think outside the box
have you ever looked at ytmnd.com? until recently, I had no idea what a mind-bogglingly self-referential vortex of emergent cultural and political commentary this site is! why are there not more fannish YTMNDs?? or are there? the technological threshold is laughably low compared to, say, vidding -- all you need is an image (often photoshopped and/or animated) and a sound file to upload, and the site automatically puts together your multimedia webpage. yet (as with the 100x100 square, only exponentially) one can compress so much meaning into such a simple form! it seems like this is a medium that should have creative 'shippers creaming their pants. snark is the native tone of YTMNDs, which immediately put me in mind of our dear Oliska Hargenson. inspired by the community here at ob_fangrrl, I give you...
(dial-uppers beware -- the whole shebang is around 3MB, so it'll take a while to load)
eta: new and improved! edited to be sloooower and more readable, and I also posted the passages I used below.
+ CREDITS +
screencaps and icons: aleatory_6
music: from Monoaural, "Every Day You've Been Away" - Bebel Gilberto Remixed
excerpted texts:
• Richard Dyer, Stars (p. 20-21):
Stars are, like characters in stories, representations of people. However, unlike characters in stories, stars are also real people. Because stars have an existence in the world independent of their screen/'fiction' appearances, it is possible to believe that as people they are more real than characters in stories. This means that they serve to disguise the fact that they are just as much produced images, constructed personalities as 'characters' are. Stars collapse this distinction between the actor's authenticity and the authentication of the character s/he is playing. The gap between the 'self' and the performance, appearance, constructed persona may be part of the meaning of those stars.
• trancer21, This Is Not For You:
Because, while reading these MH articles, seeing the pictures, I get the picture of a woman who’s trying to reclaim ownership of her character from the fans who see the character as gay. There is no separation between actor and character. There is not sense that she sees SVU as just a job. There’s the sense that MH is really uncomfortable at the idea of being a dykon. Or, more specifically, at the idea of Olivia Benson being a lesbian icon. And it pisses me off because Olivia Benson is NOT the property of Mariska Hargitay. Once those little images leave the cathode ray clutter, it becomes the property of the audience.
• comments by betsybanger on this post and this post:
I will always ask, why was it necessary to do away with Benson's lesbian traits/characteristics? Yeah, yeah, the stepford wives say "she's not a lesbian, she's just a very strong aggressive female detective. Why must you dykes always paint a strong female into a lesbian corner?!" Because she was! That's what got us all glued to SVU and Olivia. Then some man-juice got in her eyes, blinded her into grabbing a pink outfit from the wardrobe closet (pun intented) and that was the beginning of the end. The birth of Oliska brought us hair wings, evening dresses, heels, speed dating, more spray-on tanning, HO patrol, unpretty crying, and now standing behind large furniture to hide 'the bump'. the horror... the horror
*
Oliska has stopped sitting with her legs wide open, sitting with her hands resting on her head, her wide male aggressive stances have succumbed to feminine gestures. I truly believe that the Olivia that we used to all cherish and drool over is now long gone. Mariska drove her out to Wisconsin and dropped her off at Alex's place. They are both in WPP and happy. Now Oliska the mother bear can settle back into her spermination routine and hope that her eggs aren't too old.
• giantessmess, Fairytales:
Your eyes. And the lips are yours, too. Her body is smaller, somehow. But it’s a badly-disguised thievery. I explore it as carefully as I can, in case she’s keeping you a secret.
I’ve only seen Steph in photos. I know she’s supposedly off, having a full-length, non-serialized life. But I barely recognize the similarities. She’s a fiction someone made up about me. I think she only exists in magazines.
For an actress, she’s amazingly reticent to play pretend. “Don’t make me spell it out. Olivia isn’t real.”
“Is New York real?”
“That has to be a trick question.”
“Am I real?”
She grows your hair long and turns it into hers. She carries you differently.
*
When I manage to steal them, I crawl into bed with her scripts. I bury myself in the smell of carbon, the feel of your words. Lines, she calls them. But you were above that pretension. You never gave me a line. I try to picture how it was, before Mariska. Before this. Why didn’t anyone tell us? Our life together is just a collection of film strips, and cut dialogue, shoved in some stranger's drawer. Did they write our first kiss? Are they sure they didn’t? It happened, I remember your lips were chapped. I remember my feet were pin-prickly from the snow. And how did it even happen, if it’s not on some damned bloopers reel? Did it write itself? Or maybe the camera only sees what it approves of.
Still, I’m a Cabot, even if I’m only written as one. And I’m never without a plan. Mariska. I only have to find the right way to touch her. Touch you. Her. You. Please say you’re there. It’s the only thing that makes any sense.
complete Oliska Hargenson memories
(dial-uppers beware -- the whole shebang is around 3MB, so it'll take a while to load)
eta: new and improved! edited to be sloooower and more readable, and I also posted the passages I used below.
+ CREDITS +
screencaps and icons: aleatory_6
music: from Monoaural, "Every Day You've Been Away" - Bebel Gilberto Remixed
excerpted texts:
• Richard Dyer, Stars (p. 20-21):
Stars are, like characters in stories, representations of people. However, unlike characters in stories, stars are also real people. Because stars have an existence in the world independent of their screen/'fiction' appearances, it is possible to believe that as people they are more real than characters in stories. This means that they serve to disguise the fact that they are just as much produced images, constructed personalities as 'characters' are. Stars collapse this distinction between the actor's authenticity and the authentication of the character s/he is playing. The gap between the 'self' and the performance, appearance, constructed persona may be part of the meaning of those stars.
• trancer21, This Is Not For You:
Because, while reading these MH articles, seeing the pictures, I get the picture of a woman who’s trying to reclaim ownership of her character from the fans who see the character as gay. There is no separation between actor and character. There is not sense that she sees SVU as just a job. There’s the sense that MH is really uncomfortable at the idea of being a dykon. Or, more specifically, at the idea of Olivia Benson being a lesbian icon. And it pisses me off because Olivia Benson is NOT the property of Mariska Hargitay. Once those little images leave the cathode ray clutter, it becomes the property of the audience.
• comments by betsybanger on this post and this post:
I will always ask, why was it necessary to do away with Benson's lesbian traits/characteristics? Yeah, yeah, the stepford wives say "she's not a lesbian, she's just a very strong aggressive female detective. Why must you dykes always paint a strong female into a lesbian corner?!" Because she was! That's what got us all glued to SVU and Olivia. Then some man-juice got in her eyes, blinded her into grabbing a pink outfit from the wardrobe closet (pun intented) and that was the beginning of the end. The birth of Oliska brought us hair wings, evening dresses, heels, speed dating, more spray-on tanning, HO patrol, unpretty crying, and now standing behind large furniture to hide 'the bump'. the horror... the horror
*
Oliska has stopped sitting with her legs wide open, sitting with her hands resting on her head, her wide male aggressive stances have succumbed to feminine gestures. I truly believe that the Olivia that we used to all cherish and drool over is now long gone. Mariska drove her out to Wisconsin and dropped her off at Alex's place. They are both in WPP and happy. Now Oliska the mother bear can settle back into her spermination routine and hope that her eggs aren't too old.
• giantessmess, Fairytales:
Your eyes. And the lips are yours, too. Her body is smaller, somehow. But it’s a badly-disguised thievery. I explore it as carefully as I can, in case she’s keeping you a secret.
I’ve only seen Steph in photos. I know she’s supposedly off, having a full-length, non-serialized life. But I barely recognize the similarities. She’s a fiction someone made up about me. I think she only exists in magazines.
For an actress, she’s amazingly reticent to play pretend. “Don’t make me spell it out. Olivia isn’t real.”
“Is New York real?”
“That has to be a trick question.”
“Am I real?”
She grows your hair long and turns it into hers. She carries you differently.
*
When I manage to steal them, I crawl into bed with her scripts. I bury myself in the smell of carbon, the feel of your words. Lines, she calls them. But you were above that pretension. You never gave me a line. I try to picture how it was, before Mariska. Before this. Why didn’t anyone tell us? Our life together is just a collection of film strips, and cut dialogue, shoved in some stranger's drawer. Did they write our first kiss? Are they sure they didn’t? It happened, I remember your lips were chapped. I remember my feet were pin-prickly from the snow. And how did it even happen, if it’s not on some damned bloopers reel? Did it write itself? Or maybe the camera only sees what it approves of.
Still, I’m a Cabot, even if I’m only written as one. And I’m never without a plan. Mariska. I only have to find the right way to touch her. Touch you. Her. You. Please say you’re there. It’s the only thing that makes any sense.
complete Oliska Hargenson memories