#because it also exonerates jon's character
Text
So I thought this was interesting as I rewatched these scenes and I just have to talk about it for a second.
We all have talked about that 8x01 solar scene, that moment where Jon moves closer into Sansa's space, the tension, etc. But what I haven't seen talked about is the lack of something else:
(1:17-1:24 - can't clip it, sorry)
youtube
We know that Jon moves closer after Sansa confirms that yes, she does have faith in him. While this moving closer is meant to symbolize that the chasm between them (over Dany and the knee bending) is a little bit smaller in this particular argument, it also I think it symbolizes something else.
Not only is this the Jonerys version (meaning the setup) of the 8x01 scene for contrast, but notice how when Dany says she loves Jon, he reaches out and places his hands on her waist, pulling her closer.
(and this doesn't even include the cave scene in 7x04, the complete boat scene in 7x06, the crypts scene in 8x02, Dany ripping her arm out of Jon's grip in 8x03, the fireplace scene in 8x05, the throne room scene in 8x06 & the lack of touching in the goodbye scene in 7x05 VS the 6x10 forehead kiss, the arm grab in 7x01)
Remind you of something?
This was part of the "kind manipulation" Kit talked about in season 7 that Jon would utilize. When Sansa needed Jon to listen, she would make physical contact. Never inappropriately or with any type of manipulative intention behind it, but to get him to hear what she's saying.
Jon learned this from her and utilized it with Dany, and often. He starts using it in 7x06 in the boat scene, after he's seen what the dragons are truly capable of.
He uses it more and more as he embarks on a relationship with Dany. And we see it continually play out ever since that first hand grab in 7x06, right up until the end of the series. It should be noted that Jon does not initiate physical contact between he and Dany in 8x05 or 8x06 (because he knows she is beyond listening to reason at this point, even before the KL massacre).
The most ironic part of this whole thing is that Dany learns this from Jon and uses it quite often as well. Even right down the the 3 times she closes the space (attempts to bridge the growing chasm) between them, in 8x04, 8x05, and 8x06. The only time in those three episodes that Jon chooses to close the space between them is 8x04 (when she has her outburst about her claim to the IT).
The difference between Dany and Jon using this tactic is the intentions behind it. It is manipulative in their dynamic, but while Jon attempts to get Dany to listen and to temper her growing rage, Dany uses it to get him to listen, yes, but also to get him to do what she wants. Jon wants her to fight the NK with him so they can save the world; Dany wants the IT, Jon as another one of her lovesick lackeys, and no resistance.
So when we look at this tactic and how it plays out throughout the two relationship dynamics and in each scene, the fact that back in the 8x01 solar scene Jon does move closer to Sansa, yes, but when he tries to convince her that Dany will be a good queen, that he doesn't initiate physical contact...I think that's very telling. So telling that it's loud.
If Jon truly believed the bullshit he was selling about Dany being the greatest queen ever, we would have seen him trying to initiate some form of physical contact between them. Not to manipulate her but to get her to listen. Because that is the way it was used with him between them.
And notice how there is no physical contact between Jon and Sansa (other than the 8x01 hug and 8x06 hug) throughout the season. Neither initiates it and I think that is also very loud. While Sansa is angry (and rightfully so) in 8x01, she does confirm that she still does have faith in him and that eases things just slightly between them. She also gets the answer to her question in 8x02. Even though they have the argument in the 8x04 Godswood scene, when Jon says he's not a Stark, Sansa is the first to close the distance between them with Arya then following. In order to reassure him that he is a Stark. (something she didn't do in 6x10 though she told him the same thing, at the time Jon didn't need such a strong assurance and their relationship has grown since then) Even when Jon is upset in 8x06, he doesn't refuse her initiating the hug. While he doesn't embrace her back right away, he does give in and return the hug, even tightening it up and leaning into it (while also being a callback to the 6x04 hug).
Despite their differences seeing eye to eye at times, they do exactly what Jon asked Sansa to do in 6x10: trust each other. Even if she's angry with him for bending the knee. Even if she's heartbroken because Jon is involved with Dany. Even if she's afraid for him when he's going South. Even if he's upset that he had to kill Dany in order to protect her and is unsure of his choice (until Bran confirms for him that it's the right one), in the way that her telling his secret contributed somewhat to the events that occurred. Even if he was angry that she kept provoking Dany's ire (mostly unintentionally) and he had to keep tempering Dany's growing rage/her impulses as a result. They still trust each other.
So I think the lack of initiation of physical contact on both of their parts speaks very plainly but loudly. Neither were trying to manipulate the other, because that wasn't part of their dynamic. Neither were trying to get the other to listen because by the end of 8x02, both knew what was actually going on, what needed to be done, and they both trusted one another. (also notice how Sansa doesn't argue with Arya in 8x04 once Arya clarifies what she respects)
So if Jon really loved Dany and believed in her right to the IT, he would have done everything he could to get Sansa to listen (because Sansa was the "obstacle" that Dany herself couldn't get past). If Sansa really believed that Jon loved Dany and he was being led around by the nose in his blind infatuation with the woman, we would have seen her grab his hand or his arm again to get him to listen to her. We don't see any of that. (this is also because they were keeping Jon's real story line/Dany's dark turn hidden from the audience to have that whole big plot twist happen)
And it's especially telling (for Jon) when we see this scene:
He places his hand on her shoulder to get her to listen and about what? Sansa. Which Arya clocks immediately since she looks at his hand and then says "She doesn't like your queen, does she?" The fact that this part of the conversation doesn't happen until Jon puts his hand on Arya's shoulder tells us everything we need to know.
He's not attempting to manipulate Arya of course, but he's trying to get her to listen so by extension Sansa will listen in regards to Dany. And as we see, it doesn't work. Even when Jon tries the familiar playful jab at Sansa that these two used to share when they were younger. Arya instead asserts that Sansa is the smartest person she's ever met. And this surprises Jon because he's not expecting this reaction (as far as he knows, Sansa and Arya still have that sibling rivalry going on). "Now you're defending her? You?" And we see him remove his hand. It didn't work. And instead, we get Arya saying she and Sansa are defending their family, Jon saying he's her family too (and confirming that he's doing the same), Arya hugging him and telling him not to forget it. Arya is not trying to get him to listen to her by doing this, but they chose to have the line "Don't forget that" happen as she hugs him. And we see that this lands when Jon closes his eyes and leans more into Arya's embrace.
So this scene:
Is even more important. Not only for the two of them and their relationship dynamic but also for Jon's character.
And the Jonsa touches (I guess you could call them) are broken down like this:
6x04 - Sansa grabbing Jon's hand (Sansa initiates) - context: to get him to listen so they can go back and retake Winterfell from the Boltons (aka Winterfell equals safety)
6x10 - forehead kiss from Jon (Jon initiates) - context: Jon is asking Sansa for them to trust each other
7x01 - Sansa grabbing Jon's arm (Sansa initiates; Jon clocks it) - context: Sansa is trying to get him to listen, telling him that he needs to be smarter than Ned and Robb
(I didn't include the hugs in 6x04, 8x01, or 8x06 because I believe they speak on their own)
Now here is the Jonerys breakdown:
7x04 - Jon gently grasps Dany's elbow to move her over to see another drawing in the cave (Jon initiates) - context: he is trying to convince Dany that they need to work together to defeat the NK
7x06 - Jon taking Dany's hand (Jon initiates) - context: Jon is apologizing about Viserion, tells her he wishes he could take it back & that they'd never gone beyond the Wall, Dany moves her hand out of his grip and tells him she doesn't because she wouldn't have seen and she needed to see
7x06 - Dany taking Jon's hand (Dany initiates) - context: she is happy that he's (and through him, the North) bent the knee and then tells him "I hope I deserve it" which he says she does
7x07 - the boat sex scene (we don't know who initiates the physical but the first scene we see is with Dany in a dominant position over Jon) - context: Dany summoned Jon to her cabin (confirmed by the deleted scene), their boat is heading North to Winterfell to fight the NK & Dany has just lost a dragon and gained a "ceasefire agreement" from Cersei, they have sex while Tyrion creepily hangs out nearby and Bran talks about how Jon needs to know the truth
8x01 - the waterfall scene (Jon initiates on Dany's urging) - context: Jon brings Dany to a spot they used for hunting when he was younger, Dany is enamored with it, tells him to keep her warm, they kiss
8x01 - waterfall kiss part 2 (Dany initiates) - context: Dany playfully tells him not to be afraid after he broke the kiss hearing the dragons, they kiss (which Drogon suspiciously watches, that has Jon keeping one eye open and turning Dany so her back is to the dragons)
8x02 - the crypt scene (Dany initiates) - context: she is trying to figure out why Jon has been ignoring her, sees him staring at Lyanna's statue, talks about Lyanna and Rhaegar, and then Jon is tells her the truth about him
8x02 - Dany rips her arm away from Jon (Jon initiates) - context: Dany has just learned the truth about Jon
8x03 - Dany rips her arm out of Jon's grip (Jon initiates; Dany clocks it) - context: Jon wants her to wait for the NK like planned but she refuses (aka impulse)
8x04 - Dany tells Jon she loves him (Jon initiates though Dany is the one to initiate the undressing) - context: Dany has just told Jon that she loves him, they kiss, and Jon moves them away from the fireplace
8x04 - Jon bends the knee and tries to reassure Dany (Jon initiates) - context: Dany is worried that he will take her claim to the IT & he reassures her that he'll refuse
8x04 - Dany grasps Jon's face (Dany initiates) - context: Dany demands that he not tell anyone who he really is (Jon gets up and breaks the contact)
8x04 - Dany takes Jon's hand (Dany initiates; Jon clocks it) - context: Dany says she wants it to be the way it was between them after she has just begged him not to tell anyone who he really is
8x04 - Jon covers Dany's hand with both of hers (Jon initiates it) - context: Jon tells her that he has to tell Sansa and Arya the truth about who he is
8x04 - Dany rips her hand out of Jon's (Jon initiates) - context: Dany is not happy that Jon wants to tell Sansa the truth because she says Sansa will want to see her gone and Jon on the IT
8x04 - Dany puts her hand on Jon's upper arm to pull him closer (Dany initiates) - context: Dany is begging him not to tell anyone (gets choked up)
8x04 - Jon grasps Dany's face (Jon initiates) - context: he says they can all live in harmony together, that she is his queen and nothing will change that and the Starks are his family (Dany stone cold, the emotion from before absent, tells him that she's just told him how they can live together, they both break the hold, and she walks away)
8x05 - the fireplace scene (Dany initiates) - context: Varys has just been executed for treason, Dany is not happy because Sansa told Jon's secret even though Dany warned Jon that would happen, Jon tells her he loves her and that she is his queen, she asks if that's all she is to him, they kiss (which Dany initiates), Jon breaks it, Dany moves back and states that all she has now is fear
8x06 - the throne room scene (Dany initiates) - context: Dany has just massacred KL while GW and the Unsullied continue to massacre unarmed Lannister soldiers, Jon confronts her about this, Dany asks him to be with her to make a new world, Dany kisses him, Jon does what he has to do
Quite a difference when comparing the two different relationship dynamics. So this ultimately shows that Jon's lack of initiating physical contact with Sansa once he returns to Winterfell, when trying to convince her that Dany will be a good queen, that she's their queen now, etc, is all very telling.
Jon knew Dany wasn't a good queen and that she wouldn't ever be. He hoped to keep Sansa safe (and by extension the Starks and the North) and that he could turn the tide with Dany, since she was family to him now. I think he planned to look out for her from that aspect while also trying to temper her impulses. From what he says to Tyrion in 8x06, he knew Tyrion's (and by extension Varys') counsel wasn't always a good one for her, either. They all knew Dany wasn't it, even before any of them knew who Jon really was. Dany was the best option (until Jon) they thought they had, willing to look the other way when she did questionable things, until it was right in front of their faces and they couldn't ignore it anymore.
So had Jon believed the best of her, he would have done everything he could to convince Sansa, in that solar scene as well as the rest of the time he was in Winterfell. And he didn't. That right there tells us all we need to know about Jon and his faith in Dany's ability to be a good ruler. Case closed.
#anti jonerys#antijonerys#antijonerysposts#gotposts#metaposts#anti jonerys meta#jon snow#yes i'm putting that tag#because it also exonerates jon's character#he wasn't a lovesick idiot like so many claim#got#game of thrones#jonsa#jon x sansa#jon and sansa#i'm putting those tags too because it also does concern them#Youtube
99 notes
·
View notes
Note
The way Rhaegar gets hate because he “cheated” from the same people who “ship” Nettles and Daemon, another adulterous relationship. Rhaegar is a monster for cheating on his gentle, soft, devoted (and ARRANGED) wife, but suddenly y’all support Daemon cheating on his wife, a woman who lost 4 children and is mentally destroyed.
Also, according to them, Daemon groomed Rhaenyra... So you agree, Rhaenyra is his victim ? But they still want him to mock and humiliate her.
Although there are valid & rightful criticisms of Rhaegar going for someone else while married even if Elia somehow cosigned it or "forgave" him (because women vs men have different consequences for cheating AND/OR their spouses cheating)...
yes this discrepancy is too much.
So you like a Targ man cheating on one woman (who happens to also be Targ) but not a Targ man cheating on a nonTarg woman...can we really say you like women, then? Because though Elia was never a princess or royal, she's still the scion of a "Great House" and a noble, so we can't use the old Alicent-Rhaenyra trick of "different privileges" (even thought that didn't work in that context either to exonerate Alicent of wrongdoing). We couldn't say that Alicent was Rhaenyra's victim nor that Rhaenyra herself did not go through patriarchal oppression, nor argue that "who suffered more" makes a victim the more moral actor than the other. Yes, book!Rhaenyra brought about her own end by going after Nettles while using misogynoir. that doesn't remove the misogyny & the fact that she was placed in the position she was in because women, in general, are not given the grace or authority to rule in the same way as more incompetent or evil men. So why?
Because they hate Targs--but really as a way of hating Dany. So they hate women first, then anything that affirms or enables them to have more power than men, or power perceived as "more". Esp women who take it upon themselves to accrue power without relying "enough" on previous patriarchal criteria for female rule (most of what Dany gets & needs from her father is the blood claim and what not to do as a ruler and she was already younger than the dead Viserys). And Rhaegar is the sibling that she yearns for the most, to compare herslef to, to wonder what life would have been like but also his ties to the prophecy she comes in contact with, etc.
She thinks for herself constantly and is attempting to destroy one of the longest-lasting oppressive systems in the ASoIaF world, which intimidates their conservative or liberal sensibilities
she has the mightiest symbols and materials for power in this universe: dragons (perceived or acknowledged in-world) which many feel should be have been given to a male character like Jon...hence why the numerous Dany-as-Jon's-consort, Dany-is-racist-for-not-accepting-Quentyn (even though he goes for a pale girl himself, back home), Dany even losing her dragons to Euron and his dragon horn is seen as a positive plot point or her marrying him and him using her dragons...as if her dragons trust or care abt anyone other then their mother, who literally breastfed them (but then again, many fans probably hate their mothers just for existing)
there are heavy clues that she is the Azor Ahai--a principal actor to literally saves the world from ice monsters when in a more conventional fantasy world this person would be male
Elia--no woman--deserved what she got from Tywin Lannister & the Mountain (bc her rape and death are their fault. Her own brother says that often and his belief leads to his death for heaven's sake!). But Rhaenyra did not deserve to get cheated on by Daemon as she had done nothing to him PLUS there would have been heavy political consequences for her that Daemon did not get when he cheated on Rhae Royce several times. They also chose each other despite almost everyone's condemnations of it--it was not an arranged marriage.
Even if we argued she did, Daemon cheating on Rhaenyra--as a hypothetical--would have happened BEFORE Rhaenyra did anything to Nettles.
Finally, yes if we say Daemon groomed Rhaenyra, then why do we hate the victim?
#asoiaf asks to me#the evil targaryens#rhaegar targaryen#rhaenyra and feminism#asoiaf fandom#fandom critical#rhaenyra and daemon#fire and blood
14 notes
·
View notes
Note
i'm not really a daenerys fan (also, this message is not mean-spirited, so i'm sorry if it comes across that way), but don't you think it's fucked up for a survivor of s3xual ass@ult and marital abuse to be murdered in a moment of intimacy with a man she loves and trusts?
Yes? I mean, you're not going to see me defending the show's final episode on any level.
But it's also fucked up to pretend that in that moment in the show Dany was not lightyears away from that abused child. It is fucked up to pretend that her past victimisation is continued in that moment.
She had just roasted thousands of civilians alive. And had promised to do it again. Can this count for something? Can we not push that aside and pretend this is a private issue between Dany and Jon, as opposed to a violent tyrant and mass murderer, and a person with the necessary access to stop them?
Jon is a man, yes, but he is not Drogo, he was not her abuser. Within their actual relationship as depicted on the show, it was Dany who was in power at all times, and abusing that power. She had been pushing for Jon to "love" her, while implicitly threatening his family with death. She said "let it be fear" after he failed to convincingly fake what she wanted from him. You can argue that that's a stupid way to depict her downward spiral, but it sure as hell undermines the idea that she was the victim of an abusive dynamic with Jon.
For what it's worth, I sincerely don't believe the books will go down this same route. The show pretended jonerys was a thing, and they tried to make her death a tragic "romantic" mirror to show!Ygritte. Which was disgusting because it utterly undermined the horror of what she had just done, while at the same time also trying to paint a romantic veneer of man pain on stabbing her. Which is gross, indeed. It was to the detriment of every character involved.
Her book death is likely to mirror that of Joffrey, in the sense that we will be reminded of her young age and her tragic past, but without trying to exonerate her in it. Dany's character will take prominence in it, not one single relationship, let alone some hasty love interest she met ten minutes earlier.
#anti game of thrones#anti d&d#anti daenerys targaryen#anti burning people alive#abusive relationships
64 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Mandalorian Tarot: Major Arcana
If you’re following me, you know this is a Mandalorian obsessive account. I love the man, I love the show, I write a Mando-fando that is all about pining and touch. I tend to go all in when I have an interest.
Another one of my interests? Tarot. A friend challenged me to Mandalorify the major arcana. And because Jon and Dave know their stuff and are good with archetypes (which is all tarot really is), it was an easy fit.
YOU GOT MANDO IN MY TAROT. YOU GOT TAROT IN MY MANDO. TWO GREAT TASTES THAT TASTE GREAT TOGETHER.
But. I can’t draw, so I’ve dreamed them in words and included the Rider-Waite-Smith deck illustrations that I would riff on if I could.
READY? LET’S PLAY.
(All tarot illustrations by Pamela Colman Smith. All Mandalorian images property of Star Wars/Disney.)
UPDATE! @heathenashtattoos has taken up where I cannot and is making these cards a reality! I will post them individually and come back to link them to this post as we go.
0 THE FOOL = THE MANDALORIAN / IT IS MADE! --->
The story of the tarot is the Fool’s journey, the arc of becoming. So it makes sense to me that Din would be the fool. Fits even better, since he has tremendous Fool energy in his himbo tendencies, just rushing forward into situations without a lot of planning--he’ll deal with it when he’s in it--ready to rely on others to show him the way or guide/help him to the next step.
If I could draw: Din on the cliff, with his jetpack on, meaning he has no fear of falling. Instead of the bindle-stick the Fool carries, he’d have his pulse rifle slung over his shoulder. Instead of the dog nipping at his heels, Grogu. And, of course, the landscape would be Tatooine/Navaro-esque.
~~~
1 THE MAGICIAN = LUKE SKYWALKER , IT IS MADE! --->
The Magician is someone who is still learning to bend the laws of magic/the Universe, but very adept with their tools. Since Luke is only a few years into his Jedi training at this time, he makes a pretty good Magician.
If I could draw: Luke in his blacks, holding up his lightsaber. The Jedi symbol would replace the infinity sign.
***
2 THE HIGH PRIESTESS = AHSOKA TANO / IT IS MADE! -->
High Priestess is further along the path of her magic than Magician, and her knowledge is more intuitive, her skills more effortless. Where the Magician is still learning the balance of light and dark, the High Priestess knows the value and pitfalls of both. It was always going to be Ahsoka.
If I could draw: Ahsoka sitting cross-legged in meditation mode, but with eyes open and a knowing smile. Instead of two pillars, she holds her lightsabers up and parallel to each other.
***
3 THE EMPRESS = PELI MOTTO / IT IS MADE! -->
The Empress is the mother figure, the energy in the universe that provides all that is needed and embodies the energy of creation. I can see the argument for Omera being the Empress--mostly because she is a mom and she’s soft and a lot of people see the Empress as a soft female figure, I get it. (And if I were to do a minor arcana, girl would show up as one of the Queens for sure.) But in the end, I gave it to Peli because she’s a recurring character, more relevant in his story, and if Din is the Fool, Peli is more an Empress to him. She’s able to be the provider of his particular needs; services to his ship to get him up flying, contact and location information, and she’s always willing to care for Grogu whenever she gets the chance.
If I could draw: Peli sitting in the dock, against the R4 unit, holding aloft a spanner and surrounded by her pit droids.
***
4 THE EMPEROR = BOBA FETT / IT IS MADE! -->
The Emperor is all about authority. And all I gotta say about Boba is BIG DICK ENERGY.
If I could draw: Just put him on the Jabba throne and let him lounge like a badass.
~~~
5 THE HIEROPHANT = THE ARMORER / IT IS MADE! -->
The Hierophant is the keeper of traditions and a spiritual guide. As the leader of the covert and keeper of the Way, The Armorer fits.
If I could draw: The Armorer, framed by her forge, holding aloft her tools, with Mandalorian acolytes. Instead of the crossed keys at the bottom, let’s just have a mythosaur skull.
***
6 THE LOVERS = FROG LADY AND FROG HUSBAND
This should be obvious and I will fight anyone who says it isn’t the right thing to do. I will die for this.
If I could draw: I would actually depart from the Smith depiction and just draw them embracing or holding each other by the arms and staring into each others’ eyes. Some kind of glowing background? Maybe the egg tank?
***
7 THE CHARIOT = THE MUDHORN
Oh. You thought I was going to say the Razor Crest, didn’t you. Don’t worry, I have plans for our beloved craft, but it ain’t here. The Chariot can be a ride, yes, but it’s about victory. Sometimes it’s about the victory over your inner “beastly” natures. To travel to the next phase in the journey, the Fool must take on the beasts that drive the Chariot and claim dominance over them, and when he does, they will carry him to the next level. Since it’s the victory of the beastly mudhorn that brings Din to his bond with Grogu and becomes his signet, Mudhorn for the win.
If I could draw: Again, I’d probably play on Smith’s imagery, put the charging mudhorn in the middle, and replace the rams with Din on his knees brandishing the vibroblade and Grogu in his pram with his Force hand up.
***
8 STRENGTH = CARA DUNE
Don’t come at me about including Cara. I am glad Gina got shown the door and I lose no love on that bigot. But. Cara is not Gina and to cut her out is to cut out Jon and Dave’s creation and I won’t do it. I actually love her a lot--she’s got her flaws, but she’s sassy and strong and solid, and I would happily accept a piggyback ride from her any day. She’s also a major player in Din’s story and deserves a spot in it. Strength comes after the Chariot--once you’ve conquered the beast within, you have confident dominion over it and it becomes a companion or a tool for your use. Cara is one with her toughness, she’s used it to do some good and bad shit in her past, and she continues to wield it effortlessly and fearlessly. She is absolutely this card.
If I could draw: I would put her maybe sitting on top of the downed ATST. I’d replace the infinity symbol over her head with the one on her cheek (Rebel Alliance).
~~~
9 THE HERMIT = KUIIL
The Hermit is a loner, yes, but in his solitude he looks within, learns from all he’s been through, and becomes wise. He holds aloft a light of wisdom and truth. This was always going to be Kuiil.
If I could drawn: Just our buddy, looking out over the Arvala-7 landscape, holding aloft an in-universe working lamp. No need to get fancy. He would want it to stay simple.
***
10 THE WHEEL OF FORTUNE = IMPERIAL SYMBOL AND STORM TROOPERS
The Wheel is fate. You win some, you lose some. Sometimes you’re on top, and sometimes the Wheel crushes you beneath it. You are helpless to its roll and where you’ll land. Storm Troopers are such a sad bunch. They are keepers of Imperial Law on the ground. On a good day, they capture a Rebel or hold off an attack. On a bad day, their Moff just blasts them to make an example.
If I could draw: The wheel would just be the Imperial symbol and there’d be Troopers on and under it. Maybe the one on top is just standing there, looking authoritative. The one underneath has been blasted. Some Wheels have two more figures--one on each side--and I’d add those too. The one on the down-going side would be falling, arms flailing, blaster shooting (if only sound were available, there’d be a Whilhelm scream), and the one on the up-going side would just be dangling by one arm, along for the ride.
***
11 JUSTICE = COBB VANTH
Well, it just feels right to make the Marshal into Justice. But it’s not just a literal translation of making sure the right thing gets done and the bad guys are punished. Justice is about wiping away emotion and making decisions with bare truth, looking at every side of the situation and understanding what is really there. And I think Cobb fits this well. He doesn’t want to give up his armor because of what it means for the protection of his people. But he’s willing to consider it, if there’s another way he can protect them. Emotionally, he doesn’t want to deal with the Tusken Raiders, but he does it because he can see it’s the best course of action. He flies into battle with the Krayt Dragon. He gives up his armor without a fight. He makes a fair trade and sees the balance in it because he walks away from the emotion and chooses the best course of action. Cobb Vanth for Justice, errybody.
If I could draw: Cobb in the Fett armor, but with the helmet at his feet. In one hand, a bottle of spotchka. In the other, the Tusken mushroom drinky thing; he’s holding them with equal balance.
***
12 THE HANGED MAN = MIGS MAYFELD
The Hanged Man is not just about a dude who’s hanging upside down. (If that was the case, I would have just gone with Gor Koresh and called it a day.) Hanged Man is about changing your perspective to see things in a new way so you can grow. Many times, this growth also requires sacrifice. Over the two episodes we see Mayfeld, we know he goes from Imperial sharp shooter, to traumatized deserter, to merc, prisoner, and exonerated friend. He’s seen some shit, given up a lot, and he’s willing to see how he can be a help to others and find redemption for himself.
If I could draw: Hear me out. Take the image of Mayfeld hanging upside down from the Crest hatch into the prison ship. Mirror that above with an image of him in his Imperial Ground Transport gear. Flip it all upside down so bad Mayfeld up top, good Mayfeld on bottom, images mirrored but inverted, hence “looking at things a new way and getting everything a little topsy-turvey.”
~~~
13 DEATH = MOFF GIDEON
Death is about transformation, so it’s not always the most sinister card. But Death does not discriminate. It comes for us all, constantly stalking, and it will strike you down to serve its needs. You need to face Death to get to your redemption. But really, Gideon is our big baddie here, so why the hell not.
If I could draw: I would forgo the Smith illustration and go for the Marseilles tradition on this one. Gideon and the Darksaber replaces Death and the scythe.
***
14 TEMPERANCE = IG-11
Temperance is the transformation that comes after Death. Once Death has chopped your physical being into pieces with his scythe, Temperance is there to take all your pieces and put them back together into something new and better. It’s also a card that asks you to re-evaluate your priorities and see if you can find better motivations than you previously had. IG’s death and reprogramming speak loudly to me on this.
If I could draw: IG pouring the tea.
***
15 THE DEVIL = THE CLIENT
Here’s another baddie card that’s all about your worst faults, about excess and giving into the stuff that will eventually kill your soul. The Client holds on hard to the Empire, doing whatever he’s ordered to do to be one of the top dogs. And in the end, it doesn’t matter. Gideon takes him down like he’s nothing.
If I could draw: The client, wearing his Empire bling, with chains around Doctor Pershing and a rough-looking Storm Trooper.
***
16 THE TOWER = THE RAZOR CREST
I don’t know about you, but Chapter 14 killed me. And not because the Dark Troopers flew away with Grogu. We all knew Din would never stop at getting him back. But when the Crest was destroyed, it was like someone punched me in the soft parts, and I made a lot of severely anguished noises. The Tower is the most tragic card in the tarot. It’s when forces beyond your control make a very big (and usually negative) impact in your life and everything changes. You are left to pick up the pieces and survive any way you can with the skills and resources you’ve been blessed with.
If I could draw: Just that moment of the ray hitting our beautiful Crest, just as it begins to break apart, maybe with Din, Boba, and Fennec watching in horror in the foreground.
~~~
17 THE STAR = GROGU
The Star is hope. It comes after the biggest tragedy in the deck to tell you that not all is lost. There is always something there to live for. C’mon, kids. In this series, there was only one choice.
If I could draw: Just Grogu. Maybe drinking his soup. Or maybe he’s levitating his metal ball overhead, reaching up to it with a smile on his face. *coos*
***
18 THE MOON = BO KATAN KRYZE
We all like Bo Katan, sure. But remember my Clone Wars/Rebels fiends, she was Death Watch, and they were terrorists. She sided with Maul to take over Mandalore. Sure, she’s come a long way and her path is a bit more honorable now, but she’s got an agenda, which makes her hard to trust. Since the Moon is about more feminine energies and has themes of illusion and deception--things look great in the moonlight, but maybe not as they really are--Bo Katan’s our girl.
If I could draw: Head and shoulders profile, double-imaged so you see her face, but her Nite Owl helmet superimposed in profile over it. Nite Owl signet on the bottom. Possibly flanked by her two Nite Owl cronies.
***
19 THE SUN = GREEF KARGA
Everything's sunny when Greef’s around! He’s the feel-good gramps that’s going to make any situation A-Ok! If you’ve got a problem, Greef can sort it out...or he knows someone who can! The sun is always gonna shine on you and take you back.
If I could draw: Just Greef smiling and being cheesy with the halo of the sun around him.
***
20 JUDGEMENT = FENNEC SHAND
This card traditionally shows the resurrected rising from the grave, ready to be judged. Fennec’s got a lot to answer for in her life, but she is being given a second chance, and my number one girl crush is going to do new and wonderful badass things with it.
If I could draw: I’d either just show her opening her gut pocket to show her new works, all full of aura, with her looking down at it reverently. OR I might do a scene of her being rescued by Boba.
~~~
21 THE WORLD = THE HELMET
Din’s helmet is the world he lives in. But it’s also a symbol of The Way. The World represents completion, a wholeness of self and being, the end of the journey. And since Din is our Fool, his journey is an exploration of his morals and honor, what it means to walk the way of the Mandalore, and what the meaning of the helmet is for him. He may choose ultimately to keep it on and go all-in on Mandalorian-4-lyfe (Child of the Watch style), or he may understand that the helmet is just a symbol and the honor was in him all along; he can wear it or not wear it and it’s all the same.
If I could draw: The World usually depicts a circle or sphere of some kind, the symbol of perfect completion. The helmet is close enough, so it takes up the center. Traditionally, there are four symbols in the corners that give more meaning to The World, and I would replace them with The Razor Crest, Grogu, the Mudhorn Signet, and the pulse rifle or blaster. These represent his home, his foundling, his clan, and his religion, all of which make up more of the whole; what it means to him to be Mandalorian.
~~~~~~~~~~
Challenge accepted and faced.
Adira dops her witchy mic….
#the mandalorian#mandalorian#tarot#mandalorian tarot#star wars#din djarin#luke skywalker#ahsoka tano#grogu#bo katan hate gang
170 notes
·
View notes
Text
ok so when we talk about tommen's death, it's obvious who will be the one to kill him.
“Tyene. Obara is too loud. Tyene is so sweet and gentle that no man will suspect her. Obara would make Oldtown our father’s funeral pyre, but I am not so greedy. Four lives will suffice for me. Lord Tywin’s golden twins, as payment for Elia’s children. The old lion, for Elia herself. And last of all the little king, for my father.”
nymeria will be in the small council, tyene will likely get a chance to get near cersei as a novice since she'll fit in very easily. they'll have access to tommen and a chance to kill him.
that's my problem with this prediction. i think it's too obvious. if one of the two sisters killed tommen, it wouldn't be a surprise and while i'm not sure grrm is going for a surprise, he did go to the effort of telling us myrcella and tommen will not survive the series so their deaths aren't what is going to cause an impact, the events leading up to their deaths and the aftermath matters more. with nymeria and tyene, we know what the plan is. there is no real suspense because we know how they plan on getting close to tommen. not only that, there isn't much emotional impact unless you're cersei but even then, its the death that does it for her. she's not going to react like she did when she thought tyrion killed joffrey. she doesn't know nymeria or tyene and that's fine but the audience will likely not have a strong emotional reaction.
in order for the death to matter, there has to be conflict- a moral conflict. it has been hit over our head that tommen and myrcella are great kids. they are innocent. they didn't chose to be incest babies and they are not sadists. therefore there has to be a moral dilemma surrounding their murders. now i don't think tyene and nymeria are evil but i don't think characters like them work for that kind of storyline. they are grown and competent and comfortable with themselves. even if it affects them, they will keep moving. you need a character who would not kill children or even consider it typically, who goes on an emotional journey leading up to the deaths and who has the possibility of facing consequences. the only character that fits is jon connington.
i've seen speculation that jon connington's breaking moment will be the destruction of king's landing. i don't agree. i think it will be tommen and myrcella's deaths. when jon connington thinks of the battle of the bells, he thinks that tywin would have destroyed the entire town looking for robert but tywin's biggest crime, the one that he is determined to distance himself from, is elia, rhaenys and aegon(?)'s murder. oh and the sack of king's landing. the latter will likely not happen as aegon is currently pushing to control the army- he even went against jonc to lead the assault in storm's end. i don't see him giving complete control over the army to jonc. besides in the cloth dragon prophecy, people are cheering for aegon. why would they do that if there's a sack? no, i think the moment jonc breaks will be right before he has the children killed.
grrm gave jonc a death sentence for reason. after years of cautious and patience, jonc might not even live to see aegon on the throne, he might not be able to avenge rhaegar which is what drives him. the longer the invasion, the more jon will grow desperate.
Do Myrcella and Tommen need to die so the shades of Rhaenys and Aegon can be at rest?
no but jonc might believe it's necessary to avenge rhaegar and end all the threats to aegon and open the path to the iron throne. he also wants to exonerate himself because the battle of the bells was a turning point of the rebellion. it could have been squashed with robert's death. jon blames himself for everything that came afterwards. so he’ll believe he need to kill the false king and his sister in order to ensure he doesn’t make the same mistake twice.
do myrcella and tommen need to die? jon c and aegon don't know them, they don't know their personalities or how good they are so the answer to that question won't be, 'no they don't need to die because they're good kids,' it'll be, 'they don't need to die because they're kids.' that will be aegon's position. while sections of this fandom characterises him as joffrey 2.0, aegon isn't really bloodthirsty. tyrion is tywin's son and aegon saves his life by refusing to let them toss tyrion overboard. he doesn't seem motivated by revenge (thus far) and therefore he doesn't have a need to see lannisters killed. his reaction to tommen and myrcella's deaths won't be approval, it'll be the opposite. in fact there's already a growing rift in jon and aegon's relationship with aegon pushing for independence and jon connington growing increasingly angry and desperate. tommen and myrcella's death will make the rift permanent.
i think tyene and nymeria are poised to do important things in twow and ados but not this.
#nymeria sand#tyene sand#jon connington#aegon vi targaryen#tommen baratheon#young griff#asoiaf meta#asoiaf speculation#predictions#prediction post
50 notes
·
View notes
Text
January 2, 2021: Mission: Impossible (Part 2)
OK, recap of the recap, let’s go.
The IMF unit is dead, and Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) has been framed as a mole.
Ving Rhames and Jen Reno are awesome in this movie, and they’re helping
Jim Phelps (Jon Voight) is the bad guy (WHICH I CALLED 3 MINUTES INTO THE MOVIE, BY THE WAY), along with his wife Claire (Emmanuelle Beart, and I called THAT ONE too) and Franz Kreiger (Jean Reno, and they got me there).
There was that really cool dangly break-in scene, I liked it.
Other spy stuff; read the last post to get more info.
Aaaaaaand SPOILERS!
So, after that thrilling action sequence, they get the data, Kittredge gets mad and arrests Ethan’s mom to get his attention, and Ethan FINALLY figures out that it’s Jim Phelps! Which, by the way, GODDAMN IT! DID I NOT CALL THAT SHOT? And how does Hunt figure out that it’s Phelps? He, uh...he brought a copy of the Bible with him to the safehouse.
Really? You brought a Bible from a hotel you were known to be staying at? Really? Could you not, I dunno, buy one? Or, like, not implicate yourself so very easily? Wow. You guys SUCK at this espionage stuff, huh?
Anyway, Hunt drives to a station and calls Kittredge, making a great point about how much he sucks at this. Just then, Big Bad Bible Boi shows up at the station where Ethan is at, and we get a rundown on how Phelps did it, from Ethan’s point of view. And he gets so very close to figuring out that Claire is Jim’s accomplice, but stops just short of confirming it. OK, whatever. Still calling it though. He also figures out that Kreiger was his accomplice, which, while I didn’t call that one, does make quite a lot of sense in retrospect. Jim basically said that he did this because he feels useless after the Cold War, and that he hates his marriage. Which...yikes, Phelps, martial issues? Weird, seeing as how your wife is totally your accomplice in this.
Hunt goes back to their base, where Claire demonstrates the fragility of her marriage through kissing Ethan on the hand all sensual-like, and we cut to THE TRAIN.
OK, so this is the other iconic sequence of this movie. The entire (living) cast of characters is seen in this one scene, starting with Vanessa Redgrave’s Max and her assistants, who’ve been given the list of agents and aliases by Ethan, taped under their seat Oprah-style. But, they can’t upload the data online because Luther Stickell, IT Agent, is blocking their signal. Meanwhile, Claire is also seated on the train, when she sees Agent Kittredge looking for Ethan on the train. Ethan is currently in the baggage car, waiting to meet Job, AKA Jim Phelps, who is already in the baggage area, hiding away somehow.
Good. So, Jim Phelps is waiting in the baggage car, and Claire sees him there, confirming once and for all that she is, indeed, working with her husband, and has been the whole time. But then, whoops, it’s Ethan wearing one of those face masks! Not gonna ask why he had a mask of Jim Phelps just lying around, but sure. Jim then reveals that he’s been sitting in a small compartment in the same car, which brings up, just, SO many questions (mostly, why didn’t he kill Ethan that ENTIRE GODDAMN TIME? Seriously, you guys suuuuuuuck at this).
Jim reveals that he didn’t think to check the goddamn Bible for a stamp (Jeez, man, c’mon), and that he’s “tasted [his wife’s] goods.” OK, I’ve been restaining myself from saying this about their relationship, but I’m gonna do it now. Ew. Just...ew. Thinking about Jon Voight “tasting the-”
...Guuuh. Well, Jim’s exposed by the spyglasses from earlier, and Kittredge finally gets a goddamn clue. Jim kills Claire (whoof, bad marriage indeed), and escapes to the outside of the train. Hunt follows, and lo and behold, Kreiger, the only missing cast member, appears in a GODDAMN HELICOPTER!
Yeah, OK, this rules. I’m no prude, I can admit that I’m digging this so far. So, Kreiger’s flying a helicopter to pick up Phelps, but Hunt intercedes. And as if this couldn’t get any cooler, they go into the goddamn Chunnel. YES. This is fantastic, I’ve almost forgot about the dumbass non-twist. I just need something a little more awesome...
...Yes...YEEEESS...
HOLY SHIT YES OH MY GOD
That, uhh...yeah. Wow. I don’t even care about the rest of the movie at this point. Like, yeah, Phelps and Kreiger die, Max also loses, Hunt is exonerated, Luther is brought back into the IMF. Yeah, cool, whatever, DID YOU SEE THAT SCENE?? THAT WAS AMAZING!!! Seriously, that blew my mind.
OK, that’s the end of the recap, so time for the review. That’ll be in the next post, though. I need to calm down after that scene.
See you in the Epilogue!
#mission impossible#mission: impossible#mi#m:i#m:i 1#mission: impossible 1#mission impossible 1#tom cruise#ethan hunt#jon voight#fred phelps#emmanuelle beart#claire phelps#ving rhames#luther stickell#jean reno#franz kreiger#vanessa redgrave#max#henry czerny#action#spy#action movie#movies#movie#action genre#a movie a day#a year at the movies#a year at the cinema#action january
2 notes
·
View notes
Note
Why do you hate rhaegar?
I don’t. But here’s the rub: there is this rising attitude on social media that treats criticism of any character, often fictional but sometimes real too, as hate, which mostly aims at devaluing the examination of their problematic behavior or actions and turning the table on those who offer criticism in the first place. It’s rather easy to circumvent any discussion of the less-than-savory actions of someone when you dismiss anything that comes from “a hater” as a biased nitpicky view. It’s a comfortable place to be to label anything you disagree with as hate and refuse to engage with it.
So no, anon, I don’t hate Rhaegar. I’m rather fascinated, if also frustrated, by him and the place he occupies in the narrative. But what I do hate is the insistent attempts to exonerate him from any wrongdoing wrt the rebellion, Elia and Lyanna. What I do hate is the drive to minimize Elia and Lyanna and what they went through to justify Rhaegar’s actions. What I do hate is the willful misconstruction of events in the name of beautifying it, and the labeling of fans as “fanatics” to undermine their arguments. I honestly don’t know if this is a side effect of purity culture or a manifestation of the degree of bias one tends to show towards their favorites or what, but I often find myself wanting to scream that’s it’s okay to love or have sympathy for a flawed or a villainous or an awful character without the need to bend over backwards to prove that they are actually not that bad and that their detractors are just haters.
(For the record, I don’t think Rhaegar was awful or villainous, but flawed? boy oh boy. The man makes me want to scream sometimes with his one-track brain and his willful inaction)
There is a big difference between hate and engaging with actual book canon. It is the book canon that shows that Rhaegar failed to act on whatever plans he had to overthrow Aerys to the point where he completely threw them away in favor of absconding with Lyanna. It is the book canon that provides heavy suggestions that his actions with Lyanna were motivated by his prophetic concerns rather than love. It is the book canon that tells us that Rhaegar chose to fight in his father’s name which necessitated exacerbating Aerys’ tyranny by killing those who rose in rebellion out of self-defense. It is the book canon that shows Rhaegar publicly humiliating Elia and abandoning her soon after a difficult birth that almost claimed her life. It is the book canon that acknowledges that Lyanna was a “child-woman” and paints the circumstances of her residence at the Tower of Joy as suspect. Analyzing canon and using it to inform speculation is not hate, it is literary analysis.
Perhaps, instead of labeling everything that so much as acknowledges that Rhaegar fucked up as hate, you might want to ask why people bend over backwards to claim that Rhaegar had a right to leave Elia because “he didn’t love her” as if that justifies humiliating her and endangering her life, or that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that he carried a 15-year-old across the continent to his wife’s homeland to impregnate her and leave her in isolation with clear instruction to his Kingsguard not to let even her own brother through, or that he was forced to fight for Aerys to protect his family as if he wasn’t the one who caused the danger to his family in the first place, or that treating Robert, Ned, Jon Arryn, Hoster Tully and hundreds of others as acceptable collateral damage to retaining the throne was not tyrannical, or that Rhaegar didn’t needlessly cause a major political crisis that set the rebellion in motion.
498 notes
·
View notes
Text
i hate that post that's like “we would've gotten a better trilogy if they'd just let rian johnson write all three films than playing hot potato with jj” like i get the point it's trying to make but you're forgetting that rj was fighting tooth and nail for the tlj r*ylo narrative since day 1 so you do realise we would've just gotten the same trilogy as we got now.......
further Thoughts on the trilogy as a whole and a few troc spoilers under the cut
also you KNOW that even if jj COULD have had a hand in saving it... there’s no saving a screenplay written by the guy who did the justice league films
No Comment. No Thoughts. Head Empty. everything post tfa was doomed from the start
have you SEEN the screenwriters for tfa? THAT’S why that one was so good, THAT’S why tfa succeeded as an excellent reboot of a long-dormant franchise. kasdan and arndt and jj should've been on for ALL THREE, and if they couldn’t, then a hiatus was the way to fucking go. rian never should have Touched it, never should have even Looked in its direction.
tfa had the essence of sw BECAUSE the essence of sw wrote it! tlj and tros isn’t sw!!!!
they rly just tried to make Anakin..... 2! with kylo... but somehow... even Worse. you can’t make an anakin story Without showing kylo’s motives and morals - oh, except, you Did show his motives and morals, and they were in no way redeeming whatsoever! anakin had a whole ARC of complexity that allows for endless discussion on morality and justifiability that led him to earn his redemption. all kylo had was a blood tie to han and leia, which!!!! if anything!!!!!! made his motives and morals WORSE, knowing that he had the most IDEAL most loving and perfect upbringing and he still chose the dark side. that makes any love received from han or leia or luka or even fucking rey completely insignificant because we ALREADY KNOW what it means to him. all of this shit was so worthless!!!!!!!! fuck!
and i have a lot to say about rian johnson because i Cannot for the life of me believe the guy behind BRICK (2005) was taken on for tlj, WHILE TFA WASN’T EVEN FINISHED YET. i really didn’t think this had to be said but that is just NOT how you make a Trilogy. that is how you make Three Separate Films and guess what! that is exactly what we got! and it honestly saddens me to think that the guy behind the beautiful 6 minute music video ‘oh baby’ by lcd sound system, inspired by some of his greatest work in looper (and even brick!), would then take the absolute worst of his worst and apply that to a star wars franchise that desperately needed his best. and there’s something hilarious about that too, that you have this huge sandbox FULL of belief-suspending ridiculousness and STILL somehow make it fail? make it atrocious? that takes skill. it’s like that one post that was like “you have to ACTUALLY put EFFORT into making something this bad” like it’s no longer silly mistakes or lacklustre energy, this was ACTIVE sabotage.
the fact rian Had the Understanding of the core concepts of star wars right in his hands, but somehow completely missed the entire point of them? if you look at the films he screened to his story group during the development of tlj... this handful of culturally and historically significant war films that just seem like he screened for aesthetic and reference purposes only instead of actually exploring and analysing the importance and criticism of the exonerating war propaganda and racist source materials and using these films to inspire the actual groundwork of some of the root themes of current climates and today’s culture in a sw universe... i bet big bucks on the fact that twelve o clock high was only screened to inspire the air battle on crait (red salt planet) and because of ‘VIII Bomber Command’ because ha ha hee hee tlj is episode VIII and hoo hoo hoo *you’ve been gnomed.mp4*
the general rule is this: when reading ANY report on tlj and tros and something like “the characters came first” is mentioned, just exit out the window, it’s already a botched article/thinkpiece.
i’m also thinking a lot about how arndt translated his first draft for tfa into a script for eight months and said he needed 18 more, which disney and jj said no to, so he left, and IMMEDIATELY after jj kept saying how relieved he was that the release date was delayed and gave him more time that he also needed. like.. you had your lesson then and there. did they learn from it? *disney forcing rian to write tlj at the same time as tfa was still being made* No!
i am ALSO thinking about how they had considered fincher, brad bird, jon favreau, del toro, even getting development suggestions by spielberg.......... and rian johnson is who they called up for tlj.... my head is... empty.
just give the fucking thing to taika waititi he understands the nuances of the socio-political climates of sw’s narratives built around a guise of a fun sci-fi fantasy adventure-drama. he understands. that’s literally the very definition of his style of writing and directing. Makes You Think Why The Mandalorian Is A Hit.... they already gave him 2 mandalorian episodes just give him the whole franchise i cant take it anymore.
AND NOW THEY’RE GIVING RIAN JOHNSON A WHOLE NEW TRILOGY? RIAN? RIAN JOHNSON? THEY’RE GIVING HIM A WHOLE NEW TRILOGY AFTER WHAT HAPPENED... HERE. SURE.. OKAY . ALRIGHT. IT’S HONESTLY MIND-BLOWING. THE THOUGHT PROCESS THAT GOES INTO CONSECUTIVE DECISIONS SUCH AS THIS. like i would LOVE to see footage of the board meeting for this. no sarcasm i am GENUINELY curious to hear what was said to greenlight this. i have GOT to know what post tros board meetings about this will be like.
anyway! op of that post! i will be thinking about you when the new rj trilogy drops!
what’s worse about this whole trilogy is that.. they Had it. they had it in the bag with tfa. they HAD the original idea they HAD the power to make a sw trilogy set to current climates JUST LIKE THE PREVIOUS TRILOGIES DID, cos that’s what sw is all about! what it was ALWAYS about! a space opera reflective of current times and climates. but disney turned it into a Keeping Up With The Skywalkers reality tv show that’s nothing more than a sci-fi fantasy light show and vfx flex to keep the brand alive, and personally, i think that’s ultimately one of the reasons it’s so hated and why it failed (of course rampant misogyny/sexism, racism, homophobia under the guise of geek culture within the sw community and in the production itself is a whole other discussion and is another humongous part of why it’s hated and why it failed)
and it’s why hamill had every right to criticise tlj the way he did with rotj, why boyega and isaac and ridley had Every right to their commentary on their distaste of the second and third instalments. how the only reason they’d rescind what they said was due to their contracts. how their silence was necessary to squeeze every last dollar out of consumers because god forbid a potential boycott due to their own star’s “controversial” (Correct) judgements and disapprovals
they really had it in the bag..
a female protagonist who could be a chosen one regardless of her blood and family ties, a protagonist that reflected the importance and validity of found family, and the idea that Anyone can be a “Skywalker”, a symbol of hope and a fighter for justice and goodness and love in the world, especially in the darkest of times... a young woman being just as powerful, as Chosen, as essential as Luke and Anakin were... a narrative that couldve been commentary on the necessity of women needing to do double the work, make double the effort, to earn the same spot of her counterparts. and with the second and third instalments, especially NOW, with the growth and vocalisation of the MeToo movement, the narrative of strength to speak out against abusers, to fight back and to thrive, a symbol of justice, to teach that men such as kylo who refuse consequence, who actively and soberly choose violence and manipulation for the strengthening of the self, who will ignore and deny all opportunities to better the self, to know their guilt, to make up for their actions, are the ones who are irredeemable. that people like him are not owed any time or understanding or belief in, when that belief perpetuates the violent and oppressive nature they are indefinitely attracted to and make themselves defined by.
a black hero raised by violence and refusing to be defined by it and unlocking the force within as a symbol of that strength within over encompassing goodness, to have a hero that breaks that harmful narrative stereotype that black characters have had for decades and still continue to do so, to have a voice and a hero that fights with love and kindness, that is able to find family and support in a place beyond what he believes he is allowed to have, the significance of a hero being deemed a “traitor”, a term that holds weight in the shame of seeking your own independence and identity, versus the cathartic empowerment of thriving in the independence you make for yourself in the end. a black hero that defeats his oppressors, oppressors that belong to a policing fascist regime, a faction that has always from the very beginning been a depiction of nazis, of authoritarian nationalism.
a canonical gay latino man freedom fighter, being the best in his career as a literal symbol of hope for the resistance, a literal symbol of the climates for lgbt folk in regards to resisting those same fascist nazi regimes, resisting laws against lgbt existence, lgbt employability, lgbt success. a man who grew into a legacy of heroism, surrounded by it, something that could have been powerful poignant commentary on the necessity to sacrifice lives so others like his didn’t have to, the very narrative to fight for a world that the innocents and the ones he loves could have peace in, could have a future in, could Exist in. poe fights in the skies because he knew damn well the effect of believing in someone that is human, like you, instead of a force that is bigger than anything you could ever know or believe in. poe brings humanity and realism to an otherwise fanatical universe of magic and religion and chaos of endless war that means nothing, that is based on nothing. poe is commentary on fighting a fight that you have no choice but to fight, that you are forced to fight from birth just for the very act of Existing. his humanity and realism is a significant grounding necessity for our two protagonist heroes and it is appalling that he’d just be discarded the way he was, shallowly played off as sideline comic relief, much like lgbt narratives and characters are expressed in pretty much ANY media today, so it comes as no surprise.
the three most vital narratives that should have been told in this trilogy but no of course not (disney voice) gimme my Fackin MANEY. it’s the silence of marginalised voices cleverly disguised under hollow face-value representation.
honestly, even rey being blood-related to palpatine as his granddaughter was such a strong and perfect set-up for The Narrative That Could’ve Been TM, but instead they had palpatine make it a whole weird pseudo-marriage thing that was just so. backwards and unbelievably shocking that it was in a 2019 era star wars film.
wow marriage story and the rise of skywalker really is the same movie huh
yes we wanted a grey jedi protagonist hero that gets tempted by the dark side but this was the absolute worst way that could’ve been explored. like if they were just gonna recycle old characters and old storylines and make them worse they could’ve at least looked at darth maul or asajj ventress and the nightsisters
and NO WONDER oscar looked so DEFEATED every time finnpoe was mentioned cos he fought for that shit tooth and nail and they? ? ? they gave him a funny ha ha hee hee hoo hoo straight flirt scene? ? with like his ex or something, where they imply they get back together? COMPLETELY destroying the ENTIRE narrative of his character that was so lovingly built and developed in the Official Canon Comic Series About Him ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
NO WORDS. there are NO WORDS. head EMPTY. no not even empty there's NO HEAD at all i am BEHEADED
finn had NOTHING in this film. Nothing. how are you gonna make him a joint-protag with rey and give him Nothing?
anyone with brain cells knows that what finn truly was trying to tell rey the entire film was that he was force sensitive, i will take this to my grave, and that should’ve built up to this grand reveal where they empower each other and take down palpatine and kylo as one, as the joint-protagonists they were Literally Fucking Written And Built Up To Be. they gave EVERY antagonist to REY. what was the POINT. rey had her significant clash with kylo across two films, hell, even in this one (before the Final one), tros was the penultimate film about her family, her bloodline, so her significant final battle should have been with palpatine a la rotj. the person who DESERVED to clash with and take down kylo once and for all was FINN, even a TODDLER would understand WHY.
but considering everything, i would take the thing finn was trying to tell her the entire film being that he loves her ANY DAY if it meant whatever the fuck we got instead Never Happened.
finn got made general and not only was it a blink-and-you-miss bit but it adds NOTHING, yes it’s something to celebrate and of Course he deserves it, but it holds zero significance to him as a character. like i mentioned earlier, when han was made general, that never defined him. he was still han solo and it took a Dozen other significant scenarios and twists to make him a significant and vital memorable character. han solo isn’t known for “being a general”. he’s known for being han fucking solo, a critical puzzle piece in the taking down of the empire, a scamp-turned-deeply-loyal friend and lover, a man who not only got his own personal storyline concluded to the level it deserved to be (the repercussions of his bounty hunter life, the importance of the falcon, his relationships with lando, luke, and leia, his triumph over his captors even when it was luke and leia who freed him).
side note, this was maybe the one thing that tfa screwed up, the entire point and development of the original trilogy, it sort of felt a bit moot with how they put a “twist” on han, leia and luke’s relationship, especially when it came to kylo. but i think there are some forgivable aspects to it for the sake of the new trio, and that’s why those executive decisions kind of Worked! this is, of course, for another discussion bc this is about the new trilogy.
leia IS known for being a general because part of her entire storyline revolves around it and the significance of it!!! which is why finn being made general just feels so... i don’t know! just completely disrespectful, to both him as a character, and to generals who are defined by this position (such as, hello!!!!! poe!!! poe fucking dameron!!!! a man raised by the resistance!!! a man who’s entire life and prior legacy was entirely dedicated to the resistance!!!! him being made general MEANT something). it’s like rubbing salt in the wound of the fact that finn has been discarded as the protagonist he was meant to be, the story, development and conclusion he never got, just to slap general on him and call it a day and then write about his actual development in a novel that 3/4ths of the ppl who watch the films will never read.
and that's just the core story stuff!!! do NOT get me started on the general lore proposed in this shit. i’m talking about the force ghost nonsense and the convenience of some of the timing choices (rewriting the way death works in sw, claiming that rey “didn’t really die/wasn’t really dead” since she didn’t fade which in itself completely destroys the entire plot they were going for with the resurrection scene, the timing of the fades themselves bullshitted for “dramatic cinematic purposes”), the entire palpatine storyline, the bullshit with snoke and the lack of explanation, all these one-off characters that have the lore capacity of an overwatch character when instead they could have developed the ones that already existed and had the opportunity to be fleshed out and CARED about
the FACT that HUX (hux!!!!!!!!!) had a more interesting storyline in all three films with a total screentime of maybe 10 minutes than these one-offs whose only purpose is to stroke the cock of sw nostalgia seekers and lore aficionados. to make these characters so inaccessible that to fully appreciate them, fans have to dive into hundreds of different novels and comics and games and whatnot. like if you make it so that the Only way someone can experience a character’s full essence is by reading their wiki page then you’ve failed in creating them, in writing them, in including them, in using them, in whatever them. you’ve just failed as a creator.
and the ONLY reason hux got a reaction (a barebones reaction but a reaction nonetheless) out of me was because they essentially just turned him into phasma 2 which is SO telling of the climate of this trilogy.
it’s a recycled trilogy. that’s all it is. it’s a recycled series of films where tfa’s originality was completely entirely scrapped and ignored because rian wanted to write his personal fanfiction more than he wanted to continue the story he was given, and did everything he could to insert that whenever he could, and kennedy, of course, let him, because she realised giving herself indulging content other than fifty shades and radfem articles that she could jerk off to was more important than telling a critical story where its wonder and valuable, influential morals could’ve stayed in this generation’s minds for years to come.
if you want to watch tros just watch the prequel trilogy instead you'll get the same story except actually good.
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
Sansa's writing in late GoT is so uneven that you can put forth a genuine hypothesis without much stretching that she's a power-hungry evil mastermind.
Sansa hides the Vale knights from Jon because she wants him to take the vanguard with the wildlings and suffer the bulk of the losses. The wildlings will never be loyal to her so they need to be dealt with. And while it's impossible to have predicted exactly what Ramsey will do, it's not a hard guess that if she leaves Jon in charge of hostage negotiations Rickon will die in the process and she'll be the only trueborn Stark remaining. Win/win.
Sansa considers killing Arya (and that bit is ACTUAL, REAL CANON, MIND YOU) because Arya is a loose cannon, particularly dangerous for liking Jon more than her. And while Sansa is older, that sure didn't stop Renly from making a bid for power.
Instead, after finding out that Arya has no interest whatsoever in challenging her politically, she manages to collude with Bran and Arya to kill Baelish and effectively take control of the Vale in one clean sweep, as well as earning an ally in Arya.
Sansa publicly undermines Jon, knowing that doing so as both a trueborn Stark and a woman will begin to eat away at his reputation and allow her to gain the loyalty of the Northern lords.
Sansa's initial plan was likely to seize the turbulent Riverlands as well through her Tully heritage, using the Vale knights if she must, and then prepare for an assault on Cersei (probably after seeking an alliance with Dorne). Daenerys throws all that out of whack. While it's useful to her that Jon has handily proved himself incompetent to the Northern lords, it's less useful that he swore fealty.
So she publicly ices out Daenerys as well, knowing that the Northmen now trust her more than Jon and will follow her lead. She's planning to survive the Long Night and that means keeping her power base loyal.
She instantly leaks Jon's heritage to Tyrion in a ploy to take down Daenerys, the new threat. Her goal is Jon killing Daenerys, with either Jon dying in the process or, if he survives, putting him on the throne, marrying him, and ruling through him. They are now only cousins, and that's perfectly acceptable in Westeros.
She "forgets" to bring up the Iron Fleet in the strategy meeting in hopes that they catch Daenerys off-guard. It works perfectly.
By the time Sansa gets down to King's Landing it's all gone exactly as planned: the North is hers, the Vale is hers in all but name, the only Tully left in the Riverlands is weak-willed Edmure (who she makes sure to humiliate at the Great Council), and all of Daenerys's forces are off the board. Almost no cost to herself save the handful lost in sacking King's Landing.
She makes no mention of Jon's true heritage once his potential execution is on the table. She doesn't want anyone to work too hard to exonerate him on the basis that he's the true king.
Tyrion nominating Bran is useful because of course she's already allied with the Three-Eyed Raven! This was already the plan--omniscent Bran is well-poised to handle the thorny Dornish and Ironborn. It also allows her to keep face in the North, where there would have been grumblings if she'd gone south.
Sansa seizes independence for the North, finally taking her own kingdom.
We end on Arya and Jon removing themselves from the equation and people whom Sansa has significant personal influence over at the head of two kingdoms and atop that King Bran, her omniscient co-conspirator. After all, why else would Sansa's sworn knight join Bran's kingsguard? Because it was on Sansa's instruction.
Close out on the Wolf Queen, having removed every obstacle between her and power, strapping on her armored gown.
...now, all of that obviously isn't true. But it makes exactly as much sense as any more benevolent interpretation of Sansa's acts on-screen. Sansa is so poorly-characterized in season 8 that this could all be legit.
Except in characters whose goals are purposely ambiguous, this shouldn't ever happen in storytelling for such a major character. It's insanely sloppy.
Like, based on the show alone you can't even tell me why Sansa wants to be Queen in the North by the end! Other than "I mean she's a Stark and she's supposed to", why? Winterfell now lacks all the people she ever loved. Is Sansa the type of character who's so addicted to duty that she'd force herself to this just because of her family name? Decent guess, but 1) the duty boner was always Jon's and 2) that's not actually established anywhere.
Way back in episode 1 Sansa wanted to be Queen because she thought she was supposed to, that it was the ideal destiny of all highborn women. All of those illusions are cruelly shattered over the next three seasons, and what is rebuilt in their place?
Is...anything? Sansa's immediate goals after the Purple Wedding are survival and vengeance, in that order. Tick, tick. Okay, what's next, now that Ramsey and Baelish and the Freys (and very soon Cersei) are dealt with?
Sansa is tossed in there as Queen in the North because the writers had never bothered to rebuild her character after the disaster that was the emergency transplant of Jeyne Poole's arc. They had an idea--"she's all Machiavellian now"--but that's not a character. And shit, even Baelish didn't scheme like this--his role was to manipulate from the shadows, influencing everything for his personal gain with an innocent face. I wouldn't call openly seizing the North very subtle.
And it still doesn't answer why! The best reasoning the show offers is "all the other Stark kids said 'not it'".
13 notes
·
View notes
Note
For the 'ask me about a fandom' thing, I'm gonna go with harry potter. If you're not into that then i guess Game of Thrones :)
you know what anon im gonna do BOTH
harry potter:
my favorite female character oh my god SO MANY but the one that immediately comes to mind is luna lovegood like, she never lets anything get her down, won’t let anyone get to her, and the way she stands up for what she believes in, and her loyalty to her friends - i could go on and on tbh
my favorite male character SIRIUS BLACK SIRIUS BLACK SIRIUS BLACK he is so fucking tragic i mean, just imagine being accused of the murder of two of your best friends, and everyone believes you did it, and you can’t even see your godson for 12 years, and you have the chance to be exonerated and be free and it’s just taken away from you in a moment. god no wonder he was so bitter and introverted in the end and ugh everyone about sirius makes me sad
my favorite book/season/etc order of the phoenix because of how they stick it to The Man but also did i mention my undying love for sirius black
my favorite episode (if its a tv show)
my favorite cast member hands down, danrad. i would die for danrad
my favorite ship canon ship: romione; noncanon: drarry
a character I’d die defending DRACO MALFOY my boy draco was in a shitty situation and he did the best he could with it. his character development from a racist bully who idolises the death eaters to a somewhat sympathetic, broken down character who just wants to survive is AMAZING. also it always just amazes me how one tiny seemingly insignificant ‘i’m not sure’ from him literally saves harry’s life
a character I just can’t sympathize with severus snape. fuck severus snape.
a character I grew to love dean and seamus. i was so indifferent to them in the beginning and now i’d die for them
my anti otp harry/ginny. soz but i just don’t like it lmao
game of thrones
my favorite female character BRIENNE! OF! TARTH! SANSA STARK! ARYA STARK! ASHA GREYJOY! I WOULD DIE FOR MOST OF THE FEMALES IN THIS SERIES
my favorite male character man oh man JON SNOW ROBB STARK DAVOS SEAWORTH RENLY BARATHEON LORAS TYRELL WILLAS TYRELL TYRION LANNISTER JAIME LANNISTER even fuckin bronn
my favorite book/season/etc my fav book is a clash of kings and fav season would be season 6 just for the last two episodes honestly
my favorite episode (if its a tv show) i have SO MANY but the one that i could rewatch over and over again is 6x09 battle of the bastards and 6x10 the winds of winter
my favorite cast member honestly all of them but i have a special corner in my heart for the people that play the stark kids
my favorite ship for brevity’s sake i’ll just go with the lucky bastards that are still alive- arya/gendry and jaime/brienne
a character I’d die defending sansa stark tbh
a character I just can’t sympathize with at the moment it’s daenerys targaryen like… i used to love her and now she’s just another mad targ with a self-righteous stick up her ass
a character I grew to love weirdly enough, cersei lannister. i love to hate her and hate to love her, and while i’ll cheer when she inevitably dies, i also know i’ll be miserable without her on my screen
my anti otp jon/daenerys. never mind the incest, can someone just explain to me why jon ‘honourable mcgee’ snow would ever fall in love with daenerys ‘i set fire to whoever disagrees with me’ targaryen?
thank you for the ask, i had fun with this!
send me a fandom
7 notes
·
View notes
Note
I know that most Green stans are christofascists that use HOTD as a vessel to channel their misogynistic and reactionary propaganda, but just because something is a social problem in-universe doesn’t mean you have to roleplay being the kind of backward bigot that believes it. You’re not always supposed to agree with societal norms in fiction because they’re displayed to make a point of how dreadful and oppressive they are. There’s a reason people who read The Scarlet Letter don’t go around calling Hester Prynne a slut, saying that adultery is a monstrous sin, and supporting the reverend, the puritan colony and Hester’s husband. Because the author explicitly condemn the misogyny, shaming, public humiliation, and social stigma Hester faces.
How do ASOIAF fans feel when a man born in 1804 is more progressive than they are ????
Yup. To bring back Daemon as the groomer/pedo debate (cuz I know many green stans of either book or show will point out that how this character has stans despite his grooming/pedoness):
In the show, Rhaenyra is 19 when she first kisses Daemon as Daemon appears to spend way less time with her (what is required for grooming) than he does in the book
in the book, Daemon gets away with what would be grooming and pedophilic wrongs accusations, and charges today (for some fans) bc of those same patriarchal, classist privileges that many green stans excuse Otto and any of Alicent's sons for having, enjoying since birth, and actively, willingly, and consciously using to their advantage. No, 30 yr olds should not have sexual access to literal teens of any level (early, mid, late....18-19 yrs olds are dicy for me), but if you are going to hate book!Daemon for his interactions with Rhaenyra, you cannot exonerate Aegon II for the 12 yr old or Otto for pimping out his 15 yr old. As for general exploitation of women, Aemond, again, made Alys his war prize/personal sexual slave-- doesn't matter her older age.
I remember ozymalek talking about the phenomenon of people buying too much into the problematic elements of the world they are reading the story, and then using them to exculpate their favs of ALL wrongs and flaws.
Also, agreed especially on the social norms being shown (not told) in exactly why and how those norms need to become abnorms.
I've had an ask saying that "we can't blame Alicent for hating bastards" and I was like 🤨. No, I absolutely can, just as I dislike Catelyn. I can understand why shed be upset with the notion that her husband cheated and refuses to name the other woman, as well as forcing her to raise her kids with his love child by said mysterious woman (using modern terms bc Im personalizing), but I feel differently for Catelyn than I do Alicent.
Alicent was never really about starting a war specifically to protect her kids such as gaining power through her kids (even though she also did love them, that's not up for debate). Rhaenyra's children posed little threat to Alicent or her kids and Jon Snow became a loyal and close sibling to the others (treating people well and like they are family when you live in a world where blood family can be literally what helps you to survive can do wonders).
Catelyn woke up one day and found out her husband, who she learned to love over the years, was unfaithful. It changed how she saw Ned, herself, and tainted her whole future perspective of people around her. For Catelyn it was always personal and there is a level of trauma attached. For Alicent, nah.
Both dislike bastards, but for slightly different reasons with both getting much of their dislike for bastards from their Faith religion and family including children born not to a person's spouse. Yet neither are justified in their hatred towards the respective bastards in their life because such an element in this world is itself unfair and discriminatory....
*EDIT* Part of Catelyn's self-justification is that Jon could steal away or endanger her own kids in trying to become lord of Winterfell. Alicent may have cited that Rhaenyra would kill her and her kids in the green council, but Rhaenyra was not the sort to do so without provocation (and usurpation is a provocation, of which Alicent engineered herself with no one threatening her or her kids as soon as her first kid was born). Alicent has made it her mission to socially isolate Rhaenyra, and Catelyn did something similar with Jon, but Catelyn has never plotted against Jon. Catelyn also didn't calculatedly seek to isolate Jon for the sake of political power she would use through her kids either. She just hates him because he reminds her of when her world was ruined and had to be redone, of betrayal. Buoyed by her faith.
So I feel way more sympathetic towards Catelyn than I do Alicent, even with the agrument of the Dance being unreliable and those saying that Alicent could very well be like the show!Alicent--just trying to protect her kids and manipulated by Otto into installing her son, using her "wits".
Problems with those arguments is that show!Alicent is half of book!Alicent with the: relationship-w/-Rhaenyra change and age change. Alicent was older than Rhaenyra and, reading between the lines and how after her reaction to Viserys keeping Rhaenyra as heir despite Aegon's birth, Alicent absolutely wanted power for powers sake, primarily. NOT for her son's safety. She felt entitled to having her son be one king because he was a boy and she felt entitled to become mother to the King ( or if it was an actual title in Westeros, Queen Mother) and become number one woman aside from her own daughter, who herself would also just be under her and her house's influence. She felt entitled because that was tradition and as much power given to women, usually, when they reached what was made the "top" for them. I would go to say that Alicent felt that she earned it.
This aspect of her shouldn't have been taken from her. Added onto, yes. But not reduced or removed altogether. Kept for her father. And certainly not motivated by a "love" for a girl that realistically she would have never cared about above her own search for patriarchally-assured power in a world where women are barred from the real highest positions of power.
I imagine/speculate that book!Alicent made a quiet compromise with herself as many girls and women do on how to both gain power and not alert men around them by trying for too much--by being Queen Consort/mother to the King, the thing fashioned for noblewomen to be the "best". Trouble is that, I think, she also felt she had to believe it, buy into it 100%. Catelyn is similar.
This entire context is undermined by the concept of her, somehow, trying to save Rhaenyra's life after going after her for years or be her best friend or being her best friend for years without these two actually having any sort of base (at least shown and proven to the audience). It was never about her kids or being close to a woman, because book!Alicent gave up on other women a long time ago. These sorts of women tend to do so.
And to be honest, it makes so much more sense to me, that a woman raised in such a conservative world and one of the most conservative places in such a "world" (Oldtown, where the Faith flourishes and has the most influence), would be so greedy for power. Made to suppress much and sacrifice or never dream of anything for herself, it makes sense why this person/a woman in this context could and did reach for the highest positions of power while convincing herself that she deserved it before an actual woman can come to her own autonomous power (Rhaenyra) all along.
I guess this is where Catelyn has another similarity to Alicent. Along with the romance angle, she also feels that, after years of marriage and real love she didn't deserve to be betrayed and after having had actual power in her household when her father gave her that ability (within the context of women, again, not having the same opportunities as men and knowing that since childhood). Her husband was meant to be hers to have a family with and to have had intimacy with. She also didn't really pay much mind to other women if it can get her support for her son (the young girl who is set to marry her brother and her simple thoughts of the girl having good child bearing hips is a nuanced event).
At the same time, admittedly, Catelyn is still less hateful to me since:
A) I can see how she thinks with the POVs style of narrator, so I'm immersed in her pain and it's easier to sympathize whereas with Alicent I'm going off way more on recorded actions and some personal experience (as a woman)
B) Catelyn isn't going against a woman who herself would become something better for other women--a Queen Regnant
C) Catelyn feels much less like a person concerned with making sure everything stays traditional and actually (after Jon's gone to the Wall) doesn't think apart from her family, which is more appealing to me personally.
D) I simply prefer Rhaenyra's troubling-status quo character for its troubling of the status quo.
So I do have some prejudice against Alicent, but I don't think all of it is unfounded or unjustified. *END OF EDIT*
#asoiaf asks to me#green stans#fandom critical#hotd fandom#asoiaf#hotd#a song of ice and fire#house of the dragon#rhaenyra targaryen#hotd comment#fandom commentary#catelyn stark#catelyn stark's characterization#catelyn's characterization#a game of thrones#agot characterization#agot#character comparison
10 notes
·
View notes
Note
I get why reading Rhaegar as a rapist holds so much power for some book fans, but if GRRM is truly going to write their story as one of coercion, what does this do to Jon's soul as a character? Not only is he still a bastard (if there was not a marriage), now he is a child of rape. Isn't this too much psychological trauma to place on our hero? I have to say I prefer the more mythological reading of a tragic love although the ages remain problematic in our world.
My perspective is that, yes, it's traumatic, it's supposed to be. It's a horrific thing to learn.
But I think there is a reason that Jon is shown both experiencing sexual coercion and arguing about the concept of forced marriage and rape with his abuser and consistently taking on the perspective of victims of (threatened) sexual assault. In addition to his instinctive understanding of his non-conforming little sister Arya, who is to his knowledge also a victim of a forced marriage, this is preparing Jon to understand the perspective of his mother Lyanna. Howland Reed is going to be utterly instrumental in giving Jon insight into her as a person, and also into her final moments and her feelings about Jon.
RLJ isn't about exonerating Rhaegar. It's about Lyanna. "The woman is important too."
Healing can be found in the relief of at last understanding his own origin and knowing who his mother was - and likely that she loved him in spite of everything.
Also, honestly, GRRM didn't have to make Lyanna 14-16 and have Ned call her a "child woman". The relationship between a teenager and a grown married father of two is problematic to a modern audience because he decided to make it that way. There is a purpose to this. And it's unlikely to be "tragic love story".
#jon snow#rlj#lyanna stark#mother and son#anti rhaegar targaryen#anti rhaegar x lyanna#rape#forced marriage
83 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Mandalorian: Horatio Sanz’s Mythrol Brings SNL Spirit to Star Wars
https://ift.tt/eA8V8J
This article contains spoilers for The Mandalorian season 2 episode 4.
Though Disney+’s first Star Wars live-action series The Mandalorian is only a year old, the series is already starting to circle back on its own mythology. In season 2 episode 4 “The Siege,” the show brings back a secondary character who factored heavily into the series’ very first scene.
That’s right: Horatio Sanz’s “The Mythrol” is back and he’s just as useless as ever. Longtime (well, if November 2019 was a long time ago) Mando fans will remember Sanz’s unnamed Mythrol as the first bounty that the show’s titular bounty hunter collected. After saving the Mythrol’s life from a group of trawlers, Din Djarin a.k.a. The Mandalorian (Pedro Pascal) went ahead and captured the amphibious rogue himself. The Mythrol was encased in carbonite Han Solo-style and handed over to the Bounty Hunters’ Guild.
When the Mythrol pops up again in “The Siege,” he’s a little worse for wear. He still can’t see out of his left eye (proving that carbonite is unlikely to get that New Republic FDA approval any time soon) and he owes Greef Karga (Carl Weathers) a debt of 350 years for performing a bit of “creative accounting” with his books. It’s not long before Mando, Greef, and Cara Dune (Gina Carano) convince the Mythrol to come along on their mission to take down the last remaining Imperial base on Nevarro.
It’s here that showrunner Jon Favreau and the other folks behind The Mandalorian reveal once again just how much they appreciate and respect some good comedic relief. Many ostensible drama series have come to realize the value in adding comedic actors in dramatic roles. Breaking Bad experienced so much success in casting comedians like Bob Odenkirk, Bill Burr, and Lavell Crawford that it even got a six-season spinoff out of it. The Mandalorian in turn has featured the aforementioned Burr, Eugene Cordero, Brian Posehn, Adam Pally, and Jason Sudeikis. Sanz, however, was the first comedic actor to pop up on the show and he is the second one to recur (after Amy Sedaris’s Peli Motto). As it turns out, Sanz’s style of deadpan, anything-goes comedy is a perfect fit for a show that requires multiple escalations of nonsense per episode.
cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });
The Chilean-born Sanz is probably best known for his lengthy stint on Saturday Night Live. From 1998 through 2006, Sanz was a frequent background player in sketches and even played some regular characters such as Aaron Neville, Gobi (co-host of Jarrett’s Room alongside Jimmy Fallon), and grotesque cartoonist Jasper Hahn. He was also well-known for his minimalist, yet absurdly catchy Christmas ditty “I Wish it Was Christmas Today.”
Still, despite being a member of the cast for eight years, Sanz’s time on SNL is seen as largely undistinguished. He would “break” in sketches frequently, cracking up at the absurdity of whatever Will Ferrell, Jimmy Fallon, or others were bringing to the table. One got the sense that he stuck around the show so long because he was a favorite of his fellow castmates, and not necessarily the audience’s.
After his SNL career came to an end, the Upright Citizens Brigade-trained Sanz began to reveal his improvisation and “up-for-anything” skills that made him a curious fit on SNL but a perfect fit for inventive shows like The Mandalorian. There’s a concept in improv comedy known as “yes and,” which states that improv performers should respond with a figurative (or sometimes literal) “yes and…” to their improv partners’ comedic concepts so that sketches can continue and escalate in their absurdity and humor. Sanz embodies that “yes and” spirit writ large, and it can be best observed on his frequent Comedy Bang! Bang! podcast appearances alongside host Scott Aukerman.
Over seven appearances on the show, Sanz portrays a laconic, white-haired character named “Shelly Driftwood.” Shelly isn’t so much a character as he is an empty vessel for Sanz to take any comedic setup from Aukerman and run with it to its absolute comedic extreme. The “canon” of Shelly Driftwood became incredibly complex, oft-contradictory, and completely ludicrous through his final appearance. The Comedy Bang! Bang! Wiki tries to sum it up as best it can thusly:
“Shelly Driftwood is a character played by Horatio Sanz. He is a book writer who wrote a book exonerating O.J. Simpson, because he actually killed Ron Goldman. He sells Porsches (but drives a 1989 Prius). He once sued Target but it was a scam and he only got $2400, even though one of his eyes now sees upside-down. He once pranked his best friend by pissing on his mom’s face.”
That level of Dadaist madness is what one can achieve when they “yes and” to an extreme level. Given that The Mandalorian is a scripted show (and an enormous, important IP for Disney), Sanz likely hasn’t had many opportunities to improvise during the Mythrol’s two appearances thus far. But that “yes and” spirit persists in the actor and carries over in the much put-upon character, creating one of The Mandalorian’s better comedic creations. Sanz is up for anything, and Mythrol is up for anything as well (via his still many-yeared obligation to Greef Karga). Let’s hope the show is up for continuing the sad, hilarious saga of this unnamed fish man.
The post The Mandalorian: Horatio Sanz’s Mythrol Brings SNL Spirit to Star Wars appeared first on Den of Geek.
from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/2KBawPl
0 notes
Text
The Lady of the Rivers
If you’ve spent more than three days in the Jonsa fandom (or GoT fandom at large), you’ve probably picked up by now that GRRM has based his tale heavily on myth (I AM SHOOKETH, @ladyandtheghost), much on history, and specifically on the events surrounding the Wars of the Roses, a series of wars in 15th century England fought between two major houses, Lancaster and York, as they wrestled for control of the crown.
Much and more has been written on the subject, all of it just a quick Google away, so I don’t feel the need to elaborate any further for the moment. However, there is one aspect of this comparison that I would like to focus on, and how it specifically relates to Jonsa, so stick around, because things could get interesting!
Around the time that I fell down the ASOIAF/GoT rabbit hole, I chanced upon a great show called The White Queen which was airing on STARZ.
(please don’t ask why the poster is all in black. That’s something I’d like to know as well.)
The one-season, ten-episode show is based on a book of the same name by Philippa Gregory. She, in turn, based her writings on the historical events surrounding Elizabeth Woodville, the woman who would eventually go on to marry Edward IV of York, thereby becoming Queen of England, and matriarch of a line of rulers that would eventually end with Elizabeth I.
Many have declaimed on the inaccuracy and incorrect portrayal of the books and show mentioned above, and for the most part, I tend to agree. But for the purposes of this meta, the information I intend to use, while referred to in Gregory’s work, has been confirmed by Wikipedia (I know!) and other sources of equivalent credence.
Besides the titular White Queen, there was another important character present in the book/show and history, namely, Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Countess Rivers, wife first to John of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Bedford (d. 1435), then to Sir Richard Woodville, 1st Earl Rivers, and mother to Elizabeth (and 13 other children, who, for the purposes of this meta shall remain nameless).
During her short marriage to John of Lancaster, brother to Henry V, she was firmly allied with House Lancaster. However, following the Lancastrian defeat at the Battle of Towton, she and her second husband, Richard Woodville, sided with the House of York.
Now, all this would be very interesting if we were looking for more information on the Wars of the Roses, which I don’t know about you, but I’m writing a Jonsa-esque meta here, so let’s move on.
Jacquetta of Luxembourg wasn’t just any old lady. She was the the eldest daughter of Peter I of Luxembourg, Count of Saint-Pol, Conversano and Brienne, and his wife Margaret of Baux. Incidentally, her uncle, John II of Luxmebourg was head of the military campaign that captured Joan of Arc.
But here’s the deal: Don’t ask where, or why, or how it’s even possible, but the Luxembourgs claimed descent from from a legendary water deity known as Melusine, or Melusina.
“The fairy Melusina, also, who married Guy de Lusignan, Count of Poitou, under condition that he should never attempt to intrude upon her privacy, was of this latter class. She bore the count many children, and erected for him a magnificent castle by her magical art. Their harmony was uninterrupted until the prying husband broke the conditions of their union, by concealing himself to behold his wife make use of her enchanted bath. Hardly had Melusina discovered the indiscreet intruder, than, transforming herself into a dragon, she departed with a loud yell of lamentation, and was never again visible to mortal eyes; although, even in the days of Brantome, she was supposed to be the protectress of her descendants, and was heard wailing as she sailed upon the blast round the turrets of the castle of Lusignan the night before it was demolished.”
-The Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border
Now, WHY does this look so familiar???
Oh.....right.....
Anyway, this Jacquetta-Melusine connection is quite heavily expanded upon in the book and show, portraying various spells and schemes woven by the Woodville women for their own ends, as well as that of the kingdom. In fact, during Edward IV’s captivity, Jacquetta was actually accused and later exonerated for witchcraft on the basis of ‘an image of lead made like a man of arms of the length of a man’s finger broken in the middle and made fast with a wire, saying that it was made by [Jacquetta] to use with witchcraft and sorcery’. It’s worth to note that Jacquetta, and later Elizabeth (a suspected sorceress herself) made no mention of Melusine. Their magic was of an entirely different sort. However, the connection is still present.
So, if by now, all the bells are ringing in your head and you know where this is going, congratulations! If not, let me break it down.
The Woodville-Yorks claim descent from Melusine, the water goddess. Sir Richard Woodville holds the title, 1st Earl Rivers. Who is a descendant of that house and granddaughter to the above-mentioned Jacquetta of Luxembourg? Elizabeth of York, wife of Henry VII.
Which family represents the water/river connection in our story? DING DING DING!
“Let the kings of winter have their cold crypt under the earth. The Tullys drew their strength from the river, and it was to the river they returned when their lives had run their course”
- A Storm of Swords, Catelyn IV
Who is the scheming, politically savvy matriarch descended from that house? Catelyn Tully-Stark. And who is the daughter of said house whom we constantly parallel to Elizabeth of York? Sansa Stark, (all fingers and toes crossed) future wife to Jon (Snow, Stark, Targaryen, take your pick), rightful heir to the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros.
credit to @sardoniyx for this work of art!
Where is the Tully connection to magic, you ask? Do not fear, for there is one, and here it is:
Thank you to @marydri for pointing this one out to me and explaining it :)
“He found himself remembering tales he had first heard as a child at Casterly Rock, of mad Lady Lothston who bathed in tubs of blood and presided over feasts of human flesh within these very walls.”
A Feast for Crows, Jaime III
Who is this mad Lady Lothston and what does she have to do with the Tullys of Riverrun?
Danelle Lothston, also known as Mad Danelle, was Lady of Harrenhal and head of House Lothston. She was also a witch. She is described as having “long red hair and wore tight-fitting black armor.A story told to misbehaving children said that on moonless nights bats would fly from Harrenhal and take the bad children back to Mad Danelle.”
We know from Catelyn that a castle usually passes to descendants or close relatives of the previous lords.
"No," Catelyn agreed. "You must name another heir, until such time as Jeyne gives you a son." She considered a moment. "Your father's father had no siblings, but his father had a sister who married a younger son of Lord Raymar Royce, of the junior branch. They had three daughters, all of whom wed Vale lordlings. A Waynwood and a Corbray, for certain. The youngest . . . it might have been a Templeton, but . . ."
A Storm of Swords, Catelyn V
The lords of Harrenhal after the Lothstons were the Whents, a descendant of whom was Minisa Whent, mother to Catelyn and Lysa Tully. Since the Whents inherited Harrenhal, it’s fair to assume that there was much intermarriage between them and House Lothston for such an exchange to happen. So, while it nowhere clearly states whether Danelle married or ever had children, it is possible that her blood mingled with that of the Whents, and thereby the Tullys (and the Starks), contributing a slight trace of magic into the bloodline.
Two mutually unrelated things worthy of note:
It’s a possibility that Danelle Lothston was a descendant of the Blood of the Dragon. Aegon IV the Unworthy had many mistresses, the first of whom was Lady Falena Stokeworth. When she and Aegon were discovered abed together by his brother, Viserys, Falena was sent away and married off to Lucas Lothston. Aegon was said to have visited them in Harrenhal for a number of years thereafter. Many years later, Lady Falena returned to court, this time with her fourteen year-old daughter, Jeyne Lothston. There were many rumors that Jeyne was not the daughter of Lucas, but, in fact, the bastard of Aegon IV Targaryen. Despite these, Aegon proceeded to have his way with mother and daughter, both (these Targaryens!). Danelle must have been a great-granddaughter of Jeyne, thereby inheriting the Blood of the Dragon (which didn’t help her case, let me tell you).
The shield Brienne carries, given to her by Jaime, depicts the black bat divided on a field of silver and gold of House Lothston. So, how epic is it that this is the shield used to protect the possible descendants of that house, Catelyn and Sansa?
TL;DR: Elizabeth of York is a possible descendant of Melusina, a water-goddess of legend. Sansa Stark is a descendant of the Tullys, a house iconically linked with water. Both were/will be married off to heirs to the kingdom in an attempt to ally their disgraced houses with the crown. Jonsa is endgame!
So, I hope you all enjoyed this meta. I feel like one has to write Jonsa meta every so often to earn one’s keep in this fandom, so consider this my rent for the month.
Once again, thank you to @marydri for helping me to flesh this out. Thank you, also, to @kitten1618x whose meta (linked above. Read the comments there, ALL THE COMMENTS) contains anything and everything you’d ever want to know about the Jonsa/WotR connection, and to @sweetsummersansa as well, for this post, helpful for anyone who’d like to read up on the EoY/Sansa parallels.
Thanks for reading, and lemme know what you think!
#jonsa#jon x sansa#meta#game of thrones#a song of ice and fire#wars of the roses#elizabeth of york#sansa stark#catelyn tully
117 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Weekend Warrior for January 10, 2020 – 1917, Like A Boss, Just Mercy, Underwater
Well, it looks like we’re back to the usual business now that it’s 2020 with the first weekend with four wide releases – two new movies and two expanding after opening in limited release over Christmas. I’m running a little behind on this so I’ll work on finishing a few reviews before Friday but for now, you can just get a general idea of what’s coming out so you can make some moviegoing plans.
The big movie that I’m most excited for people to see is Sam Mendes’ WWI epic 1917 (Universal), starring George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman as two soldiers sent on an urgent but dangerous mission to the frontlines to prevent an invasion that could leave thousands of British soldiers dead. It’s one of the most exciting movies I saw last year, which is why it ended up on my Top 25 at #2. I already reviewed the movie for ComingSoon.net and did some interviews for VitalThrills.com, so I probably don’t have a ton more to say about it, but it is the one movie I can recommend whole-heartedly this weekend. It is easily one of the best movies I saw last year (twice!)
This weekend also brings the high-concept R-rated comedy LIKE A BOSS (Paramount), which pairs Rose Byrne with Tiffany Haddish and Salma Hayek, three very funny women and great actors in a movie directed by Miguel Arteta (The Good Girl). Essentially, Byrne and Haddish play long-time besties who have been building a small grassroots make-up company and then Hayek comes along as a huge corporate mogul who wants to buy them out who makes a deal that will allow her to get a larger percentage if the two friends break up. You can probably guess the rest. (My review will be posted later tonight since it’s under embargo.)
Mini-Review: It was almost immediately apparent as Like a Boss began that this movie wasn’t going to be for me. It wasn’t the premise or the characters as much as it was the fact that it expects the viewer to be somewhat savvy about the make-up business, something I know (and care) little about.
Byrne and Haddish play best friends Mel and Mia, who have turned their shared love of make-up into a thriving local business that gets the attention of Salma Hayek’s Claire Luna, a big-shot exec at a corporation who wants to buy a stake in their business but with a catch. If for some reason the friends break-up, Luna gets the majority share of the company. This is literally the difference between a 51% and a 49% stake… so not really that big a deal.
I’m not even sure where to begin with this because there’s so much talent involved that generally deserves better, but Haddish has yet to deliver anything on par with her Girls Trip role, and that doesn’t change here. Mind you, I’ve been a big Rose Byrne fan for quite some time, and she’s really been great in movies that allow her to go between humor and drama, but it feels as if she’s trying way too hard to keep up with Haddish, who has actually toned back her character to be more of a 4 or 5 on the Haddish scale.
Jennifer Coolidge seems to be doing the exact same thing she’s done in everything from Legally Blonde to Two Broke Girls, basically acting like a dimwit, and it’s a shame because it’s not really a good part. There’s also Mel and Mia’s three best friends who are so useless at bringing anything to the story that it’s unclear why they’re in the movie at all except to act as a Greek Chorus. This leaves it up to Billy Porter to steal the movie with but just one scene, and pretty much the only one that delivers a laugh.
I’m not sure if the makers of this movie thought that it would be seen as another pro-feminist movie that women flock to, but the problem might be the simple fact that it’s written and directed by men. That certainly couldn’t have helped, especially since this movie is clearly trying to be another Bridesmaids by pushing the R-rated envelope.
The thing is that if you’re going to make a comedy, you should at least try to make some effort for it to be funny, and the fact that Jennifer Lopez’s Second Act takes place in a similar environment but finds a way to be funnier is telling that Like a Boss just isn’t up to snuff.
It’s doubtful Like A Boss will be anyone’s worst movie of the year, but that’s because it isn’t particularly memorable and will likely be forgotten by February.
Rating: 5/10
Another movie expanding nationwide after a platform release is Dustin Daniel Cretton’s prison drama JUST MERCY (Warner Bros.), which stars Michael B. Jordan as young defense attorney Bryan Stevenson, who finds himself trying to get prisoners on Death Row exonerated. The movie also stars Jamie Foxx as Walter McMillian, a man falsely accused of murder who becomes Bryan’s biggest case to date while Brie Larson plays Eva Ansley, who works with Bryan. I was kind of bored by the movie the first time I saw it, but I gave it another chance recently and generally liked it more, especially towards the last act. I may write a review before Friday if I can find any time but I’m pretty slammed this week.
The last movie of the weekend is actually one I’ve been looking forward to, since the sci-fi thriller UNDERWATER (20th Century Fox) is my kind of movie. It stars Kristen Stewart, Jessica Hardwick (from the Netflix series Iron First), TJ Miller, Vincent Cassell and John Gallagher, Jr. as a team of scientists who are trapped 6 miles below sea level when their station is hit by a catastrophe and they learn that they’re not alone down there. It’s the new movie from William Eubank, a talented filmmaker who I interviewed years agofor his movie The Signal. I’m also still working on my review for this so please check back tonight/tomorrow for it.
Mini-Review:
It’s a bit of a bummer this new undersea horror-thriller probably won’t get a fair shake from critics, because it’s being released in January. Far too many film critics just love their clichés, and when it comes to January movies (other than the ones premiering at Sundance), they expect everything to be horrible. They go in with that thought in mind and then nitpick to make sure they’re theory is right. Maybe it’s true, but it’s also not particularly fair when you have a movie like Underwater that delivers exactly what’s being sold.
The underwater drilling station Kelper rests on the outskirts of the Mariana Trench, and no sooner then we meet Kristen Stewart’s electric engineer Norah, Kepler is hit by a powerful earthquake that tears the station apart, as she and a few of her colleagues do what they can to survive. They soon learn that they’re not down there alone.
Yes, the premise is a bit of a horror cliché we’ve seen many times before, mostly in space thrillers like the classic Alien, but director William Eubank (The Signal) clearly has chops to direct a much bigger-scale movie like this that involves a lot of underwater FX-work.
While the dialogue isn’t always great, and the attempt to make TJ Miller the film’s comic relief doesn’t always work, you generally like the characters played by Stewart, Hardwick, Cassell and Gallagher, which tends to be half the battle when it comes to horror films. You actually care about them as they face bigger and bigger jeopardy.
I’m sure some women will take issue with Stewart spending a good portion of the movie in a skimpy bathing suit, as soon as she’s out of the bulky deepsea suit she wears for the rest of the movie, but you won’t hear any complaints from me about that.
Like I said, the movie gives you exactly what is being advertised and Eubank has created a movie that’s suitably claustrophobic and at times, legitimately terrifying.
Rating: 7/10
LIMITED RELEASES
The movie opening in limited release that I can recommend highly is Ladj Li’s police thriller LES MISERABLES (Amazon Studios), an amazing police thriller about a group of French detectives trying to deal with issues taking place at the local projects. I thought this French film (France’s shortlisted selection for the Oscar “International Film” category) was fantastic and shows a promising new talent in Li, who wrote and directed the film. If it’s playing in your area, I recommend checking it out, although I’m guessing it will be on Amazon Prime sometime soon as well.
I haven’t seen Jon Avnet’s THREE CHRISTS (IFC FIlms), which has Richard Gere playing Dr. Alan Stone, a psychiatrist in charge of dealing with three schizophrenic patients who all believe they’re Jesus Christ, as played by Peter Dinklage, Walton Goggins and Bradley Whitford. It will open in select cities and On Demand shortly after.
Opening Friday in the States roughly eight months after it opened in the United Kingdom is Ron Scalpello’s crime-thriller THE CORRUPTED (Saban Films), starring Sam Claflin as Liam, an ex-con trying to win back the love of his family, while trying to get out of the tangled web of corruption surrounding him. The movie also stars Timothy Spall, Hugh Bonneville and Charlie Murphy.
Josh Hartnett and Margarita Levieva star in Anthony Jerjen’s Inherit the Viper (Lionsgate), playing siblings Kip and Josie, who are dealing in opioids as their only means of survival. Kip’s attempts to get out of the family business put him and his sister and younger brother (Owen Teague) in danger. it will open in select cities and On Demand.
Ofra Bloch’s documentary Afterward (1091) debuted at DOC-NYC last year with its look at the issues between Israel and Palestine that came out of the Jews being driven out of Germany during World War II and settling in Israel where they were seen as an enemy by the Palestinians, while trying to give and receive forgiveness. This is a fantastic doc that will open on Friday and then be on VOD January 28.
Alison Reid’s doc The Woman Who Loves Giraffes (Zeitgeist/Kino Lorber) is a little more obvious what it’s about, as it follows Anne Innis Dagg’s solo journey to South Africa in 1956 to study giraffes, featuring voicework by Tatiana Maslany, Victor Garber and more. It opens at New York’s Quad Cinema on Friday and at the Laemmle in Los Angeles on February 21.
Opening today at the Film Forumin New York is Renaud Barret’s doc System K (Artification Release), which looks at the city of Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the street artist performance scene that criticizes government corruption and the poverty that has struck the area.
The Sonata (Screen Media) stars Freya Tingley as a virtuoso violinist who inherits the mansion of her composer father (the late Rutger Hauer) after his sudden death, where she discovers a mysterious score with strange symbols that she tries to decipher with her agent and manager (Simon Abkarian).
This week’s Bollywood offering is Meghna Gulzar’s Chaapaak (FIP), starring Deepika Padukone as a woman attacked with acid in New Delhi in 2005 and how she survived it.
REPERTORY
It’s a new year so we’re back with more cool repertory stuff!
METROGRAPH (NYC):
My favorite local rep theater is beginning with two movies by Your Name and Weathering with You director Makoto Shinkai: 2007’s 5 Centimeters per Second and 2011’s Children Who Chase Lost Voices. On Saturday night, the Academy is back at the Metrograph screening Lina Wermüller’s 1976 movie Seven Beauties. Also on Thursday, you can see two “Metrograph Standards,” Jack Hazan’s A Bigger Splash (1974) and Edo Bertoglio’s Downtown 81. Welcome To Metrograph: Reduxwill screen Richard Quine’s 1958 film Bell, Book and Candle, Late Nites at Metrograph will screen Akira Kurosawa’s High and Low (1963) while the Playtime: Family Matinees selection is Danny Devito’s Matilda from 1996.
FILM AT LINCOLN CENTER (NYC):
Folllowing up FilmLinc’s amazing Korean cinema series from last year, this week, they’re doing a special “The Bong Show” retrospective, highlighting the work of soon-to-be Oscar nominee Bong Joon-Ho, as well as other related films with Director Bong in person for some of them. It runs through January 14 and besides all of his feature films, there will be a showing of all his shorts on Friday night, January 10, as well as Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s Cure (1997), Deliverance (1972), Intentions of Murder (1964), John Frankenheimer’s Seconds (1966), John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982) and more.
ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE BROOKLYN (NYC)
Tonight’s “Weird Wednesday “is the 1984 Supergirl movie, starring Helen Slater, which is almost sold out. Thursday’s “Cherry Bomb” pick is the 1988 film Shy People. Next week’s “Terror Tuesday” is the horror classic Ghoulies (1984) and “Weird Wednesday” is Tarsem’s The Fall, the latter hosted by Vaiance Films founder Dylan Marchetti.
THE NEW BEVERLY (L.A.):
Today’s “Afternoon Classics” matinee is Norman Jewison’s 1967 film In the Heat of the Night, while the Weds./Thurs night double feature is Secret Ceremony and Boom!, both from 1968, both starring Elizabeth Taylor. Friday’s “Freaky Friday” is the 1985 film Re-Animator, while Tarantino’s own Django Unchained is the Friday midnight movie. This weekend’s Kiddee Matinee is the Studio Ghibli film Ponyo, while the “Cartoon Club” is also running this weekend. The Saturday midnight movie is Martin Scorsese’s classic Taxi Driver (1976). Monday’s “Monday Matinees” is the Stephen King adaptation Misery (1990), while the double feature running from Monday through Thursday are newer films, Greta Gerwig’s Little Women and Sofia Coppola’s The Beguilded from 2017, both in 35mm.
FILM FORUM (NYC):
On Wednesday, Film Forum will begin screening a 4k restoration of Russian filmmaker István Szabó’s Mephisto (1981) along with screenings of his other movies, Confidence (1980) and Colonel Redl (1985). This weekend’s “Film Forum Jr.” is one of my all-time favorite comedies, Billy Wilder’s Some Like It Hot(1959), starring Marilyn Monroe, Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis.
EGYPTIAN THEATRE (LA):
Apparently, the Egyptian now has two theaters? Sweet! As part of the theater’s “New Year’s Resolutions” its screening the 1993 horror anthology, Necronomicon: The Book of the Dead on Friday in the Spielberg Theater, followed at 10pm by Roar (1981). The Egyptian’s usual theater will screen a double feature of Airplane! (1980) and Stripes (1981) on Friday. On Saturday, you can see Pacino in Scarface (1983), the sci-fi classic The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957) and Terrence Young’s Valley of the Eagles (1951) with an introduction by Joe Dante (schedule-permitting). Also on Saturday night is a double feature of Rosemary’s Baby (1968) and The Other (1972). Sunday’s “New Year’s Resolution” is “Get More Sleep!” in the form of Akira Kurosawa’s later film Dreams (1990), plus you can also see a 35mm print of The Blue Angel (1930), starring Marlene Dietrich as part of the theater’s “Sunday Print Edition.” Sunday’s New Year’s Resolution is Deliverance (1971)andWake in Fright (1972).
AERO (LA):
As part of the series “The Films of Marty and Bob, the Aero will screen a matinee of Taxi Driver (1976) on Thursday – two days before the Alamo. (Oops!) Thursday night is a double feature of Douglas Sirk’s 1955 film All That Heaven Allows and Fassbinder’s 1974 film Ali: Fear Eats the Soul. Friday begins an “All About Almodóvar” series with a double feature of Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown (1988) and All About My Mother (1999), Saturday is Bad Education (2004) and Talk to Her (2002) then Sunday is some of the filmmaker’s earlier work, The Law of Desire (1987) and Matador (1986).
QUAD CINEMA (NYC):
This weekend, the Quad will screen four movies by Bernard-Henri Lévy: 2012’s The Oath of Tobruk, a double feature of Peshmerga and The Battle of Mosul, and Bosna! With an introduction by Lévy. Sorry, but I’m not really familiar with his work enough to elaborate.
MOMA (NYC):
The Museum of Modern Art has started a new series called “Show Me Love: International Teen Cinema” running through January 19 with some interesting selections including Diane Kurys’ 1977 film Peppermint Soda, Greg Araki’s 1993 filmTotally Fucked Up, Satyajit Ray’s Teen Kanya (Two Daughters) (1961) and more. Another series that will run through February is Modern Matinees: Jack Lemmon, which will show some of the comedic actor’s best movies, including 1963’s Irma La Douce on Wednesday, Blake Edwards’ Days of Wine and Roses (1962) on Thursday, George Cuckor’s It Should Happen to You from 1954) this Friday. (Most of the movies will be repeated later in the series.) Tuesday’s matinee returns to “The Films of Marty and Bob” with New York, New York(1977).
IFC CENTER (NYC)
The IFC Center is in the middle of a comprehensive “Films of Studio Ghibli” series with a bunch of Studio Ghibli animated films, which will run through next week, as will the 75thanniversary digital restoration of the cinema classic Casablanca. This week’s Late Night Favorite selections are David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive and Eraserhead, Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining and Kathryn Bigelow’s Strange Days (1995).
MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE (NYC):
MOMI is in the midst of a “Curators’ Choice 2019” made up mostly of new movies vs. repertory stuff. Saturday will be a tribute to the late Carol Spinney with a screening of the 2014 doc I Am Big Bird.
ROXY CINEMA (NYC)
The Nicolas Cage love continues with the 1997 action movie Con Air.
LANDMARK THEATRES NUART (LA):
Friday’s midnight movie is Rene Laloux’s 1973 animated familyFantastic Planet.
Next week, Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are reunited for Bad Boys for Life, taking on Robert Downey Jr. as (Doctor) Dolittle.
0 notes
Note
I LOVE your takedown on Rhaeger and Lyanna's 'relationship'. The more I see/read about him, the more he reminds me of Joffrey. He starts out handsome and charming, but then we get to see the entitlement and manipulation (his actions leads to the Death of a Lord Paramount and his eldest son, he humiliates his intended and then sets her aside, doesn't give one single shit for the consequences of his actions). The only consolation is that they both died choking and clutching their chests.
Hmm, on one hand, I see your point about the points of correlation (though I do not think that Rhaegar set Elia aside to go with the parallel to Joffrey and Sansa. That’s a show-only contrivance), but on the other, this is a very unfair comparison. The Targaryen that is truly paralleled with Joffrey is Aerys, not Rhaegar. Murdering a lord paramount in a sham of a trial, escalating the conflict into an outright war with no hope of conciliation, the crown promising leniency in Ned’s case and safe conduct in Rickard’s case only for Joffrey\Aerys to breach it, taking pleasure in hurting people, hating and deliberately humiliating their Hand (Tyrion for Joffrey, and Tywin for Aerys), sexually assaulting their Hand’s wife, etc. There is a reason Tyrion called Joffrey Aerys the Third in his pov in the books, and that’s because the similarities are numerous. But when it comes to Rhaegar and Joffrey, that’s a different story.
Comparing Rhaegar to Joffrey is extremely harsh imo, whether on a character level or based on how the characters were presented to us. Rhaegar, for all his stupid blunders and the heavy cost they had, did have a valuable purpose: saving the world. That does not absolve or excuse him by any means, neither does it make his actions defensible or acceptable or right, but I will give him the recognition that his intentions were not malicious. He was not acting out of a sense of entitlement that his crown allowed him to do whatever he wanted with no consequence (despite projecting exactly that to the rebels), but out of a misguided belief that magic would ensure that everything turned out alright and he only had to focus on actually making the third head of the dragon. Terribly short-sighted, unbearably dumb, callous and irresponsible his actions may be, but he did not do it to cause harm or pain, neither did he delight in subjugating people or killing them. He simply thought that the ends justified the means, and as long as he was after the worthy end of saving humanity, it was worth whatever measures he took to ensure it. In that, he is not at all different from Melisandre or Bloodraven, all three aspiring to a higher purpose and showing willingness to do whatever it took to get there on the belief that the goal makes their questionable means worth it, and that the coming fight would exonerate them.
That is in no way comparable to Joffrey who did think that his crown gave him the green light to do what he wanted and who internalized the Lannister ideology of fear and violence, which was not made any better by having an abusive father who gloried in violence. Joffrey had no higher purpose, no real motivation but to assert his power and feel kingly and strong. He was a sadist who found pleasure in subjugating people and causing pain, and who saw people below him as insignificant livestock. Joffrey routinely dehumanized people and found it empowering and satisfying to do so. He showed a degree of cruelty and of delighting in others’ pain that is simply not there in Rhaegar who, despite his many blunders and the toll they had, seems to have been a relatively decent person, albeit a dreamer willing to cross the line ~for the greater good~. But at least Rhaegar, unlike Joffrey, did have a greater good he was pursuing.
Rhaegar and Joffrey were also introduced to us in vastly different ways in the text. Joffrey was the handsome prince Sansa fell for pretty much immediately, the excellent match that was only belied by Lysa’s accusation that the Lannisters murdered Jon Arryn, but we got warning signs that this was not the case immediately afterwards, starting from Joffrey’s arrogant superiority with Robb in the training yard to his reaction to Bran’s fall to the incident with Mycah at Darry. From the moment Joffrey interrupted Arya and Mycah, none of us were under any illusion as to what that kid was, and he only got steadily worse from there. So while Joffrey was that handsome charming figure for a hot second, he quickly showed his true colors not even half-way through the first book, and continued to grow nastier as the books progressed. But the main thing about Joffrey’s story wasn’t about how the readership viewed him or even about breaking us from the opinion we formed about him - the truth about Joffrey came far too quickly and was alluded to before that for this to be the case - that was more about breaking Sansa from the illusion she built about Joffrey and what he was, not the readership.
But it is about the readership with Rhaegar. He was not introduced as a remotely nice figure, but as a violent rapist who carried off Lyanna out of personal pleasure and incited a war that cost Ned nearly his entire family. But as the story progressed,Robert emerged as an unreliable narratorand a hypocrite with a tendency to romanticize and alter narratives to fit his view, and Ned’s lack of animosity towards Rhaegar was noted, which was a pretty clear neon sign for us not to take Robert’s story at face value, which some took as evidence that the true story is the total reverse of what Robert said it was, and that perhaps Jorah and Dany’s account of the noble Rhaegar was much closer to the truth, despite both Jorah and Dany being even more of unreliable narrators than Robert. But of course, Jorah’s and Dany’s truth - later supported by Barristan Selmy - was that Rhaegar loved Lyanna and died for her, which falls right in line with courtly love conception of romanticism that tends to absolve the characters on the grounds of love being so pure that it makes up for everything else.
Also, note that the one person who disparaged Rhaegar died in book one, and since then we’ve had nothing but people who romanticize Rhaegar and are invested in the idea that he did no wrong, or that if he did, it was out of love and love forgives all. For multiple books, the narrative only tells us that Rhaegar died for the woman he loved, and that “Prince Rhaegar loved his Lady Lyanna”, and other similar sentiments. Rhaegar crowning Lyanna at Harrenhal (something straight out of a chivalric romance), taking her away from an unwanted marriage, and dying on the Trident with her name supposedly on his lips paints a rather romantic picture. Even the imagery used by the narrative is romantic: “rubies flew like drops of blood from the chest of a dying prince, and he sank to his knees in the water and with his last breath murmured a woman’s name”. It’s all terribly tragic and terribly romantic. It’s not hard to see why many people believe in that version of the story, had come to expect it even, and have come to analyze Rhaegar’s action through that lens, even though it still does not change the power imbalance in the story, or the glaring consent issues, or Rhaegar’s political stupidity. So Rhaegar’s image actually started as very bad and steadily got more and more romanticized as various characters added to the description of the chivalric prince. It’s only when you look closer and beyond the usual romantic tropes that the glaring flaws in that narrative emerge, and you notice that the actuality of Rhaegar’s actions, even if they were solely out of love which I highly doubt, are disturbing.
That does not mean that there is not an in-universe disillusionment coming, but I’m not sure how much it would revolve around Rhaegar. Dany is going to have to face the truth about her family and the rebellion at one point, but how much that pertains to Rhaegar’s image in her eyes, I don’t know. For better or for worse, and no matter what Rhaegar’s motivations were, the fact remains that Dany already knows that he insulted Elia publicly and that he made off with the intended of another lord paramount. Believing it was out of love gives this story a noble veneer in Dany’s eyes, but so would the revelation that Rhaegar was trying to save the world, which makes me wonder whether Dany would fully grasp the ramifications of Rhaegar’s actions, especially with her romanticizing tendencies (though who knows what will happen when Jon discovers his horrific origin story and how that reverberates through whatever relationship he has with Dany at the time) But I fully believe that Dany’s disillusionment would be mainly about the collapse of the image Viserys sold her of Aerys and the nature of the rebellion, to parallel Sansa’s own revelation about Joffrey and who the Lannisters truly are.
Whether Dany’s revelations would solely be about Aerys, though, with the part about Rhaegar being kept for Jon’s own story remains to be seen. Hell, whether GRRM would actually address the consent issues in the story of Rhaegar and Lyanna remains to be seen. I do have my fears tbh because his track record in dealing with consent is not exactly the best, and he has been known to play his tropes straight.
#asoiaf#asoiaf meta#joffrey baratheon#rhaegar targaryen#aerys ii targaryen#parallels#I'm defending rhaegar targaryen - hell must be freezing over#lol#ask box#Anon asks
119 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
firebreathnchkn
Fire-Breathing Chicken
theanchorthat-blog
Welcome to the trouble circus
gentedimare
Alessandra
adrienmeunier
Cris de Lumière