tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63099419075107202302024-03-13T19:11:24.195-07:00Emily's StoriesWriterly thoughts from writerly writer, Emily Paxman.Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-13137375877719605412023-02-22T21:29:00.003-08:002023-02-22T21:52:24.810-08:00The Greatest Stories Ever Re-Told: Adaptation and the Public DomainIt doesn't take long in someone's acquaintance of me for them to realize that among my foundational loves are fairy tales and musicals. This means, naturally, that I am a huge Disney nerd, because how can you not be when you love both fairy tales and musicals? Disney practically is the reason I fell so hard for both those things as a child.<div><br /></div><div>I think a lot about Disney movies - if that wasn't abundantly obvious from previous blog posts, like where I ranked <a href="https://emilypaxman.blogspot.com/2018/07/ranking-best-animated-pictures-from.html">Every Best Animated Feature Winning Film </a>- but more than that, I think a lot about the source material these movies were based on. Overwhelmingly, Disney films adapt well-known stories, such as fairy tales, often stamping them with such a general sense of <i>Disney-ness</i>, that they become the de facto versions of those stories in our heads. </div><div><br /></div><div>For example, what animals do you first picture when you think of Cinderella getting help? </div><div><br /></div><div>Is it mice? </div><div><br /></div><div>Because in the Brother's Grimm version, it's doves who serve as her friends and guardians. Cinderella, in fairness, is a very popular story structure, with countless versions around the world and an array of animals that help her. But that's the thing - it could have been fish or lizards as easily as mice, yet Jacques and Gus-Gus are the ones that jump to mind for anyone raised on Disney films. </div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifact5yw3AclCo9iioyeG4IFydhlY3pyqs_yq-bjlRCjhm2O-NPK19b8PHteq0ZvFZssOK_mgIPEOj8cvyGu7j-1scO919TJO4rZ2tpaWeg9mUmlVahMfcoG2McMY0MvEkhgJuZ6Smkn86CZDZWA95wwskELG1VBL1gpMzJwZKhUOkrX2rZ6uHaPCIbg/s780/Cinderella%20and%20birds.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="438" data-original-width="780" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifact5yw3AclCo9iioyeG4IFydhlY3pyqs_yq-bjlRCjhm2O-NPK19b8PHteq0ZvFZssOK_mgIPEOj8cvyGu7j-1scO919TJO4rZ2tpaWeg9mUmlVahMfcoG2McMY0MvEkhgJuZ6Smkn86CZDZWA95wwskELG1VBL1gpMzJwZKhUOkrX2rZ6uHaPCIbg/w400-h225/Cinderella%20and%20birds.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I like to imagine this is a Marvel movie and<br />in a post-credits scene, Cinderella asks the bluebirds<br />to please peck out her step-sister's eyes. <br />For the Grimm Brother's purists! Real fans KNOW!</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /></div><div>But it's not just the fairy tales Disney has used to build its collection of classic movies. Everything from <i>Bambi</i>, to <i>The Aristocats</i>, to <i>Pocahontas </i>has some children's book, short story collection, or grievous misunderstanding of American history to pull inspiration from. The first full-length Disney film that could be considered an "original" story is probably <i>The Lion King</i>. I'm inclined to say the development of that movie was too chaotic for it to be thought of as actually "based" on <i>Hamlet </i>(frankly, they could have saved themselves years of trouble if it was), but the studio did gradually note the similarities as the film came together. For those keeping score, that's thirty-one Disney movies before anyone bothered trying to write an original screenplay. And it was several MORE years before anyone wrote anything original, good and not resembling Shakespeare - <i>Lilo and Stitch, </i>Disney's 42nd feature-length animated film<i>. </i>That movie's a trailblazer, man.</div><div><br /></div><div>Granted, not all Disney movies are based on fairy tales. In fact, there's a very enjoyable film called <i>Saving Mr. Banks</i> about the rather arduous journey Walt Disney had to go down in order to convince author P. L. Travers to sell the film rights to her beloved children's books, the <i>Mary Poppins</i> series, to his studio. Disney used to purchase the rights to contemporary novels frequently, including <i>101 Dalmatians </i>and <i>The Rescuers</i> among their adapted works. I wouldn't mind seeing them try their hands at animating recent books again. If nothing else, I would love to see them do the Prydain Chronicles justice. The books are super charming, but Disney's <i>The Black Cauldron</i> is (unfortunately) a mess.</div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYfDA-q1gnimWqiAp0peV6pv4WRV3ZFp50cYBjgmChjH63Gnx22TfFK6Dt85o3xy2jEW3ii7qXVwh9i9GjkEF9WeqwpBRe3abA40fGbiwm8ciTIJ48wVX5SFxl3TzUW3SaC-C21udnEn7UBmMPVOaajFTlZ1nSyewRMnJv9BmIpDxbK9Z_VdQEP_47aQ/s1200/saving%20mr%20banks.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="1200" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYfDA-q1gnimWqiAp0peV6pv4WRV3ZFp50cYBjgmChjH63Gnx22TfFK6Dt85o3xy2jEW3ii7qXVwh9i9GjkEF9WeqwpBRe3abA40fGbiwm8ciTIJ48wVX5SFxl3TzUW3SaC-C21udnEn7UBmMPVOaajFTlZ1nSyewRMnJv9BmIpDxbK9Z_VdQEP_47aQ/w400-h225/saving%20mr%20banks.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Still love the design of this poster.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div><br /></div><div>For the majority of their output, however, their animation has focused on older stories. Once copyright expires on a creative work, it enters what is known as the public domain, where no one entity can make legal or monetary claim on the use of a particular work. Copyright laws vary widely around the globe, but they generally protect a work from unlicensed use for some length of time from either the publication date or the author's death. This way, the author of a work enjoys the right to fiscally benefit from that project during their lifetime and has some creative control over how the work is presented to the public. Overall, copyright is a good thing that protects the livelihoods of working artists, but there is something special about the stories in the public domain. Because when a story is old enough to go into the public domain it belongs to <i>everyone</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>There have been so many versions of Robin Hood over the years, and it's not just because it's a beloved folk tale. It's because legally, there <i>can </i>be. Ever wondered why Jane Austen remains so popular with people today? Well... there aren't a lot of other famous romantic comedies that absolutely any artist can riff on and then sell their version without paying royalties to someone's estate. Disney gradually became incredibly good at taking these well-known stories and reshaping them for animated film. So good, the techniques they used could be their own blog post. (Foreshadowing?) I think particularly of the Disney Renaissance, when Disney really pivoted away from using copyrighted characters, like they had in earlier decades, and focused instead on their classic fairy tale roots.</div><div><br /></div><div>Disney is not in the habit of having original ideas. Well, they do so MORE often now, but... is that actually for the better? A good number of their "original" stories are among the most underwhelming Disney movies. <i>Brother Bear</i> and <i>Raya and the Last Dragon</i> are not awful, but I can't shake the feeling they would both be better if they were based on actual indigenous stories rather than a rough smooshing together of various cultural traditions. The best films to come out of the "original story era" like <i>Moana </i>and <i>Encanto </i>might not be pulling from specific stories, but they do at least have much more specific points of inspiration. For instance, Moana teams up with Maui! An actual legendary figure! Arguably, it is still an adaptation, in the same vein of <i>Hercules </i>a generation earlier. (<i>Encanto </i>is a unicorn of a film, but as mentioned, it is specific. It's set in Colombia and doesn't shy away from referencing the country's history with civil war.)</div><div><br /></div><div>But the bedrock of the Disney brand - one of their most underrated skills - is <i>adaptation</i>. And I cannot overstate how much I freakin' love a good adaptation. Adapting a story across genre of media and generations is an artform, that might make you look like an idiot when it's botched <i>(what moron thought James Franco should play the Wizard of Oz???)</i> but when it's done right, it's just <i>so </i>satisfying. <i>(Oh my heart! Glinda and Elphaba used to be friends!)</i></div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkNUpvQXcaMiC2VbtcKZ96lOCpWK2zgLFY71XJvkGrxw2r-mcClY0WkRAlVzsqNehCz8FwuNeLCkPNATHRaoFvprDYisy6kPZl6O6JeO4WzAC8IQFP8WHR_7psmXXwWIPZV5ELdsi8eQ27fs76YazGfob40xzsrwwpJ1SSrtq5v8GMDtAboWVdkgx67g/s2048/glinda%20elphaba.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1152" data-original-width="2048" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkNUpvQXcaMiC2VbtcKZ96lOCpWK2zgLFY71XJvkGrxw2r-mcClY0WkRAlVzsqNehCz8FwuNeLCkPNATHRaoFvprDYisy6kPZl6O6JeO4WzAC8IQFP8WHR_7psmXXwWIPZV5ELdsi8eQ27fs76YazGfob40xzsrwwpJ1SSrtq5v8GMDtAboWVdkgx67g/w400-h225/glinda%20elphaba.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">They're only angry because they love each other!<br />(insert crying emoji)</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div><br /></div><div>One advantage of adaptation is that it invites the audience to compare various versions of the same story and let them speak in conversation with each other. <i>Wicked</i>, for instance, uses <i>The Wizard of Oz</i> as a jumping off point for the superficiality of how evil is often perceived. In a story where "evil" was seemingly baked into Elphaba's skin color and very name (The Wicked Witch of the West), what hope did she ever have of people treating her otherwise? That kind of barebones morality is a reoccurring feature (problem?) in children's literature, with <i>The Wizard of Oz</i> being just being one of the more blatant examples.</div><div><br /></div><div>But as in <i>Wicked</i>, in real life, the villain might just be the Wizard himself. Sometimes the person ruining everything for everyone is the seemingly friendly, great and powerful entity that provided you with your first entry point into the story. Sometimes, an over-long <i>Wizard of Oz</i> metaphor turns out to be a segway into me complaining about how public domain law changed in the 70s and went from protecting artists, to just making life difficult for everyone.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Wizard is Disney. Disney is the bad guy. Wow, what a twist.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Copyright Run Amok</u></b></div><div><br /></div><div>I keep mentioning <i>The Wizard of Oz</i>, because it's one of the oldest classic books currently in the public domain. The series of books, published from 1900 - 1920, began dribbling into public domain over the 20th century, as US congress passed numerous Copyright Act amendments that slowed the release of the full series (and all other intellectual property) into the public domain. You can actually track the progress of <i>The Wizard of Oz</i> series into the public domain based on the release dates of various derivative works. Like, did your childhood have a day that was traumatized by the 1985 film, <i>Return to Oz, </i>"sequel" to the MGM musical classic? Well, you can thank the fact that Disney was trying to cash in on the rights before the copyright (which they had purchased) expired. And then there's <i>Wicked </i>- not the musical, but the novel it was based on. It came out in the 90s, after most of the Oz material was finally free to use. I like to picture Gregory Maguire writing Tik-Tok into the background of one scene, then raising a fist skyward and shouting "NO ONE CAN STOP ME!!!!"</div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDcwfeD9Mcna1DPGbaSG2Y-BbrNm07QdXb3abJA2fqQZK5C8q9MnMN5pv3l0qc0ZWxoWZrsifRZZwH18IW3rfl40PXdIiqpNgLYoOJk7bX_pHVULCenPIoyxklFxQDM0WEmZlSoR3k1TtGyEmx8L_LJFmDz07aeQxJjxebOlnCuFr9ZQ_rj9I1PbARBQ/s230/tiktok.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="230" data-original-width="153" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDcwfeD9Mcna1DPGbaSG2Y-BbrNm07QdXb3abJA2fqQZK5C8q9MnMN5pv3l0qc0ZWxoWZrsifRZZwH18IW3rfl40PXdIiqpNgLYoOJk7bX_pHVULCenPIoyxklFxQDM0WEmZlSoR3k1TtGyEmx8L_LJFmDz07aeQxJjxebOlnCuFr9ZQ_rj9I1PbARBQ/w266-h400/tiktok.jpg" width="266" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Tik-Tok. Real fans KNOW!</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div><br /></div><div>As mentioned earlier, copyright laws vary worldwide, with the United States having some of the most stringent laws. Being the capitalist giant it is, this effectively means that if anyone wants to adapt anything for free and distribute it in English, it's gotta be in the US public domain. Unfortunately, the US public domain was effectively frozen for decades thanks to none other than Disney. Yes, those great abusers of the public domain themselves - master adapters of <i>Sleeping Beauty</i>, <i>Aladdin</i>, and <i>Mulan </i>- joined a few other media megacorps and Sonny Bono (unexpected villain twist!) in lobbying the US government to extend copyright protection for an obscene amount of time, and that's why <i>The Wizard of Oz</i> and it's sequels spent years as the newest, shiniest story anyone could take a shot at adapting. </div><div><br /></div><div> At this point, US copyright for works published before 1978 is 95 years. The thing is, while I'm all for copyright protecting a creator's right to profit from their work, 95 years is a freakin' long time. At the turn of the century twentieth, copyright laws averaged around 25-50 years. 50 years seems like a perfectly reasonable extension to me, since it's effectively the length of one's "working life" in North America. During that time, creators should have the ability to profit off their works, control their distribution, and create whatever other derivative works they want. But beyond that, I kinda don't see the point. </div><div><br /></div><div>50 years later, it won't be the original creators making work based on these classic stories, but someone else. In other words, extensions like these really only benefit corporations, not people. They gatekeep works so that only <i>certain </i>people get to adapt stories - the ones with pockets deep enough to pay for rights. This is why any time Sony and Disney fight with each other over how to divvy up profits from <i>Spiderman </i>movies, I can <i>NEVER </i>root for Disney. Spidey would be in the public domain by now, if Disney hadn't lobbied so hard to avoid ever letting anyone but them legally use Mickey Mouse. Sure, Sony is also a soulless megacorp and probably supported the Sonny Bono (booooo!) laws too, but hey. They're not the villain-protagonist of this story.</div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA2xl_j28ZRPBQsqVfLnqz0A68hancPqyQXRDJ57-HbX5UA3Lihg6pqh8IEnd44Jeb7A8BAA4dc4cJDI91Y6edPDUgD898-x_VclxxccVs9tHBwWOlSTF1XRXvpP99dgzHcJmeF6lclyGnKXh_iiaQHn_0zPwxjpvL50GD-NvUzXV4CCNlEwG1wZ1Ysg/s225/spiderman.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="224" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA2xl_j28ZRPBQsqVfLnqz0A68hancPqyQXRDJ57-HbX5UA3Lihg6pqh8IEnd44Jeb7A8BAA4dc4cJDI91Y6edPDUgD898-x_VclxxccVs9tHBwWOlSTF1XRXvpP99dgzHcJmeF6lclyGnKXh_iiaQHn_0zPwxjpvL50GD-NvUzXV4CCNlEwG1wZ1Ysg/w398-h400/spiderman.jpg" width="398" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Just think. With better laws, we could ALL make our own Spiderman.<br />Though some fear that would be... too many spidermen. </td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Return of the Public Domain</u></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Thankfully, mercifully, those protections are finally beginning to expire and stories are getting added again, as the prescribed time elapses. Yes, it is finally more than 95 years since the 1920s. We now have culturally relevant, modern icons like flappers, suffragists and pre-depression era venture capitalists to relate to. So current!</div><div><br /></div><div>In all seriousness though, I am grateful. Wonderful, classic stories get added each year and one of my favourite traditions is checking the list of what's entered the public domain in January. And sure enough, as famous stories begin to drop into public domain, new adaptations are taking off as well. The big news of late has been <i>Blood and Honey</i>, a slasher film centered on............ <i>Winnie the Pooh. </i>Huh<i>.</i></div><div><br /></div><div>Look, I don't plan on seeing that film, but I am honestly THRILLED that something like this can exist now. I want it all. The weird stuff, the goofy stuff, the scary stuff, the pretentions high-brow stuff. I want us to be able to engage with and easily adapt the stories of the past. Because you never know, right? You never know what creative people are going to do when they finally get their hands on stories we love. For instance, right now Florence Welch is spearheading a Broadway musical version of <i>The Great Gatsby</i> and there's some serious <i>Wicked </i>or - dare I hope - <i>Hadestown </i>upside with a project like that. And now that the butt-munchers holding the copyright to the last Sherlock Holmes short story collection can no longer litigate people within an inch of their life, we might get more indie creators trying their hands at adapting the world's most famous detective.</div><div><br /></div><div>But the real cherry on top is that after all these years, time has finally come for Disney. Next year, on January 1st 2024, Mickey Mouse, as he appears in <i>Steamboat Willie</i>, enters the public domain. Get ready to slap this fella on some T-shirts, people! Oh, but don't give him gloves. Or pupils. Those weren't invented yet. </div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrsQ6qhsGPFYiGcvOIVImlFOY-kgbMZXvlgxun3OBWeSbW_kiaTVzxCSURZqfhVpp4w2aWfb27w2NnXSuGTgnXKiZtFwymw6rNSAMOm2Z_rM4Jzsn3IjhVCOTPRUI_QPQIC0zdnGChzEkdgb5YFyuw1oOpRfqGPeh4S6HFNt5jLm6QXfH3mWj3vM7frw/s469/Seamboat-Willie.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="369" data-original-width="469" height="315" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrsQ6qhsGPFYiGcvOIVImlFOY-kgbMZXvlgxun3OBWeSbW_kiaTVzxCSURZqfhVpp4w2aWfb27w2NnXSuGTgnXKiZtFwymw6rNSAMOm2Z_rM4Jzsn3IjhVCOTPRUI_QPQIC0zdnGChzEkdgb5YFyuw1oOpRfqGPeh4S6HFNt5jLm6QXfH3mWj3vM7frw/w400-h315/Seamboat-Willie.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Mickey, gleefully sailing into the Public Domain.</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /></div><div>Public pressure caught up with the Disney company in the internet age. As the story of how they and the likes of Sonny Bono (Team Cher and Cher only for life!) destroyed our legal right to use old stories started to circulate online, Disney amended their stance so that they no longer are putting forward bills to stop the slow roll-out of works entering the public domain at the end of each calendar year. Instead, they're simply arguing that they hold copyright to later <i>versions </i>of the character, until cartoons that feature aspects like his gloves do enter the public domain. But whatever. Screw it. We're still getting the Mouse and whole boat. </div><div><br /></div><div>I'm perfectly happy to watch someone make a movie about Mickey and Minnie's adventures as pirates on the Mississippi River. Or that Winnie the Pooh horror movie team can make one about him strapping victims to a torture rack made from the steamboat wheel. Or maybe we'll get a crime drama about how Mickey's father died during a fire in Pete's glove factory and now he's now on a quest to destroy all gloves. Distributed widely. All without Disney's approval. I can hardly wait. </div><div><br /></div><div>We spent years stuck in the past but, finally, we're not in Kansas anymore.</div>Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-83554087440818110682022-08-25T17:42:00.000-07:002022-08-25T17:42:43.771-07:00Emily Listens to the Rolling Stone Top 500 Greatest Albums of All Time - Entries 11-20<p>As mentioned in a previous post, I'm on a quest to listen to as many of the <i>Rolling Stone Top 500 Greatest Albums of All Time</i> as I can before I either get bored or die. If you want to follow along with my thoughts and comment yours, I welcome you! Here are the ground rules I'm following as I go through the list:</p><p><br /></p><p>1) I have no intentions of completing this project and listening to all 500 albums. I'm a realist. And since life and time are short, I've started at the top of the list and am progressing downwards, so that I get what are ostensibly the "best" albums in first. That means overall, this listen should be worse than the last one. Whelp.</p><p><br /></p><p>2) I'm not ranking them myself or giving them stars. I personally find these varied musical styles too hard to compare and really have no interest in debating the merits of Beyoncé vs the Beatles. Instead, this log is more of an exercise in music appreciation. I want to better understand the history of popular music and branch out from my normal listening patterns.</p><p><br /></p><p>3) I know nothing about music and will not be held accountable for any of my terrible opinions. My aim is to generally seek for the positive in all my comments, though I will be honest if something doesn't resonate with me. I give you full permission to disagree, especially if you can see the good in something that I'm struggling with. Those are the comments I most want to hear.</p><p><br /></p><p>4) While going through this list, there're going to be moments where controversial figures in music come up. Generally speaking, I'm not planning on speaking to a particular person's legacy or their behavior. Any issues I do bring up will probably only be in as much as they immediately relate to the music. This is because, frankly, I don't have the scope to comment on every arrest, allegation and charge brought against these artists. There are SO MANY and lots who people don't think of as "problematic" do, in fact, have credible allegations brought against them and darn it, I'm just not here to sift through it all. However, if something in one of their songs makes me uncomfortable, that's fair game. Something I firmly believe is that bad people are capable of making good art and good people are likewise capable of making bad art. Today, I'm mostly concerned with just the art. Whether or not you personally choose to engage with an artist's work due to their legacy or charges against them is up to you and completely valid.</p><p><br /></p><p>Previous Entries:</p><p><a href="https://emilypaxman.blogspot.com/2022/07/emily-listens-to-rolling-stone-top-500.html">Numbers 1-10</a></p><p><br /></p><p>NOW ONTO THE NEXT LIST!</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAubxNBj4_hBIFXNsf2aRMuRTTh_F3MfpODUJ1m1fEsdPxNPir4Osnz1DQFjVCIqsk5D1etofTO5ZQS0Kd3xbZfMD_HDOcq9VhABJ_-xzRqb0HEOVek3AJCOyFbBVfetfQEwUFzO8cURSouXDnpEPzx3VMhaBXBXTQrttwiIU5_1Z46S1LCAtGGnIkrA/s316/Revolver.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="316" data-original-width="316" height="316" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAubxNBj4_hBIFXNsf2aRMuRTTh_F3MfpODUJ1m1fEsdPxNPir4Osnz1DQFjVCIqsk5D1etofTO5ZQS0Kd3xbZfMD_HDOcq9VhABJ_-xzRqb0HEOVek3AJCOyFbBVfetfQEwUFzO8cURSouXDnpEPzx3VMhaBXBXTQrttwiIU5_1Z46S1LCAtGGnIkrA/s1600/Revolver.jpg" width="316" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p><b>11) Revolver (The Beatles)</b></p><p>As I mentioned in my first post about these albums, while I consider myself very familiar with the Beatles discography, it's due to familiarity with their singles rather than their albums. Frequently, I'll know over half the songs on a Beatles album, but wouldn't have been able to tell you <i>which </i>Beatles album they came from. Such was the case with Revolver, which... well, having now listened to a grand total of two Beatles albums, this one isn't my favourite. Don't get me wrong! There are still good songs on it. In fact, my older sister's favourite Beatles song, <i>Got to Get You Into My Lif</i>e is here, along with other classics like <i>Eleanor Rigby </i>and <i>Here, There and Everywhere</i>. But there are also a number of songs on here I wouldn't consider the band's best. I honestly wonder what the criteria was for picking which Beatles album should go where on the list (you better believe there are a lot of them) but my kneejerk reaction is this one is ranked too high. I'm not the biggest fan of the Beatles' period where they borrowed heavily from Indian music. I usually hear those and find myself just wishing I was listening to actual Indian pop music. The discussion around what counts as cultural appropriation was obviously in a different place back in the Sixties, and I'm sure the Beatles never meant to grab ham-fistedly from a colonized culture but... that's kind of the whole thing about cultural appropriation, isn't it? There's a sense of "look how exotic this sounds!" with those songs that doesn't sit well with me. But like, Bollywood and Indian pop music? That stuff is great. Feels like a much more natural fusion. So yeah. The album as a whole didn't work for me, but there are some very VERY wonderful, classic songs here.</p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>12) Thriller (Michael Jackson)</b></p><p>I mentioned during the Prince entry last time that growing up in the 90s, the 80s were seen as impossibly uncool. But there were some notable exceptions. Primary among them, Michael Jackson. If this was a list of the 500 coolest albums, rather than greatest, I honestly think this one would be #1. <i>Thriller</i>! <i>Billie Jean</i>! <i>Beat it</i>! <i>The Girl is Mine</i>! I listened to both this album and Revolver on the same day and... um... this album probably had the best content from Paul McCartney I listened to that day. (Okay, okay... SLIGHT exaggeration) There's something so delightful about both a Beatle and Vincent Price turning up on this album. Just goes to show how much power Michael Jackson had during the height of his fame. The first 70% or so of this album are straight fire. Seven of the album's nine tracks were released as singles and rightly so. The last 30% is less iconic, but still enjoyable music from the King of Pop. Altogether, an incredibly solid outing that absolutely earned its place so high on the list.</p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>13) I Never Loved a Man the Way I Love You (Aretha Franklin)</b></p><p>About a year after releasing the 500 Greatest Album list, Rolling Stone magazine attempted to rank the 500 greatest songs. This honestly strikes me as even more difficult and arbitrary than ranking albums. That being said, when they announced that their pick for the greatest song of all time was <i>Respect </i>as performed by Aretha Franklin, I was like, "yeah, I think we can all live with that." Going into this album, that was the only song I knew on it (most of her other big hits must be elsewhere) but GOSH DARN if this album wasn't consistent in quality from start to finish. Aretha Franklin's voice is so purposeful and powerful, it feels like every R&B singer since her is just chasing her. Years ago, Rolling Stone rated her the greatest singer of all time and listening to a full album of hers, their praise seems justified. Also, as a musical theatre nerd, I just want to shout out how clear and perfect her diction is. A lot of pop and rock singers loose their clarity, trying to add character to the way they sing. Aretha Franklin is simultaneously crystal clear and immeasurably expressive. The whole album flowed seamlessly along with her soulful voice, yet I still came out with a few new favourite tracks. My picks were <i>Respect</i>, (obviously), <i>Do Right Woman, Do Right Man,</i> and the title track, <i>I Never Loved a Man the Way I Love You</i>.</p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>14) Exile on Main St. (The Rolling Stones)</b></p><p>I can totally picture this being somebody's favorite album ever. In fact, I picture it in great detail and this hypothetical person is definitely over 50 and rides a motorbike. I am neither of those things, but that's not to say I didn't appreciate this listen. Few of The Rolling Stones big singles are on here and instead, the focus is on rock music itself. There's a fun fusion of blues, honkey-tonk and hard rock going on with this album. Much like how the Beach Boys clearly created the blueprint for arthouse indie-rock, you can absolutely hear the roots of punk music in this album. The Rolling Stones were early experts at exploiting the rough, ragged edge of rock music. I'm not the biggest Rolling Stones fan, but at the same time, it's obvious many of the modern bands I LOVE would not have existed without them, so it's a strange one to review. I'm guessing if I had lived contemporaneous to the height of their output, I would have been a bigger fan, because I wouldn't be taking for granted all the rock bands and subgenres that came after them and iterated upon what they made. When I think of how slick and polished much of the rock music from the sixties and seventies sounded, The Rolling Stones would have felt like a breath of fresh air. As for standout tracks, even without knowing any of the songs before hand, I picked out the lead single, <i>Tumbling Dice</i>, without any difficulty. It was, frankly, one of the only songs that sounded like a single (big change from Michael Jackson!). My favorite song on first listen was probably <i>Sweet Black Angel</i>, but then I looked up the lyrics and LET ME TELL YOU! </p><p>Hmmm. Okay, so this was an interesting lesson in values dissonance. For those not familiar with the song, it's written in AAVE and even features Mick Jagger using the "n word." It's not an unmotivated artistic choice, as the song is actually about the imprisonment of Angela Davis, a Black rights activist, during the early Seventies. So it's a protest song, and clearly trying to come from a place of allyship. I don't think you would see the same word/diction choices coming from a white writer today. I'm not sure if Mick Jagger is someone Black critics believe earned his "n word" privileges. I certainly can't say if he did. I mention it more so that if someone is going in for a listen, they know the content is there and are ready for it. Like I said, on first listen, the song just sounds very cool. And it was definitely trying to be on the side of Black rights. Was it successful? WHO AM I TO SAY????</p><p>I know this aside has already been super long, but I do think one of the interesting things about a tour through music like this is hitting some of these songs that clearly reflect the thoughts and values of a different place and time. And on the flip side, it's important to note that this "different time and place" shouldn't only be judged on the basis of what contemporary white audiences thought. It can be hard to ferret out intent vs impact and even harder to decide which of those matter more. And for those of us who weren't alive at the time, it can be even harder to understand how something was received during its own time, rather than how it would be now. (In a similar vein, I could write a whole essay on the perennial lightning rod song, <i>Baby, It's Cold Outside</i>) I'm genuinely curious what both contemporary and current perspectives from Black artists were with regards to <i>Sweet Black Angel</i> because I honestly don't know. </p><p>Anyhow, that was some great motorcycle music that got very politically charged for a hot minute. Fascinating!</p><p><br /></p><p><b>15) It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back (Public Enemy)</b></p><p>This album marks the first time something on this list was explicitly influenced by an album that came earlier. Obviously other projects have influenced each other, (hard to picture how rock ever would have made it to Nirvana without first passing through the Beatles, for instance), but what's different here is how Public Enemy freely compared their ambitions with this album to Marvin Gaye's <i>What's Going On</i>. They wanted to create something with a similar streak of protest and racial consciousness for rap audiences. And overall, I would say they were successful. There are so many thoughtful tracks on here that handle issues ranging from violence and police presence in Black neighborhoods to the arcane laws of the music industry that tried to put an end to sampling. There's also a song that tells Black women to stop watching soap operas and start reading books instead, which, I dunno. I found that kind of hilarious. Let the record stand, that I am in favor of books OR soap operas, so long as your media brings you joy. Even if I too, am personally "Team Book." What I'm saying is NO ONE ASKED YOU, CHUCK D AND FLAVA FLAV!!!! Let a lady watch her soaps! </p><p>The production on this album is loud and bombastic, something Public Enemy was aiming to increase in their work after they noticed how excited people got at their concerts. And I think the general loud, scrappy - sometimes even goofy - 80s instrumentation really suited the message of the album. Whereas Marvin Gaye asked the question <i>What's Going On</i> politely, Public Enemy have noticed that asking quietly has not yielded the results one might hope for. And so their message is loud, insistent and branded as "enemy" for no reason other than that it's loudly Black. There were some great songs on this, including<i> Don't Believe the Hype</i>, <i>Louder than a Bomb,</i> and <i>Caught, Can we get a Witness? </i>But if I had to pick a stand-out track, I would go with <i>Black Steel in the Hour of Chaos</i> which tells an absolutely gripping story of a prison riot. It's got the same story-telling quality of an old country murder ballad and the poetry is on point from start to finish. Overall, a fun listen that I would recommend to anyone feeling nostalgic for a good 80s record scratch effect.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>16) London Calling (The Clash)</b></p><p>I've started looking at this list in units of 10 (since that's how long these posts are) and quite often each section of 10 has one album I've listened to before doing this challenge. AND GUESS WHAT! We reached this section's entry! Don't ask me why I prioritized The Clash over everything else here, but I went through a blip of intense interest in punk music during college and The Clash were the beneficiaries of it. That being said, unlike Fleetwood Mac, who I listened to constantly at one point, I barely remember this album beyond it's big hits. BUT WASN'T THIS FUN! I'm remembering now why I was drawn to The Clash as a youth. The wide array of stylistic borrowing they do on this album is so well done. I'm not sure why their use of reggae bothered me less than when the Beatles borrowed from Indian music - maybe because they explicitly mention the Rude Boys movement? I'm not sure, but the balance felt better. Or maybe it's because punk music mashed-up with reggae is just... interesting? Anyhow, <i>Rudie Can't Fail</i> was a great track. Later, hearing such thick British accents sing the Spanish lyrics on <i>Spanish Bombs </i>was super hilarious, so I was inclined to take the cultural borrowing less seriously. WHO KNOWS? I think one thing that surprised me was how much the album London Calling isn't about London. I always thought of The Clash as being very political within Britain, but hadn't realized how globally they were thinking in terms of their sound and activism. Overall, I really enjoyed this album. It hits that sweet spot of being something I can draw to, while also being rewarding on a closer listen, with more attention to the lyrics. For those who think of punk bands as the slobs who can only play a handful of basic chords, this is a great album to get a sense of how much variety can be packed into the scrappy sound of classic punk. Other stand-out tracks included the title track and<i> Lost in the Supermarket</i>. That last one in particular was a nice bit of suburban ennui to contrast some of the loftier ambitions of the rest of the album.</p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>17) My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (Kanye West)</b></p><p>Kanye West is simultaneously one of the most well-loved and universally reviled artists working today. It fascinates me, because he's rarely had public opinion behind him on a personal level, even while most music critics hold him as one of the most important artists of the Twenty-First century. Putting full cards on the table, I come at Kanye knowing his biggest singles (which I generally like) but little else about his music. Anyway, all this is to say I really didn't know what to expect putting this album on and all I can say is that I never expected it to be THIS grandiose. I've mentioned before that the Rolling Stones magazine voting body clearly favors albums with complex production and GOOD GRIEF this album! Calling it a rap album almost feels misleading when there is just so much going on in every single track. Though Kanye is, of course, a great rapper. His flow is very expressive and I love how clearly he punctuates his rhymes so that you can catch the context behind his lyrics. That being said, aspects of this album weren't for me. Kanye is known for his very raw, personal, explicit lyrics and I'm honestly not interested in him as a person enough for all of that content to resonate with me. But when I just listened and vibed with the music, I REALLY liked it. I can definitely see why people get so excited about his work. One of the things that really shines on this album is his talent for choosing collaborators. It feels like everyone who was working in the music industry in 2010 made an appearance on this album and they're slotted in at just the right moment to make the sound bigger and better. Special shout out to Rhianna on <i>All of the Lights</i>, who really elevates that track. Also, someone needs to ask Bon Iver if he preferred working with Kanye or Taylor Swift because, frankly, the fact that he's worked with either of them is strange. Now knowing he's featured with both is downright mystifying. While I wouldn't say this whole album was for me lyrically, when it worked for me, did it ever. I loved <i>Runaway </i>and <i>Lost in the World</i>, which both made me very glad I listened all the way through to the end of this album.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>18) Highway 61 Revisited (Bob Dylan)</b></p><p>The last Bob Dylan album on this list honestly underwhelmed me, so I came into this one trepidatious. Was it a better experience than the previous one? Maybe? I think I liked this album a little more - the energy was a bit higher and more consistent throughout. It also just didn't feel as long and droning, which is interesting, because the closing track, <i>Desolation Row</i>, is over eleven minutes in itself. But I really liked that one. Dylan's poetry generally interested me more here. He's firmly in his "voice of a generation" phase and his songs touch on rebellion, the struggles of everyday Americans and the failure of the establishment to understand what's going on around them. <i>Like A Rolling Stone</i> is the album opener here and it sets the tone well. Also, I liked Dylan's singing more on this album than usual. I enjoy Dylan's stylizations generally, but it was cool hearing him try to hit some clearer notes as contrast to his usual gravel vocals. That bit of variation caught my ear and made the whole album more interesting to me. Aside from the songs already mentioned, <i>Highway 61 Revisited</i> was my other favourite track with it's really fun, unique imagery. I'm beginning to realize that Bob Dylan is an artist I can enjoy as a background element, or reading his poetry in an English class. But as a musician I get excited about? Well, there are better entries on this list for that.</p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>19) To Pimp a Butterfly (Kendrick Lamar)</b></p><p>So far, this was the hardest album to summarize my thoughts about. I struggled to even know how to start this entry, because filtering this album through my eyes just feels so... wrong. To Pimp a Butterfly is so clearly <i>not </i>about me - a white woman living in Canada who grew up with very limited access to African American music and culture. Honestly, I think my opinion of it is kind of irrelevant. But I also think this album is emblematic of why I started this project in the first place. I wanted to listen to music that was outside my experience and simply put, I'm very glad I did. To Pimp a Butterfly might be the most emotionally complex album on the list and I'm still processing everything Kendrick laid raw in this album.</p><p>At this point, it's pretty easy to draw a line connecting the themes of protest in Marvin Gaye, through Public Enemy and now on to Kendrick Lamar. (Side note: Kanye's work definitely touched on themes of Black identity and power, but they're much more explicit here. Still, I don't want to give the impression these themes didn't also matter to Kanye) And perhaps appropriately, Kendrick just sounds like he's been at this same fight for way too long. In addition to being a rallying cry for Black empowerment, To Pimp a Butterfly is also a harrowing look at mental health, working through addiction, discovering self-love and trying to find the will to go on in a country that seems to hate you. There's a repeated refrain that ends several of the tracks, growing more lines with each iteration, that highlights Kendrick's own battles with anger and depression. As new lines are added, the surrounding songs mirror the changing tone of the poetry, which was super cool to see. The passion and rage of <i>King Kunta </i>gradually morphs into the thoughtful reflections of <i>How Much a Dollar Cost </i>until building to the self-love anthem of <i>I</i>. All of these were standouts, but there are plenty of other great tracks on here. </p><p>Musically, this album does a lot of genre blending, borrowing heavily from jazz, soul and funk. One thing I've really come to appreciate over this listening project is how incredibly collaborative rap music tends to be. Producers and guest artists clearly make valuable contributions and I think this album ends with one of the coolest samples ever - an interview with Tupac that Kendrick intercuts as if he were the one asking his long-time idol questions. Overall, it's a great listen. Though be warned, it can be emotionally rough at times. Kendrick doesn't pull his punches and he's rapping about some very sad things. Also, it feels like it should go without saying, but Kendrick is a phenomenal rapper. He varies his style and flow across each of his songs really well and is great at sliding into the right character or emotion for each track.</p><p>Also: Did you know that Kendrick's last name is Duckworth? Duckworth! That made me so happy. Other people probably already knew this, but in case you didn't, enjoy. What a great last name.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>20) Kid A (Radiohead)</b></p><p>Hmmm.</p><p>Ahem...</p><p>It is time.</p><p>I hate Radiohead. Now in fairness, I do not hate every song they've written. <i>Creep </i>is okay. <i>Exit Music for a Film </i>is so good, I became very confused and thought I might like Radiohead, but then that song prompted me to listen to Radiohead and I was swiftly corrected. On the whole, I try to keep these write-ups positive. Much as I disliked Purple Rain during the Top Ten listen-through, I could see why people liked Prince (especially in the 1980s) and I can picture a hypothetical Prince fan. In truth, I can picture a hypothetical Radiohead fan too, and they look an awful lot like me. They are white, came of age in the 90s/2000s, approach music with a high level of nerdiness and are suckers for good instrumentation. That's the main thing I can give Radiohead - they write really cool, really intricate songs that make use of things like modal interchange, microtonality and odd time signatures. And when I focus on the accompaniment, I can actually really enjoy them. Truthfully, when I think of the people I know who love Radiohead, none of them have been vocalists, driven to the band instead based on instrumentation. So what I'm saying is maybe I don't hate Radiohead. Maybe I just hate Thom Yorke.</p><p>I honestly cannot think of a more well-known, successful singer who I like less than Thom Yorke. Did consonants kill his mother or something? Because he seems determined to avoid them at all cost. And yet, he also clearly has a hate on for most vowels too, because every word he "sings" is flattened to an indistinct shwa. I kid you not. I memorized the lyrics to every song on this album, and that's because every Radiohead song has the same lyrics and they are "EeeuuuuuOOooooaaaaeeeeUUuuuUUuuuu" repeated on loop until we all want to die. The cruelest part of this, is the guy has enough vocal control that it's obvious he COULD sing if he wanted to. <i>Exit Music for a Film</i> is Radiohead's best song largely because Thom woke up that day and decided he knew what articulation was and so when he gets to the end and harrowingly falsettos his way through "we hope that you choke" it's just as haunting as it's supposed to be because you can understand what he's saying. But that song isn't on this album! I mention it, because it serves as a nice counterpoint to what is going on here.</p><p>I know Thom is making a conscious choice with his voice, but it is a wrong choice. He chose violence. Radiohead is actually well known for their lyrics, but I never find myself looking them up because his gurgling, sludge-mouthed performance makes me completely uninterested in what he's saying. With many of the other artists on this list, I would put on their albums, listen to them as background music for a bit, then inevitably go, "hmmm, I think I missed something interesting there" and look up detailed lyrics because something about their performance piqued my curiosity. Thom Yorke never does that. His voice squishes around at the same, mopey emotional level too, so that everything has this blanket, unchanging air of ennui. This album has no range to it. No ups and down. Just one long, droning "OOOoooaaaaeeeEEEEUUUUeeeeUUUUeeaaaOOOUUUUEEEE MOrning Bellllllllll" That's the one phrase I distinctly picked out. He definitely said the words "Morning Bell." Good job, Thom. </p><p>If you want a quick picture of how much I dislike Thom Yorke, I recommend listening to <i>Idioteque</i>, which was even more unlistenable than the rest of the album. Best track is the outro, <i>Untitled</i>, which has no lyrics. And if you just completely ignore Thom, there are some really cool instrumental bits in other songs scattered throughout.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Rapid Fire Summary</b></p><p>11) Not the Beatles's best, but c'mon. It's the Beatles.</p><p>12) Quintessential Michael Jackson makes me want to dance!</p><p>13) I wish I sang like Aretha Franklin.</p><p>14) Somewhere in the world, someone's dad is listening to the Rolling Stones.</p><p>15) Man, rap was fun in the Eighties! Fun ANGRY!</p><p>16) The Clash goes global and proves they know more than just scrappy guitars.</p><p>17) Kanye West uses every instrument and every musician ever and it... works?</p><p>18) Bob Dylan sure does Bob Dylan.</p><p>19) Wherever Kendrick Duckworth is right now, I hope he's having a nice day. He's earned it.</p><p>20) After this album ended, <i>Do I Wanna Know</i> by the Arctic Monkeys came on and I've never been more grateful for a palette cleanse in my life.</p><p><br /></p>Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-55641839973071238582022-07-14T17:03:00.001-07:002022-07-14T23:15:31.371-07:00Emily Listens to the Rolling Stone Top 500 Greatest Albums of All Time - Entries 1-10Making comics, I spend a lot of time drawing. And if there's one thing I am always in search of, it's more music to listen to while drawing. Recently, I decided to go through the most recent iteration of Rolling Stone Magazine's Top 500 Greatest Albums of all Time. And I also figured I should record my thoughts on them!<div><br /></div><div>Some caveats:</div><div>1) I have realistic expectations and do not plan on actually listening to all 500. That's why I started at number one and am working my way backwards. Because life is too short to count this list down. Rolling Stone will probably update the list again before I get anywhere near the end. I'm listening to their "top" albums first, so it's all downhill from here.</div><div><br /></div><div>2) I'm not reviewing the entries with "stars" or ranking them against each other. Choosing a number 1 or 8 or 326 all feels rather arbitrary to me here. This list is drawing from a very wide range of musical tastes and I salute Rolling Stone for trying to even organize these entries against each other. Who am I to say how Joni Mitchell stacks up against Kendrick Lamar? Really, I just wanted an excuse to listen to some classic albums and make myself learn the context around some of the most famous songs of all time. I'm doing my best to appreciate each album on its own merits, rather than judge it against my taste, because...</div><div><br /></div><div>3) As I listen to this list, I'm realizing I have terrible taste in music. I know nothing! I am a pleb! Take nothing I say seriously!</div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, now that this is out of the way, here are the entries I listened to recently and my thoughts on them! </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiZyLqGqXhXdCRg_ovNQHt9HSOmi-h6ZCUXJ9XHT3mQ6sKZkjIPLbPlfjXAooZEOp2LRQQ3XPHn757q9xh3EAXtm6Q8oK6FFWfXKH_TJIgKucESUAJqL_bWdVTOAMcT1pqFVPeHp6HaSR3Rl92Bdg6oUcnlGSTZ5v7T2xuGEoqfKuUtQ5OKrTy9b6K_g/s300/marvin%20gaye.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="300" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiZyLqGqXhXdCRg_ovNQHt9HSOmi-h6ZCUXJ9XHT3mQ6sKZkjIPLbPlfjXAooZEOp2LRQQ3XPHn757q9xh3EAXtm6Q8oK6FFWfXKH_TJIgKucESUAJqL_bWdVTOAMcT1pqFVPeHp6HaSR3Rl92Bdg6oUcnlGSTZ5v7T2xuGEoqfKuUtQ5OKrTy9b6K_g/s1600/marvin%20gaye.jpg" width="300" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>1) What's Going On (Marvin Gaye)</b></div><div>This was just so very good and chill and thoughtful and I really liked it. I honestly didn't think I would recognize very many songs off of it, but a lot of the album was familiar. It flowed great, as is usually the case with concept albums. I do love a good concept album. There's something bittersweet about listening to this album 50 years after it came out and all the topical political commentary still being accurate and timely. Additionally, Marvin Gaye has such a good voice. When I think of soul music, I think of this sound. My favourite song was probably the title track, but the whole album was great. I can see why this ended up being the consensus choice for the Rolling Stone voters, because it's just so darn pleasant, but with enough depth to make you feel like you're doing something intelligent while listening to it. That's a hard balancing act. Is it really the greatest album of all time? Maybe. At the very least, it's an album I have a hard time picturing anyone disliking, which can't be said of some of the rest of the top ten, which are inherently more polarizing.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>2) Pet Sounds (The Beach Boys)</b></div><div>I've always loved The Beach Boys and this is them at their weirdest and most experimental, which is great! I don't know if there is an instrument in existence Brian Wilson didn't shove onto this record. The orchestration is so strange, intricate and gorgeous, especially on the deep cuts. The singles are a bit more like the typical surf rock the band made in earlier days (<i>Sloop John B</i> is on this album) but one of the group's very best singles - <i>God Only Knows </i>- is also here and that one better reflects the general trippiness of Pet Sounds. Of the album only tracks, I really liked <i>That's Not Me</i> and<i> I Just Wasn't Made For These Times</i>. They had some surprising lyrical depth and reminded me of a lot of great indie pop of today. You can really see the roots that the indie rock scene has in Pet Sounds and I feel comfortable saying this album is just as influential and important as people make it out to be. Also, while lots of artists on this list are amazing at writing instrumentation, I don't think anyone ever beat the Beach Boys at vocal harmonies. The arrangements they come up with are just insanely complex, interesting and beautiful.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>3) Blue (Joni Mitchell)</b></div><div>My main exposure to Joni Mitchell growing up is that one Christmas song she wrote and GUYS! That song is on here! Did it make me love Blue more? OF COURSE IT DID! CHRISTMAS!!!! In all seriousness, this was probably my favourite listen of the top ten, because I am a sucker for folksy rock. All the better if it's sung by a light, lilting soprano. I have serious vocal envy of Joni Mitchell. She's so clear and controlled up high. Fewer of the songs jumped out to me as stand-out singles. Aside from <i>River</i>, of course. She clearly should have mentioned Christmas more often. But that's not a knock against the album. Sonically, it's wonderfully cohesive, due to none of the songs being obtrusive, and that makes it great for vibing along to. I definitely want to give this one another listen soon. Her lyrics are wonderfully tender and poetic and I know I'll have more distinct favorites once I revisit the album.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>4) Songs in the Key of Life (Stevie Wonder)</b></div><div>Stevie Wonder is an artist who I respect tremendously, even if he isn't always my cup of tea. Music aside, he's just such an excellent human being. Actually, listening to this I started to realize that one of the reasons Stevie Wonder isn't always my favourite musician is because he really does branch out stylistically all over the map. That being said, this album definitely shares a dominant sound and feel. One of the reoccurring themes in these top albums I've noticed is lush, complex orchestration and Stevie Wonder really shows off his chops here. Listening to the album all at once, <i>Isn't She Lovely</i> kind of shocked me with how charming it is. Like, I've heard it before, but it was somehow even better here. Also: I will never stop being surprised when someone fires up <i>Pastime Paradise</i> and I am forcibly reminded that it was sampled in <i>Gangster Paradise</i>. I forget! All the time! Those two were probably my favourite tracks here, though there are plenty of other stand-outs too.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>5) Abbey Road (The Beatles)</b></div><div>THE BEATLES!!!! I mean, what is there to say? The Beatles are amazing and this album was too. This album felt almost like the inverse of Blue - every song was iconic and while they went well together, they also differed from each other a fair bit, making this album a less consistent experience than any of the others before it. Even Songs in the Key of Life had a permeating Stevie-ness about it. Maybe it's because this album came late in the Beatles career and all four of them were now competing for creative direction of the band that the songs all sound so different. <i>Octopus's Garden</i> is nothing like <i>Because </i>which is nothing like <i>Here Comes the Sun </i>which is nothing like <i>Maxwell's Silver Hammer. </i>I loved all of those, especially <i>Because</i>, but due to nostalgia, my favourite on the album was still <i>Something</i>. It's just one of the most romantic songs of all time.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>6) Nevermind (Nirvana)</b></div><div>Full disclosure... I have always struggled with Nirvana. I'm not the biggest fan of shouty singing and Kurt Cobain is shouting in full fury here. So I was pleasantly surprised by how much I actually DID enjoy the album. I think approaching it as a whole helped. Moving between Nirvana and other, more melodic bands on a mixed playlist always feels jarring to me, but here, it felt like I could enter Cobain's world and just hang out while his band performed. And my gosh, while I might not care much for Cobain as a singer, as a guitarist and composure he's incredible. His instrumentation choices are just so fascinating and surprising. (Side note: I know Cobain's vocal performance is intentional and he could sound "prettier" if he wanted to, and he clearly doesn't. Stylistically, I'll even grant it's the right choice. I just have a bias towards clear diction and musical theatre jazz hands. SUE ME!) Also, while I haven't always been the biggest Nirvana fan, I do like the Foo Fighters and Dave Grohl's drumming is top tier on this album. Sometimes I found myself just listening to that. Best song is <i>Smells Like Teen Spirit</i>, because I am basic and the intro drums are so cool. Shout out also to <i>Breed</i>, which I hadn't heard before doing this listen and really liked.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>7) Rumors (Fleetwood Mac)</b></div><div>And here we reach the first album I actually owned/listened to in its entirety BEFORE doing this challenge. What can I say? I like folksy rock. I honestly have a hard time judging this one because I listened to it so many times while in high school. That opening track is very good for walking at a good clip and I have tons of memories of using it to walk to school quickly. The whole experience of listening to Rumors is rife with nostalgia. Still, that does mean that I love it. Some of the songs on this album are among my all time favs, including <i>Dreams</i>, <i>Songbird </i>and <i>The Chain</i>. Also, it's been a while since I listened to the whole album and I forgot how good <i>Gold Dust Woman</i> is. Really, the lesson from this is that Stevie Nicks is a legend and every one of her songs is staggeringly awesome. Some of the other tracks strike me as... less good? Or at the very least I have to be in the right mood for them. Like, <i>Don't Stop</i> can get kind of annoying in it's up tempo perkiness. Unless you're trying to walk to high school quickly, then it's perfect.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>8) Purple Rain (Prince and the Revolution)</b></div><div>Going through the top ten, I was most nervous about the Nirvana and Stevie Wonder albums. I knew I didn't always vibe with their music and was worried I would sound like an ignorant toad talking about them. But both those artists pleasantly surprised me and I felt like I walked away with a better appreciation for them. All of this is to say that I was not prepared to be blindsided by Purple Rain, because I can now throw my arms wide and say with great confidence, "I DO NOT UNDERSTAND PRINCE!" I'm still a bit confused because up until this point, I had liked every Prince song I had heard. Now I'm realizing his album cuts and his singles aren't exactly the same thing. Going into this album, I loved both <i>When Doves Cry </i>and the title track and coming out... those are still my favorites! I also now have an active dislike for <i>Darling Nikki</i>. As for positives, I did enjoy a lot of the instrumental sections of the songs on Purple Rain and I wonder if I would prefer some of Princes' more instrument heavy albums. Also, while I eventually could get behind Kurt Cobain's screaming, Prince's generally pulled me out. As Prince himself asks, why DO we scream at each other? He poses the question, but I'm not sure he has the answer. In all fairness, I did enjoy the second half of the album more than the first and maybe that was me finally getting into the spirit of the synthesizers and big, bombastic 80s production. Growing up in the 90s, this was 100% the sound I pictured when I thought of 80s music and since it was the 90s, the 80s were impossibly uncool to me as a child. So maybe that's coloring my perception of this one too. Do I have any big Prince fans in my life? I would love to hear you talk about what you love about him, because he's clearly talented, even if he's making artistic choices I don't appreciate. Ugh, I feel so bad about this one. I did you dirty, Prince.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>9) Blood on the Tracks (Bob Dylan)</b></div><div>Bob Dylan is known for having dipped into multiple genres over the course of his career, yet I think if you were to average all of that out and distill it down to some "stereotypical Bob Dylan" sound, this album would pop out. I almost don't know how else to describe it. It's folksy, obviously. But beyond that, it's just so... Bob Dylan. Lots of long, rambling songs with simple chord patterns and lyrics that are hard to grab all of on a first listen. I probably spent more time googling lyrics for this album than any of the others. Appreciating Dylan is often more about appreciating poetry than it is about the full musical experience. And don't get me wrong, I like Dylan and I liked this album. But it felt like spoken word poetry undercut with guitar quite often, rather than something I would return to when I want <i>MUSIC </i>in my life. I'll be honest, I don't think this would have been my pick for Dylan's top album and looking at Rolling Stone's write up about it, I think the one reason this album edged out some of his others was because the voting body was real excited about his raw, emotional lyrics detailing the end of his marriage. And that's also probably why I didn't resonate as strongly with it. "Wow, I'm so sad my marriage is ending because I had an affair," is one of the great clichés of literary fiction and I make fun of it with my fellow writing friends quite often. Of course Dylan's version of the infidelity plot is a cut above the rest, but it's also just not a story I care a lot about particularly. You did this to yourself, my guy. Even so, this is Bob Dylan. He's going to get your feelings at least a couple times. Stand-out songs include <i>You're Gonna Make me Lonesome When You Go</i> and <i>If You See Her, Say Hello</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>10) The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill (Lauryn Hill)</b></div><div>I was super excited going into this album. I'm dismally undereducated in hip-hop and rap, so this being the highest ranking album from those genres perked my interest. I knew just one Lauryn Hill song - <i>Doo Wop (That Thing) </i>- but I really liked that song, so I came in with high hopes. On top of it, this album pops up all over the place when people talk about what they think are the greatest hip-hop albums of all time. It's not just <i>Rolling Stone</i> going to bat for this one. And all I can say is... OH MY HECK THIS WAS WORTH THE HYPE!!!! Like, wow. I get it. I get why everyone is devastated Lauryn Hill never released a second album. This album was just so... so FUN. It's fun, it's smart, it's engaging. Lauryn's voice is gorgeous and gentle when she needs it to be and powerfully soaring when the mood calls for it. Songs like <i>Zion </i>made me tear up, but then she'll lay down something like <i>Doo Wop </i>and her rap will simultaneously feel so sharp and flow like water. She blends her styles perfectly. This album is also such an amazing genre mash-up. Like many of the other top 10 albums, Hill isn't afraid of using almost any instrument that speaks to her on a particular track. Whether it's a flute solo that would be at home on a modern Lizzo track or Carlos Santana accompanying her with some serious guitar riffs, there's a taste of everything on here. I loved feeling like each track had the potential to surprise me with her next creative choice. Like, I don't know what else to say. Talking a little about the lyrical content, I loved the diversity of topics Hill pulled from, yet they all fit together into a whole too. The album title is well chosen and Hill uses the voices of school children to reinforce her themes. This album is the story of a girl growing up and learning (often the hard way) about life and love. I also loved her pulls from religious imagery. <i>Forgive Them Father </i>probably had my favourite lyrical interplay, but I'm excited to listen again to this whole album and catch more gems. There's just so much in here. I can absolutely understand why she's been so deeply influential.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>RAPID FIRE SUMMARY!</b></div><div>1) Wow, Marvin Gaye is so good. I can't imagine anyone disliking this.</div><div>2) The Beach Boys sure are fun when they take lots of drugs.</div><div>3) Joni Mitchell is like a warm cup of tea on a cold night</div><div>4) A smorgasbord of Stevie Wonder - very nostalgic, very fun</div><div>5) The Beatles compete with each other to write the best song and weirdly, George wins this round</div><div>6) Nirvana sounds better when you listen to nothing but Nirvana</div><div>7) Fleetwood Mac makes their personal lives falling apart sound awesome</div><div>8) STOP PRINCE! STOP! Doves are crying, you should stop.</div><div>9) Bob Dylan is Bob Dylan, I guess.</div><div>10) Yes, Lauryn Hill is THAT good</div>Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-28279275331003251422022-06-13T14:09:00.003-07:002022-06-13T14:26:40.294-07:00The Top 10 Things That Helped Me Get an Agent<p>When I was a baby writer, starting off in the query trenches, back in 2014, I spent a lot of time reading HOW I GOT MY AGENT blog posts and dreamed about writing my own some day. In my imagination, that was going to be in the not-so-distant future. But as it turns out, querying sucks and I spent far longer trying to get my books into the hands of literary agents than I could have imagined back then. I spent so long, that by the time I got my agent "HOW I GOT MY AGENT" posts were entirely out of fashion and instead, people just posted a quick twitter thread thanking those who helped them along the way when they announced the good news. So I did the same.</p><p>And then... something seemed to change? </p><p>Recently, I've seen people posting on Twitter about how those threads aren't super helpful and many querying writers wish they did see more HOW I GOT MY AGENT posts, because those tend to include more nuggets of wisdom about how to break into the industry. If nothing else, they give a more complete story of how a person managed to get agented. Was it inside connections? Was it a cold query? Was it the author's first book or not?</p><p>So with that in mind, I thought I would talk a bit about how I signed with my agent. Querying in 2022 is agreed to be an absolute nightmare, and I can't make any promises this will be the miracle cure you need if you're currently stuck in the query trenches, but it's my attempt to make this story as helpful as possible. Instead of telling the tale chronologically, I've organized my journey around ten things I found particularly helpful. A lot of them are things the querying writer has probably heard of before. But my experience has shown that they're not all things everyone is using (or not using to their full potential).</p><p>Hopefully, at least one of these will give you some ideas. Or at least a better guide for your expectations of what the thing can do for you.</p><p>Okay! Onto the list, though to start with, here's the basic data on my query journey, so you have some context for what I'm saying later.</p><p><b><br /></b></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMlwkeWHgkb5EHEWEOvWIek0BLWca-PHr1Y82eTyiRxPRngx6xbGrQbTBX1U4cRc41kDuJYLH5lz0ju5e6GxFe1Y3P0QU08soFvGhC3pa5cZ8_jeFJ1pBlNUEIRkIpO1ltlavMVufCM5VCVGRX61x-d-3gegAvyGAgRja0ZJ_PHYX7dCCDXWLkrG1ELA/s800/how%20I%20got%20agent.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="800" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMlwkeWHgkb5EHEWEOvWIek0BLWca-PHr1Y82eTyiRxPRngx6xbGrQbTBX1U4cRc41kDuJYLH5lz0ju5e6GxFe1Y3P0QU08soFvGhC3pa5cZ8_jeFJ1pBlNUEIRkIpO1ltlavMVufCM5VCVGRX61x-d-3gegAvyGAgRja0ZJ_PHYX7dCCDXWLkrG1ELA/s320/how%20I%20got%20agent.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><b><br /></b><p></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>QUICK STATS:</b></p><p>Book that got me rep: DEATH ON THE CALDERA, a 105,000 word Adult Fantasy</p><p>Previous books that didn't get me rep: Three - two YA Fantasy novels and one YA Contemporary</p><p>Years spent querying: 8.5</p><p>Request Rate on DOTC: 30.5%</p><p>Number of Offers of Rep: 3</p><p>Signed with Agent: May 2022</p><p>Now Represented by: Penelope Burns at Gelfman Schneider!</p><p><br /></p><p>So, as you can see, I was at this for quite a while. So what made the difference? Here are ten things that helped!</p><p><b>10. Publisher's Marketplace</b></p><p>There are a lot of resources out there for querying writers, though it can be hard to know which ones are actually valuable. <a href="https://www.publishersmarketplace.com/">Publisher's Marketplace</a> is frustrating, because it costs so much, but it was also an undeniably valuable tool. If you can afford the $25, I would recommend getting it for a month when you're starting to query, then possibly again when you're fielding calls and you want to compare the various agents. Many of the agents I queried weren't particularly active on Twitter and other public forums, but they had sales posted to Publisher's Marketplace. </p><p>I was switching from querying YA to querying adult fantasy for the first time. I really needed to make sure I had done my research into who was selling what so I didn't send my book off in the wrong direction. I'm glad I spent the money, because the two landscapes are very different to query in. There just aren't as many Sci-Fi/Fantasy presses as there are YA, and that was reflected in the number of agents and sales on Publisher's Marketplace. </p><p>PM helped me compile my list, compare offers and feel confident about choosing my agent. That being said, it's in 10th because I think most people can do without it. Get it if you can. Don't lose sleep over it if you can't.</p><p><b>9. QueryTracker</b></p><p>I've had a <a href="https://querytracker.net/">QueryTracker</a> membership for a few years now and of all the paid resources, this is the one most worth getting. It's a decent return on investment - $25 for a year, last I checked - and it is genuinely SO HELPFUL! I hate spreadsheets and organizing data, but once I logged all my queries into QueryTracker, behold! It did it for me! I had stats! The ability to see myself in the cue of agent's inboxes! It also has some fun features, like the ability to compare against the average QueryTracker user. I don't have huge opinions on what constitutes a good "request rate" when querying. As they say, it only takes one "<i>yes!" </i>But if I was to give a hot take, I would say log your stats on QueryTracker, compare them against other users and aim to be above average. QT stats reflect the most up-to-date state of the query trenches and are going to be better indicators than the opinion of someone who got their agent a few years ago.</p><p>QueryTracker also has some cool features like the ability to see what agents have similar taste, so if you get a request from one, you have an idea who else might like your book. It also can help you find more agents who work in your genre. Always check the agent website, though. QT isn't always fully up to date. </p><p><b>8. Naomi Davis's QueryManager Form</b></p><p>When I started querying, every agent wanted email queries and after some fumbling around early on, I got pretty good at writing those. Even my first VERY rough book netted me a few requests, because I was decent at pitching. And then, during the querying of my third book, something terrifying happened. Forms began to take over. QueryManager forms.</p><p>I kid you not, for several years I didn't get a single request off a form query, even though my email query rate was holding steady. I am very very very bad at filling out forms. Few things give me more anxiety. I never knew exactly what an agent wanted in each particular section. Then, as I was getting ready to query DOTC, I came across BookEnds literary agent Naomi Davis's form. And it had... <i>instructions?!</i> Like, lots of really thorough, really clear instructions?????</p><p>I actually never queried Naomi - they were closed to queries during the time I was submitting, but that FORM! Unfortunately, it's not viewable right now, but when they open back up, I seriously recommend that everyone who is bad at forms go and check that form out. Especially if you are of a certain neurodivergence, like me, where your brain breaks when you're asked to do several discreet tasks rather than one big one. Hurray for executive dysfunction! Naomi gave me clear direction for what went in each box, why they wanted it and what an appropriate answer sounded like. Most of it was the same information I had in my old query letters but I finally knew where to paste it and how to tweak my answers to better align with each category.</p><p>Even though I didn't query Naomi, I used their instructions to guide me when filling out other agent's QueryManager forms and BEHOLD! My request rate recovered. So thank you, Naomi! Not every agent who helps you along your journey ends up representing you. Sometimes they just go the extra mile to make it easier for authors to succeed.</p><p><b>7. Twitter and Pitch Events</b></p><p>Since I started querying, I followed along with the various Twitter pitch events. Roughly speaking, there are two types - the blog style pitch events that showcase first pages and are VERY competitive to enter, like <a href="https://pitchwars.org/">Pitch Wars</a>, and the hashtag driven free-for-all pitch events like #pitmad and #sffpit that enable anyone to try to get agent attention. They gave me external deadlines to aim for, the ability to network and make friends with other authors, and in some cases they even netted me agent requests.</p><p>And... both of these are dying out. Pitch Wars and Pitmad are both over. None of the other blog contests seem to be around anymore. And as for the hashtag pitch events, there aren't nearly as many agents showing up for them, so requests rates from those are down but gosh darn it... they both helped ME and so in the interest of being honest, here it is.</p><p>I was a Pitch Wars mentee. Not for the book that got me rep, mind you, but back in 2017, with my third book. It was a valuable experience that ultimately didn't result in much flashy success. But what it did give me were friends who were as serious about writing as I was. Those people became the backbone of my critique group. In general, I would recommend using any Twitter event you can to meet other writers, especially if you're like me and come from somewhere sparsely populated, where you're unlikely to make real-life writing friends. </p><p>As for Pitmad, I used to pitch my old books in that and other hashtag contests for years. Five years ago, those events were easier to get requests in. This year, I think across all the hashtag events, I got two requests total. One from an agent who didn't even like my query. I was ready to write them off as a relic of the past, especially since cold querying was working far better for me. But gosh DARN IT! That other agent like I got? It was from Penelope. And I signed with her. My agent found me in a Twitter pitch party.</p><p>I am guessing we're the exception, not the rule. After all, the other offers I got came from cold querying. But am I ever glad I did participate in those contests, because Penelope and I might not have connected otherwise. There aren't a ton of agents (numerically) in those hashtags any more, but some of them (like Penelope) are otherwise closed to queries. So as long as those hashtag pitch parties are around, by all means, participate! Even better, make friends! Statistically, you aren't going to get a ton of likes and you may very well have whole pitch events go by without any agent interaction. That's okay! Doing these events are more about shooting your shot JUST IN CASE.</p><p>It's not a reflection on your work if it doesn't pitch well on Twitter. These days, it's not even a reflection on your pitch if it doesn't pitch well on Twitter. There are so many writers trying and so few agents scrolling. But it's worth the few extra minutes to schedule some tweets, so you might as well do it. No shot, no score.</p><p>As a caveat, there are some pitch events that are better attended by agents, like #DVpit, and if you qualify for participation in those events, you should definitely participate. As a very white, very straight lady, I do not, so I can't comment on what the numbers are like for #DVpit. My perception is that a few more agents try to turn up for those, since they focus on breaking down barriers to publishing for marginalized creators. Still, if you're participating in one of those and you aren't getting a ton of love, remember: it's not you or your book or even your pitch! There are so many other voices competing in these things. Just assume none of the agents saw you and query them anyway. </p><p>I hope something like Pitch Wars and #Pitmad sticks around on Twitter. It feels like Twitter writer culture is in a bit of a transition. Some of the old stand-byes are fading away and we aren't quite sure what is going to rise up in its place. But using contests as a means of establishing deadlines, making friends and connecting with industry professionals is still a great idea.</p><p><b>6. Casting a Wide Net and Being Patient</b></p><p>Here, I'm going to talk query strategy. I did all the basics - queried in batches, revised between batches when I wasn't seeing the success I wanted to, wrote a new book while in the trenches etc. If you want a thorough breakdown of the batch querying technique, I think this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4i0l8eMeY4">Alexa Donne</a> video is very helpful, though I want to throw in a few caveats to what she says. In fact, those caveats will be most of this section.</p><p>First, there are a lot of people who insist you need a crazy high request rate in order to be successful. This just isn't true. Alexa made her video a few years ago and most people agree that request rates have stagnated somewhat. Also, she's focused on the YA market which - when she broke in - was absolutely hopping. So while I recommend using her strategy, I would say aim for a request rate between 10-20% and you'll be doing GREAT. Especially if you're in a lower requesting category, like Adult or Middle Grade. If you want a better idea of what query request rates look like for agented authors, check out <a href="https://twitter.com/Madeline_Pine/status/1484210613710639115">these charts</a> compiled by M.V. Pine who polled a bunch of recently represented authors. This was what I looked at when I was trying to gauge my progress this past year.</p><p>Second, once you are getting requests, QUERY EVERYONE! One of the other reasons Alexa's stats are so high is - if you listen carefully - because of how targeted her list is. Good sirs and madams and gentlepeople, I did not target my list. No, I queried the crap out of everyone. So long as they sold in my category or were getting trained at an agency with good Sci-fi/Fantasy sales, they got a letter from me. This almost certainly lowered my stats over all, but I didn't care. I knew some of these were long shots, since their lists were so full. Others I just wasn't sure if the agent would vibe with my work, but I tried anyway. The handful of requests I got off these were totally worth it. You're not here to get a perfect request rate. You're here to get an agent. Give everyone the chance to rep you.</p><p>I also never bothered personalizing a query unless I had something of substance to say. It just ain't worth the time. If this was an agent who requested a previous book and went back and forth with me for a while talking about it then sure, I mentioned that. But don't break your back trying to come up with personalizations that in the end amount to "I saw this in your MSWL" or some variant. I made this change because I realized it was taking me HOURS to send a single query and doing that work had almost no impact on the request rate. Obviously you should change out the agent's name with each query, but copy and paste, my friends! Get the job done quick so you can get a batch of queries off in an afternoon.</p><p>Then comes the hard part. Patience. I know the slow response times suck, but they're an unfortunate part of the process. Also, there seems to be an idea that this is a recent change. It's actually been my experience that an agent taking over a year on a full is normal. Very normal. And yes, there are agents who might take a year to answer queries. This isn't as common, but it is, again, normal. It's been going on since I first started querying and will likely be the case long into the future. If something happens in the writing world that manages to shake these things up and improve conditions for writers, I will be among the first to celebrate it. But until that day, I want to make sure people know that it's not crazy to be patient and wait on a query for a year. It sucks, but it's normal. Querying sucking is normal.</p><p>With that, if you DO get an offer of rep, notify everyone, including those queries you were considering closing as non-responders. If you've barely passed the date where they say "if it's silence, it's a no," and you haven't heard anything, follow up, just in case they're a few weeks behind. If their website doesn't explicitly state they're a closed-no-response agent, follow up with a nudge. I got a lot of passes that way, but I also got some requests. Better safe than sorry. Querying takes a long time, and you don't want to cut someone out prematurely.</p><p><b>5. Studying the Craft</b></p><p>So it turns out if you want to write a book you should... um... learn how? </p><p>When I started querying, I was finishing up my MFA in Creative Writing and I really hoped this would give me an edge. Not so much from a clout perspective (agents really don't care if you have an MFA) but I hoped it meant that I knew what I was doing. I knew writing! I had letters next to my name to prove it!</p><p>And I'm not saying my MFA didn't help - I learned a lot in school - but it also DID NOT teach me everything I needed to know about writing. Particularly, it didn't teach me everything I needed to know about myself as a writer. So gradually, I made myself study more and more.</p><p>I went to writing conferences. I listened to almost the whole back catalogue of <a href="https://writingexcuses.com/">Writing Excuses</a> episodes. I watched multiple versions of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6HOdHEeosc">Brandon Sanderson's</a> Writing Sci-Fi and Fantasy class. I bought craft books and read <i>Save the Cat Writes a Novel</i> and learned how to make a beat sheet and then ignored that outline like the pantser I am. The resources you need are going to be specific to you. I can't guess at what particular thing you need to study in order to improve but all of us do need to. In general, I would recommend everyone listen to seasons 10 and 11 of Writing Excuses at some point and if you're focused in Sci-Fi and Fantasy, you should watch Brandon's class. They're free and they're incredibly valuable.</p><p>Regardless, it's always a good idea to learn more. Even on my first book, I was getting requests. Some of what I was doing was working, but not enough. I needed to learn more and improve my craft before I could break through, even though I felt SO CLOSE with all three of my previous books. And this all still holds true. I still have so many things I need to learn how to do. One of the reasons I've focused less on craft in this post and more on query strategy is because frankly, I don't feel bold enough to say <b><i>DO THIS AND YOUR BOOK WILL BE GOOD ENOUGH</i></b> about anything. And yet, that's the ultimate thing that will get you the agent/book deal/etc. Refining your craft until your work is good enough and the stars align with just enough luck to get your foot through the door.</p><p><b>4. A New Set of Eyes</b></p><p>When I started writing <i>Death on the Caldera</i>, I really felt like this book was the one. I was excited to query it. My first pages had recently won a prize in a first chapter contest and people loved my pitch. It was gonna do great in the query trenches and nab me dozens of requests! Right? </p><p>RIGHT???</p><p>Lol, nope. When I first started, I had no bites and I was honestly confused. I was brazenly confident about my book and had been SO CLOSE with book #3 before it. My critique group loved my novel. So what was going wrong?</p><p>Well, I luckily had a friend and mentor who agreed to read the first 75 pages of the manuscript and her comments helped me realize something. None of what I had written was <i>BAD</i>, per say, but the scene I had chosen to begin with didn't set up the book as well as I had hoped. I wasn't giving agents the right set of expectations for what came next. Both my query and first pages were decent, but they didn't match. </p><p>So I cut that prize winning chapter and rewrote the entire beginning of the book and with it, a lot of the rest of the manuscript. And THAT version was the one that got me interest. </p><p>Obviously not everyone is going to have the same set of problems when they start to query, but I learned a valuable lesson about outside perspective. My critique group was just too close to the manuscript at that point and like me, couldn't see exactly what wasn't working anymore. My mentor could. Before you query, I would highly recommend putting your work in front of someone you really trust who hasn't seen it before, so that they can spot what you and those you are closest to are blind to. It might save you some stress and tears.</p><p><b>3. Critique Group</b></p><p>I can't say enough good things about my critique group. It can take a lot of time to curate a group and get people who are committed and show up reliably, but once you have it, wow. It's the best. I really believe that critique partners are the one universal behind every great author. Learning to take feedback and integrate it into your writing is the work of a lifetime (still learning!) but it's so worth it.</p><p>For anyone looking for a critique group and struggling to find reliable people, man, I get it. If possible, I think you should try to get a group that meets at least bi-weekly, either in person or online. Mine is online and we just start a group chat on Messenger and read pages together once a week. It's the best. I was in several before this one took off and it took years before I got the exact fit I wanted. </p><p>If you don't have a great group yet, just keep meeting people and swapping pages and talking things out until hopefully, you find a group that fits. Talk to your fellow writers. Mention how you would love to find a great critique group. Someone might have a lead. Our group started two years ago, but some of the people who have helped me the most joined after we first founded. They came in because they asked around and heard from our group members that we had something going on they could join.</p><p><b>2. Rewriting the Book</b></p><p>I mentioned the rewrite I did under section four, but here I want to talk more generally about editing. While writing a new book is an important part of growing as a writer and giving yourself the best chance possible while querying, learning how to edit also matters a LOT. </p><p>If the book isn't working, try rewriting it AT LEAST once before giving up on it. Often I hear authors ask how they'll know if something is query ready and my experience is this: you do the best you can, send it out, then discover it wasn't good enough, and rewrite it. </p><p>With all of my books (except one), I did at least one major revision before abandoning them in the query trenches. In every case, my request rate went up after the revision. The only book where I didn't, it was because I could tell the book needed a revision, I just didn't have a good sense of what the rewrite would look like, so I moved on to the next book. </p><p>Obviously, you try to rewrite your book to the best of your ability before ever sending it out, but don't be afraid to go back and rewrite if things aren't going well. Get some outside eyes on it (as mentioned in point 4) and then try to rework it into something stronger. </p><p>My third book actually netted me two different Revise and Resubmit requests. These taught me a lot about revision and in some ways, I felt like I finally knew how to assign <i>myself </i>an R&R when I went back to rewrite <i>Death on the Caldera</i>. Revision is a learned skill and even if your book does still die in the query trenches, like my earlier ones did, I'm glad I spent the time learning how to revise so that I could successfully do it later.</p><p><b>1. Writing Another Book</b></p><p>So say you've queried that book, sent it out, revised it, sent it out again and it's STILL not working out for you? Well, perchance, the time has come. Time to write another book. Ideally, you've been drafting it already while the last book was in the query trenches, so the transition isn't too much of a shock. But there still seems to be a point where we have to make a conscious choice to let one project die and focus on another.</p><p>Generally, I would say try to get to 100 or so queries before letting a project die. Though I'll be honest, some genres there might not be 100 agents to query, especially if you query agencies that are one-and-done. But at LEAST 50 then. Don't give up too soon.</p><p>One of the stickiest decisions I had to make in my own query journey came in late 2020 when an agent offered me a Revise and Resubmit opportunity with my previous novel, the YA Contemporary. This had been my Pitch Wars novel and it was - without question - the best book I had ever written. </p><p>So far.</p><p>The thing was, I was halfway through my draft of <i>Death on the Caldera</i>, which I was way more excited about, plus it was a completely different type of book. An agent who loved my YA Contemporary might not want me to give them an Adult Fantasy next. I waffled for several weeks about which one to focus on until, in the end, the new book won out. Sure, I could make the old book better by revising it again, but I knew I had a different, BETTER book on my hands if I could just finish it. I felt a little crazy letting the old book die before it was truly dead, but I had already been around the R&R block with that manuscript once before and I knew this opportunity could also result in another "no."</p><p>In addition to writing, I also love to paint, and when using watercolor, there's always a risk of going over the same section too many times until it looks overworked. That can happen in writing too. We can stall out on the same project for too long, when it might be more helpful to move on to something new. </p><p>In the end, I really do believe that the best decision I made for my writing career was to keep writing new books. I could incorporate the new things I was learning until eventually, I had a better book. I've loved all my projects, but it really is okay to let one go and allow yourself to fall in love with something new. It might just be the book you really needed.</p><p><br /></p><p>So. There you go. That's the list. It's too long. I'm sorry, brevity was never my strong suit (which is why I needed to learn to edit). But those are the things that helped me. I hope they help you. And I hope you publish a million books.</p>Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-30649112983878365502020-09-08T15:20:00.002-07:002020-09-10T03:10:17.837-07:00Name Meg's Cat on Neptune Bay Contest!!!! <p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-n9oX8_Z0IFY/X1n7faNJRAI/AAAAAAAADF4/jkm-c77nw54BrXUuAHz20JItY2rU-y9CgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1080/IMG_20200910_030705_277.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1080" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-n9oX8_Z0IFY/X1n7faNJRAI/AAAAAAAADF4/jkm-c77nw54BrXUuAHz20JItY2rU-y9CgCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/IMG_20200910_030705_277.jpg" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p>For most followers of this blog, I don't think it's any surprise to learn that rather than blogging lately, I have been working on a comic. <a href="https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/neptune-bay/list?title_no=447891">Neptune Bay</a> is free to read on Webtoon and Tapas!</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0jE_qQw6Iuk/X1gDTMyCuUI/AAAAAAAADFc/oAD0eYHEA400c57U5K7yvPPlbAEKR5fpgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1179/New%2Bthumbnail%2B%25282%2529.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1054" data-original-width="1179" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0jE_qQw6Iuk/X1gDTMyCuUI/AAAAAAAADFc/oAD0eYHEA400c57U5K7yvPPlbAEKR5fpgCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/New%2Bthumbnail%2B%25282%2529.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p>In celebration of making it to fifteen (fifteen! 😱) episodes, I'm hosting a give-away to name Meg's new cat! Participating in this will really help the comic grow and enable me to keep making it. If you're curious about how Webtoon works and how to support artists like me on the platform, feel free to keep reading below. But first thing's first! You can enter the contest here, via Rafflecopter!</p>
<a class="rcptr" data-raflid="9b64c83d1" data-template="" data-theme="classic" href="http://www.rafflecopter.com/rafl/display/9b64c83d1/" id="rcwidget_mj26k9pf" rel="nofollow">a Rafflecopter giveaway</a>
<script src="https://widget-prime.rafflecopter.com/launch.js"></script><div><br /></div><div>Here are my quick stipulations for the contest/cat names. Most of these are just to help the contest run smoothly and also make sure I get a name that actually fits inside word balloons when I'm lettering the comic:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>This is an all-ages comic, so cat names must be G-Rated. Cat name also must consist of letter combinations that are readily pronounceable in the English language. Max length: 12 letters. I reserve the right to write Meg using adorable, shortened nickname versions of the name. Winner will be required to submit their selected cat name within five days of being notified they have won, or the contest will draw again for a new winner. For interest's sake, the cat is male, though if you want to name him Princess Purr I won't stop you.</i></div><div><br /></div><div>Next, for the uninitiated, here's the pitch for the comic, as it appears on Webtoon:</div><div><br /></div><div><div><i>After a bad break-up, Meg is living on her best friend's couch, desperate for change. When she finds a small farm on picturesque Neptune Island, she jumps at the chance to escape the big city, just like the characters in her favorite farming sim games! </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>But quirky townspeople are harder to befriend in real life. And maybe the reason the farm is so cheap has something to do with the dead body in the river. </i></div></div><div><br /></div><div>Created using ink, watercolor and whatever other art supplies I have on hand, NEPTUNE BAY updates Thursdays and is perfect for fans of video games like Harvest Moon and Stardew Valley.</div><div><br /></div><div>It really means a lot to me, the amount of support that people have given my work on this new comic. I started it on a lark, then found I really loved making it. I'm hopeful I can make this comic a regular part of my creative life. And since you guys are wonderful, and I know so many of you are trying to support me, I thought it might be helpful to let you all know what kinds of support are currently the most useful for me as a fledgling creator. Or honestly, any creator on Webtoon. </div><div><br /></div><div>I know I personally can really struggle to know what works best/means the most to creators when I engage with their work, even when I want to show support. So after much research, these are the things that seem to help the most right here, right now for getting my work in front of people.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>1. Subscribe to the comic and read all the episodes!</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Webtoon has some great features for supporting artists through ad-revenue sharing, once they reach a certain threshold for subscribers and views. Essentially, if you are subscribed to the comic and reading regularly, you are already helping so much! THANK YOU!!!</div><div><br /></div><div><b>2. Leave hearts/likes on the Episode on Webtoon!</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Webtoon also tracks "likes" and increases support/visibility to comics based on how many little hearts each episode racks up. If you're already reading the comic, it can be a HUGE help to drop a heart once you're done the episode. Yes, even episodes with Greg in them. Even if you (understandably) hate him.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>3. Share the comic with your friends!</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Whether through social media (Facebook, Instagram, etc) or in real life with actual people, word of mouth support means so much to me and helps get the comic in front of people who otherwise might not know about it! Also, if you still have real life friends, color me impressed in these Pandemic-laden times.</div><div><br /></div><div>As you can see, the contest is structured around those three things. Once again, I really value all the support I've already received (and if you've made it to the end of this post then like, wow. You are a pal!) and I can't wait to keep making this comic and sharing it with all of you. </div><div><br /></div><div>Best of luck! Sharpen those cat names! And see you for another episode of Neptune Bay next week. :)</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-7820032527845779792020-01-15T01:54:00.000-08:002020-01-15T01:54:17.030-08:00Best Animated Feature and Why We Need a Best Children's Film OscarI've <a href="https://emilypaxman.blogspot.com/2018/03/tropes-vs-tropes-wild-west-movie.html">mentioned before</a> on this blog that one of the - ahem - <i>hallmarks </i>of my family Christmas experience is my mother's taste in movies. Put simply, my mother has never met a Christmas film she didn't like, or at least find watchable. She's always on the hunt for pleasant holiday background noise while she sews or wraps presents. She's watched more than her fair share of made for TV movies and with the rise of Netflix, and the Netflix Christmas deluge we get each year, her numbers have only gone up.<br />
<br />
Of course, what she really hopes for is that somewhere, buried in the pile of yellow Christmas snow, she'll stumble across a film that can join the likes of <i>White Christmas</i>, <i>A Christmas Carol</i> and <i>Ernest Saves Christmas</i> in the family's yearly holiday rotation. Still, she doesn't expect much from the average Christmas flick and I - who frequently gets dragged into watching these movies with her - have learned to hope for even less.<br />
<br />
Which is part of what made this year such a treat. One Friday night in November, we fired up Netflix, hunting for a Christmas movie, and it immediately recommended a new animated film to us. It was, of course, <i>Klaus</i>, which is also the first foray Netflix has taken into producing feature length animation.<br />
<br />
A few minutes into the movie, my father hadn't left the room in disinterest yet, mom had laughed at several jokes and I'd complimented the animation style roughly fifty times. At this point I looked at my mother and said, "wait... did we put a <i>good </i>movie on?"<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yrz9IDnvm-Q/Xh7CW11gWgI/AAAAAAAAC9I/0GpuvG8Qdbo1u0tOf13551kftQQE4RbdgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/klaus-netflix.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="325" data-original-width="600" height="216" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yrz9IDnvm-Q/Xh7CW11gWgI/AAAAAAAAC9I/0GpuvG8Qdbo1u0tOf13551kftQQE4RbdgCLcBGAsYHQ/s400/klaus-netflix.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I was just as confused as Jesper when I found myself enjoying this film.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Yes, Virginia. By some Christmas miracle, it turned out that we were watching a good movie.<br />
<br />
<b><u>A "New" Christmas "Classic"</u></b><br />
<br />
<i>Klaus </i>isn't perfect, but there is so very much to like about it. The story offers a fun, new take on the story of Santa Claus, with enjoyable characters and a plot that, while predictable, really strikes the heartstrings in the end. WHEN HE WALKS OFF INTO THE SNOW, GUYS! WHEN HE WALKS OFF!!!! (Insert crying face here). Still, where the film really shines isn't so much in the story department as it is the visuals.<br />
<br />
Sergio Pablos directed the film and spent years developing its style and story to be exactly as he wanted it, but for a long time, couldn't find a studio willing to back it. It was risky for several reasons, the Christmas content among them. Most recent film studios haven't been able to make much money off of Christmas theater releases, due to the stiff competition from the likes of Disney and other headliner movies. To give an idea, if <i>Klaus </i>had been in theaters during this same time frame, it would have faced off against <i>Frozen II </i>and likely fallen flatter than a pancake.<br />
<br />
Luckily, Netflix isn't trying to fill theater seats. The Christmas movie crowd is more likely to want to watch something new while bundled up in cozy blankets, sipping cocoa. It was why Christmas movies were such a natural market for Netflix in the first place and <i>Klaus</i>'s Christmas focus meant they could guarantee themselves an audience for their first, splashy foray into animated film.<br />
<br />
Still, they could have gone the lazy way making this film, (as Netflix has been willing to be with some of their other Christmas fare), but everything about <i>Klaus </i>speaks to what a passion project it was. The last 2D animated film produced by a major Hollywood studio was <i>Winnie the Pooh</i>, an adaptation Disney put out in 2011. Before that, it was <i>Princess and the Frog</i> in 2009. Both of those movies have their fans, but their lack of box office domination led Disney to give up on their brief flirtation with trying to bring 2D animation back after its collapse in the early 2000s.<br />
<br />
When Sergio Pablos made <i>Klaus</i>, he wanted to create something that wasn't such a nostalgic throwback, as Disney's last two attempts were, but instead had its own style that incorporated digital tools. By utilizing software to shade and light the characters, his studio created something that had the expressive, cartoony quality so loved about old hand drawn cartoons, while also benefiting from the depth and sense of three dimensional form that makes 3D animation so beautiful. And to do this, his team had to develop all the new software themselves.<br />
<br />
I highly recommend checking out <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47opK56DUow">YouTube </a>and the many videos that showcase the animation style of <i>Klaus </i>from test footage all the way up to it's released form. They provide a fascinating behind the scenes look at the production of animation and give some idea of how much work and thought went into this goofy Christmas flick.<br />
<br />
I've wanted to write about <i>Klaus </i>for a while, but couldn't settle on the right angle, then Christmas came and went, making me sad I lost my chance. But lo and behold, the Blogging Gods must be looking out for me, because <i>Klaus </i>just faced off against <i>Frozen II</i> again and this time, it won.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Oscar Madness</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
As of the writing of this blog post, I have seen every Oscar winning animated movie ever. In fact, I even have <a href="https://emilypaxman.blogspot.com/2018/07/ranking-best-animated-pictures-from.html">ranked them</a>, a list I plan on updating once this year's winner is announced. More than likely, I'm going to need to see this year's winner first, since I didn't get to many movies in theater during early 2019, due to a lack of wiggle room in my budget.<br />
<br />
I've heard good things about all of the nominees. While I find any year that doesn't nominate at least one Japanese film a bit suspicious, I do think the list is a good representation of the diversity of films that North American and European animation studios are putting out. I'm not quite sure which horse I'm cheering for the most. By virtue of <i>Toy Story 4</i> being in the mix, it's the default front runner, as the Academy historically bends to Disney and Pixar if they turn out a film that registers as "good." That's the problem of the Academy awards. More often than not, they award the big players who have deep pockets for "For Your Consideration" campaigns and private viewings with Academy voters.<br />
<br />
So when the nominees were announced and <i>Klaus </i>beat out <i>Frozen II</i> to take the final spot on the ballot, I will admit, I cheered a little. The film had been snubbed at the Golden Globes, not just in favor of <i>Frozen II</i>, but also for that brown mush of a movie, Disney's new <i>Lion King, </i>which is nothing but a shroud of a better film. To be clear, I don't dislike <i>Frozen II</i>. It's fine. But it lacks the heart of the first movie and I can't say I came home from it feeling particularly much of anything. It certainly didn't illicit the same reaction I had at <i>Klaus </i>because WHEN HE WALKS OFF INTO THE SNOW, GUYS!!!!<br />
<br />
If I had to pinpoint one reason why <i>Frozen II</i> didn't work for me, it was likely because none of the emotional stakes felt very real. The film didn't do the best job of setting up the emotional thrust of the film, unlike the first one, where you feel the ache of the sisters' loneliness within a couple short scenes. <i>Frozen II</i> spent a long time trying to establish its emotional heart of righting past wrongs, no matter the consequences. When the climax came, and Anna is making her pivotal choices alone and singing her song, my thoughts were more, "oh, so THIS is what the story was building to" rather than "OH MY HEART!!!" I also don't think the story was helped by the use of <span style="color: #cc0000;">*SPOILER*</span> a false death scene for Elsa or Olaf in it because, as an adult, I just couldn't believe this movie would kill it's characters. They make Disney too much money for that.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Kve4bsn-iIU/Xh7dOJt-d2I/AAAAAAAAC9k/4TjBnsaP9QYuTIWHiO5t_6X-YwWOZZqGACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/frozen%2Btwo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="538" data-original-width="800" height="268" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Kve4bsn-iIU/Xh7dOJt-d2I/AAAAAAAAC9k/4TjBnsaP9QYuTIWHiO5t_6X-YwWOZZqGACLcBGAsYHQ/s400/frozen%2Btwo.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Into the Unknown: Where Elsa literally states that <br />she doesn't know why she's doing this movie.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Now, some of you might be going, "but it's a KIDS movie! My kid couldn't tell Olaf wasn't dead! That hit him super hard! You can't judge Disney for not meeting your cynical expectations as an adult viewer! It still deserved to be nominated for an Oscar!" To that I have two counter arguments.<br />
<br />
1) Klaus is a kids movie too, that still manages tight emotional stakes, as evidenced by WHEN HE WALKS OFF INTO THE SNOW!!! SERIOUSLY!!!!!!<br />
<br />
2) Here's the thing... the award is for best <i>animated </i>movie. Not best kid's movie.<br />
<br />
<b><u>So, um... What's that Oscar About, Anyway?</u></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
I have watched every single winner of the best animated movie Oscar and every one of them is appropriate for children. <i>Rango </i>might not be particularly <i>interesting </i>to younger children, but still, a kid over ten would have no problem with it.<br />
<br />
The Academy still reflects the views of white North America towards film, despite its efforts to diversify. One of the consequences of that is a lack of appreciation or acceptance of animated films that are not made for children. Japanese animation is notably more diverse in terms of its intended audience, yet if you look at which Japanese anime films get nominated for Oscars, it's predominantly the ones that can be marketed towards children.<br />
<br />
Occasionally, we get outliers. This year's nominees even includes one, a French film about severed hand titled <i>I Lost My Body</i>, which is conveniently also on Netflix, and next on my "to watch" list. But I can't imagine it has much of a shot up against the likes of <i>Toy Story</i> and... well, <i>Toy Story</i>. And not only does this seem unfair to movies like <i>I Lost My Body</i>, but I would argue, it's unfair to the likes of <i>Toy Story 4</i> as well. How are you supposed to compare two films like that?<br />
<br />
How are you supposed to compare <i>Loving Vincent</i>, a film painstakingly painted to resemble the work of Van Gogh to <i>Coco</i>, the movie it lost the animation Oscar to in 2018? In 2007, how did the Academy choose between an adaptation of Marjane Satrapi's memoir graphic novel, <i>Persepolis</i>, about growing up in Iran, and <i>Ratatouille</i>? The problem isn't that some of these movies aren't "good enough" or "deserving" but that their intended audiences have so little to do with each other.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tmWvw_AAAb0/Xh7drDNxzhI/AAAAAAAAC9s/HTGTvPD7jwAGBOqVv52wfSewUoAItDvNACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/loving%2Bvincent.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="599" data-original-width="800" height="298" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tmWvw_AAAb0/Xh7drDNxzhI/AAAAAAAAC9s/HTGTvPD7jwAGBOqVv52wfSewUoAItDvNACLcBGAsYHQ/s400/loving%2Bvincent.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Loving Vincent. This movie is still on my "to watch" pile and PLEASE!<br />Suggestions in comments on where to find it!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
In the book world this year, no one is pitting Margaret Atwood's <i>Testaments </i>against Angie Thomas's <i>On the Come Up</i>. Just because Atwood won the Booker doesn't mean Thomas doesn't have a shot at the Printz award. And no YA novel is going to take the Newbery medal away from a deserving Middle Grade book (though there was the year a picture book won the Newbery, which was... a choice?).<br />
<br />
Movie land, however, has no conceptual framework for distinguishing between media meant for children and media meant for adults. Television only came across the concept due to network programming, where certain shows could only air after sensitive eyes were likely in bed, and where commercial interests meant the after school slot was perfect for catching the ages five through twelve crowd.<br />
<br />
I've talked before about <a href="https://emilypaxman.blogspot.com/2017/02/la-la-land-and-dreaded-pg-rating.html">how the rating system</a> is often used to signal what audience a film is meant for, irrespective of actual content concerns. It's why <i>La La Land</i> contains exactly one F-bomb in an otherwise language, sex and violence free movie. It's not that the content was inappropriate, just that the movie was meant for adults and a musical with a G rating would have likely confused viewers.<br />
<br />
<u><b>AWARDS FOR EVERYONE!!!</b></u><br />
<br />
One of the other major ways we signal "for children" in our culture is with animation. When I look at the list of winning movies, what I see isn't so much a list of the risky, artistically innovative animated movies. Instead, it's a list of generally solid children's films. <i>Coco </i>is a phenomenal children's movie, but I don't think you can call it more innovative to animation as an art form than <i>Loving Vincent, </i>the first fully painted animated movie ever. And it's a shame, because in a better world, they both would have awards. <i>Loving Vincent</i> for Achievements in Animation, which would now be a technical award, and <i>Coco </i>for Best Children's Film (or Family Film, though I would rather see the award focus on children so as to avoid the devaluing of "popular" movies that may or may not be for children, but lots of families see.)<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ef1w1A_nY9A/Xh7eFGbEOZI/AAAAAAAAC90/cvTmVLumr98Vk8qDpW4nsezylEoPPwu2gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/spiderverse.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="159" data-original-width="318" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ef1w1A_nY9A/Xh7eFGbEOZI/AAAAAAAAC90/cvTmVLumr98Vk8qDpW4nsezylEoPPwu2gCLcBGAsYHQ/s400/spiderverse.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Into the Spiderverse is another film I have a million thoughts on.<br />Sound off in the comments if you want a blog post on it!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />On occasion, the two do collide. Last year, <i>Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse</i> was both the most gorgeous and ground-breaking animated film and also a triumph of storytelling, appropriate for children. But we're fine with plenty of other films winning multiple categories, so why not these? Besides, having a category for Best Children's Film would open the door for great movies that don't meet the requirements of other awards. If I could retroactively create this award, there's no way any of the animated films of 1987 would win Best Children's Film, when <i>The Princess Bride </i>came out that year. It's a shoe in!<br />
<br />
It also might correct some of the problems the Academy faced when they tried to create a "Best Popular Film" category. By focusing on intended audience by age, rather than reinforcing their own idea that "popular blockbuster movies are by definition not artistic," we might have a place to acknowledge some truly great films that are not aimed at adults. Clearly, there would still be a gray area for a lot of blockbusters aimed at teenagers, but I can't solve all the problems in this blog post. At the very least, I wish there was a space that acknowledged the range of films made for children and one that spoke to the diversity of the world's animation.<br />
<br />
For now, <i>Klaus </i>is probably the stand-out as a technical piece, but is it the best story of the whole field? Is it the best children's movie? <i>Klaus's </i>claim to that is much shakier.<br />
<br />
Regardless, I'm cheered by the animation nominees. Disney has such an iron grip on the category, it was nice to see their fingers loosened a little. With so little other positive news in this year's Oscar nominations, as far as diversity goes, at least the animation category wasn't owned by one company.<br />
<br />
At least until <i>Toy Story 4</i> inevitably wins them yet another award.<br />
<br />
<br />Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-55005734564849817072019-12-27T17:04:00.000-08:002019-12-27T17:06:31.972-08:00Writing, Art and Creator Burn-Out: A Tale of 2019For anyone working in the creative arts, figuring out where to get inspiration and refill that so-called "artistic well" is among the most important of challenges they face. For myself, I have a number of strategies. Going for walks, talking about movies and books with my friends and, of course, watching musicals.<br />
<br />
One musical I think about often when I'm in creative downturns, looking for renewed vigour, is Sondheim and Lapine's <i>Sunday in the Park with George</i>, which tells the fictionalized story of French post-impressionist George Seurat and how he came to paint his most famous work, <i>A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte</i>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2KICHF5l0sc/XgZSedOB01I/AAAAAAAAC4Q/Py2wx6L6IBQv3AnCPjVJgNv4ZLriEDXPQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/sunday%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bpark.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1091" data-original-width="1600" height="218" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2KICHF5l0sc/XgZSedOB01I/AAAAAAAAC4Q/Py2wx6L6IBQv3AnCPjVJgNv4ZLriEDXPQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/sunday%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bpark.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">In the musical, everyone pictured is singing!</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
Throughout the play, various characters comment on George's obsession with the painting, what it means to be an artist and what art even is. There are lots of characters offering hot takes, but one has always stood out to me. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Work is what you do for other people. Art is what you do for yourself.</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't particularly agree. Art, I tend to think, has more to do with the content of the piece rather than the origin or expression of the creation, and yet I've often thought this quote gets at something very real. This crosses out of the realm of visual art and also applies to the art of writing.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>Writing for Yourself and Other People</u></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When starting out, most books grow from an idea the author is passionate about. In the sense of the quote from <i>Sunday in the Park with George</i>, this is where art is not work. It's a thing writers do for themselves; scribbling new stories with fresh, new ideas. If this was the whole writing process, then writing never would be work, but it is, and all too often, it becomes work the moment other people enter the picture.<br />
<br />
Almost everything that you can buy published in a bookstore found its way there by way of a major publishing company and was touched not just by the author, but also an editor and probably an agent and maybe a marketing department and definitely a cover designer. And along the way, they asked the author to make (le gasp!) changes.<br />
<br />
I got a first hand taste of this over the past year, when an agent I queried asked me to complete a revise and resubmit. Most of the changes she asked for I agreed would make the book better, so I got to work. And work it certainly was, because that level of unpacking a book is not something I would have done "for myself."<br />
<br />
I've gone through forms of this process before, and don't get me wrong. I enjoy my work. But maybe because I spent so much of this year revising, writing felt like less fun than it usually does. All writers have their favourite parts of the writing process and mine are early on - usually idea generation, drafting and reworking the "first draft" into it's second, slightly less messy iteration. Those are such fun stages. I do them for myself.<br />
<br />
I'm proud of the revision I did this year. I'm grateful for the eyes of other people and for the pressure I feel to make my writing something that communicates ideas more clearly and meets the needs of my audience, not just my own. But in a tough year, where the writing felt like work, I needed something to refill my creative well more than usual.<br />
<br />
So writing was what I did for other people. Art was what I did for myself.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Children and Art</u></b><br />
<br />
I can say with utmost confidence, I did not come into this world with extraordinary talent for visual art. I made blobs and squiggles and stick-men of the same caliber as my peers. But did I ever love doing it. Creating something and then being able to hold it up and say "look!" was reason enough to keep at it. I think most children are like this. They love putting something into the world that didn't exist before and they rarely question if their work is "quality." It's just pure art. Something they do for themselves, not other people.<br />
<br />
The hard part is keeping kids drawing once they're old enough to compare their work to their peers and start realizing some kids are progressing faster than others. Here, my greatest talent was not in producing great art, but in being oblivious. For years, I pressed on filling massive binders full of "masterpieces" that were nothing more than weirdly proportioned renderings of my stuffed animals. Yes, I kept these and yes, I still love them.<br />
<br />
I only chanced upon the concept of artistic "skill" in Grade 4 when I became close friends with the girl who everyone agreed was the best artist in our class. For a split second, I felt discouraged, but she loved drawing and she was my friend, so we drew together and that was that. I got comfortable being worse at something than someone else, and that kept my artistic spirit alive. I kept drawing my stuffed animals, but increasingly, I also designed original characters based on the stories I made up. I shamelessly copied the work of my older sister and her friends, who also liked drawing, learning early Picasso's lesson of "stealing like an artist." Sorry to plagiarize you, Kate.<br />
<br />
Sometime around my late teens, it became apparent that I actually did draw better than most of my friends (though not all. I've consistently spent my life with at least one best friend who is better at art than I am. Shout out to today's model, Lean Conrad!). But getting where I am today in art was a slow process born of years upon years of both doodling and intentional practice.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Move On</u></b><br />
<br />
Fast-forward to January of 2019, when I was starting the year in a strange place. I was job hunting, slogging through a revision of my book that wouldn't come together and living in a new city. From the outset, 2019 had a lot of difficult things working against it, and I could feel myself struggling to keep my head afloat.<br />
<br />
I needed a survival strategy. After reading some literature online about the use of art in therapy, I decided I need to reinvest in one of my old hobbies. Art is known for having profound mental health benefits and best of all, skill has nothing to do with effectiveness! The mere act of creating and expressing oneself artistically is helpful. With that in mind, I gave it a try.<br />
<br />
Going into this year, I felt rusty. My artistic progress has not always been linear, and I was out of practice. Some seasons of my life, I've devoted more time to art than others and I can still look at old pieces that stack up decently next to what I create now. For example, here is a baseball card sized painting of raccoons in our family cherry tree I did 10 years ago that is STILL the best raccoon related piece I've ever done.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B6_RQkXQ06A/XgZ5laILQUI/AAAAAAAAC4s/mgoqqbYQTHgd-Pc7RQT7jz2aUa3ZtZ7awCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1_Racoons_in_the_Cherry_Tree.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="432" data-original-width="600" height="230" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B6_RQkXQ06A/XgZ5laILQUI/AAAAAAAAC4s/mgoqqbYQTHgd-Pc7RQT7jz2aUa3ZtZ7awCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/1_Racoons_in_the_Cherry_Tree.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Progress is a lie!<br />
<br />
Or so it felt. But I needed art this year. I needed something that I could do for myself, that would bring me joy and refill my creative well when my writing was hard and burning me out.<br />
<br />
To start, I watched a few art YouTube videos for inspiration, including a few that talked about their <span style="color: magenta;"><span style="color: cyan;">*~*art </span><span style="color: magenta;">journey</span></span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: magenta;">*~*</span> </span>and overwhelmingly, a lot of these artists mentioned how posting their work online helped them, even when their work wasn't what many people would describe as "good" yet. Just posting it helped them be accountable, made them take stock of their own progress and prompted positive feedback from family and friends who were just pleased to see them creating.<br />
<br />
Ever since Grade 4 introduced me to friends who drew better than I did, I've been painfully aware of how flawed my own artwork is. It took a lot of nerve to start posting my work, but I figured I could use the kick-in-the-butt accountability gave me, plus whatever positive reinforcement my circle might give. So I took the dive.<br />
<br />
First, and more important than I might have expected, I organized my supplies. I went through a Marie Kondo phase at the end of 2018 and got rid of a LOT of stuff that was otherwise overcrowding the new space I lived in. One of the discoveries I made during this was that every single one of my art supplies sparked joy and I had no interest in getting rid of a single tube of paint, but they also weren't likely to do me much good buried in a closet. Realizing this, I moved my art supplies to their own unit in my bedroom. Everyday, I wake up and they stare at me from beneath a poster of Porgs, reminding me I should be making art.<br />
<br />
So I got out my watercolours, the most joyful of my supplies, and I made myself paint.<br />
<br />
I started with my comfort zone. I don't draw my stuffed animals as much any more, but fan art is kind of comparable, so I painted some faces from the <i>Umbrella Academy</i>.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qMkAjntkwNo/XgaBsxx0NqI/AAAAAAAAC5I/hjqR6Nzss34OQp_hxPgkpmn20AUbDuxKwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Klaus%2Band%2BFIve.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="460" data-original-width="955" height="153" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qMkAjntkwNo/XgaBsxx0NqI/AAAAAAAAC5I/hjqR6Nzss34OQp_hxPgkpmn20AUbDuxKwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Klaus%2Band%2BFIve.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Painted early March 2019, when I really got going</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
I really enjoyed working on these, but I also found painting took a LOT of time and specialized supplies. You have to really set up water and your work area, and I didn't always have the space and time to do so. During my Kon-Marie purge, I whittled down my sketchbooks to the drawings I wanted to keep, plus a sketchbook I had halfheartedly started with a drawing or two the previous year. It was portable and it was there, so good enough.<br />
<br />
The paper in that sketchbook wasn't the best, so at first I tried to stay black and white. The one time I added paints, the pages buckled like crazy. But black and white art tends to bore me a bit, in part because I'm stronger at colour theory than I am line art. I realized I was more likely to draw if I gave myself permission to colour pieces afterwards, so even though the paper could barely handle the ink, I pulled out my old prismacolour markers. Eventually, I got some pieces I was happy with.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Aj7vNctwqxA/XgaHUE464jI/AAAAAAAAC54/o0jivdcDgScuYnel9oJmthEbR0HZ5vAugCEwYBhgL/s1600/umbrella.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="468" data-original-width="466" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Aj7vNctwqxA/XgaHUE464jI/AAAAAAAAC54/o0jivdcDgScuYnel9oJmthEbR0HZ5vAugCEwYBhgL/s200/umbrella.PNG" width="198" /></a><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mmndlVFsQZc/XgaHQa0byyI/AAAAAAAAC5k/LDYfjYCrLRIS64WJrpZFtnnSvsb2dd1NACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/amy.PNG" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" data-original-height="435" data-original-width="470" height="185" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mmndlVFsQZc/XgaHQa0byyI/AAAAAAAAC5k/LDYfjYCrLRIS64WJrpZFtnnSvsb2dd1NACLcBGAsYHQ/s200/amy.PNG" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
It was a lot of fun rediscovering my markers. They don't always feel as "classy" as my watercolours do, but I love their vibrancy and I had to admit, I was probably better at using them than I was paint. I tried harder to bounce back and forth between the two, as I learned to get different effects with the different media.<br />
<br />
Since I was job hunting, I didn't have a lot of extra cash lying around for new supplies or classes, so I focused on using what I had and studying free, online lessons. (I have so many opinions on "Art YouTube" now and what videos/content creators might be useful for a beginner like me. Let me know if you need recommendations!) Watching them prompted me to do some basic "good practice" exercises I'd neglected over the years, like swatching all my paints and markers, filling the whole page in a sketchbook and practicing body parts from different angles. As someone who uses alcohol based markers, I also quickly ran into the cult of Copic users and learned there were markers with velvety brush nibs, that let you blend and color in a way that resembles painting. I was intrigued, but too poor to consider such treasures.<br />
<br />
My other great resource was the aforementioned best friend and better artist, Leah Conrad. A young, busy mum, Leah was excited to see me get back into art and wanted to draw together immediately. Whether she was working on commissions or something just for fun and practice, her company was always a huge blessing. She knew things. I could hold something up to her and say, "something is wrong but what?????" and she could spout off quick, helpful advice like, "the foreground and background are too similar" or "that arm should be longer" and then I could get back to work. Check her out on <a href="https://www.instagram.com/leahconradart/">Instagram</a> and enjoy a peek of some of her awesome work below!<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pQAEfuZJEBY/XgaObFv7eBI/AAAAAAAAC6Q/ozdExegpEtkkZ2c1Cez523CPY3kPVK-lwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Mill%2BHill%2Bby%2BLeah.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="605" data-original-width="855" height="226" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pQAEfuZJEBY/XgaObFv7eBI/AAAAAAAAC6Q/ozdExegpEtkkZ2c1Cez523CPY3kPVK-lwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Mill%2BHill%2Bby%2BLeah.PNG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Shooting Stars Over Mill Hill, by Leah Conrad</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Leah also introduced me to the very addiction I thought I couldn't afford. As I rambled to her about the art videos I had been watching and how badly I wanted to try brush nibbed alcohol markers she casually uttered the words, "I have Copics."<br />
<br />
Copics. The industry standard, Rolls-Royce of alcohol markers. She had a small, carefully curated set that she rarely used, and was willing to lend them to me.<br />
<br />
Prismacolour markers are very good markers and besides which, there are far more important things than art supply quality when it comes to creating art. Still, supplies do help. Once I got used to the feel of them, I couldn't deny that they worked better than what I was used to. They blended smoother and layered gorgeously. My art took a jump up in overall quality and going back to my old markers was slightly depressing.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-u8XOwocJgJw/XgaR1NpKv-I/AAAAAAAAC6s/CqOgjvScxCAK8oSECUqT-SGkHCagQ2gEACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/steve%2Band%2Bpurple.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="479" data-original-width="944" height="162" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-u8XOwocJgJw/XgaR1NpKv-I/AAAAAAAAC6s/CqOgjvScxCAK8oSECUqT-SGkHCagQ2gEACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/steve%2Band%2Bpurple.PNG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">First Copic illustrations, from July 2019</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I decided to use some coupons to buy just a small set of Copic markers of my own. I expected to spend a very long time building my Copic collection up to the same numbers as my Prismacolour markers, until salvation arrived in the form of Facebook Marketplace. Someone was selling their collection of lightly used Copics for roughly 80% off the regular retail price.<br />
<br />
After that? I kept drawing. I took books out of the library. I practiced the exercises they suggested. I joined an art group that trades art around the world and sent in baseball card sized illustrations to new friends. As I continued to post my work online, I made more friends and saw more art that inspired me, and they were kind enough to encourage me in my art journey.<br />
<br />
By the beginning of September, two magical things happened. First, I filled a 75 page sketch book that I'd started only six months earlier, which was far more than I'd drawn in years. Second, I had a job! The summer had been very stressful, due to the ongoing job hunt, so getting some stability was a tremendous blessing. I honestly don't know if I could have made it through the summer without art. It kept me sane and feeling like I was accomplishing something when there weren't obvious milestones to point to in my work and writing.<br />
<br />
With that in mind, I decided I wanted to do something big and challenging in my <span style="color: magenta;">*~*art journey*~*</span> as a way of saying thank you to the thing that kept me going through the year. With that in mind, I geared up for my first ever Inktober.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Inktober 2019</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
Every year, artists around the world challenge themselves during the month of October with the task of producing more art and learning new skills. The basic form of the challenge is this:<br />
<br />
1) To produce a new work of art each day of the month<br />
2) Drawn in ink<br />
3) Based on an official prompt list released each year.<br />
<br />
There are people who fudge the rules, which is fine. Maybe they don't have time to draw every day or work digitally. Plus, there are roughly 50 billion prompt lists that pop up each year for those who don't want to use the official one. But for my first year, I played it pretty traditional. Conveniently, I wanted to practice dip pen inking, plus I'd never forced myself to generate that many drawings in a single month before. The prompt list seemed like a good source of ideas when burn-out inevitably set in, so I also committed to that.<br />
<br />
Challenges were no stranger to me. Writers use the following month, November, as NaNoWriMo - or National Novel Writing Month. I had never successfully done NaNo, however, so I was a bit nervous going into Inktober. Still, I felt as ready as I ever could be.<br />
<br />
I'm still processing everything I learned during the month. In an effort to try to organize some of my thoughts, here's a list.<br />
<br />
1) It's absolutely possible! Despite some occasionally rocky days and nights that went until 3 am, I finished the challenge. My new sketchbook has one drawing for every day of October and for that alone, I am immensely proud and grateful.<br />
<br />
2) It's absolutely possible to burn yourself out doing it! To minimize the pressure, I chose all my materials ahead of time and used the same supplies and process EVERY SINGLE DAY. I wanted to get rid of as many on-the-fly decisions as possible, so I could focus on the challenge and moving on with my life. Still, I was losing my mind a little towards the end. Consider, for instance, this image from Day 30, prompt word "Catch." It was drawn upside down and on the wrong side of the page in my sketchbook, but I did not realize it until after it was done. I also had giant, scribbly blobs by it that I hastily covered up with a digital speech bubble for my Instagram post.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zc_mgkyxJAQ/XgaYyCysylI/AAAAAAAAC7I/vS8Z16g4ZbQo8yV4_FqSymeudCHGcWpQgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/catch.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="458" data-original-width="461" height="198" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zc_mgkyxJAQ/XgaYyCysylI/AAAAAAAAC7I/vS8Z16g4ZbQo8yV4_FqSymeudCHGcWpQgCLcBGAsYHQ/s200/catch.PNG" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">What a catch.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
3) It's unlikely you will get thirty-one brilliant works of art from the challenge. But you'll get something. Some days, I didn't have time or energy to throw myself at a piece for a long time. Almost everything I drew that month felt a little rushed. I couldn't return to something the next day and refine it, because it was too important that I move on to the next picture. Allowing myself to be happy with something quick and easy was an important survival strategy.<br />
<br />
4) I generally conceptualized a piece, drew, inked and coloured all in one day. This lack of forethought meant I learned a few things about my default style. Going in, I knew I drew a lot of people and faces, but what surprised me was how often I turned to animals. These were frequently my favourite pieces and the ones I was most likely to use reference photos for.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-loGGbCEL_8g/XgabFnJAiHI/AAAAAAAAC7k/DG14htm60pkIxObmr0epD_yE9LFL8yEbwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Dizzy%2Band%2BAncient.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="462" data-original-width="952" height="155" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-loGGbCEL_8g/XgabFnJAiHI/AAAAAAAAC7k/DG14htm60pkIxObmr0epD_yE9LFL8yEbwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Dizzy%2Band%2BAncient.PNG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Days 24 and 23</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
5) Even though I wanted to improve my inking and line art, I found my colouring with Copics probably saw the most progress. Ah well.<br />
<br />
6) While most of the challenge passed in a flurry, there were still days when life came together and I actually made something better and stronger than my usual work. You throw enough darts, eventually one will hit the bull's eye. This stretch of drawings really sang for me.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HEABiCapqL4/Xgac-AsoSLI/AAAAAAAAC7w/8FU_8C-fyf8shWLxy9Z7pZWaXH4pyDFzACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Days%2B11-13.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="474" data-original-width="1450" height="208" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HEABiCapqL4/Xgac-AsoSLI/AAAAAAAAC7w/8FU_8C-fyf8shWLxy9Z7pZWaXH4pyDFzACLcBGAsYHQ/s640/Days%2B11-13.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Days 11 through 13</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
7) By the end, when I was finishing the challenge just so I could say that I did it, it felt like... work. And that's okay. If I was left to FOLLOW MY BLISS everywhere in life, I would never finish anything. And with that in mind, by the time I was done Inktober, I was ready to be done something else too.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Putting it Together</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
By the end of October, I had a very full sketchbook and no desire to draw anything for a couple of weeks while I recuperated. So what did I do instead? I finished revising my book.<br />
<br />
I had been chipping away at that revision all year long, but going into November, I felt an extra degree of <i>oomph </i>pushing me. My creative well was full of fan art, Copic markers, drawing sessions with Leah, reference photos, dip pens and watercolours. Within a few weeks I was done, had notes back from Beta readers and could query my book for the first time in over a year... right on time for the holiday slowdown.<br />
<br />
But that's okay. I might not have word back about my book, but it exists in a more refined version now, as do pages of art that helped me through it. In my own life, I do believe art can be work, and that we do it both for ourselves and for other people. Going into the new year, I don't know what project will be my main focus. I've been working on revising one book for a long time and now, it's time to find it a home with an agent or publisher. Failing that, it's probably time to write something new. I'm not certain what that will be yet. I might need to do some sketching to figure it out.<br />
<br />
What I really learned this year was the importance of a hobby. Art might not be the thing that intervenes on your behalf, but it certainly helped me. At the Storymakers Conference this year, I heard a wonderful quote in a talk given by Josi Kilpack.<br />
<br />
<i>That which takes me away from writing gives me something to write about.</i><br />
<br />
At the time, I thought of the things that take me away from writing against my will, like day jobs and family commitments, but now I want to advocate for the things we willingly let take us away from our artistic passions. You cannot draw water from an empty well, so find a way to fill it. Let yourself have something you "do for yourself" that doesn't feel at all like work.<br />
<br />
As I reach a crossroads in my writing, I'm at a similar one in my art. I don't know what my next big goal will be now that Inktober is over. For Christmas, I asked for some new art supplies and am lucky enough that many of them showed up in my stocking and under the tree come Christmas morning. There's definitely some playing around and inspiration to be found there.<br />
<br />
Still, I think the most profound gift I received was one that came from another young artist. My eight-year-old nephew spent weeks leading up to Christmas telling me how excited he was to give me the gift he picked out for me. When I opened it, I found a black, hardbound sketchbook, just like the one I used for Inktober, with one critical difference. The first page had an inscription from him.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-O_kLq5BaJNA/XgajBbs3QmI/AAAAAAAAC8c/KmH2Hp4M9PE-PEmAb5WmveCL4EOhsnKzQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/IMG_20191227_163217.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-O_kLq5BaJNA/XgajBbs3QmI/AAAAAAAAC8c/KmH2Hp4M9PE-PEmAb5WmveCL4EOhsnKzQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/IMG_20191227_163217.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Don't Let the muggles get you down - Ron Weasley</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Isn't that what art is really all about? You can't let the muggles get you down. You fight back with colour and line and composition and the love it takes to create something. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Looking back, I won't pretend 2019 wasn't a hard year. I knew it would be, and it was. But something good came out of it. I haven't figured out what all my illustrious goals will be for 2020, but with the right friends, attitude and hobbies, I think I'll get through it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Happy New Year, friends! May yours be filled with beautiful art.</div>
Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-7403568556930560622019-12-12T17:42:00.000-08:002019-12-12T17:42:01.544-08:00Flaming Hot Garbage: 10 Trash Movies I LoveOne of my favorite date activities has always been going to the movies. I've heard some people decry movie nights as a poor way to get to know a potential romantic partner, due to the sitting in a theater and not talking aspect. To those who say this, I counter: you clearly have never gone to a movie with <i>me</i>.<br />
<br />
Several years ago, I went to see <i>Oz the Great and Powerful</i> with my then-boyfriend and another mutual friend, Justin. My boyfriend knew what he was getting himself into. Justin did not. After the movie was over, someone casually asked the question "what did you think?" and boy, did they find out.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G5XJWRALxDk/XZMGWoCiNqI/AAAAAAAACxo/b-LjRNkxZWsW9uzl6bK1jmqWsZ-JkXVMgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/oz_the_great_and_powerful-wide.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="1600" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G5XJWRALxDk/XZMGWoCiNqI/AAAAAAAACxo/b-LjRNkxZWsW9uzl6bK1jmqWsZ-JkXVMgCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/oz_the_great_and_powerful-wide.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
For the sake of the story, I will refresh your memory that <i>Oz the Great and Powerful</i> is a garbage movie that doesn't deserve to exist and that's why you've forgotten about it. It's such an insignificant fart of a film, you couldn't afford the brain space for it, so you don't remember it.<br />
<br />
I went into exhausting detail about all the plot, characterization and design elements that fell flat. All the reasons it sucked. As Justin later put it, by the time I was wrapping up, I'd convinced him it was probably the worst movie he'd ever seen. Then I ended with, "but overall, there were at least some visually appealing scenes and it was fun to go out, so I'm glad I saw it. I liked it."<br />
<br />
My boyfriend burst out laughing. This was clearly not the first time I'd subjected him to this. Justin, on the other hand, gave up ever understanding my opinions.<br />
<br />
Looking back, I think I was being a bit generous with that last comment. I knew I hated the film, but I <i>had</i> enjoyed myself, if for no other reason than what I stated earlier. I like going to movies. But also, there was a certain tension I felt in the movie theater that I think is more common than we acknowledge. Even though the film wasn't very good, I wanted to enjoy it, because it's frankly more fun to like something than to hate it.<br />
<br />
With <i>Oz the Great and Powerful</i>, I never could fool myself. But that hasn't always been the case. There are some genuinely awful movies out there that I have enjoyed. And far more common, there are movies that lots of people don't like that I will get up on a podium and give impassioned speeches about how WRONG they are. What do you mean <i>Ishtar </i>is one of the worst movies of all time and almost killed the careers of Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty? Have you heard them sing "Wardrobe of Love?" It's brilliant!<br />
<br />
So today, I'm celebrating movies I love that were panned by critics. Because who doesn't love a car wreck they just can't turn away from?<br />
<br />
<b><u>Methodology</u></b><br />
<br />
First off, when talking about movies with other people, it always amazes me how often they beat up on film critics. For a lot of people, I think the opinions of critics seem arbitrary and no better an indicator of quality than the opinion of your next door neighbor. I bring this up because this is not my feeling at all. Generally speaking, I agree with critics about a lot of things and I absolutely do check reviews when selecting movies to see.<br />
<br />
True, there are some caveats you have to keep in mind when reading reviews. They often go easier on kids movies than I would, since they aren't the intended audience and don't want to look like jerks for hating something their children love. They also as a group tend to LOVE movies that venerate Old Hollywood, on a level most average folk don't care about. For years, most film critics have been predominantly male, and so it's little surprise they tended to be hard on romantic comedies and other films that make women their primary audience. But even with these little notes I keep stacked in my brain, I find that critical acclaim is still a thing I trust and often finds aligns with my own feelings about a film.<br />
<br />
This makes the cases where I don't agree with them all the more interesting. For example, <i>Oz the Great and Powerful</i> didn't do that badly. It got a modest 58% on Rotten Tomatoes. Not enough to have a Fresh rating, but barely below. Looking at that rating now seems ludicrous to me. Were we all sitting in the theater, trying to convince ourselves we liked a thing more than we did because it had a few pretty visuals? Or did it fall under my kid's movie corollary, where about 10% points are added simply because it's "for children?" I sure hope not, because man, that movie was way too violent for it to deserve to benefit from that rule.<br />
<br />
But seriously. We're not here to talk about that movie. We're here to talk about better movies. Better movies that - not coincidentally - got lower ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. I use that site because, as an aggregate number, I think it provides a decent pulse on what a society "at large" thought of a film. <br />
<br />
Broadly speaking, I think the movies below fall into three distinct categories, and I'll try to sort each one accordingly.<br />
<br />
<b>1) Panned by critics, loved by viewers/vindicated by history</b>: These are the movies where it's pretty easy to argue that the critics were missing something. Maybe they were taking a film too seriously that really should have been judged for its spectacle, not its narrative depth. A perfect example of this would be a film like <i>The Greatest Showman,</i> which got a 56% rating from critics and an 86% from audiences.<br />
<br />
<b>2) Panned by critics, but with redeeming qualities</b>: These movies have some genuine flaws, but also something that makes them interesting. Often, this overlaps with the other two categories, as it straddles the middle ground between them. For example, <i>Dr. Seuss's How the Grinch Stole Christmas</i> is kinda weird and awful in parts, but wow, does Jim Carey commit and it's super quotable.<br />
<br />
<b>3) Trash/my brand of garbage:</b> This movie is trash, but I love it. This will vary personally. For me, all the <i>Pirates of the Caribbean</i> movies fall here. (Except the first, which is genuinely great). I'm just always down for people in pirate costumes. Sue me.<br />
<br />
But none of those made the list! Instead, I give you ten movies I would go to bat for. I've arranged them by descending Tomatometer score and conveniently, most of my favorites are at the very VERY bottom. Including the best of the bunch. So stick around, kids. The takes just get hotter and hotter.<br />
<br />
AND NOW TO THE ACTUAL LIST!!!<br />
<br />
<b>10)</b> <i>A Knight's Tale</i><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3c8Pt9LRPYI/XZMGJ5t32II/AAAAAAAACxk/fUPMO6fmrTItm2r6NrTKFvlDm7Ye0rjkQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/KnightsTale06.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="382" data-original-width="740" height="165" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3c8Pt9LRPYI/XZMGJ5t32II/AAAAAAAACxk/fUPMO6fmrTItm2r6NrTKFvlDm7Ye0rjkQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/KnightsTale06.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">To Trudge</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<b>Tomatometer rating:</b> 58%<br />
<b>Emily rating:</b> Naked Chaucer<br />
<br />
<b>What it's about:</b> Will Thatcher is a squire to an ailing knight, who dreams of changing his stars. When his master dies, Will fills in for him in a jousting tournament and from that, a new dream is born. Helped by plucky friends, and a down-on-his-luck writer, Will concocts a story that may just propel him to the new life he's always dreamed of.<br />
<br />
<b>Why did critics hate it? </b>This loose retelling of the <i>Canterbury Tales</i> is, in a word... loose. Not only is the story more like a sports movie than anything truly medieval, but the soundtrack and costuming is ridiculously MTV inspired. That this is the first movie most people think of when picturing Geoffrey Chaucer no doubt gives some English majors heart palpitations. Also, let's be honest, the girl who plays Jocelyn can't act.<br />
<br />
<b>Verdict: Vindicated by History</b><br />
<br />
If aggregate scoring is to be believed, this movie is of roughly the same quality as <i>Oz The Great and Powerful</i>. That thought alone boggles the mind. If the films on this list were arranged purely by enjoyment, this one would be near the top. It's one of my favorites and for years, it was a go-to when my mother and I couldn't decide on something to watch. As it stands, I think it's fair sitting it at the top of the list, because "A Knight's Tale is actually a pretty good movie!" isn't a very hot take.<br />
<br />
This one is popular for lists of "best movies with low Rotten Tomato scores" because it's fantastic. For the first few minutes, the rock and roll music inter-cut with olden-timey dialogue might feel strange, but once your brain catches up, the mix really works. It's big, silly and odd, and unapologetic about those things. Plus, with the exception of Jocelyn, the cast is great. Alan Tudyk plays your new favorite angry ginger and Heath Ledger is at his most adorable as Will.<br />
<br />
But the star of the show is Paul Bettany as Geoffrey Chaucer. Chaucer is kind of a perfect historical figure to do a movie like this around. He's not a sacred cow, like Shakespeare is, so he can be a rambunctious gambler who gets into trouble, yet still is flowery and brilliant when he needs to be, and no one is going to cry foul over his portrayal. He makes Ye Olde English literature look way cool, man! So show this to your teens and get them hip to the <i>Cantebury Tales</i>.<br />
<br />
<b>9)</b> <i>The Swan Princess</i><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BDRQBl0GHDY/XZMHc39eTMI/AAAAAAAACx8/YjmfDaCK2wAuz2uui3UwBeW3HMSxmPwwwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/swan%2Bprincess.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="570" height="179" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BDRQBl0GHDY/XZMHc39eTMI/AAAAAAAACx8/YjmfDaCK2wAuz2uui3UwBeW3HMSxmPwwwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/swan%2Bprincess.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This is my idea of fun!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<b>Tomatometer rating</b>: 55%<br />
<b>Emily rating</b>: Celestial Glory<br />
<br />
<b>What it's about: </b>Prince Derek and Princess Odette are raised in neighboring kingdoms, by parents who would love to see the pair marry and join their lands together. But just as they start to develop feelings for each other, Odette is kidnapped by a sorcerer who transforms her into a swan and will only release her from the curse if she marries him. How will she get home and what is Derek to do without her?<br />
<br />
<b>Why did the critics hate it? </b>Produced by Nest Entertainment, The Swan Princess is clearly on a smaller budget than the Disney princess movies it so desperately wants to be. There are times the animation is awkward and while it's cute, the film hardly offers anything to adult audiences.<br />
<br />
<b>Verdict: Appropriately rated/my trash</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<i>The Swan Princess</i> isn't what I would call a bad movie, but it is one that I love more than it likely deserves. Certain parts really work. Despite featuring three animal side-kicks, none of them annoy me! And John Cleese as Jean-Bob the frog is downright charming. The music is mostly strong too. It's also the part of the movie that leaks the most Mormon-ness over the project. For the uninformed, Nest Entertainment was a company that got it's start doing Bible and Book of Mormon animated shorts for families of The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The composer for the film was Lex de Azevedo, who was something of a big star for members of the church back in the Nineties. He really busts out the show tunes here, and the love ballad, "For Longer than Forever", is the most Mormon Princess song you will ever hear anywhere. My favorite song will always be "This is Not my Idea of Fun," which is unarguably the best sequence in the film. Little Derek and Odette punching each other while their parents plan their wedding is a mood.<br />
<br />
ON THE OTHER HAND... the critics weren't wrong about the occasionally floopy animation. The proportions of everyone's bodies feels off, with most of the human characters sporting very long legs. But the movie's biggest problem (also my favorite thing) is Derek, who is a frickin' idiot. Sometimes the movie acknowledges this, but all too often, it doesn't. Like, guys. Go back and watch this. He nearly shoots Swan Odette multiple times. He's so bad at the hero thing, Bromley of all people needs to save his butt at the end.<br />
<br />
I thoroughly enjoy how clueless Derek is, and get great pleasure out of quoting his more melodramatic lines. (The vow was for herrrrrrr!!!!!!) But quotability is not the same as quality, especially when the movie is going for the opposite emotion during the scene. And in the end, I always leave the movie feeling like Odette could do better. Like honestly, girl. You weren't wrong to get in that carriage at the beginning and leave.<br />
<br />
<b>8) </b><i>Robin Hood</i><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5iaWYKPWHAs/XfCgMOsTbKI/AAAAAAAAC0E/-H-1iUf5YfwYJh9Hv80iI6elCj-zNiCzwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/disney_robin_hood.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="1140" height="179" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5iaWYKPWHAs/XfCgMOsTbKI/AAAAAAAAC0E/-H-1iUf5YfwYJh9Hv80iI6elCj-zNiCzwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/disney_robin_hood.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The face that launched a thousand furries.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Tomatometer: </b>54%<br />
<b>Emily Rating:</b> Oo-de-lally<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>What it's about: </b>Robin Hood and Little John running through the forest, jumping fences, dodging trees and trying to get away. Contemplating nothing but escaping, finally making it. Oo-de-lally, Oo-de-lally, golly, what a day.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Why did critics hate it?</b> Produced during a downturn in the prospects of the Walt Disney Company, the film relies on an embarrassing amount of recycled animation and fails to reach the same dizzying heights of artistry and spectacle previous Disney films did. A symptom of trying to carry on Walt's legacy without anyone who possessed his vision.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Verdict: Vindicated by History</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Not long ago, I polled my Facebook friends for their favorite, pre-1980s Disney animated movie. (that distinction might seem arbitrary, but there were some very important internal company shake-ups that happened to Disney in the Eighties that distinctly impacted the "eras" of Disney animation). For the most part, people were all over the map, picking favorites, but among the most interesting to me was the high popularity of <i>Robin Hood</i>. It did as well as any film for picks as a favorite, and even more people named it as their runner-up. This movie is very well loved now, so what changed?<br />
<br />
Standing now from the perspective of modern Disney viewers, I think a lot of the reasons it got picked to pieces and flopped at the box office on release are exactly why it's so loved now. It is a small film. The animation is locked in the xerography days of animation, which led to the overall scratchy, cheap look. And it's no secret that several scenes use recycled animation sequences from previous films. But beyond the visual smallness, the story is small and simple too. You don't get the grand displays of emotion or villainy of previous Disney films, and certainly not the outright bombast of some more recent films. What looked like a step down in quality then now looks like a refreshing view of the past.<br />
<br />
Remember when Disney films were about simple things? Like, a fox and hound are friends! This deer is growing up! A lady doggy falls in love with a stray boy doggy! Robin Hood and Little John running through the forest! Oo-de-lally!<br />
<br />
To me, the music of the film best sums up why it worked so well. The folksy, quiet happiness of <i>Robin Hood</i> is infectious. None of the emotions feel forced, because they're allowed to exist on a smaller scale, making it one of the most sincere of the early Disney movies. Decades later, that sincerity allows the film to resonate and continue to find an audience.<br />
<br />
Some of Disney's past films do get shoved to the side and ignored, as if they're embarrassments from an age out of touch with today's sensibilities. But not, it turns out, <i>Robin Hood</i>. Disney still promotes this one, realizing it did grow into a beloved classic, and that's where it deserves to stay.<br />
<br />
<b>7) </b><i>What Dreams May Come</i><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Rop9bCxjL74/XfCiebvpnvI/AAAAAAAAC0k/r798qn-11NwHi0ZLYBUW6aJKsPxrCvISQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/robin%2Bwilliams%2Bdreams.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="546" data-original-width="970" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Rop9bCxjL74/XfCiebvpnvI/AAAAAAAAC0k/r798qn-11NwHi0ZLYBUW6aJKsPxrCvISQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/robin%2Bwilliams%2Bdreams.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I miss Robin Williams</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b><br />Tomatometer: </b>54%<br />
<b>Emily Rating: </b>365,780 gallons of paint<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>What it's about: </b>Chris and Annie have endured hardship already in life, due to the loss of their children in a car crash four years previous. When Chris is also killed in a car crash, their bond is put even further to the test as he must pass on to Heaven while Annie spirals in depression on earth.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Why did critics hate it? </b>While visually stunning, this movie bites off more than it can chew, says some potentially troubling things about life, death and atonement, and isn't as deep as it thinks it is.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Verdict: Flawed, but very, very interesting</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
I first saw this film in Art class in high school and that right there will tell you something about who it is for. This movie won't be everyone's cup of tea, but it is visually stunning, and I think it does a fabulous job of illustrating thoughts and emotions through art. Movies about the Afterlife are inherently tricky, since they often come into conflict with our own deeply held beliefs about death, which are understandably complicated.<br />
<br />
It's also true that this movie doesn't have a lot that's terribly profound to <i>say </i>about death. It feels more like someone going, "hey, wouldn't be cool if heaven was like THIS???" rather than someone giving a thorough philosophical discussion on the nature of God and judgement and goodness and what we hope for in the world to come. <br />
<br />
But I really can't overstate how gorgeous this movie is. In many ways, this is my version of <i>The Greatest Showman</i>. It's certainly not a big, peppy musical, but the joy of this film comes simply from looking at it and from Robin Williams turning in a tender, dramatic performance. Like <i>Greatest Showman</i>, it's easy to overthink.<br />
<br />
Annie is an artist, and so when Chris arrives in Heaven, he discovers that all of the flowers and breathtaking vistas he sees around him are made of paint, a reflection of his love of her. When the plot later takes characters through literal Hell, this same artistic sensibility is there.<br />
<br />
Do I think this movie is right about the afterlife? No. Do I agree with everything it says, especially about Annie's depression? Also no. But I still found this film incredibly moving, because it does say something about life as we know it here on earth; that we can sometimes glimpse Heaven through art and that our own love and imaginations build the world around us.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>6) </b><i>A Walk in the Clouds</i><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-s9d2x2H6st0/XfCmQ6-cPSI/AAAAAAAAC1A/VCt0qSS-f7YgM94A04ZDqlBLf5ZRXVzNACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/keanu.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="1200" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-s9d2x2H6st0/XfCmQ6-cPSI/AAAAAAAAC1A/VCt0qSS-f7YgM94A04ZDqlBLf5ZRXVzNACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/keanu.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The heart flutters.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>Tomatometer: </b>44%<br />
<b>Emily Rating: </b>KEANU REEVES!!!!<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>What it's about: </b>Paul Sutton (Keanu Reeves!!!!) is a recently returned World War II vet, looking for work and trying to escape the horrors of his recent past. On the bus to Sacramento, he befriends Victoria Aragon, a Mexican-American graduate student who is terrified to return home to her family, as she is pregnant from a brief affair with one of her professors. Empathizing with her pain, Paul offers to go with her, introduce himself as her husband, and then "abandon her" so that her family only has to console her over a bad marriage, rather than deal with the shame of an affair. But when they arrive, complications ensue...<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Why did critics hate it? </b>Too sappy, too melodramatic, and who on earth thought casting Keanu Reeves was a good idea?<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Verdict: Criminally Underrated</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
During my teens, I was slightly obsessed with Keanu Reeves. My friends thought I was nuts. Back in the 90s and early 2000s, he was still a laughing stock and often lampooned as a terrible actor. Still, I loved him, and this movie was a big part of why. As it turns out, I had the last laugh because now the whole world is obsessed with him and I get to shout "I TOLD YOU SO!" at the universe with great frequency.<br />
<br />
This movie is sappy, but if you ask me, it is EXACTLY sappy enough. It's got a lot of the design and costume overindulgence we all love about period pieces, plus it focuses on a cast of characters who don't get featured very often in movies about post-war America. Victoria's family make up the bulk of the cast and along with all the romance, there are some thoughtful conversations about power and privilege in American society that take place. Little touches like this helped give the movie the depth that makes it more than just an overblown romantic fantasy.<br />
<br />
But speaking of that fantasy for a moment, one thing reviewers were always wrong about was this idea that Keanu was a bad cast. Paul is a simple, kind-hearted, good man and as the world realizes now, Keanu just exudes simple goodness.<br />
<br />
As a romance - and not even a romantic comedy - I think this movie may have suffered from the Old Boys Club of Hollywood a bit when reviews came in. My instinct tells me that this movie's primary audience is probably women, not that I'm saying men can't love this film too! Roger Ebert adored it. In fact, as good romance films have become more scarce in recent years, the few genuinely good rom-coms and romances garner better reviews than their counterparts of earlier years, even with predominantly male reviewers. Maybe we didn't realize how good we had it in the 90s. Not when it came to romance, and not when it came to Keanu Reeves.<br />
<br />
Of all the movies on this list, this is probably the one that is a) the least well known while, b) deserving a comeback for modern audiences. If you can, go see it! Or better yet, come over to my house and we'll watch it together and swoon.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>5) </b><i>Miss Congeniality</i><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y2CMV79FmqI/XfCrf9dHOSI/AAAAAAAAC1c/4GJYhm6Y_e0p5xy1EdIcl7j88WmfCSWoACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/miss%2Bcon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="268" data-original-width="477" height="179" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y2CMV79FmqI/XfCrf9dHOSI/AAAAAAAAC1c/4GJYhm6Y_e0p5xy1EdIcl7j88WmfCSWoACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/miss%2Bcon.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">That would be harsher punishments for parole violators, Stan.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Tomatometer: </b>42%<br />
<b>Emily Rating: </b>I really do want world peace<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>What it's about: </b>Grace Hart is a tough as nails FBI agent. But when a terrorist plot targets the Miss United States pageant, she's also the one woman on the force with a swimsuit body. Can she go undercover and save a group of women she's never taken seriously?<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Why did critics hate it?</b> A bad script and by-the-numbers plot drag down the film, despite Sandra Bullock's charm.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Verdict: Flawed, but pretty great</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
I'm not 100% sure what critics meant by "bad script" in this case. Unoriginal? Okay. Mean-spirited? At times, yes. But I can't shake the feeling the script isn't as bad as they think it is, because Sandra isn't just funny, she's flippin' hilarious. She nails the physical comedy, the line delivery, the facial expressions. Absolutely everything. Maybe the script wasn't much, but it gave her enough to work with.<br />
<br />
Besides, she isn't the only funny person in this movie. Michael Cain is phenomenal, as are William Shatner, Candice Bergen and all the pageant girls. Perhaps the one place I see the script truly failing is with Benjamin Bratt's character, who is supposed to be a likable love interest, but still comes off as a misogynistic pig. I don't blame Bratt though. I find his performance enjoyable, and it's more when I replay his lines in my head and picture them being said by anyone with less handsome swagger that I really notice the <i>ick </i>factor.<br />
<br />
Still, overall, the cast is great and I don't care that the plot is unoriginal. To me, this movie is funny enough and quotable enough it's flaws don't really matter. And while it's core, emotional message isn't the strongest, it does still nail some key points about women learning to value other women who don't resemble them. And that's pretty cool.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>4) </b><i>Robin Hood: Men in Tights</i><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PZ-qVASE7rI/XfCvKFwYN9I/AAAAAAAAC14/ZqwzqZYA76QI6I1IrmglTfayIj7yOKEkACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/robin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PZ-qVASE7rI/XfCvKFwYN9I/AAAAAAAAC14/ZqwzqZYA76QI6I1IrmglTfayIj7yOKEkACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/robin.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">My, there are a lot of Robins on this list.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Tomatometer: </b>40%<br />
<b>Emily Rating: </b>The night is young, and you're so beautiful.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>What it's about: </b>After the success of <i>Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves</i>, Mel Brooks decided to lend his signature brand of satire to everyone's favorite Merry Men.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Why did critics hate it?</b> Mel Brooks traded much of his sharp-witted satire for outright, pointless silliness. Also: too many gross jokes and bad puns.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Verdict: Cult Classic</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
This movie is based on another movie. How weird is that? Actually, a lot of scenes are direct parodies of segments of <i>Prince of Thieves</i>, a movie I have never seen and likely never will. Going over pop culture history, I've learned that the original was absurdly popular upon its initial release, but since then, the parody has completely outstripped it in recognition among younger audiences. Did Mel Brooks inadvertently destroy <i>Prince of Thieves</i> with this film? Because that would be amazing, considering critics didn't find the film satirical enough.<br />
<br />
There's not doubt that <i>Men in Tights</i> is silly. And yes, I will concede that some of the jokes are kind of painful. But the overall product still works. All the performances are great. This is the best use of Carey Elwes post-<i>Princess Bride</i>. Everyone from Marion to Prince John to the Sheriff of Rottingham to Broomhilda to Little John to Ahchoo to Blinkin to Latrine gets great scenes with great lines. Everyone looks like they're having fun being in this movie.<br />
<br />
If you haven't noticed by now, I have a soft spot for comedies, and this one has always made me laugh. I touched on it recently in my post on <a href="https://emilypaxman.blogspot.com/2019/04/tropes-vs-tropes-big-freaking-kiss-song.html">Greatest Pre-Dramatic Kiss Love Songs</a> as well, so if you need a more thorough discussion of why particular scenes in this movie are so good, look no further.<br />
<br />
As a cult classic, this isn't a film that needs me to defend it. A couple years ago, I showed it to a friend, and while he was young enough I had to explain a few VERY 90s jokes to him (clap on lights, Nike pumps, the whole idea there was a film called <i>Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves</i> that had been popular), he still loved it. If you somehow haven't seen it, give it a try. It's very silly.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>3) </b><i>Ernest Saves Christmas</i><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JBa3bTbW5wg/XfC1VU9ZY-I/AAAAAAAAC2U/AUFPyUZMTm0ox7uRcGoHzELO6UP2TTyhACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Ernest-Saves-Christmas.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1075" data-original-width="1600" height="215" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JBa3bTbW5wg/XfC1VU9ZY-I/AAAAAAAAC2U/AUFPyUZMTm0ox7uRcGoHzELO6UP2TTyhACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Ernest-Saves-Christmas.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Never has Santa looked so much like a mall Santa<br />
And honestly, that says it all.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>Tomatometer: </b>36%<br />
<b>Emily Rating: </b>Merry Christmas, knowhatImean?<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>What it's about:</b> Everyone's favorite idiot, Ernest P. Worrell, must help Santa Claus in his quest to find a new Santa to replace him and carry on the Christmas magic. Hijinx ensue.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Why did critics hate it? </b>Oh no... not this idiot again. The <i>Ernest </i>movies were boldly, purposefully dumb and this movie is no exception.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Verdict: My precious, precious, lovely garbage</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Nostalgia is a great liar. Every Christmas, I watch this movie with my family. Every year, we laugh our heads off. We were blissfully unaware of how bad this movie was until my siblings got married and their spouses informed us this movie was basically our hazing ritual. Survive this, and you get to be a Paxman.<br />
<br />
<i>Ernest Saves Christmas</i> is a mess of bad acting, cheap costumes and Jim Varney mugging for the camera so aggressively, it's a miracle his face doesn't fall off. The plot frequently breaks for meandering skits and the Florida setting makes the whole film feel barely Christmassy.<br />
<br />
And this movie is so darn quotable, none of that matters.<br />
<br />
Maybe the awkward line delivery helps. Unimpressive bits like "sounds like a database problem" become recognizable because who says that??? Besides which, there's some genuine sweetness beneath all the utter insanity on display here.<br />
<br />
If you ever have the chance to see this movie, try the first ten minutes and if you find yourself laughing, leave it on. You'll know by then it it's your cup of tea. Otherwise, it's fair to give a pass.<br />
<br />
Unless you want to marry a Paxman in which case, congratulations. You're watching this monster every year for the rest of your life.<br />
<br />
<b>2) </b><i>Hook</i><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HmlcR-37rrA/XfIVwLtEDUI/AAAAAAAAC24/gmCIA9K71Tg6IcWgAlmAuCsfG3GRAX9AQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/hook%2Brufio.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="399" data-original-width="533" height="239" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HmlcR-37rrA/XfIVwLtEDUI/AAAAAAAAC24/gmCIA9K71Tg6IcWgAlmAuCsfG3GRAX9AQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/hook%2Brufio.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I miss Robin Williams</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b><br />Tomatometer: </b>26%<br />
<b>Emily Rating: </b>Childhood nostalgia in a can<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>What it's about: </b>After leaving Neverland, Peter Pan grows up to become Peter Banning, a boring, workaholic, middle-aged man who is out of touch with his children. But when Captain Hook kidnaps his children in a bid to draw Peter back into their feud, he must rediscover the child and hero inside himself to save his family.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Why did critics hate it? </b>Lavish production design does not make up for a strange, uneven and uninspired take on the Peter Pan myth. Perhaps most damning, Steven Spielberg hates this movie and thought he failed it as a director.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Verdict: Vindicated by History, despite some flaws</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Of all the films on this list, <i>Hook </i>has probably benefited the most from collective nostalgia. If you are a Millennial of a certain age (as am I) you love <i>Hook</i>, and there is no shortage of people across the internet jumping up to defend it. Something about it really spoke to its target audience, and I defy you to find someone who watched it as a child and didn't at some point chant Rufio's name along with the Lost Boys.<br />
<br />
Ironically, a common thought at the time was that this movie, which was slow moving and took quite a while to get to the final battle (or any battle, for that matter), would probably appeal more to parents than children. It was too syrupy and sentimental, and weighed down by a massive cast of sub-par child actors. That sort of thing seemed more like what parents wanted their kids to enjoy, not what kids actually liked.<br />
<br />
Looking back, they aren't entirely wrong. The child actors aren't the best (save Rufio, whom I will hear nothing against) but even as a kid, I can't remember caring about that. I was far more fixated on Peter Pan and Hook themselves. In the early 90s, Robin Williams starred in a parade of kids movies that made him THE super star of my generation. Both he and Dustin Hoffman turn in fantastic, albeit non-conventional performances. These aren't the same characters from the children's book, but with such a well-known story, there was a certain fun to that.<br />
<br />
Another common criticism of the film is that nothing in the Neverland sequences feels real. At first, that might sound like a ridiculous criticism, since we're talking about a magic island filled with pirates, but think, for a moment, of how real Middle Earth and Hogwarts seem in their films. Or, if you want a more direct comparison, check out the 2003 remake of <i>Peter Pan</i>, which creates such a vivid, rich Neverland, <i>Hook </i>pales in comparison. Several reviews compared the <i>Hook </i>sets to seeming more like interactive theme park attractions than anywhere people actually lived. The pirate ship has a baseball diamond and boards that pop up when you step on them! The Lost Boys live in a jungle skate park! TOTALLY RADICAL!!!<br />
<br />
As an adult, I see the design flaws now, but... here's the thing. As a kid, living in Disneyland WAS my ultimate Neverland. Sure, the magic feast the Lost Boys have is mostly just red and blue piles of whipping cream instead of actual, tasty food, but is that such a bad thing when you're seven years old? Maybe <i>Hook </i>lacked something to make it truly "great" but it was far from a train wreck either. Where <i>Hook </i>fails as art, it tends to succeed as fun, and for that reason, most people embrace it now as an underrated gem.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>1) </b><i>Oscar</i><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AgXqa5PLJvE/XfIgDrWnF5I/AAAAAAAAC3U/q9qd0M3FUksRsAXr0vjxeDyk60PqpHNPQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/oscar.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="743" data-original-width="1080" height="220" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AgXqa5PLJvE/XfIgDrWnF5I/AAAAAAAAC3U/q9qd0M3FUksRsAXr0vjxeDyk60PqpHNPQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/oscar.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">What an honest looking bunch of guys.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b><br />Tomatometer: </b>12%<br />
<b>Emily Rating: </b>HOW IS THIS SO LOW??? SERIOUSLY!!!!<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>What it's about: </b>Gangster Angelo "Snaps" Provolone promises his dying father that he'll leave the rum running behind and finally go straight. But on the day he plans to invest in a bank and become an honest man - the first day he can't retaliate against his enemies - his accountant comes to him with a request: he wants to marry Angelo's daughter and he's stolen $50,000.00 of his boss's money to make sure that happens. Farce ensues.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Why did critics hate it? </b>Sly Stallone is awkwardly cast in a farce that doesn't work and is too slow moving.<br />
<br />
<b>Verdict: Near perfect and I will die on this hill</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
With most of the other movies on this list, I at least "get" where reviewers were coming from. But this one just yanks my chain, because I honestly don't know where things went wrong. Unlike most of this list, this was not a film I watched in childhood and not one I have absurd amounts of untested nostalgia for. It's just a fun, goofy farce that I loved from the first time I saw it.<br />
<br />
This movie is arguably my dad's favorite and there are few things he loves more than finding a new friend who hasn't seen it and getting them to watch it for the first time. He's done this dozens of times, which I've often been privy to, and without fail, people laugh. When I do meet people who know this film already, they love it and are absolutely stunned when I tell them how critically panned it was upon release.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the one molecule of truth in what the critics said is that Stallone was a weird cast not because he butchers the film, but because everything he represented in audiences eyes at the time was counter what this movie is about. It's an absurd throwback to old mobster comedies and his image was more tied to gangster movies where people actually get shot up by the end.<br />
<br />
There are also a few scenes that drag on. It often feels like they pause to let the audience laugh at their jokes periodically, which I would consider a bigger offense if not for the fact that most people I've watched this with do, in fact, laugh uproariously during the pauses. In other instances, the pauses themselves feel like part of the joke. There's something wonderful about watching Stallone bang his head on a table while Tim Curry watches on in pity.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure what reviewers expected. Did they want something more adult? Less silly? That seems to be a reoccurring question in these reviews, and I think that's what I take away from this whole exercise. In my mind, silliness is worthwhile. Not everything needs to be sharp or satirical in order to be clever. There's value in a sight gag, whether it's Ernest P. Worrell covered in snakes or Chaucer walking naked down a road. There's joy to be had in worlds built from paint and amusement park equipment. A good non-sequitur about harsher punishments for parole violators or Nike pumps is sometimes what it takes to make a script worth quoting. There is, in my mind, an art to silliness. And if you're looking for a masterclass in silliness, <i>Oscar </i>is the perfect place to start.Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-31292894955636390492019-07-26T15:15:00.000-07:002019-07-26T15:15:35.693-07:00Making Sense of the CATS trailer: A Noble AttemptA week ago, two things brought me great joy.<br />
<br />
First, the trailer for the upcoming film adaptation of the immensely popular Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, <i>CATS</i>, dropped on the internet.<br />
<br />
Second, I got to listen to a grown man scream his head off as he watched this trailer.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gq50F-IDXDc/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gq50F-IDXDc?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
If you, like countless others, have felt a similar sense of dread at the thought of computer enhanced cat/human hybrids taking over the world, then I am here to help. I consider myself uniquely qualified to speak on the topic. <i>CATS</i> was the first full-scale musical I saw on stage, back when I was nine years old. Seeing the show required a full-day trip to Vancouver for our family. In addition, the critical portion of my Master's Thesis project included discussion and analysis of <i>CATS,</i> as well as the children's poems it was based on,<i> Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats</i>, by T.S. Elliot.<br />
<br />
So lay your head on my shoulder, child. Let me tell you the story of <i>CATS.</i><br />
<i></i><br />
<b><u>Adapting an Adaptation</u></b><br />
<br />
Film adaptations are always a little tricky, but let's start with one basic premise most people can agree on. Any time you are changing mediums, expressing the same concept through a different artform leads to change. Some are inherent to the artform itself (ex: film is more visual than the novel) but some conventions are really only that: conventions of storytelling that we've grown used to and expect now. When those conventions are broken, the art itself can feel broken, even if nothing but tradition is what tells us this ought to be so.<br />
<br />
I won't go into the whole long list of conventions film follows, but for the purposes of this discussion, I want to focus on one very important factor: Movies cost way more to produce than books, which means they need to be consumed by/appeal to far more people if they want to make a profit. This has given rise to a particular plotting style commonly referred to as Three Act Structure. I won't go into the full scale description of it here, but loosely, it goes like this:<br />
<br />
Act 1: Establish the protagonist, where they are from, what their problem is and what tragic flaw keeps them from solving their problem<br />
Act 2: The protagonist attempts to solve their problem (unsuccessfully), gradually learns the problem is bigger or different than they first thought, and then experiences great failure, leading to their lowest moment.<br />
Act 3: From that low moment, the protagonist finds the fortitude to overcome their flaw, attempts to solve the problem once more and in the climax, either solves it (victory!) or fails (tragedy!). Closing image, fade to black.<br />
<br />
Three Act Structure is so ubiquitous, it's tempting to see it in everything and assume it's the only way to tell stories. Today, most commercially viable books also follow this structure. Heck, <i>The Hunger Games</i> worked so well as a movie because it already read like one in book form. But go back pre-Hollywood, and the dominating power of Three Act Structure begins to collapse. It's not the defining structure of <i>Beowulf</i> or<i> The Canterbury Tales.</i> It's not what drives <i>Alice in Wonderland</i>.<br />
<br />
And if we move outside of the landscape of novels, it disappears altogether. Short stories don't always have the time to bother with all that structure foofaraw. Or look at picture books. "Everybody do the <i>Barnyard Dance!"</i> might be your plot. Or maybe you've picked up <i>The Book with No Pictures</i>, which is much more about making adults say weird stuff than it is about following character growth. But both those books are stories. They're recounting of events for the purpose of social bonding. Can't get more "story" than that.<br />
<br />
And so returning to <i>CATS</i> (finally, we are returning to <i>CATS</i>), I think it's worth asking the question: what type of story is the film adapting? If it had only ever existed as a film, had always <i>been</i> a film, then it would be much, much harder to explain the weirdness going on in that trailer. But <i>CATS</i> not only is an adaptation, it was also never a novel, the most common source of film adaptation.<br />
<i></i><i></i><i></i><br />
The problems become clear the moment you realize there are multiple steps in this process, and that those steps never bowed down to Three Act Structure.<br />
<br />
Before <i>CATS</i> was a film, it was a play, and before that, it was a book of children's poems.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bDd2G-aC6qw/XTt242CGtaI/AAAAAAAACwI/GkJ8aYTp2j8BwVW40Av0vXPhy1wHpzDtACLcBGAs/s1600/practical%2Bcats.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="642" data-original-width="474" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bDd2G-aC6qw/XTt242CGtaI/AAAAAAAACwI/GkJ8aYTp2j8BwVW40Av0vXPhy1wHpzDtACLcBGAs/s320/practical%2Bcats.jpg" width="236" /></a></div>
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<b><u><br /></u></b>
T.S. Eliot is considered one of the greats in poetry of the Twentieth Century, and rightly so. His work was beautiful, lyrical, thought provoking, and still gets quoted like crazy in Young Adult novels all these years later. That his work shows up in YA points to the fact that he understood something about young people, whether he was explicitly writing for them or not.<br />
<br />
Also recommending him as a human: he liked cats. He wrote a bunch of poems about them for his godchildren. Eventually, he had enough, he was like, "hey, I think this might make a good book of poems" and so he published them, and therefor, little Andrew Lloyd Webber grew up reading them.<br />
<b></b><u></u><b></b><u></u><br />
And despite what others might tell you, it doesn't just have a story, it has many! There's the story of Rum Tum Tugger, the cat who just wants to annoy you constantly. Or there's Mongojerrie and Rumpleteazer, the kittens who play with everything until it gets lost. One of my favorites is Skimbleshanks, who harkens to the tradition railways had of keeping cats aboard in Britain. See? So many stories! All more adorable than the last!<br />
<br />
Importantly, those stories are also intensely relatable. As someone who owns pet cats, I can see my animals mirrored in the poems of cats more than I can in dozens of other stories that feature cats. I've lived with a Rum Tum Tugger and a Jennyanydots. Much of the success of those poems come from how well Eliot captures the lives of real domestic cats.<br />
<br />
However<i>, Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats</i> does not have an underlying through line other than "aren't cats great?" As a poetry book, this is just fine. Poetry is much more about evoking emotions or ideas in the reader than telling a character growth journey. Story itself is optional in poetry, so in that respect, the poems here are much more conventional "stories" than other poetry books might be. Still, if it were directly adapted into a visual medium today, the most logical would probably be YouTube meme compilation videos. I'd like to think in some alternate universe, there's a poem by an internet era Eliot that goes a little like...<br />
<br />
Miss Melarosey rides round on a Roomba<br />
Cleaning the house while the other cats slumber<br />
<br />
You get the idea.<br />
<br />
When Webber began adapting the poems, he wasn't initially trying to make a whole musical out of them. Instead, he used them as a personal challenge, to compose something where the lyrics were set and couldn't be bent to fit the needs of the music. The project eventually piqued the interest of Eliot's widow, and she passed on to him some poems that Eliot cut from the collection, including <i>Grizabella the Glamour Cat</i>, which Eliot had worried would be too sad for children. But that sad poem was the final spark Webber needed. To him, the bleakness of that poem helped contrast with the jovial, goofiness of the other cat characters, and he felt he now had the makings of a full musical on his hands.<br />
<br />
But a musical about what???<br />
<br />
Guys, I can't believe you're still asking. It's about cats.<br />
<br />
<b><u><i>CATS</i> as Broadway Royalty</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wn_gGFSe5rk/XTt3LNRqhYI/AAAAAAAACwQ/9c-r0wDn-pI1V5G4BVV4afe2iZADErrBwCLcBGAs/s1600/Cats-the-Musical-Broadway-in-Chicago-010.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="987" height="248" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wn_gGFSe5rk/XTt3LNRqhYI/AAAAAAAACwQ/9c-r0wDn-pI1V5G4BVV4afe2iZADErrBwCLcBGAs/s320/Cats-the-Musical-Broadway-in-Chicago-010.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<b><u><br /></u></b>
In <i>CATS</i> earliest days, there were a lot of people working on the show who were deeply confused by Webber's vision for the production. They tried to turn it into something more recognizable. Something that would work with conventional story telling structures.<br />
<br />
"Maybe it's a satire of British politicians?"<br />
<br />
No hun, it's about cats.<br />
<br />
"What if we make this a chamber piece, with minimal effects and a small ensemble?"<br />
<br />
Cats deserve better than that, Karen! We will have strobe lights and a cast of dozens because cats are worth it!<br />
<br />
"Okay, so who is our hero? What cat are we following? What are they trying to accomplish?"<br />
<br />
HAVE YOU EVEN MET A CAT??? NO CAT IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING!!!<br />
<br />
Eventually, Webber got his wish, though not without sacrifice. The production scared so many investors away, he literally bet his house and all his money on it, just to finance it. I'm sure his family and loved ones shook in fear for him. But Webber was the one left laughing because the public ate <i>CATS</i> up. It became the longest running and most profitable show of all-time, only to be surpassed in that title by Andrew Lloyd Webber's later work, <i>Phantom of the Opera</i>.<br />
<br />
And in my opinion, Webber was right to put his foot down every time someone tried to make <i>CATS</i> about something other than cats. The whole reason the show works is because it's driven by poetry, music and movement. Those things leant themselves more to the subject matter than a plot did, because real cats almost never experience character development. They are what they are, and they either annoy or entertain us. Since Eliot's poems were originally about recognizable, normal cat behaviors, this was the truest way of bringing these poems onto the stage.<br />
<br />
In addition to Eliot's poems and some of Webber's best music, <i>CATS</i> also has some of the best dancing on Broadway. A lot of time was spent developing how the performers would move and emote in the show, and how the more cat-like motions they performed would be mixed with ballet and modern dance choreography.<br />
<br />
It's actually because the show has so little plot that it can revel in the things that make it strong. It's about nothing more than a gathering of cats, who have come to strut and show-off to each other. They can spontaneously break out into dance sequences without it feeling jarring. They can switch tone and focus character song to song, because, like real cats, they don't have the attention span to have a protagonist.<br />
<br />
What little through-line there is for the play was eventually developed based on theme, rather than a plot. Trevor Nunn, the poor soul who got tasked with directing and helping develop CATS into a full show with Webber, tried his best to piece together themes of death, rebirth and the folk tale that all cats have nine lives. It wasn't a plot, but he hoped that viewers sensed a kind of progression through ideas, that would keep them engaged.<br />
<br />
And there is another reason it worked, and that is because <i>CATS</i> was intended for the theatre, not film.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Writing for Film and Theatre</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hAuTfeBX_xg/XTt3bbOIKYI/AAAAAAAACwY/KWvaRNK1SR0Azipzr1pNYXlr7cAN3Sl3QCLcBGAs/s1600/Laurence_Olivier-Hamlet-%25281948%25295-1140x450.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="1140" height="157" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hAuTfeBX_xg/XTt3bbOIKYI/AAAAAAAACwY/KWvaRNK1SR0Azipzr1pNYXlr7cAN3Sl3QCLcBGAs/s400/Laurence_Olivier-Hamlet-%25281948%25295-1140x450.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<b><u><br /></u></b>
At first glance, theatre and film seem like very similar mediums. Some people never go to the theatre, because it's expensive, and they don't understand what it could offer them that a film can't. Aside from the thrill of a live performance, is there any real reason to see <i>Hamlet</i> on stage as opposed to in a film adaptation?<br />
<br />
As something written before the advent of film, <i>Hamlet</i> might seem like an odd candidate for suiting film, but in many ways, it's early inception is one of the reasons it is so adaptable. In Shakespeare's time, theatre was the primary way of sharing stories with the mass market. Not everyone could read, but everyone could see plays, which were cheap. As a result, Shakespeare's plays often fall into that comforting, digestible Three Act format mentioned earlier, <i>Hamlet</i> included.<br />
<br />
For hundreds of years, theatre was the primary venue for social gathering and experiencing stories. But when film came along, the balance of power shifted. Films were potentially more expensive to make but they were so much cheaper to distribute worldwide. You no longer had to go see <i>Hamlet</i> put on by the yokels at the local theatre. You could see Laurence Olivier in the role, without ever leaving your hometown.<br />
<br />
In order for theatre to survive commercially, it had to identify who its real audience was and what they wanted. Two particular groups of people are still interested in theatre.<br />
<br />
1) People who value the visceral, live aspect. The joy of seeing something staged and knowing that all the pieces have to exist and move together in real, human space is exhilarating. Dance, as a result, thrives in theatre, because it can be very hard to capture the full three-dimensional nature of movement in film, especially for large crowd numbers. Film flattens the image and even 3D technology struggles to recapture the depth of movement theatre can provide. Dance looks better on stage. I've never seen any film that successfully convinced me otherwise. By a similar token, music does often sound better, or at least more emotive, live. Again, there's that visceral component of the experience that you can't get from film. Little surprise, in the wake of the rise of film, musical theatre thrived and took over Broadway.<br />
2) People who like experimental, weird stuff that doesn't suit commercial Hollywood film making. I'm by no means suggesting that film can't be experimental or that theatre wasn't before film put pressure on it. But that pressure still matters. Most cinemas make their money off of digestible blockbusters. Theatre isn't going to grab that crowd anymore though, so it might as well cater to people who want to see a naked boy on stage with a horse. There's a reason it's the theatre club that has the reputation for housing weirdos, not the film club.<br />
<br />
And <i>CATS</i> ticks the box for both groups. For a big, flashy spectacle musical, it's surprisingly experimental with it's unconventional story structure, reliance on theme to drive forward progression and lack of protagonist. It's more committed to exploring what it's like to be a cat than it is to examining the human condition. Lest we forget, <i>CATS</i> started off as an experiment. Webber wanted to see what would happen if he wrote music for pre-established poetry.<br />
<br />
In recent years, Andrew Lloyd Webber has become a figure that the musical theatre community likes to make fun of. He was such a phenomenon in the 70s and 80s with <i>CATS</i> cat-apulting him from respected, working composer to mega-star. That fame only grew with the release of <i>Phantom</i>, and soon it felt like he was everywhere. Unfortunately, that meant that when his less successful work of the late 80s and 90s came around, he was a highly public figure whose flubs were likewise highly public. It was very easy to slide into mocking him as the weird cat guy. Or the guy who made a play about dropping a chandelier onstage.<br />
<br />
But I do think we can be a bit unfair, because often, Webber's strength was being that weird cat guy. Theatre needs weirdness if it's going to survive and thrive. He understood and recaptured the spectacle of theatre better than he told stories or understood the human condition. He needed a good lyricist, like Tim Rice, if he was going to <i>say</i> anything profound or develop characters convincingly. Better to leave the heartfelt, emotional musicals to the likes of Sondheim and let Webber make silly things about dancing cats and chandeliers.<br />
<br />
But with the crazy costumes, expressive dancing and energetically scored poetry, <i>CATS</i> did capture something real. As a nine-year-old, seeing that play was a highlight of my brief existence. I've often wondered if one of the reasons we're so hard on <i>CATS</i> as a play is also because of it's intended audience. As a play based on children's poems, it still is intended for children. I've spoken with so many people who struggle with the idea that something can be beautiful or artistic or profound and still be understood by a child. It's been my experience that some of the most beautiful things are those that resonate with children. Children are deeply sensitive to beauty, because they haven't learned to be cynical about it yet.<br />
<br />
Cynical, like some of us might be about a certain movie trailer.<br />
<br />
<b><u>And so, that Trailer...</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ShOlHbqmYks/XTt3v7OCJSI/AAAAAAAACwg/5zQUYIkWADcy67uET6soNJIWCTZ63plvwCLcBGAs/s1600/t%2Bswift%2Bcats.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="438" data-original-width="840" height="166" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ShOlHbqmYks/XTt3v7OCJSI/AAAAAAAACwg/5zQUYIkWADcy67uET6soNJIWCTZ63plvwCLcBGAs/s320/t%2Bswift%2Bcats.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Look what you made her do</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b><u><br /></u></b>
Like a lot of you, my initial reaction to the trailer was one of... horrified curiosity, let's say. It does look weird. Film, in it's over fascination with computer graphics, has turned the painted faces and lycra bodysuits of the original <i>CATS</i> world into photorealistic fur. What was expressive in the theatre is now rendered uncanny on film. Some people have suggested it would have been better animated in a more stylized way, like a traditional hand drawn musical. But I do empathize with the film makers, because that would have lost the dancing, and dance is one of the primary reasons to go see <i>CATS</i>.<br />
<br />
If I'm being honest, what actually concerned me is the dialogue. <i>CATS</i> the musical gave up on having a plot, but the film seems to be trying to pull one out of the emotive, theme driven material that Trevor Nunn cobbled together. The proportion of singing to spoken lines in the trailer is way off of what it was in the musical and that... concerns me. Concerns me that someone involved in the film's production got confused and figured <i>CATS</i> was actually about Grizabella's quest to ascend to the heaviside layer.<br />
<br />
For the last time, guys. It's about cats.<br />
<br />
But this is a multi-million dollar film that needs multi-million dollar ticket sales and so, following the logic of Hollywood formula, some poor screenwriter seems to have been tasked with shoving Three Act Structure down <i>CATS</i> throat at last, like a pill from the veterinarian that your pet is just going to regurgitate in a few minutes anyway.<br />
<br />
Maybe the transition will work better than I think. Maybe some of the experimental nature will still shine through in the film, or they'll at least capture some of the joyous spectacle and dancing that made the musical worth seeing. Or maybe it will be a ghastly, expensive train wreck, fueled only by a cash grab at our nostalgia for the musical.<br />
<br />
Either way, I kinda want to see it. With it's giant franchises and carefully plotted Blockbusters, Hollywood takes so few risks any more. Whether it succeeds or fails, <i>CATS</i> was a risk. And at least there's singing. At least there's dancing. At least most of the leads are actual singers and dancers.<br />
<br />
And I, for one, am curious how they picked a protagonist. Just which cat did the dart hit when they threw it at the board? And what character journey are they going to take us on between Taylor Swift shaking catnip over a crowd from a bejeweled canister?<br />
<br />
I have only questions. No answers. And with that, I need to go feed my cat.<br />
<b></b><u></u><b></b><u></u><br />
<br />Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-338308426467380832019-07-16T20:19:00.000-07:002019-07-16T20:19:09.972-07:00Tropes VS Tropes: Best Overprotective DadWhen I started this Tropes VS Tropes series, one of the things I wanted to emphasize was that tropes, in and of themselves, are not inherently bad. Sure, they can be repetitive or uncreative, but they don't necessarily <i>have</i> to be.<br />
<br />
My personal belief is that a trope is most useful when it is used more as a starting point for a story idea, rather than the final execution of the idea. Take Steve Harrington from <i>Stranger Things</i>. When introduced, Steve is presented so that he resembles every meat-headed, privileged bully that was so popular in the Eighties. He looks and talks like the guy who shoves the hero into a locker. He swaggers up to Nancy like he's got a right to her. He's a jerk jock, plain and simple.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gxuDxmsimgY/XS6NdFhjQlI/AAAAAAAACuo/eW2zpFoKP_4XSYy0xyIXGKlmXvvCLKZwACLcBGAs/s1600/steve%2Bbeing%2Bdad.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="705" data-original-width="800" height="281" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gxuDxmsimgY/XS6NdFhjQlI/AAAAAAAACuo/eW2zpFoKP_4XSYy0xyIXGKlmXvvCLKZwACLcBGAs/s320/steve%2Bbeing%2Bdad.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div>
Since today's topic is Overprotective Dads, I give you </div>
<div>
Steve Harrington, being a Dad.</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Except there are hints that he's not as shallow as he seems. His jokes are too genuine. He smiles at Nancy like she's the greatest girl in the world. Even his bullying of Jonathan stems from an ultimately understandable place - they caught Jonathan taking creepy pictures of Nancy.<br />
<br />
Now true, there is context to Jonathan's actions that make them *less* disturbing (though let's put a pin in that topic for another day) and true, Steve escalates his poor treatment of Jonathan in a brutal way, considering the guy's little brother is missing. Eventually it comes to blows and for a brief moment, it feels like the classic bully vs underdog confrontation.<br />
<br />
But then the show subverts that classic set up. After the fight, Steve comes to the conclusion that he has acted unfairly. When he goes to ask Nancy for forgiveness, he gets dragged into the central conflict and ends up helping the main cast fight the Demogorgon.<br />
<br />
His arc is so successful largely because he's a much deeper exploration of a stock character than we're used to getting. From the outset, he's presented in a way that suggests we're supposed to root against him, yet gradually revealed to be a far better person than he seems. A lot of jerk jock characters incorrectly see themselves as the hero, but what makes Steve special is that he realizes that his actions don't match up with his own internal narrative. He wants to be the good guy, so he changes until he is, even though that's consistently the harder path.<br />
<br />
Since <i>Stranger Things</i> is a show built on nostalgia, it unsurprisingly relies on a lot of tropes, particularly those that were popular in the Eighties. From kids going on bicycle powered adventures, to secretive government facilities, the show is loaded with fun twists on stock characters and plots. But no show is perfect, and so it's not very surprising that with all the reoccurring tropes, some of them don't land as well as Steve Harrington. Some are just tired retreads of clichés we've seen a million times.<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Overprotective Dad is Here to Ruin Your Fun</u></b><br />
<b></b><u></u><br />
<span style="color: red;">WARNING: MILD SPOILERS AHEAD FOR SEASON 3 OF STRANGER THINGS</span><br />
<br />
When season three picks up, the series skips to a year and a half after the Snow Ball held at the end of season two. Mike is at El's house, and the two are getting their smooch on, much to the chagrin of Jim Hopper, El's adoptive father. Since it takes until the very end of the episode for any of the show's supernatural elements to directly impact the plot, for the majority of this first episode, this is the driving source of conflict for many of our main characters.<br />
<br />
As Hopper vented to Joyce about how much he wanted to throttle Mike, it was all I could do not to groan audibly and cry out, "not this plot again." The overprotective dad is everywhere, treated almost as requisite in comedies that feature young people dating for the first time.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-URClugxn0e4/XS6OGGhhf3I/AAAAAAAACuw/jQ18Pn3eJ04DybpYH1NaVl-2lgAJV-vhwCLcBGAs/s1600/hyrum%2Blodge.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="605" data-original-width="540" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-URClugxn0e4/XS6OGGhhf3I/AAAAAAAACuw/jQ18Pn3eJ04DybpYH1NaVl-2lgAJV-vhwCLcBGAs/s400/hyrum%2Blodge.jpg" width="356" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">H'yuk H'yuk</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Kim Possible, who can literally do anything and frequently is in physical danger, gets more pushback from her dad about dating than anything else. <i>Hotel Transylvania</i> is a charming Halloween romp about Dracula trying to control his daughter's life, particularly when it comes to romance. Scott Pilgrim gets chased by the sword-wielding father of Knives Chau for daring to date her. Veronica Lodge's father exists to hate Archie, and not for much else.<br />
<br />
In the unusual event that a comedy features a father and daughter where he DOESN'T threaten her male suitor with bodily harm, the show will often go to great lengths to hang a lampshade on this fact, and make that the joke.<br />
<br />
Take, for instance, the episode of the <i>Big Bang Theory </i>where Leonard meets Penny's father for the first time, and is shocked to discover that the man adores him. He's over the moon his daughter is dating a physicist! Except, at this point in the show, the pair are broken up. Penny, however, wants to impress her father, and so talks Leonard into pretending to still be her boyfriend in order to make her dad happy. When the rouse runs out, her dad is angered by the lying, then insists on speaking to Leonard alone. At this point, he begs Leonard to keep pursuing his daughter. Once Leonard agrees, Penny's dad then pretends to "throw him out" with aggressive shouting, in hopes of making Leonard seem more desirable to Penny by virtue of his disapproval.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jq9zQCMFP8E/XS6OTihUF3I/AAAAAAAACu0/jiH_X9GNEvs5Ie2wmYG9RLYA7cbi40c6QCLcBGAs/s1600/penny%2527s%2Bdad.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="280" data-original-width="500" height="223" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jq9zQCMFP8E/XS6OTihUF3I/AAAAAAAACu0/jiH_X9GNEvs5Ie2wmYG9RLYA7cbi40c6QCLcBGAs/s400/penny%2527s%2Bdad.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Even though this instance SEEMS like a subversion, it still plays into exactly why it is I dislike this trope so much. Whether it's Penny's dad begging Leonard to date his daughter or it's Dracula asking Johnny if he truly believes it would be safe for Mavis in the human world, the conversations are usually between Dads and their daughter's boyfriends, not the girls themselves. These girls love lives get treated as transactions between men, rather than choices they make independently. The jokes tend to depend on either a) not trusting the daughter or b) assuming that whatever the boy chooses will somehow overrule the "good" choices the daughter makes.<br />
<br />
To make one thing perfectly clear, none of the examples I've cited have involved rape, sexual assault or any behavior from the boy that suggests a possibility of these things. These are treated like ordinary, every day, relatable responses to seeing a girl date.<br />
<br />
At this point, some people may be saying, "but it IS relatable!" And I'll grant you that, yes, it can be relatable. You do see this behavior in real life. Barack Obama once made a joke about sending predator drones after the Jonas Brothers if they ever made a play for one of his daughters. (Har har har…) But that doesn't mean it's a terribly healthy behavior. Plus, it isn't only art's responsibility to represent reality as it is - it's also to provide mirrors for what it COULD be.<br />
<br />
If this trope wasn't so ubiquitous, it probably wouldn't bother me so much. I'm not - per say - against the idea of a plot line involving a dad struggling to know what to do with his daughter once she's reached an age where she can date. What bothers me is that the conversations are almost never WITH her, just about her, and that they default to the same set up, reactions and jokes again and again, without examining any potentially problematic elements. Instead, this trope is treated as a symptom of how all men must behave, because that's how they express love for their daughters. But friends! There are other ways to show you love your daughter that don't involve exerting control over her love life.<br />
<br />
<b><u>A Different Type of Dad</u></b><br />
<b></b><u></u><br />
One of the reasons I don't like the trope is because it also is completely unfamiliar. My own father gets excited with me when I like a boy. And if something dangerous were to happen to me while dating, I'm a heck of a lot more likely to tell him about it, because he's always been supportive of my choices rather than controlling. Luckily, I'm not completely alone in the world of fiction, and so for a counter example to all the groan worthy behavior above, I present to you Dr. Covey from <i>To All the Boys I've Loved Before</i>.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XeML9xCgUls/XS6Og16GNcI/AAAAAAAACu4/Pdd1iWpZv9sv2EixHSVjICixzQ6PWKQ-gCLcBGAs/s1600/lara%2Bjean%2Band%2Bdad.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="296" data-original-width="710" height="166" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XeML9xCgUls/XS6Og16GNcI/AAAAAAAACu4/Pdd1iWpZv9sv2EixHSVjICixzQ6PWKQ-gCLcBGAs/s400/lara%2Bjean%2Band%2Bdad.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This scene is one of the best additions the movie made to the book.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
As the father of three girls, by the time our book's heroine, Lara Jean Covey, starts dating, he's been around the block once before with this thing. He makes a point of getting to know Lara Jean's new boyfriend, Peter, but there's none of the hard line theatrics of other shows. Peter is frequently invited over and included in family activities. Dr. Covey checks briefly when the pair are off to a party together to make sure there will be no drinking and driving, but never gives off an air of distrust.<br />
<br />
And in one of the best scenes in the film, he takes Lara Jean out to the diner so they can talk alone after she breaks up with Peter. They don't talk about Peter directly, since she doesn't want to hear about that, but instead her dad makes it clear to her that he's proud of her for trying new things and stepping out of her comfort zone, something she'd struggled with in the past. He's just the best, guys. May we all aspire to being as kind and helpful as Dr. Covey!<br />
<br />
<b><u>But Actually...</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
While Dr. Covey might be one of my favorite fictional dads, he is NOT my favorite Overprotective Dad, by virtue of the fact that this is not his character flaw. He's another type of character entirely, and one I'd like to see more of. Still, he's not the trope, so he cannot win this contest.<br />
<br />
When I was watching <i>Stranger Things</i> and saw Hopper veering hard into this trope, I found myself wondering if I could think of good examples of the trope, because here's the thing: I <i>like</i> Hopper. His behavior annoyed me a little in season three, but overall, I like him. So does that make him a "good" example of this trope?<br />
<br />
In fact, it made me realize that I don't often address tropes that I dislike. All of the others I've covered for this series have been things that, on some level, I enjoy. Yes, <a href="https://emilypaxman.blogspot.com/2017/10/tropes-vs-tropes-self-defeating.html">self-defeating villains</a> and <a href="https://emilypaxman.blogspot.com/2019/04/tropes-vs-tropes-big-freaking-kiss-song.html">big freaking kiss songs </a>can be done poorly, but while I spent a little bit of time making fun of those tropes, they're ones I generally like and get excited to see.<br />
<br />
As I said earlier, I'm not opposed to the existence of this conflict, just seeing it done lazily or treated like some sort of primal response all father's share. After all, even if this father/daughter dynamic wasn't my experience, I CAN sympathize. It is hard watching kids grow up and make choices about their lives and bodies that a parent would not personally make for them!<br />
<br />
In making this list, I decided to consider the following criteria:<br />
1) He is the father of a daughter<br />
2) He freaks out when she starts dating someone<br />
3) His overprotective streak is triggered SPECIFICALLY by his daughter's romance. So no Liam Neeson intimidating kidnappers in <i>Taken</i>. That's too justifiable.<br />
<br />
BONUS POINTS FOR:<br />
4) He learns a lesson about trusting his daughter's judgement<br />
5) The bulk of the conflict is focused between father and daughter coming to see eye to eye, not father and daughter's love interest reaching an agreement about her.<br />
6) There's some additional element that makes it so that the audience is getting more than the same old recycled jokes about waiting up with a shot gun or baseball bat<br />
7) He's just a cool character, okay?<br />
<br />
So after some soul searching, I present to you a short list of men who might go a little crazy when their daughters start dating, but ultimately learn and grow through the experience, making me love them. They are...<br />
<br />
<b><u>Runner-Up: Best Villainous Overprotective Dad</u></b><br />
<br />
Ben Linus from <i>LOST</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sj-3BcRGIZs/XS6OzYVkopI/AAAAAAAACvE/z17kgFLFV8gFPzGi6Igy3-A2JDdltAiLACLcBGAs/s1600/ben%2Band%2Balex.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="854" data-original-width="1280" height="213" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sj-3BcRGIZs/XS6OzYVkopI/AAAAAAAACvE/z17kgFLFV8gFPzGi6Igy3-A2JDdltAiLACLcBGAs/s320/ben%2Band%2Balex.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
One easy way of fixing the Overprotective Dad trope is by giving the role to a villain. Suddenly, the controlling undertones of the behavior are not problematic, but instead a symptom of being a bad dude. This is on full display with Ben who first kidnaps Alex from her birth mother, then raises her in extremely limiting conditions. Imprisoning and torturing her boyfriend is one of just several creepy, controlling things this guy does!<br />
<br />
Ben is just a rad villain, and his treatment of Alex is a fascinating part of his character. You could even argue that towards the end of the series, he learns *something* about letting Alex go. That is, if you count the flash side-ways timeline.<br />
<br />
<u><b>WINNER: Best Villainous Overprotective Dad</b></u><br />
<u></u><u></u><b></b><b></b><br />
Adrian Toombs (The Vulture) from <i>Spiderman: Homecoming</i><br />
<i></i><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zlKWSTbXo0U/XS6O7L73x4I/AAAAAAAACvI/d9up9j_ZO4U15dgGG4XG-AaacZ4iHAdEQCLcBGAs/s1600/michael-keaton-vulture.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="596" data-original-width="1192" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zlKWSTbXo0U/XS6O7L73x4I/AAAAAAAACvI/d9up9j_ZO4U15dgGG4XG-AaacZ4iHAdEQCLcBGAs/s400/michael-keaton-vulture.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I would have peed myself if I was Peter.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The moment when Peter Parker shows up at his date's house for the Homecoming dance is perfect. As Liz's dad drives them to the dance together, there's an amazing verbal game of cat and mouse Peter is playing with him as it gradually dawns on Toombs that he knows Peter from somewhere. Bit by bit, he realizes that Peter is Spider-Man, and this previously accepting father takes a dark turn.<br />
<br />
One of the things that's so fun about this example is that Toombs himself is consciously playing with the trope. Once they arrive at the dance, he tells Liz he needs to give Peter "the dad talk" and she leaves, expecting it to be the usual cajoling about "getting her home on time." That's in there but let's just say his threatenings are way more terrifying than anything she dreamed up.<br />
<br />
This all plays super well into his villainous motivation and character arc. His whole illegal arms dealership is driven by a desire to provide for his family. He wants nothing more than to protect Liz and give her a normal childhood, and he expects Peter to play by that script exactly, or face the consequences.<br />
<br />
In this instance, the Overprotective Dad trope is invoked for interesting reasons and other levels of conflict are layered on top. It might not be an instance where the conflict is focused on the girl, rather than the boy, but that also seems justifiable, since this is Peter's story. Plus, it has a more interesting resolution to that arc than usual. Instead of them coming eye to eye or agreeing how to "broker" Liz's choices, Peter instead has to make choices that are independent of what he wants with Liz, and that he knows will ultimately ruin his chances with her. It's heartbreaking and awesome.<br />
<br />
<u><b>Runner-Up: Best Overprotective Dad</b></u><br />
<u></u><b></b><br />
Jim Hopper from <i>Stranger Things</i><br />
<i></i><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3lspSY2fzKM/XS6PEvvMliI/AAAAAAAACvQ/VP-7IqXlTaQSOwH4meRdP88kJP6sqf1ZACLcBGAs/s1600/hopper%2Band%2Bel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="299" data-original-width="618" height="192" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3lspSY2fzKM/XS6PEvvMliI/AAAAAAAACvQ/VP-7IqXlTaQSOwH4meRdP88kJP6sqf1ZACLcBGAs/s400/hopper%2Band%2Bel.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
He reappears!<br />
<br />
So first off, I am not a fan of how all of this arc was treated on <i>Stranger Things</i>, mostly because there's some squandered potential here. As mentioned before, tropes are at their best when they are used only as a starting point for something, not the final execution. One of the things that frustrated me about the use of this trope was how they failed to notice that of all men, Hopper had exceptional circumstances for his feelings going into this scenario.<br />
<br />
Three things make Hopper and El a unique version of this father/daughter dynamic. One, that El is adopted, and this at least the show touches on. He isn't prepared for this challenge, largely because he's only been her father for a couple of years, and it was a relationship that grew organically, rather than one that either entered into knowingly. But there are two other factors the show forgets to touch on and AAAAAAAAAHHHHHH! It would have been so much better if they did!<br />
<br />
So factor number two, Hopper might be new to doing things with El, but she is not his first child. He had a daughter die young, which destroyed his life and relationship with his ex-wife. There are a couple nods to this in season three, but most of that is unexplored potential. I really wish there was more acknowledgement of him as a man still learning how to put away the trauma he suffered years ago, because it would help contextualize his actions when he is a total jerk to Mike in the first episode of season three.<br />
<br />
Also, there's the question of El herself. Hopper is more justified in worrying about El's dating habits, because El has only been experiencing a "normal" life for a couple of years. Lest we forget, she had to be taught the concept of "friend" by Mike in season one. To see this same boy then initiate a romance with her could be understandably troubling. If "friend" and "boyfriend" are synonymous, that's a problem. El's world is painfully small and she's naïve in a way most girls her own age aren't. I would have loved to see Hopper articulate some of this in some way - just a worry that childhood was already leaving for a girl who never got to have a childhood. There's more loss there than in the regular scenario.<br />
<br />
In fairness, the show does address some of El's inexperience and need for other friends, but it's not directly tied to her arc with Hopper. And so that saddens me. It was right there, Duffer Bros! RIGHT THERE!<br />
<br />
So why is this ranked so highly? Partially because, as mentioned above, I love Hopper. But also because that even though it follows the strictures of this trope a bit too much, there's some nice depth to what Hopper experiences and expresses over the course of the season.<br />
<br />
In the first episode, he knows he needs to have a conversation with El and Mike about boundaries, but struggles to find the words to say. Eventually, he writes them down and rehearses them. But when he goes to talk to the kids, Mike is kind of obnoxious, and all his preparation goes out the window. He ends up threatening the boy instead and the audience groans along.<br />
<br />
Then, towards the end of the season, El finds the letter and sees what he really wanted to say. And instead of being about controlling Mike's behavior, the letter is all about her. How much he loves her and values his time with her, and how he's nervous about this new stage in her life, but doesn't want to hold her back. The scene is ridiculously touching. It does a lot of heavy lifting of redeeming his earlier behavior and that makes a huge amount of difference.<br />
<br />
Also, side note: Mike really was annoying in that first episode. It's not ALL Hopper's fault.<br />
<br />
<b><u>WINNER: Best Overprotective Dad</u></b><br />
<b></b><u></u><br />
Costas Portokalos from <i>My Big Fat Greek Wedding</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bVO_8FzKgao/XS6PO3FPhiI/AAAAAAAACvY/BNMWGjRzhjwoYAnyA4R3SIsdZAoSLwb2gCLcBGAs/s1600/costas%2B.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="266" height="300" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bVO_8FzKgao/XS6PO3FPhiI/AAAAAAAACvY/BNMWGjRzhjwoYAnyA4R3SIsdZAoSLwb2gCLcBGAs/s400/costas%2B.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Look how sweet he is! He really is the best.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Did you know that this movie is not a romantic comedy? It's really not. The romance is not the center of the story. Her relationship with Ian is rather conflict free. As they say in writing class, if there's no conflict, there's no story, so where is the conflict coming from?<br />
<br />
The heart of this fun and fabulous film is in the relationship between Toula and her heritage, and symbolizing that heritage more than anyone is her father. Costas is immensely proud of his Greek background and wants to see Toula feel the same way. He's bossy and controlling at times, and desperately wants her to marry a Greek boy, so when she comes home with "white toast" Ian, he is devastated. And so goes our plot!<br />
<br />
Returning to the list of BONUS POINTS, Costas ticks every box. He gradually learns to accept Ian and see his family as part of theirs. He stops questioning Toula's decisions so much, and tries to show her his support the way he knows how (giving a kind speech at her wedding and giving her a very generous gift) and through that, Toula reconciles with him. She's able to see herself as Greek, without focusing on how it makes her weird. She feels loved by her father and valued, instead of seen as the ugly duckling or rebellious child.<br />
<br />
The jokes also don't feel as stale, because they're not the usual one dimensional posturing. His disdain for Ian is rooted in cultural differences, a gap which is harder to breach than simply not threatening the boyfriend. Even when he's trying to be accepting, there's still moments where his cultural baggage gets in the way, like when he orders wedding invitations that misspell and misgender Ian's parent's unfamiliar, English names.<br />
<br />
Most importantly, he's just really, really funny. Despite his character largely being built out of the Overprotective Dad trope, he's charming, entertaining and a fresh take on the concept. Overall, this movie is great and Costas remains one of my favorite fictional dads. He ain't perfect, but he sure is fun to watch.<br />
<br />
So there you have it. Even tropes we personally dislike don't necessarily have to be done poorly. If there's a fresh enough take, tired material can become new again. All you need is a little Greek culture or a Demogorgon and you're on your way.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-77215779205124598282019-04-09T02:47:00.000-07:002019-04-09T02:47:07.243-07:00Tropes VS Tropes: The Big Freaking Kiss SongAs a life long musical theatre nerd, I feel very lucky that my college days managed to coincide with the rise of the Wicked Witch of the West on Broadway. While kids today go around singing their <i>Hamilton</i> and <i>Dear Evan Hansen</i>, I came of age to the angst filled power ballads of Idina Menzel in her most famous pre-<i>Frozen</i> role, that of Elphaba, the famous Ozian witch, in the musical <i>Wicked</i>.<br />
<br />
If you have even a passing interest in musical theatre, you know <i>Wicked</i>. If you don't, you've probably still heard a few of it's songs. It was everywhere at it's height, with shows like <i>Glee</i> featuring it's most famous song, "Defying Gravity" in one of it's earliest episodes.<br />
<br />
As a nineteen-year-old, I was obsessed. I had the soundtrack memorized. All I wanted was to see a proper production of it. To my incredible luck, a touring production of it visited Toronto the very week I was scheduled to be in Ontario, visiting my sister for reading week. She lived a few hours south of the city, but we took a bus up, spent a couple days sightseeing Canada's great metropolis and, of course, saw <i>Wicked</i>.<br />
<br />
Overall, it was spectacular, but I do have one memory of a particular song falling short of my imagination. Towards the end of Act II, Elphaba and her love interest, the dashing Fiyero, are reunited and sing "As Long as You're Mine," a passionate song about how they're gonna smooch and snuggle and probably do more things. This was, in my <i>Wicked</i> addicted brain, the sexiest love song to ever exist.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S7BAHLILVy8/XKwy5v93xXI/AAAAAAAACqk/hwwv7-kdLYwlXqrH4Rs7621Fk_3sHSxnwCLcBGAs/s1600/fiyero-and-elphaba-wicked-.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" data-original-height="268" data-original-width="400" height="267" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S7BAHLILVy8/XKwy5v93xXI/AAAAAAAACqk/hwwv7-kdLYwlXqrH4Rs7621Fk_3sHSxnwCLcBGAs/s400/fiyero-and-elphaba-wicked-.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
But on stage, it kinda… fell flat. They just stared at each other and stroked each other's arms a bunch. I kept waiting for it to heat up or for there to be choreography or <i>something</i>. Anything to give the scene a bit more shape than just singing forcefully in the face of the one you love. Instead, it felt like the song was a thing the characters had to get <i>through</i>, before they could finally reach the kissing that came at the end.<br />
<br />
I learned a valuable lesson that day. Apparently, you can't smooch and sing at the same time. At least, not in real life. When I listened to the song on the soundtrack, it had played more like a music video in my mind, with shots of the characters making out, cut together with overlays of the actors singing at each other. Like, check out any Taylor Swift song. She makes out with dudes while singing all the time. But this doesn't translate to the stage. In concert, I'm guessing she's never snogged a man while crooning "Wildest Dreams" at him.<br />
<br />
For Ms. Swift, this isn't much of a problem. Her songs may exist in the broader context of an album or a music video or a live performance, but they're rarely defined by them. Pop music is meant to exist as something the audience vicariously experiences and can imagine their own lives and fantasies onto. With great songs that come from musicals, there's an aspect of that, but most theatre songs require the context of their plots and performers in order to give full weight to the experience of a particular song.<br />
<br />
"As Long as You're Mine" requires <i>context</i> and it still saddens me a little that it's stronger with only the context of the other songs on the album, not the actual performance. It might sadden me more if it weren't such a reoccurring problem in theatre. Yes, <i>Wicked</i> fell into the trap of the boring pre-kissing song, but it's far from the only show to do so.<br />
<i></i><br />
<b><u>Oh, Where is the Song that Goes Like This?</u></b><br />
<b></b><u></u><br />
Quick question! In a musical, are the characters <i>actually</i> singing? Within the confines of his reality, does Javert actually stand next to the university students, belting out his plans to trick them and infiltrate their numbers, as he appears to do in the song "One Day More" in <i>Les Miserables</i>? Do a group of nuns actually argue about "How do You Solve a Problem like Maria" via song, as they appear to in <i>The Sound of Music</i>? Within the confines of their own realities, the answers are almost certainly "no." I mean, Javert would have to be really stupid to do that. Leader of the students, Enjolras, is literally just a few feet away from him during that number.<br />
<br />
Most musical numbers aren't meant to be taken literally. Instead, the music and dancing is meant to stand in for something else. So what do they represent? The quick answer is usually something like "emotion" or the "feel" of a particular scene. Energetic, frantic songs coincide with when the mood is particularly tense or exciting. So in <i>The Sound of Music</i>, Maria sings the bouncy "Confidence" when she's trying to convince herself she feels braver than she does. In contrast, Javert sings the slow, contemplative song "Stars" when he's feeling, well... contemplative. Emotion and mood are the major drivers of song choice and placement in traditional musicals.<br />
<br />
So it's little surprise that there are lots and lots of love songs in musicals, especially songs that come right before characters kiss. Great, big kiss scenes frequently come at the emotional height of a piece, as they release the tension of the character's building romance. Whole stories are structured around that moment of triumph. So of course there are songs about it! On paper, it sounds so incredible, ending a soaring ballad with the leads finally locking lips. But often, it falls flat, because these songs can't help but grind the plot to a halt. As mentioned before, you can't kiss and sing at the same time, which means that often, the characters have to get the song over with before the plot can advance any further, because the next plot point IS the kissing!!!<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PRkBB6KeDkw/XKxI_Sr7CEI/AAAAAAAACq8/ViCQmExPoJIhB7n98iBXNmdHk8uGhZknQCLcBGAs/s1600/something%2Bgood.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="480" height="300" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PRkBB6KeDkw/XKxI_Sr7CEI/AAAAAAAACq8/ViCQmExPoJIhB7n98iBXNmdHk8uGhZknQCLcBGAs/s400/something%2Bgood.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">For here you are, standing there... standing there.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Both<i> Les Miserables </i>and <i>The Sound of Music</i> have scenes that suffer from this. In <i>Les Miserables</i>, Marius and Cossette sing at each other through a gate, and I remember as a kid thinking this scene took for-freaking-ever. They don't necessarily kiss at the end, but they want to, and nothing exciting is allowed to happen until they're done making goo-goo eyes at each other. In <i>The Sound of Music</i>, an even straighter example occurs, where Maria and Captain VonTrapp stand in a gazebo and stare sweetly at each other while their silhouettes delay kissing just long enough to get a refrain of "Something Good" out.<br />
<br />
Researching for this article was a blast, because I got to relive some truly hilarious stage direction as I looked up examples of this phenomenon. How many times can Marion run back and forth across a bridge before finally ending her song and kissing Herald Hill in the <i>Music Man</i>? How long can Christine sway side to side before realizing that all Raoul asks of her is a kiss in <i>Phantom of the Opera</i>? Why does the Baker's wife keep wandering away from him during "It Takes Two" from <i>Into the Woods</i>, except to delay his inevitable kiss of her face?<br />
<br />
By now, you might be asking what could possibly please me? Haven't I any romance inside of me? Don't I appreciate the need to slow down for these moments? IF THE PLOT CAN'T STOP FOR LOVE, WHAT CAN IT STOP FOR??????<br />
<br />
It might be tempting to assume this kind of thing is inevitable--that it's impossible to end a song with a kiss without it coming across as cheesy and overblown. <span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">There's a reason </span><i style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">White Christmas</i><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"> interrupts the smooch at the end of "Count Your Blessings" with another character stumbling in on the happy couple, because it stops an intensely earnest moment from feeling too corny. </span>But to that I say, the presence of examples where it's done well shows that there's no excuse for doing it poorly. So who <i>did</i> do it well?<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Multitask Scene</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
The next slew of examples are all going to have one thing in common: In addition to being songs that end with dramatic kisses, they also do something else for the scene. Some subtext or character moment is going on, or the plot is carefully advancing without you noticing it. Returning to <i>Sound of Music</i> and <i>Les Miserables</i>, these shows actually have TWO of these scenes, and the other two are far more poignant.<br />
<br />
For <i>Sound of Music</i>, the scene in question is the kiss between Liesl and her baby Nazi boyfriend, Rolfe. The classic "Sixteen Going on Seventeen" serves as a precursor to her first kiss, and between the singing and prolonged dance section, it takes a looooooooong time to get there. But, here, the delay is justified. She and Rolfe are young, inexperienced and nervous about love. When they finally do kiss, it's an impulsive peck by Rolfe, before he runs off into the rain. All the foofering around delightfully illustrates his nervousness, even while he's trying to front maturity to her.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XFpk97z6Fsk/XKxKuF5H_SI/AAAAAAAACrI/HGU_GtyY9BsWufSZn22stehFpbs7vEJ3QCLcBGAs/s1600/little%2Bfall%2Bof%2Brain.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="643" data-original-width="1082" height="237" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XFpk97z6Fsk/XKxKuF5H_SI/AAAAAAAACrI/HGU_GtyY9BsWufSZn22stehFpbs7vEJ3QCLcBGAs/s400/little%2Bfall%2Bof%2Brain.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<i>Les Miserables</i> has it's second occurrence with Marius again, but this time, he's cradling Eponine during "A Little Drop of Rain." And, erm, spoiler alert I guess, but... SHE'S DYING! As an audience, we're all heartbroken, like Marius. You get the sense he didn't even know to expect the kiss she gives him at the end, because this is the first time she's desperate enough to make her feelings clear to him. It is, quite literally, her last chance. This subtext makes the scene far richer than any he shares with Cosette and helped launch the wallowing of a thousand lonely theatre girls, who forever see themselves in Eponine's tragic friend-zone fate.<br />
<br />
So, now that we've explored this issue thoroughly, what are the best examples? In order to qualify for honors on this list, a scene must involve:<br />
<br />
1) A love song.<br />
2) At the conclusion of the song, the characters kiss<br />
3) At some point, they preferably sing directly into each other's faces. Bonus points for volume.<br />
4) While indulging in the pathos above, the scene still manages to progress the plot meaningfully<br />
5) As in yes, there is kissing, but you aren't just waiting for them to get the singing over with so that they can kiss.<br />
<br />
And now, for the awards for best use of the singing-in-face-leads-to-kissing trope...<br />
<br />
<b><u>Best Classic Example:</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
"If I Loved You" - <i>Carousel</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j-oSAVsw5As/XKxM4DATF2I/AAAAAAAACrs/ZkotqcUUfbA2y7ljX4F3o06hFP1pcf0lwCLcBGAs/s1600/carousel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="241" data-original-width="600" height="160" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j-oSAVsw5As/XKxM4DATF2I/AAAAAAAACrs/ZkotqcUUfbA2y7ljX4F3o06hFP1pcf0lwCLcBGAs/s400/carousel.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
Despite having incredible music, this is one of those musicals you don't see very often any more, largely because sections of it haven't aged well. At all. It takes a... VERY outdated stance on a few issues, and I say this as someone who watches Howard Keel movies. But this song, guys. It's that good.<br />
<br />
Rogers and Hammerstein were masters of the I-Swear-I'm-Not-In-Love-With-You song. "Sixteen Going on Seventeen," mentioned earlier, has aspects of this with the way Rolfe clearly has no clue what he's doing. More famously, <i>Oklahoma</i> has "People Will Say We're In Love," which is delightful, even while making you want to smack the people singing it. But those still aren't "If I Loved You."<br />
<br />
There's a cat and mouse feel to the whole thing, as both Julie and Bill swear to the other that they don't love each other, but if they did? Well, they know exactly what that would be like. And what would it be like? It would involve failing to say it out loud, because they're both too nervous and proud to admit what they feel. They verbally dance in circles around each other during the song, underscoring the tension in their relationship, yet by the end, they can't help it! They must give in! And yes, we get that glorious kiss.<br />
<br />
Bonus points: The sheer length of the scene. I'm amazed this song stays enjoyable when they're taking SO LONG to get to the point, but that's the beauty of a song that spells out multiple levels of character.<br />
<br />
What could make it better: They actually face each other very little, and never sing at the same time in each other's faces. Wasted opportunity.<br />
<br />
Best Lyric: Longin' to tell you/But afraid and shy/I'd let my golden chances/Pass me by<br />
<br />
<b><u>Best Comedic Example:</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<i>"The Night is Young and You're So Beautiful" - Robin Hood: Men in Tights</i><br />
<i></i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-15DSAVMaYGA/XKxTEwhEBAI/AAAAAAAACsE/4TGQEpsbe1MYgs5HhDiOles4beFECLG0QCLcBGAs/s1600/men%2Bin%2Btights.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="358" data-original-width="480" height="238" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-15DSAVMaYGA/XKxTEwhEBAI/AAAAAAAACsE/4TGQEpsbe1MYgs5HhDiOles4beFECLG0QCLcBGAs/s320/men%2Bin%2Btights.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I had to break the rules a little here, since this number doesn't technically end in a kiss, but it gets pretty close. One of the running gags in this movie is that the characters aren't allowed to kiss, so that's part of why it gets a pass.<br />
<br />
The other reason why is because in comedic songs, they don't tend to end with the kiss actually happening. Whether it's "Where is the Song that Goes Like This?" from <i>Spamalot</i>, "Love is Strange" from <i>Galavant</i>, "Let's Have Intercourse" from <i>Crazy Ex-Girlfriend</i> or even "The Most Beautiful Girl in the Room" from <i>Flight of the Conchords</i>, the kiss doesn't come to be. Part of the comedy of the thing, I guess. But the purpose is pretty clear with all of these songs. They're designed to subvert our romance expectations and poke fun at the common tropes associated with these songs.<br />
<br />
And with that disclaimer out of the way, the best of them is definitely the one Robin sings to Maid Marion. The whole scene kills me. Carey Elwes hams up his role fantastically, but it's Amy Yasbeck as Marion that really sells the scene for me. She's trying so hard to be into it for his sake, but she's mostly just startled and terrified by the theatrics. Man, this movie is a frickin' classic.<br />
<br />
Bonus Points: He sings at her so forcefully her crown falls off her head.<br />
<br />
What could make it better: Some sweeping camera angles? Spinning, maybe? I dunno, aside from the lack of a kiss, it's pretty perfect already.<br />
<br />
Best lyric: What can I DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO??????<br />
<br />
<b><u>Best Disney Example:</u></b><br />
<b></b><u></u><br />
"A Whole New World" - <i>Aladdin</i><br />
<i></i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BsHw9YPNZ24/XKxWoXQIdmI/AAAAAAAACsc/rWuMPCu1zAsMnnL53nWvkyWrvFrJ5I0TACLcBGAs/s1600/a%2Bwhole%2Bnew%2Bworld.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="266" data-original-width="474" height="223" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BsHw9YPNZ24/XKxWoXQIdmI/AAAAAAAACsc/rWuMPCu1zAsMnnL53nWvkyWrvFrJ5I0TACLcBGAs/s400/a%2Bwhole%2Bnew%2Bworld.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
In the movie, both of Aladdin and Jasmine's kisses are scored to this classic, Oscar winning tune. So yes, there is technically a delay between the song and their first kiss, but the instrumentation comes in with the song when they kiss on the balcony and see??? At the end, they kiss as they sing a reprise of the song again. So it counts. It's my list, I say it counts.<br />
<br />
This song has been overplayed a little, and even as a wee one back in 1992, I remember getting tired of hearing the pop version on the radio. But this list is all about context and how the scene plays into the overall narrative. And here, it absolutely works. Aladdin works his way up to their epic balcony kiss by giving Jasmine the adventure she was never able to have before. Within the context of the movie, the scene is wonderfully charming. And like the best of these song+kiss scenes, it's about more than their romance. It's about the thrill of discovery and magic of their world. Subtly, it's also about Jasmine putting together the pieces that Prince Ali is the same boy she fell for back when she dressed up as a commoner in Agrabah.<br />
<br />
Bonus Points: A flying magic carpet! Obvious, I know, but you'll notice they do way more interesting things than stand in a gazebo or walk back and forth across a bridge.<br />
<br />
What could make it better: If the balcony kiss came more immediately on the heels of the song so that I didn't feel like I'm fudging it a bit.<br />
<br />
Best lyric: Hold your breath/It gets better.<br />
<br />
But enough beating around the bush! You came for the best triumphant, end-of-song kiss, and there must be one! So what is it? What beats out all the others to be Emily's all around favorite scene of this variety? How do you beat Disney at dramatic musical theatre kisses?<br />
<br />
You do it by looking at what the guys who wrote all your favorite Disney Songs did before coming to Disney. You go just a little Off Broadway to...<br />
<br />
<b><u>Best Dramatic Kissing Song</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
"Suddenly Seymour" -<i> Little Shop of Horrors</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-puxUeBAVhKk/XKxcWb_eQII/AAAAAAAACs0/p7lvpANtRwglY3OiA3VKb_2K0Aw3JF8igCLcBGAs/s1600/suddenly%2Bseymour.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="225" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-puxUeBAVhKk/XKxcWb_eQII/AAAAAAAACs0/p7lvpANtRwglY3OiA3VKb_2K0Aw3JF8igCLcBGAs/s400/suddenly%2Bseymour.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
So first off, fun fact:<br />
<br />
Back when Disney was trying to kickstart their animation division again, Broadway was experiencing something of a revival. Both Andrew Lloyd Webber and Stephen Sondheim were at the top of their game in the Eighties. What a time it must have been to be alive in New York city! They weren't the only ones doing great work either, with two talented, young writers named Howard Ashman and Alan Menken collaborating together on numerous smaller shows. The strongest of them, and the one that caught Disney's eyes, was <i>Little Shop of Horrors</i>.<br />
<br />
Top to bottom, it's a fantastic musical, and once you know that the same people who wrote the music for <i>Little Mermaid</i> and <i>Beauty and the Beast</i> are helming it, you can never unhear how much the show sounds like a Disney movie. It's got their classic brand of villain song, as well as one of the best love ballads anywhere.<br />
<br />
Mind you, "Suddenly Seymour" isn't a song that works great divorced from it's context. Part of why it's so good is because it's tailored to its characters. During the song, they both have the realization that they can and should be together. One of the many tragedies of this show (especially if you see the stage version, which is altogether far more tragic) is that it's taken so long for them to admit this to each other. Both Seymour and Audrey have adored and admired the other from a distance, but until this moment, they don't feel good enough for each other.<br />
<br />
This song is so loaded with catharsis. Over the course of the show, we've watched Audrey go through so much abuse and heartache. In "Suddenly Seymour," he finally gets up the courage to put himself forward, Audrey works through part of her own baggage about life and love, and then together, the two of them beg the universe to let this moment last. This song is an absolute emotional ringer of a number.<br />
<br />
It's also a good example of how these songs should work. At the beginning of the song, they are not ready to kiss. The emotion isn't there yet. They have to work their way through the emotions of the song and the little character transformations it involves before they reach the moment where they are ready to kiss. The song isn't a delay on the road to kissing, it's the vehicle by which they get there. As a result, it's so satisfying.<br />
<br />
Bonus points: This song hits everything. Character transformation in the course of a single song, agonized wailing directly in each other's faces, interlocking melodies, plus a totally sincere smackeroo at the end. What else could you ask for?<br />
<br />
What could make it better: As adorable as Rick Moranis is, I've generally preferred the live versions I've seen of this show to the filmed one. For one thing, I think there's some subtext lost to the song with the movie's happier ending.<br />
<br />
Best lyrics: All of Audrey's verse. It breaks my heart every time, despite how silly the musical is.<br />
Nobody ever treated me kindly/Daddy left early, Mama was poor/I'd meet a man and I'd follow him blindly/He'd snap his fingers. Me, I'd say, "sure."<br />
<br />
You'll notice those lyrics don't seem to have a lot to do with loving Seymour, but that's what makes the song work so well. It points out how all the lies and garbage we believe about ourselves impacts our ability to seize love when it comes to us.<br />
<br />
So if you're feeling lonely tonight, maybe get out there, grab someone attractive, and belt your personal issues at their face until you feel like kissing them. I mean... I've seen it work on stage.Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-78282715231816347312019-03-04T19:28:00.000-08:002019-03-04T19:31:07.192-08:00Umbrella Academy and the De-Marvelization of Netflix<div>
Over the past ten years, two juggernauts within the entertainment industry have risen up that, for better or worse, have permanently shifted the way movies and television are made today.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The first, The Walt Disney Company, was an old player in the Hollywood system, well established and with a familiar brand presence. But through a series of aggressive purchases of other companies, plus a daring new strategy of cross-promoting their films through "cinematic universe" style movies, they effectively forced all other major studios to play by their new tent-pole franchise strategy. The acquisition of Marvel was probably the most significant moment in this narrative. The subsequent "Marvel Cinematic Universe" (or MCU) rewrote the handbook for how to get movie-goers into seats, at a time when audiences willingness to head to the theatre was dwindling.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Speaking of dwindling cinema attendance, the second industry juggernaut, Netflix, effectively destroyed the home video rental market, and ever since then, has been chipping away of what is left of regular cable services. Other streaming services, like Hulu and Crave, have risen up to compete with them. Even television broadcasting companies, like CBS, are trying to entice viewers onto their own streaming services, but despite this, Netflix has remained the front-runner. Even when major networks pulled their content from Netflix, hoping to protect their own viewership, Netflix survived and thrived by fostering it's own original content.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
By the force of these two companies, one thing has become very clear. No one wants to leave their house unless given a very good reason. Otherwise, we'd all rather stay in and watch Netflix.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So it's little surprise that for a while, these two teamed up to create content. Marvel launched several TV shows on Netflix, including Luke Cage, Jessica Jones and the Punisher. All of them developed followings, and the shows allowed the Marvel brand to pursue stories that might be too mature to be palatable as part of the MCU. But gradually, these shows have been dying off. Netflix cancelled the last two quite recently, and while it might be easy to get mad at Netflix for doing this, my guess is their long-time collaborator is no longer playing ball.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Because yet another media giant is coming for Netflix and this time, it's Disney. Their own streaming service, Disney+, is due for a US launch in the fall. Let's face it. They'd rather not let Netflix enjoy a slice of their Marvel pie. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So with Marvel no longer in the picture, where was Netflix going to get wham-bam super hero content for our lazy I-don't-want-to-leave-the-house butts?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Enter a team of heroes. Enter <i>The Umbrella Academy</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IAb1b1T549Q/XH22RYyIrYI/AAAAAAAACpA/c3C0jhZ9Au0WeuL-4Q4dbOwa_1-ybeOZQCLcBGAs/s1600/umbrella-academy-netflix-2019-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1222" data-original-width="827" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IAb1b1T549Q/XH22RYyIrYI/AAAAAAAACpA/c3C0jhZ9Au0WeuL-4Q4dbOwa_1-ybeOZQCLcBGAs/s400/umbrella-academy-netflix-2019-01.jpg" width="270" /></a></div>
<div>
<b><u>Tale As Old As Time</u></b></div>
<div>
<b></b><u></u><br /></div>
<div>
<i>The Umbrella Academy</i> follows a group of super-powered siblings, who were all adopted as infants by eccentric millionaire, Reginald Hargreaves. Raised to be a crime-fighting team, they've since gone their separate ways, largely due to the abuse they suffered as children at the hands of their "father." But when they get the news that dear old Dad has died, they're forced to reunite for the funeral, which is crashed by an unexpected guest.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Their time-travelling brother, Five, ran away as a child, but he's back now, with bad news to boot. One, that he's a fifty-eight-year-old man trapped in the body of a thirteen-year-old. And two, that the apocalypse is coming in eight days and it's up to their dysfunctional family to try to stop it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's only been a couple weeks since the show launched, and already it's made an enormous splash. While Netflix's formulas for measuring viewership are a bit confusing, by most metrics, <i>Umbrella Academy</i>'s debut has surpassed every Marvel property TV show that Netflix has ever carried. And yet, undeniably, <i>Umbrella Academy</i> owes much of its success - perhaps even its existence - to Marvel. Not just because of the economic pressures that likely played a role in Netflix choosing to develop the show as outlined above. But in terms of tone, character, plot and theme, <i>Umbrella Academy</i> owes more to Marvel properties than almost any other source.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Many have pointed out that <i>The Umbrella Academy</i> is essentially what you get if Professor Xavier had been abusive towards the X-Men (one of the few Marvel properties Disney doesn't control the movie rights to. Yet.). Or it's a goofier, more stylish version of the Marvel/Netflix shows it was designed to replace. But if you ask me, there's an even clearer analogue in the MCU, and for the remainder of this essay, I plan on focusing on the similarities between the two.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Before I do though, please remember that similarity is not necessarily the same as plagiarism or unoriginality. Most of the similarities these properties share are due to the fact that both are superhero genre science fantasies. The tropes I describe are healthily on display in most superhero teams, whether you're talking about The Incredibles, The Justice League, or The Avengers. In many ways, <i>Umbrella Academy</i>'s use of these tropes is more a form of "joining the conversation" or responding to tropes that have existed for a very long time. After all, even if Reginald Hargreaves is basically an abusive Charles Xavier, the implications of that are dramatically different, and why not create a property that explores the impact of an abusive mentor figure on a team of superheroes? But setting <i>X-Men</i> aside for another day, let's take a look at...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u><b>Guardians of the Academy: Umbrella Galaxy</b></u></div>
<div>
<u></u><b></b><br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MyBkDb-PnGc/XH29YBy2pxI/AAAAAAAACpY/0byenNtEFhIgurUB9bBJsws350RmW1pIQCLcBGAs/s1600/guardians-of-the-galaxy-2014-movie-poster-gotg-review-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="593" data-original-width="400" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MyBkDb-PnGc/XH29YBy2pxI/AAAAAAAACpY/0byenNtEFhIgurUB9bBJsws350RmW1pIQCLcBGAs/s400/guardians-of-the-galaxy-2014-movie-poster-gotg-review-2.jpg" width="268" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We're all so used to the MCU, it might seem hard to remember that there was a time Disney wasn't certain <i>Guardians of the Galaxy</i> would be a smash hit. But once upon a time, the film was considered a gamble. Enough so that it was scheduled for release in August, a month that is famously lean for new releases. Disney didn't run the risk that the movie would fall flat among the bigger, flashier movies released earlier in the summer, prime "tent-pole" movie season. <i>Guardians</i> likely did benefit from being the only thing worth seeing in theatres for the month of August, but in hindsight, the film didn't just succeed because of marketing strategy. It succeeded because it was good.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Unlike previous entries into the MCU, <i>Guardians</i> was the first to feature heroes that by and large, no one knew. And it just looked so silly! A talking racoon? A sentient tree monster? Who was going to watch that? As it turned out, literally everyone. It knew it was silly, and it reveled in it. The characters were memorable, the aesthetic appealing and the theme of misfits coming together to save the world just so satisfying. In many ways, the relatively unknown nature of the property freed up the production team to pick and choose what elements they thought would work and what would build a strong movie.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In a similar vein, I'm not even going to pretend I'd heard of <i>The Umbrella Academy</i> before it popped up in my Netflix feed. And I say that as someone who actually reads comics. Not religiously. Not enough so to try to claim a high degree of street cred. But enough so that I know more than the big players of Marvel and DC. Enough so that seeing <i>The</i> <i>Umbrella Academy</i> get an adaptation, it made me hopeful Netflix might distribute the rumored adaptation of <i>Black Hammer</i>. Like, see? Enough so I've read at least SOME comics.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And so, Netflix had a lot of leeway when it came to adapting <i>The Umbrella Academy</i>, and what they chose ended up being something that hits almost all the same notes as <i>Guardians of the Galaxy</i>. Swap outer-space for an Edward Gorey soaked orphanage vibe, and you've essentially got this series. And because we all prefer seeing these comparisons as outright contests, let's bring back one of my favorite features of this blog. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Trope VS Tropes!!!! WHO DID SUPERHERO GROUPS BEST???</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<b><u>Category 1: Plot</u></b><br />
<b><u></u><u></u><br /></b>
The plots are almost identical between these two, aside from the inciting incident. In <i>Guardians</i>, a group of misfits meet in prison, and discover they can make a lot of money if they work together to bust out. But as they pursue the cash, they realize that they have something world-ending on their hands. Can they overcome their personal weaknesses to form an effective team and save the world????<br />
<br />
In <i>Umbrella</i>, our heroes meet at a funeral and as befits a funeral, they have history with each other. Initially, they each want to get something out of that funeral - closure, cash, validation. But as they each pursue their goals, they realize that they have something world-ending on their hands. <span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">Can they overcome their personal weaknesses to form an effective team and save the world????</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">Without giving too much away, I'll say this. Despite the characters not knowing each other, <i>Guardians</i> has the stronger, tighter inciting incident and, all the way through, the more motivated, driving plot. This is pretty typical of movies compared to TV properties, but whoever said these contests are fair? Still, when it reaches the final act, there is no denying that the stakes feel higher and more compelling in <i>Umbrella Academy</i>. There are some incredible moments through the end of <i>Guardians of the Galaxy</i>, but I'm not sure anyone ever really engages with the villain or feels the sense of dread <i>Umbrella Academy </i>manages to invoke. Still, due to never lagging and never wasting a moment of my time, this point goes to <i>Guardians of the Galaxy.</i> Way to go, guys!</span><br />
<u></u><b></b><u></u><b></b><i></i><i></i><b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><br />
<b><u>Category 2: Tone</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
Both films are marked by high amounts of humor, undercutting the casual violence that the characters participate in. Of the two, <i>Umbrella</i> definitely has the darker tone, with actual blood appearing in several scenes. Much of this has to do with <i>Guardians</i> making certain they maintain their PG-13 rating in theatres, where red blood is marketing poison. In fact, I'd argue that if there was blood, the violence would feel almost identical between the two. I'm guessing one of the reasons <i>Umbrella Academy</i> was more successful than previous Marvel/Netflix collaborations is because that, even with the red blood, the level of violence is more on par with MCU movies than the television shows.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But even outside the violence, <i>Umbrella Academy</i> deals with more mature themes. Both properties are about traumatized misfits, making jokes about how much their lives suck, but in <i>Umbrella Academy</i>, the suckage is just more real. People die in the present, not just backstories. The line between hero and villain is blurry. <i>Guardians</i> tries to explore some of these same emotional places, with characters like Nebula crossing over from evil into good come the sequel. But I'm of the opinion that the darker moments are just better done in <i>Umbrella Academy.</i> When Klaus cries, you cry.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Guardians</i> is almost hampered by its own optimism when it comes to the dark moments. Though, on the other hand, it's more consistently funny. Since it's not trying to balance anything as dark as what <i>Umbrella Academy</i> does, it's less likely that a joke arrives at a time when the audience isn't ready to laugh. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Umbrella Academy</i> is assuredly darker than <i>Guardians</i>, and so the comparison isn't as one-to-one here as it might be in other categories. It won't be for everyone, and in many ways, whichever you prefer will win out. But for my part, I found the tone more interesting in <i>Umbrella Academy</i>. It gave itself more room to do more things. Some have complained it tries to be too many things, but for me, the blend absolutely worked. So point to <i>Umbrella Academy</i>!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u><b>Category 3: Music</b></u></div>
<div>
<b></b><u></u><b></b><u></u><i></i><i></i><u></u><b></b><br /></div>
<div>
It was when I searched out a playlist of the <i>Umbrella Academy</i> music and put it on that the similarities between the two properties really began to hit me. This one is closely related to tone, and it's striking how much both properties rely on music to carry the humor and tone of their stories. It's pretty easy to trace a line between a jailbreak happening to "The Pina Colada Song" in <i>Guardians</i> and Five dispatching a team of assassins in a doughnut shop to the tune of "Istanbul (Not Constantinople)."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Both rely on nostalgic music to tell parts of their stories, and some of my favorite scenes owe their impact to the soundtrack. <i>Guardians</i> is anchored to seventies pop, <i>Umbrella Academy</i> draws from wider sources and decades, with a penchant towards rockabilly. Overall, <i>Umbrella Academy </i>featured more music that I like. Artists who I love and wish got more attention appeared all over the show, so I'm a bit biased towards their soundtrack BUT! But...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Guardians of the Galaxy</i> uses licensed music better than almost any movie or television show has within recent years. Most of the music is diegetic too - meaning that the audience understands that the soundtrack heard by the audience can also be heard by the characters. On top of that, the music is clearly used to tell a character story, about Peter Quill and his relationship with his mother. In <i>Umbrella Academy</i>, only a few scenes bother with this level of character integration (hint: they're also the most powerful). Otherwise, it's just awesome, funny music playing overtop of dramatic scenes. <i>Guardians</i> does that, plus ties the music into the identity of the main character.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So overall, the win goes to <i>Guardians</i>. Even if I'd personally rather listen to <i>Umbrella Academy</i> on loop.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>Category 4: Theme and Villains</u></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The enemy is Dad. Bad parenting is the root cause of almost every problem both groups face. Ronin the Accuser is something of a villain-by-proxy for Thanos in the first Guardians, and then, in the second, the metaphor lands much closer when Starlord meets his actual father.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
From the outset of <i>Umbrella Academy</i>, child abuse and reconciliation are central themes. I don't want to spoil how everything plays out over the course of the series, but rest assured, Reginald Hargreaves plays an instrumental role in how everything goes down, even after his death. <i>Umbrella Academy</i> has a plethora of villains, and manages to explore its themes around overcoming your childhood in a variety of ways through them. By the time the true villain of the series does reveal themselves, it's not enough to wipe the record clean for Reginald Hargreaves or others who supported him. It's still kinda true. The enemy is Dad.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Overall, the villains are scarier, more memorable and more thematically resonant in <i>Umbrella Academy</i>. Honestly, I wish I could say more, but I'd rather not spoil anything, so I've confined myself to these words. But I don't think you have to say much in order to beat out someone as forgettable as Ronin the Accuser. And much as Ego was an improvement, he doesn't hang over the series the way Reginald Hargreaves does. That much is evident from episode one. So in the end, our winner is <i>Umbrella Academy</i>, by a long shot.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u><b>Category 5: The Heroes</b></u></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2y4rTRYJC4E/XH3XgfFQOlI/AAAAAAAACpw/502IbXh8FZ81XHfJevxVeUc66Q1yj4I1QCLcBGAs/s1600/thQ651XYRH.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="711" data-original-width="474" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2y4rTRYJC4E/XH3XgfFQOlI/AAAAAAAACpw/502IbXh8FZ81XHfJevxVeUc66Q1yj4I1QCLcBGAs/s400/thQ651XYRH.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
<div>
When <i>Guardians of the Galaxy</i> came out, it copied a lot of the successes of the <i>Avengers</i>. After all, Disney was trying to make money off of an unknown intellectual property. Why not follow the formula of their most successful franchise? People have made a lot of jokes about how easily the team members match up across the two films and, wouldn't you guess it...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u>THE HERO: Captain America = Starlord = Luther</u></div>
<div>
<i></i><u></u><br /></div>
<div>
<u>THE LADY FRIEND: Black Widow = Gamora = Allison</u></div>
<div>
<u></u><br /></div>
<div>
<u>THE MUSCLE: Thor = Drax = Diego</u></div>
<div>
<u></u><br /></div>
<div>
<u>THE WISE GUY: Iron Man = Rocket = Five</u></div>
<div>
<u></u><br /></div>
<div>
<u>THE SWEET HEART: Hulk = Groot = Klaus</u></div>
<div>
<u></u><br /></div>
<div>
<u>THE OTHER ONE: Hawkeye = Mantis = Ben</u></div>
<div>
<u><br /></u></div>
<div>
<u> THE MENTOR: Nick Fury = Yandu = Hargreaves</u></div>
<div>
<u><br /></u></div>
<div>
Superhero teams tend to function on a system that can be described as a <a href="https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FiveManBand">Five Man Band</a>. The five core characters that form the Avengers, the Guardians and the Hargreaves siblings have been repeated ad nauseum across superhero fiction. Much of the drama that comes from these superhero mash-ups come from how different characters inhabit a role and whether they play with or against type.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
FOR EXAMPLE!!!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of our classic "hero" role outlined above, Captain America is the only one who plays the trope completely straight. He's ethical, kind, a touch naïve and a natural leader. Even though Tony Stark is the more prominent character in the group, he's not an organizer. So that role falls to the good soldier. Contrasting him is Black Widow, a pragmatist who serves as an ideological foil for him, with her history as a hired killer. Among the reasons Black Widow is more compelling opposite Captain America than The Hulk is because, frankly, their roles are more intertwined. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On the other hand, Starlord is a self-centered rascal, and it takes some time before he settles into the role of leader and organizer. The lady friend who contrasts with him is Gamora, a far more ethical, determined person. She makes up for what he lacks, steering him towards doing good. They're something of a deconstruction of the leader classic, with more qualities of a good leader embodied in the second-in-command, rather than Starlord himself.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And then there is Luther. On the surface, he's very much Captain America, with his brawny physique, dedication to the team and reliance on black and white morality. But as the series progresses, it becomes clear that the naivete that made Steve Rogers sweet might be making Luther dangerous. It's a deconstruction of a different variety. Allison has a more world-wearied persona, having made more of her own mistakes. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Similar comparisons can be made across the other characters. Thor, Drax and Diego are the least deeply entrenched in the team drama, and function more in a supportive role, whether that be by punching things or cracking jokes. Iron Man, Rocket and Five all could, arguably, lead the group if they wanted to. They're the most powerful and effective individual, so wouldn't that suggest they'd make the best person to call the shots? But through a combination of ego and surliness, they struggle to take on the squishier, people handling aspects of that role. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Finally, there's the team sweet heart. The one who makes the audience cry with their tragic backstory or willingness to sacrifice for the group. Classically, without the sweetheart, the team falls apart. The Hulk is probably the most playing against type, as he eschews the whole role at points, much to the distress of his teammates, who all just want to convince him he's worthy of love. Groot is lovable, largely because of his willingness to protect the others and his innocence. And finally, there is Klaus, who despite his numerous addictions and calloused selfishness, is probably the most loyal take on the character type. He's the literal connection to the team's past, through his ability to commune with the dead, and as mentioned above, if Klaus cries, the audience cries. He's a precious little cinnamon roll that the world keeps pooping on, and there's almost no better recipe for audience sympathy.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In all three of the above iterations, each of the characters doesn't just exist as an individual, but as a member of a team. It might be tempting to cherry pick a perfect team from across the three properties best characters - one where the hero is Starlord, the lady friend Black Widow, the muscle Drax, the wise guy Five and the sweet heart Klaus - but even though these five would be my five favorites in each category, they don't work well mixed together. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And even though only Black Widow made it into my top pick for each category, I think somehow, as a team, the Avengers are the strongest of the bunch. Maybe it's because they've got add-ons like Hawkeye and Nick Fury. I don't know. Suffice it to say, there's a reason the Guardians were modeled on the Avengers and that the Umbrella Academy echoes that themselves.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So I'm breaking my own rules and giving it to <i>Avengers</i> for this category. I CANNOT BE STOPPED!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u><b>OVERALL:</b></u></div>
<div>
<u><b></b><br /></u></div>
<div>
?????????</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
With both <i>Guardians of the Galaxy</i> and <i>The Umbrella Academy</i>, the franchises are still in progress. I'd say that I probably preferred the original <i>Guardians</i> movie, but some aspects of the second disappointed me, which raises the new kid in my estimation - <i>The Umbrella Academy</i> - due to having had fewer chances to mess up it's legacy. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm mostly just grateful that we live in a world that gets to have both - the optimism of the MCU and the dour stylishness of <i>The Umbrella Academy</i>. And as Disney and Netflix move into competition with one another, my hope is that Netflix has enough of their Marvel formula mastered to carve out its survival underneath the pressure of Disney's streaming service. Disney has eaten up a lot of companies recently, and, as much as I enjoy their content, I get nervous thinking of a world where they consume too much of the media pie. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So I'm all here for Netflix creating its own mythos. And if <i>The</i> <i>Umbrella Academy </i>is the first step towards the new media landscape, I'm excited to see where it goes.</div>
<div>
<u></u><br /></div>
Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-8507378509186458102019-02-06T13:36:00.001-08:002019-02-06T13:36:41.524-08:00Momentum and the Art of the EndingGrowing up, one of my favorite things to do was play video games (she said, as if this phase had passed at all). I was particularly into RPGs and like any good 90's kid with a Playstation, this meant a lot of Final Fantasy. Little surprise, I was largely into these games "for the stories," but my favorite part of the games usually came when the gaming mechanism and the storytelling were the most at odds. My delight was the late game side-quest.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-k3ykUw5Fv1w/XFtKZ8rqNVI/AAAAAAAACnw/3ysaD69hDrArxSrwBfDEA6Kd1sQOFfprwCLcBGAs/s1600/FF10.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-k3ykUw5Fv1w/XFtKZ8rqNVI/AAAAAAAACnw/3ysaD69hDrArxSrwBfDEA6Kd1sQOFfprwCLcBGAs/s400/FF10.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I really wanted that dress made of belts, I tell ya.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Side-quests are like the subplots of video games - not strictly necessary for the wider narrative, but very important in that they add richness and depth to the world. In genres like science fiction and fantasy, which numerous video games and all Final Fantasy games fall into, side-quests and subplots are essential for giving the epic scope to the world building that a too tightly hemmed story could not.<br />
<br />
But there is a time and place for all things in fiction, and video games often fall into a trap of going off the rails thanks to the inclusion of the side-quest. In every Final Fantasy game, all the best side-quests opened up right at the end of the game, when you finally had an airship to fly around the map and enough weapons to blow up whatever might be at the end of your little diversion from the plot. Often, the end of a game played out like this:<br />
<br />
Girl in dress made of belts: Oh no! Thousands have been murdered by Lord Eveelus and his laser drill! If only we'd beaten him to the cave of Ger'blath and the mystic jewel inside!<br />
Spikey-haired dude: BROODING<br />
Guy with guns even though everyone else has swords: We must go to the government facilities at Rindondonk and stop Eveelus from activating the drill again!<br />
Spikey-haired dude: Now that my amnesia is gone and I know Lord Eveelus is my father, I must kill him. This war cannot wait.<br />
*COLLECTIVE BROODING*<br />
Girl with glasses: I'll fire up the engines and we'll go to Rindo-<br />
Me, the Player: Nope. Please head to the northeast corner of the map.<br />
Glasses girl: But Lord Eveelus-<br />
Me: Nope, definitely not. We finally have an airship and there's an island in the northeast corner we haven't explored yet and what if there's a really big sword on it? Don't worry, it can wait.<br />
<br />
And it could! It was never essential that you actually head to Rindondonk right away. Lord Eveelus would wait. By the time I got around to the main plot line again, I'd generally forgotten half the details of the final conflict and all sense of urgency was gone.<br />
<br />
In books, the author controls the pacing of the plot and inclusion of subplots, so this kind of thing is rarer, but it does still happen. I've heard a few people comment that the end of the first <i>Hunger Games </i>book can be a bit rough for this. Right as Katniss is starting to get confident in her position in the games, she spends a few chapters getting Peeta's health back in order. It serves the narrative well in many ways, but as my sister once put it, for some reason it feels like she's stuck in that cave with Peeta for forever. All the momentum the book built up to that point screeches to a halt.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6CArgtewvq4/XFtK7xNmHOI/AAAAAAAACn4/0b2tjC5cKVMa_P6MTsS2NJdZGKQsFKpvgCLcBGAs/s1600/cave%2Bscene.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="240" height="333" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6CArgtewvq4/XFtK7xNmHOI/AAAAAAAACn4/0b2tjC5cKVMa_P6MTsS2NJdZGKQsFKpvgCLcBGAs/s400/cave%2Bscene.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Even Katniss is so done with this cave.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Pacing refers to the speed at which the reader is pulled through the plot, and is one of the trickier things to master in writing. Both the romance with Peeta and even that quest to the north east corner of the video game world are necessary parts of their stories, even if they are subplots. But included in the wrong place or dragged on too long, they reduce the impact of later scenes that are maybe more important for the resolution of the overarching story.<br />
<br />
For endings in particular, good pacing usually means preserving momentum. By the time the climax arrives, readers generally don't want diversions. They want to feel the urgency of the characters carry them through to the end. Achieving this means that all the set-up for the ending needs to come earlier - those subplots need to be woven in before the crush of the final conflict squeezes out space for them. Yes, parts of the subplot can come back. Take the end of the <i>Harry Potter</i> franchise where, right before the final battle with Voldemort in the seventh book, Percy Weasley turns up, begging his family to forgive him for being a butt and let him fight alongside them. There's a tense family moment, but very quickly, that resolution happens, because that subplot was set up a long, long time ago. Not much is needed by the time Percy bursts onto the scene. His character growth feels like a part of the climax, rather than a diversion from it.<br />
<br />
So while the problem with Katniss and Peeta might happen in the cave, the root cause was probably earlier. Suzanne Collins showcases the pair together plenty in the first half, but Katniss doesn't demonstrate much vulnerability to Peeta until the cave scene. If Collins had let them be a little more tender together earlier, she might not have needed to spend so long in the final third of the book trying to earn all those "feels" she needed for the final climax to work. Maybe that story Katniss told about Prim's goat should have been back on their pre-games train ride. Then there could have been a quick allusion to it, then immediate kissing and behold! The cave scene is a chapter shorter and my sister is a chapter less antsy for the action to pick up.<br />
<br />
As is the case in most things in life, one of the best examples of pacing endings properly comes to us from the TV show <i>Survivor</i>. I've mentioned before on this blog that I find the show a fascinating lesson in editing, and often what I'm meaning by that is editing for pacing. Survivor pioneered a lot of tropes in reality TV, but it's fascinating what particular tropes they carefully avoided from the beginning of the show, and one was the late episode commercial cut.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rronGRIr-N4/XFtLmFQNkcI/AAAAAAAACoE/mNEYArCErHEUVfwIvTquZ01_9gDZ2TK3wCLcBGAs/s1600/probst.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="400" height="300" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rronGRIr-N4/XFtLmFQNkcI/AAAAAAAACoE/mNEYArCErHEUVfwIvTquZ01_9gDZ2TK3wCLcBGAs/s400/probst.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">MUAHAHAHAHA! I'm talking about Survivor again!!!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
From <i>American Idol </i>to <i>Cutthroat Kitchen</i>, almost every other elimination style reality show relies on a cheap form of cliffhanger to keep viewers around past commercial breaks. Right as the host is about to announce the eliminated contestant, the camera cuts away and you're suddenly watching a woman dance around her kitchen with Mr. Clean. But not on <i>Survivor</i>. This was a conscious decision on the part of the producers, who didn't want to compromise the momentum of these important moments or cheapen them with content they didn't control. It paid off, and eighteen years after it aired, the show is still going strong, while scores of imitators have fallen. I'm of the opinion that people get tired of being manipulated. Those pre-elimination commercial breaks serve as reminders that producers see their audiences as potential customers, and their own shows as gimmicks that get you to watch advertisements. Obviously this isn't the only reason most of these shows turn-over and get replaced by other, similar reality shows, but it speaks to a lack of care from the show runners. If the climax of a story isn't sacred, then nothing is.<br />
<br />
In contrast, on <i>Survivor</i>, from the start of tribal council to the eliminated contestant getting their torch snuffed, there are no commercials, no artificial breaks and no outside-the-moment confessionals from other players. For writers, the lack of confessionals is particularly important. Throughout the rest of the episode, confessionals are used to provide narration alongside the scenes of camp and give the viewer a glimpse into what the contestants are *really* thinking. During tribal council, however, the emphasis is on the moment at hand. All the set-up that gets the viewer into the players heads has to be already done.<br />
<br />
In a particularly well crafted episode, the viewers know enough about the inner workings of camp-life to have a sense of who is vulnerable to elimination each night, but not enough to know for certain who it will be. Tribal then unfolds in a manner that makes it feel more "live," even though the whole show is pre-recorded and edited. Still, it tricks the brain into feeling the urgency of the moment and the show doesn't relinquish that urgency until after the votes are read. It's solid, good storytelling.<br />
<br />
<i>Survivor</i> isn't perfect from a storytelling perspective. Believe me, I have examples. But I find some of the choices they make interesting and instructive because for how silly the show is, it's edited extremely well. Meandering, unfocused endings are very easy to write, and I've seen a few of them editing unpublished works. Truthfully, I've written them as well.<br />
<br />
Luckily, I've got reality TV to correct all the things I learned from video games.Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-80279889385442017362018-11-23T15:11:00.000-08:002018-11-23T15:54:50.294-08:00Harry Potter and the Preservation of the Status QuoIn 1996, one year before the release of the first Harry Potter book, another YA fantasy series got its start. Critically acclaimed at the time, and borderline obscure now, <i>The Thief</i>, by Megan Whalen Turner, takes place in a world inspired by Renaissance Era Greece and Turkey. It's one of my favorite on-going series (she just released the most recent one in 2017) and it's about...<br />
<br />
Um...<br />
<br />
Well...<br />
<br />
The first one is about a thief, but that was probably self-explanatory. And I already mentioned the Greece/Turkey thing. Other than that? Weeeeeelllllll........<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4cDqc6v3D7g/W_iE4mK2DPI/AAAAAAAACjs/clrp2FjOETUTGJah_fOyhP-3hQtvpfMagCLcBGAs/s1600/Thief.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="475" data-original-width="316" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4cDqc6v3D7g/W_iE4mK2DPI/AAAAAAAACjs/clrp2FjOETUTGJah_fOyhP-3hQtvpfMagCLcBGAs/s400/Thief.jpg" width="265" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Seriously though, great book.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
One of the strengths and weaknesses of the series is that Turner plays fast and loose with the rules of good series writing. Her books are rarely from the point of view of the same character twice, she flip flops between third and first person perspective with abandon (arguably even using second person perspective at one point), and the tone and structure of the plots range wildly across the five books. When you pick up a novel in this series, you don't really know what you're going to get.<br />
<br />
While it's something I love and respect about her writing now, this almost killed the series for me in the second book. The first is still my favorite, and I went into book two expecting something similar. But they weren't the same types of stories. I almost didn't read the third, but my best friend was so insistent that the third one was wonderful, I eventually gave in. I'm glad I did, because (again) the third was nothing like the second OR first, but at least I liked it and at this point, knew better than to expect consistency.<br />
<br />
Now don't get me wrong; you still need to read them in order for the story to come together fully. And there are common elements between them, like the general setting and an emphasis on story-telling and mythology. But between the drawn out release schedule (book five was released last year, <i>twenty-one years</i> after the first book came out) and the lack of a status quo, I get why this series never blew up in the public conscience the way <i>Harry Potter</i> did a year later. Frankly, it's hard to pitch a series that doesn't stick to it's own rules.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Harry Potter and the Mystery of the Magical Thingy</u></b><br />
<br />
Quick question: What are the Harry Potter books about?<br />
<br />
Almost anyone can list the basic components off the top of their heads: Boy wizard attends magic school, makes friends and goes on adventures trying to solve what wacky hijinks Voldemort has in store for this edition!<br />
<br />
In addition to the basic premise pitched above, here are a few other stalwarts that showed up in every (or almost every) Harry Potter book:<br />
- a new spell/magical object, which would be key to solving the book's central mystery<br />
- a new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher<br />
- Quidditch matches<br />
- a pivotal scene at Christmas time<br />
- a conversation with Dumbledore at the end of the book<br />
- Hogwarts itself figures almost like a character<br />
- most scenes written in third person, limited point of view, from Harry's perspective<br />
- thoroughly described British food<br />
- Harry, Ron and Hermione operating as a trio, despite their differences<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1xh5C2dYOTs/W_iFEa-SV_I/AAAAAAAACjw/8qmzv1STao4wqLAR47kRK1ZZp8W5cxyqACLcBGAs/s1600/invisible.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="480" height="300" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1xh5C2dYOTs/W_iFEa-SV_I/AAAAAAAACjw/8qmzv1STao4wqLAR47kRK1ZZp8W5cxyqACLcBGAs/s400/invisible.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A Deathly Hallow, given at Christmas. I know what I'm talking about, man!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The book that strayed the most from this formula was, of course, the final one, <i>Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows</i>. I mentioned in <a href="https://emilypaxman.blogspot.com/2018/04/ranking-harry-potter-books-from-worst.html">my ranking of the seven <i>Harry Potter </i>books</a> that I think the books lost something by abandoning Hogwarts, but I know plenty of people who feel differently. Part of me agrees. Rowling spent a long time at Hogwarts and was clearly sick of writing Quidditch and frankly, Quidditch matches would have seemed so superfluous in the final installment, I'm glad she didn't hem too strictly to her previous models. Overall, while <i>Deathly Hallows </i>might be missing some of the fun and magic of earlier books, the changes feel justified.<br />
<br />
But there are still a remarkable number of ways <i>Deathly Hallows</i> doesn't rock the boat. The central heroes don't change. The final battle still is at Hogwarts. The quality of British food has gone down in the camping sequences. There's an emotional Christmas at Godric's Hollow. And not even death can stop Dumbledore from giving an end of book pep-talk to Harry.<br />
<br />
Arguably, the Harry Potter books are rather stagnant sequel to sequel, but I'd argue that's one of their strengths. They changed just enough each time, but never the core of what people enjoyed. Rowling wisely built into her model things we could expect to change book to book - new teachers, new spells - so that she could get away with adding new material that didn't feel as though it broke the rules of the previously established world/books.<br />
<br />
The best series establish a status quo readers want to return to, but build some flexibility into their structure to allow for innovation. You read <i>Redwall </i>because you want adorable mice defending an abbey full of food, but the evil abbey attackers of the week can change. You read <i>The Hunger Games </i>because you want to see Katniss fire some arrows and stress over boys, but her allies and who dies in the arena can change.<br />
<br />
Assuming a series starts on a strong foot, the problems creep in when the creators don't seem to know what elements can safely change and what can't. It's all very well to say that a "flexible status quo" is important, but how do you pick out the elements readers want to see again and again and what is ripe for rewriting? Sadly, this is one of those areas that's probably easier to learn from by examining failures than those that did get the balance right.<br />
<br />
<u><b>Fantastic Beasts and Where on Earth is This Going?</b></u><br />
<u><b><br /></b></u>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FMzRfDgb9CE/W_iFeJPkTnI/AAAAAAAACj8/6eejcyBJh0c7grHOecUIZqoc6nmB-SdQwCLcBGAs/s1600/newt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="423" data-original-width="560" height="301" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FMzRfDgb9CE/W_iFeJPkTnI/AAAAAAAACj8/6eejcyBJh0c7grHOecUIZqoc6nmB-SdQwCLcBGAs/s400/newt.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">D'awwwwwwwwwwww</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<u><b><br /></b></u>
Woof, these movies.<br />
<br />
Since the second movie is newly out, I'll try not to spoil too much, but be warned. There are criticisms ahead.<br />
<br />
I want to love them. I do love aspects of them, particularly Newt Scamander himself, who is a darling cinnamon roll of a human being. Over two films, there are some real strengths and some real weaknesses. Bothering me at this present moment, is one central concern: this series does not know what it's about.<br />
<br />
The first film started out well. I'm not a purist, so the idea of more films exploring the same world appealed to me. I didn't much care when they had to rewrite some of Newt and Dumbledore's history, so as to allow for the new world and stories to exist. Most of those details hemmed the world in such that it would have made for boring movies. Early writing by Rowling portrayed Newt as a low-level ministry worker who gradually rose through the ranks by doing exceptional work and never rocking the boat. That character is markedly less interesting than the "new" Newt.<br />
<br />
More importantly, the first film seemed to strike the balance "right" when it came to sequels and choosing what to change and what not to. Because this movie was taking place in a new time period, with a new cast of characters, most fans I spoke to were willing to give the movies a chance. They weren't messing too hard with beloved characters, like the original power trio. Superficially, they were starting over. But just because these movies aren't about Harry Potter doesn't mean they aren't sequels. Realistically, they're still being marketed to the same demographic who read and loved Potter, and so long as that's the target audience, certain expectations are going to come into play.<br />
<br />
So what are those expectations? And how well do the Fantastic Beast movies follow along with them?<br />
<br />
The first movie featured a couple key ways they matched the original Potterverse. One, the first movie was still a mystery about a particular magical element, in this case, Obscurials. There were ways the mystery format felt a bit weaker, with the villain actually doing more of the investigating than Newt himself, but from the first scenes of a giant shadowy thing ripping up New York, we knew what the central mystery was.<br />
<br />
Second, much of the appeal of the <i>Harry Potter</i> books came from fun characters who loved each other, running around together, trying to solve problems. The first movie mostly succeeded here too. Watching BFFs Jacob and Newt go on adventures, and gradually pick up Queenie and Tina was a hoot. I wish Tina got a chance to act out an emotion other than "worried" more often, but hey. The rest of the cast was great, and I didn't <i>dislike </i>her, so it was a solid start. In fact, of everyone in the second film, Tina wins the award for "most improved." It turns out, she does have something beyond resting-worried face to offer the world.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ydcSmS8gzYM/W_iFm-guR2I/AAAAAAAACkA/y5Rb-yKcS3YAtl9nzMPuvMroP7uOkr5ygCLcBGAs/s1600/tina%2Bworried.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="504" data-original-width="1200" height="167" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ydcSmS8gzYM/W_iFm-guR2I/AAAAAAAACkA/y5Rb-yKcS3YAtl9nzMPuvMroP7uOkr5ygCLcBGAs/s400/tina%2Bworried.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Even when flirting, so very very worried.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Third, elaborate world building. While Hogwarts is far more iconic than 1920s New York, or any of the locations used in the sequel, other aspects off the world design really have paid off in both films. The original <i>Fantastic Beasts</i> was actually the first film in the entire series to win an Oscar, because the design team was freed up a bit, and they really knocked it out of the park on costuming.<br />
<br />
Visually, the sparkle is still there in the second film. But aside from a better version of Tina, categories one and two took major hits in the sequel. The plot suffers from a syndrome where everything is explained at the eleventh hour, in the final act, and up until then, it feels like characters are just running around, communicating poorly for the sake of maintaining "tension." What this means is that what the central mystery is doesn't become clear until the very moment it's solved. Or possibly never. YouTube is littered with videos right now "explaining" that "crazy ending" in the second movie because, unfortunately, it needs either an encyclopedic knowledge of previous Potter material to follow along, or someone who has that knowledge to excitedly wave their arms at you and talk you through for an hour after the film. (For those in need of services, I charge a reasonable fee for my Harry Potter frantic arm waving)<br />
<br />
Second, they botched the friend group dynamic way too soon. Some might rightly point out that the <i>Harry Potter</i> books weren't afraid to let the characters fight and have drama. But there was still a status quo they got back to by the end of each book. Come end of term, Ron and Hermione were no longer sniping at each other and Harry was no longer morosely avoiding one of them. Their friendship was always a power they could rely on when things got bad. Even when she was frozen by a basilisk, Hermione still gave the boys the final clue to defeat Voldemort. In the interest of going "darker," the second movie denied us the entire dynamic that made the first movie and every <i>Harry Potter</i> book fun. And that sucks.<br />
<br />
What follows is an incoherent, messy plot where you're not sure who you're rooting for and you can't tell why you're being led into each scene. And why does the camera keep cutting away right before newcomer Lita Lestrange can just SAY what the deal is? Poor Lita. A few more minutes screen time, and this whole movie could have fallen into place an hour earlier.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Breaking Viewer Expectations</u></b><br />
<br />
The second film briefly returns to Hogwarts, where Dumbledore is teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts. I loved all the scenes that took us back to the place I fell in love with as a child. I couldn't help thinking, "man... I wish we were watching the movie taking place here."<br />
<br />
You could sense what the story going on in the background was about. McClaggen coming to Dumbeldore's defense brought back wiffs of Harry himself. Lita Lestrange, misunderstood Slytherin girl with a weakness for gentle Hufflepuff boys, spoke to the odd-duck friendships we loved in the original. The first series knew what it was about, and when these films echo that sense of purpose, they're at their best. Unfortunately, they aren't willing to embrace the past.<br />
<br />
The warning signs were there from the beginning. Those involved with making the films said years ago that the second would be very different from the first. They made good on that promise, but likely went too different too soon.<br />
<br />
Right now, as I try to find the essential qualities of the franchise, my list is an abbreviated mess of both good and bad qualities, none of which I feel certain will last until the next movie. The friend group didn't, so what else is up for grabs? If I had to guess, based on the first two films, here is my recipe for what stays consistent in a <i>Fantastic Beasts</i> movie:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vNng3D5E8Ck/W_iFx6SqXLI/AAAAAAAACkI/_EaK7LPk-Fkyz2mdIYR_gy8ILONmMX-lQCLcBGAs/s1600/niffler.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="630" data-original-width="1200" height="210" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vNng3D5E8Ck/W_iFx6SqXLI/AAAAAAAACkI/_EaK7LPk-Fkyz2mdIYR_gy8ILONmMX-lQCLcBGAs/s400/niffler.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A most important movie element</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
- Newt Scamander introduces us to a new dangerous animal, that is secretly very sweet. This will always be the best scene in the movie.<br />
- Nifflers!<br />
- Let's visit a new swanky city in the 1920s! Hurray for costumes!<br />
- Newt runs around town in a sequence of not very plot-centric adventures<br />
- Tina is worried.<br />
- Grindlewald is the villain... he's a completely different kind of villain between two movies, but he's still the villain.<br />
- There is a central mystery but who - if anyone - is solving it is even more mysterious.<br />
- Everything is navy blue and probably taking place in an alley, where silhouettes converse<br />
- One of Newt's beasts helps save the day.<br />
<br />
I really hope that last one remains true. By far, the most compelling aspect of the series is that Newt sees humanity in the inhuman. He and his creatures are underestimated, but he knows how to use them to get the upper hand.<br />
<br />
If the series doesn't end with an acromantula eating Gridlewald, I'll be very disappointed.Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-34237627507209630532018-07-11T22:44:00.020-07:002023-02-22T17:44:02.037-08:00Ranking the Best Animated Pictures from Worst to BestThere are very few areas of art and entertainment where I genuinely consider myself an "expert." Standing in the way of this is my awareness that I haven't read/watched/listened to ALL THE THINGS!!! I'm well read, but never, it seems, quite well-read enough. Admittedly, no one is. We all have gaps in our knowledge that makes comparing pieces or picking a "best of the best" very difficult.<br />
<br />
By way of example, based on MY consumption of animated television, I would contest that the best children's animated TV series of all time is Disney's <i>Recess</i>. But I've never felt like I can put a real flag down on that claim for two simple reasons: <i>Avatar: The Last Airbender</i> and <i>Steven Universe</i>. I keep meaning to watch these, as both are heralded as some of the best animation of all time. (Like, seriously. I can already feel the lectures coming in the comments). But time is short and I really should spend more time reading than catching up on TV and yadda yadda. Either way, until I do, I'm not confident in any grandiose claims I want to make in favor of <i>Recess</i>.<br />
<br />
Which means I get excited when I realize that I DO have some area of expertise that I can start shouting my opinions about, and do you know what I realized today??? I have seen EVERY Oscar winning animated movie. Hot Dog!<br />
<br />
Whether or not this is something to shout from the rooftops with pride is probably a matter of opinion. For myself, I say it with some satisfaction. I love animation, and I love that I get to use my position as a children's author as an excuse to continue to engage with animated movies as both a high-brow, snooty pants critique, and a rabid, doe-eyed fan.<br />
<br />
And for better or worse, there's a huge range in quality between the various films that have won the award. Some of them I don't really even like. Of course, while this list represents just one personal opinion, I've done my best to explain why, from a craft perspective, one movie fell short compared to another. Some of the factors I'll be considering include: Plot and pacing, character, humor, emotional resonance, art direction and rewatchability. That last one mostly came into play when I had two movies neck and neck and struggled to pick which one beat out the other.<br />
<br />
Without further ado, here are the Oscar winning animated features! Some of them even deserved it.<br />
<br />
<b>#21. HAPPY FEET (2006)</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jw_vwhRPeFA/W0O3SQTgguI/AAAAAAAACbw/S0mpciBgM1Q5Rkvaf7GZ8VfHRl9i7sYkACLcBGAs/s1600/happy%2Bfeet.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="254" data-original-width="432" height="235" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jw_vwhRPeFA/W0O3SQTgguI/AAAAAAAACbw/S0mpciBgM1Q5Rkvaf7GZ8VfHRl9i7sYkACLcBGAs/s400/happy%2Bfeet.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
On the surface, <i>Happy Feet</i> is an inoffensive, plucky movie about penguins that sing and dance. Those basic surface details are done well enough. The penguins DO sing, except for Elijah Wood penguin, who dances! And then more penguins dance! If that was all this movie tried to do, I think it would be substantially better. Once you get below the surface, however, it becomes apparent that <i>Happy Feet</i> is an incoherent mess. It starts with one cliche plot - that of the outsider who must win over his town with his quirky skill/personality - only to trade that cliche plot for a different one about... environmentalism? The dangers of putting penguins in zoos? It doesn't really matter though, because neither plot is done well and neither one makes you care particularly about the characters. Once you get past the glitz of the singing/dancing penguins, there isn't much to invest in. To top it off, the animation tends to stray into the "uncanny valley." For those unfamiliar with the term, this refers to when something is made to look life-like, but is missing that "spark", so you're left feeling like you're watching a moving corpse. For evidence, please look at the above image and try to tell me these aren't robot penguins.<br />
<br />
WHAT SHOULD HAVE WON: 2006 was a lean year for animation. There weren't any great contenders, but even so, the award should have gone to <i>Cars</i>. I'm no apologist for the <i>Cars </i>franchise, but its story was okay and it had characters who at least earned the toys that were made of them. More than the gobbledeegook of <i>Happy Feet</i> can claim.<br />
<br />
<b>#20. WALLACE AND GROMIT: THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT (2005)</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5f_NHw1XQhw/W0O5d1-bxoI/AAAAAAAACcY/G2e49bz-GCwYD4cbSAVQUFuyiORUXuZQQCLcBGAs/s1600/wererabbit.0.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1200" height="266" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5f_NHw1XQhw/W0O5d1-bxoI/AAAAAAAACcY/G2e49bz-GCwYD4cbSAVQUFuyiORUXuZQQCLcBGAs/s400/wererabbit.0.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Growing up, I was a HUGE fan of <i>Wallace and Gromit</i>. I had knitted plushies of them and everything, at a time when most kids had never heard of these British claymation shorts. (Yeah, I'm gonna go hipster on <i>Wallace and Gromit</i>. Fight me.) I wanted the full length movie to be good so badly, but when it came, it mostly elicited a "meh..." from me. There's some fantastic animation, but aside from that, I think this movie showed that the pair were better suited to short form. The plot was weird in a way that didn't quite hit the same charming note of the previous outings. Also, there was too much Wallace and not enough Gromit. The shorts rode on the appeal of that unibrow dog.<br />
<br />
WHAT SHOULD HAVE WON: While not his best of the best, Miyazaki's <i>Howl's Moving Castle</i> was gorgeously animated and quite enjoyable. Also, while I haven't seen it, I know there are quite a few fans of<i> Corpse Bride</i> out there, so maybe it belongs in the conversation too.<br />
<br />
<b>#19. BRAVE (2012)</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gSxxnY2CK_o/W0O925vHEEI/AAAAAAAACc8/dAvqdlO1Xsw-m-ztJfc4Dcd9Ykm89uzhgCLcBGAs/s1600/brave.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="505" data-original-width="900" height="223" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gSxxnY2CK_o/W0O925vHEEI/AAAAAAAACc8/dAvqdlO1Xsw-m-ztJfc4Dcd9Ykm89uzhgCLcBGAs/s400/brave.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The first time Pixar tackled a princess movie, they got less than stellar results. <i>Brave</i> had a lot of potential, with a fabulous setting, gorgeous animation and fun voice cast. But it's weighed down with a not particularly original "arranged marriage" plot line, a mid-section that grows more boring the more bears are added and a heroine who mostly just whines her way through the movie and never is particularly sympathetic.<br />
<br />
WHAT SHOULD HAVE WON: Making this year especially frustrating, there were several better movies that came out in 2012. <i>ParaNorman</i> isn't perfect, but it's fun, creepy and inventive. <i>The Pirates! Band of Misfits</i> is one of the silliest movies ever made and might just be the single best use of the vocal talents of Hugh Grant. But the award probably should have gone to <i>Wreck-It Ralph</i>, which seemed like a big, dumb, goofy story at the time, but has held up on rewatch surprisingly well. <div><br /><div>
<b>#18. UP (2009)</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0brhOMlkKMo/W0PBmwV_9KI/AAAAAAAACd4/sYGt4G2T1ycuNSlDRsKLtse7WHDHR6cJwCLcBGAs/s1600/up%2Bballoons.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="224" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0brhOMlkKMo/W0PBmwV_9KI/AAAAAAAACd4/sYGt4G2T1ycuNSlDRsKLtse7WHDHR6cJwCLcBGAs/s400/up%2Bballoons.jpg" width="298" /></a></div>
<br />
MUAHAHAHAHA!!! I'm guessing this will be my first truly controversial ranking. This movie was so adored in it's day, it's one of a tiny class of animated films that managed to nab a nomination for Best Picture. And if this list was a ranking of the best movie openings of all time, it would be very close to the top, if not number one. I'm with you on that, guys. The beginning sequence with Carl and Ellie is so enchanting. In fact, that sequence alone is why this movie is as high up as it is. When it comes to most of the rest of the movie, very little of it worked for me. The villain plot feels so weird and tacked on, the dogs are annoying and the story of Russel and Carl feels drowned out by these two overblown elements. That being said, this film absolutely did deserve the Oscar it won for best original score. What I'm saying is I understand why people like this film, but I think it's got some pretty glaring weaknesses. That, or you all like talking dogs making unoriginal squirrel jokes 1000% more than I do.<br />
<br />
WHAT SHOULD HAVE WON: Any of the four other movies nominated this year. <i>The Secret of Kells</i> is one of the most unique and lushly animated movies I've ever seen. <i>Fantastic Mr. Fox</i> is strange and hilarious. <i>Coraline</i> is the most terrifying thing with a label that says "for children" slapped on it, and that's kind of awe-inspiring. And <i>The Princess and the Frog</i> feels like a love letter to earlier Disney movies, told with gorgeous, hand-drawn animation and a fantastic musical score. Honestly, all are brilliant and all have better stories than <i>Up</i>.<br />
<b><br /></b><div><b>#17. TOY STORY 4 (2019)</b><br /><b><br /></b><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xpRLs5WZsSI/XpqHFj763nI/AAAAAAAADAQ/gAeg7mgFxpozvvWpchkbGyVNXtrp_Zh3ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/toy%2Bstory%2B4.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xpRLs5WZsSI/XpqHFj763nI/AAAAAAAADAQ/gAeg7mgFxpozvvWpchkbGyVNXtrp_Zh3ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/toy%2Bstory%2B4.jpg" /></a></div><b><br /></b>When this movie was announced, I was among those voicing displeasure at the idea, due to how nicely the third movie wrapped up the franchise. It felt like we had already bid these characters a heartfelt good-bye and there wasn't much more to say on the topic. Upon watching the most recent film, I softened slightly. Most of Disney's attempts at an animated "franchise" haven't yielded great results, but the <i>Toy Story</i> films are the exception to the rule. This movie packs a lot of the same heart and humor of the previous movies and--once again--gives our favorite characters a fitting send-off. But... it is a WORSE send off than the last one and all through the movie, I couldn't escape the feeling that this didn't need to exist. Watching this felt like someone was trying to wring water from a dry towel. </div><div><br /></div><div>This one better be the last one though, as the Toy Store formula is already showing it's threadbare overuse in several places. The Key and Peele carnival plushies were obnoxious, plus it felt like we got scenes of them instead of more content with Jessie, Slinky and Rex, who were all sorely missing from this outing. As time has passed since I watched this, it's incredible to me how much of this movie has just vanished from my brain and left me feeling dissatisfied and annoyed with the parts that did stick.<br /><br />Note from the future: It's not the last one. They've announced another. I am ready to hate it. I am a hater. Also, as the years go by, the more comfortable I am just stating outright that I do not like Toy Story 4. It currently holds the ceiling on the "didn't like it" tier of award winners.<br /><br />WHAT SHOULD HAVE WON: Netflix's <i>Klaus </i>is probably my favourite Christmas movie released since the 1980s and it absolutely deserved the award. The characters are admittedly stronger in <i>Toy Story 4</i>, but that's due to a three movie backstory advantage. <i>Klaus </i>had to win viewer investment on its own merit, not just by our immediate associations from the previous franchise. Add to that, <i>Klaus </i>had an innovative animation style that pushed the art form in ways we haven't seen in years. And while parts of <i>Klaus's </i>story were ridiculous and forced, it managed one thing that <i>Toy Story 4</i> did not, namely making me cry at the end. Still, <i>Toy Story 4</i> is gorgeously made and very enjoyable, so it's no surprise Netflix wasn't able to wrestle the top prize from Pixar's grip this year.</div><div><br /><b>#16. BIG HERO 6 (2014)</b><br /><b><br /></b><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-txI85mXhFbI/W0O_MFkP9MI/AAAAAAAACdU/x90129Q8qa4Xc6IwqRP68Q4adbTo_0JIgCLcBGAs/s1600/big%2Bhero%2Bsix.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="665" data-original-width="1600" height="165" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-txI85mXhFbI/W0O_MFkP9MI/AAAAAAAACdU/x90129Q8qa4Xc6IwqRP68Q4adbTo_0JIgCLcBGAs/s400/big%2Bhero%2Bsix.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />This movie is where the list starts to flip from "not very good" to "actually pretty good, just not as good as other things that came out the same year." Generally, at this point in the list, I don't yet LOVE the films, but I'm starting to like them. <i>Big Hero 6</i> is undeniably flawed, but still with good elements that secure it's place ahead of some of the other weaker entries. The visual design is super fun and pretty, but c'mon. We all know what the best part of this movie is, and it's Baymax.</div><div><br /></div><div>The great success of this movie was Baymax, who is so lovable, he almost drowns out all the things that don't really work about this film. Things that don't work include: a villain plot that makes no sense, technology so powerful it's confusing how it didn't solve the plot in ten minutes, and a supporting cast who feel more like catch phrases than fully fleshed characters. Still, the central relationship, between a boy grieving for his brother and the robot nurse who tries to help him is lovely and deserving of praise. Like a lot of films in this tier, <br /><br />WHAT SHOULD HAVE WON: Of the mainstream studios, <i>How to Train Your Dragon 2</i> was the strongest nominee coming from North America. However, there were some notable snubs this year. <i>The Book of Life</i> is a super fun film, with a unique animation style, that would have been nice to see at least get a nomination. Meanwhile, <i>The Lego Movie</i> is one of the most enjoyable, thoughtful, heartfelt toy commercials ever made. Maybe it was the early February release date, but somehow, come award season, this Master Builder Piece got snubbed outright. It should have fought it out with <i>Princess Kaguya</i>, one of Studio Ghibli's most gorgeous films, which has such a marvelously inventive animation style, I'm inclined to want to see the award go to it, even at the expense of my beloved <i>Lego Movie</i>. All this to say, the field was pretty stacked this year and <i>Big Hero 6</i>, for all it's cuteness, was one of the weaker movies in the pack.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>#15. SOUL (2020)</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xtHN5OjRvBA/YKsFO68dm1I/AAAAAAAADOk/RPmMZ4Hbt6A-MrFpbF8Fbx4UTYxjBG-agCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="439" data-original-width="660" height="213" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xtHN5OjRvBA/YKsFO68dm1I/AAAAAAAADOk/RPmMZ4Hbt6A-MrFpbF8Fbx4UTYxjBG-agCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" width="320" /></a></div><br />Pixar is one of the most consistently exceptional film studios in Hollywood. While they've made a few duds, a large number of their films are among the best animated movies ever made (check out the end of this list for more examples). So it is with great reverence I say that if someone picked <i>Soul </i>as their favourite Pixar movie, I would understand and not call them crazy. For me, <i>Soul </i>was a little uneven, but the parts I liked, I liked SO MUCH. The design of New York and the characters, the portrayal of jazz music and Joe's relationship with his mother. Plus, the overarching theme of life having meaning simply because it's worth being alive is a refreshing perspective in our productivity obsessed culture. Those aspects pull the movie up to this position, despite a couple of flaws that keep it from being one of my favs. The biggest issue holding it back is that the movie ends up in this awkward position of raising questions about both life and death, while having nothing to say about the latter. And yes, I know this movie really wasn't "supposed" to be about death, but the framing device is still incredibly distracting and murkies the morality of Joe's decision to sacrifice his existence for 22. Also--and possibly just as important, considering how it impacted my enjoyment of the film--while the rest of the movie was gorgeous, the design of the cat was super ugly and I hated it and I never want to see that cat again.</div><div><br /></div><div>WHAT SHOULD HAVE WON: I haven't seen Wolfwalkers yet, but given how much I loved <i>Secret of Kells</i> by the same studio, I'm guessing I'll like it better. The reviews are stellar and I can't wait to see it.</div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div><b>#14. RANGO (2011)</b><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hpFEzLOxEYg/W0O719Klu3I/AAAAAAAACcw/RgUutbGavDg04qFYqn6NorCwy_ZgxmDxACLcBGAs/s1600/rango.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hpFEzLOxEYg/W0O719Klu3I/AAAAAAAACcw/RgUutbGavDg04qFYqn6NorCwy_ZgxmDxACLcBGAs/s400/rango.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><i>Rango</i> is one of those movie's that got way better critical reviews than it probably deserved for one simple reason: it's appeal rode on nostalgia for Old Hollywood, something film critics and Academy voters are big-time suckers for. That being said, if you fall in that camp at all, it can be quite enjoyable. <i>Rango</i> is a weird movie that follows a lizard who wants to be just like Clint Eastwood, who gets the chance to when he rolls up in an antiquated, Old West town of suffering animals that exists in our modern world because... why not? The animation is quirky and interesting, at least, and the film kinda works as a goofy experiment. </div><div><br /></div><div>I used to have this movie rated several spots lower on the list, but over time, I've realized one thing really separated Rango from some of the so-called "better" films above it. I <i>LIKE </i>Rango. When I think about it, I'm not immediately frustrated with some aspect of what it was "trying" to do, but failed, because all-in-all, it does what it means to. It's not the most moving pieces of art on this list, but it's whole and complete and confident in it's weirdness. So I'm honoring that now. Rango is good, go watch it, since it's probably the movie you're least likely to have seen on this list.</div><div><br /></div><div>WHAT SHOULD HAVE WON: The big player studios--Disney, Pixar and Dreamworks--didn't have great showings this year. <i>Kung Fu Panda 2</i> was the best of their output, which I can't say is a movie I care very much about. <i>A Cat in Paris</i> has been highly recommended to me, but it's always tough for indie, art-house animation to take home the Oscar. Similarly, it's super hard for Christmas movies to do well.<i> Arthur Christmas</i> got snubbed outright, even though it's gone on to become an absolute classic of a Christmas film. I watch it almost every year and until <i>Klaus</i> came out, I would have said it was the best Christmas film released in decades. In a perfect world, it would have been recognized in it's time and taken home the Oscar.</div></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>#13. SHREK (2001)</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BT-hlbJxj04/W0PFLr6As3I/AAAAAAAACeQ/d9CWNSgJ3gIwAcMFtKkH1l2DJH4zaL06QCLcBGAs/s1600/ogres%2Bonions.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="982" data-original-width="1400" height="280" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BT-hlbJxj04/W0PFLr6As3I/AAAAAAAACeQ/d9CWNSgJ3gIwAcMFtKkH1l2DJH4zaL06QCLcBGAs/s400/ogres%2Bonions.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />I'm slightly too old to be nostalgic for Shrek. It's not foundational to my childhood the way Disney Renaissance films are, and I never loved it enough to mistake it as the answer to everything wrong with the Disney brand. And yet, as the movie enters it's twenties, I'm heartened to say that a lot of it has stood the test of time. At times cute and charming, at times extremely mean-spirited in it's mockery of Disney (Dreamworks Animation was founded by an ousted Disney animator/director, and you can bet Jeffery Katzenberg did not go gentle into that good night), <i>Shrek</i> still manages to come together as an enjoyable oddball tale. There are probably too many pop culture references and poop jokes. It set a bad precedent for later Dreamworks films by ending with a dance party. But the characters are memorable and voiced to perfection. Plus, that "do you know the muffin man?" sequence gets me every time.<br />
<br />
WHAT SHOULD HAVE WON: Fun though Shrek is, I don't think it has the sweet charm of <i>Monster's Inc. </i>In a perfect world, we would have been less dazzled by the quick satire on display here and gone for a story that's much more inventive and touching. Still, as a tween watching the first animation Oscars in 2002, I was so rooting for <i>Shrek</i> to take the prize home. At least it spoke to it's target audience well.<br />
<br />
<b>#12. RATATOUILLE (2007)</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1AgyHP3vJ-w/W0PfXycD9mI/AAAAAAAACeo/nnS1H31hnmwyt3H4zG-7CXNVpJsarX3JQCLcBGAs/s1600/ratatouille.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="320" height="225" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1AgyHP3vJ-w/W0PfXycD9mI/AAAAAAAACeo/nnS1H31hnmwyt3H4zG-7CXNVpJsarX3JQCLcBGAs/s400/ratatouille.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div><br /></div>
Just as <i>Up </i>would rank higher if this list was entirely about openings, this one would place better if we were only considering the movie's end. It's always difficult when a piece tries to represent the aesthetic experience of one of the five sense that is not inherently addressed by the art form currently in use. It's why books have to find very creative ways to truly evoke sound, and why <i>Ratatoille</i> had to work so hard to properly portray the sensation of taste. But in the end, did they ever nail that one, key element! Ratatouille succeeds as a meditation on food, pleasure and pursuing your passions. It's not the most magical of all Pixar's offerings, with characters that are less interesting than many others, but the story builds from something that was decent, if not brilliant in the beginning, to a very satisfying conclusion. The ending helps edge it up to here.<br />
<br />
WHAT SHOULD HAVE WON: There wasn't super stiff competition this year, however, one underrated gem could, by some accounts, make for a stronger winner. <i>Surf's Up</i> is roughly a million times better than a movie about surfing penguins has any right to be. I love it, and find it more rewatchable than <i>Ratatouille</i>, but if it had won, I'd probably have it ranked at exactly the same spot and would be arguing that <i>Ratatouille</i> should have beaten it. They're very different films, but surprisingly even matched.<br />
<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#11. FROZEN (2013)</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bxKW5CF9Y_Y/W0PhsfrPJdI/AAAAAAAACfA/zFkn67BvbFMkISqO0_LvMc2IcLwes34BgCLcBGAs/s1600/Frozen.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="563" data-original-width="1000" height="225" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bxKW5CF9Y_Y/W0PhsfrPJdI/AAAAAAAACfA/zFkn67BvbFMkISqO0_LvMc2IcLwes34BgCLcBGAs/s400/Frozen.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Right here at the half-way point through the list is when I think the movies go from "good" to "truly great" and deserving of the prestigious Oscar award. Frozen signaled a return to form for Disney Animation, ushering in a time when it's become a toss up whether they or Pixar are going to take the Oscar home each year. This movie is so loved and watched, I hardly need to sing it's praises. The music is fantastic, the central relationship between Anna and Elsa is incredibly moving and Christoff is one of the best love interests Disney has ever created. A few elements are clumsily incorporated - the troll clan, the lack-luster villain, the jarringly odd way Olaf is animated compared to the rest of the movie - but over all, it's a solid film that maybe lost some fans recently due to over exposure. If I could remake the Oscars in any way from that year, all I would do is take the award for Best Original Song away from "Let it Go" and give it to "Do you Want to Build a Snowman?" which is the funniest song that ever made me want to cry.<br />
<br />
HONORABLE MENTIONS: None of the other North American releases nominated this year really held a candle to Frozen. Both <i>Despicable Me 2</i> and <i>The Croods</i> are underwhelming. Even <i>The Wind Also Rises</i>, from Studio Ghibli, is one of the weaker films from that studio. I'm happy with <i>Frozen </i>taking home the title, given the competition.<br />
<br />
<b>#10. WALL-E (2008)</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PJGILReONbo/W0P6Zl93wJI/AAAAAAAACfY/B3Ao8lG3nwcqer5sF8_-jg2wIv4e1t02QCLcBGAs/s1600/walle.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="150" data-original-width="335" height="178" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PJGILReONbo/W0P6Zl93wJI/AAAAAAAACfY/B3Ao8lG3nwcqer5sF8_-jg2wIv4e1t02QCLcBGAs/s400/walle.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Like <i>Up</i>, <i>WALL-E</i> is a movie I tend to rate a little lower than most Pixar fans, and for almost the same reasons. The beginning of <i>WALL-E</i> is much stronger than the second half. However, while <i>Up</i> has twenty amazing minutes, roughly an hour of <i>WALL-E's</i> run time is so exceptional, I really do feel guilty placing it this low. It's more indicative of how fantastic the later entries are. I don't love the heavy handed story telling aboard the Axiom, but I don't hate it either, so I can focus more of my attention on the good parts of this film. The opening shots of Earth and WALL-E's mundane every day life, intercut with music and footage from <i>Hello, Dolly</i> are so moving. This is a film that also really lets the animation speak for itself, with most of the story told visually or with music. In fact, the film only really begins to flag once the speaking human characters are introduced. Overall, a breathtaking, groundbreaking and deserving winner.<br />
<br />
HONORABLE MENTIONS: Considering how weak the animation offerings were some years, it's such a shame that Dreamwork's two best movies came out in years that they really didn't have a chance against what Pixar put out. This year's tragic loser was <i>Kung Fu Panda</i>, which has some of the best choreographed combat sequences not just of animation, but any film. A true credit to the Kung Fu movies it is a pastiche of.<br />
<br />
<b>#9. COCO (2017)</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G8ZYpuDOupU/W0P8222J9rI/AAAAAAAACfw/CT46ez2JHikHfCbwo-_FvacOguEKOswBgCLcBGAs/s1600/coco.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="464" data-original-width="825" height="179" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G8ZYpuDOupU/W0P8222J9rI/AAAAAAAACfw/CT46ez2JHikHfCbwo-_FvacOguEKOswBgCLcBGAs/s320/coco.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Compiling this list, it was right around the point when I had to slot <i>Coco </i>in at this low that I kind of panicked. HOW? How did a film this good fall so low on the list? Again, like the entry before, it's more a testament to what comes later. <i>Coco </i>is a beautiful and worthy entry into the Pixar canon, something we hadn't been treated to for a few years. Pixar has fallen victim to sequelitis, but occasional gems like <i>Coco </i>still slip through. Anyone who saw this movie in theaters can attest to how gorgeous the animation is. It's also a good example of how a cliche plot can be retold in a way that makes it compelling again. <i>Coco </i>and <i>Happy Feet</i> essentially start with the same plot (outsider has a weird hobby) but the end products couldn't be further apart. Thematically, <i>Coco </i>is a brilliant meditation on family, culture, memory and death. And if you say you didn't cry during the end, I denounce thee a liar.<br />
<br />
HONORABLE MENTIONS: I have heard amazing things about both <i>The Breadwinner</i> and <i>Loving Vincent</i>, but since neither got wide releases, I haven't had a chance to see them. Opinions forthcoming!<br />
<br />
<b>#8. TOY STORY 3 (2010)</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-agwKM-l3QXA/W0bUbrAjVWI/AAAAAAAACgI/gN4It1NFMSYtf-BhiwNSmffBeDLLjOOAQCLcBGAs/s1600/toy%2Bstory.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="570" data-original-width="854" height="266" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-agwKM-l3QXA/W0bUbrAjVWI/AAAAAAAACgI/gN4It1NFMSYtf-BhiwNSmffBeDLLjOOAQCLcBGAs/s400/toy%2Bstory.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<i>Toy Story</i> is that rare series that actually improved over its long run. I love talking about these movies in the context of world building, since its a very good example of using a simple fantasy concept, then plumbing it for all the depth possible. The question of "what if toys were alive" is answered so richly in each installment. And not just the goofy stuff they can get up to (like a Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head getting married), but in terms of the emotional struggles that would naturally grow out of their relationships with children. Each subsequent film pushed a little further, until you get to the third and best entry in the series. The feels are out in full force, with much of it serving as an allegory for death and rebirth. When I saw this in theaters, most of the showing's audience was my age - early twenties, and sobbing along as we watched Andy let go of the toys that had comforted us for so many years. It's a touching, powerful film and a beautiful farewell for the series. Even now, I can't escape the feeling that the fourth one wasn't necessary. The story felt resolved here. Regardless, I think this film will continue to stand as a landmark example of how strong sequels can actually be.<br />
<br />
HONORABLE MENTIONS: It kills me that this was the same year <i>How to Train Your Dragon </i>came out. Both of these movies hit me profoundly. <i>Dragon's </i>achievements include one of the best father/son story lines out there, a dark color palette that was fairly revolutionary when it came out and an aerial flight scene that I think is one of the best uses of 3D in the past decade. Still, <i>Toy Story 3 </i>had the more surprising and ground breaking story. It did things you generally don't see in children's media and for that reason, deserved all the awards it won.<br />
<br />
<b>#7. FINDING NEMO (2003)</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_sKuj99uRgI/W0bWxbBmkTI/AAAAAAAACgg/NIKxItm99_sGU1f7mWfPv2UN-BcFik5rACLcBGAs/s1600/nemo.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_sKuj99uRgI/W0bWxbBmkTI/AAAAAAAACgg/NIKxItm99_sGU1f7mWfPv2UN-BcFik5rACLcBGAs/s400/nemo.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Another closely ranked entry. I'm not 100% certain which of <i>Finding Nemo</i> and <i>Toy Story 3</i> is my favorite, or even which is the artistically stronger (jf you can even make such a comparison). But I've gone with <i>Nemo </i>in the lead because it's the one where the details have stuck with me just a little more. It's such a tenderly animated story, with beautiful quiet moments that we don't always get to enjoy in our current blockbuster movie climate. It's also a really well crafted story, perfectly balancing Nemo and Marlin's arcs so that they interlace and inform each other throughout. At the suggestion of one of my professors, I once charted this movie's plot out and yup. The technique in balancing the story is pretty amazing.<br />
<br />
HONORABLE MENTIONS: There wasn't much else on offer this year, though the foreign market provided <i>The Triplets of Belleville. </i>It's another one on my to-be-watched list. A list that gets longer and longer as I work on this blog post.<br />
<b><br /></b></div><div><b>#6. ZOOTOPIA (2016)</b><br /><b><br /></b><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QVVDnQfz4Pw/W0beQ0jUguI/AAAAAAAACho/JzOk_9j3KogDKxl1-qhV1pBhhGGHaBakACLcBGAs/s1600/zootopia.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="800" height="200" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QVVDnQfz4Pw/W0beQ0jUguI/AAAAAAAACho/JzOk_9j3KogDKxl1-qhV1pBhhGGHaBakACLcBGAs/s400/zootopia.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><b><br /></b>She's a bunny who plays by the rules! He's a fox who does what he wants! HOW WILL THEY EVER WORK TOGETHER??? In all honesty, that pitch kinda sucks. This wasn't a movie I felt excited about leading up to its release, since it sounded like a stereotypical buddy cop comedy. Then I went and my jaw about fell off as I found myself watching the best movie about intersectionality and identity politics I'd ever seen. I spent most of the second half muttering, "is this film going to go there? Holy crap. It's going there." It's another one that benefits from rewatches and with jokes as great as jokes can joke, remains enjoyable. This is another example of world building done right. The concept of "animals live in a city together" has been done a thousand times before, but this was the first time that concept was followed all the way to making animals proportional to their real life counterparts. From just that little change, the implications are fascinating and, at times, terrifying. I love this movie so much. It does a brilliant job of working as an allegory for a lot of our own modern problems, without the baggage of being able to map anything directly from it's world onto ours. A tough balancing act, and one that makes this film all the more valuable.<br /><br />HONORABLE MENTIONS: This is the highest entry on this list where the "also ran" category includes a film I've seen that might honestly be better than the winning film. Because <i>Moana </i>sure is great, isn't it? I love both movies and would probably place them around this exact point on the list. After a long spat of mediocre movies, it was great to see the studio return to form in a big way. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>#5 ENCANTO (2021)</b></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibqw1gYlcgIunLD6uTN2zDTfePx1TU9wjDv1-ouln5CDGQ9ieySQ1vFhTsA6irMb8ZtwrQobGZviF2LbSr9gcAQuLMut7rpsccAUEfi1SgtIluIV7oGrt91YOFUiEMM0cJY3CjzDfp_lUW9sj2rRQBi5JhPphnHQiique45-DhJUA28Tf3cWKwmr4lCQ/s1140/encanto.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="641" data-original-width="1140" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibqw1gYlcgIunLD6uTN2zDTfePx1TU9wjDv1-ouln5CDGQ9ieySQ1vFhTsA6irMb8ZtwrQobGZviF2LbSr9gcAQuLMut7rpsccAUEfi1SgtIluIV7oGrt91YOFUiEMM0cJY3CjzDfp_lUW9sj2rRQBi5JhPphnHQiique45-DhJUA28Tf3cWKwmr4lCQ/w400-h225/encanto.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>Did you know for a hot second, Disney thought this film was a failure? One of their first movies to debut in post-pandemic theatres, almost no one went to see it. Admit it! You saw this one on Disney+ too! I'm keenly aware of this, because being the absolute fangirl I am, I dragged a couple of friends to this and the theatre was empty. There was this brief, blissful period where no one was talking about this movie and the three of us felt like we had this special secret we shared. We listened to the soundtrack, talked about the themes, and people around us didn't get the big deal. </div><div><br /></div><div>Then it came out on Disney+, the world went bananas for Bruno and the rest is history. <i>Encanto</i>, man. I honestly wasn't sure where to rank this one. I left the four ahead of it as is, since I think they're more important films artistically for one reason or another, but of every film on the list, this is the one that most makes me cry uncontrollably. It beat out <i>Coco</i>. How did it outcry <i>Coco</i>????</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Encanto </i>is a gorgeously animated film about self-love, healing generational trauma, and coming to understand and forgive those who hurt us. It's themes are wonderfully universal, yet it's also rooted in the achingly specific tragedy of violence in Colombia. It's no secret Disney has been in an era where they've tried to make their movies more inclusive and diverse, and within that effort, to my very white eyes, <i>Encanto </i>is the most successful at representing the communities it features and telling a story that feels grounded in their culture. This feels like "baby's first magical realism" which is a literary genre that's strongly associated Colombian authors, which is just super cool. It also succeeds on a storytelling level in some areas other entries on this list have faltered. I'm thinking in particular of it's massive cast of "quirky characters" that often get under-baked in Disney films. <i>Big Hero 6</i>, <i>Toy Story 4</i>, and even <i>Coco </i>all have issues with sprawling casts that don't amount to anything. But in <i>Encanto</i>, there are a dozen different characters to love and sing-along with, and every one of them feels unique and special. Yet the story also stays fundamentally Mirabel's, even as it uses her as a means to explore her super-powered family. I love this movie, and it may just have the biggest heart of any on the list.</div><div><br /></div><div>HONORABLE MENTIONS: 2021 ended up being a banner year for animation. <i>Luca </i>was delightful, <i>Mitchells Vs the Machines</i> was hysterical, <i>Raya and the Last Dragon</i> was... also there. I know there are people who loved Raya, but that one didn't do it for me, though it was very pretty! The other two, though, were solid entries I would have been happy seeing get the prize some other year. I have no qualms about <i>Encanto </i>winning, but it was a great time to watch animation.</div><div>
<b><br /></b></div><div><b>#4. SPIRITED AWAY (2002)</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2pFswaUChZ8/W0bYAyMbvBI/AAAAAAAACgs/mLsHiewoew80k9v2Yx9zFNy2EO3FXPA_ACLcBGAs/s1600/spirited%2Baway.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="594" data-original-width="1100" height="215" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2pFswaUChZ8/W0bYAyMbvBI/AAAAAAAACgs/mLsHiewoew80k9v2Yx9zFNy2EO3FXPA_ACLcBGAs/s400/spirited%2Baway.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
As we get into the upper end of the list, a lot of these choices come down to personal preference. With this film in particular, I can see a strong argument for why it should be considered the best of the bunch. This is Miyazaki's masterpiece. The animation is spectacular, the story somehow both simple and surprising, the characters lovable and iconic. No one does detail and fantasy in animation quite like Studio Ghibli, and I'd easily be persuaded their films are the best animated fantasies ever made. Everything about <i>Spirited Away</i> is incredible, and a perfect use of the medium. If you haven't seen this one yet, get it. Do it now. If you haven't watched much Japanese animation, this is a great place to start, as the English dub is very well done.<br />
<br />
HONORABLE MENTIONS: The rest of the field included some fun flicks, though none of them were in the same league as <i>Spirited Away.</i> The best-of-the-rest goes to <i>Lilo and Stitch</i>, which is a charming, though uneven movie.<br />
<b><br /></b></div><div>
<b><br /></b></div><div><b>#3. SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE (2018)</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m2rDd8_KKr4/XpqO9VdUu8I/AAAAAAAADAs/6-c0g4C3KS42xd0jD0O5gLOndtcfYvusACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/spiderverse.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1426" data-original-width="960" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m2rDd8_KKr4/XpqO9VdUu8I/AAAAAAAADAs/6-c0g4C3KS42xd0jD0O5gLOndtcfYvusACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/spiderverse.jpg" width="215" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>This is not only one of the best animated movies in years, it's also the best Spider-man movie ever made. Just about everything not only works, but exceeds expectations in this action-packed, emotional journey about what it means to be a hero and take up the mantle of arguably the most popular superhero of our time. By centering the story on Miles Morales, this movie was able to break away from the numerous other Spider-man adaptations, while somehow also both killing Peter Parker AND giving us what might be the most emotionally complex version of Peter ever. I cannot tell you how often the image of Spider-man sobbing in his bathtub--a broken, divorced man in his thirties--has haunted and delighted me. It's simultaneously one of the saddest and funniest things I've ever seen. Meanwhile, Miles interjects some delightful personality as the classic teen-aged Spider-man, wrestling with insecurities and responsibilities that are too much to ask of a kid so young. It goes without saying that the visual style of this movie is also phenomenal. The only thing keeping this from the top of the list are some slight cliches in the villain plot. Kingpin is a better, scarier villain to face off against than most superhero movies provide, but he's still no Joker or even Syndrome. It's a minor quibble in an otherwise phenomenal film.<br />
<br />
HONORABLE MENTIONS: I'd like to think this year was a wake-up call to Disney and Pixar, who both turned out rather by-the-book sequels in <i>Incredibles 2</i> and <i>Ralph Breaks the Internet</i>. It's rare they don't take home the award, but this year was an easy call, given the artistry and storytelling on display in <i>Spider-verse</i>. Also sneaking in was another Wes Anderson animated film, <i>Isle of Dogs</i>, which I still need to see.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>#2. INSIDE OUT (2015)</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dlvzfcJKULc/W0ba9E6yCPI/AAAAAAAAChQ/CBo5xaKiMVg79dd1JloV2_GC7Dy77DYEwCLcBGAs/s1600/inside%2Bout.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="442" data-original-width="1024" height="172" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dlvzfcJKULc/W0ba9E6yCPI/AAAAAAAAChQ/CBo5xaKiMVg79dd1JloV2_GC7Dy77DYEwCLcBGAs/s400/inside%2Bout.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Every so often, animation manages to do something that not only pushes the boundaries of it's own form, but film itself. In the case of <i>Inside Out</i>, this might just be the best representation of mind and emotion on film. And I can say that with authority, guys. My sister is a philosopher who studies mind and emotion and SHE agrees. So there. <i>Inside Out</i> not only gave us a wonderful, fun story to enjoy, it shed light on how people actually experience depression, and how memories and personalities shift over the course of our lives. Conceptually, this film is brilliant. Every time I rewatch it, I find something else to ponder, and that's rare from any movie.<br />
<br />
HONORABLE MENTIONS: It was a pretty easy win for <i>Inside Out</i>. I've heard mostly lukewarm reviews of the rest of the field, but if there are any hidden gems in there, do let me know! Always open to more recommendations.<br /><br />
<b>#1. THE INCREDIBLES (2004)</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gq923FM587I/W0bhwQIvVnI/AAAAAAAACiA/AU7jGPXfgNcOl4HP675MFjl-nyxvBXjVQCLcBGAs/s1600/incredibles.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="320" height="225" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gq923FM587I/W0bhwQIvVnI/AAAAAAAACiA/AU7jGPXfgNcOl4HP675MFjl-nyxvBXjVQCLcBGAs/s400/incredibles.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
To me, the recent sequel to this film and all the small ways it fell short really highlighted how hard it is to make something this strong twice. It is, in my opinion, as close to perfect as any film will ever get. It succeeds on every level. The score? Instantly recognizable. The action sequences? Tense, exciting and well motivated by the plot. The humor? Relatable and sharp. The characters? Flawed, but with that verve that drives you to root for them. It's a brilliant story about the stresses of ordinary family life, and simultaneously one of the best razzle-dazzle super hero movies ever made. Interspersed with the spectacle is some thoughtful commentary on what it means to be exceptional vs normal, something the sequel is careful to do as well. I have to give a shout-out to director Brad Bird, who really nailed this. To me, his films suggest that he sees the ways our private lives inform the mask we show to the world. It's this awareness that gives the film its depth and continued success. He never loses sight of the Parr family as human, even while exploring what it means to be super human. The end result is - dare I say it? Incredible.<br />
<br />
HONORABLE MENTIONS: The best of the <i>Shrek </i>series, <i>Shrek 2</i>, came out this year. It's major contribution to the world was Antonio Banderas as a swashbuckling cat so... yeah. The Academy chose the right winner.<br />
<br />
<br />
AND THERE YOU HAVE IT!!!<br />
<br />
If there's one thing doing this list has reminded me of, it's the staggering depth and talent on display in animation. So often in North America, we relegate animation to a "lesser" sphere. Because it's drawings. Because it's for kids. But honestly, when I look at this list, I see many films of the same caliber as those that took home the award for Best Picture. Like, dude, you're never going to convince me <i>The Incredibles</i> isn't better than <i>Million Dollar Baby</i>.<br />
<br />
More importantly, it reassures me to know that even if animation is still primarily a place for "kids movies" today, at least we're giving our kids something worth seeing.</div></div></div>Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-15500155351808751392018-05-18T10:24:00.001-07:002018-05-18T10:25:50.636-07:00Speak Easy Speak Love<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QIurbraRREo/Wv8A2v4iK3I/AAAAAAAACZk/1pymkV-letwqB-I0PMvJXVMBKwATYHmuwCLcBGAs/s1600/speak%2Beasy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="714" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QIurbraRREo/Wv8A2v4iK3I/AAAAAAAACZk/1pymkV-letwqB-I0PMvJXVMBKwATYHmuwCLcBGAs/s400/speak%2Beasy.jpg" width="263" /></a>It's 1927 and down at the Hey Nonny Nonny speakeasy, the jazz is playing and the booze is flowing. Hidden inside a dilapidated manor house on Long Island, seventeen-year-old Hero struggles to keep the place afloat after the death of her mother. With gangs and bootleggers trying to pressure her out of the market, it's going to take her whole crew to keep the speakeasy open.<br />
<br />
Luckily, she's got the help of her long-time ally Prince on her side, and sometimes even Prince's mobster connected half-brother, John. The jazz music comes courtesy of rising starlet Maggie, who's loyal to Hey Nonny Nonny to a fault. Plus there's the loving patronage of rich trust fund kid Benedick, who would give anything to run away from his current life of comfort to become a writer. And starting today, there's also Beatrice, Hero's ambitious, would-be doctor cousin, who sees no point in holding her opinions back from anyone. Least of all some upstart, rich boy, writer, like Benedick.<br />
<br />
As the summer heats up, so does the battle of wits between Benedick and Beatrice. And soon, it seems everyone at the Hey Nonny Nonny is at terrible risk of falling in love with each other.<br />
<br />
<b>What Makes It So Good</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
As a teenager, my favorite play by Shakespeare was <i>Much Ado About Nothing</i>. I loved the dynamic between Benedick and Beatrice and I still think some of the funniest scenes in theater ever are the ones where the Prince decides it's time to trick the pair into falling for each other. Also, I loved Denzel Washington. And Keanu Reeves. And Michael Keaton. And of course I loved Emma Thompson. And I loved Kenneth Brannagh almost as much as he loves himself.<br />
<br />
In my second year of university, I took a course on Shakespeare's comedies, and this was where I realized that my love of the play was, at least in part, largely based on one fantastic adaptation. Read as plain text, it is staggering how much time is wasted on pretending Hero is dead, in order to give the second half a plot line. The parts I loved best about the show are largely over by the halfway point, and then the pace of the play grinds to a halt.<br />
<br />
I came out of that class surprised to realize that, while Kenneth Brannagh may have created my favorite Shakespeare adaptation with his movie, there were stronger scripts in the Bard's canon. I've never seen a bad production of <i>Twelfth Night</i>, because the material is just too good.<br />
<br />
So when I found out McKelle George was coming out with a book that was a 1920's update of the story, I was intrigued, because a) I love the Jazz Age and b) even with it's slogging second half, there's still a lot to love about <i>Much Ado About Nothing</i>. It still has some of Shakespeare's best characters. I still ship Benedick and Beatrice like no other couple.<br />
<br />
I first heard of <i>Speak Easy Speak Love</i> in a class McKelle George taught at the Storymakers conference in 2017. She and a friend were presenting on the topic of writing books that were based on classic literature, and what went into the process of adaptation. They emphasized the importance of balancing between loyalty to the source material and finding places to make it your own. And the best places to make something your own tend to be where the flaws are in the original.<br />
<br />
Of course it's important to still love the source material, and believe me, I came to this book with high expectations because I love the original so much. But it was so nice to not see Hero spend half the story pretending to be dead. It was great that Benedick never has to challenge Claudio and the Prince to a duel (because Hero is pretending to be dead) that never happens (because Hero actually isn't dead) and overall, just wastes everyone's time. Who even likes those scenes? Not me, dear reader.<br />
<br />
Aside from some smart updates in terms of plot, the book also excels as a loving adaptation of the Bard's work. Within the theater, it's traditional that directors give their own spin on the setting, since the stage plays Shakespeare wrote are so sparse in terms of set direction. My favorite version of <i>Twelfth Night </i>I ever saw took place in a 1960's beach shack.<br />
<br />
Similarly, the setting is so lovingly rendered here. The book is filled with fabulous historical touches, that make the place feel very real, and the Author's Note at the end does a fantastic job outlining where liberties were taken, and what the real-life equivalents of these events were.<br />
<br />
The characters are all fantastic as well, though a couple chapters in, I had to come to term with the fact that Emma Thompson was decidedly <i>not </i>playing Beatrice. It almost feels like someone else has been cast in the part. Someone who plays up how smart Beatrice is, rather than how charming. Once I got over that, I loved her. Benedick is utter perfection in his big-headed, big-hearted way and the rest of the cast is just barrels of fun. Overall, I highly recommend it.<br />
<br />
<b>What Could Make it Better</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Like the play it is based on, the book's plot starts and stutters at times. McKelle George actually does a lot of work to infuse plot into a meandering play, but I think there are some inherent problems that emerge when you base a book on story that feels more like a series of awesome scenes than a fully cohesive narrative.<br />
<br />
There's an argument to be made that I'm being unfair to the source material. Story plotting worked differently 500 years ago, and I certainly don't mean to discredit the inherent genius of Shakespeare by poking fun at it here. And it's worth repeating that I do still REALLY love this play. It isn't meant to be overly plot focused, which is why we accept the way the narrative skips around between dramatic and comedic, between the main cast and the Dogberry subplot. There's just so many great characters, with interesting things to do. Who wants to be hogtied to plot when all this other fun stuff is going on?<br />
<br />
I bring all this up, because this book is also prone to subplots and taking its sweet time to enjoy a scene. I've seen some reviewers mark the book down for this fact, but to me, it was part of the charm. If the plot had been over-the-top punchy, I'm not convinced it would have felt like <i>Much Ado About Nothing</i>. It would have been decidedly Much Ado About Something.<br />
<br />
Regardless, it's still worth mentioning, because it takes a while for the central conflict to land. Whereas the original spends way too long in a dreary conclusion, this book is a little slow to finish setting things up. The masquerade that shapes the opening of the play happens close to the middle of the book. So that should give you an idea of where the balance has swung. Overall, this strikes me as a forgivable decision, because again, the first half of the play is the best part. Might as well spend most of the reader's time there.<br />
<br />
So if you're at all a fan of the Bard and especially if you also have a soft spot for historical fiction, pick this one up. You'll be singing Hey Nonny Nonny along with the rest of us.Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-81214216047768483862018-05-06T05:28:00.000-07:002018-05-06T07:25:36.245-07:00A Contest Re-Visited: If at First You Don't Succeed...Two years ago, I blogged about my intentions to go to my first ever writing conference. I was a nervous little bundle of excited energy, heading down to Provo, Utah with my best friend, anxious to see what I would learn at the 2016 Storymakers conference. Also, I was excited to see my nephews because, let's get real, I am super good at mixing business with an excuse to crash my older sister's house.<br />
<br />
A few weeks later, I'd come home and posted about some of my experiences, particularly what I learned about receiving critical feedback from the First Chapter Contest that I entered at the conference. You can find that post <a href="http://emilypaxman.blogspot.ca/2016/05/">here</a>, but the TL;DR version is that I didn't win anything, and processing the feedback I got from the judges was difficult because so little of it matched up.<br />
<br />
Now here we are today. Just shy of two years later, right on the heels of Storymakers 2018. It's been a good year. A REALLY good year. And I would be a lying, ungrateful wretch if I didn't acknowledge that, at least in part, it's because this year, I kinda - ahem - won my category in the First Chapter Contest. Oh, and I took third in another category, just for funsies.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fLUu2kPSTT8/Wu70D_DU82I/AAAAAAAACZE/ytfMt8gUb9Aaz6RY8-a-T9X7aQU67yGpwCLcBGAs/s1600/winner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1440" data-original-width="1072" height="400" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fLUu2kPSTT8/Wu70D_DU82I/AAAAAAAACZE/ytfMt8gUb9Aaz6RY8-a-T9X7aQU67yGpwCLcBGAs/s400/winner.jpg" width="297" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Now, those who attended the conference with me know that I am good at talking about myself. I've been too excited to be overly modest. The conference kindly gives you ribbons that proclaim your winner status to attach to your name tag as well, so for a couple days, both friends and strangers alike were congratulating me and I am honestly so grateful for all of you who were kind to me.<br />
<br />
It also meant I was asked a lot of questions about my work. A lot of people asked what genres I won in, but after that, this was the thing people most wanted to know: How many times had I entered the contest before?<br />
<br />
Looking back, I'm trying to remember if I asked that same question of the people I saw walking around with winner ribbons back at my first Storymakers. I know of at least one person, I did. I was trying to process my contradictory feedback, and trying to figure out how much longer/more work it would take for me to succeed. This is such an agonizing place to be in; one that I haven't yet escaped myself, as I continue to query my novels and seek agent representation. In other words, I really get where this question comes from.<br />
<br />
I'm certainly not *there* yet. I have a long road ahead of me, littered with success and failures. But if you're like I was then, and how I am now, trying to make sense of the swerving trajectory of an unpublished writer's career, then this post is for you. Here's a two year history of Emily, told over the course of three Storymakers conferences.<br />
<br />
<b><u>STORYMAKERS 2016</u></b><br />
<div>
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div>
Number of first chapter contest entries submitted: 1 (YA Fantasy)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I had a lot of big dreams when I went to my first writing conference. I was going to make friends, learn things, and, with some luck, win all the prizes. In a post like this, it can be easy to focus on the thing in that list that I didn't do: win. While it didn't have any long term impact on my motivation or confidence, I was pretty choked when I saw my scores. I came so close. One judge gave me perfect marks. And another basically gave me a C-.</div>
<div>
<b></b><u><br /></u></div>
<div>
If you read my post about processing that feedback, you'll know that I claimed to have never found that low mark helpful or instructive. Even though the judge listed ways I could improve, it would have meant changing the things the other judges loved. I can say two years later that the answer is still true. That particular feedback form was never helpful to me, and those are the breaks. I stand by what I said then, that there WILL be people who never connect with your work, and no amount of trying to please them will help you.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It could have happened this year, too. In fact, when I opened my feedback on my winning entry, the first judge said how stressed they were that the other judges wouldn't like it as much as they did. There's some divisive content in the book, you could say. The first paragraph was filled with counsel about what advice I should ignore if a judge who didn't "get" my entry gave me feedback, but I got luckier this year. Everyone who read my book "got" it</div>
<br />
But let's return to that list of goals. I had way more success in the first two areas. Some of the friends I made at that conference became a critique group for me during the coming year, and those people have supported me and helped me refine my craft. I'm less alone than I was back in 2016, and that was the main motivator for going to a writing conference. I was tired of trying to write without support and feedback.<br />
<br />
And then there was the learning piece. One of the classes I attended was on writing Young Adult Contemporary. I'd never done it, but I liked reading it, and had found myself picking up more and more of those books. I read several more that summer, and gradually, that sparked ideas...<br />
<br />
<b><u>STORYMAKERS 2017</u></b><br />
<div>
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div>
Number of first chapters contest entries submitted: 2 (YA Fantasy and YA General/Historical)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Going into this conference, my expectations were WAY lower, at least in regards to winning things. I'd learned my lesson about reasonable expectations but, oddly enough, I entered more entries. One was the chapter I'd entered the previous year, and based on feedback I got from other people, I had changed a lot of it. However, in doing so, the length ballooned and chapters over 3000 words weren't eligible. I cut the chapter at an awkward point around that mark and knew better than to get my hopes up.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's hard to compare numbers year to year, since the contest format was revamped between 2016 and 2017, but I think I scored worse the second year. I still did okay, but the awkward break didn't do me any favors, plus people had some legitimate gripes with it, some of which I'd never thought of before. I was... pleasantly startled by the results. I incorporated some of that feedback, and I am very grateful for the people who gave me such thorough comments. Storymakers judges, you guys rock!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I also submitted a very rough first chapter for an uncompleted draft of a Young Adult Contemporary novel that I'd started. One of my critique partners currently HATED my main character's best friend, so my hopes weren't high for this one either. Sure enough, one of the judges questioned why I'd included such an unlikable girl, but across the board I got this feedback: rough, but it has potential. They liked the voice. One judge liked the voice so much she marked me higher than I probably deserved in a couple categories. The judge said things like, "so technically this category is about pacing, and nothing really happened in this chapter but I DON'T EVEN CARE! I love your voice!" Other judges did care. I didn't win anything.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But I felt encouraged. I kept working on that draft, and gradually, my critique partner stopped hating that one character so much. I'm skipping over a lot that happened in 2017, but it was a year of drafting and revising, and then revising again. I queried the project, had less success than I wanted, and then rewrote some more. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Another important thing happened at Storymakers 2017. One guy placed in three separate categories. THREE! I was gobsmacked! I also realized that I could be even bolder if I wanted to. Winning isn't the only objective, after all, since the judges offered feedback. So why not go nuts and enter everything I had on hand?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>STORYMAKERS 2018</u></b></div>
<div>
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div>
Number of first chapter contest entries submitted: 4</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This year, I threw caution to the wind. Who needed it???? Not this girl! </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That being said, I went in with reasonable expectations. If people are curious, here are the four categories I entered, and how I did in each one.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
YA Sci-Fi/Dystopian - I decided to enter a chapter from a book I'd shelved a few years ago. It was a book I still loved, but hadn't been successful in the query trenches. When I reopened it to cut down the overly long chapter by four pages so that it fit the word count, I think I burned my eyes. Cleaning this up was PAINFUL. I hadn't realized how much I'd improved over the years. I also didn't budget enough time to really perfect this one, but whatever. I was subbing for feedback anyway. It actually did better than I thought it would, and while I haven't had time to go over the feedback in detail yet, I'm hopeful to have some awesome insights from this.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Adult Speculative - This is actually where I subbed that pesky YA Fantasy from the previous two years. I'm toying with the idea that I need to age the book up. It didn't win anything again, but this time I gave the chapter a better breaking point and judges loved the ending. Overall, I improved my marks from the previous year greatly, and I'm excited that this might be a good direction for future revisions. It also might help explain why the previous two years, there were judges who just didn't connect with it. The story probably works better positioned as an adult story than a YA. I'm not breaking as many reader expectations, like I did for that C- judge two years ago. So maybe I did learn something from that low score after all.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Adult Mystery/Suspense - This is the book I'm currently drafting. It's weird and wonderful and exciting and COMPLETELY outside my wheel house. When I started it, I'd read a grand total of, like, five adult mystery books over the course of my entire life. I'm playing catch up right now, but I knew enough about the genre to know that if someone was dead by the end of chapter one, I would be on the right track. Also, I'd learned by writing my YA Contemporary that my strength was first person perspective character voice, and I leaned hard into that. That's what nabbed me my 3rd place ribbon. To be clear, the judges did have a LOT of constructive feedback, and I'll definitely use it as I finish the draft and catch up on my mystery reading. I'm excited for the encouragement and to see where this book goes.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
YA General/Historical - Sweet mercy. I am still overwhelmed, you guys. With the previous three categories, I felt like a long shot. One was an old book. One I was trying to switch age categories. One was in a genre I barely knew anything about. But one was <i>Sweet Pee</i>. A book I loved. A book I'd slaved over. A book a judge told me to change the title on last year and my Pitch Wars mentor told me to change the title on last Autumn and another judge told me to change the title on this year and, dang it, some day I might just do it. Maybe.</div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">I won. I finally did it. I'm freaking out.</span></div>
<div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
To be clear though, winning this contest is not the be-all-end-all of my career or anyone else's. It's a stepping stone and learning opportunity. Believe me, I would have been perfectly happy NEVER winning this contest. I wanted to be ineligible SO BADLY, by getting an agent offer before it came around again. Nope. No such luck. </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
As it turned out, this conference coming up yet again forced me to improve the chapter, and four pages disappeared from it. Moral of the story: at some point, all of my chapters WILL balloon in length and they WILL need to be cut. I think I had to cut about four pages from every single one of my entries this year. Something is wrong with me.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Additional moral of the story: don't be afraid to try new things. A wild chance at mystery got me third place. More importantly, I got up the gumption to try YA Contemporary a couple years ago, when things weren't working so well in YA Fantasy. It can be hard to do, especially when you imagine yourself being known a certain way and for a certain type of book. It was scary for me, but I'm so glad I did it. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There have been a lot of different versions of this winning chapter and, as you can see, several others, so if you're currently reading feedback and wondering where you're going from here, please don't give up. Whether it's a contest or a query critique or edit letter, don't give up. It may take you two years or five years or fifty. Or maybe you get it right tomorrow. I don't know. I can't tell you.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b></b>But if you keep at it, there are happy endings. Maybe not mine precisely, but you'll find one. I believe that about books. And I believe that about you.</div>
Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-4274353671959870422018-04-24T02:24:00.000-07:002018-05-18T10:26:10.766-07:00Ranking The Harry Potter Books from Worst To BestAh, Harry Potter!<br />
<br />
Whenever I'm fumbling around for topics to write on, there is no source more reliable than that great, cultural juggernaut, the mighty wizard himself, Mr. Potter! (our new celebrity)<br />
<br />
I have enough opinions about the <i>Harry Potter </i>series I could probably write seven books of my own simply analyzing them and the profound impact they had on children's literature, the cultural conscience, and my own life. I come from the generation raised on <i>Potter </i>- the one that went to book launches in costumes and scoured message boards for theories about what would happen in the next sequel.<br />
<br />
Overall, the series is a benchmark for children's literature and I have no doubt it will go on to be part of the "canon," both for Middle Grade fiction and Young Adult. If I had to pick one thing Rowling did consistently well in every book, it would be her worldbuilding. It amazed me how good she was at introducing something new in EVERY BOOK that still felt natural to the rest of the world that came before. She was a master of never over-playing her hand, holding onto good plot twists for years. As a result, each book really feels necessary to the overall series. If you skip out on one, you skip out on an essential part of the mythos she created.<br />
<br />
Even so, some of the books are distinctly better than the others. Some are better paced, some have deeper theme resonance, some have better side characters.<br />
<br />
Picking a favorite <i>Potter </i>book isn't an easy task. It's not as though any one book is a trash fire, and whether or not you share the same opinions as me will depend on certain factors - like if you're super into Voldemort as a villain or if you really loved reading about Quidditch matches. As a result, I can't help but rank these by how I appreciate the novels, and as you read my brief review of each, you'll start to pick up on exactly what did and did not work for me in the series.<br />
<br />
Each book will be ranked on the following list of factors, which I recommend all people use for evaluating Harry Potter books:<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Title Element:</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iFauMVV6m90/Wt7xK1XcwxI/AAAAAAAACYM/BRKVBNrvnBQduF0RXYQkDJ4MKjLp74uqACLcBGAs/s1600/harry%2Bgoblet.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="630" data-original-width="1200" height="168" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iFauMVV6m90/Wt7xK1XcwxI/AAAAAAAACYM/BRKVBNrvnBQduF0RXYQkDJ4MKjLp74uqACLcBGAs/s320/harry%2Bgoblet.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Harry Potter titles serve as a tip off towards the MYSTERY! of the book. They rarely made sense pre-release, teasing some element we hadn't been introduced to yet. In this way, they serve as a decent way of evaluating the worldbuilding of each novel.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Defense Against the Dark Arts Teacher:</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z8mEtZGHFOA/Wt7xV6nmNzI/AAAAAAAACYQ/Ab1JJEvAa5w6Oom1ByghCGTYH4j66ZoxgCLcBGAs/s1600/umbridge.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="392" data-original-width="400" height="313" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z8mEtZGHFOA/Wt7xV6nmNzI/AAAAAAAACYQ/Ab1JJEvAa5w6Oom1ByghCGTYH4j66ZoxgCLcBGAs/s320/umbridge.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Voldemort cursed the position and so there was always a new one each year! And not everyone can be Lupin. This ranking indicates how strong the side characters were, often a top feature of Potter books.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Ron Weasley:</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QB2wcKnGA4U/Wt7xpay6jJI/AAAAAAAACYc/vntz57YtFAcVtD1zNLFTOdgBrjknZdVZQCLcBGAs/s1600/ron%2Bweasley.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="431" data-original-width="767" height="179" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QB2wcKnGA4U/Wt7xpay6jJI/AAAAAAAACYc/vntz57YtFAcVtD1zNLFTOdgBrjknZdVZQCLcBGAs/s320/ron%2Bweasley.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Ron was my favorite character. Most of the time. He fluctuates between selfish, oafish phases and the wise-cracking loveable side-kick that we - well, loved. My biggest beef with the movies was that they only got that first side. He played the buffoon 99% of the time, never giving us what made him engaging in the books. I get why some people found him annoying. So did I, on occasion. How strong the "Ron factor" was often speaks to how well the dynamic between the main three characters was working. Seriously, when Ron is at his best, so are Harry and Hermione.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Pacing and Theme and Actual Relevant Stuff and, let's face it, where 90% of the ranking is</b> - Yeah, this is the only category that matters. But I you need to hear my Ron related thoughts too.<br />
<br />
So, without further ado...<br />
<br />
<b><u>#7 - HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS</u></b><br />
<div>
<strong><br /></strong>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-38F8H3L4hjk/Wt7sp5R68oI/AAAAAAAACW4/O6_6nztaM-kSKjwuXD23r0rZp1oIGmE5gCLcBGAs/s1600/harry%2Bvs%2Bvoldy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="480" height="300" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-38F8H3L4hjk/Wt7sp5R68oI/AAAAAAAACW4/O6_6nztaM-kSKjwuXD23r0rZp1oIGmE5gCLcBGAs/s400/harry%2Bvs%2Bvoldy.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Fact: This list would be in a totally different order if it was <br />
ranking the movies because Emily LOVES wizard battles!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<strong><br />Title: 4</strong> <br />
This title let us know the series was going to wrap up on a wild note. And the Deathly Hallows ended up being totally rock and roll.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Teacher: 7</b></div>
<div>
Some random death eater we hardly see, since the books don't take place at the school. In general, there is a dearth of relatable side characters.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Ron: 6</b></div>
<div>
Ron emerges from the cocoon of his obnoxious phase back in Book 6! He's a little annoying at times here, but it's building towards redemption, so over all, pretty good.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Actual Ranking: 7</b></div>
<div>
Ugh. This book. I love it. I love every <i>Potter </i>book. But I've always been aware that I distinctly love it <i>less</i> than all the others. It ditches the traditional school setting, to it's detriment. It's missing most of the lovable side characters, only to wantonly kill a lot of them in the last act. It ends with that horrific epilogue.<br />
<br />
That being said, it has some real strengths. The Deathly Hallows was a fun level of mystery to sew into the series at a point when the world felt known. Ron's betrayal and eventual reuniting with Harry have a lot of emotional resonance and kind of encapsulate how the whole series has evolved between the three leads. Dumbledore's philosophy about death - a philosophy that's been building up since the first book, finally comes full circle. Molly Weasley blasts some serious witch-hiney and Harry finally takes out old Voldy. And Snape. Oh my gosh, Snape. The "feels" with him are complicated. Whether or not you see him as a hero or still inherently abusive, I like him for the fact that he's always at least interesting.<br />
<br />
Overall, Book 7 is a beautiful send off to a great series. So why is it so low?<br />
<br />
Partially because a lot of the book is unpleasant. Getting through the camping in the woods section is a slog. Books 4-7 are all too long. Period. They ramble in a LOT of places, but whereas that was mostly bearable in the previous books, here it's unpleasant and boring. There aren't any jokes to break that meandering pacing up. Everyone is too depressed. I get that the book isn't supposed to be happy, but if your children's book is dark, it can't waste time being boring. (did we need to see Lupin have a midlife crisis? Or the Godric's Hollow sequence where they literally learn nothing helpful for their quest?) Honestly, the darkest parts of the book are often the best. It's great when they're in mortal peril. It means SOMETHING IS HAPPENING!!!<br />
<br />
The book also does a weird thing that none of the other books do with regards to the central mystery. In the other books, the reader learns what Harry learns with Harry, but in Book 7, for the sake of dramatic tension, Rowling holds information back that Harry knows so that reader doesn't - namely that he controls the Elder Wand. I get why she did this, and I'm not sure I have any kind of work around for it, but it did feel a bit disingenuous. Much of the appeal of these books hinges on the reader discovering the wizarding world WITH Harry, but the very conclusion relies on Harry hiding information from the reader. And I don't like that.</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b>#6 - HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE</b></div>
<div>
<strong><br /></strong>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--nbkMx5VAmo/Wt7tT7Sb4DI/AAAAAAAACXA/Zl6x7EGp78MGL74-2R9YGSLygVVylbYngCLcBGAs/s1600/harry%2Band%2Bslughorn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="297" data-original-width="449" height="263" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--nbkMx5VAmo/Wt7tT7Sb4DI/AAAAAAAACXA/Zl6x7EGp78MGL74-2R9YGSLygVVylbYngCLcBGAs/s400/harry%2Band%2Bslughorn.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Felix Felicis, providing much needed humor.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<strong><br /></strong>
<strong>Title: 7</strong> <br />
Despite being primarily about the history of Voldemort and Horcruxes, the title is essentially Harry Potter and the Snape Snape Snape. It's more Books 5 and 7 that strike me as the Snape books - the ones that show his relationships with James and Lily. Overall, bit of a disconnect.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<strong>Teacher: 5</strong><br />
We don't get a new teacher here, since Snape is a known entity, but he's compelling, and we DO get Slughorn over at Potions. Still pretty darn good, but there are stronger entries.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Ron: 7</b></div>
<div>
This is the book that all Ron haters go to in order to justify their poor thinking. The trio is at it's angstiest here, with no one really getting along, but no one having a proper, outright argument either. It's just obnoxious. His relationship with Lavender is weird, and I think squandered time that could have been better spent delving into his relationship with Harry and Hermione, especially since he abandons them briefly in Book 7. More on this unfulfilled potential later.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Actual Ranking: 6</b></div>
<div>
In this book, the villain's development matters more than what any of the heroes are doing. We spend a lot of time in the pensieve - most of our more interesting scenes, in fact. Voldemort is a good villain, but I've never been a huge apologist for him. He's evil because love potion. Kinda sad. Kinda lackluster as an explanation. I'm not sure what origin story would have satisfied me, but the interesting evil in the books - the kind that is textured and complex - comes from other villains, like Umbridge and the Malfoys. And Snape. But again, this is a false Snape book. A book that sets you up for Snapeness and fails to deliver.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He is, of course, the title element, but that reveal feels anticlimactic. Also, there's some weird gender politicking over his old textbook where Harry's like "I sense the DUDENESS of the Snape who wrote notes in this" and Hermione is like "OMGosh, please shut up" and what the crap did this subplot add?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The poor pacing is on grand display here, with Harry at odd times stalking Draco, or observing Ron's terrible love-life, in between jumping in the pensieve with Dumbledore. The Ron/Lavender relationship is a low-point for the series, which the book seems to know, yet it plows ahead into it. Harry also gets his own terrible romance, complete with chest monster, and the series Moste Boring Character, Ginny Weasley. <br />
<br /></div>
<div>
Ginny, who is so pretty even the Slytherin's notice. Ginny, who can play every Quidditch position, then call out that annoying, shrill Hermione. Ginny, who is perfectly understanding when Harry breaks-up with her to go on an epic quest to stop Voldemort. In a series filled with fully realized characters, with flaws and strengths, Ginny is shockingly flat. All her flaws are conveniently locked away in Tom Riddle's diary, back in Book 2. It stuns me, because there is so much potential for an actual character arc here. Ginny should have so many trust issues from getting possessed by the boy in her diary who claimed to care about her. Or she should be driven to her Goddess-like levels of perfection BECAUSE she screwed up so badly in her first year. But instead of exploring the obvious depth Rowling set up, instead she is nothing but pitch-perfect girlfriend material for Harry. She never challenges him or asks anything of him. She's just super understanding and really cool. A fantasy girlfriend. Their relationship is completely unbalanced, unrealistic and uninteresting. I could say more, but this isn't meant to be a total Ginny hate fest. She doesn't deserve that much abuse. She's boring, not morally objectionable. But man, do I <i>hate</i> boring.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
By now, you're probably wondering why this is ranked above Book 7 and I will admit, it came close. If not for the Epilogue where Harry is shown married to freakin' Ginny and all his children inherited her obnoxious genes, things could have been different. But there are some good moments in Book 6. Since they're at school, there are still funny scenes and quirky side-characters breaking the flow up. Harry goes to the Slug Club party with Luna! Yay! Slughorn is fabulous and repping for all the non-evil Slytherins! The felix felicis scene is divine. Moral of the story: Slughorn is great.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Also, I think over the years, we've forgotten how powerful the death of Dumbledore was. I remember after the book came out, we were reeling. There were news articles about people hanging banners off of overpasses that read DUMBLEDORE IS DEAD because no one knew how to process the revelation. This was a moment so huge, it made everyone debate for YEARS whether or not Snape was evil, something that, in hindsight, seems kinda obvious. But it didn't back then.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And even if I got bored of Harry chasing Draco, watching young Malfoy's desperate attempt to redeem his family paid dividends. Heck, it set up the best elements of the most recent <i>Harry Potter </i>book, <i>Cursed Child </i>(otherwise known as Sir-Not-Appearing on this List. For spoiler reasons. And because, c'mon. Even the weakest of the original series is miles better.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The book had lots of good parts, even if it ran around in circles chasing it's own tail at times. And I can't overstate how much the jokes were needed to keep the lumbering pacing from falling apart. So it gets a spot above the bottom. Hurray for it.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<b>#5 - HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS</b><br />
<strong><br /></strong>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6kiOGrIT7NU/Wt7uoNEk-NI/AAAAAAAACXM/I5WdhUcZJ24U_qqCuTluj3Xg0KE-DPyogCLcBGAs/s1600/harry%2Bchamber.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="540" height="266" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6kiOGrIT7NU/Wt7uoNEk-NI/AAAAAAAACXM/I5WdhUcZJ24U_qqCuTluj3Xg0KE-DPyogCLcBGAs/s400/harry%2Bchamber.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">That time we learned evil is a fan of anagrams</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div>
<strong>Title: 6</strong><br />
I'm a firm believer that if you have to call it a "secret," you're veering into telling rather than showing. The sequence in the Chamber itself is pretty good, but I never was crazy about the title itself. This ranking is probably the most impacted by the way the title made me "feel" rather than how strong of a role the title element played in the story, but much of the middle of this list comes out close to each other, so it's hard to rank any other way.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<strong>Teacher: 3</strong><br />
I have mixed feelings on the movies, but I will forever be grateful for the greatest casting match-up of all time, when Kenneth Brannagh played himse- I mean, Gilderoy Lockhart. I love him so much, and he might just be my favorite thing about this book.<br />
<br />
<b>Ron: 4</b></div>
<div>
Ron is a solid best friend here and adorable confronting his fear of spiders. Yay, Ron!<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Actual Ranking: 5</b></div>
<div>
Of the early books, this is my least favorite. It doesn't do much terribly wrong, BUT... I don't like Colin Creevy. And I don't like Dobby. I'm sorry, I just don't. At the end of Book 4, during the three-year hiatus between book releases, I did a lot of theorizing. I was particularly concerned with which characters might die and I started making a list of people I could handle dying without caring much. Top of that list were Colin and Dobby and then they DID both die and I felt like a terrible person, not least of all because even after he died, I STILL DIDN'T CARE ABOUT COLIN CREEVY!!! Dobby sorta won me over in later books. Sorta.<br />
<br />
If these characters didn't annoy me, I might have rated the book more highly. It does introduce us to the Burrow, Lucius Malfoy and the House Founders. Some of my favorite aspects of the series have roots in Book 2. I really respect it for everything it sets up in later books, but I think too much of the plot revolved around the set-up of "Harry is annoyed by his adoring fans." Because, you see, I also found many of those adoring fans annoying.<br />
<br />
Still, the final battle in the Chamber is amazing, Gilderoy Lockhart is a fantastic flim-flam man and the basilisk in the pipes is super creepy. This book also gives us the best iteration of Ginny, since it's the one where she's sweet and human and fallible. She's a great character to be used by Riddle too, since she's so innocent and inherently valuable to Ron and I value what Ron values.<br />
<br />
I know plenty of people love this one, and I've had it pointed out before that this book might be the most plot-heavy. There isn't an inch of fat in this book, with pretty much every scene proving important to the central mystery. It's also the shortest book. While I accuse the later books of being too long, this one might be too short for my taste. There aren't enough character moments. The ones we do get are pretty great, especially those involving the polyjuice potion and Lockhart. But many of the other character moments involve Dobby and Colin. For me, much of my love of the Harry Potter series comes from the character moments, so without these firing on full, it adds up to a lesser whole. Of all the books, this is the one I'm the most indifferent about. It doesn't inspire the sense of frustration that Book 7 does or the wallowing of "what could have been" that I feel for Book 6. It's a good book, just one I found less engaging than the others.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>#4 - HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Suq7jwvsX1k/Wt7u-bFuajI/AAAAAAAACXg/atXChlsIWlMov4gqbSlE161ICbMptr_LgCLcBGAs/s1600/harry%2Byule%2Bball.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="482" data-original-width="901" height="213" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Suq7jwvsX1k/Wt7u-bFuajI/AAAAAAAACXg/atXChlsIWlMov4gqbSlE161ICbMptr_LgCLcBGAs/s400/harry%2Byule%2Bball.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Warner Brothers went to great lengths to ensure that Harry and Ron<br />
sported hair as truly awful as high school feels at 14.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div>
<strong>Title: 5</strong><br />
I remember being kind of underwhelmed by this title, especially when we found out what the Goblet was right away. I was like, "whatever, it's just a trophy" and then the end came and "OH MY HECK IT'S A PORTKEY TO VOLDEMORT!!! DANGER!!! DANGER!!!" Man, Harry Potter has the best titles.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<strong>Teacher: 6</strong><br />
Mad-Eye Moody/Barty Crouch Jr. is one of Rowling's great villains hiding in plain sight. I flip-flopped on where to place him compared to Quirrell, because as a character, he is more enjoyable, but Quirrell was a more shocking reveal. By the time Moody is revealed as the villain, I think you're kind of on to him, but it's a nice twist that it's not even the real Moody. The scene where he preaches CONSTANT VIGILANCE is one of the low-key funniest scenes in the entire series, though it's tempered by the heartbreaking realization at the end that he's taunting Neville, possibly on purpose. Still, it's my favorite piece of Potter to read out loud.<br />
<br />
<b>Ron: 3</b></div>
<div>
I may be alone in thinking this, but this is annoying Ron done RIGHT. The Yule Ball sequence is a showcase of Ron's potential for pettiness, meanness and insecurity, but it's done in a way that I think adds to his humanity and shows how awkward and wrong-headed young love can be. His fight with Harry is also well done, and helps confront the inherent imbalances in their relationship. And despite being a bit of a boob for the whole book, Ron is still funny. Some of his best lines are in this book, from jokes dancing naked in Dobby's tea-cozy, to his claim he got a Yule Ball date out of "sheer animal magnetism." He's rough-edged and hilarious here. Lots to love.<br />
<br />
<b>Actual Ranking: 4</b></div>
<div>
The middle book! Right in the middle! This was definitely not intentional, but it feels right, doesn't it? This book, to me, is where the problems of the later books began. The pacing fell off the rails, for the sake of stuffing the book to the gills with character moments. For those who don't love the moody teens era of Potter, this is also where the moodiness takes a decidedly "teen-aged" turn.<br />
<br />
But it's also one of the funniest books in the series, between the Yule Ball, "Mad-Eye Moody" turning Draco into a ferret, Hagrid falling in love, Dudley going on a diet and Harry bathing with Moaning Myrtle. It's a trip.<br />
<br />
I've called out the later books as too long, and I stand by that, though I want to temper that statement here. I believe that we, the fans, are partially to blame for the ballooning length of the Harry Potter books, because all we wanted was more. More funny scenes! More character moments! Rowling was so good at writing side-characters, and once she reached Book 4, she leaned into that, giving us a plethora of extraneous character scenes. Most of Book 4's funny sequences wouldn't exist if it had been as tightly written as the first three. So while we get detours from here on out, they do at least expand the world and let us relish the characters a little longer. There are worse things to destroy pacing for. Man, I remember being disappointed when I learned Book 6 WASN'T going to be longer than Book 5!<br />
<br />
Also, this book gets a few things completely right. Voldemort's rise is given lots of room to torment us with the horror of what is happening. Rowling clearly knew this book needed to act as a transition between the Middle Grade aspects of the early books and the mature themes of the more Young Adult inclined later series. She pulls that transition off with the rise of Voldemort brilliantly, setting up the action of the rest of the series in the process.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<b>#3 - HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHEONIX</b></div>
<div>
<b><b><br /></b></b>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bTZfILxJd1g/Wt7vgcr5OYI/AAAAAAAACXo/tJh1b37JW3Usx0l_ESKms6YFR42Mri1OgCLcBGAs/s1600/harry%2Bdumbledor%2Barmy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1065" data-original-width="1600" height="266" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bTZfILxJd1g/Wt7vgcr5OYI/AAAAAAAACXo/tJh1b37JW3Usx0l_ESKms6YFR42Mri1OgCLcBGAs/s400/harry%2Bdumbledor%2Barmy.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">What's gonna work? TEAMWORK!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div>
<strong>Title: 3</strong><br />
Leading up to the book's release, I was excited, because it just sounded so rad. And even though the mystery of WHAT the Order is gets resolved quickly, I still love the way it plays out over the book. This book really expanded the adult wizarding world, letting us in on how the first war was fought and how the Ministry of Magic worked. The book ends with the first wizard war of the series, and it's such a worthwhile build to the shoot-out in the Ministry between Death Eaters and Order members.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<strong>Teacher: 2</strong><br />
Yes. The second best Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher is Umbridge. You hate her. You wanted her dead more than Voldemort. And it's for those reasons she's so fabulous. The main villains of the Harry Potter series - Voldemort, the Dursleys, Draco and Snape - are all introduced in Book 1. They represent separate areas Harry has to confront growing up. His past (the Dursleys), his peers (Draco), his assumptions (Snape) and evil itself (Voldemort). Most of the supporting villains are appendages to these .<br />
<br />
But another villain is added when Harry reaches the time that most teenagers find themselves confronting "society" for the first time, and it is personified in Delores Umbridge. She represents the sheer unfairness of the world, and does so perfectly. Her lack of comeuppance is infuriating, and yet also the right fate for a villain of her ilk. Because "society" never goes away. You just have to live with it, even though some days, you hate it more than evil itself.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Ron: 5</b></div>
<div>
Ron is so lovely in this book. He and Hermione realize that Harry is going through a rough time and so they step-up to support him. Ron feels like he's grown up considerably since Book 4, actually complimenting Hermione and thanking her for the things she does for them, something that tends to unnerve her. It's adorable.<br />
<br />
One of my biggest problems with Book 6 is it undoes a lot of what feels like genuine character development that Ron underwent in Book 5, for the sake of laughs at his stupid relationship with Lavender Brown. Personally, I think Book 6 would have been stronger if the plot had involved Hermione and Ron ACTUALLY DATING and breaking-up, and letting that fuel Ron's despair in Book 7. And I hate to say it, but I think the reason it didn't happen is that I don't get the impression Rowling is great at writing romance (see commentary on Ginny). But can you imagine how great the Book 7 ending would have been if that big kiss came out of them deciding it was worth being together, despite the hurt of a previous relationship? Ugh! In a better world, that is the arc we would have had.<br />
<br />
So yes. This lovely version of Book 5 Ron is getting marked down, because I have a fanfic version of where Book 6 SHOULD have gone in my head, that the actual Book 6 ruined for me. Sue me.<br />
<br />
<b>Actual Ranking: 3</b></div>
<div>
Of all the Harry Potter books, this is the one that has moved upwards in my rankings the most over time. When I first read it, right after it came out, I was not prepared for Wizard Angst. Up until Book 5, Harry seemed infallible to me, and I didn't like realizing that he wasn't.<br />
<br />
But the more I thought about it, especially as later books came out, the more I respected this book and came to like it, then love it. Harry finally processes the anger and resentment he feels for all the loss he's suffered in life. I wanted him to be too noble to let this stuff get to him, but looking back, I'm glad he wasn't. His hurt and anger made him more real.<br />
<br />
But this book also shows the roots of the Harry who will one day stop Voldemort. In the previous books, he's primarily reacting to circumstances that come to him. Here, he's trying to figure out how to act for himself, but he doesn't have the tools to do that yet. So he mouths off to Umbridge. He tries dating Cho Chang. He begins leading Dumbledore's Army. He defies the training in Legilimens Snape gives him, believing his connection to Voldemort to be valuable.<br />
<br />
And that last action ends up spelling the death of his beloved Godfather, Sirius. It's a heartbreaking consequence to his unwillingness to cut himself off from Voldemort, but if Harry had followed his training, he might not have been tempted out of the school and into harm's way. Then again, maybe that confrontation would have come in another place. The war was on it's way, and there's something beautifully tragic about that inevitability.<br />
<br />
Book 5 is the book where Harry grows up. One part I love is the long denouement after the battle at the Ministry of Magic, where Harry struggles to come to terms with with the loss of Sirius. He's in enough denial that he even asks Nearly-Headless Nick if his Godfather might come back as a ghost, but gradually, he learns to accept that this won't happen.<br />
<br />
Rowling has gone on the record several times saying that the series is largely about death - accepting it, processing it. It's there in the first book, when Dumbledore calls it the next adventure to the well-organized mind. And of course, it's there all the way until Harry's mind is well enough organized, that he's willing to take on that adventure in order to stop Voldemort in Book 7. Book 5 is where Harry first confronts death personified, in the form of the thestrals, and then gradually begins to accept it, as he learns to move on after Sirius.<br />
<br />
Overall, I think Book 5 has some of the most profound emotional resonance. It's tough to read at times for that reason, but over all, I think that speaks to why it's so good.</div>
<b><b><br /></b></b></div>
<div>
<b>#2 - HARRY POTTER AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE</b></div>
<div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Uo4q4TqvNJw/Wt7v52cHUVI/AAAAAAAACXw/RRKKXuXHhWAd9VZqpeFdn2sjeENan28qwCLcBGAs/s1600/harry-potter-trio.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="421" data-original-width="750" height="223" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Uo4q4TqvNJw/Wt7v52cHUVI/AAAAAAAACXw/RRKKXuXHhWAd9VZqpeFdn2sjeENan28qwCLcBGAs/s400/harry-potter-trio.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The precious babies!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<strong><br />Title: 1</strong><br />
The one that started it all. Note that this ranking is based on the original title, and not the abomination that they made of it in the US versions. When I read this book as a smug little twelve-year-old, I relished the fact that I knew what a philosopher's stone was, even though Harry didn't. But then it turns out to be the key to everything in a wonderful, twisty, mysterious plot for immortality, where self-sacrifice is the key to obtaining it.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<strong>Teacher: 4</strong><br />
Quirrell isn't the most interesting character, right up until it turns out he's been trying to kill Harry the whole book, then he's kinda fabulous. Plus, he's got an undead, zombie Voldemort on the back of his head. It's creepy and weird and marvelous. A great kick-off to the books.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Ron: 2</b></div>
<div>
In which we meet Ron, and he is wonderful. He is the best friend we all wanted. He insults, then saves Hermione, and it is love. He sacrifices himself on a chessboard. Blessed, lovely Ron.<br />
<br />
<b>Actual Ranking: 2</b></div>
<div>
Mr and Mrs Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much.<br />
<br />
I will never get over what a great opening line that is. Or what a great opening book to an amazing series this book is. I have a slight bias towards the first books in series that I've talked about elsewhere on this blog. It's my opinion that first books have an advantage over all others, in that they get to introduce the world. Everything is new and exciting, and isn't that just the truth with <i>Harry</i> <i>Potter</i>? Everything we would go on to love about the books starts here. Magic, Quidditch, the Hogwarts express, classes, the trio, owl post, the Forbidden Forest, Diagon Alley, Hogwarts castle. The list goes on and on and on and on and on.<br />
<br />
Aside from the setting being new, so are the characters. The <i>Harry</i> <i>Potter</i> books are filled with people worth loving, and one of my favorite parts of the book is watching the central relationships form. There are few groups of friends I've rooted for more in literature than Harry, Ron and Hermione. Each one feels so essential to the balance of the group. This is proven when they enter the trapdoor together, and each one has a unique sacrifice to make for the good of their quest.<br />
<br />
The central mystery introduces us to all the fun of a <i>Potter</i> book, and here, the characters are trying to solve it for the same reason we are - not because the world depends on them solving it, but because solving puzzles is <i>fun</i>. Why is there a troll in the dungeons? Why is there a three-headed dog in the third floor corridor? Why does Snape hate Harry? What is the Philosopher's Stone?<br />
<br />
At first, they're driven by sheer curiosity, until they realize that an actual plot is in motion, then things get serious. It mirrors the reader experience that would eventually happen across the entire series. What starts off as light-hearted fun, eventually comes to mean much more as Rowling unfurls her stories of loss and triumph.<br />
<br />
Altogether, a brilliant start to a brilliant series.</div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b>#1 - HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN</b></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Md8nKl3b4XI/Wt7wpJaLFBI/AAAAAAAACYA/lP0hc00wQlM5vedGxg9gL738l7_LcvSwACLcBGAs/s1600/harry%2Btime%2Bturner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="500" height="400" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Md8nKl3b4XI/Wt7wpJaLFBI/AAAAAAAACYA/lP0hc00wQlM5vedGxg9gL738l7_LcvSwACLcBGAs/s400/harry%2Btime%2Bturner.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I still feel annoyed that they ditched the wizard robes for most of<br />
Movie 3, but this scene still rocks.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div>
<strong>Title: 2</strong><br />
Otherwise known as Harry Potter and the Hottie McHotterson.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<strong>Teacher: 1</strong><br />
After two terrible teachers, the students were due for someone who excelled in his position. Enter Remus Lupin, the teacher everyone dreamed they could have. And like so many good things, he's ripped away too soon. When I finished reading this book, I was shook, because I no longer knew if I planned on marrying Ron or Lupin. WHO WOULD IT BE?????<br />
<br />
<b>Ron: 1</b></div>
<div>
Is it weird that I love the Ron and Hermione that fight with each other so much? This book is Hermione's rough year - the one where she takes too much on and suffers for it, disappointing both herself and her friends. And Ron really doesn't let her off the hook, harder on her than almost anyone else. Right up until he realizes that they've also let her down, and she deserves his help too. I've always loved how natural the relationships between the main trio feel, and the fighting between Ron and Hermione here isn't caused shallowly. Ron had good reason to think Hermione's cat ate his rat and in his place, I'd have wanted to kill her for denying it.<br />
<br />
And yet Harry's role in the trio here is also fascinating. Back when people used to argue over who would end up with Hermione - Harry or Ron - this book to me served as strong evidence for why Harry and Hermione just wouldn't work, because when she and Ron are fighting, it's consistently Ron's side he takes. Ron is the emotional glue of the trio. He dictates when they're "fighting" and when they aren't. The books where Harry struggles with outright loneliness aren't the ones where Hermione is gone, but Ron. Here, he's given a chance to choose between them and picks Ron. This sucks for Hermione, but I think there's some realism in the relationships here, and what it often feels like being a girl whose best friends are boys. Like, man, have I lived this myself.<br />
<br />
This book hits me in a very personal place because of how much I relate to Hermione's falling apart from Ron, and their eventual reconcile. The moment where he promises to help with Buckbeak's trial and she starts sobbing in his arms is so cathartic for me, I just can't deny the personal punch of this book when making my rankings.<br />
<br />
Also, Hermione slaps Draco and I'm pretty sure we can pinpoint that moment as the sexual awakening of Ronald Weasley.<br />
<br />
<b>Actual Ranking: 1</b></div>
<div>
Rowling has gone on record saying that the Dementors represent depression. This metaphor comes from a deeply personal place for her. They are the death of her mother. They are the failure of her first marriage. They are her struggle to raise a child while living on welfare. They are also Harry's greatest fear.<br />
<br />
I didn't know that when I read this book, but I don't think it's an accident that reading it, my heart ached for Harry. Of all the books, this one is the most tender. Harry is vulnerable to the Dementors because of the tragedy he has faced, and he is at times both desperate to escape their influence and tempted to wallow in the memories they bring - memories of his parents' voices, which he can't hear any other way.<br />
<br />
Lupin tries to teach him how to face one, emphasizing happy memories as the most powerful means of projecting a Patronus charm. But in the end, he finally succeeds by projecting not a memory, but a hope for his future, that he's going to live with Sirius and finally have a real family again. In the end, it isn't a hope that comes true, but it's enough to get him a little farther.<br />
<br />
That message meant so much to me as a young girl. Even though my heart ached when he lost both Sirius and Lupin, his first real connections to his parents, I felt sure things would be all right. Of all the Harry Potter books, this one strikes me the most as being about the inherent value of hope. When Harry expresses his frustration that all he's tried to do hasn't amounted to anything, Dumbledore reminds him that by helping Sirius escape, he's saved two lives, and those two lives have value. The previous two years, Harry was able to fix everything, but this time he must learn to look forward with hope, even when things are difficult.<br />
<br />
That theme is also well personified in Lupin, who is kind and decent, even though he's been dealt a hard hand, much like Harry. I love Lupin so much. He exuded goodness, even with his frailties, and while I got annoyed with him a little in Book 7, I do think his issues with commitment were well set-up by his backstory. In the end, he is good and kind and maybe wants people to like him a bit too much, since he's been handed so much hatred. Overall, a wonderful character.<br />
<br />
The emotional resonance has always been what I come back to with this book, but it also has my favorite mystery. I love how the story of Harry's parents is revealed. This was also the first book to make liberal use of clues that were sewn several books in advance. Sirius is mentioned in the very first chapter of Book 1. The Whomping Willow is a fun set piece in Book 2, but plays a much larger role here. And most importantly...<br />
<br />
TIME TRAVEL!!!!!!!!<br />
<br />
I have mixed feelings on <i>Harry Potter and the Cursed Child</i>, and one of the main reasons why is because the books complicate how time travel works in <i>Harry Potter</i>, and not for the better. What I love about how it's used here, is that time travel can't alter the fact that time is a fixed loop. Harry sees himself stop the dementors, and then he stops the dementors. I love time travel when it's used this way, and it's a fun ending to the mini-mystery that Ron kept trying to solve (but rarely bothered Harry) of how Hermione was attending all her classes.<br />
<br />
I struggle to find any weaknesses in this book, though for those who don't like Book 3, I'll admit it can be quite dark. That's kind of what you get when half the plot is a metaphor for battling depression. Plus, there is the sheer weirdness of, um... Ron's rat being the man who betrayed Harry's parents. I had to reread that line the first time I read the book. But, hey! It was a twist I didn't see coming.<br />
<br />
<b>CONCLUSIONS!!!</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The longer I write, the more pessimistic I get about certain things. I often find myself looking at long series and thinking "man, what are the odds all of those are equally good?" Even with Harry Potter, I don't think Rowling got it all right. I know I have my favorites.<br />
<br />
But so do you.<br />
<br />
And that's the thing I keep coming back to. Even with the variations between them, I don't think the series has a particularly "weak link." I've looked at enough fan polls to know that favorites tend to follow two patterns. First, that <i>Prisoner of Azkaban</i> usually takes the largest chunk of votes, but never an outright majority. Second, that all the books have their defenders. The series gave all of us something we needed at some point.<br />
<br />
And by all of us, I mean all of us who read them. For those who didn't... what on earth did you read this giant list of spoilers for? Go read the books!</div>
Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-15913844767715697652018-03-23T23:41:00.000-07:002018-03-23T23:41:35.033-07:00Tropes vs Tropes: The Wild West Movie Musical! (Starring Howard Keel)It's my belief that everyone has at least one movie genre that functions as their "good taste" blind spot. My mother, for example, will watch literally ANYTHING if it is upbeat and about Christmas.<br />
<br />
November and December are Hallmark movie season in our household, no questions asked. What's interesting about this predilection, however, is that she's never stopped being aware of how daft, contrived and forced most of these movies are. As a result, her favorites are all genuinely good Christmas Movies - <em>Christmas Carol</em>, <em>White Christmas</em>, and <em>It's a Wonderful Life</em> - but she loves the festive season so much, she'll enjoy a bad movie too, if it means she can get her fix.<br />
<br />
My theory has borne out for several people. I grew up with a best friend who loved epic fantasy movies, even when the overall quality was low, because they featured rad costumes and sweeping instrumental scores. I really can't argue with her logic, because my own good taste blind spot is the movie musical. I am a sucker for characters singing and dancing away their problems.<br />
<br />
The great day of the movie musical was a couple generations ago, which means that when I go to get my fix of soaring ballads and tap routines, I usually need to look to the past. It doesn't take long to realize that there's an incredible amount of cultural baggage attached to the catchiest songs of all time. For today, I want to focus on a particular sub-genre that was popular in the early 1950s - the Western/Musical mash-up.<br />
<br />
If you want to make a classic western musical, you need two very important elements.<br />
<ol>
<li>A plucky heroine, struggling (unsuccessfully) against the patriarchy.</li>
<li>The patriarchy, as played by Howard Keel.</li>
</ol>
I can't even begin to tell you how essential it is that Howard Keel be in your movie. Someone needs to say all those lines about how useless and emotional women are, and it is of paramount importance that Howard Keel say them. His voice is so frickin' magical, he can make the most cringe-inducing dialogue sound attractive. He'll sing all about your beautiful hide until you thrill at your own objectification. YEE-HA!!!<br />
<br />
In all seriousness though, I start by positioning myself as a musical theater lover because not everything I'm going to say about these films will be kind. Part of what fascinates me about these movies is that they are ALL problematic, regarding women's issues, racism and romantic portrayals of the colonization of the west. Most of the critiques I lay at their feet are no different than those that apply to most Westerns of the 1950s. These films were a product of their times, and the messages they pushed were designed for a very specific audience - white, suburban Americans, who in the heat of the Communist scare and post-World War II restructuring, were hungry for a "simpler" time. A lot of those anxieties were projected onto the Wild West. The proverbial "frontier" was now in American's backyards. The wildness of the West was tempered by a reassurance that white America WOULD conquer that land, as history had borne out.<br />
<br />
At the same time, I also hope this goofy essay isn't seen as an attempt to discredit those who don't enjoy these films, because of their problematic elements. If "movie where charming Howard Keel kidnaps women" is a non-starter for you, this is okay. You might be saner than I am. For me, this particular Tropes vs Tropes is motivated by a need to explore the phenomenon of liking something when you're keenly aware of it's flaws. It's also meant as a reflection on past trends and values and how troubling messages can lurk in the past, even in seemingly innocuous G rated movies.<br />
<br />
So, with that preamble finally finished, here it is!!! My name is Emily, I love Howard Keel, and it's time to determine what is the best 1950s Wild West musical!<br />
<br />
<b><u>Entry #1: <i>Annie Get Your Gun </i>(1950):</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-r2a2ibtG5xk/WrWYk6mkTSI/AAAAAAAACT0/FsJTnUVMTHgKyfTu-PKh_twMgRgjvk9dACLcBGAs/s1600/Annie%2Bget%2Byour%2Bgun.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="787" data-original-width="1000" height="313" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-r2a2ibtG5xk/WrWYk6mkTSI/AAAAAAAACT0/FsJTnUVMTHgKyfTu-PKh_twMgRgjvk9dACLcBGAs/s400/Annie%2Bget%2Byour%2Bgun.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Is it love or animosity? Who cares?! It's Howard Keel!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b><u><br /></u></b>
Some of you might be wondering how so many western musicals starring the same actor got made in such a short span of time. The simple answer is that <i>Annie Get Your Gun</i> made a crap ton of money for MGM. This being before the days of the million sequel Marvel movie franchise, studios were more likely to produce "spiritual successors" that featured similar stars and plots. So what about <i>Annie Get Your Gun </i>was so successful that studios scrambled to make more?<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Good:</u></b><br />
<br />
In my opinion, it really comes down to the music. Of the three movies we're covering, it's worth noting that <i>Annie Get Your Gun</i> was the only one that started off as a stage play. This is part of why the movie has more songs than the other two and probably why they're better. This was a project that had already been a huge hit on Broadway, tried and tested, before it made it's way to Hollywood. The songs are classics, so much so that people who have never seen the movie or a stage production of the show are still likely to know a couple of the standouts.<br />
<br />
Among the best songs are the nostalgic anthem, "There's No Business Like Show Business," which is pretty much required study for any show choir kid in high school. Other good ones include Annie's comedic songs, "You Can't Get a Man With a Gun" and "Doin' What Comes Nat'urly."<br />
<br />
But the best of the bunch is without question "Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better," the rivalry song to end all rivalry songs. Keel and Hutton are perfect in their parts and the lyrics are as sharp as Annie's shot.<br />
<br />
Additionally, the film is well acted, funny and Howard Keel is charming. The Technocolor renders his teeth a transcendent white and what more can you really ask for?<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Bad:</u></b><br />
<br />
The plot leaves a little to be wanted. In the first half, it's hard to guess what exactly the story is building towards, and when it does come, the resolution is a little insulting. Remember that song mentioned above, "You Can't Get a Man With a Gun?" Funny as the number is, the sentiment is played depressingly straight. For all her brilliance and accomplishments as a female sharpshooter, the story ends up being about how Annie Oakley comes to understand that if she wants a man in her life, she's got to be second best, not first. If she wants Frank, she has to lose to him and defer to his pride.<br />
<br />
I can imagine that in some renditions, Frank could be played in a way where he realizes what's going on at the end, and makes more of a show of insisting Annie doesn't need to suppress who she is to please him. You can do a lot just by reinterpreting lines and changing inflections, but none of that happens in the movie. Besides, there's no escaping how thin-skinned and fragile the ego of Frank Butler is during earlier scenes.<br />
<br />
Ladies, if you can't get a man with a gun, might I suggest pursuing a different man?<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Ugly:</u></b><br />
<br />
The entirety of the "I'm an Indian Too" number. It's so bad. It's so so so bad. It's the kind of bad I can't even laugh at. Maybe it crosses into cringe comedy for some modern audiences. For me, it's just cringe.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-346Rat3CpG8/WrWklvPePSI/AAAAAAAACUQ/6rymlq-bBRwFDnouDGSef3VFWcXr87ArACLcBGAs/s1600/indian%2Btoo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="225" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-346Rat3CpG8/WrWklvPePSI/AAAAAAAACUQ/6rymlq-bBRwFDnouDGSef3VFWcXr87ArACLcBGAs/s400/indian%2Btoo.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Cultural Appropriation: The Musical!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
By all accounts, the real life Annie Oakley and Chief Sitting Bull had a strong, mutually affectionate relationship. And yes, he did symbolically adopt her, which is what the scene is trying to portray. Unfortunately, MGM took what had been a positive, respectful relationship and turned it into a farcical joke. The rest of the movie features several other scenes depicting their relationship, which are less horrible, but they're still hampered by stereotyping and the fact that Chief Sitting Bull is played by an Irish American.<br />
<br />
This particular instance is one of a couple areas where you see how bad the 1950s were at accurately representing the past. In addition to butchering the one relationship involving a Native American character, the movie also misrepresents Frank Butler. The real Frank WAS the kind of man you could get with a gun. He adored Annie and her talent. Most biographies of the pair portray him as more than okay with being less of a star than her, and loving and supporting her as she toured the world, donated money to women's advocacy groups and trained girls to shoot.<br />
<div>
</div>
<br />
In many ways, the real Annie Oakley was too feminist for Post-WWII America. Her life is retold in a way that makes her central concern getting married, coupled with the "lesson" that women must be less impressive than their husbands. There was real anxiety in the 1950s about the role women had taken in the workplace during the previous wars. Hollywood made a concentrated effort to provide narratives where female characters woke up to the realization that they needed to go back home and conform to female stereotypes in order to be happy.<br />
<br />
And on that note...<br />
<br />
<b><u>Entry #2: <i>Calamity Jane</i> (1953):</u></b><br />
<b><u></u></b><br />
<b><u></u></b>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1pMjF21LkTI/WrWqXw-ZBCI/AAAAAAAACUs/6O2A6mdvOEMYKjLH3EHvph0Q0B5hvVHigCLcBGAs/s1600/calamity%2Bjane.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="740" data-original-width="1100" height="268" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1pMjF21LkTI/WrWqXw-ZBCI/AAAAAAAACUs/6O2A6mdvOEMYKjLH3EHvph0Q0B5hvVHigCLcBGAs/s400/calamity%2Bjane.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Is it love or animosity? Wait... I'm sensing a pattern here...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
With the success of <i>Annie Get Your Gun</i>, Warner Brothers decided they wanted a hit like that of their own. They copied the formula as tightly as they could. Sanitized version of a historical cowgirl + Howard Keel = big hit, right? RIGHT???<br />
<br />
Of course right. It's Howard Keel. LOOK AT HIM!!!<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Good:</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
Of all the movies here today, <i>Calamity Jane</i> has the most focused and clear plot. There's no lag moving from the second to third act like in <i>Annie Get Your Gun</i>. No one suddenly gets kidnapped (we'll get to that one next). The plot progression is pretty logical and it's fun to watch. Also, while this movie's "message" has a lot of flaws, there are certain things to like about it. Calamity gradually learns over the course of the movie that she needs and values female friendship. When we start, she only sees herself as having anything in common with the men in Deadwood city. Her best friend is Bill Hickock (today's edition of Howard Keel), but it's the kind of friendship that's based on humiliating and one-upping each other. She doesn't relate to other women and instead views them as rivals, until she meets Katie, the girl all the boys love and all the girls want to be.<br />
<br />
Despite their differences, she and Katie hit it off. Calamity defends her and supports Katie's dreams of being an actress. Katie gives Calamity a sense of warmth and acceptance no one else has before. My internet research informs me that a lot of people like to read this movie as having romantic subtext between the two. It's not something I picked up on watching it, but if that's your cup of tea, why not? Classic movies are incredibly sparse on deep relationships of any kind between women, and so however you want to read the pair, I think they're fun and refreshing. It's a classic set up of tomboy and girly-girl, but there's some nuance to that. Yes, Katie gives Calamity a "make-over" but it feels motivated by an actual relationship of care rather than Katie trying to "fix" Calamity. She wants Calamity to be happy and only offers "help" when asked.<br />
<br />
Speaking of that make-over, I also was waiting with baited breath for some awful moment where Bill realizes she was BEAUTIFUL ALL ALOOOOOOONG. It kind of happens, but it also kind of doesn't. After a lot of talk about how Calamity needs to be more "feminine," she and Bill actually kiss when she's in her man's duds. Later, when a friend of his wonders aloud about what he's getting himself into with her, he just laughs and says, "don't I know it." Of all the romances on display, I think Calamity and Bill's is the most balanced. They both can really rile the other up, but there's a give and take to it, that leaves you going "sure she shot a drink out of his hand in anger that one time, and yes, he once roped her and hung her from the balcony of a theater, but they're going to be okay."<br />
<br />
Additionally, Doris Day hams up the title role with aplomb, the supporting cast is memorable and Howard Keel spends several minutes serenading a painting.<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Bad:</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
While the songs are good, they're not quite as memorable as the other shows. The most well known is "Secret Love," which is a decent ballad and won an Oscar. My favorite numbers tended to be the ones Calamity sings with the prospectors of Deadwood, like "The Deadwood Stage" and "Just Blew in from the Windy City." Doris Day throws herself into every song with fervor, but it can be a bit jarring that her singing voice sounds completely different from her exaggerated accent in the spoken lines.<br />
<br />
It's also now time to talk about that make-over. One of the "messages" of the movie is that men only value women who are pretty and conform to female stereotypes. A lot of time is spent talking about who is pretty, who isn't and whether or not Calamity deserves any kind of respect if she isn't. By the end, the conclusion seems to be... maybe? She definitely is treated better in a dress, but being pretty still isn't enough to get her what she wants, and as it turns out, maybe Bill does kind of value her when she's being a tomboy, in his own weird way. You can argue it either way, but the fact that you can argue the point probably says something about how this movie endorses superficiality.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RSqO6pbv0Po/WrW0uAkj4VI/AAAAAAAACVI/bxuJo0s3W8ohv2ObQJjz5zE9spUVjlKJQCLcBGAs/s1600/woman%2Btouch.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="619" data-original-width="829" height="297" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RSqO6pbv0Po/WrW0uAkj4VI/AAAAAAAACVI/bxuJo0s3W8ohv2ObQJjz5zE9spUVjlKJQCLcBGAs/s400/woman%2Btouch.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">You're happy now because you're drinking tea!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Another mixed message is how Katie helps Calamity become a better person. Outwardly, it seems to be because she teaches her to play house. But I think you can also argue that what she really teaches Calamity is the value of compassion, both within herself and from her friends. Again, take your pick.<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Ugly:</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
I can handle make overs. I can handle men fawning over the pretty girl. I cannot abide a man telling a woman she's getting muddled up in all her "feminine thinking."<br />
<br />
Feminine thinking is, of course, short hand for "having emotions" because this is what every movie that purports to have something to say about the differences between the sexes concludes. Women make terrible decisions and have to be corrected by men because they're too EMOTIONAL to ever think straight. It's so insulting, it's hard to know where to begin.<br />
<br />
By the end of the film, Calamity has come to realize that no matter how she dresses, she'll always be a mixed up, over emotional female and this is freeing, because now she can count on the good advice of men. I can't guys. I just can't. I'm never sure which bothers me more - that these statements inherently demonize emotions and imply that men don't have them or use them to make value judgments - or that women are inherently stupid for using emotions as part of how they make value judgments. I mean, take your pick, I guess.<br />
<br />
If this was all this movie did wrong, however, it would be sitting pretty, and probably the least problematic of the bunch. But there are far worse crimes.<br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
While most of <i>Annie Get Your Gun's</i> problems came from deviating from history, <i>Calamity Jane</i> is hampered by the true events it's based on. Because yes, the real Calamity Jane did lie constantly about her accomplishments, and was mostly illiterate and yes, she did skirmish with and shoot Sioux nationals frequently. And it's that last point where things get icky, because if shooting members of a single ethnic group is a defining trait of your heroine, your 1950s G rated movie is going to develop some values dissonance over the years.<br />
<br />
<i>Calamity Jane </i>clearly has NO IDEA how to handle this issue. No one scene featuring the Sioux is as cringey as "I'm an Indian Too" but there are plenty of little scenes that build up to what is probably a worse whole. Whether she's freeing someone from a Sioux camp, shooting at riders from a stagecoach or laughing at Bill when he loses a bet and must dress up as a Sioux woman, the tone is insensitive and off the whole way through.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-I08CGxy67DQ/WrW34QJKc7I/AAAAAAAACVg/XjHB2-xirpwg6Blli7IspikPvd_jyRqvACLcBGAs/s1600/sioux%2Bcostume.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="621" data-original-width="830" height="298" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-I08CGxy67DQ/WrW34QJKc7I/AAAAAAAACVg/XjHB2-xirpwg6Blli7IspikPvd_jyRqvACLcBGAs/s400/sioux%2Bcostume.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ladies and Gentlemen, may I introduce... HOWARD KEEL!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This particular scene with Bill kinda sums up the film's main problems. There is nothing more humiliating for him to dress up as than a Sioux woman. Through this scene, a small Sioux family is hanging out behind him because... I don't know! I seriously still don't know. Are they his friends? They lend him a baby for a little while. Did they conveniently forget that he's also shot dozens of their people? Oh gosh, this hurts my brain!<br />
<br />
The one part that does manage to veer all the way from cringe to cringe comedy for me comes when Calamity and Bill are admiring the Dakota hills and she wistfully says, "no wonder the injuns fight so fierce to hang onto this country." It's like for five seconds she acknowledges that American settlers were, effectively, invaders and those people who lived in the Dakotas for generations are the same ones she and Bill have gleefully been shooting all movie long. The lack of self-awareness is awe inspiring.<br />
<br />
So if you, a 1950s filmmaker, can't win by changing the past to fit modern sensibilities and you can't win by actually portraying parts of the massacre of indigenous peoples, what IS your 1950s Wild West Musical to do???<br />
<br />
Answer: Make a story up and just ignore the race issue entirely! YEE-HA!!!!<br />
<br />
<b><u>Entry #3: <i>Seven Brides for Seven Brothers</i> (1954):</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kod5qt_237k/WrXIcFKixAI/AAAAAAAACV8/BAfY69Izx_o3g27KhNZS2pS5bF85aNWDQCLcBGAs/s1600/seven%2Bbrides.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="464" data-original-width="613" height="301" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kod5qt_237k/WrXIcFKixAI/AAAAAAAACV8/BAfY69Izx_o3g27KhNZS2pS5bF85aNWDQCLcBGAs/s400/seven%2Bbrides.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Is it love or animosity? Or is it just a mustache?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
By the time MGM got to making <i>Seven Brides for Seven Brothers</i>, there was some anxiety that the film wouldn't do as well as previous Wild West musicals. Audiences might have hit market saturation, and so the budget was slashed in favor of funding <i>Brigadoon</i>. As a result, they couldn't shoot on location and the Oregon country side is built out of a conspicuous number of painted backdrops.<br />
<br />
This feels particularly ironic now, because not only was the film successful, but President Eisenhower loved it so much he told all his fellow Americans to go see it. It went on to be honored as one of the greatest musicals ever made. It was nominated for Best Picture. And while the music from <i>Annie Get Your Gun</i> might be more well known, in my experience, if you've only seen one of these movies, this is the one you've seen.<br />
<br />
And rightly so. You've seen the best one. So what makes this film so great, even when it is simultaneously - erm... problematic?<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Good, the Bad and the Ugly:</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
The thing that sets apart <i>Seven Brides for Seven Brothers</i> is that, unlike the other two, which have bad aspects and moments, this movie just dives straight in and makes at least some attempts to deconstruct the weird politics around gender and love. Whether or not it's successful is something of a matter of opinion.<br />
<br />
First, let's talk about race. <i>Seven Brides</i> is by far the least offensive here, not because it does anything right, but because it doesn't give itself opportunities to do things wrong. There are conspicuously few indigenous peoples in 1850s Oregon in this film. It's not realistic, but it's a sin of omission rather than commission.<br />
<br />
Now to the meat of the matter:<br />
<br />
Our story follows Adam Potipee, a handsome, arrogant backwoodsmen who comes into town one day interested in finding a wife. He's tired of living in a perpetual man-cave with his six younger brothers and figures a woman could help keep things in order. The townsfolk tell him no girl in her right mind will follow him up to his ranch in the mountains, but these townsfolk have forgotten that they are up against Howard Keel. Within a day, he's talked one of the most popular local girls into marrying him, a sweet, feisty, resourceful frontier woman named Milly.<br />
<br />
When Milly arrives at his home and discovers he "forgot" to mention the six other men she's expected to feed and care for, the plot kicks off. Milly realizes that she can either babysit these man-children forever, or force them to grow up and find wives of their own. And maybe, if she's lucky, slap some sense into Adam as well.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-su878SyXDoY/WrXUZhYBd0I/AAAAAAAACWY/-o9nVl76i14sP-Fms0gIZNeqzmvG5nN3ACLcBGAs/s1600/the%2Bbrothers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="380" data-original-width="610" height="248" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-su878SyXDoY/WrXUZhYBd0I/AAAAAAAACWY/-o9nVl76i14sP-Fms0gIZNeqzmvG5nN3ACLcBGAs/s400/the%2Bbrothers.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">So much glorious red hair!!!!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The relationship that develops between Milly and the younger boys is the highlight of the movie. Howard Keel is as spectacular as ever, but he's up against a full cast of charming, dancing, crooning red heads. As she makes them shave, learn to dance and treat people with respect, they fall in love with her in that family kind of way. It doesn't take long for them to see the value in her and realize that women, in general, are pretty rad and something they've been missing out on for too long.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, this movie is the reason we never needed a live action adaptation of <i>Beauty and the Beast</i>. It was already done amazingly well in this movie. It's the tale as old as time of a helpless girl digging down and finding the will to survive an impossible situation with men who are used to living like beasts. The damaging aspects are fairly obvious - it relies on the fantasy that a good woman can "fix" a man and that a fella who literally kidnaps women can be redeemed.<br />
<br />
Cuz, oof. It's time to talk about the kidnapping.<br />
<br />
As Milly gets the boys to go into town and meet girls, the townspeople respond by pushing them away, scared those no-good Potipee boys are going to steal even more of the local girls. Heartbroken, they start talking about leaving and building lives elsewhere. Both Milly and Adam are horrified at the thought of the family breaking up and Milly asks her husband to speak to his brothers. In classic Adam fashion, it is the worst possible thing she could ask him to do.<br />
<br />
Adam, who has recently discovered reading, thanks to Milly, tells his brothers that according to Plutarch, the Romans solved their frontier problems by just KIDNAPPING the women they wanted. The boys, who no one claimed were intelligent, are excited by the idea and so they take off into town, kidnap the girls and trigger an avalanche, stranding everyone on the homestead until the pass opens in spring.<br />
<br />
So yeah, the townspeople were right. They did steal the local girls.<br />
<br />
And here is where the question of deconstruction comes up, because the plan doesn't work. Milly takes the girls under wing, throws the men out of the house and gives Adam such a dressing down about his misogyny, he runs off to the trapping cabin and sulks the next eight months away.<br />
<br />
It might not sound like much to modern sensibilities, but the movie gives voice to a lot of the hurt and frustration experienced by women in the 1950s. It's a story where the most sensible character is female and her consistent demands for respect are eventually rewarded. Annie Oakley and Calamity Jane sure didn't get that kind of ending.<br />
<br />
Whether or not you think the men suffer enough before their change of heart is accepted might be a matter of opinion, but for what it's worth, here's mine. I've always read the story as intentionally over the top and farcical. All through the kidnapping scene, the joke is that the men are behaving stupidly and no one should ever do this. It's trying to cross the line, for the sake of humor and to parody how entitled men feel to the women they love.<br />
<br />
And while it might seem insane that the women eventually take them back, within the universe of the film, the Potipee boys are probably still the best option. The townsfolk are just as possessive and controlling, but in subtler ways. No one except Milly cares about the agency of the other girls, and she does all she can to protect them and their choices.<br />
<br />
Is it enough? Maybe, maybe not. But if you're choosing between an oaf in town and an oaf in the mountains, you might as well choose the oaf who can dance.<br />
<br />
I've spent most of my time on this film rambling about the plot, but the magic of the movie really is in the dancing and lively sense of humor. The best song is probably "Bless Your Beautiful Hide," which introduces Adam. It later serves as the soundtrack for the legendary Barn Raising Scene, which may just be the best group dance number in Movie Musical history.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Closing Thoughts:</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
So what do we even learn by looking at these films? Tricky to say. I guess I find myself hoping that we don't tell stories quite the same way anymore - that it's taken more as a rule that men and women stand on equal ground and have much that's of value to offer each other. And that when we talk about the Wild West, it's hopefully with a bit more reflection on the lives and cultures of Indigenous Peoples, which were cut short by the brazen invasion of white settlers.<br />
<br />
I also think they help serve as a cautionary tale about romanticizing the past. The 1950s turned to the Wild West for comfort and a "good old days" where things weren't so complicated, but in doing so, tended to project their own cultural baggage onto an earlier time. Today, we tend to do the exact same thing to the 1950s, a time that seems simple with it's meat loaf dinners and drive-in movies. But that's a comforting image we've reconstructed, that ignores the Cold War and Jim Crow laws and Korean War.<br />
<br />
As I mentioned earlier, I don't think that means no one is allowed to enjoy these films anymore, but they're the kind of movies I hope we at least feel a little troubled by - troubled enough to discuss what they're trying to say, why they're trying to say it and whether or not we agree with them.Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-79575240598285454122018-01-13T21:13:00.000-08:002018-01-13T21:13:09.753-08:00Two Out of Three Ain't Bad: The Meatloaf Method of Character DevelopmentSince finishing my latest book, I've been taking some time to beef up on my craft of writing study. Due to my limited free time, I decided that what I was looking for was a quality writing podcast, that I could have on while walking home or completing routine stuff at work. All of this preamble is to say that I am now officially addicted to <a href="http://www.writingexcuses.com/">Writing Excuses</a>.<br />
<br />
Brandon, Mary, Dan and Howard are offering up some of the best advice on crafting stories available on the internet. They get an A+ for me, both for depth and accessibility. I find myself reminded of things I learned in school, but restated or filtered through new eyes.<br />
<br />
One thing I've enjoyed has been Brandon Sanderson's theory on character. Character is arguably the most essential part of any story. Give people an engaging character to follow, and the rest of the story often writes itself. Strong characters are so essential, that the entirety of this year's Writing Excuses is going to be dedicated to the study of character. Yet, when Sanderson teaches about character, he tells his students that there're only three qualities that matter.<br />
<br />
This sounds insane, especially coming from a guy like Sanderson, who has written dozens of books with massive casts. And in fairness, Sanderson knows he isn't covering every permutation of character with this theory. What he's covering instead is how an audience engages with a character. And if you ask me, he's bang on. You see, I can tell Writing Excuses is a brilliant podcast because it happens to align with my own pre-conceptions of how good writing works. And if you don't think I'm authoritative on this topic, then I turn you to none other than the great Loaf himself.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zQ7vw92Dd48/WlrNYj0khVI/AAAAAAAACPc/y_xS-V_2Dbk75tM9TmU_vl0B6lf93cc6QCLcBGAs/s1600/Meatloaf.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="429" data-original-width="594" height="231" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zQ7vw92Dd48/WlrNYj0khVI/AAAAAAAACPc/y_xS-V_2Dbk75tM9TmU_vl0B6lf93cc6QCLcBGAs/s320/Meatloaf.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This is not a face you argue with</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
I am, of course, talking about the classic rock song, "Two Out of Three Ain't Bad." It's not quite a love song. Not quite a break-up song. It's more about a "good enough for now" that is somehow more depressing than outright ending the romance would ever be. I love the whole, glorious, bombastic thing, but for our purposes today, we're looking most closely at the iconic chorus.<br />
<br />
<i>I want you</i><br />
<i>I need you</i><br />
<i>But there ain't no way I'm ever gonna love you</i><br />
<i>Now don't be sad</i><br />
<i>'Cuz two out of three ain't bad</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
For a romance, this is awful. But it makes for a fantastic character and a great story, and story-telling was always what a Meatloaf song excelled at. But how do you apply it? I'll admit, that the rhyming stanzas don't necessarily expose the recipe for reader/character engagement, but with a little help from Brandon Sanderson, I think I can break it down for you.<br />
<br />
If you want a reader to engage with your character, they need to be at least one of the following, probably two, but almost NEVER all three...<br />
<br />
<b>1. I Want You</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JxYw7aL3INE/WlrY_3l_gnI/AAAAAAAACP4/3pk0c0JgwQ4cJ2tPIjDmfjbGHuPZR2eJwCLcBGAs/s1600/captain-america_320-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JxYw7aL3INE/WlrY_3l_gnI/AAAAAAAACP4/3pk0c0JgwQ4cJ2tPIjDmfjbGHuPZR2eJwCLcBGAs/s1600/captain-america_320-1.jpg" /></a></div>
One way to get a reader invested in a character is to give them a compelling desire and then to have them chase that desire. Sanderson likes to call this "pro-activity." A pro-active character will drive the plot forward by making choices of their own accord. They're easy to compel to action and rarely reluctant. It's the difference between Captain America, who desperately tries to join the army, and the Hulk, who is so afraid of his powers, he strives to be as inactive as possible. Cap is pro-active. Hulk is not. (At least in the MCU - Marvel Cinematic Universe - all these things get hazier once you factor in years of different comic book writers interpreting the characters)<br />
<br />
Interestingly, the thing the character wants doesn't necessarily have to be terribly noble in order for the reader to engage with them. Cinderella wants to go to a ball, but man, do we care! Edmund Dantes wants revenge. Indiana Jones wants to know what's inside that temple. Derek Zoolander wants to build a center for kids who can't read good. Characters who excel at pro-activity simply try harder than everyone else. They might not be the most qualified. They might not even have the right objective. But they pursue it with passion, and that kind of gumption sucks a reader in.<br />
<br />
But what if you're writing about a lazy slob? Someone who wants things but doesn't follow through on that? Well, if that's the case, they better...<br />
<br />
<b>2. I Need You</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vUMvF_mqmrA/WlrYn4jrBbI/AAAAAAAACPw/33gRTvTukm46LAqcLn21PXhOmNk_GhqEgCLcBGAs/s1600/Karnisss_as_the_Mockingjay.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="219" data-original-width="350" height="200" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vUMvF_mqmrA/WlrYn4jrBbI/AAAAAAAACPw/33gRTvTukm46LAqcLn21PXhOmNk_GhqEgCLcBGAs/s320/Karnisss_as_the_Mockingjay.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Once you know what a character wants, the next important thing is how they are going to achieve it. Some characters have the skills they need. Some don't. Sanderson would refer to this as character "competence." This is super sleuth Sherlock Holmes, who can solve any puzzle. Katniss Everdeen has a freaky ability to snipe her way through the Hunger Games. Or it's Tony Stark, weapons expert and over-the-top cool guy. Readers enjoy stories about people who are exceptional, because they're the type of people who are equipped to live through exceptional circumstances. Within the MCU, Hawkeye fills the role as the "incompetent" team member. He's fighting space aliens with a bow and arrow.<br />
<br />
Competence is an interesting thing to measure, however, because it's situational. Tony and Sherlock are obvious examples, but what about Dolly Levi, the matchmaker who always knows exactly who to introduce someone to? In her story, that's the only measure of competence that matters. One of my favorite movies that plays with this situational aspect is <i>Legally Blonde</i>. Elle Woods spends the movie struggling to prove that she's just as smart as her classmates. It's not until the end of the movie, when the court room drama turns to hair care, that she reveals to everyone that brilliance can sneak up on you in the most unlikely of places.<br />
<br />
If the pro-active characters try harder, the competent ones try better. Of course, neither of these factors suggest that the character is trying to do the RIGHT thing.<br />
<br />
<b>3. I Love You</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-h2d_iD10VQA/WlrYS0KhBBI/AAAAAAAACPs/yDO2ZKC8AlEn5FDFngUBkbRyHUrgn83aQCLcBGAs/s1600/samwise-gamgee.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="273" data-original-width="444" height="196" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-h2d_iD10VQA/WlrYS0KhBBI/AAAAAAAACPs/yDO2ZKC8AlEn5FDFngUBkbRyHUrgn83aQCLcBGAs/s320/samwise-gamgee.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
There is one final way you can make a reader like your characters which is, you know, by simply making them <i>likable</i>. When Sanderson talks about character "likability" I don't think he's talking about if the reader likes the character. Think of it more like, would you like this character if they were a real person you had to put up with daily? Are they a half-way decent person?<br />
<br />
Katniss, for instance, is a likable character, but not a very likable person. She's prickly and angry and unpleasant. Readers like her for her other qualities. In contrast, Samwise Gamgee blunders through much of the <i>Lord of the Rings,</i> but no one is better at loving their friends than Sam. It doesn't seem like a very important skill, but it rockets him in reader's hearts, because who wouldn't want a friend like Sam? For the fans of <i>Stranger Things</i> out there, Will Byers isn't very competent or pro-active. But he's sweet and gentle and lovable, so you keep hoping that the characters will save him. Or there's Groot, who is adorable and makes us laugh, even if he's a killer tree monster. Or Luna Lovegood, who has us by the hearts the moment she reads her Quibbler upside-down.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>But Two Out of Three Ain't Bad...</b><br />
<br />
It might seem after reading this list that the answer would be to make a pro-active, competent, lovable hero and readers will be hooked on your story, right? RIGHT? Interestingly, no. There are very few characters who manage to tick all three boxes and get away with it. Classic portrayals of Superman probably come the closest to making a perfect hero interesting, but it does speak to why Supes can be such a tricky character to write.<br />
<br />
The problem with a character who scores highly in all three categories is that it usually means they don't have room to grow, and traditionally, stories are about growth and character change. Almost any genuine character flaw will take a person down a peg in one of these categories. If they're a slob, they probably aren't very pro-active. If they're impulsive, they probably make a lot of mistakes and wreck their competence. If they're sharp tongued and emotionally detached, they damage their in-universe lovability.<br />
<br />
Especially with main characters, you tend to need two out of three. They need enough good qualities to propel the story forward, but enough weaknesses that they have something to learn. Combine the three basic qualities into pairs, and you get three basic types of heroes.<br />
<br />
<b>Pro-Active/Competent: The Classic Anti-Hero</b><br />
Strengths: Motivated, skilled, can and does do all the awesome things.<br />
Weaknesses: Mean, unconcerned with others, self-interested.<br />
Growth arc: Learning to be better/value others/sacrifices for others<br />
Examples: Sherlock Holmes, Gregory House, Katniss Everdeen, Tony Stark, Elphaba<br />
<br />
<b>Competent/Likable: The Reluctant Hero</b><br />
Strengths: Capable and uses their strength for good, understanding others, empathy<br />
Weaknesses: Wishy-washy, nervous, uncertain of their place in the world, victim of circumstance<br />
Growth arc: Taking control of own life/destiny/accepting their role<br />
Examples: Harry Potter, The Hulk, Peter Quill, Spiderman, Eleven, Belle<br />
<br />
<b>Likable/Pro-Active: The Everyman Hero</b><br />
Strengths: Highly motivated to save the day, seeks adventure<br />
Weaknesses: Frequently fails, out of their depth, self-doubt<br />
Growth arc: Becoming the hero they are in their hearts/completing their "quest"<br />
Examples: Captain America, Elle Woods, Derek Zoolander, Mulan, Moana<br />
<br />
Of course, some of these are characters who have been written and rewritten so many times, it's difficult to point to any portrayal as definitive. And often, a series will transition a character from one category to another. Luke Skywalker starts <i>Star Wars</i> as something of an unskilled Jedi, who must learn to master his abilities. Once he has, his arc becomes about sacrificing for others and whether he can save those he loves, much more in line with the first category. Similarly, Tony Stark is a better person by <i>Iron Man 3</i>, so much of the movie involves stripping him of his super suit, and rendering him an Everyman.<br />
<br />
Naturally, you can argue that these categories aren't anywhere close to describing all the possible variations on character, and I would agree that they're generalizations.<br />
<br />
Still, if Meatloaf knows that two out of three ain't bad, who are we to argue?Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-27637014534637255092017-12-28T01:00:00.000-08:002017-12-28T01:00:42.739-08:00New Year, New Writer!This is one of those blog posts that will probably hold more interest for me than anyone who regularly reads this blog. It calls into question why I'm posting it here, but I've come to realize that in the absence of a more traditional journal, this blog has taken the place of that for me. In fact, I've got a few pages of unpublished posts that are either too messy, too raw or too boring to make the cut as public posts, but they live on in my drafts folder as reminders of earlier ideas or thought processes. You could say I've hit that point in nerd evolution, where all my deep, personal thoughts come out as long form essays, but I digress.<br />
<br />
Today, I want to talk about goal setting! New Years is one of my favorite holidays, even if I'm not doing anything for it. (I've got nothing but attending church planned for New Year's Eve this year. Woopwoop!) Mostly, it's because I'm a chronic goal setter, and I love that blank slate feel that a new year gives.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zQevyPMf8Q0/WkSjSuwUGDI/AAAAAAAACOc/UwM_CfmonLQ5V5FU0uPXEca-pWqM0XvQwCLcBGAs/s1600/happy-new-year.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="250" data-original-width="250" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zQevyPMf8Q0/WkSjSuwUGDI/AAAAAAAACOc/UwM_CfmonLQ5V5FU0uPXEca-pWqM0XvQwCLcBGAs/s1600/happy-new-year.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
Further, I'm a firm believer that if you want to get anything done as a writer, you need to have some system for setting and fulfilling goals.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Making Time and Reason for Writing</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
When you are like me - unagented and unpublished, but striving to reach both those milestones - it can be very difficult to make time for writing, due to the absence of any external pressure to do those things. Currently, my income is not derived from my writing. Writing does not make my house any cleaner, feed my cats or fulfill my church assignments. It takes me away from my friends, and as we speak, writing this blog post is keeping me up past midnight. Whoops.<br />
<br />
My passion for writing is my primary motivator that keeps me coming back. I love stories. I love creating. I would do some form of writing and creating no matter what in my life. But due to the other demands on my time, it's downright impossible to get anything substantial done in my writing without some coordinated effort. Those other things distract me and destroy my productivity, unless I hit back.<br />
<br />
To me, goals are the names we give our dreams. If I want to achieve those big picture dreams I have, like selling books and using that money to buy cat food, I need to give a name to each brush stroke of that picture. So today, I'm doing that. <br />
<br />
Feel free to comment with some of your own New Year Resolutions! Like I said, I love this holiday, and when people tell me their goals, I feel like I'm learning what they named their little, baby dreams.<br />
<br />
<b><u>First, The Year in Review</u></b><br />
<br />
Let's look at some of the things I achieved or learned this year! YES!<br />
<ul>
<li>Joined an online writing group. Got my revision game back on. All the love to you, my Oddballs.</li>
<li>Attended the Storymakers Conference, where I:</li>
<ul>
<li>Met some of the people in my online writing group. HEY GUYS!!!</li>
<li>Got my first page onto the First Impressions agent critique panel</li>
<li>Pitched an agent after said panel, didn't die, and got a request for pages</li>
<li>Subbed two stories to the first chapter contest</li>
<li>Finally understood what is meant by Deep 3rd Person POV </li>
<li>Learned what a beat sheet is</li>
<li>Wrote about insulation, and was complimented on it by Allie Condie. Guys, I may never get over this one.</li>
</ul>
<li>Endured the loss of Tuula Mantta and Miranda Leavitt, when they had the nerve to move away.</li>
<li>Resolved to make more friends. Forced people to watch Planet Earth II with me.</li>
<li>Took trips to Kelowna and Calgary, where I got to see Tuula and Miranda, keeping summer awesome. YES!</li>
<li>Realized my friends were a terrible influence on my writing habits. Sat down, and finally...</li>
</ul>
<div>
<i>The <b>SWEET PEE</b> timeline</i></div>
<ul>
<li>Started drafting a new manuscript, titled SWEET PEE - and yes, that's spelled correctly - for NaNoWriMo in November 2016. Got about 20,000 words in by November 9th.</li>
<li>On November 9th, started a new job, which destroyed my brain and productivity. Put the manuscript on the backburner until the New Year.</li>
<li>Wrote large amounts of the first draft on the bus, to and from work, due to time constraints. Learned the value of a light, small laptop.</li>
<li>Resolved to make more friends in April/May. Got terribly distracted. Failed to finish last 4th of book for several months.</li>
<li>Realized the deadline for the Pitch Wars writing contest was coming, and remembered that I wanted to enter. Banged out the last 4th of the first draft in the first week of August, and submitted to Pitch Wars August 4th.</li>
<li>Got into Pitch Wars August 24th! Spent the next two months revising the book with the help of my amazing mentor, Lianne Oelke. Check her out <a href="http://www.lianneoelke.com/">here</a>!</li>
<li>Completed the polished manuscript in time for the October 31st deadline, making it almost exactly a year from sloppy, first words to query ready manuscript. Fastest turn around I've had on a manuscript to date!</li>
</ul>
<div>
And back to other lessons learned...</div>
<ul>
<li>Realized during revisions that there is DEFINITELY such a thing as biting off more than you can chew.</li>
<li>Learned some things about comma placement and compound sentences that would likely make my poor Master's Thesis advisors weep for joy, knowing I've finally... improved. Slightly.</li>
<li>Started listening to the Writing Excuses podcast.</li>
<li>Bought some awesome Christmas decorations.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Whew! I honestly didn't expect the list to be that long when I started, but it's kind of nice to see the year captured like that. Of course, I'll be the first to admit that this version of events glosses over some of the angst and messiness that goes on behind the scenes, but this is New Years and it's a frickin' holiday, and I reserve the right to have a party. GO ME!!!</div>
<b><u><br /></u></b><b><u>This Year's Goals</u></b><br />
<b><u></u></b><ul>
<li>Complete another first draft of a manuscript - this might not seem very ambitious in light of the turn around on my last book, but I am "between ideas" right now, and so it's hard to commit to getting something all the way past the editing stage when nothing is on the page yet. I'm between several different ideas, all appealing in different ways. We'll see where I go.</li>
<li>Draft 10,000 words in January - Again, I could be more ambitious in terms of word count, but the real goal lurking here is PICK AN IDEA AND WRITE ABOUT IT!!!</li>
<li>Send 100 query letters during the year - or get an agent. One can hope.</li>
<li>Send 20 query letters in January - right now I'm itching to do this, so it shouldn't be too hard.</li>
<li>Read more books - while I got a LOT of writing done in 2017, my reading suffered a bit. I'm trying to make up lost time right now while I'm between ideas. Still settling on a realistic yearly/monthly reading goal. </li>
<li>Attend Storymakers again and maybe a second conference/writing retreat - anything additional will depend on finances, but I am SO STOKED for Storymakers! Anyone who writes and can get to Provo, Utah in May should absolutely check it out.</li>
<li>Start a Bullet Journal - guys, I am so excited about this. I've been reading up on them, and I think it could be really useful for me. I've been feeling like I want to a) do more journaling again b) start using a sketch book again and c) try and make a day planner work. But the idea of trying to do all three at once sounds insane. I like how a bullet journal can kind of grab from all three of those things at once. Like, guys! It's a journal/planner you get to DRAW IN!!! I just have to keep reminding myself that it's okay that I have terrible penmanship. I'm in it for the organizing/better documented memories/excuse to draw pictures. Pictures. Not pretty penmanship and headers. That's what I've got to focus on. Anyhow, if anyone out there uses one and has tips/spreads they use (especially any for organizing writing goals or LDS church callings) let me know!</li>
</ul>
<div>
And there you have it! My writing recap for 2017, and my writing goals for 2018. Here's hoping for another good year.</div>
Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-21292938009100657612017-10-13T00:41:00.000-07:002017-10-13T00:59:40.503-07:00Tropes VS Tropes: The Self-Defeating Villains Strike (Themselves) Again!!!!This summer, my church group needed somewhere to host an activity one Friday night, and because I am an exceptionally generous person, I offered my house on the condition that I get to force everyone to watch a movie of my choosing. Because they were desperate, this worked, and that's how most of my friends came to watch the 1987 cult classic <i>Willow</i> for the first time.<br />
<br />
It's a campy fantasy movie, filled with well-known tropes, special effects that have not aged gracefully and Warwick Davis. One of the reasons I love this movie so much is because almost every scene and every creative decision is simultaneously "pretty good for reals guys" and "what is this and why am I laughing" horrible. There's nothing okay about <i>Willow</i>. It is either wonderful or disastrous. <br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-p_rYWn6PPXE/WeBoCOupdFI/AAAAAAAACMQ/Cf2GVXkN09k9CMlDsMd5GWHQGwG9evnlACLcBGAs/s1600/Villain%2BBavmorda.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="350" data-original-width="600" height="185" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-p_rYWn6PPXE/WeBoCOupdFI/AAAAAAAACMQ/Cf2GVXkN09k9CMlDsMd5GWHQGwG9evnlACLcBGAs/s320/Villain%2BBavmorda.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Begin the Ritual!!!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
One perfect example of this is how the movie ends. (SPOILERS!!!!) There's a clever little bit where Willow, who has always wanted to be a great sorcerer, uses a common carnival trick seen earlier in the film to confuse the evil Queen Bavmorda. Bavmorda, who is an actual sorcerer, has no knowledge of side-show magic, so assumes the trick is real. As a result, Willow is finally able to get the upper hand in the battle and defeat her.<br />
<br />
Wait... sorry, scratch that last sentence. That would have been a good ending. No, what happens is that Bavmorda gets confused and then accidently summons dark spirits to banish her soul into the Dark Dark Evil Way nether region (or something?) Honestly, it's hard to tell. She slaps her ceremonial table and then get's struck by lighting. Valuable lesson, kids: don't forget where you're Satanic ritual offerings are, even in the middle of a battle sequence.<br />
<br />
As my captive church group let out a collective "wuh?" I started to laugh hysterically. They were on board all the way through Willow's "Disappearing Pig Trick." But why the crap had Bavmorda just electrocuted herself? How did that happen? Was this seriously the end of the movie?<br />
<br />
Yes it was! Because Willow is amazing and terrible. And it might just be the best example of the pitfalls of creating a villain that has to defeat herself. And yet, I've always found the ending oddly satisfying too. Some of that is for the wrong reasons (did I mention all the laughing?) but the joy we feel in seeing a villain cause their own demise is real. Don't we all secretly want a baddy to be hoist by his own petard? So why is it that Self-Defeating villains also strike us as inherently bad ideas from a story perspective?<br />
<br />
<b><u>Character Arc VS the Villain</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
Defining a villain can be a difficult thing. Is it the story's most evil character? Not necessarily. In Milton's <i>Paradise Lost</i>, Satan fills the role of protagonist, making the villains anyone who sides with God. On a less grand scale, gangsters, pirates and thieves all might fill the role of protagonist in their stories, with law enforcement officers taking the role of villain on. <br />
<br />
From a craft perspective, a villain is defined by their relationship to the hero. Villains stand between the hero and their ultimate goal, regardless of whether or not anyone involved is a "good" person. This is one of the reasons why your English teacher insisted you learn the words "protagonist" and "antagonist." They strip away some of the moral implications we associate with Heroes and Villains so that we can instead focus on their roles in the story.<br />
<br />
With that in mind, here are some quick n' dirty definitions I like to work with for Heroes and Villains.<br />
<br />
The HERO: The person the story is about. The person trying to get a "Thing." The story ends either when they a) get the Thing or b) can no longer get the Thing.<br />
<br />
The VILLAIN: The person standing between the hero and the Thing.<br />
<br />
The rest of the story then plays out as the Hero's quest to get the Thing. The Thing, of course, doesn't have to be a physical object. It might be love, or your father's respect, or a safe place to live or winning the sports tournament. And of course, sometimes the Hero isn't struggling so much against another person as they are their situation. I love RomComs, even if they don't tend to have villains. There, the struggle is usually more internal. Likewise, disaster stories tend to be about surviving a brutal environment rather than defeating a person.<br />
<br />
So Villains are a specific kind of conflict but are, nevertheless, defined by their opposition to the Hero in the Hero's quest to get the Thing. Sauron is trying to stop Frodo from throwing the ring into Mount Doom. President Snow keeps threatening Katniss's friends and family. The closer Moana comes to restoring Te Fiti's heart, the more fireballs Te Ka throws at her.<br />
<b><br /></b>
And because a Villains' purpose in the story is to be a roadblock to the Hero, it's <i>sort of kind of maybe a tiny bit possibly a little</i> important that the <b>HERO</b> be the one who defeats them.<br />
<br />
Maybe.<br />
<br />
The conquering of the Villain is almost always the climax action of any story involving a prominent Villain. They are the final test; the great struggle that the Hero must overcome in order to earn the Thing that they want so badly. So if the Villains somehow defeat themselves and the final victory falls into the Hero's lap afterwards, you're left with an unfulfilled character arc.<br />
<br />
This is what makes the ending to <i>Willow</i> so weird. Willow has a moment where he does do something that advances his goal, but Bavmorda still manages to rob him of the victory by banishing her own soul.<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Self-Defeating Villain Writ Large</u></b><br />
<div>
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div>
So we've established that it's incredibly important to have a Hero that defeats your Villain, at least if you're going for a conventional happy ending. Yet <i>Willow</i> isn't alone in featuring a Villain that successfully foils herself. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One of my other favorite examples comes from the movie adaptation of <i>Ella Enchanted</i>, which took a lot of liberties with the children's novel it was based on. The book is a more classic take on the Cinderella story, where Ella's main obstacles are her step-mother and step-sisters, though with the added twist that she was "blessed" as a child with the Gift of Obedience by a misguided fairy named Lucinda. As a result, Ella's conflicts are mostly internal, as she fights against magic for her own free will. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The movie adaptation clearly worried that this would be too heady for kids to understand (forgetting that it was already a wildly successful children's book, but whatever) and so shoe-horned in an Evil Uncle for Prince Char (Char. Charming. Get it?) who is bent on segregating all the world's magical races from each other. Because Evil.</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
The movie is goofy and dippy and doesn't try at all to match the tone of the books, but it still seemed extra odd when the final conflict involved the Evil Uncle poisoning a crown that was about to be placed on his nephew's head at his coronation. POISONING A CROWN I SAY. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Anyway, Ella arrives after breaking her curse, and exposes the Evil Uncle, who earlier tried to command Ella to kill Char. Except Char doesn't believe her because, as noted, she almost killed him on order of Evil Uncle. So there is every reason for Evil Uncle to get away with it all until this happens:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Char: But Ella, you tried to kill me! Now you want to turn me against my beloved uncle? Lies!</div>
<div>
*Evil Uncle's pet snake attempts to bite Char*</div>
<div>
Ella: OH MY GOSH HOW HAVE YOU NOT NOTICED THIS EVIL SNAKE BEFORE???</div>
<div>
Char: On second thought... are you Evil, Uncle?</div>
<div>
Uncle: Screw you all! You suck, nephew! You don't deserve to be king! I should be king!</div>
<div>
*Evil Uncle places poisoned crown on his own head mid-rant*</div>
<div>
Uncle: Oops.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And then the movie ends with a dance party. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HkgIZ1OeTIg/WeBoroVjzsI/AAAAAAAACMY/DiR5dssKjwE_7OJ_uchyVbZZM3_gt8FLACLcBGAs/s1600/Villain%2BElla%2BEnchanted.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="157" data-original-width="236" height="212" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HkgIZ1OeTIg/WeBoroVjzsI/AAAAAAAACMY/DiR5dssKjwE_7OJ_uchyVbZZM3_gt8FLACLcBGAs/s320/Villain%2BElla%2BEnchanted.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">But seriously. Char, your Uncle *might* be Evil.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
All of this is played for laughs and if I'm being honest, I had a good time with the whole thing. But it did reinforce how pointless the Evil Uncle subplot was. Ella's essential conflict - getting over her curse - was not tied to the Evil Uncle, so defeating him wasn't part of her character arc. This disconnect both speaks to why he was a weak Villain, but also why the movie got away with it. It's such a silly film, that they might as well lean into how unimportant the Villain is and have him defeat himself. Honestly, that moment is the best use of his character the entire movie.</div>
<br />
<i>Ella Enchanted</i> highlights the two instances where Self-Defeating Villains can work, or at the very least sheds light on why they get used despite the way they inherently weaken the Hero's arc. <br />
<br />
<b><u>1) The Comedic Death</u></b><br />
<u></u><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SfySfUx4XtM/WeBorlQMK2I/AAAAAAAACMo/ashevIlBpDQ-llT8nnOWrkJ2h5iQC6SuACEwYBhgL/s1600/Villain%2BYzma.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="229" data-original-width="300" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SfySfUx4XtM/WeBorlQMK2I/AAAAAAAACMo/ashevIlBpDQ-llT8nnOWrkJ2h5iQC6SuACEwYBhgL/s1600/Villain%2BYzma.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Self-defeat! Now with more lampshade hanging!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There is nowhere a Self-Defeating Villain is more welcome than a comedy. Here, the Hero's personal journey can take a hit in the name of humor. Self-Defeating Villains are inherently funny because they tap into our sense of Schadenfreude. People love seeing the wicked get their just desserts. This is one of the reasons I laugh during Bavmorda's death even though I'm not *supposed* to. The fact that she just stumbled into soul banishment is kind of hilarious.<br />
<br />
After the shenanigans of the rest of <i>Ella Enchanted</i>, there really was no more fitting end for Evil Uncle. Additional examples include:<br />
<ul>
<li>In <i>The Emporer's New Groove</i>, Yzma drops Kronk down a trap door for betraying her. Much later in the final battle, he pops out of another hidden door and squishes her right as she's beaten Kuzco. </li>
<li>In the second <i>Scott Pilgrim</i> book, Scott is getting pummeled by Ramona's second Evil Ex-Boyfriend, Vincent Lee. Scott asks Vincent how fast he can skateboard and Vincent demonstrates by grinding down a very long stairwell. He goes so fast he explodes from friction.</li>
<li>In <i>The Incredibles</i>, Syndrome is in the middle of ranting at the Parr family that he WILL return... when his cape gets sucked into a jet engine. #NoCapes</li>
<li>I swear I'm not obsessed, guys, but there's an amazing episode of <i>Survivor: San Juan Del Sur</i> where a doofy, arrogant guy becomes convinced one of the nice, quiet girls on his tribe is secretly a mastermind. He throws an immunity challenge so that his tribe can vote her out and then gets voted out instead because of his erratic behavior. This is a prime example, but this arc generally happens at least once a season on <i>Survivor</i>.</li>
</ul>
<div>
I think this list helps show why it is that despite how it weakens a character arc, I still love this trope. In the right context, it can bring a lot of humor to a story.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>2) Tonally, it would be Problematic for the Hero to Kill the Villain</u></b></div>
<div>
<b><u></u><br /></b></div>
<div>
The other reason Evil Uncle has to off himself in <i>Ella Enchanted</i> is because NEITHER of the film's Heroes are cut out for the job. Ella just doesn't care enough (as stated earlier, her character arc isn't about Char's Evil Uncle) and Char... well, this is a Disney movie, for Pete's sake! Do you honestly think Disney is going to let a sweet young prince murder his uncle?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Children's stories often face the messy task of finding themselves with Villains that need defeating, but the Hero is too pure to straight up kill the Villain. In fact, it's almost rarer that a Disney Villain meets their fate directly at the hands of the Hero than that fate intervenes in some way. To give an idea, here are a few of the numerous ways Disney Villains have defeated themselves/fallen victim to fate:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Climbing too high and then falling:</div>
<ul>
<li>Gaston</li>
<li>The Wicked Witch/Evil Queen</li>
<li>Judge Frollo</li>
<li>Clayton (Tarzan even tries to save the guy by wrapping him in vines but he just HAS to keep swinging that machete)</li>
<li>Captain Hook</li>
<li>Percival McLeach</li>
<li>Lucifer the Cat</li>
<li>Ratigan</li>
<li>Charles Muntz</li>
</ul>
<div>
Colliding with oncoming traffic:</div>
<ul>
<li>Cruella DeVille</li>
<li>Bill Sykes</li>
</ul>
<div>
Eaten alive by other nefarious forces:</div>
<ul>
<li>Hopper</li>
<li>Scar</li>
<li>Captain Hook (again)</li>
</ul>
<div>
Someone more equipped to deal with the problem arrives:</div>
<ul>
<li>Prince John, Sherrif of Nottingham et al</li>
</ul>
<div>
Strapped to the front of a garbage truck by passers-by:</div>
<ul>
<li>Lotso-Huggin Bear</li>
</ul>
<div>
In fairness, some of these Villains were partially defeated by the Hero. In fact, the ideal Disney formula seems to be that the Hero gets the Villain within range of defeat, and then let's fate do the rest. Simba tosses Scar into the mouths of the Hyenas. Peter Pan tricks Hook into falling off the mast and into the crocodile's jaws. But I have to admit, I have some serious respect for Mulan when she blows up Shan Yu as well as when Eric rams a boat into Ursula. Not a lot of Disney good-guys get their hands that dirty.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But the best defeat of a Disney Villain is, in my opinion, also the ultimate Self-Defeating Villain. And because this is a Trope Showdown, I guess you could say that this is winning TWO CONTESTS AT ONCE!!! Wowie-zowie!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It involves a Villain defeating himself BECAUSE the Hero has learned a valuable lesson, grown as a character and uses that knowledge to trick the Villain into doing the very thing HE was guilty of earlier in the film.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>Aladdin VS Jafar: When Self-Defeat is the Right Move:</u></b><br />
<b><u><span id="goog_1407939899"></span><span id="goog_1407939900"><br /></span></u></b></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7sySslgGkQ0/WeBqUSgc8EI/AAAAAAAACMs/Vwiu2YoEM7AKvPNuqZpz20X6ijOAty40wCLcBGAs/s1600/Villain%2BJafar.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="604" data-original-width="1000" height="241" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7sySslgGkQ0/WeBqUSgc8EI/AAAAAAAACMs/Vwiu2YoEM7AKvPNuqZpz20X6ijOAty40wCLcBGAs/s400/Villain%2BJafar.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div>
Thematically, Aladdin is the story of a boy trying to escape his own identity. You can't blame him for it. He's a street rat that no one respects, barred from being with the girl he loves because he isn't "good enough." </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Then he meets the Genie and has an instant ticket to Princedom! But deep down, Aladdin knows he's living a lie. Even when Jafar is exposed and Jasmine promised to him as his bride, he's terrified of what will happen when he becomes the Sultan. He denies Genie his freedom, because he doesn't know how to live the lie alone.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Meanwhile, Jafar is outwardly doing the same thing - trying to escape his station. Once he gets ahold of the lamp, his thirst for power goes wild. Its not enough to be the Grand Vizier, he must be Sultan! But it's not enough to be Sultan, he must be an all powerful sorcerer!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Aladdin recognizes that his own inability to embrace his real identity led to this. If he'd freed the Genie like they'd planned, Jafar would have only found an empty lamp. Instead, he must fight Jafar as nothing but his regular street rat self. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To say the least, he's outclassed. Jafar has victory on lock until Aladdin points out the very thing that made him screw up earlier - Jafar is nothing without the Genie. He's still second best. And so Jafar, weak to the same temptation Aladdin was, uses his final wish to become a Genie. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Phenomenal cosmic powers? Itty-bitty living space.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
I love this sequence. I love how at first, Aladdin's only solution for fighting Jafar is to reclaim the lamp. He and his friends all run at the lamp over and over, knowing the Genie could end this conflict if they only controlled him. But it's not until Aladdin turns that impulse to crave the Genie's power against Jafar that he's able to defeat him. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's a perfect circle for Aladdin's growth as a character, and yet still let's us enjoy that delicious irony when Jafar gets sucked into his own lamp. Aladdin's hands might not get all that dirty, but he also clearly directs his own destiny. And so, with all that said, Jafar, by virtue of his relationship with Aladdin, is the best Self-Defeating Villain!!!!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm sure he's thrilled. Congratulations.</div>
Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-24736552409990772792017-06-14T22:51:00.000-07:002017-06-14T22:51:43.995-07:005 Excellent Pieces of Writing Advice I NEVER FollowWriting is an intensely personal endeavor. Most people are aware of this, even if they've never written anything besides a term paper, but on the surface, it just seems to make sense. Writers are sitting at their computers (or notepads if they like to kick it Old School) and pouring their souls into their work, so of course what they produce must be personal.<br />
<br />
And while that's true, it's really only a small part of how intensely personal and individual writing is. Writing is solitary, and as such writers rarely employ the same process for producing quality work. Of all the arts, I think writing is one of the strangest, in that the process of creating a thing can be very separate from the thing itself. In visual art and music, there tend to be some fairly discrete skills that people need to learn in order to produce a finished product; certain ways you hold a paint brush or train the vibrato of your instrument, for example. There's far less of this in writing. Sure, mastering certain skills are important, but I think it's more of a toss up whether or not a particular writer ever chooses to employ that skill. <br />
<br />
Simply put, one writer's key to success might just "not work" for another. This makes teaching writing incredibly difficult. It's already such a subjective discipline, it can be super frustrating that so little experience actually transfers well across different writers. You almost can't learn from the mistakes of others because what were mistakes for them might be your golden ticket.<br />
<br />
And so to that end, I've compiled a list of excellent pieces of writing advice that I don't use. There's nothing inherently wrong with the advice, and some of it might solve your writing problems. But for me, they're so useless, the opposite is often truer. And maybe that will inspire you! Either way, call this a celebration of how unique the process each writer goes through to create something is.<br />
<br />
<b>#5: Create a plot outline before you begin your novel. This will stop you from getting lost in the middle, where your book may die a slow, tedious, plotless death.</b><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I've put this one at #5 because, while this is incredibly common advice, there's some acknowledgement within the writing community that it's fairly split down the middle whether your a "plotter" or a "pantser." These terms are used to refer to the two main modes of preparing to write a story - Plotters make sure they've got an outline banged out, usually in a fair degree of detail before they get started and Pantsers... well, we just wing it. The term comes from the expression "flying by the seat of your pants." </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now, it might sound like a situation where the Plotters are the harder workers and the Pantsers are just over-excited or lazy, but that's not how things typically work out. I've tried plotting books before starting them. The idea of having an outline to guide me sure sounds appealing, but this is the reality: </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>I have never finished a book I outlined before I started writing.</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
NEVER.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Those books I over outline are the ones that - for me - die in the middle. They might not be plotless, but they are lifeless and the key is usually that I've focused on the plot and structure first, rather than finding the natural voice, characters and world for my book to inhabit. Once I've spewed some pages of rough text, I might sit back and outline a few things, but I've always free-written a large chunk of my books before committing myself to any kind of structure. For me, it's how I suss out if the characters and their stories are worth investing in.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For some people, outlining saves them from the mires of their writing nightmares, but I also know people mired in outlines, who I wish I could convince to just write until they FEEL the words. It sounds airy-fairy and ridiculous, but for certain people, it really does work. Sure you will have to revise later, but you're going to have to do that anyway. Might as well have the book in front of you so you can do that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>#4: Don't tell people too much about your novel before you write it down in scene. You want the ideas to be fresh when you get going, and holding details in keeps you from losing the magic of them while you write.</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
I was given this advice right when I started school and luckily, knew write away this would be suicide for my writing style. You know that whole point about NOT outlining? One of the main reasons I can get away with that is because I always have a friend or two who will let me yammer at them when I need to work my way out of a plot hole. Talking things out helps my ideas to flow naturally.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As for whether or not I've taken the "zing" out by talking about it too much - I'm sure I could do that eventually, but for me, those conversations usually get me excited and make me fall more in love with my book. And that gives me energy I can channel into the writing, often improving it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Or at least I sure hope that's the case. Because seriously guys, I don't think anyone is ever going to stop me from talking about my books, no matter how well-meaning they are.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>#3: Write everyday. This keeps momentum up and how else are you going to finish that novel?</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
This is one of those points where I just end up staring at the person who gives this advice, holding in the desire to scream, "BUT HOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWW?????"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Seriously, HOW!?!?!? How do you find time literally EVERY DAY to write something? How do you not end up with conflicts? How do you not end up with family yelling at you for bringing your laptop to a reunion? How do you ever feel like you ever have a day off? I mean, I love writing, but it's also work. I don't WANT to write every day, and I don't mean that in the way where you're just in a funk and you can't find the "magic" or whatever. I mean, I genuinely want days off where I don't have to perform the mental gymnastics of thinking about writing while I'm also busy gardening or singing or jet-skiing or whatever the heck it is I do when I'm not writing.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I've often wondered if this advice is related to multi-tasking. I'm not a very good multi-tasker. But I'm VERY good at focusing, and these limitations aren't just of the kind where I can't do one thing with one hand and another thing with the other at the same time. It's also mental. I need days that are "WORK" days and "WRITING" days and "FAMILY" days and so on and so forth. I learned years ago that Christmas vacation would always be a terrible time for writing, no matter how many hours I took off. My brain won't go there. So instead, I use that time to read, because it doesn't take as much focus. I catch up on my reading, and wait for the new year when I can become a writing hermit again, down in my hermit hole.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And yet I still finish projects. I don't have any kind of rigid work schedule, but I set my goals and I slog towards them and I get it done. Often it means breaking things up into monthly or quarterly chunks, rather than tasking myself with something specific daily, but for me, that's enough. Given enough time, I WILL get antsy and I WILL make time to write. But I find I don't function well as a human being unless I also give myself time to focus on other things.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Then again, I do see the appeal. When I do get into a writing groove, I can write pretty much every day. I live in times of boom and bust. Famine and plenty. I wish I could write every day, because holy crap! I bet I would get a ton done. But all told, I think I do okay. Generally speaking, most of those people who do write every day are speaking to a need to write at least SOMETHING, rather than pages and pages of text every day. It's how they keep the energy and the dream alive. And I can absolutely be happy for them for doing that. </div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b>#2: End your writing day in the middle of a scene, so that when you pick up again, it's easier and you aren't starting from scratch with a new scene. Remember, keep that momentum!</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
This piece of advice sounds great in theory and I would LOVE to hear from someone who follows it because good heavens, it is not me. Sometimes I do end writing sessions in the middle of scenes, due to time constraints or other factors. But I hate doing it. Without fail, I fall prey to the opposite of what is SUPPOSED to happen.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Nothing kills momentum for me like opening a book I'm working on and having to pick up mid-scene. Somehow I have to get back in that headspace I was in that seemed so real a few days ago, but now just looks like squiggles on a page. The words feel meaningless and I have to read and reread them a lot before I rediscover the energy I was following through the scene. I would much rather have a fresh, new scene to start. Something that allows me to craft a nice beginning, middle and end sequence and leaves me feeling accomplished.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It can take forever for me to pick up on scenes that I stopped in the middle of. In fact, I am writing this blog post because I was drafting a scene while on the bus to work this morning and the freakin' bus got to my stop before I finished and baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! I don't want to look at that half-finished scene!!!!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But seriously. Some people swear by the purposefully half-finished scene method. Go figure.</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b>#1: Find what works for you - whatever it is - and stick with it.</b></div>
<br />
This, to me, sounds like the very best of advice. Find what works for you and do it! In fact, I lied. I DO follow this advice! I follow it all the time! In fact, I am constantly finding what works for me and sticking with it for... well... for at least a day, I guess?<br />
<br />
I really do try to use this advice. I stick with my "new found thing that works" for as long as it keeps working but for me, eventually, it stops. Maybe it's because my life circumstances have changed. Maybe it's because that methodology has grown stale. But in my experience, it's dangerous to "find a thing that works" and then marry yourself to it, because you never know when that thing will no longer be there for you.<br />
<br />
I used to do all my writing in the evenings, but a new job made that impossible, not because I didn't have time in the evenings, but because I was zapped for energy. So writing on the morning bus to work became the one place I could get writing done. Except sometimes, if I stay up past midnight, I'll get another new wave of energy and I'll be writing until the wee hours of the morning. <br />
<br />
I used to ask for feedback from critique partners on my rough drafts, so I knew they were going the right direction. Now? Not so much. I plot and outline more than I used to (even if it is after some freewriting). I seesaw between times where I read a lot and write very little and times when I write a lot and never find time to read. But in school, I had the writing vs reading balance just right. Go figure.<br />
<br />
My point is yes, find what works to you. Hold onto it as long as you can. But if it stops working, that's not the end of the world. There's more advice out there. In fact, there's advice that stands in direct opposition to that thing that used to be your motto.<br />
<br />
If I could give one piece of advice to writers that I do think is universal, it would be this: Do whatever it takes to get your story out there. If what you do now works for you then great! Don't fix it. But if you're feeling stuck, comb the internet for ideas and try every freakin' thing until something works. Throw noodles at the wall until one sticks. Then you'll know your pasta is finally cooking the right way.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
(Pasta is a metaphor for novels. Erm... just in case you were wondering...)Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-66822414579281758492017-06-08T00:52:00.001-07:002017-06-08T00:52:24.674-07:00World Building, Observation and Crackers<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I'm eating crackers tonight. Crackers I purchased yesterday from Walmart because I'm classy like that. To be precise, I am eating Stoned Wheat Thins which I would lovingly describe as the very best boring cracker out there. They're like the big sister of soda crackers - a little wider, a little heftier and substantially more crunchy. When I want to eat some cheese or a spread but I don't have the time or resources to properly pair toppings and cracker, I shrug my shoulders and say, "well, a Stoned Wheat Thin won't taste WRONG with that" and off I go. A well-paired Triscuit might taste superior to a stoned wheat thin, but you can get a Triscuit wrong. That's a lot of pressure. </div>
<br />
Stoned Wheat Thins also happen to be my personal favorite metaphor for perspective shifting, which I think is one of the most underrated skills when it comes to world-building.<br />
<br />
<b>The Pittsburgh Cracker Caper</b><br />
<br />
<img alt="Image result for stoned wheat thins" class="mainImage accessible nofocus" height="320" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516FEAHQYVL.jpg" tabindex="0" title="View source image" width="320" /><br />
<br />
It all comes down to a night where I was in a Giant Eagle grocery store in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvannia. I had some fancy goat cheese I'd never tried before and needed a good, solid cracker to pair it with. The problem was, I wasn't confident I knew what that cheese tasted like well enough to pick out a truly sophisticated cracker. Plus, I'd already blown my wad on the cheese. (Like most MFA students, my desire to eat overpriced, fancy food was not proportional to my ability to purchase it).<br />
<br />
But no matter. I knew that in a pinch, a box of Stoned Wheat Thins would do the trick, plus they would go fine with hummus and whatever else I picked up after the cheese was gone. I entered the cracker aisle, scanning for a nice big box only to be greeted with a wall of Triscuits and Pepperidge Farm and hundred other crackers I couldn't afford. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
I honestly can't remember another time I've ever been so confused in a grocery store. Maybe the first time I went shopping in the UK and there was only one type of peanut butter on the shelf, but I expect cultural dissonance when it comes to the British. America, I figured, must have Stoned Wheat Thins, because what on earth did they do when they wanted a cheap cracker that didn't instantly dissolve under the weight of dip? You can buy massive boxes of Stoned Wheat Thins in Canada, yet in America, the very land of large boxes of carbs, there was nothing. <br />
<br />
I scanned the Triscuit section, hoping some equivalent would appear. By now, I was deeply worried for myself and my cheese. Was I going to have to develop a taste for Melba toasts?<br />
<br />
Luckily, this story has a happy ending. After about ten minutes of pacing the aisle, I spotted a tiny box that held a single sleeve of crackers, packaged in a box that wasn't blue, which was weird for Stoned Wheat Thins, let me tell you. I laughed, relieved as I realized that some idiot had put them in the International section, next to all the fancy Italian and French crackers.<br />
<br />
Then I looked at the box again and saw it stamped to high-heaven with REAL CANADIAN WHEAT labels. And bam, there it was. The paradigm shift.<br />
<br />
In America, Stoned Wheat Thins are a very fancy cracker and they are priced accordingly. It was, like, $3.50 for a sleeve of crackers but I'd just spent ten minutes looking for them and I was an MFA student, and it's always a little exciting when you over spend on food if you're an MFA student.<br />
<br />
<b>On Paradigms and World Building</b><br />
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
One of the things that experience reminded me of was that Canadian things are almost always much more exotic to Americans than American things are to Canadians. The exception to this might be those American cities that hug the Canadian border, where the people are often from smaller towns than the cities just north of them in Canada and they're likely to visit and shop up there frequently. But drive just a few hours south of Canada, and the reactions to meeting a "Canadian" start piling up. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
People in Washington never comment on my accent, but people in Utah and Pennsylvania absolutely do. Sometimes it's annoying, sometimes I enjoy the attention, but in the back of my mind is always this sense of wonder that they find me interesting at all. They are so ordinary to me. I'd never put their crackers in the International section.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Intellectually, I get why this is the case. We live in a globalized world where unequal distributions of wealth and power impact the rate of cultural exchange, but what catches me off guard are the small, personal ways that impacts life. Since that instance in the cracker aisle, I've had a few more of these, like when I realized I'd never seen a gas station in the States with open bins of loose, five-cent candy. Those exist at bulk food stores and a couple other small enclaves. But on the whole, kids in the US are not going to 7/11 so they can hand select a bag of gummy frogs and coke bottles with a hard earned Toonie. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In writing, I tend to be the most impressed with world building when it documents these small moments. Any writer can tell you "the Queen sits on a throne of carbuncles" or that "the council is made up of yeomen from all the villages round about" but the ones who can capture the inner lives of different people are the ones worth paying attention to. Those are the ones that have the ability to bring you down to a character at eye level.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Here are just a couple of examples of fabulous authors who have found ways to strike that balance:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
- In the first chapter of <i>Six of Crows</i> by Leigh Bardugo, the narrator is struggling to grow a proper mustache and very self-conscious about it, because he's trying to impress a girl from another culture and is convinced she'll be into good facial hair.</div>
<div>
- Early in <i>The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian</i> by Sherman Alexie<i>, </i>Junior takes a few paragraphs to rhapsodize about why he loves fried chicken so much and why it's such a treat for his family, making every time chicken shows up in the rest of the book unexpectedly poignant. </div>
<div>
- In the <i>Oryx and Crake</i> series by Margaret Atwood, fictitious brand names litter the pages and provide a good indicator of how off the rails society is going. Jimmy's evolving acceptance of ChickieNobs (chicken parts grown in a lab without an actual chicken. What is it with books and chicken, exactly?) is a particularly good example.</div>
- During the scene in the second <i>Harry Potter</i> book where Draco first calls Hermione a Mudblood, she and Harry have no clue why Ron reacts so intensely to the insult.<br />
<br />
Aside from being about the small details of life, the other thing all these examples have in common is that they're really well filtered through the viewpoint of the characters. They show a personal relationship to the worlds the books take place in, whether those worlds are fantastical or real. If those moments were told through someone else's eyes, they'd read completely different and perhaps wouldn't have any impact on a story at all.<br />
<br />
Not everyone is going to relate to crackers the same way I do. I've come to accept that over the years, as I've retold my cracker tale to anyone who has the nerve to open a box of Stoned Wheat Thins around me. But it still strikes me as an example of how our world is built up of small things and even smaller moments. Switch the country a box of crackers is in, and it becomes something fancy and exotic. But even if it is sitting next to a selection of French and Italian crackers, it can still be the most boring, ordinary, glorious cracker out there to a homesick Canadian. <br />
<br />
It all depends on whose story you're telling.Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6309941907510720230.post-80410910820625406782017-03-03T00:55:00.000-08:002017-03-03T00:55:28.527-08:00Tropes VS Tropes: Best Fantasy Feast<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
Welcome to the new Tropes VS Tropes series, where we celebrate the tools of fiction and ask ourselves, "who did it best?" As discussed earlier, a trope is a commonly used literary device or plot element that an author uses to call up a quick set of associations in the reader, so that they can build a story more quickly/easily.<br />
<br />
Last time I discussed The Plucky Girl Goes on an Adventure (a surprisingly common trope in early children's literature) and then solicited my readers for suggestions for future articles. I got some great ones, which I hope to dive into soon, but one thing I noticed was that all the suggestions tended to be character related, possibly because the examples I gave in that first post were character tropes. But tropes can extend far further, and to give an example, I'm doing one that isn't a character trope at all. Today, we're talking about what (after elaborate clothing) is probably the most favorite thing of every long-winded fantasy writer on the planet. FOOD!!!!<br />
<br />
<b>The Fantasy Feast</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<a href="http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/229/files/2014/03/Game-of-Thrones-Wedding-Feast.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Image result for game of thrones feasts" border="0" class="mainImage accessible nofocus" data-bm="43" height="228" src="http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/229/files/2014/03/Game-of-Thrones-Wedding-Feast.jpg" tabindex="0" title="View source image" width="400" /></a>Full disclosure: I have never read the <i>Song of Fire and Ice </i>books, probably because I am a terrible person, but you know what I DID know? Without ever having read the books or watched the shows, I knew if you Googled "Game of Thrones" and "Feast" the internet would throw down with some awesome photos because in fantasy novels, feasts are serious business.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
In speculative fiction, food is one of the main ways that authors worldbuild. You can learn a lot about a culture by what and how they eat. Feasts also provide a chance to see what your fantasy culture is like when it celebrates, plus they provide opportunities for the characters to mingle and have intrigues. They rank right below "the prince is holding a ball and invited all young maidens" for socially crucial events. One does not miss the Feast.<br />
<br />
But if you had to attend a feast in a marvelous world, what one should you pick? With so many to choose from, I have narrowed the list down to four, all coming from children's lit, since that's my area. But I'd love to see someone better versed in the feasting of adults do something similar!<br />
<br />
AND THE CANDIDATES ARE!!!!!<br />
<br />
<b>Peter Pan: A Special Award for Worst/Most Hilarious Feast</b><br />
<br />
The feast scene isn't one of the more familiar parts of <i>Peter Pan</i>, and I can only think of one adaptation that features it at all - <i>Hook</i>. In it, a now adult Peter joins the lost boys for a feast only to see that there is literally NOTHING adorning the silver platters. As the boys reach for this pile of "nothing" Peter grows more and more frustrated, since they keep insisting there's food in there. This spirals into an argument with their leader, Rufio, and finally, playfully, Peter pretends to dig his spoon into his empty bowl and "throw" some of the nothing at Rufio.<br />
<br />
And right at that moment, as he chooses to pretend the food is real, a real glob of florescent whipped cream hits Rufio in the face.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Image result for hook feast" class="mainImage accessible nofocus" data-bm="14" height="169" src="http://mikeatasbury.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/hook-food.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" tabindex="0" title="View source image" width="320" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div>
Only a child would find this many shades</div>
<div>
of Cool-Whip appetizing.</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
It's so magical. It's so lovely. It's such a perfect example of how fantasy feasting can paint a world just right. The power of imagination is so potent in Neverland, it literally makes food appear. It's possibly the best fantasy feast ever because it's practically a post-modern fantasy feast where one actually feasts on fantasy.<br />
<br />
Except in the book, that isn't how it works at all. In the book, Peter Pan is much more Fey and he actually CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE between when he's only pretending to eat and when he's actually eating. And because they're the same to him, he expects the Lost Boys to treat make-believe food the same as real food and if they don't, he get's angry, because in the book, Peter is a fabulous, tyrannical dictator and Thou Dost Not Tell the Peter there is No Food. Instead, the Lost Boys just go to bed hungry because Peter is insane and oh my gosh, do I love that book.<br />
<br />
But I'd much rather go to a feast that I was confident would actually exist.<br />
<br />
<b>The Hunger Games</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Being about hunger, it's not surprising that food plays a key role in Suzanne's Collins books. When Katniss arrives at the decadent capital, the shallow populace is constantly eating. They eat so much, they make themselves throw-up so they can eat more. Famously, during her audition in front of the judges, they grow bored of watching her and start feasting and she gets so annoyed, she shoots an arrow through the apple of the suckling pig.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Image result for hunger games arrow pig" class="mainImage accessible nofocus" data-bm="67" height="240" src="http://0code.net/wp-content/plugins/RSSPoster/cache/d09c1_gamemakers.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" tabindex="0" title="View source image" width="320" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">What is a feast without suckling pig?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The Hunger Games provides a decent example of using feasts to further the plot, whether Katniss is shooting apples or dancing with Plutarch Heavensbee. But overall, Katniss is so judgey of all the feasting, the reader never really wants to attend one . For some reason she finds feasting a bit uncouth when everyone's starving. Really harshes on the awesomeness of feasting.<br />
<br />
It's not all bad, though. Katniss does rave about the lamb stew, but I think I'd rather feast somewhere that I don't have to feel terrible about myself for enjoying the food or where an angry rebel might try to shoot me while I eat.<br />
<br />
<b>Harry Potter</b><br />
<br />
When Harry arrives at Hogwarts and has his first feast in the Great Hall, I think it's fair to say that all of us go veritably INSANE with joy at the thought of joining in. Everything is either British or magic or both and I think it's fair to say that British food never sounds so good as when J. K. Rowling describes a neglected orphan feasting on it.<br />
<br />
<i>Potter</i> is one of those series that has spawned legions of recipes for fans to imitate - from pumpkin pasties, to butterbeer, everyone wants to replicate the Great Hall feasts. Who doesn't want house elves prepping their food and making it appear as if no one needed to order it?<br />
<br />
Of course, the underlying house elf tensions that fuel the feasts are a bit uncomfortable come book four, but c'mon. Look at that feast! LOOK AT IT!!!!<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Image result for great hall feast" class="mainImage accessible nofocus" src="http://www.geeklegacy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Harry-Potter-Feast.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" tabindex="0" title="View source image" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Also: Feasting changes seasonally!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But... I must admit, I don't think this is the best feast out there. It's probably the best location. And it's got some cool foods added from the magic of the world. But most of it is sweets. Where are the main courses that you can only eat in the Potterverse? After you've sampled all the sweets and drank you're Butterbeer, you're going to be kind of jittery and buzzed at the same time, but what about a proper meal? You know, the HEART of a FEAST?????<br />
<br />
<b>Redwall</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<a href="https://img1.etsystatic.com/000/1/5819357/il_fullxfull.279222293.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Image result for redwall feast" border="0" class="mainImage accessible nofocus" data-bm="65" height="314" src="https://img1.etsystatic.com/000/1/5819357/il_fullxfull.279222293.jpg" tabindex="0" title="View source image" width="400" /></a>We all have books from childhood that we can't entirely explain our obsession with. Books that we loved so dearly as kids, but then we start to notice some of the flaws of as we get older. For those who aren't familiar with them, the <i>Redwall</i> books are about mice and moles and otters and hares and badgers and other nice, English animals living in an abbey and... they're sort of monks, maybe?<br />
<br />
Every book, they get attacked by evil English animals, like rats and weasels and voles and stouts. Sometimes even cats show up. One character got attacked by a nasty pike. And then they must save Redwall Abbey!<br />
<br />
One of my toughest realizations in adolescence was when I came to terms with the fact that every book in the series had essentially the same plot and characters, going through the same motions. But one of the most important repeated elements of these books is that Redwall is not only under attack, it's under siege. Supplies must be managed carefully, because running out of food is not an option. You see, running out of food is the worst thing that could happen to a Redwall mouse, because those animals LIVE for nothing but hardcore FEASTING!!!!<br />
<br />
I can't tell you how many times I have wanted to eat the shrimp gumbo that the otters always make so hot, they're crying after. Or Abbot Durral's Seventh Season Cake, which is always shown in meticulous preparation. Or the shrewbread or the salads or EVERYTHING. Redwall food is so vast, there is a <i>Redwall</i> cookbook now, with seasonal recipes, and I cannot tell you how much I want it.<br />
<br />
The feasts in <i>Redwall</i> took several chapters - from a character suggesting one, to the preparation, to everyone finally eating, to everyone lounging around in a food coma after. It was amazing! AMAZING!!!! There was a small chance a group of stouts or rats would attack while you were feasting, but this is a small price to pay if it means you get to sample the spring trout.<br />
<br />
In many ways, <i>Redwall</i> genuinely was about the feasts. You want to see the mice and their allies save the abbey over and over, because you want them to protect the homey, good feeling about the place. A feeling that is best personified by their intense love of food and sharing it with others. So yes, I genuinely believe that the feasts were a major part of why I loved those books so much.<br />
<br />
I might want to live in Hogwarts castle more than I do Redwall Abbey, but even the Potterverse could learn a few things about feasting from these mice. They know what's going on.<br />
<br />
<b>BEST FANTASY FEAST GOES TO:</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<div align="center">
<b>REDWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALL!!!!</b></div>
Emily Paxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01219964022353172772noreply@blogger.com0