#source: russell howard

[hawkinsincorrect]

Hopper: I think Joyce has lost it...

Hopper: But since she’s our leader, we’ll follow suit.

[incorrecthsrquotes]

I think the King of Town has lost it. But since he’s our leader, we’ll follow suit.

Strong Bad during Strong Badia the Free

[justincorrectarcanequotes]

Silco: Have you ever met that person you loved so much you wanted to stab them? Vander: What? Silco: Oh, I love you. It's just better if we're both dead.

[edwardseymour]

Is Katherine Howard very 'luxurious'? How is her family's expenditure situation?

✨ terfs/zionists fuck off ✨

i’m not sure what you mean by your question abt her family: her father ran up debts and struggled financially, but the howards were, generally, wealthy… and her uncle and grandmother likely financed her early career at court.

i think a lot has been said about how indulgent, frivolous and spoilt katherine was as queen, with alison weir suggesting “each day, katherine discovered some new caprice, and her greed earned her the disapproval of many of the older people at court” — for which there is no evidence — and lacey baldwin smith characterised katherine as “a doll upon which to lavish all the luxury and display of tudor imagination. at twenty-one katherine howard, temperamentally, was quite capable of acting the role of the pampered and irresponsible child bride, but she lacked the wit, patience and understanding to play the companion” — which can be disputed with evidence of her involving herself with the queen’s work, and multiple positive descriptions of her by her contemporaries.

moreover, the primary source for the idea that katherine was indulgent and frivolous comes from the spanish chronicle, so it’s not reliable: russell admits that “a spanish merchant living in london, who admittedly never let fact stand in the way of a good story, claimed later that ‘the king had no wife who made him spend so much money in dresses and jewels as she did, who every day had some new caprice’”. likewise, baldwin smith described the same author as “one not very reliable chronicler”. so, there has so be a level of criticism applied to the validity afforded to this source. that’s just basic analytical skill as a historian.

as for actual sources as to her frivolity, we can say that a considerable portion of her collection of jewels and lands (excluding those that came from the queen’s collection) came from henry by way of gifts, with marillac reporting “the king is so amorous of her that he cannot treat her well enough”. the spanish chronicle seems to have rendered this as something katherine demanded, that “the king had no wife who made him spend so much money in dresses and jewels as she did”, which almost certainly seems incorrect, if for no other reason than katherine was not his wife for very long. true enough, if we traipse through her inventories and other records, we can identify numerous gifts from henry. we can also identify gifts that katherine regifted to others, as well as pieces she had repurposed. that she was reported as favouring french fashions suggest her wardrobe was distinct from her predecessors enough to suggest new pieces were purchased in place of her inheriting pieces from jane seymour — albeit anne of cleves did also introduce french fashions to her wardrobe — but this can’t be corroborated with evidence, as hayward has pointed out: “little has come to light about katherine’s wardrobe”.

comparatively, it does not appear that katherine’s material wealth was excessive relative to henry’s other wives. as russell points out: “a defence of her spending can be mounted by pointing out that it does not seem so great when set in its wider context. her jewellery acquisitions in the summer and winter of 1540, for instance, compare favourably in cost to those commissioned by or for anne boleyn, even before she became queen”. likewise tallis’ research has indicated that “jane seymour’s collection was significantly larger than that of either of her successors. […] katherine howard’s inventory consisted of more items than that of the queenly inventory of her successor, katherine parr”.

simply put: the royal court was an exorbitant/garish display of opulence and wealth, irrespective of katherine — earlier in his reign henry’s court was described as a remarkable show of “jewels and gold and silver, the pomp being unprecedented”. katherine as queen, and as an english-born woman lacking international royal standing, was simply more vulnerable to accusations of overspending and frivolity than her husband or other members of the royal family, just as anne boleyn had been. this extends into her historiography too, with gareth russell claiming katherine valued henry because he “could give her everything she ever wanted”, and that “katherine’s extravagance was not balanced by any particular displays of piety or memorable largesse”; perpetuating this idea of teenaged frivolity while otherwise relishing the lavishness of royal and aristocratic circles. consider how russell describes henry’s court otherwise (“the henrician court in its twilight, a glittering but pernicious sunset” in the introduction, as one example). he wants to have it both ways, critical of the barbarity of the henrician court, whilst finding irresistible the level of wealth only barbarity can uphold — this extends beyond henry viii’s court, as russell has also written about the queen mother and titanic, so clearly richness and materiality has its own draw as a subject. meanwhile for katherine, it is used against her: “the very things that made katherine howard’s time as henry viii’s queen so pleasant became a cudgel with which to beat her” (blakemore). moreover i think it is a detail we read backwards into katherine’s historiography, as people allow archetypes about teenage girls, and young women who marry older, wealthy men, to colour their conceptualisation of katherine howard. i’m old enough to remember how people talked about anna nicole smith. especially given the fact that materialism is an element of the investigation into her downfall — “one cannot read the surviving records of the scandal without noticing the ubiquitous concern with the material circumstances of katherine’s indiscretions” (irish) — as the council were very interested in the material connections between the people involved as evidence of courtship conventions by way of gift-giving etc. it has been extrapolated in popular imagination to justify katherine’s actions as those of a spoilt teenage girl.

[tellthemeerkatsitsfine]

Well, I've updated the HTML page:

Here is the new row added to the spreadsheet.

Date: 2024-12-29

Source: The Bugle podcast

Title: John and Andy Answer Your Questions!

Who said it: Listener question (from Sarah - editor's note: I'm Sarah), discussed by Andy Zaltzman and John Oliver

Name for group given: Chocolate Milk Gang

Members listed: Russell Howard, John Oliver, Daniel Kitson, David O'Doherty, Alun Cochrane (Andy Zaltzman reads this membership list from the 2007 Jay Richardson article on The List)

How they were described:

Andy Zaltzman: This comes from Sarah, who asks: "in the early 2000s, Andy Zaltzman and John Oliver were in an international of syndicate of comedians called the Chocolate Milk Gang. John Oliver: What? How is that true? Andy Zaltzman: This was news to me, John. I had to look this up. John Oliver: Chocolate Milk Gang? Andy Zaltzman: The Chocolate Milk Gang. John Oliver: That sounds like a kind of group that robs banks, and leaves chocolate milk in the vaults that once held gold bullions. Andy Zaltzman: Yeah. The only evidence I could find for this was an interview with Russell Howard - John Oliver: Oh, for fuck's sake. There you go, there's your culprit. Andy Zaltzman: Our comedic contemporary. But not our age contemporary, given that he's still, I think, about twenty-one years old. John Oliver: Yeah. Andy Zaltzman: Um, in which he was described as being part of the "Chocolate Milk Gang", which - it didn't mention me, it did mention you, Daniel Kitson, David O'Doherty, and I think Alun Cochrane, as "comedians who have turned away from the hard living, hard drinking lifestyle often associated with stand-up comedy". And were apparently known as the Chocolate Milk Gang. Now, I don't remember this phrase - John Oliver: No. Andy Zaltzman: From, you know, when - I mean, this article must have been at least from twenty years ago. The Chocolate Milk Gang. John Oliver: That feels like a label that has been stuck on us, rather than a label that we concocted ourselves. Also, one of the many reasons I think that that is built on nothing is that I'm not even a fan of chocolate milk, Andy. That would not be my drink of choice at any time. I don't know what the point of chocolate milk is, really. Andy Zaltzman: No. I mean, unless you've got a chocolate cow. I mean, what really is the point of it? Um - I mean, a chocolate mozzarella, I'd be up for that. I could see that working. John Oliver: Would you? Andy Zaltzman: If you get a chocolate buffalo, yeah. It depends on the texture, it's all about the texture. Anyway, and, um: "Accounts of the group's origins," Sarah continues, "tend to differ in specifics, such as who coined its name, whether they drank chocolate milk or milkshakes. Could you provide a definitive explanation? This question has been keeping me awake at night for a number of years," writes Sarah. John Oliver: That, I would - you need to sleep. There's your - I will say, I'm not a fan of chocolate milk, had not heard of this term, I think, like you, Andy, until recently. So, we're both in the clear, as far as I'm concerned. Andy Zaltzman: Right. John Oliver: Now, you've pointed the finger pretty strongly at Russell Howard there. Andy Zaltzman: Yeah. John Oliver: And I think it's incumbent upon him to fucking explain it. I would be not be surprised if that guy guzzled chocolate milk to a medically inadvisable extent. Andy Zaltzman: Yeah. I mean, when we all started comedy, I think he was probably too young to buy alcohol, so that might have been part of it.

I see how the first thing to come up when Zaltzman Googled it was that article from The List. That's the first thing I found too, when I first started searching for this quite a long time ago. And it's so incomprehensible, so fucking weird, making it sound like Russell Howard and his buddies were the first comedians to ever wear a t-shirt, and dropping that "Chocolate Milk Gang" name as though it makes any sense at all. It took me many hours of further research to find any of those other references to it, which further explain.

I think I slightly forgot how absurd the words "Chocolate Milk Gang" sound if you're not used to them. I mean, that's what started me down that rabbit hole in the first place, back then. I saw those words on John Oliver and Russell Howard's Wikipedia pages, put there as though that's a reasonable thing to call people with no explanation, and I thought - I need to know what it means. So I Googled, and the only thing that came up right away was that List article, which made everything even less clear, and then I kept searching, and now, several years later, there's that spreadsheet. But the words sound normal to me now. Zaltzman and Oliver's bewildered reaction reminds me that, if you haven't normalized the words "Chocolate Milk Gang" so much that you frequently use the abbreviation CMG for them, it's a really wild thing for someone to just send you an email about.

They put a lot of blame on Russell Howard there, which makes sense because the article about him is the main thing that comes up when you Google. But that one article (from 2007 - Andy Zaltzman said it must be at least 20 years ago, but it's in fact only about 18 years ago) is one of only two times I've seen Russell Howard mention it. Though the other time was in an article from 2024, so apparently Russell Howard still remembers it now.

However, I still think the Chocolate Milk Gang concept mainly comes from David O'Doherty. He's the person who's referenced it publicly the most often, according to my extensive research. One of the only references that comes from someone outside The Gang itself is from David McSavage, who brings it up while talking shit about David O'Doherty; he frames this gang as consisting of DO'D and his friends. David O'Doherty has referenced the Chocolate Milk Gang by name on three different occasions (a magazine interview from 2008, his ComComPod episode from 2014, and an interview with the Irish Times from 2006), but has also done multiple interviews across many years, in which he's talked in very specific detail about the CMG and its origins, stopping just short of using the actual name. Other people have done this too, but DO'D's done it the most often, I think. He's also got a biography page on his website (that he clearly wrote himself, not just a publicity blurb) the details the CMG origins, despite not quite using the actual CMG name.

So the obvious conclusion, to draw based on the above Bugle podcast transcript, is that I have been a victim of a long-term prank by David O'Doherty, who thought it would be funny to drop a few hints across many years that some comedians went by an absurd name, in case some comedy fan ever does a very deep dive into their history and finds all those clues and actually believes that the most famous political satirist in the world was once a member of something called the Chocolate Milk Gang. Though DO'D first referenced the CMG by name in 2006, so it's a prank that started long before he actually knew how famous John would be.

Not sure how he got his bitter enemy David McSavage in on it - though I think they were once friends (up until right around the time that McSavage talked a bunch of shit about him on a podcast). And Russell Howard. And Dominic Maxwell? And they got it on Wikipedia.

I mean, I'm joking about it being a prank. But I want to know how the term could have been used for so long without Zaltzman or Oliver having even heard of it. That's what surprised me. I was expecting them to say it wasn't really used much, but not to say they'd never heard the words before in their lives. And I would say that maybe they just don't remember much from the 00s, but John Oliver, amazingly, remembered every damn detail of Cowgate correctly. And Andy could pretty accurately describe Zaltzhorse Night.

I mean, that website of DO'D's also has an email address on it. "Hello, why did you lie to Stuart Goldsmith about which terminology Glenn Wool used to call you a fucking nerd in 2002? Thank you for your time, big fan of your work - especially all your stand-up hours that I've had the privilege to see or hear, and the time you took apart a cow in 2003. I also liked the 2006 TV show where you played with a kitten for a bit, and those times in 2006-07-08 when you got locked in an Australian radio station all night with Daniel Kitson and Claudia O'Doherty."

...I won't, I promise. If I wait another few years, maybe someone will explain.

I can't get over the fact that I now have a video of John Oliver telling me to go to sleep. I have affected John Oliver's life. I frantically Googled a bunch of stuff several years ago (and then continued researching it over the next few years), and as a result of that, a few minutes of John Oliver's life were different than they'd have otherwise been. Also, I made Andy Zaltzman laugh. You can hear him properly laughing as he reads the end of my email, where I say it's been keeping me awake at night (I'm... glad they think that was a joke). Fucking delightful. What an amazing outcome with so many more questions than answers.

[lbctal]

y’all mind if i yap about the walton gq interview a bit?

okay shoutout to my friend ash for manifesting this interview after danny did his LMAO

FIRST THOUGHTS: WHERE THE FUCK IS VENUS???

if you asked me his most iconic characters, venus is absolutely in the top three. how the fuck do they mention BILLY CRASH and JAY WHITTLE but not VENUS VAN DAM???? fuck whoever came up with this list.

now that that’s out of my system, let’s go in order, shall we?

lee russell: ty walton for describing russell fucking perfectly. him and i are the only people who understand russell. (jk) ALSO YESSS THE DUCK LIPS BUT SIR CAN YOU SAY A LINE. PLEASEEE. on my knees. MOST IMPORTANTLY; WALTON SHIPS GAMBYRUSSELL. FUCK YESSSS 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈 LOVE WINS

cooper howard: snore. i’m so fucking bored of this guy. are we not tired of hearing shit about the goddamn ghoul. moving on.

shane vendrell: STOP MAKING ME WATCH LEM DIE. CHRIST. but thank you again walton for focusing more on the shield than on your biggest piece of shit character!! and when he started talking ‘psychological condition’ it reminded me of how i’m like almost certain shane is bipolar. wonder if he’d agree w me on that? anyways.

boyd crowder: WHYYYY DO THEY HAVE TO PLAY THE FINAL SCENE HOLY FUCKING SHIT I ALMOST CRIED AGAIN. so thankful to mr. olyphant for convincing walton to do justified. their chemistry IS SO PALPABLE. his love for boyd and raylan and justified in general is so fucking precious to me and it makes the show so much more special and it would absolutely not be justified if it weren’t for his spectacular input. i could listen to him blab on about that show all fucking day, it’s the whole reason i love him. beautiful fucking words to describe it. just speechless. much love to this man. ‘raylan givens is an asshole. but he’s my asshole.’ WE KNOW YOU’RE THE ORIGINAL RAYLANBOYD SHIPPER, BABE. 🩶

baby billy freeman: this bit was JAM PACKED w info and i loved it sm. really shocked they just came up w him on the spot but you could really tell cuz he’s like the perfect combination of walton’s ideas and danny’s ideas cultivated into this old man. too bad he didn’t mention that he was inspired by his dad again, lol.

billy crash: this part was like a bit confusing to me cuz i have heard different stories about how he got the role from other sources but it’s good to get some confirmation. pretty akin to what i heard, though. also giggled a bit when he said you don’t change what quentin writes cuz tarantino himself said ‘someone’ wanted to change the ending of django. but y’all didn’t hear that from me, lmao. always love to watch billy crash writhing in pain. :)

chris mannix: also a lot of new info for this one!! although i already knew about all the drama about h8 and the leak and all that, it’s interesting to hear the process the actors went through. would’ve paid millions to hear him do his voice. also why is he gatekeeping info, UGH. all i wanna know is if he had an encounter with tarantino’s punsihment dildo for falling asleep on set. lmfao.

the hero / jay whittle: okay, at first i was kinda pissed that he got a spot instead of venus, but this might’ve been my favorite segment aside from boyd’s. I never really find anything about him talking about his time on set of I’m a virgo so this was such a nice treat. i LOVE how he approaches each one of his characters, it’s so special and is why each one of them are so special and different from any other character you’ve ever seen. the wig story was fucking hilarious and it’s just so sweet how he says let’s figure this person out together. such a wonderful guy. it is SUCH a BEAUTIFUL story with a POWERFUL message and i adore how he recognized that. and the way he described jay? CHEF’S FUCKING KISS. mid-life crisis superhero who behaves like an alcoholic and is incapable of seeing different than his own pov? walt, you’re a fucking genius. his closing statement was absolute beauty.

anyways thanks for reading my ramble.

JUSTICE FOR MY GIRL VENUS

[thewarmestplacetohide]

Dread by the Decade: Phantom of the Opera

👻 You can support me on Ko-Fi! ❤️

★★★

Plot: After he is fired from the Paris Opera, a violinist's obsession with a rising singer grows dangerous.

Review: Though its story and pacing disappoint, this adaptation's gorgeous costumes, sets, and music still make it worth a watch.

Source Material: Le Fantôme de l'Opéra by Gaston Leroux Year: 1943 Genre: Psychological Horror, Gothic Country: United States Language: English Runtime: 1 hour 32 minutes

Director: Arthur Lubin Writers: Samuel Hoffenstein, Eric Taylor Cinematographers: W. Howard Green, Hal Mohr Editor: Russell F. Schoengarth Composer: Edward Ward Cast: Susanna Foster, Claude Rains, Nelson Eddy, Edgar Barrier, Leo Carrillo, Jane Farrar

-----

Story: 2/5 - The film's weakest link. Far too much time is given to overlong opera scenes at the expense of the story. The actual conflict and climax are wildly rushed as a result.

Performances: 3.5/5 - Rains is great when he's pathetic and beginning to spiral, but, once he turns into the Phantom, a level of intimidation is absent. Foster is lovely as Christine, though.

Cinematography: 4.5/5 - Really great camera movements and angles.

Editing: 3/5

Music: 4.5/5 - Outstanding, if slightly overused.

Choreography & Stunts: 4/5

Effects & Props: 4/5 - The cave in is very elaborate.

Sets: 5/5 - Elegant and vibrant.

Costumes, Hair, & Make-Up: 5/5 - While I cannot attest to the historical accuracy, every aspect is stunning with incredible detail work.

Trigger Warnings:

Very mild violence

Misogyny (brief and largely period appropriate)

[ophcliaswrites]

GREG DAVIES GIF PACK || by clicking on the source link below you’ll find #500 gifs of greg davies in taskmaster, would i lie to you, the graham norton show, the russell howard hour & various youtube videos. all of these gifs were created by me from scratch so please do not repost or claim as your own. you are more than welcome to use them in edits and whatever else as long as you credit me ( @ophcliaswrites​​​​​ ). if you use these gifs, please like or reblog this post. if you enjoy my gifs please consider donating to my friend’s gofundme to help with his transition.

[namjhyun]

MOVIE REVIEW | The Magic of Ordinary Days (2005)

This film is a period piece, set in Colorado during 1944, and it follows the story of Livy Dunne (Keri Russell), a young overprotected and privileged woman who was raised independent and always deeply involved in her studies. But when she has to take some time off to take care of her ill mother, Livy finds herself lonely which leads to a brief indiscretion with a soldier and an unplanned pregnancy. Her father, a minister, anxious to avoid a scandal and save his daughter's reputation, arranges a quick marriage to a farmer, Ray Singleton (Skeet Ulrich).

Ray is shy and quiet, living a modest life in a house kilometers away from the town. He's also very kind and polite, and wears his heart on his sleeve. Ray is also aware of Livy's pregnancy but is open minded and accepts it as a blessing.

The films mostly focuses on their slow burn courtship and how two very different people, who find themselves alone and feeling lonely, can also become to love each other. For Ray this relationship it's about expanding his world, meanwhile Livy learns to appreciate the life she has overlooked until now.

There's a subplot surrounding two japanese women who Livy befriends. This part baffles me. While it was handled well, at the same time, it was superficial enough to not dwell that this women live in an internment camp or what kind of life they are experiencing.

The film is an adaptation from Anne Howard Creel's novel of the same name and I have to admit, it made me curious enough about the original source material because of the period and place the author decided to base her story. Perhaps this particular subplot is better developed in the book and so the reasons as to why it's part of the story well explained. I might read it during my New Year break.

Apart from that, I have to say this was a very beautiful love story about tenderness and how much it can change a person for better.

[transparentgentlemenmarker]

Vladimir Poutine, Kim Jong-Un et Donald Trump ont ete aperçus sur les quais de la seine. Selon des sources émanants du C.I.O, Les 3 chefs d'états ont été appelés à la rescousse pour venir redorer l'image de marque de ces JO mis à mal par la désastreuse Cérémonie d'ouverture qui a scandalisé le monde entier. Au vu des images ils on été accueillis chaleureusement par la population parisienne, exédée par les manquements du président Macron

Howard X, sosie du leader nord-coréen Kim Jong-un, et Russell White, qui se fait passer pour le président américain Donald Trump, Dmitri Gratchev pour Vladimir Poutine, certainement il y en d'autres

[joeyclaire]

some highlights from inside black mirror

the forward ends with brooker telling the reader to stop reading the forward and to “get the fuck off my page”

brooker thinks fact that the national anthem makes it hard for people to recommend black mirror is funny

the national anthem was inspired by i’m a celebrity get me out of here

the pig’s name was madge

the national anthem’s name comes from the obvious source AND the radiohead song, which came up randomly on spotify

when brooker found out about piggate his immediate reaction was to question his reality

fifteen million merits is an intentional critique of capitalism

daniel kaluuya sleeps a lot on set

the real white bear plush is hidden in the garden of the house where the protagonist wakes up

“and i always take from it that victoria’s incredibly remorseful about what she’s done. being constantly shown the evil things she’s done to that little girl, it’s obviously destroying her, and there’s real remorse there” aka this character will always break my heart

the concept art for waldo of moment fame is actually extremely cute

waldo was partially inspired by gorillaz and had at least three puppeteers working on making him move at all times

bryce dallas howard had an emotional breakdown over fifteen million merits

nosedive was originally about a celebrity fighting for his life to get his rating down to a 0

brooker thinks he might be autistic

the setting aesthetics of nosedive were inspired by the truman show

the scene where lacie falls into the muddy swamp was filmed on bryce’s birthday and they immediately sang happy birthday to her afterwards

bryce and wyatt russell don’t hide the fact that they’re nepo babies <3

shut up and dance was originally set in america ONLY because it’d be easier for the main characters to get a gun

the twist was added a bit later because kenny doing All That just to avoid leaking a video of him jacking off was objectively unrealistic

kenny’s clothes are all too big on purpose to make them look sad and lonely and like someone hiding his body without screaming “that’s a man in a pedophile coat”

it was really hard to find anyone who’d let their kid play the little girl for obvious reasons so jones got her own daughter to do it, and lawther was creeped out just playing the scene

lawther and brooker both found kenny smelling his fingers after jacking off “fucking weird” and then half the production team passed around the blame as to who put that in the scene

this is getting very long i should save the rest for reblogs

[tomoleary]

Paul Gulacy, P. Craig Russell, Walt Simonson, and Howard Chaykin - Life on Other Worlds Portfolio (Rosebud Productions, 1978)

Thanks to thebristolboard for completing the set! Williamson, Gulacy, Chaykin, Simonson. Russell’s image is included above.

Source

[callipraxia]

Books Read, May 2023

I've thought of starting a book blog before, but alas - I never have enough to say when I don't have someone to bounce off of, or at least can't figure out how to say it. Plus, I mostly read nonfiction, so...probably not the most thrilling reviews. In lieu of that...here's what I read in May.

Courting Scandal: The Rise and Fall of Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford - James Taffe

Jane Boleyn: The True Story of the Infamous Lady Rochford - Julia Fox

Young and Damned and Fair: The Life of Catherine Howard, Fifth Wife of King Henry VIII - Gareth Russell

Inside the Tudor Court: Henry VIII and His Six Wives Through the Writings of the Spanish Ambassador Eustace Chapuys - Lauren Mackay

Wolsey: The Life of King Henry VIII's Cardinal - John Matusiak

Cardinal Wolsey - Mandell Creighton

Remembering Wolsey: A History of Commemorations and Representations - J. Patrick Hornbeck II.

The Life and Death of Thomas Wolsey Cardinal: Once Archbishop of York and Lord Chancellor of England - Sir William Cavendish

Obviously, I got 'on a tangent,' as I do sometimes. I've gathered this may have something to do with the ADHD, though not from particularly official sources, so don't quote me on that. In this case, it was partially a return to old tangents; while I'd not read the last three books on this list before, my reading journal indicates I previously went on a bit of a tangent on the subject of Cardinal Wolsey in February and March of 2021. I was also immensely pleased, in my Kindle recommendations earlier this month, to find a book on Chapuys; he was always one of those background figures in the historical fictions I read as a kid that I wished I knew more about. Gotta read his letters myself sometime, since it seems, from the Google, that they can be viewed online in English translation.

I'll give Lauren Mackay this: she's much more honest than a lot of authors are when she reached places where the information simply no longer exists, or at least hasn't been recovered yet. There was enough 'prose' to keep it interesting, but not excessive attempts to state things about the ambassador that she couldn't back up with evidence. This, I felt, was in sharp contrast to Julia Fox; I loved the descriptions of the court, the attempts to tell a story, and these things definitely have a place in history-writing, but here they were fairly blatantly...fluffy, I suppose. Now, I'm hardly one to complain of fluff, rather fond of soft things myself, but it was glaringly obvious, when she said Lady Rochford must have been thinking or feeling something, that she was essentially filling in the blanks with a story of her own devising. Sometimes the 'costume' of historicity the text wore was something it looked 'comfortable' in and sometimes it was quite obviously a poorly-researched French hood shoved awkwardly onto the head of an actress with zero knowledge of sixteenth century fashion and how to wear it, but there were always leaps from one point to another. In contrast to that, I felt that Gareth Russell balanced his reader-drawing prose fluff with his historical analysis much more adeptly when considering Catherine Howard; I've read his book more than once over the past couple of years and expect I'll read it again in years to come. I came away with no impression of James Taffe's work, alas, except that he clearly wrote his book as an exasperated rebuttal to Julia Fox; I was, unfortunately, very sleep-deprived when I read that, so I'll have to read it again sometime. My lack of sleep, however, is not why I read the rebuttal first and the book it was responding to second...even though I'd had Fox's book in my physical TBR shelves for several years and only stumbled across Taffe's the day I bought it. I'm told I've always had a tendency to do things in the wrong order and somehow make it work anyway, so why mess with a good system at this point?

As for one book being a rebuttal to another - here we come to one of my favorite things about reading history, which is to say, how often historians blatantly attack or support each other in their writing. In the last couple of chapters of Remembering Wolsey, I was irrationally delighted to see the author offer opinions on every book I read during my 2021 tangent as well as one of the ones I read this time around. It's amusing (to me) to sort of...get to know the different personalities: "hm, yes, I can see why someone would say that about Ives," or "yeah, I never did get Starkey's position on that, all things considered," or "ha, that was almost the exact same thing I said two years ago about Ridley!" It's...oddly cozy, I suppose.

Hornbeck was especially interesting as he wasn't writing about what happened - he was writing about the trends in how people have remembered what happened over the past few centuries. There were interesting thoughts on historical fiction throughout, especially near the end; that one may warrant a full independent review, if I can muster the energy to write it out. For now, however - there's all the reading I did in May.

[thebigshotman]

Hello everyone! As promised, here is my review of the film I watched in film class this week: “His Girl Friday”, directed by Howard Hawks and starring Cary Grant and Rosalind Russel as the leads! The movie’s in the public domain, actually, so you can watch it immediately after reading this on YouTube if you so wish. But before any of that, here’s what I thought of one of Quentin Tarantino’s favorite movies!

The plot concerns a divorced pair of newspaper workers, Walter and Hildy. Hildy’s divorced him and is getting married to another man in order to settle down and become a housewife (keep in mind this was made 1940). Walter does noooooot like that, however; he’s still in love with her, in certain ways. So after roping her into covering one last story, about the impending execution of one Earl Williams, he conspires in every possible way to keep her and her new lover away from each other so she’ll stay. The climax brings every single plot point together in a way that’s both messy and clean at the same time, somehow. Everyone’s a horrible person in their own way, and if that weren’t the case it most certainly wouldn’t be the comedy it is.

The main thing to know before going in is that the dialogue is insanely fast. You’d think me being a fan of the Marx Brothers would’ve helped me with that department, but it confused even me at times. A lot of it is on top of each other, as well, particularly arguments between Walter and Hildy (much like an argument in real life would be, to its credit). This necessitates multiple viewings to catch everything that’s going on, and can make the final act very confusing if you aren’t paying close attention. Basically, imagine if the scene from Pulp Fiction where the drug dealers are arguing was the whole movie. Not bad necessarily, just confusing for a first time viewer.

That being said…I liked this movie! Between this and “Strangers on a Train” last week I guess I’ve underestimated just how entertaining realistic fiction can be. I’ll have to come back to it to get everything, but I wouldn’t mind doing so. The acting was quite good, and it takes a special sort of person to talk that fast, especially when someone’s also talking fast right in front of you. Cary Grant in particular was great, oddly and eerily charming considering the things he did. That and his little “get out” moment (which is the source of the gif seen below lol)

It heartily gets my recommendation! Just make sure you have subtitles on lol. Next week is “Breathless”, a French movie by Jean-Luc Godard that apparently inspired the Beatles movie “A Hard Day’s Night”, and therefore every music video ever, a fair amount. Stay tuned for that next week! And stay tuned tomorrow for replies to threads and asks, for real this time.

This is the gif haha

We also talked about Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton in class and let me tell you…I have never been so amazed at the bravery of a man as I have of Keaton. Man did all of his own stunts and his stunts were something else 😮 And with the Frisk face the whole time too lol

[fearsmagazine]

WITCH – Review

DISTRIBUTOR: Amcomri & 101 Films

SYNOPSIS: In 1575 England, Twyla, a resident of a small village, encounters a mysterious stranger who urges her to stay away from the town temporarily. The stranger warns her that she could get caught up in a complex case involving a double murder and a subsequent witch trial. Twyla's husband, William, is chosen as a juror in the trial. During the court proceedings, Twyla is shockingly arrested by the sheriff at their home. To clear her name and save her from the false accusation of witchcraft, which could lead to her execution if found guilty, William joins forces with the stranger. Their mission is to uncover the true identity of the real witch responsible for the crimes. Time is of the essence as William races against the clock to exonerate his wife and bring justice to the situation.

REVIEW: "WITCH" by Craig Hinde and Marc Zammit, despite its intriguing premise, fails to deliver a captivating viewing experience due to its disjointed narrative, overwhelming sound design, and vibrant production designs.

The story follows the typical tropes, featuring magic, demons, and Christians. The writers' attempt to incorporate a time loop element that feels disjointed and doesn't blend well with the rest of the narrative. Many essential elements are assumed without providing any explanation or backstory. Essentially, the story revolves around a simplistic narrative of love and magic set against a backdrop of tyrannical oppression. While the characters are likable, they lack depth and engagement. Predictable dialogue further hampers the storytelling. To further complicate matters, a sequence during the end credits suggests a potential continuation of the tale, adding an unnecessary layer of confusion.

The filmmakers had a great location that appeared a bit too pristine for its setting in the late 1500s. The costumes and makeup also seemed a bit too clean and new, lacking the worn and dirty look that would have been more authentic. Even the character of Johanna, who was bloodied, didn't quite feel convincing.

One particularly frustrating scene involved William, a blacksmith, working on horseshoes. Instead of the typical depiction of blacksmiths working over a fire and pounding hot, glowing metal, there was no fire or smoke, and the metal he was working on was cold. This scene lacked authenticity.

For the outdoor night sequences, the film used blue light, which this reviewer did not favor, considering how many new cameras allow directors to shoot in very low light.

Finally, the demon design was uninspired, a formless tall figure that lacked presence and menace.

While serviceable, Imran Ahmad’s score occasionally became excessively loud, often failing to enhance the visuals or narrative in any meaningful way.

The cast's performance was praiseworthy, effectively utilizing the available material. Ryan Spong and Sarah Alexandra Marks excelled in portraying a couple with a deep connection. However, certain dialogues lacked originality and were predictable. Fabrizio Santino and Daniel Jordan's portrayal of menacing and passionate villains was noteworthy.

The movie WITCH has some redeemable qualities, but overall it feels disjointed and lacks cohesion. The plot is convoluted, and the production design, while visually appealing, seems too polished and modern for the time period in which the story is set. It appears that the film's co-directors, Craig Hinde and Marc Zammit, took on too many responsibilities, and lacked creative input from external sources. Additionally, the film's dark elements are undermined by an overly upbeat tone and grounding details. Again, the ending scene, in particular, is confusing and unsatisfying.

CAST: Sarah Alexandra Marks, Russel Shaw, Ryan Spong, Fabrizio Santino, Daniel Jordan, Mims Burton, Anto Sharp, Danny Howard, Nell Bailey, Nick Tuck, Jame Hamlet and Ella Starbuck. CREW: Director/Producer - Marc Zammit; Director/Screenplay/Producer/Editor - Craig Hinde; Producer - Tony Zammit; Cinematographer - Richard Oakes; Score - Imran Ahmad; Costume Designer - Jenny Anderton; Head Makeup Artist - Kate Griffiths; Visual Effects - Reece Sanders. OFFICIAL: N.A. FACEBOOK: N.A. TWITTER: https://twitter.com/WitchMovie1 RELEASE DATE: Digital and VOD April 30th, 2024 TRAILER -

**Until we can all head back into the theaters our “COVID Reel Value” will be similar to how you rate a film on digital platforms - 👍 (Like), 👌 (It’s just okay), or 👎 (Dislike)

Reviewed by Joseph B Mauceri

[tellthemeerkatsitsfine]

How's it going, everyone? Did everyone else have a normal night last night? We all had a normal night. We're all doing fine.

Okay. I'm feeling slightly more coherent today, so it's time to treat this audio clip as the important piece of information it is. A new addition to the slew of research that I'd already summarized in my spreadsheet (to which I have new things to add, but annoyingly made plans to spend New Year's Eve in a collection of hot tubs with my roommate, rather than transcribing podcast quotes and translating them into HTML table code, so I'll have to do that later).

Andy Zaltzman and John Oliver claim that they have never heard of the Chocolate Milk Gang, that this term was applied to them without their knowledge. Which means that John Oliver has never read his own Wikipedia page, since it's referenced on there. But to be fair, I can entirely believe that John Oliver has never read his own Wikipedia page.

I was sort of expecting something like this, though not such a clear-cut denial. I thought the truth might be something like, the term was only used a couple of times, David O'Doherty and Russell Howard particularly liked it so they brought it up in interviews sometimes, no one else actually used it. And I've said before that I have a theory about why those are the only two people who kept using a term years later, even though it sounds like it wasn't even used much at the time. David O'Doherty, I assume, does it because he's got a heart of gold and loves his friends; and Russell Howard, I assume, does it because connection to comedians like Kitson give him some street cred after he got too much mainstream success.

So I wasn't surprised that Zaltzman and Oliver didn't immediately have strong associations with the term. But I was surprised to hear them claim that they'd never heard it before in their entire lives. Which does open the possibility that this is all a lie and the term was not really used at all, and David O'Doherty just thought it would be funny to play a prank on us in an interview.

My spreadsheet may not yet be updated with the new information, but it can still help out here with the old information:

Number of references I have found to that group, in which they directly called it some name that was related to chocolate milk or milkshakes (not counting John Oliver and Russell Howard's Wikipedia pages, as those would just be copied from elsewhere): 7

1x "Chocolate Milk Brigade": said in 2015, by David McSavage, on a podcast with a guy who sucks almost (but not quite) as much as McSavage does, claiming it was Andrew Maxwell's name for them

1x "Chocolate Milk Kids": said in 2006, by David O'Doherty, to The Irish Times

1x "Milkshake Brigade": said in 2024, by Russell Howard, to The Telegraph

4x "Chocolate Milk Gang": said in 2008, by David O'Doherty, to some magazine; said in 2007, by Russell Howard, to Jay Richardson for The List; said in 2014, by David O'Doherty, to Stuart Goldsmith, claiming Glenn Wool coined the term; and said in 2016, by Dominic Maxwell, in an article for The Times

That's 3x that it came from David O'Doherty, 2x from Russell Howard, 1x from David McSavage, and 1x from Dominic Maxwell

I mean, I haven't made it up. The sources are out there. The most interesting one to me, in this context - of trying to work out how widely it was ever used - is Dominic Maxwell. Because he probably just got the name off Wikipedia or something.

But the context in which he referenced it was a long article that went into deep and accurate detail about John Oliver's history as a comedian - far more detailed and accurate than most profiles of John Oliver. That article includes references to several times that Dominic Maxwell interviewed/spoke to/watched John Oliver before he moved to America, suggesting that this is a rare John Oliver profile that isn't just someone who dug up his backstory after he got famous in America; Maxwell knew about his British career while it was happening.

Here's the part of his 2016 article that mentions the Chocolate Milk Gang:

Sometimes [John Oliver] would pop up in shows supporting other members of what was dubbed “the Chocolate Milk Gang”: a bunch of proudly geeky comics led by Daniel Kitson and including Alun Cochrane, David O’Doherty and a young Russell Howard. Sometimes he would perform with Andy Zaltzman, the comic with whom he would later reunite for hundreds of episodes of The Bugle podcast — launched in tandem with this newspaper in 2007 — until leaving in June after struggling to keep up his commitment to Zaltzman.

I think there's a chance that Dominic Maxwell used that term because he already knew it, having heard it used by comedians, rather than just grabbing it off Wikipedia. But I may be wrong.

The most likely possibility here is it's a term that Glenn Wool and Andrew Maxwell said one time to David O'Doherty, DO'D found it funny so he repeated it to Russell Howard once, Andrew Maxwell repeated it to David McSavage while making fun of them once, and those are the only times it ever got used outside interviews. Zaltzman and Oliver's lack of recognition of the term does support that theory.

They didn't even think of Favorit, though. Apparently John Oliver was not, in fact, ordering chocolate milk in Favorit. Where does the Favorit menu fit in?

There's an obvious answer here: find David O'Doherty after I see him in Edinburgh next year and ask him. Unless anyone happens to have Glenn Wool's phone number. (I'm joking. I think my moderate breakdown last night proved that my brain absolutely cannot handle asking any comedians about this situation.)