Rise Up, Oh Heart, For There is Another Battle to Win

Rewatching Fury Road while tipsy because houseguest, and SOME THOUGHTS: 

• The Doof Warrior is so fucking extra, I love him with my whole heart because.  What.

• Furiosa straight up tries to kill Max in that first fight.  Like, he KNOWS the shotgun isn’t loaded and furthermore he wastes THREE bullets on nonlethal warning shots.  SHE, on the other hand, does NOT know that, and tries to blow his head off with the shotgun, bash his skull in with the boltcutters, and shoot him in the temple with the handgun.

• There is nothing I love more than that scene where Immortan Joe is coming up on them and they’re Definitely Screwed and then the door opens to reveal Angharad clinging to the outside of the rig to shield them with her body.  So fucking good, God I love her so much.

• The Vuvalini make me so happy.  “I’m eighty years old heRE COMES THE HURRICANE.”

• This movie is a really good exercise in one of my favorite lines: There’s nothing more dangerous than a true believer.  And not just with the War Boys!  Joe has totally bought into his own propaganda, that’s WHY he’s so dangerous.

• This movie is also ALL about Actions Speak Louder Than Words.  It doesn’t matter what Nux or Max says, it matters that Max warns Furiosa about the oncoming war parties and is willing to drive the rig to save them all, it matters that Nux helps them escape the Bullet Farmer, it matters that Max lets Furiosa use him as a rifle rest.

• “Remember me?”  FURIOSA.  MY LOVE.  FUCK ME UP.  FUCKING ICONIC.

• The loop of “Witness me” from the kami-crazy War Boy death chant to Nux’s final whisper before he saves the Wives and Max and Furiosa always wrecks me, I almost bawled in the fucking theater the first time I saw this.

• Toast is a stone-cold Slytherin and I will not hear debate.  “Don’t damage the goods.”  Come on, y’all.  Which is not to say I have strict headcanons for the others.

• HA I lied, I totally do.  Furiosa is a Slytherin/Gryffindor split who by nature of her situation chose Slytherin and falls back on that Gryffindor self over the course of the movie, Max is a Hufflepuff (a deeply traumatized Hufflepuff, but still).  Angharad is a Gryffindor to the core, using her own body to save the others because she believes in the cause.  The Dag is a Ravenclaw, exactly the kind of lunatic brilliance that Ravenclaw adores, and Capable is a Hufflepuff who throws herself into the cause for love of Angharad and for love of her people and for love of herself.  And here’s the controversial one: Cheedo is a Slytherin.  Her ambition is to survive, and she does whatever she believes must be done for that–flee the Citadel, return to Joe, lie to Rictus, all of it to achieve her goal.  Nux earns a Gryffindor for turning his back on Joe, but the War Boys are mostly not…person enough to be sorted, just puppets, an old man’s battle fodder.  Incidentally the Vuvalini are a general mix, most of them with Slytherin as an option if not a primary house, much like Furiosa.  Valkyrie is the only straight-up Gryffindor, and Keeper of the Seeds is a Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff split, a rarity in the Vuvalini.

• Immortan Joe is a Slytherin/Ravenclaw split, which makes him very dangerous.

Anonymous asked: was reading through your book 4 reread, I'd love to hear your thoughts on Taxxons and Hork Bajir. Especially the 'Taxxons used to be ocean aliens and now they live on land kinda thing'

YEAH LET’S DO THAT. Okay, so, I ended up just doing the Taxxons rather than the Hork-Bajir because…um…this got long, to the shock of everyone, I’m sure.  I might do the Hork-Bajir later.  But yeah. Okay.  I wrote this during Anatomy class over a couple days and then typed it up, so.

ALL RIGHT.

So, let’s start with a quick little recap I like to call Everything We Know About Taxxons.

Keep reading

flutish:

So I’ve been seeing this post floating around Tumblr about how Harry should have retrieved the Resurrection Stone and imagine how wonderful it would have been for the characters to have closure with their loved ones and how beautiful and emotionally satisfying and and and… heart-wrenching stuff.

But… that’s completely not what the Resurrection Stone does.

The Stone is a liar, designed by Death to draw people away from life. The Second Brother literally goes insane from the image of his lost love, and kills himself to join her in death. And if you don’t believe the fairy tale (heh), look at what happens when Harry uses the Stone: Yes, his mother, father, Sirius and Remus appear, but they lure him to death. They literally encourage him to walk to his supposed grave. What does StoneLily say? “You’ve been so brave”. Compare that to the urgency of Goblet of Fire’s ShadowLily. Do they seem quite the same? Does it seem quite like Remus to be so passive in the face of dying before getting to know his son? Or for Sirius to encourage anyone to simply accept their death lying down?

Time and again, J. K. Rowling has emphasized the importance of “moving on” in the context of death. Think about it. Harry has another experience with the memories of his parents which nearly derails him -  the Mirror of Erised. The Stone - which creates a far more tangible memory and far more dangerous allure - is devastating by nature. It’s not heartwarming or romantic or sweet. Frankly, I’m baffled that we would forget such a critical part of the Stone’s mythology. It is no less a murder weapon than the Elder Wand. It simply kills in a more roundabout way.

(via academicfeminist)

Male Gaze, composition choices, and Mad Max’s ‘locker room’ eye

bonehandledknife:

vorpalgirl:

bonehandledknife:

vorpalgirl:

bonehandledknife:

So there was this one reblog on that post where I discussed Center framing, Composition, and Male Gaze with this comment:

The comment continues in typical mansplaining manner but I want to address this first bit specifically. Because the assumption that the women are framed that way because it’s an action shot is wrong from a technical standpoint.

There is a difference between Wanda gesturing with her hands almost having no space for her head in a composition that highlighted her breasts …

…and the way Tony is given ‘headroom’ while gesturing with his hands (see: any Iron Man Trailer). He still has his face prominent at the sweet spot of the Golden Ratio (for more discussion on what/where this is scroll down to the diagrams), his hands are on the other sweet spot, and it’s a very dynamic pose with great use of diagonals both foreground and background.

There is also a difference between Natasha almost having to bend her head so that her face stays on the screen while her chest and hips land in the sweet spots…

And the headspace that is given Thor. Thor’s face lands on upper Third (Rule of Thirds). They are both holding/threatening with weapons. 

But wait! you say, what if we want to emphasize the weapons?

Yeah there’s a way to do that too, without sexualizing your character and smashing their head almost off the frame…

Keep reading

I enjoyed Age of Ultron, but these are some very excellent points. Also, am I wrong in thinking that in Iron Man 2, when Natasha is going down that hallway, beating the crap out of the guys in it, that a lot of the focus is more on her face? Not entirely, but more than it is here? Oh…

oh.

I just looked it up (thanks Tumblr for the the new gif feature!)

Originally posted by geekimus-prime

….my eye goes to her face but also her boobs. It’s hard for me to analyze in a moving gif though why hat is, other than the top with a great big triangle of flesh screaming LOOK DOWN.  (the coloring may or may not be altered in this gif, too, like an upped contrast that is aiding that, idk)

She’s also more off-center than I realized in this shot. It’s like this technique is so common I can’t even see it unless I’m looking for it o_O

The term you’re looking for here is diagonal composition. Where are the diagonals pointing?

Look again at the background spaces behind Thor and Tony, the arches are pointing at Thor’s face and the architecture is pointing at the repulsor. Now go look at what the edges of the building is doing for Wanda and Natasha.

Im on mobile and on a break, but Google “diagonal composition in photography” if you want to look into the effects of diagonals more. It’s a bit more advanced than golden rule framing but not by much. (Though I would hesitate to do composition analysis on that shot off a cropped gif, you still can’t get away from the diagonals.)

Ooh thank you! That actually makes total sense to me, because I’ve worked in picture framing before, and a lot of that is about: “are you bringing the eye in, or out? What are you drawing the eye towards, if you are drawing it in or out?” (because you don’t want to draw the eye towards the frame, usually – you want to draw it towards the picture or objects, or a specific part or aspect of the picture or objects). Though in the case of picture framing it’s usually more simple, in that it’s more on an actual outline or series of asymmetrical outlines it still serves the same function: to point the eye towards what’s in the “center”. So now that you’ve pointed that out, I can see it at work. :)

This also makes me suddenly realize that the reason they make so many female characters’ tops zip down is…even MORE male gazey than I thought >_> “hey look, my clothing is not only showing actual boobflesh, it’s also pointing towards my waist and hips and crotch!”

Getting off my ass and finally posting these because I’d finally gotten a free picture editor that did what I wanted it to. All AOU caps come from the main trailer, The IM2 screencap comes from one of the trailers.

Look at where the women’s faces are. Then look at the men’s. That area is called the upper/lower thirds and where you’d put scrolling titles and name cards:

(the rest of the discussion including how some of the most potentially objectifying moments in Fury Road is subverted by composition/blocking/lighting)

Water Your Eyes Doing

primarybufferpanel:

bonehandledknife:

This is part of an ongoing discussion about film theory and its execution Mad Max Fury Road. I’ve talked, at length, about how composition how it can objectify a body, how it doesn’t matter if the body is in motion, how Mad Max mostly avoids the objectification by use of center frame, how Golden Rule framing isn’t necessarily objectifying.

Additionally, here is post breaking down how composition, lighting, and blocking (actor position) systemically deemphasized the female body in the My Name Is Max scene.

But lets get to the most controversial scene in Mad Max in terms of feminist theory, the infamous Water scene. I’ve been frankly putting this off because if you get into the larger visual, narrative, and thematic context of this scene, this post will never end. This is even before delving into the the meta-context of genre and tropes. So I’ve decided to narrow the scope of this post down as far as I can in terms of pure composition and practical concerns. However, if you have meta on these topics, please let me know by ask or via reblog and I will add as a footnote below the cut-tag.

Let me first point out though that we have spent the few minutes prior to this scene with Max waking up from the sandstorm (having flashbacks), getting freaked out by the needle in his skin, and about to shoot a man’s wrist off to get free.

He then has another flashback, notice the sound effect, but the flashback is triggered by a very specific thing:

Girl’s voices. Like Glory. Like, say, voices he finds when he turns around the corner, of the Wives:

A note on why I use both Golden Rule and Rule of Thirds: The Golden Rule, while is more effective/precise is ridiculously hard to eyeball on-the-go and while filming moving images. Rule of Thirds is often ‘good enough.’ Film as a medium is not photography or painting, it’s a medium intent on capturing moving objects, and sometimes the demands of the shoot means that you end up with the ‘best try,’ especially if it’s an action shot containing either internal or external movement (ie. either in-camera objects moving or the view itself moving). What is more likely to be specifically composed are still shots, wide shots, or the beginning/ends of shots/pans.

Which you can see here. Look at how BOTH the Rule of Thirds and Golden Rule lines up with the landforms at the horizon. Look at how precisely the War Rig lands on the major diagonal.

Now look at what happens when the camera lands in it’s final position and the Wives come into focus:

Nothing lands on any of the 8 major sweetspots (the crosshairs of the Golden or the Third. The Dag’s back bent over the boltcutters is centerframed. And check out what falls on the horitzonal Golden:

The water. Angharad is bent over and covering her face, Toast’s head is blocking Capable’s chest. Look at that space between the vertical Third. It’s the chastity belt.

I am telling you right now that it would be easy as pie to take that belt and put it past the lower third where it wouldn’t be seen or to the far left. If they really hated it they could have told the people who erase wires in visual fx to erase the belts or to move them. It’s position is not an accident.

For some comparison here is some concept art of the scene (found in The Art of Mad Max Fury Road):

Even if they were more clothed, look at how more objectifying their poses are, how the butts are subtly (or not subtly) turned towards the viewer instead of slightly away from our gaze (compare Toast and Angharad to the two wives on the right in the art) and how Furiosa was supposed to have been freeing them, instead of the wives freeing themselves.

Here’s the full picture:

Notice the absence of the belts and the placement of the hose. Look at how Furiosa and the gun are on the Golden.

Let’s go further into the movie itself however. (warning, lots of pictures)

Keep reading

I feel like if you look at the body language in the (potentially) problematic shots, it is made very clear that sex or seduction is the furthest away from any of their minds. They could have had any of the women act it like they thought seduction might give them an edge, but it’s clearly not present at all

(via bonehandledknife)

mswyrr:

okay so let’s break this down. first the sisters save furiosa by pulling nux off her:

that’s your pretty clear, straightforward life-saving courage. and it’s significant that the sisters are ready to fight like that even so early in the story.

but then furiosa goes for nux’s throat

in the sort of interaction she’s internalized after years of repetition: one of the war boys comes for her, she ends them. end of fucking story.

a moment of reflection, a moment of flinching back from immediately killing, would have doomed her in the past

she’s programmed herself to kill without mercy in order to survive. she doesn’t even consider if there’s an alternative. there never has been.

20 years and nobody’s ever stopped her. the only people who tried wanted to hurt her. but they didn’t succeed. otherwise, no matter what she did, who she hurt, nobody cared enough to stop her. they gleefully supported it or considered it her right or her obligation

murder, murder, murder, life means nothing. only weak people flinch from inflicting pain. and you know what happens to weak people. they end up dead or in cages. that’s the law of the Citadel

furiosa didn’t intellectually believe that fully, but you do something long enough and it gets inside you.

but angharad makes her stop

it’s brave and a bit self-destructive, given that this is Imperator Furiosa she’s fucking manhandling (good thing the Vuvalini seem to consider it a cultural virtue to take shit/major challenging lip from the younger women they mentor lol)

but for the first time in twenty years someone knows right from wrong and cares enough to stop her

i think angharad mostly cares for the principle of the thing. definitely condemnation is in there. but… you can read it as a very angry form of reaching out. you can read it as angharad’s response to furiosa’s lecture earlier about how “everything hurts” out here. whatever the case, furiosa is and always will be someone who kills. that’s key to how she survives and protects those she loves. but it’s possible to fight and kill without losing touch with the idea that killing doesn’t have to be the only answer. that killing is always wrong, even if it’s necessary. that you should be thinking about when it’s unnecessary to kill.

i think the sisters save furiosa’s life and nux’s life here but also are part of the journey of saving their souls in this scene

the lecture on Wasteland feminist theory nux received is more obvious, but angharad stopping furiosa is also this huge huge thing

for the first time in her adult life someone cares enough to stop her. to say: he’s just a kid. you don’t have to this time. and if you don’t have to, you shouldn’t.

you can stop

(via bonehandledknife)

fury road and r-rated violence

fuckyeahisawthat:

I’ve written and reblogged a lot of stuff about Fury Road’s style of action, the way it lets its female characters be bloody, dirty and angry, and the way it takes violence seriously.

This is obviously a stylistic choice, but it’s only possible because the movie is rated R (no children under 17 without an adult) in the American rating system.

The MPAA rating system is ludicrous and arbitrary in many ways; getting into all that is beyond the scope of this post. (For a good expose, check out the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated.)

The vast majority of blockbuster action movies Hollywood releases today are rated PG-13. Getting into the history of why that’s the case is also beyond the scope of this post, because it has to do with the rise of the blockbuster model of cinema and how the film industry has changed over the past 30 years. (This article is a good primer, though.) The TL;DR is that studios want teenagers (implicitly, teenage boys) to be able to go see big-budget action movies with or without their parents, because $$$. So they must be rated PG-13.

This puts constraints on what you can show in terms of violence, but not necessarily the ones you might expect.

Return of the King, in which armies slaughter each other on the plains of Pelennor Fields by the thousands? PG-13.

Every movie in the Jurassic Park franchise, in which dinosaurs repeatedly eat people? PG-13.

Man of Steel, in which the third act fight between Superman and Zog would have killed an estimated 129,000 people in real life? PG-13.

The first cut of The Avengers was given an R rating–not for any of the scenes where midtown Manhattan gets smashed to rubble in a battle between superheroes and aliens, but for the scene where Loki stabs Coulson. (Seeing the blade come out of Coulson’s torso was apparently the dividing line between PG-13 and R, which seems pretty arbitrary since the PG-13 Lord of the Rings franchise has plenty of impalements. The scene was re-cut to get a PG-13 rating.)

While each of the examples above is slightly different in terms of what it does and doesn’t show in terms of violence, there’s a particular style of bloodless mass destruction that’s become a mainstay of a lot of PG-13 action, particularly many superhero movies. You can smash whole cities in battles in which thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people die, but if you don’t show any blood or bodies? PG-13.

While Fury Road is actually quite restrained compared to how gory it could be, given everything that happens in the course of the movie, it has violence that mostly actually looks real. People bleed when they get hurt or killed; injuries that should be life-threatening actually are; and there are a few moments that are, I would say, appropriately gross. The movie sometimes bends the rules (Max really should have some blood on his forehead from the bolt he almost gets impaled with) but for the most part, the violence looks like it’s actually violent. It has consequences.

It’s a matter of personal taste, but I much prefer this kind of violence. But while there are R-rated action franchises (The Matrix) and R-rated recent installments of older franchises (Prometheus; the latest Die Hard), R-rated action movies–ie., action movies made explicitly for adults–are considered somewhat of a financial risk in Hollywood. Which is too bad, because Fury Road made me want more of them.