#Great comedic straight man while also having some really hard hitting emotional moments.

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

I started reading Dungeon Meshi last week, became instantly charmed and captivated, and blitzed through the entire manga in 4 days (and changed my profile picture about it). With that in mind, I would just like to say...

I love your dungeon meshi art so so much

CHILCHUCK!!!!!!!!

Thank you kindly! I love Dungeon Meshi a lot, so I'm happy to see so many people get into it for the first time.

CHILCHUCK!!!

[ordinaryschmuck]

Starkid Musicals Ranked from Worst to Best

Salutations to you, random people on the internet who most certainly won’t read this. I am an Ordinary Schmuck. I write stories and reviews and draw comics and cartoons.

Welp. I finally did it. I've watched the entire Starkid musical library, and I must say, most of these plays fit my writing style perfectly:

Humor that is cynical yet random

Leaning in with comedy while sprinkling in some well-executed drama

An understanding that any type of story works as long as the cast of varying personalities of characters is dynamic enough to result in some phenomenal chemistry.

This is in almost all of their plays, excelled through fantastic writing and stellar performances driving the overall quality. And it inspired me not only to review each musical, but also ranking them all from worst to best. Or, more accurately, least good to most good. Because even at their "worst," Starkid still provides a funny, enjoyable experience that will keep you laughing with its comedy and your toes tapping with its catchy music. So strap in as I go in-depth into how Starkid proves how they are the masters of humor and melody.

(I'll also provide links to each musical, which is all for free on YouTube, so you can check them out yourselves. Just know that their early work is impossible to enjoy without subtitles, so you might want to have Closed Captions on when watching.)

#12-Holy Musical B@man-Everything about this play makes it seem like it's the weakest to me. The jokes, songs, and characters in Holy Musical B@tman just don't hit as hard as Starkid's other plays. It's still good, but compared to their best, the cracks show a lot more. That is, except for the ending. Not only is there a great speech that shows what makes superheroes so beloved, but "Super Friends" might just be my favorite finale song Starkid has ever put out. Holy Musical B@tman may not be the best, but it's at least worth the time.

#11-Firebringer-This was stupid. Really stupid. Funny as f**k, but still pretty stupid. Although I will give credit to one of the central pairings being LGBTQA+...Even though it makes little to no sense based on the characters' previous interactions. But in fairness, Starkid really sucks at writing good romantic relationships, so at least Firebringer has the benefit of being gay. And as we all know: The gayer, the better. The play is still stupid, though.

#10-Me and My Dick-The world in this musical makes little to no sense. Penises and vaginas are sentient and can communicate with their humans. And yet the penises and vaginas can also talk with each other, form relationships, leave their humans, and reinsert themselves into others--Yeah, it makes no sense...But, DAMN, is it funny! Every joke and innuendo Me and My Dick has about human anatomy works, and I could not stop laughing at each of them. Especially the names that were given to the vaginas, which are just...I mean, I'm laughing just by thinking about them. That should tell you how funny they are. This play might be illogical in every way, but if you turn your brain off and watch it for the humor, you'll definitely be in for something fun.

#9-ANI: A Parody-What's weird about ANI is that its best qualities are also weaknesses. A good chunk of the jokes are hilarious and expertly delivered. The issue is that most of them are about taking potshots at the Star Wars prequels, which might be the laziest jokes to make in a Star Wars parody. Then there's the soundtrack, having several songs that are a bop to listen to. The problem is that ANI suffers from the same issues as Tarzan and Brother Bear: Yes, technically, it is a musical, but it's one where none of the characters sing, and some people in the background do all the singing instead. It's all an odd balancing act of quality content made through questionable choices. ANI is still an entertaining play, but the force isn't as strong with this one.

#8-Black Friday-This might be the least funny play that Starkid has ever put out. Not just because it leans extra hard into drama, which was pretty effective during certain scenes. It's just when there are jokes in Black Friday, they tend to fall flatter more here than they did in other plays. Also, the plot of Black Friday might not be the best one to play straight. The serious moments work best when focusing on the characters and their personal struggles, but through the big bad that's supposed to be threatening? Not so much. Even if it was meant to be funny, well, I wasn't laughing. And believe it or not, I consider that to be the best judge of whether or not something is funny. That being said, while Black Friday isn't the most humorous Starkid musical, it's still pretty good. The characters are excellent, the songs are awesome, and the story is somewhat easy to follow. I would have appreciated a few more laughs, but I can respect these talented people wanting to challenge their strengths.

#7-Starship-This play feels very...Disney. It follows a familiar formula we've seen several times: The main character wants more than what he has in his crappy life, miraculously gets the exact thing he wants, falls in love with a girl in a short amount of time, faces off against a campy/over the top villain, realizes the hand he's been dealt isn't so bad, and in the end, gets what he wants anyway. Starship is still pretty entertaining through its jokes, characters, and songs, but it also feels weird that Starkid leans into these tropes when they would eventually make a much better play by making fun of them. The end result is not bad in the slightest, but it's also nowhere near their best.

#6-A Very Potter Musical-Starkid's first production, and boy, what a start to something wonderful. Every one of their gimmicks and motifs is present in A Very Potter Musical. The use of parody to playfully mock characters and stories they love, making songs that are as funny as they are emotional, and creating characters that work because of their lines and the actors' performances. Oh, and also, it's funny. And it’s not just through a parody angle, like making Cedric be a perfect boy who's always smiling. It's also funny through its jokes that work, even if you ignore the fact that it’s a parody altogether. Case in point, there are these two bits, one involving Voldemort and Beatrix with the other involving Ron and Hermoine, that are written and delivered so well that I was in tears much more than with any other Starkid play. When watching A Very Potter Musical, you'll not only understand how parody works, but you'll also gain an understanding of why Starkid turned out as successful as they did.

#5-The Trail to Oregon-What can I say? I'm a sucker for comedic dysfunctional families. And seeing a family of idiots make their way to Oregon via The Oregon Trail parody? Yeah, that's a win for me. The play may be another family road trip narrative, which some people might get sick of at this point. But because the dynamics and comedic chemistry everyone has with each other are on point, the end result proves that you don't need an original story to tell an entertaining one. Although I will say that out of all of Starkid's productions, The Trail to Oregon has by far the worst ending. Without giving anything away, the play spends way too much time on this one stupid joke that any of the characters could make. Comedy is defined by personalities, as are most things, so making the joke work for anyone is a bad move when this one, in particular, doesn't fit as well for some characters as it would for others. Plus, the finale song "Naked in a Lake" is a really poor choice to cap off this musical. It's catchy, but to me, a finale song should encapsulate everything about the story, characters, and themes. Not paying off a joke that I honestly wouldn't want the payoff for. So while the ending could have used a lot more polish, that doesn't change how The Trail to Oregon is a pretty funny play that I won't mind revisiting when I have the chance.

#4-A Very Potter Sequel-Hey, sometimes a sequel is better than the original. Sure some jokes don't land, and some story beats aren't as impactful as they thought they were (Serious Black's introduction, for example), but there are far more improvements to this play than the last one. The performances are stronger, the jokes are funnier, the music is catchier, and the characters are much more entertaining in this play than in A Very Potter Musical. Especially new additions like Lupin and Lucious Malfoy, who provide great comedy and sublime drama at times. And Umbridge. Sweet Mother of all that is holy, Umbridge. While A Very Potter Sequel never made me laugh to tears as the first play did, twice, Professor Umbridge carries the comedy so well that she surpasses all of that. Plus, on top of it all, this play nails its ending through a bittersweet note that really captures what makes Hogwarts so special to these characters. I always feel like Starkid's plays tend to lose steam during the last few minutes, but A Very Potter Sequel is one of the few instances that it just builds and builds to a perfect ending. A Very Potter Sequel might not always hit the right marks, but the results are just magical when it does get it right.

#3-The Guy Who Didn’t Like Musicals-This one is pretty clever. The Guy Who Didn't Like Musicals is one of those stories that manages to be explicitly hilarious yet implicitly disturbing. For instance, people suddenly bursting into perfectly choreographed musical numbers in a world where songs are exclusively diegetic is pretty funny (especially through the characters' reactions to it). However, knowing what happens to these people and why they sing and dance so expertly helps make the whole situation pretty dire. It's an excellent balancing act that not many stories can accomplish. And while The Guy Who Didn't Like Musicals leans one way or the other at times, it's still all handled really well. Oh, and also, you know how most people say the villain song is the best one in any musical? Well, technically speaking, nearly every song in The Guy Who Didn't Like Musicals is the villain song. Including the finale, which is just too brilliant for me not to give a round of applause. If you're a person who unfortunately doesn't like musicals either, I'd say be more than willing to give this one a chance. It's funny, catchy, and if you think of the implications, pretty damn disturbing.

#2-A Very Potter Senior Year-...You know how Avengers: Endgame is a bit of a mess, yet people still love it for how much of a perfect (sort of) finale it is? It's the same regard with A Very Potter Senior Year in my eyes. It's far from a masterpiece, but the many, many solid scenes that cap off this series help make me willing to overlook the mistakes. The characters, callbacks, and overall message about how things end was done so expertly well that I physically can’t hate this one. I can understand how it's more of an ok play when compared to the rest of Starkid's productions, but sometimes, ok is wonderful.

#1-Twisted: An Untold Story of a Royal Vizier-...It's Twisted. Everyone loves Twisted! And how could they not? Everything about this play just screams Starkid at their best. The comedy is uproarious, added with the fantastic delivery of the actors and the characters' personalities. Everyone feels as though they have one step in reality and the other in insanity. This, to me, seems like the best type of character work when going for the parody angle. Parody is about giving slight yet snide remarks toward the work you're mocking, which I feel works best when characters drop the suspension of disbelief audiences have when enjoying such a story. And Twisted definitely nails its satire in not only poking fun at Aladdin but also making jokes towards Disney as a brand. From their movies to their inside jokes to their formulas to even their corporate dealings with Pixar, nothing about Disney is sacred in Twisted. But on top of being funny, Twisted might just be the most successful Starkid has been with telling some really compelling drama. The jokes allow themselves to take a back seat to let serious moments play out, and even comedy is added, it provides more for the experience rather than taking anything away. You see this not only through the actors giving it their all but even through some really gorgeous and heart wrenching musical numbers. Oh, and also, Twisted has the best Starkid soundtrack, featuring songs that are epic, funny, and, as I said, heartbreaking. You cannot get better than this and, if you want to get a friend interested in Starkid as a whole, this might be the play for them. Scheherazade may have a thousand tales, but his one is a tale I wouldn't mind hearing for a thousand nights.

And that's about how I feel about Starkid and each and every one of their plays. Odds are your ranking would be much different from mine, and I'm all for that differing opinions. Feel free to make your own ranking if you want because I'm honestly curious where fans would place these plays above or below others. I'm relatively new to enjoying their work, so I have no idea what the consensus is. I do know one thing, though: If Starkid can still be incredibly entertaining through over ten years of content, then I am excited to see what they can accomplish next in another ten years.

[reactingtosomething]

Reacting to The Good Place: “Dance Dance Resolution”

Eleanor’s Moral Continuity

The Setup: Find our reaction to the season 2 premiere of The Good Place here.

SPOILERS for episode 203 below!

KRIS: 

Well, that escalated quickly. (Said the guy who’s never seen Anchorman.) In The Good Place’s Chapter 16 — written by noted pun enthusiast Megan Amram (also on Tumblr) and directed by executive producer Drew Goddard (a Lost alum and excellent writer in his own right, who ran the first half of the first season of Daredevil and wrote the screen adaptation of The Martian) — Adam’s prediction about an alliance proves largely correct, Liz’s and my theory that Eleanor was actually retaining her ethical/spiritual growth proves (sadly) incorrect, and Eleanor and Chidi are confirmed as soulmates, even if Michael didn’t know it. PLUS: the returns of lava demon Todd, the Medium Place, and — thank you, universe — Janet’s reset button!

“Is that possible, Janet? Can you just chill out a little?”

“Dance Dance Resolution” goes Groundhog Day (I haven’t seen that, either, but I have seen the terrific Edge of Tomorrow) with an accelerated/abbreviated chronicling of Michael’s hundreds of attempts to engineer a perpetual torture machine that Eleanor won’t far-too-quickly outsmart. He hits rock bottom when the epically stupid Jason solves it first (“Yeah, this one hurts”). Eventually, when all the other demons go on strike and Vicky (f.k.a. Real Eleanor) brings him a list of their demands, Michael finds himself reduced to seeking advice from a man who died because he locked himself in a safe and thought he could still breathe because he brought a snorkel.

Meanwhile, in what might actually be the episode’s B-story (how did the rest of you read it?), Eleanor and Chidi overhear the truth from some of the striking demons on a smoke break, and flee to the Medium Place, where Mindy St. Claire is really tired of Eleanor and Janet showing up on her doorstep with various combinations of the other doomed souls. We get good gags out of Mindy being the only one who remembers any of the 14 previous visits, and hear a few of Eleanor and Co.’s failed plans to outmaneuver Michael. But this episode’s emotional power comes from Mindy’s revelation that Eleanor and Chidi have not only slept together several times, but once even confessed their love to each other. (“It’s like anti-porn.”) Shaken, Eleanor — who has just been really mean to Chidi, even for her — rallies the team for the 700-somethingth time (we see some versions where Michael gives up after just a few seconds) and delivers an ultimatum to Michael… but thanks to that aforementioned advice from Jason, he’s (still) one step ahead of them. He wants to team up. This seems to mean that Tiya Sircar’s Vicky has just become our season villain, which is a pretty glorious reversal of the dynamic she originally had with “Fake Eleanor.”

Surprising no one, I’m now even more invested in learning more about Janet, who is clearly so essential to the operation of afterlife neighborhoods that even through 801 resets Michael could never fully control her. (Does this mean that in “Tahani Al-Jamil,” Janet’s wild personality swings were also to some degree unintentional? I’d love that. They weren’t essential to making Chidi despair over the awfulness of his book and pushing him out of his comfort zone.)

Anyone have hopes, fears, favorite moments (I think I can guess one of Liz’s), or a lead on some coke for poor Mindy St. Claire? As a former fledgling Nietzsche scholar, I’m pretty happy that William Jackson Harper delivers what I’m convinced is only the third or fourth time an American TV show has correctly pronounced “Nietzsche.”

Click through for sports analogies from Adam, a philosophy digression from Kris, and a quality Twitter recommendation from Miri:

MIRI:

Well I’m officially done trying to predict The Good Place. (This is a lie, and I’m not even sorry. Feel free to mock me for how wrong I am in future.) We knew they would twist us again soon, but not this big this quickly. Damn, Schur & co. Just damn.

I have questions about Janet’s level of self-awareness. Or I guess accumulation/memory of previous resets? Her conversation with Michael as he’s about to reset her suggests she knows somewhat what has happened in the past. That may be due to him explaining it to her over the course of that attempt, but I’m not sure. Does Janet have the capacity to retain change even if she loses memories? Clearly Eleanor and co can, but Janet is not human. But is she a being? Does she have the ability to grow? (Sidebar: Perpetually in love with D’Arcy Carden’s performance. That sequence of falls!)

I genuinely love The Good Place’s relationship to absurdity. When you run 800+ scenarios, you’re going to get to some weird places and a two second farm reality joke is exactly what I never knew I needed from a tv show. They have a damn clam chowder fountain, which is insane but they play it as if it isn’t and that is what works so beautifully. Everything they’re doing is bonkers, but if enough people do the same bonkers thing with a straight face, it’s very hard to question it. That’s what worked in the demons’ favor in the first season, and I think what will work in Eleanor, Michael, etc.’s favor this time around. (I told you I was lying about the no predictions thing.)

Jumping back to the chowder fountain for a moment: Manhattan clam chowder would be more demonic to have around than New England clam chowder in general, but a (proper) dairy based chowder is more horrifying to have in a public fountain, so I believe they made the right call on that.

A few smaller thoughts to wrap up:

JUST realized that Mike Schur and Michael the demon have the same name and I don’t know what that says about Schur or about what Shur thinks of himself. It’s a good name in general, though.

I’m quite excited to see more from Vicky. She’s a really volatile mixture of blind enthusiasm and legitimate shrewdness, plus Sircar is just a joy to watch. 

How high is the demon to bad person ratio, y’all? Is it really this skewed or is this a gross misallocation of resources?

Highly recommend this delightful twitter

ADAM: 

A slight disclaimer: I have been a little busy with the move and without internet living like some early 90s sap. I'm currently at my local Starbucks writing this (Spectrum hooks everything up later today). Now back to the show.

It's hard God Damn work being this right all the time! I mean I figured that the team up storyline would happen later, but well played Mike Schur for just getting to the point (more on that in a minute). I watched the episode at a Holiday Inn Express in Kingman, AZ and I'm pretty sure Kris could hear me patting myself on the back from his apartment in Hollywood. It is a good feeling when you just nail a plot development or future storyline. I mean some could liken my figuring out the plot twist to Jason figuring out that everyone is was in the bad place. Okay, enough of the gloating time for more serious talks because I've got great news for everyone, especially Mindy St. Claire, I didn't forget the cocaine!

I will say that even though I called the team up angle, I did not expect it to happen at the end of episode two. The Michael storyline of nothing working and being blackmailed by fake Eleanor (or whatever you want to call her) did have a mid-season or end of the season storyline to it. After letting everything settle in now, however, it makes sense that Schur would pull something like this-this early on. If you look back to the end of season 6, and all of season 7, of Parks and Recreation he takes massive time jumps. Leslie had triplets and we never saw them except for short moments. He essentially did the same thing with “Dance Dance Resolution.” He showed that we can keep doing the same thing over and over again (ala case of the week) seeing how everyone figures it out. In a recent podcast interview he did with Andy Greenwald, he explained how he likes to dig himself a hole and figure a way out. This episode shows that he's crazy like a fox and like "The Good/Bad Place" anything is possible to happen. I like the fact that with this Groundhog Day kind of episode that Schur and Co. are saying that no matter the different variables that the outcome is the same. Ergo, even though these might be bad people they can still learn and grow to be good. Which then leads to the question of: What really makes a bad/good person? Kris, since you are the philosopher I look to you to answer that question. I will say that with the team up now happening that Eleanor and Co. will grow attached to Michael and vice versa (a bit of a stretch).  

Disclaimer: This portion is going to be heavy with sports analogies.

Eleanor, Chidi, and Janet have some very funny moments in this episode showing that they are getting more freedom to handle more of the comedy on their own (I touched on this last episode). The episode, however, truly belonged to Michael. “Dance Dance Resolution” felt like Ted Danson was playing iso ball. We never really truly got to see him shine, except only during last season's finale. This was his moment and he did not disappoint. He was essentially LeBron barreling down the lane where no one is going to stop him. His ability to set others up (his interactions with Janet and then Jason in particular) so they get their moment is great. How he can work in the scene is great and his comedic timing is on point that it just seems so effortless. I am curious to know how much direction is given to Ted Danson or if it's just give him the ball and get the hell out of his way.

I would say to Kris and Liz that you are both correct that Eleanor keeps her ethical and spiritual growth. The reason is that even though yes she does lose her memory every time there is a reset, if you look at every reset she still does the same thing. She seeks out Chidi for spiritual/ethical growth. While she may not remember what happens she always tries to do the responsible or ethical thing. The question may be that instead of wondering what Janet retains with every reset, we might want to start asking what Eleanor and Co. retain with every reset. The characters’ memories are wiped, but how much are they truly retaining? Even when Eleanor and Chidi visit Mindy St. Claire for the 50th or whatever time, she explains to Eleanor that that is the first time Eleanor has told Chidi that she loves him. Even though they have had sex dozens of times before she never said told Chidi that she loved him. That would mean that even though their memories keep being erased their connection continues to grow stronger. This is going to be a storyline that Eleanor and Chidi are going to continue to grapple with throughout the show because with them trying to fool everyone Eleanor and/or Chidi is going to get jealous (or try to make the other jealous) while they are with their "soulmates." I mean let's be real it will be Eleanor trying to make Chidi jealous by hooking up with her "soulmate" and Chidi trying to get back at her, but failing in a miserable yet funny way. I really hope they stay away from a Will They Won't They sexual tension between Chidi and Eleanor.

Finally, I would have to disagree with the notion of Janet knowing and or retaining information. I think that Janet is just an actual computer trying to understand how the world works. I think that with every reboot I would compare it to a hard reset if someone formatted their computer. In the season one finale Michael says they stole a good Janet and reprogrammed her. She may have a backup drive that Michael does not even know about, which then, said backup drive will eventually be used against him by Shawn to retire Michael. I would also like to see Tahani get some more run. She hasn't had as much space to play as the rest of the co-stars. She has mainly just been involved in the B, sometimes C plot or the occasional runner.

KRIS: 

Since now two of you have asked, my leanings as a former-almost-philosopher are Aristotelian, which is to say that A) I’m generally more interested in character traits — virtues and vices — than in hard universal rules or in what you could call the “moral math” of utilitarianism/consequentialism; and B) I tend to think one’s character is shaped by one’s actions (as Chidi has explained to Eleanor), and that therefore one’s moral sense can be — indeed, must be — trained. As my existentialism professor Iain Thomson once phrased this view, “Aretē is a technē. Virtue is a skill.” (The Greek root of the word “technology” is “technē,” which can translate roughly to “skill,” but also to “science,” or even to “art” in the sense that (an) art is a practice. Which is why the website name Ars Technica is a little strange.)

Virtue ethics, then, may be the main ethic of The Good Place as a show. It’s worth nothing, though, that in “Dance Dance Resolution,” Chidi for the first time identifies himself as a specialist not in virtue ethics but in deontology, i.e., ethics based on rules and duties. (This explains his interest in contractualism and Scanlon’s What We Owe to Each Other, and also why he was so excited to have meals with Immanuel Kant.)

Appropriate response to a Kant superfan I’M KIDDING (mostly)

I’m not yet totally sold on Adam’s read of what I’m going to call Eleanor’s moral continuity, but I like it. (I literally applauded alone in my studio apartment when Adam’s prediction came true.) This brings me to my biggest… I don’t know if “concern” is the right word? But like I said last week, I’ll miss watching Eleanor grapple with her past dirtbaggery, which wasn’t just hilarious but often moving, and often a mirror. Think of when Eleanor’s boyfriend wanted to boycott that coffee shop. Dirtbag-Eleanor decided that because perfectly aligning all of one’s actions with one’s principles is impossible, we shouldn’t bother trying. As a specific scenario, this is something we all struggle with. And in general, the theme of “How Do I Be(come) a Good Person?” is creepy-targeted-Facebook-ads-level Pandering to Kris.

Vox’s Caroline Framke observed that this season reminds her of how Community changed a lot in its second season, shifting from a show “about college” to something supremely strange and toweringly ambitious, all for the better. I definitely don’t object to The Good Place undergoing a similar change, as seems to be the case not only in this episode’s structural ambition but in the increased focus on Danson/Michael. But while I do love Danson (who is everything Adam says he is), maybe because this is actually the first thing I’ve seen him in, I’m less invested in TGP as a Danson Delivery Mechanism than I was in its being — by circumstance if not by design — a show about women and people of color trying to find (or make) their place in the universe.

More importantly, the increased Michael focus is also what signals that TGP is no longer primarily about being a good person — though the team-up suggests it may still be about building a good community. And that’s a Schurian theme I love, partly because it’s an antidote to the distinctly American ethos of radical individualism: Americans like to believe in superheroes, in the Great Man theory of history, in “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” as the answer to everything, in the power of a single person to change the world through sheer will. But that’s not how the world works. It takes a village. This is indeed the point of Aristotle’s ethics, and of Aristotle’s Ethics, by which I mean the book Nicomachean Ethics, whose last chapter all but explicitly sets up his Politics, a work about how we organize communities to serve the ends of human happiness. An old classmate thought it was insane that political theory students read the Politics without necessarily reading the Ethics, and something like the reverse is also true: the goals established in the Ethics cannot be achieved without politics.

In The Good Place, Eleanor can’t become better if the world around her doesn’t provide conditions that make striving for goodness feasible. A key idea in philosophical ethics is that “ought implies can.” If a moral framework is going to make sense as a human project, and as something that can be enforced, following it has to actually be possible. In life this is what discouraged Eleanor from even trying to be conscientious about how she spent her money, and in afterlife it’s what Chidi agonizes over when Mindy reveals they’ve all been here before: “We are experiencing karma, but we can't learn from our mistakes, because our memories keep getting erased. It’s an epistemological nightmare!”

(For a much cleaner, sharper take on where this may all be going in a larger thematic sense, read Todd VanDerWerff on how he sees The Good Place as a self-conscious repudiation of Parks and Recreation’s optimism.)

ADAM: 

I think TGP is still about being a good person though. While yes there is a team up there still is the suggestion about what characters, mainly Eleanor, will do to figure out how they are good. Everything Schur has created deals with the optimism within not just people, but a community as a whole. This optimism is then brought forth by a conduit (Leslie Knope in Parks and Rec, Terry Jeffords in Brooklyn Nine-Nine) that shows everyone around them that they can either make a difference or can learn to be less selfish. 

Do you think that because Eleanor might retain some sort of "Goodness" that she then tries to make the neighborhood good? Do you think the Eleanor does retain some of the goodness that she has learned from all the resets (hence my theory on her telling Chidi that she loves him for the first time) that she, in fact, will help both Michael and the rest of the neighborhood become good? I don't see TGP as a repudiation to Parks and Rec's optimism, I see it as the optimism shining through the chaos within. Not to belabor the point, but even after all the 800+ resets Eleanor always seeks Chidi out to learn ethics/morality, as she feels guilty that she is not supposed to be in the "Good Place." She never deviates or goes down a different path. Couldn't you say that even in the chaos as a whole Eleanor and Co. still show resolve and that good can still shine through all through the chaos?

KRIS:

I'd like Lemon and/or Miri to take a crack at these questions, and I'll maybe come back to Eleanor when I close this out tomorrow morning, but I'll venture briefly that there's a distinction between the optimism of Parks -- Change for the better is inevitable, we're on the winning side of history -- and the specific, America-in-2017 brand of hope (or maybe that's not even the right word, but something hope-adjacent) that can be read into TGP, in which you try to change things for the better without assuming that you're going to succeed. In the case of Eleanor and Co., it's not like it can get any worse; there's nowhere to go but up, and thus nothing to lose by fighting even an unwinnable battle, but there is a toll on the conscience for giving up.

MIRI:

Point of clarification (because it matters to the questions Adam brought up, not just because I'm a pedantic ass)—I'm pretty sure this was not the time Eleanor said she loved Chidi. Mindy was showing her tape of another time. They overheard the striking demons only a few days into this reset, so they barely know each other this time. Which is why Eleanor was horrified to learn of the love—she doesn't feel that way about Chidi. Yet. And I think that goes to an important point—Eleanor's progress is not a straight line. She's evolved as a person overall, but she's still somewhat who she used to be and has her old memories. The circumstances of each reboot affect how she reacts somewhat. And that's realistic—no path to self improvement is simple or linear. She's going to have backslides and incremental progress. (Also I'd argue that she goes to Janet for help staying under the radar for her own safety and Janet brings her to Chidi. Eleanor doesn't go directly to him out of love or guilt. BUT she does find her way to him and is willing to learn from him over and over and over, which is what matters to me.)

I think that Eleanor's character has improved and that she retains some of that, but that the job is far from done—and that is the most important part. Each time she must choose to do better (not for the best reason to start, but still) and then work at it. Being good in a vacuum is easy and not particularly worthy of commendation. Eleanor is still on her climb out of dirtbaggery, she's just a bit farther along than in the first season.

Also: IT DID NOT OCCUR TO ME until Kris pointed it out that literally none of the non-demon protagonists are white dudes. That's amazing. I have come to expect Fremulon shows to actually look like the world (women, people of color, many things are garbage but not ALL things, etc). But damn, that is worth taking a moment to appreciate.

Also also, I would like to [again] direct you all to the twitter @nocontexttgp because it is a damn delight on my twitter feed and we all deserve that.

KRIS:

I wonder how much we should consider the question of Eleanor's moral continuity in the light of the sitcom "law" that your characters can't really change. Mike Schur and his collaborators (Dan Goor on B99, Greg Daniels on Parks) have pushed this law to its limits, but have they ever really broken it? Jake Peralta has grown up enough to be a worthy partner to Amy Santiago, but he's still definitely recognizably the Peralta of the pilot. Even the increasingly Woke Peralta is seen in season 1, when he punches out guest star Stacy Keach's old school detective for being homophobic. Leslie Knope started out kind of as a hapless Michael Scott clone, but she was never as outright awful a human being, and Poehler's sunniness lent itself to a different direction, so that Leslie became a hypercompetent moral authority, but she also retained her Too Much-ness and her blind love for and faith in her friends.

From the beginning Schur has been clear that The Good Place is intended as a heavily serialized show, so Miri's observation that Eleanor and Chidi seem to flee to the Medium Place relatively early into version 802 gets at a big question I have that this week's inevitable twist will probably prove I'm overthinking BUT STILL: Are we supposed to assume that Eleanor v802 has had roughly the same amount of moral maturation as version 1, that she’s had roughly similar experiences to what we saw last year? It seems like we have to say no, right? And if that's the case, this is on one level a pretty interesting commentary about network sitcoms: in a way it really doesn’t matter what happens to these people week-to-week, as it really didn't matter exactly who Joey was dating or exactly what Monica was yelling about on any given episode of Friends. But more specifically to the serialization of The Good Place, who/what exactly are we rooting for, if not for the Eleanor whose trials we followed last season? This reminds me, weirdly, of one of the big problems of Joss Whedon’s Dollhouse, in which the lead character was a repeatedly reset blank slate and we spent far too long knowing much more about her world than she did. (Echo actually figured out the truth by the end of the original pilot, but Fox wanted more weekly sexploitation, and forced the show into a procedural rut which eventually saw Eliza Dushku in bondage gear for like 30 seconds, apparently just for the hell of it.)

If Adam is right, then Eleanor's situation is something like "10 steps forward, 9 steps back" in every reset, and maybe last season did "matter" in-universe. But if Adam is wrong, then I guess what we're rooting for has to be in Eleanor's nature rather in her nurture -- maybe her fierce insistence on setting her own course, driven home as a fundamental drive with last season's revelation that Eleanor emancipated herself from her parents as a teenager -- and/or the very notion of moral perfectibility itself. Not perfection, but the potential for it. That is, we're rooting for Eleanor not because she becomes better but because deep down she wants to. I could live with that.

This isn’t relevant to my point, I just really wanted to include it

Lastly: I mentioned last week that I’m a little down on twist-driven storytelling as a concept or approach, but part of the reason it works so well here is that by going to the team-up so early — despite, as Adam said, having the feel of mid-season significance — the show is telling us it’s not “really” about the twist. Whereas something like Westworld builds really slowly and deliberately to a revelation that’s supposed to be earth-shattering, here the twist seems to be a means to a character-driven end, rather than the end in itself.

We’ll try to keep this up all season!

Facebook | Twitter

[vermontparnasse]

sweeney todd off-broadway 6/16/17 evening & 6/18/17 matinee review

yes, we went twice :/  

friday evening with @courfeyracs & @flightofthedumbledore and the three of us again on sunday with @corinthes. 

this was my first (and second) time seeing sweeney todd live, and though it was slightly unconventional, i couldn't have asked for a better production.  it takes place in barrow street theatre, a tiny space in the west village that seats approximately 80 people, lending the show an almost claustrophobic level of intimacy.  audience members sit at pie counters and the performers weave around them, standing on the tables at times as well as reaching out and touching audience members when the show calls for it.  this interaction never feels cheap or gimmicky - getting to see such a high caliber of talent performing in such a small space is such a rare thing, especially with a show like sweeney todd which traditionally plays up its melodrama and theatricality in large auditoriums.  but this smaller, pared-down production really works to heighten the tension already present in the script, and the array of fantastic performances made it one of the most intense and memorable shows i've ever seen.

david michael garry as sweeney u/s (6/16): his performance was on the lackluster side of serviceable.  he was concentrating so hard on hitting the low notes - which he did hit, but they got swallowed up so that it was almost impossible to hear what he was singing.  if i hadn't already been familiar with the show i think i would have been quite lost at times.  so that was frustrating.  his performance felt too restrained - he was never terrifying or even mildly shocking.  his epiphany was utterly lifeless - while there is a deliberate blocking to this scene, here the performer also has a bit of a free reign to move and command the space however works best in the moment, but david just... didn't do anything with it.  he just felt too nice for this role, too out of his depth. 

norm lewis as sweeney (6/18): he was..... about what i expected.  norm's a singer, not an actor, and that was really evidenced by the way he carried himself in this performance.  he just played it so straight.  there was nothing sinister to his interpretation and nothing darkly comedic, either.  his a little priest was awkward as all hell because wait, this upstanding guy who wants justice for his wife and child is suddenly okay with baking people into pies?  where did that come from?  and yes, i just described the character of sweeney todd as 'upstanding,' because that's all i really got from norm.  there was nothing darker lurking beneath the surface, he was just... a wronged man, who starts to kill people on a note weirdly incongruous with the character he'd been playing up until this point.  he did have his moments: his epiphany was energized and at times frightening especially in contrast to david's lackluster rendering, and he finally managed to command the stage in time to deliver a fantastic finale.  but there was just no journey - each positive moment existed in total isolation.  he was so restrained and i found myself wishing he would just go for it but he didn't, he played it very, very safe.  fantastic voice though.  i'd never seen him live in anything before, so it was kind of cool.

carolee carmello as mrs. lovett: after friday's show, i'd have said that hers was one of the best live performances i've ever seen.  after sunday's, i was let down.  i guess this is a case study in the subtleties of live theatre... because on a surface level the performance she gave both days was pretty similar.  my critique is all in the nuance: on friday she employed a sort of off-beat humor that lent the role an air of originality that i just found so refreshing.  her delivery was always slightly off, but in a deliberate and comedic way, most notably in the worst pies in london and a little priest.  and then on sunday her performance was much more run of the mill: she was still good but it all felt very stagey, rehearsed.  all things considered i'm inclined to say that i really loved her, though.  her voice is powerful, her accent was near flawless, her emotional range was incredibly impressive... i just wish she had been able to sustain whatever magic carried her through friday's show, because she was honestly breath-taking that first night.  all that said, hers was not the only performance to suffer on sunday - we noticed that the entire cast was a bit more subdued.  i'm guessing it has something to do with them performing five shows between friday night and sunday night - i can't get over how mad that schedule is.  so i'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.

matt doyle as anthony: he did exactly what was demanded of this role - nothing more, nothing less, but that isn't a criticism.  i loved him.  this isn't a role that demands a lot of depth and he very much adhered to these limitations, but everything he did do, he did right.  he was appropriately warm, trusting, idealistic.  he has a gorgeous voice and it was a pleasure to listen to him.  he also stood directly in front of me more times than i could count during the second show and i became very well acquainted with his boots.

alex finke as johanna: in contrast to matt, alex added more depth to johanna than i'd have thought was possible.  johanna is a bit of a nothing role, but the way alex played her, there's a whole life and history and personality to this character.  her johanna is slightly manic, and in some ways she manages to foreshadow her mental breakdown in the second act - i'm not sure how much of this is direction and how much is alex's performance, but she absolutely nails it.  she positively lights up the room during kiss me and steals the scene with her delivery of 'i'm marrying anthony sunday' where she gestures to matt and then looks out at the audience with this 'can you believe it?!' look on her face, so her heartbreaking repetition of 'anthony sunday, anthony sunday' during the johanna reprise is even more hard-hitting... her green finch and linnet bird is gorgeous, her chemistry with matt is outstanding... she's just a delight to watch.  i'd already seen her and loved her as cosette, so her performance in this role was a real treat on top of that.

jamie jackson as judge turpin: compelling and terrifying and horrible and excellent... there was a distinctly tywin lannister-esque spin to his take on this character, who managed to terrify just by smiling with a certain sinister glint in his eye.  i felt johanna's terror of this man and sweeney's hatred of him so acutely.  there was also a dark humor to his performance that was lacking from either of the performers i saw in the role of sweeney, which made me wonder how jamie would have done in that role. 

john-michael lyles as toby: he was really great.  his comedy in the first act was on point, but then he absolutely nailed the finale.  i thought his not while i'm around was genuinely very moving, i believed in the connection he thought he had with mrs. lovett and his final scene was perfect.  i understand that some people might find him a bit too campy in the first act, but his performance fits the slightly absurd tone i think the production was trying to strike in that scene, so i honestly don't have any complaints. 

brad oscar as beadle bamford: he was great.  a bit hammy at times, but appropriately comedic and menacing when he needed to be.  his scene with mrs. lovett stalling him when he tried to get into the bake house was fantastic. 

stacie bono as beggar woman/pirelli (6/16): she gave a really solid performance.  not the sort of thing where i went home and texted people 'you need to see stacie bono as beggar woman immediately!' but at the same time i have very few qualms with her... but also not much else to say.  

monet sabel as beggar woman/pirelli u/s (6/18): her voice is PHENOMENAL, she was kneeling down on the table right next to me during the ballad of sweeney todd and her high notes blew me away.  unfortunately her performance left a lot to be desired.  i'll start with beggar woman: she was just too lucid in this role.  there was nothing insane about her performance, it felt almost like she thought she was playing the witch from into the woods, a slightly creepy character who still has all her wits about her.  it was definitely a letdown.  her pirelli though was a different matter - she was delightful, and her mustache kept coming off during pirelli's miracle elixir and the scene that followed, which she handled both humorously and gracefully.  i hope she goes on to do more comedy, based solely on this performance i'm inclined to think that humor is her forte.  absolutely dreadful irish accent, but what can you do.

all in all, a remarkably solid cast - the clear weak spot being sweeney in both of the performances we saw, which is a shame.  i'm very excited to see who'll be replacing norm in a couple of months, and depending on who it ends up being i forsee another trip to new york in my future before this production closes.

[theinquisitivej]

‘Deadpool 2’ – A Movie Review

I’ve felt conflicted about this movie for a while now.

Even before seeing this sequel to a crass yet thoughtfully put together send-up to superhero movies which ended up being one of the most pleasant surprises of 2016, my excitement and positivity for Deadpool 2 waned with the tragic news of the death of stuntwoman S.J. Harris during filming. No movie will ever be worth a human life. I won’t say I didn’t laugh and enjoy the film, because I did. I laughed loudly, and I laughed often. But my sense of unease was still there just below the surface throughout the runtime, never quite leaving me. Whether it’s callous to watch the fun superhero movie and forget the real cost that went into making it, or if S.J. Harris was the kind of person who would have wanted people to keep working and finish the project she worked on is a question I don’t know the answer to. Any discomfort I felt during the film was especially prominent whenever T.J. Miller was on screen, as the discovery that he choked and raped a woman in college and his intentional false report of a bomb threat on a train more recently has somewhat soured my opinion of the man. On paper, a lot of what he does in this movie is his usual brand of humour which has really worked for me in the past. But any time I see him or hear that voice of his which once made me smile and laugh, I just feel sick in my throat. All this context results in a movie I had complicated feelings about before I even sat down to watch it.

         But wouldn’t you know it, Deadpool 2 is a pretty decent film with some strong emotional moments and ideas that have caused me to reflect on it in a satisfying way, but at the same time, it goes in a direction I really hoped it wouldn’t and makes some decisions which have left me feeling uncertain. So, I guess I would’ve been conflicted about this movie no matter what happened.

         One concern that many people had is fortunately not a problem, and that’s whether Deadpool 2 could still make the character and his humour work a second time around. Wade ‘Deadpool’ Wilson is a character with flexible ethics who gets wrapped up in superhero antics and has a sense of humour that relies on undermining or subverting the familiar tropes of dramatic stories from the genre which take themselves too seriously. He does this either by showing an awareness of the story he’s in and the medium being used to tell it, making direct remarks to other real-world movie properties he should really have no knowledge of, or going in a wildly different direction to what’s typically expected of superheroes. It’s remarkable, then, that in the two years since the previous film, the superhero movie industry has progressed so much that he has tons of new material to work with in this film.

         Whether this kind of referential humour will hit as hard in years to come remains to be seen, but it’s written in a way that makes it work with each situation Wade finds himself in. The references don’t come out of nowhere, but they still take you back enough to make you laugh. It also helps any future audiences to situate when this film released, and what kind of environment it was in when it decided to offer its humorous take on superhero movies as they stood in 2018. This approach directly tells the audience “we’re taking a look at where things are right now, and we’re going to have a bit of fun with it”, which is hard to argue with and lets viewers know where they stand, no matter when they watch it.

         Even if that conceit isn’t enough to get you on board and the referential humour is a problem for you, Ryan Reynolds is exceptionally talented at delivering every line in a way that somehow manages to come across as both unbearably sassy and disarmingly sincere, perpetually making Deadpool a fun character to be around, even when he’s going through some hard times in this film. Between that and the hilarious new places they go with Deadpool’s powers of recovery as he is bent, impaled, and bisected throughout the film which results in some terrifically cartoonish scenarios, Deadpool 2 still understands the humour of its protagonist and how to make it work.

         But as the opening and closing narration makes clear, this film is not just about Deadpool, but the ensemble of characters who join him. Many of the old characters like Dopinder, Colossus, and Negasonic Teenage Warhead return. While the film could have benefitted from more time being spent on the newer characters, the familiar faces continue to be fun, especially this depiction of Colossus, who is steadily growing into one of the best straight-man foils Deadpool has ever had. Yukio is introduced as Negasonic Teenage Warhead’s girlfriend, and while she doesn’t get any development, Shioli Kutsana’s friendly peppiness plays amusingly against Yukio’s dour girlfriend, and Yukio and Deadpool’s positive friendship throughout the movie is delightful. Julian Dennison plays a kid named Russell who is overly aggressive for much of his time on screen, but the young actor has some incredible talents and puts them to good use by making Russell surprisingly sympathetic. Zazie Beetz plays Domino, a character with the superpower of being incredibly lucky who swings in about halfway through the film and makes you wish she had come in even sooner. Her confidence, chemistry with Deadpool as none of his jabs even phase her, and her generally relaxed attitude as she goes through the movie knowing for a fact that everything will go exactly right for her is hugely enjoyable to watch. Josh Brolin is an inspired pick for Cable; I only wished that him and Deadpool shared more time together on screen, as the combination of his cliché hardman storyline with a tragic past and Deadpool’s irreverent attitude towards undermining anyone who takes themselves too seriously is a perfect match. While Deadpool takes the lion’s share of the film’s focus, the rest of the cast and the characters contribute a great deal to Deadpool 2.

         But there is one character who gets the short straw, and this is where I start to feel conflicted on this film. Fair warning, there’s going to be full spoilers from now on until the last few parts of this review. Just look for the SPOILER SECTION ENDS HERE line.

         What makes the first Deadpool work as well as it does is that it has a keen emotional heart to it which makes you care about Wade Wilson as a character. He’s fleshed out enough and played with such genuine warmth by Reynolds that you become deeply invested in his story, making him much more than just a vehicle for the film’s comedy. A key component to the first film’s heart is the relationship between Wade and Vanessa. The connection between these two immensely likeable characters is genuinely sweet and uplifting to watch, going beyond their infectious sense of humour and being most intensely felt when we see their moving dedication to one another when Wade is diagnosed with cancer. Wade’s motivation in the first movie is almost entirely fuelled by his love for Vanessa, and because of the strength of Marena Baccarin’s performance as this funny, charming woman with a fierce will, you completely empathise with him. Vanessa is her own character in the first Deadpool, and one of the biggest successes of that film.

         And then Deadpool 2 starts with Vanessa being killed off to provide Wade with his motivation for the rest of the film. As the opening credits played, I was seething at how the film had went and gone exactly what I had hoped they wouldn’t do, throwing away not only one of the most mature, well-handled relationships I have ever seen in a superhero film, but also a terrific character who brought so much to the table. It felt like a misguided waste of storytelling potential, and the gag of the opening credits themselves being just as upset about this as I was didn’t help matters. Yes, it’s a fun joke that fits the tone and comedic style of these films, but it also felt a little galling, as if the film itself was saying “don’t you hate it when films kill off characters you like unnecessarily?”, as if it’s not doing exactly that and expecting you to be on board with it. Just because you’re pointing out the trope doesn’t mean that you’re not doing that exact trope.

         And yet strangely, while the narrative of Deadpool 2 hinges on this initial decision which I still feel upset about, the emotional journey it takes is actually a very considerate and effective story about processing grief and finding something meaningful to do with yourself to make up for the immense hole that losing someone close to you can leave behind. That’s a remarkably nuanced journey for a character to go on, perhaps even more so than the revenge quest Deadpool was set on in the first movie. Reynolds nails the vulnerabilities of the character, conveying the bitter sadness that Wade is feeling and has no idea how to resolve whenever the mask is off and the pain on his face is there for all the world to see. When the mask is on and Wade is fully immersing himself in the persona of Deadpool, there are multiple occasions where Reynolds makes the character’s humour feel bittersweet, as if constantly acknowledging that this is all just a movie and making irreverent jokes is a coping mechanism to make the reality of the situation he’s in sting a little less. I’m unhappy with the decision to kill off Vanessa, but I do appreciate how they handle the effect this has on Wade’s character.

         Then, at the very end of the movie after Wade completes his emotional journey, we see Deadpool use Cable’s repaired time-travel device in a mid-credits scene to go back in time and save Vanessa, undoing her death. So, we have a character death I wasn’t happy about but accepted once the rest of the film showed that it had some ideas of where to take this story, and then in the film’s very last moments, we’re told that the inciting tragedy has now never happened. Of course, there’s arguments for why this shouldn’t be an issue; we see Deadpool go on to break the internal logic of the film by killing the embarrassing interpretation of his character from the mess that was X-Men Origins: Wolverine, as well as the real-life actor Ryan Reynolds before he took on the role of Green Lantern, so we have to presume at least some of these time-travel mid-credits scenes are fun ideas that we shouldn’t think too hard about in the context of the film’s story. Also, if there was any character who would break his own story in order to get the ending he wanted, it would be Deadpool.

         But despite these two reasonable points, this ending still bothers me. Both the director David Leitch and Reynolds (who is credited as a co-writer on the film) have said they believe that Vanessa is alive and well by the end of Deadpool 2. If that is the case, then does the quick, undiscussed and not-at-all unpacked resurrection of Vanessa undo a lot of the hard-hitting pathos of this narrative? What does this film about Wade struggling with who he is, what he should do, and whether he should carry on without Vanessa become when we know that Vanessa is alive by the end of the movie? Is it a case of Deadpool getting to live in a world where he hasn’t lost the person he cares about, but he still remembers losing her so all the emotions he felt and the lessons he learned are still there? Should I not think about it too much because it’s Deadpool, and he’s always walked the line between dramatic stories and self-aware comedy that doesn’t take itself too seriously? Maybe, but the first film managed a balance between the two in a way where I laughed at the comedy and took the drama completely seriously. This time, I’m not entirely sure that the comedy and drama fits together as well as it did the first time around. It goes for a decent joke at the last minute, but this comes at the expense of complicating the legitimately powerful story it just spent 2 hours putting together. My emotional response to Deadpool 2 feels completely confused and tangled up, and I’m not sure how to unpick it.

SPOILER SECTION ENDS HERE

         Much like Deadpool himself, I’m feeling torn in two different directions with this movie. Deadpool 2 tries to have it both ways at times, going for introspective, dramatic storytelling that has consequences and leaves you feeling emotional and contemplative, but also feels indebted to the meta-humour which, this time around, goes in a direction that undercuts some of the dramatic impact this film could have had. Even now, I don’t know what to think about this movie. It tells a story that gets to me and makes me feel honestly quite soulful and reflective, and it does so with a cast of great characters played by (mostly) charismatic actors who consistently make me laugh. But the occasional bum note joke, lack of the same tight focus the first film had, and, most importantly for me, the questionable storytelling decisions taken at the start and end of the film result in a sequel that leaves me feeling more uncertain than it does delighted.

6/10.

A film that honestly fascinates me in how uncertain it leaves me feeling. This is a decent sequel to Deadpool; it occasionally stumbles, but it doesn’t disappoint.

[justonemoreepisodeuk-blog]

Parks & Recreation

The stages of boxset viewing are often likened to a relationship, normally an unsuccessful one. I’ve tried to avoid that analogy throughout this blog, as it’s not really something I’ve ever experienced. Then I watched Parks & Recreation and now I feel like a jilted lover.  But this isn’t because I let myself get into it and spent hours of my life watching it only for the quality to fall away or for the storylines to frustrate me so that I had to abandon it, never to get back the time I spent sitting through it. This is how a lot of fans currently feel about The Walking Dead (when they should really just be hitting up Fear The Walking Dead, whose third series I’ve just binged the life out of and thoroughly fanboyed), but I guarantee that, if you are of sound mind and sound constitution, you will not feel this way about Parks & Recreation.

However, you will experience a profound emotional response as you work your way through the seven series that exist of what could be the cutest show ever to be available to stream on Amazon Prime.  The first series feels a bit like the cusp of something great, but is not great in and of itself.  In fact, I tested out the first episode a long time ago and couldn’t help feeling like someone had ripped off The Office: a mockumentary set in a workplace interspersed with pieces to camera.  I moved on with my life, convinced it wasn’t for me, and probably started watching some utter trash, such as another series of Geordie Shore. I look back on those times with regret. I could have been getting stuck into the shenanigans of local government employees in Pawnee, Indiana.  It was wasted time.  Geordie Shore’s cast was downgraded with the addition of Love Island rejects and I had to give it up forever (a bit like the unsuccessful relationship I was trying to make an allusion to all the way back in the introduction; you probably don’t remember it now but I’m trying to create some semblance of structure here).

But then I found myself offering it a second chance.  I needed a sub-30-minute show on the go, something to put in front of my face while I’m quickly putting food inside my face.  Too often, I was embarking on a meal with a spot of entertainment and finding myself still sat there an hour later.  The first series gave way to the second, and some cast members that weren’t really working out gave their places away to some better ones, and suddenly I was in love.

It all begins with a giant hole in the ground.  Someone falls in, their girlfriend complains to the parks and recreation department of the city council, the team spring into action to turn the hole into a park and thus ensues the storyline for the whole first series.  A whole series about a hole.  By series two, the whole hole has been wholly forgotten, to a certain extent. Instead, each episode is at liberty to jump about poking fun at small-town America, large-town America, all forms of government and people in general.  But the poking is gentle, with no effing and jeffing (except when it’s bleeped out for hilarity) and just enough sexual innuendo to provide a bit of blue for the dads.  While a series will crescendo in an event or crisis, it’s individual (and ridiculous) occasions that mark each episode, announced in the first few seconds with someone announcing “in Pawnee, every year, we celebrate…”

The reason the plotline isn’t as crucial as it might be with other boxsets?  The characters.  Pawnee, and its department of parks and recreation, is populated by individuals who develop to be so dense and rich in their personalities, that their average working day, and all its farcical undertakings, draws you into a fascinatingly and hilariously entertaining world.  I’ll acknowledge they seem like caricatures at first, but let them mature, I say, and you will reap the rewards.  You’ll want to be their friends.  I began to miss them when several days passed without me delving into a new episode.  I began to question my career choices and started to wonder if I wanted to work with them.  I began to love them.  And when you love, you get hurt.  But more on that later.

So who are these people? I shall tell you.  But be warned, this is just a long series of me gushing about each one, adding little to no value along the way.  Read on!

Leslie Knope

Knope is the part of you that seeps out when you have zero chill.  She adores her job, adores working for her community despite her community being full of cretins, and she adores her colleagues, who she can only view as lifelong friends.  Ask for her help and she’ll stay up all night producing a ring binder of everything she could possibly do for you, no matter the subject.  While she loves parks, she also hates libraries.  While she wants her town to be healthier, she loves waffles covered in whipped cream.  While she loves making occasions out of any obscure anniversary in any relationship in order to shower friends with deeply personal gifts, she doesn’t expect anything in return.  We should all be more Knope, though I actually like libraries.

Ron Swanson

The name says it all – an uncomplicated man.  Deeply set in his ways as a breakfast food-loving carnivore, Swanson’s journey over the series is among the most touching.  His view that the government should stay out of his life is at odds with his job in the, er, government, but it’s this conflict that lands him in so many absurd situations.  It’s his unorthodox relationship with ideological opposite Knope that proves that anyone can get along with anyone.  He also has the best and most surprising girlish giggle when things tickle him in just the right way.

Tom Haverford

Statistically, this character has caused me the most laughs out loud.  His approach to dating is straight out of a hip hop video.  He’s a grown man that whines like a child at any injury.  He is a committed consumer who places huge value in the quality of material possessions. But he’s at his best when smiling at the camera because something has just gone his way, and that’s when I crease up at his delightful little face.

April Ludgate

Beginning her career as the department intern, Ludgate takes teen angst into adult years with a sardonic comment for every situation.  When it’s too hard to adult, Ludgate is the one that calls it out.

Andy Dwyer

Now I’m torn; I’ve also LOLled at this manchild probably just as often as I’ve chuckled my socks off at Tom Haverford.  Chris Pratt might now be a galaxy-guarding dinosaur-whisperer, but his comedic performance is on the money – timing, expressions, energy.  General face, in fact.

Jerry Gergich

Enter the office punching bag.  Jerry is actually the nicest guy around, but his accident-prone antics earn him the wrath of the others.  The play at his expense sometimes does seem to victimise him, but rest assured that later series treat him with the affection he deserves.  He also helps bring an element of fart humour into proceedings when things get too highbrow (which is actually never).  Sometimes, there is nothing funnier than watching an overweight man fall over while passing wind.  Apart from maybe Andy Dwyer.

Donna Meagle

Barely allowed to speak in early series, this character never ceases to surprise.  A throwaway comment about Ginuwine being her cousin eventually culminates in a recurring guest role for him.  This has to be commended.  She’s an enigma who doesn’t care what her colleagues think about her or what she does. Personal favourite moment: when she bursts into a meeting room to join in with Ann Perkins trying to force April Ludgate to sing Time After Time with her.

Ann Perkins

Ann Perkins begins life as the lady who lives next to the hole, but soon Knope creates a touching best friendship out of her.  She’s often the least comedic of the characters, but her uncoolness in certain situations make her more believable, as well as her ability to bear the intensity that a Knope best friendship (obsession) entails.

Ben Wyatt

I just like it whenever Haverford bullies him for being a geek.  Also, Cones of Dunshire.

Chris Traeger

Rob Lowe as an insecure, health and fitness obsessed, incredibly energetic boss that wants everyone to like him?  Chris Traeger!

Well, that was a lot to get through and I kind of gave up by the end, but yeah, I love these guys.  I was going to make a comment about them each being a facet of my personality.  And now I just have.  They are all me.  And they are all you.  Watch them.

But wait, there’s more. The rest of Pawnee is filled (a bit like Springfield or Quahog) with minor characters that keep coming back for more.  Swanson’s ex-wife Tammy, local douche Jean-Ralphio (who RnB sings anything contentious he has to say) and his sister Mona-Lisa, local media stars Perd Hapley and Joan Callamezzo, Lil Sebastian: just some of my favourites.  I could go into paragraphs and paragraphs explaining why they are funny and why I therefore love them.

Finally, there’s also Treat Yourself Day.  It’s a day of consumer excess when Tom and Donna hit the mall together and buy whatever they want, including fine leather goods.  Fine.  Leather. Goods.

To recap: I have a lot of love for this show.  So why did it hurt me?  Because I finished it.  With each series I completed, I got a bit closer to the final end (the last episode went out in 2015).  Once I hit series seven, I had to ration them carefully.  Then I saw series seven was shorter and different to the others.  And then I couldn’t cope.  I had been shown what happens to the characters in the end. There was music evoking memories from the other series (Bye Bye Lil Sebastian).  I felt I had lived through something great and that I would never have it again. Was it worth it?  Yes.  Will I do it again?  Yes. But that’s just how boxsets go sometimes.

[mikkeneko]

#I feel like chilchuck was overlooked in the pre-anime fandom a lot (which sucked as an OG chilchuck fan).#So I am thrilled by how much love he has been getting. He is a great character and so much fun to draw.#Great comedic straight man while also having some really hard hitting emotional moments.#I think he needs a union mandated vacation after this dungeon expedition -and a drink with an umbrella in it.

I started reading Dungeon Meshi last week, became instantly charmed and captivated, and blitzed through the entire manga in 4 days (and changed my profile picture about it). With that in mind, I would just like to say...

I love your dungeon meshi art so so much

CHILCHUCK!!!!!!!!

Thank you kindly! I love Dungeon Meshi a lot, so I'm happy to see so many people get into it for the first time.

CHILCHUCK!!!

[zenlesszonezero]