breakinglight11: (Default)
Because the algorithms are getting way too smart, I am getting bombarded with ads for that Materialists movie. I confess I’ve become a little bit obsessed with the trailer, and not just for the most predictable, Chris Evans-related reasons. BECAUSE IT’S SO STRANGE TO ME.

I find the title much weirder than I probably should, because I was raised on C.S. Lewis and his usage of “a materialist” comes to my mind before the “Material Girl” sort of way. But that cover of the Madonna song they use is a bop.

As befits the Madonna reference, the premise seems to have time-traveled in from twenty or thirty years ago, complete with characters who still smoke. A woman torn between a slick rich guy and a sweet poor guy? With the implication that she actually has stronger feelings for the poor guy? That is just about as stale a premise as I can think of. How could they possibly do anything fresh with that? If she chooses the nice poor guy, it’s a total cliche. But what would they be saying if they go for the hot rich guy? “Yeah, sure is great when you fall for people who are hot AND rich! Love when life is easy like that!” Powerful stuff, there.

Also, they seem to be implying that Dakota is doing okay for herself. They show her doing well as a matchmaker to high-powered people, so… can't she just hook up with hot poor guy, and take care of herself? Why does she need a man to do it? Is her life going to be soooooo much worse if she’s at her normal level of success un-bolstered by her boyfriend, rather than the rich dude’s ridiculous level?

Now, I get that love isn’t just falling for somebody, but living in that love every day. I believe in a certain level of practicality, and I CERTAINLY could not live with a useless man who didn’t contribute. But like, being a waiter is a hard job, so it’s not like he’s lazy or doesn’t want to work. Is she really afraid he’s going to become a burden on her? Feels kinda classist. “Doesn’t make a lot of money” is absolutely not the same as “does not meaningfully participate in the upkeep of our life together.” But apparently his being a waiter is enough to make her not want to consider him as a life partner?

Of course, this is a woman who hooks up with a new love and immediately afterward asks him how much his apartment costs. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHO RAISED YOU? Pedro, do not marry this tacky chick! You deserve better!

I may just be biased in Chris’s favor. Pedro is a great actor and a total sweetheart, but he doesn’t do it for me for whatever reason. And I have always been way stupider over good looks than I am over money, so… definite possibility.

Chris looks very good, because of course he does. They’re trying to imply there’s a little wear on him, possibly to suggest he doesn’t have his life together at a point by which he should. He’s using his growly voice, which is a nice touch. Apparently he’s been pining away for Dakota, even though men who look like that have no trouble finding great women to date regardless of their professional status. It’s an appealing fantasy, to think of him as some devoted romantic. I confess, “When I look at you, I see wrinkles and children,” got me a little, thanks to my personal baggage regarding men getting sick of you when you get old and gain weight.

And I’ll say the bit where she tells Pedro that she wants a Coke and beer and it appears immediately, briefly implying he’s just that powerful, but actually because her ex Chris saw her and knows that’s order, is very clever.

Still can’t fathom how they plan to actually do something with this premise. Feels like any way you take it is… flat and ridiculous. Does anybody go to a movie like this hoping for innovation? But in 2025, do you really you go with the most done, trite, obvious thing in the history of narrative? Why does Chris keep doing dumb movies like this? Doesn’t he have enough money? Why is Pedro doing this, for that matter, whose career’s been gangbusters lately?

I almost want to go just to see whether it’s fish, fowl, or otherwise. Hey, maybe she’ll end up picking neither! Or maybe go with the best of both worlds, and end up in a polyamorous relationship with Chris’s dick and Pedro’s money. I could get behind either of those.
breakinglight11: (Default)
And I was pretty disappointed.

It wasn't a bad read, but ultimately an unsatisfying one for me. I rolled my eyes when the screenwriter in the story scorned the idea of making the motivations of her characters clear, but it appears the writer of the novel agrees. I couldn't figure out why most of the characters did the things they did, particularly the narrator, which made them feel less believable.

I also didn't love how often the main character elided conversations and moments that seemed like they should be important with... quick summaries of what was said or done. I know that it's supposed to be an unreliable narrator literally speaking the words of his own audiobook, but it felt to me like the author just didn't know how to actually show the moment rather than just tell us what we were supposed to get from it. And it's not like the author wasn't willing to sacrifice verisimilitude of form in other places-- if the in-book screenplay was supposed to be good, rather than waaaaaaaaay overwritten and self-indulgent, it was definitely willing to overwrite in the service of this being a novel rather than an actual screenplay. As a filmmaker and screenwriter myself, that is NOT how effective ones are written.

And, totally personal gripe, but again, as a filmmaker myself-- any filmmaker who doesn't care about the safety and on-set experience of their crew is a FUCKING ASSHOLE who does not deserve that crew's time or effort. The filmmakers in this story were definitely of that stripe, and I don't think it was acknowledged nearly enough in this story how abusive that is. I think we were asked to have way too much sympathy for those characters for that awareness to have been present.
breakinglight11: (Default)
I saw The Substance this past weekend, and I am sorry to report I didn’t really like it. Not that it was bad, exactly, but I don’t think it was effective. At least, if it was trying to tell the story I was expecting. SPOILERS AHEAD.

From the marketing, I was going in for a story about a woman whose fear of losing her value as she aged leading her to destroy everything of ANY value about herself. I was preparing myself for this film to, for lack of a better term, trigger the hell out of me, or at least give me big feelings. This is, in theory, a horror movie for me, exploring ideas that I VERY SPECIFICALLY find scary. My fear of aging and becoming ugly is well-documented, after all. But it really didn’t work for me, because I don’t feel like it captured any of what that fear feels like.

To begin with, it is not a subtle film. That’s not necessarily a criticism, but I will say I did not care for it. Anytime a character was remembering something that just happened to them, the moment would be superimposed right on top of things, like it didn’t expect you to make the connection. The misogynist male executive was depicted as loud, gross, and over the top as possible— from having him rant in so many words about how old women sucked, to yucky closeups of him chomping on shrimp. And that’s to say nothing of how over the top the voyeurism of the camera was on Margaret Qualley’s body. I was kind of hoping to see a depiction of pervasive, insidious anti-aging bias is woven into the world, particularly for women, particularly for women in the limelight. It just seemed a bit too easy to have a very yucky man straight-up tell Demi Moore that fifty is too old— especially when she’s so beautiful that she’s able to pass for younger than fifty when she’s actually sixty-two.

Again, I get that this extremity and exaggeration was a deliberate stylistic choice. But to my sensibility, when you create a fantasy of a real experience, you are trying to use the fantastical elements to express true ideas in a manner that makes them stand out even more strongly than they do in life. So it wasn’t that I was expecting this lurid sci fi horror extravaganza to realistically depict the mundane indignities of getting older. But I felt like the representations should be clearly alluding to emotions and experiences that were recognizable enough to evoke horror. But I only saw one moment, maybe one and a half moments, that felt like genuine expression of the struggle of aging.

The first and realest was when her growing insecurity over her appearance in comparison to Sue while getting ready for her date led her to second-guess herself so badly, she not only ruined her appearance, she collapsed entirely. As someone who has wiped off fifty percent of all lipstick she’s ever applied in her entire life, because of staring in the mirror and genuinely being unable to tell if it looks good or clownish— as someone who has wondered if I ought to just get that tiny little poke of flesh at the corners of my jaw “taken care of” before anybody but me starts to notice— I felt that.

The only other one that came close, and to me used the extreme fantastical exaggeration effectively for once, was when her trollishly twisted self stood beside the portrait of herself in her glory days. The comparison— of having been perfect once, having known what it was like to have been beautiful, but intensely aware of how fleeting it is —shivered me, because it evoked a terror that runs genuinely deep. I’ve been lucky enough to have kept my figure up to this point, but my face has visibly aged, losing some roundness around the jawline and loosening up just a tiny bit at the jowls. Even as I exult over the fact that I can still wear a bikini I bought when I was nineteen, the changing shape of my face reminds me that it’s all just a matter of time before it all goes away. No amount of beauty you once had protects you from what’s to come.

It also didn’t manage to capitalize on its compelling premise. The idea was that you use a medical procedure to make a younger hotter self, and trade off weeks of getting to go out and live life. When the selves cannot split time and resources equally and become jealous of each other, they destroy one another. But I think they just didn’t build it out right. In The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Jekyll would maintain consciousness when he became Hyde; he had the same memories and awareness, just like everything about himself and his personality were different. He felt Hyde’s experiences, he knew what Hyde did, because— as was ultimately the point of the book —Hyde WAS him. In The Substance, main self Elisabeth and alternate self Sue shared no consciousness at all, and under most circumstances weren’t even able to meet each other. It wasn’t really like having an alternate self; it was more like having a child you had no relationship with, and no ability to develop one.

It really made it hard for me to see what the advantage of the process was— you miss out on half of your life, you don’t get to personally enjoy any of the benefits of being the young hot self, and you don’t even have any ability to develop love or affection for the other self to make you enjoy their success vicariously. The company that makes the Substance has to continually remind Elisabeth and Sue that they are one, but… they don’t feel that way, to us or to them, because they’re really not. The process really doesn’t facilitate anything that would make them feel that they are.

It made me wonder if maybe it was more a story about jealousy, or living vicariously through your child. But that lack of relationship between them left a lot of even that premise on the table.

I also didn’t quite understand the purpose of the extremely sexualizing camera angles constantly used on Sue. At first, I thought they were trying to establish the excitement of suddenly having an amazing body, and delighting in checking it out. That made sense to me. (Although for the record, if Margaret Qualley is hotter than Demi Moore, it’s only by the tiniest bit, which is saying something since Qualley is 29 and Moore is 62.) But they persisted with the objectifying closeups on her until almost the end of the movie. We get several sequences of her dancing shot like porn movies, with a particular focus on her ass. As I said, this is not a subtle movie, but after a while I didn’t get what it was trying to say by carrying it out so persistently. We knew by that point that she was hot, so… what? I thought eventually they might use the extreme objectification to make her body seem grosser and grosser, the way human physicality can become when you chop it up visually and get too close on the details, but by the time they were ready to do that, they actually started making her body itself fall apart. So it honestly started to feel like fan service to me, which seemed very out of place in a movie like this. If anybody has an idea of what they think it was trying to accomplish, I’d love to hear it.

There was also one element that cracked me up— the intense masculine voice that narrated the commercial for the Substance also was the one who answered the phone anytime Elisabeth and Sue called the company to complain. Poor guy, he probably auditioned for an acting gig and got stuck with a customer service job!
breakinglight11: (Default)


It made me smile to learn that they were making a sequel series to Willow, the 1988 fantasy movie starring Warwick Davis. Normally I’m not a huge fan of decades-later sequels, but Willow has a special place in my heart, and I’m kind of happy to hear there’s new interest in it. It’s not exactly an amazing film, but I’ve enjoyed it since I was young. And there are two particular things about it, in my opinion, that made it special.

The first of which is Warwick Davis himself. I think that in a less ableist world, he would have become not just, like, a beloved specialty actor, but a star— if nothing else, maybe something like Peter Dinklage. He’s not a thespian on Dinklage’s level, but he is an utterly charming and engaging screen presence. And he’s just wonderful as Willow Ufgood. Compelling, lovable, sympathetic, believable. I was floored to learn he was just eighteen years old when he played that role— to carry a whole film like that so young is quite a feat. And he has the most beautiful face. I remember being struck by it when I was small and the impression of it never left me. A face made to be onscreen, full of expression and life, with a light of its own. Willow’s face is so beautiful.

The second is the kind of hero Willow is. He is the one who goes on the quest not because he is a great warrior, or an aspiring sorcerer. It’s because he’s a father. The task is to see that a special baby is saved from the witch who is hunting her, and Willow has to be the one to do it, because he has come to love her and knows how to care for her. Willow has the sweetest little family, a wife and two children he loves, and they don’t have to die to further his growth; he’s just delighted to get to come back to them. And I particularly love how baby care is explicitly part of what he brings to the adventure. Willow often references what to feed her, changing her, how to transport her safely, a depiction of parental tenderness that is so rarely seen in male adventure heroes. His heroism is in love and compassion above all. It’s one of the reasons I was so impressed to hear he was only eighteen years old, that such a young person was so believable as a family man, while still feeling quite young. In fact, I think this young man as a father while setting off on adventure inspired me when I was conceiving of Nathaniel Hawking, who also has two little kids at the beginning of his journey.

Bernie and I rewatched the movie the other night, and I enjoyed it as much as I ever have. We’ve started the new series, which honestly is just okay, but I’m liking it all the same. Willow deserves a little more love for being something special.
breakinglight11: (Default)


I am kind of fascinated by the presentation of Tenoch Huerta as Namor in the new Black Panther movie. Not just because of the Central American aesthetic; that was definitely unexpected, though very welcome to me, seeing as it’s gorgeously rendered and a very cool artistic inspiration from a culture not previously much referenced in the Marvel universe. More because of the vibe they gave him.

Namor, like every other long-running comics character, has been interpreted in a variety of different ways, from imperious ocean wizard to smarmy undersea fuck boy. I confess I’ve always preferred the latter, watching him “hey, girl” at Sue Storm in front of her husband and scoff at people too unsophisticated to appreciate the charms of the shrimp queen. For years I’ve been cracking, “I can’t wait to see what twenty-five-year-old underwear model they cast to play him.” I was picturing a chiseled, smooth-skinned boy-man, preening and lip-biting as he imposed himself through ego and brazen sexuality. While there is a basis for Slutty Namor(TM), I admit the limits my particular biases and tastes on the topic placed on my imagination.

But Tenoch Huerta and the way they present him isn’t any of those things. In the trailers, he projects ten thousand percent, pure, weapons-grade MAJESTY. In real life, Huerta is a cute guy, even kind of sweet-faced. And you don’t get cast as an MCU superhero unless you’ve got BODY. But his beauty is in a shock and awe sort of way, blowing you away with his presence, his costume nothing but a few adornments meant to emphasize his status. Torque, headdress, jade jewelry. The bareness of his body seems to not to have any of the usual semiotics of nakedness— it’s not about honesty, or vulnerability, or even sexualization. It’s like a declaration of power, that his lack of concealment or protection of any kind is because he is too mighty to need it. More than anything it reminds me, weirdly enough, of dark Galadriel in Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings, beautiful and terrible as the dawn. Untouchable, imposing, and above all else, magisterial.

I was very surprised by it, but I’m super intrigued. This approach feels so fresh and I can’t wait to see what they do with it.

breakinglight11: (Default)
[Doctor Strange spoilers]

So recently I had a mother of a student basically try to wreck my career— not because I did anything wrong (I personally never did anything but try to help her child) but because her kid was extremely mentally ill and whose life was falling apart, and it seemed to her the most expedient way to help the kid. The kid had failed to meet all of the (many) chances I had given her to complete all her work, and I gave her an F. So the mother came after me to my superiors. But despite some fairly cruel and shockingly personal attacks from a person who’d never met me, I wasn’t the point— the desperation to help her extremely sick child was.

It upset of me, of course, and in private I vented a lot of feelings about it. And I think it was definitely wrong of her. But I also tried to remember… she is a mother desperate to protect her child. It doesn’t make it right, but to her, if burning some stranger was the way to save the kid, what else was she supposed to do?

I think a lot of parents see themselves as protectors and advocates and mama bears and papa wolves when they fight for their kids, when from the perspectives of the people they go up they may come off… differently.

So I’m a bit surprised at how many people think Wanda was just depicted as “crazy” in the new Doctor Strange movie.
breakinglight11: (Default)
I have decided to lessen the burden of your boredom in the coming days of isolation by suggesting you enjoy (read: SHAMELESSLY PLUGGING) stuff I wrote!

QUARANTINE REC #1: "Dad Body"

Let us begin with something with popular appeal. This is a short fan fiction I wrote based on Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. Are you like me, and in your grouchy old age, you enjoyed that movie hugely but would have cut the joke characters and wanted to see the senior protagonist's reaching out to his estranged ex-wife? THEN THIS IS THE FIC FOR YOU.

Somewhat depressingly, based on available metrics, this is very likely the most popular thing I've ever made.



Read it here on Archive of Our Own: "Dad Body"

Fandom: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
Pairing: Peter B. Parker/Mary Jane Watson
Rating: G
Warnings: None
Tags: Post-Canon, Reconciliation, Romance, Post-Divorce, Emotional Hurt/Comfort, Parenthood, Dadbod, Multiverse, Angst and Feels, Canon Compliant, Flowers, Missing Scene
Summary: Peter thought that he'd done too much to screw up his old life with Mary Jane. But Miles's faith in him made him wonder if maybe he had it in him to fix things after all.

breakinglight11: (Default)
Bernie wants me to watch The Mandalorian so he can discuss it with me. I will probably try for his sake, but I’m honestly not really interested. I’ve never been a Star Wars fan— I find it kind of cheesy and none of the characters have ever really grabbed me —and I’m often at a loss to see what inspires so much devotion beyond nostalgia. And one thing in particular is the enthusiasm people have for Boba Fett. While the Mandalorian bounty hunter of the show is not him, it’s clear the whole premise is trading off of the affection people have for the original character.

I’ve always been vaguely put off by how much people seem to like a character that has... nothing to him. In his original trilogy appearances, he has no personality. He accomplishes basically nothing, so it’s not like he’s a badass, or even an effective threat. He misses every shot he takes and dies like an absolute bitch, in a moment that feels like the narrative is trying to get rid of him as quickly as possible because it doesn’t want to deal with him anymore.

I’ve always found him ridiculous because of this. However, I really OUGHT to like him— because, in his popularity, he proves a point that’s really important to me. WHY do people like Boba Fett? Because his costume is so cool.



That’s basically all there is too him, in the absence of a personality or meaningful action. He doesn’t even have hair or a face or even much of a voice; the costume is literally all that’s there. And its design is sufficiently evocative and imagination-capturing to enable so many people to latch onto him and do their own filling in of a personality behind the armor.

He’s the literal perfect example of how much a costume can create a character. The idea that costumes are NARRATIVE, that they can be packed with INFORMATION, is something I believe really strongly. People read them and receive messages from them whether they realize it or not.

And this look is unique and evocative. It looks worn and lived-in, giving him the sense of experience and having survived rough conditions, while also keeping with the very everything-is-junk look of most non-Imperial tech. He is scrappy, practical, weathered. He still looks at home on dull sand planets but also introduces an unusual his color scheme for the otherwise very chiaroscuro films, with its red-yellow-green combination. It feels like a real, lived-in commando look, while still capturing the spaceman aesthetic. It’s aged really well, too, despite having been designed in a decade where a LOT of the aesthetic has not. And his lack of distinguishing features make it easy to imagine who he might be— specifically, whoever you want him to be.

If anybody ever doubts the power of costume design, he’s the perfect example to point to. A multi-decade long fan obsession, spawned by literally nothing but an evocative suit.
breakinglight11: (Default)
As with all other aspects of a filmic narrative, there are many different creative arts that are combined to tell the story. All these elements may be handled by different artists with different areas of expertise, but ideally they are all practicing their crafts together in concert to serve the vision in whatever way they can. And they can do even more than the more notional elements of the story. As I like to say, the script is god, but aesthetics are king— all the story elements may have been created with the text, but the more sensory elements, such as the visuals, have a more immediate impact on the audience, and therefore a more visceral power to influence the audience’s perception.

Costuming design is one of these visual elements. Based on any number of qualities of clothing, a costumer can influence the way the viewer understands the characters, and convey any amount of information about the ideas, emotions, directions, connections, and conflicts of the story. This can be a subjective matter, often more a matter of suggestion and subject, but people tend to absorb ideas this way even if they can’t articulate them. When it comes to these ideas, costuming tends to work through two approaches— the diegetic, and the semiotic.

Diegetic costuming deals with the idea that these are the clothes the characters chose to wear within the world of the story. Any meaning comes out of the notions that these are characters dressing themselves, choosing their clothes due to who they are as people, what their circumstances are like, what their lives are like— largely in the manner that real people do. Costuming is much more curated than people’s everyday dressing choices, of course, and so can be trusted to be much more meaningful indicators than what a real person might wear on any given day. But from this school of thought, the designer works based on what a person like this character would choose to wear, given the nature of their personality and their circumstances. Therefore, you, the viewer, can use these choices to learn about who the characters are and what their lives are like, within the world of the narrative.

By contrast, semiotic costuming deal with the idea that costuming can be used to send messages the author wishes for the audience to receive, independently from anything a character decides deliberately or accidentally to wear. These are choices made simply for their narrative meaning, as opposed to the considerations a character would naturalistically take into account when selecting clothing. We might say this is where costuming choices become symbolic, indicating the themes, ideas, motifs, and meanings of the story that the characters wouldn’t necessarily be conscious of.

The line between these two approaches can blur, depending on how conscious a storyteller wants to make the characters of the communication inherent in clothing. Theoretically a character could be making a costuming choice in-universe to send a semiotic message. But it’s useful to have a grasp of the difference between these two approaches, because it helps identify possibilities for meaning beyond the confines of the character’s own naturalistic understanding of clothes.

In addition to these diegetic and semiotic concerns, there’s also the production level to be taken into consideration. This is when the forces of practicality, business, and finance necessitate certain design choices more than any narrative interest. Occasionally this refers to when the vagaries of life get in the way of theory— getting clothes on the bodies of the actors, working within the budget, dealing with the physical reality of acting in the costume, what items are within the designer’s access. While in an ideal world designers make all their choices because they do the most to serve the story, there are always going to be practical concerns.

When I am analyzing costumes, referring to the reason for and significance of any given costume choices, I attribute it to forces acting on various different levels of the piece. I think it’s good to be clear on that before performing any examination, so that the lens of approach is clear.
breakinglight11: (Default)
I am procrastinating my grading for the day, so I'm going to make good on my threat to write about my approach to low-budget costuming for a large number of people for a period piece— the gentlemen this time.

As I mentioned yesterday, this past weekend I did costuming for a period film set in 1915, "The Fair Fight" from Narrow Street Films. I spoke about how I handled the womenswear already, but now let's talk about dressing a large cast of men.

They are at once both easier and harder than women, depending on the issue. Menswear has not hugely changed over the course of two hundred years— the basic features of the suit have been fairly constant beyond minor aspects of detail and silhouette. The male uniform for this period is even more narrow and conformist than it was for women, basically a close-fitting structured wool suit in three pieces, with tapered trousers and a button down shirt with stiff collar and cuffs. Details and quality of fit vary with social class and time of day, but some variation on that was necessary for all the men.

The typical modern men's suit is descended from the sack suit of the time, a casual daytime outfit with a more relaxed fit and no tails, but modern jackets tend to have the top button way too low. Similarly, period trousers ought to sit at the true waist rather than the lower modern preference, and while we find a break in the pant leg appropriate, period cuffs should hang straight and terminate right at the bottom of the ankle. The easiest way to recreate this with modern clothes is with formalwear, which has changed very little over the past century. Tuxedo pants tend to have the right rise and taper, wingtip tuxedo shirts simulate the right collar, and morning coats and frock coats really make the silhouette. So I have amassed quite the collection, along with a bunch of vests in as many colors as possible.

But because there is such a uniformity among menswear— and a difficulty in finding tuxedo pieces in anything but black or gray —it often leads to a lot of men in the same dark suit, with no distinctive look or expression of character personality. So I bend the dressing rules a little, or a lot, for the sake of creating variation and saying something about the character. I had to interchange as much as I could— jacket style, vest color, tie color, tie style, hat or no hat —to make as many vaguely appropriate combinations as possible.



Take these four men. Three are wealthier and more upperclass, high-ranking soldiers and the brother of the wealthy industrialist, while the last is a respectable working class man. The upper class men are all in jackets, specifically frock coats, which these days are worn as outer coats for tuxedoes, and have that very high vamp. It looks like what such men might wear for a more informal occasion like a country fair, while the working class character is just in shirtsleeves. I specifically asked most jacket-wearing gentlemen not to button their coats, however, because I wanted the colors of their vests to be visible for distinction. I would have liked there to be a larger array of colors, but I was limited by fit. There's also a lot of variation in the ties, both in color and style; we have a cravat, two ascots, and a puff tie, which I did my best to coordinate with the vests. The millworker, played by Chris Dovidio, is also wearing a casual hat, in this case a Greek fisherman's cap.



This shot contains some of the same gentlemen, including Dan Dovidio and Ted Siok, but you'll also notice the one in the morning coat, played by Ken Neenan. His character is the head of the family at the center of the story, the rich owner of the mill, so I decided he could be more formally dressed than the others to present himself to the village. This brings in the gray of the morning coat along with its swallow-tailed shape, contrasting with the frock coats, and his gold striped vest and tie also helps him stand out.



Frock coats again, except for the gentleman in the center, played by Robb Buckland, who is actually wearing a sack coat, a less formal option. He's also in a bow tie and my only pair of hickory striped trousers, which properly probably are too formal for sack suiting, but I was limited in what fit who. I do like the look of them and wish I had more, but it's rare for people to own morning dress anymore so it's quite expensive to pick up. For the gentleman on the left, the pretentious rival mill foreman played by Chris Dubey, I wanted him to look like he was flashy and trying too hard, with his garish blues and awkward ascot. I usually use plain black Oxfords for shoes, as the low-heeled leather ankle boots more appropriate to the time are harder to find, but as you can see some people preferred to wear their own.



A drunk and a cop. The cop, played by Caio Avraim, is wearing the bobby-esque coat I use for London police officers in Mrs. Hawking. His cap doesn't really go, but unfortunately nothing more appropriate fit him and I felt like he needed a hat. The drunk, played by Dan O'Brien, is a mishmash of my rougher-looking stuff, and I made a point of not ironing anything he was wearing.



The one cheat I was most annoyed at having to make was for Terry Traynor, playing Terrence O'Neil the butler. I knew the director KJ Traynor wanted him in livery, but I didn't have a black morning coat that would fit him, which would have been standard for the uniform during the day. So he's wearing evening tails. It doesn't look out of the question for what the casual eye would expect for a butler in livery, but it's not right if you know what to look for. (You can also see the maid and the housekeeper characters in casual daywear in this shot.)

Overall, I'm pretty pleased. Didn't have to resort to a sea of uniform black suits. But I have put off my grading long enough, and ought to get back on it.
breakinglight11: (Default)
This weekend I did costuming for a period film set in 1915, "The Fair Fight" from Narrow Street Films, directed by KJ Traynor and Terry Traynor, who I met because he did some excellent fight choreography on my movie. I've become kind of known for my ability to fake long-19th-Century-appropriate costuming on a low budget, thanks to a number of years' experience working on Mrs. Hawking and the corresponding very large collection of suiting, dresses, long skirts, and high-collared shirts one builds in that process.

It was quite a large cast and utilitized a large chunk of my stock, particularly for the men. I had almost no daywear to spare at all after dressing the guys. In situations like that, it can be hard to make the characters distinctive in any way, when you're struggling just to get everybody dressed in something that looks right. But I collected some pictures from the set that I thought kind of demonstrated the approach I take to dealing with that particular costuming challenge.

One scene shot today included basically all the speaking female characters which I thought illustrated my approach well. Most of the characters are young women, many of them suffragists. I never managed to get a picture where every one of them was visible, so I'll have to show you a couple. But since I was kind of locked into a silhouette, and of course my sizing options are always limited, I tried to give each their own color and vary up the kinds of pieces making up that silhouette as possible.



The basic look is long, solid colored straight skirt, white blouse, and maybe a coordinating jacket. Upper class Edwardian women often wore "suit dresses" like this. So I tried to find as many iterations of that as I could. Patterned jacket over neutral black skirt. Long coat and coordinating vest over neutral skirt. Bolero-jacketed full suit. Faux suit of patterned jacket over skirt in a similar color. Faux dress look of a skirt and blouse that match, or nearly so, with a neutral black bolero. The light blue dress on Ashley was her own discovery, the suit-like lapels bridging the gap with the other costumes.



Here's another view of some of those looks, plus one more, the mill owner's daughter, played by Kate Eppers. You can see they're also each in a distinct color. Purple, brown, light blue, deep blue, green, red, burgundy. I find that, while it is painting with something of a broad brush, it's an easy way to distinguish characters from each other, and audience members have an easier time remembering who is who.



I wish I'd been able to incorporate more true dresses. [personal profile] inwaterwrit, who is wardrobe mistress on the Mrs. Hawking plays, has a preference for dresses rather than separates, and it would have been a way to include more variation. I tried to create the illusion of a dress with the very similarly colored burgundy blouse and skirt on actress Autumn Allen. But I don't have a lot of dresses that would look appropriate for informal Edwardian. I almost put the one I did have, in bright pink, on Kate, but I became concerned it would appear too close in color to the red suit. I went with the green look to spread the palette more. The green is attractive and interesting, though that satin shows every crease on camera, and it's probably the least accurate with its standing collar and three-quarter-length folded-over cuffs. I also wish I'd had more hats. They all should have been wearing one, technically, but I ran out. But at least it's another way to get visual variation.

I might show you how I handled the men soon too. My approach is necessarily more limited there, but there are still opportunities for distinctions to be drawn.
breakinglight11: (Default)
This past week, I finished my Avengers: Endgame fan fiction, As Long as He Needs, about what happened to Captain America in the last time travel sequence at the very end of the film.

I’m actually pretty happy with it. I set down a process and stuck with it, outlining it at least in rough form, before allowing myself a week to draft each of the eight chapters, which I posted on a regular schedule Tuesday morning. I averaged just under two thousand words per chapter, coming in at a final count of 15.7K. I didn’t do much editing, so it could probably be more polished, but I wanted to the project to stay fun and keep from becoming a burden as much as possible. And I think I wrote a pretty freaking good story given the speed and ease with which I approached it.

Spoilers for Avengers: Endgame and my story As Long as He Needs begin here.

I really loved the ending the film set up for Steve. I firmly believe that characters need to be challenged in the ways that they’re weak and prompted to grow and change in order to create engaging narrative. So the idea that he could be challenged to take care of himself for once— something he’s never really been good at —is a much greater journey and bigger lesson for Steve to learn than him throwing himself on yet more grenades. Because he was literally doing that since the minute we met him. More of that would not have represented any growth.

It actually kind of infuriated me that some people thought that was “out of character,” or that he was “too good a man” to decide he couldn’t always be killing himself to save the world anymore. Did people really believe he’s a worse person for wanting literally any life for himself? I want to say to those people, imagine you had a friend who had done even one amazing, heroic, selfless, demanding thing, much less as many as Steve had. If that friend told you he was tired and wanted to focus on doing something for himself for once— would you tell that friend he was “too good a man” to do that? Would you actually believe that made him less of a good person if he’s no longer destroying himself to take care of everybody else?

If so, I don’t want to be your friend.

But it had to be a struggle— making the choice to go a different way needed to be hard for Steve, in order to prompt a proper narrative journey. So I decided to take the tactic that he knew he was burning out and wanted something different, but that HE was afraid that it was cowardly or selfish. So he’d have to work out his feelings about that in order to come to his decision. The mechanism I used for this was his conversation with Bucky before he left, as well as the encounters he has in the process of returning the Infinity Stones.

The directors have said that he and Bucky talked about the idea of Steve returning to the 1940’s. You can tell by the way Bucky tells him “I’m going to miss you,” as they say goodbye— if he was expected to come right back, Bucky wouldn’t have indicated missing him. But I chose to go with the idea that while they had discussed it, Steve was still undecided. This meant that he could have a journey in coming to the decision, while still honoring the idea that he’d done it with input from Bucky. That totally makes sense to me, as he’d talk it over with his best friend. And honestly, I believe Bucky cares enough about him to encourage him to do what was good for himself for once, since he’d never made that a priority in his life. But Steve’s problem is that while he wants to go, he doesn’t know if it’s okay for him to do it.

Bernie and I worked out the rough structure of it extremely quickly, the night after we’d both seen the film. The order of the return of each stone, who he’d encounter there, roughly what Steve would do during and take away from each encounter. The biggest challenge was to make a believable arc for Steve’s very internal journey. I elected to make all of his stone returns fairly uneventful, for two reasons— one, I didn’t want to take the time hammering out complicated capers, and two, because I wanted Steve’s inner struggle to be the main narrative through line. So that meant I had to plot out how he’d develop in his emotions and viewpoint, how he’d get from one stage of emotional development to the next, and where. That’s tricky, but that’s what it takes when you want the plot to basically BE the character journey.

So I decided that everything he did and encountered would have to push him a little farther toward deciding. He’d be turning it over in his mind, and new perspective would be injected by whatever he encountered returning the stones. It would cause him to consider something, and call up to memory a relevant piece of his conversation with Bucky, and he’d evolve a little in his position, implicitly or explicitly.

I very consciously decided that Bucky would be the only force actively encouraging him to put his own self-care first. It struck me as highly unrealistic if the universe at large seemed to be pushing towards anything, or even people who basically didn’t know him and had no investment in his choices at all. So I while I definitely wanted his takeaway from his experiences to help him decide, I didn’t want it to seem like anything was trying to make him decide, or actively wanted him to do anything in particular. He was presented with information— even, occasionally, kindness —and drew conclusions from it.

I wrote out Bucky’s conversation with him in its entirety, to be referenced as if in flashback or memory. While each referenced piece was conceived of to support his emotional journey at that stage of the story, I worked very hard to make sure it flowed and built as a continuous, believable conversation that could stand to be read on its own. Bucky sure does get a bunch of wham lines, though, at brisk periodic intervals. ;-)

Steve starts pretty against the idea, fairly certain that he’d be taking the coward’s way out, would be erasing the lives of Peggy’s children, et cetera. He decides to return the space stone first so he has the chance to see her again like the last time he visited 1970; if he gets to see her, he reasons, that will be enough to hold him. But when he has to time jump away to avoid being caught by SHEILD, he’s left way more bereft than he expected.

When he goes to Morag to return the power stone, I kept that one kind of light and funny, since I knew it would be that story’s only chance. I really loved how he plays Peter Quill. I hate writing stories without humor, even when they’re heavy, and I wanted to preserve a touch of Steve’s wit. However, it does occur to him that this timeline’s version of Quill would never meet Gamora. He compares the Quill in love with a Gamora who no longer knows him to a man who’s loved and lost, and the Quill who will never meet Gamora to having never loved at all, and wonders which hurts less. He laughs at himself for think of Gamora as the love of Peter’s life, aware that he’s projecting.

Next he goes to Vormir, to the soul stone, and the Red Skull. Now, I have famously not enjoyed Scarlett Johansson’s rendition of Black Widow and always found the character in her hands to be a pretty dull, blank slate. However, the text insists that she’s a close and valued friend of Cap’s despite no visible humanity communicated by the actress, so I worked hard to honor that. The takeaway here is that he wonders if Natasha’s determination to be the one to make the sacrifice came from her having come to believe that’s all she was good for or had to offer— to paraphrase the great Captain Awkward, “to be burned on the pyre to keep the rest of them warm.” He remembers Bucky challenging him if he thought that of himself, which he doesn’t like the sound of. So, a little shift forward there. But he’s still worried that if people like Black Widow and Tony didn’t get to escape that fate, what right would he have?

As a side note, I really liked writing Red Skull. He always had a very overblown sort of diction, which was fun to reproduce. I made him call Steve “beautiful boy,” and even poke at his issues a little— “And yet you had no care but to sacrifice yourself on the altar of other men’s wars.” And “Still so keenly seeking your oblivion?” His new state of being has given him time to figure a few things out, and also not given a fuck about saying them. He even gets a reference to one of my favorite moments in Watership Down; see if you can spot it.

Next is Asgard, to return the Reality Stone. This chapter has consistently been my readers’ favorite, I think because Steve gets a little squishier than usual, and fan fic readers tend to like their angst. I try to dole out unusual visible displays of distress carefully, especially in a character as stoic as Steve— Chris Evans has a great trick of making him smile when he’s sad, for heaven’s sake. But I wanted him to break down a little as a turning point. Frigga’s slight magic insight made her able to understand a lot of what was going on with Cap without having to explain it, and she’s not connected to anything in his regular life, both of which I think made things a little easier for him to actually discuss with someone.

This was the first person I wanted to be very careful about having no interest in encouraging Steve to do anything in particular. She has no investment in him making any particular choice. She does, however, speak the simple truth that it’s hard to “belong to the world” the way he has, and that it’s human to feel weak and tired when you are in need of something. And she is kind to him in a moment where he’s clearly low, because she’s an empathetic presence and grateful to him for being part of her son’s support system. So I feel like she was able to give him a little support and validation that helped him feel a little less bad for how much he’s suffered for basically living as public property for so long.

Next is New York 2012, to return the staff with the mind stone. I admit, I may have spent a little too much time on what Steve makes of having the chance to see himself as others see him. That “blond Adonis” reference may be a bridge too far. I am as I am, take it for all in all. But I attempted to make it represent how his transformation in many ways marked his transition from regular man to publicly-owned symbol, a life he’d accepted out of a sense of duty but one he’s never planned for himself. And remembering how sad he was at this time throws into relief how heavy it’s been to go on not because he’s Steve, but because the everyone needs Captain America. He remembers Bucky asking him if it would make him selfish to decide he’s done martyring himself for the world, how many times exactly does he think he needs to martyr himself for the world in order to be decent?

I also have him go make a last peace with Tony. I always loved how the films showed them caring a great deal about each other, but never really getting along. They are too profoundly at odds for that, so I found it very believable and human. He never really gets a resolution with him before Tony dies, so he uses that opportunity to tell him he’s sorry he pegged him as someone too selfish to be a real hero, and that he’s actually a good man. I really like how I put it together, because I think it’s got real emotional impact without either man ever acting out of character.

A lot of fan fic likes to push the characters’ emotional displays and interactions up to eleven, and I just don’t think it feels true. I read one fic that seemed to think Cap and Bucky couldn’t have talked about the possibility of Steve leaving without a sobbing breakdown in each other’s arms. I know part of the fun of fan fiction is getting to reconceive of the story however you want, but I was like… really? Does that feel like who those people are to you?

Anyway. Last stop is to return the time stone to the Ancient One in the stronghold on Bleecker Street. This one I had to do right. By this point he’s pretty sure he wants to go back, maybe it’s even morally acceptable for him to go back… but he’s worried about the damage he’ll do the the timestream if he does. Specifically, will he erase Peggy’s children from existence if she never marries their dad? So he asks the Ancient One, because she’s a person who would know, and she explains by astral projecting them to see what I like to refer to as “the tapestry of time.”

The tapestry of time is an idea I’ve had in my head for many years, imagining all the forces and actors of the universe as threads that weave in and out of each other in an incomprehensibly complicated cord to create the timeline. Using the description of time travel from the film, I extrapolated what I call a “resilient timeline,” where our individual actions and free will do have effect on the progress of the world, but much like any conventional individual action, it’s hard to shift the course of major things— even if you travel back and time and try as an individual actor to alter them. (Personally I’m more inclined to believe in the butterfly effect, but I think this version fit with the workings of the film better.) Except, of course, if you do something significant enough to create a new branch off the preexisting line.

Then, taking inspiration from the scene where the Ancient One explains to Bruce how the missing time stone would create a branching timeline for her existence, I go with the multiverse theory. That Steve would be creating a multiverse in going back to the 1940s, which would mean that Peggy’s life (and by extension her children’s) in the current timeline would remain unchanged, but that he’d create an offshoot universe where her path goes a different way.

Now, I’ve read there’s some disagreement between the directors and the scriptwriters as to whether or not that was the intention. The directors, I’ve heard, go with the above multiverse view. HOWEVER, the scriptwriters say their intention was that Steve was ALWAYS Peggy’s husband, and her children, his children, the WHOLE TIME in the MCU. Honestly, in my gut, that second explanation appeals to me much more. Instinctively I love the idea, that Old Steve has been hanging around in the shadows, that Peggy’s children are actually part supersoldier, and that could factor in future stories.

But… unfortunately… I don’t believe the previous writing supports that enough. There are arguments to be made, of course. It’s true that there is no actual confirmation of who Peggy’s husband and father of her children was. But Steve and Peggy spend time together after his reappearance in 2011; would she really have kept it hidden from him until her death? I’m not sure I believe that even with her Alzheimer’s. Would her children not know, and never want to tell him the truth? Would he have stood by and allowed Bucky’s torture and turning into a brainwashed assassin? Would he let Hydra infiltrate and destroy the organization Peggy worked so hard to build? I guess you could argue he was afraid to change the course of history— I’ve seen at least one fic argue that, which could be a reasonable explanation. (Again, in my gut I’m a butterfly effect kind of girl.) But, since they seem to be putting forth a resilient timeline… I’m not sure that really scans. So I expect that the Russo brothers’ multiverse explanation is the canon answer, and it’s the one I went with here.

But back to the story— the Ancient One was the second person I was concerned about not pushing Steve to take any particular action. Like Frigga, I just wanted her to present him with truth. Because of her similar powers of sight, I had her kind of get the circumstances of his situation instinctively, and maybe have some sympathy for him, though not as explicitly as Frigga’s. She tells him the facts of how time works, and, when he expresses fear of taking an action he can’t see the consequences of, she gently reminds him that to a certain extent we can never really know what our future holds. But that’s just part of the deal, particularly when it comes to the risk of loving. And that is what settles him to do it.

The actual reunion between him and Peggy I wanted to be clean, tight, and sweet. Not just him showing up and them falling into each other’s arms— she’s fierce and independent and too used to taking care of herself. I like the idea that she’s on the defensive makes him prove his identity. He knows all the facts about her, because he cared to know them, but facts can be faked. So he tells an anecdote that shows he really knows her, not just a memory but the person that she is— and proves it with the compass, the one with her picture in it, that he’s carried with him every step of his journey.

I always wondered where that picture came from. Getting a picture of somebody was a bit more difficult before cell phone or even personal cameras. So I came up with a backstory for it where she gave it to him, ostensibly so he could actually finish a drawing of her for once, but actually because she wanted him to have it. And of course, I had to finish it off with the lines we’ve all been waiting for— “You’re late.” “I couldn’t leave my best girl. Not when she still owes me a dance.”

Sniff. Excuse me, I must have some dust in… both my eyes and my nose and my throat.

Also? I LOVE how many fic writers have decided that in the interest of keeping a low profile, when they get married, Steve takes Peggy's last name. "Agent and Mister Carter?" HEADCANON ACCEPTED. Perhaps "Grant Carter" would be an appropriate pseudonym?

I wrote this story as a prose piece, partially because I’m trying to practice my prose skills, and partially because the idea I had for it was so internal— it kind of called for interior narration to explore the ideas of it. I’m pretty proud of myself for actually accomplishing the task of making a very internal journey actually the structure of the plot. But I often write fan fiction in script form, in order to capture the form of cinematic originals. So I can’t help but think of how much I would have to change if this were to be reconceived as a short film or something.

A lot of the nuances of interiority would be tricky to translate. A lot of what Steve was mulling over would have to be communicated in reactions and things he was looking at, which could convey the broad strokes if not all the details. I might need to turn the actual returning of the stones into something a little more active or complicated, to provide structure in the absence of Steve’s inner monologue. But I think the gist of it would work— Steve goes stone by stone, punctuated by flashbacks to his conversation with Bucky, having the interactions I specified. The conversation with Bucky might have to be streamlined, though, because as it is it’s rather on the long and complicated side for film scenes.

But overall it makes me happy. I’m glad I wrote it, even though it took two months of work and a fair bit of brainpower. But I think I made something good— something meaningful, that fits with a story that moved me, and actually expands on the ideas initially put forward. To my taste, that’s basically perfect fan fic.
breakinglight11: (Default)
I feel like I’ve just thought of a perfect way to introduce myself to someone who didn’t know me.

This is a short film called “The Tale of Thomas Burberry,” produced as an ad for the famous Burberry London fashion house. A filmic showpiece done up in an expensive, cinematic style with Hollywood actors.



I utterly and completely adore it. It has every piece of my aesthetic.

- Lush, gorgeously realized visuals and cinematography
- A spare, swift-moving and yet still entirely parsable narrative
- Exquisite production design
- Moody emotionality conveyed through facial expressions with minimal dialogue
- The intersection of domestic and grand-scale history; specifically in the Victorian and WWI eras
- The glorification of a visionary creator; specifically a craftsman in the field of sewing and clothing design
- Beautiful, glamorous people
- Gravitas conveyed by the gestalt thereof

Seriously. Throw in a cameo by Chris Evans and a tiny woman who’s mean to everyone and I’d think they made it for me.

And yet… I find it utterly ridiculous. To the point where it makes me laugh. I mean. It takes itself SO SERIOUSLY. The WEIGHT and GRANDEUR and ENORMITY, of what is basically just a really expensive ad for a clothing company. About the WORLD-CHANGING IMPORTANCE of OVERPRICED GABARDINE.

I mean, yes, gabardine is a cool invention, and the trenchcoat made real contributions to history and culture, as the WWI and Shackleton expedition allusions indicate. But come on, dude. You waterproofed coats. Let’s have some perspective here. You cannot sell that on that on the power of Domhnall Gleeson GIVING FACE alone.

And yet. The FACE-GIVING. IN EXQUISITE PRODUCTION DESIGN. I am here for it all day long. The most absurd concentrate of everything I love.

This is who I am as a person. Unironically in love with things I wholeheartedly believe to be ridiculous. Hello, world, nice to meet you.
breakinglight11: (Default)
I saw A Wrinkle in Time today. I enjoyed it a lot, and in fact cried basically the entire way through from the beauty of it. I’ve never loved the book, but it’s very important, and I teach it in one of my classes. While I have some criticisms of it, there were a couple of things I think are truly unique and fantastic about it— which, unfortunately, were basically adapted out of the story. Now, I totally understand. The book as written is NIGH UNADAPTABLE, if only because it’s SO internal much of the time. It had to be changed in order to work on the screen. But I was kind of sorry to see it changed into a different story than the one that I think makes it remarkable.

I subscribe to the interpretation that it is a story about a girl who has no exceptional gifts. By nature, she is not particularly beautiful, talented, or even smart. Maybe smarter than some, but not exceptionally so. She did not luck into anything that makes her more special than any other person. And I love this about her, because it makes her accomplishments ENTIRELY HER OWN. In the absence of any natural talents, everything she accomplishes is because she CHOOSES to try, and WORKS to do it. She is a hero, who saves not only her loved ones but the entire universe, not because of anything God-given that she came into by chance, but only because she puts in the effort to be brave and strong and loving. To me, that is glorious. The difference between an average person and a hero? Their choices. Their effort. Their commitment to love.

I understand why they didn’t go with that. In a film with the intention of empowering little girls and little black girls in particular to have good self-image and believe in themselves, it makes more sense to have a protagonist who simply doesn’t recognize her own abilities. The version they took is probably much more digestible to children, who would more easily understand “see the ways you’re special” than “the beauty of you is what you do in spite of not being special.” It’s a legit adaptational choice.

However, while Bernie keeps telling me according to his research that my interpretation is a bit fringe, I still think it’s the one most strongly supported by the text. I’ve heard people say that because we’re in Meg’s head, we only get the impression that she’s not good at anything because her self-image is so negative, and she’s an unreliable narrator. But I think we are indeed supposed to understand that she is not special. Why? Because she’s supposed to contrast specifically with Charles Wallace.

Charles Wallace’s exceptionalness in the film doesn’t contribute all that much, in my opinion. He’s a prodigiously intelligent little kid who’s slightly psychic as he was in the book, but it doesn’t serve much point in the movie except to allow him to exposit his understanding of the fantastical things that are happening— it gives him a connection to the Mrs. W’s that permits him to explain their purpose to the others. But in the book, it’s to set up one of the most beautiful subversions I’ve ever seen in literature.

The book is setting you up to think that Charles Wallace is going to do something amazing, given his abilities. In fact, when I first read it, I was annoyed because I was half-expecting it to be all about him, the Charles Wallace Show as Told By His Unspecial Sister. In the book, when they encounter IT, Charles Wallace’s abilities make him believe he is capable of taking the monster on, so he says “Stand back, let me handle this”— AND PROMPTLY GETS HIS BODY TAKEN OVER BY THE BAD GUY.

It’s fucking awesome. His specialness made him arrogant enough to toss himself into a situation he couldn’t manage, and got himself possessed. And then it’s up to MEG to save the day— who is freaked because if the superior-intellect, superior-talented Charles Wallace couldn’t take him on, how could she? IT dismisses her, in a way he does not dismiss Charles Wallace, because she couldn’t possibly have anything that could hurt IT, when she doesn’t even have what her brother has.

Now Meg has to save him, to fight the monster, even though she doesn’t know how. Because she’s the only one close enough to Charles Wallace to reach him. And she beats it not by being smart, by being talented, by being powerful— SHE DOESN’T HAVE ANY OF THOSE THINGS, and the people who had more of them than her consistently failed —but by LOVING her brother powerfully enough. Something that anyone can do, if they make the right choice, but few people do because it’s hard. Meg doesn’t have a hero’s intellect or talents, but she loves heroically. I find that desperately beautiful.

The film did maintain that it was the power of her love for Charles Wallace that freed him. It was a good climax to the version of the story they were telling. But to be honest, I missed the context of the book’s final moment. When the little girl bravely strides into the lair of the beast without any idea of how to defeat it, but knowing she has to try. And the beast asks her, “What could you possibly believe you could do against me?” And the girl’s answer is “I have literally nothing— except that I was brave enough to face you, and the strength of my love.”
breakinglight11: (Default)
I am probably going to go see IT. I'd like someone to go with me, but most of my friends don't want to see horror movies and I've never minded seeing movies alone. I wish I could take my mom, the biggest Stephen King and horror movie fan ever, and mostly I want to go in her honor. This new version is supposed to be pretty good, so I bet she would have enjoyed it.

One thing strikes me, though. I think the new clown design is effectively creepy and all, but he weirdly reminds me of the time Frasier dressed up as a clown to play a prank on his dad. I think it's the shape of the head; Kelsey Grammer has a fairly large forehead exacerbated by the receding hairline, so I can't help but see him in the particular way they're representing Pennywise in the new movie. It makes it a little funnier and a little less scary to me. Maybe that's a good thing, as I generally am a crybaby when it comes to horror films, so maybe I'll have an easier time with a little of the bite taken out of it.
breakinglight11: (Default)
27BBBAFF-B58C-4AE9-A837-B426FD68A21A


For a while now I've had a bee in my bonnet about putting together a costume, maybe even something that would could as a cosplay, for a gender-swapped version of the Crow. Being a good little goth deep in my soul, I've always been a fan of the Brandon Lee movie; I know it's not quite as sacred as others of my stripe and generation often see it, but I think it's good, and I've always liked the look. Though I don't goth it up very often anymore, I still have a fondness for it, and I thought maybe I could do a photoshoot or something with whatever I put together.

While I've got plenty of goth clothes still lying around-- and they still fit, because I'm in EVEN BETTER SHAPE NOW than I was in college, thank you very much --the biggest challenge was what to do about the makeup. So I decided to finally experiment with doing my own translation of the look from the film. Brandon Lee's version looks like this:

IMG_3571


I don't think I want to replicate it exactly. Though back when I was doing my goth makeup, I basically did the plain white face, but I have soft features and now I think the plain white makes me look a little soft and moony. I wanted to contour a little bit, just to keep my cheekbones. I think the angular look suits the character and the style anyway. The trouble, as I discovered when I tried to do it when I dressed as Neil Gaiman's Death, is that it risks falling into corpsepaint territory pretty quick, and I'm not exactly going for the skull look. And I'm not exactly an expert when it comes to contouring even when trying to do it on my actual skin.

First I applied a layer of white greasepaint. Then I took black eyeshadow and tried to carve out my cheekbones, narrow my jawline, take down my forehead, and slim down my nose. I wanted to eliminate any softenness or broadness, as lean and narrow better suits my aesthetic of goth. I'd like to highlight, but I didn't currently have much in the way of product that could look lighter than the white greasepaint. I tried to use pale eyeshadow, but ended up just adding extra swipes of greasepaint between my eyebrows, down my nose, and on top of my cheekbones. Then I blacked out my eyes with shadow, liner, and mascara. I even mascaraed my eyebrows to make them darker. I don't currently have black lipstick, so I just used an eyeliner crayon. The signature lines on his mouth and eyes I struggled with. First I tried the crayon, but it wasn't very precise, so I went over it with a felt-tip eyeliner pen.

Then I parted my hair down the middle and took some pictures. Here are the results:

26AC8AF2-82AD-4E4D-85B5-CD42DF86D77E


It's not bad; it's definitely in the ballpark. It's tough to contour on white face, as every little bit of black out of place shows up. I kept trying to take it down with more greasepaint and then build it back up. Blending was tough, so I'm not totally pleased with it. I also think I suffer from not having the best products. I am most unhappy with the eye and mouth lines. My eyeliner did not make a deeply pigmented black line, so it's smeary rather than sharp like his.

05D69049-9FF7-4EE3-856F-3FF15B851876


I will have to iterate more. First thing I'll do next time is apply more than one layer of greasepaint. I think I can get it more opaque and plain white that way. Also I'll apply the contour more slowly, building up the darkness a little bit at a time. I might be able to make it seem more like shadow rather than just dark swipes across my face. I struggle with that in regular makeup contouring as well.

CD579EAD-7E3A-442D-BA60-F805CBCC6DCF


I am definitely getting better products as well. I think that will help with the opacity of the lines. I NEED A GODDAMN BLACK LIPSTICK SINCE I DON'T SEEM TO HAVE ONE ANYMORE. And I could use some nice white eyeshadow, maybe to use as highlight. I may want to try at least once to do it without contour and see how it looks. Still afraid of looking like a big bland featureless moon that way, but I used to do it that way when I went goth and liked how it looked then. I don't know if the evolution of makeup has changed my tastes too much, though. We'll have to see.

And now, I'll give you the classic Crow stare:

E3EFF49E-D8F0-4F99-A3B3-EF2F5F3A6302
breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
More drafting for my planned deep-dive exegesis on one of my all-time favorite films, Who Framed Roger Rabbit. This is rough, disorganized, and unedited, and I will polish it up once I have a fuller draft, but here's some of the work I did on one of my favorite parts of the analysis-- the surprisingly sophisticated workings of Roger Rabbit as a character. Previous scribbing on how the noir genre factors in can be found here.



Now I want to talk about Roger Rabbit, who is in my opinion the most remarkable character in the film. Roger is my favorite, and honestly has been since I saw the movie as a tiny child. But now, as a critic with a slightly more mature perspective, I’m fascinated by him because there is much more complexity to his character than his surface affect suggests, and by how much dramatic weight his narrative actually carries.

Despite being the title character, Roger is not straightforwardly a protagonist in the strict sense. Much as I love and am fascinated by the workings of the character, I will admit that his arc, such as it is, is… minimal. The fact that he is fundamentally the same throughout the entirety of the story, with minimal personal growth from the experience, automatically subordinates his narrative to Eddie’s, who is in fact the true protagonist of all. But his story function is not simply to act as a foil and motivator to Eddie Valiant. Though secondary, Roger has the very important protagonistic quality of wanting something and taking actions to get it. And in fact, his Want and his Actions toward that Want drive the entire film— A Want, by the way, that is shockingly mature and sophisticated. You see, EVERY EVENT IN THIS FILM stems from and is driven by Roger’s constant assertion that his marriage is real. And this is important, not to mention necessary, because none of the people around him seem to believe it.

Our very first awareness of Roger is his act in the Baby Herman short that opens the film. It is done in classic cartoon style, characterized by invented exaggerated reality and broad ridiculous humor. It is quite funny— Roger Ebert said he seldom laughed harder at anything that he did the first time he saw this cartoon —but it’s also narratively important. By seeing Roger “at work,” we see him as most people in this world see him— as the silly cartoon character, not just ridiculous, but the fall guy, the butt of the joke. The guy who is, despite his best intentions and efforts, continually whacked around by the circumstances of life, not somebody who has any real perspective or outlook to take seriously.

With Roger so established in our eyes, we see where R.K. Maroon is coming from in talking about Roger as if he’s blind to the truth of his own life. Maroon seems smarter and more on the ball than Roger, so when he gives his assessment that Roger’s wife is obviously a tramp and the rabbit just can’t see it, we’re inclined to accept it. We are induced to dismiss Roger just as the characters do.

But beyond that, it allows a means for the inciting event to occur. The director calls cut at the end of the cartoon because instead of seeing stars after a wallop, Roger produces tweeting birds— cleverly classified under “blowing his lines” the same way saying the wrong word would be for a human actor. It’s evidence of a problem Roger’s been having lately, that his ability to focus on his work is suffering due to distress over a rumor that his wife Jessica is being unfaithful to him. The story kicks off when Maroon calls in Valiant, who is engaged to take pictures of Jessica in the act of cheating to prove to Roger that she’s a tramp and not worth wasting any more time over.

Take a look at that. The issue Maroon feels needs solving is Roger’s disbelief, his refusal to accept that his wife’s having an affair. Maroon’s action is in direct reaction to Roger’s assertion. What is that assertion, that reason that he refuses to believe it? “My marriage is real.”

So the entire story kicks off because of that. But even after that, all of Roger’s actions (or at least all his character-driven ones) stem from this steadfast belief. When he is shown the pictures that Valiant took, he gives some small indication that he can no longer deny that an affair took place, but he violently insists that whatever’s happened, he and Jessica are going to get past it. What enables him to insist on this? His belief that his marriage is real.

The next scene offers up a beautiful, sad little moment where he’s alone, crying over the photos of the two of them in his wallet— on vacation, cuddling up in a booth at a restaurant, and on their wedding day. This is lovely and important character moment. There’s no anger there, only sadness— a hint to the audience that his mindset upon leaving was not vengeful enough to have run out and commit a murder right after. And there’s something beautifully mundane about those photos. While perhaps a bit on the glamorous side— they are Hollywood performers, after all —they are such shockingly normal moments in the life of a couple. These show what’s important to Roger, and how he views his relationship.

And there’s an interesting juxtaposition of the photography in this scene versus the previous one. As we just saw, photographs are evidence, and these are evidence of the reality of their marriage. But we see Roger’s struggle to reconcile the way these supposed records of truth conflict with one another.

The next time is onscreen Roger, it's when he turns up in Eddie's office to ask for his help in clearing his name. And what justification does he offer for his claim that he couldn't possibly have killed Marvin Acme? He has nothing to take revenge for because he doesn't believe Jessica actually cheated. He tells Valiant that he reflected on the whole issue and came to the inescapable conclusion that, those pictures aside, the Jessica he knows could not have done wrong by him— that she’s “an innocent victim of circumstance.” Why doesn't he believe she cheated? Because he knows their marriage is real.

Now notice that Valiant still thinks Roger's nuts to believe in Jessica. Even after he accepts the case, he remains convinced she's a tramp, and that Roger is too ridiculous a person to see the truth. I would argue that perception persists most of the way through the movie. He definitely still believes she stepped out when he confronts R.K. Maroon, as he describes the events as "a story of greed, sex, and murder." What else could "sex" be referring to, other than he still thinks Jessica put out for Marvin Acme? But this, that even Roger’s ally and advocate can’t possibly believe in them, it makes it all the more powerful and that Roger is holding fast: his marriage, God damn it, is real.

More to come later.

breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
Just doing some early drafting of my essay analyzing Who Framed Roger Rabbit. This is all rough and somewhat cursory-- I may want to reorder some of this later. But I'm working out some of the stuff I want to talk about now, specifically how it relates to the conventions of film noir.



The debt Roger Rabbit owes to the film noir conceit is clear. It has a setup straight out of a classic-- a disgraced private eye haunted by the demons of his past must take on a case for a person who challenges his dim outlook on life and the world. Said private eye, Bob Hoskins's Eddie Valiant, immediately calls to mind his detective predecessors of Sam Spade, Philip Marlowe, and even Jake Gittes, with his once-honorable career, his traumatic backstory, and his current bitter outlook leading him to become a disgraced alcoholic shadow of his former self.

It may seem all this care to evoke the tropes and traditions of film noir are just in the service of setting up the parody. And it is an excellent parody, given the skillful way it spins up many of the expected elements of noir. Roger is an extreme exaggeration of the holy fool the noir protagonist is often called upon to protect. Jessica is a deconstruction of the classic femme fatale. The primary thing Eddie is unable to believe in his the power of humor and laughter. But it doesn't stop there-- Roger Rabbit pulls off the remarkable feat of not only being a spot-on parody of a certain genre, it's actually a really strong entry in the genre itself.

Film noir is a bit tricky to define. Part of that difficulty comes from the fact that it refers to a weird blend of both a narrative genre AND a filmic visual style, and even then the constituent traits of these are not rigidly agreed upon. French critics Raymond Borde and Étienne Chaumeton, whose 1955 book Panorama du film noir américain (A Panorama of American Film Noir) is considered the seminal work on the subject, cluster some descriptors around it, such as "oneiric, strange, erotic, ambivalent, and cruel," but acknowledge this is an oversimplification.

However, an observation of the classics of the genre trend toward the inclusion of a handful of characteristics. The films tend to be shot from a flat, stark perspective, making using of off-kilter compositions and low-key, high-contrast lighting to a chiaroscuro effect. The stories tend to be less about their subject matter-- though there are a number of associated subjects, such as detective stories --and more about the mood of the world, the pervasive cynicism, and themes of guilt, regret, disappointment, tragedy, loss, and sometimes even the flickering flame of humanity to be found within people consumed by those things.

As mentioned, the film slots in unexpected and on their surface ridiculous elements into the typical roles characterizing film noir. But for all those roles are carried out by odd actors, they all perfectly fulfil the story mechanism that role is supposed to. Yes, Roger is an absurd cartoon rabbit person, but he still does exactly what the client character in the film noir detective story is supposed to do. His need for help calls upon the protagonist's better nature to take action even in a world he sees as hopeless and uncaring, and his personal qualities inspire that protagonist to reevaluate his own failings he'd previously allowed to go unexamined. And even though the vibrant animated characters and set pieces bring a visual exuberance to the screen, they serve to underscore the flatness, heavy shadows, and even bleakness of the way the surrounding world is shot.

More to come later.

breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)


I saw the Lego Batman movie this past weekend and it was a blast. I spent about seventy-five percent of the film cracking the hell up, more so than the mostly families with children that surrounded me, to the point where they might have even been a little annoyed. But not only is it funny for its own sake, I think it's WAY BETTER if you are a serious Batman fan. The film is a parody, the best of which have a deep understanding of the narrative being parodied. These writers must have been real fans, because all the humor and the essential spin on the storyline came from a real understanding of the essentials of Batman. As a person who has spent MANY HOURS picking apart the character and the most significant storylines, I had such an appreciation for what very well may be evidence of the work of very similar kinds of nerds. Because even on top of all the great jokes, the central struggle was based in the true heart of Batman-- his fear of getting close to people will just result in him getting hurt again, and they conveyed that in really effective terms. I wouldn't exactly say it had a ton of dramatic weight, but it was grounded in a real story that fit the character well.

So I highly recommend it. It may be the strictly best movie involving the character that's not part of the DCAU.

Some stuff I loved about it, in no particular order, with a spoiler warning:

- The driving conflict of the narrative was the Joker's need to be the most important person in Batman's life, manifesting as an obsessive romance with an emotionally withholding person
- Will Arnett's hilarious, gravelly, douchey performance, particularly in how Bruce Wayne was basically a non-self-loathing Bojack Horseman.
- Batman's persistent "fuck that Superman guy" resentment
- They embraced the father-son relationship between Alfred and Batman and Batman and Robin
- The basic acknowledgement that a Batman left to his own devices is kind of a huge douchebag and needs other characters like Robin affecting him to make him tolerable
- The romantic song playing in the background when Batman first lays eyes on Barbara Gordon is "I Just Died in Your Arms Tonight"
- "Batman lives in Bruce Wayne's basement?" "Bruce Wayne lives in Batman's attic!"
- COSTUME TRYON MONTAGE
- Batman flopping around on the ground in protest of Alfred making him do stuff. (Bernie's comment: "Oh, my God, you are Batman.")
- The fact that the JLA doesn't invite Batman to parties because he's no fun to be around
- I have never actually enjoyed Michael Cera in any role before, but he was pretty great as Robin
- Barbara being played by Rosario Dawson, who I love, not least because she's CLAIRE TEMPLE AND I LOVE CLAIRE
- Barbara says there's gotta be a better way to deal with crime than just letting "Batman beat up poor people."
- The weird voice they gave Bane to make fun of the weird voice Tom Hardy used in Dark Knight Rises.
- The writing for the Joker is strong enough to make up for the fact that Zack Galifinakis is COMPLETELY BLAND and A TOTAL WASTE OF THE ROLE.
- Ellie Kemper's weird and weirdly adorable little cameo.
- Superheroes without pants jokes.
- When the Joker infiltrates the Batcave, he puts his butt on all Batman's stuff. (Bernie's comment: "OH, MY GOD, YOU'RE THE JOKER TOO!")
- Because they had Ralph Fiennes already in the cast as Alfred, they had him play Lego Voldemort too.
- The ceaseless mocking of earlier, more self-serious Batman films
- The final saving of the city involves SHREDDED ABS, which one could argue were seeded like a Chekov's gun throughout. So you could say it was a CHECKOV'S GUN SHOW WHAAAAAAAT
- "I AM A HUNDRED PERCENT NOT BRUCE WAYNE."


breakinglight11: (CT photoshoot 1)
Every time I see the cultural impact the film The Princess Bride has had, at least in the nerd community, I think of a kid I went to high school with. His name, if I remember correctly, was Jared Miller, and he said Princess Bride was his favorite movie. But most of the other kids didn't really know it, or at least didn't get it. They I think judged it mostly from the title, and thought it was either too girly or else a kiddie movie, so he always got a lot of shit for it. Nothing that intense, as I recall, but nobody understood why that would be the favorite movie of a teenaged boy. I remember respecting him because he didn't back down from his professed liking of the film just because other kids made fun of him for it.

It wasn't until I got to college that I met a lot of people who appreciated The Princess Bride. I always wondered if it was the same for him, and if he ever eventually met people who realized that he was ahead of that particular cultural curve. I didn't know Jared Miller that well. I don't remember much else about him. But I think of him sometimes because of that movie. And I hope that when he moved on in life, he encountered people who got it, and it validated him.

Profile

breakinglight11: (Default)
breakinglight11

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 4th, 2025 01:48 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios