I'm a young writer, occasional singer-songwriter, doodler, feminist, selfie taker, nerd, film enthusiast and optimistic cynic. Herein lie my thoughts on films, books, music and life in general. I'm sorry about the inconsistency, I really am. Embrace the madness
So, while browsing youtube, as I am wont to do, a pre-roll ad for none other than the 50 Shades of Grey film came up and I, instead of clicking after five second like I usually do (music is a big determinant on that front, the ad has a pretty smooth beat and quiet but well produced music in the background. It's also shot really nicely, with tight, fast cuts that really pique the viewer's interest. Film nerd, don't mind me.) I gave it a watch, here it is for you (because context is important):
As you can probably imagine, I have some thoughts to share on the matter. Precursory note: I have not read the book in full, I read snippets through a tumblr thing called "50 Shades of Why" which breaks down the three 50 Shades novels basically page by page, dissecting grammar, poor/odd sentence structure, and general plot holes and weird character decisions, with lots and lots of snark and sarcasm. Basically, if you want to justify not liking the book without actually having to go through the pain of reading it or the weak sauce "well I hear it's bad", this is for you. Go, you'll enjoy it. But come back here after, kay?
Anyways, my thoughts, having now seen the ad, goeth thusly:
1. Christian Grey seems oddly cast.
While I'm glad that Charlie Hunnam backed out after reading the script/book (I can't remember which but he came to his senses and that's the main thing) this new guy as very soft, boyish features that don't exactly bring "abusive controlling millionaire dom" to mind as much as "I'm gonna make you breakfast the morning after our first date and tell you I love you on the second". Now, not much of the performance is shown in the ad so I don't know if that aspect will be better when immersed in the film but as far as first impressions are concerned that "I am [looking at you]" is waaaaay too innocent and cute for what I (and I'm sure everyone else) had in mind.
2. The script adaptation doesn't seem to have improved the dialogue much.
"I exercise control in all things, Ms Steele" is still awkward and stilted as ever. I can't wait to see how they do the pages-long BDSM contract in the film without making it the most boring thing ever made. I also kinda hope they fail. Film Ana's character seems spot on, in the sense that she is as hollow and dull as book Ana is, and is clearly trying to maintain this. I'm not sure if this is good or bad. I'm hoping it'll be hilariously bad in film form. The "That sounds really boring" line got a chuckle out of me.
3. The production of the film might actually make up for the poor characters and script.
It's a rare phenomenon but it could happen. Remember up the page I was geeking out over the tight cuts and how well shot it all seems? While I recognise that short cuts have basically become a staple of trailer direction, use to create suspense, intrigue et cetera, there is definite potential in the direction that we do see, which makes me hopeful that at least something in this film could redeem it, if only a little. I could be completely wrong. And believe me, there is a great argument to be had as to whether good direction can make up for a bad script, or if good acting can make up for poor direction (I'll probably discuss this in a later post)
Now, I leave you with this SNL sketch. It's funny, you should watch it (blogspot didn't have the link for their little youtube box thing, as used above for some reason, you can click the link below or watch the video in little box beneath that, then click the first link that comes up after it's finished. Stupid blogspot, making things unnecessarily complicated):
Hey y'all! So while on holidays with my family (I'm eighteen but still have to endure these. I have three younger siblings and a mother who is rejecting the age of technology kicking and screaming. Much yelling and talk of being braindead occurred. No, the trip was not worth it) I finished the first Game of Thrones book in about five days (socialising got in the way of doing so faster) and had to borrow my sister's book to read until we got back to the hotel. It was a little book I'd heard things about: Divergent.
(Spoilers will be included. Consider yourself warned)
As my father so wittily pointed out, it's about a man particularly interested in undersea exploration. Geddit? Diver gent? Yeah, I didn't laugh either. I gave him a slow clap and eye of disdain though, which is something. Family holidays do not an enthusiastic Rachel make.
Anyways, I thought I'd talk about this book, be a little different as I've only spoken about one other book here before if memory serves (Gregory Maguire's "Wicked"). I feel like I should talk about "Q and A" at some point too, I still consider it a favourite. I'm straying from the point. I'm sure this point has already been made but this book... it's not bad per se, it's just... well...
I have to say this in a gif, excuse me:
Sam from iCarly, you always know just what to say
It's stupid. You think about it for a second or two and everything falls the fuck apart. And then you think some more and you realise that it's sending some really weird messages. And then you think a little more and realise that this would never happen. Ever. Like, physically could not. And then you get annoyed again because, ugh, stupid. So dumb. Oh, so very dumb.
(Sidenote: I haven't seen the film, this is just about the book. Sorry. I hear the film's pretty faithful though)
The basic premise of the book is, post apocalyptic/dystopian future in which the country or whatever is split into factions based on ideology (and originally on what they felt was causing the flaws in society):
Erudite: Favours intelligence and blames ignorance for humanity's flaws
Candor: Favours honesty and blames, well, dishonesty
Amity: Favours peace and blames aggression
Dauntless: Favours bravery and blames cowardice
Abnegation: Favours selflessness and blames selfishness
It's all very Hogwarts house-y if everyone in Hogwarts took the houses waaaay too seriously. Erudite are the Ravenclaws, Amity the Hufflepuffs, and Slytherin and Gryffindor are smushed together in Dauntless (Abnegation and Candor don't get Hogwarts houses because the Hogwarts houses kinda make sense and those two are stupid.) Seriously, they're really weird groupings. Candor always tell the truth and learn how to tell when people are lying, Dauntless jump off of trains, Amity... hug people? That one isn't covered very in depth, maybe in the second book which I probably won't read).
The deal with this book is, it's stupid but it has interesting characters. Predictable but so very easy to read. I knocked it out in a day or so. It was entertaining until towards the end where the connotations get... dicey.
So, our protagonist is Beatrice "I only have this name so I can change it to an unusual and edgy nickname later" Prior (later known as Tris, shocker) and she's an Abnegation-born girl about to take her aptitude test to find out which faction she's best suited to, which everyone takes when they turn sixteen. All the sixteen year olds will then choose which faction they want to be in from then on, must pass initiation or end up "factionless" (this world's poorly coded homeless/poverty stricken). SPOILERS: She's a special snowflake and doesn't fit into just one of these highly specific categories, she is equal parts Abnegation, Dauntless and Erudite. Divergent. She's told to hide this away and tell no one, she chooses Dauntless and goes off on her merry way. Stuff and things ensue. I'm not gonna do a plot summary, if you've read it, you've read it.
One of the things that really struck me about this book was how self-contradictory it is. From what I can glean, it's trying to make a sweeping statement about corruption in government and flaws in human nature but it never really takes a stance. I'm not saying it has to, these things can be left ambiguous but then toward the end it flips the neutral standpoint and making statements that it previously rebukes. It's all very strange.
Oh, and kinda reeks of communism.
Not even kidding.
Now, to be fair, the breed of communism leans far more towards early christian communism and community (you know, where the term originated) than Marx and Engels' ideals. Veronica Roth, the author, describes herself as a devout christian and so this isn't necessarily that surprising (god is also her first thank you in the acknowledgements). Because of this, the Abnegation faction (who effectively live communal lives free of worldly possessions and spending all their time doing voluntary work for charity and such) is generally painted as the good guys in the story, despite Tris leaving them early in the book. Most of her arc is around accepting that she has both Dauntless and Abnegation inside her and that she can use them together to greater ends.
Dauntless is also shown in a positive light where most books might make it the hyper aggressive Slytherin of the five, instead being shown as well meaning but ultimately corrupt and attractive to aggressive opportunists (not unlike communism). There's new leadership that focuses more on cruelty and lack of mercy over personal, inner courage (not unlike communism) A large portion of the book is spent debating whether courage is absence of fear or, as Ned Stark puts it in Game of Thrones, action in spite of fear. It's explored fairly well over the book's course but is undermined by the stupid "let's take bravery as a trait as literally as humanly possible" writing decisions. I mentioned jumping off trains earlier, didn't I? Yeah, the Dauntless get trains everywhere and, instead of the trains stopping, they jump on and off of moving trains, then off buildings and such. It's really stupid. I get that there can be a fine line between bravery and stupidity, but seriously. And, because faction traits are strictly enforced, you don't jump off the moving train? Boom! Homeless. You'd think that self preservation would be somewhere on the faction's register, I mean, two kids die before the book's halfway point. It just end up feeling like they're trying a little too hard to be the hunger games.
Not even kidding
Then the most problematic faction depiction, Erudite. Where to begin. Erudite are the intellectuals, they seek out knowledge wherever they can and write articles do research for the nation. The are the bad guys. *Sigh of despair*. Basically, the reason we are given to hate the Erudite is that they've been bullying the Abnegation with "false" reports (I'll explain the quotations in a second, bear with me) about corrupt government, hoarding resources, and child abuse, claiming that no one can be that selfless. This is, I'm convinced, the only reason Candor exists as a faction because if it didn't seeking out knowledge AND truth would be Erudite's thing. Erudite are annoyed at Abnegation because they want more power and, according to Tris's father in the book, they thirst for power because that is what a thirst for knowledge always leads to.
A little bit more context: The Abnegation run the government. The government is made up almost ENTIRELY of Abnegation people, with one Erudite. The idea is that, because they put others first, they are incorruptible. The Erudite are suspicious of this because NOBODY OPERATES LIKE THAT. That is not how human nature works. Basically, the Erudite have some sense. They start a revolution because they feel like the current system of government is unfair. Which it is. Surely in a world where there are five faction, all five should be represented in government, right? It doesn't have to be proportional, just have at least one from each. My Erudite homies can see that clear as day (having read the book I'd have to say I'm team Erudite. Or team "this book was stupidly oversimplified and none of these things alone could define me". Probably the latter.)
Other qualms that the Erudite have are that they're being held back from prosperity by the focus on poorest members of society, meaning that they can't develop luxury goods or improve medicine, transport, housing etc. A valid argument, and one that has often been made against communism (lack of rewards and incentive for skilled individuals to excel). And especially considering that the factionless ONLY exist thanks to the current system of government. Oh yeah, the current system is "you fail arbitrary initiation exercises (like jumping off a moving train) and your prospects plummet to zero (you might become a janitor or something, if you're lucky). The Abnegation, who focus most on the factionless with their charity work, are in charge of the government, do nothing to change this. Every other faction has free food, water, shelter and security as a given, couldn't you just- ugh, this world's logic is so dumb. Another point for Erudite's cause, methinks.
Regarding the reports made about Abnegation, while the resource hoarding claims are untrue, the child abuse is right on the nose. The head councillor beats his son into selflessness, because it's apparently for his own good, leading to his fleeing the faction to Dauntless out of necessity. And, as mentioned by Tris's brother, they are not allowed to seek out information or ask questions in Abnegation. Censorship and brutality for the good of the people? Oh hey, that sounds like
COMMUNISM!
And what group, pray tell, was vehemently against communism in its early years and printed propaganda against them while the rest of the world was all "well, the Moscow underground is pretty cool"? Fascism. Namely, nazism. And this, the final third or so of the book, is where the message becomes really weird. The Erudite are planning a revolution and are going to use the meatheaded Dauntless (not unlike Hitler's bownshirts, justsayin *cough*) to fight for them by using.... wait for it.... SCIENCE MIND CONTROL!
Just... whut?
Now's the part where I get all "this is our society, people, this is what we've come to". Except, no, this is what we've been for a while. I wish this was a more isolated thing but it's not. The cultural belief that knowledge and the people who seek it are inherently corrupt or corruptible is a highly prevalent one. It's "mad scientist" theory at its most basic and it needs to stop. Science and knowledge are good things. We live in the age og the internet, where information is available at the click of a button (as it is in Erudite too, which baffles me because surely that's a good thing. Yeah, there's propaganda, but if people are intelligent they'd be able to critically analyse what they're told and make judgements. This book really doesn't understand how intelligent, educated people operate, gah). I get fear of modern technology in things like 2001: A Space Odyssey or Metropolis, they're fears about changing technology and such but the technology in Divergent (aside from the serums and stuff) is not so unlike our own. Really, it comes across a little like this:
I'm gonna wrap this up cos I'm rambling now but in closing points, I used to watch a lot of Saturday morning cartoons as a kid (and possibly up until recent years, don't judge me). I don't know if I'm along in this but as a general rule of thumb, I wanted the villains to win. Characters like Plankton in Spongebob Squarepants, Dr. Drakken in Kim Possible, Dr. Doofinshmirtz in Phineas and Ferb, Pinky and the Brain, Dexter, basically anyone trying to
"take over the world", as it were
I'd always be interested in seeing them succeed (part of the reason I loved Megamind was that it actually explored this). They're pretty much all megalomaniacs but I can't help but wonder that if they were to have power, whether or not they'd eventually start inventing crazy contraptions to aid society instead of take it over.
On the subject of Divergent, I refuse to believe that the Erudite are composed entirely of megalomaniacs, that isn't shown anywhere in the book and the mind control shtick seems super out of character for the Erudite, especially considering that the system IS actually off balance and corrupt. The worst is cold pragmatism from their leader (which, in itself, isn't something that a supposedly hyper intelligent group would favour, surely knowing that pragmatism conflicts with human nature and can lose efficiency thank to it...) I've given this far too much thought.
In the spirit of analysis and intelligent debate, leave a comment if you agree or disagree with this review, I got a fun comment telling me I knew nothing about Harry Potter and insulting my grammar in a previous post, you can go ahead and tell me I know nothing (Jon Snow) if that is your opinion. I'm not likely to agree but hey, freedom of expression.
Spoiler: Up next I'm possibly gonna write something about spoilers.
Embrace the Madness
(also, I feel like I might need a new tagline, this one seems to fit my style less and less... Thoughts?)
Hi internet! So, yeah, finished my exams. My fate is in the hands of... well, fate... now. Probably could have worded that better. Anyway, I'M BACK!
I also may have started watching Buffy. Little behind on the times, me
So while I was busy on study related hiatus, a thing happened in Santa Barbara. You may have heard about it, it involved guns and misogyny and the son of Peter Rodger (the assistant director of the Hunger Games films) making this whole big super villain vendetta speech and going off on a killing spree. It was very sad and awful and it was all over the internet (god, get with the times) Now, there have been many, many people giving their two cents on why he did it, whether or not he was insane, talking about privilege and Reddit MRAs (whoooole other topic there, eesh) and all that stuff. And, because I've never been one to stop flogging a horse despite it's apparent deceased nature (that was a horrible metaphor, god Rachel, what is wrong with you) I thought I'd throw my two cents into to mound of cents. They're shiny and deserve to be with their own kind, for surely they will be accepted as wonderful additions to cent society.
Apparently the internet is a teensy bit obsessed with this thing called "The Friend Zone". Here, I'll try and dig some stuff up on it:
Basically this. This is the internet in a nutshell
Now, there are a number of theories surrounding the origin of the "Friendzone" concept. Simply put, it's a more whiny, entitled version of good old fashioned unrequited love (that, or people got tired of trying to spell "unrequited"). You like them, they do not like you, or see you as a potential romantic partner. End of.
On the post Elliot Rodger internet, however, there was a certain school of thought circulating along the lines of "Oh shit, ladies, better stop with this whole friendzone shit, people be getting killed". I am not gonna be talking about that specifically but here's an awesome video that does. You're welcome.
That was a very round about way of getting to what I do plan on talking about and that is some of the major flaws in the "friendzone" mythology. Sometimes from the standpoint of a "friendzoner" (I have been called this. Quite possibly more than once) and of the "friendzoned". I'm probably gonna stop with the inverted commas but you get the idea, it's a social construct, usually based in male (or otherwise but often male) entitlement mixed with messages in films and TV. Yadda yadda yadda.
One particularly harmful myth is that the "friendzoner" is either totally oblivious or some kind of heartless monster, leading you on only to throw you from a height to your inevitable demise.
This one is circulated so goddamn much, it's a little infuriating. Can we make some sort of agreement to NOT constantly insult the intelligence of every human being on the planet? Can we do that? I get that people can be stupid, I really do, but seriously guys, unless you know for sure can you act like other humans have some kind of thought process going on? Please? Benefit of the doubt anyone?
I'm getting off topic. Let me paint you a word picture:
You are a fairly intelligent human being. You're single and there's someone showing interest in you. You, being a little tad awful at judging social situations (a reasonable assumption considering the internet's population) do not know if they are simply trying to get closer to you as a friend or if they're establishing foundations for relationshiptown. Honestly, the two are very, very similar. Especially if they are also single (if not, assume they're on friendship road until they try to jam their tongue down your throat, in which case rethink things).
Brief (kinda) sidenote: I'm gonna try and keep this fairly gender neutral but considering that my experience is confined to that of a teenage girl and there are, unfortunately, some "side effects of patriarchy" double standards when it comes to popular dating conventions, it might be tricky. In our lopsided society, girls tend to be viewed as the hypothetical prey where guys are the hypothetical predators. We've gotten to a stage where, on a personal level we recognise that these norms are stupid and benefit no one but on a societal level thems is still the rules. This is, in part, why the whole player/slut false dichotomy exists: If you're a lion and you get the zebra, you're good at being a lion; You're a zebra and you go to the lion, you're kind of a stupid zebra. To reinstate, this is a FALSE dichotomy, it's based in ignorance and sexism and general not good-ness.
But that's society. We're working on it. (That should totally be on a mug or something)
Anywho, there's this person getting friendly and you're like "Ok, this person is cool but I don't like them like that" and you almost feel bad for thinking that because you're not obsessed with finding "potential mates" or anything, it's just kinda there in the back of your mind. And you leave it at that.
Or you try to, anyway. You keep getting these vibes that this person is interested in that way but you have no way of telling. The way you see it, you have three options:
1. Confront them, ask if they like you and shoot them down if they do. Risk looking either paranoid or like a douche/bitch. Not good future friendship prospects any way this turns out.
2. Start acting weird and distant, hoping they'll get the hint. This is also not great for future friendship prospects but is slightly better than option 1.
3. Act totally oblivious to anything that could be considered flirty in the hope that they'll get the hint and move on. You will generally only lose the friend if they confess their love, in which case see option 1.
Being the awkward, awkward people this generation tends to be, most people go with option three. It's really the only way to spare their feelings and cover your own ass if you're wrong, other than, you know, actual communication. Which I think we can all agree, we suck at. Just a smidge.
If you're on the other end of it and you are actually trying to found relationshiptown, you are in the hypothetical friendzone. It's not a great situation either way, there's a lot of second guessing on both sides and the friendship is going to be affected by it. What the friendzoned person hopes for is the super secret, you-need-5,000-points-to-unlock-this-level, FOURTH option:
4. The friendzoner has been single for a really long time, they've quite possibly been dumped or had no success in founding their own relationshiptown (possibly for similar reasons as the friendzonee) and decide to give their friendzoned pursuer a chance.
Option four is the option you generally see at the end of teen romances, where the girl/guy realises that what they wanted was "right there the entire time!". It's the "fall in love with girl/boy next door, get instantly married and never have any problems ever again" route and your friendzoned pursuer has no idea why you haven't chosen it yet because it's sooo perfect.
Except, no, it isn't. I'm sorry to say this (mostly because I've been there) but there is something to be said for gut instinct and initial attraction. I don't personally believe in love at first sight (does anyone, really) but I DO believe in attraction (or lust) at first sight. I also believe it's relative. You meet someone you're initially attracted to at a party, talk to them for half an hour and find out they're dull as wet cheese? Probably not going to be as attracted to that person. Same goes for if they have, say, a really offensive sense of humour, or a really aggressive political standpoint, or a significant other (doesn't apply to everyone, I know, I'm cursed with loin enforced homewrecker proofed-ness (typod "lion enforced", that should be a thing, like, right now))
The same is true for the converse: If you don't find someone initially attractive but realise you are both the world's greatest Duck Tails fans, or that you both make artisan candles in your back gardens, or that you both feel pretty strongly about zebras being black with white stripes as opposed to vice versa; you are then more attracted to them. Chances are you are attracted to them now as a friend/candle-making-buddy. And, if they weren't unattractive physically, in an "I could take it or leave it" kinda way, you might decide that you want to pursue a relationship with this person.
Herein comes the muddiness. Let us consult this totally professional, slanty-on-purpose-cos-I'm-artsy-and-not-at-all-lazy, graph:
I'm going all Josh Sunquist up in here
So, while you may be more attracted to this person, you aren't suddenly super into them. You still have some standards, is what I'm saying. They, on the other hand, may be like "OMG our babies will watch Jaws 3 every night, we're so perfect together why can't they see that?" And, getting back to my nearly forgotten original point, if you eventually choose option 4, you are compromising. Compromise happens, that's life, but if you look at what they've gotten, as the ex-friendzoned person, they've made no compromise whatsoever. They've gotten exactly what they've always wanted. No lesson is learned except "relentlessly hound what it is you want and eventually it will give in and sleep with you". Not the best of lessons.
And honestly, you're starting off a relationship phenomenally badly if one person is, by definition, more invested than the other. That's a power imbalance that you never want, ever. And, going back to the compromise thing and how it's suspiciously in favour of the beleaguered ex-friendzonee, does it really seem like Hermione and Ron would have been a happy married couple? (Sidenote: I never got that, they never had anything in common save for circumstance and basic morals, and even then- sorry, not the time) Or Ron Stoppable and Kim Possible? Face it people, sometimes people are better off as friends, no matter how "easy" it would be to date them.
Final perspective for a moment: A straight cisgendered woman might be best friends with, and somewhat physically attracted to, a gay man. HOWEVER, she is not about to start pressuring him into dating her because "they'd be so great together and they're practically already dating". Why? One party is not (or, in this case, will never be) attracted to the other. And trying to convince them otherwise is selfish and pointless. For fuck sake, move on.
This is the greatest gif I have ever found, omigosh
for the record, the same analogy applies to lesbians with guy best friends but for some reason male homosexuality is treated with more respect than female, I wonder *cough* patriarchy*cough cough* why?
_by_Veronica_Roth_US_Hardcover_2011.jpg)
