Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Athena

Super Social Analysis: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and LGBT in Movies

Recommended Posts


On 9/8/2017 at 10:13 PM, twoods said:

Ian Anthony Dale would work, too. Doesn't help that he's easy on the eyes.

Wow. He looks like Superman. (Not that we need another Superman franchise). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm 100% not a horror movie person and I have no plans to see "It." But I was curious if anyone else in the thread has seen the movie or read any thinkpieces about the changes from the book. I've read a few articles and by now I've gathered that the source material had issues with the female characters (notably Beverly but also the stereotypes in the sequel). In this thread I'm curious about the changes to Mike. Apparently they took out his parents and gave some of his characters' responsibilities in the book to one of the five white boys in the movie. I'm also interested to hear any thoughts on the concept of It in general. It's kind of interesting to ground this evil entity in the real world and yet having this alien thing influence people to racially motivated violence, sexual abuse, etc. feels like it's taking away their agency and the systemic and individual evil rooted in humanity (as opposed to some external force). I don't know, it's just sparking my spidey senses in a bad way so I'm curious if anyone is mounting particular arguments one way or the other. 

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2017/09/everything-it-was-right-and-wrong-to-cut-from-cary-fukunagas-script

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, aradia22 said:

I'm 100% not a horror movie person and I have no plans to see "It." But I was curious if anyone else in the thread has seen the movie or read any thinkpieces about the changes from the book. I've read a few articles and by now I've gathered that the source material had issues with the female characters (notably Beverly but also the stereotypes in the sequel). In this thread I'm curious about the changes to Mike. Apparently they took out his parents and gave some of his characters' responsibilities in the book to one of the five white boys in the movie. I'm also interested to hear any thoughts on the concept of It in general. It's kind of interesting to ground this evil entity in the real world and yet having this alien thing influence people to racially motivated violence, sexual abuse, etc. feels like it's taking away their agency and the systemic and individual evil rooted in humanity (as opposed to some external force). I don't know, it's just sparking my spidey senses in a bad way so I'm curious if anyone is mounting particular arguments one way or the other. 

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2017/09/everything-it-was-right-and-wrong-to-cut-from-cary-fukunagas-script

Slightly spoilery:
 

Spoiler

 

The books deal with two timelines: One in the 60s with the children and one 27 years later. Grown-up Mike, "the only Black kid in town" (plot point), is sort of the historian of Derry, the small town of the story. In the new movie (moved up to the 1980s), child-Ben (a pudgy outsider, who has recently moved there) takes on that part. In a way it makes sense, because Ben is a newcomer, and he is bookish in the book too. Also, since the movie decided to do away with flashbacks (the childrens' story are told in flashbacks), we needed to be introduced to the fact that this Evil has been here since before Derry existed. I think they probably thought it would dilute the storyline they're driving at with Mike: His grandfather tells him something in the vein of 'people like them has to fight all the time, because otherwise they become prey' which, yeah. Derry has a bad, bad history with the Black community. Which is also a plot point, and one, I hope they'll continue in Part 2. I am sorry they took away one key aspect of grown-up-Mike's life, and I'm even more sorry that his family's antagonistic relationship with the Bowers (the human villains of the piece) got cut - on the other hand, the fact that the most racist piece of shit in this town is the sheriff makes a lot of horrible sense (Bowers was a deadbeat drunk in the book - someone with no authority whatsoever. This is a change I really liked).

Hopefully they'll flesh Mike out more in Part 2, especially since he's the only one who stays in Derry after the events of this movie (The same goes for Stan, Richie and to a lesser degree Eddie: Of the kids, we only really get to know Ben, Beverly and Billy).

 

 

As for IT "taking away [people's] agency and the systemic and individual evil rooted in humanity" I never got that from either the novel, the 1991 miniseries or this movie. There's this horrible scene in the beginning of the book, where a young gay guy gets beaten to death, and it's quite obvious, I think, that this horror would have happened despite Pennywise's presence. What King did, I think, is to extrapolate that sort of insidious, latent evil you'll find in small towns (closed off societies) and make Pennywise a symbol of it, rather than the root cause. In the book, Pennywise feeds off of people's inherent evil; he* doesn't cause it per se, although he might exaggerate it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, OK. Thanks @feverfew. The way it's been phrased in articles and on wikipedia, I was getting the impression that Pennywise was causing the evil. Bringing out and facilitating someone's inherent evil is a more interesting story to me. Not that I'm planning to see the book or read the movie because again... I can't deal with horror. As for Mike and Ben, I watched a video that implied that the changes would continue into the second movie 

Spoiler

with Ben as the only one who stayed in Derry.

I hope that doesn't happen and that they flesh out the Mike character in the second movie. It's always just a little disappointing when you already have a breakdown where out of 7 characters, you only have 1 representing a racial minority and 1 representing women (who are not a minority except in the popular imagination) unless you count Stan for being Jewish and in the adaptation, you give important responsibilities that mean screen time/relevance but also show positive qualities like intelligence, heroism, etc. to one of your white, male characters. I get the necessity of condensing the story line and other practical concerns but I do also think artists have to consider the implications of these kinds of changes. Speaking more in the abstract, why is it easier to take something from a character like Mike instead of inserting him into the love triangle and making him one of the characters who gets more fleshed out? Arguably, they're both changes from the book. I'm not mad at this specific movie and I'm glad to hear that things are mostly handled well. Hollywood just has a bad habit of minimizing the roles of its non-white and/or non-male characters. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I love this. Shows that white actors speaking out can make a difference, if only because studios might be more reluctant to invite more outrage by hiring another white guy after already being called out for it lmao. 

I have seen some grumbling that they hired a Korean guy to play a Japanese character. As an Asian, I don't have issues with East Asians playing other East Asians, South Asians playing other South Asians, etc. (With a few exceptions, like if the subject is particularly sensitive or significant.) It's when you cast an East Asian as a South Asian (for example) is where it starts to get hairy for me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, topanga said:

Wow. He looks like Superman. (Not that we need another Superman franchise). 

Dean Cain (who's a quarter Japanese) said that someone wrote to him, 'We wanted Superman, not Sushi Man." He thought it was funny, though.

 

Quote

I have seen some grumbling that they hired a Korean guy to play a Japanese character. As an Asian, I don't have issues with East Asians playing other East Asians, South Asians playing other South Asians, etc. (With a few exceptions, like if the subject is particularly sensitive or significant.) It's when you cast an East Asian as a South Asian (for example) is where it starts to get hairy for me. 

*sigh* Of course they are. Of course they fucking are. Talk about splitting hairs.

The truth of the matter is, if someone can reasonably look like the ethnicity they're playing without the aid of blackface, they're going to do it. Lou Diamond Phillips is a racial mutt, and as such he's played Native American and Latino even though that's only a small part of his ancestry, because he looks the part. I'm Filipino like he is, and I get mistaken for such a wide variety of ethnic groups it's kind of ridiculous.

Vanessa Hudgens has played white, Asian, and Latina. Jennifer Lopez has played white characters. So has Alexa PenaVega. Should we say that shouldn't have played those characters because their characters ancestry doesn't exactly match their own? It'd be like saying Jennifer Lopez shouldn't have played Selina, because Selina is Mexican and J. Lo is Puerto Rican. God, people piss me off.

I've always kind of wanted to see if Rashida Jones would be willing to play in a pre-Civil Rights era movie about someone passing for white. I do think that's a pretty interesting topic, ever since I saw the movie where Hallee Berry plays who decides to pass herself off as white. Wentworth Miller played that in The Human Stain, but I heard pretty mixed stuff about it.

Edited by methodwriter85
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, aradia22 said:

Ah, OK. Thanks @feverfew. The way it's been phrased in articles and on wikipedia, I was getting the impression that Pennywise was causing the evil. Bringing out and facilitating someone's inherent evil is a more interesting story to me. Not that I'm planning to see the book or read the movie because again... I can't deal with horror. As for Mike and Ben, I watched a video that implied that the changes would continue into the second movie 

  Hide contents

with Ben as the only one who stayed in Derry.

I hope that doesn't happen and that they flesh out the Mike character in the second movie. It's always just a little disappointing when you already have a breakdown where out of 7 characters, you only have 1 representing a racial minority and 1 representing women (who are not a minority except in the popular imagination) unless you count Stan for being Jewish and in the adaptation, you give important responsibilities that mean screen time/relevance but also show positive qualities like intelligence, heroism, etc. to one of your white, male characters. I get the necessity of condensing the story line and other practical concerns but I do also think artists have to consider the implications of these kinds of changes. Speaking more in the abstract, why is it easier to take something from a character like Mike instead of inserting him into the love triangle and making him one of the characters who gets more fleshed out? Arguably, they're both changes from the book. I'm not mad at this specific movie and I'm glad to hear that things are mostly handled well. Hollywood just has a bad habit of minimizing the roles of its non-white and/or non-male characters. 

While I enjoy King for what he is, he has some serious blindspots when it comes to minorities. I will say, however,

Spoiler

that the choice of swapping Ben and Mike's stories somewhat is something I'm okay with. I don't know how much you know about the novel, but all the children who leave Derry becomes wildly succesful at whatever they do - as a sort of incentive from Pennywise to stay away from Derry. It never sat well with me that Mike was the only one who stayed: His life up untill the rest of the Losers return is sad and lonely and there's some uncomfortable connotations when the minority character is the only one not to have (monetary) success. I think I'd rather see him leave Derry and its horrors than become the sad historian with a loveless life, as he were in the book - in fact, I hope all the kids leave ;) I do miss his dad though; Will Hanlon is basically the only good parent in town.

You're right about relevance and screen time - it sucks when it happens, and it happens too often. Mike do have a great scene though, which showcases his empathy and his bravery.

Btw, I think both Stanley and Ritchie are Jewish in the new movie - Richie is in the Synagogue when Stanley has his Bar Mitzvah.

Share this post


Link to post

@feverfew I read the wikipedia page for the novel so I've got the gist of the plot. That's a solid point about what happens to the characters in the later timeline. Did you think there was a good reason 

Spoiler

for them to kill his parents and have him be raised by his grandpa/uncle? (I'm a bit unclear on who is taking care of him.) It seemed like a weird and unnecessary change. If you wanted to save money by only paying one actor you could either not show one parent or say one parent had passed away. What's wrong with showing great dads? Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch. We need more of that. 

Share this post


Link to post

@methodwriter85 which movie did Halle Berry attempt to pass as white?(in racking my brain)

Jennifer Beals has spent her entire career playing a woman passing for white (often in Civil War dramas), the only time she got to just BE was her first role in Flashdance and as Bette in the L Word (not really but it feels that way). 

I think it would be more powerful for Rashida to play a character tackling the passing issue in a pre-Civil Rights world (or during the Civil Rights movement), there will be more emotional angst if it's not a "life or death/slavery or freedom" situation but a a simple desire to live free from stigma and oppression....id watch it for sure.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Scarlett45 said:

@methodwriter85 which movie did Halle Berry attempt to pass as white?(in racking my brain)

Jennifer Beals has spent her entire career playing a woman passing for white (often in Civil War dramas), the only time she got to just BE was her first role in Flashdance and as Bette in the L Word (not really but it feels that way). 

I think it would be more powerful for Rashida to play a character tackling the passing issue in a pre-Civil Rights world (or during the Civil Rights movement), there will be more emotional angst if it's not a "life or death/slavery or freedom" situation but a a simple desire to live free from stigma and oppression....id watch it for sure.  

The Halle Berry movie is Queen.  It's a television movie from the 90's.  It is actually the true story of Alex Haley's Grandmother.  The character briefly appears in the "2nd Roots series" but the tv movie explores her own life.  Really good movie, all star cast, Halle is great in it.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JBC344 said:

The Halle Berry movie is Queen.  It's a television movie from the 90's.  It is actually the true story of Alex Haley's Grandmother.  The character briefly appears in the "2nd Roots series" but the tv movie explores her own life.  Really good movie, all star cast, Halle is great in it.

Yeah, it's been a long time since I've seen it but it was really good.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, JBC344 said:

The Halle Berry movie is Queen.  It's a television movie from the 90's.  It is actually the true story of Alex Haley's Grandmother.  The character briefly appears in the "2nd Roots series" but the tv movie explores her own life.  Really good movie, all star cast, Halle is great in it.

I saw that mini-series. And she was very good in it, but I thought the Queen she played was Haley's maternal great, great grandmother, while the Queen character we saw in the sequel to Roots was his paternal great-great grandmother?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I saw that mini-series. And she was very good in it, but I thought the Queen she played was Haley's maternal great, great grandmother, while the Queen character we saw in the sequel to Roots was his paternal great-great grandmother?

You may be right.  As I was typing I was thinking that "grandmother" might be too close on the family tree, but "great" or "great, great" grandmother is probably more likely.  I assumed it was the same person, did Alex have two grandmothers on opposite sides with the same exact name?  Queen is a pretty unique name especially for that time.  Possible I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, JBC344 said:

did Alex have two grandmothers on opposite sides with the same exact name?  Queen is a pretty unique name especially for that time.  Possible I guess.

I think so. Or rather, someone pointed that out to me when we were discussing the original series vs. the reboot awhile back. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I think so. Or rather, someone pointed that out to me when we were discussing the original series vs. the reboot awhile back. 

Wow, interesting.  I remember that I had seen the mini-series Queen when it aired first then it wasn't until years later that I saw the "2nd Roots series" (not the reboot but the one with James Earl Jones) and when the character makes an appearance I recalled seeing her life story in the mini series as a child.  Interesting fact.

Share this post


Link to post

I came across this amazing talk between Tom Hanks and Viola Davis and VD talked about playing Annalise on How to Get Away With Murder and then the two of them segued into talking about diversity in film. If you have time, watch it from the beginning but I figured this was the most relevant part. I love how TH imo mostly let VD handle the talk about diversity while adding in some observations. Can we get these two a talk show? I'd watch it. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, JustaPerson said:

I came across this amazing talk between Tom Hanks and Viola Davis and VD talked about playing Annalise on How to Get Away With Murder and then the two of them segued into talking about diversity in film. If you have time, watch it from the beginning but I figured this was the most relevant part. I love how TH imo mostly let VD handle the talk about diversity while adding in some observations. Can we get these two a talk show? I'd watch it. 

 

When stars who seem nice turn out to be assholes, I'm not that upset, because I'm not that invested. That said, if there turns out to be some deep, dark side to Tom Hanks, I'm going to be crushed.

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AimingforYoko said:

I came across this amazing talk between Tom Hanks and Viola Davis and VD talked about playing Annalise on How to Get Away With Murder and then the two of them segued into talking about diversity in film. If you have time, watch it from the beginning but I figured this was the most relevant part. I love how TH imo mostly let VD handle the talk about diversity while adding in some observations. Can we get these two a talk show? I'd watch it

Great video. They're both so, not just nice, but also smart, funny, and insightful. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

http://screencrush.com/mel-brooks-politically-correct/

 

Oh, boo-hoo, Mel Brooks.  If poking fun at other minority groups isn't working out for you anymore maybe you need to be more creative.

I'm not going to try and find a BBC radio clip, but I will say that's just an excerpt. He's right that you probably couldn't make Blazing Saddles today. The person who'd get the closest is Seth Macfarlane and even if he were clever enough to write it, I don't think he'd get away with it, either from the studios or audiences. Brooks does acknowledge it's "okay not to hurt feelings" but comedy has to "take risks." I don't know. It doesn't bother me as much as one of those eye-rolling Seinfeld diatribes. Until Brooks goes off on one of those, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that this small comment is being blown out of proportion. He's right that in some ways political correctness hurts comedy because there are some things you can't say. But people on the other side are also right that when you shoot wildly, some of those arrows are going to hit unintended targets or pierce deeper than you thought or considered. Brooks has certainly made his missteps and no one person is equipped to serve as moral arbiter. Again, I'm just pointing out that this is a tiny piece of the conversation and I've read enough of these idiotic clickbait articles to not get upset before I hear more. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

That's fair and I'll take your word about that sound bite being just an excerpt in Brook's case, however, you hear that "excuse" from other sources as well.  And I also agree that good comedy, particularly satirical and dark comedy, needs to take risks and when you toe the line that often you're bound to step over it from time to time.  I don't think any of that inherently makes the comedian a bad or ignorant person.  However, when one gets universally called out for stepping over the line I think a more appropriate response should be one of self reflection ("maybe I need to readjust my approach") than blame the audience for being too sensitive and/or not getting it.  I admit it's a complicated situation.  I just think the old "audiences are too PC these days" is a lazy rationalization.    

Edited by kiddo82
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

On recommendation from a friend I have just watched "Show Me Love" (aka "Fucking Amal") (1999 - Swedish with subtitles)

A coming-of-age film set in some backwater town called "Amal" in Sweden. A town so dull that the local teenagers there are completely bored out of their minds, Typical teenage angst that is prevalent is so many of these kinds of films, but this is a little different because there is a blossoming, but hugely awkward love story developing between two of these dispirited teens, both of them girls.

Step forward Agnes, a girl who is classed as an outsider because she and her parents only moved into the town a year or so ago. And because she is an outsider, her school colleagues start talking about her behind her back, to the point of saying she's a lesbian. They have no proof of this other than she does have a fixation on Elin, a classmate. 

This is developed somewhat during a teen party where someone asks Elin to kiss Agnes for a bet. Elin obliges, but Agnes, who knows nothing about the bet, thinks that Elin is showing true affections for her, which later leads to misunderstandings, frustrations and desperate yearnings that will eventually resolve into something tangible. So is Agnes' hope anyway.

The ending is wonderfully complete and uplifting. Everything is under-stated, and feels so matter-of-fact, so ordinary, that it kind of fits in with the town in which the story sits. But does it perfectly. 

There is no explicit sex here, no lesbian nudity or anything like that. Just a simple character-study of awkward lesbian love between two girls finding some excitement in their bored lives. 

4/5

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 27/08/2017 at 2:41 AM, methodwriter85 said:

Anyway, it's a shame that Steve/Max never got any roles that challenged him or made him want to stay in the business. It really did seem like nobody wanted to cast him for playing more than a walking Abercrombie billboard.

It's the industry. Also, if you're break out role is a gay one, it does tend to pigeonhole you a bit. Daniel Letterle, of Camp and "The Mostly Unfabulous Social Life of Ethan Green", also left after being unable to get any other types of roles.

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't see nearly as much potential in Daniel Letterle than I did in Steve/Max Sandvoss, but yeah.

Trevor Wright (Shelter) hasn't had a role since the start of this decade, also a shame.

The really hot DILF from the Mulligans has become a Hallmark movie staple, though. (Although judging by his IMDB page he was a pretty active actor before The Mulligans, but I definitely think it gave him a career boost.) It kind of reminds me of this joke someone posted in a thread about how the women in Hallmark movies always inexplicably find handsome 30/40-something men living in a small town who are somehow single. Whereas in the real world, they would either be a serial killer or rolling around in the hay with other men. LOL.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I didn't see nearly as much potential in Daniel Letterle than I did in Steve/Max Sandvoss, but yeah.

Letterle was passably cute, but that was about it.

Also, I have no opinion on Camp, but ...Ethan Green is mostly terrible.  

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, starri said:

Letterle was passably cute, but that was about it.

Also, I have no opinion on Camp, but ...Ethan Green is mostly terrible.  

I feel like the only thing he really had going for him was playing the role of the desirable straight guy, who might or might not switch teams for you. He was high school cute in that, but not anything all that special.

Ethan Green was funny, in the sense that it reminded me that David Monahan (hubby to the brown-haired one from the Trip) is basically never allowed to play straight guys.

Robin de Jesus has had a fairly active film/t.v. career since Camp, but he's also been killing it in terms of Broadway. In The Heights is such a great musical- I wish I could have seen him do it.

Share this post


Link to post

You know, I finally got around to seeing Monster's Ball, the movie that netted Halle Berry her historic Best Actress Oscar win. I  do think it was interesting, because at the time it came out, I remember people complaining that Halle basically had to degrade herself in that movie to get the Oscar. (Namely, the famous "Make me feel good" sex scene.)

I did like the performance, though. She had the histrionics, but her wordless acting was fantastic at the end, where she makes peace with the knowledge she's gained about Billie Bob Thornton's character and decides to let go of any previous baggage in order to have that contented moment eating ice cream on the porch. If anything, I think that's what got her the Oscar- seeing someone who was so thoroughly drained by life realizing she can choose a moment's contentment instead of lingering in the past.

It was also cool to see a moment about an African-American character struggling in a modern-day small town instead of the city, or on some sharecropper's farm in the 1930's.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

This could go really bad, but it could be really good:

Dare 2 Crowdfunded Short Film in the Works

I feel like this all comes with the implicit acknowledgement of how fucking awful the feature film adaption was given the emphasis on the fact that they're getting the original stars back. I get that Emmy Rossum was the bankable star, but having the movie basically focus on her was a huge, mind-boggling mistake. People came to the movie for Johnny and Light Boy, not his gal pal. And I will never get why they cast Light Boy's feature film counterpart with such a creepy, off-putting kid.

And hell, I get having people from your past that you still kind of wonder about. Off the top of my head, I can think of two guys from my past that I kind of wonder about in terms of "reconnecting".  It's a pretty workable premise for a sequel. Like a 10-year reunion or something.

Edited by methodwriter85

Share this post


Link to post

14 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

This could go really bad, but it could be really good:

Dare 2 Crowdfunded Short Film in the Works

I feel like this all comes with the implicit acknowledgement of how fucking awful the feature film adaption was given the emphasis on the fact that they're getting the original stars back. I get that Emmy Rossum was the bankable star, but having the movie basically focus on her was a huge, mind-boggling mistake. People came to the movie for Johnny and Light Boy, not his gal pal. And I will never get why they cast Light Boy's feature film counterpart with such a creepy, off-putting kid.

And hell, I get having people from your past that you still kind of wonder about. Off the top of my head, I can think of two guys from my past that I kind of wonder about in terms of "reconnecting".  It's a pretty workable premise for a sequel. Like a 10-year reunion or something.

I really liked the short film so much better.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Luckylyn said:

I really liked the short film so much better.  

That seems to be the general consensus.

I can see why they recast it- Adam Fleming probably didn't want to play a teenager when he was 30, and Michael Cassidy might not have been available. But they dropped the ball so bad on the movie it was ridiculous. I'm sure a lot of it was out of their hands, particularly the over-focus on Emmy Rossum, but I will never get why they thought that creepy kid should play Ben/Lightboy. And Zach Gilford is gorgeous, but Johnny in the short film had a whole dangerous, sensual vibe to him, and Zach is just too cute puppy to pull that off.

This way they can tell the story they want to tell with the characters without having to answer to skittish executives.

Share this post


Link to post

I thought it might be worth mentioning that the Carmilla movie dropped today for anyone interested in a little gothic(ish) horror along with their LGTB content.  For those who are unaware, Carmilla was a web series inspired by the novella of the same name by Joseph Sheridan La Fanu which was one of the first vampire novels (it predates Dracula by two decades).  And much like in Dracula a vampire drinking the blood of their victims is a thinly veiled metaphor for sex.  Only in Carmilla, both Carmilla the titular vampire and all her chosen victims are female, so Carmilla was written as a thinly veiled metaphor for lesbian sex.  The web series updates the setting from an Austrian estate to an Austrian College named Silas University.  The student body is all inexplicably Canadian despite the setting, but weird things like that were part of the series' charm.  The production company funded a movie based on pre-sales of said movie and now we have a Carmilla feature-length film (and I actually think it's being shown in select theaters in Canada).

The conceit of the series was that it was the vlogs of a student named Laura who begins a quest to find out what really happened to her roommate, Betty, who disappeared one night after a party. Carmilla is quickly assigned to be Laura's replacement roommate, much to Laura's chagrin. Like her book counterpart, of the same name, Laura is a bit sheltered, but unlike the book, she is openly gay.  The vast majority of characters in the series and by extension the movie are one, either female or non-binary and two are either explicitly stated to be gay/lesbian/bisexual or heavily implied to be.  And shockingly enough the sexuality of the characters is never an issue.  It's not a huge plot point, there are no special episodes and no one seems to be in the closet.  Laura's not distressed when Carmilla begins to flirt with her because Carmilla is another woman, she's distressed because she has already begun to suspect Carmilla is a vampire and has something to do with both Betty's disappearance and the disappearance of several other women on campus.

The series went on for three seasons of 36 episodes a piece.  Though many of the episodes are less than 10 minutes long.  The first season was fairly campy, but in a fun way and actually had some pretty good acting from the entire cast (the acting only gets better as the series goes on).  Especially when you take into account the episodes generally had to be one continuous take since the "camera" was Laura's webcam and there were no cuts.  I also really kind of loved the character of Carmilla.  Yes, she's a broody vampire (something lampshaded and used for humor), but something about the way Natasha Negovanlis plays her actually makes me buy that's she's a 300-year-old woman in a 20-year-old's body, something I haven't done with any of the other young actors who have recently played vampires.  She's also delightfully snarky and certainly a morally grey character.  She never completely apologizes for all the awful deeds she's done in her life, but she also obviously not proud of them. And back to the LGTB content, Negovanlis and Elise Bauman (who plays Laura) have some seriously wicked chemistry.

I'm not sure how interesting the movie will be to those that haven't watched the series, so I would recommend watching it first if you are interested.  I think I watched all three seasons over 3-4 days.  As I said there might be 36 episodes for each season, but many of them are fairly short (and all available on youtube).  I watched the movie earlier and I quite enjoyed it.  I'd also like to add that I found it refreshing how normal and affectionate Carmilla and Laura are towards each other.  They kiss, hold hands, snuggle on the couch, without constantly tearing each other's clothes off (though we are greeted to one scene where there is some tearing off of clothes).  Basically, they act like a couple, which is my pet peeve in TV and movies for both straight and gay couples.  You must make believe these people care about each other even when it isn't a "romantic" scene. Carmilla the Movie makes me buy that these two people are in a loving relationship. The movie doesn't share the series locked camera and it's fun to finally follow the characters around.  The movie felt a bit like a good beginning to more adventures with Carm and Laura rather than a stand-alone piece, but overall I enjoyed it. It's not Oscar worthy, but it isn't a bad way to kill (pun intended) an hour and a half.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎10‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 0:05 PM, Luckylyn said:

Love, Simon

It doesn’t sound particularly original but I do enjoy a good coming of age story.  I’m also a sucker for romance.  I suppose what makes it different is that it’s not an independent film but a major studio.

http://ew.com/movies/2017/10/31/love-simon-first-look/

The trailer ignores the plot which annoys me.

The promo screams "nothing special" but the accompanying article makes the movie sound very interesting, and I love the cast.  They need to scrap this promo quick and do a full trailer.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JBC344 said:

The promo screams "nothing special" but the accompanying article makes the movie sound very interesting, and I love the cast.  They need to scrap this promo quick and do a full trailer.

Agreed. The speech bubbles were annoying, and the trailer was nothing special.

Share this post


Link to post

On 10/17/2017 at 8:55 PM, methodwriter85 said:

You know, I finally got around to seeing Monster's Ball, the movie that netted Halle Berry her historic Best Actress Oscar win. I  do think it was interesting, because at the time it came out, I remember people complaining that Halle basically had to degrade herself in that movie to get the Oscar. (Namely, the famous "Make me feel good" sex scene.)

I did like the performance, though. She had the histrionics, but her wordless acting was fantastic at the end, where she makes peace with the knowledge she's gained about Billie Bob Thornton's character and decides to let go of any previous baggage in order to have that contented moment eating ice cream on the porch. If anything, I think that's what got her the Oscar- seeing someone who was so thoroughly drained by life realizing she can choose a moment's contentment instead of lingering in the past.

It was also cool to see a moment about an African-American character struggling in a modern-day small town instead of the city, or on some sharecropper's farm in the 1930's.

Halle Berry's performance in Monster's Ball is an all-time favorite of mine, and her wordless acting in the last ten minutes is a huge reason why.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎10‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 8:55 PM, methodwriter85 said:

You know, I finally got around to seeing Monster's Ball, the movie that netted Halle Berry her historic Best Actress Oscar win. I  do think it was interesting, because at the time it came out, I remember people complaining that Halle basically had to degrade herself in that movie to get the Oscar. (Namely, the famous "Make me feel good" sex scene.)

I did like the performance, though. She had the histrionics, but her wordless acting was fantastic at the end, where she makes peace with the knowledge she's gained about Billie Bob Thornton's character and decides to let go of any previous baggage in order to have that contented moment eating ice cream on the porch. If anything, I think that's what got her the Oscar- seeing someone who was so thoroughly drained by life realizing she can choose a moment's contentment instead of lingering in the past.

It was also cool to see a moment about an African-American character struggling in a modern-day small town instead of the city, or on some sharecropper's farm in the 1930's.

 

On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 1:13 AM, NUguy514 said:

Halle Berry's performance in Monster's Ball is an all-time favorite of mine, and her wordless acting in the last ten minutes is a huge reason why.

Thank you!!  She is so exceptional in this role. I hate that when talked about, especially then, it became about her "lowering herself/de-beautifying" her image to play the character.  Her performance is so heartbreaking.  People always talk about the sex scene, but to me the moment of the reveal in the attic is just perfect acting.  You can see Halle's character Leticia putting it all together and ultimately choosing a better life. 

I always think about Halle's stories of having to fight Lee Daniels for the role.  How he dismissed her because she was too "beautiful" to play Leticia.  Halle's response, "You really don't think there are beautiful poor women in the ghetto and in poor rural areas of the South"?  Marc Forester pulled rank and cast Halle. 

Another amazing Halle performance that gets forgotten is "Things we lost in the fire".  If you haven't seen it, I recommend it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I thought it was a gorgeous character. The depth and broadness of her role and how she inhabited it was phenomenal. She even made me re-watch despite the ickiness I find of Billy Bob Thornton (both his character in the movie and the overall vibe I get from him). It's very frustrating, though not surprising, that female roles are still reduced down to looks, good or bad. Somehow if an actress be-beautifies herself she should be taken more seriously as an actress (apparently one can not be attractive and talented) yet conversely, if they  "go ugly" it's pandering for the audience.  Regardless, it's always about the look, not how she inhabited a character.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

So apparently there was a scene in Thor Ragnarok where we see a girl leaving Valkyrie's bedroom after sex, but it was cut because it ruined the flow~. That's convenient. I just hope the movie doesn't expect any cookies for LGBT representation. 

For the record, I actually liked Ragnarok and I absolutely adored Valkyrie's character regardless. But I'm so tired of movie cast/crew talking about how so-and-so is totally gay/bi/whatever in interviews but not actually bothering to show it in any meaningful way on screen. 

Edited by galax-arena
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I hate that Valkyrie is all they could come up with as a name for the character.  It's like Valkyries are interchangeable pieces who don't have their own names.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, starri said:

That’s her name in the comics, though. Often called Val affectionately. 

She also goes by Barbara Norris, doesn't she?

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size