Parked: Movie Review

I just watched the movie Parked. It was odd, artsy, indie, and almost entirely character driven, with a plot thin enough that if the characters hadn't been so strong the movie would have been nothing.

But the characters were strong.

So I really liked it.

A brief summary: A middle aged man named Fred is living out of his car. He's attempting to get some form of aid, but due to the fact that his dwelling isn't a "fixed abode", is continually getting refused. Then another car appears in his car park, and Fred meets Cathal (pronounced KA-hal, because Ireland), a young man also living out of his car, having been kicked out of his house by his father... I think (I missed a bit of the beginning dialogue because Cathal's accent took some getting used to). Also he's a total drug addict, but at least he doesn't inject, right?

Anyway, the two of course end up forming an unlikely friendship, one that helps Fred to see his life isn't over, and Cathal to see that his life isn't exactly on the road to success. Also Fred meets a lady he likes, but finds himself unable to be entirely honest with her because he's ashamed that he's living out of his car.

Here's what I liked about the movie:

The cinematography. I love indie films, because the way they use their cameras tend to be so much more interesting - I presume that being indie lends itself to a certain freedom to take risks. It worked here, and it added a certain poignancy to a few moments.

The characters. Fred and Cathal are a lovely foil for each other, but equally interesting people on their own. Fred was a surprise for me, especially, because pardon me for saying that a movie about a depressed middle aged man is not exactly top of my list. However, this character managed to get past that for me - I think it was the warm center the actor was playing for him, that he isn't a cynic by nature, but by circumstance.

And, of course, Cathal managed to hit one of my major soft spots - a troubled but essentially good hearted person with an aloof exterior but actually cares a lot.

But what I liked about it can be summed up by this statement I saw upon doing a little research: "It is the most gentle movie about homelessness and drug use you are ever likely to see."

Yeah, that about sums it up.

Because, see, it is about homelessness and drug use. Both those things play very large roles in the movie. As a result, it could have been very dark.

But it wasn't.

In fact, despite things not exactly working out for anyone in the end, at least not the way we the audience would have probably liked, it's extremely hopeful. And, often, joyful. No, Fred doesn't quite end up with the girl, and no, Cathal never makes up with his father. But that's because it is, simultaneously, a realistic movie - just one with an optimistic view.

Which is honestly so refreshing. I'm tired of people equating realism with cynicism, because those two things aren't synonymous. What this movie does is acknowledge that circumstances get crappy, but that the people in those circumstances aren't bad people because of it. Even the way the movie treats Cathal, who is arguably much more to blame for his problem than Fred is for his, as a victim of circumstance. Innocent? Maybe not. But human - the movie goes to lengths to point out everyone's human-ness, showing fears and flaws and passions as much as possible - and deserving of compassion.

And I just think that's awesome. It's maybe not terribly unusual, in terms of tactics to take for such a movie, but this movie manages to strike an almost perfect balance between the encroaching darkness and the light moments that not only temper it but pretty well define the film's tone. It managed to take some pretty heavy topics and go, "But here's the thing..." and turn it around so that, in the end, it was more about living than it was about all the things that could end up killing them.

Also, the acting was really on point. I've already talked about my surprise on actually finding Fred to be a likable character, and that is largely to do with the actor's playing of him. The actress who played his love interest was very good too, and of course, Cathal's characteristically jerky energy and his charisma and the wonderful way his softer moments were played was brought by the endlessly gifted Colin Morgan, who I will never not love as an actor.

Really, it was all just so good. I recommend this movie muchly. It's gentle without being patronizing and realistic without being pessimistic and sentimental without being flowery and just all in all extremely enjoyable. Please watch this movie. It'll make you smile. I promise.

My Most Influential Books

I don't know why this occurred to me, but I was thinking about what books or authors have really influenced me - in terms of my thinking, or my writing, or the ideas I'm left with to this day, and just in general the person I've become. And I can think of quite a few that were important in influencing me one way or another. So, here we go, in no particular order.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Books 1-5) - Douglas Adams

I have an edition of this that has all five books in one volume, and let me just say: this is a book that I have read cover to cover on multiple occasions, and yet it still manages to get me off guard every single time. I always laugh out loud somewhere. I don't know why - I've heard all the jokes before. But it's still funny, every single time.

And I think the reason that I'm framing this as an influential book rather than simply one that I enjoy immensely is that it really has influenced my sense of humour in ways that not many other works can claim to do. I first read it when I was still kind of impressionable, and I think you can tell that my sense of humour's a little bizarre because of it, a little off-kilter and, shall we say, imaginative. I've adopted Ford Prefect's deadpan, and the ability to laugh at pettiness a la Arthur Dent, not to mention the ridiculousness that defines the entire series. This book is basically my sense of humour in a nutshell.

There's also that, despite the ridiculousness of the entire thing, the characters do have some meat to them - even if they're not likable (which they aren't, but that doesn't mean they aren't imbued with their own twisted charm), they do manage to justify most of what they do. If you can dig through the nonsense and find that, it makes for an interesting read. Mind you, that is a lot of digging to be done - which is fine, because the nonsense is why I loved it in the first place.

Inkheart - Cornelia Funke

This might just be the single most influential book of my childhood. In it we find villains so evil and so compelling that from there on out, every single villain of their type had to be compared to them. Here we find what I believe to be the first morally ambiguous character who I felt actual, fierce affection for - I'm referring to Dustfinger, of course, our one neutral player. Here we find interesting adult characters, imbued with their own motivations and views and humour and goals - this is a rarity in the 8-12 section at the book store, let me assure you. Here we find a kid, who's strong enough to defeat the villain herself, and yet very human.

All of this was pretty important for someone like me, who was just figuring out the stories I wanted to tell as a writer, and who, to this day, constantly writes stories with active adults who don't necessarily take over the story from the younger main character. Who, to this day, takes childish glee from villains who are evil simply because they're evil, and not because of some tragic backstory. Who, to this day, is filling her characters with varying degrees of moral ambiguity, and tends to enjoy those ones more than the straight-laced heroes.

On a note more related to my general life, Inkheart was also filled to the brim with a head-over-heels adoration for books. The house described in the book, with books stacked floor to ceiling throughout, is kind of my dream mansion. And the fact that by the third book, Meggie (yes, her name was really Meggie, it was basically a book written for me, about me) is learning to write her own stuff rather than just read it, and even early on the writer, Fenoglio, is arguably one of the heroes of the story... and here I am, years later, laptop filled with stories no one ever asked me to write.

I think it's fair to say that this book was a pretty big influence in my impressionable years.

The other thing is, I'm just going to say it: Inkspell and Inkdeath weren't nearly as good. It was cool, I guess, to see the Inkheart world play out, but by that point there were so many storylines going on that had basically nothing to do with each other that I couldn't tell you a single solid thing that happens in either of them, and it made recreational reading a little bit exhausting, trying to remember everything that was going on.

But Inkheart. Inkheart, O Inkheart. It is a book of pure magic and brilliance, and the best thing about it? The ending has enough closure that I can safely pretend that the sequels didn't happen, if I want to.

While we're at it, let's pretend the movie didn't happen either. That was a harrowing experience.

The Thief Lord - Cornelia Funke

Yeah, for a while there, Cornelia Funke was my favourite author. The Thief Lord was, I believe, the first book I read by her, and that one was very important in the things that I found myself fantasizing about.

It was important because, A) Prospero and Bo are probably one of my favourite sets of siblings, and as much as I love Bo for his innocence, as an older sibling I related to Prospero far more. B) as much as I love the evil-because-they're-evil villains - and I do, which I can only explain by saying that my childhood fantasies were full of them and I do feel a certain nostalgia for that simplicity - I also have a soft spot for villains who aren't really villains, but are only antagonists because they're on the wrong side of the plot - like the detective who, in the end, is really only doing his job. It sucks that Prospero and Bo have to go back to people who hate them (or, as I recall, they loved Bo and hated Prospero, but had to get them as a package because custody wouldn't let them split them up... but I could be wrong about that), but it isn't really the detective's fault that he was hired to find them.

And finally, in the most obvious impact it had on me.... I daydreamed about Venice on many an occasion after reading this book. It's impossible not to. Funke clearly thinks Venice is beautiful, because it's one of the first things you hear about and it comes up maybe every three pages, and now I can safely say, having been there largely because of this book... she's right. About all of it. Venice is where magic is born.

I even got a souvenir to honour The Thief Lord. I got a mask, one of the ones with the long noses, like the kind that Scipio wears when he meets with the other kids.

Percy Jackson (books 1-5) - Rick Riordan

This one's slightly superficial in the influence it had on me, but as well as generally being a book that I always found extremely fun, and entertaining, and kind of hilarious, it was also the beginning of my obsession with Greek mythology.

And I can safely say, looking back years later, as a human encyclopedia of Greek myths, having written a book set in Ancient Greece for that exact purpose, that to be the thing that got me started there is kind of a big deal. Because I am as passionate about Greek mythology as I am about, well, anything else in my life, and that came from this.

So thanks, Riordan, for letting me discover something that I can revel in.

Also, like Inkheart, we do not discuss the movies. Ugh.

Artemis Fowl (books 1-3) - Eoin Colfer (it's pronounced Owen, apparently)

Now, let me be clear: there are eight books in the Artemis Fowl series. And I adore every single one of them with all of my heart. I can go into detail about why I love each one. The series isn't complete without them all. But I'm only going to talk about the first three books here, because I don't think the books after the third one were really influential in the same way, wonderful as they were. I think it's just a matter of time, and when I was at my peak absorption rate. (It also might be because I wasn't as blown away by the fourth book as I was by the third, so it's hard to consider it as influential as the others).

So, books 1-3.

Firstly, and importantly: the books are all about intellect. The whole series is. There are... at least five geniuses by the end of the series. And, being the sort of kid who took great pride in doing well in school and being "gifted", I greatly enjoyed reading stuff where everything relied on the characters being smart. This would not be the last series I read to focus on that, either. More on that later, though.

Mostly what I remember from the first reading of the first book is that it left me really... confused. I enjoyed it for its individual scenes, but couldn't quite grasp it as a whole, and that was because, as far as I remember, it was the first book I'd ever read where the protagonist and the antagonist weren't exactly clear-cut. It started from Artemis's perspective, but he was clearly not a good guy. Then again, there are scenes clearly meant to evoke sympathy for him. Then again, he's kidnapping a fairy. Then again, the fairies aren't exactly innocent themselves, hence them ultimately trying to kill everyone in the house. When I was in my evil-because-they're-evil-type-villains phase, this was really confusing. Who was the villain? Who was the hero? Artemis was the winner, but he was bad, wasn't he?

The second book (The Arctic Incident) was much easier for me to get, because it painted both the fairies and Artemis in a much more heroic light. It didn't undo what had been done in the first book, and in fact, a lot of it was driven from the events of the first book, but it introduced a common antagonist for both Artemis and the fairies, which meant that there was no longer any confusion in who I was meant to be rooting for. And it was because I enjoyed that adventure so thoroughly that I was convinced to revisit the first book.

And boy am I ever glad I did. With just that little bit of maturity, just a little more openness to colours between white and black, (desperately avoiding a Shades of Grey pun here) it suddenly moved from confusing to really interesting - and ultimately, extremely entertaining (the humour remains one of my favourite things about the series). I also think re-reading it was a good idea in general, because there's just... a lot of information being thrown at you, as well as a lot of sort of Chekhov's Gun sort of stuff. When you catch it on the re-read, it's way more fun.

So, moving into the third book, I had a way better understanding of the characters and where they fit on the hero-villain spectrum (the first time I'd ever come to recognize it as any sort of spectrum at all), and allowed me to just appreciate it for what it was. And that third book, The Eternity Code, remains one of my favourite books in the series, possibly my single favourite book in the series. And part of the reason I love this book so much is because, for once, Artemis can't actually do anything about what's happening to him. It was really cool to see a situation where, for all of Artemis's intellect, he was essentially helpless. The whole book involves other people trying to help him - following his instructions, perhaps, but ultimately, he can't help himself. This is reflected first when Spiro kidnaps him, and secondly when the fairies insist on mind-wiping him. And this is a storytelling thing that has stuck with me to this day - I can name many of my favourite works where at least one of the protagonists are completely helpless. Something about it hits me, and this is the first book I can recall where that happened so blatantly.

So yeah, there was a lot of door-opening stuff happening in Artemis Fowl for me.

Misery - Stephen King

Speaking of the protagonist being helpless.

I sometimes think of this book as my first Stephen King book, but that isn't quite true. My first Stephen King book was The Dark Half. Misery was, however, my first Stephen King book I ever had that I-don't-want-it-to-end-but-I-can't-stop-reading-it thing going on (it would not be the last).

I had never before seen the inner monologue rendered quite like this. It was quite something for thirteen-year-old me to experience.

And at least two thirds of the book is entirely Paul's thoughts. It has to be - by the very nature of the story, Paul is alone in bed, unable to move for a lot of the book. That makes for a lot of inner monologue. It could have been dreadfully boring.

Instead it was, and still probably is, the most compelling book I'd ever read.

Just, to watch him descend, so slowly, so naturally, into Annie's madness, until the reader understands exactly what Paul means when he thinks about the Bourka Bee-Goddess or Scheherazade, or Cthulhu, or "Now I must rinse." It's nonsense, but you get it anyway, because he's led you there. And at the very end, when you hear it all from an outside character's perspective - for a single chapter we see Paul from the point of view of a cop happening upon the scene - you suddenly understand just how mad it all is, and it's shocking and eye-opening and heartbreaking. It's such a journey.

Stephen King's inner monologue is one of my favourite things. With all its tangents and forays into pop culture and sentences that go on forever. It's very truthful to how the human mind works, I find, and at the time when I first read it, it seemed to me to be an extremely innovative piece of writing. I admit, I try to channel that style a little when my own characters are in moments of high stress.

Marcelo in the Real World - Francisco Stork

I don't think this was the first "teen" book I ever read and enjoyed, but it was definitely one of the first. I found - and often still do - that teen books tended to revolve around romance too much, and that just was not something I found compelling at all. Usually, I still don't.

This book has a bit of romance, but without it being all-consuming, and with a far more important plotline.

Because, most significantly, the main character, Marcelo, is autistic.

The book is in first person from his perspective, and is all about Marcelo becoming increasingly independent and how he handles it. As someone with an autistic brother, it was a really interesting read.

(And I know that people are going to think of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime, which is a fine book and all, but I honestly like this book better. I prefer this one because it deals with the whole "real world" thing - how are disabled people going to handle it if they aren't being coddled? - in a way that The Curious Incident doesn't. Also, I found Marcelo's family drama to be much more realistic - and therefore, more interesting to see Marcelo react to - than Christopher's, while still handling basically the same issue, i.e getting people off the pedestal. But that's just me).

Anyways, that was the first time I'd ever seen a really compelling novel that was so realistic and not-fantasy, and it hit pretty close to home because of its general subject matter. So that was important.

Stargirl, and also Love, Stargirl - Jerry Spinelli

Stargirl, was a book which many people I know loved, but I just couldn't because I couldn't stand the character whose perspective we stay with for the entire book. Love, Stargirl was extremely interesting because it was kind of a sequel, but also kind of a character study.

For clarity's sake, I'll explain some basics of Stargirl. The first book is about a boy who goes to a normal school and spends a lot of time trying to fit in and be normal. Then this new girl shows up, who calls herself "Stargirl." She's the kind of girl who, for instance, calls herself Stargirl, and changes her name at her whim, and her family and parents just go with it. She's very whimsical and creative and unafraid to be exactly what she is. It isn't exactly in defiance of normalcy, or to make any sort of point, but sort of parallel to normalcy - she's honestly only doing it because she's expressing herself. Anyway, the main character kind of... falls in love with her? I guess? And they have a brief thing, but ultimately he rejects her because he can't stand to be so outside the norm all the time. It is framed as the biggest mistake of his life.

I couldn't stand the first book, because, as much affection as I felt for Stargirl, I couldn't for the life of me stand the main character, because rejecting people for one's own reputation has just never sat well with me. Still, I'm listing it as influential because I did have such a negative reaction to it, and it led me to understand the very idealist perspective I still have, which is that we should embrace our eccentricities and quirks and the eccentricities and quirks of other people. I was very aggressive about this, originally, largely as a reaction to Stargirl - I was not going to be the asshole that the main character of that book was, and I was going to call someone out on it if they were.

Love, Stargirl was much gentler, and I enjoyed it much more not least because the narrator is Stargirl herself. And because Stargirl is such an eccentric yet accepting character, it helped that aggression about self-expression sort of die down a little, and become more about, just, doing your own thing.

The reason I have to list these books in tandem is this: Stargirl, the first, introduced me to the idea of, shall we say, peaceful protest - my first interpretation was that Stargirl was deliberately being the way she was to show up the sheeple, if you will, and that's what I emulated because I loved that character and wanted to be like her. Love, Stargirl kind of completed my education, there, because since Stargirl really was just doing it for herself, and because of her own actual gentleness toward other people, I got significantly less aggressive in my attempts to be different and ended up being more... myself.

I credit the assertive self-expression of my middle school years at least in part to these books.

The Mysterious Benedict Society (book 1) - Trenton Lee Stewart

Remember how, when I was talking about Artemis Fowl, I mentioned that it wouldn't be the last book series I ever read to put such an intense emphasis on intellect? This is the other one.

Now, there are three books in the series (the third of which, being one of my favourites, follows the trend of helpless heroes which I already talked about with Artemis Fowl... there are patterns in the things I respond to). But I'm only counting the first one as "influential" because I can't trace anything about myself back to either of those books in the same way. I read them and I adore them, but I can't think of anything about myself that they opened the doors for.

So, the first one.

As I mentioned, it's intensely an advocate for intellect, but it isn't quite as... singular in the definition of intellect as, for instance, Artemis Fowl is. All four of the main characters are portrayed as extremely competent and/or genius, depending on your perspective, but they definitely specialize differently. One character, Sticky, is probably the closest to conventional academic intelligence, in that he has a great memory and knows just about everything about, well, just about anything. One other character, Reynie (who serves as the audience's eyes as well for most of the series) is fairly academic as well, although not quite in the same way. Reynie's much more about being clever than being knowledgeable - he's not one for memorizing facts the way Sticky is, he can't give a lecture about history or science in the same way, but he's always the quickest to solve a riddle or puzzle because he has that gift of thinking outside the box.

But aside from these academic powerhouses, we're also met with Kate, who is all about the physical and all about the emotional all the time, but she's seen as gifted just the same. And Constance, whose intelligence is, perhaps, hard to pin down, but it all becomes clear by the end. Let's just say her area of specialty isn't exactly conventional either, but she is undeniably a genius.

And the thing is... I admired all these characters. I, the academically driven girl who still (to my detriment, I suppose,) likes to place intellectualism as one of my defining traits, found myself reading about Kate with just as much admiration as I looked at Reynie. In order to accept this book, I had to shelf intellectual elitism for a bit, and that was a good thing.

That being said, this fed my love affair with "being gifted" as much as anything else. Just because I widened my perspective on how, exactly, someone could be gifted, doesn't mean that I came to value that any less. ARE YOU A GIFTED CHILD LOOKING FOR SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES? asks the first flap of this book, and I'm not sure any one sentence has ever caught my imagination quite as quickly.

The other thing is that this book is not quite fantasy - if anything, I suppose there are some science fiction elements - but more than anything, it's... surrealist, I suppose. This isn't the first book I'd ever read to have surrealism in place of a solid "real world" or "fantasy world" - I think the Series of Unfortunate Events pretty much has that covered. It is, however, the first surrealist book I'd ever read that didn't draw attention to its own quirks on purpose. It's sort of the equivalent of deadpan, if that could be conveyed through writing. Personally, I'm a big fan of deadpan.

(Tangent: Actually, after thinking about it, I'd consider the Series of Unfortunate Events to be a necessary prelude, at least for me, to understand The Mysterious Benedict Society - it gets one used to a surrealist world, it reveres being smart in quite the same way, and some of the humour is very similar, though it's less deadpan and more with a wink toward the audience. However, the main difference, I would say, is that The Mysterious Benedict Society doesn't talk down to you in quite the same way - there are clever in-jokes throughout the book that I only just caught on this year's re-read. That's nothing against the Series of Unfortunate Events, the footnotes and explanations to the audience are part of its humour and charm, just as the assumption by The Mysterious Benedict Society that people will get the references is part of its particular charm.)

I guess why I think The Mysterious Benedict Society was influential was because, while it did address things that had been done before - surrealism, humour, focus on intellect, etcetera - it tackled them in very different ways from how I'd seen it before. And that's a really cool thing to discover, because, though this book has some similarities to the Series of Unfortunate Events and Artemis Fowl and a variety of other things, it can't be called a rip-off of any of them. It's entirely its own identity. I've never read a book like it and probably never will again.

It had me playing around with the style of my writing, for sure.

So, yeah. Those are the books I would say most influenced me as a writer and as a person. (You may also take it as a list of recommendations if you wish - every book on here is awesome in its own very special way. I've re-read every single one at least twice, so age is no object).

I just thought that was interesting to think about.

Ten Things I Love About Merlin

I mean, look, I already wrote a post about Merlin that, while reiterating my love for it over and over again, pointed out a lot of things that annoyed me/was kind of questionable about the show.

So, with the caveat that this show does obviously have flaws and I am not above acknowledging that, this post is all love. I mean, knowing me, I may throw in an aside about something that could have been done better, but this post is meant to be all love and happiness and unabashed joy about silly little things. Oh, and spoilers abound.

So let's get started.

10. The score

No but literally the music is so good you don't even understand. It's my homework music. I wrote a six page essay to four seasons worth of Merlin soundtrack. (A six page essay I got an A+ on so...)

Like, to be honest, the least impressive piece of music is the actual theme song (with its stupid time signature which is apparently 3/4 but doesn't sound like it and makes my constantly-mentally-writing-sheet-music-brain confused and irritated).

My personal favourite is the Labyrinth of Gedreth, which, while only showing up on the season 4 album, has been being used since season 1 onward. It's beautiful and suspenseful and the way it layers over itself is amazing and I love this piece of music a lot.

But there are other good ones as well. The Sword in the Stone is suitably big and triumphant sounding, Fighting in the Market is one of my favourites because it's all fun and The Forged Seal is just... every Merlin and Arthur banter scene ever, so how can you not like it? OH also The Call of Destiny, before it goes back into the theme song. I could name more, but I won't. Just know that the music on this show is really good and definitely has its own personality, which can't be said for every show's score.

9. The Mor-people

By which I mean Morgana, Morgause and Mordred.

I kind of think of them as the triad of successful antagonists, and I love this show's version of them.

(And by successful I mean that I bought into them as an audience, not that they actually, y'know, succeeded.... though they did. Sometimes).

Morgana's every iteration through the seasons - first as the compassionate lady of Camelot, then as the falling-apart-at-the-seams witch hiding behind a title, then smirk-y evil double agent, then smirk-y straight-up evil sorceress, then downright-insane-but-capable-of-love high priestess... there were flaws, but I did enjoy the story, and the descent, because it did make a certain amount of sense, and I think, though I affectionately laugh at the smirking in season 3, that it was played well.

Morgause remains one of the most competent guest-star villains on the show - she and Aredian can happily share that title, I think. That she was Morgana's gateway to evil, and that she's apparently the sort of person who can't even let herself die without furthering her own agenda, is something that I love about her as a villain, along with some other details that make her character infinitely more fascinating - that she puts Merlin in magic-proof chains without knowing what he is (supposedly), that she was willing to give up her undoubtedly victorious battle for Camelot in order to save Morgana. Things like that make Morgause a pretty memorable character.

And finally, Mordred. Oh, Mordred, you poor Merlin-gone-wrong, you misunderstood sweetie. As you can probably tell, I consider Mordred to be something of an alternate Merlin - he showcases Merlin's same hope and idealism, and something tells me that he and Merlin actually could have gotten along if not for the freaking prophecy that freaking turns Merlin against him before he's done anything wrong. If Merlin had faced what Mordred had faced as a child, and if Merlin had been forced to live as Mordred had, without any prophecies about the Once and Future King, Merlin and Mordred would have been identical - possibly literally so, considering the show's affinity for pale, dark-haired light-eyed people.

I have a lot of affection for Mordred, actually, because against the odds, he did try, and he only gave up trying when Arthur did something which he could only see as patently unjust (he didn't know the whole story, and it's actually one of the most tragic episodes of the series because you can't actually disagree with anyone for doing what they do, given what they know).

I know it's something of a trend in re-imaginings of the Arthurian legend to focus on Mordred and where he was coming from when he attacked Arthur, but I really like this version, because his motives here don't have anything to do with Arthur not... recognizing him (the most common version of the story is Mordred is Arthur's bastard son, but this is a family show, so needless to say it didn't go that direction). The motives really are all about Mordred and Mordred alone, which, to me, makes him a stronger character. And that's cool.

8. PEOPLE'S GORGEOUS EYES

Especially near the end they really figured out how to light their scenes properly and you end up with gorgeous-ass shots that showcase everyone's gorgeous-ass eyes and it's just really not fair to be honest.

Yeah excuse me I know this is a heartbreaking scene and everything but I'm just very distracted by how blue Merlin's eyes are it's beautiful

DAMN Arthur I know you've been stabbed and everything but your EYES

Sure, I mean, Morgana may have abducted Merlin and could possibly begin torturing him at any moment, but look at how green her eyes are here it's so pretty

Hey wait a tic, when did Merlin's eyes turn green as well?

Of course this is what I remember about this scene. Not that Morgana and Merlin are finally having a proper confrontation since she became openly evil, but that they both have beautiful eyes.

Uther, you are a shadow of your former self, your eyes are not allowed to be that beautiful and green

NIMUEH ARE YOUR EYES EVEN REAL?? LIKE JESUS

Mordred for God's sake I already can't deal with the eyes on this show like stop

MORDRED LITERALLY WHAT DID I JUST SAY

I spend half my time watching this show going "YOUR EYES." You must admit, they have pretty nice eyes. And you must notice that casting has a thing for pale, dark-haired light-eyed people.

7. Guinevere

My favourite version of Guinevere I've seen so far.

It's so easy to make medieval maidens really damsel-y, and Guinevere's probably the most common target to turn into a damsel in distress. And sometimes the show does go there, I'm not going to deny it. But more often than not, Guinevere's on the rescue team.

And hey, here's something cool - she isn't entirely defined by her relationship with Arthur and Lancelot! What a novel concept!

(Actually the musical Camelot was pretty good for that too, but this is about Merlin).

Actually, for being the most famous love triangle in the western world, the show really doesn't play it very much. I mean, it does come up, as a nod to doing the legend justice, but I'm pretty happy that they didn't focus on it so much. This Guinevere is so much more than Arthur's queen and Lancelot's lady. She's warm and friendly and smart and compassionate. I saw it written somewhere that she's what made Camelot human to Merlin, and I one hundred percent agree with that. And of course, she speaks her mind and tells people off when they need to be told off. But more than anything she's a protector - her first instinct is always to protect people.

I adore this Guinevere with my whole heart. I mean, it makes sense to me here, more than anywhere else, why Lancelot falls in love with her and why that conflict is even there. She's fifty kinds of wonderful.

6. DID THEY JUST

For a family show, it can be pretty cruel. As someone who loves feeling things about fiction, it's one of my favourite things about the show.

Hey, remember the time that Merlin was forced to poison Morgana? Or the time that Merlin found his father after a life of not knowing him at all and then his father died? Or the time Merlin fell in love with a girl and then she got killed by Arthur? What about the time Merlin unwittingly caused the death of Arthur's father with his magic? Or Aithusa being crippled and unable to speak?

I mean it gets pretty intense for a show that had a two-parter that was basically a huge fart joke. (We don't talk about the troll episode).

It's kind of one of the things I adore about it. It's a pretty gutsy show sometimes. I mean, two episodes after the episode where Arthur falls prey to a love potion, it has Merlin having to swear on his mother's life that he'll release a dragon, only to realize that he's going to have to poison one of his friends who he's been trying to help the entire season. Or that dragon that Merlin hatched which gave him such unabashed joy is now A) evil, and B) crippled.

It just kinda throws things at you, and you don't see it coming. The show will make you roll your eyes, or smile, or giggle, and then it'll turn around and cut your heart open and it's terrible and cruel and everything I love to see in a show.

5. Cinematography

I know I've talked about this already, but it hasn't become less good since I did, so...

THE SILHOUETTES AND THE MIST

THE BRANCHES

THE ANGLE

THE SYMBOLISM because OF COURSE he's shot through a chain link he's never been more trapped dear god my heart

IF THERE COMES A DAY WHEN I DON'T LOVE THE CRYSTAL CAVE WITH THE VERY FABRIC OF MY BEING THEN YOU HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE IT IS AN IMPOSTER IT'S SO BEAUTIFUL

4. Class 

I love that there is something that complicates everyone's relationship with everyone, and I love that it's class. I love that it's so much harder for Merlin and Arthur to relate to each other because Merlin's a commoner and Arthur's been raised to think the world revolves around him. I love that this show acknowledges class as a factor of the medieval ages (regardless of how anachronistic their version of "medieval" happens to be) and makes it a big factor.

Look, I just love that Merlin is Arthur's servant, because for all the positions people have put Merlin, it's never been there, and the power imbalance that comes around as a result is extremely fascinating. Not to mention the fact that, as far as I know, the Arthurian legend has never had much emphasis put on class - it's usually assumed to be a story about nobles. So to have something not only acknowledge it, but tell the story from the perspective of a servant... it's a unique angle, and one I really appreciate.

I just love analyzing the shift of power that comes as a result of it. Gwaine's introductory episode puts a lot of emphasis on the class divide - Gwaine's brawl versus Arthur's melee, the fact that Merlin is abused and nearly killed by other nobles until Gwaine steps in to defend him, and the punishment falls on Gwaine for attacking noblemen. The fact that class is such a huge dividing factor between Merlin and Morgana even before she went evil, even while Merlin was trying to help her.

It's such an interesting dynamic, and kind of a unique aspect to focus on in terms of the legend, so I appreciate that new point of view, as well as an insight into all the characters just by that alone. It complicates so much, and plays into so much, and it's fascinating. It's one of the main things I analyze when I'm thinking about it to, y'know, think about it.

3. Merlin's background

By which I mostly mean Merlin's mother, because Hunith is awesome and her and Merlin's scenes together are the sweetest thing on earth and also she is kind of a badass.

Also, Merlin as a small-town country boy is actually one of my favourite things in the world. It was clever from a narrative perspective, because it means that when we're experiencing all these Camelot things for the first time, so is he. But from a character perspective, it introduces a whole lot of other issues: A) Merlin doesn't take as much for granted as, for example, Arthur. I mean, Merlin didn't even have a bed until he came to Camelot. B) When he first shows up, Merlin doesn't have a clue about Camelot castle life. C) Given his town's attitude toward royalty and nobility (and their attitude toward his town), he's not the biggest fan of them, and it definitely shows in his first few interactions with Arthur.

Basically, it's such a good character thing. I mean, it changes nothing about the story, but it introduces a whole host of things that suddenly make sense about Merlin's character traits - his naivete, his disregard for rank, etc.

Also, I just really need to express my adoration for Merlin's mother, and Merlin's relationship with his mother. On a show where so much conflict is drawn from parental relationships - Uther refuses to acknowledge Morgana as his daughter, Uther and Arthur butt heads over what kind of king Arthur's going to be, Uther lies about how Arthur's mother died, and so on - it's really refreshing to see a parental figure who's so undeniably warm and loving. And her relationship to the main character is so sweet, and so important, which is impressive considering she appears in all of four episodes through five seasons. But Hunith is the only person that Merlin has ever consistently put before Arthur, which means that she's pretty freaking important. And she's wonderful and brave and loving and I live for when she appears. She's my ultimate favourite guest character. And Merlin's scenes with her - which are always bursting with quiet love and affection - are a beautiful contrast to the tense scenes between other children and their parents - generally Morgana and Arthur with Uther, and another nice character thing about Merlin's upbringing in comparison to Arthur's.

2. Colin Morgan's lovely face

By which I mean his expressions. Because Colin Morgan's acting consistently blows me away. He has a gift of communicating everything without saying a word. He's also reason #2345876 why I adore the show Humans. He is a treasure, and I find myself thinking when I watch him, "Y'know, I'm glad talented actors like this exist in the world, and I'm glad he's found success."

So, a non-comprehensive list of some of my favourite moments of Colin Morgan as Merlin. In chronological order.

The first time he sees his mother with the sickness. The horror, the disturbed-ness in his face is heart-breaking and perfect.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Do you see the love in Merlin's eyes right now? He's talking to his mother. He's about to sacrifice his life for her. And you can see how much he loves her. My heart. 

The joy of doing magic.

The resignation at having to suppress it.

This is one of my favourites of Merlin's smiles. It's mischief and humour and joy all at once.

Being threatened by Morgana. Note: discomfort, but he's not entirely sure how to react. Compare and contrast with: 

The moment Merlin is forced to really treat Morgana as his enemy. Poor sweet-hearted idealist, he held out hope even after the chaining him up and leaving him for dead thing. You know exactly what he's thinking in this frame: I don't have a choice.

The only thing holding this episode together was Colin Morgan's acting, to be honest, because it certainly wasn't the writing. This expression hits me so hard because he's doing magic but that joy from earlier doesn't seem to be there anymore. The weariness is here now; magic is a burden, too. That weariness will become increasingly common as seasons go by.

LITERALLY NOTHING IN THE WORLD PISSES ME OFF MORE THAN THE FACT THAT THE KNIGHTS PUT THIS EXPRESSION ON MERLIN'S FACE. That glum, submissive expression - he's being bullied, and he's used to it. (Tangent: I aggressively don't care that it's supposed to be the knights "playing a prank" or "teasing" or whatever, or that it's meant to be brotherly. It isn't. It can't be. Because if they refuse to let their servant eat, he can't fight that. There are class barriers in his way. And it's been reiterated a lot through the seasons that higher ranking people are completely within their rights to be assholes like this. For god's sake, nobles have thrown knives at Merlin without punishment. It isn't brotherly, because Merlin isn't the knights' equal, and can't respond in kind. Never mind that they end up letting him eat in the end. It's a cruel joke, made crueler by the fact that they completely hang their rank privileges over him in order to make it work. Sorry. When Merlin gets sad, I get defensive.)

On his acting, note: he's glum, but he isn't overdoing it - you can tell there's a bit of normalcy to it. It's the perfect level of quiet-glum.

Fear, determination, and what is it that he's aiming at his opponent here...? It isn't quite defiance. It's almost pity. By the way, this mixture of emotions is one great reason to appreciate Colin Morgan's fabulous acting.

THIS IS THE REASON I LOVE THIS EPISODE. That is pure unadulterated joy on Merlin's face. He is actually crying from joy. I will never not love Merlin's love for dragons. He is watching a dragon hatch and doing something good with his magic and there is nothing over the top at all about his reaction because it's so genuine. I love it. 

This is the real face of someone trying hard to hold back tears. I know the face. It's this face. He nailed it. He nailed it perfectly. 

The reverence and awe Merlin has on his face when Arthur pulls the sword from the stone. The reverence and awe he has even though he completely orchestrated the whole thing. Perfect acting choice, 100% perfect. 

This is an expression I like to call Quiet Grim Satisfaction. Quiet because the expression is small, because he doesn't want people to notice his reaction, but it's there.  

I love this because of Gwaine and Arthur's faces in the background. Some odd glowing creature crawls away, both Gwaine and Arthur are like "WTF." Merlin doesn't look like "WTF." There's wonder on his face. It was the perfect reaction for his character.

Sometimes I'm in the mood to cut my heart open, and when that happens, I look at this picture!

Remember the joy Merlin felt when he hatched that dragon? This is his expression upon realizing that same dragon is now crippled, mute, and in league with his enemy. Absolutely heart-broken and helpless. Get this lovely talented bastard away from me.

Sometimes I'm in the mood to cut my heart open...!

I like to call this expression: Merlin Hates Himself. A.K.A the one where Merlin has to tell a terrible, probably self-incriminating lie to his best friend for the greater good. The worst thing about it is that he's resigned to it. You can see it in his face. He knows what he's going to say and he hates it but he thinks he has to. 

I love this because he's smiling, which is usually a carefree thing on Merlin, but it isn't here. He's being extremely careful and focused, actually, you can tell by how intensely he's watching Arthur. Reasons: the jokes are just a vessel to keep Arthur talking and keep him from passing out. When you can read that difference in demeanour just from a picture, that is a good sign.

Regret, but overall, ruthlessness, and again that weary resignation. It's interesting because I'm noting all these hints of emotion I didn't read when I watched the episode. I never saw regret in that scene before. Looking at this screencap it's almost all I see. Which is apt and wonderful. 

I swear to God, this was me holding back. This was my non-comprehensive list. There were like nine more that I was going to use but didn't. But you know what? I said this post was all love, so no shame. 

And now, the number one thing I love about Merlin:

1. Friendships

The main relationships the show draws from are friendships. The few episodes that do have some basis stemming from romantic love - which, by the way, I can only count four of them in my head - usually use it as an opportunity to focus on other relationships of that character as well. For instance, Gaius's old love, a woman to whom he used to be engaged, shows up. The show takes it as a chance to explore the Gaius-Merlin bond. Merlin falls in love with a Druid girl? Time to take a closer look at the fading friendship between Arthur and Merlin. Or how it uses the Gwen/Lancelot tryst in Lancelot du Lac to pose the question "How conditional is Arthur's love (platonic or otherwise) for Gwen and Lance? How conditional is Merlin's?" 

The most important relationships on this show, barring Arthur and Guinevere, are either entirely platonic friendships or parent-child relationships. And this is so wonderful because my default is always to read for friendship over romance. You'll often catch me complaining at TV shows when a couple starts kissing because, even though I saw it coming, it seems to me like a cheap way to establish a relationship. So when I see something grow into a trusting relationship on TV that A) feels earned and in-character, and B) doesn't establish romantic feelings as the root of it, it makes me almost giddy. Friendships are so taken for granted, but it is one of the strongest bonds you can have, I think, and this show plays on that more than anything else.

(It's also the reason that all the Merlin/Arthur shipping is kind of my pet peeve, but this post is ALL LOVE SHUT UP CRITICAL THOUGHT)

And it isn't only that the friendships are important. It's rare to see a show without an important friendship, I'd say. It's that the you get to see the main friendship grow from nothing, through common goals and shared experience (and a mutual biting sense of humour, I won't hesitate to say) and that seems to be what most TV hesitates to showcase - I know tons of shows that have focused on the growth of a romantic relationship, but friendships seem to be one of those things that most shows establish as having either A) always been there, or B) the ability to appear instantaneously. That's alright, most of the time - hell, the Scoobies on Buffy pretty much happen like that, and Buffy is basically my religion - but it's refreshing to see a show focus on the journey of actually forming a friendship.

And it isn't only Merlin and Arthur. Merlin and Guinevere's friendship is so important. Uther and Gaius's long-standing trust is important. Arthur's brotherhood with his knights are important. Merlin's camaraderie with the knights - most significantly Gwaine and Lancelot - is important. Merlin's doomed friendship with Morgana is important. Guinevere and Morgana's sisterly love is important. There are a lot of important relationships on the show, and a solid 85% of them are friendships that you get to see blossom and grow. It's wonderful. It's the biggest selling point of the show for me.

I just love when a show spends so much time and energy establishing friendships. It's my favourite thing.

So, there you have it. Ten things I love about Merlin. There's more. I could go on for a while. But these are the ones that came immediately to mind when I decided to make this post.

I apologize. 

Another Show, Surprise Surprise

I really love the show Humans.

This isn't an obsession thing. This isn't a "I will think about this every day and get too invested in the characters and rant about plot twists until I get sick of it" thing. This is a, "This is actually a really intelligent and compelling story with really good acting and awesome visuals and all in all is pretty great television" kinda thing.

It baffles me that anyone could watch it without seeing what I see in it.

And yet, people ask me why I love it so much.

And, as demonstrated by my sorely unappreciative mother, I guess not everyone gets it? She doesn't seem to see anything besides a generic, slow-moving sci-fi thing. So I'm going to come here and lay out all the reasons why I think everyone should watch this and love this and appreciate this and think it's as great as I think it is. And, most importantly, I'm going to attempt to do this without spoiling anything.

A) Alternate present

This is a device that is very easily taken for granted, but I think it's very smart. Because the risk you run by setting something in the near future is having people taken out of the story by breaking the suspension of disbelief, making it, y'know... a generic sci-fi show with quickly decaying realism.

By setting this show in an "alternate present" rather than the near future, it allows them to, firstly, not have to work on a "futuristic" aesthetic or develop fictional futuristic technology, aside from the robots (or Synths, as they're called), which helps on the suspension of disbelief front. And because the realism doesn't decay so rapidly, it's much easier to take its serious moments seriously. The emotional tone isn't jeopardized by its fundamentally sci-fi origins.

B) Backstory

LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO

Whew. Sorry about that. The character Leo has a particularly, hm, notable backstory.

But, yeah, backstory is a big thing on this show. The one with the most question marks hovering around him is Leo, but everyone has something going on. Laura's hiding something, and that's making her husband suspicious. Dr. Millican is really weirdly attached to his Synth, but clearly knows what it is. We don't know much about Karen at all, either. And Niska's pretty grim from the moment we meet her, what's up with that? Anita's pretty shady for a machine, as well, isn't she?

A lot of the show is about teasing people's backstories out into the open, but it does so in a, I don't know, a tasteful way. It knows how to withhold enough information to make people want more, without withholding so much that nothing the characters do make any sense. Basically, backstory isn't key to understanding everything - except, arguably, for Leo, I suppose, but Leo's the exception to many things - but it does add a meaty layer to everything, and that's nice to be able to dig into.

Basically, the characters are all very planned straight from the beginning, and so it isn't a matter of piecing together half-baked clues. The writers know exactly what they're giving you and how much they're giving you, and so it's like just watching a present unwrap in front of you. It's very skillful, and it adds so much to the show.

C) Perspectives

So, as suggested fairly blatantly by the title, the show is basically about what constitutes a "real" human (this is even more blatant in the original Swedish version, which was called, you guessed it, Real Humans), and by nature of the show, which involves multiple intersecting storylines, a lot of characters have a lot of different answers.

For instance, in the Hawkins family, Laura is uncomfortable with getting a Synth for fear it'll "confuse" the kids into thinking it is a real person rather than a machine, and she ends up holding a lot of conversations with the Synth they get, Anita, about whether or not she can react in human ways, asking questions like, "Do you ever get scared?" and "What do you think of the music?", etcetera. Her husband is all for getting a Synth, and is much more convinced that Anita is nothing more than a machine made to serve them, hardly any different than a, I don't know, some inanimate device like a toaster or something. Their daughter, Matilda, hates Synths because, as an extremely smart girl, she resents them and predicts that for all her intelligence, she'll be rendered basically obsolete by these machines.

So already we've got at least three different points of view.

Moving out of the Hawkins family, there's Dr. Millican, who is quite willing to treat his Synths as if they're people (whether or not that means he treats them well depends on how well he likes the Synth in question, but he arguably treats them like people nevertheless), or at least, people who are supposed to do as he says. His Synth Vera brings up a whole other thing unto itself.

There's also Pete, whose job is to investigate crimes committed in relation to Synths. So I guess it really shouldn't surprise anyone that he really deeply resents Synths in general, seeing as he witnesses them causing problems every day of his life.

And, of course, there's Leo, but, well, I'm not going to go into that right now. It's complicated.

Point is, we've got like five different perspectives right there alone, and that's not even all the characters. It makes the show really rich. Which is why I don't understand my mother when she complains the show moves too slowly - I'd say the pacing is perfect. The show wouldn't be nearly as good if we didn't come to understand the characters so thoroughly as we do.

D) Acting

I don't talk about this enough, but the acting on this show is actually, like, really impressive.

Aside from Leo being played by the ever-talented Colin Morgan (whom I first knew as Merlin, and whose acting has always impressed me - he's what sold me on the show Merlin to begin with), you have to give props to the people who play the Synths, especially, but not limited to, Anita and Odi.

The Synths are not just robots that look like people. They move in a very specific way, and speak in a very specific way, and react to things in a very specific way. Apparently the actors playing Synths on this show had to go to Synth school to learn how to play these characters properly, and the commitment is really obvious and, I think, really admirable. It totally makes the show.

The ones playing humans also do a wonderful job, obviously, I just think it's necessary to point out the level of commitment inherent in having to play a non-human. And it's pulled off really really well.

E) Leo

What? How did that get in there? Silly Megan, Leo can't be a reason unto himself.

I really have a thing for Leo, okay?

E.1) Fascinating characters

There, that's somewhat more general, right?

All the characters are really complex and are never going in any one direction. Even what would be, on a different show, throwaway characters, like the mom and dad of the Hawkins, or their middle son who doesn't have any super important storylines around him, they're all very well-rounded characters who the writers clearly understand fully. And this is true of all the characters, and it makes a show with so many of them just wonderful, because it means that they're all very distinct in their voices and their perspectives and opinions. They're all... wait for it... quite human. Laura, especially, surprised me with how fleshed out she became, as well as the son, Toby, and Leo's sidekick, Max.

F) Motherhood

Not usually a topic to be explored on television all that much, or at least, not without the weird stigma of "if motherhood's being talked about on TV it's probably because some anti-hero had terrible mommy issues".

Humans doesn't do it like that, which is nice since motherhood is such a big deal on this show.

Because, of course, Laura's main issue with buying Anita is that Anita ends up usurping some of Laura's motherly duties, such as reading to her kid before she goes to bed, and playing games with her kids, and making their lunches. Basically all the scenes that take place in the Hawkins house for the first, I don't know, three or four episodes - it all has to do with how Laura sees herself as a mother, and where Anita fits into that.

There's also other mother-discussion that happens on the show that I really can't talk about without it being incredibly spoilery, so I won't, but know that it's a topic that comes up again and again, and it comes up tastefully and compellingly.

G) Family

I suppose this goes hand-in-hand with motherhood, but. Well.

See, what I find interesting and unique about this show is that it takes a concept that's inherently sci-fi-esque - robots serving people, and the question of, as they put it, "true artificial intelligence" - but surrounds it with storylines and themes that are inherently and necessarily about, well, humans. And people. Family and motherhood are two of the biggest of these.

Family is the one thing on this show that surrounds every single storyline, and involves every single character. From the dynamic of the Hawkins family, to Dr. Millican's love for his wife, to Pete's steadily worsening marriage, and I don't think it's a spoiler to say that even Leo (arguably the most detached character) is all about family. Like I mentioned before, the cornucopia of characters necessitates a cornucopia of perspectives, and that isn't limited to the ethics of robotics. They utilize the vastly different perspectives on this point as well.

See, when people talk about science fiction being used as an allegory for real life, I imagine that this is the quintessential example. Especially because the Synths, rather than distracting from the points that various characters make, instead serve to make their points clearer.

It's just really well done.

H) Realism

Oooh.

The realism in this show is sort of painfully on track at times.

It's very brutally honest about - hahaha - human nature.

(I physically cannot stop myself at this point, human is the only word to describe Humans, why am I a writer again?)

But just - the details. This alternate present is very believable, knowing what we do about, well, people. The "We Are People" group protesting the existence of Synths (based on a similar view to Laura - that having Synths blurs the lines between machines and people). And the idea of people using Synth maids for sex. And the Synth brothel thing. It's just... too realistic for comfort at times.

But it's that realism that the show is set in that makes it so great. If it didn't have that foundation of reality to build on, then nothing about it would make any sense at all. It makes the show what it is - a masterpiece of science fiction acknowledging every aspect, good and bad, of human nature, and calling it nothing more or less than exactly that. It isn't about good and evil (as much as I loathe one of the characters with a fiery passion). It's about people being people, for good or ill.

And I just think that's so cool.

In conclusion:

Yeah, I've talked a lot about the individual pieces here that make it great, and they all do apply. But I also find it necessary to reiterate that, like, the plot is actually compelling. And, because it is about human nature, you end up feeling affection for every character despite the mistakes they make (except one in particular, but he has the least development so...) because you understand their motivations, and their flaws and natures that led them there. And it has its moments of stunningly beautiful visuals (the major scene with the tree in Episode 8 comes to mind - and that's the least spoilery way I can put it). So if that's your thing, you can feel secure that it's in Humans' repertoire.

Even if sci-fi isn't your thing, I strongly recommend you give this show a try. The first season is just eight episodes long. They're all on Youtube. It's worth every second and more.

I love this show so much.

No, that isn't really the word.

Admire. I really admire this show, and everything it manages to pull off.

Hopefully this was a decent explanation of why that is.

And Thus Change Begins

As someone who literally can't remember a time when Stephen Harper was not prime minister (seeing as I wasn't exactly the most political at the age of seven), it's pretty significant for me that all of a sudden our prime minister is Justin Trudeau.

For me, this represents so many good things. On a personal level, it means I won't have to listen to my mother's "Stephen Harper is literally Satan" rants (why, yes, she is a bit more left than right, how did you guess?) but on a less personal level, it means that I'm probably going to start seeing actual change. And that'll be an interesting experience.

This is probably not the best way to prelude a post about the younger Trudeau, but I have to say it, so that people know how I'm politically bent: I really admire Pierre Trudeau. From what I learned in Socials 11, Pierre Trudeau was a pretty cool dude who implemented a lot of positive change for the country (including, but not limited to, patriating the Constitution, putting way more women in positions of government, making Canada an officially bilingual country, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and, if I recall correctly, it was he who introduced the concept of multiculturalism. I have to say this because people around have often asked, "Name one good thing he ever did." Hopefully that clears that up). I can't, for the life of me, understand people who dislike Pierre Trudeau or what he did while in government. (That said, I was only given a crash course of his political career in a Socials course - seeing as I wasn't alive at the time, I could be missing pieces of the story).

Big shoes for his son to fill, perhaps, but I definitely have faith in Justin Trudeau. Without going into too much detail on every single issue, of which, it turns out, there are a few, let's just say that my ideas align fairly well with his, and the Liberal party's.

And, in all honesty, just having a change from how the Conservative party was running the country will be good. The Conservatives did nothing for the environment at all (it was almost to the point of, "if I can't see it it can't see me" put your fingers in your ears and sing "lalalala" kind of denial), and their stance on the niqab was getting really hard to take. (There are issues around the niqab - mainly whether or not they'd be willing to show their faces if it came to an issue of security - but turning it into a women's rights issue is just not the way to go, here. How are you advocating for women's rights if you're telling them how to dress? How are you upholding the Canadian multiculturalism which is, in my experience, a pillar of our particular society? HOW IS IT "MORE CANADIAN" TO INFRINGE ON THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION???)

I am really surprised, not unpleasantly so, that we ended up with a Liberal majority. My original prediction had been that we'd have a Liberal government, but a minority. To go from a Conservative majority to a Liberal majority is a fairly radical change, and one that I'm quite ready for.

I'm glad this has happened, and I can't wait to see what changes happen as a result.

P.S "You young people only like Justin Trudeau because he's going to legalize marijuana!"

Yeah, because I, a straight-edge introvert whose most rebellious action of my high school years thus far has been to trick-or-treat on Halloween when my Dad told me I was too old, am totally going to have a really strong opinion about whether or not I get to smoke weed. My support of Trudeau and the Liberals definitely has nothing to do with my general ideological stance.

But, for the record:

"Is that really our biggest issue right now?" asks the anti-Trudeau "nice hair though" commercial.

No, it quite clearly is not, but isn't it rather hypocritical for you to point that out, Conservatives, having put so much effort into arresting those who use marijuana?

And, one last thing: no, marijuana still isn't our biggest issue. But there are a lot of good arguments to legalize it, regardless. Basically, what it amounts to is this: if you take the power away from the drug-dealers, than the country will be a safer place. Regulate the drug, and it won't be laced, and people who choose to use it will be safer. Collect the tax money from the sales and use it for something worthwhile. Put laws around who gets to use it - for example, an age limit. I really don't see a particularly strong downside to this course of action.

Fight me, Conservatives.

So, I Watched a Political Debate

So tonight my mom dragged me to a political debate.

It wasn't for the prime minister candidates, just for the candidates we vote for in our riding, which meant that most of the issues talked about were mainly municipal. I actually understood a lot more about what they were talking about than I expected to (thank you, Socials 11. Good class. Actual useful information, there). It helped that they preceded each question with some supplementary information, but still, it was nice to know that I'm actually not as politics-dumb as I thought I was.

Anyway, there were five debaters there, which surprised me: MP candidates from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Green Party were a given. I wasn't expecting to see someone representing the Libertarian Party.

As it turns out, that was for good reason.

If you'll allow me to describe his side of the debate in metaphor, I'd say that it was basically like watching someone have their back turned the entire time because they thought the camera was behind them. "Look this way!" call the other candidates onstage. "The camera's over here!" "No," he says in return, "you're wrong, it's here. I know it is, even though you all are telling me and the audience is telling me, but I know I'm right."

It was amusing at first. Then it wasn't so much.

But, good Lord. The way he was talking, you'd think we live in an Orwell novel. "The government is imposing its decisions on us without our consent!" "The government is stealing our money and we never get it back!" I'm not sure if he ever actually used the word "totalitarian" or if my brain self-inserted that into his monologues, but either way, it was sort of like giving that crazy guy with the "The end is nigh!" sign two minutes to say his piece into a microphone.

And when he wasn't going on about how the government is screwing us over every chance it gets, he was completely off-base on all the issues. "What would you do to advocate for aboriginal people?" asks the mediator. "I think I'd leave them alone. We've done enough to them."

Fun fact of the day: advocating for people actually necessitates acknowledging them, and doing nothing will change nothing about their station.

"Would you advocate to have municipal governments recognized in the Constitution?" asks the mediator. "Oh good," I think to myself, "I learned all about this in Law class already, what an interesting question! I never really thought of the implications of not having municipal governments constitutionally recognized, but surely it must complicate jurisdiction issues and the like."

"I never heard that municipal governments weren't in the constitution until now," says Libertarian Guy.

I don't know, I feel like a high school student three weeks into a Law course shouldn't know more about the Constitution than someone who calls themselves a politician.

"What would you do to help the environment?"

"Well, I think that global warming is just silly nonsense."

Oh, yes.

And when the crowd booed, he accused everyone of being ignorant.

He later complained about it being a "hostile crowd".

I WONDER WHY.

Anyway, I've said enough about him. He was just annoying, but it's not like he matters in the scheme of things.

So, the Conservative MP candidate.

Boy, can this guy talk. On and on and on he talks, until I start to zone out. Eventually, I start noticing this. "Don't zone out," I think to myself. "That's what he wants you to do. Listen. Form an opinion. As Jon Stewart has trained me to do, pick out the bull." So I started making more of an effort to pay attention.

First of all, he starts off every one of his things with, "This is a very important issue." Yes, we know it is. If it wasn't important, I'm sure we wouldn't be asking you about your position on it.

And then he talks. For a long time. Without really saying anything, though, that's important. He reiterates, in a lot of different and varying fashions, that the issue is important. He states, in very general terms, sort of what the Conservative party can do and/or is doing about it. He brings up local examples, which usually fall apart as soon as open discussion starts and the NDP starts ripping him. I'll get to her later, though.

I didn't learn anything about the Conservative party I didn't already know. I get the impression that he was trying to appeal to a mostly Liberal/NDP leaning audience without ever actually saying anything his party wouldn't approve of, leading him to very general statements with a distinct lack of actual substance.

Basically, think of a kid writing a two thousand word essay about a book they didn't read. Long, well-written, proof-read, certainly; but does it say anything worthwhile? Probably not.

Next we come to the Liberal MP candidate.

I forgot he was there half the time, to be honest, and that's something, considering he was literally in the center of the stage. He could have been invisible for how much I noticed him. I'm sure he was saying things that were decent, but could I tell you any of it? Not really.

I hate to reduce politics to this, but as it turns out, charisma is important for politicians, and, well, anyone who does public speaking as part of their job. This guy did not have any, and therefore I can't think of a single notable thing he said. Call me shallow, but it does seem important.

Next up, Green Party.

This guy. This guy was smart. This guy was well-spoken. He was also quite involved in our local community, which he wasted no time in pointing out, but that's okay. He talked about the issues properly, actually proposing solutions and stances on subjects that I found other candidates dancing around.

The other thing, of course, that really earned my respect, was him cutting through one of Conservative Guy's monologues with a, "Sorry, what's your point?"

Good. Challenge that dude. I, as the audience, don't want to hear a long-winded anecdote designed to appear to supplement the argument but actually distract from the lack thereof.

Yeah, if I thought the Green Party had a chance, (and if I could vote yet) I might be voting for him, because he seemed to understand what was going on, and how to answer things in a way that seemed authentic without seeming arrogant.

And finally, the NDP, with the only woman candidate! Represent!

Whew. She was killing it.

She was well educated in her opinions, well spoken in her positions concerning them, and was not afraid to point out that her experiences (as a younger woman) were sometimes more relevant to the issues being discussed than the others. It definitely showed. She was also very vocal during the open discussion, challenging people's opinions and forcing them to answer for themselves.

Two things that turned me off: first of all, I heard a lot about how the NDP had a plan for that. They're proposing a plan for this. We're going to fund this, and that, and everything. I found myself asking "How?" a lot of the time. However, I find it hard to fault her for this, because I assume that these are complicated things that take more than thirty seconds to explain.

The other thing is that she, especially near the end, started talking about how much the Conservative government was doing wrong, a lot of which was met with a reply from Conservative Guy, "That's just not true!"

Now, due to my personal biases, I'm more inclined to take her word for it because she didn't beat around the bush like Conservative Guy, and because she has good credentials as a journalist, meaning she's probably pretty good when it comes to things like information. I realized after a while, though, that objectively, it was essentially her word against Conservative Guy's.

And when you think of it like that, you realize that it was sort of like reading a Wikipedia article - I want to trust it, and often do, but at the same time, I need sources. Because the thing is, she could have said, "The Conservatives are killing puppies, isn't that terrible!" Yes, of course that's wrong, and I don't want to support people who do that. But how do I know that what you said is actually true? I don't, basically, not in that moment, and she didn't give anything about how she knew what she knew.

Which, again, is hard to fault her for, as they were very short segments of time to pack in some substantial stuff, but it still read as a little bit... off.

But let's make this clear - her answers did have substance. In contrast to Conservative Guy, who would talk endlessly without saying anything, her answers were short and sweet and answered the question directly.

Basically, NDP gal was slaying.

And, all in all, it was a really interesting experience, and actually rather satisfying. It was nice to discover that I actually understood the issues being discussed, and had an opinion about how to go about them. It was also really interesting because, in Socials 11 (which, as I've mentioned, was an extremely useful class), the course straight-up outlines clear-cut, useful solutions to some of these problems, mostly environmental issues, and it's interesting to see some people dance around them while others - mainly Green Guy - say, "This isn't possible now but we will take steps so that it is possible and in place by 2020" or whatever. It never before occurred to me how much politics is simply a mixture of education and ideology.

Anyway, it was nice to find out that I knew enough to disagree with people on issues and agree with others. It's also interesting because I never really thought of MPs as meaning much except personifying votes for the Prime Minister. However, it became more clear than ever for me that MPs, as being actually part of Parliament, do have a certain amount of power regardless of whether their party wins Prime Minister, and that voting with an MP in mind instead of the leader of their party isn't actually as ridiculous a course of action as I had originally perceived it.

Basically, I learned a lot about Canadian politics that day - a lot of stuff that I knew in theory but had never completely understood in practise. And I'm really glad I did.