#but never in one sitting bc . it is bad | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

secretmellowblog · 1 year

Note

wth is red scare les mis

Have you ever wondered why all the nonmusical English-language Les Mis adaptations suck? Why they're so weirdly conservative? Why they all share the same dumb changes to the book like "Cops are fine but Javert is the One Bad Apple who's evil because he's obsessed with Valjean?" A lot of that can be traced back to one early influential American film adaptation of Les Mis-- Les Mis 1935, made during the height of the Red Scare, which my discord buddies and I have nicknamed "Red Scare Les Mis" or "Hays Code Les Mis."

Red Scare Les Mis was the first big-budget film adaptation of Les Mis in the English-speaking world. It was made during the height of the Red Scare in America, and also in the middle of the massive labor movements around the Great Depression. It is a very deliberate piece of conservative anti-rebellion propaganda. The film actively despises the message of the original novel and deliberately intentionally censors or destroys it whenever possible. It basically became a blueprint for the English-speaking film adaptations that came afterwards. Later adaptations are often influenced directly by Red Scare Les Mis OR by an adaptation that was influenced by it. There's a reason the only Good english-language adaptation is the stage musical, and the reason is because it was a translation of the French musical/concept album (which was more influenced by French adaptations like the French language Les Mis 1934, which are actually pretty good.) So what is so bad about Red Scare Les Mis? (that isn't obvious from the descriptions above alksdjflskdjf) The film is dedicated to painting any kind of rebellion or anti-authoritarianism as a dangerous evil conspiracy. Again, this is an America in the midst of massive labor movements and paranoia about communism-- so Red Scare Les Mis is all about how rebellion is dangerous, deranged, and evil. It doesn't help that this was also made during the time of the Hays Code, which essentially forbade portraying crime in a positive light or laws in a negative light. Enjolras in 1935 is a deranged extremist who Goes Too Far-- played by an actor who usually plays villains-- and all the students who agitate for revolution are framed as flat-out Satanic. I might be misremembering bc I don't have the strength to watch the movie all the way through in one sitting but I believe there's literally even a scene where Enjolras smiles evilly as his face is lit from below to convey that he is a horror movie villain. This in contrast to Marius, who is the leader of Les Amis in this version and a heroic peaceful protestor who doesn't want to overthrow the system and simply wants some minor prison reforms. "We are not revolutionaries," Marius assures the audience. He passes out pamphlets and that's basically the extent of his activism (because a Good Activist never breaks the law or makes people uncomfortable.) If you want a clear encapsulation of the way the film deliberately censors and destroys the point of the original work, you don't have to look any farther than the opening shot. The film opens on the famous quote from the preface to Les Mis..................but it radically changes it. See if you can spot the MAJOR ideological difference: Original preface: So long as there shall exist, by virtue of law and custom, decrees of damnation pronounced by society, artificially creating hells amid the civilization of earth, and adding the element of human fate to divine destiny; so long as the three great problems of the century—the degradation of man through pauperism, the corruption of woman through hunger, the crippling of children through lack of light—are unsolved; so long as social asphyxia is possible in any part of the world;—in other words, and with a still wider significance, so long as ignorance and poverty exist on earth, books of the nature of Les Misérables cannot fail to be of use. 1935:

The original preface says that as long as the law damns people to be imprisoned in artificial hells on earth, the story is worth being told-- the message being that no one deserves to have their humanity ripped away from them by prison. People deserve empathy regardless of whether they're guilty under "law and custom," because "law and custom" are often nakedly unjust. But 1934 opens with an altered version of the line saying that the book will be relevant as long as people are persecuted "after they have paid the penalty of the law and expiated their offenses in full." Hugo argued people deserved empathy unconditionally, regardless of whether they broke the law-- 1935 believes people only deserve empathy IF they haven't broken any laws and have served full prison sentences for any laws they have broken. In 1935's view, the 'law and custom' Hugo condemns in the preface to Les Mis are innately good and just. The "decrees of damnation pronounced by society artificially creating hells amid the civilization of earth" are fine actually. The only people who deserve empathy, in 1935's view, is people who have "already paid the full penalty." So in 1935's view book Valjean isn't worthy of empathy bc he never paid the legal penalty for stealing from Petit Gervais alkdsjfsdf, and he should've gone back to prison to serve his life sentence. AND THEN they had the gall to attribute their fake conservative quote to Victor Hugo.... Also: if you're wondering where "Javert is the one Bad Apple cop who is uniquely obsessed with Valjean and obsessively persecutes him in a way he doesn't do with any other criminal" comes from-- this film also had a huge impact on that! This film was a big influence on spreading that obnoxious dumb shallow take. IN SUMMARY: Les Mis 1935 was a deliberate piece of propaganda aiming to take a novel that championed left-wing socialist views..... and turn it into a deeply conservative right-wing story about the futility of rebellion and the importance of respecting law and order. The whole film is really encapsulated by the altered "preface" where they flat-out lie and attribute a conservative law-and-order view of the world to Victor Hugo, using a fake quote Hugo never said. It's a deliberate attempt to make an insidious worldview seem normal/justified by pretending it was supported by a famous author. It's saying a bad stupid thing then pretending some famous author said it.

But the adaptational choices it originated/popularized were imitated in later English-language adaptations. While 1935's influence is not the only reason why English Les Mis adaptations like 1998/BBC 2019/etc are often so disconnected from the novel in the same ways and weirdly conservative in the same ways, it definitely is one the reasons. (And that's why you gotta look to France or Japan if you want an actually decent nonmusical adaptation alskdfsdf.) And yeah it just sucks? It sucks that this piece of conservative propaganda that actively intentionally rejects the progressive messages of the original novel became so influential just because it was the First big English-language adaptation. But aint that just the way

#thats life #im not a red scare les mis expert though #ive actually finally seen the entire thing only recently #but never in one sitting bc . it is bad #les mis #les miserables #red scare les mis

249 notes · View notes

worstloki · 10 months

Text

something very horrifying about the concept of Thor but not Loki being told that Loki is Jotun when the brothers are old enough to understand the importance of the secret

#so he gets to watch Loki be unfavoured or try to do things and HE KNOWS WHY #but Thor can't SAY anything about it bc he's not supposed to #and Thor obviously has no way to reconcile that Loki is Jotun which means Jotun can't possibly be plain monsters #so Thor and Loki both keep badmouthing the frost giants #Thor gets to watch Loki hate on the frost giants while knowing Loki is one and idk something about that doesn't sit right with him #Thor basically gets to watch Loki fail at things and to Thor it's like 'oh yeah of course he's not as good or doesn't fit in'#he gets to watch and learn bad war stories and that's just how they learn about how horrible the Jotnar are #and i think occasionally Thor would stop to really process that fact #but most of the time Thor is just like. yeah that's a thing but it's not like it matters #even tho Loki being Jotun totally IS an important thing #he's just used to ignoring that it's not since he'd been told pretty far back #and it was apparently never relevant to their parents to inform Loki so *shrug*#ALSO ALSO Loki finding out so long after and being devastated and ''they told you of my parentage did they not?''#but make it Thor 1 #make it happen when Loki goes to Earth to visit Thor too hjsvfdsh #Loki: I have reason to believe I'm not related to any of you by blood.#Thor: uh well that'd be a little hard wouldn't it #Loki finds out that Thor knew he was adopted/Jotun before him too #lets get that breakdown moving along

140 notes · View notes

perilegs · 3 months

Text

as you can see, keekki is a bit groggy but he was soo brave while getting an x-ray today

#he got a limp tail and i was so worried he's going to die or something but it was ''just'' his spondylosis #this bitch has a bad spine. dogshit kidneys. fiv. but he's still sparkling on!#aka he's not like in pain and his life is still good #but my poor guy got some milder than normal sedatives for the xray due to the prementioned dogshit kidneys #and i feel like i'm babysitting a drunk toddler #he was walking around getting into every crevice he could find #the pyramid in the 2nd pic? it's in a weird place bc he has never in his life even touched it before now #luckily keekki did calm down a bit and now he's sleeping on my lap #or well. not as much laying as half sitting half standing with his head and one (1) leg on my lap

20 notes · View notes

bylertruther · 2 years

Text

sorry, but i can't stop thinking about how enzo said "right, she saves your life because of friendship 🙄😏" to hop regarding joyce in the season that they're going through the same plot that mike went through in season one (where he's going to extremes to find will and stopping at nothing to save him, knowing all the while it could have killed him and his friends) and as lucas + max are going through the literal exact same plot as mike and will did in season two (where will is cursed/possessed by vecna and mike is at his side the entire way through, unwilling to let him go through this alone).

mike and will came out on the other side both times. mike didn't HAVE to go out, endanger himself, his friends, and his family to find will. he didn't HAVE to spend his every waking moment of that week desperately doing whatever it took to find will, even when others had given up hope. but he did it anyway. why? because of friendship? lucas and dustin are will's best friends, too. they joined the fight, they devoted themselves, too, but not like mike did. not even jonathan, who loves will more than anything, had that much unwavering hope and dedication. why?

in season two, mike didn't HAVE to glue himself to will's side and treat him in such an attentive and fiercely protective manner. he didn't HAVE to trail after will, attune himself to his each and every tell, or comfort him as much as he did. he didn't HAVE to go to will's house when he failed to go to school and strong-arm his way in when joyce tried to send him away. he didn't HAVE to stick by his side as it became clear that will was no longer just will, that there was an indescribable and otherworldly evil sitting within him, too. he didn't HAVE to stay at his bedside, both at home and at the laboratory, rousing from his sleep and immediately tending to will whenever he woke up. he didn't HAVE to follow them into the shed, where it was only them and this will that isn't will. he didn't HAVE to pour his heart out in front of everyone and set it in will's lap, pleading with him to please, please, please come back. no one forced him or prompted him to do this, as we've seen them do in seasons three and four, but he did it anyway; without hesitation and entirely earnest. lucas, dustin, and max all wanted to save will, too. they cared, of course they did, but not to the extent that mike did. mike was there from beginning to end and refused to be away from him until it was absolutely necessary. even then, he devised a plan to help, because of course he did. again, it was dangerous, risky, and there was no guarantee it would work. still, he did it anyway. why?

furthermore, when it comes to lucas and max going through the same plot that mike and will did, theirs failed to turn out the same way. mike is the only character on this show who has been able to pull someone out of a curse with just his voice. mike is the one that snapped will out of it whenever he used true sight. mike is the one that always finds him whenever he runs off, because he knows will better than anyone. it's after mike tells will that asking him to be his friend is the best thing he's ever done that will is seen communicating in morse code, having found his way to fight back and show that he's still there. mike has always seen will and understood him in a way that others don't. mike is the one that has repeatedly found vecna's weaknesses and devised plans to exploit them and hurt him, and had those plans actually work.

the show itself has painstakingly shown us from the very beginning that mike and will's relationship is different. it isn't like any other friendship or romantic relationship they have within the party. they show us the endless, unconditional, and unwavering devotion that mike has for will by putting them on these journeys that last entire seasons. they set the tone for the show and propel the plot forward.

those same journeys are then given to other characters that are in explicitly romantic relationships. many of the pivotal scenes for those relationships "coincidentally" happen to be frame-by-frame or direct dialogue parallels to previous byler scenes. yet... for whatever reason... the general audience seems to find the idea of byler to be impossible and nonsensical?

why is it that when joyce endangers her and her friend's lives and risks the very real possibility of not being able to go back home to her family to find hopper, it's seen as romantic, but when mike does it for will it's just friendship?

why is it that when hopper tells joyce that he just wants her to feel safe and does everything in his power to ensure that, it's considered romantic, but when mike tells will over and over that he won't let him get hurt and does the very same thing it's just friendship?

why is it that when hopper sleeps outside of joyce's house just in case she needs him and to not let her sit in this sorrow alone, it's considered romantic, but when mike sleeps on the floor beside will's bed after he learns of his possession and sleeps at his bedside at the lab after it's just friendship?

why is it that when nancy says she and jonathan are just friends that everyone understands they aren't, but when mike reiterates that he and will are friends, despite their conversation not being about romance at all, it's seen as something purely platonic, true, and not at all suspicious?

why would other romantic relationships on the show have frame-by-frame parallels in their undoubtedly romantic and pivotal scenes to previous mike and will scenes if byler isn't romantic?

why would they show us that mike is in a relationship where he is not understood or comfortable expressing his true self, and then have him tell will how it is that he needs to be loved and seen, only to then have will express that he does understand, see, and love mike in precisely the way that he needs and feels he does not deserve, if they are not romantic? why would they then have will reveal that mike's love for him is exactly what he needs, too, if not to show us that the love is there and it is real and that they're each other's true match?

why would they make mike himself finally state that his relationship with will is different from all of his others, that will is what makes home feel like home (and thus, by extension, is mike's home), that it's what makes life feel normal and right and easier, and that he wants it back, if it's all just friendship and nothing more? why is their relationship the one that he just can't lose? why is will the one person that he needs more than anyone?

why does he fight to keep this relationship in his life time and time and time again, each and every single season, but he is able to let eleven go every time? why does he abandon all respect for authority and whatever warnings people throw his way when it comes to saving will, but he is able to sit at home when it comes to eleven, his girlfriend? why does he intuitively understand what will needs from him and unashamedly provide it without will ever having to ask, but he cannot do the same for his other friends or his girlfriend? why does he allow himself to truly open up, talk, and be vulnerable and true with will, but not anyone else, not even his own family or his girlfriend? why is it always, always, always will... if it's just friendship?

why do we correctly assign romantic love and intention to the other heterosexual couples on the show, but when it's one boy loving another boy with everything he has and in every possible way that he can... suddenly that's just friendship?

i know that an overwhelming amount of people refuse to see their relationship as romantic because of homophobia and heteronormativity, but after a certain point... it just becomes ridiculous. inexplicable; an offensive bastardization and gross perversion of the original text.

byler is the blueprint. byler is the heart and light of the show. they're the original copy, the first to love and be loved. at this point, post-season four, if you fail to see that then that is a choice all of your own making. i'm tired of pretending like byler is built on subtext. it isn't. not anymore. not when m/f couples are doing the exact same thing that byler did first in precisely the same way. not when everything has been set up to show us what love and light can do, and which characters represent that love and light. not when the narrative is shoving it in your face for hours, reminding you with these characters' each and every action and inaction which other character it is that they love and choose. i'm over it.

byler is endgame. byler has been endgame. the love that they have for each other has never once lost; it has beaten the overwhelming odds each and every single time, a record which not all relationships can claim, and it will be what puts vecna in the ground for good and rids hawkins of all evil in season five. there is no other narrative but the one we've been given and to assume anything else is to purposely delude yourself tbh.

#byler #mine #like im LITERALLYYYYYY done bro im DONE #i was sitting n thinking and i was like ....#literally WHAT ship has byler NOT been paralleled to #WHAT plot has any other romantic ship had tht sealed their fate as being romantic / proved their romance that byler HASNT had too #it literally makes no sense to think they would do all of that OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN #sometimes even literally frame by frame or the same dialogue just slightly tweaked #if byler wasnt romantic #it is. it HAS been. they literally did it FIRST #crazy together existed before the show had even been CAST #this has been PLANNED over YEARSSSSSSS #bc it goes all the way to the beginning #like. please for the love of fuck be serious #we are Not the crazy ones here just because we actually watch the show and remember the shit that happens #anyway. wrote this on my phone so there is no way in hell im rereading #if there are typos or grammar mistakes galore or i never finished a sentence then too bad<3 read my post boy !

383 notes · View notes

bunnihearted · 12 days

Text

i wish i didnt have avpd bc if i didnt i'd knock on my neighbor's door and ask him everything im wondering. such as 1) are u ever at class????? or are u at home constantly????. 2) why are u always in your kitchen when u have a 3room apartment to yourself?. 3) how is it even possible that u have things to do in your kitchen and make consistent noise from 8am to 12pm?????. 4) why do u walk like and elephant instead of like a normal person? plus why do u slam stuff instead of closing it normally?. 5) do u ever study or do u just walk around and slam stuff in the kitchen all day?. 6) genuinely WHAT tf are u doing in there???? why are u in your kitchen all day every day wtf is wrong with u?????

#i hate him so fucking much #like i just do not understand WHAT he's doing #like im just chilling in my room and all of a sudden BANG he slams a cabinet #then 10 mins later i hear a BAM and he's thrown smth in his sink #he is ONE person in there where do he even get all the stuff to throw around??#and he is a fulltime student so why is he never at class?? why does he never sit down and study?? idgi #i hate hiiiiiim no one has ever made this much noise #if he just had furniture in his kitchen it would bring the noise down a little but no he doesnt want that #im going insane this is so insufferable to deal w #i just want some fkn peace and quiet #not even im my own room is it ever quiet im going crazy #it's so fucked up to not be allowed to exist in silence bc #BANG BANG BANG your neighbors do things 24/7 #fuckkkkkking hell i want them to die so bad just die and shut up! or act normal like everyone else?????

12 notes · View notes

haganez · 16 days

Text

do u guys think i can make it t 180 by the time arle drops

#sitting thru all these story quests and remember why I never played them #bc besides the recent ones they all suck so so bad normally #idfc about these npcs

9 notes · View notes

nemesis-is-my-middle-name · 11 months

Text

one thing i'm really really fascinated by is the fact that everyone in the modern pokemon world seems to consider the deities a power source, nothing more. the games generally imply that knowledge of the legendaries has been lost to time and legend and only preserved by a select few who keep to the Ancient Ways but i don't really think that sounds likely. i think they might be common knowledge people just don't seem to. conceptualize them as greater than in the way that we generally think of them. "this is a divine force that underpins reality and has been worshipped since antiquity" is not a thing that seems to have any problem coexisting with "i'm going to put this thing in an engine and make it my tool." and it's very frequently the baddies doing this which maybe weakens the point a little but very rarely is the point of contention with the bad guys "hey you shouldn't do that to god" that's kind of like, never the part of their thing that people object to. it's always their motives, never their methods. when the Good Guy (local ten year old) catches god and makes it their new partner, nobody has a problem with it! and people joke about this but i'm saying it might imply a way deeper facet of society than people give it credit for.

and is this maybe trying to force the round peg of pokemon legendaries into the square hole of actual religion. very possibly! the games aside from pla certainly seem only very occasionally interested in treating these creatures as gods or godlike or worshipped in any way, and far more often just want to treat them as regular pokemon But Stronger. so it's maybe not reasonable to try and say these entities are deities. but the problem is they are! it's not like this isn't supported textually, it's just... not a part of canon that canon is actually interested in. dialga, palkia, the lake trio, kyogre, groudon—these things are gods. canon can mince words and call them legendaries and "worshipped as deities maybe sometimes" but when you get to the point where you're discussing something that represents a fundamental force governing reality and/or can end the world on a whim then idc what you call it. that's a god.

but the problem is that they are gods and also pokemon, they're both simultaneously. and people in the pokemon world seem to have worked this out, and have had the collective realization that the gods are truly not exempt from their own rules. they can be captured, they can be subjugated, they can be used. this also ties back in with the whole anarchism discussion obviously but it's just the fact that like. it goes way deeper than everyone being fine with the ten year old putting the lord of time in a ball. the entire world operates on the premise of "eat your gods."

does that like... contradict worship? can you be faithful to something knowing it's been used as a tool?

#the nemesis speaks #pla analysis #this is essentially one long rambling conversation with myself because i should really be going to bed #this all also hinges on the pokemon/trainer relationship conceptually which ive never had a chance #and/or willingness to really try and dig into that bc it's like.#an idea that feels intuitively easy to grasp but would be way more difficult to explain in words #it's not... it's really not like anything we have in the real world. it's Different.#but like. gestures vaguely. also relating to the distinction btwn Tool and Partner in that relationship #and how the former is generally how the Bad Guys lean wrt both their pokemon AND the gods #whereas the latter is how the protagonist and most non-evil people approach it.#anyway. going to bed now promise promise #but im not even talking about the key players in the games i'm talking about the regular guys! the everyday randos!#religion is so integral to our societies and it's clear that this was at least in the PAST a thing that the pokemon world people possessed #but... what about the modern day? are dialga and palkia still worshipped? reshiram and zekrom? xerneas and yveltal?#another of the many. many many reasons i want to Do Something with the hypothetical history sitting around in my notes #cause it also comes back around to this concept of people using gods as tools #OKAY. SLEEP. NOW.

36 notes · View notes