#people act like we don't have direct access to the character's thoughts and try and fill in the blanks based on assumptions and vibes | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

natsthinkitythinkthinkthonk · 1 year

Text

Favourite (+ Least Fav) Female Seiyuu

Please check out the original post here!

This post will cover 3-4 on the original post. One thing I would like to say is that since this list is influenced largely by more recent roles that came out in the last decade or so, there are a lot of veterans missing from this list. I did try to mitigate this with one of the other questions.

While the ranking is based off of purely my personal opinion, I thought I would state some factors that go into the ranking.

Voice acting ability: This is pretty standard. You know what to expect here. Performance is a key factor here. If they can act well and convince me of the character they're playing, then I consider it a good performance. Range is another lesser component. If I feel like they have incredible range in terms of their voice and emotion, that also comes into play.

Sentimentality: This is very subjective. This takes into account things such as access to good to roles and the impact of those roles which largely depend on how good the show is and how strong the writing is. Voice actors can try their best and give really good performance, but if the production, writing, art, or directing isn't good, it can all amount to close to nothing through no fault of the artists involved.

Musical ability: These days, voice actors are expected to sing with few exceptions (Akira Ishida is an exception, for example).

Voice: Yeah, if I like their voice, it boosts them up the list because it's a voice acting list. It has nothing to do with their voice acting ability. Although, range can help this a lot.

Personality: Although it doesn't really have anything to do with any of the other categories, personality that is shown through shows, events, and radio do play a small part in this because seiyuu are ultimately entertainers. These days, they are expected to be the whole package.

I will include a gif of a role that I liked (recent roles are prioritized) for the top ten.

Least Favourite Female Seiyuu

Just like the male-counterpart, I definitely don't have a least favourite female seiyuu based on acting ability, but I do have seiyuu that I just don't like their voice. However, this has negligible interference with my enjoyment of the show. Plus, I don't fault actors or actresses for playing bad roles if I can help it. Off the top of my head, I don't really like Satomi Arai or Yukari Tamura since they are usually typecast in roles that I don't really like (loli archetype). Besides that, usually voice actresses have at least one or two other roles that break their usual typecast that I've seen.

Favourite Female Seiyuu (TOP TEN)

HONOURABLE MENTIONS:

These seiyuu are really good. I just ran out of spaces in the top ten. I also ran out of spaces in the honourable mentions spot. Just like the previous counterpart, the ordering changes really frequently so don't pay too much attention to that (except the top two which seem to remain consistent).

Mariya Ise

The duality and range of her voice is really cool. I think she's mostly on here because of Killua (which is funny since I never finishes HxH) and Ray (we don't talk about The Promised Neverland Season 2). Also, can we just mention how strong she is carrying her career while being a single mom? Some people in Discord were expressing disappointment with/at her, but I think she's doing great from what I can see. Also, I can't wait to hear more from Himeno in Chainsaw Man. From what I hear so far, she's really good.

Atsumi Tanezaki

I got the completely wrong impression about her voice acting after watching Zankyou no Terror and Mahoutsukai no Yome. Since both of those characters were relatively flat, I interpreted her performance as flat as well. However, after seeing her as Satowa in Kono Oto Tomare, Vivy, and most recently as Anya Forger, I realized, I was so fricking wrong.

Aki Toyosaki

I recently finished that Cautious Hero anime, and let's just say, I was not expecting her to go that hard voicing basically blonde Aqua. She did it really well, and she practically carried the show on her back. I get that she's usually known for cutesy roles, but I think she should start getting more casting to play really mature characters like in Re:Creators. I think she sounded great there (not that I ever finished the anime after it put me to sleep every time Inori Minase dropped an exposition rant).

Ayane Sakura

Ayaneru is incredibly talented. She got some hate for playing Gabi from Attack on Titan and Mika from Psycho-Pass 2 because those characters were hated, but ironically, I think that just means her performances made those characters exactly what they were meant to be. I haven't watched either, but I really like her performances in Non Non Biyori (which I also haven't finished), Hero Academia, Hotarubi no Mori e, Gotoubun no Hanayome, and Kakushigoto. I know Kakushigoto wasn't a main role, but she was funny whenever her character had a moment to be. Her chemistry with Kouki Uchiyama is also really endearing, and I would like to see her and Kensho Ono interact considering how much she loves Kana Hanazawa.

Rie Kugimiya

It's funny because a lot of my lists are missing the good veteran voice actors who carried a lot of the series that I first watched. Yet she's the only one that made it onto my new list (mostly because I wanted to shuffle in more of the newer roles I've seen). She was my preferred performance as Kotaro from Kotaro Lives Alone on Netflix (which you should watch); I watched the show both subbed and dubbed, and while both performances were great, I found myself preferring Rie Kugimiya's version. It's hard to explain why. Rie Kugimiya is also behind some of my favourite older roles like Alphonse Elric from Fullmetal Alchemist, Kagura from Gintama, and Taiga from Toradora.

Sora Amamiya

I could not believe that I had ten voice actresses that I liked more than Ten-chan. But this is how the ranking turned out when I was making it. I really liked her performance as Chizuru from Rent-a-Girlfriend which was one of the only things that carried this show (because it sure wasn't the writing). I prefer her more badass role rather than her cutesy ones like Akame from Akame Ga Kill (who should've been the MC instead of Tatsumi, my 13-year-old self says) and Touka from Tokyo Ghoul. I'm also a fan of TrySail which is the idol group with her, Momo Asakura, and Shiina Natsukawa.

10. Ai Kayano

I honestly haven't watched a lot of her recent roles or some of her most popular ones (I could not sit through Konosuba, Saenai Heroine, or Guilty Crown). However, I watched Anohana and Sakurasou, and those were great. She also had a really entertaining run with Matsuoka since they've co-starred so many times together (seriously, so many). She seems to have a really nice and caring personality. Oh yeah, my friend also recommended that I watch Maquia because it's supposed to make me cry. We'll wait and see.

9. Rie Takahashi

Now, this is one I didn't expect since she wasn't even in my honourable mentions, but I've seen her in a lot of things lately, and I'm pretty sure the roles I've seen her in aren't even her most notable ones with those being Takagi-san and Megumin from Konosuba. Despite that, she made Romantic Killer such a blast, and she's fun to watch in a lot of the events she's in too. There's a seiyuu subber named LegoF who subtitled a lot of her content, but he got taken down. However, he resurrected. I highly recommend Romantic Killer, by the way.

8. Maaya Uchida

I found out about Maaya Uchida way before I found out about her little brother. In fact, when I started watching anime, his career hadn't really taken off yet. Maaya Uchida was the heroine in one of the first anime I'd watched when I was an early teen which was Noragami, and I later watched her breakout role in Chuunibyou as Rikka, and I really enjoyed that one too! When I heard her as Norman in The Promised Neverland, I couldn't believe it was the same person and had to check the cast list. Now, she also plays one of my favourite reverse harem protagonists, Bakarina (Catarina) Claes. She's a ton of fun to watch in the events she's in, and her dynamic with Yuuma is what you'd expect. I like some of her songs too (which are available on Spotify)

7. Asami Seto

Man, I can't wait to finish watching Chihayafuru and Wandering Son. I swear, I'll get around to those eventually. I would've actually preferred her voice as Hori in Horimiya, but I think the cast that was chosen still did a really good job. Regardless, I really like her as Nobara in Jujutsu Kaisen and Mai in Seishun Buta Yarou. Honestly, the ordering of this list doesn't mean all that much because it switched so often (except for the top two).

6. Saori Hayami

I really like her voice, but she's been in so much stuff lately that it almost feels the same way as I do with Yuuichi Nakamura. There is a little bit of over-saturation, but it's not any fault of the voice actor. I watched Akagami no Shirayuki-hime and really liked it. After that, I was drawn to Yamada-kun to 7-nin Majo where she played the main girl Shiraishi, I ended up liking that too. Her portrayal when switching character to character was astounding. She has a ton of other amazing roles too, and her most recent ones that stick out to me are Shinobu from Demon Slayer and Yor from Spy x Family. I expect some really good stuff to come out of Demon Slayer considering how Shinobu's character progresses. I won't spoil.

5. Kana Hanazawa

I know some people are a little bit upset about how she hasn't gotten as many roles lately, and there's always the crowd that says that "that's what it means to be part of the industry", but Kana's impact on one of the most pivotal eras of anime will forever leave a mark, and I mean it, she was one of the first idol seiyuu I saw, and she is really good at her job. She made Deadman Wonderland a lot of fun, and she played the best girl in Nisekoi (will never forget how dirty the manga did her). She also stuck out as some nasty villains in Akame Ga Kill and Tokyo Ghoul. While writing this, I was also reminded that she plays Ichika who isn't a "villain" per se, but everyone in that fandom sure makes her out to be one. I still like that role, and I think she convinced me so well that she played the older sister that I forgot it was her.

4. Haruka Tomatsu

She played the heroine in the first anime I watched (in subs)! And I'll be honest, I get why people call that heroine a bit bland, but I don't care, I like her all the same. Morgiana is fricking tough and badass. I will wait for a Magi season 3. I believe in it. I will go fricking watch it on Netflix again if it means we get the rest of the manga adapted. She was so much fun to watch in Horimiya too! She made so many of the funny bits, and she made me feel like I was watching a teen romcom (I was) despite being probably pregnant at the time (which is why she couldn't do some of the Horimiya events). I enjoy some of her music too, especially Sphere.

3. Mikako Komatsu

This one was the result that surprised me the most, but the reasoning is similar to that of Rie Takahashi's placement. Both of them were really good in Romantic Killer, and Mikakoshi's range never ceases to amaze me. I think my favourite recent role from her is Riri from Romantic Killer and Maki from Jujutsu Kaisen which are just the absolute opposite of roles. Even her music has polar opposites. I listened to the ending theme of Romantic Killer right after listening to "Maybe The Next Waltz" and got whiplash so hard. Also, congrats to her and Maeno! Pretty much all of the seiyuu I watched when I got into anime are now becoming parents, and I really don't know how to feel about that.

2. Maaya Sakamoto

My opinion on this one hasn't changed, and I still stand by the fact that Maaya Sakamoto is one of the best seiyuu singers out there, and I respect her singing a lot. She even has some musical theatre experience! Her voice acting range is incredible, and I was so happy when I found out that her and Kenichi Suzumura had their first child! Even though I haven't watched all of her titular roles, I really like what I have seen, and it's enough for me to put it this high on the list. Also, I'm really looking forward to hearing her and Rie Takahashi when I get around to watching Re:Zero Season 2.

1. Miyuki Sawashiro

Since my opinion about her really hasn't changed all that much, I will just put pretty much the same entry as last time. I watched a radio segment with her and her brother. She sounds like an awesome older sister. Bishamon is honestly such a caring epic goddess who takes in people because she wants to care for them. She is a respectable goddess who is one of my favourite Noragami characters. Celty is a mysterious biker who is also really cool. Even though she barely speaks literally in Durarara, Miyuki reads her texts perfectly. If I'm going to continue watching Durarara, it's gonna be for Celty. The quest to find what she has been missing is one of my favourite sides of the story. Seo from Gekkan Shoujo is an inspiration who I love to this day. She’s one of my favourite characters, and I always rewatch her scenes. I love her voice and her singing. She speaks English and plays the piano too. I can’t even express in words how much respect I have for her. I would love to meet her someday. Also, I want another season of both Noragami and Gekkan Shoujo. There's more than enough people who want to watch those. Come on.

#seiyuu #30 questions about seiyuu #sawashiro miyuki #sakamoto maaya #uchida maaya #tomatsu haruka #komatsu mikako #hanazawa kana #hayami saori #takahashi rie #kayano ai #kugimiya rie #seto asami #amamiya sora #toyosaki aki

4 notes · View notes

whiskeyglassess · 1 month

Text

I don't know how I feel about GNF, but imo they both were in the wrong. (However, I'm more on cacti side.) Cacti lied about her age with the wrist band. But, GNF also should have known to ask about her age either way. I understand they were both drunk, but still. It's common to ask for ages either way. (that and cacti looks younger than she is.)

(However it's wild to me that vidcon even gave her a band to begin with.)

George sexually assaulted cacti there's no sugarcoating that. Even if they were cuddling before hand. Asking consent is a major part of doing anything.

Acting happy or comfortable with the S@er can happen. Especially since in the vod Cacti stated that they thought they were lucky for being S@ by a popular creator.

Do I think George knew he S@ cacti? No, they were both drunk and George clearly didn't understand what he was doing was wrong. However, it was S@. And it has clearly affected Cacti in a way that it was negative and has really messed her up.

Another big thing I seen is people claiming that she isn't a victim because she went back to George. Which isn't true??

Victims of s@ sometimes feel attached or connected to their s@er. Or outright deny that thing has happened. It common for victims to go back to their abusers. Stating that people aren't victims for being friendly with their abuser is wild too. It takes time to process. Especially if it was someone who is in a higher position than you. It might be hard to believe, but a lot of victims of Gr00ming, abuse, and S@ can have a tendency of running back to their abuser. It can be for validation, or anything else. its common for victims to run back to their abusers for any type of validation, even if the validation is the previous abuse they received.

Do not claim someone isn't a victim because they went back to their abuser. This entire situation itself resolves on miscommunication, this is more of a he said, she said, situation.

IMO this should have been handled privately and or in court. I wish caiti the best in luck for healing for the future.

EDIT:

Also, being in a relationship with sm1 and not doing verbal consent is different from just meeting sm1 and going to sexually touching after cuddling for half an hour.

I see soo many people blaming his FORMER fanbase (because so many of us are leaving) and it’s like … no?? so many of us started watching him when we were young and we were manipulated by this facade that he put on and showed to us. you can’t blame us for liking him. you can’t blame us for supporting him. how could we have known? we don’t have access to his personal life, we aren’t there with him 24/7. without direct access to someone's personal life and experiences, it is so difficult to discern the authenticity of their public persona. people often present this carefully crafted image to the public, which may not reflect their true character or behavior behind closed doors. therefore, it's totally understandable that individuals who follow them may not have been able to see through the facade or detect any potential red flags !!! we were pawns in his game and we lost. so don’t blame us. we are just as hurt as everyone else but we are being treated like scum??

psychologically speaking, starting to follow someone at a young age can make us more susceptible to manipulation because our critical thinking skills and judgment are still developing. we may be more impressionable and trusting, making it easier for people to sway our opinions and actions and manipulate us.

In conclusion, instead of trying to break us down, go and support caiti. this is about her. this is caiti’s trauma. this is her path to healing. this is about caiti.

without a doubt, my perspective firmly supports Caiti's account and clearly acknowledging the profound trauma she endured in a situation where her consent was clearly violated through unwanted physical contact. and I am sure this experience has undoubtedly left a lasting and profound impact on her well-being.

the problem is that both GNF and Caiti were in a state of intoxication, rendering them unable to give consent. and the complexity arises from the lack of verbal communication from EITHER party about the events that transpired during that time. GNF never verbally spoke about what was going on that moment and neither did she. I believe that GNF should’ve asked anything, clarified her age, her identity, anything. this was during the grooming allegations and especially in this time he should have been careful.

I also fully believe that it appears there may have been a misunderstanding on Caiti's part regarding the mere nature of the gathering and its implications for her career advancement or anything like that. while the initial intention was simply for friends and friends of friends to come together, enjoy drinks, play games, and have a good time, Caiti may have mistakenly interpreted the situation as an opportunity to further her professional prospects and this misinterpretation from her side could have contributed to her actions and subsequent feelings of pressure or obligation. she thought she had to endure this to meet big CC like him.

also, while GNF himself may not have verbally expressed consent to spooning, WE can imply he did and why? because of the presence of nonverbal clues. Caiti's perception of HIS nonverbal cues may have led HER to believe that he was receptive to her actions and that HE welcomed the physical contact. this might have lead her to believe leaving this situation would bruise his ego and co. so in this case, both of them are at fault for assuming, believing.

talking about nonverbal consent; for me it's crucial to acknowledge the significance of nonverbal consent. nonverbal cues can play a vital role in understanding and respecting boundaries, especially in situations where verbal communication may be inhibited or unclear. dismissing the importance of nonverbal consent is dangerous.

in addition, to me it is very very plausible to consider that handling the situation privately could have led to a more constructive and definite resolution. Caiti's decision to walk GNF to the elevator without escalating the situation implied that CLEAR communication and boundaries were respected at THAT moment. so perhaps, if she had expressed her discomfort while they were cuddling, it's maybe reasonable to assume that GNF would have likely responded by respecting her boundaries. but we will never know.

I also obviously agree that GNF should have asked for permission for everything !!! but like … would that have changed anything?

"I wasn't gonna push him off infront of everyone."

" if I were to move, that would be an obvious hit to his ego to him."

-> so to me it seems possible that clear communication about comfort levels could have led to the same outcome. it is possible that in hindsight, Caiti might have felt pressured to say yes even if she wasn't comfortable, especially if she perceived GNF's expectations or felt reluctant to disappoint him.

furthermore, Caiti desperately needs new friends. they brought her, a 18 year old who technically can’t even drink to a party where they knew everyone would drink and they ditched her there. they see her (18) cuddling with GNF (28? or 26 at the time) and they think it’s weird and message her about it THE NEXT DAY but don’t do anything in the moment ?? that’s insane. if you are friends, you should know her body language, you should know she feels uncomfortable. you should know to remove her from this situation. it is so clearly and evident that there was a lack of proactive measures for harm reduction in this situation. I can’t say this enough but it's ESSENTIAL for friends to prioritize each other's safety and well-being. therefore accountably extends to all individuals who are adults capable of making informed decisions about their own actions and surroundings. if this isn’t a red flag then you’re as colorblind as GNF.

also in my opinion, it's inappropriate for Caiti's friends to speak out about the situation before Caiti herself has had the chance to fully share her side of the story. their actions could potentially undermine Caiti's credibility and autonomy, especially if their statements contradict hers — which is happening.

this kind of “interference” (is that how you call it?) just add this really unnecessary complexity and distress to an already sensitive situation. her friends should respect Caiti's privacy and give her the space and support she needs to express herself ON HER OWN terms. I mean, her best friend said CAITI misspoke. but how would Caiti have misspoke when she wrote it down herself? I firmly believe her friend is trying to save face. also, the specificity with which she denies drinking at the party to me suggests she may be trying to distance herself from any implication of supplying alcohol to an underage individual at an official event. she is attempting to safeguard her reputation, but this is throwing CAITI under the bus.

Lastly, it is so so so so so incredibly frustrating that there was a lack of communication surrounding this situation, especially considering that Dream was actively seeking clarification and understanding about why people were upset with him. regardless of personal feelings towards him, it's fucking essential to prioritize open and honest communication. the failure to do so only adds fuel to the confusion and frustration surrounding the incident. the British group of friends involved in this scenario don’t care about anything, they’re such jokes. despicable people who don’t care about anything unless it benefits them. have you seen ANY Any any ANY and I repeat ANY of them talk about the new victim who came out and said none of them supported her when she was SAed? says so much about them. idk what im more mad about. the story constantly changing, things being omitted and added later for no apparent reason, the flowery language used to make it seem worse than it actually was and paint the people involved as villains. the way this was handled just feels like a massive smear campaign to bring people down rather than uplift victims. and yet the damage done was insane, like the severity of doxxing, dts and slurs thrown at dteam AND their literal families who had nothing to do with this??? and the thousands of fans whose mental health was ruined for two whole weeks over this, people literally feeling suicidal because you unnecessarily scared them into thinking someone they admired and found comfort in was a rapist and SAer when that’s absolutely not what happened. especially the fans who are victims themselves, triggering them and terrifying them into thinking that their favs are like their abusers, when they’re not! hope it was worth it!!!

none of you know what's going on. None of you understand why so many women and young streamers are stepping forward right now. None of you understand why this has to be public.

Multiple large streamers have used their fame, influence, and money to manipulate and abuse those they see as below them. So long as they continue to have fame, influence, and money, this cycle will not end.

This is bigger than just individual cases of sexual assault or other abuse. This is a break down of a much larger problem within the entertainment industry.

These women are telling stories about very powerful men in this space. They are sharing stories of abuse and manipulation. This is very scary for them—it could ruin their careers or lives.

Stop saying "they should have handled this privately." This isn't a private matter. So long as these men have power, they will hurt more women. They aren't sorry. They won't play fair.

By trying to stay silent and bury these accusations, you are ensuring these women never know peace. You are ensuring that more women get hurt.

One day your boss will assault you, and all the men in your life will blame you for waiting as long as you did to speak about it. They will find any reason to blame you. They don't want to get rid of your boss. They hope that one day, they can assault a woman just like you.

This is fucking serious. This is real life. This isn't just some fucking fandom drama that we can bury and move on from. These are real life issues that require real meaningful discussion.

Stop trying to discredit these women just because your streamer is in trouble. You are part of the fucking problem.

This entire conversation should not have happened publicly.

It was clear from Caiti's initial post that there was a breakdown in communication rather than any "assault" or "molestation." In her own testimony, she never described explicitly stating no, nor giving any indication besides "getting up" to stop the attention (which was later disproved).

That does not mean she wasn't uncomfortable. That does not mean she was not hurt by George's actions. It also does not mean George is a molester because of it.

From Caiti and George's statements, it is clear that this took place over a couple of hours (3-4), and besides the texting afterward, there were no further physical interactions between them. To use a single incident to describe George's behavior is a stretch at best and downright misinformation at worst. In the Wilbur situation, the violations of Shelby's boundaries happened over months with repeated attempts to tell him to stop.

In George's situation, it happened over four hours, in which there were no explicit tells to stop.

That said, I do hope George takes this incident and rethinks his behavior with strangers. Even if it should not be described as molesting, it still hurt Caiti, and if I were him, I would make strides to not repeat the mistakes made here.

Moreover, I think that some parties involved should not have been. Some individuals used the volatile situation to spread their own hate toward the Dream Team. They used Caiti's story to push their own agenda, which, in no way, is supporting a victim. Her friends should have helped her find closure by seeking reconciliation from her "abuser;" instead, they made the situation a public massacre where she would most likely be harassed after already feeling vulnerable.

My hope is that, behind the scenes, the two will talk about what happened and try to find peace. George clearly did not know he hurt Caiti, and he apologized for making her feel uncomfortable. That does not make him a villain: it makes him a person who made a mistake.

The moral of this whole fiasco is not to support or not support victims. Support can be weaponized for personal gain, and to support blindly is almost as bad as not supporting at all.

Instead, we need to listen. From the beginning, Caiti's story was a plea for an apology from George, and all she needed was George's apology (which she received). She did not need people calling him an abuser, she did not need her friends to utilize her pain to attack George's friend Dream, and she did not need people to pry into both her and George's life for answers.

All of this could, and should, have happened off-screen where the two parties could reconcile and heal.

To Caiti: I wish this had not happened to you. I am sorry you are in pain, and I am sorry your friends used your pain for their gain. I hope you find peace from George's apology, and if you do not, I hope you find peace in life.

To George: I wish this did not happen in the public light. Your mistake did not need to be publicized and scrutinized and instead should have been between you and Caiti. I hope you will help Caiti find peace, and if she does not want it, I hope you grow as a person and do not make this mistake again.

As of right now, this blog will remain positive about the Dream Team. I probably will not be supporting George enthusiastically right now (since I want to be certain this isn't a repetitive behavior and just one incident). However, I will be happy to talk about any fandom content regarding him and the other members.

It has been a rough few days, and I am grateful for the lovely positivity we created between my anons and followers. I give you all many squishes of happiness. Thank you for being kind.

Now, let us all move on to a better and brighter future in this fandom. We have a lot of content coming up, and I'm very excited. Feel free to send any asks regarding the situation; I would love to read your opinions.

TL;DR This conversation should have happened off-camera. Caiti's story should not have been used for clout, and George should not have been attacked for clout. Both need to heal off-camera, and we should support that.

Why wouldn't dream share the screenshots? It's a conversation he was in as well, is that not his right? George is being called a rapist and a predator that knowingly invited 18 year olds to get them drunk enough to grope, I think it's very important to show that that wasn't the case at all!

The more I think about it the more frustrated I get. None of this online backlash needed to happen and honestly I hope everyone thinks about this in depth because it's so ridiculous that it's being talked about as if he's the mcyt Harvey Weinstein and not a person who couldn't read the mind of someone who, by her own admission, actively hid her discomfort from him and signaled that she was okay with something that she really wasn't.

And like it's fine that she acted the way she did and later realized her discomfort, and it's a shame that George didn't explicitly ask, but I wonder if he had asked if she'd honestly answer. She said that she returned to cuddle him because she was worried about bruising his ego. Would she have thought that saying no in the presence of everyone else would've bruised his ego as well? Would we be in the same situation if he asked, she lied and said yes, and later regretted it and came out with the same story?

I don't know. It's all bizarre and sad and I have to assume that a lot of the fluff around this is because it's against a member of the dream team and not because they're genuinely upset that someone felt uncomfortable. Wilbur is objectively worse, but people moved on to target George and apply the same feelings they had about Wilbur to George when their situations are not at all applicable

the thing that's killing me is that caiti has made it known she's experienced certain things that make her really deeply understand the different things women go through and experience at the hands of men and she's always made it really clear she stands with and supports victims and everything and she was so supportive after shelby shared her story and she went live to talk about how she supports caiti and has been tweeting pretty much nonstop about like the treatment of women and victims and on and on just to turn around and be playing with punz who made private personal information public for the sake of attempting to save face after his girlfriend accused him of disgusting behavior while she was too drunk to say no or even remember it like date who you want hang out with who you want but don't sit there for hours every day acting like the number one supporter of women slash victims everywhere just to pull that like hello . its so hypocritical i can't even breathe like what the fuck are we doing

"They were both drunk" who initiated sexual touche on a girl 8 years younger than him? Personnally when I drink I don't start touching young people without their consent. And if anything like that ever were to almost happen? I would stop fucking drinking.

Dont use alcohool to put the blame on the victim or say the agressor is innocent. Don't say the touch wasn't sexual when even George recognise it. Don't say caiti shouldn't have spoke out, because it's not your fucking decision.

SILENCE BENEFITS THE AGRESSOR NOT THE VICTIM. SMILING DOENST MEAN CONSENT, DRINKING DOESNT MEAN CONSENT.

If he did touch her chest—don't say anything at all and let his previous statement cover it which it adequately does already, or, issue a very short, vague, written apology (someone on reddit had a good phrase: "I apologise for the things I did and don't apologise for the things I didn't"). Under no circumstances should he try to explain himself about this, explain it was just a graze if it was, or ever mention himself in the context of her chest at all, because people will run away with it.

If he didn't touch her chest—issue a short vague written statement, ideally like the above, which clears his name and curtails further discussion, and mentions no ill will and a desire to move on. (I feel this last part is important because most people resonate with that rather than with Caiti's desire for continuation and will thus be more sympathetic to him.) I have seen many people say that he should not respond at all, but to me that feels unfinished—at the very least I feel he should have the final word.

In both cases, the less said, the better. but Y'all really out here, preaching "support victims" "believe victims" until its your uwu soft white boy cc, then find any stupid ass reason NOT to believe.

1 note · View note

iamthenightcolormeblack · 3 years

Text

My Thoughts on Pride & Prejudice 2005: Style over Substance

Kicking off my Pride and Prejudice adaptation review series with the most popular of all the adaptations: the 2005 movie. This film stars Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet and Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy.

1. GENERAL THINGS I LIKED

The cinematography and the soundtrack. Every shot is a painting, especially with the gorgeous landscape scenery. The music is beautiful and dreamy; I have listened to the soundtrack more times than I've watched the film. Both the cinematography and the soundtrack effectively transport the viewer back to the film's romanticized version of "the past," when life was simpler and people lived slower lives, waiting for their Mr. Darcy to sweep them off their feet.

Originality. The film takes a unique approach to the story by focusing mainly on the romance between Darcy and Elizabeth and emphasizing how the natural surroundings reflect the characters' mental state/emotions (pouring rain during the first proposal and stormy skies when Elizabeth hurries home after Lydia runs away). Though one can disagree with the creative changes made, I like how this film isn't just a remake of what came before it.

Elizabeth's walks through the countryside. The film expresses her desire for freedom through her countryside walks. For instance, the Netherfield walk is shocking to Caroline Bingley because it demonstrates Elizabeth's independence.

The comedic parts are great thanks to the creative additions made. For example, the "excellent boiled potatoes" joke isn't in the book, but it perfectly exemplifies Mr. Collins' poor social skills and pretentiousness, as he tries to make an overly formal comment about an otherwise mundane dish.

2. THE CASTING

The acting is good, although I don't always agree with how the characters are portrayed.

Keira Knightley. I like how she's the right age for Elizabeth, who is around 20-21 years old; Knightley was around 19-20 when she played Elizabeth, plus she has gorgeous eyes. She perfectly conveys the pride, confidence, and biting wit of Elizabeth, as she holds her head high in an imperious manner and has a direct, piercing gaze. However, I don't like how this version chooses to simplify Elizabeth's character into that of "free-spirited nonconformist tomboy," who is a nature-lover and runs to the countryside to console herself when things get tough (ex. running to the lake after rejecting Mr. Collins). This is a contrast to the Elizabeth Bennet as presented to us in the book, who acts like a typical "lady" for the sake of her social reputation; she mostly keeps her thoughts to herself except when talking to Jane or Darcy. Elizabeth is powerful not because she rejects society outright; it is because she does not submit to societal pressure to marry and makes her own choices (ex. rejecting Mr. Collins).

Matthew Macfadyen. His Darcy is cold, aloof, and remote, yet shows signs of a rich inner life and unrequited yearning for Elizabeth as a soulmate. I like how this version shows Elizabeth peeling away his cold exterior like the layers of an onion, until his heart of gold is revealed. While I think Macfadyen is a good actor, I disagree with the interpretation of Darcy solely being a lonely introvert, as it neglects his primary character flaw of pride.

Tom Hollander's Mr. Collins. Probably the best casting, as he perfectly portrays the bumbling awkwardness of the character and is more sympathetic than the gross Mr. Collins in the 1995 BBC miniseries. He is short, has a nasally voice and officious manner that makes him annoying yet fun to watch.

Simon Woods as Mr. Bingley. He's so friendly and eager to please, like the character is in the book.

Rosamund Pike's Jane Bennet. Utterly angelic and motherly, need I say more? The perfect antidote to Elizabeth's savagery.

Rupert Friend's Mr. Wickham. Handsome and dashing in a red soldier's uniform. It's easy to see how a girl would fall for him and ignore his debauchery, but also obvious that he is deceptive. For instance, he keeps claiming that he is insignificant and unnoticed, when he basks in the attention of Elizabeth, Kitty and Lydia.

3. OVERALL CHARACTER AND PLOT DEVELOPMENT

Since this is a movie, character development is a challenge, and the film relies on changes of outward appearance/dialogue to show character growth. For instance, we get to see Darcy's change from cold and remote into warm and loving, while Elizabeth admits that "she was wrong" about Darcy and slowly comes to respect him.

The first half (beginning to Darcy's proposal) is great because it effectively introduces the audience to the cast of characters (the family, Darcy, Bingley, Caroline, Wickham, and Mr. Collins). It also contains all the comedic parts and sets up the conflicts that drive the story. Overall, this half is more faithful to the novel because it has the social satire aspects of the story and sticks to the key plot points while developing the characters.

The second half is rather lackluster compared to the first because it focuses solely on resolving the plot points introduced in the first half. This part of the book contains important events for Elizabeth's character development (getting the letter, visiting Pemberley, dealing with the fallout from Lydia's elopement), but the film rushes through them to get Elizabeth and Darcy married. Instead of focusing on how Elizabeth overcomes her prejudice of Darcy and starts to love him, the film relies on aesthetic shots of flickering candles/landscapes to serve as quick transitions between the scenes. Though we have plenty of evidence that Darcy loves Elizabeth, we don't see much evidence that the love is mutual until the second proposal, only that Elizabeth starts to see him as a friend.

Another reason I don't like the second half of the film as much as the first half is the reduced dialogue. This second half has a lot of quiet moments devoted to nature scenery/Elizabeth staring in the mirror. Reducing the dialogue, with the exception of the letter scene, doesn't make sense because the plot/action of Pride and Prejudice is furthered through the conversations the characters have (after all, wealthy Regency women likely spent much time indoors/making social calls). While one can argue that the reduced dialogue is meant to show that Elizabeth is reflecting on her mistaken prejudice, without access to Elizabeth's interior thoughts, the audience doesn't get to see Elizabeth actively confronting her false assumptions about Darcy, unlike in the book, where she says out loud to herself: "Until this moment, I never knew myself."

Notable Scenes From the First Half of the Film:

The opening scene. It sets the tone for the whole movie with the beginning shot of a field at dawn, which ties in nicely with the second proposal scene near the end. By presenting Elizabeth by herself reading a book, it communicates to the audience that Elizabeth is "not like other girls," and it shows the imperfect, yet loving family dynamics of the Bennet household.

Elizabeth roasting Darcy after he dismisses her as "tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me." During a conversation the Bennet family has with Darcy and Bingley, Mrs. Bennet commits a social gaffe when talking about Jane's many admirers and how one sent her poetry. Elizabeth saves the situation by commenting that bad poetry can kill love, and Darcy comments that he regards poetry as "the food of love" and asks how to "encourage affection." I like that the film included this little exchange from the book (although it takes place while Elizabeth is visiting a sick Jane at Netherfield, and not during the first ball), since it was skipped over in the 1995 miniseries. The best part is Elizabeth's sick burn: "Dancing. Even if one's partner is barely tolerable," which is made even better when she walks away from him with a triumphant smile on her face.

The famous Hand Flex. After Darcy helps Elizabeth into the carriage (by holding her hand) so she and Jane can head back home, he glances longingly at her before wringing the hand with which he touched hers. It's an important hint of his growing love for her, as well as his struggle to repress those feelings. This is a wonderful bit of character development as it reveals that Darcy has a heart.

Mr. Collins having a meal with the Bennet family. The awkwardness is palpable as Mr. Collins tries to show off his social skills and give pro tips on charming ladies. This is all topped off with this amazing comedic joke: "These are excellent boiled potatoes. Many years since I've had such an exemplary vegetable." Another brilliant bit: after Lydia cannot contain her laughter, Lizzy, after giving her father a mischievous side-eye, slaps Lydia on the back to hide her laughter. Best line besides the excellent boiled potatoes: "Believe me, no one would suspect your manners to be rehearsed."

The Netherfield Ball dance between Darcy and Elizabeth. It is staged like a clash of personalities in the beginning, while the creative filming technique of separating the couple apart from the crowd of dancers foreshadows the budding relationship between them. I also like how sarcastic the dialogue is--Elizabeth is trying to win a battle of wits with Darcy but he successfully avoids her traps while reminding her that she doesn't truly know him and cannot make judgements about his personality.

Mr. Collins trying to introduce himself to Darcy. It's so comical because of the significant height difference between Mr. Collins and Mr. Darcy (Collins is dwarfed by Darcy). The height difference effectively represents the significant difference in social status between the two men and makes Collins, with his pomposity, look ridiculous as he fancies himself part of the nobility but cannot properly introduce himself.

Mr. Collins' proposal--one of the funniest scenes in the movie. Mr. Collins clumsily tries to flatter Elizabeth with a tiny flower, and it gets even funnier when he so obviously misreads Elizabeth's disinterest and outright exasperation (he doesn't understand that no means no!). After Mr. Collins bends down on one knee to propose to Elizabeth, the film emphasizes Elizabeth's towering presence over Collins to show that the two are a mismatch. The fact that the proposal takes place in the messy dining room reflects Collins' view of marriage as a business matter that he wants to get done with quickly, since the location of the proposal is not very romantic.

Elizabeth roasting Darcy yet again at Rosings Park. Elizabeth eagerly recounts to Colonel Fitzwilliam Darcy's impolite manners at the first ball; Darcy confesses that "I do not have the talent of conversing easily with people I have never met before." I like how the nervous and quiet delivery of that line shows to the audience that Darcy is an introvert, and it shows that he's an honest person, since he abhors "disguise of every sort." The scene effectively highlights Elizabeth's prejudice towards Darcy as the audience feels pity for him when Elizabeth tells him to practice.

"This is a charming house." During this scene, Darcy visits Elizabeth while she is alone and awkwardly attempts to make conversation with her. Macfadyen is a master of body language; Darcy says little but expresses a lot (ex. the nervous fiddling with his gloves). He tries to express his feelings for Elizabeth but gives up and abruptly walks out of the room.

The first proposal. What a climactic scene (but not very faithful to the book)! The music, thunder, and rain perfectly complement the volcano of emotions that erupts when Darcy cannot repress his feelings any longer. This scene has some of the best sexual tension ever; the two get closer to each other until they almost kiss. While this scene is great to an objective viewer, I don't like that the modified dialogue changes the original meaning of this scene (more about this later).

The letter. Elizabeth has a moment of introspection when she is forced to question her judgment, and Darcy delivers his letter. I like the shot of Darcy riding farther and farther away from Elizabeth, signaling that he is becoming increasingly out of her reach.

Notable Scenes from the Second Half of the Film:

Aunt and Uncle Gardiner arrive right after Elizabeth comes back from Rosings and they take her away to a vacation. I didn't like how they were introduced too quickly; I was thinking to myself "how did they get there and where did they come from?" Luckily we are treated to more glorious shots of the English countryside (the one with them under a large oak tree is my favorite).

Visiting Pemberley. I was puzzled by why Elizabeth laughs as soon as she sees Pemberley for the first time because in the book she was in complete awe of it. Also it doesn't make sense why she would touch his expensive stuff it's not her house...or is it? The good thing is that the embarrassment the two have upon meeting each other again is definitely palpable. Georgiana is sweet, but a little less shy than she was in the book.

Darcy smiles! After introducing Georgiana to Elizabeth, he smiles for a brief time at Elizabeth, and she smiles back. It's a great moment showing how Elizabeth has drawn out his goodness, and indicates that Darcy has transformed for Elizabeth. She also starts seeing him as a friend and her prejudice against him seems to have reversed in this moment of mutual recognition.

Lydia's elopement. Keira Knightley's fake cry was off-putting. Then Darcy only talks to her for a little bit and doesn't help her much (unlike in the book, where he asked her to sit down and got her some wine to make her feel better). I don't know why the aunt and uncle are in this scene because it's very important in developing Darcy and Elizabeth's relationship. In the book, the two are alone, and Elizabeth choosing to tell Darcy about Lydia's elopement is a sign that she trusts him, while Darcy's concern for Elizabeth further confirms that he still loves her. This extremely brief scene flickers quickly, and it takes only a few seconds before Elizabeth is crying in her carriage, while the sky is dark and ominous.

Bingley rehearsing his proposal with Darcy. This added scene, which is not in the book, is so funny because of how Darcy roleplays Jane, while Bingley has so much anxiety about her not accepting him. It's a nice glimpse into their friendship and it's also funny because Bingley is getting proposal advice from someone who failed very miserably at proposing.

Sunrise on the Moors. Another objectively beautiful and romantic scene that is definitely not faithful to the book. The two meet each other in a field in their nightgowns and profess their love to each other while blessed by the rising sun.

4. MAJOR FLAWS; OR, HOW THE FILM DIVERGES FROM THE BOOK

In earlier book adaptation reviews, I stated that I welcomed creative changes as long as they reflected what was already in the book (ex. literary elements and character development) or the author's intent, since film and books are different mediums and some storytelling techniques that work in books may not work on film. This movie is undoubtedly well-known for its creative changes, especially in terms of historical setting and dialogue. While these creative changes entertain the audience, I feel that they change the meaning of the story as presented by the book.

Here's the biggest issue I have with the movie: Darcy has no pride. The film interprets his "pride" as a misconception strangers get from Darcy's cold manner and inconsiderate remarks, but in the book he is an arrogant person who views his social inferiors as beneath him and treats them poorly. In the movie, his whole character is fashioned in the modern image of the "sensitive man," who is kind and considerate if only the outside world would appreciate his uniqueness. Thus, Elizabeth's prejudice against him is entirely without merit. While making Darcy a more sympathetic person highlights how wrong Elizabeth's prejudice is, the fact is that both of them have "pride and prejudice." Some fans have commented that Darcy is like a sad puppy at times. It's hard to see how he's a good match for this Elizabeth's fiery spirit, only that he wouldn't infringe upon her freedom to roam. A lot of YouTube comments I read were people expressing their desire to "hug Darcy" or console him after Elizabeth rejects him; this doesn't make sense because Darcy is an unsympathetic character until he is forced to change in order to earn Elizabeth's love. Apart from becoming kinder to Elizabeth and the Gardiners, Darcy never really changes in the movie; he still remains a socially awkward introvert.

The re-interpretation of Pride and Prejudice as purely a romantic novel: The emphasis on romance means that the other elements of the book--the social criticism, secondary characters and the dialogue--are de-emphasized for the sake of the romance between Elizabeth and Darcy.

The film's approach to the story echoes Charlotte Bronte's criticism of the novel: "And what did I find [in Pride and Prejudice]? ... a carefully fenced, highly cultivated garden, with neat borders and delicate flowers; but no glance of a bright, vivid physiognomy, no open country, no fresh air, no blue hill, no bonny beck. I should hardly like to live with her ladies and gentlemen, in their elegant but confined homes." This version of Pride and Prejudice utilizes Romantic elements not in the book (ex. the storms, the landscapes) to increase the passion that the characters feel but cannot express.

Pride and Prejudice is perceived as a "boring" book because much of the drama takes place indoors (ex. Darcy's first proposal is in Mr. Collin's home), whereas in the film, there is greater emphasis on the natural scenery in keeping with its Romantic interpretation (lots of the "open country" that Charlotte Bronte desired). While the landscape scenes are beautiful, locating the action indoors, in the grand houses of the nobility, emphasizes the repressive, tradition-based nature of Regency Era society that Austen criticized (in a subtle way). These houses reinforce social hierarchy, for instance; the interior of Rosings Park is showy and stifling because it it represents Lady Catherine De Bourgh's wealth and power over those around her. Locating most of the scenes indoors visually represents the "confined and unvarying" lives of Regency era women and makes Elizabeth Bennet's independent streak much more significant.

Some of the social constraints that Elizabeth and Darcy face are removed. For example, Elizabeth is much more direct in her criticisms of others (ex. the "barely tolerable" insult), whereas in the book she largely confines these criticisms to her intimate friends such as Jane and Charlotte Lucas. While this effectively shows how badass she is, Elizabeth likely would not have taunted Darcy in such a direct way, as it would have been considered impolite and likely harmed her social reputation in a society governed by rigid adherence to social etiquette. And of course, Darcy likely would not have been walking around the English countryside in an open-chested shirt although we may have Colin Firth's wet shirt to blame for that. The importance of following etiquette rules is shown when Darcy offends the whole village by refusing to dance with anyone during the first ball. As a woman in a patriarchal society, it would have been even more important for Elizabeth to follow the rules, as her social reputation was important to her chances of making a good marriage. By de-emphasizing the rigid social norms that govern the characters, the obstacles to Elizabeth and Darcy's marriage are less significant, and it seems that the only thing standing in the way of their being together is Elizabeth's unreasonable hatred of Darcy.

Also, in many of Austen's novels, the hometowns of her heroines and its inhabitants are their own characters; the power of gossip in determining one's social reputation for the "marriage market" is de-emphasized in the film. In Pride and Prejudice, a major reason Elizabeth doesn't discover Wickham's bad character at first is because of the "general approbation of the neighborhood" and social popularity he has in Hertfordshire. After Lydia elopes, the family is in a bad situation with regards to marriage prospects because the village had "generally proved [the Bennets] to be marked out for misfortune." In the film, the role of the village is relegated to that of a place for entertainment and nothing more.

Others have noted that the film also exaggerates the social divide between Elizabeth and Darcy by turning the Bennet family into peasant farm-owners who have messy hair and wear plain, homespun clothing. This justifies Darcy's social prejudice against the Bennets, which undercuts Austen's message of morals, actions, and treatment of others being a better indicator of character than class rank (the rich people in this book, with the exception of Darcy, Georgiana and Bingley, are shown to be lazy or plain ridiculous). While Darcy may be richer than Elizabeth, and have better connections, they are both members of the gentry--after all, they do not have to work to maintain their lifestyles. Instead, we are presented with a conventional rags-to-riches story, where our poor but virtuous heroine is rewarded with a rich Prince Charming who takes her away from the squalor of her home to his great big palace.

Ultimately, the story is changed into an argument for love, specifically the passionate kind, triumphing over all; Elizabeth overcomes her hatred of men as "humorless poppycocks" to be with Darcy. Near the end, Mary reads out of a book claiming that a lady should give in to her passions and surrender to love, which doesn't make sense as the marriage based entirely on passion (Lydia and Wickham) is shown to be less than ideal.

While Austen does believe in following one's heart (ex. Persuasion, where Anne Elliot regrets rejecting Captain Wentworth because of his lower social status), others have commented that she presents the ideal relationship as a balance between mind and heart. Charlotte's practical marriage to Mr. Collins represents the traditional view of marriage as an "economic proposition," it is entirely logical and calculated, whereas Lydia and Wickham's marriage is the other emotional extreme, motivated entirely by sexual infatuation. Before Elizabeth acknowledges her love for Darcy, she must respect him as her intellectual equal. Here's the passage from the book where Elizabeth realizes she loves Darcy: "She now began to comprehend that he was exactly the man, who in disposition and talents, would most suit her. His understanding and temper, though unlike her own, would have answered all her wishes. It was an union that must have been to the advantage of both; by her ease and liveliness, his mind might have been softened, his manners improved, and from his judgment, information, and knowledge of the world, she must have received benefit of greater importance." Elizabeth's decision to marry Darcy is not only a result of her heart's desire, but it comes after she does some thinking and concludes they are compatible and would be able to live with each other on a day-to-day basis.

Something else I find ironic is the director's (Joe Wright's) claim that he aimed for realism in the film, given that Austen already depicted Regency era life realistically by focusing on social norms, class, and wealth:

The director, in his quest for "realism," features the messy environment of the Bennet household, which doesn't make sense given that they are still relatively wealthy (when defending herself, Elizabeth tells Lady Catherine that she is "a gentleman's daughter"). Also, they have servants to clean things up, so why would the house be in a constant state of disarray?

Lastly, how is the second proposal scene is "realistic?" It is a moment of "psychic communication" between Darcy and Elizabeth which is out of character for the book. They both "can't sleep" and walked, in the words of Wikipedia, "across the moors" to see each other ok this seriously reminds me of Wuthering Heights. The scene is powerful because every woman wants to be told that "you have bewitched me body and soul" but "realistically," this doesn't happen (and this line isn't in the book either).

"REALISM" IS THE REASON WHY WE FUSS OVER HISTORICAL ACCURACY!!! HISTORICAL ACCURACY ALLOWS PERIOD DRAMAS TO BE REALISTIC!!!!

If the characters wore historically accurate clothing (different from the loosely inspired, modernized dresses/hair in the film), it would have emphasized the lack of freedom women had in Regency Era society and reinforced the importance of following social norms to succeed in a patriarchal society.

Bad Script Changes:

This film is known for its modernized script, which makes it easier for a mainstream audience to watch the movie. However, it also changes depictions of the characters in ways that undercut the meaning of the book.

Elizabeth Bennet, man-hater:

"Oh, they [men] are far too easy to judge. Humorless poppycocks, in my limited experience."

"And which of the painted peacocks is Mr. Bingley?"

"Men are either eaten up with arrogance or stupidity. And if they're amiable they're so easily led that they have no minds of their own whatsoever...No, they bring nothing but heartache."

I know these snarky comments are fun and reinforce the modern perception of Elizabeth Bennet as a feminist heroine. However, book Elizabeth doesn't rail against men as a whole; she just wants to find love rather than be forced into an advantageous marriage. Her idea that marriage should be based on love and respect, along with her unwillingness to compromise on that ideal, is what makes her revolutionary, not her complete apathy towards the opposite sex.

"Don't you dare judge me!" While it foreshadows Elizabeth's flawed judgment, this outburst is out of character for Charlotte Lucas, who in the book is level-headed and makes practical decisions. As with the majority of the bad script changes, it is too modern and doesn't fit with the 19th century style language used elsewhere in the script.

Darcy's lack of pride is shown in the modified lines of the first proposal (which were hard to catch because they were spoken super fast):

"I can bear it no longer. The past months have been a torment. I came to Rosings with the single object of seeing you. I had to see you. I've fought against my better judgment, my family's expectation, the inferiority of your birth, my rank and circumstance, all those things, but I'm willing to put them aside and ask you to end my agony. I love you. Most ardently."

These lines completely change the meaning of the first proposal. Apart from the famous opening lines ("In vain I have struggled. It will not do. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you"), Austen makes clear that Darcy still regards his higher social position and Elizabeth's inferior connections as obstacles to their marriage. His first proposal to Elizabeth is a means of getting rid of the suffering that his unrequited love has forced upon him; he still does not accept Elizabeth as his equal, which is why she rejects him in the first place. Clearly he is not "willing to put [social norms] aside" when it comes to "his sense of her inferiority." The modified lines also make Darcy much more romantic by having him state that he came to Rosings to see Elizabeth; the book does not specify that this is the case; he just came on a routine visit to see his aunt and Elizabeth happened to be there. As I said earlier, Elizabeth in the book rejects Darcy because of his lack of respect for her, but in the film, he seems to show nothing but respect for her. They even have an almost-kiss, which doesn't make sense given that she hates him so intensely at this point in the novel.

"He's so, he's so...rich." Elizabeth utters these when trying and failing to find a reason not to visit Pemberley. This declaration does not make sense because Elizabeth has formed in the very least a grudging respect for Mr. Darcy; without access to her internal thoughts, one might take this line as evidence that she still hates Mr. Darcy.

“Just leave me alone!!!” After confronting Lady Catherine, Elizabeth flees to her room to find some alone time. This doesn’t suit Elizabeth’s character because 1) she acts like a temperamental teenager and 2) she is estranged from her family. In the book she gets closer to her family after Darcy’s first proposal, not the other way round. In some JASNA (Jane Austen Society of North America) articles I read about Pride and Prejudice, the authors observed that Elizabeth isn’t concerned about her family early in the novel; her motivations are largely self-centered, she keeps her head above their foolishness and doesn’t have intimate relationships with anyone in her family with the exception of her father and Jane. Only after she receives the criticisms of her family’s behavior from Mr. Darcy does she look out for her family; for example, by advising her father not to let Lydia go to Brighton (and she becomes right about it harming her family’s reputation). The film also makes Elizabeth even more isolated from her family by omitting the fact that she tells Jane about what happened between her and Darcy. Elizabeth learning to care for her family is an important part of her growth which the film omits.

5. CONCLUSION

I still think this film is worth watching, even though as a purist I disagree with the creative changes made, namely the emphasis on the romance over the social comedy. It is obvious that the screenwriter/director didn't strive to replicate the book exactly and aimed for a romantic re-interpretation.

The film has had a positive impact since it introduced a lot of people to Jane Austen, including me.

Here’s my story: when the movie aired on TV, my mother, who is a 1995 die-hard, started ranting about her hate for this version, so I picked up the book so that I could watch and compare.

As a romance movie it is excellent, because it has plenty of sexual tension and quotable romantic lines, along with a couple we can root for. The set design, music, and set design also make watching the movie an experience. It's very easy to love this movie just for the cottage core aesthetics (although aesthetics cannot cover up the flaws of this film).

On a side note, I find it funny that the Wikipedia article for this film states that it "failed to have the cultural influence" of the 1995 BBC miniseries. In fact, many people my age (17 or 18 years old) who have read the book consider this movie the definitive version of Pride and Prejudice and some don't even know that the 1995 miniseries exists!

Whether you love or hate this film, all I ask is that you don't call it Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice.

@colonelfitzwilliams @appleinducedsleep @obscurelittlebird @austengivesmeserotonin @princesssarisa @dahlia-coccinea @firawren @cobaltzosia

146 notes · View notes

nothorses · 3 years

Note

weird question you might be able to help me with because you seem to possibly share similar experiences? so in those posts a few days ago you mention how you would date women before you realized you were trans because it felt good to be gay even if you had the direction wrong...

see okay, I've felt like that or at l similar to that a lot, and I often find myself getting crushes on girls I know irl but then when I actually act on those feelings (with one exception where things were blurry) I end up realizing I just like the relationship because I get to be (yes I know how cishet normative this is to say) "the man" in these relationships. I end up feeling deeply uncomfortable whenever I have to imagine being more intimate than light kissing with any of these people. on the other hand, I always "dream/imagine" myself to be in relationships with men (usually other trans guys) and never with women in my mind, but when it comes to real life I not only do I hardly ever interact with men (it's all very confusing to me + where I live is pretty homo+transphobic) but the few I've had that express interest in me are not my type and the one I was willing to give a try once ended up ghosting me when things started picking up.. except there's no guys I've really ever really been interested in, except for like models/characters/others who are impossible to reach

I know some people say that's comphet when you only like someone of a certain gender when unachievable (and yeah as a trans guy comphet isn't maybe the exact right word, but I feel attraction to women in a queer way and I feel the word connects more to my girlhood upbringing)... But anyhow, if it's comphet... Then why don't I like the relationships once they start picking up steam? But on the other hand, if I like guys, why is it so hard to be initially attracted to them? And not even just that but just to generally interact with them? And ofc I know like bisexual exists... But then why does the word just feel so wrong, and like gay doesn't feel right either.. Something feels off about straight too.. And I know there's others but to start there nothing fits and I haven't found anything more obscure that seems to either

it's just I find myself seemingly only liking men in theory, and then I find myself liking women irl until the relationship develops beyond what might be platonic and then I'm just bothered by it too (might also be important to note all the women I've dated I was extremely close with for years before we dated, and all the guys who expressed interest in me I had limited to medium interactions with for 6months-1year before they expressed their interest)

even if you don't know anything, do you have any like resources that are good for these sorts of things- or any ideas for questions I could be asking to better understand my feelings? I for some reason feel like this is all so much harder than gender XD

Idk I probably sound a bit whacky, but maybe you could help- if not that's okay too, no expectations! Thank you for reading!

There's a lot of things that could be going on here, and I am definitely not an expert! I just want to preface that what I'm giving you here is based on my experiences, and how I understand what you've told me.

First, I really want to encourage you to look into asexuality and aromanticism. The labels and experiences might not end up fitting you, but I think it's important to have access to those labels and be able to consider them as part of this process.

This is a good overview of asexuality, and I recommend clicking around this page a bit to get a better understanding of the term, the experiences, and the grey-ace umbrella. This is a good starting point for aromanticism- and info on this is a little harder to find overall, but I think of it as a romantic equivalent to asexuality in many ways, if that helps as a starting point.

That said, I resonate a lot with what you've laid out here; I'd always had a sort of abstract attraction to men, but this never seemed to manifest in the meatspace.

It wasn't until I started T that I suddenly grew a lot more comfortable with the idea of actually being with men, and started to actually identify feelings for accessible men in my life.

I think it was something about comfort with my body, personally; I just couldn't imagine being with a man "as a woman", and I couldn't get past the idea that I'd always be seen as one as long as I looked the way I did. T made me feel like I was finally moving forward, and like the possibility of being seen the way I wanted to be seen was realistic and happening.

That was also around the time I looked back and realized that a very intense, very emotional, very physically affectionate friendship I'd had with a gay friend of mine had, uh, maybe not been 100% platonic. My dumb ass really cuddled this boy for hours on end while he played with my hair, thought my life was over when we stopped being friends, and still thought I "didn't have crushes on men". Jesus christ.

That might not be what you're experiencing, and it might not resonate with you! But it's where those threads went for me, and it might be worth adding to the list of possibilities to consider.

I think ultimately, the best thing you can do for yourself is to just... not worry about it. Just do what feels right in the moment; don't push yourself into anything you don't want, and don't hold yourself back from anything you do. Let the labels come later, when there's a pattern to identify. Maybe just don't worry about them for now.

#advice #long post

26 notes · View notes

themoonispurple7 · 3 years

Note

since i saw a few posts on your blog regarding jk showing "signs", i thought I'd throw in my own 2 cents based on my own experience as an introvert close to his age, from a place that's not very progressive in terms of lgbtq+ and having had realisations about my own sexuality in my late teens.

i apologise in advance for the length. also a disclaimer that I'm very well aware that this might be pure projection since no one other than jk can confirm any of the following.

i read and write a lot. books and writing have always been my outlet, my catharsis, the way i best connect with myself and the world. because of that, a big part of my coming out experience began with seeking out books that explored sexuality because i needed to relate, to feel seen.

i know plenty of people who identify as straight that like and listen to troye sivan or other gay artists from where i am now, but that was not the norm when blue neighborhood came out.

i was lucky enough to come across troye because I'd just gotten my own phone, and access to social media without much monitoring. seeking out books regarding sexuality turned into seeking out spaces with people who were actually part of the community, which included coming across youtubers like connor franta, tyler oakley and (you guessed it) troye sivan.

basically, it wasn't a coincidence that i came across troye sivan at the time (2014). he simply was not a popular figure where i was from or in any of my immediate irl circles. and when i was listening to one direction and justin bieber my youtube algorithm definitely showed no sign of him.

even then, i wouldn't have known about the blue neighborhood (2015) if i hadn't come across hailey kiyoko's girls like girls mv suggested somewhere and then seen troye sivan's blue neighborhood 3 part video series recommended under it.

now, i don't know how popular troye was in SK, i have no idea if he'd have popped up in their algorithm - at least on YouTube, since the video leaves nothing to the imagination as to what the song is about. i did see someone say on here that Bang PD said in reply to RM's tweet - where he was recommending 'fools' - that he was the one who suggested the song to him. it's still interesting, though, i think.

but this is why jk's love for troye sivan made me think, and why i do give it some weight even if other members have also expressed interest in queer media. it's very interesting to me considering his age, his being an introvert, and the situation he lived in then - primarily with people around his age and supportive of lgbtq+ community, with a boss who recommends queer media.

now this is why i talked about how books with lgbtq+ characters mattered to me. I'm an introvert myself, and there's a certain isolation you're going to experience as one, usually because you need the time to recharge but also because you take your time to feel out the people around you before opening up. when you add questioning your sexuality while living in a largely traditional society, you're more likely to look for support in art and other things that consume you first as opposed to, say, other people. no matter how close they are.

as humans in general we love the art that reflects an aspect of us and for the most part "relatability" is an important factor in media. this is why the she-ra reboot made me and several other people cry, and wonder how things would have been if it had existed when we were younger. yes, a lot of people consume queer media, but queer people consume it differently, and that will be the case until it's completely normalised.

since music is to jk (and more recently, photography and videography) what books are to me and movies and shows are to others - his catharsis, his way of connecting to the world, i think it's understandable that he'd seek comfort in it.

also, to see that he makes a point - consciously or not - to have gender neutral lyrics in the songs he works on, to recommend and cover songs with gender neutral lyrics, to using either gender neutral songs or songs with he/him pronouns in his gcfs, it affirmed something for me.

yes, these could just be the actions of an ally, a way of showing sensitivity to their sizable lgbtq+ audience (because bts's music in general has increasingly been more gender neutral and they've also been consistently collaborating with artists who are out) but there's a deliberation to it (i feel). and i think it means something that he decided to use troye's song as the music for his first ever gcf.

if you got this far, thanks for reading! hope i made sense in what i was trying to say 😅. i guess my whole point is that jk being a fan of troye in general doesn't mean anything, but i do think the timing of the start of his fanboying coupled with how important music as a medium is to him MAY mean something and that's all I'm trying to say here.

of course, we'll never know until he actually tells us but I'm tired of people acting as if straight is the default and that it's absolutely out of the realm of possibility for jk to not be that.

i just know I'll love him and support him no matter what and i hope others will too.

Thank you so much for sharing this. There’s so much I wish I could say, but I’m honestly speechless. I’m really glad you had books, music, and writing when your community wasn’t as supportive. I know I already sound like a broken record but I think it’s so important to find the right authors and musicians at the right time.

Art can truly inspire us, comfort us, and save us in so many ways. I’m with you on that! I agree, the choices you’ve mentioned are very telling. And what you said about BTS collabing with musicians who were out is also really interesting - I honestly never thought of it that way!

#asks

24 notes · View notes

kimikotsuki · 3 years

Text

Fandom discourse and culture has changed a lot over the years and I always try to err on the side of caution whenever possible.

The reasons writers create and share their work are varied and diverse: maybe they're trying to improve their writing and welcome advice, sometimes it's all about the ~ S Q U E E ~ because you loved the show/character and wants them in more situations, sometimes the reason is the ~ R A G E ~ about the direction canon took and you plan to murder it and use it's blood to re-write the story; this is more an illustrative than exhaustive list and sometimes there'll even be multiple reasons at once of course.

And sometimes, those reasons do not match or go well with any type of criticism, even well intentioned, constructive ones.

I saw an post on Tumblr that ilustrated very well another reason why one shouldn't simply assume that con-crit is welcome: if you go watch an amateur performance (in the most literal sense of the word of non-remunarated, regardless of quality of performance), one won't immediately presume afterwards to go to the artist and start critiquing it.

At the same time, I wholeheartedly think that one of the most wonderful, unique possibilities of fandom is the capacity for collaborative work between the authors of a story that is being posted as it's written and it's readers, culminating in an end product with quality that ends up being more refined than otherwise it would've been.

That type of interaction is even sometimes one of the main reasons people write fics, to not only create something, but also to share the act of that creation.

That works almost like making all the readers of a fic into beta-readers and can be a wonderful thing, but the post argued that the work done by betas is analogous to editing in published works, and that such a relationship is based on built trust, so while yeah, that dynamic between writer and all their readers could work, assuming and simply barging in is generally more harmful than productive.

When I adopted that new reasoning, I debated whether or not I should then mark all my bookmarks on AO3 as Private and make them inaccessible to anyone else, but in the end opted not to, mainly because even though I mainly write them for my future self, I also feel other readers can benefit a lot from knowing how the experience of someone who liked a work enough to rec it went, specially if while reading that fic they stumbled upon things they didn't like.

If there's one thing I learned from over 15 years of reading fics is that my tastes change over the years, and sometimes it's not even about the quality of the writing itself or even the progression of how polemic subjects are treated at any given time, but rather the moment that I am in changes how I receive the same work, such that tagging a certain work as one worth reading again later with no contextual information on the vibe I was riding when I did that will inevitably lead to a disappointment that is frankly an overreaction on my part.

That happened somewhat recently with a Frostiron fic I read a long time ago, in a moment where I was squeeing like crazy over the pairing (and it was a work of squee, so we matched really well) and it got on my list, but years later, when I was feeling nostalgic over the pairing and went to read my list of besties, the expectation I had was so great that the dichotomy between my experience back then and the one in the re-read were terribly big, even though it was a well written fic, squee and all, and the only real difference was that *I* wasn't squeeing over the pairing anymore.

And at the same time, I found that, in a way, this managing of expectations I do primarily for myself when I create a rec with the bad points of a fic that I loved can also be helpful for others, because even if it doesn't fit 100% since we're different people, I always thought the best recs I've always found were the ones that stated what were the cons of any given story, because those cons might not be something that bothered me like it bothered them or it even might end up being somewhat bothersome to me, but the pros outweigh them and, because I went in expecting to find those things, there's no disappointment in it, so they end up bothering me a lot less then it could've.

The other reason I eventually settled on not making my bookmarks private was actually because of those authors that seek improvement and welcome constructive criticism from all the readers who are invested in their story and value their thoughts and experiences while reading their work, because while yes, better to err on the side of caution and not go offering advice and opinions were those are not wanted, if we let that completely rule everything we do in fandom there will be a lot of loss in regards of this constructive, dynamic and interactive aspect so characteristic and wonderful to this type of media.

I know authors can have access to the bookmarks made of their fics, but unlike comments, it's not quite a space exclusively dedicated to them or even for interactions between reader/author.

In a lot of aspects, I'd even go as far as saying it's a space primarily for readers: it's not something that will culminate in a email sent to the author's mailbox, it serves mostly for filtering and ordering purposes (like when you're looking for fics to read and apply a filter to show only fics with a certain number of bookmarks or to order the fics shown from the greater to the least number of bookmarks) and also so readers can, reading these bookmarks, have a better idea on what's to expect from a work from different readers with different personalities and world views and ways to pereceive what was written.

And since it's a space the author *can* have access to *if* they want, it's possible for them to look at that place to see that con-crit while, at the same time, not being a place where that con-crit will get shoved in their faces if they *don't want it* and as such it seemed to me to be an overall respectfull and good compromise between those two points that seemed very important to me, and one of the only way I've found of making it known if that type of interaction is welcome, I'd be happy to head over to their comments and talk there.

If I'm marking it as a rec and commenting, I'm doing it because I think that fic absolutely is one of the best stories that I had the pleasure to read; however, the number of characters allowed in a bookmark rec are limited, so if I end up putting into it anything besides an incoherent keyboard smash, those things are going to be whatever points I feel are very important to keep in mind whenever starting to read it so that reading experience is the most enjoyable possible both for my future self who's going to look at that besties list and decide on what to read again as well as first time readers who might have seen the rec and will go in knowing somethings that, by their nature, don't tend to be things we tag for; they will have mostly what amounts to con-crit, so if you welcome this type of interaction or if the rec I made is bothering you in anyway, I urge you to get in contact with me through the fic mail I linked in my AO3 profile.

This post is getting linked there because the profile section doesn't allow enough characters for everything that I had to say about the subject.

As soon as I see the email, I'll either be happy to either tag the bookmark as Private so it won't be visible to anyone but myself if it bothered you or head over to your comments section so we can talk better about the points I raised if this type of interaction is something you welcome.

#fandom discourse #ao3 stuff #fandom culture #bookmarks

1 note · View note

aboutlouishofmann · 4 years

Text

A Life Devoted To Music

[Original interview here which is already in English. I'm just testing. All images curtesy of cinema.de]

FRIDAY, 7/5/2019

A LIFE DEVOTED TO MUSIC

In PRÉLUDE Louis Hofmann plays a talented pianist.

Rising star Louis Hofmann has often been seen at FILMFEST MÜNCHEN — for example, in the tender coming-of-age drama CENTER OF MY WORLD. By now, Hofmann is well-known all over Germany thanks to the captivating mystery series DARK. This makes us all the more delighted that this up-and-coming actor is returning to Munich this year with not one, but two exciting films. In PRÉLUDE, he plays a talented musician who experiences the downside of being an artist; and he also has a role in THE WHITE CROW, about Soviet ballet dancer Rudolf Nureyev. We met the amiable actor at the world premiere of PRÉLUDE and asked him about his own experiences as an artist and how life in the spotlight affects a person.

In PRÉLUDE, you play an aspiring pianist named David, a freshman at a conservatory who's under pressure from the beginning. What was it about this story that caught your interest?

In 2015, I was invited to a casting for PRÉLUDE. I think I'd read only a small blurb about it, but it won me over right away and I knew I absolutely had to play this part. I don't know whether I'd already seen WHIPLASH. I grew up around lots of music and have an affinity to it — and probably a fascination with sadness as well. I thought if the script fulfills the promise of that little blurb, I've got to be a part of things. Then I went to the first casting with director Sabrina Sarabi and we simply got along very well and I noticed that she does very fine work.

When did you finally shoot the film?

Two years ago. It was hard to get all the money that was necessary. It is just a small film, after all. I'm still glad that we made it even though we didn't have much money. Being so close on set was also great. On the first day of shooting, there were maybe 15 of us on the set. It took some getting used to, because I'd just come from DARK, where we'd had 100 to 150 people. That was our own little microcosm, and working with such a small team was something I enjoyed to the fullest.

Is that something you generally prefer: a smaller scale?

No. I just prefer good material.

What does good material consist of?

That's the question. There are only the standard responses: well-developed characters, a nice development of the role, a story that's exciting, not one that's narrated. David is somebody I can identify with to a good extent. He's sensitive. He has this great ambition that I carry within myself. When he does something, he jumps in wholeheartedly. That's also the approach I take to my own work. That's why I understood him right away.

You mentioned that music has always been very important to you. Do you play an instrument?

I played violin for a year, because my brother played violin. I stopped pretty soon after that. Then, at age eight or nine, I began to play the drums. I did that for eight years.

Do you still play?

I stopped when I moved from Cologne to Berlin. I didn't have a drum set there, nor did I have the infrastructure: a place to rehearse and so on. I didn't take it up again until this year. I rediscovered how awesome it is and how much I'd missed it — how I'd totally been caught up in the piano as well. I used to be able to play chords or three-finger accompaniment. Classical pieces, though, were pretty foreign to me. I somehow put in a lot of effort with a teacher, without being able to read music. We did it with videos. I think it helped me a little to be able to play the drums. But to learn a new instrument and suddenly understand how it works and to be familiar with the keyboard and to get into the groove when playing: that really did a lot for me. In addition, it was just extremely good preparation for the part. It made the character accessible to me, which is something I hadn't really expected.

How long did you practice?

After I got the role, we did two years of workshops. In the end, we had two-hour lessons, five days a week for three months, and then two to four more hours a day of practice.

That's a lot.

You're right. But it's great. At first it's so difficult. The first two weeks were so rough: you're really just searching for the notes; your fingers don't understand it all just yet. You feel like a dyslexic on the piano, just so amateurish. And suddenly after two or three weeks, your fingers start doing what they should. You follow the instrument, and it's simply awesome.

Are you still doing it?

Unfortunately not. No, because I can't read music and because I'd noticed that I get bored easily because I only ever play the same pieces. My roommates and I have a piano, and I play it sometimes, but not like before.

What kind of music do you listen to?

Mainly indie rock, indie pop, alternative. Sometimes soul classics, chansons, or jazz hip-hop.

Can you name two or three artists?

Two or three artists I can name... Somehow that's always pretty hard to do. Right now I'm really looking forward to the new Dope Lemon album that's coming out soon. As for indie pop, Bon Iver is one of my heroes. Parcels is great. I could go on forever. Music is a really important part of my life. I just immerse myself in it and discover new artists. It's a lot of fun.

There's this gotcha question that I once picked up from a job interview: If you were a song, what song would you be? That is, a song that describes you very well.

I have no idea. I think the songs we listen to speak to only part of ourselves. The first song I thought of is "8 (Circle)" by Bon Iver. But that's just my melancholy side. It wouldn't describe me completely, because I also have a non-melancholy side, a very happy side, that I wouldn't be doing justice to.

Now that you've had a brief look at the life of a musician, even indirectly, what would you say is similar to or different from the life of an actor?

The pressure is what they have in common. The expectations one has of oneself. The competition. Although I have to say we're a generation, I think, who fight more alongside each other than against each other. For a pianist, it's a more individual fight than for an actor, because as an actor you normally don't perform alone.

In the film, David has to put his personal life on the back burner in order to get somewhere as a musician. Since you said that you enjoy immersing yourself, to what extent do you find yourself having to put your personal life on the back burner?

Since the work always comes in phases, you only have to do that in phases. And then I do that. In recent years, I've also learned that you can't completely separate the two — that the project phases should intersect more with the phases of free time. I've always felt that I've completely forgone personal life while working, up until the end of shooting. At some point, I no longer thought that was a good thing. In this line of work, you have to watch out, otherwise you'll start thinking of the year only in terms of blocks of time. I've resolved to be aware of this for more than a whole year again. Theater actors can probably do that a lot better, because they have regular work. They're able to balance their personal lives and their work more easily. That's a small obstacle that a film actor has to overcome at some point.

Let's assume you have free time. What do you do to unwind after work?

I had a hard time of that in Berlin. But this year, I went back to some old hobbies, like the drums. Also skateboarding, climbing, bouldering, and so on, to find balance. It's just about doing something that no one judges and where there's no output. Where you're not forced to deliver output. Because all you do when playing is give, give, give. You learn something, too, of course, and it gives you something back. But it's very relaxing to just do something that no one is appraising.

And where you're not being watched.

That, too, yes.

How often does it happen nowadays that you're recognized out on the street?

Sometimes. Occasionally. There are days when nothing happens, and other days when it happens several times. It also depends on whether I'm in a bar or another place where people gather.

Imagine that for some reason you had to do something other than act.

What would I do?

Exactly.

Hm. That's difficult.

Did you always want to be an actor, or were there alternatives?

A soccer player, of course. I definitely wanted to be a soccer player. When I finished high school, I was also very interested in psychology — and art. But I don't believe that I'd study art or psychology, even though I was still saying that two or three years ago. I also have a lot of fun working behind the camera, and I've been a set manager for short films. I enjoy organizing a set in the extreme, because I also have experience in how these things work. I'd probably still prefer to stay in the world of film and then maybe try to develop material or help to see it realized.

So you could also imagine directing and scriptwriting?

Probably not scriptwriting. I'm more the kind of person who reads the script and says, "Oh, that's what happens. I think it'd be great if this and that also happened." I don't think I could write a story myself. I have a lot of respect for those who can.

What else are you up to next?

On Monday, we started filming the third season of DARK, so I'll just do that for now. That'll probably take another six months. After that, we'll be done. The series was planned as a trilogy from the beginning, so the story will conclude with the third season.

That's all from me. In closing, do you have any more comments you'd like to make about your film?

I think Sabrina is very talented, and I'm very proud of this film and hope that people will see it.

#louis hofmann #dark netflix #prélude #sabrina sarabi #german film #german actor #jonas kahnwald

10 notes · View notes

ocw-archive · 2 years

Text

Who's Laughing Now? (2000)

Backed by some big Hollywood players, Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson have two movies, a house in California, and the same life they had in Texas. by Philip Zabriskie In high school, Houston-native Wes Anderson directed shorts on a cable-access station and wrote plays, "real crowd pleasers, stuff designed to get a big audience reaction," says the 29-year-old. "We did a play, The Alamo, that was just like a big war scene. We did one called The Five Maseratis, that all took place in these Maseratis. When I look back, it seems kind of static, because everybody was just sitting in these cars. I always cast myself as the hero. Maybe that was the reason I wanted to do them." "I didn't know what I was going to do, maybe...advertising?" says Dallas-native Owen Wilson, also 29. "I guess movies seemed impossible. It seemed so far away and so difficult to break into." Anderson and Wilson met at the University of Texas. Anderson was not wearing a monocle, as Wilson claims, but they shared prep-school backgrounds and a similar sense of humor. And, Anderson says, just as "we might think the same things are funny, we might think the same things are sad."

They began writing what was intended to be a gritty crime story called Bottle Rocket. With a few hundred dollars and some film stock they found, they shot eight minutes of footage. Anderson directed and Wilson and his brother Luke -- neither of whom had studied acting -- played the leads: Anthony and Dignan, two slightly misguided friends who rob Anthony's house as practice for a later bookstore heist, then go on the lam. Anderson and Wilson sent the short to Wilson's family friend, screenwriter Kit Carson, who offered script advice and instructed them to ask their fathers to help raise a few thousand dollars to film another seven minutes. Carson sent the results to producer Barbara Boyle, who sent it to producer Polly Platt, who sent it to producer-director James L. Brooks. After Anderson and Wilson finished a full-length script at the Sundance screenwriters lab, Brooks helped them hone the story, secure $5 million, and keep their respective roles. But it was hardly a gritty crime movie. "Bottle Rocket, to me, ends up being a lot more about the friendship of these characters than anything else," Anderson says. "They do these little crimes and stuff, but the movie has nothing to do with the crime." The characters were skewed and insecure, equal parts naive and innocent, clueless and charming. They probably "want to be cool," Anderson says. "But they're just so not connected to what is considered cool." When it was released in 1996, Bottle Rocket was well-reviewed but not widely seen. "It's probably not the greatest to describe your own work as people not getting it," Anderson says. "That implies you're going over their head. I don't know if people don't understand it; I think a lot of people just don't like it." Regardless of the box office numbers, Bottle Rocket bred opportunity: Wilson landed small roles in Anaconda, The Cable Guy, and Armageddon -- "a combination of trying to make a living and what I thought would be interesting," he says -- while working with Anderson on their second script. Anderson turned down directing jobs and used "a looming fear that maybe we'll never be able to write anything else" as motivation to concentrate on what became Rushmore (due for an October release from Touchstone Pictures, a division of Disney). Anderson again directs, and he and Wilson are co-executive producers (Wilson was also an associate producer on Brooks' As Good as it Gets). Rushmore's budget is roughly double Bottle Rocket's, but the characters still aren't cool. Anderson used the same crew from Bottle Rocket, some of the same cast, and, again, a score by former Devo frontman, Mark Mothersbaugh. Again, it's the first movie for several key players: Weeks before filming began, Jason Schwartzman, then 16, was selected from a pool of more than 1,500 candidates to play Max Fischer. Fischer is a somewhat detached, somewhat disturbed Rushmore Academy student who wears his school blazer at all times and is so thoroughly devoted to extracurriculars (French Club, Yearbook, Bee-Keeping Club, Go-Carting Club, etc.) and the plays he writes and stages with the Max Fischer Players that he flunks out of school. Max finds a mentor in Mr. Blume (Bill Murray), a wealthy and miserable local businessman, but their friendship becomes a desperate, often-cruel rivalry when they both court Rushmore's recently widowed first grade teacher. Anderson feels that Rushmore's script is more emotional, more complex than Bottle Rocket, and points out that there are twice as many camera shots in this movie. Whether or not the story and the humor will find a significantly larger audience remains to be seen. Disney Studios Chairman Joe Roth is a prominent booster, but for Anderson and Wilson, a promising future hasn't significantly altered the present. "I feel good about the work, and that's the most important thing," says Anderson. "But there's enough other stuff that I don't feel great about. Maybe no matter what happens, you go up and down but stay at basically the same level." He and Wilson live together in Los Angeles with Wilson's brothers Luke

and Andrew, who both appear in Rushmore. "I can't imagine doing anything else, that's a good sign," Wilson says, though California "doesn't seem tremendously different from life in Texas." Both of their movies regard friendship as something to be guarded. This is unsurprising considering the devotion to their partnership expressed by Wilson -- "The first priority is the stuff, the work that I do with Wes" -- and Anderson: "I hope it's not like a thing where it ends." Anderson says he gets lonely at times -- what's unfulfilled right now, he's not sure -- and guesses Wilson does too. But, he says, they depend on each other because they want to. "Some people have a partnership, and it's so intense and so exclusive that it ends up self-destructing. We both have work we do independently. It's more balanced. So I don't feel any insecurity about it." Like their characters, Anderson and Wilson are trying to figure out where they fit in, trying to adjust to the world as it is or shape it into something that makes more sense. "Writing stories or making movies, if you're really into it, you just sort of go into that world," says Anderson. "I especially try to do it by making movies. I want to get away from everything. But," he adds, unlike Max, "I'm not pathological about it."

#2000 #interview

1 note · View note

fountainpenguin · 7 years

Note

If "A Mile In My Shoes" let Timmy "scrape the surface of what it means to be a fairy," does that mean he was only half-fairy? Is Danny Phantom thus only scraping the surface of what it means to be a ghost? Are there things that ghosts have which half-ghosts don't have? What about the Wonder World people, who are just human beings contaminated by fairy dust? Are they half-fairy too?

Timmy Going Fairy (Cnt’d)

Timmy is a human boy. He made a wish to “be a fairy for a day”.

Rewiring someone’s entire biological structure is not a simple task. It’s always been my headcanon that when Timmy wishes to change shape, Cosmo and Wanda give him a fagiggly gland that, over the years, he’s become better at using. Even creating one organ and carefully placing it in a human’s body among all their other organs isn’t an easy job.

So in “A Mile In My Shoes”, Timmy did not truly become a fairy. We know male fairies give birth, but Cosmo and Wanda didn’t give him a uterus or anything. That wasn’t the point of his wish. They gave him wings. And they gave him the ability to tap into their magic.

So in a sense, Timmy thought he had turned into a fairy, when really Cosmo and Wanda just made him look like a fairy. Rebuilding his entire body structure to make him an actual fairy would have been very dangerous and probably killed him in the process. That’s something Norm would have done if Timmy had wished to become a fairy. But Cosmo and Wanda know that Timmy wouldn’t want any wish to kill him, so they did the best they could.

This Timmy had no fairy biology. Remember, in my headcanon, fairies need both capable wings and internal pink magic in order to fly. Cosmo and Wanda didn’t give “Mile”!Timmy wings that required internal magic to fly. They gave him enormous wings that could support a lot of his body weight, and then they gave him a bit of their magic so he could float and use magic.

He was a human that looked like a fairy and temporarily had fairy powers.

Humans have always been able to use fairy wands to grant wishes. We’ve seen this several times throughout the series. As early as Season 0, with “Where’s the Wand?”, it was confirmed that if a human holds a wand and hears someone say the word “wish”, they will grant that wish unconsciously. No training required. Just. It’s as instant as a thought.

Humans have a great deal of power in their souls. That’s why Fairies enjoy tapping into this power. Fairykind with godkids have access to more powerful magic than Fairykind without godkids. This is why the war over godchildren from “Balance of Flour” is such a huge deal.

“Fairly Odd Summer” Timmy was in contact with the Abracadabrium when he died. All the power in his soul got sucked into the Abracadabrium instantly.

But Wanda said that “The heat from the lava” turned Timmy into a fairy. I imagine it was a defense mechanism. When threatened, the Abracadabrium released its power, so that Fairy magic would not be lost forever. So it did. It threw all its power into the two beings who were in direct contact with it when it hit the lava-Timmy and Foop.

The magic flow was intense. This was plenty of magic to rewire Timmy’s entire biology, including things like having a uterus just like a male fairy. He has his own fagiggly gland, his own core, his own forehead chamber, his own everything. He became, absolutely, a fairy.

The rock that contained the power of the Abracadabrium is gone now. The magic found a new host. Two, in fact. Timmy and Foop now hold all the powers of the Abracadabrium. If one of them dies, then they too will release power to anyone or anything in direct contact with them. Like, if Timmy dies on his bed, then that power might go into his pillow or something.

I’m not sure what this means as far as the Big Wand is concerned. The Big Wand had twelve hours of energy reserves in the movie, though the source of this power was never explained. My guess is that once a day or something, Timmy will have to swing by the Big Wand in order to supply it with energy. Or someone in Fairy World will restructure the magic system so that Timmy can give power to his little wand, and all Fairy power can be drawn from his little wand. Something like that.

… I assume Fairy World loses half its power post this movie, since half of it went into Foop. People in Fairy World learn that they can’t just poof things up willy-nilly anymore. They start making cuts. They walk instead of teleporting all the time. They learn to actually sew clothes. It’s very humbling.

Or, Foop was already a magical being, as well as “a being of pure evil” who “can’t touch it” anyway, so the Abracadabrium ignored him and released all its power into Timmy alone. Dunno! I don’t treat the movie as canon, so I’m not going to try working all that out.

Danny Going Ghost (Cnt’d)

My interpretation of Danny is that he technically died when he switched on his parents’ machine. If his parents’ machine had not actually made it through to the Ghost Zone, he’d have died completely then and there.

But it did.

In the Ghost Zone, “humans are the ghosts”. In the Ghost Zone, Ghosts can reproduce, but humans can’t. In the Living Realm “Human World”, humans can reproduce, but Ghosts can’t. Humans are “dead” in the Ghost Zone. They don’t even need to breathe. They’re dead.

This is Danny .5 seconds before being electrocuted- Alive in the Human World, but “dead” in the Ghost Zone:

Basically, when Danny was halfway through the portal, the portal said, “Okay, that half of you is dead now, and the other half is alive.” The universe was in the process of flipping him over when the electricity killed him.

Both his halves died, and reverted to their respective “dead” states.

It’s okay guys he’s half-alive he’s fine

Danny then stepped out of the portal, back into the Human World- taking his Ghost half with him.

Humans in the Ghost Zone are dead. So his human self can survive in the Ghost Zone indefinitely without food, the same way a Ghost can survive in the Human World without food. But as a human in the Human World, and as a Ghost in the Ghost Zone, Danny will age / require food / etc. He’s “alive” in those worlds.

This plays into my headcanon that Danny continues aging physically, but even as an adult, he always acts more childish and reckless when he goes ghost, as Danny’s days tend to be split 95% Human World and 5% Ghost Zone. Phantom doesn’t age nearly as quickly as Danny does.

He’s just kind of stuck like this. If he’d have been my character, I would’ve given him tons of limitations as a result of this, such as “all the weaknesses of both species but very few of the strengths”, but instead we got “all the strengths of both species and one obscure weakness” which is, y’know… fine.

To answer your question, no. There is nothing a full Ghost can do that Danny can’t also do. Unless we wanted to get into politics, where we could probably take away some of his legal rights. If being a halfa wasn’t rare and if society hadn’t collapsed with Pariah, I mean.

There are more things Danny can do as a half-ghost than he could as a full.

…

It’s very fine.

Wonder World (Cnt’d)

Turbo Thunder’s society is just kinda…

… Humans contaminated with fairy dust breeding with other contaminated humans and spreading contamination until it’s like-

“Half-fairy” would be an inaccurate term. “Mutated humans” would fit them better. The Wonder Worlders are basically the fish swimming around in lakes filled with radiation, developing third eyes or weird colors or whatever.

If the people of Wonder World reach “100% contamination”, that doesn’t mean they’re going to turn into fairies. They’re not going to grow wings or anything. It just means the 100% contaminated kids’ powers are stronger than the powers of people with less than 100% fairy dust contamination.

By default, I mean. The amount of effort you put into developing your powers matters too.

#The only reason I want to make halfa OCs is for politics BUT-#asks #Anon #FAIRIES!#FOP live action #A Mile In My Shoes #Going Ghost!#Main Phantom trio #Wishology #Beasty such a beaut #Fluffy blue transfer student #ridwriting #apparently art

4 notes · View notes