the monkees: a bisexual banjo player, a tiny english jockey, heir to the whiteout fortune, and a circus boy
todays bird
Jules of Nature

⁂

ellievsbear
Sade Olutola

izzy's playlists!
wallacepolsom
Today's Document
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
Cosimo Galluzzi
we're not kids anymore.
cherry valley forever

Product Placement

pixel skylines
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
RMH
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

roma★
One Nice Bug Per Day
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda

seen from Türkiye

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Portugal

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from China

seen from Türkiye
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from China

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from Australia
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Portugal
@shewalksonbrassrings
the monkees: a bisexual banjo player, a tiny english jockey, heir to the whiteout fortune, and a circus boy
STAR TREK | Journey to Babel | 17 Nov, 1967
Rebecca, Daphne du Maurier (b. 13 May 1907)
covers of rebecca by daphne du maurier pt. 1
Every tos episode is called something like "in the mind of the divine" and it's about trying to communicate with a giant alien slug made out of glittery shower curtains.
Eomer and Eowyn only talk to each other once in the films
but they communicate so much.
When Eomer first returns with a wounded Theodred, an entire dialogue is shared between Eomer and Eowyn without a single word passing between them.
This mutual look of concern, they're both on the same page.
Eowyn then goes on to look at Theodred's wound. It's interesting that Eomer now looks curious above all things, he's waiting on Eowyn's judgement.
Eowyn looks at the wound and grimaces. It's bad. Theodred isn't going to survive this.
She looks to Eomer, who looks back at her in grim resignation.
They go to Theoden to inform him of the situation. As Eomer walks by Eowyn, he doesn't speak to her or interrupt her, but he puts his hand on her back as he passes. Even when the focus is on other things, he is giving her that gesture of support and fondness. That it is done without fanfare shows that this sort of affection is commonplace.
They both stand before the throne, both of them united in their attempt to reach through to their uncle. They're a team, a unit.
Eomer throws down proof that Saruman, who Grima is trying to protray as a friend to Rohan, is sending his soldiers to terrorise their people.
Eowyn gives Grima a death glare, challenging him to refute her brother's accusations. She's on Eomer's side, Eomer's team.
Eomer sees Grima looking at Eowyn, and knows what he wants. It fills him with fury.
Eowyn sees her brother choking Grima against the wall. She looks on in cold silence, then walks away.
When Aragorn reveals that the beacons have been lit, Eowyn rushes into the throne room, drawing to a stop at Eomer's shoulder. They wait together for Theoden's judgement.
When it comes, and Theoden sends Eomer to muster the troops, Eomer bows, but even before he has fully straightened up, his eyes go to his sister.
Again, no words exchanged, simply a look of common understanding. They both know what the risks are, they both know what is at stake, for the world, for their country, for their family.
Before Eomer leaves, he touches Eowyn's arm, before walking away.
With Eomer gone, we see a steely determination come into Eowyn's eyes. Now there's something Eomer's missing, now Eomer's back is turn and there's something about sister that she's keeping from him. She's riding to battle.
The one time they speak to each other, they're in opposition. About Merry, about Eowyn, about war.
The words are harsh. Eomer is stern, Eowyn is defensive.
But Eomer puts his hand on Eowyn's shoulder. He doesn't say "I don't want you to get hurt, I don't want you in battle", but that hand on her shoulder, tells the audience that's exactly what he's saying.
Those small moments of physical affection culminate in one great moment, when stern, stoic Eomer discovers Eowyn on the battle field, and breaks down in tears, cradling her and rocking her like she's a child.
And his devotion to her ultimately shown in him sitting small and hunched, tucked in on himself, crouching down in armour for what seems to have been a lengthy space of time, as he sits by her side, waiting for her to be healed.
This is such an effective way of showing to an audience that two characters love each other, when there is a limited time window. The movie needed to crack on to cover the ground it needed to cover, and with so many important dynamics to reveal to the audience, the creators needed to be time effective. Eomer and Eowyn don't share much screen time, but the looks exchanged, the passing moments of intimacy, tells us clearly that these are two people greatly fond of each other, and have been fond of each other a long time.
The lack of spoken dialogue almost enhances it. Little is said between them because little needs to be said. They already know. The one time they do speak, it's when they're quarrelling, because that's the only moment when they need to use words. The rest of the time, a gesture, a look, is enough.
James T Kirk explained in 3 sentences, ladies and gentlemen.
Star trek tos: a summary
In Memoriam | Mustache (2024-2024) ↳ Love her or hate her, she was the IT girl of Season 8
I miss the mustache. 💔
EDDIE DIAZ 8.08 'Wannabes'
I feel like I shouldn’t be the only one to see these one after the other
Pookie One and Two are back tomorrow so there’s that.🥲
About your George in the Jungle, isn't that film sexist? Objectifying men? How can feminism claim to say objectifying women is bad, not not men? Sounds like hypocrisy to me. George's entire character is that he's attractive and nothing more. Where are the women pointing out how sexist this film is?
*Sigh*
Point by point.
No the film isn’t sexist.
The film derives some humor out of subverting the trope of objectification by having some characters briefly objectify George but the *film* does not treat George as an object. (For instance in the “what is it with women and horses” scene the men who don’t understand that the women feel lust and sexual attraction are part of the joke, but so are the women who got so horned up by seeing George in a field that they had to stop and stare dreamily - it’s the “got distracted by a hot lady and walked into a pole” cartoon bit)
Feminism in general doesn’t claim that objectifying women is bad but objectifying men is not. Typically feminism doesn’t support objectifying *anyone.*
It sounds like hypocrisy to you because you’ve built this strawman to be a hypocrite.
No it’s not. George’s personality MUCH more than his body and it’s really disappointing that you would overlook his characterization as a sweet generous person and pathos of him being a stranger in a strange land because you can’t see past his body, omg that’s so shallow.
They’re busy losing to you in the arguments you have in your head when you shower. Don’t pretend that if someone sat down and talked about how Batman is sexist against men you wouldn’t roll your eyes and do the jerkoff motion.
I like that you can really tell how you’ve read and considered that post because George’s entire character arc is that he is kind and curious and takes care of his friends and family. That Whole Ass Post is about George as a model for healthy masculinity.
If you think that a film that is objectifying a character simply because he’s got abs you could grate cheese on and an ass like a peach while doing all of that (being generous and listening and aiding an escape instead of having a big final fight showdown) then your consideration of the film isn’t very important to me because you’re looking at the shallowest aspects of it instead of analyzing it with any depth.
HOWEVER
If you want to talk about the fact that Brendan Fraser was probably dehydrated and starving during much of the filming in order to be that cut in a movie where he’s almost always shirtless and if you want to talk about the fact that there are major issues with Hollywood presenting unrealistic body standards for people of all genders OR if you want to talk about the fact that Brendan Fraser was sexually assaulted by a producer after filming George of the Jungle and was punished by the industry for talking about it and that male assault victims are still largely dismissed and ignored by society then I’m fuckin’ HERE for it.
I am *ESPECIALLY* here for it if you want to discuss the way that fit, muscular men in particular experience victim blaming when they make the decision to disclose assault and I would LOVE to talk about how that specific type of victim blaming is explicitly about punishing very masculine people for their “poor” performance of masculinity in ADDITION to punishing them for attempting to seek justice for their assault.
And I would LOVE to talk about how “you’re so big and strong, you should have been able to fight him off, you must have wanted it or you must be lying” directly ties in with excessive praise for bravery when a victim DOES fight off an assault and how BOTH of those things erase the fact that power dynamics outside of pure physical strength are behind a LOT of sexual assault and how those things reinforce the idea that sexual assault is a purely physical crime instead of one that frequently involves a physically weaker person injuring a physically stronger person.
Anyway.
*Dabs*
George of the Jungle is a good movie, y’all should watch it.
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!
First things first, let’s look at our leading lady and love interest - Ursula, played by Leslie Mann.
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.
ALSO
he’s non threatening
as mentioned above, he looks built for dexterity rather than power, but he’s still a 6+ foot tall extremely muscular man, and not once are you worried for Ursula when he’s with her
ALSO
let’s take a look at his rival - Lyle is a cravat-wearing trust-fund kid (who, interestingly, is into Ursula’s fortune more than her, which kind of makes this a gender-swapped gold-digger thing too). He’s blonde and Ursula’s mom LOVES him. He’s more uncomfortable and less prepared to cope with the jungle than Ursula is, in his pastels and shiny shoes.
But he talks over Ursula, insists he knows what’s best for her, ignores her autonomy. In spite of the fact that Lyle Van de Groot is a rich, educated, social climber who cares deeply about his clothing and appearances he is a point-by-point checklist of unhealthy masculinity in a way that beefy, inarticulate, uneducated George could never be. Ursula is off on her own doing her own thing and Lyle hires two FUCKING POACHERS to track her down in the middle of the jungle while she’s working (or on vacation? It’s never made clear because he interrupts her before she can explain why she went on the expedition). Lyle ignores the local guides, claiming his experience with a bridge in Maui means the bridge they’re on is safe - which leads to a significant injury for one of the guides. He then tells Ursula the guides are conspiring against him, trying to make himself and his poachers seem safe and the Africans who make up the rest of their party seem dangerous.
Check that body language! A post above points out that we’re never worried about Ursula when she’s around George. That’s because Lyle talks to her like this. Look at his aggressive lean! Look at him literally looking down at her! She’s tilted away from him in the least threatening position possible and he’s so aggressive about whatever point he’s making. When he finds her after he pushed her toward a damned lion he kisses her and she pushes him away. Want a textbook example of gaslighting? Here you go: she says “don’t get all smoochy with me! I remember what happened with that lion” and he responds “What are you talking about? I was fighting that lion the whole time - you were just so terrified you don’t remember.” Then he shoots George! And then he kidnaps Ursula and attempts to force her into marriage!
Now look at how George and Ursula interact (slightly NSFW):
Even though he’s a big strong dude and he thinks he’s doing what’s okay he lets her set the tone for their interactions. He accepts that he’s out of his wheelhouse and even if he doesn’t understand it he does what she says is culturally appropriate. He learns from her! He listens to her! Compare Lyle leaning into Ursula above to this image of George and Ursula talking:
He’s listening to her, all of his attention is on on her, but he’s totally nonthreatening. His torso is turned toward her but he’s not invading her space, his hands are clasped, he’s smiling, and she’s the one leaning into him. Look at that smile she has, look how happy she is to be listened to. Her posture in both images is vulnerable but in this one with George she’s vulnerable because she has chosen to share with him instead of because she feels threatened.
When George rescues Ursula from Lyle at the end of the film it isn’t a typical damsel situation - George doesn’t have a knock-down-drag-out fight with Lyle, he swings into a tree and offers Ursula a hand so she can reach up and save herself (and before he does it he acknowledges how much it’s going to hurt and *whimpers* and looks human and scared). And you’ve gotta remember that George rescues everybody. It’s not just Ursula - he also rescues a parasailer and gets shot rescuing Shep and Ape. He just likes helping, dammit!
AND this movie offers a perfect counter to the “nice guy” thing - Ursula starts engaged to a jerk who her mom thinks is a “nice guy” the moves on to actual nice man George who isn’t *just* nice - he’s also patient, listens to her, has his own skills and talents, is okay with being goofy, has his own social circle and isn’t totally dependent on Ursula, and looks amazing. Ursula doesn’t go with George just because he’s a *nice* guy who rescued her from an asshole, Ursula goes with George because he’s an interesting, fun person who is supportive of her different way of being an interesting, fun person. AND he’s emotionally available. Google image search George of the jungle and see how many smiles you can find, see how many open looks of confusion there are, see how much sadness you can see in George’s face. Now look for images of Lyle. His two expressions are a smirk and cartoonish fear. I know this is a cartoonish kid’s movie, but it is SO powerful that the hero shares his emotions while the villain masks every emotion but fear. Lyle doesn’t want to open up, he doesn’t want to be vulnerable, he wants CONTROL. George wants to learn, to protect people he cares about, to explore new places, to laugh when he’s happy and to be sad when he’s sad, and that he does that while being a broad-shouldered, physically powerful dude who is NOT totally self-involved is just…
Like, look, I didn’t sign on to tumblr dot com for George of the Jungle discourse, but I’m just now realizing that this movie may have done the most for destroying my conception of stoic masculinity and gender roles as a child.
Like
Damn.
I reblogged this YEARS ago and unbeknownst to me, my tumblr was flagged for inappropriate content and features were taken away from me (like the ability to message other users).
I am assuming this post was the problem. And because I am a petty bitch, I’m going to reblog it again.
"I love my petit and cute side"
I had to do this trend with buddie I mean- look at them!!
These are available in my ko-fi shop! (Here!)