#Branagh Brothers

[crimescrimson]

Lieutenant Marvin Branagh in Resident Evil 2 (2019)

[withinycu]

Also watching the 'Stitch Butt' Version of Frankenstein

[dontcxckitup]

// I'm just curious. Has any of my fellow movie fans ever written fan mail to an actor? Did you get an answer?

[insanityclause]

Over the past 13 years, Tom Hiddleston has died more times than he can recall. “Let me think about this,” the actor tells us, pausing to count in his head. “I think, officially, there were two big ones.” 

He’s referring to his many exits from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the blockbuster franchise in which he’s played shape-shifting Norse god Loki Laufeyson since Kenneth Branagh’s 2011 film “Thor”—the son of Asgardians Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and Frigga (Rene Russo), and the half-sibling of Thor (Chris Hemsworth), the god of thunder. 

The character has since bounced between villain and reluctant antihero across five films, a handful of post-credits scenes, and Michael Waldron’s Disney+ spinoff series “Loki,” which Hiddleston also executive produces. The show wrapped its second—and supposedly final—season last November. The finale presents an end for the character, but not one of the aforementioned “big ones.” 

Hiddleston’s first “official” farewell came in Alan Taylor’s 2013 sequel “Thor: The Dark World,” which saw the god of mischief take a sword to the chest to save his beefy brother. “As written in the first script, it was a true sacrifice,” Hiddleston says. Unfortunately for Marvel’s long-term plans, the actor had done too good a job playing the trickster.

“When Marvel [executives] were testing the movie, they’d given [viewers] questionnaires that said, ‘Is there anything you didn’t understand?’ ” he remembers. “Literally every single audience member said, ‘Well, obviously, Loki’s not really dead.’ ” 

In classic comic-book fashion, the character did return, gallivanting alongside his brother in Taika Waititi’s 2017 follow-up “Thor: Ragnarok.” He died again one year later (“big one” number two) in the Russo brothers’  “Avengers: Infinity War.” There were no smokescreens or questionnaires this time; audiences watched as Loki’s neck was crushed by the purple fist of intergalactic warlord Thanos (Josh Brolin). 

Hiddleston remembers arriving in Atlanta to shoot his final scene and immediately bumping into Brolin. “He came up to me, gave me this huge hug, and said, ‘I’m so sorry, man.’ ” 

He meant it, too; everyone meant it. The sun, it seemed, had actually set on Hiddleston’s MCU journey. “At the end of that scene, I got a big round of applause, and everybody was so sweet and kind and gracious,” he says. “I got notes and emails saying, ‘Tom, you’ve done so much for us—what a journey. Come and see us anytime.’ I really thought that was the end.” 

And it was, for real, right up until it wasn’t—when the time-traveling shenanigans of 2019’s “Avengers: Endgame” blasted a younger version of Loki out of the established canon and into his own series. Over two seasons, the multiversal storyline envisions the title character as a figure who exists outside time and space. Across all there is, was, and may come to pass, there will always be a Loki, in some form, wreaking havoc. 

Hiddleston has long since accepted what this means for him as an actor. Maybe “Loki” Season 2 really was his last time in the role; or maybe he’ll play him until the sun burns out. “I’ve realized that, in human consciousness, that’s who Loki is,” he says. “Loki is this ancient, mythic character, who, in our collective mythology, represents the trickster, the transgressor, the boundary-crosser, the shape-shifter—somebody who’s mercurial and spontaneous and unpredictable who will always confound your expectations and wriggle out from underneath your certainties and convictions. Someone who we need and [who] is necessary.”

Hiddleston pauses, getting emotional. “Maybe Loki escaping death a couple of times is sort of an emblem of who he is in our culture,” he says, grinning at his own gusto. The actor has a habit of being self-deprecating about the depth of the character’s lore. “I spend a lot of time thinking about Loki. You can probably tell.”

You can tell, and it’s incredibly endearing. Talking to Hiddleston about Loki feels like discussing Shakespeare’s Richard III with Laurence Olivier or Tennessee Williams’ Blanche DuBois with Jessica Lange. They were actors who put their definitive stamps on those roles by returning to the well and constantly digging deeper. 

In conversation, Hiddleston is equally as likely to reference comic-book arcs as he is the ancient, anonymous Old Norse scribes of the “Poetic Edda” or Richard Wagner’s epic four-cycle opera “Der Ring des Nibelungen.” He speaks reverently of actors who embodied the trickster god before him, like Jim Carrey in Chuck Russell’s 1994 comedy “The Mask” and Alan Cumming in Lawrence Guterman’s 2005 sequel, “Son of the Mask.” He also heaps praise on those who played the part after him, such as his “Loki” costars Sophia Di Martino, Richard E. Grant, Deobia Oparei, and—in one very surreal Season 1 moment—“some alligator they found somewhere.” He cites legendary Marvel creators Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, and Walter Simonson alongside the likes of English essayist Walter Pater and Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw, who once wrote of life as a “splendid torch” to keep burning for those who follow.

“Loki is ‘a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for the moment,’ ” Hiddleston quotes, “and I want to make it burn as brightly as I can before passing it on to future generations.” 

This level of study started before he even landed the role. He recalls the 24 hours leading up to his “Thor” audition, when he was 28 years old. After graduating from the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art in 2005, he quickly earned small-screen and stage acclaim—but he hadn’t yet achieved a major breakthrough. When he received the script for “Thor,” it felt familiar. “I remember thinking, This is almost Shakespearean, this language,” Hiddleston says. “What’s the best example I can [look to] of an actor who managed to humanize and make real this elevated world of myth?” 

He found the answer in Christopher Reeve, who played the title role in Richard Donner’s 1978 blockbuster “Superman.” “He’s masterful in that film,” Hiddleston says. “In a way, it’s a similar premise: He’s a god or he’s a being from a different realm, and it’s not naturalistic in the way that we might expect. He does it so truthfully, and it’s so clear and clean and open and honest. I thought, If I can even approximate or get close to the kind of clarity that Christopher Reeve had in those films, I’ll be lucky.” 

And then, the morning of his “Thor” audition, Hiddleston went for a run, “which is my habit before doing anything unusual,” he explains. 

Running has remained a constant throughout the actor’s MCU tenure. At any given moment over the last decade, the god of mischief was likely doing laps around Marvel’s go-to shooting location, Pinewood Studios (now Trilith Studios) in Atlanta. “Life is movement; I really believe that,” Hiddleston says. 

“I find when I’m running or walking, the repetitive nature of it relaxes the mind and allows ideas and inspiration to come from a deeper place. I see my work as an actor—especially in preparation for a project or a scene—as almost preparing myself to be open and ready to receive ideas, to receive energy from other actors, to receive energy from my imagination.”

Hiddleston found the technique particularly helpful when he was filming a scene for the “Loki” series premiere that he calls “one of the most thrilling challenges I’ve ever had as an actor.” In it, Loki has been poached from the flow of time itself by the temporality-policing Time Variance Authority and forced to watch what is, essentially, a highlight reel of his entire MCU arc. It’s one of the most deeply existential moments you’ll ever find streaming alongside the likes of “Bluey” and the “Cars” movies. Here is a man watching the sum total of his life—his hopes, his dreams, his failures, his own death—play out in a 30-second clip that ends with the cold, clinical words: “End of file.”

“I just kept imagining: If you were afforded the opportunity or forced to watch your own death as a bystander, it would bring about an existential shock and crisis unlike any other,” Hiddleston explains. “It was a scene where I thought, I don’t have a reference for how to play this. I just have to allow shock, disgust, disgrace, shame, disbelief, acceptance, incredulity, and sorrow to exist in the center of me.” 

As an executive producer on the series, Hiddleston had a say as to which of Loki’s many misdeeds would play in the sequence. He chose clips like Frigga’s death in “Thor: The Dark World” and his father’s final words in “Thor: Ragnarok”—moments Hiddleston knew would most fill the character with regret. As production was preparing to shoot the scene, he asked first assistant director Richard Graves for a 20-minute warning.

 “I decided to jog around the stage and internalize as many of those memories of those people, those characters, those actors [as possible]—to try and find the center of my own vulnerability,” Hiddleston says. “Part of the joy of it was just going back to basics, trying to simplify this very complex thing…. Go for a jog, get into your body, allow yourself to be open, and just be there; just feel it.”

One “Loki”-like time jump later, Hiddleston found himself in a similar situation as he was preparing to shoot his final moment of Season 2—a scene that effectively caps Loki’s 13-year arc. Across 12 episodes, the show guided its title character toward a truly heroic end: With all of existence on the verge of collapse, he steps out of time to tie the strands of every reality together. As the credits roll, Loki sits at the center of time, holding in place all that is—alone. 

It’s a lot for any actor to internalize, especially one who’s performing solo in front of a blue screen. With 45 minutes to cameras rolling, episode co-director Aaron Moorhead made a suggestion. “He said to me, ‘Why don’t you go back, if you can bear it, and watch some of your work [over] the last 15 years?’ ” Hiddleston remembers. “ ‘Take it in, see what it means to you, and then carry it when you step out onto the stage.’ ” 

The actor took Moorhead’s advice to heart. And suddenly, without meaning to, he was mirroring the moment that started the series: absorbing the sum total of Loki’s MCU run. But this time, his regret had been replaced with gratitude. Hiddleston watched clips from “Thor,” remembering a time when he and Hemsworth had yet to ascend to the A-list. He recalled working with powerhouses like Hopkins and Russo, and the bonds he forged with the “original six Avengers” in 2011. He thought about how fun it was to film “Thor: Ragnarok” with Tessa Thompson and Jeff Goldblum, and of the more recent friendships he found with his “Loki” castmates Di Martino and Owen Wilson. 

“I thought, What Loki is doing, he is doing for his friends. And so, Tom, why don’t you do it for your friends?” Hiddleston says. “That’s where the two of us met in that moment. And then I was so grateful I had this most amazing crew, and we did it together.”

The actor is, of course, noncommittal as to whether this is actually the end of his MCU run. The franchise is scheduled out until at least 2027, and Hemsworth has mentioned his desire to make another “Thor” film. And if Loki’s past has proven anything, even the most official endings can be undone. 

Either way, it seems to Hiddleston that something significant has ended, even if it’s just Loki’s full-circle arc. “I hope it feels redemptive because his broken soul is partially healed; and you see that this character, who is capable of love, has made a decision from and for love,” he says. The actor cites the “beautiful prologue” of the first “Thor” film, in which Hopkins’ Odin tells his two sons: “Only one of you can ascend to the throne, but both of you were born to be kings.”

“At the end of Season 2, Loki is sitting on a kind of throne; but it’s not arrived in the shape he expected, and there’s no glory in it,” Hiddleston explains. “There’s a kind of burden, and he’s alone. He’s doing it for his friends, but he has to stay there without them. There’s a poetic melancholy there which I found very moving.”

For now, Hiddleston “can’t even conceive” of his life without Loki. He only hopes that he’s lived up to his guiding ethos as an actor, which he sums up with a plea from E.M. Forster’s 1910 novel “Howards End”: “Only connect the prose and the passion, and both will be exalted, and human love will be seen at its height.”

“The feedback loop for actors is that we get to inhabit a fiction,” Hiddleston says. “But hopefully, that fiction bears the shape of a truth that we recognize about life—that what we do reflects the ups and downs, the peaks and troughs, and the breadth and profundity of all of our lives.”

Hiddleston exists in that space between fiction and reality, the work and the resulting art, the prose and the passion. Long after we’ve moved on from our interview and started casually discussing the cherry blossoms blooming in New York, his eyes light up. He’s made another connection, remembered one more thing—just one last thing he’d like to impart about Loki. 

He spends a lot of time thinking about Loki. You can probably tell.

“I’m so aware that the reason I’ve been able to play him for so long is because of the audience’s curiosity and passion,” Hiddleston says. “I’ve been delighted to find that for a character of such stature, he’s remarkably human. Many of the characteristics that people connect to in Loki are deeply human feelings. That’s been the pleasure, is infusing this elevated character with humanity.”

Even then, honestly, it feels as if Hiddleston, like Loki, could go on forever. Unfortunately, outside of the MCU, time moves in only one direction. Once again, he has to run.

This story originally appeared in the June 6 issue of Backstage Magazine. Subscribe to In the Envelope: The Actor's Podcast to hear our full conversation with Hiddleston (out 6/6). 

[nellandvoidnull]

The lore behind Leon's pistol

In Resident Evil 4, Leon's starting gun is the Silver Ghost. The pistol was specially made by Joseph Kendo, brother of Robert Kendo, of whom Leon met in Raccoon City. Robert took his own life after being forced to kill Emma, his infected daughter. The incident, like the deaths of Marvin Branagh and Ada Wong, provided him with the drive to defeat Umbrella and save as many as he could. Him using the Silver Ghost, made by Robert's brother, to help save Ashley Graham, can be interpreted as his desire to save as many as he could in order to honor those he could not. The words, "Kendo Custom Shop" are engraved on the slide.

Sources: RE4, RE2, (as well as their respective remakes), Resident Evil Fandom Wiki, Resident Evil 4 Remake Story Analysis - The Sphere Hunter on Youtube

[colinmorgan-beautifulsmile]

Colin Morgan has an exclusive brand new in-depth interview with Radio Times

In brand new thriller Dead Shot – which arrived on Sky Cinema and NOW last week – former Merlin star Colin Morgan stars as Irish paramilitary Michael, who is on the verge of retirement when his pregnant wife is brutally murdered by a British army soldier.

Based on an original screenplay by Top Boy creator Ronan Bennett and directed by brothers Tom and Charles Guard, it's a harrowing film that takes place during the height of the Troubles in 1975, following Michael as he embarks on a revenge mission that sends him to the heart of IRA operations in London.

When Morgan first got his hands on the "page-turning" script, he was struck by a number of things, not least the contradictions inherent in his character, and he was especially won over by a certain ambiguity regarding who the audience should be rooting for.

"As a Northern Irish guy, you think I'd be biased to one side, but it's absolutely seeing both sides of this tale and this drama," he tells RadioTimes.com in an exclusive interview. "And so it says quite a lot that I was kind of on both camps, I think that's quite an achievement.

"Contradictions are the main thing I look for," he adds. "You see somebody in a cause that some men were drawn into in the late '60s and early '70s in Northern Ireland, particularly in the border counties. And I'm wondering, if I was born around that time would I have been any different? Might the times have dictated what I needed to do to survive as a man?

"Those are the things that are compelling to me... he wants to be a dad, he wants to survive his future. At the very beginning of the film it feels like he's just about to begin the rest of his life, he's left the cause behind, and it just gets taken away from him in a second."

In preparing for the film, it helped a great deal that Morgan himself grew up in Armagh, the same town that Michael is from. Despite growing up in a different era, the star was very much able to draw on his own personal experiences when it came to getting a handle on the character.

"One thing I said to the Guard brothers before I started was I'm gonna bring everything I bring to the character from my point of view, but also the stuff of just being someone who grew up in Armagh," he says.

"You get that for free, because that's the complication of living in a place like that, even though I grew up in the tail end of things – it is just part of your culture and in your blood. You see all those things growing up, and they're just in my own kind of memory bank. So while I didn't go through the times, I was certainly surrounded by adults who did."

Dead Shot isn't Morgan's first project in recent years to be set against the backdrop of the Troubles. In 2021, he had a key role in Sir Kenneth Branagh's Oscar-winning coming-of-age film Belfast, and the actor has clearly found it an immensely rewarding experience to see audiences drawn in by these stories. 

"Particularly with Belfast, there's something kind of amazing about seeing something that's such a part of you reach the world and resonate with people in a universal way," he says. "When you see your story, or you hear your accent, there's just something about you that connects with that.

"And then when you hear other people the world over do that as well, you can't help but feel a sense of pride that your identity is being recognised."

In addition to the knowledge of the conflict he had accumulated while growing up in Northern Ireland, Morgan did plenty of research into the Troubles to prepare for his role in Belfast. He says this came in handy once again for the new film, but stresses that Dead Shot itself is not necessarily "concerned about trying to educate people about the times in Northern Ireland".

"Not every film that deals with the Northern Irish issue has to go into all those details," he says. "That's what I thought was refreshing about this. But it's important as an actor just to be familiar with those things, whatever period that – it's always worth doing, and I always do it."

One of the most intriguing aspects of the film is the complexity regarding Michael's adversary Tempest, played by Aml Ameen. Although by no means portrayed in a straight-forwardly sympathetic light, the character is not presented as an out-and-out villain either – but rather a vulnerable person who has been thrown into a horrible circumstance by odious bosses. Meanwhile, the fact that Tempest is a Black man living in a time when racism was commonplace undoubtedly adds to this complexity.

"One of the things I said to the directors right from the start was that there was a lot more that bound these two guys than divided them," Morgan says of the relationship between Michael and Tempest. "They're both in London, which was a place at the time that had [signs saying], 'No dogs, no Blacks, no Irish'.

"So these are actually both very outsider characters who were treated differently – when an Irish man went to London in those times there was complete shunning of them as well. So they're guys who know what it is to be shunned, rejected, and treated as the other. And the fact that they find themselves caught in this tragedy against each other, it's a shame in a way.

"The sad thing about that particular time in Northern Ireland was that so much division between religions and nationality prevented so much integration," he adds. "And it's still unfortunately very present in Northern Ireland to this day – it's getting less so, but it's hard to think it'll ever go away.

"It's terrible to think that people connecting on a human level is prevented by something like a label or identity or nationality, whatever it is. Your best friend could have been the one that was serving in the army except you were just on the other end of the lines."

Although the film is set primarily in London, the shoot itself actually took place in Glasgow – with a number of London buses and other identifying features brought in to help transform the Scottish city into something resembling the UK capital. This was an interesting experience for Morgan, especially considering he has his own history with the city.

"I actually went to drama school in Glasgow, I went to the Royal Scottish [Conservatoire]," he says. "And the odd thing was that I hadn't really been there since I graduated and I found myself staying in an apartment that was right opposite the apartment I stayed in in my second year at drama school.

"It was this weird kind of full circle moment of suddenly there I was, like 15/20 years later. I could practically still see through the window of that apartment and see the 20-year-old me wondering, 'Oh, I wonder if this whole acting thing will ever work?'"

Of course, it wasn't long after graduating before Morgan's acting career very much did work. Following a number of early roles on stage and screen, including the Doctor Who episode Midnight, his big breakthrough came in 2008 when he was cast as the title character of BBC One's fantasy series Merlin – a show that went on to run for five highly successful seasons.

The series has retained a cult following since it ended in 2012, and some fans have long clamoured for some sort of reunion or reboot. But although Morgan thinks back fondly on his time on the show, returning to the role doesn't appear to be something he's considering any time soon.

"I think most actors are more about progression and moving forward and don't often look back," he explains. "Even on stage, sometimes plays I've done have wanted to remount and come back again, and I often found I don't take up those opportunities because I've wrung the towel dry and I've rinsed what I could out of it.

"That's certainly what I've tried to do with every project, it's like I invest every 110% into it so hopefully by the end of it, I feel like I've done all I could. And certainly on projects like Merlin, I felt like yeah, we definitely did that together as a team and it's certainly [something I] look back on and feel very proud of the work that I and everyone did."

On the subject of moving forward, Morgan has a number of other imminent projects in the pipeline. He has a key role alongside Jessica Lange, Ed Harris and Ben Foster in a new film adaptation of Eugene O'Neill's classic play Long Day’s Journey Into Night; he will star opposite Emma Appleton in the upcoming Paramount Plus legal thriller The Killing Kind; and he is currently filming a project which he can't yet disclose. The keys to the roles he's been looking for in recent times, he says, are variety and collaboration.

"I look for things I haven't done before, I look for challenges, I look for versatility, I look for passionate people," he explains. "I think more so than anything, what seems to be top of my list now is collaborators – people who have this kind of notion of bringing you into the fold and wanting to work with you not just to deliver the acting goods, but to know what you feel about the scripts and the story and have your input.

"And that's my background. My first jobs were all new writing in theatre and working with writers and developing and progressing and shaping things together. And that's what I thrive on more than anything in the world.

"That seems to be what people are wanting these days, I think the landscape has changed. People are really wanting multidisciplinary actors, and that's worth knowing for anybody wanting to come into the business: don't just be thinking about the acting, think about 360 degrees of everything."

[sgiandubh]

'We few, we happy few, we band of brothers'

It is one thing to disprove and even despise The Shire and its netizens. It is a whole other affair to violently bash S's skills, based on absolutely nothing else than spiteful disappointment.

We are being told by Mordor's basement polymaths the man cannot act. It is probably by an unelucidated strike of luck or by charity that he was cast by *** to embody book boyfriend JAMMF, when he has only 5 (five) known facial expressions in his quiver. He was the weakest link of Season 1 cast: I suppose the BJ/Frank Randall 2-in-1 does have a fan club, after all. His acting is wooden. He has chemistry only with C and by Her grace only, because you know, gay as a bag of popcorn. He is a semi-literate hunk, with documented spelling problems. Even more so, when we conveniently toss aside the mounting hysteria during Quarantein Ha-wa-wee disgrace (hey Pooks and all the sock account Dobermans: I hope you remember your Twitter blaze of glory moment every single morning while brushing your teeth). And (also a favorite) he doesn't read, he doesn't prepare, he is sloppy, like that.

God forbid you'd try to set this colossal unfairness straight. You are automatically signed up to the Mommies for Sam Committee and labeled accordingly. Brainless victim (of what, since he is basically useless, but let's not embarrass ourselves with logic), unapologetic limerent inamorata, romantic whale, delusional rural shipper, conspiracy theory troll. Anything goes, really and we know the tune by heart, at this point in time.

Not so long ago, I was re-watching the oath sequence of (5.01) The Fiery Cross, for which I suppose all background/context is superfluous. The only clip I could find has appalling sound, but should still immediately take you back to the Return of the Kilt (starts at 0:56):

It immediately reminded me of this:

This is the extraordinary Henry V Saint Crispin's Day speech. Pure Shakespeare and unmatchable Olivier. It is also a well-documented kamikaze moment of the Battle of Agincourt (1415), when a heavily outnumbered English army defeated in an almost miraculous turn of events the French. Granted, the real speech must have been way more concise, but nevertheless a potent affair, with Henry's cunning use of rumors having it that the French would cut two fingers off each captured archer's right hand, to virtually neutralize them. And his army was, essentially, an army of longbows.

Whatever it was, it worked. It worked so well, that it even gave Winston Churchill the idea of asking Laurence Olivier to broadcast this speech for the BBC some time around 1942 and then make a movie of the whole play, in 1944. Again, context is important -it always is, by the way - and it sheds the right light on Olivier's performance. More than acting, it is damn effective war propaganda, a wonderful patriotic act and completely representative for the "we shall fight them on the beaches and we shall never surrender" spirit. It is also all about acting as summoning of energy: Olivier manages to channel Henry V, he is Henry V and this immediately gives an irresistible depth and truth to his performance.

For contrast, one could compare his version with Branagh's 1989 interpretation (https://youtu.be/y1BhnepZnoo), which I am not adding here for the sake of levity. The main difference is, for me at least, palpable: Olivier completely suppressed his ego, which I am afraid is something impossible to achieve for Branagh. His take on the speech aims to be more modern and natural, and yet it is still all about Branagh promoting his art. And we know it immediately. A fairly honest tableau vivant, but no depth and nowhere near as majestic as the other.

I am not saying here that S is on par with Laurence Olivier. That would really mean being a romantic whale and I am the one you start to get, I hope, acquainted with. What I am saying is that this guy you just love to humiliate and endlessly cackle about every single day God makes, really, deliberately knows what he is doing in there. I would bet handsome money on S carefully watching and re-watching Olivier's Saint Crispin's Day monologue, in order to prepare for that particular scene. The similarities are, to me, evident, as is the consistent hard work and - dare I say it?- massive talent. It's all about owning the scene and being in the moment. And it is arresting, at times.

All of this is not exactly some shipper far-fetched speculation. S wrote, after all, in Waypoints (and the reference is way too spot on to believe in a kind gesture of the ghostwriter) that he "devoured"

I see great things. I see a very gifted guy who has no ego (C was spot on and for an actor, that is a blessing) and also probably no idea of his (considerable) acting range. I also see a guy who, spare for OL, has been grossly, unfairly miscast and overlooked. And who was determined to take whatever was available or easy on the schedule, in order to remain relevant. I may not be a good client for his booze, but I would pay handsomely to see him in something along the lines of For Whom The Bell Tolls. Or even (if you want a more exotic but oh, so rewarding alternative) a still inexplicably missing Western adaptation of Bulgakov's Master and Margarita (probably not the best times for that one, but still: Bulgakov was, after all, born in Kyiv and not really a fan, to say the least, of tyrants). That's exactly how damn good he is.

How was it, Kidneystone BIF? Oh. "No boundaries. No respect. No class." Exactly, madam. You said it yourself.

[bootyshortsjacob]

Resident Evil

Clesker (Albert Wesker/Claire Redfield):

1. Whiskey Neat (04-13-24)

Rating: Explicit Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings Relationships: Claire Redfield/Albert Wesker Additional Tags: S.T.A.R.S. (Resident Evil), Wall Sex, Semi-Public Sex, Alternate Universe, Aged-Up Character(s), Choking

Claire's back in town to visit her big brother, she can't drink so she takes a history lesson on the differences between a Whiskey neat and a whiskey shot. She doesn't have enough time to be savored, so she just gets taken quickly.

2. Dancing with the Devil (04-17-24)

Rating: Explicit Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings Relationships: Claire Redfield/Albert Wesker Characters: Marvin Branagh, Chris Redfield (Resident Evil), Jill Valentine, Rebecca Chambers, Barry Burton, Joseph Frost Additional Tags: Mentioned Steve Burnside, S.T.A.R.S. (Resident Evil), Aged-Up Character(s), Older Man/Younger Woman, Alternate Universe, Desk Sex, Spanking, Porn With Plot, Size Difference, Possessive Albert Wesker

Secrets are uncovered when Claire visits her brother during her summer away from college. A huge fight leads to some time spent with Chris’ boss, who didn’t seem like anyone’s biggest fan at the moment. Claire didn’t realize how much she’d come to enjoy summers in Raccoon City, especially if Captain Wesker was around.

3. Show Some Leg (04-28-24)

Rating: Explicit Warnings: Rape/Non-Con Relationships: Rebecca Chambers/Billy Coen, Claire Redfield/Albert Wesker Characters: Rebecca Chambers, Billy Coen, Claire Redfield, Albert Wesker Additional Tags: Mildly Dubious Consent, Car Sex, Choking, Love Bites, Alternate Universe, Mentioned Chris Redfield (Resident Evil), Size Difference, Not much Billy & Rebecca Summary:

Claire’s Harley stalls and she’s a long way from Raccoon City. A familiar face stops, but she’s not getting anywhere unless she agrees to pay him back for the ride.

4. Truth or Dare (05-23-24)

Rating: Mature Warnings: Rape/Non-Con, Underage Relationships: Claire Redfield/Albert Wesker Characters: Claire Redfield, Albert Wesker Additional Tags: Lap Sex, Cunnilingus, Smut, Size Difference, Office Party, Unsafe Sex, Alternate Universe, Dubious Consent, Truth or Dare, Ambiguous Age, Older Man/Younger Woman, Loss of Virginity Summary:

Claire and Wesker sneaks away from the RPD party to play a game of Truth or Dare.

5. Escape from Raccoon City (05-31-24) WIP

Rating: Mature Warnings: Graphic Depictions Of Violence, Underage Relationships: Claire Redfield/Albert Wesker Characters: Claire Redfield, Albert Wesker Additional Tags: Minor Annette Birkin/William Birkin, Minor Character(s), Mentioned Leon S. Kennedy, Mentioned Ada Wong, Mentioned Sherry Birkin, Game: Resident Evil 2 Remake (2019), Loss of Virginity, Rough Sex, Alternate Universe - Canon Divergence, Alternate Universe, Flirting, Teasing, Arguing, Sexual Tension, Canon-Typical Violence Summary:

What happened if Wesker went into Raccoon City to try and retrieve the G-Virus himself, but spends the day with his nemesis’ younger sister instead. Claire ran away from campus after hearing the news about Raccoon City and she has one goal in mind: Finding Chris.

But isn’t it weird that she was able to find Chris’ Boss, but not him?

[socialoutsider1a]

Hugh Laurie’s 10 Best Movies & TV Shows, Ranked

By Ben Protheroe

Published Feb 15, 2024

Summary

Hugh Laurie's comedic sensibilities shine through in his deadpan expressions and impeccable timing, making him a comedic powerhouse.

Laurie's natural charisma allows him to play affable characters or charming rogues in dramatic roles, showcasing his versatility as an actor.

Laurie's most impressive skill is his ability to completely transform himself, abandoning his famous traits and disappearing into unexpected roles.

Hugh Laurie first established himself as a comedy actor, but he has also shown that he is a powerhouse performer in dramatic movies and TV shows. Laurie first rose to prominence alongside Stephen Fry, the other half of his popular double act. The duo starred in TV shows and movies together before developing successful careers on their own. Fry has become an author and a TV presenter as well as an actor, while Laurie has added more dramatic roles to his repertoire. Laurie is mostly known for his TV shows, but he has made some brilliant movies as well.

Hugh Laurie has acute comedic sensibilities, especially when playing the straight man. His deadpan expressions and trademark comic incredulity are among his best assets. However, he is also articulate and intelligent enough to make unusually verbose punch lines land without missing a beat. Laurie uses his natural charisma in dramatic roles to play a number of affable characters or charming rogues. What's perhaps most impressive about Laurie's acting skills is that he can abandon all of his most famous traits and disappear into unexpected roles.

10Peter's Friends (1992)

Roger Anderson

Peter's Friends is a somewhat forgotten comedy directed by Kenneth Branagh. Stephen Fry is the titular Peter, a man drifting through life who inherits a luxurious countryside manor and invites all of his old college friends back together for a New Year's Eve celebration. The old friends assemble from all over the globe, and their bright and shiny facades begin to crumble. Hugh Laurie plays Roger, a once-promising musician who sold out a long time ago to write advertising jingles. He's just one in a cast full of eccentrics, all of whom have a tenuous grip on reality.

9All The Light We Cannot See (2023)

Etienne LeBlanc

Based on the novel by Anthony Doerr, All the Light We Cannot See follows the lives of two teenagers caught on opposite sides of the Second World War. Marie-Laure is a blind French who uses her radio to broadcast messages of hope and resistance, and Werner Pfennig is a German soldier sympathetic to her cause but tasked with tracking her down. Hugh Laurie shines as Marie-Laure's great-uncle, a man with PTSD from the First World War who fights to overcome his condition to protect his family. All the Light We Cannot See delivers a powerful, uplifting message.

8Arthur Christmas (2011)

Steven Claus

Arthur Christmas is a festive adventure with a lot of heart and a lot of humor. Arthur is the son of Santa Claus, but he is forced to take on a delivery of his own after he discovers that one child didn't get their Christmas present. Hugh Laurie plays Steven, Arthur's business-minded older brother who wants to run Santa's workshop like a delivery warehouse or a military base. Arthur Christmas has all the charm usually associated with Aardman Animations, the studio most famous for claymation projects like Chicken Run and Wallace and Gromit.

7Jeeves & Wooster (1990-1993)

Bertie Wooster

Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie's TV adaptation crystallized two classic comic characters for an entire generation.

P.G. Wodehouse's "Jeeves" stories have been extremely popular in Britain for decades, and Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie's TV adaptation crystallized two classic comic characters for an entire generation. Hugh Laurie plays Bertie Wooster, a wealthy young man who is affable and optimistic but somewhat thick. Stephen Fry plays Jeeves, his intelligent valet with a sardonic wit. As Bertie tangles himself up in problem after problem, it's often down to Jeeves to extricate him from his troubles as painlessly as possible. Jeeves aims a couple of barbs at his employer, but he makes sure they sail over Bertie's head.

6The Night Manager (2016)

Richard Roper

The Night Manager pairs Hugh Laurie with Tom Hiddleston and Olivia Colman, and all three actors deliver brilliant performances. Laurie plays Richard Roper, an amoral, psychopathic arms dealer who is under investigation by the British Foreign Office. Hiddleston plays a hotelier in Cairo who is enlisted to infiltrate his inner circle. Based on the novel of the same name by John le Carré, The Night Manager is a suspenseful thrill ride with an ordinary man placed in extremely deadly situations. Hugh Laurie's performance as the villainous Roper is a great showcase for his talents as a dramatic actor.

5A Bit Of Fry & Laurie (1989-1995)

Various characters

Hugh Laurie's first TV show alongside his comedy partner Stephen Fry was the BBC sketch show A Bit of Fry and Laurie. Their deadpan British wit combines with absurdist Pythonesque sketches where Laurie typically plays the sarcastic straight man. Fry and Laurie's sketches often poke fun at the rigidity of British society by introducing elements of the surreal, and they frequently use innuendo and puns to spin ordinary situations into farce. A Bit of Fry and Laurie also gave Hugh Laurie a platform to demonstrate his talents as a musician with plenty of comedy songs on guitar or piano.

4Sense & Sensibility (1995)

Mr. Palmer

Sense and Sensibility is one of the best Jane Austen movie adaptations, starring and adapted by Emma Thompson. She plays Elinor Dashwood, one of three sisters who find themselves in dire financial straits and plot to find wealthy men to marry. Despite the jeopardy of this premise, Thompson's script captures Austen's dry wit and upbeat tone. Hugh Laurie plays a supporting role as Mr. Palmer, a comfortable member of high society whose privilege allows him to freely dispense erudite one-liners without needing to fear the repercussions. Laurie helps revitalize Austen's humor for the modern era.

3Veep (2012-2019)

Tom James

Laurie is one of very few actors in the show who can go toe-to-toe with Louis-Dreyfus in full comedic flow.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus is the star of Veep as the cynically ambitious career politician Selina Meyer, but she has an outstanding supporting cast to back her up. Veep's best seasons come after the show takes some time to assemble its funniest characters. Hugh Laurie plays Tom James, the charismatic senator who sucks all the attention away from Selina on the campaign trial, even though he is brought in as her running mate. Laurie is one of very few actors in the show who can go toe-to-toe with Louis-Dreyfus in full comedic flow.

2Blackadder (1983-1989)

Prince Ludwig the Indestructible, Prince George, Lt. The Hon. George Colthurst St. Barleigh, other minor characters

The BBC historical sitcom Blackadder hops to a new time period each season, starting in the Middle Ages and ending in the trenches of the First World War. Hugh Laurie plays a different character in each season, starting with one of the show's most cunning villains, Prince Ludwig the Indestructible, in season 2. His most memorable performances come after he joins the main cast as the upper-class twit, George. Prince George and Lieutenant George are both stupid but boundlessly optimistic, and they consistently rub Rowan Atkinson's Blackadder the wrong way.

1House (2004-2012)

Dr. Gregory House

House gave Hugh Laurie his most famous role, and he took it with both hands. The character of Gregory House is based on Sherlock Holmes. He has a genius-level intellect and remarkable powers of deduction, but he's misanthropic and he struggles with substance abuse. House's best episodes delve into obscure medical mysteries, as House and his team work around the clock to diagnose their patient. House's methods are unethical, and he often treats patients like puzzles rather than human beings, but his results speak for themselves. 20 years on, House is still an unbeatable medical drama.

[sapphic-shakespeare]

1,000 Follower Analysis Post:

Something that I've thought about for years is the significance of Mercutio's death. Why is he the first to die?

First, let's examine Mercutio himself:

He is not a Montague OR a Capulet. He is a kinsman of Prince Escalus of Verona, like Paris. But like Paris, he has chosen a side in the ongoing war between the Montagues and the Capulets, which goes to show just how much the feud affects the people of Verona when even people outside the families are involved.

Mercutio is one of Romeo's closest friends, possibly even the closest after Romeo's cousin, Benvolio. He's carefree, fun loving, and is the dream role of basically every queer Shakespeare fan.

Before I talk about him more, I want to mention a little theory of mine. Maybe call it a philosophy:

See, back in 2015, my brother and I saw Kenneth Branagh's 'Romeo & Juliet', and something that really bothered me about it was that almost everything was played for drama, even the famous 'Bite my thumb' exchange, which in my opinion was a huge faux par and made for a boring production.

The first two acts of R&J is rather funny, and plays out very much like one of Shakespare's comedies, even though the play begins by outright telling us that the two titular characters will ultimately take their own lives. In fact, the first half is hopeful, with the friar believing that the union between the two leads will result in the end of the war between their families. I believe the comedic nature of the first half is essential, and to remove it is to rob a performance of impact.

Now, I can come back to Mercutio and finally make my point: Mercutio's death is what sets off the tragedy, and marks the end of the lighter first half.

Because Tybalt kills Mercutio, Romeo kills Tybalt. Because Romeo kills Tybalt, he is banished. His banishment leads his mother to die from grief and Juilet to go to friar in a panic when her wedding to Paris is set. Friar gives Juilet the death-like sleeping potion... you get the idea.

Before Mercutio's death, there very well may have been a chance for Romeo and Juilet to be happy. I'm not here to argue about whether or not they would have worked out in the long run; that's not really my point. My point is there was hope of them working out pre-Mercutio death, which dwindles as the plot progresses.

I think it's also important that the first to die is not actually part of either family. Notice how, other than the titular characters, the first and last characters to die are not Montagues or Capulets, but outsiders, and better yet, kinsmen of the Prince.

The Prince himself even says at the end of the play that due to him "winking at their discords," he, along with the two families, has lost loved ones. That's what he means when he says, "All are punished."

So, why does Mercutio die first?

Kill off comic relief to signal tone shift.

Kill off a non-family member of either side to show the effect the feud has had on the rest of Verona.

[thealogie]

Feels like I'm cutting a pitchfork for myself saying this here, but I'm still not a fan of Much Ado 2011. I thought Tennant was good, better than Branagh, and the prince brothers were actually excellent (not always the case), but I thought Tate was out of tune with everyone and played it one note. They also had less chemistry than in DW, and it still wasn't romantic in any way. I disliked the staging as well. So there.

that's the beauty of art/theatre. it's totally fine to have different reactions and preferences on things. As is obvious from my posts, i disagree. I thought the staging was such a party and showed you can do shakespeare with modern visual gags/like a modern romcom. i also thought catherine tate switched beautifully between between comedy and bone-deep anguish when beatrice is anguished for hero! and the "I will live in thy heart, die in thy lap and be buried in thy eyes" scene is like...top most romantic scenes i've ever seen.

Don't worry though! Like I said, tastes vary. And critics hated this production A LOT so you can get all the validation you need there.

[therealvinelle]

As a casual Agatha Christie fan, I am delighted by that recommendation. Do you have any other favorite books from her?

Sure!

And Then There Were None Ten people go to an island, it does not go well. This one stands out in that it has a good adaptation!

Appointment with Death The murder is ingenius and all in this one, but what I particularly enjoy is how well Christie captures the power an abusive mother can have over her adult children, it's a dynamic you don't often see in fiction (at least not played out this way).

Cards on the Table M. Shaitana has a fantastic idea: he's going to invite four murderers and four law enforcers to his house for a night of bridge, and he's going to stir up as much drama as possible. Things do not go well for M. Shaitana. (Stay miles away from the Suchet adaptation)

Crooked House The patriarch of an affluent family dies, and his twelve-year-old granddaughter decides to investigate. I was the same age when I first read it, which made the ending uh interesting.

Curtain Poirot finds the perfect murderer.

Death on the Nile Makes the list for many reasons, it's such a classical Christie but also because nobody agrees with Jackie's life choices, not even Jackie.

Hallowe'en Party A child claims to have witnessed a murder, no one believes her. A few hours later she's found murdered. I mostly like this one for the utterly insane murderer. What a champ.

Murder on the Orient Express There's a murder on the Orient Express. (If you want a film version, the 1974 version is the best. Suchet's version is... melodramatic, I don't like its ending but it had a fantastic opening scene, while the Branagh version is an atrocity, do not watch.)

Ordeal by Innocence Five years ago Arthur Calgary nerded about penguins to some random guy then left for Antarctica the next day. It was great. Now he returns to England only to find that the man was Jacob Argyle, and he was accused of murdering his mother that night. He kept claiming his alibi was some penguin guy and could give very specific, identifying details that five years later make Arthur Calgary "yup, that's me!", but Calgary was in Antarctica at the time so he never came forward. And uh Jacob died in prison in the meantime. But, Calgary tells himself, the important thing is that Jacob was innocent, right? Right? The Argyle family, who had finally put this behind them only to learn that their brother was innocent and one of the remaining members did it, don't agree.

Sad Cypress Elinor Carlisle is sad. She's about to hang for a double homicide she might not have committed, but even without that she'd still be pretty miserable.

The Secret Adversary I felt I had to recommend a Tommy and Tuppence, and while I don't remember much of any of them I'll just recommend the first one in the series. Tommy and Tuppence books are more political thriller than the usual fare, great fun if you want to switch things up during your Christie binge. (Do not touch ITV's By the Pricking of My Thumbs, though.)

The Mirror Crack'd One of my all-time favorites and weirdly formative. Miss Marple is grappling with the realities of old age, and solves a murder along the way. It's more character heavy than many of Christie's books, people do the things they do because it is in their nature and they can't escape it.

The Mysterious Affair at Styles The very first one! It makes the list for that. And because if you plan to read Curtain, you should read this one first as it references this one a lot.

Towards Zero Following the logic that the murder isn't the beginning of the story, but rather the culmination of one, this story is building towards the zero point - the moment the murder will occur.

Honestly, anon, I'm just listing Christies I fondly remember, I can keep going but the post will just get unreasonably long. Go read Agatha Christie, she's great.

Hercule Poirot's Christmas and A Pocketful of Rye get special shoutouts because while I haven't read the books, the ITV adaptations were really good, the former particularly with the casting and the latter particularly with the way the reveal was done. Same goes for One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, haven't read it but the adaptation was great.

(Overall I'm ambivalent about ITV's adaptations, the Poirot series wanted to be a fairly light, feelgood show the whole family could watch after dinner, and while both series liked to change things from the books and overall make them more daytime television, the Miss Marple series changed a lot more than the Poirot series did. They both have a nasty habit of putting Poirot and Marple in stories they weren't originally, usually to the story's detriment (passive aggressive shoutout to By the Pricking of My Thumbs). It's annoying, though does make it hilarious that they couldn't put Poirot in Crooked House.

They're still entertaining and I don't turn off the TV when an episode is on unless it's one of the bad ones, but... well it's daytime television-ified Christie.)

[dross-the-fish]

what do you think of the 1994 Frankenstein movie?

I'll be honest, I hate on that one more for its wasted potential than anything else. I feel like it tried to adapt the book but then it kept adding stupid shit and missing the mark.

Let's start with it's biggest crime. Kenneth Branagh, our director.

Oh Kenny Branagh my beloathed. We meet again. I've had it out for you ever since I had to stomach your ridiculous Shakespeare movies in high school drama class. I've watched as you brought your overwrought hammy sensibilities to Agatha Christie's Poirot and now here you are, injecting all of your overblown histrionics into Frankenstein.

I didn't think it was possible to be too dramatic for Frankenstein. But by god you've done it. There is so much scenery chewing, screeching, writhing and sweating in this that I actually started to feel fatigued and clocked out mentally about half way through the film.

Kenneth cast himself as the lead and I hate this version of Victor so much.

Wtf is this? Why does he have abs? Why is he in his mid 30's? Where is my sickly waif who gets feverish at the drop of a hat? Why have you done this?

Also I know they're canonically engaged but I really dislike for Victor and Elizabeth to be horny for each other especially in this movie because they keep bringing up their relationship as siblings and it's just eugh, please don't talk about her like that and then remind us that she's your sister you fucking weirdo. Their relationship in the book comes off as super uncomfortable to me and I swear Victor is way more into Robert and Henry than he is Elizabeth. Naturally this movie decided it should have next to no homoeroticism.

"How do brothers and sisters say good bye?" - start aggressively making out. No I'm not joking this movie goes out of its way to remind you that they are siblings.

.... And then it goes there with it.

Victor actually proposes to her and then asks her to come to Ingolstadt with him or offers to stay in Geneva with her and it's at that point where I'm like: did you read this book? Victor dodged their semi-arranged engagement like the woman had cooties and didn't write to her for two years because he's an obsessive, neurotic wreck.

Oh yeah and Henry Clerval is in it.

Oh were you hoping for more of him? That's a shame because so was I.

I've mentioned that this movie is over dramatic. But that really can't be understated. It's like a mac truck crashing through an English garden. No subtlety at all. If a character has to feel something they're usually screaming at the top of their lungs. Victor screaming at the creature to live, the creature literally ripping Elizabeth's still beating heart from her chest and showing it to Victor. They decided the bride should be Elizabeth and that there should be weird tension between her and the creature. Then after she's brought back to life she sets herself on fire and starts running down the halls of the manor.

I should probably have found that more tragic than I did but I just found the whole thing silly.

Justine's death in particular should have been more heavy and somber. She gets dragged off by a mob and hung. The scene is violent and cruel but it lacks the tragedy of the book. We have none of Justine quietly giving up and Elizabeth vehemently refusing to believe she's guilty. It's one of the few character building moments Elizabeth gets and this movie takes what should be a touching, somber and heartbreaking scene and turns it into a spectacle.

Everyone's reaction to everything is to do the most extreme thing possible but they never actually earn it because moments were the film SHOULD have emotional weight are kind of glanced over. The book has a lot of themes of grief and isolation but the film doesn't really explore those aspects effectively. It never stops to have a quiet or thoughtful moment. Almost like it's afraid the audience will get bored if someone isn't shrieking at the top of their lungs and some action heavy drama is going down.

The pacing in this film is jarring. Kenneth Branagh has a love for lavish sets, beautiful scenery and his films, if nothing else, are opulent spectacles, there are moments in this film where the cinematography is actually quite beautiful but I always feel that it's wasted by clumsy execution.

There are also scenes that come so painfully close to working, like early on in the movie Elizabeth and Justine drag Victor away from his work to go on a picnic and he only goes because he's hoping for a storm. He puts down a lightning rod and has everyone get down so they can observe the strike. I thought that could have been really neat and a good way to set up Victor's obsession but the execution was so clunky and the moment the lightning strikes and the four of them feel the static isn't allowed to sit and breathe. It jolts to the very next scene with no transition.

There are things I like about Robert De Nero's creature.

I like his design, even if it's not book accurate. I don't inherently like the idea of him being a resurrected cadaver of a specific criminal but I do, at times, almost like what they do with it, like having him wonder who all of his various parts came from. De Niro is a strong actor and I feel like there were the makings of a good performance here and it was stifled under bad writing and directing. I actually like most of the scenes where the creature speaks to Victor and the line "What of my soul? Do I have one? Or was that a part you left out? Who were these people of which I am comprised? Good people? Bad people?" is spoken with such poignant suffering that you really see how lost the creature is and it drives home the tragedy of the creature's condition. The creature is begging Victor to see him as human and Victor cannot or will not.

But these rare moments of something good peeking out are few and far between and the movie devolves again into it's predilection for overblown bombast. Even the final scene where the creature finds Victor dead on Robert Walton's ship isn't allowed to have the gravitas it deserves because Victor's funeral ends with the ice breaking in yet another tedious action sequence and the creature floats out to sea on a chunk of the broken ice setting himself and Victor's corpse on fire.

This was a moment in the movie that should have been handled with dignity and regret and I got this:

There's really not much else to say about this film. I went into it hoping for a good Frankenstein adaptation and I tried to find salvageable scraps but there just wasn't enough good to make the movie worthwhile for me.

Anyway, sorry this turned into a whole review but I was bitterly disappointed in this film and ended up having a lot to say.

[readingoals]

Getting ready for the Booklr Reads Australian challenge. These are a selection of Aussie books I own (fiction on the left, nonfic on the right) which I'll be choosing from during the month. I'm a mood reader so I have no idea what I'll actually end up picking but I'd like to get through at least a few of these.

List of titles and brief descriptions of each is below the cut for anyone looking for ideas for their own Australian reads.

The open book is The Tea Chest by Josephine Moon (my current read.) It's a rather sweet novel revolving around four women who's lives in Australia have been disrupted and who come together to open a tea shop in London.

A true History of the Hula Hoop by Judith Lanigan The book weaves together two parallel stories, one of Catherine, a struggling Aussie hula-hooping performance artist, and the other of Columbina, a feisty 16th century Italian female clown travelling through Europe with the first ever commedia dell'arte troupe, while also weaving in the history of the hula hoop.

Without Further Ado by Jessica Dettmann A romcom inspired by/paying homage to Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing, in which the protagonist loves the Kenneth Branagh adaptation and finds her love life mirroring the plot.

Angelika Frankenstein Makes Her Match by Sally Thorne A romance inspired by Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, in which Victor Frankenstein's sister Angelika is anxious for love and decides to take matters into her own hands and create a suitable suitor.

Empires by Nick Earls This novel spans continents and centuries. It's split up into 5 parts, each occurring in a different time and place, but which all intertwine and connect. It's about two brother from Brisbane who've lead separate lives, but its also about humans in strange and difficult times, the way people see themselves, and the interconnectedness of all things.

The Tea Ladies by Amanda Hampson A cosy mystery set in 1965 Sydney. It follows a group of tea ladies who work in a fashion house getting tea and biscuits for the staff. Until a murder occurs in the building and the tea ladies become accidental sleuths.

Top End Girl by Miranda Tapsell Larrakia Tiwi actress Miranda Tapsell's memoir about her work and life as an Aboriginal woman and how she combined both when creating the film Top End Wedding.

Girt by David Hunt A humorous look at Australian history, from megafauna to Macquarie. Full of strange, ridiculous and bizarre stories.

Harlem Nights: The Secret History of Australia's Jazz Age by Deirdre O'Connell This is the story of the Sydney and Melbourne legs of American jazz band The Colored Idea's ill fated Australian tour in 1928. It's about the international rise of African American jazz, the history of Australia's entertainment industry and modernism in the arts in Australia, and the influence of the White Australia Policy beyond immigration issues.

Flash Jim: The Astonishing Story of the Convict Fraudster Who Wrote Australia's First Dictionary by Kel Richards This is a biography of conman, pickpocket and thief James Hardy Vaux who was sent to Australia as a convict. Not only does it go into explanations of his numerous crimes but also the origins of Australian English as Vaux also created a dictionary of the criminal slang of the colony, some of which can still be seen in modern Australian language.

Great Australian Mysteries by John Pinkney A collection of Australian true crime mysteries including inexplicable disappearances, unsolved murders and scientific enigmas.

Notorious Australian Women by Kay Saunders This book celebrates the lives of some of Australia's most fearless, brash, and scandalous women, including bushrangers, courtesans, and writers, amongst others.

[alicent-vi-britannia]

The parallels between Code Geass and Hamlet

In the first episode of R1, when Lelouch and Rivalz go back to Ashford Academy after the former defeated a noble in a game of chess, Lelouch reads a book. For a fraction of a second, we see that this book is Hamlet, a tragedy written by William Shakespeare between 1599 and 1601 and it is his most recognized work (some would define it as the quintessential Shakespearean and I personally call it the epitome of Baroque). This is a detail that called my attention because it wasn’t necessary to give the book a title. They could perfectly invent one or leave it empty. Instead, the creators of Code Geass opted to choose a real and distinguished work of English and world literature. I read Hamlet a few years ago and it's fresh in my mind, at least I remember it more than other books I've read, and I drew parallels between the two as I reminisced and came up with some interesting results that I'd love to share with you.

To do this, I have to gut the play of Hamlet. Therefore, if you are one of those who don’t like spoilers, or stop wasting time and go read Hamlet, which is on the internet, or, if you are lazy, go see the Kenneth Branagh film, which is Hamlet word for word (hence it is an even longer movie than Avengers Endgame) or continue reading my comparative analysis and I will convince you to give this great work a chance.

Hamlet is the story of a Danish prince who has just returned home to attend the funeral of his father, the king, who recently passed away. But then he hears that a ghost with a striking resemblance to the late king appears in the castle at night; so Hamlet is encouraged to investigate and manages to meet with the ghost that, in effect, is real and it is about his father who has crossed the threshold of the afterlife to entrust him with a mission: to kill his uncle Claudio; for it turns out that he killed his own brother to ascend the throne and marry Hamlet's mother, Gertrude. This is the first act of the play and constitutes the premise of it; as well as establishing its two main themes: revenge and madness.

Immediately, we distinguish several parallels between Lelouch and Hamlet: both are princes who decide to take revenge for their deceased parents against a member of their family, who is precisely the monarch of their kingdom, after receiving a supernatural summons (the ghost of their father, for Hamlet; the Geass, for Lelouch); however, none of them imagine that on this journey they will lose themselves and the beings they love. Throughout the plot, Lelouch and Hamlet will be assisted by C.C. and Horace respectively. Horatio is Hamlet's friend and, like C.C., is the voice of reason and is Hamlet's greatest confidant. He is present in most of the scenes in the play, always accompanying Hamlet and conversing with him. Even in his soliloquies, which are the moments when Hamlet bares his thoughts, he is there; as well as C.C. who remains on Lelouch's side. Neither Horacio nor C.C. take actions in the plot, they limit themselves to being simple spectators and both, additionally, wanted to kill themselves, but they were stopped by Hamlet and Lelouch who wanted them to continue living, for different reasons that I won’t go into details.

Both Hamlet and Lelouch are gray characters that critics and fans of their respective works like to argue about by raising the classic debate: is Hamlet/Lelouch a hero or a villain? In any case, the conclusion is the same for both: they are two of the most human characters both in Shakespeare's work, in the case of Hamlet, and in the anime industry, in the case of Lelouch (if you want an answer , don't think too much about it: both are undoubtedly tragic heroes).

As someone who loves Shakespeare and Code Geass equally, I think Lelouch is a hybrid of Hamlet and Macbeth (another great Shakespearean character). This is because Lelouch and Macbeth live tormented by their crimes, however, they continue to justify themselves that the blood spilled would be in vain if they stop. On the contrary, Hamlet is a bit more pusillanimous and very indecisive (he's not an action guy, he's more contemplative and thoughtful).

Although Hamlet has sworn an oath of vengeance in the first act, he doesn't take action right away because he doesn't fully believe the ghost's accusation or so he says (in my opinion, it's because he's afraid to act); so Hamlet decides to check if his uncle is the murderer of his father and find out who are his allies and his enemies by faking his madness (yes, like Lelouch, Hamlet has acting skills) . Of course, his alienated attitude causes strangeness at court, especially it baffles Polonius, who is the king's adviser and an impertinent bootlicker for Claudio, and that motivates him to investigate. At a certain point in the play, Gertrudis, worried about her son, confronts him alone in her room, while Polonius, who is a gossip, hides behind the curtains to spy on them. Hamlet spots Polonius's feet and, believing that he is his uncle, savagely stabs him, only to discover that he wasn’t who he thought he was. This stupid mistake will affect the children of Polonius, which will lead to the great tragic ending of the work.

On the one hand, there is Ofelia, the sweet and innocent youngest daughter of Polonius (well, I presume that she is younger). She is in love with Hamlet and has had affairs with him, they have even consummated sexual relations; but ever since he assumed the role of his madman, Hamlet has been cold and somewhat cruel to her, on the grounds that he believes she is part of plot. Returning to Ofelia, the pain caused by the murder of her father at the hands of the man she loved drives her crazy and leads her to commit suicide. In a sense, her tragic fate brings me back to Shirley.

Like Ofelia, Shirley is in love with Lelouch, due to which she suffers from the barriers he imposes and she is left disoriented, while being curious about his strange behavior (Hamlet's feigned madness, on the one hand, and the Lelouch's efforts to hide his double life, on the other). Her feelings are conflicted when she finds out that her lover is the murderer of her father. It’s worth noting that neither Hamlet nor Lelouch had the intention of killing the father of their respective love interests. It was all a unfortunate accident. From here on, Shirley and Ofelia's paths diverge, but they end at exactly the same point: dead and Lelouch/Hamlet are indirectly guilty, or at least that's how they both feel, because, despite everything, they did love Shirley/ Ophelia.

On the other hand, there is Laertes, the impulsive and bellicose eldest son of Polonius. Laertes has a brief but forceful introduction that is, at the same time, a prelude. Laertes warns his sister that she should be careful around Hamlet because he fears that his love for her is insincere and he is only taking advantage of her. And he adds something like this: "if I find out that Hamlet hurt you, I'll kill him" (of course, Shakespeare says it in a more sophisticated and beautiful way than me; that gentleman did know how to use language properly). Saying that, Laertes leaves for France. When the news of the terrible deaths of his father and his sister reaches his ears, he returns to Denmark to take revenge on Hamlet and I’m inevitably thinking of Suzaku.

Like Laertes, Suzaku was immersed solely in his own business, but when Lelouch kills Euphemia, Suzaku turns to revenge by vowing to kill him (Shakespeare is known for his love of building narrative parallels between two characters, and Code Geass is rife with this kind of parallelism, the most obvious being that of Suzaku and Lelouch: one way or another, they end up becoming the other in the second season). Needless to say, Euphemia's death was an irremediable event as a result of boasting to cover up his wounded pride, like Polonius's death that was a mistake. Two tragic accidents. (By the way, coincidence that Suzaku went crazy over Shirley's death afterwards? I don't think so). Suzaku and Laertes are blinded by pain and anger and, although Lelouch and Hamlet try to reach a middle ground, both flatly refuse to listen to reason; which pushes them into a confrontation that, to a certain extent, is sponsored by the enemies of the respective protagonists. Claudio, who already knows that his niece has discovered his crime and intends to end his life, manipulates Laertes to get rid of Hamlet. Charles never deliberately uses Suzaku's anger for his benefit, but Suzaku serves him and his empire, which works to their advantage in a certain way.

In the end, the poison of hatred corrodes Laertes in a literal and metaphorical sense, since he ends up perishing in the duel against Hamlet, being wounded by his own poisoned sword, although he doesn’t leave without first revealing the conspiracy he was hatching with Claudio and make peace with Hamlet, as he understands that his judgment was clouded.

And, to all these, what happens with Hamlet?

Well, he is killed by Laertes in said duel of swords (yes, they kill each other). As is Lelouch dies impaled by the sword wielded by Zero (Suzaku) in the Zero Requiem. Just like Laertes and Hamlet at the end, Lelouch and Suzaku also manage to settle their differences and make peace for the good of the world. And, just as Lelouch kills Charles, Hamlet gets revenge on him by murdering his Uncle Claudius.

See that Hamlet and Lelouch have in common that, though driven by a desire for justice, both are both victims and responsible agents of the misfortunes that befall them, their loved ones, and their nation, as Denmark falls into the hands of of a foreign king and I’m not going to dwell on the consequences of each battle of the Black Knights and the Zero Requiem, I trust that you remember in broad strokes how many losses and how much havoc there was in the world. 

Also see that both characters are haunted by death. In addition to the deaths that I mentioned and that are attributed to Hamlet, we must add those of his mother and his two childhood friends who succumb to the hatred and pain that Hamlet feels since his friends obeyed orders from his enemy and he believed that his mother was in cahoots or, in any case, that she didn't love her father because her mother got married quickly because she got married quickly, which, in his eyes, was a betrayal (yes, a lot of people die in this play and, in fact, I think it is the play that honors that Shakespeare meme that wanders Facebook saying that he has no idea how to finish his play, so he kills to all the characters; although it isn’t quite like that either, Horacio survives, a few characters who don’t appear again and Fortinbrás, who is the foreign king. Basically, it's like in Code Geass, all the important characters die except for C.C., the UNF members and the background characters). 

I must say that in a certain way it reminds me of Lelouch because he blamed all of his family, not only his father, for the misfortune that fell on him, his mother and his sister (this is because they didn’t respond for them). Lelouch hates his siblings as well and was equally responsible for the death of his mother. Hamlet's mother, Gertrude, dies by mistake, but he was indirectly to blame.

Oh, I almost forgot! Horace tries to commit suicide, but Hamlet stops him because he needs him to tell his story. 

Hamlet and Lelouch suffer more from the consequences of their own actions than those of others, that includes their enemies. Their vendettas consume them and make them lose themselves in madness; for until the damage is done, Hamlet and Lelouch are unable to see the destruction they leave behind. 

We could say that Hamlet and Code Geass address the stories of two great men who fight to keep their sanity, if not they have already lost it. 

I dare say that Hamlet is the most prominent tragedy in general culture (I think if I asked you to talk about tragedy you would think of Shakespeare and this play specifically) and I think it's great that they introduced this detail in the first episode of Code Geass because it's a subtle statement of intent: none of us knew what we were going to find in this series, so it ended up surprising us. Code Geass is properly a beautiful tragedy and no one better than Shakespeare to present it to us. I don’t rule out at all that Hamlet has been inspirational material for Code Geass. I perfectly imagine Okouchi in his house thinking: “hey! What if Laertes and Hamlet had been childhood best friends? That duel would have been more intense! Oh yes!”

Joking apart…

Maybe Shakespeare influenced the good reception that Code Geass had in me. I love tragedies. I love tragic characters. I love Shakespeare. I consider myself an admirer of his work and I recognize his influence on my writing. Hamlet isn’t my favorite work by the English playwright, although I enjoy the story and how things are handled, I find it hard to connect with Hamlet; unlike Lelouch, to whom I already professed eternal love. Anyway, I still have a lot of Shakespeare plays to read and fall in love with.

I hope you liked this analysis. I loved writing it, even though it took me longer than I had calculated. You should turn it into a video so that it lasts forever and ever. Let me know in comments the opinions of him. We will be reading soon.

PS: no, it's no coincidence that the Lelouch from my fanfic, Code Geass: Bloodlines, is a Shakespearean fanboy. I must even say that to build the dynamics of my Lelouch and C.C. I was inspired by Macbeth and his wife; just as I was inspired by the character of Brutus, from the tragedy of Julius Caesar, for my Suzaku.

[azurescaled]

Leon Info

Name: Leon Scott Kennedy Age: 38 Height: 180 cm Weight: 75 kg Occupation: DSO Agent Birthday: September 10

Bio:

Leon comes from a long line of police officers and military members. With a father and uncle who were both active in the force, and were the first people he told about being accepted into the Raccoon City Police Department. However, a week before his first day, he was told to stand by and wait for orders to report. When he received no follow up, he drove into the city, and unbeknownst to him, his worst nightmare.

Upon reaching a gas station outside of the city, it was there he would meet Claire Redfield, a woman searching for her brother, the pair would be separated, after having to leave his car before the two were crushed by an oncoming truck. With the dead walking around, there was no time to stick around, and Leon would do his best to survive until they could meet up again. He made his way inside of the RPD, and met Marvin Branagh, a lieutenant who gave him a knife to defend himself from any zombie that grabbed him.

Leon would find another obstacle in his path in the form of a Tyrant, released to deal with any survivors who could connect Umbrella Corporation to the outbreak. When it seemed as if he was going to be killed by the creature, he was saved by a FBI Agent, who crashed a truck into him, and later helped him make his way through the city. She wanted to bring Umbrella down, and as such, the two worked together, until they reached Umbrella's underground facility, where it was revealed she was simply looking for a sample of the G-Virus. They hadn't quite reached the status of enemies, and to say his feelings for her were complicated, would be an understatement.

He would later be contacted by the US government and "offered" a job as an agent under President's employ, though in reality, it was a way to keep an eye on him after Raccoon. With little choice, he accepted, and would be brutally trained by Major Jack Krauser, who he would also work with on various missions, until the man went missing after Operation Javier, a sting on a drug cartel that went wrong from what he read.

Now? He's been assigned to rescue the President's missing daughter, and in the back of his mind...He hopes that this time around, he can save her. No more loss, this time it can be different. It has to be.