#and also the masterclass being televised in such a way… could it be some sort of holiday in kalos??

[silvermeww]

(putting up the tags here for reference)

I love your ideas so much!!!! I never really thought about the Kalos Queen as being a political figure, but I can definitely see where you’re coming from (and I totally understand, they don’t give a lot of context to the thing in canon anyways). I actually wanted this thing where they could get sponsors and so on if they do good enough and have a really strong following or lead, so that can definitely tie in with influence of the political climate (kind of like how the Champion is treated in Galar). Like a really famous idol that represents the region of sorts. The outdoors portion of it is inspired by that one in I think Dendemille Town in XYZ (sometimes the locations gets mixed up lol) and the way it looked so beautiful… even the nighttime Freestyle was amazing to me! Just wished it wasn’t PokéPuffs for the millionth time for the Theme. But yeah!! Showcases exist to literally showcase the bond between person and Pokémon, while showing off their beauty, grace, and quick thinking skills, connecting with the audience and Kalos overall… or at least that’s what I got lol. Omg that would be so cool, having some Performers acting as bards telling an ancient story or even some group performances (a Kalos Queen has to be good at teamwork and have connections, right?). OH WAIT THAT ACTUALLY GIVES ME AN IDEA WOOOO TYSM!!! :3c

(Also I have a whole thing for the Master Class, because it should’ve been so much more grander to me— For one I really wanted multiple levels in the building so that each round literally goes up a level (Performers that pass go up an elevator with their activated key), with the audience having their section move up with each round being done (still workshopping with the idea heh). Also a friend told me something about how there could’ve been battles there with three people on stage where you can clash with moves and that sounded so cool to me heh.)

Yah, Serena deserves the world fr!!! She’s so caring, kind, friendly, open, has her snarky moments, works so well with Pokémon, and her storyline and plot is so so important to me (especially since I can see myself in her). There really was a treasure trove of potential with her in pokeani as a person who has so many pathways ahead of her but no idea what to stick with, along with a mother who expects her to follow the tried-and-true path and her own insecurities keeping her from committing to anything that she enjoys. I mean, even her Pokémon have that potential tbh (and everyone else’s too ngl) and just knowing the way she could’ve interacted with everyone around her if she had the time and space to really drives me with this AU forward heh. I’m honestly having a blast writing her rn, it’s going to be a fun ride going through the series while giving her the strength, courage and opportunities (screen time pls) that she needs to really grow into her true self!!! Thank you so much for your faith in me, I’ll try my best to do our girl justice!!!! :P

for your Kalosian Woods AU, I have two questions! (1) what’s the direction you’re gonna take Amourshipping/Ash and Serena’s dynamic in? Their friendship along with the romantic subtext felt like it had a lot of potential in XYZ-proper but never really got utilized. And (2) how’re you gonna tackle Showcases? I’ve been meaning to work on a Showcase restructure but I’d love to hear your ideas :D

Hey there!!!!! For the first question, I 100% acknowledge the force of Serena’s crush on Ash in the XY series— even if I did tweak it so that she would fall after meeting him for the first time, watching him train for the Gym and having seen him fall off Prism Tower inspiring her to see him through tinted lens (and how it evolved from the admiration she had for him when they were kids so long ago). While XY anime itself had the weird notion of making everyone down for Ash (a terrifying scene after coming out of the professional haters of BW and literally every series before it) (ngl though I am a believer of the polycule + Bonnie idea lol, it exists in my heart), I can’t deny that side of Amourshipping even if I’m not a shipper myself or even much of a good writer for romantic relationships imo. In my AU I want to show how that love for him grows and eddies throughout the series: from their first meeting to taking up her own dream of showcases to seeing Ash lose himself in his endless hunt for strength— how she puts him on a pedestal because he was the first Trainer she knew, the strongest one she knew, and back then how she didn’t know better, relying on him instead of taking the risks herself and working with other people for a change. You’re absolutely right in the potential their relationship have in XYZ especially; with Serena coming to the tail end of her first Showcase season, ending up in the same place as before but with a totally changed perspective, and Ash fixating more than ever on being the best of the best, distancing himself from everyone else… and of course, all of that feelings and realisations coming to a head in Snowbelle, the Crisis, and the aftermaths. And also having both of them face each other at the end of it all and realising how much changed. I’m not really sure if I’m wording any of this right or if what I’ve said even makes sense heh, especially since I’m not too far ahead in this AU, but their friendship and that romantic subtext is definitely going to play a part in this series, and even if the plot details changes like the weather I’m going to do my best in keeping it as true to its potential as it should be (because a girl can be in love and also grow as a person, in spite and despite and even with it— you’ve just got to find the right angle).

(Also I’m going to have fun with that crush, so it might meet some light-hearted banter and miscommunications and all of that stuff. I mean, hey, these are kids on a journey lol. There are going to be awkward moments for everyone at some point, but they’ll grow past it as with everything else. Also fun memories. :P)

For the second question, wow, I’ve been giving it so much thought lol. I’m nowhere near the Showcases right now (although it is closer than what canon gave us in my AU) and yet it’s all I can do to plan for how it works. I have spitballed a few ideas with friends but for me (so far) I honestly want more of it to be outdoors. Showcases as a whole has this pesky problem of being a one-to-one copy of Contests but ‘declawed’ by having no battles, and it really gets me because if we’re discarding battles then we have to actually redefine Showcases as a whole— because the battle portion is the ultimate showing of precision and control with your Pokémon and their moves, which is what Contests are all about. Especially with AG and DP, we see examples of atypical Appeal rounds with Harley going for a more terrifying show of power, while Kenny (as :/ as a character as he was) goes for showings of strength— even though they are not ‘beautiful’ they still get to pass, because it really is about how your bond can perfectly translate to moves that can command the audience and grab their attention, naturally highlighting the Pokémon. With Showcases though, to me, they are more about creativity— about how a Performer can work with their Pokémon to get past certain obstacles which are based off a certain characteristic the Kalos Queen should have (the Theme round or whatever it was called lol) and then the Freestyle showing off what they uniquely bring to the table, their own brand, what they want to be remembered by (in which I thought that they could bring props to that originally but eh, that’s what my AU is for!). Sheesh, I went through such a big rant and I still feel fired up heh, but ig this is to say that since Showcases are about creativity, the outdoors location would be a great way to show how they deal with everything. On a sunny day, would they use Grass or Fire Types? Would they call out a Rain Dance and form a rainbow? Of course they wouldn’t actually have an open venue if it’s raining or snowing, but in different terrains can you see the characters stand out, I feel like. Also giving all sorts of Pokémon room like Flying or Ground. I have a bunch more ideas of course, about it being connected to PokéVision (still mad about how that concept got dumped) and having small events where people can get to know the up and coming Performers, getting hints for the Theme section so we don’t get the most unbalanced group of people and have a real competition (that always bothered me ngl), as well as other tweaks to that whole system. Showcases can be good in their own light, it’s just the rep of it being baby ‘only girls’ Contest (still thinking about the girls bit ngl) along with the stupid popularity bit of it (not that the concept is bad in and of itself, just that it should have a place and not be the be all end all of passing to the next stage) (it’s only good for the Freestyle, can I say that?) that makes it flop. Also because it came in so late and left so early. And the rivals kind of sucked because they weren’t given any time to grow. And the way Serena wasn’t challenged enough through them. So basically, I’ve got A Lot of thoughts about it and it’s going to be a headache to go through because it desperately needs a redesign to be viable in any way. But that’s the fun bit about an AU, isn’t it heh. Tell me about your ideas, I’d love to hear about them and thank you so so much for the ask!!! :D <33

[kolbisneat]

MONTHLY MEDIA: July 2019

I’ve really stepped up my comics reading having fully embraced my local libraries. You can just borrow them whenever you want! Also saw lots of movies and watched a lot of the Bachelorette. It’s been a good summer. 

……….FILM……….

Midsommer (2019) Oh wow. I’m not one for scary movies but this never felt like a scary movie. Sure it was definitely “horror” in the sense that so much of it is horrific, but it never relied on the typical “scary movie” tactics. For this, I am grateful.

Paddington 2 (2017) The perfect counterpoint and emotional reset after our matinee screening of Midsommer. This video does a better job of explaining why I love these movies, but if you haven’t got the time then know that the Paddington movies are a masterclass in efficient storytelling, visual comedy, and good natured entertainment for all ages. It’s not quite the same as Pixar sneaking in jokes that only adults will get, it’s more that it tells a universal story with familiar characters that land at any age. Just beautiful.

Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) Okay so I get that illustrating a tie-in book for this movie means I likely can’t be objective, but I really dug the film. Solid themes that carried through to most of the characters and their arcs, as well as some of the most comic-book accurate visuals I could have hoped for. And I really dig the Parker/MJ dynamic here. Ugh it’s just all so good.

Alien (1979) I don’t need to tell you how well this holds up. Still as subversive and terrifying as it was 40 years ago. Still not sure what the alien was doing in the escape pod before Ripley shows up.

The Dead Don’t Die (2019) This was a weird one. Meta zombie movies already exist. Zombies as social commentary already exist. Zombie comedies already exist. I suppose I was just hoping for something...new? It was all of these things, but it didn’t seem to push any individual element into unexplored territory. The cast seemed like they were having a good time, but I don’t think it quite translated to the screen. I’d recommend Shaun of the Dead, Fido, or Zombieland instead.

……….TELEVISION……….

Instant Hotel (Episode 2.01 to 2.06) A 6-episode season of Australian reality tv judging Airbnbs? A cast that includes an 80 year old trying to look 20 and perfect couple who find each other hilarious? Sign me up. It’s available on (Canadian) Netflix but if you can find it, check it out.

Stranger Things (Episode 3.01 to 3.08) Without spoiling too much, I’ll say that this season was on par with the first, and felt better than the second. It’s not as moody and contained, but it really embraces what I take to be the spirit of 80s media. I feel like the early eps were setting up more of a zombie/body-snatchers plot but I don’t think the series likes to stray too far from the core of that first season. Super fun, wildly silly, and once I embraced the lighter tone it really delivered.

Queer Eye (Episode 4.01 to 4.08) This season really seemed to focus on philanthropic and independent businesses and I’m here for it. There was a Wayfair product placement towards the end which...felt out of place given the politics of the show, but dang if this series isn’t a light in the darkness!

Neon Genesis Evangelion (Episode 1.01 to 1.03) What a mood. It’s a slow burn but I’m really digging that the world feels established and that we’ve come into something well after all the big revelations happened. Now that the crazy has settled, we get to spend more time seeing how the crazy affects the day-to-day. Or what the day-to-day looks like in a new, wild world. Digging it.

The Bachelorette (Episode 15.08 to 15.13) Just wild. Watching that rollercoaster with Luke P was excellent television and terrible dating but that finale was *chef’s kiss* perfect.

……….READING……….

Good Omens by Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett (Page 230 of 406) Fun so far! There’s far less of the angel/demon relationship than I expected, but that’s only because I’m going off of what the Amazon show has been promoting. I need to do more research into how they shared the writing because the humour and meandering chapters really feel like Pratchett. I’m keen to see where it all goes!

Mr. Splitfoot by Samantha Hunt (Abandoned) I read half the novel before deciding this one wasn’t for me and it’s not because it wasn’t well-written or an engaging story. I found this on a list of good reads for those who like Wonderland and Alice’s adventures, but I’d say the links between the two were...thin...at best. When you’re expecting fanciful worlds and exaggerated characters, but get far more human (and all too real) trauma then it’s a jarring experience. I read a synopsis of the last 100ish pages that I missed and admit that I think I would’ve been satisfied with the conclusion, but it’s a bummer that the first 60% of the book felt like a holding pattern to get to the good stuff.

Delicious in Dungeon Vol. 5 by Ryoko Kui (Complete) Still one of my favourite fantasy comics. The characters are nuanced and are continuing to get developed, as is the setting and supporting cast! Every so often it’ll break format, but I appreciate that the gimmick (including a monster-based recipe in each chapter) isn’t getting in the way of good storytelling. I love everything about this and you should be reading it.

Superior Spider-Man Vol. 1 & 2 by Dan Slott, Ryan Stegman, Giuseppe Camuncoli, Humbero Ramos, and so many more (Complete) I wasn’t sure about this before picking it up but it’s a fascinating study of Spider-Man. It feels like an answer to all those that focus on plot holes and logic. Doc Ock has taken over Spider-Man’s body and he, as the epitome of troll, is just going through and “fixing” what Peter Parker gets wrong. It’s an interesting study in learning more about someone with opposing views. It even keeps Parker’s spirit around to dramatically and comedically respond to his life being taken over by a villain. It’s good! Not the first Spider-Book you should pick up, but worth reading if you want a spider-change. 

Saga of the Swamp Thing Vol. 1 by Alan Moore, John Totleben, & Steve Bissette (Complete) After hearing good things about the TV series based on this character (still haven’t watched it) I figured I’d check this out. Knowing very little about the character going in, I loved every second of it! It’s a little bit horror, a little bit classic superheroics, and just a touch philosophical. Can’t recommend this enough.

The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl Vol. 2: Squirrel You Know It's True by Ryan North, Erica Henderson,  (Complete) I can’t (and won’t) stop praising this book. It’s fun, creative, and funny! Pitting Squirrel Girl against an evil Squirrel just makes sense and is a fun break from the classic Marvel villains. Hopefully we get back to more of the classics, as that’s what I enjoyed most about volume 1, but it’s good to see that the book doesn’t shy away from variety.

Delilah Dirk and the Turkish Lieutenant by Tony Cliff (Complete) Such a great adventure comic! Set in the early 1800s, it’s like a Female Indiana Jones adventure with all the swashbuckling and plundering that you’d want out of a treasure hunter. Mature in its handling of a number of topics, but done in a light tone and without heavy violence. I think it was sorted as a young adult graphic novel in my library, and that feels fitting. Stellar art and charming characters.

The Undertaking of Lily Chen by Danica Novgorodoff (Complete) Very character driven and an interesting foundation for the story (set in northern China when tradition demanded men be married even after they’ve died). There are really inspiring moments with the watercolour artwork and while it didn’t always resonate with me, it really served the story.

……….GAMING……….

Maze of the Blue Medusa  (Satyr Press) We very nearly had our first character death! Almost multiple! But they’re playing with level 9ish characters and with quick wits it’s proving difficult to defeat them. They’re still kinda wandering around this maze, but I think it’ll all start to come together soon!

And that’s it! As always, feel free to send me anything you recommend to see, read, hear, play, and so on.

Happy Wednesday!

[wild-aloof-rebel]

Kim Basinger may not know it, but she’s partially responsible for Schitt’s Creek. Christopher Guest mainstay Eugene Levy and his son, Dan Levy, had already hatched an idea about a sitcom centering on a once-wealthy husband and wife—Johnny and Moira Rose, played by Eugene and Catherine O’Hara—who lose their fortune and are forced to hilariously cope with their lower-class lifestyle when they learned a precious bit of trivia about Basinger.

“We were in the early stages of figuring out what the backstory was,” explained Dan, who also costars on the series as Johnny and Moira’s son, David. “We started to research different ways that people had lost tremendous amounts of money or gone bankrupt. In the process, I stumbled upon an article about Kim Basinger having bought this town in Georgia.” Indeed, in 1989, the actress reportedly paid $20 million for much of the town of Braselton in her native state of Georgia, with hopes of developing a tourist attraction and production center there. Three years later, the only businesses open in town were a furniture store and a dentist’s office. When a reporter caught up with the local postmaster a few years later for a story on the town’s transformation—in a scene you could see playing out on Schitt’s Creek—the no-nonsense postmaster declared the town “deader than it was” when Basinger bought it. Five years after her purchase, Basinger reportedly sold it for $1 million.

“We thought, what if that could be funny?” said Dan. So he and Eugene flip-flopped Basinger’s scenario: Schitt’s Creek kicks off with Johnny being swindled out of his fortune earned as the head of a Blockbuster-like video-rental franchise. “The family bought the town as a joke because it had this terrible name,” Dan explained, ”and it’s the only asset left after everything gets repossessed, because the government didn’t see any value in it…. Unfortunately, it took a probably very traumatizing experience in Kim Basinger’s life for us to get here, but yeah…It was the most unlikely of Google searches.”

Eugene’s performance as Johnny Rose may be the most brilliant of the actor’s nearly 50-year career—a masterclass in his deadpan gift. But underneath those eyebrows and matter-of-fact zingers, the Second City TV alum zeroes in on a humanity that makes this fallen magnate strangely sympathetic. Reality-era television is filled with clueless narcissists, but Johnny Rose is one of the few such characters with a heart.

How Johnny Came to Life

Johnny is the show’s even-keeled straight man—a type of character Eugene Levy, who’s typically cast as a scene-stealing supporting actor, isn’t used to playing. And there’s a reason for that. “To be a credible businessman, a guy who ran the second largest video chain in North America, there had to be some credibility in terms of who he was,” explained Eugene. “I think that was the cornerstone of building the character.” So even when Johnny’s washed-up soap-star wife is filming a sequel to The Crows in Bosnia that she hopes will revive her acting career and her kids are gleefully raiding her wig wall in the family’s motel room, it’s Johnny who tries to keep the absurd situation under control. “You better remember which nails you pulled those wigs from,” Johnny solemnly scolds David (Dan) and Alexis (Annie Murphy). “Your mother keeps a spreadsheet.”

Explained Eugene: “Everything had to be relatively straight and not too comical with Johnny, as the guy who’s trying to hold everything together and give everybody optimism that they’ll make it out of [Schitt’s Creek] one day—to not panic, not get too excitable. That was kind of an exciting thing for me. It’s not something I got to do too much over my career.”

Johnny’s wardrobe is as authentic as his business-executive demeanor; he’s always wearing impeccably tailored suits from Ermenegildo Zegna or Hugo Boss, left over from his glory days. And even though Johnny doesn’t get to indulge in the zanier story arcs that Moira does—headlining the local Asbestos Fest fund-raiser, for example—Dan Levy, who is also showrunner of Schitt’s Creek, has found ways to infuse a bit of fun into his father’s story lines. In season one, for example, Johnny is awakened by a motel-room drip over his head—which Dan knew would be a trying test for his father, who is sensitive about his hair.

“He got a kick out of that one,” conceded Eugene. Another season one story line had the not-incredibly athletic Eugene running through Schitt’s Creek in his businesswear—take after take. “A lot of running in dress shoes,” Eugene said drolly.

“That was when we were sort of pushing you the most physically,” said Dan.

“But it’s gotten nicer over the years,” said Eugene, pointing out that the story line high was Johnny getting to sing alongside his wife’s a cappella group, the Jazzagals, in the show’s fourth season. “I got a session with the Jazzagals, which was kind of great,” said the actor, who prides himself on his vocal talents.

Though a first-time director son calling the shots on set for his veteran-actor father could have made for some tense power dynamics, the Levys—who seem as warmhearted and hilarious as their onscreen counterparts—have persevered without incident. Said Dan, “If he was not as supportive of me, especially in the beginning, trusting me to run the show with very little to no experience, it probably would have made for a very different dynamic. The fact that I’ve been able to do what I’ve done is in large part because I’ve had the freedom and his good faith and support.”

True, there have been a few times when Eugene nixed an idea—for example, a scene in which a depressed Johnny screams off a cliff. (As Eugene said, “There’s nothing truly innately funny about wallowing in depression.”) But for the most part, Eugene has stepped back and let his son steer the show. “I have to trust [that] his instincts are the right instincts, and certainly they’ve been the right instincts for the good of the show,” he said.

As the show finishes filming its sixth and final season, Schitt’s Creek is being heralded as one of the best series on television—and one of those rare programs that gets better with age. Said Eugene, “It’s a show that reflected everything that we set out to do in the beginning—which is create a good character comedy where the characters are truthful and real and the situations are truthful and real, so the audience will invest emotionally in the characters.”

As the seasons have progressed, the Rose family has bonded in ways they never could have outside of Schitt’s Creek. But Dan was quick to note that, even though Johnny Rose has come a long way in embracing his new life, there are still a few bridges that the character will simply never cross.

“Johnny still doesn’t know how to operate technology,” laughed Dan. “He doesn’t know how to turn on a computer…”

“No, I can turn it on,” Eugene corrected.

“He can turn on a YouTube,” Dan teased.

“Turning it off,” finished Eugene, “is a different story.”

[youknowmymethods]

Content Creator Interview #3

In the third part of this series it’s @ohaine ‘s turn (*waves*) to pick @ashockinglackofsatin​ ‘s (satin_doll’s) brain about inspiration for baroque and larger than life OCs, what poetry has to do with fanfiction, and how a chance encounter with a masked swordsman kicked her down the path to fandom and fanfic writing. 

(My apologies if the formatting looks a bit weird to you. This looks fine on my desktop, but a bit crazy in the mobile app. Not sure what’s going on or how to fix it, so...)

                                   “He drapes the black cloth carefully. He doesn't want to disturb more than necessary. As he works, he murmurs to them, softly, ever so softly. Periodically, he pauses and stares into the distance, as if he's watching for a visitor. No one will come now. Not out here. Not for him.”

-Telling the Bees

If you read enough, if you pay enough attention, every now and then you’re rewarded with a fanfic author who not only truly understands the character they’re writing, but who also truly understands writing itself. They’re a gift. Not only to their readers but to other writers who take inspiration from them, who learn from them, who aspire to be as good as them.

On a sunny Saturday morning in April 2016 for the very first time I opened satin_doll’s page on AO3 and read her first Sherlolly story, “Telling the Bees.” I cried fat, ugly tears for Sherlock, for Molly, (inconvenient, not to mention embarrassing as I was in a public place) but I smiled because I’d found one. A gift. It was the beginning of a love affair with her work, the beginning of a masterclass in writing and understanding, but maybe even more importantly it was the beginning of a wonderful friendship. And it began with the same first words I’ve used to introduce her here.

It’s a joyous thing to be given the opportunity to talk to her about her writing. Whether it’s a revelatory character study, like “Down and Shaking When I Think I Lose,” the heart-wrenching romance of “Doubt,” even the so-perfect-it-could-be-canon world of the “Dark Company” series, satin_doll pulls you down a rabbit hole, into Sherlock’s world in a way that makes you understand him better, and teaches you something about yourself in the process.

 Funny, clever, insightful, she’s my number one writing crush, I love her to bits. 

Over Christmas 2018 satin_doll (@ashockinglackofsatin here on tumblr) was kind enough to answer my fangirling questions about her writing and characters. I hope you all enjoy reading what she had to say as much as I did.

  OhAine: So, starting at your beginning, how did the spark ignite?

satin_doll: I started with fiction before I could actually read or write. When I was four years old, there was a television show on about Robin Hood. My mom would park me in front of the television every day when this show was on (probably to get some relief/keep me out of her face for a little while so she could get something done) and I was absolutely in love with Robin Hood. I made up stories and made my mother write them down for me. This is how I learned to read and write: she started teaching me my letters when I asked her what the little black marks were on the paper. Once I learned, I read everything I could get my hands on. I read literally everything. I was absolutely fascinated with words.  I belonged to a children's book club, went to the library, read my parents books (both my mom and stepdad were voracious readers, so there were books everywhere.) I especially loved books about fantastic things - magic, sorcery, dragons, etc. I loved mythology, superheroes, science fiction and fantasy. I collected comic books for years. Not much changed as I got older. Speculative fiction is still what I'm drawn to.   

Despite my obsession with books and stories, I never considered myself a "writer" until after college. In school, I had the usual literature and writing classes until I met Mr. P, my creative writing professor. He was a well-known poet (think Pulitzer Prize) and our creative writing was almost exclusively poetry. I fell in love with both him and poetry and continued to take classes with him for years. One of my proudest achievements was breaking into a particularly choosy literary magazine and being published in it before he was. He never let me forget that. He also was fond of saying "Novelists are failed poets", which I took to heart for a long while once I understood what he was saying. He wasn't criticizing novelists, just making a point about how to write poetry. That's about the extent of my training as a writer; the rest is just me and my periodic forays into hubris. 

OhAine: Is voracious reading how you discovered fanfiction? 

satin_doll: No, it was on the old Compuserve bulletin boards. And loved it. But it didn't really occur to me to write it back then.

In 1998, I belonged to an online discussion group about Zorro. I had a video tape of all the old Disney episodes and I adored Guy Williams. One of the ladies in the group - I still don't remember why she chose me - asked me to write her a story about Zorro, so I did. I think Zorro ended up in a bathtub with a lady, taking his mask off and introducing himself by his real name. I don't know what happened to that file, I wish I still had it. As I recall, it was a nice story and I was very pleased with it. At any rate, that was my first fanfic as an adult that I shared with someone else, and after that I couldn't quit doing it.

OhAine: It’s that sharing that makes fanfiction unique, isn’t it? Because the reader isn’t some abstract concept, far removed from you, we’re all part of the same fandom so you get an instant connection, almost real-time feedback.   

satin_doll: Exactly. And that feedback is critical for a writer, no matter how much some of us protest that we "write for ourselves." We don't live in a vacuum and psychologically speaking, for writers, sharing our work is an important form of setting boundaries, which is expressing who and what we are. This is especially true for fanfic writers, I think. When we post work, we're not doing it so that we can go back and look at it ourselves. We're communicating and we're communicating something important. We join a fandom because we like it, and to communicate that enjoyment with other like-minded individuals. We want to share what we love and what we know. When we write stories about the characters or using a particular setting or universe, we're expressing, communicating - hopefully - something important about ourselves, both individually and as a group. 

When I write fanfic, I write it to communicate. I don't expect lots of kudos or comments; in fact, I'm usually surprised that anyone reads it at all, let alone takes the time to leave a remark or anything of that sort. But it's out there, and hopefully someone will read it and it will touch something inside them, have a little meaning for them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not writing to change anyone's life. It's enough to trigger some feeling, some emotional response, make them think or even just go "hmmm." I recently received a comment from someone who said they "had never thought of it that way." That was extremely satisfying to me, it meant that I had reached someone, made them think or consider something a different way and that's exactly why I write.

OhAine:  Is that how you measure the success of a piece? Or do you have something else you measure it by?

satin_doll: Success to me is simply getting it done! Feedback is lovely, it's wonderful, and I adore it, but if I had to go by that I'd never write another word. In terms of feedback, the stories I would have thought would be well received generally aren't and the ones I think no one will like do fairly well, all things considered. Writing is hard, and I'm a very slow writer. I'm also probably more serious about it than most in the fan fiction realms. Not that I think my stories warrant "serious" consideration, but that the writing of them is a serious act for me. If I'm able to sit down and finish a piece, that's a success as far as I'm concerned. That they get any notice at all is icing on the cake.

OhAine: So I wanted to drill down a bit into some of your stories. Choosing which ones to ask you about was difficult because I have so many questions about your process, but I’ve settled in the end on two that I think are representative of the things you do best; OCs and character examination. Words (part of the Dark Company series) stands out for me as one of your most memorable stories not only because it has an outstanding OC (as all of the Dark series stories do) in the form of Mr P., but because of the very Sherlock way that Sherlock approaches the problem of his feelings for Molly Hooper. Can you tell me a bit about the inspiration for that story?

satin_doll: Sherlock and "feelings" is a notorious problem for writers, I think. Moftiss didn't do us any favors with their approach to the subject. Most tend to depict Sherlock as being clueless about feelings in general, which I understand. But in my universes, he isn't clueless so much as he is averse. Feelings can cause problems, both professionally and personally, so he buries them. But (in my version) he does this consciously. It isn't because he's unaware, it's a choice. Along with that choice come consequences. When he decides that he WANTS to deal with the feelings, he doesn't quite know how because he's never practiced expressing them or communicating on that level. It's like having a muscle that you've barely used; it's weak and it doesn't function properly yet. So, when he decides that he wants to start dealing with the emotional side of his relationship with Molly, what would he do?

My idea was that he would go to an expert in emotional expression for help, at least in the initial approach. Who better to come up with the right words than a poet? In the Dark Universe, Sherlock knows experts in everything. They are his friends, people he has interacted with, who know him and whom he knows and trusts completely. That was the beginning idea. Sherlock goes to one of his friends for help in finding the exact right words to open up the way to moving forward with Molly. Mr. P gives him a little poem that sort of wraps up the problem with the relationship as it is, and gives them both a push in the right direction. Sherlock does this because he is AWARE that he has a weak emotional muscle, not because he doesn't have one. It was like his first excursion to the emotional gym. He had to have help to get started. 

OhAine: And the poem at the end – “How is it that we say so much in our first glance of greeting, Yet our words sit on our tongues like tiny, frozen birds?” – it absolutely kills me.

satin_doll: You can blame my own Mr. P for that. I spent years writing mostly poetry, and though I don't get that "poetic" in most of my fics, I was taught to cut and condense (also a result of writing movie reviews and doing interviews for work), to focus on the exact word or image that would get the point across or get the right response (thank you Semantics 101.) I also love haiku, which I consider the ultimate form of poetry, and distilling the essence of what you want to say into a single image is really good practice for writing of any kind. There is a place for long, flowery descriptives in writing fiction, I suppose, but in the end you have to remember that you're telling a story and you don't want the words to get in the way of that. Simple is always best, in poetry as well as fiction. 

OhAine:  I thought it was interesting that in this story he reached out to her in such a romantic way, yet you managed to still have it happen in a way that’s very much true to their characters. How do you walk that line between showing something that we only ever get the barest of hints of on screen, expanding the characters into places and emotions that we’re not familiar with, yet still keep them true to themselves?

satin_doll: Ah, this is a touchy one. We all have our own versions of Sherlock, of what we think is "in character" for him. Mine is such a mishmash of nearly every incarnation of Sherlock Holmes, going all the way back to the ACD beginnings. There are inconsistencies in those first stories as far as Sherlock's character is concerned, but there are strong consistencies also. What I object to is the reliance on physical habits or traits in place of actual character. Using certain physical attributes portrayed in the series for example (the popping of P in certain words, certain phrases borrowed from the show used over and over, etc.) does nothing to show character. I don't actually rely on the BBC series for my version of Sherlock; mine is a combination of all the Sherlock's I've known over many years. I always start from that. Likewise, you can't confuse the actor with the character, and I see that so very often in fics. 

Molly, on the other hand, is much more difficult because we only have what we see in the BBC series and there's very little of that. So I sort of have to ask some questions that involve my version of Sherlock: What would he be drawn to? What character traits would he find appealing, be able to trust, and why? What would it be about Molly Hooper that Sherlock would want/love? We get little hints in the BBC show, and oddly enough, she does change and grow throughout. I never saw Molly as mousey. I mean, look at what she's doing in the very first minutes we meet her! Look at what her job is! I adored her from those first few brief minutes and I knew that of all the women in Sherlock's life, she would be the one that would appeal to him. So that's the way I write her (mostly; there are a few times I've been a little untrue to Molly, but not many.)

OhAine: It’s obvious that although they’re superficially very different you see them as very much the same beneath the surface. 

satin_doll: Sherlock has always known that he is not like other people; he's not "normal". Molly, on the other hand, was taught that "normal" was something she should aspire to, to be like other people. So she fights her nature - which, to me, would have to be a little dark, otherwise she wouldn't be drawn to Sherlock, she wouldn't have pursued the career she did. In the Dark series, Sherlock is trying to teach her that she doesn't have to deny those inner aspects of herself that are decidedly NOT normal, in order to be happy. No matter how much she tries, "normal" doesn't work out for her. Little by little, they are both learning to accept things they've denied in themselves and they're finding it in their "dark" natures, in the dark around them, which can contain so much knowledge and wisdom if we're willing to explore it - and relief from trying to be something other than who you really are. 

OhAine: And you’ve chosen to do that with OCs that are worthy of canon; Doyle couldn’t have done better in creating a world for modern day Sherlock. They have a vibrancy that’s worthy of a main character, yet you manage to do that without distracting from Sherlock and Molly’s story. How do you find these characters’ and their voices?

satin_doll: I know a lot of weird people. :D 

Seriously, I don't think we have to make up original characters whole cloth. We all know people in our real lives who would make great fictional characters. I take a person I've known (for example: Sean, Sherlock's twin in Mango. I did know a person whose father shot her mother in front of her. I borrowed the incident, added a few traits from other people I know and voila, instant character) and insert them into the story. It's part of what's called "writing about what you know." The more from real life you can insert into your stories, the more realistic and satisfying they are. This goes for plot and description as well as characters. As for making them not take over the story completely, you do that by giving them an emotional tie to the main character but not letting that original character take over the main plot. The inner/outer struggle and emotional growth have to be about your protagonist, your main characters.  

OhAine: That neatly brings me to Down and Shaking When I Think I Lose which is a masterpiece, and something that’s rare these days: an old school character study. You’ve written Season One Sherlock in a way that I haven’t seen done very often and not in a number of years. It’s outstanding because your Sherlock is atypical in a way that Mofftiss sadly abandoned after S2. There’s a line in your story that says, ‘Sometimes he wanted to be worn to nothing,’ that hones in on the cost of being Sherlock. Can you talk a bit about how this story came to be, and what about the canon character formed this version of him in your mind?

satin_doll: You have to understand, I love Sherlock Holmes deeply and have for a very, very long time. To me, he's not just a quirky, interesting character. He's my hero. And I have a thing about heroes.

I see a lot written about Sherlock that portrays him as broken in some way, or as deficient. There's always this underlying assumption that there's something "wrong" with him. Maybe there is, according to the scale by which normal people are judged. But there's another aspect to him that I've never really seen written about: what does he have to give up in order to do what he does? See I don't think he's unaware of how he is. I think he chooses to be that way. Part of that choice is to give up - to literally sacrifice - all those things that other people have as a matter of course: homes, families, relationships, emotional connections. This is part of the Heroic Saga. All heroes must sacrifice in order to be what/who they are. All of them, no exceptions. If they have the capacity to be the Hero, if they choose to go that way, they must sacrifice what the rest of us take for granted. There's a line from a book that I have constantly playing in the back of my head: "Who will do the hard things? Those who can." Sherlock is one of "those who can"; he CAN do the hard things. But always, implied in that, is sacrifice. If you choose to do the hard things, because you can, you must give up everything else. 

There is an episode of Zorro where Diego de la Vega makes the decision to give up being Zorro. He decides he is tired of not having what everyone else has. He wants a home and a family and a relationship with a woman he's fallen in love with. He tells his father what his plans are, and his father, bless him, even though he's an old man, decides that he must take up the mask and become Zorro - because someone has to. Someone HAS to do the hard things. When Diego realizes what his father is doing, and what his father is giving up, and that his father will most likely die as Zorro, they have a long discussion about what being a hero and doing the hard things actually means, how important it is that someone fill that role. Diego makes the decision to continue wearing the mask, to sacrifice everything he thinks he wants, in order to do something he realizes is more important - because he CAN. He will do the hard things, because he can. In my mind (and heart), this is Sherlock. He does what no one else does, what no one else CAN do, because he can. The sad part of all this is that usually, no one else realizes how hard those things are or what sacrifices have to be made in order to do them. The hero gets criticized for not being like other people, they get ostracized, shunned, ridiculed, misunderstood. But they still keep doing it. No matter how frustrating, lonely, terrifying the role is, they keep doing it because they know they can. No matter what they have to give up, they do it. 

I wanted to show that Sherlock has suffered all his life simply because of how he is and what he can do. And he chooses to embrace it, to stay true to himself in spite of everything, because he knows what he can do. It wears on him. It's lonely. It's exhausting. Frustrating. But he knows what he can do, and he does it, despite it all. Because someone has to.

OhAine: It’s funny, but I often think Sherlock’s sacrifice is less of a willing one than he’d have us believe. He says, ‘not my area,’ ‘while fulfilling for others,’… less ‘my mind is a temple’ than ‘I don’t think I can have both, despite the fact that I want both.’ 

satin_doll: Sherlock as hero is my own interpretation, based more on a combination of all the Sherlock's I've been exposed to over many years than on the BBC Sherlock alone. I don't really see all that many stories depicting him as a hero, which I totally understand given that so many discovered him from that series. I don't think Sherlock ever sees himself as a hero or tries to present himself as one to anyone else, but I think he's aware of the sacrifices he's had to make in order to do what he does, even in the BBC version. Otherwise I don't think he'd let anyone into his life at all, let alone work closely with people or consider anyone a "friend" - and yet that's exactly what he does, because he needs some sort of human connection even when he keeps them at a distance. There are a lot of interpretations out there of Sherlock and many many legitimate reasons people see for the way he behaves and what he does. Far be it from me to say that any of them are wrong. But for me, I don't think any hero's sacrifice is all that willing, no matter how aware he/she might be of it. In all of them, when that awareness is depicted, it takes the form of wistfulness when they realize what they've had to give up, to downright misery and attempts not to give up what they see other people having - which always fail. Sherlock is no exception in my universe.

This is where my frustration with Mofftiss comes in. Despite showing Sherlock as the supposed hero, they belittle everything else about him. They never address the facts that Sherlock literally gave up his life to save his friends, that what he does is absolutely extraordinary, in favor of depicting him as simply a social misfit with slightly nefarious motives, who needs to be changed into something resembling their idea of what "human" is. As a result, they have a schizophrenic John Watson, who never quite appreciates Sherlock or what he does despite more than ample evidence, and other characters that rather quickly become caricatures rather than actual characters. 

OhAine: I agree with you that Mofftiss belittle him, mostly through the disrespect of other characters, which really doesn’t happen in the ACD stories, certainly not by those closest to him…Watson, Mycroft... They sort of excused that away by saying ‘this turned out to be an origin story’ when we know that they were trying to convey isolation, but because they were unsuccessful it kinda sorta turned into bullying.

satin_doll: I think it's Benedict's performance more than the writing that makes BBC's version so appealing. He does capture, as much as possible given what he has to work with, Sherlock's dilemma - how to keep those connections with people in his life without letting them get too close. By episode two in series one, I was already starting to really resent the way John careened back and forth between admiration and caring and literally sneering at Sherlock for the way he was. Within minutes in episode two, series one, we have John treating Sherlock like a naughty child, then asking him for money, substituting the word "colleague" for the word friend and then jumping in to join Sherlock on an adventure. It just got worse from there. The BBC version became less about Sherlock and more and more about John's mental struggles, all the while trying to make Sherlock seem to be the one who was unstable and twisted. I know this is an unpopular viewpoint nowadays, so I don't generally say much about it. But it's been a major sticking point with me throughout all four series.

Having said all that about Mofftiss, I still watch all the episodes regularly because a) it's Sherlock Holmes, and b) I adore Cumberbatch's performance. :D

OhAine: Controversial take: I never really believed that Sherlock sacrificed himself for his friends. I think that was a consideration, one that could have been dealt with by Mycroft if he was motivated to, but I think the main reason he left London for two years was for the sheer adventure of it all… (Not true, I don’t think, of his sacrifice for Mary though…)

satin_doll: I can easily see this viewpoint. It could even be said that he left just because the people around him were simply getting too close and he needed a way to sever or lessen those ties before they got out of hand. Personally I don't think it was that simple. In the ACD version, Sherlock is gone for three years, and he's not dismantling anything - he just stays away for that long and travels around the world until he hears that the last remaining Moriarty Minion who wants to kill him is back in London. There's a bit of remorse for leaving John to grieve, but it's quickly resolved. In the Mofftiss version, it feels like a contrived set up; they use the excuse that he's doing it all to protect his friends, but really, I've never bought that between Mycroft and Sherlock they couldn't have come up with a better, easier way to deal with the situation. If they could calculate seventeen outcomes of the meeting on the roof? I mean really? 

OhAine: I’d say moving swiftly along, but neither of us do things swiftly LOL. Anyway. *Moving* along, Bring me my Queen is a stunning piece of storytelling that focuses on Molly this time, and for me it brings together your storytelling strengths in one piece. You’ve obviously drawn on real life experiences with this one, and I wonder how important that is for you? Is it a device, catharsis, processing of the emotions…?

satin_doll: It's probably all of those things. I use the stories and the characters to act out stories from my life, because it's what I know. It helps me to vent and process emotional aspects, but it also gives the characters something real to deal with; it makes them more like real people. At least in my head. It helps express beliefs, process both pain and joy, let people know what I've learned, hopefully touch them in some real way. Stories are to help us deal with real life situations, to communicate and to learn from, as well as give enjoyment and entertain us. Years ago, during a spiritual study, I read something that really struck a chord with me (I even ended up writing an article about it, which I'm sure still exists online somewhere but hell if I can find it now!): Messages from the Universe most often come to us via our favorite form of entertainment. What better way to get through to us or catch our attention than in the form of something we really enjoy? So I look at fanfic, both writing and reading, as a way to be in touch with the Universal Intelligence, a way to learn what life is trying to show me, and a way for the Universe to use me to reach others. 

And after all that, writing stories is the best way to vent that I've ever found. :D

OhAine: I think you’re right. I think the message finds us in a way that we’ll be willing to receive.

satin_doll: Back in the 1990s, I saw a movie in the theater and near the beginning was a line from one of the characters that hit me so hard, on so many levels, that I didn't even remember anything about the rest of the film. I had to see it again in order to see how it all turned out. That one line quite literally changed my life. Since then there have been many other occasions where the things I enjoy the most have contained deep words, phrases, concepts that have had incredible impact and resulted in life changes. I know most people believe that change in our lives  more often comes from pain and tragedy, but  honestly, I don't think that's true. If we pay attention, we more often learn life lessons from joy and pleasure and entertainment - and creativity. It's only when we don't pay attention that the universe has to hit us upside the head with a bat and we have to learn from pain.

OhAine: Change, and messages from the universe, is something that’s a theme in  Mango  which is also a bit of a feminist story because (and correct me if I’m off base) it’s about empowerment and independence: Molly discovering things about herself, by herself, which I thought when reading was almost a parallel for women in writing (particularly fanfiction). How important has writing been for you in developing your understanding of yourself and your own identity as a woman?

satin_doll: I'm not sure I have an answer for this one. Writing has always simply been a part of my life. I write because I can't not write. I think more of my understanding of myself and being a woman came from music, which is a notoriously misogynistic art. I actually had a male musician tell me to my face that I couldn't know that much about music because I'm female. Those were his exact words. I've played in bands with both women and men and the women have always been easiest to work with. I think part of this has to do with men viewing sex as "their area". Sex, to men, is always about them. Women in music, especially rock music, are a lot like women in fanfic, where our own sexuality is seemingly always under attack. It's as if we don't exist unless we're defined by males. I  find this absolutely absurd and hateful. Mango, the song itself, was written expressly to celebrate female sexuality. Molly dancing around the room to that song when she sees Sherlock again after  a year away, is a sort of celebration of her own self-discovery. The dance is her way of honoring herself and her sex. That Sherlock discovers her that way was very fitting, because she leads him into a discovery of his own sexuality as well. I wish more men would wake up to the fact that we can do this.

OhAine: It’s an incredible story, but then so many of yours are, so I wonder is there one of your stories that you're very proud of, or one that you're particularly happy with how the finished piece turned out?

satin_doll: Oddly enough, I don't have a lot of pride connected with my stories once they're finished. I write them and put them out there and then I'm pretty much done with them. There are some I like a little more than others, I guess - Dark I like because it broke something loose in me that apparently I'd been ignoring. I think, if I have any pride about them, it's just that I write them at all. I'm proud of myself for actually sitting down and doing them. If there is one that I would have to say I'm "proud" of, it would be An Avenue Once Bent in Shadow - one that isn't even finished and that is totally unlike any others I've written. I like it because of its intent, which is to highlight and illustrate differences and how those differences are both perceived and dealt with in the world. It sort of takes both Molly and Sherlock to the extreme, and I like that also. It's a challenge. 

OhAine: I think you should be overflowing with pride in your work. You’re gifted. Your stories are beautiful.

satin_doll: Thank you. I suppose a lot of this comes from my childhood and maybe a little bit of misunderstanding on my part about the word "pride". I think I'm more attached and proud of just having the guts to dive into the creative process at all rather than the results of it. But that's just me.

OhAine: Well then getting back to your creative process, tell me about finding a particular character’s voice. Are there things that you do to get you into their heads?

satin_doll: When I was about ten, I wanted to be an actor. This lasted for about three years. I went around trying on characters from movies and television, practicing their expressions and movements and voices. These days I tend to act out the characters in my own stories. If I can feel them physically, feel them in my body and face, I feel like I can write them. Feeling Sherlock turn his head a certain way or have an expression on his face, feeling the way Molly would look up at him or move around the lab - I tend to rely on that to get them in character, or at least how I feel they're in character. I also have to hear their voices in my head. I read all the dialogue out loud and if it doesn't fit - it don't sit. 

OhAine: I read it out loud too, something I learned in Uni. It truly helps, doesn’t it?

satin_doll: I guess there are writers who don't do this, but I don't know how they can get dialogue to work any other way. It's been said about Stephen King's work, by people who have adapted his books into film, that one of the reasons it's so hard to translate his books successfully to scripts is that he doesn't write dialogue the way people normally speak. Supposedly when you read successful dialogue, our brain translates it differently from the way we would hear it if it was spoken aloud. I've never tested this and part of me doesn't believe it. But then, I'm not an expert about any of it. I just know that being able to hear the words out loud makes a difference for me as far as character is concerned. 

OhAine:  What’s the beginning point of a story for you? Are you a methodical planner, or is it purely instinct?

satin_doll: It's purely instinct. I have tried and tried to do it the "professional", by-the-book way, and it's always a disaster. The beginning is usually a mood and it can be inspired by just about anything. Most of the time a story just comes out full blown, beginning to end; it's just there and I write it. I had one story pop into my head while I was doing dishes. I stopped, wiped off my hands, and sat down and wrote the story all at once. Then I went back to doing dishes. I don't have any idea where it came from or what inspired it, it just happened. Most of them are like that. Maybe if I was a planner and methodical about it I'd write better stories! :D But this seems to be the only way I can do it and actually get anything written. 

OhAine:  We can’t talk about fanfiction right now without talking about what’s happening on tumblr / the purge. You’ve been writing online for a good number of years and I’m sure you have a take on it…

satin_doll: Sadly, I've seen this happen over and over since 1993. A space becomes a haven for expression and then suddenly comes under attack for one reason or another by one group or another. Luckily, there will always be somewhere new to go. It's painful and sometimes a long and trying process, but in the words of Mr. Universe: "You can't stop the signal." Someplace new will open up and, for a while at least, free expression will be allowed again. William Gibson, among others, wrote about this very thing, long before the internet was established in our lives. There are always going to be those who try to squash creativity. Unfortunately, being creative doesn't fit into neat little non-offensive boxes the way some want it to. But it will survive. It always has. It's the nature of the beast.

OhAine:  It can’t help but survive given the volume of fan created content that’s out there now, there’s obviously a huge appetite to create it as well as consume. And having that said, do you think fanfiction has become mainstream?

satin_doll: Depends on your definition of mainstream. Everything eventually trickles down into the mainstream. Unfortunately this isn't always a good thing. What passes for fanfiction these days is far different from what it used to be. I won't go into "Back in the Good Ol' Days". But by definition, the mainstream waters everything down, dilutes it. It loses some of its substance. Fan fiction has gotten a lot of attention lately, partly because so much of it has dealt with issues that are in the forefront of our lives, namely sex and identity. The fact that the majority of fanfic writers are women only adds to that. The danger is that the issues could also become watered down, so to speak - diluted - because of becoming "mainstream". Hopefully fanfic will survive the process.

OhAine:  Which is why it’s so important for spaces like AO3 to exist.

satin_doll: I think it's vital to life on this planet. Censorship is one of the great evils of life. AO3 and the OTW are champions of freedom, of every human being's right to expression. I don't care how offensive that expression is, we have to protect the right to it. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." There's a reason those words were written and it's not just about fair play. 

OhAine: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Should be AO3’s banner, tbh…

satin_doll: The older I get, the more important this has become. Censorship is subtle and insidious and infects societies on so many levels. It's not just some huge noisy machine created by the government; it can be found in very small social groups and cliques as well and results in making people invisible, which is one of the worst punishments humans have ever invented. We see the consequences of this every day in every walk of life. There's a lot to be said about all the different types of censorship that impact our lives. And I agree, that line would make a great banner for AO3. :)

OhAine: I think that’s as good a place as any to wrap thing up! Kat, it’s been an absolute joy, thanks so much for taking the time to answer my questions!

Next Friday, 8th of March, @writingwife-83 talks to @thisisartbylexie

[thenatureofnarrative]

Best Films of 2019

The basis of my annual list is simple, these are the films that were, for me, mesmerizing and memorable. These were the cinematic experiences that either provoked a depth of emotion and/or provided a whole lot to talk about. These are the films that I could not forget and I cannot wait to see again. After you read this year’s list, you can also find last year’s list here, and if you’d like to see me chat about my favourite films, and other great films from the year, you can watch this video.

1. Little Women

Greta Gerwig deserves the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay for her masterclass adaptation of Little Women which is, in my opinion, the best film of 2019. I was honestly whisked away by the magical-kinetic energy of this film and the March family, and I was deeply moved by the vocational struggles of young artists, Jo and Amy, finding their way in the world. As a father of two daughters, this film moved me and connected with me on a deep emotional level, and this is largely due to the storyteller’s skills. Ultimately, however, the reason Greta Gerwig’s adaptation works so well is because of her creative restructuring of the story, which allows us to consider our perspective of the past, and its impact upon our present. In addition to this, the performances across the board are perfect, with Florence Pugh being the real standout. There is just so much to love and admire about this most recent adaptation of Little Women, the best film of the year. DVD release TBD.

2. Ad Astra

James Gray is one of our greatest living filmmakers, and yet is easily one of our least recognized. In the last twenty five years he has written and directed seven incredible films, and Ad Astra (to the stars) is no exception. While his last film (The Lost City of Z) remains his greatest achievement, Ad Astra is his most theological or spiritual, as he exams the depth of the human soul by going to the furthest reaches of our solar system. Brad Pitt’s performance is, of course, the greatest reason for this story’s success, with his eyes and quiet reflections almost never leaving the screen. Ad Astra is a space odyssey like no other, while it pays homage to the great cinematic space stories of the past, it sets itself apart with its heavenly language and original imagery. Ultimately, it matters not how far we might travel or how advanced our species might become, the depravity and desires of our soul will never leave us and will always remain at the center of our road. It’s a shame cinematographer, Hoyte Van Hoytema, has only been nominated for an Oscar once. He deserves it for this work, and so do the sound designers, music composers, and of course, James Gray himself. On DVD - iTunes.

3. A Hidden Life

“Better to suffer injustice than to cause it.” The boundaries of this statement is put to the test in Terrence Malick’s most recent masterpiece, A Hidden Life, based on a true story. When nation and neighbour rise for a single cause or conflict, one’s true allegiance will be put to the test. In the face of such pressures, only those who pursue true peace, far from the spotlight, will know the cost that must be paid. A Hidden Life is a stunning and stirring work of cinematic perfection that requires patience and the attention of our souls. This is a film that I could not shake, and is quite simply, the most important film of the year. On iTunes March 3.

4. I Lost My Body

I love a surprise, and I was surprised by this magically macabre and meaningful film. I know a lot of people don’t often give “grown-up-animation” a chance so let me put it this way - - not only is I Lost My Body the most beautiful animation I’ve seen this year, it’s one of the best films of the year - - this is a story that has the mystery of Memento and the romance of a Terrence Malick film. And yet, it’s unlike anything you’ve seen before, unless you’ve seen the story of a severed hand journey through Paris in order to reconcile it’s memories with the broken heart and spirit of it’s owner?  I Lost My Body is a truly stunning achievement. It swept me away and moved me deeply, and you should check it out. On Netflix.

5. The Irishman

The Irishman (I Heard You Paint Houses) might just be Martin Scorsese’s greatest achievement. A Scorsese crime-story is never about the crime, it’s about the criminal’s soul, and in the case of The Irishman, this time round, there is a little more age and wisdom included in this masterful-motif. At the end of three and half hours, I was somber and sobered. I felt as though I had just attended a very heavy funeral, and I just wanted to sit a little longer and feel the weight of my own mortality. It is a shame Robert DeNiro wasn’t nominated for an Oscar this year because this really is the greatest performance of his career. On Netflix.

6. The Last Black Man in San Francisco

“Let us have the courage to look beyond the stories we’re born into.” Place. Home. Belonging. Acceptance. The Last Black Man in San Francisco is about all these things and so much more, but it was because the film explored these themes with such stunning beauty and unexpected whimsy that I could not escape its trance. TLBMISF is a remarkable first-feature by newcomer Joe Talbot. Following the story of best friends, Jimmie and Montgomery, TLBMISF is a sort of urban odyssey (in the first act Jimmie is compared to “Dorothy” from the Wizard of Oz) as it explores its themes through the tensions of gentrification and generational ties. I never knew where the story was headed next, but I couldn’t look away. The cinematography, the music and the performances are all perfect. I adore this film. On DVD.

7. Marriage Story

Marriage Story provides us with some of the greatest performances and most meaningful dialogue of the year. Only writer/director Noah Baumbach can make you laugh, cringe and cry within a matter of minutes, and it seems like with Marriage Story he’s exercising his greatest gifts to provide us with the perfect balance and portion of all three. Love is pain and heartbreak can be hilarious, and all of it is captured beautifully in this devastatingly authentic story about the best and worst moments of a relationship, and what we can learn from it, or maybe not at all. On Netflix.

8. Doctor Sleep

In the last five years writer/director Mike Flanagan has become my favourite new filmmaker, and with Doctor Sleep he was given the near impossible task of adapting a Stephen King novel that continued Stanley Kubrick’s version of The Shining. Impossible, right? Well not only does Flanagan succeed, but in my opinion, he has created a film that is superior to Kubrick’s, with a visual style all it’s own. Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep is a rich and rewarding horror story that takes spiritual consequences seriously, and presents it’s characters with the terrifying realities of evil, and the sacrifices required to overcome it. It’s a remarkable work, and it includes some of the best performances of the year. On DVD - iTunes.

9. A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is the surprise experience of surrealism I didn’t know we needed. Not unlike last year’s documentary, Won’t You Be My Neighbor, this film bears witness to the fact that it is possible to live a life of love, but this time round it’s an encounter wholly set apart. While Fred Rogers remains its inspiration, Tom Hanks’ remarkable portrayal is not at the center of the story, which is a bold and daring choice, but one that is executed with incredible care and confidence from director, Marielle Heller, who truly deserves an Oscar for this. As others have said, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, is not a traditional biopic, instead the film presents itself as an episode of Mr. Roger’s television show for grown ups, and who knew that that’s what many of us were in need of right now. On iTunes - On DVD February 18.

10. Wild Rose

Wild Rose is a deeply moving and beautiful story of redemption that avoids all the usual cliches and instead tells a more grounded, realistic tale about true sacrifice and pursuing one’s dreams. The writing is superb here, and Jessie Buckley’s performance is stunning as a troubled and selfish young mother from Glasgow, Scotland who has a gift and passion for country music. That last line should give you a good indication that this heart-warming story may feel familiar but is stunningly distinct, which makes for a much more rewarding experience. On DVD - Amazon Prime

    Honourable Mentions (alphabetically):

Brittany Runs a Marathon: This isn’t an inspirational film about lifestyle changes, this is a long and patient, and at times painful, examination of what true transformation looks like. It’s also very funny. On Amazon Prime.

Captain Marvel: My favourite Marvel movie to date, with a unique visual style and shockingly powerful themes. Ben Mendelsohn is also the ultimate character-actor and he is unforgettable here. On DVD.

The Farewell: Awkwafina’s performance is award-worthy in this heart-breaking family reunion. Every character here is either withholding emotion or feeling out of place, and yet they are bound together, they are family. On DVD - iTunes.

Frozen II: From the endless pursuit of maturity and wisdom in the face of life’s uncertainty, to the most incredible message about truth and reconciliation, Frozen 2 is a spectacular and shockingly poignant film. On DVD February 25.

The Lighthouse: The descent into madness has never been so entertaining, funny and beautiful. These are two of our greatest living actors and one of our best new young directors at work. On DVD - iTunes.

Long Shot: Rogen/Goldberg have established a comedic genre all their own, a distinct blend of vulgar-raunchy humour and tender-nuanced relational moments. This is one of their best. On DVD - iTunes - Amazon Prime.

Midsommar: Tragic. Captivating. Horrifying. Compelling. Disturbing. Ari Aster has a gift for spellbinding dread, and with only his second feature, he has established himself as a master of tone. On DVD - iTunes - Amazon Prime.

Parasite: A powerful and entertaining dark-comedy or satire, with a twist. This isn’t Bong Joon Ho’s greatest film (that would be Snowpiercer), but it is an important and historic one. On DVD - iTunes.

The Public: Emilio Estevez paints with broad strokes here, but they’re strokes that are filled with life, and a cast that brings great humanity (Alec Baldwin and Jeffery Wright are particular stand outs). On DVD - iTunes - Netflix.

Us: This is the most calculated and unpredictable thriller of the year. Not unlike the greatest parables, this is a film that demands repeated viewing. On top of that, Lupita Nyong’o’s two performances are Oscar-worthy. On DVD - iTunes.

[notesandcoffee]

Opinions 4.18

Plotlines have only started to get set up for Red and Aram, “Philomena” is so political it’s jarring, Gale is everything I want out of a cartoon character, and is... has anyone checked to see if Kaplan’s okay?

I'm going to start with Red's plotline, as it was just building blocks for a payoff (I hope) will come later. He hands Dembe a box that's to be opened when Dembe leaves, and gives a very closing speech about what people owe him once they start working for him. Dembe is a little different, and so the box is a parting gift from Red. I can only hope it's something to help Dembe start his new life, if not booze. Either way, it's endgame.

Aram asks Red upfront if he shot Kaplan for allowing Liz to escape, in a line that’s almost partial to Red. He’s not going to defend shooting someone, of course, and Aram probably had the most reaction towards Liz’s “death” than anyone else on the task force. I’m not sure where that question is going to end up, but I’ll be a little sad if we don’t see Aram reflect on Red’s confirmation in the near future.

Navabi was nominated for Katai Fellowship, after several years of being on the task force. Aram recommends her, and it's unclear whether he was asked by the committee running the process or if he gave it of his own discretion. However, she turns it down because he was the one who nominated her this year. The relationship is already under some strain (thanks to Janet), and to Navabi, this feels more like Aram kissing ass to her to try get back in her good graces than an actual commendation for her work. If she was actually worthy of his nomination, she would have gotten it her first year there, in her head.

It's a misunderstanding at best, pettiness at worst. I don't think Aram did anything wrong by nominating her, but it sounds like he's had the power to nominate her the whole time, which again, doesn't make sense. If he actually did have the power to nominate her the whole time, what exactly was the point that made him nominate? He's been in awe of her since she joined, so why now? Of course, while Navabi has the same questions, she doesn't ask, instead accusing Aram of not nominating her earlier. Not a lot of details to explain what's going on, but Navabi's pissed.

Okay.

Our Blacklister is Philomena, part stalker, part private investigator, part assassin. Philomena's whole idea is that she "accidentally" gets into other's lives without much accident or coincidence, and we see this in how she chooses to hunt down Marvin Gerard, by performing a timed accident on his sister. She trades meeting with Gerard in lieu of accepting his sister's money, and is only tipped off at the end, when things are coming to a head anyway. I really enjoyed watching her work and how it kind of capitalized on the paranoid suspicion a lot of people have right now -- those people we just met, that one there on the street, the odd co-worker, are they really safe? Or would they be just as happy, if not happier, if I were killed or imprisoned?

At last, we see current U.S. politics in the show, and not just here. It's written in everything, from the "alternative truths" Marvin jokes about to the islamophobia Navabi deals with and is asked about in the interview. I'm not at all surprised by this, but it's unnecessary. It's unevitable that these things are going to come out in the work we all make, but... I don't know. I watch tv to escape from the horror of the 11 o'clock news that always comes on after. To escape somewhere on twitter, for only an hour, where I don't have to worry about people defending systematic execution of children because of some fucked-up version of "God's will".

At the same time, there's nothing else to write about. I wish we -- everyone -- could write about something different, rather than the Islamophobia, rather than the racism, rather than the crowds who feel my country is better without people like me in it and the sweeping nationalism that's on the rise worldwide. I want nothing more than a Reddington to come in and make things great again and put the people who want to see others like me swept out of society in prison where they belong. I'm told that's unreasonable -- God knows why at this point -- so I sit in front of the television with my beer and my popcorn and try to live in a universe where that happens if only for an hour. Never mind that Bigly Deplorable is retweeting me and try to focus on the good things.

The good news is in this messed-up world of crooked politicians, masterclass criminals, and the loyalists who follow each, we have someone like Gale -- the flattened, stereotyped version of Ressler that is every bad cop movie you've ever seen combined. Gale is out to get the "bad guys" -- which is Reddington &co. in his head, having no information about the P.O. The only thing he knows is that the previous Reddington task force was suddenly disbanded and Ressler, his teammate and friend, was re-assigned. Gale's sense of moral is overpowering, leaving him to insist that the smell of rotting corpses is the smell "of justice", and showing remorse for the corpses he recognizes, people that he sent in to try to act as some sort of way to get to Reddington who lost their lives. It begins to remind Ressler just how much of the person he was before Reddington turned himself in. Ressler (not Klattenhoff!) is also a terrible actor, laughing at all the wrong times, and even suggesting Reddington turned himself in way too seriously. Ressler is going to be in the center of a major conflict between the P.O. and the rest of the FBI. 

However, the line that stuck out to me the most was this:

Kaplan (to Liz): I haven’t laid eyes on Agnes since the night I helped you escape.

This line is decidedly wrong, but Kaplan says it without much of a reaction. Liz may know otherwise, but she doesn't let on. Now, because the show itself has had a mess of continuity errors, it seems the gut reaction is to immediately jump on our friends in the writers' room, but... This line was looked at by too many people to both be this specific and this wrong. 

To recap a bit: the scene is between Liz, Kaplan, and Agnes. Agnes is resting comfortably in Kaplan's arms when Kaplan says this, and Liz is coming around the corner of her own apartment, arms raised to shoot an intruder. Kaplan's just had a series of disjointed flashbacks of Masha as a child and how she came to work for Reddington's team. She's still thinking of Liz being a toddler with too many questions and not enough answers, not intended as malicious, but that's just something on her mind, probably on repeat. 

Kaplan has seen Agnes since the night Kaplan helped Liz escape; she hasn't seen Liz since the night she helped her escape.

So why is it the line we ended up with on screen? Take either of these two lines (by yours truly):

Kaplan (to Liz): I haven't laid eyes on Agnes since you came back.

Kaplan (to Liz): I haven't laid eyes on you since the night I helped you escape.

Either of these two statements would be true, according to Blacklist universe. Instead, Kaplan gave us a weird mash-up of the two which makes no sense.

Kaplan's also been shot in the head twice at this point, and only one time did she receive actual medical attention. The other time (for all we know) she was chained to a bed and being hand-fed by someone who is definitely not a doctor. She's been having severe migraines, and is on heavy medication for them. There's a marked change in her personality, going after Red instead of trying to reason with him using their shared history as a base. Breaking and entering Liz's apartment to hold her child when she could have easily knocked. We've seen glimpses into her memory, which seems disjointed, and certain elements don't line up from what we've heard from other characters thus far. And if this line is as true as it seems to Kaplan, she's showing signs of aphasia.

These are all signs of traumatic brain injury. In real people, symptoms are dependent on where exactly in the brain the damage occurred, the severity, the surface area it covered, and a bunch of other statistics and data points regarding the injury itself. This is where the science gets jumbled a bit, and I'd love to get some clarification for it if given the opportunity. For example, aphasia usually only occurs when there's an injury to the language center on the left side of the brain; Kaplan was shot on the right side. It's abnormal for language processing to be affected by injuries to the right hemisphere, but it's not completely unheard of, given the task and the specific injury.

If this is the case, I would like to see more of a reaction from other people in the scene. Maybe not the hunter, but maybe Liz? Something that shows that everything is not nearly as alright as Kaplan thinks.

I'm not writing this as a defense of anyone. It just struck a chord with me, because I've been around real people with brain injury. They sometimes do make nonsense statements, mashups of statements they want to make, and occasionally you hear shit like this from non-brain injured people, too. But neurotypicals are written differently in this show, with statements that have a tendency to make sense, and that's what I'm taking my cues from.

Twitter was fun again for me. There was more than enough fun with the box and “what’s in the box” gif that everyone posted at the same time. Besides the political interference, it was a fun episode, although Kaplan’s storyline really is going to have to show something solid behind her change in personality and motivation in order for me to move past it.

[jobsearchtips02]

Apple’s App Shop policies are bad, however its interpretation and enforcement are even worse

I began this morning all riled up and prepared to write a newsletter about how Google is using its market power in one segment– Gmail– to offer itself a possibly unreasonable advantage in another section: video conferencing.

That was the strategy, but then Apple chose to use its market power in one section– the App Shop– to offer itself a potentially unjust benefit in another sector: buying digital goods.

I’m obviously going to focus on Apple.

In Apple’s case, the choice was to tell the company that makes the brand name brand-new e-mail app called Hey that it can not distribute its app on the iPhone unless it makes it possible for users to sign up by means of Apple’s own prescribed methods– which gives Apple a 30 percent cut.

The timing of all this is merely unbelievable, with a lot of happenings that I ‘d be nuts to concentrate on anything else. Not only does Apple’s WWDC designer conference kick off in less than a week, the EU actually opened up an antitrust examinations into App Shop and Apple Pay practices the really exact same day this Hey thing went down! Tom Warren:

The first investigation will penetrate whether Apple has actually broken EU competitors guidelines with its App Shop policies, following problems by Spotify and Rakuten over Apple’s 30- percent cut on memberships and sales of ebooks through its App Shop. “We require to guarantee that Apple’s guidelines do not misshape competition in markets where Apple is taking on other app developers, for instance with its music streaming service Apple Music or with Apple Books,” states Margrethe Vestager, the head of the EU’s antitrust department. “I have therefore decided to take a close look at Apple’s App Store guidelines and their compliance with EU competitors rules.”

And Apple itself was promoting a research study declaring how much its App Store has actually contributed to the economy on Monday, declaring it created $519 billion in commerce in 2015 Nick Statt:

In-app advertising, also mostly dedicated to mobile gaming, comprises another $45 billion. Of whatever else– from ride-hailing software to food delivery apps to mobile retail stores from Finest Buy and Target– comprising the remaining $413 billion, Apple takes no cut, the research study states.

We’re going to go through some of the play-by-play of Hey, digging into what Apple’s policies are and how they might or may not apply. Here’s the pertinent paragraph from Apple’s App Shop policy, 3.1.1:

If you want to open functions or functionality within your app, (by method of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, video game levels, access to premium material, or opening a complete variation), you must use in-app purchase. Apps might not utilize their own mechanisms to open content or functionality, such as license secrets, enhanced reality markers, QR codes, and so on.

The key thing to know is that the text of this policy is not actually the policy.

It ought to not shock you to understand that Apple’s analysis of its text frequently seems capricious at finest and at worst appears like it’s encouraged by self-dealing. And the enforcement consequently typically appears unjust.

The rule mentions that if you want to offer digital products, you have to use Apple’s payment system. Other than that’s not how 3.1.1 has been analyzed to date. It has actually been translated as permitting people to gain access to services they paid for elsewhere on their iOS gadgets, but not permitting those apps to attempt to navigate the Apple payment guidelines when people register on those gadgets.

That’s complicated, however that analysis is what keeps Netflix from having an account sign-up in its app. It’s the policy that has actually infuriated Spotify and keeps you from buying Kindle books on your iPhone without jumping through a million odd Safari hoops. That was currently a very bad guideline, if you ask me. Now, with this email app, Apple is apparently changing its interpretation to be more rigorous.

David Pierce at Protocol spoke with the folks at Basecamp, who make Hey, about what Apple informed them was the thinking for their app updates getting declined. In other words, the original app was accepted but updates will not be because somebody inside Apple began enforcing their modified interpretation. And young boy howdy, if you desire a masterclass in the real guidelines being concealed in interpretation and enforcement instead of in the plain text, buckle up:

Due to the fact that Hey didn’t qualify as a “Reader” app, Apple stated that existing customers could log in as typical but Hey required to make all memberships available to new users as in-app purchases. Apple allows these kinds of client apps– where you can’t sign up, only indication in– for business services however not customer items.

So now the rule is you need to use Apple’s system unless you were fortunate sufficient to make a popular subscription app, in which case you could simply keep going. Now, apparently, there are unwritten special classes of apps that are enabled to let you sign up elsewhere however still access the app on the iPhone: “service services” and “Reader apps” and these terms retroactively apply to those other apps? As Pierce tweets:

One other distinction: Apple permits “Reader” apps– things like Netflix and Kindle and Dropbox, where you’re using the app to gain access to existing memberships– as long as they do not offer a method to register. Email, messaging, etc do not count as Reader apps

Now we remain in complete pretzel mode. Dropbox is a “Reader” app in some way and for that reason exempt? I cracked a joke about the No Real Scotsman rational fallacy, but more I think about it, the more it uses.

Finding Out whether your app is consisted of in Apple’s analysis of its guidelines or whether Apple will implement those guidelines upon you is a straight up guessing game. Here’s a tip, though: if you’re huge and effective and have leverage, you have a better shot. Apple is fully letting Amazon get around some of these rules right now on the Apple TELEVISION, even the 30 percent cut! Keep in mind that kerfuffle? Here’s the so-called “established program” that nobody understood about:

On certifying premium video entertainment apps such as Prime Video, Altice One and Canal , consumers have the choice to buy or lease movies and TV programs utilizing the payment approach tied to their existing video subscription

Basecamp CTO David Heinemeier Hansson has actually been popping off about Hey’s potential App Store ban on Twitter throughout the day– and appropriately so. He has also affirmed before congress about Apple’s outsized market power (Heinemeier Hansson, you might recall, also brought the Apple Card’s predispositions against offering equal credit to women to light)

To me, arguing over whether the text of Apple’s policy is being translated or imposed relatively is practically beside the point. I state “practically” because the entire guessing video game about guidelines is disturbing for designers, it lays bare that Apple holds the power to prohibit their app.

An approximate ruler applies their will more powerfully and more onerously than one who follows the guideline of law. Opaque and arbitrary interpretation and enforcement puts more power into Apple’s hands– and it already has the power the set the text of the rules in the first place.

The real problem is Apple’s power, of which this whole Kafkaesque series of changing rules is a sign. We all know the rating here: Apple requires to secure the 30 percent cut it takes, and if it enables a lot of apps to circumvent that cut then some sort of dam may break. From Apple’s perspective, it’s not a lot the cash for its services bottom line however that if everyone utilized a various payment system, the experience on the iPhone would genuinely be broken down, if not fragmented. (The money doesn’t harmed, though.)

For Apple, the line has actually to be drawn someplace. And offered how complicated the analysis and enforcement has been in this case, the thinking for those wiggles is much easier to explain by looking at Apple’s organisation imperatives than it is by looking at Apple’s policies.

Google, for what it’s worth, draws its line at video games. Other apps are complimentary to connect out to other locations where people can register and pay for their accounts. Obviously, even then there’s debate: Fortnite was denied an exemption and after that stop and lastly rejoined the Play Shop under pressure Android does not limit users from installing apps from non-Play Shop sources, however it does make doing so feel dangerous and frightening.

There’s a cognitive harshness to calling Apple a monopolist. Apple’s marketshare in the US is significantly higher than it is in the rest of the world, but it’s not that high.

Ben Thompson at Stratechery has been writing about this for years– he just recently pulled his 2018 article on this really concern out from behind the paywall

The monopoly Apple has is a monopoly over the iPhone itself, not over smart devices. Which is an extremely strange way to think of a monopoly. Should not Apple be complimentary to make whatever rules it wants on the gadgets it sells? Is it unjust for Apple to demand a cut of all digital commerce on its platforms?

Here’s how Thompson addressed that concern, and I’m not sure I can state it much better:

What ought to be limited, though, is leveraging a win in one location into supremacy in another: that indicates Apple winning in mobile phones need to not suggest it gets to own digital payments, and developing the App Store does not mean it gets 30%of all digital goods (or be permitted to diminish the user experience of its competitors).

The thing about Hey is that it was an extremely high profile app with a prominent launch and prominent executives getting attention over this issue.

P.S. I asked Google a series of concerns about its organized Meet integration into Gmail. Here’s the only one that really matters:

Do you have any talk about the issue that Google is utilizing its market power on popular apps like Gmail and Google Calendar to give its own video conferencing app an unjust competitive advantage?

And here’s Google’s action, which I discover to be disingenuous however am communicating in full:

Google Hangouts, with assistance for video conferences and direct/group messaging, has actually been in Gmail and Calendar for years (Gmail on web has actually had video requiring over a years). We are now upgrading the video calling performance that Hangouts provided with Google Meet and extending the experience to mobile. As always, we will continue to allow user choice and enable users to choose in or out of functions to their preference. In addition, as G Suite is a platform, third-party apps have access to integrate with our applications through the G Suite Add-on structure.

When It Comes To why that combination needs to be a gigantic button at the bottom of your Inbox rather of just showing up in the sidebar, Google says “A tab is easier to access […] and screening shows that users like this technique.” I think that real-world testing will show Google something extremely different.

Disclosure: My other half deals with the Oculus Store, including setting policies for that shop. I recuse myself from reporting on Oculus so I am not at all knowledgeable about what Oculus’ policies are.

More from The Edge

┏ The Lenovo Flex 5G is the world’s very first 5G laptop computer you can in fact purchase

┏ What’s left of Magic Leap? Adi Robertson looks at what follows all that hype. It’s very little!

┏ Boston Characteristics will now offer any service its own Area robot for $74,500

┏ The gadgets Late Night with Seth Meyers uses to keep the show running from home

┏ Google is bringing Microsoft Workplace and other Windows apps to Chromebooks

┏ Bose gives up on its augmented reality noise job

Read More

from Job Search Tips https://jobsearchtips.net/apples-app-shop-policies-are-bad-however-its-interpretation-and-enforcement-are-even-worse/

[silverscreenclassics2016]

by Paul Batters

Part Two continues with the wonderful, personal stories of how our featured writers came to discover and love classic film.

Maddy 

Blog: Maddy Loves Her Classic Films   Twitter: @TimeForAFilm

I grew up in the 1990’s and was brought up on the animated Disney films such as Bambi and The Hunchback Of Notre Dame. I was very into dance when I was little and my parents bought me the documentary That’s Dancing (1985). That introduced me to so many classic era actors and films. It especially got me interested in Fred and Ginger, The Nicholas Brothers, Gene Kelly and Eleanor Powell. I started to seek out many of their films as I grew up.

If I had to pick one film in particular that made me fall in love with this era of filmmaking, then it would have to be Top Hat. It was the first b&w film I saw and I loved everything about it – from the characters and the dancing, to the stunning sets and beautiful costumes. This girl was hooked! In my teens I discovered Alfred Hitchcock. His films made me a classic film fan for life. They were what first made me aware of the language of cinema and got me interested in how films were made. Rear Window was the first I saw and I remember eagerly returning to the Library every weekend to borrow more of his films.

Theresa Brown

Blog: CineMaven’s Essays From the Couch     Twitter: @CineMava

I would need to go into some type of hydro~therapy, deep dark hypnosis to pull the memory of what film led me into loving classic films; and also to get into my past life as Cleopatra. My parents told me I used to run into the living room and stand in front of the tv set during commercials. Commercials, for heaven’s sake!! Were they bite-sized movies for the tiny Baby Boomer I was? It’s hard for me to say just what film set me on this path of being a classic movie buff. My mom took us to practically ev’ry Disney movie back in the 1950’s. American TV of the 60’s and 70’s threw away a lot of “old movies” and I was up all hours of the night trying to get my fill. Maybe seeing these films was a way to connect to my father and aunt with movies they grew up seeing on the big screen. For my 16th birthday my father gave me my first movie book: on Bogart films. Cinemabilia was a NYC book store I got lost in for hours. Classic films are just in my DNA.

Aurora

Blog: Once Upon a Screen    Twitter: @CitizenScreen

I arrived in the United States from Cuba at the age of five and immediately fell in love with movies. We were given a secondhand television set where one day I happened upon Delmer Daves’ Dark Passage. The unique point of view sequence at the onset of the movie fascinated me even then. I longed to see the face that peered out at the dark, grim world. I have loved film noir ever since. The only other genre that competes is the musical; it is what truly made my imagination soar. I remember vividly seeing On the Town and marvelling at the notion that my father had brought me to a place where people danced on the street. We lived in a crowded New York City apartment. I remember too wishing that my family were just like the Smiths in Meet Me in St. Louis. Alas, there are too many of those moments to recount, too many ways the movies made me who I am. It is to those days, when I knew no one outside my family, when those characters were as real as any person I had ever met, that I owe my love of movies.

Robert Short – Writer

Having been a fan of classic films for over fifty years now, I find it difficult to ascribe any specific movie as the pivotal film that inspired my love of the golden era of filmdom.  During the 1960’s and 1970’s, the decades in which I chiefly grew up, the cinematic offerings from the 1930’s and 1940’s were the general fodder of movie viewing on television; I undoubtedly saw many from a very young age.  I can say with greater certainty that I had developed a conscious interest in “old movies”, a relative term, by the age of twelve or thirteen.  Perhaps the interest grew organically; perhaps it was a moment of epiphany.

Again, while I cannot pinpoint any definitive “watershed” title, there is possibly one film of note which served as a cornerstone in my movie-watching career.  “Juarez” marked my first “late show”, the late-night movies that I was finally permitted to watch after beginning high school in September 1969.  A typically lavish production from Warner Bros., and another quality contribution from 1939, the film was immensely entertaining, albeit often historically inaccurate.  Admittedly, the fact that “Juarez” was my introduction to the venerable institution of the late show, now gone by the wayside in the wake of our modern digital era, may seem very trivial and unimportant.  However, the late show itself was once the chief means to watch classic films; through it my access to many wonderful movies was greatly expanded.

Amanda Garrett

Blog: Old Hollywood Films  Twitter: @oldhollywood21

My lifelong love of affair with classic movies began when I stumbled across director John Ford’s Western Stagecoach (1939) on PBS when I was in grade school. It soon became my favourite movie mostly because I wanted to be BFFs with Doc Boone played by Thomas Mitchell (I didn’t understand that what I thought was very funny behaviour was caused by alcohol), and I secretly wanted to be Andy Devine mostly because I thought driving a stagecoach seemed like a cool job. I’ve watched Stagecoach dozens of times since then, and while I’ve given up my ambition of being a stagecoach driver, I still find the film a rewarding experience all these years later. There are several reasons for this including the masterful plot, which Ford unfolds with clockwork precision, and the roster of great character actors. Most of all, I return to Stagecoach because of Ford. The gruff director despised being called an artist or even worse an auteur, but the truth is he was both. Ford’s fluid camera work makes Stagecoach poetry in motion, and he would return to the theme of one man’s quest for justice throughout his career.

Name: Jay

Blog: Cinema Essentials   Twitter: @CineEssentials

Although I grew up watching classic films, most were colour films from the 1950s and 1960s. If there was one film that overcame my childhood resistance to black and white, then it was Green for Danger. It’s a brilliant comedy-thriller that plays with the conventions of the murder mystery genre.

Alastair Sim plays an eccentric detective sent to investigate a series of suspicious deaths at a hospital, where he finds a range of suspects. Sim is unquestionably the star of the show, but there are many good supporting performances, from Trevor Howard, Sally Gray, Leo Genn, Megs Jenkins and Rosamund John.

The film was made by Sidney Gilliat, who co-wrote The Lady Vanishes and its spiritual successor Night Train to Munich. That gives you an idea of the sort of humour and playful tone of the film, which are mixed with a bit of tension and an intriguing mystery.

I first saw Green for Danger when I was 7 or 8. I’ve seen it numerous times since, but I usually forget who the murderer is, because it’s the performances and characterisations that make it irresistible. And the film is so entertaining anyway, that it doesn’t really matter if you remember the solution or not.

Margot Shelby

Blog: Down These Mean Streets

It’s hard to say exactly when, how and why I became a classic film fan. Neither my parents nor my grandparents were interested so I discovered them myself. I was probably around five and I assume some classic film came on TV and I was hooked. I loved history (still do) and somehow old movies were like a history lesson, a window into another world. Something just clicked. I wish I could remember what the first movie was that really left an impression on me, but I really can’t.

I’m so jealous of the people who had friends and family who also like classic films.

Unfortunately I had nobody I could share my love of classic films with. My friends weren’t interested either, everybody was just shaking their heads about my obsession.

Well thankfully nowadays we have the internet and yes, there are other people like me out there. I’m not a freak! Good to know. 🙂

Carol

Blog: The Old Hollywood Garden

I created The Old Hollywood Garden because I wanted to express my love for the classics. I wanted to make people want to watch them, and I wanted to share my undying fascination with Hollywood’s Golden Age with the world.

I became a classic movie buff after viewing my very first classic movie which was Gilda (Charles Vidor, 1946). All the way back in 2007 when I was fifteen years old. I was flipping through the channels, and I stumbled upon it on an retrospective type of channel which shows old films and TV shows. Its black and white cinematography caught my attention straight-away and I put the remote down and watched it. I had no doubt in my mind this would be the start of something great for me and I couldn’t wait for it. I was barely half way through it and I already knew that I wanted to consume as many of these wonderful movies as possible. I was mesmerized by Rita Hayworth – who isn’t? – and I loved the love-hate relationship between Gilda and Johnny (Glenn Ford). It was hot. It was exciting. It was a masterclass in screen chemistry. Years later, I still think it’s the sexiest movie ever made.

I was drawn in by them mostly, but right from the start, I thought Gilda was so fascinating. Johnny’s voice-over narration in the beginning (‘To me, a dollar was a dollar in any language…’) was everything I’d imagined these things to be. Great lines, no non-sense attitude; straight-up cool. The plot was interesting enough – small-time gambler Johnny is hired by Ballin Mundson (George Macready) to work in his casino, not knowing Ballin’s wife is his ex-lover Gilda – and the performances were fantastic. Especially Rita Hayworth’s. Her most iconic role was also her greatest. A flawed character, multi-layered and yet mysterious. Confident and yet vulnerable. A sort of anti-heroine that no doubt paved the way for many female characters that followed it. It is still one of my favourite performances of all time and the reason I couldn’t take my eyes off Gilda the first time I saw it. A ‘femme fatale’, I later read. I was transfixed by this. Film noir was intriguing.

Years later, of course, I realised that Gilda isn’t quite a film noir (noir melodrama?) and Gilda isn’t really a femme fatale. Not in the traditional sense anyway. Looking back, Gilda was ahead of her time, in many ways. But back then, I just knew that this was endlessly fascinating. I had to watch more of these. So many more. I had to watch more stuff with Rita Hayworth in it. And Glenn Ford. I had to watch all of these films noirs. And the screwballs and the Pre-Codes. And the musicals! I had to watch all the Golden Age of Hollywood had to offer. Needless to say, I’ve been doing just that for twelve years and it has been absolutely blissful.

Editorial use only. No book cover usage. Mandatory Credit: Photo by Columbia/Kobal/Shutterstock (5886203bk) Rita Hayworth Gilda – 1946 Director: Charles Vidor Columbia Lobby Card/Poster

It’s been an absolute honour to share the memories and feelings that classic film fans have about the films that matter to them and the experience of discovering classic film. The beauty is that those feelings do not go away but grow and flourish, as the journey continues and as we all discover and re-discover the films we have come to love. But it is also a wonderful thing to connect with classic film fans from around the world and share those experiences.

It has been an honour to share these contributions and my personal thanks to all who have contributed.

The Films That Brought Us To Love Classic Film – Part Two by Paul Batters Part Two continues with the wonderful, personal stories of how our featured writers came to discover and love classic film.

[jillmckenzie1]

Can’t Sleep, Clown Will Eat Me

Back in the day, liking horror was viewed as nothing to be proud of. It was a genre that was grimy, unseemly, positively dripping with bad thoughts and worse intentions. If you were into the scary stuff, why, it must mean you’re some kind of dangerous freak! Speaking from experience, telling someone during the first date that one of your favorite movies is The Exorcist is an excellent way to ensure there’s no second date.

Then Stephen King came along, and it’s possible that he, moreso than anyone else in the last 40 years, dragged horror kicking and screaming into the mainstream. As of now, he’s had 58 novels published and more than 350 million copies sold. King’s work is a cottage industry, stretching throughout novels, the stage, television, comics, music*, and film.

We’ve talked before about how a film based on a Stephen King novel can be…ah…somewhat of a mixed bag. Nobody, least of all me, wants to get stuck viewing or reviewing The Mangler or The Lawnmower Man. Luckily, we’re in a bit of a renaissance of good King adaptations with Gerald’s Game and 2017’s It. Despite the onslaught of jump scares**, I really liked It, and I crossed my fingers that the second installment wouldn’t suck. My prayers were (sort of) rewarded, as It: Chapter Two is a perfectly good follow up.

If I summarize the prior film and this film, we’re gonna be here all day. If you haven’t seen It,*** all you need to know is that during the summer of 1989, an interdimensional sewer clown named Pennywise (Bill Skarsgard) slaughtered children living in Derry, Maine. You’d think the cops would get involved and roving gangs of parents would drag the clown out of a manhole and beat him within an inch of his life, but no. Instead, a group of middle-school kids calling themselves The Losers Club defeat Pennywise and vow to return to Derry if the clown ever rears his greasepaint smeared head again.

Since it would be boring as hell if ya boi Pennywise didn’t show up 27 years later, he does! After a young man is nearly killed in a hate crime, he’s definitely killed by Pennywise. As the clown doesn’t believe in subtlety, he calls out the now grown members of the Losers Club for a rematch. Some of them are less enthusiastic to return to Derry than others. They are:

Mike Hanlon (Isaiah Mustafa as an adult, Chosen Jacobs as a child) is the town librarian, and he reaches out to the others imploring them to come home.

Beverly Marsh (Jessica Chastain as an adult, Sophia Lillis as a child) escaped her abusive father only to enter an abusive marriage.

Bill Denbrough (James McAvoy as an adult, Jaeden Martell as a child) is a successful author with a movie adaptation on the way.

Richie Tozier (Bill Hader as an adult, Finn Wolfhard as a child) is a successful stand-up comic with a successful drug and alcohol habit.

Ben Hanscom (Jay Ryan as an adult, Jeremy Ray Taylor as a child) has lost a ton of weight, become a major architect, and still pines for Beverly.

Eddie Kaspbrak (James Ransone as an adult, Jack Dylan Grazer) put his neuroses to work as a risk assessor.

Stan Uris (Andy Bean as an adult, Wyatt Oleff as a child) is the only one of The Losers who doesn’t attend the reunion due to his suicide.

So, what’s the plan to take out Pennywise? It involves The Ritual of Chud, a Native American ceremony**** Mike learned that will allegedly banish Pennywise into the outer darkness. In order to do that, the Losers Club will have to gather artifacts from their childhood. But Pennywise is watching, and he has his games…

Here’s the thing about It: Chapter Two. While it’s a solid film, it doesn’t quite have the combination of nostalgia and raw elemental power of the first film. At nearly three hours, this film is long AF, and that’s an awful lot of time for jump scares and horrors lunging out of the stygian darkness. It’s a good thing that Andy Muschietti returns to the director’s chair, as he continues to display an excellent command establishing mood. A scene where Beverly returns to her childhood home is a masterclass in establishing suspense, and Muschietti gradually cranks up the tension. However, there are slightly too few moments of legit dread and slightly too many moments of things bursting into frame with loud-ass sound effects accompanying it. Having said that, the casting is strong, the film has a genuinely epic sprawl, and for every moment of dodgy CGI there’s another that feels creative and alarming.

Screenwriter Gary Dauberman was faced with the unenviable task of adapting a 1,138-page book into two films. While I applaud his effort, the end result is mixed. The best moments are when the grown Losers Club are together, and we see them bouncing off one another. Unfortunately, the moments where they have to split up to track down artifacts feel a little bit like video game levels, and some of the subplots could have been cut without harming the main narrative. Dauberman has a strong ear for dialogue, and as the parent of a middle schooler, I have to give him credit for authenticity—particularly the scenes with the kids. Put two or more seventh-graders together and you’ll get a torrent of filth that would make Quentin Tarantino proud. I liked that, as kids that age are still trying to figure out profanity and naturally overuse it to hilarious effect.

There are no weak links in the cast, but there are a couple of standouts. Old pros like Jessica Chastain and James McAvoy do good work, and they feel like natural extensions of the kids playing the younger roles. In 2017, I mentioned that instead of trying to be frightening, Bill Skarsgard’s Pennywise simply is frightening. His time working with a contortionist and perfecting bizarre vocal tics makes his sewer clown a horror icon on the same level as Freddy or Leatherface. Having said all that, you can almost hear Bill Hader saying, “Yoink!” as he nimbly steals the movie. As Richie, he’s an incorrigible wiseass who alternately uses humor as a shield and a sword. Hader does some heavy emotional lifting and isn’t just QuipBot 3000. While we don’t really have a star system any longer, this is the role that pushes Hader into the big time.

With It: Chapter Two, Warner Brothers have put their money where their mouths are. We’ve got a talented writer and director, a reasonable budget, and limited interference from timid executives. The end result isn’t “elevated horror.” Rather, it’s a prestige film with the full muscle of a major studio behind it that also happens to be a horror movie. The film shows us how trauma endures throughout the years, how the bonds of friendship can be bent but not broken, and why trusting the word of a clown in a storm drain is a bad idea.

  *In doing my research, I discovered that the band Anthrax has based a number of their songs on King’s work. I can’t explain why that’s so funny to me, but it is.

**After a while, jump scares stop being genuinely scary and are just a way for filmmakers to startle viewers. Throw in a musical sting and a quick camera movement, and you can jump scare people with a pan of lasagna.

***And if you haven’t seen It, what possible reason would you have for seeing It: Chapter Two?

 ****I’m so tired of Native Americans being portrayed as wise mystics. It would have been better if they had said to Mike, “So the murder clown shows up every 27 years, eh? That’s why every 26 years, we peace out to New Mexico to enjoy the sun, then return to reap the benefits of the now mysteriously low property values in Derry.”

from Blog https://ondenver.com/cant-sleep-clown-will-eat-me/

[thegloober]

RIFF 2018: Woman at War, Jonas Mekas Exhibition and Camilla Strøm Henriksen on Phoenix

by Matt Fagerholm

October 8, 2018   |  

Print Page Tweet

“You know who would’ve loved this movie? Roger Ebert!” declared Anne Hubbell, founder of Tangerine Entertainment, during our chat at the Reykjavík International Film Festival. She was discussing Yann Gonzalez’s cheerfully blood-spattered melodrama “Knife + Heart,” and I couldn’t help agreeing with her, considering Ebert’s love of Brian De Palma and bold genre mash-ups including his own, “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.” A day after I posted my enthusiastic review of the picture, Hubbell and her fellow jury members gave “Knife + Heart” RIFF’s top prize—the Golden Puffin, awarded to first or second-time directors—praising Gonzalez’s ability to defy labels “using confidence, humor and a thrilling juxtaposition of love and loss.” Earning a Special Mention was “Styx,” Wolfgang Fischer’s riveting thriller about the refugee crisis that is still in the running for the LUX Prize, presented in November by the European Parliament. Nominated alongside it is Benedikt Erlingsson’s “Woman at War,” a superlative example of Icelandic cinema, showcasing not only the landscape’s distinctive beauty but also its inherent drama.

Advertisement

Through various tourist sites are accessible by road along the country’s perimeter, the vast majority of Iceland consists of uninhabited terrain, with sand and volcanic glass covering a desert terrain well over 12,000 miles in size. This is the sort of desolate locale ripe for a suspenseful set-piece, and as Halla—the notorious activist in Erlingsson’s film—scampered about its rugged surface, outwitting every helicopter and drone aiming to take her down, I was reminded of Cary Grant’s infamous battle with the deadly crop-duster in Hitchcock’s “North by Northwest.” As played by Halldóra Geirharðsdóttir with winning perseverance and warm eyes that can fire daggers without warning, Halla is a woman after Mildred Hayes’ heart, so determined to raise awareness about industrial corruption that she has no qualms with torpedoing a few power lines in the process. 

When she marches toward the camera to a quirky militaristic anthem evocative of “Moonrise Kingdom” during the opening credits, the camera pans over to reveal a three-piece band performing the soundtrack live. This conceit soon proves to be much more than a one-time sight gag a la Count Basie’s cameo in “Blazing Saddles,” as the musicians repeatedly materialize along with a Greek chorus of sorts, embodying the conscience and tireless spirit of Geirharðsdóttir’s protagonist in melodic form. The score by Davíð Þór Jónsson, who also composed the music for Erlingsson’s previous festival favorite, “Of Horses and Men,” ranks among the year’s best, emerging as a literal character in the movie without diffusing any tension or emotional nuance. Geirharðsdóttir is equally delightful as Halla’s twin sister, Ása, a bohemian yoga instructor whose dislike of extremism may make her an unlikely ally in her sibling’s uncompromising crusade. 

Halla’s rage at profit-driven forces threatening to forfeit our survival by ruining the environment beyond repair couldn’t be timelier, especially when the government attempts to antagonize her by claiming that she has declared war on working people (there are echoes here of Trump’s motives behind championing the coal industry). How Erlingsson and co-writer Ólafur Egilsson go about tackling this topic is by turns poignant and comedic, leading to some well-earned moments of catharsis that had me cheering, such as when Halla—clad in a Nelson Mandela mask—yanks a drone out of the sky before smashing it to bits. Her ambivalence toward bringing new life into the world has caused her to put plans for adoption on hold, but when a four-year-old girl is left orphaned by the war in Ukraine, her attitude toward the future begins to shift. The film’s lyrical final shot comes as close to encapsulating mankind’s current self-imposed predicament as any I’ve seen in 2018.

Advertisement

Photo of Jonas Mekas by Joanna Kedzierska.

Jonas Mekas, the godfather of American avant-garde cinema whose diaristic chronicling of everyday life predated the modern internet by several decades, was set to be RIFF’s Guest of Honor until ill health caused him to reluctantly cancel. The 95-year-old auteur was still eager to conduct his scheduled masterclass vila Skype, and his exuberance was euphoric to behold. At one point striking a kung fu pose, Mekas displayed the energy of a man one-fifth his age, consistently punctuating the word “cinema” with an exclamation point. He rejects work that lingers on misery, opting to continue crafting “a celebration of life on this planet.” 

Born in Lithuania a day before Christmas, Mekas vividly recalled in a 2015 interview how his brother gave him a still camera on his birthday, which just so happened to be the same week that Russian tanks rolled into his country. His first-ever pictures were taken of the tanks, causing a disgruntled lieutenant to rip the camera from his hands and destroy the footage. After being imprisoned for eight months with his brother in a labor camp, they eventually settled in New York, where the filmmaker still lives today. With online media liberating his intuitive creativity just as it did for David Lynch, Mekas launched his own site in 2006, where his experimental uploads continue to push the form in provocative ways. I particularly love his manifesto on the eternal youth of cinema, produced in honor of its centennial, where he insists that the art form can never age because “it is always beginning.” He considers his camera an extension of his hand, and will continue to use the same one until it needs to be replaced (he currently operates a GoPro). 

Like a Flower in a Field, Mekas’ first solo exhibition in Iceland, debuted two days prior to the masterclass at Reykjavík’s Ásmundarsalur art gallery. Skillfully curated by Francesco Urbano Ragazzi, the exhibition featured three monitors compiling excerpts of the filmmaker’s online diaries. Likening the sprouting of flora in New York with the spontaneity of his artistry, Ragazzi selected 45 images of flowers captured in Mekas’ work to align the gallery windows, bathing the white-walled room in colorful light. A collection of handwritten statements from the director also covered the walls, my favorite being, “We do not need perfection! We need nervous breakdowns!”

Advertisement

Perfection certainly wouldn’t be the word to describe the masterclass itself, which was marred by poor reception that rendered Mekas’ answers nearly unintelligible. Every time his voice cut out, I silently recited the Icelandic mantra taught to me by the festival’s indispensable guest coordinator, Martiina Putnik: “þetta reddast,” meaning, “Oh well, it will work itself out somehow!” And work itself out it did, thanks in large part to Mekas’ indomitable spirit. So expressive were his gesticulations and jovial grins that they told us everything we needed to know, even when his words were obscured. He loved interacting with the audience, waving to each of us on the monitor as the camera scanned the crowd. I asked him about his belief in the importance of changing one’s mind—which he memorably voiced in defense of Paris Hilton—and how the chronically divided American populace could benefit from this perspective. This question elicited one of Mekas’ most animated responses, arguing that we are doomed to rot if we remain stuck in one way of thinking. He concluded the Q&A by taking a recording the audience with his GoPro (pictured above), making us the latest addition to his intimate oeuvre. 

[embedded content]

Among the best movies I saw at RIFF was “Phoenix,” the first directorial feature effort of Norwegian actress-turned-filmmaker, Camilla Strøm Henriksen. She made her film debut in Martin Asphaug’s acclaimed 1989 drama, “A Handful of Time,” for which she earned the Best Actress prize at Norway’s Amanda Awards. During our chat at RIFF, Henriksen credited the picture with bringing a new energy to her nation’s cinema, increasing the number of high-quality films that were made there. Her interest in directing spawned from her frustration with the acting business and the difficulty in acquiring good roles, ultimately finding that she preferred telling stories rather than acting in them. Henriksen’s extensive experience in directing television, including over 100 episodes of Scandinavia’s longest-running soap, “Hotel Cæsar,” was an ideal training ground for the tight turnaround of independent filmmaking, since it required her to shoot a great deal in a small span of time, moving fast while being clear with her intentions. 

The heroine of “Phoenix” is Jill (Ylva Bjørkaas Thedin), a girl on the cusp of celebrating her 14th birthday, whose unstable mother (Maria Bonnevie) and estranged father (Sverrir Gudnason) have caused her to become the sole parental figure in her family. Jill’s younger brother, Bo (Casper Falck-Løvås), may be pint-sized, but he’s also wise behind his years, able to see directly through the lies he’s fed. Henriksen first began developing “Phoenix” 12 years ago, around the same time I began my career as a published film critic. Both of us have vivid memories of seeing Guillermo del Toro’s 2006 masterpiece, “Pan’s Labyrinth” on the big screen for the first time, an experience that Henriksen found immensely influential as she crafted her own psychological portrait of a young girl. 

Advertisement

“I saw it eight times and loved it, even though fantasy is not really my kind of thing at all,” Henriksen told me. “I was inspired by how seamlessly the director blended fantasy with melodrama full of pathos. My grandparents had worked in puppet theatre, and I grew up with the Norwegian fairy tales that they performed. The monsters in these stories externalized the fear of things in life that are too terrifying for children to fully comprehend. I thought that element would fit naturally into this family drama, where we are authentic in the psychology without allowing it to become the sort of social realist picture that bores me to death. Having the story be viewed from Jill’s heightened and subjective point-of-view is what draws in the audience. She has a very strong ambivalence toward her mother. In a way, she hates her and deep down, wants her dead, but that’s something she could never admit to herself. That little monster in the film externalizes her resentment and fear of her mother—all these feelings that are still undigested.”  

Henriksen makes a point of not specifying the insidious disorder afflicting Jill’s mother, and says that no particular research was needed since the story was based on events from her own childhood. Her years of therapy have been immensely helpful, serving as a form of research by teaching her so much about herself. In terms of understanding the mind of an actor, Henriksen draws from her own personal experiences as well. She is well aware of how actors must bare their souls onscreen, and won’t be able to do so unless they feel they are in safe hands. Thedin’s remarkably assured and unmannered debut performance is a testament not only to her talent but the mastery of Henriksen’s direction. 

“From the moment we first met, Ylva had this wonderful open curiosity about her,” said Henriksen. “Not only did she have an intuitive understanding of drama, she also had a great sense of empathy that really touched me. That wasn’t something that I was specifically looking for, but I realized when I met Ylva that this quality is important for the role of Jill. She taught me a lot, actually, because I initially had been looking to cast children whom you could sense were carrying a big burden. Both Ylva and Casper are very resourceful and you feel that they will survive even as their parents go under. The film is an ode to the strength and courage of children. I wanted to show that in a truthful way without being simplistic. There is no clear solution for their plight, but they have each other.”

Advertisement

Swedish production designer Eva Norén, whose credits include Tomas Alfredson’s 2008 landmark, “Let the Right One In,” collaborated with Henriksen to find subtle ways in expressing the characters’ inner journey through the mise-en-scène. Nearly the entire first half is set within the family’s claustrophobic loft, aside from one entrancing sequence set in Jill’s class, where she develops a crush on the boy seated next to her. The educational rainforest footage projected onto the screen before them makes it appear as if they being doused with water, a deft metaphor for the bracing sensations being felt by the girl.

“It’s the one moment where Jill finds a window to the world opening up,” noted Henriksen. “So much of her focus is inwards, since her life is centered around taking care of her family, while trying to get her mother on her feet. She has very little space to actually dream or invest in her own life—in a life that is outside the world of the family. With her mother planning for a job interview and her father due to arrive home in time for her birthday, Jill is now clinging to enough hope that enables her to have a moment of freedom. That scene in class is where she finally opens herself up to something else—her own sexuality—before her hopes are crushed. The subtlety with which this is conveyed came about through the writing process. Though the shooting script was quite close to the first draft, it came together only after a great deal of decluttering. I knew in my heart what I wanted the ending to be, but I didn’t trust it until that last draft.”

“Phoenix” will be released this Friday, October 12th, in Norway, and it is my deep hope that the film will receive the U.S. distribution it deserves. In my review published during the festival, I likened the film to Charles Laughton’s 1955 knockout, “The Night of the Hunter,” an enduring classic that I was delighted to hear Henriksen cite among her chief references. The haunting rendition of “Fly Me To The Moon” sung by a young girl over the end credits reminded me the famous sequence in Laughton’s film, where little orphaned Pearl (Sally Jane Bruce, dubbed by Betty Benson) comforts her brother by singing “Once Upon a Time There Was A Pretty Fly” as they sail along a river at night. Whereas Robert Mitchum’s sociopath-in-preacher’s clothing was the evil force tearing apart the children’s family, in the case of “Phoenix,” it is the even scarier scourge of mental illness.

Advertisement

“My music supervisor, Goran Obad, and I thought it would be lovely to have a young girl singing at the end,” recalled Henriksen. “We wanted somebody who sung well, but not too well—who didn’t hit all the notes. So he found a 14-year-old girl who isn’t an established star, but is obviously a good singer, as you hear during the credits. What I hope the song conveys is that the children were able to take something positive from their parents. Jill and Casper share a resourcefulness and an ability to express love that is, in some way, indicative of how they were brought up. Even though it’s going to be hard for them moving forward, they will be able to find joy in life.”

If I were asked to compare RIFF to any previous festival I’ve attended, the closest equivalent would be Ebertfest, the jubilant movie marathon annually held at Roger Ebert’s alma mater in Champaign, Illinois. Both events prioritize the moviegoing experience above all else, and celebrities are invited not to promote a project but to have their work honored. The stars aren’t on hand for interview opportunities, but that makes one’s interactions with them all the more meaningful. Mads Mikkelsen, recipient of this year’s Creative Excellence Award, chatted with me about how his brilliant 2012 collaboration with director Thomas Vinterberg, “The Hunt,” has become all the more radical in our current sociopolitical climate, challenging us to break the stigmas surrounding what can and cannot be discussed in regards to allegations of abuse. I treasured the opportunity to tell honorary guest and jury member Shailene Woodley that her performance in James Ponsoldt’s 2013 gem, “The Spectacular Now,” is one of the best I’ve ever seen. As the camera holds on her character during the film’s breathtaking final moment, every conflicted feeling she harbors for her ex ripples across her face, suggesting the many directions she could go, none of which are guaranteed. 

After Helga Stephenson, former head of the Toronto International Film Festival and mentor to RIFF festival director Hrönn Marínósdóttir, was honored at a festive ceremony, she spoke with me about her fond memories of Ebert, whom she knew since the late ’70s. The tribute to Stephenson was held at Bessastaðir, the residence of Icelandic president Guðni Thorlacius Jóhannesson. When I got the chance to meet the president, I told him how refreshing it was to see a literate head of state who was knowledgable about history, supports universal health care and speaks in complete sentences. He savored every last one of my well-deserved compliments, asking me to “please continue,” before getting swept back up into the crowd. Photographer Donald Gíslason, a longtime friend of Guy Maddin’s, had endless great stories to share about Icelandic culture and the vibrant history of the festival, which has always taken full advantage of its natural surroundings (back in 2015, a screening took place in a “secret cave”). I also must give special thanks to photographer Joanna Kedzierska for her excellent film recommendations, her impromptu tour of Reykjavík’s nightlife and most of all, her friendship.

Advertisement

During my daily strolls to screenings at the Bíó Paradís, I passed a costumed singer (pictured above) who serenaded passersby with beautiful tunes, one of which moved me so deeply that it became the official anthem of my entire trip. “Goodnight, Irene,” the American folk standard first recorded by Huddie ‘Lead Belly’ Ledbetter, nailed the bittersweetness I felt as one of the greatest adventures of my life came to a close. As the plane lifted off the runway at Keflavík Airport, taking me back to a country of toxic 24-hour news cycles and misogynistic Supreme Court justices, my paraphrased version of Ledbetter’s song ran through my mind…

Goodbye, Iceland

Goodbye, Iceland

I’ll see you in my dreams

Next Article: NYFF 2018: Ray & Liz, Asako I & II, Hotel by the River Previous Article: NYFF 2018: Divide and Conquer, What You Gonna Do When the World’s on Fire?, Film Noir Revivals

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

comments powered by

Source: https://bloghyped.com/riff-2018-woman-at-war-jonas-mekas-exhibition-and-camilla-strom-henriksen-on-phoenix/

[mrmichaelchadler]

RIFF 2018: Woman at War, Jonas Mekas Exhibition and Camilla Strøm Henriksen on Phoenix

“You know who would’ve loved this movie? Roger Ebert!” declared Anne Hubbell, founder of Tangerine Entertainment, during our chat at the Reykjavík International Film Festival. She was discussing Yann Gonzalez’s cheerfully blood-spattered melodrama “Knife + Heart,” and I couldn’t help agreeing with her, considering Ebert’s love of Brian De Palma and bold genre mash-ups including his own, “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.” A day after I posted my enthusiastic review of the picture, Hubbell and her fellow jury members gave “Knife + Heart” RIFF’s top prize—the Golden Puffin, awarded to first or second-time directors—praising Gonzalez’s ability to defy labels “using confidence, humor and a thrilling juxtaposition of love and loss.” Earning a Special Mention was “Styx,” Wolfgang Fischer’s riveting thriller about the refugee crisis that is still in the running for the LUX Prize, presented in November by the European Parliament. Nominated alongside it is Benedikt Erlingsson’s “Woman at War,” a superlative example of Icelandic cinema, showcasing not only the landscape’s distinctive beauty but also its inherent drama.

Through various tourist sites are accessible by road along the country’s perimeter, the vast majority of Iceland consists of uninhabited terrain, with sand and volcanic glass covering a desert terrain well over 12,000 miles in size. This is the sort of desolate locale ripe for a suspenseful set-piece, and as Halla—the notorious activist in Erlingsson’s film—scampered about its rugged surface, outwitting every helicopter and drone aiming to take her down, I was reminded of Cary Grant’s infamous battle with the deadly crop-duster in Hitchcock’s “North by Northwest.” As played by Halldóra Geirharðsdóttir with winning perseverance and warm eyes that can fire daggers without warning, Halla is a woman after Mildred Hayes’ heart, so determined to raise awareness about industrial corruption that she has no qualms with torpedoing a few power lines in the process. 

When she marches toward the camera to a quirky militaristic anthem evocative of “Moonrise Kingdom” during the opening credits, the camera pans over to reveal a three-piece band performing the soundtrack live. This conceit soon proves to be much more than a one-time sight gag a la Count Basie’s cameo in “Blazing Saddles,” as the musicians repeatedly materialize along with a Greek chorus of sorts, embodying the conscience and tireless spirit of Geirharðsdóttir’s protagonist in melodic form. The score by Davíð Þór Jónsson, who also composed the music for Erlingsson’s previous festival favorite, “Of Horses and Men,” ranks among the year’s best, emerging as a literal character in the movie without diffusing any tension or emotional nuance. Geirharðsdóttir is equally delightful as Halla’s twin sister, Ása, a bohemian yoga instructor whose dislike of extremism may make her an unlikely ally in her sibling’s uncompromising crusade. 

Halla’s rage at profit-driven forces threatening to forfeit our survival by ruining the environment beyond repair couldn’t be timelier, especially when the government attempts to antagonize her by claiming that she has declared war on working people (there are echoes here of Trump’s motives behind championing the coal industry). How Erlingsson and co-writer Ólafur Egilsson go about tackling this topic is by turns poignant and comedic, leading to some well-earned moments of catharsis that had me cheering, such as when Halla—clad in a Nelson Mandela mask—yanks a drone out of the sky before smashing it to bits. Her ambivalence toward bringing new life into the world has caused her to put plans for adoption on hold, but when a four-year-old girl is left orphaned by the war in Ukraine, her attitude toward the future begins to shift. The film’s lyrical final shot comes as close to encapsulating mankind’s current self-imposed predicament as any I’ve seen in 2018.

Photo of Jonas Mekas by Joanna Kedzierska.

Jonas Mekas, the godfather of American avant-garde cinema whose diaristic chronicling of everyday life predated the modern internet by several decades, was set to be RIFF’s Guest of Honor until ill health caused him to reluctantly cancel. The 95-year-old auteur was still eager to conduct his scheduled masterclass vila Skype, and his exuberance was euphoric to behold. At one point striking a kung fu pose, Mekas displayed the energy of a man one-fifth his age, consistently punctuating the word “cinema” with an exclamation point. He rejects work that lingers on misery, opting to continue crafting “a celebration of life on this planet.” 

Born in Lithuania a day before Christmas, Mekas vividly recalled in a 2015 interview how his brother gave him a still camera on his birthday, which just so happened to be the same week that Russian tanks rolled into his country. His first-ever pictures were taken of the tanks, causing a disgruntled lieutenant to rip the camera from his hands and destroy the footage. After being imprisoned for eight months with his brother in a labor camp, they eventually settled in New York, where the filmmaker still lives today. With online media liberating his intuitive creativity just as it did for David Lynch, Mekas launched his own site in 2006, where his experimental uploads continue to push the form in provocative ways. I particularly love his manifesto on the eternal youth of cinema, produced in honor of its centennial, where he insists that the art form can never age because “it is always beginning.” He considers his camera an extension of his hand, and will continue to use the same one until it needs to be replaced (he currently operates a GoPro). 

Like a Flower in a Field, Mekas’ first solo exhibition in Iceland, debuted two days prior to the masterclass at Reykjavík’s Ásmundarsalur art gallery. Skillfully curated by Francesco Urbano Ragazzi, the exhibition featured three monitors compiling excerpts of the filmmaker’s online diaries. Likening the sprouting of flora in New York with the spontaneity of his artistry, Ragazzi selected 45 images of flowers captured in Mekas’ work to align the gallery windows, bathing the white-walled room in colorful light. A collection of handwritten statements from the director also covered the walls, my favorite being, “We do not need perfection! We need nervous breakdowns!”

Perfection certainly wouldn’t be the word to describe the masterclass itself, which was marred by poor reception that rendered Mekas’ answers nearly unintelligible. Every time his voice cut out, I silently recited the Icelandic mantra taught to me by the festival’s indispensable guest coordinator, Martiina Putnik: “þetta reddast,” meaning, “Oh well, it will work itself out somehow!” And work itself out it did, thanks in large part to Mekas’ indomitable spirit. So expressive were his gesticulations and jovial grins that they told us everything we needed to know, even when his words were obscured. He loved interacting with the audience, waving to each of us on the monitor as the camera scanned the crowd. I asked him about his belief in the importance of changing one’s mind—which he memorably voiced in defense of Paris Hilton—and how the chronically divided American populace could benefit from this perspective. This question elicited one of Mekas’ most animated responses, arguing that we are doomed to rot if we remain stuck in one way of thinking. He concluded the Q&A by taking a recording the audience with his GoPro (pictured above), making us the latest addition to his intimate oeuvre. 

Among the best movies I saw at RIFF was “Phoenix,” the first directorial feature effort of Norwegian actress-turned-filmmaker, Camilla Strøm Henriksen. She made her film debut in Martin Asphaug’s acclaimed 1989 drama, “A Handful of Time,” for which she earned the Best Actress prize at Norway’s Amanda Awards. During our chat at RIFF, Henriksen credited the picture with bringing a new energy to her nation’s cinema, increasing the number of high-quality films that were made there. Her interest in directing spawned from her frustration with the acting business and the difficulty in acquiring good roles, ultimately finding that she preferred telling stories rather than acting in them. Henriksen’s extensive experience in directing television, including over 100 episodes of Scandinavia’s longest-running soap, “Hotel Cæsar,” was an ideal training ground for the tight turnaround of independent filmmaking, since it required her to shoot a great deal in a small span of time, moving fast while being clear with her intentions. 

The heroine of “Phoenix” is Jill (Ylva Bjørkaas Thedin), a girl on the cusp of celebrating her 14th birthday, whose unstable mother (Maria Bonnevie) and estranged father (Sverrir Gudnason) have caused her to become the sole parental figure in her family. Jill’s younger brother, Bo (Casper Falck-Løvås), may be pint-sized, but he’s also wise behind his years, able to see directly through the lies he’s fed. Henriksen first began developing “Phoenix” 12 years ago, around the same time I began my career as a published film critic. Both of us have vivid memories of seeing Guillermo del Toro’s 2006 masterpiece, “Pan’s Labyrinth” on the big screen for the first time, an experience that Henriksen found immensely influential as she crafted her own psychological portrait of a young girl. 

“I saw it eight times and loved it, even though fantasy is not really my kind of thing at all,” Henriksen told me. “I was inspired by how seamlessly the director blended fantasy with melodrama full of pathos. My grandparents had worked in puppet theatre, and I grew up with the Norwegian fairy tales that they performed. The monsters in these stories externalized the fear of things in life that are too terrifying for children to fully comprehend. I thought that element would fit naturally into this family drama, where we are authentic in the psychology without allowing it to become the sort of social realist picture that bores me to death. Having the story be viewed from Jill’s heightened and subjective point-of-view is what draws in the audience. She has a very strong ambivalence toward her mother. In a way, she hates her and deep down, wants her dead, but that’s something she could never admit to herself. That little monster in the film externalizes her resentment and fear of her mother—all these feelings that are still undigested.”  

Henriksen makes a point of not specifying the insidious disorder afflicting Jill’s mother, and says that no particular research was needed since the story was based on events from her own childhood. Her years of therapy have been immensely helpful, serving as a form of research by teaching her so much about herself. In terms of understanding the mind of an actor, Henriksen draws from her own personal experiences as well. She is well aware of how actors must bare their souls onscreen, and won’t be able to do so unless they feel they are in safe hands. Thedin’s remarkably assured and unmannered debut performance is a testament not only to her talent but the mastery of Henriksen’s direction. 

“From the moment we first met, Ylva had this wonderful open curiosity about her,” said Henriksen. “Not only did she have an intuitive understanding of drama, she also had a great sense of empathy that really touched me. That wasn’t something that I was specifically looking for, but I realized when I met Ylva that this quality is important for the role of Jill. She taught me a lot, actually, because I initially had been looking to cast children whom you could sense were carrying a big burden. Both Ylva and Casper are very resourceful and you feel that they will survive even as their parents go under. The film is an ode to the strength and courage of children. I wanted to show that in a truthful way without being simplistic. There is no clear solution for their plight, but they have each other.”

Swedish production designer Eva Norén, whose credits include Tomas Alfredson’s 2008 landmark, “Let the Right One In,” collaborated with Henriksen to find subtle ways in expressing the characters’ inner journey through the mise-en-scène. Nearly the entire first half is set within the family’s claustrophobic loft, aside from one entrancing sequence set in Jill’s class, where she develops a crush on the boy seated next to her. The educational rainforest footage projected onto the screen before them makes it appear as if they being doused with water, a deft metaphor for the bracing sensations being felt by the girl.

“It’s the one moment where Jill finds a window to the world opening up,” noted Henriksen. “So much of her focus is inwards, since her life is centered around taking care of her family, while trying to get her mother on her feet. She has very little space to actually dream or invest in her own life—in a life that is outside the world of the family. With her mother planning for a job interview and her father due to arrive home in time for her birthday, Jill is now clinging to enough hope that enables her to have a moment of freedom. That scene in class is where she finally opens herself up to something else—her own sexuality—before her hopes are crushed. The subtlety with which this is conveyed came about through the writing process. Though the shooting script was quite close to the first draft, it came together only after a great deal of decluttering. I knew in my heart what I wanted the ending to be, but I didn’t trust it until that last draft.”

“Phoenix” will be released this Friday, October 12th, in Norway, and it is my deep hope that the film will receive the U.S. distribution it deserves. In my review published during the festival, I likened the film to Charles Laughton’s 1955 knockout, “The Night of the Hunter,” an enduring classic that I was delighted to hear Henriksen cite among her chief references. The haunting rendition of “Fly Me To The Moon” sung by a young girl over the end credits reminded me the famous sequence in Laughton’s film, where little orphaned Pearl (Sally Jane Bruce, dubbed by Betty Benson) comforts her brother by singing “Once Upon a Time There Was A Pretty Fly” as they sail along a river at night. Whereas Robert Mitchum’s sociopath-in-preacher’s clothing was the evil force tearing apart the children’s family, in the case of “Phoenix,” it is the even scarier scourge of mental illness.

“My music supervisor, Goran Obad, and I thought it would be lovely to have a young girl singing at the end,” recalled Henriksen. “We wanted somebody who sung well, but not too well—who didn’t hit all the notes. So he found a 14-year-old girl who isn’t an established star, but is obviously a good singer, as you hear during the credits. What I hope the song conveys is that the children were able to take something positive from their parents. Jill and Casper share a resourcefulness and an ability to express love that is, in some way, indicative of how they were brought up. Even though it’s going to be hard for them moving forward, they will be able to find joy in life.”

If I were asked to compare RIFF to any previous festival I’ve attended, the closest equivalent would be Ebertfest, the jubilant movie marathon annually held at Roger Ebert’s alma mater in Champaign, Illinois. Both events prioritize the moviegoing experience above all else, and celebrities are invited not to promote a project but to have their work honored. The stars aren’t on hand for interview opportunities, but that makes one’s interactions with them all the more meaningful. Mads Mikkelsen, recipient of this year’s Creative Excellence Award, chatted with me about how his brilliant 2012 collaboration with director Thomas Vinterberg, “The Hunt,” has become all the more radical in our current sociopolitical climate, challenging us to break the stigmas surrounding what can and cannot be discussed in regards to allegations of abuse. I treasured the opportunity to tell honorary guest and jury member Shailene Woodley that her performance in James Ponsoldt’s 2013 gem, “The Spectacular Now,” is one of the best I’ve ever seen. As the camera holds on her character during the film’s breathtaking final moment, every conflicted feeling she harbors for her ex ripples across her face, suggesting the many directions she could go, none of which are guaranteed. 

After Helga Stephenson, former head of the Toronto International Film Festival and mentor to RIFF festival director Hrönn Marínósdóttir, was honored at a festive ceremony, she spoke with me about her fond memories of Ebert, whom she knew since the late ’70s. The tribute to Stephenson was held at Bessastaðir, the residence of Icelandic president Guðni Thorlacius Jóhannesson. When I got the chance to meet the president, I told him how refreshing it was to see a literate head of state who was knowledgable about history, supports universal health care and speaks in complete sentences. He savored every last one of my well-deserved compliments, asking me to “please continue,” before getting swept back up into the crowd. Photographer Donald Gíslason, a longtime friend of Guy Maddin’s, had endless great stories to share about Icelandic culture and the vibrant history of the festival, which has always taken full advantage of its natural surroundings (back in 2015, a screening took place in a “secret cave”). I also must give special thanks to photographer Joanna Kedzierska for her excellent film recommendations, her impromptu tour of Reykjavík’s nightlife and most of all, her friendship.

During my daily strolls to screenings at the Bíó Paradís, I passed a costumed singer (pictured above) who serenaded passersby with beautiful tunes, one of which moved me so deeply that it became the official anthem of my entire trip. “Goodnight, Irene,” the American folk standard first recorded by Huddie ‘Lead Belly’ Ledbetter, nailed the bittersweetness I felt as one of the greatest adventures of my life came to a close. As the plane lifted off the runway at Keflavík Airport, taking me back to a country of toxic 24-hour news cycles and misogynistic Supreme Court justices, my paraphrased version of Ledbetter’s song ran through my mind…

Goodbye, Iceland

Goodbye, Iceland

I’ll see you in my dreams

from All Content https://ift.tt/2QvJk26

[trendingnewsb]

How Mad Men Star Kit Williamson Made His Own Gay Soap Opera

The problem, says Kit Williamson, is that EastSidersthe Emmy-nominated LGBT soap opera he created in 2012almost shares a name with EastEnders, the well-known BBC soap opera currently in its 32nd year.

And so when Williamson recommends people check out his drama about handsome LGBT Los Angelenos living, loving, screwing up, and doing what people on soap operas are wont to do, they end up going down totally the wrong rabbit hole on YouTube, and finding instead a group of East Londoners doing their own variation of the same, if at a much louder volume.

My recommendation: Watch both.

Season 3 of EastSiders, released on Nov. 28 digitally and on DVD, takes the shape of a cross-America road trip, complete with stunning skies and endless horizons, beginning with Douglas/Gomorrah Rey (played by Willam Belli) having a blow-up row in full drag and 116-degree heat beside the side of a highway, as his boyfriend Quincy (Stephen Guarino) tries in vain to pacify the situation.

Bellis heels melted in the heat, and Williamson, 32, directed the action clad in cooling wet towels. The glamor of independent web TV, he says, laughing.

Williamsons character, Cal, and partner Thom (Van Hansis) are heading back west after their sojourn in New York City, and have an encounter with a drifter played by model and porn star (and Donald Trump supporter) Colby Keller. Also returning for the third season are John Halbach, Williamsons real-life husband, and Constance Wu, Williamsons longtime buddy, as straight couple Ian and Kathy. (To confuse you even more, a leading mother-son duo in EastEnders is called the same.)

I wanted to create characters that I didnt really see on television, Williamson, who played Ed Gifford on Mad Men, told The Daily Beast. I think you see a lot of cautionary tales in LGBT representation and then hyper- morally-upright representations. Youre either in a couple, living in the suburbs with 2.5 kids, or youre a drug addict in the 1980s. Its rare that LGBT characters are allowed to operate in between, like all human beings operate.

Williamson is heartened by the growing diversity of representation in the TV shows of Shonda Rhimes and on cable, and hopes his EastSiders characters have flaws, make messes, and pick up the pieces, just like straight characters on TV.

EastSiders has been mostly financed through Kickstarter funding, raising $250,000 across three seasons. The third season is also partially funded by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and Impulse Group Global, and the show incorporates both organizations safer sex messaging.

Its incredibly moving, says Williamson of the publics generous financial support for the show, which makes him even more determined that the show does its fans justice. EastSiders aims to be as culturally mixed as a small cast and limited number of episodes can allow. Inclusive storytelling should be everybodys goal, says Williamson.

If Williamson has a dream, it is that one day television will be able to sustain having two LGBT-themed shows on at the same time; or even that there will be LGBT lead characters on TV, whose sexuality or gender identity is part of their identities, rather than defining them.

Until that rainbow shines, we have a smattering of characters and shows like Queer as Folk, The L Word, and Looking, which flicker into life, cause their controversies and debates, then go. The capriciousness of LGBT representation on our screens is down to the capriciousness of mostly straight-run broadcasters.

Hansis himself found fame as Luke Snyder on CBS daytime soap As The World Turns, as a landmark gay character whom fans clamored to be allowed to kiss his boyfriend, Noah (Jake Silbermann). (Oh, have you seen their horsing-around towel wrestle? You must see the towel wrestle.)

EastSiders refers geographically to the parts of East Los AngelesSilver Lake, Los Feliz Echo Park, DTLAwhere the characters live, a boho-y, very different sort of vibe to the muscle boys of West Hollywood, although (as their social media accounts reveal) the extremely handsome and charming Williamson and Halbach look just as hot as any WeHo guy.

Some scenes in the show are filmed at the mens home, and looks attractively ruffled and laid-back, filled with vintage furniture, mismatched cushions and twinkly lights.

Williamson had problems getting straight actors to play gay when EastSiders first began, even though there were no sex scenes in the first two seasons. Any show with gay content is immediately presumed to be exploitative, Williamson notes.

The road trip of Season 3 was filmed on the road itself, with cast and crew starting out in Woodstock, upstate New York, and ending up in Los Angeles, trundling across the vast expanse of America in a vintage camper trailer and another vehicle.

It took two weeks, with an extended stay in Idaho to scout locations and shoot scenes. It was exciting, invigorating and harrowing, says Williamson, laughing. Its no small undertaking taking two carloads of people across the country, and making sure theyre in bed at a reasonable hour.

The team ran afoul of a runaway tire that put a dent in the camper early on. They were snowed out of Yellowstone National Park. They shot on the fly, and in some places permits allowing them to film were withdrawn when it was revealed that it was a gay-themed TV show.

We started telling places where we wanted to film that it was called Go West, and just said it was about two friends driving across the country together, Williamson says.

The Black Hills of South Dakota were especially breathtaking, he says. You owe yourself ten minutes off the main drag to see the Badlands (National Park in South Dakota). I could have explored it all day if I had the chance. I am a huge lover of mountains. Even though it was terrifying driving that fucking camper trailer up and down mountains it was still breathtaking, even if I nearly killed everybody two or three times.

Williamson concedes that he is biased about California where he lives, but recommends the eastern part near Nevada for that big sky feeling, and that moment you get to the coast after weeks on the road to arrive at the Pacific Ocean and put your feet in the sand. It felt like a cool homecoming for the characters and the crew.

It was a really challenging place to grow up gay, and I also grew up very religious which didnt help matters.

Williamson himself grew up in Mississippi, where the countrys most anti-LGBT law, HB 1523, has just taken root. He is surprised as to how little attention the law has garnered nationally, compared to the outcry over similar laws in North Carolina.

I think a lot of people write off Mississippi as a lost cause, says Williamson, who emceed a Pride celebration there two years ago. I understand why, but its still sad to me as a person who grew up there. I really want people to understand there are great people living in Mississippi fighting for their own rights and fighting for their neighbors.

There was a lot of homophobia when he was growing up, says Williamson. It was a really challenging place to grow up gay, and I also grew up very religious which didnt help matters. It was definitely a challenge for my family to understand me.

His whole family are employed in the area of law, and he surprised all of them by wanting to act. They were supportive of me, even if part of them thought Hell get over this eventually and enter the family business. I tell them, One day Ill play a lawyer on TV. Thats all I can guarantee.

As a boy, Williamson was a big nerd. I read a lot of fantasy novels. I had a mullet. I was very socially awkward, and it was difficult at school to be friends with other people. It was really hard for me. I knew I was different, I didnt know why. I was savagely bullied as a kid, people were terrible to me.

Williamsons older sister modeled herself on the cult animated character, Daria. I thought the way you handled bullies was being sarcastic and funny, he says. It didnt turn out well.

He and Halbach once compared notes on childhood bullying. I was Gay Kid and he was Gay Boy. We both had really unoriginal bullies. Williamson laughs softly. Little did they know that Gay Kid and Gay Boy were going to get together.

I didnt really think growing up that it would be possible wed have gay marriage nationally, he adds. To be able to take advantage of it as a citizenhe and Halbach married last yearhas been so incredibly moving to me.

Williamson and Halbach met in March 2007. Williamson was then a bartender at NYC theater-land hangout Angus McIndoe, and the men were introduced by a mutual friend who told each of them separately, Hes single and not crazy. It was a perfectly judged match. That night, the men stayed talking until the bar closed.

Williamson had underplayed the significance of marriage equality because the possibility seemed so far off, he adds. When the Supreme Court ruled, it hit us both. Wed been denying ourselves something that we really did find meaningful. Im so glad we did it.

Williamson has worked successfully as a filmmaker and actor for years. Making Mad Men was a masterclass, he says, watching both those in front and behind the cameras. The sexy pictures on his Instagram account are in service of promoting his work and LGBT rights, he insists, adding with another laugh, and in shamelessly promoting ourselves. Instagram is a tool for good and evil, and we try to use it for good, for the best of possibilities.

Williamson chuckles that the idea was to use social media to direct people to EastSiders and the mens other work, promoting fashion and fitness influencers and LGBT destinations, but now people recognize him and Halbach from social media itself.

How EastSiders fans respond to the inclusion of Colby Keller remains to be seen. His scenes were shot before he revealed his support of Donald Trump.

I was really surprised and caught off guard when I saw that, says Williamson, who, a Hillary Clinton supporter, had been shocked when Trump triumphed in last years presidential election. I was driving to Idaho when the gay blogs erupted in fury over his (Kellers) political leanings. We did make the choice not to replace him. I havent talked to him about what happened.

When it came to keeping Keller in the season, Williamson asked himself whether he would work with Susan Sarandon, another Clinton naysayer who backed Bernie Sanders.

I think were living in really, really divided times, and I dont want to do anything to add to that divide, says Williamson. I also dont think we should be casting people out of the village. Its complicated. A lot of my family members support Trump, not for ideologically pure reasons beyond really liking the guy and what he stands for.

Keeping Kellers role in EastSiders intact presented an interesting dilemma, and I dont have the answer to it, Willliamson admits.

I ask, had he known that Keller was a Trump supporter, would Williamson have still signed him up?

I dont know. When we were planning the season we were 99 percent sure Hillary Clinton was going to be president. Faced with the reality of working with an active Trump supporter right now in 2017 my answer would be no. Its just too much of open wound for me, and friends I know who are afraid of being deported. I do think its a very serious situation.

If Hollywood is to have any leg to stand on in shaping the culture we need to own up to the abuses of power that are very real.

Williamson recently posted on social media his experience of sexual harassment when he was starting out in the entertainment industry.

At 18, he was invited to a party at an agents house. He proceeded to tell me not to come out if I wanted to be an actor, to stay in the closet, and then tried to put his hand down my pants, Williamson recalls. It was this one, two punch of harassment and homophobia that was a bitter pill to swallow, and it soured me on Los Angeles for a couple of years.

He did not suffer any graver sexual assaults, as allegedly committed by the likes of Harvey Weinstein and Kevin fucking Spacey. I think its really important we have these conversations. If Hollywood is to have any leg to stand on in shaping the culture we need to own up to the abuses of power that are very real.

What his experience also shows, again, is Hollywoods powerful gays seeking to keep the closet intact, part of a historyfor Willliamsonof different groups acting as their own morality police and oppressors.

Its very sad and true. Theres still not been a gay movie star. Look at a lot of people who have succeeded on television. Most come out after their big break. Im not here to judge: Its brave to come out at the height of your success, but in 2017 I think we need to look at the paths other people have blazed for us and be brave enough to walk down them without fear.

Next for Williamson may come more EastSiders. He is also writing a series about queer thirtysomethings set in New Orleans.

Id love to get to a place where the leads of a show can be gay where that is normal and not extraordinary, says Williamson, and where the storylines can be both unique to us and more universal in the same breath; where we are allowed to be doctors, husbands, wives, crazy, not crazy, parents, single, slutty, and settled.

The whole incredible range of human experience should allowed to be represented in LGBT characters, where we are not defined solely by our sexuality.

The open road Williamson and his crew traveled for Season 3 of EastSiders perhaps says it all.

The third season of EastSiders will be released on DVD by Wolfe Video and digital platforms on Nov. 28. More details here.

Read more: http://ift.tt/2BcEdfF

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2A8iKqW via Viral News HQ

[trendingnewsb]

How Mad Men Star Kit Williamson Made His Own Gay Soap Opera

The problem, says Kit Williamson, is that EastSidersthe Emmy-nominated LGBT soap opera he created in 2012almost shares a name with EastEnders, the well-known BBC soap opera currently in its 32nd year.

And so when Williamson recommends people check out his drama about handsome LGBT Los Angelenos living, loving, screwing up, and doing what people on soap operas are wont to do, they end up going down totally the wrong rabbit hole on YouTube, and finding instead a group of East Londoners doing their own variation of the same, if at a much louder volume.

My recommendation: Watch both.

Season 3 of EastSiders, released on Nov. 28 digitally and on DVD, takes the shape of a cross-America road trip, complete with stunning skies and endless horizons, beginning with Douglas/Gomorrah Rey (played by Willam Belli) having a blow-up row in full drag and 116-degree heat beside the side of a highway, as his boyfriend Quincy (Stephen Guarino) tries in vain to pacify the situation.

Bellis heels melted in the heat, and Williamson, 32, directed the action clad in cooling wet towels. The glamor of independent web TV, he says, laughing.

Williamsons character, Cal, and partner Thom (Van Hansis) are heading back west after their sojourn in New York City, and have an encounter with a drifter played by model and porn star (and Donald Trump supporter) Colby Keller. Also returning for the third season are John Halbach, Williamsons real-life husband, and Constance Wu, Williamsons longtime buddy, as straight couple Ian and Kathy. (To confuse you even more, a leading mother-son duo in EastEnders is called the same.)

I wanted to create characters that I didnt really see on television, Williamson, who played Ed Gifford on Mad Men, told The Daily Beast. I think you see a lot of cautionary tales in LGBT representation and then hyper- morally-upright representations. Youre either in a couple, living in the suburbs with 2.5 kids, or youre a drug addict in the 1980s. Its rare that LGBT characters are allowed to operate in between, like all human beings operate.

Williamson is heartened by the growing diversity of representation in the TV shows of Shonda Rhimes and on cable, and hopes his EastSiders characters have flaws, make messes, and pick up the pieces, just like straight characters on TV.

EastSiders has been mostly financed through Kickstarter funding, raising $250,000 across three seasons. The third season is also partially funded by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and Impulse Group Global, and the show incorporates both organizations safer sex messaging.

Its incredibly moving, says Williamson of the publics generous financial support for the show, which makes him even more determined that the show does its fans justice. EastSiders aims to be as culturally mixed as a small cast and limited number of episodes can allow. Inclusive storytelling should be everybodys goal, says Williamson.

If Williamson has a dream, it is that one day television will be able to sustain having two LGBT-themed shows on at the same time; or even that there will be LGBT lead characters on TV, whose sexuality or gender identity is part of their identities, rather than defining them.

Until that rainbow shines, we have a smattering of characters and shows like Queer as Folk, The L Word, and Looking, which flicker into life, cause their controversies and debates, then go. The capriciousness of LGBT representation on our screens is down to the capriciousness of mostly straight-run broadcasters.

Hansis himself found fame as Luke Snyder on CBS daytime soap As The World Turns, as a landmark gay character whom fans clamored to be allowed to kiss his boyfriend, Noah (Jake Silbermann). (Oh, have you seen their horsing-around towel wrestle? You must see the towel wrestle.)

EastSiders refers geographically to the parts of East Los AngelesSilver Lake, Los Feliz Echo Park, DTLAwhere the characters live, a boho-y, very different sort of vibe to the muscle boys of West Hollywood, although (as their social media accounts reveal) the extremely handsome and charming Williamson and Halbach look just as hot as any WeHo guy.

Some scenes in the show are filmed at the mens home, and looks attractively ruffled and laid-back, filled with vintage furniture, mismatched cushions and twinkly lights.

Williamson had problems getting straight actors to play gay when EastSiders first began, even though there were no sex scenes in the first two seasons. Any show with gay content is immediately presumed to be exploitative, Williamson notes.

The road trip of Season 3 was filmed on the road itself, with cast and crew starting out in Woodstock, upstate New York, and ending up in Los Angeles, trundling across the vast expanse of America in a vintage camper trailer and another vehicle.

It took two weeks, with an extended stay in Idaho to scout locations and shoot scenes. It was exciting, invigorating and harrowing, says Williamson, laughing. Its no small undertaking taking two carloads of people across the country, and making sure theyre in bed at a reasonable hour.

The team ran afoul of a runaway tire that put a dent in the camper early on. They were snowed out of Yellowstone National Park. They shot on the fly, and in some places permits allowing them to film were withdrawn when it was revealed that it was a gay-themed TV show.

We started telling places where we wanted to film that it was called Go West, and just said it was about two friends driving across the country together, Williamson says.

The Black Hills of South Dakota were especially breathtaking, he says. You owe yourself ten minutes off the main drag to see the Badlands (National Park in South Dakota). I could have explored it all day if I had the chance. I am a huge lover of mountains. Even though it was terrifying driving that fucking camper trailer up and down mountains it was still breathtaking, even if I nearly killed everybody two or three times.

Williamson concedes that he is biased about California where he lives, but recommends the eastern part near Nevada for that big sky feeling, and that moment you get to the coast after weeks on the road to arrive at the Pacific Ocean and put your feet in the sand. It felt like a cool homecoming for the characters and the crew.

It was a really challenging place to grow up gay, and I also grew up very religious which didnt help matters.

Williamson himself grew up in Mississippi, where the countrys most anti-LGBT law, HB 1523, has just taken root. He is surprised as to how little attention the law has garnered nationally, compared to the outcry over similar laws in North Carolina.

I think a lot of people write off Mississippi as a lost cause, says Williamson, who emceed a Pride celebration there two years ago. I understand why, but its still sad to me as a person who grew up there. I really want people to understand there are great people living in Mississippi fighting for their own rights and fighting for their neighbors.

There was a lot of homophobia when he was growing up, says Williamson. It was a really challenging place to grow up gay, and I also grew up very religious which didnt help matters. It was definitely a challenge for my family to understand me.

His whole family are employed in the area of law, and he surprised all of them by wanting to act. They were supportive of me, even if part of them thought Hell get over this eventually and enter the family business. I tell them, One day Ill play a lawyer on TV. Thats all I can guarantee.

As a boy, Williamson was a big nerd. I read a lot of fantasy novels. I had a mullet. I was very socially awkward, and it was difficult at school to be friends with other people. It was really hard for me. I knew I was different, I didnt know why. I was savagely bullied as a kid, people were terrible to me.

Williamsons older sister modeled herself on the cult animated character, Daria. I thought the way you handled bullies was being sarcastic and funny, he says. It didnt turn out well.

He and Halbach once compared notes on childhood bullying. I was Gay Kid and he was Gay Boy. We both had really unoriginal bullies. Williamson laughs softly. Little did they know that Gay Kid and Gay Boy were going to get together.

I didnt really think growing up that it would be possible wed have gay marriage nationally, he adds. To be able to take advantage of it as a citizenhe and Halbach married last yearhas been so incredibly moving to me.

Williamson and Halbach met in March 2007. Williamson was then a bartender at NYC theater-land hangout Angus McIndoe, and the men were introduced by a mutual friend who told each of them separately, Hes single and not crazy. It was a perfectly judged match. That night, the men stayed talking until the bar closed.

Williamson had underplayed the significance of marriage equality because the possibility seemed so far off, he adds. When the Supreme Court ruled, it hit us both. Wed been denying ourselves something that we really did find meaningful. Im so glad we did it.

Williamson has worked successfully as a filmmaker and actor for years. Making Mad Men was a masterclass, he says, watching both those in front and behind the cameras. The sexy pictures on his Instagram account are in service of promoting his work and LGBT rights, he insists, adding with another laugh, and in shamelessly promoting ourselves. Instagram is a tool for good and evil, and we try to use it for good, for the best of possibilities.

Williamson chuckles that the idea was to use social media to direct people to EastSiders and the mens other work, promoting fashion and fitness influencers and LGBT destinations, but now people recognize him and Halbach from social media itself.

How EastSiders fans respond to the inclusion of Colby Keller remains to be seen. His scenes were shot before he revealed his support of Donald Trump.

I was really surprised and caught off guard when I saw that, says Williamson, who, a Hillary Clinton supporter, had been shocked when Trump triumphed in last years presidential election. I was driving to Idaho when the gay blogs erupted in fury over his (Kellers) political leanings. We did make the choice not to replace him. I havent talked to him about what happened.

When it came to keeping Keller in the season, Williamson asked himself whether he would work with Susan Sarandon, another Clinton naysayer who backed Bernie Sanders.

I think were living in really, really divided times, and I dont want to do anything to add to that divide, says Williamson. I also dont think we should be casting people out of the village. Its complicated. A lot of my family members support Trump, not for ideologically pure reasons beyond really liking the guy and what he stands for.

Keeping Kellers role in EastSiders intact presented an interesting dilemma, and I dont have the answer to it, Willliamson admits.

I ask, had he known that Keller was a Trump supporter, would Williamson have still signed him up?

I dont know. When we were planning the season we were 99 percent sure Hillary Clinton was going to be president. Faced with the reality of working with an active Trump supporter right now in 2017 my answer would be no. Its just too much of open wound for me, and friends I know who are afraid of being deported. I do think its a very serious situation.

If Hollywood is to have any leg to stand on in shaping the culture we need to own up to the abuses of power that are very real.

Williamson recently posted on social media his experience of sexual harassment when he was starting out in the entertainment industry.

At 18, he was invited to a party at an agents house. He proceeded to tell me not to come out if I wanted to be an actor, to stay in the closet, and then tried to put his hand down my pants, Williamson recalls. It was this one, two punch of harassment and homophobia that was a bitter pill to swallow, and it soured me on Los Angeles for a couple of years.

He did not suffer any graver sexual assaults, as allegedly committed by the likes of Harvey Weinstein and Kevin fucking Spacey. I think its really important we have these conversations. If Hollywood is to have any leg to stand on in shaping the culture we need to own up to the abuses of power that are very real.

What his experience also shows, again, is Hollywoods powerful gays seeking to keep the closet intact, part of a historyfor Willliamsonof different groups acting as their own morality police and oppressors.

Its very sad and true. Theres still not been a gay movie star. Look at a lot of people who have succeeded on television. Most come out after their big break. Im not here to judge: Its brave to come out at the height of your success, but in 2017 I think we need to look at the paths other people have blazed for us and be brave enough to walk down them without fear.

Next for Williamson may come more EastSiders. He is also writing a series about queer thirtysomethings set in New Orleans.

Id love to get to a place where the leads of a show can be gay where that is normal and not extraordinary, says Williamson, and where the storylines can be both unique to us and more universal in the same breath; where we are allowed to be doctors, husbands, wives, crazy, not crazy, parents, single, slutty, and settled.

The whole incredible range of human experience should allowed to be represented in LGBT characters, where we are not defined solely by our sexuality.

The open road Williamson and his crew traveled for Season 3 of EastSiders perhaps says it all.

The third season of EastSiders will be released on DVD by Wolfe Video and digital platforms on Nov. 28. More details here.

Read more: http://ift.tt/2BcEdfF

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2A8iKqW via Viral News HQ