the trapeze act

ask.   i'm marie.

southern california. university of california, berkeley. english/rhetoric major. creative writing minor. introspective, perceptive, detail-oriented, memory keeper, sometimes wannabe writer. razor tongue. mostly gold and therefore golden., the writing journal stupid shit fangirl-ish

forever roommate (shout out to the other two ho asses)

forever roommate (shout out to the other two ho asses)

— 1 week ago with 3 notes
#pussy palace  #hi marylou! 

my day just started and already people are trying to drive me absolutely fucking crazy ughhhhhhhhh

— 1 week ago



The last words said by Black youth murdered by policemen. 

This is honestly the most heart breaking thing I’ve seen in a long time

(via kgdsojourn)

— 1 week ago with 218489 notes




Just so you know…

Police chief prolly passed a kidney stone after she said that. Mother fucker.

"im your state senator"

(via theprinceoffiveweapons)

— 2 weeks ago with 120911 notes


Ferguson, Mo. | August 13, 2014

1. A protester throws back a smoke bomb while clashing with police. (Mario Anzuoni/Reuters)

2. Riot police clear a street with smoke bombs. (Mario Anzuoni/Reuters)

3. Police surround and detain two people in a car. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

4. Police officers work their way north on West Florissant Avenue, clearing the road with the use of tear gas and smoke bombs. (Robert Cohen/AP)

5. A police officer patrols a business district. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

6. A demonstrator, protesting the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown, stands his ground as police fire tear gas. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

7. An explosive device deployed by police flies in the air. (Jeff Roberson/AP)

8. A demonstrator holds up a Pan-African flag to protest the killing of Michael Brown. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

9. A device fired by police goes off in the street. (Jeff Roberson/AP)

10. A demonstrator throws back a tear gas container after tactical officers worked to break up a group of bystanders on Chambers Road and West Florissant in St. Louis. (Robert Cohen/AP)

(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

(via theprinceoffiveweapons)

— 2 weeks ago with 4642 notes
#on a serious note  #jfc this shit is really happening 
Ozai:I love all of my children equally.
[earlier that day]
Ozai:I don’t care for Zuko
— 2 weeks ago with 438 notes
#this is the best crossover  #atla x ad 
this literally might be just what i needed to watch lok LOLOL

this literally might be just what i needed to watch lok LOLOL

(Source: thatweirdo-intheduckieshirt)

— 2 weeks ago with 7281 notes
A Note About Adaptations


So, a few weeks ago I made a post with some thoughts on The Giver, which people seemed to like, and that’s great. However, I noticed that a lot of people tagged their reblogs with “This is why the book is always better,” and, well, I take issue with that. (Probably) not in the case of The Giver because as far as I can tell from the trailers, the book is better. However, I think a lot of times us more literarily-inclined* people like to pat ourselves on the back for having read the book (whatever book that might be) without thinking about what it means to adapt a story from one medium to another. 

Books tell stories with words. Movies tell stories with a combination of image, light, sound, and dialogue. Okay, so I know you know this, but think about it. Really think about it. A long interior monologue might work fine in a book; in a film, it may be condensed to a single glance or gesture. And it should be—what did you want, a voice-over? That could get cheesy if carried on for too long. A soliloquy? What are we, Shakespeare? The fact is, what makes for great storytelling in print often makes for lousy storytelling on film. Actually, even a play or a comic, both of which are technically visual media, don’t even tell stories in the same way film does. Very different, nuanced things make them tick, which is why there are a lot of terrible stage to screen adaptations and video game to film adaptations. 

So what makes a good adaptation? It’s not lifting the words off the page; it’s lifting the spirit off the page. What we’re seeing in YA-adaptation films seems to be an attempt to adapt a book so that the movie fits within a recognizable Hollywood trend. It’s a Dystopia? Make it look like the Hunger Games! It’s paranormal? Make sure the photography has the same color palette as Twilight! A very long time ago, someone tried to adapt the classic children’s book The Borrowers. Instead of paying attention to the source material, they tried to make it fit in with a bunch of popular slap-stick comedies such as “Mouse Hunt” (Mouse Trap? I don’t even remember). 

A bad film adaptation has nothing to do with cutting out material. Sometimes a book works better on screen if certain scenes are cut out because those scenes don’t translate. The problem is when the people behind the film aren’t focused on the source material, thinking about what the story does, why it does it, and how to translate that feeling to the screen. 

*It’s not that I don’t like film; I do. I just honestly respond to books more for reasons that I can’t figure out and have more to do with me than either medium.

(via lindsayetumbls)

— 2 weeks ago with 198 notes