#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.

[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.

[tellthemeerkatsitsfine]

I listened to Elis James and John Robins on the Comedian’s Comedian podcast, as I somewhat recently passed the point in their radio show when they recorded it. It was a really good episode, even by the standards of that podcast, which are high. Very little messing around with basic explanations of stuff that we could find on their Wikipedia pages anyway, they jump straight in with analysis.

I cut out a few clips as I was listening. I meant to write a paragraph or so about each of them. I am coming back here after finishing the post to say I ended up writing a lot more than that. This one gets out of hand. It mainly stays on the topic of the podcast episode and the radio show, occasionally veers off into some personal stories of my own, makes tenuous connections between the two. That's what's below the cut that I'm adding because not everyone needs to be subjected to that.

I particularly liked this one, from the very beginning:

First of all, Elis James definitely has met another person who will start a radio episode by sighing and just saying whatever's actually in their mind instead of trying for slick broadcasting. Elis knows him very well, the mother of his children is frequently recording lines to put in that other broadcaster's shows. However, there is the key difference that Daniel Kitson's doing that on an obscure radio station (well, two obscure radio stations as he used to do Triple R in Melbourne, but hasn't for a long time, so I mainly mean Resonance FM in London) that doesn't pay him any money, while John Robins is doing it on a commercial radio station that was presumably a significant source of his income and is definitely the main source of his career success. It's definitely more a risk to try in that context.

Anyway, I'd like to put the above clip next to this one:

I'm now three years into following this radio show/listening to various podcasts and other things they've done alongside it, trying to go mostly in chronological order, and I would say they do this in one form or another approximately every six months. Just explicitly state the status dynamic between them, which is that Elis is more successful but John is funnier, this creates a couple of sources of mild tension that can be funny to listen to and give them something to play into as a double act, but it also balances out enough so their entire relationship isn't going to implode like Jon Richardson and Russell Howard. It's always a bit weird when they actually say that out loud, comedians aren't really supposed to tell us what level of status they've decided to assign themselves/each other for any given moment.

Elis James frequently says John Robins is a better comedian than him, which also a bit weird because it's the sort of thing you'd say as a joke, but he never sounds like he's joking, and it's... I mean, I was going to say it's objectively true, I guess it can't be given how subjective comedy is, but it is pretty clear cut. And it seems to genuinely not bother Elis James, which I used to think was odd, but I guess it makes sense. I've been teammates with people whom I know are better athletes than me, and we can still be friends, and if anyone asks who's better I can be honest about that. It sure would make that easier if I also somehow won more medals than they did (to continue the somewhat stretched analogy of Elis James having more TV work so that balances the scales), though sports tend to be more of a meritocracy than arts so that doesn't really happen.

There's also truth in the thing John said about how one of them has to come up with content for the radio show - they're on the same official footing, co-hosts rather than calling anyone a sidekick or whatever, but the vast majority of the funniest stuff gets said by John, and more than that, John drives most of the discussions. He usually comes in with more features and stuff prepared, he establishes a lot of the running jokes and keeps them going, he's the one who will lead most of their offshoots into weird little sketches and characters. His timing is incredible sometimes, every once in a while he'll have an episode where he's got Lee Mack levels of being able to jump on everything that gets said almost immediately and be funny every time. He seems like he can decide, pretty much based on how he's feeling at the moment but possibly also based on a sense for how much potential something has, whether to wrap up a thread in one incisive sentence or to draw it out. And it's almost always John making that decision (if it isn't the producer telling them to get on with it, that is, but it's rarely Elis' decision). Sometimes I can hear John work out the comedic potential in something they're talking about before Elis does, and Elis will start to move on but John will bring it back and guide him toward it, and eventually manage to push Elis into whatever joke John had figure out would be funny but only if Elis said it.

Having said that, and this is a tangent but discussing whether Elis James is funny just made me think of it, I've been wanting to give him credit for something. At some episode sometime in 2016, Elis James was telling a story about someone he admired, and the story was about something fairly serious, and at the end of it, John asked "Is he a laugh?", which was quite a funny thing to say in the context, it's annoying me that I can't remember the exact story but it was something like that. And it was funny to hear John be so efficiently dismissive of the sort of weird story. But later in the episode, John told one of his stories about one of those vaguely depressing things he does, like obsessively do his taxes four months in advance or drink rum alone at 2 AM and get sad while watching Queen documentaries - one of those types of stories - and at the end of it, Elis asked "Are you a laugh?" And after that, for several months, Elis James brought that back the exactly perfect number of times. I don't know how he did it, how he got it so perfect every time. He didn't drop it for long enough for regular listeners to forget that he'd made this a running joke, so it would lose its power as a callback. But he didn't say it often enough for it to start to get overused and less funny (not that those guys would ever try to milk more from one bit than it should be expected to bear... but of course we're all on email). There is such a small sweet spot, such little room for error in the frequency with which you can bring back a joke and not fall into either of those traps, and he got it perfect every time. Every time he'd said it, I'd have a moment of surprise because he'd left it just barely past the point at which it had been long enough since I'd heard it for it to get really funny again, and every time, I'd take a moment to admire his timing. He kept it going for quite a while, occasionally responding to John's depressing anecdotes from his own life with "Are you a laugh?" So, well done to Elis James, he can be funny too. Also, I mean, obviously he is regularly quite funny on the radio show, just not as funny as John Robins. It's fine, most people aren't as funny as John Robins. I'm not as good at underhook setups as my friend I hung out with the other night, but it's fine, we manage to get on with our lives.

Anyway, that was only very tenuously related to the topic of this post, let me see if I can find my way back. John Robins and Elis James having an odd balance of tensions created by John being funnier but Elis being more successful. I'm not sure that's as true now as it was in early 2014 to early 2017, which covers the period of radio episodes I've heard so far. At that time, Elis had recently had major roles in two sitcoms (Crims and Josh). He'd had one Welsh-language stand-up special released on the BBC and I think was working on recording another one. He'd done some panel show spots, more than John I think. I think he's started on his BBC television travel show with Miles Jupp. He'd gone to Europe to do TV and radio things about the Welsh football team. John Robins, meanwhile, had released the audio from a couple of his stand-up shows himself on Bandcamp, had been on Mock the Week twice and one of those times was a fucking disaster, a couple appearances on As Yet Untitled, and I think he occasionally got on things like The News Quiz but less often than Elis James did. I think he had a pretty good stand-up career going by then, but it hadn't really translated to other stuff. And John complained at times that he didn't get as many reviews and publicity as his stand-up profile deserved, though it's hard to tell if that's true or just his bias. He had a job for a while doing TV warm-up gigs, but then he got fired for what sounds like a combination of drinking too much and being too harsh for the "keep it light" atmosphere. The disparity between his profile and Elis' was probably for two main reasons: 1) Elis has the significant USP of being one of the only comedians who's fluent in the Welsh language so that gets him some stuff, and 2) the reasons outlined in that second audio clip about John having pissed everyone off.

I think their positions are different these days, though. I'm into the March 2017 episodes right now, in a few months John Robins is going to win a Perrier Award, so he can't keep complaining about not having a significant enough stand-up profile after that. That turned into a Netflix special, a significantly bigger deal than Elis' Welsh-language BBC iPlayer special. And then in 2018 he hosts a panel show, which I have downloaded but haven't watched yet, I'll wait until I get there chronologically. To be honest I'm slightly dreading getting there because I have a feeling it might be terrible. I don't think it was hugely successful because I'd never heard of it before I started looking up John Robins things this year, and I went really deep down the panel show rabbit hole in the last few years, I watched some quite obscure ones but never came across this. It also only lasted one season. But still, he hosted a panel show on Dave. That's a TV career.

And now, obviously, he's on Taskmaster. And seems to be playing large rooms in his latest stand-up tour. A tour that I'd assumed would get filmed for another TV special, though he's mentioned recently that he's planning to put it on Bandcamp like his earlier shows, and I do appreciate him keeping it real for us despite now being a Taskmaster star with a huge tour (as much as this shouldn't make sense because there can be visual humour in stand-up, I tend to prefer audio-only stand-up that's usually closer to how it actually sounded in the room, over filmed versions that get more edits). On the other hand, Elis had a TV series about Welsh comedy a few years ago. A podcast with some football players. I've just looked it up and apparently he hosts a football-based TV show on Sky, so that's nice. But the gap in TV-based success has probably closed.

But that discussion they had in that second audio clip - about John Robins not getting stuff because he's (rightly and justifiably) reaping the consequences of being a dick with a substance abuse problem, and Elis James valiantly taking on the role of Robins Apologist - that really nails, for me, what I enjoy so much about their dynamic. I think that my favourite dynamic. I fucking love anywhere where two people get that one going. That dynamic that's summed up by this post htat I remember from ages ago and have somehow just managed to find because Tumblr's terrible search function decided to work for me today:

It was about a year ago that I had the extremely clever idea of adding that Taskmaster screenshot to that other person's text post, but I maintain that it's hilarious. Guy Montgomery and David Correos were so much fun because of this. At the time, I considered instead using a screenshot from Taskmaster UK season 5, with the speech bubble pointing at Mark Watson looking at Nish Kumar. There are so many example of two people whose comedy show interactions have been hilarious because they're based on one person making terrible decisions and the other person looking at them like "I'd follow him to hell and back but I wish he'd just stop going there." And not always a him, it doesn't have to be a him! Danielle Ward and Margaret Cabourn-Smith had some good "I'd follow her to hell and back but I wish she'd just stop going there" energy on Do the Right Thing (with Danielle Ward, of course, in the Correos/Kumar/Robins position).

I'm sure I realized until right now, as I write this, how much this might be my favourite dynamic in comedy because it also characterizes my favourite relationships in my own life. And I am genuinely not sure whether that's a me thing or whether most people can slot most of their relationships into one where someone's the David and someone's the Guy, in terms of who keeps driving things to hell and who follows out of loyalty but also apologizes. When I was in high school, and also for most of my twenties, my nickname among my friends was "loose cannon" because when they were trying to be careful and diplomatic in the political battles within the increasingly high levels that we reached in the sporting world, I was the person who once yelled at my coach in a hallway because I was so angry at the way he treated the athletes, and had a letter in my coaching file by age 22 that accused me of not caring about common courtesy. A letter from a coach who refused to work with me anymore because I was insufficiently courteous, so my best friend had to liaise with him on everything while asking me to please not upset more people and further alienate our team. And I have wonderful friends who tell other people that I don't hate them, really, I just seem standoffish because I'm shy, and later on they tell me that I really need to work on my poker face/ability to be around people I hate without making it incredibly obvious that I hate them. In addition to being genuinely shy. When we tried to get someone from my team elected to the provincial board, we knew from the beginning that 1) I would do all the actual work for both the election campaign and, if successful, the role itself, because I know and care the most about the issues and am good at admin stuff, and 2) I could not be the candidate because I hate most people and everyone I hate knows I hate them because I have no diplomacy skills.

Though I do also have one friend who coaches a team in another city and he knows he can call me pretty much any time and ask me for pretty much any favour and I will do it, and I will edit his emails and do his research for him to help him fight his stupid pointless battles and to try to keep him on top of things even though he can't keep track of anything and keeps making wild badly planned decisions, and people ask me why I don't just let him fail and walk away, and I say I know he seems like a brash asshole with no ability to think ahead, but he's a really good guy, really, once you get to know him. It's got back to me that most people in our sports community assume I am or was sleeping with him, as that seems like the only explanation for why I would stick by a guy who's clearly an idiot. The truth is much weirder, he was my university teammate in 2013 and one time he was in my corner when I had a panic attack in the middle of a match at the university national championships, and he saved me and got me through it and I managed to go back and win, and that's why I had to do things like sleep on a hotel room floor for a week in Atlantic City because he'd talked me into going on a provincial team trip where he hadn't booked enough rooms (or planned anything), because he'd earned my eternal loyalty. Oh God, I just remembered how during that trip he stopped to gamble in front of children, and I ended up yelling at him in the middle of the street in Atlantic City, "You know, I argue with people about you!" And he said, "What people?" And I said "People who think you're not responsible enough to run a provincial team trip! Which is everyone! I get into big arguments with them and you make it hard when you do shit like this!" But a few years later he was the first person I called when our mutual friend died because I realized in that moment, that's the person I trust most in the world.

Anyway. What was I talking about? Elis James and John Robins. I think I was talking about Elis James and John Robins. Okay, turns out listening to people talk about the friendships that you base on blind loyalty and apologism brought some stuff up for me. I think I have, in recent weeks, at times blamed my overly emotional posting - my posts that start out as comedy analysis but then go into oversharing about my person life - on the fact that I'm going through some emotionally difficult stuff as I'm trying to avoid drinking. But that's not the case here, I think I was always going to go on that tangent. I haven't seen my friend from out of town in a while, I'm a bit worried about him. I think he might be ruining his own life again. Something was going to connect to that. Rhod Gilbert reminds me of him.

Anyway. Anyway. Elis James and John Robins. Solid double act dynamic. Weird balance of status and tensions, enjoyable running thread of loyalty and apologism. Amazingly, I'm not done, here's another clip I cut out of that ComCom interview:

This is the second time I've heard John Robins tell this story, and I had the same reaction as the first time, which was: Oh my God oh my God oh my God, how were you ever able to sleep again? The horrible sharp pain of this story keeps me awake at night, just imagining what it would be like if that happened to me, and it didn't even happen to me. How could you ever sleep if it did? John Robins frequently tells stories from what he calls the "shame well", those things that happen where you obsess over how you did something wrong and regret it. John is constantly making jokes (or just statements) about how he lives a life mired in shame and regret. But still, I don't see how he can just casually throw this one out there like it's just another shame well story. It's so much worse. It's the worst one I've heard. I would hide under my bed for the rest of my life.

John Robins went on Adam Buxton's podcast in 2016, I have listened to that episode and it's not great. You want to talk about dynamics created by a differential in status - I think that one went way too far, to the point where nothing could really happen. There was this huge discrepancy of John Robins meeting his hero, which will often make someone sort of adorably giddy but not in this case, he just seemed a bit out of it and subdued. While on the other side, Adam Buxton appeared to have no idea who John Robins was, so not much discussion got generated. It wasn't a complete disaster, but I could understand why John didn't plug that one on his radio show, despite plugging most of his podcast appearances.

Anyway though, if I can manage to get past the sheer horror of the first part of that clip, the second part was sort of nicely validating. Because I am slightly weary of how much my trip down the Elis and John rabbit hole has got quite intense quite quickly, even by my standards of comedy obsession, and possibly taken a turn for the parasocial. I mean, I am currently writing a multi-page post about an interview they gave and it includes several paragraphs about my own life that are only tenuously related, in a way that I can say "Look I do the same thing as these guys I've never met."

The intensity of that has definitely been accelerated by the fact that I happened to, by a genuine coincidence, get into this show at the same time as I decided to try to slow down and/or stop drinking, and God, a lot of the ways in which John Robins talks about alcohol and anxiety resonates. And yep, I'd feel weird admitting it because I know it's sort of inherently creepy to say "they feel like my friends" about some people you've never met, but since John Robins said it first I think I can admit those headphones do make a difference. Might be another reason why I prefer the Bandcamp comedy to a Netflix special.

They touch on this throughout the ComCom interview - not so much in the clips I cut out but throughout the whole thing, it really is worth a listen if you're interested in this - the way their radio show gets so many letters from people who thank them for talking so honestly about mental health issues, people who say they've dealt with their own difficult shit and find this radio show has helped. Probably lots of shows get similar letters, but I think it's safe to say this one gets more than most. The Bugle used to read out their correspondence and Andy Zaltzman wasn't getting people every day saying "Thank you for making me feel less alone in my depression."

They really are good at that, at hitting the exact right balance of honest without being overbearing about it. For a show that spends so much time talking about symptoms of mental health problems, they almost never use the words "mental health". They never sit down and say "let's have a talk about what it's like to live with anxiety." They just describe their week, in more honest detail than you would normally hear on commercial radio. And leave in the parts where they panic about every decision they've ever made and get drunk alone in the middle of the night and cry because they think they've done everything wrong. And by "they", I mostly mean John.

I do like their word, "darkness". I didn't realize, when I first watched The Darkness of Robins in 2022 (a show John first performed in 2017, won a large award for it, released as a Netflix special in 2018, but I watched it in 2022), that that title's been around for ages. Elis James made a joke in an early radio episode, from 2014, about how someday, John should do a show called The Darkness of Robins, where he just lays bare all his anxieties, all his weird toxic quirks and control freak tendencies and oceans of shame and regret and various addictions/self-medication and cynicism and bitterness and anger and deep self-loathing. Elis said this as a joke, the joke being that you can't just put all that in a comedy show. But they kept the joke going for years. John did the Richard Herring podcast, in which he talked a bit about some of the more difficult mental health struggles he's had, and when he plugged it on the radio show, instead of saying "I talk about some of my more difficult mental health struggles", he said, "There's a fair bit of the darkness of Robins in it." And then he started casually referencing it on the show, describing a night when he might have drank too much and had a panic attack with a causal and sort of joke-y "I got overcome by the darkness for a little while." And then they started describing those emails from listeners who say it resonated with "[Person] has emailed in to say they've been afflicted by a touch of the darkness, sorry to hear that." And I just love that word. It's used with enough genuineness to make it clear that they're not making fun of mental health problems, they really do have them and it does feel dark. But also with enough irony - obviously there is irony in using a term as grandiose as "The Darkness of Robins" to describe panicking at 3 AM about something bad you said in school - to make it feel like it's not an after school special. I also like that they found a way to let that word mean no one has to name a diagnosis, to narrow their issue down to a loaded term like "I suffer from clinical depression", when not everyone who has that is diagnosed, not everyone is comfortable naming it, not everyone finds it easy to separate their symptoms into clear-cut causes. They can just use a shorthand like "the darkness".

It has been good, to have this radio show for the last couple of months that have brought some darkness into particularly sharp focus, as I decided to quickly remove the maladaptive self-medication. I've tried to stop writing about it so often the way I did earlier in the year, but as a little update on how that's going, still bad. Not enjoying it. Getting mildly parasocial about some guys on the radio might not be hugely healthy, but it's a healthier coping mechanism than whiskey, I guess. I'd really like some whiskey. Anyway I'm fine.

I do think that's why I find that Adam and Joe story so incredibly painful, though. I get paranoid about whether I get too parasocial about the comedians I like, I try really hard to be self-aware about it and be super clear that I know what I'm getting is a curated public persona and I do not actually know these people, and I am mortified at the thought of being one of those fans who thinks they actually are my friends and therefore they should know something about me. No one should know me. I hang out on Tumblr because it's the one social media platform where I know no famous people are searching their own name or anything, everyone's just an anonymous nerd. The thought of anyone knowing me makes me want to hide under my bed for the rest of my life. Though having said that, John Robins and Elis James are always very nice about people who write in with darkness emails.

Amazingly, I'm still not done this post:

Throwing this in just to say, once again, that I'm sorry for having also thought this but in my defense it's not just me. I am truly sorry that when I first heard John Robins got sober, my first thought was... but he's still going to be bitter and angry and annoying and plagued by regret and self-loathing, right? Because that's kind of the cornerstone of his comedy and is what I love so much about it. I mean obviously I want him to be happy, but could he release a couple more stand-up hours first?

I feel genuinely guilty for having thought that, especially because I do hold the sort of political belief that it's bullshit to say one must suffer to make great art, van Gogh did his best work once his mental illness was being treated, and all that. I do believe it applies to more contemporary things too. Jason Isbell made his best music after getting sober. I think James Acaster's best stand-up show might be his current ones, and it's a "let me tell you how therapy has made me healthier" show. But John Robins did base a lot of his comedy on being bitter and angry and annoying and plagued by regret and self-loathing. That's sort of my favourite thing about it.

I felt slightly better when I re-listened to his 2014 show (recorded in 2015) This Tornado Loves You, and was reminded that he admitted that himself:

That's John Robins talking about how his comedy has suffered because he's too happy in his relationship with Sara Pascoe, a relationship that has ended a 20-year search for happiness. And it goes with the clip I posted before that from the ComCom episode, of Elis James saying it's nice that John's relationship with Sara Pascoe recently ended, because it's given the quality of his comedy a real boost. And maybe they should just ruin John's life regularly to keep it that way. So it's not just me who had that horrible thought.

I'm feeling the need to clarify, once again, that of course I don't genuinely think that's a good thing. Obviously it's good that he got sober, for his sake but also, reports suggest his latest show Howl is excellent. I think Howl was written partly while he was drinking and partly while he wasn't, but performed after he'd quit, and the fact that it's done so well suggests that people can, in fact, make their best stuff after getting their shit together (I haven't actually heard the show, he's said he'll release it on Bandcamp sometime soon-ish, probably). And even if his comedy did get worse, which it clearly hasn't, it would still be best that he quit drinking because suffering wouldn't be worth great art, even if it were required for it. That's how it works. Drinking is bad for you. I definitely don't want to drink any whiskey right now. It's fine.

But. But. I recently re-listened to John Robins' episode of Isy Suttie's podcast, The Things We Do For Love. This is a rare instance that I've heard of a comedian being genuinely drunk while recording something. It's happened before that comedians will claim to be a bit loose and tipsy, but not usually so drunk that they're slurring their words. John Robins on Isy Suttie's podcast was slurring his words. He kept losing track of the question and interrupting at inappropriate moments. It's one of those things that makes me say "Oh, yeah, you really needed to quit drinking. This really was affecting your career, that's just a guy who showed up to work too drunk to effectively do his job."

But it was really funny. It made me laugh so many times. At one point he gets furious because Isy Suttie asked him whether he knows how to drive a car. Later on he threatens to murder her and Elis for their sitcom money, which would have been an okay joke but tbere was a bit of a sense of line crossing when he also threatened their child. (Fun side note that has nothing to do with John being drunk: at one point Isy tells a story about her ex-boyfriend, John Robins asks what the ex's name is but she refuses to say, which is weird because I know. It's weird that I know something about Isy Suttie that John Robins didn't, at least on that day.) It's a mess. It's hilarious. I feel vaguely guilty for finding that so funny, the same way I do about the episodes of No More Jockeys where Mark Watson gets properly drunk - that guy's probably got a problem too, I probably shouldn't laugh at it so much, but I also find those the funniest episodes. I have the say, the episode of Adam Buxton's podcast where John Robins was sort of awkwardly reserved would probably have been funnier if John had gotten drunk before it.

My best defense for that is I would not want John Robins to actually be drunk when he performs stand-up, or certainly when he writes it. Being drunk made him funnier on a podcast interview where he's supposed to tell off-the-cuff stories, because off-the-cuff stories get better when someone's filter has been broken down. But also, in his actual stand-up, or even his actual radio broadcasting, John Robins is doing a thousand little things at once to make what he's saying funnier. He's the master of the well-timed pause and the carefully chosen word. None of that would be any good drunk. So I maintain that you don't need to suffer addiction to make great art. It might help a bit to make funny tangents on an interview podcast, but not the actual substance. Also, however funny I found it, I don't think he was proud of that one. On the radio show, John plugged his appearance on Isy Suttie's podcast before he did it, but not one word about it on the radio after it had been recorded, even though most of those things he'll plug both before and once they're released. Though in a later episode of her podcast, Isy mentioned that the first guest she'd had on was a very drunk John Robins, who called her the next day desperately asking her to cut out the sexually explicit story he'd told using an old girlfriend's real name.

And she did cut it out, it's not in the podcast, as it shouldn't be, because it's not responsible to tell sexually explicit stories in something that's being recorded and will be published, if the audience knows the real name of the person you're talking about. Having said that, I've finally reached the point in the radio show where John's doing WIPs of The Darkness of Robins, where he does just that about Sara Pascoe, and I'm having a bit of trouble morally justifying how much I like the show in spite of that. I think I'll re-watch that show tomorrow, for the first time in nearly a year and a half. I'll see how that goes. I remember it as being very, very good. But also, in the last few weeks, I've had three different people watch it because of my posts about John Robins, and all of them came back to me to point out that the stories about Sara Pascoe are pretty inappropriate to tell on stage. I'm still holding out hope that I'll hear him clarify on the radio show that he did run that stuff by her before saying it publicly, or at least before recording it for Netflix.

Anyway, this post got a bit out of hand. I've tried for the last couple of weeks to slow down on my posting about the Elis/John radio show, and the posting about my personal life, but I seemed to have built up a lot to say and put it all in this one. I'm doing fine.

[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

[mejomonster]

I love reading.

I frequently select novels which are just So Long it takes me weeks to months to finish them. Making speed reading through a couple a week (my dream) unobtainable. I mean, I like reading nonfiction too, and maybe because of old college cramming skills I can read 2-4 400 page nonfiction books a week if Im okay with feeling tired all week.

Which, I have some niche recs if you're into non fiction: Stalking the Wild Pendulum by Bentov, When the Body Says No by Gabor Mate, Peoples History of the United States by Howard Zinn, The Reality of ESP by Russel Targ if youre into remote viewing history, Psychic Discoveries beyond the Iron Curtain by Ostrander and Schroeder on archive.org if youre into parapsychology and looking for other names to look into further since tbh this book is more journalism-entertainment than nonfiction reference also this books fairly old now, Immortal Remains - from a philosophy angle it was okay but frustrating to me except i got some good sources for further reading mentoned... but I prefer the UVA youtube lectures and the research they do since i just tend to prefer reading collected information myself, The Emotion Code - not necessarily informational in a verified sense but if youve ever considered paying money for an emotion code practitioner i liked the book cause i could just Learn the method and try it myself... free... and test and decide for myself regardless of if ifs placebo if its actually helpful to me or not, The Ancient Science and Art of Pranic Healing - this book doesnt have studies sourced as its more about teach The technique but i like that it lists sources for further reading - and its another case of "well i can just learn, test it on myself, see if its helpful or not" also im an absolute nerd about older books and the considerations that went into X book at Their time compared to now... if you ever saw my language learning textbooks collection from 1800s books to 2023 books youd know.

Speaking of here are some Fascinating Language Learning books. If youre curious about the Nature Method as in learn a language IN the lamguage by comprehensible context I recommend Ayan Academy playlists on youtube and the books: English by the Nature Method, Lingua Latina, La Francais Par Le Methode Nature, L'Italiano Secondo il Metodo Natura, Poco a Poco. (I also have many a youtube channel lessons recommendation for this learning method as I prefer it). For textbooks to learn primarily with graded reading materials Ive got: Beginning Chinese, Intermediate Chinese, and Advanced Chinese by John DeFrancis, Spanish for beginners by Charles Duff, French for Beginners Charles Duff, A Japanese Reader: Graded Lessons for Mastering the Written Language by Roy Miller (steep learning curve but decent preparation for reading actual novels and news which is great because i find a lot of japanese textbooks hover at beginner-intermediate but dont bridge all the way to necessary skills to understand complex texts). Cool books: Chinese Self Taught by The Natural Method by John Darroch (old af and some information is outdated and the pinyin system Hurts so focus on actual hanzi - but the grammar explanations are the easiest ive read and enjoyed reading), Japanese in 30 Hours (its basic japanese but it explains basic grammar understandably and helps you get a basic mental framework for the language making further study, i felt, much easier to adjust to, and its a short quick Study Up Basics book - id especially recommend it to people planning to learn using immersion/comprehensible input asap as it will give them a little bit of a skeleton to lean on), japaneseaudiolessons.com is an interesting introduction to audio flashcard lessons (fun fact glossika is just an expensive version of audio flashcard study which are just... audio in target language then a language you understand so you comprehend the sentence meaning and can learn new words/grammar from it by listening) and the site has a free grammar book to accompany it AND the site makers made kanji teaching books that come the closest to providing prewritten mnemonics for meaning AND pronunciation of japanese kanji in book study form. Something i appreciate since heisig books make you Make Up Your Own mnemonics so i find his books useless, and many japanese kanji teaching books that use mnemonics focus on meaning and skip teaching pronunciations since its harder to include multiple pronunciations in a mnemonic. For Chinese hanzi study, my favorite book is Tuttle's Learning Chinese Characters: (HSK Levels 1-3) A Revolutionary New Way to Learn the 800 Most Basic Chinese Characters, the book provides mnemonic stories for pronunciation including tone, and meaning, and example words. Its the backbone of how i learned the first few hundred hanzi and Learned How to personally remember more which made continuing to learn hanzi much easier. Since that Hanzi book, ive been desperate for a similarly written book for japanese kanji and... japaneseaudiolessons.com has the most similar kind of kanji books, but theirs is a drier and therefore harder read.

Anyway wow I got lost ToT back to my older point ayy. I have no time to read these fucking long ass fiction books I keep wanting to read ;-; my focus can resolve to read a nonfiction book in a frantic 6 hours of Research Mode then burn out and lose focus until im up for the next book. But i pick these long ass fiction books, and oddly i seem to read fiction slower so maybe im like savoring it idk. But i took like 2 months to finish Silent Reading by priest so. Yeah i WISH i was getring through these novels a touch faster ;-; i have so many i wanna read. Perplexingly i also read manga super slow, so i guess any fiction i slow down and savor or something

Books im trying desperately to read, to finish, or to get to after finishing my current books: Observations by janon (a fanfic but a great one and im only 30% done after 1 week intensively reading), kamikaze girls (1/3 done then i forgot the book so its been a few months), Old Fashion Cupcake (1/4 thru and the single volume is LONG), Devilman (1/8 through maybe), Sudden Silence (this book is like 200 pages frankly i have no idea why i didnt manage to finish it in a few days), Game of Thrones book 1 (in my defense its an audiobook so im only in like chapter 3 theres a cool youtube guy who does different voices and music for the chapters), The Expanse (i just started), The Dark Forest (book 2 of three body problem series im half done then i forgot it), In The Dark book 1 (1/3 done and its just... not quite getting my attention as well as other stuff i recently read), Little Mushroom (likely to start more solidly once i finish Observations), 2ha (i got volume 4 babey!!), Can Ci Pin (id like to restart and read in earnest im in a sci fi mood lately so i think ill get obsessed with this once i start), Breaking Through the Clouds (my instincts tell me this is most likely the only crime mystery novel thats going to manage to catch my attention after Silent Reading by priest impressed me so damn much its like in my top 5 books i ever read now), discworld (im just reading little snippets as i have time), Final Girl Support Group (1/4 done then i got busy and forgot it - this is by Grady Hendrix and so far ive loved everything they write, I highly recommend My Best Friends Exorcism it was great), Guardian (i have the english translation but im... eternally chugging away at the chinese and at the end of the First Arc which ive reread in chinese like 4 times now i need to just GET PAST THAT PART TO NEW PARTS and i dont really wanna read the english translation until ive read the original so i can compare), so many fucking novels by priest in my to read list... sha po lang, jinse, huai dao, guomen, lord seventh, faraway wanderers, the blue seal, tai sui, liu yao, lhjc, and again Can Ci Pin... then I have Peach Blossom Debt and Imperial Uncle, and Golden Stage on the to read list too... and Thousand Autumns, Peerless. And Wu Chang Jie, and Nightfall (evernight). Oh I also started reading Vampire Hunter D omnibus and that fucker is like 800 pages. Frankly most books i buy are 400-1200 pages. Usually 600 at minimum. Oh i also started reading One Piece manga, got to Sanji's introduction arc, then like most things... i forgot i was reading it and havent picked it back up for weeks. Basically... i try to get through a book but if it takes me more than 3 days (nonfiction usually takes me 1-2 days) then i risk forgetting i was reading it, forgetting for months, picking it back up and having to start over cause i forgot it for too long -.-;

Anyway my point

[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