“The party from Uppercross passing down by the now deserted and melancholy looking rooms, and still descending, soon found themselves on the sea-shore; and lingering only, as all must linger and gaze on a first return to the sea, who ever deserve to look on it at all …”
- Persuasion, volume 1, chapter 11, Jane Austen
In addition to the excellent writing of this adaptation, the framing of this shot is amazing. Wentworth and Anne are as far apart as they can possibly be while still being in the shot, but they are also the only two figures in darker clothing, with the others blending in more with the rocks in terms of colors. The distance between them starts to erode after this point in the story as well, so this is a visual representation of how they remain connected no matter how much physical space they keep between them.
Genuinely amazed that Our Flag Means Death was able to take the one element of Homosexuality that has consistently been used as a symbol of disgust for bigots: ‘Buggery’ or male on male penetration; and make it poetic and romantic.
Thusly destigmatising, romanticizing and beautifying homosexual intimacy with the same respect and dignity that heterosexual intercourse has been afforded in symbolism.
The ‘run me through’ scene and other examples of Ed and Stede being penetrated in symbolic and poetic ways serve to subtly imply that it’s OK to be penetrated. To let your guard down, to be a different kind of man and not require toxic masculinity. To be penetrated by another man was always implied to have your masculinity taken away. But one of the biggest motifs in the show is the benefit and beauty of gentle masculinity.
Not to mention the fact that it (penetration) is something that needs to be learned; (an element of anal sex and the homosexual experience that is often under discussed and ignored in fiction) that there is a right way to do it, and to be careful. That Stede asks “did I do it right?” After getting penetrated by Izzy’s sword, almost like he’s asking for re-assurance during sex.
Additionally it was Ed, somebody more confident and clearly aware of their Queerness, teaching Stede; somebody who is still in the closet (again something literally symbolized in the scene where Stede shows Ed his secret closet) how to safely participate in gay intimacy. Which is another historical element of the Queer experience. Finding other people who help guide you through your identity and often for men one (typically older) partner taught the other how to engage in intimacy (at least before the internet and comprehensive sex education)
Maybe I’m reading into it too much but this show had so much symbolism and poetry in it I can’t think the creators didn’t at least consider the implications of two men ‘sword playing’ a euphemism for gay sex, and literally teaching one another how to safely be penetrated…
Like come on?
There was no sex scene in the show but I think the ‘run me through’ scene was the shows sex scene, it was very intimate. Ed looked pleased that Stede had gone through with it, and Stede had the nervous jitters of somebody loosing their virginity.
I refuse to feel shameful for reading into this scene so much, the entire show was just packed with symbolism, it’s absurd. So much queer history and imagery conveyed through theme, metaphors and poetic imagery. A silly pirate comedy does not deserve this much heart, soul and intellect, but it’s so amazing. I’m actually obsessed.
It has just occurred to me that of all the characters in Winnie the Pooh, the only ones that lack both fingerless stuffing hands and faint seam lines (the indications that someone is a stuffed animal) are Rabbit and Owl. Which carries the possible implication that Rabbit and Owl are just a normal rabbit and owl living with a bunch of sentient stuffed animals.
And somehow this makes Rabbit’s constant consternation with all of his neighbors even funnier to me.
Theyre also the only ones with bushy eyebrows and chest and chin floof, and I dont know if thats relevant but it FEELS relevant!
Also someone mentioned Gopher too and OF COURSE, there is absolutely no argument that this whistling little man isn’t just an average (talking) gopher.
The more I examine this the more it feels just so OBVIOUS
You are exactly right! Most of the characters in the stories are based on the real Christopher Robin Milne’s stuffed toys except for Rabbit and Owl who were added for the books and Gopher who is exclusive to the Disney adaptations.
Here are the real Pooh, Tigger, Piglet, Kanga, and Eeyore. They currently live at the New York Public Library.
It’s fairly clear in the book illustrations too:
‘Owl,’ said Rabbit shortly, ‘you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest – and when I say thinking I mean thinking– you and I must do it.’
Milne, A. A.; E. H. Shepard. The House at Pooh Corner (pp. 78-79). Egmont UK Ltd. Kindle Edition.
This post has been getting a surge of attention and let me tell you that 1) I am really pleased at how kind most of the people who KNEW all this have been in explaining it, and 2) I feel a lot better seeing just how many other people didn’t have any more clue of this than I did XD It’s kinda nice being part of a post thats spreading some fun knowledge in a nice way!
Also thank you to the gracious @roofermadness in the tags for complimenting my astuteness on figuring this out from the animation character designs, you are so nice to say so and I appreciate you
“i didn’t [kill the dogs]. BUT, the world does need a villain to believe in and i’m happy to fit the bill.”
oh, cruella. my brilliant, exceptionally perceptive phenom. so this is one of my favorite pieces of social commentary of all time. here, cruella is delineating a societal paradigm of both sheer idiocy and unnerving oppression. one in which people forgo facts- the only things that are reflective of reality- to forge narratives that are amenable to their pre-conceived notions. such a paradigm aids in the sustenance of oppressive systems like racism and sexism. those with privilege who are hellbent on preserving their justly wielded power will stop at nothing to perpetuate false stereotypes by concocting narratives that couldn’t be farther from the truth. nevertheless, it is not truth that these people seek to unveil, but rather a tale that encourages others to subjugate marginalized peoples. take, for instance, a scenario in which a racist encounters a black man in a hoodie walking down the street. the racist proceeds to concertedly detail the black man as an insidious threat in their phone call to the police despite the presence of any evidence to corroborate the claim. so goes the tale of anti-blackness. navigating back to cruella’s situation, people choose to frame cruella as a so-called “dog killer” out of sheer, willful nescience: they are appalled at the notion of a young woman whose every action is done in the name of securing justice. it is unseemly to them. and this makes sense in that securing justice would mean the loss of immoral power they currently hold. as such, they attempt to burn her at the stake (figuratively speaking) in a social mauling to punish her for not allowing them to hold their deplorable ideologies. nevertheless, cruella leverages the stupidity to create a barrier of defense for herself. after all, who would dare challenge someone as machiavellian as a murderer of defenseless creatures? this is why she’s “happy to fit the bill.” for her entire life, she’s been assaulted at the hands of an unjust society. through this very society’s creation of a caricature of her, cruella is able to avoid the position of vulnerability her marginalized identities (woman, low socioeconomic status, mentally ill) and refusal to accept injustice rear. in conclusion: she is the best person ever ok bye
my thoughts on cruella’s prospective development/plot for cruella (2021) sequel
so i’m basing things on the statement above from the director and everything i’ve learned and analyzed from the first film, of course. as we know, cruella is self-destructive to a detrimental level. that is, she will do things she knows cause her great harm and it all stems from a self-hatred she’s yet to escape from, even upon the finding that the baroness murdered her mother. as we know, the voiceover takes place as cruella stands over estella’s “grave” aka after every event in the film besides her and the gang driving to hell hall. in this voiceover, she still discusses her mother’s death as partially attributable to her, unfortunately. “let’s skip past the part where i killed her.” though it had once seemed like cruella had gotten past that blame when she’s shown saying “it wasn’t my fault,” the chronology attests that a bit of regression has taken place and that’s understandable given the sheer level of trauma she had to endure.
by the film’s conclusion, cruella is not stable whatsoever as she’s still grappling with the weight of what coming into her true self means- as we saw in the monologue, she faces inner turmoil between embracing herself and how she perceives that to be letting down her mother- and not everyone around her is exactly the most supportive given their continual discussion over “missing estella.” point being, this instability only deepens the chasm in which self-loathing can accrue for her.
as i’ve been over in other posts, cruella’s intentional creation of an evil public persona is both her most notable advantage in that she has effectively created a shield between her and the rest of the world that she is weary of but it’s also her most notable disadvantage because the creation of this persona will lead to a massive amount of hatred from the public. by crafting a (FALSE) narrative tor herself that has the masses believing she brutally murdered and skinned three dogs, she is bound to be despised because to the outside world, that is the “real her.” only she and those close to her know that she’d never do such a thing and that the persona is all a facade: antithetical to who she actually is as a person. essentially, she wants a way to protect herself from a society that’s been cruel to her for all of her life but the way she chooses to do this is one that she knows will bring her immense and likely unbearable amounts of pain.
cruella isn’t going to want to stop at the tale of her skinning three dogs. knowing she has an ever expanding platform, she’ll amplify the narrative and this is where an homage to the original 101 dalmatians could come in. essentially, i think she, with anita’s help, will plant a story in the press that supposedly identifies her as the killer of that many puppies/dogs and it will somehow tie into a fashion show of some sort. after all, i reckon that as the empress of what’s emerging to be the world’s most prominent fashion house, she’ll want the house of de vil to make an unforgettable debut and an apparent murderous origin from a whole line of clothing- or perhaps one massive statement piece- would do just that along with her other momentous goal to have the world hate and fear her in equal proportion such that no one can get close enough to hurt her again. with nearly unlimited access to resources now given her acquired wealth, she’ll be able to keep upping the antics, making her persona more and more formidable.
in reality, the so-called “murdered” dogs will be rescued by her and heaven knows there’s enough room to tend to a large amount of dogs in her mansion. anyway, the point is that the amount of hatred she’ll be mailed with from what could very well be millions of people if the story goes global, as i have no doubt would happen with that kind of thing, will destroy her confidence and self-esteem. it’ll make life miserable for her. yes, she knows that isn’t who she is, but to be treated LIKE she’s a heartless killer by everyone and to have to play that role to the media perpetually…i couldn’t even begin to imagine the kind of toll it would take on her, but i know it would be agonizing.
in a way, this would devastatingly further subvert her entire journey thus far, which has already been alluded to with her directly stating she’s begun to play a role for the media. “but people do need a villain to believe in and i’m happy to fit the bill.” she’s gone from having to hide under a feigned submissive personality trait- who she was as estella- to a brief time period where she could be fully herself to the outside world without being notoriously known as a killer and then directly back to having to project a fake persona, only this time, it isn’t a demure woman. it’s that of an absolute monster who murdered dogs.
the increasing trauma will likely become more and more debilitating to her as she won’t be able to even show her face anywhere without being met with loathing and contempt by all who recognize what i call the anti-cruella aka the fake version of her she’s procured to keep people away. as such, in her efforts to fend off the outside world, that world will swallow her whole with its resentment of “her” due to the method of defense through deception she utilized. therefore, as the director said, she’d be destroyed as in utterly damaged from worsening mental illnesses and in pain and this destruction will have aborned from within herself as she is the engineer of the anti-cruella persona.
all i can say is they better give my baby the happiness she deserves by the end meaning that they should write her to ultimately feel as though she doesn’t have to hide behind any personas anymore and can simply be herself: cruella de vil. a woman who isn’t always some ball of sunshine on the outside but is and has ALWAYS been an incredible person. someone who fights for justice unapologetically. a brilliant, creative woman who has and will continue to take the fashion world by storm. i want her to feel comfortable not having to put on a show of “sweetness” or one of a deplorable being to live in this society. her apprehension about this does NOT make her a bad person. she’s very rightfully afraid to be who she is because she knows society is cruel (“hello, cruel world”) and will misjudge her without even attempting to understand her but creating these personas are all just self-destructive measures that will do her more harm than good.
as a bit of a side note, the baroness could play into my aforementioned thoughts on cruella shedding her personas. cruella would of course need to show the public that the dogs are alive and well to prove that the evil persona was all fake. however, the baroness could complicate matters (after escaping jail given she still has a network of people who are loyal to her and just like her, they contribute to a corrupted justice system) by actually stealing the dogs and killing some of them, framing cruella and leading the world to believe that she’d lied and really was just a horrible person. if something like this were to happen, i’d hope that the truth would come out, that cruella’s name would be cleared, and that she could live happily and truly free from the confinements of living in the shadow of a fake version of herself.
This is the first of two new videos today. Watch this one first.
Off the top of your head, could you sing the theme from Star Wars? How about James Bond? Or Harry Potter? But here’s the kicker: can you sing any theme from a Marvel film? Despite 13 films and 10 billion dollars at the box office, the Marvel Cinematic Universe lacks a distinctive musical identity or approach. So let’s try to answer the question: what is missing from Marvel music?
For the past ten years, I’ve been editing professionally. Yet one question always stumps me: “How do you know when to cut?” And I can only answer that it’s very instinctual. On some level, I’m just thinking & feeling my way through the edit. So today, I’d like to describe that process: how does an editor think & feel?
How do you film a conversation? Most likely, you’re going to block the actors, set up the camera, and do shot/reverse shot. But where do you put the camera? What lens do you use? And how do you cut back and forth? Today, I consider the Coen brothers — Joel & Ethan — and see how these choices lend a particular feel to their version of shot/reverse shot.
How do you emphasize to the audience that something is important? Well, you could always cut to a close-up, but how about something subtler? Today I consider ensemble staging — a style of filmmaking that directs the audience exactly where to look, without ever seeming to do so at all.
Eight Ways to Get the Audience to Look at Someone/Something: 1) Let Them Speak 2) Make Them Brighter or Bring Them Closer 3) Let Them Move (Especially Hands or Eyes) 4) Put Them in the Center of Frame 5) Turn Them Towards the Lens 6) Separate Them from the Group 7) Isolate Them by Moving the Camera 8) Have Other People Look at Them
Before Edgar Wright and Wes Anderson, before Chuck Jones and Jackie Chan, there was Buster Keaton, one of the founding fathers of visual comedy. And nearly 100 years after he first appeared onscreen, we’re still learning from him. Today, I’d like to talk about the artistry (and the thinking) behind his gags. Press the CC button to see the names of the films.
Perhaps no other city has been as thoroughly hidden from modern filmmaking as Vancouver, my hometown. Today, it’s the third biggest film production city in North America, behind Los Angeles and New York. And yet for all the movies and TV shows that are shot there, we hardly ever see the city itself. So today, let’s focus less on the movies and more on the city in the background. Press the CC button to see movie names and locations.
If you grew up watching Looney Tunes, then you know Chuck Jones, one of all-time masters of visual comedy. Normally I would talk about his ingenious framing and timing, but not today. Instead, I’d like to explore the evolution of his sensibilities as an artist.
One of the great things about detailed production design is that it pays off in unexpected ways. So today I explore the weird possibilities of that most common of objects: the chair.
What can one detail tell us about a scene? If you’re Lynne Ramsay: absolutely everything. Today I consider the poetic possibilities of cinema and one of our finest contemporary filmmakers.
Can movement tell a story? Sure, if you’re as gifted as Akira Kurosawa. More than any other filmmaker, he had an innate understanding of movement and how to capture it onscreen. Join me today in studying the master, possibly the greatest composer of motion in film history.
One of the many pleasures of Nicolas Winding Refn’s “Drive” (2011) is that the shots feel both tightly composed and weirdly unpredictable. Even though most of the images follow a simple quadrant system, Refn puts plenty of subtle touches within the frame. Let’s take a look.
One of Akira Kurosawa’s many gifts was staging scenes in ways that were bold, simple and visual. I’m working on a longer essay about him and this piece didn’t make the cut, so here it is as a standalone video. Thanks for watching!
Some filmmakers can do action. Others can do comedy. But for 40 years, the master of combining them has been Jackie Chan. Let’s see how he does it. (Note: to see the names of the films, press the CC button!)
For educational purposes only. You can donate to support the channel at
Characters make choices which they cannot take back. The question is: how do you show it visually? Here’s one solution from Snowpiercer. Warning: SPOILS ENTIRE FILM.
20 Movies I Study for Editing (Not definitive, just 20 to watch if you’re interested)
Sherlock Jr. (1924) ed. Buster Keaton The Man with the Movie Camera (1929) ed. Dziga Vertov The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) ed. Daniel Mandell The Red Shoes (1948) ed. Reginald Mills The Wages of Fear (1953) ed. Madeleine Gug, Etiennette Muse & Henri Rust Seven Samurai (1954) ed. Akira Kurosawa Rififi (1955) ed. Roger Dwyre Shoot the Piano Player (1960) ed. Claudine Bouché & Cécile Decugis Last Year at Marienbad (1961) ed. Jasmine Chasney & Henri Colpi Branded to Kill (1967) ed. Akira Suzuki
Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) ed. Nino Baragli Rosemary’s Baby (1968) ed. Sam O’Steen & Bobby Wyman F for Fake (1973) ed. Orson Welles, Marie-Sophie Dubus & Dominique Engerer The Conversation (1974) ed. Walter Murch Star Wars (1977) ed. Marcia Lucas, Paul Hirsch & Richard Chew Goodfellas (1990) ed. Thelma Schoonmaker Drunken Master 2 (1994) ed. Peter Cheung Hana-bi (1997) ed. Takeshi Kitano & Yoshinori Ohta In the Mood for Love (2000) ed. William Chang Suk-ping Millennium Actress (2001) ed. Satoshi Terauchi
Five South Korean Movies I Like Take Care of My Cat (2001) dir. Jeong Jae-eun Memories of Murder (2003) dir. Bong Joon-ho Oldboy (2003) dir. Park Chan-wook Save the Green Planet! (2003) dir. Jang Joon-hwan 3-Iron aka Bin-jip (2004) dir. Kim Ki-duk
Five Short Films I Like One Froggy Evening (1955) dir. Chuck Jones La Jetée (1962) dir. Chris Marker Wallace & Gromit: The Wrong Trousers (1993) dir. Nick Park The Heart of the World (2000) dir. Guy Maddin Fast Film (2003) dir. Virgil Widrich
People have asked me to recommend other resources for studying films, and I thought I would consolidate this in one spot.
Books on film: “Making Movies” by Sidney Lumet “On Film-Making” by Alexander Mackendrick “The Conversations: Walter Murch and the Art of Editing” by Michael Ondaatje “Sculpting in Time” by Andrei Tarkovsky “Reflections: 21 Cinematographers at Work” by Benjamin Bergery
My actual reading recommendation: Don’t read too much about film. Watching film is plenty. It’s more helpful to read about psychology. After that: history, mathematics, philosophy, biology, astronomy, food, literature, you name it. Whatever interests you to read, will interest you to make films about. If you don’t like to read, uhhhh, I got no advice for you.
A book could be written deconstructing the film “The Power of the Dog”. This spoiler review is only going to scratch the surface of the film as I don’t have time to write that book.
@astronbookfilms Thank you for the tag. An excellent, perceptive review that gets under the skin of a fascinating film, one of my favourites this year, and one of Jane Campion’s greatest.
What’s So Great About That?: Episode 14 A Field In England: The Presence of Absence
Ben Wheatley’s ‘A Field In England’ contains many unusual creative choices, from using tableau to re-dubbing audio, but each decision seems to be directed at one thing: absence. But to what effect?
What’s So Great About That?: Episode 11 Kill List: The Folk Horror Revival
Folk Horror has evolved over the years, from The Wicker Man in 1973 to Kill List in 2012, but why are we afraid of Folk? What is Folk Horror all about?
What’s So Great About That?: Episode 9 The Lego Movie: Constructing and Reconstructing Identity
The Lego Movie has been theorised to comment on many things, from capitalism to copyright laws, but here’s a look at what it might mean for our own identity.
What’s So Great About That?: Episode 7 The Babadook: The New Physicality of Ghosts in Horror
Are ghosts becoming more physical? An analysis of how The Babadook uses the conventions and associations of a ghost story to explore notions of presence and absence in both horror and mental illness.
What’s So Great About That?: Episode 6 Sightseers: Creativity in a Caravan
Ben Wheatley’s dark comedy Sightseers takes a particularly bloody road trip through the British countryside, but with murder discussed in the same breath as creative writing, are we to draw a connection between the two?
What’s So Great About That: Episode 25 Phantom You [Tube]: Fighting Our Digital Doubles
With our online and offline lives becoming increasingly connected, to what extent do we create our own other? And to what effect? Since the 1990s, horror and sci-fi have considered how we might create our own worst enemy - and the friendly face of this dystopian future is yours.
What’s So Great About That: Episode 23 Next Stop, Analysis: The Contradictory Trains of Cinema
Ever since the Lumière brothers’ ‘Arrival of A Train At La Ciotat Station’, the train has been embedded in both English and cinematic language, with too many iconic scenes and potential puns to ever fit in one video. The train transcends genre, the setting of adventure, romance, horror and mystery. So how can it be so many things at once?
What’s So Great About That: Episode 20 Feathered Foes: Birds in Horror
There’s no shortage of birds in horror. Perched on grave stones, flying into windows or just turning up dead. So, what is it about birds specifically that endears them to the makers of horror films? Why are they always rapping, rapping at our chamber door?
What’s So Great About That: Episode 19 The Last Unicorn: Why Must You Always Speak In Riddles
The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle is a book of riddles. Nothing is as it seems, and no one will give you a straight answer. But what can be gained from this evasiveness, in being cryptic and deceptive? Why must you always speak in riddles?
What’s So Great About That?: Episode 18 Evil Dead: Loving The Unnatural
The special effects in ‘The Evil Dead’ don’t have the same impact now as they did in 1981, but there’s something uniquely appealing about this sort of low budget production. So what draws us to these crude effects? And in what way do they recontextualise how we look at imperfection and failure?
