About Me

My photo
Author of queer, wry sci fi/fantasy books.
Showing posts with label netflix. Show all posts
Showing posts with label netflix. Show all posts

Thursday, 25 August 2022

In Celebration of the Mary Sue


Source. Complete with jealous unicorn. 


When the ninth Star Wars movie came out, Rise of Skywalker, a particular term from writing communities online started to become ubiquitous. Horribly, it made its way around the internet's Manosphere, as particularly oafish chuds keen for low-hanging fruit reached for this easy prize. More happily, a backlash to the liberal and overused weaponised term became circulated, and we've now hit the saturation point of the wave where the term "Mary Sue" has fallen out of the limelight. 

When you hear the term "Mary Sue," which originated in Star Trek fan zines to call out a particular type of wish-fulfillment writing, you might have a variety of ideas. Some of them might be vague assocations - "isn't that a thing from that movie?" - or, if you're an Extremely Online person like myself, you might break out in compulsive shuddering and hives at the mere utterance of the phrase. 

But now that people have broken down the inherent sexism in the concept of the Mary Sue, to the extent that its creators have renounced its creation, we may have hit a point where we can just consider the Sue in isolation - and not only offer ways to accept and write around the wish-fulfillment character, but appreciate her for what she is: an often goofy fantasy that may help people process their powerlessness in real life and real trauma, offer escape from the weight of reality, or both. 

Who is Mary Sue? 


For an overview of this long-spanning trend and a glimpse of this essay's inspiration, this video is absolutely mandatory. For those who don't like Youtube, or just don't want to stop reading, the Sue is a personification of a criticism of a couple of writing problems. They're often conflated together, but they should actually be teased apart - despite how often they co-occur. A Sue is, 

Mar·y Sue
noun
nounMary Sueplural nounMary Sues
  1. (originally in fan fiction) a type of female character who is depicted as unrealistically lacking in flaws or weaknesses.
    "she was not a ‘strong woman’ so much as an insufferable Mary Sue"

Even the Oxford Dictionary's definition showcases the inherent special-case pleading and sexism applied to Sues. The original argument against Sues went thusly: 

1) Sues are badly written (inherently) because they 

2) Warp the plot, setting, and characters' actions around themselves; 

3) Have an unrealistic number of positive traits,

4) A corresponding deficit of actual negative traits (with the exception of tropey or common flaws that may or may not be actual flaws, such as "being too beloved") 

5) Get too much focus and attention in the story, 

6) Don't have to pay the price for their successes,

And 7), which often goes unspoken, "have wish fulfillment girl cooties all over them in some indefinably repulsive way." 

Now, I went through my own "anti-Sue" phase as a teenager and young adult; I used the Mary Sue Litmus to "make sure characters were balanced and well-written" as much as anyone. But now that I'm old, tired, and much more experienced as a writer, my perspective on this has changed drastically. 

And part of the reason for that is simply that I watched a show with an honest-to-god Mary Sue character, and it was great fun. 

The Chilling Adventures of Mary Sue 


Netflix's Riverdale and Sabrina have both had their moments, but despite being an avid fan of Sabrina, the Teenage Witch back in its Melissa Joan Hart era (when Disney Adventure Magazine advised copying her look by wearing an "earthy choker", a phrase that confuses me to this day) I had held off on watching either series. For one thing, the Archie comics series' lack of character development in its original form struck me as a type of perpetual purgatory worthy of The Good Place' s original demon pits. 

(As always, I'm late to the party, but Russian Doll and The Good Place are every bit as good as people have been saying they were. Give them a watch, or a rewatch, for some delectable afterlife paperwork tropes, fascinating philosophy, and heartfelt existentialism.) 

Being sick with COVID, as I mentioned in my last post, made this an ideal opportunity to catch up on some TV. I was in for quite a surprise with Sabrina. 

The magically-talented girlboss skips and bounces over third and fourth-wave feminist issues while literally and figuratively battling the patriarchy, showcasing phenomenal cosmic powers, being an absolute Chosen One to whom others are attracted or obsessed over, and is generally compassionate, friendly, serious, clever, and a great leader. She's also small, conventionally attractive, and the focus on attention for universe-bending powers. And here's the thing - she's great fun, and the show is great fun. 

Who's afraid of Mary Sue? 


Because the show takes itself just seriously enough and has just enough campy fun in the mix, it works like a Long Island Iced Tea - an easy-drinking alchemical mix of delight. Seeing the way the show worked perfectly fine, however, got me thinking about the ways in which Sabrina was a Sue - and it was perfectly fine. 

In turn, I reflected on my own D&D campaigns and writing, and considered how my players had made their own super cool wish fulfillment characters not only bearable, but actually fun to play with. Now, the rules for writing with others and writing solo are a bit different, but there is some overlap. 

Because the term is so stigmatized, it may be more comfortable for readers to hear about the negative instances first, before we ease into how Sues can be worked with and even weaponized for good in the plot. 

Bad Sues 


Of course, everyone online or who plays tabletop games has some kind of a story about that one bad player whose self-insert character absolutely destroyed the game, or a DM/GM (Dungeon or Game Master) whose NPC (Non-Player Character) was just the most obnoxious piece of crap ever to grace the wet-erase maps. These people are real, and they exist in many spaces - but the problem with them is generally not what they're creating, but how they interact with others. We tend to project that negativity from the experience onto their writing, but the real sin was just being selfish and a bad sport. 

In two different roleplay groups, I had players who wanted to portray similar roles - the stone-cold, stoic badass who takes epic kill shots and gets to be at the centre of the plot arc. One of these players was bad with consent and paying attention to fellow players, and ultimately ended up getting the boot from that group. The other player, however, remains a good friend to this day, and actually did get the kill shot on the Big Bad Evil Guy of that adventure because she a) was and is always well-mannered to other players, b) put the work in to make her badass character get better, and c) went with the fun twists that the DM threw at her, rather than resisting them or bickering. 

Fixing Mary Sue 


Let's get this one out of the way - the problem with Mary Sues is not actually their existence, but their contextual existence with others. Balance is a bit of a myth when protagonists are involved - and something that, as many other writers have noted, never becomes a concern or comes into play when male characters are protagonists - but when working with an ensemble cast, making sure that existing characters either a) get their moment or b) have a really good reason for not getting their moment, is vitally important. 

There's a wonderful Star Trek: TNG episode called "Disaster" in which Deanna Troi gets to be leader for a day, while Captain Picard is stuck in an elevator with a cadre of children. It's surprisingly heartwarming and adorable - partly because for once, Troi is taken seriously and permitted to be useful and competent. However, the way Picard is removed is absolutely excellent, and very much recommendable if one wanted ways to neutralize other main characters: a common ailment + their greatest weakness = an existing MC out of commission. 

In a roleplay game, making sure that every player character gets some kind of moment during the game, whether it be an acting or emotional beat, a cool fight move, a clever problem-solving section, or even just a great assist for another friend, is a great way to create a sense of symmetry. Symmetry is better than balance, because all too often, "balance" becomes a reason to throw a wet blanket on fun, exciting, over-the-top moments - when the real solution is not a wet blanket, but consequences. 

Does Mary Sue have every type of elemental bending power without being an Avatar? Cool; make her a fugitive, and send horrible politicians and scientists after her, trying to weaponize her strengths. Is she an orphan? Have a situation come up where her family connections backfire on her or the lack thereof creates some kind of disadvantage. This turns the sometimes overstuffed backpack of traits and tropes that Sues tend to lug around into a handy-dandy kit of tools for storytellers to use. As long as there are consequences for characters' actions or advantages, the audience will feel the illusion of balance, and a sense of symmetry will be created. 

Embrace the Sue


Ultimately, Mary Sue is the daughter of Joy and Enthusiasm, and the problem isn't her rainbow Converse or fairy wings or super duper magic powers - it's cases of bad manners. And while some might consider it unmannerly to be tacky, which the Sue often arguably is, I would counterpoint that part of writing and creative activities is inherently about fantasy. The smallness of someone's imagination should not be the boundary of other people's creations. 

Watching a bunch of one's friends get to play out the ideal versions of their best selves isn't a buzzkill - it's actually fantastic and delightful. Ultimately, that's what a Mary Sue can be and can offer: a chance to glimpse our ideal selves and our fantasies, and sometimes, to pursue that in our real lives. 

Monday, 25 January 2016

The One I Love: A Missed It Review

Hello hello!

So, you know how Missed It reviews work by now--I surf around on Netflix, pull up a less than recent release which is either an indie gem or an indie turd, or sometimes, it's a cultural classic that I've never had a chance to track down. This time, it's an indie gem--The One I Love, starring Elizabeth Moss (Hi, Peggy from Mad Men!). Recommendation credit goes to Sarah Dimento, she of the excellent blog.

There will be a few


SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS


but as always, I will try to keep them to a minimum.



\

Summary


A man and a woman are in a relationship. That relationship has gone stale. We've all heard that one before--but the direction this film takes is decidedly unusual. It's a Philip K. Dick-style twist on relationship counselling. In the most literal take on self-reflection possible, the couple soon discovers that their strange, idyllic cottage hosts not only themselves, but idealised versions of themselves. What they do with the revelation, and their doppelgangers, forms the rest of the drama.

The biggest thing about this film is that not only does it do a lot with a little--it's similar to Safety Not Guaranteed or Timer. Like those two, this speculative fiction film really explores a concept without resorting to fancy CGI or effects-and -like the other two, it stayed with me.

Pros


The cinematography is great, and the movie avoids the problems rife with mumblecore. The characters are likeable, everything looks appealing, and the darkly comedic setup never stoops for a laugh or makes the protagonists too despicable to tolerate. The acting is excellent, and while the pacing was a bit imperfect, this is one of the best low-budget movies I've seen. I guess CGI or something must have been used to allow the actors to appear in the same frames as themselves, but it wasn't noticeable. The movie is very unsettling in a way--especially given one of its possible interpretations--and there's no sense of cheapness or emotional shortcuts in the writing.

Cons


I flipped through a few reviews online, and as people discussed the intricate rules of the house versus the guest house, a lot of reviewers failed to notice that Other Ethan and Other Sophie eventually came to be more like the previous versions of the characters--even while Ethan and Sophie themselves took on more ideal traits as their relationship was tested. Of course, the ending is eerie, and calls into question whether Ethan left with "the right Sophie"--but what if there never really was a "wrong Sophie"? My personal theory is that the characters can't leave the house until they've turned into the ideal people they were trying to become. All the photos and stuff were a trap, or a fake-out of some sort--the characters are essentially confronting alternate versions of themselves.

Other critics, though, offered the unsettling and intriguing suggestion that the movie is about the ephemeral idea of a perfect partner. The Other Sophie and Other Ethan are, in some ways, very different from their real-world versions. Some people said that the Others replace the couple out in the real world, and the original couple then has to help the next couple and replace them in order to gain their freedom. But that makes less sense than some sort of shape-shifting robot or echo or something that simply remains on-site, at the holiday house.

Still, if you don't mind debating these ideas with your viewing partner after watching this, you'll be very rewarded.


Final verdict




Still, the fact that the movie has multiple interpretations and layers is what makes it worthwhile; I'm not sure why people called it "uneven" or weird, but if you let this movie take your hand and guide you through its strangeness, you'll be in for a really strange and wonderful, thought-provoking treat--that might even make you reconsider and appreciate your own relationship.

Thursday, 5 June 2014

Missed It: Strange Frame

Hello hello!

Summary


Okay, so I need to talk about how gloriously bad this movie is. And gloriously weird. And...actually, that it's kind of good in spite of its many, many faults.

Sweet dear gods, it has exposition puking in the voice-over, but it's made up of extended Claudia Black purring. I don't care what she's saying, it's Claudia Black. I should probably talk about the plot of this thing, though. It's unnecessarily arcane and kind of hard to follow, but basically, it's a resistance type story, normal for dystopias, and it's a super arty-film. Uh. More neon colours, lesbian sex, random Japanese art porn, a record deal for the girls...drug use in the club, confirming that this is probably supposed to be watched while high. The pacing and Yellow Submarine-like aesthetic suggests that, too.

Naia gets kidnapped. Parker contemplates and angsts. We get more exposition as Parker seeks advice from an old starship captain. There's some interesting multicultural content and equality stuff and transhumanism themes mixed in. The starship captain takes Parker up, and they have a brief crisis. There's more of the time-wasty talk and banter that runs through the rest of the film. Parker helps people on the ship. They help her in return and the rest is about her trying to get her girlfriend Naia back. For once, the Netflix summary really does cover all the bases.

Anyway, bad stuff happens. I won't spoil the ending, but it's a very moody-based movie and it really pulls itself together in the last bit. Kind of a shame the music never quite gets together enough. We'll talk about that in a second.


The Stylistics


So, the aesthetic. There's a lot of bright, psychedelic colours. Those of you who are so inclined will probably find that drugs are a good compliment. There's a LOT of neon green and aqua for some reason. And also animated boobs sometimes. And really awkward close ups of some of the most badly drawn kisses ever. And bat people. And cat people. And blue people, who are just chilled out. And--SWEET JESUS RED DEMON EYES NO! However, the weird Angela Anaconda motions of the characters are offputting. I can't decide whether the designs are good or godawful--maybe both at the same time? Some of the designs look profoundly stupid, but it seems like a lot of them were intentional.

For all those compliments and insults, I have to give it serious props for creative visual style and going all out. It's daring, and I can dig that. It has an aesthetic I recognise from my limited exposure to anime, but this movie does make that aesthetic all its own. It has a feel similar to Ganekutsuou, the retelling of the Count of Monte Cristo by some of the people who worked on the Anamatrix, but this goes all the way and doesn't go into stupid robot territory. Though there are robots.



Pros


I already mentioned this, but seriously. It's van art given life. Naia even does a damsel in distress/knights comparison the minute she meets Parker, and for some reason there's a lot of music. It has lesbians, it has sex, it has people of colour, it has noirish raver cyberpunky dystopian stuff in space, and it has Claudia Black and Tara Strong. How could I not love it to pieces? Also, bat bears that were technically human at some point.

It's gloriously weird and experimental, and it doesn't take any half measures. Also, the music is kind of okay, and Claudia actually sells her character. It's very symbol-laden rather than being purely literal.


Cons


Terrible animation and weird psychedelic colours. And the proportions of all the heads kinda off. It really accumulates to make for an off-putting visual experience. And if lespolitation bothres you, this might be annoying. It's not bad considering everything, but there's definitely traces of it. More than traces. It's kinda like someone took Sin City, added random musical numbers, and overcompensated for the black and white by overdoing the colours. Also, bat-bears that were technically human at some point.

The plot is also really confusing and too slow for my taste. If you have no patience for artistic movies, skip this one; you'll be frustrated. As for the music, Naia's singing is described as being the shit multiple times, but she sings slightly flat, and the jazz and whatnot used elsewhere weren't quite as beautiful and soul-transporting as they kind of needed to be.



Final verdict


You know what, I recommend this one. In some ways it's a failure, but it's such an interesting failure that you shouldn't pass it up. It's got some very vital flaws, so I have to give it a 7 out of 10, but it was just so interesting and different and weird and sincere that I have to recommend it. It's more style than substance, in spite of its best efforts, but those same efforts kinda make it work. Anyway, it's flawed but awesome, so consider checking it out, particularly if you want something different for background noise.



*****
Thanks for dropping by the nest once again. Don't miss any of the phuquerie. Find Michelle on TwitterFacebook, and on Tumblr, and find her work on Amazon. Check back on the blog to see when one of the irregular posts has careened onto your feed. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out! 

Thursday, 8 May 2014

Missed It: The Farscape Review

Hello hello!

I've been meaning to do this for a while, especially since I mentioned Farscape a while back. I've since then been rewatching it from Season 1, and it's reminded me why I love the show so very much.

Normally, I would analyse this sort of thing to death, but I've noticed that Farscape--in spite of a decently-sized fanbase back in the day--is surprisingly unknown. So, I'll save some of the analysis I'd like to do in favour of just telling you why you need to watch it.

Summary


An astronaut, John Chriton, gets shot through a wormhole and across space (possibly into an alternate dimension. It's never quite clear). He falls in with a bunch of criminals and renegades, and ends up falling in love, going insane, running away from a black leather BDSM-suited alien, and trying to get back home. His rag-tag, dysfunctional little crew is made up of Muppets, truly amazing actors, and about as many personal secrets as you can store. Oh, and it's a living ship. And people get cloned. And transhuman questions. And actual diversity. And some of the funniest lines and scenes ever written for science fiction.

Pros 


Absolutely phenomenal writing and acting. Excellent characters. Jim Henson. One of the best villains of all time.

The chemistry between Ben Browder (Chriton) and Claudia Black (my hero, Aeryn Sun) is sizzling but compellingly rich. Chriton is a 'real man' who actually has lots of romantic daydreams and squishy feels, and it's Aeryn he has to warm up and break down communication barriers with, rather than the stereotypically reversed roles. Aeryn likes guns and taking the piss out of Chriton, and her role is played with subtlety and wit by the gorgeous and clever Black. And that's just the two leads. I haven't mentioned D'Argo, Zhaan, Rygel, or the others. I'm not even going to tell you about two of the villains and their transformations or excellent writing. I won't allude to the other wonderful characters, either, and the layers they quickly build up. The series does a great job of showing rather than telling, and I'm going to be faithful to that.

I will mention that the show passes the hell out of the Beschdel, that the female characters avoid being wank-bait but aren't too desexualized, that the humour in the show is wonderful, that the designs/aesthetics are every bit as wonderful as you'd hope Jim Henson's studio could devise, and that both the emotional and the military plots generally make excellent sense. Plus, every single fail or stumble gets improved on--this is a show that learns from itself, and the seasons that start off on a back foot eventually become the best ones of all.



Moya. She is not only the setting, she's given personhood and an awesome art. Yes, I'm talking about the ship.


Cons


Really? Well, I guess the first season does get a bit random. I'd suggest watching around ep. 18 if you just can't get through it. Once in a while a couple of characters go backwards in their arc, and there were a few bits here and there that almost lost me because I had no idea where they were going. There were a couple death fake-outs that were annoying too. However, 95% of the show pays off, and every hard moment becomes worth it with some fantastic developments later. I will admit that there's some serious back-and-forth in the main love plot that kinda drove me crazy, but everything else, especially their chemistry, is solid gold. It's a great space opera that made me cry and made me laugh, and it really pushed the boundaries of my understanding of what a plot and characters can do. 

Final Verdict 


This is completely biased to heck, but whatever--it's a rare 10 out of 10, and I highly recommend it. There are basically only a handful of things that I will defend with ardent love and devotion, and Farscape is one of them. It's on Netflix, but not enough people know about it, so give it a shot next time you need a new series for sure.


*****
Thanks for dropping by the nest once again. Don't miss any of the phuquerie. Find Michelle on TwitterFacebook, and on Tumblr, and find her work on Amazon. Check back on the blog to see when one of the irregular posts has careened onto your feed. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out! 

Monday, 14 October 2013

I've Seen Enough Hentai To Know Where This Is Going. Missed It Review: Mandrake (2010)

Hello hello!

 From time to time, I will post a quick review of movies and books I either a) miraculously missed, or b) just discovered, and c) definitely think you should not miss. Or, sometimes, d) think you need to miss as hard as possible, because it is e) embarassingly mediocre or f) soul-scarringly, chew-your-own-nuts-off-to-escape awful. Obviously, this means spoilers.

Tonight's shitastrophic film is Mandrake (2010). 

Source.  For some reason, this insanely bad movie was quite hard to get photos for.

 Summary


 All right. Well, I needed something to listen to while I edited a project, and what better than a craptacular movie? I will add the note that this means I was distracted while watching the film, so keep that in mind. That said, Mandrake is not exactly a terrifically rich film. I will grant Pandorum this much--it made the pretense of having layers (even though other bloggers disagreed, I still maintain that it was a fantastically stupid movie). 

So, here's the plot--which you won't find on Wikipedia, because this film is that insignificant--some archaeologists go to a jungle in a fictional South-American country for...ph4t l00t, I guess--and there's a dagger they recover with a totally not plastic 30-carat ruby. Then the jungle comes to life and starts attacking them. No, I'm not skimming over the plot; that's really all there is to it.

 The joy in this movie really comes from the effects and the atrocious acting. In the first scene--the mandatory 'some chick running through the woods' shot--we see an unconcerned actress stumbling around and even bum-scooting down a steep hill just before she gets offed in a jump cut. Shortly after, another victim from the camp site--which totally doesn't look like they just took the casting tents and pointed the cameras at them--we see a dude trip over and get pulled into the bushes. All it was missing was a funny horn-honk, and it would have been a classic pratfall from a cartoon. Add in Doctor Exposition, a blonde who is definitely a university researcher, and some disposible, interchangeable protags and baddies, and you have the perfect cast for this goofy 'jungle' jaunt. When I say 'jungle', I mean, 'probably filmed in Florida', of course. This is definitely not a rainforest.

 The casting and writing are just what you'd expect. The female actresses, with no disrespect, look and act like they're trying to make a transition from the adult film industry; the baddies are bad, the good guys are blander than truck-stop diner rice pudding, and so on and so forth. Of course, if you're watching a film called 'Mandrake' (Mandrakes, by the way, don't grow in South America, as far as I know) with CGI vines that attack people and you expect Shakespearean writing, you will be in for a disappointment.

 I do have to mention that there's a throwaway 'fuck the conquistadors' line, and then the movie goes into the standard somewhat racist paradigm where scary first-nations people abduct a bunch of whites. One of the characters actually yells, "you can't do this to me! I'm an American!" So, of course, a wag of the finger for the cheapness of that old trope. But, again, expecting intelligence from this movie is like expecting your dog to do calculus. It involves disparate abilities compared to the goal, and while it's cute, it's not very productive. 

The biggest thing I noticed with this one is that the effects are truly something special. I'm no historian--though I will admit to a real fondness for the area--but the bloopers are obvious and blatant. Let's start with the conquistador, whose breastplate is rusted away and whose skull is perfectly white and intact. Perhaps we should touch on the fact that the movie couldn't be arsed to tell the difference between the indigenous tribespeople and the Aztec--we're shown an indigenous tribe and all the engravings, of course, are Aztec. Then there's the costume designs--I really laughed when I saw those. The indigenous people look like a Spirit Halloween store version of fairy barbarians. Of course, there was an Aztec map--even though Aztecs didn't use paper or cloth, and if it was from a Spanish conquistador, it would have been in Spanish, not just Aztec. I think one of the crowning moments was seeing a North American deer antler on the priest's staff.



Source. Yeah., definitely a high production-value film

 Pros


 It's been a while since I laughed this hard. Obviously, this movie wasn't supposed to be funny, but between characters' poorly-delivered lines, the beyond-terrible historical inaccuracies, it was just brilliant. I almost think they did this intentionally. Surely a movie this bad was never meant to be taken seriously. Right? Right? Also, there is plenty of room in the pacing for an in-living-room riff track, so this is perfect for a crappy movie night with friends. Hell, even alone, this moldy wonder is pretty entertaining.

 Cons


If you don't like bad movies, you won't like this. Also, there were plenty of set-ups for tentacle porn, and not a single joke about it, which was actually quite disappointing. In fact, the movie studiously avoids laughs, in a way I can't help finding laudable--it's as though they knew their movie was laughable enough.

Normally, I would wag my finger at mildly sexualizing the death of female characters, but again, this movie is just such an underachiever that I can't bring myself to do it. So, again, if you're in the mood for something insightful and layered, this is not the movie for you.


 Final Verdict


 8 out of 10 for sheer goofiness. I docked a mark or two out of propriety, but the writing, the cast, the monster, and the whole shebang are just too delectably silly to miss. Fire this one up on Netflix and watch it with a few friends. Drink every time it looks like someone's about to be vine-raped, and every time a character spews pointless exposition. If you don't die, make sure to report back.

*****

Thanks for dropping by the nest once again. Don't miss any of the phuquerie. Find Michelle on TwitterFacebook, and on Tumblr. More interviews and witty commentaries are coming. Keep checking back to see those surprise posts, too. This is your darling SciFiMagpie, over and out! 
Google+