Mowonflower @mowonflower - Tumblr Blog

Made a new meet the artist thing so I thought it was high time to make a new intro post!

Ignore the part about me studying Computer Science I am noooot doing that anymore

My ask box is always open for (fandom related) art reqs and questions about me or my OCs!

#mowonsart is the tag for my art

@farewell-heaven sideblog for my comic

I have fullbody comms open on my kofi :]

#intro #mowonsart

seiishindraws

flowers :]

#I CHERISH THEM SOSO MUCH

farewell-heaven

i love sketchin pages cus i get to make their expressions as goofy looking as possible

i also keep switching between brushes for sketching that's why they look so different

#farewell heaven #mowonsart

farewell-heaven

super messy lasso doodle but I actually really like it hmm

i like drawing her with wings.. she looks cool with em

#mowonsart #farewell heaven #this is my hashtag vent art

kennyskovn

attack1 on @crazydrawsblog's jenny [link]!

#I LOVETHISSSS

farewell-heaven

I made little playlist thingies for them

I have so many songs for them I could have added more buuuuut I wanted consistency sigh

#farewell heaven #leaking my music taste (it's a mess)

batsnake--113

Child Wielding Needle

I just watched Enola Holmes 3 (I did not see the first two, for the record. This is solely about the third one) and uhmm I am very not pleased with it. But first, I did enjoy the visual style of it. That was cool.

For the actual story tho, I am not very happy with stories that attempt to criticize an oppressive authority (in this case the british crown), but also diminish the experiences of the minorities this authority oppresses. And that is especially shown in this movie through the portrayal of the antagonist and the military officials.

The antagonist, Moriarty, is a black woman whose motivations are that she has a vendetta against the Holmes family and she wants to steal from the british crown. I am far more interested in the second motivation here, as it feels more important to the narrative of this movie. This motivation in particular is understandable. It's literally a core part of the story that the british crown stole gold. Yet, it feels like this movie portrays her as especially gruesome on purpose as to justify her position as the villain of this story.

Because, otherwise, why? Why is she the villain? What narrative part does she play in contrasting the message of this story? She, in a sense, has a point when she asks what the family names hold. While this is addressed at the end of the story, with Tewkesbury, it's not given as much weight as it should have been. Especially considering the marriage plot. Which, for Enola, would have been an act of having her name changed. Yet Enola says she will stay a Holmes forever. And this movie focuses on the family name Holmes. But it's never really that important to the story, to me. Because what does that even mean? Why is that important? Just because of Sherlock? Just because she was born into it? Why does she have to be a "Holmes" specifically? I feel like this story could have questioned this sort of attachment we have to family names but with the way it decided to go it just felt like nothing to me. I did not watch the first two movies, yes. But I mean I feel like the third movie should have been the culmination of these themes. Or at least to me it felt like Enolas affiliation with the Holmes family is a core part of her character, maybe even the most important one, as it is dependent on her standing in the world. And the movie felt unsatisfying to me in that aspect,,

And, I think, that's especially weird if you contrast her portrayal with how this story portrays the military officials of the british crown. Because they, in a sense, started the story of this movie. They were the ones that stole the gold and enacted a massive injustice on the people of Malta. If they hadn't done that, this story wouldn't have happened. Yet this story extends so much more grace to them than they do to the people that suffered from their oppression, such as Mikiel Mizzi who fights for Maltas freedom. And I say that he is portrayed with less grace, considering that he isn't depicted as gruesome like Moriarty or having done any wrong like the military officials, because he is mostly portrayed as a joke character. But, more on that later. When the military officals are confronted with the fact that they stole the gold, they to me get treated like babies by the narrative. They are military officials. They killed people, probably unjustly as well. But the narrative does not portray them even slightly as gruesome as Moriarty. Tewkesburys dad decided to steal that gold, and then he felt bad, decided to hide it and put the blame on the soldiers of Malta? Yes, Tewkesbury is shaken by the news and yes, he's arrested later. But still, the narrative allows them to feel bad about it. They are given the opportunity to have conflicting emotions and guilt. While Moriarty is only shown as angry and brutal. She never gets to show any other emotion. Not an ounce of compassion is shown to her. Enola not wanting Sherlock to kill her is not her or the narrative showing compassion. Because Enola specifically wants Sherlock to not kill her because "they are better than her" and that's pretty much the exact opposite of showing compassion to Moriarty.

Now, to Mikiel Mizzi. He's pretty much just a joke during the movie because of the running gag of him introducing himself as a member of the Partito Anti-Riformistas in the same way each time. And I find that pretty obnoxious. Because, again. This movie tells a story about the british occupation of Malta. And the character most connected to this and wanting a free Malta is basically a joke? He doesn't even react that much to the information of the british officers having stolen gold and then letting Malta take the fall. He's just a nothing character when this whole plot should logically be a lot more connected to his struggles. And again, the narrative in that way doesn't extend grace to him because he is not really allowed to be *any* character at all.

So to me this story attempts to criticize the british crown, yet it only treat is an abstract thing. And not an authority that was created and uphold by human beings. Such as the military officers! Without them, the british crown could not function the way it does. But the story just does not say anything substantial about them other than "well they did a mistake and it was pretty corrupt of them to cover it up, but they do kinda feel bad about it tho" and yet, if they feel so bad about it why did they sit on it for so long. The story just does not say anything worth saying about it. And again! The theme going on with family names! Could have been so much more! Because these families are also a way for the crown to perpetrate their rule and one you question these families lineage and right to their wealth, you would question the entirety of the british crown. But again, it's the antagonist we portrayed as unreasonable that questions this so... I don't know. I'm kind of frustrated because I feel like this story could have been more but it just says absolutely nothing.

#If you're wondering why I watched it without having seen the first two #it's because my partner wanted to watch it with me #I love murder mysteries but I also think it's time to just let Sherlock rest and the entire setting of victorian era britain