#my affection for certain characters or actors only goes so far

[lornrocks]

Maybe it IS unfair to use Ahsoka as an example since that show relies heavily on assuming you have seen Rebels already but I feel that way about every Star Wars D+ show besides Andor (releasing the first three episodes at once and then having each episode be like an hour AND having it run for 12 episodes really, really helped!!)

And mcu D+ shows, I would say the exceptions are maybe WandaVision and She Hulk because they aren’t afraid to get weird with it (to some extent Loki was also a little weird with it but it didn’t go far enough) Although I will concede the d+ mcu shows have made an effort to give pre-established characters backstories and development and let the actors really show their dramatic chops, which I appreciate. And of course I fucking love Jen and Kamala.

But anyway you have to watch the d+ shows to avoid spoilers but also you wait a week to watch like 32 minutes where you get MAYBE one convo between characters and then one 5-minute action scene and they all end on cliff hangers and it’s like ugh nothing HAPPENED and I still don’t understand these characters enough to even like them?? You know??

Listen man I’d rather get like 8-10 episodes that are 50 minutes each, dropped all at once, then go get 30 minute episodes where almost nothing happens once a week, and you get 6. Netflix’s model isn’t perfect but I’m feeling more connected and invested in one piece than I do Ahsoka.

Like stranger things and Bridgerton and Witcher (and for that matter stuff like American vandal) are more compelling and interesting to me because I’m not being spoonfed filler for 6 weeks. And frankly, I’m glad that ofmd is going to be showing two episodes a week.

[riverofrainbows]

Eliot Spencer. Listen to me i am obsessed with the man. He is so incredibly stereotypically masculine, and hardcore so, yet at the same time really isn't in ways that would be damning for the 2000s and early 2010s. Long hair, not unusually tall, the most emotionally aware one and most in tune with his emotions on the whole team. (Not that the others don't also have points in that area, but they're all terrible at it in some way and Eliot scores by far the most points.) He has a hobby that's not James Bond like (cooking), and he gets to be goofy while being unquestioned as the most badass guy in the room. And yes he makes inappropriate jokes about lesbians and goes all no homo at physical affection from other men, and younger people probably don't find him quite as monumental as i do in terms of masculinity. But his behaviour never reflects those jokes or the no homo, and he was the red blooded american former military guy character on a big network tv show in the year 2009. For which he was a severely mild case. He treats the other characters as people and not stereotypes, in the way the whole show does, and he has long hair he puts up in ponytails and half buns that have his side bangs falling out (you need to understand what big of a deal the manbun was in like 2013, so much so that they had to invent a word). He's emotional and doesn't actually mean his gruffness most of the time, and doesn't thinks himself above certain tasks or people. He wears ridiculous little outfits without putting up a show about his threatened masculinity, and he's the most emotionally intelligent one outside of cons. He wears little jewellery in his hair sometimes, and little braids even (yes braided hair was a no go), he plays guitar and sings earnest love songs not just to try to get laid (love songs would only be permissible in the immediate context of romance), and whenever they have a young woman as a client, that reminds him of home i presume, he works with so much effort and respect for them as the one he's in service to, and respects their opinion strongly. He wears glasses, and reads books and is way too nerdy for an action hero type of the 2010s. He is great with kids, and unironically so (there were multiple big shows and movies about the topic of "men needing to deal with children on their own" with the entire premise of that being ridiculous and them being naturally bad at it). He's the most stereotypically action hero type masculine guy on the show, and he does get strive or posture for power or dominance in their team, is content with a contributing role and trusting on the expertise of the others, and he is not portrayed as the most valuable one or as that behaviour being beneath him. He undresses so he and the woman he's fighting with are on equal ground reading undress. He is shorter than the others and continuously portrayed as the most dangerous one in any room, and height differences afe never deemphasised via cinematography (seriously, to be regarded as sufficiently masculine in western films they either get really tall actors or employ a variety of camera angles and boxes to give that impression. But just think of Eliot in the pilot when rescuing Hardison in the first break in, standing behind the group of security guys who all look way taller than him and more physically impressive with weapons and all. And then Eliot just in a t-shirt with no weapon but himself.) He has long hair (again, mainstream sufficiently masculine guys didn't do that back then, or now if we think of it (not that long at least)).

The show and all it's characters were a goddamn marvel back in 2009, and sadly in many ways still are today, 15 years later.

And he heals my little broken heart regarding gender stereotypes and masculinity, my heart that grew up in the 2000s and has so much difficulty accepting that my gender is valid. Bless him for it.

[mrs-stans]

Sebastian Stan Talks Career Interests And His ‘A Different Man’ Film

By Jeff Conway

Sure, you likely know him for his many Marvel film appearances as Bucky Barnes, but actor Sebastian Stan has often taken “the road less traveled” when it comes to his career, having built quite the unique repertoire of memorable performances in far less conventional films.

That observation has arguably never been more visible than with his involvement in the new A24 film, A Different Man. Written & directed by Aaron Schimberg and co-starring Adam Pearson and Renate Reinsve, it tells the story of Edward (Stan), an aspiring actor who undergoes a breakthrough medical procedure to transform his facial appearance, but soon regrets his decision when he becomes obsessed with reclaiming what he has lost.

I sat down with Stan, Pearson and Schimberg to uncover the origin and the creative thought process that went into this new project, which is now playing in select theaters in New York and Los Angeles - nationwide come October 4. For filmmaker Schimberg, this purposefully uncomfortable narrative and the overall project hits rather close to home.

Schimberg said, “I mean, for me, it’s sort of a personal story. I have cleft palate and it’s just sort of me thinking about how it’s affected me in my life and others’ perception of me and my perception about myself. My previous film [Chained for Life] also dealt with the subject in some ways, so that’s sort of what I am always thinking about when I am starting to write a film. I was also thinking about Adam because I had worked with him previously and he played a shy character in Chained for Life, my last film, and he’s not shy at all - and yet, people I think sort of thought that he was playing himself in my movie because they sort of assumed that he must be shy. So, I was inspired to write something that was closer to who he is - taken to a comical extreme, maybe, and I wanted him to show off his range, but I also just wanted to work with him again, so these were some of the starting points.”

Pearson, a British actor with neurofibromatosis, which is a rare genetic disorder that typically causes benign tumors of the nerves and growths in other parts of the body, went on to share what it was about A Different Man and his Oswald character that most intrigued him to want to make this his next film.

“Well, I enjoyed working with Aaron the first time, so when he said, ‘Would you consider working with me again?’ Straight away, I was like, Ding Ding! Round two - let’s rock and roll. Then the script - all the words have weight. There’s very little wasted motion in the script. The end result of the film is quite challenging and holds up a mirror to an audience. I’ve never been a fan of hand-holding or sugar-coating. I think audiences can be a lot smarter than we often give them credit for. A good film will change what you think for a couple of days, but a great film will change how you think for the rest of your life. We’re certainly trying, at least, to be in the great film business.”

With Stan not only acting in A Different Man but also an executive producer, I wondered how he has perhaps noticed his interests and priorities towards the stories that matter most to him as a professional and human being evolving as time goes on.

Stan said, “Well, you get a little older and the questions get a little scarier. A few years ago, I just decided to kind of just be a little bit more aggressive about finding specific work that was interesting and different and kind of challenging for me than what I was getting to do. Eventually, you find yourself in conversations that are in the development of certain things and that might lead to a producing kind of aspect. I think in this [A Different Man] situation, I was involved before A24 came on, which never really happens for me. Not only because of obviously how I felt about the story and so on, I felt really brought in by Aaron and [producer] Vanessa [McDonnell] into their journey with this film and like what they were wanting to do. So, I felt a much bigger attachment than I usually do as an actor in a way.”

When it came time to film A Different Man, Stan recalls the production not having much time, which he actually found to be helpful within his producer role “because when you’re involved in some capacity beyond acting, sometimes you can kind of go, Hey, let’s continue shooting or something. You can help add more to the making of it in some capacity and that was big for us, given our time - that we didn’t have a lot of time.”

In fact, during one particular scene in the film, Stan remembers while everybody else was wrapping up the production trucks for the night, he decided to head out on the streets of New York City with his A Different Man director of photography Wyatt Garfield and Schimberg to grab additional footage. “I just kind of took one of his other little cameras and then we started going up and down Columbus Avenue. It was Friday night and we just got all these shots. Maybe you don’t always get to do that, so that was helpful.”

As I began to conclude my conversation with these three gentlemen, I wondered what Pearson and Stan would say to their A Different Man characters, Oswald and Edward, after seeing their stories play out on-screen and understanding their wants out of life.

Pearson said, “I’d be like to Oswald, Maybe turn it down a little bit. Be nicer to [Stan’s character Edward] because he might not say it, but he loves you and he needs you right now.”

As for the message Stan would tell Edward, he said, “Listen to me! I’m here - I’m telling you. I don’t know how I feel about this. Just hear me out.”

He then added: “It’s very interesting because we all have these moments in life, big or small, where you make a decision or you even say something because you’re with other people or you’re supposed to say something the right way, but you know your reaction in the moment or the decision you’re making is not what your gut is like really telling you. Then, you feel kind of like you’ve abandoned yourself, but then you just quickly deny that - that can kind of like spiral down. We’ve all kind of not owned certain things in the moment and that’s sort of what happens. He kind of drowns out that voice.”

[meraki-yao]

Nick goes out of his way to praise Taylor as an actor. He maybe did 5 interviews he did about the movie and in each one he talks about how Taylor was the perfect choice, how funny and smart he was and how well he understood the character. Taylor isn’t complimentary at all towards him but I think It says a lot about Nick that he is. Similarly, Matthew goes on and on about Taylor becoming the character and transforming and then he has this really weird line about Nick being protective and holding the character and it’s quite…. Minimizing and not at all how Nick describes his performance. Nick is for sure the third wheel in that group but he handled it well imo. 

….Jeeze, what the fuck.

This is the only time I’m ever gonna answer an ask like this becuase this is my blog, and I want it to be happy. Any other asks or comments insinuating that the boys (including Matthew) don’t get along I will straight up delete. I don’t have the time or energy for shit like this.

You clearly haven’t seen all interviews or understand how an interview works, or frankly understand that different humans express appreciation and affection in different ways.

In the cinemagna interview, Taylor repeats that it’s great to work with Nick, he knows Nick cares about this production a lot (i.e., Nick’s a responsible and dedicated actor), they have a great banter with each other, they trust each other, and they’re each other’s greatest supporters. Taylor often comments on their relationship as a whole, which is inherently, also a comment on Nick being a great friend and a great co-star, or else you would not have a relationship like this. He also shows his appreciation towards Nick in other ways, such as making a big deal on Instagram when Purple Hearts and Comfort were released. So “Taylor isn’t complimentary at all towards Nick” is simply not true.

When Nick compliments Taylor, he’s being directly cued to talk about Taylor as an individual. As far as I’ve seen (and I’ve seen quite a number) Taylor, in his solo interviews was never directly asked to talk about Nick. As an interviewee, you have to answer what is asked of you. Plus, a question like “How was it like to work with him” can be taken both ways: the “him” aspect, or the “with him” aspect.

Also bear in mind that we don’t actually have that many interviews from the boys themselves because of the strike.

As for Matthew, the line of Nick being protective of Henry is simply a different way of processing acting. Only Nick and Matthew know for sure, but my understanding is that Nick understands Henry’s hardships, is very sympathetic towards him, and thus wants to do the character justice. Nick said in the GQ interview that his own great fear is being misunderstood and Henry has to live with that every day. The idea is the way Nick as himself, an individual sympathizes with Henry, and as the actor, the way he can protect Henry is to throw himself into it and let Henry be protected, by Alex. Nick can’t protect Henry because he is literally not in the same universe as Henry, but by being vulnerable and portraying Henry honestly, he can let Henry be protected in the RWRB universe.

Matthew also often talks about and compliments the boys as a collective, he clearly appreciates both of them.

Nobody's minimizing anything. And sometimes, we can't speak on behalf of someone else, so they focus on their perspective.

If you’re gonna be stubborn and say that Matthew’s closer to Taylor, well three things. 1, their relationship is their own relationship, what they share on social media is far from the full picture. We are not entitled to know their private life or relationships, and just because they don’t show certain things doesn’t mean it’s false, it’s just unfalsifiable. Plus Nick hasn’t been that active on social media or in the public eye at all lately (My guess is he might be writing music) 2, In human psychology, we are inherently drawn to familiarity, given Matthew and Taylor’s shared experience of being Latino, they would have more to talk about just on that basis. (that’s not to say Matthew and Nick wouldn’t have stuff to talk about, it’s just the subject of ethnicity is immediately apparent) 3, and I will admit this is my speculation, but Taylor and Nick publicly hanging out together right now, even if it’s just as themselves, as friends, could sort of, kind of, be considered promo given the nature of the movie which is against the strike. Also again, Nick hasn’t really been seen at all lately, he’s probably busy with his own stuff.

So tl dr, you’re taking things out of context, we really don’t have that many interviews with just them, what’s shown is far from the entirety of their relationship, and I am not gonna answer any more asks like this because it’s just not true. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill.  

[alphinias]

Sorry. It needs to be said: People getting mad at every little thing a cast member says is honestly lame! I think people generally read way too much into things and it's getting to a point of overbearing. Like the way someone says something..if they pause, or a look someone gives that I don't think means what they assume after watching it. Like my feeling about Rudy & Madison is that Rudy has always seen the potential of Jiara & felt the weight that storyline has for his character, but plays it coy to not give anything away (I'm saying this like it has always been that way; this is not something that's changed in the way he's talked about them). Like do people want to be spoiled (And all the way back from Season 1?!) And idk Madison has always seemed more uncomfortable talking abt it to me but seemingly more open in addressing it, oddly (confirmed: EW interview-she says she wasnt as on board in the beginning; tho I think her feeling has always just been more so abt putting more focus on her character as an individual & not losing that). But really who cares how they personally feel about a ship on screen; it doesn't seem to have affected the chemistry, and it's not really normal for an actor to be OVERJOYED abt a ship in the way a fan is going to be--it's just different for them playing the character. This is NOT directed at you: just saying from the things I've seen.

I mean I definitely have thoughts about it, some similar to yours and some a little different, but agree people always without fail over analyze and skew negative on cast interviews. Not just for this fandom; for all fandoms. It’s been this way since I was in the stydia fandom and it’s just one of those things you have to cope with however you’re going to personally cope with it. Personally I just don’t have the emotional capacity right now to get upset over little things the cast says and in some ways they can never win with everyone. But I will say as a Bellarke shipper nothing Madison or Rudy have ever said in interviews has remotely offended me. I’ve usually got a skin of stone lmao. And they are always professional and polite when they are asked about it, which I appreciate. You’re right, they are never going to ship the way we ship and that’s fine. And I think it’s important to remember at the end of the day that they are only human. They’ve been trained for press, but everyone has stuck their foot in their mouth a little at some point. We all have some shit we lay awake for hours stressing over because we said it a certain way.

If someone comes into my inbox complaining a little though, I usually just try to give them the benefit of the doubt (unless it goes on and on. I’m not going to say the same thing over and over again because I don’t have the energy) because I think we’re all about two degrees away from having a stroke right now with the show so close. For some people it’s probably their first fandom experience so things bother them more, and for some people they’ve probably had a bad time in their last fandom and may be hypersensitive. It is what it is.

At the end of the day the only thing that really matters is what we get delivered to our screens, and so far I see nothing saying it’s not going to be amazing.

[thegirlwhorideslikeasamurai]

Thank you for this detailed dive into the male skaters in YOI! This was so exciting to read! Also, I feel I need to say that "flamboyant" is a far better descriptor for what I wanted to express re characters like Chris, Phichit, or Viktor (my brain sometimes struggles to find the right word, which is a bit embarrassing for a writer) and I agree that in Chris's case, it's both a performance but also his natural self--I'm thinking about Viktor's line in ep. 10 "Chris is sexy both on and off the ice" and this observation matches how Chris presents in the few scenes in which he isn't skating.

When looking at the animation alone, it's indeed hard to assess whether Yuuri's skating style of Eros changes as the animation has natural limitation. Our only chance is to infer this from the hints the anime gives us: 1) Yuuri learns to move like a woman in order to portray Eros, 2) the change of pronouns hints at the change of the character portrayed: seductress persona -> Yuuri himself. Now, Eros is a very sensual routine with lot of swinging hips, hands running down the body, soft movements etc., which requires a way of moving that is associated with a female style, regardless of whether Yuuri impersonates a woman or just skates sensually. So this is why I would argue that the style changes to some extent because Yuuri brings more of himself into it, but a certain femininity is preserved due to the nature of the routine--at least that seems the most logical interpretation. In real-life skating, such a change would be visible as alone the shift from one character to another affects the performance.

I'm talking so much about figure skating here because as an artistic sport it leaves so much space for creativity, to portray characters, to express oneself, explore one's limits, and challenge oneself in whichever way (and YOI shows this diversity brilliantly). And because of that, gendered norms in figure skating are my personal pet peeve because it's outdated bs. In the past, skaters like Amber Glenn or Sasha Trusova have been criticised for their "masculine" style because their skating looks very powerful. Likewise, Jason Brown (an openly gay skater) has been criticised and mocked for his "female" skating aka a soft, sensual style. Comments like this come from misogynistic, homophobic people in the sport and it makes me so mad because it defies everything the concept of this sport stands for. If we talk specifically about men, we must also talk about toxic masculinity as this is responsible for male skaters being mocked from out- and inside the sport. My personal opinion is that it has no place in figure skating as contradicts free artistic expression like skating soft, sensually and emotionally expressive--of course, not everyone skates like, but the freedom to do this makes the sport so attractive for many people of all genders and sexualities. Thankfully, I haven't come across it a lot since I follow the sport, but it's an issue that exist in some places. If we take the concept into the world of YOI, I think that JJ could be a character who might be affected by this, whereas other very masculine skaters don't mind a soft and emotionally expressive skating style (Mickey) or wish they could do skate like this (Otabek).

It's beautiful how accurately YOI portrays figure skating, including the many ways skaters express themselves on and off the ice and that some skaters are performers even off the ice as they're celebrities. In this sense, characters like past-Viktor or JJ care a lot about their image and are natural actors--in Viktor's case even to the point that he has to learn to be himself again. In contrast to that, Yuuri has a personality that thrives when he can be himself and skate true to his feelings (another reason why his Eros is so brilliant in ep. 6 and 8) and this is more important to him than what people might think about him. In irl figure skating, we only see how the skaters act in front of the camera, but YOI goes beyond that and shows us their thoughts, motives, and dreams. It's also interesting when we talk about programmes and personalities as every skater has a different approach. If we take Guang-Hong, it seems like he struggles with his programmes because his coach chose it for him and he can't make it work despite the cool story that fits a boy of his age he made up. He's still developing his skating and thus his presentation/performance skills lag behind, which is typical for many skaters in his age range. That he struggles with his programme, makes a lot of sense to me, in this regard. Yurio, who is of the same age and didn't chose his programmes either, makes them work, but unlike Guang-Hong he's used to the drill that is Russian figure skating, so he masters them much quicker. Then there are skaters who have programmes that look like they chose them themselves because they're tied to their own life (Mickey, Georgi, and Leo I think) and this could be a hint that they prefer programmes they can see themselves in, whereas other skaters are eager to challenge themselves with things like Emil. But also Yuuri, with Viktor's encouragement, chose his own free programme for this reason because he wanted to portray what love means to him.

This was a long info-dump on figure skating (I'm sorry about that but it's my other special interest and I love how it intertwines with YOI and as a fan of the sport I recognise certain patterns in YOI because the creators did a ton of research on skating), but to come back to your initial point, for many of these characters a "traditional" gender expression isn't important and many have set different priorities like image, goals, expression of emotions etc. This is what I would expect of an artistic sport as we have a very diverse group with queer and straight (?) characters, characters with different goals regarding their career, different personalities and individual strengths they play in this sport. Plus, these characters are from different cultural backgrounds, which may impact their concept of gender. I can't say a lot about cultures as this isn't my area of expertise, but it's fascinating to explore how all these factors come into play. In my experience, queers and neurodivergent people (I mention both because of the significant statistic overlap between them) care far less about gender norms as people who are neither and I think this has a lot to do with that we're less likely to conform to these norms. I'm not sure if the creators or YOI were aware of that, but it's certainly something worth considering. And I really love this as there is so much poor queer representation in the media that either uses stereotypes or presses queer people into cishet norms.

What I love specifically about Viktuuri, regarding gender norms is that like you said it's not important for their growth as individuals and as a couple. I think this is a very important statement the show makes here as it doesn't force their love into a gender binary with traditional male & female roles, which would be awful, but instead shows us a very healthy queer relationship.

So sorry, this got so long and I hope you don't mind, but our discussion creates so many links between all these aspects in my brain, it's so enlightening.

One of the many things I love about YOI is how it ignores gender norms. Like Viktor wearing androgynous costumes as a junior because it matched his looks? Lovely. Yuuri learning how to dance like a woman as he explores Eros? Great! Let this boy do whatever he needs to find his unique Eros expression. Mila practising lifts on Yurio? Please give me more.

None of these form a pattern that indicates anything about these characters' gender or, more generally their queerness (spoiler: these could apply to a number of labels or to none; gender is a societal construct and the reasons to not want to conform to it are various), the show is that vague and it seems a deliberate choice. Viktor eventually changed his style and image. Yuuri finds his unique, masculine expression of Eros in episode 6 when he seduces Viktor with his own charms (as conveyed through the use of the masculine pronoun "boku"). These characters live in a world where gender norms don't matter and where everyone can express themselves and explore certain aspects of their personality without anyone telling them that it's not "appropriate" for their gender.

And you can spin this further. If Viktor wants to wear a women's yukata because he loves the flower print, he can do that. If Yuuri wants to do ballet in pointé shoes because it challenges his sense of balance, no one can stop him. (In my fics, Viktor wears such shoes for that purpose and because he loves the laces.) If Chris wants to wear an evening gown and high heels because he loves how it emphasises his thighs and his bum, he can just go for it. If Yurio wants to wear a mini-skirt to ripped jeans, no one will bully him for it. If Mila wants to skate in black skates because it matches the colour of her costumes better than white skates, no one would care (same goes for white skates for any of the male characters). If Phichit wants to wear make-up, no one would give him strange looks.

The beauty of Yuri on Ice is that the characters are free to do these things without having to fear judgement or repercussions. They are free to choose how they want to express themselves, be it for image reasons, because of a character they portray in their figure skating routines, because it ties into a certain aspect of their queerness, or because they just prefer this over a traditional expression. In the world of YOI, it just doesn't matter. I would love to live in that world.

(You might notice that I don't count hair length as gender norm because for many people it's a stylistic choice. I'm thinking of all the metalheads and women with pixie haircuts, which have been normalised in most societies I know of.)

[psalm22-6]

Okay this article is really written by a hater, which makes it kind of funny to me. I looked her up and all I found out about her was that a) she published a guide to restaurants in Paris, b) she was part of a campaign by extreme right-wing newspapers to defame left wing politicians, going as far as disguising herself as an American journalist in order to harass a politician who then killed himself and c) she once pretended to be “an extraordinary psychopathic case” in order to meet Freud. Anyways, here is her review of Raymond Bernard’s Les Misérables 

Source: Ric et Rac, 17 February 1934

One must commend Raymond Bernard for having the courage to attack Les Misérables. It’s been too long since I read Victor Hugo’s work to faithfully judge if M. Raymond Bernard succeeded in his audacious enterprise but the hugolatres in my family were emitting awful shouts in leaving the little festival organized by the Natan brother in honor of the film, or rather the three films. The next one will be shown at the Marivaux and the last one at the Marignan. I am afraid that you will not see me in those establishments for some time because the debut film, A Tempest in a Skull, didn’t give me a single desire to know the rest of the disappointments in store for Jean Valjean, Cosette, and the Thénardiers. That being said, I must admit that my neighbors at the Paramount theater were very moved the other night. 

“It’s terribly beautiful and that’s it then!” one was saying.

 “Me, I find it remuant (sic),” the other one was saying, but who meant to say emouvant [I gather that they said fidgety but meant to say moving].

That’s all true, by the by. But like Les Deux Orpheline, it’s not more or less. That is to say, there’s a certain dose of comedy throughout the drama. You must understand that when I say “drama,” I’m thinking “melodrama.” The impression of “affectation” is certainly from Florelle, who never stops coughing, agonizing and dying. By a curious phenomenon of mimicry, she succeeded in making a good part of the audience cough. You could have said it was a fatal epidemic of bronchitis. 

The formidable talent of M. Harry Baur highlights the contrast to the point of cruelty. Harry Baur is Jean Valjean and M. Madeleine and Champmathieu. That a single actor manages to create three characters who are so different is a true tour de force that the public probably doesn’t appreciate enough.  

He creates the impression that the shape of his eyes, of his chin, and of his cheeks has changed and that the three characters only share a vague resemblance. I already knew that M. Harry Baur was a great actor. I hadn’t even hoped he’d be this good. His role as Champmathieu particularly is overwhelmingly realistic and colorful. His Champmathieu: we’ve all known someone like him, in the correctional courts, before the justice of the peace, or simply the police. 

M. Charles Vanel and M. Charles Dullin are Machiavellian and unlikeable, as befits them but always in a way that is melodramatic, which may not have been necessary. 

***

Jean Valjean, a prodigiously strong convict, has just been liberated. He walks, he goes from town to town, flotsam that everyone rejects. Everyone except a brave and saintly man, an archbishop, who offers him hospitality. Jean Valjean immediately rewards him by stealing his silver. . .[skipping most of this because we know the plot] . . . 

At the same time, we have been introduced to Fantine, a charming seamstress who, alas! believed the beautiful promises of a man. Fantine is the mother of a charming little girl named Cosette who is put into the care of two innkeepers in Montfermeil, the Thénardiers. This poor girl is right out of Cinderella. She sweeps, she’s smacked around, in short she’s like a sister to the Two Orphans, like I had the honor of telling you earlier. These torturers don’t ask for any less than a big sum of money from the poor little mother, who believes that her daughter is happy and cherished. 

I never have understood why Fantine gives her well loved daughter to people she did not know, when it would have been simple to find a nanny near Montreuil. Right? But M. Victor Hugo had to have had his reasons and then, as others have said, “if it wasn’t for that then the story would have been over right away.” . . . [skipping more because the plot summary, goes without commentary all the way to Fantine’s death and Valjean’s escape]. . .

There you have the first part of the tryptic. I said at the beginning of my article what I thought of the interruption. It would be unfair of me to the director and camera operator if I didn’t tell them that certain scenes gave me sea sickness. Why is Fantine, on her death bed, presented like a woman on an ocean liner tilted 45 degrees, suffering pains that we are left to guess at? There is not a single reason to then show us Jean Valjean with his feet on the ceiling and Javert in diagonal. Yet another wrongdoing of Bolshevism! It was the Russians, unless I am mistaken, who first tried to get photos on unexpected planes. 

Again, you could say “That’s cinema for you!” But what you cannot say that for, oh! that is the monologues of M. Madeleine. His brand new vocation as great honest man has really turned his head around and the poor man gives long speeches that seem to torment many and which make us suffer even more. 

Must I add that with the exception of Henri VIII, with its irresistible colorfulness, “period pieces” always seem disappointing to me. It takes more than hoisting a lantern to the top of a pulley or giving a twisted cane to Javert to recreate the atmosphere. People forget that faces and silhouettes change and that the brave actors of 1934 look more or less like disguises. 

It takes the dramatic power of M. Harry Baur to make you forget that. He is the only thing alas! to defend this film. 

Odette PANNETIER.

[shatteredatthealtarofwinchester]

Umm, wait. It's more a 15x20 rant than an analysis. I'll call it... a ranalysis. 😏

I just saw J*reds last online panel again, where he called the finale "magical full circle storytelling". 15x20 is his "favourite episode ever" because he "is a fan of good storytelling". Uh-huh... Okay. So the following just was built on pure rage. This makes it more of a rant than an analysis. As usual. You guys know me.

Well. There are various possibilities here, Jared. Possibility A is, you are lying, what I do not believe. To lie that obvious you have to be a talented actor, which you are not. Possibility B is, you really think that way. You believe, the finale was "magical full circle storytelling" and you actually loved it, it was indeed your favourite episode. This again brings me to the only conclusion: You have no fucking idea about good storytelling, not even decent storytelling.

Lets look at every single ending, shall we?

Dean. We all know you think Deans death was a "success story." You think that Dean "ultimately gave his life for his number one on planet." I am sitting here, laughing in pain. First of all, let me say that Dean didn't died for Sam, Jared. He didn't took a bullet for Sam or sacrificed himself or whatsoever. He died in the most ridiculous accident I've ever seen. But lets go back to the very start.

Dean’s childhood was highly abusive. Dean was 4 years old when he saw his mother burning alive and learned that monsters are real. In that age he developed PTSD and stopped talking. Dean had a childhood with a father that was an alcoholic and physically and mentally abusive, who had believed that Dean had a “killer instinct". When Dean was about 6 years old, John forced him into a nurturing role for Sam. In the same age Dean was forced into the soldiers role as well when John taught him how to shoot and hunt. Dean had to obey orders without questioning. If he acted “out of line,” (aka something John didn’t like) John chewed him out or left them alone. Dean was trained to be Daddy’s blunt instrument. Dean gave up his own life to keep Sam safe, because he had no other choice. More than a brother Dean had to be a father and a mother to Sam. He suppressed everything, every psychological pain, every emotion, he just lived to protect Sam and to obey as Johns blunt soldier. Short: Dean gave up HIMSELF for Sam and John. Not because Dean wanted to, because he was forced into it! Dean hated himself, he was suicidal. He was convinced he isn’t worthy of anything, especially not being loved. Dean never had a life for his own, never had a choice, never had a chance, never had own original thoughts, never felt safe or loved. He was used to being left. He felt like he was nothing. Worthless. He was dead inside. Broken. You get what I mean, Jared? Since you own a mental health campaign, you should. And guess what Dean did? He kept fighting. Despite everything, he kept fighting. And his mindset slowly changed. He understood that his father was an abusive bastard, he unterstood that he was forced into a life he never wanted. He understood that he is more than that, that he is not like John. He changed. He opened up. He even wanted to retire. And now it gets interesting, because something happened that REALLY is the start of magical full circle storytelling. Something in Deans mind clicked while Cas' confession. His confession was fundamental to Dean to finally accept his own goodness and the value of his life and love, of his identity. It was the moment of breaking free of the structure that had controlled and corrupted him his entire life. It was the only way out of his abusive and traumatizing cage to experience something for his own the very first time. For the first time in his life he had a chance. A choice. The start of his very own life. Free will, baby! Well, no. Because exactly in that moment he stumbled into a nail and died. Do you even realize how dumb this is? Do you even realize what you did? Wait, it gets worse. Yeah, that's possible, even if you dont believe it. In heaven he goes right back to the life he has spent his whole journey learning to free himself from: Left only with the persons he had been forced, time and time again, to sacrifice his identity, goals, and soul for. None of the family, support, or love, nothing he has built or chosen for himself remains. This is not magical full circle storytelling, Jared. This is abysmal pointless butchering. This has NOTHING, not a single percent of magical or good storytelling! YOU call that magical? YOU call that a success? Seriously, what shit are you on? If it would've been full circle storytelling, there is not one single fucking possibility that Dean would've died in the end. I don't know whats going on in your twisted brain, but Deans death never was and never will be a success. To make it magical full circle storytelling, he MUST have been the one who survives and overcomes his trauma (and raise a certain someone from perdition.)

Sam. He's actually the one who kinda got the best ending, huh? I mean, it was fucking horrific, but it was the best if you compare it to the others. When Sam was young, he wanted a normal life far away from hunting, while the truth is, Sam always was more like John than Dean ever will be. Over time his mindset clearly changed. He even said: "When Dean came to get me at school, I told myself, one last job, you know, (...) it was always one more job and then I was gonna go back to law and to my life. I guess, I really understand now that THIS is my life. And I love it." Sam couldn't imagine a normal life anymore. He had the chances for that and he declined. He loved hunting. He loved working and making progress with the BMOL, he very much enjoyed being a MOL and even took the lead often. I can clearly picture Sam as the lead of a rebuilt version of the MOL, that would've made sense. What did Sam get? Right, the ending he didn't wanted anymore, but since we yeet every single development of every single character out of the window, Sam has to be Season 1 Sam again, BUT with a fancy party wig! And there he is! And what a happy life he lives, exactly what he wanted, woohoo! So much joy, so much fun! Oh look, there is BlurryWife™, who Jared made sure is not Eileen, because “Dean wouldn’t want Sam to be with Eileen”. But wait, didn't Dean wanted Sam to be with Eileen? Didn't Dean literally said: "If it was to work, Eileen, you know... She gets it, she gets us, she gets the life. You could do worse. And she could certainly do better, like SO much better. I'm happy for you, Sammy." Yeah, NO. This was just a writing AND acting AND producing mistake and had no matter at all. *cough* So... As you can see, magical storytelling strikes again. I can feel the magic, I can feel the full circle, it's... Amazing...

Castiel. Castiels story was magical, it was mindblowing. I've never in my entire life seen such a meaningful and deep storyline and I mean this. It's fucking massive. There is this blunt angel soldier, one of the post powerful forces, who was built to blindly obey, who lived for aeons of years, who wasn't supposed to feel anything, but he fell for a broken, suicidal, abused human who never felt loved or worthy the very moment he touched him. He fell so hard he rebelled against his own race, against his own family, against everything he had without any safety. He was the ONLY one in Chuck-knows-how-many universes who GREW outside of Chucks CONTROL! His love was so fucking massive, it couldn't be controlled by the God who built every-fucking-thing. Chuck built millions(?) of parallel universes, heaven, hell, life, death, purgatory, the empty, he created every single being, the light, darkness, every single angel, demon, leviathan, monster, animal, plant, sea, blade of grass, every centimeter of mountains, the four seasons, emotions, what the fuck ever. Everything you can ever think of, Chuck created it. And he controlled it. In every single one of his fucking millions of universes. But not Castiel.This is actually not possible. You can't outrun god. You can't outrun the one who creates, writes and controlles everything. But Cas did. Out of love. And not only that, you also imply that what happened between Dean and Cas was the only thing  that was real. Everything else was corrupted, controlled, manipulated, written by Chuck. But what happened between Dean and Cas, he couldn't affect.

Seeing Cas standing there, crying, confessing his love to Dean actually even makes me think that Dean made Cas human. Dean completed Cas. Cas didn't simply said "I love you", he actually said "In all existing universes, in all millions, all aeons of years, you are my only happiness." And Cas completed Dean. He freed Dean. While Dean was used to being left, was used to feeling worthless and unlovable, Cas saw Dean exactly the way he is and chose to stay. With every obstacle, every difficulty he loved him even more and yes, freed him from the abusive structure that had controlled and corrupted him his entire life. Something that no one else could, not his parents, not Amara, not God, not even Sam. Beautiful, isn't it? Unique. Mindblowing. Pure. You enjoyed it? Let's fuck this up in 3...2...1...

Castiels story ended exactly the same way it started. A blunt angel who doesn't care about people and feelings, blindly carrying out instructions from a new God, obeying heaven. No progress. They threw away 12 years of character development and managed to give him the same stupid and senseless ending like they did with Dean. Dean died and Cas... Wasn't there?! WHAT!? There is no single fucking way Cas wouldn't save Dean or wouldn't be there when Dean enters heaven! There. Is. No. Fucking. Way! The way they represented Cas in the end doesn't only imply that Dean isn't important to Cas anymore, he even ended up exactly the same way as if Season 4-15 wouldn't have happened. The ending is exactly the same! He's with God in heaven, supporting him with instructions, not caring about anything else.

Okay, I got it. Summarizing you can say: Jareds "magical full circle storytelling" is to yeet 95% of the past 15 years. No other characters matter, the story itself doesn't matter, every single characters development doesn't matter, it even doesn't matter what the brothers really want, they don't get it anyway.

Okay. But that's not all. As if this wasn't bad enough, they didn't just butchered ... EVERYTHING, they also salted and burnt every single Mantra they ever stood for. I'll make these short, I promise!

Team Free Will. *snort* Dean couldn't escape his fate, he always believed he'll die on a hunt as Daddys blunt instrument and he did. He kept fighting to die exactly the way he felt he was "supposed to". Message? No matter how hard you keep fighting, no matter how long you'll keep it up, you can't escape your fate. Sam couldn't change his fate, he ended how he started. Cas couldn't change his fate, he ended how he started, same for Jack, he ended how he was supposed to. YEET THE FREE WILL, NONE OF THEM CAN CHANGE ANYTHING!

Family don't end with  blood. The biggest lie that has ever been told. Do I even have to explain that? No need, right? Don't make me wanna throw up again, please. We all know that 15x20 blasted "Family don't end with blood" in millions of pieces.

Always keep fighting. THE AUDACITY to praise that while Dean is dying! After everything Dean has dealt with, It makes me wanna scream. Dean kept fighting, he always kept fighting, no matter how hard it was, no matter what forced him to his knees, he stood up again, and if he wasn't able to stand up, he crawled. He kept fighting no matter what, despite everything. His mindset changed. He wanted to live, he wanted to experience things, feelings and people differently or even for the first time. He changed. He wanted to retire, toes in the sand. He knew he earned it. Thats why he kept fighting. For what? To die the very first moment he had a free will. To die the very first moment he had a choice, had a life to build for himself. Always keep fighting, but the moment you come close to what you want, what you fought for, you die. It's been more than 3 months and I am having tears in my eyes while typing this. As for Dean, no matter how hard you fight, no matter how long you fight, you don't reach what you deserve anyway. Give up. As for Sam, AKF leeds to Emptiness. Grief. Psychological Trauma. Mental illness. Absolutely nothing worth fighting for.

I wanna go cry now, bye.

[ahristed]

dandelion, jihae

      jihae, the beautiful silver rabbit in dandelion, is one of the five potential love interests chosen for heejung, the heroine of the game, by the wizard. he’s self-controlled but gentle and is also one of the three rabbit-based characters that the heroine can choose from, the other two being jiwoo and jieun. i spent a total of one hundred fifty hours on his route in order to obtain all the memories for both his good ending and his bad ending as well as all his bonus images in the special menu. i’m new to otome games and reviewing them, but i hope this post ends up being somewhat helpful nonetheless!

character voice

      jihae is voiced by choi nakyoon, and i find it amusing how the voice actor’s easygoing personality somewhat clashes with jihae’s rather uptight persona. this character was meant to follow the gentleman or older brother type who’s often the most mature among all the love interests, and what with nakyoon’s voice being as low and smooth as it is, i definitely enjoyed listening to the different dialogues he had with heejung. even during scenes wherein he’d lose his cool or his composed demeanor would slip, it wasn’t unpleasant to have to listen to him raise his voice. however, i find it rather unfortunate that due to jihae being a character whose circumstances molded him into a rather repressed individual, there were certain scenes in his route that i feel could’ve used more angst or emotion, but i attribute this more to the fact that it’s part of jihae’s nature to practice restraint and self-control at all times rather than an actual shortcoming of the voice actor.

personality

      jihae is the only route that i’ve played in dandelion so far, so i don’t know how this rabbit acts around heejung when he’s not being romanced. however, it does seem to remain a constant that he maintains a calm and reserved persona and is wholly dedicated to serving jieun and ensuring that his health and safety are secured. while i do find it admirable that he goes to such great lengths in order to secure his young master’s holistic well-being, there were times when i found it a tad too excessive and rather obsessive in a sense. during his route, i often felt as if there was a third person in our relationship, and i’m not going to lie—it got extremely irritating at times. jihae often mentions jieun during his interactions with the heroine, and while this does start to die down toward the end of his route, having to listen to him tell heejung that he’s worried about his young master three times in a row did not sit well with me as a player. nevertheless, i was able to somewhat see past it after my second playthrough and started viewing their relationship as something more endearing than infuriating.

      when romanced, this considerate and sensitive rabbit is a proper gentleman who acts more timid around heejung since he seems to develop feelings for her rather early on in their relationship, as seen when he becomes a flustered and nervous mess during his second major memory with her. as his route progresses, a rather uncharacteristic jealous and protective side starts rearing its head, a side that’s most evident around jisoo, someone who can be considered a rival for the heroine’s affection. however, this can also be due to the fact that jisoo is a cat, a species that jihae harbors an obvious disdain for. still, i can’t help but adore this rare side of him because while he’s willing to do everything—and i mean everything—for heejung, he’s protective without being considered possessive, which is more than i can say for a certain black cat. he doesn’t pursue her with ulterior motives—something that the wizard’s game was supposed to have the love interests do by default—but rather, is so averse to burdening her with his feelings that he’s willing sacrifice his own happiness for the sake of hers. not wanting to use the heroine in order to have his wish fulfilled is something that jihae’s route emphasizes on often, and i believe that this sort of innocent and selfless love is plain beautiful.

route

      as i said, i’m new to otome games and dandelion is the first one i’ve played, but there was definitely something strange about the fact that i had to raise relationship points with both jihae and jieun, and i was right. research tells me that jihae’s route is the only one in the game that requires raising affection with more than one love interest in order to get his good ending; the rest are extremely against gaining hearts with other characters, and doing so will even result in a bad ending with other love interests. going on dates with him was also a bit of a chore for the sole reason that he’s. too. polite. what do i mean? choosing either answer prompts responses that both seem positive. from all possible angles of the dialogue. the number of times i’ve had to save the game before choosing an answer just to see if i gained relationship points or not was a nightmare. when he’s still a rabbit, choosing the proper responses is definitely a lot easier, but after he turns human, he can be more difficult to appease on dates because of his unwavering tact.

heroine

      from reviews of other otome games that i’ve read in the past, there are probably a lot of people who won’t be all too fond of how heejung acts in jihae’s route. because of his unrivaled beauty as well as the fact that his composed exterior rarely ever falters, the heroine tends to get bashful and tongue-tied whenever she’s around him, but in my humble opinion, it’s not to the point of being annoying. rather, despite often getting flustered, she maintains a gentle firmness in both the common route and jihae’s route that i personally aspire to have and adore that heejung does. she’s selfless to the point that it becomes frustrating at times and has a habit of putting others before herself. however, does this mean that she’s a doormat by default? absolutely not. what i love about the heroine in this route is that her morals aren’t clouded by attraction, so when she can sense that something’s wrong, despite it involving her love interest, she’s not afraid to stand up for what she believes is right, both in her thoughts and in her words and all the while maintaining a dignified and somewhat motherly demeanor that renders me incapable of not loving her.

rating

      considering as well how much closure both the good ending and the bad ending provided, i give jihae’s route from dandelion a 4.5 out of 5. i just didn’t see the importance of emphasizing on jihae and jieun’s relationship as much as the route did—to the point that heejung needed to raise affection with the two of them instead of just her chosen love interest alone—especially since jihae’s backstory only seemed to uncover the reason why he was serving under jieun in the first place and not so much the actual bond the two of them seem to share. however, this might be revealed later on in jieun’s route, and if the game does give me more to go on regarding their history, this shouldn’t affect my final and overall rating of dandelion as a whole.

i’ll be doing jiwoo’s route next!

[nickjunesource]

Full article below.

Max Minghella is sitting in his backyard in the LA sunshine, his t-shirt an homage to the French filmmaker Mia Hansen-Løve, his adopted shepherd mix, Rhye, excited by the approach of a package courier.

“You okay, sweetheart?” he asks — the dog, not me — tenderly.

Minghella, who at 35 has dozens of screen credits to his name, is best known as The Handmaid’s Tale’s cunning chauffeur Nick Blaine, a character who it’s difficult to imagine saying sweetheart. In airless Gilead, of course, a cautious hand graze with Elisabeth Moss’ June can pass for a big romantic gesture. In a Season 1 episode featuring child separation and hospital infant abduction, Nick’s major contribution is to trade stolen glances with a sex slave while “Don’t You (Forget About Me)” pumps discordantly along. I ask Minghella about playing the series’ closest approximation to a dreamy male lead against the show’s dark narrative of female subjugation.

“I know this is not the answer you want to hear,” Minghella says with none of Nick’s hesitation. “But I like that stuff, right? In the pilot, I think Nick only had a handful of lines. It wasn't clear that this is what the character would turn into. And it's quite fortunate for me personally, because I'm not a massively sort of intellectual person in my real life. I love Fifty Shades of Grey. That's like my Star Wars. It suits me to play a character like him.”

Minghella surmises that this enduring romanticism is an outcome of nurture. His father, the late British director Anthony Minghella, made grand romantic dramas like Cold Mountain and The English Patient. And there was the young, cinema-mad Max sitting on the living room sofa, absorbing everything. “It’s taken me a long time to understand this,” he says of his prolonged childhood exposure to love stories. “My dad made The English Patient when I was 10. So it was two years of watching the dailies to that movie and then watching 50 cuts of it. And then [The Talented Mr.] Ripley he made when I was 13, and it was the same thing.” These were an adolescent Max Minghella’s alternative to reruns. “I think they did shape my perspective on the world in a lot of ways, specifically The English Patient. That was a complicated love story, and I wonder sometimes how much it's affected my psychology.”

Some sons rebel; others resemble. Minghella’s co-star O-T Fagbenle, who plays June’s other lover from before the time of Gilead, got his first job acting in Anthony Minghella’s romantic crime film Breaking and Entering. “Anthony is one the kindest, most beautiful men that I've ever had the privilege of working with before,” Fagbenle says. “And Max has his gorgeous, sensitive, open-minded soul.”

Though Minghella spent his childhood on the set of The Talented Mr. Ripley, playing an uncredited Confederate soldier role in Cold Mountain, and tooling around with a Super-8 camera Matt Damon gave him, he insists his upbringing was normal. He grew up in South Hill Park overlooking Hampstead Heath in London with his father and mother, the choreographer Carolyn Choa. (Minghella also has a half-sister, Hannah Minghella, who is now a film executive.) Yes, technically, it was London, but that’s not how it seemed. “I feel like I grew up in a very small town. Every school I went to was in Hampstead. I was born in Hampstead,” Minghella says of the small map dot of his life before university. “When I went to New York, I felt I was going to the big city.”

Despite his illustrious surname, movie-watching was far from restricted to the classics. “Beverly Hills Cop is definitely the movie I remember having an unhealthy obsession with. I think I saw it when I was 5 for the first time, and I'd watch it just two or three times a day for years. I'm just obsessed with it.”

Plenty of actors can trace their love of movies back to a love of stories, but for Minghella the relationship seems to flow in reverse. When he left for Columbia University, Minghella opted to study history for its connection, through storytelling, to film. It was during the summers between his years of college that he started taking acting more seriously. Before his graduation, he’d already appeared in Syriana, starring Damon and George Clooney. Soon, he’d make a splash as Divya Narendra in The Social Network in 2010 and be cast in Clooney’s Ides of March. As all young actors eventually must, Minghella moved to Los Angeles.

It’s been over a decade since he last lived on the Heath, but, perhaps unusually for a person who’s chosen his profession, Minghella is adamantly not a “shapeshifter,” in his words. Home for Christmas this year, he started sifting through old journals stored at his mother’s house, “just like scraps of writing from when I was extremely young up through my teenage years,” before coming to America. “It was hilarious to me,” Minghella says of staring at his childhood reflection. “My review of a movie at 7 years old is pretty much what my review of a movie at 35 will be. My taste hasn't changed much. And when I sort of love something, I do tend to continue to love it.”

Which brings us back to his enduring love of romance, born of his bloodline, which is all over Minghella’s own 2018 directorial debut. Teen Spirit is a hazily lit film about a teenage girl from the Isle of Wight — the remote British island where Max’s father Anthony was born — who enters a local X-Factor-style singing competition. (It stars Minghella’s rumored girlfriend of several years, Elle Fanning.) The story is small, but its crescendos are epic.

Minghella calls the movie — an ode to the power of the pop anthem — “embarrassingly Max.” Max loves a good music-driven movie trailer — he’s watched the one for Top Gun: Maverick “many” times. And Max loves the rhythmic beats of sports movies like Friday Night Lights. Max loves movies with excesses of female energy, like Spring Breakers. He likens Teen Spirit to an experiment, his answer to the question, “Can I take all these things that I love and find a structure that can hold them?” The result is a touching “hodgepodge” of Minghella’s fascinations, inspired by the songs from another thing he loves: Robyn’s 2010 album Body Talk (itself a dance-pop meditation on love).

Minghella hasn’t directed any films since, but he sees now how making movies fits his personality — organized, impatient — more organically than starring in them does. Directing also helped him to appreciate that acting is “much harder than I was giving it credit for,” which, in turn, has made him like it more. Besides The Handmaid’s Tale currently airing on Hulu, Minghella appears in Spiral, the ninth installment in the Saw horror franchise and, from where I’m sitting, at least, a departure.

“I do like horror movies, but the thing that was really kind of magical is that I was feeling so nostalgic, right? We talked about Beverly Hills Cop earlier. I was just missing a certain kind of movie,” Minghella explains of his new role as Chris Rock’s detective partner. He was yearning for simple story-telling, like in the buddy cop movies of his youth, especially 48 Hours. It almost goes without saying that a buddy cop movie is another kind of love story. “And then I read the script and it was very much in that vein.” He clarifies: “I mean, it's also extremely Saw. It's very much a horror movie.”

His renewed excitement for acting translated onto The Handmaid’s Tale set, too. Veteran Hollywood producer Warren Littlefield describes casting Minghella in the role of Nick as an effortless choice: “Sometimes you agonize over things. [Casting Minghella] was instantly clear to me, and everyone agreed.” Now in its fourth season, the tone of the Hulu hit is graver than ever. Gilead is more desperate to maintain its rule, and so more audacious in its violence. Perhaps it’s fitting that the show’s romantic gestures finally match that scale.

In one particularly soaring moment, Elisabeth Moss’ June and Minghella’s Nick meet at the center of a bridge and crush into a long kiss. It’s been two seasons since they held their newborn daughter together, and it’s hard to see how this isn’t their last goodbye. Littlefield, like Minghella, is here for the romance among the rubble. “It's spectacular when they come together. In the middle of all of the trauma is this epic love story,” he says. “Max is just magnificent in the role.”

For Minghella, the satisfaction is more personal. He works with good people, he likes his scenes, and he thinks Nick is a complex character. Minghella read The Handmaid’s Tale for the first time in college in 2005. Like all the things Minghella has ever liked, he still likes it. He’s as proud of this most recent season as he is the show’s first. And he watched Nick and June race recklessly back to each other across the expanse of the screen exactly how you might expect. “I watched it like a fan girl.”

[raviposting]

Okay so I’ve seen a lot of conflicting responses to Buddie this episode, from it being clear to people that they’re getting together, to thinking the writers have unintentionally messed things up to thinking it’s purely queerbait.

And I get the different responses, I do - tbh I’m somehow in two camps, where I simultaneously believe it’s a slowburn but I also think it’s bait. And those are two very different opinions to have and it got me thinking about why we have these different responses as fans to the possibility of a queer ship (namely two men who would presumably be bi/pan) being canon. 

While people talk about how it’s just people wanting two characters to kiss or entitled fans - sure, that’s existent in every fandom, but I think there’s also a very real fear from queer fans who don’t want to get their hopes up and I d on’t love how the conversation has shifted to calling queer fans stupid for having hope, so I kind of wanted to break it down into 3 aspects that I’ve noticed: 

How writers portray bi characters and why that makes fans hesitant to have hope

What queerbait actually means as a concept

How much “slowburn” has changed in procedurals

1. How writers portray bi characters

Something I’ve thought about a lot are the bi characters I’ve seen on TV - Darryl (CEG), Sara Lance (Arrow), Lucifer (Lucifer), just to name a few. These are great characters imo and I think you’d have a fun time watching but a thing to note is that all these characters were established as bi within the first season of their respective shows and they all fairly quickly fell into a clear romantic ship as well (with the exception of Sara as she spanned multiple shows). It may have taken time for them to say the word bisexual, but it was still clear these characters were queer fairly quickly on. You could maybe argue that Lucifer was a slowburn, but then (while it does not take away from him being bi/pan so do not use this as an excuse to be shitty about him) it’s a m/f ship which is still not the point of my post, to find a m/m or f/f ship that has that same treatment.

Some writers have done it - like for Valencia in CEG, or Petra in JTV - when they saw that fans read them this way, but trying to find those characters were few and far between, and when I looked at popular queerbait ships (whether or not they actually are queerbait) it’s usually ships where the characters are largely viewed as bisexual. A lot of times this also comes with pushback from both straight and to be frank, other queer fans as well. Straight fans don’t always see the signs that queer fans do, so to them a queer character who hasn’t been explicitly clear from the start comes out of nowhere. And what I’ve seen from certain queer fans are concerns that people aren’t appreciating the canon queer characters in a show - and I think there is a conversation to be had about that, but I don’t think the response should also be about then demanding less representation for people either. 

If we go back to 911, people talk a lot about how it has canon queer characters, which it definitely does - Michael, Hen, Josh, Karen, and David are all canonically gay/lesbian and that’s awesome, and we absolutely should talk about fans (white fans in particular) ignoring these characters. It also does not change the fact that none of these characters are bisexual and that is the representation people are looking for. Both of these things are true - these characters are often under appreciated in canon AND people deserve bisexual representation. They don’t contradict each other and to act like one negates the other does a huge disservice.

And even if a character was made bisexual in the canon text we don’t get that slowburn. This may be true for things like Leverage, or LOK, but there’s also a real fact of censorship that affected these shows and the fact that general audiences may not understand the queer text tjat the writers intended. It doesn’t make the writing any less wonderful or the ships any less poignant or beautiful or important, and there’s ofc shows like She Ra that made this more obvious (or the.....mess that was Supernatural that made it. Half true?) but these are still real things that should be acknowledged on why people are so hesitant to call it slowburn - because it’s something most queer fans haven’t SEEN DONE, because m/f ships will get that care for slowburn when it’s done but it’s not done for m/m or f/f ships in that same capacity.

2. What queerbait is

This one’s fun because I don’t think many people understand what it is, but queerbait is very dependent on the intentions of the writers/creators/etc. - which tbh can be hard to gauge, because a genuine intention that ended up not happening or someone baiting fans or someone trying to support all ships and not be rude all have very different intentions but to a fan who only sees bits and pieces of this person on social media, it can be hard to gauge.

Honestly with how much the 4th wall gets broken because of social media now I’d personally say we’ve probably moved into a different definition of queerbait - unintentional vs intentional - because we’re at a point where a show knows what ships are popular and at what level of excitement fans are for it - but that being said, there’s still a clear spectrum of intent. And imo? I don’t think 911 has that intent of queerbait - whether it’s a slowburn or they have a different vision for buddie that I (probably) won’t agree with remains to be seen, but this show usually treats its storylines with care. Are they perfect at it? No, definitely not, I definitely think that they’ve dropped the ball a few times (especially with just how many characters they have lmao), but they also clearly do their storylines with earnest and with genuine care for these characters.

Is 911 getting them together? I want to say yes. I don’t think this was always the plan, just something that they decided along the way, but I also don’t think that changes anything about the ship. A lot of people point to Tim Minear being vague about the ship, or the actors and their interpretations, but 1. We have no idea what they’ve been told about Buddie moving forward and 2. No show runner is going to spoil their show that much. 911 may be keeping quiet because they have a different plan for buddie, sure, but also maybe because they’re still figuring out how exactly they want to do this and/or they want to make this slowburn and don’t want to give it away.

3. Slowburn in procedurals

I feel like this is something that procedurals have started shying away from, but slowburns used to be very common - Bones, Castle, their ships didn’t get together for literal years, but that’s just not something that many shows do nowadays, even for m/f ships. Even things like Deckerstar will have the characters get together after ~3 seasons and explore the relationship onwards, whereas a few years ago, y ou’d pr obably be watching a sh ow and it’d take them 7 seasons to get together. My assumption for this is that shows are afraid  of getting canceled, but there’s been a pretty big shift in getting a couple together after say, 6 seasons to now getting them together about halfway through the show. I don’t think either one is bad or good - in good writers’ hands, either can be amazing - but that shift has made it so that a lot of younger fans in particular, I think, don’t fully recognize slowburn when they see it.

911 as a show tends to run pretty fast - it kind of has to with its depth of characters they have - but when they do have slower running storylines they really do make use of that as well. Bobby’s addiction is something that’s always going to be present in his character, May’s suicide attempt was brought up again front and center after 3 seasons, even Chim’s dynamic with the Lees was brought up again and it was reinforced again that they’re his family. There are certain storylines that have to be continuous and aren’t a one and done type of thing, and that includes Buck and Eddie, especially if you want to establish them as queer to a general audience who doesn’t think about these things.

And honestly, despite my fears, I think they are laying groundwork there. We have Buck learning to be more confident in his relationships, we have Eddie ready to date and learning to follow his own heart, we have Buck and Eddie both establishing that Buck is family and will always be there for Christopher. These are pretty big steps to do for a ship and we’ll obviously have to see how the show goes forward but they’ve already insinuated Eddie and Ana are breaking up, I’m sure Taylor and Buck may last a season and be over, but we do have to see what this next season brings. Do I think they’d say this? No, definitely not.

tl;dr: 

911 is a show with good viewership, but there’s always a possibility they can’t continue with their season and then their promises would feel like a lie. Or they may still be hammering out the details as this season hasn’t been written. Or they may just simply not want to spoil their show,  or they don’t want people criticizing a story before it’s finished, all of these could be reasons. The showrunners, writers, actors, ultimately they owe nothing to us as a fandom to potentially spoil their series, or do something, change it or their schedule for it, and get accused of bait. 

But it also doesn’t change why fans are wary of this storyline either, and I wish people would have more nuance and compassion for fans who are worried about queerbait (whether they think it’s not queerbait and dislike people worrying about it or if they do and are calling people idiots for believing it). There’s a lot of reasons why fans are wary and don’t want to have hope, and it’s not necessarily about 911 specifically as it is a pattern of writing seen in other pieces that have fans worried. These things can all coexist and I wish we as fandom in general could acknowledge that, because pretending that they don’t and criticizing each other/people’s intentions or knowledge when they have certain expectations also doesn’t do much to help.

[inacatastrophicmind]

Hi I went through few cons and I actually got my heart broken a little bit. Every one of them had Jensen denying the idea of Destiel or Dean being anything but the American male fantasy.

Vancon 2012 J2 panel he avoids the fan who is screaming Destiel. I understand that because he was going through something Misha shaped during 2012. Destiel was the last thing he wanted in his life then.

The controversial NJCon 2013 where he pretty much rudely avoids the Bi Dean question. I mean come on there were so many ways to back down there but just giving into that crowd like that and shooting down that girl who asked the question? I know she actually explained what happened there but he is saying things to convey he is unhappy where that question is heading. JP who is considered the immature even is considering answering the question the girl is continuously apologising it is a horror show there while Jensen is just being plain rude.

Jib 2014 solo panel where he is asked if Dean will ever get his pie. And he denies Cas ever being there at the end of the line. And ironically at the end, he was only there with all kinds of pie but no Cas. Amazing how life worked out for him.

Jib 2015 solo panel where he again denies both CasDean and Destiel from Fan Fiction episode. JPad was not there and Jensen was in a bad mood so maybe it had something to do with that.

Chicon 2016 he again invalidates Cas when a question is asked about him Cas and Mary.

TorCon 2016 where both Js are denying Cas's importance saying there's no necessity for him.

JaxCon 2017 he pretty much shoots down Destiel by saying Destiel doesn't exist.

In JaxCon 2018 he wrote NO infront of Bi Dean research paper a fan showed him.

Jibcon 2019 he asks audience Where does Destiel exist. but I think he was much like teasing the audience there tbh. No major harm but it still hurts.

I just.. I truly believe he knows what he and Misha were doing in the Destiel implied scenes. And now the cat is pretty much out of the bag. But still Jensen is pretty much staying on his ground and it is nice he is now more open for interpretation but the strength this fandom should have to forgive him for all he did...

I believe in Karma. I think Karma got to Jensen eventually for all hurt he did by those words to the fandom. I don't hate Jensen in fact I really adore the guy. But it doesn't mean I am not upset by his words. How I think Karma worked here is that he never embraced what he was portraying as a character and Karma finally said "Okay Dude enough foreplay.. You want pie okay here's pie and your car now die and be in heaven and your character arc is in garbage but your brother gets to live. There goes your male fantasy.."

I understand if he had internalized sexuality issues of himself that he didn't feel like exposing by talking about Dean and Destiel but still there are much better ways to shoot down fan opinions without being so rude.

In 2014 he pretty much says that at the end of the series Dean might get all kinds of pie with no Castiel and...Geez Is it not what exactly happened? No Cas and Pie on his face. Accidental foreshadowing spoilers..

I think he got Karma for hurting so many fan hearts and denying something he evidently portrayed in his character. At the end he didn't get a happy ending he got robbed by his own show. While the shippers actually got something out of it Thanks to Misha.

I don't need Jensen to embrace Destiel in an open hug because not in any universe that's gonna happen. I actually hoped he would eventually be open to it. He actually might be, considering his reaction to episode 18. But there's no proof actually footage of him saying anything positive about Destiel. It just... is such a bummer.

I know Jensen is hurt for his own reasons by his own show which actually hurt him in ways no fan ever did. I hope he understands how fans feel now being betrayed by a show they love.

May be he had the Karma coming..

In the past, Jensen hasn't been Destiel's biggest fan, and that's something that has always bothered me. Not because I didn't respect that he didn't like Destiel, but because every time Destiel was brought up, he was kind of rude. The same thing happened with anyone mentioned Dean being bi. It sucked and hurt because he could have handled it better. He could have easily said "I don't see Destiel/Dean as bi, but it's okay if you do". It's just that simple.

I don't know why Jensen was so rude about Destiel or bi!Dean. I don't know if it was of something personal or because certain fans were rude to him when they brought up Destiel and bi!Dean, or if he was scared that Dean would change if Destiel happened, because society and media think that anyone who belongs to the LGBTQIA+ community's personality is just their sexuality and gender and nothing else, so maybe Jensen was afraid that Dean would just become a character that was bi and that everything else that Dean was would disappear. Or maybe it had to do with the fact that he grew up in Texas, which isn't the most liberal place. It could be anything.

However, since they started filming s15 and when he found out about Cas' confesion, he has been really supportive about Destiel. He might not be as vocal and supportive as Misha is, but you can see the change. And that's important. Even at a JIBcon, (I can't remember which one), after he haid said something negative about Destiel the previous year, he apologized. He knows how important Destiel is for a lot of us. And he has learnt from his past behavior. Even if he doesn't fully support it, he now knows that it means a lot to a lot of people and he isn't rude about it anymore and he respects it.

Also, I should mention that in most cons, all the panels that involve either Jensen, Misha and/or J*red are moderated, and 90% of them forbid Destiel questions. So I don't know what the cons organizers tell the actors to say when Destiel is brought up, or if anyone from the network forbids them to talk about it, but unfortunately, Destiel has been considered a taboo topic by TPTB, and that might have also affected on the way Jensen reacted any time Destiel or bi!Dean was mentioned. Although I still think he should have handled it better, but at least, he now seems to be on good terms with the topics, and as I mentioned above, that's really important.

As for the Cas thing, about how both Jensen and J*red always joked how he didn't matter, it's a joke that's been going for too long, and that's all it is. They have taken it way too far, especially J*red, because most of the times, when Jensen is talking without J*red by his side, he always brings up Cas and how important he is. Just look at some of the interviews he has done over the years.

With that said, I think you're being mean about the whole karma thing. What the writers did to Dean was just the writers being shitty writers. They wrote a whole season with the only goal of killing Dean. After Dean has finally found the will to live, after he is finally able to live on his own terms, the writers decided that killing him was a good way to end the story. That's not karma; that's bad storytelling.

And just because Jensen didn't handle Destiel or bi!Dean in a good way, it doesn't mean that he deserved to have Dean treated like shit. And I think that what you're suggesting is actually quite mean.

Jensen might have made mistakes in the past regarding Destiel and bi!Dean, but he seems to have grown and realized that he can't be that rude. It's not hard at all to accept that people love Destiel and bi!Dean, even if he doesn't. And he has gotten there. So accept that and don't be mean.

[insomniac-dot-ink]

Books I’ve Read in 2020

AHello! I’m trying to read as many books as I can during the quarantine, here’s what I’ve finished so far:

On Earth We’re Briefly Gorgeous by Ocean Vuong (literary fiction): a son writes a letter about his life to his illiterate mother. Breathtakingly beautiful with it’s way with words this book is lovely and real in the hardest and sweetest ways. The author’s combination of prose and poetry is dazzling and intricate, this book has stuck with me for days afterward. 4.5 out of 5 stars.

Spinning Silver by Naomi Novik (fantasy): a money-lender gets in trouble after bragging she can turn silver into gold and is kidnapped and ordered to do so by a fey creature. It may be that I am the perfect audience for this type of book, but it’s my favorite thing I’ve read all year. It’s a book that equally takes on the fantastical and real-world with compelling female characters at the center of the whole thing. A wonderful fantasy journey inspired by eastern-European Jewish folklore. 5 out of 5 stars.

Through the Woods by Emily Carroll (horror graphic novel): a series of short horror comics. Absolutely bone-chilling! This was a really fun type of scary story, especially the last one which made my skin absolutely crawl. Deliciously eerie, this was treat to read if not a little too short. 4 out of 5 stars.

The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake by Aimee Bender (magical realism): a young girl can taste other people’s emotions in their cooking and begins to understand her family in new ways. This was a weird book, but it has everything you’ve got to love about that combination of the surreal and mundane. It’s sense of character was electrifying and I had fun engaging with this type of off-kilter real world. I was a little frustrated in parts bc of some characters choices, but that too was true to life. 4 out of 5 stars.

Crier’s War by Nina Varela (steampunk fantasy wlw): about a Made automaton heir to a throne and her human hand-maiden that is trying to kill her. This was an easy read with a lot of tension between the two main characters that I liked, but the writing itself was very weak. There was waaay too much exposition in parts and the dialogue had some really hockey lines. I enjoyed the twists and turns in the middle of the book, but the beginning and end didn’t have much movement. 2.5 stars out of 5.

The Huntress by Kate Quinn (historical fiction): honestly, I’m a little disappointed. This book just did not hit my sweet spots, it wasn’t fast-paced enough for me to get immersed in the plot, and the characters weren’t real enough to be wholly invested in them. That said I adored Nina Markova and the Night Witches, so that did help. 3 starts out of 5.

The Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein by Kiersten White (horror sci-fi retelling): HAND IN UNLOVABLE HAND. A retelling of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein from the perspective of Victor Frankenstein’s wife and my God! The characters! The plot was well-enough, but the characters took the whole show for being complex and compelling. The main character was breathtakingly layered and I was wholly invested in Elizabeth and her story and the triumph at the end of this story was tangible. 4 out of 5 stars! 

Uprooted by Naomi Novik (fantasy): A story of a young woman who lives in a valley where a girl must go live with a wizard for 10 years. She is certain she won’t be chosen, but ends up having to be “uprooted” herself. I enjoyed most of this book! However, I think I liked “Spinning Silver” a lot more just because the ending of this one somehow lost me. The characters were good and plot compelling, but (SPOILERS) the big battle at the end seemed to drag and didn’t interest me somehow. 3.8 out of 5 stars.

Gods of Jade and Shadow by Silvia Moreno-Garcia (fantasy): excellent read! A story of a young woman in Jazz Age Mexico who goes on an adventure with a Mayan death God who is trying to regain his throne. A romp across the country absolutely brimming with likable characters and fairy tale twists. My only complaint would be that most of it felt a little predictable due to the fact we knew where we were going throughout the whole story, However, it was still greatly enjoyable for the heroine herself, Casiopea. 4 out of 5 stars!

Little Fires Everywhere by Celeste Ng (literary): a story of two families in a progressive “planned” community, how their lives intertwine, their secrets, and a central question surrounding motherhood. Deeply empathetic to its characters and introspective, this is an every-day story of people in suburbia that reads like a thriller. I could barely put it down and felt deeply for its characters and situations, 5 out of 5 stars!

Wilder Girls by Rory Power (YA sci-fi suspense): a story of a group of girls at a boarding school on an island affected by the “tox” which alters their bodies in strange ways like giving them scales or an extra spine. This was an eerie, interesting read with a wlw romance! Watch out for the body horror in this one, but it was very gripping and held my interest. Some of the pacing was off in places (like the romance), but had a very creepy atmosphere that did it for me. 3.8 out of 5 stars!

If We Were Villains by M.L. Rio (thriller-mystery): A thriller about a group of Shakespeare actors in their last year of college and one of their classmates who turns up dead. I enjoyed the murder mystery part of this novel more than I expected despite the fact I had guessed who had “done it” pretty early on. I really enjoyed the James-Oliver dynamic with its growing homoeroticism, but I didn’t like how the character of Meredith was handled at all. She felt like a one-note aside. I might have given this book four stars, but the ending was EXTREMELY frustrating for me and I did not like the “open-ended” conclusion. 3 out of 5 stars.

A Man Called Ove by Fredrik Backman (literary humor): a weird character-driven comedy about an old grumpy man and a new family that moves in next to him. Warning for themes of suicide. Anyway, I don’t normally indulge in cliches like “I laughed, I cried, I loved one Cat Annoyance.” However, that’s exactly what I did. I laughed out loud, I cried my eyes out (THE CAT’S HEAD WAS IN HIS PALM), I loved this book. It was sweet and compelling and thoroughly immersive. 5 out of 5 stars!

The Ten Thousand Doors of January by Alix E. Harrow (historical fantasy): set in the early 1900s comes a story of a young girl and her experience with “Doors” that lead to different worlds. This book had a lot of great character development and really interesting descriptions, however, I didn’t like it as much as I wanted to. I found it hard to get myself to sit down a read it. There was just something missing with the push to “page-turn,” but it was still a really good book. 3.7 out of 5 stars!

Gideon the 9th by Tamsyn Muir (high fantasy, kinda gay): I AM FILLED WITH EMOTIONS. This was book was definitely a page-turner. I was very confused with it at the beginning, but the characters and their interactions were, forgive the expression, the life blood of the story and kept me wholly invested. The ending has CRUSHED my heart, but damn did I have a good time reading it. 4.5 out of 5 stars!

Harrow the 9th by Tamsyn Muir (sequel to Gideon the 9th): I really enjoyed this book. It was just as strange and twisting as the first book, though I think I enjoyed the first one a bit more since I love Gideon. It was fun ride overall, though the ending was kind of really confusing. So 4 out of 5 stars.

The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo (historical fiction): Overall, I really enjoyed this book! The writing style was personable and grounded in reality. I found myself really liking the main characters and the exploration of the life of a bi main character was really well done I thought. A solid book with drama and glamor to boot. 4.6 out of 5 stars!

The Nightingale by Kristin Hannah (historical fiction): A story of two sisters during WWII and their resistance to Nazi occupation. To be honest, this book wasn’t my cup of tea. It was compelling, but also wholly depressing and I felt like gloried in the pain of the two main characters too much. The history was wonderful and realistic, but it didn’t make me feel anything good afterward. It was just dark. 3 out of 5 stars.

Red, White & Royal Blue by Casey McQuiston (mlm romance): I finally finished this after the heaviness of The Nightingale. This is a story of the First Son of the USA falling for the prince of England. And it turned out to be a very fun and light hearted read! Some of it was kinda generic and too political, and it coulda been shorter, but I thought the romance itself made up for it. It just made me feel so sweet and lovely inside. 4 out of 5 stars!

Anxious People by Fredrik Backman (literary humor): I’m searching out heartfelt books and this one ticked off all the marks on my “sweet” list. A lovely book that made me cry more times than I would like to admit. Compassionate beyond belief, funny and heartfelt. I think I enjoyed A Man Called Ove slightly more, but this book was also dear to me and something I hope to reread in the future. 4.2 out of 5 stars!

Station Eleven by Emily St John Mandel (sci-fi): A post-apocalyptical story about a group of traveling Shakespeare actors and a symphony. Overall, an excellent read that somehow pictures a more realistic or even softer version of the apocalypse. At first, I wasn't happy with the jumping around of the story, but as I progressed I grew fonder and fonder of the interwoven characters and their journey. A very fascinating read about a world that hits a little too close to home. The appreciation of the arts and preserving humanity was somehow very hopeful and I was fully engaged with this story. 5 out of 5 Stars!

Up next: The Hidden Life of Trees by by Peter Wohlleben (nonfiction science), The City We Became by N. K. Jemisin (urban fantasy), The Night Circus by Erin Morgenstern (fantasy)

[iamthenightcolormeblack]

Pride and Prejudice 1940: "When Pretty Girls T-E-A-S-E-D Men Into Marriage"

Made during the Great Depression, this classic black and white film is loosely based on Austen's novel and is set in what is likely the 1830s rather than the Regency Era (late 18th century to early 19th century). It is an escapist piece which capitalizes on nostalgia for a simpler time by transporting its viewers to a chocolate-box vision of the past, while paying homage to Austen's social satire by delivering plenty of laughs along the way.

Overall Thoughts on the Film:

The first time I watched this movie, I was confused because the plot as well as the setting was revised significantly (the events after Darcy's first proposal are changed to hasten the happy ending; Darcy's letter and Elizabeth's visit to Pemberley are not included in this movie). This changing of plot points makes the 2005 movie a much more faithful adaptation in comparison with this version, in spite of the creative liberties both take with the novel.

Production Design:

The movie is a typical example of Golden Age Hollywood productions, with beautiful actresses and melodramatic flourishes added to increase the drama. Some of the lines are delivered very quickly, in keeping with the comedic style of the time.

The music: definitely not historically accurate. A lot of sentimental, "ye olde timey" string arrangements that emphasize emotions or fast-paced waltz music for balls/parties.

The 1830s costumes are beautiful; it seems as if no expense (or quantity of fabric) was spared in making them. The bonnets are way taller and have more decorations than typical 1830s bonnets. Some of the patterns/fabric choices are very 1930s, and the costumes are exaggerated in such as way as to make the wearers look like fancy turkeys.

Hair and Makeup: very 1930s, with finger/sausage curls, plucked eyebrows, lipstick/lip makeup, and long lashes.

The sets: the dollhouse-like interiors are lavishly gilded and made to look as opulent as possible. Outdoors scenes are lush, with lots of flowers and bushes; the garden in which the second proposal takes place is gorgeous. The set design transports the viewer into an idyllic vision of the bucolic English countryside.

The Lead Actors:

With the exception of Laurence Olivier, the majority of the actors are American, since this is a Hollywood production. Many of the characters in the film's imaginary vision of pastoral Britain speak American or make clumsy attempts to imitate British English.

Greer Garson: while she is definitely too old for the part, she perfectly conveys Elizabeth's intelligence, outspokenness, and sarcasm. Her facial expressions are killer as well; with the arch of an eyebrow along with a snarky side eye, she captivates us all. All in all, Garson effectively shows off Elizabeth's impertinence through her nonverbal acting (this reminds me strongly of Jennifer Ehle's Elizabeth Bennet).

Laurence Olivier: he effectively conveys Darcy's pride while hinting at his deeper feelings beneath the surface (I can see why Colin Firth spoke so highly of Olivier's portrayal of Darcy). Most importantly, the film emphasizes Darcy's intelligence; he is certainly Elizabeth's intellectual equal. While this portrayal of Darcy is very accurate to the book, Darcy's pride does go away pretty quickly (he and Elizabeth form a tentative friendship early on) and his social awkwardness isn't immediately obvious thanks to his charm. Also the unflattering hairstyle with the greasy hair and painted on sideburns makes me sad.

Key Scenes:

Opening scene: The title card appeals directly to the audience's nostalgia for a sentimental, romanticized past: “It happened in OLD ENGLAND (this was actually capitalized), in the village of Meryton…” The Bennet women are at a fabric shop, where they gossip with aunt Phillips about the rich people moving into Netherfield Park.

The carriage race: this scene, which isn’t in the original novel, represents the rivalry between the Bennets and Lucases. The mothers both want their daughters to be the first to snag the rich bachelors.

The first ball: There is a historical anachronism as the music is a waltz by Strauss, who became popular in late 19th century, specifically the Gilded Age; far too early for the Regency Era or 1830s England. Other changes from the original novel include Elizabeth meeting Wickham before Darcy; other events from Aunt Phillips’ ball (which isn’t included in this movie) and Wickham and Darcy’s confrontation are included in this scene.

Elizabeth’s impression of Darcy at the ball: she puts on airs and mocks his casual dismissal of her as tolerable (definitely a parallel with the 1995 version, where Jennifer Ehle does the same, but privately with Jane).

Great comedic change: Darcy introduces himself to Elizabeth after calling her tolerable and asks if she will dance with him (this originally takes place at Mr. Lucas' ball). Right after rejecting Darcy, she instantly agrees to dance with Wickham; in a humorous moment, Darcy evacuates to a corner of the room to sulk while seeing Wickham dance with Elizabeth.

The “Accomplished woman” scene: the dialogue lifted directly from the book for the most part. Darcy, in a departure from his trademark seriousness, shows off his playful side when reacting to Caroline Bingley's "turn about the room." I particularly like this added repartee from Elizabeth Bennet to Darcy, which is clever but also foreshadows her prejudice: “If my departure is any punishment, you are quite right. My character reading is not too brilliant.”

Elizabeth can't stand Mr. Collins: After twirling about his monocle, he pronounces that: “It might interest you to know my taste was formed by lady Catherine de Bourgh.” The best part of this scene is when Elizabeth plucks a wrong note on her harp when Collins gets really annoying.

The Netherfield ball (which is now a garden party):

Elizabeth running away from Mr. Collins: She looks rather ridiculous, almost like an overdressed turkey, in a white dress with puffy sleeves as she runs away from an overeager Collins. Then she hides in the bushes while Darcy helps her to hide, telling Collins he doesn't know where she is. It's fun but most likely not something a proper lady and gentleman would do (two people of the opposite gender out alone, shock!).

The archery scene: Darcy attempts to teach Elizabeth how to shoot a bow and arrow, even though he doesn’t hit the bullseye. She goes on to impress him by perfectly hitting the bullseye every time; Darcy learns his lesson: "Next time I talk to a young lady about archery I won't be so patronizing." Caroline Bingley, very passive aggressive as usual, shows up for her archery lesson right after and it's absolutely perfect.

Mr. Collins attempts to introduce himself to Mr. Darcy: Laurence Olivier captures Darcy so perfectly in this scene (really set the precedent for Colin Firth). When Mr. Collins starts talking (inviting Elizabeth to dance with him) Darcy tries to keep himself well-composed but has a pained expression on his face as if he’s about to pass out. Olivier masters the way Darcy can look so miserable but also disgusted and proud at the same time.

Mr. Collin's proposal to Elizabeth: I like the added touch of Mrs. Bennet pulling Elizabeth back by her skirt when she tries to run out of the room. The dialogue is taken directly from the book, and the scene is made even funnier when Collins holds on to Elizabeth's hand desperately and doesn’t let her get away. My only quibble is that Elizabeth isn’t indignant enough when Mr. Collins doesn't take no for an answer.

Elizabeth and Darcy at Rosings: I like that Olivier subtly indicates that Darcy is clearly affected upon seeing Elizabeth at Rosing, hinting at deeper feelings beneath the surface. I also like how the scriptwriter emphasizes that Darcy indirectly praises Elizabeth and enjoys their conversations, while she remains convinced that he hates her. Sadly, the original dialogue of the piano scene is not included, which is unfortunate as it allows Darcy to reveal his introvert tendencies, calling into question Elizabeth's assertion that he is unpardonably proud.

First proposal: The famous opening lines are mutilated with awkward punctuation: “It’s no use. I’ve struggled in vain. I must tell you how much I admire and love you." While the rest of the dialogue matches up closely with what happens in Austen's novel, both of the actors aren’t emotional enough; instead Elizabeth cries very daintily, and Darcy remains serene, which conflicts with the book's description of both of them being very angry and defensive at each other.

THE SCRIPT:

The first half of the film up to Darcy's first proposal follows the events of the original book closely, though certain blocks of dialogue are moved elsewhere and other events such as Mrs. Phillips' party are skipped over. The most significant changes, besides updating the setting to the 1830s, are made to the second half of the book to squeeze the key events of the story into the movie before delivering the inevitable happy ending.

Brilliant Quotes:

Mr. Bennet's reaction to Mrs. Bennet's despair over the situation of their 5 unmarried daughters: “Perhaps we should have drowned some of them at birth.”

Darcy insists Elizabeth cannot tempt him: “Ugh. Provincial young lady with a lively wit. And there’s that mother of hers.”

Darcy is an arrogant snob: “I’m in no humor tonight to give consequence to the middle classes at play.” (Technically the Bennets are part of the gentry; they just are less wealthy than Darcy).

Elizabeth's reaction to Darcy pronouncing her to be tolerable at best: “What a charming man!”

Elizabeth rebuffs Darcy's offer to dance after overhearing his insult: “I am afraid that the honor of standing up with you is more than I can bear, Mr Darcy.”

Elizabeth favors Wickham after witnessing the bad blood between him and Darcy: “Without knowing anything about it I am on your side.”

Mrs. Bennet's comment after she sends Jane to Netherfield under stormy skies: “There isn’t anything like wet weather for engagements. Your dear father and I became engaged in a thunderstorm.”

Mr. Bennet's reaction to Jane's fever: “Jane must have all the credit for having caught the cold…we’re hoping Elizabeth will catch a cold and stay long enough to get engaged to Mr. Darcy. And if a good snowstorm could be arranged we’d send Kitty over!”

The sisters' description of Mr. Collins: “Oh heavens! what a pudding face.”

Caroline Bingley at the Netherfield garden party: “Entertaining the rustics is not as difficult as I feared. Any simple childish game seems to amuse them excessively.”

Darcy reassuring Elizabeth after helping her escape Mr. Collins: “If the dragon returns St. George will know how to deal with it.”

Darcy learns his lesson after Elizabeth beats him at archery: “The next time I talk to a young lady about archery I won’t be so patronizing.”

Elizabeth comments about a curtain: “Oh that’s pretty. It’s a pity you didn’t make it bigger. You could have put it around Mr. Collins when he becomes a bore.”

Elizabeth on Kitty and Lydia: “2 daughters out of 5, that represents 40% of the noise.”

Elizabeth sees Lady Catherine for the first time: “So that’s the great lady Catherine. Now I see where he learned his manners.”

Lady Catherine's attitude towards philanthropy: “You must learn to draw a firm line between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor.”

Darcy takes Elizabeth's advice: “I’ve thought a great deal about what you said at Netherfield, about laughing more...but it only makes me feel worse."

Elizabeth and Darcy have a conversation with Colonel Fitzwilliam: “He likes the landscape well enough, but the natives, the natives, what boors, what savages … Isn’t that what you think, Mr. Darcy?” With a smile: “It evidently amuses you to think so, Miss Bennet."

CHANGES FROM THE BOOK:

The first half of the film up to Darcy's first proposal follow the events of the original book closely, though certain blocks of dialogue are moved elsewhere and other events such as Mrs. Phillips' party are skipped over. The most significant changes, besides updating the setting to the 1830s, are made to the second half of the book to squeeze the key events of the story into the movie before delivering the inevitable happy ending.

With the exception of Lady Catherine de Bourgh, the portrayals of the characters are (generally) true to the book.

As I said earlier, the film neglects any sort of historical accuracy when setting the story in romanticized "Old England," where genteel people pass simple lives that revolve around dresses, tea parties, social gossip, and marriages. A lot of Austen adaptations present an idealized vision of Regency life, where people are dressed immaculately, flawlessly adhere to "chivalry," and find love in the ballroom. This contributes to the misconception that Austen's novels are shallow chick-lit books with flat characters who live for lavish parties and hot men, instead of stories of unique, complicated women who happen to be well-off but aspire towards love, respect, or independence instead of being content to make economically advantageous marriages. Austen's novels are character novels and she doesn't waste time writing about dresses or tea parties; balls, while exciting, are just another part of daily life for her characters rather than some Extremely Big Special Once In a Blue Moon Event.

Austen's multifaceted view on marriage turns into a game of matchmaking. She recognizes it as necessary for women to survive in the patriarchy, since they cannot provide for themselves unless they marry well, but at the same time, presents marriage as a means for freedom if it is a loving partnership between two people that respect each other. In contrast, marriage is a game of manipulating the partners into wanting to marry (ex. Lady Catherine and Darcy's trickery). Also, it seems to be a given that Elizabeth will marry for love, unlike in the book where it is uncertain whether she will achieve this.

Kitty and Lydia's antics are viewed much more sympathetically as those of young people having fun; in the book, their behavior harms the family's social reputation, reducing the chances the Bennet daughters have of making good marriages.

Louisa Hurst, Georgiana Darcy, and Aunt and Uncle Gardiner are not in the movie.

Wickham is introduced much earlier than in the book; he is friends with Lydia from the very beginning. Interestingly, he doesn't begin to trash-talk Darcy until Bingley leaves; in the book he does so much earlier, before the Netherfield ball.

Darcy is more considerate towards Elizabeth at the Netherfield party (ex. rescuing her from Collins), until he overhears Mrs. Bennet scheming to get the daughters married. Elizabeth forms a tentative friendship with him until finding out that he separated Jane from Bingley.

Jane is more obviously heartbroken over Bingley's departure than in the book, where she keeps her pain to herself. In the movie, she runs away to cry, which is uncharacteristic of her.

Collins is a librarian instead of a clergyman. I dislike this change because some Austen scholars/fans think that Collins being a clergyman is a deliberate choice as part of Austen's social criticism. Collins is representative of how hypocritical the Church is, since he worships Lady Catherine's wealth instead of God, and preaches moral lessons instead of actually using religion to help people. My theory is that the change was made because of the Hays Code, which led to the censorship of movies for "unwholesome" or "indecent" things; the religious criticism could have been offensive.

Elizabeth reacts rather too kindly to Charlotte marrying Collins by showing concern for the loveless marriage. While she does worry about the lack of love in the marriage, initially she is extremely surprised, outright shocked, and confused.

The scene where Darcy tries and fails to talk to Elizabeth (the "charming house" scene in the 2005 movie) just before the proposal is removed.

Darcy's letter is skipped over and Elizabeth overcomes her prejudice of Darcy very quickly, as shown when she tells Jane she regrets rejecting his proposal. This is contrary to the book, where overcoming her prejudice is an emotionally exhausting and slow process that continues all the way up until the second proposal.

The Pemberley visit is removed; instead, Elizabeth returns home to the news that Lydia has eloped. Visiting Pemberley is very important as part of Elizabeth's re-evaluation of Darcy's character and provides an opportunity for Darcy to show Elizabeth that he has changed for her. The visit is key in increasing Elizabeth's love for Darcy, and removing it means that the characters have less personal growth (also wouldn't it have been great for the audience to be treated to another gorgeous estate of "Old England?"). Instead, Darcy visits Longbourn on his own and offers his help in finding Lydia. When the news comes that Wickham accepts very little money in exchange for marrying Lydia, it isn't as shocking as it is in the book because Darcy had already expressed his intentions of helping Elizabeth earlier.

Here's the change that bugs me the most: Lady Catherine becomes good; though she is a busybody, her main priority is Darcy's happiness. Her confrontation of Elizabeth is a scheme hatched between her and Darcy as a test to be certain of Elizabeth's love. This does not make sense on so many levels: first, Darcy insists that "disguise of every sort is my abhorrence," so why would he resort to trickery, however well-intentioned, to find out if Elizabeth still loves him? Second, Lady Catherine is a social snob and objects to Elizabeth's low connections; also she has an arranged marriage planned for Darcy. Third, in the book, because Elizabeth likes Pemberley and gets along really well with his sister Georgiana, Darcy would have had some evidence that Elizabeth, in the very least, cared for him. And the added claim that Lady Catherine approves of Elizabeth because she likes rudeness and thinks Darcy needs a humorous wife irritates me further because the marriage of Elizabeth and Darcy is revolutionary since it was made in defiance of societal rules!!! Why, why, why in the name of comedy did they have to do this?!

Darcy kisses Elizabeth (in a stagey and melodramatic way) after she accepts his second proposal. Seems a bit uncharacteristic of him.

All the sisters get married at the end. Happily ever after.

CONCLUSION

This movie certainly was not aiming for faithfulness to Austen's novel; it ignores her detailed portrait of Regency era society and its attitudes and focuses on the "light, bright, and sparkling" aspect of Pride and Prejudice that gives the story its timeless appeal.

All in all, this comedy of manners is definitely a classic thanks to the clever dialogue and jokes within the script, along with some great acting.

@appleinducedsleep @dahlia-coccinea @princesssarisa @colonelfitzwilliams @austengivesmeserotonin

[kitkatopinions]

So, let’s talk about James’s semblance, Mettle.

Ironwood's Semblance, Mettle, strengthens his resolve which allows him to carry through with his decisions, helping him hyper-focus (RWBY wiki)

Actual quotes on Ironwood’s semblance from the RTX RWBY Panel.

“So Ironwood does have a semblance. We - it’s in the show, it’s in like little bits, you can kind of see it. It’s more like a passive semblance that runs in the background.” Eddy Rivas

“The whole thing is just this kind of like, iron resolve-slash-will that like kind of powers him to - almost like a very stubbornly, narrow-set focus like mind set on things, to kind of like push himself to do what he’s decided he’s gonna do-” Eddy Rivas

“It kind of helps him like, hyper focus,” Kerry Shawcross

“Or like, pushing through something like searing the flesh off your arm. If like, this is the goal he needs to accomplish, everything else just goes by the wayside.” Miles Luna

“So that’s kind of running in the background of seven and eight a little bit.” Eddy Rivas

“So it felt a little weird and we just never put it on the page, but you can actually see it happening.” Eddy Rivas

“We could possibly get it out later, but we thought it’d be more fun for you to be able to watch volume eight, and go back and watch volume 7 knowing that.” Kerry Shawcross

So I’m going to be talking about some of the problems I think there are with Ironwood’s semblance and it not being included in the show. I’m going to be very critical of and bashing RWBY, and there’s probably going to be CRWBY bashing too. If you don’t want to see any of that or if you’re against any sort of pro Ironwood content, don’t read this post or interact.

So let’s try to piece together from these statements what Ironwood’s semblance is.

It’s a passive semblance. As far as I know, the only other passive semblance we have to judge how those work is Qrow. Unlike active semblances, Qrow’s passive semblance can’t be controlled, and can only be increased at will, but always runs at frequencies severe enough that Qrow thinks of it as controlling his life and preventing him from being able to be close to his family. From the way Qrow’s semblance behaves, we can extrapolate that James’s semblance likely works in the same way, and in the panel, it’s described as ‘running in the background.’ I.E. He can’t turn it off, it runs through his entire life, he can only increase it in certain times.

It’s described as hyper-focusing, stubbornness, narrow-set focus, being unable to concentrate or care about things outside of his set goal, and pushing himself in doing what he’s decided he has to do.

There are several reasons I want to talk about this semblance.

1. This semblance might’ve been newly invented for season 7 and 8. Why do I think this? Eddy Rivas says ‘I believe we called it Mettle’ in the panel (emphasis is mine,) and is talking like he was included in inventing it, even though he became a co-writer for volume 7. Also they don’t mention if it affected Ironwood pre-volume 7, they only mention it being seen or considering including it in volume 7 and 8. Also, the voice actor of James Ironwood didn’t know about this semblance until a fan told him. It’s possible that this semblance was written earlier, but I doubt it and I think that this semblance was invented in the conception of volumes 7 and 8 with Eddy Rivas being involved. As such, I’m going to view everything pre-volume 7 as actions we were intended to consider James’s actual character, and everything post-volume 6 as actions influenced by his semblance.

2. The fact that it’s not included is lazy. This is a character defining semblance. This colors literally everything that Ironwood does in seasons seven and eight, this is a major game changer, this changes any understanding of the character. I’ve said this before, but fans shouldn’t have to do homework to understand the story. Many fans don’t want to go searching through panels, wikis, books, and zoom meetings to try and piece together why a character might be the way they are or how the magic systems work. The fact that the semblance isn’t included has led to confusion about how the semblance works. Some RWBY fans will present the way they decided the semblance works and get actively angry at fans who headcanon that it works differently or are upset with the way the creators themselves described the semblance. Other fans act like RWBY critics who think Ironwood’s fall to villainy is hard to track are stupid for not knowing this completely unincluded detail, and other fans villainize the semblance and use it as a reason why Ironwood is an inherently bad person. On the flip side, James Ironwood fans are rightly confused at this semblance that seems like it could be an explanation for the sudden shifts in his character. Some of them don’t understand why this semblance isn’t explained and at least treated as a part of his fall and treated more sympathetically. The fact that it wasn’t explained in the show leads to fans coming up with their own conclusions, and then arguing over what version is viable or what the collective fandom should accept.

3. The semblance itself is a lazy explanation for his villainy. The creators didn’t write a convincing hero-to-villain story. Ironwood’s leaps in morality are made with very little groundwork or explanation, he goes from ‘doing what he feels needs to be done’ to threatening to bomb the remaining citizens of Mantle in a completely irrational time with laughter and smiles over the course of a season that didn’t really put the focus on that progression. The semblance wasn’t explained or even mentioned and Ironwood wasn’t treated with sympathy or understanding, because we were meant to hate him and see him as the enemy to the protagonists, who we were meant to see as completely right. But the semblance is then an easy explanation that ‘fills out the plot holes’ if CRWBY is asked, that they can use to justify the fall to villainy - or use to suddenly redeem James if they decide they want to. And as I said before, this semblance is already being used by the mega-fans to explain the fall to villainy and throw it in the faces of any critics. Once again, it feels like the writers are just coming up with whatever they can to make up for their shitty writing, while they also rely on their fans to fill in the gaps and ‘explain’ to critics exactly how they think the semblance works and act like the critics or bashers should’ve just come to the same conclusion they did.

4. The semblance is problematic because of how villainized James is specifically for things like his semblance. The semblance is literally the best possible explanation for Ironwood’s fall and the only one I’ve heard that makes any sense. But his semblance is literally described by the creators as ‘hyper-focusing.’ The fact that his semblance is treated as something that makes him more of a villain and something that aids in his destructive behavior that isn’t ever treated with an ounce of sympathy or understanding, is a really bad look. There are real-life people who hyper-fixate on things and can’t help it, and while James’s semblance might not be hyper-fixating exactly, CRWBY still hurt people with the way they talked about this semblance and how they included it in Ironwood’s fall. I’m not diagnosed and I’m therefore never sure of this, but I think I’m ADHD and hyper-fixate on things (like RWBY, lol.) I’ve never been sure exactly how I view Ironwood’s semblance, but hearing the way that the CRWBY head writers talk about it made me feel like I should keep that side of me from people who don’t know me well like my co-workers. Whether or not it was intended, that’s what CRWBY did, and there are many more people than just me who were hurt or bothered by this personally.

5. Since I’m assuming this semblance was a new addition to James in season 7 and 8, it really honestly feels disconnected. It’s a passive semblance, it’s meant to affect James during the course of his whole life because he can’t turn it off. But in volumes 2 and 3, he seems honestly receptive to Oz, listens to him, never goes too far, never seems too stubborn, never seems to ignore other problems to focus on one thing more than what’s perfectly normal for regular people. Before literally near the tail end of volume 7, Ironwood acted like a regular person unaffected by a semblance at all, who just happens to be a determined person facing hard situations. It really feels like the semblance was invented to explain the jump to villainy, and then used to explain how he did things like sear the flesh off of his arm in the Watts fight to be like ‘look, this didn’t come out of nowhere! There it is in this scene!’ which is really lazy. And the disjointed feeling between Ironwood from his first appearance and Ironwood post-shooting Oscar still takes you out of the story and makes you go ‘wait, what’s going on here?’ You shouldn’t be able to see the hand of the author, but it was very clear to me that the writers just wanted villain!Ironwood and just did whatever the hell they wanted to get there whether or not it made sense or what they had to force or forget to do it.

6. This semblance... Really makes Qrow look like a jerk. It makes everyone look like a jerk, but it especially makes Qrow look like a jerk. There’s a very, very strong probability that Qrow never had any idea about this semblance that Ironwood couldn’t control. But after spending volumes sympathizing with Qrow and feeling bad for him and understanding that a lot of his problems stemmed from his horrible lot in life that he wrongly blamed himself for, to see him ready to kill a former friend who is even more affected by and ruled by a semblance than Qrow ever was made me seriously annoyed with the writing. In my opinion, they should’ve had Qrow know about his semblance, know that it was affecting his every choice, be deeply sympathetic and bothered by the situation, and be trying to get out of jail so he could break Ironwood’s aura and jolt him out of his affected state. It would’ve been much, much better in my opinion, for Ironwood’s character, Qrow’s character, and the story as a general whole. The way that villain Ironwood was done just is not interesting to me in any way. Not only did CRWBY miss any opportunity to present a compelling hero-turned-villain story, but they also invented a reason for Ironwood to be deeply sympathetic and easily redeemed and then made no one understand that this was a problem and seem to be going out of their way to act like it’s not there at all to make Ironwood a full villain! Why give him the semblance at all if they were going to not use it and expect everyone to want him to be a full, incredibly hard to redeem, EVIL VILLAIN?

I seriously can’t understand CRWBY’s choices. In my opinion, they should’ve either made Ironwood a sympathetic hero forced into doing villainous actions by this semblance that they should’ve rephrased in terms of how it works, or they should’ve just left him with no explained semblance.

Also, I think Mettle is a stupid name.

[projectwkm]

Okay, so... I’ve been seeing you posting a lot of stuff about Actor Mark being just misunderstood and actually nice- but, I’m not convinced. (Which is surprising considering I’m usually the one who likes the “villain,,,”) If I may ask, what’s this theory based off of?

This post has been a long time coming, so sorry! I totally didn’t realise I had asks on this blog,, I’m a fool.

So this is less of a theory of mine and more of an expansion on character and what we know! Do I think for a second Actor is going to be redeemed? No, and I hope he’s not, because I love him so much as a villain. Do I think he is redeemable? Absolutely. Everyone is.

Let’s get into why I think that!

1. ‘A Heartbroken Idiot’

This is the nickname our Mark (in this post I’ll call Actor Mark ‘Actor’, and real Mark ‘Mark, just to avoid confusion) gives Actor. In the WKM Explanation Stream, he calls him ‘a heartbroken idiot’ in reference to his plan on poker night. And if we think about what we canonly know to be true, then there is good reason for this:

The Actor, the Colonel and the Mayor were all childhood friends. The Colonel practically grew up in the Manor with the Actor.

The Actor married Celine. Do we know for certain that they loved each other? No. But we can gather that at some point they were happy, for reasons I’ll go into later.

The Colonel slept with Celine behind the Actor’s back while they were married, and also borrowed copious amounts of money from the Actor to do so (?). The last part could be slightly biased or inaccurate considering Abe was on the Actor’s side for the most part, but I don’t see why he has reason to lie.

The Actor found this out, the Colonel and Celine left, and the Actor spiralled. So far he tried to kill him self. He did kill himself — over and over until his desire to die turned into a desire to understand the Manor he lived in and its oddities.

There are a lot of gaps there, in all honesty. A lot of questions unanswered. Did the Actor and Celine really love each other? Did Celine really love the Colonel? Why was the Colonel so willing to go behind the Actor (his close friend, remember)’s back and have an affair with his wife? Why was Celine so willing to leave her husband if she married him in the first place?

But those questions aren’t important right now, because I’m sticking as close to canon as I possibly can. What matters is that the Actor was betrayed by one of his best friends and that his wife left him in an awful way. They hurt him so badly that he tried to kill himself. Now, this isn’t me ignoring the Entity’s part in all this — we’ll get to that later.

But the purpose of Mark calling Actor a ‘heartbroken idiot’ is that it shows his only motive initially was heartbreak. His actions, initially, weren’t the actions of a man who wanted to destroy his friends and loved ones. In fact, by looking at his attempts to die, especially the first ones, we can see that the only person he wanted to destroy initially was himself. He’d been hurt, badly, by people he called “his close and trusted friends (WKM)”. And he wanted an out. He turned aggressive and revenge-twisted was when his very basic autonomy over his own life was denied to him by the Manor not letting him die.

“After Celine and the Colonel left, Mark was left in this super spiral downwards. He was just completely out of it, didn’t know what to do, and he may have at one point tried to kill himself. But it didn’t work.” (Mark, WKM Explanation Stream)

So before the Manor Entity intervened, was he a bad person? No. Most definitely not. How do we know this, apart from what I’ve said above? This brings us on to point 2:

Celine and Damien

The braincells of the WKM gang, truly. Do you really think they’d stay friends with Actor if he was a bad person? Scratch that, do you think Celine would have married him if he was a bad person? Ruling him as an awful evil person from the start completely undermines the intelligence of the other characters who had been ‘fast friends for years’ with Actor.

That’s not to say he’s flawless. He has an abundance of flaws that the Entity brings out in him (see point three), but even before the Entity, his flaws were probably very visible, especially to his friends and wife. Actor was no doubt an egotistical ass, don’t get me wrong, he was no saint, but he also wasn’t evil. If he was, Celine, who could sense the energy of the Manor as soon as she walked in, would have surely refused to marry him.

It’s hinted that they didn’t have the best relationship by Mark in the DAMIEN Explanation Stream, that much is true. Their reasons for marrying could have been anything — from a passionate spur of the moment decision they didn’t properly think about, to a marriage potentially motivated by finance or power — and we don’t know if they were ever truly happy. We don’t know if Celine loved Actor, but it is implied she at least felt something for him, judging by the look of distress on her face in Chapter Three of WKM when it is revealed Actor is dead.

We also don’t know if Actor loved Celine. I’m inclined to say he did, considering his original plan was to steal the Colonel’s body and get back together with Celine, but there’s a fine line between love and obsession. (In my personal opinion, their relationship started off well before the Manor Entity began to shape them, but my personal opinion doesn’t come into it right now.)

But do you really think if he’d been evil or abusive (as I’ve seen some call him) that Celine or Damien would even be upset about his death, nonetheless have stuck by his side for so long? I doubt it. Mark says nowhere that Actor was a bad person to start off with, and goes into detail of what the Manor Entity actually did to him in the Explanation Streams of DAMIEN and WKM, so read below for more notes on that!!

The Manor Entity

Aha.... my least favourite character of all time...

Words cannot describe how much I despise this thing (whatever it is, Mark described it as more of a concept than anything else). Even as I write this, I feel a boiling rage inside me. Nonetheless! I will keep as fair and as unbiased of a take as I can while I analyse Actor’s relationship with the Manor Entity.

So let’s start with its affects BEFORE the Colonel and Celine left. These characters were fucked the moment they lived in that house. The Colonel and the Actor have been affected worst by it due to living in the house as kids; as Mark says, they grew up together in the Manor. So they’ve probably had the worst effects from it. Let’s see what Mark says about the Entity in the Manor!—

“The thing [about the Manor] that causes people to change, and the thing that curses people, it’s this…. Not a thing, but it’s this idea that whispers in your ear, and the worst thing it could possibly do is that it makes you think that the ends justify the means, in whatever situation…. It’s this thing gently over time just whispering.”

An idea. A whisper in your ear, exacerbating worse qualities and constantly suggesting. Something you don’t even know about until it’s too late. It’s not so hard of a leap to make that it could have made the Chef so aggressive (he’s been there the second longest, other than George the Groundskeeper), could have made the Colonel more hot tempered and liable to cause trouble between a husband and wife, could have very easily twisted the Actor to be a worse person.

We’ve already made it clear that the Actor is not without his flaws. On the contrary, he might be the most flawed from the group. Cocky and stubborn and prideful, passionate and a performer, it’s not so hard to see the Entity delighting at being able to plant seeds in his head. Just little suggestions: “maybe you’re better than them” “maybe they’re holding you back” “maybe they’re conspiring against you”. Just little, back-of-your-head thoughts that, over time, would change him into someone worse, something else.

Something that could have potentially driven him away from Celine and driven Celine into the arms of the Colonel.

Am I saying this is definitely what happened? No. As I say, a lot of canon from Before The Poker Night is missing, and left to speculation. But from what we know about the Entity, and what we know about what it does, it’s increasingly likely it’s been manipulating things from behind the scenes for a while even before the Actor takes his own life.

Cut to Celine and the Colonel leaving. Damien is gone too (God knows where, perhaps the Actor just shuts him out too), leaving the Actor alone in the Entity’s puppet strings. Another Mark quote!

Imagine [the Actor]: his wife left him, his friend betrayed him, the [Entity] whispers “that’s not fair, no, that’s not fair”.... “No, you’re right, that’s not fair.....” “Why should they be happy?....” “No, no, of course, no, they shouldn’t be happy.....” “Maybe they don’t deserve to be happy, maybe you should do something about them not being happy, maybe you should set something up to make sure they’ll never be happy again.”

The Entity is a powerful thing. Its powers are subtle, so subtle that the Actor probably didn’t even notice he was being changed in the first place. As Mark said “the more you stay in that House, the more it drives you toward things it wants you to do… and the worst part is it convinces you that you thought of it in the first place.”

The Entity could have been the one to suggest that he keeps killing himself. It could have very well been the one to lead him to his death in the first place. And the worst thing is that the Actor wouldn’t have a clue they weren’t his thoughts. He is a puppet without realising it, an actor for the Entity to direct in whichever way it wants.

It’s a gradual, awful process. And Actor? As the ‘heartbroken idiot’, the man Mark describes as being a ‘pawn’, that had a lot of time alone in the Manor depressed and bitter over being hurt? He didn’t stand a chance against it.

By the time we meet Actor in WKM, it is very unlikely much of the original man remains at all. While he acts cheery and cocky as usual in the beginning, the bitter puppet we see in the Void after we die and the mania-driven ‘hero’ from DAMIEN is most likely all that remains of the original. Mark from the WKM Explanation Stream explained that “every time [Actor] died, he got sent to this [Void], and was able to get a deeper understanding of it”. Doing so pushed him further and further into the embrace of the Entity, until he was nothing more than a pawn. A puppet.

Actors have little to no control over the scene they play out. It’s the director’s job to push them in the direction they want. And the relationship between the Actor and the Entity seems to function as such: even if the Actor himself doesn’t realise that yet.

And finally, my last point:

No characters are good.

Mark gave a very good quote in the DAMIEN Explanation Stream that I rely on when writing Actor, Dark and Wilford — “no one’s truly, fully, 100% evil”. In the same way, no one is truly, fully, 100% good all the time. It’s impossible. And incredibly relevant when it comes to our three Main Boys, who are all so flawed and broken that it’s not even funny.

We’ll start with Wilford first. It’s easy to forget (for me, at least) all the things he’s done wrong because he’s such a goddamn sweetheart. But- and I won’t go into too much detail- here are some of his ‘crimes’: poaching, murder (several times, as the Colonel and as Warfstache), an affair with his best friend’s wife, with multiple other offences written somewhere in the detective’s study / office (I can’t be bothered finding them dhdjdjnej). Arguably, he also has reason for people to point to him being guilty: he broke his best friend’s heart to the point he tried to kill himself. Which.... is not good.

This is not me hating on William or Wilford as a character. Au contraire, I love them both. But it’s very rare that I see anyone admit Will’s fault in this, or Celine’s (without laying it all on them, naturally, but that’s another story). Will/Wilford is a complicated character who now seems to be far more good than bad (or simply just mad) and has atoned for the past, but more often than not, people overlook his crimes and mistakes and flaws.

The same with Dark, though honestly to a lesser extent. As far as we know, there is very little that Dark has done. We don’t know if he’s killed anyone (other than perhaps Actor in HEIST), we don’t know what his true crimes are because his role is still heavily influenced by the Actor’s bias. But Dark still has his faults and flaws. He’s obsessive and clearly incredibly angry and bitter over what happened, trapped somewhat in the past the same way that Wilford is in the present and Actor in the future. Once again, this isn’t me hating Dark (he’s one of my favourite characters dfhjvffhh), but simply pointing out the negative sides to him, rather than ignoring them. It’s to point out that people — and characters — aren’t 100% good or 100% evil (honestly, they’d be less interesting that way). That includes fan favourites.

Actor is probably the worst out of them. He’s delusional, painfully narcissistic, arrogant and a self-righteous asshole. Nobody is denying that. But underneath that, Mark also describes him as a ‘broken thing’: he’s not the man he used to be. Can he be easily seen as evil now, after everything he’s done? Yes. He’s murdered and he’s betrayed, but let’s not forget he too was murdered and betrayed. This doesn’t excuse what he’s done, but rather offers us insight into his thinking — an eye for an eye. In his eyes, the poker night (at the time) was justified. William and Celine and Damien all betrayed and hurt him, so he was going to hurt them.

Things didn’t go according to plan for him, though. I very much doubt murder was in his original plans, but alas, the Entity twisted his plans unrecognisably. (Whether or not he now regrets the poker night and his actions is up for speculation, and for another post sghcdgb.)

If it is Actor in HEIST and DATE (which I’m very inclined to say it is), it’s clear to me he’s changed: even slightly. Sacrificing himself over and over for Y/N, wooing them with dates and flashy heists, planning everything perfectly for them and giving them the choice on their adventures: now, this could just be me, but that sounds rather far from an evil man. Instead, it sounds to me like Actor knows he’s done bad things, but instead of trying to confront them, he simply runs away from them; he escapes from the reality he’s created by delving into fictional fantasies of adventure where he can finally be the hero.

And that’s not action of a man who is entirely evil. That’s action of a desperate man. A coward, perhaps, but not wholly bad or awful. “A pawn in all this”, as Mark describes him, unable to come to terms with the atrocity of the poker night and what he’s done to his old friends.

To Conclude My Answer!

Actor Mark is my favourite character of all time and has turned into a special interest of mine, but I hope he’s not redeemed. That being said, he is not an ‘evil’ character, and could certainly be redeemed if he ever fully escaped the Entity���s control and owned up to stone for the past (though being redeemed would almost certainly break him — another post for another time).

Everyone’s interpretations of Actorare valid, but I also think it’s important when writing him as close to canon as possible to remember some of Mark’s comments on him, and also to remember his past and how he’s been manipulated by the Entity into something different entirely. While doing so doesn’t excuse his behaviour or awful actions, it offers insight and a way to understand why he’s done certain things!

Ultimately, it’s up to Mark himself to canonise or develop the story and character arcs, which he has done so much already. I cannot WAIT to see where Actor and everybody’s stories end up going, and big preesh to him for making such a heartbreaking wonderful story!!!

If anyone would like to hear me rant more about Actor or the story of WKM and it’s sequels, leave a question or ask and I’ll certainly do it!!