Doctor Who Season 8 Episode 1: "Deep Breath"

Hey guys. So, a new episode of doctor who has just been aired and WE HAVE A NEW DOCTOR! Aaaand all the complications that come with that. There was a fair bit of discussion about the casting of Peter Capaldi as the 12th doctor, whether or not we should call him twelve at all (nerds and fandoms love their timeline sorting, as I'm sure you know savvy reader) and all that lovely stuff. I myself contemplated a blog entry on the doctor's casting but the moment passed and I missed my shot (though I'll make my female doctor argument at a later date, I assure you). I am not about to miss the iron while it's hot this time, oh no, I am going to strike it! Right now. Which is what I'm doing.

Can you tell my brain is in Doctor Who mode? Because it is. Very firmly so.

Dat. Coat. Tho.

It's all very exciting, and, in the spirit of exciting things, I decided to do something a little bit different and exciting and take notes while watching the episode (you know, like an actual good reviewer) and make live commentary instead of live tweeting for the first fifteen minutes then getting bored. To give you a fun insight into my thought process while actually watching the episode, here are those notes. We take risks here on mental notes.

(Disclaimer: These will only make sense in the context of the episode. If you have not seen the episode, go watch it. There might be spoilers. I'm not sure what constitutes a spoiler in terms of half structured thoughts. There will definitely be spoilers further down the page. You've been warned.) 

• Writing for Matt Smith sounds very strange coming from Capaldi's mouth.
• The Doctor is not a man, Vastra, he's a Time Lord.
• Vastra is not a lizard, Jenny, she's a Silurian.
• Is this series gonna be 90% Scottish jokes?
• New title sequence. Can I get a "ripping off Game of Thrones" up in here?
• Hold on, is Vastra saying the doctor chose young faces? It's random, isn't it? And if not, that makes him seem hella manipulative.
• The judgement thing... I get it but it doesn't seem relevant considering how the Doctor's been acting (ie. like he's just had a lobotomy)
• Oh god, that tree fall sequence... New director, guys? Editor maybe? Standards for what looks and sounds good?
• New sound effects. Weird.
• Note: Moffat likes horse jokes. And the trailer shock value of putting big dramatic things in different time periods (and then doing very little with them once they're there)
• I do like the new score, anything with more brass is a plus in my book.
• Anachronistic door blipper serves no purpose other than throwaway gag. Nice work Moffat.
• "Planet of the pudding brains" is not something that should be said in a Scottish accent with a straight face. Ever. Moffat, write for your current casting, not Matt Smith.
• It's been half a season and about a year, I'm still pissed they didn't opt to keep Victorian era Clara. Does no one else think it'd be interesting to explore a the possibilities of an out of history companion?
• Moffat seems to think that the sole contents of Clara's subconscious are deflected narcissism, passive aggressivity and guys. Surely this is proof enough that she needs better development?
• Oh my god, Moffat, leave Clara alone!! I know it's through Strax but seriously, in the space of ten minutes you've hit her with a newspaper, called her ugly, perved on her brain and now you're staring at her chest and saying she's going to get fat! That's not funny, it's mean and immature. We get it, you don't know very much about how woman operate. Can we move on?
• "I need a big long scarf... No I've moved on from that, it looks stupid" I see what you did there.
• Why do they keep saying the face is a choice? Since when is that a thing?
• Are they seriously making "eyebrows are Scotland" comparisons? Really? Also does that make doctor who a cononically "anti Scottish independence" show? I guess it's BBC...
• The well may make "blame the English" a 12th doctor thing... Not sure how I'd feel about that.
• Oh hi there, pointless and gratuitous cleavage scene. With the lack of "doctor harassing Clara" I almost thought we wouldn't make our misogyny count for the episode.
• Vastra and Jenny's relationship seems borderline abusive, especially emotionally... Also, Moffat, lesbians are not just like men, they tend to have slightly more respect for women. You can't superimpose your objectifying ways onto Vastra and make it okay.
• I'm sorry, the doctor isn't complicated? What?!! Have you watched the last five six season of this show?
• Clara's characterisation is incredibly inconsistent. Was she this shallow and quick tempered last season?
• Oh, you miss Amy? Was Amy better at grabbing the sonic with her feet? Moffat, stop projecting.
• What the fuck?!!! A ball busting joke? A FUCKING BALL BUSTING JOKE? Holy shit, Moffat, what the fuck are you doing?!
• Robot dude, if you could find most of a face you can find all of a face, the corner missing is clearly just for effect. Not a bad effect but it'd make more sense to have it revealed in a fight or something rather than "barefacedly" flaunt your (literal) plot hole.
• The disobedient student thing is so rushed, it barely holds any weight. Set up and pay off need some time in between, Moffat, otherwise it's just lazy writing.
• Clara has never been a control freak! And how did the robots not notice the doctor breathing from inside the skin suit thing?
• Rule of film #1, do not refer the audience to a better film they could be watching instead. Ie: don't reference "The Girl in the Fireplace", a much better written and structured episode (and at the same time draw attention to the fact that Amy Pond's early relationship to the doctor was basically a rehash of the Madame du Pompadour storyline in season 2. Who taught you to write, Moffat?)
• Ooh, got some parallels going on with that serving tray. We're getting deep. Too bad that the Doctor's face is random and really pretty irrelevant.
• Wouldn't the robots be able to hear the kiss breathing thing? And for god's sake, stop exploiting Vastra and Jenny! They were interesting characters until they basically just became vessels for lesbian jokes.
• Are they suggesting that the doctor killed him? Are they really trying to leave that ambiguous? They know we know he's the same person, right? We're not all dipshits like Clara suddenly seems to be.
• Okay, I refuse to believe that Clara is the person who knows the doctor best in all the fucking universe. Stop pushing that. What about Martha? What about Jack, Mickey, River?! There are plenty of people who've known the doctor longer and clearly understand him better. Cut the "Clara knows him best" shit out.
• I like the chair. The chair is an improvement.
• Clearing up the platonic relationship dealy right off the bat, this is good. Bets on how quickly they'll fuck it up...?
• There's a very determined shipper out there.
• Oh for shit's sake, I thought they were gonna get rid of Clara. Does this mean we're still stuck with her? I mean, I don't have a problem with her specifically, she's very attractive and can be cool and interesting but I'd rather they start afresh with a more consistent character.
• I'm not sure if I'm supposed to recognise the woman in the last scene. She has a very "Sherlock's Irene Adler" vibe to her. And she talks like River (well, post "Silence in the Library" River). 
• Moffat loves having women call the doctor their boyfriend. The shock value is really wearing thin.

Those are the unfiltered, self indulgently included thoughts (clearly I think my mindless commentary is important enough to warrant an entire section of the review, even though I could just use it to condense my actual judgement into more coherent points. Egotism, my old friend, you win again.)

One of the main issues I have with the episode, as you can probably tell, is its inconsistency. The Doctor is inconsistent, which is excusable to a point because it's a transitional episode but there's so much changing around, messing with the mythology (can he choose his new face? If he can, why does he express not wanting to be old over the phone? Did that conversation make it a fixed point in time that couldn't be changed?) and the mechanics of things. The memory thing was driving me nuts at the start of the episode. How much did he remember and, if he could remember Amy as evidenced by that one throwaway (but cruel) comment, why was he such a dick to Clara.

These eyes say, "Please, someone, give my character
some kind of arc or depth"

Then there's the issue of Clara. Oh dear, sweet Clara, the writers have not been kind to you. Clara is so, so very inconsistent, honestly she always has been. It feels like the showrunners (*cough* Moffat *cough cough*) never bothered giving her a character and so change her from episode to episode to suit the scenario. This episode is the worst for her so far, making her out to be shallow, judgemental, short-tempered, controlling, naggy... all perfectly fine traits to give a character, things to base an arc around even but they are all totally new. Clara has not once displayed even a hint of these traits in the past. Set up and pay off. Donna Noble in season 4 was set up as strong willed and and brazen but internally insecure, traits which were stuck to. With Clara... I couldn't begin to describe Clara other than by the most mundane of stock characteristics: brave, kind, loyal. She's a cardboard cut-out and it's terrible because I do like Jenna Coleman, she's not a bad actor and you can tell she's trying to do as much as she can with what she's given, just... aagh. I'm hoping this will improve but I'm afraid we might be too far gone with her at this point. Fingers fucking crossed.

Then there's the ever problematic writing of mister Stephen Moffat. It's been reported that Capaldi and Moffat have been having discourse on the set over various different things, one of them being the Doctor's past two incarnations being something of a lady's man and Capaldi being considerably older than either of them. From the episode, they seem to be establishing a purely platonic relationship between Clara and the Doctor, though coming to that conclusion was both predictable and long winded. The woman at the end of the episode seems to be a second River/Irene type character (as there is a popular theory that Moffat can only write two kinds of female characters and neither of them are great). I'm intrigued by her but can't help but feel she's the product of a compromise on Capadi's part.

Overall, for all my slamming it's beginnings, I am looking forward to the coming season. Peter Capaldi is shaping up to be a good and entertaining Doctor, if the writers stay on point and recognise that he isn't Matt Smith anymore, we might get back to decent Doctor Who. I might make this a regular thing, take notes then blog. Who knows.

Embrace the Madness 

Mini Post: Brief Thoughts on the 50 Shades ad

Hey y'all! We gon talk 50 Shades.

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):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHlpEbhNyh0
(Noel Wells as Emma Stone is the greatest thing. Dat voice tho)

Embrace the Madness

"Divergent" or Intellectualism Equals... Fascism?

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?)

Internet, it's time we had a little chat about the "Friend Zone"

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?

Embrace the Madness

Things that irk me: "Chosen One" Narratives

Hey guys! I have some time free after my mock exams and this has been annoying me for a while so I'm gonna vent a little. Inconsistency inconschmistency, my blog, therefore my rules to break (which would be an excellent reason for me to stop making them... Eh.) What, you may ask, has so annoyed me as to bring me out of my self-induced hiatus? Well, you see, there was a prophecy... or an epiphany... or a time-travel related paradox... Basically, bad, lazy writing is everywhere in modern film and book franchises and I'm going to yell about it. Fasten your seat-belts, this is going to get angry.

What you can expect from this post.
(Hermione is awesome)

First off, let's define your average, home grown "chosen one". (Also, I'm not going to go into it because it's a whoooole other rant, but they're usually male, straight and Caucasian. Just sayin'). 

1. They're above average intelligence but they're under-achievers (in the bill of characters, they are not "the smart one"). They are either moderately good at things with no discernible skills to speak of 

AND/OR 

Any skills they have come to them naturally and with minimal amount of work or effort, to the shock and admiration of all/most other characters

2. They are unhappy with their lives and feel as thought they are meant for more. They generally live somewhere boring and have a boring, unfulfilling job or boring unfulfilling prospects. They are more often than not oppressed in some way shape or form.

3. They have a strong moral compass and tendency towards self sacrifice, despite not necessarily having any reason to develop these (I'll come back to this point).

Then there's the basic story structure:

Boring life > Some kind of discovery relating to destiny and whatnot >

Obstacle that only the chosen one can overcome > Save the day, get the girl yadda yadda yadda.

These aspects are fairly universal in terms of your stock "chosen ones". As far as character goes, many stray into Mary Sue territory with a healthy helping of archetypal hero. 

What I'm trying to get at is that these "chosen ones" are normal people who we, the audience, are supposed to relate to and imagine ourselves being similar to (hence the above average intelligence, writers and readers love that). They are escapism at their most simplistic, they exist so that we can spend a certain amount of time pretending that we are something that we are not, that is, extraordinary, before getting back to our boring-ass lives. 

That is, I assume. I wouldn't know much about ordinariness.

And honestly, there's nothing wrong with escapism. I love escapism, daydreaming and pretend as much as the next person. That's not the problem. The problem is this trope's overuse, pretense as something original and deep and the lazy, lazy, LAZY use. 

"Yer a messiah, Anakin"

More eloquently put: 

Problem 1: Destiny makes stories stupid 

(unless used with extreme care and cleverness)

So, I mentioned in my review of the finale of The Legend of Korra that the whole "balance of good and evil" trope is inherently flawed and near universally misunderstood by writers, fans and critics alike. The same seems to go for the idea of destiny and fixed timeline. (I also mention this in my deconstruction of the whole time-turner thing in Harry Potter, give it a look). I'm going to put this as simply as humanly possible:

If destiny exists in your fantasy world, it makes ZERO difference to how anything plays out. So, please stop acting like it does. 

This confuses people so allow me to give an example. Let's say it's Tuesday and I, Rachel "living-in-a-predestined-universe" O'Connor decide to make myself a ham and cheese sandwich. I do this and eat it. Now, because I'm living in a predestined universe, there is no way that, on that particular Tuesday, I would NOT have made myself a ham and cheese sandwich and proceeded to eat it. It was DESTINY! However, as lazy and/or bad writers fail to realise, me eating a destiny sandwich is no more interesting than me eating a sandwich in a universe in which things are not predestined. 

In fact, there is no way to tell the difference, so there might as well not be one. If your life were to be set out in front of you, a set path that you will walk no matter what, it would make absolutely no difference to your agency, your decision making ability, your "free-will" as it were. This is where I tend to lose people. There's this idea that if destiny existed we would be less free. But that is assuming that you are free to begin with. The way we think, the way we make decisions and observations and judgments has been, unbeknownst to us, molded from birth. We are raised by our parents, the media we are exposed to, our environments: the places and times in which we grow up. How many of these things do we have control over? Media? Maybe, but not at a very young age, when it matters most. Our environments? Ha, nope. Parents? Well, how were they raised? It's a vicious circle of uncontrollable things. Then there's the question of "what controls the uncontrollable?" If you're religious I suppose you have your answer but I don't buy into that. Basically what I'm saying it that you are merely a product of a series of uncontrollable events, so why should your life be any different? That's how I see it anyway. My entire life up to that point was leading up to me deciding to make that particular sandwich on that particular Tuesday. That could well be but it doesn't make the decision any more life changing than any other decision I make, under the illusion of free-will. and it certainly doesn't make the sandwich special.

Okay, calm down. What I'm getting at is, 1) I'm super philosophical and deep, be impressed

and 2) using a destiny plot driver does nothing to your story except make it another "destiny!" story. The tension is the same and adding prophecies without thinking them through properly either kills reader investment in the story or makes it a plot colander. The destiny thing may have been original once but let's face it, Greek mythology and the Old Testament used it more than enough to wear it thin, and that was millennia ago. This is the twenty first goddamn century, can we at least try to employ better, different story telling devices?!

Problem 2: "Chosen Ones" are not interesting

Yeah, I went there. I'm not going to side step around or sugar coat this: Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, Jesus, Annakin Skywalker, King Arthur, Frodo Baggins, Bella Swan, Neo in "The Matrix", Shia LaBeuf's character in "Transformers", Po in "Kung Fu Panda"... I don't think anyone can argue that any of these characters are the most distinct, the most memorable or the most interesting characters in their respective series.

Which, I hear the more up to speed of you yelling at your computer screens, is kind of the point. This is true. According to the whole "chosen one" package, an uninteresting, unassuming character is forced to discover their true mettle through a challenge that they must face, whether or not they want to. It's tired and I hate it, but that is the formula. 

The main problem I have here is the glorification of stuff just happening around the protagonist. For example, Harry Potter would be a more interesting story if Harry had run away from the Dursleys in book one and found the magical world on his own. He may still be Harry "the-futhermucking-chosen-one" Potter but at least he's taking something into his own hands.

(Sidenote: Yes, we've spoken on how agency is no different in fatalistic narratives but I can still gripe about characters being static the entire freaking time. Another common misconception about fatalistic universes is that if you just stand still, fate will just, um, happen. This is wrong. If it is predestined that you will make this shitty judgement then you will stand still, starve to death and that will have been your destiny. Thank you for playing, goodnight.)

Taking it into his/her own hands being working. Because, at the end of the day, if our society favours people who become great through next to no merit of their own then, to an extent, our society is undermining those who become great through actual hard work and effort. According to our exhaustive use and consumption of the chosen one narrative, Harry Potter (a well meaning and morally strong but ultimately unskilled individual) is more valuable than Hermione Granger (an enthusiastic academic who is effectively self made and works for all the success she attains over the course of the series) or Neville Longbottom (an originally meek and ridiculed individual who gradually gains self confidence and eventually steps up to take control). Which is not, in my honest opinion, true. Nor is it a good message to be sending as it is, in it's most basic form, saying "It doesn't matter how much you work for responsibility and/or power, you will never be as accomplished or admired as those who have responsibility and power forced upon them." I love the Harry Potter books, and Harry's great but I once I thought about it at length (years after finishing the series) I would probably have preferred Harry as a lesser character. I would have liked the same story only perhaps more focused on Hermione or Luna or Neville or Sirius. We don't have enough of them, stories with chosen ones that don't star the chosen one. 

In short: the idea of a chosen one places them on a pedestal. This person is reluctant and this is shown as a good thing. This person is average and un-extraordinary yet they are shown to be greater than those who do good despite some prophecy or mentor figure spurring them on to do so. It's a slightly worrying trend for one so common.

Well, what should we do instead?

Ah, the big questions. "If it keeps making money, why should we change the formula?" Because, my friends, if anything has been learned in these times of financial crisis (and I'm sure much less has been than should have been) it's that bubbles burst. Trends and fads and crazes will all dry up, no matter how long they seem to have been around (see Gangnam Style of you want proof of that). Chosen one stories have their time in the sun and fade (and return again, unfortunately, because it's a super easy story structure to follow for hacky writers, grrr) but right now seems to be a good era for heroes and heroines setting their own paths. Katniss Everdeen's sister, Prim, was technically the "chosen one" of that series but lucky for them (and us) a more interesting character swooped in and took responsibility.

"Please, anything but more chosen one
stories!"

 "Ender's Game" was only moderately well received, "The Mortal Instruments" grossed at slightly over half their budget (which was 60,000,000) and made only about 9,000,000 in its opening weekend and "Divergent" looks... well, it looks like it'll be an interesting social experiment (I'll be nice until it's actually out, sounds preeeetty terrible concept-wise). The last good "Chosen One" film I remember seeing is probably Kung Fu Panda 2 but that's partially because the chosen one thing is downplayed in that and he does still have to train and adapt. 

I propose we come up with better tropes to overuse and eventually grow tired of (and complain about on obscure blogs). I mentioned earlier the "chosen one narrative from the viewpoint of someone other than the chosen one" idea. Pretty sure the last time that was done in the mainstream was in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" (you know, with one of the really early chosen ones, whatsisface with the beard).

I've also heard that "The Lego Movie" is being all subversive and clever with its fine self on this front, and I do look forward to seeing it (and getting to the bottom of whether or not everything is, in fact, awesome). I for one would also like to see more "Stuff happens around a totally lethargic protagonist" which can be another fun subversion of the chosen one model (when done well, clever satire generally needs to be identifiable as satire). Finally, while one of the only tropes more used than "the chosen one" is "the underdog victory" (and don't get me wrong, the two are far from mutually exclusive) I would much rather see a story about someone struggling for recognition than someone unfairly granted it (ahem* says the writer *ahem ahem* I wonder why she feels that *ahem* Rachel really needs to stop self critiquing mid spiel *ahem ahem*) 

I'm am the chosen one and I command thee to

Embrace the Madness

Frozen or "How Disney Got its Groove Back"

Hey guys! As promised, I'm going to review Frozen for y'all before flickering into near obscurity as I retreat into my cocoon of study and trying desperately not to flip out (aided by comfort food). I digress. Here there shall be spoilers, consider yourselves warned.

Now, this will be news to no one: This is widely considered a good film. It's all over the internet, the papers, the word on the street; Frozen is better than Tangled, less problematic than Princess and the Frog and, according to some, Disney's best work since the likes of The Lion King or Beauty and the Beast. It has 89-90% on Rotten Tomatoes and 8.1 on Metacritic.

What do I have to say? Oh, it's totally overrated. 

Hell, I can't keep up that lie, I loved this movie so damn much! It was just... the word "perfect" comes to mind but I want to believe that there's more on the way, so I won't jinx it. It's astonishing, breathtaking, progressive, engaging, subversive, relateable, funny, clever... the list goes on. On top of all that, it felt like Disney had taken the criticism of its other films and taken it into account. It was like a relative that you like but don't get to see that often giving you a Christmas present; you know you're gonna act like it's great anyway but it makes it that bit sweeter when it turns out to be exactly what you wanted. It feels like they cared. Disney, the giant faceless corporation that it is; Disney: where Dreams© are not just made but manufactured, boxed up and stamped with a little castle symbol before being shipped out in their millions. Disney cared when they didn't have to and that feels nice. Thanks Disney.

Anywho, the film. What's it about? Well, it's loosely based on Hans Christian Anderson's story "The Snow Queen" but loosely is kinda the operative word there so I'll just explain what they do with it. Anna and Elsa are sisters, and princesses of the land of Arrendelle. Elsa, the eldest sister, was born with the power to create ice and snow. One night, while she and her younger sister Anna are playing with the ice magic, Elsa accidentally hits Anna's head. Anna is taken to the local trolls (y'know, as you do) who can suppress the ice in her head by erasing all memory of Elsa's powers (but leaving the fun, doing like a search-replace thing to get rid of the magic and replace it with natural snow). In case of another incident or Anna remembering and the ice taking hold again, Elsa is made to hide herself and her powers away. Years pass and after the untimely death of both their parents (it is Disney, after all) Elsa comes of age to be crowned Queen of Arrendelle. The gates are opened to the outside world for the first time in thirteen years and everyone's happy (Elsa bearing in mind how essential it is that she control her erratic and potentially deadly powers). Anna meets the handsome Prince Hans and, after an immediate connection and, what else, a duet, she agrees to marry him. Anna tells this to Elsa and she reacts, understandably, with resistance to the idea of her sister marrying a man she just met. This causes her to lose control of her powers and she flees the kingdom for the mountains, cries of "Sorcery!" at her tail. In her flight, she ends up freezing the entirety of the country behind her. Anna sets off to find her sister and the rest of the plot revolves around her quest to find her and thaw the land. Along the way, Anna teams up with Kristoff the ice dealer (not a term I picked up from Breaking Bad, he literally harvests and sells ice) his reindeer Sven and a snowman called Olaf who likes "warm hugs".

Okay, this ain't no plot summary, I'll get to other stuff as I talk about the movie. One thing that is unmistakably clear from the beginning of the film is that this is much more music heavy than the average Disney flick. In the first ten minutes or so there are more songs than dialogue, starting off with a very "Les Mis"-esque ice cutting scene that seems to have no other bearing on the plot than to introduce Kristoff (and Sven) and remind us of Les Mis (minus Russell Crowe) and providing us with a nice little musical motif throughout the film. I have no problem with that. (Seriously though, take a listen and tell me they're not at least long lost brothers). Basically, it starts out the film with "hey guys, this is gonna be a legit musical". It really gets you pumped for what's to come. And the rest of the film sure as hell delivers.

The casting is absolutely perfect, the voices becoming the characters themselves where Tangled felt a little disjointed and distracting. One particular choice that I give my highest praise is that of Idina Menzel (best known as the original Elphaba in Broadway's "Wicked") in the part of Elsa. Why you ask?

Well let's see... a story told primarily through music, two female protagonists, one of whom has strange powers she can only partially control and that cause her to be feared and ostracised by others... Love interests take a backseat to political, social and emotional struggles and growth, a once idolised male figure turns out not to be all that he seemed... Idina Menzel...

Oh fanart, you are so useful.

I'm not gonna draw this out any more. There are obvious comparisons to be drawn with Wicked here, but in the best possible way. Those of you who read my blog will know that Wicked is one of my absolute favourite pieces of art, or theatre, or work in general of all time. Seeing that Frozen took loving cues from the musical made my heart glow. If we never get a "Wicked: The Movie" (which seems slightly doubtful considering how successful it is, but I digress) I shall be content with "Frozen: The Almost Wicked (the movie)".

Then we move on to Anna, our protagonist. Anna is one of those rare examples of filmmakers deciding to make an "awkward" character and actually doing it well. for one thing, there's an actual reason for her awkwardness, which is severely lacking in the case of many other "awkward" heroines (*ahem* Bella Swan *ahem ahem*). Anna has been living in near total social isolation from the age of around six. After the little incident with Elsa, their parents locked the gates, reduced the staff, the whole shebang. Anna can't even talk to her sister anymore and she doesn't know why, she just knows that, to quote the movie "[they] used to be best buddies, and now [they're] not". There's a beautiful and heart-wrenching "I want" song at the beginning of the movie, "Do You Wanna Build a Snowman" which effectively gets us up to speed on what both Anna and Elsa are going through as they grow up, both isolated but dealing with it in different ways: Elsa by repressing her feelings, and Anna by making her own fun.

One thing that bugs in media is when a character is a certain way without cause. One example I find (and this is by no means shared by many, Ima just throw it out there) is Shakespeare's Macbeth (you didn't think I'd go for a non controversial example, did you?) Macbeth's thing is ambition, his fatal flaw, his hamartia, his driving force. However, we are given very little reason for this ambition other that "he's gotten to a certain status and he wants more". No inadequacy complex, no cases of his family being in line for the crown and getting passed over, no nothing. He's just ambitious, no further explanation necessary. Sorry, Billy, that's not a complex character, that's a piece of lazy writing. I love Shakespeare but, damn, he's not half put on a pedestal. No one is above criticism, not even the Bard. What am I trying to say with this? I liked that both Anna and Elsa have reasons for their defining traits/flaws. Now Disney is, to their credit, very good at this but here it felt particularly poignant as they could have quite easily made Elsa inexplicably evil and left it at that. Also, Rapunzel, their last socially isolated heroine, was relatively normal for her situation, with I found slightly off-putting. I appreciated their attention to detail with Anna's character. Believe me, as much as I hate the principle, prolonged time alone does build character. If you don't turn into a total misanthrope or anthropophobe, you will at the very least be self centred and have a lack of mental filter when talking to others, traits which Anna rather clearly displays. You will probably cling to anyone and everyone who shows you the slightest bit of kindness, cling tighter still if they show themselves as being in any way like you, as Anna does with Hans. This kind of thing is reassuring and relateable, and in a day and age where every

emotional-baggage unladen, well liked and surrounded by friends, above average looking kid is like 

it is nice to see a character who has a genuine reason for it. *Steps off soapbox* 

Let's move on, shall we? Pretty much everyone has spoken on how great the music in this film is. I am no exception to this popular opinion, it's freakin awesome! Where to begin? We have"Let it Go", a kind of halfway mesh of "No Good Deed" and "Defying Gravity" power ballad, "For the First Time in Forever" a sort of hearkening back to "The Wizard and I" (seriously, take a listen and tell me they're not effectively the same song, in both tune and message).

(Edit: Skip to 1:25 on the latter and play them at the same time, it's uncanny)

"Do You Wanna Build a Snowman" is expertly crafted to send you on an emotional rollercoaster (and probably make you cry). "Reindeer(s) are Better than People" is short but sweet and just sheer awesome in my book, along with "In Summer" in which we can see the Avenue Q songwriter Robert Lopez at his comedic best, with clever wordplay and timing. I'm also partial to "Love is an Open Door" for it's pure charm and quirk (and at this point I've mentioned pretty much all of the soundtrack, is it too much for me to say the score is amazing too? Screw it, it's awesome, look up "Marshmallow Attacks", it's one of my favourites)

While Frozen is probably one of the best animated films I've seen in years, that doesn't mean it's without it's flaws. I could literally go on for pages and pages about the witty dialogue or how they got around having totally unbearable comic relief (Olaf is only occasionally annoying), the stunning visuals for the winter scenes (the "Let it Go" ice fortress scene is freaking beautiful, compounded with the song it is one of the greatest things I have ever seen) or the subversion of Disney tropes (without just rehashing "Enchanted"), I'm going to talk briefly about what was wrong with the movie. Spoilers ahead, folks!

Those of you who've seen the film will know that the stereotypical "Act of true love" to save Anna is not, in this film, true love's kiss but a selfless act by Anna to save her sister from the dastardly Hans (hey, you said you'd seen it, that's shouldn't be a surprise). It's after this and a couple of seconds of stunned and super effectively used silence (another plus, sorry I'll get back to being critical) Anna thaws and Elsa realises that love was the key to her powers the whole time. "Of course, love!" she says, and quickly magics the ice away (and somehow magics a boat underneath them, as the weren't standing on one before the ice thawed...). I personally felt that this resolution was rushed. There should have been some kind of adjustment period from "I can't control my powers" to "Now I can unfreeze stuff". Maybe a hug between newly thawed Anna and Elsa, and they notice that the ice is starting to melt below them (because they were standing on ice and not a boat justsayin) or even starting slowly then getting the hang of it, instead of just "Poof! Snow's gone, happy fun time".

Secondly, and this is also to do with pacing, the reveal of Hans as a villain was lacking in build up. Yes, they mention that he has twelve older brothers but he never displays any desire for the crown, even if he'd said that to Anna before their duet it would be a better build up than what we got. There's also one line in "Love is an Open Door" where he says he's been waiting his whole life to "find his own place" which I suppose could be construed as "I want my own kingdom" but it is definitely a stretch. I'm not saying a twist such as this is easy to do, it's isn't. I'm not saying they should've had a moment of evil laughter from Hans just after meeting Anna, or that he should monologue or something. All we needed was a motive or even for him to say something a little off when Anna and Elsa are both gone. Were the sideburns meant to be enough of a hint? Was that it?

Look into my eeeeevil sideburns!

One thing that I will say about Hans (and I'm going into praise mode again when I said I wouldn't, sorry bout that) is that I'm glad they didn't go for the stereotypical "nice, handsome, bland guy" thing they always have with love triangles. They put effort into the two having actual conversations and actual chemistry, which was appreciated.

Lastly, and I'm sure you've heard this around the internets already so I'll keep it concise, yes, the character design is pretty eh. I didn't particularly like it for Rapunzel and I don't particularly like it here. The guys look like actual humans, as did Flynn Rider, but the women... Why is it that the bridges of female characters' noses are virtually nonexistent? Seriously, it's distracting as hell! You catch a glimpse of Anna from the side and it's like "Dude, when did we arrive in Whoville?". It's creepy and unnecessary, and we all know full well that the Disney animators are better than this. They are perfectly fine at giving the male characters fully formed noses. I know I'm fixating but look at it! Geez, who thought this was a good idea?

Look at Anna's nose! What even is that?!!

I know why they made their eyes so big and their faces so plastic looking (moychandising) but this is Disney we're talking about. They're gonna sell toys regardless. They're selling toys for movies that came out over 20 years ago, ones that you can't buy in shops except for when they let them out for limited periods of time. They have consumers at their beck and freaking call and they know it. So don't you think they can afford to have a little artistic integrity every now and again? Hell, if you can't have some degree of artistic freedom and integrity when you reach Disney's heights, I don't know why anyone would want to! All I'm saying is, Disney, you have this great movie that a lot of people love, including me... don't you think next time you could try to make it even better by not being so... blatantly money grubbing? We'd really appreciate it- Sincerely, the internet.

Anyways, I highly recommend going to see Frozen. I got a couple of rants in but I truly do adore this film and hope for bigger and better from the dream factory in the coming years. And with that, I bid you farewell. Until July, my friends.

(Edit: I forgot to mention the names. Oh, the names. The subtle tribute to Hans Christian Anderson is so clever, with three of the four main characters being called Hans, Kristoff and Anna. I felt clever for noticing, thought I'd share it with you so you can look just as clever. You are welcome)

Embrace the Madness