#david production does a lot i love with this adaptation but i will never understand how they miss stuff like that

[xbuster]

[letterboxd]

Spectacular Spectacular!

On the twentieth anniversary of its explosion onto big screens, Ella Kemp high-kicks into the Moulin Rouge! once again, accompanied by screenwriter Craig Pearce and a chorus line of jukebox-musical academics and swoony Letterboxd fans.

“You’re always writing for yourself, for the film you want to see. I like all kinds of different films and I think teenage girls do too.” —Craig Pearce, Moulin Rouge! co-writer

This is a story about love. A love born at the turn of the twentieth century in an iconic Parisian cabaret and brought to life in 2001 on Australia’s most spectacular sound stage. A valentine to excess, greed, fantasy and, above all, to the fundamental Bohemian ideals: truth, beauty, freedom and love. This is the story of Moulin Rouge! and how it still burns bright, two decades on, in the hearts of romantics all over the world.

The film, a fateful love story between penniless writer Christian and dazzling courtesan Satine—played by Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman—premiered at the Cannes Film Festival on May 9, 2001 and opened in New York and Los Angeles cinemas only weeks later, on May 18. Cast and crew fought hard to get it there: unimaginably, writer-director Baz Luhrmann’s father passed away on the first day of filming, and Kidman’s then-marriage was in turmoil. “There were times of beautiful moments, but there were times where we were like, ‘This is so hard’,” Luhrmann recently told an Australian journalist.

And, though this seems strange to say in a world that has since welcomed Mamma Mia!, Bohemian Rhapsody and Rocketman, making a movie musical early in the millennium was a high-risk pursuit. Luhrmann again: “‘Musicals will never be popular again’ … I can’t tell you how many times I was told that.”

“It’s part of a cycle,” explains Dr. Eleonora Sammartino, an academic specializing in contemporary American film musicals. “It came after a period in the 1990s where musicals had disappeared from the big screen.” Lisa Duffy, Letterboxd member and Doctor of Hollywood Musicals, agrees: “Films coming out [that year] were a lot more dour, so this was a real gamble.”

Nobody understood this gamble better than the film’s co-writer, Craig Pearce, who has been Luhrmann’s close friend and professional partner since the pair were students together. Moulin Rouge! is the third and final entry in what we now know as their red-curtain trilogy, alongside Strictly Ballroom (1992) and Romeo + Juliet (1996).

“Baz had been thinking about the parallels between the Moulin Rouge and Andy Warhol’s Factory,” Pearce recalls. “Places where artists congregate, where it’s more than a place, it’s a petri dish of creativity. Like The Factory, and Studio 54, the Moulin Rouge was a place where the old and the wealthy pay a lot of money to hang out with the young and the sexy.”

At the end of the twentieth century, however, the Moulin Rouge wasn’t all that great (the original had burnt down in 1915). Pearce recalls: “We went to Paris in 1999 on a research trip and discovered, to our horror, that the Moulin Rouge now is just a hideous tourist trap. So we had to go on this journey to find out how this amazing creativity—artists and dancers and musicians—came out of what now feels like this tawdry girlie show.”

With the location and period locked in, Pearce and Luhrmann worked to find the story’s driving force. “This movie wouldn’t work without the exclamation point,” writes Adelaide. Pearce is the first to admit this: “It’s saying it’s Moulin Rouge, but it’s not that one. What we’re trying to do is heighten truth, but you have to start with that underlying truth,” he explains. “It’s not casting around for ‘what would be a cool idea’ because you never come up with one. It’s never as interesting as the truth. Like, there was an elephant in the garden of the Moulin Rouge. And why does that matter? It matters because there are certain inherent logics in the way human beings operate.”

“It's a musical of recycled parts. It’s a story which, beat for beat, has been told for centuries. It’s a staged show drawn from the lives of the characters themselves… This is a film [that] is bold enough not just to say that all art is about finding your own meanings behind someone else’s ideas, and that all art is just copying and stealing, but that this can be totally valid and authentic. When Nicole Kidman sings ‘Your Song’ to the Duke, she’s stealing from the writer, and Luhrmann is stealing from Elton John. But when Ewan McGregor is singing to Kidman, it’s the most magical moment you could possibly imagine. That’s what makes ‘Moulin Rouge!’ a true masterpiece. Cinema has never been more fake, and cinema has rarely been more real.” —Sam

Moulin Rouge! borrows from all over. There are hints of La Traviata, of Cabaret and of Émile Zola’s Nana. There were Toulouse Lautrec’s paintings (John Leguizamo tremendously embodies the painter in the film), Baudelaire and Verlaine’s literature, Jason and the Argonauts, Homer’s Odyssey, and the revues of the 1920s and ’30s. “Moulin Rouge! really embraces that vaudevillian component,” says Dr. Hannah Robbins, a Broadway and Hollywood musicals specialist.

Craig Pearce and Baz Luhrmann writing in Paris (1998) and New York (2019). / Photos from Luhrmann’s Twitter

“This genre lends itself to repetition and fragmentation,” Sammartino expands. “It’s part of the syntax of the musical and has always been, this idea of borrowing from other sources. This doesn’t take away from the daring postmodern approach Moulin Rouge! is defined by, it’s simply further proof that it’s, well, a very good musical.”

Above all else, the core of Moulin Rouge! is inspired by the myth of Orpheus of Thrace and his doomed love affair with the beautiful Eurydice, whom he followed into Hades after she died. “The show must go on, Satine,” the nightclub’s impresario Harold Zidler grimly tells his star, as their world begins to crumble. “We’re creatures of the underworld. We can’t afford to love.”

It wasn’t the first time Pearce and Luhrmann had looked to ancient mythology. Strictly Ballroom’s mantra, which tells us “a life lived in fear is a life half lived” owes everything to David and Goliath. But with the Orphean myth, the screenwriters were looking to dig deeper, to find something much darker. “The Orphean myth is a romantic tragedy in its essence,” Pearce explains. “David and Goliath is more youthful, and it’s about saying that belief can conquer anything. But as you get older people get sick, they die, and life is about resilience and finding ways to embrace the hard things in life and move forward.”

That might sound antithetical to the all-singing, all-dancing nature of the movie musical, but the genre has been trying to tell devastating stories like Moulin Rouge! for decades. “Hollywood is rarely interested in buying and remaking stories with devastating endings as much as stage musicals are,” Duffy explains. (See: Les Misérables, Phantom of the Opera.)

This reluctance can be traced back to the classic era, during which there were rules about the ways a musical could end under the censorship laws of the Production Code. Simply put, they had to have a happy ending. (Which also led to a fair amount of bizarre deus ex machina to guarantee a nice, cheery final act).

But then in the 1960s the Code fades away, and Hollywood starts engaging with violence, sex and explicit trauma on-screen. “We have much more freedom in the contemporary era to have people die explicitly,” Duffy says. “And that’s why we keep returning to Moulin Rouge!: there’s the explicit negotiation of our entry into the fantasy world, and then we’re devastated, and the curtains close and we’re in reality again.”

“It’s one of the great 21st-century films. Baz Luhrmann is only good when figuring out how to make historical periods of excess into contemporary displays of grotesquerie, somehow turning great films (‘French Cancan’) or great literature (‘The Great Gatsby’) into tacky Technicolor vomit that somehow understands the underlying sorrow of the material better than any serious-minded adaptation.” —Jake

The red-curtain trilogy has a distinct set of rules: one, the viewer must know how the film ends from the start; two, the story must be set in a heightened world; and three, it must contain a device that keeps the audience awake at all times, whether that be ballroom dancing, scattershot Shakespearean dialogue, or pop songs.

“Part of the appeal of the artifice is that it gives the audience permission to say, ‘This isn’t real, you’re about to see a fantasy, and that’s okay,’” Duffy says. “The pleasure is the fantasy of it. The whole film is us seeing how Christian is imagining what happened—and the musical is the most extreme genre that allows such imagination.”

The point was never to temper the elaborate, hyper-aware fakeness of it all, but to really commit to it. Says Robbins, “Musicals are ultimately artificial and exclusively constructed. And that’s what Moulin Rouge! achieves and quite a lot of films don’t. It goes, ‘This is where the story is going, this is the energy, this will be played in the soundtrack.’ There’s a deliberate thought process there.”

Luhrmann recently said: “The way we made the movie is the way the movie is.” An under-explored aspect of Moulin Rouge! is how the whole affair, with its ‘Spectacular Spectacular’ musical-within-a-musical device, is an insider’s guide to the mechanics and politics of making ‘big art’. How money can control both the art (the dastardly Duke insisting on “his” ending), and the artists (Satine is never told she is dying, because she is the golden goose upon whose shoulders the success of the company rests; Christian is likewise left in the dark, because he is the scriptwriter who needs to finish writing the show. Both are wrung dry for their talents).

There are shades of Luhrmann in Zigler, the impresario juggling cast, crew, investors and opening dates (Moulin Rouge! was originally slated for December 2000). Christian and friends in playwriting mode are surely Pearce and Luhrmann themselves, searching for the most economical way to say “the hills are vital, intoning the descant”.

And, from the show-within-a-show rehearsals, to the bustle of the backstage, to the gun-chase through the wooden bones of the fly tower, the production details are Catherine Martin to the very last diamante. Nobody does daring bedazzlement quite like ‘CM’, Luhrmann’s fellow producer and life partner. Electricity was the new, exciting thing in Paris at the turn of the twentieth century and this film was lit.

A necklace worn by Satine as a gift from the Duke was made of real diamonds and platinum. Designed by Stefano Canturi, It was the most expensive piece of jewellery ever specifically made for a film, with 1,308 diamonds weighing 134 carats, and worth an estimated one million dollars. Needless to say, Martin won both costume and production design Oscars for the film.

Also among the film’s eight Academy Award nominees: editor Jill Bilcock, about whose singular craft there is a recent documentary. Her breathless, kaleidoscopic cutting (also deployed in Strictly Ballroom and Romeo + Juliet) dropped us right on the dance floor; one 65-second sequence contained a boggling 85 cuts. And this is on the back of her superbly judged opening, a scene that repeats itself as she places Christian at both the start of his love story, and its devastating aftermath—heartbroken, unshaven, self-medicating, reaching for the words to begin making sense of his loss.

“I wondered, for the first hour of this, how Baz Luhrmann had managed to balance such in-your-face stylistic audacity while maintaining a genuine feeling of care for the characters and their struggles—is it all down to Ewan McGregor’s wonderfully earnest face, or the way Nicole Kidman’s smouldering-temptress persona is worn down by one of the most charming cinematic uses of Elton John’s ‘Your Song’? But as the ‘Elephant Love Medley’ transformed into David Bowie’s ‘Heroes’, I stopped caring, I just swooned.” —Kat

If electricity was the thing that drove the kids wild in the 1900s, the internet was on everyone’s minds in 2001. We were just figuring out how to juggle tabs and text people. The real magic dust sprinkled throughout Moulin Rouge! is, obviously, the cacophonous soundtrack, which made sense to our collective, fragmented consciousness.

“No other musical of the modern era has so perfectly captured the sense of spinning an iPod wheel every 45 seconds to play something else,” writes Jake of the medley of songs by David Bowie, Fat Boy Slim, Nirvana, Police, Elton John, Rufus Wainwright, Madonna and many others.

Luhrmann and Pearce stopped at nothing to get every single track from every single artist they wanted. The journey took more than two years, and some bodies were left at the side of the road. “You constantly have to kill your darlings,” Pearce sighs. RIP to Rod Stewart’s ‘Tonight’s the Night’, The Rolling Stones’ ‘Under My Thumb’, Prince’s ‘Raspberry Beret’ and Fifth Dimension’s ‘Up, Up and Away’. (Hot air balloons were big in 2001.)

"We wanted the music to be modern, because we didn’t want it to feel like a fusty, crusty world,” says Pearce. “We wanted to find the universal modern parallels that have existed since time immemorial.” But it wasn’t just about finding the most popular songs at the time. “The structure had to be driven by the needs of the story,” the screenwriter explains. “The musicals on film that tend to fail are the ones where the music feels like a film clip. If it’s not serving the emotional needs of the story, you very quickly check out and it becomes boring. With good musical storytelling, it builds and builds to a point where you can’t do anything but express yourself through song.”

Has there ever been a more desperately romantic promise than when Christian starts telling Satine he doesn’t have much to give her, before nailing that one perfect high note to reassure her that his gift is his song? Why, yes: when the mirrored love stories of Christian and Satine, and of the penniless sitar player and the courtesan in ‘Spectacular Spectacular’, meet at their dramatic peak, with ‘Come What May’. (The film’s only original song, it had been submitted for the Romeo + Juliet soundtrack by writers David Baerwald and Kevin Gilbert.)

“Moulin Rouge! was successful because it was using songs from different ages and periods, appealing to different audiences with something they could have a connection to. So it wasn’t just boomers, not just millennial or Gen X,” says Sammartino. “Something like Rock of Ages, for example, was much more narrow in terms of the kind of music you needed to like.”

“This film is a dramatic bitch and I love her.” —Mulaney

‘Moulin Rouge!’ co-writer and director Baz Luhrmann.

There is a pattern to our most emphatic reviews for the film: they come from relatively young people, who mainly identify as women. It’s something critics anticipated back in 2001. The New York Times wrote, in a fairly ambivalent review, that “young audiences, especially girls, will feel as if they had found a movie that was calling them by name”. We don’t have time to fully dig into the antiquated notion that “low art” (the publication’s quippy headline for that review was “An Eyeful, an Earful, Anachronism”) is aimed specifically at women, but surely we have to ask the question twenty years on: does anyone still think this could possibly be true?

“You’re always writing for yourself, for the film you want to see,” says Pearce. “I like all kinds of different films and I think teenage girls do too.” And let’s remember, it was Harry Styles who said of the broad demographic of his fanbase back in 2017: “Teenage girls—they don’t lie. If they like you, they're there. They don’t act ‘too cool’. They like you, and they tell you.”

Robbins: “The rom-com has made the connection between song and emotional display about female pain. The Emma Thompson crying to Joni Mitchell kind of lineage has tempered musicals—people think that’s what Mamma Mia! is: women and mothers and daughters and feelings.” Dig a little deeper and you’ll find a lot of musical-related data suggesting a broader scope. “When I went to see Frozen on Broadway, kids of all genders were wearing Olaf costumes, much more than princess ones. That is not the narrative Disney would like. And when people gender musicals and think of the princesses franchises, they don’t look to the fact that The Lion King and Aladdin were more successful.”

There has been an undeniable effort to reel male audiences in to see 21st-century musicals. On Hugh Jackman’s welcome, flamboyant career pivot (surprising to anyone but Australians), Duffy says: “Casting Wolverine in Les Misérables and The Greatest Showman is very, ‘See, manly men can do it too!’” Let’s not forget that Ewan McGregor had gotten his big break as freewheeling heroin addict Mark Renton in Danny Boyle’s Trainspotting just six years prior to playing Christian.

Indeed, says Duffy, “more of my male friends have seen Moulin Rouge! than other musicals. The MTV tone might have been significant, and there was the ‘Lady Marmalade’ music video—the fact you have all these beautiful pop stars writhing around in corsets. And just having David Bowie on the soundtrack is like, ‘Okay, this isn’t just girl music.’ Pop music offers an easier way to move past the stigma of show tunes.”

Crucially, Robbins notes that all of this prejudice, and the effort to tear it down, is speaking to, and about, a very specific—cisgender, heterosexual—subsection of audiences. “I always wonder where the critics think the queer audiences are. I do wonder if there’s a cis-het vibe going on that has even more to do with it, reinforcing that norm rather than actually focusing on young girls as an audience.”

I asked my interviewees whether they thought, twenty years on, that Moulin Rouge! would be better received today—and which parts of our contemporary cinematic and musical fabric owe a debt to Luhrmann’s jukebox wonder. “We’re more receptive but we have specific demands,” says Robbins. “And today’s musicals sink or swim on whether they meet those demands. So The Greatest Showman is the Moulin Rouge! of now. I think people would be lying if they didn’t say that the cinematography in Moulin Rouge! hasn’t affected almost every movie musical that has been made since. We wouldn’t have ‘Rewrite the Stars’ if we didn’t have ‘Sparkling Diamonds’.”

Duffy agrees: “So many things that come after you can draw a line directly to Moulin Rouge!—Pitch Perfect, Rock of Ages, Happy Feet… but most significantly, Glee would not exist without this movie. The jukebox musicals of the 21st century owe everything to Moulin Rouge! and the blueprint it lays down.”

Among the films that premiered at Cannes in 2001—David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive, Michael Haneke’s The Piano Teacher—was another kooky little number: Andrew Adamson and Vicky Jenson’s animated Shrek. Two jukebox musicals in the same prestige film festival, at a moment when the genre was considered deeply uncool? What a time to be alive!

If the last eighteen months have taught us anything, it’s that we film lovers enjoy nothing more than a comfort rewatch of our favorites. Moulin Rouge! and Shrek (and French Shrek) delivered untold comfort in the pandemic—but they had also soothed us much earlier, in the months following the unspeakable tragedy of the 9/11 attacks.

“For me it was very much a comfort film,” recalls Duffy, who had discovered Moulin Rouge! as a fresh-faced eighteen-year-old, during her first year away from home, studying in New York. “Part of that was rooted in this really traumatic thing that had happened, and all of us wanting to escape into this fantasy world as much as possible.”

Luhrmann said, in his recent Australian interview, “I love to see people united and uplifted and exulted. It’s a privilege to be a part of helping people find that.” As life outside our homes resumes, Moulin Rouge! will very much be part of a return to exultant living. The live musical—interrupted by Covid—opens in Melbourne in August and on the West End and Broadway in the fall.

Pearce last saw the film on a large screen in a derelict warehouse in London, at Secret Cinema’s interactive, carnivalesque spectacular. “I have to say, I was really proud of the film,” the screenwriter says, finally letting himself speak fondly of his accomplishment well over an hour into our conversation.

“I mean, some people liked it back in the day, but you’re never really satisfied with your work. You just tend to see the things that could have been better. But seeing the love for the film was really, really emotional.”

Related content

Follow Ella on Letterboxd

Craig Pearce is currently producing ‘Pistol’—a biopic miniseries on the Sex Pistols, directed by Danny Boyle—and his next film with Luhrmann is a biopic of Elvis Presley, with Austin Butler playing the king of rock and roll. Additional thanks to Dr. Eleonora Sammartino, Lisa Duffy and Dr. Hannah Robbins.

[pers-books]

What is your favourite Shakespeare play and why?

Oh dear... It’s never a good idea to ask me my favourite anything because it’s very rare that I have only one favourite!

So...

Richard II: because it was the first Shakespeare play I saw live. I did it for my O-level English Literature course (because, let’s not forget, I am an Old!). I was struggling with understanding it, then we had a school trip to the Theatre Royal in Bath where we saw the RSC’s production, and it stayed with me and made doing my O-level so much easier. I’ve since seen it live with David Tennant as Richard II.

King Lear: because it’s three women, three sisters, getting to show their strengths and weaknesses as both women and leaders. It’s fascinating and compelling, and pretty dark, too.

Much Ado About Nothing: I just love the witty banter between Beatrice and Benedick. The fact that I saw it on stage in London with David Tennant and Catherine Tate in the starring roles definitely does help.

The Merry Wives of Windsor: this is a bit of a cheat, because what I really love is the RSC’s musical version that they did starring Judi Dench, among others. Called Merry Wives the Musical (duh!) it’s full of rollicking tunes and humour. You can buy it on CD from the RSC’s shop and I recommend it.

Twelfth Night: Oh please! A young woman (Viola) disguises herself as a man after nearly being drowned in order to try to find her missing brother (who also nearly drowns) and then Viola has a woman fall in love with her. What’s not to love?

Hamlet: ghosts and revenge and one of the most famous of Shakespeare’s speeches all in one play. Also helps that I saw David Tennant in the principle role for an early 45th birthday present!

The Comedy of Errors: twin confusion! Twin twin confusion, since it features two sets of twins who were accidentally separated at birth and then each of one of the sets of twins ends up in Ephesus, where both of the other half of the pair of twins lives. Lots of mistaken identity and slapstick humour abounds. I’ve got the DVD of the BBC version featuring Michael Kitchen and Roger Daltrey playing each playing one set of twins and it’s a lot of fun.

 Bet you’re sorry you asked, now!

One thing I will strenuously insist upon is that Shakespeare is meant to be seen and heard, not read, so if ever anyone is struggling to read a Shakespeare play, I urge them to either see it live (if possible), or watch a filmed version, or failing that, listen to a full cast audio adaption. You will understand it better if you can hear Shakespeare’s language spoken (or sung!).

[Blow up my inbox]

[mediaevalmusereads]

Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past. By David Reich. New York: Pantheon Books, 2018.

Rating: 4/5 stars

Genre: non-fiction, science, genetics

Part of a Series? No.

Summary: Massive technological innovations now allow scientists to extract and analyze ancient DNA as never before, and it has become clear--in part from David Reich's own contributions to the field--that genomics is as important a means of understanding the human past as archeology, linguistics, and the written word. Now, in The New Science of the Human Past, Reich describes just how the human genome provides not only all the information that a fertilized human egg needs to develop but also contains within it the history of our species. He delineates how the Genomic Revolution and ancient DNA are transforming our understanding of our own lineage as modern humans; how genomics deconstructs the idea that there are no biologically meaningful differences among human populations (though without adherence to pernicious racist hierarchies); and how DNA studies reveal the deep history of human inequality--among different populations, between the sexes, and among individuals within a population.

***Full review under the cut.***

Content Warnings: discussions of racism and eugenics

Because this book is non-fiction, the structure of this review is going to be different from how I usually do things.

I picked up this book after it was used in a workshop on teaching Old Norse-Icelandic classes in an age of renewed interest in the mythical white past. The workshop used Reich's findings as an example of how to talk both about genetic differences between populations, and how to use scientific evidence to disprove the myth of a "pure" white race. The workshop itself was helpful, so I decided to look at the book as whole to see what else Reich had to say.

The first thing I really appreciated about this book was the way it was written. Reich makes clear that Who We Are is meant to be something of a hybrid: it's not a pop-science book, but it's not aimed solely at specialists, either. Thus, it's a good book for those who want to learn more about genetics and ancient DNA from an actual expert in the field, and I think Reich respects the reader's intelligence by including a lot of detailed, complex information about how genetic work is done. Granted, at times, some of the science went over my head, but that's due to my own limitations rather than anything Reich did wrong. Reich avoids jargon and carefully lays out what kinds of techniques his lab does and why to prove his points, and though it could be a little much, I understood and appreciated why all those things were included. If you're the type of person who wants a little more than pop science, you might find this book meets those needs.

Reich also has a genuine passion and fascination with the pursuit of knowledge, and loves being surprised by scientific findings. This passion is contagious and made me, as a reader, want to learn more and keep turning the page. I appreciated, too, that he called for scientists to work more with archaeologists and historians to avoid making elementary mistakes when interpreting data.

I also really liked the moments when Reich used science to critique racist myths from the 20th century and in the present. Reich makes clear at multiple points throughout the book that there is no such thing as a "pure" racial bloodline; all people alive today are the products of millennia of population mixture. He also stresses that though populations have genetic differences, those differences do not support white supremacist narratives.

However, I do think that Reich makes it a little to easy for people to accuse him of upholding or legitimizing some racist ideas. He spends some time in his book criticizing people who insist race is purely a social construction; in his line of work, genetic differences do exist between populations (people with African ancestry have increased risks for certain genetic diseases, people in Tibet have genetic adaptations that they benefit from, Ashkenazi Jews have increased risks of certain genetic defects, etc.), so I can understand the frustration he might feel when people insist that no significant differences exist between people of different races. However, in railing against a forced "orthodoxy," I think Reich opens himself up to unfair criticism and makes him look like he's fighting against "PC culture." Granted, he also rails against racists and makes clear that white supremacy is not only harmful, but scientifically unsound.

I also think Reich might come across as perpetuating racist ideas due to a small section in his book that outlines how genetics and cognition/intelligence are linked. Reich highlights the work currently being done in the world of genetics regarding cognition, and admits that some of this work may be misappropriated by white supremacists (or other nationalist groups). Granted, Reich also makes clear that, whatever the science says, we should be careful to shape our societies to treat everyone the same and not use genetics to deny people certain rights or opportunities. While I can get behind that sentiment, I think the turn to cognition is a little out of place in this book, and even if there is merit in having a conversation about the ethics of studying the link between cognition and genetics, I don't think Reich is the person to helm that discussion, mainly because it requires a lot of time and nuance (as in we need to account for how economics/class and other environmental or social factors play a role), and Reich doesn't devote that much time to it in this book.

Lastly, I think Reich comes across as a little insensitive to Indigenous/First Nations people. While Reich acknowledges the ways in which white/Western scientists have taken advantage of native peoples, I also think he underestimates the strength of that trauma. Given various tribes' refusal to participate in genetic research, I can, to some extent, understand Reich's professional frustration; but I also think Reich positions his field as benevolent and somewhat dismissive of tribal consent. Again, I think the topic of how to go about doing genetic research on Indigenous populations is worth having; I just don't think Reich is the one to helm it.

TL;DR: Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past is a fascinating look at the history of ancient human migration using genetics. Despite some moments when Reich struggles to overcome his own biases, this book is an honest look at the possibilities genetic research can offer, as well as a powerful refutation of racist ideas about "pure" lineages.

[anhed-nia]

BLOGTOBER 10/4/2020: SOCIETY

Without having a survey to back me up, I feel comfortable asserting that as a horror fan, you go through different phases with SOCIETY. It’s a basic fact of life, and yet it morphs and mutates underneath you, shocking you anew just when you think you’ve got a grip on it. You never forget your first time, because there is simply nothing like it. Then, after you get over the initial shock of its patented brand of body horror, you start to take it for granted; it's so broad and monolithic that it becomes something like the Grand Canyon--when it’s not right there in front of you, you begin to experience it more iconically, as part of the wallpaper of existence, rather than an in-your-face confrontation with the limits of experience. Then, you revisit it every few years (or months, depending on what sort of person you are), and the prophylactic layer that your brain has wrapped around your memories of it--the one that allows you to think of SOCIETY as a fun, wacky cheap thrill--begins to crumble, and you realize all over again how iconoclastically vile it is. Wherever you happen to be at, with this inimitable genre landmark, you'd be hard pressed to deny that it earns its royal status among horror movies, just for being so uniquely fucked up.

Filmmaker Brian Yuzna is best known as the co-creator of the indispensable RE-ANIMATOR (or as the co-writer of HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS...depending on what sort of person you are, again), itself a milestone achievement in the blending of sex and gore that so characterized '80s horror production. That film clearly brought out the best in Yuzna and frequent collaborator Stuart Gordon (also of HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS fame...among other things), but it's interesting to see how they operate apart, to understand the unique ingredients that each filmmaker brought to the more perfect union of their classic Lovecraft adaptation. Gordon skewed darker and more intellectual, as evidenced by the end of his career with the shattering mob thriller KING OF THE ANTS, the disturbing true crime drama STUCK, and the Mamet-penned EDMOND. Yuzna, for his part, is almost anti-intellectual, preferring to cook up blackly comic, semi-pornographic nightmares like his two increasingly horny RE-ANIMATOR sequels, the terminal S&M fantasy RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3, and the shamelessly hokey comic book adaptation FAUST: LOVE OF THE DAMNED. Yuzna's lack of shame is really his defining feature as an artist, and nowhere is this more obvious than in his directorial debut and signature masterpiece, SOCIETY.

Salvador Dali's "The Great Masturbator," a chief visual inspiration for SOCIETY.

Yuzna was able to leverage the success of RE-ANIMATOR to lock in two directorial opportunities, BRIDE OF RE-ANIMATOR, and a bizarre body horror exercise about a Beverly Hills orphan who discovers that not only are his adoptive family from a different bloodline, but they're not even from the same species. That both pictures employed the writing team of Woody Keith and Rick Fry gives you a little taste of what to expect from SOCIETY, but to be frank, the latter threatens to make the former look like a very special episode of ER; "overkill" barely begins to describe SOCIETY’s ambitious assault on the human body. In a recent interview, the philipino-american director giggles perversely, "I think my friends were a little embarrassed for me (when they saw SOCIETY)," and this sound bite reminded me that the last, most important ingredient that Yuzna contributes to any project is unabashed joy. It's a little hard to imagine stomaching SOCIETY without it.

In this unusual scene from the class struggle in Beverly Hills, Billy Warlock (son of HALLOWEEN 2's Michael Myers, Dick Warlock) plays Bill Whitney, a rich, handsome, athletic high school student with a heavy duty anxiety disorder. Although he appears to have it all, he is plagued by nightmares and hallucinations, reflecting suspicions that the family that spoils him is also out to get him. Perhaps this is all understandable, though. Bill is under a lot of pressure these days, with his parents devoting all of their attention to his sister's coming out party, and his narcissistic girlfriend pushing him to ingratiate himself to the assholes higher up the social ladder; it's enough to make any teenager feel alienated and insecure. But, do these garden variety anxieties account for his visions of his sister's body deforming itself unnaturally, or the dubious evidence he finds that her debutante ball involves incestuous orgies and human sacrifice? Is Bill simply crumbling under the strain of societal expectations, or is the friction with his shrink, his parents, and his peers all symptomatic of an elaborate plot against him by elites who are truly less than human?

I can’t believe they use this cheapo blanket trick MORE THAN ONCE in a movie that is famous for its unforgettable special effects, and I guess I kind of love it.

In case I haven't made the answer abundantly obvious, I'll add that while SOCIETY is the purest expression of Yuzna-ness on the market, it has an important co-author in Screaming Mad George. The eccentric japanese FX master, whose name is apparently an amalgamation of Mad Magazine, Screamin' Jay Hawkins, and...George, has produced some of horror's most outrageous makeup and visual effects, mostly for Yuzna, many of them in SOCIETY. If you've seen even a trailer for Alex Winter's 1993 oddity FREAKED--which is itself a grossout criticism of American social standards--then you are already familiar with SMG's trademark style. He specializes in twisted perversions of the human form that would make a cenobite blush, driven by a penchant for puns, and influenced equally by THE THING's Rob Botin, and Big Daddy Roth’s Rat Fink style. Screaming Mad George is instrumental in articulating Yuzna's premise: that behind the shimmering veneer of success and sophistication, the upper class are just a bunch of degenerates, who literally degenerate into something unimaginable behind closed doors. It's impossible to imagine SOCIETY without his sinuous, slithering monstrosities, or his indescribable realization of their most important social event, "the shunt".

One of many great images from a zine I wish I owned, on SMG’s Facebook page.

It's easy to get overwhelmed by SOCIETY's visual impact, but its message is just as potent now as it was at the end of the Reagan era: Rich people are not only different from the rest of us, but in fact, they aren't even human. Writers Keith and Fry make an interesting choice of hero to help put this across. A lazier writer would have selected any archetype from the Freaks and Geeks set to create an easy Us vs Them tension, but SOCIETY is led by a promising young man who, for reasons he himself does not yet understand, is just not "the right kind of people". Bill appears to have every advantage in life, including a level of popularity that wins him presidency of the debate team despite his nerdier rival’s superior prowess--and yet, he suffers from a stigmatizing psychiatric disorder that is the natural result of feeling indefinably different from one's peers, and intuiting that, as a consequence, they don't even really like you. The shallow jock with deep-seated emotional problems is a much more interesting protagonist for this kind of social allegory than the charismatic outcasts that you get in movies like THE FACULTY and DISTURBING BEHAVIOR, for whom the idea that the elites could be aliens is just de rigueur.

It's worth noting that this complexity of character extends to Bill's love interest, sympathetic society girl Clarissa Carlyn (Playboy Playmate Devin DeVasquez). At first, she seems villainously eager to introduce Bill to the many splendors of "the shunting", but as the plot against him mounts to its horrifying conclusion, she defects. There appears to be a reason for this, although honestly, this is the most difficult part of SOCIETY for me to wrap my head around. Clarissa lives as an essentially independent adult, only burdened by her mother (Pamela Matheson), a possibly brain damaged hulk who lurks in and out of various scenes just to be disturbing, always announced by some toots on a tuba, before eventually siding with our heroes. I'm really not sure what's supposed to be going on in this part of the movie, except that this character contributes to a number of distasteful jokes. But, I hold on to the idea that by virtue of whatever disorder Mrs. Carlyn suffers from, she serves the purpose of priming Clarissa to rebel, since her very existence makes her daughter something of a societal outcast herself. That's the best I can do.

In any case, everyone working on SOCIETY commits completely, with Mrs. Carlyn being no exception. The movie's climactic orgy of the damned is an all hands on deck operation, just as reliant on Screaming Mad George's artistic abilities as it is on the actors' responsibility to make you believe that this fucked up shit is really happening. There's a visceral patina of sleaze spread over the entire film, dripping from the way that characters talk to and touch each other, flirting and flaunting their bodies in a distinctly unseemly fashion, even when it stays within the realm of mundane reality. This constant sinister, insinuating attitude on the part of the whole cast lays the foundation for what is to come, and while I appreciate everybody's hard work, my favorite performance is from an actor who only comes in at the very end: David Wiley as society king Judge Carter. Wiley's career consisted almost exclusively of the most ordinary sort of television work, which makes his outrageous turn in this alien porno flick all the more respectable. While other characters transition from suspicious pod people to full-on mutated perverts, Judge Carter has to show up just for the finale, establish his authority, rip off his clothes, and plunge straight into a sea of slime, happily fisting his way through the cast. Wiley meets this challenge with aplomb, making of himself a hybrid of Robert Englund and Gene Hackman, perfectly embodying the movie's joyful absurdity, and never betraying the slightest hint of embarrassment. 

SOCIETY is very much a don't-look-down type of endeavor, a fairy that could expire at the slightest lapse in faith. There's a visual pun in the last act that's so gross, so offensive, so frankly idiotic, that I don't have the courage to describe it; my whole body tenses up when I know this scene is coming, as if it were the meat hook scene in TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE or the brutal rape in the middle of SHOWGIRLS. I don't like it, but at the same time, I respect Yuzna's unhesitating commitment to show it to me, and I think that actor Charles Lucia should get some kind of award for shouldering the burden so valiantly. SOCIETY is a daring movie in the truest sense, a film with more balls than brains, and in this it exposes the limitation of intelligence and taste, and the real need for pure transgression, in producing art of any real value. You might argue with me about whether Yuzna's masturbatory magnum opus really qualifies as art, but to respond to that, I'll quote the great transgressor Alejandro Jodorowsky: "If you are great, EL TOPO is a great picture. If you are limited, EL TOPO is limited." So stick that in your shunt and smoke it.

undefined

PS Here, have this stuck in your head for the rest of your life.

[everybodylovesrand]

Raje Judkins answered some questions about the show. Filming spoilers for the show below:

Q: What part of the books should you be caught up on for the first season?

A: Depends on if you like to read something before you watch it or not.

Q: What are you finding most challenging about going from book to screen? A: The hardest thing is the physicality of production. In the first book alone they go to more than 20 villages and cities. To try to do that is physically impossible for the show, so most of the work we don in the room is geographical, figuring how to condense the story and move it through places we can physically create.

Q: Do you have a favorite chapter from the whole saga? Mine is Veins of Gold. A: So many. But Honey in the Tea is the one off the top of my head.

Q: We can’t wait to see Elayne, Aviendha and Min

A: Me either. Three of my favorites.

Q: Has any post-production work begun or does that not start until filming is completed?

A: Nope! We do it simultaneously. Before the corona hit, I was prepping 2 episodes, shooting 2 episodes, in post on 4 episodes and writing Season 2 simultaneously :-0

Q: Will there be a soundtrack? Who’s the composer? A: Of course! David Buckley. Plus a few incredible musical guests we’ve already had.

Q: Are Min/Elayne in season 1? A: The Wheel weaves as the wheel wills

Q: Are you going to merge Min and Elayne? A: Hell no

Q: First moment you were speechless on set? A: First time walking into Emond’s Field with my mom

Q: Is mat fluent in the old tongue yet? A: We’ve had a couple cast members speak in it already and they NAILED IT

Q: Which character has your favorite costume so far? A: Ooo this is tough. Probably Geofram Bornhald.

Q: How is the cast and crew weathering the pandemic? A: Our team in Prague did an amazing job of getting everyone out and keeping them safe. And now everyone’s home and we all live on Instagram.

Q: Who is your favorite Forsaken? A: Ahhh. I love the ladies. Graendal, Lanfear, Moghedien. And Ishamael holds a special place in my heart the more time I spend with him

Q: What’s been your favourite shooting location so far? A: Slovenia! Spectacular stuff there

Q: Yes or no. Have you had to make any cuts be it a scene or character, that has been painful for you? A: Yes.

Q: How are you planning to handle the visualization of the weaves? Any little tidbits? A: We are trying to stay as true to the books as possible. I’ve been giving a bunch of VFX folks long diatribes about channeling, weaves, threads, earth vs. air, etc and they early stuff has started coming in. It looks FUCKING AWESOME. I screamed when Rosamund started channeling

Q: Similar to Them performing in an old Inn, what other iconic moment filmed stands out to u? A: Rand and Tam walking through the Westwood

Q: Blink twice if Min is in season 1. A: 😉😉

Q: Will Jeff Probst be one of the Aiel? Can you make some calls? A: If he dyes his hair red 😉

Q: Which WOT book title best describes your self isolation experience? A: A Memory of Light…

Q: Can we expect a trailer for the show anytime soon? A: Probably not for a long while sadly.

Q: Can you guys do a big WoT Wed announcement during the hiatus to keep all us fans hyped instead of al A: Yea! It would cheer us all up and we have some fun news

Q: Is Lan going to be as much or an absolute stud in the show as he is in the books? A: You’ve seen @danielhenney right?

Q: If you were an Aes Sedai, what Ajah would you choose? A: Such a good question. They all have merits but GREEN for the win. If only to hang with @priyankabose20

Q: Will we have to wait till season 2 to see any Aiel? (Other than Rand)

A: Nope. And the one you see will shock you. Hah. Amazon shouldn’t let me be on here when I’ve been cooped up for a week.

Q: RJ writes a lot of internal headspace stuff. What’s 1 hint on how the show will handle that? A: That’s the biggest difficulty of any novel adaptation. Figuring out how to make the internal monologue come out clearly to the audience. A lot of the changes we make and stories we tell differently are designed to serve exactly that purpose – showing you what those characters internal monologues from the book are without them just saying it out loud in exposition

Q: Are you using taller actors to portray the Aiel, or camera trickery? A: Trying to get tall folks. But I’m less concerned with height and more concerned with acting ability.

Q: Since JordanCon was cancelled, can we maybe get an extra treat next month? A: Sure! What do you want?

Q: Do you have a favorite Wise One? A: Avi

Q: How many trollocs do I have to take out to become a writing assistant? A: Violence is never the answer

Q: What would you say the CGI to practical ratio is going to be? A: Tring to do as much in camera as we possibly can!

Q: How are you handling sword forms and their names? A: We have a for real sword master on the show who walks into every room and tests out everything as a weapon. He could most definitely kill me with any item in my office.

Q: How are the horses on set? Is Mandarb spectacular? A: They are so great. Honestly I love our horses. Mandarb and Aldieb are downright sexy

Q: When will we get more casting announcements to hold us over? A: I’ll try to get them to put out something soon. A lot of folks in all departments are affected by the state of the world right now though, so I can’t promise a timeline

Q: will we see the prologue from the Eye of the World on screen in season 1 A: You will hear that phrase

Q: What has been your favorite set so far? A: Fal Dara!

Q: Please tell me you’ve cut Narg!! A: Never!!

Q To what extent has Harriet McDougal been involved with the project? A: She’s a consulting producer so she’s been out to Prague to the sets and reads all the scripts and sends me her notes on them. She and Maria are hugely helpful for maintaining the truth of the series and always keep me honest when it comes to things that change too much

Q: Is any aspect of the show still in development, or has it all stalled because of the virus? A: A lot can be done virtually! I’m still doing VFX, editing and the Season Two Virtual Writers Room! And I can do it all in pajamas

Q: Will min, elayne, and avienda have to be combined into a single character?

A: Girl you crazy. I’m not going to combine huge characters like that. Maybe sometimes a minor character folded into a more major one to make better use of our cast but nothing nutso

Q: RJ created 1000’s of character. Given that did you feel the need to create new characters? A: Anyone “new” is inspired by characters in the books or a number of characters combined. If we paid to cast all speaking roles in the book we could only afford to have a radio play

Q: So far, what is your favorite prop in the show? A: Great Serpent Ring. We all want one.

Q: Will Loial portray the Ogier species, or will he be humanised for screen? A: He’s an Ogier!

Q: How involved, if involved at all, is Sanderson in the writers room? A: Brandon is hugely helpful. I talked to him before we started Season Two while he was in Prague to get advice and he reads all the scripts and gives notes. He’s incredibly thoughtful and understands the process of adaptation and what’s required from it. I feel so lucky to have him involved. I would have him do more if I could make him!

Q: What words of hope would you offer a fan afraid that the show will cut out a lot of content? A: I genuinely think we are cutting less than most people think. When I see people ask questions like “are you cutting Min?” It blows my mind. I don’t know how you do an adaptation without some of these characters. I think it’ll be more of the smaller stories you’ll miss. We can’t have Rand and May (sic) travel to many many inns on their travels across the countryside for instance. It’s just not producible. So that will be more of what you miss I think, and the books always exist to read for that 🙂

Q: I think Bella is such an important character, will the same horse play bella through the series A: We’ve already had to have two Belas. It turns out a horse for riding on film is not the same as a horse for pulling a cart and SHE MUST DO BOTH

Q: Can you please make sure you do a great job? Book are so great A: This is are a really good idea

Q: Now you’ve met them, settle the score: who’s better with women? Rand, Mat or Perrin? A: I think they’d all say it’s the other

Q: Will the show be understandable for those who didn’t read the books? A: That’s the idea. If there are little things they don’t get though, luckily google exists

Q: Who is your favorite Aes Sedai in the books? And you can’t say Moiraine/Siuan or the Wonder Girls A: So many rules. I honestly love all of them though (except Galina that bitch) Alanna Liandrin and Verin are probably my Top 3. And Siuan! There’s too many I love. Sheriam! Pevara!

https://www.wotseries.com/2020/03/22/show-runner-rafe-judkins-does-an-ama-on-instagram/

[pierrotdameron]

Dafne Keen does not much look like Lyra Belacqua, at least not as Philip Pullman describes her in His Dark Materials. In Northern Lights, the first book of the trilogy, she is “like a half-wild cat”, with dirty fingernails, green eyes and grubby blond-ish hair. Keen, who is half British, half Spanish and lives in Madrid, is darker and is already the master of an intense glare, as anyone who saw her alongside Hugh Jackman in the Wolverine swansong Logan will know. When we meet, in a London hotel, she has the self-possessed cool of a total pro, even at 14. But there are plenty of Lyra-esque flourishes that make it obvious why she got the part.

She was almost 12 when she finished filming Logan. She had heard about the BBC/HBO adaptation of His Dark Materials, then in its early stages, and sent in an audition tape. But she didn’t hear back. “I thought, never mind, I’ll just carry on with my life,” she says. “Which is when I got stung by the jellyfish.”

The production team had finally replied, asking her to make another tape. Keen was on holiday in Puerto Rico. “I thought, right, I’m going to have a chilled-out swim and then I’m going to get ready. I suddenly felt this thing on my face and then it started stinging and then it expanded all over my face. I ran to my mum and I went, ‘Mum! Is it really red?’ My mum went, ‘No it’s fine.’ And then she went, ‘Oh no, it’s not fine.’” Her face was red and swollen but she had to do the tape. “So my audition is with a jelly-face,” she smiles.

The next step was to meet Ruth Wilson, who plays Mrs Coulter, one of the best evil characters in children’s literature. “I was sitting in the waiting room with 20 other girls,” Keen remembers. “I was thinking, oh god, they’re all blond. I don’t physically look like this character, and these girls all do. I went in, shook hands with Ruth, and five minutes later, she looked at me and said, ‘You know, you have the same eyebrows as me.’” Fans of the books will know that this is a big thumbs up. Days later, she began rehearsals, with Wilson and puppets. In Pullman’s books, people have daemons, an animal manifestation of their “inner self”, which lives alongside them. Because the daemons on screen are CGI, the actors shot their scenes with puppets to make their interactions as authentic as possible.

When Philip Pullman writes, he isn’t trying to bring down the church, he’s bringing down the system

Naturally, Keen is practised at describing what her own daemon would be, were this world to have daemons in it. “Mine is quite easy to figure out, because it’s what everyone called me on set. Everyone calls me Monkey.” In the books, daemons change form until their human reaches adulthood, when they settle as one fixed animal. Keen particularly liked hers as a pine marten.

We meet the morning after the world premiere of His Dark Materials, which was the first time Keen had watched it. “Everybody had seen it apart from me! I’m really busy filming season two, so I had no time to watch it. I had Philip Pullman right next to me, and I was like, oh god! But I think he liked it.” Did he offer his approval? “His wife came up to me and was really lovely and was saying I was the perfect Lyra. I was really happy to hear that.”

Keen had not read the trilogy before she auditioned. “Now I’m a massive, massive fan. As soon as I read the books, I knew this was a good message to the world, and it’s important that we have stories about young girls, because there aren’t many,” she says. At the premiere, Jack Thorne, who wrote the screenplay, likened Lyra to Greta Thunberg. Though she does not know it, the future of the world rests on Lyra’s shoulders, and she has to fight tooth and nail to defeat the forces that wish to suppress free will and independent thought. Keen approves of the Thunberg comparison. “I am genuinely in awe of that girl.”

There have been various adaptations of His Dark Materials over the years: a Radio 4 series, a play at the National Theatre and the 2007 Hollywood attempt, The Golden Compass, with Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig. It was supposed to be a trilogy, but only the first was made – and Pullman’s theme of an abusive authoritarian religious body was watered down almost beyond recognition. The television series seems more comfortable with its source material, and its Magisterium, the governing body of the Church, is portrayed as a fascist regime.

In 2007, the Catholic League called for a boycott of The Golden Compass, despite the religious references being excised, and the Vatican also denounced the film and Pullman’s writing. Keen had seen it – was she aware that this new version might be controversial, given the backlash the movie attracted? “I thought that was sad, but I understand why they had to do it,” she reasons, diplomatically, of the decision to soften the book’s themes. “But I think people are reading too much into it. When Philip writes about the Magisterium, he’s not bringing down the church, he’s bringing down the system.”

Keen was born and raised in Spain and is bilingual. Her mother María is Spanish, and as well as being her acting coach is also an actor, as is Keen’s father Will. He has a part in His Dark Materials, as Father MacPhail, part of the Magisterium faithful. “He is terrifying,” says Keen. “He always plays bad people. I don’t know why because he’s so nice. I genuinely think it’s because he’s bald and has green eyes.” She practically grew up in a theatre rehearsal room, because of her parents, but she thought she would be a biologist, like David Attenborough. “Then I found out you have to study biology, and to do that you have to study maths, and I went, mmm no, I’m not doing that. I hate maths so much, you can’t even imagine.”

A friend of her mother’s was making a short film, and needed a child for it, so Keen gave acting a go. She loved it. She did a series in Spain, The Refugees, alongside her father. (“He was playing my evil father, yes. Always got to give it the psychopathic twist.”) She picked up an agent, who put her forward for Logan, and she got down to an audition with Jackman. “In the waiting room, once again, there was this perfect LA beautiful blond girl. I was just, like, a small, scrappy Latin girl. I always think it’s not going to work out for me, and then it went really great.” She auditioned with Jackman, then asked if she could try again, only this time she said she’d like to improvise the scene. She was 11. “My heart was beating big time,” she says. “I thought, I’m just going to dive in and ask them, and they loved it, so I was lucky.”

Jackman remembers the audition well. “[Director] Jim Mangold looked at a lot of actresses for Laura. When he told me about Daf, I was hopeful, but when we tested together, I was blown away,” he says over email. “She was every inch Laura. When Jim asked her if there was anything more she wanted to show us, she said, ‘Can I improvise?’ That’s the actor that got the part and who you see on screen.”

“Hugh is the nicest human being,” she grins. “I used to call him the human jukebox because he was always singing. Lin does the same thing.” Lin is Lin-Manuel Miranda, who plays Lee Scoresby in His Dark Materials. He got Keen tickets to see his smash-hit musical, Hamilton. “Two VIP Lin-Manuel Miranda guest tickets. I felt like such a diva.” On set, she would find herself singing the songs from it, but was too shy to sing when he was there. When Miranda had finished shooting, they all went for a meal to see him off. The bartender recognised him, and put My Shot on the stereo. “Me and Lewin [Lloyd, who plays Roger] were like, we’re not throwing away our shot, we’re singing this song.” They all joined in. “I’ve got videos of me and Lin singing it.”

Right now, Keen is preparing to go back to Wales to film season two, which loosely adapts The Subtle Knife, the second book in the trilogy. The third season, which will take on the astonishingly ambitious The Amber Spyglass, may take a little longer to pull together. Still, she is happy to live as Lyra for a while yet. She has taken plenty of her away from the experience already. “She taught me to speak up. Be bold, be brave, be yourself. Don’t follow rules, because rules can be useful, but they can be very stupid and pointless,” she says – sounding very much like her Lyra herself.

[zombiebarbee]

The Sunday Times article

DEMON DAZE

After almost 30 years, Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman’s comic fantasy Good Omens has made it to the screen – and in lavish fashion. Benji Wilson discovers how Pratchett’s dying wish came true

Heaven, as it turns out, is in an industrial park in Weybridge. The old Samsung building, with floor-to-ceiling windows and lighting so bright you have to squint, is the celestial set for Good Omens, the BBC and Amazon’s TV adaptation of Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman’s beloved fantasy novel. The floor, in particular, is attracting attention from Jon Hamm, who plays the angel Gabriel.

“Did we put this floor in?” he asks, wearing a power suit and looking more Wall Street CEO than heavenly host. When he looks down, he sees his own face reflected. “I mean, who orders up a silver floor? Of all the choices.” Then an angel rides by on a hoverboard. “This,” Hamm says, “is insane.”

Much of Good Omens could be described that way. Were he alive, Terry Pratchett would probably delight in the description. It tells the story of an angel, Aziraphale, and a demon, Crowley, played by Michael Sheen and David Tennant respectively. They have been on Earth since the Garden of Eden, working for their opposing teams in heaven and hell, one lighting fires, the other putting them out. Over the centuries, they have become friends.

We first meet them as the Antichrist is being delivered to Earth – indeed, one of Crowley’s missions is to deliver the Antichrist to the maternity ward. But they both realise this means the end of humanity as we know it, and, as Tennant puts it, “Crowley and Aziraphale have quite a nice time on earth. They quite enjoy the dinners and the wine and the lifestyle.”

So they get together to decide they’re going to try to avert the apocalypse. “But it’s a comedy,” Sheen says. “It’s in the vein of Douglas Adams and Monty Python. When Neil sent me the first draft of the script, it reminded me of Whoops Apocalypse [Andrew Marshall and David Renwick’s 1982 ITV comedy set in the weeks leading up to the end of the world.] I remember watching that when I was a kid and finding it funny but also quite scary. It’s hard to know what my 14-year—old self would think of Good Omens, but I imagine it might be similar.”

This kind of tonal mash-up intermingling humanity’s most momentous concerns with the quotidian minutiae of “where did I leave my keys?”, is notoriously hard to pull off. For a start, there’s the scope of it: Good Omens has been in production since mid-2017 and has had to recreate not merely heaven and hell, but all of Christian history in between. The beginning of episode three features a sequence catching up with Aziraphale and Crowley at the Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark, the crucifixion, ancient Rome, Shakespeare’s Globe, the crucible of the French Revolution and on, via the world wards, to the present. We see their relationship developing down the aeons. It’s all been done in less than 20 minutes.

“It’s basically a collection of single scenes,” Tennant says when I speak to him in a church in an Oxfordshire village. (He’s about to go outside and take delivery of the Antichrist.) “But for one of those scenes we got Shakespeare’s Globe for a day. For another, we transformed St James’s Park into Edwardian England for a day. For one scene. It’s fantastic to be able to work on something that has those sort of resources. You wouldn’t really be able to tell this story otherwise.”

Resources means Amazon’s money. That, and the allure of Gaiman’s writing, has drawn in a supporting cast including Frances McDormand as the voice of God, alongside Hamm, Jack Whitehall, Michael McKeen and Miranda Richardson. With a Game of Thrones-shaped hole to be filled, Good Omens is supposed to be a very big deal indeed.

Yet Gaiman, who co-wrote the original novel, adapted it for the screen and is the showrunner, would happily not have made it at all. “I didn’t really plan to give 18 months of my life to making a TV show. I’d much rather be writing novels. I would be making a lot more money writing novels. Nobody would be telling me what to do and my wife wouldn’t be complaining about not seeing me. But on the other hand, this,” he says, pointing at the shiny floor and Hamm running through lines as Gabriel, “was what Terry wanted to happen. And he’s not here.”

Good Omens was published in 1990. There followed almost 20 years of fruitless attempts to turn it into a film. Terry Gilliam received a prepublication copy of the book asking for a cover blurb. He misplaced the letter that came with it and thought he was being sent a story that might work for his next film. He loved it, but, as so often with Gilliam’s grand visions, Hollywood got in the way.

“Terry [Pratchett] and I decided that we wanted it to be television six years ago,” Gaiman says. “We went went looking for a writer – both of us were too busy – but basically we couldn’t find one.”

Pratchett died in March 2015. As he was overtaken by Alzheimer’s in his final years, he wrote Gaiman a letter – something he had never done before. “He said, ‘You’re the only other person out there with the same love and understanding and passion for this that I have. I know how busy you are, but I want to see this before the darkness takes me. Will you do this, please?’ In 35 years, he’d never asked me anything before. So I said yes. And then he died. So suddenly I was dealing with a last request. And I’m honouring it.”

Gaiman and Sheen have been friends since the actor mentioned in an interview about a decade ago that Gaiman was one of his favourite writers, across novels and comic books. Gaiman happened to read this, and sent Sheen a selection of special editions with a card saying “From one fan to another.” Since then, Sheen has appeared in Gaiman’s episode of Doctor Who, and now stars in Good Omens. Part of their friendship is based on a shared love of science fiction – Sheen only mentioned Gaiman in that interview in order to make a point about genre snobs. Many of his favourite writers, he said, worked in fantasy and SF.

Sheen says the snobbery still pertains - “If you’re of a mindset that anything written in a science-fiction context just can’t be great literature, then I don’t think anything is going to change your mind” - adding that there’s a similar prejudice against comedy as high art.

“Comedy films are always seen as impossible to be great films. They’re rarely winning Oscars. Good Omens ticks both boxes, comedy and fantasy – and I like that. When I was growing up, two of the biggest influences on me in terms of how I see art were The South Bank Show on TV and Kenneth Tynan, especially his profiles. Neither of them made a distinction between high and low art. One week is was Shostakovich , the next Billy Connolly. Tynan would profile Brecht, then Morecambe and Wise. I loved that.”

Just because Good Omens is funny, he goes on, doesn’t mean that it’s glib. “I was looking at a scene today when one of the angels says it’s been written that the end of the world begins with unrest in the Middle East, and the Antichrist is being taken to the Pains of Megiddo. I’ve seen that being written in newspaper articles – Isis are trying to engineer a situation where this battle takes place in a certain location because that’s ‘what was written’. People actually think that Trump is the coming of the Christ. Or the Antichrist. People are actually talking about this in fairly mainstream circles.

“That gives Good Omens a difficult context to when the book came out. You’ve got these two main characters who are very much in their own echo chambers – or should be. Yet the action of the piece requires them to break out of those bubbles.”

Tennant goes further. “We started making this in 2017. We knew it wouldn’t come out until 2019, and did wonder whether the apocalypse might have hastened towards us by then. It does give an added piquancy that the world might not be as stable as we thought it was a couple of years ago. By the time this article is printed, who knows where we’ll be?”

Good Omens is on Amazon Prime Video from May 31 and will air on BBC2 at the end of the year.

[kalira]

CATS movie thoughts~

(post mirrored from Pillowfort here)

I went to see the new CATS movie with @mad-madam-m yesterday (we've been planning this since the first trailer dropped) and it was actually a) better than I expected, and b) enjoyable, which was a nice surprise! (I expected us to enjoy it because it was entertainingly bad, honestly.)

I've loved CATS since I saw the Broadway version as a kid, and listened repeatedly (incessantly) to the soundtrack thereof back then - and at times even these days - and was delighted to see a production of it when it came to our city when I was small.

The movie left me with 2-3 major issues and a handful of quibbles. . . I have not organised them at all, but here are my thoughts.

. . .which I am putting under a cut because I had a lot more to say than I thought, apparently.

I am not surprised they did an outsider character to be an audience surrogate, but *SIGH*

Also . . . Victoria? Whose characterisation in the stage show is 'excellent ballerina'?

I know that's why they chose her, they could fill her in as they chose, but it was weird to have a cat who left almost no impression in the stage show as the 'main character'

Okay I admittedly missed that they apparently folded in Jemima/Sillabub to her as well, but that really doesn't make me feel any better

Did we have to have the incredibly forced romantical feeling type focus?

Not to mention we had some oddness towards that with Munkustrap initially

Then there was Misto falling tail over paws - because he bumbles through everything - at her

Then the oddness of the Munjojerrie and Rumpelteazer song which was probably not supposed to added the both of them to that list, if more briefly

Holy heckies adding a new song for the new central character was not a bad idea but literally anywhere else in the goddamn movie, and not spinning off of Memory oh my lord all the no it was so cringe

Look you cannot build off of Memory as 'but I have it worse than you so feel better'

Who has it worse is never a good game to play at all, playing it here was so cringey

'What's a Jellicle?'

Okay I know, audience surrogate, but oof

Actually let me skip back - the CGI did not bother me that much and it's like 99% of the ranting I have seen about this since the very first trailer. It never bothered me that much.

The cats were made a bit more plain; that bothered me.

Let them have ruffs, especially the toms, wtf did you remove those for it looks a) weird, and b) wrong for cats

However the show really can only be played by humanoid cats, I think, or it . . . look, the production wouldn't work with more catlike cats

The addition of dialogue stringing together the songs and adding more plot elements and freedom to work with them was really not an issue in my opinion

It strung together the slightly expanded plot in a way it really needed

It wasn't that jarring or awkward, to me

Misto, oh baby, why oh why did they do that to you~

Mister Mistoffeelees, who is an aloof, confident, and incredibly skilled magician in the stage show is made into a nervously fumbling barely-past-kitten who fails at almost every bit of magic he attempts (and falls and trips rather a lot as well, when he's a brilliantly graceful dancer in the stage show)

It was painful, oh sweetie

I can guess part of why they did it, but it was not well done and I don't think it was necessary

Misto's magic was painful; not because it was painful itself but because he was so bad at it, and everyone expected him to fail every time he tried

Misto using his magic for Gus' song, for dramatic effect? I thought it was really great and also really sweet

Actually Misto being so starry-eyed at Gus was adorable all around

That could have been put in even with Misto being his confident stage self, in fact it could have been super cute to have him be composed and confident and then go to an overexcited kitten with Gus in front of him

The absence of the Conjuring Turn was so sad, it is a star point of Misto

Look I'm not a fan of the 'awkward bumbling male finds his confidence because of the unwavering (with no reason) faith of the new female love interest' trope in general, having it wedged in here suddenly did not make me like it any more

Upon the note of Misto, the rescue of Deuteronomy . . . was very badly timed on the beats, and badly done (I felt) when it finally happened.

I didn't expect her to show up when Misto first tried

I semi-expected the second time, but okay

When she didn't show up the third time it stopped being any kind of suspense - especially since, let's be real, the plot is not really a huge mystery - and became 'okay so . . . what are we doing instead now?'

And then the fourth try, when she did appear, it was done very anticlimactically

Deuteronomy being female didn't really bother me but it left me a bit eh

Judi Dench is awesome, but Deuteronomy not really singing is weird

Also, let Judi Dench's Deuteronomy have been implied to have had 9 - or 99 - wives you cowards

. . .plus that line being altered to be another repeat of 'Old Deuteronomy's had many lives, some may say ninety-nine' . . . it was awkward/clunky and felt over repetitious

Jennyanydots . . . oof, poor hon

Jennyanydots is a mature and above all sweetly sincere queen in the stage show

She honestly wants to better the mice and the cockroaches, and it's a bit silly perhaps, but she is determined to do it - and does

And the other cats respect her and, more, they genuinely care very much for her it seems

And she's earnest

I expected her to be played more for comedy given who was cast to play her, but the extent of it felt not great, to be honest, even before the other cats began to feel like they were mocking her a bit

Not to mention - the joke about the mice being dinner and a show I could let pass despite being very different from Jennyanydots as she originally was, but actually eating cockroaches as it went was a bit too far

As I told M when we were discussing the movie after the showing, it was like, I was rolling with it, and then they rolled too far

Also on that note? The CGI mice were a bit o.O - when the CGI cockroaches started marching my thought was actually 'oh, this won't feature in my nightmares at all'

They won't actually but they were kind of horrifying

I did like the cats watching with that alert, slightly twitchy focus of a cat seeing a small moving creature

The traditional costume change looked . . . weirder and creepier with the CGI than costume work

Bustopher Jones went from a dignified figure to a ridiculous one

It was again rather terrible to watch, wince-worthy

Prancing through the rubbish bins and splatting through things instead of his usual stage show refinement and rather snobbishness? Oof

Bustopher has always been respected, even specifically so because of his size, making his weight a joke and/or something he's 'extra sensitive' about was . . . so unnecessary

The Rum Tum Tugger has always been my favourite, since I was a wee tiny Kalira

. . .he was blessedly not so bad as I feared - and even went back closer to the rocker cat (complete with flirtatious tease nature) than the rap adaptation I have heard of and been continually ohgodwhy no at

However, why did they discard the few details of his character that are not a self-important flirt?

He's not even focused at that - in the stage show I am accustomed to he is very much a determined performer, basking in being adored

he was a bit 'oo shiny' and kept ignoring his adoring audience in the movie?

In the stage show he is also around to drop in playful lines from time to time

Also he sings a good chunk of Misto's song and brags him up, as well as pieces of other songs

While he claims to be distant and aloof, and may somewhat be, he continually comes back and causes minor disruptions for his own (and others') amusement in the stage show

He also protectively shelters some of the kittens more than once

Misto's barb was kept in but sounded more like a jealous, anxious attempt to detract attention instead of a teasing barb at an egotistical friend

Along with many of the songs, Tugger's was altered so that it is entirely sung about himself, and as with many of them, I felt it was better with some of the lines from another singer

Though his is not so bad as many, perhaps because he's already talking himself up

I wasn't really surprised to find he's changed from the inspirations I remember from the stage show and when I was little (Mick Jagger and David Bowie, mother told me when I got older XD) but it was still a little bit of a disappointment

Also a bit random, when mostly the soloing cats - at least/especially the ones singing for themselves in front of all the others - were competing in the formalised 'who gets to ascend' spread, that Tugger is evidently not

Mungojerrie & Rumpleteazer were kind of fantastic and then kind of wtf for me

me, during their song, as they pulled Victoria along with them to play and cause all manner of mischief in the house: I don't think I'm intended to be shipping Victoria with both of them now, but I definitely am

me, at the end of their song, as they deliberately abandoned Victoria strangling and trapped as a dog came barrelling up after her with saucy nonchalance: . . .what the fuck?

me, when they were helping with Macavity's attack directly: excuse me no

I know they're said to be 'rumoured' to help him out in the stage show but this was very different

Yeah they said here that it was 'only a bit of fun' and they didn't know Macavity was planning to kidnap Deuteronomy, but . . . no

I did actually like their colouration redesign, making them I think the only cats I did in the entire movie

The lack of their tumbling and acrobatics was a bit sad, though their song and playful successsion of running about, Victoria in tow, was fun

Macavity was played super well considering he has no lines in the stage show so rather little to go on, and the expansion of his plot was honestly understandable - I mean, CATS has a heck of a thin plot for a musical, let alone a movie

One of the things that bothered me about him was honestly that his song where he is described he is described as ginger and poorly-combed

He's played by Idris Elba and his fur is sleek rich brown

He looks great, but alter the lines, you've already altered several, including Deuteronomy's because of the genderswap

On that note, the plot expansion in general . . . it was way better than I feared

I was afraid they were going to wedge in another plotline alongside the (very thin/hardly there, admitted) one in the stage show and it wouldn't go well

On the other hand the making the Jellicle Ball an official competition was a little eh to me

The more I think about it the less I like it even, really

I suppose it had to be, maybe, to work with expanding Macavity's plot and actions, but I don't care for it (and I think it could probably have been worked around)

I could have done without the queens being actively aggressive to Grizabella, oof that was owch

They recoil and hiss and act like she has the plague or a curse, very disdainful of her, in the stage show, and it works well

Having the queens actively attack her, not only hissing but instead of recoiling circling her and closing in on her to slash at her? It was . . . not good

So I guess the lead queen that I noticed doing that the most is . . . Cassandra? I honestly thought it was supposed to be Bombalurina

Bombalurina only showed up as Macavity's chief singer and queen underling, to distract and drug everyone

Really? Yeah some of the queens sing about Macavity in the stage show, but Bomba is even the one who comforts Demeter when Macavity's presence freaks her out (in what seems like a trauma reaction, rather) in the stage show

I have no idea who is supposed to be Demeter, the queens were all but interchangeable background, really most of the chorus cats were

Which brings up the theme of a lot of the cats being unrecognisable to me, honestly, and/or having their roles remixed a little, or straight-up lessened

Skimbleshanks was awesome, and his song/number was perhaps even better than in the stage show

The tap-dancing along the rails? Awesome

The cats playing around in the sleeper cabin was also pretty great honestly

 I will say when Skimbles appeared my immediate impression was of a very specific within-the-LGBT+-community gay man stereotype

Also I am terribly amused that he's wearing half a suit of clothes and it's the opposite half that he was in the stage production I'm most familiar with

Munkustrap was rather different, still a large part of keeping things going, if not the same way

Less serious than I'm used to? Not that he's only serious, but still

He made the best faces, like, it rescued a few awkward moments

At least a handful of moments that made me go 'this is so very not the Munkustrap I know' characterisation-wise

With the battle removed and a few other things, many of the moments that make his personality shine were gone

No seeing him lunge into action as the Jellicle Protector, basically

No seeing him trying to manage the little play-within-a-play put on for Deuteronomy (even when Tugger causes mischief) although I can't blame them for cutting both of those

No seeing him shield the kittens or younger/other cats without hesitation

Instead there was mostly just the slightly silly characterisation that showed in the moments between in the movie, it seemed to me

Gus the theatre cat was another of those whose song was rewritten to be sung by themselves, though his is the most notable for that, given he barely sings at all in the stage show

I really think it worked better the other way

But they gave me Ian McKellen being awesome in that song so I am okay with this

Also, Gus using a bit of that to scare Growltiger off the ferry and into the Thames? Fabulous

Misto's song - I talked about him and about Deuteronomy's rescue, but the song

I love having it led in by Tugger in the stage show, and I love having Tugger brag him up

Tugger is good at that, honestly, it so suits his style

Misto needs a bit of bragging up, especially for this moment

First of all, changing it up so Misto sings most of it himself instead is a bit sketchy

Changing it so it becomes less of a confident, showy number and instead is Misto being so anxious he can barely sing and constantly checking reactions . . . that made it worse

Next up, changing it from Tugger - who reads as friendly to Misto, in the stage show - leading in Misto's song and encouraging the others to praise him, to Victoria who has only just met him and all the other cats being dubious as they join in. . . I did not like

My shipper heart: why would you take that away it was excellent interaction!

My non-shipper heart: why would you take that away it makes much more sense and it also makes a lovely balance with Misto teasing Tugger during his song and shows that Tugger took it in the light-hearted spirit (they're friends, they're there for each other) it seemed to be

Also that it was so sweet a bit of interplay they took it away from Tugger to give to Misto's Sudden Romantic Interest in the movie, with zero changes otherwise? I have some side-eye.

I already mentioned the rescuing Deuteronomy beats being all wrong, but it also left me thinking we'd be getting less of Misto's song and it was oddly broken-up when we did get more

The catnip usage had me a bit o.O I'll be honest, for several reasons

Erwhat with the drugging everyone in that scene?

The glowing I'm going to assume is to show that it's having an effect on the cats, but it came off a bit weird to me

There were several cats it looked like were 'trying to escape' the catnip who most definitely had/should have already been hit

Also how did the cats assisting Macavity avoid being affected? Bombalurina at first made sense, sprinkling it below herself, none of it after that did

Wow Macavity's song and climax there with the stairs right up to the 'Heaviside Layer' in his stage display? So cocky! An unwise cat

Deuteronomy smacking him down? Very nice

Continuing to do so when he disappeared them both? Even better

I was really rather surprised not to see the melee battle among the cats in the climax with Macavity

Of course that also took away some of the drama, aaand some of the chorus cats, especially the toms', chances to shine

The queens were pretty indistuingishable from each other but at least we saw them somewhat, the toms mostly seemed to be entirely background blur

Growltiger being added in as Macavity's henchcat was actually kind of great? Watching over the kidnapped cats and as a secondary (and subordinate) Bad Tom, yes

In contrast to the mischievous Mungojerrie and Rumpelteazer being used that way, I am so there for it

Grizabella was . . . a little disappointing?

She was played wonderfully! But she could have been played more

Seriously, fabulous actress there for her and they did nothing with her other than her songs and crying while singing them?

The stage production I'm familiar with has more than that with her and less time

Let her be proud and trying to gather herself up

Let her be dubious of herself and/or the others

Let her stand aside as though she doesn't even want to rejoin them after being turned aside

Look there's lots more that could have been done in the space there was with her in the movie (and without involving Victoria so much as she was, which was still a bit cringey outside Victoria's song, but at least not so badly)

She 'went with Macavity'? Felt a little unnecessary and also . . . hrm, to me

The stage show doesn't explain why the Jellicles reject her or where she was

I honestly always assumed she left on her own - Grizabella the Glamour Cat? - to make her own way, and eventually fell from grace

It was also a little strange to see her so young

Deuteronomy making the choice also felt . . . a little flat to me

I'm not sure what I was expecting or what the problem was

Regardless, it felt a little lacking somehow

I was impressed with how they had Grizabella's ascension managed, since that would be necessity be rather different from the stage show

Also great for Misto keeping some of his confidence from his song and rescue for this bit

Macavity trying to leap on and hitch a ride to the Heaviside Layer was excellent, and his getting stuck and having his magic not work to get himself un-stuck? Great

I do wonder - is his magic entirely broken, or just not working to catch his ride on Grizabella's balloon again?

The Ad-Dressing of Cats feels a bit awkward in a stage production to me; having a close-up of Judi Dench staring at me in the movie screen, for an extended time, did not make it better

Also the prologue bits about the naming of cats and what a Jellicle is were both changed and so there was no semblance of something similar in the beginning

I still think it would have been awkward, but if it bracketed the movie with the fourth wall breaks it might have worked better

The faces of the three cats close around Deuteronomy as she recited the entirety of that - which felt too long - were the only things that kept it being too awful

Munkustrap was the best in that

Misto looking horrifically embarrassed a few times and hiding behind his hat once . . . oh baby, I feel

'You're a Jellicle now!'

There's a Jellicle Ball once a year, see you then

So . . . for now, goodbye to your butt that was thrown in a sack into a junkyard we immediately ran away from

Rather than it being the Jellicles' (second, in some cases) home

I know your whole arc has been please accept me, see me, give me a place to be

But run off on your own, see you in a year

Seriously Victoria could have followed Misto, or Munkustrap, or Mungojerrie & Rumpleteazer, or anyone

Even Munku's mate could have, say, come up and encouraged Victoria to come with them

Not that we saw enough to assume he had one, still don't know who was supposed to be Demeter, but beside the point

It was a rough ending there

. . .I had a lot to say, and I'm not willing to swear that I didn't repeat myself anywhere - if I did I apologise - or skip over things I might have wanted to say. I saw the movie 24 hours ago and wrote most of this when I should have been asleep.

I did enjoy the movie and will probably watch it again - I also plan to watch the Broadway version again very soon (as soon as the library brings it to me) and have been listening to the Broadway soundtrack since yesterday afternoon.

(I may also be writing more for this fandom soon, but we'll see about that.)

[nat-20s]

Top 5 Breakdowns over David Tennant- any fandom/show/ play you've seen? I really liked the dw one you did, just hoping you could expand over/ include other things he's been in.

Oh anon you are QUITE the enabler thank you.

So this is like half actual breakdown list and half just like David Tennant recommendations in general because I love that funky little scot.

+1. This isn’t going on the official list because I already did the previous list you mentioned (i’m glad you liked it, btw!!!) but yeah. Doctor Who. He plays the doctor in a very fuckin uhh mercutial way (he plays a lot of characters that way and I am 100% enamored by it every fuckin time he just does it SO WELL AUGH) and like highs were so high and the lows were so low and he was so FURIOUS AND CRUEL but also so GENTLE AND KIND and like oof!! The multifacetedness bitch!!!! That’s what it’s all about babey!!!

5. Good omens. I mean, duh. There was no fucking way I was gonna survive good omens. Like, honestly, even without miss tennant I wouldn’t have survived it because HA HA HA HA H O L Y SHIT MY FAVORITE BOOK FOR THE LAST DECADE WAS GETTING AN ACTUAL SCREEN ADAPTATION I GENUINELY DID NOT THINK WE WOULD EVER BE HERE THIS SHIT IS LIT. but then but THEN it was like. The way that he portrayed crowley definitely fit into a particular niche that david tennant KILLS. Like god okay I could spend an whole fucking essay on this point so I’m gonna distill this down to just. THE moment that I was like “okay okay okay okay fuck I’m GOING THROUGH IT” was when his voice cracks as he tells aziraphale that he lost his best friend because like in context OOF and out of context I have been Pavlovian trained for the past decade to Utterly Lose My Shit when David Tennant is like this close to crying and he expresses that with his whole body THE ASSHOLE! LET ME REST. I THOUGHT I WAS OVER THIS MISTER!!

4. The Escape Artist. Lesser known (I think?), but a VERY GOOD miniseries! The tone is much darker, and he’s a much more serious character. Similar vibes, role wise, to broadchurch. I’m not sure how much rewatch value it has but watching it for the first time had me like MISSION STATUS: SICK!!!! It’s like a cat and mouse mystery and like. I’m not gonna go to in depth into the story because I think it’s more enjoyable to go into it not knowing much and too me it was one of those things that took like 3 hours to watch all of and a full week or two to like. Process. Also I’m not usually one for drama and I was ABOUT it so I would recommend!!!

3. JESSICA JONES (season 1). Holy FUCK dude. Definitely his darkest and most evil role, and the subject matter is VERY heavy and I definitely would NOT recommend it for everyone because it could be, how you say, triggering as fuck or even just because it is incredibly dark and that might not be your thing. Funnily enough, it’s DEFINITELY not my thing, personally, I tend to avoid narratives about sexual assault because so many of them are, uh, ya know, bad, but Jessica Jones season 1 really is done FANTASTICALLY! The David Tennant breakdown was just a level of cognitive dissonance because I had never seen him play like a VILLAIN villain. I mean, yeah, he was Barty Crouch Jr., but that was for like 30 seconds and while the dude was creepy there was a layer of campy over the topness that is present in most fun fantasy franchises. I remember when he was cast as the purple man me and my parents were like. Yeah he’ll obviously crush the role because he’s talented but in the back of our minds we’ll probably still be thinking of like the doctor and I wonder if we can fully accept him playing the role. Yeah there was fucking NONE OF THAT. When he played Purple Man I never ONCE thought of his other roles and I didn’t even, like, think of David Tennant, ya know. I was just like oh shit this man is evil and terrifying and I want him dead! Please die!!! And yes, I know that that’s how acting works or whatever but also ACTING ya know!!! Of any of the roles on this list this one definitely made me be the most like SHE HAS THE RANGE because I really think it highlights how INCREDIBLY GOOD at his job he is!!! I have not ever rewatched Jessica Jones season 1 though because while it is honestly like a triumph of television it is also A Lot to deal with and I am very rarely in the kind of mindset where I’m able to watch it. But yeah. David Tennant knows what the fuck he’s doing and it is very good.

2. MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING BABEY. Literally I knew nothing about the play or why I should care but the promo material was like. Catherine Tate and David Tennant are costars again and I was like OKAY SIGN ME THE FUCK UP HELL YEAH HELL YEAH HELL YEAH. For real I think on screen chemistry Catherine Tate and David Tennant are one of if not just straight up my favorite duo of all time. They are just so DELIGHTFUL and ENCHANTING and BEWITCHING and basically I want them to costar in everything ever. @azirafeathers was like “sherlock holmes adaptation where she’s sherlock and he’s watson” and I haven’t stopped thinking about that since!!! I would give my left thumb or at least like a solid $60 to see that. Like PLEASE it would be PERFECT. I LOVE THEM. And god this production of much ado is definitely like. “Here’s Benedick and Beatrice. They’re two chaotic dumbass bisexuals that are like fives on the kinsey scale and they fall in love much to their surprise” and it’s TERRIFIC. That’s exactly what I like to see. Like it’s set in the 80s and the set design? The visual gags? The costumes? The soundtrack? THE PHYSICAL COMEDY? It all SLAPS. David Tennant really balances “fun and funky slut” and “utterly PINING idiot” so fucking well. I have said it before and I will say it again David Tennant peaks when Catherine Tate is being mean to him. Also really iconic to give him the role that is like the only man in the play that is (after a bit) CHUGGING his respect women juice. I mean LOOK at this utter buffoon.

I’m in love. This play made me a proud morosexual. Plus it’s all FREE ON YOUTUBE THE NEXT TIME YOU HAVE THREE HOURS AND WANT TO HAVE A GOOD FUCKIN TIME GO WATCH MUCH ADO!!

1. H A M L E T. So imagine that you’re 14 and it’s 3 am and you’re casually watching David Tennant’s hamlet on youtube or at least the parts they put up and you’re painting stars on your ceiling with glow in the dark paint and it makes you realize that you have an excess of black bile and a melancholic temperment and you’ll understand why, while this might not be my all time favorite david tennant role (though it definitely is high up on the list) , this is absolutely my number one David Tennant Related Breakdown. Hoo boy. This probably doesn’t come as a shock to literally anybody that knows me irl bc I Will Not shut up about Hamlet and it is this productions fault. Different people will respond differently too it, and I’m definitely 1000% biased because a: I love him and b: it was the first production I ever watched and it’s what got me On My Bullshit, but this production honestly makes me like. Get Hamlet. Or not get hamlet, personally, as a character, we’re never meant to fully understand him honestly, but it made me understand the ALLURE of the play. I watched it and I was like oh. Yeah. Okay. I can see why people have been obsessed with this for 400 years. I know why it’s considered one of the greatest roles and one of the greatest plays of all time. And I went absolutely feral for it. It solidified Horatio permanently as one of my all time favorite characters in anything ever. David Tennant has this tendency to put manic and desperate energy into the characters that he plays, and that of course works extremely well for hamlet. Plus, like, he plays characters that are drowning, that need the assistance and kindness of love to try and float, and even with that might not be able to keep their heads above water, and the characters that are opposite him are basically always wonderful. Because I am deeply deeply predictable, the core dynamic of Hamlet and Horatio’s relationship is probably like THE most appealing and interesting and important aspect of the play to me, and Peter de Jersey (who is absolutely INCREDIBLE in this production) and David Tennant pull it of breathtakingly beautifully. Every time I watch this I have to lie down for a while. Every time I THINK about this I have to lie down for awhile. So, yeah, number one David Tennant based breakdown is over his hamlet.

Honorable mentions

this gifset-I have not seen what this is actually from but it made me have a conniption. I’m in love with her. She’s my idealized self. I don’t know what to do with myself. I spent 5 hours looking at this now. What the fuck. 

The Decoy Bride- I didn’t have a breakdown over it BUT it is a recommendation. Very silly rom com, very much a comfort movie like music and lyrics or singing in the rain for me. Great for sleep overs or rainy sunday afternoons. 

Richard II- I haven’t seen it but based on one (1) clip and some stills I would be lost in the sauce for a week after a viewing. 

Nativity 2: Danger in the Manger- watch nativity 2 danger in the manger. 

Fright Night- jesus fucking CHRIST mister tennant went full slut

Casanova- Mister Tennant Goes Full Slut part 2- has blue colored contacts and it’s weird

[teenybeanielinguine]

Outlander S4 - A Reflection

With that explosive finale behind us and a long Droughtlander ahead, I’m taking a moment to look back on this season and reflect on the good, the bad, and the ugly.

(I’ve had some time to unpack and process, so be warned: this is a LONG review, with mild spoilers for The Fiery Cross.)

The Good:

I understand that this was a divisive season for many fans, but I personally loved it!  I could write a whole book about everything I loved, but for the sake of time, I’ll confine my praise to the best part of this season: the amazing cast of actors who bring my favorite characters to life.

Caitriona Balfe reprised her role as Claire Fraser with stunning success, and really sparkled when she shared the screen with her fellow cast members; her most powerful moments this season were definitely the mother/daughter conversations she had with Bree and Marsali.  Though she handles tragic scenes with ease, I hope she is given a chance to enact lighter, happier sequences in Season 5; Jamie and Claire need more laughter and teasing, less heart-felt speeches and drama.

As our leading man, Sam Heughan played Jamie to perfection; he managed to tell entire stories with his eyes alone.  Same as with Balfe, he captures tragedy easily, but I want him to stretch out a little and show off his acting chops.  There will always be drama in Claire and Jamie’s lives, but please sprinkle in some more fluffy moments, so we can see Heughan laugh!  Jamie’s roles as patriarch and leader are also going to be significantly expanded in the next season (the last few moments of the finale teased that a bit), and I can’t wait to see Heughan tackle that challenge.

I’ve been tentative about Sophie Skelton in the past; after all, Brianna is one of my favorite characters, despite her polarizing nature, and I was worried about her portrayal.  But Skelton nailed everything (the rape scene and its aftermath, in particular, were deeply chilling), and I have complete confidence that Bree is in safe hands.  In the finale, we saw Bree finally become a mother and reunite with her husband (not gonna lie, I’ve had that reunion on a loop ever since it aired); these two events are going to play major roles in her character growth (so excited for next season!).

Richard Rankin was a tour-de-force as Roger; I couldn’t tear my eyes away from the screen every time he appeared.  Any issues I had with his character were purely a result of writing and production choices, and despite those issues, Rankin still managed to make the character wonderfully, emotionally, lovably human (for further evidence, please refer to the idiot hut).  Roger’s journey is one of the most difficult transformations in the series, and next season will be challenging for Rankin; I’m particularly interested to see how he handles Roger’s growing relationship with Jamie.

All the leads were supported by a strong set of secondary characters, from Duncan Lacroix as the miraculously resurrected Murtagh to David Berry as the fabulous Lord John Grey.  John Bell was one of my absolute favorites, with his spot-on portrayal of Young Ian (that proposal! the emotional goodbye!! running the gauntlet!!!).  Ed Speelers played Stephen Bonnet in a way that brought back shivery memories of Black Jack.  Honestly, there was no weak link in this cast.  Special shoutout to Braeden Clarke (Kaheroton) and Tantoo Cardinal (Adawehi/Nayawenne in the books); hopefully we’ll be able to see even more powerful and complex First Nations characters in the coming season (to this effect, may I humbly suggest showing Young Ian’s time among the Mohawk?  Would love to see that first-hand rather than having the character describe it after the fact; also, you can never have too much John Bell).

This Season’s MVPs: Lauren Lyle and César Domboy.  Marsali and Fergus are never more than side characters in the books; you never hear the story from their POV.  Thankfully, the show saw a chance to expand their roles and took it.  And oh boy, did Domboy and Lyle deliver! Their nuanced performances just blew me away (”If Not For Hope” comes to mind).  I hope that we see even more of them going forward.

The Bad:

No adaptation is perfect (although if you have found one that is, please message me immediately).  It is especially difficult when the adaptation in question has to fit an 880-page book into a mere 13 hours; to put it into perspective, the audiobook version of Drums of Autumn is a whopping 45 hours long!  Though I like to nitpick and criticize, I am not so arrogant as to think that I could have done a better job, and I am very grateful to the writing and production teams who tackle this impossible task. I am also strangely content with most of the deviations they’ve made from the source material (Murtagh as a regulator is particularly genius, with really interesting implications for next season).

That being said, there is some room for improvement.  And one area that definitely needs some fine tuning is Claire and Jamie.  This year, some very vocal fans found issue with the fact that we didn’t see our main lovebirds enough, and there weren’t enough sex scenes, and why weren’t they in this episode?!  For me, none of those things were an issue, especially given that we saw Jamie and Claire way more than any other characters this season.  I don’t think we need more J/C time; I think we need better J/C time.

I wish the show would stop beating us over the head with Jamie and Claire’s epic love; we know their love is deep and everlasting, that’s why we keep coming back! (That, and the kilts.)  But we need to move on from soap-operatic speeches and tender love-making; those were more interesting in the early days of their marriage, when their love was a new, fragile thing.  Show me instead the easy comfort of a long-married couple: the teasing, the laughter, the bone-deep happiness.  Balfe and Heughan have such great chemistry when it comes to that kind of thing, but we’ve only gotten snippets of it this season!  Rather than another over-the-top, tear-jerking scene where Jamie and Claire reassure each other and reaffirm their love (again), give me Claire cuddling up to Jamie under a snowbank after his back gives out and telling him stories.  Or exchanging amused looks with him when Young Ian does/says something silly.  Or Jamie teasing Claire about that time she hit him in the head with a fish while he was trying to fight off a bear (true story).  Or Claire teasing Jamie with her new breeches (I’m not going to say no to sex scenes entirely).  Get rid of the excessive drama (this couple already has more drama than they know what to do with); bring on the fluff!

Speaking of moving on, the show needs to let Frank Randall go.  By this point in the series, he’s been dead for a few years, and quite frankly, good riddance (pardon the pun).  His character was cast in a sympathetic light for narrative purposes; the producers wanted to make him the antithesis of his ancestor, Black Jack Randall, so they carefully omitted the fact that he was at times a racist ass with a string of mistresses (my apologies to any Frank fans; as you can see, he’s not one of my favorite characters).  The problem is that they took it too far, painting Frank as a martyr and putting first Claire, then Jamie, at a big disadvantage.  Despite this mistake, I’m fine with using Frank to flesh out Brianna’s character (his only redeeming quality is his aptitude for fatherhood), but that should have happened very early on in the season, before Bree makes the journey through the stones.  That journey is a pivotal point for Bree; she is driven not only by a need to save her mother, but also by a deep curiosity and longing for this birth father that she’s never met.  In the book, she even goes so far as to abandon the name “Randall” and adopt “Fraser” for the journey.  But that sentiment was lost entirely by the decision to have Frank accompany her on the voyage, narratively speaking.  We no longer get the feeling that she’s eager to meet/bond with Jamie; even worse, the writers had her casually dropping Frank’s name into every conversation!  No matter how great Tobias Menzies is, we have neither the time nor the will to keep devoting so much energy to a deceased character (who isn’t that critical to the future story, btw).  Heading into Season 5, we need to make our final, belated goodbyes to Frank Randall.

One 20th century man we should have seen more of instead was Roger Mackenzie.  As we dove into Season 4, I was so excited to see his developing relationship with Brianna; remember when they were super cute together, a million years ago in Season 3?  But too much focus on exposition meant that we didn’t see them until three episodes in, and instead of the slow burn I had anticipated, we got a lot of unnecessary drama.  Why on Earth is Roger a misogynist all of a sudden?  What happened to the sweet proposal where they both decide they’re not yet ready for marriage?  The lack of screen time meant that Bree and Roger’s entire relationship development was crammed into one episode; coupled with poor writing choices, the result was a shaky romance that was hard to root for.  I was lucky enough to have the books as a safety net; I know exactly how deeply they love and respect each other, despite the mayhem onscreen.  But the fans who hadn’t read the series (and even some who had) didn’t understand why these two were an endgame couple, and I don’t blame them.  That last reunion scene helped cement their relationship a little, but not enough; unfortunately, Season 5 is going to have to waste some of its precious time rectifying this misstep.

Which brings me to my last point: the pacing.  With so many new characters and so little time, it is more important than ever that the show learn to juggle all the storylines more smoothly.  The pacing of this season was so uneven, it gave me whiplash.  Gone are the days when Claire and Jamie were the only focus; from now on, their ever-growing family is going to continue complicating matters.  Outlander needs to evolve to meet this need if it wants to keep up. (Also, could we revert back to a 16-episode format, like in Season 1?  Please and thank you.)

The Ugly:

I will readily admit that I am new to this fandom.  I got hooked on the show during summer 2018 and devoured the books shortly thereafter.  When I joined Tumblr in the fall, it was because I wanted to celebrate this story with likeminded people and geek out over the upcoming season.

The actual experience was a bit more jarring (suffice it to say, I didn’t know hate-watching was a real thing that people did).  I don’t want to chastise or implore certain fans to adopt a more positive outlook; I’ve seen a lot of posts about that already, and I’m not inclined to add to them.  Instead, I’d like to share some of the guidelines I impose on myself when I contribute to any fandom (I’m not saying these will or should work for everyone, but they have worked for me):

Love, not hate.  To me, a fandom is a community that comes together out of love.  Knowing this, I try my best not to express any feelings of hate within that community; I don’t think it’s an appropriate place to share those feelings, and I don’t want to diminish the fandom experience for anyone else.  If I find that I no longer love or even like the show/book/movie that the fandom is centered on, I disengage from the community entirely, because I no longer consider myself a fan.  And that’s perfectly fine; there is no rule that says that once you’re in a fandom, you’re in it for life.

If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.  Despite the fact that I love the subject matter, it is not an absolute, unconditional sort of love.  I often find myself disliking certain aspects or getting frustrated by opposing views (this is doubly true when it comes to adaptations).  I let myself express these dislikes and frustrations only if I can see the silver lining; in other words, I allow myself to say a few negative things about a character/scene only if I can supplement them with a good dose of positivity as well.  Too much uninterrupted negativity borders on hate.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T.  I’m a very anxious person with self-confidence issues, so I have a hard time expressing my opinion online, even anonymously.  That’s why I’m never going to tear anyone else down for doing so.  I may disagree with you, or dislike the way you expressed yourself, but I’m going to be respectful even if it kills me, because that’s how I would want other people to interact with me.  Even with the Internet as a buffer, I think it’s important to remember that we are all human, and all equally capable of hurting others and being hurt ourselves.

Again, these guidelines work for me, but it’s completely subjective.  And even though my experience in the OL fandom hasn’t been a bed of roses so far, I’ve still met some amazing people with incredible things to say.  My favorite fandom moments of the season? @futurelounging‘s beautiful thoughts on episode 12 and @breefraser‘s hilarious criticism of Roger’s sartorial choices.

I’d love to hear from other fans!  What worked for you this season?  What would you have changed?  Favorite fandom moments?  If you choose to reply, please be kind and respectful.

[bbclesmis]

Los Angeles Times: Dominic West on the near-erotic bond between Valjean and Javert in ‘Les Miserables’

Since the original publication of Victor Hugo’s novel “Les Miserables” more than 150 years ago, the brutal conflict between the convict-turned-savior Jean Valjean and ruthless pursuer Inspector Javert has been dramatized countless times on stage, screen and even radio.

Although most of the versions have been dramatic, the most dominant and popular adaptation of the 1862 novel is musical. The Tony Award-winning “Les Miserables,” launched in Paris in 1980, has been featured on stages around the globe, and its colorful characters, luscious ballads and rousing anthems have been embraced by millions of theatergoers.

Dominic West is not among them.

The actor who came to prominence in the landmark HBO series “The Wire” and is starring in Showtime’s “The Affair,” has never seen “Les Miserables” on stage. And he didn’t make it all the way through the 2012 film version starring Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe.

Still, he understood how immensely popular the musical is. Which is one reason he had doubts about taking on the role when he was approached about playing Jean Valjean in a new dramatic six-hour adaptation of “Les Miserables.”

“I thought, ‘What’s the point?’ ” West said as he sat in the front courtyard of a boutique hotel in Santa Monica recently. “They’ve made a very successful film, and the stage musical is so successful. Then I read the script, and I realized there was a lot more to it. In living memory there’s been no six-hour version, no long-form version of the novel. The story you’re familiar with and the characters you’re familiar with are seen in greater depth.”

The miniseries, which debuts April 14 on PBS’ “Masterpiece,” also stars David Oyelowo (“Selma”) as Javert, Lily Collins (“Rules Don’t Apply”) as the doomed seamstress Fantine and recent Oscar winner Olivia Colman (“The Favourite”) as the abusive innkeeper Lady Thenardier. Andrew Davies, who has written adaptations of everything from “Pride and Prejudice” and “Bleak House” to “House of Cards” and “Bridget Jones’s Diary,” adapted Hugo’s novel for the project, which was co-produced by “Masterpiece” with BBC Studios.

The bleakness and brutality of Hugo’s vision is vividly depicted, alerting viewers immediately that there will be no catchy songs or light moments in this “Les Miserables.” “Masterpiece” executive producer Rebecca Eaton said there are compelling differences that should appeal to fans of the musical and devotees of Hugo’s work.

“The musical is great, the songs are great, but sometimes it covers up the story,” Eaton said in a phone interview. “What we’ve done is the narrative, with all its intricacies and subtleties that you just don’t get in the musical. We’re going much deeper. I love how Andrew humanizes and animates these 19th century tomes. He really went for the highs and the lows, and is making a political statement about poverty and class.”

The depiction of the virginal Fantine’s fall into degradation and prostitution, for example, is explored in chilling and horrifying detail. One of the highlights of the musical is “Master of the House,” a comic ode to the crooked operation of the inn run by the Thenardiers; in the “Masterpiece” version, the couple is much more menacing and manipulative.

And viewers who remember West as detective Jimmy McNulty from “The Wire” or are used to seeing him in various states of undress and in steamy sex scenes in “The Affair” may be startled when he is introduced as Prisoner 24601. He is almost unrecognizable, shorn of almost all his hair (“They cut my hair off with a knife and fork”) and wearing a lengthy and unkempt beard.

But it’s his performance, along with Oyelowo’s, that is at the center of this “Les Miserables,” and Eaton maintained that viewers will be captivated by how the two actors play out the life-and-death battle between Valjean and Javert: “To watch these two is just mesmerizing, My weakness is actors, and when I’m in the presence of first actors, it’s just wonderful.”

Among the most prominent film adaptations was a 1935 Oscar-nominated film starring Frederic March, a 1998 film starring Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush, and a 2000 French miniseries starring Gerard Depardieu and John Malkovich.

West became a believer in this latest version after reading Davies’ adaptation, and Hugo’s novel.

“Reading the book was the most pleasurable reading experience I’ve ever had,” he said. “I think it’s the best book ever written. It’s even greater than Tolstoy. Valjean is the greatest hero in literature. His story of redemption and the battle he has against his adversaries and against himself make him such a compelling hero.”

As Valjean, West had to connect with both his brutal side and his tenderness: “He’s been imprisoned for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving nieces and nephews,” he said. “He knew when he went to prison that they would all die in starvation.”

He added, “What’s central to the book is Javert’s view of the criminal, which is they are born and cannot be redeemed, and Hugo’s more enlightened view, that you’re a product of the way people treat you. If you’re brutalized for 19 years, you will be a brute. His evolution from violent brute to pillar of the community and then romantic hero is what’s so extraordinary about his character arc. Behind this beast is this great compassionate soul.”

Then there’s the core of “Les Miserables” — the clash between Valjean and Javert.

“There’s an almost erotic bond between Valjean and Javert,” West said. “Javert is nuts about him. We kind of hint at it. In these things, you always look for the strongest impulse, and that’s always sex and love.”

However, there was not much love between West and Oyelowo during the shoot.

“I kept trying to get to know David; I kept asking him out to dinner, and he was very aloof,” West said with a laugh. “I thought, ‘Boy, is he unfriendly! He’s a bit snooty.’ And then at the end, we finally went out — it was his birthday — and we had this great night. I said, ‘Wow, we should have done this months ago,’ and he said, ‘No, no, I was deliberately avoiding you.’ It was very clever. You do have a rapport with someone you hang out with on a set, and he didn’t want to have that. He was bloody right.”

He laughed again. “He has everything I lack. He has immense discipline, whereas I’m incapable of not wanting someone to be my friend. He’s perfectly able for the benefit of the work to keep his distance. I admire him hugely as a person and as an actor.”

Both he and Oyelowo are executive producers of “Les Miserables.” “I had never done it before,” West said. “David was good at it. He’d watch stuff and come out with useful notes the next day. I had a lot of opinions about the production until we got into the shoot. Then the only notes I had was, ‘Could you hold on me a little longer? I think you’re missing a bit of magic.’ ” He burst into a loud laugh. “Of course they ignored me.”

West credits his role in “The Affair” with being a crucial tool in helping him prepare for “Les Miserables.” The Showtime drama, which explores the impact of an extramarital affair from different perspectives, is in the midst of filming its fifth and final season.

“There was never a light moment on ‘The Affair,’ “ he said. “It was always emotionally expensive stuff. Lots of grief and emotion. It taught me a lot. I don’t think I could have done Valjean without being on that show.”

Even then, it took time for West to understand Valjean. “What I found so difficult to understand is why he surrenders himself to Javert. Why does he feel he’s a bad guy when all he did was steal a loaf of bread? That took me a very long time, to realize what sort of psychology Hugo was anatomizing there,” West said. “He’s been so brutalized, told that he’s an animal for 20 years. He believes he’s not worthy of love, he believes he’s not worthy of living in normal society, he believes the only thing he deserves is the brutal life of the prison.”

As happy as he is with “Les Miserables,” West is also coming to grips with wrapping up “The Affair.” which also stars Maura Tierney and, until last season’s plot twist, Ruth Wilson. ”Five years is a long time for television, and I’m ready to move on, for sure.”

Although he is looking forward to new projects, he is also constantly reminded of his past — particularly “The Wire” which has only gained in reputation since its original five-season run, which started in 2002. The multilayered series about the narcotics scene in Baltimore is regarded as one of the most significant and compelling dramas in recent TV history.

“It’s really extraordinary how it’s grown in stature, and I feel very lucky to have been involved,” West said. “People always come up to me and say they’ve just watched it. If it came out now, I think it would have been lost in the sheer volume of great projects. But in some way, it can be said it catalyzed this golden age of television and to have raised the bar. For me, it’s been the gift that keeps on giving.”

[ginmo]

I’ve been sure since I read AFFC/ADWD that Jaime’s getting one of the better endings because House Lannister isn’t gonna be wiped out and both Cersei and Tyrion are now Too Dark To Live. But I’ve seen a lot of people rewatching bring up that awful sept fuck up and consensus is that it renders him irredeemable. The show is gonna have to WORK to avoid a million thinkpieces when he gets both power and a family. I’m not convinced they’ll pull it off.

That scene was gross af, but we’ve since learned that the intent of the scene was not for it to be rape. We also know that canon Jaime is not a rapist. So if the narrative intent was for it to NOT be rape (and ended up being just a really bad fuck up from writers, director, post production) then we can’t blame the non-rapist character for the shitty product. What’s gross is they didn’t realize they filmed a rape scene, so people need to shift their blame from Jaime to the filmmakers. If people are really stuck on Jaime being a rapist even though in canon he isn’t and wasn’t even meant to be on the show, then they’re going to really hate the outcome of this story, because there won’t be anything to revisit Jaime being a rapist in the narrative (such as redemption for that) because he isn’t supposed to be. This is why most of fandom acknowledges that scene was an oops from the production and don’t use it to judge the character.

In other words, since the show was doing a direct adaptation of a consensual canon sex scene from the books, thinking their adaption was also a consensual sex scene, then the narrative itself doesn’t need to, and will not, do anything to have Jaime redeem himself for something he didn’t do, but that the filmmakers stupidly did.

My friend Koops went off on this topic a while back, so I’m going to add a read more where I quote her posts. It’s way more than you asked about, and I already answered the question, but I just really love her rant over the sex scene lol. So for those who want cast, crew, and GRRM quotes, discussion of that D&D video people love to refer to, and a total take down of basically why using that scene against Jaime is completely moronic then here it is: 

In response to this D&D video:

I don’t think this video disproves anything. The girl is calling it “rape” but they are not once owning up to it. They’re calling it “this” and insisting that’s something Jaime would do in that moment, but it feels to me like what they were trying to do is avoid getting into a debate about whether it’s rape or not, because they know that can get them into all kinds of trouble. ETA: Also, notice how David rolls his eyes towards the end and the person who captioned the video interpreted it as him rolling his eyes at the girl who asked the question. I don’t think he is at all, that was 5 minutes earlier, talk about a delayed reaction. I think he’s rolling his eyes at KIT stepping in just as David had finished answering with that stupid comment calling it rape and saying how great it is that the show has rape scenes, when David had been so careful in avoiding using that word all along in order not to get into an argument. And they’re emphasizing how hard this was for Lena and so on (despite, IIRC, her always saying it wasn’t intended as rape), just to earn feminist points of “we know how tough this is for women, look at how distraught we all were filming it”.If that had been their intention, they would have followed up on it in subsequent scenes/interactions, which is something the show does with rape scenes (see Sansa). Yet it was never mentioned again and it’s like it never happened. I think D&D sometimes have a bit of a rape-style fetish when it comes to sex scenes because it makes them come across as “edgy”. See the way they wrote the broken tower sex scene in the original pilot script or the way they changed Dany and Drogo’s wedding night. But they refuse to admit it and hide behind nonsense like “this is something the character would do”. They want to see how far they can push it, basically.Even if we want to say they’re admitting to have it intended as rape, saying this is something Jaime would do is absolutely ridiculous since not only he saved Brienne from rape but in the books he even has one of his men executed for TRYING to rape Pia. It’s nothing to do about having a linear redemption arc or not, it’s about WHAT kind of “bad things” the character does and whether it’s consistent with its characterization or not. Rape, for Jaime, is absolutely NOT. Equating that scene to Jaime pushing Bran out of a window is completely insane since the two things are dramatically different in motivation and intention and while Jaime is a complex guy that can do horrible things for his family and for Cersei, he doesn’t do them out of his own selfishness, especially when it comes to sex when he even refuses women throwing himself at him. Not to mention the entire point of Jaime’s “bad deed(s)” is that he has to own up to them and deal with them and their consequences. If you just ignore that sept scene ever happened and never deal with it again then you either think it isn’t a big deal, or it wasn’t a bad deed in the first place. Otherwise it adds absolutely nothing to the character’s arc. It’s like they think that a “complex/not good guy” engages into all sorts of “bad behaviour” just by virtue of being complex/not good, which actually does precisely what they’re claiming they don’t want to do; i.e. making a clear cut distinction between good and bad guys, since they’re equating all possible bad actions as being equal and the same and stemming from the same psychological motivations, which is ridiculous. The bottom line to me always comes to the fact that, unlike most stuff post S5, we have the scene in the books, in written format, and we KNOW it’s not meant to be rape. It’s meant to be the kind of gross, rough, angry sex those two have. To change the intention of the scene just because you feel “that’s something the character would do”, to me is not really caring about really understanding the character’s intentions in the first place, since you have source material and an author you can check with. They simply didn’t care in order to get HBO points.

And for some quotes 

I find the idea that we are meant to read into Cersei’s actions after the sept encounter in the books as indicative of a woman who experienced rape, or that George did not come out to straight up say the words “I did not write it as rape” (he would never throw D&D under the bus that way, come on) as evidence that it was indeed intended to be rape all along in the books, even more of twisting oneself into a pretzel than trying to explain away the scene in the show as not rape. Neither D&D nor George have ever shied away from calling rape out for what it is in the show or the books. Why would they suddenly tiptoe around this one particular scene? I think it’s because the issue here is much more nuanced than just filming a rape scene; it’s about the grey lines of consent and it’s about changing something from the books to make it look much worse than it originally was intended to be, for a character they know it will be regarded as very controversial/OOC, which raises all sorts of uncomfortable questions about how far D&D are willing to go for shock value. This is what GRRM has to say on the issue (bolded and underlined for emphasis):

“I think the “butterfly effect” that I have spoken of so often was at work here. In the novels, Jaime is not present at Joffrey’s death, and indeed, Cersei has been fearful that he is dead himself, that she has lost both the son and the father/ lover/ brother. And then suddenly Jaime is there before her. Maimed and changed, but Jaime nonetheless. Though the time and place is wildly inappropriate and Cersei is fearful of discovery, she is as hungry for him as he is for her.The whole dynamic is different in the show, where Jaime has been back for weeks at the least, maybe longer, and he and Cersei have been in each other’s company on numerous occasions, often quarreling.The setting is the same, but neither character is in the same place as in the books, which may be why Dan & David played the sept out differently. But that’s just my surmise; we never discussed this scene, to the best of my recollection.Also, I was writing the scene from Jaime’s POV, so the reader is inside his head, hearing his thoughts. On the TV show, the camera is necessarily external. You don’t know what anyone is thinking or feeling, just what they are saying and doing. If the show had retained some of Cersei’s dialogue from the books, it might have left a somewhat different impression — but that dialogue was very much shaped by the circumstances of the books, delivered by a woman who is seeing her lover again for the first time after a long while apart during which she feared he was dead. I am not sure it would have worked with the new timeline.”

Nothing whatsoever of what GRRM is saying above in explaining how he wrote their sept encounter even remotely hints at the fact that he intended consent to be even a question in his original work. He is not pointing out that he is writing from Jaime’s POV to build a contrast with Cersei’s, he is pointing out that he is writing from Jaime’s POV to build a contrast between the books medium and the camera medium and what each does or does not allow. And he goes further by saying that Cersei’s dialogue from the books might have helped giving a different impression of the scene: i.e. that it was NOT rape. What is happening is George trying to distance himself from D&D’s choice while at the same time being a professional and not bashing their botched adaptation of his work, by explaining why perhaps they might have decided to approach it differently from the way HE wrote the original scene and how maybe some of his material might not have fit because of the timeline.We actually have Cersei’s own POV later in the books, where she reminisces about tons of events from her close and distant past, and not once does she ever think back upon that incident in the sept in a way so as to indicate it was in any way a “traumatic” experience for her, while she does plenty of reflecting back upon her unpleasant sexual experiences with Robert, for example. Meanwhile, Cersei being disgusted with Jaime’s loss of his hand, or the way his looks are changing and his personality is changing, is very much a plot point that she comes back to over and over. “How could I have ever loved such a wretched creature?”, or getting up naked from a bathtub in front of Jaime thinking he still wants her and even taunting him with “Pining what you lost?” and then getting annoyed that Jaime pretty much tells her she’s a fool for thinking that? Hardly dynamics one has with their rapist. And also GRRM also says: 

The scene was always intended to be disturbing, but I do regret if it has disturbed people for the wrong reasons.

“It has disturbed people FOR THE WRONG REASONS”, means that he wanted that scene to cause controversy because of how damn gross it all is, them having sex next to the corpse of their incestuous son, not because there was an issue of consent. So, no. The book scene was not intended to have consent be a central point, let alone rape. Yes, something happened in the adaptation to make it come across as significantly more forced, in a way that can very rightfully be interpreted as rape, while at the same time not being intended to be rape for plot point’s sake. But, when it comes to the filming of that scene, this is what the director had to say:

Of course Lena and Nikolaj laughed every time I would say, “You grab her by the hair, and Jack is right there,” or “You come around this way and Jack is right there.“ 

Yeah. Lena was SO distraught and it was so difficult for her to film that “rape” scene. They was totally totally totally directed to play it as such, and were so serious and affected by it. Give me a break, David. And also:

The consensual part of it was that she wraps her legs around him, and she’s holding on to the table, clearly not to escape but to get some grounding in what’s going on. And also, the other thing that I think is clear before they hit the ground is she starts to make out with him. The big things to us that were so important, and that hopefully were not missed, is that before he rips her undergarment, she’s way into kissing him back. She’s kissing him aplenty.

So there’s two possibilities here: either D&D intended it as rape from the start, but didn’t give clear instructions to the director, and, in turn, Nik and Lena, so that they didn’t set out to shoot it the way D&D intended, or nobody intended it as rape but something was messed up in the editing process (apparently after this scene, they made some changes to the editing process? Not sure how reliable this info is, but maybe someone can dig it out, if they remember). Regardless, what they ended up with is a scene that has some serious, serious issues of consent, and the comments afterwards, trying to downplay the consent in favour of highlighting the context or the way Cersei did give non-verbal consent, only ended up stirring more criticism of the director and actors being rape apologists. So, it doesn’t surprise me if they’ve just given up trying to defend their original intentions, since it only made things worse (and rightfully so), in favour of trying to explain it away the way GRRM did; by trying to make up explanations that the narrative required it and it made sense to be filmed that way.So, to conclude and link everything back to the reason why we are debating this (i.e. “NCW is a misogynist for disliking Dany when Jaime is a rapist and he excuses him”), while I can totally sympathize with a show-only person who watches that scene and sees it as rape, I also think this particular scene is not something we can use in the discourse about Jaime’s character and arc, given that not only there are huge question marks about what was intended with that scene in the first place, not only it is forgotten like it never happened to the point that you could skip it and nothing would change, but we know for a fact that it was NOT what was intended in the original source material by the original author. The one who decides where the characters’ arcs are supposed to go. You cannot say “it doesn’t make sense that Jaime does X and Y in his endgame because he’s a rapist” when that endgame is being decided by someone who never wrote Jaime as a rapist in the first place. All you can say is that D&D messed up big time with that scene because it literally does not line up or fit with anything else that is going on at the time or in the past or in the future when it comes to Jaime. 

- Koops (jaimetheexplorer)

[lacylu42]

11/11 tag game

I was tagged by @contes-de-rheio​. Thank you!

1. The plot of the first original story you wrote

Oh, lordy... I’ll have to think back on that. The first original story I can remember writing was in junior high (which would be *cough* like 20+ years ago???). It was a science fiction about a team of people who invented individual spaceship/suits to fight an alien invasion (think mechs, but I’m pretty sure I had never been exposed to those when I wrote it). I didn’t finish it because it really didn’t have a plot beyond what I just told you. ;) 

2. What do you think about advising a story solely over the character‘s sexuality, ethnicity or religion?

Not sure I totally understand the question, but I personally would never write a story where the main plot turns on someone’s sexuality, ethnicity or religion — mostly because I’m a cis het white female who grew up protestant, so I wouldn’t feel comfortable writing a book ENTIRELY about the life or struggles of someone who had a very different experience. At least, I don’t feel up to the task at this stage of my writing life.

I am, however, big on including a diverse cast in my books, and their struggles do play into the plot sometimes. I prefer to make those characteristics secondary, though to the person themselves; I try to treat those characters as I would a cis het white male. If his skin color/religion/sexuality isn’t a big deal, then the other variations in other characters shouldn’t be either (though it’s a fine line between treating those things as normal and unremarkable and tokenism, and I’m aware of that as well...)

My last epic WIP (that has become something of a bottom drawer novel for the time being) had an allegorical theme of religious intolerance (and intolerance in general) and one of the main characters was a Muslim teenage girl who experienced some serious crap because of her gender and religion. BUT were that novel ever to see the light of day, I would want to hire a Muslim woman to help me read and edit it to make certain I’m portraying my character in a truthful and appropriate light.

WHEW that was a lot. 

3.  How many alternatives of your WIPs plot do you have in mind?

None. I built my current WIP using the plot of The Thin Man as sort of a template (because I suck at plot and was using this NaNo as an experiment and practice to improve). Of course, the details and even some of the plot deviated as the WIP grew, but I didn’t have multiple variations.

As I’m outlining the sequel, I do have a couple of places in the outline where I say “either this happens OR that happens” because I haven’t decided yet, but they’re not big plot points. 

4.  Your favorite character ever

My own OC or character in general?

Right now, David MacInish, the half-fae detective in my WIP is my favorite. As for characters in other people’s works, I love the Doctor, from Doctor Who, and Remus Lupin.

(I guess I like a man with a tragic backstory...)

5.  what do you like about world building?

I love describing settings, and I love imagining fantastic, impossible places. There’s a magical, possibly sentient library that’s popped up in two of my WIPs and I keep wanting to find the right place for it. Maybe she needs her own book. ;) 

Question you didn’t ask: What do you HATE about world building? Working out the rules of my magic system. I sometimes paint myself into a corner and then don’t know how to get out. 

6. The longest time your worked on a WIP to finish the first draft?

OK, don’t judge: 10+ years. My bottom-of-the-drawer WIP took me more than 10 years to finish. I finally hired a book coach and finished the first full draft in 2017. In my defense, I was doing that thing where you write five chapters, then go back and rewrite five chapters, then rewrite those five chapters over and over and over again. But it took me 10 years to write the whole damn thing start to finish. And now I pretty much never want to look at it again. ;)

7. Movie or tv show adaption?

Oh man. I’m torn! What I really want is a thousand episodes of a TV show but with movie-quality production values. Is that really too much to ask? ;) 

Actually, I just recently watched the BBC miniseries of A Discovery of Witches and I thought they did a great job with the sweeping, epic feel, in 10 episodes or whatever it was. But I’m always like MOAR PLS. 

8. Your favorite part of being a writer?

I love the giddy explosion of creativity when I’m in flow, when I’m inhabiting my world, when I’m imagining new things. My daughter calls playing pretend “making movies,” and that’s really what it feels like to me. Directing and inhabiting these movies in my head. 

I think that’s why I struggle with editing, because it’s not the heady creation phase. It feels a lot more like WORK. 

9. Planer, Pantser or something in between?

Well, pantsing is the reason it took me 10 years to finish a WIP (that and I moved states, changed jobs, had a baby, and started a business in that time...). 

I found in writing this NaNo that it was SO much easier having a template to work from. Every time I got stuck, I just looked at the book to see what happened next and I could get moving again. So I’m working on a detailed outline for the next book. (Although, I am allowing myself to capture snippets of scenes and dialogue as they occur to me.)  

10. Writing by hand or via PC?

On the computer. When I was in junior high (see above) and just starting to write my own stories, I taught myself to type better, because I couldn’t hand-write fast enough to get the ideas out of my head. Now I type over 100 words a minute, so my fingers move almost as fast as my brain... ;) 

11. Your go to snacks while writing?

If I’m going to eat while writing, it’s the hand to mouth action I crave more than the actual food, so I try to pick something relatively healthy that requires a lot of that — like grapes, blueberries, or plain popcorn (love the buttered stuff, but it makes fingers greasy for typing). Mostly I just drink copious amounts of coffee, tea, or carbonated water. 

Thank you again for tagging me!

The rules are 11 questions answered, 11 questions given, and 11 people tagged! I’ll tag my new writeblr friends (but I tagged some of you in the last one, so just do the ones you like!): @iloveyouappleiloveyouorange​, @foreshadowingss, @starlitesymphony, @virginiawritesforlovers, @caberetofwords, and @kipoints. 

1. Have you had to “kill any darlings” from your current WIP, ie: quotes, characters, scenes, etc. that you LOVE but don’t fit and have to be cut? Please share.

2. What is your favorite genre to write in and why? Is it different from the genres you like to consume?

3. Do you consciously study existing works by other authors to improve your own writing? If so, what types of things do you look at?

4. Have you noticed any patterns in your own writing, ie: you always have a certain type of character, like to explore a certain type of story, etc.?

5. Do you do most of your world building before you write, while writing the first draft, or during revisions? 

6. If when your WIP hits the bestseller list, where would you like to go or what would you like to do on a book tour? Is there somebody you’d like to be interviewed by? 

7. How do you approach setting the scene in your work? Are you into lush descriptions or giving the bare minimum and allowing the reader to fill in the blanks?

8. Do you follow a set structure (ie: hero’s journey, 3-act structure) when plotting out your works, or fly by the seat of your pants?

9. What does your revision process look like?

10. Please share a bit of dialogue from your WIP that shows us something important about the character’s personality.

11. Please share any jokes or funny bits from your WIP of which you are ridiculously proud. ;) 

[classykdlady]

Season 3 Thoughts

I’m going to put this under a cut to spare anyone who might not want to read this. Please keep in mind that these are my own opinions and they have no bearing on anything, whatsoever. I’m not here to harsh anyone’s buzz or tell anyone they’re wrong for liking what they like.

First off, I want to talk about some of the things that I liked, lest anyone think I’m just a Bitter Betty who hates everything. In no particular order:

Yi Tien Cho: I would like to thank god and also jesus that the show writers turned him from a super racist caricature (seriously, wtf Diana?) into an actual character with dignity and depth. Gary Young played him fabulously and made him a real favorite of mine. I loved his relationship with Margaret Campbell especially, but also appreciated his friendship with Claire. I’ll definitely miss him.

Murtagh: I definitely care about show Murtagh more than book Murtagh, so I’m glad they kept him alive. I’m curious to see what they do with his storyline since DG said that she doesn’t think they’re replacing Duncan Innes with him. 

The Geneva situation: I’m so glad that they took out the part where Geneva told Jamie to stop and he kept right on going. I know that whole thing has been rehashed to death, so it really was the best possible call to just eliminate that disgusting moment. 

Casting: Just a huge round of applause to the casting department on this show. They consistently knock it out of the park, and this season is no exception. Especially for several very important characters. Bless.

David Berry: On that note, let me publicly announce my love of David Berry as LJG. I think that even if I had hated John in the books, David’s portrayal of him on the show would’ve made me love him. He’s just so delightful. 

Frank: Yeah, this is not a Frank-hating blog, so absolutely miss me with that shit. I’ve enjoyed Tobias’s performance as Frank from the very beginning because he makes Frank feel like someone whom Claire would love very much. In the books, we’re very much limited by Claire’s perspective and I think she demonizes him in order to absolve herself of some responsibility and guilt. It is an absolutely human thing to do, but I’m so happy we got to see him trying to make things work and pushing back on her behavior. I detest unbalanced relationships because I don’t think it’s healthy when one person gets to act callously towards the other–even though I understand where it’s coming from and why it’s a natural reaction–and the recipient is just supposed to be 100% supportive all the time, with no regard for their own needs. Anyway, it’s been nice to be able to see his POV over the past three seasons, and to see why Claire tried so hard to get back to him and why she stayed with him after she came back. The racism is forever gross, though. 

Joe Abernathy: I like that he and Claire met in med school and went on to graduate and work together. Fight The Man, you two!

Adorable peanut Roger Wakefield showing up in Boston for Christmas

Jamie working the printing press: That was unexpectedly hot, so thank you for gifting it to us, whoever was in charge of that decision. 

Elias Pound: This absolute angel on earth was a bright light in an otherwise dark episode. He was such a sweetheart, who deserved so much better. 

The entire cast and crew: No matter your opinion on the season, the whole team worked very hard to bring us the best possible finished product. It’s not easy to make an adaptation from a book series, especially one with a long-time, passionate fanbase, so I genuinely appreciate the seriousness with which everyone involved is trying to take this. It’s a very fine line to walk between a faithful adaptation and making something your own, and it’s easy to sit in judgment when you’re not the one putting something out there. 

Wow, I didn’t think that list would be so long. 

And now, onto my more critical opinions. Now would probably be a good time to stop reading if you absolutely loved everything and are going to be upset that not everyone did. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

I think that most of my issues with this season can be summed up by one word: pacing. I honestly don’t think that their plan of doing one season per book is going to work out as well as they hoped, especially if they get past Drums. I go back and forth with myself about whether this season should’ve had more episodes (I understand the logistical and practical reasons why they didn’t. This is more of a theoretical.) The end of the season absolutely felt rushed–even with some of the more convoluted plot lines axed or cleaned up–while the beginning of the season kind of dragged. Yes, I do understand that we had to show Jamie and Claire separated to really feel those 20 years and we had to see all the things Jamie went through, but it still felt like a bit much to me. I also constantly felt like I just had to get through one thing to get to the next, better thing, if that makes sense. That might be 100% on me, but the big moments didn’t hit me as hard as in previous seasons. 

The in-epsiode pacing this season really made me grit my teeth. It just felt like the writers decided to spend inordinate amounts of time on some things to the exclusion of other events (*cough*character moments*cough*) that I would have preferred to see. For reals, though, why did we have that whole thing where Claire was desperately trying to save the life of the man who attacked her, only for him to die anyway? Or 15 minutes of Claire traipsing through the jungle on Saint Domingue? The audience is not stupid. We can comprehend things like montages and time lapses to illustrate the passage of time. But we got those things instead of Ian Murray, Sr. coming up to the brothel room while Claire was still abed or John and Claire meeting aboard the British ship. Yes, yes, I know they screwed that one up by having Jamie tell Claire about Willie and that John is his adopted father, but I’m still allowed to be disappointed about it. I always enjoyed that their first meeting was wholly independent of Jamie and that they genuinely liked and respected one another. I feel that the way it all played out in the show will alter their future relationship.

And now, for a truly unpopular opinion: I could’ve done with fewer or shorter sex scenes this season. I’m not 100% sure why, but they felt somewhat gratuitous to me this season. Especially in Print Shop, where it was obviously trying to feel like The Wedding. In Print Shop, the first one was necessary, but the second one could’ve easily been shortened/fade to black/whatever. Sometimes the sex scenes felt a bit fanservice-y to me. I’ve generally enjoyed the sex on this show in the past, so I’m not entirely sure what changed. Maybe it was that there was so much action this season and so few times when the characters had the time to just talk to each other, that the sex just felt like it was randomly thrown in, rather than happening organically. I don’t know, I’ll revisit this idea when I eventually rewatch the whole season. 

I would’ve liked to have seen more of the relationship growth between Claire and Marsali. I enjoy Marsali in subsequent books, so it would’ve been nice to see more of that evolution from distrust and suspicion to soliciting advice from Claire. 

On a similar note, I was displeased with how jokey the Fersali wedding was. Jamie officially granting Fergus his last name is a big moment for the two of them, but I feel like it got a bit lost in how ridiculous Father Fogden was being. 

I hadn’t really thought about it until I was watching the season unfold, but a lot of these issues may have come from the source material. Generally, I enjoy Voyager, but I do skip things sometimes when I’m rereading it. As a whole, it does seem kind of unfocused. It kind of veers off in the middle there into some side plots to the point where you almost forget about Young Ian’s kidnapping. 

These are just my first impressions and are subject to change after further reflection. As a whole, this season was kind of a miss for me. I’ll take the responsibility for at least some of that because I definitely let my expectations get out of hand. Also, I don’t have hyper-fixations like some people do. I have brief periods of deeply enjoying something, then it fades. I think I’ve almost definitely hit the fade, so that might be affecting things. I’ve never been the squeeing type, so I was never going to be at that level of enjoyment anyway. 

If you made it this far, thanks for reading. You don’t have to agree with me on any of it, but please don’t come on my post/blog and berate me about why I’m wrong for not liking something. I am always up for discussion or questions about my ramblings. I apologize for the disorganized nature of this post. I just wanted to write something about what I was thinking. 

[aion-rsa]

Kajillionaire: How the Evan Rachel Wood Movie Explores the ‘Mini-Cult’ of Family

https://ift.tt/2RPN4hK

Kajillionaire is the first feature film from writer-director Miranda July in which she isn’t also the star. It’s a different experience, stepping outside the frame and choosing instead to cast Evan Rachel Wood as her unconventional leading lady. But as the artistic polymath also tells us over a digital interview, she also “never [has] to stop looking at it from the outside.” The ‘it’ being an intimate portrait of a dysfunctional family of small-time scammers.

“I could go further,” July says during her conversation, “I could be more devoted to the actors… I wasn’t in there with them, in the fire.” This remove allowed her to be open to the final product, and letting it differ from her initial script. That and the confidence that comes from a long career of many hats.

“I’ve been now just making things in all mediums for a long time,” says July, a performance artist of all trades—from punk theater to sculpture installations, to a messaging app—who is used to wearing a dozen hats on a single project. “When you’re younger, you get really freaked out when things aren’t going according to plan; and by this point I think, ‘Well, there’s another way that’s gonna end up being the right way that’s different from what we planned.’”

That adaptability has served her especially well in the last six months of the COVID-19 pandemic, which delayed the release of Kajillionaire (among many other films) into theaters. Yet there’s a touch of self-fulfilling prophecy that July learned to embrace chaos in the current life-changing circumstances from her project about a brood of truly bad con artists whose attempts to score big earn them more problems than windfalls, with their half-baked schemes often spinning wildly out of control.

Though she wasn’t in front of the camera, July worked closely with Wood to develop the character of Old Dolio, the twentysomething daughter of a pair of lousy con artists (Richard Jenkins and Debra Winger), who nonetheless shares her parents’ fierce conviction in their scavenger lifestyle. Not only does Old Dolio not resemble July’s two avatars in her past films, Me and You and Everyone We Know and The Future, but her absence of femininity or softness distinguishes her from most twenty-something cinematic heroines.

“I’ve been wanting to work with [Miranda] for years and just jumped at the opportunity,” Wood says. “And then when I saw the kind of film she was creating, and the heroine that was Old Dolio, I was elated because you never get to see a leading lady look or act or sound like Old Dolio, and I had also never really read this script. And I’ve been doing this [for] over 25 years now, I’ve read a lot of scripts. So to actually be able to read a script that was so original I couldn’t compare it to anything else, that’s what excited me more than anything.”

With her lank hair, baggy tracksuit, and guttural voice, Old Dolio possesses the raised-by-wolves ferality of someone reared outside of mainstream society, especially with regard to hyper-feminized gender norms. Yet she’s clearly devoted herself to the Dynes’ scams, leaping, diving, and twisting herself into poses to evade security cameras—or just their long-suffering laundromat landlord.

“I’d never had a character who was gonna take some real work to get into,” July says. “I didn’t know if any of that was going to work, but I did think that rather than just arbitrarily come up with these physical restraints that it was important to sort of limit her intellectual state. I mean, she’s a full complete soul in there, but she’s not used to articulating, internally or externally, about her emotions.”

They workshopped the character together for about a week, with references and videos, so that they could build up what Wood describes as a “toolbox” once they got to set. “We had our own language that we had built for Old Dolio,” the star says. “Miranda could just call something out, and I would know what she was talking about. She would yell out, ‘Proud lion!’ ‘cause that’s one of the animals we had picked for Old Dolio, that she would emulate and have the same energy [as], and also when she needed to be slightly attractive for [Gina Rodriguez’s character] Melanie.”

That toolbox also gave them verbal shorthands for keeping Wood in-character; if it seemed like any feminine qualities (i.e., any of Wood’s own personality aspects) were coming through, July would yell out “hands” or “voice,” and her lead would remember to adjust her gestures or lower her voice.

In doing so, July says, they honed Old Dolio “until it was just physical. I was like, well, that sets her up inside her mind, her state, and from there she can probably do anything, was the hope. She could say these lines, she could do a tuck-and-roll.” While July had written in Old Dolio’s eccentric physicality before they began developing the character, she was gratified to see that Wood had no problem truly embodying the character.

“Evan actually could limbo, Evan could roll. You write all this stuff and then you’re braced to have to adjust to reality, but in Evan’s case, I never had to.”

Matching Old Dolio’s signature moves are the emotional and ethical gymnastics she must undertake as part of her family’s cons: whipping out the Catholic schoolgirl uniform when sweet-talking some rich marks; impersonating a stranger for a measly $20; forging signatures as easily as breathing.

“I related to Old Dolio in that way of a very unconventional upbringing and childhood,” says Wood, who has been acting for most of her life. “I was working since I was five, and sometimes seen more as a peer than as a child, and as a child star you can very easily confuse adoration and love, or performance and how it relates to love.”

Yet for all the necessary evils to which Old Dolio commits herself, she lacks the social intelligence to entirely pull them off; and her parents have no qualms about letting her know that they find her wanting.

“I think as Old Dolio understands it,” Wood continues, “love is a performance, in how well she does in these cons, and that [it’s] the only way to win her parents’ approval, and she convinces herself she doesn’t need anything else.”

Like money, Old Dolio can get by on a dearth of love—until the Dynes meet Melanie (Rodriguez), a bubbly young thing who is all too eager to get in on their schemes. Flirty and feminine where Old Dolio is awkward and androgynous, quick-thinking in a way that reveals a whole host of life experience, Melanie allows the Dynes to expand the scope of their cons; but Robert (Jenkins) and Theresa (Winger) also begin to project on her all of the affection that they’ve always withheld from Old Dolio in the name of supposed authenticity. “You get the sense that she knows something is missing,” Wood says, “and she can’t quite put her finger on it until Melanie comes into the picture.”

The slow-burn queer romance between Old Dolio and Melanie helps the former begin to envision a life outside of the Dynes’ restrictive existence of diminishing returns, and to experience a love (or at least the sense of being wanted) that she has long been lacking. But not even July initially intended for first love to be part of Old Dolio’s journey of self-discovery.

“I actually had Melanie in there a little bit before understanding that there was a romance,” July says, “and so Old Dolio had this repulsion and this reaction against her, and the parents adored her. And then I was like, ‘Ah, wouldn’t it be [wonderful] to give this woman all the joy of being loved by her.’ I just wanted that for Old Dolio.”

“We agreed that it was so easy to fall in love with each other,” Wood says about developing the romance with Rodriguez. “We had that chemistry right away. And with a character like Old Dolio, you have to be incredibly forward, because she just doesn’t get it, or doesn’t want to. Again, she had no exposure to things. It’s all new to her. What I love is that gender is never spoken about, and sexuality is never spoken about, it just is. And it’s a part of the film, but it’s not what the film is about.”

The absence of gender that Wood found so freeing seems to have been by design, as July explains that she was aware of gendered tropes and expectations when crafting this romance. 

“I always thought that if Evan’s character had been a guy, that the second Melanie entered the movie, you would know that there was gonna be a romance,” she says. “You could make that a real slow-burn, you could totally work against it and hide it, because you just know already, because of the formula, that they were gonna end up together. So I enjoyed treating it the same way, like not overly indicating, giving it the same artfulness—holding my cards like that, and trusting it, just trusting.”

Read more

Movies

Toronto International Film Festival 2020 Movie Round-Up

By David Crow

TV

Westworld: What Dolores’ Fate Means for Season 4

By Alec Bojalad

One of the most artful moments in the film, which demonstrates not just the trust between July and her leads but also between Wood and Rodriguez, is Old Dolio’s dance. The scene is part of Melanie helping Old Dolio check off a list of formative life events she has been lacking up until now; the latter has never had the teenage experience of rocking out in one’s bedroom alone or with a friend. Yet the dance itself—set to the telephone hold music that is Old Dolio’s ersatz soundtrack for her own life—is entirely about Melanie being witness to Old Dolio’s pent-up anger and joy, poignantly inelegant yet hopeful.

Wood describes how she and Rodriguez each surprised one another: Rodriguez had not seen Wood rehearse the dance prior to shooting the scene; and when the cameras started rolling, the tears in Rodriguez’s eyes were completely authentic. 

“She’s just that kind of actor,” Wood says. “She throws herself in, and she’s right there with you, just giving you everything.” Such moments also underscore why Wood feels like Kajillionaire was at times like shooting two different movies.

“There was the one with the Dynes, and there was the one that Gina and I were doing. And that was always so beautiful and tender and sexy and heartbreaking. That’s when we really got to lean into the heart and soul of the film.”

Arguably, what most identifies Kajillionaire as a Miranda July film is the surreal imagery of pink soap bubbles cascading over the wall of the Dynes’ shabby rented residence: an instantly familiar sitcom shorthand for a situation about to get out of hand, but that in July’s framing becomes strangely soothing. What began as the explanation for why they were able to live somewhere with such cheap rent—every day they must clean up the bubbles, only for the laundromat to inevitably produce more—took on a dreamlike beauty as July decided to link the bubbles to a recurring visual device in her films. In the case of Kajillionaire, the director says the bubbles “tap into that primal anxiety… they have to dispose of it in this Sisyphean way, but it keeps coming.”

Sisyphean could perhaps also apply to the staggered timing for Kajillionaire’s release. Following the film’s production, Annapurna Pictures declared bankruptcy, and July was forced to find a new distributor at Sundance; they did in Focus Features. The movie premiered at the festival in January 2020, weeks before whispers of COVID-19 began permeating America, and once the nationwide lockdown and quarantine began, its June release was pushed to September. While July acknowledges that she was of course disappointed “not to get to do my well-laid plans for this movie,” watching the film finally get released six months into COVID has given her a change in perspective.

That was due in large part to hearing from people within the last several weeks who were watching Kajillionaire for the first time during quarantine. “There was no other version of the movie to them but the one that they saw now,” she says. “It’s not that it’s a different movie, but there’s so many things in it that they spoke so intensely to me about—just a lot of little resonances with this time, and I think that made me feel like, ‘Well, maybe I was making it for us now.’”

July has found the silver lining on the metaphorical soap bubbles, in that Kajillionaire might be coming out exactly when it is supposed to. “That is the reality of what has happened,” she says, “so there’s no point in thinking that six months ago was my true time—like, no, I have to own it, this movie is for now.”

While filming Kajillionaire, Wood was also wrapping up three seasons’ worth of character arc for android Dolores on HBO’s Westworld. “There’s certainly parallels there,” Wood says of Dolores’ becoming self-aware and breaking out of her own loop compared to Old Dolio’s story. “I think that journey inward and that journey to consciousness is part of all of our journeys.” But her real takeaway is about breaking out of toxic loops, plus concerns of family as a whole.

“I’ve heard Miranda speak about families and how each one of them is its own mini-cult, in that they all have their own set of rules and morals and standards,” she says. “Each one is a little different, and we all go through a moment where we have to start defining ourselves separate from our family: what that looks like and who we really are, and what we really want. And sometimes that does not match up with the family that we have been raised in, and it can be quite jarring and traumatizing. Especially when you make the decision to share your true self with your family. I know queer people can certainly relate to some of this, and that idea of discovering who you are and sometimes having to leave the only thing that you’ve ever known.”

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Wood hopes that Kajillionaire moves audiences to reconsider their childhoods and their own parenting styles, but her greatest wish is that it reaches the people who may never have seen themselves reflected back in film before: “I hope if there’s any Old Dolios watching, that they feel seen, and like they got to be the leading lady.”

Kajillionaire will be released in theaters on Sept. 25.

The post Kajillionaire: How the Evan Rachel Wood Movie Explores the ‘Mini-Cult’ of Family appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/32T6RTK