Please Stop Saying that Thanos was Right

The snapture was objectively ridiculous.

 

Spoilers ahoy for Kingsman: The Secret Service, and Avengers: Infinity Wars

When the current fad for redeeming or exploring villains started, I was pretty ecstatic. This is because I am a Villain Sympathy hipster; I was doing it before I was cool. Likely because I was pretty badly bullied for most of my youth, and because for various reasons I’ve been made to feel monstrous at different points in my life, I always instinctively looked to the villains, and thought about their circumstances. Why exactly was Ursula banished from the kingdom, and would she have been so evil if she hadn’t been forced to live in a creepy cave? Why was she the only one to take Ariel’s desires seriously? And if God was omnipotent and had personally created all of the angels, didn’t that mean that Lucifer was basically destined to rebel? Was he the ultimate fall guy? Of course this sympathy hit limits—Claude Frollo is a creepy asshole, and probably my first exposure to someone giving off some “rapey” vibes. Hitler and Nazis are just always bad, no matter what Fox News and YouTube tell you.

So I was excited when we first started to dip our toes into the antihero/villain pool. Dexter, Wicked, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Maleficent… all of these started an interesting trend of making villains more complex, of making heroes more villainous, and making media more varied. But then it kind of didn’t… stop. The media, and the public, never got to that point where sympathy hit its limit. Fans started to hate Skyler White for the crime of being a woman who told her murderous, drug-dealing husband that he should stop being a murderous drug dealer. We wound up with oodles and oodles of Hannibal fanfiction. Don Draper has an entire redemption arc before showing that he’s going to go right into bad patterns in the finale, and we’re supposed to think of this as a happy ending. And then we just went in for it wholesale, and started saying things like “Thanos was right!” and I was like, “Holy shit, what have we done?”

Now, I’m not claiming to not have any problematic faves of my own. I’m pretty much always going to be a fangirl of Spike from Buffy and Loki from the Thor movies. But I am also not going to claim that either one was “right” in their villainy. Spike almost rapes Buffy, a narrative move that I still think was clumsily done by the writers, but one that definitely exists in canon. Plus there’s, you know, the centuries of being a murderous vampire. Not a good look. And while Loki has plenty of emotional damage, and Daddy issues out the wazoo, he also genocided a planet. And even though his actions are actually a good example of the end result of a warrior culture that insists on the monstrosity of an enemy, he still genocided a planet. I’m not going to be standing on any soapboxes proclaiming that he was “right” to do so.

Before we get to Thanos, I’m actually going to backtrack a little bit to the first Kingsman movie, because I think the Thanos Problem actually has a lot in common with the villain from the first Kingsman, Richmond Valentine. Because it’s not just about fan response (though we’ll get to that); it’s also about movies and media forgetting to show that their villains are wrong. Oh sure, they’ll show that their villains are evil, and that they pursue their goals in socially unacceptable ways, but they won’t necessarily take the time to show that the goal itself is a terrible goal.

Richmond Valentine actually has a very similar outlook to Thanos: he thinks that there are too many motherfucking people on his motherfucking planet. (Sorry, I had to.) In the film he ascribes to something called “Gaia Theory,” a misreading of an actual theory called the Gaia Hypothesis. In the film, the Gaia Theory essentially says that the Earth is a body, and people are a virus, and global warming is the fever response to our “infecting” of the planet. Because there are too many people doing vague Bad Things to the environment, we are going to either cause the “fever” of global warming to kill all people (the virus) or we are going to manage to kill the Earth (the body). He has a couple throwaway lines about how he has tried other methods of environmentalism to no effect, so now he’s decided on his supervillain plan: give out free phone cards that will cause a signal to go off that incites listeners into intense violence, while keeping an inner cabal of important political, business, and cultural figures safe in various bunkers. (These people, for some reason, include Iggy Azalea. I can’t explain that.) So the violence inducing wave will cause people to kill each other for X amount of time, and at the end the population will be greatly reduced, and all the Best People can re-emerge into a drastically less populated world.

Now, obviously, the good guys are like “hey, wait… don’t kill all those people.” But at no point in the film does anyone stop and say, “Hey wait, literally all of the things about this are wrong.” His premise, that climate change is the result of overpopulation and individuals being awful, is taken at face value. His plan is objected to for its violence, not its… well, object. But we know that 100 companies are responsible for a staggering 71% of emissions. While individuals are certainly contributing to global problems, we are not even close to that number. So ostensibly, after half of the population kills the other half, these 100 companies would look around, say, “Oooh, 50% fewer environmental protesters. Sweet!” and then merrily continue polluting. Even if the individual CEOs of the companies died in the purge (though let’s be real, they’re probably all chilling in Valentine’s bunker) that would only be a temporary stopgap. And Valentine is shown in the film to have what can actually stop climate change: money and political capital. He manages to convince various heads of state, including Obama and the British royal family, to buy into his argument and agree to a plan that violently kills a large portion of their citizens. I would think if he is that powerful and convincing, it would be a cakewalk to get legislation passed that caps emissions, forces investment into alternative energy, etc.

On top of that, his plan has the potential to lead to horrific environmental consequences. The violence signal that his phones emit are completely non-discriminatory—anyone who hears it goes into a rage. So what happens if there is a tech at a nuclear plant who is playing Candy Crush? What happens if one of the 50 people on a plane who didn’t actually listen to the flight attendant and put their phone in airplane mode is sitting in the front, near the pilot? What if a mechanic who is working on an oil pipe is blasting Spotify? Not to mention the environmental crisis of just having 4 billion dead bodies lying around. That would be… ick.

Thanos has a surprisingly similar outlook. He thinks that there are just too many beings in the universe. He thinks the universe will get full. Just… think about that for a second. And because he once genocided half a planet, and then the planet recovered and thrived, he thinks that all planets are overcrowded, and that he has to kill half of all living beings in the entire universe. Which is obviously horrific, and there were many heart-string tugging moments of favorite characters turning into dust. But again—no one addresses his main point. At least when it comes to Earth, we already know that a lot of problems that are ascribed to overpopulation are actually problems of inequitable over-consumption, poor distribution, and capitalist impulses that mean that grocery stores would rather destroy food than go through the effort of donating it. Most discussions of overpopulation are fairly… eugenics-y. (Peter Coffin has a good video on it if you’re interested.) And no one in the film really bothers going, “Hey… not only is this a ridiculous plan, but also if you have gems of infinite power that can seemingly break the laws of physics, why don’t you just… create more resources for people?” If you have gems of infinite power and a desire to fix problems with resources and overpopulation, your first response isn’t gonna be genocide unless you already wanted to do some genocide.

And like Valentine’s plan, the very thing that Thanos explains as a feature is actually a bug. Thanos thinks his plan is “fair” because it is indiscriminate—the 50% of beings who die are randomly chosen. (It’s not clear if this is 50% per planet, or 50% of the universe, total. So one planet might hit the lottery and have everyone survive, but another planet is fucked). But these deaths could cause a chain reaction that not only leads to more deaths but also destroys planets beyond the ability for people to live on them. On Earth, the same points about nuclear attendants, pilots, and oil workers applies. The 50% of people could take with them the person who was just at that moment directing a drone strike that instead takes out a major city, leading to rioting, and… you get the picture. Or even the scientist that was about to cure AIDS or cancer, leading to more inadvertent deaths down the line. Not to mention, Thanos himself has already kind of gone beyond the point of his quest. He’s killed basically every Asgardian except for Thor and Valkyrie, and from his own statements completely wiped out Xandar. How does that fit into his little equation?

Yet despite these obvious flaws, I still logged onto the internet the day after I saw the film and saw a ton of “THANOS WAS RIGHT” and “THANOS IS A HOT GRAPE DADDY” posts. The latter is disturbing, but the first one is worse. Because while the film itself doesn’t do a good job of proving Thanos wrong, that doesn’t mean that viewers entirely lose their sense of logic. Every viewer could go through the same thought process I just walked us through. But instead of thinking through that process, everyone is just stanning him instead.

This is where we get back to my point about the over-identification with villains. We have gone a full loop from “sympathy for villains” to “identification with villains,” to the point that we’re now blaming heroes with bad plans for the actions of villains. Poe Dameron gets a lot of flack for his (admittedly stupid and toxic-masculinity-fueled) plan in The Last Jedi, but he isn’t the First Order. The First Order killed people, not Dameron’s plan. In the same way, Peter Quill gets blamed for Thanos’ actions—if he hadn’t gotten over-emotional over Gamora’s death, the logic goes, Thanos could have been stopped. But again, Thanos is the one killing everyone. Failing to stop something bad does not have the same moral culpability as doing something bad. And somehow yelling at a doofus with barely concealed emotional trauma and abandonment issues seems more fitting to vast swathes of the movie-going public than yelling at the genocidal monster.

Now, under a lot of circumstances I could let this over-identification with villains go. Stans are gonna stan. But we are living in an era where actual villains are getting too much sympathy, and I can’t help but draw a connection between what is happening in fiction and what is happening in reality. Our president says that there are good people on “both sides” of a debate where one side is fascists, and one side is anti-fascist. Also the fascist side rammed a car into a crowd and killed and maimed people. Journalists are getting imprisoned and murdered, and we’re still gushing over the leaders that harmed them. Supposedly objective or even supposedly liberal media publications are writing rosy pieces about Neo-Nazis and how they like to go grocery shopping, too. (Neo-Nazis—they’re just like us!) Sexual abusers are embarking on comeback tours barely a year after they were exposed as sexual abusers. And just like in the media, the people who are ineffectual at stopping the bad stuff are often given more blame and responsibility than the people doing the bad stuff. Women should have come forward with their abuse sooner. People of color should stop… breathing? Doing whatever it is they supposedly do that pisses off police enough to shoot them. Children should learn how to do active shooter drills. Democrats lost the election because we didn’t sympathize enough with racists. We’re in a topsy-turvy world that seems to exist on the age-old playground principle of “Stop hitting yourself.”

I think it is helpful, and even good, to show villains as being complex and interesting. We don’t live a world where evil is simple, and our fiction shouldn’t have such worlds, either. But there is a difference between making a villain complex and purposefully or accidentally presenting the villain as “right.”

Signed: Feminist Fury

***

Featured image is a meme depicting Thanos looking confused with math symbols flashing in front of his face.

Baby, It’s a Changing (Cultural) Climate Outside

Because we *do* need to talk about “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” every now and then.

 

Based on the current status of my Facebook feed, it is time to have a conversation that I have somehow managed to not have in my four years as a feminist blogger: the “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” conversation. We get to address the backlash to the backlash to the song, and along the way, talk about authorial intent, reception theory, and other stuff that I went to school to learn. (Wooo, take that student loans, I’m doing something useful with my degree.)

So there are two figures/groups that can be held as the most important when it comes to determining the meaning of a work—the author, and the audience. People who adhere closely to authorial intention say that the most important way of interpreting what a work means is by following what the author says that the work means or says that they intended it to mean. Someone who adheres closely to reception theory says that it is the audience that actually determines the meaning of the work—that how the work is received (aka its reception) is more important than what the author meant.

JK Rowling presents a really good case study as a microcosm of the “authorial intention” vs. “reception theory” argument, and how both sides can be correct at the same time. Rowling is able to state that she wrote the character of Dumbledore with the understanding that he was gay. It’s totally fair for her to say that when she was writing the work, this intention affected how she wrote Dumbledore, and for readers to decide that this means Dumbledore is canonically gay. But it’s also totally fair for the audience to say, “Pics or it didn’t happen.” Few readers automatically understood Dumbledore to be a queer character, and they are justified in saying that however Rowling intended the character, he doesn’t come across with that intention clearly actualized.

Personally, I do find authorial intention to be important, and I’m always interested to hear what an author says about their own work. But I’m more closely aligned to reception theory, partly as a matter of pragmatism. It is very easy for an author’s intentions to be overwhelmed, and very easy for an audience to take a creation and do something new with it, for good or for ill. At this stage it is nearly pointless to huffily declare “Frankenstein isn’t the name of the monster, it is the name of the Doctor!” because in the cultural zeitgeist, Frankenstein is interchangeably used for both figures. No matter what Mary Shelley originally intended, her work has been reinterpreted and re-understood by people to the point that when you hear the name “Frankenstein,” your thoughts are more likely to flash to Boris Karloff than Colin Clive.  In a much more depressing example, the creator of Pepe the Frog killed off his character and had a “funeral” for him after the character was co-opted by the Alt-Right movement. Matt Furie certainly never intended for his creation to be adopted as the mascot for neo-Nazis, but his desires (his intentions) are also nowhere near enough for the character to be reclaimed. Unfortunately, the character will now probably be permanently associated with this movement. And to return to Rowling, announcing post-series that Dumbledore was gay the whole time is a really convenient way to get brownie points for being progressive whilst not losing any of that sweet, sweet homophobe cash when the books were in their heyday.

I give this introduction because I think it’s an important primer for understanding the various levels of the argument over “Baby, It’s Cold Outside.”  So now, some facts:

  • The song was first written in 1944, and became very popular after it was featured in the 1949 film Neptune’s Daughterit even won the Academy Award that year.
  • The original writer conceived of it as a husband-and-wife duet, meant to be performed at parties—the composer, Frank Loesser, performed it with his wife, Lynn Garland.
  • On the score of the song, the traditionally-female character is referred to as “Mouse,” and the traditionally-male character is referred to as “Wolf.” (We are presumably supposed to not make any judgment of the relationship between the characters based on this description… None.)
  • In Neptune’s Daughter, the song is first sung with Ricardo Montalbán as the Wolf figure and Esther Williams as the Mouse figure, and then by Betty Garrett as the Wolf figure and Red Skelton as the Mouse figure.
  • The song has been covered by basically everyone ever.
  • There are two main camps in the argument—one which I associate strongly with authorial intent, and one that I associate very strongly with reception theory.

So the side that frequently defends the song usually puts forward something along the following argument (fairly well articulated in this blog post):

The song has to be understood as a product of its time. The phrase “Hey what’s in this drink?” was a common saying that was basically someone implying that they were doing or saying something that they normally wouldn’t, and joking that it was the effect of an overly-strong drink. It also stands as a good cover for a woman who wants to do something outside of the cultural norm. “I’m an alcoholic” is way more socially acceptable in some circles than “I’m a loose woman.” In this reading, the Mouse figure in the song actually does want to stay (and you know, have sex) but is thinking about the social acceptability of the action—all of her objections refer to what others might think of her. The Wolf figure understands that she wants to stay, and is essentially giving her excuses/helping her build a story that gives an innocent explanation as to why she stayed.

The side that is opposed to the song usually puts forward something along the lines of the following argument:

The song is pretty rapey. Or if not rapey, at least a great example of someone not understanding boundaries and consent. The Wolf figure is the poster child for not being able to take no for an answer. The Mouse figure is trying to make her position clear without hurting the Wolf figure or making him angry at the Mouse by stating her intentions and then basically name dropping all of the people that are looking out for her/would be upset if something happened to her/stand in as excuses for why she needs to leave that won’t injure his pride or masculinity. And at this point the whole “What’s in this drink” line is just creepy as hell.

My take: I really do understand the “pro-song” side (and to be honest, “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” used to be one of my favorite Christmas songs). It was certainly written with no ill-will, and I think it is a perfectly justified reading of the song lyrics, within the context of the era in which they were written, to see it as a coy back-and-forth between lovers who have a clear understanding of the social mores of their time and the double-speak they have to engage in if they want to have a good time but not leave her with a ruined reputation.

However.

I think that at this point, it takes an (almost overly) generous reading of the song, and understanding of reactions to it, to hold fast to that understanding of the song. Even in the film that made it famous, it’s already kinda iffy. While the characters who are playing the Mouse figure in the song are definitely sending some mixed signals, and both eventually seem happy to stay out of the cold, they also both undergo some pretty troubling things. The characters played by Esther Williams and Red Skelton are both repeatedly, physically prevented from leaving by their Wolf figure counterparts. And even with the mixed signals, just look at that side eye and glaring from Esther Williams. That is a woman who is not super happy to be continually manhandled and redirected.

And at this point, regardless of how it was intended, it sounds a whole lot like a guy pressuring a girl, refusing to take no for an answer, and belittling her concerns. It’s the “Paradise by the Dashboard Light” of Christmas songs. It doesn’t take an easily-triggered “cuck” or an overly-sensitive feminist to see that there’s something pretty messed up about repeatedly telling someone that you want to leave and having them respond by telling you how “delicious” your lips look. This song becomes another entry in a long, long line of media that tells guys that if a woman says no, all you have to do is keep harassing her until she changes her mind just to get you to shut up. There are already a lot of entries in that line, and I don’t know if yet another one also needs to moonlight as a popular Christmas carol that unfortunate retail workers will have to hear roughly two billion times in December. And let’s be real: in the wake of the Cosby trial, I don’t know when, if ever, “hey what’s in this drink” will be taken as an “innocent” joke again.

In my own, humble opinion, I think that the reception theory interpretation is (at least for now) the winner. I just genuinely don’t think that in the current era, we can ignore the implications of a song in which a man repeatedly insists that a woman stay the night and bulldozes over all of her objections. Women already face an uphill battle to have their autonomy and decisions taken seriously, since pretty much all media is against them. Phrases and ideas like “Her lips say no but her eyes say yes,” “She’s playing hard to get,” “Methinks the lady protests too much,” etc. run rampant in popular media. We’re told that if a woman rejects you, you just have to TRY HARDER because eventually you will wear her down, because she secretly always wanted to be worn down. Even when it’s played for laughs or is part of a light-hearted Christmas standard, it sends a dangerous message about ignoring it when a woman tells you no. And that message, the “If at first she won’t fuck you, try, try again” message, is a much more dominant narrative than any potential “It’s secretly empowering to engage in word play with your lover so that you can have sex while still being respectable” message.

Now, despite being an overly sensitive feminist (I don’t think I’m easily-triggered cuck…), I want to make it clear that this is not to say that I fully support a ban on the song, or think that no one should like it, or am secretly judging everyone who hums it, or anything like that. But I do think that it is worth having a conversation, or multiple conversations, about the unintentional messages in the media we consume as well as the intentional ones. And I do think that the situation is more complicated than just rolling your eyes at supposed “snowflakes” who don’t like the song. (Also, in the context of a Christmas song, shouldn’t being a “snowflake” be a good thing? I may be overthinking this.)

Signed: Feminist Fury

***

Featured image depicts a snowflake up close. It is by maf04 and is used under a create commons, attribution share-alike 2.0 license.

Ellements of Film: Dracula Untold

Because sometimes you see a movie in the $7-or-less bin and ask: why?

 

As you may have noticed, there haven’t been posts for a couple of weeks. That’s partly because I’ve been very busy with Life Stuff, but it is also because I’ve recently hit one of my (thankfully infrequent) periods of serious writer burnout. I have half a dozen half-finished articles on everything from JK Rowling trying to bring Orientalist tropes back into style to the absolute pearl clutching that happened when DC attempted to show some thematically-appropriate Batman penis. (I’m not linking you to either of those things, y’all can Google that your own selves.) But I’ve been unable to finish what I’ve started. I’ve been listlessly trawling through feminist news sites, trying to find something that fits the right balance of “makes me angry enough to write” and “doesn’t make me so depressed I can’t stand it,” or the even rarer beast, “thing that makes me happy.” And no dice. (Believe me, I was really tempted to write posts this week about the trashfires that are Tumblr and Lena Dunham, and I couldn’t even manage that.)

So I’m hoping to cure some of my writing fatigue with a new side project of my Ellements of Film Series. Welcome to “Ellements of Film: What Are You Doing in This Bin/Movie?!”

I should explain.

I’m an absolute sucker for the cheap movie bins at places like Wal-Mart, Target, TJ Maxx, etc. If there is a giant tub of $7-or-less movies, you can bet your ass that I’m diving into that tub. It’s like a much spottier, slightly more expensive Redbox. (Or slightly less expensive, given how much trouble I have remembering to return Redbox movies.) One of my best friends is constantly aghast at my DVD collection, because these $5 treasures will pile up, still wrapped in plastic, as I wait for the right time to translate the initial rush of “got something I kind of wanted for really cheap” into the ennui that leads to me actually, you know… watching the movies. (She periodically unwraps all of them so that she doesn’t have to be ashamed of me anymore.) Sometimes the things I scoop up are absolute treasures. Sometimes they are absolute duds. Sometimes I am aghast that such a lovely movie has been denigrated so as to be slumming it in the Bin of Shame. Sometimes they make me question the existence of a single, solitary braincell amongst the entire crew of a movie. Whatever the case, the movie is an Experience. And one that I would like to share with all of you!

So I came up with a formalized system to share my explorations, the aforementioned “Ellements of Film: What Are You Doing in This Bin/Movie?!”

There are a few rules:

  1. There must be at least one actor whose name I recognize, and whom I know to have been in at least one (1) movie that was either good, high-budget, or very popular. So no “this was my film school thesis project” atrocities.
  2. I must not have seen the movie before, or it must be at least three years since I’ve seen the film. If it’s been long enough that I’ve either willfully deleted the film from my memory banks or it has blended into half of the things I’ve seen on TNT, it’s pretty safe to think that the film will be a fairly new experience for me.
  3. I must have at least some genuine desire to see the film, and not just of the “watching a car crash” kind. In order to give each movie a fair shake, I need to have at least some buy-in with it, which means no cheating and going straight for things that will be obviously horrible. There has to be at least some redeeming factor about the film that makes me want to watch it.

The intention of this exercise is to harvest some of these discount movies and then separate the wheat from the chaff and deliver an ultimate opinion. Am I shocked and appalled that a fantastic movie has joined the gutter with all of the Finding Nemo rip-offs? Or am I wondering who owed massive enough gambling debts that they accepted money in exchange for having their name permanently associated with dreck?

And so we begin.

First up, Dracula Untold. It fits the rules in the following ways:

  1. It stars Luke Evans, who seems to have made something of a career out of starring in somewhat-despised versions of beloved intellectual properties. He’s Bard in The Hobbit movies, Gaston in the live-action Beauty and the Beast, and Aramis in the 2011 version of The Three Musketeers, a movie so bad that you all probably didn’t even remember that there was a 2011 version of The Three Musketeers. He’s also That Guy You Kind of Recognize along with That Other Guy You Kinda Recognize and That Girl You Kinda Recognize, Wasn’t She a Child Actress? on the show The Alienist. And while I would challenge most people who would ascribe the label of “good” to most of his film work, there is no doubt that he has snagged roles in multiple films that are high-budget and/or popular.
  2. I have never seen this movie before.
  3. I was actually kinda interested in this film when it came out. There was that whole weird period where everyone decided that telling the cool, mostly-medieval and grimdark!origin stories of monsters was in, and we’re still in the period where making villains somewhat-to-mostly heroic is in, and this film fit neatly into the Venn diagram space between those two things. I love monster movies and I’m intrigued to see what people do with public domain or very familiar stories. That being said, I could tell pretty much immediately that the film was going to be bad, so I was definitely not willing to spend money to actually leave my house, buy popcorn, and subject myself to it in public.

So, now our favorite things, Elle belatedly liveblogging and then summing up movies. (It’s probably not your favorite thing. It’s one of my favorite things.)

  • Okay so we’re starting with Turkish sultans enslaving and whipping Transylvanian child slaves. So that’s… a choice.
  • We’re also apparently in bullet time?
  • Or maybe we’re playing with toys?
  • Vlad the Impaler, Son of the Dragon, is apparently now a reformed former child soldier who was enslaved by the Turks and now is returning to Transylvania and praying very hard in front of all of the people he impaled. I am already so lost by the tone of this film.
  • Luke Evans is making no attempt to have a Transylvanian accent. This is also a choice.
  • I AM THE RULER AND I AM HUNTING DOWN THE BAD GUYS PERSONALLY BECAUSE THIS IS SOUND POLICY. I see no way in which this will end poorly. No way.
  • And the bat jump scare is coming in 3…2.. oh look there it is
  • OH no! The CGI from Diablo 2 is going to get them!
  • That was a half-assed vampire, I swear to God.
  • Oh God now we have religious anatomy texts. And etymology. And churches? HOW IS THIS INFORMATION SO READILY AVAILABLE YET NO ONE KNOWS THIS SHIT?
  • Of course the monk is going to guard the secret, he fucking knows vampires exist and this is the first time you’re finding out about it.
  • Genuinely could not tell for about 30 seconds if the blonde girl was his wife, daughter, or hot nanny. Apparently, hot wife who looks young enough to be the hot nanny.
  • Making a Clothed Person Get In The Tub With You Because It Is So Silly! Trope.
  • Okay I kinda want their furry smoking jackets.
  • Does no one ever knock? How did these people get in? This is terrible security.
  • The maker of this movie has seen 300.
  • Did Vlad the Impaler give tribute to the Turks? I’m getting so confused about history.
  • Well isn’t this convenient reasoning to make a Noble Prince sell his soul to a demon.
  • Wait, they are not seriously making Howard Stark the Turkish Emperor, are they? You can’t be serious. It’s serious. Oh my God.
  • Okay, “What is one son? If you are virile, you’ll make plenty more.” Is a pretty good dictator burn.
  • “What kind of man crawls into his own grave looking for hope?” is one of those things that sounds really wise and actually doesn’t mean anything.
  • So he’s just like, this insane killing machine that is also remorseful.
  • MONSTER SYMBOLISM TIME.
  • This filmmaker has also seen Batman. And…. Maybe Alien.
  • Wait, now we’re Little Mermaid-ing it? If he can avoid drinking blood for three days he won’t turn evil. I feel like he’s going to lose that bet.
  • And now he has Daredevil senses. Or Sentinel senses? I’m not sure who he’s ripping off here.
  • Oooh and Predator eyes. That’s a good addition.
  • And he can see… through… clouds?
  • Also turn into bats. Multiple bats. So many bats.
  • Well that defense didn’t last too long. For being such a good warrior king, you did not teach your people so good, sir.
  • Get yourself a man that looks at you like Dracula’s second in command looks at Dracula.
  • Also get yourself Dracula’s pretty hair.
  • Okay so at this point, Dracula has seen one vampire kill like, two dudes. And he heard a spider be cool. And now he just automatically thinks he can take on a whole army? I don’t know why we’re watching all of this in a rearview mirror made out of a sword.
  • Dude this isn’t Fight Club, your people are gonna wonder what’s going on.
  • Yeah, go to that monastery where all the monks had a vision of the monastery being attacked. That’s a great idea.
  • Okay this movie is officially the CGI Beowulf, because it’s an unnecessary retelling of a classic tale and the only good part is the sidekick.
  • Oh no, my husband, what is wrong? Let me kiss you, with my dress hanging attractively off of one shoulder and just happening to expose my lovely, pale neck. It’s totally fine, because you are definitely not a vampire.
  • And this, children, is called Dracula getting his freak on.
  • Dracula has Performance Issues.
  • Is this dude supposed to be his Renfield? It’s the 1400s, why the hell would he have a Renfield?
  • Well that secret lasted a whole like, 16 hours.
  • Mirena is bad at lying. Good at birth control, bad at lying.
  • Did they decide to do a Dracula movie so that they could film all the fight scenes at night and not have to make them good?
  • Get you someone who looks at you like Dracula looks at Dimitru. And Dimitru’s blood.
  • Bad Guy You Thought Was Dead in Fall Was Not Actually Dead From Fall Trope.
  • ….is he blindfolding his army? Like for serious?
  • Everything about this is the stupidest thing. I miss Dimitru. Dimitru was the only good part of this.
  • Suspicious Dracula Acts Suspicious.
  • Okay, yeah, there’s a little bit of light coming from those windows but only like, a little. You purposely burned yourself on light just a little while ago.
  • I like how in most religions, “repenting” and “dying” are the same thing.
  • Yeah, kill the monster that just saved all of your lives.
  • Okay so we’re in Frankenstein now.
  • I don’t like knockoff Alan Rickman.
  • Okay not buying the “This is not who you are” speech. They keep talking about how he’s a barely repressed killing machine, even before the vampire thing. I feel like if you try to burn a barely repressed killing machine alive, he’s gonna be pretty pissed.
  • So much boredom. So many bats.
  • WHY CAN GUARDS NEVER STOP THIS SHIT?
  • How do you LOSE a sultan?
  • Mirena is fridged.
  • But she is dying so gracefully, and with so little flailing. That’s good and artistic.
  • Oooh, and he’s wearing black and she’s wearing white, how symbolic.
  • Oh, she had one of those good falls from a 100 foot tower, where she’s definitely going to die but she’s not a total pancake so she can have a dramatic last discussion with her husband and sacrifice her life so he can become Dracula. That makes sense.
  • …okay if he makes a vampire army out of villagers, this story might suddenly become cool.
  • How does the sultan know about the silver weakness? Dracula has been Dracula for like three days, and he learned about vampires the day before that. Did the sultan just conveniently know about vampires?
  • Dude if Dracula gets taken out by coinage this is gonna be so goddamn lame.
  • Belatedly, if he’s turning dying people left and right to make his army, why didn’t he just turn Mirena?
  • Okay I know they wanted “My name is Dracula. Son of the Devil.” To come off cool, but it just really, really didn’t.
  • And of course Dracula is the only vampire who somehow didn’t turn totally evil by becoming a vampire.
  • Dracula’s son is gonna need so much goddamn therapy.
  • ARE YOU LITERALLY LOOKING AT THE SKY TO TALK TO YOUR DEAD WIFE?
  • WHY DIDN’T YOU OPEN THE HEAVENS TO KILL ALL THE VAMPIRES A SECOND AGO WHEN THEY WERE THREATENING YOUR SON?
  • The creators of this movie have also seen 30 Days of Night.
  • Okay showing the son’s feet not touching the floor on the throne is actually a pretty good image.
  • Oh look, he lived through the modern day, the creator of this film has also seen… every film where this happened.
  • Don’t be creepy with random reincarnated ladies in the market, Vlad. It’s creepy.
  • And of course the master vampire is around. Wasn’t he supposed to already unleash a reign of terror? Did we miss the reign of terror? I think I would have preferred a movie about the reign of terror.

VERDICT: What are you doing in this movie?

Luke Evans isn’t my favorite actor in the world, but he’s just about got to be better than this. And Dominic Cooper is definitely better than this. It’s not even so much that it’s bad as that it’s just…. Not good. It’s boring. And movies about ancient warlords becoming demons should never be boring. This movie would have actually been better if they’d let Vlad the Impaler stay… Vlad the Impaler. They keep talking about this bloodlust and urge to fight that he has, but he basically never really shows any of that. This would have been a cooler movie if it was “already bad guy makes a deal with the devil to become even worse guy” instead of “martyred yet somehow dangerous bad guy makes a deal with the devil to save his family.” Like just don’t try to “redeem” Dracula. Francis Ford Coppola tried to do that, and we wound up with Keanu Reeves with a terrible British accent. Is that what you want, Keanu Reeves with a terrible British accent? Of course not. For a film all about blood, this movie was bloodless.

Signed: Feminist Fury

***

Featured image shows the words “Ellements of Film” superimposed over a photo of the latest “Dracula” from the movie poster.