Post by hernalt on Feb 18, 2022 19:42:04 GMT
I have to chip away at these.
I've never needed to analyze the OT : PT through a lens of masculine : feminine. For my purposes it's been blackwhite : gray. Exceptions proving the rule include Obi-Wan's "I will do what I must" (blackwhite) and Jabba Luke back in black choking guards (gray).
Obviously coded feminine presenses in the OT are the three gowns. Leia in Senate gown. Leia in Bespin gown. Mon Mothma in Senate gown.
Leia in Senate gown is introduced still under what I frame as the obligation to continue to attempt to exchange views. We have not yet heard that the Senate was disbanded. Leia is in at least performative, if not sincere, disbelief that Vader can get away with what he's doing extra-legally, which means she is still operating under some hope of forms and conventions. (Otherwise, her dialogue would have been along the lines that her capture was not capable of being disputed.) So this 'gowned' Leia is, upon introduction, still highly invested in the Senate system that relies on risk aversion. At the same time, she is taking on risk. So she has passed a threshold of speech into action. The gown then becomes camoflage. This second Leia could be wearing Endor camos for all that Vader cares.
Leia in Bespin gown is anxious. Her intuition distrusts the host. Pre-gown: "Who's worried. ... I don't like this. Yes... very friendly." Post-gown: "Something's wrong here." This is a judge of character. The one that asserted that there was more to Han than money. This is someone that has spent huge amounts of time weighing risks of letting this or that individual in on the secret. Others might be the architects of the alliance such as Bail and Mon Mothma, and those figures certainly had to exercise judgement of character. Leia has to do it at a younger age, and going by her role in the opening of SW77, has to do it while going about vigorous espionage missions, across vast distances, under cover of diplomatic privilege. I may be overweighting Leia's contribution to the cause, but I have configured Leia to be so central to the cause that her sitting back in the Briefing Room scene of ROTJ is unimpeachable because that vignette of alliance is her opus. Her roles in SW77 and ESB suggest that she recruits. By extension, she could not have attracted trustworthy and dependable talent without some kind of intuition or instinct. In contrast to Luke's 'instinct' that there was good in Vader, Leia's instinct is without any benefit of kinship, and without focus upon any one individual, even Han Solo. Instinct to the degree of subtlety that Leia has is not uniquely feminine, but it is given only to her in the OT.
Leia wearing the gown in the Bespin scene, when she is clearly still in snow fatigues at least mentally, is another camoflage. She is trying to not reveal her hand that she knows full well that Lando is up to something. In contrast she is in the gown when Han is about to be frozen, possibly to death. She certainly could say "I love you" in snow fatigues. That would say something different. She says it in a gown. Something is represented to have changed between the time of snow fatigues, where she must retain control over the chaos of her child, the alliance, and, the time of gown, where she lets go of her child because she has trust in it, and can now see to herself.
I've never needed to analyze the OT : PT through a lens of masculine : feminine. For my purposes it's been blackwhite : gray. Exceptions proving the rule include Obi-Wan's "I will do what I must" (blackwhite) and Jabba Luke back in black choking guards (gray).
Obviously coded feminine presenses in the OT are the three gowns. Leia in Senate gown. Leia in Bespin gown. Mon Mothma in Senate gown.
Leia in Senate gown is introduced still under what I frame as the obligation to continue to attempt to exchange views. We have not yet heard that the Senate was disbanded. Leia is in at least performative, if not sincere, disbelief that Vader can get away with what he's doing extra-legally, which means she is still operating under some hope of forms and conventions. (Otherwise, her dialogue would have been along the lines that her capture was not capable of being disputed.) So this 'gowned' Leia is, upon introduction, still highly invested in the Senate system that relies on risk aversion. At the same time, she is taking on risk. So she has passed a threshold of speech into action. The gown then becomes camoflage. This second Leia could be wearing Endor camos for all that Vader cares.
Leia in Bespin gown is anxious. Her intuition distrusts the host. Pre-gown: "Who's worried. ... I don't like this. Yes... very friendly." Post-gown: "Something's wrong here." This is a judge of character. The one that asserted that there was more to Han than money. This is someone that has spent huge amounts of time weighing risks of letting this or that individual in on the secret. Others might be the architects of the alliance such as Bail and Mon Mothma, and those figures certainly had to exercise judgement of character. Leia has to do it at a younger age, and going by her role in the opening of SW77, has to do it while going about vigorous espionage missions, across vast distances, under cover of diplomatic privilege. I may be overweighting Leia's contribution to the cause, but I have configured Leia to be so central to the cause that her sitting back in the Briefing Room scene of ROTJ is unimpeachable because that vignette of alliance is her opus. Her roles in SW77 and ESB suggest that she recruits. By extension, she could not have attracted trustworthy and dependable talent without some kind of intuition or instinct. In contrast to Luke's 'instinct' that there was good in Vader, Leia's instinct is without any benefit of kinship, and without focus upon any one individual, even Han Solo. Instinct to the degree of subtlety that Leia has is not uniquely feminine, but it is given only to her in the OT.
Leia wearing the gown in the Bespin scene, when she is clearly still in snow fatigues at least mentally, is another camoflage. She is trying to not reveal her hand that she knows full well that Lando is up to something. In contrast she is in the gown when Han is about to be frozen, possibly to death. She certainly could say "I love you" in snow fatigues. That would say something different. She says it in a gown. Something is represented to have changed between the time of snow fatigues, where she must retain control over the chaos of her child, the alliance, and, the time of gown, where she lets go of her child because she has trust in it, and can now see to herself.
Mon Mothma in Senate gown is following the "I shall do what I must". She is a woman pushed beyond the limits of the obligation to exchange words with the clear and present enemy. She does not surrender femininity because she needs to remain a beacon of what was and what should be restored. So, she stays in the uniform of graceful diplomacy. She remains at her post, meaningful dialogue between peers that seeks the most good for the most constituents while the rest of the Senate fled.
Your take on trains and what leaves powerful impressions invokes the common argument that delineations of fandom are all true scotsman fallacies. I think it's fine that latecomers to the IP consider themselves fans. The word 'fan' should be elastic to represent all degrees of fondness. The word 'fan' fails when it comes to the peculiar relationship that certain 'victims' of the juggernaut have with the juggernaut. There was nothing like it, at the time. It is hard to measure, and compare, the depth of the lashes by which you were healed. Obviously, the PT is going to imprint upon its own generation. The ST will imprint upon it own generation. Each work leaves or will leave a moment stuck in time burned on the back of the eyelids, even into geezer age.
This is not as it should be, or is supposed to be. One is not supposed to be so imprinted by one work of obvious fiction that one's identity forms around it. It is not for doing, it is pathological, that one be so impressed by the *image of an approaching train that it moves you this way or that, or changes the choices you make in your life. That is embarrassingly unsophisticated. That is rube, plebeian, proletariat. You are expected to put away the traits of a babe, and that includes visceral ownership of suspended disbelief in a work that survives by consensual hallucination. It is not for doing, to be so affected by a work, so as to be so passionate, that wars of words start by breaches of borders, invasions and annexations.
Your take on trains, and the depiction of rubes taking an image too seriously, invokes Rian Johnson saying that Your Snoke Theory Sucks. What _really_ is a fan supposed to do, or be? Servile or subordinate with no recollection of prior usages? Is that the ideal fan? Is that the fan you want for your IP? I do not record anywhere that Kevin Feige is doing anything like Your Snoke Theory Sucks.
This is not as it should be, or is supposed to be. One is not supposed to be so imprinted by one work of obvious fiction that one's identity forms around it. It is not for doing, it is pathological, that one be so impressed by the *image of an approaching train that it moves you this way or that, or changes the choices you make in your life. That is embarrassingly unsophisticated. That is rube, plebeian, proletariat. You are expected to put away the traits of a babe, and that includes visceral ownership of suspended disbelief in a work that survives by consensual hallucination. It is not for doing, to be so affected by a work, so as to be so passionate, that wars of words start by breaches of borders, invasions and annexations.
Your take on trains, and the depiction of rubes taking an image too seriously, invokes Rian Johnson saying that Your Snoke Theory Sucks. What _really_ is a fan supposed to do, or be? Servile or subordinate with no recollection of prior usages? Is that the ideal fan? Is that the fan you want for your IP? I do not record anywhere that Kevin Feige is doing anything like Your Snoke Theory Sucks.
