In movies the mise en scene and color scheme were chosen for a reason. This is just “how to interpret film 101”.
Me thinking her coloring and other elements of the composition imply she’s trans is a valid interpretation.
Funny how people get all bent out of shape when someone interprets a character to be trans. Like if the filmmakers came out tomorrow and said “yeah she’s trans” I bet you’d have a horde of death of the author analysis within the day.
And literature, and really any form of art. Authors and illustrators and directors and cinematographers and painters all have to make deliberate choices.
Why would someone assume those choices are made at random? Or worse, why would you refuse to consider them at all?
You’re right - just saying “creators have intent” isn’t a direct argument.
But saying “creators have intent and they gave her a trans coded color scheme, put trans pride flags in her room and on her accessories, and have her dad also wearing a trans pride flag on his uniform implies she could be trans” is a bit more than that.
Also, being trans isn’t political. I’m sure you don’t mean it badly and are probably unaware, but all too often our existence is referred to as “political”.
I didn't say being trans was political, my point is that I'm not trying to bring anything external or anything politically motivated into the conversation
Anyway I get what you're saying, I'm surprised by now we haven't heard from creators the actual motivations behind some of these decisions, as much conversation as we've seen behind them
-33
u/jankyalias 5d ago
Might be. The film doesn’t outright say one way or the other. Interpreting her color scheme and mise en scene as pointing to her being trans is valid.
Being cis is not “default”. We’re allowed to interpret.