#do the showrunners know that other countries exist???? | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ncisfranchise-source · 1 year ago

Text

NCIS: Sydney will feel very familiar to fans of CBS’ well-watched franchise, while also being uniquely Australian, showrunner Morgan O’Neill tells TVLine in the exclusive Q&A below.

The premise for NCIS: Sydney: As international tensions rise in the Indo-Pacific, a brilliant and eclectic team of U.S. NCIS Agents and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) are grafted into a multi-national task force, to keep naval crimes in check in the most contested patch of ocean on the planet.

The cast also includes Sean Sagar (Fate: The Winx Saga) as NCIS Special Agent DeShawn Jackson, Tuuli Narkle (Bad Behaviour) as AFP Liaison Officer Constable Evie Cooper, Mavournee Hazel (Neighbours) as AFP Forensic Scientist Bluebird “Blue” Gleeson, and William McInnes (Blue Heelers) as AFP Forensic Pathologist Dr. Roy Penrose.

The first international NCIS offshoot’s eight-episode season will premiere on CBS on Tuesday, Nov. 14 at 8/7c, and also be available live and on demand that night for Paramount+ with Showtime subscribers. (“Regular” Paramount+ Essential subscribers can stream each episode the day after it airs.)

Check out the exclusive key art poster above (click to zoom), then read on to see what series boss Morgan O’Neill has to say about the NCIS franchise’s trip to the land Down Under….

TVLINE | What was the genesis of NCIS: Sydney? Was CBS looking for an NCIS set on another continent, or was it, “We need a show for Paramount+ Australia”? MORGAN O’NEILL | I think it was more the former, although the latter is probably a good upside for it, too. My understanding is that CBS was looking to expand the franchise beyond [the northern] hemisphere. Since the show revolves around naval crimes, naturally they looked at “the world’s largest island,” and then they pitched the idea to Bev McGarvey who runs Paramount+ Australia. She’s a massive fan of the franchise, so she said, “Let me take it to Endemol Shine Australia (ESA).” They then came to me and said, “We have this incredible opportunity to expand one of the world’s biggest franchises into Australia. How the hell would you do it?” I got together with the head of scripted at ESA and worked up what this show might look like and pitched it back to Paramount+ and to CBS. They flipped for it at lightning speed, which almost never happens in our industry.

TVLINE | Is there anything that a U.S. viewer should know before watching this, with regards to what’s different about law enforcement in Australia? The first and most obvious difference is that while NCIS exists in Australia in real life, they don’t have the same kind of jurisdictional authority as they would in the U.S., because they’re in a foreign country. So when NCIS works in Australia they work in conjunction with our highest law enforcement agencies — in particular the Australian Federal Police, which are our equivalent of the FBI. From the perspective of our show, what’s going to be very, very different is that it’s effectively the first “blended family” where NCIS has to form a team with the Australian Federal Police and operate in conjunction with them.

It’s Australians and Americans working not always in concert, but certainly together, and working through cultural differences, working through the clashes that would naturally exist when you bring two disparate organizations together. But ultimately they find that there is this core DNA that they share between the two organizations that actually bonds them into a team really quickly, but with unexpected results.

TVLINE | So, each case will need to involve some sort of U.S. serviceman…? Absolutely. The basic premise that NCIS has to find a connection, a nexus back to the U.S. Navy, will continue, but what’s interesting in Australia is that it’s not just the Navy. If there is something that happens in Australia in the Army or the Air Force or the Coast Guard that pertains to the U.S., NCIS does the investigations. So, in a funny way they actually have a bigger remit than they do in the U.S. because they’re looking after the four other arms of the Armed Forces.

TVLINE | What are some fun character dynamics to watch for? Well, No. 1 on the call sheet, the person who gets to kind of call the shots out here, is [NCIS Special Agent] Michelle Mackey (played by Olivia Swann). She’s a former Marine captain/chopper pilot and somewhat of a maverick, so she’s kind of a problem child who’s been handed around NCIS for a little while as they figure out how to handle her. She drops into Australia where we are, in and of ourselves — how should I put it nicely for my fellow countrymen? — a bit “antiauthoritarian.” So sparks fly naturally, which is great.

Then there’s a core group of characters, which in some ways will feel familiar to an NCIS audience, because they know that in the world of the show there are investigators and forensic pathologists and forensic scientists involved. They’ll look at the show and see a familiar architecture to it, but three-quarters of them are Australians and that makes for a very, very different experience. A lot of the things that Americans take for granted about the world will be put up into relief here a bit, and interrogated, but ultimately what’s fascinating about these characters and the first season of this show is that it doesn’t actually take very long to realize that they’re kind of cut from the same cloth.

TVLINE | Did you try to cast the Australian side of the cast with 100% percent Australians? How did that net out? It’s interesting — the show is an entirely Australian show. Its cast, it’s crewed, it’s written by, it’s produced by, and it’s commissioned by Australians. All of the Australian characters are Australians, and that’s 95% of the cast including guest cast. But when you work on a show that’s as big as NCIS, which is is 200 territories, in 60 different languages, with trillions of hours of this show watched, the great relief from a showrunner’s point of view is that I don’t really have to go out and find “stars.” The show is already the star; I just get to cast the greatest actors on the planet! So we were able to cast really wide, really broadly, to find the best actors to slide into these pretty unique roles. And we were able to find a couple of actors out of the UK, as it would happen, who are just remarkable, in Olivia Swann and Sean Sagar.

TVLINE | I know Olivia from Legends of Tomorrow, and she’s great. She’s incredible, and I had sort of been following both her and Sean. I’m a huge fan of [director] Guy Ritchie and Sean is one of Guy Ritchie’s favorite actors to work with.

I’ve worked on a lot of shows and I’m a huge believer in the idea that whatever the vibe is amongst the humans that make the show somehow translates to the screen. And in this case, as we wrapped production on Season 1, even though some actors when they wrap you never see them again, they kept coming back to set. In fact, Olivia wrapped up on the very last day of shooting, but Todd Lasance, who is her No. 2, made a point to be there. It’s a real vibe, and we’re really excited to see what the rest of the world thinks.

TVLINE | Will there be nods to any other NCIS shows along the way? “I once met Leroy Jethro Gibbs at a conference…” or something? Look, there are a couple of little Easter eggs there. I won’t spoil them, but they’re definitely there. One of the things that I think audiences love about this show is the fact that it feels like a universe, not individual shows. And while they each have their own DNA, I think that’s what was really clever about the way CBS developed this franchise is they didn’t go out to make the same show twice. If you look at the original show, the mothership, it’s very different from L.A.…

TVLINE | Oh, NCIS: LA was chasing stolen nuclear materials, like, every other week! Correct. Each show gets a different tonality, a different vibe, a different pace, a different rhythm, a different color palette, a different sensibility. I feel like what CBS did really cleverly was they realized that they needed to expand the audience and to expand the universe, but not just replicate it. So when they came to us, I kind of sat down and watched about 950 episodes of NCIS [programs] in the space of a few weeks to get myself up to speed — I feel like I have a PhD in NCIS! — and what I realized was that they were looking to capture the authenticity of a place. So I went back to [CBS Studios chief] David Stapf and his crew and said, “In order for this to be successful, I think it really has to capture that authentic rhythm, that authentic cultural sensibility of Australia — the colors, the flavor. We should lean into it.” And they said, “That’s music to our ears. Go for it.”

TVLINE | I was going to ask: After a person gets done watching this first season — and if they like me have yet to pull the trigger on an Australian vacation — will they kind of feel like they’ve been to Australia? I hope so, I really do. You’ll certainly feel like you’ve been Sydney. I’m actually kind of surprised in some ways that they haven’t come here and created a franchise sooner. As I said to you before, Australia is the world’s largest island and Sydney Harbor is the world’s largest harbor. And our naval base, which is called HMAS Kuttabul or Fleet Base East, is right in the middle of that harbor. Like, our entire East Coast Navy Base fleet is based in town, so you’ve got an almost indefatigable, inexhaustible supply of stories right in the middle of the world’s biggest harbor on the world’s biggest island. And then you throw in the geopolitical realities of the part of the world that we live in, in that the Indo-Pacific is kind of the hotspot for all sorts of geopolitical tensions right now. It’s the most hotly contested patch of ocean.

TVLINE | The trailer plays that up a lot. I mean, that’s the situation. Pick up the New York Times and I dare you not to find an article about tensions between China and the Philippines, or contested maritime rights in the South China Sea. It’s an incredibly diverse and vibrant part of the world. Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation on the planet, is just to our north — friends of Australia obviously, but it’s diverse. You’ve got one of the world’s biggest shipping nations in Singapore [3,900 miles away]. You’ve got the world’s second biggest island, Papua New Guinea, right there. You’ve got all these islands dotted across the Pacific, which fall under our sphere of economic cooperation, in terms of the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, and all of them are contested places at the moment. There are lots of forces vying for economic, military, social partnership.

The trailer mentions the AUKUS Agreement, a military alliance between Australia, the U.S. and the UK, which has only recently been signed. It’s a big deal and it’s literally there because we are in a really contested patch of the world right now. The show tries not to too political, obviously — that’s part of the appeal of it, I think — but the reality is we have basically an endless supply of stories pulled from the front page of the newspaper that seem to be really applicable.

Photo : CBS

TVLINE | What specific sites or locations were you excited to squeeze into the show? When we started out, we looked at the Australian Navy base in the middle of the harbor, which is where all the American ships come into, and said, “Wow, it’d be fun to get on that, wouldn’t it? It’d be fun to be able to shoot on the actual operating Navy base.” So, we contacted the Australian Navy and said, “Look, we have this little show you might’ve heard of — NCIS? We’ll be doing a franchise here in Sydney, would you like to help out?” And believe it or not they said, “We’d love to, send us a letter with all the things you feel like you might need across the season.” I went, “Well, we need Seahawk helicopters, and we need access to your biggest ships, we’d like to get onboard your subs, we’d like to work and shoot on your Navy bases all around the country, we’d like to get some air assets….” And they came back and they were just incredibly supportive.

In the trailer, that Navy Seahawk helicopter flying at 50 feet above Sydney Harbor? That’s a real one. There’s no CG. We had to clear the harbor, we had an air exclusion zone, and we had the pilots from the Australian Navy flying up from their base down south and landing on a small aircraft carrier and taking off. It was an incredible thrill.

TVLINE | Were there any more “touristy” locales you filmed at? When you film on Sydney Harbor you kind of spin the camera around and see the Harbor Bridge, you see the Opera House, you see this vast harbor….. We shot at Bondi Beach, which is Australia’s most famous beach. We shot in Kings Cross, which anyone who’s ever been a U.S. serviceman arriving in Sydney will know; it’s the red light district just up the hill from the base, so it’s seen its fair share of U.S. servicemen and women across the years, in all capacities.

One of the things that people think about when they think of Australia is the Outback. Obviously Sydney is not in the Outback, it’s a big urban center, but not too far away you drive up into the mountains and suddenly you’re in this pristine wilderness that’s very uniquely, quintessentially Australian. So, we find ourself up there.

TVLINE | And that lets you include a kangaroo and koala in the trailer! It does!

TVLINE | Someone at CBS was like, “Yeah, we saw your first pass at the trailer, and there’s no kangaroo. You’ve gotta give them a kangaroo.” It was a shameless plug for Australian wildlife, what can I say?

#ncis sydney #interview

4 notes · View notes

zevranunderstander · 2 years ago

Text

i think the esc is so... hm. because on the one hand it's a shitty colonialist and imperialist festival that is trying to rebrand colonizers into quirky modern nations and is so performative in all political messages and their collaboration with israel is literally unforgivable and its literally just nations giving each other points bc they want to politically appeal to them in the weirdest and most pathetic way ever etc.

but also. a lot of the culture of the organizers is in direct opposition to what the fans really watch for? like, macron or whomever isnt watching and personally taking notes on which of his neighboring countries voted for france, but the juries act like all politicians do this, and they use their time hosting as this massive branding and propaganda campaign, and they try to come across as kind of "modern and relatable", but don't want to be the "weird" entry, like. for westerners, this is kind of about "prestige", while at the same time they are refusing to send any compelling candidates?

and i think to the countries and organizers and the politics behind the esc this event is about showing a politically favorable image of their country that seems modern and prestigious, while the actual appeal of the show is to find artists that usually arent found on the international market and give a stage for more camp and artsy performances, and the people watching want an entertaining time, where they see songs that actually stand out and are fun to watch and listen to, whereas the juries just vote for an entirely different set of entries.

so like, a lot of people are watching it for the camp and queer and "unique" entries, while it's actually a show made for the boring ballads and shitty pop songs, because all the jury and the esc care about is, what is gonna sell and what isnt (this might take a new interesting turn, now that tiktok also has a big say in which songs become popular and which ones dont, but right now they know that generic pop has more sales than "too quirky" entries)

this is all ignoring that the thing was soooo obviously rigged this year so that they can do the "50th anniversary of ABBA" next year in Sweden, and that the jury almost always seems to tend to give points based on politics and not on music, and that i genuinely think that they are even manipulating the audience votes occasionally so that certain entries that win arent "ridiculed" because they got like, 21 points from the audience and 360 points from the jury.

and its like. probably 60% of the audience are queer people or people who are watching to see fun & campy and queer entertainment, and the showrunners know this, so all their bits are queer, they have queer hosts, they use their show break for drag performances and talk about "the first gay kiss of eurovision" and there's pride flags, and the iconic "quirky" entries make reappearances with new songs, while the boring ones almost never get a big re-invite. but they do all of this as a sort of fake promise, like, "yes our show is so gay and so camp and so fun and legendary for the fun entries hahahaha, anyways the jury vote goes to some guy pretending to be Imagine Dragons and none of the interesting entries because we cannot widely market homosexuality", and only when the audience vote is so truly overwhelmingly for one entry that they can overpower the juries, it promises marketability.

they will never abolish the juries because the juries exist so that marketable songs win that bring the ESC a lot of money, the type of hosting and their internal politics will never change because this is a contest that they can use to generate sympathies to a country. this whole thing is a fucking colonialist's PR campaign, like, "yeah, israel has a bad rep, but look at how cool all of these places in israel look and how fun and modern and #feminist and #gay our entries are! how could we possibly be an imperialist force who is actively commiting genocide?"

the esc is inherity tied to nationalism and imperialist propaganda, and while it pretends to care about international music in people's native tongue and artists that usually wouldnt be on a international stage and queer entries of all kinds, it really only cares about money and promoting one's own image as a country and that is never going to change.

and i don't think you can't at all watch the event, but it is literally insane how few people who watch it are aware of any of the politics happening within the event and who call it the "gay event of the year" or whatever with no idea that they are being sold and pandered to so that they spend more money on a product (votes and tickets), and give their undivided viewing time to a program that you can only call a continent-wide propaganda event. i hope i make sense

#i hope i make sense #esc #eurovision song contest 2023 #esc 2023 #eurovision #eurovision song contest #like. i am also occasionally watching the thing bc i do LIKE the queer and campy entries #and the people doing traditional music that has to do with their country #but. literally all this show is is marketing

9 notes · View notes

lovelycleon · 3 years ago

Text

So I decided to make an analysis about the last scene of Infinite Darkness

But before I start with the fun part, I just want to tell you that my history with “angst ships”

I had a bad experience with another ship, soul mates full of angst tropes and true love, beautiful... and a really bad ending because the showrunner fought with the actors (I wasted years watching and I regret it).

Anyway, after suffering that kind of pain, no other ships and angst scenes can hit me hard enough. I'm numb or just got used to it. You choose.

So maybe the scene of Leon and Claire's argument wasn't that impactful for me because of that. But for all the fans who felt hurt, I understand and it's okay to feel that way, because the scene was meant to hurt. The scene exists because of that. And your feelings are valid.

So let's get to the fun part.

spoiler alert, it's not that fun, it actually hurts 😅

The scene starts with Leon going to meet Claire at the gates of the White House.

I don't think anyone denies the fact that, whatever Leon is doing, he just wants to protect Claire. And he doesn't want her involved because of it.

But this dialogue makes this even more evident if we analyze how it begins.

Nothing in a show or movie is by accident. Everything is handpicked for one reason or another. The meaning is not always that deep, but there is still a meaning behind it all.

So when – of all the ways a conversation can be started – they decide to make Claire joke that she sneaked out of the hospital, Leon takes it seriously and she has to clarify that it's a joke, there's a reason:

Show that Leon is taking what happened to her too serious, and Claire not that much.

When Claire makes a comment about when he's going to stop treating her like a kid and he says probably never. There's a reason:

Show that Leon wants to protect her (or being overprotective) and Claire doesn't like it.

Of course, some might argue that this specific line is capcom trying to show that their feelings aren't romantic and sink the ship completely. And, ok, people are free to think that.

But if they really wanted to sink cleon forever, they shouldn't have done the scene of Leon saving Claire the way they did. They did it because they knew it would tease a certain part of the fans... They knew exactly what they were doing...

And there's simply no reason to tease a ship you want to sink.

So no, I don't think that's it...

For me the scene means the classic and simple: "stop being worried about me🙄" "noooo🗣️"

Another way to intensify Leon being overprotective is Claire's broken arm. A reminder that she was injured following his plan. Just as she was hurt the last time they saw each other in Harvardville.

And yes, I know Degeneration made Claire hurt to take her out of the action. It is undeniable. But somehow I don't think the same situation and reason applies to Infinite darkness.

Because Claire was already out of combat, following Leon's plan and showing no intention of doing anything different. It's not like she's going to attack the monster that is several platforms higher than where she is. She couldn't fly around and there were no guns where she was anyway.

So why hurt her to get her out of combat if the story itself has already done that?

Again, you are free to think differently. Capcom made Claire dirty, she was underestimated and they wasted her potential. I won't argue with that, I'm also on the team Claire deserves better.

I just don't think it fits this specific situation.

The injured arm is there and a awkward conversation about Leon being overprotective starts because of it. I think it makes sense.

So moving on.

Claire mentions the chip and Leon looks disappointed for a moment and says he thought they were going to dinner.

This is to indicate that he didn't come to see her with the intention of breaking their friendship. Leon just wanted to spend a good time with her and nothing more. Some place a little more normal, maybe?👀

But Claire wants the chip and tells Leon her plan. The same plan that Shen May was killed trying to convince her partner to follow. Is there a parallel here?

The only difference is that Jason broke her neck while Leon decided to break Claire's heart.

Okay now I could show more parallels between them, but I won't because this is already too long and I know maybe I'm reading too much into this. Resident Evil isn't that deep most of the time 😂

Anyway, Claire asked for the chip and Leon said no.

And that's the point, right.

The climax of the conversation and the turning point in their relationship.

Note that Leon took a few seconds to say he couldn't. That was the moment when he made his decision...

He went to meet her for dinner, remember? He didn't expect to have this conversation or make a decision like that. But he had to.

Now, I'm not from the US and I don't trust politicians in general, fiction or not. But I admit this sounds realistic.

Just imagine if the president makes a speech about peace and prosperity and whatever and the next day the media reveals that members of the government are involved in BOW and planning an attack on another country.

At the very least, it won't look good.

In the worst case, it will be a catastrophe 😂

So... I don't agree with Leon, but I understand why he chose this.

It's an important decision, however. And how long it takes him to say something and how he's quiet after saying it shows he knows what's on the line. Not just the security of the country and “peace”, but also his relationship with Claire.

And despite everything... He didn't lie to her.

It would be much easier for Leon to simply say "the chip was destroyed in the fight" when she asked. Claire would never know about it and probably never doubt him. And they would still be fine with each other and having dinner.

But he didn't lie. Why?

Because their relationship is not based on lies. And it's not based on betrayals.

And while it may be hard to believe right now and it hurts to think about it, this relationship is still based on truth and trust in each other. And now their relationship is being tested.

It's easy to trust someone you're on good terms. How hard it must be to trust someone who has let you down.

There is a lot of room for development here.

Obviously Claire felt hurt in this moment. Maybe even betrayed. Heartbroken. I think we all feel that same way.

But Leon played fair there. He said he had the chip, showed it to her, and then said he wouldn't give it to her.

He was honest with her. And this act also shows respect.

They are two people with different points of view and that truth hurts.

There is silence as they look at each other. She never asked his reasons and he obviously never told them. The exchange of glances is enough for them to understand what was happening.

When Claire says “you do things your way and I do mine” it's almost like “do you know what that means? ”

Then Leon nods and another moment of silence. The time they need to accept that the relationship is broken.

Now that's angst

Interesting choice of camera angle. Showing her broken arm as a visual reminder of why he was pushing her away like that.

Claire leaves, but looks back and says again that his outfit doesn't suit him.

What's interesting here is that the director has done a few interviews over the past few weeks and he always said that the suit is a representation of Leon's position in government.

Claire commenting that it doesn't suit him is basically the writers/producers/directors admitting that this position doesn't look good.

And while all the characters praising Leon for his success, Claire is the one who sees this reality and who he truly is out of the suit (position)

And that's good angst.

Claire walks away and Leon with a sad look watching her leave and he has to say to himself "I will stop this".

Could it be just one of his one-lines? Yes.

Could it be a way for him to remind himself why he's doing this, even if it means sacrificing his relationship with Claire?

It's already done, now he has to make it worth it.

Whatever happens after that is a mystery.

I don't think Claire believes that Leon is going to cover up the government's involvement in things (their discussion would be much more intense if that were the case), she probably thinks he's going to resolve it internally without taking anything public, which is precisely what she wants to do.

I also don't think Leon believes Claire is going to give up on the investigation, he probably thinks it's going to take some time to her to get real evidence and he has time to carry out his plans.

But this is capcom... They are masters of forgetting plot points. So who knows.

Angst is only good if it has a good closure. I hope they keep that in mind.

In any other tv show that used this kind of angst trope and drama I would be completely fine...

I would expect a sequel to this plot. The characters find each other unexpectedly, having to work together and acting awkwardly because they don't know how to stick around each other after the argument. Then the story would develop and they would gradually mend their relationship.

That's the trope.

So that's all I can hope for.

#cleon #this just got too long and l didn't write half of my thought 😅#I only watch the show once but I've seen this scene a thousand times #I'll probably have more to say after rewatching everything again #leon kennedy #claire redfield #resident evil infinite darkness #leon x claire #claire x leon

382 notes · View notes

rasairui · 3 years ago

Text

Maybe it's petty to still be mad about this but honestly the amount of dumb shit I get every time I'm like "hey maybe don't be racist at Asian people" is infuriating lol. Like if someone made a post about how painting gay people as inherently predatory and depraved is homophobic, and someone responded to that post talking about how "hey actually but there are a bunch of gay people who ARE predatory and depraved" I'm pretty sure most people on this site would have the common sense to think "hey that's messed up and out of line, this is not appropriate this is not the time or place."

But I make a post about how it's racist to automatically associate Japan with p*dophilia and general depravity, and then half my notes are people doing exactly that. And yeah I know there are a lot of issues in Japanese media. All of these problems exist in other (whiter)countries too, and those countries do not have the same reputation. America also has a huge issue with sexualizing minors irl but none of you mention that hmm wonder why! The amount of times I've heard people say shit like "I refuse to watch anime because all of it is gross" or "Japanese showrunners are more likely to be pedophiles" do you people hear yourselves? Grow the fuck up. Some of you are very obviously using virtue signaling as a shield to get away with being shitty. You all need to learn how to criticize foreign media without being racist about it.

#anti asian racism #and it's not like this is some impossible task there are plenty of posts criticizing Japanese media that aren't racist #ex: the famous one abt imperialism anti semitism and anti Korean sentiment in hetalia and aot #or the ones abt chobitz or the anime the out of touch thursday video is from being gross abt minors

48 notes · View notes

dudski · 3 years ago

Text

Tagged by @succdale who did not think I would do this based on twenty years of observed behavior BUT CURVEBALL I'M DOING IT ANYWAY

Three ships:

1. Buck/Eddie 911, THE FIC FIXATION DU JOUR. Sometimes I find a son and I say "my boy needs a LOVING FAMILY" and then he meets a single dad who becomes the person who knows and trusts him best in the entire world, and whose kid he loves like his own, but the showrunners are COWARDS and CRIMINALS and it's just not going to happen, hence: the fic.

2. Buck/Taylor 911. Sometimes cowards and criminals make some points? BUCK/TAYLOR...IT FUCKING RULES ACTUALLY. I am extremely high on them this week because @succdale just watched S5 and Finally I Am Understood. It's fandom and we all know this but HAVING A FRIEND TO SHARE THESE FEELINGS WITH IS A BEAUTIFUL THING!!!!! Listen. I watch 911 with a heart full of love but also rage, constantly keeping a mental tally of a) Who Is Supporting My Perfect Son Buck Who Has Literally Only Done One Wrong Thing Ever And It Wasn't Even That Big A Deal, and b) Who Is Inexplicably Not Supporting Him And Needs To Answer For This At The Hague. AND TAYLOR SHOWS UP! SHE'S DOING THE WORK, FOLKS! IT'S GOOD! IT'S EXTREMELY GOOD!

3. Rich Joe/Poor Joe from 2 Joe 2 Millionaire. (It's not called 2 Joe 2 Millionaire but it should be.) I don't need more people to watch this show for the sake of having there be conversation around this show, because the show is whatever. I need more people to watch this show so that THE WORD CAN GET OUT THAT 2 JOE 2 MILLIONAIRE AUs NEED TO BE A STAPLE OF EVERY FANDOM WE'VE GOT. THESE NEED TO BE THE NEW COFFEE SHOP AU. The Joes can't be 100% honest with anyone but each other? They keep going on group dates with all these women where the Joes have to step away for some alone time so that Rich Joe can talk Poor Joe through an absolute meltdown brought on by this one woman that Rich Joe wishes Poor Joe would see isn't any good for him? They start and end every episode in quiet domestic bliss at THE GENTLEMEN'S QUARTERS? I don't care if anyone else ever learns these men's names but I need that one breakout hit AU to exist so that other people can be like "okay, this is exquisite" and it can become a common premise.

First ever ship: I'm going to say this was Rachel/Tobias from Animorphs. Nine year old dudski lived for that shit.

Last song: Last song I listened to was Liz Phair - Why Can't I, last song added to the rotation was Travis Tritt - Bible Belt aka the end credits song from My Cousin Vinny.

Last film: 12 Angry Men! I said it in tags already but THAT MOVIE FUCKS? Like I knew it was a classic but I was WILDLY invested the entire time.

Currently reading: I'm reading a book a week this year! I'm about to start Blood Sweat and Pixels by Jason Schreier bc the ebook was (and still is) on sale for 1.99. I read Of Mice and Men the other day because it was the end of the week and I hadn't read anything and needed a quick gimme.

Currently watching: Weekly: The Righteous Gemstones, The Gilded Age, The Amazing Race, Abbott Elementary, Joe Millionaire: For Richer or Poorer. Just finished Yellowjackets yesterday, starting My Country: The New Age this week.

Currently playing: Adding this in! I'm in the middle of three games right now which is usually a no-no for me but eh, with these three it works. I take a break between cases in The Great Ace Attorney Chronicles so I don't burn out, Slay the Spire has no story so it's easy enough to balance with other games, and I'm like two thirds of the way through A Night in the Woods.

Currently consuming: Cinnamon raisin English muffin and iced coffee...the breakfast of champions.

Currently craving: I don't really do food cravings BUT I NEED A NEW PHONE

I'm not tagging anyone this is where those years of observed behavior come back in

#me me me #joe millionaire

16 notes · View notes

scarlet--wiccan · 4 years ago

Note

To be honest, Wanda’s whitewashing isn’t the only problem with her in the MCU. The way they portrayed her character in age of ultron as basically a hydra worker, neo-Nazi anti-freedom organization even though she has never worked with hydra. And why would she, her former father, magneto and son billy are Jewish and she has Jewish history. And sokovia- it’s literally marvels awfully done version of Serbia. And how she never takes accountability and responsibility for her actions. Now comic wanda, isn’t always held accountable in the comics, but she has tried to make amends so hard while MCU Wanda never tried at all. Like comic wanda tried to raise hundreds or thousands of dead mutants in genosha to try and make up for house of m. MCU Wanda flies away to her little cottage after mentally and physically abusing thousands of people- didn’t even give them an apology or anything. Maybe I’m just overthinking things.

You’re not overthinking things-- the character has been written poorly, and the MCU franchise really drops the ball when they try to address things like international affairs; American interventionism; mass deaths and destruction in foreign countries, particularly the loss of Black and brown lives; and, last but certainly not least, fictionalized modern-day Nazis. But, hey, what the hell do you expect from a franchise that is literally in the Pentagon’s pocket?

I don’t see MCU Wanda as a likeable or sympathetic character, at least not one whose sympathetic points outweigh her actions and the troublesome writing around her. Unlike her counterpart in the source material, MCU Wanda’s poor treatment isn’t character assassination-- it’s her only characterization. There’s no other material to fall back on and say, “look, this is Wanda when she’s being well-written.” They know what they’re doing, too-- WandaVision literally lampshades the HYDRA thing in its eighth episode.

In my mind, though, these issues don’t outweigh the racism-- and I hope you understand that the issue of racism with MCU Wanda is deeper and more complex than simple whitewashing, both within and without the fiction. For one thing, whitewashing of the Maximoff family in the MCU, and especially the XMCU, is more than miscasting. It’s historical revisionism, and it’s the projection of Roma experiences onto white gadje. Furthermore, Whedon, Olsen, her costars, and the WV showrunners are all guilty of exploiting racist stereotypes and pejorative language in the development of this character. This behavior is enabled, and virtually never held to account, in the film and tv industry. Professionals in the comic book industry have largely endorsed this treatment, and fans on both sides of the camp go out of their way to shut down criticism.

I don’t really care about the characterization of a fictional woman. Wanda Maximoff doesn’t exist. Her actions don’t mean anything. I care more about the racist actions that are taken behind the scenes, the ignorance that is perpetuated on screen, and the fact that this problem has been broadly ignored by consumers. For me, those things outweigh the flaws in the fiction.

Also, not to nitpick, but I really, really hope you understand that portraying Romani characters as neo-Nazis is offensive and distateful regardless of their proximity to Jewish characters. I need you to understand that the Romani population was targeted by the Third Reich and suffered enormous losses during the Holocaust, and that this history merits consideration on its own. This generational trauma merits consideration on its own. Roma people merit consideration on their own.

#tw nazis #tw holocaust #mcu #wandavision

76 notes · View notes

mfs-research-institute · 3 years ago

Note

I know this is not the case, I mean until this point the information we have got from the series is that Alder may be responsible for the surge of the spree but not directly. Yet isn't it a little bit fucked up that in someway Alder ( or the witches in general) needs the spree and the caramilla to justify their existence, like if they don't exist, if there is not a tangible enemy, witches are not necessary and sometimes I think that Alder plays a major game manipulating the perception of these enemies with the purpose to keep the army necessary, cause civilians are the true and biggest enemy of witches and maybe ALders the only one who knows exactly what happens when civilians turn against witches.

Oooof this is a loaded question! Let's see what people are thinking:

-----

Dan on our Discord: My first instinct is that isn't that the basic vibe of all major conflicts? Both in the MFS Universe and our own timeline? Armies only exist to 'protect' nations from other countries and vice versa, which only in turn creates more conflict in its own fucked, self-sufficient cycle.

@Jalehh: Yes, Alder and her actions in Liberia (forcing dodgers to conscript, them resisting, Alder deploying Sgt. Nicte Batan's new work and making surrendered people kill themselves) seem directly responsible for the formation of the Spree to me.

It also seems like America in this 'verse still has colonies (the showrunner called the conflict in Liberia a colonial war) and is a major player in world politics with India and China being at different stages of rivalry. Even if there aren't open wars among nations, and no asymmetrical conflicts like with the Spree, a well-maintained military will help to secure a powerful position on the world stage... plus you never know who wants to be the next bully on the world stage. Si vis pacem, para bellum. Pretty sure there would be enough to do for witches... even if it's 'just' training exercises or civil aid works done by the military or some 'good' old gunboat diplomacy.

Of course, it would be nice to prepare for peace and maybe transform the witch army into a peace or technical relief corps. But, being the Army/Armed Forces seems to have given at least some witches quite some power - Alder and Petra Bellweather come to mind and with the past they had (Burning Times) - and anti-witch sentiments still very widely accepted, I understand why they would be afraid to give that up. Plus, witches in the army are organized and no longer scattered all over the land... which makes them a bigger target, but also allows for a strength and unity that would otherwise be lost.

@baby-horse: Same coin but different side - I wonder if the civilians want to keep the army around, purely because it puts (almost) all the witches in one spot; easily handled. I think it's mutually beneficial, but not necessarily for the obvious reasons.

That kind of answers the question as to why the civilians don't just abolish forced constriction for witches, since they're so upset about their 'daughters' being taken. Because the obvious answer to "not our daughters" is to just get rid of that law. But once you do that, then witches would be in the community, which is Bad News.

I guess the question of 'what happens when the world discovers they no longer need witches' is being answered this season. Spoiler alert = it's not good for witches.

@crazyintheeast: Personally, I was wondering about a different direction. If civilians would actually be in favor of witches. We know little about the general attitude of people. Yes of course there is the Camarilla and we know of others bigots like the guy who got into Tally's face. But we have also seen another side. The man who proudly gave Tally his ticket, the women who came to Raelle for healing and were extremely grateful, the large parades in honor of witches. Even with the protest against them I felt that only some of them were actual bigots while the others merely hated the army and didn't want their daughters enslaves.

I would find it really interesting if a significant portion of the civilian populace is actually in favor of witch liberation. Some out of moral principle because they oppose slavery but also many out of purely practical reasons. Imagine if instead of being limited to the military they had Fixers in every hospital who could save countless lives. We already know that witches assist in disaster areas but they could do even more if allowed. Witches actually being a part of society instead of being isolated in the military could be something that many want.

But also, I was left with the impression that China and not Spree are the main adversary and not all nations are in The Hague. I am not exactly sure, but I always saw Spree as merely assisting local witches in various countries rather than leading themselves. Similar to how CIA would train various guerrilla fighters and try to destabilize countries.

But I could actually see a full-blown civil war emerging. The current situation in the MFS strongly reminds of the historic situation of the Ottoman Empire where their slave army had become so powerful that they had serious influence on all rulers. And when new technology emerged the Sultan used the new tactics to attack his salve army and eliminate it.

Although, considering the existence of the Hague, this may even grow into a World War if Wade is removed from Alder’s influence and Silver becomes president. Maybe he’ll try to use the Camarilla and other troops to eliminate US witches? And without nukes to go full MAD this could be a massive war that has been building for a long time.

-----

Thank you for the ask! As always, if you would like to join the conversations on our Discord, please shoot us a DM for an invite!

#sarah alder #nicte batan #VP Silver #motherland fort salem #motherland: fort salem #mfs theories #mfsri nerds answer #mfsri #mfs research institute

33 notes · View notes

growingstronglikeahighgardenrose · 4 years ago

Text

Anti-blackness in 19th century England, why Queen Charlotte wasn’t black, and why it doesn’t matter in Bridgerton

I’d like to start by saying Bridgerton is a very amusing piece of absolute fiction. From the dresses to the music to the fanfic tropes it uses and the books it’s based on. It doesn’t even start to pretend it’s realistic. And being a piece of modern historical fantasy made by a woman born in this age, it is alright for the showrunners to give it a modern vibe. If you want, you can trace the lineage of every duke of Hastings there has ever been and know exactly who they were and what they looked like. Everyone knows there was never a black duke of Hastings, meaning there is no harm nor a deliberate attempt at “changing history” by the showrunners. They’re not pretending they’re portraying real events and real people of 1813. Therefore I accept that in this “alternative reality regency” it is fine for people of all ranks, including Queen Charlotte, to be black. I loved Golda Rosheuvel’s portrayal, I loved her looks, her acting and I tolerate her half-ishly accurate outdated wardrobe (for those interested in fashion history: look up “regency era court gowns”, old styles were worn but Charlotte would wear normal dresses day-to-day). I’m thrilled to watch her in the second season as well.

However, I will screech if I see people claiming Charlotte was black in real life. There were black people in Europe during all periods of history. They could be very influential and wealthy, and yes, they could even be nobility in some rare cases. There is a growing field of research tracing the steps of black people in Europe throughout time, revealing the often overlooked presence of black people. However, Queen Charlotte isn’t one of them. And I say this because claiming her to be black, would mean the British Monarchy, way ahead of its time, was accepting of black people. it would also mean the British people, who were more than a bit racist, generally accepted a (partially) black woman. Rather than Charlotte being black leading to her being described as black, I believe the confusion about her being black stems from people back in the day using racially ambiguous terms to make clear Charlotte looked ugly (because in a racist colonial world the best way to insult someone is by saying they look like a slave).

Being a historian, I do believe I have to give evidence for my claim. I’ll be using her ancestry, written descriptions and paintings. However, buckle up because you’ll be getting a lot of side information on other POC in art and literature. So if you’re interested in learning a bit about the relationship between the concepts of race and beauty in the 18th and 19th century, here we go. (note: if I use any offensive terms without direct citing someone, do let me know I will change them as soon as possible)

1. When did these rumours start

During the Regency Era, when the world was still a very colonial one, Queen Charlotte was described by some as having a big nose, full lips and an ambiguous complexion. However, her race was never debated, until academic discussions picked up around the 1940s.

2. Queen Charlotte’s family tree.

The Portuguese royal family definitely has Moorish blood in it. No one can contest that. Muslims and Europeans lived together on the Iberian Peninsula for 800 years. The question is whether that means that royals with a Portuguese ancestor can be called “people of colour”, and how far down the line people can still claim to be people of colour. Almost all royal households of Europe married into the Portuguese royal family at some point, yet of few royals it is said that because of that heritage, they are people of colour. That argument is only made for Queen Charlotte (imo that probably has a lot to do with the fact that the world is dominated by the Anglosaxon countries and that because of their worldwide tentacles and their language being the most universally spoken, the British Royal Family receives the most interest from everyone all over the world. Other royal families don’t get as much attention).

Note that I used the word people of colour, that is because the root of Charlotte’s supposed African heritage is not necessarily black. Let’s take a look at her family tree.

According to historian Mario de Valdes y Cocom — who dug into the queen’s lineage for a 1996 Frontline documentary on PBS — Queen Charlotte could trace her lineage back to black members of the Portuguese royal family. Charlotte was related to Margarita de Castro y Sousa, a 15th-century Portuguese noblewoman nine (!) generations removed.

Margarita de Castro e Souza herself descended from King Alfonso III of Portugal and his concubine, Madragana, a Moor that Alfonso III took as his lover after conquering the town of Faro in southern Portugal.

This would make Queen Charlotte a whopping 15 generations removed from her closest black ancestor — if Madragana was even black, which historians don’t know. That’s a lot of generations back. de Valdes y Cocom argues that, due to centuries-long inbreeding, he could trace six lines between Queen Charlotte and Sousa, which would mean Madragana’s genes were a bit more influential, but still 15 generations ago. That’s her grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grandmother.

So, let’s pretend it is true and her ancestor was black, let me be very rude. An ancestor that appears once in a person's genealogy, fifteen generations removed, represents a 215-th fraction of its descendant's ancestry. Queen Charlotte’s black ancestry would be less than 1%. In fact it'd be 0.007% (rounded up) of Charlotte's ancestry, and that's IF Madragana could be proved to be Moorish. And if Moorish was only used to describe a black person. However, the use of “blackamoor” “moorish” and “mozaraab” are not an alternative word for black. Indeed, there is no definitive skin colour attached to these descriptors.

It is generally accepted that Spanish Moors were the Muslim Amazigh (formerly known as Berber) inhabitants of the Maghreb, a stretch of land in north-Africa including parts of the Sahara, but not Egypt. During the Middle Ages, they occupied the Iberian Peninsula and other parts of southern Europe, before being finally driven out in the 15th century. The greatest period of unity was probably during the period of the kingdom of Numidia. Over the centuries, the word came to acquire a plethora of other meanings, some of them derogatory. Importantly, it cannot be ascribed a single ethnicity. Moors are not always black, this is false. They remaining people in Africa can be anywhere from Arab, to black people. But I’m not delving into north-african migration patterns and population changes. In Europe, the moors could thus be Arab, black and often mixed ethnicity, the natural result of coexisting and intermarrying with white Europeans for centuries.

http://acaciatreebooks.com/blog/royalty-race-and-the-curious-case-of-queen-charlotte/

3. Gender, Race and beauty standards

The world of the 19th century was riddled with Anti-blackness. Part of this continued from the medieval belief that white was good, and dark was bad (see white knight, fair lady, black knight, dark magic notions that still persist today). It also does not help that during the Regency Era, Greek and Roman antiquity were very trendy. Although the old roman empire was a culturally and ethnically diverse society, regency people focussed on fashion, hairstyles and looks from the classical art period of Greece. People aspired to look like the statues: elegant, slim and dainty and wanted “noble” features (straight slim nose, even face, cheekbones, etc). That’s why in the regency era people were complimented for having “alabaster skin” or a “Grecian profile” and so on. These medieval notions of fairness and the grecian beauty ideal, were juxtaposed against the medieval notions of darkness combined with deeply colonial conceptions of womanhood and race. In a world in which white people controlled other ethnicities, race soon became a weapon, a tool to be used against someone. Just like… gender. And yes, you’ll soon see how these two go hand in hand.

Throughout the nineteenth century the domestic world and the public sphere became more and more separate, with women being given less space to move and work. All women had to be dainty housewives: refined, sensitive and docile, clever but not too well read. Of course, this was an unattainable standard for most women. Only women in the top layer of society were able to lounge around and do nothing all day. Many had to work. Many things of what women were supposed to be: pale, soft hands, were direct signs that they didn’t have to do manual labour (out in the sun, using their hands). Women who could not fit in that small domestic sphere were increasingly (especially later on in the Victorian era) seen as unfeminine and unworthy of husbands. Coarse, manly, unfeminine, unrefined they were often called. Welcome to 19th century “masculinity so fragile”. Just imagining a woman working or reading made men felt threatened. They hated the idea women weren’t just lounging around waiting to please them and provide for them. https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/gender-roles-in-the-19th-century# https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/pit-brow-lasses-women-miners-victorian-britain-pants

Now look at this sketch of a female mine worker, one of many. Although the argument can be made she’s dark from the dirt, I want to point out that she’s also portrayed as scantily clad, wearing more manly clothes, being broader, wide of face and her hair appearing… quite curly.She’s the opposite of the beauty ideals, the opposite of what society wants a woman to be... and she’s suspiciously black-coded.

Pervasive and passive stereotypes of black people have come into existence since colonialism. Cruel caricatures of black people were omnipresent. Going as far as to ascribe them animal-like features with big mouths, big ears, sloping foreheads and so on. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2712263?seq=4#metadata_info_tab_contents

I could write a million essays on how race and sex have been weaponized in the past. When the “exploration travels” first started, and even much later in art, faraway lands were portrayed as sultry lazy or untamed women, waiting to be conquered and domesticated. Transforming countries into women was done to make them “controllable”. Portraying them as lazy and wild was a way Europeans to give themselves license to colonize them. Just like women at home, these foreign lands needed the guiding hand of cultured civilized men showing them how to do things and ruling them. So either men could control women which was perceived as good, or they couldn’t in which case the woman was looked down upon and hated. I don’t have an exact reference for this one, but it was a very interesting topic in my class on “Global History” at University. But for now this one carries a good part of the load.

https://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/jezebel/

It is then no surprise the female black body became a site of seduction there for the white male’s taking. They literally became their property as slaves, just like a man’s wife was considered his property. White men sexualized black people, particularly black women, a stereotype that perpetuates to this day and age. See the link above for that as well. Black women became temptresses.

White women, of course, didn’t like that. They wanted their men to be theirs. So these 19th century Karens started hating them as well. These wild temptresses were out to catch their men with their “foreign looks”. Meanwhile white men hated the idea of white women being seduced by black men. And this, combined with the resentment for working class women, gave way to a kind of language people used to describe each other. All stereotypes (medieval+ working class women looks+ black looks) were stacked atop each other: dark, tempting, coarse, black, plump, uncivilized, wild, broad-faced, thick of lip… Hair didn’t much come into play in the 18th century since most people of high society wore wigs (which in paintings can look like type 4 hair but cannot be used as an indicator of race) but afterwards “tight coils” was also added to the list of features that weren’t deemed desirable. This physical robustness not only lies in the idea that people who work are “hardened” but by describing them with strong robust adjectives, upper class white people once again fuel the idea that these people were physiologically designed for hard work, like slave labour or mine work instead of life as a wife. See also present day notions common even in doctors how black people and black women don’t feel pain as much. A devastating prejudice that leads to black death, black mothers dying, black people’s health complaints not being taken seriously and so on.

4. Black, racially ambiguous and “foreign” coding in physical descriptions

So we all know the memes of “Historians say they were friends” and so on. It’s a fun meme, but this carefulness in naming things stems from the fact that A) sources are made by people and people are subjective as fuck B) it is deemed a big faux pas for a historian to look at history through a 21st century lens. The rabbit hole that is historical epistemology boils down to the claim that a thing cannot exist before there is a word for it. You need to be careful that you don’t apply a term to an event, person or society wherein that term didn’t exist, or the meaning of the term was different. We shouldn’t draw conclusions about the past with present day notions. When a person anno 2020 is described as dark, we know they’re probably south-east Asian or black. However, we may not believe that a person being described as dark in the 17th century means this person is black. I shall explain.

Back in a time when black equalled inferior, people found no better way than to ascribe black attributes to people they disliked. It is hard to find out whether these people were actually darkskinned, since portraits were commissioned and painted to the desires of the clients (they could ask to be painted with white skin). We have no photographs of the time period to verify whether people did really look the way people described. With few people able to move around the country by carriage, as this was expensive, most people relied on letters, books and papers to give them accounts of events and people, so if one person claimed a person looked like X, others oftentimes had no choice but to believe the account, as they lived too far away to verify. Thus I shall focus on the world of literature, where there were no real people we can compare descriptions to, to prove that the good guys were portrayed as fair, and bad guys were portrayed as… racially ambiguous without them having to be black, or any other ethnicity.

Fairytales: Yeah, I know what you’re thinking. There’s literally no argument to be made at all. But just take a look at fairytales from the Brothers Grimm. Nine times out of ten, the evil stepsisters and stepmothers are described as dark and ungainly while the heroine is fair. If there are transformations, the evil people get transformed into gross animals like toads, while the heroine is transformed into a fawn, a bird or a swan. I’m being unnuanced here, there are definitely heroines with dark hair (see snow white, but she’s still snow white of skin) and the reasons for ugly-animal-transformations has to do with the character traits that have been ascribed to those animals. These stories circuled orally since the middle ages, and most trace their roots back to even before that time. Though the world was not yet a colonnial one, it is a sign that darker looks were already linked to bad people. These notions of darkness have been absorbed into the notions about black people during colonialism. People already lived with concepts of fairness for good people and darkness for bad people in their heads, it became easy to continue these concepts when faced with black people.

Jane Eyre: Jane is described as green eyed (a very rare colour, most prevalent in white people), fairy-like, skinny and pale. Although Brönte tells us she is ugly (she indeed doesn’t confirm to beauty ideals at the time) she appeals to Mr. Rochester and fits more into the stereotype of beauty than her romantic rival: Berta Mason Rochester. Bertha’s laugh is “hysterical” and “demonic”, she is dangerous and injures her own brother. “What it was, whether beast or human being, one could not, at first sight, tell: it grovelled, seemingly, on all fours; it snatched and growled like some strange wild animal: but it was covered with clothing, and a quantity of dark, grizzled hair, wild as a mane, hid its head and face.”

Dear reader, Mr. Rochester is described as being tempted into a marriage, to a wild foreign animal-like madwoman with dark grizzled hair and red eyes. Although there is no description of her skin colour (Bertha could very well be any ethnicity) there are clear parallels in the way she is described and the way POC were described. In the context of the 1840s readers would instantly attach this picture to their preconceptions about others with a similar look. Jane doesn’t even need to describe Bertha’s personality, the readers have already decided what she’s like because they understand that the author means dark looks= bad personality. Dark looks= foreign looks. Additionally: Blanche Ingram, Jane’s other rival was described as a fine beauty with a stereotypically beautiful body but had an olive complexion, dark hair and dark eyes. These were desirable traits in England at the time, but the darker beauty of Blanche comes with a bad personality and in the end, she too is rejected in favour of our pale heroine Jane.

Wuthering Heights: Heathcliff has long confused readers. It is most probable, in my opinion, given the context of the time, that Heathcliff was of roma origin as roma were strongly disliked in England at the time, and he fits best in the stereotypes associated with them. It’s also much more probable that an English gentleman would take in an orphaned European child than a black child, especially given he raised him as a son (british people weren’t that kind, they wouldn’t raise a black child as their son). However, the author, still clearly relies on a certain set of dark characteristics to describe him. “I had a peep at a dirty, ragged, black-haired child; big enough both to walk and talk: indeed, its face looked older than Catherine's; yet when it was set on its feet, it only stared round, and repeated over and over again some gibberish that nobody could understand.” “He seemed a sullen, patient child; hardened, perhaps, to ill-treatment: he would stand Hindley's blows without winking or shedding a tear, and my pinches moved him only to draw in a breath and open his eyes.” “You are younger [than Edgar], and yet, I'll be bound, you are taller and twice as broad across the shoulders; you could knock him down in a twinkling; don't you feel that you could?” “Do you mark those two lines between your eyes; and those thick brows, that, instead of rising arched, sink in the middle; and that couple of black fiends, so deeply buried, who never open their windows boldly, but lurk glinting under them, like devil's spies?” “he had by that time lost the benefit of his early education: continual hard work, begun soon and concluded late, had extinguished any curiosity he once possessed in pursuit of knowledge, and any love for books or learning. His childhood's sense of superiority, instilled into him by the favours of old Mr. Earnshaw, was faded away … Then personal appearance sympathised with mental deterioration: he acquired a slouching gait and ignoble look; his naturally reserved disposition was exaggerated into an almost idiotic excess of unsociable moroseness;” “His countenance was much older in expression and decision of feature than Mr. Linton's; it looked intelligent, and retained no marks of former degradation. A half-civilised ferocity lurked yet in the depressed brows and eyes full of black fire, but it was subdued; and his manner was even dignified: quite divested of roughness, though stern for grace.” “He is a dark-skinned gypsy in aspect, in dress and manners a gentleman”

Once again: black eyes, heavy brows, black hair. He is rough, can stand a lot of heavy burdens, seemingly indifferent to pain. He has something devilish and uncivilized about him, and is oftentimes believed dumb. Admittedly, this portrayal is more nuanced, he has a knack for studying and he does look like a gentleman. But the author is clear that it is only superficial and he is still mad within. It thus becomes very clear, already only from literature, that if you want someone to look bad, you make them look manly, workmanlike and ascribe to them black features.

For more examples of racial ambiguity, casual racism and explicit racism in English 19th century books: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/victorian-literature-and-culture/article/casual-racism-in-victorian-literature/1B4B3B0538F8B7C6B58E6D839DCFEC92.

This technique was adapted by EVERYONE. Wanted to make your enemy look bad? Then write a very uncharming picture of them attributing them with stereotypical black features. The most common remarks were: broad noses, big lips, frizzy hair, swarthy and/or dark complexians, coarse looking and unrefined. If you wanted to be really rude you could start comparing people to animals and call them wild and unhinged because “madness” was and is a very common insult. Had an issue with your wife in the 19th century? Lock her up for “hysteria” and “madness”. Got a political opponent in the 2016 presidential elections? Call her mad and hysterical. Got an opponent in the 2020 presidential elections? Challenge his mental capacities. Psychological issues and disorders have often been used to make people look bad and invalidate them. Basically everyone who isn’t reacting in a neurotypical and stereotypical male way (i.e. show no emotions and so on) was classified as “unreasonable”, thus taking away their voice. So many interesting articles and books on this.So we have an intersection between race, womanhood and mental health that are used to control and reject women.

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/chm/outreach/trade_in_lunacy/research/womenandmadness/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4286909?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

https://www.routledgehistoricalresources.com/feminism/sets/women-madness-and-spiritualism

https://www.amazon.com/Madness-Women-Myth-Experience-Psychology/dp/0415339286

TLDR: In literature bad characters were often described with physical attributes that were seen as ungainly. They were codified with animal-like, manly and mad. They also had black and dark attributes to signal to the reader that they were not the heroes of the story. Bonus: they often met a deathly or bad end. Writers did it, but so did real people when they wanted to accuse a rival (Karl Marx being one such asshole for example, http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.html ). This is why we can not always trust written accounts of contemporaries before the age of photography when a person is described with racially ambiguous looks.

5. Descriptions of Queen Charlotte:

Just like Beethoven, Queen Charlotte’s main claim to blackness boils down to one ancestor at least two centuries before her birth, combined with contemporary descriptions of a certain hair type, wide nose and bad complexion. Descriptions of Charlotte during her lifetime describe a plain and small woman, with a wide and long nose, and lips that were not the rosebud ideal. As the court became accustomed to her, however, more people started complimenting her brown hair, pretty eyes and good teeth. Much of the imagery that has fuelled claims of Charlotte’s possible African ancestry is from the first few years of her time in England. Royal brides have been ripped to pieces by tabloids, and the public also performs a horrible hazing-like ritual(see: Kate Middleton was mocked for being a party girl, lazy and from working class background. Meghan Markle was described as an opportunist husband-snatcher. Diana was a “chubby child”. The ladies also got plenty of critiques on their looks). Once the bride gets through years of being bullied, critiqued for every little part of her being, she then suddenly comes out on the other end after a few years, becoming a darling and an attribute to the royal family. Could it be that royal brides are always, especially in a gossip heavy environment like a court, under deep scrutiny? This foreign princess hobbled off a boat, seasick, unknown by the English… And she didn’t speak a word of the language! Why would the English love her? I am not saying the accounts lie but I am saying beware of the person making the comments. Are they close to the monarch and his wife? Do they like Queen Charlotte? When where these comments made and why? And why did they choose precisely these words that had by now become commonplace to use as descriptors for unpleasant people? If we know people used racially ambiguous terms to describe people they disliked, it isn’t such a stretch to imagine they might insult a new queen with such terms.

Let’s look at what was actually said about her.

Horace Walpole: “The date of my promise is now arrived, and I fulfill it — fulfill it with great satisfaction, for the Queen is come. In half an hour, one heard of nothing but proclamations of her beauty: everybody was content, everybody pleased.”

Baron Christian Friedrich Stockmar, the royal physician to her grandaughter: “small and crooked, with a true Mulatto face.”

Sir Walter Scott: “ill-colored.”

Colonel Disbrowe (her chamberlain): “I do think that the bloom of her ugliness is going off.”

Queen Charlotte herself in a diary: “The English people did not like me much, because I was not pretty; but the King was fond of driving a phaeton in those days, and once he overturned me in a turnip-field, and that fall broke my nose. I think I was not quite so ugly after dat [sic].”

What we can conclude from these remarks that Charlotte was not very pretty, she even admits to that herself. But what are her actual physical attributes? She has light brown hair (I didn’t include a description of this, but it was generally reported), she had pale eyes (as can be seen in all paintings), was small, and had good teeth.

Above I gave two accounts that reported on her skin tone. Ill-colored could be anything like bad skin, rosacea or perhaps tanned (which also wasn’t deemed becoming for ladies). There was only one person, Baron Christian himself, calling her face what he did. As mentioned above, there can be multiple reasons why anyone would ascribe her those features, she did not have to be a “mulatto” to be described as one.

Most importantly, in a society with slavery, in which black people were looked down upon, I’d say the absence of more people calling her things like: dark, swarthy, black, mixed, brown and any and all things associated with black looks, is more telling than a few accounts mildly referring to her colour.

If Charlotte were truly the first black queen, the first black person in such a powerful position, and one of the few black people in England (less than 30 000 at the time), would there not be more talk? More descriptions of her look? She was seen every day by many people. People would be shocked, enraged, surprised, fascinated and so on. In an era when many people kept diaries in which they wrote down all they witnessed, many people would have given descriptions of her black/brown skin colour. In an era with cartoons and press… Her being noticeably black would have been a very big thing and we would have seen journalists and cartoonists draw her as dark. Cartoonists and diary writers mostly write or draw their honest thoughts. They weren’t censured.

6. Paintings of Queen Charlotte:

Queen Charlotte’s most striking likenesses, or so it is believed, were painted by Allan Ramsay, a prominent artist and staunch abolitionist. In 1761, Allan Ramsay (1713-1784) was appointed Principal Painter in Ordinary to the King (1761-84). As well as being Principal Painter, his portraits have been singled out by many as depicting Queen Charlotte with distinctly African features. It’s believed this was his way of displaying his abolitionist tendencies. He was an abolitionist, that much is true, and he was also friends with the legal guardian of the very famous black Dido. However why would the royal couple approve blatant African features, knowing those would not be well liked in an English queen? They would not have allowed these images. Clearly, they saw in these images only a likeness to Charlotte, and yes, that could mean she had fuller lips and a wider nose. Anyone can have those features. Personally, I find that a slightly larger nose and larger lips in some paintings are not sufficient proof to call her black. But let’s run over some of the paintings.

Most paintings portray her as a typical light-skinned royal with nothing bad about her complexion.

In these pictures she does not look black in the slightest, indeed I’d say her eyes and eyebrows look very light even, nor do her nose and lips, so often critiqued, look big, as was claimed.

Here we can see her nose looks a bit wider, and her lips a bit bigger. But is that really a convincing argument? Although certain features are more common to a certain race, they are not monopolized by one. Black people can have light hair and light eyes. It is unlikely, but it is possible. It’s just as possible for white women to have bigger lips, a wider nose, a rounder face and even… though rarely, there are white people who have no black relative they know of, white 4a hair. I’ve met a few of them. What I also want to note is that Queen Charlotte’s natural hair could have been crimped and combed until it stood upright and was stiff with powder, as was the fashion back then. It would give her hair a more frizzy look. In the picture underneath it, you can see her hair in fashionable artificially made curls that wouldn’t work on natural type 3 or 4 hair.

However as I said before, I’m not fond of using paintings as proof since they were made-by-demand. Painters would starve if they painted their patrons unflatteringly. There are black people, indeed, even black nobles, ex-slaves, diplomatic ambassadors who had themselves painted with a dark skin colour since the Middle Ages. You can even see the distinction between people of darker-skinned sub-Saharans and North African descent in these pictures. And painters certainly knew how to paint black people for centuries (see: "The Image of the Black in Western Art" by Harvard University Press and “Revealing the African presence in Renaissance Europe”). One such example a noble who did have black heritage was Alessandro de Medici who was nicknamed “the Moor”. Moors referred to black Islamic people. His mother was Simonetta da Collevecchio, a servant of African descent. In this case the argument that many Italians are dark of complexion and have dark hair cannot be used to explain his appearance. If other Italians thought he looked like them, they wouldn’t have paid such attention to his looks because they would have deemed it normal. I’m using 3 paintings of him by 3 different artists. The first picture really is ambiguous, it is only by combining all three that we can say that yes, his looks do fit the bill. If we only had the first picture, would we really be confident to claim him? This goes to show that you can’t say someone has a certain ethnicity based on one painting.

This person was comfortable in his own skin but there were probably just as much, if not many more nobles and wealthy families with mixed blood that had themselves painted white when they were not. Who would disagree? Who would even know? Nine chances out of ten barely anyone who wasn’t from the direct neighbourhood didn’t know what they looked like, and never would. Once the POC died, all that would remain would be a very white looking painting, and no one would know the bloodline had become mixed.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/29/tudor-english-black-not-slave-in-sight-miranda-kaufmann-history

What is, then, a reliable source? An answer, for famous people, is cartoons. Just like we now attach more credibility to a paparazzi picture of Khloe Kardashian than to one of her heavily photoshopped pictures on Instagram, you can trust cartoonists to not try and make people look good. Note: cartoons are always over-exaggerations. Any physical attribute will be enlarged beyond belief for comedic purposes. King George and his wife were often pictured in cartoons. If there was anything very noticeably foreign about Charlotte’s looks, they would portray it. However, what we find is that these cartoons never portray Charlotte as darker than the other people. She wasn’t shown as being black.

Conclusion:

Queen Charlotte cannot be called black on the basis of her portraits, cartoons or bloodline. If ever there was a trace of black blood in her veins, it was so light it had become undetectable and could not have influenced her appearance. Just ask yourself this question: would you call yourself a certain ethnicity, or claim certain roots, based on one ancestor 200 years in your past? If no, then you also shouldn’t say that Charlotte had black roots or was mixed.

The case of Queen Charlotte does, however, reveal the deeply racist British society of the Georgian Era, which deemed all black physical features ugly, and deliberately used all physical traits associated to the black race as an insult. Keep this in mind, as well as rampant anti-Semitism and hatred for Roma people, every time you read a novel from the time period, or read a tasteless description of a real person from the era. People were cruelly treated based on their heritage, and even if their heritage was purely white, they could be ascribed certain racial features, just because people were racist pricks.

While that’s the unfortunate reality of the time period, I do believe we are allowed to enjoy an alternate reality as an escape, where just for once, race isn’t an issue. So continue on, Bridgerton!

Meanwhile, I’ll be here keeping my fingers crossed for the stories of real black people living in Europe, or black kings and queens in Africa, to be told in a movie or series. The entire world has always existed, it makes no sense for all period movies to keep being focussed on white people in England, Rome and the US.

#bridgerton #Queen Charlotte #Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz #british monarchy #racism in history

120 notes · View notes

alatismeni-theitsa · 2 years ago

Note

Honestly I find the current series of posts/asks decrying black actors in European settings quite uncomfortable, as a Greek born and raised in Greece. Especially the fact that it started from bashing the new LotR show, which is not even mythological or traditional folklore. Seems to me there's a xenophobic undertone y'all might need to examine in you. While I would like to see Greeks or people with Greek heritage being hired for Greek roles, I think Hollywood is ultimately a US industry catering to US needs. Our own TV presents other cultures in a just as distorted manner, because it caters to Greek needs and ideas. That's just how cultures work. If at least that role is given to a black brother/sister instead of some WASP, I'm just gonna be glad and happy their career was uplifted by getting a decent role (unlike the majority of roles black folks usually get).

Hi, I am answering this a bit late due to time constraints, sorry for that. More under the cut!

It depends on the setting, to be honest, and what cultures are described and what type of contact they have. If it is consistent with the universe, I don't see why not include people from different backgrounds. And historically we know these people existed in Europe.

It didn't start from LOTR, this discussion. It's been going on for many years, actually, about mythology and folklore of other countries including Greece. Naturally, Greeks cannot always be hired for roles. A Chinese production is not going to be asked to find 50 Europeans to create a play on Odyssey for example.

"Hollywood is ultimately a US industry catering to US needs." I mean yes, it is a US industry. Its reach is global though, so whatever they create it will eventually arrive to the people they are meant to represent. So these people later talk about that. US is a whole empire as of now, to the point it controls many foreign armies and our army with it (sending it to fight against Yemen), while having multiple bases on our soil if it wants to bomb more Middle Easterners and Eastern Europeans. (true historic examples) I am asking for some accountability from the US society here, for them to gain some awareness of the power and privilege they have as a country, and that they don't live in a bubble.

"Our own TV presents other cultures in a just as distorted manner, because it caters to Greek needs and ideas." This is a bad thing on our part, as well and I believe we should improve. In the age of information and adequate resources for a large part of the population showrunners have the capability of doing fairly good research and hiring actors from the backgrounds they want to represent. I am judging Greece in a similar way I judge the US, it's just happened that the discussion around that wasn't as prominent or popular.

If at least that role is given to a black brother/sister instead of some WASP, I'm just gonna be glad and happy their career was uplifted by getting a decent role (unlike the majority of roles black folks usually get). Here I agree with some parts and disagree with others. A Black Greek/Afro-Greek is as much as a brother as anyone else and their presence shouldn't be a negative element in any way. There is also the fact that creatures, gods, and heroes of a nation don't reflect the minorities of a country. Say a Black brother's family comes from Nigeria (I am using the country a lot because many people will be a biiiit familiar with some Yoruba gods). His family wouldn't want the depictions of their African old gods and heroes to change, too, despite Nigeria having large minorities of Europeans, Americans and Asians. If you asked this person to see a movie with his favorite Nigerian national hero played by a dark-skinned South Asian he wouldn't find the adaptation faithful.

I totally understand why that happens, and since I wouldn't ask it from the Nigerians I wouldn't ask it from any other culture because for the majority it feels offensive for the same reasons. Heroes, gods, and creatures were described by the locals through the centuries to a certain degree of agreement. Mythical Congolese heroes looked a certain way and we know it from the sculptures. I don't see any arguments of "But Middle Easterners existed in the country in antiquity! So the mythical kings must also reflect them!" In any case, I don't see this replacement as meaningful corrective action.

A Greek man may not be able to play Hercules because of his height, I am not fit to play any Japanese goddess, and so on. Yes, we are going to lose this very specific opportunity. If I am trying to play local goddesses or spirit in Swiss movies it's common sense I won't much coin. If I don't resemble any local deities then why should I ask I embody them? In another country, I will know that the local creatures and heroes are not meant to represent me, the 0,005% of the population, specifically, and I am not a norm in the country. This fact can coexist with the reality of South Europeans facing some bigotry and racism in North Europe, and South Europeans asking for better treatment.

Not everyone is meant to embody everyone. I don't find anything offensive with this idea and there a multitude of POC don't find it offensive as well. National figures and creatures looking a certain way it's not groundbreaking to them, and they follow this principle in their countries as well. They also know that by following that principle they don't lose any rights in other countries. What they want is purposeful change, no pandering or second-hand depictions from figures that are widely known to be non-Black (they want new roles and historical roles about them and their history), and more steps to be taken by famous platforms towards true equality and opportunities. I had to present this position briefly but, naturally, it would be better to search their comments and see it from their perspective.

#answered #greek speaks #cultural representation #representation

10 notes · View notes

positivexcellence · 4 years ago

Text

Walker star Jared Padalecki on how his new character differs from Sam on Supernatural

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: I know the idea for this all started with you, so how did it come about?

JARED PADALECKI: We'd already announced that season 15 of Supernatural was going to be the last, and it was at the same time of all the border migrations and families being torn apart. I read something talking about how some law enforcement officials couldn't bring themselves to put a kid in a cage and take their parent. They found themselves going, "I can't. I know I'm bound by my, duty but this just doesn't feel right." I remember reading it and going, "That's so interesting to me, I want to read more about this. I want to hear about who this person is and what drove somebody to go, 'I signed up to serve and protect, not to possibly endanger.'" They were bound by duty but also had their own moral code.

You didn't plan to act in this originally, correct?

Right. I did want to get out of acting. I didn't want to get out of the business entirely, but I was like, I need to figure out who I am, spend some time with Jared. Also I wanted to take some time after Supernatural to mourn and grieve Supernatural. But then I was like, if someone wants me to be in it, it'd have to film in Austin. If I wanted to film anywhere other than Austin, where my family is, then I would've stayed on Supernatural. The primary reason that Jensen [Ackles] and I both decided to let Supernatural rest, at least for now, was that our wives and kids lived in a different country and we'd see them four days a month sometimes. Then we realized Austin is the headquarters of the Texas Rangers. Then [my manager] Dan [Spilo] asked me if I had any showrunners I'd like to work with, and the first name out of my mouth was Anna Fricke. Dan said she probably had a deal somewhere, and sure enough we found out that Walker, the property, was owned by CBS studios and that Anna had a deal with CBS. It was kismet.

What was your relationship to the original Walker, Texas Ranger?

I wasn't a superfan but I grew up with it, I saw most of the episodes. It was part of growing up in Texas. It was huge all over, but it was certainly huge here. But this show is very different. It's not called Walker, Texas Ranger, and that's for more than one reason, but largely it's because this is not a show about a Texas Ranger who has a family. This is a show about a family man who goes to work as a Texas Ranger. It's almost like more Gilmore Girls than Supernatural.

How is Cordell Walker different from Sam Winchester?

He's a bit more Han Solo than Luke Skywalker. He's not necessarily the super-pensive, super-research-oriented, read-the-instruction-booklet guy. He's more a shoot-from-the-hip guy. He trusts his instincts. He's also very much a father and a widower. What drives him is trying to figure out how to exist as a father after having lost his partner, who was doing all the heavy lifting at home, and still having a job that demands a lot. It's a lot of what Jared was going through. I'd get home from Vancouver and [my wife] Gen had been with the kids for two weeks sometimes and I was like, "Where do I fit here because, I gotta fly back to Vancouver in 24 hours to film for another two weeks?" So I'm trying to do the best I can, but my kids are used to my wife. The parallel feels very real. But Sam and Cordell are both haunted. They both went through a terrible loss and they have a really difficult job. Sam, in a strange way, probably dealt with it in a healthier way than Cordell. Cordell probably drinks a little bit too much, and he's more caustic than Sam would be.

There's a larger mystery in the series of what happened to Cordell's wife, but will there be a more procedural element week to week as well?

We didn't want this to be like, "Hey, this is the first scene and there's a bad guy and he just stole a bunch of watches from a jewelry store, and we look for him and we find him and then we all toast and high-five at the end of the episode." Plus we can't high-five during COVID. We Zoom-toast. No, Walker being a Texas Ranger and needing to do the kinds of things that Texas Rangers need to do is very much a part of the show, and I think a lot of this first season is trying to show the audience how difficult it can be to care so much about your family and your friends but also have a very demanding job that could save lives if done well. There will be episodes where the Rangers get a case and they're called in because it requires a little out-of-the-box thinking that maybe other law enforcement agencies aren't allowed to do, so we do have that.

Most important question: In the trailer, there's a very impressive moment when Walker jumps a fence on horseback. Is that you on the horse?

No, that was not me. That is me driving the car, and that is me riding the horse and roping. I do ride horses. I'm not a black belt in horse riding, but I did spend a lot of time riding and roping [for this]. But we shot that early on. I certainly would've tried it, but I think their thought was, "We have a 12-day pilot, we don't want our lead actor/executive producer to go down with a broken foot on day 3." So my stuntman and our stunt coordinator did that part. I had a funny conversation the other day where someone was like, "You're not really a rodeo guy, so how can you play a rodeo guy?" I was like, "Listen, for 15 years I played a guy who hunted demons and who was Lucifer for a little bit, so I certainly have more experience doing rodeo-type things than hunting demons and vampires. I think we'll be all right." [Laughs]

Have you gotten used to the shorter hair yet?

It's weird. I'm getting accustomed to it. I've spent the last 20 years of my life in beanies. I'm wearing a lot more baseball caps and cowboy hats these days because otherwise I just look a little odd. I still love my beanies and I'm wearing one right now, but it's a lot less work, which is great. And I never, other than on set for Supernatural, I never did my hair anyways. So this is definitely a change. I love that it's a very obvious visual change from Sam Winchester. And feels different. I certainly feel more like a Ranger than if I had hair down to my shoulder, so that helps. I'm getting used to it.

#Jared Padalecki

77 notes · View notes

cinema-tv-etc · 3 years ago

Text

Netflix miniseries is based on a story that exposed the scammer in 2018.

Inventando Anna arrived on the 11th in the Netflix catalog and remained for days in the first position of the Top 10 of the streaming platform. Shonda Rhimes’ 9-episode miniseries was based on a 2018 investigative story. Written by New York journalist Jessica Pressler, the story soon made the cover of the New Yorker and took the entire country over with the absurdities Anna Sorokin did for a living. luxurious.

Of course, in the series the names of the characters were changed, but the I love cinema came to show you that this did not do much to hide the real identity of the scammer and the other personalities in the miniseries.

Making Anna: Does Anna Sorokin’s Boyfriend Really Exist? Chase may have been inspired by real people

In Making Anna, Anna Delvey (Julia Garner) is an heiress to a very wealthy Russian family, or at least she claims to be. That is until a journalist realizes there’s more to the story than Delvey is telling.

Have you ever seen the characters in real life? Check out the actors and people who played in the miniseries.

Table of Contents

Julia Garner | Anna Sorokin

Laverne Cox | Kacy Duke

Katie Lowes | Rachel DeLoache Williams

Anna Chlumsky | Jessica Pressler

Alexis Floyd | Neffatari/Neff Davis

Todd Spodek (The Lawyer) | Arian Moayed

Julia Garner | Anna Sorokin

Julia Garner practically entered Sorokin’s body to play the con artist in the series. Even the facial expression at the trial is the same! That is acting! Of course, we also give credit to the makeup department, who did a great job.

Laverne Cox | Kacy Duke

Cox played fitness muse Kacy Duke (who even wrote a book on fitness!). The two even look very similar, even with different hair in the photos, we see that the makeup did its job.

Katie Lowes | Rachel DeLoache Williams

Former friend and victim of Anna’s lies, Rachel Williams went to trial and even wrote a book about her experience and friendship with the scammer. Lowes and Williams have a similarity and the hair only helps to improve how much they look alike.

Anna Chlumsky | Jessica Pressler

Chlumsky plays the journalist who exposed Anna to the world. In the series, Pressler’s name has changed to Vivian, but we know the truth. In addition to the name, this was the series choice with the least resemblance between an actress and a real-life character.

Alexis Floyd | Neffatari/Neff Davis

There’s nothing to say about this casting, Alexis Floyd rocked it! The real-life Neff is still friends with Anna Sorkin, even after all the lies. She also lends a helping hand to showrunner Shonda Rhimes while writing the series. Just to improve the friendship, Neff was the only person who got their money back from Anna (and by choice of the scammer!)

Todd Spodek (The Lawyer) | Arian Moayed

It seems that these two have known each other for a long time! Todd (left) and Arian Moayed (right) make an amazing duo that we didn’t even know was real. Spodek defended Anna at her trial, and while he didn’t walk out of court with Anna free, the lawyer only became more famous than he was when the series came out on Netflix.

https://playcrazygame.com/2022/02/20/making-anna-compare-real-people-to-netflix-series-actors/

How the Inventing Anna Cast Looks Compared to Their Real-LIfe Counterparts

The show may not be perfect, but Julia Garner is.

#Inventing Anna

4 notes · View notes

ncisfranchise-source · 1 year ago

Text

NCIS has gone international.

NCIS: Sydney is the latest series in the very popular franchise, and it premieres on November 14 on CBS (in a time slot familiar to fans, Tuesdays at 8/7c, where the mothership aired for its first 18 seasons). It sees U.S. NCIS agents and the Australian Federal Police team up to keep naval crimes in check in Sydney, with NCIS Special Agent Michelle Mackey (Olivia Swann) leading the task force. Her 2IC AFP counterpart is Sergeant Jim “JD” Dempsey (Todd Lasance).

Showrunner Morgan O’Neill introduces the new team.

Across procedurals, we’ve seen agencies working together, but usually, it’s just an episode or two. But you really get to explore that over the course of the series itself. What does that allow you to do?

Morgan O’Neill: Being the first international version of a global franchise comes with all sorts of challenges, one of which is how you integrate it into the new country. NCIS exists in Australia, but when it exists in Australia, it does so under Australian law, so there has to be a kind of jurisdictional power-sharing that goes on. NCIS: Sydney was built around that exact concept, which is that NCIS Sydney comes to town and they instantly have to work with and under the authority of the Australian Federal Police. So in that sense, you’ve got, I think, in the history of the NCIS franchise, the first blended family where you’ve got these two agencies coming together, these two very different cultures coming together, and they’ve got to make it work. And that’s a lot of fun, obviously, because sometimes it does come together easily and sometimes it doesn’t. There’s obviously culture clashes. It’s a very different world that NCIS has to operate in. From that perspective, there’s a huge amount of story and a huge amount of fun to be had because it really is the coming together of two very different worlds.

What should we know about Mackey and JD as leaders and their histories?

The office is run by Captain Michelle Mackey, who’s a former Marine Corps chopper pilot. She’s a hothead; she’s a maverick. She’s very hard to work with. She’s been moved around NCIS a little bit while they try to find where she can do the least damage. But she’s incredibly good at what she does. She’s very instinctive in terms of the way she runs her investigations, but it means that she’s a really tough task master and she’s a real hard nut to crack. And so it makes it especially interesting to see how the 2IC, who’s an Australian Federal Police force sergeant, Jim Dempsey, gets to manage her because effectively he’s managing her for the rest of the team. In a funny way, it’s this kind of dance between the boss and the real boss. And it’s interesting, JD has to adjust the way he runs a squad to take into account the fact that he’s working for this maverick.

Daniel Asher Smith/Paramount+

And they clash a little bit at first, I won’t lie to you; as you’ll see in the first episode, they really do butt heads. As you can imagine, there’s a sense of pride at who has control of the situation, who runs the investigation, whose jurisdiction it is. The nature of NCIS is that there are a lot of crimes that kind of fall in that gray area between jurisdictions, and that’s where a lot of the fun is to be had in the episodes. So they come together like bulls initially, and what’s exciting is to see how they work through those problems.

As you would know, being a fan of the show, one of the key things about NCIS is that it’s really, at its heart, a family drama, and we have the opportunity, as I said, to create this first blended family within the history of the franchise. We really have an opportunity to see these people coming together for the very first time. Because, unlike other iterations of the franchise where the audience drops into a group of people who already know each other, who already function as a team, we see them from day one and everything that entails and all the building of trust and sometimes the fracturing of trust and the testing of those bonds.

It seems like the only thing that they can agree on is they don’t want to be working together. What does it take for them to open up to each other? Is it one case? Small moments over multiple cases?

They have to come together as a team really quickly because it’s not like the crimes are going to stop for them to work out their jurisdictional issues. You actually see it in the opening episode. There are moments where, almost in spite of themselves, they feel like they’re coming together, like a small bond is forming, moments of trust, moments, where they see each other, reflected in themselves, moments where they’re quietly impressed but begrudgingly don’t want to really admit it. [They have] two very different ways of approaching law enforcement. And while at first, they seem really far away, actually, when you look at them, and across the course of the first season, you actually work out that JD and Mackey are more like yin and yang than they are competitors. They really do complement each other, and they grow kind of close.

What excited you the most about exploring the rest of the team — Evie (Tuuli Narkle), DeShawn (Sean Sagar), Penrose (William McInnes), and Blue (Mavournee Hazel)?

I lived in LA for a long time, and I met a couple of guys who reminded me a lot of DeShawn as he emerged from the page. His fundamental quality is he’s got this endless curiosity, and for me as a creator, it’s a beautiful concept to work with because he can be the eyes of the rest of the world, endlessly curious about Australia, working out who these weird people are that inhabit the world’s largest island on the southern tip of the Southeast Asian archipelago. DeShawn is able, through his curiosity, to really pull the lid back and look at what makes us tick and who we are and what this country’s all about. So that kind of sense of openness, I describe him as a kind of American Paddington bear.

Daniel Asher Smith/Paramount+

His openness comes directly into conflict with Evie’s kind of sassy territorialness, I suppose. It’s funny — when we first cast Tuuli Narkle, who’s a relatively new but incredibly gifted Australian actor who’s just won a bunch of awards for basically her first big role, I said to her, “Do you know the show?” She said, “I love the show. I’m a massive fan.” I said, “Who’s your favorite character?” She said, “Oh, it’s a no-brainer. It’s DiNozzo [played by Michael Weatherly on NCIS].” It was interesting because she’s got a little bit of DiNozzo in her. She’s got a little bit of that constantly chipping away at her colleagues, enjoying taking the piss a little bit. From that perspective, the combination of an endlessly curious and a sassy, kind of provocative, territorial character makes for a huge amount of fun. We were blessed with the reality that the actors who play those roles ended up really getting on, so that brotherly sisterly banter comes pretty naturally to them, which I hope is a lot of fun for the audience to see.

The challenge when you’re creating another iteration of such a famous franchise is that you don’t want to repeat characters. You don’t want to just take the cookie-cutter version of something and make it your own. And when it comes to a character like the forensic scientist in a show like this, people go so quickly to the character of Abby [Pauley Perrette] because she’s so iconic. She kind of defined that role. We wanted to make sure that we weren’t replicating that. Then we found Mavournee Hazel who plays Bluebird Gleeson, who is out of her depth. She has complete imposter syndrome like she shouldn’t be there. She’s too young, she’s too inexperienced. She’s carrying a whole bunch of really unusual, interesting backstory that we’ll peel away as the seasons go on. But she’s incredibly good at her job. She’s kind of socially awkward. I just found the combination of all those things made her feel very real to me. I’ve worked with a lot of people who work in the world of science, and she just felt like she resonated that sense of intellectual power and social awkwardness, which I loved.

So she comes into the first episode, not really even deserving to be there. She’s on a probationary program that the Australian Federal Police has run. She’s not even a fully-fledged forensic scientist, and she’s forced to work with the oldest, wisest owl on the crew, Doc Roy, who’s a former Australian Navy medic and now forensic pathologist. He’s emotionally shut down for some reason that we’ll get into as the show evolves. But what’s really interesting to watch is watching Blue slowly reanimate the emotional side of Doc Roy. There’s a beautiful dance that goes on throughout the first season where she just slowly gets under his skin and slowly brings him back to some kind of emotional life, which is what happens in families sometimes. I’m biased; I cast them, but they’re such beautiful actors and lovely people that watching that relationship flourish is, I think, part of the real joy of the first season.

How did you want to make the headquarters unique?

I’m partial, but I think we have the best headquarters of all. We’re the only version of the show, I believe, whose set is actually on location. Sydney is the world’s largest harbor, and it has a huge foreshore. We were very fortunate enough to find a huge warehouse that sits right on Sydney Harbour that looks out onto the harbor so that when our characters get up from the bullpen to go and see where that case begins, they literally walk out through the front doors and they’re on Sydney Harbour. That, for us, is an enormous advantage because there’s no trickery in making it feel like it is where it is. It is there, and you can hear the sound of the ferries passing and the Navy ships passing in front. You can hear the slap of the water on the piers below. That, for us, was a huge advantage, I think. It really gave a sense of authenticity to the show because so much of the show was set in that headquarters.

Interestingly, we had some of the real NCIS agents come through on a set tour, and I was talking to one of them, and he was shaking his head. I was like, “What’s going on? You don’t like it?” He went, “No, no, it’s amazing. It feels like my very first field office in Connecticut.” He said their NCIS office out there was a little rundown. As you’ll see when you see the show, it feels like an old Navy storehouse because it is an old Navy storehouse. He said that his very first office was very similar to that, which made me very excited because it felt like we were really tapping into the authenticity of that world.

#ncis sydney #interview

2 notes · View notes