Sink your teeth, you're in love for one night @spooknesses - Tumblr Blog

The Homes of Hidden Animals Series by Jeniak

This artist on Instagram // Twitter

how eerie to hear they're going to remake carrie. how eerie to hear they have made the mother into some kind of gentle well-meaning figure.

carrie is almost explicitly about the cycles of abuse. it is almost explicitly about how women and girls are taught to reproduce the patriarchy. it cannot be isolated from either message.

it shows cruel teenagers not as a random whacky plot point but instead to highlight that we are taught to mock other girls for not being fuckable; lest we ourselves be considered not-fuckable. we will eat our own kind to survive. nobody helps her because to help carrie would be to turn against the patriarchy.

carrie's mother has experienced abuse at the hands of her husband and religion not as a "sad backstory" but instead because it lampshades her behavior when she then turns and abuses her daughter while citing that same religion. we are forced to ask the question: what is the difference between the patriarchy and religion? aren't they both systems of control? we often see mothers as being the "ultimate" in innocence and kindness - but this book challenges that narrative. abusive mothers exist, and and always have. abusive women exist and always have. white women, after all, love voting for donald trump.

men are almost absent from the book, but their presence lingers. it feels almost like the red mark made after a slap - the men do not have to be there; the women will continue to abide by the rules without question. it is a devastating, haunting condemnation of the notion of feminine fragility. it accurately asserts that women are cruel, are capable, are power-hungry - and often are hiding behind perceived innocence to mask that cruelty. the abuse carrie experiences rests in a doubled betrayal: it is because of another woman. the supposed "sisterhood" is revealed to be thin, a guise of equanimity that is only offered to the "right" type of girl/woman.

many of us were not the right type of girl.

to go back on these main and obvious themes of the book - to rewrite the mother as some caring and sad creature is... a curious choice. i can't explain it, but it feels almost like censorship to me. it refuses a deeper meaning of the book (and one that questions the patriarchy) in favor of the incredibly thin plot of "what if scary girl had scary powers." i literally don't even know what level of misogyny it is that we have to defang everyone around her in order to tell her story. i'm baffled by it.

in the era of trad wives endlessly posting abusive content of their children online - the adaptation had plenty of meat to modernize her mother. in the era of AI and revenge porn and social media - there's a huge amount of space for a competent writer to play around in. after all, if the abuse is recorded and posted to media - and as the audience we're watching it without interfering - the story is now about us. it asks us who we are comfortable bullying.

it's okay if you feel like you don't have the writing chops to talk about how many religions are abusive and tacitly enable domestic violence. it's okay if you feel like you couldn't write a believable teenage bully. it's okay if you're just interested in "scary girl has scary powers."

but maybe, i don't know, choose a different fucking story?

#carrie #this is such a good point!#make margaret white a 2020s style abusive religious mum!#there's so much there to play around with!

valleyhowler

There are hardly any female werewolves because they break all the classic rules of femininity. They force you to confront female violence, strength, size, grotesqueness and uncontrollability. Historically female shapeshifters always shift into something dangerous (snake) or sleek (cat) or dainty (bird) but female werewolves ignore the masculine gaze completely. They're distorted beasts that have no ulterior motive except to destroy. Nothing about them is nurturing or modest. They're the opposite of what a woman "should be." Their omission from pop culture is not an accident.

#werewolves #gender

charitydingle

The Descent 2005, dir. Neil Marshall

#the descent #hotness

godlessondheimite

it’s kind of funny that the guy known for writing teleplays about religious trauma is turning carrie and margaret into the gilmore girls

#carrie #OOF

campmiasmas

REBECCA GAYHEART as BRENDA BATES URBAN LEGEND (1998) dir. Jamie Blanks

#urban legend

queenoftheimps

Lestat going through the extremely relatable situation where no one trains you for your new job and then you get in trouble for not knowing how to do the job

#iwtv 2022

kino-ani

Bonus:

Misery (1990) Dir. Rob Reiner

#misery

junkfoodcinemas

Alien vs. Predator (2004) dir. Paul W. S. Anderson

#alien vs predator

cosimads

OBSESSION dir. Curry Barker

#obsession

coldeveryseason

i've seen a lot of people defend the increase in uncritical antiblackness and racist scripts in tvl/s3 by saying "well lestat and daniel are racist white men, ofc they make racist comments" and it's like, well yeah that's true but they shouldn't be making racist comments with the exact same voice and with seemingly the exact same pov. lestat is a french aristocrat from the late 18th century who grew up in a rural backwater and then moved to paris at the height of the french revolution, during the enlightenment when many modern ideas of "whiteness" were being defined, lived in new orleans during the jim crow regime in the early 20th century and then was significantly isolated from human society until 2022- daniel is an american man (possibly of jewish or armenian heritage since he's played by luke and eric) who grew up middle class in modesto california (a small city that had a significant population increase during the post-wwii baby boom) in the late 20th century and spent most of his adulthood in liberal urban centers around the states. there's little to no overlap in their lived experiences- lestat was in his shack era for the vast majority of daniel's lifetime. they come from radically different cultural contexts and even though they would both have racist views that fit the norms of white supremacist society, they wouldn't have the same racist views or express their racism in the same way.

but the show has both of them speaking in the same irreverent, quippy voice and cycling through the same types of jokes in a way that makes it clear this is what the writers think is funny, that this is a reflection of the writers' (esp rolin's) racism. rolin said the audience was gonna feel the whiplash of the show suddenly being taken over by lestat and feeling like we're in lestat's head, but the tone shift fails bc it specifically doesn't feel like we're in lestat's head or that the kind of narration and dialogue we're immersed in reflects lestat's character in any meaningful way- instead, it feels like rolin has taken the fact that the show is now set mostly in the present day and the general premise of "lestat is chaotic and terminally online" as a free pass to use lestat as a mouthpiece for his own voice and sense of humor. lestat isn't just any random mid-30s rockstar edgelord on tour, he's a specific character with a specific background, and while it's believable that he became terminally online and obsessed with pop culture in the 3 years since he reunited with louis in s2ep8, that doesn't mean all traces of his past and the history that shaped him is gonna vanish from the way he speaks, narrates and views other people.

for a season that's meant to be all about digging into lestat's character and everything that made him who and what he is, the writers seem to have completely disregarded that when shaping lestat's voice this season- and why "oh well aren't they supposed to be racist white guys anyway" isn't an excuse for the racism we're seeing in the scripts. (and honestly even daniel's voice, even though his context is a lot closer to the context the show's writers would have, doesn't always land right- a man who spent most of the 70s/80s in gay bars wouldn't be calling a 6 ft tall beefcake a "twink" and his septuagenarian ass wouldn't have adopted the 2020s derogatory use of the term where people use "twink" as a substitute for "fag" either. he'd just say fag.) if the writers had done more research and had lestat doing archaic 18th-century racism pulls while contrasting that with his misuse of 2020s slang he doesn't fully understand, if daniel was actually speaking like a white guy who survived the aids crisis and cut his teeth as a journalist in late 20th century good-ol-boy newsrooms, i could give the show more grace and say there was some intentionality behind their dialogue- but everything so far just points to the writers themselves thinking "so armand is an abused sub bottom, that's his defining trait" and shoving dialogue about that into every other character's mouth without thinking if that specific person would actually say or think that. there's no reason a 265 yo french former rural aristocrat, a 72-yo usamerican journalist, and a 20-something french-canadian bookseller should be making the same kind of "armand is a beta bottom lawl" comment- but they are doing that in the show, bc the writers think it's funny and expect the audience to laugh along with them.

#iwtv 2022 #agreeeee #perfect meta

sleepdeprivedsurgeon

Armand got in on the ground floor of that 20 year old loser. kept checking in on him like he was proofing sourdough until he had a beautiful geriatric fag ready to go into the oven of vampirism and emerge the perfect companion. he saw Daniel sniffing around for coke at Polynesian Mary's and said give me fifty years I can make him the hottest guy you've ever seen. and Louis was just happy he was finally taking an interest in investment because it gave them something to bond over besides missing that blond man's pussy. like it's the only long con Armand has ever successfully pulled. hard work pays off in the form of a 70something boytoy who looks suspiciously like your evil father. i'm so proud of him. my weird bug.

#iwtv 2022 #silliness