#which especially if you are doing unreliable narration in a visual form does not work

[aaronymous999]

The thing that bugs me about Higurashi When They Cry is about how- they do the unreliable narrator thing but it’s like ( to be fair the anime does this worse ) there are no cracks in this unreliability? Like occasionally we see things as they are, Mion and Rena just being kind friends and helping Keiichi, but some of the other stuff is like? Unless he is having all forms of hallucination right now this makes zero sense in context to the later answer arcs?

Also Mion and her family like actually kill people that’s not a delusion or anything they straight up have a torture room in their basement.

[wildissylupus]

My (hopefully) last complaint about Junkertown and the Junkers before my inevitable Re-write post

Junkers vs. MAD MAX

Alright I'm already on a roll with this and I've already committed myself to doing a rewrite of Junkertown and the Junkers, but I have one more thing to complain. That being the fact that they butcher the media they are referencing, that being Mad Max. For more context this is also coming form an Australian who has never watched these movies, this doesn't mean I didn't do my research, this is just to give context that I myself have never seen these movies.

If you don't know Mad Max is very much Australian media, written by, acted by, and taking place in Australia. Not only that but it very much relies on the world building of the fact that one, Australia is very isolated, and two, the rest of the world is like this. Something that Overwatch fails egregiously off the bat with considering that the rest of the world is not an apocalyptic wasteland and the fact that the thing that caused Junkertown and the radiation was an Omnium. You know, the thing that multiple countries had? There's also the fact that Junkrat and Roadhog are international criminals, how big Austraila is and the travel time between areas are never considered, it's exceedingly easy to leave the damn country (Junkrat and Roadhog again but also Hammond in his new short story). They want to be a Mad Max reference without actually considering the fact that the isolation inherent to Australia is important to Mad Max's setting.

There's also the fact that Mad Max relies heavily on visual story telling, Mad Max: Fury Road not even having a screenplay, it was fully laid out on storyboards. There's also the fact that Mad Max was not about the Australian experience but rather the human experience, this isn't a problem until you realize that every other characters references are very much biased off that characters origin. That or their place of origin is considered when writing them even if the reference for said character isn't from that country.

Another thing is that Mad Max communicates the brutality and disfunction of humanity, society has collapsed and we are left with the worst of it. The theming and messaging does not work with the rest of Overwatch's theming, it also doesn't make sense in universe considering that Overwatch was one, very environment focused, and two, was already sending forces to Australia to help with the consequences of radiation. Why did they let the Wasteland and Junkertown get so bad? Especially in the early Golden Age, and you can't say that it was because of the Junkers cause Overwatch have handled worse. Even before that point. We also have better examples of "the worst of humanity trope" with Talon, and they actually fit the story and world.

The theme they also completely miss in the soulless copy that is the Junkers is the individual connections and the theming or regaining humanity after great tragedy. In all honesty the best way they could have done this would have been to make Howl's rule itself the Mad Max Reference while Odessa's rule was the healing process from that, but no, they made her an overtaxing dictator instead. The gave the Junkers storyline the theme of desperation but no theme of hope, leaving it empty.

The only thing they unintentionally get right is that your environment doesn't necessarily change you, you do. Yes, a change of environment can assist in giving you space to make that change, but you are you no matter where you go. Junkrat and Roadhog don't change cause their out of Junkertown, they stay the exact same. Which is unfortunate because this is just due to them lacking any real depth in canon, an no, Junkrat actually being incredibly smart isn't character depth.

Back to the whole human connection thing, tell me, outside of fanon interpretation, out side of Junkrat's unreliable narration, outside of the interaction with characters he hasn't met in canon yet. Does anyone like Junkrat? Roadhog is there because Junkrat is paying him and because he seems board, the rest of Junkertown hates him, JQ especially. Roadhog doesn't seem to care about anyone, Junkerqueen's only true connection we see is with Hammond, and Hammond contiues to be my favoutite Junker by literally negating all the complaints about Junkertown I've had so far.

Honestly when I started looking at Junkertown lore I did not expect to be coming out saying that the fucking hamster was the best written character but here we are.

This is all also only referencing Mad Max: Fury Road by the way, which is probably what Junker Town is based off of considering its popularity and the time of release compared to Overwatch's. Honestly I might re-do this analysis/complaint if I ever watch the Mad Max series myself. Though I don't think my feelings will change of this, and that is the Junkers are an insult of a reference to MAD MAX. An empty copy at best. This is also coming from the person who often defends Overwatch's writing, I can't defend the Junkers, it's just bad writing.

[lunova-rambles]

Just binge-read the “My Aunt Is a Monster” graphic novel by Reimena Yee and it is one of my new favourite graphic novels omg

Like not only is the art (especially the colouring) INCREDIBLE but the story is so good to?? The phrasing/storytelling makes it clear with there is some unreliable narration at times, so before you finish chapter 1 you could be led to believe that it’s like “oh maybe the aunt isn’t really a monster, it’s just because the girl telling the story is blind” BUT NO they make it very clear by mid-chapter 1 that the aunt is, in fact, actually a monster. (The cover makes it obvious, but ofc it could just be misleading.)

I guess this is sort of spoilers, but I’m pleasantly surprised that there wasn’t a twist that there was no magic and everything was real (in-universe). In the forward, the author does thank blind/visually impaired people & their allies for making the world more accessible to the former, so I think it’s great that the main character (Safia)’s disability isn’t used as an explanation of sorts on how the magic is happening

And then there are different POVs too omg I love how they show the different perspectives AND ALSO LITTLE HINTS/FORESHADOWING!! Or a callback technically but I’ll discuss that under the cut.

Side note, I gotta try some dondurma sometime…

!! SPOILERS ahead !!

Just a couple mild spoilers first, Aunt Whimsy is cursed to be a Makara which is a nice way of including some Hindu culture! (The author mentions in their biography that they like to include irl cultures in their work, so props to them!)

Tbh I felt like the ending of the ancient city was a little rushed, though. We’re told that the “scourge” has been released and that they need to go inside somewhere to protect “Paradise,” but then cut to the next scene and they’re outside of the place and there’s no explanation as to how that fits with the ending/epilogue. I understand this is most likely a setup for a sequel, but like, the end and epilogue don’t make it seem important if that’s the case. Other than Hebe having a Makara hand now, though honestly that could just be something she has to live with and left ambiguous.

But MAN can Reimena Yee draw some nice fire omg, any time Aunt Whimsy is in her full Makara form, the colours/line art are so cool!! I’m biased because my favourite graphic novels are in similar styles lol but either way, very neat that certain special pages have coloured Lineart instead of black.

ANYWAY I love callbacks and so in this book, my fav callback is the Bureau of Suspicious Intent’s logo being an apple. This is my favourite kind of callback too, where it’s technically a Chekov’s Gun but the writing makes it seem more like foreshadowing (because the callback itself is a build up rather than just the payoff)!

Idk if they establish that Ms. Cathryn bakes apple pies before they reveal she’s ex-Bureau (since they mention it after), but if they do, then that’s the first lil breadcrumb

Yee also shows a gold apple on Hebe’s journal/notes when she’s first introduced, but tbh I didn’t recognize it as an apple because of the style/size lol it was kinda just a blob

Then they introduce the Bureau with the gold apple logo but make no mention of it!! So it’s a callback that works only in a graphic novel since it’s a visual thing!!

so on the cruise ship, you can start to catch onto the ploy about to happen just because there is a suspicious amount of people wearing gold [apple] accessories… 👀 *squints eyes*

ALSO the other great callback is Lord Fauntleroy being a stowaway on the ship/adventure! I think his is a good example of the more overt Chekov’s Gun where they make a note several times that he sheds and call it out again when Hebe gets allergies (without explicitly saying he tagged along)! You can infer pretty easily what’s gonna happen since there’s a panel where they mention leaving Fauntleroy outside yet the taxi driver notices the fur, but it’s nice that it isn’t really mentioned until Hebe’s allergies (since, realistically, the characters would not think Lord Fauntleroy is there).

Anyway I love books and have been on a graphic novel binge 😍 hoping one day I can make one myself or use it to practice visdev work!!

[whothecrappadoodlecares]

okay, here is a thought, and anyone reading is welcome to give their own opinion, respectful discussions are welcome!

You know what would be nice, an adaptation of the A Song of Ice and Fire series into an animated format, so be streamed or bought in DVD format.

Now you may be wondering, why streamed and bought only? why not aired on TV as usual? 

My answer for that would be time, and POV. The A Song of Ice and Fire book (ASOIAF for short) are organized in POV chapters. In that way, GRRM plays with ignorance and knowledge (we have a POV in Catlyn, but not in Robb, in Game of thrones we have a POV in Ned but not in Cercei) as well as with unreliable narrators (a well known example is Sansa affirms that she and Sandor kissed, whilst he affirms they could have, but didn’t) and time period, since there is no calendar and information goes at unreliable speed, it’s hard to give a precise chronology. So for me, having episodes be a POV would be very nice. (this point will be spoken more about later).

However, obviously, each chapter is of different length, if not in writing, then in the airable action (as in excluding the monologue of thoughts (even if there is a voice over for inner thoughts, speaking them takes less space than writing them, unlike action)). Now, obviously, we can add little scenes that we can guess is in the book, or develop moments that was just glossed over in the book to make the episode longer, but that would also mean they would have to chop up more substantial episodes to fit the time frame, which is less than ideal.

Also, ASOIAF has many scenes which might be too gory for any channel’s tastes and restrictions, forcing the creators to censor different aspects.

So having something that does not need to conform to the time regulations of aired shows would be nice. Putting it on DVD box sets, or to be streamed for easier access, would not force them to conform to the time restrictions, and favor a storytelling that is more in line with GRR Martin’s original work, whilst still letting the creators get remuneration and limiting who can watch through age restrictions. 

To be clear, this is speculation, I do not know the exact legality for these types of media, but I think that might be how it works.

And now, you may think, okay, but why animated?

First of all, I am aware that the western world have a tendency to link animation to kid’s shows, so I will nip that in the bud and say, no, animation is a form of visual art, just like cinema, and the west uses it for kid’s shows because that is what they did historically, not because that is the limits of it. Any western animation competition is skewed because judges assume it’s for kids and that is annoying. The East is not limited in this way. There are many animated moies and shows that show more than adult content: the grave of the fireflies, attack on titan, tokyo ghoul, to name a few. I could even cite Clone Wars, although this is no where near as adult compared to the other ones I cited. 

Secondly, child actors. Do not take me wrong, the children that performed in Game of Thrones were great, and considering the sheer number of them, the fact that none of them had anything less than good acting is proof of a good job on the part of the casting director, the directors, and the actors themselves, but ASOIAF is not a child friendly series. A Game of Thrones aged up some characters (Rickon is 3, Bran is 7, Arya is 8, Sansa is like 11, Robb and Jon are 13, Ned is 35 in the books, in the show they are aged up a couple years at least), and considering the content and the age of the actors, that was an ethical call. In animation, the children can be their own age without putting children in uncomfortable situations, especially since there are some sexual situations that happen near or to very young people in the books because of war or the general medieval time and lack of age of consent kind of thing. Child marriages are a bad thing but they were always seen as such, and that is represented here. Also, we can show flashbacks and memories without needing to hire a whole other actor.

Third, actor appearance and number. Obviously, having good actors is more important than having an actor that looks like the book character, so it is understandable that the casting director did not scour the globe for the few people with natural violet eyes that may be good at acting and fluent in English, and instead omitted this particular trait, but since voice actors are not seen, that is not something that have to be neglected! We can have auburn Starks (all Starks but Arya, Jon, and Ned have the Tully coloring of auburn/red hair and blue eyes, which is an important detail for Arya and Jon’s relationship, but had to be discarded in the show), violet eyed Danny, noseless Tyrion, actually blond Lannisters, etc.

Also, because of the sheer number of characters ASOIAF has, the show decided to merge storylines together to limit their number. A wise decision, maybe, but it did skewer the storytelling. Gendry is still with the brotherhood in the books, his half brother was taken by Mel, Sansa is still in the Vale, it was Jeyne Pool who married Ramsey Bolton disguised as Arya Stark (yeah, D&D like Sansa to the point of effing up other characters' stories...). Except voice actors can generally voice many different characters (hello Dee Bradley Baker, James Arnold Tayler, Tara Strong, and a plethora of other VAs with amazing vocal talent) so just from that you can limit the number of actors, but also, since nothing is filmed but reference for the animators, there will be no wrangling rowdy actors on set in the first place, and the watchers are not idiots, we can keep up with many different characters, especially since we can rewatch episodes. 

Fourth, VFX and sets. I mentioned the actor’s appearance, which can be partially fixed by the Hair and Makeup department (great work, by the way), but the entire series is set in a fictional world. There are dragons, and direwolves, and krakens, there are seven hundred feet tall walls, and snows tens of feet deep. There are castles spanning a surface of multiple square kilometers, and soaring dozens of floors high. There is no castle like WInterfell, or Casterly Rock, or the Red Keep. There is no crooked, tumbling, drowning city like Braavos, or mountain top castle like the Eyrie. All of that needs to be done through VFX. 

But VFX is expensive. The equipment used by the artists are expensive, and the talent and time of the artists is not cheap, as it should be. Which means Nymeria and Ghost had to be practically erased from the story in favor of the dragons. Understandable, given the situation. But not ideal. Especially since GRRM made it clear that Nymeria and Ghost do have important parts in the story. But VFX is partially expensive because the bar is set at photorealistic. When the only thing you can compare it to is photorealism, anything less seems fake. But animation is not photoreal. And it is much easier to get an animal in an animated series, than in a filmed one, if only because of less trained animals required (again, reference for realistic movement is needed), and also because since everything is drawn, we know it it going to take time, and watchers are generally less bitchy about waiting for a new season, which gives time for the animators to to the job right, especially if they have manageable chunks, like a singe chapter to animate in an episode.

Fifth, is visual metaphors. Now this might not be fully accepted (which is fine) and also might kind of merge with my sixth point, but I swear these are two different things. The anime “Sangatsu no lion” or “march comes in like a lion” (it’s on netflix btw) uses a lot of visual metaphors, and that can be seen in the first half of the first episode. In there, every character, or at least shogi player character, is given a metaphor. I will explain two of them. The main character is often represented as water. He is chill, a bit go with the flow, less because he is leasurely and more because of crippling depression and anxiety, so often, he is shown as running water, like a river. Mostly calm, dodging obstacles, but it can also hide dangers when it storms. Sometimes, that is shown through existing water like the river he lives nearby, or a water bottle, or it can be a completely illusionary scene. Another character is the grandmaster, who is shown through snow. He is always calm, and quiet, and in his head, but also an inevitable force. He is often shown in the snow, or wearing white, even though he isn’t. Now, in this show, the visual metaphors were used to show character, since we do not have the skill to see that in their shogi playing. This, however, is a tool that could (not should, could) be used in an animated adaption of ASOIAF.

Now, sixth, is art style. Remember when I said each chapter in ASOIAF is seen through a POV and therefore is subject to unreliable narrators? All the information given to us is not to be fully trusted, as it is all seen through the lens of the POV characters? Yeah, I want to show that in part through art style.

Let me give an example: Sansa. (disclaimer, I am not a Sansa fan, but not a Sansa hater, I just think her particular tendencies are ideal for this example)

Sansa has a tendency to fantasize, and not come to terms with reality. She sees what she wants to see, and what she wants to see is her ideal world as she imagined it. at first it was the foolishness of a young girl who was never taught otherwise, and then it probably was a trauma response. It is not an ideal trauma response, but westerosi mental health is sketchy at best, and therapists are unavailable, so it gets the job done. However, what art style is ideal for an idyllic fantasy? Watercolor. Animation can use watercolor as backgrounds, only they generally use is rarely, because it is easier to use a CG background if you have a lot of cuts, instead of painting ten backgrounds a scene. So it is used in long, slow scenes, to my knowledge. (any animators reading this, you are welcome to fact check!) Sansa has vey little action in her POVs, any fighting is usually done through words, or can easily be shown through one view point, like at the tourney. 

So what if Sans POVs use a lot of watercolors, and, to show the end of the fantasy and the slow realization to the ugly truth Sansa has to undergo, we show ugly spots. Like, when too many watercolor paints mix together and become a murky brown, completely out of place in the beautiful picture, but here put intentionally, where lady would have been, or Arya, or Ned. Or when Joffrey forces her to look at the heads of the Stark retinue, and she says “he can make me look but he can’t make me see”, we can have a return to a watercolor, with murky brown hiding the faces, showing that her fantasy holds strong because she blinds herself to some aspects of reality.

And of course, at times when she is honest with reality, as she grows up and when she is directly confronted by it without having the time to erase it (when she first sees the heads, for example, or when she is directly abused by her “one and only love”) there can be a different art style. Arya, for example, is generally more honest and truthful to what she sees, although she can make the wrong conclusions due to having insufficient information, or sometimes ignore her better instincts due to sheer mental stress (like when she thought that Lady Went would send knights to escort her home and the knights would protect her because that is what knights do, even though she spent months by then escaping knights knowing how dangerous they are, vow or no), Jon, and Davos, are as well, and the art used for an honest representation can be the same, and used when Sansa actually confronts reality.

Ned, for example, made stupid mistakes, and ignored information he could have had because of the stress of the job, as well as the stress of having to handle his daughters and the investigation. A specific art style can also be used for that, maybe a sort of tunnel vision, like a darkening of the corners, or a color filter, on top of traditional directorial and editing techniques, of course. 

Many characters go though periods of starvation, which can also be shown through at style.

My point is, with animation, we can not only see the world that the character sees, but also how they see it. Much like how GRRM wrote it. 

Anyways, I did not proof read this overly much and I am tired, so tell me if I made spelling mistakes or story mistakes for both GoT and ASOIAF. I am neither an animator nor a director or in the business, so kindly correct me on that front if you are.

Discussions and opinions are welcome, so long as they are done in a respectful manner, as always! 

[aion-rsa]

The Horror Influences of Thus Spoke Kishibe Rohan

https://ift.tt/2Zl6eQ9

This article contains spoilers for JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure and Thus Spoke Kishibe Rohan.

JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure is beloved by shounen anime fans for its nonstop action, absurd and over-the-top showdowns, and creative Stands (physical manifestations of one’s true self). It’s a bombastic series that defies predictions. We’re still waiting for the fifth part of the manga, Stone Ocean, to be released as an anime adaptation, and the story is still ongoing. Strangely, there’s still no confirmation that a fifth season is even coming yet.

In the meantime, however, we got something of a holdover: Thus Spoke Kishibe Rohan. An adaptation of a series of one-shot chapters from JoJo creator Hirohiko Araki, it bridges the gap between the fourth season, Diamond is Unbreakable, and the fifth season, Vento Aureo. But while it follows manga artist Kishibe Rohan and what he’s been up to between both seasons, it takes on a decidedly different slant than the vanilla anime. Thus Spoke Kishibe Rohan takes more inspiration from episodic horror anthologies, like that of The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits. It is, by all counts, a horror series. 

It’s a new direction for JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure, though not completely unexpected. The thing is, JoJo has always been riddled with disturbing, horrific, and downright chilling moments. They’ve just been couched between action-packed showdowns and bombastic character design so that the terror creeps in without you even realizing it’s there. Thus Spoke Kishibe Rohan approaches the genre in a much more straightforward manner, though, wearing its influences on its sleeve. Both series, including JoJo to a staggering degree, are inherently spine-tingling properties, even if they don’t seem so at first blush.

Creator Hirohiko Araki is a ravenous horror fan, after all, and makes no secret of his passion for the genre. In his book, Hirohiko Araki’s Bizarre Horror Movie Analysis, he cites some of his top 20 favorite films as Misery, Alien, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The work itself is divided into several parts, each exploring a different branch of chilling media, such as “Bizarre Murderers,” “Animal Horror,” or “Sci-Fi Horror.” It wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility to think that, despite Thus Spoke Kishibe Rohan originally being meant to be unrelated to JoJo, Araki created it to satisfy his love for the macabre.

The episode “Mutsu-kabe Hill” follows a woman named Naoko Osato, who belongs to a well-to-do family. She’s living in a house that belongs to said family along with boyfriend Gunpei Kamafusa. But she can’t be with Gunpei, as she’s already betrothed to a man her father has chosen. Plus, Gunpei is a family gardener, a profession her father won’t abide. The two end up arguing, and Nao tries to pay off Gunpei to get him to leave, as she knows her father and fiancé are on their way to the home. But tensions escalate as the two become violent. 

Nao pushes him into a set of golf clubs and Gunpei dies instantly. He’s bleeding, and while Nao struggles to figure out what to do with his body, her father and fiancé are approaching her home. No matter what she does, she can’t get Gunpei’s corpse to stop bleeding. In the end, she lives with this bizarre phenomenon, telling no one about her plight, and doting on Gunpei’s corpse, disposing of the blood he continues to generate for the rest of her life.

Several comparisons can be drawn from this episode to Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Tell-Tale Heart,” in which the narrator commits a murder, dismembers a body, and hides it beneath some floorboards. Despite having seemingly gotten away with the perfect crime, the narrator is driven insane by the sound of his victim’s heartbeat. He ends up confessing to the authorities as he believes they can hear it, too. It’s the story of an unreliable narrator whose sanity is slipping. 

Though the narrator in that story ended up confessing to ease his suffering, Nao chose to live with the consequences of her crime, succumbing to a monster that lives off of people’s affection. The stories are quite similar in tone, though with very different outcomes. 

In “At a Confessional,” Rohan recounts a story of how he met a man who confided in him while in an Italian confessional. The man spoke of a beggar to whom he refused food and instead forced to work until he died. The beggar returned as a ghost, swearing revenge on the man who wronged him, promising he’d return on the happiest day of the man’s life. Return he does, as the man has enjoyed riches beyond belief, a beautiful marriage, and the birth of a daughter. 

The beggar appears in the form of an apparition in the man’s daughter’s tongue. He forces the man to toss pieces of popcorn his daughter was eating into the air and catch them with his mouth three times in a row in an absurd challenge. If the man succeeds, his life will be spared. If not, he’s beheaded instantly.

Read more

TV

Anime For Beginners: Best Genres and Series to Watch

By Daniel Kurland

TV

How to Watch Anime Online: The Best Legal Anime Streaming Options

By Daniel Kurland

This tale immediately recalls Stephen King’s Thinner, a similar story about a man who’s committed several wrongs, cursed the father of someone he’s murdered — this time, because he runs over a woman while driving and engaged in a sexual act with his wife. The curse finds the man, who is obese, becoming thinner and thinner at an uncontrollable rate. 

Eventually, there are options available to the man, who pleads for a resolution. He’s informed by the same person who cursed him that he can eat a strawberry pie with his blood in it and die, or give it to someone else for him to be spared. It’s just as gruesome as forcing the rich victim in Kishibe Rohan to munch popcorn or die. 

In JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure, the scares seem to come directly from a series of inspirations for Araki instead of new stories based on the media he’s obviously consumed. 

The first JoJo arc, Phantom Blood, sets the stage by introducing a swath of Gothic horror elements. It introduces the eventual vampiric rise of DIO in a Victorian society, which directly references classic novels like Dracula and Frankenstein. There’s even a serial killer named Jack the Ripper, who faces off against Jonathan and his allies, pulled straight out of history — a perpetrator of grisly murders who ends up transformed into a zombie. The undead are also a major component of Phantom Blood, likely due in part to Araki’s love for classic zombie cinema.

In the arc Stardust Crusaders, Jean-Paul Polnareff finds himself de-aged by a Stand user named Alessi. A young woman named Malèna nurses him back to health, up until Alessi uses his Stand, Sethan, unceremoniously de-ages her to that of a fetus outside of the womb. A few of Araki’s favorite horror movies of all time, including Basket Case, center on body horror, which doesn’t make this narrative decision surprising. But for those reaching that point in the story for the first time, it’s chilling in a way that even some of the most nightmarish films can’t even touch. 

While the visual of a fetus itself isn’t as offensive as some gnarled, disfigured victim, its implications are disturbing, to say the least. A fetus outside of a mother’s womb will eventually succumb to a slow death, especially one of Malèna’s apparent age. That makes Polnareff’s eventual victory over Alessi and his Stand so bittersweet.

The entirety of the fourth arc, Diamond is Unbreakable, plays out like a classic slasher flick with the introduction of Yoshikage Kira, a man with a powerful obsession with hands to the point of fetishism. He murders women with “beautiful hands,” then keeps the hands as his “girlfriends.” It wouldn’t be a stretch to compare Kira to classic killers like Psycho‘s Norman Bates or The Silence of the Lambs’ Hannibal Lecter, as Kira is believable and charming when he isn’t committing grisly murders.

Most of JoJo’s Stands are horrific on their own, and even though their story arcs enhance their terrifying power, there’s a fair amount of fridge horror to be found in these beings. The Freddy Krueger-like Death 13 can kill you in a nightmarish dream world while you sleep. Metallica (yes, named after the heavy metal band) forces you to cough up razor blades or have scissors burst from your chest. 

Another Stand, Green Day, can secrete a deadly mold that will rot and destroy the flesh of anything it touches in an instant. Lastly, Rohan Kishibe himself has a fairly disconcerting Stand: Heaven’s Door. It allows him to literally read someone like a book, then erase parts of their being, or add in what he pleases, like the ability to learn a new language as his pal Koichi asks in Thus Spoke Kishibe Rohan.

It’s easy to see how Araki has masterfully melded horror into every space when it comes to both JoJo as well as Kishibe Rohan. With that in mind, it’s strange that the former has been relegated only to a series of one-shots when it shows so much potential as its own project, in which Araki gets to stretch his Rod Serling-esque legs or impart some very Argento-like stylings into his works. For now, we can appreciate what’s there — and continue finding parallels to additional well-loved classics in the genre. 

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

Thus Spoke Kishibe Rohan is available to stream on Netflix now.

The post The Horror Influences of Thus Spoke Kishibe Rohan appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3bOxa0C

[sareesonscreen]

S1 E4: Saucy Deep Dives: Third Person SIngular Number

After spending the last two months watching and examining Bollywood hits, it’s been very exciting for us to introduce our audience to hits from all across South Asia. In this episode, we are thrilled to be watching a Bangladeshi favorite made by one of the most famous contemporary directors there.

Mostofa Sarwar Farooki came into the scene in the early 2000s, at a time when mainstream television and cinema largely existed either in the form of family entertainment or copy-pasted “hero’s journey” scripts made for quick consumption. 

This is where Farooki came in with his more casual and approachable filmmaking. His stories revolved around the relatable everyday struggles of ordinary people. This also meant utilizing colloquial language in his cinema (which was rare, given that the media at the time would only depict formal Bangla or a standard dialectical Bangla [for rural stories]). 

Third Person Singular Number (2009) was Farooki’s third movie, which solidified his position as one of the most notable contemporary directors in Bangladesh.

Third Person Singular Number is conceptualized as a fairytale-like story of Ruba (played brilliantly by Nusrat Imroz Tisha, Farooki’s partner, and long-time muse), who is confronted by the challenges of being a single woman in South Asia, after her partner (note, not husband lol) is sent to jail. Ruba struggles with constant harassment as she attempts to find housing and employment. The Prince Charming character of this movie comes to us in the form of Ruba’s childhood friend - Topu (a successful musician in Bangladesh, both in the movie and IRL), whose support helps in making Ruba feel safe. Her feelings for Topu force Ruba to engage with her conflicted relationship with her mother (who left her father for her lover) as well as her fidelity to her jailed partner.

One of the most remarkable things about the film is its deliberate focus on Ruba and how it centers her perspective - this is extremely apparent in the cinematography and Farooki being able to employ the feminine gaze aptly. The first half of the movie depicts at length the various ways in which women become victims of sexual assault - be it at home, in public, or in professional spaces.

There's this one scene in particular, where Ruba becomes hesitant to go to the police station as she recalls a news story from a couple of weeks ago where a woman was r*ped at one. A male gaze retelling of this would tell the audience through action - a flashback where the woman is facing violence, or perhaps when Ruba was reading the paper, or conversing about it with someone. But in this story, Farooki chose to make this woman materialize in front of Ruba and tell the story herself. Not only giving voice to an unnamed woman who had met a horrible fate, but also creating a moment of emotional connection between the two women. It humanized what is often just reduced to news headlines, statistics, or water filter conversations. There are hints throughout that she is an unreliable narrator. Resulting in the (spoiler alert!) the fairytale-esque second half of the movie. Fairytales, historical romances, and fan-fictions often serve as great mediums for social commentary, particularly on the dynamics of power (esp. geared towards women). The fact that the only escape available to Ruba from her bleak reality is an absurd Prince Charming figure speaks heavily to the harsh reality of the real Rubas of the world. For them, her ending would not be a possibility.

The use of space in the visuals of the film was also noteworthy, with Ruba being shown to feel trapped or caged in the company of predatory men (even including her own partner, whom she feels stifled by later in the film). This is often done through the use of close and medium shots, along with physical obstructions in the shot. Meanwhile, her relationship with Topu is shown to be much more affectionate and easy-going; this is depicted with a wide shot of the beautiful kashbons of Bashundhara. Not only was this technique used to remark on the state of Ruba’s mind (which is rare given that male directors rarely highlight women’s perspectives), it also commentated on the wider issue of South Asian women and how they are often made to feel small and struggle to find space (be it physically or metaphorically).

This beautiful work with space is further used to remark on the silence of the other women in the film (notably, Ruba’s cousin, friend, and mother). Unlike Ruba, the only woman with a voice (and the narrator, of course), these women are often seen in the confines of layered cage-like homes (with distinct obstructions like columns, furniture, etc. present in every layer). These characters, like their real-life counterparts, often exist in the crevices of their own homes and are stifled by the domineering presence of the patriarchal structures and insecurities around them.

The two noteworthy women characters (aside from Ruba) are her cousin and her mother. Both of whom we know very little about. However, in their fleeting moments on the screen, some of them make attempts to defy patriarchal structures around them in small but significant ways – Ruba’s mother by being courageous enough to follow her heart and leave a marriage and her cousin by helping Ruba despite her mother-in-law’s objections.

Another interesting thing is that despite Topu being Prince Charming, his character was given depth by not making him entirely selfless and sacrificial. Topu’s expectations were conveyed to the audience in a subtle but effective manner, using scenes like his outrage in the forest after Ruba backs out of having sex with him (though sex was never mentioned, only alluded to), as well as the ever-awkward buying condoms at a chemist shop (an entirely silent and secretive transaction, btw).

Ruba’s character in the film is shown to be determined, independent and tenacious even while she struggles with the oppressive realities of being a woman under patriarchy. One of the focal points of the movie is her strained relationship with her mother (who passes away, leaving no possibility of redemption or reconciliation ). The film uses an interesting technique of showing Ruba’s internal demons manifesting as younger versions of herself, hypothesized to be metaphors for her id (6-year-old Ruba), ego (present Ruba), and superego (13-year-old Ruba) as she battles over her feelings for Topu and consequently her feelings of resentment for her mother. Though her relationship with her mother is significant to Ruba’s evolution as a character, very little is shown of her mother and her motivations. Despite trying to give Ruba some semblance of closure with her mother at the end, the film falls short in creating multiple well-written women to enhance the story and the emotional connection to the characters.

We’ve also had the pleasure of having Raidah of Raidahcal on this episode. She does wonderful work addressing contemporary feminist issues in Dhaka, Bangladesh. While we all had different takes on the movie, it was wonderful to have Raidah’s unique insights and perspectives. Be sure to check her out. We’ve also had the pleasure of collaborating with her on her podcast Raidahcal in an episode exploring feminist economics – we would love for you to check it out as well!

She also asked us a question that made us pause a bit: Why are men given passes for not portraying women's realities accurately just because they are creating sophisticated art?

And this made us realize that there is a very thin line between centering a woman's perspective in a film, versus presenting an intrusively voyeuristic gaze to watch her struggle. Ultimately if the author of the art is not able to distinguish the two for everyone watching the movie, is all that nuance pointless? This ambiguity within the film became more clear to us as we left our own echo chambers and were faced with a wonderfully challenging guest and the realization that the film is sometimes as good as the viewer wants it to be.

Even on our Sauce Meter, this film fared better than some of our previous takes. Here’s a breakdown of our scores.

1. Is there at least one character who adds a nuanced representation of a diverse South Asian identity, without stereotyping and tokenization?  

Ruba, the protagonist of the film is a complex, well-rounded character and a woman – the film also uses an unfamiliar perspective by centering the story around the experiences of a woman vs a man (which is considered the default) – but she is one of the few non-male characters that get significant screen time, so not full points.

0.5

2. Are the primary characters (especially women and marginalized characters) portrayed with agency, individuality, and motivation?

Despite Ruba being limited by the sexist nature of the social structures around her – notably her struggle to find housing and employment as a single woman, she is shown to have agency and individual motivation – she is also shown to want autonomy and finds ways to assert herself despite inhibiting circumstances.

0.75

3. Are women and marginalized characters shown to be cognizant of their identities and how they exist within the social context?

Taking half a point off because there are limited representations of women and other marginalized characters, but the glimpses we get into other women apart from Ruba all seem to be painfully aware of how their choices and abilities are limited by oppressive patriarchal structures. Notably, her cousin despite having limited control over her life and household still tries to help Ruba, and Ruba herself has several moments where she points to the tribulations of being a woman in society.

0.5

4. Do the women and marginalized characters have meaningful relationships with each other?

While the women’s relationships with each other are not given a lot of screen time, they remain focal plot points. In particular, Ruba’s relationship with her mother is instrumental in the evolution of Ruba’s character and arguably even her liberation, however, the movie does not do these relationships complete justice and dedicates very little time to other women or marginalized characters in the movie.

0.25

5. Does it challenge any flawed notions upheld by capitalism, patriarchy, and the caste system?

The movie successfully subverts stereotypical representations of women and even defies traditional ideas of marriage and power dynamics between men and women and for that, it gets a full point!

1

TOTAL SCORE ON THE SAUCE METER: 3/5

What did you think of our rating of Third Person Singular Number? Did we reach too hard? Let us know!

- Usha and Rekha

Listen Now

[terramythos]

TerraMythos' 2020 Reading Challenge - Book 22 of 26

Title: House of Leaves (2000) 

Author: Mark Z. Danielewski

Genre/Tags: Horror, Fiction, Metafiction, Weird, First-Person, Third-Person, Unreliable Narrator 

Rating: 6/10

Date Began: 7/28/2020

Date Finished: 8/09/2020

House of Leaves follows two narrative threads. One is the story of Johnny Truant, a burnout in his mid-twenties who finds a giant manuscript written by a deceased, blind hermit named Zampanò. The second is said manuscript -- The Navidson Record -- a pseudo-academic analysis of a found-footage horror film that doesn’t seem to exist. In it, Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist Will Navidson moves into a suburban home in Virginia with his partner Karen and their two children. Navidson soon makes the uncomfortable discovery that his new house is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. Over time he discovers more oddities -- a closet that wasn’t there before, and eventually a door that leads into an impossibly vast, dark series of rooms and hallways. 

While Johnny grows more obsessed with the work, his life begins to take a turn for the worse, as told in the footnotes of The Navidson Record. At the same time, the mysteries of the impossible, sinister house on Ash Tree Lane continue to deepen. 

To get a better idea try this: focus on these words, and whatever you do don’t let your eyes wander past the perimeter of this page. Now imagine just beyond your peripheral vision, maybe behind you, maybe to the side of you, maybe even in front of you, but right where you can’t see it, something is quietly closing in on you, so quiet in fact you can only hear it as silence. Find those pockets without sound. That’s where it is. Right at this moment. But don’t look. Keep your eyes here. Now take a deep breath. Go ahead and take an even deeper one. Only this time as you start to exhale try to imagine how fast it will happen, how hard it’s gonna hit you, how many times it will stab your jugular with its teeth or are they nails? don’t worry, that particular detail doesn’t matter, because before you have time to even process that you should be moving, you should be running, you should at the very least be flinging up your arms--you sure as hell should be getting rid of this book-- you won’t have time to even scream. 

Don’t look. 

I didn’t. 

Of course I looked. 

Some story spoilers under the cut. 

Whoo boy do I feel torn on this one. House of Leaves contains some really intriguing ideas, and when it’s done right, it’s some of the best stuff out there. Unfortunately, there are also several questionable choices and narrative decisions that, for me, tarnish the overall experience. It’s certainly an interesting read, even if the whole is ultimately less than the sum of its parts. 

First of all, I can see why people don’t like this book, or give up on it early (for me this was attempt number three). Despite an interesting concept and framing device, the first third or so of the book is pretty boring. Johnny is just not an interesting character. He does a lot of drugs and has a lot of (pretty unpleasant) sex and... that’s pretty much it, at least at the beginning. There’s occasional horror sections that are more interesting, where Johnny’s convinced he’s being hunted by something, but they’re few and far between. Meanwhile, the story in The Navidson Record seems content to focus on the relationship issues between two affluent suburbanites rather than the much more interesting, physically impossible house they live in. The early “exploration” sections are a little bit better, but overall I feel the opening act neglects the interesting premise. 

However, unlike many, I love the gimmick. The academic presentation of the Navidson story is replete with extensive (fake) footnotes,and there’s tons of self-indulgent rambling in both stories. I personally find it hilarious; it’s an intentionally dense parody of modern academic writing. Readers will note early that the typographical format is nonstandard, with the multiple concurrent stories denoted by different typefaces, certain words in color, footnotes within footnotes, etc. House of Leaves eventually goes off the chain with this concept, gracing us with pages that look like (minor spoilers) this or this. This leads into the best part of this book, namely... 

Its visual presentation! House of Leaves excels in conveying story and feeling through formatting decisions. The first picture I linked is one of many like it in a chapter about labyrinths. And reading it feels like navigating a labyrinth! It features a key “story”, but also daunting, multi-page lists of irrelevant names, buildings, architectural terms, etc. There are footnotes that don’t exist, then footnote citations that don’t seem to exist until one finds them later in the chapter. All this while physically turning the book or even grabbing a mirror to read certain passages. In short, it feels like navigating the twists, turns, and dead ends of a labyrinth. And that’s just one example -- other chapters utilize placement of the text to show where a character is in relation to others, what kind of things are happening around them, and so on. One chapter near the end features a square of text that gets progressively smaller as one turns the pages, which mirrors the claustrophobic feel of the narrative events. This is the coolest shit to me; I adore when a work utilizes its format to convey certain story elements. I usually see this in poetry and video games, but this is the first time I’ve seen it done so well in long-form fiction. City of Saints and Madmen and Shriek: An Afterword by Jeff VanderMeer, both of which I reviewed earlier this year, do something similar, and are clearly inspired by House of Leaves in more ways than one. 

And yes, the story does get a little better, though it never wows me. The central horror story is not overtly scary, but eeriness suffices, and I have a soft spot for architectural horror. Even Johnny and the Navidsons become more interesting characters over time. For example, I find Karen pretty annoying and generic for most of the book, but her development in later chapters makes her much more interesting. While I question the practical need for Johnny’s frame story, it does become more engaging as he descends into paranoia and madness.

So why the relatively low rating? Well... as I alluded to earlier, there’s some questionable stuff in House of Leaves that leaves (...hah?) a bad taste in my mouth. The first is a heavy focus on sexual violence against women. I did some extensive thinking on this throughout my read, but I just cannot find a valid reason for it. The subject feels thrown in for pure shock value, and especially from a male author, it seems tacky and voyeuristic. If it came up once or twice I’d probably be able to stomach this more easily, but it’s persistent throughout the story, and doesn’t contribute anything to the plot or horror (not that that would really make it better). I’m not saying books can’t have that content, but it’s just not explored in any meaningful way, and it feels cheap and shitty to throw it in something that traumatizing just to shock the audience. It’s like a bad jump scare but worse on every level. There’s even a part near the end written in code, which I took the time to decode, only to discover it’s yet another example of this. Like, really, dude? 

Second, this book’s portrayal of mental illness is not great. (major spoilers for Johnny’s arc.) One of the main things about Johnny’s story is he’s an unreliable narrator. From the outset, Johnny has occasional passages that can either be interpreted as genuine horror, or delusional breaks from reality. Reality vs unreality is a core theme throughout both stories. Is The Navidson Record real despite all evidence to the contrary? Is it real as in “is the film an actual thing” or “the events of the film are an actual thing”? and so on and so forth. Johnny’s sections mirror this; he’ll describe certain events, then later state they didn’t happen, contradict himself, or even describe a traumatic event through a made-up story. Eventually, the reader figures out parts of Johnny’s actual backstory, namely that when he was a small child, his mother was institutionalized for violent schizophrenia. Perhaps you can see where this is going... 

Schizophrenia-as-horror is ridiculously overdone. But it also demonizes mental illness, and schizophrenia in particular, in a way that is actively harmful. Don’t misunderstand me, horror can be a great way to explore mental illness, but when it’s done wrong? Woof. Unfortunately House of Leaves doesn’t do it justice. While it avoids some cliches, it equates the horror elements of Johnny’s story to the emergence of his latent schizophrenia. This isn’t outwardly stated, and there are multiple interpretations of most of the story, but in lieu of solid and provable horror, it’s the most reasonable and consistent explanation. There’s also an emphasis on violent outbursts related to schizophrenia, which just isn’t an accurate portrayal of the condition. 

To Danielewski’s credit, it’s not entirely black and white. We do see how Johnny’s descent into paranoia negatively affects his life and interpersonal relationships. There’s a bonus section where we see all the letters Johnny’s mother wrote him while in the mental hospital, and we can see her love and compassion for him in parallel to the mental illness. But the experimental typographical style returns here to depict just how “scary” schizophrenia is, and that comes off as tacky to me. I think this is probably an example of a piece of media not aging well (after all, this book just turned 20), and there’s been a definite move away from this kind of thing in horror, but that doesn’t change the impression it leaves. For a book as supposedly original/groundbreaking as this, defaulting to standard bad horror tropes is disappointing. And using “it was schizophrenia all along” to explain the horror elements in Johnny’s story feels like a cop-out. I wish there was more mystery here, or alternate interpretations that actually make sense. 

Overall The Navidson Record part of the story feels more satisfying. I actually like that there isn’t a direct explanation for everything that happens. It feels like a more genuine horror story, regardless of whether you interpret it as a work of fiction within the story or not. There’s evidence for both. Part of me wishes the book had ended when this story ends (it doesn’t), or that the framing device with Johnny was absent, or something along those lines. Oh well-- this is the story we got, for better or worse. 

I don’t regret reading House of Leaves, and it’s certainly impressive for a debut novel. If you’re looking for a horror-flavored work of metafiction, it’s a valid place to start. I think the experimental style is a genuine treat to read, and perhaps the negative aspects won’t hit you as hard as they did to me. But I can definitely see why this book is controversial. 

[ganymedesclock]

With Krolia’s appearance there’s been an entirely predictable surge of fanart and speculation around Keith’s parents, so, I wanted to make a post talking about Keith’s Dad, what we know about him, and a few major inferences we can make.

Appearance

Keith’s dad is taller than his son. Specifics are hard to finesse given s2e8 doesn’t give us very good shots to work with and he hasn’t appeared in the posters for seasons 1 and 2, but he’s fairly tall by human standards. Eyeballing here, he would seem to be half a head taller than Keith- Shiro’s height.

This would make him shorter than his partner, Krolia by a pretty impressive margin- Krolia would be at least a full head taller if not moreso.

Keith’s father seems to have gray or slate-blue eyes. While it’s possible (and I’ve speculated before) he may have the same purple eyes as his son, I’ve moved away from that headcanon, since Keith is more likely to have inherited those eyes from Krolia. Either way, specifics are difficult in the heavy sepia tone of the dream.

His most noteworthy feature, besides his height, is a good-sized diagonal scar notching his right eyebrow. He has thick, dark brows, strong cheekbones, a straight nose and an angular jawline. In the dream, he appears with stubble along the bottom of his chin, but not on his upper lip.

He speaks with a low, soft voice, with a noticeable southern accent. His word choice is pretty casual but he doesn’t seem particularly inclined to colloquialisms.

Keith’s father has short, shaggy black hair, and it seems that Keith inherited both his skin tone and hair color. He appears to have wide shoulders, giving him a sturdier build than Krolia’s more typical-for-a-galra whippy physique- in this sense Keith seems to take after his mother more than his father.

The Shack

Keith’s father appears to have a personal connection with the shack and it may be a place from Keith’s past- as the dream takes place within it, and Keith’s father states “You’re home,” implying the shack was at least for a time, a home to Keith. Keith also states he felt lost and “drawn out to” the shack when his instinct seems to naturally point him towards certain things of significance to him.

It’s more likely that Keith’s father, rather than Keith himself- the latter being a recently-expelled student without an obvious job or income- was the original architect of the shack, or at least, heavily renovated it to make it a livable place. Thus, there’s some things we can infer about Keith’s father from the nature of the shack.

Visually, the shack is very humble. It has curtains and a table, but the curtain is effectively a piece of sheer cloth tacked to the wall in strategic places and the table is a slab stacked on top of concrete bricks. The couch has a blanket, suggesting it doubles as a bed, and the walls are discolored and partially cracked.

This would seem to suggest Keith’s father is someone of very limited means, and possibly- like Keith himself when he withdrew to the shack- someone trying to avoid calling attention to himself by retreating from society. The drab colors of the shack match the clothes Keith remembers his father wearing- a palette of grays, browns, and whites.

However, “impoverished” is not the only message sent by the shack. It’s also rather crowded- and what it’s crowded with.

A simple shelf has been built into one wall and filled with books; more books top the cabinet and are stacked under the table, and several boxes full of more books are tucked in the corner. Another box full of what appear to be rolled posters or maps is near the shelf.

The reading material in the shack is not referenced so far, so we can’t guess at subject but they appear to be fairly thick volumes, in decent condition (not yellowed or battered-looking) and they have monochromatic, dull dust jackets.

Besides the books, one wall features a large poster that looks like specs for some form of hovercraft. (this picture also shows off a fair number of the books referenced before; note the labels affixed to some of them). Besides the large cork board, small notes appear tacked to the wall near the poster.

Also, in contrast to the very humble furniture, the shack is rather heavily technologically equipped. In the wide shot in the dream (first picture at the top of the post) there’s a desk with a computer keyboard, and several unknown machines are littered around the room. Most notable is the tall cabinet, which conspicuously, in the dream, Keith’s father makes his first appearance fiddling with one of the dials, appearing to tune it like a radio. (Personally, I find this very suspicious given that in s1e1 Pidge was canonically able to listen in on extraterrestrial radio chatter given a setup that she could build on her own and carry in a backpack)

While it’s ambiguous how much of this Keith brought in starting his own work looking for the Blue Lion, I’m very skeptical that again, a freshly-expelled student without a job brought all of these books, papers, and the cork board with its pins and strings in to accommodate it. 

Especially not Keith- who has been shown to keep very spartan quarters in the castleship and as of s2e6 everything he owned could fit in a single, not especially heavy bag.

That in the dream, his father is the one tampering with the equipment while Keith in the shack never touches it would further suggest that it isn’t Keith’s setup- it’s his father’s. Quite possibly Keith didn’t even know what to do with it.

It’s also noteworthy that the shack, viewed from the outside, seems to have both an antenna and a small, boxy, metallic attachment that would seem to be a generator.

Assuming the shack and most of its furnishings are the handiwork of Keith’s father, with Keith himself only bringing to it a backpack’s worth of belongings and the papers/photographs relevant to his personal study of Blue’s cavern, this implies several things about Keith’s father:

He is a resourceful person, having possibly constructed a one-room house off the grid and assembled furnishings. Someone who makes the most out of very little- and can work pretty well with bare minimum.

Someone with fairly significant technical skills, who could get all of this together, use and maintain it. Possibly having built the generator and wired things into the walls.

Highly educated, either self-taught or with impressive schooling. The books, the schematic posters, the equipment- that these things are maintained, when he seems to have shorted his own needs (the couch-bed) to maintain this.

Acting according to some kind of goal- the shack has the feeling of a research outpost. 

Not picky or fussy, someone who seems to have lived in this very humble and potentially uncomfortable environment for a good amount of time. Again, much of the shack’s humbleness is echoed by Keith’s father’s appearance- the unshaven stubble, the humble, sturdy browns and grays.

Behavior (the trial dream)

It’s worth noting the trial is, partially, an unreliable narrator. We can see this comparing Shiro to his trial self. But Keith’s father appearing in the trial at all tells us something about him, and his relationship to Keith in particular.

When Trial Hologram Shiro shows up, the real one questions Kolivan about this- to which Kolivan replies:

His suit has the ability to create a virtual mindscape, reflecting its wearer’s greatest hopes and fears. And, at this moment, your friend desperately wants to see you.

So the second half of the trial is a fairly standard “get in your head and tempt you with what you really want’, but, it’s worth noting the context here.

Keith is injured, exhausted, and alone in an unpleasant environment. Without obvious enemies to fuel his contrarian streak or any clear objective in front of him to focus on, and as weak as he is (he basically passed out on the floor to begin this segment) he’s experiencing a very natural phenomenon: he doesn’t wanna be here. He yearns, specifically, for comfort, reassurance, someone to get him out of here and take him back home where he feels safe.

And this is exactly what hologram Shiro initially offers him- immediately greeting him warmly and soothingly, talking about how Keith won, he did it, he succeeded, he’s achieved amazing things and they can go back to the castle now.

The temptation the trial is dangling in front of Keith is that sense of reassurance. And the first party is one where we have a good sense of his relationship with Keith, and what that means.

Shiro wasn’t selected because he was there in person, he was selected by Keith’s mind, because when Keith is looking for someone to help and comfort him, he thinks of Shiro. Shiro who’s been there for him before, who he values his connection with very highly. Simply- Shiro, to Keith, is a kind of safety person. On a certain level, alone and miserable, what Keith’s mind kicks out is “I wish Shiro were here to help me.”

But even though Shiro was the main person in Keith’s life before Voltron, and in s3e1 Keith says Shiro was “the only person to never give up on me”- he’s not the only person that fits that bill.

The other person Keith wants to see... is his father. And the trial hologram of his dad exudes much the same kind of presence hologram Shiro does- this warm, soothing reassurance that everything’s gonna be all right, it’s gonna be fine. You’re safe now, Keith, you don’t have to worry, you can give in to your exhaustion and just... rest. The people that love you will take care of it.

Unlike Krolia- who Keith doesn’t appear to have a clear memory of, only a vague sense of “she was there up to a point and then she wasn’t”- Keith remembers his father clearly, and the implication of the holograms would suggest that Keith remembers his father as a kind, nurturing presence- even more than Shiro.

Because hologram Shiro, when refused even slightly, loses his temper- snaps at Keith, calls him selfish, storms off on him. Which is true to life in the sense that Shiro, while compassionate, is also pretty snappy- and untrue in the sense that Shiro is a lot more sympathetic to Keith.

But the hologram of Keith’s father, which should logically be less sympathetic, less supportive, and more manipulative than the real thing because it ultimately only exists to lure Keith off the proper path and into giving up... stands out noticeably compared to the first hologram.

He never once raises his voice, and as opposed to holo Shiro, who, again, tries to shut Keith down as soon as he starts disagreeing- the image of Keith’s father spends almost the entire scene with his hands outstretched, palm-up, towards Keith, the knife resting on his open hands.

In short, the impression given by Keith’s father is gentle and soothing. He presses very little, which is again noteworthy because the hologram’s objective is to manipulate Keith; that manipulation comes through in the form of repeated reassurances that everything will be fine, they’re safe here, it’s okay. Keith’s mother is coming home, they’ll be together, they need to catch up after how long they’ve been separated.

And Keith, in response... is surprisingly mild-mannered himself when it comes to his father. We wouldn’t expect Keith to apologize for running to Red during an attack.

In short, the implication is that Keith remembers his father as an incredibly gentle, emotionally nurturing person- someone who virtually never raised his voice, and someone who, even after years of separation and a lot of unanswered questions, he still views warmly. Between Krolia and Keith’s father, it seems like the latter was Keith’s primary caretaker, at least the one he remembered more strongly.

Keith also seems to remember his father as grieving. Not only this particular mournful look that he gives when Keith is about to leave the dream, but the weary way he says “Son, so many years have passed...”

Whatever was going on in their lives when Keith and his father were together, it seems to have been an emotional burden on his father, leaving him in Keith’s memory as kind of a melancholy fellow.

It’s also possible that Keith’s father not giving him solid answers and instead trying to reassure him was something else the trial took from real life.

We know that Krolia is a soldier, on the lines of what has been, for the Blade, a very long and rather hopeless-seeming war. Before Voltron took the field, the empire had been steadily encroaching further and further, conquering more and more, and the Blade had their small acts of sabotage in the dark, for which many of them paid with their lives.

Keith’s father has to have known that. It’s very likely given the implications of the radio (and worth noting that the sound of garbled voices from the radio undercut a good part of the conversation Keith has with his dad) he was desperately looking for some kind of news from Krolia- possibly even a sign that she was still alive.

It’s stated in official sources that Keith lost his parents at a young age. He wasn’t a young adult the last time he saw his father- these memories are old, of a time when Keith was much smaller.

Most people, especially empathetic parents that appear to be making a lot of effort to be reassuring, aren’t going to want to tell a young child that their mother may have died in space fighting a thankless war and that an unstoppable space empire is going to descend on Earth to kill and/or enslave them all. There’s really no good way to soften the edges off that.

Putting it all together

So the implication here is that Keith’s father is a sort of humble, down-to-earth and gentle person, but with a keen intellect and very resourceful. He doesn’t appear to make his opinions very easily available, and possibly is even the type to bite his tongue on issues he doesn’t like.

Keith seems to recall him as a sweet and empathetic parent. It’s clear from the way Keith talks to him in the dream that he still has a lot of respect for him even after years of separation- he thinks fondly of his father, though there are also a lot of questions that Keith badly wants answered. And whether or not it’s the influence of the trial, at least what we’ve seen of Keith’s father so far suggests he’s a bit inclined to beating around the bush.

Implicitly from the face he makes at the knife and how he talks both about catching up with Keith and offering reassurances that Krolia will be coming as well- Keith’s father really wants his family to be together. This is likely the root of his somewhat mournful behavior- while he was raising Keith, it seems as if he was visibly upset that Krolia was no longer part of their lives, enough that this became an enduring part of how Keith remembered him.

As was him messing with the radio- seemingly, waiting on some word from her.

It’s also surprisingly easy for Keith, someone who has been shown to assume no one will miss him, to view his father as earnestly wanting him back, waiting for him with both literal and figurative open arms. If anything, the image of his father is hesitant, apologetic- seeking Keith’s consent to be there at all.

All of this seems to suggest Keith’s father is not a very confrontational person at all. If upset, he tends to suffer in silence, and this may be a way in which Keith takes after him- if we can assume Keith and his father share the same tendency to internalize and stew in feelings for long periods of time.

However, the implications of the shack would tell us that Keith’s father is not weak-willed or passive. The shack implies someone who’s able to endure hardship, practically solve problems and, if need be, get off the grid and stay off the grid for long periods of time. Living alone distant from society is difficult, and it’s not for everyone. That he would do so as a single parent raising his half-alien son would tell us that Keith’s father is made of some tough stuff.

That even with the trial having a vested interest in manipulating Keith, it’s hard-pressed to create a “convincing” scenario of Keith’s father losing his temper at him would tell us, rather than the man having no backbone, he cared about his son a lot.

Which makes a lot of sense, from what we see on Krolia’s end. Keith’s parents’ situation was not ideal, nor was it comfortable. They weren’t going into something where they could retire comfortably to the suburbs and have two-point-five children. Especially given the obvious and rather nasty prejudice the empire has against half-galra, Krolia was painting a big target on her back and that of her future children by choosing Keith’s father as her partner.

And yet- Keith exists. And unmistakably, what we see from both of his parents is they wanted him. Krolia- distant, pragmatic Krolia- unmistakably puts Keith as a very high priority, derailing the all-important mission in a heartbeat rather than gamble his welfare.

And as far as Keith’s father- it’s entirely possible he basically became a hermit just to protect Keith. He harbored some pretty terrible knowledge of what potentially was to come, what might be happening out there, what he might be completely powerless to stop- and for all the stresses of Keith’s family situation, Keith seems to remember his father as someone who, even in a disagreement- would never close himself off.

Right up until the end of the dream, Keith’s father stands back, not intruding, still offering the knife, that opportunity to go home, reconnect with both of his parents. There’s no “wrong answer” Keith can possibly give that will make his dad give up on him- which means breaking the dream, waking up, falls to Keith. Keith has to open the door and leave the protection of the shack to go to the Red Lion.

Significantly, in doing so, he’s taking up his mother’s cause- stepping into that same war against the empire.

But equally significantly, if the shack is something built by Keith’s father... it’s interesting that in basically his darkest hour pre-series, it was there for him. Interesting that the dream characterizes it as a fortress, in effect- that Keith’s father might not be fighting the empire, seemingly, but he was sure as hell prepared to hide a paladin of Voltron from attacking soldiers. Again, just because Keith remembers him as a very gentle and accommodating person doesn’t mean his father wasn’t a hard person to be on the wrong side of... just that his willpower seems to assert itself in very quiet ways.

[horrorhousereview]

The Wicker Man: 1973 versus 2006

My introduction to the Wicker Man was hearing again and again how terrible the 2006 version was. So of course, I went out of my way to see it first and foremost. As I’d expected, it was so bad it was wonderful, and I couldn’t understand why people hated it quite so much. Until of course I watched the original 1973 version, which I found to be utterly captivating, and a quite serious film. Only then could I fully appreciate the folly of what came after.

1. The Wicker Man (1973)

First and foremost, this is the first British film I’ve reviewed on my blog, and I have to say that it was refreshing to see such a different style to the usual American fare, or the Asian tropes I’ve become familiar with. The film has a serious tone throughout, and was filmed on location in Scotland (though it’s meant to be some mysterious island in the movie).

The film begins when a police officer arrives at the remote British island by water plane in order to investigate a missing girl, whose disappearance months ago had been reported to the mainland anonymously. The islanders don’t tolerate strangers, and at first deny any knowledge of the girl. Later, the officer is able to discover that the girl is indeed real, and they admit that she’s real but dead. When at last her corpse is exhumed much later in the film, the coffin is empty, save for a hare. The movie is nearly entirely about this officer trying to discover the mystery of the missing child, while simultaneously uncovering the disturbing truth about the island.

We find out rather quickly that the islanders aren’t Christian like our officer, but instead practice some old, bizarre form of paganism. Every rite and ritual seems centred around sex and death, and the British didn’t shy away from nudity in this film, which I appreciate and not just for lewd reasons. The whole of it feels both captivating and disturbing at once. We see throughout the film as well a reversal of gender roles to go along with the reversal of religions. The girls go to school while the boys do not. In sexual acts, the women are always seen on top.

There are weird sex rituals in the cemetery at night, folk medicines at an apothecary with jars full of foreskins. There are bizarre and unexplained scenes like a woman nursing a child in one arm while holding out an egg in her other hand. Maypole dancing for the little boys while the girls are taught of its phallic significance in their one room schoolhouse. Nude bonfire jumping, and a plethora of lewd folk songs throughout the film. The combination of sights and sounds and rituals is completely entrancing to watch, and I found myself falling in love with it even as I was disturbed by the undercurrent of something being very wrong with these people.

Another thread that is more subtle throughout the movie is the question of whether these pagan practices actually work or carry some power. My instinct for most of the film was to say no, and that they’re simply crazy. But there is a scene in which the woman in the room next door sings out to the police officer and he seems to be fighting some sort of mind control. Is he weak willed? Or does she hold some power over him? A later scene in the movie implies, but does not confirm, that they tried to drug him. Could drugs have explained the earlier scene as well? Inconclusive.

The film culminates in the iconic way: with a wicker man lit on fire, and our hero being sacrificed to the ancient gods. Though I was familiar with the scene already in a vague sense, I hadn’t been prepared for just how impactful the final shot would be. The people dancing, the ritual music, the impressive flames shooting up this massive structure, with the screams of dying farm animals in the background as well. The Christian aspect was perhaps a little heavy handed, but it was also moving in that the islanders no doubt found the officer’s religion to be as bizarre and ridiculous as he found their own -- and indeed so much was pointed out throughout the film.

This was a movie without a happy ending, or even a clear resolution, and that made it all the more enjoyable. The first film that comes to mind with a similar end would have to be the surprise twist at the end of Friday the 13th, only in the Wicker Man it isn’t a surprise so much as a grim inevitability.

I honestly can’t say I have any significant complaints about the movie, which is a rare treat.

Final rating: 10/10

2. The Wicker Man (2006)

As hilarious and iconic as the 2006 version of the movie is at times, I didn’t initially see why it was so hated. That is, until I saw the 1973 version. In comparison, the 2006 version does a great disservice to a fantastic film. The idea: to modernize the setting and make the location and tone of the film more American, is an idea I can get behind. Unfortunately, they killed many of the more interesting aspects of the original film, added complete nonsense, and did the bulk of it with poor acting on the part of the two main protagonists.

The film starts completely differently. Our officer in this case is seen helping what will become the missing girl and a strange woman, on the side of the road, only to see them be killed horrifically. But then the bodies are never found, lending mystery to the whole event. We see the officer suffering from frequent psychotic breaks, a theme which is played up throughout the movie, and detracts from the clever gas-lighting of the original film. Our officer, right off the bat, is identified as an unreliable narrator, much to my disappointment. And what is the point of his bouts of psychosis? Are we meant to assume that the others are doing this to him, via some magic? Or is it just meant to add confusion to the movie? Regardless of intent, it sits awkwardly in the narrative.

The missing child in this film, we find out, is the officer’s own. The mother is the one who allegedly wrote him for help, and is his ex-fiancé. Where is the mystery in the original film, of who this girl is and who sent the letter?

The main thread of the plot isn’t the only thing that has changed. The music of the first film is entirely absent, as is the sex. The sexual aspect is one of the main themes in the original and is the thread that ties everything together, and here it’s been entirely sterilized and scrubbed out of the narrative. We don’t get to see any boys dancing the maypole outside the school. We don’t see any of the weird mystery imagery like the woman with an egg in the cemetery. And the reason our officer is a target in this film has nothing to do with his virginity. Indeed, his blood link to his daughter on the island is instead what appeals to them.

The matriarchal aspect remains prominent, but they decide that in addition to produce coming from the island, honey is another major export. Nearly everything in the film revolves around the bees, and bee metaphors. Instead of relying on pagan roots, they mostly rely on flawed bee analogies, referring to our officer as a “drone” in the end. The men on the island are silent and used only for breeding and the most menial of tasks, but it comes across as heavy handed and obvious rather than the subtle role reversal seen in the 1973 version. The only thing in the entire film that I’d say the newer version did better was the fact that in the 2006 version of the film, the island is run by a woman, versus the man in 1973. The island’s matriarch, for me, is more in keeping with the rest of their societal norms, even given the explanation for it in the original film.

One of the main themes in both movies is that of a sort of pagan religion. In the first film, however, we’re given to understand that the old religion was artificially revived by the island’s patriarch’s ancestor, in order to more easily control them. And yet it is in the original film that the religion seems more developed and real. In the newer version, by contrast, we hear from the matriarch that her ancestors always practised this religion, and escaped to the island to avoid persecution. Yet in the newer version of the film, the religion feels anemic and fake.

The film’s final scene, for me, was also lacking. The “acting” in this scene could be referred to as chewing on the scenery. The wicker man itself was less impressive visually, and auditorially as well (a lack of squawking animals, singing, the roar of flames), and the lack of religious ceremony makes the onlookers less impactful. Even the costumes are less theatrical. And rather than ending on the morbid note of the burning, the writers decided to add an epilogue. Six months later, two of the ladies from the island are back on the mainland, again using strange men for their nefarious purposes. And thus ruining the final tone of the film entirely, at least for me.

If you’re looking for a hilarious movie, you might gain some real enjoyment out of this film, especially if you get the director’s cut for the notorious bee scene. But if you are looking for a quality film, perhaps give it a miss.

Final rating? 4/10

[vortexofradix-blog]

The Problem with Fanfiction

There are several, really, but here, I’m focused on one in particular.

Complacency.

Now, there are a lot of things tied up in this - among them chiefly the fact that fanfiction readers are less willing to suspend their disbelief than if they were reading a book or the original IP - but I’m not especially concerned with delving into those, here. That’s not what this post is about and that’s not what I want to talk about. 

No, the problem with fanfiction is how it has trained readers to be complacent, to expect certain things and to (quite often, but not always) stop reading if they’re not given those things. Granted, some of the best and most popular stories don’t, but it’s equally true that some of the best and most popular stories also reinforce this complacency.

Readers, now, are expecting to have everything handed to them.

Well, okay, not everything. People would get bored very quickly, in that case. It’s still true, however, that a lot of fanfiction readers expect the author to give them more than they really should, and this comes not only from the authors giving it to them, but often from the original media, as well.

Anyone who’s been on Fanfiction.net for long enough is well aware that the anime/manga section is the most bloated.

The problem is that anime and manga often have side stories or interludes or just cuts to other characters’ perspectives as a sort of shortcut for worldbuilding or plot laying. In Bleach, for example, we get several moments in the earlier chapters (Soul Society arc, but it’s present throughout the whole manga) of Yoruichi’s inner commentary about Ichigo’s learning curve, Byakuya’s inner realization that Ichigo’s true enemy was the laws of Soul Society that had sentenced Rukia to death, Rukia’s inner monologues about Ichigo, and later on, Ulquiorra’s commentary about Ichigo and the human heart, Rukia’s reflection about, “Those aren’t the eyes of a winner,” and so on. That’s just what I remember off the top of my head.

And Naruto? That manga has not only shots from characters like Kakashi and Sakura giving commentary on Naruto himself, but loads of flashbacks for basically every character that comes into Naruto’s orbit. Kishimoto devoted tons and tons of flashbacks to the perspective of his villains, showing what made them who they were and why they were villains. Kubo eventually jumped on the bandwagon and gave backstories to Nanao’s family, Bazz B, throwaway Lieutenant Sasakibe, Haschwalth, a whole arc for the Visoreds (Turn Back the Pendulum), and whoever struck his fancy. 

This is great, for the medium. Since we rely so much on the visuals and don’t have a direct line into Ichigo’s head and thought processes the way we would in a novel, the subtle cues that readers would normally pick up about any given character’s personality or motivations almost have to be supplemented with flashbacks and side stories. 

Well, I mean, you could also just have them be evil or villains or whatever, but that’s boring, and while a plain, old-fashioned bad guy can be refreshing every now and again, these days, people want their villains to be people first, villains second. 

But I’m getting off track, a little. These flashbacks and side stories can be good for an anime, a manga, or a movie, because they make characters more three-dimensional, but it’s a bit more of a problem in a novel (or long form prose in general).

Why? Because you’re giving too much away. It’s less of a surprise, and therefore less compelling as a plot twist, if your readers know the villain is plotting dastardly things before he actually springs his trap on the progatonist. It would be less of a surprise, for example, when the eagles come to rescue Frodo and Sam if Tolkien had written Gandalf calling for them before Frodo and Sam are trying to outrun the lava. 

(Maybe that’s a bad example; I’ve never read Lord of the Rings, only seen the movies.)

Okay. Better example. The rescue run at the end of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban wouldn’t have worked out nearly so well, narratively speaking, if Rowling had revealed the Time Turner to the readers earlier in the book, because it would have removed the tension of “how are we going to rescue Sirius?” As she does in all of the books, she dropped hints, she set that gun on the table, and after everybody has decided it’s not important, it’s just a fancy laser pointer, she picks it up and fires it. 

The problem is that fanfiction readers are too used to having so many perspectives from which to draw their information. When you combine this with the preconceived notions readers have about the given fiction you’re working with, it’s incredibly hard to branch out, because you will lose readers when you deny them one and go even slightly against the other. 

This is only exacerbated by the meta knowledge readers have about the story. Everyone reading Bleach fanfiction already knows that Aizen’s a traitor and megalomaniac. Everyone reading Naruto fanfiction already knows that it’s Obito behind that orange mask. Everyone reading Harry Potter fanfiction knows what a Horcrux is and how many moldy Voldy has. And so on.

And that is the real problem. When they’re so used to being given things upfront and having tons of knowledge the characters don’t, readers tend to take things at face value. The fact that your narrator is unreliable, especially if they’re extremely biased, makes it exceedingly hard to have him say or do anything that overestimates, underestimates, or is just plain wrong, because the reader will take it far more seriously and with far fewer grains of salt than you meant for them to. 

Am I the only one who wants to read more stories like Harry Potter, where some of the biggest, most important secrets aren’t revealed until the very end?

[ekniemisba1b-1]

‘Only available in animation.’

To what extent does this Paul Wells quote apply to your chosen film? Explain how the medium and materials enter, shape, and define the narrative. If your chosen film subverts or ignores conventional expectations of a ‘plotted’ narrative, identify the strategies employed in its place.

Paragraphing:

1.       Introduction

2.       Materials and medium, why? Stop Motion why?

3.       Why it’s an unconventional narrative & strategies

4.       Sex Doll theory, why not basic love story & dark themes

5.       Conclusion

Introduction:

Anomalisa is an Oscar winning R-Rated movie based on radio play written by Charlie Kaufman, film directed by Kaufman and Duke Johnson (animator)

Explain how the medium of stop motion and materials enter, shape, and define the unconventional but very human narrative and make the film only available in animation

the plot events that can only be achieved (or made acceptable) because of the medium of animation eg. Going insane, face falling off

Anomalisa can be considered unconventional due to its deviation from a ‘plotted’ narrative (events are rearranged, shaped, story = what’s happening, plot = why it’s happening)

“true to life” puppets, actions and themes, they the intimacy they depict and the way “we can project ourselves [onto puppets] in a way that you can’t do maybe when it’s a real person” – Jennifer Jason Leigh (Lisa) interview

Can take away two separate narratives in the story, that both work, although this explicit theory due to the inherent innocence of animation most people don’t see the alternative narrative? Therefore, assume Lisa was real

real dark themes/graphic or explicit imagery – (and here there's a bit of crossover with your original question): are they made more or less acceptable/palatable because the 'actors' are puppets rather than humans? Yes and no

Para 1:

Materials = which an artwork is created, the     medium affects how the message is perceived – Lynsey lecture week 2,     Discourse = how the narrative is told – Lynsey lecture week 5

Film ie “Capturing reality is the default     because it’s the easiest, more visceral and historical” animation is a     choice “first step to understanding a story” – Animation In Anomalisa

Realism part of style

Characterisation - you could also bring in any     info you have about the technical side – how the puppets were     designed, created (did Kaufman have any say in this)

“the mixture of artifice and realism they     represent, with their peach-fuzz skins of silicone, and their hair-like     hair, and not-quite fluid and yet entirely recognizable human gestures.” –     windows on the will

Puppets are very realistic but still puppets,     artistic choice to show the visual seams of the face “related to the     themes that were in the story.” – Kaufman and Johnson (Smith,2016), this     could mean better projection of emotions from audience onto characters     (only available in animation)

Stop motion medium means that directors can     convey actions (eg. Taking of face, same face and voice for others),     emotions (eg. Lust, loneliness?) and characters (eg. Slightly odd     proportions = stubby legs, big head, big hands) that can’t be replicated     in real life or to the same effect or as well as, focused a lot on the     eyes to express emotion, bring puppet to life “very reflective and looked     moist” “make them feel alive and really articulate, so the eyes were very     animatable” “avoid uncanny valley” – Johnson radio interview

“long, slowly unwinding love scene that’s this     sometimes savagely unromantic…so unexpectantly intimate” – heart breaking     puppet show compare sex scene to puppets sex scene in Team America: World     Police?, sex scene took 6 months, used special puppets and rigs – Johnson     interview for radio 

“Animation very subtle and nuanced” – Kaufman (interview on radio) but when Kaufman was asked if animation allowed him to do more with story he said “just another form to explore” and “an exciting learning process for me” Radio Interview – the story is the important thing for Kaufman and the “Interaction between between the person who’s viewing it and the piece” – radio interview (it's always good to address both sides of an argument in an essay)

“Hopefully it’s layered enough that people can come away with separate and individual reactions to it” – Kaufman radio interview

Andrew Stanton quote? “satisfying to work something out yourself and not be told?” supported by Kaufman who said he hates giving people a solid answer for the meaning or correct narrative, wants to leave it up to imagination, didn’t even discuss theme between the directors when making it

the plot events that can only be achieved (or made acceptable) because of the medium of animation

Stop motion wasn’t a must for Kaufman and his story but Stop motion makes film “stronger”, “makes an even more poignant and fascinating story overall” – Animation in Anomalisa, because it stands out more, with Stop motion = “tactile”, “evocative” “emotional pull” and “because they’re puppets we can project ourselves in a way that you can’t do maybe when it’s a real person” – Jennifer Jason Leigh (Lisa) interview, more of a blank slate

how a film full of puppets can say something so important about the human condition (does their generic look make it easier  to say something about being human – their blankness helps us relate to them more easily??)

Breaks fourth wall in a way only done in animation, goes particularly well with stop motion eg. Face falling off, direct acknowledgement to its own medium

Puppets can have same face and voice, live action can’t, didn’t realise this at first, have oh shit moment,

Other radical stop motion filmmakers eg. Jan Švankmajer (Czech), The Qay Brothers (American) and Robert Morgan (British), inherent jerky movement of stop motion adds to unease and taxidermy, old dolls and odd materials that can be only be done in animation otherwise wouldn’t be as creepy or impactful

also this new genre that seems to be developing: big stop motion films aimed primarily, or partially, at adults. It's a bit cultish, voguish (especially with new Wes Anderson film currently shooting): why do these live action directors suddenly want to make films in stop motion? 

Stop motion rarely used, especially for adults, usually for pre-school, why so popular now?

Para 2:

Anomalisa was originally a radio play, written by Kaufman and performed twice

Compare radio play to animation ie. The way they did it, what’s different and the same, eg. Same cast, actually act out what’s happening in the form of animation, play was just them talking and standing (find quotes from Kaufman in notebook) “what your hearing is not what you’re saying and the idea was that the audience would create the imagery” – Kaufman radio interview, in play in sex scene actors stand on either side of room and make sex noises?

“adult themes aren’t necessarily a new thing in the evolution of animated films” – Defying the animation narrative, link to research in narrative in notes, started off in 16th century as moving porn images for adults – Kinograph (flip book) – Lynsey lecture week 2

A lot of animated films are “comprised of adult themes and messages that are discreetly conveyed to children” for example Up with themes of “loss and death” but also with films like South Park that are definitely meant for adults, uncensored and very crude – Defying the animation narrative

“you have to liberate people from [film theory], not give them a corset in which they have to fit their story, their life, their emotions” – Guillermo Del Toro in Week 1 notes of Narrative

Not conventional story telling because character doesn’t change, there isn’t really a climax, however do think it’s trying to teach us something about loneliness and connecting with people, how not to live, feeling slight pity for Michael and fear of becoming him (fairly unconventional)

Michael is an “unreliable narrator” can’t trust what we see from his eyes, audience unable to trust him leads to the two narratives being able to simulatiously exist

Fregoli delusion – sees everyone as same person, can’t tell them apart, Michael doesn’t have this but “his condition is heavily inspired from it”- Kaufman Interview

Different ways of seeing Michael, disorder or narcissistic? Link to article explaining the latter

Doesn’t follow conventional narrative in terms of structure (no satisficing ending) and protagonist (very unlikable, no redemption) Lisa is more tragic more likable, both as lonely as each other, but at the end she feels better optimistic, goddess of ? (Japanese name) whereas he doesn’t change (unconventional)

Anomalisa’s “sense of ‘nothing happens’ is part of this unconventional narrative that actually makes the film brilliant”, it shows “true life” in terms of we see Michael do very simple human activities eg. Peeing, showering, “mirroring real life”, “grounded in reality”, “The animation puts us in a narrative dilemma where we become unsure of our visual environment, which inadvertently syncs us with the main character’s dilemma of being immersed in a world that he no longer comprehends” do I agree with this? – deifying animated narrative

Lots of radical scenes eg. Long sex scene & removing the puppets face (meltdown) accepted due to inherent innocence but still shocking (compare this to comedy – Team America: World Police puppet sex scene)

Societies have to adapt and change so it’s the same with stories, rejecting the old and accepting the new – Lynsey lecture week 4, with this story in this age “our inability to connect despite being more connected than ever” – Duke Johnson, Interview q on cbc

Strategies put in place to make up with it being unconventional; beautiful, true to life and attention to detail animation with comedy very human

Performed by voice actors before filming the animation and all together, usually animation comes first (unconventional) quote from interview on radio

and, on a similar note, is this basically 'just' a 'love story'? I've seen reviews that say the most unconventional thing about the film is the animation, mention grandparents? Some people don’t think about the film afterwards and don’t notice the small details that Kaufman cleverly includes, eg. All same face and voice, sex doll theory (lead onto this)

Para 3:

Two different narratives within the story; Lisa = sex doll, Lisa = Real and different, both are plausible

Sex doll theory seen as plausible by variety of hints, losing his mind when hearing voice, same features as doll eg. Scar and voice, we see all of sex scene with no precaution, no pulling out, sex doll has semen in it, at the end the song describes Lisa being a dream, “as a product the doll’s imperative is to please the consumer, just as Lisa supplicates Michael by trying to change herself and change her behaviours according to his liking” (scene in the morning) – Michaels quiet perversions

Kaufman usually pays very close attention to small details and Johnson “wanted it to be a natural progression” so why leave out precaution when they have sex? “aftermath, so unrealistic” – Japanese doll explanation reddit

Sex Doll theory, “If this is truly a film about the depths of loneliness, what is more lonely than the experience of masturbating alone in your hotel room with a sex doll?” (and imagining that it is a real human being who was special) & “what other experience has the immediate effect of being so special in the 5 minute period while it was happening and seeming like boring, disgusted nothingness immediately after the deed is done?” (doesn’t quite fit Anomalisa because Michael’s with Lisa for a whole evening and its only until the morning does he think of her as undesirable and like the rest) – Reddit Anomalisa theory

The staging (language of animation) in the animation suggests both narrative can be true

Mise en scene = Both the doll and Lisa are on the right hand side when they’re introduced, also when she’s in the bedroom she’s on the left hand side when she sings and in the final scene when the doll sings she too is on the left hand side

due to inherent innocence do most of audience assume she’s real? Or sex doll theory more readily accepted because it’s an animation? Both are “just as compelling and just as likely” – Anomalisa explained

dark themes/graphic or explicit imagery – (and here there's a bit of crossover with your original question): are they made more or less acceptable/palatable because the 'actors' are puppets rather than humans? “the very language of animation seems to carry with it an inherent innocence which has served to disguise and dilute the potency of some of its more daring imagery” (Wells, 1998, p.19)

This concept ignored by audiences because of it’s inherent innocence? I asked my Grandparents about it and they found it disappointing with an uninteresting story and didn’t understand why it needed to be stop motion

Conclusion:

Round everything up and relate to question!

A work of art is “an outward showing of inward nature” loneliness, narcissism of Michael – Lynsey Lecture week ? – conclusion?

 Bibliography

 Akaforty (2016). Anomalisa - The Japanese Doll explanation [Internet] 17 January 2016. Available at: https://www.reddit.com/r/YMS/comments/41czg8/anomalisa_the_japanese_doll_explanation/ [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

Anomalisa, (2015) Directed by Charlie Kaufman, John Dukeman. United States of America: Snoot Entertainment, Starburns Industries [DVD]

Being John Malkovich, (1999) Directed by Spike Jonze. California, United States of America: Astralwerks, Gramercy Pictures (I), Propaganda Films, Single Cell Pictures [DVD]

Blind Field (2016). Monotony and Efficiency in Kaufman’s ‘Anomalisa’ [Internet] 8 March 2016. Available at: https://blindfieldjournal.com/2016/03/08/monotony-and-efficiency-in-kaufmans-anomalisa/  [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

Dogtown33 (2016). Anomalisa theory about Michael and the geisha doll (spoilers) [Internet] 16 January 2016. Available at: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/41auzq/anomalisa_theory_about_michael_and_the_geisha/ [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

Film Formula, (2016) Anomalisa Analysis: Michael’s Quiet Perversions. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vbb_HvxOdE&index=73&list=PL-RhqqYuEIowa7joVkUc_8dyTIDEL2vnR [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

Film Herald, (2016) ‘Anomalisa’ (2015) Explained. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQAftcZJQLc&list=PL-RhqqYuEIowa7joVkUc_8dyTIDEL2vnR&index=68 [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

Movieclips Coming Soon, (2015) Anomalisa Featurette - Crafting Anomalisa (2015) - Charlie Kaufman Stop Motion Animated Movie HD. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkOH_6uzASs&index=67&list=PL-RhqqYuEIowa7joVkUc_8dyTIDEL2vnR [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

Play It Again, Dan (2016). Defying the Animation Narrative: The Brilliance of Anomalisa [Internet] 24 March 2016. Available at: https://playitagaindan.wordpress.com/2016/03/24/defying-the-animation-narrative-the-brilliance-of-anomalisa/  [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

q on cbc, (2016) Charlie Kaufman & Duke Johnson on Anomalisa. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNQHYyLaNFY&list=PL-RhqqYuEIowa7joVkUc_8dyTIDEL2vnR&index=74 [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

 ScreenSlam, (2015) Anomalisa: Behind-the-scenes B-roll Part 1 - Charlie Kaufman, Duke Johnson. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODssMUlQO44&index=71&list=PL-RhqqYuEIowa7joVkUc_8dyTIDEL2vnR [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

ScreenSlam, (2015) Anomalisa: Behind-the-scenes B-roll Part 2 - Charlie Kaufman, Duke Johnson. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTWqZ80ff2U&index=72&list=PL-RhqqYuEIowa7joVkUc_8dyTIDEL2vnR [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

ScreenSlam, (2015) Anomalisa: David Thewlis ‘Michael’ On-Set Interview. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KCKDYjj6Pc&index=69&list=PL-RhqqYuEIowa7joVkUc_8dyTIDEL2vnR&t=2s [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

ScreenSlam, (2015) Anomalisa: Jennifer Jason Leigh ‘Lisa’ On-Set Interview. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DATO9uoWklM [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

Shoard, C. and Barnes, H. (2016) Charlie Kaufman on Anomalisa: ‘The internet is a terrible danger’ – video interview. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/film/video/2016/mar/08/charlie-kaufman-on-anomalisa-the-internet-is-a-terrible-danger-video-interview [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

Smith, Z. (2016) Windows on the will. Available at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/03/10/windows-on-the-will/ [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

Stevens, D. (2015) Anomalisa. A beautiful, tricky, heartbreaking puppet show from Charlie Kaufman. Available at: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2015/12/charlie_kaufman_s_anomalisa_reviewed.html [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

Team America: World Police, (2004) Directed by Trey Parker. United States of America: Paramount Pictures, Scott Rudin Productions, MMDP Munich Movie Development & Production GmbH & Co. Project KG [DVD]

Variety, (2015) 'Anomalisa' ­- Sculpting Animated Characters with Carol Koch ­- Variety Artisans. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AILnP1Y-0o&index=66&list=PL-RhqqYuEIowa7joVkUc_8dyTIDEL2vnR [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

Wells, P. (1996) Understanding animation. London: Routledge. Pp. 19

Wells, P. (2006) Fundamentals of animation. [E-book + book] Lausanne: AVA Publishing.

What it all Meant, (2016) Animation in Anomalisa [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ezp_KSvNnc&index=70&list=PL-RhqqYuEIowa7joVkUc_8dyTIDEL2vnR&t=3s

As you’ve probably noticed I have changed my essay question from Question 6 to do with animation’s licence to be more radical than live action cinema, to Question 4 ‘’Only available in Animation’  To what extent does this Paul Wells quote apply to your chosen film? Explain how the medium and materials enter, shape, and define the narrative. If your chosen film subverts or ignores conventional expectations of a ‘plotted’ narrative, identify the strategies employed in its place.’ This was because I was really struggling to link my points and arguments to inherent innocence. I have to admit I panicked a bit because I was behind with my work and already having troubles before even starting to write it. However, my tutor calmed my nerves and suggested I change to question 4 as that best suited what I wanted to talk about with Anomalisa. So the draft above are my edited bullet point notes of what I want to say in my new essay focusing on how the medium of stop motion, it’s materials enter, shape and define the unconventional narrative of Anomalisa.

[malwurt]

An Editor’s Review: The Iron Wyrm Affair

Title: The Iron Wyrm Affair

Author: Lilith Saintcrow

Edition:

The Collected Adventures of Bannon & Clare

Orbit

Omnibus edition 2018

Chapter(s): Prelude

The Collected Adventures of Bannon & Clare

“Emma Bannon, forensic sorceress in the service of the Empire, has a mission: to protect Archibald Clare, a failed, unregistered mentath. His skills of deduction are legendary, and her own sorcery is not inconsiderable. But a deadly conspiracy against mentaths and sorcerers alike could either seduce them both into betraying their Queen—or get them both killed.”

An Editor’s Review is a series reviewing books in the realm between casual reader and professional editor, trying to call attention to what I, as an editor, would notice in a manuscript. As these are all published books, the criticism will be less extensive than if it was dealing with a newly submitted manuscript; the review will focus less on grammatical details and more on the common pitfalls of even established authors. Because this is a review and not a response to a received manuscript, the tone will also read more personal than professional.

Prelude

Archibald Clare is visited by Emma Bannon and her Shield, Mikal.

 Character

First of all, Archibald Clare is a blatant rip-off of at least one iteration of Sherlock Holmes:

. He’s introduced as a genius-level ‘mentath’, which is the author’s own term for someone of brilliant criminal deductive reasoning. His mentath-status is an employment, if not also a social status of some sort.

. He plays the viola.

. Stacks of research line the living room to the extent that there is nowhere to sit.

. Mrs Ginn, his landlady, holds herself responsible for the cleanliness of the apartment.

. Clare smokes a pipe.

. The only named adversary, described as ‘wonderful’, is a professor, much like Moriarty.

 These are the most defining characteristics of Clare, which is a huge red flag. To not only take inspiration from another character but lean so heavily on the specific characteristics is risky. In certain genres, it works well: Disney is famous for its reiterations of classical tales, and satire uses this as a defining feature. In fantasy, though, it’ll almost always fall short and be considered unoriginal, and in a genre that gives authors so much potential for originality, it’s something that immediately turns me away from one of the two main characters.

 Secondly, the narrator’s voice is very clearly a mouthpiece for Clare, but it falls short of showing what the audience has been told about him: that he’s a deductive genius.

 As for Emma Bannon, though characterised through Clare’s observations, she isn’t much better off for an introduction. Many of the observations Clare makes about her are superficial, adding only to her looks and nothing to her character. When describing a character in the beginning, this might make sense, but during the chapter, the descriptions continue as if they’re supposed to say something, such as here:

 “Her curls, if they were not natural, were very close. There was a slight bit of untidiness to them – some recent exertion perhaps?”

 Much of what we know of Bannon after this introduction is that she dresses in fashionable Victorian clothes and some of the more general things about her station, but nothing to flesh her out.

 Narrator’s Voice

The narrator’s voice is reflective of Archibald Clare’s voice, although not exclusively, making it an omniscient narrator, but so far without interference of an author’s voice. This means it’s the job of the narrator, as a mouthpiece for Clare, to reflect what the audience is being told by other characters or on the cover/jacket of the book about him. However, the prelude falls short of this. Here are some examples:

 “When the young dark-haired woman stepped into his parlour, Archibald Clare was only mildly intrigued. Her companion was of more immediate interest […]”

 Clare then proceeds to spend six (6) lines describing her companion, the Shield, Mikal, before spending twelve (12) lines describing her. This is a small detail, but if someone notices, it immediately discredits the narrator as unreliable. It’s understandable, from the author’s point of view, to want to spend more time describing Bannon, as she is the second main character of the story, but if the narrator states that Clare is more interested in Mikal, this isn’t the time.

 One of the main staples of Clare’s character is that he is a genius. However, the many deductions he makes throughout the prelude are completely without any real intelligence behind them. A fictional writer’s job will always be to create illusions: everything they write is a figment of their imagination. But if an illusionist doesn’t do their job properly, the immersion is dispersed. The same way with writers. Examples of Saintcrow falling short of her task are:

 “As the suspected, she spoke.”

 Mikal has been described as a rather physically intimidating figure. It is not a big surprise that he’s there as a guardian of Bannon.

 “Her toilette favoured musk, of course, for a brunette.”

 This sentence reads awfully, and in the end, it comes off more as a terrible inside joke that the reader isn’t privy to than anything of substance. Why would brunettes prefer or not prefer musk in their perfume? What does her hair colour have to do with how she smells? We learn later that people connected to the court in some way have traces of musk in their scent, but this isn’t explained or elaborated upon. Apparently, the Queen herself mixes it with violet-water, but instead of describing this to the reader, to let them catch a glimpse of Clare’s insight and knowledge and feel included, Clare simply intersperses all his thoughts with ‘of course’ and ‘evidently’, making him sound pretentious and shallow.

 “He had been researching, of course. The intersections between musical scale and the behaviour of certain tiny animals. It was the intervals, perhaps. Each note held its own space. He was seeing to determine which set of spaces would make the insects (and later, other things) possibly—”

 A great example of the fade-to-black of background knowledge. When an author tries to establish a deep understanding and curiosity in their character with an example but don’t have any knowledge to back it up with themselves, so they introduce an interesting theory and cut it off before anything can be said about it because they didn’t bother to fully form it. This breaks belief in the character.

 Superfluous Expressions

Because the narrator is a mouthpiece for at least one of the characters present, superfluidity can be excused as part of what makes the character. Whether or not these persist if/when the narrator jumps character can determine whether this is a great example of characterisation or laziness. However, if they’re not used for characterisation, these expressions are a great example of what you should cut out:

 “His faculties were, evidently, not porridge yet.”

 “For the moment, he decided, the man’s drawer would remain metal.”

 The second one is insidious in another way: by way of using the narrator as a mouthpiece, we already know that Clare decides this, just by way of it being written out. The sentence could essentially do without those two words completely and still mean the same, as such: “For the moment, the man’s drawer would remain metal.”

 Nonsense

Some ways of turning a phrase might be superfluous, which is bad enough, but others, in their effort to bring life into the writing, make no sense at all.

 Like: “She cast one eloquent glance over the room.”

 Language can be eloquent. It is the act of giving a verbal (or written) account well. A glance is taking something in visually. Both the sense and the difference between giving and taking is notable. A glance cannot be ‘eloquent’.

 Or: “If she knew some of the circumstances behind his recent ill luck, she would guess he was closer to imploding and fusing his faculties into unworkable porridge than was advisable, comfortable… or even sane.”

 First of all, it is impossible to implode or fuse your own faculties by will. Unless Clare had described either a kind of technology or magic that he’d do it with, this simply reads like juvenile dramatics. Second of all. ‘closer than was advisable, comfortable, or sane’ is a turn of phrase you would use about something that could be more or less advisable, comfortable, and sane. As it is, Clare is being ridiculous. Perhaps it is a deliberate character choice, but given the rest of the chapter, it reads more like the author’s attempt at wit, which falls short here.

 Dialogue

There isn’t much dialogue in this introductory chapter, but there is especially one interesting exchange:

 Clare: “Sorceress. And a Shield. I would invite you to sit, but I hardly think you will.”

Bannon: “Since there is no seat available, sir, I am to take that as one of your deductions?”

 The reason why this exchange is worth calling attention to is because it calls attention to itself. Instead of reading smoothly, it instead reads like something the author thought would be a short battle of wits: showing that Clare is worthy of his mentath-status, then turning that exhibition on its head and reflecting well on Bannon by letting her parry his apparent deduction.

 However, the exchange falls short because the subject of discussion is so poor. If Clare had predicted something interesting and Bannon had called him out on it, the interaction would have been interesting too. If either of their reactions had been surprising, so would the conversation. There isn’t just one way of elevating the scene, but none of them have been used on this scene.