#cinematic parallels

thisplacehaseverything:

Michael Sheen didn’t make Aziraphale the gayest character of all time just for y'all to claim there is no queer representation in Good Omens.

Signed, sealed, and notarized, 100%. And this…

I alluded to this somewhat in the tags on my GO/OFMD discourse postthe other day, but honestly I am flummoxed at how little credit Michael seems to be getting for making Aziraphale and GO incredibly, unbelievably, Cher-performing-on-Fire-Island levels of gay. Every look, every gesture, every glance he gave Crowley/David was beyondintentional.

And it goes so much further than Michael just playing a role, because time and again he has said how there is a part of him in every role he plays, so it’s hard not to see a parallel between the queerness in Good Omens and Michael’s personal journey with his own sexuality. He’s talkedfrequentlyabout his attractions to men growing up, and about not being sure of where the line is between him and Aziraphale, as well as how his entire characterization of Aziraphale was and is tied to David being there as Crowley.

It’s that relationship and that connection that enabled Michael to bring Aziraphale to life the way he did, and is a vital part of why his portrayal is so unique and makes GO as special as it is. As much as I enjoyed OFMD–and by no means am I shading the queer rep we got there–for me, the kiss between Ed and Stede didn’t have nearly the same passion and intensity found in just a single look that Aziraphale gave to Crowley. It’s because there was not an overt physical expression of affection between them in the first season that Michael had to put every scrap of longing, every ounce of love, desire, uncertainty, affection, and passion into his expressions and gestures, and he did so with uncontrollable aplomb. And I think maybe he did it because some part of him understood and related to that from his own life.

It’s also the difference between acting and being, in pulling out a piece of your soul and sharing it on screen for everyone to see, revealing a part of yourself that you’ve always kept hidden, or had no other way to express. And that is what I think Michael has done with the role of Aziraphale (well, with all the queer roles he’s played, but especiallyAziraphale): He is telling us not just who this character is, but also telling us who he is.

So yes, that queer representation is absolutelyin Good Omens, and Michael’s depiction of Aziraphale is a completely massive part of that and deserves far more recognition than it seems to currently be getting. And, I for one, cannot wait to see what he will be doing in season 2…  

I was reading Golden Kamuy and

all I could think about is

imakeficrequestsandthendisappear:

is there a parallel between Five falling in love with a mannequin and Reginald Fuckgreeves building a robot that looks like his ex girlfriend or am i just seeing patterns in the void 

and of course there’s like the obvious difference that Dolores was always an object that Five projected a personality on to to solve his loneliness. He gave her like likes and preferences and treated her with a level of care that we would expect from a human to another human. Logically Five knows she is an object but emotionally he treats her as person with agency. 

Alternatively, Reginald takes the visage of a real vibrant person and turns her into a hollow object. Robot Grace performs all the tasks of a doting wife and mother, but she’s got the personal agency of a rumba. Reginald sees no person in her (we don’t really see them interact that much) but she is a tool to preform a function, take care of the kids. Reginald also doesn’t respect personhood in …anybody? the kids are means to an end. Babies can be bought. several nannies die and he just keeps replacing them. So grace isn’t like different from them, but she is the one that he “made”. she doesn’t have the capacity to disobey him (like the kids do) and he likes it that way.  

(and grace like has her own arch in the day that never happened that like, is important but more in how it relates to her and less on how it reflects on Reginald. So i love her and he is a bastard rat man)

but like most important is that Five lets Dolores go at the end of Season 1. He grows and accepts human relationships again (and then season 2 fucks it all up again). But Reginald never lets go of Grace. He makes her kill him and then not be able to admit that to the kids, to the point where they seriously consider “killing” her (disconnecting her from the wifi). She is a tool until the very end, and only when he is dead she is able to develop some agency when the kids start treating her like a person. 

is there a parallel between Five falling in love with a mannequin and Reginald Fuckgreeves building a robot that looks like his ex girlfriend or am i just seeing patterns in the void 

aeonfan:

the beginning of 1917 // the ending of 1917

thetravelingbitch:

Stereotypical Italian summers.

Normal Peoplevs.Call Me By Your Name

Licorie Pizza X Punch Drunk Love

My Love For PTA knows no bounds.

Credits - cinema.unchained

hellish-cruelty:

There is certain ineffable beauty in hand holding gestures.

Hand Touching Psychology In Films.

Films In Order - My Best Friends Wedding, Casino Royale, Normal People, Pride And Prejudice, Anna Karenina, Emma, Bridgerton, Atonement, To All The Boys I’ve Loved Before, Call Me By Your Name

Know that I’ve not just let you hold my hand, my delicate heart rests in your hands. So, hold it tight and keep it safe because you’re already sending me to despair.

In the mood for Love. (Masterful evocation of romantic longing and fleeting moments.)

The Age of Innocence

Anna Karenina

so I was watching frozen 2 and cried

This reminds me so much of when Lilo was been taken away on Gantu’s ship