#You do picture their romance as very tempestuous

[windsweptinred]

Dreamingstar thoughts...

Lucifer calls Morpheus, ‘Sweet Dream’ because that is what Dream is to him. The sweetest thing Lucifer could want or wish for. The dream of freedom. The very thing that rests at Lucifer's core and drives every action. True freedom from his Father's dominion. For only Fantasy unbound has the power to rewrite the stars. Dream really is Lucifer's ultimate ‘Hope’. 

‘I am hope’ must have really been a brutal gut punch considering. 

[acourtofthought]

I try to understand the logic of the Elriel stan. Many things make sense, but others don't.

They are convinced that the forbidden romance will exist between them as if it were some other book we find lying around.

They are convinced that Elain's ignoring Lucien is a sign to Elriel. Being that: we saw Feyre and Nesta fight the bond even though they were already in love.

They are convinced that 3 brothers to 3 sisters is obvious and even clap for Vassien when we have no clues, other than Lucien's loyalty which is something emphasized in the books.

But they ignored that: Sjm would mate Nesta and Lucien, so it wouldn't be three sisters for the batboys.

They also ignored that Lucien is so loyal that he doesn't speak ill of Tamlin having reasons and that he almost died and was whipped out of loyalty to Feyre and his friend.

They think Lucien's concern for Vassa is loving, but I see someone who admires a queen who loves her people and someone who is her friend above all else. They ignore all hints of romance between Vassa and Jurian.

Vassa and Jurian are at each other's throats, but their thinking of the future is the same. Doesn't this remind you of endgame couples?

They are even playful with each other. Vassa appears to be as tempestuous as Jurian, someone as sharp as he is. I see this endgame couple.

Yes, Elriel has moments in the books, but I don't see those endgame double signs. One of the two would have to change drastically to fit into each other's lives. And SJM had three books to match them, and she didn't.

How do they not see the red flags? And what do you think of the many number 3s in this universe?The Elriel stan are very attached to this.

Good Morning!!! Happy Friday!!!

Starting at the bottom and the question regarding the number 3.

My best guess is that SJM (based on her studies and the different lores that she samples from), likes the number three because it's considered "the perfect number, the number of harmony, wisdom, and understanding. It's also the number of time - past, present, future; birth, life, death; beginning, middle, end - it was the number of the divine. Three is often the magic number in fairy tales."

And I do think there may be something to that within the series because we constantly see mention of "birth, life, death" and "beginning, middle, end".

But I don't think SJM would make her endgame couples based around the number 3 which is a bit corny. Her references to the number three have a deeper meaning.

Like the sisters conquering a mountain which is showing their personal journey's. Or Feyre being likened to "Birth and the Beginning", Nesta being likened to "A Goddess of Death" and Elain being likened to "Life".

But like you said, she NEVER intended three sisters with three brothers since she initially thought Nesta would be with Lucien but that ship fell apart when she realized they wouldn't be well matched after their characters further developed. What took her by surprise though is that Elain WAS a match for Lucien. E/riels are going to just have to deal with it but SJM always wanted him with one of the Archeron's and the compatibility of Elain and Lucien has only gotten stronger since she realized they'd be mates.

And every path they try to take "forbidden love, Elain shies away from Lucien, Vassa and Lucien are going to be a thing" are so easily disproven by just looking at the rest of the series. It does them no good to only focus on E/riel moments as evidence of something because there is way too much information given everywhere else that is required to create the full picture. There IS NOT forbidden love because there is no love. Rhys ONLY told Az that because he couldn't admit to being over Mor and did not give him any reason to think he wasn't just using Elain for sex.

Forbidden love is:

"But Daddy, I love him!"

"I don't like the family he's from, you are to stay away from him!"

Not:

"What of Mor, Az?" Az ignored the question.

and....

"So you'll what? Seduce her away from him? Azriel said nothing. He hadn't gotten that far with his planning, certainly not beyond the fantasies he pleasured himself too.

And turning a blind eye to SJM using the same language for Jassa as she did in an interviews for Nessian is just ignorance. Plus Lucien is a really good friend to the females in his life. He comforted Feyre, stroking her hair and calming her with his words when she pretended to have that nightmare. He covered her with his jacket even after she used him in her schemes. He JUST met Vassa during a time of war yet they want to pretend that's romantic coding? Because he blushed over Feyre telling him he sounded like an acolyte? He blushed because he was embarrassed that he was showing support for Vassa and Feyre turned it into more in front of his Mate who he still looks at with longing. At this point, Lucien is more like a dad watching Vassa and Jurian bicker with one another than there being anything romantic.

I'm just not sure why you'd want to base your opinion on only half the picture and that's what E/riels tend to do. They pick apart only the things that support their ship and ignore every other part of the book which easily shuts down their ideas. Yet they want to claim we're the ones with reading comprehension issues.

[tcm]

Island in the Sun: ‘One Drop’ in the Ocean By Theresa Brown

Let’s face it – America was not ready for Dorothy Dandridge.

Her beauty is undeniable. And, as Janet Jackson notes in her TCM tribute to Dandridge, Dorothy was a ‘triple threat’ with singing, dancing and acting in her repertoire. She just needed a chance to shine. Daughter of character actress Ruby Dandridge, Dorothy appeared in soundies and small uncredited parts throughout the 1940s. In BRIGHT ROAD (‘53) she plays a schoolteacher offering G-rated maternal love and understanding to her students in a rural school district. She really comes into prominence with Otto Preminger’s 1954 film CARMEN JONES. Sexy, sassy, fiery...dangerous, Dandridge swaggers like a gunslinger and sets the screen ablaze as the tempestuous Carmen. Her BRIGHT ROAD co-star, Harry Belafonte, is the hapless handsome soldier who tragically tangles with her. Dandridge was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role for her performance.

I rather enjoyed her next movie coming three years after CARMEN JONES, ISLAND IN THE SUN (’57). It’s sort of a PEYTON PLACE in the Caribbean with different storylines of politics, family secrets, murder and miscegenation weaving and wending their way around coconut trees and sugar cane plantations. May I offer one sticky wicket of a caveat? You’ll probably have to leave your 21st century racial perspective at home when you visit. The movie is 63 years old and does give a nod to all those antiquated racial tropes. My jaw dropped a coupla times.

Let me map out the scorecard for you. A Caribbean country is about to undergo the changeover from colony to independence. Pivotal in that change is union leader Harry Belafonte. Pre-dating Malcolm and Martin and today’s ‘social justice’ warriors, Belafonte’s character is interested in uplifting his people on the island. He has a casual relationship with Dandridge that doesn’t have enough fire to toast a marshmallow. What’s wrong with THAT picture? In the movie, he has history on the island with Joan Fontaine. There’s a tentative attempt to explore where they can go, but class and color are a bumpy road for them to hurdle (perhaps the script’s “convenient” way to keep them apart?). He’s more interested in power than romance. Gee, all that handsomeness gone to waste. I don’t know that Belafonte quite has any chemistry with Fontaine once you see Dandridge on his arm – or am I the only one blinded here? But Belafonte steps up his acting game opposite Academy Award-winner Fontaine.

Also in the cast, we have Stephen Boyd, ripe for the picking as the current governor’s son whose return to the island after months stationed in Egypt—without a woman in sight—is pointedly noted. He’s back on the island until he jets off to London. It’s said of him:

“A male, young, white, unmarried, titled and comparatively rich. Good heavens, what else do you think the girls would talk about.”

Boyd spots virginal-in-white Joan Collins at the Governor’s ball. Yes, you read that right – I said virginal and Joan Collins in the same sentence, and he’s interested. So is she. They start a slow-building romance. They don’t make themselves part of the island’s life. They’re into each other. Don’t worry, a freak-out lays ahead for them. Her brother is played by James Mason. They are heirs to the largest sugar cane plantation on the island and Mason’s a weakling. You know the type: the second son...ever second best...insecure...lots to prove. He has contempt for the islanders; suspects his wife of having an affair with the dashing, accomplished Michael Rennie; and decides to run as a political opponent to the popular Belafonte. Belafonte’s response:

“Wouldn’t it be fair to say the only reason you seek election is to revenge yourself upon the whites whom you now think despise you?”

Mason’s got a lot on his plate. (And it ain’t conch chowder).

When Dandridge first appears in the movie, she and Belafonte make a stunning couple entering the governor’s party. She immediately lets Belafonte know she has a mind of her own. She’s confident, truthful, tries to do herself some good pitching for a job in the governor’s office. She fits right into the tony setting with no apology...and wearing no maid’s uniform. She carries herself with quiet sophistication. She just is. She’s noticed by the governor’s military attaché (John Justin), and he immediately falls head over heels. I like Justin and Dandridge together. He’s not trying to keep their relationship secret. He might have one twinge of jealousy or discomfort, but all in all they’re fine together. You might think this interracial romance would be problematic as well but it’s not, compared to Belafonte and Fontaine. What’s the difference? Food for thought. But I think we all know why.

Justin: “Somewhere someone once said there’s always a point in the beginning of a love affair where a man can draw back. Where he’s still safe.”

Dandridge: “Is that what you want, to be safe?” 

Justin: “I’ve been in love. Funny, I don’t know anything about you.” Dandridge: “What would you like to know?” 

Justin: “All about you. Everything.” 

There is a moment with this couple I really like; it’s provocative in a non-provocative way. (No Spoiler!) Dandridge is lying fully clothed on Justin’s bed, reading his manuscript...with no shoes on. Big deal, right? I think it speaks tremendously to their level of intimacy. She’s at home in his space. When have you ever seen THAT in movies of the 50s...or 40s or 30s for that matter?

I like this Daryl Zanuck-production. It’s a colorful, lush, melodramatic production with racial and sexual tension, sexual restraint and good-looking people. Dorothy Dandridge is very easy to watch on film. Yes, she’s easy on the eyes, but she’s also not chewing the scenery and has a very natural presence on screen. You never see her act. I wish she’d done more. She’s not exotic. She’s just a woman...a human. She had many facets she could tap into to express different characters. I’m so glad TCM, with the guidance of acclaimed author Donald Bogle, spotlighted her career. This gets a wider audience to get to know her. No, America was not ready for Dorothy Dandridge.

But she wasn’t going to spend her time waiting for us.

[new-sandrafilter]

True Romance: Saoirse Ronan and Timothée Chalamet on reuniting for Little Women

They may be posing in an airy lower Manhattan studio, but Timothée Chalamet and Saoirse Ronan have a way of making you feel right at home. “I made a little playlist this morning,” Chalamet announces to the room. He syncs up his cell phone to the sound system, his boyish grin widening as Marvin Gaye’s “What’s Going On” starts blaring. He returns to the camera, which snaps him and Ronan at a furious pace.

It’s their first joint cover shoot. He’s wearing a shimmery striped shirt with high-waist trousers; she’s rocking a shirtdress, fishnet stockings, and clear stilettos. He keeps cracking her up; she musses his hair with doting affection. During a break that follows, he wanders, gripping a paper bag stuffed with assorted bagels — from Tompkins Square Bagels, which Chalamet, a lifelong New Yorker, insists are the best in the city — and offering one to anyone in his path. He sings and dances — very Elio-in-the-town-square-like — to Bob Dylan’s “Tombstone Blues.” He creeps behind a distracted Ronan before spooking her with a yelp. “I didn’t even know you were there!” she exclaims, reddening from the fright but with a smile so lovingly at ease, you sense she’s used to the prank.

They’ve known each other, after all, for some time. About three years ago, Ronan, now 25, and Chalamet, 23, met filming Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s solo directorial debut, in which Ronan’s irrepressible heroine (briefly) romances Chalamet’s douchey amateur musician. They reunited with Gerwig last year, on the heels of Lady Bird’s Oscar-nominated success, for a bigger undertaking: a remake of the oft-remade Little Women (Dec. 25). Ronan and Chalamet slipped into the roles of tomboyish Jo March and buoyant Theodore “Laurie” Laurence, best friends who ultimately break each other’s hearts. Their courtship ranks among American culture’s oldest tales of unrequited love — made indelible by Katharine Hepburn and Douglass Montgomery, Winona Ryder and Christian Bale, and so many others — yet finds, in the hands of two of the most compelling actors of their generation, galvanizing new life.

That goes, in fact, for the whole of Gerwig’s Little Women. Her version certainly contains the snow-globe coziness of treasured adaptations past, but also carries a fizzy emotional authenticity and attention to detail. The film is remarkably lived-in, too: This take on Louisa May Alcott’s 1868 novel, which follows Jo and her three sisters pre– and post–American Civil War, feels plucked straight from the text in the best way, with siblings fighting like siblings, love and loss and hope and pain vividly experienced on screen.

Ronan and Chalamet’s charming big sister–little brother dynamic is not unlike the one that Jo and Laurie share in Little Women. Watch the actors play off one another, and the film’s tender realism clarifies itself: Their on-camera intimacy is just as palpable behind the scenes. Indeed, after shooting Lady Bird for a few weeks, the pair hung out regularly over the next year, making the awards-circuit rounds and scoring lead-acting Oscar nominations — Ronan for Lady Bird, Chalamet for Call Me by Your Name — before swiftly signing on to Little Women. In advance of filming in Concord, Mass. (the actual setting of the book), Gerwig and producer Amy Pascal gathered the large production’s cast and crew for rehearsals at a house just outside the town. For Ronan and Chalamet, the contrast between this and their early Lady Bird days was immense. “I felt very prideful… about how big it had gotten, how many people were there,” Chalamet recounts. “On Lady Bird it was, like, 25 people hanging out in a house!”

They fell back into each other’s rhythms instantly. “He keeps me on my toes — I’m never quite sure what he’s going to do next,” Ronan says. “That only progressed more and grew more. It helped that we do have a very natural rapport with each other…. These two characters physically need to be very comfortable with one another. They’re literally intertwined for half the film.” Chalamet adds: “In the least clichéd way possible, it really doesn’t feel like [I’m] acting sometimes [with her].”

Chalamet credits Gerwig, too, for establishing a playful, comfortable atmosphere. He thinks back to his first day of rehearsal: He reunited with Ronan. He introduced himself to Emma Watson (who plays the eldest March sister, Meg). He was guided into a third-floor conference room of a “random building” where, “all of a sudden, there was a full dance class going on.” He recalls fondly: “Everyone breaks down and becomes a little kid. This job is so trippy in that regard — you want to be serious, you want to be professional, and then it’s almost best when you’re able to be 12 years old. When it’s someone you’re actually friends with, it makes it easier.”

Ronan smirks, gearing up for a jab: “We’re not friends!” Delighted, Chalamet keeps the bit going. “We’re not friends,” he says, solemnly. For once, they’re not very convincing.

Greta Gerwig doesn’t remember a time before she knew Jo March. “[Little Women] was very much part of who I always was,” the writer-director, 36, says. “It was something my mother read to me when I was growing up. It’s been with me for a very long time.”

She joined Sony Pictures’ new Little Women adaptation when she was hired to write the script in 2016. Once Lady Bird bowed the next year, she emerged as a candidate to direct the film. “Greta had a very specific, energized, kind of punk-rock, Shakespearean take on this story,” Pascal says. “She came in and had a meeting with all of us and said, ‘I know this has been done before, but nobody can do it but me.’” She got the gig.

In her approach, Gerwig drew on her lifelong relationship with Little Women; beyond childhood, she discovered new, complex layers to the novel, and in turn to Alcott’s legacy. “As a girl, my heroine was Jo March, and as a grown lady, my heroine is Louisa May Alcott,” she says. It’s perhaps why Gerwig’s Little Women feels like the most adult — and modern — version of the story that’s reached the screen to date. The movie begins with the March sisters in adulthood — typically where the narrative’s second half begins — and unfolds like a memory play, shifting back and forth between that present-day frame and extended flashbacks to the childhood scenes etched in the American literary canon.

In that, Gerwig finds fascinating, fresh areas of exploration regarding women’s lives: the choices society forces them to make, the beauty and struggles of artistic pursuit, the consequences of rebellion. Jo’s journey as a writer anchors Gerwig’s direction; tempestuous Amy (Florence Pugh) gets more of a spotlight as she matures as a painter (and Laurie’s eventual wife); and Meg is realized with newfound nuance: “We felt it was important to show Meg juggling all her roles — a mother, a wife, a sister — whilst also celebrating her dreams, despite them being different to those of her sisters,” says Watson. But Gerwig doesn’t see herself as reinventing the wheel. “A lot of the lines in the film are taken right from the book,” she explains. “When Amy says, ‘I want to be great or nothing’ — she says that in the book! I don’t think we remember that, but she does say it.” Gerwig also loves one line spoken by the sisters’ mother, Marmee (Laura Dern), also revived in this version: “I’m angry almost every single day.”

Gerwig compiled a “bible” filled with cultural references: to Whistler tableaux of family life, to David Bowie–Jean Seberg hairdos that inspire the look of Jo’s mid-film cut, to Alcott family letters. “I wanted it to be footnote-able,” Gerwig says. “I wanted to point to it and say, ‘This is where this is from.’” She considers Alcott’s text sacred: “I wanted to treat the text as something that could be made fresh by great acting.”

Beyond those charged but less quoted Little Women lines are its famous ones — throw-pillow staples like Jo’s “Christmas won’t be Christmas without any presents,” that no adaptation is complete without. The actors rehearsed these “almost like a song,” pushing to move through them with a rapid musicality. “We [read] the book out loud,” says Dern. Gerwig expected the script’s words to be memorized precisely. “I knew I wanted them to get this cadence that felt sparkly and slightly irreverent,” she says. “I wanted to make them move at the speed of light.”

She poured the same love into iconic scenes, like Jo and Laurie’s ebullient dance that follows their first meeting. Here it goes on longer — and more vibrantly — than in any previous iteration. (Ronan says they filmed it at 3 a.m., to boot, adding, “We must have done it, like, 30 times.”) Then there’s the devastating moment when Laurie asks Jo to marry him and she rejects his proposal. Gerwig tasked the two actors to unleash here. “Emotions just bubble over,” Ronan says. “[Greta] just let us go with it, wherever it went, from take to take. What I loved about that scene is that every take would be different emotionally. It didn’t have the same trajectory.

“The two of us, it’s a relationship I have with no other director,” Ronan continues. “She makes me feel like I can try anything.”

As Ronan and Chalamet emerge from their photo-studio dressing area in impossibly chic new ensembles — she donning a form-fitting knit sweater, he a silky, ruffled top — their creative energy fills the space. They try out different poses, debating concepts and ideas with each other on the fly; at one point he wraps his arms around her waist, and she quips to no one in particular, “We’re expecting our first.” Camera snap.

They’re modeling a new brand of movie stardom — pursuing projects with a point of view, adamantly being themselves in the public eye, subverting gender norms. Their androgynous fashion performance here reflects their wardrobe shake-ups in Little Women: Gerwig and Oscar-winning costumer Jacqueline Durran (Anna Karenina) had the two actors swapping clothes throughout filming, to reinforce the masculine-feminine fluidity between Jo and Laurie. “They are two halves,” as Pascal puts it. “These are really bold characters that are really different than you’ve seen them before.”

And just as Gerwig expressed a need to direct Little Women, Ronan knew in her bones she needed to play Jo. She’d first encountered the story via the 1994 film when she was 11, and later read the book, feeling an immediate kinship with the young woman she’d come to portray. “When Louisa describes Jo, it felt like someone describing me physically: sort of gangly and stubborn and very straightforward, and went for what she wanted.” At an event for Lady Bird, she — in a very Jo kind of way — just “went at it” by approaching Gerwig. “I said, ‘So I want to be in Little Women, but only if I’m playing Jo.’” (Chalamet, for his part, was asked by Gerwig, “Hey, want to do another movie?” He responded: “Yes. Yes, please.”)

Over months of living in Concord with her castmates, Ronan discovered new depths within herself: ���Jo’s ethos is ‘Everything everyone else is doing, I’m going to do the opposite.’ [I had] to try things that I’d never tried before. Be a bit messier with a performance.” Gerwig set up etiquette lessons for the cast; whatever the instructor said (“Don’t shake hands! Don’t gesticulate with your arms!”), Ronan made sure to ignore it. She speaks now of this as freeing, even transformative. “I felt like I had tapped into something I’d never gotten the opportunity to tap into before, or I just didn’t have the guts to tap into myself,” she says. “Finding that was just amazing.”

Shortly after wrapping Little Women, she filmed Wes Anderson’s next film, The French Dispatch — marking her third time costarring with Chalamet, who plays a central role. As for now? Ronan is taking a little break. “I’ll wait for the right thing to come along,” she says. “It’s lovely to be in a position at this moment where I can wait for the absolute right thing.” Same goes for Chalamet — he shot Netflix’s The King (out Oct. 11) right before Little Women and just completed production on Denis Villeneuve’s Dune adaptation. “It’s the first time in almost two years I’ve gotten a breath, so I’m savoring it.”

It’s been a long day. They’re back in comfy clothes; Ronan is taking a late lunch. It feels like both actors — as another whirlwind of acclaim and press and romance-shipping awaits — are at a kind of peace, exhausted but satisfyingly so. Little Women is the biggest movie either has done to date; more attention, as they inhabit such revered characters, is sure to follow. “I just haven’t thought about it that way,” Ronan admits. “Maybe because it’s just Greta — even though it’s on a much bigger scale, she wanted it to feel like Lady Bird.”

Ronan understands the timeless power of Little Women, of course: “It’s as important to tell Little Women right now as it would be at any point in our lifetime.” She points to this pop culture climate of “celebrating female friendships and sisterhood,” and continues, “It’s a story that’s full of love. That will always be relevant.”

She turns toward Chalamet, and you realize the love they brought to Alcott’s classic is what first blossomed between them on Lady Bird. “I love that in Lady Bird, you broke my heart,” she says to him softly. “In Little Women, I got to break your heart.” (Chalamet, ever the goofball, finds an obvious opening: “Yes, that’s true. Then I married your sister. Ha, ha, ha!”)

If this all sounds a little idyllic, well, neither actor — nor Gerwig, nor Pascal, nor the rest of the cast — can do much to convince you otherwise. Shifting back to Little Women’s timelessness, and reflecting on Ronan’s comments about it, Chalamet says, “I don’t know how to add to that.” Instead he turns back to his costar, his expression suddenly sincere, filled with gratitude. “But if I can add one little dose of information,” he says with a nervous laugh. “And not just because she’s sitting next to me.” He credits Ronan with bringing that “timeless energy.” He says “thank God” they were able to make the movie. “It’s so rare with Saoirse — I’m so f—ing grateful to get to work with her,” he says. “Whatever book I write for myself when I’m older, to look back on —” He stops himself. “Well, this is a bigger conversation.”

But Ronan, chuckling, doesn’t let him off the hook. “Will I have, like, a chapter?” And Chalamet laughs — another opening, another chance to act with his greatest scene partner, to see what journey of creation and discovery they’ll go on next. “A chapter of Saoirse,” he says.

At this rate, one chapter won’t suffice.

[lunelantern]

~Sasusaku analysis ~

                                             ~Sasusaku analysis ~                                ~~ Sasuke and Sakura - - pair analysis ~~                                            ~THE BRIDGE SCENE~                            (Team 7 Reunion - - after the Five Kage Summit)

                                                  ---PART 1---

Only in the name of love, would people be capable of greatest sacrifice; to  abandon ration, logic and even morals and principles to completely surrender to the blazing flame of love.

The hallucinating pain of not being able to surrender to love is similar to having one's  soul split in half. I can only depict what must have churned into Sakura's heart when she came face to face to the one she helplessly love with abandonment, with the intent to banish her feelings into silence and act upon her shinobi duty.

[How could I withstand the tempest in his smoldering eyes with the confidence of as shinobi, without him to read what's in my heart? How could I use my words as deceiving temptation when my feelings shine unbridled with love for only him? How could I level his gaze when he's seeing through my eyes like gazing into crystal waters? How could I pierce his heart with a weapon of death and destruction, when my heart wants to touch his gently with love? How could I force my lips to murmur words of deceit when they want nothing more but to touch yours with the graceful caress of a whispered spring zephyr? How could I kill you when I love you so helplessly? How could I kill the one I want to kiss with abandonment? How could I temper his hatred into love? And more importantly, how can I kill him without losing myself? ...for he always had my heart and I was always his. Now and forever we will be...]

Whether is the unprecedented conjunction between the full-fledged clashing shinobi and their rebelling romantic feelings, the implicit suppression of inmost emotions, the implacable destiny of a cruelly realistic anti-hero, the Weltschmerz of love and romance which devours and hurts before it heals and soothes, the heart-tucking incremental angst and melodrama, the tragic vista of an unrequited romantic love shattering like a broken piece of glass, the internal turmoil kindling like a nonpareil hymn of a Shakespearean tragedy, there are peculiar characteristics and symbols introduced in this heated encounter between Sasuke and Sakura that are simply monumental.

Every single panel and transition that supports the dialogue perfectly crayons the theatrical art of a tragic romance.

The cohesive construction, the smooth transitions, the constant leap between the subjective and objective levels of execution, contour a visually tragic love story with the master stroke paintbrush of a genius painter.

Sasuke and Sakura's gestures and kinesics are meaningful, illustrative and revealing for anticipating the sublime angst and pain that come as a hefty price to pay for love.

Only in the name of love, would people be capable of greatest sacrifice; to  abandon ration, logic and even morals and principles to completely surrender to the blazing flame of love.

Some of the greatest romances in classical literature often depict love as all-consuming, spirit-draining unconquerable and scorching. It's exactly the tantalizing idea of a feeling that scorches, cremates and consumes the body and mind until it burns to ashes and yet lovers keep on wanting more and more, endlessly.

Sasuke and Sakura embody the same implacable fate as the classic literature's most illustrative couples as the pioneers of angst and drama, in such an iconic manner of construction, that one cannot but feel the tempestuous flow of their feelings transcend the inanimate pages of the manga and reaching to the bottom of the audience's hearts.

The heated glances, the suppressed feelings, the pent up angst and remorse, the churning guilt coupled with the immeasurable pain of seeing your heart drifting away from your heart are iconic.

The dialogue is animated and dynamic, strong and their implied romantic affiliation is  brutally uncensored. Everything about this scene between Sasuke and Sakura draws the curtain of the stage of a perfectly theatrical love tragedy, with the pair as leading cast of unrequited love.

People are social creatures anointed with the most amazing of gifts that Heavens have imparted with us, the only holy prowess that ensures the liaison between our mortal human condition and our Creator. Metaphorically and what literary analysis depicts as sacred and profane, what elevated the spirit of a mortal sentient being from its implacable ephemeral condition is love.

We are made to seek love, to chase love, to desire to love and be corresponded.

Naturally, trying to suppress a feeling that's sine qua non to soul-completion is capable to produce a terrifying pain and it's exactly the excruciating constant attempt to suppress love and act against the very nature of things that Sasuke and Sakura experience in their fulminant clash in the bridge scene.

Let's analyze the scenery prior to get to character introspection.

Just as the setting is the lifeblood of any theatrical play, is noteworthy to highlight the importance of the backdrop as the extraneous elements of the surrounding background - - the objective level of construction - - perfectly supports the internal feelings - - the subjective level - - of the characters.

The surroundings emphasize and reflect what the characters are feeling.

Very symbolic elements presented in literatures as tools to introduce the readers in the heat of the characters emotions are also illustrated in this scene.

We have the half-destroyed bridge as the grand stage where the two actors play their theatrical love drama. In literature, the bridge symbolically represents the connecting pathway between two opposing worlds. It's a metaphor for connection, for union and conjunction; depending on what it connects, usually ascribed to a positive connotation; implicitly the bridge could mean prosperity, hope, fulfillment of a dream, relief.

Usually, the bride is overarching to a flowing water but it can also span over two ravines or crevices. In which, the pathway to connect two separated pieces of land; symbolically it marks the communion between two separates worlds that otherwise are meant to never meet, never come together.

A bridge could represent the inner conflict of a character in his decision-making inner turmoil. Someone who must decide what road to take in life, to make a life-changing decision. Naruto manga is a Bildungsroman - - a complex construction following a character's development from childhood to adulthood and is abounding with key situations that would change the dynamics and seal the destiny of a character.

When at crossroads or battling with uncertainty, characters are often presented as leaning against a bridge and looking over the underside ripple of the flowing water; a metaphor for mixed feelings, indecision, confusion, inner conflict in front of the impending flow of water - - the symbol of the merciless pass of time and nature's immortal condition in antithesis to a sentient being's perennial condition.

In mythology and folklore, what literati refer to as the "Greatest Journey", we have the crossing of a bridge as a pathway to enter the Afterlife. A bridge becomes the connecting and the final step of a soul's sojourn to the After Life - - his journey to eternity - - conjoining Life and Death.

Let's think about the other notable bridges in Naruto. The first that comes to mind - - and is intimately intertwined to the dynamics of the Sasusaku pair - - is the GREAT NARUTO BRIDGE from the Land of Waves which brought prosperity and good fortune to the enslaved insulated land.

Often, characters like Sakura, Kakashi, Naruto, Shikamaru or Sasuke have their moments of introspection on the bridges when confusion and uncertainty takes over (we have the illustrative and arguably amusing moment in Boruto Manga between Sasuke and Kakashi as Sasuke quests for advices about how to properly connect to his daughter Sarada).

The bridge represents internal turmoil as the mind and souls are torn between two conflicting choices: to take the left side or the right side? To proceed onwards to face the unknown or to take the familiar way back? To choose between A or B?

Crossing a bridge implies a level of risk as no one can certainly assert that he knows and is prepared to successfully face what unexpected occurrences might happen on the other side.

The other side of the bridge, just like in life, is sprinkled with unexpected occurrences that no one can anticipate, no matter how meticulous, cautious or prepared.

This pair specifically possesses an unparalleled zest for unbridled passion; Sasuke and Sakura are the hallmark of people who give their 120% in everything that they do, be it battle, career or romance. And that's exactly what turns their love story into an adage for scorching passion, intimacy, soul-consuming romance, enameled with tantalizingly elegant echoes of erotica.

It also sets the stage to a final battle between two opposing parties.

Sakura, the tragic heroine of this sizzling love story, foiled in the ineffable picture of a conflicted Madonna, is artfully portrayed  in all the splendor of her inner conflict, as her duty as a Leaf Shinobi clashes vigorously with her hear that only flutters for the unpredictable Uchiha.

As per Zabuza's concluding words, shinobi share the same impending inner conflict that's the ylem to immense pain and turmoil: they have to find a perfect equilibrium between the soulless mask of their shinobi role (the Yin/the spiritual/the immortal/the sacrosanct/the darkness) and their human nature (the yang/the light/the mortal condition).

And the manga suggests that the human natured emotions surmount the shinobi as feelings (love, friendship, affection, kindness, honor, companionship, amour) manage to "fill this hole".

Sasuke and Sakura's encounter is glass-transparent epitome of a Naruto Shinobi's ominous condition, because they always have to find a winning solution for this antagonist dichotomy. To choose between love and duty/ to balance between the shinobi and the lover. To rebel against their hearts or their duty.

Duty and obligations come en route with their shinobi roles in the manga; the unyielding avenger in his thirst-quenching seek for knowledge (he must unravel the very condition of the shinobi as unraveling the quintessence and the enigmas of the Universe - - in this case, unraveling the purpose of a shinobi and his existence) and the renewed genius medic and Leaf Shinobi Haruno Sakura, who, ironically and tragically enough is also the pupil of the Kage (the heiress of the current system's - - Hashirama's and Ashura's - - political ideology; which is the same ideology that Sasuke wants to surmount and "revolutionize").

The very construction of Naruto Manga  is contrived on antithesis (Yin and Yang antithesis).

And feelings are no exception.

. . . Sakura is mocking his feelings and Sasuke doesn't like to ridicule or laugh about feelings. He might consider it a trifle to the moment when he was sincere with her a candid moment between the two. She's using a past memory that he cherishes and was honest against him like she's invalidating his words. He might get confused. Was she lying then too to buy time for her friends to come? Is it a diversion tactic and she using the same scheme? She uses his words against him. She uses supposed love against him and Uchiha treasure feelings. Hatred is corollary to love and is one wrong step from love to hatred especially when it burns so strong. And so Sasuke then pays her with the same coin and retort with the same weapons. If she's clowning and ridiculing and stepping and tarnishing their moment as a mockery he's responding by suggesting that if she wants to mock him then she'll do the same. If she proffers a love that's deceiving and she's not feeling then he too can use her and ridicule her. Taking back his earnest thank you in response to acknowledging her love, he tells her that she'll be just a replacement a toll to be used and disposed of when she's getting rusty; shell be a disposable object that he'll throw away when useless to him with no remorse and emphasizes this by pointing to Karin "you'll take her place" - - meaning they you'll share her fate, I'll use you and when I don't need you anymore you'll be in her shoes as lying limpid alone and basking in the pungent waft of death and betrayal by my own hand. Is this what you want to be for me? Is this what your love means? Does you love mean so little to you? Sasuke doesn't accept her to mock love. That's why he becomes angry. He doesn't have any reason to get angry in a fight unless its personal feelings involved. He for angry at Danzo because he was directly involved in the murder of his family and he mentioned Itachi - - the memory of his brother is sacrosanct and a dinner like Danzo is unworthy to refer to it.

He gets offended and furious when Sakura tries to use past memories that were precious against him just like Danzo; it's a low blow from Sakura. She tries to deceive to fool him to she tries to lure and use him using a weakness just like every ordinary villain - - Obito and Orochimaru did exactly the same to lure him by their side.

His tone is very personal, is full of 1st and 2nd subject pronouns. The first part, the one that represents the real feelings the allusion to couples and lovers the first hypostasis.

Karin doesn't matter - - she represents the readers. She's speaking what's on our minds. She is a silent observer.

. . He's not the same Sasuke. He's a different person. 3 times for empathize is mentioned as the pair dynamic. Karin and Sakura might be under a false representation. They might love Sasuke for overlapping the ideal Sasuke from their past an idealized version that they worshipped and they hope to find the same Sasuke in the current Sasuke who grew up. Trying to tie dorm the bonds of a failed past. In love with must accept the person for what he became and what it was without trying to mistakenly look at him and see someone else. They fell for Sasuke the perfect: aristocratic lineage, wealth, top grades, unmatched ninja skills, caring personality. They seek for his best version and try to find their ideal man into someone who is no more that was the pure Uchiha child oblivious un corrupted and not this one who has life experience. Of course they never knew what demons and darkness lured into his mind they had the wrong impression that Sasuke is perfect and this one is closer to how he really is: passionate, uncensored and unrestrained and ready to fight anyone and sacrifice anything that might hurt the people he loves the most. This Sasuke erases the image of perfection they had about him.

Sakura wanted to join him back then too and Sasuke clears the confusion for her she didn't know that he was far from the perfect boy that her mind conjured up fantasy of a young dreamy girl. That's why she wanted to join him. And now he tells her this is me this is the one that you were willing to follow. Do you still feel the same seeing how I really am? . Sasuke-kun! Is again the sound of her voice that stops him and there are few selected people who could stop Sasuke from striking. Sakura can do this by just calling out his name. Sasuke wouldn't have stopped just because someone asks him to - - Karin asks him to stop attacking Sakura and he paid her no heed. Kakashi asks him too and he couldn't care less. When Sakura calls his name or asks him to stop... He falters. He does. He can't hide how much her voice affects him, the voice that speaks her owner's name one that's so precious to him.

For him to waver by a single call of his name, Sakura must be someone extraordinary precious to Sasuke, someone who's capable to conjure the feelings that he most tries to subdue. Love. Romantic love isn't like any other forms of love because this one evokes the most extreme of sensations and it’s an all body experience. It's the only type of bond that encompasses the senses, the mind, the heat, the soul and the body. It practically leaves one powerless, weak and helpless and no counterattack stands tall in front of it.

When love strikes, you can't but fall on your knees and surrender. And Sasuke feels exactly this. He is an Uchiha. They treasure and feel love like an out body experience. It's spiritual almost sacrosanct. Uchiha live every moment on extreme. They won't stop until the unravel the full potential of it, they live their lives at maximum. There's no status quo for Uchiha. They want to experience everything and they do it passionately.

They love with passion.

. . . We have another symbolic and powerful antithesis here. Sakura the iconic representation metaphorical of regeneration, fertility, innocence and eternal love - - the image of the flower which is symbolic for spring season - - regeneration hope rebirth - - hope and light and the tree that grown from Hashirama's cell, another illustrative symbol of rebirth regeneration hope. If Sakura is the figure of spring season then the tree is the key symbol of spring the regeneration the rebirth life exuberance. And yet... Karin is lying half death with life seeping rapidly from her body at the root of that tree. Meaning that the atmosphere between lovers is so tormented and broken and soulless and kit less and heartbreaking and hallucinating and painful that even a tree the symbol of life can't sustain life.

There is the reign of death, remorse, rancor, madness, pain, it's so en wrapping that life can't be sustained there (that tree is root less grown in stone as the bridge lies suspended ; trees have roots in the ground deep they don't hang floated in air which shows broken roots broken bonds kinless people who lost their roots). The scenery is ominous, depressing, the feeling of being hopeful, useless. Even Sakurara the embodiment of life and vitality lost her flow.

Spring... Can't melt Sasuke's icicle darkness (his pain and torment).

She can't reach to him yet, and heal and revive with "such a weak resolve" (as per her own words when she realized her mistake).

Sasuke himself tells her (he was always honest, this is one of his most memorable trait - Sasuke never lies, he's always forward and frank) that she can't be herself with the current him and points to Karin for emphasize; he tells her that he'll crush the wings of springs in its joie de vivre. He tells her that he's capable to break her so badly that he'll turn the spring - - the symbol of life force and rebirth - - into death "you'll take Karina's place - - you’ll be like her bleeding and half death /you'll die like her by my hand".

He assumes the role of the negativism /pessimist and Antinatalism a person who doesn't find the beauty in spring hope and regeneration. Someone who can't sustain life who can't give her what she wants she can't be her splendid form with him. Sasuke in his supposed craze moment of "sinking so low" still proves how much he cares for her. He tells Sakura that she can't be herself with someone like him. He can't let her be what she wants to be if she joins him. And he'll consume all her life force. A darkness so ominous and cold that's capable to absorb every wisp of light from her.

Why would she want to be with someone like him whose only surrounded by death, broken memories and darkness? "she has no reason to love me" - - why would she, the spring the vitality the exuberance the happiness the love would want to love a broken man that's full of demons and darkness?

When he says her name the following manga panel shows the immense distance between them, the antithesis the different worlds: while Sakura is in the untouched side of the bridge, everything around Sasuke falls apart - the bridge is broken crumbling under his feet, Karin is half death and bleeding at his feet, the tree is unable to sustain life everything around Sasuke is death and hollowness.

The shock it produces when she realizes that the Sasuke she fantasies about doesn't exist and the imagery of his Part 1 perfection is nothing but an illusion. "he's like a different person. Is this really Sasuke?" just like Karin, Sakura is also shocked to discover that the boy she fell in love with when she was 13 is a far cry from the man that she has in front of her eyes. She's so shocked that she already finds her resolve and her underlying plan crumble. For a shinobi, this moment of internal introspection and shock led to her downfall. You can't face a class shinobi with such a weak heart and a conflicted mind; she lost any chance to win against him from this very moment.

From her everything is just purely feelings and confusion doing the talking. The drama unfolds from here - - Sakura the shinobi lost with this panel.

Sasuke is always terse and brusque and forward. He doesn't censor e himself, he doesn't beat around the bush, he doesn't try to delicately introduce a topic by ramble uselessly, no. He cuts directly to the point in his peculiar manner. And the usage of 1st subject pronouns and his tone is absolutely intimate and very personal when he asks her: "what do you want with me?" this particular line is almost bittersweet hilarious and very ironic given the contest because it's exactly how a lover would ask.

The way Sasuke and Sakura talk, the dialogue and the interactions are very personal and intimate. The tone, the glances, the kinesics, the dynamic of the dialogue, the flow of conversation, the syntax of the phrases and the usage of 1 and 2nd subject pronouns are illustrative for two people who have something going on between them.

"Who is she?" is what Karin, the voice of the reader in this scene, asks rhetorically and we want to know as well. Who's this woman who stands before Sasuke? A shinobi or a woman in love?

Karin and implicitly the authors answer comes right after. "she must love him too." Karin who is a sensor natured type of shinobi the one who depicts the most intimate wavers in chakra and emotions emphasizes that she's Sakura the lover.

"Sasuke-kun, I'll follow you, I'll leave Konoha!" she doesn't cry anymore, her eyes aren't limpid like buffeted emerald diamonds shining in the moonlight with honest and love, no. This time her tone isn't affectionate or desperate or unhinged with sincerity, her voice isn't broken and melodious like a sad violin string lilting it's last farewell, her stance isn't supplicating, her hands aren't crossed upon her heart as she cried her most intimate feelings in his face - the crossed hands are religiously symbolic for a sacrosanct or holy. No, this time her tone is hoarse, almost like she is commanding someone or bossing someone around, rough, confident, almost reproachful and her emerald eyes are hard and seemingly emotionless. That's where Sasuke starts to lose it. She mentions their memorable past encounter which is iconic, sacrosanct and innocent and sincere, with unpardonably brazen confidence while using that image of her part self (implying that Sasuke's thank you words and that memory is a WEAKNESS for him Achilles heel) to try and DECEIVE him or lure him into a trap.

Of course he'd take it as a grave insult that can't go unpunished.

She takes a giant leap to each to him as the bridge between them is symbolically broken; there's no liaison to them except for feelings. The physical distance is hyperbolic. They are so far apart that she has to take a giant leap to reach to him in vain, because that leap and the hollow that stretches steeply under her feet represents all the unsolved problems between them - the demons, the broken bonds, words they should have not told, pain and negative emotions - and so the leap she takes to reach him now proves to be TOO much for her bucket to carry. This leap is her downfall because no relationship can survive on shaky grounds and unsolved problems.

[reveverending]

Do You Hear What I Hear?

Characters: Mikhail & Jophiel (Angel OCs belonging to @majahallar)  Theme: Friendship & Platonic Comfort Editing Status: Very Roughly Edited Word Count: 1.2K CWs: N/A AO3 Link: N/A

Being labeled a lone wolf had its perks. Being left alone without constant disturbances when seeking solitude was certainly one of them. And it was a perk Mikhail had become increasingly familiar with over the millennia. Shifting the blue banded wings from where they tended to cover his good eye, Mikhail found himself staring out past the veil and into the land of men. Ah… So this is where he had wandered to while lost deep within his own mind. 

Pausing, he kept his head-wings tucked close but away from his left eye to allow sight then shifted his weight slowly from foot to foot, rocking. To stay or not to stay... that really was the question now. He was well beyond the gates, at the outskirts of heaven; and that left many things to be desired now that Heylel--. Shifting his gaze away from the veil, he huffed out a gust of wind carrying all the weight of righteous anger and disgust before pushing away the lingering bitter thoughts. Now certainly wasn’t the time.

This was as good a place as any, he supposed. Certainly not a place many would come looking for him. So he scoured the area for a soft place to rest his paws, and upon finding it settled there pulling a book from the folds of his clothes. Folding his wings back over his good eye, he made sure to keep the damaged one tucked beneath the other in their resting place. Always good to be sure even that blemish was covered. Then he flipped the book open, allowing his fingers to trail the pages. Braille… A wonderful invention by the ingenious creatures he cared for so much in the world below. Plus, that Radueriel so easily acquiesced to convert this small human text and many others before it into something more befitting of his own large hands was a gift-horse he had learned to stop looking in the mouth, even if it had been a hard lesson to take to heart. In the end, these things had become a comfort for him, especially after his sight was damaged and came at the price of showing his shame. 

Occasionally, despite his love for the book and perhaps because of it too, the dark thoughts returned.  They clouded his judgement beyond the reach of the prose trying to keep his mind’s eye occupied. In every scene he pictured the shadows grew large, shapes moving in the edges of them whispering words and doubts he could remember so clearly. Whispering both his own words and those of another, unbidden.

Each time he paused, breathed, and tried to keep himself out of that dark’s grip. 

Each time it became less successful, yet still he pressed on.

It was during one of these such moments, that he overlooked the approach of another, much smaller, angelic being. The newcomer was duller compared to his companion. Not in the way of an angel losing their holy light, simply grayscale in nearly his entirety. Only the eyes fixed on Mikhail’s back showed any color, a burning orange. 

Quietly he padded across the distance, careful to keep himself concealed. 

The mismatched, uneven wings paired with the spiraling gold horns betrayed the blond’s identity. But the tension in his shoulders, betrayed his state of mind.

Carefully, the black haired angel, crouched behind the other, his wings slowly stretching out then sweeping down slowly. Chimes. The sound of chimes filled the air just around Mikhail’s head; the tension slowly bleeding away from his form. He continued the gentle beating of his wings until all the tension was gone, and the other acknowledged him. “Jophiel..” The seated angel’s voice was a soft timber, as he said the name; and it was greeted with a chuckle. Some may question how by the quiet chime of his wings alone, the younger could be recognized, but he had long grown accustomed to it.

“Hello, Mikhail.” As he swung around to sit beside his friend (and charge), his beaming smile came into view if only the other would look. Truly seeing Jophiel without one was a rare day, luckily  today was no such day. “You seemed in need of a reminder.” 

A spoken reminder of exactly what was not needed, they both knew how Mikhail could fall into his own mind and doubts - though it was not something easily brought to light. Instead, they simply sat in silence: one occupied with returning to his book, the other watching through the veil the lives of morals while quietly guarding a companions peace. And in these moments no longer did the dark thoughts descend upon Mikhail, the prose of a nearly forgotten work now able to keep his attention perfectly. 

After the passing of many moments like these, time held little meaning to those such as them so it could have been a minute or a decade down below, Jophiel once more spoke. Leaning close, to brush shoulder to shoulder, black wings fluffing out to brush just barely against bluejay ones, “Why don’t you start over, read aloud for me? I’d like to hear what it is you pilfered from down there last you visited.” His smile only grew wider as the elder of the two only shook his head in exasperation and turned the book back to page one. No protests was a good step in the right direction… Trust was a hard thing to learn how to give again after being shattered to pieces.

But before he could begin reading, Mikhail paused face pulled into a bit of a grimace. “Are you sure? It’s not much of a story with grand descriptions and epic heroes off to slay dragons. It’s not even a romance of starcrossed lovers this time.” He turned his head to face his companion, though his visage remained obscured by feathers. Said companion only hummed, a cue to go on, to explain. 

“It’s a story that men act out, left to the imagination to those who only read it. Told through the speaking and reflection of characters… Though I’ve been told this one includes as much betrayal as love, and it does-” He cut himself off. The smaller one waited, quiet and patient as he knew was needed, only letting his wings fluff out once more with a soothing brush against Mikhail’s. “It does seem to be delivering.” 

Barely a beat passed before the rumbling chuckle of Jophiel became audible once more. Many mortals would liken it to thunder, ironic considering the book laying in Mikhail’s lap open to the first of many storm filled pages. But, unlike mortals and thunder, for Mikhail this held no such awe-striking power, only contentment found residence in this sound. “I will trust your judgement, my friend; my request still stands. Please read.” So he moved closer, bringing the protective circle of his presence even tighter in. And finally with a sigh, the blonde gave in. Leaning back into his companion - his friend - his fingers slowly dragged across the page and soon he began to read aloud.

“Act One… Scene One… On a ship at night, a tempestuous noise of thunder and lightning are heard. Enter a master and a boatswain.”

[yeoldontknow]

Kilig

Author’s Note: happy birthday @imdifferentshadesofpurple <33 i love you so much. i know weve been talking about this fic since christmas and ive not been able to work on it. but its the mark of your dreams and i love you! mork <3 ↳ Kilig (n. Tagalog): the unstoppable sensation of joy or elation experienced when intensely, madly falling in love; the sudden feeling of inexplicable joy when something romantic occurs Pairing: Mark Tuan x Reader (oc; female) Summary: You’ve weathered so much in your relationship with Mark, and still he makes you twitterpatted. But when you’re moving in together, and choosing the right home to start your life, you start wondering if things will ever feel the same again. Genre: fluff; romance; domestic au Rating: PG-13 Warning: implied sex Word Count: 2,554

For as long as you’ve known him, Mark has told you he loves you with all of him.

The ways have been endless and numerous, sometimes imperceptible to the untrained eye, but for you, they have always been obvious.

It started with this eyes, the way they would find you in a crowded room, seeking you and your shape as a comfort. Without looking, you could feel them on you, a sensuous sort of touch that called you to him and made your skin hurt wherever he was not felt. And when you did dare to meet his gaze, let yourself fall with him, it was the way they were open wide and swimming. Too many colours seemed to pool and gather in his irises, bewildered by you as he was and taking on all the light in the world just to see you in perfect focus.

Then, it was his lips. This is when the ways became both simple and complex, a paradox of sentiment that took you weeks to untangle. His tongue seemed to handle the word differently, gave shape to love as though he were sculpting a monument meant to outlast humankind. To him, the word was delicate, though it was only a fragile thing when it was given to you, asking you to hold it with him, and to cherish it. He spoke the word like it were feathers, but he kissed it on you like wildfire, reckless and with abandon, and demanding that you burn with him.

On you, there was not a single place his lips did touch or taste, greedy in the way he consumed you and unforgiving in the way he weathered you down.

Lastly, came his hands. The holiness of his hands washed over with delay, slowly and overtime, and without the dedication of your thought. Only when you realized he touched you as though you were something sacred, gentle but with the whole of his hand, did you think back on all the ways he had handled the totality of you. In the early days, he clutched your hand as a cross, fingers to your knuckles and unwilling to be parted from you. The flat of his palms rested against your cheeks as he kissed you, holding your head and holding you to him, fending off the oncoming separation with prayers against your skin.

But these were nothing to the way his fingers traversed your spine, your thighs, your breasts, tracing scripture into your pores and hoping they etched into the bone. Nightly, he carved commandments into you, let his love spread until his name and his essence was a mark upon your ribs. It was the same for him, you knew, the way your hands gripped his shoulders and slithered down his back as he moved in you - your touch had been sweared into his spine, a permanent reminder at the base of his cerebellum that dictated his choices, his thoughts, his speech.

You called this unity. He called you his soulmate. Together, you knew it was love.

For as long as you’ve known him, Mark as told you he loves you with all of him.

But now, searching for a home in which you will start your life, the love he gives seems only to be directed towards you and not your future, and you don’t know whether to be offended or exhausted.

Choice was never his strong suit, backing away from options with raised hands and a cock of his eyebrow. It is not that he didn’t have opinions, it’s just that his were never as loud as others, and so he never learned to argue. In choosing you, he is vocal, adamant and determined, and his perpetual choice of you, he felt, absolved him of all the rest.

You thought, perhaps, this would change after four failed house showings and one apartment, each more special than the last. But with each, he seemed only to withdraw further, shrugging at things you felt were important and being vocal about insignificant things, unremarkable things that could be changed.

Today, on your fifth house showing, he stands in the living room admiring the design on the ceiling with a scowl. Arms crossed, he furrows his brow and pouts his lips, aloof and somewhat bored.

‘Mark.’ You say his name in the hopes of bringing him back to you and receiving his focus, but instead his gaze remains fixed. ‘What do you think of the mantle?’

Unmoved, he sighs before speaking. ‘Do you think the circles were what they wanted?’

Thrown by his question, you blink at him before raising your gaze. ‘Probably? It’s in the final design, so I’m sure it was approved.’

‘It just looks so unfinished,’ he muses, turning to assess the design behind him. ‘Like wouldn’t they have wanted squiggles...for a ribbon.’

‘We can ask the development manager…’ Your statement fades as you search the pamphlet handed to you at the door, seeking a name. On each page, housing designs and templates greet you, all modern and extravagant, and with customizable kitchens. It says nothing about the ceiling.

‘I’m not saying we have to change it,’ he says, turning to look at you with a small, half smile. ‘Just would be hard to change if we wanted to.’

Briefly, you glance between Mark and the ceiling as you chew the inside of your cheek. Handling Mark when he’s like this is delicate, not because he is tempestuous nor volatile, simply because matching his aloofness will lead him to believe you are not serious - about this home, or any. One, poorly timed comment will send you back on another search and, while it is not that you are serious about this home, it’s merely that any home with him would suffice. And thus, this search has been overwhelmingly tiring.

Every home you have seen has been beautiful, modern, and delightfully within budget. This is a rarity, a magical experience in which choices are abundant and all are wonderful, and so you would be happy with any if he were happy at all. Instead, he’s placid, unmoved by any one house, liking things in one and hating the same in the other, difficult only because he maneuvers around choice.

But this is the first time he’s used the word “we,” implying an us in the space and a future existence. And so you are careful, clutching this word to your chest and hoping it does not sprout wings of hope.

‘Is this,’ you begin slowly, taking a step towards him, ‘something you would want to change?’

Shaking his head, Mark keeps his expression even and placid. ‘No,’ he says, simply. ‘Just saying, it’s hard to change.’

With a sigh, you close your eyes and count to ten.

Staring at the door to the master bedroom, rather than viewing the room’s size and scope, Mark hums. ‘These doorknobs are brass.’

From your position in the entry to the en-suite, you turn your head and regard him. Hands shoved in his pockets, he looks a little lost, and you hate that it makes you smile. ‘Yes,’ you offer, keeping your voice neutral, ‘but that’s much easier to change than a ceiling pattern.’

Mark glances up at you, somewhat aghast.. ‘Why would I want to change these?’

Once again, you find yourself dumbfounded. ‘Brass tarnishes easily.’ Pressing your finger into the knob, you pull it back after a moment to reveal the very clear impression of your print. Satisfied, you regard him patiently, as though this should be enough - the clear display of finger oils eating away at the smooth texture.

‘It gives the house character,’ he says, finally, still studying your fingerprint.

And this is what does it, what sends frustration and irritation to the center of your throat like bile. ‘These give it character?’ There’s a sharpness in your voice you know you will soon come to regret, but the way it feels on your tongue is a release you did not know you wanted to caress. ‘Not the mantle and the enormous fireplace?’

His head snaps up to meet your gaze, eyes searching your expression. ‘When have you ever seen brass knobs in a modern house?’ he tries, tone playful in the efforts of keeping you calm.

But still, you do not give in. He’s had so much of you, you think, and it is unfair he keeps this stage of your life at an arm’s length. ‘These give it character?’ you snap, fully rooted in your anger. ‘Not the mirror over the kitchen sink that faces the picture window to the yard.’

Taking a step back to fully appraise you, he regards you with a soft, worried expression. ‘What’s this about?’

‘Not the crown molding or the built in bookcases?’ you continue, unable to stop now that the flood has been unpinned from your lips. ‘But these, the ugly brass doorknobs, give it character.’

Several seconds pass in which you savor the silence, so unlike the quiet that usually falls between you. This is not the calm silence of knowing your lover enough to know their thoughts, the comfortable silence of partners in which words fail and somehow seem insufficient. This is the silence of realization and understanding, the silence of awareness that this may be your first real fight, and while it would never be enough to break you, it is enough to remind you that love takes commitment, even when commitment is hard.

‘Hey, what’s -’

Mark’s words are cut off as you spin on your heels and walk briskly out of the house.

Immediately, you know it will not be this one, and as you push through the front door a spiteful laugh rises from your throat. At least one choice has been removed, though it is not because there was any particular flaw. Sadness constricts your chest, and you are unsure if it is because you did really like this home or if it is because you have liked all the others, too, and you are unsure you will ever find a home with Mark or if he is just coming with you for the ride.

‘Baby.’

The deep intonation of his voice makes you release a heavy sigh, eyes wide as you cock your head back to stare at the sky.

‘Tell me what’s wrong.’

At once, you feel him behind you. His eyes, and now the heat from his existence, attuned to it as you are, as though he were magnetic.

‘No,’ you shake your head, keeping your back to him. ‘I’m mad at you.’

At this, he laughs, the sound rich and full, the chocolate you always find yourself craving, and it takes work not to turn to face him, and to see his skin in the sun of high noon.

‘You can be mad at me, but I’d like to know what you’re mad about.’ He takes a few steps towards you, his head radiating into your back. ‘I think that’s only fair.’

Keeping your gaze straight ahead, unwilling to turn or see him because it means you will cave, you sigh. Crossing your arms, you scowl, pretending he can see you. ‘It was your idea to move in together.’

‘I know.’

Digging your heels into the earth your purse your lips. ‘So why don’t you want to?’

‘What?’ he asks, sounding alarmed.

The worry in his voice is real, surprised, and you know you have been unfair. He doesn’t know he’s being difficult, almost never does - so self-aware in every instance except for this - and it’s cruel of you to let him panic.

Turning to face him, you see the way his hands clench at his sides, fighting the urge to reach for you. Still, you hold your ground. ‘You fight every house and find random things wrong with it, or pick the most bizarre things just because you don’t want to be involved in the choice.’

‘You think that’s what I’m doing?’ he asks, cocking his head to the side in concern.

‘Isn’t it?’ you laugh in disbelief. ‘You do that with dinner. You shrug every time I offer a choice and you tell me to pick. You let me pick what we watch on Netflix -’

‘But I like what you pick!’ he exclaims.

‘Okay,’ you shrug, shaking your head, ‘but I don’t want to choose anymore.’

‘That’s fine!’ Mark’s laugh is airy, unlike its usual texture. ‘I can pick the next show we watch.’

‘No, it’s not Netflix!’ You don’t mean to shout, but you’re tired. Tired of feeling like you don’t have a partner, and sick with the feeling that, somehow, you don’t have him. ‘It’s everything. I don’t want to be alone in choosing our home.’

At your words, he blanches, the colour fading from his skin even in the sun. ‘You think I don’t want to pick a house?’ he whispers, delicate in the way he handles his words.

‘Clearly, you don’t.’

‘I can see how it would come off that way, and I’m sorry.’ At once, he reaches for you, unable to hold back the need to touch you. He gathers you into his arms, burying his nose into your neck to take the smell of you in, deep into his lungs. ‘Really, I am. I thought you knew.’

‘What are you talking about,’ you murmur, immediately letting your guard down at the feel of his muscles beneath your hands.

Pulling back just enough to see you, he cradles your cheek with his palm. ‘Picking the house is so...not a concern of mine.’

In protest, you open your mouth to speak, but he cuts you off.  

‘Listen!’ he laughs, eyes wide and imploring you to be calm and to be patient. ‘Picking the house is not a concern because you are my home. As long as I’m with you, I am home. We could be in a hotel or a shed or a mansion, I don’t care. Okay, maybe I care about the mansion because that’s a crazy electric bill, but I don’t care where it is as long as I’m with you. I found home a long time ago, so when I bring up random things on house showings it’s because I don’t know what I’m supposed to say. Your heart is my home, and it’s the only place I want to be.’

Once more, silence falls between you, but this is the silence in which he tells you he loves you with all of him. The penetrative way he holds your stare moves you, makes you feel him once more taking root in your heart, holding it with his palm instead of your cheek. Silently, his lips shape the words “I love you” over and over, until he stops to smile, knowing that your soul has heard him where your ears could not. And last, he keeps you in his hold, hands burning with the knowledge that being separate from you is painful, terrible, and like this you know he is right.

Neither of you are truly at peace without the other, and so it should not matter what roof shelters you, for you will always shelter each other.

‘Goddammit, Mark,’ you laugh, pressing your face into his shoulder.

‘What now?’

‘You got me so emotional, I’m considering the brass knobs.’

[rohobi]

His Pulse | (m)

Kim Taehyung | Medical AU |  Smut | Angst | Trauma | Medical School | Romance | Pre-pulse | Flirting | SFW | Written in 2017

↳ INDEX → Other Taehyung Perspectives

↣ 2006 First Year | Jeffersonian Medical School

“Who are you, Y/N?”

“Who am I?” she blinks, unsure how to respond to the question. “I am Y/N?”  she says with a sarcastic grin that tugs at the rosy plump lips you can’t get out of your damn mind.

“Yeah I know that much, but who is Y/N really?” you laugh, amused by her small response. “Come on, let me get to know you.”

“You’re asking me to dig deep into the facets of myself that even I don’t know about.” she frowns, nervously turning the ring on her index finger - a habit you had become increasingly aware of in the short time of knowing her.

“Well yes, the aim of the ambiguous question exercise Y/N, is to dig deep into the wonders of yourself. Most people are able to at least give the shittiest description of their personalities like, “I am the taste on your tongue after a burnt coffee,” you snort at the pair of girls in front of you in mock haste, repeating what you had just heard. “Does that mean she lacks substance?” 

“Interesting take. I assumed it was self-deprecating and disgustingly sensual,” She blinks at him. “Whatever it was, I’m into it.” 

“Forget them, what are you? Only weather analogies please.”

“Ah, okay. Interesting challenge. Y/N is-well she can be a thunderstorm, I’m ready to admit that now,” her smile reaches the ends of her eyes. Something he wished he could see everyday. “She’s a big one.” 

“A thunderstorm?” you question, curious for an explanation.

“mhm” she hums, biting her bottom lip as if she were afraid to open her mouth and let her mind fall out. Looking up into your eyes she untugs her lip from her teeth, certainty and confidence flooding her stature as she stands up straighter.

“Yes, Taehyung. A thunderstorm you wouldn’t want to be in the middle of.” she says with conclusion, nodding her head, pleased with the poetry of her words.

Holding her glare, you raise an eyebrow unsure of the context of her answer. She didn’t seem all that bad to you, she was quiet, she had manners and the only thing indicative of tempestuous behavior was her nervous habit of picking her ring and an eagerness to leave when people spoke to her.

“So, on this assignment, when I introduce you to the class I say, “Hi everyone this is Y/N and she is a thunderstorm. That analogy is open to interpretation, thank-you for listening” because I think I might.” you stammer, watching the licks of pink paint across her cheeks.

“Okay fine, what do you want to know?” she asks, the heat abundantly clear on her face. She seems embarrassed but you don’t care.

“What are you afraid of?” You ask, careful to approach floodgates.

Staring at you blankly she replies softly, “Bees.”

“And what do you love?” You ask another, hoping to ask a laundry list of questions before the teacher makes you stand up.

“Nothing.” she deadpans, “Not yet.”

“Do you like kids?”

“Random question, weird. I love kids. Tiny humans are fascinating.” she sings, indubitably reminiscing.

“And what is your favorite food?” you ask quickly, noticing the lecturer shift back to the podium.

“I like all food,” she answers, boredom stamped across her forehead. “I don’t know.”

“What are your ambitions?”

“To love something and to know what my favourite food is.” she rolls her eyes as if bored already. 

“You’re very hard to get to know Y/N.” you frown, annoyed by the lack of colour in her words.

“That sounds like a you problem.” 

You stare at the girl, interest mounting and as you stare into her suddenly nervous eyes. An overwhelming feeling of purpose takes over your body as she blinks her long lashes at you in what you think is confusion and a single thought registers as you lean into her space: this girl is mine.“Why won't you let anyone in, Y/N?”

“Alright class, attention please.” the lecturer interrupts but you are incapable of ever being pulled away from this girl, not now anyway. 

“There's probably a reason for that,” she frowns, turning away from you and turning her attention onto the lecturer. “Save yourself the hurt, leave me alone.”

Running a hand through your hair, you shake your head at the closed-off girl beside you. “Not happening Y/N, you’re officially on my bother list.” 

“Fantastic.” 

“Alright, the two at the back. Introduce each other and please for the love of god, no poetry.” the lecturer points to the two of you.

“Oh, us?” She looks at you meekly before standing,  “Well, I am Y/N and this is Taehyung.”

You stand beside her and smile at the class, “I am thy Taehyung and this is Y/N.”

“Oh my god, he’s fucking fresh.”

“So hot!!” 

“I wish I had my Kodiak so I could take a picture of his face, damn it.”

“Welcome to my class. You don’t need to tell me anything about yourselves, I’ve just realized how pressed for time we are.” the lecturer says, scratching her head with the presentation laser pointer. “Alright you two in the front, introduce yourselves.”

Pinching her side, you whisper. “Damn, I really wanted to tell everyone how we’re getting married and having babies together.”

“Get real, that is never happening,” she whimpers, looking at her notebook. “I have a feeling I’m going to get my hair pulled sitting beside you.” 

“Why?” you ask, unwrapping a lollipop and plopping it into your mouth. “Whats going on?”

“Look at all the females in the class, they’re all staring at you.”

“Oh, that. I know,” you smirk, cocking your brows at her. “I’m photosynthesizing under their precious attention.”

She lifts her gaze to frown at you and you purse your lips at her. “What?”

“I really hope you aren’t in my classes,” she admits, shaking her head at you. “I have this feeling you might ruin my academic life.”

“And I have a feeling you’ll be a great addition to mine! What are you a goth? Think brighter.”

She rolls her eyes. “I suddenly want to knock you out.”

“Thunderstorm Y/N?!” You lean closer to her, blowing your breath against her neck. “Are you asking me out? I did not see that one coming.” 

Her cheeks glow bright red. “I did not!” 

“Just meet me at the student bar after exams, I’ll buy you a drink and even drive you home,” you wink as she slaps her cheeks. “I’m a gentleman. I promise.”

She sighs. “Goodness gracious me, working with you was a trap.” 

“A love trap.” 

“OH GOD.” 

The lecture slaps his remote onto the table. “What is going on down there? Do you guys have something better to do?” 

Taking the lead, you apologize. “Sorry, sir. Y/N is just very enthused by this class, she even volunteered to tutor me after school at the student bar!”

The class laughs. 

The lecturer sighs. 

“Something tells me that you two will be the bane of my existence.” 

[godmyths]

mafia  au???  this  would  fit  the  fam  so  perfectly???

ZEUS  is  technically  the  patriarch  but  it’s  his  stupid  antics  that  keep  getting  them  into  shit  all  the  time.  despite  his  recklessness,  people  stick  with  him  because  he’s  charming  and  personable,  and  is  generally  a  fair  and  just  boss.  has  loads  of  kids  and  a  new  one  joins  the  fam  every  month  and  he’s  determined  to  leave  a  worthy  legacy  for  them  to  inherit.  always  stressed  because  his  family  have  a  ton  of  problems  and  he  always  has  to  play  peacemaker.

POSEIDON  is  second  in  command  and  has  his  head  screwed  on  more  than  zeus  but  is  tempestuous  and  quick  to  react.  very  competitive  and  wants  to  lead  more  than  anything,  but  is  generally  less  approachable  than  zeus  and  does  not  possess  his  way  with  people.  but  he  is  loyal  and  if  he  favours  you  then  he  will  always  stand  beside  you.  also  sleeps  around  like  zeus,  but  while  zeus  is  more  lustful  and  will  have  a  new  affair  every  week,  poseidon’s  affairs  are  more  long  lasting  and  passionate. 

HERMES  is  the  messenger  and  spy.  often  sent  out  to  get  intel  on  enemies  and  deliver  the  organisations  demands  /  threats.  hasn’t  been  killed  yet  because  he’s  a  snake  and  has  his  finger  in  a  lot  of  illegal  pies.  knows  a  lot  of  influential  people  and  will  get  you  what  you  need  for  a  fair  price,  which  is  not  money,  but  information.  give  him  something  seedy  or  life  ruining  and  he’ll  get  you  whatever  the  hell  you  need.

ARES  is  the  head  henchman.  big  and  violent,  he  is  often  taken  along  to  important  meetings  to  physically  threaten  those  who  may  stand  against  them.  has  committed  some  terrible  crimes  and  is  infamous  for  the  sins  he  has  enacted  upon  fellow  man.  probably  everybody’s  least  favourite  gang  member  but  is  well  respected  for  his  bloody  and  savage  nature.  has  often  been  kicked  out  of  the  organisation  due  to  pissing  off  the  others,  and  has  served  prison  time  a  lot  over  the  years,  but  the  family  always  let  him  back  in  because  it’s  better  to  have  the  mad  dog  on  your  side  than  against  it.

DIONYSUS  doesn’t  have  an  official  job  but  his  presence  is  greatly  felt  throughout  the  gang.  he  throws  the  best  parties,  has  great  taste,  and  loves  to  be  the  center  of  attention.  has  time  for  everyone  and  will  always  give  a  shoulder  to  cry  on  if  needed.  is  nicknamed  “the  wanderer”  because  of  his  love  for  travelling  and  is  known  to  be  a  nomad.  will  likely  show  up  in  the  early  hours  of  the  morning  to  eat  your  food  and  fall  asleep  on  your  sofa  because  he  doesn’t  actually  have  his  own  home.

HADES  and  PERSEPHONE  are  a  part  of  the  family  business  but  a  different  branch  that  handles  the  more  “legal”  activities.  they  live  in  another  state  and  successfully  run  their  domain,  and  rarely  travel  back  to  their  hometown  to  see  the  family  ( though  seph  does  like  to  vacation  there  every  summer  to  see  her  mother ).  the  pair  are  super  rich,  have  a  loving  marriage,  and  are  well  respected.  seph  likes  to  post  photos  of  hades  being  cute  and  playing  with  their  dogs  on  social  media.  hades  is  always  on  hand  if  you  need  a  loan,  safehouse,  or  plane  ticket  out  of  the  city  fast.

HERA  is  the  matriarch  of  the  family.  loves  her  children  and  will  do  anything  to  protect  them,  which  is  why  she  puts  up  with  zeus’  shit  knowing  that  they  will  be  in  more  danger  should  they  leave  the  safety  of  the  organisation.  despite  her  maternal  nature,  hera  is  absolutely  dangerous,  perhaps  more  so  than  her  husband.  she  is  a  very  jealous  and  vengeful  person,  and  will  ruin  the  lives  of  those  who  stab  her  in  the  back  or  endanger  her  family.  loves  being  from  a  big  family  because  there’s  always  a  lot  of  weddings  and  christenings  going  on,  and  she  will  plan  every  single  one  to  picture  perfection.  

HESTIA  is  the  least  involved  with  the  family  business.  instead,  she  runs  a  homeless  shelter  in  the  city.  any  money  she  earns  is  put  into  helping  others  and  she  often  goes  without  or  risks  her  own  health  to  care  for  those  in  the  community.  but  even  though  she  is  not  part  of  the  family  business,  she  is  absolutely  close  to  her  family.  she  is  the  one  they  turn  to  when  they  need  advice  or  protection.  she  is  non-judgemental  and  dedicated  to  the  happiness  of  her  family,  and  will  be  there  for  them  through  anything.  because  of  this  she  is  loved  by  the  family,  and  they  are  over  protective  of  her.

APHRODITE  is  the  femme  fatale  of  the  family.  she  is  well  known  for  her  effect  on  men  and  will  use  it  to  the  advantage  of  the  organisation.  is  definitely  a  match  maker  and  if  she  senses  any  chemistry  between  two  people  will  absolutely  try  to  set  them  up.  is  very  body  confident  and  sex  positive,  so  any  advice  or  issues  you  have  she  is  easy  to  speak  to  on  such  matters.  is  a  feminist  and  is  known  to  stand  up  against  her  male  counterparts  to  protect  or  keep  safe  the  females  in  the  family.  the  boys  stop  taking  her  on  nights  out  because  she  easily  steals  away  the  attention  of  the  women  they’re  trying  to  chat  up.  just  wants  to  be  loved  but  is  known  to  have  a  bad  history  when  it  comes  to  romance  and  is  quite  sensitive  and  damaged  from  her  romantic  experiences.

DEMETER  runs  her  own  florist  shop  and  is  on  the  garden  comittee  in  her  affluent  neighbourhood.  is  not  against  enlisting  the  help  of  the  organisation  to  sabotage  the  gardens  of  those  who  oppose  her  or  don’t  appreciate  her  advice.  adores  her  daughter  persephone,  who  she  sees  most  summers,  but  never  liked  hades  for  stealing  her  daughter  away  from  her  and  moving  her  so  far  away,  so  catch  her  dropping  catty  comments  and  one  liners  about  him  at  the  family  parties.  is  the  best  cook  ever  and  makes  big  meals,  tempting  everybody  to  come  over  and  sample  what  she’s  whipped  up  that  day.  is  definitely  a  feeder.

GIVE  ME  THREADS  IN  THIS  VERSE  PLEASE???

[mrmichaelchadler]

Ebertfest 2019: A Photo Journal

Roger's presence was alive and well in the Virginia Theatre at our 21st Ebertfest! Festival Director Nate Kohn and I presented the Roger Ebert's Film Festival in collaboration with Roger's alma mater, the College of Media at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. We were assisted by Festival Coordinator, Andrew Michael Hall ("Andy"). The following photo diary offers snapshots of our cherished memories that took place April 10th through April 13th in Champaign and Urbana, Illinois.

Photos courtesy of Timothy Hiatt.

DAY ONE

The Opening Night Gala for Ebertfest was hosted graciously by University President Timothy Kileen and his wife Dr. Roberta Johnson. Opening speeches were also given by Chancellor Robert Jones and College of Media Dean Tracy Sulkin. 

During my speech at the gala, I was joined at the podium by two of the festival's special guests, Gina Gershon and Jennifer Tilly. Coincidentally, Gina Gerson's cousin, Alan Elliott, preserved, restored and presented our opening night selection, "Amazing Grace," the amazing documentary about Aretha Franklin recording the best selling gospel album in history over two nights in a church in Watts, Los Angeles in 1972.

Preceding "Amazing Grace," Alan Elliott was joined onstage for a Q&A with producer Tirrell D. Whittley and our Ebert Fellow, Whitney Spencer. Elliott told us of his musical roots and of how he was influenced by gospel music and why he was so passionate about bringing this performance of Aretha Franklin to the public. 

Tirrell Whittley's background as a Deacon was evident in his powerful invocation. Once we saw this powerful film we understood Alan Elliott's quest to bring it to the screen. It is being distributed by NEON and has opened in select theaters across the country. No doubt church groups and many others will line up to see this historic performance. 

The crowd-pleasing screening concluded with a performance by the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Choir of Champaign-Urbana that had the audience on its feet.

Turns out moving our musical finale of the festival to opening night was a great idea after all. It raised our spirits through the roof and held them there through the entirety of the week.

DAY TWO

Prior to showtime at the Virginia Theatre, two inspiring academic panel discussions were held at the nearby Hyatt Hotel, the first sponsored by the Champaign County Alliance for Inclusion and Respect. 

It was entitled "Challenging Stigma Through the Arts," and moderated by Dr. Eric Pierson. The discussion challenged whether the images of addiction in the movies helped or hindered the public's understanding of addiction. Pierson was joined onstage by therapist Marcina Hale, film critic Matt Fagerholm, and professional representatives of the recovery community, including from the Rosencrance Rehabilitation Center. Their in-depth discussion offered suggestions on which movies and TV shows portrayed addiction accurately, but more importantly, they offered practical solutions to treating addiction and it's aftermath as a service to the audience. 

The second panel focused on "Women in Cinema: Hollywood or Independent, Does it Make a Difference," and featured such speakers as Alliance of Women Film Journalists president Jennifer Merin, "Bound" stars Jennifer Tilly and Gina Gershon... They too offered practical suggestions for how to increase the representation of women in cinema, both in front of and behind the camera.

...RogerEbert.com Assistant Editor Nell Minow, "Maya Angelou and Still I Rise" director Rita Coburn and "The Curvy Critic" Carla Renata (filmmaker Stephen Apkon and Sony Pictures Classics co-president Michael Barker were also present).

Alloy Orchestra members Ken Winokur and Terry Donahue chatted onstage with Michael Phillips and Todd Rendleman following their live musical accompaniment of a silent screen classic, in this case, Jean Epstein's 1923 melodrama, "Coeur fidèle" ("The Faithful Heart"). The third member of their trio, Roger Miller, was busy selling their priceless merchandise in the festival's boutique.

The Alloy Orchestra has performed at Ebertfest for over 16 years and are always brought back by popular demand. They compose original scores for the silent films they select, even making some of the instruments they use. What a talented group. We are fortunate to have them. 

Both of the morning panels were reflected in the second film of the day, and Sony Pictures Classics Co-President, Michael Barker, delivered an amazing homage to the late Jonathan Demme's 2008 masterwork, "Rachel Getting Married." It featured Anne Hathaway in what I still consider her best performance, as a struggling addict returning home for her sister's wedding. This film is phenomenal with a cast including Rosemarie DeWitt, Bill Irwin, Debra Winger, Anna Deveare Smith, Tunde Adebimpe and many others. Demme considered it one of his favorites in contributing to the understanding of human behavior. It shows how whole families become dysfunctional and act out in various ways, but how facing up to addiction, admitting wrongs, making amends, forgiveness and love can help you face the very messiness of life and come together as a family and community. Michael Barker is without a doubt one of Ebertfest's favorite guests. 

Barker spoke onstage after the film with our critic, Nell Minow, and one of Demme's closest friends, Stephen Apkon, a recipient of the Roger Ebert Humanitarian Award for his documentary, "Disturbing the Peace." The screenwriter of "Rachel Getting Married," Jenny Lumet (the granddaughter of Lena Horne and the daughter of Sidney Lumet), joined in the conversation over the satellite.

Lana and Lilly Wachowski's hugely enjoyable debut feature, "Bound," was the evening's cinematic treat, and it was made ten times more entertaining by the Q&A afterward with Gina Gershon and Academy Award nominee Jennifer Tilly. Their banter with critics Chuck Koplinski and Pamela Powell was a joy to watch.

DAY THREE

Michael Phillips introduced the audience to the 2018-19 University of Illinois College of Media Roger Ebert Fellows, Curtis Cook, Pari Apostolakos and Eunice Alpasan, who did a splendid job covering their first full Ebertfest experience. Although Phillips is the film critic for the Chicago Tribune, he is the revered mentor for the Ebert Fellowship program at the University of Illinois, and is valued for his knowledge and experience and his love of teaching. He makes the program better every year. 

One of our longtime Ebertfest guests, Sam Fragoso, was encouraged by Roger to keep doing what he loved, and he is now an accomplished critic, podcaster and filmmaker. His wonderful short film, "Sebastian," preceded the first feature screened on Day 3 of Ebertfest, and earned him the coveted Golden Thumb.

Pawel Pawlikowski's ravishing Polish romance, "Cold War," was the discussion topic for Festival Director Nate Kohn, Michael Phillips and Carla Renata, following the morning screening. Carla Renata interviewed the film's director and shared some revealing insights into the movie. It was partially based on Pawlikowski's parents' tempestuous love story and is an epic told over several decades. Renata is also a recurring actress on ABC's Superstore, and just published a book for actors on marketing. 

Horace Jenkins' newly restored 1982 gem, "Cane River," brought out a stellar quartet of talents: producer Sandra Schulberg, actress Tommye Myrick and Jenkins' children, Sacha and Dominique Jenkins. This film is a modern day Romeo & Juliet played out in Louisiana among descendants of African-American Creoles and slaves. It is a tale of colorism, land ownership, and a young woman's determination to pursue her education, but above all, it a tale of love. Very romantic. Ms. Myrick hilariously told us how she had to learn to swim and ride horses because she couldn't do either and the film required both. Schulberg told us how she preserved to get the film restored. And Dominique and Sacha told us of their remarkable father whose life itself is worthy of a film. 

The great Polish actress, Madame Maja Komorowska, traveled all the way from Warsaw to attend our Ebertfest screening of Krzysztof Zanussi's 1984 love story, "A Year of the Quiet Sun," which paired her with the late Scott Wilson, to whom this year's festival was dedicated. She was joined on stage by her amusing translator, Jerzy Tyszkiewicz, who also happens to be her grandson. 

Their Q&A was moderated by Professor Todd Rendleman and Jennifer Merin. After tribute clips of Scott Wilson's film career, his widow, Heavenly Wilson, spoke of getting this movie made in Poland and at Monument Valley in the United States.

Here Maja Komorowska and Jerzy are joined by Scott's widow, Heavenly Wilson. Getting to spend time with them was heavenly indeed. It has become an Ebertfest tradition for guests and audiences to pose with the sculpture of Roger on the plaza of the Virginia Theater. The sculpture is by artist Rick Harney and was installed by the fundraising efforts of festival donors Donna and Scott Anderson. It was truly a gift from the heart, as Donna woke up in the hospital when she was having a heart transplant and said she wanted to do whatever it took to get a sculpture of Roger near the Virginia Theater as a gift to the community. 

Iconic "Simpsons" producer David Mirkin brought down the house with his beloved 1997 comedy, "Romy and Michele's High School Reunion." Festival Director Nate Kohn appears here with film critics and broadcasters Chuck Koplinski and Pamela Powell who had a ball chatting with David Mirkin onstage.The audience loved seeing Lisa Kudrow and Mira Sorvino in their screwball roles. Mirkin presented an image of high school that so many can relate to. He was a delightful guest. 

DAY FOUR

Beginning the last day of Ebertfest 2019 were two films about heroic figures who have left an indelible imprint in our culture long after their passing. The first was "Maya Angelou and Still I Rise," directed by Rita Coburn, who spoke onstage with our Editor at Large Matt Zoller Seitz and Ebert Fellow Whitney Spencer afterward. Rita Coburn, in a surprise, was presented with the inaugural ICON award, for the scope of her film about the iconic Maya Angelou, and her contributions to humanity. This was the first ICON award ever given at Ebertfest. Rita Coburn is actually one of those phenomenal women that Angelou talks about. The film was awarded a Peabody among other awards.

Director Morgan Neville won the Ebert Humanitarian award for his film, "Won't You Be My Neighbor?" about the television trailblazer and radical humanist Fred Rogers.  It was only the third humanitarian award given. The second was given to Norman Lear for his lifetime of work in television in highlighting the various nuances of the human condition through humor.  Neville was joined onstage by RogerEbert.com Assistant Editors Nick Allen and Matt Fagerholm, who were both great admirers of the movie. Matt movingly shared with the audience the letter he wrote to Mr Rogers when he was five years old, and also the amazingly long and very specific response Mr Rogers wrote back to five-year-old Matt in encouragement. It illustrated the respect Mr Rogers had for children and his principle of radical kindness.

Our festival culminated with a celebration of Roger's longtime on-air "At the Movies" partner, Richard Roeper. A montage of hilarious and touching highlights from their reviews preceded my conversation with him onstage. Richard chose two films to present at Ebertfest, and both were well received: "Almost Famous," and "Sideways." Richard's career includes broadcasting on radio and television and other platforms, publishing books about movies and gambling, and lecturing. He may also be working on future movie projects.

RogerEbert.com Managing Editor Brian Tallerico and Editor at Large Matt Zoller Seitz chatted with Richard Roeper and Sam Fragoso about one of their favorite movies, Cameron Crowe's "Almost Famous," a film very close to Roger's heart (and his own life story). Crowe provided a special video introduction to the picture that was appreciated by the whole audience. His film still plays well all these years later, with an luminous performance by Kate Hudson, and an unbelievably perfect cast, including Billy Crudup, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jason Lee and the vulnerable newcomer Patrick Fugit.

Photo by Matt Fagerholm

Last but certainly not least, we screened one of Roeper's most prized films he ever got to review with Roger, Alexander Payne's "Sideways." The film's Oscar-nominated star, the beautiful Virginia Madsen, joined us via Skype from the set of her new TV series, "Swamp Thing," for an emotional conversation about Roger and his championing of the film. The film starred Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden-Church and the unforgettable Sandra Oh. Virginia shared many insights, including about drinking fabricated fake wine. Hilarious.  Richard Roeper, Matt Zoller Seitz and Nell Minow were on hand for the discussion. All in all, a perfect end to another unforgettable Ebertfest. Join us April 15th through April 18th next year for the 22nd anniversary of Roger Ebert's Film Festival!

from All Content http://bit.ly/2Pp5a7S

[roadtripdad]

On the refrain “there is no patriarchy”,

In my discussions with a variety of people on my post about the feedback I received on my BA thesis regarding gender-based bias and oppression in the church and in the doctrine of the Trinity, I have seen over and over again the denial that these biases exist. Frequently this is couched in the argument redolent of islamophobia that “this [america/the west] isn’t the middle east” - which is for the moment beyond the scope of this post - and still more frequently this assertion is couched in the assertion that “there is no patriarchy” or “the patriarchy doesn’t exist”.  This is followed by the assertion that “women have the same rights as men”, or “we don’t have an exclusively male ruled society”, or “gender roles aren’t real”.  These assertions are frustrating, so I've decided to make a master post about it.  

A methodological note: this is largely a binarist discussion and a largely American discussion. I have tried to include global statistics where possible, but I am mostly drawing those statistics from surveys that only draw data on cisgender men and women. I am committed to breaking down the gender binary and, as a non-binary person especially, I would love to talk in a more nuanced way on gender variance at another time.

OUTLINE

On Etymology and Definitions

On intersectionality

On marked and unmarked language

On rights, equality thereof

On gender roles

Further Reading

ON ETYMOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS

Patriarchy, n. 1)  a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. 2) a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

Patriarchy as a sociological concept originates in first wave feminism when women categorically did not have the same rights as men.  I point to this as a historical understanding that we can all agree was the case.  Women could not vote; in many cases, they did not have the same rights to property; there was a very clear male elite.  It still gestures to men holding power as the norm. Statistics time!

In the 114th Congress of the United States, women hold just 84 seats in the house which translates to 19.3%.  In the Senate, the proportion is roughly the same. Only 6.2% of the total members of congress are Women of Color (WoC)  Nancy Pelosi was the first woman elected as Speaker of the House.  48 women have held cabinet positions in the history of the United States.  Six state governors are women, of whom two are women of color.

Globally, 16 countries have elected female heads of state.  In no particular order they are: Chile, Malta, South Korea (dicey right now for global political reasons), the United Kingdom, Mauritius, Croatia, Lithuania, Bangladesh, Liberia, Poland, Germany, Trinidad and Tobago, the Central African Republic, Jamaica, Norway, and Latvia.

Clearly, men are still largely in power and exercising that power over women via policy choices.  This is how we get policies like taxing sanitary products as a luxury item when anyone who has ever menstruated can categorically assert that it’s no luxury to need them.  

So, clearly, men exercise a great deal of political power. What about economic power?

Here too we see that men hold and exercise the majority of that power. STATS POWERS ACTIVATE!

The United States, in particular, is way behind with regard to the percentage of women engaged in the workforce [link].  Women own roughly 36% of businesses in the united states [link]. The united states is only one of four countries planet-wide that does not mandate full paid parental leave and only 16% of US employers offer this benefit [link].  Men are more likely to receive a higher level of authority and better benefits and compensation  than their female counterparts [link].  Occupational gender segregation is the fact of the matter horizontally and vertically [link].

I could go on, but the point is that men still retain the majority of political and economic power worldwide, even if you deny the wage gap which has been proven again and again [link]. As per the dictionary definition, the patriarchy is real.  It is a system designed to benefit the category of men.

On Intersectionality

Now, it is possible that you would like to point to issues of class and race and to the fact that men don’t benefit uniformly from patriarchy.  Good. You should want to do that.  This picture is complicated and tempestuous and identities intersect all over the place.  White women need to recognize that they’re doing a hell of a lot better than WoC and even men of Color (MoC) in terms of market-share of power and influence.  However, while we’re discussing gender here, the category of men writ large have a greater percentage of the pie.  See above.

On marked and unmarked language

Marked Language, put simply, is the language you take note of.  When talking about height, it is the convention to ask how tall someone is rather than how short they are. Short is the marked one of the pair tall/short.

So also is language marked by gender.  Spend the day taking note of how frequently you default to the male. Constructing a hypothetical interlocutor? You likely use he/him/his pronouns.  Greeting someone casually? “Hey guys!”, “What’s up bro?” “How are you, my dude?”, etc.  The male phraseology is the norm and is, therefore, unmarked.  Men are the ones in power so they become the default.

ON RIGHTS, EQUALITY THEREOF

“But women have all the same rights as men now! we don’t need feminism anymore!” Not quite that simple.

Women are still considered a special interest group.  There are the categories of “women’s interests” and “women’s issues” and of course “women’s rights”. Moreover, since men hold most of the power while statistically making up 49% of the population, women are disproportionately under represented.  This is how you get laws like “conscience” exemptions for pharmacists not to dispense legally prescribed medications on “moral grounds”.  When women are special, their concerns can be neglected whenever it’s convenient. Which is a rights violation, no question.

ON GENDER ROLES

It’s not so much that patriarchy is the cause of gender stereotypes, it’s that the prevalence of gender stereotypes is one of the defining characteristics of the social system we call the patriarchy. Stereotypes are a product of segregation of groups and of power imbalance.

It’s patriarchy that says that men need to be strong and aggressive to protect women who are weak and feeble.  This means that men are socialized not to express emotion which is extremely damaging [link].  

It’s patriarchy that says “boys will be boys” to sexual assault and sex- and romance-based violence against women.  This means that it’s normalized that we blame women for violence done to them and the men doing that violence are glorified. [link]

And it’s patriarchy that decides arbitrarily that men are more intellectually fit than women which leads to their greater share of economic and political power. This means that the wildly qualified Hillary Clinton (say what you like she has job experience in government) loses to Donald Trump.

FURTHER READING

https://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/x9hkv/quintessential_feminist_literature/c5ke6l2/

[krystisyaandwine]

I am a HUGE fan of anything ancient Rome. Add in a fierce female protagonist, a swoony love interest, and a heart-pounding plot line, well, you’ve got the combination for one PHENOMENAL book!

Wine Pairing

The Valiant by Lesley Livingston

How could I possibly pair this Roman-inspired novel with anything other than an Italian wine. This Bartenura Moscato happens to be one of my FAVORITE wines and it also happens to look awesome with this book cover!

*All wine recommendations are for strictly for those of legal drinking age only.*

The Nitty Gritty

Title: The Valiant

Author: Lesley Livingston

Publisher: Razorbill

Pub Date: February 14, 2017

Pages: 372

GoodReads Description:

Princess. Captive. Gladiator.

Fallon is the daughter of a proud Celtic king, the sister of the legendary warrior Sorcha, and the sworn enemy of Julius Caesar.

When Fallon was a child, Caesar’s armies invaded her homeland, and her beloved sister was killed in battle.

Now, on the eve of her seventeenth birthday, Fallon is eager to follow in her sister’s footsteps and earn her place in the fearsome Cantii war band. She never gets the chance.

Fallon is captured and sold to an elite training school for female gladiators—owned by none other than Julius Caesar. In a cruel twist of fate, the man who destroyed Fallon’s family might be her only hope of survival.

Now Fallon must overcome vicious rivalries and deadly fights—in and out of the arena. And perhaps the most dangerous threat of all: her forbidden yet irresistible feelings for Cai, a young Roman soldier. 

My Review

I fell in love with this book the moment I heard about it, and Lesley Livingston’s delivery of the story more than lived up to my expectations. This was such a fun read, absolutely brimming with historical facts and theories. And one of the coolest things about this book, gladiatrices might actually have been a real thing!

I adored Fallon as a main character. She is fierce, smart, and also incredibly loyal. Her love for her family definitely makes her a character that you’ll relate to. Basically, you’ll just want to be her.

The world building is expertly done. Livingston has taken the facts that we know about ancient Rome and combined them with fiction in a way that feels so authentic and brings the whole world to life. She also included some major historical figures in the story, and it was so much fun to see them there, including Ceasar and Cleopatra. It’s fascinating to imagine what their personalities would have actually been like, and I adored Livingston’s take on them, Cleopatra in particular.

There is a truly phenomenal cast of characters in this book. The love interest, the friends, the enemies, the complex familial relationships. I just ate it all up and was so thrilled when I checked Goodreads and found out that this is book 1 in a series! Wahoo!

This book is like the movie Gladiator meets Graceling, and it is FIRE!

Cover Rating

This cover is perfect. It highlights the sheer awesomeness of Fallon’s character perfectly. The color scheme is perfect, and the arena is exactly what I imagine the Colosseum in Rome would have looked like during Caesar’s time.

Swoon Worthiness

The romance between Fallon and Cai is SUPER swoony. There’s so much romantic tension between them, and Livingston delivers it in the slow-burn style that I love so much. Cai has a character arc that makes him just the PERFECT guy for Fallon, and I can’t wait to check out their relationship status in book 2.

Were There Really Gladiatrices?

So, I adore reading historical fiction and historical fantasy, because I love to be able to Google locations, characters, and facts while I read. I love to have that added depth to my reading experience. So I did a little bit of research on gladiatrices while I was reading and was astounded to find out that they probably were an actual thing.

In the back of the book, Livingston also acknowledges the fact that there were most likely female gladiatrices, and she also discusses some of the research she did while writing the book. Be sure to check that out after you read  The Valiant.

Here’s a few fun facts I found by the power of the internets while reading:

There is some physical evidence that suggests the existence of the gladiatrix, including graves and the relief of two gladiatrcies pictured below.

There are also a very few written accounts documented of gladiatrices by Rome’s ancient elite.

It is believed that a female gladiatrix would have fought each other, or wild animals, to entertain audiences, just as the gladiators did.

Many have speculated that emperor Septimus Severus may have been the driving force behind the gladiatrices, bringing them into the arena in an attempt to create a dignified display of female athletics.

While male gladiators are widely celebrated and acknowledged, the relief below is the only near-certain depiction of the female gladiatrices existence.

A Photo Tour of the Colosseum

I visited Rome and the Colosseum last year with my family. Here are a few pictures of what is left of the ancient arena that Fallon may have fought in today.

 About Lesley Livingston

LESLEY LIVINGSTON is a writer living in Toronto, Canada. She is the author of twelve books to date. Her first novel, WONDROUS STRANGE, was winner of the CLA Young Adult Book of the Year 2010, a White Pine Honour Book, shortlisted for the Sunburst Award for Excellence in Canadian Speculative Fiction, and in 2015 was named one of CBC’s “100 YA Books That Make You Proud To Be Canadian”. DARKLIGHT, the second book in this series was a finalist for the Indigo Teen Read Awards. The concluding volume in the trilogy, TEMPESTUOUS, was a finalist for the Monica Hughes Award. These books have sold to more than ten countries to date, and WONDROUS STRANGE has been optioned for film/TV by Shaftesbury Films. Her other trilogies have both won the Copper Cylinder award for Young Adult fiction.

In addition to her books for teen readers, Lesley is also co-author of a Middle Grade series with Jonathan Llyr called THE WIGGINS WEIRD. The first book, HOW TO CURSE IN HIEROGLYPHICS was shortlisted for the CLA Book of the Year for Children Award and was longlisted for the Canadian Booksellers Association’s Young Readers Book of the Year award. It was also chosen as one of the selections for the 2016 First Book Canada All-Star Reading Challenge.

Lesley’s newest novel is a YA historical epic, THE VALIANT, which will be published in February 2017 by Penguin Razorbill (US) and HarperCollins (CAN) and tells the story of a 17-year-old girl’s journey from fierce Celtic princess to female gladiator and the darling of the Roman Empire.

For almost three years, Lesley hosted weekly late-night movie marathons on the nationally broadcast television show, SPACEBAR, as the Waitron-9000, a sparkly holographic waitress with an encyclopedic knowledge of obscure B-movie trivia. For almost two decades, she was a principal performer with Tempest Theatre Group, a Toronto-based Shakespearean theatre company.

Have you read The Valiant yet? How fascinating do you find the idea of the gladiatrices? Have you, or will you, get to meet Lesley during the Penguin Teen Tour?

The Valiant Five Star Review + Were There Really Gladiatrices?! I am a HUGE fan of anything ancient Rome. Add in a fierce female protagonist, a swoony love interest, and a heart-pounding plot line, well, you've got the combination for one PHENOMENAL book!

[mrmichaelchadler]

Ebertfest 2019, Day 3: Sebastian, Cold War, Cane River, A Year of the Quiet Sun, Romy and Michele’s High School Reunion

On paper, Day 3 of Ebertfest might have struck some viewers as perhaps a bit dark and heavy from a programming perspective. After all, two of the films dealt with post-war romances that most assuredly do not live happily ever after, and a third was a long-unseen feature that essentially disappeared from view after the first-time writer/producer/director passed away a mere two months before it was set to have its New York premiere. However, to see them in front of the always-enthusiastic Ebertfest crowd turned each one of them into celebrations, not just of their own qualities but of the restorative qualities of cinema itself. Of course, it also helped that the long day of moviegoing was capped off by one of the most heedlessly goofy and utterly charming movies imaginable to send attendees out into the streets with smiles on their faces and any number of '80s-era hits rattling in their heads.

The day started out with a presentation of “Sebastian,” a short film by Sam Fragoso, who began attending Ebertfest several years ago when he was just in high school and now works as an author, critic and podcast host. Before the screening, he recounted his first Ebertfest, and how his father would not let him leave the theater until he went up and introduced himself to Roger. Not surprisingly, Roger took to him and encouraged him to keep up with his writing—while advising him not to disclose his age to avoid people dismissing his work sight unseen—and he certainly would have been pleased to have seen his short as well. The film, in which a Mexican-American almond picker narrates a letter that he has written to his son, is only three minutes long but it nevertheless packs a significant emotional punch. More impressively, there is not a single wasted moment on display—every shot is framed in just the right way and held for just the right length. The whole demonstrates a sure hand for the medium that leaves you curious to see what Fragoso does next. 

It is perhaps no coincidence that “Sebastian” prefaced the screening of “Cold War” since both films find their filmmakers grappling with the legacies of their own family sagas. In the case of “Cold War,” writer/director Pawel Pawlikowski (whose previous film, “Ida” (2013), screened at Ebertfest and won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film) was inspired by the tempestuous on-and-off relationship of his own parents to tell the story of the up-and-down romance between a conductor/musicologist (Tomasz Not) and the ambitious young singer (Joanna Kulig) that he discovers that is set against the background of the political and cultural shifts spreading throughout Europe in the post-war period. 

I named "Cold War" as one of the ten best films of last year, and being able to see it again, with its already extraordinary visuals getting additional luster on the giant screen at the Virginia, I found myself liking it even more. This is a film that is quite short—not counting the end credits, it only runs about 77 minutes or so—but it is certainly epic in regards to scope. Covering more than 15 years and set amongst a number of of European countries, it has the feel of a much larger work without ever being bogged down by anything that could possibly take away from the central story of two lovers who have undeniable chemistry (as do the two actors, both of whom are incredible) but whose relationship is forever being thwarted both by the winds of fate and their own basic incompatibility. The film was nominated for three Oscars this year—Pawlikowski was cited for Best Director and it was also in the running for Best Foreign Language Film and Cinematography—and as critic Michael Phillips pointed out in his introduction, it could well have been a serious contender to win the latter two if it weren't up against the juggernaut that was “Roma.” Phillips was joined by Carla Renata, a.k.a. The Curvy Critic, who recounted interviews that she did with Pawlikowski and Kulig in order to illuminate some of the film’s themes, and Nate Kohn, who mentioned that he himself spent some time behind the Iron Curtain during the '60s as well.

As you probably know, this year’s Ebertfest kicked off with “Amazing Grace,” a film that had gone unseen for decades but was well-known enough so that most attendees presumably at least knew something about it and its complex backstory. In the case of this year’s other so-called “lost” film, “Cane River” (1982, pictured at top) it is very likely that, outside of those connected directly with the festival, most sitting in the theater hadn't even heard of the film, let alone seen it. 

Set in Louisiana, it tells the story of a pair of star-crossed lovers whose burgeoning relationship is threatened by issues of class and color. Peter (Richard Romain) is a former local football hero who has just rejected an offer to play professional football (okay, the offer was from the Jets, but still ...) who has returned home with vague dreams of perhaps becoming a poet. One day, he meets Maria (Tommye Myrick), who is about to go off to college, and the two fall almost instantly in love. Unfortunately, this blossoming romance flies in the face of a long-standing barrier between Peter’s people, the lighter-skinned Metoyer creoles who used to own land and slaves back in the day, and Maria’s, the darker-skinned families who were used as slaves. Despite the disapproval of their families, their love continues to grow but the question arises of whether it can stand up in the face of historical precedent and the disapproval of both their families.

The film was the debut creation of Horace Jenkins, a former producer of such television shows as “Sesame Street” and “30 Minutes” (a children’s version of “60 Minutes”), who wrote, produced and directed "Cane River" independently. Nowadays, that might not sound that shocking but this was early enough in the evolution of what would eventually become known as the American independent film movement that it didn’t even have a name for it. Around that time, other maverick filmmakers like John Sayles and Victor Nunez were gaining notice for their similarly developed debuts, “Return of the Secaucus Seven” and “Gal Young’Un” (both 1979), and it is entirely possible that the same would have happened to Jenkins as well. Sadly, he died in 1982 shortly before his film’s premiere. After a couple of screenings, "Cane River" disappeared from view and languished for decades in the vaults of the DuArt film laboratories, until producer Sandra Schulberg stumbled upon it among the other 4,000 negatives that were left behind and became obsessed with the notion of restoring it, and was able to do with the support from the likes of Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences and the Roger and Chaz Ebert Foundation. After the screening, Schulberg appeared on stage to discuss the discovery and restoration of "Cane River," joined by Myrick, and Jenkins’ children, Sacha and Dominique, who spoke movingly of the unexpected chance to get in touch with their father’s creative legacy.

The next screening, “A Year of the Quiet Sun” (1984), served double duty by highlighting a title that Roger had admitted into his Great Movies pantheon and by serving as the focus of a tribute to the life and work of Scott Wilson, the actor who starred in the film and who had been one of Ebertfest’s most frequent and beloved guests before his passing last October. (This year’s edition has been dedicated to Wilson.) 

Like “Cold War,” this is a film that mixes together war and romance in ways that manage to come across as both sweeping and shockingly intimate. Set in 1946, Wilson plays Norman, an American soldier who has been sent to Poland as part of a commission looking for a mass grave of American soldiers executed by the Nazis. He has a lot of free time to wander around and one day, he comes across Emilia (Maja Komorowska), a war widow who is living in a bombed-out single room with her aging mother (Ewa Dalkowska) and earning a meager living baking cakes. Neither one speaks the other one’s language, of course, but some things are universal and the two fall instantly in love. Unfortunately for the two of them, the path to happiness has many obstacles—the mother is suffering from an infected leg, a man who appears to be a sleazy local official uses his vague position of power to inflict unnecessary cruelty on anyone that he can, Norman is haunted by memories of his own war experiences and Emilia, having spent years as a refugee before finally being able to return home, is uneasy at the prospect of leaving Poland again. Without going into too many details of what transpires, let it be said that writer/director Krzysztof Zanussi lets his story unfold in unexpected ways that run the gamut from heartfelt romance to powerful drama to even the occasional bits of humor. He hits every one of them dead on, aided in no small part to the powerhouse performances from the two leads.

After the screening, the festival paid tribute to the film and Wilson by having both Heavenly Wilson, Scott’s wife and a familiar face to regular attendees, and co-star Ewa Komorowska, who flew in from Poland and was accompanied by her grandson, Jerzy Tyskiewicz, who served as her translator. Obviously, Q&A’s involving a translator can sometimes be tough, but between Tyskiewicz’s charm and Komorowska’s delightful personality—the kind that needs no translation—it proved to be a relatively smooth experience. (It didn’t hurt that people struggling with translations was a running joke in the film itself.) Between the two of them and Heavenly, who teared up during her introduction following a montage of clips from throughout Scott’s career, and then delighted the audiences with a number of anecdotes about making the film in Poland, it proved to be a lively, and touching tribute to Wilson, whose spirit will no doubt continue to bless Ebertfest for years to come.

That said, all the films up to this point were a bit on the heavy side and it therefore came as a sort of blessed relief to conclude the day with the burst of pure cinematic cotton candy that is “Romy and Michele’s High School Reunion,” the wonderful 1997 comedy about two cheerfully goofy misfits, Romy (Mira Sorvino) and Michele (Lisa Kudrow), who have been best pals since high school, where they were ostracized by their snottier classmates for daring to march to their own drummers. Now it is time for their ten-year reunion and when they finally decide to go, they decide to cast aside their seemingly humdrum lives and show up pretending to be high-powered business executives who struck it big by inventing Post-It Notes. The film, inspired by a play by Robin Schiff in which Romy and Michele were only supporting roles, is not exactly profound—the deepest it gets is in its observation that most everyone was miserable to one degree or another during high school—but that does not make it any less funny or entertaining. Sorvino and Kudrow are both pitch-perfect in the leads—they correctly play their characters so that they embrace the silliness and vapidity of the roles instead of simply making them into airhead idiots—and they get great support from a cast of familiar faces that includes Alan Cumming, Janeane Garofalo and Justin Theroux.

“Romy and Michele’s High School Reunion” was directed by David Mirkin, who made his directorial debut with this film (his only other feature would be the underrated 2001 comedy “Heartbreakers”) and who is better known for producing such TV shows as “The Simpsons” and the program that may be the single greatest work of art in the history of the medium, “Get a Life.” Like his film, Mirkin lightened the mood considerably with a funny and occasionally rambling Q&A in which he discussed the production of the film, his occasional clashes with Disney over everything from the tone to the musical choices (at first, he recalled, they wanted him to drop a song by No Doubt from the soundtrack, only to then ask for additional cuts by them once they broke wide—alas, by that time, they were too expensive). He admitted that unlike a lot of high school-oriented movies, in which the oddball characters always found themselves gravitating towards the center in terms of acceptability, he wanted to do one that would “celebrate the weirdos.” At the end of the discussion, Mirkin even accepted the request of an audience member and sang the immortal “Spider-Pig” song that he wrote for “The Simpsons Movie,” a fitting end to a long and ultimately rewarding day at Ebertfest.  

from All Content http://bit.ly/2IwRKpb