#I mean there's the themes and the idea of shades of grey and the rejection of the binary viewpoint

[aziraphales-ineffable-bookshop]

I obviously cannot keep my obsessions to myself, so I started talking about Good Omens during book club and one of the other people there goes "Oh, the redhead demon and the white-haired angel I keep seeing everywhere?"

I mean yes but-

[agatharkn3ss]

AAA is retelling the story of Macbeth

Note: Yes, this is a very long post.

I believe Jac Schaeffer is telling us a version of Macbeth. The ballad lyrics use a quote from the play “Fair is foul and foul is fair”. There is also the painting in Agatha’s living room – “Macbeth and the three witches" by Francesco Zuccarelli. The painting clearly meant something to Agatha’s consciousness and it feels like it was meant to be seen, whether foreshadowing or reflecting emotional state (I wrote more about it here). Yet, Jac herself has not mentioned Macbeth in her interviews even once, which is interesting.

A huge question explored (but not answered) in Macbeth has always been about who is in control of our actions. Do we have free will or is already written for us by someone else? Can only one person be held responsible, and if so – is it the doer or the enabler who is to blame?

A quick play summary: Macbeth is a play written by William Shakespeare. It starts with Three witches telling the Scottish general Macbeth three prophecies: that he will be the Thane of Cawdor, that he will become a King of Scotland and that children of Banquo (his friend) will become kings. Shortly after, Macbeth really is appointed the Thane. Encouraged by his wife, Macbeth kills the king and becomes the new king. But he descends into paranoia, worried about the third prophecy, so he kills Banquo too. He seeks the witches out again, looking for reassurance. They show him 3 apparitions, which he interprets in his favour, giving him false sense of security. Civil war erupts to overthrow him and Macbeth is eventually killed.

When you compare the play with what we’ve seen in the show, the parallels become more and more obvious, and I think we can even identify who the characters are meant to be. My interpretation is:

Teen = William Shakespeare, the author

Agatha = Macbeth

Rio, Lady Death = Lady Macbeth (or Lady Macdeath?)

Banquo = Jen (but also Wanda)

The three witches = Alice, Evanora and Lilia (Maiden, Mother, Crone)

Detailed analysis:

Teen = William Shakespeare

The first obvious connection is the shared name and the fact that Vision actually said he wanted to name his son after William Shakespeare quoting “All the world’s a stage. All the men and women are merely players.”

This goes well with the implication that Billy has indeed “written” the Witches Road. I don’t think he is deliberately controlling it though – I believe his intentions are just so strong that the Road reflects everything we see in his room. He set the frame but he is not in charge. In fact, it feels more like the influence comes from William Kaplan rather than Billy Maximoff.

It is worth noting that the Macbeth play is set in a morally ambiguous society that judges others in black and white, while allowing shades of grey for themselves – very reminiscent of Billy’s attitude about witches in ep.5 when he said he is not like them at all – immediately followed by him lashing out. Lilia also reminds him in ep.7 of how much in common he has with this idea of a witch that he so vehemently rejects. I think in the end, when he realises that he is both Billy and William, he will also understand that he is not just a “writer”, but also a “player” of the story.

It is also interesting how there is no sun in the painting – similar to the perpetual night we see on the Road. The painting’s interpretations often suggest that the dark sky represents the theme of death lurking around (fitting that Jen calls Rio a “creepy lurker”). So I do believe that just as we have the symbolism of the Moon, there is also meaning to the Sun and the lack of it. This is why during Billy’s tarot reading, his card for “what’s missing?” is the Sun. At his bar mitzvah William Kaplan is in a white shirt. But when Billy returns home from the hospital, he’s wearing a stripy black and white top – but the white stripes are thin – only glimpses of William. Eventually Teen becomes this goth kid – suggesting that darkness has overtaken him. But in a promo we see him wearing a different top – again with black and white stripes but they are more equal and uniform. I think this symbolises that he realises he is both, Billy and William and it’s no longer murky to him. The Sun and the Moon are in balance. (And to that point – in ep.1 in Nicky’s bedroom we see wallpaper prominently showing both Sun and Moon elements. And the child’s drawing has the Sun at its centre)

Three Witches = Alice, Evanora and Lilia

This one is a more loose interpretation, but I think it ties well with the ongoing theme of “Maiden, Mother, Crone”. In Macbeth, it’s the witches that open the play, portraying them as those mysterious but powerful witches, controlling the events. But throughout the play, the audience realises they might not be as powerful – in fact, it is questioned whether they actually have the power to make things happen, or they merely have the ability to see the future. Eventually, they have less and less presence, and are not even there when the prophecies are fulfilled – suggesting that they were merely an illusion of control.

The fact remains that the witches are literal harbingers of doom – with their symbolism of number three (that is also heavily explored in this show, post here). They did share the prophecies, giving Macbeth the information he didn’t ask for. And later, when he comes for reassurance, they show him 3 more apparitions (well, 4, but he doesn’t take the last one in). The significance here was that the message here was so vague and deceptive that it could have one of two completely opposite meanings – and their interpretation proves crucial to the final outcome. The apparitions were telling Macbeth to be afraid, but instead he read what he wanted to see. He left feeling reassured, secure and justified in his actions. Again, the witches could be represented here as being deceptive, driving Macbeth’s demise. It feels like they had this insider knowledge that should’ve shared with Macbeth that would completely change the context of the message. But they didn’t and it’s a question if they ever even could.

Interestingly, in Act 3, Scene 5, the witches behave very differently to how they were before and it is believed that this is because this particular scene was not actually written by Shakespeare but by the actors themselves – if true, this would be an excellent parallel to episode 5 (and Agatha’s wearing a jersey with no.3). I believe Agatha’s trial was hijacked by Vertigo from Salem Seven. There were many inconsistencies with the previous trials, but I think the biggest tell was that the aspect ratio didn’t change – thus Vertigo taking over Billy’s story.

So, with all this in mind, I think that the show’s Three Witches are not active messengers to Macbeth/Agatha. It’s more about her interpretation of what they each represent in terms of her own destiny. I linked this with the Mother, Maiden, Crone - i.e. the Triple Goddess Hecate because in the play she us actually the “boss” of the Three Witches.  

Let’s start with the obvious – the Mother element is Evanora, Agatha’s own mother who has always prophesised her that she will be evil. Then we have the Maiden. I think it makes sense that this is Alice. Not just because she is the youngest, but also because she serves as a fresh reminder to Agatha that she is actually evil, because she is the one who killed her. However, there is duality in here, because it is also an example that Alice protected Agatha BECAUSE Agatha was worthy of saving. That she didn’t actually think of her as evil, especially when recognising Alice’s own complicated history with her mother. Finally, we have the Crone – this Lilia, always complaining at how Agatha is the embodiment of the evil witch stereotype. And yet, in ep.7 Lilia gives Agatha an advice for her future – akin to a prophecy. Whether Agatha follows it or not, we don’t know yet, but it’s important to show that Lilia chose to help Agatha in the end, showing her she accepted her.

Banquo = Jen (also Wanda)

In Macbeth, the character of Banquo is Macbeth’s friend as is meant to serve as his foil – i.e. a person or thing that contrasts with and so emphasizes and enhances the qualities of another. Banquo has a lot of parallels with Macbeth and he is also present for the prophecies. Yet, he reacts differently to them as ultimately he is not interested in power.

So I think in the show, the foil is Jen – she is shown to be just as snarky and selfish as Agatha. She is also an exceptional witch that is at least a century old. But in the past she used her powers for the good before she became bound. She said she tried everything possible to unbind, but it seems she eventually accepted her fate, though she is still very much angry about it. Her business is false and people are harmed as a result, yet she knowingly continues that path.

This is parallel to Agatha, as we can predict that the myth of the witches road is her own fraud business, perpetuating it so she can steal power from the “undeserving” witches, not caring she causes harm. She probably could’ve ended up similarly to Jen or worse, had it not been for Billy pushing them both down the Witches Road.

It is interesting that they both seemingly passed their trials and yet neither of them recovered their powers. They both believe someone else is responsible for this (and to be fair, I think in Agatha’s case she is right – Vertigo stole her trial). There are many more similarities we can notice, but I wonder what this means for the future. I wonder if there will be confrontation between the two of them. I think Jen will be able to resolve her inner conflict and exit the Road, and she will become the literal High Priestess (i.e. head of her own coven) – similar to Banquo’s character, whose children became the kings, not Macbeth.

An honourable mention to another foil couple from the past – Wanda.

Both Agatha and Wanda were powerful witches, misunderstood by the society (“there will always be torches and pitchforks for ladies like us”). Both lost their children, but dealt with them differently. Both are told they were destined to be bad – Evanora calls Agatha evil and Wanda is prophesised as the Scarlet Witch who will destroy the world. It is interesting to debate who’s Macbeth and who’s Banquo in this pairing – while Agatha didn’t seem to be entirely under Darkhold influence, it was Wanda who eventually claimed Agatha’s power and the Darkhold, then become corrupted before her ultimate demise (and redemption).

Lady Macbeth = Lady Death

Lady Macbeth is the figure that often gets the full blame for Macbeth’s crimes – people even going as far as absolving Macbeth from any fault (which I think in itself is a demonstration of internalised misogyny but hey ho). She is also seen practicing witchcraft, which served as another suggestion that she was the baddie in control.

She has this line that could be a nod to Rio’s dagger - “that my keen knife see not the wound it makes”. Perhaps a reflection that Rio doesn’t want to see the pain that her actions as Death bring, that’s why she’s heavily dissociating with her powers, calling them “her job”.

When Macbeth is torn by the prophecies, he eventually decides that he will not kill the king. That very second, Lady Macbeth enters and very quickly manages to change his resolve. Later on, whenever he wavered, she was the one who would take over control. She was the ultimate enabler to his crimes, even getting the servants drunk, unlocking the King’s door, preparing the daggers etc.

She is seen as powerful but also completely loyal to Macbeth. She is devoted to the point that when she pleads with the spirits for his success, she offers them her own femininity (“unsex me”) in return, i.e. the one thing that makes her her. She doesn’t seek the power directly for herself  (though she would have it through his actions), immediately accepted Macbeth’s prophecy, understood that’s what he desired and supported him throughout. I think this probably reflects Agatha and Rio’s relationship really well. In ep.4 it is Rio who is impatient to “do some damage”.

However, despite his early signs of deep affection, as Macbeth descends into his downward spiral, he is less and less bothered by his wife. Eventually, he is the one to continue all the killings, and Lady Macbeth fades into a background. To the point where she eventually commits suicide from all the shame, yet Macbeth barely notices it. Perhaps that disconnection happened for Agatha and Rio too. Agatha was lost to Rio when she hid behind the dark magic and it was painful to her, after all these centuries.

Agatha = Macbeth

Finally, Agatha, just like in the show, represents the titular character. Even when committing murders, Hecate describes Macbeth as “a wayward son, spiteful and wrathful, who, as others do, loves for his own ends, not for you”, which I think really represents what the creators are showing us here. The setting of the play is in a world where your rights don’t matter – but instead it is the strongest that holds the power.  

Macbeth’s demise doesn’t so much come from knowing the prophecies (because Banquo heard the same), but from his fatal flaw of ambition. He read the prophecies and apparitions how he wanted them to read. They were his imaginary permission to do the killings to reach the goal. After initial doubts, he convinced himself it was the right thing to do, he became “wicked” and drove to his self-destruction.

(side note: there is also this ambiguity in the play, where there is mention of Macebth’s child, yet people think him childless, suggesting there is a story of child loss behind it – link with Nicholas Scratch?)

As explained above, the Three Witches serve as Agatha’s ingrained belief about her role. She is surrounded by number three, showing her as the harbinger of doom. She might not think this is who she is, but it is still the role she chose to play, and eventually it became self-fulfilling. Her fatal flaw is her addiction to power and she believes in that “might, not right” world. So she has this wall around her and pursues that quest for power, because what else is there left? She is unapologetic about this, but we also start seeing the layers coming off.

I think the story in the show will ultimately come down to whether Agatha understands that she is the one standing in her own way and that she is not above the rules. That no matter the circumstances and the reputation and people enabling her, she is the one ultimately responsible for her own actions.

I think she will drive herself to self-destruction and will be willing to die to gain back her powers. I think she will be left on the Road so it is “Agatha all Alone”. However, there must be some growth from her Witches Road journey, so I think in her process, she will have some meaningful resolutions with others and actually help them escape the Road. And maybe this time she will even follow the rules.

I think this will make a mark on the others so that they will actually try to bring her back somehow. She might feel alone, but the power of the coven will be the one to save her.

EDIT: Just wanted to add, yes, there is also the character of Macduff. He is meant to be this incorruptible, noble character, serving as a complete opposite to Macbeth. He is always very clear on abiding by what's right and wrong, but after Macbeth kills his family, he swears revenge. To the point that he ultimately sacrifices his own morality to restore order to the country by killing Macbeth, thus committing regicide (an act he despised Macbeth for).

While it does sound like it could point to Billy, I just don't think it fits. While Billy certainly saw himself as this "good" character, we see in the later episodes that he does actually have some darkness in him - to the point where is very happy to be Maleficent. He is more similar to Agatha than he thinks. He doesn't mind breaking the rules when it suits him ("stealing" William's body, breaking into Agatha's house, drowning Jen and Lilia) and his internal struggle seems more around finding his own identity rather than revenging a family he hardly remembers (and it isn't really Agatha's fault that they were gone). And if he truly wanted revenge, all he had to do was leave Agatha in her Agnes spell forever.

I do wonder though, if maybe to some extent we are getting William Kaplan as Shakespeare and Billy Maximoff as Macduff?

In the show there is also this ongoing theme where each of the witches are self-sabotaging and are actually their own enemies when it comes to getting "what's missing".

But if I had to choose anyone for Macduff, I think it would be Vertigo - revenging both the Salem mothers and her Salem Seven coven and seeing Agatha as the threat to the witches world, especially because she experienced it first hand. I have a theory that Salem Seven were originally Agatha's own coven that she formed after she killed their mothers, but through her cowardice, she betrayed them and left them on their own Witches Road. After that, Agatha kept conning other "undeserving" witches pretending she'd take them to the Road, while the Salem Seven became trapped and have gone "feral", thus losing their morality.

[the-trickster-of-hearts]

Kasumi’s Design and How it Compares to Joker

In honor of Persona 5: The Royal coming out in 1 day, I decided to dedicate my first post to this topic since I’ve seen people talk about it. I also wanted to share my speculation about her design along with how and why her design is possibly connected with the protagonist/Joker by using given information about the game and the designs themselves. I’ve been working on this for a while and it might kind of messy since this is the first time I made a post of this nature (plus, I want to post it before the game’s Japanese official release).

Before I discuss about Kasumi’s design and its connection to the protagonist/Joker, it’s best to look at the reason why she was created in the first place. Weekly Famitsu magazine #1588 had an interview with producer Kazuhisa Wada, director Daiki Ito, and character designer Shigenori Soejima about P5R. When Ito talked about Kasumi, he mentioned the following:

“Kasumi Yoshizawa is a new student at Shujin Academy, who has been a high achiever in rhythmic gymnastics since middle school. Since she goes to the same school as the protagonist and his friends, there’ll naturally be many points of contact between them. Introducing a new character adds a new perspective and meaning to the story, while also letting [the team] dig deeper into the characters we already know and love. Kasumi was created after much discussion about what kind of character would allow us to realize that”.

Kasumi was always meant to represent another perspective towards the story and themes of the game. Also going by this, she was most likely never meant to be a FeMC in the way people were expecting when the second P5R teaser was dropped. With that out of the way, let’s talk about her design and how it possibly relates to the protagonist’s design (for the sake of this post, he’ll be referred to as the protagonist when talking about his civilian self and Joker as his Phantom Thief self). 

In the November 2019 issue of Game Informer magazine that was released digitally on the 1st, there was an interview with Soejima and he states the following about Kasumi’s design and how he came up with it:

“With Kasumi, [he] really wanted to create just a straight-forward heroine type of character. This might be a little bit different in the West, but in Japan, the manga [he] grew up reading, the main [female] characters always had a ponytail, and their club activity was gymnastics. [He] really wanted to just shoot for that female protagonist archetype. Maybe in the States or in the West, it’d be [comparable to] a cheerleader type of girl. With most of the characters in Persona 5, we really design them to have kind of a twist, kind of make them unique and different from what the standard character archetypes might be like, but with Kasumi, we wanted to just go straight for that heroine type of girl”.

Based on this, the reason why Kasumi wears the standard Shujin uniform is because she embodies the classic heroine. Soejima even points that while most of the main cast have a twist to their designs and how it relates to their archetypes (remember that the rest of Phantom Thieves, including Akechi, are meant to be deconstructions of their given archetype), he decided to be straightforward for Kasumi’s design and how she’s supposed to reflect her given archetype. The only other character to not have a twist on their design is the protagonist. Actually, that’s not completely true. The protagonist and Kasumi actually have a twist in their design (this isn’t counting the protagonist’s glasses or Kasumi’s ribbon as they don’t take away from the uniform). Compare the concept art for the protagonist to the concept art for the Shujin uniforms. 

It’s hard to tell here, but the protagonist doesn’t wear the standardized shoes. Instead, he switches them out for some dress boots. Now let’s compare the protagonist and Kasumi.

Like the protagonist, Kasumi switches out the standardized shoes (in her case, she trades them out for some red loafers). This may not seem like much, but it’s rather strange that the one thing they change to their uniforms is the shoes. If anything, it seems like an intentional design choice to make them more similar. 

Now that I talked about her winter uniform, I can move onto her Phantom Thief attire and its relation to Joker’s outfit. 

Back to Weekly Famitsu magazine #1588, Soejima says the following when discussing about her Phantom Thief design: 

“Kasumi doesn’t form a pair with the protagonist, but since [Soejima] was drawing her as an icon of P5R, [he] designed her phantom thief appearance to feel like it goes alongside the protagonist’s. The idea of ‘phantom thieves’ in itself has manga-like elements, right? Like with the protagonist, [he] wanted this new character to have that ‘coolness’ that everyone normally expects from a phantom thief. A female phantom thief that has a different stance from the protagonist… What kind of character is she? [He hopes] you’ll be excited to find out.”

When he mentions that she doesn’t form a pair with Joker, I’m assuming that he means that the two aren’t completely direct counterparts or mirror images like how P3MC and FeMC are. While their outfits do have differences (that are better seen in the new prologue), their outfits parallel each other and have the same color scheme (more on that later). Soejima confirms that Kasumi’s Phantom Thief design resembles Joker’s design is because he intentionally made her design to feel like it goes along with him. 

Despite the almost uncanny resemblance of their Phantom Thief outfits, I get the impression that the overall intention of the designs are different. I believe the reason why their designs are so similar but different is because they’re supposed to reflect two different versions of the hero and heroine archetype that reflects their ideologies. At this point, I might sound like I’m crazy, but let’s quickly go over their designs and compare them. 

Joker wears a black and white domino mask. Kasumi also wears a mask, but her mask is black and white/silver. Joker only has small gold buttons on his waistcoat, the rest of the buttons are silver as seen on his in-game model (they are sometimes depicted as black or gold depending on the artist). Kasumi, on the other hand, has large gold buttons on her coat and smaller gold buttons on her thigh-length hose. Kasumi also has a silver chain belt with roses on it (basically, Joker and Kasumi have their placement of the silver and gold reversed). He has a white handkerchief in the pocket of his jacket while she wears a black choker. Joker wears brown winklepickers, but Kasumi wears black stiletto-heels, which resemble ballet shoes. Lastly, he wields a knife as his melee weapon while she wields an estoc. Joker’s attire can be described as classy but able to blend in the shadows. His design the embodiment of the gentleman thief, a classical type of anti-hero. Meanwhile, Kasumi’s design is very graceful and more traditionally heroic compared to Joker’s gentleman thief-esque design. Soejima points out how the Phantom Thief concept has manga-like elements (which the characters also bring up in PQ2). Combine this with Kasumi’s transformation sequence in PV #02, Kasumi’s Phantom Thief design seems to have taken some inspiration from magical girls. Despite the numbers of differences, their designs still complement each other because of the shared color schemes, red gloves, and number of coattails. Basically, their designs are different yet still go along with each other (kind of like yin and yang in a sense).

In both their Shujin uniforms and their Phantom Thief attire, they share a black-red color scheme (which are also the main colors of Persona 5). An interesting thing to note is that the two have more of a certain color in their designs.The protagonist has a bigger emphasis on black as his hair, rim of the glasses, and dress boots are black. His eyes are technically gray, but they’re a much darker shade compared to P3MC or Yu Narukami. Meanwhile, Kasumi has a bigger emphasis on red as her hair, eyes, and shoes are red. It’s possible that the reason for the protagonist greater emphasis on black relates to how he’s the leader of the Phantom Thieves of Hearts, who steal the distorted desires of individuals by morally grey means and sneak around Palaces within the shadows. In this school life, the protagonist keeps his head down and doesn’t really stand out from the crowd. Meanwhile, Kasumi rejects the Phantom Thieves because she believes that their methods don’t actually help anyone and that people should solve their own problems (this seems to stem from her own issues based on translations of her character introduction, PV #02, and PV #03). Despite this, she later joins them for her own reasons. Her appearance also helps her stand out.

This last part before moving on is speculation, but I’m going with the idea that there’s an in-universe for why her Phantom Thief outfit is similar to Joker’s. I’m kind of going on a tangent here, but it will connect back to Kasumi’s design. It’s known that Kasumi dislikes the Phantom Thieves, yet she’s seen helping Joker fight off a group of shadows while at the Casino Palace (at this point, she doesn’t consider herself a Phantom Thief but has awakened to her Persona) in the updated prologue and telling him that she isn’t going to stop him when she brings up that he still has something to do as a Phantom Thief. In PV #01, there’s a new animated cutscene involving the protagonist, Morgana, and Kasumi (note that both the protagonist and Kasumi are wearing their regular winter uniforms, not the ones for the third semester). 

PV #02 elaborates on this by showing new shots of it, and reveals that the new Palace is feature in that cutscene. 

In Kasumi’s introduction trailer, we see Joker and Morgana watching Kasumi awakening to her Persona in what appears to be in the new Palace. There’s also a gameplay section where the trio are seen fighting together, just them. 

Based on all of this info, I can conclude that the protagonist, Morgana, and Kasumi first enter the palace some time in between Spaceport of Greed arc and Casino of Envy arc (possibly even during one of those arcs or even before). Not only that, but the animated cutscene leads to the trio exploring the new palace for the first time and Kasumi awakening her Persona. After this point, Joker and Kasumi would meet again at Sae’s Palace when she has already awakened to her Persona. Based on all of the evidence presented, her in-universe reason for her Phantom Thief design looking like Joker is because her view of rebellion is him. Again, this is only speculation. It can only be confirmed when the game released on the 31st of this month in Japan. 

Lastly, I want to talk about the designs of their Personas briefly and how they compare/contrast. 

Arsene of the Fool Arcana and Cendrillon of the Faith Arcana are the only P5 Personas to not have golden eyes in any shape or form (as of now anyway). Instead, Arsene has red eyes while Cendrillon has blue. Their legs have a similar shape and they’re both seen to use physical skills by using their heels. Arsene’s horns and Cendrillon’s bow both point forwards. Arsene has a mask-like face that has been described to be glass-like while Cendrillon’s legs and chest are composed from glass. Both of them feature feathers in their design (Arsene has wings while Cendrillon’s cape and bow have a feathery appearance). Both of them have hearts patterns somewhere on their designs (Arsene has heart patterns on his shoulders while golden decor holding up Cendrillon’s cape resembles hearts). Another thing they have in common is that Arsene and Cendrillon both have French origins (Arsene Lupin is the creation of French novelist Maurice Leblanc while Cendrillon is based off of French author Charles Perrault’s interpretation of the Cinderella story). As for how they’re different, the first thing to mention is the color schemes. While both have black, white, and gold, Arsene has red, but Cendrillon has blue instead. Arsene has black wings while Cendrillon has a white feathery cape. Arsene has black claws resembling talons of a bird while Cendrillon has blue nails. Arsene has an overall demonic appearance while Cendrillon has a somewhat angelic appearance. Lastly, Arsene uses Curse skills while Cendrillon uses Bless skills. 

In conclusion, Kasumi’s design is intentionally meant to resemble the protagonist’s design to go alongside him and highlight their difference stances. They represent the hero and heroine archetypes on different scales, with the protagonist representing the anti-hero and Kasumi representing the traditional heroine. The in-universe reason for their similar Phantom Thief designs possibly has to do with how Kasumi’s view of rebellion is Joker mixed with gymnastics. Or maybe I’m looking too much into Kasumi’s design and how that design compares to the protagonist/Joker. 

[battlekidx2]

The Dragon Prince Rewatch Thoughts and Ideas About the Future

Since season 3 is right around the corner I have decided to rewatch the first 2 seasons of the dragon prince. And the show was better upon a rewatch than I remember it being. Knowing certain things that are going to happen changes how you read scenes near the beginning and allows you to notice the seeds for future events or character choices. There is a scene in the second episode, before we are told of Rayla’s fear and dislike of water, where she is determined to set her mistakes right and she gets to a river and hesitates, gathers her berrings, and then crosses. This scene is only a couple of seconds long, if that, but you can tell that she is wary of water even before you’re told. There are plenty more moments like this and it astounded me while I was watching. 

The pacing also feels better while rewatching. When I first saw the dragon prince I remember thinking the pacing felt off. In some moments it was really fast while others it was really slow. I’m typically not that affected by pacing, but there were certain moments that I felt needed more time to develop that were rushed through and some that were given too much time that weren’t that important to the story. I still think that some moments were rushed, but the slower moments fit a lot better now. For example when I first watched season 1 I was genuinely surprised that it ended at episode 9. It didn’t feel like a finale at the time, but going immediately into season 2 felt a lot more organic.

Now to get into talking about my thoughts on the show as a whole. And my predictions for the future.

Characters:

Rayla- Rayla is my personal favorite character. Our introduction to her manages to showcase the characteristics of her that will become the driving force of the story, her compassion which clashes with her mission and immense skill. It only takes a single scene to set up her most important characteristics to the story. It was interesting to learn how her culture affects the way she sees herself and the people around her. And how it lead to her negatively viewing herself because compassion and fear are frowned upon. She also didn’t just get over her bias against humans. Her view changes gradually and her decision to travel with the princes didn’t come from her being more enlightened than other elves, but from her unique set of circumstances with her past and inner conflict. The writing of Rayla managed to impress me yet again while watching the show. I couldn’t believe that they managed to create a character that was able to organically kick start the plot without neglecting the societal biases that would affect her character. I believe Rayla is a really well written character that has a lot of potential to grow. We will probably get to explore a lot of it in season 3. I hope to get her backstory and a greater expansion of Moonshadow elf culture now that her and Callum are in Xadia.

Callum- Callum really becomes a great character in season 2. Season 1 felt like it was setup for his character and season 2 was the season where he actually got to shine. His insecurities and disposition made for an interesting, yet predictable, starting point that was enhanced by how well it juxtaposed with Rayla’s insecurities and personality. They used it to create an interesting dynamic between the two. This insecurity lead to him gaining an intense focus on magic, because it was the first thing he felt he excelled at, until he finally learns how to perform it without a primal stone or resorting to dark magic. This also lead to a juxtaposition between him and Claudia, which I have no doubt will be explored more in depth later. Claudia is falling farther and farther down the hole that is dark magic and becoming over reliant on its “quick fix” nature, while Callum is taking the long path to learning primal magic which seems to be a safer, longer term fix than dark magic. Callum is a character I find the most interesting when he is mirroring other characters. He manages to put the journeys of others into a different perspective.

Claudia and Soren- These are the characters, other than Rayla, that I think will benefit the most from season 3. There is a lot of setup with their relationship between their father, the princes, and each other. They seem to be set up to take different paths within the third season to either follow their father or find some sort of redemption. Soren is the one with the most interesting relationship to their father in that, while Claudia ultimately seems to care more for her brother’s well being than their father’s opinion of her as shown with her decision to save Soren not the “egg” during her moment of truth, Soren wants so badly to make their father proud that when he’s paralyzed he’s happy because now he can’t do the bad things he felt he had to do to make his father proud. This moment changed the way I saw his character. He no longer seemed mean spirited or “evil”. And it lead to me believing that he could be heading toward a path of redemption where he eventually breaks free of his father’s influence. Claudia on the other hand has relied more and more on dark magic to where she will find herself at a crossroads where she will acknowledge the negative aspects of dark magic and choose either to continue down the rabbit hole or reject it. I want to believe that Claudia will make the decision to reject dark magic, but I have the feeling that Claudia and Soren will find themselves on separate paths where Soren will reject their father and try to save Claudia from herself and Claudia will continue down her path of dark magic and by association down the path of her father’s acceptance, at least initially. She is characterized as someone who cares a lot about the people close to her and she will do anything for them, so I think in the end she will make the right choice unless something drastic happens.

Ezran- The final member of our trio. He’s the character who’s future I’m the least sure of/have the least ideas of where it can go. He’s finally grown enough to stop running from his problems like he did so many times before, but he hasn’t shown an affinity for leading, mostly due to his young age, which leads me to believe he won’t hold the throne for very long in season 3. Ezran running from his problems and him liking hide and seek become sort of intertwined. In the first episode Ezran plays hide and seek with Bait and later runs away to hide in the secret tunnels in the castle when Callum harshly told him the truth about the moonshadow assassins. Later in season 2 he plays hide and seek with Bait and Zym while Callum and Rayla are defending the dragon, which he realizes was a bad idea when he can’t find Zym. He later “runs” away after learning the truth about his father’s death, but actually goes to talk with Claudia to go back and take the throne. The realization that hide and seek was a bad idea can be paralleled with his realization that he can’t run and hide from his responsibilities like he tried to before. Him actually playing hide and seek with someone other than Bait, who is easily found, made him realize that “hiding” actually created more problems, possibly losing Zym, than it solved, combating boredom. This was an interesting parallel I found on my second rewatch that once again hints at what is going to happen before it actually happens.

Story:

The dragon prince is a show that finds its basis in darker themes such as the cycles of war and vengeance, societal bigotry, that neither side is entirely just in war, etc. These are all heavy themes that the dragon prince handles surprisingly well. The pilot episode alone shows all of these things directly and doesn’t shy away. It ends with King Harrow and all the elven assassins but Runnan dead with Rayla, Callum, and Ezran on the run in hopes that while they have lost today they may be able to stop future all out war if they manage to accomplish a near insurmountable task with everyone seemingly against them. There isn’t a victory, just a quiet desperation that they must succeed later. This is very different from most animated shows aimed at the same demographic. This starts out dark and then gets lighter then slowly becomes even darker than before. Shows I’ve seen this compared to like Avatar: the Last Airbender, the Legend of Korra, etc all had much lighter pilot episodes before delving into much darker territory. This sets the bar right out of the gate. The story does a much better job than a lot of cartoons I’ve seen at dealing with the messiness of war. Both the humans and elves have done bad things in the name of “justice” and the show acknowledges this instead of naming a side that is “right”. This is rare in shows that thrive off of good vs evil. With the dragon prince no one seems truly evil. Even with Viren, who is the closest to a big bad this show has, is steeped in shades of grey. This is the major thing that sets the dragon prince apart from its contemporaries. The basic premise of the story is pretty straightforward and something that has been done before, but the way it does it is unique.

 It’s a bit hard to put into words all the things I think about the dragon prince, but this is my best stab at it. It looks like the dragon prince will continue to raise the stakes with this upcoming season and become darker and more morally nuanced with the upcoming season. I’m really excited for season 3 to release and hope it manages to continue the great things that it has done with its previous two seasons

[liesandarbor]

Mercy in Sandor, Sansa and Arya’s Arcs

Thinking a lot on Mercy and what it means for Sandor, Sansa, Arya, and especially with regards to Sandor and his Brother.  Jump under the cut:��

What Dogs do to Wolves

Both Stark girls embark upon their true character journeys once we reach the end of AGOT.  Fatherless, and void of the teachings they both so desperately need; a reality check on either end of the spectrum, if you will.  Where Ned Stark left his daughters in parenting - Sansa, politically soft and unable to see through lies, Arya, unable to distinguish that things aren’t always black, white, good and bad.  Sandor Clegane arrives in both of their plots as a pseudo-fraternal figure, teaching them hard lessons, and protecting them in his own gruff way.  

"What … what does he want? Please, tell me." "He wants you to smile and smell sweet and be his lady love," the Hound rasped. "He wants to hear you recite all your pretty little words the way the septa taught you. He wants you to love him … and fear him."

-Sansa VI, AGOT

The jerk-with-a-heart-of-gold trope rears its Stranger-resembling head, often smashing Sansa’s “true knight” fantasies throughout AGOT and ACOK, preparing her for the real world she lives in where white knights hit twelve-year old girls with fully mailed gloves on.  Offering her a handkerchief and a sad pat on the back, Sandor sees in Sansa what he once used to know, before his face was offered to the fire - and to Gregor’s errant and growing ego and power trip.

 "True knights protect the weak."

He snorted. "There are no true knights, no more than there are gods. If you can't protect yourself, die and get out of the way of those who can. Sharp steel and strong arms rule this world, don't ever believe any different." -Sansa IV, ACOK

 Exploring Arya’s naivety as the series progresses is just as interesting to watch.  While Sandor tells Arya that he thought her sister was the one with the romanticized songs in her head, Arya tends to lean to the other side of the naivety scale.  

 He is a man of the Night's Watch, she thought, as he sang about some stupid lady throwing herself off some stupid tower because her stupid prince was dead. The lady should go kill the ones who killed her prince. And the singer should be on the Wall.

-Cat of the Canals, AFFC

 Where Sansa is a dreamer in AGOT in the romantic sense, Arya tends to refuse to believe that anything could be more complicated than black and white, rejecting the idea that maybe things in life are more complicated than constantly “doing the right thing”.  Sandor brings Arya’s ASOS plot depth and introduces the idea to her that being a good person isn’t always easy, and sometimes, the best you can do is to survive.

 There was a stink to him too. He smells like a corpse. The man begged them for a drink of wine. "If I'd had any wine, I'd have drunk it myself," the Hound told him. "I can give you water, and the gift of mercy." The archer looked at him a long while before he said, "You're Joffrey's dog." "My own dog now. Do you want the water?" "Aye." The man swallowed. "And the mercy. Please."

and

When she came back, the archer turned his face up and she poured the water into his mouth. He gulped it down as fast as she could pour, and what he couldn't gulp ran down his cheeks into the brown blood that crusted his whiskers, until pale pink tears dangled from his beard. When the water was gone he clutched the helm and licked the steel. "Good," he said. "I wish it was wine, though. I wanted wine."

"Me too." The Hound eased his dagger into the man's chest almost tenderly, the weight of his body driving the point through his surcoat, ringmail, and the quilting beneath. As he slid the blade back out and wiped it on the dead man, he looked at Arya. "That's where the heart is, girl. That's how you kill a man." -Arya XII, ASOS

Sandor teaches Arya how to kill, and he teaches her that there are different types of killing - that life, much like the stories we are currently reading, is writ in shades of grey, not always black and white.

“Gentle Mother, Font of Mercy”

The rasping voice trailed off. He squatted silently before her, a hulking black shape shrouded in the night, hidden from her eyes. Sansa could hear his ragged breathing. She was sad for him, she realized. Somehow, the fear had gone away. The silence went on and on, so long that she began to grow afraid once more, but she was afraid for him now, not for herself. She found his massive shoulder with her hand. "He was no true knight," she whispered to him. The Hound threw back his head and roared. Sansa stumbled back, away from him, but he caught her arm. "No," he growled at her, "no, little bird, he was no true knight." -Sansa II, AGOT

Keeping Sansa and Sandor’s relationship mildly platonic for the sake of this post, we break down the idea that Sansa Stark, a thin, young wolf-girl, brought a grown, emotionally torn, hulking man to his knees by singing him a song.  And not just any song.  A song of mercy.  

"I could keep you safe," he rasped. "They're all afraid of me. No one would hurt you again, or I'd kill them." He yanked her closer, and for a moment she thought he meant to kiss her. He was too strong to fight. She closed her eyes, wanting it to be over, but nothing happened. "Still can't bear to look, can you?" she heard him say. He gave her arm a hard wrench, pulling her around and shoving her down onto the bed. "I'll have that song. Florian and Jonquil, you said." His dagger was out, poised at her throat. "Sing, little bird. Sing for your little life."

Her throat was dry and tight with fear, and every song she had ever known had fled from her mind. Please don't kill me, she wanted to scream, please don't. She could feel him twisting the point, pushing it into her throat, and she almost closed her eyes again, but then she remembered. It was not the song of Florian and Jonquil, but it was a song. Her voice sounded small and thin and tremulous in her ears.

Gentle Mother, font of mercy, Save our sons from war, we pray, Stay the swords and stay the arrows,

Teach us all a better way.

-Sansa VII, ACOK

 While Sandor steps in to parent Sansa and Arya in some of life’s harsher lessons, the two Stark girls surprisingly teach Sandor a few lessons of their own.  Sansa, showing him empathy, that while there is anger and war and killing, there are still beautiful things, and still ways to be kind.  She sings to him of mercy, of finding a better way.  You can always come back.

 "You remember where the heart is?" the Hound asked. She nodded. The squire rolled his eyes. "Mercy." Needle slipped between his ribs and gave it to him.

-Arya XIII, ASOS

 Where the mercy that Sandor taught Arya was a physical mercy, a kill, showing her that sometimes death is better than life for those that are in anguish (and not the last time we will see that represented in either of the character’s arcs), it is the first mercy to open Arya’s eyes to seeing the world around her.  War strewn, the ground littered with porridge-textured dead people, maggots every inch of the way; Jon introduced “Stick em with the pointy end”, but Sandor introduced “why”.

 "And the little bird, your pretty sister, I stood there in my white cloak and let them beat her. I took the bloody song, she never gave it. I meant to take her too. I should have. I should have fucked her bloody and ripped her heart out before leaving her for that dwarf." A spasm of pain twisted his face. "Do you mean to make me beg, bitch? Do it! The gift of mercy . . . avenge your little Michael . . ." "Mycah." Arya stepped away from him. "You don't deserve the gift of mercy." The Hound watched her saddle Craven through eyes bright with fever. Not once did he attempt to rise and stop her. But when she mounted, he said, "A real wolf would finish a wounded animal."

-Arya XIII, ASOS

Arya’s moral code changes from this point forward.  It takes entering a literal House of Black and White, for Arya to start the journey of coming to terms with morality not being a simple yes and no answer.   While she hasn’t quite perfected the lesson (as we know Dareon’s fate and the fates of several to come), she is very much so ‘in progress’ on the topic, much like Sansa is currently on the road to becoming politically savvy.

 Give up on this quest of yours. The Hound is dead.

"You sound as if you pity him," said Brienne.

"I did. You would have pitied him as well, if you had seen him at the end. I came upon him by the Trident, drawn by his cries of pain. He begged me for the gift of mercy, but I am sworn not to kill again. Instead, I bathed his fevered brow with river water, and gave him wine to drink and a poultice for his wound, but my efforts were too little and too late. The Hound died there, in my arms. You may have seen a big black stallion in our stables. That was his warhorse, Stranger. A blasphemous name. We prefer to call him Driftwood, as he was found beside the river. I fear he has his former master's nature."

The horse. She had seen the stallion, had heard it kicking, but she had not understood. Destriers were trained to kick and bite. In war they were a weapon, like the men who rode them. Like the Hound. "It is true, then," she said dully. "Sandor Clegane is dead."

-Brienne VI, AFFC

Sandor’s arc embodies major ASOIAF themes: Mercy, reclaiming identity, and resurrection.  In moving Sandor off the page and into the quiet isles, it gives George time to develop Sandor’s characterization in a believable manner, while not wasting too much page time.  In exposition that offers Brienne’s plot progression, we are also told where Sandor has gone and what he is doing there.  

She sang for mercy, for the living and the dead alike, for Bran and Rickon and Robb, for her sister Arya and her bastard brother Jon Snow, away off on the Wall. She sang for her mother and her father, for her grandfather Lord Hoster and her uncle Edmure Tully, for her friend Jeyne Poole, for old drunken King Robert, for Septa Mordane and Ser Dontos and Jory Cassel and Maester Luwin, for all the brave knights and soldiers who would die today, and for the children and the wives who would mourn them, and finally, toward the end, she even sang for Tyrion the Imp and for the Hound. He is no true knight but he saved me all the same, she told the Mother. Save him if you can, and gentle the rage inside him.

-Sansa V, ACOK

 When Sansa prayed for Sandor, her prayer was answered- Sandor was quite literally given a place to die, to reclaim his identity in resurrection, and a place to heal.

 "My lord is wise," Thoros told the others. "Brothers, a trial by battle is a holy thing. You heard me ask R'hllor to take a hand, and you saw his fiery finger snap Lord Beric's sword, just as he was about to make an end of it. The Lord of Light is not yet done with Joffrey's Hound, it would seem."

-Arya VII, ASOS

We are told quite literally by Thoros: The Lord of Light isn’t done with Sandor, yet.  Sandor is given to the Quiet Isle, in preparation for his role in the wars to come, whatever that may be.

 Frankenstein’s Monster: Putting the Dog to Sleep

I desired that I might pass my life on that barren rock, wearily, it is true, but uninterrupted by any sudden shock of misery. If I returned, it was to be sacrificed or to see those whom I most loved die under the grasp of a daemon whom I had myself created. (20.18, Frankenstein)

I planned on exploring Frankenstein and his Monster in regards to Sandor killing the creator who made him this way, but the parallels of Qyburn creating Ser Robert Strong ring just as true.  Where Sandor Clegane is given a chance at resurrection, at a second life, at changing his ways, Gregor Clegane shows us that sometimes, in such villainy, sometimes there is no coming back.  While Gregor has done terrible, awful things, he is reduced into a piteous shell of a being, a monster, with no physical chance at coming back and embracing humanity.  

His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips. (5.2, Frankenstein)

Who could pity the monster that Gregor Clegane has become? Even before the necromancy, the countless rapes, murders, tortures, all because he could.  No one stopped him.  He awoke one day, big enough to shove his brother’s face into a brazier, and no one stopped him.  His father covered it up for him.  He wanted, and he took. The mysterious Clegane sister, dead, the father, dead. And no one stopped him. Sandor, a young man, leaving home to find some place to belong and survive, before he was next.  Gregor’s rise to power is best put by Sandor: no one could withstand him.  So, once more, who could pity the monster he has become?

While Cleganebowlers everywhere cheer and chant and don their yellow “GO DOGS!” foam fingers, we are brought to an important point.

The Hound can not kill The Mountain, because the Hound and the Mountain are dead.

Instead of Cleganebowl, let me just offer you the following: clegane-soul.

Alright. That was a joke.  Stay with me.

Sandor can’t beat his brother, because there’s no beating a sad, pathetic, hollow zombie.  This isn’t the Hound and the Mountain.  No one is as accursed as the kinslayer, and it should never be easy to kill a family member.  Where killing Gregor would’ve been the Hound’s dream about a year ago, the Hound turned up dead.  Sandor will be giving his brother the gift of mercy, taught to him by the two little girls that snuck beneath his skin.  

 “Mercy, mercy, mercy,” she sang sadly.

 As she dragged it up the muddy bank, one of her little brothers came prowling, his tongue lolling from his mouth. She had to snarl to drive him off, or else he would have fed. Only then did she stop to shake the water from her fur. The white thing lay facedown in the mud, her dead flesh wrinkled and pale, cold blood trickling from her throat. Rise, she thought. Rise and eat and run with us.

-Arya XII, ASOS

 “Mercy, mercy, mercy.”  Both Stark girls sing their songs of mercy.  Arya has dedicated so much time now in the Literal Morality House of Black and White, preparing and washing dead bodies, skinchanging and dreaming of wolves, that her plot is sure to lead her back to Westeros.  And in her dreams, we know she’s been in the Riverlands.  

 Maybe some real wolves will find you, Arya thought. Maybe they'll smell you when the sun goes down. Then he would learn what wolves did to dogs. "You shouldn't have hit me with an axe," she said. "You should have saved my mother." She turned her horse and rode away from him, and never looked back once.

-Arya XIII, ASOS

Arya’s black/white morality problem hasn’t come quite to its head yet.  But it will.  Because, as the audience knows, saving Arya’s mother wouldn’t have happened - it just isn’t that easy, wolf girl.  And Arya herself will have to learn that when she comes back to Westeros, when she makes it to the Riverlands, and when she comes face to face with Mother Merciless herself.  While she dragged her out of the stream and life was given to her, Arya will be the one to put the fish back in the water.  Mercy, mercy, mercy - a real wolf would finish a wounded animal.

The Mockingbird

"Thank you, Your Grace," she murmured. The Hound was right, she thought, I am only a little bird, repeating the words they taught me. The sun had fallen below the western wall, and the stones of the Red Keep glowed dark as blood.

-Sansa VI, AGOT

 "You have a good heart, my lady," she said to Sansa. "Not every maid would weep so for a man who set her aside and wed her to a dwarf." A good heart. I have a good heart. Hysterical laughter rose up her gullet, but Sansa choked it back down.

-Sansa V, ASOS

Where Arya has spent time learning to give and show mercy, we spend books with Sansa where she has given quite a bit too much of it.  Where Arya wields a sword, Sansa wields her courtesy, her arsenal appearing soft edged.  

 But those equipped weapons will change, too.  As Sansa gains agency in the Vale, learning to be the lady of a house, she begins to awaken to the treachery of those manipulating her for political gain, specifically Petyr Baelish.

 What if it is truth he wants, and justice for his murdered lady?" He smiled. "I know Lord Nestor, sweetling. Do you imagine I'd ever let him harm my daughter?"

I am not your daughter, she thought. I am Sansa Stark, Lord Eddard's daughter and Lady Catelyn's, the blood of Winterfell. She did not say it, though.

-Sansa I, AFFC

So when Petyr lies, on his hands and knees, in front of all of the northern lords and lords declarant, begging for mercy- the mercy she’s shown grown killers and men, the mercy she’s given to her enemies- Sansa will show a different sort of mercy.

When Petyr is begging mercy, mercy, mercy, when Sansa finds all of Lord Baelish’s betrayals, remember that she is giving herself mercy for once.  Mercy. For her family, for her, for basically anyone in the universe who has ever had to deal with this disgusting man.  

Tl;dr Sandor will kill his brother out of mercy, which is one of the main themes of his character arc, and a concept that the Stark sisters helped instill in him and he in them.

[cupidsbower]

I’m still the same old me, that’s all I’ll ever be

Supernatural 12x17, “The British Invasion,” and 12x18, “The Memory Remains.”

Two episodes about legacies, two episodes about how our actions can shape the future. Two episodes about making connections and breaking them. And irony. Don’t forget the irony. That’s key!

There have been several British Invasions of the Americas, notably Columbus of course, and the War of Independence perhaps also counts, but ironically, the invasion actually called “The British Invasion” was... wait for it... pop music in the 1960s. The Beatles. The Animals. The Kinks!

Hahahaha.

Anyway, there was also a “Second British Invasion” in the 80s, which included this gem, which wasn’t on the soundtrack for 12x17 but really, really should have been.

Come On Eileen, by Dexys Midnight Runners

A song about religious guilt, symbolised by desire for a pretty girl called Eileen. On the money, right? *pointedly looks at Mick’s cultish brainwashing*

So, Eileen. She was the highlight of this episode. I love her so! Sam is obviously a bit smitten, and who can blame him. I really adore their dynamic. I’m slightly less enamoured that her life was Mick’s final exam, but she lived so I’m letting it go.

In short, Eileen can come back any time. In fact, I’m intrigued by the possibilities of her coming back. She retreated to Ireland after the accidental shooting of Renny Rawlings, upper-class twit par excellence. And here’s the thing about Ireland... lets just say it doesn’t exactly have a happy relationship with Britain, and would not take kindly to the BMOL doing anything on their turf. Eileen is probably pretty safe there. If Eileen does return this season, it wouldn’t surprise me if she comes back with some Irish colleagues who are sympathetic to the Americans.

The three other meaty aspects of this episode are Mick’s arc, Kelly’s pregnancy, and Mary’s dubious sexual choices.

Mick, ah Mick. You were objectively kind of horrible, but the writers did a pretty good job of making me marginally sympathetic in this episode. Being brainwashed as a kid casts a long shadow, as John’s legacy has demonstrated only too well, and Mick’s childhood was obviously very much an indoctrination into the cult of the BMOL. He just didn’t have quite enough time to grow out of its shadow before it swallowed him up.

Mick’s fate was decided by abusive “nurturing” (if it can be called nurturing) by an adoptive female guardian (the anti-Mary -- present but terrible, instead of a terrible absence). He was indoctrinated into a legacy that shared many of the same problems as Sam and Dean’s, but like them, Mick started to question and see shades of grey once he achieved some distance from the abusive authority figure. Mick’s journey raises the question once more: is a nephilim born evil, or is it raised evil? How much does maternity/paternity define the child, and how much is choice?

I kind of like the symmetry of Mick’s arc, because in the last episode with Claire, and now this one with Eileen, the female characters were lessons for Mick. But his completed arc has turned out to be another kind of lesson -- it’s a major mirror for the nephilim arc. And for all that Lucifer seems so sure it’s a boy, I have my suspicions that it’s a girl. The foreshadowing is definitely hinting at it.

Which brings me to Kelly’s pregnancy. I have such mixed feelings about this plotline. The show is being so cautious, which I get is because they don’t want to alienate their conservative viewers. But I do wish Kelly’s arc had a bit more nuance. I have no objection to her loving her unborn child, or wanting to have it. I do wish we had a bit more insight into her hopes, fears and plans, though. I mean, she was the aide to a super-religious President, right? But she also had sex with him out of wedlock. These are potential contradictions, but we have no insight into how she thinks about them -- I’m curious about where she is on the religious spectrum. Is she also super-religious, and if so, would her fear of Lucifer trump her love of an unborn child? And if she’s not super-religious, what the hell is she making of all this? Is she afraid she’ll die, or does she think that’s hokum and a good hospital will do the trick? Is she missing her friends and family? Does she have any???

Like, I get that she’s probably going to be a disposable container who dies at the end of the season, so that our leads have a baby to deal with next season, but come on. Surely we can get some characterisation along the way before she’s fridged???? This is potentially such rich ground, and we’ve basically been given bupkis.

Now Mary, on the other hand, I’m enjoying a lot. It’s such a pleasure to learn more about her, and get some fresh and unexpected characterisation. I don’t really like her very much at the moment, but her choices are so interesting! Choosing to sleep with Ketch is fascinating (and gross) for so many reasons. For a start, it means she’s coming back to life. She’s making choices about her own pleasure. Sure they are kind of shitty choices, but just a few eps ago, she was in a place where she seemed to see no joy in life as a possibility for her at all, even such fleeting solace as this. I’m curious to see how this will play out. Ketch is a psychopath, but he’s an obsessive one I think. I don’t foresee any love-inspired turning-over of leaves in his future, but I do see him acting in a skeevy or possessive way which has unintended consequences that pay off in interesting plot twists.

Aside from all of that, Mary’s choice to have sex with someone she doesn’t have any deeper feelings for also draws the parallel between her and Dean ever more clearly. Mary will choose pleasure of the moment when she can’t have the deeper pleasures and connections she really wants, and she’s very much aware that this is the choice she’s making. Dean makes exactly the same choice in the very next episode, which is kind of extraordinary once you dig into it. We’ve already had the impala scene, in which Dean realised Mary had had sex in it (just as he has), so the sexual parallel between them isn’t new. But the larger implication of why they both chose fleeting sexual pleasure at this particular moment is new -- for Mary it’s about pining and solace and wanting to feel alive, which due to the parallel implies that it’s also about pining and solace and life for Dean. Both of them are pining for people who aren’t there. Both of them try to take what they can from life anyway.

I keep thinking the show must have plumbed the depths of the possibilities for queer subtext, and then it basically parallels Castiel and John as the missing lovers in question, and I just... Really? Really?

Moving on to 12x18, this episode had some lovely writing in it. From the unacknowledged queer possibilities in the opening scene -- two guys watching het couples make out, and getting off on it -- to the goddamn gorgeous subversion of John’s hunting motto, and a bunch of other things too, this ep made me happy. John Bring, I like you, Please write more!

So there were two main plot strands in this ep, and one major theme. On the one hand we have the bunker being invaded by the BMOL, and on the other, we have the Winchesters taking out a god, no big deal. And through it all runs the thread of legacies -- the things we leave behind for those who come after us.

The title of the ep is probably taken from the Metallica song of the same name, about an aging film star who goes off the rails as their fame fades. Rather like the British Empire has faded compared to its former colony, for instance.

However, the track in the episode which is most directly related to the BMOL is Bongzilla’s Prohibition (4th Amendment). I confess, I had no idea there was such a thing as a stoner band called Bongzilla, but now I have been educated! Their song Prohibition (4th Amendment) is exactly what it sounds like -- an ode to the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution, which “prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures” (x). Obviously an important issue to stoners. I guess.

My main takeaway from the BMOL’s search of the bunker was sadness. I’m now pretty sure that Sam and Dean are going to lose their home when they reject the legacy of the MOL at the end of the season. All that will remain are those carved initials... assuming the whole bunker isn’t blown up, due to the explosive birth of a nephilim for instance.

There’s no doubt in my mind, however, that a rejection of the MOL legacy is coming for Sam and Dean, and it won’t go easy.

The only other thing I want to say about the BMOL strand of this ep is that Ketch’s weird Thing for the Winchesters is officially creepy, especially as it’s not entirely clear whether it’s a Thing for Mary or a Thing for Dean -- Ketch did that whole seduction play for Dean several eps ago, long before Mary decided to jump that, and both Dean and Mary are in the pic.

Maybe it’s both! Ugh barely expresses it really.

I for one will enjoy it very much when he gets his comeuppance.

Moving on to the hunt part of the episode. There are so many things to enjoy here. First, it’s a god, and as Dean says, it’s just “normal” to go eight rounds with one and win if you’re a Winchester. I really do love the juxtaposition of the Winchesters casually taking out a god (Sam is so badass), while the very human BMOL are their actual antagonists for the season. The ridiculousness of it delights me.

The little details of the plot are delightful too. We have the Sheriff who is fighting the legacy of his past, compared with the other kind of legacy -- the illegitimate brother who wants to inherit the sins of the father. And that’s when we get this, which was a highlight of the ep for me:

Pete: That's what we do, right? Hunting people. Killing them. The family business.

And the reason I love it so much is because this is straight out telling us that the Winchester script is no longer John’s script. Because what Pete says shows up just how wrong it is. Hunting and killing people is not the family business. First, because it’s no longer possible to tell who “people” are just by whether they are human or supernatural, and second, because as Sam told us, what matters is saving people -- that is Sam and Dean’s legacy. That is their business.

Sam: But the people we saved, they're our legacy. And they'll remember us and then I guess we'll eventually fade away, too.

When we get these glimpses of Sam’s inner life, it makes me yearn for more. I had so much hope this season was going to be a Sam season, given how it started, but it seems to have trailed off in the second half and I miss it. More inner Sam, please, Mr Dabb.

Anyway, they are not hunters. They are saviours! I mean... *waves hands wildly* Oh em gee. That’s huge!

I am now 100% convinced that the nephilim baby will not die because of Sam, Dean or Castiel. They’ll save it, because it’s the family business.

Okay, the one other thing I want to talk about is Dean and his liaison with the waitress. I’ve already mentioned the parallel with Mary, but I have to say, I liked this part of the ep. It was so cheesy, but it was also Dean celebrating life, which we haven’t seen in a while. Everything from the music as he undertook his hilarious seduction (Tony Hatch’s Music to Watch Girls By) to the affectionate look on Sam’s face the morning after -- it was done with a light touch, and didn’t come off as a no-homo to me. Rather, it felt like a blast from the past. A happy, nostalgic nod back to Dean’s past, signalling that there’s about to be a major shift in his path as we go into season 13.

And the capper, as he ate his hamburger afterwards without a glance at the waitress, was this playing in the background.

Burgers and Fries, Charley Pride

If that’s not a goodbye to a major part of his life that’s now over, I don’t know what is.

Previously:

The Ministry of Information vs Wayward Sons Carrying On (12x01)

My, my, how can I resist you? (12x02) and follow-up about Bohemian Raphsody

So what am I so afraid of? (I think I love you) (12x03)

I’ve got the joy, joy, joy, joy Down in my heart (Where?) (12x04) and a follow-up about the codependency and about Dean’s self-flagellation and issues with space

There can be only one! (12x05), and a follow-up conversation with elizabethrobertajones on Freud vs Schwartz.

They shall fall by the sword: they shall be a portion for foxes (12x06)  

Presenting the Immaculate Heart Reunion Tour (12x07)    

I’m still living the life where you get home and open the fridge and there’s half a pot of yogurt and a half a can of flat Coca-Cola. ~Alan Rickman (12x08, 12x09)

When the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men (12x10)    

in re (12x11)

Making the most of teachable moments (12x12) and an added thought, In-and-out-laws

Don’t fuck with the branches on my family tree (12x13)

To Protect and to Serve (12x14) and some more thoughts

Hiding in the shadow of love (12x15) and some further thoughts in response to @elizabethrobertajones‘ meta.

You’re living in the past, it’s a new generation (12x16)

[snarktheater]

Stranger Than Fanfiction — An addendum

So, I have a Twitter account. I know I hardly ever mention it, and the link to it is easy to miss in the blog's theme, but it exists. I almost forget about it myself, because I am the kind of human being who does that. Ahem.

All this to say, it feels like a semi-miracle that someone actually replied to one of my tweets on the Snark Theater account (specifically, the one about my Stranger Than Fanfiction review, and like another semi-miracle that I noticed it within just a few hours and not…like, months later. And I guess that adds up to a full miracle, because my miracle math is flawless like that.

Let's have a look (Disclaimer: I do not endorse people reading this blog post going after this Twitter user, so please don't do that, guys.)

Transcript:

The book is a NY Times best seller so a lot of people disagree with you. "It ain't Shakespeare." I bet he laughs all the way to the bank!

Hoo boy. Well, on the plus side, thank you, Twitter user gobbledguck, for reminding me about a crucial point I completely missed in my original review. Let's discuss. And I'm warning you in advance, this is probably going to be a little rambling. More than usual, I mean.

Now, I'm not talking about the tweet in general. "But if popular, how can it be bad?" is a question to which I've had a definitive answer for five years now: Fifty Shades of Grey. We live in a post-Fifty Shades world and popularity has been thoroughly debunked as a measure of quality.

So I'm not going to argue with the fact that the book is a best-seller, especially in the case of this specific book, which, in case you forgot, is written by a person who has millions of pre-established fans for something that has nothing to to with writing and who would buy anything he puts out there. Including, reluctantly so, this guy right here typing this blog post. I did not mention having a celebrity crush on Chris Colfer as a joke. It is well documented.

With the ritual self-depantsing out of the way, let's talk about the actually interesting thing in this tweet, and the one that actually ties back into the book. The (incorrect, but let's ignore that detail) quote. Let's put it back in context, which is from page 2 of Stranger Than Fanfiction.

Naturally, when it first premiered the critics treated the show [Wiz Kids, the fictional show protagonist Cash Carter stars in] like a piñata. […] However, with each fatal blow Wiz Kids only received more attention. People tuned in to see the "absurdity" for themselves, but they were not repulsed as promised. Audiences found the show's campiness to be rather charming, its unique underdog spirit resonated with them, and a global phenomenon was born. No, it wasn't Shakespeare, but on the bright side, it wasn't Shakespeare.

The low-hanging fruit response to this tweet is pretty simple. They are, after all, referencing the fact that the show is terrible, in the book's own text. It is beloved, but even the book's protagonists admit in hindsight that they don't like the show for itself as much as they like it for the community it gave them. (Which is pretty comparable to Chris Colfer's own Glee).

But let's not reach for the low-hanging fruit, because I think choosing Shakespeare of all points of comparison to be incredibly interesting. You could rephrase that last sentence of the quote as "it wasn't high art, but on the bright side, it was accessible." Which is funny to use Shakespeare for that, who…you know, made low-brow entertainment. Yeah, Shakespeare's popularity didn't stem from him writing stuffy, obscure stuff that only a tiny amount of elites could understand. It came from him writing (mostly) good stuff.

There's this weird trend these days to present critical acclaim and commercial success as antithetical, and I don't really get it. Or actually, I do, but the anti-intellectualism it derives from is kind of scary to me and I'm already planning an essay of sorts about anti-intellectualism, so I'm not sure I want to examine it in detail right about now.

The point is: anyone who criticizes something is immediately dismissed as wrong, a buzzkill, or in this specific case, fighting in vain against an overwhelming tide. It's become common to glorify being panned by critics, and it makes me wonder: what exactly are the ambitions of the people doing that?

I mean, look at Chris Colfer. What's his motive for writing this book? Is it to make money, as is implied by our Twitter user above saying he'll be "laughing all the way to the bank" at my little review? I have some serious doubts, considering he's already pretty successful. Is it because he had a story to tell, and wanted to tell it? If so…why would he consider critics to be the enemy? Wouldn't it be preferable to listen to them and strive for the best version of that story you can tell? Is it because he wanted to send a message about LGBT kids (Sam and Joey, sort of Topher), kids from toxic family environments (Mo and Joey), kids raised by single parents (all but Joey)? Then, once again, why not listen to people telling you your message might not really convey as well as you thought it would?

Of course, this is all hypothetical, and reviews aren't really meant for the author anyway. I don't expect Chris Colfer to read my review of his book, nor do I really want to, because I'm writing for potential readers, not for him. I'm talking about the attitude to dismiss critics and present a dichotomy of quality entertainment (here symbolized as "Shakespeare") versus enjoyable entertainment (i.e. Wiz Kids or the book itself). Not just because it doesn't apply to me personally (to paraphrase Lindsay Ellis on her Top Ten Guilty Pleasures video—which is apparently off Youtube at the moment—"no, I don't want to turn off my brain, I'm using it"), but also because it doesn't really seem to apply…in general.

Again, take Shakespeare. Am I supposed to just agree that it's adapted so much because people hate it? Every teenager in love sees themselves as Romeo and Juliet because that play is just so inaccessible and stuffy and high-brow? Yeah, right. (And that's without getting into a debate on whether Romeo and Juliet is a romance, a cautionary tale, or a mix of the two; it's still a pretty well-made play regardless of how you read it)

In fact, it's pretty easy to find things that are good and extremely popular, because it tends to be what survives the test of time (like, you know, Shakespeare). It's not universal, and it doesn't mean you personally have to like any of it. I hate Emile Zola's books and most of the music made before I was born, and for all I've defended him, I'm not a super fan of Shakespeare. But it doesn't mean I can't see the quality in all those things, or the fact that they had some pretty wide appeal, both then and now.

So that dichotomy is bullshit. What about the idea that critics themselves are wrong? You know, the idea that critics are a tool of the status quo rather than a measure of quality. Recently, you see that a lot whenever people criticize anything enjoyed by teenage girls (and not unreasonably so). Except…then you have to consider your definition of a critic. After all, to quote an overused phrase, everyone's a critic. All it takes is having thoughts about a thing. And in the Internet age, once can share those thoughts pretty easily, regardless of how much institutional power they hold. There's a reason this is a blog, is what I'm saying.

Point is: saying any criticism is automatically wrong by virtue of being criticism (so long as you have mass appeal) is a pretty weak counter-argument. And it feeds into a culture where critical thinking itself isn't encouraged, because you don't want to be one of those critics who just can't have fun and enjoy things, do you?

Look, I'm not mad at Twitter user gobbledguck for their reply. I'm not going to say I don't care since…you know…this post exists…but I'm not mad about it. It's symptomatic of a larger, self-perpetuating problem. Which this book is part of, by virtue of this quote, and, in a larger sense, all of Cash Carter's "how dare people criticize what I, a highly public figure with a huge influence on impressionable minds, do while in the public eye" speeches. Which Chris Colfer is a part of too, by virtue of writing this book as a highly public figure with a huge influence on impressionable mind, and publishing it for consumption.

So no, I'm not mad at that Twitter user, but I am mad at this book for participating into a culture that makes that tweet a possibility, and allows this user to go on without questioning their own biases.

I feel like there's probably a better rant about anti-intellectualism and the rejection of all critics in me. Hell, I feel like there's a better rant about it in relationship with this book. But, well, this is a hot take on a tweet. Maybe I'll even regret it in a few days. I've had a streak of regretting some of my recent posts and all.

But what I'm pretty sure I won't regret is the main point, the tl;dr as we are used to saying here on the Internet: "No, it wasn't Shakespeare, but on the bright side, it wasn't Shakespeare" is more or less equivalent to admitting you have no interest in writing (or reading) a good story, and honestly, I feel kind of sad for you and your admitted creative bankruptcy.

Now I'll get off my high horse before someone points out to me that that Twitter account has all of four tweets, and the other three are dedicated to shipping Chris Colfer with his co-star, and I'm probably being played by a troll and/or falling on deaf ears with this one. Reviews aren't meant for the author anyway, and I suppose this is no exception.

Okay, that should be enough self-deprecating humor that this post doesn't come across as too insufferable. Now I'll go back to bitching about a popular TV show or something.

[toyfrog]

If Redemption fails (cough cough) and receives a 0.7-0.8 it's DOA. If it suffers the Heigel curse dropping a week later, then it's just a flat out rejection of the LEAD character and actor. Period. Building a show around a character 80% of your audience loathes is just bad business. Ever since Katherine Heigel trashed her co-workers at Grey's, henceforth betraying Shonda's "no drama rule on the set," that left a bad taste in viewers mouths. She did the same thing in Knocked Up with Seth Rogin and Judd Appatow. The Lesson: Don't trash the business and do not upstage your coworkers. Fans never forget. They hold grudges. Long ones. The over promoting of one character that usurped the main leads, retconning story canon to destroy the chemistry, story placement and theme of a once well written show is an ultimate betrayal to Blacklist fans. Bottom line: Tom should've DIED IN SEASON 1. Fans now resent his presence because he upstages Spader and the rest of the cast and like Heigel, that trigger exists. Why would sane viewers accept Tom Keen working with Solomon who literally tried filleting Liz in front of Red? Let alone shot up the church and killed FBI agents? Liz is okay with it? She'd have to be, Tom murdered an innocent cop right in front of her and never went to prison. It dumbs down your female lead to a plot device nothing more. She doesn't exist except to support a failed character. Gaslighting your audience to like a character because "thats how it is" isn't the best way to connect with the audience. I agree with the critics. Bad idea. I won't be watching either shows because mothership serves as a plot device to push Tom/Eggold. Your creators no longer promote their mothership. They no longer give story direction, just plot driven blurbs-drive by snippets promising Easter egg hunts without the eggs and nothing is character driven because none of the characters have a true voice the audience can identify and relate to. Who speaks for them? Tom? Ha!! Ok. They use Spader to promote Blacklist for Tom viewing, but are no longer investing in Red's mythology just how bad Red is in order to assassinate characters retconning them to serve their plot purpose. Now the Johns say "blacklist is dark, redemption is light". That's not promoting, that's manipulating your viewers. How To Get Away With Murder is on tonight---- That's what Critics are buzzing about: Who killed Wes? And Viola Davis-the Oscar nominated Actress. I don't see a competition here, just a downward spiral due to loss of focus by TPTB and deliberate refusal to LISTEN to their core audience. Spader is right. "The writing hasn't found its footing this season," and for good reason: they no longer care. I literally read Edi stating that Redemption has better fight scenes, better directing, just better than the original. To say such crap and diss the fan favorite, leaves you wondering...Meanwhile, Megan, Diego, and James remain silent about the spin off and their current show. It's just a job, Megan, to James, it's a hellacious schedule, Diego "is such a professional." Yea, he is and deserves better. Only actor pushing blacklist is Amir...not their showrunner or creator...makes you wonder, doesn't it? Best of luck producers, the more they promise a fun, exciting, wild ride, audience recalls 3B and 4A. The pimping feels like a used car salesman pushing you to buy the lemon in order for them to get the big commission. Daddy always said to me, "the person who begs you to stay has an agenda, the person who walks away is always in charge." I'm hearing "some people are saying"...Joe Carnahan is not only interested in writing and directing an episode or two of The Blacklist but is returning to prime time sooner than we think. It's no secret NBC brass and critics adore him, especially Jen Salke, leaving many to wonder what this all means. Carnahan is writing again. After movie production wraps up on The Raid...what new prosperous endeavor in prime time awaits him and why are the Johns openly throwing shade at the mothership to promote their spin off as if their livelihood depended on it? To be continued...

[templified]

Philament, Creative WordPress Photography and Portfolio Theme | Templified

New Post has been published on https://templified.com/philament-creative-wordpress-photography-and-portfolio-theme/

Philament, Creative WordPress Photography and Portfolio Theme

With a heavy dose of black and white with shades of grey, this handsome WordPress theme commands attention. It’s name is Philament and it is a creative Photography and portfolio theme for Creative companies. If you would like to encourage more interaction with your content, this exciting theme is a beautiful way to accomplish that task. The design of this theme is clean and anything but sloppy, there is nothing wild or careless about it style, the developer has rejected any design element that isn’t completely required to deliver the user experience it’s that you want.

This doesn’t make sense.  I know how to work, I’m doing it now.  I know how to repeat, that’s basically all I do.  I have no idea how you ‘hard’ something.  I mean, really, it should be: work hard, repeat, right?

No matter.

Here’s how the developer introduced us to their theme.

Philament is a creative photography/portfolio theme, with a minimal design Philament is perfect to create beautiful online portfolios, combine multiples works in a masonry style. Built using HTML5, CSS3 and clean code so that it can be edited easily. One click theme options and color controls mean you can brand your theme really easily.

Philament is a minimalist portfolio WordPress Theme with Elementor Page Builder perfect for freelancers, designers, small agencies and anybody who search show the best works in a simple way. Build your site your way at blistering fast speed using the amazing Elementor Page Builder to manage your page content in complete drag and drop!

Here’s a look at what you get with the front page. I think this is a site ly theme that gives a great unique voice to your images. You will have total command over design layouts and it’s remarkable how well this template mixes images and text seamlessly, encouraging your readers to find more things that they enjoy about your content. It’s important to develop a great user experience and this theme allows you to do that.

If you’d like to see some more delightful and Creative Photography themes, have a look at our collection. Don’t be shy, poke around and you will really find something that you enjoy. You can be damaging to your website to provide a experienced that is less than stellar, so one of these outstanding themes should work perfectly for your website. If you are interested in additional portfolio themes, we’ve got a collection that is right up your alley as well. These are not just average themes, they are some of the absolute best. We feel comfortable recommending each and every one of the themes in all of our collections without hesitation.

DemoMore Information Get Hosting

[alanafsmith]

Film review: The Children Act

‘I loved the quiet and careful cameos by those unseen people who make our legal system work’, says barrister and writer Sarah Langford

Image credit: The Children Act

It is only fair to disclose at the outset that I would happily pay money to watch Emma Thompson do the weekly shop. I should also say that Ian McEwan — who wrote the screenplay for this adaptation of his 2014 novel, The Children Act — is a writer whose sentences I find so perfect, I catch myself re-reading them many times over. Throw in Stanley Tucci, the brilliant new talent of Fionn Whitehead, and Ben Chaplain in his legal hat-trick (after BBC’s Apple Tree Yard and Nina Raine’s stage play, Consent) and my expectations were pretty high.

The Children Act does not disappoint. The protagonist — Fiona Maye — is a High Court judge in the Family Division who we meet at the beginning of a personal and professional crisis. She is in a sexless marriage with a man who loves her deeply, but from whom she has become disconnected. It is her dedication to the law that gets the blame. An emergency case comes before her. A hospital want to administer a blood transfusion to Adam — a 17-year-old, months away from legal autonomy — against his and his parent’s wishes. They, like he, are Jehovah’s Witnesses. His treating oncologist is clear: without a transfusion not only is he likely to die, but it will be a horrible, painful death. However we are also told that such a procedure would not only mean the damnation of his soul, but the rejection of Adam from his church, his family, his stability and his life.

Such cases are our judge’s bread and butter. She is required daily to focus her energies on a conveyer belt of cases so difficult that they fill newspaper headlines with the anguish of those involved. Her role, of course, is to preside over this raw emotion with cool calmness, and to attempt to apply the black and white of the law to the shades of grey before her. And that, in essence, is one of the many themes which run throughout this film. The law requires detached and cool objectivity, but it also requires humanity. When we walk into court we do so as an instrument of the system and, if we are lawyers, of our client. But underneath the costume we are, of course, human, fallible and able to be touched. The difficult art is finding this balance.

There is a scene in which Fiona Maye’s friend and colleague (he appears before her the following day on behalf of the hospital) cries defeat. He is worn out by the hopelessness of it all. The scene comes after a conversation with her husband during which Judge Maye begins to wonder whether her job may have cost her her marriage, not just because she is too busy, but because she has become emotionally detached. Listening to her friend’s outburst, we see Thompson mutely register her reaction on the edges of her face, then we see her push it aside and turn away, closing the conversation down. She cannot allow the edifice to crumble. To do so would mean she would be unable to do her job. But the next day she meets Adam and — with her personal world at sea and looking for answers as to why — she allows him in; she allows herself to be changed by him, almost as much as her eventual decision changes him.

The 2018 Chambers Most List

I read McEwan’s novel when it was first published in the twilight hours of night-time new-born feeds. I was troubled by some of the plot twists, which it seems have also troubled reviewers of this film. For me, however, the screen has flattened some of these problems out. The kiss in the rain had seemed odd, as though this writer — who so often requires an undertone of sexual darkness in his work — just couldn’t help himself. Now, though, in the hands of Thompson and Whitehead, I saw another version. Through saving his life, Adam feels an intimacy with the judge that he struggles to identify. He is trying to find a way to connect to her; to make her see how she has liberated him. He is also simultaneously trying to understand why, seeing his parents tears of joy when his transfusion took place which proved their love for him, they were prepared to let him die for their church. He says to her at one point, “I am not the person I was”. She has changed him. And that is why, as a lawyer, the themes of this film are so interesting. We sail into people’s lives at crisis point, perform our professional duty, and then sail off and onto the next. Often we do not find out what happens afterwards. Our client’s lives are changed forever. But sometimes, if we let them in, so are ours.

This idea is made all the more interesting by knowing some of the detail as to how McEwan came to write the book. For those who think the idea that Judge Maye would dash off to Adam’s hospital bedside before making her decision was ridiculous, they should know that the retired court of appeal judge, Alan Ward — a friend of McEwan’s — did exactly this. In 1993, Sir Alan visited a teenage boy in the middle of a case who was, like the film’s Adam, diagnosed with aggressive leukaemia but was refusing a transfusion because his parents were Jehovah’s Witnesses (Re E (A minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1993]). Sir Alan spoke to the boy of his life, his love of football; to get, one supposes, a sense of the person whose life he was about to change — before ruling that the transfusion should take place. When the boy was well again, Sir Alan arranged for him to meet some star players of his favourite football team and watch a match from the director’s box. He told the Telegraph in a recent interview, “The light of life shone in his eyes”. Twenty years later, as he was serving as a court of appeal judge, the news reached Sir Alan that the boy, now in adulthood, had relapsed. He had refused a further transfusion. It cost him his life. It was apparently the depth with which Sir Alan felt this death that inspired McEwan to write his book.

I confess I’m not one of those barristers who avoids legal dramas for fear that the wrong book, gown or — god forbid — a gavel finds its way erroneously onto set. I love them. And in this film, I loved watching a world with which I am so familiar through the fresh prism of a stranger’s eye. I loved the quiet and careful cameos by those unseen people who make our legal system work — the hugely professional but deeply caring judge’s clerk, the smoking porter moved at hearing the judge sing. I loved being reminded how beautiful the Inns of Court are, and how strange the costumes, language and rituals seem to those who do not practise them daily. I don’t think it’s smugness on my part that I know this world so well. I think, in fact, that it reminds me how lucky I am to know it at all. For although Thompson is the star of this show, the legal system is her understudy. It is a reminder to all that underneath the costumes are people who care about those whose lives they impact. In a time when public sympathy and understanding has to be won in order to save the further destruction of legal aid, this is no bad thing.

Sarah Langford is a criminal and family law barrister and writer. Her new book, In Your Defence: Stories of Life and Law, is available to purchase now.

The post Film review: The Children Act appeared first on Legal Cheek.

from All About Law https://www.legalcheek.com/2018/08/film-review-the-children-act/

[jrtnotes]

Matrice: Theme and Variations of Signs and Surfaces.

Text by Angela Rui

To appreciate the profundity of the design project undertaken by Barbara Brondi and Marco Rainò for Cedit, it is both necessary and explanatory to start from the title the collection bears. In modern usage the term Matrice, in Italian, refers to a die or mould used to reproduce an object, but its origins are much more remote, with a meaning closer to the English “matrix”, meaning the underlying basis of something. The root of the word is related to Mater or mother: the name Matrice thus relates to the origin or cause of something. This dichotomy is expressed in several levels within the work of these architects, who study the world from a sophisticated conceptual approach and then transform it into a design. Starting from the idea of ceramic coverings, which have always been a tool not so much of architecture as of interior design, the artists work back to the origin of the surface and its decoration within their own discipline: they look at what we used to call the modern age, where modernity has also brought an uncompromising brutality, and where the use of bare concrete became the statement of an attitude to life with no time to spare for manners.

Concrete is originally a liquid material, intended for shaping, which can therefore absorb and retain any type of mark created by the material and mould used to form it. Architects midway between rationalism and brutalism have used the rough-and-ready language of concrete combined with a last, elegant, anthropic decorative motif impressed on the material, that makes the concept of covering superfluous, because its place, in its older meaning of decoration rather than functional cladding, is taken by the regular patterning created in the material itself. There are therefore various grounds for believing that, in this collection, the artists are once again working in architectural terms. Firstly, with a simplicity typical of BRH+, they reduce the initial concepts to their minimal terms. So although this is a collection of coverings for walls, indoor floors, outdoor pavings and curtain walls, a great deal of time was spent on destructuring the idea of the ceramic covering itself. Unfortunately, nowadays there is no space in the contemporary construction sector for the radical approach of the past, so the cladding designed for the building actually lays bare the interior, using the choice of material – accurately interpreted (with shade variation) on the basis of an assortment of various types – to restore visual elegance and a fundamental severity. Attention to scale is another architectural feature: Matrice offers modules with architectural dimensions and different sizes through the development of “large slabs”, eliminating the visual regular grid effect. Thanks to this visual reset, geographic forms are perceived to emerge from dense, grey concrete surfaces decorated as in bygone days by special processes and by weathering during drying. The various types of slab, each an atlas of subtle, vibrant signs on the surfaces, comprise finishes that reproduce the visual effect of reinforced concrete – with the aggregates in the cement more clearly visible, of formwork – with the signs impressed on the concrete by the timber used, of a structured surface resembling bare cement plaster, of ridged and streaked surfaces – with patterning resembling some kinds of linear surface finishing processes – and finally a smooth, or basic version, over which Matrice exercises the dichotomy referred to earlier. It is on these surfaces that Brondi and Rainò have imagined additional design reverberations, a figurative code that rejects the concept of the grid, previously inseparable from that of the module: by means of a vocabulary of graphic marks cut into the slabs with a depth of 3 mm (the width of the gap left between modules during installation), they provide a framework for infinite combinations of possible dialogues. Just as in embroidery, which is based on grids of stitches and geometric repetitions, and where every stitch is at right-angles to another one to construct forms and decorations. Also taken from embroidery is the idea of introducing a degree of “softness” to reduce the stiffness of intentionally deaf surfaces. There is the impression of patterns that can continue for infinity, as in textile weaving, and a scale that, unlike the surface being worked on, is imagined as suspended and lightweight. They may not admit it, but BRH+ know a lot about music, including electronic music, and it appears to me that this organised tangle of infinite signs – unidentifiable without an overview – is rather like the representations of synthesized sounds. Sounds that are produced by machines, and thus “woven” by sampling and overlapping sounds of the most unlikely origins, combined to form jingles which, once heard, are imprinted indelibly on the brain. This may be why I am so interested in the space between this “melodic film” and its deaf, damp substrate. The eyes can navigate this suspended reality without fear of disturbance. So we are faced with different surfaces, different sizes and different graphic signs. But only one colour (surprise!) to prevent a cacophony not just of signs but also of possible interpretations: the artists retain their radical principles (and their generosity), and as curators, a role in which they are skilled, they leave the players (architects and installers) to add their own interpretations. In their hands this colour, expressed in Matrice, will produce motifs on surfaces in living spaces for someone else. This stylish covering and its workmanship will be left to the hands of someone who will probably never read this, but will be on a building site, with the radio playing on a stereo system, concentrating on installing the very pieces we describe. So a radical, apparently silent, design project like this has repercussions for the real world we live in. Matrice has no form of its own but merely acquires the ornamentation drawn on its surfaces by a second group of artists. And here this routine action, standardised by the form approved for production and workmanlike efficiency, is the origin and cause of change, generating a variability of choices and interpretations, on that dusty building site where music plays and mortar flows.

[templified]

Philament, Creative WordPress Photography and Portfolio Theme

New Post has been published on https://www.templified.com/philament-creative-wordpress-photography-and-portfolio-theme/

Philament, Creative WordPress Photography and Portfolio Theme

With a heavy dose of black and white with shades of grey, this handsome WordPress theme commands attention. It’s name is Philament and it is a creative Photography and portfolio theme for Creative companies. If you would like to encourage more interaction with your content, this exciting theme is a beautiful way to accomplish that task. The design of this theme is clean and anything but sloppy, there is nothing wild or careless about it style, the developer has rejected any design element that isn’t completely required to deliver the user experience it’s that you want.

This doesn’t make sense.  I know how to work, I’m doing it now.  I know how to repeat, that’s basically all I do.  I have no idea how you ‘hard’ something.  I mean, really, it should be: work hard, repeat, right?

No matter.

Here’s how the developer introduced us to their theme.

Philament is a creative photography/portfolio theme, with a minimal design Philament is perfect to create beautiful online portfolios, combine multiples works in a masonry style. Built using HTML5, CSS3 and clean code so that it can be edited easily. One click theme options and color controls mean you can brand your theme really easily.

Philament is a minimalist portfolio WordPress Theme with Elementor Page Builder perfect for freelancers, designers, small agencies and anybody who search show the best works in a simple way. Build your site your way at blistering fast speed using the amazing Elementor Page Builder to manage your page content in complete drag and drop!

Here’s a look at what you get with the front page. I think this is a site ly theme that gives a great unique voice to your images. You will have total command over design layouts and it’s remarkable how well this template mixes images and text seamlessly, encouraging your readers to find more things that they enjoy about your content. It’s important to develop a great user experience and this theme allows you to do that.

If you’d like to see some more delightful and Creative Photography themes, have a look at our collection. Don’t be shy, poke around and you will really find something that you enjoy. You can be damaging to your website to provide a experienced that is less than stellar, so one of these outstanding themes should work perfectly for your website. If you are interested in additional portfolio themes, we’ve got a collection that is right up your alley as well. These are not just average themes, they are some of the absolute best. We feel comfortable recommending each and every one of the themes in all of our collections without hesitation.

DemoMore Information Get Hosting

[templified]

Philament, Creative WordPress Photography and Portfolio Theme

New Post has been published on https://www.templified.com/philament-creative-wordpress-photography-and-portfolio-theme/

Philament, Creative WordPress Photography and Portfolio Theme

With a heavy dose of black and white with shades of grey, this handsome WordPress theme commands attention. It’s name is Philament and it is a creative Photography and portfolio theme for Creative companies. If you would like to encourage more interaction with your content, this exciting theme is a beautiful way to accomplish that task. The design of this theme is clean and anything but sloppy, there is nothing wild or careless about it style, the developer has rejected any design element that isn’t completely required to deliver the user experience it’s that you want.

This doesn’t make sense.  I know how to work, I’m doing it now.  I know how to repeat, that’s basically all I do.  I have no idea how you ‘hard’ something.  I mean, really, it should be: work hard, repeat, right?

No matter.

Here’s how the developer introduced us to their theme.

Philament is a creative photography/portfolio theme, with a minimal design Philament is perfect to create beautiful online portfolios, combine multiples works in a masonry style. Built using HTML5, CSS3 and clean code so that it can be edited easily. One click theme options and color controls mean you can brand your theme really easily.

Philament is a minimalist portfolio WordPress Theme with Elementor Page Builder perfect for freelancers, designers, small agencies and anybody who search show the best works in a simple way. Build your site your way at blistering fast speed using the amazing Elementor Page Builder to manage your page content in complete drag and drop!

Here’s a look at what you get with the front page. I think this is a site ly theme that gives a great unique voice to your images. You will have total command over design layouts and it’s remarkable how well this template mixes images and text seamlessly, encouraging your readers to find more things that they enjoy about your content. It’s important to develop a great user experience and this theme allows you to do that.

If you’d like to see some more delightful and Creative Photography themes, have a look at our collection. Don’t be shy, poke around and you will really find something that you enjoy. You can be damaging to your website to provide a experienced that is less than stellar, so one of these outstanding themes should work perfectly for your website. If you are interested in additional portfolio themes, we’ve got a collection that is right up your alley as well. These are not just average themes, they are some of the absolute best. We feel comfortable recommending each and every one of the themes in all of our collections without hesitation.

DemoMore Information Get Hosting