
Discoholic đȘ©
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
Not today Justin

pixel skylines
AnasAbdin
No title available

shark vs the universe
we're not kids anymore.

JVL
DEAR READER
No title available

Love Begins
Stranger Things

romaâ
Monterey Bay Aquarium

ellievsbear
Three Goblin Art

â
art blog(derogatory)

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Finland

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia

seen from France
seen from Switzerland
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from Brazil

seen from Australia

seen from TĂŒrkiye
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia
seen from Poland

seen from United States

seen from Singapore
@moonfandom
i made a thing
alt text: a photo collage of heidi klum in her worm costume. a textbox in the center reads âlive laugh wormâ /end alt text
"It was like a big demented nightmare Muppet."
you just know when someone in customer service says âthank you for your patience!!!!â theyâre fighting for their lives that day
I want to have conversations about Netflix's Persuasion that are very different from the ones I've seen. For the most part we seem to have retreated into a literary-textual discussion about what Jane Austen's Persuasion "means" or "is about" and how the adaptation differs from this "meaning" (in 'moral,' tone, composition, plot). At their best, these conversations take a socially situated view in speculating on why an adaptation (and all the people who go into making one) might have felt that changes in a specific direction were necessary or desirable in presenting Persuasion to a particular audience--at their worst (by which I mean: most mundance, least challenging), they merely catalogue how the adaptation is "different from" the text, including in terms of general historical inaccuracies, with a sense of indignation approaching to violation.*
I see people saying that the "modern" tone, dialogue, jokes, and narration style are out of place in what is supposedly (from dress, technology, and other details) a period piece--they specify that they don't mind modern adaptations (Clueless, even Bridget Jones' Diary is mentioned with generosity!) so long as they bill themselves as such (e.g. "if they wanted to make a modern adaptation, they should have just made a modern adaptation"). We don't expect a period piece to make such unabashedly modern jokes or references. But why not? We are offended when our expectations of what a "period piece" is are transgressed against. But why? We insist that these modes of storytelling (the "period" and the "modern") must not be mixed. But why not?
Quotations of the more obviously "modern" concepts and turns of phrase in the dialogue are trotted out ("I'm an empath," "exes," "alone, in my room, with a bottle of red," "if you're a 5 in London you're a 10 in Bath")--but then we kind of stop there, as though it is enough to say that this sounds awkward in a period setting. Of course it sounds awkward in a period setting--it's obvious enough that even the writers undoubtedly knew it sounded jarring and were doing it on purpose. So what might this instinctive recoiling from this type of period mish-mash tell us about what we usually hope to get out of period pieces? Obviously every adaptation is "modern" in that it is produced for an audience of the producers' contemporaries, and in that the sensibilities of the "original" will inevitably be shifted in a thousand ways more or less perceptible to us--so what we can we learn from the places where these shifts raise our ire, as opposed to the places where they go largely unnoticed (a shift to a modern concept of "romantic" love that removes much of the requirement of tutelage, for example--no adaptation that I know of has Mr. Bennet tell Elizabeth to look up to her husband "as a superior")?
Literary-critical-style analyses of the adaptation complain that it got Anne Elliot "wrong" (interestingly, the people saying this have pretty different interpretations of her character amongst themselves). I don't think this is untrue so much that I wish we could push this conversation further. Assertions that the adaptation "failed" assume what its goals were--but what can we deduce about the team's goals from interviews (which I admit I haven't read) or from the film itself? Why do these goals offend us so much? We have a feeling that an adaptation has to "respect" its source material (I recall one person in a youtube video essay baldly stating as much)--but why? What happens when an adaptation does not respect its source material, in terms of literary or adaptation / book-to-film studies or in terms of the commercial marketplace for movies? How does this movie reveal its own assumptions to us? How does it reveal our assumptions to us? Has it stumbled onto anything clever in its attempt to be more, well... 'clever'? What's going on with the audience-addressing narration? What pitches and shifts does that produce? How does it compare to Austen's narration? Why is this kind of question fruitful or unfruitful to ask of an adaptation?
For anyone who doesn't already get it, this isn't a 'defense' of Netflix's Persuasion (nothing with so much money behind it needs me to defend it). I just wish we were asking more interesting questions!!!
*Of course the language of fandom is frequently self-consciously exaggerated and emotional, as well as based around collective rituals of sharing and commenting, assuming a framework and an idiom that is common to those of others in the same spaces, for fun. This kind of indignation is fun! I get it! And some of these literary-textual discussions are genuinely insightful and convincing. There's nothing "wrong" with these discussions. They're just not exactly what I want to read and therefore I'm making that everyone's problem.
what happened to the skeleton war, you guys used to love the skeleton war
ohhhh my god webb got an image of the pillars of creation and itâs absolutely STUNNING.
here it is compared to hubbles image:
I love that heidi klum, international super model and tv personality, was like âIâm going to be a worm for halloweenâ and went for the most horrifying hyper realistic version possible and was quoted saying (in said worm outfit) âI want to put a smile on peoples facesâ. maâam I am gagging but I love that for u
she embodied it
(through gritted teeth) i love being out of my comfort zone it is necessary for my personal development
anyway continuing to manifest this
tomfoolery at an all time high
Proficiency in both ranged and deranged combat
Girlfriend...is a kind of chew toy
Fort Plain, New York
built in 1850