Slytherin Pride

Last January 2013, Pottermore.com sorted me into Slytherin House. The subsequent disappointment I felt was unsurprising, I suppose, after the Harry Potter books pointed out from the beginning that "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin. You-Know-Who was one." Henceforth, Slytherin became synonymous with evil. Not even the token appearance of good-natured Potions teacher Horace Slughorn and the Sorting Hat's urgent plea for unity could undo the damage. It didn't help that even the Slytherin extras in the movies were always smirking and looking at our Gryffindor heroes askance. This didn't give anyone in the audience a chance to see some of them as normal students who just happened to have been sorted into a House with a poor reputation.

It also doesn't help that the characters we are supposed to sympathize with are [conveniently] Gryffindors, who are quick to peg any and all Slytherins as evildoers. Even Professor Dumbledore caught Harry making a face when he learned that Horace Slughorn was a Slytherin. (I'm sure everyone caught themselves making the same face, too.) Who can blame him? Salazar Slytherin himself was rigidly selective of Hogwarts students and even built a chamber housing a monster to kill Muggle-born students; his Heir is the Dark Lord himself. Despicably spoiled brat Draco Malfoy brags about Slytherin; his classist father Lucius is quick to insult humble [Gryffindor] Mr. Weasley; the fathers of many known Slytherin students were Death Eaters; [Gryffindor] Sirius Black hated his entire [Slytherin] family who supported Voldemort but didn't actively follow the Dark Lord. With a roster like that, the fact that Peter Pettigrew was a Gryffindor and Horace Slughorn was a Slytherin did nothing to correct the Slytherin stereotype. With a reputation like that, you'd have to be a little haughty if you want to become proud to wear green and silver and wear a badge with a serpent on it. And that's another thing: The snake is symbolic of evil in Judeo-Christian tradition; considering Rowling's religious background, this is no coincidence.

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it wasn't a mistake that I belonged in Slytherin rather than in Ravenclaw like I expected. I like to think of myself as intelligent, but that wasn't really what defined me. I might be book smart, but I was more like Daria than Jodie. I didn't excel in school because I didn't exert much effort in the subjects I wasn't really interested in; whereas a Ravenclaw might have aced almost everything by putting work where intellect lacks. While I love learning and reading, I was more like the type to take what I learn to build a philosophy or subscribe to one. Doesn't that sound a bit like Draco?

I also realized: I'm not the most charitable person you can think of; as a matter of fact, I have a streak of haughty classism. I hate the stereotype pervading in Philippine pop culture that the rich are cruel, greedy, and selfish while the poor are pure-hearted and willing to share the little they have with others. While there is some truth to this, the greater reality is the opposite, especially where I come from.

The high crime rate in the Philippines can be attributed to the enormous population of people living in poverty. Many of the people living in the city slums produce more children than they can afford and resort to desperate measures like theft, kidnapping, drug pushing, car hijacking, prostitution, and even becoming hired killers, to support themselves—all because they couldn't afford the proper education required by law to get an honest living. Their victims are usually middle- and upper-class people whose wealth they attained by honest work—the same people on whom they typically blame their troubles. This is why I usually hesitate to give alms as many beggars are also syndicates, even children—some of whom who were stolen from maternity wards and raised in dire poverty.

On the flip side, people who have at least gone to public school have some degree of integrity because daily work with peers and authorities teaches you something about respect and responsibility.

Of course, there will be exceptions on both sides. Ethics and morality are incredibly complex matters. When I catch myself mentally belittling another person because of their appearance, I have to remind myself that people aren't always the way they seem. It's something all Slytherins need to learn, even in the books.

This brings me back to the topic at hand: What is it to be a Slytherin? Unlike the other four houses, Slytherin acknowledges the complexity of human nature. As former Hogwarts Headmaster Nigellus Black claims: "We Slytherins are brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance, given the choice, we will always choose to save our own necks." In other words, fear and inclination for self-preservation is nothing to be ashamed of. As we learn from Horace Slughorn's example, it is also not a lapse of integrity to associate with the strong and powerful for the sake of social standing; after all, "It's not what you know; it's who you know." Slytherins aren't the most virtuous of folks, but they tend to be pragmatic. They compensate for their physical or intellectual shortcomings with shrewdness, flexibility, and some degree of social skill. Slytherins do what they can to achieve their goals, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Late to the Show: District 9

While I was in the gym today, the TV was on and the Peter Jackson flick District 9 was playing in a movie channel that I'm not familiar with. I was paying as much attention as I can because it was a very interesting movie, but by the end of it, I felt glad that I didn't watch it in the theater. I'm pretty ambivalent about it. It's the kind of movie that is fun to watch and is a great choice for if you like something that makes you think, but it's also not something I would like to give a second viewing.

The movie starts with a semi-documentary style of cinematography with random interviews intercut with footage of aliens living on Earth. A race of alien creatures nicknamed "prawns" are stranded on Earth and are compelled to settle in South Africa, where the government is launching a relocation program for the prawns. Our hero is idealistic Wikus van der Merwe, an agent of the paramilitary organization Multinational United, who leads the relocation program by issuing eviction notices to the prawns. The prawns are understandably upset about this situation. Wikus, on the other hand, is a righteous kind of guy who does not approve of violence against the prawns.

There are a lot of things I like about this movie. The actors were great. The visuals were great. The characters were believable. It was also refreshing to see a sci-fi film with a contemporary setting rather than the typical futuristic setting. However, something about the concept is a bit off.

District 9 is clearly meant to be a sci-fi allegory of immigration problems and racial tension in first world countries by setting it in South Africa, which has a long history of racial segregation known as the apartheid. The hatred and violence that the humans commit against the prawns are reminiscent of the unfortunate circumstances that happen to many black and Hispanic people even in the United States. We are clearly meant to squirm guiltily in our seats as we watch the humans attack the prawns with little to no provocation, with the morally upright authorities being ironically powerless to stop it. By painting the humans as the villains, we are essentially villains in our own countries for wanting unregistered immigrants (aliens) out of our lands when they're evidently harmless.

But I think there's something wrong with that idea. The further I watch the movie, I don't find myself rooting for the aliens at all. Why shouldn't the humans want them out? If the South African government is going through the trouble of relocating them to an internment camp away from the slums the aliens have built for themselves, why should we feel bad that the prawns feel hurt and refuse to cooperate? If they wanted to go home so badly, why don't they just, y'know, leave?

I think it's not fair for a people of one country have to bend over backwards to respect the "rights" of foreigners who don't even hold the same privileges as the citizens of that country. Of course it's wrong for, for example, an American to be violent toward a Mexican; or for an Italian to spit at a Jew's beard. But there are more issues to consider other than discrimination or violence, like obeying the principles of law and order when you're in somebody else's territory. A host might have the responsiblity to treat their guests right, but the visitor has to be a good guest, too, by removing their shoes, refraining from expletives, and dressing modestly, if necessary.

District 9 seems to oversimplify the moral against racism. Immigration laws are more complicated than racism, and racism is more complex than we probably think, to begin with. District 9 is a good-but-not-great kind of movie. Its flaws are few but jarring. If I got something wrong, feel free to correct me.

Death of/to Democracy

As a child, I learned in school that democracy is the grand manifestation of freedom and independence. It is also this wonderful relief the Philippines experienced after the twenty-year dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos. In theory, democracy allows the common people who lead their lives as they choose. They have the choice to select competent officials to represent them in government. However, the success of democracy is dependent on several factors. The people should have the good judgment to distinguish a competent leader who cares about the common good rather than the pseudo-politician who uses cheap tricks on the people to put himself on top. Guess which of these scenarios is actually happening.

I seldom watch the news anymore. Whenever I watch the news, I feel angry and helpless. So when I start to feel the hot sensation in my chest I stop because feeling angry is useless when I can't do anything about it. Then, it occurs to me: What kind of democracy is this that the people literally can't do anything about the wrongs done to them by the people they trusted to make their lives better? Activists might be able to take to the streets, but the government doesn't listen to them. They also inadvertently disrupt the daily schedules of the people who would rather maintain their stable careers by coming to work on time.

The so-called intellectual class of Filipinos might take to the Internet and voice out their concerns in Facebook or Twitter or in news/blog websites like Rappler.com, Anti-Pinoy.com, or FilipiKnow.net, but the government doesn't change its ways. No wonder they don't: A vast majority of them are old men who don't even know how to use the computer. At worst, their spokespersons even silence naysayers by blocking them on social media, like the poet Angelo "Gelo" Suarez and his explicit complaint regarding the MRT.

The news broadcasting doesn't fare any better. Besides the fact that it displays the rather gruesome things Filipinos do to one another on a daily basis, much of its content is incredibly biased and tend to sometimes give people the wrong ideas about current events. This is called sensationalist journalism. It is why Cebu Pacific was pegged as a terrible air carrier after one [casualty-free] incident, which is their first since the fatal crash of Flight 387 in 1998. It is why Filipino Americans are hailed as Philippine representatives for achievements they weren't meant to share with the country they don't even belong to. It is why Filipino athletes and entertainers only get applause when they win when they could have used government support in order to do so. In other words, like Philippine politics, the local news media rouses the people's emotions just enough to give the illusion that the people has power.

But freedom of speech only goes so far. Yes, we can vote for the most competent government officials, but the vast majority of voters can be scammed into voting by handshakes, bogus charities, and last-minute infrastructure projects. That last one should have been taken from the taxes of the people, so politicians should not be rewarded for projects that should be their real job.

Yes, we can take to the streets and have journalists express public grievances, but free speech vanishes in the air as soon as it is spoken.

At worst, our own president uses the musings of a thirteen-year-old girl to protect himself from his detractors. This girl was brilliant to point out that Noy-Noy Aquino should not be the only one to blame for all the country's problems. For his State of the Nation Address, the President uses it as an excuse to blame the country's problems on his predecessors instead. News Flash: It's your job streamline solutions to those problems, SIR.

Stealing because they can, politicians show zero compassion by lording over the people instead of providing honest administration and service. I will not go into any more details because I will go into an unnecessary rage, but the bottom line is that, if it weren't for them, the Philippine would have been as self-sufficient as we were thirty years ago. If the country were economically stable, would the other problems in society be solved, too? I'm not sure, but if government agencies had the "funding" they so sorely need and their employees were humanely compensated, maybe they might actually do their jobs and raise the standard of living in the Philippines.

My heart breaks for the farmers and fishermen who don't get their share of the country's agricultural revenue. My heart crumbles for the OFWs who are forced to leave their families only to be mistreated by their employers because they are perceived as inferior. My heart burns for the middle class Filipinos struggling for an honest living only to be cheated by corruption, poor service in public sectors, and crime by the helpless poor. Something has to change, but I don't know where we can start.

Hercules and the Elusive Accurate Adaptation

If I were more attuned to Greek mythology when this movie came out, I might have become very angry. Disney's Hercules is one of those movies that were good movies on their own but were terrible adaptations. Here are some corrections:

1. This movie neglects the fact that Zeus has fathered plenty of children, including Hercules's ancestor Perseus and most of the other Olympians. In Greek myth, Hera was the villain in Hercules's life because she is jealous of his human mother.
2. Hades' real name is Dis; Hades is the name of the Underworld. Hades the god is also not an evil figure; rather, he is a neutral figure who just happens to be the Lord of the Dead.
3. Philoctetes was neither a satyr nor a "trainer" of Hercules. He was actually a PUPIL of Hercules who later fights in the Trojan War.
4. I like the movie's treatment of Meg, but in the myths, Megara was the Princess of Thebes and the wife of Hercules. Under Hera's spell, Hercules slaughtered Megara and their three children. Hercules's subsequent adventures were for him to atone for this crime.
5. The Titans weren't monsters that produced chaos. In Greek myth, chaos was already there before the world was created. The Titans were merely Elder Gods that were later overthrown by the younger gods, the Olympians. Some of the Olympians were the Titans' offsprings.

Despite all of this, Disney's Hercules manages to be a great film. Maybe it should have deviated from the Hercules story altogether and made an original story set in Classical Greece, which is what it really is. Here we have a guy who is shunned by society because he is different; he becomes larger than life when he discovers his divinity and makes the most of it. We have a great villain who wants to stop him, and a henchwoman who unwittingly falls in love with our hero. She is a great character on her own as well, and a better role model than many other Disney Princesses, for various reasons.

Aside from the 90s TV series Hercules: The Legendary Journey, no other adaptation comes very close to the Hercules narrative. I heard The Legend of Hercules was terrible. I hope the one with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson might actually be faithful to the source material, but the cheesy, Beowulf-inspired trailer makes me suspicious.

Upcoming Fanfiction.net Project

I am currently writing a short and fast-paced fanfic based on the Underworld movies. I have enjoyed the vampires versus werewolves saga since the first movie came out in 2003. This was the same year Evanescence's pseudo-gothic image was all the rage and I was one of their angst-ridden teen fans that followed the raven-haired frontwoman to the franchise's fandom.

Now that I am older and more critical of anything in pop culture, I have noticed that while Underworld remains to be a halfway effective narrative of how love conquers all, the plot, especially that of the first movie, is flawed and muddled. The marketing was misleading. The only reason the franchise is so successful is the generous amount of sex and violence in the films.

Girl with Guns makes effective Freudian imagery in film, too.

Its conventional portrayal of vampires and werewolves also became a breath of fresh air as the release of the sequels coincided with the Twilight films.

Yeah..

But in my most recent viewing of the first Underworld film, I realized that the plot was contrived and complicated. Why doesn't anybody believe Selene when she established herself to be a dedicated (albeit obsessive) Death Dealer? What is Kraven's motivation to keep Lucian's presence a secret when Lucian's whole mission is to destroy vampires? Why doesn't anybody join Selene in her investigation that Kraven is conspiring with Lucian? Since she turned out to be correct even with little evidence, couldn't the narrative have gone a little quicker? More importantly: Why are Selene and Michael in love? And how is the Romeo and Juliet concept supposed to work when Michael is a neutral party and victim of circumstances the whole time?

Underworld creator Kevin Grevioux (werewolf Raze in the first and third movies) came up with the concept after a romantic relationship with a white woman, which was met with disapproval from both his and his girlfriend's loved ones. So why not have Raze be Selene's lover instead of Michael? Raze has been Lucian's second-in-command for centuries and Selene has been a ruthless Death Dealer for centuries. Wouldn't it be more interesting and compelling if an unlikely alliance between them blossoms into a forbidden love affair they have to fight for? I think the fact that Raze is a black man drives the point further.

Read my fics and watch out for new ones here: https://www.fanfiction.net/~aeshnalacrymosa

In-Depth Review of Maleficent [SPOILERS and RAEG Ahead]

I'm sure anyone like me who has seen Walt Disney's 1959 adaptation of Sleeping Beauty was excited to see Maleficent since seeing the goosebumps-inducing teaser featuring Angelina. Jolie.

For all the kids who might be too young to grasp the significance of this actress, Angelina Jolie is an extremely talented performer and a devoted philanthropist with six children, three of whom are adopted from Cambodia, Ethiopia, and Vietnam. (The other three are biological children from fellow acclaimed actor Brad Pitt.) She has a long and illustrious movie career and is most famous for the following movies:

1. Gia (1998 HBO Original biographical film)

 2. Girl, Interrupted (1999 adaptation of memoir of the same name)

3. Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001 video game adaptation)


Since breaking into the spotlight with these three movies, she has become an A-list celebrity with a string of both action and drama films. The rawness of her performances makes her an ideal choice for one of Disney's most iconic villains.


Maleficent gets roughly 15 minutes of screen time in Sleeping Beauty. As with many classic Disney Villains of the time, there is really nothing we need to know about her except that she is evil. She is so evil that she is willing to kill a baby simply because her parents didn't invite her to the presentation of the infant princess. She is offended at not having received an invitation whereas the Three Good Fairies Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather were invited and were allowed to bestow gifts upon the child. If that's not enough, her very name means "evil." As the villain of the story, the audience only has to wait and see how she is inevitably defeated.

There was really nothing else to it, and much of her background is only hinted at in the dialog. As in the original fairy tale, Maleficent is a fairy; however, in accordance to her name and character design, she is an evil fairy with purely destructive powers. The gentlest fairy Fauna is willing to believe that Maleficent can be reasoned with because "she can't be all bad." But the cleverest fairy Flora tells her with utmost certainly that Maleficent indeed can be all bad. However, when she suggests to "turn [Aurora] into a flower [because] a flower can't prick its finger," the shrewdest fairy Merryweather points out that Maleficent can only easily "send a frost" the same way that she, according to Fauna, "has always ruined [Flora's] nicest flowers." This can explain the outward hatred that the Three Good Fairies show toward Maleficent when the latter appears uninvited to King Stefan's court. Merryweather even goes so far as to call Maleficent a "wicked witch."

It also appears that the hatred is mutual. She openly insults the Three Good Fairies at the presentation by calling them "the rabble," a term meaning, "the lowest class of people."

When Merryweather says that they cannot easily hide Aurora because "Maleficent knows everything," Fauna points out that "Maleficent doesn't know anything about love, or kindness, or the joy of helping others." This is perhaps the greatest form of evil: one that cannot comprehend good or its components. Destruction and malice is all Maleficent can do, so these are also all she knows. It is perhaps for this reason that she lives technically in solitude in the Forbidden Mountain where other fairies are not allowed to visit. In the Forbidden Mountain, Maleficent resides in a decrepit castle where mostly only the dungeons and a few towers are intact. One can imagine that either that the fairies exiled her into her ominous domain or that she separated herself from the other fairies and enjoyed her solitude with her raven as her only friend.

Maleficent turned out to be disheartening for me to watch because I love Maleficent because she's bad to the bone. I love her as a villain because this makes her a force to be reckoned with. This makes the Three Good Fairies work very hard to avert the curse and, when that failed, to defeat her for good.

That's what I wanted to see in Maleficent: besides an account of the run-of-the-mill "how she became evil" narrative in the tradition of Wicked, I expected to see an account of how her destructive powers and malicious ways brought her to the Forbidden Mountain and how she assembled a band of grotesque goblins to do her bidding. This would have been a helpful PG guide for antisocial personality disorder, a frightening real-life psychological disorder in which a patient literally has no conscience and performs harm and destruction for no reason in particular. Patients with antisocial personality disorder are more commonly known as sociopaths or psychopaths. Maleficent is one such character.

Instead, Disney presents us with a saccharine yet cynical narrative of how Maleficent turned evil and, really, isn't evil at all. The whole film and the character it runs with are both victims of incredibly lazy writing. It seemed to me that Disney was like, "Here is Angelina Jolie. We know you all like her, so we won't bother with anything else because you will all pay to see her anyway." This is insulting. While I admire Angelina Jolie very much, Disney was wrong to assume that all of the audience come to the theater just to see Angelina Jolie; no, I came to see Maleficent, the Mistress of All Evil.

Maleficent begins not in the Forbidden Mountain but in what the narrator simply calls The Moors. This was a very interesting start as the Moors is clearly inspired from Fern Gully, a flourishing wetland where magical creatures dwell. Maleficent is introduced as a fairy with kob horns and large hawk's wings with a single talon on each of them. Like the elves in Fern Gully, Maleficent is a force of nature that can grow and heal plants. I was willing to go along with this at first, but I quickly knew that this movie will not be as I expected.

The young fairy Maleficent is established to be proud but compassionate. Her greatest minions are mossy tree creatures with the same silhouette as Chernobog from the Night on Bald Mountain sequence of Fantasia. Because of her strong wings and level head, she becomes the protector of the Moors. In her childhood, she meets the wandering urchin Stefan, with jet black hair, a pale olive skin, and a hard face with a pointed nose. The two become friends and, in adolescence, fall in love.

However, after Maleficent's sixteenth birthday, Stefan leaves the area to pursue success in society as a knight. The king, who is old and has no heirs to succeed him, appoints Stefan to be the new king after the latter, in a heartbreaking sequence, clips Maleficent's beautiful wings instead of beheading her as ordered. Forced to make do of what remains of her powers, Maleficent stops believing in true love and becomes a force of destruction. Creating a wall of thorns around the Moors, Maleficent rules the Moors as its evil queen and turns the Moors into a frosty wasteland where the inhabitants regard her with fear.

From here on out, the narrative diverges from its source material entirely. Maleficent neither resides in the Forbidden Mountain nor assembles an army of goblins. The fairies and other woodland creatures fear her but not oppose her. King Stefan is a lovable, steadfast, and somewhat quirky character from the animated classic but becomes a cruel warrior who is so blind with ambition that he is willing to betray his friend and lover to become king.

This reimagining of King Stefan is both good and bad. It's good because it fleshes out his character. Both his and Maleficent's character become more interesting because it entertains the idea that she cursed Aurora specifically because she has a grudge against him. It's bad because I can never look at this scene the same way again:


The Three Good Fairies are renamed and have dramatically different character designs and attributes.

Collectively known as The Pixies, Flittle, Thistlewit, and Knotgrass are annoying, incompetent, and unintelligent. Taking in Aurora was no longer their idea but King Stefan's, and they are shockingly neglectful guardians to the infant princess. They are not even remotely worried about her when she stays out of the cottage for days on end while spending time with Maleficent.

This is another way that Maleficent diverges from Sleeping Beauty. In the 1959 animated classic, Maleficent was unable to harm Aurora in her sixteen years with the Three Good Fairies because she has no idea where the girl is; in this retelling, Maleficent not only watches over the girl but even secretly cares for her when the Pixies don't. When the girl reaches adolescence, Aurora meets Maleficent and mistakenly identifies her as her Fairy Godmother. After a few days of bonding with her in the Moors, Aurora requests for Maleficent to let her live in the Moors with her. Maleficent acquiesces this request and even attempts to revoke her curse, only to find that the is unable to. Maleficent becomes visibly upset that she is unable to revoke the curse. She becomes even sadder when she points out that the countercurse is designed in a way that the curse can never be lifted: Aurora cannot be awakened by True Love's Kiss because there is no such thing as true love.

This is the part where I got downright disgusted. The Walt Disney Studios, which has instilled three generations worth of people with hope and love, has forgone both in favor of cynicism, which is apparently "cooler." It's one thing if Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty says it, because she's obviously the villain whom you are not supposed to root for; but here, it's Maleficent the designated heroine who says it. Is Disney now trying to teach kids that true love does not exist and so, by extension, the institution of marriage is a joke because a shockingly huge percentage of marriages end in divorce, like their parents'?

While I understand the intentions of this movie, it simply gets Sleeping Beauty all wrong. This movie makes it seem that Sleeping Beauty was an elaborate joke that, by the end, feels like a poor rehash of the ending of Ever After. In the end, Maleficent was a big corny mess and a pile of disappointment.

Maleficent review [MINOR SPOILERS: Proceed with caution.]

As I predicted, Angelina Jolie was great as the title character. The movie worked a few angles that potential but it fell flat because the narrative decided to neglect a few key traits about the character and established narrative points in the original Sleeping Beauty movie:

1) While Maleficent WAS a fairy, it's established that she is an EVIL fairy who "doesn't know anything about love, or kindness, or the joy of helping others."

2) The Three Good Fairies show animosity toward Maleficent not only because she is evil but because she has destructive powers. It's hinted in the dialogue of the 1959 film that she frequently played tricks on the fairies and "She's always ruined [Flora's] nicest flowers" by "sending a frost."
3) It's hinted in the animated classic that Maleficent lives in the Forbidden Mountain BECAUSE she didn't belong with other fairies.
4) Hiding Aurora was the Fairies' idea; Maleficent had no idea where the girl was in all her 16 years.

5) The Fairies renamed their ward Briar Rose to effectively hide her from Maleficent.

Any good points in the movie left no real impression on the whole narrative. Pity. I was expecting she was more a Chaotic Neutral that went Chaotic Evil because of the fairies and not because of something else that the movie decided to go with instead.

Well, that's enough ranting for me tonight. Personally, I will not give Maleficent a second watch because, apparently, I have expectations. But if you're into the whole Wicked-style Story From the Other Side narrative, that's okay. But if you're bringing young children to the trailer, it's best you let them watch the 1959 animated classic first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCV0hy6ex1c