#and I slowed it way down to take screenshots and then get some bad unclear close ups

[too-many-rooks]

Got interested in what S3 shows us of the Scorpia Board and took some photos.

The only named member we have is Razim, who seems to have his 'territory' as the Middle East. We also see that SCORPIA is operating in/has representatives from Russia, China, the USA, (and presumably Julia for Europe?)

Interesting that the Americans seem to share a seat/territory, there's at least one other woman on the board (unlike in the books?) and I wonder if the unnamed Russian representative is a nod to Sarov, since they go out of their way to reference another book?

[baddiedaddy7]

💚🐸𝙈𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙮 𝙎𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙨🐸💚

𝗔𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀

attention span is not long. may ditch old ideas, if they get bored, or find something more interesting. HAS to win an argument. may think being the louder one during an argument is the way to win lmao. talks in a dynamic way. argumentive. may make a good public speaker. may text too fast, and mess up on a few words. communication style is aggressive(always has to be right, loud, might scapegoat, etc). humor may be childish(fart jokes, butt jokes, burp jokes, just dumb shit in general lol), or humor that involves getting injured(hitting your head on something, tripping, etc). slapstick humor

𝗧𝗮𝘂𝗿𝘂𝘀

great attention span, but may be a slow learner or talker. talks with stability/most likely doesn’t stutter. doesn’t mind staying on the same topic/not changing the subject. like aries, in an argument they will rarely admit they were wrong, hard-headed. arguing with these ppl are the worst, since they don’t allow others to have opinions which is annoying asf(my sister has this lmao, and i have a taurus mars, so you could imagine💀). your mind rarely changes, once made up. not the most open minded. talks with practicality. may type slow tbh lmao, and dry. may also take a century to reply. communication style may be passive aggressive(may not like being straightforward, “i didn’t think you’d pass this class, but good job”, etc) humor may be well written skits, or roasts.

𝗚𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶

attention span is fleeting. curious about numerous of things. may stutter thanks to gemini jittery energy. rarely turns down a debate, might even lie in a disagreement to win😃. first to speak if it’s too quiet for too long. type of person to have random knowledge or may know fun facts. talks with wit. types fast, replies fast, just very active on social media. meme user. sends messages in short patches instead of just one big paragraph. communication style is passive aggressive(may mumble under breath, etc). humor may be random. may love puns.

𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿

attention span is good, esp if it’s topics they feel with. may be bias in an argument between other ppl😬. may want to “hug” it out lmao. may like to talk abt emotional topics. talks with care. probably uses emojis a lot. writes paragraphs/in long sentences. communication style varies tbh😭. i’m just gonna do passive-aggressive(backhanded compliments, talks behind your back instead of confronting you) or assertive(expressing your wants and needs, while considering others feelings). inside jokes are your thing, goofy asf with ppl you’re comfortable with. dry humor

𝗟𝗲𝗼

attention span may be short lived. may only talk abt themselves which can be annoying💀. believe it or not, they may take a calm/chill approach in an argument. overdramatic in their speech. talks with confidence. keeps the conversation interesting/not dry. initiator in group chats. usually replies fast. communication style is assertive(uses “i”, knows their worth, etc). playful name calling is their type of humor.

𝗩𝗶𝗿𝗴𝗼

attention span may not be that good tbh(like their opposite sign, they daydream off into the distance). talks with practicality. make sure to fact check, when arguing with these ppl, or they may verbally violate you. very nit picky ppl, and may be big complainers. may abbreviate a lot of words lmao. another dry texting placement, and rarely uses emojis. communication style is passive aggressive(throws shade lmao, may like to just go with the flow, etc). may make fun of yourself to get laughs. might like humor that criticizes/makes fun of things/ppl in general. their humor has some truth to it😓.

𝗟𝗶𝗯𝗿𝗮

attention span is usually good. easy going in speech. talks with equality. can also be charismatic. may ppl please. in arguments, they can try to compromise, and fix everything, even when it’s unfixable. dislikes conflict, and may need to learn to embrace them. may dislike ppl that curse a lot, or are loud. the way you text may be unclear to some. also texting isn’t direct, and may use things like “k” or “nice”. communication style is passive(lacks eye contact, doesn’t want any conflict even though they feel some type of way, etc). another placement that likes well written jokes, and may have a strong dislike for dark/inappropriate humor lol.

𝗦𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗽𝗶𝗼

attention span is attentive. you’re not easy to read, and it can take time to truly know you. you may over analyze and get suspicious over the dumbest things. observant, and might be into psychology. in arguments, doesn’t tolerate dumb shit. can be a bit of a ghost when it comes to texting. tries to get in your business and asks random shit. might not text too much info, since they don’t want ppl to screenshot the chat lmao. assertive is your communication style(considers others feelings, uses “i”, etc) or aggressive(yells, tries to intimidate you, etc). humor may be dark, offensive, and/or taboo/inappropriate. sexual jokes.

𝗦𝗮𝗴𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘂𝘀

attention span is actually good, if they’re interested, if not then it’s non existent. either rlly open or rlly closed minded. you may mistake being blunt for being honest or some ppl may mistake your realness for being rude. talks with rowdiness. in arguments, may be hostile. uses “:), </3” instead of “😃💔” in text. but then again, may use actual emojis a bit. communication style is aggressive(loud, doesn’t consider others feelings, etc). humor may be mocking accents, sarcasm, and/or satire.

𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗻

attention span is short, if what you’re talking abt isn’t important to us. fluent in atleast 2 languages, which are sarcasm, and facts. we don’t have time or patience for ignorance. we may come off as standoffish, when in reality we just stick to ourselves or we’re just too honest. talks with common sense. talking is soothing, atleast i’ve been told. i feel like we use facts in an argument more than emotions, but me personally i try to include both(this is my placement :)). probably doesn’t use caps in text. may have a lot of ppl on delivered. reply game varies based on person, only replies fast to important ppl. communication style is most likely assertive(has a backbone, stands up for themselves without being loud, etc). humor is satire, dark/offensive, and/or sarcastic. if you have tiktok, you definitely know abt satire humor LMAO.

𝗔𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘂𝘀

attention span is only good if they care. says random things. takes forever to reply. talks with detachment. observant. in arguments, probably doesn’t think of others feelings, and just says whatever. may be harsh in arguing. another placement that probably uses this “<3, :), etc” instead of “❤️😃”. may ghost your messages. communication style is passive aggressive(talks shit behind your back, may not care to confront others, etc). surreal humor, humor is eccentric lol. may like adult animated shows

𝗣𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗲𝘀

attention span isn’t good, since they daydream a lot. might say personal stuff in accident. relatable. great listeners. talks with warm heartedness. cool in arguments, and will stand up for what they feel is right if necessary. another placement that may use emojis a lot. texting may be emotional. shitty grammar. communication style is passive(goes with the flow, bad eye contact/body language, hates drama, etc). another placement that makes jokes abt sex. may joke abt drugs(other ppl doing it or themselves, or ppl acting like their on drugs lmao)

please keep in mind that other things will affect certain traits, like your moon sign. don’t plagiarize, and have a good day🤍

[riverdames-blog]

Disappointed But Not Disheartened: Reflections on A Wrinkle In Time

In early 2016, when it was announced that Ava DuVernay was attached to A Wrinkle In Time, I tweeted about how excited I was for it and she favorited my tweet so I screenshotted the notification and showed it to everyone on the planet and have been anxiously awaiting this movie ever since.  Jennifer Lee, one of the two screenwriters for the project, is who I aspire to be, and Ava DuVernay is, as far as I’m concerned, one of the best filmmakers of all time, and, although I honestly don’t remember much about the plot, I read at least 3 books in Madeleine L’Engle’s Time Quintet as a child and definitely really enjoyed them.  (I may have read Many Waters and completely forgotten it, but I think I was just not that interested in transitioning to the next generation and so peaced out after A Swiftly Tilting Planet.)  In the months before its release, I declared multiple times that A Wrinkle In Time would probably be the movie of the year for me.

Now that I’ve seen it, I can say more confidently: it’s not my movie of the year.  Just to be sure, I saw it twice this weekend (and I also watched the 2003 TV Movie in between to compare – it’s not great but it’s also not, like… resoundingly worse).  The second time around, I enjoyed it way more than the first, and I think it’ll only continue to grow on me with time.  Visually, it’s just spectacular: Ava DuVernay and Naomi Shohan have built a gorgeous and imaginative world.  Production design is maybe the only element of cinema that L’Engle’s original novel lends itself to easily, and they tapped that to its fullest potential.  But something about the storytelling just didn’t quite click for me.

And before I go on, I want to be clear: no one working on this movie had anything to prove.  People will frame it that way – can a black woman direct a $100 million movie? or can a little brown girl carry an action-adventure blockbuster? – but none of that is really up in the air.  Black creatives have proven time and time again that they can and will carry franchises, so we can stop pretending that was ever even a question.  And we all saw The Dark Knight Rises and were like, “hm, very middle of the road”, and yet no one raised an eyebrow when Christopher Nolan got a Best Director nod this year.  Ava is still one of the best working visual storytellers in Hollywood (and has increasingly excellent brand recognition – any studio would be lucky to have her helm another blockbuster).  Storm Reid is charming and will continue to get work.  Jennifer Lee is still my hero.  It is dumb that I’m nervous to admit that I was disappointed by A Wrinkle In Time, like if it wasn’t the perfect movie no one will ever try to make movies like it again.  Creatives do not have to break new ground with every movie they make for their work to be considered valuable.  And in a lot of ways, A Wrinkle In Time was groundbreaking.

So, bearing in mind that this movie doesn’t in anyway reflect on anyone’s capacity for great filmmaking, what made A Wrinkle In Time feel disjointed to me?

My first thought was maybe it was just a failure of casting.  They apparently searched for 7 months for someone to play Charles Wallace, and as cute as he is, Deric McCabe felt awkward and stilted to me the entire movie on first watching.  Levi Miller was the cutest stalk of celery I’ve ever seen but that’s kinda the most I can say for him.  Everyone was charming, but no one – Storm Reid included – really had the chops to carry the weight of all the bonkers exposition this movie demanded of them.

That said, the performances felt less stilted to me when I watched it a second time – Storm Reid and Deric McCabe did have some really keen and nuanced moments, and Levi Miler, despite speaking like he’s never met another human being before, gives truly excellent face.  And the adult casting was superb; Chris Pine as the affirming father of a biracial daughter seems like an obvious and sincere choice, and also ZACH GALIFIANAKIS.  Clearly Aisha Coley knew what she was doing because it takes some serious insight to look at Zach Galifinakis and think, “this schlubby comedian will play the kindest, gentlest father figure in cinematic history.”  No actor is actively wrong for their part, and no one is phoning it in – the younger folks are maybe just still figuring some things out.

So if the performances felt awkward but it wasn’t a failure of casting, I hate to even suggest it, but maybe then it’s a failure of direction.  If these actors had the potential to perform this script well, maybe Ava just didn’t direct them appropriately.  There are some moments where I think this is actually true: if you’re working with young talent struggling to create a genuine sense of chemistry, maybe don’t block things so they’re standing several yards apart as they exchange intimate dialogue.  There were multiple weirdly slow, far apart exchanges between Meg and Calvin that probably would’ve felt loaded with meaning with more competent actors but just felt bizarre and confusing with these kids.

That said, I am reluctant to criticize Ava’s work here, largely because these children have spoken quite sincerely multiple times about how kind Ava was and how safe they felt working with her.  When working with young actors, I think that’s the most important thing.  And so if these kids felt most comfortable shouting at each other from across a football field, then fine.  I’m okay with that.  And also, let’s not forget: Zach. Gala-friggin-akis.  Ava knows how to get what she needs.

So then perhaps there was something weird about the camera.  The cinematography of this movie felt deliberate, like it was meant to create a real mood around this story.  It felt like the idea was to shoot this thing in a way that was disorienting to reflect the magic and uncertainty of the world these characters occupy.  But that didn’t really click for me: I mostly just felt like the camera placement was in the way.  Maybe because the performances weren’t strong enough to come through, but maybe because cutting from a traditional over-the-shoulder shot to a strikingly tight 90 degree profile is always going to take you a little bit out of the moment.  (There were two particularly striking moments that made me chuckle they were so disorienting: one when Ms. Whatsit and Meg’s mother talk in such a tight, shallow-focus profile shot, I could’ve sworn they were about to kiss; the other when, in the middle of a conversation between Meg and Principal Jenkins, there was a cut to a close, shallow-focus shot of his name placard, and then a very artistic but completely unnecessary tilt up as the focus racks a very tight shot of Mr. Jenkin’s face.)

Weird cinematography can interrupt the flow of even the best scenes.  But maybe – and I hate to say this even more than I hate to suggest Ava’s work wasn’t as good as it could be – but maybe, I am just making excuses here for Jennifer Lee.  Maybe this was a failure of script.  And I do think that Jennifer Lee and her writing partner, Jeff Stockwell, made some really positive changes.  I think they captured and amplified the essential relationships and motivations in this story.  I think getting rid of the twins and playing around with the Murry family structure, as well as adding a lot of scenes with the dad and giving him a central character flaw, gave this story a clearer and cleaner direction than the Weinstein-produced adaptation in 2003.  And I think that the whimsy of the book was captured in a way that felt visual and cinematic in this screenplay.

But it’s hard to deny that this screenplay felt a little clunky.  There was a lot of exposition and no clear moment when a goal or central question was obviously stated, which probably would’ve helped me enjoy the film a bit more on my first watching.  It was somewhat unclear when the acts were changing, which made it hard to be totally swept up in the beautiful and immersive imagery.  The sequencing at the end is awkward – why does Calvin just watch a deeply intimate conversation between Meg and her dad?  (He’s just smiling in the corner of one shot when they hug at the end and I truly burst out laughing in the theater.)  What did Calvin and Mr. Murry do in the backyard for all that time when they tessered away without Meg and Charles Wallace?  Why did Charles Wallace get so easily distracted by the family dog (for a seemingly very long stretch of time) when he ran into the house to get his mom?  Why did Meg not laugh out loud at Calvin when he said, “Funny how it took a trip around the universe for me to have the strength to confront my crazy dad!”?  And speaking of Calvin, while I think the decision to trim a lot of the fat around the Meg-Charles Wallace sibling dynamic was a good one, it sort of begged the question: why is Calvin even here?  (It’s actually sort of nice bit of commentary – to help save the universe, men simply need to trust women and affirm that their ideas and instincts are correct – but it felt undeniably odd that Calvin came along when all he did was fall off Reese Witherspoon’s lettuce leaf body and then eat a bunch of sand.)

Having said that, it does seem like there were some fairly substantial reshoots or at least major cuts made after principle production, because based on the trailer, what seems like a big expositional scene got left on the chopping block.  I’ve also heard in interviews that they shot and were starting to animate an Aunt Beast scene between Mr. Murry’s tesser and Meg’s final confrontation with The It.  Perhaps the original script did a better job of integrating Calvin and establishing clearer act breaks and character voices.  Maybe, for reasons beyond their control, this script needed to be torn up a bit and it was too late for the writers to polish the rough edges that were left behind.   Or hey, maybe Jeff Stockwell took hostage of the whole thing and made a bunch of bad changes at the last minute that Jennifer Lee couldn’t talk him down from and her hands are clean!  (I don’t know enough about WGA rules to totally tease out what that cowriting process looked like based on the billing – that is maybe very possible – but it’s not very kind to Jeff to just assume that about the script so I won’t.)

At the end of the day, A Wrinkle In Time did not come together for me like I hoped it would.  It’s not easy to tell why major sequences got cut pretty late in the game or why the cinematography decisions and acting decisions came together as awkwardly as they did.  Whatever the reason, this movie just didn’t do it for me.  But even as I left the theater feeling a little disappointed, I was not disheartened.  This movie wasn’t anything like, say, Suicide Squad, which feels like a project that was fought over, a project where everyone involved seemingly knew the movie was a train-wreck but also “knew” it wasn’t their fault.  It’s hard to point the finger at anyone here; everyone has something to be proud of (and something to be less proud of).  No sequence feels pulled because the studio didn’t trust its creatives or because the director didn’t trust her actors.  It feels like a product that was made by a whole, a whole who struggled with this beast together.  A Wrinkle In Time feels delightfully collaborative, a movie made by committee in the best possible way.

Perhaps the biggest takeaway, then, is that adapting L’Engle’s bonkers novel is a hard thing to do.  To no one’s fault, the stakes of her story are simultaneously impossibly large and surprisingly small.  Her characters speak with a rhythm that is odd even when done well, and the world she built evokes more the concept of beauty than actual images of it.  (And let’s not even begin to unpack cinema’s troubled troubled relationship with Christian-influenced fantasy storytelling.)

But here is a group of people who all earnestly rose to the challenge.  They made the thing.  And it is flawed in a lot of ways.  But as Meg Murry knows better than most, its faults are not undeserving of love.