#and them being divorced adds a layer of comedy

[thelittleoddling]

Ppl are really missing an opportunity with the possibility of making Harry and Jean a toxic divorced couple.

Like Harry completely forgetting Jean and not even taking damage at reminders of him the same way it happens with Dora because their marriage was so awful there’s not even scraps of it left in his mind.

Harry thinking Jean is extra pissy because they must have been close work buddies, meanwhile Jean is mad Harry doesn’t remember they were literally married but also staunchly refuses to help him remember.

Kim making a joke about how he could see why Harry wanted to forget his marriage.

Harry realizing he still has the ring at some point and either thinking its from Dora or not caring where its from and trying to give it to Kim. Both make Jean seethe.

The possibilities are endless.

[joezy27]

Marvel’s Avengers: Behind the Performance - Ashly Burch / Kate Bishop

By Duncan Heaney - 01/06/21

We speak to award-winning actor Ashly Burch about taking on the role of an Avenger, the importance of trusting the director and hitting the mark for a fan-favorite Hero.

A new Hero has joined Marvel’s Avengers: Kate Bishop.

This skilled archer arrives with a bow, some experimental AIM tech, and a tongue that’s sharper than her sword.

Tough, smart, and witty enough to even put Tony Stark on the back foot, she’s brought to life by an incredible vocal performance from Ashly Burch. We had an opportunity to talk to the actor about her love of the character, how she approached the role, and her techniques for hitting the bullseye in the recording booth.

Image credit: OuterRimsPhoto

Hi Ashly. We understand you jumped at the chance to play this character in Marvel’s Avengers…

They had me at Kate Bishop, honestly! (laughs)

I’m a big Kate Bishop fan. When I saw that she was the character I was auditioning for, I got so excited because I love her in the comics!

What is it about Kate that makes her so appealing to you?

I think the great thing about Kate in the game is that she's funny, she's snarky and she's badass, but also visibly hurt by a sense of abandonment from the Avengers. They went quiet on her after A-Day, and she carries a chip on her shoulder about that.

It adds a really interesting bit of color to her character. She presents a very impenetrable front, but in reality, she has a little bit of a gushy center. She does want a sense of family and community, and feels a bit rejected and abandoned at the start of the story because the family that she thought she had disappeared on her. She carries that with her.

I also feel like her relationship with Clint Barton (Hawkeye) is layered in that same way. There’s a jokey and ribbing exterior, but she has a genuine care for him that makes her really vulnerable.

So I think that combo of the bravado that she presents herself with, alongside this sensitivity when it comes to feeling like she’s not part of the team - or wanting to feel like she’s part of the team - makes her feel really well rounded and complex.

Image credit: Square-Enix

Is that something you relate to?

Well, I think that part of being an actor is finding a way to relate to whatever character you're playing.

Even if there's a character that's very divorced from how you present yourself, or who you think that you are, there's probably some sort of synchronicity there that you can tap into.

I'm different from a lot of my characters… but I also share certain traits. For example, with Chloe in Life is Strange, there’s a universal experience of grief or feeling displaced. I know what these things feel like, even though I’m not a blue-haired teenager living in the West!

So I think part of our jobs as actors is to find the universal quality that the character has, tap into that, and tap into our own lives, and imbue all that into the character. We do a disservice to our characters, male, female, or non-binary, when we don't see them as complete people.

Image credit: OuterRimsPhoto

One thing that defines Kate in the game is her sense of humor. Was that something fun to portray?

It's always fun when you get to play comedy. That's not always present in games - sometimes there's a lot of heaviness, certainly in many of the games that I’ve been in. So anytime there’s an opportunity for levity, it’s great - and Kate is really funny!

I get excited about stuff like that. Not just the complexity of the character, but the sense that: oh, this is gonna be fun! I’m going to get to play. I’m going to get to try stuff and be weird and wacky.

How much did you get to play in the role of Kate Bishop? Did the team give you room to improvise?

Oh yeah, totally. I don't remember everything that I improvised, but they definitely let me do it. I'm pretty sure the ‘boop’ in the trailer when I flick that guy's head is one. I think I’d seen mo-cap for that and I said ‘boop’ as we were recording lines, and they kept it!

They really let me inject my own personality into Kate and try stuff out. There’s a lot of really fun banter in particular between her and the other Avengers that I got to play more loose and try stuff with. It was really fun.

Image credit: OuterRimsPhoto

You definitely feel that fun in the performance…

Sure, but to be honest, it’s not just about what I'm bringing but also the team I'm working with.

Developing a sense of trust with the director is really important, because the more comfortable or safe you feel, the more you can explore and try stuff, while sticking within the parameters of what the project needs.

So, if I was like a little sheep that wants to wander and do 20 minutes of improv, I knew they could let me play as much as necessary but get me back to the scene (laughs).

Image credit: Square-Enix

So which element of the role did you most enjoy?

I keep harping on about the banter, but I really love the banter. It was so fun to record!

As someone who likes Marvel, and likes the Avengers, to be joking around with Tony Stark or Thor was really fun! But there's also just so much character and so much personality that comes out in those moments.

I feel like you get a lot of amazing Kate stuff in the main story, and then those bantering moments make all the characters feel more real and multi-dimensional.

I’m pleased with the whole experience - it’s been really amazing - but I particularly enjoyed those sections because that’s the stuff that as a player, as a viewer, I love to see.

What was the most challenging thing about the role of Kate Bishop?

Well, there’s always a period of calibration when you play a new character - you have to understand what her highs and her lows are, and play with the funniness or snarkiness so that it doesn’t become pat or tired… basically, make sure she feels like a real person.

That’s always the challenge - just making every character feel real and grounded - even when the setting or story isn’t particularly grounded itself.

Image credit: OuterRimsPhoto

She’s not the only Marvel character you’ve played, of course. You recently portrayed Danika Hart in Marvel’s Spider-Man: Miles Morales for example…

Yeah, I have actually. That's interesting - I didn't even think about that. I've also played Nebula a couple of times in other games. It’s funny - I’ve dipped my toe into a few different little pools in the Marvel realm!

What’s cool is that they're all very different characters. Danika Hart reminds me a little bit of Kamala Khan actually - in that she’s so excited to be part of that world. I wouldn’t go as far as to say she’s a fan girl - well, maybe a bit of a phantom Spider-Man fan girl - but she’s really dedicated to helping people through her podcast. I liked playing her.

Kate’s really different because she has this bravado - this sense of: ‘Don’t worry about me - I can do it on my own’, but in reality she really wants to have that community with the Avengers.

So that’s a big difference - Danika is already embedded in the community, while Kate is pretending she doesn’t need one.

And Nebula… well, she’s a villain half the time, so that makes her distinct (laughs).

Image credit: Patman_Parkour

How challenging is it to do all these characters as voice-over rather than motion capture?

I only started doing motion capture a little bit later on in my career, so voiceover is my bread and butter. It's sort of where I live.

I think I've had enough time, experience and on-the-job training to be able to really embody a character using the tools that I have in the booth. What’s amazing about voiceover is there's so much you can communicate through just your voice.

It’s great to do both, of course, but there’s so much rich, awesome stuff that can come from a vocal performance.

Image credit: OuterRimsPhoto

Do you have any rituals or vocal techniques that help you find your characters?

I do vocal warm ups, but I find that once I’ve established a character, it’s pretty easy to lock back in.

Kate was not super-hard for me to find - she’s so well-written and fun and I already knew her from the comics.

I do really weird stuff when I’m in the booth mind you…

Image credit: OuterRimsPhoto

Like what?

Well, my friend Jessie Ennis from Mythic Quest taught me a trick, which has helped me immensely for making more space in your mouth. Basically, you stick your tongue out and say your line. (Sticks tongue out) Like thid!

What it does is make more space in your mouth, so it's easier to articulate - and it’s really useful, especially if you have a lot of techno jargon, or if I’m playing a helper character that’s explaining all this stuff to you.

When I do stuff like that, it makes it really easy to get through the more chunky lines. And sometimes I’ll do stuff like… (blows through lips) in between lines.

Voice actors do a lot of weird stuff (laughs)!

Many thanks to Ashly for speaking to us. Her performance makes Kate Bishop as endearing as she is formidable - but why take our word for it when you can hear it for yourselves?

Kate Bishop is available now for free in Marvel’s Avengers (as are all future characters).

[eph-em-era]

Cis women aren’t getting kicked out of bathrooms. Nobody does that. Making up queer headcanons for historical figures is not “showing a different angle” it’s not “adaptation” it’s making up stuff and erasing an amazing woman and pretending she’s nonbinary, because apparently she’s too masc to be a woman. If this sorta thing is okay then would it be okay to take any queer piece of media and make all the characters cishet? Or any piece of media at all and make all poc characters white? No? Exactly

Oh look a news article where a cis woman got harassed out of a bathroom by transphobes cause they thought her short hair meant she was trans.

Oh look, another one.

Oh look, ANOTHER ONE.

Try harder, transphobe. Your delineation of gender into two tiny little rigid boxes fucks over both cis and trans people. It's bigoted and terrible and you should be ashamed of yourself.

As for your second "point":

what does making a queer story straight add to the story? fuck all.

same deal as making a story with characters of colour white.

Imagine Hamilton rewritten to be performed solely by white characters. Oh wait, you can't, that's just history.

Imagine Falsettos written with just straight characters. Oh wait, you can't. It's a queer narrative about the AIDS crisis. Make it straight and it's just another "straight couple gets divorced and one of them dies" story.

Can't make plays straighter or whiter because SHOCKINGLY, THAT'S WHAT MOST MEDIA IS. Wanna bland the narrative more? Go for it, but no-one will be watching.

I, Joan is ONE theatre show. One production. They're not fucking erasing women, they're telling a slightly different story to an interested audience. And for the record, being non-binary is not being "more masc than a woman" - it's a completely different gender identity.

There have been people discussing the gender identity of Joan of Arc for years. Why should one play make any difference?

In my time as a theatremaker I've personally seen Hamlet, Romeo & Juliet and A Midsummer Night's Dream queered and crosscast. All three of these interpretations added layers to the story.

If we want to talk about real people -

The film The Favourite makes a much more queer narrative within the lives of Queen Anne and Sarah Churchill than most historians discuss. The Death of Stalin turns war politics into a comedy. Our Flag Means Death queers real life pirates. The Great satirises Catherine the Great. Dickinson takes scholarly ideas and makes Emily Dickinson queer.

If we had it your way all we'd be performing would be proscenium plays where everyone is straight and everyone is cis, where there's no expansion into themes or subtext or humanity.

Get the fuck over yourself.

[bewitching-elizabeth-olsen]

Press/Gallery: How Elizabeth Olsen Brought Marvel From Mainstream to Prestige

“The thing I love about being an actor is to fully work with someone and try so hard to be at every level with them, chasing whatever it is you need or want from them.”

  GALLERY LINKS

Studio Photoshoots > 2021 > Session 008 Magazine Scans > 2021 > Backstage (August 19)

Backstage: Elizabeth Olsen grins widely over video chat when recalling many such moments on set with her co-stars. Yet, she can’t bring herself to divorce such a lofty vision of film acting from the technical multitasking it requires. The camera sees all.

“But then you move your hair, and you’re in your brain, like: OK, remember that! Because I don’t want to edit myself out of a shot. I know some actors are like, ‘Continuity, shmontinuity!’ But the good thing about continuity is, if you remember it, you’re actually providing yourself with more options for the edit.”

That need to balance being both inside the scene and outside of it, fully living it and yet constantly visualizing it on a screen, feels particularly apt in light of Olsen’s most recent project, “WandaVision.”

The mysteries at the heart of the show grow with every episode, each fast-forwarding to a different decade: Could this 1950s, black-and-white, “filmed in front of a studio audience” newlyweds bit be a grief-stricken dream? Might this ’70s spoof be a powerful spell gone awry? Could this meta take on mockumentary comedies be proof that the multiverse is finally coming to the Marvel Cinematic Universe?

The series’ structure, which branches out to include government agents intent on finding out why Westview has seemingly disappeared, calls for the entire cast to play with a mix of genres, balancing a shape-shifting tone that culminates in an epic, MCU-style conclusion. What’s key—and why the show struck a chord with audiences during its nine-episode run—is the miniseries’ commitment to grounding its initial kooky setups and its later special effects-driven spectacle in heartbreaking emotional truths. It’s no small feat, though it’s one that can often be taken for granted.

“I was thinking how hard it would have been to have shot the first ‘Lord of the Rings,’ ” Olsen muses. “Like, you’re putting all these actors [into the frame] later and at all these different levels. All the eyelines are completely unnatural. And yet the performances are fantastic! And technically, they are so hard. People forget sometimes that these things are really technically hard to shoot. And if you are moved by their performance, that took a lot of multitasking.”

As someone who has learned plenty about harnesses, wirework, fight choreography, and green screens (she’s starred in four Marvel movies, including the box office megahit “Avengers: Endgame,” after all), Olsen knows how hard it can be to wrap one’s brain around the work needed to pull off those big, splashy scenes.

“​​If you think about it, it’s, like, the biggest stakes in the entire world—every time. And that feels silly to act over and over again, especially when people are in silly costumes and the love of your life is purple and sparkly, and every time you kiss them, you have to worry about getting it on your hands. Those things are ridiculous. You feel ridiculous. So there is a part of your brain that has to shovel that away and just look into someone’s eyeballs—and sometimes, they don’t even have eyeballs!”

The ability to spend so much time with Wanda, albeit in the guise of sitcom parodies, was a welcome opportunity for Olsen. Not only did it allow the actor to really wrestle with the traumatic backstory that has long defined the character in the MCU, but having the chance to calibrate a performance that functions on so many different levels was a thrilling challenge.

“It was such an amazing work experience,” she says. “Kathryn [Hahn] uses the word ‘profound’—which is so sweet, because it is Marvel, and people, you know, don’t think of those experiences as profound when they watch them. But it really was such a special crew that [director] Matt Shakman and [creator] Jac Schaeffer created. It was a really healthy working environment.”

Related‘WandaVision’ Star Kathryn Hahn’s Secret to Building a Scene-Stealing Performance ‘WandaVision’ Star Kathryn Hahn’s Secret to Building a Scene-Stealing Performance Considering that the miniseries spans several sitcom iterations, various layers of televisual reality, and a number of character reveals that needed to feel truthful and impactful in equal measure, Shakman’s decision to work closely with his actors ahead of shooting was key.

“We truly had a gorgeous amount of time together before we started filming,” Olsen remembers. “Our goal was—which is controversial in TV land—that if you wanted to change [anything], like dialogue in a scene, you had to give those notes a week before we even got there. Because sometimes you get to set, and someone had a brilliant idea while they were sleeping, and you’re like, ‘We don’t have an hour to talk about this. We have seven pages to shoot.’ And so, we were all on the same page with one another, knowing what we were shooting ahead of time.

“Matt just treated us like a troupe of actors who were about to do some regional theater shit,” she adds with a smile.

That spirit of camaraderie was, not coincidentally, at the heart of Olsen’s breakout project, Sean Durkin’s 2011 indie sensation “Martha Marcy May Marlene.” As an introduction to the process of filmmaking to a young stage-trained actor, Durkin’s quietly devastating drama was a dream—and an invaluable learning opportunity.

“It was truly just a bunch of people who loved the script, who just were doing the work. I didn’t understand lenses, so I just did the same thing all the time. I never knew if the camera would be on me or not. There was just so much purity in that experience, and you only have that once.”

The film announced Olsen as a talent to watch: a keen-eyed performer capable of deploying a stilted physicality and clipped delivery, which she used to conjure up a wounded girl learning how to shake off her time spent in a cult in upstate New York. But Olsen admits that it took her a while to figure out how to navigate her career choices afterward. In the years following “Martha,” she felt compelled to try on everything: a horror flick here, a high-profile remake there, a period piece here, an action movie there. It wasn’t until she starred in neo-Western thriller “Wind River” (alongside fellow Marvel regular Jeremy Renner) and the dark comedy “Ingrid Goes West” (opposite a deliciously deranged Aubrey Plaza) that Olsen found her groove.

“It was at that point, when I was five years into working, where I was like, Ah, I know how I want it. I know what I need from these people—from who’s involved, from producers, from directors, from the character, from the script—in order to trust that it’s going to be a fruitful experience.”

As Olsen looks back on her first decade as a working actor, she points out how far removed she is from that young girl who broke out in “Martha Marcy May Marlene.”

“I feel like a totally different person. I don’t know if everyone who’s in their early 30s feels like their early 20s self is a totally different human. But when I think about that version of myself, it feels like a long time ago; there’s a lot learned in a decade.”

Those early years were marked by a self-effacing humility that often led Olsen to defer to others when it came to key decisions about the characters she was playing. But she now feels emboldened to not only stand up for herself and her choices but for others on her sets as well.

“[Facebook Watch series] ‘Sorry for Your Loss’ I got to produce, and I really found my voice in a collaborative leadership way. And with ‘WandaVision,’ Paul [Bettany] and I really took on that feeling, as well—especially since we were introducing new characters to Marvel and wanted [those actors] to feel protected and helped,” she says. “They could ask questions and make sure they felt like they had all the things they needed because sometimes you don’t even know what you need to ask.”

It’s a lesson she learned working with filmmaker Marc Abraham on the Hank Williams biopic “I Saw the Light,” and she’s carried it with her ever since. “I really want it to feel like we’re all in this together, as a team,” Olsen says. “That was part of ‘Sorry for Your Loss’ and it was part of ‘WandaVision,’ and I hope to continue that kind of energy because those have been some of the healthiest work experiences I’ve had.”

If Olsen sounds particularly zealous about the importance of a comfortable, working set, it is because she’s well aware that therein lies an integral part of the work and the process. As an actor, she wants to feel protected and nurtured by those around her, whether she’s reacting to a telling, quiet line of dialogue about grief or donning her iconic Scarlet Witch outfit during a magic-filled mid-air action sequence.

“Sometimes you’re going to be foolish, you know? And [you need to] feel brave to be foolish. Sometimes people feel embarrassed on set and snap. But if you’re in a place where people feel like they’re allowed to be an idiot,” she says, “you’re going to feel better about being an idiot.”

This story originally appeared in the Aug. 19 issue of Backstage Magazine. Subscribe here.

Press/Gallery: How Elizabeth Olsen Brought Marvel From Mainstream to Prestige was originally published on Elizabeth Olsen Source • Your source for everything Elizabeth Olsen

[fanbun]

Seuss Tales: From Page To Screen

Below the cut is an essay I wrote about Dr. Seuss adaptations after I was inspired by watching Green Eggs and Ham on Netflix. In the essay I examine the changes that adaptations have made to the original stories and how they have evolved over time. If you’re interested, please give it a read! :D

-

The tone of a Dr. Seuss book has proven particularly difficult to reproduce in any lengthened retelling. It is much like attempting to expand a poem into a novel. Somewhere during development, the original form will fall away to fit the new medium. And while artifacts of the original may still be present in the final product, such as a line or two, it is likely that those artifacts will feel disconnected from the product as a whole. In terms of Seuss, this is usually classic rhymes from the original stories that the audience expects to be included in the adaptation. Even if an audience member has had little exposure to the source material, they can usually identify these moments when a character starts rhyming for no particular reason. Of course, it must be said that some adaptations mimic the original tone better than others, and in those cases the product feels much more cohesive.

Since it is so difficult to expand a short story, the safest decision when making an adaptation is simply to be faithful. In the past, Seuss adaptations stuck much closer to the source material. How The Grinch Stole Christmas (1966) set the standard for the many Seuss TV specials that came after it. These specials utilized a narrator that would read the book nearly word-for-word and had an animation style that stuck as close to the original illustrations as possible. Where padding was necessary to extend the run-time, it was usually done by including songs and extra animation sequences. This form of padding didn’t typically disrupt the flow of the story since the songs featured rhyming in them as well, and the added animations were used to bring Seuss’s world to life. Dr. Seuss himself even wrote the lyrics to many of the songs. Thus these first Seuss TV specials were as close to direct adaptations as the public was ever given.

So when did the trend change? Well Seuss died in 1991 and in the year 2000, a live action comedy film starring Jim Carrey was released based off of How The Grinch Stole Christmas. Ironically, the very same title that started the initial animated Seuss renaissance. It was not only the first feature length film based on a Dr. Seuss property, but it was also a major financial success as it offered a new take on the familiar story. After all, the original animated special was already so beloved. The producers had to try something new to entice people to go see it. So what was created was a movie about the character of the Grinch, that followed the general story of the Grinch, but was entirely divorced from the classic tone and presentation of a Dr. Seuss book. Additionally, it made alterations to the characters and plot in an attempt to add depth and expand upon the story. This live action Seuss trend didn’t last for long, however, and it came to an end after The Cat in The Hat (2003) left a poor taste in the public’s mouth.

Jim Carrey would later return to voice the quirky titular elephant of Blue Sky’s Horton Hears a Who in 2008. This time animation was back in the form of trendy CG. The humor was modern but not quite as edgy as in the live action movies, and the trailers promised a more authentic Seuss experience for the youth at the time. Though the age of CG animated movies was an attempt to return to form, they couldn’t escape the adaptational dilemma of trying to stretch short stories into full movies. Horton Hears a Who (2008) remained faithful to the book’s plot but was padded with plenty of gags that tended to outstay their welcome. In contrast, Illumination’s The Lorax (2012) padded its run-time by expanding on the Onceler’s character and introducing new characters, including an all new antagonist. This, although showing clear ambition, ended up being a controversial decision as many viewed it as obscuring the book’s intended message.

Interestingly, Netflix’s Green Eggs and Ham series (2019) is mostly padding. In fact, there is hardly anything in the show that resembles the original book aside from the two main characters, Sam-I-Am and “Guy”, and the aforementioned Sam’s affinity for green eggs and ham. And yet it manages to feel more like a Seuss story than many of the adaptations that have come before it. No doubt this is partly due to its traditional 2D animation style, though the inclusion of many Seussian creatures and contraptions should not be overlooked as an important factor. It is terrible as a direct adaptation, but as an expanded retelling it is brilliant. The writers were given a book so simplistic, with such a straightforward moral, that they only needed to follow it loosely to deliver on its message. They took a couple characters, a handful of words, and rewrote it almost entirely. And really, that was the only smart choice for a series that spans 6 1/2 hours in total.

One of the most drastic departures from the book was the decision to make the plot revolve around Guy and Sam smuggling an exotic animal (named Mr. Jenkins) in a briefcase to return it to the wild. This concept alone turns it into a completely different story. So much so that I’d argue the title of “Green Eggs and Ham” hardly fits as a descriptor. Still, the theme of animal protection is entirely in line with the types of morals found in Dr. Seuss books. This recurring message is made even more evident since the villains work for a serial animal abuser who keeps live animals on display as status symbols. I could have easily imagined that a separate Dr. Seuss story existed with this same plot.

But what is perhaps most interesting to me about the rewrite is that, along with convincingly portraying a story based on Dr. Seuss, it also adds its own modern sensibilities into the mix. Not merely by way of adding humor and references like some adaptations before it, but through the story’s structure itself. First of all, it is a multi-episode animated series with emphasis on continuity. Secondly, it fleshes out the personalities and backstories of the characters over time. And thirdly, it at once represents and transforms the source material in something of a metatextual exercise. The narrator’s tendency of breaking the fourth wall is a perfect example of this. He even acts as an audience stand-in at times, commenting that he wasn’t expecting to see the events that occur during the opening scene from a Seuss adaptation. Or at another point humorously asking “Was this in the book?” This brand of meta comedy made me take note of the more daring writing choices like the shocking reveals about Sam and the B.A.D.G.U.Y.S. toward the end of the season. Once again, the writers deliberately added complexity where there was originally very little.

Crucially for fans of the book, the rewrite doesn’t betray the original moral of Green Eggs and Ham. Rather it adds a layer of depth to that moral’s execution. In the book, the plate of green eggs and ham represents the characters’ willingness to try new things. It is the same in the series, however the unexpected journey the two leads embark on is what is given the most narrative focus. After leaving his comfort zone, Guy’s emotional attachment to Sam is what makes him finally try the green eggs and ham. It is a symbolic gesture of how far his character has come from the beginning of the show. He initially wanted nothing to do with Sam or Mr. Jenkins, but then he got to know them and discovered how much he cared.

So although it is risky to create an adaptation that changes much of the source material, it can absolutely be worth the risk. There is boundless creative potential to be found in transformative works, and that potential may be realized if given the right amount of passion and dedication. Sure, it might upset the purist in us, but the original already exists. Why not make something new out of it? Cut up pieces of the poem. Rearrange the words and add a new perspective. Some people will always consider doing so to be ruining a classic, but others might view it as a masterpiece all on its own. In the end it is up to personal opinion whether an adaptation is good or not, but nonetheless I think we should celebrate the cultural significance of these stories that leads us to recreate and retell them time and time again.

[aspoonofsugar]

Were there moments when you found a character disarmingly human? When you found a character shockingly harsh? When a character was both of these things? (I hope this isn’t a weird question. I’m just trying to reassess the expectations I bring in as a reader vs. the expectations actually set up by the author).—BSD Chat Anon

Hello again!

I think the concepts of “human” and “harsh” vary according to different people :). When it comes to me I have made two lists with characters I deeply love and I tried to explain why. What is more, I talked about characters in general here and I shared some thoughts here as well.

In short, I think that when you write a character in a story, the best thing you can do to make them human is ironically to schematize them by giving them a flaw and an objective. I personally think that in this way, as your story become more complex, so do the characters. In some cases, the schematic flaw you gave them in the beginning might become more layered and difficult to pintpoint and to describe through words. After choosing a flaw, I think one can work on a more superficial characterization (the way they look, likes, dislikes, hobbies, abilities, etc.). I think it is great when this characterization ties with the flaw they will have to overcome and is coherent with it. Alternatively, it can be used to better shape the plot (for example, if you have a character who will have to fight, you should give them some fighting capabilities; if they must solve puzzle in a sci-fic world they can be given knowledge of technology, etc.). If you must write a story with comical undertones, you can write different characters to embody different kinds of irony or comedy and so on. Finally, you can add motifs to make their journeys more symbolic.

All in all, I also think that everyone likes different characters and may have different ways to write their own characters. That is also why the characters made by an author can be recognizable and be all similar somehow, even if they may appear completely different on the surface.

Finally, to better answer your question, I will talk about four characters I have not mentioned in previous lists.

1) Claire Stanfield (Baccano)

I love Claire. He is very interesting both meta-narratively and as far as his characterization is concerned. All in all, he seems to me as a child who can’t grow because of his incredible talent at everything. As a matter of fact, he acts according to a simplified vision of the world and to child-logic. However, because of his abilities, he never meets real struggles, which could truly let him change this perspective, so he does not mature. An other insteresting aspect is that, all in all, what Claire wants is really simple. He wants to be good at his job, no matter if it is assassination or being a conductor or a circus artist. He wants to help his family and to build a new one with a woman he loves. These are such normal things that it is funny how he is able to twist them in something amazing because of his personality.

2) Chuuya (BSD)

I started loving him because of the episodes in season 3, where his background is revealed. I love his inner struggle concerning Arahabaki and how he hides a very frail sense of self behind a flashy exterior. Fifteen offers us a very good explanation of why he became who he currently is and showed that he is a pretty layered character with different issues tangled in an identity crisis. What is more, I love how different details in his design, like the gloves and the hat, find deep and meaningful explanations in his background. It is the kind of characterization that I love. Finally, I find his relationship with Dazai potentially very interesting because of how conflictual and contradictive it is.

3) Soren and Claudia (The Dragon Prince)

They are my current obsession. I think they are very well written characters and they have the merit to be very well-rounded and easy to use in multiple contexts (for comedy, for plot, for character moments, etc.). I also think they are a good example of how a generic exterior attribute can be linked to something deeper within the character. As a matter of fact, Soren is a crown-guard and his talent lies in combat. Claudia is instead a prodigy in dark magic. It is clear that such talents make so that the siblings have different methods to face problems and can contribute to the plot in different ways. However, their respective abilities are nothing more than a concrete projection of their flaws. Soren’s ability in fighting is symbolic of his need to prove his strength, while Claudia’s talent in Dark magic represents her refusal of loss and of conflict. At the same time, these two internal problems are also connected to the way Soren and Claudia’s parents treated them. Soren’s unhealthy desire to prove himself is born by his father’s lack of love. Claudia’s refusal of conflict is born by her parents’ divorce, which resulted in her mother’s abandonment. As you can see, they clearly end up as pretty layered characters because of how everything in their characterization is coherent.

When it comes to them as singular characters, I would say that I love how the story lets Soren show more of his intelligence without changing the core of his character. The intelligence he shows in season three is mostly emotional and is rooted in his warm personality. In a sense, he makes good use of qualities he had always shown, but that were underused because he was too focused trying to prove his worth through his strength. I especially liked that he showed that his talent as a crown-guard did not lie in his physical strength, but rather in his ability to protect the king. Throughout season 3, he protects Ezran physically, but also emotionally to an extent. For example, he makes sure that Ez, after escaping prison, has his favourite food and that he is given the means to reach the people he would want to meet the most.

As far as Claudia is concerned, her flaw is an extremely interesting one. As a matter of fact the traits, which lead to her spiral are the same which can save her aka her love and loyalty for her loved ones, coupled with her hate for conflict. It is really interesting to see how the narrative twists these attributes and shows how they can be detrimental. This is conveyed pretty beautiful especially because, since the beginning, Claudia’s character is a well made mixture of cute and terrifying. You can spot chilling traits, but they are well camouflaged by her likability and good intentions. Finally she has a spot in my heart because she is a dynamic example of air-headed genius (aka one of my favourite tropes). It is good to see a character like her receive a pretty complex and dynamic arc.

5) Agathe Arkrome (Witch Hat Atelier)

I love her! She is a pretty well made example or rival/deuteragonist character. She has extremely obvious flaws (she wants to be the best to the point where she can willingly and unwillingly hurt others), but she also quickly displays likable traits and starts developing a very interesting relationship with the lead. I think that this relationship has the potential to truly become interesting as the story progresses and I can see it both becoming deeper, but also more conflictual. I would love to write more about her, but I am waiting for her story to delve more into her past, so that her character can be explored more!

Thank you for the ask!

[allthecreepylittlethings]

The Body in the Chimney: The Disturbing Case of Joshua Maddux

If you've ever seen the movie Gremlins, you probably remember the random, disturbing scene where, among the chaos of those psychotic puppet monsters destroying everything on Christmas Eve, Billy's friend, Kate, takes a moment to explain why she already hates Christmas. She tells Billy that when she was a child her dad went missing one Christmas Eve and no one could find him for over a week. Then one night she went to light a fire in the fireplace and a bad smell hit her. Her mother called in the fire department, expecting it to be some sort of dead animal who had gotten itself stuck, but instead it ended up being her father, dressed in a Santa suit with a sack full of presents. He had been trying to surprise his wife and daughter by climbing down the chimney like Santa, but instead he wound up slipping and breaking his neck, dying instantly with his body remaining stuck in the chimney.

It's a completely unnerving story that adds a layer of darkness in an already dark comedy, only there's nothing funny about it which is what makes it stand out so much. No matter how poorly thought out you might think her father's plan was, it's still a scary story and a moment a lot of people remember most about the film.

Unfortunately, discovering human bodies trapped in chimneys is not exclusive to the world of cinema, and quite often the aftermath is a horrifying scene left for some unfortunate person to discover later on. Just to name a few examples, in 2010, a woman by the name of Dr. Jacquelyn Kotarac was found decomposing in a chimney after she attempted to slide down it to gain access to her on-again, off-again boyfriend's house. In 2018, a Bolivian man in Argentina attempted to escape police, while being pursued over a robbery, and wound up climbing through a chimney, only to get stuck and forced to wait for police to rescue him. While he was lucky to survive the incident, he was still arrested once he was freed. 

There are more stories like this but today's entry focuses on the case of Joshua Maddux, a missing teen who was ultimately discovered in a chimney.

In May of 2008, Colorado teen, Joshua Maddux, walked away from his home and never came back. Joshua was known to be something of a free spirit, talking often about how he planned to go on an adventure someday and possibly not be heard from again for a while. When he went missing, his father, Mike Maddux, searched diligently, determined to find his son all while holding on to hope that he was still alive and well. Even after he and his wife divorced, Mike remained in the family home, hoping it would mean Joshua still had a home to return to, if he ever did. 

But in 2015, Mike's worst fears were confirmed when the remains of his son were uncovered inside the chimney of an old historic cabin just a quarter of a mile away from the family home. The cabin was in the process of being demolished when an earth mover made the discovery while peeling away a steel fireplace insert within the chimney. Joshua's death was essentially ruled as "accidental by unknown causes," but there some alarming details to the scene that only added to the mystery as to what exactly happened.

The first question was how and why he wound up inside the chimney? Chuck Murphy, who owned the property in which the cabin stood, claimed there was no way Joshua could have climbed inside from the roof. According to him, there was steel rebar webbing installed at the top of the chimney specifically to keep animals from climbing inside. This raised the question of whether or not Joshua was somehow pushed inside the chimney by someone else. On top of that, it was discovered that a large wooden breakfast bar had been torn from the kitchen wall and moved to block the bottom of the chimney.

Another detail that only raised more questions was the manner of which his body was found. Joshua's feet were down and he was in a fetal position. He was wearing only a thermal shirt, naked from the waist down, and the rest of his clothes were uncovered, neatly folded, inside the cabin. However, there were no signs of stab wounds, bullet holes, or even trauma on the remaining hard tissue.

Despite the coroner's report on Joshua's cause of death, there has been reasonable speculation that his death was not accidental and that he was in fact murdered. And in a turn that is not entirely surprising for those familiar with Reddit, a user came forward in 2016, offering a potential theory as to who may have done this.

In an AskReddit thread, asking about what it was like to discover someone you knew was a serial killer, the user "gentamangina" replied with a lengthy comment, detailing how he had not only known Joshua when he was still alive, but he may have also known the killer. In the comment, he describes how they had a mutual acquaintance named Andy (later identified as Andrew Newman), who was already a little off. Joshua had become friends with Andy just before disappearing, and after the disappearance, Andy later went on to be arrested for two different murders in which the victims had been stabbed to death. Despite Andy supposedly bragging about the murders, he was released due to lack of evidence. Once the Reddit user had been made aware of these events, they immediately went to the police with several other people, trying to get them to further investigate Andy as he was likely the cause of Joshua's disappearance and later death. Unfortunately nothing ever became of it, the cabin was later demolished and Joshua's remains were cremated.

While the true cause of Joshua's death may never be uncovered, it remains an unsettling mystery with many who were close to the situation sincerely doubting there was anything accidental about it.

Sources:

Chimney discovery ends mystery over young man's disappearance, but questions remain: https://www.denverpost.com/2015/10/19/chimney-discovery-ends-mystery-over-young-mans-disappearance-but-questions-remain/

Joshua Maddox: The Boy in the Chimney: http://www.darkhistories.com/josh-maddux-the-boy-in-the-chimney/

gentamangina's original Reddit comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3qqy8t/people_who_have_known_murderers_serial_killers/cwhya9w/?st=jh5slp81&sh=3f06743b

New Mexico Murder Suspect Captured in Texas County: http://crimesceneinvestigations.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-mexico-murder-suspect-captured-in.html

[dreamsofthescreen]

Stanley Donen’s Marvel At Love - Two For The Road Review & Analysis

Albert Finney & Audrey Hepburn in ‘Two For The Road’

As far as romance goes, in the era of classics, we are given a idealised and soft edged view on a what love is or could be. Stanley Donen’s ‘Two For The Road’ appeals in it’s quirky and realistically sharp depiction of a marriage, as the beloved Audrey Hepburn and renowned film star Albert Finney ‘make something wonderful out of being alive’, as the trailer depicts. Driving cross country through France, we follow the unravelling of a decade long relationship, having us along for the ride & analysing the highs and lows of love. The simplicity of a love story with no certain grandeur is the greatest excitement, as room for interest is in the writing and expression of the story itself. A catalogue of successful retro arthouse, colour-blocked aesthetic films, Donen’s 1967 love story combined with Frederic Raphael’s blunt writing style delivers a versatile and greatly entertaining tale of love lost and found.

Joanna (Audrey Hepburn) and Mark (Albert Finney) have been married for a decade, and are now establishing their rocky connections. Travelling from London to the South Of France on a work trip related to Mark’s architectural career, they unpack the highs and lows of their relationship, reestablishing where they’re at now, and ultimately going back to how much they do need each other. Finney and Hepburn hitchhike, drive and fly around France, as we follow the couple in all their quirks, romantic moments and complications. The entire film is like a diary of their relationship, based on their travels in France throughout the years. Frederic Raphael’s award winning writing captures the moments that come with being in love, like striking grief and pure elation, set on the backdrop of the stunning French countryside. Their adventures have them repeatedly joking about Mark’s tendency to misplace his passport, finding themselves abandoned in the rain & having to sleep in a concrete cylinder on a moving truck, as well as Mark falling clumsily into a pool when trying to chase after Joanna.

Flashing back between Joanna and Mark’s early days of marriage, to their downfall that had them engaging in extramarital affairs, the grandeur and pathos of love that is portrayed was not usual for films at this time. Made in 1967, honest emotion like this was only starting to break out in cinema, as the Production Code (dictated what could be shown or said in film), was changing. For audiences, we are given insight into the pure joy and heartache in a couple that, despite their changing dynamics and hostility to one another, do still truly belong to each other. By combining a comedy with romance, drama and even some philosophical commentary, some may argue that this, along with the constant jump-cuts, is too much at once for a film. Yet I believe that it creates powerful interest, taking audiences on a journey that is tastefully stylish and does not overwhelm us too much.

Stanley Donen is not shy of success, having directed ‘Singin In The Rain’, ‘Charade’ and ‘Funny Face’, making ‘Two For The Road’ a rather less heard of film of his. His films were technicolored with soul and charm, almost seeming to follow a New Wave style. Once films started using colour, especially in the 1960s, it became one of the main assets, bringing great life and joy to a movie, Two For The Road doing just this. Though an American director, his works are never seeped in Hollywood-fakery or predictable cliche’s, as they seem to follow a more natural style, this honesty being so important to the depiction of a marriage like Joanna & Mark’s. The Los Angeles Times wrote on his directing style, stating that he ‘brought wit, style, heartache and joy to the movies’ and too asked, ‘What does pure joy look like on screen? Stanley Donen gave us no shortage of possible answers’. With the beautifully sweeping and romantic soundtrack by Henry Mancini and Donen utilising jump cuts between different time periods, ‘Two For The Road’ really does follow the art-nouveau, French New Wave style of cinema. This has Donen stray away from the typical process of an American director, ultimately saving the film from becoming a corny, glamourised love story. The pain, happiness and change is what makes this story so widely romantic, as it follows something so uniquely realistic. 

This, along with Frederic Raphael’s lyrically raw and amusing writing creates an honest interpretation of a relationship that we can either relate to or know about, given the tenderness and change of a love barely standing. But Donen and Raphael don’t just have audiences follow Mark and Joanna. We are given an analytical look at their time together, delving into how they fall in love, what changes after getting married and having a child, time changing their dynamic. We see how a marriage turns sour, it’s charm wearing away as Finney and Hepburn are left with a child, and a love gone cold. The opening scene has Hepburn and Finney stylishly pulling up in their car, passing a wedding, Hepburn stating “They don’t look very happy”, to which Finney replies, “Why should they? They just got married”.

Of all of Audrey Hepburn’s doe-eyed, elegance-seeped roles that she is so well known and loved for, Stanley Donen shows her in a beautiful new light, her performance soaring. It can be argued that ‘Two For The Road’ is one of her strongest roles. As an avid Hepburn fan myself, it is the freedom that she is given within the character that adds edge and interest, as opposed to the doll-faced, girly performances of hers that are beautiful, but can be shallow. This was a real change for her, as she drops the classic black Givenchy dress for a colourful, more casual wardrobe. This only made me fall in love with her more, as she is involved in a comedic and rich performance, creating such layers to her, as well as really exuding her acting talents as she steps out of her comfort zone. This is also a more realistic Hepburn, as the role is even closer to herself as a person, as during filming she was going through the beginning of a divorce. You’d hope that this is what Donen had been meaning to succeed, by showing such a beloved icon in one of his films. Albert Finney was a match made in heaven for Hepburn in this film, as their chemistry is electric, making something so basic seem so wonderful or painful. As the trailer itself states, we watch ‘Audrey Hepburn and Albert Finney make something wonderful out of being alive’.

The way of taking what can be seen as a basic story and turning it into something so spectacularly beautiful and interesting is one of the most powerful aspects of film. This is what Two For The Road so greatly achieves, as from afar, Joanna and Mark’s relationship is seemingly regular, with no great glory or achievement involved. Yet it is the way in which the story of this marriage is executed that gives it all the glory. All shot on location, the trip we take with the couple may seem like a simple journey, yet the storytelling and execution of emotion through the writing and stylistic choices is something so outstanding. This road-trip certainly can be seen as a symbol of Mark and Joanna, the cars they drive being symbols of the adventure that is marriage. All features of the film are utilised to create a powerful story, the differing environments being a significant aspect, as they tie into the theme of change. The costuming too plays an important part in the emotive experience of audiences, as Joanna and Mark’s wardrobe moves from colourfully casual and free to professional and tight-fitting, representing how they’ve settled, after having married and had children. 

Henry Mancini’s score is something that is so tear-jerking, moving audiences through the motions. Gleefully slow moving strings accompany the scene where Joanna professes her love for Mark early on, ditching her ride and humorously imitating a traffic signal, surprising Mark. He questions, “what happened to your slick friend in the Alfa Romeo?”, to which Joanna responds, “I told him I was in love with you, so he put me down”. These exuberantly happy moments are paramount in the story, as the simplicity and beauty of travel, food, romance and new meetings create interest. You can really say that not much happens throughout, but it is the collective moments that make it all the while. Moments like Hepburn’s bright red top on the background of a French food market on the day she met Mark and getting to know him, as they too discuss their values, ideas and past. Travel is such a wonderful pastime, bringing heart, experience and memories of a lifetime, as well as closeness and complications. This makes their journey such an interesting and beautiful facet, as it is a remarkable setting for stress and joy throughout. Moments like this they share, in an amusing scene where they drive in ‘the old MG’. Joanna wears a bright pink ensemble and announces her pregnancy, as her and Mark toast with a cup of coffee in the car, just before it sets fire & they spontaneously find a hotel to stay in after being isolated from their accident.

The contrast between the beginning of and later on in Mark & Joanna’s relationship is a clear indicator of their fading infatuation, though love is still there. Though always in France, always travelling together in a car, and staying in the same hotels over their decade spanning relationship, audiences can clearly see the difference in their attitude towards each other. Where there was enthusiastic adoration in their first stay at the luxurious hotel in France, years down the line, Mark draws up architectural plans, as Joanna utters ‘aren’t you coming to bed at all?’. What was once a fun-loving beach holiday, where Mark fought with and then proposed to Joanna, is now a dismal seaside lounge chair for them to sit in, as they vacation there years later, with almost nothing to say to one another. The bitterness that marriage can bring is noted very well in the monologues that Mark and Joanna deliver to each other. With Mark asking about their relationship, stating “is it worth it?”, Joanna responding with, “Yes it is worth it sometimes, only not now”, this being a strong summary of a long-lasting marriage. As arguments test their devotion to one another, the ending scene shows Joanna and Mark driving home from a party, discussing their place in their marriage. As Mark taunts Joanna with questions about what she might be doing having not been with him, he goes onto ask “What can’t I accept?”, to which Joanna replies, “That we’re a fixture, that we’re married. You go on about my leaving you, when I’m always still there. You sure you don’t want me to leave you?” Mark replies with, “Positive.”

Ranked at no. 57 on the American Film Institute’s 100 Years…100 Passions list, Donen’s ‘Two For The Road’ can be seen as one of the greatest and certainly strongest love stories in cinema that there is. A romantic marvel it is, due to all it’s ever-changing realism and depiction of what could be true love. Strangely very modern for it’s time and still very contemporary today, Donen’s work so artistically mixes comedy with romance and drama. Expertly executing these genres all at once, a message is sent to audiences on the beauty of love, even amongst all it’s painful change. 

Stars Out Of Five: 4.5/5

visit at: dreamsofthescreen.com

[sunshinedreary]

The Peanut Butter Sandwich

Once, in middle school, I saw my father make a peanut butter sandwich and I’ve never forgotten it.

Peanut butter is a critical food in my life, and always has been. I’m fond of saying that if I ever develop a peanut allergy I will be fucked beyond all comprehension because there’s a lot of peanut butter consumption happening here. Whenever I admit this fear, I shine it up with a layer of humor, but I am actually afraid of its potential to materialize. A woman I know and love ate peanut butter often for many years of her life and then stopped eating it for a spell, no reason in particular. When she started eating it again, she realized she had developed a peanut allergy and hasn’t eaten it since but told me with sorrowful eyes and a disappointed mouth that she misses it every day. This tale radiates Edgar Allan Poe levels of foreshadowing and horror for me, despite the fact that it is delivered by a tall slip of a garden-goddess whose short gray hair sparkles and whose eyes shine with love and positivity on the grayest day. I cannot break up with peanut butter; ours is a relationship that has existed for a very long time.

Peanut butter is an Everything Staple for those of us who don’t [YET] have a [MAYBE? JESUS CHRIST, MAYBE?] peanut allergy. Part of why I eat it so much probably stems from the fact that I grew up with a single mother who lived in a constant state of obsession over what she ate, and by extension, what I ate. Before you get mad at her, let me assure you that there was no shaming going on, no judgement. While it was impossible not to personally imprint the world’s view of people who don’t have tiny figures, my mother approached food almost empirically, like she was a food scientist pulling apart the complex chemistry of nourishment to decipher the reasons why things that tasted so good could attach to her thighs and belly and then turn from flesh into an emotional burden of guilt and self-scrutiny. I like to say I am making up for lost time with long-lost food loves from my childhood and the picky first quarter of my life, peanut butter lives in that forbidden pantry for me along with garlic, sour cream, and sugar cereals. Look, I don’t write sonnets and poetic love couplets about garlic as a result of being given a stepfather who loathes its very existence, YOU DO.

Anyway, my mother never made me feel bad about myself and how I looked, she always encouraged and loved me. But her intense focus on the food she ate sort of rubbed off on me and stigmatized certain foods that I ate. Sometimes it was a direct attack: peanut butter was in the cross-hairs, probably because I always wanted it. I’d happily eaten regular Jif during all of my early years and then somewhere around the time I turned eight, she became convinced that peanut butter was going to make us both sick and give us cancer. She’d already had breast cancer, but was understandably concerned about staying in remission, so the conventional wisdom at that time was to worship at the shitty altar of low-fat foods. From that moment on, my life was a guessing game of When Is Peanut Butter Evil And When Is It A Friend? My mother wavered between ostracizing the delicious, sugary, and fatty foods we liked and determinedly choosing the reduced fat EVERYTHING. There was no constant, but certain food items were more demonized than others. To whit, I still feel guilty as a 38-year-old adult looking at sugar cereals in the grocery store. I feel like she knows. And she doesn’t like it.

Reduced fat Jif, by the way, is like a thick, congealed, freakish science experiment that’s gone wrong: the sugar and the peanuts stopped emulsifying at the exact moment when they were destined to be at their most disgusting states, and just before it all hardened up, someone stirred in a healthy dollop of earwax. Sorry for that.

I just want to be clear that regular Jif is excellent (and the only peanut butter to use in baking). I like the Crunchy Jif too, but if we are going with the maximum awesome for crunchy peanut butters, I err on the side of Skippy Extra Crunchy, because: yes. If you want to know about natural peanut butters, I will always pick crunchy natural peanut butter, and it’s got to be Crazy Richard’s or Teddy for me. When they add salt to natural peanut butter, it’s a food crime. Come at me.

You begin to see that my relationship with peanut butter is not unlike a great romance (or a Shakespearean comedy where I am Falstaff, but with peanut butter instead of spirits), fraught with ups and downs. Allow me to complicate it a little more:

Every time I pull out a butter knife and use it to slowly and carefully spread whatever type of peanut butter I happen to want at that moment on whatever type of bread I happen to have at that moment, carefully…out to the edges…I think of my father, not my mother. Why? You want to know why. I just wasted a shitload of your time on a peanut butter soliloquy that orbited my mother’s decades-long audit of a nut butter, not discussing the fact that my dad is an actual asshole who ruined peanut butter sandwiches for me over the course of perhaps 27 years of my life.

Here is the plain truth: for all of my mother’s food obsessions, reduced fat Snackwell cookies one day and Saralee pound cake, Mrs. Richardson’s fudge sauce, and vanilla ice cream the next, the confusion she created only manifested with food items, not with WHO I WAS or WHAT I LOOKED LIKE. My father used food as a weapon to shame me into whatever it was he thought I should be (I still don’t know what that is, by the way). My confusion is compounded because I couldn’t deny my paternal genes if I wanted to: we are all short, thick, and would have made excellent peasants back in the dark ages. What I’m saying none too bluntly is that not a one of us are pulling any awards for shapely figures or gorgeous looks. Middle of the road in all ways physical.

My parents divorced when I was three and my father had custody every other weekend (I was not a fan of this). He eventually remarried, conveniently, the weekend before my mother got remarried, in the same month of the same year. Every other weekend, my father and stepmother would deride and scold me for what I ordered if we went out to dinner; they would stare at every bite I took, and control the food in the house so I never ate without them knowing what and how much. My stepsister was tall and thin, whereas I am rather shaped like a frostycone, so I suspect that she did not have the same rules imposed on her when I was not around. I would ask for snacks and they would say no. They did everything but lock the pantry. We were allowed dinner on Friday night and then one lunch item on Saturday before dinner. I was restricted. My stepsister ate what she wanted, when she wanted, and would quietly slip away from time to time. We know why.

My mother bought me a super heinously ugly sweater at The Gap once when I was in eighth grade. It was thick and bulky, sprinkled with white and green pine trees and white horizontal stripes over a light gray background. If I’m honest, it was not real on-brand for The Gap, I am still shocked to this day that they sold such a shitbird design in their stores, so naturally I hated the shapeless wonder and refused to wear it until my mother guilted me into it (precisely twice). The second time I wore the sweater was the last time. It was a Sunday afternoon and almost time for my father to bring me home, which put me in a good mood. He and I ran into one another in the living room when I came downstairs for a drink of water. He hadn’t seen me yet that day, and I will qualify the WTF-ness of not having seen him all day by telling you that before he got remarried, the public library in town spent more time with me than he did. He and my stepmother did whatever they did downstairs (their bedroom and office were on the first floor) while my stepsister and I watched TV upstairs in her bedroom. My father’s face immediately flashed in anger and he grabbed the sleeve of my sweater, “What is this shit you’re wearing? Why do you always look so bad? Why can’t you ever wear clothes that LOOK GOOD?”

I just stared at him, gobsmacked, feeling much like a tennis ball that just got walloped by a Williams sister. Strangely, the first thing I wanted to say to defend myself was, “She bought it at The Gap, isn’t that good enough for you?”

Yeah kid, the class issues are the real heart of the issue here.

I never ate peanut butter sandwiches at my father’s house, even though they always had Old Pride wheat bread and Jif Creamy peanut butter. I remember because I saw my father make a peanut butter sandwich once. It was Saturday, between lunch and dinner. I was standing in the kitchen and my father pulled out the yellow plastic bag of Old Pride- the nutty wheat smell breezed out, little flecks of grain sewn into a soft pillow ready for its fate as a sandwich. The lid unscrewed from the Jif quietly and that immediate, powerful smell of peanut butter hit my hungry stomach. My father swirled the peanut butter across the bread, an inch thick. It seemed unthinkable to me and my eyes grew wide. An inch thick. Even when peanut butter was not on the bad list at my mother’s house, it was meant to be used sparingly; I never had full autonomy free from guilt when I made my peanut butter sandwiches. An inch thick. I think my father noticed my face because he hastily layered the top piece of bread on his completed sandwich and gave me a look that was half angry, half embarrassed before removing all traces of food and walking down the hall to his office. An inch thick. I will never forget it. I can still see the countertop, the bread, all that peanut butter- not for me. Made by someone who did nothing but diminish me in ways I still can’t reconcile.

I wish I could make a peanut butter sandwich without thinking of him, but that doesn’t stop me from enjoying them. Luckily, he is only linked to the creation of the sandwich and not the relishing of its taste, texture, and smell. It’s these weird, nuanced moments that show me where he broke me. But there are strange, funny things I associate with my father as well. He calls long toenails “lunch hooks” and I will never know why, but it makes me laugh. He taught me the ideal way (in my opinion) to eat a muffin: slice it in half horizontally and butter the inside of each half. I still say, “Don’t let it get away from you” about staying on top of tasks and that is purely my father. I’m militant about notifying people when I receive things from them in the mail, because he told me it’s the right thing to do, AND IT IS. When he laughs, it’s rare, but it’s a deep belly laugh, and it’s nice because he only does that when it’s true. My father is not a sympathy laugher, he’s not here to make you feel good about anything. He’s worked hard to educate himself and gain upward mobility in his jobs, but he’s also been an asshole to a lot of people in his personal life. I just know he is not allowed to be an asshole about my motherfucking peanut butter sandwiches anymore.

Update 4/15/20: I haven’t thought about my father while making a peanut butter sandwich since I first wrote this. I’ll take the win.

[littlebigmouse]

I will admit I haven’t watched CLBG or the out of Bed in the Morning one for a while now, so I will refrain from adding my two cents regarding Deceit’s overarching motives until I have rewatched them and properly thought about it, although I will admit your point about “Hey honey this is my job and this happens when you are a 100 percent honest with yourself do you really want this??” (forgive the phrasing here) makes sense. However, regardless of that, I don’t think Deceit’s plan was that stupid in SvS, or even “too stupid” by the terms of the show. If you can make your point in more detail, please do, because so far I really don’t see it. First of all, I don’t think there is a “too stupid” in this show. Sanders Sides is fairly lighthearted and has so far been rather open with and about the discussions of its themes. The representation of all things “smart”, rational thought and logical thinking - Logan, ran around in a sherlock hat for an entire episode, accusing the entire supporting cast of being the source of procrastination. The characters are first and foremost flawed characters in a comedy, so calling Deceit’s plan too stupid to me feels like missing the point of the character - yes, he has an agenda we (maybe?) don’t know about yet, but I don’t think it would be in character for the show to suddenly add three layers of plottwist to its narrative, even with the recent changes in tone. Or, to phrase this differently: For Deceit to set himself up as the villain and pull a reverse, every single thing in this episode would have to have been plotted and calculated for by him. That’s not only highly unlikely, with some of the twists in this episode, thats downright impossible and some Sherlock levels of ridiculoulsly smart and unnecessarily convulted (although, I will admit, highly entertaining). So in this sense, I think Deceit’s actions aren’t too unreasonable. He wanted to impersonate Logan in the beginning so his arguments would be viewed as objectively true and his first sentence as Logan, even before he got found out, was to invite Thomas to share his ‘true feelings’ on the matter, a risky thing to say as Logan if one wants to convince Thomas to keep lying to himself. I see where it would have been to risky to involve Logan, both earlier in the episode, and later in the courtroom scenario. Even in the small involvement Logan has in the episode, a lot of his arguments are defiant to Deceit’s point, or just plain unpredictably random (the “divorce rates have been declining”-argument for the former and the “he floundered most of his inheritance on his failed milk start-up” for the latter). Not too mention according to Logan’s comment by the end of the episode, questioning whether a society could live without rules, he would have opposed Deceit’s worldview and frankly, in a proper, rational discussion, would probably have destroyed him. So Deceit got ridd of his biggest competetor and made himself into the party with the reasonable arguments. Heck, even saying “the rational decision is to go the call back and talk to your friends” isn’t entirely true. It sounds like the most reasonable solution to us, the audience, as people who would also prefer the big opportunity vs the anxious social event, but it wasn’t to Thomas, for whom this was an inherently moral question, on whether or not to follow his moral compass and do the right thingTM vs acting selfishly. In moral philosophy, there is no such thing as ‘the most rational solution’, so of course there wasn’t one to this dilema (even though in reality the situation wouldn’t be so binary, the wedding vs callback problems was just a framing device). The choice in role appointments also makes sense - of course a moral argument needs to be had against Morality. Deceit believed Roman to be on his side, so he made him the judge (any sentence would be in his favour). The second part of Deceits plan (to get Thomas to admit that lying can in fact be good), failed because Roman decided to act in an unpredictable way to set Thomas straight and thus Roman acted against his own interest, something I doubt anyone could have predicted by the beginning of the episode. And I honestly don’t see where Patton was giving up in this episode, or easy to deal with. Patton can canonically be quite stubborn, and especially in the beginning of the episode, right before Deceit opens the scenario, it seems like Patton is shutting down the callback by guilt-tripping Roman and Roman appears to be conceding because at this point Roman is still not necessarily honest about being on Deceit’s side here. And where Logan has pointed out that Patton is too strict/in the wrong (most noteably however in the episode AFTER SvS), there have been just as many cases where Logan has been swayed by Patton, or admitted that emotions must be heeded (most noteably in Growing Up). Logan himself says that he finds the wedding important because he recognises that Thomas’ friends are important to him and recognises the importance of the emotional argument here.

With Logan’s stance unclear and his word probably not as “important” to Thomas in a moral/emotional argument and Patton taking the reigns like he did in the beginning of the episode - where do you get the impression that Thomas would have just gone to the callback if the situation had been left alone? The entire courtroom scenario to be framed the way it was - Thomas being guilty and at fault could also just be the way Thomas viewed the situation, and was kind of the default thinking for Patton/Thomas. Think of it this way - in what scenario would Thomas be defininitely forced to admit he is lying to himself if not a court room scenario in which he gets proven guilty? The place where “the truth comes to hang out”? With all that said, “this character was lying about everything and has actually plotted everything to happen exactly like that the entire time” theories are hard to argue against because Deceit setting himself up as a villain would not only imply that he plotted the entirety of SvS, but also that everything that has been said in the episode was fake/a lie. With nothing true and everything uncertain, it’s not possible to make a case of characterisation or, well, anything, really. That being said, I like the theory and enjoy this thread, and I’m not calling it stupid. I just think there’s more things that don’t line up with it (and then in canon) than if it is untrue.

You know what? It's April 13th, so I'm gonna say it

This fandom downplays the importance of the wedding and most fanders have a way too black and white view of the situation as a whole

[pinelife3]

Pain Is Love

‘Twas the modern poet Ja Rule who said “Pain is Love” - and he proved his point by getting it tattooed on his tit.

What I particularly admire is the subtle font styles he’s opted for here - slimer for ‘pain’ and romantic cursive for ‘love’. Really captures the duality of man: part slimer, part romantic - all hairless, nipple-free pectoral. 

Anyway.

Sit down, ash your cigarette on your mum’s carpet, crack that can of sugarfree  Red Bull and let me pitch you a show: a show where Academy Award winners collaborate with authentic amateur performers. A show that combines drama, comedy, and spectacular CGI-free stunts to conjure a profound message about the state of modern masculinity and the importance of brotherhood in the face of adversity. Is this the sequel to Band of Brothers?, you may be thinking, am I about to have my heart and mind touched by HBO’s newest masterwork? Close. We’re talking about Jackass.

Academy Award winner Spike Jonze co-created the TV show Jackass c. 1999. Jonze was freshly married to Sofia Coppola and had just released the indie boner pill Being John Malkovich. Chock full of highbrow cred (I can only assume that being married to a Coppola opens pretty heavy doors in the film industry), he tied his fate to a rambunctious bunch of stunt performers and created a TV show that would horrify lameos across the planet. (Obviously Johnny Knoxville and Jeff Tremaine were also instrumental in founding Jackass - but that angle doesn’t play as well).

Quick Jackass filmography:

Jackass TV show (2000 - 2002)

Jackass: The Movie (2002)

Jackass Number Two (2006)

Jackass 3D (2010)

If you’re curious about the history or cultural significance of Jackass (you mean you didn’t live it in the 2000s?), Wikipedia and any Reddit thread about Steve-O or Ryan Dunn will cover that for you. I’ve got an argument: Jackass is profound because these dudes love pain and enjoy suffering for each other - and all of that has secured them a place in the pantheon of eternal public adoration. Of course, this is all based on you buying into my original Ja Rule-based premise that pain is love. If you’re not with me on that, I can’t be bothered to persuade you so seeya.

Cast your mind back to the year two thousand, to a show which specialised in revolting, brain-dead comedy and stunts designed to humiliate and hurt their stars for the audience’s amusement, and significantly, for the amusement of the star’s friends. Babies born that year are just now becoming legal romantic prospects. New York still had two towers. Clinton was still president (FYI: the jizz on Lewinsky’s dress had dried more than three years ago). Monster energy drinks were just a glimmer in the eye of Monster Beverage Corp. - which is actually a real shame because the Jackass aesthetic seems very similar to Monster’s: a bunch of guys standing around bare chested in low rise jeans with bad tattoos, all attempting to whack each other in the balls, braying like donkeys and waiting for something interesting to happen.  

A lot of the guys in Jackass were trained stunt performers or had attended clown school type places - they were really great at falling over and basically forged a career in getting their asses kicked. Most people probably would be hesitant to staple something to their friend. These guys relish it. There’s some kind of twilight Jackass zone where doing something stupid and violent to your friend has no negative impact on your relationship. 

They were also creatively revolting. Who in their high school days didn’t see a guy snort a shot of wasabi and then vomit out his eyes, brain exploding from his ass as his toenails popped off from the shock of the spice? Who amongst us didn’t pay their friend $4 (this was 2007, so work that into your inflation calculations) to see how many rotten Four‘n Twenty pies he could eat in a minute? These are common forms of disgustingness, the kind of disgustingness which any bored teenager can conjure. No, on Jackass they invented an elaborate rig to facilitate drinking each others’ ball sweat. 

Another attraction of the show: in addition to seeing some great creative minds at work (Spike Jonze, Lance Bangs, Brad Pitt, the genius who thought of the flying portaloo) you can also see those great minds become violently ill when confronted with the bodily fluids of their coworkers. Lance Bangs in particular (camera dude in the video above with the wicked sun visor) seemed to develop a rep as an easy puker. Anytime something gross is going on, cameras are on the billed stars - and also on Lance to see if he’ll puke. It’s important that we see him puke.

I think what differentiates Jackass from other gross-out, stupid comedies is the relationship between the dudes. When writing Superbad (a really great, filthy film) the jizz jokes came easily to Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, but they have admitted it took some time to add ‘heart’ to the movie: 

Apatow kept steering them toward a stronger emotional story. The script had always had a decent arc for Seth and Evan in terms of the girlfriend quest, as they eventually learned some lessons from the night’s disasters, but nothing satisfying for the pair of young men themselves.

Rogen says, “As we got older, we started realizing [the story] needed more, and Judd helped with planting the seed of that, I have to say. We just were thinking what could be funny and kind of relatable.

“We thought it would be funny to have a sweet movie, a sweet story going on in the midst of the filthy sexuality of it all. That was something we thought would play well against it and would add more layers to the movie.”

With prodding from Apatow, and through many conversations, they made the primary plot an unlikely love story between the two buddies.

“We always view our movies as male love stories in a weird kind of way. Which is funny, because Evan and I are totally not like that at all. We don’t hug each other. It’s always amusing to us.

“It’s like any other movie with a man and a woman, we just want to see them tell each other how much they love each other. And I think we may have even started there and thought what other kinds of things these guys could be going through, and the whole college Dartmouth thing was what we thought would work best for the movie,” says Rogen.

In the case of Jackass, the heart is implied. Surely you could only be so awful to someone you really loved. (See also: divorce, Othello, The Staircase.)

Johnny Knoxville is the closest thing to the show’s straight man (in that he is the most conventionally attractive and seems to eat it less than the others) but other than that it’s 100% fool. A lot of gay jokes (calling someone a cocksucker is the worst insult because, as we all know, there is nothing more terrible and degrading in life than sucking a dick). A lot of self-deprecation. A lot of ball whacking. A lot of falling over. A lot of laughing. It’s relentless. Like I mentioned earlier, the comments section of Reddit and YouTube (and possibly the world at large) have a lot of affection for the cast of Jackass, based essentially on their willingness to humiliate themselves and eat shit for our amusement.  

Watch Steve-O smash everything he owns for your entertainment:

In some way there is an undercurrent of sadness that they need to kick their asses like this. It’s really bordering on self-flagellation at times. They egg each other on so much - yeah do it, man, decapitate yourself, it’ll be hilarious.

Danny Brown fired off the tweets below c. 2014 and I remember being really moved by them. He was trying to quit lean (which he refers to as ‘po’ below) and went on the bleakest Twitter spree:

(Apologies if it looks a bit janky - I patchworked it together in MS Paint.)

As time has passed many of the people from Jackass have had issues. Ryan Dunn died in a drink driving accident. Steve-O had terrible substance abuse problems but is straight-edge now. Bam Margera got scammed by a mail order bride or something. Johnny Knoxville voiced Leonardo in the 2014 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie and was then replaced in the sequel :’( 

So many lives torn apart.

But not uncommon for people who make a fool of themselves for the enjoyment of others. 

[wp-yahoo-style-1042-yahoopa-blog]

7 Looks From the ’90s Classic ‘Singles’ We’d Still Wear Today (And One We Wouldn‘t...)

Nothing makes you feel quite as old as realizing that millennials — that marketer-beloved generation born in the 1980s and 1990s — aren’t even the demograph du jour anymore. Nope, these days advertisers are starting to aim their messages squarely at Generation Z — the tweens and teens born from the early 2000s on, who don’t remember a life before the Internet (or before Miley Cyrus had blonde hair, for that matter) — the Snapchat generation, if you will.

But it wasn’t always that way. Once upon a time in a fast-fading era known as the ’90s, Generation X — the self-deprecating, cynical cohorts born in the ’60s and ’70s and named for a Douglas Coupland novel — captured our imagination with their indie rock-loving, slacker ways. Much ink was spilled (and it was, like, actual ink in those days) trying to decipher Gen Xers’ curious mix of self-effacement and painful sincerity (it was their divorced parents’ faults, probably). Those same two qualities also made them the perfect subject for a Cameron Crowe film — and it was that director who gave a specific set of Pacific Northwest, grunge-obsessed Gen Xers the romantic comedy that was arguably their most defining cinematic document: Singles.

Let’s get this out of the way: This year, Singles turns 25 years old, which is not okay on any level if you remember the era when Kurt Cobain was an actual guy who made music, and not just a dude on black-light posters. From the vantage point of 2017, it’s hard to say this light take on the romantic foibles of Bridget Fonda’s coffee shop waitress and Matt Dillon’s douchey frontman of grunge band Citizen Dick holds up terribly well. But as a loving record of the era before flannels, soul patches, and Eddie Vedder became ubiquitous — then completely unacceptable — it is something akin to a small masterpiece.

Of course, the ’90s are now is best known as an era that is being plundered for fashion trends, from the runways to high-street stores, which makes the characters’ style of particular interest — and makes it maybe not so surprising that, just like in 1992, we’d gladly wear pretty much anything from Bridget Fonda-as-Janet’s wardrobe. Other outfits — mainly those worn by the dudes, and Kyra Sedgewick as the commitment-shy Linda — sadly do not hold up quite as well.

Ahead, we take a look at the outfits we’d gladly wear today — and the ones we wouldn’t (they did you dirty with that baggy, butter-yellow cardigan, Kyra).

Let’s keep in touch. Follow Yahoo Style on Instagram, Facebook, and Pinterest for inspiration delivered fresh to your feed, every day.

Bridget Fonda as coffee shop waitress Janet, and Matt Dillon as grunge musician Cliff in “Singles,” which turns 25 this year.

Black leather jacket, minidress, black tights, and booties — not only has Bridget Fonda’s outfit somehow not aged at all — it basically just looks like the L train on any given Tuesday. Wish we could say the same for Matt Dillon’s very Pearl Jam man-shorts lewk. (Photo: Everett Collection)

Source: Yahoo Style

Bridget Fonda and Matt Dillon in “Singles.”

Janet’s grungy-meets-girly outfit is still super cute — she even adds a curved-brim dad hat in a very 2017 touch that would get a lot of likes on Instagram. Meanwhile, Matt Dillon is still insisting on wearing jams. (Photo: Everett Collection)

Source: Yahoo Style

Bridget Fonda in “Singles.”

Yes, Janet, come through with the jaunty flannel look! (Photo: Everett Collection)

Source: Yahoo Style

Here’s a closer look at Janet’s vintage minidress, worn under that black leather jacket. Reformation is probably selling this dress for $198 as we speak. We love the boom box and the general luxuriating here, but the Ayn Rand book — huh, somehow we missed that one 25 years ago. The ’90s: Before we knew that tanning and objectivism were bad for you. (Photo: Everett Collection)

Source: Yahoo Style

Okay, Janet’s look is a little bit “Benny and Joon,” but we could still see an especially committed Brooklyn vintage seller making this happen. Also, that laundry basket made me nostalgic in a way I can’t quite describe. (Photo: Everett Collection)

Source: Yahoo Style

Campbell Scott, Matt Dillon, Bridget Fonda, and Jim True-Frost in “Singles.”

There was a time when wearing a Bert and Ernie-style striped T-shirt like this was to immediately mark yourself as a cool insider who probably knew where the good thrift stores were. The ’90s: Our shibboleths were so simple then. (Photo: Everett Collection)

Source: Yahoo Style

Matt Dillon in “Singles.”

Okay, not sure if we’re fully ready for the return of the destroyed T-shirt layered atop the thermal, but Matt Dillon is serving pure smolder here, so we’ll allow it. (Photo: Everett Collection)

Source: Yahoo Style

Campbell Scott and Kyra Sedgwick in “Singles.”

Oh, Kyra – you deserved better than this baggy, butter-yellow afghan-turned-cardigan. Never forget that the ’90s weren’t all cute. (Photo: Everett Collection)

Source: Yahoo Style

[pauls4thoughts]

Review: ‘Casual’ Might Be The Ultimate Union of Indie Film and TV

'Casual' starts with a very smart piece of casting. It’s centred around Michaela Watkins, who belongs in that uniquely frustrating category of female comic actors who are sorely underused. Watkins, who was unfairly dumped from Saturday Night Live, has been relegated to small roles, in everything from TV’s Veep and New Girl to big screen turns in Afternoon Delight and Enough Said, and also almost stole the show in 'Transparent'.

But, despite her lack of screen time, she’s always managed to emerge as a scene-stealer. Casting her in the lead role of his show allows us to finally spend a far more satisfying time with her. She stars as Valerie, one month out of a marriage which saw her husband cheat on her, who is now living with her brother, and best friend, Alex as well as her teenage daughter Laura. The overarching theme is how the three search for love, and mainly sex, in the modern era. Valerie is re-entering the singles world without a clue of what to do, Alex is the creator of a dating site which boasts an algorithm that he designed to set him up with whomever he wants and Laura is developing a crush on her teacher while having rampant sex with her boyfriend.

'Casual' is an undeniably entertaining show. Watkins is a likeable lead and there’s a smattering of smart lines (“Going to the gym gives me PTSD”) but, given the growing number of equally funny and indie-filtered comedies both on TV and online, it needs more to stand out from the crowd. There are flashes, in the first two episodes that were shown, of something different.

As a character, Valerie begins as a refreshing antithesis to the overbearing mother trope we see often see in sitcoms. She has a sexually liberated view on her daughter’s lifestyle, boasting that she has had her on the pill since the age of 12 and still buys her condoms. But what’s somewhat disheartening is that by the end of the second episode she’s in a more familiar place of being the uptight regulator, as her brother and daughter both need bailing out of trouble. What we’ve seen of Alex suggests a familiar mixture of slacker and womaniser which is nothing new but Laura’s openness is an interesting addition, given the relative lack of female characters who enjoy sex without judgement.

Here’s the thing: I'm not sure I could adequately pinpoint why I enjoy Casual. But it is really well-acted, especially on the part of Watkins and Barr, who add so many layers to characters we’ve seen dozens of times.

The divorced woman approaching middle age and wondering if she’s wasted her life? It’s been done, but Watkins gives Valerie such nuance and edge that she’s rightly become the most acclaimed part of the show. She's one of the best comedic actresses working today, and on Casual, she gives a performance filled with soulfulness.

It's Barr, however, who has the much tougher part, and I would argue that whether or not you like Casual stems almost entirely from whether or not you find Laura intriguingly misguided or completely insufferable.

She seems terrified of forming connections to anyone, and the further season two progresses, the more it seems like she’s constantly finding new friendships but then bailing from them before they've even reached their cruising altitude. And that loops around to why I ultimately like Casual, even if the show never seems to strike the right balance when it comes to portraying its characters’ bubble of privilege: It’s really great at depicting loneliness.

[oltnews]

Between several nominations - Golden Globes, Academy Awards and more - for his performances in two different films, it is safe to say that 2020 is one of Scarlett Johansson's most important years. His comic and exaggerated performance in Jojo rabbit is almost as lauded as his emotional, realistic and dramatic performance in Marriage story. RELATED: The 10 Best Scarlett Johansson Movies (According to IMDb) The Hollywood star started playing at the age of 11, and even though she was still incredibly talented as a child actor, it is captivating to see how her skills have developed over the years, making her now one of the best actresses in Hollywood. She is incredibly versatile in her roles, having directed superhero films, dramas, comedies, romantic films and even science fiction. Here is an overview of its top 10 performances. ten In good company In good company is a nice film about a father who finds himself reporting to someone new at work and who finds it hard to accept how younger this new boss is. In fact, her boss is now closer to the age of her daughter. Scarlett plays the daughter of the protagonist, with whom the young boss falls in love - from there, a family and relationship drama ensues. The character of Scarlett is gentle and independent, insensitive to her father's disapproval when she comes into contact with the young boss. The actress adds charm and a slight tenacity to the character, which makes her impossible not to love. 9 The one who whispers in the ears of horses The one who whispers in the ears of horses is one of the main roles of Scarlett. She was only 14 when she shot the film, yet she delivered a performance almost as powerful as that of critically acclaimed Robert Redford. In the film, Scarlett is a young rider who suffers a traumatic accident that almost prevents her from riding again. Redford is the whisperer who helps him overcome his fears and get back on horseback. Scarlett grasps the dilemma of a marked adolescent girl who is both afraid to indulge her passion but also misses it. 8 Boleyn's other daughter In Boleyn's other daughter, Natalie Scarlett plays Mary Boleyn, Anne Boleyn's older sister, played by Natalie Portman. The film is a historical drama inspired by the real events of the domination of England by Henry VIII. Scarlett is magic alongside Natalie. The two perfectly embody the very different sisters whose passionate rivalry carries the film. While the character of Natalie is more mysterious and devious, the character of Scarlett attracts more men and, unfortunately, is too often reduced to her beauty. 7 Lucy Luc Besson Lucy is an action and science fiction film that follows a young woman, Scarlett, who is forced to engage in illegal drug trafficking. Waking up with the drugs in her, she is terrified and runs away. The drug is a special drug, however, which slowly changes Lucy's behavior and increases her brain capacity. RELATED: Scarlett Johansson's 10 Most Badass Characters, Ranked Scarlett begins the film by playing an average emotional woman and finishes the film as an unstoppable being like a robot. Despite the film's scientific inaccuracies, Scarlett makes the heroine so real and comparable that the story seems realistic. 6 Hello, Caesar! The experience of watching Hello, Caesar! is difficult to describe - in the best possible way. Not only is Scarlett Johansson directed by the Coen brothers in this film, but she is part of an equally talented cast of George Clooney, Ralph Fiennes, Tilda Swinton and Josh Brolin. RELATED: 10 Scarlett Johansson Roles Everyone Has Forgotten With an exaggerated performance, colorful makeup and a domineering voice, Scarlett is perfect in the role of the arrogant movie star. She plays an actress and a synchronized swimmer who becomes pregnant in the middle of the shooting of her last film and who is simply hilarious. 5 Don jon Speaking with a hilarious Jersey Girl accent, Scarlett is a typical bombshell Don jon. She plays a beautiful blonde who is looking for romance like in the movies and thinks she can find one in the character of Joseph-Gordon Levitt. Although her character is very cliché and not exactly comparable, she is incredibly funny and entertaining to watch thanks to Scarlett's convincing performances. The actress generally plays independent and intelligent women, but is also clearly able to play irritable and shallow characters, such as Don jon proves. 4 Lost in translation Sofia coppola's Lost in translation is a beautiful heartbreaking story about two strangers who, far from their respective homes, develop an unusual romance for a limited time. Scarlett plays a young girl who accompanies her boyfriend on tour and spends his days getting bored at the hotel. She meets the character of Bill Murray, and he becomes the only person in the city with whom she can identify. Scarlett takes us into the mind of a romantic introvert. In the end, real life catches up with the protagonists - they both must finally separate; go home and go back to their respective relationships. 3 Jojo rabbit Scarlett is not only amazing in all genres, but even in the same genre, she is capable of different types of performance. We saw her do romantic comedies and dramatic comedies, and this year we saw her thrive in a dark and satirical comedy set in Nazi Germany. In Taika Waititi critically acclaimed Jojo rabbit, Scarlett plays a German girl who hides a Jewish girl in her attic, while her young son is one of Hitler's youth groups. Things take an unexpected turn when Scarlett's son on the screen discovers that she has betrayed her country. Scarlett embodies, with humor, a woman who goes against the beliefs of her own country and deals with a child old enough to ask questions but too young to understand all the complexities of the Second World War. 2 Under the skin Under the skin is an unpredictable experimental film in which Scarlett Johansson embodies an extraterrestrial who enchants unconscious men and draws them into her world where they are transformed into simple food for aliens. Despite how this premise may seem, the film has a slow, serious tone with long silences that rely entirely on Johansson's performance to communicate emotions. As a sneaky stranger, the character of Scarlett constantly plays the role of a pretty human woman while trying to hide her true nature. It is a complex and subtle role that Johansson plays to perfection. 1 Marriage story Scarlett Johansson was already widely recognized as a talented actress when Noah Baumbach Marriage story was released on Netflix, and yet it has always taken audiences by surprise with its captivating performance. Embodying a married woman who decides to use a lawyer to divorce her husband despite having argued against it, Scarlett conveys the frustration of a woman who lived in the shadow of her husband and who is finally changing his life. His performance is nevertheless complemented by Adam Driver's own, and the chemistry they share despite playing a divorced couple only adds to the layers of complexity of the film's vision of marriage. The actors show us how, even if their characters no longer want to get married, they still care about each other and form a family. NEXT: Scarlett Johansson's Top 10 Movies, According to Rotten Tomatoes next 10 obscure (but impressive) science fiction movies you can stream today on Amazon Prime About the Author Carla Pelosoff is a writer, reader, filmmaker and photographer based in London, UK. She worked as an editor for VOIR magazine and as a translator of various texts in English, French and Italian. Currently in her final year of English and film studies at King's College London, she also writes and directs short films with her classmates and writes film / TV review reviews on her personal website. Learn more about Carla Pelosoff (function(d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v6.0"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); (document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); https://oltnews.com/10-of-scarlett-johanssons-best-performances-screenrant-screen-rant?_unique_id=5e9d9961bb3e7

[differenthaircut-blog]

2018 Hairstyles for Ladies with Length Hairstyles

2018 Hairstyles for Ladies with Length Hairstyles, Lengthy locks are timeless. Lengthy hairstyles will always be fashionable and you will find a wide variety of hairstyles to select from. Trendy short and medium hairstyles appear and disappear, but lengthy hairstyles for ladies will always be a mainstay in hair fashion.

2018 Hairstyles for Ladies with Length Hairstyles

Women with lengthy hair tend to have their hair lengthy for a long time, and just possess the finishes trimmed to prevent split finishes. You will find a lot of hairstyles for lengthy hair nowadays that there’s really pointless whatsoever to obtain tired of your thing.

Straight cut and razor sharp cut hairstyles, without or with bangs, will always be popular for ladies since they’re the simplest to keep. For those who have curly lengthy hair and also you want straight lengthy hair, or the other way round, it is possible easily using the curling iron, a really helpful invention indeed like a curling iron doesn’t only curl hair, additionally, it may straighten hair. You will find also numerous hair items available to obtain the appearance you would like.

For those who have thin or fine hair, you are able to choose layered hairstyles which will add volume for your hair. You may also apply certain volumizing mousse. You will find a wide variety of layered hairstyles to select from which will flatter and compliment the face shape, style and age.

The lengthy flowing look is timeless and incredibly feminine. Most males love lengthy hair on ladies and the lengthy flowing look hairstyles will always be so appealing to males. You will find a lot of tales about males telling their spouses or female friends to not cut their lengthy tresses. Some had even threatened to divorce their spouses when they cut their lengthy hair. Now, really! But there’s something about lengthy flowing hair that’s so alluring to males.

To discover exactly what the new trends for 2018 length hairstyles, we just take a look at what celebs do using their hair. In the end celebs, generally, would be the fashion trend setters.

Selena Gomez Hairstyles

Since Selena Gomez and Attacking Young Boys are dating freely in public places, all Attacking Young Boys teen fans get their eyes not just on their own idol but additionally on Selena. Selena is better noted for representing Alex Russo within the Disney Funnel television series “Magicians of Waverly Place.”

Selena is going to be starring within the new Harmony Korine movie “Spring Breakers,” that is scheduled to become launched in 2013.

Selena is sporting straight layered hair with bangs this season. This hairstyle is simple to handle and merely needs regular trims to help keep the split finishes away.

Casual lengthy hair do – Selena’s straight layered lengthy locks are casual but oh so chic.

Formal lengthy hair do – Selena’s loose updo is super awesome.

Mila Kunis Hairstyles 

Mila Kunis grew to become famous as Jackie Burkhart around the hit television sitcome “That ’70s Show.” She seemed to be the voice of Meg Griffin around the animated series “Family Guy.” Mila was just 14 when she began “That ’70s Show”. Well, Mila is developed now and it has been honing her abilities being an actress yesteryear many years. This compensated off this year, when she won the Marcello Mastroianni Award for the best Youthful Actor or Actress in the 67th Venice Worldwide Film Festival on her performance as Lily in Black Swan. She seemed to be nominated for any Golden Globe Award for the best Supporting Actress along with a Screen Stars Guild Award for Outstanding Performance with a Female Actor inside a Supporting Role for the similar role.

Mila’s lengthy hairstyle is a good example of the chic layered straight length hairstyles.

Casual lengthy hair do – Mila Kunis after filming Black Swan, lost 20 pounds from rigorous ballet training and 1200 calorie diet each day.

Formal lengthy hair do – Mila Kunis putting on a really chic slightly loose formal updo

Reese Witherspoon Hairstyles

Reese Witherspoon first caught our attention in 1999 when she co-starred together with her former husband, Ryan Phillippe in “Cruel Intentions.” Her breakout role arrived 2001 as Elle Forest laminator tl901 office hit “Legally Blonde.” In 2002, she starred in “Sweet Home Alabama,” which grew to become her greatest commercial film success up to now.  She received worldwide attention and praise in 2005, on her portrayal of June Carter Money in Walk the road, which gained her an Academy Award, Golden Globe, BAFTA, and Screen Stars Guild Award for the best Actress inside a Leading Role.

Reese is the owner of a production company, Type A Films, and she or he is positively involved with children’s and women’s advocacy organizations. She serves around the board from the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF), and was named Global Ambassador of Avon Items in 2007, becoming honorary chair from the charitable Avon Foundation.

Reese’s locks are gently layered. The finishes and bangs are jagged cut.

Casual lengthy hair do – Reese’s casual look is straight flowing hairstyle with bangs that’s partially separated to brake the road and compliment her heart formed good looks.

Formal lengthy hair do – Reese’s bangs are drawn up and also the puff gave her heart-formed face added length. Her locks are tied inside a ponytail after which turned and pinned.  The switch gives this hairstyle a 70s retro look.

Jennifer Lopez Hairstyles

Jennifer Lopez is among the idol judges of yankee Idol again this season. She along with fellow idol judges Steven Tyler and Randy Jackson are in the idol judges table of yankee Idol season 11. Jennifer, also called J.Lo by her fans, is definitely an actress, singer, record producer, dancer, television personality, designer and tv producer.

Her debut album went 6x platinum. Jennifer May be the only lady to possess been chosen the most sexy lady on the planet two times in FHM (For Him Magazine). She was the very first Latina actress to become compensated $a million for any movie role (Selena(1997). By 2004, she’d accumulated a lot of money believed to become worth $255 million, because of her act as a singer, actress, and co-who owns Sweetface Styles. Jennifer can also be part who owns the Miami Whales.

Jennifer’s lengthy straight flowing locks are layered with jagged finishes. Straight layered hairstyles are extremely simple to manage and maintained.

Casual hair do – Jennifer Lopez talks onstage throughout the The American Idol Show panel in the FOX Broadcasting Company part of last year’s Winter TCA press tour held in the Langham Hotel in Pasadena, California. Her lengthy locks are worn lower.

Formal hair do – Jennifer’s new 2018 untidy sexy updo hair do. This is just one of individuals hairstyles that you simply got to get it done perfect otherwise it could come out a genuine mess. But Jennifer certainly drawn them back.

Kim Cattrall Hairstyles

Kim Cattral is renowned for her role as Samantha Johnson within the Cinemax comedy/romance series “Sex and also the City.” She reprised the role of Samantha Johnson within the “Sex and also the City” film, launched in May 2008. She also made an appearance within the follow up launched in May 2010.

Kim has among individuals hairstyles that’s too lengthy for medium length hair but is a great one of lengthy hairstyle for ladies within their 50′s who just will not go for brief hairstyles. The lengthy layered hairstyle is really lovely and achieving for Kim. The sunshine bangs are jagged cut and taken delicately aside to go with Kim’s face shape.

Casual hair do: Kim wears her hair straight lower for everyday put on.

Formal hair do: Kim sports a untidy sexy new updo much like Jennifer Lopez’ formal hairstyle.

Long Length Hairstyles

Medium Length Hairstyles for Thick Hair

Medium Length Hairstyles for Thin Hair

Medium Length Hairstyles with Bangs

Short Length Hairstyles

Short to Mid Length Hairstyles

Shoulder Length Haircuts

Trendy Mid Length Hair

2018 Hairstyles for Ladies with Length Hairstyles

[divorcedsoberginger-blog]

I Just Wanna Eat Cake...Not Cauliflower Rice and Quinoa

I am on an eternal diet.  Always have been, always will be, hence the word 'eternal'.

I know that I will always be watching my weight, not due to the health benefits of staying slim, but for the following reason...

I am a vain woman who is not liking what age is bringing.  Weight being one of them 'bringing' things.  

I know that 'dieting' is not healthy and that I just 'need to change my lifestyle to a healthier lifestyle' (that last bit was said in a really high pitched patronising voice).

I know that it's all about balance...balance....right....

You do know I'm a recovering alcoholic?  Balance?  Yeah, because I'm reeeaaallly good at that concept!  

I know that living on plant based foods will make you live longer, and will make you healthy and strong, and also will keep you slim.

But you see, the thing for me is...if I only live on plant based food for the rest of my life....just what is the bloody point?....please...shoot me now.  

Because that to me sounds sooooo bloody boring, and good food is the ONLY vice I have left.  

I don't smoke, don't do drugs, don't (and can't) drink alcohol,

FFS...Don't take my food away too!?!

I want chocolate.  A family-sized bar of it too, not one of those single-serve ones.   And I want to eat cake...like...with every meal.  

                                            My kind of sandwich...

But...

What I want and what I do are two different things, because as I mentioned before, I am vain, and that 'cake with every meal' is going straight to my fat layer.

Yet another fight on my hands...

'Vanity' versus 'Eating Bad Food'

And I'm not being funny, but here's a question...

Why do we not have that miracle pill yet?  

We can talk to each other face to face on a screen from across the other side of the world, we have spray on skin, 3D TVs, smartphones, and bagless vacuum cleaners, but we don't have a safe 'stop that chocolate going to your thighs' pill?  

And on another note...when DID my 'chocolate going to my thighs' STOP going to my thighs and decide it was all going to go to my middle??  Because that is really attractive....come on 'Life'....give me a break?!

Finally, 'having some fat' is in fashion, and mine is in the wrong place!  Kim Kardashian has brought back fat arses (her one and only gift to this world), and mine disappears into nothing and my original 'now acceptable' pear shape has changed almost overnight to an apple shape.  Really?  Because my 'man hair' problem isn't enough for me to deal with?

I have tried a few fad diets that all obviously didn't work. The minute I stopped them, I put the weight back on.

I have lived on cauliflower rice (still tastes like cauliflower, not like rice, it's just cauliflower that's fancied up a bit).

I have lived on soup, I have lived for on green juice, and I have lived on tuna and salad...you name it, I've lived on it.

Only last year, I lived nearly an entire 6 months on 'chicken and vegetables with gravy' alone.  I lost loads of weight and was even thinking of putting it out as a new fad diet....The Gravy Diet.  

But they are all Fads, and we know that Fad Diets don't work.

Here are some fascinating Fad Diets from over the last 100 years

The 1900's - Being round is fashionable for women.  Whoop! whoop!  But only the affluent could really afford to do this.  Oh bollocks...take back the 'whoop whoop'.  I would have been one of the poor people.

The 1920's - You Smoke Yourself Thin.  Like...obviously... you'll be 'dead-thin' because cigarettes are cancer-sticks.

The 1930's - Grapefruit with every meal. Grapefruits are actually really good for you.  I may add this to my future regime.

The 1940's - Diet the Ice Cream Way.   Sounds perfect for me...but you read a bit more and realise that it's too good to be true, and you are just restricting calories but eating ice cream for all the calories you do consume.

The 1950's - The Tapeworm Diet- Count me in baaabbbby.  I'm well vain enough to do this.  And I love pets!   I'd call him 'Fat Muncher'.  This is something I really could actually do.  

Still in the 1950's - The Cabbage Soup Diet.  I have tried it and could not stop doing cabbage farts.  I was not fun to live with, even I didn't want to live with me through this period.

The 1960's - Weight Watchers was invented.  Tried that.  It can work.  You are restricting calories.

In 1964 - The Drinking Man's Diet.  Yes...This was a real diet.  It says just under the title: 'or how to lose weight with a minimum of willpower (also recommended for ladies and teetotallers)'.  It is just The South Beach diet but with alcohol added into the mix.  Low carb, high protein, and it might just get you joining me in A.A.

The 1970's - The Sleeping Beauty Diet.  Apparently, Elvis was supposed to be a fan.  They tranquillized you so you couldn't eat anything as you were out of your head on drugs, you were literally completely soundo.  It would work....but not a good idea.  

In 1973- The Beautiful People's Diet.  They quote "For heightened perception without drugs, plus rapid weight loss, nothing beats the oldest known treatment for obesity: total starvation."   Holy shitballs.  I can't believe that is a real quote.  But it is.  It would work, but again probably not a good idea.  

In 1977 - Slimfast.  Tried this too.  It can work, but when I tried it I was hungry all the time.

In 1982 - Jane Fonda.   You just put a leotard on, legwarmers and a headband.  You permed your hair, then you exercised your way non-stop through the 80's.   Again, exercise works to a certain degree, as long as you're not eating a burger and chips for every meal with two bottles of wine.

In 1991 - Everything goes low fat.  It is a trick.  Because low fat usually equals high sugar.  But we didn't care and were happy to embrace this fad as it gave us such a great excuse to eat rubbish. You would just reply, "but it's low fat", then eat four low-fat packets of crisps followed by two low-fat trifles washed down with a litre of Diet Coke.  (I still say that phrase ''but they're low fat'' when I'm on my second bag of fruit chews).

In 1992 - Atkins Diet

In 1995 - Zone Diet

In 2000 - Macrobiotic Diet

In 2002 - 'What Would Jesus Eat?'  My fave diet for (comedy value alone).  I'm guessing he ate a lot of fish and drunk a lot of red wine.

In 2004 - South Beach Diet

In 2006 - Master Cleanse (which was a diet that was first introduced in the 1940's), which is mainly consuming maple syrup, cayenne and lemonade.

In 2010 - The Air Diet: Why Eat When You Can Pretend!  To follow this diet, you just pretend to eat your food, you cut it up and hold it to your mouth, then put it back on your plate (because that's not mental?!).  You then live on a salt soup instead.  

In 2011 - Inject yourself with Fertility Hormones......Yeah.....That sounds safe and like it's not going to have any re-occurring problems for your future self?!

In the last six years?  Paleo, Gluten Free, Quinoa, Kale, Juicing, the two come-back queens-Cabbage soup and Grapefruit Diet, the Alkaline diet, The Mediterranean Diet, The Breatharian diet, blah blah blah blah blah.  

I know for a fact that energy in versus energy out is the key to weight loss.  There are a load of other factors too, weight training, what type of calories, when you eat, blah blah blah blah blah.  

I am no expert, and I certainly do not pretend to be, but I what I do know is, you can do four hours of exercise every day, but if you are then having two bottles of wine every night with your dinner...weight loss is not happening for you.  

So what is my point to this blog?  

I HATE that I cannot eat all the nice stuff all the time, but, my pure vanity always wins over my naughty food consumption...so I stay slim.

I eat well in the week, watching my calories, exercising, eating fruit and nuts, don't eat chocolate, don't drink soft drink...

But on that weekend...it's chocolate for breakfast, lunch and dinner baaabbyyy.  I know it's not ideal, but it's the only way I get to stay slim and still eat my chocolate.  

Vanity? - She gets my weekdays

Eating Bad Foods? - She gets my weekends.

divorced-sober-ginger