#shame she only had a bit role in the movie itself

[theoutofworld-blog]

Together, they fight crime

[grigori77]

Reasons to LOVE Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves

It's brand new in cinemas, so there are still plenty who ain't seen it, so if you're among 'em best skip this and just GO SEE IT, it's SO well worth it, genuinely it's one of the best new movies I've seen so far this year. Hope you love it as much as I did!

So, yeah, there you go - SPOILER WARNING, FOLKS!!! If you don't wanna get spoiled, RUN!!!

Still here? Okay, here we go then ...

This really is, UNAPOLOGETICALLY, a comedy. I mean yeah, this is a classic fantasy action adventure in the Willow, Krull or Ladyhawke mold, but it is also very enthusiastically POKING FUN at the classic conventions of the genre ... albeit CLEARLY done with great affection and love for the material, as only the best lampoons can be. So this is more The Princess Bride or Galaxy Quest than Your Highness or Spaceballs ...

Chris Pine is ALWAYS at his best when he's being FUNNY, so he is PERFECT here. Edgin is most definitely a bit of a douchebag, but he's the sweetest, most lovable douchebag you'll ever encounter.

Holga. Literally just EVERYTHING about Holga. She's my favourite character in this, this REALLY IS the best role that Michelle Rodriguez has EVER HAD, if you ask me. She's a total badass, a truly AMAZING FIGHTER, but I love that despite her dour demeanour she's actually quite sweet, gentle and really a great innocent in many ways. She's an absolute cinammon roll and must be protected at all costs.

OH MY GODS!!! All the easter eggs, SO MANY easter eggs ... FAR too many to count throughout, all the references and nods and winks to the game itself, all the spells and races and creatures and stuff ... but I love how the movie NEVER beats you over the head pointing any of it out, it just lets you enjoy it. So the proper fans will get a huge kick out of spotting it all, but casual viewers will just enjoy it as rich worldbuilding colour and flavour.

Seriously though, it's a D&D fan's DREAM!!! Not just the mimic, or the owlbear, or the gelatinous cube! SO MUCH to spot ...

Justice Smith's Simon gets THE CLEVEREST and best introduction in the film, I love the theatre scene, he's SO BAD at this while also simulataneously being really great. Totally sums up this gloriously clunky hot mess of a sorcerer ...

the opening is GENIUS, totally sets the movie up as it means to go on - the parole hearing is a brilliant comedic take on the scene-setting infodump which is brilliantly carried through in the way the movie delivers exposition in a fun way or just lets you absorb it through what's happening in each scene. This is the perfect, TEXTBOOK way to do it.

"That is one pudgy dragon!" LOL

Doric. Just EVERYTHING about Doric. Sophia Lillis' tiefling druid is a wonderful diminutive little action hero, so fiesty and capable. I love her. It's just a shame she's not primary coloured, I'd have loved it even more if she'd been blue, or red ...

The Wildshape Escape! XD Yeah, I love that, that's THE BEST set-piece in the whole movie, definitely, when Doric gets cught out spying and has to shapeshift on the fly to get away, and it all plays out in one immersive single shot that just leaves your heart in your mouth ...

Oh, the Speak With The Dead montage, that is comedy GOLD. Funniest scene in the whole movie. And with added payoff at the end! XD

Rege-Jean Page's Xenk Yendar. Oh boy, that paladin is something else. I love how LITERAL he is, he's like Drax in GOTG but much more intelligent. Y'know when Holga says: "You're not a lot of fun, are you?" to him? She's so wrong. I just wish there was more of him in this ...

The heist! Oh, the heist! So good ... the portal trick, it's great, love the way they did that, and then that HILARIOUS bard illusion distraction - Pine skipping the song like a broken record was just chef's kiss!

That wonderful wibbly-wobbly illusory reality thing whenever Simon tries to atune to the Helm ... wow, that is some spectacularly trippy shit. Granted, twice is fine for terms of pacing, but I could've done with a few more scenes of that, it's fascinating.

Hugh Grant really has just become a MASTER at playing smarmy, slimy duplicitous gits now, hasn't he? Forge is a reprehensible prick and I love it.

I love how they made Bradley Cooper a halfling for his cameo. They're never gonna let him live down the fact that he's now probably best known for playing a two-foot-tall talking racoon so forever after he will be a Short King.

Wow, Daisy Head's Sofina is a CRACKING villain, she's just SO CREEPY!!! I love how coolly menacing she is, a brilliant dark necromantic wizard that just makes your skin crawl. Especially at the end ... IS SHE a lich? Is that what they were doing there?

That whole big action climax, the showdown in the city centre is FIRE!!! It's so amazing, so brilliantly dynamic, with EVEN MORE great easter eggs! Simon and Sofina having an insanely awesome "arm wrestling" bout with Mage Hand versus Earthen Grasp (I think that's the spell, couldn't be sure), oh my gods! So cool ... and then the way they neutralised the threat! Brilliant.

Chloe Coleman's Kira is an absolutely adorable delight, and I think she's ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED in how pissed she is at Edgin for abandoning her. It makes the payoff when they finally make up so much better.

And that resurrection scene at the end? Yeah, sure, I saw that coming a mile off, but it was so well done, and they played it so well, that it was still SUCH a powerful scene even so. Just perfect.

Seriously, they just did this whole thing SO PERFECTLY. It's visually STUNNING, really it just looks AMAZING, and the action sequences are BRILLIANT but always feel entirely necessary for the story, which is how you want to do it. Best of all, though, is THE PACING!!! This is such a quick, breezy film, it just barrels along at a spectacular clip, so it never drags. Mark Kermode is right, even though this is two and a quarter hours long it doesn't FEEL LIKE IT, it feels like a super-trim 90-minute movie.

And it ties everything off nice and neat, too. Sure, there are definitely possibilities for the future, going forward if they make more, but if the movie DOES tank then it's fine, because this really does do a great job about feeling self-contained and telling its own complete story, so if we DON'T get more it won't be too big a disappointment ...

[kathleenkatmary]

Screwball September: Ratings, Reviews, and Rankings

I wanted to watch so much more this year than I did. I was really hoping to fit in at least a few more that I've never seen or hadn't seen in awhile. But that just didn't happen.

View the list on letterboxd

01. My Man Godfrey (Gregory LaCava, 1936) - 5/5

In my opinion, the greatest screwball comedy of all time, and with Carole Lombard's greatest performance. She remains perhaps the greatest comedic actress of all time, and all of the reasons why are perfectly apparent in My Man Godfrey. Her timing was impeccable, she wasn't afraid to look silly or ridiculous, and she had an innate understanding of when to go big and when to keep things a bit more subtle.

She and William Powell were also such a great pairing. They actually made a few films together, and we briefly married in the early 1930s. It's a bummer the movies they made together during the pre-code era aren't better known, but it's an even bigger bummer that this was the only screwball comedy they made together. Both are absolute legends when it comes to screwball comedy, so it really is just such a shame that they didn't make more together. Powell's more lowkey demeanor was such a perfect fit for the archetypical screwball leading lady that was Carole Lombard. That contrast lends itself to fantastic comedy.

The rest of the cast is amazing, too. I love Alice Brady as the flighty mother type, and she's probably at her best here. It's also one of the best Gail Patrick performances. She's such an awful person, and she really captures that sort of high class, unrepentant shittiness. Eugene Pallette played a lot of befuddled, frustrated father types, and this is one of the best roles of that type. He gets to be a sort of straight man played against his family, but since Powell is the movie's real straight man, he still has plenty of screwball moments to shine. Jean Dixon is pitch perfect as the seen-it-all maid, hitting a note that fits perfectly between the batty insanity of the Bullock family and Godfrey's more reserved world weariness. And of course there's Mischa Auer as Mrs. Bullock's 'protege', a ridiculous man who's made all the more hilarious by the way that Auer plays it kind of straight.

The script is perfect. It's just so packed full of jokes that you really need to watch it more than once to catch them all. And the characters really are so well written. I know some people struggle a bit with a lot of screwball comedies (and I admit, I do to), because for all the commentary on the wealth gap and how completely out of touch the rich are, the almost always end with the rich people finding better meaning for their lives, or understanding the plight of the poor, or the important of their family, whatever, without any suggestion ever being made that they maybe shouldn't have all that wealth when so many people were starving, and the poor main character usually ends up achieving wealth. That issue is still present in My Man Godfrey, but the writing for all of the characters does a really good job at making the ones that are meant to be likeable likeable, and giving the ones that really deserve it a very real comeuppance that humbles them. So I think it at least makes the ending feel consistent with the character writing at the very least. And it's an issue I never want to specifically hold against any individual movie, as it's a genre-wide problem, unless the writing really falls down at justifying it in any way.

02. The Lady Eve (Preston Sturges, 1941) - 5/5

Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda are one of the most underrated screwball pairings, and really just screen pairings, ever. It's a shame they only made three films together (and that one of them is the pretty lackluster You Belong to Me). Both The Lady Eve and The Mad Miss Manton are screwball classics, and so much of what makes both movies work is the insane chemistry between Stanwyck and Fonda, as well as how good they both are at screwball comedy.

The Lady Eve has one of the sexiest film scenes to be made during this era, when the Production Code was probably being the most strictly enforced. The scene with Stanwyck and Fonda in her room, when she's on the bed and he's on the floor next to her and she's just kind of got her arms wrapped around his neck. Compared to what we get today this set up probably seems wildly tame, but Preston Sturges, along with Fonda and particularly Stanwyck, create such an amazing atmosphere for the scene. So much of that does come from the chemistry between the actors, but Stanwyck's performance in this scene is essential to just how sexy it manages to be. Add to that the way Sturges lit and framed the scenes, and it all comes across as being so intimate and sensual. But thanks to Fonda's performance, it's still perfectly screwball.

While The Lady Eve does dig into topics with some depth to them, particularly ideas of perception and how our pre-conceived notions of what's 'good' or 'respectable' can lead us to treat people in ways they don't deserve, the way it does that is so much fun. Stanwyck just feels like she was having such a good time. She and Fonda make such a good pair in this movie because they each bring something to the comedy. Stanwyck brings her incredible line delivery, her ability to make the character very much the cunning criminal she is while also having an unmistakable classiness to her, even when she's not posing as a member of the British aristocracy. Really, it's the fact that you can feel that class coming from her even in the beginning that makes her imitation of a British lady being so convincing so, well, convincing. The whip smart, clever wit of the screwball comedy comes from her, while Fonda brings a really impressive skill for physical comedy. And it's not just the bigger bits of physical comedy, like the pratfalls. It's his entire physicality. So much of Fonda's performance here IS physical. You can feel every bit of his nervousness, his anxiety, in the way he holds his body. It adds so much to the comedy of the movie.

It really is interesting to look at the things they each bring to this movie as a pairing, because when you look at their other stellar screwball comedy The Mad Miss Manton, their dynamic is extremely different and they bring very different things to those roles than they do here. It just makes it even more of a bummer that they made so few films together because clearly their chemistry was ridiculously versatile and adaptable.

This is simply one of the best romantic comedies and screwball comedies of all time. If you haven't see in it, you must.

03. Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Alfred Hitchcock, 1941) - 5/5

Hitchcock's only straight-up comedy is vastly, painfully underrated. The whole thing feels like an exploration on subverting the Production Code. The Code prohibited all kinds of things from the America screen. Anything that might have been too sexual was an automatic no go. Subjects like adultery and premarital or extramarital sex were off the table for years. A lot of writers and filmmakers started to get creative in trying to find ways to slip prohibited topics past the censors, and I think Mr. and Mrs. Smith is one of the funniest and most elegant attempts of subverting the code.

Basically, Carole Lombard and Robert Montgomery are married. But kind of not really because they find out that thanks to some bureaucratic, clerical messiness involving the place where they were married, their marriage isn't valid. Though only sort of because it's really just a clerical thing. But when Lombard finds out and learns that her husband has already been informed, she's expecting the excitement of their younger years and something like a romantic re-proposal. Montgomery, on the other hand, who doesn't know that his wife has been informed, is hoping to recapture some of the excitement of his unmarried years by taking Lombard to bed without remarrying her. She takes exception, leaves him, starts up a thing with his best friend, while he wallows in misery, has bad dating experiences, and tries to win his wife back.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith is quite audacious in the way it approaches its subversions of the Code. It definitely seems to take an Air Bud approach to the whole thing, getting around certain rules and restrictions based on the idea that if there isn't a rule specifically saying they can't do it, it's fair game. The script is very blatant in the way it not only has Montgomery and Lombard locked together in their bedroom in the morning, but also shows them in bed together. And Hitchcock's shooting of the scene takes great care to show the physical connection between them as they lay in bed together in each other's arms. That physical aspect of their relationship is shown again in the next scene, as Lombard slides her feet up the bottom of Montgomery's pant legs, until he says something to upset her.

That physicality is extremely important. That physical/sexual aspect of the relationship has to be clear, because that physical closeness has to be in your mind when you find out that they're kind of not really married. Following up the scenes that demonstrate that aspect of their relationship with the scenes where they find out they're not married highlights the first subversion of the code: This is essentially a story about a couple that had been engaging in premarital sex for years. This is only underlined by the fact that Montgomery is so excited by the idea of having sex with her before fixing the error and that Lombard is so horrified.

But they have to still mostly technically be married in order for this to get a pass from the Code office. So then they use that fact, too, to further subvert the code. After Montgomery's attempt, Lombard leave him, and quickly takes up with his best friend and partner. Which means, since their marriage issue is really just a technicality, we've got one of the main characters of the movie committing adultery.

And those really are just the most prevalent ways in which the movie lays with the Code in order to subvert it.

The movie, both in the ways it subverts the code and more specific aspects of it, really is about exploring gender roles, the way those roles might lead to certain behaviors being assigned within a marriage, the way certain attitudes that might be common with on gender or the other can impact a marriage, and how those kinds of things can impact the way a man and a woman might see each other. But rather than adhere to those more traditional ideas about what a husband is and what a wife is, both the husband and the wife turn out to be pretty awful people, and perfect for each other in that awfulness. This isn't an uncommon ending in remarriage comedies, but I think Mr. and Mrs. Smith is easily one of the best at really highlighting and even reveling in that awfulness, and really developing it in an interesting way.

This movie gets dismissed as a Hitchcock piece because the general idea seems to be that there's not much Hitchcock in it, that it's 100% about the script and that there's none of Hitch's touch, that his voice was not an important part of making the movie what it is. I don't think that's true. Sure, Hitchcock is mostly associated with suspense, but his films were more than that. There were some major themes that Hitch explores in most of his movies. Relationships between men and woman, the ways in which they're compatible and the many, many ways in which they're incompatible, as well as all the reasons they're drawn together. That is Mr. and Mrs. Smith all over.

When it's needed, their relationship, particularly their physical connection, is filmed with a similar softness and sensuality as some of his other films from this era. He might not be building suspense, but this movie is a series of situations where things like tension and awkwardness are made to build, and build, and build. And just as Hitch is a master at building suspense, he's able to build the tension and the awkwardness, sometimes to almost unbearable levels.

Lombard and Montgomery deserve so much praise. Montgomery is so funny. He just slides into the role so well, becoming more and more funny the more his character unravels. Lombard is, of course, masterful. She's one of the funniest women that's ever lived, and she's able to make her character likeable even as she's behaving in endlessly frustrating ways. They have great chemistry, and are and excellent comic pair, bouncing off of each other so well. Sadly, they'd never get a chance to make another movie together as Lombard died the next year.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith is one of Hitchcock's masterworks, and it deserves to be far better loved than it is.

04. The Mad Miss Manton (Leigh Jason, 1938) - 5/5

I love this movie so much. It might be my favorite screwball mystery. These screwball mysteries almost always have a love story happening along side the mystery, but how well that love story is developed and integrated into the story can vary wildly. I think The Mad Miss Manton manages the perfect formula for that.

A big part of that does come from the fact that Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda re the leads. They're one of the best screen pairings of all time who, sadly, did not make as many movies as they should have together. They had crazy chemistry, and it was pretty adaptable. Their best remembered pairing is probably The Lady Eve, and they are AMAZING there. But I think the fact that their characters - and their relationship - in The Mad Miss Manton are so different from those in The Lady Eve really does show how incredibly and malleable their chemistry was.

But it's not just Stanwyck and Fonda that make it work. The script is really good. The trajectory of the relationship makes sense, and the way their feelings are developed and revealed thanks to specific points of the plot is what makes it all work together so well.

The mystery itself is also pretty good, which is something that can sometimes be an issue with screwball mysteries. It's intriguing enough to keep the viewer's attention on it, but it's not so overwhelming that scene that veer away from the mystery break up the momentum. And the resolution makes sense and it's easy to put the pieces together to understand how and why things went down.

There's so much else I could say about The Mad Miss Manton. In addition to its leads, it has a ridiculously good ensemble, all of whom get a chance to shine. There are some romantic scenes between Fonda and Stanwyck that have such an warm and intimate atmosphere. There are so many funny jokes. This is just such a gem of a movie, and it deserves to be as loved and revered as something like The Thin Man.

05. Carefree (Mark Sandrich, 1938) - 5/5

I LOVE Carefree. It's one of my very favorite Astaire/Rogers movies, and I think one of their most underrated. It has a sort of unique feel to it - not so much that it feels wildly different to the rest of their movies, just enough that it feels a bit refreshing - because, I think, Fred doesn't play a dancer in this one. He plays a psychiatrist, and that alone really does kind of shift the dynamic between his and Ginger's characters. It makes the plot have a little more going on than a lot their movies.

In my opinion, most of Fred and Ginger's movies do have distinct /feel/ to them thanks to their simplicity, which I think is a good thing most of the time. (and this is referring to the movies where they're the leads. Stuff like Follow the Fleet and Roberta, while similar, are kind of a different matter.) Even as there are often cases of mistaken identity leading to confusion, or Fred and Ginger being sort of forced together reluctantly (at least on her part), the stories usually end up being pretty simple and streamlined, and their relationship dynamics tend to be pretty similar in these situations.

Carefree, on the other hand, actually feels more like a romantic comedy of the era. Yes, there are some great songs and dances (I think Change Partners is one of the best songs from any of their movies, and The Yam is one of their most fun dances), but the movie is a lot less dependent on the musical numbers than their other movies. There's just more to this story, where Fred is a psychiatrist who agrees to treat his friend's fiancee, who seems to be struggling with the relationship and committing, and they fall in love. It allows for more to happen with the relationships in the movie outside of Fred and Ginger (Tony and Amanda, in the film), as they both have strong emotional ties to Stephen (Ralph Bellamy) and their relationship has an impact on that, and all of this in a way that you don't really see in other Fred and Ginger movie. It also ends up making Fred and Ginger's relationship so much more complex and interesting. It all makes for something that feels quite unique among all of Fred and Ginger's movies together.

I also think it deserve praise specifically for Ginger Rogers. This is easily her best performance out of any of their movies. I think at least some of that has to do with how much she's actually given to do, and I think that's also at least somewhat another thing that sets the movie apart. Not to say that Ginger has nothing to do in the other movies, but there's a lot more to her character and story here. I do think this is true of Fred as well, but I feel like, generally speaking, the way the characters, stories, and relationships are usually written in their films Fred just has more to do and is often centered a bit more. Carefree really takes Ginger's skills as both a comedic AND dramatic actress and leans into them. I think it's probably one of her top 5 best performances.

Of course, none of this is to say that all of the other movies that do have more simple storylines aren't good movies. Carefree isn't even my #1 Fred and Ginger movie. I still rank Swing Time and Roberta ahead of it, and I'd say it's tied with Top Hat for my #3. But it is refreshing to have something so different in their collection of movies.

06. Ruggles of Red Gap (Leo McCarey, 1935) - 5/5

One of Charles Laughton's best performances, if not his very best. He plays everything so understated, which ends up working brilliantly both comedically and emotionally. The cast around him helps to bolster his performance with their wonderfully over the top and boisterous performances. Taken all together they provide such a perfect balance to Laughton's more subdued presence, and that makes for great comedy on both sides.

Ultimately, Ruggles of Red Gap is about a changing world and how a person can find their place among those changes. This movie came out smack dab in the middle of the Great Depression, and even though it takes place around the turn of the 20th century, the influence of the Depression can be felt all over it. Ruggles moving from the world of the upper class in Europe to the American West mirrors, in a way, the way the economic crash had upended so many people's place in the social structure. Ruggles is the product of a world of tradition. His family had been in service to the family of his original master (played by Roland Young, who himself gives a really lovely performance that's kind of muted and even naturalistic in a way that's quite effective) and his devotion is born of that tradition and expectation. It's not until he travels to the new world with a new master whose behavior and manners are completely foreign to him that he starts to learn who he might actually be when allowed and even encouraged to follow his own path rather than serving someone else's. And like so many screwball comedies of the era, it's also a pretty scathing takedown of the pretentious arrogance that can come with wealth. Ruggles of Red Gap really is a movie made for Depression times, examining the freedom that could exist in breaking free from the traditional social structure and the idea that wealth is not by any means the thing that determines a person's value.

It's also funny as hell, so it's pretty much just firing on all cylinders.

07. Four's a Crowd (Michael Curtiz, 1938) - 5/5

I am so deeply fond of Four's a Crowd. So often with classic romantic comedies, even screwballs, the story would present a love triangle, or sometimes love square, but there would never be any question of who was going to end up with whom. Even if it's not blatantly clear from the writing, the fact that there are two megastars as the leads, with the other sides of the triangle or square played by much lesser known stars usually serves as a good enough hint of how things are going to play out.

That is not the case with Four's a Crowd. Right down to the very ending where we get a double wedding, it really does feel like a toss up when it comes to who's going to marry who. And while a good chunk of that is because Rosalind Russell, Olivia DeHavilland, and Errol Flynn were at roughly similar levels of fame, the biggest reasons it really works is (1) the script does such a good job of making the connections between the characters and the reasons they might be attracted to each other or see each other as viable options solid and easy to grasp, (2) there amazing chemistry going on between literally every possible pairing of these four people, and (3) the whole story and so much of what happens is just chaotic and frantic in the best way. It really does make it so that any combination of the characters feels viable in the end.

I really do think this is one of the most flat out fun screwball romances. It never once takes itself too seriously, the stakes established are relatively low, so the chaotic nature of the story and pacing feels fun and silly rather than stressful and nail-biting.

08. Wise Girl (Leigh Jason, 1937) - 5/5

Wise Girl is a seriously underrated screwball romance. Miriam Hopkins actually made a number of screwball comedies, but unfortunately she isn't really remembered much for them. And that's a shame, because she was ridiculously good in comedies. She could pull off a sort of natural sophisticated high society type, and then make that type perfect for screwball comedy by making her just a /bit/ ridiculous. I think that's best on display in Wise Girl.

I remember being surprised the first time I watched this by how good she and Ray Milland are together. I knew that Milland could handle comedy from movies like The Major and the Minor, but I wasn't expecting him to have so much chemistry with Hopkins. It's a typical opposites clash and then attract screwball romance, with Hopkins as the judgmental rich girl, looking down on the community of bohemians Milland lives in, and Milland as the judgmental artist, looking down on the conspicuous wealth and out of touchness of the the wealthy class of which Hopkins is a part. They both fill those roles really well, and it makes their chemistry work beautifully.

One of the things that I think is really special about Wise Girl is how much it creates this really great world with the bohemian community Milland lives in, and that Hopkins comes to live in, undercover as a poor artist. Most of the movie takes place in the Greenwich Village community, and it's imbued with such a sense of place that it really does feel like becoming a part of that community when you watch it. The set design is really great and goes a long way toward how successful this is, but it's also the supporting characters, the inhabitants of this world, that really make sit feel real. They're all so specifically and clearly drawn, and it doesn't take long to really understand who most of them are, and what their relationships to each other are. Which goes such a long way in making this community feel like a living, breathing thing.

This is such a good, underseen movie. If you get the chance to see it, you must.

09. By Candlelight (James Whale, 1933) - 4/5

James Whale is really not remembered for comedy at all, but he actually made a few really great comedies in the 1930s, By Candlelight being one of them. It's an extremely light and frothy romantic screwball comedy starring Paul Lukas and Elissa Landi. Lukas himself isn't particularly remembered for comedy, either, and while I do think his dramatic performances are the ones from his filmography that really stand out, he's quite good here. He seemed to understand just how light and fun the material was and matched his performance to it. Landi is also a lot of fun. I think her performance probably ends up being the most comedic in the movie, and she was really willing to do things that were pretty unflattering, but very funny.

Nils Asther is, IMO, the real treat here. He'd been a pretty big leading man in the late 1920s and early 1930s, particularly in roles where the character was "exotic" or otherwise foreign, by the time the pre-code era was starting to wind down in 1933-1934 his star was already dimming. So he's in a supporting role here, but it's a great role. He's Lukas's boss, who is a prince and a womanizer, but probably also the most likeable character in the movie. There's a clear affection between Asther and Lukas's characters, and it's kind of sweet to see the lengths Asther's character will go to in order to help Lukas's out. The character is really charming, but there's obviously a big heart there, and Asther really captures that.

But what makes the movie really work so well is the chemistry between Lukas and Landi. Because of the premise, both characters could easily end up feeling unlikeable, and the relationship between them would then be a pretty hard sell. But thanks to their performances and how much chemistry there is between them, it just works.

By Candlelight is a real treat of the late-pre code era, and one of the most underappreciated screwball comedies.

10. Make a Million (Lewis D. Collins, 1935) - 2.5/5

Okay, I just have to start by saying that if the headline 'Radical Professor Named in Charges by Girl Student" was in a paper today it would almost certainly be a very different type of story.

Make a Million is actually really interesting, especially for something from the 1930s. It as pretty common for screwball comedies to take the wealthy class down a notch or two by poking fun at the ridiculousness of wealth and how out of touch it makes people, but they're usually still quite light on their politics. Make a Million is pretty different in the way that it blatantly discusses political ideas surrounding wealth that were common at the time (and that are still sadly quite relevant). Most people think about the 'Red Scare' and the behavior and ideas of McCarthyism as being pretty firmly set in the 1940s and 1950s, but paranoia surrounding communism, particularly from those in charge and in particularly privileged positions, started way further back than that. And it was pretty prevalent in the 1930s, as the Depression had led to a lot of people wondering if socialism wouldn't be a better way.

Make a Million, for all its faults (and there are plenty), does a really good job of capturing that conflict and the downright ridiculous response those in power had to socialist ideas, and how quickly people in power would jump to and push absurd conclusions to bolster their position, even if it meant spreading around shit that wasn't true. Early on in the movie we see a group of those with power talking about the main character's, a professor, ideas and the 'radical' politics he espoused during a speech that was put on by a group called the World Improvement League. One character insists that the group is quite dangerous, as if he's already heard of them, only for us to find out just a minute or two later that The World Improvement League isn't really a group, and certainly not one with any influence or that could pose any 'danger', as it's something the professor made up to boost the profile of his speech. Which makes the other character look even more ridiculous when he later arrives at the professor's house and sees the address, declares it to be the headquarters for the 'dangerous' group. It's such a succinct but completely accurate piece of satire about the way those in power will rely on half truths, or even flat out lies, and reactionary behavior to shut down dissent. It's a sign that, again, for all its flaws, Make a Million had someone quite clever at least somewhere behind the wheel.

At the very same time it's blatantly pointing out that because the professor is poor he has no recourse if those in power want to go after him for his politics. By putting himself in their crosshairs simply by talking about politics that threaten his power he put himself at risk of not being able to afford to feed himself. The movie does a really great job of setting up the wild power imbalance between the haves and the have nots. It also highlights the way those in need are often demonized by those in power, who wield the press like a weapon, as a way to distract from how much the status quo hurts the common man.

Of course, even with how well so much of its politics is handled at points, there are some issues on that end. There's a bit where a panhandler decides to fake disabilities in order to get money in a way that feels like it was probably offensive even for. Considering what a good job this movie does at demonstrating the issue of the haves vs. the have nots and how capitalism is built to keep those without wealth down, it's disappointed that the poorest characters in the movie are presented in that way. Especially because it remains a thing through the whole movie.

The humor is hit or miss, with a lot more misses than hits. While I think most of the satire is really sharp and work incredibly well, the more general "screwball" bits tends to fall pretty flat. There's the aforementioned scene where the panhandler is faking disabilities that's pretty horrible. But there's also a pair of scene that I think are pretty solidly funny where those panhandlers are learning to behave like a wealthy board of the directors, and then their attempts in action. The panhandlers trying to mimic rich people is a lot funnier than them trying to mimic disabled people. There's one moment that I laughed out loud at where they're all talking with the bank about ways to invest the money, and at one point one of the bankers asks how they feel about copper, and one of the panhandlers responds by saying "I don't want anything to do with coppers! I'd rather not take a change with them!" In general, the movie seems pretty anti-cop. It's a very funny series of set ups and punchlines that works really well. Which just makes it all the more disappointing that there's so much humor here that just does not work.

There's also absolutely nothing about the romance that works. Initially it seems like there might be a fun rivals to lovers thing, and their mutual hatred for each other did allow for a fun chemistry early on. But the female lead character is just so unlikeable. She's a wealthy little capitalist whose ideas and behavior are downright hateful. And then all of a sudden she just magically disagrees with her father and is on the professor's side now with pretty much no reason. The thing she ends up objecting to isn't anything different than things she'd said herself. It also just feels entirely shoehorned in, as romances were kind of mandatory when it came to movies from this era for the most part.

The ending is... pretty disappointing, but unsurprising. For all their criticism of the wealthy, screwball comedies usually still end with a pretty soft touch. The wealthy people might have learned to appreciate things other than money or something like that, but in the end you never really see any wealthy character deciding to redistribute their wealth, and usually the poor characters end up earning wealth. So the ultimate message still ends up being that being a part of the wealthy class is the ideal, and sadly Make a Million follows the same path. In the end, the professor finds that he can create wealth for himself by turning his charitable fund into a business, which just feels like an ending that smacks every single bit of political satire in this movie in the face. It feels like an ending that had to have been mandated by the studio because it's so out of pace with everything preceding it.

This is a tough one to rate. I think I'm going to settle on 2.5/5. When it's really digging into the satire it's one of the most sharp and clever movies from the 1930s I've seen, and one of the most unflinching in its liberal politics. But almost everything outside of that satire falls pretty flat, and the ending almost feels like a betrayal of everything that came before it. I am going to go ahead and give it a 'like' though, because its satire is so damn good.

[emocl0wnpp]

Final part of introducing my main 4: Jade!!

(Ft. Lots of old drawings bc i don't draw her that much...which is a shame cuz i luv her)

(Also teeny-tiny warning for mentions of suicide)

♤Basic info♤

Real name: unknown,not even she remembers

Current name: Jade

Date of birth: 1900/12/31

Age: y'all won't believe me when i say 124

Pronouns: she/her

Sexuality: straight(but she's the biggest ally out there-)

Gender: cis(yes she's the token straight oc-)

Nationality: French

Personality: loving,sweet,quite naive,very much motherly...tho she's a little bit of a dummy

♤Death info♤

Date of death: sometime in the late 1950s-early 1960s

Cause of death: unknown,but most people say it was suicide

♤Other infos(so backstory elements)♤

Survived both WW1 and WW2

Her mom was a nurse in both wars,she also helped in WW2 with nursing

But she was actually an actress :3

She also did ballet before she became an actress

She had a bestfriend named Charlotte

Who later on became her biggest enemy(more on this in a second)

She married an actor named Watson(not his full name,but this is all she can recall)

Who later on cheated on her with Charlotte

Jade and Charlotte constantly fought for roles in movies and for the spotlight,which only intensified since Charlotte and Watson were together behind Jade's back

When she found out about the affair,she LOST IT, she SNAPPED

She ended up killing both Charlotte and Watson out of anger,but she immediately regretted it

She somehow managed to get away with the act and lived in guilt for the last years of her life,before dying to unknown causes,again most people think it was suicide

Buut her story doesn't end here

Because many many years later,Jason(the toymaker-) dug her up and made her what she is today

She's basically a frankenstein like porcelain doll

Jason pretty much made her just so he could have a wife-

Her life is a lie,but she doesn't really mind it since it's pretty much all she knows

♤Fun facts♤

THE mom/grandma of her friendgroup

Takes care of her friends,especially Vicky

Vicky is kinda like a daughter to her

Since she's so much older than her friends,they often poke fun at her for being so old

But then she reminds them of their ages and it's no longer funny

Poor old lady had to be taught how to use literally everything around her

Jason taught her how to use a phone

Worst idea ever

Take emojis away from her. She religiously uses them,she uses them more than the phone itself

Her poor daughter,Jenna is embarassed everytime Jade is around(mostly because her friends are all googly eyes for her-)

Literally the sweetest old lady,if she's around prepared to be showered with food and attention

She's still pretty much a typical 50s housewise

Once she learned tech she took up photography and designing clothes as a hobby

And uses her friends,Jenna and her friends as her models

A few of her outfits did make it out to the big big world of fashion

She doesn't actually kill anyone,she just makes clothes from discarded skin that Jason leaves behind at times

And a playlist for her(which needs a remake-)

That's it for now :3

[invisibleicewands]

Hello! I really love your film/series reviews! Could you provide your insightful look into "A Very Royal Scandal"?

Hi, Anonymous!

Well, thank you in advance for your trust, I'm not sure I can provide an interesting opinion to be honest, but since I've managed to watch it I'll try to tell you my random thoughts.

Honestly, when last year I first read the news of a movie with MS about Prince Andrew I was very skeptical. Not only for the topic, of course, but for the fear it could be a product like Vardy v Rooney.

Now, although I’ve found the movie not so essential (especially after another similar one at the beginning of this year), I think it's one of his best movies of the last decade. Maybe worthy of an award (finally!) with a bit of luck.

I had already seen the Netflix version “Scoop” months ago and I had found it good, well made, catchy. But compared to A Very Royal Scandal, I can say that Emily Maitlis was right saying that the Amazon version is 'another beast'. Not just because Scoop was more focused on Sam McAlister's research of infos about Prince Andrew's scandal than on the interview itself, but because in the Amazon version there is a deeper analysis of the main people involved in this interview, of their thoughts, of their worries, of their mindsets. Let's say that Scoop was more a kind of glossy "Working Girl", while AVRS is a mix of Frost/Nixon in The Crown environment, a real drama.

I really liked the suspence, the storytelling, the photography, the attention to the details. The story is never boring and goes forward flawless, with rythm, wisely built, even if the subject is delicate to handle, and this is not something that is so obvious nowadays. Then, the actors. All impeccable, not just Michael and Ruth but the supporting ones too. If I have to find a fault, I would say that Netflix probably chose actors more aesthetically resembling to the original characters (Keeley Hawes was a better choice for Amanda Thirsk for example), but fortunately this time the talent of the cast managed to compensate that part. Ruth really captured the essence of Emily, her grit, her spirit, her dedication to the work, more than what Gillian had done I think. She was really great, she gave a powerful performance not just as Emily but as a woman in general, brilliantly managing the responsibility of sending a strong message to the audience in the end.

And Michael. A professional as usual, never doubted. He played the role at 360 degrees, unsparingly, using all his art, his tricks and his experience, you can see it. He handled the part masterfully, with confidence, without wavering or shame. He portrayed the character brushing him with all those shades that only him can give. And here lays the problem, for me. The shades. Because even if it was necessary to give a certain meaning to the story, I think his character, Prince Andrew, didn’t deserve or own a so profound introspection (I know, he said he didn’t want to show his judgement about him, but I’m not so merciful, sorry). From this point of view, I found Rufus’ impersonation more suitable to describe the character attitude. Cold, superficial, creepy, rude, arrogant, egomaniac, frustrated, vapid, childish, stubborn and opportunist all at the same time. Maybe it’s because of his cute nose (a prosthetic would have been useful here, more than the weight he gained, true or false it can be…) but honestly Michael gave him a sense of compassion and a frailty that Prince Andrew doesn’t seem to have. The result is that I saw more Michael Sheen than Prince Andrew in this movie. I saw parts of his previous Bill Masters/Brian Clough/Roland Blum/David Frost/Aziraphale there (also a bit of Nye, though I didn’t really watch it) mixed together. Even parts of himself in real life, like during Staged. I could imagine him saying some of those lines in his real life, living some of those reactions for real. He felt so ‘transparent’ in some moments, and this is not a good feeling when you watch an actor in a story like this (funny, because, on the contrary, he said “the more different you look, it really does help psychologically”, so this means that he felt he looked different from himself here, which is not the case to me). I suppose it’s because I’ve seen too much of him now that I’m not able to separate him from the character anymore. Don’t know.

I don’t deny it, his performance was great, brave, perfect and everything, especially considering the effort to make a movie like this while he was preparing for a 4 months long stage tour on theatre. But I can’t say it was a part that left me mouth open, like the one in Dirty Filthy Love, Fantabulosa, Frost/Nixon or MoS, for example.

Anyway, I still hope he gets some recognition (and that Amazon decides to show the series also in Europe), because it’s a crime that international audience can’t see what an amazing quality actor Michael is.

P.S.: There are some lines that looked like easter eggs, specifically chosen by MS. "Wait and see", "Nixon"... Coincidences?

[dans-den]

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves Review

Hey what’s going on everyone?! It’s Dan here and today I’ll be reviewing Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves! 

Warning!: May contain some spoilers!

I’m not gonna lie to you guys, March has been Medieval March Madness for me. March is my birthday month and I’ve been going to the Medieval Renaissance Festival, then I saw a Jousting show and now I'm watching D&D movies. I even bought a mug at the Jousting show. I enjoyed all of it, now I just need to play actual D&D and it’ll all come full circle. Honestly this movie looked dope when I saw the trailers and seeing the actual movie, the trailers are different from the actual movie, but in a good way. 

When I saw the trailer for this movie, I was under the impression that it would be about taking something from the Red witch lady or stealing something from her. I was under the impression she would be the main focus of this film but it turned out that was only half the battle. Turns out the main focus of this film is Edgin Darvis (Chris Pine) breaking out of prison and reuniting with his daughter, Kira (Chloe Coleman). However, she’s been manipulated by Forge Fitzwilliam (Hugh Grant)  into thinking her father abandoned her and now Edgin has to gather a group of misfits like an amateur wizard, a warrior lady banished from her tribe, and a shapeshifter to go and save his daughter all while taking Fitzwilliam and the witch down. You’d think that would be an average movie premise but the way they executed it, is awesome. This movie is better than I would have expected and it does go above and beyond in terms of VFX, witty writing for the characters, the action, even the acting flowed well bringing these characters to life. 

Let’s start with the VFX, I think these effects are better than what Marvel is pumping out nowadays on Disney+ or even the Modok memery. I loved the effects in this movie and they did an excellent job bringing the fantasy world creatures to the big screen. The magic was done well too, it didn’t look cheaply done and it was all smooth transitions. The VFX doesn’t really have any bad moments or times where it looks janky. I know the budget is like 150 million but that’s money well spent on the visual effects.

The cast of this film did a phenomenal job with their roles. Each character had their chance to shine in one way shape or form. I will say the least amount of character development I saw was from Doric, but even she came to her own conclusion about humans and how she originally felt about them. Though I will say that one of my nitpicks about this film is the relationship between Simon and Doric, they do have a history together and at the end where they consider revisiting that, felt a bit underwhelming despite this being from the amazing growth from Simon. One of my favorite characters in this film is Xenk Yendar who is a Harper but also a Paladin. He’s someone who takes everything literal and it's funny shit, he’s like the Knuckles of the group (he’s with them for a single mission which is a shame).

I will say that for the writing, it’s hilarious, witty, charming, and above all fun. The writing pokes fun at certain movie cliches as well as narration to sum up the plot or situation. The writing works especially with Forge since he’s more of a comical villain. He does have his ruthless moments but I feel he was written to be more of a comedic relief villain, kind of like Modok but actually funny and written to be a real threat. There are times where I feel the movie’s writing is a bit meh but honestly those are blink and you miss it moments that I can forgive. I did feel the final battle was rushed a little but like I said it doesn’t bother me that much though I did wish there was more build up to that final battle. 

Overall the movie itself was definitely one of the better movies I’ve seen by far this year. While Paramount shows can suck major cheeks at times, I will say their films are bangers. D&D is a fun game and the fact that they brought it to the big screen in the best way is great. I know there are other D&D movies dating back to the 2000’s and I heard those weren’t as great but I am glad that this one was done so with fun writing and great effects in mind.

Rating this film I’d give it:

8.5/10

I highly recommend seeing this film, it’s a fun time for everyone even if you’re not into D&D or fantasy. I hope more fantasy or D&D related stuff takes notes from this movie while improving on the weaker areas. That’s all I got for today

See ya!

[abigailnussbaum]

The thing that gets me is, it's not even a very good trailer. It does a poor job of laying out the film's story (and you know, the original Mean Girls will be twenty years old next year, so there's a sizable chunk of this film's target audience who don't know what it's about). But even if you assume that it's aimed solely at people who know Mean Girls (hence the "not your mother's" comment, though again, who is that meant to appeal to; thanks for making me feel old, guys, I'll be sure to check out your movie!), it just looks like a tired, worse remake. It's visually quite bland, the choices with some of the characters - most especially Regina - are rather baffling, and there aren't any memorable jokes.

And also, I don't want to be mean, so I'm choosing to believe that it's the trailer that makes them look bad, but the entire young cast completely fails to grab you. The cast of the original Mean Girls went on to be nominated for two Oscars and two Emmys (with one win on the latter front), and though Lindsay Lohan is a famous Hollywood cautionary tale, there's a reason we all spent ten years going "man, what a shame about Lindsay Lohan, she could have had such an amazing career". There's no one in this trailer that grabs you in that way - I've liked Angourie Rice in a bunch of other things, and she just fades into the scenery here, in what's supposed to be the lead role.

So not only is this a trailer that's trying to trick people who hate musicals into seeing a musical, it's doing it by making the movie look bad, in itself as well as in comparison to the great film it's following up on. Truly, one of the most misguided and unfortunate bits of marketing I've seen in years.

Was wondering why everyone was reacting to the Mean Girls musical trailer like it was a straight remake, and I can't believe it's bc the trailer doesn't...feature any of the songs, or any indication it's a musical at all???

Appealing to the crowd that hates musicals by hiding it's a musical, so they'll go see it, then leave ten minutes in and demand a refund bc your trailer lied to them

[bringmefoxgloves]

I know the post is several days old but your tags on the Jill Tuck post where you talk about “losing one son and then killing the cuckoo in the nest” have been living in my head rent free like it’s so accurate…. The relationship between Jill and the apprentices is just so fascinating to me…

HONESTLY!!!!! Post/tags in question. This is gonna make another entry in the collection of 'Jack's asks that Cai turns into meta.'

I haven't really seen Jill Tuck much (hanging my head in shame from not having watched the later movies yet, maybe i'll watch the next one tonight) so some of this might not be as fully fleshed out as it could be with meanings and parallels.

I love her so much though!!!!! So much!!! Queen who only wanted to help, and honestly had more hand in shaping the Jigsaw philosophy than most people want to admit!!!!

After all, 'Cherish your life' was her slogan for her clinic and it became a central tenet in the religion of Jigsaw. Her core belief of fresh starts and renewal was adopted and twisted by John. Billy the puppet who became the face of the Jigsaw Killer(s) was created as a gift to show John's devotion to her and their future son.

Her tragic loss of Gideon set John down his road, and the event itself provided his selection for some of his first victims, including a future Apprentice. The death of one child creates the birth of another. She had as much a hand in creating Amanda the Apprentice as John did.

She was literally the origin point for Jigsaw.

How did John pull a bad bitch like Jill Tuck??? The world will never know. But her role as a surrogate mother to match John's metaphor as father figure for the Apprentices is so interesting to me. Warning, this is gonna be about her relationship to all the Apprentices, not just Mark, and a little bit about her and John, and a little bit more about John's relationships with the Apprentices again.

Because I love the little fucked up family that is the Jigsaw Killers. Some parts are going to be shorter than others cause, well. Like I said, I've not seen all her interactions fully.

This is under the cut cause uh, long, again. Almost eye-rolling-ly long. (Show us that sclera baby!) But, I mean, what else do you expect from me at this point? Let's go.

Amanda. Oh Amanda.

She is, in some ways, a mirror of Jill herself. If she was created by Jill's actions, then she is the shadow of Jill, her parent.

First off, parentification among daughters is well recorded. And while this phenomena chiefly impacts children going through adolescence and forming their personality, I think it could definitely be applied to Amanda, who has been reborn, as the movies explicitly say.

From Wikipedia, (bolded emphasis mine):

"Gender considerations mean that sometimes the eldest boy or eldest girl is selected, even if they are not the oldest child overall, for such reasons as the preference to match the sex of the missing parent. Girls, especially those who have a large family, are likelier than boys to be parentified."

She is constantly shown as the most caring (especially in a medical sense! Saw III shows this!) towards John, their fucked up little family’s ‘parent’ figure. She is deeply emotionally involved with John, basing her emotions often on his moods and expectations of her. This could easily be argued as a form of spousification as well, but uh. Regardless!

She is the one pushes around his wheelchair, who oversees the medical procedure in Saw III. She appears to have even taught herself some medical knowledge, and decorated the operating room with religious figures in a shrine like fashion. John is, after all, a father and godhead, and children often treat their parents as if they are rulers or gods within their family structures. Besides, who else would have gotten him his Lucky Charms Cheerios in Saw II? All jokes aside-Amanda is, essentially, his caretaker and most devoted disciple.

However, the caretaker role was not one she just happened to fall into, I think. No, I think that is a role she takes over from Jill. 

Jill repeatedly tries to reach out to John, to care for him when he neglects his personal health in pursuit of the Jigsaw Killings, and he brushes her off, instead sliding that role over to Amanda.

Aside from acting as caretaker for John, she has an instinctive urge to protect those she sees as weaker than her, especially children.

Laura, who she guides into death by holding her, as if she is an older sister protecting her in her final moments. Daniel, who she leads around by the wrist, as if she is guiding a younger brother. Corbett, who she whispers advice to through the door, a final act of protection. She can’t help but betray herself in these small actions and gestures, having in some ways, the same caring nature of Jill.

She’s also the one trying to reunite Jill and John by presenting herself as the shining example of John’s methods working. In an almost desperate bid of ‘See? Look Jill, this can work!’ John presents her as if it’s a debutante ball, and for her part, Amanda looks so so so much like a nervous child presenting a report card to Jill that it physically hurts me. She is also placing herself between them, quite literally, in Shawnee Smith’s blocking in relation to Tobin Bell and Betsy Russell’s in that scene.

Which, one, breaks my heart, but also two, once again that’s the eldest daughter mode of playing go between for feuding ‘parents’. She is acting as their ‘third thing’, that object of shared attention where attention meets and intertwines. 

Amanda must think, in parallel to John’s twisted thoughts, that if she can show how she’s changed, she can help John win back Jill, then everything will be alright again. John will be happy again and she can gain his parental love and affection she desires, maybe even the approval of Jill. It’s once again, that lost daughter of a broken family trying to make things better.

As for Lawrence, we don't get to see a lot of his relationship with Jill. However what we do see is impactful.

He is tasked with retaliating if anything should happen to Jill, protecting her life and memory as a kind of living, breathing insurance policy for her. When Jill learns of Lawrence, as she drops off the tape from John to Lawrence, she is trusting this unknown factor (a son she didn't know she had) to do what is right.

Lawrence, in turn, obeys John's will, valuing Jill's life and memory for John, like a distant but favored son would. It is an intense, focused, contained, dutiful sort of love towards her, made all the more significant as he's never physically mets her, face to face, within the events we are shown in the movies.

Aside from that, Jill is continuously shown in a white lab coat, the same costuming for Lawrence, which draws visual similarities between the two, and emphasizes the connotations linked with such mode of dress. Competency, knowledge, cleanliness, care, healing. It's a very interesting parallel as Jill was the last person who loved and was loved by John, while Lawrence (who could be argued as John's most successful Apprentice, and thus best loved) holds no love for John.

I can't speak of their relationship as nearly as much as I wish to, chiefly cause I haven't seen the full movie yet. Sigh.... I really need to get on that.

And now, on to Mark, who this ask was originally suppose to be about. Cheesus Crispy on a cracker, how did this get so long... and it's only going to get longer.

Mark, and how he relates to Jill, is very interesting. I've mentioned before how he is a Nero figure, killing his mother and burning down the kingdom. But you know who else he reminds me of, in a slightly roundabout way? Oedipus Rex.

Oedipus Rex, as you may already know, is the central figure of the Sophocles play originally titled Oedipus Tyrannus. Which, oof, much could be said about Mark as a Tyrant figure as well, someone with no legitimate claim to the throne, as he is not tested initially the same as the other Apprentices.

Oedipus Rex was fated by the Greek God Apollo to kill his father, and marry his mother, thus taking over the throne of Thebes. Mark's background expresses some of the details of the play, albeit in slightly varied ways.

Within the play, Oedipus is abandoned by his father, Laius, because he is fated to kill him. Laius asks Jocasta, Oedipus' mother, to kill the infant, however she refuses. She tasks a servant with killing the boy, however the servant also balks, instead (depending on the story) leaving the child on a bare mountaintop where he is found by a shepherd, or giving him to a shepherd who gives him to Polybus, a childless king of Coronith.

Desperate to avoid his fate that the Oracle of Delphi revealed to him, and operating under the assumption he is the child of Polybus, he travels to Thebes. Through a series of misadventures and heroic feats, Oedipus does fulfill the prophecy, killing his father and marrying his mother.

When the full truth is revealed, Oedipus asks for his sword, so that he may slay his mother with his own hand, but Jocasta has already hung herself. In despair at his tragic fate being brought to fruition, Oedipus gouges out his eyes with the golden pins that secured his mother's dress.

While the story of Oedipus doesn't exactly match up with Mark's, there are some remarkable details that jump out to me.

Oedipus being adopted by a childless king, which can be translated directly to John as a figure within his life. There's the contested details of the shepherd which, if you've read Adrian's glorious Saw etymology post, could be linked to Zep, the Apprentice that never was. There's the detail of killing his own father, as Mark had a direct hand in blackmailing Amanda, which ultimately killed her and indirectly caused Jeff to kill John.

Then there's the relationship Oedipus had to his mother, Jocasta.

When he desires to kill her, he wants to do so by his own sword, the item that is tied to his identity as a King, a warrior and the winner of her hand. And what is the Reverse Bear Trap except Mark's sword? It is his test, it is his formation as Jigsaw, it releases his bestial nature, and is what he uses to kill Jill. He is Oedipus, but one who has wrestled away the satisfaction of death from Jocasta's hands.

However, Jill's death itself becomes the golden pins, as Lawrence retaliates for Jill's death. He locks him in the bathroom, sealing him forever away in darkness, it's own form of removal of sight.

As for the more modern references of Oedipus, there's of course the Oedipus Complex. The desire (often sexual) for one's own mother, and a rivalry with one's father. Very gross. Fuck Freud forever. However, if you look at the Britannica's definition of it, it seems very relevant:

"Oedipus complex, in psychoanalytic theory, a desire for sexual involvement with the parent of the opposite sex and a concomitant sense of rivalry with the parent of the same sex..."

Mark has indeed a sense of subordinate rivalry with John, wishing to outdo him and carry out his own form of justice. As for the, uh, sexual side of Mark's infatuation with Jill, just..... This gif alone should be enough to show those undercurrents (which very interestingly parallels this moment with Peter. HUh. Parallels.)

As for my commentary about Jill losing one son and killing the cuckoo in the nest, it's intrinsically linked to her execution of John's last true will, the one in the box.

John's will is her final contact with John, a man who has ruled much of her past and life before her death. He is responsible for the greatest tragedy of her life, Gideon's death. This will is John's double edged apology to her. This is her moment for rebirth, moving forward. But it's also done in a way that asks her to still tie herself to the legacy of the Jigsaw Killers by murder a test. One last set of tasks, and then she can put John's ghost to rest.

She trusts the test part of this will to Mark, which becomes the test for William Easton. She hands that part of John's legacy off to this new, strange, brutal son.

Cuckoo birds, practice something called Brood Parasitism, in which mother cuckoos lay an egg in the nest of another bird. The egg is stronger than the host eggs, and so is resistant to being destroyed. When the cuckoo is born, they hatch faster than the host's eggs, have a mouth they hold constantly open, and grow larger then its nest mates, which it kills by tossing them out of the nest. The host birds have no choice but to feed this single offspring, even if it becomes larger than themselves.

He's the cuckoo bird to her, an interloper in the relationship nest of John and her, a creature she has no love for except she knows she must feed him, as he's thrown all other birds out of the nest. So she gives him John's final will, a poisoned morsel that draws him into her own test for Mark.

Killing Mark, using the Reverse Bear Trap, is the fabled end for her, the end of John and his continuation and legacy. She can move on, she can forget, she can wash her hands clean and be reborn how John always claimed people could be.

But she can't.

But it goes horribly wrong, like a Greek tragedy, and the cuckoo throws her from the nest too.

[lunarmote]

My Favorite Films: Enter the Void (2009)

I’ve seen this movie twice. The first time I was more perturbed by the shocking elements (the incestuous overtones, gratuitous sex, and generous amount of flashing lights). But after contemplating it for a bit I’ve discovered that all of that ebbs to a quiet lull of artistry and trauma.

A very creative way to tell a story. It’s a mood movie. Makes a pretty horrible pitch: “The main character dies 30 minutes in and you spend the other 2 hours wandering through his consciousness.”

I am a little annoyed at the amount of reviews that suggest the only way to watch this is to be on drugs. Apparently, Gaspar Noé took drugs while writing this, but I think the experience in itself is so unique that it can be enjoyed without altering your mind. And in fact, I think it’s kind of a shame (?) that people dismiss this movie based on how provocative it is, without examining the role of the shock elements in carrying the narrative.

I don’t even know how to explain what I like about the movie (because it’s such a one-of-a-kind experience), but here’s my best attempt:

The things I like

The handling of trauma, and the way the movie claps you with the realization that trauma can hit you anytime, anywhere, in its sly way of co-opting the mundane.

The creative transitions and camera angle very much mimic the kind of associative thinking I undertake in that half-dozed-off state - you know, when you’re still aware of your thinking and kind of aware that your thinking doesn’t make rational sense anymore. The more “wtf” associations (e.g. his affair with his friend’s mom cutting to a shot of his own mom breastfeeding, cutting to his friend talking about the happiest memory of his life being when he was sucking on his mom’s nipples), pretty Freudian, but also very predictable. Cutting from the bestial sensations of lust and gluttony to such vulnerable, formative memories made some of the transitions very poignant, and I think they were handled with tenderness.

The glass chandelier scene and the Air in G motif that plays whenever the siblings are reunited is one of the most spellbinding scenes I’ve seen. It’s dizzying and crystalline and intimate all at once, which Linda twirling around so unrestrained talking about how beautiful it all was, and the narrator’s head looming as a shadow, a stabilizing point for the viewer. The way she puts her arms around his neck and talks about how she misses him and gives him a look filled with too much longing and happiness and years’ worth of stuff unsaid.

Perhaps we are supposed to think he had sexual feelings towards his sister. Or maybe Noé was just interested in dabbling with incest as he apparently does in his other films (haven’t seen anything else by him). But once again, from the perspective of someone who watched this a month ago, all that kind of melts away into this poignant attachment towards her and highlights the siblings’ trauma at being separated. He is shot, and all his thoughts in his last moments revolve around her. The blood pact they made as kids, the recollection of that promise in the afternoon sun, some handheld footage of their reunion in Tokyo… there is a lot of innocence there, too. And when Oscar’s “ghost” hovers overhead and witnesses Linda fighting with the friend who snitched on Oscar, with Linda shouting she doesn’t want to live anymore. That broke my heart. Usually when films get philosophical it’s a hit-or-miss but in this case it works because we are experiencing the consciousness of a specific person. We are on autopilot and not alone with our thoughts, because Noé shows us through Oscar’s omniscience all the interwoven aspects of existence.

I think this movie is really beautiful and needs to be experienced with an open mind. It might also take a few rewatches to fully sink in. It’s one of my favorite movies.

[scary-white]

Firestarter (2022), while being a fun watch, really did not meet expectations. The character dynamics are a shallowed out version of what they should have been. While Zac Efron excelled in his role, you can only do so much with the script that you're given. In the novel, the two of them are incredibly close and Andy is constantly seen making sacrifices for Charlie. Charlie has just lost her mother and is terrified of losing her father as well. She's very afraid of her power, and is hesitant to use it, but does so when Andy urges her to. She's eager to please and protect, and that's a huge plot point in the novel. Wanless warns that Andy's influence on her power and how she uses it will override any one else's influence, and Rainbird uses her love for her father to get closer to her and manipulate her decision making. None of this is discussed or shown in the movie, and the father/daughter relationship is a shell of itself.

The novel opens with a very tense scene where Andy and Charlie are already running from the Shop, there's a very strong feeling of being hunted and their precious time keeps tic tic ticking away for everyone moment that Andy spends trying to push the cab driver into accepting his payment. This heavy feeling of pursuit continues for the first half of the novel. At one point, Andy thinks that in a way, it would be a relief the day they were finally caught and were no longer running, and the reader can relate to this because King is really good at stressing is the fuck out. Where this tension shone in the novel, it wasn't there at all in the new movie. There's no real sense of pursuit, despite the characters talking about it.

I was very disappointed to see that the ricocheting effect that Andy's power had was not explored at all. He drives Cap to madness in the novel, and it was a real shame how that was left out. In the movie, Charlie comments that the Shop "Does bad things here, I can feel it." And if that isn't the biggest narrative cop out I've ever seen, I don't know what is.

They need us to know that the Shop is bad, and yet they're incapable of really showing it. You know that the Shop is bad in the novel. You know that it's poorly managed and made up of trigger happy goons, some of which are misogynists who use their position to laud power over helpless citizens. That would have been incredibly relevant in today's age, and it's a shame that they failed to develop their antagonist.

Don't get me started on Rainbirds character, it's so watered down it hurts. None of his obsession with death or with Charlie are present. His manipulation skills are absent, as well as his stealth and murder skills. Instead, he is given telekenesis and wow, does that take away from his character. It was disappointing.

Charlie's characterization was a bit of a let down, as well as her performance. In the novel, you have this happy innocent little girl who is forced to grow up entirely too fast. She's clever, and unwilling to let her guard down-- adding to Rainbird's fascination with her-- and she really doesn't want to hurt anyone. Her mother's death has hit her hard to the point where she tries not to even think about it, and can barely bring herself to admit that her mom was killed, not just "hurt." In the movie, you can tell that they try to replicate this, but what with the pacing, it's just impossible to do. It's kind of hard to really feel for Charlie in this version.

I will say that I was very impressed with the sequence where they were administering lot six. The video effects were cool, and I enjoyed the questions that were asked and the characters reactions to them. The part where the one kid starts freaking out and rips his eyes out was horrifying and as someone's whose had a bad trip, it hit reaalllly close to home. Really, it was a well done sequence and it really triggered my anxiety.

I also thought it was cool how they combined scenes in order to condense, ie, instead of convincing the taxi driver that the $1 was a $100, he convinces Irv.

The scene with the cat was upsetting, but it worked. I probably can't remember the exact quote, but hearing something along the lines of "It's in pain. You gotta put it out of its misery, that's what's right," come out of an 11 year old's mouth later on was kind of terrifying. And as cheesy as it was, I did like Charlie's "Liar, Liar, pants on fire"

The sound track was also amazing.

Firestarter is an incredibly difficult story to adapt, and you just can't do it in the runtime that this movie had. It's long, it takes place over the course of more than a year, there's multiple different settings that the scenes take place, and they spend a lot of time in captivity. Honestly, they should have split it up into two movies. In the first one, the chase should be emphasized while the back story is built, in the second part, focus on their time spent with the Shop.

Over all, I did enjoy watching the movie, and I don't regret having spent the money to go see it. But once we move past that surface level of enjoyment, there's a lot to criticize about the movie, and I think it failed as an adaptation. But hey, surely it isn't too late for the story to get a good proper adaptation, right? After all, Carrie had three movies made. Third time's a charm, right?

[juniperusashei]

2020 Top Books

To start this blog off, I’ll repost my favorite books from 2020! That year, I read 43 books, which is more than I had ever before. Some of my choices are a bit baffling to me now, but all are still very solid reads so I stand by this selection. 

1. Dead Astronauts by Jeff Vandermeer Annihilation is one of my favorite books ever, and this is definitely my second fave of Jeff’s. It’s very different though, really modernist, the prose itself is a character. It’s one of the only books I wanted to reread immediately after finishing it… I’m not even sure if I can describe what it’s about but there’s a shapeshifting lesbian made of moss (I think)

2. Les Amants du Spoutnik by Haruki Murakami I first read this book three years ago and it really resonated with me but I didn’t know why. Despite a lot of the narrator’s creepiness bothering me, this reread (read in french this time around) solidified Sputnik Sweetheart as one of my fave books of all time. It’s definitely flawed but I’m still really attached to the characters…

3. The Masker by Torrey Peters This is one of the most uniquely terrifying books I’ve read where nothing that scary happens. It’s sort of like situation horror (like situational comedy but the other way around.) Me and one of my friends are trying to make a movie of this book (2021 note: this didn’t happen). It has a lot to say for everyone about the entrapments of gender roles.

4. Rubyfruit Jungle by Rita Mae Brown Some books have so much detail that its hard to imagine they didn’t actually happen. Sort of like To Kill A Mockingbird, or this one. Maybe I just associate the two cuz they’re both Southern and about evil girls.

5. Sappho: A New Translation of the Complete Works translated by Diane Rayor I didn’t have a physical copy of this version for the pic. But Diane Rayor’s translation of Sappho’s poetry is the decidedly gayest interpretation I’ve come across.

6. Little Blue Encyclopedia (for Vivian) by Hazel Jane Plante This is like metafiction like Pale Fire except this one is actually good and made me cry a lot. I read this sort of early last year so I don’t remember much so I’m probably due for a reread soon. But I wish the TV show she talks about was real.

7. Woman Hating by Andrea Dworkin Despite a final chapter full of weirdness that the author herself later disavowed this was a bitter, poetic, and difficult digestion of modern and historic gender politics. I was lucky to get to read a physical copy from the PCL library, but since it’s been out of print hard copies are hundreds of dollars to buy, which is a big shame because I think the world would be a lot better if more people read this book.

8. All the Birds in the Sky by Charlie Jane Anders A friend from another city sent this over to me and I went into it not knowing what to expect. It honestly reminded me of those books I’d stay up all night reading when I was a kid, except this is decidedly not a kids book. I did stay up pretty late though. It’s a fun way to combine sci fi and fantasy, like the genres are at odds and so are the characters that represent them. Sort of meta if you think about it.

9. Post Office Girl by Stefan Zweig This is one of the most visual books I’ve ever read and if I was a successful Hollywood producer I’d want to adapt this. It’s about how customer service jobs are soul sucking and even though it takes place in pre-WW2 Austria and Switzerland it absolutely applies to today’s economic climate.

10. Intercourse by Andrea Dworkin Did not like this as much as Woman Hating cuz this one is much more a work of literary criticism than sociology and I don’t really like reading about books I haven’t read. Nonetheless I gotta give credit to it because this is what really opened my eyes.

[animepopheart]

Review: Earwig and the Witch

Young Erica, born as “Earwig,” doesn’t live an enviable life by as any means—abandoned at the doorstep of an orphanage by her mother, she has little hope of ever being adopted. But Earwig lives life on her own terms, cajoling those around her to do her bidding, but also giving them warmth and love. However, a wrench (or ladle) is thrown into her plans when a demanding witch and a devilish and ill-tempered man do adopt her, and she becomes a virtual slave to the woman, doing arduous and mundane chores all day long while being magically guarded from escaping her new home. But it’ll take far more than spells and grumpy magic users to prevent the clever and bombastic Earwig from getting her way, and with her own use of magic, a cat familiar named Thomas, and the power of music, she’ll find a way to right her world again.

Earwig and the Witch, made available to stream on HBO Max just two days after it’s theatrical release and a month following its television premiere in Japan, enters a brave new world of film distribution, so perhaps this was the perfect opportunity for Goro Miyazaki, ever the dissenter, to bring something new into the Studio Ghibli fold of animated films. While Earwig features many of the usual Ghibli earmarks—a strong heroine, colorful visuals, and source material from a beloved author, the second Diana Wynne Jones novel that’s been adapted (joining Howl’s Moving Castle), it is also animated in 3DCG, a first for the studio’s animated features, which had once long-resisted the transition from traditional hand-drawn animation to computer imagery. Unfortunately, and predictably, the result is another red mark by the younger Miyazaki upon Ghibli’s otherwise grade-A record.

The story itself is the usual stuff of Ghibli—just modernized a bit. Earwig is reminiscent of another witch, Kiki— both girls are trying to find their places in the world, and are willing to do what it takes to get there. Earwig will also remind viewers of Nausicaa, as she’ll roll over anyone in her way to achiever her goals. But this little girl is more charming that it sounds, doing everything with intelligence and smile. Indeed, Earwig is a fine heroine, another addition to the wonderful group assembled and created by Studio Ghibli through the years, while her new guardians—Bella Yaga and Mandrake—are well-developed and distinct as well. The plot, too, is fine—small and self-contained. But there are severe structural problems and flaws that prevent the movie from ever taking off, so that when it lands at the end, the audience isn’t hit with the feelings of love and contentment that are a hallmark of Ghibli.

Most notable among the issues is the poor CG work. While Earwig is the studio’s first fully CGI film, the company has done considerable work of that style before with the television series, Ronja, the Robber’s Daughter, featuring computer graphics based on cel-shading. The leap to a fully realized 3DGI film, however, is too much for Miyazaki (who oversaw the work on Ronja). The characters are lifeless in their movements, lacking vitality, particularly punctuated through a musical number late in the film that is perhaps the lamest “rock scene” you’ll ever watch. Despite occasionally rich coloring, and some wonderful detailing, the backgrounds are also stiff and unengaging. It’s a chore to watch the film, which in visuals too closely resembles features released straight to Redbox. Even the cute little servants, another frequent companion in Studio Ghibli films, aren’t cute at all—they’re pale and hard to make out, a shame since it wouldn’t be hard to imagine a particular chick-demon joining the vast array of beloved Ghibli characters.

The music, too, is lacking. A score composed by Satoshi Takebe is mostly forgettable; his major sin, however, is shared with Goro Miyazaki, who wrote the lyrics for “Don’t Disturb Me,” an apparent 70’s rock song that’s too sugary for rock, an annoyance to the ears that’s worsened by terrible lyrics that no adult or child could embrace. Even Kacey Musgraves, the lead singer for the song and voice of Earwig’s absent mother, can’t save this wreck. She’s an odd selection for the role, too, not only because of her musical style but also for her not-quite-there British accent, which at least disappears when she sings.

But even with it’s shortcomings, even with English dub work that doesn’t quite match the flaps, the movie is a moderate watch because of an underlying sweetness in the characters and the little flourishes of Ghibli that make their way out here and there—that is until the ending. I imagine that Mandrake himself (played lovingly by the inimitable Richard E. Grant), a would-be-author, would empathize with writers who struggle with conclusions, but this is twice now that Miyazaki has clumsily finished a film. He took a strong opening 2/3 of Tales from Earthsea and let it devolve into a messy finale, and this time, he does the same by bringing together story elements too quickly and with too little closure, while doing something even more peculiar, creating a conclusion that isn’t one at all. Instead, the close of this story seems like the opening for a television series that will more fully explore the world of Earwig. Looking at the less-than-feature-film quality of this movie, that may indeed be a wise choice.

More disastrous, though, is the very end, the closing credits. Drawn in the traditional style of Ghibli films, it portrays Earwig’s life after the events of the film, and for once, the movie rises completely to the charm and loveliness of what one expects from the studio. Suddenly, the movie is as magical as it tries to be, the characters lovable and cute, and the family at its most compelling. It’s everything that Earwig and the Witch could have been—what it should have been.

In an interview promoting the film, Goro Miyazaki, when explaining why this movie would be in 3DCG, explained, “…if we don’t incorporate new things, then there’s probably no future for us.” An unfortunate truth lies within these words, ones that weren’t intended: Miyazaki and the new generation cannot match the mastery of the old. All they seem to be able to offer are “new things.” But if the new things aren’t masterful—when they aren’t even good—it begs the question: What future does Studio Ghibli have at all? If it looks and sounds like Earwig, the answer may be “none.”

Earwig and the Witch is now being shown in theaters and can be streamed through HBO Max. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter to receive our articles right in your inbox. All images © 2020 NHK, NEP, Studio Ghibli

[mysmegrace]

woop wait i just saw the requests open thing sorry , can i please request the rfa with an ace/asexual mc ?

of course! thank you so much for your request! i hope i did this justice, please let me know if any information in this post is inaccurate or misunderstood! i'm not asexual and my resource for all info is from the internet.

RFA with an Ace/Asexual MC

---

yoosung kim:

the topic of your sexuality first arose from a movie night in his university dorm.

you two have been dating for a while now and it's been in the back of yoosungs mind for a while.

in his mind, he knew the time for that special event to happen was approaching.

so he decided that tonight was the tonight he would bring it up ever so subtly and maybe experience it for the first time.

with your consent of course.

you had a different idea of the action however.

you don't understand the huge hype around it.

it just wasn't something you’re attracted to.

the action itself repulsed you.

that's not to say you didn't want a relationship with yoosung or didn't find him physically attractive.

you valued your significant others personality and the emotional connection you had together such a strong way.

and you hoped yoosung would understand that when you eventually told him.

so when you arrived, he had everything ready to make the night comfortable and amazing.

the fluffiest blankets you could imagine had been laid across the couch with a bowl of popcorn, made just the way you like it, in front of you on the coffee table.

and the night was just  beginning.

half-way through the movie, yoosung reached across your body laid in front of him to the coffee table and took up the remote to pause the film. 

he said in a low, yet nervous voice “MC, i was thinking recently..”

you could sense where this was going.

you knew you had to tell him sometime in the near future, but if you were honest, you didn’t expect to have to let him know tonight.

“we’ve been dating for a while now. usually couples around this point in the relationship would..” he continued, cutting himself off with a breath to calm his nerves.

then he let it out.

“start talking about that special event..you know, the really deep one in relationships. i was wondering if maybe you wanted for us to try that out for ourselves tonight?” he finished.

you could feel your heart racing ever so slightly.

you weren’t ashamed or embarrassed of your sexuality.

you were mainly concerned that yoosung would get the wrong idea or shame you because of it.

but you knew you had to tell him, so you answered after a long thought.

“i’ve..never been interested in those types of things. they’ve always repulsed me and made me uncomfortable. it’s not because of you personally, i was just born like this. i understand if you need some time but my idea of it won’t change anytime soon.”

you took a deep breath, slightly closing your eyes to shield you from his body language in case he would become angry or upset.

yoosung took a breath too as he thought about your response.

he had never thought about the fact that you may not have been attracted to those things.

he finally responded after a minute or two, saying “oh, i’ve never thought about it like that. i hope i haven’t made you uncomfortable..”

truth be told, yoosung wasn’t ready for the event just yet.

but he understood your feelings towards it.

the absence of sex didn’t mark the end of your relationship.

your relationship was much more than one physical action.

he wrapped his arm around your waist, saying

“don’t worry, i completely understand”.

then he resumed the movie, eventually falling asleep with you on the couch.

hyun ryu / zen:

you’ve been living with zen for a few months following the third rfa party.

over the course of these past few months, you could feel your relationship continuously evolving into something deeper.

zen kept making moves with you, getting increasingly physical each time.

you knew the time for that special event between couples was approaching.

and you were not looking forward to it. 

you found zen very physically attractive, but couldn’t imagine doing the deed with him.

it disgusted you to your core.

just the thought of it alone was enough to make you shiver.

one night after zen came home from practicing for his new role, he started with the typical nightly routine.

it consisted of skincare, a drink, and loving actions towards his love.

tonight when his loving actions came out, it continued to get deeper and deeper.

the arm around the waist turned into a kiss which continued into a make-up session.

eventually he was asking for your consent to go farther.

you knew what this meant and immediately got it together.

you quickly denied, saying “wait, i don’t want this”.

you could tell by the wave of shock and confusion flashing over his face that you would need to explain this.

so you quickly let him know why, saying “it’s not because i don’t want to be with you or think your ugly, i just think sex isn’t for me. i find the very thought of it disgusting. im content with kissing and i hope we can keep it this way”.

you hoped he wouldn’t be upset with you.

he was taken aback, sitting up to make eye contact.

he had never heard of someone not wanting to do the act.

not just with him, but all together.

however, he listened and stopped all action in the moment.

he looked away, thinking about your words.

he knew your relationship was more than physical actions and that something so deep wasn’t something that a relationship should be centered around. 

so after some thought, he embraced you.

reassuring you that this wouldn’t change the way he perceived you in this relationship.

he would still love you.

he could never not love you.

so instead of continuing your previous intense make out session, you two ended up cuddling, eventually falling asleep in a loving embrace.

jaehee kang:

you awoke with the sun piercing through your eyelids.

a rude awakening in your opinion.

as you rub your eyes, you turn to look at your love sleeping besides you.

it was only 5:30am, the cafe you two owned didn’t open until 8am.

with a solid 2 and a half hours to waste, you stroked your sleeping beauties face.

ever so gently moving her once short hair away from her face.

the sun eventually woke her up too, only 15 minutes after it woke you up.

she said good morning with a kiss.

you returned her kiss, but she continued the kiss.

deeping it more and more.

you had become a little annoyed, pulling away more and more every time she went in for another one.

she caught on not long after, giving you a questioning look.

 you were quick to explain your actions.

“i’m not comfortable with such physical actions. i’ve always had a general disgust when it comes to actions such as deep long kisses and sexual events. i hope i haven’t made you upset” you let out.

she was incredibly understanding, giving you a quick smile saying “oh, i’m sorry love. i understand”.

she then left the bedroom, heading to make breakfast for the both of you.

jumin han:

your wedding day was coming closer and closer by the day.

you knew jumin strongly believed in not living together before marriage or participating in extremely intimate actions before marriage.

however, you knew sex was something many people expected to happen in a marriage at some time.

you had no doubt jumin expected it too.

you couldn’t exactly blame him when you knew it was the societal norm.

but you hated it.

you hated everything about the action.

no matter what way you looked at it, you couldn’t understand why so many people want to take part in such a thing.

but you knew you would have to tell him sometime.

it would be better to tell him sooner than later.

you didn’t think it would be right to tell him after you were already married.

plus you wouldn’t want to spend your life with someone who couldn’t accept everything about you.

so tonight was the night you would let it out.

you met jumin at his home once he came home from work and cleaned up.

he offered you some wine, and you accepted.

it was the perfect opportunity.

watching the expensive liquid being poured into your glass, you wondered which way you should let him knew.

should you hint towards it?

should you say it outright?

you knew in your heart that that would be the best course of action.

jumin was a straight forward man afterall.

once both of you were settled down, you started off the conversation with your concerns about the marriage.

more importantly, your concerns about the sexual aspects of this.

jumin was caught off guard.

he didn’t expect you to be worried about it.

did you think he would hurt you during the act or take advantage of you?

however, he continued to listen with a concerned look on his face.

all of his predictions were shot down when you said your feelings towards the act.

you said you hated the thought of it and had no desire to ever participate in it.

“oh” he thought.

sure he would like to take part in those acts from time to time, but only if you were 100% comfortable with it.

if you didn’t want to do it, he would respect that.

afterall, he didn’t want to marry you for his own physical pleasure.

he completely understood you, but reassured you that you had nothing to worry about as he would never force that upon you.

he wants to marry you for you, not for your body.

saeyoung choi:

the night of your engagement was an exciting one to say the least.

a party with all of your close friends that you would consider family was exactly what you needed right now.

and to see your future husband and brother in law finally together made your heart want to explode out of your chest from happiness.

and now you were here, laying on saeyoungs bed smiling while talking about your future together.

the house you could build together.

the car you could drive to the store in.

the names of any future children you may have.

it’s safe to say, you two were getting carried away.

saeyoung started to make out with you after you two had calmed down a bit.

you returned the action, and it was getting increasingly heated as time went on.

he started to lay his hands upon the bottom of your shirt, gesturing towards pulling it off. 

you snapped out of your makeout haze after you realized what he was trying to get at.

you pulled away sharply, leaving him shocked.

did he do something wrong?

his head started racing with worries.

he didn’t want to upset you in anyway.

you blatantly let out your feelnings towards his actions.

“saeyoung, i don’t like that. you haven’t done anything terrible, i just don’t like things getting that intense and sexual.”

he didn’t know what to say.

he never meant to unknowingly upset you.

cue the wave of apologizes from saeyoung.

you calmed him pretty quick once he starting this, saying “saeyoung, it’s fine. i know you didn’t mean to”.

eventually he calmed down and thought about it seriously.

he was completely understanding.

so instead of going further, he just continued with the kissing.

but made sure to keep it strictly kissing.

he was ready to love you for his entire life, even if he never had sex with you.

and he was content with that.

[tomhiddlestonfanfic]

Improvising

TITLE: Improvising CHAPTER NUMBER/ONE SHOT: One shot WHICH TOM CHARACTER: Actor Tom PAIRING: Tom Hiddleston/Reader GENRE: Romance sort of INSPIRATION: Hank Williams answers and Loki answers REQUEST: Tom Hiddleston x (non actress) reader where reader is a vlogger who does song covers and has a friend who does interviews, and is able to get a chance to interview Tom, but for some reason was unable to do so on the scheduled date due to some emergency and asked reader to do it,but left questions that reader thinks might be inappropriate to Tom so she improvises and thought of more sensible questions which piqued Tom's interest specially when he finds out of the questions that was prepared for him?

Improvising

You found yourself standing there in the hotel lobby waiting for Tom Hiddleston himself. Your friend, who was supposed to do the interview, got sick and for that reason couldn’t do the interview. So you had gotten called in just over an hour ago, and had no time to prepare. You trusted your friend to have everything ready for the interview, but as you stood there, skimming through the questions, your heart nearly stopped. Was this some sort of a joke? You couldn’t possibly ask him about those kinds of things without sinking through the floor in shame. With a rousing sense of panic, you went through the papers, trying to find the real questions or anything of substance, but you ended up empty handed. You almost felt like crying as you glanced down at your watch, realising that there was only five minutes left until your scheduled meeting. You rummaged through your purse for a pen and a paper and was just about to start writing new questions when the subject of the interview suddenly appeared in the lobby.

“Umm, excuse me mister Hiddleston, are you here for the interview? I mean, of course you are...” you greeted him nervously as he approached you with a warm smile.

“Hi, you must be Riley. Please, feel free to call me Tom,” Tom replied as he shook your hand.

“Actually, Riley is sick, so I’m standing in for her,” you informed him with a shy smile.

“Ah, I see. What’s your name then?” Tom asked with interest as he still held your hand in his.

“[Your name],” you replied.

“Nice to meet you, [your name],” Tom said with a smile

“It’s very nice to meet you too, Tom,” you replied blushingly, feeling a bit strange as you spoke his name so familiarly. “This way,” you added and led him to the room in which the interview was to be held. You both sat down on the chairs in front of the camera as soon as Tom had politely introduced himself to the man behind the camera and the man in control of the microphone hovering over your heads just out of line of sight for the camera.

“Are you ready?” the cameraman asked to which Tom answered ‘yes’ and you answered a truthful ‘not really’.

“I’m sorry,” you apologised flusteredly. “I’m ready.”

“Camera rolling,” the cameraman announced and you could feel yourself grow pale. You nervously glanced down at the papers, but quickly looked away as you struggled not to grimace at the questions on there.

“I’m sitting here with Tom Hiddleston. Welcome to the R and R show, Tom,” you said, grateful that you at least got the name of the show right. At least that was something.

“Thanks for having me,” Tom replied politely.

“The pleasure is all ours,” you said with a smile. “So, Tom… I personally think you really did a great job portraying Hank Williams in I Saw the Light.”

“Thank you, I really appreciate it,” Tom said and smiled at you. You couldn’t help but get caught up in his beautiful blue eyes as he looked at you.

“Um… One thing I found particularly interesting in the movie was the moment when Hank said that everybody has a little darkness inside of them, that he showed it to them and they heard it, but they didn’t have to take it home with them. I was wondering if you would like to elaborate what you think Hank Williams’s darkness consisted of,” you said as you mentally cursed your friend for not having come up with better questions herself so you wouldn’t have to improvise like this.

“Interesting question,” Tom commended and touched his chin thoughtfully before answering. “Ehm, as is well-known, Hank struggled with alcohol and drug addiction, and I suppose you could say that it’s a way of how the darkness portrayed itself. But what exactly this darkness consisted of is difficult to say. In the scene you’re referring to, Hank mentions anger, sorrow and shame. But I think it’s more complicated than just that when it comes to Hank. I think there was something in him that was addicted to the darkness and that it somehow felt more real to him than anything else. I think part of his darkness was his very addiction to it. Do I make any sense?”

“I think so...” you replied and decided to elaborate. “The attraction to the darkness itself was part of his darkness. His unwillingness to let go of it made it darker... Like staying in a dark corner of a room instead of coming out into the light.”

“Exactly,” Tom agreed and his face lit up as he looked at you. “It was like Hank felt more comfortable in his dark corner than out in the light. And I think as he went into the vortex of addiction, into the darkness, he couldn’t stay sober for long enough to see clearly, to come out into the light and see how many people actually cared about him.” 

“That’s tragic,” was your instinctive response.

“It is,” Tom agreed.

“Hank Williams isn’t the only character with darkness inside of him that you’ve played... I think you could say that Adam in Only Lovers Left Alive had a bit of darkness inside of him as well. Ehm… would you say that there are any similarities between Adam and Hank?” you asked, trying not to grimace at how far fetched your question felt.

“Interesting question,” Tom said again, causing you to blush. It made you glad to hear that he found your questions interesting, seeing as you got them at the top of your head. “Well, while Adam is obviously fictional and a vampire, I think there are similarities between him and Hank. They are both musicians,” he said grabbing his index finger as he began to count the similarities between the two characters. “They both have a darkness inside of them, like you said yourself,” he told you and grabbed his long finger as well. “They both seem lonely even though they have people around them who care…” he said and grabbed a third finger. “There are probably more things they have in common...”

“Well, how about the differences between Adam and Hank?” you asked.

“Adam is fictional whereas Hank is real. Adam’s a vampire and Hank is human. While Adam had a long life, Hank’s life was tragically short. He died of heart failure at only twenty nine years of age. He was one of those stars that shine brightly but burn out quickly, while Adam is more of a slow burning star,” Tom replied and you found yourself nodding in agreement at his answers.

“Yes... Another character with a long lifespan is the god of mischief himself. Loki. I heard you were working on a Loki TV show, is there anything you could tell us about that?” you asked curiously.

"Well, the series starts right after Loki grabs the tesseract in Avengers: Endgame. It'll be six hours of air time and it will be released on Disney plus in 2021. Sorry I can't tell you much more than that at this point," Tom said. 

"That's alright. So we have six more hours of Loki to look forward to, that's great. How did you feel about revisiting the part? You've been playing him for quite some years now," you wondered. 

"I've been playing him for ten years now and I really enjoyed revisiting the role as Loki. I feel like I know this character now, and the audience knows him. The most exciting aspect of playing him is to present him with new challenges, which change him in different ways," Tom replied, seemingly happy to talk about Loki. 

The cameraman motioned for you to wrap up the interview, leaving you disappointed that your meeting with Tom was already coming to an end.

"I really look forward to seeing what new challenges Loki's up against. Unfortunately it seems our time is up. Thank you so much Tom Hiddleston for coming here and joining us on the R and R show," you said, genuinely grateful to actually meet him in person. 

"Thanks for having me," Tom told you, his smile making your heart skip a beat. 

"Cut," said the cameraman. 

"Thank you for saving me with your interesting answers," you told Tom once the camera was off. 

"Saving you?" he asked surprisedly. "I hardly think you needed saving, you did great with the questions," he commended. 

"You really think so?" you said, feeling relieved as he nodded his head ‘yes’ in response. "Thank you. I was not at all prepared for this, so I had to improvise," you admitted. 

"You improvised? Then you're a natural at this," he praised, seemingly impressed. "Didn't your friend prepare the questions?" 

"In all honesty, her questions were not up to standard. Some were downright dreadful," you said truthfully. 

"Really? Dreadful you say?" he asked interestedly. "Would you let me see her questions?" Tom requested curiously and you reluctantly handed them over to him while blushing, as though you were somehow responsible for them. 

"Oh," he uttered understandingly as he skimmed through the questions about James Bond, Taylor Swift, what type of women he preferred and if he was feeling lonely now that he was single. "Thank you for not asking me about all this," he said with relief and kept reading the questions, grimacing at some and laughing at others.

"If your friend was seriously going to ask me those questions, I'm almost glad she was sick," Tom said jokingly, causing you to laugh. "It not just because I wish to avoid another awkward interview, but because it was a real delight to be interviewed by you." 

"Oh, thank you," you said feeling flattered. "I found it really nice talking to you too." 

“I still have some time left before my next interview, if you would like to grab a cup of coffee,” Tom offered.

“I would love to,” you answered, barely able to contain your excitement.

You continued talking to each other about different kinds of things. This time it was almost as though he was interviewing you, asking about your life. When he found out that you had a vlog where you posted song covers his face lit up. 

"I'll make sure to check it out," he promised and pulled out his phone to write down the name of your vlog. 

When it was time to finally part, Tom added, "feel free to contact me if you want to grab another coffee or something. It was really nice talking to you, [your name]." He handed you a piece of paper with what appeared to be his phone number on it before leaving. You stood there dumbfounded for a moment. Then you smiled to yourself thinking that sometimes improvising really pays off. You had never expected that you would be so glad that your friend had come down with a cold.

[bananaofswifts]

Taylor Swift appears to be waging war over the serial resale of her old master recordings on two fronts. She recently confirmed that she is already underway in the process of re-recording the six albums she made for the Big Machine label, in order to steer her fans (and sync licensing execs) toward the coming alternate versions she’ll control. But now that she’s followed the surprise release of “Folklore” with the very, very surprise release of “Evermore” less than five months later, the thought may occur: If she keeps up this pace, she may have more new albums out on the Republic label than she ever did on Big Machine in a quarter of the time. Flooding the zone to further crowd out the oldies is unlikely to be Swift’s real motivation for giving the world a full-blown “Folklore” sequel this instantaneously: As motivations for prolific activity go, relieving and sublimating quarantine pressure is probably even better than revenge. Anyway, this is not a gift horse to be looked in the mouth. “Evermore,” like its mid-pandemic predecessor, feels like something that’s been labored over — in the best possible way — for years, not something that was written and recorded beginning in August, with the bow said to be put on it only about a week ago. Albums don’t get graded on a curve for how hastily they came together, or shouldn’t be, but this one doesn’t need the handicap. It’d be a jewel even if it’d been in progress forevermore and a day.The closest analog for the relation the new album bears to its predecessor might be one that’d seem ancient to much of Swift’s audience: U2 following “Achtung Baby” with “Zooropa” while still touring behind the previous album. It’s hard to remember now that a whole year and a half separated those two related projects; In that very different era, it seemed like a ridiculously fast follow-up. But the real comparison lies in how U2, having been rewarded for making a pretty gutsy change of pace with “Achtung,” seemed to say: You’re okay with a little experimentation? Let’s see how you like it when we really boil things down to our least commercial impulses, then — while we’ve still got you in the mood.Swift isn’t going avant-garde with “Evermore.” If anything, she’s just stripping things down to even more of an acoustic core, so that the new album often sounds like the folk record that the title of the previous one promised — albeit with nearly subliminal layers of Mellotrons, flutes, French horns and cellos that are so well embedded beneath the profuse finger-picking, you probably won’t notice them till you scour the credits. But it’s taking the risk of “Folklore” one step further by not even offering such an obvious banger (irony intended) as “Cardigan.” Aaron Dessner of the National produced or co-produced about two-thirds of the last record, but he’s on 14 out of 15 tracks here (Jack Antonoff gets the remaining spot), and so the new album is even more all of a piece with his arpeggiated chamber-pop impulses, Warmth amid iciness is a recurring lyrical motif here, and kind of a musical one, too, as Swift’s still increasingly agile vocal acting breathes heat into arrangements that might otherwise seem pretty controlled. At one point Swift sings, “Hey, December, I’m feeling unmoored,” like a woman who might even know she’s going to put her album out a couple of weeks before Christmas. It’s a wintry record — suitable for double-cardigan wearing! — and if you’re among the 99% who have been feeling unmoored, too, then perhaps you are Ready For It. Swift said in announcing the album that she was moving further into fiction songwriting after finding out it was a good fit on much of “Folklore,” a probably inevitable move for someone who’s turning 31 in a few days and appears to have a fairly settled personal life. Which is not to say that there aren’t scores to settle, and a few intriguing tracks whose real-life associations will be speculated upon. But just as the “Betty”/”August” love triangle of mid-year established that modern pop’s most celebrated confessional writer can just make shit up, too, so, here, do we get the narrator of “Dorothea,” a honey in Tupelo who is telling a childhood friend who moved away and became famous that she’s always welcome back in her hometown. (Swift may be doing a bit of empathic wondering in a couple of tracks here how it feels to be at the other end of the telescope.) One time the album takes a turn away from rumination into a pure spirit of fun — while getting dark anyway — is “No Body, No Crime,” a spirited double-murder ballad that may have more than a little inspiration in “Goodbye, Earl.” Since Swift already used the Dixie Chicks for background vocals two albums ago, for this one she brings in two of the sisters from Haim, Danielle and Este, and even uses the latter’s name for one of the characters. Yes, the rock band Haim’s featured appearance is on the only really country-sounding song on the record… there’s one you didn’t see coming, in the 16 hours you had to wonder about it. Yet there are also a handful of songs that clearly represent a Swiftian state of mind. At least, it’s easy to suppose that the love songs that opens the album, “Willow,” is a cousin to the previous record’s “Invisible String” and “Peace,” even if it doesn’t offer quite as many clearly corroborating details about her current relationship as those did. On the sadder side, Swift is apparently determined to run through her entire family tree for heartrending material. On “Lover,” she sang for her stricken mother; on “Folklore,” for her grandfather in wartime. In that tradition the new album offers “Marjorie,” about the beloved grandmother she lost in 2003, when she was 13. (The lyric videos that are being offered online mostly offer static visual loops, but the one for “Marjorie” is an exception, reviving a wealth of stills and home-movie footage of Grandma, who was quite a looker in a miniskirt in her day.) Rue is not something Swift is afraid of here anymore than anywhere else, as she sings, “I should’ve asked you questions / I should’ve asked you how to be / Asked you to write it down for me / Should’ve kept every grocery store receipt / ‘Cause every scrap of you would be taken from me,” lines that will leave a dry eye only in houses that have never known death. The piece de resistance in its poignance is Swift actually resurrecting faint audio clips of Marjorie, who was an opera singer back in the day. It’s almost like ELO’s “Rockaria,” played for weeping instead of a laugh. Swift has not given up, thank God, on the medium that brought her to the dance — the breakup song — but most of them here have more to do with dimming memories and the search for forgiveness, however slowly and incompletely achieved, than feist. But doesn’t Swift know that we like her when she’s angry? She does, and so she delves deep into something like venom just once, but it’s a good one. The ire in “Closure,” a pulsating song about an unwelcome “we can still be friends, right?” letter from an ex, seems so fresh and close to the surface that it would be reasonable to speculate that it is not about a romantic relationship at all, but a professional one she has no intention of ever recalling in a sweet light. Or maybe she does harbor that a disdain for an actual former love with that machinelike a level of intensity. What “Evermore” is full of is narratives that, like the music that accompanies them, really come into focus on second or third listen, usually because of a detail or two that turns her sometimes impressionistic modes completely vivid. “Champagne Problems” is a superb example of her abilities as a storyteller who doesn’t always tell all: She’s playing the role of a woman who quickly ruins a relationship by balking at a marriage proposal the guy had assumed was an easy enough yes that he’d tipped off his nearby family. “Sometimes you just don’t know the answer ‘ Til someone’s on their knees and asks you / ‘She would’ve made such a lovely bride / What a shame she’s fucked in the head’ / They said / But you’ll find the real thing instead / She’ll patch up your tapestry that I shred.” (Swift has doubled the F-bomb quotient this time around, among other expletives, for anyone who may be wondering whether there’s rough wordplay amid Dessner’s delicacy — that would an effing yes.) “‘Tis the Damn Season,” representing a gentler expletive, gives us a character who is willing to settle, or at least share a Christmas-time bed with an ex back in the hometown, till something better comes along. The pleasures here are shared, though not many more fellow artists have broken into her quarantine bubble this time around. Besides Haim’s cameo, Marcus Mumford offers a lovely harmony vocal on “Cowboy Like Me,” which might count as the other country song on the album, and even throws in something Swift never much favored in her Nashville days, a bit of lap steel. Its tale of male and female grifters meeting and maybe — maybe — falling in love is really more determinedly Western than C&W, per se, though. The National itself, as a group, finally gets featured billing on “Coney Island,” with Matt Berninger taking a duet vocal on a track that recalls the previous album’s celebrated Bon Iver collaboration “Exile,” with ex-lovers taking quiet turns deciding who was to blame. (Swift saves the rare laugh line for herself: “We were like the mall before the internet / It was the one place to be.) Don’t worry, legions of new Bon Iver fans: Dessner has not kicked Justin Vernon out of his inner circle just to make room for Berninger. The Bon Iver frontman whose appearance on “Folklore” came as a bit of a shock to some of his fan base actually makes several appearances on this album, and the one that gets him elevated to featured status again, as a duet, the closing “Evermore,” is different from “Exile” in two key ways. Vernon gets to sing in his high register… and he gets the girl. As it turned out, the year 2020 did not involve any such waiting for Swift fans; it’s an embarrassment of stunning albums-ending-in-“ore” that she’s mined out of a locked-down muse.

[sintreaties]

Can you do an analysis of Yumeko's character?

I can try, though as always keep in mind that I’m more of a creator than an analyst and I don’t believe my comprehension of these characters to be above anybody else's.

(cut cause long post)

For the longest time Yumeko was and still is one of the most enigmatic characters I’ve ever seen. We know nothing about her past and now that with the latest chapters her role in the story seems to be changing, the only thing we are sure about is her addiction now.

Yumeko, as the series name clearly states, is a gambling addict. Now, in a word being an addict means that a compulsive behavior takes over one's whole life. We can oversimplify it in two statements: 1) I can’t stop doing this 2) No one can stop me unless I truly want them to.

In a setting like Hyakkaou’s this is twice as dangerous. Not for Yumeko herself — Sayaka’s background check tells us she’s quite loaded in terms of money — but for the people around her. There's a pretty obvious duality to Yumeko's character: on one hand, we have the sweet, childish, almost naive Yumeko, who’s able to befriend even her worst opponents; on the other we have a “plague” who’s unable to keep herself under control and who would do anything to get what she wants, ruining whoever is in her path.

The contrast is interesting to see in scenes like the one in which she offers her tissue to Sayaka because she was crying, knowing that she hates her with all her guts vs the way she completely lost her facade when Yumemite refused to play seriously against Sumika, or when she pressured Itsuki into gambling her Life-Plan. This is simply another consequence of her addiction. Try to politely tell a smoker to quit smoking, see how they react. Amberlynn Reid, a youtuber who’s become a lol-cow during her failed weight-loss journey, suffers from BED (binge eating disorder) and when she can't keep her impulses in check, she calls that part of herself “the binge eating monster”, stating that it pushes her as far as to abuse her own partner if she doesn’t get to eat what and when she wants to.

Here’s the thing though: addicts usually want to stop. Most importantly when their behavior starts to take its toll on them. Although they’re often forced to ignore them, they do have feelings of shame and regret when they end up to do things that average people wouldn’t do (i.e. stealing to have more money for their dose). They know that what they’re doing is bad. They have constant reminders of it. Just like Amberlynn has the hate comments and smokers have the warnings on the packages, Yumeko finds her reminders in her own sister, who ended up in a mental institution precisely because of gambling, and in everyone at Hyakkaou, the main example being Sayaka (I speak about this a bit more here).

And yet, here’s the odd thing: Yumeko never really showed the desire to stop nor a hint of true remorse for anything she’s done. People are calling Kirari a sociopath and a narcissist only because she doesn’t show herself as the usual cute anime girl. Yumeko isn’t that better than her in these terms.

The whole premise of the KKG movie revolves around Suzui trying to convince Yumeko to join the Village, where gambling and money are banned, only for the latter to say, “No thanks. I have only two desires: better desserts at the cafeteria and watching Murasame gamble.” (Full on expression of her duality once again).

Because of gambling, her moral compass is sort of all over the place. She never wanted to liberate the House-Pets destroying the system, that’s Tsubomi who got the wrong idea. Yumeko was an anti-hero for a while, but only out of pure coincidence. Simply, her goal of taking the Student Council coincided with the wishes of whoever wanted to see the SC fall.

Clearly, this could be because Yumeko came at Hyakkaou with a specific goal in mind. At the Academy gambling is often your only mean of survival and it would be foolish to give it up. As Murasame says, “Kirari’s a monster and only another monster can defeat her, hurting everyone else in the same manner.”

That does fit Yumeko’s character, doesn’t it?

So why does Yumeko give up gambling altogether when Kirari refuses to play with her and calls her an ‘impurity’? It would make sense if she came here specifically to defeat Kirari. If she was certain that Ririka would win, that would prevent her from obtaining what she wants, throwing out of the window everything she’s done so far. This is the only possibility I can think of for now, so the next chapters will hopefully clear that up.

Now, Yumeko said that she won’t gamble, but if she’s truly an addict, no matter how stubborn and displeased she gets, she won’d be able to stop just like that. The addiction will either take over or find another mean to express itself, just like sometimes smokers turn to food when they try to quit and how people with BED can end up becoming addicted to shopping, resulting in hoarding behaviors. It’s all about that kick of dopamine.

Rest assured though, that as long as her addiction remains, Yumeko will never fully be able to be one of the good guys. Not like this, and not in a world in which adults can’t plan a fucking intervention. It makes sense for her to be holding the Election under her heel now and going on it could only get worse, with Yumeko hindering her own allies — if she ever had any.

Which brings us to a final point: the way Yumeko builds her relationships and why.

Her first connection at Hyakkaou is Suzui, who’s in so much debt that he’s considering dropping out. He’s a naive guy, too good for his own good. He’s easy to mold in Yumeko’s hands and that’s eaxctly what she does in more than a gamble (ESP, Zero Nym-Type). Is this also because of the “monster” inside of her, preying on the weak to take as much as it can? I don’t believe their friendship is completely “pure”, though I also don’t think Yumeko is harmful by nature. She might not even be fully conscious of this.

We have Saotome, who believed herself so sleek and ended up as a House Pet. Why would Yumeko befriend someone who tried to ruin her on her very first day? Did she see a powerful ally and a perfect opponent in order to seek the thrill of the risk, or is she really just that naive? Yumeko isn’t stupid. Intelligence also comes through emotional values. Again, I don’t believe her connection with Mary is devoid of secondary reasons, though just like in Suzui’s case, the latter come into play only when they hinder Yumeko’s gambling.

Tsubomi and Itsuki were practically shouldered and then used with the promise of obtaining something better for themselves. Sayaka? She called Yumeko a “plague” and yet Yumeko never really resented her. Sure she almost caused her death, but that was a collateral matter. Yumeko harbors no ill intent towards her, notwithstanding Sayaka’s hatred. Yumeko doesn’t show hate for Kiwatari either, and yet he never acted right around her.

Midari, on the other hand, deserved her indifference and dislike because she messed up their gamble and there’s nothing that Yumeko dislikes as much as a set result in her games. The two cases of Midari and Sayaka/Kiwatari are perfect to show the contrast between the kind of person Yumeko would be without her addiction and the kind of person she is now that her life is ruled by gambling.

What about Kirari then? In terms of risks, Kirari too showed a similar appetite. Perhaps Yumeko herself would like to see her own addiction consume her, just like she thinks Kirari would — thought I’m starting to believe the supernova talk was more about the clan than about herself. Maybe, just like Kirari with Ririka, Yumeko wants to fight the part of Kirari that resembles her the most and Kirari’s refusal proved that she had been very wrong in judging her character. Apparently Kirari “killed” her sister, but that’s Terano’s word, Yumeko never expresses herself on the matter.

In all these examples, the main thread is still the same. The gambling addiction has always been Yumeko’s core in the series and as of today it would be impossible to consider Yumeko’s character whole without it. People tend to forget its extent.

I do hope flashbacks and such will let us see how Yumeko was before she became a kakegurui, because in the end, addictions are only a part of who we are — unless we let them consume us.

I hope this answer was as satisfactory as it could be.