#although my personal theory is that he was more in love with geoffrey than with richard

[bibliophileiz]

"To think, I had feared you might be dull." His eyes trailed languidly over my face, from my hairline to my jaw; a cataloguing, exploratory sort of gaze, one that felt almost violating. "I thought you might be tedious, as your father was. But you are not." "What am I, then? If not dull?" "I do not know," he replied. "A contradiction. An enemy, an ally. A question and an answer."

Richard the Lionheart to King Philip, Solomon's Crown by Natasha Siegel, pg. 47

look, I don't care for Siegel's portrayal of Eleanor in this book, but she grasps the inherent homoeroticism of feuding kings.

[starstruckteacup]

Cottagecore Films (pt. 11)

A Little Princess (1995)

starring Liesel Matthews, Liam Cunningham, Vanessa Chester, Eleanor Bron

synopsis

I was extremely disappointed in this film, to put it lightly. The story itself was beautiful, but that is thanks exclusively to the novel on which it was based. The movie itself utterly failed to convey the magic and timelessness of the book. The acting was flat, emotionless, and forced at every point, from every actor (except for maybe Cunningham, but he was absent for half of it). One would think a gaggle of girls would have some form of natural chemistry, whether pulling them together or apart, but not a single child actor portrayed even the remotest semblance of a relationship to another. (Note: I describe in my review of Pan’s Labyrinth what quality acting from a child looks like, for reference.) Even Matthews and Cunningham could not pass a believable father-daughter relationship, despite the story being about that. As far as emotional acting, the adults were just as bad as the children. They couldn’t even feign a single moment of joy, sadness, or anger, regardless of the context. I actually laughed for the entire scene during which Sara nearly died because of how bad the acting from the adults was. At least Chester seemed somewhat worried; Bron and the nameless police officers stood around so vacantly it looked like they forgot what was happening. I really was appalled by the abysmal acting, especially when so much was handed to them in the story. I want to preface my next point by saying that yes, I know computer animation was still a work in progress in the 90s. But this was horrifyingly awful. I have never once, not in my entire life, seen CGI as terrible as the monster in Sara’s stories. I nearly gave up on the entire movie within the first five minutes because of that monster. And it kept showing up, which absolutely ruined whatever favor I tried to hold for this movie. If you don’t have the budget, which this film clearly didn’t, don’t try to animate a monster. It’s that simple. I wish I had more words for it but it was truly so atrocious that I’m at a loss. Any good will I hold for this movie is due to my fondness for the story (no credit to the film), the settings (while not exceptional, they were fairly pretty), and Liam Cunningham’s acting. 2/10

Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)

TW: blood, mild gore, torture, racism against indigenous people

starring Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Clive Owen, Abbie Cornish, Jordi Mollà, Samantha Morton

This film is the sequel to Elizabeth (1998) (see part 10 of my film reviews), which continues the story of Queen Elizabeth I as her rule progresses. Tensions between Catholic Spain and Protestant England grow ever greater, escalating to treasonous plots and assassination attempts. Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, and King Philip II of Spain conspire to depose Elizabeth and place Mary on the throne, restoring Catholicism as the national religion. Even as these events lead to war between the two superpowers, the court provides no sense of stability as new faces and new stresses surround the Virgin Queen. She forms a strong friendship with the pirate Walter Raleigh upon his return trip from the New World, where he seeks to establish colonies under the English flag. However, his stay is extended greatly when Elizabeth’s selfishness and pride take over, and are only broken down in the face of battle when she puts him at the forefront of the British navy. Outnumbered, Elizabeth will need Raleigh’s loyalty and cunning, along with the unwavering loyalty of her people, if they wish to survive the Spanish onslaught.

While still a drama, this film proved to be much more war-oriented than its predecessor, but I’m not sure it did either as well. I liked the deeper look this film gave us into the Elizabeth’s mind, especially with her social and emotional conflicts. They remind us that she is still human, despite the somewhat cold appearance the first film gave her at the end. She is more mature, and even more prideful, but there’s still a limit to what she can take as a person. I think the first film gave a better portrayal of her complicated mind, but this was a solid continuation of what years of ruling can do. I also liked how much detail they put into Raleigh’s character, which the first film didn’t do as well with its secondary characters. We got to know more about him, even if he did still feel somewhat surface-level. I think the dramatic aspects could have felt more high-stakes than they did, especially for the characters who were actually in danger. Even though so many characters were actively committing treason, I only felt that level of tension with one: Mary Stuart. Her death was particularly elegant and laden with symbolism, and even though I knew the outcome historically the scene still delivered the anxiety it was meant to. The others simply didn’t have the same delivery. Even the assassination attempt didn’t project any kind of concern, regardless of one’s historical knowledge. The war focus was a fairly different take than the first had, which I appreciated. The film established a strong balance between the tensions in England, Scotland, and Spain, and did a good job making the stakes very clear for each group. Given the uncritically positive stance on England that this film takes, I would have expected the film to villainize Spain a little more to form a stronger dichotomy between the two rulers, but Spain was presented rather neutrally to the audience. The Spanish ruler and nobles didn’t have much character, despite being the antagonist. As for that uncritical positivity regarding England, I do have a bit more to say. Although to an extent it makes sense that the film would lean in favor of England, given its content and the point of view from which the story is told, it became overbearing at times. England could do no wrong in this film, despite children dying in battle, indigenous people being humiliated and dehumanized for show, talk about slavery, and a complete disregard for the suffering of non-white and non-Protestant groups. In contrast, the first film heavily criticized England, from Mary of Guise shaming Elizabeth for sending young children to war, to Elizabeth frowning upon Walsingham’s torture methods (granted she never stopped them, but she didn’t approve as readily as she did in this film), and so on. Although England in truth did all of these things without rebuke, the film could have handled it more gracefully and came across less like propaganda, at the very least. 5/10

Loving Vincent (2017)

TW: suicide (action offscreen, death onscreen)

Sensory Warning: movement of the impressionistic paintings can be very disorienting for those with sensory processing difficulties. I had to break from watching multiple times so as not to become ill.

starring Douglas Booth, Eleanor Tomlinson, Jerome Flynn, Robert Gulaczyk

This fully hand-painted animated film follows Armand Roulin, a young man with a severe temper, on his way to deliver Vincent Van Gogh’s last letter to a living recipient. When he reaches the town where Vincent died, he begins speaking to a variety of villagers with their own stories about the artist, and their own theories about how he died. Armand tries to piece the puzzle together, wondering if the death was not a suicide as claimed, but rather something more sinister.

This film was spectacularly breathtaking. The amount of work that went into painting every scene was awe-inspiring, and definitely sets the bar high for any other films of its kind. The team of artists that created this film represented Van Gogh’s unique art style exquisitely through their loving application of oil-based paints, and truly brought to life the emotion he put into his works. I wish I hadn’t struggled so much with the constant movement, as I feel I would have been able to appreciate the film in its entirety better, but as it was I struggled to pay attention to the story because the art style consumed too much of my sensory processing capabilities. As for the story, I thought it was interesting, but I found it lacking despite the incredible artwork. Foremost, after some cursory research, I discovered that the homicide theory on which this film was based was only acknowledge by one individual, and spurned by hundreds of others. Although the film leaves the verdict open-ended, both to Roulin and to the audience, the story itself seemed to lean into the homicide theory, then completely give up on it with no resolution, so it came across as fairly noncommittal. I won’t argue for or against the theory, as I don’t know nearly enough about Van Gogh to assert an opinion, but I’m somewhat unsettled by the amount of weight it gave to it without any kind of evidentiary support, only to dump it as if the writers changed their mind themselves. The pacing was also slow for a murder mystery, which is basically what the story turned out to be. I would much have preferred the film to cover Vincent’s life, or even the days/weeks leading up to his death, instead of only featuring him in other people’s flashbacks. This kind of existential impressionism should capture the life of its creator, not the mundane views of people who didn’t understand him or even hated him. There wasn’t anything wrong with the film, per se, but I wish the writing was given as much love as the art was. 7/10

Part 1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 // 8 // 9 // 10

[theliberaltony]

via FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): We’re back with a snake draft of 2020 Democratic presidential contenders, but this time with a twist — we’re picking the … VICE PRESIDENT.

I know — we don’t know who the presidential nominee is yet. But let’s face it: Even if the primary field grows to 20-plus Democrats, only one can win the nomination. So we might as well talk about who would make a desirable running mate (if not commander-in-chief). And before you scoff, a candidate’s choice for VP can signal a lot about what he or she prioritizes or considers to be a campaign weakness.

Remember, we’re trying to pick someone who’d make a good second-in-command, although our picks tend to diminish in quality as the rounds wear on. The rules are as follows: Four rounds, so between the four of us, 16 potential 2020 Democratic veeps. Let’s determine the order. (I’m going to write our names on paper and recruit someone in the office to draw them out of a hat while Nate orders some Chinese takeout.)

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): I’m pretty excited about this, I gotta say.

(The VP draft, not just the Chinese food.)

geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): All about a well-balanced meal, or presidential ticket.

sarahf: The lineup:

Clare

Nate

Geoff

Sarah

natesilver: Pretty happy with the No. 2 pick here.

sarahf: I can’t believe I have to go twice in a row. I hate

drafts. Anyway, get us started, Clare!

clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): mmmmk

Cory Booker

natesilver: bad pick

sarahf: good pick

clare.malone: Here’s my reasoning:

I’m going to operate for a moment on the premise that the “electability” factor that Democratic primary voters say they are going for in 2020 is a stand-in for a centrist-type candidate, and probably a white person. Under those conditions, a white candidate would want to pick Booker for his identity and ability to appeal to black voters, which is a big part of the Democratic primary electorate. But Booker also appeals to the establishment wings of the party and has the sort of resume where you wouldn’t mind setting him up to run for president someday in the future, but with a West Wing office.

geoffrey.skelley: Booker would have been my first pick, too.

sarahf: Still think it’s a bad pick, Nate?

clare.malone: Yes, he does on principle, which I respect.

natesilver: There are two obvious picks, and Booker was maybe the third-best pick after those two obvious ones.

sarahf: Well, then. I don’t suppose I should delay the draft any longer.

You’re up, Nate!

clare.malone: I’m on tenterhooks, with bated breath, etc.

natesilver: I’m going with … Robert (“Beto”) O’Rourke.

clare.malone: bad pick

(I, too, have my principles.)

natesilver: No, it’s a great pick.

geoffrey.skelley: You guys are on a roll.

natesilver: Here’s why: 1) There’s about a 55 percent chance (per Betfair) that the nominee will not be a white dude. 2) If the nominee is not a white dude, the VP probably will be a white dude. 3) The other white dudes are too old (Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders) or would cost Democrats a Senate seat (Sherrod Brown). Hence, Beto.

sarahf: Hmm, I think Beto’s lack of resume disqualifies him (section IV in this article) as VP material, but not necessarily for a presidential run because in that case, charisma matters more than experience.

clare.malone: Nate is just coming at the likelihood of who will be at the top of the ticket differently than I am.

O’Rourke is the right pick if you’re doing Nate’s reasoning of a minority candidate being the nominee.

In that case, O’Rourke is popular, white and young, which would make for a good VP.

natesilver: See, I thought the lack of a resume would make him even more qualified to be VP since it’s a job where you don’t really do anything. He could go around the country eating ice cream and staying at weird motels and blogging about it.

sarahf: Maybe, but I’d argue that VPs have historically been a pretty overqualified bunch.

clare.malone: What do you think is his motel chain of choice?

natesilver: Lol, Beto doesn’t stay at chains, Clare!

clare.malone: You don’t think he’s racking up Holiday Inn Express points?

geoffrey.skelley: A corollary to the craft beer track is the local motel track.

clare.malone: (I love a Holiday Inn, by the way. Always my preference on the road. As is McDonald’s over Burger King.)

BRAND LOYALTY IS IMPORTANT AS AN AMERICAN

sarahf: OK, Geoff, take it away with pick No. 3.

geoffrey.skelley: I made up a little rubric for leading presidential contenders to get a rough calculation of who might best balance a ticket or meet some missing criteria for the major contenders. And this will shake things up, but I think Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth best hits the mark of the remaining options out there.

sarahf: Interesting pick.

Do tell us more.

natesilver: “Interesting” is a euphemism for “bad” where I come from.

geoffrey.skelley: She’s got one hell of a story.

She’s the first disabled congresswoman, having lost both of her legs while serving in Iraq as a helicopter pilot. And she is someone of mixed ethnicity from the Midwest.

Outside of Biden, I’m not really sure of the foreign policy credentials of any of the other Democratic presidential candidates. Booker is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but Duckworth’s military experience would be an asset.

clare.malone: I’m going to offend Foggy Bottom here and say that people don’t care about foreign policy all that much anymore.

geoffrey.skelley: I think Duckworth could be a presidential candidate someday if she doesn’t get involved in 2020.

natesilver: She was born in Thailand, to a U.S. citizen, so there would probably be debate about her eligibility, a la Ted Cruz.

And I did have her on my list, as I think she’s one of the more plausible nonpresidential contenders who could become VP.

But … like … the fact that she hasn’t expressed any interest in the presidency — doesn’t that also mean she might not want the vice presidency?

sarahf: Her military background is definitely a win for Democrats, but like Nate said, I’m not sure she wants so high-profile of a gig.

clare.malone: She also just had a baby, which might have something to do with not wanting to run right now.

sarahf: OK, I’m here with picks 4 and 5! And I think you all will agree I have some very good picks.

First of all, Vice President Julian Castro.

natesilver: Not bad.

One of my top 2 is still on the board, though.

sarahf: I’m a little surprised no one has claimed him, but my thought is that Castro already has the grooming as a former Cabinet secretary. And I think his message as a Latino American challenging Trump is powerful.

That said, I don’t think it’s powerful enough to win him the nomination. (I just don’t think he has enough name recognition.)

geoffrey.skelley: I wrote Castro’s theory of the case and agree there’s definitely an “I’m running for VP” vibe.

clare.malone: He seems sort of a dull penny in a race filled with shiny pennies.

natesilver: But sometimes that’s what candidates are going for. Tim Kaine is in the “dull penny” bucket. Mike Pence, too.

clare.malone: I agree he has experience and the resume, but there are lots of other people who might make a more interesting choice with similar resumes.

And this is true, Nate, but are we in that era?

geoffrey.skelley: Castro would probably be a decent choice for Biden, Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

natesilver: Democrats could also talk themselves into thinking they need to double-down on the Hispanic vote.

Maybe Sanders or Warren, Geoffrey. Biden might need to pick someone who is more identifiably to his left?

geoffrey.skelley: Fair point regarding ideology — where Castro stands on a number of issues is a big unknown.

The Electoral College would also complicate — if not exclude — a Castro choice if O’Rourke were to become the nominee.1

sarahf: Guess that means no O’Rourke-Castro ticket in our future.

But OK, my next pick is Amy Klobuchar.

geoffrey.skelley: arrrrgh

Probably could’ve waited on Duckworth and taken Klobuchar, but the first pick is fun and splashy.

sarahf: Klobuchar’s Midwestern chops make her desirable electorally.

And with four women already among the major candidates, if a woman is not at the top of the ticket, she needs to be in the second spot.

natesilver: My suppositions are that 1) there will not be two women on the ticket; 2) there will not be two people of color on the ticket; and 3) there will not be two white men on the ticket.

But you could have a white man and a nonwhite man, e.g. Biden and Booker.

Or a white man and a white woman, e.g. Beto and Klobuchar.

sarahf: In which case, Nate’s first scenario could render my pick useless, but I’m not so sure a woman will win the top spot.

Also, at this stage Klobuchar is the highest-profile “moderate” to throw her hat in the ring, which could help someone like Kamala Harris or Sanders if they were to win the nomination, although I probably agree with Nate that two women on the ticket is not going to happen.

natesilver: Klobuchar definitely has the electability thing going for her, she’s not too old, and no big issues re: her qualifications.

sarahf: OK, remind me how snake drafts work … Geoff is up again?

geoffrey.skelley: This is kind of tough — I have a pick in mind, but I think she’s unlikely to take the No. 2 slot, so I’ll wait. So I’m going with Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet instead.

natesilver: ehhhhh

I guess he’s in the Kaine category of nonshiny white dude.

sarahf:

But TBF, there are several possible nominees that fall into this category.

geoffrey.skelley: If the nominee is a woman and/or a minority, he’s a sort of bland Kaine-esque pick that might be needed. He hails from a battleground state, is Western and went viral recently with his floor speech during the government shutdown. Who knows, he might even be eying an under-the-radar presidential bid.

clare.malone: dull penny

But I guess a dull penny is still legal tender.

natesilver: Is Colorado really a battleground state anymore? Probably not with Trump on the ballot.

clare.malone: My favorite part of that Bennet floor speech was how uncomfortable Alabama Sen. Doug Jones looked to be caught on camera sitting next to the rant.

geoffrey.skelley: I get the dull penny point, but it’s also worth remembering that the presidential nominee is NOT going to want someone who outshines them.

sarahf: Fair.

natesilver: Is it my pick now? One of my top two — the one who isn’t Beto — is still on the board.

sarahf: Well then, take ’em off, Nate. Who is it!?!?

natesilver: Kamala Harris

clare.malone: fuck

You stole my pick.

And it doesn’t even go with your theory!

Not fair.

It goes with MY theory.

geoffrey.skelley: Well, I was tempted to take her both times. But I don’t think she’ll take it unless it’s as Biden’s VP. She can camp out in that California Senate seat, which isn’t up again until 2022, and wait for another chance in 2024 or 2028.

natesilver: I mean — I said earlier there’s a 55 percent chance that the nominee isn’t a white dude. That means there’s a 45 percent chance that it will be a white dude.

clare.malone: Wait, is that how percentages work??

natesilver: Clare, the way percentages work is that if you say something has a 29 percent chance of happening, that actually means there is a 0 percent chance.

clare.malone: ahhhh

natesilver: Biden-Harris is a very natural pairing, especially since Biden will have to shore up support on his left.

Beto-Harris could also work. It’s a bit more of a Clinton-Gore dynamic.

The thing is, though, that we could also very easily wind up with an unnatural arrangement where a deal is brokered on the convention floor.

So I like Harris’s VP chances partly because I like her presidential chances to win, but also to be one of the runners-up if she doesn’t.

clare.malone: OK, I’m up.

Stacey Abrams.

natesilver: Hmm

clare.malone: Since Nate stole my pick for my theory of the case for this chat — that the top of the ticket will probably be white — I’m going with Abrams as a popular black candidate who’s a rising political star.

Although I know there’s buzz about her running for the Senate.

natesilver: “Hmm” isn’t passive-aggressive like “interesting.” I’m generally hmm-ing about whether I like the pick.

clare.malone: But Abrams would be a really interesting, bold move for whomever the nominee ends up being. And Abrams would get a huge boost in national profile.

sarahf: Plus, even though VPs don’t necessarily help the ticket carry their home state, it could be an interesting move for Democrats to pick someone who hails from the Deep South.

geoffrey.skelley: Beto-Abrams: Losing to Win.

natesilver: But are there going to be questions about her experience level? Especially since a black woman isn’t likely to get the benefit of the doubt?

clare.malone: Definitely a criticism that would be leveled.

Then again, maybe we are in the midst of busting up the experience paradigm in presidential politics.

natesilver: Last full round, then a lightning round?

We used to go six rounds back in my day.

But we can treat this as a semi-lightning round, a “thunder round,” if you will.

OK, Clare, we need another pick from you.

clare.malone: I know, Nate. I’m thinking.

geoffrey.skelley: Lot of boring white guys out there.

clare.malone: I’m going to switch my theory of the case midround and operate with the theory that a minority will be at the top of the ticket, so I’m going with the wunderkind of South Bend, Pete Buttigieg.

A lot of the top tier people are taken, but he’d be an interesting Midwestern pick … despite his experience problem, obviously.

geoffrey.skelley: For what it’s worth, Abrams has more experience than Buttigieg — she served in the Georgia House of Representatives for about 10 years and was that body’s minority leader more than half that time. Buttigieg has been mayor of South Bend, Indiana, for seven years.

clare.malone: Well, she’s been picked and the pickings are slim!

sarahf: Potential VPs like Buttigieg, Abrams and Beto are all challenging my notion of the kind of experience a VP should have as an elder statesman or stateswoman.

clare.malone: Brown is someone you’d WANT to pick here, but the possibility of losing the Senate seat is obviously a big problem.

natesilver: So … uhhh … do we think a presidential candidate is going to feel safe picking a gay/lesbian/bi VP candidate?

The country is progressive, but it isn’t that progressive.

This is also relevant to Tammy Baldwin and Kyrsten Sinema, both of whom would also be interesting choices.

clare.malone: Yeah, Tammy Baldwin is maybe a better choice, actually.

And yes, Nate, that’s an open question for sure.

natesilver: OK, my pick?

sarahf: Yup.

natesilver: I am going with …. Pennsylvania Sen. Robert “Bob” Casey Jr.

sarahf: Deep cut.

natesilver: From a crucial swing state, but a Democratic governor would pick his replacement.

He also seemed to at least flirt with the idea of running for president, so he’d probably be interested.

geoffrey.skelley: Abortion politics make him a problematic pick, although the geography makes perfect sense.

And Tim Kaine’s personal pro-life position didn’t foul up Hillary Clinton, so maybe Casey would work for someone like Harris, too.

natesilver: I do agree the abortion thing could be an issue, although his record has shifted to the left over the years.

And he’d be the choice of a candidate who wanted to pivot to the center — someone like Warren. The Harris-Casey fit seems weird, but in theory that could work, too.

Booker-Casey is also not crazy.

geoffrey.skelley: All right. I’ve got some swing state women in mind — I’m going with Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada.

natesilver: Very deep cut.

geoffrey.skelley: Latina from a battleground state with a Democratic governor who could appoint her replacement.

natesilver: Yeah, it all makes sense.

geoffrey.skelley: Not a well-known name, but again whoever is at the top of the ticket may not want a high-profile pick. Instead, he or she may be looking for balance.

natesilver: O’Rourke-Cortez Masto really rolls off the tongue

sarahf: OK, I’m up. One “thunder pick” and then a “lightning pick” to take us home.

My thunder pick is: Sherrod Brown despite reservations about picking him earlier.

natesilver: Pretty good for the Thunder round.

Sorry, thunder.

(Reading too much NBA stuff so was thinking about the Oklahoma City Thunder.)

sarahf: He has the policy chops and geographical pull a ticket might need — Senate seat be damned.

geoffrey.skelley: He would make a lot of sense for many candidates.

natesilver: Brown has a real crossover appeal between the left and the “beer track” that makes him very interesting.

But it would help if Ohio weren’t soooo far gone as a swing state, or seemingly so.

Like, I think he’d put Ohio “in play” but not necessarily make the Democrat the favorite there in a 50-50 national race.

sarahf:

LIGHTNING ROUND

Gavin Fucking Newsom

natesilver:

geoffrey.skelley: Say wut.

sarahf: Look, he’s got the ambition: two-term mayor of San Francisco before a quick stint as California’s lieutenant governor. And now he’s the governor of California! Depending on the tone Democrats want to strike in opposing Trump, he could be a formidable foe.

That said, I freely admit he’s a wild card. And a bit of a trollish pick from me.

clare.malone: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I have to say something here.

The recent New Yorker profile of him was fucking amazing

sarahf: It was, Clare. And may have inspired my choice.

clare.malone: I have very rarely seen the bald insecurities of a politician so perfectly laid out.

sarahf: But enough of my nonsense. You’re up, Geoff.

geoffrey.skelley: Sticking with Tammys, I’ll take Sen. Baldwin of Wisconsin.

sarahf: Nice. She’d made my list before I went renegade.

geoffrey.skelley: She said she isn’t interested in running for president, but maybe the VP slot? She would be a battleground senator from the Midwest, and as one of the most liberal senators, she’d be a friendly pick on the left of the party.

sarahf: Democrats are going to need that Midwestern cred.

natesilver: Clare claims she can predict my pick.

clare.malone: I think I know…

natesilver: It’s a pretty boring pick.

Kirsten Gillibrand.

clare.malone: booo

Not who I thought.

natesilver: Gillibrand’s just … I mean, out of the various presidential contenders who aren’t too old, she was the one left standing.

geoffrey.skelley: And she’d take it, too, I suspect. Unlike some of the others.

natesilver: Which is a bit damning with faint praise. But she’s theoretically got appeal to different parts of the Democratic base. She’ll probably raise a lot of money.

clare.malone: That’s a BIG thing, I think.

Very useful to have that fundraising know-how around.

natesilver: She has to perform reasonably well in the primaries. Have a “surge” at some point, even if she doesn’t win any states. If she totally flames out, I don’t think it works.

clare.malone: OK, I’m going to pick who I thought Nate was going to pick because I just want to.

natesilver: Haha, OK. I’m wondering if you’re going to pick who I thought you’d think I’d pick.

clare.malone: …

Doug Jones.

Nate used to LOVE talking about Doug Jones as a presidential nominee.

And Jones is a moderate, up for a tough re-elect in 2020.

Why the heck not!

geoffrey.skelley: It’s going to be hard for him to hold on as a red state Democratic senator, so why not?

natesilver: Haha, I thought you’d pick Dougie J.

He’s a classic Nate last-round pick.

clare.malone: Yes, he is.

natesilver: And I was probably going to take him if Gillibrand weren’t still on the board.

clare.malone: In that case, I feel somewhat vindicated.

sarahf: A final look at our VP-2020 teams. Tweet at us whose lineup you like best:

2020 Democratic vice presidential draft

February 2019

Round Clare Nate Geoff Sarah 1 Cory Booker Beto O’Rourke Tammy Duckworth Julian Castro 2 Stacey Abrams Kamala Harris Michael Bennet Amy Klobuchar 3 Pete Buttigieg Bob Casey Jr. Catherine Cortez Masto Sherrod Brown 4 Doug Jones Kirsten Gillibrand Tammy Baldwin Gavin Newsom

[s0022338-blog]

Post C: Textual Analysis Draft

Explore the representation of women in Hick and Violet & Daisy

 Both of my chosen films go against the general representation that men are often portrayed as being the stronger model of both sexes. My first chosen film “Hick” was released in May 2012 and directed by Dereck Martini with a budget of seven million dollars. The genre of Hick is described as comedy/drama although throughout the films narrative there are clearly very dark undertones and hidden connotations. Hick follows the story of runaway teen Luli who follows the wrong road in the childlike hope of a better future however, Luli soon crosses paths with a going nowhere loner and a cocaine snorting sweetheart.

On the other hand, Violet & Daisy was released just a year later in June 2013 with a higher budget of 8 million USD by director Geoffrey Scowcroft Fletcher. The genre of the film is described as Action/Comedy but again it is evident throughout the film that there are much darker undertones to it. In my other chosen film ‘Violet & Daisy’ two teenage girls play the role of assassins which creates controversy as it is usually men chosen to play these types of characters in films.  Violet & Daisy follows the story of two teenage girls sent on a job to take the life of a man they soon become very close with, making the job a lot harder to complete than expected.

 Both of my chosen films go against the general representation of women and how they are stereotyped as gentle and weak. Through the use of action film iconography in both films Violet & Daisy and Hick the teenage girls carry guns which shows they are strong characters. In my chosen sequence for Violet & Daisy through the use of mise on scene it is clear by what the two girls are wearing and the color of it that they are the protagonistic characters. The color of white represents a sense of purity and innocence. Both films partly follow the Bechdel test for movies as they are at least two named female characters that talk to each other and play main parts. However, in both films their main topic of conversation is about men, because although the men in violet & Daisy and Hick are portrayed very differently they are still going to greatly affect the female’s lives forever.

In the opening scene of this sequence one of the teenage assassins (Daisy) is playing pattacake with The Mister she is supposed to be killing. This shows how she has a childlike mindset, tricking the audience into completely under estimating her abilities. It also shows how she has been made to grow up quicker due to her job. This confuses the narrative because she is meant to be taking this man’s life not playing childhood games with him. Both characters in this scene are wearing white which equalizes them in terms of power and makes the female assassin (Daisy) appear no more inferior than the older looking man(The Mister). However, the mise en scene shows the age of the man as he has glasses on a chain around his neck making it obvious his eyesight isn’t very good anymore because of his age. This shows as a disadvantage and makes him appear as a weaker character to Daisy. Therefore, this reinforces how the film goes against the general representation of men been the stronger and more powerful characters.

       In the next scene of the sequence four men known as ’Donnie and his crew’ barge in and are all shown from the use of a low camera angle standing over the mister and Daisy pointing guns at them. The use of a low camera angle shot makes Donnie and his crew appear more powerful than The Mister and Daisy as it makes them look a lot bigger especially because of the iconography used of them all holding guns. Therefore, this conforms to the feminist film theory of men being portrayed as the stronger sex. The mise en scene of the four characters’ outfits adds to the powerful antagonistic image as all the men are dressed in black or darker colors compared to the color of The Mister and Daisy’s clothing being pure white. This scene creates juxtaposition to the rest of the film as it reverts to the general representation of men being more powerful than women.

   Through the editing technique of the shot reverse shot a long winded conversation takes place between Donnie (the main antagonist) and Daisy, during this scene Daisy is seen as the childlike character almost having a patronizing conversation with Donnie. Unbeknown to himself, this is to stall time until her partner Violet arrives to wipe out ‘Donnie and his crew’, during this scene the film juxtapose the binaries of good versus bad in Daisy’s character as she protects The Mister by shielding him with her own body to protect him from the bullets clearly stating a bond between the two has been formed, though we may question whether is it just the mere fact that she has been assigned a job to carry out and will allow no other to do it for her.

To emphasize the gunshots in this scene foley sound is used which contributes to the genre of the film being action.

  ��  In the aftermath of the killing of ‘Donnie and his crew’ the sociopathic tendencies of Violet and Daisy become crystal clear especially when they embark on their ceremonial dance which they have named “ the internal bleeding dance “ this consists of both teenagers unashamedly dancing on their dying victims’ bodies causing them ultimate death whilst giggling and listening to  music , this is shown through the use of contrapuntal sound as the song used in this scene is Three Degrees “ When Will I see you Again” ; this callus scene may cause distress and discomfort to the audience. A sense of black comedy is created when humour is created through the lyrics of the song playing in relation to their brutal crime.

    My other chosen sequence is from a film called Hick. In the beginning scene of the sequence the audience are introduced to Eddie flipping a gun in his hands. Straight away through the use of iconography the fact that Eddie is holding a gun shows that he has some kind of dominance and power. However, this power is only supported by the fact that he is holding a gun. In the first opening scene an American shot is used to show that Eddie isn’t the only person in the room. Through the use of mise en scene you can straight away see by the clothing the person is wearing that it is a woman. She is wearing pink colored silk clothing and her curved body shape also suggests that she is a woman. This straight away contrasts with Violet & Daisy as Hick supports the general representation of men being the stronger characters than women whereas in Violet & Daisy the women have the same power as the men if not more, going against the general representation. Also through the use of mise en scene the sequence is filmed in a small log cabin with all the blinds shut. This shows the audience that Eddie is trying to hide his wrong doings.

      In the following scene from my chosen sequence the cinematography technique of a two shot is shown of Eddie trying to kiss Glinda. The fact that a two shot has been used shows the audience only them two characters are meant to be in the shot. This could connote intimacy and be representing that at one point Eddie and Glinda had a relationship but by Glinda’s reaction to Eddie it shows that it wasn’t a good kind of relationship. It is obvious by the character’s placement that Glinda is trying to get away from Eddie foreshadowing what she has been trying to do her whole life. However, Eddie still doesn’t seem to understand that he has done anything wrong and believes that Glinda could still love him.

This scene could also evidence that Glinda is potentially showing traits of Stockholm syndrome in the way in which she still seems to have an empathic feeling of protectiveness towards Eddie. This is shown with the use of diegetic sound when Glinda says “what more could I do for you?” clearly stating that she goes out of her way just to try and please him. This could be seen as a desperate plea from Glinda.

 Eddie then goes on to accidentally shoot Glinda. This is made clear with diegetic sound when Eddie says “This was a fucking accident babe”. The use of the word ‘babe’ continues to support the fact that Eddie still thinks he has something with Glinda even now after all the torment he has caused her during her life which has resulted in her demise at the hands of Eddie. In this shot you can see all three characters featured as Eddie is kissing Glinda showing his undying but possessive love for her. Although Eddie has caused himself a great deal of upset and pain from killing Glinda, killing someone is the ultimate way to possess someone forever.

  Toward the end of the scene the camera cuts to Luli holding a gun up directly facing Eddie. Using iconography, it is made clear that Luli has the possession of a gun because of her vulnerability. Luli has carried this unused gun with her from the beginning of the film which shows the audience that she is most probably going to need to use it at some point in the film and now is that time. The camera slowly zooms towards Luli showing her shaking body and worried facial expression. As this is going on asynchronous sound is used to display Luli’s blank thoughts at this traumatic time. The sound of a gunshot is not displayed in the moment that Luli shoots Eddie, instead a voiceover of Luli saying “pop.” Is used. This shows how Luli is still just a child and must create some sort of distraction to take her mind off the fact that she is shooting someone. Once Luli has shot Eddie she goes on to say “sorry” whilst crying using diegetic sound. This also shows vague signs of Stockholm syndrome within Luli as she feels bad for killing someone who has abused her both mentally and sexually. This scene supports the feminist film theory in a really upsetting way as it shows the reality of the bad influences controlling men can have over young girls. However, it also shows how in films they only ever show men as the antagonists in scenes like this creating a bad stereotype for men in real life.

         At the end of the scene a crane shot is used to show the aftermath of the events which took place in the log cabin. With the use of mise en scene and character placement Glinda’s arm is placed under Eddies neck as they lay there peacefully dead in a pool of their own blood. The way they are both laid could be representing their relationship in the past and the way that they now look so peaceful and at ease could be to represent that all the bad things in their life have now gone forever. During this part of the scene the song ‘Patsy Cline – I fall to pieces’ is played as part of the films sound track. The lyrics used in the song ‘I fall to pieces each time I see you again’ represent the relationship between Glinda and Eddie completely as every time they see each other life goes terribly wrong, making the song fit perfectly with the scene shown on screen. As the camera continues to follow all the objects in the room with an Ariel view it then zooms to some rope and a drawing on the bed which Luli was placed on for most of the scene. With the use of mise en scene the rope shows that Eddie was holding Luli hostage and the drawings support that she was at such a young age and that she used them as a happy distraction to take her mind off the reality of what was actually happening to her. The end of this scene completely goes against the general representation of men being the stronger characters as Luli takes control of the twisted situation at such a young age and kills the poison in her life (Eddie).

    In conclusion, I believe that both of my chosen films go against the general representation of women and how men should be perceived as the stronger sex. Although the films show it in different ways I see the women as stronger characters both mentally and physically. In Violet and Daisy, the women’s overtaking power is shown with the use of iconography as they both carry a gun due to them being such strong characters (assassins). However, their leading power is also shown with their smart and manipulative word choice helping them get out of situations which could cost them their lives. In Hick, the power of women isn’t always made apparent as both characters Glinda and Luli have been held hostage by Eddie mentally and physically. However, Glinda’s strength is shown when she tries to find young Luli knowing that there is a strong possibility that she will come across Eddie again in her life. Luli’s dominating power over the male character is shown when she shoots Eddie. This shows an aging mental power as she is only young but she still knows what he has done to her and Glinda is not acceptable.

SELF ASSESSMENT COMMENTS:

To improve my essay further and achieve a higher grade i need to include more about the feminist film theory throughout my essay. I also need to go through my essay and check that i am using all terminology correctly and analyse my evidence in a lot more depth. 

MARK: 23/40 

GRADE: D+