I Still Feel Like The Movie Slapped Me In The Face, So I Decided To Post A Meme.

I would like to note though, that when we talk about the 'Rape of Persephone', 'rape' doesn't refer to literal SA. Nowhere is it mentioned that Hades rapes Persephone.

In this case the word 'rape' just means 'abduction', 'kidnapping'. It's from the latin raptus which means to carry off, to kidnap.

ngl i do enjoy the hades x Persophone idea, but i wish it reflected mythology more like Dread queen persophone is a damn kidnapping freak too.

The thing with Hades and Persephone is that these two are far from the perfectest, most pure, most ideal couple to ever exist. The beginning alone is disturbing, with Hades kidnapping, raping and then either tricking or straight-up forcing Persephone into remaining into the Underworld by giving her those pomegranate seeds. He also cheated on her with Minthe, so fidelity is not a strong point either.

What frustrates me though is that a lot people completely erase these aspects and try to create a version of the myth completely different from the ancient ones where the only similarities end up being the figures' names. I understand erasing the rape part, because even though back then marital rape wasn't considered a crime (and there are still parts of the world where it still isn't, unfortunately), the idea of having a woman starting to be fond or to love her rapist just because he treats her nicely is on itself deranging. But erasing the kidnapping or the infidelity only removes the complexity and the grey nuances of their relationship. Why, instead of claiming that Persephone willingly went with Hades or that Hades is the only faithful god, people would focus on the fact that she had just as much power and authority over the Underworld as him? Why, instead of demonizing Demeter, people would try to understand that having your daughter kidnapped and forcibly married off to someone is a disturbing scenario, and that her actions were completely justified?

On the "dread queen Persephone" part, I have to recognize that I despise the way people either portray Persephone as this innocent, naïve and oblivious flower girl, or as a cruel, merciless and completely terrifying queen.

Yes, she groomed Adonis (Pseudo-Apollodorus), brutally tortured Minthe before turning her into a plant (Starbo), inflicted Thebes woth a deadly plague (Antonius Liberalis) etc. etc. But she also realeased Sisyphus from the Underworld (Theognis), gave Orpheus a chance to rescue his wife (Diodorus Siculus), sent Alcestis back (Pseudo-Apollodorus), welcomed Heracles like a brother, allowed him to take Cerberus and to rescue Theseus and Pirithous (Diodorus Siculus) etc. etc. She had her own moments of cruelty, but compared to Aphrodite who made children lust over their parents or Dionysus who cursed mother to kill and devour their babies she is not as blood-thirsty and merciless as people like to give her credits for. What is ironic though is that people are perfectly capable to acknowledge that just because Hades ruled over the dead and ancient greeks were afraid to pronounce his name that doesn’t mean that he was evil, but somehow Persephone must be completely dreadful in order to be intersting.

Reducing either one of them two or their relationship to an aesthetic isn't just reductive, but also shallow, repetitive, uninteresting, uncreative and overall boring.

Wish (2023): a Review

this is the film I get? (da-da, da-da, da-da, da-da, da-da, da)

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Dream Theory Shortcuts

Full post - unpolished

The Opening Segment

Astrid

Richard

Rory

Charles

Glickman

Betelgeuse's Couple's Therapy

Betelgeuse/Jeremy parallels and Garden of Eden symbolism

Astrid's Demonic Birthing Sequence

Darktoonverse

Spoken dream/nightmare allusions

Critical analysis of the literal interpretation

References:

Casper

Carrie

The Shining

The Fly/Rosemary's Baby

The Wizard of Oz

Alfred Hitchcock

Elvira pt. I & pt. II feat. Labyrinth

B&W Segments

Ed Wood/Plan 9 From Outer Space

Mario Bava

The more news we get on Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey the more I'm convinced this dude thinks we're still in the 1990s 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

What the hell is this???

(picture credits @margaretkart)

For comparison this is what the real Ithaca looks like:

reylo

because they complete each other

"Greece sort of owns the Parthenon Marbles"

Sort of? SORT OF?

On July 5th 2024, yet another discussion about the Parthenon Marbles took place, at the British Museum. I never expect much anymore when it comes to this subject. Every time there's some kind of update on this ongoing debate, somehow my frustration reaches a new level. Because for every sensible debater, there will always be someone like 'classicist' Mary Beard.

According to Mary Beard, Greece only 'sort of' owns the Parthenon Marbles. "These are objects which are international, they belong to humanity, not to one particular bit of it", she said on July 5th.

Obviously I resent the entitlement in those words, the audacity to undermine the ethnic value of another country's heritage. The Marbles are international, you say? They don't belong to "one particular bit" of humanity? But if it hadn't been for that "one particular bit" of humanity, there wouldn't have been any Marbles to speak of. As a Greek person, I find it downright insulting of her, a British person, to say the Marbles don't belong to the "one particular bit" of humanity that birthed them.

How about we have a little laugh? Mary Beard said that the Parthenon Marbles are like a "child in a messy divorce case".

That's a wild simile. And by 'wild' I mean 'stupid'.

I'm calling it stupid because 'child of a divorce case' makes it sound like the Greeks and the Britons built the Parthenon together.

I know, of course, that Beard didn't make this simile out of stupidity. By comparing this debate to a child custody battle, she's insinuating the Marbles belong to the UK as much as they do to Greece, and that this is merely a matter of compromise. She knows exactly what she's doing, as a trustee of the British Museum.

On Twitter, she will 'educate' the public about what the Marbles should be called, in what feels like an attempt to justify naming the Marbles after the man who looted them. Whether you refer to the marbles removed from the Parthenon exclusively, or the 'less famous' stolen treasures, one thing is for certain; Elgin was a thief, and no amount of quirky 'pedantry' by Mary Beard is going to change that.

Lord Elgin was responsible for literally ripping pieces off of an ancient building, ignoring its cultural significance to Greek people. Make no mistake; he didn't find the Marbles on the ground, deserted and unappreciated by the Greeks. He RIPPED THEM OFF. Violently.

However, Mary autocorrect-to-the-rescue Beard will come to his defense, and tell you that when Elgin coveted the Marbles, the Parthenon was already in "a very sorry state". She went as far as to claim that "there is doubt at all he saved his sculpture from worse damage". All this is in a BBC archived piece written by Beard in 2011, in which she supposedly looks at both sides of the argument, yet it still felt one-sided when I read it.

So...he saved the Marbles from damage...by violently ripping them off the edifice? Gotcha.

We need to remember, everyone; the goal here is to make the BM Trustees and Elgin's ghost feel good about themselves.

"I want to see those marbles shared I think realistically, more generously with Greece", she said, on July 5th.

I wonder how Mary Beard would feel if one day a random person broke into her house and told her; "I planned to keep this place for myself, but you know what? Let's share it! I want to be generous to you."

Does she think she sounds like the bigger person? Does she think the British Museum is doing Greece a favor by entertaining the idea of sharing the Greek Marbles? How progressive!

How hypocritical.

She continued "I would like to see again the Parthenon marbles being ambassadors for a particular sort of Hellenic classical culture in which both Greece and the United Kingdom, and many other countries in the world, share; they can do their job not just in Athens or London- what about Beijing?"

What about Beijing, Mary? You reeeaaally don't want the Marbles to return to Greece, do you? If you could, I have a feeling you would personally deliver the Marbles to Mars. After all, the Marbles can be interplanetary.

I jump back and forth to her 2011 piece, where she asks; "Who owns great works of art? Do monuments such as the Parthenon belong to the whole world?" and "Are they the possession of those who live in the place where they were first made? Or are they the possession of everyone? The likelyhood is that we will be debating these issues for many years to come." Well, quite frankly, if we keep debating this for many years to come, it will due to the BM Trustees' own denial of reality. The questions Beard asks are easy to answer. Too easy, in fact.

In the same 2011 piece, Beard ponders the meaning of Cultural Property, of ownership. She points out how everyone can appreciate the works of Shakespeare and Mozart, and how things get sticky when it comes to the global appreciation of a tangible work of art such as the Marbles. The answer to this conundrum is obvious, if one looks at the matter objectively; the Greek Marbles belong in Greece, in the museum close to the Parthenon from which they were wrongfully torn from, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion if Elgin and his entourage hadn't taken them as souvenirs. The truth is that there is no real need for a debate, the BM trustees just keep dancing around the topic. They will harp on the complexity of this so-called debate because they don't like the idea of letting the Marbles return to Greece.

There's this childish insistence in the British Museum's reasoning, to keep associating the Parthenon Marbles with the UK much more than with Greece. I feel this stems from something that can be traced back to Elgin and his own avarice; a strange need to latch on to a part of a culture that was never theirs to begin with.

The insistence to connect the Marbles to the UK is the undertone to the 'child in a divorce case' comparison. It's what ultimately makes Beard's argument fall apart, and brings the hypocrisy to light. She said the Marbles don't belong to Greece, they belong to humanity. They're international, she said. And I ask; where was that sentiment before Greece called the British Museum out? Before we asked for the return of the Marbles? Before Melina Mercouri, Greek Minister of Culture, started fighting for them? If this matter had never been raised, would you ever care about your British Museum becoming "the world's greatest lending library", Mary?

What Mary Beard wants you to hear is; Why should Greece have the Marbles, when the whole world should have them?

What Mary Beard actually means is; If the UK can't keep them, then no one can.

Especially not Greece. The BM Trustees are adamant about that.

Which brings us back to the ridiculous "child in a messy divorce case" phrasing. A simile that doesn't apply in this situation and makes no sense, unless Beard imagined the BM as the delusional party who has convinced themselves this child is theirs even though there's no relation between them. But that would be too much self-awareness to expect from this academic.

You wanna compare the Parthenon Marbles to a child, Mary? Okay, but it's not a child 'in a messy divorce case'. This is a child that was abducted from its own home. It's a hostage situation, Mary. The British Museum is keeping a child hostage.

Greece wants her child back.

And as for cultural 'ambassadors', the British are free to send their own, instead of playing around with OUR cultural heritage.

no, Rick, it's not

Like what do you mean Mount Olympus is the Empire State Building?? Last time I ckecked, Mount Olympus is a MOUNTAIN and it's in GREECE. 'Many of the locations of Greek mythology have also moved with Mount Olympus and can be found all over America'????? These are locations, not furniture!

Greece is a country that still exists, by the way, so why exactly would the Greek Gods (Greek, Rick, Greek) abandon it? Why would they leave their homeland?? Every time I remember that passage where Chiron is like "haha, Percy, western civilization is a liViNg fORce and it started in Greece" and "ohh it's a fire and the Gods follow wherever the flame is brightest uwu" I just- it's so stupid, it makes me want to pull my hair out. How on Earth did Riordan think that was okay to write? Did he really think it was valid justification for basically disconnecting the Greek gods and Greek culture from Greece and Greek people?

You know what this 'justification' reminds me of? This. They're both part of the same narrative.

Not even the camp- the goddamn camp for children whose parents are Greek Gods- is set in Greece. Riordan just made a US-flavored cake and sprinkled some Greek Mythology on top. Delicious.

Allison: Patrick, this is everybody. Everybody, this is Patrick.

Ben: Hey, Patrick.

Klaus: Hey, Patrick.

Diego: Hey, Patrick.

Vanya: Hi, Patrick.

Luther: I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name. Patrick, was it?

Different answers you can give to “there shouldn't be people of color playing the gods in Percy Jackson since they were Greek”.

Broke: The gods can be played by people of any race because they're not real.

Woke: The gods can be played by people of any race as, because they're not human, we have never been able to see them in their true forms. We would burst into flames if we did. The depiction we see of them in statues was done in the image of the models that posed for them. Also race politics weren't the same in Ancient times as they are know, especially in the USA. Some territories that are know considered Middle Eastern were considered Hellenic back them and they worshiped these gods. Because of this, artists and worshipers of these regions imagined the gods in their image, just like we nowadays can see depictions of Jesus in different races.

Now let's discuss why Hollywood loves to cast Central or Northern European descent actors to play Mediterranean humans and demigods such as Hector or Achilles.

Did you even read what I wrote? Here are some screenshots straight from the Riordan wiki and the books:

'the books aren’t fucking saying the locations moved' I don't know how to break it to you but IT IS LITERALLY what the books ARE saying.

did you even read them?

In Greek mythology and tradition, places like the Labyrinth, the seat of the Gods, the seat of the Titans, the entrances to the Underworld exist in real geographical locations. We ARE talking about locations, and it's asinine for an author to think that he can just 'move' these places to the US (or anywhere in the world really) and call it a day. Let's take Mountain Olympus for example. The home of the Gods is on Olympus in Greece. The geographical placement of the Gods' home holds cultural significance that Riordan completely ignored. I'd say he ignored it deliberately. Olympus is the home of the Gods AND the mountain. It makes NO SENSE to move the home of the Gods to the Empire State Building. It makes NO SENSE to move the Labyrinth from Crete to "under some building in America".

And there is no reason for the Greek Gods and heroes to leave Greece behind other than the fact that Riordan did not care for the country whose mythology he is exploiting to sell his books.

This passage below is supposed to be from Percy's point of view but it is also Riordan's POV while he was writing his books:

'I was feeling pretty proud of myself' I bet you were, Rick. Imperialist minds usually do.

no, Rick, it's not

Like what do you mean Mount Olympus is the Empire State Building?? Last time I ckecked, Mount Olympus is a MOUNTAIN and it's in GREECE. 'Many of the locations of Greek mythology have also moved with Mount Olympus and can be found all over America'????? These are locations, not furniture!

Greece is a country that still exists, by the way, so why exactly would the Greek Gods (Greek, Rick, Greek) abandon it? Why would they leave their homeland?? Every time I remember that passage where Chiron is like "haha, Percy, western civilization is a liViNg fORce and it started in Greece" and "ohh it's a fire and the Gods follow wherever the flame is brightest uwu" I just- it's so stupid, it makes me want to pull my hair out. How on Earth did Riordan think that was okay to write? Did he really think it was valid justification for basically disconnecting the Greek gods and Greek culture from Greece and Greek people?

You know what this 'justification' reminds me of? This. They're both part of the same narrative.

Not even the camp- the goddamn camp for children whose parents are Greek Gods- is set in Greece. Riordan just made a US-flavored cake and sprinkled some Greek Mythology on top. Delicious.