#Philip Dexter

[pixelatedaudio]

Expansion Pack 31: Games we Played in 2024 - PA194

Bryan and Gene are back for a relaxed holiday episode where we take a look back at some of the great music we heard in games in 2024. As usual it’s an eclectic mix of genres and style, both in the games themselves and in the music. Continue reading Expansion Pack 31: Games we Played in 2024 – PA194

[of-fear-and-love]

Blindfold (1966)

[torchlitinthedesert]

Kenneth Tynan and the Beatles

Shout out to @mmgth for noticing Beatle mentions in the letters of Kenneth Tynan - including working with John Lennon, Paul's 1960s reputation, and glimpses of the breakup. (Alas, no George or Ringo.)

Tynan was a drama critic and later worked with Laurence Olivier at Britain's National Theatre. Philip Norman calls him "the most rigorous cultural commentator of his age": he championed working class plays in the 1950s, supported progressive art (and was widely believed to be the first person to say "fuck" on British television). So he's an interesting perspective: well connected, arty, eager for cultural change, but from an older generation, and outside the immediate rock/pop world.

The first mention is 1966, when Tynan is already working at the National Theatre.

28 September 1966

Dear Mr McCartney,

Playing 'Eleanor Rigby' last night for about the 500th time, I decided to write and tell you how terribly sad I was to hear that you had decided not to do As You Like It for us. There are four or five tracks on 'Revolver' that are as memorable as any English songs of this century - and the maddening thing is that they are all in exactly the right mood for As You like It. Apart from 'E. Rigby' I am thinking particularly of 'For No One' and 'Here, There and Everywhere'. (Incidentally, 'Tomorrow Never Knows' is the best musical evocation of L.S.D. I have ever heard).

To come to the point: won't you reconsider? John Dexter [theatre director] doesn't know I'm writing this - it's pure impulse on the part of a fan. We don't need you as a gimmick because we don't need publicity: we need you simply because you are the best composer of that kind of song in England. If Purcell were alive, we would probably ask him, but it would be a close thing. Anyway, forgive me for being a pest, but do please think it over."

Paul replied that he couldn't do the music because, hilariously, "I don't really like words by Shakespeare" - he sat waiting for a "clear light" but nothing happened. He ended, "Maybe I could write the National Theatre Stomp sometime! Or the ballad of Larry O."

It's interesting that Tynan approaches Paul individually - because they had theatre connections in common? Or did Tynan assume that John wrote the words and Paul the music, so Paul's the guy to ask for settings of Shakespeare lyrics? (Though he does correctly identify Paul songs in his letter, plus the musical setting of Tomorrow Never Knows, so he might just be asking because he's a Paul girl. He also wants Paul to know that he's cool and hip and has done acid.)

Tynan definitely is a Paul girl. On 7 November that year, he pitched possible articles (I think for Playboy). He offers articles on the War Crimes Tribunal (set up by Bertrand Russell on the US in Vietnam), an interview with Marlene Dietrich, or:

"Interview with Paul McCartney - to me, by far the most interesting of the Beatles, and certainly the musical genius of the group."

It's a reminder of how drastically Paul's reputation changed, between cultural commentators of the 1960s and post-breakup.

Tynan didn't get his Paul interview, but he worked twice with John.

On 5 February 1968, he's sorting out practical details for the National Theatre's company manager about about the stage adapation of John's book In His Own Write (which had already had a preview performance in 1967). It's a very Beatle-y affair:

Victor Spinetti and John Lennon will need the services of George Martin, the Beatles A & R man to prepare a sound tape to accompany the Lennon play. Martin did this tape as a favour for the Sunday night production, but something more elaborate will be required when the show enters the rep, and I feel he should be approached on a professional basis as Sound Consultant, or some similar title. I have written to him to find out if he is ready to help and will let you know as soon as he replies.

...John Lennon says that as far as his own contract is concerned, we should deal directly with him at NEMS rather than his publisher.

So John prefers to work within the Beatle structure: George Martin, Victor Spinetti, plus NEMS, rather than pursuing closer ties with his book publisher.

On 16 April 1968, Tynan writes to John about his ideas for a wanking sketch.

Dear John L,

Welcome back. You know that idea of yours for my erotic revue - the masturbation contest? Could you possibly be bothered to jot it down on paper? I am trying to get the whole script in written form as soon as possible.

John's reply is very John:

"you know the idea, four fellows wanking - giving each other images - descriptions - it should be ad-libbed anyway - they should even really wank which would be great..."

Oh John.

Tynan still wanted to interview Paul - and was noticing changes in Beatle dynamics. On 3 September 1968, Tynan pitched another feature on Paul, this time for the New Yorker:

In addition to pieces on theatre, I'd love to try my hand at a profile (I remember long ago we vaguely discussed Paul McCartney though John Lennon is rather more accessible)...

Accessible because Tynan had already worked with him, or because John was already flexing his PR muscles? The New Yorker was interested, because Tynan follows up on 14 October 1968:

4. A few days in the life of Paul McCartney (which we agreed should come at the end of the series of articles, because of the current overexposure of the Beatles.)

Why does he see the Beatles as "overexposed" in autumn 1968, when he hadn't in 1966? Was it the Apple launch? The JohnandYoko press campaign? The cumulative impact of a lot of Beatle news?

Tynan was still trying on 17 September 1969:

...I'd like to go on to either Mr Pinter [playwright Harold Pinter] or Paul McCartney... I incline towards McCartney who has isolated himself more and more in the past from the other Beatles and indeed from the public: he seems to have reached an impasse that might be worth exploring. On the other hand Pinter is a much closer friend and would be more accessible to intimate scrutiny."

I'm fascinated by this - that Paul's isolation was visible to those outside the Beatles circle (the letter is dated three days before the meeting of 20 September 1969, where John said he wanted a divorce).

But Tynan was right about Paul being inaccessible. On 5 January 1970:

I'm saddened to have to tell you that Paul McCartney doesn't want to be written about at the moment - at least, not by me. I gather that for some time now the Beatles have been moving more and more in separate directions. Paul went to a recording session for a new single last Sunday which was apparently the first Beatles activity in which he'd engaged for nearly nine months. He doesn't know quite where his future lies, and above all he doesn't want to be under observation while he decides.

So while Paul "doesn't want to be under observation", he's surprisingly open about the breakup - less blunt than "the Beatle thing is over", which he told Life in November 1969, but still frank.

Trying to persuade Paul to open up to "intimate scrutiny" in 1969 does suggest another reason why 1970s interviewers adored John. Tynan works for an older, more established press, but he's offering the kind of profile John would make his own - discussing his inner life and personal/artistic conflicts with cultural commentator who respects him as an artist. And Paul can't run away fast enough. As a journalist, you'd absolutely go for the guy who makes himself accessible and is eager to bare his soul, over Mr Doesn't Want To Be Written About At The Moment.

[queenmelancholy]

I know it’s not gonna happen. But one thing I’d like to see in the last Downton film (if indeed it’s really final!) is the reactions of those who’ve failed Thomas when they find out how well he’s doing now.

Imagine Philip enduring his American wife while he heard the gossip of Thomas and Guy as Hollywood husbands. Or as O’Brien was worrying about her future as Indians’ independence sentiment grew, she read news of the western world just because she was missing it too much, only to find a photograph of movie star Guy Dexter and his black haired handsome dresser standing beside him, beaming.

Oh, that level of sass is off the charts.

[tulipscomeinallsortsofcolors]

totally silly, but do the other fitzboys have middle names? trying to imagine what would go with Remus Dexter lol

Full names!!

Logan Blake Fitzroy

Roman Philip Fitzroy

Remus Dexter Fitzroy

and also

Virgil Antony Kemp-Fitzroy

Patton Myron Sanders-Fitzroy

Janus Kane Fitzroy né Bullard

Remington Frederick Alfred Holst

Emile Pepper-Sky Holst né Picani

[slothspamsstuff]

Something about sketching Jason is very therapeutic to me so I wanted to draw different versions of him in each of his comics/webtoons alterations

From left to right, same order on both rows

1 - Dexter Soy’s Red Hood

2 - Grant Morrison and Judd Winick (Philip Tan, Guillem March, Andrei Bressan - Artists)

3 - Rocafort’s Red Hood

4 - WFA Red Hood (Starbite is the artist)

5 - literally his design nowadays (Peter Woods, Belen Ortega, Miguel Mendoca, Jorges Jimenez,…and many more amazing artists)

6 - Under the Red Hood (iconic)

[too-antigonish]

Morse: Fathers & Father Figures

What we learn about Morse's father in the Dexter's novels can seem a bit surprising in light of the way their relationship is depicted in Home.

According to a piece written by fellow author Mike Ripley, however, Dexter was, "...just about the only crime writer I know who has never bitched or complained about television adaptations of his work. He once told me that his philosophy was: “Books is books, telly is telly.” Only he probably put it more grammatically than that."

In Death Is Now My Neighbor, Dexter finally revealed Morse's first name: Endeavour. The chapter in question begins (tellingly?) with the epithet:

They fuck you up, your mum and dad. They may not mean to, but they do. They fill you with the faults they had And add some extra, just for you. (Philip Larkin, This Be the Verse') 

A bit into the chapter we arrive at a moment where Morse is strolling around Bath with his new love interest, Janet, and the following conversation takes place:

It was late morning, as they were walking arm-in-arm down to the city centre, following the signs to the Roman Baths, that she asked him the question:  'Shall I just keep calling you "Morse"?'. 'I'd prefer that, yes.'  'Whatever you say, sir!'  "You sound like Lewis. He always calls me "sir".' 'What do you call him?'  '"Lewis".' 'Does he know your Christian name?'  'No.'  'How come you got lumbered with it?'  Morse was silent awhile before answering:'They both had to leave school early, my parents - and they never had much of a chance in life themselves. That's partly the reason, I suppose. They used to keep on to me all the time about trying as hard as I could in life. They wanted me to do that. They expected me to do that. Sort of emotional blackmail, really - when you come to think of it.'  'Did you love them?" Morse nodded. 'Especially my father. He drank and gambled far too much ... but I loved him, yes. He knew nothing really - except two things: he could recite all of Macaulay's Lays of Ancient Rome by heart; and he'd read everything ever written about his greatest hero in life, Captain Cook - "Captain James Cook, 1728 to 1779", as he always used to call him.'  'And your mother?'  'She was a gentle soul. She was a Quaker.' 'It all adds up then, really?' said Janet slowly.  'I suppose so,' said Morse.

This conversation eventually leads to Janet convincing Morse to send Lewis a postcard in which he reveals his first name. The card reads:

"For Philistines like you, Lewis, as well as for classical scholars like me, this city with its baths, and temples must rank as one of the finest in Europe. You ought to bring the missus here some time. Did I ever get the chance to thank you for the few (!) contributions you made to our last case together? If I didn’t, let me thank you now – let me thank you for everything, my dear old friend. Yours aye, Endeavour (Morse)"

Spoiler: It makes Lewis cry.

One last note about Macaulay's Lays of Ancient Rome. The most famous poem from the collection is Horatius. It is quoted twice in Exeunt—first by a don, second and most memorably for me, by Thursday.

"Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate: "To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods."'

[wreedenthusiast]

[justforbooks]

David Lodge

Booker prize-nominated author and critic who was known for his Catholic novels and satires on academic life

David Lodge, who has died aged 89, was, like his close friend Malcolm Bradbury, a professor of English literature who became even better known as a novelist. The two men occupied adjacent offices for some years at Birmingham University in the early 1960s and greatly influenced each other. Both were grammar school boys from non-academic backgrounds who became leading figures in English letters without ever darkening the gateways of Oxford or Cambridge universities. Both wrote novels in part out of an instinct to reach a wide constituency of readers with literary tastes.

Lodge worked briefly for the British Council before getting his first academic job in 1960, as a lecturer in English literature at Birmingham. In the same year his first novel, The Picturegoers, was published. This and the novel that followed, Ginger, You’re Barmy (1962), were written under the influence of Graham Greene, a fellow doubting Roman Catholic novelist whom the young Lodge much admired. Lodge’s own PhD, The Catholic Novel from the Oxford Movement to the Present Day, had examined the genre to which he himself began to contribute.

The protagonist of The British Museum Is Falling Down (1965), Adam Appleby, agonises over the rights and wrongs of contraception, and Lodge’s early fiction was clearly rooted in his own scruples and discontents. The novel was also notable for its gift of literary parody: Adam is researching for an English literature PhD and sections of the novel mimic the styles of leading 20th-century novelists. This dexterity was as characteristic a feature of its author as the religious questioning. The subject matter of this and most of his subsequent novels was drawn from his close knowledge of literary academia, and its follies.

David was the only child of a dance-band musician and sometime singer, William Lodge, and was brought up in Brockley, south-east London. His mother, Rosalie, was a Roman Catholic and he was educated at St Joseph’s academy, a Catholic grammar school in Blackheath run by a religious order, the De La Salle Brothers. He went to University College London to read English – he said that he was put off applying to Oxbridge by the impression of it he received from reading novelists such as Evelyn Waugh. From 1955 until 1957 he did national service in the Royal Armoured Corps. The experience would later be used in Ginger, You’re Barmy, which gives a jaundiced picture of army life. He then returned to UCL as a postgraduate.

When he was 24 and still studying for his PhD, Lodge married Mary Jacob, a fellow Catholic, whom he met while both were English undergraduates. Soon the couple had two sons and a daughter. (He would look back with something like amazement at their conviction that they should use only the methods of birth control approved by the church.) The third of their children, Christopher, had Down’s syndrome. He lived at home until he was in his 20s, and his care and education were a central commitment of family life. Lodge was later to raise funds and campaign on behalf of sheltered communities for adults with learning difficulties.

Two formative periods in the US – at the Harkness Commonwealth Fellowship (1964-65), then as a visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1969 – animated both Lodge’s academic studies and his fiction. He turned to the campus novel, a genre in which he became a household name. Changing Places (1975) featured Philip Swallow, a bumbling, middle-aged English literature lecturer who is liberated, sexually and intellectually, by an academic exchange with a dynamic American professor, Morris Zapp. As well as exchanging jobs, the two men take up with each other’s wives. Zapp, based on Lodge’s friend Stanley Fish, became his best loved character. The novel won the Hawthornden prize and his widest readership to date.

It was followed by the playfully allusive Small World (1984), which continued Swallow’s and Zapp’s misadventures, and then Nice Work (1988), whose two main characters, a feminist academic and a bluff businessman, enacted the clash between two worlds. Inevitably, they also have an affair. These last two novels were both shortlisted for the Booker prize.

The main location for Lodge’s campus novels was the University of Rummidge, a scarcely disguised version of the University of Birmingham, where he continued to work. The novels reflected the academic fashions of the period, of which he was a slightly hesitant leader. His early criticism, such as his Language of Fiction (1966), showed him applying the close reading techniques of the “new criticism” to classic fiction. This first book was widely read by students and he was soon established as a leading academic analyst of classic fiction.

In the late 1970s, like other literary academics of his generation, he was stirred by the arrival of literary theory in British universities, and his own critical writings changed in response. The first symptom of his new interest was his collection Working With Structuralism (1981). His Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader (1988) would become a standard anthology for students. He was a pioneer in making the sometimes arcane vocabulary of narratologists accessible to the general reader.

He had a special liking for the work of the Russian theorist Mikhail Bakhtin, whose delight in the novel’s subversive clash of different voices and viewpoints clearly appealed to him. By the mid-80s, however, Lodge’s interest in such theory had waned, and he was later to decide that it was a movement that had exhausted itself.

Thanks to the success of his fiction, by 1984 he was working only part-time as an academic, and in 1987 he retired from his post at Birmingham, though he continued to live in the city for the rest of his life and was made an honorary professor of his old university (and later emeritus professor). He was to admit that his use in his fiction of his observations from his professional life sometimes made colleagues, and therefore himself, uneasy. He remained a critic, however, as well as a novelist. For two years his column in the Independent on Sunday exemplified, for the general reader, the usefulness of particular items of critical vocabulary. Selections were collected in The Art of Fiction (1992).

His campus novels had taken him away from the Catholic themes that he had still been exploring in How Far Can You Go? (1980), which was the Whitbread book of the year. (In this novel Lodge gives one of his leading characters his own experience of having a child with Down’s syndrome.) Paradise News (1991) returned to the territory of religious dogma and doubt, and seemed to announce Lodge’s inexorable move away from religious certainty: its protagonist only achieves contentment by conquering his Catholic hang-ups.

Yet, Lodge’s fiction was not exactly becoming more secular: both Therapy (1995) and Thinks ... (2001) have leading characters on whom Catholicism still has its hold. Lodge had come to describe himself as an interested observer of Roman Catholicism, rather than an actual believer, but his fiction tells the story of a writer still fiercely engaged by Christian themes.

With academia behind him, he entered new territory as a writer. At the end of the 1980s he adapted Small World then Nice Work for television (the former for Granada, the latter for the BBC). He then adapted Charles Dickens’s Martin Chuzzlewit as a six-part BBC serial (1994). If Ulysses was his favourite novel, Dickens was probably his favourite novelist, and his involvement with this dramatisation seemed a logical fusing of his populism and his literariness. He also wrote three plays, including The Writing Game, staged at Birmingham Repertory theatre in 1990 and adapted for television.

His literary tastes were catholic (in the non-religious sense) at a time when literary academics were becoming more specialised. He wrote introductions to the works of authors ranging from Jane Austen and George Eliot to EM Forster and Patrick Hamilton. His critical generosity and sound judgment made him a natural choice to chair the Booker prize judges in 1989. He seems a quintessentially English proponent of a peculiarly English genre – the comic novel – but his work was widely translated. In France his popularity was marked when he was made a Chevalier de l’Ordre des Arts et des Lettres in 1997. In 1998 he was made a CBE.

Ever the trained critic, he was candid in his analysis of his own narrative, confessing that, as a novelist, he had used up much of his own experience by his 60s. His later novels remained literary, but were not necessarily rooted in what he called “phases of my own life”, like the novels that had gone before. So Author, Author (2004) dramatised a period in the life of Henry James, while A Man of Parts (2011) was based on the life of HG Wells. They were biographically impeccable, but made less of Lodge’s gift for comedy than earlier novels. The former suffered the misfortune of being published at the same time as Colm Toibín’s novel about Henry James, The Master. Lodge wrote a rueful account of the coincidence and its consequences in The Year of Henry James, or Timing Is All (2006).

In 2008 he published what was, in many ways, his most autobiographical novel, and one of his best, Deaf Sentence. Lodge had started losing his hearing in his mid-40s. Up to this point, only those closest to him had realised that his partial deafness had deeply influenced him. It contributed to his decision to retire from academia and turned him in on himself. Struggling to keep up with conversations, he said, had stopped him being amusing. Lodge often spoke of his feelings of anxiety, undiminished by literary success or academic standing. Yet the deafness that depressed him in life became comic in his novel.

Admirers of Lodge’s novels were often surprised to find him, in person, dolefully reflective. This was the spirit of his memoir, Quite a Good Time to Be Born, published in 2015. Covering the period from his birth to his breakthrough, at the age of 40, with Changing Places, it gives (despite the title) a glum and minutely circumstantial account of growing up a Roman Catholic in the 1940s and 50s.

Lodge looks back with some amazement at his younger self’s respect for Catholic doctrine. Two further volumes of memoirs, covering later periods of his life, followed. Writer’s Luck (2018), should have relished his middle years of celebrity and success, but is more precise about the small disappointments of his literary life. Varying Degrees of Success (2020), covering the years after academia, lets us know just how wearying the business of writing can be.

His last published work of fiction was The Man Who Wouldn’t Get Up (2016), a collection of short stories mostly composed between the 1950s and 90s. Humorously fable-like, they serve as a reminder of this melancholy man’s comic instinct. Fiction allowed him to combine his literary-critical intelligence with a gift for observing absurdities, in order to fashion his own peculiarly bleak brand of comedy.

Mary died in 2022. He is survived by their three children, Stephen, Christopher and Julia.

🔔 David John Lodge, writer and critic, born 28 January 1935; died 1 January 2025

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at Just for Books…?

[keepingeahalive]

Ever After High Parents’ Names Headcanons Pt. 2:

Apple White:

Snow White: Ambrosia White

King White: Audacious White

Raven Queen:

Evil Queen: Elin Queen

Good King: Benevolent “Ben” King

Briar Beauty:

Sleeping Beauty: Rosalinda Beauty

Prince: Valiant Beauty

Ashlynn Ella:

Cinderella: Dustine Ella

Prince: Determined Charming

Maddie Hatter:

Mad Hatter: Darjeeling “Darjee” Hatter

Cerise Hood and Ramona Badwolf:

Red Riding Hood: Scarlett Hood

Big Bad Wolf: Lucius Badwolf

Cedar Wood:

Pinocchio: Pine Wood

Blondie Lockes:

Goldilocks: Chiffoni Lockes

Mr. Lockes: Unknown

Hunter Huntsman:

Huntsman: Archer Huntsman

Huntsman’s wife: Juniper Huntsman

Daring, Dexter, and Darling Charming:

King Charming: Forthright Charming

Queen Charming: Felicity Charming

Holly and Poppy O’Hair:

Rapunzel: Cressida O’Hair

King O’Hair: Dauntless Charming

Melody Piper:

Pied Piper: Reed Piper

Mrs. Piper: Karsilamas Piper

Lizzie Hearts:

Queen of Hearts: Mary Hearts

King of Hearts: Henry Hearts

Kitty Cheshire:

Cheshire Cat: Catherine Cheshire

Mr. Cheshire: Unknown

Duchess Swan:

Swan Princess: Odessa Swan

Prince: Ambitious Charming 

Hopper Croakington II:

Frog Prince: Hopper Croakington 

Princess: Precious Charming

C.A. Cupid:

Eros (adopted)

Psyche (adopted)

Alistair Wonderland:

Alice: Alicia Wonderland 

Bunny Blanc:

White Rabbit: Panon Blanc

Mrs. Blanc: Coney Blanc

Ginger Breadhouse:

Candy Witch: Sugar Witch

Mr. Breadhouse: Biscotti Breadhouse

Sparrow Hood:

Robin Hood: Martin Hood

Maid Marian: Marianne Maid

Rosabella Beauty:

Beauty: Belleza Beauty

Beast: Best Charming

Faybelle Thorn:

Dark Fairy: Darcy Thorn

Mr. Thorn: Loki Thorn

Farrah Goodfairy:

Fairy Godmother: Freya Goodfairy

Mr. Goodfairy: Auberon Goodfairy

Crystal Winter:

Snow Queen: Frostine Winter

Snow King: Eirwen Winter

Justine Dancer:

12th Dancing Princess: Hustella Dancer

King Dancer: Swift Charming

Lilly-Bo Peep:

Little-Bo Peep: Lila-Bo Peep

Mr. Peep: Ramon Peep

Meeshell Mermaid: 

Little Mermaid: Pearl Mermaid (canon)

Prince: Philip Mermaid (canon)

Humphrey Dumpty:

Humpty Dumpty: Barnaby Dumpty

Mrs. Dumpty: Henna Dumpty

Jillian Beanstalk:

Jack: Jock Beanstalk

Jack’s wife: Janine Beanstalk

Nina Thumbell:

Thumbelina: Dalena Thumbell

Flower-Fairy Prince: Mosswell Thumbell

Coral Witch:

Sea Witch: Cirrina Witch

Mr. Witch: Barney Brine

Brooke Page:

Female Narrator: Constance Page

Male Narrator: Pendleton Page

[spill-to-t]

My little melodies

Piano melodies made by myself. Inspired by movies/shows/characters (or just emotions) I like :)

🎧 recommended

Reblog if you like to support the effort *_*

American Horror Story inspired melodies:

Violet and Tate / Murder House

James Patrick March / Hotel

Kai Anderson / Cult

Jimmy Darling / Freakshow

Elizabeth (The Countess) / Hotel

Kit Walker / Asylum

Bette and Dot / Freakshow

John Lowe / Hotel

Fiona Goode / Coven

Constance Langdon / Murder House

Sister Mary Eunice / Asylum

Moira O´Hara / Murder House

Emotion inspired melodies:

Path of Life

A Dangerous Game

Mare of Easttown inspired melodies:

Colin Zabel

Peaky Blinders inspired melodies:

Tommy Shelby

Tommy and Grace

Arthur Shelby

Polly Gray

John Shelby

Alfie Solomons

Lizzie Stark (Shelby)

Gina Gray

Ada Thorne (Shelby)

Michael Gray

Linda Shelby

Tommy and Lizzie

Grace's death

Ruby´s death

Chester Campell

The Walking Dead inspired melodies:

Rick Grimes

Carl´s Death

Rick and Michonne

Negan Smith

Michonne (Grimes)

Carol Peletier

Maggie Rhee (Greene)

Richonne Reunion

The Ones Who Live Ep. 4

Grimes Family Reunion

Daryl Dixon

Rick and Lori

The Governor/Philip Blake

The Witcher inspired melodies:

Geralt and Yennefer

Red Dead Redemption 2:

Arthur Morgan

Breaking Bad / Better Call Saul inspired melodies:

Ignacio Varga

Dexter inspired melodies:

Dexter Morgan

Debra Morgan

Prison Break inspired melodies:

Michael Scofield

Michael Scofield and Sara Tancredi

[neroushalvaus]

I'll make this poll before someone else does

[the-rewatch-rewind]

Here it is! My most frequently rewatched movie! Thank you for coming on this journey with me.

Script below the break

Hello and welcome back to The Rewatch Rewind! My name is Jane, and this is the podcast where I count down my top 40 most frequently rewatched movies in a 20-year period. Today, at last, we reach the end of that list as I discuss my number one: MGM’s 1940 comedy The Philadelphia Story, directed by George Cukor, written by Donald Ogden Stewart with uncredited contributions from Waldo Salt, based on the play by Philip Barry, and starring Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn, and James Stewart.

Two years after the disastrous end of her first marriage to childhood friend C.K. Dexter Haven (Cary Grant), socialite Tracy Lord (Katharine Hepburn) is preparing for her second wedding, to George Kittredge (John Howard), general manager of her estranged father’s coal mining company. Eager to cover this story but knowing that Tracy loathes publicity, Spy magazine editor and publisher Sidney Kidd (Henry Daniell) enlists the help of Dexter to get reporter Macaulay “Mike” Connor (James Stewart) and photographer Elizabeth “Liz” Imbrie (Ruth Hussey) to the Lord house the day before the wedding. In those 24 hours before her second marriage begins, Tracy is prompted to rethink not only her choice of husband, but also her entire attitude toward people and life.

This must have been one of the first old movies I saw in 2002 because the only thing I remember about my initial experience of it was that I expected Tracy to accept Mike’s proposal, and if I’d been an experienced old movie watcher by then I would have known that obviously Katharine Hepburn was going to end up with Cary Grant, not James Stewart. I certainly did not immediately fully appreciate this movie, although I was intrigued enough to keep revisiting it until eventually it became my favorite. I watched it five times in each year from 2003 through 2005, four times in 2006, twice in 2007, 2008, and 2009, three times each in 2010 and 2011, five times in 2012, once in 2013, once in 2014, twice in 2015, once in 2017, twice in 2018, four times in 2019, once in 2020, twice in 2021, and once in 2022. Part of why I watch this so much is because it has three stars whose birthdays I celebrate almost every year, so I often watch it for Cary Grant’s birthday and then either Katharine Hepburn’s or James Stewart’s (their birthdays are only about a week apart so I don’t usually watch it for both). I think part of why I didn’t watch it in 2016 is because I watched it in late December of 2015 for the 75th anniversary of its release, so Grant’s birthday in January felt too soon to revisit it, and that May I decided to watch through all the Fred and Ginger movies starting with Astaire’s birthday, so I was less focused on Kate’s and Jimmy’s birthdays that year. And then later in 2016 I was too obsessed with Poe Party to watch much of anything else. But to make up for that, the reason I watched it so many times in 2019 is because Mary Kate Wiles used to host readings of plays and movie scripts with her actor friends for her Patreon, and I offered to transcribe the script of Philadelphia Story so she could do a reading of that one, and even though I knew the movie very well by then I decided to go through it a few more times to make sure I got all the details right, so eventually my love of Poe Party led to more rewatches of this. And the current Shipwrecked project, The Case of the Greater Gatsby, takes place in December of 1940 so there are lots of Philadelphia Story references in it and they make me very happy. Anyway, I’ve put quite a bit of effort into not watching this movie too many times too close together because I don’t ever want to overwatch it to the point of getting tired of it, like I did with a few other movies I’ve mentioned on this podcast, and many more that I burned out before they could make it into my top 40. While the stars’ birthdays have contributed to the view count, mostly this is my number one comfort movie that I know I can always turn to when I need something to watch, and I’m afraid of pushing it to the point where that no longer works. Although the fact that I sat through it 51 times in 20 years – the same number of views as number two plus number 40 on this list – and haven’t come close to getting tired of it yet indicates that I probably never will.

I don’t think I can really articulate what exactly it is about this movie that makes it my favorite to revisit, but I’m going to try. Certainly the fact that it features three of my favorite classic film stars helps, although a big part of why I love those stars so much is because of what they did in The Philadelphia Story. Every single member of the cast gives an absolutely fabulous performance. There isn’t a ton of action, but the dialogue is a perfect example of everything I love about the best Old Hollywood scripts: snappy and witty and clever on the surface, with real human emotion and intriguing philosophy underneath. The movie features many different kinds of brilliantly executed comedy, but the more serious moments still hit without feeling out of place. It deals with taboo subjects like divorce, infidelity, and alcoholism in ways that complied with production codes but still don’t feel too watered down. Basically, it has all the aspects I love about the other old movies on this list, only more so.

Several of my very favorite movie scenes of all time are in The Philadelphia Story. One is when Mike has had a lot to drink at a party and decides to visit Dexter in the middle of the night. The way drunk Jimmy Stewart and sober Cary Grant interact is hilarious and makes me desperately disappointed that the two of them never appeared in another movie together. At one point, Stewart makes a noise that’s kind of a mix of a hiccup, a cough, and a burp. Grant, thinking that Stewart has ruined the take, goes, “Excuse me,” sounding a little annoyed but trying to make a joke out of it, but then Stewart drunkenly responds with, “Huh?” indicating his intention to go on with the scene. Grant looks down, stifling a laugh, and then they continue with the dialogue, and I love that instead of reshooting it, or editing around it, they kept that in the movie. There may not be a blooper reel, but we still get to watch Jimmy Stewart almost break Cary Grant, and that’s good enough for me.

Another of my favorite scenes comes a bit earlier in the film, when Tracy and her younger sister, Dinah, played by Virginia Weidler, meet Mike and Liz for the first time. Tracy immediately saw through Dexter’s story that they were friends of her older brother’s and knows they’re reporters, but agreed to play along when Dexter informed her that Sidney Kidd intends to publish a story about Tracy’s father’s affair with a dancer unless he gets a story on her wedding. To protest the situation, Tracy and Dinah decide to put on a show for Mike and Liz, who don’t know that they know they’re reporters, and it is maybe my favorite comedic scene in any movie. First Dinah dramatically stumbles in wearing pointe shoes and some gaudy jewelry that was a wedding present she previously insulted. She then puts on an overly posh voice as she explains that she spoke French before she spoke English – “C’est vrai absolument!” – and boasts that she can play the piano “and sing at the same time!” She makes her way to the piano with the least graceful toe walk possible, and then bangs out a very silly rendition of “Lydia the Tattooed Lady,” a song mainly associated with Groucho Marx. While Mike and Liz are staring at her in bewilderment, Tracy peeks into the room and beams like she’s never been prouder of her sister. Once the song is finished, Tracy enters and praises Dinah in French, comparing her to Chopin, and then saying Dinah looks ill and she hopes it’s not smallpox, which freaks out Mike and Liz, but the audience knows it’s a private joke because earlier Tracy told Dinah that the only way she could postpone the wedding was to get smallpox. After Dinah leaves, it’s Tracy’s turn to confuse the reporters, and it is truly brilliant. The dialogue and the way it’s read, as Tracy turns the interview around and starts asking them invasive questions, is so good. Like when Tracy’s talking about how they don’t let any reporters in, “except for little Mr. Grace who does the social news. Can you imagine a grown-up man having to sink so low?” or when she’s welcoming them to Philadelphia and says, “It’s a quaint old place, don’t you think? Filled with relics, and how old are you, Mr. Connor?” It’s the seemingly accidental but actually very deliberate insults that get me. And then on top of that, there is some incredible yet subtle physical comedy going on throughout the conversation. Tracy accidentally-on-purpose pushes Mike and Liz into each other as she offers them seats, and there’s a whole very long bit between Tracy and Mike involving cigarettes, matches, and lighters that I didn’t even notice the first few times I watched it because I was too focused on what they were saying. It’s a thoroughly enjoyable scene all the way through, and every time I watch Tracy exit that room, leaving the reporters to ponder their bafflement, I have to applaud.

But the movie also excels at mixing some drama and seriousness in with the comedy. There’s a lot of focus on how Tracy demands perfection from herself and everyone around her, and as a result is missing out on the joys of human messiness. She makes a big deal about never drinking alcohol, although Dexter reveals that she did get drunk one time when they were married, and later remembered nothing about it. But after Dexter tells her that being married to her felt like being a high priest to a goddess, and George tells her that he worships her like a queen, and her father, who showed up uninvited, tells her she might just as well be made of bronze, Tracy gives in and starts drinking heavily at the party the night before her wedding, which was where Mike also got very drunk. Tracy and Mike meet up at Dexter’s house, then go back to her place, and dance and argue for a while until Mike kisses her and tells her that he sees her as a human being, which is a wonderful change of pace for her, so she suggests they go swimming together. Later, Dexter and George see Mike carrying Tracy back to the house, both of them in bathrobes, and George assumes the worst. The next morning, Tracy can’t remember what happened, but Dinah tells her that she saw Mike carry Tracy into her room – which is another excellent scene, Virginia Weidler was one of the best child actors of all time and people barely ever talk about her anymore, but she and Katharine Hepburn do a fabulous job of getting the point across that they both think Tracy slept with Mike the night before without breaking production codes. And then after that when Mike appears, he and Tracy have the most excruciatingly awkward conversation, and it’s so painful but so good. Dexter also shows up trying to comfort Tracy, and I love the way he doesn’t accuse her or condemn her or even ask her what happened, partly because he knows she doesn’t remember, partly because Mike told him nothing happened, but partly because you get the feeling that he wouldn’t think any less of her if she had drunkenly hooked up with Mike. And maybe that’s reading too much into this, but his reaction is certainly quite different from George’s, which I guess makes sense because technically she would have been cheating on George and not Dexter, but George doesn’t even let her explain before breaking up with her by note. He does finally show up in person as she’s reading the note aloud to Dexter, Mike, and Liz, and their confrontation is so well done – I particularly love Liz’s “Say something, stupid!” to Mike, who is just standing there listening to George accuse Tracy of having an affair with him. But after a while, Mike does eventually reveal that their so-called affair consisted of exactly two kisses and a rather late swim. Tracy and George don’t believe him at first, and then Tracy is offended, until he points out that she was very drunk and he didn’t want to take advantage of her. And like, I know that this movie was made in 1940, so the censors weren’t going to let Tracy actually have sex with another man the night before her wedding anyway, but I still can’t help loving the way they handled this. Tracy makes a bit of a fool of herself and learns that George is not the right man for her without going too far, and Mike demonstrates that it’s not that difficult to respect a woman’s autonomy and recognize when she is unable to consent.

I have a lot of mixed and complicated feelings about this story from an aroace perspective. On the one hand, it is very focused on romance and marriage. Also the whole thing about characters describing Tracy using phrases like “virgin goddess” and “perennial spinster, however many marriages” to illustrate her coldness and lack of human understanding is…not exactly an ace-affirming metaphor. On the other hand, I always appreciate stories about adults who have the chance to sleep together and choose not to, even when I know it’s at least partly because of production codes. And somehow, something about the way Dexter, Tracy, Mike, and Liz all interact give me hints of queer found family vibes, even though they end up paired off heterosexually. Maybe it’s the fact that it was directed by a gay man and features at least two probably queer actors that’s giving me that vibe, I don’t know. Another of my favorite scenes – I know, I have way too many – is when Dexter and Liz return to the Lord house after writing a blackmail note to Sidney Kidd. It’s a fairly short scene, but the way the two of them interact as platonic friends who understand each other but clearly don’t like each other romantically is not something I’m used to seeing in a scene featuring a man and a woman alone, and it makes me happy. Mike also has some great moments with Dexter, as does Tracy with Liz. I like to think that the four of them maintain their friendship after the events of the movie, rather than amatonormatively going off and doing their own thing with their spouse and forgetting about their friends. This movie does portray sex and romance as part of the human experience, but I don’t feel like it portrays them as the only important part. The message is all about pursuing the life that’s right for you, and not looking down on people who have different priorities, and when you look at it from that perspective, it actually is kind of ace-affirming, albeit probably unintentionally. But as I’ve indicated multiple times in previous episodes, asexual representation is so rare, and aromantic representation is even rarer, that if you can find an approximation of affirmation by tilting a story and squinting at it, even that feels exciting. That’s how low the bar is.

With that being said, as a teenager I definitely did relate to Tracy Lord, at least in terms of the way I was perceived. I think a lot of my peers thought that I thought I was better than them, when it was mostly that I just didn’t understand them. I don’t remember anyone calling me a goddess or a queen or a statue, but other middle and high schoolers definitely teased me for being “perfect”, which told me that they didn’t really see me as a person, so I felt Tracy’s pain and confusion when she got called out like that. I do think that like Tracy, I had a lot to learn about letting myself make mistakes and not judging other people too harshly for theirs, but I also still strongly feel that some of the criticism leveled at Tracy – and at me – was unwarranted. I can’t tell if the movie wants us to agree with Tracy’s father when he blames his philandering on not having the right kind of daughter, but I think that’s entirely unreasonable of him, and Tracy absolutely does not deserve that. And I’m not sure it’s fair of Dexter to blame her for contributing to his alcoholism, but at least Dexter takes some responsibility for his actions, unlike Seth Lord. I think my peers didn’t understand me any more than I understood them, but I probably could have cut them more slack and tried to get to know them better before writing most of them off as too different for me to possibly get to know. The circumstances in this movie are very different from being a high school misfit, but as a high schooler who often had trouble relating to movies that were actually about high school misfits, somehow this movie spoke to me. It was an escape from high school that also helped get me through high school. The story helped me become a less judgmental and more forgiving person toward others while also helping me feel better about being who I was unapologetically. I also got similar messages from other sources, so I don’t want to give this movie too much credit, but at the same time, I don’t think any single movie affected my teenage years more than this one, so I would certainly be a different person if I had never seen it.

The story of how this movie came about and what it led to is also very important to me. After appearing in several box office flops in the late 1930s – several of which made it onto this list – Katharine Hepburn left Hollywood for Broadway to star in and financially back the stage version of Philadelphia Story, which Philip Barry had written specifically for her. Howard Hughes purchased the film rights as a gift for Hepburn, with whom he had been romantically involved, although it seems like the romantic part of their relationship was over before that, so this is like My Man Godfrey in that it turned out the way it did partly because of exes who were still friends. Katharine Hepburn then sold the rights to Louis B. Mayer for only $250,000 on the condition that she would have input and veto power over producer, director, screenwriter, and cast. She got the director and writer she wanted, but her first choice for the two male leads – Clark Gable and Spencer Tracy – were unavailable. Gable reportedly hated George Cukor and was rumored to be at least partly responsible for the director being kicked off of Gone with the Wind, so it’s probably just as well that he wasn’t involved. Future lovers Hepburn and Tracy hadn’t even met yet at this point, so it would have been interesting if this was their first movie. But ultimately, Cary Grant came on board, under the condition that he would receive top billing, which feels a bit strange to see because Hepburn is clearly playing the main lead, but Grant also donated his entire salary to the British War Relief Society, so we can’t accuse him of too much selfishness. And James Stewart’s performance as Mike would earn him one of the film’s two Oscars, although he apparently thought that Henry Fonda should have won for The Grapes of Wrath, and that he had only received it as belated recognition for his performance in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington the previous year. Donald Ogden Stewart also won for Best Screenplay. The film was also nominated for Best Picture and Cukor was nominated for Best Director, and the performances of Katharine Hepburn and Ruth Hussey were nominated as well. The fact that Hepburn didn’t win – and lost to her rival Ginger Rogers, no less – indicates that Hollywood was still a little reluctant to welcome her back. But this movie crucially changed the public’s perception of Katharine Hepburn, transforming her from box office poison to a box office draw. They were calling her a has-been in 1938, but with The Philadelphia Story she showed them that she still had more to contribute, and her career took off in the 1940s, and lasted into the 1990s.

Even now, generations later, twenty years after Hepburn’s death, it’s easy to tell just by watching this movie why it was such a turning point for her. She completely embodies the spoiled socialite, but she makes Tracy sympathetic enough that when she is taken down a few pegs, as she needed to be, the audience feels sorry for her rather than gloating. Tracy is radiant enough that we understand why George worships her, yet she is down to earth enough that we understand her yearning to be seen not as an object of worship, but as a human being. Hepburn nails both the comedic scenes and the more serious dramatic scenes, with no hint of the desperately-trying-too-hard actress who comes across too often in some of her earlier films. While I obviously still love many of those films, watching this one feels like we’re seeing a Katharine Hepburn who has finally come into her own. There certainly was an element of trying to get the public to like her, but there’s no desperation about it. She gets this character, and knows how to make the audience get her too. I don’t think I could have found Tracy so relatable if she hadn’t been played like that. And listen, I’m thrilled that Ginger Rogers won an Oscar, especially because Hepburn would end up with four and didn’t really need this win, but if I had to pick one single all-time favorite film performance, I can’t think of any that would beat Katharine Hepburn’s Tracy Lord. Although I also have to say that I think Cary Grant’s performance as Dexter is incredibly underappreciated. I’ve said before that sometimes I have trouble taking him seriously in dramatic roles, but this was the ideal blend of seriousness and silliness for him, and he nails every emotional beat. He does an excellent job of showing the audience that he has grown and learned from the mistakes of his first marriage and is ready to move forward with healing his relationship with Tracy, which makes this a much better remarriage story than His Girl Friday, for example. There were a lot of movies made around this time about a divorced couple reconciling, mostly because that was the only way the Production Code allowed the scandalous topic of divorce to be addressed on film, but Philadelphia Story feels different from most of those. It’s more like Pride and Prejudice, if Pride and Prejudice started right after Elizabeth turned down Darcy’s first proposal. Both are about a couple who needed to grow and reflect before they could be happy together. I think those are my favorite kind of romances because they have less to do with attraction, which I don’t really understand, and more to do with trying to become the best version of oneself, which everyone can do regardless of how they feel about romance. Anyway, I’m a little sad that this was the last time Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn worked together, but I’m so glad they got to make this masterpiece before their careers diverged.

In 1956, The Philadelphia Story was remade as a musical film called High Society, which I watched 12 times. I enjoy that version too, although obviously not nearly as much as this version. It’s a fun romp, and the Cole Porter songs are great, but it doesn’t quite pack the same emotional punch as The Philadelphia Story. Strangely, considering I don’t think anything can touch Hepburn’s original portrayal, my favorite part of that movie is Grace Kelly’s performance as Tracy. She put her own spin on the character and was clearly having fun – probably at least partly because she’d already decided to retire from acting and marry a prince, and was wearing her actual engagement ring in the film. My biggest objection to High Society – and yes, I know I’ve complained about this too many times on this podcast but bear with me one more time – is the age gap between Dexter and Tracy. They’re supposed to have grown up together, but Bing Crosby was 26 years older than Grace Kelly, and their dynamic is just all wrong. The story doesn’t work if Dexter is old enough to be Tracy’s father! Whereas in Philadelphia Story, we’ve got Cary Grant who was born in 1904, Katharine Hepburn who was born in 1907, and James Stewart who was born in 1908. They were all basically the same age! It can be done! John Howard was born in 1913, so he was a bit younger, but I think that works for the way George looks up to and admires Tracy, and still that’s a relatively small gap. Anyway, we can add “getting actors of appropriate ages” to the long list of things The Philadelphia Story did right.

So there we have it. I’ve talked about all of my top 40 most frequently rewatched movies of my first 20 years of keeping track. Thank you so much for listening to all my rambling! I hope you’ve found this entertaining and informative – I know I have. I’m planning to do one more epilogue episode in a few weeks summarizing what I’ve learned from this project, so stay tuned for that if you’re interested. I also have lots of other ideas for movie-related podcasts that may or may not come to fruition, we’ll see. Since I don’t know what the next movie I’ll podcast about will be, I’ll leave you with one last quote from The Philadelphia Story: “We all go haywire at times, and if we don’t, maybe we ought to.”

[movies-to-add-to-your-tbw]

Title: Love at First Sight

Rating: PG-13

Director: Vanessa Caswill

Cast: Haley Lu Richardson, Ben Hardy, Rob Delaney, Katrina Nare, Jameela Jamil, Tom Taylor, Dexter Fletcher, Sally Phillips, Vivian Gwaspari, Jordan Frazier, Tracy Wiles, Philip Bird, Ibinabo Jack, Jessica Ransom, Doña Croll, Leigh Quinn, Stephan Boyce

Release year: 2023

Genres: romance, drama

Blurb: Hadley and Oliver begin falling in love on a flight from New York to London...but when they lose each other at customs, can they defy all odds and reunite?

[miss--soapy]

[COMMISSIONED PHOTOS MASTERLIST]

[COMMISSION INFO]

Commissions :

Yubin 1 2 & Felix for yubin_vallna on TikTok!

Forrest & Sage for dittanybouqet on TikTok!

Samson 1 2 for orchidot on TikTok!

Raiden for wintersolsticex1 on TikTok!

Morgan, Otis, Irene, Rueben, & Tillie for slytherdor_alliance on TikTok!

Briana for caytopotayto on TikTok!

Willow 1 2 3 4 5, Kevin, Hank for salixtree on TikTok!

Lucas & Callum for ajarofnatella on TikTok!

Elijah & Perfidious for shadow_ofeverything on TikTok!

Caius for caiusfawley on TikTok!

Angela for amortentias_ on TikTok!

Eris for erislucretia on TikTok!

Dante, Dexter, Sabrina & Winifred for sabrinariverfae on TikTok!

Emily for emily.bellow on TikTok!

Freddie for lucindamirfield on TikTok!

Amara for cruciox14 on TikTok!

Jeremiah & Alara for alarasaxon on TikTok!

Philip for endeavour12345 on Tumblr!

Aurelie for morelikeravenbore on TikTok!

Eris for iaccidentallydeletedmyotherblog on Tumblr!

Emelisse for emelissecromwell on TikTok!

Lia for sallowgaunt on TikTok!

April & Oliver 1 2 for aprilwoods_ on TikTok!

Ayla & Mason for amhuffthepuff on TikTok!

Newt 1 2 3 for thalia_freds on TikTok!

Ariadne for that-one-weird-fangirl2020 on Tumblr!

Beatrice for moongirl95 on Tumblr!

Paige 1 2 for npaige30 on TikTok!

Insidious 1 2 & Sherry for sherryemerson98 on TikTok!

Calliope 1 2 for plxnetn1ne on TikTok!

Violetta for grindelwaldv on TikTok!

Amaya 1 2 for mamalunawolf on Tumblr!

Rhodes 1 2, Sean, William, Yong-sun for rhodes.holloway on TikTok!

Sage for sebominis on TikTok!

Astoria fo nek0_devil on TikTok!

Olivia for cl0nazpm on Tumblr!

Laras for woundedeaglerave on TikTok!

Sabrina for smile-arigatou on TikTok!

Joan for jnpristin on TikTok!

Theodore for empyreanforlife_ on TikTok!

Gavriel 1 2 & Yanxiao for gavrieldrachenfeuer on TikTok!

Ylidelle for ylidelle on TikTok!

Cole for luminaryequinox on TikTok!

Emilia for iamnusel on TikTok!

Seraphina for seraphinalovely on Tiktok!

Freya for hogwartslegacybot on TikTok!

Cerus for mikkochondria on TikTok!

Aries & Weiss for chippiiv on TikTok!

Hal for marichanx on Tumblr!

Onyx, Ceris & Neil for buevitokun on TikTok!

Kiran for crxastel_edits on TikTok!

Scarlet & Seth for scarletsbld on TikTok!

Taia for ankoxlover212 on TikTok!

Harebell for harxbxll on Tumblr!

Evelyn for starlight-nerd on Tumblr!

Tanner for tburnett96 on TikTok!

Astraia for astraia.pendragon on TikTok!

Rose for brosielle on TikTok!

[COMMISSION LIST PT.2]

[tulipscomeinallsortsofcolors]

i dont know why but blake, philip and dexter especially fit the characters so well, like if they had to have any other first name those would be perfect candidates i feel

alskdjakljsdklj /)>///<(\ thanks i love naming characters its so so fun