![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I saw a really fun double feature with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
petitesoeur the other day. These are the Damned was an oddball British rock-n-roll movie featuring a very young Oliver Reed emoting all over the place as King, the leader of a gang of Weymouth Teddy Boys. He had a strange fixation on his sister and didn't want her kissing older American tourists. The Teddy Boys had their own theme song, btw, which I have been singing for days (points to subject line). The movie really picked up when the radioactive children showed up, but then what movie isn't immediately improved by a bunch of radioactive children? Anyway, it was really fun. And ultimately, it got to you. The end was effecting.
The other movie was one of my absolute favorites, The Innocents. It's a wonderful adaptation of Turn of the Screw by Truman Capote starring Deborah Kerr and Martin Stephens. Who's Martin Stephens you ask? Well, Martin Stephens was my first celebrity crush. At the time I was 7 and he was about 27. He was in Village of the Damned (the original, of course, not the lame remake) which I saw on TV. He is phenomonenal in The Innocents as Miles and Pamela Franklin is quite good as Flora too. The movie actually manages to preserve the book's ambiguity--is the possession real or not? What happened at Miles' school? Are the ghosts really there? Is Miss Giddens just so repressed she's insane? What happened between Miles, Flora, Quint and Miss Jessel? It's a movie that gets more horrible the more you think about it and you should think about it often! The final scenes between Miles and Miss Giddens is one of the most deliciously tense things ever!
I had always wondered what happened to Martin Stephens, btw. I finally discovered he grew up and became an architect. I was so happy to hear this I wrote him the only fan letter I've ever written. I figured it might amuse him to know some little girl discovered his work decades after he did it. He wrote me back, which led to my going on a meditation retreat where I wasn't allowed to speak for 10 days but that's another story. He loved filming The Innocents, btw, though he was too young to see it when it came out. He finally snuck into it when he was 15 or so and for the first time understood it: "Oh, it's about sex!"
This was the second time I'd seen it on the big screen. The first time was at the MOMA and I must say that their audience was better than the one at the Walter Reade. The MOMA crowd was mostly older people and they really jumped the first time the ghosts of Miss Jessel and Quint appeared. But nothing compares to the collective gasp they gave when Miles gave Miss Giddens that kiss goodnight. It felt like the air was all sucked out of the room. Also, I love the theme song--more than the jazzy "Black Leather" number from TATD. (We lay my love and I, beneath a weeping a willow...)
On a totally unrelated note, I was reading this thread on Snape characterization in fanfic and it made me think about author's authority over their own characters and stories a little bit. Also I thought about how I love Snape.
blackfall feels Snape's main motivation is that Snape is a bastard and JKR says so. Her exact words are "It's fun to write about Snape because he's a deeply horrible person," "Who on earth would want Snape in love with them? That's a very horrible idea," and "Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don't think there are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse is power." JKR, of course, also explains that Draco and Pansy are awful people based on people she's met throughout her life who do not go away. It's suggested on the thread that it is wrong to look for explanations for bad behavior because you lose sight of how bad it is.
On the question of looking for explanation, I think anybody who knows me by now knows where I stand on that: looking for explanation in no way means you are losing sight of how awful the behavior is. In fact, I think it's completely ridiculous to just identify the behavior as bad and refuse to go further. At least if you understand the why you can judge or reject the person honestly. Because otherwise you could use anything as a reason not to get to know the person better. There are plenty of religious people, for instance, who would say once you know somebody isn't a Christian you know all you need to know. Or once you know they're Jewish. Or once you know they're gay. Yes we all know the difference is that Snape is being judged for things he's done rather than what he is but people who hate these other groups would say the same thing, wouldn't they? They've rejected Christ. They do all the nasty things gay people do. In general it just always takes me a while to feel comfortable giving an opinion on a person. I might say the person annoyed me upon meeting them, but I won't say they're nice or awful until I feel like I understand them more.
But back to the author's authority here. It really surprised me at first to read an author talk about characters this way--not just her characters, but characters in general. I guess I assume people who write fiction are naturally interested in people and what makes them tick so are less likely to think anyone's motivation is that they are "a bastard" (which is no motivation at all). But I suppose not all authors are drawn to the same areas. Neither Tolkien nor JRR are known for their characterization, despite creating memorable characters. So okay, she thinks some people are horrible and this makes them fundamentally different from non-horrible people.
But does that mean we all have to see the characters that way? Because I can't. I had awful teachers in school too but if I were to base a character on them--a character that was going to be a player in 7 books---you can be sure they would no longer just be "a deeply horrible person." In fact they were all different from each other. Except for Mrs. Ruhl (HATE HER!) who I was probably just too young to understand I usually ended up thinking I saw some of their motivation while I was in the class. Snape's motivation isn't that he is a bastard. He is a bastard because of whatever his motivation is. Whoever this teacher of JKR's was, whoever these awful people she's met who remind her of Draco and Pansy, I seriously doubt she knows them well enough to be the last word on their personality.
But if JKR says he's horrible, does that mean I'm wrong when he doesn't strike me that way? In canon Snape strikes me as someone with a lot of faults--he's childishly malicious, abuses his power in class, is cruel to Neville, made a seriously inappropriate remark to Hermione in GoF, and is bitter and vengeful. He's also capable, refreshingly unsentimental, smart, courageous and very interesting. Presumably he does not wash his hair often and has oily skin. Most of the good characters in canon seem to owe him a hell of a lot and frankly, I can see often see why he can't stand them. He should not be teaching children. He might be an effective teacher in post-graduate studies, but should not be dealing with a random class of adolescents. He also doesn't seem to want to be a teacher and he takes this out on his students. However, I can easily see him having a friend. I can understand why Hermione irritates the hell out of him without approving of him insulting a 14-year-old girl's looks. Snape, to me, is not deeply horrible he is simply not nice. Nice, to quote Red Riding Hood via Stephen Sondheim, is different than good. At this point he seems to be the most valuable member of the Order. There's more to life than nice.
petitesoeur the other day. These are the Damned was an oddball British rock-n-roll movie featuring a very young Oliver Reed emoting all over the place as King, the leader of a gang of Weymouth Teddy Boys. He had a strange fixation on his sister and didn't want her kissing older American tourists. The Teddy Boys had their own theme song, btw, which I have been singing for days (points to subject line). The movie really picked up when the radioactive children showed up, but then what movie isn't immediately improved by a bunch of radioactive children? Anyway, it was really fun. And ultimately, it got to you. The end was effecting.The other movie was one of my absolute favorites, The Innocents. It's a wonderful adaptation of Turn of the Screw by Truman Capote starring Deborah Kerr and Martin Stephens. Who's Martin Stephens you ask? Well, Martin Stephens was my first celebrity crush. At the time I was 7 and he was about 27. He was in Village of the Damned (the original, of course, not the lame remake) which I saw on TV. He is phenomonenal in The Innocents as Miles and Pamela Franklin is quite good as Flora too. The movie actually manages to preserve the book's ambiguity--is the possession real or not? What happened at Miles' school? Are the ghosts really there? Is Miss Giddens just so repressed she's insane? What happened between Miles, Flora, Quint and Miss Jessel? It's a movie that gets more horrible the more you think about it and you should think about it often! The final scenes between Miles and Miss Giddens is one of the most deliciously tense things ever!
I had always wondered what happened to Martin Stephens, btw. I finally discovered he grew up and became an architect. I was so happy to hear this I wrote him the only fan letter I've ever written. I figured it might amuse him to know some little girl discovered his work decades after he did it. He wrote me back, which led to my going on a meditation retreat where I wasn't allowed to speak for 10 days but that's another story. He loved filming The Innocents, btw, though he was too young to see it when it came out. He finally snuck into it when he was 15 or so and for the first time understood it: "Oh, it's about sex!"
This was the second time I'd seen it on the big screen. The first time was at the MOMA and I must say that their audience was better than the one at the Walter Reade. The MOMA crowd was mostly older people and they really jumped the first time the ghosts of Miss Jessel and Quint appeared. But nothing compares to the collective gasp they gave when Miles gave Miss Giddens that kiss goodnight. It felt like the air was all sucked out of the room. Also, I love the theme song--more than the jazzy "Black Leather" number from TATD. (We lay my love and I, beneath a weeping a willow...)
On a totally unrelated note, I was reading this thread on Snape characterization in fanfic and it made me think about author's authority over their own characters and stories a little bit. Also I thought about how I love Snape.
blackfall feels Snape's main motivation is that Snape is a bastard and JKR says so. Her exact words are "It's fun to write about Snape because he's a deeply horrible person," "Who on earth would want Snape in love with them? That's a very horrible idea," and "Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don't think there are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse is power." JKR, of course, also explains that Draco and Pansy are awful people based on people she's met throughout her life who do not go away. It's suggested on the thread that it is wrong to look for explanations for bad behavior because you lose sight of how bad it is.On the question of looking for explanation, I think anybody who knows me by now knows where I stand on that: looking for explanation in no way means you are losing sight of how awful the behavior is. In fact, I think it's completely ridiculous to just identify the behavior as bad and refuse to go further. At least if you understand the why you can judge or reject the person honestly. Because otherwise you could use anything as a reason not to get to know the person better. There are plenty of religious people, for instance, who would say once you know somebody isn't a Christian you know all you need to know. Or once you know they're Jewish. Or once you know they're gay. Yes we all know the difference is that Snape is being judged for things he's done rather than what he is but people who hate these other groups would say the same thing, wouldn't they? They've rejected Christ. They do all the nasty things gay people do. In general it just always takes me a while to feel comfortable giving an opinion on a person. I might say the person annoyed me upon meeting them, but I won't say they're nice or awful until I feel like I understand them more.
But back to the author's authority here. It really surprised me at first to read an author talk about characters this way--not just her characters, but characters in general. I guess I assume people who write fiction are naturally interested in people and what makes them tick so are less likely to think anyone's motivation is that they are "a bastard" (which is no motivation at all). But I suppose not all authors are drawn to the same areas. Neither Tolkien nor JRR are known for their characterization, despite creating memorable characters. So okay, she thinks some people are horrible and this makes them fundamentally different from non-horrible people.
But does that mean we all have to see the characters that way? Because I can't. I had awful teachers in school too but if I were to base a character on them--a character that was going to be a player in 7 books---you can be sure they would no longer just be "a deeply horrible person." In fact they were all different from each other. Except for Mrs. Ruhl (HATE HER!) who I was probably just too young to understand I usually ended up thinking I saw some of their motivation while I was in the class. Snape's motivation isn't that he is a bastard. He is a bastard because of whatever his motivation is. Whoever this teacher of JKR's was, whoever these awful people she's met who remind her of Draco and Pansy, I seriously doubt she knows them well enough to be the last word on their personality.
But if JKR says he's horrible, does that mean I'm wrong when he doesn't strike me that way? In canon Snape strikes me as someone with a lot of faults--he's childishly malicious, abuses his power in class, is cruel to Neville, made a seriously inappropriate remark to Hermione in GoF, and is bitter and vengeful. He's also capable, refreshingly unsentimental, smart, courageous and very interesting. Presumably he does not wash his hair often and has oily skin. Most of the good characters in canon seem to owe him a hell of a lot and frankly, I can see often see why he can't stand them. He should not be teaching children. He might be an effective teacher in post-graduate studies, but should not be dealing with a random class of adolescents. He also doesn't seem to want to be a teacher and he takes this out on his students. However, I can easily see him having a friend. I can understand why Hermione irritates the hell out of him without approving of him insulting a 14-year-old girl's looks. Snape, to me, is not deeply horrible he is simply not nice. Nice, to quote Red Riding Hood via Stephen Sondheim, is different than good. At this point he seems to be the most valuable member of the Order. There's more to life than nice.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Okay, it's been days and I'm still not confident about what this means, exactly. Help?
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
Leshii
From:
no subject
"Would you like a code?" is something you hear so often on lj's I never even thought of how odd it sounded the first time.
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
I confess I have neither the discipline nor the confidence to start an lj. And it's not like I'd want the whole world to be reading it, even if I did.
And it's so much more fun reading other people's lj's!
Leshii