Jung quote, again.

“I am not what happened to me, I am what I choose to become.”

The problem with this is that if you’re going to blame Dumbledore for this, you also have to blame every other adult in Tom’s life: his headmaster, Dippet, his Head of House, Slughorn, his ‘caretakers’ at the orphanage, Mrs. Cole and Martha, and possibly more. In fact, if we're going to blame any adult, let's blame Merope for r*ping and abusing Tom Riddle Senior, and having a kid she wasn't intending to take care of.

Furthermore, you cannot possibly hold anyone but Tom accountable for the murders he committed. (I should not have to sit here and explain why cold-blooded murder is wrong.) And if you like Tom Riddle's character, insinuating that his actions are completely at the whim of others is just a bit condescending towards him. He's not an automaton or a marionette, he's a very intelligent human being with a functioning brain, and at sixteen is fully capable of moral reasoning and critical analysis.

I've heard the theories about Dumbledore setting the Potters up to die, and I'm not going to discuss their validity right now; but he didn't put a wand in Tom's hand and force him to kill anyone. Tom did it all of his own accord.

And while yes, I have enormous sympathy for what happened to Tom as a child, at some point, he decided to murder Myrtle Warren, and that is where I lose my sympathy. Experiencing trauma does not give you the right to inflict harm on others. Yes, Tom was failed, but then, he spectacularly failed himself.

We also have no idea how Dumbledore treated Tom as a student.

In the movies, it’s Dumbledore who tells Tom he has to go back to the orphanage, but in the books, it’s Dippet. We know that Slughorn spent a lot of time around Tom at Slug Club and such, yet I don’t really see people clamoring for his head.

I regard the sentiment that Dumbledore turned Tom Riddle into Lord Voldemort with a lot of skepticism.

But let's hear from the character himself -- his impression of eleven-year-old Tom Riddle.

“Did I know that I had just met the most dangerous Dark wizard of all time?” said Dumbledore. “No, I had no idea that he was to grow up to be what he is. However, I was certainly intrigued by him. I returned to Hogwarts intending to keep an eye upon him, something I should have done in any case, given that he was alone and friendless, but which, already, I felt I ought to do for others’ sake as much as his."

Now, assuming that Dumbledore's telling the truth, I'm not seeing something glaringly wrong with this. No, he hasn't pigeonholed Tom as evil, yes, I'd be intrigued, too, and it's a very good idea to keep an eye on Tom, for his own sake.

“At Hogwarts,” Dumbledore went on, “we teach you not only to use magic, but to control it. You have — inadvertently, I am sure — been using your powers in a way that is neither taught nor tolerated at our school."

Again, it seems like he's at least somewhat sympathetic towards Tom, and is willing to at least give him a chance.

More evidence (again, assuming Dumbledore is a reliable narrator):

Harry: “Didn’t you tell them [the other professors], sir, what he’d been like when you met him at the orphanage?” Dumbledore: “No, I did not. Though he had shown no hint of remorse, it was possible that he felt sorry for how he had behaved before and was resolved to turn over a fresh leaf. I chose to give him that chance.”

Now, I think Dumbledore is pretty awful with kids, but I don't think that's malicious. Yeah, it's a flaw, but perfect people don't exist, and perfect characters are dead boring. I am not saying that he definitely handled Tom's case well, I'm just saying that there's little evidence that Dumbledore, however shaken and scandalized, wrote him off as 'evil snake boy.'

It's also worth taking into account that it's 1938, and the attitudes towards mental health back then.

Why is Tom looking at Dumbledore like that, anyway? Why is he so scared? What has he possibly been threatened with or heard whispers of?

"'Professor'?" repeated Riddle. He looked wary. "Is that like 'doctor'? What are you here for? Did she get you in to have a look at me?"

"I don't believe you," said Riddle. "She wants me looked at, doesn't she? Tell the truth!"

"You can't kid me! The asylum, that's where you're from, isn't it? 'Professor,' yes, of course -- well, I'm not going, see? That old cat's the one who should be in the asylum. I never did anything to little Amy Benson or Dennis Bishop, and you can ask them, they'll tell you!

Tom keeps insisting he's not mad until Dumbledore finally manages to calm him down.

I'm really upset this wasn't in the movie, because it's important context. Instead we got these throwaway cutscenes of some knick-knacks relating to the Cave he's got lying around, but I just would have preferred to see him freaking out like he does in the book.

There was extreme stigma and prejudice towards mental illness.

'Lunatic asylums,' as they were called in Tom's time, were terrible places. In the 1930s and 40s, he could look forward to being 'treated' with induced convulsions, via metrazol, insulin, electroshock, and malaria injections. And if he stuck around long enough, he could even look forward to a lobotomy!

So, if you think Dumbledore was judgmental towards Tom, imagine how flat-out prejudiced whatever doctors or 'experts' Mrs. Cole might have gotten in to 'look at him' must have been!

Moving on to the next few shots, he is sitting down and hunched over as if expecting punishment or at least some kind of bad news, Dumbledore is mostly out of the frame. He’s trapped visually, by Dumbledore on one side, and a wall on the other, because he’s still very much afraid. uncomfortable, as he tells Dumbledore a secret that he fears could get him committed to an asylum (which were fucking horrible places, as I said).

It brings to the scene that miserable sense of isolation and loneliness to that has defined Tom’s entire life up to that point (and, partially due to his own bad choices, continues to define it).

And, when Dumbledore accepts it, his posture changes. he becomes more confident and more at ease, as he describes the... utilities of his magical abilities. 

"All sorts," breathed Riddle. A flush of excitement was rising up his neck into his hollow cheeks; he looked fevered. "I can make things move without touching them. I can make animals do what I want them to do, without training them. I can make bad things happen to people who annoy me. I can make them hurt if I want to."

Riddle lifted his head. His face was transfigured: There was a wild happiness upon it, yet for some reason it did not make him better looking; on the contrary, his finely carved features seemed somehow rougher, his expression almost bestial.

I do think Harry, our narrator, is being a tad bit judgmental here. Magic is probably the only thing that brings Tom happiness in his grey, lonely world, and when I was Tom's age and being bullied, if I had magic powers, you'd better believe that I'd (a) be bloody ecstatic about it (b) use them. And, like Tom, I can't honestly say that I can't imagine getting a bit carried-away with it. Unfortunately, we can't all be as inherently good and kindhearted as Harry.

Reading HBP again, as a 'mature' person, it almost seems like the reader is being prompted to see Tom as evil just because he's got 'weird' facial expressions.

So... uh...

Nope, let's judge Tom on his actions, not looks of 'wild happiness.'

To his great surprise, however, Dumbledore drew his wand from an inside pocket of his suit jacket, pointed it at the shabby wardrobe in the corner, and gave the wand a casual flick. The wardrobe burst into flames. Riddle jumped to his feet; Harry could hardly blame him for howling in shock and rage; all his worldly possessions must be in there. But even as Riddle rounded on Dumbledore, the flames vanished, leaving the wardrobe completely undamaged.

Okay, one thing I dislike is Tom's lack of emotional affect when Dumbledore burned the wardrobe, in the books, he jumped up and started screaming, instead of looking passively (in shock, perhaps?) at the fire. Incidentally, I can't really tell if he's impressed or in shock, to be honest. I think they really tried to make Tom 'creepier' in the movie.

This is one of the incidents where Dumbledore's inability to deal with children crops up.

I think he was trying to teach Tom that magic can be dangerous, and he wouldn't like it to be used against him, but burning the wardrobe that contains everything he owns was a terrible move on Dumbledore's part. Tom already has very limited trust in other people, and now, he's not going to trust Dumbledore at all -- now, he's put Tom on the defensive/offensive for the rest of their interaction, and perhaps for the rest of their teacher-student relationship.

Riddle stared from the wardrobe to Dumbledore; then, his expression greedy, he pointed at the wand. "Where can I get one of them?"

"Where do you buy spellbooks?" interrupted Riddle, who had taken the heavy money bag without thanking Dumbledore, and was now examining a fat gold Galleon.

But I'm not surprised Tom is 'greedy.' He's grown up in an environment where if he wants something, whether that's affection, food, money, toys, he's got to take it. There's no one looking after his needs specifically. I'm not surprised that he's a thief and a hoarder, and I don't think that counts as a moral failing necessarily, and more of a maladaptive way of seeking comfort. It would be bizarre if he came out of Wool's Orphanage a complete saint.

Additionally, I think given that the Gaunt family has a history of 'mental instability,' Tom is a sensitive child, and the trauma of growing up institutionalized and possibly being treated badly due to his magical abilities or personality disorder deeply affected him.

And there are points where it seems that Dumbledore is quick to judge Tom.

"He was already using magic against other people, to frighten, to punish, to control."

"Yes, indeed; a rare ability, and one supposedly connected with the Dark Arts, although as we know, there are Parselmouths among the great and the good too. In fact, his ability to speak to serpents did not make me nearly as uneasy as his obvious instincts for cruelty, secrecy, and domination."

"I trust that you also noticed that Tom Riddle was already highly self-sufficient, secretive, and, apparently, friendless?..."

And while this is all empirically true, these are (a) a product of Tom's harsh environment, and (b) do not necessarily make him evil. But the point remains that child psych didn't exist as a field of its own, and psychology as a proper science was in its infancy, so I'd be shocked if Dumbledore was insightful about Tom's situation.

But I've gone a ton of paragraphs without citing anything, so I've got to rectify that.

Let's talk about Harry Harlow's monkey experiments in the 1950-70s.

If you're not a fan of animal research, since I know some people are uncomfortable with it, feel free to scroll past.

Here's the TL;DR: Children need to be hugged and shown affection too, not just fed and clothed, please don't leave babies to 'cry out' and ignore their needs because it's backwards and fucking inhumane. HUG AND COMFORT AND CODDLE CHILDREN AND SPOIL THEM WITH AFFECTION!

I will put more red writing when the section is over.

This is still an interesting experiment to have in mind while we explore the whole 'no one taught Tom Riddle how to love' thing and whether or not it's actually a good argument.

Andddd let's go all the way back to the initial 1958 experiment, featured in Harlow's paper, the Nature of Love. (If you're familiar with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, him and Harlow actually collaborated for a time).

To give you an idea of our starting point, until Harlow's experiment, which happened twenty years after Dumbledore meets Tom for the first time, no one in science had really been interested in studying love and affection.

"Psychologists, at least psychologists who write textbooks, not only show no interest in the origin and development of love or affection, but they seem to be unaware of its very existence."

I'm going to link some videos of Harry Harlow showing the actual experiment, which animal rights activists would probably consider 'horrifying.' It's nothing gory or anything, but if you are particularly soft-hearted (and I do not mean that as an insult), be warned. It's mostly just baby monkeys being very upset and Harlow discussing it in a callous manner. Yes, today it would be considered unethical, but it's still incredibly important work and if you think you can handle it, I would recommend watching at least the first one to get an idea of how dramatic this effect is.

Dependency when frightened

The full experiment

The TL;DW:

This experiment was conducted with rhesus macaques; they're still used in psychology/neuroscience research when you want very human-like subjects, because they are very intelligent (unnervingly so, actually). I'd say that adult ones remind me of a three-year old child.

Harlow separated newborn monkeys from their mothers, and cared for their physical needs. They had ample nutrition, bedding, warmth, et cetera. However, the researchers noticed that the monkeys:

(a) were absolutely miserable. And not just that, but although all their physical needs were taken care of, they weren't surviving well past the first few days of life. (This has also been documented in human babies, and it's called failure to thrive and I'll talk about it a bit later).

(b) showed a strong attachment to the gauze pads used to cover the floor, and decided to investigate.

So, they decided to provide a surrogate 'mother.' Two, actually. Mother #1 was basically a heated fuzzy doll that was nice for the monkeys to cuddle with. Mother #2 was the same, but not fuzzy and made of wire. Both provided milk. The result? The monkeys spent all their time cuddling and feeding from the fuzzy 'mother.' Perhaps not surprising.

What Harlow decided next, is that one of the hallmarks being attached to your caregiver is seeking hugs and reassurance from them when frightened. So, when the monkeys were presented with something scary, they'd go straight to the cloth mother and ignore the wire one. Not only that, but when placed in an unfamiliar environment, if the cloth mother was present, the monkeys would be much calmer.

In a follow-up experiment, Harlow decided to see if there was some sort of sensitive period by introducing both 'mothers' to monkeys who had been raised in isolation for 250 days. Guess what?

The initial reaction of the monkeys to the alterations was one of extreme disturbance. All the infants screamed violently and made repeated attempts to escape the cage whenever the door was opened. They kept a maximum distance from the mother surrogates and exhibited a considerable amount of rocking and crouching behavior, indicative of emotionality.

Yikes. So, at first Harlow thought that they'd passed some kind of sensitive period for socialization. But after a day or two they calmed down and started chilling out with the cloth mother like the other monkeys did. But here's a weird thing:

That the control monkeys develop affection or love for the cloth mother when she is introduced into the cage at 250 days of age cannot be questioned. There is every reason to believe, however, that this interval of delay depresses the intensity of the affectional response below that of the infant monkeys that were surrogate-mothered from birth onward

All these things... attachment, affection, love, seeking comfort ... are mostly learned behaviours.

Over.

Orphanages, institutionalized childcare, and why affection is a need, not an extra.

His face is lit the exact same was as Coulson’s was in COS (half-light, half-dark), and I said I was going to talk about this in Part 3. I think perhaps it's intended to make Fiennes-Tiffin look more evil or menacing, but I'm going to quite deliberately misinterpret it.

Now, for some context, Dumbledore has just (kind of) burned his wardrobe, ratted out his stealing habit, and (in the books only, they really took a pair of scissors to this scene) told him he needs to go apologize and return everything and Dumbledore will know if he doesn't, and, well, Tom's not exactly a happy bugger about it.

But interestingly, in the books, this is when we start to see Tom's 'persona,' aka his mask, start to come into play. Whereas before, he was screaming, howling, and generally freaking out, here, he starts to hide his emotions -- in essence, obscure his true self under a shadow. So this scene is really the reverse of Coulson's in COS.

And perhaps I'm reading wayyy too much into this, but I can't help but notice that Coulson's hair is parted opposite to Fiennes-Tiffin's, and the opposite sides of their faces are shadowed, too.

Riddle threw Dumbledore a long, clear, calculating look. "Yes, I suppose so, sir," he said finally, in an expressionless voice.

Riddle did not look remotely abashed; he was still staring coldly and appraisingly at Dumbledore. At last he said in a colorless voice, "Yes, sir."

Here's an article from The Atlantic on Romanian orphanages in the 1980s, when the dictator, Ceausescu, basically forced people to have as many children as possible and funnel them into institutionalized 'childcare', and it's absolutely heartbreaking.

There's not a whole lot of information out there on British orphanages in the 30s' and 40s', but given that people back then thought you just had to keep children on a strict schedule and feed them, it wouldn't have a whole lot better.

The only thing I've found is this, and it's not super promising.

The most important study informing the criteria for contemporary nosologies, was a study by Barbara Tizard and her colleagues of young children being raised in residential nurseries in London (Tizard, 1977). These nurseries had lower child to caregiver ratios than many previous studies of institutionalized children. Also, the children were raised in mixed aged groups and had adequate books and toys available. Nevertheless, caregivers were explicitly discouraged from forming attachments to the children in their care.

Here's a fairly recent paper that I think gives a good summary: Link

Here, they describe the responses to the Strange Situation test (which tests a child's attachment to their caregiver).

We found that 100% of the community sample received a score of “5,” indicating fully formed attachments, whereas only 3% of the infants living in institutions demonstrated fully formed attachments. The remaining 97% showed absent, incomplete, or odd and abnormal attachment behaviors.

Bowlby and Ainsworth, who did the initial study, thought that children would always attach to their caregivers, regardless of neglect or abuse. But some infants don't attach (discussed along with RAD in Part 2).

Here's a really good review paper on attachment disorders in currently or formerly institutionalized children : Link

Core features of RAD in young children include the absence of focused attachment behaviors directed towards a preferred caregiver, failure to seek and respond to comforting when distressed, reduced social and emotional reciprocity, and disturbances of emotion regulation, including reduced positive affect and unexplained fearfulness or irritability.

Which all sounds a lot like Tom in this scene. The paper also discusses neurological effects, like atypical EEG power distribution (aka brain waves), which can correlate with 'indiscriminate' behavior and poor inhibitory control; which makes sense for a kid who, oh, I don't know, hung another kid's rabbit because they were angry.

Furthermore...

...those children with more prolonged institutional rearing showed reduced amygdala discrimination and more indiscriminate behavior.

This again, makes a ton of sense for Tom's psychological profile, because the amygdala (which is part of the limbic system, which regulates emotions) plays a major role in fear, anger, anxiety, and aggression, especially with respect to learning, motivation and memory.

So, I agree completely that Tom needed a lot of help, especially given the fact that he spent eleven years in an orphanage (longer than the Bucharest study I was referring to), and Dumbledore wasn't exactly understanding of his situation, and probably didn't realise what a dramatic effect the orphanage had on Tom, and given the way he talks to Tom, probably treated him as if he were a kid who grew up in a healthy environment.

In case you are still unconvinced that hugging is that important, there's a famous 1944 study conducted on 40 newborn human infants to see what would happen if their physical needs (fed, bathed, diapers changed) were provided for with no affection. The study had to be stopped because half the babies died after four months. Affection leads to the production of hormones and boosts the immune system, which increases survival, and that is why we hug children and babies should not be in orphanages. They are supposed to be hugged, all the time. I can't find the citation right now, I'll add it later if I find it.

But I think it's vastly unrealistic to say that Dumbledore, who grew up during the Victorian Era, would have any grasp of this and I don't think he was actively malicious towards Tom.

Was Tom Riddle failed by institutional childcare? Absolutely.

Were the adults in his life oblivious to his situation? Probably.

Do the shitty things that happened to Tom excuse the murders he committed, and are they anyone's fault but his own? No. At the end of the day, Tom made all the wrong choices.

And, for what it's worth, I think (film) Dumbledore (although he expresses the same sentiment in more words in the books) wishes he could go back in time and have helped Tom.

"Draco. Years ago, I knew a boy, who made all the wrong choices. Please, let me help you."

[dudeandduchess]

Can we have Giyuu starting a family? He has a sweet waifu and a baby, he's super happy with them and there's lots of love. Plz he needs it.

Ahhh hello, bby! My friend also requested this, so I hope both of you like it. UwU It’s not entirely complete bc I feel like I need to think more on how Giyuu will be with an actual baby. So there might be a part two??? But I hope this is fine for now. :D

Redemption week. Redemption week. I will write nothing but happiness for Giyuu this streak. Ahaha.

Also, another note: Two hundred yen in the Taishō era was worth alot of money. Just to avoid confusion.  Okay, that’s it. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. Ahaha. 💖

***

Giyuu x F!Reader: Accidental Pregnancy (SFW Scenario):

“Alright, place your bets, everyone,” Shinobu chimed excitedly as she dropped a few bills and coins inside a box Mitsuri had found within Headquarters.

Readily, all the Hashira present— save for Gyōmei and Muichiro— dug into their pockets and counted out ample amounts of bills, before dropping them in with Shinobu’s bet. Then, deftly, the Insect Hashira quickly counted through the money.

“We have two-hundred Yen here, whoever guesses correctly gets all the money. If more than one person guesses correctly, then they have to share,” Shinobu explained patiently, all while some of her comrades eyed the reward money in her hands hotly. Two-hundred Yen was already a lot of money; it could get them two-hundred dozen eggs, and maybe a a hundred pounds of cured meat.

So, suffice to say that all of them wanted it.

“Does everyone still have the same bets? Or would anyone like to change their prior bet?” At the prompt, Uzui sniffed haughtily as he crossed his arms over his chest.

And then, the Sound Hashira said, “It might not be flamboyant, but I’m betting that Tomioka will get (L/n) pregnant. That’s how those two will admit their feelings for each other.”

Shinobu nodded in complete agreement, while the others— namely: Rengoku, Shinazugawa, and Iguro— shook their heads. Kanroji, in typical fashion, looked to be a little lost— as she was the only one who had an entirely different opinion.

“Tomioka won’t do it. He’s not brave enough to confess to (Y/n),” The Flame Hashira announced with a laugh, which his cohorts agreed to with noncommittal hums.

“They might think they’re being sly by fucking behind our backs, but when someone says something about it they’re going to stop,” Sanemi added with a scoff, before looking right at Uzui— as if to directly oppose his opinion.

Iguro let his eyes flit over all of his comrades— lingering on Kanroji for a while— before landing right on Shinobu. “That’s most likely the reason why Oyakata-sama is talking to them right now.”

A collective silence hung over all the Hashira, as all of them contemplated their own opinions— which Kanroji took as her chance to air out her thoughts.

“Well, I think that Tomioka-san will take (Y/n)-chan out to a candlelit dinner, and he’ll confess to her there.”

All eyes landed on the Love Hashira, and all of them looked at her as if she had sprouted a new head. Her opinion was outlandish at best, but no one dared to say anything about it.

After all, she was entitled to live in her own fantasy world— no matter how inaccurate her portrayal of the Water Hashira was.

“I still don’t think this is right. Gambling is an unskillful activity. As Buddha once said, ‘In winning one begets hatred; in losing one mourns the loss of one’s wealth,’” Himejima uttered in that solemn tone of his, and it made his comrades all second-guess their decision.

But when they saw the box of prize money still in Shinobu’s hands, the Stone Hashira’s words practically floated away.

“Be careful, (Y/n).” All the Hashira looked up at Giyuu’s familiar tone, only to sport differing reactions when they saw the Water Hashira and the Snow Hashira round the corner with their hands intertwined.

At the sight, Uzui and Shinobu traded knowing looks, while the three who’d opposed their opinion furrowed their eyebrows in mild frustration. Meanwhile, Kanroji almost clapped her hands in joy at the sweet sight.

(Y/n) rolled her eyes at her lover’s overly worried words, as it was all she could do so as not to swoon at how attentive he was being. Ever since she’d told him about the news, he had made a more conscious effort to be around her— and she would be damned if she didn’t admit that it was making her fall even harder for him.

Not that she would ever say it out loud. She was fine with keeping her feelings to herself, thank you very much.

Unless Giyuu confessed first; only then would she admit to feeling the same way.

“Oh? All of you are still here?” (Y/n) asked in mild surprise when she caught sight of the huddled forms of her comrades. “I guess it makes it easier for-”

However, the Snow Hashira had to pause when she caught sight of the box filled with money in Shinobu’s hands. She immediately narrowed her eyes at the Insect Hashira, before stating flatly, “You were betting on this? Why am I not surprised?”

“How long have all of you known about us?” Giyuu asked in his usual tone, which had everyone— save for (Y/n)— looking at him much like they had at Kanroji.

“Everyone had always known, dumbass. You two weren’t exactly discrete about it,” Sanemi practically spat at Giyuu, which made Giyuu frown. He simply didn’t understand why the Wind Hashira was so rude to him.

As if sensing the upcoming squabble, Rengoku stepped in and quelled it before it could even take root in anyone’s mind. “So, would you mind telling us why Oyakata-sama asked both of you to stay?”

“Ah… that…” (Y/n)’s voice rose in pitch, as a blush made its way onto her cheeks. And, reflexively, her free hand moved to cradle her very faint baby bump.

All eyes zeroed in on that minute movement, and she had to quirk an eyebrow at Sanemi and Obanai who had cursed irately before crossing their arms over their respective chests.

“(Y/n)’s three months pregnant,” Giyuu announced, as the faintest of smiles graced his lips. He then looked down at where his lover’s hand pressed against her belly, and he couldn’t help but feel his own gaze soften at the tiny bump. “It’s mine.”

It all felt surreal when (Y/n) had first told him a month ago, but he wasn’t mad. He had never told anyone, but he’d always wanted to have a wife and children.

He had half of that solved, he just had to work on the other half. Hopefully, she wouldn’t make it him work too hard for her hand in marriage.

“Who else’s would it be, Tomioka-san?” Shinobu chimed in with a giggle, as she quickly counted half of the prize money and gave it to Uzui.

And with a smug smirk, the Sound Hashira fanned out the paper bills in his right hand, before using it to fan himself. “Thank you for making me a hundred Yen richer.”

“Yes, thank you. Let’s do this again sometime.” Shinobu laughed once more, before carefully pocketing her prize.

“All of you are insufferable. Come on, Giyuu. Let’s go.” With that, (Y/n) tugged at her lover’s hand to get both of them out of there.

***

So came the days when Giyuu was required to change from a stoic, single man, to a doting, and very-much-in love father-to-be.

He didn’t have a single complaint about his predicament. Not once did he think ill of (Y/n), nor did he resent her for getting pregnant. After all, it took two to make a baby. Besides, he was simply ecstatic at the thought of having a mini version of him and (Y/n) around the house.

Giyuu couldn’t wait to add more babies to their family.

However, the one thing that always got him down was (Y/n)’s lack of response to his feelings. He tried to convey his love for her through all of his gestures, and she was grateful towards him, but it seemed that she was still hiding part of herself from him.

It wasn’t a secret that he was bad at verbalizing his affections— or verbalizing anything, really— but he just wanted some confirmation that she felt the same way towards him.

Gratefulness was one thing, but genuine feelings were another thing entirely. He craved to let her know just how much he loved her, yet he was always hindered from doing so because of the unclear boundaries between them.

“Giyuu…” (Y/n) whispered in the dead of the night, as she propped herself up against her right elbow and gently rubbed her lover’s chest to wake him up. “Giyuu, wake up. Giyuu.”

Reluctantly, the Water Hashira opened his eyes, only to snap them wide open when he realized that (Y/n) was close to his face. He then bolted upright and turned to her, with worry shining in his eyes. “What’s wrong? Are you okay? Is it time?”

(Y/n)’s eyes widened at that, before she offered him a sheepish grin. It was so adorable that it calmed Giyuu’s racing heart. “I’m sorry for startling you, but… I want to eat something sweet and tart. Like sakura no mi, or yama ichigo. Please?”

He’d been woken up to go berry picking, which was already trivial enough; but to make matters worse, the sun wasn’t even up yet. If he checked his pocket watch, he would probably see that it was only half past two in the morning.

Still, Giyuu didn’t mind. Because he loved (Y/n), and that was the least he could do for her.

So, he slowly got up and out of their shared futon, then pressed a lazy kiss to the top of her head, before getting dressed to go foraging.

It didn’t take long for him to fill a small basket up with the berries she’d requested— as they were in season, and Giyuu knew the area like the back of his hand.

So he was surprised when he came back home, only to find (Y/n) already bustling around in the kitchen. From what he could smell, she was making okayu from what they had in the kitchen.

“(Y/n)? What are you doing out of bed?” The Hashira asked, clearly confused as to why she would be cooking at such an early hour— when she preferred to start her mornings a little later than him.

“I…” She began hesitantly, while she kept her head down to hide the blush on her cheeks.

Normally, her cravings were something easy to make, or something ready to eat in the kitchen, but it was the first time that she’d sent Giyuu out on an errand and she felt bad about it. So she decided to make it worth his while by making something for him.

She just didn’t think that he would be back so soon.

“(Y/n)?”

“I felt bad about sending you out this early… so I thought-” (Y/n) answered softly— but was cut off when Giyuu marched up to her, turned her around, then pressed his lips to hers.

The action served to make her eyes widen, as a blush warmed her entire body— from the tips of her toes to the top of her head.

She didn’t know why, but she was always reduced to a flustered mess whenever Giyuu did something remotely sweet.

Who was she kidding though? She knew exactly why she acted that way around Giyuu; it was because she loved him— immensely. She just couldn’t admit it out loud to him, at the risk of ruining whatever unspoken agreement they had.

“Here. Your berries,” He announced in his usual cool tone— even though he felt so lightheaded from what he’d done that he just wanted to lay down.

In her excitement, (Y/n) as good as forgot her jumbled emotions; so she reached out and grasped the basket with both hands. All the while, she eyed the plump wild berries so covetously that Giyuu felt he was intruding on something private. “Ah! Thank you, Giyuu! I love you even more for this.”

Giyuu, in his surprise, choked on air as his eyes widened at the casually-thrown surprise. He immediately turned away from (Y/n)— more to hide his completely red face than anything else— and began to walk away from her.

He wanted to ask her about her words, and the war he waged with himself was long and bloody, but he eventually relented. So, with his back still to her, and his hand still covering the lower half of his face, he asked, “Did you mean it?”

“Did I mean what?” The young woman asked happily as she popped the first yama ichigo into her mouth. All of her thoughts and trepidations from their earlier exchange had clearly been pushed aside to savor the taste of her berries.

“That you love me?”

That brought pause to (Y/n)’s actions, and she swallowed what was in her mouth before worrying her bottom lip between her teeth. It was now or never, really.

“Of course. I always have, Giyuu. I wouldn’t have been with you in the first place if I didn’t.” Her hands deftly fussed with the sides of the wicker basket— running the pads of her fingers over the rough grooves and indentations of the pattern— to ease her nerves.

“I… I love you, too. You and the baby. I always have, as well.” He was about to continue, when he felt his lover’s warm body press against his back, as her arms wrapped tightly around his middle.

“Good. Because you’re stuck with us now, anata.”

[catherineflowers29]

Hi! I'm the anon from before! Oh, thank God. I was worried I upset you because JB shippers get so defensive when someone is critical of their ship or Jaime (btw I'm a Brienne stan before a JB shipper.)

I think your story is so great and feminist... the fact that Brienne was allowed to be angry at Jaime and make the choice to fuck Addam and still be the doting mother and a warrior who inspires women (also thank you for no boring Sansa/Brienne friendship). I loved how she said "fuck that" to any of Jaime's weakass explanations and whenever that bitch was like, "are we good? have you forgiven me? can we fuck?" and she just went like "wtf no you're the worst." like YES. It fucking bothered me the way those S8 apologists defended Jaime's "addiction" and liked the offensive disgusting white book scene. FFS LET WOMEN BE ANGRY. LET WOMEN HAVE A STORYLINE THAT ISN'T TIED TO SOME GARBAGE MAN. LET WOMEN SLEEP WITH MEN INSTEAD OF THEIR ASSIGNED LOVE INTERESTS AND LET THEM ENJOY IT TOO. LET WOMEN BE BITTER AND UNFORGIVING AND COMPASSIONATE AND MOTHERLY AND BRAVE AND AWESOME AT THE SAME TIME. ALL THESE THINGS CAN EXIST IN ONE WOMAN. IT'S ALLOWED. AND BRIENNE IS NO BETTER OR WORSE IF SHE CHOOSES TO BE UNFORGIVING. I HATE DUDEBROS.

I don't think you should be unhappy with your story! Your story has amazing dialogue and internal thoughts, well-rounded characters, and Brienne of Tarth being awesome. If anything, you were too nice to Jaime by having him be happy and giving him a purpose. You should subvert my expectations, lovely author! Don't have Brienne forgive Jaime and get into a relationship with him! Make her kick him to the curb! Break his heart! Piss on his corpse! Probably JB shippers will be mad at you but I've got your back. The REAL Brienne fans know that Jaime did Brienne so dirty, and no bs addiction or duty can justify that!

Ok that's enough... and WTF why would people think your fic is controversial. IMO we should bully the writers who had Brienne easily forgive Jaime and take him back just like that. Fuck them all. I only respect YOU. You got me into shipping Addam/Bri and also validated my anger. Also I was busy, didn't know you updated your fic. Gonna read it now. Not gonna lie, I'll be a little upset if she chooses Jaime because I thought the glass throwing scene was written to show the tragic end of their relationship and how there's no coming back, but I did want to know your thoughts.

Bless you, kind reader. 

I’ve had a lot of thoughts about why my fic is considered controversial. The subject matter in it really isn’t that “dark” in the traditional fic sense. There’s no rape or major character death, it’s not torture porn or anything. And yet, there was rage about it on Reddit, it was banned from being discussed on Discord, and a BNF decided (very hurtfully, I might add) to call me out on Twitter because she had formed a judgement based solely on my tags. I have also been blocked by numerous people in the fandom that I have never so much as had an interaction with. I’ve also had a LOT of shitty comments and anons here and there from people who seem really angry that I had the temerity to write this fic.

That genuinely surprised me. I knew it wouldn’t be everyone’s cup of tea - what fic is? But there have been times when I have felt like a total pariah and not wanted to interact with other members of the fandom in case they feel the same way. Whatever way you slice it, that’s shitty behaviour.

Largely, when we ship something, particularly when it’s an OTP, we think of that relationship as an ideal. It’s escapism, it’s perfect in ways that our real relationships never can be. I think that’s why, for so many of us, 8.04 was really devastating. Jaime and Brienne are also a ship about acceptance and understanding, of a deep connection that transcends surface impressions - they both see each other for who they really are. That means a LOT to us, I think. I think we all long for that kind of relationship and exploring it in our fandom gives all of us so much happiness. We are in love with their love.

In their portrayal of the JB relationship, D&D ABSOLUTELY got that wrong. I absolutely do not dispute that. I think a LOT of people were angry with me because they confused what I was writing as being supportive of D&D’s take in some way, because I treated it as canon. Some writers were able to paper over the end of the show, dismiss it as bad writing and move on, or write fic where Jaime changes his mind, Brienne forgives him, and then they carry on with what we wanted.

I just couldn’t do that. God knows I tried. But if I had been in Brienne’s position, I absolutely would have been as pissed as fuck about what Jaime did. I don’t accept that he went back for Cersei as a brother, or that Brienne wasn’t crying for herself but only for him and his lost honour. Being dumped HURTS, particularly when you loved someone and thought you had a future, and then he walks out in the middle of the night without saying goodbye. Brienne had SO MUCH backstory about being hurt and humiliated by men, having the first man who loved her, the man she gave her virginity to, treat her that way would fuck her up.

I’m not saying that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and I never have. I don’t have the definitive knowledge of these characters, none of us do. I only have my take, my experience, my style.

I just couldn’t write about their relationship as being idyllic and perfect any more. Is it a reflection of who I am as a person and as a writer? That’s certainly been the accusation several dozen times. Maybe. It’s certainly a reflection of how I feel women put up with too much shit from men and are expected to be kind and forgiving in return. I HATE that with a passion. 

Angry women are really controversial. They make people of all genders feel very uncomfortable. Sexually confident women do, too, and I think my story was the perfect storm of those two elements, really. People who want escapism from realistic relationships where people don’t live happily-ever-after really took exception to its very existence.

I don’t hold it against anyone for it not being their cup of tea, or if they disagree with my take. God knows there are kajillions of fics out there that aren’t my bag too. Things I’ve rolled my eyes at, things I’ve fundamentally disagreed with, things I’ve been horrified to read. But not once have I ever felt the need to be a public douchebag about it. I’ve never felt the need to make a writer stop writing.

So thank you so much for taking the time to send me this. It does make a really nice change to get an anon be so positive and affirming to me as a writer!

I really hope that you enjoy the end of the story. And that you will enjoy the reboot in a few weeks where we stick with Brienne’s POV and I turn the volume down on some of the elements that I don’t like about the story myself. Not the rage though, or the Addam banging. That’s staying! 

[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.)

[shrimpanalysis]

TETRARCH DAMMEK ANALYSIS

Tetrarch Dammek isn't an inherently bad character that most of the fandom paints him out to be. He quite selfish, paranoid, and hedonistic in some aspects from what we have seen but what we see in Hiveswap is most Xefros' portrayal of him and how he perceives Dammek's gestures and Joeys comparison of alternian to human culture which is not a very well rounded representation of character.(yet.) Though it does give us a glimpse into their relationship and his motives.

Bronze bloods like Dammek being the second lowest, would perhaps try to take advantage of their lower caste counterparts.

To dammek, filling a quadrant with a troll of a lower blood caste gives him an ego boost. As evident from Zebruh's route in friendsim, we can see that many lower blood trolls are pursuing red/pale quadrants with those who are above them on the hemospectrum for protection.

The highbloods benefit from having an obedient partner (if they're even into that) who will try to actively sustain the relationship as it benefits them greatly and allows them to have better opportunities. The highbloods manipulate this desperation and use it to force them to be their slaves of sorts.

Dammek takes advantage of the hemospectrum and does use it to rule over his relationship with Xefros, pursuing a pale quadrant with him. A healthy moirallegiance is usually mutually beneficial, but as from what we can infer from Xefros' reiterations of his experiences with Dammek, we can see that it's not really the case here(Dammek taking Xefros' stuff without permission, and also being one of the possible causes of his low self-esteem). There can be toxic moirallegiances as well.

Dammek is a bronze blood. Bronze bloods are more closed off and are untrusting of most relationships. They are also quite materialistic and place their worth on the belongings they own. This is evident when you enter his hive in the game. It looks like a storage unit that has never been sorted out. It is an accurate representation of a basement dweller who has never cleaned out his room in years.

He usually gives Xefros materialistic items while being closed off to him emotionally, trying to distance himself from Xefros by treating him lower than himself.

This possibly can be due to his own inferiority that he feels the need to put people down and his fear of authority (starting of the rebellion in order to be in control of the very system that oppresses people like him).

Bronze bloods also have a knack of communing with animals due to their craving for validation and animals are mostly quite affectionate to people who are nice to them(this can cross over to their own personal interactions as trolls/humans are more complex than animals). Dammek not reciprocating Xefros' kindness might be due to past experiences with quadrants(previous relationships not reciprocated, causes him to try and distance himself emotionally to prevent from getting himself hurt.).

Dammek being a blood player, leads him to be someone who feeds off camaraderie and loyalty from others. Blood players are also known in most instances to be natural leaders as they manage to inspire many through their actions or words which might be why he is a tetrarch. Blood players stick tight to their own beliefs and views- even if they are wrong as they are too prideful to back down from what they have already worked hard to build up. (Him being an organizer of a rebellion)

Dammek seems to have a fear of separation, mostly to Xefros as is evident with how he always takes his stuff and claiming it as his own. Due to the nature of bronze bloods this can represent Dammek not wanting to let go of Xefros and can also provide a incentive for him to engage in conversations or interactions with Dammek to get back his stuff as Dammek does not want to come off as desperate due to his ego and forces Xefros to interact with him first.

Dammek also seems to be quite a paranoid person. With him planting several bugs in Xefros' home to the elaborate security systems he has in place- there are probably people who are after him, or people he thinks are after him.

Dammek's paranoia is also the cause of much tension between him and Xefros' relationship, his controlling behavior over Xefros to make sure he doesn't doesn't go against him(like his ‘tests’)and his reluctance to open up or be more vulnerable around his moirail.

Xefros and Dammek have quite contrasting personalities. Dammek being the more outgoing and crude rebellion leader while Xefros is a more withdrawn, selfless follower. Xefros' personality leads him to be more drawn to guidelines and a need of directions and rules to follow that Dammek is more than willing to provide. Xefros' emotional vulnerability leads Dammek to want to "toughen" him up and Dammek's more emotionally constipated nature leads Xefros to empathise with him.

Here are some extra thoughts that I would like to add. In optimistic duelist's hiveswap video, he mentions that some hiveswap trolls might not act like their aspect as they have not played SGRUB and do not know much about themselves. They are still kids trying to form their own direction and opinions based off on their experiences on the world around them and are all going through some sort of an identity crisis. Whereas in homestuck, the trolls know their aspects and what they are and how they fit into them.

There is also a theory that I've heard that Xefros is looking for a more redder relationship with Dammek while Dammek is looking for a black relationship with Xefros. This can also be as to why Xefros is more empathetic to Dammek while Dammek is more rude and distant to him. I do kind of disagree with this to an extent as Dammek wouldn't have let Xefros join the Grubbels if he didn't at least harbor some form of trust or closeness with him.

All in all, Dammek is a emotionally stunted and socially inept prick. He is constantly fighting against the system that is used to oppress him and conflicts with his controlling nature. I hope he does turn out to be a more three dimensional character in future acts as some fans can easily antagonize him. (There was also a post circulating about awhile back where a writer of hiveswap answers an ask about a Dammek redemption arc and they replied that Dammek will not be redeemed in the game. I am unable to find the source of it so take this with a grain of salt.)

[incrediblysincere]

Moral Orel: What to watch and what to avoid.

Moral Orel is a 2005-2008 satirical claymation comedy show that aired on Adultswim. It primarily deals with themes of Christianity, religious abuse, parental abuse, and loss of innocence. It’s not a show I would recommend everyone watch due to it’s extremely heavy themes in seasons 2 and 3, however it is also a very good show that includes:

- satirising religious abuse;

- the way Christianity is used as a justification for child abuse;

- portrayals of neglectful and abusive parents;

- alcoholism;

- a child growing up in this particular unhealthy environment;

- positive gay representation including:

- a gay or possibly bisexual man, struggling with his attraction towards a married man, and

- a young lesbian woman struggling with rejection and manipulation by a straight woman;

- an incredible soundtrack featuring the mountain goats.

However, the first season especially can be downright cruel at times in its frank portrayal of heavy subjects. The first season particularly feels more like a general dig at religion in a shallow way, while the later two seasons are much more well-rounded and thought out. Due to certain episodes in the first season, I am making a list of episodes that can be skipped in part or in whole due to triggering topics. (These episodes contribute little to the later storyline as each is more of a self-contained story than part of the greater narrative).

Every episode includes abuse or the implication of it, growing more explicit each season. There is also casual misogyny, homophobia, and antisemitism, all within the satire of Christianity and the typical tone of the show.

Season 1:

Episode 1: The Lord’s Greatest Gift (No need to skip)

 It is a good introduction to the tone of the first season. Nothing too major, it features Orel (an 11 year old) bringing several people back from the dead because he believes they are throwing away the lord’s greatest gift. No need to skip, it is overall silly and inoffensive. 

Episode 2: God’s Chef (skip)

This is the one I definitely recommend skipping. Orel is caught masturbating and misinterprets the subsequent telling-off. He proceeds to rape a lot of adult women in their sleep with a pastry bag. This episode is definitely one of the most tasteless episodes. Don’t watch if rape is a trigger, even though it’s not for me, it was still very hard to watch.

Episode 3: Charity (maybe skip)

This one is about Orel (once again) misinterpreting a sermon and buying crack, eventually becoming addicted to it. Skip if graphic depictions of drug addiction/making light of addiction isn’t your thing. This episode has some pretty funny moments, but it isn’t essential to watch.

Episode 4: Waste (maybe skip)

This episode features Orel misinterpreting a sermon and consequently drinking his own urine and selling it to his classmates as a sports drink. Skip if that sounds gross to you. It also features a quick joke about the school’s sports team being called “The Vanishing Americans” with a native american caricature as a mascot. (note: this also properly introduces what is imo, one of the best characters, Coach Stopframe.)

Episode 5: The Blessed Union (no need to skip)

In this episode we meet the other best character, Stephanie. She does give Orel a Prince Albert (penis) piercing, but feels bad about it afterwards. Skip if that sounds iffy to you, but overall the episode has a much softer tone as Stephanie is one of the only characters who genuinely cares about Orel.

Episode 6: Omnipresence (maybe skip)

This episode features Orel believing God is in everything, including himself, and subesequently trying to heal everyone. Mostly inoffensive, but a man does try to commit suicide (and fails) and Orel unplugs an elderly womans life support under her instruction. Skip if these topics make you uncomfortable.

Episode 7: God-Fearing (no need to skip)

Orel has no fun on Halloween because, due to having God on his side, nothing is scary to him. In order to have fun he deliberately breaks all the ten commandments, including “Thou shalt not kill”. Pretty inoffensive.

Episode 8: Loyalty (maybe skip)

Orel is introduced to Coach Stopframe’s nephew, Joe, and the two become friends. Due to the sermon of the day being about loyalty to friends, Orel does whatever Joe wants. This includes bashing a pair of young gay boys with baseball bats, which isn’t depicted too graphically, but is hard to watch. The episode also features Clay Puppington getting three young boys drunk. Skip if this sounds triggering, it doesn’t add much to the plot.

Episode 9: Maturity (maybe skip)

Orel’s younger brother, Shapey, accidentally shoots him in the eye with a BB gun. Orel wants to become more mature like an adult, so he starts stealing liquor from his dad’s collection in order to be an adult. Skip if alcoholism is a trigger for you.

Episode 10: The best Christmas Ever (don’t skip if plot is important to you)

The Best Christmas Ever marks the start of a real storyline in Moral Orel. It has some dark themes, and if you want to watch seasons 2 and 3, know that it just gets darker from here. However, this is also where it starts getting good, so I (probably) won’t be writing up trigger warnings for seasons 2 and 3, especially since that’ll also contain spoilers. 

It is revealed that Shapey was an unplanned pregnancy, and may also not be Clay’s biological son. Bloberta wants a divorce. Orel believes Shapey to be the second coming of Jesus and treats him accordingly. Orel pleads God, with two minutes left of Christmas, to make things better.

I probably won’t provide warnings for seasons two o three. It’s expected that if you get up to this point that you are okay with the show satirizing the topics of child abuse, religious abuse, and alcoholism. Things get darker from here but are also more coherent, meaning that if you are able to stomach such topics then it is an excellent watch and anything I could write would also spoil the plot. This is meant as a loose guide to which first season episodes to avoid, and is the type of guide I could have used on my first watch. Also, I’m autistic and have too much free time.

[amandaklwrites]

Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Genre: Action/Adventure, Mystery

Rating: 10/10

Movie Review:

*Some spoilers below, but’s been over 10 years, so I’m just going with it*

Let me begin by saying, I LOVE THESE MOVIES! I know not every Holmes fan loves these movies, but I am a diehard fan of these films. These were the ones that got me into Sherlock Holmes in the first place.

I love the Victorian era, which should be a dead giveaway. Every time I watch these films, I remember how much I love the dark, gritty, vibrantness of the era. My mom always says I’m weird because I say, “I love how dark Victorian England is.” There’s just something about it to me—maybe it’s the clothes, maybe it’s the world, maybe it’s England, maybe it’s the way mysteries feel so right set during the period. I can’t explain it. But this movie (and the second one) perfectly shows off everything I love about this period.

Robert Downey, Jr as Sherlock Holmes is just a fun mess. To me, he gets the basic of Holmes down, and then adds his own twist to it. Yes, Sherlock Holmes is a bit self-centered (to some degree, of course) and knows he’s brilliant, but hey, at least he’s comfortable in his own skin. This Holmes that RDJ portrays actually uses humor in such a fantastic way that I always find myself laughing at his quips. His madness is lighter, a bit more playful than other portrayals, I think. And this one is shown to be capable of love, when it comes to Irene Adler. I mean, obviously Holmes can love—i.e. he deeply cares for Watson as his comrade—but I meant in the romantical/sexual sense. Which I liked. It made him feel a little “human.” However, RDJ made him seem to be awkward in those situations, which I think felt like how a real person like Holmes would be.

Jude Law as John Watson is perfection. He has the personality down—the humor, the way he purposefully antagonizes Holmes, his utter annoyance and perplexion (wait, is that a word?) at Holmes is amazing. I’ve always loved this Watson the best (though I can’t choose a Holmes, I’m sorry), and not only is Jude Law a gorgeous man with the best voice on the planet, but he slips into this period so well. The dynamic between Holmes and Watson in these movies (as done by RDJ and Jude Law) is so incredible to watch, as they seem like best friends, brothers, lovers, and enemies all at once. I could watch these two forever, honestly.

Now, Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler is my favorite Irene. Forever and ever. She has a feistiness, while also a little scary in the scene when she attacks her attacker. She’s Holmes’ perfect equal and you see the attraction, the care, and the nervousness between the two of them perfectly. They attract to one another but repel the other at the same time. It is like they are constantly dancing around each other, and it seems like they would follow the other to the ends of the earth if they wanted. But they stay away. Plus, this Irene is brutal and her dresser in men’s clothing is one of the most attractive things I have ever seen.

Mark Strong as the bad guy, Lord Blackwood, is damn brilliant. I see Mark Strong in a few other movies and every time, I’m like “oh no, it’s Blackwood!” which often gets weird looks from my mother. He has the perfect acting and voice for a villain, and I like him that way. There’s something about him that is so dark and mysterious, especially in this movie, that seems to draw you in. He’s perplexing, he’s dangerous, and it’s like you kind of like it. At least I did. I also think Mark Strong is a fantastic actor because at the end, when he’s falling through the chains to his death, he looks like a frightened child. Which he technically is—Blackwood was just angry and turned to the dark. It was amazing, and I loved him as a villain.

The supernatural feel to the movie was fun. I liked it—though, I knew there would be scientific reasoning behind it—thanks Holmes! It gave the tone an even darker feel, and I love anything supernatural in Victorian England. It makes it more haunting to me.

I personally thought the plot and mystery was great. Someone coming back from the dead? Oh HELL YEAH! Though I know some people didn’t like it—I’ve heard others say that it was hard for them to keep up—but I think Guy Ritchie and the writers did a great job of having it reflect the period. Did you know that the Victorians were OBSESSED with death? I’m not kidding. This was when vampires were huge, the gothic genre came to life, they held seances on a regular basis, people saw creatures and ghosts all the time. Why do you think Dickens thought of ghosts as haunting Ebenezer Scrooge to help him become a better person on Christmas Eve? Mostly, however, the Victorians were intrigued with death and the afterlife, but they were terrified at the same time. There was a huge thing in the period where they developed different ways/mechanisms for people buried in caskets to tell people above that they were actually alive—yes, they accidentally buried people alive all the time. Let’s just say, doctors in that period were not great at reading pulses or understanding the body (sorry Watson!). At the beginning, when people “woke up” and climbed out of caskets and graves, people thought the dead had risen. So, to me, personally, I think this idea was PERFECT for this film. A man comes back from the dead and starts killing people—so they get Holmes on the case. And like in real life, there’s always an explanation (though, I personally believe anything is possible).

But also, this movie is about friendship. I think that’s the heart of these stories—two men that love each other and would die for one another. Yes, they both have romances—Watson is getting married, Holmes has Irene Adler whenever she’s around. But at the end of it, these stories aren’t about romance, they aren’t about death and mysteries. They are about two men who have seen so much, grown closer over the years, and have one another’s backs like no one else. It’s the type of friendship I have always liked in stories, one that I had long ago and lost, those deep personal connections that run deeper than any romance or familial relationship. We see their friendship tested, changes coming and threatening them, but they end up stronger and just as close as ever. These are two friends who love one another no matter what their virtues or flaws are. They care so deeply that those things don’t matter. They are just there with each other. And I think RDJ and Jude Law show this perfectly, making that the most important part of the film.

Now, I know this isn’t everyone, but Guy Ritchie is personally a favorite of mine, and I love how he films things. I know some people don’t like how he uses speed and CGI for certain affects, but I like it. I love that these movies just aren’t about solving mysteries, they have ACTION sequences. I mean, why not??? Holmes boxes and knows jujitsu. Ritchie played with that well and it made me think these movies were even cooler than anything. I just love them so much.

Everything about this movie is great to me—the main cast, the other character who round out the film (Lestrade’s hate of Holmes is the best), the humor, the action sequences. These movies are just downright fun and make me disappear from the real world for a little world. I get so sucked in that I can’t think of anything else. They make me feel warm and comfortable, and that I can do anything. That’s what they have done for me.

Sherlock Holmes and John Watson have existed in our pop culture for so long, and I loved that this movie introduced newer versions of them, and they are probably my personal favorites.

I will watch these movies forever.

[marijaynewatson]

87 n 99 pls

this is my second time doing this bc tumblr refreshed and deleted my very long answers and i got pissed so here’s round 2.

87. what are some movies you think everyone should watch at least once in their lives?

this one’s hard, i gotta keep track of movies that are really good and really important to me. one i think everyone should watch is moonlight. the portrayal of the struggle of growing up as a gay, Black man and the first love story feels so genuine. that movie is also beautifully shot and is just really nice to look at.

another one is donnie darko, which is kind of another first love story and that movie is one of the first that had that black mirror kinda vibe. the acting is also hella good. we love a good ~thought provoking~ movie.

one that i really like is million dollar baby. this one is more of a found family kinda love story and it tugs on the old heartstrings. i love that there’s some little details that you can miss that add so much to the characters and the story. good shit man.

last one i’m gonna mention sounds like a joke but forrest gump is such a good movie. if you were just looking at the story beats and everything that happens without seeing the movie, it would seem like a shitshow and that there’s way too much going on. but somehow it just works and this movie has a lot of emotional impact for me.

99. list some songs that resonate to your soul when you hear them.

* ann’s jam - chastity belt | i talk about this song a lot but it reminds me how lucky i am to have the friends that i do and it just gives me like vibey road trip vibes. doesn’t help that the chazzy belt girls are besties and they’re adorable and i love them. also the instrumentals themselves give me just like content nostalgia vibes. (1st out of 3 songs to make me unconsciously tear up)

* disappear - beabadoobee | the like angry-sadness of this song hit me really hard. the frustration in the “why’d you have to fucking disappear?” is so painful and hits me where it hurts. (2nd of 3 songs to make me unconsciously tear up)

* prom queen - beach bunny | that feeling of never being pretty enough or good enough in general hits too close to home. the conflicting like.. go feminism but also i’m not pretty enough and i never will be is very #relatable. the “i wanna be okay” hurts too. (3rd of 3 songs to make me unconsciously tear up)

* do not wait - wallows | ah yes the suburbia commentary mixed with comradery, so heartfelt and such a perfect way to end an album.

* obstacle 1 - interpol | ah yes sad and angsty songs about models committing suicide and/or an old flame that dies. good song. super angsty. reminds me of freshman year.

* stars - the xx / shelter - the xx | stars is so vibey, teenage love and curiosity and just willingness to try anything when it comes to love mixed with the instrumentals.. good shit. as for shelter, that feeling of fucking up and hurting someone and just trying to convey that you care about them and want them to know how you feel hits too close to home. the instrumentals add a lot to this one too.

* bags - clairo | ah to be a wlw.. not knowing if someone feels the same way you do.. just wanting to tell someone how you feel and wanting to give them a nice smooch.. ah man this song hurts me. unrequited crushes man.

* lovetripper - cuco | god this song is so vibey and cuco is such a sappy pisces i love him. such a hopeless romantic and it hits hard.. i wanna s/o so bad man.

* retro (rough) - childish gambino | summer vibes.. the instrumental and the vocals are so cute and summery. like the lyrics are fun too but the vibes of the notes hit hard.

i’m gonna end it there just bc i’ve been going off for so long. bruh i can’t wait for my music class so i can just write about shit i’m hyped.

[evilisk]

Reading Len’En Profiles Pt 5

We round off the RMI cast with the New Emperor, their Anachronistic Advisor and the short story detailing how they met. (The illustration above was done up by JynX for Len’En’s 2nd anniversary)

= = =

While Iyozane’s profile is very conventional and barebones, Fumikado’s profile basically has extra details about Iyozane too, which is why I decided to split their profiles off from everyody else. 

= = =

How Fumikado and Iyozane Met

I love how half of Fumikado’s backstory is an actual short story. As far as the writing goes, it’s not bad. One issue is how confusing the profile is as a result of all the characters being “they” (e.g. “When Fumikado asked that question, they smiled slightly” is very confusing). Otherwise, I really like how much atmosphere is packed into this little story.

I love how we basically get the full context behind the naming of Iyozane’s musical theme (”In The Gloomy Straits, Steady As She Goes”). We also get a bit of theming with Fumikado in regards to the stars (note that one of Fumikado’s spellcards is constellation)

Oh and the Bridge in BPoHC is alluded to, and Suzumi’s role, and so many other things. It’s crazy how ambitious this profile is. You’d never see ZUN setting up the boss characters of a following game in a profile.

... I can’t believe it took me one short story to instantly want to ship Fumikado and Iyozane. Either I’m getting really soft, or JynX is just way better at creating ‘shipping potential’ than ZUN is

= = =

Stage 3 Boss - Fujiwara no Iyozane

Original Opinion: To me, Iyozane is the weak-link in the “New Emperor Trio”. Their petty ambitions are fine but they really don’t stand out compared to the stoic Tsugumi or the over-the-top Fumikado. It’s a shame too, as I do love their design, their fight and their musical theme (their RMI theme is especialy good. Like, I could listen to that melancholic melody all day~)

Comments on Profile:

I see JynX is just taking the piss out of the species section again (with Iyozane’s race being “Human, aspiring to be a pirate”)

So Iyozane hates the cold too. I find it hilarious that a whole bunch of people involved in this incident actually hate being in the cold (so far, we’re at Iyozane and the two Adagumo siblings).

I relate to their angle of ‘is ambitious, has no clue how to achieve said ambitions’ so much

So Iyozane apparently uses their flute to control the spirits in their spellcards. That’s cool. Especially since their (godly) theme includes a woodwind instrument... I think? I tend to confuse instruments

Does this mean Iyozane is the first musical Len’En character? I feel like they have to be. I do like how JynX avoided the ZUN cliche of “gotta have a spellcard with musical notes, just so you know that they’re a musician!”

I just want it to be know that I totally wrote half of this profile analysis while listening to Iyozane’s theme on loop. It is just so damn good.

Comments on Short Story: 

I like the Iyozane portrayed in the short story. Iyozane’s kind of a typical arrogant, villainous noble type in-game but here they seem so full of energy, with how talkative and open they are, how they’re nervous to perform in front of Fumikado etc. While I’m all for Fumikado becoming the new Emperor, I’m a bit bummed out over how boring “Iyozane in active ambition mode” is

I don’t know the full deal with the name “Fujiwara” (other than Fujiwara being the name of some ancient Japanese clan, oh and Mokou having the same surname, of course) but Iyozane gets points for the strangely mysterious backstory

New Opinion: I have mixed feelings here. The short story kind of turned me around on Iyozane, in theory, but I still don’t really like ‘petty advisor’ Iyozane. Until I’ve played BPoHC, I’ll have to hold off on having a final opinion on Iyozane as a whole.

= = =

Stage 6 Boss - Taira no Fumikado

Original Opinion: For all the jokes about Fumikado having a ghost horse stand, Fumikado gives me such strong Joestar vibes. Like, I hear that “Fumikado fought and then ran away from Shion” and my mind instantly goes to Joseph Joestar running away from Straits or Kars. It’s the combination of arrogance, shameless pragmatism and the talent (Fumikado is actually strong... just not “main character” levels of strong). What little I’ve played of BPoHC and their route only cements this Joestar impession I have of Fumikado.

Though I was incredibly disappointed with Fumikado’s badassery and final boss status being deconstructed (seriously, Fumikado would have broken the curse of “lame Len’En final boss” if they’d been played straight), I think JynX has done a good job of transitioning them into something way more enjoyable than *just* a badass final boss... even if that’s more to do with their BPoHC portrayal.

Comments on Profile:

There is strangely zero mention of Taira no Masakado in their profile (despite him being very, very important to Fumikado’s whole deal)

While it was said in-game that they’re supposed to be the vessel for Masakado, I was not expecting Fumikado to have been groomed from such a young age. It’s actually kind of messed up. Especially since you need to ask “what the hell is gonna happen to Fumikado if they’re successful in their goal?”

I also just want to mention the body switching stuff. It is wild that Fumikado can apparently just do that, and that they apparently grew up in somebody else’s body (while somebody else grew up in their body). I don’t write fanfiction but it’d be quite an angle you could explore in fanfic.

Fumikado’s grandpa is like the first canonically male character, right? Not that it matters, he seems like a jerk for convincing kid Fumikado to go through with all this.

Despite my goofy interpretation of them, Fumikado is surprisingly restrained, introspective even, in their short story. 

New Opinion: Wow, uh yeah. I think after all of that, Fumikado might straight up be my favourite character in RMI now. 

I already liked Fumikado just on a surface level (theme, design, personality) but Fumikado’s profile adds so much pathos to the them. They’re not some failed supervillain. They were someone trained and groomed from birth to do this one role, this one role that could have lead to the erasure of their own existence; and they failed at this one role due to complete bad luck. The irony would be palpable were it not for the fact that they now have a chance to have their own existence, not as Taira no Masakado, but as Taira no Fumikado. Is that not a lot to take in or what? 

= = = 

Final Thoughts

Though I don’t quite like RMI as a game, I have a lot of respect for it from a writing perspective because holy crap is JynX’s ambition just bleeding through. There’s so many plot threads going on even without adding all the setup and foreshadowing in BPoHC. You got the New Emperor Trio, Tenkai, Yaorochi and Saragimaru’s ‘meeting’ and Shion and Sese’s side stories all packed into one. JynX has set the storytelling bar rather high with this game.

= = =

Ranking the RMI Cast

Taira no Fumikado

Tenkai Zuifeng

Sese

Tsugumi

Shion

My ranking of Iyozane isn’t decided yet. Don’t expect the BPoHC profiles any time soon. Dear God, JynX is a madman for adding two different routes with two completely new sets of bosses and for bringing back every single character.

[girlobsessed21]

The 100 6x12 discussion: Screw protocol and kill them all

My fingers hovered over the keyboard with nerves and you will see my prudence shine through in the post. Look, this is my favorite show, probably of all time, and this entire season has been an absolute doozy to experience. Then, I get to the penultimate episode and I suddenly feel off my game. Not sure if it’s the abundance of storylines happening at once, the few plot holes, Sheidheda or inconsistency, nonetheless, here’s my experience.

You can go back and read all my discussions from the trailer to 6x11 and I never wavered in my stance that Russel may have morals but he is a well-rounded baddie and the main villain of the season. Sure, we had Josephine and whether it’s Eliza and Sarah’s remarkable acting or the sociopath's substance, I’d love a spinoff series about her. It sure is a fruit salad when you add the monstrous commander to the mix, though I don’t expect that storyline to be resolved by next episode. Clarke never found the notebook and Raven seem to be struggling with his disengagement.

In line with the rest of the season, this is filled with the good, the bad and the beautiful. Russel vs Gabriel, Abby vs Simone, Emori vs Murphy, the devout vs nonbelievers and ultimately kill the few to save the many vs taking no lives at all.

Before all the gory details, I just have to say Eliza Taylor is out-and-out iconic. I cannot sing her praises enough with the shrewd way in which she fits into each character’s skin. The lucid distinction between Clarke and Josephine with her emotions surfacing in her ruse as the latter is exceptional.

In peace, you left this shore, Abby

If you follow my weekly posts, you’ll know my opinion on Abby is quite brutal. I’ve never liked her, perhaps a little in season one but she still caused her own husband’s death.  Season after season, episode after episode my fury towards her grew exponentially and I was more than ready to say goodbye - until now.

Looking into your daughter’s eyes, knowing it’s not her must be soul-crushing. I felt it with Abby, Clarke and Delilah’s parents, which is why I completely understood her threatening Russel. A little tear escaped my own eyes when she cried for the loss of Clarke while Raven tried to comfort her.

Keeping her promise to her daughter, Abby turned herself into a nightblood to save Madi. This has to be one of her most heroic moments ever. I’m not sure if Kane’s final words or this instance bears the turning point in which her past mistakes catch up to her, either way, it’s appreciated. Albeit a strong callback to the Finn and Pike’s deaths.

She did not get a redemption arc but at least her sendoff included a final forgiving chapter.

Ugh, I wanted to punch the smugness from Russel’s face when he realized Abby will be the perfect candidate for his wife. But it came as no surprise, I suspected it.

Her moment with Jackson and the apology to Raven was delivered with such intimacy and poignancy that it provokes a chilling heartbreak when Russel plunges the needle into her neck. Not to mention the way her life flashed before her eyes as she fell to the ground. Paige Turco truly is an amazing actress and I’m curious to see her portrayal of the prime queen even if it’s just for one episode.

At least she had a beautiful, although short, reunion with Clarke.

One last thing I need to add, Raven’s humbleness this episode was more than welcome. I needed to hear that she acknowledges her judgmentalism as a flaw which requires resolve. A lot can be said on the topic, as I’ve done many times before, though I hope it holds up. Seeing such a strong and smart character in constant high-horse mentality is infuriating, to say the least.

To the glory and grace of the primes

Props to Emori, she has really grown into quite the benevolent character. I’ve always liked her, but throughout the entire series, she has only improved. From a scavenger to becoming Raven’s skilled apprentice and a loyal member of the Spacekru family. And if 6x08 wasn’t enough to lionize her, she refuses to play house with people who deems a threat to her and her friends.

All while, Murphy’s plan was to show Russel that they’re useful and on-board with being false gods. I thought he would try to find a way to save Echo but clearly being immortal is his first priority. Apart from asking nicely, he did nothing to protect his friends. Did he justify the decision in his mind? Where is the John Murphy I’ve come to love? Raven’s look at Murphy mirrored all of my own feelings on the matter.

I just have to add that both of them looked stunning when they emerged hand-in-hand as brother and sister. Emori’s dress, damn baby, she hot as hell.

Clarke, on the other hand, is more than resourceful by using Ryker as a bargaining chip. No pun intended. As a mother herself, she knows it’s the quintessential key to Priya’s compliance. And Echo’s attempt at stopping them - top-notch. But can someone please explain when they became friends because if my memory serves correctly, the last time they were together, Echo tried to kill her? Even if she defended her in 6x01, I wasn’t aware they are on hugging terms.

Raven’s perception of the primes as serial killers in royal robes couldn’t be more fitting.

Like I said last week, Gabriel reminds me so much of Monty. Perhaps Mr. Green was slightly stronger; he did kill his own mother when it was necessary. Though, it doesn’t compensate for the lack of Jordan, where is he? Being such an innocent yet brave member of the ensemble, I cannot help but take his absence personally. It’s slightly ridiculous in my opinion.

Anyway, the prince of peace is hellbent on putting a stop to namings day and instinctively changes the plan. Even if I enjoyed his “there is nothing more powerful than the truth” speech, facing a king singlehandedly is foolish. Unfortunately, his presence alerts Russel that the red sun trigger is a fluke. And I suppose unlike all the other heroes of this show, he’s never killed anyone with a gun before. Then again, would pulling that trigger have made any difference with Simone being alive?

Why did Russel not kill Gabriel though? Was it because Dr. Santiago brought his daughter back and gave them the privilege of immortality? Sorry, that part confused me.

Abby!Simone sure is a vision in white, wow but what a total self-centered biatch!!! At least Abby’s death blew the morality right back into Murphy. The two of them have always had a strong bond since he kept Clarke’s heart beating.

Poor Clarke though, seeing Madi bound and realizing her mother’s dead must have shattered her soul. That, right after seeing Bellamy and Echo in each other’s arms. My heart goes out to her still playing the role of Josephine with enough conviction to fool her parents. Our female lead is one strong woman, blaming the tears on her mother’s return and Gabriel’s betrayal.

Now, Madi being alive and well is a bit of a conundrum. Sheidheda said he’ll kill the girl if Raven continues. So, my guess is that he let her live since Raven’s tied up and he needs to wake the Wonkru army and they’re playing right into his hand.

Finally, that standoff ending between the primes threatening Madi and Gaia against Indra, Niyalah and the rest of the crew was supercharged. I’m still yelling, “No, this can’t be it!”

The calvary protocol adjusted

There’s nothing more fun to watch as the Blake’s on good terms. Man, I love it. Octavia being the supportive sibling even more so. And It seems like Bellamy is becoming quite the clown this season. If I’m not mistaken, “I told you she’d get it done,” was like his third joke. He’s always been my favorite, can’t help but smile when he graces my screen.

Fun stuff aside, death to primes.

Bellamy and Echo reunite. Clearly, he’s delighted to find her safe and sound after learning him she’s in trouble. I believe him to be more than guilt-ridden about abandoning her to save Clarke, even if it ultimately was the right choice. I hate to sound like a typical Bellarke shipper but if their relationship continues with no addressing the last three episodes, it would trigger grave blemishes in the storyline.

It’s degrading for Echo to idly accept her boyfriend’s dedication to another woman. And Bellamy has to face those conflicting feelings inside and make a choice; right now he has his cake and takes little nibbles when the hunger strikes badly.

Of course there’s no time right now. It doesn’t have to happen right away or even in this season, yet it can’t simply be ignored. The looks on both Clake and Octavia’s faces suggest they're less than pleased with the intimate embrace.

Moving on, his inspirational declaration of the truth took me right back to season one. The man sure has a way of influencing the masses. Sadly, Russel’s had a bomb of his own which causes one hell of an outbreak for those without anti-toxin and Priya’s death by the hand of Delilah’s mom.

Convenient how there just happened to be a lockable storage unit nearby which Echo knew about. Was it one of her hideouts? And won’t they have to kill all the believers anyway once they break down those doors? Guess we’ll find out next week.

I can’t believe there’s only one episode left, I’m already dreading the hiatus. As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts! May we meet again next week.

[notbigondoors]

Hi mun! You write so well, and I wanted to ask you: what do you think about Marvel (or movies/shows in general) overusing Bathos? Bathos is basically interrupting emotional scenes with humor. Marvel does this a lot. Sometimes it's okay- I love humor, comedy and jokes! But sometimes they do it too often. It feels like ironic detachment (treating everything like a joke) and the audience gets tired. Do you think there's a reason behind overusing Bathos? Are people just afraid of emotions?

{out of equations} Awww, thank you! Honestly, the way emotion is dealt with in Marvel movies, specifically negative emotions and conditions that effects emotions like grief, guilt, and PTSD, is really terrible. Writing characters like Vision and Pietro, who were killed and then never mentioned again, never given a funeral or any recognition, nothing (I mean I guess there’s WandaVision but that’s really not the same thing, but I don’t want to say any potential spoilers for people who aren’t familiar with the comics), it irritates me that only popular characters are given recognition or spoken about after their deaths. And writing characters like Wanda it irritates me that characters are made to seem completely fine after someone dies, save for the initial immediate response. Losing a twin brother she was emotionally co-dependent on due to traumas she had suffered, Wanda should not have been as okay as she was in Civil War. The fact that Pietro was never mentioned again, he was not given a funeral, Wanda never seems to think of him or be affected at all by his death or absence in her life... is just utterly ludicrous to me. So I’m definitely not happy with the omission of all the uncomfortable emotions, shall we say, but nonetheless ones that are important to human life and character development. I like to write well-rounded characters, so I have had to add to them to include everything the movies omitted.

But on some level, I just kind of accept and expect this from movies like those of the MCU. I’m not saying I condone it, or that it makes me happy, but I just don’t expect anything more than what I’m getting. The reason for that is that these movies are billed as big-budget, blockbuster, action movies. Unfortunately the top priority with them is to make money. Therefore, they want to hit the biggest audience they can who wants to see nothing but action and their favorite people front and center. This means things like emotional development health, follow-ups to emotional events or character deaths, and “slice of life” moments are going to be few and far between. They want people to be entertained, and grief, trauma, loss, nightmares, depression, and PTSD... all things that the Avengers would be dealing with... doesn’t sell. As annoying as it is to be told by Big Cinema what I think and feel and what I would find most interesting in a movie, I honestly just accept it. If I want realistic emotional development and trauma processing in characters, I don’t watch Avengers movies.

...I write the characters that way myself. XD No, but seriously now...

As someone who really thrives on character development and hashing out difficult things with character, I got used to disappointment, watching angst or grief or some sort of emotional development almost happen and then... oh, there's a joke. And the scene changes. And then ends. And there went that. It’s jarring to someone actually wanting to see that development. Like being promised a pizza and then you get closer to it and you see it has broccoli on it. Just... not what I hoped for. XD

What pushed me over the edge from passive acceptance of this unfortunate phenomenon to vehement disapproval was the comical portrayal of Thor in Endgame. I was frankly really shocked by it. It’s one thing to derail an emotional scene with humor, truncate an emotional reaction so a scene doesn’t get too dark or upsetting, or to omit things like grief and mourning because they don’t advance the plot. It is quite another thing entirely to take a character who is showing clear signs of depression and PTSD (avoidance, volatile temper, overindulgence of escape activities like gaming and drinking alcohol, poor personal hygiene, disregard for one’s health in the form of not cutting his hair or beard and gaining a lot of weight), and basically saying to the audience... look at this guy! He’s pathetic and funny! Make fun of him! Laugh at him! Because that’s what you do to people who are upset and traumatized in this fashion! I thought that was a serious step too far. The message it sends about those with mental illness and how to interface with them is tone-deaf, insensitive, and not at all amusing.

So... I guess I’ll say that... I probably like a bit more angst than most do in their storytelling. I want to see the grief and funerals and ho the character navigates difficult conditions like PTSD every bit as much as I want to see all the good times. I, however, recognize that others watch movies to escape from the bad things in their lives and maybe don’t want to see all that stuff, and that big blockbusters are written to contain more action than anything else because that’s what sells. I recognize, too, that these movies can only be so long and they have to pick and choose what they are going to put in them. I think that’s why techniques like Bathos are used a lot in movies that are supposed to be exciting and entertaining. They don’t want certain emotions, uncomfortable situations, or things that might hit home for some people to detract from the fun or bring down the energy of the storytelling. But to me... those emotions and situations should be part of the storytelling, because they’re part of life.

Their overuse of Bathos and general avoidance of anything too deeply emotional is frustrating but understandable on some levels. So just avoid it then. Cut away from it, if that’s what you need to do. Truncate it. But going so far as to make light of how someone deals with loss and traumatic events and guilt... mmm, no. I think they went too far with that. That’s where I draw the line.