#rivetting narratives here

[ratatatastic]

[jbaileyfansite]

Masterpost: Jonathan Bailey in Richard II Reviews

Jonathan Bailey gives the best performance I’ve ever seen of Shakespeare’s flawed monarch, an erratic tyrant who gains dignity once deposed. [...] Bailey inhabits and humanizes the king in a clean, clear, martial staging from Nicholas Hytner that feels right for our times. [...] Bailey swaggers on to Succession-style music, in a simple crown but with a bespoke frock coat and sockless feet in velvet slippers, setting him apart from courtiers in suits or jeans. A saturnine beard gives an impish frame to his imperious behavior. [...] Still, Richard II, with its rigid structure and strict double-narrative about two different styles of kingship, is never going to be a crowd-pleaser unless it’s by star casting. Hence Bailey. He commands the stage and even allows a little camp to seep into the character (Richard’s marriage to his shopaholic wife may be transactional). He doesn’t sugar the king’s brattish reluctance to cede the crown but in later speeches attains a stricken grandeur. [x]

While Jonathan Bailey’s prancing prince Fiyero can still be seen on cinema screens in the first instalment of the musical Wicked, his King Richard takes to the stage as a similarly flamboyant figure. However here instead of copious amounts of charm, this royal has a spoilt, psychotic air that is stoked by cocaine. While executing his duties of office this king studies those to whom he gives an audience in a way that might, at first, be mistaken for a kindly monarch’s close attention. But the interested tilt of the head and his laser gaze are, it turns out, the callous curiosity of a reptile eyeing potential prey. [...] Bailey’s strength is that he makes Shakespeare’s language sound as modern as that spoken by his fellow millennials. [x]

It’s a bravely vicious performance, leavened with wit and humour and yet also deliberately mannered and alienating. This riveting and not always comfortable portrayal is absolutely matched by Pierreson, who cleverly charts, with the smallest inflections of head and eye exactly how difficult it is to make policy on the hoof. [...] It’s propulsively driven, and often surprisingly funny, wheeling along with an absolute confidence. It’s been a long time since Hytner’s directed a history play and it feels worth the wait. [x]

Guys and dolls have made way for kings and dukes at the Bridge Theatre, where Jonathan Bailey rules in his first stage role since Wicked and Bridgerton fame. [...] Bailey's portrayal is layered and multifaceted. His eyes, often twinkling with mischief, belie his increasingly erratic behavior. His movements, jittery and spiky one moment and filled with a slow and calculated coolness the next, is both unnerving and compelling. [...] Bailey's return to the stage is nothing short of triumphant. With his razor-sharp delivery and mercurial presence, he proves he is not just a star name but a true theatrical force. Long live the king. [x]

This Richard is a kaleidoscope of narcissism and neuroses, and it’s a truly electric watch. As Hytner recently pointed out, Bailey is a natural with the text, and manages to make this changeable, spiteful, lost, needy, uncertain creation hilarious and horrifying in equal measure. Injecting musicality and character into even the most rudimentary of asides and put downs, Bailey somehow manages to inject it all with the slightest splash of camp, too. By the time the walls are closing in about him at the end of the first half and he has adopted an almost messianic-by-way-of-Rik Mayall mania, it’s difficult to not find yourself rooting for the churl. [...] Bailey’s maddening, mercurial tour-de-force proves one of the most exciting and unpredictable performances in London right now, and is worth the ticket price alone. [x]

Long before Bridgerton, there was theatre for Jonathan Bailey, from roles at the RSC as a child actor onwards. His ease and aptitude on stage is evident here yet he is still a revelation, lighting up this play about a king’s misrule and downfall. [...] Nicholas Hytner, as director, smooths away most of the play’s creakiness with a pared-down production that has the pace and intrigue of a thriller. It is muscular in its look and Bailey singularly shines, his luminosity putting the others slightly in the shade. [x]

Anyone questioning the wisdom of the star-casting of “Bridgerton” and “Wicked” talent Bailey should bear in mind that he played Cassio in Hytner’s riveting “Othello” at the National Theatre back in 2013 and followed that with an arresting Edgar/Mad Tom opposite Ian McKellen’s King Lear for director Jonathan Munby. As a result, his handling of the language and, crucially, the intent behind it, is entirely easeful. His king is self-satisfied and perfectly petulant, dispatching orders, and often men’s lives, with gleaming disdain. He’s even better when he’s calmly and quietly coming to understand himself and the nature of his previous selfishness in the play’s highly reflective and tender final scenes. [x]

Although he’s fresh from stealing the limelight in Wicked, star Jonathan Bailey has been landing big stage roles since he was in literal primary school, and he brings a wonderful clarity and charisma to this tale of a misbehaving, queer-coded despot. [...] But who wouldn’t fall under the spell of this captivating king? Bailey lights up Hytner’s lucid production of a strange but infinitely satisfying play. [x]

Jonathan Bailey is magnetic in the title role of Nicholas Hytner’s production at London’s Bridge Theatre. [x]

Shakespeare’s tale notably eschews scenes of bloody battle to focus on the psychological undoing of England’s charming yet irresponsible king. And how charming he is when performed by Bailey, who brings all of his Bridgerton charisma to Nicholas Hytner’s modern-dress production, swaggering about the thrust/in-the-round stage — and even giving the audience seated in the circle a surprise, up-close treat. From the first image of Richard carefully placing the gold crown upon his own head — with Grant Olding’s tinkling piano composition reminiscent of Succession’s now iconic opening credits — Bailey oozes entitlement and ego. [...] Bailey reveals and revels in all facets of this magnetic king and as Hytner has said in multiple interviews, he speaks Shakespeare “as though it is his first language”. [x]

Bailey is effectively ineffectual as Richard, viciously petulant and deluded throughout, citing the Divine Right of Kingship to cling to power that he doesn't merit. […] Quiet and studied in performance, he has great moments such as the abdication scene in which he refuses to give up his crown like a child unwilling to part with his favourite toy. [x]

A nation in need, an unsuitable king, banishments, murders, attempted coups. Richard II has it all and so does Jonathan Bailey. He might be dancing through Hollywood and hanging out with the biggest celebs, but this triumphant return to the stage  proves that he’s still one of us. Known for his romantic leads, Bailey now takes on a complicated head of state, breaking him open and thinning the lines between divisive, problematic political figure and sardonic, villainous poet. It’s Jonathan Bailey’s world and we’re merely living in it, but Nicholas Hytner’s production sees a five-star cast stuck in a three-star show. [...] Bailey has an utterly captivating delivery that twists snakishly, infused at once with sarcasm, pettiness, fury, and comedy. There’s no empathy or sympathy for anyone but himself in his performance, just impatience, insecurity, and an extremely short fuse. [...] Bailey is wondrous at playing contradiction and Shakespeare looks really good on him. He shines when he gets the chance to delve into the depths of his character’s psyche and a sizzling magnetism takes over during his soliloquies, giving us a taste of what he could do with a more sombre character and a more secure vision. [x]

Bailey gives an engrossing performance as Richard, whose corrupt misrule fuels popular support for the usurper cousin, Henry Bolingbroke (Royce Pierreson), despite the medieval doctrine that the monarch is anointed by God and therefore untouchable. [...] Historical accounts remarked upon Richard’s effeminacy and in Bailey’s adroit rendering he is a capricious, flouncing sociopath whose every utterance is suffused with performative irony. [...] The more compelling drama here is not the political intrigue, but the tragic transfiguration of the deposed king. Richard’s campy loquaciousness had hitherto struck a somewhat desperate, insincere note, whether expatiating on the divine right of kings or reproaching the audience (his erstwhile subjects) for their fickleness and indifference to his downfall. But his flip complacency then gives way, via panic and despair, to a circumspect serenity as he is unburdened in defeat. This transition is tricky for actors to pull off — they must somehow become smaller and bigger at the same time — and Bailey executes it with admirable subtlety. [x]

Jonathan Bailey captures perfectly the narcissism of a boy King. The audience titter nervously as his crown comes under pressure, gasp at the cruelties and are stunned into silence by his final soliloquy and demise. [x]

The staging is solid rather than exceptional. But Bailey makes a transfixing Richard, his plight engaging to the last, despite the nastier excesses of his capricious behaviour. [...] It’s a glittering performance in an uncluttered setting: proficient, measured, the production permits Bailey’s doomed, vainglorious Richard to shine. [x]

It’s a bracing show, constantly exciting as we sit all around it like witnesses, like 15c Englanders. Jonathan Bailey as the King is a whirlwind of temperament, in love with crown and power, secure amid his cronies and his Irish ambitions but until his final sad meditation in prison as erratic and wilful as a toddler, but vicious with it. [...] He is irresistibly watchable, whether in tantrum, self-pitying soliloquy or flashes of awful self-knowledge; some may find him not quite king enough, but he’s endlessly gripping. [x]

Bailey pulses with energy and charisma, which lifts the mood delightfully after all the monochrome men and their moody machinations. [x]

With Jonathan Bailey compelling in the title role, this is a fast-paced, thrilling, and lucid account of Shakespeare’s most poetic and tragic history play. [...] The personal tragedy of Richard comes through strongly here as well as England’s national tragedy. He may be a terrible ruler – arrogant, capricious, erratic, surrounded by flatterers – portrayed here by Bailey as a spoilt, immature playboy. But after he has lost his crown there is genuine pathos as he identifies himself with it so closely that – as shown in him dashing a mirror to pieces – without it he loses his own sense of who he is. [...] As Richard, Bailey holds the stage and speaks the verse with impressive naturalness. (He may be a screen star in the likes of Wicked and Bridgerton, as well as an Olivier Award winner for the Sondheim musical Company, but he has already made a mark in Shakespeare with his Cassio in Hytner’s Othello at the National and his Edgar in the Chichester Ian McKellen King Lear.) Here, he is not just a weak-willed hedonist, but a pretty callous manipulator with a sardonic sense of humour. [...] But although this is not a particularly sympathetic Richard, Bailey does convey his self-destructive behaviour with convincing passion. [x]

Flamboyant, charismatic and completely incapable of ruling a country are just a few of the thoughts that run through my mind watching Jonathan Bailey’s immensely enjoyable performance as Richard II that keeps the audience engaged as to how the story unfolds from start to finish. [...] While the play is billed as a tragedy, there are in this production flashes of unexpected humour thanks to Jonathan Bailey’s performance as the unpredictable Richard II – revealing many different aspects to the character that keeps his performance lively and unexpected. Bailey has completely immersed himself in the role to glorious effect – I would love to see what he would do with other leading Shakespearian characters as it is a really sparkling performance. [x]

Jonathan Bailey plays the central character around whom all of the political shenanigans revolve, capturing his mercurial character. Believing in his god given right to be King, he plays the role to suit the moment; sometimes mischievous, sometimes vain, sometimes proud but ultimately without his “hollow crown”, he is lost without purpose or reason. It is an excellent performance, spoken with great clarity and precision, varying the tone to reflect the King’s attitude to the moment. [x]

Anyone who saw Jonathan Bailey on stage in COCK or Company will know what a gifted performer he is on stage. He may have reached a worldwide audience with his turns in Bridgerton and Wicked but there is nothing like seeing him on stage in the flesh to truly appreciate his talents as a performer. His portrayal of Richard II once again demonstrates this, with Bailey going big in his choices to deliver a performance that always captivates. Quite extreme at times, the exaggerated nature of the performance leads to heightened emotions with Bailey impossible to take your eyes off of. One key moment sees him appear in an unexpected part of the theatre (I won’t spoil where for those who are yet to see it) in a brilliant use of his talents leaving me hanging on his every word. [x]

But it’s the star’s show and Bailey is scintillating as a king on the edge, caught between challenging or capitulating to Bullingbrook. One moment a strutting, cocaine-sniffing sovereign, the next shrinking into despair as his grasp on power slips further out of reach and is gone. [x]

From flashy, commercial musicals to independent plays, theatre across both sides of the Atlantic often features star casting; sometimes the talent fits perfectly within the character brief, yet other times feel like awkward pairings. Fortunately for this production, casting Bailey in the titular role is an absolutely justifiable choice (not just speaking from a Wicked fan's perspective), lending a playfully giving personality to an indecisive monarch. His treatment of words demonstrates careful thought, injecting eclectic energy into movement and physical characterisation (with direction by James Cousins) - in some aspects not unlike Fiyero. Bringing with him a calm yet assertive and indeed, magnificent voice, the delivery of each line switching from light and fluffy to deliberately passionate, through to slowed but clearly enunciated soliloquies following a change in character away from the narcissistic and self-loathing impression we initially know Richard by (having paid obvious attention to elements of the voice like inflexion and pacing), in parts also credited to Jeannette Nelson's meritorious voice work with the Company. [x]

Rather unexpectedly there are similarities between prancing Prince Fiyero in the film version of Wicked and the spoilt brat that is Richard II in this new production of Shakespeare's play. Both are royals who lead privileged, hedonistic lives yet become thoughtful and wise when the real world breaks into their sheltered existence. [...] Yet Bailey's roles on screen have none of the sociopathic edge he brings to his Richard here, in Nicholas Hytner's pacy, modern production. [...] Here Bailey, who despite never having gone to drama school speaks Shakespeare with ease. In one of the Bard's most moving speeches his Richard moves from moral bankruptcy to devastating insight into both his and the human condition. [x]

However, it is Mr Bailey who is the star attraction in this production and he gives every inch the star performance. Totally believable as the despotic Richard, with his swiftly changing moods, he switches from imperial grandeur to whiny sarcasm within the same sentence. It’s a physically demanding performance and he captures both extremes of the king’s character perfectly – the statesman and the wimp. His vocal delivery is perfect too, always with crystal clear elocution and a stage authority that makes you feel you’re in the presence of someone special. [x]

Bailey embodies the king with all the complexities you’d expect from the role. Flitting from a composed leader to a wild party-boy - it is never certain what his next move might be. It brings real interest and stakes to the role, keeping the audience on the edge of their seats throughout. Bailey’s natural stage presence makes him mesmerising to watch, and his erratic, and rather brilliantly camp take on the role plays the king as a caricature of himself. [x]

In a time where the London scene has been haunted by the not-so-usually-adequate celebrity casting, the Bridge Theatre hosts the return of now television and film star Jonathan Bailey to the old boards. He’s not a newbie. In fact, that’s where his thriving trajectory took off – and you can really tell. […]The biggest praise, however, goes to Jonathan Bailey as the protagonist, proving utmost command of his role through a sinisterly captivating take – drawing out the personage’s narcissistic traits through a mixture of menace and humourousness that never falls into camp. [x]

Bailey takes to the role with single-minded dexterity. What Bailey fans first acquainted with the star on screen may not realise is that our Bridgerton heartthrob is first and foremost a stage actor, having performed at the RSC as a child and alongside Ian McKellen in King Lear. Here, we see him flex that muscle with great aptitude, an actor at the heights of his power: another royal success. Richard II is a triumph. [x]

[whencyclopedia]

The United States Governed by Six Hundred Thousand Despots: A True Story of Slavery; A Rediscovered Narrative, with a Full Biography

"The United States Governed by Six Hundred Thousand Despots: A True Story of Slavery" presents readers with a largely unknown narrative written by John Swanson Jacobs, a formerly enslaved man, a biography of him, and other documents about his life. By making Jacobs’s narrative accessible and available, this volume will help scholars learn more about the global dimensions of slave narratives. This book is well-suited for both scholars and students and is highly recommended.

Discovering forgotten or overlooked sources is always exciting. Jonathan D. S. Schroeder recently rediscovered John Swanson Jacobs’s narrative The United States Governed by Six Hundred Thousand Despots: A True Story of Slavery. Jacobs’s narrative, which had been published in an Australian newspaper in 1855, had been largely forgotten. Narratives published about slavery, captivity, and freedom are important primary sources for scholars. This narrative, which Schroeder correctly labels a global slave narrative, promises to help increase scholarly understandings of slavery and freedom in the Americas.

The volume contains three distinct sections. The first section is the narrative itself, which appears as it was published, albeit with minor corrections, extensive explanatory footnotes, and an introduction from Schroeder. Jacobs was the brother of Harriet Jacobs, the author of another famous narrative. Harriet Jacobs’s narrative, Incidents in the Life of Slave Girl (1861), was published under a pseudonym and heavily edited by white abolitionist Lydia Maria Child. John Jacobs’s narrative, on the other hand, was not subject to any editing by white abolitionists and appeared in an Australian newspaper, which spoke to how Jacobs’s life transcended the borders of the United States. Jacobs took to the sea and, like many other Black sailors, saw himself as a cosmopolitan and the world as his country. Jacobs’s narrative is well worth reading and Schroeder details how Jacobs challenged many of the conventions of enslaved narratives. In the first part of the narrative, Jacobs described his life, his enslaver’s relentless pursuit of Harriet, and his eventual escape to freedom. The second part foregrounded his stinging denunciation of U.S. law and politics, which, he contended, supported and reinforced slavery. He frequently called out specific politicians and correctly depicted Washington, D.C. as a city where slave traders sold human beings and politicians gambled rather than made laws. Interestingly, in light of the recent discussion about 1619 vs. 1776, Jacobs mentioned another date entirely—1522. His use of 1522 should remind readers that slavery did not begin in the Americas in 1619 and that it had existed for more than a century when the first enslaved people were brought to what is now the United States. “The history of the global slave narrative has yet to be told,” (xxx). Schroeder correctly concludes. Jacobs’s narrative will help scholars begin to tell this important story.

The second section of the book is an extended biography of Jacobs, written by Schroeder. Here Schroeder illustrates, in clear detail and powerful prose, Jacobs’s riveting life story. Schroder deftly illuminates Jacobs’s life, noting that he and Harriet “were born into an age of rebellion, and into a family that had resisted slavery for over a century” (80). Schroeder traces their family, explores how both siblings escaped slavery, their lives in the northern states, and John’s decision to leave the United States and relocate first to Australia and later to England. “Through courage, intelligence, and patience, he had walked away from slavery and social death and forged life after life—mariner, abolitionist, miner, husband, father” (178). Jacobs eventually returned to the U.S. in 1873 and died at the end of that year. He is buried in the Jacobs family plot at Mount Auburn Cemetery, but, until recently, his grave marker had sunk underground. “The burial and resurfacing of John Jacobs’s grave marker is an apt symbol for his disappearance from historical memory—and the work that remains to be done to resurrect him” (181). Schroeder also includes a fascinating discussion of why he believes the portrait long known as "The Man Holding the Liberator" (1848) is actually a portrait of Jacobs. The third section of the book contains an array of useful primary sources—both documents written by Jacobs and documents written about him.

Jonathan D. S. Schroeder, currently a Lecturer at the Rhode Island School of Design, recently rediscovered John Swanson Jacobs’s narrative The United States Governed by Six Hundred Thousand Despots: A True Story of Slavery. This book will appeal to anyone interested in learning more about slavery and freedom in the 19th-century world. It will work especially well in classes about historical methods as well as many other upper-level undergraduate courses and graduate classes.

Continue reading...

[dayhair]

dr rants!

the squirrelly, inane edition that leaves you wondering why your eyes loom over certain semicolons and en-dashes [ how self-deprecating, i know 🎀 ]

also .. my first post, a liberating departure from the chains of shifttok

marauders; tell me why sirius black, heir apparent to the noble house of inbreeding, behaves like a broken analog clock — drinking at the sixth hour, and a mental breakdown with the occasional tactless jab when his little hand strikes nine ( i'll admit the metaphor is bizarre because i can't even tell the hour hand from the minute, anywho .. )

sirius black? oh, he invented sarcasm. and ebony locks of hair, chainsmoking ( whilst listening to lana del rey, crying in the shower ), sporadicity & a taste for gryffindor's finest, a bowie-loving werewolf

with him, it's always, "lonnie, i swear to god if you don't leave regulus alone," or, "let's deflower a firewhiskey after divination," no in-between

the insipid crash-outs & tantrums of an old-money dauphin must sound riveting, but a half-blood beauxbatons transfer can only behave so .. cordially; after all, my family's motto does translate to something like, "strike the iron while it's hot," and i'm not sure pulling sirius black's hair back as he [ i don't want to gross you out ] is what my ancestors had in mind whilst stitching gilded threads on our coat-of-arms

so .. do i ghost the anti-hero? i'm sure we'd have way more fun anyway if he was sorted into slytherin, or if i wasn't in his brother's year

gossip girl; serena van der woodsen, silver spring of her family, once said to me, "it's not my world, i just live in it." i'm pretty sure she was drunk, because she's no sylvia plath, no matter how hard she pretends. naïve me, in the dregs of upper east side bacchanals, more or less, teenage debauchery, and affairs on both sides of the tennis court — i'd no idea the roman holidays she was referring to, for death had always taken vacation on mine

picture this: a soirée, a suicide, a suit of cards ( hearts for the ones broken, clubs for the ultraviolence, diamonds for the [ well, we're bourgeoisie, there isn't much else to say ], and spades for my blackened luck )

i won't name-drop, but this ballot triggers easily to the unyielding imagination. let's just say an un-judging breakfast club was left fractured, and now i know to mark my julian calendar for the next time death and his blooded scythe strike

90s fame; how does one recover from the faux-pas, glossy tabloids of la la land? mixed reviews from critics and i questioned my steed in the oscar race, no golden globe nomination ( must they ignore me, so? and i know i could just script it in, but what's the fun in that?? ) and i'd already booked an month-off to st. tropez

a few things that i remember from this era

candid shots of me & heath ledger, drunk & the snl parody skit that followed

rumors of false behind-the-scenes drama, which then spurred into actuality 🤦‍♂️

appearing in britney spear's '.. baby one more time' mtv mv ( i was so nervous dbsndjwa )

i was on nirvana's 4th album cover ( scripted out kurt's death )

".. a pretentious performance that crashes into itself and shatters the film's narrative into something maladroit and unworthy of watching" ( some stupid critic about my acting; they don't know true talent or art. like at all. the movie's already a cult classic here so whatever ig )

oh, tinseltown. you pretend to be as glamorous as the age of beatniks & true cinema, but hollywood really is dead ..!

you've reached the post-script; i'd love to go on-&-on, but sleepiness strikes 💤

a reblog wouldn't hurt, eh? ( please )

ok. i'm done

ta-ta, happy shifting !!

[nana-glass-chillhop-radio-hour]

Penny for your thots about the tsv finale?

Okay this is not going to be coherent or polished but here goes:

Carpenter and Faulkner's final conversation was the most riveting scene in the show for me. It has this existentialist 'Waiting For Godot' esque quality of a dialogue in purgatory that just makes me vibrate out of my skin. Faulkner's self contradictory interpretations of his situation, his clinging to his ability to spin a new narrative, Carpenter's monologue about how only heroes get the chance to define their stories in the Silt Verses... chef's kiss. And of course: 'Do you recognize me?' 'Of course I recognize you. You're Carpenter's ghost.' 'Yes, I am.' Ahhhhhhh! How can Carpenter die when she's already dead????

Val ultimately creating the conditions that allowed for Paige's people to find sanctuary is just so tasty

I am soso sad about Faulkner's death BUT we all knew he was gonna drown right? Like. Chekov's lifejacket. And his 'first and last true prophecy' moment was badass.

I'm really intrigued by the decision to conclude the narrative just as we finally arrive at a land without gods. Like this story was never about what comes after! It was always about the ways we resist or comply! There's no third option!

Speaking of which. Hayward 💔💔💔

I'm also curious about the decision to leave Carpenter's death ambiguous - I'm not sure what the ambiguity accomplishes that a cut and dry death would not? I do love that she finally gets a measure of peace even amidst the terrible pain of losing her brother (again! Twice in one day!)

'We live in a world of miracles'

[vacuouslyfalse]

I was sent this by @metamatar on my thread about the material reasons why the US is not materially incentivized to back Israel. I'll be honest - I do not find it very convincing. Let's dive in.

The recent period has seen the bloom of two falsehoods, stemming from the same root of irrationality, glibly ahistorical narratives, and disinterest in understanding struggles for national liberation against imperialism. One: Benjamin Netanyahu more-or-less conspired with Hamas to maintain the Palestinian national division and empowered the movement in Gaza. Two: Israel and its parasitic lobby drive America into irrational warmongering.

The first is a slight overstatement of my position - there is no conspiracy, merely shared interests. The second is very far from my position - the US needs no external sources to drive it into irrational warmongering, but in this specific case, domestic support for Israel (both popular and elite) is what drives US support.

The ‘Netanyahu courted Hamas’ fairy-tale is newer, an odd chimera of the older truth that Israel and the US preferred Hamas – but, seldom mentioned, also Fatah – to Marxist-led Palestinian forces in the 1980s, and the newer truth that Netanyahu made deals that had allowed Hamas some financial manoeuvring space since 2014.

I think this basically concedes to my position on the first "falsehood," though it fails to mention Netanyahu's statements arguing that Hamas was a bulwark against Palestinian statehood.

From here on, the article spends several paragraphs summarizing the history of the Israeli-US relationship. While riveting, this does not directly relate to the question of US interests in this current war, so we'll skip ahead a bit.

The ‘Netanyahu enabled Hamas’ distortion rests on the correct statement that Netanyahu dealt indirectly with Hamas via Qatar and allowed the formation of a permit regime for Palestinian Gaza guest workers. This was meant to ensure relative quiet in the South. Far from Hamas collaborating with Netanyahu, or policing the ceasefire, this set-up was an achievement of the Palestinian resistance, allowing it the appearance of political stillness on its surface waters while underneath it moved fast and built up a deep defensive infrastructure. The lie is meant to suggest that Hamas’ strength is due to conspiracy with Israel, when Hamas simply expresses the nationalist aspirations of the Palestinian people. 

This is another, further distortion of the argument being made in "falsehood" one - that Israel's interests were served by Hamas. The idea that Hamas' strength emerges from conspiracy with Israel is absurd. It is, however, true that Israel has been willing to bolster Hamas and prefers it to a unified Palestine under the PA. Speaking of which:

This tall tale has also suggested that Netanyahu wished to avoid direct talks with the PA in Ramallah towards a peace agreement. The lie is the implication that the neo-colonial PA is a force for state building and Palestinian sovereignty. In fact, it is the velvet – more often these days, mailed – gauntlet of neo-colonial collaboration in the West Bank, amidst PA coordination with Israel and the murder of anti-collaborationist cadre like Nizar Banat in 2021.

This is, imo, completely correct - the PA is collaborationist. What this misses is that modern Israeli maximalists like Netanyahu reject the line pursued by the US, that of a collaborationist state governed by the PA. Even this shell of a state, along the lines of what was offered during the prior peace process, is now outside the bounds of what the ultranationalist Israeli far right is willing to accept.

Amidst closure and de-development, the popular resistance has been able to consolidate an arsenal and bring 1.5% of its population into a guerrilla force of 30,000-40,000 men that can – man for man – outmatch nearly any in the world.

This is where the article starts to go off the rails a bit. Can Hamas, man to man, outmatch nearly any army in the world? How would we know? Does this read like someone trying to do analysis or trying to write a PR piece?

The concrete is their mountains. From there they have imperiled an enemy with orders of magnitude higher GDP per capita – Israeli GDP is at $52,000 a year, with arsenals worth billions.

Fifth, through these achievements, the Palestinian resistance has been able to present an acute threat to the settler-capitalist property structures called Israel,

Here, we continue into mythmaking. How has Israel been imperiled? What acute threat has been presented? Certainly, over a thousand people were killed, but this does not constitute a threat to a nationstate. The article does not attempt to justify these statements further.

It is unimaginable that the neocolonial authoritarian states nor their US benefactor would remotely tolerate massive working-class militia which speak a language of justice and republicanism and raise arms against those states’ sponsors. In turn, it is as natural as the sun rising in the East that the US, the UK, Germany, France, and their Gulf and Arab satraps would converge on support for Israel as the spear’s tip of the assault on the surrounding Arab popular militia. 

Much of the "analysis" in this article takes this form - broad, sweeping statements with little attempt at justification.

Interestingly enough, this article actually links a far more lucid and well-reasoned analysis of the situation, with this funny aside:

(When did Marxists decide it is their job to whisper to the exterminationist class that their calculus is off?)

Good analysis is its own reward!

This article contains sentences like this one:

To contemplate any real reduction in its presence, though, it first needs a security settlement that would strengthen friendly regimes and constrain the influence of nonconforming ones. The 2020 Abraham Accords advanced this agenda, as Bahrain and the UAE, by agreeing to normalize relations with Israel, joined a wider ‘reactionary axis’ spanning the Saudi Kingdom and Egyptian autocracy. Trump expanded arms sales to these states and cultivated connections between them – military, commercial, diplomatic – with the aim of creating a reliable phalanx of allies who would tilt towards the US in the New Cold War while acting as a bulwark against Iran.

Which was really a breath of fresh air after the previous article. Directly citing US policy from the last ten years - incredible!

While it would be flattening a very nuanced article to claim that it takes my point of view, this is one of its core arguments:

Second, in pinning its imperial strategy on the Israeli normalization process, the US became especially reliant on this settler-colonial project just before it was captured by its most extreme and volatile elements: Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, Galant. If American support for Israel has historically exceeded any reasonable political calculus, under Trump and Biden it acquired a coherent rationale: to place its ally at the centre of a stable Middle Eastern security framework. Yet the Israeli cabinet that came to power in 2022 – addled by eliminationist fantasies, and determined to draw the US into war with Iran – proved least able to play that role.

It makes the argument that recent US support for Israel was part of a larger strategy to disengage from the region, but one that made mistaken assumptions about the ability of Israel to maintain stability, and that the eliminationist actions of the Israeli state have undermined the realpolitik rationale for US support.

I am not going to go through the second article because it would mostly consist of me nodding along, but I think we see two distinct ways in which leftists write on display here.

The first article makes very broad assumptions about US goals and motivations and cites actual events only sparingly and selectively to support its thesis. The second puts the focus on the events themselves and draws out the motivations from them. The former is useful for writing fluff for people who are already convinced of your point of view, but it does not pass very convincingly for analysis. The latter reads like someone who is actually trying to understand the world.

[cheetour]

The Void Within's dialogue is sloppy to the point of not being fully literate*.

It's been noticed that the rough sketches and the final artwork don't match up in quality, and seem to be declining as the plot goes on. The same is happening to the writing.

This is, I am sorry, a post about the latest major Neopets update. Not only that, it's about the GRAMMAR in the dialogue for that update. Riveting.

I SWEAR I AM NOT JUST A PEDANTIC ASSHOLE, I GENUINELY WANT USERS TO KNOW THERE'S AN ISSUE!

Most people who complain about "incorrect" grammar in games and comics are wrong. Homestuck, Night in the Woods, We Know the Devil, and Captain Underpants all have fine grammar, just stylized.

I really, really, really like The Void Within. I think it's a fantastic idea, and I am determined to enjoy it as much as possible.

I am a professional editor. Noticing this stuff is my job.

Now, PLEASE bear that in mind when I say:

tl;dr: Neopets is asking you to pay money to a product that does not meet the quality standards of a primary school English test for ages 10+.

*I don't mean to use "not literate" as a stand-in for "stupid and bad at writing." Literacy is very complicated, illiteracy is more common than you think, and there is no shame in being illiterate - you can be very intelligent and also have no written or digital literacy. I mean the literal "not able to use written language to its fullest extent".

It's clear whoever wrote the dialogue didn't have a perfect grasp of English punctuation. AND THAT'S FINE. Good writers don't always have good grammar, and you DON'T need fluent English to write good stories in English.

That's why writing, proofreading, and editing are all separate professions, and why a well-run creative project delegates those roles to separate people. They still matter.

People are more likely to notice grammar mistakes the more they read books. Correctly formatted English is how older, less online, and disabled people with visual or linguistic processing difficulties read. Text-to-speech doesn't work correctly on writing without correct punctuation. These are serious professional standards, and they exist for a reason. They're not worthless just because you don't understand them.

A good-quality publisher of books, comics, or video games wouldn't release dialogue like this to a paying audience. They would consider this standard unacceptable. They'd either use correct grammar, or stylized grammar. (Inconsistent grammar, with no logical or narrative rules, isn't a style. They're not choices if you don't know you're making them. They're mistakes.)

To an extent this is nitpicking, and most people wouldn't notice this stuff.

But Neopets is MAKING MONEY. They are SELLING PRODUCTS for this. They have MULTIPLE PHASES of NC Market sales for this plot.

As an educator, there is no way I could show this (perfectly kid-friendly) comic to a classroom of children - it would have no educational value. It's not written correctly or with any obvious care. If they paid attention to it too much, they'd get the wrong idea about the English language!

I think it's fair to say that if you're publishing an official Neopets story, and you want Neopets to be a kid-friendly, fan-driven, story-based brand with a target audience wider than "people who don't really care about whether stories are professionally written", the script should've been proofread.

To give you an idea of how many typos Chapter 3 has, here's one of the dialogue pages with the missing punctuation added; I also took 5 minutes to rewrite each line for coherency.

And THIS is a website showing you at what points in primary eduation we teach children to use commas correcty:

Art is hard. Programming is hard. Hell, good writing is hard. It's HARD coming up with dialogue and a plot that people actually want to experience.

Grammar is boring and sometimes pointless. It's not difficult. It requires only basic literacy. Children learn how to use commas at ages seven and up.

If you don't care about the story you're telling enough to check that it would get a good grade on a child's school test, how can you possibly expect anyone to pay for it? You need specialist skills to code a website or create a high-quality digital graphic, but the only thing you need to get this right is... one literate adult who cares enough to try.

So where are they?

**There is no shame in being illiterate, but there is CERTAINLY shame in selling illiterate writing.

tl;dr: Neopets is asking you to pay money to a product that does not meet the quality standards of a primary school English test for ages 10+.

Finally, here are some browser petsites/RPGs who have never prompted me to write an 800 word critique:

Fallen London

Pixel Cat's End

Lioden

[voidsentprinces]

Maybe I am just not too interested in Zenos to get a deeper feel for him. But, it isn't like the narrative really tried to endear me to him in the first place. Its kind of hard to get a read on the dude beyond: Fightsexual when the narrative isn't handing me anything else. I cannot piece together a full fleshed out character from scraps of scraps. In my mind, Zenos was for all intent and purpose a road block, a speed bump in the narrative. Functioning like Ran'jit did in Shadowbringers except Zenos is actually suppose to also be the end boss unlike Ran'jit that is just a nuisance and a side character meant to be the count force to us. Zenos is here cause we cannot overthrow Ala Mhigo immediately, we gotta be rebuffed, go to Doma, free them because Zenos lets us for some *gestures* reason and then go free Ala Mhigo cause the narrative decided its time to do that. But, oh god, the narrative also realized that we only have 10 levels to tell a story and we just spent 7 of them in Doma and the Far East. So lets pad this shit like a man with a deadline trying to make a 32-page thesis with cutscene after cutscene after cutscene. You take three steps, here's a cutscene.

Zenos was introduced too late in the narrative. I do not believe this Garlean Prince is stronger than Bahamut Prime, Nidhogg Reborn, and several other primals. I will admit, he is stronger than Gaius sure and he is stronger than the weakened Lahabrea we fought and stronger than a lesser Ascian, fine. But, so strong that he just no sells us. Should of been a thing mid-Heavensward or Post-A Realm Reborn not two expansions in.

And it feels like the writers feel the same cause they set his power level so high and then find reasons for him not to do anything ever. He pushes Fordola to do things, he pushes Yotsuyu to do things, he has Aulus do things. Be he himself never really does things.

But, he's a Prince of Garlemald, GVoid.

Nice nice nice....what the fuck does that even mean. Emperor of Garlemald has meaning to me. I've seen how everyone regards Solus in the world as an overarcing threat and then to have a story stringer, Solus passes away off screen before ever meeting him and Varis is ascended to the level of Emperor of Garlemald. Which, at that point the story, we could consider him to be the Penultimate Goal. Garlemald is anchored, riveted and nailed to the narrative. So we understand he's the head of all of it.

Zenos. Is only beginning to be brought up as even a concept maaaybe in 3.4 - 3.5

We don't have a proper concept of what it means to be a Prince of Garlemald and honestly, with all the other nobles we just got done back handing across Coerthas. The entire concept of aristocrats of a snow covered country far away has kind of lost all meaning. And Prince doesn't really invoke the sound of being powerful. We just got done punching out a General of the Garlean Empire and an Archbishop of Elf France. Prince kind of feels like a down grade termonology wise. But that could just be a me thing.

In any case, like Yda being changed to Lyse. Zenos coming out of left field, so late in the narrative and one shoting pretty much everyone before getting bored and leaving. Is just...it doesn't really feel like someone upped the steaks so much as put a road block in the middle of a free way. We fight him again in Yanxia and are good until he pulls out A DIFFERENT SWORD!? Mom get the camera this is some Super Saiyan level power we're dealing with.

And then he gets bored before we break off a piece of his armor. Which gets him excited for us to level up to 70. And walks off, abuses Yotsuyu in an uncomfortable scene and fucks off to Ala Mhigo.

And when we get back to Ala Mhigo, we find out Fordola captured Krile. So I guess that gives us even more of reason to race across Ala Mhigo and not wait for Doma to get its forced together but like. That also just kind of defeats the purpose of the entire reason we went to Doma. Which...reminder that they only really show up to provide aerial support at the very end of the fight.

What the hell does Zenos do during his time between our fight at Yanxia and the Ala Mhigan Castle? Sits around and kills an officer, gives Fordola a copy of Gaius's gunblade, puts her under scientific experimentation to introduce the Resonant and then promptly throw away the concept thereafter, has her shoot a Castrum. And then sits around and does pretty much nothing until we kick open the door.

And then after we push him back with the help of three other people, what do we do? We stand around, let him monologue about things for a few minutes. Let Luke chew the fucking scenery and then watch as what the narrative considers to be the strongest guy in the narrative. POSSESS AND TURN INTO THE ONE THING WE ARE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO BE ABLE TO KILL.

And then he slits his own throat after we drop him from a really high platform.

After this he haunts the narrative, Elidibus runs off with his corpse. He steals at least two identities and then gets his body back. Kills Varis to become the Penultimate Boss. Even though...they didn't do shit with Varis either for the most part. Outside of being catty with him in Ok' Zundu in Heavenward and hosting an episode of Maury with him at the end of Stormblood.

But this is about Zenos. Alright Zenos is then built up with a bunch of questions. He is "Ascian in all but name" by Estinein and Gaius. Fine, so he's a Resonate, Half-Primal, Ascian, Emperor of Garlemald. Who also has memories of the Final Days which Fandaniel will hint at and then never bring up ever again but we're talking about Zenos not Fandaniel. So Zenos now is built up as the Penultimate Boss to stand in the way of Endwalker. How will they utilize him? Well, he sits around on an airship, before sitting around on a throne, before checking out some weapons, before killing some Eorzean spies in the capital and staring at the moon. Then he sits around the Tower of Babil, gets catty with Fandaniel as we approach Garlemald, goes on a date with us, gets inside us, simply walks into Mordor, goes back to the Tower of Babil. Stands around and looks pretty as he goes to the moon, breaks a seal, gets slightly sad that Fandaniel got to possess Zodiark and he didn't. Walks out of the narrative, punches a few monsters when the Final Days hits Garlemald, gets called a whiny little bitch by Alisaie, walks around and monologues for a few seconds, convinces Krile to let him eat out the Mothercrystal and then flies to help us defeat the final boss of the arc so we can fight him. He then monologues for bit turns out to be a Resonatate, Half-Primal, Ascian, Ex-Emperor of Garlemald now with a Voidsent. And then proceeds to use....a super slow down version of the Shinryu fight with maybe one or two added mechanics and then he's gone.

So, to recap. The man is said to be the strongest person in the universe outside us. And then is constantly made to sit around to do nothing. Cause Prince of Garlemald just doesn't have as strong a narrative punch when we've already met the Emperor who is also a whiny little bitch. Who we never even fight proper except in Cid's mem--ohkay sorry this is about Zenos not Varis. He is brought BACK, made the poster boy for Endwalker and then made to sit around and do nothing again for two more expansions. Only to be stapled on at the end of it all in a fight that might as well be labeled, "Well we gotta tie up this loose end somewhere and we're out of narrative." and then he looks in the camera says, "Thanks for playing, Final Fantasy XIV. Stay tuned for the next arc. Hope you had fun, please look forward to it." and dies.

Then in 7.1 - 7.2 no one will shut the fuck up about him and now, he is just haunting the narrative even though he is now dead.

A lot of people are telling me he's this deep character with complex themes. But like, I am running into the door is literally just red scenario with him. Emet-Selch? I can go on and on about that man dripping with character narrative. Gaius, Lahabrea, Elidibus. Every single one, even Thordan. But Zenos? I don't think they ever knew what to do with the guy. In fact, the only glimpse we see of him is in a SIDE STORY THAT ISNT EVEN IN THE GAME! AND EXTRA TID BIT BURIED IN THE STORMBLOOD STORIES THAT SHOULD OF BEEN INCLUDED IN THE FUCKING GAME.

But no. Like Hydrus being killed off screen and never showing up again. Here's Zenos. All the interesting bits of him is off over there. Go digging. You'll find it.

I am just not picking up what others are putting down.

So here's Zenos yae/viator Galvus. He would of been the biggest waste of potential ever if Island Sanctuaries didn't fucking exist.

[desperatelyseekingcannibals]

The Most Disturbing Moments From 'Hannibal' That Will Make You Lose Your Lunch

Via Ranker - 27 February 2025

For three gloriously gruesome years, Hannibal redefined what you could get away with on network TV, diving headfirst into the shadowy depths of the human mind. With Bryan Fuller at the helm, this show didn't just flirt with boundaries—it blew right past them, weaving a twisted tale of blood and betrayal that left viewers both repulsed and riveted, creating some of the most disgusting and disturbing moments ever put on television. From its inception as a prequel to Thomas Harris's novels, Hannibal took fans on an unsettling ride through the minds of the infamous cannibalistic psychiatrist Dr. Hannibal Lecter and his complicated dance partner, FBI profiler Will Graham. The show wasn't just about shock value; it was a masterclass in psychological tension and storytelling. Fuller turned gruesome deaths into disturbingly beautiful art pieces that made us question our own fascination with the macabre. The series’ shocking moments weren't just for cheap thrills—they were intricately woven into a narrative that blurred the lines between horror and beauty. It’s no wonder Hannibal remains unforgettable to those who dared watch. Here are some of the most disturbing scenes that showcase why this show still has us peeking through our fingers yet unable to look away.

Keep Reading...

[fine-nephrit]

🥏 TXF Fic Rec #50: "Dr. Scully's School for Exceptional Boys" by Prufrock’s Love

Today’s rec is an AU set a decade after S9, tackling the emotional fallout of Scully giving up William for adoption.

Since it’s PFL, you know what you’re in for: mega-angst and pain (more, please), an appealing Mulder characterization and POV (dad!Mulder front and center), twisted, dark, messy dysfunction, and that intense, unyielding love we’re all here for, all wrapped up in a narrative so riveting that you won’t be able to put down.

I have mixed feelings about this story, but it features THE reunion scene of all time, breath-stopping, crazy hot, and hitting every note perfectly. That’s the fabulous PFL at her finest.

---

🥏 on AO3 🥏 on xffics

length: novel, 71,000+ words season: season 9 pairing(s): M/S UST to RST, Mulder/Other, Scully/Other tags: AU, action adventure, colonization, angst, Mytharc, jealousy, rift, separated/reunited, baby fic, theGunmen, Mulder-POV rating: mature/R

Tagging @today-in-fic

[king-crawler]

Recently when I tried to figure out why Turbo went, well Turbo I realized something. At first I came to the conclusion that it was because of his code, but then I remembered the plot of the movie and completely scrapped it (though there might still be some merit with it). Then i thought that “hey, this fucker has been surrounded by picters of himself since he was plugged in, hes the star of the show, so of course he would get a huge ego out of it, said ego also being his subsequent down fall, but why diden't Felix also fall in the same trap? he was the hero of his game too”. And I think it's because he wasn't alone. Now I'm not gonna overshadow the twins. They're there too but considering how Turbo treated them in the little screen time we got to see them together I doubt that they were on good terms, they might have been in the games early days but I digress.

Felix, unlike Turbo, had friends within his game, a small community to look out for him just as he does for them. They made him pies, dedicated parties to him, cherished him, but Turbo?. Who was gonna bake him pies? Who was gonna throw parties for him? Who was gonna cherish him? The Twins? FUCK no. And i think that's what tipped him over the edge, his ego made him push oway his friends and coworkers just to get a sliver of stardom. And when he had all the attention ripped oway from him by another racing game had to have been his last straw (you saw the face he pulled in the flashback. God, just imagine seeing one of your neighbors destroy their own career live, in broad daylight too, must have been horrifying). I love a good character that just dooms themselves to the narrative with their own actions (Turbo was a whore for the limelight).

Going a bit of topic here but “going Turbo” wouldn't work if it was any other main character in the movie, “going Ralph” just doesn't work. Could be because “Turbo” isn't really a name, it's a word, the name of his game, “Turbo Time”. So my proposal is that whenever there is an au where say, Calhoun game jumps (for whatever reason) they call it solo mission. “You're not going on a solo mission are you?” sounds more riveting, to me, and in character for Calhoun. Perhaps that was the last thing she said to her men before she left. For Vanellope id imagen something like “going on a sugar rush” and something about crashing. Because when the sugar rush ends you typically crash.

And that gave me another thought, how many “Turbos” are there out there? How many characters went outside their game or against their script on working hours. How many of these incidents were considered bugs or glitches (how many were turned into creepypastas). It feels like a huge liability risk and the only instances of us hearing about it is with Turbo, which I find strange. Is it like a silent rule? That no one is allowed to leave their game and that's it? That's a super thin line, like yeah you can argue that its there to keep them alive but who told them that? And the second movie doesn't help that, it's just, eurghhh, i don't like the second movieeeee… But it does give the homeless game characters a chance to find a potential new home. There's so much out there in the wilde wilde internet to explore and find new potential in, to not be tied to the arcade has to be a bit liberating for some :)

Sorry for the sudden rant, I just got a kick and could not not write this down.

DONT BE SORRY !! GO OFF!!!! THESE ARE REALLY COOL DISCUSSION POINTS

The whole turbo vs Felix thing really stuck out to me. Turbo Living in a game with only 2 other people who hate him ? While Felix gets praise and attention from dozens? No wonder Turbo went haywire 👀 like do you think he envied Felix ………

[altcomix]

Cat-Eyed Boy vol. 1, by Kazuo Umezz

Let me preface this by saying, I’m not a Junji Ito fan. I was promised he was sick and twisted, and I’ve read four books, and I found them goofy more than anything. So I’m not a horror guy in general. That said, the guy that Ito puts on a pedestal (I’ve read) is Umezz.

I dig Umezz’s work a lot. I’ve read most of the Drifting Classroom (a modern day elementary school is sent to the post-apocalypse!), the first book of My Name is Shingo (a sentient robot!) and all of Orochi. Orochi was an anthology book about a woman who travels town to town witnessing suspense and horror stories, not unlike 50s EC books with the Cryptkeeper and the like, mashed with that 60s TV genre where a hero finds a new town each week. She lightly interacts with the characters in the stories.

I thought that’s what this was. For the first two stories, that’s what it is. The Cat-Eyed Boy hides in the attic watching stories from afar and commenting on them. Then in the third of the five stories, he becomes a protagonist and remains one for the next two. He is a Cat-Eyed Boy, he just has cat eyes and people hate him as a monster because of it. The stories are baffling, much like 50s and 60s American comics can be. People take logic leaps that probably would have been weird when it was written in the 60s, they state their feelings and fears to spell things out. I.e. a politician tells his friends that now that he’s been elected, he no longer has to pretend to care about the cost of living; he will soon die of course.

The book is also layered in yokai concepts. Yokai has been in tons of Japanese media, I won’t explain that here, but Wikipedia should have a good yokai explanation if you’re unfamiliar with it. Things that are incredibly abnormal are treated as obviously normal. I found the whole thing delightfully surreal. A standout was a fight with a shadow-self that you can’t run away from.

I won’t pretend this is a riveting narrative. There’s something a little disposable about the stories. But the book is so playful in how it does them, there were a lot of pages that put a smile on my face. It creates this bubble of space where everything is high drama, and karma is in effect. It’s not a must-have book, but at this point, I’m always welcoming more Umezz on my bookshelf. It’s a breath of fresh air.

[bi-hop]

my thoughts on rgu ep 3

we're baaaack! my previous posts are all now under my rgu liveblog tag

lord, here we go with the extended recaps even though it's only episode 3-

it's interesting how memory is being played with here with Utena. such a formative moment is reduced to a strange fairy tale, a piece of gossip with faceless characters. the only proof of it is vague recollections paired with a single physical piece of evidence: the ring. but said ring is also associated with other elements of the world that she is still not fully privy to... just hm

the running gag of Utena being like "you need a friend" and Chu Chu being like "?" and Anthy being like "?" amuses me but also doesn't... can't put my finger on why though so I'm just gonna note it down and circle back to it

the Utena-sama stuff is funny. like, oh, okay, it's fine when girls are admiring you from a distance because you can write it off as a joke, but a girl insisting she's engaged to you and referring to you reverently is when you're finally like "actually I desire men, I totally want to date a boy, the masculinity has nothing to do with being gay, I want a NORMAL BOY" OADJODSJODS OKAY SURE UTENA

Girl, you claim to want to date a guy and then a guy flirts with you and you're immediately like "let's keep it platonic, dude". alright-

^ NOT AT ALL IMPLYING ATTRACTION TO DUDES MEANS YOU'RE RECEPTIVE TO ALL ADVANCES. just kinda funny immediately following a scene where she's like "erm actually I'm totally straight! I am a heterosexual!!!"

"is the prince bi too. did he kiss all of the duelists orrrr..." - riveting commentary from the girlfriend. I have no stance on this, I just think he seems like a creep

communication? in MY anime? it's far less likely than you'd think. (Touga is annoying but what else is new)

the council finally clueing in to the fact that Utena is not in fact in contact with End of the World (whoever THAT is). Saionji is also hiding or something? good fucking riddance

Anyway, I think the use of a prince as the model Utena bases her appearance on and also simultaneously the vague object of her desire is compelling in a compulsory heterosexuality narrative because it's a perfect analogue to how some lesbians I know would simply invent an idealized guy to project feelings onto due to the insistence of heterosexuality as a regime that a girl MUST desire a man. the easiest man to desire is the one you only vaguely remember from your childhood and have no real chance of meeting-

can everyone just leave Anthy alone????

Nanami looks nice, but I've watched too many shows with blonde mean girls to trust that she really has Anthy's best interests at heart...

circling back to the girls and how they treat Anthy (which includes Wakaba of course because Wakaba is meant to be a window into what the other girls are thinking IMO), there's this continual theme of everyone viewing Anthy as like... this seductress almost who is ruining the lives of boys like Saionji over nothing. She's 'shameless', she's a 'creep', whole time she's being abused and treated as an object. the relatable brown woman of color experience, I fear

Touga: I don't care about Utena. I care about a feminized fantasy of her I have in my head, even though my attraction to her started with how she regularly dresses. This is because I can fix her aesthetic-

Anthy and her social anxiety... man... just let her sit in the dorm and play cards with Chu Chu

and sure enough, Nanami sabotages her out of misdirected jealousy. girl, you need to be freed of the idea that girls are competition for your brother's affection. also, you need to kill your brother. you will do this for me and become a feminist-

I'm not surprised that the retaliation against Anthy is called a prank that maaaybe went too far. I'm especially not surprised this commentary is directed towards a moment of sexual violence. ty to Utena for intervening

gay people be dancing on loop... that is all

fun episode! much to chew on! on to the next

[nalyra-dreaming]

Some… disconnected thoughts on Mayfair Witches 2x01:

(Disclaimer: It‘s been ages since I read the books on the Mayfair Witches and they were not my favorites. So this is an almost unbased-on-canon reaction list (totally apart from the fact that the show only keeps… loosely to them).)

____

I know I know canon but who calls their child Lasher instead of sweety or honey, at least in the beginning.

Rowan is taking it all surprisingly well in stride. The plea for politeness made me cackle.

Mona Moira seems intersting.

Torn out diary pages!! More than insinuations re Julien!

I would love for Alexandra to get some voice training. No (real) shade but… some modulation?! And maybe… blink or do something else with the eyes 😬

I would totally nab that old grammophone.

Ciprien! Still a favorite.

Okay, I for one have no idea what Lasher ate there. Glad they don’t mention it 🙄

That weird scanning light indicating Rowan‘s healing powers… I mean… almost cute but a bit IDK. It feels kinda cheesy. Not… magical, if that makes sense.

Rowan trying out her healing powers on the kid is… nicely done, and also the effort it takes, but… the shaking off happens a bit fast.

The “elders“ know everything. Please, please, PLEASE keep the canon elders. It would eventually, ultimately add so much depth and cohesion between the shows. Please.

Jojo is still a highlight.

So Rowan does not see this Lasher as THE Lasher…

The … rejection is very abrupt. And there‘s a discussion missing afterwards. You know as per the why and such. Like… she should have challenged him there. Especially since he insinuated and she then goes and asks the questions to a statue (okay kinda). Still. Weird scripting choices.

What are those visual effects at the club.

You want me to believe that the girl hemmoraged to death with that little blood there. (I am critizising that they didn‘t dare to show it here).

Maybe Rowan finds Claudia‘s body dump site by chance.

All grown up! And fixated on fucking Mayfair women (to death) if they smell good?!

The costumes have improved, thanks to Carol iirc.

______

All in all… fairly intersting but not riveting and with quite a few weak points in dialogue/script and narrative once more. The effects take some getting used to.

Ciprien and the Talamasca as well as Moira interest me the most.

[trashogram]

Only thing I can agree with that tweet, is wanting to see more Verosika and Blitz with their dynamic and how it all played out. AT didn't do anything, when it should have...we got what....1 minute with the two talking and EVEN THEN it STILL ended up being about Stolas.

That really pissed me off, so I'm hoping we get more Verosika and Blitz if we do get a S3. I'm saying if, because things could happen, no one knows the future.

But that also said....Verosika would be a far better partner for Blitz, I touched upon this in my Narrative blog series, but it's quite surprising that within 3 episodes of S1(2 of which weren't even a focus on them), I have more interest in their relationship than I do the main 'relationship' (using air quotes very loosely here).

This show made a past relationship FAR more interesting....because they built on it and it felt way more natural from a story angle. I know it won't happen, but I'd rather much see them reconcile and get back together than what we have going on now because it makes sense from a narrative perspective.

Verosika also connects with Blitz and his past far more than anyone else, Fizz and Barbie aside of course. Plus Loona could get her a famous mom, who she idolizes.

Then again S2 basically just tossed S1 away with its many issues story wise, so....can treat that as an divergent AU after S1.

I would be down for a more equal break-up between Blitzø and Verosika — IF biases weren’t as obvious as they are.

I think Blitzø/Verosika may be more riveting than Stolas/Blitzo simply because Blitzø and Verosika have had actual conversations. Even if it’s resentful and full of spite, there is an actual relationship between Blitzo and Verosika. I’m being 100% serious when I say that Stolitz has no substance at all beyond what its fans and Viv make up in their heads.

[mylifeincinema]

My Week(s) in Reviews: November 17, 2024

Conclave (Edward Berger, 2024)

A phenomenal cast and Berger's direction make this a quietly riveting, wholly unpredictable religious experience. Fiennes and Tucci are the obvious highlights, but there's really no weak spot in this cast. Then there's Berger's stunning blocking, which beautifully enriches the screenplay, editing and performances to create scene after scene of overwhelmingly affecting religious politics. I haven't read the book from which this was adapted, but with how effectively the narrative unfolds, here, I'd be surprised if this doesn't wind up being the front-runner for adapted screenplay. - 9/10

Here (Robert Zemeckis, 2024)

A mess. A sloppy, over-acted, awkwardly structured, emotionally diluted, miscalculated mess. Most of the cast is damn-near abysmal, hamming it up like this was some sort of small town theater production. Zemeckis' vision is interesting for about the first 20-minutes, or so, but then it just repeatedly gets in its own way, bleeding every ounce of emotional resonance from the film until the very final moments, which only hit because of the cast's saving grace, Robin Wright. - 3.5/10

Heretic (Scott Beck & Bryan Woods, 2024)

An academic horror film; a lesson in theology and power dynamics that succeeds because of a wonderful performance by Hugh Grant and the patience of Beck & Woods' direction and screenplay. - 8.5/10

Trap (M. Night Shyamalan, 2024)

I've worked in live music for 16 years, so the whole first half at the concert really stretched my ability to suspend disbelief. Shyamalan clearly did zero research into any of the logistics and mechanics of a concert such as the one featured here, especially in terms of security. And the result is torture. But Hartnett is having some seriously cartoonish fun, here, and that helps things a bit. Not much, but a bit. I don't necessarily dislike Shyamalan, but this one's a tonal, structural misfire whose tension is awkward and narrative is so frustratingly convenient. - 2.5/10

Enjoy!

-Timothy Patrick Boyer.