#criminal minds likes to do this thing where they inflict pain on characters for viewers entertainment | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

lockandkeyhyena · 4 months

Note

(I REALLY HOPE tumblr doesnt cut this off early... its pretty long!) Hello!! Your posts containing that recent story idea of yours has popped on my feed. To be completely honest what I have read so far has left me ... uncomfortable, but I want to be open-minded enough to give it a chance. So I hope you don't mind me using anon to ask some questions about it!

First and foremost, you have expressed what the narrative asks of it's audience, but what is the message? What is the story trying to say? I'm not necessarily against a story that asks it's viewers to sympathize with horrible people (BoJack, for example, is one of my fave shows ever), but I feel like, at least personally, you can't be too vague or open-ended with topics like these. BoJack (again, example) allows you to understand and sympathize with horrible people, but the message is also very clearly "actions have consequences, and you must own up to / live with them". I'm curious what your message is?

In your eyes, what exactly is the line between "Horrible person the audience can sympathize with" and "Horrible person the audience must pity, feel bad for, excuse actions of"? I feel like it is a line that can very easily (and often, unknowingly) be crossed, so I'd like to see your view on it

"redemption" is a word I see frequently on your posts. What is redemption to you? Is it a simple change in heart / behavior, or something more? I'm not against a horrible character like yours being 'redeemed', as in recognizing the true nature of his actions / behavior and striving to be 'better'. However to some people, 'redemption' can easily mean 'deserving of forgiveness' or 'unable to be judged / held responsible for previous actions' (which is why that kind of arc is so frequently controversial lol). All things considered, I personally don't think the latter would be wise to approach considering the characters crimes. But i'm sure you know that already.

This also begs the question - what is forgiveness to you, especially in media? In one of your posts is the line 'where do we draw the line in the sand for what crimes are deemed unforgivable even when faced with eternity, and why?', which made me curious enough to ask this anon in the first place. What is an unforgivable crime to you? How does your story plan to handle themes of forgiveness? Are you planning to write elements of forgiveness between victim / abuser? (mostly asking because, if that is the case, I don't think this could be a story I'd enjoy unfortunately)

How do you plan to have the audience feel sympathy / empathy for your character? Do you plan to go the 'he has a sad backstory' route or do you have something more planned? I also feel like it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'sympathize' and 'empathize' here. To want an audience to feel sympathy for a horrible character is something I can understand, as it calls for simple understanding. But empathy is something that is a lot more intimate imo (as it stems from a feeling of "your pain is my own, I have been in your shoes"). Which I don't think you could really ask of those who have been the victim of those things at least.

I definitely feel like it is important to acknowledge the humanity of horrible people, but I also feel like it is important to acknowledge that some people out there genuinely are just awful -- not every criminal has an unfortunate upbringing or bad life experiences, and not every criminal shares an ounce of care or regret or sympathy, as unfortunate as that may sound. With that said, I think it is perfectly healthy for the average person to maintain distance between themselves and those who cause others significant harm / traumas. At the end of the day, it is an abusers responsibility to see the harm they inflict and own up to their own actions. No innocent person should be expected to 'fix them' or tolerate their behaviors or forgive the hurt they have caused, even after redemption. Not even a simple 'you're hurting others' is owed, really. Nobody wants to put themselves in the shoes of someone who abuses children in that manner, because that is not really something you can do as a mistake, or accidentally, or without realizing, or in the heat of the moment. Sexual abuse in general is a crime done without good reason, which is why it is such a touchy subject -- and when you bring grooming into the mix, it becomes a crime that is now premeditated. But of course I say this from an outside perspective, I wouldn't know what it is like to harm children in that way …

Sorry for the ramble, anyways. All in all I'm willing to give your story a shot and I'm curious to see how you tackle these ideas (and, I will definitely be around to give you advice / my thoughts, for as long as you welcome them).

hey!! thanks so much for your input, it’s really appreciated. this’ll be a long one so strap in folks.

1. good question!! the message i’m trying to go for is something similar to bojack horseman. your behaviour shouldn’t damn you to an eternity of pain and suffering, but you still have to live with your actions and acknowledge that you’ve hurt people- and, most importantly, you can’t move forward without *acknowledging* you’ve done something wrong. basically, ‘anyone can become a better person, but you have to be willing to put the effort in and acknowledge that your past actions won’t go away.’

2. i don’t think there should ever be a character that the audience excuses the actions of, i think that while you can sympathise with and pity a character, you also necessarily have to acknowledge and analyse the bad they did.

3. OH OH THIS IS A GOOD ONE!! i think about this ALOT, especially in regards to forgiveness. i don’t personally think that if you become a better person, your past crimes should be forgiven/forgotten about. i think the most appealing thing about redemption narratively is your character constantly being reminded of their past and choosing to continue being a good person in spite of it.

redemption, to me, means recognising the horrible nature of your past actions and acknowledging that you did bad things, while simultaneously working to better yourself and be an overall good and kind person.

4. continuing on from the last question, i adore thinking about forgiveness in depth, i believe i made a post on it a year ago and still have an ask waiting in my askbox about what i personally define forgiveness as.

basically, no, i don’t plan to write any elements of forgiveness from the victim into the story, and that’s something i want alvin to have to deal with. think end of season one bojack horseman with ‘i don’t forgive you.’ i want him to be faced with that, acknowledge that nothing he can do can fix what happened, and strive to be a better person regardless.

personally, to me, while i would never *forgive* alvin for his crimes, i wouldn’t begrudge him the opportunity to better himself. an interesting contradiction in my worldview is that while i will never personally forgive child abusers, i don’t believe in being ‘beyond redemption’. i believe that if someone is given enough time, no matter how heinous the crime, give them a thousand, million, billion years of time, i believe they can see their wrongs and work towards being better people. i also believe it’s an endless task. there’s never going to be a ‘you are better now’ stopping point, and that’s something that has to be dealt with.

5. ah, simple misunderstanding of words here, i don’t really see a difference between sympathising and empathising and i use them both to mean ‘feel bad for’ or ‘understand someone’s point of view without necessarily agreeing’ while i plan for him to have a sad backstory, that’s not the avenue i plan to garner sympathy from the audience with. that’s the avenue that *he* initially wants you to take pity on him for.

i want people to sympathise with him due to his… normalness for lack of a better word. i want people to see him as a human outside of his terrible actions. i want him to have quirks, favourite movies and dislikes.

anyway, i think your insights are extremely valuable and i agree with all of them! the heinousness of the crime is sort of the point- can someone who knowingly and prolonged-ly(?) committed a vile act, become a better person? the answer i want to come out of this story with is yes, but it’s something that has to be done selflessly and with no expectation of reward.

thank you so much for taking time out of your day to write up these questions for me! any further input would be much appreciated- you’ve been very articulate and helpful with me putting my own thoughts into words.

#yeen rambles #ask #csa ment #abuse ment #long post #god. sorry if im all over the shop and inarticulate lol #hell story #alvin’s infurno

15 notes · View notes

sxfik · 3 years

Note

Why is hanseok considered the greater evil, and vincenzo the lesser evil?? I genuinely dont understand, can you explain it to me please??

hiii thank you so much for sending me an ask!! i'm not going to lie, i saw this ask a long while ago when you originally sent it but it took me a long while to answer it because i really had to think about it and also it's kind of a hard question for me to answer. but, i will attempt my best to kinda give my thoughts on why we consider vincenzo as the "lesser evil."

first, i need to say that both vincenzo nor han seok are good people and i am not saying that either of them are good people. i am simply comparing their evil levels and explaining why we as viewers often find vincenzo to be the lesser evil than han seok.

second, we need to define what evil means in this context (which is kinda hard because it depends on each person's perception but aaa) if we're considering someone evil for purely their actions, excluding motivations, then both vincenzo and han seok are the same level of evil. han seok brutally murders, and psychologically and physically abuses people. vincenzo's actions (aka setting people on fire, abusing and murdering people, torturing people, etc.) also makes him evil.

BUT if you define evil through motivation, then vincenzo and han seok are still evil but not on the same level of evil. yes, both characters commit bad actions but their motivations are different. vincenzo kills only when given a reason to. for example, we know that a robber killed his foster parents so when he joined the mafia he both psychologically and physically tortured him for almost a year (now whether the method of killing is a justifiable or an equal punishment for the crime is an entirely different question and i just won't be able to answer that because it's just so hard and complex of a question.) he sets the warehouse on fire to get revenge on behalf of the victims of the drug produced in said factory. he kills the two people who killed cha young's father and he kills the people who set up the family of the dead researchers to look like a suicide. he only kills or tortures people who have done a wrong against him or the people he cares about.

on the other hand, han seok kills and tortures for his own amusement and gain. he kills the prosecutor with the hockey stick because he didn't get his way and they annoyed him. he allows and gives the resources to choi myung hee to kill or maim anyone that gets in the way of his plans. han seok murdered his classmates for no reason other than he didn't get what he wanted. and most of all, he tortured and abused han seo just for his amusement. han seo was his punching bag, where he would belittle and abuse him in order for han seok to get his anger out. he does bad actions without a given or justifiable reason. he would play with han seo and keep him on the edge at all times, because he got a power rush from it. so when you compare vincenzo and han seok's motivations for their actions, i don't think you can say that vincenzo is the same level of evil as han seok.

we also don't see vincenzo attacking someone beloved to the person who has done wrong in order to get revenge. for example, in order to hurt vincenzo, han seok kills vin's mother, who has not done anything wrong this situation. but with vincenzo, we never see that happening. even though we see vincenzo hanging out with prosecutor jung's family after he betrays them, there's not a moment that he actively threatens or attacks prosecutor jung's family. he doesn't threaten prosecutor jung or tell him he will kill his family because in his mind, it's not justifiable to take the life on another person who hasn't done wrongdoing in order to hurt the person who has. for han seok this is not true, he has killed or attacked innocent people to make his enemy hurt.

another reason we are bound to consider vincenzo 'a lesser evil' is because of remorse. despite vincenzo's motivations or actions, he displays remorse and regret for the killing he has done. han seok, on the other hand, does not. Vincenzo is haunted by the killings he has done, by the blood he has spilled and we don't ever see that ending even when he gains a family and gains love. even if he can justify his actions, he is still regretful of what he had to do. han seok does not show the same remorse as him, only feeling bad when it is his life that's under threat in the very last scene. not to mention that he brags about killing, he gets power and happiness from his killings both when he killed his classmates as well as when he killed the prosecutor. han seok takes pleasure in his actions, as he is shown dancing and being gleeful as he kills vincenzo's mother and many others. he has no regret or shame in what he has done.

in so many law and crime shows we see a "morally" good hero who "spares" the villain in the end because it is the "right thing to do" despite a) killing all their side minions that helped the villain and b) all of the villains evil actions and harm they have caused the victims. we, as viewers, often aren't satisfied at the end because we're not seeing the punishment match up to the crime. this show's main thesis is showing that han seok is so evil that no law or justice system can properly punish him for the pain and abuse he has inflicted on his victims AND because this system that is supposed to punish him is just as cruel and corrupt as he is. it's highlighting the injustice to the victims of babel as a corporation, victims of the justice and law system and victims of han seok himself. vincenzo is showing that he is the best punishment for han seok because vincenzo is a mirror to him and han seok in the end is getting a taste of his own medicine.

all of this is why that last monologue of the show is important. we, as viewers, are watching a show that frames vincenzo as the main protagonist. his actions and him are framed in a way to make us root for him, with the music and the cinematography. but we're also given small reminders of who he actually is throughout the show: through the nightmares he faces, through mr. tak telling him not to change into a lighter person, through the scene where he faces han seok in jail. and finally, that ending monologue is showing that no, he is still a bad person. he is still an evil person who is committing bad actions and us rooting for him to punish the villains in this show does not change the badness of his actions. really, that last line in vincenzo is making us question whether his actions are justifiable and can we actually root for him.

feel free to disagree with me or start a conversation below because i feel like this is a really interesting question but the answer to this changes based on each person's perception of morality and what constitutes a good person and a bad person. i feel like this is such a deep question and there's so many ways and angles that you can look at this from so i don't think i've done a great job in explaining everything but this was just what i came up with for today. there's also every chance that my line of reasoning or logic is flawed so i'm open to any criticisms to this so i can acknowledge and correct it!

(also if you want a good kdrama that asks these same questions and has that same energy as vincenzo then please watch taxi driver! it’s a great show and it really makes you think about the earlier questions of “does the punishment given out by vigilante justice match the crime committed by these people? to what extent is vigilante justice justifiable? where does the law draw the line between giving the victims of brutal crime justice vs protecting the criminal from cruel and unusual punishments?”)

#mine #vincenzo #chayenzo #vincenzo cassano #hong cha young #song joong ki #tvn vincenzo #jeon yeo been #vincenzo x cha young #meta #analysis

129 notes · View notes

rankakiu · 5 years

Text

Thoughts of the Droid: Joker (2019)

Hello people from Tumblr! How have they been in all this time? As always, I hope very well. I will begin by saying that it was really in my plans to see the film of It: Chapter II; however, due to various circumstances, I could not see in the cinema. However, I compensated, watching another movie that shares a feature with It: both films have a clown as a great antagonist. Only the latter is more disturbing, since it does not need an extra dimensional being, but a human disguised as a clown, which in itself is more disturbing. On this occasion I bring to you all my impressions and opinions of the Joker movie, the second film that Warner and DC have released this year and which (obviously) has a plausible origin for the villain and nemesis par excellence of Batman.

Could it be that this movie continues with the hit streak of DC and Warner? Or is it a movie that had a very high expectation and ends up disappointing own and strangers? Stay in my review to find out.

WARNING: NOT SPOILER-FREE. Read at your own risk.

To start, what did I think of the movie? Short answer: simply magnificent and fascinating. Now let's go into the review in more detail.

Characters: What to say about this thing? Each of the characters has been thought carefully and although we do not see much of them, at least they fulfill very well their function of being support characters and even some of them serve as a catalyst to further explore the mind of our protagonist. None of these characters will leave you indifferent and also make the movie a more pleasant experience, due to their good performances.

Of course, I could not ignore our protagonist, Arthur Fleck, played by the great Joaquin Phoenix, who once again consolidates himself as an actor of excellent quality, in addition to demonstrating his talent to his full potential.

In this movie, he interprets (as I mentioned lines above) a man in his forties named Arthur Fleck, a poor unhappy man and that life does not treat him at all well. To top it off, he suffers from a peculiar disorder: he laughs uncontrollably when he suffers certain levels of stress and / or anguish. Basically, when he laughs, it is when he ironicly manifests his pain and suffering. And certainly, in the scenes where he laughs that way, it is where Phoenix's acting quality is most noticeable, since while he laughs, his face is disfigured in gestures of extreme bitterness and pain.

If there is something that the film does quite well, it is to explore the tormented psychology of the character, while offering a possible origin and reason why it became the iconic “crime clown” of Gothic City. Throughout the film, we see him resisting as much as he can the attacks and ill-treatment he suffers from a society that cannot and does not want to understand him; we see him slowly succumb to his madness and dark desires, pushed more than anything for days full of disappointment, bitterness and disinterest on the part of his fellow men. Thus, the film knows how to balance these two aspects that manage to give the character its own mythology, while paying a well-deserved tribute by taking certain elements of comics and stories that are already legendary in their own right.

Story: A story, which despite a somewhat slow pace, manages to keep the viewer's interest for about two hours. And it is not for less, since the history has been meticulously planned and well conceived and carried out. It's a story that doesn't bore you at all, and that really leaves you wanting more. It's funny, since, even long before the trailers, we all knew in advance that it would be a story of the character's origin, so we knew that eventually Arthur Fleck would become the Joker. What really left us intrigued and made us go to the movie theaters was the premise of seeing how he became the clown of crime, whose motives he had to let himself be carried away by his madness and had such a unique metamorphosis. Again, the film tells that story precisely and brutally.

And how to start a story with so much potential? Simple, through a scene, where we see Arthur make up as a clown to go out on another work day and while preparing, we see our protagonist break emotionally for a few moments, where he forces himself to smile and while he smiles he spills a Treacherous tear, shows palpable suffering that has to deal with daily and somehow manages to resist almost heroically. But reality and life constantly inflict wounds on his being.

Throughout history we see many evidence of this: we have that, while Arthur does his job, a band of brats steal a sign and Arthur pleadingly asks people for help, who ignores him in that dehumanized way and not according to that, the same band of brats beat him up.

Or how about the scene where one of his co-workers, Randall, gives him a gun so carelessly and that he lost his job - that despite everything, he loved - and his partner decided to wash his hands , before admitting his mistake?

We also have the case in which Arthur fervently tries to fulfill his dream of being a comedian and unfortunately not only does not succeed, but also Murray Franklin, his idol and role model openly mocks him.

But without a doubt, the hardest blow he suffered was when he learned that everything, ALL OF HIS LIFE, until now had been a lie. Finding out that he was adopted only to satisfy a narcissistic desire of his adoptive mother, that his own guardian allowed him to be abused in various ways and that his origin is completely uncertain create an emotional dent in him, since it has been given realize that his life - in his own words - has been a joke in its entirety. In my opinion, this is one of the most emotional and heartbreaking scenes of the film, since that is where we see Arthur laugh more uncontrollably than ever, while shedding tears and his gesture is of such extreme disappointment and pain, that one as a spectator, you can feel a total empathy with the character, despite knowing that he will become a murderous villain.

Another scene to highlight in the story, is when Arthur, already become the Joker, is featured in the show of his now former idol Murray. That is where The Joker, stopping to read for a few seconds a thought he wrote long ago ("I just hope my death makes more sense than my life"), is that he finally decides what he wants to do and what being he wants to become .

And is that previous scenes, Arthur is seen rehearsing his entrance and his act to the show, where we clearly see that he aimed to commit suicide in order to end his life so tragic.

In my opinion, when he reads those lines of his thought, he changes his mind and decides that he will now be forcefully heard and will do what he pleases and brings his own happiness and control of his life. It is also in this scene where there is a monologue that seems quite interesting to me, since Arthur rants against society that abandons not only the patients with mental disorders, but also the poor and the most needy people. It is, in its purest sense, a passionate speech, full of anger and resentment against society that, unconsciously, led him to become an executioner, now free from the bonds and ideas of good and bad with what society intended to retain him. And now the executioner intends to torture this society, which ironically now cries out for mercy when never had it in the first place with a human being like him.

Also in this scene is where the Joker gives another equally interesting speech, and it is that to some extent he is right in describing society as easily manipulable, since in his own words, that society was shocked by the death of the three Wayne business employees, without even knowing how they really were. Recall that behind the scenes, the three subjects were behaving like real patanes, harassing an innocent woman. In part, their deaths are brutal and to some extent an exaggerated punishment. But this must also be considered: at what point would these three have reached if Arthur had not been present? What limits would have been exceeded? An interesting reflection that gives a lot to think about.

Another point in favor of history, is that it not only focuses on the psychology and evolution of the main villain, but also manages to sustain, showing a dark side of society and especially the eternal struggle of social classes, especially The poor against the rich. Just remember that in the movie, these social classes make their position very clear: the rich condemn the crimes that they have done against them. The poor are full of joy for those acts that they consider pure and expeditious justice.

But…

Did it really happen everything that defined Arthur as the Joker?

Because in fact, in the same movie (and in various theories hanging around the internet) there are several clues that would confirm that the whole story we witnessed as spectators would be false. Some say that all their history is false and others maintain that only parts of it. And one might think that that little detail ruins the movie completely.

In this case, I would not think so.

And it is because of how the character is designed from the beginning. Basically the Joker is one of those characters who, as long as we knows less about his past, is much better, since it is part of his essence, being an entity of chaos whose origin is enigmatic and mysterious, a whole unknown. And if in truth his whole story is ambiguous or it didn't happen the way him told us, his past doesn't matter. What matters is precisely that we have been shown how his madness dragged him into becoming a criminal.

The story definitely gives a lot of fabric to cut from and is very worthy of analysis in many facets. The story, along with the characters - especially the protagonist - is the best of the film, and therefore it is a film that has no waste of seeing again and again.

Action and Visuals and special effects: Well ... where to start? Because if you ask me, I doubt that this film has been a great edition of special effects. I do not deny that I have one or another, but most of all the film is beautifully guided with the environments, the color palette and lights and especially a great script, so it is not necessary great effects. As for the action, the film has good sequences but they are very scarce and when they occur they are usually ephemeral. But do the film need action? Of course not, since it focuses on the character and his circumstances.

In conclusion, Joker, is a film very worth seeing and that has already become one of the best DC films, showing that in truth, when they want, they can achieve these wonderful results and that even overshadow their eternal rival Marvel. Therefore, I give this movie 4.5 out of 5 jokers. Beyond that, this film presents a new scheme that, if exploited in a good way, will create a genre in the superhero films: supervillain movies. And that is one of the greatest achievements of the film.

Definitely a highly recommended movie to watch and a very deserved achievement for DC and Warner. Hopefully they stay on this good path.

Greetings

Rankakiu

6 notes · View notes