Old

(SPOILER FREE REVIEW!)

I've been SO excited for this movie since I first saw the trailer! I always want to say "I love M Night Shyamalan movies!" but that's not strictly true. I love some of his movies, in fact they're some of my favourite movies ever. The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, The Village. I've defended The Village to the death and I still don't really understand why it's so polarizing to people, it's a beautiful movie about the effects of trauma. But I guess by that point in his filmography he was known as "the twist guy" so any nuance or artistry got overlooked. And of course The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable are so incredible because of their twists. I didn't see The Sixth Sense until about 15 years after it's release date and yet I somehow managed to avoid spoilers and the ending hit me like a ton of bricks, and so much of the joy in that movie is it's rewatchability factor. The twist isn't tacked on, it makes perfect sense and is so obvious when you know it and completely re-contextualizes the entire movie when you know what clues to look for. Unbreakable is the same. I think that was the first of Shyamalan's movies I ever saw, someone brought it to a sleepover when I was teenager and it blew me away. Comic book movies were kind of meh back then, I would even argue that he helped reshape the genre into what we know it as today with his gritty take on real world heroes and supervillains. And again it's a clever ending that you don't see coming and it reshapes the entire movie you've just watched.

I didn't see Signs until fairly recently, and I was underwhelmed. The CGI felt badly dated, and I didn't appreciate the heavy handed Christian element. I haven't seen The Lady in the Water for many years, but I feel like it was the first of his movies that disappointed me and although I barely remember it I don't care enough to rewatch it. I have zero interest in The Last Airbender, and I somehow completely missed The Visit and only heard of it recently with all of the buzz for Old. 

I think Split was the first of Shyamalan's movies that I was really aware of since his peak in the 00s, and I remember being utterly horrified at the trailer and how it was using a genuine mental illness for scares as a violent criminal. I saw a lot of good reviews with no mention of ableism, and Shyamalan himself mentioned that his wife is a psychologist which is what inspired him to use Dissociative Identity Disorder as a plot device in the first place, so I figured maybe it just had a horribly edited trailer and was actually handled sensitively in the movie and decided to give it a chance. No, it's ableist trash and just as bad as the trailer makes out, if not worse. This movie was released in 2016, are we really still clinging to ideas of mentally ill people being violent criminals? If Shyamalan's wife is a psychologist then she must really suck at her job because I'm not a psychologist and I would never treat mental illness in this way and I would be horrified if my partner did. Film makers have a responsibility not to spread that kind of bullshit narrative that reinforces negative stereotypes into society which others the most vulnerable and stops them seeking help when needed and stigmatizes and isolates those already diagnosed. People with severe mental illnesses and a history of trauma are more likely to be abused, not become abusers and are no more violent than anybody else in society.

Despite my love for Unbreakable I haven't seen Glass because Split was such a huge dumpster fire, but I have been watching and really loving Shyamalan's recent series Servant on Apple TV. So as soon as I saw the trailer for Old I was excited as it felt like a return to what he does best, and when he's not being ableist as fuck he is a damn good storyteller.

I went to the very first screening at my local cinema, and this was the first time I'd been to a movie theater since before Covid which is a whole heap of excitement in of itself! In fact I realized that the last time I was at the movie theater was when I saw Joker and met Todd Phillips - which, on the topic of ableism was a movie I enjoyed largely because of it's realistic handling of mental illness despite the villain angle. 

Although I've only just seen the movie a few hours ago, I'm still not completely sure how I feel about it. This will be spoiler free so please don't feel like you can't read ahead if you haven't seen it yet, but to give you an idea of the plot: a family go to a retreat on a tropical island, and are advised of a more secluded, private beach by the hotel manager who offers to have them escorted there for the day. Two families and a couple are dropped off, but they quickly realize not everything is as it seems as they begin to age rapidly, which is most noticeable in their young children who are literally growing before their eyes. 

It's a really interesting premise, and the characters quickly realize that some of them have various medical issues which are further complicated by how quickly they're aging and makes their need to get off of the beach even more urgent. The plot is fairly solid, obviously it requires a suspension of disbelief but the reasons of why the beach is causing this and why they can't escape are made very clear. 

Unfortunately ableism rears it's head again, which really let the movie down for me. I really don't know what this dude's deal is and why he hates the mentally ill so much, but the character Charles played by Rufus Sewell is revealed to have Paranoid Schizophrenia which of course turns him into a violent murderous psychopath despite the fact that less than 13% of people with Schizophrenia are ever violent towards others, and are 14 times more likely to be the victim of violence than people without Schizophrenia. It's a tacky way to add an additional sense of danger to a story that just didn't need it - the foreboding 'time' chasing them was enough. Plus had it been handled sensitively the effects of mental illness on a person in that situation and the deterioration could of been a really interesting angle instead of a cheap shot.

Other than that it was a good movie full of the otherworldly bizarreness we've come to expect, but for me it lacked the slow burn suspence and atmosphere of what made his movies so successful at the beginning of his career. I do feel kind of bad constantly comparing his work, but it's difficult not to when it's been that good, and yet he hasn't been able to match it since and Old is no different in that respect. Time on the beach is supposed to move quickly, but it almost moves too quickly at times with so much body horror happening all at once that you become desensitized, and I didn't feel emotionally connected to any of the characters so didn't much care what happened to them. I'd read Shyamalan say how a lot of the script was based on his own fears of aging and mortality, which was compounded with the Covid pandemic which was ongoing during the time of filming, and yet somehow none of this manages to come across in the film. It's an entertaining movie, it's a fun movie, it even has something to say regarding casual racism, but there's very little beyond that. And unlike his previous movies that only get better on repeat viewing once you understand the twist and can pick up on all of the foreshadowing, I can't see this having any rewatchability at all. It's a one watch and done movie.

However I do continue to give Shyamalan props for his originality within the horror/thriller genre and constantly exploring new facets of horror with stories we've never heard before. And that's what will continue bringing me back for more. Just please quit with the ableism already, ok?

That Cold Day In The Park

I ended up discovering this movie by accident as I was in the mood to watch something but nothing was really grabbing me. I can't say what made me click on this other than perhaps the title grabbed me, but as soon as I read the description and read reviews of people bitching about it being too slow and "lacking plot" I was sold. Slow burn character studies where someone slowly loses their mind over the course of the movie is one of my all time favourite genres, particularly from the 60s and 70s with that dreamy aesthetic. Some of my favourites include Polanski's Apartment Trilogy, The Wicker Man, Lets Scare Jessica To Death, The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane, and the more recent The VVitch. I love it, and now I have a new movie to add to that list!

That Cold Day In The Park is primarily about Frances, a 30-something wealthy "spinster" who lives alone in her late parents house, surrounded by her late parents things, helped by her late parents housemaid, socializing with her late parents friends, and taking part in old people activities such as luncheons and lawn bowls. She's clearly still fairly young, but she's old before her time, both too young and too old for her early thirties and without any identity of her own. Isolated by the circumstances of her class and previous life as her mother’s caretaker, she's both non-existent to the outside world and invisible within her own. I found her to be an incredibly tragic character, trapped in her loneliness with a quiet desperation of her pitiable state of a life unlived, and so out of touch with her own peers and generation. 

During one of her luncheons for her elderly friends Frances spots a boy in the park from her apartment window, and she takes pity on him as it begins to rain. After everyone leaves she goes and asks The Boy if he'd like to seek shelter in her home as she presumes he's homeless as he hasn't attempted to leave the park despite the horrendous weather conditions. He accepts, and she helps him to dry his clothing and offers him a meal and warm bath. Although he can clearly understand her he appears mute (hence he doesn't have a name, even in the credits he is just 'The Boy') but she seems grateful just for someone to talk to and offers to let him stay in her spare bedroom. 

We quickly realize that it's probably the closest interaction she's ever had with someone who isn't 40 years her senior. At first we know nothing about The Boy until he begins sneaking out of the window at night and we learn that he has a home and a family and can talk but chooses not to in certain situations. It sheds a lot of light onto his character as although he isn't technically doing anything wrong, it does show that he's manipulative and openly taking advantage of Frances and her vulnerable state. Because he doesn't speak to Frances she's able to use him as a sounding board and project her insecurities and desires onto what she sees as a naive young boy in need of her help, when in fact he's none of those things. 

I really struggled to find any sympathy for The Boy or his plight as he could tell that Frances was struggling emotionally, and yet he still kept returning to her and giving her false hope of friendship. It's a shitty way to behave. Because of the patriarchal time this film was made I'm not even sure which angle the movie is supposed to be taking - is it OK for him to treat her like this just by virtue of him having been born with a dick and I'm supposed to vilify the woman for being jealous and overbearing? Or is he just a shitty deadbeat taking advantage of an emotionally vulnerable woman? It's difficult to tell how it would be viewed in 1969, but from what I've read it was fairly unsuccessful and is mostly buried, which does make me feel like we are supposed to sympathize with Frances. Plus it's worth noting that the source novel was written by a then closeted gay man (Richard Miles) and is loaded with queer themes, and the screenplay was adapted by a woman.

One of the constant themes in the movie is age. Obviously Frances' friends are a heck of a lot older than her, and at one point a clearly elderly man has the audacity to proposition her which she promptly refuses before the most heart wrenching scene in which Frances spills her heart about her loneliness and opens up about her revulsion at the old man to The Boy, only to discover he's run off again and hidden toys in the bed to look like he was asleep. It perfectly illustrates the double standard of society that it's perfectly natural for a much older man to assume a young woman would harbor any romantic interest in him at all, yet Frances's romantic interest in The Boy is treated as aberrant. 

Although The Boy is supposed to be 19, and Michael Burns who plays him was only 21 at the time of filming, he looks much older especially compared to Sandy Dennis’s tendency to defy age (she is 31 here). Because of this I had to remind myself that there even was an age gap between the two characters. The biggest difference between them is cultural, with The Boy escaping at night to go to clubs with his friends who are all clearly part of the '60s youth counterculture complete with 'free love' (which shows up in some uncomfortable scenes with his sister that border a bit too close to incest for my liking), compared to Frances's uptight prim and proper repressed upbringing due to both her class and being so sheltered. The Boy’s arrival triggers a desire she has no idea what to do with, and a suffocating awareness that the world outside and its individuals are permanently alien to her.

Although the movie advertises itself as Frances holding The Boy prisoner, I feel like it's important to mention that it's not until the movie's climax that this really takes place after she's been continually manipulated and let down by The Boy and finally cracks. Whilst she does lock his bedroom door when he's asleep, as a single woman myself I took this more as a safety precaution of having a strange man in the house rather than being any sinister threat towards him - he could and did exit through the open window after all, and at the beginning she repeatedly asks him if he's staying giving him free will and consent in the situation.

Although the archetype of the unhinged, repressed older woman isn't anything new, it's subverted and complicated by Sandy Dennis's youth and treated with a grace and sympathy that felt truly refreshing. Her performance is mesmerizing, and although I hated his character I have to give Michael Burns credit for being smug enough to make me hate him. While the film never really goes fully off the deep end with it's weirdness, it's beautifully shot, and I really love the structure of it, especially that batshit left turn at the end. No one is ever quite as they seem.

Shot Caller

I re-watched Shot Caller (2017) last night, and I felt like writing about it as I haven’t posted here in a while. 

I watch quite a lot of crime movies, it’s one of my favourite genres, but I can't say that the prison movie has ever really grabbed me as much. I feel like they generally follow very similar premises - the person is completely innocent and must endure animal-like behaviour from the other inmates, the prisoner must pay for their sins and learn the error of their ways, or it’s some kind of power struggle. Generally it’s always the same kind of troupe, so I can't say I was particularly excited by Shot Caller when I first heard of it and honestly if my favourite actor hadn’t been in it I would never have bothered. Which goes to show what you can be missing out on sometimes!

Despite the cheesy title and Nikolaj’s horrid mustache (I couldn't even bring myself to use pictures of him with it for this entry, sorry) this really is a great movie, with a lot of complexities that keep you guessing up to the end. I’ve also seen a lot of people online, including former prisoners, say that it’s one of the more accurate portrayals of the US prison system too which isn't something you can often say about a Hollywood movie.

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau stars as the main character Jacob who later goes by the street name 'Money', and the film is told both through present day and flashback which isn’t a narrative device I always enjoy but it’s really effective here as it's perfectly paced and slowly reveals exactly what’s happening in the present day and how our main character got here in the first place.

Jacob is a stockbroker with a successful, enviable lifestyle; he has a loving relationship with his wife who is in the middle of pursuing her dream career thanks to her husband’s income, a young son, and a beautiful home - he's basically living the "American dream". And the tragedy of his situation is how it could simply happen to anyone: one night he and his wife are out for dinner with friends, he’s the designated driver but has one drink too many, he gets distracted by his friends in the car and runs a red light, and before he knows it he ends up with a DUI manslaughter charge as his best friend dies in the backseat of his car. Due to his grief and an unsympathetic lawyer he accepts a plea deal for less time in prison, but he quickly learns that due to the severity of his charges he’s to be placed in a maximum security facility and he must do anything he can to protect both himself and his family on the outside.

"The fact is, we all started out as someone's little angel. And a place like this forces us to become warriors or victims. Nothing in between can exist here."

It’s a really heart wrenching movie, I think most of all because it shows how a perfectly innocent regular person can have their life turned completely upside down with one mistake that had devastating consequences, and become completely corrupted by the system that’s supposed to rehabilitate them. And as a viewer it forces you to reconsider this dichotomous good guys/bad guys, us vs them attitude that people generally have towards prisoners. "Oh that would never happen to me because I'm not like that" - yeah, but accidents happen and what if it did? What would you do for survival? How far would you go to protect your child?

I'm hesitant to say too much about this movie because it does have a lot of twists and turns to the plot and I really don't want to spoil it. But it's so well structured with a phenomenal cast and vastly overlooked. Please watch it. Don't let the mustache put you off.

"The thing is, I was born brilliant, born bad, and a little bit mad. I'm Cruella."

(Yes that title is an actual line from the movie...)

Initially I really didn't want to see this movie. To be honest I'm not a fan of the original 1961 101 Dalmations, despite how much Disney tries to milk it it's just never inspired me like their other movies have so that was strike one against this movie for me. When I then heard that the plot involved a group of rampant Dalmations running Cruella's mother off of a cliff, any mild curiosity I might have had just immediately vanished. Isn't it enough for a character to be a bitch just to be a bitch?

Not every character needs to be driven by a traumatic past event and pathologized to the 9th degree. Some people are just shitty, and it's incredibly demeaning to people with actual traumatic experiences that they're trying to recover from when it's become such the default plot line for villainous characters to go off of. Although like I said I've never been a fan of 101 Dalmatians, I'm pretty sure Cruella is supposed to simply represent the bourgeoisie and class divide? Anita and Roger live together in a tiny home, and I'm not going to pretend they're poor because they live in one of the most expensive areas of London and hire a Nanny ffs, but they certainly work for a living and live a vastly different lifestyle to the opulent Cruella. Cruella is simply a spoilt rich woman who no one has ever said no to until Roger and Anita have the audacity to do just that and then she GOES OFF. She's just acting out and throwing a tantrum like rich people do when they can't get their own way, and naturally lacks empathy because she's never had to show any because she sees everyone else as below her and worthless. It's class war, not trauma that motivates her so stop trying to pathologize her!

If you read my blog you know I loved Joker (2019), but the criticism of this becoming the new trend for villain backstories is so completely valid, and I didn't want to see this movie because Disney are so fricking lazy that they can't even come up with their own original plots for their over recycled characters anymore. And it makes me mad because there are actually some Disney villains that I would love to see properly explored in a stand alone film, or I would of loved to have seen a Cruella movie that actually addressed class divide, over accumulation of wealth, and the exploitations of the fashion industry. But no, we get Dalmatians running a woman off a cliff and a pathetic revenge story. Nice.

So this was the mindset I went into the film with, and I know you're probably wondering why I even bothered at this point but I've seen people raving about this movie, and I did buy into the negative hype surrounding Joker before I saw it and it became my favourite movie so I figured I'd give it a go and see if I was to be proved wrong again. And honestly? My judgements were completely right.

I have so many thoughts with this movie and just how bad it was that I'm not even quite sure how to start and put all of my notes into some kind of coherent order. I'm not usually the type to make notes while I'm watching a movie, but it was literally annoying me that badly that I had to vent my frustrations out as they were happening.

➳ I guess first up I should just say that this movie is so not my brand of humor, which is probably where a lot of my issues lie with it. It tries very hard to be tongue in cheek and wink at the camera to show us how self aware it is, but it's just annoying. I don't need to know that Cruella picked her surname because of a car, that she gifts Roger and Anita their dogs, and it was just forcing itself far too hard to try and connect itself to it's source material in the most irrelevant of ways that added nothing to the plot. The reality is heightened to the point of just feeling incredibly cheesy and overly exaggerated that it ends up so that there's absolutely nothing to connect with or any kind of emotional pull to any of it. I found it all a bit embarrassing to watch honestly.

➳ It's also like they took the "girl boss" trend and just absolutely ran with it to the point that it almost felt like a parody except I don't think that's what they were aiming for. Is it supposed to be empowering? I can't even tell anymore because the tone of the movie was just all over the place.

➳ When you have to resort to a voiceover for the majority of the movie, that's some weak ass storytelling. A well developed plot doesn't need the characters motives to be spelt out to the audience, yet that's exactly the narrative device this movie falls back on repeatedly.

➳ I saw a lot of press that this movie was to feature "Disney's first openly LGBT character!!" But didn't we already have this...? Am I being actively gaslit by Disney now, what the hell is going on...? But more to the point, it wasn't. I'm making the assumption that they're referring to the character of Artie, who is a complete stereotype of a camp, effeminate man, but there's nothing actually said or done that makes him gay. It's just yet another case of queerbaiting with no actual follow through.

Yes he's queer coded in the most stereotypical of ways, but that's not the same thing as being openly gay. Particularly when this movie is set in the 1970s, a time when fashion was blurring the lines of binary gender and glam rock was at it's peak so men wearing make up, ruffled blouses, and platform shoes was nothing out of the norm regardless. But glam rock movement was a lot more heteronormative than it looks through a modern lens - a lot of straight men dressed like Marc Bolan, and it was still an incredibly dangerous time to be queer. And it’s misleading not only because gender and sexuality are two different things, but this movie is about the fashion industry where it would be expected for Artie to be at the forefront of trends, which works in the opposite of making him "openly gay" and instead just adds to his ambiguity. And any room for ambiguity is not representation! Queer audiences deserve to see themselves depicted fully and diversely onscreen instead of constantly given false promises that the movie never lives up to.

And kind of nit-picky, but things that bothered me even so:
➳ The 1960s/70s soundtrack was not only so painfully predictable, but having a needle drop every 5 seconds like so much else about this movie was just incredibly annoying. Taking Iggy Pop's "I Wanna Be Your Dog" lyrics at face value doesn't add nuance, it just feels childish.
➳ Jasper and Horace are the most well spoken homeless kids with RP accents I've ever heard.
➳ Those CGI dogs!! Just horrible!
➳ The Baroness was more Cruella De Vil than Cruella.

TLDR - I hated it.

You'll float too

I've been a fan of Stephen King for years by this point, and I was in high school when I picked up my first King book Carrie purely because it was on sale and I'd recently seen the film and so was intrigued. I didn't actually rate Carrie very much, I don't remember why as I haven't read it since, but I quickly picked up The Shining as it was another film I'd seen (I've been a fan of horror and ghoulies my whole life - as a kid I favored Goosebumps and Shivers books above all else, and I was pretty young when I moved on to proper horror movies. Most teens use their fake ID to buy alcohol, I used mine to buy R rated horror movies) and I loved The Shining, so much so that it ruined the movie for me. I've read the majority of King's books by now (except The Dark Tower as I'm intimidated by the size of it!) and It has always stood out as one of my all time favourites. I was always disappointed that it hadn't really had a film version - there is a mini series starring Tim Curry as Pennywise, but it's made for TV and desperately feels it, in the days long before TV shows had serious money pumped into them.


I loved the first installment of It (which you can read about here) and even back then was immediately eager for part 2. I'm also really glad that they split this into two movies - usually I'd roll my eyes at Hollywood milking a franchise, but It is a vast brick of a novel and I think a big part of why the mini-series failed is because it's too convoluted, switching back and forth between the main characters as kids and adults and telling their stories simultaneously. It works in a book that's split up by chapters and headings, and by splitting the film into two halves it's the best way of getting that across without confusing the plot.

Overall both movies are really accurate to the novel - there are deviations from the plot, and the ending of Chapter 2 was completely re-written (with constant jabs at King throughout the script for not being able to write a decent ending, with even King himself getting in on it with a cameo) but there's not a lot from the book that I really missed as most of the key elements were there, and those that weren't I could tell why they were omitted.

The biggest thing that I did really miss was I felt the movie could of done a better job of delving in to the insidious influence that Pennywise holds over Derry. In the novel there are several instances throughout the history of the town where really awful, terrible actions have been carried out by the residents, and it's all because of Pennywise feeding off of people's fear and hatred. The two main events caused by Pennywise are The Black Spot, a club frequented by African Americans that becomes the site of a racist massacre, and the homophobic murder of Adrian Mellon. The Black Spot is briefly glossed over in the first movie, easy to miss entirely if you're not looking for it. Chapter 2 opens with the murder of Adrian Mellon which plays out exactly as it does in the novel, but unlike the novel there's never any reason for the scene being there and it just comes across as gratuitous violence. Derry is supposed to represent everything wrong and hateful in American society, a haunted town with Pennywise orchestrating and feeding off of every negative event. And the movie completely misses the mark on that aspect, and simply tells a coming of age story with Pennywise targeting a few specific kids - their own personal nightmare, rather than society's.

Chapter 2 also wasn't as scary as the first movie. Although I love horror, I'm also a big weenie and deliberately saw an early showing at the cinema so that I wouldn't have to go to bed straight after and feel scared, but for this movie I just wasn't scared at all. The worst scene for me was with Beverly in her old home, but I found most of the scares were ruined with really obvious CGI, which was a shame as I remember thinking how seamless the CGI was in the first movie. I appreciate that CGI is hugely necessary in a movie like this and don't mind it being used generally, but it was at the point where it interfered with Bill Skarsgård's performance and made him feel less threatening. And my final moan is with Harry Bowers, a plot line that just didn't really go anywhere or seem necessary and I wish he'd been used to better effect.

Overall I really loved it though! I think they did a great job of adapting it to the screen, which is a bigger task than most give credit for as adaptations that stay too close to the novel usually suck as it's a different medium, but at the same time you've got to keep the original fans happy. The casting was phenomenal, the adult cast really did look like the kids grown up and at no point did I wonder who was supposed to be who. I really loved their chemistry and the dynamic between the older and younger versions, everyone was perfect and personally I thought the humour was great. Richie and Eddie were my favourite, and I loved the angle given to their relationship in the closing scenes.

I can't wait until it's released on DVD and I can watch the two movies back to back as I think that's how they'll play best. Chapter 2 probably doesn't stand up as a movie in it's own right, like you couldn't just see that one and understand what's going on, but I also feel like the clue is in the name with it being called 'Chapter 2' and there's no reason for it be a stand alone movie. I only mention it as I know that's been a bit of an overall complaint, but I don't see how it's a criticism myself.

Dark Waters

As the year wraps up I've been thinking a lot about what the best film of 2020 might be for me. Admittedly, I've not seen a lot. It's crazy as last year I went to the cinema and saw more new releases than ever before, and yet as new releases have technically become more accessible with them all being streamed now I just find myself less inclined to bother. After all, so much is about the experience itself of being at the actual movie theater and that immersive experience. It's why I can't relate when people philosophize about "is this the end of movie theaters" because they personally would rather watch from their sofa on a small screen filled with distractions. No thanks.

Despite having not seen much this year, I do think for me, personally, my favourite movie has definitely been Dark Waters. I know technically this is listed on IMDb as 2019, but it was released at the very end of and wasn't released in Europe until 2020, so to me, a European, it's a 2020 release!

I really had no idea what I was getting into when I decided to watch this movie, I just thought the trailer looked interesting, and those gritty investigative movies starring Mark Ruffalo are one of my absolute favourite genres all by themselves.

Told from the perspective of lawyer Rob Bilott (Mark Ruffalo) the story begins almost as a mystery as he's brought an environmental case by a local farmer and begins investigating the huge multi-billion corporation Dupont, and discovers the toxic waste they've been pumping into America's water supplies. The plot of this movie is absolutely enraging as Bilott soon realises just how far the corporate tentacles that grip every aspect of our lives go, and how untouchable such a huge company are even from the government, which just feels even more relevent with the state of the world right now.

I appreciate how difficult it must have been to write a movie that's essentially about research compelling, but they managed it. Ruffalo literally spends a portion of the film sorting through endless boxes of paperwork, and yet I still found myself on the edge of my seat at what he was about to uncover.

"The system is rigged. They want us to believe that it'll protect us, but that's a lie. We protect us. We do. Nobody else. Not the companies, not the scientists, not the government. Us."

I'm not sure why this movie isn't more popular, wasn't more widely discussed, didn't pick up steam and garner any kind of social action, but it's a shame (and its quite easy to get all tin foil hat about why none of these things happened). Not only does this movie have a really important message, but it also tells it well and is just really well made. I've seen it three times this year, and the power of it's message never dilutes even when you know it's coming. It's just an incredible movie, and one of my favourites of all time, not just 2020.

One Royal Holiday

As you'll know if you've read my intro post, Aaron Tveit is my favourite actor and obviously because of this I like to stay up to date with his work. I've been putting off watching his latest movie One Royal Holiday (2020) for about 2 months now, and oh boy. I haven't been particularly excited for it which is why it's taken me this long to finally get round to watching it when it was released way back on October 31st (which is the most random night to release a Christmas movie, but whatever) I've seen Hallmark movies before so I knew it would be overly schmaltzy and cheesy, and the preview didn't give me much hope, but somehow it ended up being even worse?

Fairly typical for Hallmark holiday fare, it tells the story of Anna who works as a nurse in a Boston hospital and is visiting her father's Inn in Conneticut for the holidays, and Prince James of Galwick who's stuck in the US with his mother the Queen of Galwick after their plane was grounded due to snow storms. They meet in a donut shop and when learning of their plight Anna offers them a place to stay at her fathers Inn. Prince James has a massive stick up his ass and it's Anna's job to remove it, and typically they fall in love in the process.

I'd guessed Prince James's accent was going to be bad just from the preview when literally all he says is "Sorry, what?", but even I wasn't prepared for just how bad. Aaron has worked extensively with British people, he even worked on a London stage for a while, I also read an interview where he boasted about having received British accent training when filming Les Mis (a movie in which he sounds distinctly American I should add) so it feels like a real accomplishment to have gotten it that wrong. I guess now I understand why the Broadway production of Moulin Rouge randomly made Christian an American - our man just can't do accents.

I'm also perplexed at the characterisation of the Prince and Queen as they make such a point in the movie of saying that their fictional country of Galwick is 'Northern Europe' which to me, a European, implies Scandinavia. Yet everything about this 'Royal family' was the most painfully ignorant British stereotype you could ask for and had absolutely NOTHING to do with anything distinctly 'Northern Europe'. Even several of the casual comments they made about how 'different' they were got to me because it was just so poorly researched and could of been quickly Googled:
➳ "I'm not used to being on this side of the road" - the majority of Europe drives on the same side of the road as the US, driving on the left is literally a UK only thing.
➳ "I minored in architecture" - THAT'S NOT HOW EUROPEAN SCHOOLING WORKS!!!! We don't have 'majors' and 'minors'.
Even all of the comments on tea, and the 'royals' laughing at the Americans and their donuts - y'know we eat donuts here too, right??? Patisseries and bakeries are kind of a big deal, we invented most of that stuff.

I honestly found this film painful because it was just so poorly researched, so "haha, Europeans, am I right?" without having the slightest idea of anything to do with Europe and it came across as borderline offensive in it's level of ignorance. Both of the lead characters of Prince James and Anna aren't even likeable and were just equally as smug in opposite ways.

Aaron looked like he didn't want to be there for most of it, and he barely bothered promoting it on his social media so I feel like this is just something he signed up to in a panic caused by the pandemic and Broadway closing - he even directly said as much, making the point that it was the first work he'd been offered in months since Broadway closed. It honestly hurts to be ragging on one of his movies like this because he is my favourite actor and usually watching his movies makes me so, so happy, but it was so genuinely terrible and such a disappointment as it's the first of his movies that I actually feel that way about.

Jagten

I rewatched the Danish movie Jagten (aka The Hunt, 2012) last night, a film that I always feel a bit weird calling one of my favourites due to it's dark subject matter, but it's just so artfully made and deals with such important themes.


It stars Mads Mikkelsen as Lucas, a single middle aged man trying to rebuild his life after a divorce, who lives in the small town where he works in a childrens daycare - the kind of small town where everyone knows everyone and all of their business. Klara, the 5 year old daughter of his best friend, attends the daycare and develops a childish crush on Lucas as he's kind and takes the time to listen to her whereas her parents are usually arguing. One day Klara places a heart shaped gift in Lucas's pocket and gives him a kiss on the lips, and Lucas is quick to admonish her which hurts her feelings. As she's sulking from the rejection, Grethe, the head of the daycare, asks Klara if she's OK and Klara says something that is understood to mean Lucas has sexually abused her. Grethe brings in a child psychologist who asks Klara a series of leading questions, not allowing Klara to go and play with her friends until she's answered. Grethe doesn't believe that a child would lie about such a thing and so Lucas is branded a paedophile and shunned by the entire community. Although a police investigation proves Lucas is innocent, he continues to be ostracised which quickly leads to violence as the community doles out it's own sense of justice.

It's an incredibly heart wrenching film to watch, especially as it's inspired by true events that happened in Norway. Director and co-writer Thomas Vinterberg said of the film "When someone is accused of child abuse, the kids get interrogated by policemen and psychiatrists who repeatedly ask them the same questions. Sometimes, the kids give the grown-ups the answers they want. They say, ‘yes, he abused me.’ Then everyone goes crazy and for the child, his whole world falls apart."

It's a bit of a controversial take to not believe a child, but I think the reason that the film is able to pull it off is how it leaves us in no doubt that Lucas is innocent. It lays all of the cards on the table and we're shown how a few unprofessional leading questions can ruin a persons life and fuel a mob mentality. It's not a natural choice for a protagonist, but Mads Mikkelsen plays Lucas with a bewildered charm and it's devastating and uncomfortable to watch his life slowly unravel. Even after the community forgives him, we see that the damage has been done - a stone cannot simply be uncast.

{source}

Whilst it's unfortunately far more frequent for child abusers go unpunished rather than falsely accused, Jagten perfectly tackles the paranoia of modern society, particularly the stigma of men working in environments with children and displaying any kindness that could be misconstrued and yet considered normal between a woman and non-related child. It criticizes the ease of society to sit, point and judge, without even bothering to verify the facts or consider an alternative viewpoint, something that feels ever more prevalent in todays 'cancel' culture. This is simply a powerful and enraging film that reminds us just how judgemental we tend to be towards others and the devastating effects it can have.

Анастасия

I've always really, really loved the Don Bluth 1997 movie Anastasia ever since I was a little girl. It's funny actually as I consider Disney my favourite for animations, but most of my favourite animated movies are actually by other companies!


I haven't actually watched this movie in a long time as I've been swept up in the Broadway soundtrack which alters the story somewhat - instead of being pursued by an undead Rasputin, Anya's tracked from St Petersburg to Paris by a general of the Bolshevik army who’s father was one of the soldiers involved in the shooting of the Romanovs. I really love that change as it's obviously a bit truer to history, but saying that it does always make me laugh that the biggest complaint about this movie is how historically inaccurate it is - is there any Hollywood movie that sticks to it's source 100%? And baring in mind it's an animation and will be watched by children, I hardly think a true account of political unrest, war, genocide, Russians starving to death, and a Royal family being brutally murdered is in any way appropriate. It's a fairy tale and never claims to be true - the Grand Duchess Anastasia didn't really survive either.

If I had any complaint about the way this movie handles the history it would be that it sympathizes the Romanovs too much and comes across as fully Tsarist, but through using Rasputin it doesn't blame the Russians for what happened either so it is at least neutral in that regard. Generally I think it's really well handled for the type of movie that it is, and I appreciate some of the smaller detailing alluding to what actually happened: Rasputin may not have sold his soul and placed a curse on the Romanovs, but he certainly played a part in turning the people against the Royal family which is portrayed at the opening of the movie. And although it takes so many liberties with history, I'm sure like many others it served as my gateway into a lifelong fascination with Russian history.

Speaking of which, I've recently begun learning Russian and so thought it would be fun to watch this movie with the Russian audio (hence the post title). I'm still far too beginner to understand much of it,  but it did make the film feel fresh and it was fun to hear what they 'should' be saying if it were real - and dare I even say that I think I preferred the Russian voice actors as it seemed to fit the characters personalities better. The character of Dmitry has always been my weakness since I was 8 years old, and something about his Russian voice just made him even hotter which I didn't think was even possible. Ahem.



Anyway, I really love this movie. The animation is gorgeous, and whilst not quite as flawless as other films released at this time such as The Prince of Egypt, it has a certain tangible quality to the artwork that I really love and you can tell it was actually drawn with real hands instead of being spat out of a computer. It's also one of my favourite animated movie soundtracks that I listen to often - and I do strongly recommend listening to the Broadway adaptation if you're a fan. It doesn't have In The Dark Of The Night as Rasputin isn't present at all, but all other favourites are there among some powerful new additions such as In My Dreams, The Neva Flows, and In A Crowd of Thousands.

"For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee, ye damned whale."

I’ve had an image in my head that I’ve wanted to create into an illustration for a while, but as it involves a whale and boat I feel like it’s imagery which is probably a bit Moby Dick-seque - even though I’ve never read nor seen Moby Dick and don’t really even know what it’s about. But I figure instead of dropping my idea or trying to protest that it has nothing to do with Moby Dick, I should just learn the story and roll with it. I am an illustrator after all which involves illustrating existing stories! Unfortunately I don’t have the inclination right now to plough through a 650 page book as I already have a stack of books that I actually want to read, so I decided to cop out a bit and familiarise myself through a movie. I figured they’d be plenty as it’s such a famous book, and was pretty shocked to see that that’s not the case at all and so quickly settled on the 1956 version starring Gregory Peck.


Fun fact: I’m actually terrified of whales! I’m not scared of sharks or things that could actually hurt me, and I know that whales aren’t man hunters and are actually supposed to be quite kind and inquisitive and I even enjoy imagery and illustration involving them, but I can’t help but be terrified of them all the same. It’s their size, you see - I have quite severe megalophobia and huge things give me full on panic attacks, including whales. And that was another reason I’ve spent my life avoiding Moby Dick, and why I went for an older movie as I hoped the effects would be less realistic and so less terrifying for me.

And I was right! I spent the entire movie dreading the scenes with the whale but they were fine - which isn’t to say they were bad, I love old movie effects and much prefer them to CGI, but they were endearing in their way as it is clearly not a real whale to my relief. And I enjoyed the final battle. I feel like a modern adaptation would of rushed the showdown between Ahab and the whale and we’d have a 45 minute overly drawn out and tedious action packed CGI battle - but instead the battle is saved for the final 5 minutes, with the rest of the film pacing us, preparing us, forcing us to feel Ahab’s and the crew’s anticipation at knowing what’s in store. Apparently Gregory Peck was slated a lot for his role as Ahab, and even he himself cringed at his performance in later years feeling he was miscast. Whilst I fully admit this is my introduction to the character and I have nothing else to base his performance off of, I can certainly say that I enjoyed it, his manic obsession was palpable.

I'd seen The Lighthouse (2019) back in January and couldn’t help but draw several parallels with some scenes, which is something that I really love about consuming media; when you’re able to make those connections and spot the influence and see everything come together full circle, and there were several instances where Ahab was on screen that made me think of Willem Dafoe's character especially (I haven't reviewed The Lighthouse as I was so-so on it, but I feel like it's one of those movies where it takes a few watches for it to all come together so maybe I'll write about it in the future as I did love the imagery.)

The only real drawback for me is that I could of really done without seeing white men pretend to be Polynesian and Native American. It’s the worst aspect of old movies to be honest, and not knowing the story beforehand I wasn't expecting it. I take partial responsibility for that as if I had known there were indigenous characters then it’s a pretty safe bet it’ll be a white guy in face paint, but it's a shame nonetheless and does mar my enjoyment. There's also some scenes of real whaling which is it's own yikes, but I'm not completely sure what was real and what wasn't which is perhaps a blessing?

I’m still not sure if Moby Dick is where my illustration lies just yet, I’m going to read the book of Jonah to make sure I’m not getting confused, but I'm happy to at least have discovered a new movie out of it! (and I got to learn where Starbucks got its name from!)

Beware the frozen heart

When listening to the Frozen Broadway cast recording the other day it really got me thinking about the original fairy tale of The Snow Queen and how the two compare. This isn't anything I've done any research on as I want it to be my own theories without outside influence, and I'm sure it's not a new topic at all but it's something I wanted to share my own thoughts on anyway!

The Snow Queen by Hans Christian Andersen is probably my all time favourite fairy tale, and it's something I go way back with. I'm Danish and grew up on Andersen's works as a child and so they hold a lot of personal significance to me, and when I was in my foundation year of art school for my big final project I decided I wanted to illustrate my own version of The Snow Queen.



The artwork is really old and kind of embarrassing to me now (I actually plan on redoing it entirely as a personal project for my portfolio) but it was a labor of love as The Snow Queen is an epic in length for being a fairy tale, and a lot of background research went into everything and it got me one of the highest grades in my class. Which is all to say that I'm intimately knowledgeable of the original story.

I've been a huge fan of Disney my whole life and was hugely involved in the fandom in the early '10s when it was all forum based (I love forums, I wish they'd come back! They were so perfect for fandoms as they were so community driven but had the benefit of being moderated by people and not automated systems so no one could be an asshat or unfairly censored). I knew Disney had a long history of trying to adapt The Snow Queen dating back to the 1930s, and multiple times it had come into production only to be shelved due to the dark and episodic themes of the novel. So when it was finally released in 2013 (after I'd already completed my own illustrated book!) I could hardly wait and went to the very first screening that I could. And I hated it!! Yeah, big twist - what is now one of my favourite movies I did not get along with on first viewing. I remember people gushing about it and I just did not get the hype as all I could see was a bastardisation of my favourite story.

Obviously I expected Disney to alter the source material but I couldn't see any of the original tale in Frozen and that was what put my nose so out of joint. It wasn't until I saw it again by chance in 2015 that it really hit me emotionally and I was able to separate it entirely from the source and appreciate it as it's own thing. Since then I've collected all kinds of merchandise, cosplayed as Elsa at cons and at the Disney parks, Disneybounded as the characters and collected limited edition dresses based on their costumes, and travelled all of the way from the UK to see it on Broadway (OK it wasn't my main reason for going to NYC, Aaron Tveit in Moulin Rouge was, but I still paid an obscene amount to see it!) In fact it's probably fair to say at this point that Frozen has come to mean more to me than the original Andersen tale which just feels nostalgic to me now more than anything else.



Despite my love of both, I haven't really thought too much about how the two stories cross over and share similarities as like I said, I prefer to keep the two separate as they're so different. Other than Elsa being a Queen with ice powers, two of the background servants being named Gerda and Kai, and there being a reindeer as a main character, there really isn't anything immediately obvious that points it as being an adaptation. Even the overarching themes aren't really the same; in The Snow Queen the main message is good verses evil and the importance of innocence - the Snow Queen represents temptation, and Kai only becomes vulnerable to her when the mirror shards have entered his heart and eye and changed his view of the world to a more adult, cynical version. This is hugely important, and actually really relevant to Frozen upon closer inspection, but Frozen is generally about true love and the effects fear and isolation can have on both a person and a community. The Snow Queen also has a lot of Christian influence, but I'm not mad that Disney took that aspect out.

The Snow Queen (which can be read here) actually begins with a magic mirror that distorts everything it reflects by reducing everything pure and good into nothingness and magnifying everything ugly and evil. A group of trolls (!!) try to fly the mirror up the Heavens to "make fools of the angels" (like I said, there's a heavy handed Christian element that's as subtle as a brick) but as the mirror gets higher and higher into the sky it shatters and falls back down to Earth.

Kai and Gerda are child neighbours who have grown up playing together and are as close as brother and sister. Shards of the magic troll mirror fall onto Kai, one piercing his heart which turns it to ice (!), and another that gets caught in his eye and distorts his view of the world into something ugly and contemptible. He's mean to Gerda and is generally a bit of an asshat for seemingly no reason, which is possibly why no one but Gerda seems to care when he suddenly goes missing. When Kai is out playing on his sled by himself, the Snow Queen pulls up in a carriage and kisses him so he can no longer feel the cold and takes him to her palace in the North. This is the only real appearance of the Snow Queen in the whole story and her motives are completely ambiguous. In her palace she gives Kai a puzzle of broken ice shards and tells him that if he can spell out the correct word then he can become his own master, so he settles down on the frozen lake and gets to work.



Gerda's distraught at the loss of her friend and decides to go find him. She begins by boat but soon loses her paddles and is left to float until she meets land and is greeted by an old woman who erases Gerda's memory of Kai so that she'll stay with the woman as an adoptive daughter. Which works well, until Gerda spots a rose which reminds her of playing in the flowers with Kai and she bursts into tears, but the flowers confirm that Kai can't be dead as they haven't seen him in the Earth so Gerda runs away. Next she meets a crow who thinks Kai may have married a local princess which turns out to be a false alarm but the Prince and Princess are kind enough to provide Gerda with a carriage to take her on her journey, but it results in Gerda being taken prisoner by a band of thieves further along. The Robber Girl forces Gerda to be her friend by holding her at knife point which upsets Gerda alot, but the Robber Girl's captive pigeons tell Gerda that Kai has been taken by the Snow Queen, and the captive reindeer Bæ tells Gerda that he knows where the palace is located. The Robber Girl lets Gerda and Bæ go free and he carries Gerda to Finnmark, meeting the Lapland Woman and the Finn Woman along the way, but Gerda must make the remainder of the journey alone as otherwise she won't be able to enter the palace. Kai is unable to recognise Gerda as he's obsessed with the ice puzzle and has turned black with cold, and the sight of him in that state reduces Gerda to tears and she tries to hug him. The warmth of her tears melts the ice in his heart, and now able to feel again Kai weeps as he recognises his closest friend and his tears dislodge the shard in his eye. They leave the palace and travel home together, and although they are now grown they retain the innocence and optimism of youth in their hearts which is what saved them.

This is a very abridged version of the tale, and you can tell that it's very different from the plot of Frozen which I'm not going to detail as I'm assuming that if you've read this far then you already know it, but I wanted to give some background of the original in case you're not familiar.

At first glance there don't seem to be many similarities. It's kind of obvious that Gerda and Anna could be said to be the same character - Anna retains her innocence, which often comes across as naivety in her agreeing to marry Prince Hans and charging off into the wilderness alone to look for her sister, but it's very clear that her heart is in the right place and like Gerda she meets people that help her along the way even if the cast of characters look a bit different. I've seen Kristoff compared to the Robber Girl which always leaves a bad taste in my mouth - the Robber Girl literally murders people and rubs a knife along the throat of the reindeer to stop him from running away. I can't imagine Kristoff treating Sven like that, and as Kristoff is directly inspired by indigenous Sámi cultures comparing him to the Robber Girl starts to jump headfirst into blatant racism so please consider don't.

For me, it's actually the character of Kai that I find the most intriguing in all of this and how he fits into the cast of Frozen. I've seen people say that Elsa is both the Snow Queen and Kai combined, but that never sat right with me as I don't see any of Kai in Elsa - she has no sudden switch of personality, no task she obsessively feels she must undertake, so I really don't see what that comparison is even based on. But as I was sat listening to the Broadway soundtrack on the train and listening to John Riddle enthusiastically sing Love Is An Open Door with Patti Murin it suddenly struck me - Hans is Kai (I know, several paragraphs in and I finally get to the point of the post, but I had to set it up!)


Hans is a very complex character within Frozen, I'd argue the most complex and it's why he's my favourite as there's so much to unpack and interpret with him. I've always been of the opinion that Disney did him dirty in the movie as one of the reasons he's so complex is because he wasn't originally written as the villain - Elsa was. But after the songwriters wrote Let It Go and discovered Elsa's motives they couldn't comfortably place her as the villain anymore, so made a last minute decision to switch it to Hans. That's why there is no foreshadowing and it's really poor writing and he's generally considered to be such a weak character (which has been analysed many times before and I won't go into, but you can read more here if you need the receipts). With the release of Frozen II Disney made it pretty clear that they now want to portray Hans as a simple black and white villain by calling him an "irredeemable monster", which is sad as it turns his backstory from something complex that could of opened a discussion about his descent into the Freudian Excuse trope and jeering at him. This feels incredibly tone-deaf to me considering the story arcs of Elsa and Anna and the main themes of personal growth in Frozen, and even goes directly against statements made by writer Jennifer Lee.

If you're not a fan of Hans and aren't fully aware of his backstory, he grew up the youngest of 13 sons and was abused throughout his childhood. He states this himself in a throwaway comment to Anna about how his brothers "pretended I was invisible, literally, for two years.", which has been followed up in official releases by Disney such as a comic strip and a book called A Frozen Heart which also shows his father as an abusive sociopath. This isn't sympathising a villain or trying to excuse his actions, but it does add to the layers of his character. It's exceptional and unheard of for a Disney villain to display any degree of self-doubt or ambiguity, so why did Disney originally go to such lengths to give him a traumatic back story just to make him a throwaway villain? Because he wasn't the villain.

There's long been a theory in Frozen fan circles that the trolls are the true villains of the story. They're the ones who encourage Elsa's parents to hide her away and force her to conceal her feelings which leads to her own traumatic experiences, and while they heal Anna they state "the heart is not so easily changed, but the head can be persuaded." This is an example of genuine foreshadowing, and could point to why Hans does a complete 180 after Anna meets the trolls with Kristoff and they sing such choice lines as "Her quote 'engagement' is a flex arrangement" and "Get the fiancé out of the way and the whole thing will be fixed!". Also remember the magic mirror in the original Snow Queen belonged to the trolls!

Which brings us back to Kai. Sweet, kind, innocent Kai who got a frozen heart and a distorted view of the world when two pieces of troll mirror fell onto him from the sky. Who could no longer see goodness and acted selfishly and obsessively until Gerda melted his frozen heart. As Anna states to Hans towards the finale of Frozen:


{source}
I'm not saying for definite that the trolls had any part in it but it's definitely interesting, and there are certainly a lot of parallels between the characterisations of Kai and Hans and how it changes their behaviours. One of the aspects of Hans' character that I've always been intrigued by is how it parallels Elsa - a character who also grew up in an abusive household, although not through malicious intent like Hans experienced, but rather due to over protection and shortsightedness by her parents - and how they both show how abuse can shape a person. For Elsa it caused low self esteem, isolation, and self punishment, whereas for Hans one could argue it made him act outwards and present himself as he thinks others want him to be seen whilst being emotionally volatile. Or maybe he was just genuinely trying to make a better life for himself away from his abusive family and sensed Anna was looking for the same deal and was happy to marry her until his heart and eyes were frozen by magic trolls which distorted his view and made him behave like a jackass. Maybe.

I guess we'll never truly know, but it's fun to mull over and I enjoy any links I can find between my favourite movie and my favourite fairy tale. And it's why I'll forever be mad that Hans got such a rush job treatment as he has the potential to be an amazing character. He’s emotionally damaged and an arrogant and vindictive dick, but that doesn’t make him evil. I like that he's ambiguous and morally grey and how that forces the audience to question whether they can trust him. As in reality, most people are like that.

Yet another scene that parallels Kai and Hans - at the beginning of The Snow Queen Kai looks out of the frost covered window and sees the Snow Queen beckoning to him, and here we have a big pointed scene of Hans looking out of the frost covered window at the storm Elsa created - whilst being an ass to Anna, much like Kai was to Gerda (who we've already established is Anna!).

"Do I look like the kind of clown that could start a movement?"

Although Joker (2019) hasn't been out very long, I'm not shy in saying that it's probably my favourite film of all time. I'm a huge movie fan and watch a lot of them, but I've never been hit so hard emotionally on my very first viewing of a film like I was with Joker. Even as a life long Batman comic book fan I never expected to like the movie as much as I did, especially as I was never keen on the Joker as a character as he always seemed kind of ridiculous and far-fetched. And I've now seen it a grand total of 9 times at the cinema! I really wanted to make as much of it as I could as I love the totally immersive experience of the movie theatre - I even saw it in French when I was in Paris in November as I just couldn't bare missing a week of seeing it (and no I don't speak French, and yes it was a French dubbed movie!). After initially seeing it I even had a hard time watching other movies as I just couldn't stop thinking about it and didn't want to part with it as I just connected with it so much. Does that sound crazy?


I really wasn't into the idea of the movie before it was released based on the trailer, and admit I bought into the hype of wondering if it would incite violence (and I really loved a comment the writer and director Todd Phillips made regarding this: "I actually think the violence that is in the movie is oddly responsible because it's horrific and feels real, just like violence is. I would argue that other movies where violence is celebrated is much more irresponsible so I don't know why suddenly we got painted with that brush.")

I honestly hate that violence is even such a focus as it's not that violent overall! It's mostly a character study of Arthur Fleck's descent into what drove him to become the Joker, and I can't help but feel protective of it when people are making these kind of assumptions as it's just such an important film to me personally and I feel like the themes are so well handled. Themes such as class divide and poverty, child abuse and the effects it leaves on a person after they've grown, the way neurodivergent and disabled people are treated in society, mental illness and the lack of support people receive for it and how often they're abandoned entirely to fend for themselves. I'm such a socially awkward mess with anxiety and a slew of other issues that I could relate to Arthur constantly being left on the outskirts, I've had numerous therapy sessions with doctors who never really listened and then had services cut due to lack of NHS funding. I'm not saying that I necessarily relate to Arthur, but because I know what these things feel like I could empathise with his situation and my heart broke for him, over and over. I was so sad for him when he kept getting hurt and beaten for being "odd" when he wasn’t actually doing anything wrong, people are just narrow minded and this is the way disabled folk are treated every single day. And to see these issues tackled so honestly on screen without the usual glamourising or 'othering' that usually happens to these topics really was something special.

It does make it a very uncomfortable film to sit through, but it's uncomfortable in all the right ways. It's SO well acted by Joaquin Phoenix, he's absolutely mesmerising and obviously studied head trauma survivors. Most reviews that I've read seem to be skipping over that aspect and solely focusing on the mental illness, but it's stated several times - from his mothers hospital records we learn that as a child he was found tied to a radiator with "severe head trauma", and the card he hands to the woman on the bus states that his inappropriate laughter is caused by brain injury - and that is a legit symptom of brain injury. Making that the reason for his comic book style laugh was genius. I can understand if some want to keep Joker as a simple agent of chaos without purpose or motive, but if you are going to give him a backstory then this is it for me as it made him so believable and real.


Throughout the promotion of Joker I got the sense that they were trying to somewhat remove Joker from Batman with the many insistences that it was a standalone origin tale, but it was very firmly placed in canon and as a fan of the comic books I loved the side plot with Thomas Wayne. It set up the reasons for why Batman and Joker become arch enemies perfectly, and I loved seeing this other side to Thomas Wayne's character. Usually we only get to see him from Bruce Wayne/Batman's point of view, which is obviously hugely idolised as not only is he his dead father, but Bruce is from the same level of privilege as his father so wouldn't understand the perspective poor people had of him. He sees his father as a good guy who loves his city and wants to do everything he can to help those less fortunate than himself, whereas to Arthur Thomas is an out of touch entitled asshole who stands on the shoulders of poor people whilst referring to them as 'clowns', and possibly has an affair with Arthur's mother which he then covered up when she fell pregnant by having her committed and faking adoption papers - which I know is left up to interpretation, but I believe the photo Arthur finds of his mother as a young woman with a message from Thomas on the back is pretty damning evidence showing that the whole relationship wasn't Penny being delusional, and another example of how the rich can screw over the poor which is obviously a huge theme of the movie. Also, on subsequent viewings I've taken particular notice of Penny's story arc and when Arthur is looking through her medical notes at Arkham it briefly shows a note made by one of the psychiatrists that stated that Penny was insisting "I don't know why I'm here" regarding being committed, and I just really believe her and definitely think that Thomas Wayne is Arthur's dad which makes the whole thing even more tragic. Most reviews seem to think that the subway shooting was when Arthur transformed into the Joker, but personally I think it's when he kills Penny and no longer has anyone looking out for him at all and his realization that he's killed the only person that loved him. She was his final tether to reality, and without her he has no reason not to give in to the Joker side of himself.

I know that there have been a lot of complaints about the character of Joker being sympathised and pointing out all the ways in which he's actually a monster, but I feel like these people are missing the point. The Joker can have a sympathetic origin AND be all kinds of messed up evil, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. It's a sad fact that people who have been victims of abuse don't always stay victims their whole lives, but sometimes go on to become abusers themselves as it's all they've ever known. People are rarely born evil, people are rarely even born mentally ill, they can just be more prone due to family history. And the whole point to the movie in the first place is that if he’d been shown some compassion sooner and gotten the correct help he needed instead of being left facing such extreme loneliness that he literally has delusions of people being nice to him and having positive relationships, had he not continually been abused both individually and by the system, then maybe he wouldn’t have turned out like that. Because as Arthur himself states in the film, you can’t be surprised when mentally ill people go on to exhibit mentally ill behaviour. One of the big turns in the movie is when the mental health funding in Gotham is entirely cut, so the therapy and medication Arthur is taking to help him is cut off. He doesn’t even know where he’d even get his medication any longer. Add to that the casual bullying he suffers in his day-to-day life, from the casual aggression of the woman on the bus even after learning he was disabled, to the assholes on the subway, these people are all too common in real life. If anything comes from the success of this movie, I’d love for it to make people kinder to neurodivergent people instead of shooting dirty looks to outright bullying just because you don't understand. Their dignity and safety is no less important than you feeling a bit uncomfy just because you don’t understand why they’re behaving that way.

Anyway, overall I really loved this movie, I love the character study and it's such a compelling retelling of one of my favourite characters, and the ending takes my breath away every time. I know comic book movies have dominated the box offices for years now, and I've been bored by them for a while. Joker feels like the antithesis to those, a comic book movie that doesn't feel like a comic book movie, and as a fan of comic books I'm all for that honestly.




Back in January I learnt that that there was to be a special screening of Joker with a live Q+A session with writer and director Todd Phillips afterwards, and I couldn't book tickets fast enough! I went to the screening on my own, and honestly had no idea what to expect and was thrilled to see that there were quite a few other girls of my age range there alone too. It was held at the Odeon at Leicester Square which I'd never been to, but I knew that it's the movie theatre where London movie premieres are held so my expectations were pretty high! And honestly I've been spoilt, it was so incredible. My seat was second row so I expected to have to crane my neck looking up at the screen, but all of the seats were full on recliner style chairs with their own little tables attached to the arm rests, so I was able to watch it almost lying down (and even with my legs up there was still about a metre of leg room in front of me!)



Todd came out of a side door at the end of the film and we got half an hour to ask him questions from the audience. I didn't ask him anything as everyone was asking him quite technical and analytical questions, and I felt silly as I'm not analytical so my questions were more about how he saw the plot as the writer - like why does Randall have such a predatory vibe and what's his history with Arthur that provoked him so much, and is Penny telling the truth?

It was really special getting to hear Todd's thoughts and processes, he was very humble and gracious and it just really came across just how much he's put into this movie and how important it is to him. I just really appreciate hearing creatives talk about their passions and see them be so enthusiastic about their creations. He was so kind too; the cinema were trying to hurry him along as they had another booking in the theatre but he kept taking more questions, and he wasn't supposed to do a meet and greet but everyone flooded to the front of the stage at the end and he took the time to sign and take photos with people and speak to them one on one. I managed to get a picture, but because my phone is so old and the movie theatre was dark the image quality is pretty horrible, but it was still such a special moment that I don't even care and am just so happy that I got to have it!

Beep, beep, Richie

I've been a massive fan of Stephen King ever since I first read The Shining when I was 15. I've read most of his work and It has always been one of my favourites. It's the quickest I've ever read 1200 pages, I was gripped from the go. I wasn't familiar with the film version starring Tim Curry when I first read the book, so I didn't really know what I was getting into other than something about a killer clown. Horror is my favourite genre, I'm well acclimatised to it so it's rare for me to feel scared of a book. It is the only one to ever actually give me nightmares.

I'd heard good things about the original 1990 mini-series, but felt let down when I actually saw it. The book wasn't well translated to screen, it just ended up a confusing mess that I wasn't sure I'd of kept up with had I not already read it. The acting was corny, and Pennywise himself absolutely laughable, far too hammed up and not even slightly threatening. I'm sure it was good when it was released, but it hasn't aged well to say the least.

I was excited about the new film as soon as I heard of it, doubly so when I saw the teaser images of Pennywise. It seemed to be quite divisive. Some, like me, absolutely adored the new look. Others said it didn't look friendly enough and lacked the charm of Tim Curry's. As much as I dislike the 1990 version, I understand that view. He doesn't look friendly to kids, which is the entire point of him taking on the guise of a clown. But my biggest issue with the original version though was that he didn't look threatening enough. Him suddenly turning evil just didn't work, it looked like a comedy.

Having now seen the film, I love the new look, and the new film. I'm not usually fond of screen adaptations of Stephen King's work, the only ones I've liked are The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile which aren't really horrors. Most of them just don't work. I know I've only seen it once and am writing this liteally after getting back from the cinema, but I think It is already up there on my favourite movies list. It was that good.

It's been a couple of years since I read the book so my memory isn't as fresh as it could be, but it kept a lot of my favourite scenes and the plot flowed really well. I also prefer that it's been cut into two "chapters" - this film told the story of The Losers Club as kids, when they first discover It. The second will tell the story of when It comes back and they must fight it as adults. The book tells the two stories simultaneously, which works for a book, but not the screen which is where a lot of the original mini series issues lie as it confuses the plot.

I thought it was so well acted by the kids, often children in movies can just come across as obnoxious but everyone was perfect. And I love Pennywise, I'm not familiar with Bill Skarsgård's other work so this was my first introduction to him and I wasn't let down. Despite the previous concerns from other fans that he looked too threatening to appeal to the kids in the first place, he was charming when the role called for it. During the opening scene where he talks to Georgie, it was easy to see why he'd think to trust him. He was jovial and friendly and seemed like the fairground clown you'd expect, but with that ever underlying feeling that somethings off (and not just because he's in a drain!). And when he's haunting the characters he was feral, literally preying on them. His voice, his movements and mannerisms, everything was perfect. The CGI was really seamless to, it felt like he really was moving and elongating and transforming without a single thought of 'well that's not real'. Disbelief completely suspended.

There were the odd bits here and there that I felt could of been stronger or expanded on. Some of the characters could of been developed better (Henry and Mike especially), and I wish they'd spent some more time delving into the history of It and it's hold over Derry. I was so desperate for them to expand more on The Black Spot instead of brushing over it, of It's influence over the adults of the town instead of simply making it so they just can't see him. I also found the objectification of Beverly uncomfortable and how she was used as bait, and missed the overall importance of imagination. But overall there's so much the film gets just right and I'm really happy with it. I can't wait for chapter 2! And maybe with any luck they'll delve more into the horrors of Derry itself in that one (and I must re-read the book again!)

"Bloom and may you live the way your life was meant to be"

I've been in a real Prince of Egypt mood since seeing the stage adaptation at the theatre. It's always been one of my favourite movies ever since I saw it at the cinema as a child, but every time I re-watch it I'm never quite prepared for just how good it is! It's probably one of my favourite soundtracks both in terms of songs and score, the animation is just *chef's kiss* and it hits that sweet spot of blending the 2D with the CGI flawlessly, and I just really love it's treatment of the source material and how sensitive they were with it all.


It made me want to watch Joseph: King of Dreams (2000) which I'd slept on despite knowing it exists. I knew it was a 'sequel' (technically a prequel in terms of story, but a direct-to-video sequel) to The Prince of Egypt but I never realised that both movies shared a lot of the same creative team which gave me hope. I generally avoid animated sequels as Disney have taught me not to trust them, but I'm so glad I gave this one a go! I love it! It made me cry!!

Obviously in comparison to The Prince of Egypt it's never going to hold up - it doesn't have the budget. And it's a shame that it has to exist in that shadow, as it's a wonderful film in it's own merit! Like I said, you can tell it's lower budget by the animation not being quite as smooth in certain areas such the characters movements, the CGI isn't quite as flawlessly blended (Pharaoh's dream is painfully CGI) and I didn't find the soundtrack as memorable initially, although now I'm more familiar with it it's definitely growing on me and has some beautiful lyrics. I just really love this movie and I found it so emotional to watch. I felt so strongly for the injustice Joseph faces and my heart broke for him that he was let down so badly - even if he was a bit conceited at the beginning, it wasn't his fault! And it's made with the same gorgeous style as The Prince of Egypt, with characters who actually look like people of colour.

I've always loved animated movies, and it's great to discover long lost gems like this. If you haven't seen Joseph: King of Dreams, or slept on it like I did because of it's sequel status, I really recommend it. It's one of the best films I've seen recently, and I couldn't help but watch it twice already over the past couple of weeks!

"If your Nerve, deny you - Go above your Nerve" - Emily Dickinson and Cheryl Strayed

I watched Wild (2014) the other day, a film that seems to keep finding me when I need it most. I remember first watching it a few years ago after stumbling across it by accident on a streaming service and thinking it sounded interesting enough to give a go, and it resonated with me so deeply. I forgot all about it, and then vaguely remembered it again a few days ago but couldn't remember what it was called, and it then randomly popped up on Netflix unprompted. It's based on an autobiographical account by Cheryl Strayed, and after her mother dies and her marriage breaks down and she goes on a completely self-destructive streak, she decides to hike 1200 miles from Mexico to Canada to get herself out of it despite having no former hiking experience. And despite making several mistakes along the way and it taking her longer than she initially imagined, she makes it and the introspection she's able to achieve from being on her own for so long allows her to forgive herself for her past so that she's able to move on from it: "What if I forgive myself? What if I was sorry? But if I could go back in time, I wouldn't do a single thing differently. What if I wanted to sleep with every single one of those men? What if heroin taught me something? What if all those things I did were the things that got me here? What if I was never redeemed? What if I already was?"

Although my own personal experiences are nothing like Cheryl's, her journey and the way she tells it feels so personal to me, and it's filled with so many poignant moments and quotes that really touch my soul. It almost makes me want to cut myself off from society and hike like that, but I know more than anything it's inspiring because she's taking control of her own life, despite societal expectations or people thinking she's crazy for doing it or any underlying danger that she may put herself in. She takes that risk and jumps, and becomes a better person for it and watching it feels like a breath of fresh air.

"After I lost myself in the wilderness of my grief, I found my own way out of the woods. And I didn't even know where I was going until I got there, on the last day of my hike. Thank you, I thought over and over again, for everything the trail had taught me and everything I couldn't yet know... I knew only that I didn't need to eat with my bare hands any more. That seeing the fish beneath the surface of the water would be enough, that it was everything. My life, like all lives, mysterious, irrevocable, sacred, so very close, so very present, so very belonging to me. How wild it was, to let it be?"

I want to read the book it's based on, I recognise Cheryl's name from inspiring quotes I've read in the past so I'm looking forward to delving into it and seeing how it compares to the movie. I looked at Cheryl's Instagram account to see what she's like now, which lead me on to Reese Witherspoon's (as she plays Cheryl), and then on to Jennifer Aniston's as she's worked with Reese recently on The Morning Show, and I just felt so inspired by these women how much POSITIVITY they radiate made me feel so full (even Reese's own brand is called 'hello sunshine' which is so perfect). It made me think of bloggers I used to follow with their sunshine-y, Rookie style 'girl gaze' aesthetics, and I realise that I want that, that's exactly the energy I want to radiate. I remember reading once about how Al Pacino acted like he was a movie star before he ever was as he was so confident that he would be one day, and as a natural pessimist I think that kind of assurance is a good energy to send out into the universe. I will achieve the things most important to me, they are within my grasp.