#like what do you mean an actual Known Actor is gonna be on this niche reality tv project

[white-weasel]

UK version of The Genius save me!! UK version of The Genius! Save me UK version of The Genius

[davidmann95]

Superman & Lois Pilot Script Review

I’ve been reliably informed that absence makes the heart grow fonder, and indeed as my laptop and everything on it have been unusable for a couple months after a mishap, I went from ‘maybe I’ll write something on the pilot script for Superman & Lois’ to ‘as soon as I can get my hands back on that thing I’m writing something up’. I’m actually surprised none of you folks asked about it when I’ve mentioned several times that I read it; I was initially hesitant, but I’ve seen folks discussing plot details on Twitter and their reactions on here, so I guess WB isn’t making much of a thing out of it. Entire pilots have leaked before and they just rolled with it, so I suppose that isn’t surprising. Anyway, the show’s been pushed back to next year, and also the world is literally sick and metaphorically (and also a little literally) on fire, so I thought this might be fun if anyone needs a break from abject horror. 

(Speaking of the world being on fire: while trying to offer a diversion amidst said blaze, still gonna pause for the moment to add to the chorus that if opening your wallet is a thing you can do, now most especially is a time to do it. I chipped in myself to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and even a casual look around here or Twitter will show people listing plenty of other organizations that need support.)

What I saw floating around was, if not a first draft, certainly not the final one given Elizabeth Tulloch later shared a photo of the cover for the final script crediting Lee Toland Krieger as the director rather than a TBD, but the shape of things is clearly in place. I’m going for a relative minimum of spoilers, though I’ll discuss a bit of the basic status quo the show sets up and vaguely touch on a few plot points, but if you want a simple response without risk of any story details: it’s very, very good. Clunky in the way the CW DC shows typically are, and some aspects I’m not going to be able to judge until the story plays out further, but it’s engaging, satisfying, and moreover feels like it Gets It more broadly than any other mass-media Superman adaptation to date.

The Good

* The big one, the pillar on which all else rests: this understands Lois and it really understands Clark. Lois isn’t at the center of the pilot’s arc, but she’s everything you want to see that character be - incisive, caring, and refusing to operate at less than 110% intensity with whatever she’s dealing with at any given time, the objections of others be damned. Clark meanwhile is a good-natured, good-humored dude who you can see in both the cape and the glasses even as those identities remain distinct, who’s still wrestling with his feelings of alienation and duty and how those now reflect his relationships with his children. The title characters both feel fully-formed and true to what historically tends to work best with them from day one here in ways I can’t especially say for any other movie or show they’ve starred in.

* While the suit takes a back seat for this particular episode, when Superman does show up in the opening and climax it absolutely knows how to get us to cheer for him; there’s more than one ‘hell yeah, it’s SUPERMAN, that guy’s the best!’ moment, and they pop.

* While the superheroics aren’t the biggest focus here, when they do arrive, the plan seems to be that they’ll be operating on an entirely different scale than the rest of the Arrowverse lineup. Maybe they scripted the ideal and’ll be pared-down come time for actual filming and effects work, or maybe they’re going all-out for the pilot, but the initial vision involves a massive super-rescue and a widescreen brawl that goes way, way bigger in scope than any I’m aware of on the likes of Supergirl. I heard in passing on Twitter from someone claiming to be in the know that the plan for Superman & Lois is that it’ll be fewer episodes with a higher budget, more in line with the DC Universe stuff if not exactly HBO Max ‘prestige TV’, and whether it’s true or not (I think it’s plausible, the potential ratings here are exponentially higher than anything else on the network so they’d want to put their best foot forward) they seem to be writing it as if that’s the idea.

* This balances its tones and ambitions excellently: it’s a Kent-Lane family drama, it’s Lois digging in with some investigative reporting to set up a major subplot, it’s Superman saving Metropolis and battling a powerful high-concept villain, and none of it feels like it’s banging up at awkward angles with the rest. There are a pair of throwaway lines in here so grim I can’t believe they were put in a script for a Superman TV show even if they don’t make it to air, and they in no way undermine the exhilaration once he puts on the cape or the warmth that pervades much of it. This feels as if it’s laying the groundwork for a Superman show that can tackle just about any sort of story with the character rather than planing its feet in one corner and declaring a niche, and so far it looks like it has the juice to pull it off.

* While the pilot doesn’t focus on him in the same way as the new kid, Jonathan Kent fits well enough for my tastes with the broad strokes of his personality from the comics, albeit if he had made it to 14 rather than 10 without learning about his dad being Superman. A pleasant, kinda dopey, well-meaning Superman Jr. - the biggest deviation, one I approve of, is that he can also kinda be a gleeful little shit when dealing with his brother in ways that remind you that this is very much also Lois Lane’s boy.

* We don’t know much about the season villain as of yet, but it’s an incredibly cool idea that I’m shocked that they’re going for right away, and I absolutely want to see how they play out as a character and how they’ll bounce off all the other major players.

* The way this seems to be framing itself in relation to the Superman movies and shows before it feels inspired to me: there are homages and shout-outs to and bits of conceptual scaffolding from Lois & Clark, Smallville, Donner, and more, but they’re all shown in ways that make it clear that those stories are part of his past rather than indicators of the baseline he’s currently operating off of. We get a retrospective of his and Lois’s history right off the bat with most of what you’d expect, and combined with those references the message is clear: this is a Superman who’s been through all the vague memories that you, prospective casual viewer, have of the other stuff you saw him in once upon a time, but this series begins the next phase of his life after what that general cultural impression of him to date covers. It strikes me as a good way of carrying over the goodwill of that nostalgia and iconography, while building in that this is a show with room to grow him beyond that into something more nuanced (and for that matter true to the character as the comics at their best have depicted him) than they tended towards. Where Superman Returns attempted to recapture the lightning in a bottle of an earlier vision of him in full, and Man of Steel tried to turn its back on anything that smelled of Old and Busted and Uncool entirely, perhaps this splitting of the difference - engaging with his pop culture history and visibly taking what appealed from some of those well-known takes, while also drawing a clear line in the sand between those as the past and this as the future - is what will finally engage audiences.

The Bad

* This is the sort of thing you have to roll with for a CW superhero show, and that lives and dies by the performances, but: the dialogue varies heavily. There are some really poignant moments, but elsewhere this is where it shows its early-draftiness; a decent amount is typical Whedon-poisoned quippiness or achingly blunt, and some of the ‘hey, we’re down with the kids!’ material for Jon, Jor, and Lana’s kid Sarah is outright agonizing. I suspect a lot of it will be fixed in minor edits, actor delivery, and hopefully the younger performers taking a brutal red pen to some of their material - this was written last January and the show’s now not debuting until next January, they’ve got plenty of time for cleanup - but if this sort of the thing has been a barrier to entry for you in the past with the likes of The Flash, this probably won’t be what changes your mind.

* There are a few charming shout-outs to other shows, but much moreso, Superman & Lois actually builds in a big way out of Crisis. Which is a-okay with me, except that what exactly that was is rather poorly conveyed given that lots of people will be giving this a spin with no familiarity with that. Fixable with a line or two, but important enough to be worth noting.

Have to wait and see how it plays out

* The series’ new kid, Jordan Kent, is so far promising with potential to veer badly off-course. He’s explicitly dealing with mental illness, and not on great terms with Clark at the beginning in spite of the latter’s best efforts, the notion of which I’m sure will immediately put some off. Ultimately the commonalities between father and son become clear, and he’s not written as a caricature in this opening but as a kid with some problems who’s still visibly his parents’ boy, but obviously the ball could be fumbled here in the long term.

* Lois’s dad is portrayed almost completely differently here than in the past in spite of technically still being her military dad who has some disagreements with her husband. There are some nice moments and interesting new angles but it seems possible that the groudwork is being laid for him to be Clark’s guy in the chair, and not only does he not need that he most DEFINITELY doesn’t need that to be a member of the U.S. Military, especially when one of the first and best decisions Supergirl made when introducing him was to make clear he had stopped working with the government any more than necessary years ago. Maybe it can be stretched if his dad-in-law occasionally calls him up to let him know about a new threat he’s learned about, and maybe they’ll even do something really interesting with that push-and-pull, but if Superman’s going to be even tacitly functioning as an extension of the military that’s going to be a foundational sin.

* As I was nervous about, Superman & Lois has some political flavor, but much to my delighted surprise, there’s no grossly out of touch hedge-betting in the way I understand Supergirl has gone for at times. As of the pilot, this is an explicitly leftie show, with the overarching threat of the season as established for Lois and Clark as reporters being how corporate America has stripmined towns like Smallville and manipulated blue collar workers into selling out their own best interests. Could that go wrong? Totally, there’s already an effort to establish a particular prominent right-wing asshole as capable of decency - without as of yet downplaying that he’s a genuinely shitty dude - and vague hints that some of the towns’ woes might be rooted more in Superman-type problems than Lois and Clark problems. But that they’re going for it this directly in the first place leaves me hopeful that the show won’t completely chicken out even if there’ll probably be a monster in the mix pulling a string or two; Greg Pak and Aaron Kuder’s Action Comics may justify Superman punching a cop by having him turn out to be a shadow monster so as to get past editorial, but it’s still a story about how sometimes Superman’s gotta punch a cop, and hopefully this can carry on in that spirit of using what wiggle room it has to the best of its ability.

So, so far so good. Could it end up a show with severe problems carried on the backs of Hoechlin and Tulloch’s performances? Absolutely. But thus far, the ingredients are there for all its potential problems to be either fixed, subverted, or dodged alright, and even when it surely fumbles the ball at junctures, I earnestly believe this is setting itself up to be the most fleshed-out, nuanced, engaging live-action take on these characters to date. And god willing, if so, the first real stepping stone in decades to proper rehab on Superman’s image and place in pop culture.

[carcasstohounds]

timekeeper but if they were a high school tech crew (aka i write headcanons based on my niche interests)

(this is all based on the way my schools tech crew works, so it’s probably different from most others. this is also like. super running crew specific but i have more headcanons about set building.)

danny and cassie - lights all the way. they’ve been doing it for years, and are Known for it. they alternate who does light board and who does whatever else needs to be done every show. they have a running collection of wrenches they accidentally stole from the cats. also, danny high key hates the cats so cassie hangs as many of the lights as she can on her own, and he sits in the booth and fixes anything that needs fixing. unfortunately, cassie is terrible at putting gels in and danny is really good at it so there’s a about a week straight where when they come down from the cats, danny lays face down in the ground for 15 minutes straight to recuperate. they’re spectacularly bad at organization in the cats and the booth. danny’s the cause of like half of the grafitti up there, but whenever cassie does it she just writes be gay do crime in tiny letters.

daphne and zavier - i almost made them stage manager, but i don’t think they’d fuck with that much. they’d probably be co-deck chiefs. daphne on right wing, and zavier on left wing (i have no justification for that. it just feels right.) they’re both lowkey really buff from years of shoving massive set pieces around. the actors are all scared of them because they’re both tall, buff, and put together despite the wild amounts of stress they’re under all the time.

meena and akash - sound. akash did it first and meena sort of ended up doing sound too because of Sibling Things (same. part of the reason why i do lights.) but she picked it up pretty quickly. akash runs the soundboard for actors mics (i think there’s a name for it i just can’t remember) and meena runs the pit soundboard. akash does most of the setting up the soundboard and mic checks while meena mics the actors. sometimes meena hides under the soundboard desk and plays candy crush.

colton - colton shows up in their junior year and ends up doing lights. he really, really likes the catwalks and actually knows how to put a gel in, which danny is very, very glad for. he’s also like. spectacularly bad at organization so god help any of them try to find things up there. sometimes if he’s busy colton accidentally doesn’t pay attention to what someone’s asking for so instead of a wrench he’ll just pull a twist tie or a single bent washer out of his pocket and hand it over.

brandon - he’s probably the poor freshman they make do stuff. he doesn’t know it, but danny and cassie, and daphne and zavier are arguing about who gets to train him for when they graduate. this means that he ends up getting pulled in like three different directions and now knows the basics of everything except sound.

i’m probably gonna add more to this later, but here you go

[earwaxinggibbous]

Top 10 Worst Hit Songs of 2019

So 2019 was kind of a weird year, wasn’t it? Not just for like, life, though it was weird in that aspect, but in music.

I can’t tell if 2019 was an incredibly strong year for music or a weak one. This, to me, is a sign that we’re transitioning into a new era of popular music. The youth are once again taking the reigns of the music scene as did the punks of the 70′s and the grunge kids of the 90′s. Meanwhile, the oldheads flounder for relevance in the face of this new adversity. “Nobody could’ve expected this!”, said no-one ever.

There was a lot of great pop this year, which I will get to, but there was also a lot of bad pop. All of it was either by shitty new artists who have no talent or previous hitmakers swimming around in their own piss. Regardless, it was all interesting to look at. You won’t see any “this entry is short because this song is boring” sections. I also won’t have to rant and rave constantly about the reprehensibility of certain artists, though it will come up. So I guess 2019 was a better year to talk about bad music.

Less do dis.

10. Senorita - Camila Cabello and Shawn Mendes

I can’t explain why I hate Camila Cabello so much. I didn’t even realize I hated her until, like... now.

I thought Havana was okay, and her work with Fifth Harmony was tolerable, but every other single she’s dropped has been fucking excruciating. Bad Things sucked, that one song where she can’t pronounce the word “heroin” properly sucked, and this song sucks.

Much like Selena Gomez above, Camila Cabello is yet another female singer who lacks the ability to display any chemistry with anybody, even her actual real friend Shawn Mendes. As well, like sister Gomez, she fills the chart niche of sexy Latina women for men to drool over. “I love it when you call me senorita” is one of the corniest and stupidest lines ever written. She may as well have said “it gets me hot when you call me Ms. Cabello” because that’s essentially the equivalent. 

There’s nothing sexy about the airy whimpering or the obnoxious “ooh-la-la”s or the way Shawn harmonizes, which implies he also loves it when you call him senorita. Nobody actually bothered to think any part of this song through because nobody ever thinks very hard about writing Camila’s songs. Otherwise Bad Things wouldn’t have accidentally sounded like an abuse anthem when it was supposed to be kinky and sexy. And it’s how creepy lyrics like this got by in Senorita.

If he says you’re just friends then you’re JUST FRIENDS. Did we learn nothing from Ann-Marie and Marshmello last year?

This is just yet another lame, plotless, meandering love/sex song by Camila Cabello who has a good voice, but only ever performs these god-awful sex jams with no sex and no jam. And it’s unfortunate because this is sort of the lot dealt to most Latinx artists. Pop-friendly artists like Camila are divvied up into racial categories without anyone even noticing, and most likely she will only ever write and perform sex jams because that’s what a Latina woman in pop is pushed into. Not that I think she has any problem with it, it’s more indicative of a bigger problem than specifically one with Camila herself.

People have been sexualizing the Latinx community since the dawn of time, and while the new movement of Spanish music might change this, it sure as hell hasn’t started yet.

At least it isn’t seven minutes long like Te Bote.

9. Money in the Grave - Drake and Rick Ross

Drake had 25 hits last year, and only one of them was a song I might say I actually like. I remember I said there’d be no boring songs, but... Drake hasn’t been interesting in a long time. Even when I found out about his secret son, or the fact that he was with a significantly younger woman, I just kinda shrugged and said “oh”. Drake has to be on his way out. How much longer are people going to stand this?

Money in the Grave isn’t as turgid as 2018’s Nonstop, or as audibly inept as the 2017(?)’s Pop Style, but God. At this point, every Drake song sounds the same. The man is incapable of bringing forth any kind of emotions, his beats are pathetic drum loops, nothing he writes has any personality. It’s almost funny how boring his music is.

Rick Ross, if you remember him, was known in his time for writing shouty drug dealer anthems. He yelled a lot, and I was sitting with bated breath waiting for him to fucking 6ix9ine scream over this track, only to be disappointed when he lowered into a calmer register for this tune. Drake even made Rick Ross boring, and Rick Ross is one of the funniest bad rappers I can think of, aside from like, Soulja Boy.

I no longer understand what niche Drake fills. You can’t dance to this, you can’t get high to it, nobody’s gonna think you’re cool if you enjoy it, the lyrics aren’t even passably interesting. It’s the same rap cliches as always, perhaps with a new coat of paint, but said paint is the same color as it already was previously, and makes no change. 

No wonder Drake endorsed Lil Baby. Nobody else can equal his talent at sounding bored.

8. Bad Guy - Billie Eilish

So here’s an unpopular music critic opinion: I don’t like Billie Eilish.

I’ve known of her for a long time, and never once has she drawn my intrigue. I’ve gone all over asking people why they like her, and I’ve heard all sorts of answers. Her voice is good, her lyrics are good, her production is interesting, her subject matter is deep... whatever it actually is, I couldn’t tell you. But in the end, I basically feel the same way about her as I do about Twenty-One Pilots. She’s an artist in an oversaturated micro-genre who, despite being of lower quality than her contemporaries, managed to do something different enough that she rose up in the latter part of the genre’s life. In Billie’s case, it’s the trend of female alt-pop singer-songwriters who write about things like politics, feminism, and ESPECIALLY mental health.

Lorde was the original, but we also have Lana Del Rey, the more pop-friendly Halsey, Marina and the Diamonds, the dreaded Melanie Martinez, to some extent even Alessia Cara, just a whole bunch of them. They all had their own unique personality. Billie Eilish’s personality is that she has none.

Okay, I’m being a little mean. I do think that Billie’s music videos are actually very interesting, but good music videos does not a good musician make. Her voice is more of a phlegmy whisper than people let on, and her lyrics... like, what, what makes them so special? And why didn’t wish you were gay get ANY backlash when it’s basically just a backwards version of Little Big Town’s Girl Crush?

Bad Guy is the worst of her singles without question. Its beat, much like most of her songs, sounds like two people accidentally banged on top of the Cassio and somebody pressed record. Her voice continues to be boring and flat, for some reason she has to whisper everything, and the lyrics are some of the most mind-numbing shit I’ve ever heard. Which moron at corporate told the 17-YEAR-OLD to write a “steal yo man” song where she threatens to seduce my dad? Like, ignoring my own personal history with my dad, you are literally a CHILD.

Generally speaking, the song sounds like someone gargling mouthwash in my ear for a minute or two, but like, very quietly. Which is kind of pathetic for a song called Bad Guy. You sound like a pretty average guy to me.

It’s obvious from the music video that Billie’s main inspiration is grunge, and if that isn’t the case I’ll be surprised. The weird imagery and intentionally dressing like a homeless person to every public thing she does gives off big Nirvana energy. One could argue that Billie Eilish is a good segway into teaching the youthsters about the ghosts of music’s past. There’s just a few problems with that.

One: Bad Guy sounds nothing like a grunge song.

Two: Billie Eilish does not have a grunge voice.

Three: Billie Eilish just... isn’t doing it right.

Billie Eilish’s parents are two wealthy actors and she was basically born with the ability to get into the business easier than other people. I’m not saying that you can’t be a grunge artist if you’re wealthy and have a decent family life, but I am saying that Billie’s music doesn’t convey any kind of grunge appeal. There’s no roughness or rawness to it because she could immediately walk into a producer’s studio with a wad of fifties and ask for a sick beat. Her music displays no emotion, and emotion is the main draw of grunge. Like, Kurt Cobain wasn’t a very good singer, but he knew how to perfectly channel how he was feeling. Grunge music is about feelings, not polish. And Billie Eilish is all polish.

I’m not gonna get all angry because grunge is being gentrified by a tiny girl when it was originally started by broke heroin addicts and lesbians, but I am gonna get angry because her music sounds worse than albums made on a budget of 600 dollars by a guy who has had one voice lesson his whole life.

She should just go into modern art.

7. Worth It - YK Osiris

Originally I was gonna give this spot to a different song. Worth It was so immediately bad that it rescued Lil Baby from my list this year.

Don’t expect to be this lucky next year, bitch.

But we’re not talking about that squealing douchebag, we’re talking about THIS squealing douchebag:

YK Osiris. I have no idea where he came from, I think he was part of last year’s XXL Freshman Class? He’s more of a singer than a rapper, so I’m not sure why he was, other than the predetermined idea that all black artists in pop are rappers. I wouldn’t even call him a singer, because the man cannot sing.

At the beginning of the music video, you see dozens of paparazzi swarming around YK Osiris’ car as he exits with a girl. This is the set-up for the song’s impressive amount of self-fellating narcissism, as YK Osiris assumes he has fans. Who the fuck listens to YK Osiris? I mean, clearly someone, because he charted, but like... what does a YK Osiris fan look like? Do women actually like hearing him wheeze into their ear? Like BEES?

NO MORE BEES!

Hearing this fucking chicken nugget talk about whether or not I’m worth eet is the lamest thing. Why does she have to be worth it? Are YOU worth HER time? Who the fuck are you? The attitude is very, I guess, mid-70′s Paul Anka-esque. And now I’ve made you imagine a YK Osiris cover of You’re Having My Baby. I also remember Todd in the Shadows compared this song to Earned It by The Weeknd, but I dunno if I get that vibe.

I mean, Earned It is a song about like... BDSM sex, presumably. So that’s more of an “if you’re good master will make you squart” kind of thing. This is more some sentient dildo insisting that you prove his worth to him before you’re even DATING. That’s a red flag on the same level as meeting a guy who lives alone and still puts a lock on his fridge. Like, what’s in there? What’s in the fridge? Is it human meat?

The guitar solo in this song is the only thing about it that’s... worth it. ZING!

6. ZEZE - Kodak Black ft.Travis Scott and Offset

ZEZE is a bad song. Plain and simple. It’s the essence of bad.

It feels like... it wasn’t even finished. Like everyone involved came in the next day to finish tweaking it only to find out that it was already sent out to be published and sold. I feel like there are things missing. Like yeah, the steel drums are nice, but where’s the rest of the instrumentation? There’s a drum and a steel drum and then nothing. Why does this song feel so naked?

Kodak Black sure doesn’t help, still sounding like he’s half-man half-screaming rubber chicken and mumbling like an actual infant still figuring out the whole “talking” deal. It’s not like Travis Scott or Offset add anything. I can’t remember what they did. ZEZE sounds the way I imagine taking ketamine and cocaine would feel. This song is so amateurish, I almost have good will for it.

If this was made by, say, a couple of high school kids dinking around with a Garageband, I might find it a little cute. The problem is that this song was made by several Whole Ass Adult People who have enough money to not make shit that sounds like ZEZE. It’s cute until you remember that Travis Scott produced big sexy SICKO MODE and yet somehow his presence couldn’t make ZEZE sound like it was made on a higher budget than 20 bucks. Someone even put an echo on Kodak’s voice, like that’d make him ANY BETTER.

It doesn’t help that I have continuing ill will towards Kodak Black because he’s a sex offender and nobody seems all too pressed about it. (Some rappers even congratulate him for having a rough past, like yeah, I guess some of those serial killers really did deserve better, huh?) I won’t be satisfied until he’s wearing orange pajamas on an island far away, and until then my feelings stand.

As it is, ZEZE is a song so chintzy-sounding and lame that I can’t imagine who would enjoy it. This song has the same energy as one of those hula girls you put on the dashboard of your car: Cheap and ugly.

5. The Git Up - Blanco Brown

Whenever something new is created, there’s always a leech.

I probably don’t need to tell you about the monstrous year Old Town Road had on the pop charts. For weeks and weeks, Lil Nas X was blocking people from his throne at the top of the Billboard Hot 100, bumping off new faces like Billie Eilish and oldheads like Taylor Swift. Old Town Road knew no mercy. This is the year that a gay black kid singing about horses ruled the world.

And Blanco Brown wanted a piece.

Blanco Brown is one of those artists who started out producing and writing for other hitmakers. He worked on some song by 2Chainz, a couple by some woman named Demetria McKinney, he produced that accursed MILF song by Fergie, a lot of relatively famous people. But he looked at Old Town Road and realized that he, being a black man from the lovely state of Georgia, could also do that.

He could not do that.

The Git Up is a husk of a song, only validated by the fact that it achieved what it was aiming for: TikTok memes. It’s as shameless as Watch Me, but doesn’t even have the small sense of excitement Silento gives off. Blanco Brown’s The Git Up and the “challenge” that it’s attached to are pathetic. The only reason Blanco isn’t too ashamed to go outside after writing this is because he knows plenty of people have fallen into his trap, and that they’re bigger fools than he is.

I started off hating Old Town Road, but over time I’ve sort of come to love it. There’s innocence in it. Lil Nas X didn’t mean for it to be a number one hit, it just happened. A lot of artists were trying too hard this past year, and I suspect it’s why Old Town Road made the pop charts its bitch. It didn’t have to try.

A lot of people will point at rock bands for being “fake”. If they draw inspiration from grunge or punk, and they don’t have the proper edge, many will point and laugh. But just because something is fun and hip doesn’t mean it’s easier to make. In fact, I feel it’s a lot easier to tell if someone’s making a shitty pop song for any reason other than themselves. A lot of people thought Lil Peep was faking, and he really, really wasn’t. There’s grey area in topics like depression, but Blanco Brown (and anyone like him) is as transparent as a window. I see through his mock-excitement, his cute little dance challenge, his “innocent” song. We all do.

I believe Tyler Durden put it best:

“Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.”

4. I Don’t Care - Ed Sheeran ft. Justin Bieber

Speaking of being fake...

I don’t know if Ed Sheeran realizes how embarrassing this song is. More than any other song he’s been involved in. More than Shape Of You, or that one song on Revival, more than anything. I Don’t Care is an exercise in humiliation.

Generally speaking, I don’t like Ed Sheeran’s music. I think he’s had a couple good songs, we all like Sing and Castle on the Hill, it’s not like he’s untalented. But every time he’s gotten a big hit these past few years it’s been so shitty or mediocre that I wanted to scream. I’m not sure why, but all of his fans seem to flock towards his worst songs. And of all of them, I hate I Don’t Care the most.

Usually the problems with Ed Sheeran’s music just revolve around his meek, tiny personality and his weird style of lyricism. The level of detail he gets into can be both an asset and a detriment. I remember I basically described Shape Of You as a virgin anthem, because Ed Sheeran exudes dorkiness. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, and when it comes to nerd music I’d rather take Thomas Dolby, but he definitely had a style.

I Don’t Care is Ed’s Intuition.

As in, the Jewel song. The blown-up pop song released by Jewel, a previously sincere folk singer who played acoustic guitar and sang about break-ups and The Media(TM) and stuff like that. Ed Sheeran is a lot like Jewel, if you think about it. Both of them are skilled lyricists who play acoustic guitar and sing about personal topics, and both of them suddenly decided to throw that away and make a sell-out pop hit. If this kills Ed’s career, they’ll have had basically the same musical trajectory.

Ed Sheeran opens the song by saying he’s at a party he doesn’t wanna be at, and that’s how the song feels. You, the listener, are at a party you don’t wanna be at. What good did adding Justin Bieber to this song do? Oh, right, that’s what made it a hit. I Don’t Care goes far beyond Blanco Brown’s brand of shamelessness. Blanco Brown specifically wanted a dance challenge hit. Ed Sheeran just wanted a hit. Any hit will do. He brought in guaranteed hitmaker Justin Bieber, tossed out his acoustic guitar for fully electronic production, and sang about something vague and already done. And the worst part is that it WORKED.

I imagine this was almost entirely through radio play, because this song is so radio-friendly and milktoast it’s unreal. With a stupid music video greenscreening Ed’s face onto shit and “ooh ooh”s and all, this song exists to pander. It wasn’t created for humans, rather, it was created for the pop music algorithm that’ll shove it into people’s laps without them asking. There’s no artistic integrity, nothing worth thinking about for longer than its runtime. It made it to the Hot 100 because it can be played in grocery stores and clothing stores and really any kind of store. Ed Sheeran is a God of nothing, and I can’t imagine he’s proud.

3. No Guidance - Chris Brown ft. Drake

This song is bad on every possible level. Starting off with the fact that it’s nine minutes long. It out-lengths last year’s overly long garbage fire that was Te Bote. 

And then you look at the credits and know exactly who’s to blame for all this:

I don’t know if Lil Dicky anticipated giving Chris Brown’s career a second wind with Freaky Friday, but I think that’s what he did. I defended Lil Dicky last year, and I’m still not clear on how much he actually wanted to work with Chris Brown since that’s not really the kind of thing famous people are honest about, but this wasn’t Lil Dicky’s hit. This was a springboard to launch Chris Brown back into the limelight. Earth didn’t even chart. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the last gasp of Lil Dicky’s career in the spotlight.

But I’d take Freaky Friday over No Guidance any day.

No Guidance is the formal beef-squash between Chris Brown and Drake. Apparently they both dated Rihanna at some point and allegedly had an actual literal bar fight. Despite Drake claiming he still loves Rihanna, he’s also choosing to publicly make up with and work with the man who got her hospitalized at 19 years old. Then again, Rihanna also wants nothing to do with Drake.

(source)

Over time, Drake has proven himself to be his own flavor of scumbag, a weirdo who dates younger women and pretended not to have a son. Perhaps this is his way of getting back at Rihanna. Or he’s simply using Chris Brown’s new power to bolster his own career. Regardless of why it is, it’s gross, especially when he’s dropping bars like this:

Someone else here is looking a little violent, no?

On pure quality, it sounds like every other Chris Brown song, just with Drake tossed into the mix haphazardly. It’s a lame song about hitting on some girl where both artists drop references to their old songs because that’s the easiest way for a failing artist to feign relevance. Assuming nobody features Chris Brown on another massive hit next year, there’s a fair chance he’s done for, and after years of oversaturation, the public finally tires of Drake. No Guidance is a nothing song with scummy shit going on behind the scenes.

RIP Lil Dicky.

2. 7 Rings - Ariana Grande

I never really understood the hype around Ariana Grande. She has a few songs that I enjoy, and her voice is very good, but nothing by her really stands out to me as an amazing song. Ariana stans are relentless. When I posted my review of the thank u, next album some complete stranger replied to it with “Uhhh ok sis”. Like barring the fact that I’m not a girl and we’re not related... it’s an opinion, calm yourself.

Frankly I don’t know how people enjoyed this song. Her stans are insane, but surely not that insane, right? I mean... this isn’t a song. It’s a MISTAKE.

Between Gwen Stefani and Ariana Grande, sampling The Sound Of Music for your pop song is a dangerous game. And really, she should’ve sampled like, anything else. Because nothing says “wealthy, savage girl” like a cute song about your favorite things, I guess!

I’ve never felt quite so immediately gross and uncomfortable as I did when listening to 7 Rings. I have no problem with women flexing, of course I don’t, but this isn’t flexing, it’s mocking. 7 Rings makes me feel like I’m being bullied.

Ari had a horrible 2018, and she’s more than allowed to flex a little, but I can’t imagine why anyone would want to essentially play the villain of a high school movie. She’s not Cher Horowitz or Regina George, because then at least she’d be entertainingly bitchy. I judge a flex anthem based on how much I get excited for the person being wealthy and cool. This song makes me want to commit a robbery.

The lyrical content isn’t the only bad element. It also sounds like shit! 

Ariana Grande is a belter. Everyone knows she’s here to sing and not... rap. Which is exactly what she does on this song. The filters she puts over her voice during the rapping sections are just... gross. When she drags out certain words it hurts my ears. That and apparently multiple people have accused her of stealing their flows, though that’s really hard to say since it’s an incredibly generic rap flow. Also, she samples Gimme The Loot by Biggie Smalls, a song about robbing people. Which makes sense because if you bought Ariana’s album, you were robbed! Congrats!

But in the end, the most damning thing about this song is its lyrics. Why should I be excited about this absolute bitch having tons of money? Why should I care when she has the gall to say shit like this?

There were ten writers on this song and nobody thought of saying “hey, maybe the phrase ‘happiness is the same price as red-bottoms’ is a little fucking shallow!” 

And I’m not making any judgments on Ariana’s character in real life. I’m sure she’s a perfectly nice person, but if this song was supposed to project some sense of camaraderie and a “we did it!” attitude, it fails. What it does project is a snide, rich girl looking down on you for not just buying yourself out of depression. Never write a song like this again.

Honorable Mentions

Happier - Marshmello and Bastille

I’m not gonna be the first to say every Marshmello beat sounds exactly the same, but every Marshmello beat sounds the same. I picked this one because it charted highest, but really it makes no difference which Marshmello song I pick on.

Sweet But Psycho - Ava Max

This song reads like a 12-year-old’s deviantART journal.

Drip Too Hard - Lil Baby and Gunna

Like I said, this song almost got on the list proper. It’s a slow burn. At first you feel like the beat is solid, and Lil Baby rides it decently enough, but then it keeps going and the flows never switch and Gunna basically sounds the same as Lil Baby and you begin feeling like you’re losing your mind.

Thotiana - Blueface

People kept memeing about this. I thought it’d be fun. I hate you guys.

God’s Country - Blake Shelton

Namedropping The Devil Went Down To Georgia does not make you Primus. Because you are not creative or interesting.

Trampoline - Shaed

I wouldn’t have even given this song a second thought except apparently it’s hit the alt-rock charts? Where is this rock? Like I get we’re pushing the boundaries of genre but I think the bare minimum of a rock song would be a GUITAR.

Knockin’ Boots - Luke Bryan

This song is dumb. But I’m oddly amused by how dumb it is, so it may live.

Baby - Lil Baby and DaBaby

Sometimes things sound like a good idea, and then they’re not. This didn’t even sound like a good idea and it proved to be an even worse idea. Something definitely could’ve been done with this, but Lil Baby is essentially a creative void that consumes all it sees.

Someone You Loved - Lewis Capaldi

Another song that’s too dumb for me to really get mad at. God knows, Capaldi is putting a hell of a lot of effort into something. What it is, I’m not sure, but he’s doing his best.

With those out of the way, we move onto

Number One:

You Need To Calm Down - Taylor Swift

"I AM LAID LOW BY THE HUMAN RACE. ME, AN INNOCENT WOMAN, MUST DEAL WITH ‘HATERS’ EVERY SINGLE DAY. MY HEART HAS BECOME WEAK WITH ALL OF THE UNKIND WORDS. DARE I SAY... I AM OPPRESSED?”

It’s ironic hearing Taylor Swift tell me to calm down. She hasn’t been calm for a long time. She sure as hell isn’t calm in this song. It’s basically the equivalent of someone screaming “I AM NOT ANGRY!”

Like, you’re... still mad about the snake thing? It’s been a few years now and you’re still bothered enough by an emoji that you referenced it in a song about how not-bothered you are? I mean, apparently this song (as well as ME!) is about celebrating individuality. It definitely is celebrating an individual: Taylor Swift.

I think a big theme of this year was “embarrassing”. The Git Up was embarrassing, I Don’t Care was embarrassing, but none of them are more embarrassing than this. You could probably do a list of the ten worst Taylor Swift lyrics and it’d be mostly this song. And if the lyrics aren’t terrible enough, it also blatantly copies the beat from Sunflower, the second-biggest hit of the year and a personal favorite. Like, a fellow critic remixed them together and the backing track is essentially unchanged.

And then we get to the gay stuff.

I’m not the first to point out that the underlying message of this song is pathetic at best and offensive at worst: “I have haters, and gays have haters, so we’re basically the same.” This is essentially Taylor Swift hoping she’ll get an invite to judge on RuPaul’s Drag Race.

There’s just kind of an eensy weensy problem.

Gay “haters” are like... ACTUALLY DANGEROUS.

They’re not just the goofy, protest-sign waving boomers she depicts in her music video. An internet comment is harmless. Homophobia isn’t. Homophobia leads to suicide, gets teens kicked out of their homes, causes hate crimes, it can cause incredibly serious harm. Someone sending you a fucking snake emoji isn’t the same as years and years of systematic oppression!

Does Taylor Swift have to worry about her safety when she tours in more conservative areas? Does she have to fear the possibility of losing friends and family ties when opening up about herself? Does she have to worry about letting the public see who she dates, beyond the usual celebrity drama? Do people shout slurs at her on the street? Do churches and politicians campaign against her right to marry?

Of course not.

Taylor Swift has always made everything about herself. She’s lied and been petty for years and years in her music. Imagine lying about KANYE. You don’t need to lie about fucking Kanye to make him look bad! He does it himself! She was the victim that time, and every time. But at no point until now did she stoop low enough to openly compare herself to oppressed groups because people are mean to her on the internet.

Like this isn’t even about articles or tabloids or anything, it’s about people being nasty online. The phrase “shade never made anybody less gay” is basically a crackhead way of diminishing our suffering. It’s not “shade” we’re worried about, Taylor, it’s having our fucking legal rights taken away. Your biggest worry is “haters”. Haters aren’t going to ban you from being married.

This song is phony, it’s a rip-off of a much better song that literally came out in the same year, it’s repetitive, it’s petty, and most of all, it tries to diminish the oppression of the LGBT+ community by boiling down all of our pain and suffering to simple “shade”.

I will not calm down.

Woo-ee. That was something alright. We’ll be moving onto the best list soon, if I don’t get caught up in my other quarantine activities.

[silenthillmutual]

23, 25!

23 - How do you deal with writer’s block?

I’ve never really been good at dealing with writer’s block, tbh. usually when i get it i try and force myself through it, but that doesn’t tend to work out very well. so lately i’ve been trying to just... sit on whatever project i’m having writer’s block for. it means i have a lot of unfinished drafts and unfinished works on ao3, and that does feel kind of bad, but i think it’d feel worse if i published something i wasn’t proud of or that didn’t feel right to me. 

so sometimes i try and write for a completely different prompt or a completely different fandom altogether, and if all else fails i just kind of journal about my life to see if i can figure out what’s keeping me from producing content. at the moment i’ve had some writer’s block that’s due to lack of focus and also because i’ve been extremely stressed lately. a lot of it is getting better because i’m taking better care of myself, but since i’m not totally in a mindset where i feel like i have enough time to work on my projects, i’ve been distracting myself by picking up reading and watching film obsessively again. and i think that tends to be as good an inspiration as any!

25 - What advice would you give a new writer?

i’ve actually given this a lot of thought. i don’t get asked this question a lot, but i’ve seen people kind of lamenting before that they feel like they don’t write well or asking other authors for advice. and it’s true that no one thing will work for everyone, and while there are always kinda general tips to improve your writing style (i think the most well known ones are “show, don’t tell” and “avoid adverbs”) i try to steer clear of saying anything that would negate someone’s style. 

so i really just have two pieces of advice:

the first is that you need to practice. which is easier said than done, of course. but you don’t even really need to write about anything in particular. to be honest you could just be writing about your feelings or making up a stupid argument based on something that’s been on your mind lately, but just writing it down will get a lot of the clutter out of your head and also help you determine if you’re expressing what you’re really thinking, what you’re really feeling, what you’re really experiencing. which will come in handy whether you’re writing papers for class or writing non-fiction pieces or writing meta or writing fiction, because you’ll learn the best ways to communicate just by trial and error. it’s really easy to get caught up in embarrassment over your past works and if you really hate something it’s okay to trash it, but you’re never gonna love every word you ever write and it’s okay if sometimes the things you write are just okay. someone’s going to read it and love it, even if that someone isn’t you. but writing really is like any other art, any other skill, like driving or dancing or math or singing: if you want to be good at it, you have to practice it. 

the second is that you have to read. you HAVE to read. you don’t draw without looking at pictures and you don’t sing without listening to music and you don’t act without watching other actors do it, so why would you write without reading? it doesn’t even have to be good, mind you. you don’t have to read the classics and by all means there are some that you just flat-out shouldn’t read no matter how much old cishet white guys insist they’re the best (and i’ve a thing or two to say on their opinions of movies as well). you should read bad things, good things, nonfiction, poetry, fanfiction, meta, essays, gossip columns, top ten lists, satire, op eds, obituaries, horror, screenplays, short stories, song lyrics - whatever it is you want to read. read things that got panned and things that you love but are embarrassed to talk about and read things that make you angry and things that you think are overrated. pinpoint what you loved about words you loved reading and figure out how to emulate that in your own writing... but i think it’s just as important (if not more so) to pinpoint what you hated about the words you couldn’t stand so you make sure you never ever do those things. but reading is fundamental to writing, because other writers are your peers (not competitors) and you should know what they’re saying, but you can also get a lot of ideas about what you want to say from things other people bring up. and you can figure out your niche and your own sense of style from seeing what other people do. 

ty for asking!!writer qs here!!

[demitgibbs]

Kyle MacLachlan Talks New Gay Dad Role, Reaching LGBTQ Youth

In Giant Little Ones, actor Kyle MacLachlan plays a gay divorced dad named Ray Winter parenting a distant teenage son, Franky (Josh Wiggins), who’s grappling with his own sexual identity. I repeat: Kyle MacLachlan, a gay dad. The 60-year-old actor’s range knows absolutely no bounds, inhabiting diversified worlds and traversing genre, from comedy to drama, from soapy to supernatural.

MacLachlan’s first major role was in David Lynch’s 1984 adaptation of Dune (soon, Call Me By Your Name actor Timothée Chalamet will be slipping into MacLachlan’s stillsuit for the forthcoming remake) and two years later, in 1986, he collaborated with the screen auteur again on Blue Velvet, starring alongside Isabella Rossellini. But it was Lynch’s early-’90s cult TV series Twin Peaks that arguably made MacLachlan a marquee name (in 2017, he reprised his role as Agent Cooper in Twin Peaks: The Return).

In his three decades in TV and film and on stage, MacLachlan has played a city official based on first big-city openly gay Mayor Sam Adams, Fred Flintstone’s boss, the guy who fucks Nomi Malone in a swimming pool, Riley’s dad in Inside Out, Charlotte’s husband on Sex and the City, Bree Van de Kamp’s husband on Desperate Housewives, and because why the hell not: Cary Grant’s ghost. Starring in writer-director Keith Behrman’s Giant Little Ones as Helpful Gay Dad was really just an inevitably, but for MacLachlan, Ray is a warm hug of a role he deeply feels is important. One that, as a parent himself, even hits close to home.

Here, the actor talks about raising his son, Callum, much like Ray Winter does, gay fans who slip into his DMs and bears who love his rosé.

You’ve played dads before. But what about Ray spoke to you differently?

He had a journey in this as well, which I liked. It was really about the connection with his son, and at that age it’s very difficult and made even more challenging by the fact that the parents are separated. Under the circumstances, Franky just doesn’t know what to think or what to say, and I like that (Ray) really hung in there. I think in the original draft he was maybe a little more demanding, and so we kind of softened that a little bit. There are still those issues, but it was really important to me to feel like Ray was there and he wasn’t gonna go anywhere and to remain as non-judgmental as possible.

His presence is always felt, but he’s able to give his kid space at the same time. I appreciated that he tells his son to focus on who you’re drawn to and not what to call it, essentially letting him know that sexuality is a spectrum. How did that resonate with you?

That was a really nice piece of writing on Keith’s part, I thought. Again, trying not to judge. Especially at that age, I remember for myself just kind of trying to find where you fit in, what you’re good at, what you’re not good at, who’s your group. There’s lots and lots of questions and insecurities that are masked by a false sense of identity or control or “I don’t want to hear what you say, I’ve got it figured out myself.” The idea of just being present, it’s the way I approach the relationship with my son, the not judging. I’m not going at it trying to make him into something he doesn’t want to be.

You were the stepfather of a gay son, Andrew Van de Kamp, on Desperate Housewive. Who does the better job parenting a queer kid: Orson Hodge or Ray Winter?

(Laughs) Orson, bless his heart. You know, he had good intentions, and there was an understanding there at attempting to connect. I don’t think Orson was ever comfortable in that role. I think Ray is more conscious and he’s a champion, in some ways, for anyone who’s being judged. In this particular case, it’s “hang on a second.” He’s sort of about turning the page: “Let’s look at this and what’s really happening here.” I liked that. And he does it with an inner strength and a firmness, but it’s not without a wry sense of humor, and that I liked about him too.

When were your eyes first opened to having an LGBTQ following?

I think it was probably with Blue Velvet, I guess. Thematically it expected so much of the audience and it told a story that was so unusual and so true. That sort of started it, but I think with the advent of social media, suddenly it’s really obvious and present. And it’s great.

How has it become obvious through social media?

Just through comments, and its fun to read and great to feel the support. And then because so much of it is built around David Lynch, there’s a real shorthand just in terms of terminology and phrases, and because of David’s visuals and his images and his dialogue, of course.

I have a friend who says Blue Velvet was responsible for his sexual awakening. Is that what gay fans tell you on Twitter?

(Laughs) Maybe not quite so personal! But you know, that’s film. Film is all about experiencing something and having your eyes opened, and I think that film in particular was about that; the exploration of it and the themes of it were so interesting, and they hadn’t really been dealt with that much.

What kind of attention did Showgirls get you from the LGBTQ community?

(Laughs) I don’t think it found its camp niche until a little bit later. It had to go through the “Oh my god, this is perhaps one of the worst films ever made” reaction and then people sort of said, “I think it was, in a way, a guilty pleasure.” Then that began to grow, and there’s a true hardcore following of it and that’s really fun. I’ve never said, “Oh yeah, in fact, actually, that was the intention,” or, “Oh yeah, it’s a great film” – it’s not a great film. But it succeeds at a level that I think is still entertaining and fun. And why not? That’s our business.

I was at a gay bar once and they were showing Showgirls on all the TVs. When you shot that film, did you expect for it to live on in the LGBTQ community like it has?

I think we all entered into the film – certainly, I did – looking at the creative side of it. So you had really talented people – (director) Paul Verhoeven, obviously – and I think his intention was to do something that was sort of hard and cutting-edge and exposé and I think it kind of got away from him a little bit and became something else that was unexpected. But at the same time, we’ve all embraced it and said, “This is where it went,” and I gotta say, the film was probably gonna have a much longer life because of how it ended up than if it hadn’t. If it was a film that we intended to make, it would’ve been great and fine and OK, but now, it will live on forever.

Particularly at gay bars.

At least there! And midnight showings!

For 2004’s rom-com Touch of Pink, what was special about portraying the ghost of Cary Grant who gives advice to a gay Muslim man?

It was really fun. First of all, just the research alone was great. Getting to watch all the films, reading up about him, who he was as a person and the business side of things in Hollywood and how he really, really created this persona, which I think he tried to get away from but it was what he was known for. So I loved the research of it.

And the director, Ian (Iqbal Rashid), whose story this actually was, was so lovely and I see him occasionally when I’m in London. He’s just a terrific person and a very, very talented director, and I was flattered. He had actually seen me on the stage doing a new play with Woody Harrelson and I don’t quite know how he got there from that performance (laughs), but he thought I’d be perfect. So that’s a pretty big mantle to try to take on, and so we sort of softened that a little bit and said he’s more the spirit of Cary Grant – he’s not exactly Cary Grant. But I enjoyed stepping in those shoes and trying out that language and that kind of attitude and that whole thing. And it’s got a beautiful message, and just the ending when he has to let go, it’s very touching, I think.

In 2018, you were honored with a Dorian acting award by GALECA, the Society of LGBTQ Entertainment Critics, for Twin Peaks: The Return, and in 2009, Desperate Housewives received Outstanding Comedy Series from GLAAD.  Is there something special or distinct about having your work acknowledged by LGBTQ audiences and organizations?

Yeah, those stories, if they can speak to a community and there’s a resonance there, that’s the goal of this. They should be universal, but I think that if there’s a relationship that can be created then we’re doing a good job; something that’s worthwhile that creates an emotional response and a connection, that’s really what you want. I mean, that’s what I want.

You played the mayor of Portland in Portlandia.  Do you think that character would make a good mayor of Twin Peaks or Wisteria Lane?

(Laughs) He wasn’t a really good mayor – but he was incredibly enthusiastic! I think that was the fun of it: He always got things a little bit wrong but they kind of ultimately ended up OK, with the help of Fred (Armisen) and Carrie (Brownstein), certainly. But, oh god, at least it would be a lot of fun to have him as a mayor of any community, I think.

Why haven’t we seen you in more openly gay roles?

(Laughs) It’s a good question. You know, the work just kind of comes, and it’s one of those things where once it sort of filters through a little bit of whatever it does in Hollywood it finds its way into my inbox and you take a look at it.

Have there been gay roles you’ve turned down?

It’s always about the quality of the material, so if it there was, it just wasn’t worth telling.

But then you read something like Giant Little Ones.

And you know that it is a beautiful story. I had the reaction that everyone had: This is a story that needed to be told, and for any kids out there who are having this kind of “I don’t know, I don’t know” and they don’t have anywhere to turn, it’s like, well, we’re not the answer, but we’re at least an experience to say, “You’re not alone.”

And a reminder to your own son that his dad is OK with whomever he becomes or wants to be.

In fact, he attends a school in New York and it’s all about that. It’s all about the acceptance of everyone, and it’s a wonderful thing to watch because that wasn’t my experience growing up. Public schools, small town, very conservative. Not unlike the situation of Franky, there was a lot of “however tough you are” and “whatever sports you play,” those are your identifiers. It’s nice that he’s having a completely different experience.

In your spare time, you are a winemaker. Are gay men some of your most loyal rosé buyers?

(Laughs) I should hope so, for god’s sake! Rosé is one of those crazy things: It just keeps expanding and people love it and now it’s not just for summer anymore, it’s not just for the Hamptons anymore. It can be year-round and, yeah, it’s been really fun. And yeah, very supportive.

In a queer context “bear” means a hairy, chubby gay man, so it can’t hurt that “Pursued by Bear” is the name of your brand.

You know, I was really going after the Shakespeare play, obviously, but yeah, not unaware and I thought, that’s kind of funny. There’ve been occasions where I’ve met a few guys – bears, you know – and they’ve said, “Oh yeah, I’ve got this in my cellar.” And it cracks me up! I’m like, “Fantastic, I’m glad you like it.” Its good wine and it should be enjoyed.

from Hotspots! Magazine https://hotspotsmagazine.com/2019/03/27/kyle-maclachlan-talks-new-gay-dad-role-reaching-lgbtq-youth/ from Hot Spots Magazine https://hotspotsmagazine.tumblr.com/post/183750970250

[seenashwrite]

(see HERE for part one of answer)

Ah, mass appeal, that oft elusive lil' stinker. How to get it is one of those age-old questions for us creator-types. We want it, for personal reasons, for perhaps monetary reasons, and determining what constitutes it and how to tap into it and even if we should try to tap into it are all pickles.

No, not that type, those are fabulous. I mean sticky situations. The non-tempuraish bliss with delusion of "Hey, I'm doing great on my diet, 'cause it's a vegetable!" kind.

Spoiler Alert: I'm not going to tell you not to compare yourself to other people, of course you are, and in many ways this is a good thing, it's called having an ideal to which to aspire, except it shouldn't be rooted in popularity, the admiration should be for their work. . . . Thanks for your question!

I'm kidding, Dean, and you damn well know it. Bite me. And fetch me a whiskey. And some Death pickles. I got talkin’ to do.

Part Two: Water Chumming & How That Shark May Bite Your Ass, So Here’s A Bunch Of Other Stuff That Can Be Done From The Safety Of The Shore

C/P for convenience:

Is it worth trying to please the masses when we can't please ourselves? Am I poking the bear?

Let us recap from Part One:

We talked about how to get from a feeling of ineptitude to - at first - just mild trepidation when it comes time to hit "publish",  and started delving into "but how to get there?" so that the path can lead on to an actual measure of confidence, which brings us to the second part of your question up there - which is, I find, a completely normal thought, stemming from exasperation, when it feels like you're surrounded by a ton of people who are having ungodly amounts of success, and it seems like the biggest mystery in the world. So it's natural to wonder: should I follow their lead? Try to do what they're doing?

Maybe - let's unpack that, dig into what that would entail, the pros-and-cons, what some alternatives may be.

Near the end of Pt. 1, we talked about not understanding why some stories/writers gain traction, while others don't, specifically regarding the quality of their stories. As facetious and jokey and snotty and funny as I made that "rant", and said how you could always use the SSDTs [Same Shit, Different Title] stories as a "How Not To Do It" guide, I also mentioned how they must be doing something right - and they are, the metrics we've got (hearts, notes, feedback, asks r/t stories, followers, reblogs) bear it out. It's right there. There's nothing to interpret. It's there. It's fact.

Not to mention, as much as I've tried to drill down on objective parameters for my rec list, to try and smoosh down subjectivity, both on my part and on the part of people who rec to me, there's still a pretty substantial margin of subjectivity. There just is - a story could be ridiculous in plot, could be littered with reprehensible grammar, could poorly represent Sam/Dean/etc., could have a shallow Y/N. Yet if something within the story, no matter how oblique, speaks to the heart of a reader? In the immortal words of Private Hudson:

Game. Over. They’re in. Case closed.

I also mentioned that little number in the corner, that overall snapshot of how much action a given story/that writer accumulated and pondered - does it indicate how great the story is? Also known as: Does that mean their story/their writing is better than mine?

Well. No. Not necessarily. I suspect that - and this would take a huge data mining mission on every single one of a given writer's high count stories to know - in part, some of the number represents a manifestation of a cult following. I'll save you the trouble of clicking the link:

"A cult following is a group of fans who are highly dedicated to a work of culture. A film, book, musical artist, television series or video game, among other things, will be said to have a cult following when it has a small but very passionate fanbase. A common component of cult followings is the emotional attachment the fans have to the object of the cult following, often identifying themselves and other fans as members of a community. Cult followings are also commonly associated with niche markets."

I've no idea why "musical artist" was the only human example they threw in there, because in my experience/observation over **cough** decades of life on the planet, I see cult followings for humans  more than stuff, and public figures of other areas beyond music (actors, politics, etc.) just as much. There are men-I MEAN-people who will never be socially ostracized no matter how inappropriately they behave, no matter the amount of evidence, doesn't matter - their following will absolutely make preserving the (fake) image that person cultivated their hill to die on.

But we're getting negative, and where I'm going with "cult status" in our context isn't negative. The "cult" mentality aspect to which I refer is about loyalty of followers (specifically reader-followers) in general, and then further, the loyalty of that subset of reader-followers who were early readers. They adored "x" number of that writer's stories in the past, and even if the quality of newer stories has declined, they are still gonna hit that heart and reblog it and say it was great. Do they actually believe it? Some of them, to be sure. Do some of them have on cult following rose-colored glasses? Friggin' of course.

Like I said above the cut - I'm not going to tell you not to compare yourself to other people, of course you are, and in many ways this is a good thing, it's called having an ideal to which to aspire, except it shouldn't be rooted in popularity, the admiration should be for their work. But there's admiration owed to these writers for maintaining their follower base, regardless of whether those follower-readers aren't in the admiring-for-the-work mode. So while you can't admire them for their stories, because you think they blow, there is an ideal, a definite modelling to consider: what are some of these writers who are getting huge numbers doing to maintain what popularity they've accrued?

Let's pause here for a recap of what we know for sure:

1. You won't know if telling stories is legit in your wheelhouse or not until you start getting some feedback from readers, which is going to help get you out of Ineptitudeville;

2. Ideally, this would begin with an honest, straightforward editor who knows how to give constructive critique --> in the meantime, use The Nail's guiding standards to serve as an at-home editor til you feel ready to find such an editor;

3. You can't get feedback for your supplemental self-editing documents of "nailed it" and "Achilles' heels" unless you put yourself out there (which, hopefully chipping away at #1 will get you over the ineptitude hump and into a healthy trepidation territory so you can do);

4. There's potential modelling to be done by observing what the "popular" writers are doing outside of their stories to accrue/maintain followers, and trying to see what their loyal reader-followers see in stories you don't find very good.

Again - assuming you've gotten comfy enough to just feel a normal nervousness vs. ineptitude, it's on to getting an audience. So, what could it be? That these mega-number generators are doing? I think it's two things:

(A) They have broad exposure that brings others into the fold (B) There's more at work than just stories

But Nash, are you not paying attention? I don't have exposure, they've got a bazillionty followers - you may say.

Then let's get you some exposure that has nothing to do with follower counts, nothing *inherently* due to the potentially not-so-robust nature of your stories at present, things that just might get you more followers, hopefully turning a chunk of them into reader-followers somewhere along the way.

.

(A) Exposure that doesn't require "popularity":

1. SPN Fanfic Pond ---> 24/7/365 - join it and submit your stories - never know who'll see it - guaranteed reblog

2. SPN Hiatus Creations ---> specific dates - I don't think many people know that they include fics, since they mostly get submissions of art - weekly topics to choose from - join in, submit your stories - the folks behind it most always put a little comment in their tags, so be on lookout for your feedback doc - guaranteed reblog

3. SPN Family Birthdays ---> 24/7/365 - their kindness gets your name "out there" to more people, both the mods behind-the-scenes, as well as that blog's followers - guaranteed exposure - *mandatory* to reblog this with a thank you and at least one point of feedback about it to whomever created that birthday wish for you

4. Bingos:  SPN Genre Bingo - SPN Fluff Bingo - SPN Kink Bingo - SPN Angst Bingo ---> specific dates - variety of topics - guaranteed reblog - good/decent potential reblog from others via their followers and those who follow the tags

5. Challenges from individuals ---> sporadic dates - variety of topics - follow people who you see hosting them, if they've hosted one they'll likely host more - hosts will typically reblog each fic (good chance with a touch of feedback), and/or put your "@" and link to your fic onto a master post - more popular the blog/higher follower count, the more exposure, so high reblog/new reader potential

6. Seasonal Celebrations ---> specific dates - Secret Valentines, secret Santas, etc. - do it and you're also probably making a friend, maybe gaining a new follower, maybe their followers will come visit your place because your assigned person reblogs what you did for them - moderate-to-high potential for reblog *

(*Should be a guarantee but some people are dicks; my Valentine didn't ever send me shit this year, not even an apology through the organizer, but you know what? I don't care. Legit. I made a friend through it, and really enjoyed making what I did for them.)

7. “Bangs”  ---> sporadic dates - a.k.a. Mini-bangs / Big-bangs - focused on a topic/character - guaranteed reblog

8. Appreciation Days ---> specific dates - Angst, Smut, Fluff appreciation days - you can even submit already written fics/don't necessarily have to whip out something new - specific tags can draw readers - good/decent potential for reblogs

9. Prompts ---> 24/7/365 - imagines, those generic prompt blogs - follow some, keep an eye out for the interesting ones - challenge yourself to crank out one a week, short little 500-ish word blurbs - reblogs, maybe, who cares, this is serving to get you out of the funk and get used to posting your work; it's practice, and if it gets love, then great, if not, you still got stuff to put on a master post - and make a master post and get it in your profile so it's easily find-a-ble

10. Outside of Tumblr * ---> 24/7/365 - Fanfic.net and AO3 - join and put fic there and put your links somewhere on your blog - both have stats - both give opportunity for people to comment and to share direct links to their blogs, which is how this connects to the goal of visibility in the SPN fandom here - also a way to self-reblog your story in a “fresh” way/cuts down on repetition popping up on your followers’ dashes (i.e. - helps cushion the ol’ “Oh they’re posting this again?!” feeling)

[* Note: many of us have great distaste for Wattpad because it is a breeding ground for thieves - people will c/p stories from here and present them as their own, some trying to excuse it by “giving credit” in a blanket manner a la “found at Tumblr” or listing the “@” of the writer. The problem is, Wattpad’s method of reporting leaves much to be desired - like Instagram, they only seem to be interested if a published author takes issue. The only real way to call out these thieves is via an immense amount of pressure from the SPN Family commenting directly at their Wattpad page. My point? Your choice, but if you do join up and post there, proceed with caution.]

.

(B) The stuff that's more than just writing:

1. Reblog interesting things that show who you are - fan art is a great start - shows your tastes and what you like - when feeling confident, host a challenge, as what you choose for the framework (one of mine, for instance, was using lines of dialogue from Archer) will also reflect what you like, what you're into - tag people you're friendly with and say something like "Even if you're not interesting in joining, signal boost, please??? [cute emoticon]"

2. Narrow down focus - if you're multi-fandom, drill down on your favorite - start by building up a solid following in that one fandom - keep a ratio of about 80% primary fandom, 20% to cover the others/personal/non-fandom stuff - use a "Not [fandom]" tag for that 20% so your followers can choose to opt-out - or if you can't manage this, do a side blog or two

3. Set your queue to pop stuff out (at minimum) 2 or 3 times/day - stuff it - start with CanonSPNgifs - keep your blog active - unless something you want to reblog is time-sensitive, chuck it to the queue - a wall of posts from the same person on the dash is off-putting - same for constant reblogs of your own stuff*

(* Which you should do, yes, but have an understanding of time zones, will ya? I swear some people are re-blogging for myriad time zones in Oz and Narnia, as well, I've no idea... I've digressed)

4. Send Asks to people like the "spread the love" stuff - if they post "Ask Me" things, send them one - reblog the answered ask and say what you think about their answer/at minimum say "thanks, this was great" - reblog those ask games posts for your followers so they ask you questions - get engaged

5. Respond to a good portion of the comments people leave for you, whether feedback or just funny things they said - specifically, feedback with reblog deserves reply of thank you, whether in the notes or a fresh post; see my blog for copious examples - make a post that says your tags are open/offer to tag folks - anytime your follower count jumps by, say, 5, reblog it - make an OMG!-type post every time your follower count increases by, say, 10 - you’re telling them you actually give a shit that they follow

6. Keep an eye out for folks (especially those who make rec lists, so always check out rec lists for who did it when you spot them) who have said it's okay to tag them - always tag them, even if they seldom reply/reblog/feature you on their list, as you never know

7. When you read stories by other writers that you love, reblog them *with some feedback* - do unto others, etc., etc. This is in huge headline size for a reason. Take the hint.

ETA - I chimed in and gave some tips since I composed this post, and it may be helpful for you/for people who are shy or intimidated or just not particularly comfortable verbalizing feelings.

...and here’s what I suggested:

If you want to get specific, say what your favorite thing/things is/are; in my mind that could go something like this:

I felt like I was right there with them in the ____ [setting]

I felt like I was right there during ____ [part of the plot]

I felt like I was watching an episode of the show

I could relate so much to ____ [character]

My favorite line(s) was/were ____

___ [character(s)] sounded just like they do on the show

___ [character(s)] acted just like they do on the show

And there’s also more generic things, such as:

This story really touched me, I needed something heartwarming!

This story cracked me up, I needed a good laugh!

This story made me smile, I needed some cheering up!

This story got me crying, I needed a good cry!

This story was really creative, I needed a change of pace!

And if you want to keep it really simple? This can apply to any story:

I enjoyed this more than I can say, thank you so much for writing it

.

Is full-on blind cult following an "ehhhh" thing? Yeah. But the basis of it, the true, legit loyalty part of it, is wonderful. You want that. The more readers know you, the more they'll feel comfortable interacting with you, and the greater their comfort, the more likely they'll give you feedback and, eventually, some constructive critique* 

(*You gotta make it clear you're fine with critique, though, and don't dare say it if you're just gonna pitch a fit when you get some, however poorly phrased the critique may be; but that's another topic, for another day).

Great, Nash, you still haven't answered my question about pleasing the masses - you may say. 

The answer is: that's a call you gotta make for yourself. To hopefully help, I'll tell you two stories about chumming the waters with (what seems to be) the standard wares that get a ton of followers/reader-followers.

Interestingly, I *just* this past week or so had a great discussion with someone (who I won't reveal, of course, because it was PM) on this very topic. You'd recognize their name, if not follow them/have read their stuff, they've got a healthy fanbase, etc., etc., etc. all that jazz. It would surprise you, is my point, to know that they've been pondering on their writing - specifically, the genre in which they feel entrenched. They accrued their popularity (I hate that word, but can't think of a better one) in a certain, ah, niche. You know the holy trifecta: angst, fluff, smut. One of those.

(I am not going to go down the road of how much I loathe the limitations of those, I know myself, this will turn trash fire and neglect you. But they are the cards we've been dealt, there's nothing to be done to change it, we must play our hands. #flames on the side of my face #haaaate #I'm done)

Anyway, they've sat here "x" year/years later and looked back at their pre-SPN fanfic foray (read: how they used to write/what they used to write), and are like - Where'd my voice go? Where'd my style go? Can I get it back? Sure I can get it back, but if I start being "me", what will my reader base do with that? Will they stick around and support me? Will they bail? etc., etc., etc. You get the idea. Reasonable thoughts, all.

I tell you this next bit because while what is going on with above writer is on the side of Got A Wide Reach, like I said in Pt. 1, I am presently on the other side, the Modest-in-Number, Large-in-Loyalty reader collective. And I *have* chummed the waters, though not entirely purposefully. And it didn't work... well, hasn't, I can't predict the future, could blow up tomorrow, but not likely. I suspect I know why. We'll get to that.

I say not entirely purposefully because I stumbled into Fluff and Smut, one of each. (There is a second fluff, but that doesn't count because it was tailored to a very specific person who gave very specific things to include for a Valentine swap thing.) The fluff was via a thing I did, and my dear friend nailed it, gave me three cringy words that were meant to hit the fluff bullseye, and I doubled down. You can see that here, should you care.

People fucking lost their shit. I repackaged it into its own post in case folks didn't like the snark in the one linked above/would rather reblog sans snark. People lost their shit, part deux. Flattering as hell. I appreciated it immensely, truly.

On the smut*, I lost a bet (I can't even recall what it was, maybe I mentioned it somewhere) with the friend that drew me into SPN because they were (are? yeah, still are) frustrated with the show and I needed a writing exercise and I had (at the start time) eleven years of source material, so hells yeah I said yes. The bet was for smut, and I said - Fine, but I can't not plot.  Great, was the answer, but I had to typical it up, this was a punishment, after all. And typical, for me, means so much detail that it made brain cry. Copious detail works my nerves. Copious pondering works my nerves. Any one thing that’s too much will Work. My. Nerves. And I wrote it (it's five parts now, but part one and two was the orig piece and ended open), and said to friend "This won't get shit response" - "You wanna bet?" - me, the idiot: "Yup" - "If it does, you have to finish it out".

(*no link because I don’t know your age, and it’s set to sensitive)

People fucking lost their shit. On FF.net and AO3, that is. Not the numbers some people get, but holy hell. Hence, parts 3 through 5. Far as here, not so much the hit. But the people here who've liked it have REALLY liked it, so there's that, and it's flattering as hell, and I appreciate it immensely, truly.

And yet at the end of the day, hey guess what, say it with me now:

Now, for all my pseudo-fussing, I was cool with doing it, because at heart I'm wired to think about marketing, and I thought - Oooooh. This will bring people to the goods, the stuff I'm *really* proud of, and then and then and then....

Nope. Some yes, mostly nope. Most of my loyal roundtable were brought into the Nashooligan fold by other stories.

Here's why I think writer above got on the other side of the coin and I'm riding the edge - they went down the rabbit hole on a few, got mega results, and it fills the confidence tank, and why not wash-rinse-repeat? Humans are wired that way, we don't do things that we don't get something out of, it's normal. Thing is, they - as they see it - got lost a bit along the way. It worked, though, that squashing of their voice - "worked" in the sense that it drew the masses. Some people would be completely okay with this, would find it a reasonable trade-off; this writer isn't presently thinking so.

And back to me - I think the reason my smut and fluff didn't hit the stratosphere and draw in the masses (ergo, little motivation to do more) is because my style is still in there. The snark, the focus on accurate characterization, and like I say, I can't not plot. I didn't pullout the recipe, same ol' ingredients, mix up some standard shmoop/standard porn, flop it in the cupcake paper, bake it, then smear a thin layer of canned frosting - flavor: "Meh Plot" - around it. I made that junk from scratch, like I do all my other stories, and while I did use some of the same ingredients, I didn't go all-in. Notably, my evergreen stance that Y/N can die in a fire, ceiling optional, I ain't doing it. 

I am not going to insist you read either of them, I'm just gonna ask you to trust me on this: I read quite a bit, and I've yet to see the ingredients of Reader Mommy Married To Dean Have A Baby Sam Has Dogs scenario mixed together like mine, and I've yet to see a Reader Insert Smut With Dean Smut With Sam Inferred Happy Ever After With Dean mixed together like mine. 

Which, like I say, is what I suspect is probs the issue. I didn't get as far down the proverbial hole as my writer friend in terms of Typical'ing Up my stories. Could I un-ring that bell? Better put: could I start ringing bells? And I mean weekly, if not twice a week, quickie ones, throw in a lengthy once a month? Crank out the recipes? Plenty of templates to work from, after all. It would be hard for me in the sense of voice-squashing, but could be done.

So if I had to give you a vote on whether chumming the waters is a strategy to take, given those potential pros-and-cons, here's why I vote "no", both for myself, and for you, and others contemplating such.

It's partly that cautionary tale of my writer friend (and there's gotta be more feeling like her, there's just got to be), and mostly it's because of three writers I can think of off the top of my head. They're all quite talented, they consistently turn out solid, creative pieces that can be differentiated from the rest of the fodder floating around, and all three have substantial reader and/or follower bases. One has less than the other two, but nothing to sneeze at. The second - another person I've had great PMs with on the topic of wide appeal - attributes part of their success numbers-wise to specializing not in a niche genre, but due to specialty in a subset of the fandom (a specific, very popular 'ship).

The third, who has a *massive* reader and follower base, I can't get my head wrapped around, and I don't mean that in the sense of not understanding why people adore them, they deserve every bit of it. We'd have to dig deep into years of works and chart out the numbers (likes and reblogs and comments and followers - again, the only metrics we got) to see if there's a tipping point, but there's no magic bullet, so likely there'd be nothing in that data - or data from any highly successful writer around here - that's gonna reveal some secret. And this is the only writer I can think of that I'd really love to know a tipping point on, because: reason I can't get my head around it is because they don't do typical, ain't even in the ballpark of typical. Now, they do inject smut into much of their work, but plenty of other times it's just inferred. Consistently cheeky, if not snarky, if not balls-out-gut-bust funny. Consistently original, creative plots, even when it starts out purposefully trope-y, there's gonna be a slant on their take. I may not personally like everything they put out, I'm not saying they're perfect, but if we're trying to keep it objective vs. subjective, applied to The Nail framework? They're nailing it easily 80-90% of the time. I've actually got a soft moratorium on them, between stuff I find and noms I get on their stuff, I only include them sporadically on the list or else they'd be everywhere.

That gives me hope. Not-a-one of those three are cranking out stuff religiously on some frequent schedule, they write when the muse hits. Not-a-one of those three are following recipes. Not-a-one of those three are blanketing their voice.

And this goes back to the very first thing you said, about pleasing others when we can't please ourselves. Part of the reason you're not pleased is because on whatever level, your stuff isn't grabbing an audience, however big or small. I know it, because I've been there, as I've told you. The biggest part, though? It's because you know you can do better. Maybe you're cranking it out too fast. Maybe you're not fleshing out a character enough. Maybe you wished you'd taken another run at the plot before you published. I don't know, truly. But you're not digging the end result somehow. When you get there? To legit confidence? You're not going to care as much about pleasing others, you just won't. And that confidence is going to show in how you interact with others, little notes you make on gif sets when you reblog, things you say when you feedback others, all that stuff I said above.

People are attracted to confidence. It may intimidate them at first, they may linger on the periphery, but then once they see it's not arrogance or something, they'll be bees circling closer to the honey, because it... it... how to put... it rubs off. A kind've What Would "x" Do kind've thing. And most people will always welcome having more confidence, I mean, the real genuine confidence. We choose who are friends are - to be cheesy - not just because of who they are, but because of who we are when we’re with them. I think the younger we are, we get the wires crossed of "nastiness" and "straightforward". It's the difference between those folks, for instance, who snap and go all "You cum dumpster!" on Anons who word things poorly (I don't mean the ones who are vitriolic, I mean the ones who use less-than-elegant phrasing), vs. the folks who plainly reply something to the effect of "That's certainly something to consider. Thank you for your input". That they can’t discern the difference between a person dishing out hate - actual hate - and a misstep in phrasing speaks a lot to their confidence, that they’re taking a complete stranger’s words as such a personal affront.

I say all that to say: it's not about just the stories; the stories are a piece of a bigger puzzle. Personally, when I see folks being nasty in that manner? My knee-jerk thought is - They are so quick to lash out and write that stuff, and are so careless with their words, I bet their story-writing follows suit. And guess what? I have been 99.9% correct thus far. There's no OOMPHs in their stories: there's no brain-chewy, no heart-grabbing, no snort-giggles, no soul-touching. It's as typical as that comeback. It's lazy. It's easy. It's eye-rolling. It's expected.

Put another way: their lack of confidence in general is what is infesting other areas, in this instance, their stories. I wonder if - since you said “anything I’ve ever created” - that even if it was a slip-of-the-tongue, it may’ve been a meaningful one. If it’s the case, that there are other areas of life where you feel less-than-ideally-confident (a.k.a. - inept), I think you’re smart to start in this area, with fanfic, because as illustrated there’s lots you can do that’s in your control, that’s not dependent completely on others, and probably have some fun along the way, getting to know folks, getting encouragement, seeing your stuff get circulated, etc.

Do you keep a tiny notepad on you? Do that. Grab one from a dollar bin at Target or get you a Moleskine if you're feeling fancy, doesn't matter, but keep it on you, purse, backpack, jacket, wherever. I don't want you doing what I'm about to say on the notes in your phone, not yet. I want you to physically jot down by hand a word or two or five or whatever, about things you see/encounter, turns-of-phrase you hear, mannerisms you note in others - all that stuff - things that do please you. Those OOMPHs. And now you have some inspirational story points ready to go. Even if you aren’t able/feeling up to doing that other stuff above? This is an easy, small place to start.

Bottom line: this isn't happenstance. 

It's not happenstance for the subpar writers, and it's not happenstance for the exceptional ones. This is work. Getting confidence is work. Style is a great deal inherent, true, but it can - and should be - honed, and will likely evolve in subtle ways as time goes on. Confidence and proficiency in a skill (like writing) are not automatic "things" that come with age, not even necessarily with experience. Dig in. Take some of the actions listed above. Start with the least stressful to you, then pick away at 'em as you get comfortable. If you're already doing some of those? Then, start again fresh mentally, as if you just today started doing them. Bump up your effort. Push yourself. See what happens. Get confident in the little things, and it will start to add up, overflow into the empty places.

Look at the pickle you’re in presently as an opportunity to alter your current methodology - I mean, we know whatever you’ve been doing isn’t working for you, right? So it can’t hurt. Batter it and deep fry it, tweaking the recipe as needed; it’s still you, but you’ve applied a well-thought-out, well-crafted extra tastiness to it. There’s people out there who will love it, and they’ll turn up.

See? 😉

[prabbling-blog]

... And Action! (Bill Skarsgard X Reader)

anonymous requested: Oi ! i really like ur writings and was wondering if you do bill skarsgard/pennywise stuff ? if you do can you write a oneshot where Y/N plays the older sister (like shes in her twenties or smth) of beverly and pennywise kills her ? but Bill Skarsgard (he plays Pennywise) has a thing for Y/N and really hopes to impress her but it kinda goes wrong in someway ? idek but it’s been a idea i’ve had for ages ! thankss !  

Warnings: Spoilers -? Maybe? IT is a horror movie so, murder and choking. Also brief brief brief topics of vomit.

Word Count: 1880

A/N: I’m fully aware this is one shot is a bit bizarre and definitely a specific niche (not one that I share necessarily) but I feel like I need to preface this by saying this is simply just for fun. PSA Bev Marsh doesn’t have an older sister Y/N’s role is purely for this work

Ever since Y/N got the call telling her she, Y/N L/N, was to play the part of Laura Marsh, her stomach still hasn’t unfolded itself. It was still all balled up in the pit of her lower abdomen, like she could hurl at any time. It had been there through the three months of filming they had done and she concluded that it would probably never leave.

Her character didn’t play much of a part in the loser’s club, but Y/N’s character was given her own story in the film. She was Laura Marsh, the real town ‘slut’  even though she often used her little sister Bev as a scapegoat. She hung out with Patrick Hocksetter and Henry Bower, and was usually one of Bev and the loser’s tormentors. Laura was a bitch by all standards of convention, even Y/N could admit, which was her death scene was supposed to be simultaneously terrifying and reliving.  

Y/N watched as the loser’s from her black chair as they played hand games and laughed together on the pavement. The blacktop was so hot! She thought, how the hell did they stand it? Y/N technically had only stopped being a kid three years ago (she was 21 now) but she still could never remember a time where she was so uncaring.

“Do ya’ know when they're gonna start already? Jesus lets just get on with the scene already!” The slightly squeaky voice of Nicholas Hamilton (Henry Bowers) abruptly asked beside her. Three months ago she would've jumped, but now she didn't even think about it. She heard a chair scraping against the ground and it groaned with the weight of Nick’s body. She turned and smiled at him, placing her thick and annotated script onto her lap. He was wearing an orange wife beater tanktop and Y/N could see redness on his shoulders beginning to form.

“Whoa I die in this scene! You want me gone that much, huh?” Y/N asked, feigning hurt as she chuckled lightly. It was the most unfortunate death for poor Laura Marsh, first she was kissed and then left by her boyfriend (which just so happened to be Henry Bowers) in the sewers of all places, then she was brutally ripped apart by a clown wearing his face. Y/N knew that the younger actor was anxious for his first on-screen make out (he had told her so time and time again) but she hoped the playful conversation would calm his nerves.  

Y/N was nervous too but for a different reason entirely. She was an experience actress, she had crossed all the necessary rights of passage, yet she was so nervous. Y/N had talked to Bill Skarsgard twice and she couldn’t shake her stupid, girlish crush. She hardly knew the guy for fuck’s sake! She had wanted so much to come from this movie, It was her first big production movie, but now she was most certainly gonna screw up. How the hell could she pretend to be terrified of the guy when she was secretly thinking ‘I want you to rub my mouth on your mouth’?

“No! No!” Nick assured, rubbing the back of his neck awkwardly. “It’s not the death I’m looking forward to,” he whispered under his breath not so subtly. A few moments of hot silence followed before he reached over and grabbed the script from Y/N’s lap. He lazily fanned himself with it boyishly.

“You’ve got another coupla scenes after this so it’s not like you’re not going anywhere!” He joked as he tried in vain to cool himself off. His voice was shaking slightly and his laughs were constrained, like he wasn’t breathing in enough. Y/N cocked her eyebrow and waited for a few seconds before she made a lunge for her script. She, of course, missed it and hit her elbow on the wooden arm rest of his chair.

“C’mon why do you carry this thing anyhow? Everyone knows you memorized this thing cover to cover the instant you got it.” Nick teased stretching his arm away from Y/N as he peered at all of her highlights and somewhat embarrassing notes.

Y/N tried to crack a smile, but it was true, she did take it everywhere. How could she not? How else could she ensure she’d pull through? Besides was it so wrong for her to make sure everything went perfectly?

Nevertheless, she was beginning to suspect that Nick knew something that he shouldn’t, that sneaky little son of a bitch. She was about to reply with a typical snarky remark but she was interrupted by Andy (the director) shouting, “Y/N, Nick, and Bill - Scene 6 please!” Her heart sank as her body began to move without her brain’s consent. Nick had already jumped up and ran over to Andy enthusiastically. Meanwhile, Y/N’s thighs peeled up from her chair and she awkwardly waddled over to join them.

Andy took one glance at her before waving a makeup artist down and whispering in her ear. How ironic that this makeup artist looked like a scary clown herself, what with all that highlighter. The girl took a dry rag and began to dab Y/N’s face a bit, before she was pulled onto set by someone’s face she didn’t even get to see.

Nick grabbed Y/N’s hand and lightly guided her into position, awaiting Andy to shout “Action!” Y/N could still see the kids offscreen playing their hand games, but now one of them had begun throwing little balls of mud.  

“Alright! Is everyone in position?!” Andy asked looking around as if he were waiting for someone to point out a problem. He nodding to the man holding the slate, before loudly shouting “AND ACTION!”

Nick immediately pushed Y/N’s hips up against the walls of the sewers and she giggled obnoxiously. His lips roughly greeted hers in a strained, but very teenager, kiss. The kiss lasted only for a couple of seconds before he pulled away and wiped his mouth, following the script to a tee.

“You’re getting better.” He commented rudely and went back to give her another kiss. But Y/N’s character, Laura pushed his chest back, “What the fuck is that supposed to mean, Henry?” Y/N made sure to smack her lips together, to cock her head, and roll her eyes.

“It means that I thought sluts like you were supposedta’ be good at kissin’. But I guess sluts aren’t really known for their kissin’ anyways.” Again, Nick went in for a kiss, but Y/N pushed him back and feigned disbelief.  

Only open your mouth slightly, stop cocking your head, frown, stare, make your eyes water Y/N went through exactly what she had to do in the mirror time and time again, perfecting every part of her express- Crap, lower your chin and …. cry!

Nick glanced at her, though by now her character was balling. “You’re a fucking crazy bitch. You know that right? How much do you charge again?” He asked so sourly the words curdled in his mouth.

“Just get the fuck outta here!” Y/N yelled and she could see, out of her peripheral vision, Andy mouthing along to the words. Nick smirked evilly, before exiting the set and giving her an encouraging off screen thumbs up. Y/N slumped down and cried pathetically, just as it was written. But eventually she stood and stumbled around in the sewers, crying all the way. She could feel the presence of the camera over her shoulder as it followed her like a ghost. Abruptly, the sound of demonic laughter reverberated around the metal of the sewer hitting Y/N’s ears. Bill was too good at that. It made the hair on the back of her neck stand. Her character stopped walking and wiped her nose with the back of her cranberry colored sweatshirt.

A floating red balloon bobbed through the air as it came softly down to where Y/N was standing. It bobbed so peacefully (like the script had said), so her character tried to reach out to get it like a  young child. Perhaps poor slut Laura Marsh needed comfort too, Y/N pondered.

“AND PENNYWISE GO!” Andy shouted, marking where CGI would be used to create a horrifying, deformed hell version of Bill’s beautiful face. Y/N jumped and let out a throaty, raspy scream, the same scream she was hired for. She felt cold hands on her sweatshirt before she saw Bill, but once she did she couldn’t help to scream again. It was nightmarish, with his enlarged forehead and pointed smile.

The clown pinned Y/N up against the wall, which would’ve actually choked her if it had not been for the slight incline that let her tiptoes hang on. She gasped and sputtered, still crying and struggling pathetically. “HO HO HEHEHE!” The clown laughed in her ear and the sound shocked her so much that Y/N lost her footing, her toes couldn’t get a grip on the wet floor of the sewer. Bill was already so much taller than her at 6’4” that in order to deliver the lines properly, he had begun brought her up to his face. She gripped tightly onto his gloved hands as she coughed and began to feel a bit light headed as he continued to laugh maniacally.

Just kill me already! Y/N painfully thought, she would hate to be the reason for the failed take. But Pennywise, or Bill, never seemed to talk fast enough and Y/N was really beginning to feel the effects as she tried desperately to gulp in air.

“I - I,” Wheeze. “C-c-can’t-t,” Wheeze.  

Immediately like a switch had been pulled, she felt the pressure on her throat release as she fell to the ground into the disgusting water. She gulped in sweet air like she had never breathed before and Andy, god bless him, finally shouted “Cut!”

“Y/N! Are you alright!? I really didn’t mean to! I mean I thought maybe - but - I’m so sorry!” Pennywi- Bill shouted, helping her up by placing his hand on the small of her back. It was so odd hearing him be so gentle and polite while wearing such a terrifying costume. His eyes, which five seconds ago where full of such rage, now were softened and sad. “I can’t believe I didn’t notice,” Bill said exasperatedly and guided her over to where Andy sat, all the while she was still breathing in and out deeply.

“Y/N! Y/N! What happened!” Y/N heard the voices of the child actors as they ran over to inspect the situation.

“It was the heat you dufas!” One of the kids proclaimed obviously, as they patted her shoulder. But all Y/N could focus on was the sound of her heart beating as she panted heavily.

“I’m …  fine guys.” Y/N confirmed as she rubbed her neck tenderly. Now that she finally had air in her lungs, the pain of where Bill’s fingers had wrapped around her throat set in.

“I’m so sorry,” Bill repeated as he tried to give her kindest smile he could, buck tooth, blood drenched and everything.

[heidisamiam]

“Triple Banana, Bitch”: Or, McDanno and the Challenge to Heteronormativity

1. Introducing the Case

[1] Imagine a TV show where two co-workers/friends survived being trapped under a collapsed building and Person A sustained some pretty severe injuries. While trapped, the Person B says “I love you” to them. They are eventually rescued, and the following conversation ensues.

A: When we were in there, you said ah, y'know before you did the thing with the bomb, you said what you said ... I want you to know, I feel the same way. B: How is that exactly? A: You're making me say it? (B gives A a look.) Come here. (They hug.) I love you.

Now imagine a couple years later, a mutual acquaintance, Person C, is listening to them discuss Person A’s ex’s upcoming divorce.

B: What about therapy? It worked for us. C: You two lovebirds have a therapist? A: (Incredulous scoff.) Yes, we have a therapist.

Around the same time, imagine the couple arguing because Person B found out that Person A had been thinking about retirement without consulting Person B.

B: You didn’t feel the need to include me in the decision for you to retire. I trust you to bring me into big decisions like that.

You’d probably think that was a romantic couple, wouldn't you? They got together, they expressed their love after a traumatic event forced them to, they’ve worked at their relationship, they still have spats over things like major life decisions.

What if I said that Person A is Detective Danny Williams and Person B is Lieutenant Commander Steve McGarrett of Hawaii Five-0?

2. Maybe It’s A Joke

The thing about Hawaii Five-0 is that they treat Steve and Danny as if they are the lead couple.

And I don’t mean this in an “if one of them was a woman, they’d be together” kind of way, but in a “sometimes you forget they aren’t actually a married/romantically involved TV couple” type of way. In the Season 7 finale, there was a moment where I honestly was confused why Steve didn’t give Danny a kiss before leaving his office.

It’s intentional, maybe not to the extent that I see it. It started out in a wink-wink-but- clearly-a-joke sort of way. Both friends and strangers referred to them as a couple very early on in the show. But, unlike some shows, there haven’t been “no homo” responses (and none as far as I know from the actors). Maybe a little incredulity from Danny on occasion, but that is his response to teasing in general.

In S1E4, Steve is playing basketball against a guy in prison to try and get information out of him. Steve yells at Danny to shut up to try to get him to stop heckling him. The prisoner he’s playing against asks, “How long you two been married?” No reaction from either of them.

In S1E7, Steve is in a hostage situation while Danny is in the perp’s house. They’re on the phone, and Danny—who looks around to make sure no one is in the room—whispers, “You, uh, you miss me, don’t you?” Steve says, “Of course I miss you.” The retired Navy guy Steve is with asks, “Who are you talking to? Your wife?” Steve replies, “I’m talking to my partner.”

In S2E18, Harry the retired police officer offers them marriage counseling.

They go to a sorority house in S3E12 and one of the women in the house says, without really seeing them interact, “Kelly, your dads are here to pick you up.”  Both men look slightly put out by the statement—but Steve expressly says it’s because he doesn’t think he looks old enough to have a daughter in college.

In S5E17, they occupy a woman’s apartment for a stakeout, and a nosy neighbor assumes they are married. At the end of the episode they leave for couples therapy (no, really) and the woman is confused, because they said they weren’t married, to which Chin says they just fight like an old married couple.

There are numerous other examples of this. A lot of it happens non-verbally, in looks they get from other people or that other people share behind their back, including people who have known and worked with them for years, usually Chin.

In S4E11, Danny calls Steve cheap while the whole group is out, and everyone backs away from their argument, side-eying each other like, “oh the married couple is fighting again.”

So, maybe it’s a joke.

3. More Than Subtext

But maybe it isn’t.

“Ho yay” is a phrase that is sometimes used, meaning “homoeroticism, yay,” to refer to homoerotic subtext in otherwise heteronormative narratives. The history of this has its roots in the fact that you couldn’t put overt mentions of homosexuality on television for a long time. So you had to do the wink, wink, nod, nod. The “roommate” or intimate friendships that most people would interpret as good friends.

There seems to be a conception used in anti-gay rhetoric that homosexuality didn’t exist until the last couple decades and that the liberal agenda intends to turn everyone gay. I would recommend to these people to read any Ancient Greek text (like, any of them), but maybe straight men and women don’t see subtext, because they don't have to. They’re represented.

Sometimes people use the term “queerbaiting” to refer to TV shows that use homoerotic subtext not in a way to imply that characters are gay, but, rather, to tease the idea that a show has gay characters so that people who want to see that kind of representation on a show watch it, but so that people who are “offended” by gay representation won’t not watch it.

I’m not sure if this happens intentionally, or if it’s just people who are fed up with the lack of representation reading into it, because the big TV demographic that everyone is after is males age 18-34, and the majority of men are heterosexual. So, this is unfortunate, but this is the problem with diversifying television, film, publishing, etc. Straight white men are still the default, so anyone else is a niche market, i.e., a risk.[2]

But Hawaii Five-0 goes way beyond the jokes, and I think even beyond baiting. You can actually watch the show as if they are in a romantic relationship together without squinting. Sure, it’s an open relationship, and you have to read both characters as bisexual (easy to do with Steve, a little harder to do with Danny), but on my reading it’s a relationship that goes outside the usual mapping of two men or two women onto a stereotypical heteronormative relationship tropes.

Maybe they aren’t sexually involved--the jokes and innuendo are almost always about them being romantically involved. And that might help my case.

4. The Evolution of a Couple

But I’m getting ahead of myself, because it takes them awhile to get there. Their relationship really starts out with pulling pigtails. They tease each other about their musical tastes, food likes and dislikes, Danny’s love of New Jersey, Steve’s love of firearms. But then “Sexy Eyes” by Dr. Hook comes on in the car one day (S1E11), which is such a lame song there is no reason why Steve McGarrett would like it, and Steve refuses to let Danny change it. It is my personal belief that Steve McGarrett listens to Supertramp and King Crimson exclusively (I have absolutely no proof of this), so not letting Danny change the song from “Sexy Eyes”? I don’t even know what to do with that.

A lot of friendships (and particularly male friendships) are based on ribbing. But neither Steve nor Danny interacts that way with Chin, Kono, Max, Jerry, or Kamekona. In fact, the only person Danny argues with the way he argues with Steve is with his ex-wife. And Steve doesn’t even remotely interact with any of the characters the way he does with Danny. He gives Lou a hard time on occasion, but he never really teases anyone else. The more I think about it, the more I think he is one of the most earnest characters on television. Steve does have a very close friendship with Chin, and in later seasons with Lou, but they’re more serious with each other. The care and support are there, but the playfulness isn’t.

In the first season, Steve and Danny have pet names for each other. In S1E6:

Steve: When I say, “Book ’em, Danno,” it’s a term of endearment. Danny: OK. Do it every day. I like it.

Danny first refers to Steve as “babe” in S1E10. He says it’s a Jersey thing, but he never refers to Chin as “babe” or Kono (who would probably shoot him for it). Sometimes Steve parrots back with a “babe” of his own. They do this in front of other people who don’t know them, usually men, usually men who look like they have no idea what to do with these two crazy cops.

Kono calls Steve “boss” or “McGarrett” and Danny is always “Danny.” Chin calls them by their first or last names. No one calls Danny “Danno” except for Danny’s children, because it’s a nickname Grace bestowed on him.

They flirt. See S1E13:

Steve: We're gonna tear into this guy's life and we're gonna rip it all apart. Danny: I have never liked you more than in this moment right now. It’s beautiful.

Substitute “I have never been more turned on than in this moment right now,” and you’re in an action movie where the guy is hitting on the badass woman.

Or in S2E1:

Danny: Why are you smiling at me? Steve: You’re not wearing a tie. It suits you.

There was also the thong incident. While in a party bus investigating a case (S4E6), Danny finds a discarded g-string, he holds it up to show Steve, and Steve says, “You gonna get an evidence bag, or are you gonna put that thing on?” For a second you can see on Danny’s face that he thinks Steve might be serious.

They know each other in ways that you only people you are intimate with. Danny has a catalogue of Steve’s looks.

Meanwhile Steve catalogs Danny’s tones of voice. Hell, Danny knows Steve’s favorite kind of frosting when he surprises him with a birthday cake. They open up to each other about their pasts in a way that we don’t (or rarely) see them do with anyone else. They communicate with each other nonverbally. They read each other. By season 7, they recognize each other’s moods and use that knowledge to encourage them to talk about what’s on their mind.

This certainly could be best friend behavior. Or it could be the result of their couples therapy (really).

Like I said, maybe they don’t have a sexual relationship, but they also touch each other a lot.

They don’t do this with other characters that they are friends with. Sometimes Steve will put his hand on Chin’s shoulder. Everyone on the team is a hugger. They’re all close. They’re ohana. But it’s different.

Steve and Danny sit really close to each other on couches. In season 3’s Halloween episode (S3E5), they watch The Notebook together on the couch. Steve’s girlfriend Cath is on the opposite end, Grace next to her. Then Danny. Then Steve on the end. He puts his arm around the back of the couch and Danny snuggles next to him. (It was apparently Scott Caan’s idea to do this.)

In S2E8, Steve shows up at Danny’s apartment, puts his arm around the back of the couch behind Danny and they watch Enemy Mine together.

They almost always sit next to each other when the whole group is together. They danced together at Kono’s wedding (S6E1). Not a group dance, this was arms around each other, holding hands, dancing like a couple. I have never seen two straight males friends do this, and I know plenty of straight men who are openly affectionate with their male friends.

One of my favorite moments happened in S4E3 where they are in a warehouse after a shootout, and Danny needs zip ties, so he walks toward Steve, who just lifts his arm as he crosses the warehouse in the other direction to give Danny access to the pocket on his tac vest. Danny grabs the zip ties while they both keep walking. It’s a practiced dance of bodily familiarity. Again, this could be because they work together closely. Steve and Kono have a silent language sometimes when they’re taking down bad guys, but they share a certain cold-blooded killer instinct that Danny and Chin don’t, but it’s not the same as a physical familiarity.

Danny knows Steve’s blood type. He gives Steve part of his liver in S6E25 (after he goes on a cold, uncharacteristic, ballistic rampage against the guy who shot Steve). They will put their lives on the line for the other and directly in harm’s way. They will go all over the world to find the other at all costs.

Danny went to North Korea to rescue Steve (S2E10). Because Jenna knew that Danny was Steve���s person to call in an emergency. She could have called HQ. She didn’t. She called Danny.

Danny went to Afghanistan to bring Steve back after he is captured by the Taliban and rescued by the Army, who didn’t know he was there (S4E20). And Danny gets super defensive when the Army officers who hold Steve try to get him to leave the room. Steve is surprised Danny is there, he asks Danny why he came, and Danny says, “I had to make sure you were okay.” Steve looks so touched in that moment, because it was the first time anyone done something like that for him.

Danny goes with Steve to a random location in the Cambodian jungle to dig up a grave, because it gave Steve a clue into his mother’s identity and past that is haunting Steve (S4E18).

Steve went to Colombia to with Danny to try to find Danny’s brother (S5E4) and later to get Danny out of Colombian prison (S5E18). He gets on a fundamental level that Danny has to get revenge for his brother, and he knows that it’s going to hurt Danny.

My point is that they really seem like a couple.

Danny goes with Steve to a doctor’s appointment in S7E20. He is in the exam room with Steve while the doctor comes in. He asks questions like a spouse. He makes the doctor tell Steve the same thing that he has been telling him in the hopes that he’ll listen to the doctor. They also have a conversation about playing doctor, because Danny is messing around with the doctor’s equipment.

Danny: Now, would you please do me this one favor. Steve: No, I will not bend over and cough with your cold hands. Danny: It’s not that kind of test.

Note that Steve’s objection is the coldness of the hands, not the hands.

Danny enters Steve’s house without knocking. Steve enters Danny’s apartment without knocking. Danny cooks in Steve’s kitchen. And then there was this in S1E24:

Steve: I’ll take powdered eggs over your eggs any day. Danny: You love my eggs. Steve: They’re terrible, Danny.

Why would Danny be making Steve eggs? Who cooks their work friend breakfast food?

5. Defying Heteronormativity

The show hits on a lot of the typical heteronormative romantic TV/movie tropes with Steve and Danny’s relationship.

Agents dating, on a stakeout, undercover—this happens in particular when Steve opens up to Danny about his stunted emotional growth during a stakeout, to which Danny responds by buying Steve a guitar.

Anguished/dying declaration of love: When they are trapped under a building together (S4E19) and when they are dealing with a uranium bomb (S7E18) (more on those below).

Like an old married couple: Again, numerous examples of this.

Belligerent sexual tension: Danny rants at Steve all the time, and Steve argues back, you keep waiting for Janeane Garofalo to jump in and say, “Would the two of you just do it and get it over with? I'm starving!”

Innocent cohabitation: Steve lets Danny stay at his place for a while after Danny’s apartment gets destroyed, Danny sleeps with the TV on (which drives Steve crazy) to drown out the noise of the ocean (which drives Danny crazy), so he buys Danny super expensive noise-canceling headphones from a store clerk who gives him the “partner?” face (S2E9).

Love at first punch: Danny punches Steve in the face in the first episode (S1E1).

But it isn’t entirely heteronormative. Sometimes you run into the “which one is the more feminine one” stereotype when you see gay couples portrayed on TV. You might be tempted to think that H50 plays into this and that Danny is more feminine because he’s sometimes called the nagging wife, and because Steve is a Navy SEAL and Steve really is the central character of the show.

But when you look closer, Danny shows more overt signs of traditional hetero-masculinity than Steve does. His primary emotional response to anything is anger. He goes alpha male protective over his kids to the point of causing others bodily harm. He falls asleep in front of the TV, wakes up when Steve turns it off and says “I was watching that.” He’s the one who sometimes leers at women, is distracted by bikini models. He fathered two children. He is coded as straight.

Steve meanwhile always looks women in the eye. He is either very reserved or he is more individual, person-centric in his choosing of romantic or sexual partners. Given that his old nickname was “smooth dog” (still not sure if that was a joke or not, because Steve is also a huge dork) you get the feeling that he used to be more of a lothario, but doesn’t do that anymore. Maybe he was overcompensating. He is also, in spite of his hard exterior, extremely thoughtful and compassionate. He’s also nags Danny about Danny being a slob after Danny house sits for him. He’s a control freak--usually the accusation given to women.

He also remembers down to the day how long he and Danny have been partners (this happens multiple times over the course of the show).

It wouldn’t be a stretch to consider that maybe Steve is bi or gay, but was closeted while serving in the Navy. You see him in two relationships with women on the show, and both women are not traditionally feminine. Catherine was great. She was absolutely likable. She was a Naval officer, she likes her steaks rare, she drinks beer, she shoots guns. She was competent, confident, and kind of a badass. She was perfect for Steve, and I could roll with it. I like Lynn, too. She’s tough, a thrill-seeker, well-matched for Steve, someone he can do things with that Danny wouldn’t do.

It takes a little mental gymnastic work, it does, but they might just have an open relationship. It works for some people. And it would make Hawaii Five-0 a really progressive show if they went there.

There’s the Rachel issue to contend with. Steve seems upset when he finds out that Danny and Rachel started sleeping together again at the end of season 1. Mostly because Danny didn’t tell him. But in the end, Danny actually chooses Steve over Rachel. Steve gets arrested, and, even though Danny is supposed to meet Rachel and Grace at the airport, he goes to Steve instead.

The writers are teasing Rachel and Danny getting back together, which I vehemently oppose. They tried it twice, Rachel lied to Danny, she resents his job, they don’t work together. It also throws off my narrative a little, even though I think Rachel actually likes Steve, so maybe Danny is going to break Steve’s heart and I will never forgive the writers.

Steve and Cath never really defined their relationship. Though Steve did plan to propose to her, and Danny encouraged it. That doesn’t really kill my theory, though, because I think Danny probably loved Cath, too. Marriage would have been the only way to keep Cath in Hawaii, but marriage wouldn’t have precluded Danny and Steve from still being together in some capacity. Because Cath accepted Danny’s role in Steve’s life. In one episode (S3E17), Cath buys Steve tickets to the Pro Bowl, but Steve already had tickets for him and Danny. Cath just took Kono instead and teased Danny and Steve about their date. In the end, Steve gets injured on a case and can’t go. Danny could still go, but chooses to stay with Steve at the hospital instead. Danny has always been more important to Steve than even Cath was.

I do think part of Danny still likes the idea of a nuclear family, because he’s a parent. But he’s not necessarily a monogamist, though. As evidenced by the fact that he started sleeping with Rachel when she was still married. (Presumably Rachel was already planning to leave Stan, but Danny gets upset when he thinks his sister is cheating on her husband in a later episode, so I don’t know. But hypocrite much, Danno?)

Now you have them in more of a polyamorous situation. They give each other dating advice, but it’s sort of like telling your crush what you would like them to do to woo you. It’s sort of like they are the primary couple and they are negotiating how to deal with the open part of their relationship. Maybe they still both prefer sleeping with women. Danny seems to lean more that way. Maybe they do the commitment, companionship thing with each other. Maybe whatever they have together is new and they’re still working through it.

In S7E16, they “accidentally” spend Valentine’s Day weekend together. They’re with their respective girlfriends, but they end up spending most of the weekend together, and it was their girlfriends who booked the vacation, the adjoining rooms, and they seem more interested in hanging out with each other than they do Danny and Steve.

When the four of them have dinner together at the end of the episode on the beach in a romantic setting, Steve and Danny are sitting next to each other and Lynn and Melissa are on the other side of the table. Earlier in the day, Danny had apologized to Melissa for something and she says, “I knew what I was getting into.”

It’s also worth noting that the steamy love scenes we get on screen are between Kono and Adam and between Chin and Abby. You see Cath and Steve making out pretty heavily once, fully clothed, and you see them in bed together, but Steve and Lynn never even kiss. You see Danny and Melissa in bed together, but it’s only ever implied.

Whatever else, this show does challenge heteronormative stereotypes on some level.

6. The Evidence of Affection

They regularly say “I love you” to each other. Sometimes there’s a “bro” or “buddy” added, but it almost always sounds awkward. You feel like they know other people are watching so they don’t go for it. Most of the time. Sometimes there’s more feeling behind it. “I love you,” I thought I was going to lose you. Sometimes they say “I love you” in the way that you say thank you after you convince your spouse to do an unpleasant chore.

Steve takes Danny on a date (a hike, whatever) in S1E20 to show him cliffs that he used to climb and petroglyphs that his dad used to take him to when he was a kid. This is a big deal, because Steve is opening up about his family. He even suggests that they take Grace there when she’s older. Danny, who complains just to complain, reluctantly agrees that “it’s nice.” It’s kind of romantic.

Steve ends up falling when he goes to check on another fallen climber. Steve breaks his arm in the process but is more worried about Danny being careful when he climbs to the summit of their hike to get cell service. Help does arrive. As the helicopter takes him away, Danny makes a heart sign at him. Maybe it was a joke. But at the end of the episode, he gets jealous when a woman comes up to sign Steve’s cast.

But when Danny thought they were going to die under the collapsed building (mentioned at the beginning, in S4E19), there was no joking around. Again,

Danny: When we were in there, you said ah, y'know before you did the thing with the bomb, you said what you said ... I want you to know, I feel the same way. Steve: How is that exactly? Danny: You're making me say it? (Steve gives him a look) Come here. (they hug) I love you. Steve: I love you, buddy.

Take out the “buddy” and re-read that. I’ll wait.

In S7E18, there is a uranium bomb that Danny and Steve have to removed the uranium from and then take to another location. The bomb is volatile, and they have to take it across uneven terrain in an old truck. Before Steve starts the car, he tells Danny he loves him. Danny doesn’t say it back right then, he panics. But after Steve gets the uranium out, Danny apologizes, “Look, I’m sorry. I should’ve told you.” Told him about his retirement plans? Told him that he loved him? Who’s to say?

My all-time favorite line is in S5E12 when Steve starts helps out a teenager, Nahele, who stole his car but was really just dealt a shitty hand in life:

Danny: You know what you are? You’re a half-baked cookie, soft and gooey on the inside. Kid should be in juvenile hall, and you go and you give him a job  That’s why I love you, babe. You like fixing broken toys.

You don’t always see portrayals of male friendships that are so openly affectionate or willing to say they love one another, and I don’t want to diminish that, I really don’t. Familial love and platonic love are no less important than romantic love. As someone who identifies on the aro spectrum, this is important to me. But you get plenty of solid platonic relationships on the show.

Steve and Chin also have a strong relationship—Steve totally loses it when Chin is strapped with explosives in S1E12. He breaks into a police evidence room and steals $10 million to save Chin’s life. We find out in a flashback scene that after Chin’s wife dies, that Steve would regularly call him in the middle of the night and invite him out for coffee at the diner near Chin’s house, and he would sit with him in companionable silence in the middle of the night. That is friendship. That is love.

But it’s still not the same as it is with Danny. It’s more like you would expect a brotherhood, family, or a close friendship.

Steve and Kono’s relationship is probably my favorite on the show, because Steve neither treats her like a sister nor as a sexual object. Danny leers at Kono the first time he meets her. Eric hits on her, Sang Min hits on her. Steve treats her like a peer. They’re friends, but there is a mutual respect that you rarely get between men and women in real life.

7. More Than Ohana

So, maybe they’re just family. Maybe.

They go to couples counseling—I am not making this up; they literally go to couples counseling—because they have communication problems that affect their working relationship. They also argue about money. These are the two classic problems that romantic couples argue about.

Danny always pays when they go out and would like Steve to stop conveniently forgetting his wallet. Steve doesn’t share his feelings enough. Danny feels like Steve doesn’t listen to him. Danny is the nagging one in the couple (in S1E13, he even admits this, “I don’t want to be a nag, but…”). But Steve is the control freak (as Danny regularly points out, as Steve himself says in S7E18 When he exposes himself to the uranium so Danny doesn’t have to). They’re both worrywarts, particularly about the other, and about Danny’s daughter.

Steve goes to pick up Grace from school in the first season (S1E23) like he’s her step-father, because Danny is in the hospital. He didn’t talk to Danny about it—all he knew was that the doctor said he was going to be okay. He already knew it was Danny’s day to get Grace.

The way they know each other is intimate.

There is a scene in S7E14 where Danny and Chin watch Steve have a conversation on the phone, and Danny gives commentary, knowing the gist of the conversation based on Steve’s body language,

Danny: His mouth has not moved in three and a half minutes. Chin: You know, maybe she's got him on hold. Danny: No. No. His nostrils are flaring. He's pacing like a maniac. And he just switched the phone from his right hand to his left hand, which means he wants to punch something. Chin: Well, you know your boy well.

In addition to the counseling, which is not just a one episode gag (no, really, they have a workbook), Steve “accidentally” books them a couple’s counseling retreat. It’s almost as if he wanted Danny to see that they are a couple, but then he chickened out.

They talk to each other like a couple. There are so many examples of this, I don’t know where to start.

When Danny’s mom comes to visit (S6E15), Steve offers to come down to keep Danny company because she is driving Danny crazy. This was after Steve met her and was overwhelmed by her and Danny’s bickering that he escaped.

Steve: What could the FBI possibly want with your mother? Danny: I have no idea. Why do you think I’m calling you? Steve: Did you ask her? Danny: Of course I asked her. What kind of stupid question is that? Steve: Whoa. Why are you getting mad at me?

Because he recognizes that Danny is upset about something else and projecting. After Danny explains why he’s upset (counseling works!), Steve responds with “You want me to come down there? I’ll come down there.” He’s working a case, but he would drop everything to run interference with Danny’s mother.

Steve cares about Danny’s daughter and son as if they are his family. And you can write it off along with the theme of “ohana,” you could, but by  season 7, Steve and Danny are basically co-parents. Steve goes to the governor to help Danny keep his custody agreement in season 1. When Danny gets taken to Colombia, he asks Steve to talk to Grace. Steve does, and the way he talks to Grace it’s clear that he respects her enough not to lie to her.

In S4E14, the whole group is together, including Grace, celebrating the end of a case. Steve pulls Danny away from the group under the guise of bringing back drinks for everyone just so he can tell Danny what a good kid Grace is. The way Steve looks at her is with fatherly pride.

When Grace’s school dance is held hostage in S7E8, Steve is absolutely frantic until he sees that Grace is okay. He calls out her name like a concerned father, and when she sees him, she races to him to give him a hug. When they separate, Steve looks at Danny and asks, “No hug?”

Danny says, “I’ll give you a hug. I’ll give you a kiss. You pick a base.” Then the three of them walk together, Danny with an arm around them each. I want a scene where Grace’s friends ask her who her dad’s hot boyfriend is. Because you know it happened.

In S7E23, Steve helps Danny decorate Charlie’s bedroom (at Danny’s house? At Steve’s? I can’t tell.). Danny is dealing with protecting a witness (he also leads Steve--not the team, Steve personally--on a wild goose chase around Oahu to track the men who want to silence the witness, which amounts to him ordering Steve around until Steve drives his truck through a house to stop the bad guys), so Steve finishing building Charlie’s race car bed. He plays race car driver with Charlie before bedtime, he tucks him in, brushes his hair off his face, and wishes him goodnight. Like a parent.

Their families talk about them like they’re partners. Hell, Steve takes Danny as his date to Steve’s aunt’s wedding.

In S2E19, Steve’s sister Mary runs into them at the beach as they are coming in from surfing. She asks, “So you guys are like surf buddies now?” And Steve says, “Kind of.”

It’s meant to be on the surface a comment on Danny’s surfing ability, I think, but the awkwardness of it doesn’t account for that. After Mary leaves, Danny says, “So we’re surf buddies now.” The ensuing argument that you can fill in goes something along the lines of: you can’t tell her we’re seeing each other? It is the natural next line in that conversation. “Surf buddies” is like the male version of “gal pals.”

When Danny’s sister comes to visit, she knows who Steve is because Danny talks about him a lot. She says “Mom said you were a catch.” But you don’t get the feeling that she means a catch for her.

The clincher for me was in S7E18 (the uranium episode).

He and Danny have an argument in front of students at the police academy until Duke intervenes. Steve read a list that Danny left on his desk full of things he likes, things like traveling (which Steve points out that Danny always complains when they travel together). Steve calls Danny out for keeping something from him and offers to talk about it, and Danny gets mad because Steve invaded his privacy by looking at the list. The next scene you see Steve talking on the phone to Chin trying to get his assessment of the situation.

We find out that it’s a list of things that Danny would like to do when he retires. Steve gets upset. In the “I thought we would always be together, please don’t leave me” type of way.

Again, “You didn’t feel the need to include me in the decision for you to retire. I trust you to bring me into big decisions like that.”

In the ensuing conversation, Steve compares his relationship to Danny with Danny’s first marriage. Danny says that maybe he wants to open a restaurant after he retires. Steve is incredulous, but by the end of the episode, after they’ve both survived, Steve wants him to name it “Steve’s, “because if we’re not together, we’ll still be together.” Steve is so co-dependent on Danny I could write a separate essay about it. To show his support, Steve even buys Danny a monogrammed chef’s hat in S7E25.

The last scene of S7E18, when Lou tells Steve that HPD was the target of the uranium bomb, you see Steve turn and look at everyone eating dinner in the house (McGarrett’s house. Where Danny was cooking.), and the camera following Steve’s gaze focuses on Danny.

8. McDanno Forever

I can work with the girlfriends and the apparent heterosexuality. I can work with the “bro”s and “buddy”s. My point is that if the writers started writing out the women as love interests and wrote in a few more domestic scenes with Steve and Danny, it wouldn’t take away from the show. In fact, I don’t think anyone would notice anything was different. Because it wouldn’t actually be different.

It also genuinely wouldn’t feel out of character for Danny to finally figure out that he and Steve have actually been together together for years without him realizing it. Steve, of course, knew all along.  

But it also wouldn’t surprise me if they are already knowingly in a committed but open relationship. One that maybe started with sex but ended up as life partners of some sort, because however you want to define it, Danny is very clearly the most important person in Steve’s life. And Danny clearly relies on, depends on, trusts and loves Steve.

You can actually hear the reactions when they tell everyone.

Lou: *nearly falls over laughing*

Chin: “Yeah, we know, brah.”

Kono: “Everyone knows.”

Jerry: “Worst kept secret since The Flash’s identity.”[3]

[1] Originally posted on Wordpress here. Title is a quote from Danny regarding the level he reached on Pac-Man. Also, all photos and were taken from google searches, and probably the property of CBS. [2] There’s a lot more to say about this. Diversity without tokenism is really important to me, and some day I'll write something about it. [3] Granted, Wally West told everyone he was The Flash, but then he outed Barry Allen in the process...

[borledtodeath]

thoughts on recent developments

so, if anyone reads my tags at all, you'll notice that i haven't been a huge fan of the "mendel eats dirt" meme. personally, i didn't find it terribly funny, but i just left it alone, because who am i to shit on other people's fun, right?

 well. 

let me preface this by saying that i am not trying to tell anyone to stop making jokes or memes. i'm not telling you what to think is funny. these are thoughts that i have been having for a few days now, but recent events have made me decide to put in my two cents on the matter. 

 tumblr is a truly wild place. you can find others that share the same interests as you, no matter how bizarre or niche they may be. that being said, tumblr is also a strange place. people come up with their own jokes, headcanons, and ideas that can seem a little crazy to people unfamiliar with tumblr culture. i've been in this website for nearly five years- i can guarantee you i've seen some odd shit. the fact of the matter is this: not everyone understands tumblr jokes. not everyone gets how tumblr memes come to be, and not everyone finds them funny. if i were to share some of the things i've found funny on this website with my real life friends, i'd get some pretty strange looks. tumblr humor is often only understood by people familiar with this website in the first place. 

 "but why, sydney, is this important now?" you may ask. "surely everyone already know this!" ah, but this is where you may be mistaken. 

 today, while scrolling my twitter feed, i came across a tweet that genuinely shocked me. never had i thought that i would see sweet, 12-year old anthony rosenthal tweeting about this dirt joke that has taken the fandom by storm. how did he even know about it? to my knowledge, neither he nor the rest of the falsettos cast have a presence on tumblr! now, i've posted about when things in this fandom have gotten a bit out of hand before- what i saw today blew all those other times out of the fucking water. 

 what's my point, you may ask? yes, anthony rosenthal is a kid. yes, he probably find random shit like this hilarious. yes, he is an accessible broadway star who is more likely to actually see and reply to your post than many others. but here's the catch: he's not a tumblr user. he may be a kid, but we have no way of knowing whether or not he uses this god forsaken website, and therefore, we had no idea if he would think the joke was funny or not. and judging by his response to the multitudes of tweets regarding this meme, he didn't. stating that he was "clearly missing something" didn't really seem like he was shitting his pants from laughing so hard at the mental image of not only a character that no doubt means a lot to him, but also a coworker who he probably misses quite a bit, eating dirt. eating. dirt. why on earth would he think that that was funny? he has no reason to think it is! he has no context of the joke and hasn't been around for all the other weird shit the falsettos fandom has produced these past few months- did people really expect him to agree that it's hilarious? 

i'm gonna reiterate something that was brought up a few weeks ago with the arrival of the bootleg: ACTORS ARE PEOPLE TOO. the cast of falsettos did not ask to be invited into our weird jokes. they don't have any clue that any of this has been going on. and i guarantee you they are feeling the loss of this show harder than any of us are- can you imagine performing such an intense musical over a hundred times? they are adjusting, like us all, to the fact that this show is no longer an active presence in their lives. however, i don't think they're doing it by discussing whether or not mendel eats dirt. 

 this has gotten waaaayyyy too long, and most of you probably disagree with me anyways, but let me just say this: actors are real people, with real lives, thoughts, everything. they are not untouchable entities for us to place on a pedestal and yell shit at: they can be made uncomfortable. they can get weirded out. judging from some things i've seen across the run of the show, they likely already have. but here's the point: keep your odd, niche jokes amongst yourselves. post about them in tumblr, start a group chat with your friends about them, fucking eat dirt if you feel so inclined- just don't bring actors into this. let them grieve the loss of the show without having to wonder if mendel eats dirt or whatever the next weird thing is gonna be. don't use the excuse of "we miss the show and are trying to keep it alive!"- i guarantee you these people are missing it more than you. 

 this is long, overdramatic (for effect), and wordy, but this has been stewing for a while and i needed to say something about it. i'm not gonna answer any asks about this, i won't respond to any replies or messages about it either- i've said what i want to say and i'm leaving it at that. for now, i'm gonna avoid the falsettos tag indefinitely, hopefully until this all blows over. i would still love to talk about the show, the actors, the cube, your headcanons, anything you want- but i wanted to make sure my stance on this was known. if you don't agree with me, unfollow me. i'm done talking about this.

[cynthiajayusa]

Kyle MacLachlan Talks New Gay Dad Role, Reaching LGBTQ Youth

In Giant Little Ones, actor Kyle MacLachlan plays a gay divorced dad named Ray Winter parenting a distant teenage son, Franky (Josh Wiggins), who’s grappling with his own sexual identity. I repeat: Kyle MacLachlan, a gay dad. The 60-year-old actor’s range knows absolutely no bounds, inhabiting diversified worlds and traversing genre, from comedy to drama, from soapy to supernatural.

MacLachlan’s first major role was in David Lynch’s 1984 adaptation of Dune (soon, Call Me By Your Name actor Timothée Chalamet will be slipping into MacLachlan’s stillsuit for the forthcoming remake) and two years later, in 1986, he collaborated with the screen auteur again on Blue Velvet, starring alongside Isabella Rossellini. But it was Lynch’s early-’90s cult TV series Twin Peaks that arguably made MacLachlan a marquee name (in 2017, he reprised his role as Agent Cooper in Twin Peaks: The Return).

In his three decades in TV and film and on stage, MacLachlan has played a city official based on first big-city openly gay Mayor Sam Adams, Fred Flintstone’s boss, the guy who fucks Nomi Malone in a swimming pool, Riley’s dad in Inside Out, Charlotte’s husband on Sex and the City, Bree Van de Kamp’s husband on Desperate Housewives, and because why the hell not: Cary Grant’s ghost. Starring in writer-director Keith Behrman’s Giant Little Ones as Helpful Gay Dad was really just an inevitably, but for MacLachlan, Ray is a warm hug of a role he deeply feels is important. One that, as a parent himself, even hits close to home.

Here, the actor talks about raising his son, Callum, much like Ray Winter does, gay fans who slip into his DMs and bears who love his rosé.

You’ve played dads before. But what about Ray spoke to you differently?

He had a journey in this as well, which I liked. It was really about the connection with his son, and at that age it’s very difficult and made even more challenging by the fact that the parents are separated. Under the circumstances, Franky just doesn’t know what to think or what to say, and I like that (Ray) really hung in there. I think in the original draft he was maybe a little more demanding, and so we kind of softened that a little bit. There are still those issues, but it was really important to me to feel like Ray was there and he wasn’t gonna go anywhere and to remain as non-judgmental as possible.

His presence is always felt, but he’s able to give his kid space at the same time. I appreciated that he tells his son to focus on who you’re drawn to and not what to call it, essentially letting him know that sexuality is a spectrum. How did that resonate with you?

That was a really nice piece of writing on Keith’s part, I thought. Again, trying not to judge. Especially at that age, I remember for myself just kind of trying to find where you fit in, what you’re good at, what you’re not good at, who’s your group. There’s lots and lots of questions and insecurities that are masked by a false sense of identity or control or “I don’t want to hear what you say, I’ve got it figured out myself.” The idea of just being present, it’s the way I approach the relationship with my son, the not judging. I’m not going at it trying to make him into something he doesn’t want to be.

You were the stepfather of a gay son, Andrew Van de Kamp, on Desperate Housewive. Who does the better job parenting a queer kid: Orson Hodge or Ray Winter?

(Laughs) Orson, bless his heart. You know, he had good intentions, and there was an understanding there at attempting to connect. I don’t think Orson was ever comfortable in that role. I think Ray is more conscious and he’s a champion, in some ways, for anyone who’s being judged. In this particular case, it’s “hang on a second.” He’s sort of about turning the page: “Let’s look at this and what’s really happening here.” I liked that. And he does it with an inner strength and a firmness, but it’s not without a wry sense of humor, and that I liked about him too.

When were your eyes first opened to having an LGBTQ following?

I think it was probably with Blue Velvet, I guess. Thematically it expected so much of the audience and it told a story that was so unusual and so true. That sort of started it, but I think with the advent of social media, suddenly it’s really obvious and present. And it’s great.

How has it become obvious through social media?

Just through comments, and its fun to read and great to feel the support. And then because so much of it is built around David Lynch, there’s a real shorthand just in terms of terminology and phrases, and because of David’s visuals and his images and his dialogue, of course.

I have a friend who says Blue Velvet was responsible for his sexual awakening. Is that what gay fans tell you on Twitter?

(Laughs) Maybe not quite so personal! But you know, that’s film. Film is all about experiencing something and having your eyes opened, and I think that film in particular was about that; the exploration of it and the themes of it were so interesting, and they hadn’t really been dealt with that much.

What kind of attention did Showgirls get you from the LGBTQ community?

(Laughs) I don’t think it found its camp niche until a little bit later. It had to go through the “Oh my god, this is perhaps one of the worst films ever made” reaction and then people sort of said, “I think it was, in a way, a guilty pleasure.” Then that began to grow, and there’s a true hardcore following of it and that’s really fun. I’ve never said, “Oh yeah, in fact, actually, that was the intention,” or, “Oh yeah, it’s a great film” – it’s not a great film. But it succeeds at a level that I think is still entertaining and fun. And why not? That’s our business.

I was at a gay bar once and they were showing Showgirls on all the TVs. When you shot that film, did you expect for it to live on in the LGBTQ community like it has?

I think we all entered into the film – certainly, I did – looking at the creative side of it. So you had really talented people – (director) Paul Verhoeven, obviously – and I think his intention was to do something that was sort of hard and cutting-edge and exposé and I think it kind of got away from him a little bit and became something else that was unexpected. But at the same time, we’ve all embraced it and said, “This is where it went,” and I gotta say, the film was probably gonna have a much longer life because of how it ended up than if it hadn’t. If it was a film that we intended to make, it would’ve been great and fine and OK, but now, it will live on forever.

Particularly at gay bars.

At least there! And midnight showings!

For 2004’s rom-com Touch of Pink, what was special about portraying the ghost of Cary Grant who gives advice to a gay Muslim man?

It was really fun. First of all, just the research alone was great. Getting to watch all the films, reading up about him, who he was as a person and the business side of things in Hollywood and how he really, really created this persona, which I think he tried to get away from but it was what he was known for. So I loved the research of it.

And the director, Ian (Iqbal Rashid), whose story this actually was, was so lovely and I see him occasionally when I’m in London. He’s just a terrific person and a very, very talented director, and I was flattered. He had actually seen me on the stage doing a new play with Woody Harrelson and I don’t quite know how he got there from that performance (laughs), but he thought I’d be perfect. So that’s a pretty big mantle to try to take on, and so we sort of softened that a little bit and said he’s more the spirit of Cary Grant – he’s not exactly Cary Grant. But I enjoyed stepping in those shoes and trying out that language and that kind of attitude and that whole thing. And it’s got a beautiful message, and just the ending when he has to let go, it’s very touching, I think.

In 2018, you were honored with a Dorian acting award by GALECA, the Society of LGBTQ Entertainment Critics, for Twin Peaks: The Return, and in 2009, Desperate Housewives received Outstanding Comedy Series from GLAAD.  Is there something special or distinct about having your work acknowledged by LGBTQ audiences and organizations?

Yeah, those stories, if they can speak to a community and there’s a resonance there, that’s the goal of this. They should be universal, but I think that if there’s a relationship that can be created then we’re doing a good job; something that’s worthwhile that creates an emotional response and a connection, that’s really what you want. I mean, that’s what I want.

You played the mayor of Portland in Portlandia.  Do you think that character would make a good mayor of Twin Peaks or Wisteria Lane?

(Laughs) He wasn’t a really good mayor – but he was incredibly enthusiastic! I think that was the fun of it: He always got things a little bit wrong but they kind of ultimately ended up OK, with the help of Fred (Armisen) and Carrie (Brownstein), certainly. But, oh god, at least it would be a lot of fun to have him as a mayor of any community, I think.

Why haven’t we seen you in more openly gay roles?

(Laughs) It’s a good question. You know, the work just kind of comes, and it’s one of those things where once it sort of filters through a little bit of whatever it does in Hollywood it finds its way into my inbox and you take a look at it.

Have there been gay roles you’ve turned down?

It’s always about the quality of the material, so if it there was, it just wasn’t worth telling.

But then you read something like Giant Little Ones.

And you know that it is a beautiful story. I had the reaction that everyone had: This is a story that needed to be told, and for any kids out there who are having this kind of “I don’t know, I don’t know” and they don’t have anywhere to turn, it’s like, well, we’re not the answer, but we’re at least an experience to say, “You’re not alone.”

And a reminder to your own son that his dad is OK with whomever he becomes or wants to be.

In fact, he attends a school in New York and it’s all about that. It’s all about the acceptance of everyone, and it’s a wonderful thing to watch because that wasn’t my experience growing up. Public schools, small town, very conservative. Not unlike the situation of Franky, there was a lot of “however tough you are” and “whatever sports you play,” those are your identifiers. It’s nice that he’s having a completely different experience.

In your spare time, you are a winemaker. Are gay men some of your most loyal rosé buyers?

(Laughs) I should hope so, for god’s sake! Rosé is one of those crazy things: It just keeps expanding and people love it and now it’s not just for summer anymore, it’s not just for the Hamptons anymore. It can be year-round and, yeah, it’s been really fun. And yeah, very supportive.

In a queer context “bear” means a hairy, chubby gay man, so it can’t hurt that “Pursued by Bear” is the name of your brand.

You know, I was really going after the Shakespeare play, obviously, but yeah, not unaware and I thought, that’s kind of funny. There’ve been occasions where I’ve met a few guys – bears, you know – and they’ve said, “Oh yeah, I’ve got this in my cellar.” And it cracks me up! I’m like, “Fantastic, I’m glad you like it.” Its good wine and it should be enjoyed.

source https://hotspotsmagazine.com/2019/03/27/kyle-maclachlan-talks-new-gay-dad-role-reaching-lgbtq-youth/ from Hot Spots Magazine https://hotspotsmagazin.blogspot.com/2019/03/kyle-maclachlan-talks-new-gay-dad-role_27.html

[hotspotsmagazine]

Kyle MacLachlan Talks New Gay Dad Role, Reaching LGBTQ Youth

In Giant Little Ones, actor Kyle MacLachlan plays a gay divorced dad named Ray Winter parenting a distant teenage son, Franky (Josh Wiggins), who’s grappling with his own sexual identity. I repeat: Kyle MacLachlan, a gay dad. The 60-year-old actor’s range knows absolutely no bounds, inhabiting diversified worlds and traversing genre, from comedy to drama, from soapy to supernatural.

MacLachlan’s first major role was in David Lynch’s 1984 adaptation of Dune (soon, Call Me By Your Name actor Timothée Chalamet will be slipping into MacLachlan’s stillsuit for the forthcoming remake) and two years later, in 1986, he collaborated with the screen auteur again on Blue Velvet, starring alongside Isabella Rossellini. But it was Lynch’s early-’90s cult TV series Twin Peaks that arguably made MacLachlan a marquee name (in 2017, he reprised his role as Agent Cooper in Twin Peaks: The Return).

In his three decades in TV and film and on stage, MacLachlan has played a city official based on first big-city openly gay Mayor Sam Adams, Fred Flintstone’s boss, the guy who fucks Nomi Malone in a swimming pool, Riley’s dad in Inside Out, Charlotte’s husband on Sex and the City, Bree Van de Kamp’s husband on Desperate Housewives, and because why the hell not: Cary Grant’s ghost. Starring in writer-director Keith Behrman’s Giant Little Ones as Helpful Gay Dad was really just an inevitably, but for MacLachlan, Ray is a warm hug of a role he deeply feels is important. One that, as a parent himself, even hits close to home.

Here, the actor talks about raising his son, Callum, much like Ray Winter does, gay fans who slip into his DMs and bears who love his rosé.

You’ve played dads before. But what about Ray spoke to you differently?

He had a journey in this as well, which I liked. It was really about the connection with his son, and at that age it’s very difficult and made even more challenging by the fact that the parents are separated. Under the circumstances, Franky just doesn’t know what to think or what to say, and I like that (Ray) really hung in there. I think in the original draft he was maybe a little more demanding, and so we kind of softened that a little bit. There are still those issues, but it was really important to me to feel like Ray was there and he wasn’t gonna go anywhere and to remain as non-judgmental as possible.

His presence is always felt, but he’s able to give his kid space at the same time. I appreciated that he tells his son to focus on who you’re drawn to and not what to call it, essentially letting him know that sexuality is a spectrum. How did that resonate with you?

That was a really nice piece of writing on Keith’s part, I thought. Again, trying not to judge. Especially at that age, I remember for myself just kind of trying to find where you fit in, what you’re good at, what you’re not good at, who’s your group. There’s lots and lots of questions and insecurities that are masked by a false sense of identity or control or “I don’t want to hear what you say, I’ve got it figured out myself.” The idea of just being present, it’s the way I approach the relationship with my son, the not judging. I’m not going at it trying to make him into something he doesn’t want to be.

You were the stepfather of a gay son, Andrew Van de Kamp, on Desperate Housewive. Who does the better job parenting a queer kid: Orson Hodge or Ray Winter?

(Laughs) Orson, bless his heart. You know, he had good intentions, and there was an understanding there at attempting to connect. I don’t think Orson was ever comfortable in that role. I think Ray is more conscious and he’s a champion, in some ways, for anyone who’s being judged. In this particular case, it’s “hang on a second.” He’s sort of about turning the page: “Let’s look at this and what’s really happening here.” I liked that. And he does it with an inner strength and a firmness, but it’s not without a wry sense of humor, and that I liked about him too.

When were your eyes first opened to having an LGBTQ following?

I think it was probably with Blue Velvet, I guess. Thematically it expected so much of the audience and it told a story that was so unusual and so true. That sort of started it, but I think with the advent of social media, suddenly it’s really obvious and present. And it’s great.

How has it become obvious through social media?

Just through comments, and its fun to read and great to feel the support. And then because so much of it is built around David Lynch, there’s a real shorthand just in terms of terminology and phrases, and because of David’s visuals and his images and his dialogue, of course.

I have a friend who says Blue Velvet was responsible for his sexual awakening. Is that what gay fans tell you on Twitter?

(Laughs) Maybe not quite so personal! But you know, that’s film. Film is all about experiencing something and having your eyes opened, and I think that film in particular was about that; the exploration of it and the themes of it were so interesting, and they hadn’t really been dealt with that much.

What kind of attention did Showgirls get you from the LGBTQ community?

(Laughs) I don’t think it found its camp niche until a little bit later. It had to go through the “Oh my god, this is perhaps one of the worst films ever made” reaction and then people sort of said, “I think it was, in a way, a guilty pleasure.” Then that began to grow, and there’s a true hardcore following of it and that’s really fun. I’ve never said, “Oh yeah, in fact, actually, that was the intention,” or, “Oh yeah, it’s a great film” – it’s not a great film. But it succeeds at a level that I think is still entertaining and fun. And why not? That’s our business.

I was at a gay bar once and they were showing Showgirls on all the TVs. When you shot that film, did you expect for it to live on in the LGBTQ community like it has?

I think we all entered into the film – certainly, I did – looking at the creative side of it. So you had really talented people – (director) Paul Verhoeven, obviously – and I think his intention was to do something that was sort of hard and cutting-edge and exposé and I think it kind of got away from him a little bit and became something else that was unexpected. But at the same time, we’ve all embraced it and said, “This is where it went,” and I gotta say, the film was probably gonna have a much longer life because of how it ended up than if it hadn’t. If it was a film that we intended to make, it would’ve been great and fine and OK, but now, it will live on forever.

Particularly at gay bars.

At least there! And midnight showings!

For 2004’s rom-com Touch of Pink, what was special about portraying the ghost of Cary Grant who gives advice to a gay Muslim man?

It was really fun. First of all, just the research alone was great. Getting to watch all the films, reading up about him, who he was as a person and the business side of things in Hollywood and how he really, really created this persona, which I think he tried to get away from but it was what he was known for. So I loved the research of it.

And the director, Ian (Iqbal Rashid), whose story this actually was, was so lovely and I see him occasionally when I’m in London. He’s just a terrific person and a very, very talented director, and I was flattered. He had actually seen me on the stage doing a new play with Woody Harrelson and I don’t quite know how he got there from that performance (laughs), but he thought I’d be perfect. So that’s a pretty big mantle to try to take on, and so we sort of softened that a little bit and said he’s more the spirit of Cary Grant – he’s not exactly Cary Grant. But I enjoyed stepping in those shoes and trying out that language and that kind of attitude and that whole thing. And it’s got a beautiful message, and just the ending when he has to let go, it’s very touching, I think.

In 2018, you were honored with a Dorian acting award by GALECA, the Society of LGBTQ Entertainment Critics, for Twin Peaks: The Return, and in 2009, Desperate Housewives received Outstanding Comedy Series from GLAAD.  Is there something special or distinct about having your work acknowledged by LGBTQ audiences and organizations?

Yeah, those stories, if they can speak to a community and there’s a resonance there, that’s the goal of this. They should be universal, but I think that if there’s a relationship that can be created then we’re doing a good job; something that’s worthwhile that creates an emotional response and a connection, that’s really what you want. I mean, that’s what I want.

You played the mayor of Portland in Portlandia.  Do you think that character would make a good mayor of Twin Peaks or Wisteria Lane?

(Laughs) He wasn’t a really good mayor – but he was incredibly enthusiastic! I think that was the fun of it: He always got things a little bit wrong but they kind of ultimately ended up OK, with the help of Fred (Armisen) and Carrie (Brownstein), certainly. But, oh god, at least it would be a lot of fun to have him as a mayor of any community, I think.

Why haven’t we seen you in more openly gay roles?

(Laughs) It’s a good question. You know, the work just kind of comes, and it’s one of those things where once it sort of filters through a little bit of whatever it does in Hollywood it finds its way into my inbox and you take a look at it.

Have there been gay roles you’ve turned down?

It’s always about the quality of the material, so if it there was, it just wasn’t worth telling.

But then you read something like Giant Little Ones.

And you know that it is a beautiful story. I had the reaction that everyone had: This is a story that needed to be told, and for any kids out there who are having this kind of “I don’t know, I don’t know” and they don’t have anywhere to turn, it’s like, well, we’re not the answer, but we’re at least an experience to say, “You’re not alone.”

And a reminder to your own son that his dad is OK with whomever he becomes or wants to be.

In fact, he attends a school in New York and it’s all about that. It’s all about the acceptance of everyone, and it’s a wonderful thing to watch because that wasn’t my experience growing up. Public schools, small town, very conservative. Not unlike the situation of Franky, there was a lot of “however tough you are” and “whatever sports you play,” those are your identifiers. It’s nice that he’s having a completely different experience.

In your spare time, you are a winemaker. Are gay men some of your most loyal rosé buyers?

(Laughs) I should hope so, for god’s sake! Rosé is one of those crazy things: It just keeps expanding and people love it and now it’s not just for summer anymore, it’s not just for the Hamptons anymore. It can be year-round and, yeah, it’s been really fun. And yeah, very supportive.

In a queer context “bear” means a hairy, chubby gay man, so it can’t hurt that “Pursued by Bear” is the name of your brand.

You know, I was really going after the Shakespeare play, obviously, but yeah, not unaware and I thought, that’s kind of funny. There’ve been occasions where I’ve met a few guys – bears, you know – and they’ve said, “Oh yeah, I’ve got this in my cellar.” And it cracks me up! I’m like, “Fantastic, I’m glad you like it.” Its good wine and it should be enjoyed.

from Hotspots! Magazine https://hotspotsmagazine.com/2019/03/27/kyle-maclachlan-talks-new-gay-dad-role-reaching-lgbtq-youth/

[lindyhunt]

Does Bryan Singer’s Film Bohemian Rhapsody Deserve to Get Awards Love?

The ranks here at FASHION are not filled with men. Shocking, right? But there are one or two (there are actually, literally, two). Naturally, when a question about male/female dynamics arises it’s only fair that one of them stand in for the members of his gender and provide some insight. Our last topic of conversation was about controversial Christmas song “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” and today we’re discussing whether Bryan Singer-directed Bohemian Rhapsody should be snapping up any prizes this awards season. Two of our staffers—from the men’s corner, Greg Hudson, and from the women’s, Pahull Bains—talk it out.

PB: When Bohemian Rhapsody won the Best Picture (Drama) award at the Golden Globes last weekend, in addition to perplexity from critics who had largely panned the film, there was a fair bit of outrage on the internet. Evan Rachel Wood tweeted, “So we just..we are all still supposed to be pretending we don’t know about Bryan Singer? Cause it worked out really well with #Spacey and #Weinstein.” Now, I’m all for men finally getting their comeuppance but I also think it’s unfair that the entire cast and crew of a film be punished for the misdeeds of one person, whose shadiness wasn’t known until the #MeToo Flood of 2017. Or so I thought.

Yes, in 2017 Singer was fired as director of the film partway through shooting for causing “on-set chaos”: showing up late, being unavailable for days at a time, disappearing without the studio’s permission. Just a few days later, it emerged that Singer had been accused of rape by Cesar Sanchez-Guzman, who had been 17 at the time of the assault in 2003. So, I thought to myself, production on this film began before this news came out, so we can’t blame the team for working with him. I’m no fan of the movie, but let them have their moment of glory, thought I, wee innocent one.

As it turns out, allegations against Singer—who has directed films like The Usual Suspects and X-Men: First Class—go way, way back. In December 2017, IndieWire published “The Bryan Singer Timeline: a History of Allegations and Defenses, from Troubled Films to Sexual Assault Claims,” and lets just say it’s not a short list, going as far back as 1994 and ranging from allegations of sexual assault and rape to accusations of filming minor boys naked without their permission.

So, now that we’re caught up on Singer’s problematic history, what does it mean for Bohemian Rhapsody as an awards contender? No one was expecting it to win two big awards at the Globes, which has led understandably to increased scrutiny as we make our way through awards season, with the Critics’ Choice Awards, the SAGs, the BAFTAs, and of course the Oscars ahead of us. Do you think the film’s shot at these shiny statuettes should be diminished because of Singer’s involvement?

FIRST REFORMED, but about Ethan Hawke struggling to find hope in a world where Bohemian Rhapsody is probably gonna be nominated for Best Picture. pic.twitter.com/dI4D7kxfJ7

— david ehrlich (@davidehrlich) January 4, 2019

GH: Before I single-handedly bring down Bryan Singer with my rhetoric and rage, I just want to point a couple of things out that are probably not all that relevant. Why do this? Because I’m a man, and we enjoy talking like experts on subjects we just did some half-assed internet research about.

Point 1: The Golden Globes matter to the Oscar race about as much as the Iowa Caucuses do to the Presidential election. You’ll recall, being the astute political observer that you are, that the Iowa Caucuses happen early in the American election cycle. That’s really the only reason they are covered so closely every four years. Sometimes they are a predictor of who the eventual nominee (and president) will be, but often not. Just ask Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Ted Cruz. And, similarly, the only reason the Golden Globes seem important is that they happen early in award season. But they are judged by such a niche group that their picks can seem downright baffling at times. Remember the 2010 flop The Tourist starring Johnny Depp? That was nominated for best picture at the Golden Globes. Have you ever seen Mozart in the Jungle? No! No one has! And yet, it’s a Golden Globe-winning television show.

So, do I think Bryan Singer’s creepiness will effect Bohemian Rhapsody’s Oscar chances? No. I think the fact that it’s a paint-by-numbers musical biopic will hurt its chances. (Seriously, the movie could have been called Walk Hard 2: This Time the Rockstar is Gay). I mean, Rami Malek and his mouthguard might still get a nod, but if you want a good Oscar predictor, the TIFF People’s Choice selection has a better track record. (So, get ready for a lot of Green Book hot takes!)

Point 2: Though she has already addressed and expressed regret about it—and she did so even before #MeToo made it a thing—Evan Rachel Wood starred in a Woody Allen movie in 2009. As with Singer, the allegations against Allen were pretty well-known even back then, but she still worked with him.

I’m not saying Wood is a hypocrite, or that her outrage is disingenuous. Not at all. I bring it up only to say that Wood clearly understands that sometimes actors work with gross directors, even if they should—or at least realistically could—know better. So maybe cut the cast a break when they celebrate what was clearly a huge surprise.

But 2009 was a very different time. And that’s good! If Bryan Singer never works again, that’s awesome. (Even if he happens to be innocent of all the many, many, many allegations–no one should be able to make the garbage Superman Returns and escape with their career). The real problem that’s complicating how we view Bohemian Rhapsody is that Singer is trying to get attention from it. If he didn’t rear his Botoxed head to claim credit for the Golden Globe, we might all be cool with forgetting he was a part of the film at all. Even if he kept the directing credit.

My question that rises from all of this is: why haven’t there been the public apologies and disavowals from actors who have worked with him in the past, the way there were for Woody Allen? So many of Allen’s former collaborators spoke out about how much they regret working with him, and how they’d never do it again. Actors who didn’t, or who expressed ambivalence toward Allen earned their own blowback. But no one is reaching out to Oscar Isaac or Jennifer Lawrence or, I don’t know, Stephen Baldwin, and asking them how they feel about having worked with an accused sex offender.

My theory: it’s because he, and his alleged victims, are gay. After all, it’s easier to ignore crimes in marginalized communities. Maybe there’s some discomfort because straight folks think they don’t understand gay sexuality in the first place—isn’t that normal for the gays—which, yes, is totally a homophobic holdover from when homosexuality was unfairly associated with pedophilia. And while I tend to think the retroactive shaming of actors is mostly performative, it’s still fucked up that we let Singer be Singer for so long.

PB: Hmm, I don’t know. Kevin Spacey’s accused of similar crimes and he’s been getting plenty of heat. I mean, he’s basically radioactive to anyone in the industry now. (Just for the record, though, Singer is married to a woman with whom he has a child, and has said publicly in interviews that he’s bisexual.)

I think maybe the reason Hollywood was slow to cool on Singer is because some of the allegations against him were dropped. As TIME notes, “he has faced two civil suits alleging sexual assault, one of which was dropped and one of which was dismissed.” In the wake of those lawsuits though, a bunch of stories began coming out about sordid “sex parties” Singer either threw or was present at but nothing was ever conclusively substantiated. A Buzzfeed story from 2014 details how Singer was brought “into regular orbit with 18- to 20-year-olds at parties sustained by large amounts of alcohol and drugs — edging precariously close to the line between legality and illegality,” but most of the sources quoted in the piece are unnamed and Singer wasn’t directly accused of misconduct. I think that sort of gave people the license to pull the whole “but nothing was ever proven” card.

Thanks to this latest lawsuit from 2017, though, which is ongoing, people are being denied an easy out. There is now a young man on the record claiming that he was raped by Singer, so there isn’t really any room for equivocating. Also, like you said, the climate has changed a lot in the past couple of years and stories that have been circulating on the whisper network for decades aren’t quite as easy to ignore anymore.

I know you brought up how Globe results aren’t a good indication of what’s coming down the pike—mainly because there’s no overlap between HFPA voters and Academy voters—but the film is still getting a lot of recognition from prestigious awards bodies. BAFTA noms came out yesterday and Bohemian Rhapsody features prominently on the list. So I’m just wondering—what’s an organization to do? I don’t think the film’s going to snag any more big prizes going forward; the backlash from the Globes has been substantial and other awards bodies probably don’t want to be tainted by a similar response on their big night. (By the way, did you see how poor 15-year-old Elsie Fisher, star of Eighth Grade, was dragged on Twitter for congratulating the team on their win?)

Why is everyone being so mean about this? I’m genuinely sorry if I did something wrong :(

— Elsie Fisher (@ElsieKFisher) January 7, 2019

Anyhow, I think what’s going to end up happening is: Malek’s going to continue getting recognition and maybe even some awards for his work, and the rest of the film is going to be shut out from any major wins. It’s the easiest way for them to award the film without really awarding the film, you know? And I don’t think anyone’s going to begrudge Malek a win. He’s got a ton of goodwill in the industry as well as critical praise for his portrayal of Freddie Mercury.

What I do hope for though—especially because we still have many, many awards shows and appearances ahead of us—is for everyone involved to get together and figure out how they want to address the elephant in the room. At the press conference after their Globes wins, the team flat-out refused to answer journalists’ questions about Singer. “That’s not something we should talk about tonight,” said producer Graham King, while Queen member Brian May quipped, “Good question though.” Malek then stepped up, saying, “I will take this one. There’s only one thing we needed to do, and that was to celebrate Freddie Mercury. Nothing was going to compromise us and giving him the love and celebration he deserves.”

They’re going to have to do a bit better than that. Don’t you think?

GH: It always baffles me when public figures don’t have thoughtful, satisfying answers to obvious questions. What are their publicists doing? Actors might not be the best at answering thorny ethical question on the spot (who is?), but they are pretty great at memorizing a script. Someone write that cast some talking points!

Having said that, I don’t really know what the satisfying answer would be. Because I realized, too, after you challenged my interpretation of the case, another reason why there hasn’t been the same retroactive hand-wringing from actors about having worked with Bryan Singer as there was about Woody Allen: It’s because it’s Bryan Singer. Woody Allen is an auteur—being in one of his films was an honour, a sign that you had arrived, or were at least arriving. Bryan Singer made some crowd-pleasing pictures, but no one is calling him an auteur.

I can’t decide whether that makes crafting an appropriate response easier or more difficult. On the one hand, because “working with Woody Allen” was such a cliche Hollywood status symbol, it was easy to understand when actors worked with him, despite credible allegations. Singer doesn’t have the same reputation. No actress has gushed about being granted the opportunity to be in an X-Men reboot. In that light, working with Singer seems less understandable.

But, that also could make it easier. And this seems to be where the cast is headed: you lean in on the Freddie Mercury Tribute and imply that, in the shadow of such an amazing performer, the director is practically immaterial. Bryan Singer? Who’s Bryan Singer? This was basically directed by the spirit of Freddie Mercury!

Also, lingering in the back of my mind, there’s that nagging concern that being fired or denied work because of an unproven allegation is a little dangerous as a precedent. After all, some of the rumours around Singer aren’t about illegal activity so much as being gross in a decadent, predatory, Hollywood way. Of course, the “nothing has been proven in court” defence is the least satisfying argument.

So maybe honesty would be best. Something that says they understand why people might feel ambivalent about the film, because of the director. That that is something, as a cast, they are dealing with, too. But, while we don’t want to shut down the conversation about how we should feel about problematic artists, the opportunity to celebrate Freddie Mercury is an unalloyed good. Then go on to talk about all the things Mercury did for human rights and the LGBTQ community.

And then just ignore the fact that the movie changes so much of Mercury’s story that it’s questionable whether it celebrates the real Freddie Mercury, or some postmodern, nostalgic construct we call Freddie Mercury.

But hating on Elsie Fisher? Let’s get some perspective people. The Oscars have a way of bringing out the darkness in people. That can be good (holding Casey Affleck to account for bad behaviour) and some can be not so good (rage-tweeting a teenager you don’t know). What should award bodies do to mitigate this? Should they vet nominees? And if so, what behaviour is disqualifying? What’s the statute of limitations? Or do problematic award winners just need to give better answers?

PB: Award bodies haven’t had to deal with a lot of scrutiny until fairly recently, so they’ve been able to skirt some of these issues without really shouldering any blame. Now though, their feet are being held to the fire and it’s not going to be as easy to just sit by and say nothing. It’s tricky; there’s certainly no one-size-fits-all solution but in my opinion, nor should there be. We’re dealing with complex issues here and I think everything needs to be addressed on a case by case basis. I really appreciate the diversity requirements the BAFTAs put in place last year: for the two awards categories specifically for British films (Outstanding British Film and Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer), they’re only accepting films that meet two of the British Film Institute’s quartet of core diversity standards.

But of course, different award bodies have different nomination processes. The Academy, for instance, has over 8000 people who submit their nominees for various categories, which then cycle through some complicated process before the final nominees are selected. Because there are so many people involved, it’s easy to play the avoidance game. Who do you hold accountable? But if the final list of five or ten nominees includes some problematic faves that have been in the news for x or y reason, I think it’s the award body’s duty to call for a meeting of their board to figure out the steps forward. Interestingly, I just Googled “Who is BAFTA president” and it turns out it’s Prince William, since 2010! Obviously he can’t weigh in on this stuff but there are other people who can, namely the VPs for film, television and games (?). The Academy, meanwhile, has a Board of Governors that includes Whoopi Goldberg, Laura Dern and Steven Spielberg.

Whatever these governing bodies decide, it’s something they should be able to defend when asked about it. Because they will be asked about it. Sorry guys, changing the subject isn’t an option anymore.

[jessicakehoe]

Does Bryan Singer’s Film Bohemian Rhapsody Deserve to Get Awards Love?

The ranks here at FASHION are not filled with men. Shocking, right? But there are one or two (there are actually, literally, two). Naturally, when a question about male/female dynamics arises it’s only fair that one of them stand in for the members of his gender and provide some insight. Our last topic of conversation was about controversial Christmas song “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” and today we’re discussing whether Bryan Singer-directed Bohemian Rhapsody should be snapping up any prizes this awards season. Two of our staffers—from the men’s corner, Greg Hudson, and from the women’s, Pahull Bains—talk it out.

PB: When Bohemian Rhapsody won the Best Picture (Drama) award at the Golden Globes last weekend, in addition to perplexity from critics who had largely panned the film, there was a fair bit of outrage on the internet. Evan Rachel Wood tweeted, “So we just..we are all still supposed to be pretending we don’t know about Bryan Singer? Cause it worked out really well with #Spacey and #Weinstein.” Now, I’m all for men finally getting their comeuppance but I also think it’s unfair that the entire cast and crew of a film be punished for the misdeeds of one person, whose shadiness wasn’t known until the #MeToo Flood of 2017. Or so I thought.

Yes, in 2017 Singer was fired as director of the film partway through shooting for causing “on-set chaos”: showing up late, being unavailable for days at a time, disappearing without the studio’s permission. Just a few days later, it emerged that Singer had been accused of rape by Cesar Sanchez-Guzman, who had been 17 at the time of the assault in 2003. So, I thought to myself, production on this film began before this news came out, so we can’t blame the team for working with him. I’m no fan of the movie, but let them have their moment of glory, thought I, wee innocent one.

As it turns out, allegations against Singer—who has directed films like The Usual Suspects and X-Men: First Class—go way, way back. In December 2017, IndieWire published “The Bryan Singer Timeline: a History of Allegations and Defenses, from Troubled Films to Sexual Assault Claims,” and lets just say it’s not a short list, going as far back as 1994 and ranging from allegations of sexual assault and rape to accusations of filming minor boys naked without their permission.

So, now that we’re caught up on Singer’s problematic history, what does it mean for Bohemian Rhapsody as an awards contender? No one was expecting it to win two big awards at the Globes, which has led understandably to increased scrutiny as we make our way through awards season, with the Critics’ Choice Awards, the SAGs, the BAFTAs, and of course the Oscars ahead of us. Do you think the film’s shot at these shiny statuettes should be diminished because of Singer’s involvement?

FIRST REFORMED, but about Ethan Hawke struggling to find hope in a world where Bohemian Rhapsody is probably gonna be nominated for Best Picture. pic.twitter.com/dI4D7kxfJ7

— david ehrlich (@davidehrlich) January 4, 2019

GH: Before I single-handedly bring down Bryan Singer with my rhetoric and rage, I just want to point a couple of things out that are probably not all that relevant. Why do this? Because I’m a man, and we enjoy talking like experts on subjects we just did some half-assed internet research about.

Point 1: The Golden Globes matter to the Oscar race about as much as the Iowa Caucuses do to the Presidential election. You’ll recall, being the astute political observer that you are, that the Iowa Caucuses happen early in the American election cycle. That’s really the only reason they are covered so closely every four years. Sometimes they are a predictor of who the eventual nominee (and president) will be, but often not. Just ask Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Ted Cruz. And, similarly, the only reason the Golden Globes seem important is that they happen early in award season. But they are judged by such a niche group that their picks can seem downright baffling at times. Remember the 2010 flop The Tourist starring Johnny Depp? That was nominated for best picture at the Golden Globes. Have you ever seen Mozart in the Jungle? No! No one has! And yet, it’s a Golden Globe-winning television show.

So, do I think Bryan Singer’s creepiness will effect Bohemian Rhapsody’s Oscar chances? No. I think the fact that it’s a paint-by-numbers musical biopic will hurt its chances. (Seriously, the movie could have been called Walk Hard 2: This Time the Rockstar is Gay). I mean, Rami Malek and his mouthguard might still get a nod, but if you want a good Oscar predictor, the TIFF People’s Choice selection has a better track record. (So, get ready for a lot of Green Book hot takes!)

Point 2: Though she has already addressed and expressed regret about it—and she did so even before #MeToo made it a thing—Evan Rachel Wood starred in a Woody Allen movie in 2009. As with Singer, the allegations against Allen were pretty well-known even back then, but she still worked with him.

I’m not saying Wood is a hypocrite, or that her outrage is disingenuous. Not at all. I bring it up only to say that Wood clearly understands that sometimes actors work with gross directors, even if they should—or at least realistically could—know better. So maybe cut the cast a break when they celebrate what was clearly a huge surprise.

But 2009 was a very different time. And that’s good! If Bryan Singer never works again, that’s awesome. (Even if he happens to be innocent of all the many, many, many allegations–no one should be able to make the garbage Superman Returns and escape with their career). The real problem that’s complicating how we view Bohemian Rhapsody is that Singer is trying to get attention from it. If he didn’t rear his Botoxed head to claim credit for the Golden Globe, we might all be cool with forgetting he was a part of the film at all. Even if he kept the directing credit.

My question that rises from all of this is: why haven’t there been the public apologies and disavowals from actors who have worked with him in the past, the way there were for Woody Allen? So many of Allen’s former collaborators spoke out about how much they regret working with him, and how they’d never do it again. Actors who didn’t, or who expressed ambivalence toward Allen earned their own blowback. But no one is reaching out to Oscar Isaac or Jennifer Lawrence or, I don’t know, Stephen Baldwin, and asking them how they feel about having worked with an accused sex offender.

My theory: it’s because he, and his alleged victims, are gay. After all, it’s easier to ignore crimes in marginalized communities. Maybe there’s some discomfort because straight folks think they don’t understand gay sexuality in the first place—isn’t that normal for the gays—which, yes, is totally a homophobic holdover from when homosexuality was unfairly associated with pedophilia. And while I tend to think the retroactive shaming of actors is mostly performative, it’s still fucked up that we let Singer be Singer for so long.

PB: Hmm, I don’t know. Kevin Spacey’s accused of similar crimes and he’s been getting plenty of heat. I mean, he’s basically radioactive to anyone in the industry now. (Just for the record, though, Singer is married to a woman with whom he has a child, and has said publicly in interviews that he’s bisexual.)

I think maybe the reason Hollywood was slow to cool on Singer is because some of the allegations against him were dropped. As TIME notes, “he has faced two civil suits alleging sexual assault, one of which was dropped and one of which was dismissed.” In the wake of those lawsuits though, a bunch of stories began coming out about sordid “sex parties” Singer either threw or was present at but nothing was ever conclusively substantiated. A Buzzfeed story from 2014 details how Singer was brought “into regular orbit with 18- to 20-year-olds at parties sustained by large amounts of alcohol and drugs — edging precariously close to the line between legality and illegality,” but most of the sources quoted in the piece are unnamed and Singer wasn’t directly accused of misconduct. I think that sort of gave people the license to pull the whole “but nothing was ever proven” card.

Thanks to this latest lawsuit from 2017, though, which is ongoing, people are being denied an easy out. There is now a young man on the record claiming that he was raped by Singer, so there isn’t really any room for equivocating. Also, like you said, the climate has changed a lot in the past couple of years and stories that have been circulating on the whisper network for decades aren’t quite as easy to ignore anymore.

I know you brought up how Globe results aren’t a good indication of what’s coming down the pike—mainly because there’s no overlap between HFPA voters and Academy voters—but the film is still getting a lot of recognition from prestigious awards bodies. BAFTA noms came out yesterday and Bohemian Rhapsody features prominently on the list. So I’m just wondering—what’s an organization to do? I don’t think the film’s going to snag any more big prizes going forward; the backlash from the Globes has been substantial and other awards bodies probably don’t want to be tainted by a similar response on their big night. (By the way, did you see how poor 15-year-old Elsie Fisher, star of Eighth Grade, was dragged on Twitter for congratulating the team on their win?)

Why is everyone being so mean about this? I’m genuinely sorry if I did something wrong :(

— Elsie Fisher (@ElsieKFisher) January 7, 2019

Anyhow, I think what’s going to end up happening is: Malek’s going to continue getting recognition and maybe even some awards for his work, and the rest of the film is going to be shut out from any major wins. It’s the easiest way for them to award the film without really awarding the film, you know? And I don’t think anyone’s going to begrudge Malek a win. He’s got a ton of goodwill in the industry as well as critical praise for his portrayal of Freddie Mercury.

What I do hope for though—especially because we still have many, many awards shows and appearances ahead of us—is for everyone involved to get together and figure out how they want to address the elephant in the room. At the press conference after their Globes wins, the team flat-out refused to answer journalists’ questions about Singer. “That’s not something we should talk about tonight,” said producer Graham King, while Queen member Brian May quipped, “Good question though.” Malek then stepped up, saying, “I will take this one. There’s only one thing we needed to do, and that was to celebrate Freddie Mercury. Nothing was going to compromise us and giving him the love and celebration he deserves.”

They’re going to have to do a bit better than that. Don’t you think?

GH: It always baffles me when public figures don’t have thoughtful, satisfying answers to obvious questions. What are their publicists doing? Actors might not be the best at answering thorny ethical question on the spot (who is?), but they are pretty great at memorizing a script. Someone write that cast some talking points!

Having said that, I don’t really know what the satisfying answer would be. Because I realized, too, after you challenged my interpretation of the case, another reason why there hasn’t been the same retroactive hand-wringing from actors about having worked with Bryan Singer as there was about Woody Allen: It’s because it’s Bryan Singer. Woody Allen is an auteur—being in one of his films was an honour, a sign that you had arrived, or were at least arriving. Bryan Singer made some crowd-pleasing pictures, but no one is calling him an auteur.

I can’t decide whether that makes crafting an appropriate response easier or more difficult. On the one hand, because “working with Woody Allen” was such a cliche Hollywood status symbol, it was easy to understand when actors worked with him, despite credible allegations. Singer doesn’t have the same reputation. No actress has gushed about being granted the opportunity to be in an X-Men reboot. In that light, working with Singer seems less understandable.

But, that also could make it easier. And this seems to be where the cast is headed: you lean in on the Freddie Mercury Tribute and imply that, in the shadow of such an amazing performer, the director is practically immaterial. Bryan Singer? Who’s Bryan Singer? This was basically directed by the spirit of Freddie Mercury!

Also, lingering in the back of my mind, there’s that nagging concern that being fired or denied work because of an unproven allegation is a little dangerous as a precedent. After all, some of the rumours around Singer aren’t about illegal activity so much as being gross in a decadent, predatory, Hollywood way. Of course, the “nothing has been proven in court” defence is the least satisfying argument.

So maybe honesty would be best. Something that says they understand why people might feel ambivalent about the film, because of the director. That that is something, as a cast, they are dealing with, too. But, while we don’t want to shut down the conversation about how we should feel about problematic artists, the opportunity to celebrate Freddie Mercury is an unalloyed good. Then go on to talk about all the things Mercury did for human rights and the LGBTQ community.

And then just ignore the fact that the movie changes so much of Mercury’s story that it’s questionable whether it celebrates the real Freddie Mercury, or some postmodern, nostalgic construct we call Freddie Mercury.

But hating on Elsie Fisher? Let’s get some perspective people. The Oscars have a way of bringing out the darkness in people. That can be good (holding Casey Affleck to account for bad behaviour) and some can be not so good (rage-tweeting a teenager you don’t know). What should award bodies do to mitigate this? Should they vet nominees? And if so, what behaviour is disqualifying? What’s the statute of limitations? Or do problematic award winners just need to give better answers?

PB: Award bodies haven’t had to deal with a lot of scrutiny until fairly recently, so they’ve been able to skirt some of these issues without really shouldering any blame. Now though, their feet are being held to the fire and it’s not going to be as easy to just sit by and say nothing. It’s tricky; there’s certainly no one-size-fits-all solution but in my opinion, nor should there be. We’re dealing with complex issues here and I think everything needs to be addressed on a case by case basis. I really appreciate the diversity requirements the BAFTAs put in place last year: for the two awards categories specifically for British films (Outstanding British Film and Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer), they’re only accepting films that meet two of the British Film Institute’s quartet of core diversity standards.

But of course, different award bodies have different nomination processes. The Academy, for instance, has over 8000 people who submit their nominees for various categories, which then cycle through some complicated process before the final nominees are selected. Because there are so many people involved, it’s easy to play the avoidance game. Who do you hold accountable? But if the final list of five or ten nominees includes some problematic faves that have been in the news for x or y reason, I think it’s the award body’s duty to call for a meeting of their board to figure out the steps forward. Interestingly, I just Googled “Who is BAFTA president” and it turns out it’s Prince William, since 2010! Obviously he can’t weigh in on this stuff but there are other people who can, namely the VPs for film, television and games (?). The Academy, meanwhile, has a Board of Governors that includes Whoopi Goldberg, Laura Dern and Steven Spielberg.

Whatever these governing bodies decide, it’s something they should be able to defend when asked about it. Because they will be asked about it. Sorry guys, changing the subject isn’t an option anymore.

The post Does Bryan Singer’s Film <em> Bohemian Rhapsody</em> Deserve to Get Awards Love? appeared first on FASHION Magazine.

Does Bryan Singer’s Film Bohemian Rhapsody Deserve to Get Awards Love? published first on https://borboletabags.tumblr.com/

[cynthiajayusa]

Kyle MacLachlan Talks New Gay Dad Role, Reaching LGBTQ Youth

In Giant Little Ones, actor Kyle MacLachlan plays a gay divorced dad named Ray Winter parenting a distant teenage son, Franky (Josh Wiggins), who’s grappling with his own sexual identity. I repeat: Kyle MacLachlan, a gay dad. The 60-year-old actor’s range knows absolutely no bounds, inhabiting diversified worlds and traversing genre, from comedy to drama, from soapy to supernatural.

MacLachlan’s first major role was in David Lynch’s 1984 adaptation of Dune (soon, Call Me By Your Name actor Timothée Chalamet will be slipping into MacLachlan’s stillsuit for the forthcoming remake) and two years later, in 1986, he collaborated with the screen auteur again on Blue Velvet, starring alongside Isabella Rossellini. But it was Lynch’s early-’90s cult TV series Twin Peaks that arguably made MacLachlan a marquee name (in 2017, he reprised his role as Agent Cooper in Twin Peaks: The Return).

In his three decades in TV and film and on stage, MacLachlan has played a city official based on first big-city openly gay Mayor Sam Adams, Fred Flintstone’s boss, the guy who fucks Nomi Malone in a swimming pool, Riley’s dad in Inside Out, Charlotte’s husband on Sex and the City, Bree Van de Kamp’s husband on Desperate Housewives, and because why the hell not: Cary Grant’s ghost. Starring in writer-director Keith Behrman’s Giant Little Ones as Helpful Gay Dad was really just an inevitably, but for MacLachlan, Ray is a warm hug of a role he deeply feels is important. One that, as a parent himself, even hits close to home.

Here, the actor talks about raising his son, Callum, much like Ray Winter does, gay fans who slip into his DMs and bears who love his rosé.

You’ve played dads before. But what about Ray spoke to you differently?

He had a journey in this as well, which I liked. It was really about the connection with his son, and at that age it’s very difficult and made even more challenging by the fact that the parents are separated. Under the circumstances, Franky just doesn’t know what to think or what to say, and I like that (Ray) really hung in there. I think in the original draft he was maybe a little more demanding, and so we kind of softened that a little bit. There are still those issues, but it was really important to me to feel like Ray was there and he wasn’t gonna go anywhere and to remain as non-judgmental as possible.

His presence is always felt, but he’s able to give his kid space at the same time. I appreciated that he tells his son to focus on who you’re drawn to and not what to call it, essentially letting him know that sexuality is a spectrum. How did that resonate with you?

That was a really nice piece of writing on Keith’s part, I thought. Again, trying not to judge. Especially at that age, I remember for myself just kind of trying to find where you fit in, what you’re good at, what you’re not good at, who’s your group. There’s lots and lots of questions and insecurities that are masked by a false sense of identity or control or “I don’t want to hear what you say, I’ve got it figured out myself.” The idea of just being present, it’s the way I approach the relationship with my son, the not judging. I’m not going at it trying to make him into something he doesn’t want to be.

You were the stepfather of a gay son, Andrew Van de Kamp, on Desperate Housewive. Who does the better job parenting a queer kid: Orson Hodge or Ray Winter?

(Laughs) Orson, bless his heart. You know, he had good intentions, and there was an understanding there at attempting to connect. I don’t think Orson was ever comfortable in that role. I think Ray is more conscious and he’s a champion, in some ways, for anyone who’s being judged. In this particular case, it’s “hang on a second.” He’s sort of about turning the page: “Let’s look at this and what’s really happening here.” I liked that. And he does it with an inner strength and a firmness, but it’s not without a wry sense of humor, and that I liked about him too.

When were your eyes first opened to having an LGBTQ following?

I think it was probably with Blue Velvet, I guess. Thematically it expected so much of the audience and it told a story that was so unusual and so true. That sort of started it, but I think with the advent of social media, suddenly it’s really obvious and present. And it’s great.

How has it become obvious through social media?

Just through comments, and its fun to read and great to feel the support. And then because so much of it is built around David Lynch, there’s a real shorthand just in terms of terminology and phrases, and because of David’s visuals and his images and his dialogue, of course.

I have a friend who says Blue Velvet was responsible for his sexual awakening. Is that what gay fans tell you on Twitter?

(Laughs) Maybe not quite so personal! But you know, that’s film. Film is all about experiencing something and having your eyes opened, and I think that film in particular was about that; the exploration of it and the themes of it were so interesting, and they hadn’t really been dealt with that much.

What kind of attention did Showgirls get you from the LGBTQ community?

(Laughs) I don’t think it found its camp niche until a little bit later. It had to go through the “Oh my god, this is perhaps one of the worst films ever made” reaction and then people sort of said, “I think it was, in a way, a guilty pleasure.” Then that began to grow, and there’s a true hardcore following of it and that’s really fun. I’ve never said, “Oh yeah, in fact, actually, that was the intention,” or, “Oh yeah, it’s a great film” – it’s not a great film. But it succeeds at a level that I think is still entertaining and fun. And why not? That’s our business.

I was at a gay bar once and they were showing Showgirls on all the TVs. When you shot that film, did you expect for it to live on in the LGBTQ community like it has?

I think we all entered into the film – certainly, I did – looking at the creative side of it. So you had really talented people – (director) Paul Verhoeven, obviously – and I think his intention was to do something that was sort of hard and cutting-edge and exposé and I think it kind of got away from him a little bit and became something else that was unexpected. But at the same time, we’ve all embraced it and said, “This is where it went,” and I gotta say, the film was probably gonna have a much longer life because of how it ended up than if it hadn’t. If it was a film that we intended to make, it would’ve been great and fine and OK, but now, it will live on forever.

Particularly at gay bars.

At least there! And midnight showings!

For 2004’s rom-com Touch of Pink, what was special about portraying the ghost of Cary Grant who gives advice to a gay Muslim man?

It was really fun. First of all, just the research alone was great. Getting to watch all the films, reading up about him, who he was as a person and the business side of things in Hollywood and how he really, really created this persona, which I think he tried to get away from but it was what he was known for. So I loved the research of it.

And the director, Ian (Iqbal Rashid), whose story this actually was, was so lovely and I see him occasionally when I’m in London. He’s just a terrific person and a very, very talented director, and I was flattered. He had actually seen me on the stage doing a new play with Woody Harrelson and I don’t quite know how he got there from that performance (laughs), but he thought I’d be perfect. So that’s a pretty big mantle to try to take on, and so we sort of softened that a little bit and said he’s more the spirit of Cary Grant – he’s not exactly Cary Grant. But I enjoyed stepping in those shoes and trying out that language and that kind of attitude and that whole thing. And it’s got a beautiful message, and just the ending when he has to let go, it’s very touching, I think.

In 2018, you were honored with a Dorian acting award by GALECA, the Society of LGBTQ Entertainment Critics, for Twin Peaks: The Return, and in 2009, Desperate Housewives received Outstanding Comedy Series from GLAAD.  Is there something special or distinct about having your work acknowledged by LGBTQ audiences and organizations?

Yeah, those stories, if they can speak to a community and there’s a resonance there, that’s the goal of this. They should be universal, but I think that if there’s a relationship that can be created then we’re doing a good job; something that’s worthwhile that creates an emotional response and a connection, that’s really what you want. I mean, that’s what I want.

You played the mayor of Portland in Portlandia.  Do you think that character would make a good mayor of Twin Peaks or Wisteria Lane?

(Laughs) He wasn’t a really good mayor – but he was incredibly enthusiastic! I think that was the fun of it: He always got things a little bit wrong but they kind of ultimately ended up OK, with the help of Fred (Armisen) and Carrie (Brownstein), certainly. But, oh god, at least it would be a lot of fun to have him as a mayor of any community, I think.

Why haven’t we seen you in more openly gay roles?

(Laughs) It’s a good question. You know, the work just kind of comes, and it’s one of those things where once it sort of filters through a little bit of whatever it does in Hollywood it finds its way into my inbox and you take a look at it.

Have there been gay roles you’ve turned down?

It’s always about the quality of the material, so if it there was, it just wasn’t worth telling.

But then you read something like Giant Little Ones.

And you know that it is a beautiful story. I had the reaction that everyone had: This is a story that needed to be told, and for any kids out there who are having this kind of “I don’t know, I don’t know” and they don’t have anywhere to turn, it’s like, well, we’re not the answer, but we’re at least an experience to say, “You’re not alone.”

And a reminder to your own son that his dad is OK with whomever he becomes or wants to be.

In fact, he attends a school in New York and it’s all about that. It’s all about the acceptance of everyone, and it’s a wonderful thing to watch because that wasn’t my experience growing up. Public schools, small town, very conservative. Not unlike the situation of Franky, there was a lot of “however tough you are” and “whatever sports you play,” those are your identifiers. It’s nice that he’s having a completely different experience.

In your spare time, you are a winemaker. Are gay men some of your most loyal rosé buyers?

(Laughs) I should hope so, for god’s sake! Rosé is one of those crazy things: It just keeps expanding and people love it and now it’s not just for summer anymore, it’s not just for the Hamptons anymore. It can be year-round and, yeah, it’s been really fun. And yeah, very supportive.

In a queer context “bear” means a hairy, chubby gay man, so it can’t hurt that “Pursued by Bear” is the name of your brand.

You know, I was really going after the Shakespeare play, obviously, but yeah, not unaware and I thought, that’s kind of funny. There’ve been occasions where I’ve met a few guys – bears, you know – and they’ve said, “Oh yeah, I’ve got this in my cellar.” And it cracks me up! I’m like, “Fantastic, I’m glad you like it.” Its good wine and it should be enjoyed.

source https://hotspotsmagazine.com/2019/03/21/kyle-maclachlan-talks-new-gay-dad-role-reaching-lgbtq-youth/ from Hot Spots Magazine https://hotspotsmagazin.blogspot.com/2019/03/kyle-maclachlan-talks-new-gay-dad-role.html

[demitgibbs]

Kyle MacLachlan Talks New Gay Dad Role, Reaching LGBTQ Youth

In Giant Little Ones, actor Kyle MacLachlan plays a gay divorced dad named Ray Winter parenting a distant teenage son, Franky (Josh Wiggins), who’s grappling with his own sexual identity. I repeat: Kyle MacLachlan, a gay dad. The 60-year-old actor’s range knows absolutely no bounds, inhabiting diversified worlds and traversing genre, from comedy to drama, from soapy to supernatural.

MacLachlan’s first major role was in David Lynch’s 1984 adaptation of Dune (soon, Call Me By Your Name actor Timothée Chalamet will be slipping into MacLachlan’s stillsuit for the forthcoming remake) and two years later, in 1986, he collaborated with the screen auteur again on Blue Velvet, starring alongside Isabella Rossellini. But it was Lynch’s early-’90s cult TV series Twin Peaks that arguably made MacLachlan a marquee name (in 2017, he reprised his role as Agent Cooper in Twin Peaks: The Return).

In his three decades in TV and film and on stage, MacLachlan has played a city official based on first big-city openly gay Mayor Sam Adams, Fred Flintstone’s boss, the guy who fucks Nomi Malone in a swimming pool, Riley’s dad in Inside Out, Charlotte’s husband on Sex and the City, Bree Van de Kamp’s husband on Desperate Housewives, and because why the hell not: Cary Grant’s ghost. Starring in writer-director Keith Behrman’s Giant Little Ones as Helpful Gay Dad was really just an inevitably, but for MacLachlan, Ray is a warm hug of a role he deeply feels is important. One that, as a parent himself, even hits close to home.

Here, the actor talks about raising his son, Callum, much like Ray Winter does, gay fans who slip into his DMs and bears who love his rosé.

You’ve played dads before. But what about Ray spoke to you differently?

He had a journey in this as well, which I liked. It was really about the connection with his son, and at that age it’s very difficult and made even more challenging by the fact that the parents are separated. Under the circumstances, Franky just doesn’t know what to think or what to say, and I like that (Ray) really hung in there. I think in the original draft he was maybe a little more demanding, and so we kind of softened that a little bit. There are still those issues, but it was really important to me to feel like Ray was there and he wasn’t gonna go anywhere and to remain as non-judgmental as possible.

His presence is always felt, but he’s able to give his kid space at the same time. I appreciated that he tells his son to focus on who you’re drawn to and not what to call it, essentially letting him know that sexuality is a spectrum. How did that resonate with you?

That was a really nice piece of writing on Keith’s part, I thought. Again, trying not to judge. Especially at that age, I remember for myself just kind of trying to find where you fit in, what you’re good at, what you’re not good at, who’s your group. There’s lots and lots of questions and insecurities that are masked by a false sense of identity or control or “I don’t want to hear what you say, I’ve got it figured out myself.” The idea of just being present, it’s the way I approach the relationship with my son, the not judging. I’m not going at it trying to make him into something he doesn’t want to be.

You were the stepfather of a gay son, Andrew Van de Kamp, on Desperate Housewive. Who does the better job parenting a queer kid: Orson Hodge or Ray Winter?

(Laughs) Orson, bless his heart. You know, he had good intentions, and there was an understanding there at attempting to connect. I don’t think Orson was ever comfortable in that role. I think Ray is more conscious and he’s a champion, in some ways, for anyone who’s being judged. In this particular case, it’s “hang on a second.” He’s sort of about turning the page: “Let’s look at this and what’s really happening here.” I liked that. And he does it with an inner strength and a firmness, but it’s not without a wry sense of humor, and that I liked about him too.

When were your eyes first opened to having an LGBTQ following?

I think it was probably with Blue Velvet, I guess. Thematically it expected so much of the audience and it told a story that was so unusual and so true. That sort of started it, but I think with the advent of social media, suddenly it’s really obvious and present. And it’s great.

How has it become obvious through social media?

Just through comments, and its fun to read and great to feel the support. And then because so much of it is built around David Lynch, there’s a real shorthand just in terms of terminology and phrases, and because of David’s visuals and his images and his dialogue, of course.

I have a friend who says Blue Velvet was responsible for his sexual awakening. Is that what gay fans tell you on Twitter?

(Laughs) Maybe not quite so personal! But you know, that’s film. Film is all about experiencing something and having your eyes opened, and I think that film in particular was about that; the exploration of it and the themes of it were so interesting, and they hadn’t really been dealt with that much.

What kind of attention did Showgirls get you from the LGBTQ community?

(Laughs) I don’t think it found its camp niche until a little bit later. It had to go through the “Oh my god, this is perhaps one of the worst films ever made” reaction and then people sort of said, “I think it was, in a way, a guilty pleasure.” Then that began to grow, and there’s a true hardcore following of it and that’s really fun. I’ve never said, “Oh yeah, in fact, actually, that was the intention,” or, “Oh yeah, it’s a great film” – it’s not a great film. But it succeeds at a level that I think is still entertaining and fun. And why not? That’s our business.

I was at a gay bar once and they were showing Showgirls on all the TVs. When you shot that film, did you expect for it to live on in the LGBTQ community like it has?

I think we all entered into the film – certainly, I did – looking at the creative side of it. So you had really talented people – (director) Paul Verhoeven, obviously – and I think his intention was to do something that was sort of hard and cutting-edge and exposé and I think it kind of got away from him a little bit and became something else that was unexpected. But at the same time, we’ve all embraced it and said, “This is where it went,” and I gotta say, the film was probably gonna have a much longer life because of how it ended up than if it hadn’t. If it was a film that we intended to make, it would’ve been great and fine and OK, but now, it will live on forever.

Particularly at gay bars.

At least there! And midnight showings!

For 2004’s rom-com Touch of Pink, what was special about portraying the ghost of Cary Grant who gives advice to a gay Muslim man?

It was really fun. First of all, just the research alone was great. Getting to watch all the films, reading up about him, who he was as a person and the business side of things in Hollywood and how he really, really created this persona, which I think he tried to get away from but it was what he was known for. So I loved the research of it.

And the director, Ian (Iqbal Rashid), whose story this actually was, was so lovely and I see him occasionally when I’m in London. He’s just a terrific person and a very, very talented director, and I was flattered. He had actually seen me on the stage doing a new play with Woody Harrelson and I don’t quite know how he got there from that performance (laughs), but he thought I’d be perfect. So that’s a pretty big mantle to try to take on, and so we sort of softened that a little bit and said he’s more the spirit of Cary Grant – he’s not exactly Cary Grant. But I enjoyed stepping in those shoes and trying out that language and that kind of attitude and that whole thing. And it’s got a beautiful message, and just the ending when he has to let go, it’s very touching, I think.

In 2018, you were honored with a Dorian acting award by GALECA, the Society of LGBTQ Entertainment Critics, for Twin Peaks: The Return, and in 2009, Desperate Housewives received Outstanding Comedy Series from GLAAD.  Is there something special or distinct about having your work acknowledged by LGBTQ audiences and organizations?

Yeah, those stories, if they can speak to a community and there’s a resonance there, that’s the goal of this. They should be universal, but I think that if there’s a relationship that can be created then we’re doing a good job; something that’s worthwhile that creates an emotional response and a connection, that’s really what you want. I mean, that’s what I want.

You played the mayor of Portland in Portlandia.  Do you think that character would make a good mayor of Twin Peaks or Wisteria Lane?

(Laughs) He wasn’t a really good mayor – but he was incredibly enthusiastic! I think that was the fun of it: He always got things a little bit wrong but they kind of ultimately ended up OK, with the help of Fred (Armisen) and Carrie (Brownstein), certainly. But, oh god, at least it would be a lot of fun to have him as a mayor of any community, I think.

Why haven’t we seen you in more openly gay roles?

(Laughs) It’s a good question. You know, the work just kind of comes, and it’s one of those things where once it sort of filters through a little bit of whatever it does in Hollywood it finds its way into my inbox and you take a look at it.

Have there been gay roles you’ve turned down?

It’s always about the quality of the material, so if it there was, it just wasn’t worth telling.

But then you read something like Giant Little Ones.

And you know that it is a beautiful story. I had the reaction that everyone had: This is a story that needed to be told, and for any kids out there who are having this kind of “I don’t know, I don’t know” and they don’t have anywhere to turn, it’s like, well, we’re not the answer, but we’re at least an experience to say, “You’re not alone.”

And a reminder to your own son that his dad is OK with whomever he becomes or wants to be.

In fact, he attends a school in New York and it’s all about that. It’s all about the acceptance of everyone, and it’s a wonderful thing to watch because that wasn’t my experience growing up. Public schools, small town, very conservative. Not unlike the situation of Franky, there was a lot of “however tough you are” and “whatever sports you play,” those are your identifiers. It’s nice that he’s having a completely different experience.

In your spare time, you are a winemaker. Are gay men some of your most loyal rosé buyers?

(Laughs) I should hope so, for god’s sake! Rosé is one of those crazy things: It just keeps expanding and people love it and now it’s not just for summer anymore, it’s not just for the Hamptons anymore. It can be year-round and, yeah, it’s been really fun. And yeah, very supportive.

In a queer context “bear” means a hairy, chubby gay man, so it can’t hurt that “Pursued by Bear” is the name of your brand.

You know, I was really going after the Shakespeare play, obviously, but yeah, not unaware and I thought, that’s kind of funny. There’ve been occasions where I’ve met a few guys – bears, you know – and they’ve said, “Oh yeah, I’ve got this in my cellar.” And it cracks me up! I’m like, “Fantastic, I’m glad you like it.” Its good wine and it should be enjoyed.

from Hotspots! Magazine https://hotspotsmagazine.com/2019/03/21/kyle-maclachlan-talks-new-gay-dad-role-reaching-lgbtq-youth/ from Hot Spots Magazine https://hotspotsmagazine.tumblr.com/post/183608308425