David Tennant Assures Us That Everything Will Be Alright (x)
(via davidtennantblog)
I should have been grading papers this evening, but I made this instead.
(via hello-shellhead)
(via badkitty2010)
(via nothing-butthecape)
(via tea-steeps-my-soul)
Gwendoline Christie in Giles Deacon’s Captain Phasma inspired gown
“Many people remarked on social media about how refreshing they found it that the chest piece of the armour wasn’t moulded like breasts, and that it was a functional piece of armour.”
(via cooperwest-wtr)
Yes, Furiosa exists in a lineage (see above), and, yes, plenty of other action films have featured female leads. But what’s notable here is how Furiosa being a woman both is and isn’t integral to her character. (In the same way that her missing arm both is and isn’t integral to her character.) In Alien, the character of Ripley was written as a man, then cast as a woman, which was a breakthrough at the time — but also a kind of cinematic drag act. Why can’t a woman play a man’s role? Well, sure — but the better question, only now being asked, is, Why can’t a woman’s role take the place of the man’s role? Furiosa could never be played by a man — the character would make no sense — and not, as with many other female action heroes, because of the kind of costume she wears. She is not simply Indiana Jones in hot pants or Lolita with armor-piercing rounds. Furiosa is a woman, and she is a hero, and she’s cool as hell, and she’s simultaneously recognizable and revelatory as all three. If you’re an action fan and you can’t admit that you’d eagerly watch ten more Furiosa films in the next ten years, then I’d have to ask again if you’re an action fan.
—Adam Sternbergh, Emily Blunt, the Rock, & the Post-Furiosa Action Hero
(via extraterrible)
(via extraterrible)
(via villainsexuale)