And it’s that there are characters who don’t know that Emma is recording who still look at the camera when they talk (sometimes more than they look at Emma). It’s fine when it’s Harriet, Alex, Annie, etc. The people who know she records pretty much everything. It’s not okay when it’s a character who has no idea.
Case in point: Maddie Bates. Spent the majority of the episode talking to the camera when there should be no way she knows it’s there. She’s certainly not aware of/watching whatever is available to the public in universe (considering Emma has said some pretty not nice things about Maddie in the past).
I know it’s a minor quibble, but it’s something that really annoys me because it’s as simple as the director (or anyone, really) saying “don’t look at the camera.
“Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.” Oscar Wilde
This gif’s widespread use as shorthand for the concept of ~weaponized femininity~ has always bothered me, and I’ve never understood why it’s become so popular. I mean, sure, at first brush, it seems obvious: here is a studiedly beautiful woman who, with the simple gesture of placing a cigarette between her lips, has dozens of men wrapped around her finger, vying for her favor. But just take a minute here and look at her face. She’s not reveling in this, you get the feeling that she didn’t even expect it, this woman is upset and overwhelmed by the amount of male attention she’s getting.
Because this is a pivotal moment in a movie about a woman who is forced into prostitution.
Giuseppe Tornatore’s Malena came out in 2000, and starred Monica Bellucci as the titular Malena, a young wife whose husband is off fighting for the Axis Powers in WWII. Beautiful and shy, Malena tries to keep to herself, but finds it increasingly difficult as word of her husband’s absence attracts not only the attention of all the men in town, but the bitter jealousy of their wives and lovers. She does nothing to encourage any of her suitors, and instead spends her days caring for her aging father. But this uneasy peace in her life is shattered when she receives word of her husband’s death, and she’s left to fend for herself in a town where half the people only care for her body, and the other half hate her for it.
In the rest of the film we see the following: Malena’s relationship with her father destroyed as a result of sexual slander, Malena taken to court by a jealous neighbor who swears the young woman was sleeping with her husband, Malena’s rape by her lawyer as “payment” for her legal fees, Malena’s entry into the world of prostitution, and Melena’s public beating, stripping, and humiliation at the hands of the town’s women when the Americans arrive at the end of the war. Her husband appears in the third act, somehow alive, and he reclaims his wife, restoring her to respectability, and the townspeople begin to accept her once more, now that she is on the arm of her husband, and has, as some of the women whisper, ‘put on a little weight”.
But in spite of all of that, the film isn’t Malena’s story. Instead, we see her life through the eyes of our narrator, a young boy who by turns worships her and is disgusted by her “fall”. This is his coming of age, his discovery of himself through Malena’s trauma and the specter of female sexual jealousy.
In short, this is not a woman’s movie. Malena’s beauty is a cage, something that draws awful, selfish responses from the men around her, responses that she is forced to endure as a result of her situation. And what’s worse, her looks isolate her from women, none of whom can see past her smoky eyes and hourglass figure to the heartbroken widow who needs a friend.
So you know. Use gifs if you like, weaponize that femininity in the most numbskulled, reductively simple way possible, because lipstick is ~how you control men~ and Sex Is About Power, like Oscar Wilde said. Just remember that in this film, and so tragically often in real life, that power doesn’t rest in women’s hands.
Oh my god. SO MUCH THIS. It really bothers me when people use gifs from films that they’ve clearly never seen to illustrate points when the moment from the film (or the very film itself) is the exact OPPOSITE of the idea it’s being used for.
A month or so ago I saw a post with two gifs from Hitchcock’s Rebecca. The first one was from the scene with Maxim and ‘I’ in the car where he has the line “Promise me you’ll never wear black satin and pearls”, and the second gif was from later in the movie after they’re married when she does just that. And the caption was “my response to those ‘trend men hate’ articles”.
It really irritated me because it was so obvious that the person who used that caption had either not even seen the movie or had completely and totally misunderstood the rather simple meaning of those moments. They were, in fact, taken completely out of context. Maxim’s line is a response to the narrator’s emotional outburst that she wished she was the type of woman who wore black satin and pearls. The reason she said that wasn’t because she liked the way it looked, or because she thought she would totally rock it. She said it because she thought that was the kind of woman Maxim would want. His line to her is him saying, “Never be something you’re not comfortable with just because you think I’d like it.”
And her later wearing black satin pearls has nothing to do with her asserting her independence or wearing something she likes. She’s intimidated by the house, the staff, and the overwhelming presence of Maxim’s first wife (the type of woman who did wear black sating and pearls) and she gets it into her head that she’s not good enough for Maxim, that she’s not on his level. So she puts on this outfit that makes her VISIBLY uncomfortable because she thinks it’s what he wants even though it’s not.
It’s just really irritating because even when the sentiment of the post is something I agree with (such as in this case and giving the finger to all those stupid “you should dress the way men want” articles), the idea is completely undercut when you use a gif or a moment from a film that is pretty much the complete opposite of what you’re trying to pass it off as.
Agent Cooper discovers Audrey is at One Eyed Jack’s and goes to save her…
Leland Palmer is arraigned for the murder of Jacques Renault
Donna and Maddie try to steal Laura’s secret diary from Harold Smith’s house.
why is all this captain swan bullshit on my dash
Because so many people don’t take 2 seconds to fucking tag.
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard, “If you hate it so much, use TS and stop whining about it!”
I do use TS. It doesn’t work when your shipmates refuse to be just a little fucking polite and take the very, very, very brief moment it take to tag.
Yeah, sorry for that little outburst. But I just got another “use TS and keep stop complaining about CS” message and I’m so fucking done with this bullshit.
so according to the community wiki, jeff is currently 36 and annie is 24 making them 12 years apart. i dated a 32 year old when i was 20 and it wasnt creepy at all! she’s 24! aghh. damn you dan harmon. this cant be an excuse anymore ya weirdo!
Two good friends of mine are 12 year apart (she’s 24, he’s 36) and they’re incredibly happy, insanely in love, have a beautiful marriage, and have two beautiful, lovely, happy little girls.
So, yeah, the second someone uses the age difference as some kind of argument against Jeff and Annie, their argument immediately becomes invalid.
My 26 year old friend is happily in love with and expecting a child with her 40-something boyfriend.
What really annoys me about people using the “the age difference is creepy!” argument is that the people who use it clearly either don’t realize or just don’t think about the many, many, many couples in the real world with similar or greater age difference who are happy and in love and not remotely creepy. They don’t stop to think about how offensive (and rightly so) what they’re saying is to so many people.
Because, yeah, people being happy and in love. SO creepy.
The first thing is that I think they went a little too far with concept. The costumes, the settings. In all the other high concept episodes, there’s either a reason for them to already be in costume, or they make modifications to their own clothes in a way that makes sense. The episodes are high concept, yes, but it’s still believable that it’s just that these people got swept away. There’s no way I can believe that this entire school just decided and agreed to dress in these ridiculous costumes, no matter how swept away they got. This episode could have had largely the same dialogue and storyline and felt a lot more grounded and just better in general if they did away with the ridiculous costumes (kept to the grey clothing for 2s and 3s, keep 4s in much brighter, vibrant colors, and have the 5s all in white) and downplayed the set designs.
The other problem was the way it handled the characters. I believed Abed and Britta, but not everyone else. Shirley, Jeff, and Annie were so flatly written, focusing on one aspect of the characters and ignoring the rest. This specific story wouldn’t have worked at all had they written the characters with their ALL of their qualities.
It felt like a bad season 4 episode, like it was written by some new writers who just thought, “Oh, hey, Community does high concept episodes! Here’s one!” without realizing what made those episodes work.
this is the arrow of destiny. reblog this and see what comes up next. this person/saying/thing will have something to do with your future
omfg i got a couple in bed god bless life
last time I reblogged this i got cereal so I can’t wait to see what I get this time
If u dont like jazz especially tfa jazz i dont like u
I GOT TOM FELTON THIS IS A GOOD DAY
I got the “I’m in a relationship with 15 inflated animals.” gif. My future ain’t looking that bright.
I got feathered dinosaurs….
Mine has the fire nation involved.
I got one direction?
We know she eventually takes the potion, right? Which in itself is so stupid. I mean, Emma! You’re supposed to be a street-smart survivor here! You know he’s acting a little mad. And even if a tiny little part of you thinks he might be telling you the truth, you’re still drinking something from a stranger and you have no idea what it’ll do to you!
What’s the message here? “Take drinks from strange men, ladies! You just might wake up and realize you’re actually a princess!” Uhhhh…..
All of this, plus the seemingly neverending problem in this show of easily magically handwaving problems away when the writers write themselves into a corner or just don’t want a storyline anymore. Fuck story development. We’re sick of this storyline. Someone needs to drink a potion.
I don’t know how you can be a rumbeller and ship CS.
What a ridiculous statement. And I say that as someone who love Rumbelle and loathes CS.
Neither ship informs the other. Some kind of weird “You can’t ship CS because that means you think everything Hook ever did to Rumple and Belle is okay, and if you ship Rumbelle you have to actively hate every single character that has wronged them” mindset makes no sense. It assumes that everyone ships the exact same way for the exact same reasons which is just flat out wrong.
Again, it comes down to the black and white issue, and it surprises me that so many OUAT fans fall into that flawed way of thinking (some kind of black and white view of good and evil, that the heroes are the only ones who can be happy and the villains are irredeemable) considering that’s pretty much the opposite of one of the driving ideas behind the show.
But yeah, this is a ridiculous thought. People shipping CS doesn’t inherently mean that they’re totally cool with everything Hook has done. And thinking that you can’t ship it because Hook did bad things to Rumple is a lot like thinking that you can’t ship Rumbelle unless you’re totally okay with all the bad things Rumple has done over the centuries.
In summation, it’s a stupid and erroneous thought that makes zero sense.