#(although louis' of course realising how little power he actually has)

[pynkhues]

https://www.tumblr.com/pynkhues/767837690335019008/httpswwwtumblrcomdownstairsbar76764587027983?source=share

Catching up on stuff, and this post is really interesting and well-thought-out. Can I ask--I've been seeing more discussion about Armand and whether or not Louis could consent to him, or when, and today I saw someone bring up the 1.6 "dissociating" sex scene between Louis and Lestat and call it dub-con. It doesn't really feel like that to me, even though it's obviously sex in a toxic relationship? But Louis gets distracted as Claudia is talking to him, Lestat stops and says his name, then only continues when Louis kisses him--they pretty explicitly have Lestat waiting for permission/encouragement to continue, and the whole thing is rather different from "we're having sex after I've done various mind-wiping/mind manipulation things on you, plus I am hiding the fact that I was directly responsible for killing your daughter and torturing you".

idk where the line is between "this is fucked up" and "this is non-con/dub-con" comes in a show about fucked up vampires lol. But whatever, that scene is hot as well as fucked up, which seems to be their intention in how they shot it. Side note, it's also crazy how those gifs that rotated the scene 90 degrees make it even hotter? I don't know why that is.

Thank you for your kind words, anon! It's definitely an interesting area to explore, especially given how questions of both mental and physical autonomy and agency are so deeply entwined with the themes of the show.

And mmm, I mean, Louis does talk about general disassociative episodes around that sex scene in 1.06, but I'd agree with you, I don't think he was actually disassociating in that scene, and I don't think there was any dub con there. As you identified, Lestat actively seeks consent from Louis when he feels Louis pulling away, which Louis gives, and so it's kind of a non-starter of an argument for me. If anything, it comes worryingly close to implying that people with depression can't consent to sex, which is infantilising at best, and, well - - a pretty dangerous line of thinking at worst.

Not all consensual sex is joyfully passionate lovemaking, especially in long-running relationships, regardless of how toxic they are. People have sex, and want to have sex for a lot of reasons, and I think Louis' resignation to his relationship with Lestat at that point was a resignation not to a lack of power or choice in the relationship, but a resignation to the fact that he's in love with him.

He's taken him back, he knows that he's always going to take him back, he wants to have sex with him, he wants to be close to him, but that doesn't change the gaping wound of a fact that their relationship isn't working. Lestat's still lying and cheating, Claudia's being extremely punishing to Louis over taking him back, he's lost the last of his family twice over, first with his mortal one, then with his immortal one with Claudia no longer willing to be his daughter (an infant death indeed! Louis has to grieve the loss of a child twice over), he's lost his business - something that's vital to his identity - to say nothing of the fact that he's still healing emotionally from what Lestat did to him.

Again, Louis' depressed, but he's consenting. I actually don't even find it that fucked up, like, I think Louis' there because he wants to be, he's just miserable that he wants to be there, which if anything, is just really sad.

[jessisreadingblog-blog]

Pet Sematary (1989) - movie review

This week I finished re-reading “Pet Sematary” and right afterwards I re-watched the 1989 movie.

The book review is already up and, as promised, here’s the movie review!

Please be aware that this review is FULL of spoilers for both the book and the movie – you’ve been warned 😉

 Main differences between the book and the movie

After the Creeds’ arrival in Ludlow´, Gage gets stung by a bee in the book, which leads to the introduction of Jud, who pulls out the bee sting. The movie is a bit more dramatic and foreshadowing. While Ellie has her little accident with the tire swing, everyone is focused on her and Gage walks to the road and almost gets hit by a truck but is saved by Jud. This is not a bad change at all. However, what I found a little weird is Rachel’s reaction. Yes, she’s relieved and thanks Jud, but if this had been my kid, I would have been a lot shakier afterwards, especially after being on the edge already after the long drive and Ellie falling off the swing … Considering how Rachel usually reacts to the potential of someone dying, this came across as a little weird. 

Norma, Jud’s wife, is not in the movie. Instead they kill off Missy Dandridge, who’s a completely different character than the kind lady who watches the kids sometimes and is very much alive in the end of the book. In the movie she doesn’t die of a heart attack, like Norma, but, believing she has cancer, she hangs herself.  That’s an acceptable change, too. In the movie they only have so much time, so it’s ok to leave out Norma’s storyline, although I’m sure that no one really cares about Missy’s death as I cared about Norma’s death in the book. She’s not really likeable, which is a pity. They could have made her just a little nicer, interact with the kids once or twice, to make people actually care before killing her.

It’s not dark when Jud finds Church dead and it’s still day when they head for the Micmac burial ground. I first thought this was a bad idea – it’s much less creepy – but I guess it was done because it made the next time, when Louis brings Gage there, more effective. I still don’t really like it, this scene had much more potential. For me Louis’ two walks to the burial ground were by far the creepiest scenes in the book. The wild, hysterical laugh of the Wendigo never fails to make me shudder, no matter how often I read this book. In the movie there are just some weird sounds that could probably really be birds.

Speaking of the Wendigo: There’s no Wendigo in the movie! In fact, there’s no background story to the burial ground at all. We only know that “the ground went sour”, for whatever reason.  I would have liked the background story and the menacing presence of the Wendigo.

The cairns on the burial ground don’t look like someone dug himself out as they are described in the book.

When Church comes back, he’s more aggressive than in the book. I have no idea why Louis lets this thing anywhere near his kids. At the same time, he isn’t at all clumsier or dumber like he is in the book, but it’s difficult to have a cat act like that so I get it.  

The same goes for Spot, Jud’s dog. When Jud tells Louis about him in the book, he says that Spot always remained a good dog. When he came back from the dead and scared Jud’s mother it was just by standing there and cornering her, by accident or on purpose.

In the movie he growls at her – and again, I have no idea why they kept that thing until he died of old age. And if the dog was so aggressive, why in the world would Jud tell Louis to bury his cat there, knowing there are two small children in the household? Even the dark power of the burial ground couldn’t convince me that that’s a good idea.  

The story about Timmy Baterman, the young man who died in WWII was brought back to life by his father when Jud was still a young man, is far creepier in the book. In the movie he’s just this savage, dumbed down version of a human, kind of like a zombie. He even chews on a little girl’s leg! By the way: I’m so confused about that! Did he dig it out of a grave or did he kill the girl to get it? And if it’s the latter – why doesn’t Jud mention that he didn’t just walk creepily back and forth in their town, scaring housewives, but also stole and ate little girls? Anyway, in the book he’s malicious and knows the darkest secrets about everyone, playing mind games with Jud and his friends, and Jud uses the word “demon” to describe him.  

Timmy’s end is also very different. In the movie the men from the town set the house on fire with Timmy and his father in it. Bill, the father, tries to get himself and Timmy out, but Timmy drags them both into the flames, which makes it seem like he himself prefers death.  In the book it’s Bill himself who kills Timmy, sets the house with both of them in on fire and then shoots himself. That solution is far better. The book tries to give the girl-eating, housewife-scaring zombie thing without the demon vibe a tragic touch. Of course that tragic touch is also there in the book but the demon, or whatever it is in Timmy’s body, doesn’t commit suicide.

After Gage’s death, the movie version of Louis goes to the cemetery by bright daylight and stores his grave robbery equipment there. Isn’t that a bit risky? The place must have great power indeed to back up so much stupidity.

In the book Louis only sees Pascow once after his death, namely in his “dream” from which he wakes up with dirty feet (in the book he reacts to that far more strongly, which I missed a bit in the movie). Later, after Gage’s death, only Ellie sees him in her dreams. In the movie Rachel feels his presence, too, as he’s trying to make her go home and get there more quickly, so she’s potentially able to help Louis. Not the best idea from the beyond as it turns out, and in the end it makes Ellie an orphan, but nobody’s perfect, not even the helpful spirits.  

When Gage comes back, he’s different in the movie than he is in the book. Thankfully, he’s not like the movie version of Timmy Baterman but the mind games are fare more harmless, which is again due to the age of the young actor and understandable.

In the book, a moment before his death, Gage is himself once more, calling out to Louis with the word “Daddy”, which literally made me cry. In the movie he walks away from Louis, looking like a sulking kid (which isn’t bad either) and says “Not fair”, and before he dies, he growls again, showing that he’s not at all himself. For me that’s not nearly as intense but it doesn’t ruin anything.

When Louis carries Rachel away from Jud’s house and towards the woods, he again encounters Pascow, who tries to talk sense into him one last time. In the book it’s Louis’ colleague and friend who finds him, but he doesn’t play any role in the movie, so it makes sense that he doesn’t show up there.

What I liked

The actors are great, especially Jud. He’s exactly like I always picture him reading the book. Gage and Ellie are adorable, which makes Gage’s death and Ellie’s mourning and fear for her father even more intense. Dale Midkiff (Louis) may not be the best actor int he world but he’s not as bad as some say.

The music is perfect and positively creepy. The movie relies mostly on atmosphere and slow build-up.

Zelda! Everything about her is perfect and so scary! Fun fact: She’s played by a man because they couldn’t find a woman who was skinny enough and could still be scary.

The scene of Church coming back is great, with the remains of the plastic bag, in which he was buried, still in his whiskers, just like in the book, and him indeed looking more menacing at Louis than before his death.  

I loved the Stephen King cameo – he’s playing the priest at Missy’s funeral.

At Missy’s funeral Ellie is wearing the marine blue dress she wore at Norma’s in the book; that’s just one of the nice little details they adapted from the book – there are many more.

I very much like how Pascow keeps interfering. He replaces Rachel’s inner struggle in Chicago and on her way home which we wouldn’t be able to see otherwise in the movie.

The second time Louis goes up to the burial ground is well done, with the blue fog and the noises and all. At least up to a certain point which is mentioned in the “What I didn’t like” section.

Gage killing Jud is well-done, even if it’s different from the book.

Except for Pascow following and helping her, Rachel’s way home is faithful to the book. Even the way she meets Gage and her untimely demise is quite faithful, with her first seeing Zelda and all. BUT if a small kid runs towards you with a scalpel openly in hand, no matter if he came back from the dead or not, the first think I would do is take the scalpel out of his hand. In the books he makes the effort of hiding it behind his back. Still, it’s a very good scene.

Gage calling Louis at home, making him realise that he killed Jud and Rachel.

Louis killing Church again is also well-done, and so is Louis killing Gage – this bone chilling little boy’s cry when Louis sticks the needle in his throat is so hard to bear. Just one thing (and I’m really nit-picking now, which is why this is not going to the “What I didn’t like” section): Why is Louis wearing medical gloves when he kills Church? Aren’t we beyond the point of caring about things like that? Also: He doesn’t wear gloves when he kills Gage.

Louis bringing Rachel to the burial ground and waiting for her and her coming back. It’s mostly well done.  

What I didn’t like

This is a minor complaint, but the scenes with Pascow can become a little cheesy at times. At the end of Louis’ “dream” he didn’t have to float away, they could have just zoomed in on Louis and let him wake up. The last scene with Pascow and Rachel was even worse. You know, when she gets out of the truck and he just closes the door and decides to stick with the trucker (why can he do that and most of all – why doesn’t anyone notice?).

Why are there stupid-looking kids standing around in Rachel’s house when she runs down the stairs after Zelda’s death? Can anyone explain that to me? I never understood that. I mean, she was alone with her sister when she died, she says that to Louis, in the book and in the movie. I don’t know about you but creepy neighbourhood kids have no way of entering my home without permission.

Another thing involving Pascow: Before he dies, he says that the soil in a man’s heart is stonier; later Jud repeats that sentence and when Louis is shocked about that we see a flashback to Pascow to remind us that he said it before. I don’t like it when a movie takes me for a fool, I’m perfectly capable of making the connection myself and don’t need cheap tricks like two-second-flashback for that, thank you very much.

When Louis climbs up to the burial ground with Gage in his arms, a jump-scare-face suddenly rushes towards him out of nowhere. Why would the face of a regular guy rush towards him? Is that Jud? Even with the screenshot I’m not sure but I’m starting to think it’s Jud (which never occurred to me in during the scene because it’s so fast). But it doesn’t matter because that would make even less sense. In the book the Wendigo comes so close to him and it’s such a scary scene and yes, he does see a face, but that of a spirit, demon or whatever, not that of a face coming out of nowhere just to make us jump and to look stupid. If they left out the Wendigo, they could have left out that s***, too.

The Gage puppet/doll/whatever this thing is! I get that you can’t make a little child act in scenes like the ones in towards the end, but the puppet thing is just so ridiculous! It always makes me think of Chucky and this is when I can’t take it seriously anymore and everything that might be creepy about a scene is completely ruined. And how did Chucky … I mean Gage … get Rachel’s corpse to the attic to drop it in front of Louis? He might be undead, but he’s still tiny!

Louis waiting for Rachel. Yes, I know, this is in the “What I liked” section, too, but it deserves to be in both. I mean – Louis is setting the alarm clock and right when it rings, Rachel comes back. Really? Has he become such an expert in raising the dead that he knows the exact time they will reappear? He didn’t even see when exactly Church and Gage came back.

Also, his hands are perfectly intact. Like in the book, he brings Rachel to the burial ground without any shovel or whatever to help him dig, so he does it with his bare hands. In the books his hands are ruined, which makes sense, in the movie they’re perfectly fine, which doesn’t make sense. Otherwise, the scene is good!  I didn’t even notice the thing with his hands before I read the novel, by then I had seen the movie twice.  

Is it a faithful adaptation?

Yes, definitely.

Even in very first scene, while the camera slowly moves through the pet cemetery, there’s a voice-over of some of the kids who buried their pets there, reading the inscriptions on the grave markers, which are exactly the same as the ones in the book.

A lot of the dialogue is the same as in the book, word by word.

The story, despite a few changes of which some where necessary because it is a different medium, is mainly the same.

The main characters are very true to their book counterparts, there are so many small details you will notice that are exactly the same in the book.

Is it a good movie?

I think it is. It has a creepy atmosphere, does not rely entirely on jump scares, as so many modern horror movies do, and the soundtrack is perfect! It has its flaws, some scenes have not aged well, but it’s still a very good, atmospheric horror movie and a mostly faithful adaptation to the source material.

The new movie

I am so hyped! Yes, I know the movie won’t be as faithful to the novel as the first one but we already have a faithful adaptation and in some scenes (GAGE PUPPET!) it didn’t work out.

I don’t want the kid to be replaced with a puppet or CGI effects – so it’s such a good thing that Ellie is the one who dies and comes back because the actress playing her will be old enough to do so convincingly. Gage is a good choice for the book and Ellie is a good choice for the movie.

There will be other changes so that even long-term fans like me will be surprised here and there. I will tell you what I think about these changes when I actually saw the movie because right now the only big change we know about for sure is that Rachel will be at home when Ellie comes back, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, the whole to Chicago and back again journey does take a lot of time.

What I also like is that the actress playing Zelda will be younger. In the first movie she’s an adult or almost an adult, in the book she’s only two years older than Rachel, which makes her 10 and therefore the whole story is even more terrifying and tragic. I can’t wait to see how that turns out!

I’m also so happy that the Wendigo will be addressed and I’m really looking forward to see how exactly that will be done.

Long story short: I can’t wait for the movie to come out and I’m not mad about the changes so far!

[redgoldblue]

Honestly I really wanna write a Marvey Vegas AU where they’re both like semi-famous professional poker players but they work different places so they’ve both managed to become semi-famous without ever having met or played each other, each just knows vaguely of the other one as Their Major Competition. But then there’s like. a big poker marathon or something (as you may have guessed the major thing stopping me from writing this apart from my three other WIPs is my complete lack of knowledge about professional card playing) and they’re both keep winning their initial games (obviously) and they know eventually they’re gonna be playing each other and they start respectively freaking the fuck out because a) Ross/Specter is supposed to be really good and I mean I know I’m good but also let me start practicing literally every waking moment i have to win this or Donna/Rachel is never going to let me live it down and honestly more so because b) we keep passing each other in the halls because we’re both staying in the hotel it’s being run at and uhhhhhh he’s hot. How did I never know this. Why did no-one ever bother to inform me of this. Goddamnit.

So then it’s like the semifinals round and they’re finally facing each other and they’re both nervous as hell but also absolutely determined to win this but see here’s the thing - they play completely differently (which is basically canon anyway). Mike watches the cards and performs mathematical probability calculations instantaneously and honestly it’s a miracle he hasn’t been banned yet for counting cards - Harvey watches the people he’s playing against, figures out their tells as soon as looking at them, and, well - ‘plays the man, not the odds’. And they’re both really fucking good at what they do, and at playing defensively against their own tactics - Mike is very careful about revealing what cards he has by his moves, Harvey has The Poker Face To Die For and has eliminated all tells (or so he thinks) - but those are useless against each other. But the thing is, they’re equally useless, so they end up almost on a level playing field again, only both of them feel equally like they’re floundering and like this person is actually... a terrible player? I know exactly what cards they’ve got? But they also seem to know exactly what I have so what the fuck. But they come away from one round and realise what’s happening (or rather, their respective friends who’ve been watching do and tell them), so when they go back they’ve both tried to adjust, but are also ready to trash-talk the fuck out of each other as thinly disguised flirting. 

Harvey wins barely bc it’s a little bit easier to adjust your moves on short notice than to hide your subtle tells, and offers gloatingly to buy Mike a drink with the proceeds, which Mike agrees to because at least that way he’s getting some of his money back in the form of alcohol. Only then they start properly talking, about poker at first but then about music and movies and their friends and their Encounters With The Law and before they know it it’s 2am and they’re both drunk as hell and somehow it seems perfectly reasonable when Harvey ends up in Mike’s room and then in Mike’s bed and oh look at that in Mike. Don’t know how that happened. But then of course Harvey flees the next morning before Mike wakes up because it’s Harvey, and they studiously avoid each other for the next two days until uh-oh, someone’s been disqualified for cheating and guess who’s back in the tournament and determined to fucking thrash Harvey Specter that no-good gloating running still unnecessarily handsome bastard? That’s right it’s Mike ‘identified-his-tells’ Ross, and he’s ready to fight. Oh, and also? He’s been watching all the footage he can find of Specter’s past games and he’s identified a goddamn tell so take that. (Rachel has tried to suggest that perhaps he’s being a little... overly combative about this but he hasn’t listened.)

Mike wins this time, winning the tournament and forcing Harvey to descend from his emotional pedestal for a hot minute and notice that he was really passionate about rubbing it in his face but also there was an undercurrent of hurt in all those comments and oh shit now he’s guilty. No he doesn’t like that. Shit now he’s gotta apologise for running doesn’t he. (Donna in the background: YEs you fucking do! Louis next to her: she’s been saying this for three days!) So he finds Mike at the idk afterparty, suggests that maybe Mike should buy the drinks this time after cleaning him out, and sheepishly manages to apologise, leaving Mike sorta astounded both at the fact that he did and at how relieved it made him feel. Mike suggests that he could help Harvey with the memory/calculation stuff as a sorta peace offering, and in return Harvey says that while he was really much better this time, he still had one tell that cropped up a few times. There’s a little tic, just below his mouth, when he’s got a good card. Although, in the process of watching that, he also noticed he had very nice lips. Also now he’s pointing it out so his hand’s there and it’d be real easy to just move that to the side of his face and now they’re kissing in a decidedly public bar.

Anyway they become the Vegas Poker Power Couple and teach each other their styles and become basically invincible. Eventually they both do start being banned from places for counting cards and simultaneously agree that it was getting boring anyway they were too good but hey they’re rich now and didn’t you say you always wanted to go to law school? Wait, didn’t you say that? Well, hey, we’ve got nothing else to do with our piles of money so let’s go for it and we can set up a practice with our weirdly large number of friends already in the legal profession after sounds like a plan

[alarriefantasy]

1. Ever Since by @letsjustsee

Words: 10k

Louis once again went to leave, but before he could reach the door he heard Barkley jumping off the bed behind him. The giant dog accosted Louis before he could get through, nudging Louis’ legs with all his weight and making him stumble, and Louis had to grab the doorframe to steady himself. “What the heck, Barkley?” Louis was mostly talking to himself, aware that Barkley couldn’t actually understand him, but he had never witnessed the dog acting so oddly. He turned around when he heard a quiet murmur coming from the bed. “What?” He hadn’t been able to make out what Harry said, but at Louis’ question he sat up in bed, hair already wild from the pillow, eyes heavy, and Louis’ stomach gave a little flip. “He wants you to stay.”

Or, a very fluffy AU where Louis finds a lost dog that he wishes he could keep - until he meets his owner, who he wishes he could keep more

2. Talk Dirty To Me by @briannamarguerite

Words: 13k

They were both naked. And that seemed, again, like a catastrophically bad idea, but here they were anyway. Naked. In the dark. Only a few feet apart.

It hadn’t even been a discussion. The minute Harry flipped the lights off, they’d both shucked out of their clothes as if they’d been on fire.

“Alright darling,” Louis said, his hand wrapped loosely around his own cock. “Just remember, start slow. Lots of descriptions. Light on the hygiene, heavy on the compliments. You’ve got this.”

As if Harry were about to compete in some kind of athletic game. __

Or the one where Harry is absolutely terrible at dirty talk so he asks his best friend to teach him. And the one where Louis knows it's a catastrophically bad idea but agrees anyway.

3. Best Friend's Brother by DirtyLarryStylinson

Words: 85k

When Harry Styles realises that his best friend, Liam, has an older brother hotter than the sun itself, how will he cope with the tension?

~

Harry Styles, 17, has been best friends with Liam Tomlinson for a couple of years. When he meets Louis Tomlinson, Liam's hot older brother, sexual tension ensues, too powerful to be ignored.

But will Liam discover the sexual connection between his best friend and brother? And will it ever be resolved?

4. (we will be) as if chosen by @alivingfire

Words: 35k

There's not a royal in the world who doesn't carry some sort of secret, and Prince Louis has more than his fair share. To protect himself and his family, Louis withdrew from the public eye and tried to live a quiet life, biding his time until his sister Lottie could take the throne in his stead. Unfortunately for him, the national media and the worst person Louis has ever met team up to bring him kicking and screaming back into the spotlight.

Under the watchful eyes of millions, Louis has to figure out how to keep his carefully constructed house of cards from falling, and the first step to accomplishing that is to keep from falling in love with the irritatingly charming Prince Harry, who just won't stop showing up and trying to whisk Louis out of the constraints of his boring life.

Or: the course of true love never did run smooth, because sometimes people are stubborn and sometimes people are scared and sometimes, just sometimes, love can cause just as many problems as it solves.

5. And this old world is a new world by @ifidoitsyou

Words: 44k

Louis works in a little coffee shop although he hates coffee but what can you do when you're pretty much living day by day trying to ignore that dream of yours you're too scared to pursue. And then Harry enters the scene, or more precisely the coffee shop. He's beautiful and kind and funny and also famous and not in town for very, very long. But that doesn't keep Louis from maybe falling for him a bit and his friends from randomly inviting him along to go golfing.

*credit to the owner of the photos

[hazel3017]

I promised you guys an essay on the dark ages that was the Mike Johnston era, and here it is. By the way, this is gonna be long and longwinded, but bear with me people. This is all connected. You have been warned.

In 2013, Sidney Crosby was on a ridiculous tear where he scored 56 points in 36 games for a truly stupid 1.56 points per game. It was a shortened season, true, but no one was even close to touching him. If he’d played the full 48 games, he’d have 75 points. Martin St. Louis won the Art Ross with 60. Anyway, what happened instead was the broken jaw, courtesy of a Brooks Orpik slap shot, and Sid didn’t play for the rest of the season (he missed 12 games) which is probably why he didn’t win the Hart (he was nominated, but it went to Ovechkin).

The broken jaw also meant that the Penguins, in their infinite wisdom, allowed Sid to be interviewed while he was CLEARLY high on painkillers.

Sid returned to the ice (wearing a protective cage) in time for the second game of the playoffs (vs NYI) and picked up right where he left off. He had nine points in five games against the Islanders, and 6 points in five games against Ottawa. It was all rainbows and sunshine until the Penguins reached the ECF against Boston and the offence just dried up. Sid didn’t have a single point in that series, and ultimately the Pens only put up a collective 2 goals and were swept in 4 games. It was brutal. Especially for Flower, who really took a lot of flack. He’d been gaining a bit of a reputation as a bad playoff goalie, and the 2013 playoffs didn’t help. It was after this that Flower started seeing a sports psychologist.

For context, since they won the Cup in 2009, the Penguins had only won 3 playoff series before reaching the Eastern Conference final in 2013. Three. Think about that. They didn’t even make it past the first round in 2011 and 2012. 2013 was supposed to be different. They were the top seed in the East, and their offence was on fire through the first two rounds. And then they just crashed and burned. It was the 4th year in a row where they were eliminated by a lower-seeded team. Things were dire. And just to emphasis how truly sucky this time was for Sid, people thought he’d already played his best hockey. They thought the concussion and neck injury that kept him out for almost two seasons meant he wouldn’t ever be able to dominate the way he had before.

(Speaking of the concussion: he missed 41 games in 2010-2011, and 60 games in 2011-2012. Dire, dire times. He’s admitted he thought he might never play again. Also, at some point during this time, Sid and Geno went to a Lady Gaga concert together. Never forget.)

The 2013-2014 season comes around, and Sid is back to being on fire. Because it’s not a Penguins team unless everyone and their mother is out with an injury, Sid had a revolving door of line mates but would still finish the season with 104 points in 80 games for 1.30 PPG. Because he is stupid like that.

One of the injuries, by the way, was Pascal Dupuis in December 2013. The Pens were playing in Ottawa when Marc Methot hip-checked Sid, and Sid went flying into Duper, who almost got Sid’s skate to his face, and also tore his ACL. Duper needed surgery to repair the ACL damage, and while he was recovering, he started developing blood clots and serious health issues related to that, which he would never really recover from. He tried to play while on blood-thinners for a while, but ultimately had to call it a night in the 2015-2016 season. I bring this up because it will play a role in the timeline later.

So, mid 2013-2014 season; Sid is the engine that keeps the Penguins going, the NHL takes a break in February for the 2014 Sochi Olympics and we get the NHL Revealed series, which is actually pretty cool (there is a scene from Geno’s house and you can see his fridge where he has decals of himself and Sid, Tanger and Flower. It is adorable. Also there is Geno whining to Sid about Sid not warning him about their flight being delayed because then he would have just waited at home). Chris Kunitz is also an Olympian, and everyone at the time was pretty much in agreement that the only reason he was there was because of how well he played with Sid, and then they didn’t play well together at all. And everyone was up in arms about how Sid wasn’t scoring enough, but Canada still won gold (both Sid and Kuni scored in the gold-medal game) and Russia did not, and so Geno was sad and grumpy for about a month. Then Sid wasn’t having it anymore and talked to Geno because he obviously needed a friend, and Geno was no longer sad and grumpy.

Fast forward a little bit, and we reach the playoffs. The Pens played against Columbus, and it was super weird because almost every game ended 4-3 and no one could keep a 3-1 lead. Also, Sid wasn’t scoring. Again. It was a thing. He was still putting up points, and he averaged 1 PPG against Columbus, but people would not shut about how he hadn’t scored a playoff goal in 13 games dating back to 2013. He kept insisting that he was healthy too, but he actually had a busted wrist, which was the result of a Ryan Reaves hit where he got his wrist caught awkwardly against the board in a game in late March. The injury meant he had trouble putting any power behind his shots, which meant no goals, although he was still dominating possession. Add to that the abuse he took from the likes of Dubinsky and Marc Staal (and also Lundqvist squirting water at him lol!) it was a pretty miserable playoffs for him.

All of this is made worse by his deteriorating relationship with Coach Dan Bylsma. Now, I know I have read this somewhere, and I can’t for the life of me remember where, but there was a rumour—a rumour, mind you—that Bylsma had specifically instructed the players not to stick up for Sid when the other team’s players were abusing him. Apparently, Bylsma threatened with benching people if they got into scrums after the whistles. (RUMOUR, remember. Take it with a grain of salt). But Bylsma and Sid obviously weren’t getting along that great during the Rangers series, at least, and it didn’t help that Bylsma kept playing his favourites, aka Craig Adams and the gang. Jesus. As I recall, Kuni and Geno were pretty much the only ones sticking up for Sid, especially Kuni who was playing on his line. The Rangers series did give us this gem of an interview though.

Game 7 comes along, and the Penguins lose. They’d been up 3 games to 1 at one point, and again they were the higher-seeded team. Shortly after, reports about Bylsma losing the room started popping up and it was pretty obvious that there would be a new management. Sure enough, Shero was fired first, and then Bylsma later.

(Bylsma was actually fired by Jim Rutherford. Ownership said they wanted the new GM to decide if he wanted to keep Bylsma around or not. It was pretty obvious that Bylsma would have to go too, and a lot of people were upset that they kept Bylsma so long when that could potentially keep him from getting a job elsewhere.)

And now, finally, we enter the dark ages. Or, in which GMJR did the one mistake he needed to make in order to find the one true Penguins coach: Mike Sullivan.

Mike Johnston. What is there to say about Mike Johnston? He had pretty much only one facial expression in that he looked perpetually shocked, he snuffed out the offence of a team that has always been built for scoring goals and made them play boring, sluggish, defensive hockey instead. It very nearly broke Sidney Crosby. That is not to say that it was all MJ’s fault, but he was very clearly unsuitable for the Pens and vice versa.

Consider this: In 2012-2013, Sid went from a 1.56 PPG to 1.30 in 2013-2014. A pretty steep dive, but still dominating his peers (Ryan Getzlaf was the closest to him in points that year. He had 87 points. Sid had 104.). From 2013-2014 to 2014-2015, Sid’s PPG dipped again, even more this time as it reached an all-time low of 1.09. He’d never been below 1.26 before. Not so incidentally, the Pens went from 242 goals total to 217, and their winning percentage dipped from .665 to .598, the lowest it had been since the 2005-2006 season. This all coincided with Mike Johnston becoming coach. The Penguins just barely edged their way into the playoffs that season. They made it with literally the last game of the season, against Buffalo.

(No offence to Buffalo, but they were ranked dead last that season.)

The Pens lost the first round of the playoffs against the Rangers. They only managed one win in 5 games. Sid played okay, he had 4 points on the series, but the Pens were so sloooow. They kept being outskated by guys like Zuccarello and Hagelin—no wonder, with guys like Craig Adams and Rob Scuderi slowing the Penguins down.

(Also, would you believe I used to strongly dislike Carl Hagelin?)

Sid didn’t stick around for the fallout. He called the GM of Team Canada the same night they were eliminated and jumped on a plane to Prague. I actually think the World Championship did him a ton of good. He won another gold medal in the Olympics the year before, but I really think it must have messed him up going so long without playoff success. No one expects more from Sidney Crosby than Sidney Crosby.

Anyway: Worlds.

I’m pretty sure that what happens at Worlds stays at Worlds, but Sid seemed to have a really good time with his x1000 boyfriends. Like, there was Giroux (what????), Seguin (we don’t kiss and tell), MacKinnon (of course), and even Brayden Schenn (lmao).

Also, there was Geno and the pictures that launched a thousand plot bunnies. Because you can’t have one without the other.

Sid won gold and was happy, he became the 26th member of the Triple Gold Club and was happy, and he came home from Europe and promptly entered an existential crisis, I’m pretty sure. He turned 28 that year and freaked out about it. Probably, he realised how sucky the last few years had been for him. He grew a beard. It was very disturbing for everyone involved. He also went to all the weddings, hosted his first annual hockey school, and filmed the documentary that would win him an Emmy award as the “talent”. That is an actual thing that happened, people.

And then the new season began. And here, my friends, we must circle back to Pascal Dupuis.

So because of the blood clots Duper developed after his ACL injury, he had to sit out the rest of the 2013-2014 season. He was cleared for the start of 2014-2015, but again was out for the rest of the season when they discovered blood clots in his lungs in November 2014 and he had to go on blood thinners. The next season, he was cleared again, but was still on blood thinners to manage the blood clots. He was being monitored by medical professionals at the time, and it was a procedure that had worked for other athletes, but Duper experienced side effects like serious chest pains. In the end, he was forced to call it quits. This was in December 2015.

Up until that point, from the start of the season, Sid had 18 points by then. He was 86 in in scoring. 86. Comparatively, he had 29 points by the same time next year. In 5 fewer games. No one knew what was going on. Sid didn’t know what was going on, but there’s probably a few things that explain his low offence. If you believed the media at the time, he was washed up. They were literally writing up the obituary of his career. Sports Illustrated posited that he would be a 4th-line centre at the World Cup. People were wondering if he would even make the team. The Team Canada GM had to publicly state that Sid would be on the roster.

So what actually did cause the notorious slump? Like I said, a combination of things.

First, MJ’s system meant that Sid had to play a 200-feet game. “But he does that now!” you say, and true, he is defensively responsible, and the NHL is gonna have to start thinking about giving him Selke consideration sooner than later, but he’s always thinking offence first, and his line’s puck possession means he’s spending more time in the offensive zone than defensive zone. They only had a 52.2% defensive exit rate under MJ during that December. Under Sully, it was at 73.1%. Consequently, MJ’s defence first mentality meant that Sid had to constantly haul ass from one end of the rink to the other; he was overexerting himself. 

Second, he had bad puck luck. No, really. The puck just wouldn’t go in the net for him, and he had one goal on 30 shots at one point. That’s a 3.3 shooting percentage. Around 9% is League average, I believe.

Third, the power play was a mess. MJ had no clue how to configure it, even with the kind of fire power the Penguins’ boast. They just couldn’t make it work, which meant that Sid was missing out on the points he usually get from the power play.

And finally, there was Duper. Now, this is my personal opinion, but I honestly think Duper’s situation really messed him up. I think he spent so much time and energy worrying about Duper being okay that if affected him on the ice. When Duper was forced to retire, Sid was heartbroken. Consider this extract from Duper’s Why We Play the Game article:

One leg was twice the size of the other. It was a few hours before the game. We were in Edmonton last November. I was warming up in the hallway, doing some band work, some quick-feet stuff. At some point I looked down and saw that my right leg was really swollen.

When you are dealing with blood clots, this is the moment you always fear. Your body is betraying you. You can’t deny it. You can’t fight through it.

I took my equipment off and put on a tracksuit to go to the hospital to get checked out. As I was walking out of the locker room with the doctor, one of my teammates gave me a hug and just broke down in tears.

“Not again, Duper. Are you kidding me? Again?”

That’s the moment I realized that I needed to draw the line. People weren’t just worried about me playing hockey. They were worried about me playing with my life.

I believe that teammate was Sid, and I feel as if Duper confirmed that, but I can’t remember where I saw/heard it.

Once Duper was out for good, Sid noticeably started playing better. He had 9 points the rest of December alone. Also, on 12 December, GMJR fired Mike Johnston and hired Mike Sullivan. Hilariously, Sid was accused of being a coach killer, and the reporter outright questioned the legitimacy of hiring Sully was MJ’s replacement in the same article.

JOKE’S ON YOU BRETT CYRGALIS.

The rest, as you say, is history. The Penguins finally found a coach who can wrangle Sid and Geno and Phil, and GMJR isn’t having any of your shit anymore NHL, so he went out and got Ryan Reaves to protect his star players from being abused. Which will probably be either really awesome or really awful. Time will tell.

[vileart]

Is This A Dramaturgy: Andy canon @ Edfringe 2017

Is this a dagger? The story of Macbeth

Andy Cannon’s take on the Shakespeare classic presented as part of  

Made in Scotland showcase and Edinburgh Festival Fringe

By the pricking of my thumb, something wicked this way comes…. At this year’s Edinburgh Festival Fringe Andy Cannon, one of Scotland’s finest storytellers, will take audiences on a thousand-year journey from fact to fiction and back again, in his telling of Shakespeare’s classic tale. A tale of foul and fortune, murder and deceit, Macbeth is a gory, bloody and darkly wonderful tale of one man and his pursuit of power. In Is This a Dagger? The Story of Macbeth, Andy Cannon distils the essence of this epic play into a one-man, one-hour version, making it appealing for audiences young and old. Suitable for everyone over eight, Is This a Dagger? The Story of Macbeth explores the paths between fact and fiction, myths and truths. A perfect introduction for newcomers to this wicked tale, and a fresh take on it for Shakespeare aficionados.

What was the inspiration for this performance?

The Isle of Lewis Chess set in the British Museum. Staring at the King piece I was struck by the fear in his eyes - a powerful warrior all alone waiting for fate to take its course…

The enigma that is Macbeth has fascinated me since I was wee. Adults would mention his name in hushed tones - occasionally referring to someone as a "Lady Macbeth" or in more jocular moods declare "Lead on MacDuff!" before heading off on a trip - a quote which at the time I never appreciated they'd got so terribly wrong!

I didn't actually see the “Scottish” play until I was an adult but by then I had acquired in my mind a clear picture of this treacherous Scottish Monarch. I presumed (if I ever gave it any thought at all that is) that although Shakespeare doubtlessly used a little artistic licence in his re-telling of the tale - the drama played out on the stage was by and large based on actual historical events.

I then became increasingly aware that many people had no idea when the "actual" Macbeth ruled Scotland or indeed if he was ever even a real king or not. 

My interest piqued - I determined to discover the truth behind the tale and in doing so unearthed not only the markedly different tale of the eponymous eleventh century king but also the intriguing political story behind the first staging of Shakespeare’s celebrated play. 

And so Is This a Dagger? was born…

Is performance still a good space for the public discussion of ideas?

Absolutely - Perhaps the most important! In my opinion, what singles out performance as a positive catalyst for the discussion of ideas is the very act of coming together to witness a performance (more often than not a sharing of a thought, a fear or even a hope!).  

After engaging with a performance - whether you have agreed, connected or recoiled from it - there seems to me to be a far better chance of a meaningful and respectful exploration of the myriad of different perspectives that an audience will bring to the issues raised.

How did you become interested in making performance?

To be honest - it was the only thing I was good at! I didn't really do school (I left at 15) so consequently it took quite a few years before I thought it was the kind of profession someone like me could legitimately do. Fortunately, in 1982 fate led me to Washington Street Arts Centre in Glasgow and the rest as they say is history!

Is there any particular approach to the making of the show?

I began with the simple idea of telling the story of the ‘real’ Macbeth but very quickly realised I also wanted to tell the tale of Shakespeare's fantastic drama too. This process led me to a deeper appreciation of the play and indeed the bard’s genius (I'd never studied Shakespeare at school - which on reflection arguably gave me an advantage as I approached his iconic tragedy purely as a story). I often employ the essence of "poor theatre" and I was determined to keep any props to an absolute minimum (I also wanted to give a nod to the plays Jacobean routes by making the production as portable as possible). 

I then set myself the challenge of restricting the entire performance to an hour so as to keep with Macbeth’s observation that “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more.”

Does the show fit with your usual productions?

In many ways it's typical of my work but with one major exception - I'm by myself and not accompanied by a live musician (though there is great music - composed, played and recorded by my good friends and regular creative collaborators Wendy Weatherby and David Trouton). Lonely as this is it feels right - as Macbeth is ultimately in my mind a story of isolation.

What do you hope that the audience will experience?

Time well spent. An engaging hour that is both entertaining and thought provoking - my goal is always for the audience to talking about the story and the characters more than the style of the delivery. That said I'm proud of the simple staging and aesthetic of the piece - which I'm developing with my good friend and brilliant theatre maker Shona Reppe.

What strategies did you consider towards shaping this audience experience?

I wrote an interactive prologue to firmly place the tale of Macbeth in the context of its time - a time when a belief in the supernatural was very much part of everyday life - as well as playfully introducing the central themes of ambition, fate and the paradox of self-fulfilling prophesies...

Andy Cannon, formerly of Wee Stories Theatre, is one of Scotland’s best-loved storytellers.  His work sits between storytelling and theatre and is loved by audiences young and old. With a compact set and original music, Andy communicates directly with the audience, drawing them into the story.  Cleverly weaving Shakespeare’s original language with his own storytelling style, Andy creates a performance where parents and grandparents are as captivated, challenged and intrigued as much as the children sitting next to them. Andy has previously taken on Robert Burns (Oor Rabbie), and Robert Louis Stevenson (Treasure Island) and Anna Sewell (Black Beauty). He’s a writer and performer who can take on the greats and put his own, award-winning spin on them.

Is this a Dagger? was first created by Andy Cannon in 2007 and has continued to play to Scottish audiences in schools and theatres since then.  2017 is its 10th year anniversary and will see the production updated for a run as part of the Made in Scotland showcase.  Andy will work with trusty collaborators Shona Reppe (design), Dave Trouton and Wendy Weatherby (sound and music) and Red Bridge Arts (producing) to update the production for Fringe audiences. Is This a Dagger? The Story of Macbeth is part of the 2017 Made in Scotland showcase programme, in the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. The performance runs from 3-20 August, at The Scottish Storytelling Centre at 3pm. CREATIVE TEAM Andy Cannon: Writer, Director, Performer William Shakespeare: Co-writer Dave Trouton & Wendy Weatherby: Composers and Cound Designers Shona Reppe: Outside Eye Kate Bonney: Lighting Design Alice McGrath: Producer

Scottish Storytelling Centre, Venue 30

Thursday Aug 3 – Sunday Aug 20

Preview: Aug 3, 3pm

Aug 4-20 (not 10, 17), 3.00 pm

Running Time: 60 mins; for ages 8+

Scottish Storytelling Centre Box Office: +44 (0)131 556 9579

from the vileblog http://ift.tt/2tPjk6j