Film Analysis - Tumblr Posts

not to mention that the only reason these movies could be seen as problematic is because these people make these critical assessments in the first place. objectively, all of the disney princesses are strong, admirable role models for young kids (not just girls!) because of the reasons op generously listed above, and because they're designed that way. they're their own characters and they're all well-rounded with unique flaws, strengths, and dreams. the only reason they ever become "problematic" is because people create these negative interpretations. sure, they don't need their love interests, but they choose them anyways because they make them happy, and that's what love is really about. just like people in real life, you don't need anyone besides yourself once you reach a certain stage of development (usually beginning with adolescence, which is late teens to mid 20s, which is conveniently the category of ages most disney princesses fall into). also, the love interests have their own character arcs and their own traits! that is real gender equality!

wish is a terrible movie because disney is so cautious about this stuff. we were robbed of a really cute star boy because asha just had to not depend on a man for anything. now, of course, compulsive heteronormativity isn't a great thing, and i also don't find anything wrong with strong, independent female characters (a la elsa in frozen 2), but that's because their character arcs and their personalities necessitate them staying independent. but giving asha a love interest at all (to emphasize certain aspects of her character and encourage her to grow) would've made the movie ten times better than it is now. the star boy would've been such a cool character, and the two of them together would've been a great juxtaposition to the evil king and queen (and the latter also got scrapped, which i'm still very mad about).

it's okay for characters to be feminine while still being strong role models. it's okay for female characters to fall in love with and choose to be with male characters. (it's okay for them to fall in love with and choose to be with characters of any gender!) it's okay to love these movies and the stories they tell.

it only becomes not okay when you try to ruin it for everyone else.

Rant incoming

I feel like the problem with a lot of Disney's live action remakes (and arguably Wish) is they're trying to appeal to a crowd that no longer exists, namely the people who used to claim that the Disney Princesses were sexist.

All the interviews tend to include, "Well she's not chasing a MAN anymore" which...almost no one sees the princesses like that, anymore. Virtually NO ONE still believes the princesses are man-chasing sexist caricatures of women.

Cinderella is now hailed as an abuse victim who stayed strong long enough to get help to get out of her situation. Anyone who says she should have saved herself is basically regarded as a victim blamer. And it's very clear in the film she wasn't looking to marry the prince, she just wanted a night off. She was the only one who wasn't in line to meet him. She didn't find out she met the prince until he went looking for her!

Snow White is now hailed for her negotiation skills, ability to calm down after extreme stress (she had a moment of panic and had to cry for a bit, but who wouldn't after finding out The Queen hired someone to kill you?), and ability to take charge of a house of adult men. And again, she was an abuse victim, this time trying to escape ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS. While she dreamed of her prince, it was secondary to her main goal of SURVIVAL. There are also entire video essays about how Snow White gave hope to people during The Great Depression.

Everyone acknowledges that Ariel wanted to be human BEFORE meeting Eric. We all know she was a nerd hyperfixating on humans, and also standing up to her prejudiced father.

We understand Sleeping Beauty wasn't the main character, the Three Good Fairies were, AND PHILLIP WOULD NEVER HAVE BEATEN MALEFICENT WITHOUT THEM! He literally depended on them! WOMEN SAVED THE DAY! But even then, is it really such a sin for a girl to fantasize about romance and fall for someone with corny pickup lines?

We all understand Jasmine just wanted someone to treat her LIKE A PERSON. She rejected every Prince before Aladdin because they treated her like a prize. So why did they need her to want to be Sultan? How did that make her more feminist when she already wanted to be treated like an equal and have a say in her future? Is it only empowering if you want a career in politics?

We admire that Belle, despite living in a judgemental village, was kind to everyone (even though she found the village life dull), and her story teaches girls that the guy everyone else loves isn't always a good guy. What's sexist about teaching girls about red flags? And she didn't start being nice to The Beast until he started treating her with respect and kindness.

Do I really NEED to defend Mulan or Tiana? I think they speak for themselves.

Rapunzel was yet another abuse victim who just needed a little help to get out of her bad situation. In this case, she also needed to learn that she was an abuse victim, and that what Mother Gothel did WASN'T normal, much like many victims of gaslighting.

And don't get me started on the non-princess animals.

Perdita had a healthy relationship with Pongo to the point she was open to express her pregnancy fears to him, and was ready to TEAR APART Cruella's goons for daring to touch her puppies as well as adopting the other puppies. Like, she was so ferocious the goons mistook her for a hyena! She's basically that "I AM THAT GIRL'S MOTHER!" scene from SpyXFamily if Yor were a dog. She and her husband were a TEAM.....but they made a Cruella live action to turn her into a girlboss?! The literal animal abuser!? THAT'S the woman you wanted to put on a pedestal when Perdita was RIGHT THERE!?

Duchess kept her kittens calm after they had been catnapped and was classy as heck. Nice to everyone regardless of social class during a time period where that was uncommon.

Lady stood up to Tramp when she believed he had abandoned her and didn't really care about her. She found out he was a heartbreaker and was like, "Nuh uh. No. You are not doing that to me! You put me through enough."

Miss Bianca from The Rescuers was IN CHARGE the whole movie, and was willing to risk life and limb to save an innocent child. THAT TINY MOUSE TOOK ON ALLIGATORS! And she picked Bernard to accompany her because he was the only one who wasn't ogling her. And then in the sequel SHE DID IT ALL AGAIN! I wish I were as brave as her.

Like, the public haven't accused these ladies of being sexist caricatures since 2014 (Actresses and actors don't count, they're out of touch like the rest of Hollywood) yet Disney is operating under the assumption that the public still thinks that way, hence all the "sHe'S nOt AfTeR a MaN iN ThIs VeRsIOn" talk.

The live action remakes are trying to attract an audience that doesn't really exist much, anymore, and back when it did exist, was comprised mainly of people who didn't actually watch the films. The Disney princesses are no longer seen as sexist, and feminine qualities are no longer seen as weak or undesirable.

Why Cars 2 is a Cinematic Masterpiece

The beginning movie does a great job establishing the tone of movie; seeing the blue car spy on the evil mafia cars as he just barely escapes with his life shows how this will be easily the darkest Disney movie since Hunchback and the rest of the movie follows through on this. When Toe Maitor is recruited as a spy and then him & the blue car are chased by the evil cars they use explosions! They almost died that’s so fucking crazy! Fortunately, there’s a funny scene later on where Toe Maitor has to go pee and it helps release the tension, since I’ve already proven this is a very intense movie.

Making Toe Maitor more of main character was a good move because of how his funny moments help us, the audience, not be so stressed out for the entire movie worrying if our dear heroes will survive this brutal, dystopian world; everyone wants them dead and the film does a great job showing how they struggle to be able to trust and confide in anyone in a world that’s actively rooting against them. The movie also has a great subversion of expectations with how we expect Lighting McQueer to be the main character, but it’s actually Toe Maitor! When that plot twist hit me in theaters, I lost my shit and was screaming! They then kicked me out, but I later bought the movie on DVD to finish this masterpiece, and it was worth the wait!

Speaking of Lighting, his subplot is that he wants to win a race, but this time terrorist cars are threatening to blow him up with a bomb on him, killing him! Now you see how scary and intense Cars 2 is? This obviously makes Toe want to save his forbidden lover (it’s subtext btw) and so he becomes a spy! A spy! I was cheering for him on my couch knowing he has made it in life; tears of joy were rolling down my face. Anyway, by the end of the movie he does succeed by using his wits and in a cut scene found exclusively on the Blu Ray version, I got to see it thanks to me having to buy the DVD, Toe and Lightning make out in front of everyone as the screen fades to black and the movie ends. That ending also made me cry. Oh yeah and also the blue and purple cars they won too I guess but they were kinda lame; they’re easily the weakest part and the only actual bad thing about the movie. Other than that, this is an easy 9.5/10. If more Pixar films were like this, it would be back to making absolute masterpieces.

Conclusion:

Cars 2 is an almost perfect masterpiece with only one minor flaw.

Todays vibes ✨

Tommy filmmaking would start out really bad and cheesy before he would get much better, he would have the script down before asking his friends and family for help such as asking his dad for set making and large props along with Dil painting them and building them too. Susie could help with music writing, Phil could get something gross from his room or something for effects and Lil to hold the sound.

Chuckie can hold the camera or tell Tommy about an ideal place to shoot(Rachel telling about abandoned buildings), Angelica is really dramatic so a actress or he'll get someone else.

Astro profiles for Movies

      --(500) Days of Summer-- debuted on the 7th month which is CANCER season. I interpret this as the ASCENDANT, setting the placements of the characters which are interpreted as PLANETS. The characters move through the story like Planets move through a chart. The lessons portrayed in the story are rooted in an overall theme, which reflects to me a natal placement rooted in a chart. For example:

      The theme of (500) Days of Summer revolves around; unrequited love, dealing with romanticism and unclear boundaries. This reflects to me themes of the MOON. So while each character experiences the lessons of this theme, they express it in different ways... The characters revolve around the theme/natal MOON, while they express/transit in the story/chart. So the lesson they learn, expresses to me as the natal SUN placement.

      TOM believes that he will be happy if he finds his soulmate = MOON in the 7th house. He is learning to define what love feels like = SUN in the 2nd house.       SUMMER believes in undefined/casual intimacy = MOON in the 5th house. She is learning to be aware of her desires = SUN in the 6th house.

This is something of a soft launch of my own original concept...

I think Toy Story is about fatherhood.

I've been moving out of my childhood home, donating or giving away a lot of toys, and I've been thinking about Toy Story a lot and I think I've cracked it. Toy Story is about fatherhood and family, the toys are Andy's family.

Woody himself is the dad. We never see a father in any of the movies, but peculiarly his absense is never felt. That is because Woody fills that role. He's a cowboy, a typical symbol of old style masculinity. Older men, especially back when the first movie was made, might enjoy cowboy movies still from their childhood or their own parents. We open to the song "you've got a friend in me," during which we see Andy playing with Woody. He does things like sitting and playing on an armchair too big for him along with Woody, as a child might sit on a father's lap. Ergo, Woodie = Dad.

But what happens when another dad comes into the picture? The arrival of Buzz Lightyear is a portent of doom for the old fashioned cowboy. Andy is HIS child, Andy loves HIM, not this new fangled space toy. This perhaps represents how a new father figure has arrived into the picture. Buzz is the perfect toy for Andy, he outdoes Woody in almost every way. He's clearly expensive, battery operated, all the other kids want and love him, and he's a space ranger, essentially a version of a cowboy that appeals much better to a modern audience than an old fashioned one would. Woody feels thoroughly threatened by this. He feels Buzz is an enemy stealing away time and love from his son Andy, and tries to get rid of him, in the process stranding them both away from the kid.

It is only after having both been gone from the child's life does Woody realize that Andy needs both of his father figures. Andy is devastated that he lost botth his most favorite toys, he doesn't mourn one over the other. The final shot of the film is Andy holding both of his toys tight, ecstatic that both of them have returned to him, giving them equal love. Woody had been imagining things. Andy always loved and needed them both.

This of course represents these two father figures putting aside their differences to co-parent their child.

Next we have the second film. In it the central theme is a father losing out of his child's love due to his flaws, and how it takes a village to raise any child.

The film opens on Andy playing with his toys, until something happens and Woody breaks. A tear on his shoulder exposes some cotton. After meeting wheezy, a penguin toy who lost his squeaker, he sees a portend of his future. Broken toys are not played with, they are forgotten and thrown away. This shakes him to his core. Now that Woody is broken, how could Andy want him anymore? A stress dream puts this plainly to us, showing Woody's perspective as Andy loses interest on him and drops him into a garbage can. True nightmare fuel.

A garage sale occurs wile Andy is away on a trip, and a toy is mistankenly taken to the yard for sale. Woody springs into action and attempts to save the toy, and ends up being stolen himself by a toy collector himself.

The toy collector himself, Al, is an adult who believes toys are most valuable as collector's items, not when given to children. He owns a toy store chain not because he loves children, but because he believes toys are intrinsically precious when they become rare enough and expensive vintage commodities. Al pays an inordinate amount of money for a toy repair man who gives Woody what will assuage his fears by repairing his ripped arm, along with other improvements like a fresh coat of paint. This however means that he's no longer the toy that Andy loved, symbolized by the brush covering up Woody's boot.

Woody has made an unfounded assumption about the quality of his parentage. His body suffered a fault, which may be symbolic of both a character flaw and/or a physical one that makes him believe he is no longer fit for parentage, and his son will see this and abandon him. Expecting this result, he goes looking prematurely for other ways of feeling valuable as a person besides being a dad, or at the very least one finds him.

He finds others like him, a found family of sorts. All are cowboys just like him, and all are no longer loved by their children. In Jessie, Woody finds what it looks like when his fears are realized. Jessie was abandoned when her daughter lost interest in her, no longer caring to have her mother in her life. They played together as Jessie raised her, but in the end she was given away and forgotten by a daughter that didn't value her and simply left.

Once more Woody is shaken. Parents can lose their value to their children, and the thought terrifies him. He vows to make sure he and his friends remain valued forever, as he is the missing piece in the collection that will allow them to be recognized as a set and purchased by a toy museum, where they can be valued from afar by adults rather than risk raising a child that might abandon them

But Buzz Lightyear knows better. He knows their son, and he knows Andy will never stop loving Woody. He makes his own vow, he will stop at nothing to rescue his friend and bring him home where Andy will love the two of them again. He rallies a whole village of co-parents intent on this mission, and they all risk everything, for their friend of course, but also because they know Andy will be devastated when he comes home and finds Woody is gone. "Andy needs us," they say, and set off on their adventure.

Back in Al's apartment, everything is being prepared to take the toys to the museum. The gang arrives just in time to convince Woody that Andy still loves him and will forever love him, regardless of any flaws he might have. Woody convinces the others that Andy will love them all too, and they all decide to take off together.

This is when the villain of the film is revealed. Stinky Pete, one of the toys in the collection, refuses to trade his chance at being placed in a collection for the sake of one child's happiness. Stinky Pete is an unwanted toy. He is ugly, old, and uninteresting to children. Without the others to complete the set, he feels zero confidence in his own intrinsic battle, traumatized by being left on the shelf while all the other toys are taken. This is Woody's shadow, a dark reflection of who Woody might have become had Buzz not shown up to change his mind. Woody would have lost all faith in his own value as a father and never attempted to raise a child again.

Syinky Pete closes and screws in the gate to prevent the others from escaping, so when Al appears to fetch them immediately after they have no choice but to be stored for the journey, sealing their fate. Hijinks ensue, and the gang rescues Woody and the others and brings them home. Andy is ecstatic when he sees his toys again, and immediately welcomes these new parental figures into his life, proving to Woody that his value as a father has not been lost. Andy repairs Woody's newly broken arm himself.

I won't spend too long on the third film because it's more centered on a political argument, but the themes of parentage persist. Andy is going off to college now, every parent's worst nightmare. The toys are left behind, and are eventually given to a child care center. Perhaps this represents them giving up on parenting any individual child, as they believe their own is lost to them, and they take a job working with children instead to fill the void left by Andy.

However this does not prove fruitful. They are not valued in this way, and so eventually end up at a landfill. They are saved at the last minute, and discover that Andy changed his mind. He's returned from college and finds he still loves his parents, it's only that he's grown old enough that he doesn't need them anymore. Still wanting his parents to be valued, however, Andy gifs his entire collection to a tiny baby child brand new to this world, who is in need of new toys of her own. Andy has reminded that parents are always needed, even if no longer by himself specifically, and after teaching them this they gain the confidence to parent once more with a new child.

I haven't seen the fourth one. I hear it's about not needing to be a parent as the only meaning and value you can find for yourself. Idk, look it up

Individual Analysis of A Quiet Place: Day One

so so grateful for the reblogs and interactions <3

SPOILERS AHEAD!!! SPOILERS AHEAD!!! SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

Few films (or media, for that matter) manage to captivate me or make me feel as deeply as this one did. I say this as someone who sat through the ending credits with tears streaming down my cheeks and a stinging lump in my throat threatening to undo itself into a sob.

What makes this film so special is the way it managed to achieve this even with such scarce dialogue, such little background information of the characters during the exposition.

I believe this is due to a highly skilled cast and compelling narrative. The way LUPITA NYONG'O and JOSEPH QUINN projected emotions through the screen with nothing but a quivering hand, a watering gaze, hesitance to speak when given the opportunity to, had me in awe (I literally lost all interest in my concession snacks, becoming so enthralled in their performance). But the performance skills were not limited to the starring actors, and, rather, extended into the acts of ALEX WOLFF and DJIMON HOUNSOU.

It really made me sit there in the theatre and recite in my head "This is it! This is why I love writing! It's so powerful. So beautiful. It's the only thing that makes sense to me."

I’ll make this quick! I’ve got school assignments due at midnight.

If I don’t take this brief moment to vomit my thoughts out, they’ll be gone forever.

Analysis of character:

SAM

A character crippled by a terminal illness, on Hospice services with no hope of surviving. She's come to acceptance with her fate: death. The irony, the interesting twist, though, arises when she is forced to consider the possibility that death will be quicker than she'd been counting down towards, and be delivered via a different medium than she'd steeled herself for from hearing countless of specialists.

She's only got months to live, we, the audience are reared into believing. It is alluded through her Hospice membership, heavy reliance on chronic pain management as opposed to treatment, the flashing alarms at the Hospice facility indicating the death of a fellow member likely in her condition, and her writing tone. This fact makes it the more interesting to watch this character escape from death by the hands of the "aliens" time after time after time. Perhaps she is not ready to face a death that differs from that which she's prepared herself to accept. Perhaps she's not ready to die before she gets that one last glimpse of home (the jazz bar, the pizza parlor and memories of her deceased father). Or, perhaps, most probable, Sam didn't die early on in the film because she had a purpose to fulfill - in my interpretation, she was pivotal to the survival of Eric, and catalyzed his evolution from a scared, lonesome, helpless character into one that is strong enough to venture into the unknown world with the hope of surviving.

A trait that weaved in and out, entirely through the narrative was Sam's kindness towards strangers. It is shown when she first visits the city, during the marionette show; she speaks softly at the curious child seating in front of her, tells him the cat's name, reassures his parents that the child is no nuisance. Then again, when she finds two stranded kids by the fountain, offers them food she'd bought for herself, and attempts to guide them towards evacuation. Then again, when she takes Eric under her wing, steers him away from the edge of dissolution into panic. Oh! and how could I forget the numerous times she risked her own life to save the cat!

ERIC

Found him comical, endearing, sweet and lovable.

My first impression of him was that of someone who doesn't know how to exist alone. Doesn't like to be alone. Doesn't know how to follow his own volition, because he's rather used to having orders barked to him by his superiors - it is implied his parents forced him into law school.

He's likely never had an opportunity to secede from all the orders and just exist for himself so when he's catapulted into a world where literally it's everyone for themselves, he freezes, stammers, and clings to the nearest form of refuge (the company of Sam and cat).

My impression of him being a constant people-pleaser, and dependent on extrinsic validation/orders became solidified when Sam instructs him to knock the door to her apartment down during the storm. The stakes are obvious: agonizing shredding and death. Yet, he proceeds to do as he is told. Under the rain, he speaks when instructed to, despite being at risk of...you got it, death. For someone who verbally states he "doesn't want to die," he sure places himself in situations that almost negate that believe. Perhaps it is because he doesn't have an internal sense of self (yet). Perhaps because he is selfless.

Throughout the film we see him face challenges, see him evolve into someone who faces his fears - from the scene in the drowned subway, to the lone mission for meds, to retrieving the cat from the "alien" nest. In the end he takes this big leap into the sea, which in itself could be a metaphor; willingly jumping into the unknown instead of stalling at the dock and waiting for death.

HENRI

He's a leader, a strong patriarch with authority. Don't believe me? The first scene we see him in, he's ordering his son to stop bothering the lady (Sam). The next scene, he's got his hand over Sam's mouth, ushering her to silence before allowing her to join the rest of the refugees.

He's a man with responsibility. Keep his family safe. At first his family was just his wife and son, but then, perhaps it extended to encompass all who relied on him to maintain order in the refugee site. No one truly nominated him, he just assumed the position out of his own strength of will and duty.

So, it is in this sense of duty and responsibility that he commits his first murder. It is quick, rushed, blinded by fear, when he slams one of the refugee's heads against a concrete wall to keep them from killing and dooming everyone to the same fate. He kills one to save all, and perhaps that should be heroic? But it's tainted with guilt and disbelief, this fall into immorality and the conflict can be seen play across his face (super talented actor!!).

Analysis of symbols:

WATER

salvation. cleansing. catharsis. heaven/haven. sanctuary.

Sam first encounters water at the fountain where the kids are hiding. Then, while walking towards her apartment, being followed by Eric, she dares to talk, associates it with protection, safety from the perception of the beasts. In her apartment, while it is storming, she screams, venting all of her frustrations, unfulfilled hopes, fear; the white noise of the rain and the rumble of thunder serves to dampen her commotion from being perceived by the beasts. She feels light, relieved. Eric joins in at the next rumble of thunder.

Then it is flooding the subways, and muffles their steps from the sleeping beasts. It guides their way out of the depths where the beasts sleep (could this be perceived as hell? being underground and full of monsters?). The stream ends up leading them to a church (salvation, heaven?). I think this was purposeful symbolism.

WHITE CAT

drive of survival. strength and advantage. comfort, grounding energy.

The cat is the reason Sam escapes many killing sprees throughout the film. It somehow always manages to dash away just before the creatures arrive, luring Sam out of there.

The cat is said to be an emotional support animal. It is shown being cuddled and nuzzled by Sam on many occasions of distress, and eventually by Eric, who assumes ownership of it.

MARIONETTES

Sam visibly grows emotional at the sight of the marionette boy levitating with the balloon, only for it to pop and him to collapse. Perhaps she sees it as a reflection of her life; how it turned on her so quickly, how she might have been in the peak of her success (as a poet) just before being diagnosed with a terminal illness. Perhaps it represents lost innocence, when she was just a little girl at her father's side, listening to the piano, and now it's gone, she can't retrieve it.

YELLOW JACKET

Have you ever heard of that quote that goes something like "You are mosaic of the people you've loved"? People change people. People leave traces, imprints on others. The jacket originally belonged to Sam's father, as shown in the picture at the Jazz club. Sam wears it religiously, perhaps to feel close to him now that he's gone. Before she sacrifices herself, she lends the jacket over to Eric - it could symbolize the way he'll carry her with him on his journey.

Favorite scenes: - probably the one where they are screaming through the thunder. felt very cathartic and I do believe it was the first scene in which they weren't fearful of speaking and just being human. - the leap Eric takes with the cat into the sea. to be told he is safe by the members on the ferry, the tears of relief welling in his eyes, and maybe of grief at losing Sam, too. - when Sam miraculously makes it back to the marionette theatre refuge and Reuben gives her a hug of relief, tears streaming down his face, then hands over the cat. - the opening scenes of Sam navigating the city, and the way it was implied that the city was in danger of something strange without really spanning the cameras to the threat yet. i liked that we, as the audience, first saw the treat face-to-face as the same time as our leading character, Sam. It really aids in the sympathizing. It was interesting to hear the sirens and see the flashing lights, and hear the rumble of choppers over the city whilst the camera focused on an oblivious Sam.

I said I would be quick...lol

Can you imagine what I mean when I say I'll be slow???

Me when I make film/game theory’s based on the camera angles and lighting

the separation film analysis

"Jodaeiye Nader az Simin" translated as “A Separation" got the Oscar award as best foreign film moreover many awards in the other countries.it is directed by Asghar Farhadi as well as the script is written by him. the film was more effective than a film in reason of acting which was not like a reading a simple script and the voyeuristic camera angles made the audience live the moment in film. The connection between the characters and the audience makes it a drama but it has tension in it with a character added in the plotline who is Hojjat and the audience is kept attached to film by the climaxes.

The separation seems like dealing with a simple matter as it is understood from the title. It exhibits a real life situation with realistic characters and there isn’t even music or effect to have a simple look to screenplay but actually it shows reality as simplicity. However it has many layers that shows the effect of a separation on individuals especially  on tempeh(their daughter) who is like an outkast. The camera shows her alone and she doenst have friends.On the other hand the audience observes the way things happen in Iran. (the cultural differences from a western film is visible). It has more than one topic like class difference, gender roles, the effect of religion and cultural norms in society. The plotline is combined with effective characters to have vary of topic therefore it makes the simple matter become more effective on the audience and the characters in film. the film ends with a question mark and it doesn’t give any evidence about what happened to each character. Moreover it leaves the judgment to the audience.

Nader and simin are the main characters who have middle-income. Nader is a banker and Simin is an educator.  Simin wants to go to England in order to have a better future for her family especially her daughter although Nader told her that he won’t be able to come because of his father who suffers Alzheimer. In the first opening scene it is visible to say something bad going to happen between nader and simin but they won’t be able to broke up. The plotline seems to be blaming simin at first because we pity the father who is sick and he is in poor situation. The decoration of his room, his clothing, the ventilator and the oxygen tube is making the audience understand his condition in a way that we put ourselves in the shoes of nader and not knowingly blame simin for what she wants. There is a scene that the ventilator and the foot of old man when he is lying is seen together which symbolizes that he is too old to live. It looks like he will die immediately if we pull the power plug. In addition he doesn’t want simin to go and he holds his hand to and doesn’t let her go. Also it is seen that they have a strong family relationship and the old man sees simin like her daughter and simin loves him too. They are very respectful culture to the elder ones. In these scenes it is visible to say an ıran house has many rooms and interesting structure that rooms are connected to each other and symbolic for family relationship. Tempeh could see her mother come when she was in her bedroom from a window that looks to indoor and it also has a big living room.

Simin finds a caretaker in order to take care of the old man. When they are both in the scene, the class difference and education is important for what women wears in Iran. Razieh wears hijab and she is religious in contrast with simin. She is like the foil character of simin who is not educated, really attached to family, doesn’t have the chance to talk much. They portray the women condition in ıran due to Razieh is too much connected to her husband, she has to get his approve for everything that she does and Simin is powerful women even when she is alone and doesn’t hold herself to speak her rights.

Razieh starts to job without the approval of hojjat (her husband).One day nader comes to home and sees that he can’t find his money and blames razieh for that. She is not at home in this scene than when nader comes and we initially learn that she has a reason for it. Moreover nader wants her to live but she has to get money in order to get back her house. At the meantime nader pushes her and she blames nader for miscarried child. By this part we can say that it has inner and outer realistic struggles depicting hardships and demonstrates the drama conventions. The camera follows the characters in this scene that makes the audience feel like someone in the house. We also see that religion is a figure in the society that bonds a wall between women and man. The raizeh was outside when this situation happened and it should be symbolic for women situation in ıran. The director shows that women don’t have the right to talk by letting her go outside before nader comes. The slow camera makes the audience observe the situation but it’s not judgmental because the truth and false isn’t visible. If the camera was weak in these scenes the film would not be that successful. I believe this part makes the audience attached to film. Moreover hojjat brings tension to the film with his entrance.

Hojjat is my favourite character in the film because he brought a new perspective to the film which is another layer that director indicates on. The difference between classes brings silence to poor people although hojjat learned to speak up for himself. He was fired from his job and told ‘go and take what you deserve if you can’. Hojjat resembles poor condition class of workers. He has high temper however his class difference is also effective on not taking serious. The screenplay is greenish-greyish and gives objective structure to film and also shows the conditions in Iran. The class difference and women issues taking big role in society and provocatively shown in the film even though it is banned by the government while it’s on production.  The feministic and Marxist film theory can be examined in this film. the screenplay doesn’t visualize a male gaze but the silence of women is seen in the script. Razieh was not able to tell to truth until the end because of fright from her husband who also abused her violently. She accepted his actions and argued for his good therefore this is expected for women. The film shows class differences and the problems accur because of it. everybody should be able to take equal education and razieh was not able to take this both because of her gender and her class. In male dominated society women comes after man to get education. Furthermore the problems are not solved though the male power believes it is.

As a conclusion the separation is one of the best films I have ever watched with the deeper contents it deals with in a simplistic way. There isn’t music used until the end or it is from television. It shows the problems in ıran, there is no joy in society when there is many problems to be taken care of. The religion is like a shadow on many peoples and in fact it’s a misconception.

rashomon

Rashomon

Akira Kurosawa’s film ’Rashomon’ is asking to the audience ‘what is the truth and how we shape it by some outside effects?’ by a murder told by different characters. After watching the film you still don’t have an idea about what really happened and who killed who moreover that makes the question asked by Kurosawa more visible. The film starts with three men who are hiding from rain in Rashomon gate also they are starting a conversation about a murder that they witnessed. The idea of human life is not eternal and death is natural thing is given by the rain which stopped later on. Rashomon doesn’t answer any question though asks. The murder is told by different persons and the answers are different. Furthermore in sociology that is called Rashomon effect and it’s got this name by the film.

The actors play a really important role in the film and in a short time we understand their purpose and characteristic. They show what they think about others by hiding their faults and this increases suspense mood. Their answers about the situation make us ask the question that kusurowa wants us to see. ‘What is true’ we constantly ask this but we cannot come to a solution. The characters observe the situation according to their beliefs and own good.

The noticeable camera movement is close-up. Close up is used not so much and used in specific places so that highlights the actions of the actors. There are tracking shot and that makes us feel like we are following them, and we are in the film. This is used when they are in forest, behind bushes. Also rashomon is the first film that showed sun and this change the mood. There is still a hope for mankind.

Camera placement is still and not changed much. When a witness is talking others sit behind him. The women and the priest sit in the same horizontal, when they are talking there is a line behind their head. Kusurowa is showing women in the same place with the priest and this show that he is supporting her. The camera is not moved while they are talking and this looks objective and like they are not lying. But they all do and that questions objectivity. How objective you are is affected by your beliefs, way of thinking.

Rashomon points out themes that westerns may not be aware of. These are located in Japanese culture and Kusurowa shows his culture in the themes. The wily women told her story according to her beliefs like she has to live only with one man and to man can’t be aware of her situation. The others showed her miserable like she is fragile and like she is responsible of the situation. When the last man telling the story, she became much more powerful and she showed that she is not guilty and she is powerful.

Tajomaru had an instinct to do bad things to others and this may be evil spider demon. He didn’t think about killing at first but the situation escalated his actions.

                The priest always believed in humans and they are not bad. Even though he heard bad things he didn’t changed his idea. He is portrayed as the good one, and this shows that Kusurowa beliefs in religion and man can be better with religion. In the end he was sorrowful and sick of human’s selfishness but the man who took the baby changed his mood again. In this point the films mood changes. Hope for human shouldn’t be ended.

                The emotional strain of witnesses is showed by both acting and misenscene. The murder happened in the nature and this shows that mankind actions in the nature are without a restriction. When they were in rashomon and it was raining the mood was sorrowful, and the place was in bad condition not very strong against the rain. The mankind cannot be against of nature which is death, natural disasters. They can’t be strong against natures power.  

the big heat

The Big Heat Journaling Questions

                ‘Each picture has some sort of rhythm which only the director can give it. He has to be like the captain of a ship.’-Fritz Lang. In the big heat, the captain of the film who is fritz Lang is focusing on a man’s ambition to find his wife’s murderers. The main character Dave (detective) tries to find out the reason of a suicide. While he was trying to find the reason underneath, the mistress of the dead man is killed instantly. Dave Bannion is an honest character that tries to solve the mystery however some didn’t want him to figure out. Moreover they try to harm Dave’s family.  As a result the audience observe the hard time of an honest man whose firstly purpose to define a mystery than turns out to be his revenge of his wife’s murder.

                In the big heat there were shadows used to create gloomy and way to show the anger inside some characters. The scenes are not always shadowy however when something bad had happened the scenes get darker. Moreover the usage of shadows is in order to show specific things and not used all the time. As an example, when Dave was with his family the room was bright and the mood was peaceful. If a bad character is in the shot, the scene gets shadier. In 01:23:44 the audience feels like shadow captured vince and he is a bad character. In 01:02:27 Dave as a good character but shadow is used in this seen in order to show his anger. In contrast with Lang, Hitchcock used shadows to create suspenseful mood. Generally the shadows are seen before the appearance of the characters. This questions about what happened increases the curiosity. He doesn’t show the mystery of the characters by using shadows. As an example, in 37:25 the bad characters in this seen have bigger shadows than the good ones. Hitchcock differentiates the good and evil by the usage of shadows.

                Fritz Lang’s style of edit pacing is changed throughout the film. Although ıt started in a slow pace, it is fastened by the emerging events. Lang showed the ordinary man (Dave) by using slow pace moreover the misfortunes the character faced fastens the pace of the film. Dave is a character that has a big change in his life. The change in pace is influenced by the plot of the film.  

                There were only soundtracks used as artificial sounds. In 34:52 artificial sound is classical music which has a light mood on the audience though there is an upcoming death. This shows Lang’s style of ironic pessimism. He didn’t use any thriller sound but he changed the mood quickly by not foreshadowing it with sounds. Lang emphasized on naturalistic sounds in order to attract audience by realistic sounds.

                Camera movements are dolly in and out, and pan through the film. In the beginning (00:01:05) dolly out is used on a gun. This foreshadows the plot of the film moreover the audience feels that his death is under the effect of someone. Lang focuses on the gun not on the man to show that he is not important however his death is important. Then dolly in is used in order to make audience feel the outside powers affected the death of this miserable man.

                The different point of view of the directors is seen by the way that they visualize the evil. Lang shaped his characters moral with circumstances happened. He changed a good character into an angry one who is trying to take revenge. Dave stands up for the injustice though he lost his loved ones. However in the end Dave was still a good character. According to Lang, a good man will be good again whatever happens. In Notorious, Hitchcock does not putting any circumstances or outside effects for being evil. He wants audience to see that, a person builds his own base. In the big heat the evil side of a character was not seen by the audience at first but in Notorious it is. This is also an evidence for director’s point of view.

                As the visualizing of evil differs for directors, the view of humanity is not similar too. Lang showed his ironic pessimism about people by indicating on the dark side inside of people. He used Dave for his aim, left him alone and forced a honest man to be dishonest.  Dave became obsessed with his revenge although he is a cop and it’s not right to do that. In the end he was still good. Lang means that human being is not trustable and if they get lonely their characteristic reacts to a change. However Hitchcock believes that humans are not changing and everyone is capable of love no matter they are evil.

                The big heat is an important film moreover it deals with injustice in the society. The main character is searching for justice in society but inside he is not totally good to. The notorious showed a love story in an exciting way by using mysterious events. I believe that  the big heat is a better film by the flow of the events and catching the audience.

his secret life

His Secret Life/Ignorant Fairy (2001). Directed by Ferzan Özpetek; Written by Gianni Romoli and Ferzan Özpetek; Produced by Les Films Balenciaga, R&C Produzioni; Genre:Drama/Romance

                The film ‘His Secret Life’ directed by Ferzan Özpetek is about a woman who lost her husband untimely moreover she finds out unrevealed things about him after his death. Antonia (the women) used to think that she is very close with her husband, indeed she is a foreigner. Massimo (antonia’s husband) is a bisexual and she has a lover called Michele. In contrast with her character, she tries something out of the line; she decides to find out Michele who is also called as ignorant fairy. Furthermore she becomes a part of Michelle and his family (friends) life.  The film makes the audience become a part of their life and watch their life in a peaceful mood.  By its title, the audience asks himself that is he an ignorant fairy.

                Ferzan Özpetek represented a view from Daily life and showed another view for gays. When a journalists asked him a question about why he always represent gay people he answered by saying why you don’t ask this to other directors who only show heterosexuals. So he wants people to see that what you think as normal is nonsense, there isn’t something called normal. The film his secret life is even watchable by a homophobic person therefore it makes the issue easier to understand for anyone, there is nothing to judge in their lifestyle. Acting and dialogs have big importance on the film and this is viewed by medium shots, close-ups and reverse shots. There is nothing different in characters; they are everyday people therefore different shot types aren’t used. As a camera movement panning is used to grab the attention of the audience on the conversations and eye angle is the general angle that is used.  He never used low or high angle and this shows that all of the characters are in the same point.

                The norms of society affects people on how they need to act and the film makes us break what we think and it is also seen on the main character of the film. When Antonia learns about her husband’s lover is a man she wasn’t able to tell this to her mother. She just talked about he had a lover and he cheated on her. This shows that she is far away from this topic and she is scared to tell this even to her mother. She goes beyond of her rules; actually she defines her rules again after seeing that this is defined by society. The director wanted the audience to see that there is no rule for love and if you want to enjoy the life don’t obey everything that society teaches to you. At the same time there is a mate in Antonia’s house who is a catholic. But when Massimo dies she does a Buddhist ritual. This is what she saw from her society and she unconsciously does what her culture thought to her or it can be a force of Rome to be a catholic. (Because Rome includes Vatican, a highly catholic city)The rules of the society is not just for love, and no matter what an individual should decide what is right for him.

                The acting of the characters was effective on reaching the audience in positive way. They were regular people and they showed their characteristic without any fuzziness. We looked at them in a positive way. Antonia was not familiar to this topic as well as some part of the audience, but she was very calm in every situation therefore we were calm like her to the topic. Also the director combines Turkish actors with Italians to make a connection between cultures and show that they are similar or can be in a good relation. Antonia visited a ‘table’ which included a transsexual, a gay, a Turkish refugee, an aıds patient which was very different from her normal life and she found herself as an ignorant with them even though she is a doctor. She definitely had gone through a process after meeting with these people.

The director represented Antonia in a good life condition (she is looks like upper-middle class) according to her house however Michelle and his family had a poor one. This shows importance of misenscene in the film, it shows socio economic classes and how society puts people into different places by their labels. Moreover when we first met with Michelle we saw his name behind of a painting, than he was the person who did art work from glasses and umbrellas which made us visualize him in a positive, artistic way. The director represented artistic side of gays which can’t be underestimated. There won’t be new ideas if there is no different perspectives therefore they should not be judged.

                The director represented Italian culture in many aspects and one of them was siesta time. Italians have a free time between 13.30 and 17.30 and they come together with family to have a nice meal and chat. They have a strong relationship, they know each other well. In the film they had important talks on the table and it was like a special place for them which they eat and talk. ’The table’ is a stylistic thing for Ferzan Özpetek, he indicates this in his films to show the relationships of the characters. Also

                As a conclusion ferzan özpetek showed a part of daily life without casting out gay people. Love is not to be lived by rules anyone has the courage to decide on whom to love without any pressures of society. In general I liked the film in the way it represented everything basically, but I didn’t like the ending where it showed when they were protesting because it didn’t had any connections with the narration.

Something that TLOU HBO did that I loved was that they let Ellie be an actual, real fourteen year old girl.

I feel like so many shows just assume that teenage girls are inherently unlikeable, so they portray them as stupid, annoying pests who should never be take seriously. Sometimes if they don’t do that they’ll go in the opposite direction, making their teen girl characters distance themselves from the demographic by being so unbelievably charming, mature, and witty that it becomes impossible for real people, especially real teenage girls, to live up to it. (As great as The Last of Us Game is, it very much does that).

A lot of times that ‘perfect teenage girl’ philosophy also carries over to appearance, with teen girl characters always dressing and looking mature, stylized, and unrealistic.

(Not the main point of the post, but you can absolutely see how these portrayals harmfully affect real teen girls by making them feel like they aren’t worthy of love unless they conform to impossible standards) (is this getting about me? Pfffffft, nooooooo…)

But The Last of Us HBO doesn’t do that. It lets Ellie be a real teen girl with all her faults. It doesn’t portray her as annoying or idealized, it portrays her as a real person who deserves to be taken seriously, and that’s something that will always help the flawed-14-year-old still inside me. She’s awkward and abrasive and charming and funny and brash and sweet and it sees her not as a pest but as a person. Someone who doesn’t always look perfect or fashionable. She’s someone who cries and screams and gets flustered without it being something to make fun of.

Craig Mazin, the main writer for the majority of the show, doesn’t see being a teen girl as something inherently wrong. I think it’s because he has a now-adult daughter who it’s clear he adores. He wrote Ellie with so much respect and care, and it’s clear he loves the character (and is also a fantastic show runner)

Thank you, Craig Mazin

David and the Infected

David mirrors the infected in The Last of Us HBO. His behaviors, his development, and even his hunting patterns. These parallels are all used by Craig Mazin and Ali Abassi to highlight just how much worse he is.

TWs: SA, Violence/Gore, and Religion

What happens if you don’t resist?

That was a question posed by Craig Mazin, show-runner of The Last of Us, in a discussion about the second episode of season 1. The answer is that the infected are slow, almost gentle in their violation. The same goes for David. In the cage scene we see the same slow, haunting torture that we do in episode two.

Both start out slow and gentle to try and feed off of people, but the more their victims resist the more savage and aggressive they become. When you resist, they fight. They hunt.

But here’s what really put the nail in the coffin. The way they hunt their victims, and the parallels in cinematography is undeniable.

They’re both predators that stalk their physically-weaker pray:

They both try to trap them by holding them down:

(Bella fucking Ramsey, folks) (genuinely one of the best working actors today)

3. The Hive Mentality

Like the Infected, David has a hive-mind too. A group of people doing his bidding, like how Cordyceps takes over people’s minds and connects them to each other. We see how everyone in Silver Lake obeys him, is under his control, just like Cordyceps. We also see how they gravitate towards him and go where he goes like the Infected do for each other.

4. Literally Eating People

I’m not sure this requires further explanation…

But this doesn’t mean they’re the same. Quite the opposite, actually. The creators shatter these parallels to show how much more terrifying David is than the Infected, because he’s human. Everything he does is something terrifyingly human. Lying and manipulating his way to horrifying goals. The fact that he doesn’t do what Infected do, he does what humans do makes everything he does so, so much scarier than the Infected.

The clickers use noise to find their pray while hunting, but David uses noise to yell vile, disgusting things to scare his.

The clickers are animals, they just do what’s instinctual of them, but David chooses every second of the story to be inhuman. He manipulates and lies and acts to hurt others. The infected are creatures, but David’s a monster. Infected only know what’s ahead of them, but David plans ahead. He knows full well what he’s doing, but he does it anyway. He manipulates and scares his hive-mind into submission. He makes the conscious choice to eat people. The infected do what they do to survive, like all animals. David does it because he likes it.

And we all knew by the end of the episode that David wasn’t like the Infected in another way, too. He wasn’t planning on eating Ellie.

It’s terrifying and brilliant, like all of episode 8. They use these parallels to make David so much scarier than the Infected, for so many reasons. It shows how much depth and thought is put into the show, and the way that behind every scene there’s so many layers of meaning and parallels.

TLDR; Craig Mazin and Ali Abassi are geniuses. They created parallels just to flip them to show us how much more terrifying David is than the Infected.

Renfield

My dumb little gay brain has hyper fixated on this upcoming vampire film so I wanted to talk about it. Really long post under the cut, so read on at your own risk 👍👍👍

So Renfield is this movie about Dracula’s minion, Renfield, and I got really excited about it when I saw the trailer. I’ll probably still go see the movie, the aesthetic is cool and I like the colors, but based on that trailer, I had an understanding of the plot that did not pan out. Maybe I’m wrong and the advertisement was misleading, but as I’m aware of it, the plot goes like this:

Renfield is your average guy, save for one thing: he works for the narcissistic Lord of Evil, Dracula, who I think serves as a literal representation of his low self-esteem and self-worth. To help alleviate this problem, he goes to a toxic relationship counseling group, who see his panicked rambling about his boss’s powers as hyperbole. His job is to bring Dracula people to eat, and, in exchange, (by eating spiders??? I think???) he gains superhuman strength and agility. But Dracula treats him terribly, and he’s looking to get out of their bargain. He, at some point, saves a bunch of people, and teams up with a police officer lady to an unknown degree. I assume the movie will end with him defeating Dracula, symbolizing him overcoming his mental struggles and finding peace.

Now, I thought this movie was gay. Perhaps that’s my gaggles (gay goggles) talking, but given that he goes to relationship counseling, the bizarre intimacy shown in the promotional material, as well as my inkling that it would have its romantic/sexual undertones addressed narratively if either Dracula or Renfield was a woman, I think it’s justified. So my first thought was, “Cool! Gay vampire action movie with Nick Cage!” And then I thought, “Oh, not gay vampire action movie with Awkwafina.” And some of my initial enthusiasm dipped. But I figured, “I can’t’ve been the only one who caught on to these subtleties, right?” So, to the Internet I went.

Come to find out, almost everyone saw the very homoerotic subtext between the dominating evil fancy man and his submissive good-hearted henchperson. 

Of course, some certain corners of the Internet, such as Pinterest, Tumblr, and Ao3 are perhaps a bit hardwired to see two men in close proximity and diagnose them with gay, but I think that says more about how writers write these characters, and less about how the fans see them. Since straight relationships are largely unappealing (read: unhealthy and possessive) as portrayed in modern media, and a majority of characters with speaking lines and interactions are male, gay pairings are an essential part of the shipping conversation. The top ten pairings in Ao3 fanfiction are all between two guys, for Pete’s sake. 

So why aren’t canonical gay relationships more common? The obvious answer is, obviously, the aggressive heterosexuality of Hollywood, action movies in particular. Sometimes it seems like hetero romance is a quota to fill, as if while making these movies, they thought, “We have to make these to opposite-gendered characters kiss,” with very little reasoning or logic behind it. And even if a straight romance is given buildup and payoff, it seems that many writers are uninterested in actually writing about two people in love, beyond the falling in. (The Thor movies are actually a great example of this, as the relationship between Jane Foster and Thor in the first movie is a pretty well-written one. But then they’ve broken up in the second film, Jane isn’t in the third one, and then she dies.) Indiana Jones has three different love interests for three straight movies, Maverick gets back with Penny in Top Gun 2 for literally no good reason, and Endgame ends with Captain America having gone back and inadvertently removed Peggy’s agency to get his romantic ending. In my opinion, straight romances are largely superficial, not impacting plot or characters in meaningful enough ways to be included. 

And that’s, I think, at the heart of why I can’t stand romantic subplots in action movies. Their superficially and toxic insanity. I can count on two hands the amount of movies with enjoyable and well-progressed romantic subplots. (Howl’s Moving Castle, Shrek, and Tangled come to mind, though that might be my animation bias showing.) It feels tacked on. Cheap. Unimportant. It’s hard to get invested into when the characters are so… not interesting. And when it’s not boring me to tears, it’s making me question the sanity of whoever signed off on it.

For an excellent comparison, look at the 1999 and 2017 Mummy movies. In the ‘99 film, Rick and Evie’s romance couldn’t be removed without substantial changes to the narrative. They positively drive each other’s development. Rick by feeding into Evie’s more outgoing and adventurous tendencies, and Evie by driving Rick to be more open and compassionate. They’re totally focused on each other, and time is given to developing their relationship naturally. It also provides a good foil against the villain, Imhotep, who was destroyed not once, but twice by his obsession with Anck-su-Namun. 

But the 2017 version has one of the most heterosexual stories I’ve ever seen in an action film. The protagonist, Nick, has two love interests, the paranoid researcher Jennifer, and the mummy herself, Ahmanet. He’s linked to Ahmanet through some psychic BS, and she wants to marry him. But he also has a past with Jennifer, and ends up sacrificing himself for her. But instead of these relationships serving as juxtaposition, one driven by genuine caring passion, and the other driven by desire and selfishness, one just keeps getting in the way of the other. At the end, neither are developed or compelling. Too much time is spent with Nick bemoaning his ties to Ahmanet to grow into his relationship with Jennifer, and too much time is spent with Nick angsting out with Jennifer to elaborate on his relationship with Ahmanet. And they’re all such boring characters that you can’t even really bring yourself to care.

So, along comes Renfield. A film with the perfect opportunity to structure most, if not all, of its story around a romantic relationship, albeit a failing one. It felt (and still feels) incredibly What We Do In The Shadows, given the poppy neon lighting, dry-humored dialogue, timeless atmosphere, and campy characters. And, above everything else, a lot of very gay subtext. (Of course, What We Do In The Shadows is a lot more overt with the character’s obviously not-straight sexualities.) Because while the common Internet users seem to look at this movie and say, “they’re gay,” the more official, widespread Internet journalists and film critics seem to look at this movie and talk only about how cool it is that not-so-subtle meme king Nicolas Cage is playing a classy-classic tuxedo vampire. (And, don’t get me wrong, I love that too.) Is it the gaggles rearing their homo heads again? Is this just something we’ve read into too deeply?

I don’t think so. Any millennial/ gen-Z consumer of vampire media, excluding maybe the die-hard Edward versus Jacob Twilight fans, is familiar with the homoeroticism that comes with the genre. Carmilla, widely considered the very first vampire novel, is literally about a lesbian romance! The sexual tension between Jonathan Harker and the Count in the first few chapter of Dracula is wild. So much vampire media is queercoded, if not outright gay, so I think assuming a 2023 “modern monster tale” would address or lean into these expectations is reasonable.

(As a side note, whatever Renfield and Dracula’s relationship is, it’s a toxic one. If my assumption is correct and Dracula represents Renfield’s internalized insecurities, that’s a pretty bad basis for a romance. The promo material has made it very clear that Renfield is unhappy with how he is treated by his boss. His journey in the movie is about getting away from that.

Online fandom culture has an unfortunate habit of romanticizing (fetishizing) gay men in toxic relationships. Look no further than the enthusiastic Killing Stalking fan base, who think a psychopathic, unfeeling murderer and an emotionally unstable, abandonment-issue-riddled nervous wreck should be together romantically. Oh, and the murderer kept the nervous wreck locked in his house for months, physically, emotionally, and sexually abusing him, while feeding into his Stockholm-Syndrome mentality. Such a relationship is similar to Dracula and Renfield’s. A lot of this culture stems from teen girls, which I am, and I don’t want to feed into that.)

If Renfield is gay, it has an interesting opportunity to write an extremely interesting queer romance about a gay dude breaking away from his abusive old boss, and perhaps finding new love and comfort in his sexuality. I would suggest the police officer, but, on top of the fact that she would bring it back to the realm of heteronormativity, she’s unfunny and annoying. (Although, her name is Rebecca Quincy, and Quincy P. Morris is the name of the bisexual Texas cowboy himbo from the original Dracula novel.) Oh, well. She’ll probably be his love interest anyway.

It’s possible that I’m just wrong and Renfield will have all this “good queer writing” that I didn’t expect, and this whole essay will be null and void. (I seriously doubt it.) Honestly, though, I’m really just using Renfield as thinly- veiled window dressing for other romantic- adjacent topics that I’ve wanted to organize my thoughts on for a while. 

Thanks if you read all this way. Lemme know what your thoughts on stuff like this is.

EVERYONE STOP SCROLLING AND READ THIS NOW!

Bestie, this is everything I could've ever wanted. You mind! You're beautiful mind! I don't know what to say. This was food for my soul. You've inspired me to study film analysis. This breakdown blew me away! 🤯 I'm just rambling cuz I'm genuinely floored. Wow!

Queer Text/Subtext in Shallow Grave (1994)

CW: BLOOD, STABBING, MURDER, NON-SEXUAL NUDITY, DRUG USE

I guess I wrote a rough essay... about the queer subtext in Shallow Grave... Here... have the rough draft if you'd like...

Overt references to queerness:

When we look at contemporary movies, we often have a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss any “funny” references to queerness or sexuality to be taken as jokes and nothing further than that.  Unfortunately, this has become all too common, and does a disservice to the films we watch. So I will be taking every moment of referenced or implied queerness as serious, even if it is delivered in a humorous way. Especially because this movie is not meant to be a comedy (despite some humorous moments).

Furthermore, references to queerness in movies should be taken seriously because they establish not only the existence of queerness (in universe, as one might say), but can also demonstrate the character’s attitudes towards queerness.  Its important to notice that at no point in this movie are any references to queerness played for a laugh – they might be humorous, but we are not meant to laugh at the character for being queer, which indicates that queerness is taken seriously within the universe of the movie (or at least between the characters).

The first overt reference to queerness is when Juliet asks an interviewee if he is having an affair with a man or a woman and the man is not given screen time to answer. This same man bursts into tears after Alex, a man, says, “When did anyone last say to you these exact words, ‘you are the sunshine of my life’?” (this is a reference to the Stevie Wonder song of the same name). While it is technically (according to the script) said by Alex to a different interviewee, the arrangement of the shots does not indicate that, as it cuts directly from Alex asking the question to the man crying. This could imply a number of things.

The second overt reference to queerness comes at the charity ball, where a Scotsman says, “ladies and gentlemen, and those of you who are neither or both,” which is then met with a drumroll. Alex immediately responds, offended, “where did they dig him up?” implying that Alex finds the joke to be outdated and, perhaps, distasteful.

The third overt reference is when Alex dresses in drag. He also appears in the same scene, on the tape recording wearing some rather flamboyant costumes.  The fact that Alex is in drag is not addressed by any of the other characters, nor by Alex, indicates that this is either a usual occurrence, or, for some reason, entirely unremarkable to the characters.  Specifically, it is interesting that David does not comment on it, as he walks into the scene unsuspecting.

The fourth, and final, overt reference to queerness is when, upon being told of Juliet and David’s relationship, Alex says to Juliet, “I’d do exactly the same thing except I don’t think I’m his type.” If the line is interpreted sarcastically (which I think most viewers will) then we can assume that he is jealous of David for being with Juliet. If it is interpreted as earnest, then we can assume that he is jealous of Juliet for being with David. It also could be an ambiguous combination of both.

Queer Subtext:

Now let us dig into the subtext, which I actually find to be much juicier....

The Squash Scene and the Car

Directly after the interviews have concluded, we are given a scene which helps frame the relationship between the three characters as one built on dynamics of domination and submission and gives us a baseline to understand each of the character’s roles within this dynamic. This scene takes place on the Squash court.

There is a deviation here between the script and the film, as several lines have been cut, but I will include them as they add some context to the scene.

In the above text, Alex indicates that he sees this game of squash as a struggle for dominance. In this case, the game between Alex and David is won by Alex, who then, despite having called David a “bad loser,” demonstrates that he is a sore winner when he gloats over David by saying, “defeat, defeat, defeat – sporting, personal, financial, professional, sexual, and everything.”

David is clearly annoyed by this and storms off. This scene sets up the ongoing power dynamic between Alex and David in which Alex is the dominant one in the relationship. It also is the first time that we see David being emasculated by Alex, which will continue occurring for the first half of the movie.

Immediately after David leaves the court, Juliet takes his place to play a match against Alex.  In this scene she is wearing a rather masculine outfit which is similar to that of the two male characters. She also sports short hair throughout the movie, but this is the scene in which she appears the most “boyish.”  When she enters the court to play, Alex begins to make the same statement (“Did you know squash is-”) that he made (in the script) earlier, to David. Thus he is using this exercise as a way to exert dominance, not only over David, his male sexual rival, but also over Juliet, thus implying that she is on equal footing – therefore also a sexual rival. However, Juliet cuts him off and tells him, “Alex, just serve.”

The action of cutting off Alex denies him domination in that moment, thus establishing that the two of them are on much more equal footing, or possibly that Juliet is in fact the dominant one between the two of them.  This scene serves to establish that typical gendered dynamics are somewhat blurred between these three individuals, and that David, instead of Juliet, takes on the most feminine/passive role in the group.

The next scene once again highlights the complicated gender and power dynamics within the group.  Juliet drives the car (masculine) while Alex and David bicker with one another from the back seat and passenger seat, respectively.

In this scene, addressing Alex’s win, David says, “Victory is the same as defeat – it’s giving into destructive competitive urges,” which distances him from competition, and could be interpreted as him rejecting the masculine urge to dominate.  Alex, in return, emasculates him by belittling his reliance on a “discussion group,” (implied to be therapy). During this scene, Alex and David are looking at one another, however, the rear-view mirror blocks both of their eyes. This symbolizes their unwillingness to see “eye-to-eye and perhaps a certain level of repression between the two of them.  Also in this scene, Juliet physically dominates Alex by elbowing him in the chest, and attempts to emasculate him verbally by implying that a woman that he is interested in hates him. She does this specifically in response to Alex’s emasculation of David, thus establishing that while Alex might be dominant over David, she is dominant over him.  During this exchange, however, in her attempt to protect David from Alex, David is further emasculated because he relies on someone else to defend him.

Discovering the Body / Three Friends, Three Bodies

When the trio discovers Hugo’s body we see some more of this interesting dynamic.

David stands by shocked while Alex ransacks the room searching for paraphernalia, while Juliet (the doctor among them) attends to the body.

Hugo’s nude corpse in this scene represents male vulnerability. He is prone and exposed on the bed, having overdosed on heroin, and can do nothing while his privacy is violated (by the dominant, Alex).  The injection of drugs into the body, in this case, could also be said to symbolize emasculation - the breaking of the body barrier through penetration of a syringe (phallus). This exemplifies a significant cultural fear at the time – death of the male body via penetration, which had become a major concern due to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. (If I was writing this essay for real, this is where I would insert articles that demonstrate horror’s preoccupation with AIDS and gay stuff during the 80s and 90s, but this is just for fun)

David, of course, is enamored by this display of the fragility of the male body. I would suggest that he identifies with Hugo’s vulnerability in death, and that the treatment of Hugo’s body by Alex and Juliet mirrors the way that they treat David. While Alex takes advantage of Hugo’s vulnerability in death by violating his privacy (thus dominating it), Juliet emasculates Hugo’s corpse by tending to it.  In one shot, we also see Juliet’s fingers dangerously close to penetrating Hugo’s mouth.

We can also expand upon this by recognizing that the two male characters that are pursuing Hugo and the trio in search of the money, are parallels to Juliet and David.  The two men are able to dominate Juliet and Alex through violence, only then to be killed by David. Thus, the three bodies that the trio end up burying are parallels to the trio themselves.

David Overcomes Emasculation, Alex Becomes Emasculated.

Alex’s emasculation of David continues throughout the first half of the movie, culminating in David being forced to dismember Hugo’s body (the very body that he identifies with).  When this occurs, he becomes the violator/aggressor/dominator.

This occurrence proceeds the change in the group dynamic. Around the midpoint of the movie (during the charity ball) we see David transition into a dominant role in the trio, while Alex becomes submissive.

This is demonstrated first by Juliet dominating Alex while they dance. Alex falls to the floor, drunk, and Juliet takes that moment to step on Alex’s mouth, forcing him to lick the bottom of her shoe.  He then willingly kisses her ankle, meeting her eye contact submissively. It is made clear through his facial expressions and laughter, that he finds joy in this act, thus embracing the emasculation (whereas David had always responded poorly, rejecting it).

Alex then attempts to re-exert control over David by forcing him to toast when he doesn’t want to. David eventually concedes after Alex yells at him, demanding that he toast to “love and happiness forever.”  (Alex also humiliates and emasculates Cameron in this scene).

David finally exerts control when Brian McKenly (a man keen on pursuing Juliet) interrupts their conversation. David responds by standing on level with Brian and stating, “If you want to talk to my girlfriend, you talk to me first. If you want to dance with her, you apply in writing three weeks in advance or you end up inside of a fucking bin bag. You didn’t apply – so you don’t dance!”

While David shrinks a bit afterwards, admitting that he found the interaction stressful, both Juliet and Alex embrace him, in high spirits (one might say… aroused…). Alex exclaims, “He [David] was really good – fucking bin bag – I really liked that. You really explored your maleness to the full there! You were magnificent.” This statement indicates that Alex, who has rarely had an encouraging word for David over the course of the movie, is invigorated upon seeing that David has stepped into a dominant role, exerting his masculinity onto others. Immediately following this, Alex is assaulted in the bathroom by Cameron (who he had emasculated twice prior) and two other men, who beat him quite badly, thus emasculating Alex.

The following day, Alex’s emasculation is made complete when he dresses in drag and spends the day in debauchery with Juliet. The framing of his and Juliet’s bodies during this scene is also worth noting, as they are often visually indistinguishable from one another – with Alex being noticeably more feminine than Juliet in several shots due to his makeup, jewelry, dress, and rather delicate shoulders.

(Notably, during the entirety of the ball scene and much of the drag/video scene, Alex is often pictured smoking a cigar instead of his usual cigarette, which could be said to stand in for a phallus.)

From this point on, David is almost always dominant over Alex. (One notable exception is one moment where Alex leans in close to David during dinner and orders, “now swallow,” while making very intense eye contact. David regains control by reminding Alex that David was the one who dismembered Hugo’s body.)

After this point it is clear that David is undergoing some extreme psychological stress, and has become paranoid and aggressive.  His shift in demeanor is most clearly symbolized by this shot, where he calls out of work so that he can begin making plans to protect the cash.

The Wickerman

During one scene, an injured Alex lays on the couch and watches the final scene of The Wickerman (1973). 

The Wickerman tells the tale of a conservative Christian police officer who goes to a Scottish isle to investigate the disappearance of a girl, only to discover that the locals are practicing a form of paganism that involves human sacrifice. The police officer discovers that he is in fact the sacrifice.  It is implied that he is the sacrifice because he is a virgin and a heterosexual, and he is unwilling to have sex with Christopher Lee’s character.  Christopher Lee was most well known at the time for playing the lead in Dracula (1958) – another movie with extremely well documented queer subtext. The audience of The Wickerman would have been aware of this.

During this scene, the drumbeats of the pagan ritual, where the police officer is being marched to his execution/sacrifice, synchronizes with David’s steps overhead, a sound that the characters and the audience come to associate with surveillance and dread.

Honestly this scene has me a bit stumped. Who does Alex identify with in this situation? The heterosexual victim? – is the ending subverted because his submission culminates in… the penetration of Alex's body… thus making him queer? Idk it's been a long day.

Surveillance

During the second half of the movie, David moves into the Attic and rarely comes down when his housemates are home.  He is protecting the money, both from his housemates and from the men who eventually come looking for it. While Alex and Juliet are brutalized by the men, David is the one who has set a trap for them, and is able to kill them. He also leads the trio to dispose of the bodies, and drives the van (whereas Alex had driven the van the first time they disposed of the bodies, when he had been the dominant one in the relationship).

During his time in the attic, David drills holes in the ceiling so that he can spy on his housemates. He is literally in a dominant position over them, looking down on them while they go about their daily tasks. In one scene, he spies on Alex and Juliet while they are sleeping. In this scene, he is shown first to be watching Alex. David is also in a state of undress that we have not seen before, implying a certain sensuality to the observation. We do not get to see Alex in a state of undress, but the scene finishes with Alex putting his shoes on, the camera looking down from above, implying David’s Point of view, and that he had watched the whole time. After Alex leaves, David moves to watch Juliet, in a scene that is much longer and more explicitly inappropriate and sexualized, especially because we come to understand that David’s temporary attic bed is located directly over her bed. However, before she begins undressing, he looks away and holds his head in his hands.

This scene simultaneously offers us a leveling effect between the two objects of David’s gaze (Alex and Juliet), while simultaneously prioritizing the heterosexual coupling. However, the implication that there is shame associated with the heterosexual gaze, complicates the situation.

Penetration with the Drill (Phallus)

When Alex goes into the attic to look for the money (and finds it in the water tank), he climbs back down the ladder only to be confronted by David, who is holding a drill (phallus) as a weapon.  Alex’s hands are wet from the water, and he frantically wipes them on the seat of his pants, behind his back, visually placing his hands as a barrier to his anus. The Drill makes contact with Alex's head and breaks the skin in an act of penetration (the body barrier is broken). This is the first scene in which David directly engages in domination (and penetration) of Alex.

David’s Glasses and Alex’s Photo

Lenses, mirrors, and portals/doorways are deeply significant visual aids in this movie, but I want to highlight the one that stood out to me the most. When Juliet and David have (implied) sex, at which point they solidify their status as a couple, David removes his glasses, and places them on Juliet’s bedside table.  Underneath the glasses is a photo of Alex in costume, a cigar in his mouth, framed through the lens of the glasses.  The photo was taken on the day in which we see Alex at his most feminine, at a point where he had been thoroughly emasculated (beaten in a bathroom by a man that he had emasculated multiple times). The framing of the photo, through the lens of David’s glasses implies that this is how David sees Alex – costumed, emasculated, and with a phallus in his mouth.

This photo is also shown once more in the film; David holds the photo of Alex as he lies in his attic bed, and he pins it above his head so he can look at it. The scene cuts to Alex, also in bed, who then gets up. It once again cuts back to David, who also gets up, and we see that Juliet lies asleep next to him. This follows a pattern of shots that we’ve seen before in the film (see the Surveillance section), where we see David watching Alex in what could be interpreted as a sexual or romantic way, before the camera reveals Juliet and lingers significantly. The implication is that whatever there is between David and Alex always gives way to the relationship between David and Juliet.

Returning to the glasses - the final time that we see them is during the climax of the movie. The three characters are struggling against one another, and David’s head is forced into the refrigerator so that Alex can try and smash him with the door.  He manages to throw Alex off, but not before his glasses are caught on the shelf of the refrigerator, thus knocking them off his face.  Having David’s glasses be knocked off would not typically be significant in a fight scene such as this, however the camera goes out of its way to linger on this shot, indicating that the symbolism here is important.  The other time that we have seen David remove his glasses has been before he has (implied) sex with Juliet. In this case, the removal of the glasses occurs just before David pins Alex in his final act of domination, which then culminates in the ultimate symbolic act of sexual penetration – David stabbing Alex with a knife (phallus).

NOTE: David is also pictured without glasses at the beginning of the film, where he is lying on his back, and halfway through the film, after he has dismembered Hugo in a symbolic act of violence against his own vulnerability.  In the first scene we hear his monologue; “I’m not ashamed, I’ve known love, I’ve known rejection. I’m not afraid to declare my feelings. Take trust for instance, or friendship. These are the important things in life. These are the things that matter, that help you on your way. If you can’t trust your friends well, then what then? What then? This could have been any city, but all the same.” It is unclear until the end, but it seems that the first time that we see David, right at the beginning, we are actually seeing him postmortem in the morgue. Meaning that the monologue is a lament on his life... (You're not ashamed of what, David? Being a bit gay, perhaps?)

Penetration with the Knife (Phallus)

At the climax of the movie, after David’s glasses have been removed, we arrive at David’s final act of domination over Alex.  David pins Alex to the floor by sitting on his stomach, with Alex’s legs pinned underneath his knees in a position that could be interpreted as sexual.  He then holds Alex by the throat, and stabs him in the shoulder, slicing clean through and penetrating the floor.  The act of stabbing (penetrating) a victim with a knife (phallus) is one often noted in analysis of horror films, as having sexual implications (again – I’d find some article about it here if I was a serious writer lol).

Before David can stab Alex again with a second knife, David is stabbed with a knife through the throat from behind by Juliet.  Thus Juliet, who has been a dominant character throughout the movie, is symbolically penetrating David with a phallus. Furthermore, the location of the stabbing in the throat and from behind, implies that David has now suffered, once again, an emasculation, just as he had just preformed on Alex.

David collapses and dies, just as Hugo did, from emasculation through the body barrier being broken from penetration. Thus, David’s identification with Hugo’s corpse and the vulnerability that it represented, is complete in this moment.

Juliet then kneels over Alex, taking up the same position that David had just occupied, and places her hand on the knife in Alex’s shoulder, pressing on it, thus taking David’s place as the one to dominate Alex.  She then removes her shoe, and in an act that mirrors the scene from the charity ball in which she dominated Alex by having him lick her shoe/foot, she uses her shoe to hit the knife three times, driving it deeper into his shoulder, further penetrating him.  Thus, in her final interaction with both David, and Alex, she has penetrated them.

As she puts her shoe back on, we can see inside of the refrigerator, where we once again see David’s glasses, recalling once again that this scene is coded as sexual in nature through the movie's visual language.

As the movie closes, we discover that Alex is alive (probably), and that he has hidden the money underneath the floorboard. In the ultimate irony of the movie, the character that spent the second half of the movie being coded as the submissive (homosexual receiving) partner, has come out on top, despite the other two character’s attempt to dominate (and kill) him.

Uhhh the credits roll, and they're all shown as they were in the first scene of the movie, smiling, laughing, and the love song "Happy Heart" plays...

I watched ''Black swan" with a friend today and was pleasantly surprised. Most of the 'girlblogger' films I watch are either mild in their social critique or rely too heavily on shock factor, but Aronofsky's film is harsh and relatable. One thing I enjoyed immensely was the cinematography.

If anyone could share their thoughts on the film I'd appreciate it very much! I intend on writing an analysis in the next few days.

Stay yourself, stay curious.

true story. he made a mistake in letting me analyze film with no maximum word/power point slide count