Former English major. Viggo Mortensen appreciation life. Sandor Clegane feelings blog. Dogs. Nail polish. Hockey. When I doubt, I ask myself, "What Would Tami Taylor Do?"
“Unless you’re planning on killing me.”
JOHN HANNAH YOU ARE SO SAD. I JUST WANT YOU BE HAPPY AND SEE IN COLOR AND MAYBE RUN AWAY WITH SYDNEY. IDEK.
People often compare Brienne to Arya because they’re both female warriors, but I think she’s more like Sansa. She and Sansa are both naive and trusting, and they both believe strongly in honor and in the concept of “true knights.”
I think both comparisons are valid. But after everything Arya has seen, I honestly don’t know what her reaction would be to Brienne, someone who basically embodies a lot of what Arya wants to be, and yet, values the same concepts Arya was so annoyed by in her sister. I think Arya would end up being a little disappointed in Brienne. Sansa, on the other hand, I can really see a kinship developing between Brienne and Sansa, because Sansa is growing more and more into that “woman’s courage” that Brienne admires so much in Catelyn (and I think aspires to herself). I think Brienne loses a lot of her naivete between Renly’s death and her journey to King’s Landing—much in the same way Sansa does—but they are both still clinging to those ideals of honor, and trying to live up to them. Arya gave up on that the day Ned died, and she never looked back and it’s kept her alive, but I also wonder if she’s not becoming more and more isolated for it.
(Source: stephwinchester)
“It bothers me that Flynn was the one who cut off Rapunzel’s hair. She had lived all her life based on the decisions that Mother Gothel made for her. Cutting her hair should have been Rapunzel’s defining moment as a character and signified her liberation from Gothel. I feel a bit cheated that even the decision to abandon her old life was also made for without her consent.”
someone wanted my opinion on this- personally I think it’s a good point (see review and “has this been asked before” for more on Tangled if people are interested).
I mostly disliked it because even though the movie is supposed to be about Rapunzel, the final act of the climax of the film- the most important moment really of the film because it changes the entire course of the future- is done by Flynn. Which I mean, is okay, but makes the movie fall in line with most Disney movies where the heroine does a decent job of holding her own until the final moment where the man does the job.
I honestly never really thought about the consent thing, but it is a good point. Even though it is probably obvious that Rapunzel would agree with the outcome and that Flynn obviously had little choice other than to do what he did, it’s important to remember that this plot was entirely created by Disney so such a situation never had to occur as it did- so the reasoning of, “Well he had no other choice!” Is somewhat false because he could have had one- or she could have been the final hero- if the plot had been structured slightly differently in production.
I can totally see this argument, but I didn’t mind it in the context of the film for two reasons: Rapunzel had already declared her independence from Gothel when she promises to never stop fighting if Gothel didn’t let her heal Flynn, and we needed that moment to prove that Flynn was trustworthy. By this point, we’re already supposed to believe that Flynn is in love with Rapunzel, but he’s a liar and incredibly manipulative—cutting her hair was the only way to fully prove that he wasn’t in this for the money.
I thought Rapunzel was a pretty strong character in general. She’s naive without being boring or just plain stupid, she holds her own with (and against) Flynn, and her relationship with Gothel showed a lot of conflict and depth to the very end, when she reaches for the woman who tortured her as she falls from the tower.
I’m also okay with the film being about Rapunzel and Flynn. Yes, the name change and “desperate appeal to boys!” marketing were questionable at best, but I don’t think there is anything inherently negative as far as gender stereotypes in Rapunzel and Flynn’s relationship. They represent more of a true partnership than we see in most Disney romances, and we see them fall in love in a natural, progressive way. They each made sacrifices for the other,those were their defining moments.
AND WHILE WE’RE TALKING ABOUT OSCARS, THIS PERFORMANCE SHOULD HAVE WON ALL OF THEM AND I CAN’T BELIEVE HE WAS NOMINATED THAT YEAR FOR THE WHITE SAVIOR PIECE OF BULLSHIT THAT WAS BLOOD DIAMOND WITH HIS STUPID ACCENT AND NOT THIS FUCKING MASTERPIECE. LOOK. AT. HIS. FACE.
(Source: leoaddicted)
Okay, since I’m STILL hearing people on the internet griping about the first Girl With The Dragon Tattoo poster, I felt the need to go on a little rant here. Bear with me.
Look at the image on the left. Now look at the image on the right. One of these images is of a “sexualized woman,” and the other is not. If you cannot tell the difference between a nude woman, and a sexualized woman, you are an idiot.
The fact that Rooney Mara is naked in the TGWTDT poster does not make her sexualized or objectified. David Fincher has not “missed the point,” he’s actually making a very insightful observation into the way nude women are portrayed in advertising and in films. Lisbeth Salander may be nude in this poster, but she’s miles away from the expected depiction of a naked woman. Rooney Mara said it perfectly herself:
There’s a certain way people are used to seeing nude women, and that’s in a submissive, coy pose, not looking at the camera. And in this poster, I’m looking dead into the camera with no expression on my face. I think it freaks a lot of people out.
The image of Katy Perry is clearly what Rooney is talking about here (I don’t have anything visceral against Katy Perry, I’m just using a picture of her to make a point). She looks sweet, coyly hiding herself from the camera, but still looking inviting and sexually available. Rooney Mara is the exact opposite. She is bold and uninhibited in her nudity, and she looks right at the viewer with a piercing glare that conveys an unmistakable message: come near me, and you’re dead. This is hardly in keeping with the conventional images of naked women that we are used to seeing.
Nudity and sexualization are not the same thing. Try to actually understand an image and look closely at it in relation to societal conventions and expectations before you make a judgement.
While this is an excellent takedown of the nude v. sexualized idea, it doesn’t address one crucial issue: Why was it important to have Mara naked on the poster in the first place? She may be saying “Come near me and you’re dead,” but she’s also being held—protected—by a very clothed Craig.
What would be the main difference if she was wearing clothes? Not the attitude—that would remain. However, were she clothed, the viewer would be confronted not with a naked woman acting against expectations, but a woman acting against expectations. Having her nude is necessary to put the objectified presence of sexuality—not that Mara’s necessarily objectified, but the objectification of women is part of the film’s subject—right up there to draw in viewers. It is still a naked woman’s body and the way it is portrayed, rather than the woman itself, that’s being relied upon for advertising.
Damn. The tone of the OP really rubs me the wrong way.
You know what makes someone an idiot? Attempting to talk about the relationship between power/objectification, gender, and the media and failing to mention the presence and purpose of Daniel Craig in the one image. I agree that nudity doesn’t automatically mean sexual objectification, but how the fuck are you going to do a gender analysis and neglect the implicit hierarchical relationship that comes from the fact that a naked woman is being across the chest by a fully clothed man?
Oh my god, she’s looking directly at the camera! How revolutionary. Because strong women can’t be sexually objectified. There is certainly no place in peoples sexual consciousness for strong, domineering women. Its not like thats an industry in itself or whatever.
LoL, ok whatever.
I don’t think that GWADT image is that bad comparatively. I see much more obnoxious and offensive shit every time I open a magazine, but don’t be an asshole and call other people idiots for disagreeing with you if you can’t even be arsed to do a proper and holistic analysis of the image.
Agreed, agreed, agreed. My main problem with the books (I haven’t seen the Swedish movies and I’m not too thrilled for this adaption either) is how Lisbeth is super sexualized under the guise of “look how strong and independent she is.” The man who rapes her is condemned for treating her like a child…but that’s exactly what Blomkvist does to her as well. All of her sex scenes were completely skeevy and voyeuristic, especially when she has sex with women.
Basically, it’s fucked that this series is continually applauded for having a strong female character when Lisbeth, while she definitely has her moments, is never as fully rounded as her male counterpart, and is completely sexualized/infantilized at every turn. Did I mention her whole strength/independence is completely undone when she (predictably) ~falls in luuurve with Blomkvist? And then, because she is an adult who can deal maturely with her feelings, she reacts by completely ignoring him, falling off the face of the planet, getting a boob job, and having an affair with an exoticized teenage boy on an island paradise who she rescues in a hurricane. YES, ALL OF THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS.
THESE BOOKS ARE SHIT.
(Source: mountainsbelowthesea)
I think I would actually be okay with Fringe getting canceled this season, as long as they ended it properly and not on a cliffhanger. I hate watching tv live…I can’t handle all the ~suspense, especially with a hiatus.
NOOOOO. I need at least one more season. There’s no way they could end the series satisfactorily by the end of this season.
How many eps are left this season? Idk, I just feel I’ve almost always been let down by every show I’ve kept up with live. Alias and Lost especially. This is why I want Mad Men to be canceled in another season or so too…I think Matthew Weiner said once that he wanted it to be on the air until it got awful and no one was watching anymore and I was like DEAR GOD ARE YOU INSANE. I would rather be bitter about a great show being canceled too soon than a great show becoming awful because it went on too long. And I’m not saying that Fringe is getting awful by any stretch, but I think if they’re still desperate for viewers next season, it has the potential to dissolve very quickly into storylines like the love triangle thing that very easily become soap opera stuff. That’s what happened with Alias, the mythology was just completely forgotten and the later seasons of that show really had nothing to do with the first two.
I feel like this would only feed my sick masochistic Lostism. I really would like a giant compilation of all the planned storylines and theories and WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM, but whatever. And more Dharma background, and backstories for all those fascinating little secondary characters. UUUGGGHHHHHHH.
(Source: lostbeth)
Jack: Why are you telling me this Sawyer?
Sawyer: Cuz’ your about the closest thing I got to a friend, Doc.
Can I please write a paper on Sawyer’s self-loathing???
