You know what my favorite bit of irony involving any Biblical adaptation is? The casting/writing of Moses and Aaron in The Prince of Egypt
(bear in mind, I love that movie to the point where it’s my favorite Bible adaptation, but this bit of trivia makes me giggle every time)
So, in the original story of Exodus, Moses complains that he’s not good at the whole “public speaking” thing when God tells him to go verbally knock some sense into the Pharoah. As such, God appoints Aaron, Moses’ older brother, to do all the talking for him and be his “prophet”.
Obviously, a lot of adaptations decided “Nah, Moses isn’t as cool if he’s gotta have someone else talk for him” and just have Moses give all the badass speeches himself. But then Prince of Egypt goes one step further and also casts Jeff Goldblum and his unique speech pattern as Aaron.
Maybe I’m just a jerk, but that’s kinda funny to me.
oh gosh, both of these are hard and my answers for them are probably so boring (they also come with the, “this is just how I feel right now because ugh, I am the worst at picking any all-time faves for broad categories”) — but!!
top “five” movies:
The Prince of Egypt — has some of the most beautiful art that I’ve ever seen, anywhere, and music that sticks with you, and it really shows the human drama and human stakes of such a classic story in ways that a lot of adaptations of Biblical mythology are afraid to do
Deadpool — because I’m garbage, the characters are great, the script is pretty good, and the movie makes me laugh. It’s not really a deconstruction (in the way that some people make it out to be, by way of justifying why they like it), and it’s not super-intellectual, and in a lot of ways, it’s like a giant #SorryNotSorry that makes fun of superhero movie tropes while continuing to use them (and there are some subtle ways it plays with some of said tropes and twists them around, but it largely doesn’t) — but it’s fun
But I’m A Cheerleader — is far from perfect, and I maintain that it’s actually much more depressing than the ending leads us to believe (I mean, Meghan/Graham and Dolph/Clayton get together and escape from True Directions and homophobic parents, and Meghan’s Mom and Dad at least try to do better by their daughter, but things don’t work out that well for anybody else), but it’ll always have a special place in my heart because it was one of the only lesbian movies that I had access to as a little gay baby
Female Trouble — I wouldn’t say that it’s the best thing that John Waters has ever done, just the one that I personally like the best, and I’ll admit that it’s probably an acquired taste…… but I love how it takes on celebrity culture in the story Dawn Davenport, and it gave us great lines like, “The world of heterosexual is a sick and boring life” and, “I wouldn’t suck your lousy dick if I was suffocating and there was oxygen in your balls!” It also has a special place in my heart as one of my favorite, “gay AND weird” movies
—which probably makes sense, given that it was written and directed by the trash king of being gay and weird
……like, seriously. My (best friend who I call my) brother once asked me, “So is John Waters gay or is he just really weird?” and the only thing I could think of to say to that was, “Yes, both.”
the “Three Flavours Cornetto” trilogy — which is totally cheating, to put three in here, but I couldn’t pick between them. I do think that Hot Fuzz and The World’s End are more fully actualized than Shaun of the Dead, but I love all of them, and the reason is pretty much just, “Because they’re good mixes of being hilarious and making me FEEL things” (……less so in The World’s End, for several reasons; it’s a lot heavier on the feels, to the point that you sometimes feel bad for laughing at the jokes, but still)
Good Omens (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman)— This book was my introduction to both PTerry and GNeil, after I found a cheap copy in an airport bookstore when I was about twelve and immediately fell in love. It’s funny, the characters are vibrant and engaging, and it played right into my love of screwing around with Biblical mythology.
I’m periodically tempted to list different books for both of those men (with PTerry’s probably being one of the Granny Weatherwax books, or Faust Eric, and GNeil’s being either American Gods or one of his Sandman books — because yeah, he’s done other good stuff, but I’m more sentimentally attached to AG and Sandman. Also, Preludes and Nocturnes has some of the only non-movie or TV horror that has genuinely terrified me, so)
—buuuut then I never do, because Good Omens was my first book from either of them, and remains my sentimental fave, even though I admit that they’ve both written other books that are, “better” or, “stronger,” or whatever
Dry (Augusten Burroughs) — There’s a lot of fair criticism to be made of Augusten Burroughs, and he’s been one of the writers at the center of the debates about truthfulness or lack thereof in popular memoirs (like, how much an author is allowed to condense things before it stops counting as a, “real story,” and how an author remembers things happening vs. how other people remember them), but Dry nevertheless means a lot to me.
Like, I enjoyed Running with Scissors and his novel, Sellevision (which were the other Big Deals in his collected works, at the time I originally read Dry), but Dry fucked me up a LOT when I first read it. It has continued to fuck me up ever since.
There are passages in this book that I can’t even be jealous of, as another writer, because they’re so good that they skip right the fuck past, “I’m angry and jealous that I didn’t write this myself” and into, “Holy shit, THIS is why I write, the ability to do THIS KIND OF THING EXACTLY with words, I need to go write something right now”
Also, it means a lot to me for sentimental, “I read this book for the first time when I was in high school, and it made me feel less lonely and sad and scared” reasons
Have you seen "One Night With The King"? If so, what are your thoughts on it.
I have seen it, actually, but I’ll preface this with the fact that a) it’s been a long while and b) I never read the book.
I think that it’s a very… pretty movie. I’ve heard a lot of people say it is not a fair adaptation to the book, but as I haven’t read it, I don’t think I can comment on that aspect at all.
Um, I remember the directing of it was pretty well done, but that the dialogue was lacking in areas. It was really melodramatic? Which, like, it was supposed to be, so I guess? XD I remember thinking it was a pretty decent adaptation of Biblical events, even with its fair share of embellishment (the whole thing with Haman’s family legacy and all that? idk), and a decently made movie. I watched it two or three times, you’d think I could remember more lol.
I do recall really liking parts of it and being “wait what” for others, so. If I watch it again, I’ll try to do some sort of review post (especially in light of my Issues on the Subject) but honestly that’s about all I can say. (sorry!)
I’m still not over how the supernatural creators rewrote Earth’s scientific canon evolution to de-age Castiel.
In Season 7 Castiel tells us he remembers ‘many things’. He remembers how one of his siblings (I’m not going to refer to them as brothers as he did because the angels are gender-neutral beings in the SPN 'verse) told him not to 'step on that fish’ because the angels had 'big plans for that fish’ when young Castiel watches a fish crawling from black, thick liquid onto the earth. Ignoring how scientifically inaccurate the entire flashback was (yes, the nerd in me died a little) we can still conclude that said 'fish’ was the first of his kind to walk on earth.
The scientific part (1):
I’ll admit, I had to do a little research since I’m only knowledgeable about the creatures that came in the mesozoic era (when earth was about 65-70 mio. years old) and a bit of the late paleozoic era before that. I was a dinosaur nerd, don’t judge me. Anyway, so I did my research and the fish Castiel was talking about was probably a Tiktaalik , an early ancestor of what we nowadays call amphibians. Depending on the source this fish first appeared about 380 million years ago and 'died out’ 10-20 million years later, about 370-360 million years ago. Let that sink in.
Judging by from what perspective Castiel told us about that event we can guess that he was still relatively young and inexperienced. He doesn’t seem the type to want to harm any creature, so by telling bee-loving Castiel not to step on that fish his sibling more likely told him to watch out and not accidentally step on it.
Still, this version of Castiel would be terrifically old. If we go by 'older than the earth’ that would make him at least 4.5 billion years old. No human, no matter how talented can really write a character that old.
(Fun fact: Upon being accused of being 'scrawny’ and therfore unimpressive by Samuel Campbell he sasses back that his true form is 'approximately the size of your Chrysler Building’. That would be 319m/1047 feet. And there are at least four angels taller than him, probably many more. What is fascinating about this is the 'multidimensional wavelength of celestial intent’ part. They never ventured any closer there because again: pretty much impossible to do or explain. Comparing him to the Chrysler Building is far easier, just like transferring his age into a much shorter timeframe to make him younger and less experienced.)
So they tried to adapt Castiel into the biblical timeline to make him a writeable character.
The religious part (1):
If we go by biblical standards and Castiel was present during Earth’s creation that would still make him several thousand years old (most likely around six or seven, as those are the most common numbers). During one of Castiel’s conversations with Uriel we learn that both he and Uriel were minors by angelic definition when Lucifer rebelled and fell. Depending on when Lucifer’s fall actually was - the safest thing to go by is Adam and Eve, which was shortly before Lucifer’s final fall from grace in the complicated SPN-’Lilith-Eve-otherEve-Godvs.Satan/Cainvs.Abel-'verse - that could be anywhere between 2000 and 6000 years (once again, by biblical standards).
The scientific part (2):
Lucifer’s fall still came shortly after the whole Adam and Eve shebang. This is easier to place than the 'fish’ thing before. Because by scientific standards there actually is a mother of all too. She is called the Mitochondrial Eve and most anthropologists’ theories date her back to 100000 - 200000 years ago. If Lucifer rebelled and fell then, that would make Castiel a bit older than 100000 - 200000 years.
The religious part (2):
Castiel has been stationed on Earth for at least 2000 years, according to his own 'anecdotes’ which is still a long, long time (and it makes no sense that he should be so naive about humans if he’s been around them for at least 2000 years). In another conversation with Uriel he mentions that Castiel has served in Heaven’s army for at least six or seven centuries.
This interpretation of Castiel’s life matches perfectly with the biblical creation of earth, just as the scientific one would have matched with our knowledge of evolution. But in the SPN 'verse they had to shake things up a bit because we can’t have him be that old (I’m babbling, sorry).
So, to conclude: All in all Castiel is old. Somewhere between 4.5 billion years and 6 thousand, but he is very old. Of course I understand that writing a 4.5 billion old wavelength of celestial intent is hard. I’d go for a 2-6 thousand year old Chrysler Building-tall angel too if I were a SPN writer. Just… it seems really funny to me. ’Let’s rewrite human history and ignore evolution and science to adjust our angel’s age instead of simply making the angel younger.' …That is grade A Winchester logic: [S10 spoiler]'I just hoped that super vague and cryptic note I left would fix everything, ya know?’ [S10 spoiler over (and out)]
But, as I just 'proved’, they did rewrite canon scientific history to accommodate Castiel and Lucifer. They would have gotten too old with the way science works, so they shortened the 'prologue’ a bit.
Glorious Technicolor: From George Eastman House and Beyond, a 100th-anniversary celebration of Technicolor, opens June 5! The series focuses on American films made between 1922 and 1955, with a delirious range of musicals, melodramas, swashbuckling and seafaring adventures, sword-and-sandal Biblical epics, Orientalist fantasies, Westerns, literary adaptations, homespun Americana, and even rare instances of film noir and 3-D. From The Wizard of Oz to Fantasia, it’s going to be a colorful summer at MoMA. See a schedule & purchase tickets (on sale 1 week prior to screening date).