#it's a remarkably faithful adaptation actually

[darchildre]

Last night, I was picking out a movie to watch and decided to start on a little mini project I've been thinking about for a while, which is watching all the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies. I've basically never watched them and he was the default Holmes culturally for a long time, so I wanted to try them out. I've been putting them off, however, because I had negative impressions of Nigel Bruce's Watson.

However, due wholly to coincidence, I have inadvertently discovered a solution to any and all jam Watsons. All you have to do is read one of the Arsène Lupin novels that features Herlock Sholmes before watching the movie. Literally any Watson is going to be better than Leblanc's Watson/Wilson and you'll spend the whole movie thinking, "Okay, not the best Watson ever, but it could be so much worse. Really, this is quite pleasant." I don't necessary recommend this method, but it definitely works.

Anyway, the Rathbone Hound of the Baskervilles was quite good! I'm looking forward to watching more of the films.

[canmom]

the Spirited Away theatrical adaptation

today I went with @birdfriender to see the stage production of Spirited Away, produced by Toho, currently on tour in London.

and like. holy shit??

you might say how the hell could you adapt a film like spirited away to stage. the answer is: incredibly inventive stagecraft, puppetry, costumes and especially choreography.

I was completely blown away by how this play flowed across the stage. set transitions were masked with lighting to direct attention, with the descending screen, with the rotating central platform that managed to function as nearly every part of the bathhouse. stairs, rotating bridges, creative use of size to indicate perspective (like the tiny train that circles the stage), and just the way the crew would move the props with a flourish -

but also the puppetry, like man! the way characters like Kamaji, Yubaba's giant head (used only at moments of intense emotion), and No Face would be operated by entire teams of puppeteers - it was extraordinary. the puppetry director was Toby Olié who's worked on a million different things including War Horse and you can really see them applying all these tricks accumulated over the years...

the show is remarkably faithful to the film; a few scenes are slightly abridged but every sequence I remembered was there and deliver with style. where it does need to pause and breathe, like in the famous train scene, it does. and like... it is fascinating to see an adaptation from animation to theatre. seeing how Mone Kamishiraishi (Chihiro) would stumble and bumb into walls just as she would under the pen of Shinya Ohira. or how a memorable sequence in the film could be represented symbolically: a collapsing pipe as a string of segments pulled on a string, a flower garden by dancers in flower outfits.

some of my fave sequences involved wooden panels carried by dancers, choreographed so the characters would weave between them, or they'd rotate to represent elevators on different floors. it was also fascinating to see how they'd symbolically represent things it would be impossible to stage, often representing fluids with fabric sheets. a transformation could be shown with actors swapping places with a flourish. at other times, it feels like stage magic tricks are in use, like a flash of light drawing your attention to a rope that was there all along. sometimes the puppeteers will be on stage, wearing simple beige outfits that mark them as not being 'present' as they manipulate the soot sprites and frogs and so on.

they also made effective, sparing use of a large projector screen, which descended at certain points, primarily for the driving scene at the beginning and the train scene. this actually didn't use scenes from the movie, but more of a soft, painterly style applied over... probably animated video? hard to say with the blurring, could be live footage. it reminded me of the use of similar screens in the later YoRHa plays, although it was a minor element here.

we weren't allowed to take photos (i took this one during the final bow anyway) and I would have been too busy watching to take them anyway, but this teaser shows briefly a number of the coolest setups. still, it's so much more when you see the whole thing flowing along without interruption.

and it was very interesting to me looking at this kind of show - big stage, directly homaging an animated film - from the eyes of someone who knows a lot more about film and animation than I do about theatre.

compared to film, you simply do not have closeups; the closest thing is when the puppeteers bring out the segments of Yubaba's giant floating head, but this is used sparingly. so everything is basically a long shot. however, because the acuity of a human eye is much greater than that of a camera, even from near the back of the theatre you can make out a lot of details that you wouldn't be able to make out with an equivalent camera shot. this allows compositions where there is loads going on at stage at once, with the eye being drawn to different areas by lighting and movement.

I do feel like there are definitely things to learn for animators from this kind of stage choreography. so many times I thought like, wow, that's so clever. like how chihiro riding haku was shown by splitting the dragon puppet into segments and putting her on the shoulders of one of the puppeteers.

and everything was done with such style too. if something shuffles off stage, you know it will be done with a wiggle and a flourish. small things but they add so much.

presumably because this seems like an incredibly involved show, there are multiple performers for each major character: four Chihiros, and three Hakus, Yubabas, Kamajis and so on. I'm not sure the exact lineup tonight beyond Chihiro. the exception is Kaonashi (No Face), who is played only by Hikaru Yamano, who gives an incredible performance, sidling and flexing around the stage in all sorts of strange ways that really get across the character's whole deal despite literally performing under a white mask and concealing robe. it's kinda amazing.

another fantastic casting is fundoshi dancer Yuya Igarashi as Kashira (the stack of three big heads that serve Yubaba, and speak only in wordless grunts). he basically has his real head as one of the three, and he has two more heads on his hands, and moves them around in incredibly energetic and funny ways. it's a brilliant way to interpret this, somehow feeling perfectly appropriate to have a buff guy in a red loincloth moving them around.

Yubaba's actress tonight would have been either Mari Natsuki or Hitomi Harukaze; either way she did an incredible job, it was really cool seeing a more human-proportioned version of the character and she brought a lot of energy and authority to the role.

the whole cast did a fucking amazing job honestly. I wish I knew more about theatre acting so I could comment more specifically on the tricks they were doing, but you definitely felt Chihiro's emotions

the production is in Japanese; English subtitles were shown on two screens on either side of the stage. the translation was on the 'honorifics included' end of that scale, but absolutely clear and idiomatic. the format worked - it was generally not hard to follow the action and glance at the subtitles, even though they were further away than they would be in film - and it definitely filled the theatre. I really hope this leads to more Japanese theatrical productions going on tour like this. wish i'd been able to see the Totoro one a few months ago.

definitely this kind of theatre must depend on a fairly obscene budget of the kind that only comes to biiiiig properties like, say, an adaptation of a beloved Studio Ghibli movie (one family turned up in cosplay) - there's a lot to be said for less extravagant staging. at the same time... this really was something.

i gotta go to the theatre more

[pastorfutureletthembe]

Link Click and flowers

When CANON gives us such amazing and layered characters, we're always fascinated. We go on treasure hunts to find every little secret about them. Because we want to understand them better. We empathize with their struggles. We write meta and fanfictions.

Sometimes, CANON shares golden nuggets of easter eggs: Birthdays and flowers.

Today I'm gonna tell you everything you need to know about Myosotis and Daisies!

> Myosotis ~ Forget-Me-Not ~ Scorpion Grass

The genus name comes from the ancient Greek word, mus (mouse) and ous or otos (ear). This comes from the shape of the plant’s foliage, which features short, pointed leaves reminiscent of mouse ears. More than 70 species of myosotis exist in the world. Most likely, when you picture this flower, you think about Myosotis Alpestris. The alpine forget-me-not species is distinguished by its delicate blue petals featuring yellow throats, which create a striking contrast against the rugged landscapes where it grows. Its ability to flourish in harsh, cold environments makes it a remarkable example of nature's adaptability. Another type, Myosotis scorpiodes, is sometimes called scorpion grass, which seems like an unusual name for such a pretty little flower. Before the flowers bloom, the plant's stem appears coiled, like a scorpion’s tail. It then slowly uncurls as the flowers open up. When you give someone these tiny blooms, it represents a promise that you will always remember them and will keep them in your thoughts.

Lore

Throughout history, forget-me-nots have been laden with meaning. Europe: A German knight was strolling with his lady along the banks of the Danube river. The lady saw pretty blue flowers—but they’d been pulled loose by the river’s flow and were about to disappear downstream. She wanted to save the flowers, so her chivalrous knight jumped into the water. He couldn’t fight the strong current, so he tossed the flowers onto the bank, and as he was carried out to sea, he called out, “vergiss mein nicht”, which is German for “forget me not.” World War I, they were linked to fallen soldiers and were used as a symbol to remember the dead. Victorian era: emblematic of true love and remembrance, often given as tokens to signify faithful and enduring love. During this time period, people sent each other flowers to convey messages that couldn’t be spoken aloud. In this flower language, they represented love, devotion and everlasting faithfulness. They also conveyed the message, “Do not forget me.” Christian creation: God bestows names upon all the plants He created, except for one tiny blue flower. Afraid of being passed over, the unnamed flower calls out, “Forget me not, O Lord!” In response, God declares, “That shall be your name!”

Symbolism

Forget-me-nots represent true love, devotion, and faithfulness. Everlasting love: From the Middle Ages to Victorian era, they were used to decorate valentines. Devotion: They seen as symbols of remembrance for loved ones who have passed away. Commitment: They’re often given to spouses, significant others, or friends to convey deep affection and loyalty. Friendship: Long distance, two friends enduring affection living in different places.

> Daisy ~ Bellis Perennis ~ April Flower

Daisies originated from the Old English word "dægesēage”, meaning day's eye. This etymology reflects the flower's association with the sun and its daily cycle. It refers to the nature of the flower's sunny appearance as well as its behaviour of opening in the morning and closing at night. A sun-like core surrounded by delicate white petals as if a radiant sun is peeking through the clouds. The white, often red-tipped petals are both separate groupings of numerous flowers giving the illusion of a single flower. It actually posesses a composite flowerhead: daisies are two blossomes in a single one. Daisies are a diverse family of flowers, each carrying a unique symbolism. Bellis (meaning pretty) perennis (meaning everlasting) are the common Daisy, and those provide a message of innocence, childlike happiness and playfulness. Shasta Daisies have an ability to thrive in diverse climates, mirroring our own human resilience and making it a fitting symbol for enduring love and the continuity of life. No matter the species, it is known to bring hope and joy for anyone who takes the time to appreciate its beauty. They are often given to someone you admire. It is also a tangible expression of union, used in weddings, and ironically considered as a heartfelt farewell, placed on graves, as promise of remembrance through genuine love even in death. The birthmonth for Daisies is April.

Lore

Norse mythology: In Norse mythology, daisies were considered sacred flowers because of their power to predict the future. They represented love, loyalty, and destiny. They were also associated with Freya, the goddess of love, beauty, and fertility. According to legend, whenever Freya cried, her tears turned into daisies. Ancient Greek Mythology: According to Greek mythology, Zeus, king of the gods, fell in love with a beautiful nymph named Belides. When Hera, the wife of Zeus, learned of this, she turned Belides into a daisy to protect her from Zeus' advances. Zeus could not save Belides and instead honoured the daisy for her beauty and love. Celtic Mythology: In Celtic mythology, people associated daisies with the sun, bringing prosperity and good luck. They also believed that these bright flowers were a sign of the summer solstice, carring the sun's light to the earth. In Victorian era, they developed floriography, or the language of flowers, to relay different coded messages depending on the type of flowers they sent and received. Daisies in particular symbolized loyalty and the ability to keep secrets. Someone would send daisies to a person who told them a secret to let them know their secret was safe.

Symbolism

Daisies are quite popular for radiating cheerfulness and positivity. The beauty of this flower is that it implies trust and reciprocity. Innocence: symbolise innocence, purity, and childlike wonder, because of the flowers’ soft, white petals, which give a sense of freshness and purity. They also stand for innocence in the sense of faithful love and loyalty. Love and Romance: associated with true love and secret admirers. As two flowers which have blended harmoniously together into one bloom, it represents perfect union. Beauty: while appearing simple, their sunlike attribute makes them the symbol of aesthetics. New beginnings: for transformative times, most especially for new beginnings. Popular for spring and to welcome new chapters in life. They represent a positive change or even a fresh start. They are often used for depictions of Mary, mother of Jesus, as childbirth symbol. Friendship: tokens to express appreciation or to celebrate a beautiful bond between friends. Joy, loyalty and union in the purest sense. This one is for me haha: Celebrate a 5th anniversary

That's all for today! they choose wisely, don't you think?

I am willingly ignoring that Forget-Me-Not could hint on Lu Guang's death :D I just wanted a cute post on flowers for now.

Find out more about Hyacinth, Qiao Ling's flower, here!

[dededaio]

The New Kirby Novel Announcement might hint at the future of the series?

...or as I also would like to call it, yet another installment in the "Klu puts on a tinfoil hat in desperate attempts to predict Kirby's future" series.

So you might've already heard about the announcement of the upcoming Kirby Light Novel in the March of 2024. It's title is "The Dream Onsen is a Good Hot Spring" and If you aren't familiar with it's plot yet, here's the full synopsis:

At first the story doesn't seem too remarkable, there are no promises for new high-stakes adventures on a different planet like in Dedede-focused novel "King Dedede's Great Escape Strategy" or shocking twists like in "Meta Knight and the Knight of Hades", but then it hits you. This novel will feature Elfilin and Daroach. A lot of people who learned of these news did instantly become excited, but not a lot of people seem to have realized just how bizarre this is.

If you aren't familiar too well with the novels in general, their utilization of the extended game cast is quite similar to the way mainline games handle them. As in, they rarely if ever appear if their names aren't "Kirby", "King Dedede", "Bandana Dee" or "Meta Knight". If novels could help it, they only use the main four and occasional recurring enemy/helper like Burning Leo or Chilly (and Chef Kawasaki as a bonus) as the supporting cast. And if the original story requires more important characters, instrumental in the narrative, Mie Takase, novels' author, tends to invent entirely new ones instead.

So far there were only 3 types of novels that primarily utilized game-exclusive characters. I myself sorted them out by type, this is not an official classification or anything. Here's a nifty chart:

Remixes, as I like to call them, are quote unquote "original stories" that feature game characters like Magolor, Taranza or Animal Buddies. But while most of the plot seems original, more often than not it seems as a re-imagining of the actual game plots. Kirby's Labyrinth Rescue is probably the most egregious example, as it's an unholy amalgamation of Return to Dream Land, Triple Deluxe, Rainbow Curse and Amazing Mirror. While a lot of the story might be original, they are "based" on something from the games instead of being wholly original narratives.

AUs are interesting, because they do tend to have entirely new stories that utilize game characters, but this is only with an asterisk that they take place in entirely different world from the main novels/game-adjacent canon.

Adaptations speak for themselves. They might have an original character or two (mostly early on in novels' existence) but they are mostly 1:1 faithful adaptations with some omissions and additions that don't significantly alter the narrative (with sole exception of Planet Robobot's novelization letting President Haltmann live for some reason). Notable thing is, that in case of certain game-adaptations, like Merry Magoland or Kirby Fighters 2, mentions/appearances of extended game cast are omitted or heavily limited (In KF2 novel Magolor and Gooey don't appear or get mentioned at all, in Merry Magoland only Gooey is mentioned among masks of the characters that don't appear in the story in flesh).

As you can see, this newly announced novel doesn't fall under ANY of these categories. It's a brand new, seemingly slice-of-life-esque story, that just so happens to randomly include Daroach and Elfilin. This is highly unusual because novels rarely if ever take risks or go out of their comfort zone. They kind of established the rules and formulas of how they work for years now and it's been working out for them. So why anything would change now?

Well. Heh... What if this sudden change in direction is actually reflective of franchise-wide changes? Shinya Kumazaki talked about how Forgotten Land is going to be the beginning for "the new phase of Kirby". So far it's hard to tell what he actually meant by this. But I would argue that one of the aspects that could be true in this new "phase" is more frequent utilization of the extended Kirby cast.

Novels, in terms of franchise-wide hierarchy, some of the closest things to the actual games in terms of importance, mainly thanks to how much of a juggernaut in terms of sales they are within Japan. Across 10 years of their existence they managed to sell over 3 million copies of all books, which might not sound that impressive, until you realize that these are books for children that until recently were purely Japanese-exclusive endeavor.

These books are the only adaptations, to our knowledge anyway, that get special privileges from HAL themselves in terms of telling some plot and lore details that even fans aren't aware of. Shinya Kumazaki even directly supervised and helped to write one of the books (Return to Dream Land's novelization that came out in 2022). It doesn't mean that novels are canon, but it does mean that they tend to reflect the current status-quo of the series better than most other aspects outside of the games.

So this sudden inclusion of ensemble cast in a random story might signify HAL's willingness to do more with these characters. Elfilin alone wouldn't have been perhaps that surprising, as he was hinted to have more importance past his debut in how he passionately expressed that he wants to stay by Kirby's side forever, but Daroach's inclusion is puzzling because while he did appear in multiple games, he didn't get any merch or notable appearances lately.

Of course, this might mean absolutely nothing! But I feel like this is more notable than most people give it credit for. At worst, this means nothing except that novels will utilize game cast more frequently, which would be cool, at best, it means that HAL is opening up to the idea of returning past characters more frequently, which would be awesome. Let's wait and see, I suppose.

[ace-reviews]

WINTER 2024 ANIME RECOMMENDATIONS

I counted and there are 8.5 blonde ladies in either a lead or primary love interest role this season (8 if you count the one whose hair is sometimes black as half of one). Do what you will with this information. I only share it because it’s something that was ticking me off that I noticed.

Anyway, we’re trying out a new format this season: Instead of only recommending anime we’re not familiar with, we’re each picking one we are familiar with and one we went into completely blind.

ACE’S RECOMMENDATION #1: MR. VILLAIN’S DAY OFF

After the deluge of isekai that try to teach the importance of having a healthy work-life balance by having the lack of one kill off it’s main character in the first five minutes of the episode, it’s really nice to have something that teaches the same lesson by choosing to model what one looks like rather than killing anybody. It’s also got a lot of pandas in it, which is always nice.

ACE’S RECOMMENDATION #2: SENGOKU YOUKO

Satoshi Mizukami seemingly can’t catch a break with anime adaptations of his manga: Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer sucked and this one is being seriously overshadowed by all the other really good and/or long-looked-forward-to adaptations this season. (Planet With was an anime first so it escaped the curse.)

Anyway, please watch this and have your friends watch this and buy the Blu–Rays and have your friends buy the Blu-Rays so my dream of a (good!!!) Spirit Circle anime can someday come true.

---

CHARLIE’S RECOMMENDATION #1: SOLO LEVELING

(for the sake of our more sensitive readers, actual screenshots of the anime cannot be shown at this time)

If you like Cheat System anime, and don’t mind “a bit” of graphic violence (read: so much. There’s just so much violence.) , give this a shot. It’s based on one of the Korean manhua that made the genre what it is today, and as far as I’m concerned, they’ve done a good job being faithful to their source so far - they didn’t even give them Japanese names, you guys.

CHARLIE’S RECOMMENDATION #2: A SIGN OF AFFECTION

(adorable)

It’s cute, and disability rep is always a bonus. I like how they animated the sign language, which seems fairly realistic to me, someone who speaks no sign languages.

---

FEN’S RECOMMENDATION #1: LOOKING UP TO MAGICAL GIRLS

This is a series I’ve been following since there were only five chapters out in the manga, so I would like to preface this recommendation by saying I’m the only one who’s actually right about it. I’m a veteran, a true soul who’s stuck with it for the past x years since it first released, and as such everything I say about it is valid and correct and anything people who aren’t as familiar with it says is complete horseshit pulled out of their ass. This is a factual statement.

Mahou Shoujo ni Akogarete, which has been translated for the manga as “Looking up to Magical Girls” (correct) and by vile HIDIVE as “Gushing Over Magical Girls” (bad and wrong) is a trashy, over-indulgent yuri series for weird perverts that is good, actually, (genuinely), and if the adaptation manages to capture Onanaka Akihiko’s remarkably deft hand in weaving the series’ fetish gags with the story’s genuine moments of pathos and surprising character depth then the anime will also be good, actually.

Dude trust me.

FEN’S RECOMMENDATION #2: METALLIC ROUGE

This is an anime original series about super fighting robots on Mars doing a hitman shit on android rebels for the government and also yuri, maybe. ACAB includes Rouge Redstar, watch this show.

---

BONUS RECOMMENDATIONS: DUNGEON MESHI AND ‘TIS TIME FOR “TORTURE,” PRINCESS

A recommendation to watch Dungeon Meshi is the most redundant thing on the planet this season, but even so you should still watch Dungeon Meshi. Also, Fen and I had a bit of a back-and-forth over who would recommend Torture Princess since it was something she was familiar with and something I had only heard of and I wasn’t going to recommend it because I thought she would and she apparently chose not to recommend it because she thought I was going to so take it as a recommendation both from someone who is and someone who isn’t familiar with Torture Princess to watch Torture Princess.

[gojuo]

As a former law student, I find it so unhinged that there are now fans who have taken to blame jaehaerys for setting the male primogeniture precedent, i'm just like wtf??? People really forget that the Targ reign was still a baby compared to the hundreds and thousands of years reign of the houses in Westeros and now Jae's wrong for actually thinking of preventing a succession crisis that would weaken their young dynasty?? 🥹

Like why not blame Viserys for not even amending the precedent first and Rhaenyra for not actually doing her duty... Jaehaerys and Alysanne put so much effort to build their kingdom only for their descendants to go amok and stomp out all their efforts and these stans would go just hating them because they did something that's negative for their fave 🙃

Lol if Jaehaerys didn't pull the Great Council out of his ass, Rhaenys would have been queen and Viserys, Daemon, Rhaenyra never would have been anywhere near the throne at all. And Jaehaerys didn't set the male-preference primogeniture either, that was always Andal law that the Targaryens adapted to when they colonized Westeros (they had to make concessions in some ways like converting to the Faith).

I suppose some form of male-preference inheritance laws were also in place for Valyrians, though, because Aegon the Conqueror became Lord of Dragonstone over his older sister Visenya after their father died.

But Jaehaerys definitely was a misogynist that fucked with Andal law to suit his own tastes since he managed to subvert the "daughters before uncles" part of the law by creating a gathering of Lords, the Great Council, to have it reaffirmed that the succession of the Iron Throne could not pass to a woman, or through a woman to male descendants (called the Iron Precedent of the GC101). That old decrepit couldn't help himself but punch Rhaenys down twice like fucking hell man 💀 Before this GC101, the royal succession did consider women as contenders, eg. Maegor vs. Rhaena, Aerea vs. Jaehaerys, (because that's how Andal law works), however after the Iron Precedent the succession for the throne turned into absolute male primogeniture.

That's also why Daemon was considered Viserys' heir before he had any sons and over Rhaenyra, since that's how Viserys got the throne over Rhaenys and Laenor in the first place(*). And that's why Viserys named Rhaenyra heir at sword point through oaths, because Daemon had slighted him for the "heir for a day" remark and Viserys didn't want another Great Council to be called upon just for the Lords to make Daemon his heir anyway.

*Most tend to forget it for some reason, but the GC101 wasn't between Rhaenys and Viserys, it was between Laenor and Viserys. Rhaenys had already been passed over once when Jaehaerys made Baelon his heir after Aemon died, and not Aemon's only child Rhaenys, as Andal law meant to.

[mandysxmuses]

🗣 twofold!! talk about your muse Carrie and also mayhaps noemi cause she is my babygirl rn

//OKIE excellent

Carrie has always been a character that I'm really really really really attached to. Was introduced to the '76 movie when I was a little kid and had no idea what was actually going on (and somehow was... under the impression... her mother was a good person at the time????? I don't know what gave kid me that impression, I must have blocked all the awful out, I don't know, I was genuinely surprised Pikachu to rewatch when I was older and see that she was so violent and scary. this feels like when I watched T.ales from the Crypt as a kid and then was surprised Pikachu when I was older to find out just how much sex there was in it)

once I was capable of fully comprehending what I was actually watching Carrie became a fave, I began watching every film adaptation and comparing and contrasting and whatnot

and just. my favorite thing about Carrie was always that despite the marketing going hard on the "horror" aspect of it, the actual films were always more centered on the tragedy. Most of the horror I'd been exposed to at that point was campy stuff and/or other things you could just turn your brain off for but with this one it presented a remarkably real situation (someone getting born into an awful family/awful circumstances and getting bullied as a result) and amped it up with superpowers

and if you come from a religious background and have a faith you've ended up leaving, I do think that aspect of the story hits that much harder. Margaret is definitely on the more extreme end of the spectrum, no doubt, but her story still brings on strong themes of religious control and fear of upsetting religious family members

AND CARRIE'S NOT EVEN REALLY IN MY SITUATION. SHE BELIEVES IN THE SAME GOD MARGARET DOES AND ISN'T LEAVING SHIT. MARGARET'S JUST WILD ABOUT IT. MDKLSAMDA

man I remember for the longest time thinking Margaret was unrealistic because I'd never heard of anyone considering a period a sign of sinning I WAS A FOOOOOOL my own freaking sister asked my mom in the car if periods came about because Eve sinned and I kinda did an internal double take

but yeah as a character. I love Carrie herself. She's just a sheltered teenager trying to break out and live her life but practically everything is going against her. she was one of only a few characters I could see literally killing a bunch of other people and still end the story all like "she was baby" mldsklamd

NOT TO PUT DOWN THE IMPACT OF WHAT SHE ACTUALLY DID, AND I THINK THE TAKE THAT THOSE PEOPLE DESERVED TO BE SLAUGHTERED IS AS COLD AS IT GETS

but that is also kind of why I prefer the adaptations where she snaps and goes into a more trance-like state, it kind of. keeps the sympathy of the character more for me, when Carrie is conscious of what she's doing it makes the tragedy of it a lot less poignant to me personally, because it becomes very difficult not to see her as a monster when she is actively, consciously killing people

(and yes I am aware her consciously killing people was in the actual book, but I am sorry, I still think the story is worse for it)

goodness this is a novel and I haven't even gotten to Noemi yet

ok so of all the people in my Void Noemi could have picked to smooch. She picked Schatz.

... that is a choice

JKJK she has very good taste, and I do think it suits the utter chaos goblin nature I have seen from her so far. I like that she has both helped Schatz find a way to engage in thrills without snatching people's stuff

and completely wrecked the tavern all while thinking she was just making Trost happy with her voice

AND I STILL NEED TO CONTINUE THE VERHEILER INTERACTION BUT I AM SO SORRY ABOUT THE HOT GLUE INCIDENT NOEMI

she also got Schatz to go on a completely wild "It's not like I walked into a morgue" ramble and say the most crazy stuff he's ever said so that was amazing

[wromwood]

If I had a nickel for every time my dad unintentionally got me invested in an established, wildly popular IP through its new live-action show that was released on a streaming service, I'd have two nickels, etc., etc.

Actually, scratch that, I'd have at least three!

But seriously, my dad is one of those people that streaming services probably kill for: a guy who, even though he has no idea what the IP is, will get interested enough in a show's advertising (or, better yet, just interested in the vibes of it when he stumbles across it on the service's main menu) that he'll want to watch it out of pure interest.

This happened with One Piece, when I was uninterested in watching the new Netflix adaptation because of how little I knew about the franchise (and now my dad and I are 200+ episodes into the anime).

This happened with The Last of Us, which I was uninterested in watching because I didn't know anything about the original games (I'm especially glad I watched the show because afterwards, I could thoroughly appreciate the Last of Us cocktails that I got at an Edinburgh popup bar).

And now it's happened with Fallout, which I was uninterested in because, while I knew a teeny bit about the games, I thought I wouldn't enjoy because I didn't play/watch any of those games, and I'm not really a post-apocalypse kinda person (and yet, when I watched the show with my dad, I surprised myself with just how many references I got and how much I cared about its faithfulness to details from the games).

And EVERY TIME this happened, with my dad either begging me to watch this show he viewed while I was away from home (Last of Us), begging me to watch a new show with him because he likes watching TV with other people (Fallout), or just putting it on one evening out of interest while I was in the room (One Piece), he had no idea what its origins were, at least when he first started watching.

For example, with the Netflix One Piece show, after watching a few scenes with him, I remember remarking, "Huh, I didn't think you'd be interested in a live action anime adaptation."

He immediately replied, "Wait, this was an anime?"

Same thing happened with Fallout when I mentioned that I didn't know too much about the video games.

I don't really have a good conclusion to this post. I just thought it was a fascinating thing to have happened more than once. Good on you, dad, for proving that people can get into live-action adaptations for more than familiarity/nostalgia.

[revjohno]

RWRB: The Movie

Even before RWRB started climbing the bestseller lists back in 2019, the word was out: this one is going to be big! So Hollywood studios immediately began clamoring for movie rights, which Amazon Prime won in a sealed-bid auction. We fans then filled the internet with suggested cast lists—I was going to say, “none of which even came close to naming the actors eventually chosen, especially the principal leads.” But then a friend reminded me that he had actually suggested Rachel Hilson as Nora from the start, and (don’t read this next bit, Nick and Taylor), “I also had some great suggestions for Alex and Henry, which would have been perfect if they had gone for younger actors closer to the ages the novel specifies.” I sit corrected.

Meanwhile, we settled in to wait for an announcement that the movie was starting production, with a fervor unmatched by even the most rabid fans of the Left Behind series looking for the Second Coming. And we waited … and we waited … and we waited. First-time director Matthew Lopez, a Tony award-winning playwright who also wrote most of the script, seemed to be taking his sweet old time casting the film (though I suspect that once Nicholas Galitzine threw his hat into the ring to play Henry, no one else was even considered). And there matters sat. It didn’t take quite as long to start filming as Jesus has taken to return, but at times, it sure felt like it.

Then, with a rustling of angels’ wings and a blast from golden trumpets, the announcement came: the film had been completely cast and shooting was about to begin! Aside from the two leads, Matthew gave few particulars about who was playing whom, and almost no candid shots of scenes being filmed showed up on the web. There was a bit of flack when Rachel Hilson was announced as Nora, because of the book’s only Jewish character becoming Black. And when Queen Elizabeth II happened to die three weeks after principal shooting ended, people began speculating about the possibility of Matthew being psychic, since he had chosen to replace the novel’s Queen Mary with King James III. Obviously, it didn’t take Madame Cleo to predict that a 96-year-old lady might not survive much longer and that a male monarch would occupy the throne by the time of the movie’s premiere. But in the midst of all the mystery surrounding the film, we needed to talk about something.

Then shortly after shooting wrapped, Nicholas Galitzine was asked how faithful the movie was going to be to the novel. Somewhat nervously, I imagine (he later confessed in an interview with GQ that he never actually finished reading it, so no doubt he was a bit hazy about details), he cautioned us not to expect a carbon copy of the novel, but instead to treat the two as “entirely separate.” He then added, “I just hope that people will think of this as a fun movie.”

Sorry, Nick. RWRB is not a fun movie. Yes, like the novel, it is funny in spots (and Matthew’s script, which I felt actually improved on some of CMQ’s lines, is also remarkably faithful to the original in its general outline and inclusion of certain iconic scenes—far more than most movie adaptations). But the film is mainly concerned with serious issues, and aside from occasional lapses into preachiness, it treats these issues with sincerity, tenderness, and genuine feeling. And this is in no small part due to the performance of Nicholas Galitzine himself.

I find Nick Galitzine to be one of the most amazingly attractive human beings I have ever seen. It’s not just because of his handsome face; my admiration springs from his obvious innate decency, his endearingly goofy sense of humor, and his undeniable talent. There was no need for him to admit that he never finished the book—it’s not like we could have checked—but when asked, he told the truth, because he is an honest man. When the writer from GQ whispered that some other diners at the restaurant where they were meeting were getting irritated because Nick was being too noisy, he immediately got up on his crutches (he had chipped a bone in his ankle in an accident on the set of his latest project, Mary and George) and tottered over to apologize, an all-too rare example of consideration and good manners in this post-Trump world. When teased about his habit of calling everyone “mate” and hailing them as if they were long-lost BFF’s, Nick replied with a laugh, “Everyone is my friend—I’m just very excited to see them! I’m very enthusiastic!” I’m sure that truer words were never spoken.

Though Henry was easy to cast, the hunt for Alex took rather longer, because Matthew was searching for someone who demonstrated just the right chemistry with Nick. Then a thirty-year-old actor named Taylor Zakhar Perez put himself forward (too old, I would have thought, to play the 21-year-ol Alex; plus, at 6’2”, he was actually two inches taller than Nick, and CMQ had made a major plot point out of Henry’s superior height). But when Nick and Taylor first met, Matthew was called away for a few minutes, and he came back to find them talking nineteen to the dozen like they were old friends. At that moment, Matthew knew he had found his Alex. The possible objections were easily dealt with (Alex is no longer a college senior, but instead is now in law school, so he could easily be in his mid-twenties; and clever camera angles make Nick look taller. The script also creates a running joke out of Alex continually insisting that Henry cannot possibly be 6’2” as his fact sheet claims; and when they’re standing side-by side, Henry accuses Alex of wearing lifts.  Alex’s look of confused dismay makes us actually wonder). They are perfectly matched, and the result is screen magic.

I found Taylor to be a complete revelation. His last movie had been a quickly-forgotten (luckily for him) bomb called One Up, in which Taylor’s lines were mostly restricted to comments like, “No, girls can’t join our team! Girls can never compete with men in the field of …” (wait for it) “competitive gaming!” Huh? We’re not talking about professional wrestling or weight-lifting—we’re talking about computer games. Moreover, countless studies have shown that women’s reflexes are quicker than men’s, their brains are proportionately larger, and that men’s only real superiority is upper body strength. I thought that such ignorant sexism as Taylor’s character in One Up conveys was a thing of the past, but in a world where women can lose the right to control their own bodies at the stroke of a pen, maybe not.

Though Taylor has never before played so major a part (that I’m aware of), he acquits himself admirably here. From the moment Alex tries to persuade Nora to ditch the reception and “go do touristy things,” the role of Alex is obviously in just the right hands. As it turns out, Nora might have done well to accept Alex’s suggestion, because he gets drunk at the reception and manages to create an international incident. And I must say, I very much enjoyed Henry and Alex’s interaction at the reception. Not only was I finally able to visualize the exact sequence of events leading to the disaster with the cake; I loved Henry’s fury at Alex’s dismissal of the proper use of titles (more about this below). It may make Henry look like a snobbish prig (which is certainly how Alex sees him), but Henry doesn’t care what Alex thinks. It also shows just how far Alex can goad him. For a royal, displaying such fury is even worse than making a scene, because royals are supposed to smother their feelings and appear cool, calm, and collected, no matter how trying the circumstances. Alex may be the first person who has ever been so lippy with Henry, and he really gets under Henry’s skin by doing so. (Which he will later do in a much more literal manner ….)

Which leads me to the BIG question we all wondered about: did Nick and Taylor’s offscreen friendship translate into SIZZLING sex onscreen? Well—no. And that’s fine by me. Any time I want to watch porn, there are any number of sites I could visit (or—ahem—so they tell me). Instead, these sex scenes give us poetry—aching, tender, romantic, and beautiful, allowing us the chance to peek into the depth of the characters’ intimacy, something made possible only by the actors’ consummate artistry. (Sorry—I couldn’t resist that one.)

Their first sexual interaction happens at the New Year’s Eve party, where they spend the entire evening talking and laughing together in a way that completely excludes everyone else. But then while everyone is sharing kisses at midnight (and several beautiful women make a beeline for Alex), Alex notices the (unkissed) Henry staring at him, heartbreak writ large on his face. Henry grabs a magnum of champagne and disappears, so Alex tracks him into the frozen Rose Garden. Critics have commented that this scene is detectably CGI, but come on, people—the movie was filmed during the summer, and it’s not like they were going to fly cast and crew to South America for a true wintry landscape. Besides, the actors’ talent made them look cold, which more than met the needs of the scene.

The ensuing kiss is straight out of CMQ, and I thought Alex’s reaction to Henry’s grab-and-smooch is particularly good. At first he seems startled (though not shocked), but then he plainly starts getting into it. It is Henry who breaks away, with a look of shock and terror as he realizes what he has just done. Without a single word, Nick is able to show us exactly what Henry must be thinking: Oh, my God! I let the mask slip—again! How does this bloke always make me do exactly what I was brought up not to do—expose myself by showing my real feelings? Christ! I need to get out of here!

Now it’s up to Taylor to show Alex’s reaction to the incident. In the movie, he seems not to feel much more than mild surprise, and a vague curiosity about whether Henry might be gay. But in the book, Alex goes into full-on gay crisis mode because of his body’s immediate reaction, and he develops even more of an all-consuming obsession with Henry. CMQ devotes twenty pages to this issue, one which all LGBT’s must eventually face (and twenty pages is actually getting off easy—in my case, accepting my bisexuality took decades). But since the movie’s Alex readily acknowledges his male lovers, enjoying Henry’s kiss isn’t an issue for him at all. The only complication he now faces is coming out to his parents, though I’m sure they figured out that their son was bisexual long ago.

Then comes the White House dinner and the Red Room scene, after which Alex orders Henry to “come to my room at midnight, where I am going to do very bad things to you.” My aforementioned friend (the one with the cast list) points out that Henry unbuttons Alex’s shirt and begins kissing down his chest and stomach, and Alex leans back with a look of gratified pleasure, but then at the end of the scene, Henry is still fully dressed. (Didn’t Alex reciprocate?) Henry then invites Alex to a polo match back in the UK, at which we see the guys kissing and Alex pushing Henry onto his back and reaching down to remove Henry’s belt, and … that’s as graphic as it gets. Matthew rightly protested the movie’s “R” rating, since aside from a couple of f-bombs and a brief shot of Taylor’s bare backside, that’s it. An “R” rating? I suspect that it’s studio nervousness about a potential homophobic reaction, and if the execs are that squeamish, why did they buy the movie rights in the first place?

The final sex scene is extremely well done. Henry begins by telling Alex that he wants to make love to him, to which Alex uncomfortably replies, “Make love? Who says that anymore?” Well, maybe Henry didn’t want to scare you off,  Alex, by using the same words as he does in the book: “Please—I need you to fuck me.” But obviously, Alex intuits that this is exactly what Henry wants, because Alex says nervously, “Um—I’ve never—” to which Henry smiles and says, “Don’t worry—I went to an English boys’ boarding school,” which is a far more likely scenario for Henry to have been initiated into gay sex than a virginal 17-year-old Henry being seduced by one of his older brother’s friends.

The two lovers gaze at each other, and then they gently, almost reverently, begin to touch. It made me think of times at night when my wife and I are in bed, and I look at her asleep on the next pillow, and I touch her in exactly this way. My heart feels like it will burst, and wonder floods me as I realize that this woman, whom I have loved for all these years, actually loves me back. Can the human heart ever experience anything more wonderful than such a realization? The same knowledge shines out of the men’s eyes in this scene—I love him, and he loves me. Then the touching becomes more intense, and as the scene progresses, without a single word or sound, Nick conveys the exact moment when Taylor seemingly enters him, and precisely when the pain of initial penetration tips over into pleasure. I’ll say it again: this guy is amazing. Ever since I first started watching Nick’s movies, I have said that he can communicate more in ten seconds of silence than other actors can manage in a two-page monologue, and that is exactly what he does here. (And he still has no acting awards? I mean, really?)

Alex acknowledges to himself that making love is exactly what he has been doing with Henry all along, but by trying to share this realization he only succeeds in scaring Henry off. Henry begins deflecting every time Alex brings up their future together, a future which Henry believes to be impossible. Alex tells him, “I want to see you at a barbecue stand with sauce smeared all over your mouth, so I can lick it off,” to which Henry replies, “Don’t they have napkins in Texas?” Alex begins talking about spending time together after the election, when “we can be naked all day, and walk down the street holding hands” (presumably after they’ve put some clothes on). I loved watching Taylor’s face as he nervously suggests their eventually going public, and tries to make his declaration of love. And (as always), Nick perfectly conveys Henry’s troubled emotions, as Henry cuts Alex off by jumping into the lake. The fear on Henry’s face as he submerges himself in the water is a perfect visual metaphor for the doubts and terrors in which he is drowning.

And make no mistake—these fears are well-grounded, and very real. Henry was born into a world where nothing matters more than hierarchy and the strict rules which govern it—thus his insistence that Alex address him correctly as “Your Royal Highness” rather than “Your Majesty,” a title reserved the monarch alone. Priggish? Pretentious? Maybe—but take away the outward forms which maintain this artificial world, and who is Henry? And if Henry insists on being himself and steps outside the royal system, the punishment will be both immediate and severe.

Prince Harry and his wife were still newlyweds expecting their first baby while CMQ was writing the novel. No one could have predicted that the devil’s bargain between the Palace and the media (which always demands a villainous royal to skewer before they publish praise about a more important one) would lead to the vicious unpopularity Meghan Markle currently suffers. The written abuse heaped upon her (greatly assisted by social media) became so severe that she firmly believes it led directly to the loss of their second child. So they felt they had to flee the country if they were going to save their marriage and their family.

But as Prince Harry describes in his memoir, Spare, they soon discovered that for doing so, within twenty-four hours of their arrival in this hemisphere, his funds were cut off and they were officially evicted from both their royal residences. The very next morning, his security detail was taken away, leaving them homeless and unprotected in a world of crazy stalkers (from whom Meghan had been receiving death threats) and intrusive paparazzi. Harry also found that a private security firm would cost him roughly six million dollars a year, which would soon eat up every penny his mother had left him. Fortunately for Harry and Meghan, friends stepped into the breach to help them, but except for a very few, his family has turned on him with silent fury and stony faces ever since. Even Prince Andrew, convicted of molesting an underage female and who must register as a sex offender anywhere he goes for the rest of his life, got more generous treatment than this. All Harry did was put his love for his wife and children above royal duty, but for doing so he has been cast into the outer darkness. And for the sin of claiming his own right to fall in love with a brown-skinned American, Henry knows he would suffer the same fate.

But RWRB is a fairy tale, so of course everything works out fine in the end. The election which Alex’s forced outing has put into doubt ends with Ellen’s victory due to a strategy devised by Alex himself. Despite intense pressure from the royal family, Henry insists on staying with Alex and acknowledging their true feelings for each other, and the entire world rallies around them. It is a triumph for love and tolerance over “the stifling suffocation of heteronormative conformity.” (I wish I didn’t have to put that line into quotation marks, but no one who knows me would ever believe that I had come up with such an erudite and well-turned phrase on my own.)

I enjoyed the film immensely. I thought the actors were top-drawer, as was Matthew’s adaptation and direction. So what didn’t I like? The watering-down of the certain characters for one, but above all, the elimination of others, especially Alex’s sister June. Please bear with me, though, because I think I have a glimmer of understanding as to why Matthew might have done this. And with his love for the book, I am sure that he did not arrive at his decisions lightly.

Let’s start with the character of Nora. In the book, she is someone “with a computer for a brain” who adopts the online persona of “a depressed lesbian poet who meets a hot yoga instructor in a speakeasy and is now marketing her own line of hand thrown fruit bowls.” But in the film, she becomes little more than a walk-on, and her brilliant, prickly presence gets watered down into a warm and loving sister surrogate (necessary since June got axed—why include June when Nora can function for both?).  Now that Nora is Alex’s supportive older sister, obviously there’s no hint of their past relationship from the book, in which “they just had to fuck to get it out of the way.” And without June, there’s also no need for a lesbian subplot. In the process, almost all of Nora’s spunkiness gets lost, and once the reception scene and the discussion with Alex about Henry’s New Year’s Eve kiss are over, she has nothing much to do but smile from the sidelines as she pairs up with Pez (who is also reduced to almost nothing—Henry’s incredibly wealthy, highly amusing and sexually ambiguous best friend barely has two lines). By reducing these characters, the movie loses the interest they both bring (Nora in particular).

This sort of character reduction is not limited to Nora and Pez. Many remaining characters get sanitized as well, if not entirely deleted. The abrasive Zahra who threatens to “staple Alex’s dick to his leg if it’ll keep it in his pants” morphs into a wisecracker who serves the essential function of calling Alex to account and dealing out the discipline he so obviously requires, but who always remains a friend. She thereby becomes much more likable—I loved the original character, but I used to wonder how someone so rude could have made it so far in politics—but in the process she becomes much more bland, and we lose most of her salty, prickly humor.

The salty-tongued Ellen, who sometimes uses her children as props and who ruthlessly cuts Alex loose when he threatens to become a campaign liability, gentles down into mere exasperated bossiness when dealing with her only child, and in the process becomes a fairly minor character. She shows none of the grit and determination that would have led her from her mother’s bar all the way to the White House. She is also still married to Alex’s father, Oscar Diaz, who has morphed from an important California senator into an undistinguished Congressman whose speeches everyone (but Alex) ignores. With Oscar and Ellen still together, the character of June loses one more necessary function: supporting and protecting Alex in the wake of their parents’ divorce, as well as her habit of challenging him for the behavior she believes may be fallout from Alex’s still-conflicting loyalties to his warring parents. But in the movie, the only hint of conflict between Mom and Dad is Oscar asking his son not to tell his mother that Oscar has been smoking out on the Truman Balcony.

And then there’s Rafael Luna. His abrasive, mentoring character gets deleted entirely, and his seeming betrayal (which causes Alex such agonized soul-searching) gets replaced with actual betrayal by a shifty investigative reporter. Luna goes undercover to expose a sexual predator and to prevent such a person from entering the White House (if only there had been this sort of double agent on the Trump campaign!). But in the movie, the guys get outed because a reporter named Miguel, a former lover of Alex’s, becomes jealous when Henry and Alex go off together at the DNC. I loved the cameo by Joy Reid (as I also loved the cameos by Rachel Maddow—and Matthew, while you were at it, why didn’t you also get Steve Kornacki?) as she pushes the reporter to explain why he had done such an underhanded thing. With all the hypocrisy and smug sanctimoniousness typical of his breed, the reporter gives a BS answer about “the public’s right, and need, to know such things about the people they elect,” which Joy immediately challenges by pointing out that (a) Alex has not been elected to anything, and (b) he has a perfect right to keep his private life just that—private.

So why did Matthew make all these changes? I think it may be for one simple reason: anyone adapting a novel for the screen must first identify the elements that made the original so popular, and, since we’re talking Hollywood, those which are also the most marketable. Every word must somehow advance the main storyline, and all subplots that distract from it must be ruthlessly eliminated. Multiple characters get condensed into one who can represent them all. There has to be a conflict engineered by the villain of the piece, but the elaborate undercover plot organized by the Richards campaign would have taken too much screen time. So it gets replaced by one which might be summarized in ten words: “Hell hath no fury like that of a lover scorned.” Of course, in a romcom, the screenplay must finally lead to a happy ending, and here we get two: in England, the lovers wave to an adoring public from the Buckingham Palace balcony; and in the US, Ellen finds out that she’s been reelected even as she and Zahra are composing her concession speech. Then Ellen, Oscar, Alex, and Henry wave at adoring supporters cheering Ellen’s victory.

RWRB the novel is only marginally a romcom; it is really a coming-of-age story, its message one of self-acceptance through self-awareness. This is what makes it so wildly popular among the YA audience at whom it is aimed, since adolescence is the time when the struggle to know and acknowledge who we really are is the most difficult. Just before the election, Nora tells Alex that he has no reason to be afraid of people’s reactions to his bisexuality; all he has to do to cement his popularity is to “Be Alex.” It’s good advice for all of us: difficult though it often is, our only real path to a full and productive life is by knowing and accepting ourselves as we are. And as a wise woman once told me, being yourself is a lot easier than being anyone else.

But self-acceptance is a particularly thorny issue for LGBT’s, even if our mothers are liberal Democrats like Ellen Claremont and our fathers are “patron saints of unisex bathrooms” like Oscar Diaz. As members of the culture into which we are born, from our very first awareness we know that there is something different about us. Something which our society teaches us is loathsome and contemptible, and which will inevitably lead to our eternal damnation. This is a pretty tough concept to handle, and we’re forced to confront it even before we enter preschool. But it’s not an issue the movie chooses to address: instead, it focuses on almost exclusively the developing romance between the two principals. This shoves the film’s entire weight onto Nick and Taylor, but fortunately these young men both have broad shoulders, and their talent is more than able to carry it. That talent also keeps us rooting for their characters’ happy ending, and if some characters and most of the subplots get cut, well, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

So. Do I love the book RWRB? Of course I do—and how I wish it had been around when I was struggling with my issues as a young bisexual man in the 1970’s, since it would have saved me years of shame and pointless suffering. I would then have been much more ready for my own happy ending when Bobbie eventually entered my life. And do I love the movie RWRB? I totally do—I’m always up for a romance, and that is what Matthew, Nick, and Taylor have given us. In some ways, I actually prefer the movie (even though I know that saying this may lead to the RWRB police showing up at my doorstep to confiscate my “History, Huh?” T-shirt). You see, there’s one big problem with publishing a book with such a current, up-to-the-minute feel and format: it quickly becomes about as glossy and stylish as last year’s slang, and so when the Commemorative Edition came out in 2022, I found it curiously dated (the best part, for me, was its illustrations by Venessa Kelley). I think the movie will age a lot better, because with only minor alterations, it could be adjusted to almost any era—it’s not tied nearly so closely as is the book to the Gen Z / Millennial generation.

But to love both book and film, one has to accept the essential correctness of Nick’s original analysis: they are two separate entities, or, if you will, two sides of the same coin. One side is self-awareness and self-acceptance eventually leading to true love, and the other is true love which can only be enjoyed by reconciling societal expectations with personal integrity. So I find the book and the movie equally wonderful, just different. And I treasure them both.

[dweemeister]

Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932)

For the bookworms reading this, fair warning: there have been almost no faithful film adaptations of an Edgar Allan Poe work. In the absence of any cinematic-literary faithfulness to Poe’s bibliography, there still remains a plethora of big-screen Poe adaptations that, from a cinematic standpoint, are simply mesmeric to watch. Robert Florey’s Murders in the Rue Morgue, starring Béla Lugosi one year after his career-defining role in Dracula (1931) and released by Universal, is one of the earliest such adaptations. Its atmospheric filmmaking reminiscent of the tangled geometries of German Expressionism and Lugosi’s creepy turn in a starring role may make Poe loyalists furious, but one hopes they can also see the remarkable craft of this film, too.

Though lesser known than both Dracula and Frankenstein (1931), Florey’s Murders in the Rue Morgue came about due to legacies of both those productions. Following the successful release of Dracula in February 1931, Universal considered Lugosi as their go-to star for horror films. Producer Carl Laemmle Jr. – the son of Universal’s chief executive and co-founder, Carl Laemmle – wanted Lugosi to play Frankenstein’s monster (often mistakenly called “Frankenstein”), and even had Lugosi play the monster in several minutes of test footage. That footage, now lost, is one of horror cinema’s greatest sights unseen. Sometime after that test shoot, Universal gave director James Whale a first-choice pick for his next project after the rousing critical and commercial success of Waterloo Bridge (1931). Whale chose Frankenstein, requested a screenplay rewrite, and cast the British actor Boris Karloff in the role. As consolation, Lammle Jr. gave the Hungarian American Lugosi the starring role in Murders in Rue Morgue.

In a Parisian carnival in 1845, we find ourselves in a sideshow tent. There, Dr. Mirakle (Lugosi; meer-AH-cull, not to be pronounced like “miracle”) provides a presentation that is anything but the freak show the attendees are anticipating. He unveils an ape, Erik (Charles Gemora – an actor in an ape suit; some close-up shots are of an actual ape), whom he claims he is able to understand and converse with – even though Erik is unable to speak any human language. In the audience, Mirakle spots a young lady, Camille L’Espanaye (Sidney Fox), and asks her to be his intrepid volunteer for a demonstration. The demonstration goes awry, to the ire of both Camille and her fiancé, Pierre Dupin (Leon Ames). As Camille and Pierre exit the carnival, Mirakle orders his assistant, Janos (Noble Johnson), to trail them. Thus sets in motion the film’s grisly plot.

The film also stars silent film comic actor Bert Roach as one of Camille and Pierre’s friends, Betsy Ross Clarke as Camille’s mother, character actor D’Arcy Corrigan as the morgue keeper, and Arlene Francis (best known as a regular panelist on the game show What’s My Line?) as a prostitute.

Murders in the Rue Morgue, with a screenplay by Tom Reed (1925’s The Phantom of the Opera, 1931’s Waterloo Bridge) and Dale Van Every (1937’s Captains Courageous, 1942’s The Talk of the Town), is one of the most violent pre-Code horror films from the early synchronized sound years. It was so violent, in fact, that Universal’s executives harbored trepidation throughout its entire production and demanded narrative and structural changes that ultimately harmed the film (including cutting grotesque and violent sequences, leaving behind the current 62-minute runtime). The best example of this damage comes from the film’s opening third. Unbeknownst to the carnival attendees, Mirakle has been performing horrifying experiments involving cross-species blood mixing and, through heavy implication by the filmmaking and Gemora’s performance, bestiality (hey, it’s a pre-Code movie!). Originally, Florey’s adaptation of Murders in the Rue Morgue began with Mirakle and Janos abducting Arlene Francis’ streetwalker and Mirakle’s torturing and experimentation on her. Only after that did the film transition to Mirakle’s sideshow presentation.

The reordering of these two scenes – in the final print, the sideshow opens the movie and the abduction and experimentation follows a turgid romantic scene between Camille and Pierre – makes the sideshow opening seem sillier than it should be. If the original order had been kept, Florey’s initial intention to instill dread during the sideshow only after the abduction and experimentation scene – as the audience would be well aware of what Mirakle is capable of – would have made the film’s exposition feel far less stage-bound and hokey than it does. The abduction and experimentation scene’s blood-curdling horror remains (the scene contains a boundary-pushing combination of bestial and religious allusions that some modern filmmakers might not even dare to push), but the romantic scene immediately preceding makes for a rough tonal transition. In comparison to later horror films from the Hollywood Studio System released after stricter implementation of the Hays Code in 1934, these scenes – in addition to a later investigation and the film’s finale – hold up wonderfully.

Crucially, Tom Reed and Dale Van Every’s screenplay alter genres from Edgar Allan Poe’s original short story. With the introduction of hobbyist detective C. Auguste Dupin, Poe’s The Murders in the Rue Morgue is a foundational piece of early Western detective fiction. Or, in Poe’s words, Murders in the Rue Morgue is a “ratiocination tale” – a name that was never going to catch on in any century. Poe’s Dupin, a character who later influenced Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes and Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot, undergoes a name change in Reed and Van Every’s adaptation, and we do not see nearly as much deduction and investigating here as in the short story. Reed and Van Every’s screenplay, which delete all but two scenes from the Poe short story, also elevate one of their own creations – Dr. Mirakle – at the expense of Dupin. In addition, it is clear early on who is responsible for the violent acts within the narrative. And, unlike the Poe’s original short story in which Dupin and the unnamed narrator read about the violence in the newspaper, the film shows these acts explicitly or the lead-up to them. Director Robert Florey’s film is decidedly a horror film, not a mystery.

Having Béla Lugosi in the cast in his first film after Dracula is a surefire way to confirm that you are making/watching a horror film. Reed and Van Every’s clunky dialogue might not do Sidney Fox and Leon Ames any favors, but it is a gift for Lugosi. Lugosi’s heavily accented English typecast him later in his career to mad scientist and vampire roles. Nevertheless, who else could stand there – with a mangled tuft of a wig, a makeup department-applied thick unibrow that appears to barely move, menacing lighting from a low angle – and tell Fox’s Camille (after receiving a gawking from Erik, the ape), “Erik is only human, mademoiselle. He has an eye for beauty,” with incredible conviction? The opening minutes of the film at the sideshow, because of the reordering of the film, are heavily expository and contain the bumpiest writing of the entire film. But Lugosi, with his signature cadence (notice how and when Lugosi uses silence and varies the speed of his phrasing – very few native English speakers naturally speak like that) and his physical acting, presents himself perfectly as the societal outsider – remarkably intelligent, but perhaps mentally unhinged. Lugosi’s performance completely outshines all others in this film. Here, in a magnificent performance, he confirms that his acting ability on display in Dracula was no fluke.

Early Universal Horror of the late silent era and early sound era owes a sizable debt to German Expressionism – a mostly silent film-era movement in German cinema in which filmmakers used distorted and geometrically unrealistic sets to suggest mental tumult and dread. Working alongside editor Milton Carruth (1932’s The Mummy,1943’s Shadow of a Doubt) and production designer Charles D. Hall (1925’s The Phantom of the Opera, 1930’s All Quiet on the Western Front), cinematographer Karl Freund (1924’s The Last Laugh, 1927’s Metropolis) found a team of filmmakers that he could work with to set an aesthetic that could do justice to Murders in the Rue Morgue’s macabre plot.

It also helped that director Robert Florey wanted to make something that looked closer to Robert Wiene’s The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919, Germany) than Dracula. Together, Freund and Florey worked with Hall to achieve a set design that created long shadows and crooked buildings and tents more likely to appear in a nightmare than in nineteenth century Europe. The final chase scene across angular and rickety rooftops used leftover sets from The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923). All this endows Murders in the Rue Morgue with a gruesome atmosphere, oftentimes cloaked in dust and early morning mist.

For Freund and Florey, each saw in the other a kindred spirit in their appreciation of German Expressionism. If they could not achieve just the right shadow, they would instead paint it onto the set itself (painting shadows was commonplace in German Expressionism, but never in Hollywood movies). To achieve the ideal lighting for some of the rooftop or near-rooftop scenes, they shot outdoors, in chilly autumn weather, past midnight – most black-and-white Old Hollywood films, due to technical limitations at the time, shot nighttime scenes inside soundstages. In an era where cameras usually stayed frozen in one place, Freund invented the unchained camera technique, allowing cameras to creep forward into a set rather than relying on a cut to a close-up. Though the unchained camera is not as present here as in other movies involving Freund as cinematographer, it makes the viewer feel as if they are moving alongside the crowd at the carnival, as well as imbuing the audience with a terrible anticipation for what terror lurks around the corner. Freund and Florey’s collaboration was one of like-minded men, with similar influences and goals. In what was their only film together, the two achieve an artistry with few similarities across much of American film history.

Initial reception to Murders in the Rue Morgue was cold, in large part due to the film’s shocking violence and awkward acting. Despite finishing the film under budget, Robert Florey hit the apex of his career with Murders in the Rue Morgue. The disapproval from Universal executives took its toll, and given that Florey was on a one-film contract with the studio, he never returned. The French American director would bounce around studios over the next decade – from Paramount to Warner Bros. back to Paramount to Columbia and back to Warner Bros. – mostly working on inexpensive B-pictures, occasionally making a hit such as The Beast with Five Fingers (1946). Florey spent his later career with television anthologies: Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Four Star Playhouse, and The Twilight Zone.

For Lugosi, Murders in the Rue Morgue was the true first step for the horror film typecasting that he sought to avoid. Once considered by Universal’s executives to be the successor to the late Lon Chaney (The Man of a Thousand Faces passed away in 1930), the failure of Murders in the Rue Morgue among audiences and critics gave Universal pause when it came to extending Lugosi’s original contract. But the early 1930s were Lugosi’s most productive period in films, and they contained his finest, most memorable performances.

In recent decades, the reputation of Murders in the Rue Morgue continues to gradually improve, as do many films that once caused a stir due to their content during the pre-Code years. Awkward supporting actors aside, when one has Béla Lugosi cloaked in the shadows of German Expressionism and the spirit (albeit not so much intentions of the original text) of Edgar Allan Poe, what results is a foreboding work, one worthy to carry Universal’s horror legacy.

My rating: 7/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found in the “Ratings system” page on my blog. Half-points are always rounded down.

For more of my reviews tagged “My Movie Odyssey”, check out the tag of the same name on my blog.

[archoneddzs15]

Super Famicom - Wizardry V - Heart of the Maelstrom

Title: Wizardry V - Heart of the Maelstrom / ウィザードリィV 災渦の中心

Developer: Sir-Tech Software / GAME STUDIO Inc.

Publisher: ASCII Corporation

Release date: 20 November 1992

Catalogue Code: SHVC-W5

Genre: RPG

No. of Players: 1

Despite the greatest magic of the ancient High Sages, great floods, earthquakes, and famine again pervade the great land of Llylgamyn. The great orb of L'Kbreth, an artifact of remarkable power that has protected the city for generations, is powerless to halt the scourge.

The Sages have discovered that the hidden reason is deeper and more frightening than the worst of these disasters. To save the very world as we know it, you and your intrepid party must march headlong into the...Heart of the Maelstrom!

What SFC/SNES RPG could you play that isn't Final Fantasy, Super Mario RPG, or Chrono Trigger that I would recommend? It's Wizardry 5, easily. Published by Capcom in North America, and also released in 1995 as part of the Satellaview service in Japan, the graphical look of Wizardry 5 is very welcoming and much easier on the eyes than the earlier computer versions of the game. Menus in the castle are accompanied by a background picture, making them more interesting to look at. The dungeon walls have textures instead of Apple II-style vector grid lines, so you can see doors and corners from several squares away. Monster sprites are crisp and bright and the shadowy versions of them are a cool feature.

Adding to the game's atmosphere are orchestral-sounding music tracks that let you know where you are in the menus and how deep you are in the dungeons. These music tracks are composed by the late Kentaro Haneda (RIP 1949-2007) and as always, they sound fantastic. So fantastic are his contributions to the soundtrack to the Wizardry world that there are CD albums such as "We Love Wizardry" that contain Sonic Symphony-style orchestrations of the Famicom and SFC Wizardry soundtracks.

The gameplay is extremely faithful to the original versions of the game but with new praiseworthy changes. The control scheme caters well to the lack of a keyboard. You can comfortably press the D-pad to navigate smoothly and select the menu option you want. You no longer need to manually type the name of spells to cast them, you just select them from your spellcaster's battle menu. The pacing in combat is much faster but pay attention to your characters' health points so they don't die without your knowledge.

One major problem with the game, and this only applies to the US version, is that there isn't a proper method of saving your game such as a password or multiple save files on the RAM, which means you can't really correct any mistakes you make in the game, so you'll have no choice but to go along with your losses (works like that in real life). The Japanese version actually supports the ASCII Turbo File and Turbo File 2, which are both game save devices meant to connect to the Famicom. But wait, "How can you connect this to the Super Famicom?" That's what the Turbo File Adapter is for. With this Adapter, you can connect any of the Turbo File devices to the Super Famicom with ease. Also, the US version is censored to adhere to Nintendo America's strict guidelines regarding nudity, religious imagery, and whatnot. The Japanese version is uncensored, so you have text like "sexy woman with a tail" and so on.

The control scheme isn't perfect, because in some places it can make the game drag on a bit longer than you'd like. Pressing forward against a wall will make you bump into it, and you may accidentally repeat that when you meant to close the message box. You always need to remember that the action button opens unlocked doors and not the forward direction. And the down direction spins you around instead of going in reverse. If you practice you can get the hang of the way the controls work.

Overall, Wizardry V got the royal treatment with this Super Famicom port thanks to the wonderful folks at GAME STUDIO Inc. and ASCII. Every element in the game was made with care and attention. D&D and RPG fans are in for a treat, and even young adventurers will like this one. If you've got time to delve down and play a good long number of hours on your Super Famicom, you can never really go wrong with this fifth title in the series. A Nintendo Switch Online re-release would be desirable, so if you find this one, then your adventure has begun.

[mariana-oconnor]

A Case of Identity pt 2

For all the preposterous hat and the vacuous face, there was something noble in the simple faith of our visitor which compelled our respect.

Watson... you're kind of a judgy bitch sometimes, y'know? It's really coming through in this story. I don't know why all the modern adaptations choose to make Holmes the rude one when clearly Watson's the one you really need to watch out for.

"Quite an interesting study, that maiden," he observed. "I found her more interesting than her little problem, which, by the way, is rather a trite one.

I know that Mary Sutherland is a fictional character, but in a Watsonian reading, she's going to have to live in a world where people read all these descriptions of her and her problem. I should try to avoid thinking of that.

I can never bring you to realise the importance of sleeves, the suggestiveness of thumb-nails, or the great issues that may hang from a boot-lace.

Ah yes, thumbnails, the most suggestive of body parts. Be careful posting a picture of them on Tumblr, your post will be automatically flagged as mature content!

She had small round, hanging gold earrings, and a general air of being fairly well-to-do in a vulgar, comfortable, easy-going way.

Seriously, Watson, you're publishing this. Stop being a dick about it. We get it, you don't think much of her appearance. My dude.

"'Pon my word, Watson, you are coming along wonderfully. You have really done very well indeed. It is true that you have missed everything of importance, but you have hit upon the method, and you have a quick eye for color."

Aw, Holmes is proud. Albeit in the same way of a parent of a toddler presented with a picture of an unidentifiable blob made of different colours. 'Oh, what lovely colours, Watson. It's lovely. You're really coming along well!'

The double line a little above the wrist, where the typewritist presses against the table, was beautifully defined. The sewing-machine, of the hand type, leaves a similar mark, but only on the left arm, and on the side of it farthest from the thumb, instead of being right across the broadest part, as this was. I then glanced at her face, and, observing the dint of a pince-nez at either side of her nose, I ventured a remark upon short sight and typewriting, which seemed to surprise her.

Ah yes, the explanation. Sherlock showing off. But I do enjoy these bits.

though the boots which she was wearing were not unlike each other, they were really odd ones; the one having a slightly decorated toe-cap, and the other a plain one

I have actually done this before. I want through an entire day of work with odd boots on and only realised when I looked down at my feet on the train on the way home. The heels were pretty much the same size, and they were both black and zipped up, in my defence, but it was still pretty bad. That was about where the similarities ended. Very embarrassing and I still have no idea how I did it. I don't even know if anyone noticed, though. Certainly no one at work mentioned it. But were they just being polite?

Holmes would have a field day, I guess.

You observed that her right glove was torn at the forefinger, but you did not apparently see that both glove and finger were stained with violet ink.

And I thought you said he had a good eye for colour, Holmes? Were you lying? Were you just humouring him?

"My dear fellow, is it possible you do not see how strongly it bears upon the case?"

I'm pretty sure Watson is the only one at this point who does not know what's going on.

The only drawback is that there is no law, I fear, that can touch the scoundrel.

And as far as I'm aware, there still isn't. Technically, as they didn't get married, no crime was enacted. Her promise isn't legally binding. It's definitely abuse, but I don't think there are technically any laws broken as the subterfuge was performed not to get money, but to prevent them from no longer getting her money.

a bland, insinuating manner

Just the wording of this makes my skin crawl a bit. I think it's the word insinuating, a very snake-like word.

It was quite against my wishes that she came, but she is a very excitable, impulsive girl, as you may have noticed, and she is not easily controlled when she has made up her mind on a point.

Classic moves: discredit the character of the abuse victim. Oh, she's so excitable, so impulsive. You don't want to listen to her, it's all a flight of fancy, Mr Holmes. Such a silly woman.

"We do all our correspondence with this machine at the office, and no doubt it is a little worn," our visitor answered, glancing keenly at Holmes with his bright little eyes.

Laying the groundwork for reasonable doubt. This man is a piece of work. Also, Watson's judgy descriptions are working for me this time. So close to 'beady little eyes'.

Mr Windibank sprang out of his chair and picked up his hat. "I cannot waste time over this sort of fantastic talk, Mr Holmes," he said. "If you can catch the man, catch him, and let me know when you have done it."

Mr Windibank, sir. You know the jig is up. Give up already!

"Certainly," said Holmes, stepping over and turning the key in the door. "I let you know, then, that I have caught him!" "What! Where?" shouted Mr Windibank, turning white to his lips and glancing about him like a rat in a trap.

One thing that can be said for Mr Windibank is that he really does commit to the bit. I have zero respect for him as a human being, and honestly, it's absolutely destroying his dignity, but he is committed. He is seeing this through? Hosmer Angel? He has never met the man. No idea what you're talking about.

But between ourselves, Windibank, it was as cruel and selfish and heartless a trick in a petty way as ever came before me.

Yep. You can say that again.

Holmes stuck his feet up on the corner of the mantelpiece and, leaning back with his hands in his pockets, began talking, rather to himself, as it seemed, than to us.

He stuck his feet on the mantelpiece? Sir. That is too high up. Sir... How is that comfortable? The mantelpiece? Seriously Sherlock?

With the connivance and assistance of his wife he disguised himself

Ah, there it is. Her mother did know too. I actually dislike her mother more. Doing that to your daughter is just... ugh. Like yes, yes, evil stepfather was the mastermind and main agent of the enterprise, but to assist in it. With your own daughter. Ugh ugh ugh. That's despicable. I hope Mary cuts her off forever.

"The law cannot, as you say, touch you," said Holmes, unlocking and throwing open the door, "yet there never was a man who deserved punishment more. If the young lady has a brother or a friend, he ought to lay a whip across your shoulders. By Jove!" he continued, flushing up at the sight of the bitter sneer upon the man's face, "it is not part of my duties to my client, but here's a hunting crop handy, and I think I shall just treat myself to—"

This is very satisfying to read. Also grateful that Holmes agrees with me on this point. Although I think Mary should be allowed a whip... as a treat.

"That fellow will rise from crime to crime until he does something very bad, and ends on a gallows."

I like how certain Holmes is that Windibank isn't going to be a better person.

Then the fact that the two men were never together, but that the one always appeared when the other was away, was suggestive.

Just like thumbnails.

"And Miss Sutherland?"

"If I tell her she will not believe me. You may remember the old Persian saying, 'There is danger for him who taketh the tiger cub, and danger also for whoso snatches a delusion from a woman.' There is as much sense in Hafiz as in Horace, and as much knowledge of the world."

This is not satisfying. I remembered the solution to the problem, but I didn't remember that he just got away with it. Mary's just going to... do exactly what Windibank wanted? And keep living with her odious mother and her abusive stepfather? I do not vibe with this. I do not vibe with this at all. Not even a note from Watson to say that Windibank did indeed hang from the gallows for a future crime and Mary Sutherland got away?

I find myself longing for the equinoctial gales to drop a ship on his house (when Mary is elsewhere).

Horrible people committing horrible, immoral acts that cannot be stopped. This whole story is like a layer of scum on top of water, it's such insidious, cold-hearted petty evil. Mary Sutherland deserves better.

Honestly, I hope she (in universe) did read this story and gtfo.

[revjohnobryon]

RWRB: The Movie

Even before RWRB started climbing the bestseller lists back in 2019, the word was out: this one is going to be big! So Hollywood studios immediately began clamoring for movie rights, which Amazon Prime won in a sealed-bid auction. We fans then filled the internet with suggested cast lists—I was going to say, “none of which even came close to naming the actors eventually chosen, especially the principal leads.” But then a friend reminded me that he had actually suggested Rachel Hilson as Nora from the start, and (don’t read this next bit, Nick and Taylor), “I also had some great suggestions for Alex and Henry, which would have been perfect if they had gone for younger actors closer to the ages the novel specifies.” I sit corrected.

Meanwhile, we settled in to wait for an announcement that the movie was starting production, with a fervor unmatched by even the most rabid fans of the Left Behind series looking for the Second Coming. And we waited … and we waited … and we waited. First-time director Matthew Lopez, a Tony award-winning playwright who also wrote most of the script, seemed to be taking his sweet old time casting the film (though I suspect that once Nicholas Galitzine threw his hat into the ring to play Henry, no one else was even considered). And there matters sat. It didn’t take quite as long to start filming as Jesus has taken to return, but at times, it sure felt like it.

Then, with a rustling of angels’ wings and a blast from golden trumpets, the announcement came: the film had been completely cast and shooting was about to begin! Aside from the two leads, Matthew gave few particulars about who was playing whom, and almost no candid shots of scenes being filmed showed up on the web. There was a bit of flack when Rachel Hilson was announced as Nora, because of the book’s only Jewish character becoming Black. And when Queen Elizabeth II happened to die three weeks after principal shooting ended, people began speculating about the possibility of Matthew being psychic, since he had chosen to replace the novel’s Queen Mary with King James III. Obviously, it didn’t take Madame Cleo to predict that a 96-year-old lady might not survive much longer and that a male monarch would occupy the throne by the time of the movie’s premiere. But in the midst of all the mystery surrounding the film, we needed to talk about something.

Then shortly after shooting wrapped, Nicholas Galitzine was asked how faithful the movie was going to be to the novel. Somewhat nervously, I imagine (he later confessed in an interview with GQ that he never actually finished reading it, so no doubt he was a bit hazy about details), he cautioned us not to expect a carbon copy of the novel, but instead to treat the two as “entirely separate.” He then added, “I just hope that people will think of this as a fun movie.”

Sorry, Nick. RWRB is not a fun movie. Yes, like the novel, it is funny in spots (and Matthew’s script, which I felt actually improved on some of CMQ’s lines, is also remarkably faithful to the original in its general outline and inclusion of certain iconic scenes—far more than most movie adaptations). But the film is mainly concerned with serious issues, and aside from occasional lapses into preachiness, it treats these issues with sincerity, tenderness, and genuine feeling. And this is in no small part due to the performance of Nicholas Galitzine himself.

I find Nick Galitzine to be one of the most amazingly attractive human beings I have ever seen. It’s not just because of his handsome face; my admiration springs from his obvious innate decency, his endearingly goofy sense of humor, and his undeniable talent. There was no need for him to admit that he never finished the book—it’s not like we could have checked—but when asked, he told the truth, because he is an honest man. When the writer from GQ whispered that some other diners at the restaurant where they were meeting were getting irritated because Nick was being too noisy, he immediately got up on his crutches (he had chipped a bone in his ankle in an accident on the set of his latest project, Mary and George) and tottered over to apologize, an all-too rare example of consideration and good manners in this post-Trump world. When teased about his habit of calling everyone “mate” and hailing them as if they were long-lost BFF’s, Nick replied with a laugh, “Everyone is my friend—I’m just very excited to see them! I’m very enthusiastic!” I’m sure that truer words were never spoken.

Though Henry was easy to cast, the hunt for Alex took rather longer, because Matthew was searching for someone who demonstrated just the right chemistry with Nick. Then a thirty-year-old actor named Taylor Zakhar Perez put himself forward (too old, I would have thought, to play the 21-year-ol Alex; plus, at 6’2”, he was actually two inches taller than Nick, and CMQ had made a major plot point out of Henry’s superior height). But when Nick and Taylor first met, Matthew was called away for a few minutes, and he came back to find them talking nineteen to the dozen like they were old friends. At that moment, Matthew knew he had found his Alex. The possible objections were easily dealt with (Alex is no longer a college senior, but instead is now in law school, so he could easily be in his mid-twenties; and clever camera angles make Nick look taller. The script also creates a running joke out of Alex continually insisting that Henry cannot possibly be 6’2” as his fact sheet claims; and when they’re standing side-by side, Henry accuses Alex of wearing lifts.  Alex’s look of confused dismay makes us actually wonder). They are perfectly matched, and the result is screen magic.

I found Taylor to be a complete revelation. His last movie had been a quickly-forgotten (luckily for him) bomb called One Up, in which Taylor’s lines were mostly restricted to comments like, “No, girls can’t join our team! Girls can never compete with men in the field of …” (wait for it) “competitive gaming!” Huh? We’re not talking about professional wrestling or weight-lifting—we’re talking about computer games. Moreover, countless studies have shown that women’s reflexes are quicker than men’s, their brains are proportionately larger, and that men’s only real superiority is upper body strength. I thought that such ignorant sexism as Taylor’s character in One Up conveys was a thing of the past, but in a world where women can lose the right to control their own bodies at the stroke of a pen, maybe not.

Though Taylor has never before played so major a part (that I’m aware of), he acquits himself admirably here. From the moment Alex tries to persuade Nora to ditch the reception and “go do touristy things,” the role of Alex is obviously in just the right hands. As it turns out, Nora might have done well to accept Alex’s suggestion, because he gets drunk at the reception and manages to create an international incident. And I must say, I very much enjoyed Henry and Alex’s interaction at the reception. Not only was I finally able to visualize the exact sequence of events leading to the disaster with the cake; I loved Henry’s fury at Alex’s dismissal of the proper use of titles (more about this below). It may make Henry look like a snobbish prig (which is certainly how Alex sees him), but Henry doesn’t care what Alex thinks. It also shows just how far Alex can goad him. For a royal, displaying such fury is even worse than making a scene, because royals are supposed to smother their feelings and appear cool, calm, and collected, no matter how trying the circumstances. Alex may be the first person who has ever been so lippy with Henry, and he really gets under Henry’s skin by doing so. (Which he will later do in a much more literal manner ….)

Which leads me to the BIG question we all wondered about: did Nick and Taylor’s offscreen friendship translate into SIZZLING sex onscreen? Well—no. And that’s fine by me. Any time I want to watch porn, there are any number of sites I could visit (or—ahem—so they tell me). Instead, these sex scenes give us poetry—aching, tender, romantic, and beautiful, allowing us the chance to peek into the depth of the characters’ intimacy, something made possible only by the actors’ consummate artistry. (Sorry—I couldn’t resist that one.)

Their first sexual interaction happens at the New Year’s Eve party, where they spend the entire evening talking and laughing together in a way that completely excludes everyone else. But then while everyone is sharing kisses at midnight (and several beautiful women make a beeline for Alex), Alex notices the (unkissed) Henry staring at him, heartbreak writ large on his face. Henry grabs a magnum of champagne and disappears, so Alex tracks him into the frozen Rose Garden. Critics have commented that this scene is detectably CGI, but come on, people—the movie was filmed during the summer, and it’s not like they were going to fly cast and crew to South America for a true wintry landscape. Besides, the actors’ talent made them look cold, which more than met the needs of the scene.

The ensuing kiss is straight out of CMQ, and I thought Alex’s reaction to Henry’s grab-and-smooch is particularly good. At first he seems startled (though not shocked), but then he plainly starts getting into it. It is Henry who breaks away, with a look of shock and terror as he realizes what he has just done. Without a single word, Nick is able to show us exactly what Henry must be thinking: Oh, my God! I let the mask slip—again! How does this bloke always make me do exactly what I was brought up not to do—expose myself by showing my real feelings? Christ! I need to get out of here!

Now it’s up to Taylor to show Alex’s reaction to the incident. In the movie, he seems not to feel much more than mild surprise, and a vague curiosity about whether Henry might be gay. But in the book, Alex goes into full-on gay crisis mode because of his body’s immediate reaction, and he develops even more of an all-consuming obsession with Henry. CMQ devotes twenty pages to this issue, one which all LGBT’s must eventually face (and twenty pages is actually getting off easy—in my case, accepting my bisexuality took decades). But since the movie’s Alex readily acknowledges his male lovers, enjoying Henry’s kiss isn’t an issue for him at all. The only complication he now faces is coming out to his parents, though I’m sure they figured out that their son was bisexual long ago.

Then comes the White House dinner and the Red Room scene, after which Alex orders Henry to “come to my room at midnight, where I am going to do very bad things to you.” My aforementioned friend (the one with the cast list) points out that Henry unbuttons Alex’s shirt and begins kissing down his chest and stomach, and Alex leans back with a look of gratified pleasure, but then at the end of the scene, Henry is still fully dressed. (Didn’t Alex reciprocate?) Henry then invites Alex to a polo match back in the UK, at which we see the guys kissing and Alex pushing Henry onto his back and reaching down to remove Henry’s belt, and … that’s as graphic as it gets. Matthew rightly protested the movie’s “R” rating, since aside from a couple of f-bombs and a brief shot of Taylor’s bare backside, that’s it. An “R” rating? I suspect that it’s studio nervousness about a potential homophobic reaction, and if the execs are that squeamish, why did they buy the movie rights in the first place?

The final sex scene is extremely well done. Henry begins by telling Alex that he wants to make love to him, to which Alex uncomfortably replies, “Make love? Who says that anymore?” Well, maybe Henry didn’t want to scare you off,  Alex, by using the same words as he does in the book: “Please—I need you to fuck me.” But obviously, Alex intuits that this is exactly what Henry wants, because Alex says nervously, “Um—I’ve never—” to which Henry smiles and says, “Don’t worry—I went to an English boys’ boarding school,” which is a far more likely scenario for Henry to have been initiated into gay sex than a virginal 17-year-old Henry being seduced by one of his older brother’s friends.

The two lovers gaze at each other, and then they gently, almost reverently, begin to touch. It made me think of times at night when my wife and I are in bed, and I look at her asleep on the next pillow, and I touch her in exactly this way. My heart feels like it will burst, and wonder floods me as I realize that this woman, whom I have loved for all these years, actually loves me back. Can the human heart ever experience anything more wonderful than such a realization? The same knowledge shines out of the men’s eyes in this scene—I love him, and he loves me. Then the touching becomes more intense, and as the scene progresses, without a single word or sound, Nick conveys the exact moment when Taylor seemingly enters him, and precisely when the pain of initial penetration tips over into pleasure. I’ll say it again: this guy is amazing. Ever since I first started watching Nick’s movies, I have said that he can communicate more in ten seconds of silence than other actors can manage in a two-page monologue, and that is exactly what he does here. (And he still has no acting awards? I mean, really?)

Alex acknowledges to himself that making love is exactly what he has been doing with Henry all along, but by trying to share this realization he only succeeds in scaring Henry off. Henry begins deflecting every time Alex brings up their future together, a future which Henry believes to be impossible. Alex tells him, “I want to see you at a barbecue stand with sauce smeared all over your mouth, so I can lick it off,” to which Henry replies, “Don’t they have napkins in Texas?” Alex begins talking about spending time together after the election, when “we can be naked all day, and walk down the street holding hands” (presumably after they’ve put some clothes on). I loved watching Taylor’s face as he nervously suggests their eventually going public, and tries to make his declaration of love. And (as always), Nick perfectly conveys Henry’s troubled emotions, as Henry cuts Alex off by jumping into the lake. The fear on Henry’s face as he submerges himself in the water is a perfect visual metaphor for the doubts and terrors in which he is drowning.

And make no mistake—these fears are well-grounded, and very real. Henry was born into a world where nothing matters more than hierarchy and the strict rules which govern it—thus his insistence that Alex address him correctly as “Your Royal Highness” rather than “Your Majesty,�� a title reserved the monarch alone. Priggish? Pretentious? Maybe—but take away the outward forms which maintain this artificial world, and who is Henry? And if Henry insists on being himself and steps outside the royal system, the punishment will be both immediate and severe.

Prince Harry and his wife were still newlyweds expecting their first baby while CMQ was writing the novel. No one could have predicted that the devil’s bargain between the Palace and the media (which always demands a villainous royal to skewer before they publish praise about a more important one) would lead to the vicious unpopularity Meghan Markle currently suffers. The written abuse heaped upon her (greatly assisted by social media) became so severe that she firmly believes it led directly to the loss of their second child. So they felt they had to flee the country if they were going to save their marriage and their family.

But as Prince Harry describes in his memoir, Spare, they soon discovered that for doing so, within twenty-four hours of their arrival in this hemisphere, his funds were cut off and they were officially evicted from both their royal residences. The very next morning, his security detail was taken away, leaving them homeless and unprotected in a world of crazy stalkers (from whom Meghan had been receiving death threats) and intrusive paparazzi. Harry also found that a private security firm would cost him roughly six million dollars a year, which would soon eat up every penny his mother had left him. Fortunately for Harry and Meghan, friends stepped into the breach to help them, but except for a very few, his family has turned on him with silent fury and stony faces ever since. Even Prince Andrew, convicted of molesting an underage female and who must register as a sex offender anywhere he goes for the rest of his life, got more generous treatment than this. All Harry did was put his love for his wife and children above royal duty, but for doing so he has been cast into the outer darkness. And for the sin of claiming his own right to fall in love with a brown-skinned American, Henry knows he would suffer the same fate.

But RWRB is a fairy tale, so of course everything works out fine in the end. The election which Alex’s forced outing has put into doubt ends with Ellen’s victory due to a strategy devised by Alex himself. Despite intense pressure from the royal family, Henry insists on staying with Alex and acknowledging their true feelings for each other, and the entire world rallies around them. It is a triumph for love and tolerance over “the stifling suffocation of heteronormative conformity.” (I wish I didn’t have to put that line into quotation marks, but no one who knows me would ever believe that I had come up with such an erudite and well-turned phrase on my own.)

I enjoyed the film immensely. I thought the actors were top-drawer, as was Matthew’s adaptation and direction. So what didn’t I like? The watering-down of the certain characters for one, but above all, the elimination of others, especially Alex’s sister June. Please bear with me, though, because I think I have a glimmer of understanding as to why Matthew might have done this. And with his love for the book, I am sure that he did not arrive at his decisions lightly.

Let’s start with the character of Nora. In the book, she is someone “with a computer for a brain” who adopts the online persona of “a depressed lesbian poet who meets a hot yoga instructor in a speakeasy and is now marketing her own line of hand thrown fruit bowls.” But in the film, she becomes little more than a walk-on, and her brilliant, prickly presence gets watered down into a warm and loving sister surrogate (necessary since June got axed—why include June when Nora can function for both?).  Now that Nora is Alex’s supportive older sister, obviously there’s no hint of their past relationship from the book, in which “they just had to fuck to get it out of the way.” And without June, there’s also no need for a lesbian subplot. In the process, almost all of Nora’s spunkiness gets lost, and once the reception scene and the discussion with Alex about Henry’s New Year’s Eve kiss are over, she has nothing much to do but smile from the sidelines as she pairs up with Pez (who is also reduced to almost nothing—Henry’s incredibly wealthy, highly amusing and sexually ambiguous best friend barely has two lines). By reducing these characters, the movie loses the interest they both bring (Nora in particular).

This sort of character reduction is not limited to Nora and Pez. Many remaining characters get sanitized as well, if not entirely deleted. The abrasive Zahra who threatens to “staple Alex’s dick to his leg if it’ll keep it in his pants” morphs into a wisecracker who serves the essential function of calling Alex to account and dealing out the discipline he so obviously requires, but who always remains a friend. She thereby becomes much more likable—I loved the original character, but I used to wonder how someone so rude could have made it so far in politics—but in the process she becomes much more bland, and we lose most of her salty, prickly humor.

The salty-tongued Ellen, who sometimes uses her children as props and who ruthlessly cuts Alex loose when he threatens to become a campaign liability, gentles down into mere exasperated bossiness when dealing with her only child, and in the process becomes a fairly minor character. She shows none of the grit and determination that would have led her from her mother’s bar all the way to the White House. She is also still married to Alex’s father, Oscar Diaz, who has morphed from an important California senator into an undistinguished Congressman whose speeches everyone (but Alex) ignores. With Oscar and Ellen still together, the character of June loses one more necessary function: supporting and protecting Alex in the wake of their parents’ divorce, as well as her habit of challenging him for the behavior she believes may be fallout from Alex’s still-conflicting loyalties to his warring parents. But in the movie, the only hint of conflict between Mom and Dad is Oscar asking his son not to tell his mother that Oscar has been smoking out on the Truman Balcony.

And then there’s Rafael Luna. His abrasive, mentoring character gets deleted entirely, and his seeming betrayal (which causes Alex such agonized soul-searching) gets replaced with actual betrayal by a shifty investigative reporter. Luna goes undercover to expose a sexual predator and to prevent such a person from entering the White House (if only there had been this sort of double agent on the Trump campaign!). But in the movie, the guys get outed because a reporter named Miguel, a former lover of Alex’s, becomes jealous when Henry and Alex go off together at the DNC. I loved the cameo by Joy Reid (as I also loved the cameos by Rachel Maddow—and Matthew, while you were at it, why didn’t you also get Steve Kornacki?) as she pushes the reporter to explain why he had done such an underhanded thing. With all the hypocrisy and smug sanctimoniousness typical of his breed, the reporter gives a BS answer about “the public’s right, and need, to know such things about the people they elect,” which Joy immediately challenges by pointing out that (a) Alex has not been elected to anything, and (b) he has a perfect right to keep his private life just that—private.

So why did Matthew make all these changes? I think it may be for one simple reason: anyone adapting a novel for the screen must first identify the elements that made the original so popular, and, since we’re talking Hollywood, those which are also the most marketable. Every word must somehow advance the main storyline, and all subplots that distract from it must be ruthlessly eliminated. Multiple characters get condensed into one who can represent them all. There has to be a conflict engineered by the villain of the piece, but the elaborate undercover plot organized by the Richards campaign would have taken too much screen time. So it gets replaced by one which might be summarized in ten words: “Hell hath no fury like that of a lover scorned.” Of course, in a romcom, the screenplay must finally lead to a happy ending, and here we get two: in England, the lovers wave to an adoring public from the Buckingham Palace balcony; and in the US, Ellen finds out that she’s been reelected even as she and Zahra are composing her concession speech. Then Ellen, Oscar, Alex, and Henry wave at adoring supporters cheering Ellen’s victory.

RWRB the novel is only marginally a romcom; it is really a coming-of-age story, its message one of self-acceptance through self-awareness. This is what makes it so wildly popular among the YA audience at whom it is aimed, since adolescence is the time when the struggle to know and acknowledge who we really are is the most difficult. Just before the election, Nora tells Alex that he has no reason to be afraid of people’s reactions to his bisexuality; all he has to do to cement his popularity is to “Be Alex.” It’s good advice for all of us: difficult though it often is, our only real path to a full and productive life is by knowing and accepting ourselves as we are. And as a wise woman once told me, being yourself is a lot easier than being anyone else.

But self-acceptance is a particularly thorny issue for LGBT’s, even if our mothers are liberal Democrats like Ellen Claremont and our fathers are “patron saints of unisex bathrooms” like Oscar Diaz. As members of the culture into which we are born, from our very first awareness we know that there is something different about us. Something which our society teaches us is loathsome and contemptible, and which will inevitably lead to our eternal damnation. This is a pretty tough concept to handle, and we’re forced to confront it even before we enter preschool. But it’s not an issue the movie chooses to address: instead, it focuses on almost exclusively the developing romance between the two principals. This shoves the film’s entire weight onto Nick and Taylor, but fortunately these young men both have broad shoulders, and their talent is more than able to carry it. That talent also keeps us rooting for their characters’ happy ending, and if some characters and most of the subplots get cut, well, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

So. Do I love the book RWRB? Of course I do—and how I wish it had been around when I was struggling with my issues as a young bisexual man in the 1970’s, since it would have saved me years of shame and pointless suffering. I would then have been much more ready for my own happy ending when Bobbie eventually entered my life. And do I love the movie RWRB? I totally do—I’m always up for a romance, and that is what Matthew, Nick, and Taylor have given us. In some ways, I actually prefer the movie (even though I know that saying this may lead to the RWRB police showing up at my doorstep to confiscate my “History, Huh?” T-shirt). You see, there’s one big problem with publishing a book with such a current, up-to-the-minute feel and format: it quickly becomes about as glossy and stylish as last year’s slang, and so when the Commemorative Edition came out in 2022, I found it curiously dated (the best part, for me, was its illustrations by Venessa Kelley). I think the movie will age a lot better, because with only minor alterations, it could be adjusted to almost any era—it’s not tied nearly so closely as is the book to the Gen Z / Millennial generation.

But to love both book and film, one has to accept the essential correctness of Nick’s original analysis: they are two separate entities, or, if you will, two sides of the same coin. One side is self-awareness and self-acceptance eventually leading to true love, and the other is true love which can only be enjoyed by reconciling societal expectations with personal integrity. So I find the book and the movie equally wonderful, just different. And I treasure them both.

[regarding-stories]

Reading the books: "My Youth Romantic Comedy is wrong, as I expected."

What takes 15 days? Correct! Reading the 14 main line novels of "My Youth Romantic Comedy is wrong, as I expected." and the Volume 14.5 short story collection. What a ride...

What I definitely can say: The anime series was extremely faithful to the books. When you stick to the mainline and omit the short stories, you would mostly miss out on one thing. The best thing!

Hachiman Hikigaya's endless inner monologue!!

Good lord, this boy has issues. He's overly in his own head, makes lots of assumptions, is too smart for his own good, and too clueless. I just love it.

Gazing into the abyss with rotten eyes

Writing a series completely or almost completely from the point of view of its protagonist, basically mostly from his stream of consciousness, has of course its own set of challenges. Luckily it's not plain stream of consciousness but also scene setting and descriptions of the other people's actions, and a lot of the fun of the series derives from contrasting Hikki's assumptions and interpretations with your own.

It's also frustrating... (Also, spoilers, I guess.)

And late in the series I was asking myself, if the boy had any connection to his feelings at all. Author Wataru Watari has a habit of hiding the obvious, and so our main characters beat around the bush to the very last. I did get a tad annoying. But I'm getting ahead of myself...

What actually works quite well is the evolutionary change we see in Hachiman over the series. The way he thinks about people changes subtly and continuously. In the beginning he even calls the ever-lovely Yui Yuigahama a "ho" and a "slut" to her face. Hardly charming!! This is one of the moments one has to endure, proof of Hachiman's resentment towards the world after having been ostracized for so long, his hate for "normies." And on the surface, Yui is the uber-normie, the adaptable, the one willing to change for the sake of popularity - something Hachiman cannot abide with. Initially.

It paves the ground, however, for enjoying all the deeper the kindness Hikki displays in his thoughts later on towards Yui, or how highly he thinks of her in the end. (Though not of her lack of book smarts which he confuses for intelligence.)

While we're at it, Hikkitani's eyes gaze upon a few other things. I was remarking in my original post about the anime series how refreshingly low on male gaze it was. Well, our protagonist is male, and he occasionally compares bust sizes... not in the most charming way, either. However, it's neither permanently so nor done unconvincingly. We did enter the mind of a male teen, after all. In reality, we would have been bound to find much worse things there, after all... Of which we get one hint, really. (I will not tell.)

An almost unbroken stream...

What we also get is a lot of Hachiman's thoughts about his boy crush Saika Totsuka. Which is endlessly hilarious in all its bi-confusion. The scenarios unfolding in his mind without filter - I can't tire of them.

However, for the first 11 volumes we are home alone inside the head of our anti-hero. The last three, however, mix things up a bit. Labeled as "Interludes" there are scenes that take place without Hachiman, written from the view of another character. With Volume 14 we also get a multi-installment "Prelude" that features the scene between Yui and Yukino we didn't get a detailed glimpse of at the end of Volume 13.

What's annoying here is the tendency of omitting part of the dialogue and only describing it vaguely. We can infer that Yukino admits her love for Hachiman to Yui - whispered in her ear. Because that's what Yui knew all along but didn't want to hear. And we get Yui admitting the same to Yukino - that she's in love with Hachiman - but again it's not spelled out. We all know. But for some silly reason it's not spelled out.

Another central interlude is earlier when Yui discovers Yukinon's hidden treasure. Behind the stuffed Grue bear Hachiman got her, her hidden image of holding on to him on Splash Mountain. (Which hasn't been quite accurately transcribed into pictures.)

These scenes are necessary to understand everybody's actions for the complex ending. To understand why Yukinoshita seems to reject Hachiman and send him towards Yuigahama. To understand why Yui will in the end ask if it really feels alright and prompts her Hikki's final bid... towards the other girl. And why they all can remain together after. It also reveals Yui's mature side, her high degree of emotional intelligence, and her deep understanding fo and love for others.

We also get a bit into the head of Iroha Isshiki, Yukino and Haruno Yukinoshita, Hayato Hayama, and even Komachi Hikigaya. And a bit more of that if you read the final volume, 14.5. But the star of these scenes will always be Yui, the glue that holds them all together at the end - at great pain.

But in Volume 14 we get maybe the most convincing thing of all, something that I needed after seeing Hikki's indecisiveness for so long. He sums it up like this:

"I wish it had been a simpler kind of feeling. If it had been ordinary love or yearning, then I'm sure I wouldn't have felt so intensely. I wouldn't feel like this only happened once in a lifetime."

This is during Hachiman's confession. He says he wasn't struggling so much with being in love or a crush. What took him so long was figuring out a very complex feeling. (The passage is longer.) He's apparently able to discern between teenager hormones and the fact how well suited he is to be with this particular person, and how important that is to the other - to be seen, understood, and be loved at a deeper level. But the complexity is also discerning it from the love he already feels - like he would for Yui.

Other things you get from the books

One of the best things about the books besides Totsuka fantasies is the ability to read Iroha's terribly revealing rejections to Hachiman, each of them escalating over the previous one, getting ever more like invitations to ask her out just not right now. And her increasing complaints that he doesn't listen at all when she says them.

Also Irohasu's merciless teasing is best paced in the books. And Hachiman's opinion of her. These two would have chemistry for sure. It's just that this particular protagonist was made from the beginning for a particular heroine, and that's what I find so convincing about this series' narrative.

Sadly volume 14.5 only treats us to only one date between Yukino and Hachiman. I was hoping for more, but I take what I get. Even on their one month anniversary they're still all blushing smiles and red ears, but at the same time Yukino is already setting out a common future. Very cute.

If you want a real treat, however, search the internet. There are several anthology volumes filled with content mostly by other authors borrowing the characters - but also the short story "Thus A New Enemy Appears Before Him" from the anthology called "Yukino's Side" written by Wataru Watari himself. It has been translated by fans - I couldn't find a way to buy an actual English translation for any of this. The short story, however, is told from the vantage of Yukino's dad - his perceptions of the three highly intelligent women in his life and how they establish facts for him. The eternal struggle of the future father-in-law is real! The way he finds out that his youngest has a boyfriend had me in stitches. Also, Yukino's mom is on her game the whole time. Basically him mostly watching as his wife, Haruno, and Yukino interact is ... priceless.

[calamitys-child]

This is actually a remarkably book faithful adaptation so far

[sceneohscene]

Dancing with the Stars

Chapter 7: Freestyle

On Monday morning, after Donna had already been practicing the pro dance for an hour, she saw Harvey enter the studio, and his arrogant walk was enough to make her melt. After tossing his things onto the floor next to hers, he approached, placed a tender kiss on her cheek, and whispered in his deep, sexy voice.

« Did you sleep here? »

« What? »

« Well, it's eight o'clock, and you're already in the studio »

« Oh, well, I spent the weekend rehearsing for the pro dance with everyone. I was just enjoying finally having some time to myself to practice »

« Oh, yeah, right. I sometimes forget you work weekends for those pro things too »

« Exactly. So, how was your weekend? »

« Good. I spent most of it thinking about you. Other than that, it was fine »

« Oh, please » snorted Donna.

« What? » chuckled Harvey.

« Stop that »

« Alright, never mind then »

As they both laughed at the footballer’s behavior, they took their usual moment before each training session to stretch and discuss what they wanted to focus on. While the dances from previous weeks had already been assigned, this time, Harvey was about to discover something new.

« So? What's the theme for the week? »

« Freestyle »

« Freestyle? »

« Yeah »

« Like 90's hip hop or something? »

« No, not at all » giggled the redhead.

« Alright, I'm listening then »

« II get why you thought freestyle meant hip hop, but actually, it’s a term we use to say there are no rules »

« I like that »

« Harvey — Anyway, there are no rules in the sense that the contestants can choose any dance style, nothing is imposed on us, and we’re not limited in terms of movements or what we choose »

« That's a good thing »

« Yeah »

« So? Do you already have an idea? »

« Well, I thought this time we could think about it together »

« Together? But you're the dancer »

« Sure, but this weekend, I was thinking about what we could dance, and as I reflected on it, I realized that dancing in pairs is about considering each other’s strengths and weaknesses, playing with that, and adapting. Since the competition is getting tougher and the level is narrowing, I thought we could use both our strengths to create the choreography. »

« That's an excellent idea, Donna »

« So, for you, I think one of your advantages is that — » 

« I’m hotter than hell » smirked the athlete.

« I was going to say your strength and agility, but okay »

As they both laughed, even though Harvey's remark was cringe-worthy and overplayed, they couldn't help but feel their hearts race, so comfortable and at ease with each other until the moment passed and the redhead continued speaking.

« As for me, I would say— »

« Ballet »

As Harvey interrupted her, she looked at him with wide eyes, slightly surprised by his interruption, then whispered softly.

« What? »

« The first time I saw you dancing, it was an Instagram video where you were doing ballet. You’re an amazing dancer, I think I’ve told you that enough, but ballet — you’re more than incredible. The way you move and carry yourself is so natural and graceful. That’s the style you should dance on Friday if we want to stay in the competition. Ballet »

« Oh, um, that’s nice »

« It's the truth, Donna »

« But Harvey, don’t take this the wrong way, but you don’t have the build for ballet at all. It requires delicacy and lightness, and you’re a footballer — totally the opposite. You’re more… brutal and bulky, that’s not going to work »

« On the contrary. You’ve seen me dance for weeks now, I can surprise you, so I’m sure we can surprise the audience and the judges too »

« I don't know »

« There’s a lot of lifting in ballet, right? »

« Yeah »

« Well, I can already do that, and for the rest, we’ll manage. Do you trust me? »

She couldn’t explain why, but she had blind faith in him. Even though it was risky, just on the edge of the quarter-finals, she wanted them to push themselves. So she nodded as he moved closer to her before speaking.

« Alright, show me some videos. Let’s see what we can do »

Read more