#personal thought stuff

[freakypumpkin]

The Old Guard

So, I watched the Old Guard for the second time now, and I have some thoughts. (Also, be warned, I had my last exam today, so this will be a lot of rambling)

SPOILER WARNING

I constantly wondered why this movie hit me so hard and why it felt like I saw the concept of immortality for the first time. Now, I’m still figuring stuff out, so this won’t be everything, but just something I noticed. 

The Beauty of meaningful Silence And meaningful Noise

They don’t yell.  The characters get angry and they argue, but they don't yell at each other, no screaming matches. They have lines, that are bitten out more sharply, but they usually don’t raise their voices. Which makes the moments, when they do, and I think it’s mostly just with Joe getting angry at Booker for his betrayal, much more impactful.  They show anger in their way of fighting, but again, they don’t scream stuff during those scenes, which gives them a focus that I found surprisingly refreshing.  In the train, after they have the dream about Nile, Andy gets angry and frustrated, when Nicky insists on going after Nile, she could’ve easily blown up at him, but she didn't, neither of them raised their voices because they didn't have to, because the others listened.  Same with Andy’s and Nile’s argument about Andy not wanting to wear a protective vest in the final battle, it could have easily become a shouting match, but that’s not what happened (also because shouting gives away your position, but I still want to make my point). Nile’s words become sharper, but not louder.  Another thing is, how Nile wakes up screaming from her nightmare, and the others are instantly up and ready to fight. There’s a loud noise, one of their own became loud, and was a sign of instant danger.  (Or so I like to think)

In general I think, here’s an interesting play with giving weight to things not just by not saying anything at times, but also through specifically placed ‘loud moments’, that get more meaningful through the otherwise calm atmosphere in their communication. I also think, that that kind of communication adds to what makes their dynamic so special. 

Sidenote ‘FIGHTING’: They fight with a laser focus and as a unit. There’s no competition like it can easily be done in group fighting scenes. There’s no showing off with fancy moves and when there are witty one-liners during fight scenes, they have meaning, because with the contrast of them usually not going for it, that this has a special meaning, when they do. (Like Joe’s line in the final fight)

It could have easily been turned into a ‘Oh, we’re so old, we have fun times during fights because we’ve done it so often’ (which when executed right can be good). They take it seriously. None of them gets into fights for fun, none are excited to fight again, to kill people. The only case of one actively going in for the kill, is when Joe goes after Keane(?), and while we knew he had it coming, it wasn't in general for hurting Nicky, it was the point of him shooting Nicky, that drove him over the edge.  Their fighting experience is shown in the way, they fight with each other. One finishing off the enemy of the other.

Immortality

The big topic of the whole movie, but not a new idea. But what makes these immortals sort of more approachable? In a way they are just MORE.  I kept thinking about other immortal characters I knew (at this point I mean no shade to any other iteration of immortal characters, it’s more of a analysis of what the ‘generic immortal trope’ sort of is atm) and I realized, that you often have the case of extreme wealth, because when somebody lives that long, you have a lot of time to gather a lot of money.   But it’s at least not flaunted here. They have dusty, old places to crash. Not stuff they bought years ago, but places they stumbled upon in former wars. And yes, it can be due to stying under the radar, but I liked the change.  Then, no constant name dropping of well-known historical figures. It’s only used to give Nile and the viewer a timetable of how long they’ve been alive.  There’s more about it, but let’s move on to DEATH

Usually, when you have immortal characters, death is a non-issue, it can become a running joke and it is treated with a certain amount of humor, but whenever one of them dies (not just getting hurt), there’s weight to it. I think, what plays into that is the fact, that there’s the chance of their wounds not healing anymore. But there’s never a joke about ‘Come one, get back up’, when one of them goes down. They stay with each other until the other comes back to life, which I think is greatly shown when Nile jumps out of the window and they all stay until she shows sing of life again, and they can be sure she’s alright. Despite the fact, that Nile is the youngest immortal and therefore shouldn't even have the danger of not healing anymore. They still wait to see she’s really okay. 

Death still means something to them, and everytime their pain is acknowledged, which I think, grounds the movie very well. 

And maybe that can be said in general. The movie just feels grounded, with the idea of the Pharma people of what immortality is being that weird oblivious ideal image. But you can still see where they are coming from, like, yes, ending all of these terrible illnesses sounds super great, but as always, it’s not that easy. 

And the KINDNESS and COMPASSION

Even after the horrible experiences during the witch trials and loosing Quynh, it took Andy so much longer to get to the point of wanting to throw the towel, of just giving up on humanity. And in the end, she still doesn't.  Also, the punishments they hand out. Okay, Merrick got killed because he wouldn’t have given up on following them, and you can argue it as self-defense, but Copely? He screwed them over, but doesn't get killed, instead they recognize he has a skillset that they can use for their benefit, so that’s what they decide. And Booker doesn’t get punished in some horrible way, he gets a timeout, which is painful and definitely a punishment, but is also temporary. And I think, it shows their way of immortal thinking, like, when you’re alive for so long, you realize things are temporary, but that counts for the good and the bad things. 

Sidenote on ‘outliving your loved ones’:  It’s a generic thing for immortal characters to be tortured by, but what I liked a lot was Booker’s addition of ‘They will start hating you for living/healing’ and I think that’s often overlooked and another reason why staying with your loved ones can be torture, not just for watching them age and die, but also watching them growing to resent you for living. 

[freakypumpkin]

Unpopular art opinion ... maybe

I don’t know if it’s unpopular opinion or just something people don’t talk about. However it’s something I wanted to write down somewhere for a while, so I thought: Why not today?

This is about the trend of ‘cringing’ at your own old art. 

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve done it myself, laughed about how ‘bad’ my old drawings were and so on. It’s usually just lighthearted and with no bad intention, I mean, hey, you’re laughing about your own stuff and looking back at old art is in general just very interesting because you can see how far you’ve come and how much you’ve learned. I prefer it a lot to the trend of talking down your current art. 

But as I saw these kind of posts from very advanced artists, I couldn’t help but think, that their ‘cringe-y old art’ was the level I’m at currently.  And I was actually proud of that, or tried to let myself be proud of it, because it’s such a trend to dislike your own stuff (like I mentioned before).

I kept thinking, and eventually got to the point, that I realized, my old art, that I made fun of and ‘cringed’ at, was at the same level of somebody else’s current best. And making fun of my own stuff, was indirectly at the same time the same as making fun of their current skill level. 

So, I always see these posts with a bit of a bitter aftertaste. Of course, you’re allowed to say about your own stuff what you want, but I think, it would be better to think of them as ‘different’ from your current style or skill level, than to see them as ‘worse’.

We have enough negativity in the art community as it is and I think, changing these little things can help already.  I consciously stopped putting negative phrases in my posts or tried to always put them in relation to something positive, like ‘the perspective isn’t completely right, but I still like it’ or ‘I had fun with this'. And I think, it has helped me a lot to improve my relationship with my art and also my way of approaching stuff like art block, etc. 

So, yeah, even if it’s really old art, you were proud of it at some point, and I don’t think, that should be easily discounted and thrown out of the window as ‘bad art’. It is what got you to the point you’re at now. 

[freakypumpkin]

Acting out and missing the point

WARNING: Mentions of rape

Some stuff happened again with CC on instagram and I decided to mention a few things about this whole mess and share my thoughts.

For those, who didn’t see it yet, she posted a cover tease with young Alec on it and somebody commented on it and CC replied to it:

The obvious things first: - It’s extremely unprofessional. - It’s a clear attack against the show and their version of Alec. - Half of it is just not true.

The delivering to torture is a callback to the incident with Meliorn in the first season, where Alec is tasked to deliver him to the Silent Brothers and plans on going through with it. I personally think, it deserves it’s own seperate discussion about what context that action had in the show, etc. so I will concentrate on the second aspect of her reply, which is the accusation that Alec did r*pe Magnus, which was based on the controversial ‘First Time’-scene, which created a backlash because Magnus’ consent was not directly addressed. The showrunners though noted the complaints and the matter was fixed with a backflash in an later episode (2x18), in which Magnus gives consent. The discussion about Alec forcing himself on him pretty much died with that episode, I think.

CC didn’t make that comment in that time frame before the resolve in 2x18, she made it months after the whole ordeal happened. And she used links to articles about the backlash and pretty much used them as excuse for her comment, I feel. Like she was speaking up for an important topic, speaking up for her fans who were upset about the r*pe controversy after that First Time-Scene.

But she didn’t fight that fight, when it mattered. Fans created the backlash, spoke up for themselves and I do believe played a big role in having that scene extended in 2x18. It was resolved, the showrunners realized their mistake and fixed it. (You can still argue, that they should have been more aware in the first place, but you can’t argue with them listening to complaints and arguments brought forward.)

Now, of course CC is allowed to speak up about things that concern er characters and matters that are important to her, but her tone is not the right one for that. It’s provocative, it takes the very serious topic of r*pe and makes it sound like a matter of taste and more importantly, I think, as something that is actual fact on the show, which it isn’t. (Alec did not r*pe Magnus.)

Now, some things about her apology: - “Accidentally posting a half-formed comment” happens, but it stayed up for THREE DAYS. She did not “immediately delete it”. - She should never even have typed that comment in the first place. - I’m not going into the very personal story she shared, I’m just going to say, that I would assume, that as a r*pe survivor, she should be more aware of how much she crossed the line with her original reply.

To get to the conclusion of this, I want to talk about the topic of ‘Fictional characters vs. real people’.

1. Her way of wording ‘real women and real victims are more important than fictional men’ stands out to me as odd at least. Mentioning real women in front of real victims undercuts the male victims of r*pe and to set them in opposition to just fictional men instead of simply characters. The whole phrase has a strong undertone of women as victims against men, who matter less. (Based on my interpretation).  

2. Real people can be disgusting and I believe, that others are allowed to call them that. Just because somebody is a real person, saves them from being disgusting. It’s not always appropriate to choose ‘disgusting’ as an insult, but in itself, it’s a valid thing to say depending on a person’s actions. (Example: Calling same sex couples ‘disgusting’ is wrong. Calling dictators ‘disgusting’ I would say is appropriate.) Breathing doesn’t save you from being an asshole. Also, CC mentions that she replied to a comment insulting Alec and I wouldn’t say, that calling him problematic is an insult per se, accusing him of rape with no factual evidence and clear on-screen rebuttal of that action is closer to an insult, I would say.

3. The issue of fictional characters being less important than real people is valid to a degree, but you have to be careful not to undercut the fact, that fictional characters can have an impact on real people. And CC has a history of missing that point, because she is too concentrated on herself.

Going back to an incident with Simon:

A fan wanted to make sure, that Simon wouldn’t date Maia and Isabelle at the same time, like he did in the books. In CC’s comment you see more concern about the image Simon gets, than why the fan asked the question in the first place. The fan didn’t want to see a certain behavior repeated from the books, but CC didn’t question her writing and why it made the fan upset. She jumped to Simon’s defense and back it up by making it about the fans of the books, completely running over the one person, who had asked the question.

Going back to the issue with her Alec-comment. Again, in her apology, she made it about real people being more important than fictional characters. With that alone, she pretty much undercut every person, who was hit by her comment about Alec because they identify with him, because he helped them to accept themselves. Accusing fictional characters of actions affects real people. There’s a reason why people fight for representation on TV, in movies, about FICTIONAL characters.  And honestly, if her concern really were about Alec r*ping Magnus, he would still be sorted under ‘fictional men’, which are less important (according to CC) than ‘real victims’. The original comment didn’t even criticize certain specific actions of book!Alec, to which CC didn’t ask for a clarification, just jumped on it by throwing show!Alec and the show itself under the bus. 

She started the r*pe discussion (in a very tasteless way) and in the end she acts like she was the mature one to end it. 

Was the original comment the best thing to say? Probably not. Show!Alec is not completely unproblematic, book!Alec isn’t and honestly, I don’t think anybody could ever be growing up in a society like that. Was it therefore provocative in its own way, especially as a comment under the post of the author of the book version of the character? Yes.  Was CC’s reaction to it appropriate? HELL NO.  An appropriate reply would have been more along the lines of ‘Would you please not pit two versions of the same character against each other, as I’m trying to keep this a safe space from any kind of competition of the show and the books’. If she had to reply at all.

In the end, I would say, that CC hit a new low in terms of being unprofessional and still doesn’t have a real idea of the implications her words carry and who they hurt. The books aren’t perfect, the show isn’t perfect and a lot of people on both sides hurled insults at each other, that were uncalled for, but if CC really wanted to create a safe space for the show and books co-existing, she shouldn’t be part of those, that hurl the insults. 

An author forms its fandom with their behavior and should be aware of that, just like they should be aware of how their fictional characters and stories impact the readers. 

(Feel free to ask questions, and let me know if I got something wrong.)

[freakypumpkin]

TFW

... TV-shows and movies make up weird excuses why LGBTQ+ representation isn’t happening or same sex couples can’t have scenes or same sex pairings with clear chemistry are ‘just friends‘, you start thinking ‘Maybe it’s true and it’s just that difficult to just go there, all those things you have to take into account...‘

And then a show just bulldozes through all those apologies and ‘reasons‘ and just gives you represenation and apart from being happy, you’re looking back at all those other shows and movies and want to yell:

“SEE? IT’S NOT THAT DIFFICULT!“

[freakypumpkin]

After reading your post I I can’t get the thought of Alec as the main character out of my head now. Just thinking about how glorious it would have been makes me kind of sad. The whole tone of the show would be more mature and just make more sense. Jace and Izzy’s blind trust in Clary has always bugged me and actually soured me to them. Though tbh, I’ve never been a fan of YA “rebel”characters who make stupid choices yet face no consequences. Maybe I’m just to old for this show lol.

THIS MAKES ME SO HAPPY! <3 I was so hoping, that the idea would stick with somebody. :3 So, thank you for that and at the same time, sorry about that. xD

About this

The thing is, that I get why Clary was chosen as the main character and it follows the usual structure of ‘discovering a new world’ in YA, in which the main character is the one, that discovers and therefore can learn about the world alongside the reader or viewer. But I also think, that especially the way the TV show is set up, we could still have the explanations as in Alec being part of that conversation and also with Alec being most likely the one to rattle of rules and laws, it wouldn’t even be that much out of character and the viewer would still get the information. 

There could be a stronger focus on Clary and Alec actually becoming friends and the romance with Jace would be more of a side plot and therefore could also be stretched out longer, wouldn’t feel as rushed. (Also, the dynamic between Alec and Clary as hate-to-friendship has potential, I’d say and it would be easier to just shoot down the romantic shipping between them with fun banter - I mean, some would still do it, but it maybe wouldn’t be that strong?) With Alec being the center, he can be less restricted by rules and there could be more of Jace, Izzy and Alec trying to find out more, while Clary is logically benched for a bit as ‘the intruding newcomer’ to a secretive, military society. We could get more Lightwood moments with them discussing, who would go in to get a file, who would stay outside, teasing Alec for not being a good liar, getting into ridiculous situations. 

You could have a new direction of the plot, with the Clave maybe trying to shut down any investigations of the Lightwoods, when the rumor starts, that Clary might be Valentine’s daughter, because they want the cup back as well, and Jace, Izzy and Alec decide, that they need to take actions before something happens to Clary in the interrogation …

And later on, Alec is just positioned so nicely to be understandably able to get certain information or have skills, while still being young enough to not be the odd one out in the teenager group around Clary, etc. …

I can go on about this for hours, so if anybody wants to share thoughts, please do!

About YA in general, I absolutely share your sentiment about that kind of rebellious main character and the lack of consequences, but I also think, that it’s not YA itself, that makes it so annoying, but the fact, that in YA, nobody strays from that formula. I think, that you’re not getting too old for any genre, just that you might be getting to old for ‘the antics’ of the genre … if that makes any sense.    

Have a nice day :)

[freakypumpkin]

Everybody can draw

(given the access to materials and necessary physical functions, etc.)

Now, let me explain:

It comes so easily for people to say ‘I can’t draw’, when they almost always mean ‘I can’t draw well’ or ‘I don’t get results on the same level as somebody else’.

The things is, that by saying ‘I can’t draw’ art becomes a skill, that some people just have and others don’t, instead of something you can improve through practice. Being able to draw has been classified as ‘being able to draw at a certain level’ and if you’re not reaching that level you ‘can’t draw’, but what do you say to children drawing their first pictures?

They draw, because drawing is a simple act of putting color or lines on something. 

It’s just, that suddenly when people get older, it seems like they are expected to show the same art skills as their age group, which they are supposed to acquire by just getting older. But that’s not how it works. 

Art improves with practice. Do you expect somebody to know how to drive a car just by reaching a certain age? No. What information do you get, when somebody says ‘I can’t drive’? Something along the lines of ‘I haven’t learned how to drive yet’. 

It’s the same with art. You ‘can’t draw anatomically correct hands’? You haven’t learned it yet, haven’t studied it, haven’t practiced it.  You can draw a hand though. You might not like how it looks, it might not be anatomically correct, or whatever, but you drew a hand. (Just look at the range among abstract artists of what ‘qualifies’ as a hand.)

Drawing is something you’re always able to do.  If you want to get better at it or handle a certain material, you have to practice.

It’s possible and perfectly fine to not be interested in drawing, but maybe it should be communicated differently then because what others can pick up by somebody saying ‘I can’t draw’, their level of drawing skill is seen as ‘not drawing’. That then creates a challenge for young artists to overcome before they see themselves as ‘able to draw’ instead of seeing themselves as ‘getting better at drawing’.

The other side exists as well, by people who say about themselves ‘I can’t draw’ to see it as an excuse to not put in the work to get better and to a degree also ignore the work other artists put into their art.  Artists, who reach a certain level are also often dumped with all the creative things because ‘you can draw, right?’. Often people around them expect them also to be good at everything art-related and that’s not okay because again, it can create a form of self-concept for them to see it as their job to be good at everything art-related and if they are not, they see themselves as failed artist. 

So, what about 'talent’? Talent is something, that can give you an advantage, but if you don’t put in the work, talent won’t save you.  Just like people, who were born with a certain body type can bring an advantage to become a certain form of athlete, but if you don’t train, that’s not going to get you a win in a competition over someone with another body type, who did train. 

I think, the main problem is, that ‘the ability to draw’ is widely seen as a talent and disproving that idea is less easily visible than with something like body types. You can see somebody with a body type, that is considered a disadvantage, beating someone with a body type, that is considered an advantage. Not that easy to see with art because everybody who is good at drawing, or becomes successful with their art is automatically considered to ‘have the talent’.

Now, imagine it maybe this way:  Everybody standing on a race track, each person starts at a different point on the track, those with ‘talent’ a bit further than the others. Throughout life you walk forward on that track, but depending on the speed you move, a person starting further behind you, will catch up you and surpass you if you don’t move at the same pace.  Saying ‘I can’t draw’ is like not moving from the starting point at all and taking the fact, that you don’t move forward as prove for that, while in that particular metaphor you would tell them ‘Well, start walking’. Also you can start walking at any moment, but don’t compare yourself to those, who have start running years before you.

And this doesn’t even take into consideration all the different art styles you can go for, the different directions you can walk into. 

So, yeah, I don’t know if this is going to helpful for anybody, but these are my thoughts and something I came to understand/decide for myself and it took a lot of pressure off of me, which is why I wanted to share it.

[freakypumpkin]

Book vs. Show

Just a quick note to throw into the conversation: 

Yes, show!Alec acts differently in terms of certain topics, than book!Alec does, but I would also like to add, that (apart from the aging up of the character), show!Magnus also acts differently than in the books. 

When the sensitive topics of past lovers and Camille are brought up, the book-couple and the show-couple are in completely different places. 

Book!Alec reacts to Book!Magnus based on what happened in the books and not to Show!Magnus and what happened in the show. You shouldn’t see the storylines as the same and just Alec’s reaction changed. 

It’s a completely different context. 

(Sidenote: I’m not defending either side or passing judgement, I just see that aspect more often than not neglected in the conversations about these topics.) 

[freakypumpkin]

Interpreting comments/interviews

This is just a general tip, but maybe it can help someone when going into future episodes of Shadowhunters, as I see a lot of reactions and speculations based on things the showrunners/actors/etc. tweeted/said in interviews.

(And what you have to keep in mind, I think, is that your personal reaction to a tweet/comment made will always be a completely individual one and might not even have been the goal of said comment/tweet. Like, ‘big change’ for example can mean something different to every person watching the show and to every person working on it.)

It might seem totally obvious, but that’s not always the case for everybody (I sure as hell don’t get the most obvious things), so:

If you’re having problems with how to interpret or judge those comments made in interviews or tweets, maybe look back at things said/tweeted about other episodes, that already aired, then look at the episode itself and you can see what was actually meant by things like ‘big drama’ or ‘so many emotions’. 

That way you can find a way for yourself to translate those comments, that also tend to be over the top to create hype for the show. Not everybody gets excited about the same things, is emotionally moved by the same scenes, so those scenes might leave you disappointed afterwards or more shocked/confused, than moved, but if you’ve noticed before, that your own reaction doesn’t line up with what was promoted, you can prepare yourself, sort of. (Not necessarily to be disappointed, but you can maybe avoid disappointment by adjusting your expectations.)

I hope this makes sense.