No title available
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
Sweet Seals For You, Always
tumblr dot com
Mike Driver
Show & Tell
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year

JVL
styofa doing anything

No title available

⁂
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
Cosmic Funnies
Today's Document
wallacepolsom

Product Placement

izzy's playlists!
No title available
🪼
Xuebing Du
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Maldives
seen from Brazil

seen from United States

seen from Canada

seen from Türkiye
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Brazil
seen from China

seen from Canada
seen from Yemen

seen from Greece

seen from United Kingdom

seen from India

seen from Malaysia
seen from Morocco
seen from Slovakia
seen from Russia
@tudorscharlot
Between the horrible flu that I suffered through in December of 2019, moving apartments in March of 2020, and the absolute shitfuck that has been life on earth since March of 2020, I’ve been terribly neglectful of this blog that I love so much for most of the last two years.
The other (much more positive) neglect-driving factor is that I finally got a television that was made in this century and started watching all my movies on there instead of on my laptop in bed with headphones on. There are many advantages to this arrangement, but one disadvantage is that I can’t take screenshots on the TV. (Or, if there is an easy a way to do that, I don’t know it.) And this blog is pretty screenshot-intensive. Despite all of this, I’m hoping to post more regularly on here.
Concurrent with the trials and tribulations of the last couple dozen months, I created an account on Letterboxd - but for whatever reason have neglected to link it here, either with a literal link or with any overlap between what I post on these two sites. But now I’m working on having the two better mirror one another. I don’t have many followers on here or there, anyway, but if you’re interested, check it out!
letterboxd.com/tudorscharlot
Malignant (James Wan, 2021)
The little joke I made after the 6 January 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol is that it was so bad that it actually made me feel compassion for some cops. So how bad is James Wan's Malignant? Toward the end of the film, there is a scene where, like, 30 cops get fucking slaughtered. I have no idea about Wan's politics, but given the heavy catholic propaganda of the Conjuring movies and all the gross shit that goes with heavy catholic propaganda, I'd say there is an undeniable conservative streak running through his work - even if he is not a conservative and his films are superficially just using established "forces of good and evil" with no political messaging intended. So seeing a whole lot of cops get murdered in such a gratuitous way in a big-budget Hollywood film in 2021 from this director feels incongruous. But maybe these films really are so empty that writing and shooting a scene where two or three dozen cops are violently murdered in their own police station so soon after the Black Lives Matter protests of the summer of 2020 really doesn't mean anything to James Wan or his screenwriters.
But all of that is just to say that Malignant is so bad that not even having a scene where a bunch of cops get killed can redeem it.
This film is never, even for a minute, fun. And if it's going to be this empty, it should at least be fun. The effects when Madison is in one room and it dissolves and turns into another room are pretty cool. But it is still all so heavy and drab. Even in the couple of scenes where red lighting is prominent, it's dim and so dull. There is not a single frame of this film where any color pops. Why even make a movie if it's going to look like that? And the score is dreadful, too.
Before I comment on the plot of this film, I should note that, to an extent, I don't care about plot or conflict. Or at least I don't necessarily need conventional plot and conflict elements to enjoy a film. If the people making the film get the vibe right and the actors get the charisma right, that is often enough for the film to be magical and satisfying. There are even films where the plot gets in the way of the vibe. But there's no vibe or magic here.
The plot of this film gets more and more ludicrous (in a completely un-fun way) as it progresses. The reveals are unsatisfying and largely nonsensical. Is Gabriel a supernatural entity or a manifestation of a physical/psychological disturbance in a simply human Madison? It seems to depend on what a given scene calls for. If the former, then how is Madison able, in the end, to contain and control Gabriel through mere will? And how can she and her family trust that she'll be able to maintain that containment and control? If the latter, then how the hell does Gabriel call the cops when Madison is sitting in front of them? And how does Madison survive being shot so many times when she's being Gabriel? Why does Madison gain super-human strength and the ability to defy laws of nature - while moving backwards - if she's only suffering from a head injury? (Madison does everything Gabriel does, only backwards and in high heels!)
This is lazy and sloppy filmmaking, just in terms of not having a story with consistent internal logic. But the way this film uses elements of mental illness willy-nilly in order to move the plot along is really bad. Just as I don't think you have to have a conventional plot to have a good movie, I also don't think that everything has to be about mental illness or trauma. But if you're going to tell a story that is so reliant on the main character having been through some shit, you ought to have some respect for the real, complex shit that real, complex people in the world have experienced. In an hour and 51 minutes, we don't really learn anything about Madison/Emily as a person with an inner world, but we get to see her have a whole lot of dissociative episodes in which she kills, like, 40 or 50 people. If Gabriel is a genuinely separate entity from her, that's cool and all, but Madison's body still killed her husband and all those other people, and nearly killed her sister. And if Gabriel is simply an ill part of Madison's own mind, then what? And either way, what's the fallout for everything that just happened going to be? I mean, at the very least, she's definitely going to jail for killing a bunch of cops.
Oh, and here is yet another movie that uses a woman experiencing miscarriages as shorthand for "woman trauma" instead of spending any time developing her character.
This movie a stone-cold bummer, man.
Picnic at Hanging Rock (Peter Weir, 1975)
What a marvel this film is! This is a very horny, supernatural horror film - despite lacking sex, anything explicitly supernatural, or even any plot elements that are specifically within the boundaries of the horror genre. Mr. Weir establishes a tense yet languorous vibe from the opening shots and maintains it for the duration of the film, and he resolves almost nothing along the way. I can’t wait to read the book.
Sangailes vasara (The Summer of Sangaile) (Alante Kavaite, 2015)
I just watched this for the second time this week. The first time I watched it was in the month following a very painful breakup and when watching a staggering number of movies was the only thing keeping me afloat. I definitely had big and contradictory emotions about this movie since then, in addition to not really remembering it very clearly. But it has stayed with me in a nicely haunting way, and I was happy (and sad) to watch it again.
Like a lot of eastern European storytelling, this (Lithuanian) film ends up feeling incredibly sad to me. But it’s a sad story, so how else could I feel? Sangaile and Auste have a beautiful time together that offers them both long-lasting enrichment. And one can’t really ask for more than that from any relationship. But their parting at the end bums me out. It IS a story of young love, and those stories are almost always intense, fleeting, and hard to get over. It’s realistic that they had a literal and emotional summer together and were good to each other in a way that will glow as they go forward in their lives. But the longing way that Auste looks at Sangaile in those last scenes is too sad.
This is a good film.
4 aventures de Reinette et Mirabelle (Four Adventures of Reinette and Mirabelle) (Éric Rohmer, 1987)
This is a charming little film. The acting and writing feel a little stiff and awkward at times, but the overall vibe is definitely one of good medicine. I haven’t seen any of Éric Rohmer’s other films, so I don’t know his style or how this fits into his body of work. But I loved this grainy look at the French countryside as well as the hustle and bustle of mid-1980s Paris. Each of the adventures has its own logic and tone, and the repeating theme of moments of silence is very pleasing. I’m a big fan, too, of the lack of forced conflict between Reinette and Mirabelle and the absence of depictions of their love lives. Keeping those dramatic elements out of the story leaves room for the more subtle (and interesting) experiences and philosophical discussions these two characters have. Reinette’s paintings are terrific, too.
Vi är bäst! (We Are the Best!) (Lukas Moodysson, 2013)
This film is so beautiful and generous. And it is so cute and funny (without ever being cheesy or trite). But the heart of it is the love and friendship between these punk girls who are all a little out of step with their respective worlds. Friendship love stories like this just melt me. Between this and the equally endless-hearted Fucking Åmål (a.k.a. Show Me Love) and Tillsammans (Together), I feel that Mr. Moodysson’s standing as one of the finest filmmakers living today is undeniable. I hope he makes another film soon. P.S. - This film was adapted from Never Goodnight, a graphic novel written by Mr. Moodyson’s wife, Coco Moodysson. I haven’t read it yet, but I just confirmed that it is in print and available in an English translation.
Fetch the Bolt Cutters!
The new Fiona Apple album is incredible.
Portrait de la jeune fille en feu (Portrait of a Lady on Fire) (Céline Sciamma, 2019)
My Own Private Oscars, bro!
Here are my favorite films of that most innocent year of our lord, two-thousand-nineteen. They are in ranked order. #1 has the distinction of instantly being in my top three favorite films of my whole life as soon as I saw it, which I didn’t expect or know was possible. I know there are still several 2019 films that are probably up my alley that I haven’t seen yet, but my brain is kind of fried from all the horrible, terrifying shit that is happening right now and I can’t remember what they are. If you’re reading this, I hope you are healthy, safe, and as close to happy as you are able to be.
My favorite films of 2019: Portrait de la jeune fille en feu (Portrait of a Lady on Fire) (Céline Sciamma) Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino) Little Women (Greta Gerwig) Midsommar (Director's Cut) (Ari Aster) Parasite (Bong Joon-ho) Us (Jordan Peele) Greener Grass (Jocelyn DeBoer & Dawn Luebbe) The Lighthouse (Robert Eggers) Knives and Skin (Jennifer Reeder) Elisa y Marcela (Isabel Coixet) The Irishman (I Heard You Paint Houses) (Martin Scorsese) The Farewell (Lulu Wang) Uncut Gems (Josh & Benny Safdie) The Dead Don't Die (Jim Jarmusch) Black Christmas (Sophia Takal)
“I love it; it’s exciting. I’ve seen films that I absolutely could not stand when I saw it. Or I just thought, ‘I don’t know what is going on here.’ Then five years later, you see it and you can’t believe you missed something or what were you thinking? Or the opposite: You see a film, and you think the heavens have opened up. Then a couple of years later, you’re not quite sure what the hell’s going on, what were you thinking? Films should be like that. That’s great. They’re moving, living things. In different situations they’re different, you know? You walk into the theatre expecting something, or you’re in a bad mood, or you’re in a good mood — you’re open to anything. There are just too many issues going into a film to strike everybody as a (immediate) win, you know?” - Paul Thomas Anderson
Portrait de la jeune fille en feu (Portrait of a Lady on Fire) (Céline Sciamma, 2019)
I finally got to see this film last night. I know this sounds excessive and like an exaggeration, but here it is: I feel like I had my life before I saw Portrait of a Lady on Fire and now I’m in my life after I saw Portrait of a Lady on Fire. I feel like I just experienced something new, and I’m at a point in my life and an age where things that are actually new are very rare. This is an emotional high I haven’t had in a long time. When was the last time that I encountered a piece of art that made me think: I didn’t know you could do that!? I don’t know, but this is what it was like when I saw Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain or when I read Even Cowgirls Get the Blues or when I heard Animal Collective for the first time.
I saw Portrait of a Lady on Fire with my best friend and when we left the theater and walked outside, it was snowing heavily and it looked like a dream. 24 hours later and we are still texting each other about it nonstop in a state of absolute wonder. The high has not subsided.
The Falling (Carol Morley, 2014)
This was my second viewing of this film. Right after I watched it for the first time, I read several reviews of it and they were mostly favorable, but - and this really puzzled me - none of them acknowledge the queer element to the relationship between Lydia and Abbie. A couple writers even went out of their way to assert that there was definitely nothing romantic between them. The common view seems to be that Lydia is just platonically fixated on her confident, sexually adventurous friend. Which is silly. I'm certainly not trying to force any particular subtext or theme on this work of art, but there is no way that there is not a romantic element to Lydia and Abbie’s relationship! Even though that isn't the whole deal between them by a long shot. But Lydia doesn’t want to be Abbie. She just wants Abbie.
From the way that they speak to each other, I don't think that they have a sexual relationship and I don't know that they are even at a point of explicitly naming what is between them. I know that girls are generally more comfortable being physically affection with one another than boys, so I'm not saying that their being so cuddly with each other must "mean" anything more than an expression of their friendship. But Lydia is jealous and sexually possessive of Abbie. And the way they hold hands and lie together, the way they talk about their relationship, and just the way they physically are when they are in the same place puts them in a space somewhere between two girls who are close friends and two young women who are something else, too. Lydia is very serious and reserved and Abbie is more free and impulsive. But Abbie seems to care more than she lets on and despite doing things that inflame Lydia’s jealousy. It would be wrong to say that whatever Lydia is feeling is unrequited. It's just not requited in as obvious or monogamous a way.
There is a lot going on in this film, and I don’t know if it’s completely successful in saying everything it has to say. I find the last 15 minutes a little upsetting and I'm especially not sure if I think the ending lands. But I love this movie, and I love it enough to feel like the things that feel incongruous or wrong to me right now might come to make more sense as I continue to think about it (and with another viewing).
SPOILER ALERT How about all of that falling? Abbie faints and dies - which, by the way, is horrifying. It’s a punch in the gut to lose one of our story’s heroes 30 minutes into the film, and it really caught me off-guard and upset me the first time I saw it. Gosh. So Abbie falls and is gone, and then all the other girls start fainting all the time. There's ambiguity over whether or not some medical epidemic has struck the girls, whether they are experiencing some kind of psychosomatic sympathy for their friend that feels real to them but has no physical basis, or whether they are just knowingly faking it. If they are knowingly faking it, is it in childish (by which I mean pure-hearted) solidarity or is it less noble attention-seeking behavior? Some of the girls faint in a pretty believable way and some of them are pretty theatrical about it, from the beginning and the whole time it's happening. And then of course Lydia admits she was always only faking it.
What really struck me on the second viewing is that this part of the story is simply a portrait of the reality of life for teenage girls. All of the girls are mourning a shocking death. It's shocking to lose someone in your small peer-group at that age. But against the backdrop of a private school in 1960s England, they aren't really given time or space to grieve as children. They're forced to keep putting on their long skirts and pretend that life is going on like normal. So when the opportunity arises (prompted by the socially non-compliant best friend of their dead friend) to act out (and I guess I mean that both in terms of theater acting and misbehaving) in imitation of and tribute to Abbie, they almost all take it.
They should be allowed to STOP and process what just happened, but they aren't. So they find their own way to stop and mourn and let the adults know that they are in pain and are confused and that they (the girls) are connected to one another. And I really like that we are shown that Lydia and some of the other girls are faking it while some of the girls maintain that it is real. This part of the film does such a great job of illustrating the importance of taking the feelings of children seriously, even if the feelings are not about things that you think are serious. And the importance of recognizing that sometimes young people don't have the vocabulary to articulate what's wrong. Whatever is going on with each girl individually, they all double down when the adults refuse to believe that what they are experiencing is real. Further, I love this portrait of solidarity. They all rally together rather than ostracizing Lydia or conforming to the demands of their teachers out of fear of punishment. Their instinct is to draw to one another. I love this beautiful story of girls being together with each other.
I don't really know what the fuck is up with Lydia's family and their relationships with one another. The mom is the only character who feels like a caricature, and I'm not sure how to rectify her with the rest of the film. The reveal that Lydia was conceived when the mom was raped and the mom resents her for resembling her rapist is...a lot. And the consummated sibling incest is even more a lot. Perhaps Lydia is drawn to her brother because her brother had sex with Abbie right before she died and that feels like a way for her to be close to Abbie. She is also just in a state of nihilistic despair and not thinking or acting clearly. Maybe it is appropriate to do the Midsommar thing and view this part of the film as being like a fairy tale. It certainly is horrifying if taken literally. And the final scene by the river, I’m realizing right now that this whole last act has big echoes of the last act of Bergman’s Through a Glass Darkly. And like “Papa spoke to me” in that film, this moment between Lydia and her mom under the tree feels like it doesn’t quite hit the way the author wants it to.
I guess there are three stories: Lydia and Abbie's complex relationship, the epidemic of fainting among the girls after Abbie dies, and Lydia's damaged relationship with her mother and brother. The first two stories fit together very well. The third one doesn't fit very well. Maybe they don't have all fit together to still work as a film. And maybe they'll fit together better when I watch it again. Or maybe Carol Morley just tried to put too many things in this film and fucked up her third act.
END SPOILERS
A lot of this film is perfect, though. The music in general is good, but the scene where the girls’ alternative orchestra is playing gives me chills. That piece of music and the footage of them playing and singing it is beautiful and an unexpected step into a dream. (That little wooden xylophone that Lydia plays is a delight when heard through headphones.) Obviously Florence Pugh is great in this, and it was such a treat rewatching this having seen her work in Midsommar and Little Women. But Maisie Williams is the real revelation in this film. I watched all of Game of Thrones and the main thing I took away from that series is that the true stars on there were Peter Dinklage and Maisie Williams. Williams, as a person, has such intelligence and intensity, and she plays this role in a way that I don’t think any other actor could. Anyway, The Falling is a beautiful and puzzling film. Here’s to the next viewing.
Best Picture winner, Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019)! I’m so happy about this!
Oh my god oh my god oh my god!
Bande de filles (Gang of Girls, AKA Girlhood) (Céline Sciamma, 2014)
Here is Ms.Sciamma’s third feature film, and the last of what she has described as her “coming of age” stories. I understand that she received a lot of flak for making a film about Black girls, but I think that is a silly stance for folks to take. With the caveat that I am a white man who does not possess the perspective and experience to be able to say with any real authority whether or not this film is exploitative, I am as sensitive as I can be (and am always striving to be more sensitive) about White People Doing Things. And this film feels very honest to me. Furthermore, here are two quotes from Ms. Sciamma on this subject: “I had a strong sense of having lived on the outskirts - even if I am middle-class white girl. I didn't feel I was making the film about black women but with black women - it's not the same. I'm not saying, 'I'm going to tell you what it's like being black in France today'; I just want to give a face to the French youth I'm looking at."
and
“I was shocked by how black people were never on screen [in France]. Very, very few – even in TV. Particularly that age group and women. There are no black actresses famous in France." This tells me that she was very conscious and deliberate in how she wrote and cast this film. She viewed the actors as collaborators and she took the opportunity of making this film to give Black women better visibility and representation in French cinema. Intentions are never the same as actions, and it’s fair if people feel like Sciamma tried to tell a story she didn’t have the authority to tell or if the film simply rings false for them. But I personally feel that critiques of this nature for this film are superficial, reactionary, and create a situation where the director is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. Had she done another film centered around white people, she may have received criticism for lacking diversity in her casts and subject matter. Instead, we got this criticism. But enough of all of that. This film is gorgeous and complex, and I still don’t feel like I’m getting some of what it’s saying (after two viewings). Marieme’s life is so tough and she is so guarded. She continuously has to make difficult decisions that are motivated by the need to survive instead of by what will make her happy. The moments where she is allowed to be tender and to just enjoy herself are so rare. But I love Marieme and her sisters and her gang of friends. Speaking of her gang - I don’t know where the decision to call this film Girlhood in its US release came from, but it seems like a cynical cashing-in on the then-recent success of Richard Linklater’s Boyhood, and not only do I not like this title, but I think it changes the tone and focus of the film. “Girlhood” is very generic. “Gang of girls” is fierce and evocative. And if Céline Sciamma considers the idea of a gang of girls important enough that she called the film Gang of Girls, I don’t want it to be known by any other name.
Actually, I’m going to keep going on this: As I understand it, Linklater wanted to Boyhood to be called 12 Years, but the idea was nixed after 12 Years a Slave came out. I don’t think 12 Years is a very good title, but Boyhood is even worse, because that film was just as much about the boy’s sister and parents as it was about him, even if he got the most screen time and narrative focus. The right title would have been open enough to contain the whole family. The counterpoint to this is Ingmar Bergman’s Fanny and Alexander. It’s true that the film is much more focused on Alexander’s experiences and point-of-view than Fanny’s, but the fact that Bergman named the film after both of them is so wonderful. It’s sort of like (uh-oh, here I go about yet another movie) the fact that, although Anna Paquin only has a couple of spoken lines in The Irishman, her presence in that film (and the weight of that character as written) is powerful enough to match 3.5 hours of De Niro/Frank Sheeran. Those two lines were all that was needed to convey so, so much during a climactic moment. And when Fanny glares at the bishop after he whips Alexander, that’s all that’s needed to show that the film is about her just as much as him. So I’m saying that I think this film is about the whole gang of girls, even if it focuses primarily on Marieme. The ending of this film makes me very sad. Birth of the Octopuses and Tomboy end on ambiguous but I’d argue (have argued!) positive, optimistic notes. And they both feel like a chapter coming to a decisive close. After two viewings, I feel that Bande de filles does not end on a particularly positive note, and it doesn’t provide the sense of resolution that the other films do. This isn’t a criticism. The hero of this story is older and experiencing a more complicated stage of life. She is also dealing with legitimately dangerous people and situations and a possibly grim future. I’m glad that she got away from Abou and took a step toward reuniting with her sisters. But the point at which this film ends leaves a great deal unresolved and uncertain. I’ll leave this here for now. Like all the films that I love but feel like I’m not totally getting, I’m excited to see Bande de filles again and notice things that I haven’t noticed yet. Like all of Céline Sciamma’s films, everyone should watch this.
No cinematic universe but the Pughniverse