… “You must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber. Nothing but that could’ve called Fawkes to you.” That’s the very first thing Dumbledore thanks and praises Harry for. Not for rescuing Ginny, or saving the school from the basilisk, or for keeping Voldemort from coming back, but for loyalty.
Dumbledore judges the people he works with based first and foremost on how loyal they are to him. Not because he thinks he’s all that, but because, as I said, he views people as game pieces, and you can’t have your game pieces acting up, can you? He values his pieces. He wants to advance and protect them. But he doesn’t want them running off beyond his sphere of influence and doing their own thing. I think there’s something very ambiguous about Dumbledore’s habit of seeking out desperate, socially outcast people and doing them one or two huge favors that leave them bound to him for life. Remus, Hagrid and Snape all fit that pattern, and Trelawney and Firenze appear to join the ranks in OOP. It kind of makes me wonder what Dumbledore has done for Fletcher, Moody and Shacklebolt.
…The problem with Sirius is, he’s not loyal to Dumbledore at all; he’s loyal to Harry. From Dumbledore’s point of view, it’s as if he’s playing wizard chess, and one of the knights suddenly decides that he doesn’t care what happens to the king, he’s just going to take care of that little pawn on the left. So Dumbledore does the only thing he thinks he can do — he sticks his recalcitrant knight into a safe, isolated corner of the board and keeps him from making any moves. Perfectly sensible and strategically sound, as long as you don’t expect your game pieces to have any pesky emotions or psychological issue that need to be taken into account.
…Dumbledore’s actions at Hogwarts are another symptom of his general approach. He doesn’t treat it just as a school, but also as an instrument in his strategy. People like Snape, Hagrid and Trelawny — all lousy teachers, in very different ways — are given their jobs as perks, because of their past of future usefulness to the Order, and because it strengthens their bonds of loyalty to Dumbledore.
OTOH, look at Lupin, who is a talented teacher. Why wasn’t he hired before Harry’s third year, especially given the difficulty of finding qualified DADA professors? My theory is that Dumbledore didn’t consider it necessary. As far as he knew, Lupin was already totally loyal simply because Dumbledore had allowed him to attend Hogwarts. There was no need to bribe him with a job. He was hired only when his familiarity with Sirius became an important factor. Once Sirius proved not to be a threat, Lupin was allowed to resign…"
THIS IS SO GREAT AND SO INTERESTING AND EVEN MORE SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT SNAPE’S STORYLINE AND HERE’S WHY
Just look at Dumbledore’s behavior in The Prince’s Tale - especially at the contrast between before and after Snape agreed to help him defeat Voldemort. There’s so much emotional manipulation, so much that Dumbledore is doing to keep Snape on his side.
“That is why – it is for that reason – he thinks it means Lily Evans!”
“The prophecy did not refer to a woman,” said Dumbledore. “It spoke of a boy born at the end of July – ”
“You know what I mean! He thinks it means her son, he is going to hunt her down – kill them all – ”
“If she means so much to you,” said Dumbledore, “surely Lord Voldemort will spare her? Could you not ask for mercy for the mother, in exchange for the son?”
“I have – I have asked him – ”
“You disgust me,” said Dumbledore, and Harry had never heard so much contempt in his voice. Snape seemed to shrink a little, “You do not care, then, about the deaths of her husband and child? They can die, as long as you have what you want?”
That line, the “you disgust me” line is SO IMPORTANT. Contrary to popular belief, Dumbledore doesn’t find Snape’s
obsessionlove for Lily beautiful; he finds it disgusting - and understandably so. Because she “means so much” to Snape that he’s willing to sacrifice her family, and therefore happiness, in order to keep her alive. And, frankly, that’s gross. Dumbledore agrees.
“Hide them all, then,” he croaked. “Keep her – them – safe. Please.”
“And what will you give me in return, Severus?”
“In – in return?” Snape gaped at Dumbledore, and Harry expected him to protest, but after a long moment he said, “Anything.”
Aaaaaand Dumbledore gets himself the perfect soldier - someone who is willing to do anything.
“I thought…you were going…to keep her…safe…”
“She and James put their faith in the wrong person,” said Dumbledore. “Rather like you, Severus. Weren’t you hoping that Lord Voldemort would spare her?”
Also really important. Dumbledore was supposed to protect her, keep her alive, and it didn’t work out and that greatly puts Snape’s loyalty at risk. So what does Dumbledore do? Deflect. He places the blame on Snape and Voldemort here - which, I’m pretty much with him here because Snape did tell Voldemort the prophecy and Voldemort did personally kill the Potters. But this isn’t about that. This is strategy. Keep Snape guilty and keep the blame off Dumbledore by having this whole “well there was nothing I could do” stance and thereby keep Snape both vulnerable and loyal. Make Voldemort the real enemy, someone that Snape would be willing to do anything to fight against at all cost.
“Her boy survives,” said Dumbledore.
With a tiny jerk of the head, Snape seemed to flick off an irksome fly.
“Her son lives. He has her eyes, precisely her eyes. You remember the shape and color of Lily Evans’s eyes, I am sure?”
“DON’T!” bellowed Snape. “Gone…dead…”
“Is this remorse, Severus?”
“I wish…I wish I were dead…”
“And what use would that be to anyone?” said Dumbledore coldly. “If you loved Lily Evans, if you truly loved her, then your way forward is clear.”
Okay so Dumbledore is definitely using Snape’s love for Lily against him - I think we can all agree with that. I mean look at how he’s referring to her as “Lily Evans” rather than as her married name, “Lily Potter.” Dumbledore has a very tough sell here; he wants Snape to help him protect the child of someone Snape loves and someone he hates. So he takes James out of the equation and it’s all about Harry’s eyes and how much they look like Lily’s and Evans. And then he takes Snape’s love and gives it a purpose.
“You know how and why she died. Make sure it was not in vain. Help me protect Lily’s son.”
“He does not need protection. The Dark Lord has gone – ”
“The Dark Lord will return, and Harry Potter will be in terrible danger when he does.”
There was a long pause, and slowly Snape regained control of himself, mastered his own breathing. At last he said, “Very well. Very well. But never – never tell, Dumbledore! This must be between us! Swear it! I cannot bear…especially Potter’s son…I want your word!”
“My word, Severus, that I shall never reveal the best of you?” Dumbledore sighed, looking down into Snape’s ferocious, anguished face.
Before it was disgusting, but now that Snape’s agreed to help him, has pledged his loyalty, Snape’s love is now ~the best part of him~
“ – mediocre, arrogant as his father, a determined rule-breaker, delighted to find himself famous, attention-seeking and impertinent – ”
“You see what you expect to see, Severus,” said Dumbledore, without raising his eyes from a copy of Transfiguration Today . “Other teachers report that the boy is modest, likable, and reasonably talented. Personally, I find him an engaging child.”
Dumbledore turned a page, and said, without looking up, “Keep an eye on Quirrell, won’t you?”
Snape is only seeing James’ worst qualities in Harry (which tbh first year Harry definitely did not have) so Dumbledore brings up qualities that were, actually, found in and associated with Lily to placate him. Because Dumbledore’s biggest challenge is to make Snape forget that James is Harry’s father. He then follows this up with a request.
“Karkaroff’s Mark is becoming darker too. He is panicking, he fears retribution; you know how much help he gave the Ministry after the Dark Lord fell.” Snape looked sideways at Dumbledore’s crooked-nosed profile. “Karkaroff intends to flee if the Mark burns.”
“Does he?” said Dumbledore softly, as Fleur Delacour and Roger Davies came giggling in from the grounds. “And are you tempted to join him?”
“No,” said Snape, his black eyes on Fleur’s and Roger’s retreating figures. “I am not such a coward.”
“No,” agreed Dumbledore. “You are a braver man by far than Igor Karkaroff. You know, I sometimes think we Sort too soon…”
He walked away, leaving Snape looking stricken…
Whether you believe it or not, both Sirius and Remus have said that Snape was jealous of James - of his popularity, his talents, all the glory he received, etc. And a lot of those things are perks from being a brave Gryffindor rather than an “evil” Slytherin. Dumbledore is capitalizing on that, on Snape’s secret desires. He’s manipulating Snape because wow he thinks he’s brave, he thinks he’s brave enough to even be a mighty Gryffindor - something I’m sure no one has even told him before. Something he’d never admit to secretly reveling in because he grew up unloved and unwanted. But it keeps him loyal, keeps him close to Dumbledore.
“I am fortunate, extremely fortunate, that I have you, Severus.”
The power of being complimentary, my friends, is not focused on enough. (And I’m not trying to take away from the fact that Snape is a talented wizard, because I do think that, but Dumbledore is so totally manipulating him come on. What makes me say that? Because not long afterwards does he segue into asking Snape to kill him)
“In short, the boy has had a death sentence pronounced upon him as surely as I have,” said Dumbledore. “Now, I should have thought the natural successor to the job, once Draco fails, is yourself?”
There was a short pause.
“That, I think, is the Dark Lord’s plan.”
“Lord Voldemort foresees a moment in the near future when he will not need a spy at Hogwarts?”
“He believes the school will soon be in his grasp, yes.”
“And if it does fall into his grasp,” said Dumbledore, almost, it seemed, as an aside, “I have your word that you will do all in your power to protect the students at Hogwarts?”
Snape gave a stiff nod.
Great, Dumbledore has not only a spy, but an heir.
“He is his father over again – ”
“In looks, perhaps, but his deepest nature is much more like his mother’s. I spend time with Harry because I have things to discuss with him, information I must give him before it is too late.”
Harry actually shares plenty of traits with James - and based on how he’s spoken of James in the past, Dumbledore liked him. (And why wouldn’t he? Not only is James amazing
jkalsdsalkdjasldaskdhbut he was very loyal to Dumbledore) So this is for Snape’s benefit. Again, he’s keeping him under control by bringing Lily into the equation and make Harry worthy enough, in Snape’s eyes, to protect.
“Information,” repeated Snape. “You trust him…you do not trust me.”
“It is not a question of trust. I have, as we both know, limited time. It is essential that I give the boy enough information for him to do what he needs to do.”
“And why may I not have the same information?”
“I prefer not to put all of my secrets in one basket, particularly not a basket that spends so much time dangling on the arm of Lord Voldemort.”
“Which I do on your orders!”
“And you do it extremely well. Do not think that I underestimate the constant danger in which you place yourself, Severus. To give Voldemort what appears to be valuable information while withholding the essentials is a job I would entrust to nobody but you.”
“Yet you confide much more in a boy who is incapable of Occlumency, whose magic is mediocre, and who has a direct connection into the Dark Lord’s mind!”
Dumbledore is clearly making Snape angry and I don’t think it’s necessarily intentional. But I do think he’s trying to make sure that Snape desires and values his trust over Voldemort’s. I mean, I’m sure he’s double checked that he has Snape’s loyalty before, but it’s safe to keep checking every now and then. But then this happens:
Snape looked angry, mutinous. Dumbledore sighed.
“Come to my office tonight, Severus, at eleven, and you shall not complain that I have no confidence in you…”
MUTINOUS IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT WORD. DUMBLEDORE IS AT RISK OF LOSING THE BEST AND MOST ESSENTIAL PIECE TO HIS GAME, HIS MVP, SO HE HAS TO REEL HIM BACK IN.
“So the boy…the boy must die?” asked Snape quite calmly.
“And Voldemort himself must do it, Severus. That is essential.”
Another long silence. Then Snape said, “I thought…all those years…that we were protecting him for her. For Lily.”
Snape is currently reevaluating his life and all of his choices. Because he thinks, if not for Lily, then what is the point of protecting Harry Potter? Why is he fighting this war? Why is he on Dumbledore’s side?
“We have protected him because it has been essential to teach him, to raise him, to let him try his strength,” said Dumbledore, his eyes still tight shut. “Meanwhile, the connection between them grows ever stronger, a parasitic growth. Sometimes I have thought he suspects it himself. If I know him, he will have arranged matters so that when he does set out to meet his death, it will truly mean the end of Voldemort.”
Dumbledore opened his eyes. Snape looked horrified.
“You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment?”
“Don’t be shocked, Severus. How many men and women have you watched die?”
“Lately, only those whom I could not save,” said Snape. He stood up. “You have used me.”
Indeed he has! And after all this time, you’ve finally caught on!
“I have spied for you and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter’s son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter – ”
Uh-oh no longer Lily Evans - now she is Potter, now she and everything that’s a part of her (i.e. her son) is tainted by James. Still worth protecting? Still worth sacrificing and risking so much for? Apparently yes because this happens:
“But this is touching, Severus,” said Dumbledore seriously. “Have you grown to care for the boy, after all?”
“For him?” shouted Snape. “ Expecto Patronum!”
From the tip of his wand burst the silver doe. She landed on the office floor, bounded once across the office, and soared out of the window. Dumbledore watched her fly away, and as her silvery glow faded he turned back to Snape, and his eyes were full of tears.
“After all this time?”
“Always,” said Snape.
Okay so obviously, if you hadn’t already caught on, Snape isn’t doing all of this for the cause or because he’s repenting for being a Death Eater. It’s all for Lily. The woman he helped kill. I beg you to not find that romantic. Remember Dumbledore’s "you disgust me"? That’s pretty much how I feel about Snape, and I suspect that Dumbledore still feels that way. Because, as valuable as he is, Snape has not changed. And I guess it doesn’t bother him at all if he’s risked and sacrificed so much for a child who will die anyway if it was all for her.
After all this time, you still do not see the value of protecting an innocent child? Always. After all this time you still cannot let go of a woman who never loved you romantically? Always. After all this time, you’re still fighting against Voldemort because he killed Lily and not because you believe in muggle-born rights? Always. Dumbledore had to have known this - I mean he’d been using Snape’s love for Lily against him for how long? But I’m sure it still saddened him.
Anyway, “The Prince’s Tale” is a brilliant example of Dumbledore’s manipulation and how he used it to win a war. This is where we see him really in action - and it’s fascinating. Because this is the power of loyalty - how Dumbledore could get a Death Eater so firmly on his side that he continues to do Dumbledore’s work for him after his own death. That’s powerful.
And that’s why Voldemort’s fucking scared of him. I’m kind of scared of him.
OKAY. Some of this I agree with, but the majority I do not, because I think it’s vastly more complicated than this.
What JKR is doing is setting her various characters, principally Dumbledore, Voldemort, Snape, Lupin, Hermione, and Harry, up as models of various different moral standpoints. Voldemort is Fascist, Niezschian, focused entirely upon power; Dumbledore is utilitarian; Snape is amoral; Lupin is rational; Hermione is egalitarian; and Harry operates according to the principles of free will, compassion, and self-sacrifice. Ultimately, of course, the narrative upholds Harry’s moral standpoint over the others, which are each (with the possible exception of Hermione’s) viewed as problematic in their own ways; but JKR also shows that Harry’s morality alone would not have been enough to overthrow Voldemort, and that Dumbledore’s utilitarianism, despite being criticized almost constantly throughout the final book, is necessary if Harry wishes to save millions of lives.
Dumbledore’s character is not simply that of a devout manipulator: he has a strong moral compass, a compass focused upon kindness, compassion, wisdom, pacifism, and the championing of oppressed minorities - not, as the OP seems to think, purely for strategic reasons (is Trelawney really going to be that useful to him? Or Hagrid? Hagrid is more of a hindrance than a help, strategically - do you really believe that Dumbledore’s character is this simplistic?), but because he feels the extent of his crimes when he was younger; and because he has a strong desire to alleviate suffering. Unfortunately, he exists in a world wherein Voldemort’s resources far outnumber his, and wherein he is the only wizard powerful and intelligent enough to seek out ways to defeat him. And so - with regret, frequently with tears, ALWAYS with the novel commenting on his sense of guilt and shame - he repeatedly commits morally questionable acts.
Some of them - such as committing Harry to a childhood of abuse and neglect with the Dursleys, or keeping Sirius imprisoned in a place that holds traumatic memories for him - prioritise life over quality of life (no, Dumbledore isn’t merely trying to ‘control’ Sirius - he would have no problem with Sirius prioritising Harry over himself if it wasn’t likely to get Sirius killed). This is clearly problematic, not least because it curtails free will, but it also doesn’t have an easy answer - when do you decide that quality of life is so low it’s worth critically endangering the life itself? Other decisions, like the blatant emotional manipulation and withholding of information, are made for ‘the greater good’, the central principle of utilitarianism; for Dumbledore, the ends justifies the means. This approach is criticized consistently throughout the books: it is associated strongly with Grindelwald, who is a Hitler figure, and Harry outright rejects it every time it comes up. Dumbledore himself finds it morally problematic: in King’s Cross he tells Harry that ‘you cannot despise me more than I despise myself’, and he refers to Aberforth - the Aberforth who told Harry that he shouldn’t feel obliged to see through Dumbledore’s strategy, that he should leave the country and save his own life - as ‘infinitely more admirable’ than himself. Ultimately, however, he makes a choice - it is worth manipulating, endangering, even destroying, a small number of lives, if the end result is freedom from a Fascist tyrant.
Harry, of course, would never have made this choice. But the novel concedes that if Dumbledore hadn’t been a utilitarian, Harry’s morality alone would not have defeated Voldemort, and many more people would have lived in oppression and fear, and died horribly. Harry himself endorses Dumbledore’s position at the critical moment: his act of self-sacrifice represents the cross-over between his own morality and Dumbledore’s, as he perceives the necessity of offering up innocent life (something he is fundamentally opposed to), and agrees to it due to his own self-sacrificial nature. Time and time again throughout the series, Harry objects to utilitarian decisions: he refuses to allow Aberforth to keep Slytherin students as hostages, saves Pettigrew’s life (and attempts to do so again in Malfoy Manor), gives himself away by protecting the life of the Imperiused Stan Shunpike, and refuses to regret it afterwards, despite the fact that he and Hagrid nearly die as a direct result. Eventually, however, he accepts the necessity of spilling innocent blood for ‘the greater good’ - even if, being Harry, he does so only because the blood belongs to him.
(Incidentally, people seem to forget that Dumbledore had a very strong suspicion that Harry wouldn’t die. His crime, imo, isn’t that he realises and accepts that Harry is a Horcrux and must die to defeat Voldemort - his crime is withholding that information, along with the knowledge that Harry will probably survive an attempted suicide, from Harry (and Snape) until the crucial moment, forcing them to suffer, incur significant emotional damage, and risk their lives without fully understanding the situation and their role within it. Of course, the protective charm cast by Harry’s attempted suicide would not work if Harry knew he might survive - but the decision that this is worth the emotional turmoil Harry undergoes is deeply problematic.)
In the end, Dumbledore is a problematic character because he prioritizes people’s strategic use over their own free will. JKR engages with this idea again and again, and is enormously critical of it; but the novels’ complexity comes from the fact that it is also shown to be necessary to defeating Voldemort. If every character in the novels behaved in the same manner as Harry, Ron, Sirius, and James, the outcome is easy to forsee: a short and noble resistance, ending with the murder and torture of the Order members and their families, followed by a long and violent Fascist regime. Harry is able to consistently act more or less within his own moral compass (culminating in the use of expelliarmus over avada kedavra) BECAUSE Dumbledore has butchered his own. In many ways, Dumbledore sacrifices himself in a deeper way than Harry, James, Lily, Sirius, Lupin, and Tonks: he sacrifices his own ideals, his own impulses towards compassion and love, for the sake of save-guarding those impulses in Harry. And that’s problematic, it’s disturbing, it’s depressing; but it’s not simple, and it’s not, I don’t think, entirely a reason to demonize Dumbledore.
TL;DR: it may seem cool and revisionist, but misreading HP characters by removing their actions from their context (IN THE MIDDLE OF A SOCIALIST UPRISING AGAINST A FASCIST DICATOR) and recasting them as straightforwardly selfish or selfless actually acts to dehumanize them. Which is, you know. Kind of problematic in its own way.
3.15 // 7.05
I was going to ramble in some tags but then they got too long so here we are. The juxtaposition of these two scenes is so lovely in a brief gifset but there are layers and layers of significance just begging to be pulled out.
Because the intentions in these two scenes, they’re similar in a lot of ways but different in a really big, really important way. The rest of Faith’s quote goes like this:
Faith: But that’s not it. That’s not what bothers you so much. What bugs you is you know I’m right. You know in your gut we don’t need the law. We are the law.
This episode comes right after the one where Faith murders the Mayor’s helper. In some ways she’s trying to justify her actions to herself—I killed a man, but it’s okay because I make my own rules and I say it’s okay—but mostly she’s trying to justify herself to Buffy.
Buffy, on the other hand, proclaims herself to be the law during “Selfless”, when the Scoobies are arguing about what to do with Anya’s resurgence as a vengeance demon, and it goes like this (emphasis mine):
Buffy: It is always different! It’s always complicated. And at some point, someone has to draw the line, and that is always going to be me. You get down on me for cutting myself off, but in the end the slayer is always cut off. There’s no mystical guidebook. No all-knowing council. Human rules don’t apply. There’s only me. I am the law.
Faith calls herself the law in hindsight. Her brand of the law is an excuse, a retroactive explanation for any wrongdoing she commits. Break into a sports store? It’s okay—I’m the Slayer, I need weapons. Cut out of school early? I’m sure there are vampires somewhere, and I’m the Slayer. Accidentally kill someone? No big, I thought he was a vamp. I’m the Slayer. If it were up to Faith to activate all the Potentials, she would have no qualms about their learning process turning out to be a little bumpy and a lot raucous. She grows and matures through her arc on Angel and her return to Buffy, but Faith is first and foremost a law unto herself. She has her set of rules and it’s no skin off her bones if people don’t follow them.
Buffy, by contrast, is the law. There is no council of arbiters; there are no discussions; the fate of demons is not a democracy. Buffy is the Slayer, and she is their fate. Perhaps partly inspired by Faith’s spiral into the dark side of things, Buffy uses her power as power rather than a personal whim. Faith is the law to break rules; Buffy is the law to set them. She purposely and oftentimes at the risk of great personal loss uses her status as the Slayer to not only set limits but also to enforce them. At the end of the day, Buffy is the Slayer and Anya is a demon and there’s only one way to handle that situation.
That isn’t to say that either of them are right because I could go on for paaaaaages about how wrong both of them are. But I love how these two act as foils for each other. They started off as two sides to the same coin, fully separated when Faith murdered the Mayor’s deputy, and now, if you take into account the S8/9 comics, Faith and Buffy are what happen when you tilt that coin in and out of the light.
Same coin, you just see different things.
nakedsasquatch it’s ya man
Okay but seriously folks - as often as I joke about this movie stirs my loins and as weirdly popular as this text post got a while back, I wanna rap with you all about why the George of the Jungle remake is a pretty important piece of cinema.
It’s literally the only movie I can think of that is based completely around the unheard of “FEMALE gaze.” Granted, while I’m a huge movie buff I’ve not seen every movie ever made. But even so, even if there’s another example of the “female gaze” in cinema that has escaped me it’s still damn impressive that a kids movie from 1997 based on a Jay Ward cartoon from the 60’s managed to turn gender representation in media on it’s fucking ass!
Let me just say that while Leslie Mann is adorable and a talented actress, she does look a little less conventional and a little more plain compared to the bombshells that Hollywood likes to churn out. Leslie, in comparison, looks much more like a real women you’d meet on the street. She dresses pretty conservatively and plain throughout the film ; Wearing outfits that are more functional than fashionable for trekking through the jungle, pulling her hair back and so forth. Not that if she was dolled up and more scantily clad it would give her character any less integrity, but can we appreciate how RARE that is in the male dominated industry of film? Just think about all the roads a film about a woman in the jungle COULD have taken but didn’t - no scenes with her clothes strategically ripped or anything! You can say this is a kids movie, intended for children and that’s why the sensuality of the female lead is so downplayed but there are PLENTY of kids movies that handle women in a very objectifying and sexualized manner despite the target audience is pre-pubescent. Like, a disgusting amount. So I don’t think “it’s a kids movie” is why the film doesn’t take ANY, let alone EVERY, opportunity to showcase the main female character’s sex appeal…
…especially considering the sex appeal of the film rests squarely on the well defined shoulders of our male lead, George of the Jungle played by Brendan Fraser in the best god damn shape of his life!
*Homer Simpson Drooling Noises*
Whenever members of the reddit community try to compare the sexualization of women in fiction to the design of characters such as Batman and Superman, I always want to just sit them down and show them this movie. Because THIS is what the female sexual fantasy looks like, and Batman and Superman are male power-fantasies. Look at him - his big blue eyes, his soft hair, his lean, chiseled physique built for dexterity rather than power. He’s wild and free, but gentle. It’s like he fell right out of that steamy romance novel your mom tried to hide from you growing up.
Hell, the whole plot seems to be designed around how damn hot he is! First, for the majority of the film, he wears only a small strip of cloth to cover the dick balls and ass. Everything else is FAIR GAME to drool over for 40 minutes. Then, after he meets Ursula she takes him with her to San Francisco just so we can enjoy him in a well-tailored suit (as seen in the gif set), running around in an open and billowy shirt along side horses while Ursula and all of her friends literally crowd around and make sexual comments about him, and my personal favorite, ditch the loincloth entirely and have him walk around naked while covering his man-bits with various objects while one of Ursula’s very lucky friends oogles him and makes a joke along the lines of “So THAT’S why they call him the ‘KING of the Jungle’…”
And yes, it’s also a very cute and funny little movie. Out of all the movies based on Jay Ward cartoons, it was the most faithful to the fast-paced humor and wit of the original source material (yes even the new Peabody and Sherman movie which honestly I thought was too cutesy-poo.) But that’s not why this movie is popular with the gay community or why we all became women in 1997. It’s just really cool that there’s a film out there where the sensuality of the female form takes a back seat for the oiled up, chiseled, physique of Brendan Fraser (in his prime that is)
One thing to add: in the scene mentioned above where the ladies are watching him in the billowy shirt running with the horses, it pans back to about 50 feet away to two guys in suits at this party looking at the women and one of the guys says, “Man, what is it with women and horses?” So not only does this movie highlight the female gaze, but it blatantly points out that western male sensibilities don’t have a clue what actually appeals to women.
yes hello i would like to talk about how elsa throwing away her crown is one of my favorite sequences of animation in the entire film
it’s just so incredibly expressive, and even though it’s only a few seconds long, there is such an amazing progression of emotion in her face and body language, it’s nuts.
she starts out staring ahead of her, expression tight, as the idea begins to form in her mind (1). she takes off her crown and looks at it— and for a moment she makes this face like she doesn’t even know what she’s feeling (2). and then the anguish creeps into her expression, the weight of what it represents setting in in full: the life she’ll be leaving behind, the duty she’ll abandon (3). elsa looks down at it and she sets her jaw (4) and for a solid second her face is pure resentment, because she is seeing exactly what this crown stands for, and to her in this moment, it is nothing but a horrible, horrible burden.
and then she bares her teeth (5) in something between a grimace and a grin, something primal and wild that’s never crossed her face before and never crosses it again, brought on by the wide-eyed realization that she doesn’t need to carry this burden anymore. there’s anger at the life she’s been made to live, and there’s joy at finding the freedom to finally leave it behind. it almost seems triumphant. ‘take that.’
the moment she moves to throw it away (6, 7), the anger dissipates, all the negative emotion is gone, and only pure, unadulterated glee remains. when you get a good look at her face (8) her eyebrows are quirked up in a way that looks like she herself can’t quite contain the joy she is feeling, doesn’t know how to process this weight being cast off her shoulders.
and she is so excited and so light and so free, that in the end of it, she does a hop. she balls her hands up at the sides of her body and screws her eyes shut through the force of her grin and she fucking hops, it is so childlike and alive and fantastic.
goddamn i love this sequence so much.
Can we just talk about when Elsa remade Olaf during the Let It Go sequence?
The entire number is very much about Elsa casting aside the restrictions and fears she’d been living with, allowing herself the freedom to do as she wants with her power, to create what she wants, and to feel things that she couldn’t let herself feel. So it resonates so strongly with me during the sequence that after a few snowflakes, the first thing Elsa really creates with her power is a snowman.
Not just any snowman, but a replica of the snowman she’d built with Anna before their lives had changed so drastically.
Elsa spent years staying away from Anna and though the movie does well to showcase just how much Elsa loves her sister, I think her creation of Olaf really drives home just how strong that love is.
In a single moment she uses her magic to create this snowman and then she continues on building this amazing castle without even realizing that the snowman, the tribute to an old memory of a time before all the closed doors and heartache, had come to life.
And not only did Olaf become a living being, but he became one who smiled almost constantly, who loved warm hugs and the thought of blue skies in summer. He found his way right to Anna, to the person who mattered so much to Elsa, and throughout the whole of the film you can see that Olaf cares for Anna a great deal. He latched on to her easily, followed her on her journey, cared for her well-being, and was willing to melt to stay beside Anna when she was in trouble.
It may have been unintentional on her part upon his creation during Let It Go, but I believe Olaf was very much a manifestation of Elsa’s love for her sister. The moment she stops holding herself back is the moment when she gives life and warmth to something she built based on a memory and because of that, regardless of his silliness and his comic relief role, I think Olaf is not only an incredibly important part of Frozen, but also an important part of the relationship between the two sisters. Elsa really did want to build a snowman during all of those lonely years, wanted to build one with Anna, and when she leaves her life behind after her powers are exposed, building a snowman is the first thing she does.
I dunno if they thought of all this when they made the movie or more specifically when they made Olaf, but it just comes across to me as another method of showcasing the bond between Elsa and Anna.
And holy crap does it give me feels.
This movie, good god.
I think it must be a thing that if you have ice powers and white hair that you must have a flashback to a painful memory involving the younger sister you love dearly that is done via transition through the eyes
Except I’ll bet anything that Elsa’s constantly lived her life in triggering flashbacks. Her entire way of life is structured around that moment, practically guaranteeing PTDS attacks and symptoms on a daily basis.
There’s never been one moment that she forgot and I’ll bet you fifty bucks she had an episode right here, too:
It happens much more quickly than the time in the ice castle, but let’s pause to remember how these things actually work. In real life and in real time, we don’t get flashback montages, people just get waves of crippling panic and fear that attack in an instant. It’s all happening in the breath of a second for Elsa. The instant she remembers why it can’t be like this all the time is because she sees Anna fall all over again (and again and again and again) and it sobers Elsa instantly. There’s a tiny sliver of abject fear in Elsa’s eyes as they widen before regret and sadness take over once more. But it’s there and it’s what strengthens her resolve to shut Anna out once more, even though it kills her.
It’s there. My god, it’s there.
Look closely. The focus of her eyes shift, while still looking at her sister. Her irises shift minutely to the side while her eyelids widen. Then she drops her gaze downward and further to the side, before lowering her eyelids again.
It’s only a sliver of a second, but it is there.
In succession, we have the following eye movements, and their related cognitive significance:
Eyes Straight Ahead, but Defocused or Dilated: Quick access of almost any sensory information; but usually visual.
Eyes Lateral Left: Non-dominant hemisphere auditory processing - i.e., remembered sounds, words, and “tape loops” and tonal discrimination.
Eyes Down and Left: Internal dialogue, or inner self-talk.
The memory of seeing Anna falling lifeless to the floor.
The memory of her own voice, crying out in terror.
The heart-wrenching cycle of denial, regret and guilt played back through her inner voice.
And all of this is rendered through a fictional, computer-generated character in a fictional, computer-generated movie.
All of this was constructed, frame by frame, by the character animators figuring out Elsa’s visual portrayal.
HOLY FUCKING CHRIST, DISNEY.
Confession: I started this post shortly after Warehouse 13’s season 4 finale and I was so caught up in feelings I couldn’t think properly, and even now, I still can’t think properly but I just…ugh. THIS SHOW. THESE CHARACTERS. I love everyone so much. SO before you read, just know, most of this was me spastically feels-vomiting everywhere and even this doesn’t do it justice. The end.
I remember reblogging a post on here shortly after the finale aired, about how a newer generation of Warehouse agents is gradually filling the shoes and roles of those before them, and it was said that Myka would be like the new Artie, the brains of the Warehouse.
So as much as I love Claudia and Artie’s dynamic I equally love Myka and Artie’s dynamicbecause Artie is the father figure Myka neededand Myka is the daughter Artie would have been proud to call his heir.
Willow and Warren come from similar beginnings, two kids branded as nerds and bullied until they crave control, crave power over people after years of powerlessness- and they find that in magic and in technology, in their ability to create facsimiles and alter the things they want. It’s in wiping Tara and Katrina’s minds, forcing them to be perfect only in their approval of their [ex-]lovers, it’s in how they resent Buffy when given a taste of power, it’s in how that power is a drug that brings them to greater and greater extremes until they’re willing to rape and kill without giving it a second thought.
And that’s why Warren is the perfect warmup band to Willow’s main act in Season 6, because contained within him is the same dark resentment for past injustices and the same gleeful embrace of disregard for those who care about him. Willow becomes Warren as the season progresses, Willow gets in touch with that same power and is drunk on it, and Willow’s reproof of Warren’s treatment of Katrina is a commentary on the wrongs she herself had committed re: Tara.
It’s vital to her arc that she recognizes this darkness, that she comes into contact with it again and sees that she isn’t all that different from Warren after all. And that’s what The Killer in Me does, more than anything- Willow literally turns into Warren and faces her own demons there and the person she’d very nearly become. And only once she can actually come to terms with those similarities can she overcome them at last.
#it wasn’t just season 6 too - you could see her selfish/manipulative behavior popping up far before #like in s4 with willow’s my-will-will-be-done spell and also s3 with the delusting #other moments too where you see willow seize power and use magic to suit her wants #because she’s been without power for a long time and then she had it and it was easy #easier than handling things in a grown-up way #don’t get me wrong - i love willow #only thing i don’t love is that her s6 arc has a focus on magic as the source of her addiction #rather than a focus on her own controlling personality #where magic is just the mechanism that lets her use power #i don’t like it because it externalizes her problem #so yeah i think there was some missed opportunity there for a stellar interesting terrifying arc #and then a hard wonderful redemption arc in s7 which sadly we only got bits of because of the season’s focus on other characters #imagine how fantastic that would be!
The 5 times Sokka forgot Toph was blind and the 2 times he didn’t.
See, this is another thing I love about this show. They do an ace job with Toph, treating her blindness as just another facet of her character, but they also show how the rest of the gang learns to adapt around her.
By framing it in the act of forgetting, they make a couple major statements. First is that Toph is so capable, the others actually forget she cannot see. Her blindness is far from a disability; it is actually the reason she is BETTER than everyone else. Second, by making fun of Sokka or Katara or even Aang for forgetting that she is blind, they’re saying that sometimes, even good people, people we love, can say and do hurtful things without meaning to, and it is their fault for not checking their privilege. Sure it is couched in humor, because Toph is freakin hilarious, but it is always the others’ fault for forgetting, and the writers always allow Toph to call them out on it, from overt actions to passing comments about the dark. Finally, by eventually turning the joke around by letting characters grow and Toph be wrong about assuming they have forgotten, the show is saying that, hey, you can all learn to deal with those differences. You can be cognizant of the limitations of others have that you don’t, without being assholes about it. And no, you aren’t too young to learn that now.
And that is one of the coolest things this show has ever done. Toph’s blindess is never something that makes her any less capable than Suki or Sokka. Instead, sight just becomes an ability not all people have, the same way element bending is an ability not all people have. Toph, Suki and Sokka grow to recognize the opportunites that come with each person’s set of abilities and work together to maxmize what they can do and let others compensate for what they can’t, and because of that, mere children are able to take down a huge Fire Nation fleet bent on mass destruction. For any kids watching, both the ones with physical and mental disabilities and the ones who don’t know how to act around them, that is a huge fucking lesson to learn.
i don’t accept any of this. i don’t accept that helena would ever try for a normal life. i don’t accept that helena would ever want to settle down with a man and a child. i don’t accept that helena would be that cold to myka. i don’t accept that helena would care more about saving a kid than she would myka. i don’t accept that helena would care more about a guy she’s only known for six months than a woman she’s known for years, a woman who has literally saved helena from herself. i don’t accept that helena could willing let the woman who knows her better than anyone else go. i don’t accept that helena would let myka walk away from her. i don’t accept this. i can not and i will not accept it. fuck all of you in the writers room.
I DO NOT ACCEPT THAT HELENA G WELLS - WOMAN SUFFRAGIST WHO LOVED MYKA BECAUSE SHE IS THE KIND OF WOMAN IN THE PRESENT THAT HELENA WANTED TO BE IN THE PAST - WOULD GIVE UP HER DREAMS OF WOMEN DOING AMAZING THINGS [WAAH, WORDS ESCAPE ME] FOR THIS LIFE OF DOMESTICITY
Except that its NOT H.G. Wells. You guys she is literally NOT HERSELF. Its more than just the need to hide her initials. She could have been “Helena Wells” and not raised suspicion. She chose the name that was IN NO WAY HER.
The thing people keep forgetting I think is that HELENA IS STILL NOT OK. She is STILL not over the death of her daughter and SHE AND MYKA HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY FUCKING DISCUSSED WHAT THEY ARE TO EACH OTHER. So here is this connection between these two women, strong enough TO STOP ONE FROM DESTROYING THE WORLD, and then again, to get her to SACRIFICE herself to save Myka (and the world) again, but she never has any time to deal with that connection, to come to terms with what it means.
The last time Helena felt that strongly about someone that someone was murdered and HELENA KIND OF TRIED TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.
So now we see “Emily Lake.” And Emily Lake is boring and normal. Emily Lake loves a safe man and has a daughter and a boring job and she gets driven to work every day. BECAUSE THAT IS AS FAR AWAY FROM THE WAREHOUSE AND MYKA AS SHE COULD GET. It is SO far away from a love that probably scares the shit out of her, a relationship that - as much as I think Helena WANTS it - is STILL in her mind tied up with TRYING TO (but being talked down from) ENDING THE WORLD.
And remember, Artie may have TOLD her about sacrificing herself to save the Warehouse but she didn’t LIVE it. FOR HELENA G. WELLS, STRONG EMOTIONS STILL MAKE HER DANGEROUS TO THOSE AROUND HER, ESPECIALLY THOSE PEOPLE SHE LOVES.
So yeah. H.G. Wells would NEVER do the things we saw in this episode.
BUT as far as I’m concerned, that WASN’T H.G. Wells. That was Helena, trying SO VERY HARD to run from herself.
And she’s going to fail.
And she’s going to go back to her truth. Which is the Warehouse and Myka.
And until the final episode airs I refuse to believe otherwise.
Oh, okay, wow so this quote is basically amazing and here’s why:
“The whole sad point is nobody would notice if I died.” That’s it. That’s Sarah and what she thinks of herself at the beginning of the show. No one would notice. That’s why she left [insert fictional city name] at the drop of a hat - she thought so little of herself that she figured leaving wouldn’t affect anyone. And, I suspect, she went with Vic because she thought he was the only one who did care, and put up with a lot of his shit because of this belief.
But people did notice, a fact that comes crashing back down on Sarah when she sees Felix, Kira, and Mrs S again. She’s cast herself as a loner, but she does have people who love and care about her, and it’s in incurring the wrath of their anger/hurt/disappointment that she finally starts to figure this out. Her existence does matter, it is unique to the universe and there are people out there who would notice if she disappeared.
AND THEN. AND. THEN. (this is where the show starts to blow my mind)
IT TURNS OUT SHE’S A CLONE.
“Nobody would notice if I died.”
If you’re a clone - one of god knows how many - it’d be so easy to come to this conclusion. What’s tragic about Sarah is that she decides this before she finds out she’s a clone (Alison, on the other hand, comes to this after, “I’m not even a real person!”)If Sarah dies, someone else who looks exactly like her could theoretically step into the void. No one would notice.
Except people do notice when Sarah’s clones try to take her place. Look at Kira. She knew right away that Alison wasn’t Sarah. And though it seemed the wool had been pulled over Mrs S’ eyes, she noticed too.
Sarah believes her life’s interchangeable with any other human on the planet. Orphan Black has set out to prove the exact opposite, by giving Sarah foils who are literally interchangeable with her. Even though there are maybe hundreds of people who share her face, the world would notice if Sarah Manning disappeared. It has before, and every interaction, every time a clone impersonates another clone, it becomes clearer. No one is like Sarah and everyone knows it. This show is proving Sarah wrong by using people who are genetically identical to her. Holy shite.
And now for something tragic – let’s take a look at Beth. Oh, my dear Beth. No one notices that she dies. Paul. Art. Cosima. Alison. None of them notice that Beth isn’t Beth right away. These are arguably the people closest to her and they don’t have a clue. Yes, they do catch up eventually. The fact that they don’t notice might be more of a testament to Sarah’s mimicry skills than anything else; then again, Alison did a pretty great job mimicking Sarah and it still didn’t fly. Sarah’s Beth ruse doesn’t end because people notice – it’s because she gets tired of it, or she messes it up in a way. Mind you, the way she messes up isn’t related to not being Beth. It’s related to being Sarah. The Clash. The accent. Fingerprints. For fuck’s sake, Helena walks into the precinct pretending to be Beth and no one can tell. At most, they think she’s had a bad day.
Whereas Sarah thinks no one would notice if she died, for Beth it’s actually true. Ow. Ow ow ow.
It’s a specific choice to have Sarah slip into Beth like this, then. Because as the show’s trying to prove to Sarah that, yes, people would notice if she died, it’s also presenting the opposite scenario to her. She’s the one proving that no one noticed Beth leaving. So can you blame her for thinking the same of herself?
TL;DR This show isn’t about clones at all. It’s about wondering if your existence matters to the world.
I felt that Rumpelstiltskin’s relationship with the women in his life and in the show deserved its own entry.
Although I do not wish to discount the evil that Regina has indeed done—she has killed, manipulated, stepped over and devastated many, many people—it is getting to be ever-more clear that…
There has been quite a lot of debate lately in the “Once Upon A Time” fandom about the way the show touches upon issues like rape, abuse, murder etc, or the way that adoption is portrayed. However, in most discussions it becomes clear that the female characters in OUAT are subject to much more criticism than their male counterparts.
Okay but can we also talk about how Gold’s attitude towards Henry proves once and for all that his motivations in finding Nealfire were purely selfish?
He did not want to reunite with his son for the sake of his son’s happiness, well-being, or redemption. He wanted to reunite with him for the sake of resolving his own daddy issues.
I mean, not only is Henry his grandson (biologically speaking) he is the son of the person he has been desperately searching for, supposedly to make amends. To right his wrongs. As much as I hate that this is an actual storyline, Nealfire is obviously enamored with his newfound offspring. Henry’s existence makes him happy. So Gold should, in theory, be happy that Neal is happy, so he should be happy that Henry exists.
The thing is, that theory is based on Gold actually wanting Neal’s happiness, not just his own. What he actually wants from Bae is not love and redemption, it’s an outlet to deal with his issues about his own father being absent. That’s why he wanted to make Neal fourteen again. He wanted to raise a child to be the father he never had, and to escape the consequences of his actions in choosing power over his son. It’s All About Him, never about anyone else.
The amount of fictional men who see their children as tools to deal with their own daddy issues, instead of their own people with their own needs and desires, is staggering. And yet I’m supposed to sympathize with them.