An appreciation to the wonderful animation of Milt Kahl. (Source)
nostalgia’s greatest instrumental moments
this land - hans zimmer / / whispering winds - james horner / / the end of winter/new spring grass/tragedy in the fields - bambi original soundtrack / / mulan’s decision - jerry goldsmith / / heritage of the wolf - james horner / / transformation - alan menken / / poor aurora/sleeping beauty - george bruns / / to die for - hans zimmer / / red sea - hans zimmer / / farewell - alan menken
How to talk to your daughter about her body, step one: don’t talk to your daughter about her body, except to teach her how it works.
Don’t say anything if she’s lost weight. Don’t say anything if she’s gained weight.
If you think your daughter’s body looks amazing, don’t say that. Here are some things you can say instead:
“You look so healthy!” is a great one.
Or how about, “you’re looking so strong.”
“I can see how happy you are – you’re glowing.”
Better yet, compliment her on something that has nothing to do with her body.
Don’t comment on other women’s bodies either. Nope. Not a single comment, not a nice one or a mean one.
Teach her about kindness towards others, but also kindness towards yourself.
Don’t you dare talk about how much you hate your body in front of your daughter, or talk about your new diet. In fact, don’t go on a diet in front of your daughter. Buy healthy food. Cook healthy meals. But don’t say “I’m not eating carbs right now.” Your daughter should never think that carbs are evil, because shame over what you eat only leads to shame about yourself.
Encourage your daughter to run because it makes her feel less stressed. Encourage your daughter to climb mountains because there is nowhere better to explore your spirituality than the peak of the universe. Encourage your daughter to surf, or rock climb, or mountain bike because it scares her and that’s a good thing sometimes.
Help your daughter love soccer or rowing or hockey because sports make her a better leader and a more confident woman. Explain that no matter how old you get, you’ll never stop needing good teamwork. Never make her play a sport she isn’t absolutely in love with.
Prove to your daughter that women don’t need men to move their furniture.
Teach your daughter how to cook kale.
Teach your daughter how to bake chocolate cake made with six sticks of butter.
Pass on your own mom’s recipe for Christmas morning coffee cake. Pass on your love of being outside.
Maybe you and your daughter both have thick thighs or wide ribcages. It’s easy to hate these non-size zero body parts. Don’t. Tell your daughter that with her legs she can run a marathon if she wants to, and her ribcage is nothing but a carrying case for strong lungs. She can scream and she can sing and she can lift up the world, if she wants.
Remind your daughter that the best thing she can do with her body is to use it to mobilize her beautiful soul."
There’s a difference between demanding that you like a character and defending a character against unfair attacks often times regarding her intelligence and gender. It’s not always defending Christine but stamping out misogyny. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but if your opinion is defaming not only to the character but to a group of people in general (in this case, women), you can expect retaliation.
Also I’d mention that there’s a difference between not liking Christine as a character and the outright hate so many seem to feel for her. There are legitimate criticisms to be had (she starts out very naive, her entire arc could be interpreted [incorrectly in my opinion but the argument could be made] as a redemptive device for the main character, in several versions she’s treated as a prize to be won and not as a woman in her own right) and those are fine. Nobody’s saying you have to like Christine. It’s that several people who hate her and are vocal about it are throwing her under the bus for Erik. That’s what we’re trying to defend.
It’s called “Take the Stage”, and it would be an academic (and humorous) look at theatrical productions worldwide. I’d be limited to the languages I can speak (English and Spanish) but I think it would fill a niche that currently doesn’t exist.
Thoughts? Yay? Nay? Let me know!
So a boyband walked onto the Britain’s Got Talent stage and everyone thought they were going to sing One Direction or something typical…and then they sung Stars from Les Miserables.
This is the best thing ever. Just listen to those harmonies <3
That being said, I actually get a kick out of discussing things with people. Disagree with me? Send it my way! Please!
FAR, FAR FROM LAND | Tim Walker (W Mag Dec. 13)
Also, regarding the whole ~Erik loved her so much that he killed for her~ thing—did he really?
I mean, even pretending that there somehow was something romantic about killing someone for somebody (WHICH THERE ISN’T), I don’t see how Erik’s actions fit that description, in either the musical/movie or the book. Christine certainly didn’t ask for him to kill anyone on her behalf—which, in my opinion, would be the prerequisite for killing someone *for* someone.
Erik killed Buquet because Buquet knew too much and was a threat to *Erik* (I know a lot of people like to imagine that Buquet had harassed Christine BUT HEADCANONS =/= CANON).
He killed Piangi so that he could sneak on stage and attempt to manipulate Christine more—not because she particularly wanted it/it would benefit her.
In Leroux, he dropped the chandelier on the concierge so that the managers would give him his own box-keeper back, and to punish them for not obeying his rules/paying his salary, not because Christine herself was particularly fond of Madame Giry or had a distaste for the chandelier itself.
I suppose you could possibly make the argument that Philippe’s death might make it easier for Christine and Raoul to marry (though it more likely would have made it more difficult)—BUT I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT THAT WAS ERIK’S MOTIVATION FOR KILLING HIM.
Erik also tried to kill Raoul, which Christine DEFINITELY did not want.
None of these murders had any direct benefit to Christine, nor did she have any motive for wanting these people dead. These were entirely selfish crimes.
So, yeah, I seriously fail to see how any of this constitutes “killing for her”.
Erik threatened to blow up the opera house and kill the both of them if she didn’t marry him. She also tried to kill herself after being kidnapped. So in addition to “killing for her”, he’s also almost killed her.
Let’s take that one step further and look at some of the adaptations, since it’s obvious that Leroux canon means nothing to most people making this argument (indeed, most people I’ve seen defending Erik as “killing for her” are more familiar with an adaptation than the source material).
The 1925 adaptation is very similar to the book, so I’ll sidestep it for now as Buquet’s death has already been addressed above, as has the chandelier crash and Erik’s threats to blow up the opera house. In the 1943 adaptation, which out of all of the adaptations is the least bloody (I’m excluding the Song at Midnight filmsand The Phantom Lover from this list, both because I can’t speak for their use of tropes specific to Chinese cinema and because the story those films are trying to tell a different story), Erik kills two people. One is for himself and himself only (the music publisher who he thinks has ripped him off) and the other is to further Christine’s career. He kills Biancarolli, the resident diva, because she relegated Christine to the chorus after her triumph onstage; Christine is horrified by this and definitely doesn’t want it. Later when he kidnaps her he’s very gentle but she’s terrified of him and her unmasking is an act of defiance rather than curiosity. So two kills, none because of his “love” for Christine.
The 1962 adaptation doesn’t have the Phantom (here called Professor Petrie) killing anyone, instead relegating that job to Ivan; Ivan is the Phantom’s ugly assistant (no, really). There’s also no romance between the Phantom and Christine, as he kidnaps her strictly to teach her so that she can perform the title role in his stolen opera Joan of Arc properly. Before he was focused on sabotaging the production without violence.
Phantom of the Paradise is unusual in that Erik is two people - the controlling, villainous Swan who kills to keep his place at the top, and the broken Winslow Leach who kills because he’s been wronged. But again, none of the killings are “for” the Christine character, here an aspiring 70s artist named Phoenix. Leach’s most violent act is an explosion he stages to sabotage a production before Phoenix even really enters into the picture, so how you could argue that the Phantom is killing out of love escapes me.
The 1983 Maximilian Schell version seems to owe a lot, surprisingly, to Stephen Sondheim’s Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. The Phantom character, here a performer/teacher named Korvin, is driven insane when a scheming baron tries to seduce his wife and sabotages the woman’s singing career, leading to her suicide. Korvin then goes on a rampage and slaughters one of the baron’s allies with an axe before confronting him directly. The Christine character, Maria, is the spitting image of this dead woman and Korvin desires to possess her. He ultimately forgets his wife entirely in his quest both for revenge and his desire for a real living woman. Seriously guys, watch this version. It’s great. And while you could I suppose make an argument that the murders were done “for love” the film makes it very clear they were done “for selfishness” or “for insanity”.
Even the more horror-focused adaptations have little to do with Christine in their killing. The 1987 Dario Argento film Opera is probably the closest, although when the Phantom character “kills for” the Christine analogue in this film it’s to torture her psychologically, using needles around her eyes to force her to watch him eviscerate people. A close second is the 1989 Robert Englund version, where the Phantom kills Buquet because it’s implied he was ogling Christine rather than working and so caused an accident that injured her. This could be called love, but it’s almost possession - Erik is more angry that he lied about not ogling the singer than the fact that his object of obsession has been injured, which is in no way “love”. Later he kills an opera critic who was talked into writing a poor review for Christine, which is again less about love and more about a desire to see his protegee treated the way he feels she deserves it. Erik isn’t at all an ideal partner in this, not in the slightest, and so once more we’re left wondering where this idea of “kill for love!” comes from.
I’m going to bypass the kids’ versions (no killing), the porn versions (really? REALLY?), and the second Argento film (for good reason) and get right to the point: even in the films that are only tangentially connected to Leroux’s original text, you can’t make the argument that Erik kills for love. He kills for a lot of reasons, yeah, but a desire to prove his affection like a cat bringing dead birds to the doorstep is not one of them.
Idk about you guys but I get super excited about birthdays! I particularly love knowing other ppl’s birthdays. So since phandom is a pretty small knit community and we all know each other for the most part, I thought we can have a birthday list!
How it works is that you reblog and add your own birthday to the calendar. The objective of this is get to know each other a bit more and wish ppl happy birthday and maybe tag them on their favorite things on their b-day. This is just for fun and I encourage everyone to participate :)
JanuaryJanuary 23rd- notgoodnotnicejustright (Olivia)
July 17 - redeaths (alex)
July 23 - absynthe—minded (Absynthe)
November 16 - fdelopera (Caitlin)
- Easy and very effective
- Requires nothing but your body
- Includes attack
I don’t mean to impose a personal favour on you guys, but I really would like to ask that everyone who follows me reblog this.
I don’t think I made it very clear but last month I was sexually assaulted by someone who I thought was my friend (I don’t want to talk about it don’t ask), and it’s… really fucked with my head.
Had I known this a month ago I would have been able to get away.
So, essentially, I’m really pleading with you to reblog this so everyone who follows you doesn’t get stuck in the same position I was with no way out.
I mean again I don’t want the point of this to be my sob story or whatever but if you could reblog this it would seriously mean a lot