#that's actually insane i think that scene is overlooked too often as a society we need to rewind

[yuwuta]

I want to write an essay to that last yuuji ask on GOD but one I'm not good with words and two I can not think straight rn cause I swear I could picture it all crystal clear like l... I want to say a thousand times the word like cause I'm so speechless rn... I'm almost crying you have no idea he makes me want to turn into a beast and devour him!! He totally is chatty during sex thats actually canon and and I feel my throat dry rn.... The creampie part I will stop now cause that's too much for me to handle right this second but just know that you my friend are the biggest brained person ever. Don't you just wish you could ruin him?

yeah :// he’s too good to be true, the strong urge to choke him just to make him red in the face but knowing that it probably doesn’t even hurt him or phase him because he’s freakishly strong like that… god… 

yk that tweet that’s like “fucking in missionary so we can keep arguing during it>” that’s yuuji, but you’re not arguing, he’s just yapping fr. and it’s so…. him because, yeah, part of it is dirty talk, and he can’t help but to spill everything on his mind when he’s inside of you, but also a lot of it is memories of you. he’ll literally be fucking you within an inch of your life and find time to go, “hey, babe—fuck—remember, ah, remember megumi’s birthday dinner last year? that dress you wore… you looked so fucken pretty?” “did you buy this necklace at the same place nobara got—shit—got her new ring from? it looks—looks real good on you, you know?” “we should go get dessert after, i know how much you like the banana bread from that one cafe. and you’re so pretty when you’re happy.” and it’s so insane because why can’t he shut up, but kinda sweet bc you get this glimmer into yuuji’s mind, how he sees you, how he all his memories of you seem to be skewed for him to believe you’re perfect, perfect, perfect, and something about having his dick inside of you and you looking him in the eye while he’s fucking you seems to invoke those feelings… loverboy :( 

but when he’s not chatting about you, he’s chatting about the things he wants to do to you. he’s pretty about open sex, but you always find that some things seem to slip out when he’s on the brink of orgasm, something about almost being over the edge releases all his inhibitions, he can’t stop himself from mumbling about how much he wishes he could cum inside of you, how he kinda wants to choke you bc he thinks you’d pretty with his hand around your neck, how he wants to mark you and make you his forever… and he never brings it up after… honestly sometimes you think you’re imagining it yourself, stuck in your post-orgasm haze, but you swear yuuji mentioned something about how your his but he’d share you with megumi if he asked..

[kinetic-elaboration]

January 27: Thoughts on The 100 2x09, Remember Me

...For some reason I was really angry at the beginning of this? Also there’s a lot of Lxa bashing. Sorry. And some Clarke criticism but in the latter case, I mean it well.

Also this is really long whoops.

*

So...I miss when killing off main characters was a big deal and people actually reacted to it.

I truly cannot take Lxa seriously I’m sorry. I don’t find her... intimidating at all.

I’ve already complained repeatedly about her complete bad faith deal making at every turn so I won’t go into it again but nevertheless, here she is, again, moving the goal posts of the negotiation. ‘I’ll withdraw my army if you cure the Reapers. No, if you give up your friend. No, if you give me his body.’ Clarke should have double crossed her immediately.

Also I know that I ultimately did think it was reasonable for Finn to face Grounder justice (except insofar as that justice was itself morally untenable--that is, the Torture Porn) but now that he’s dead, I think there’s no real moral argument to be made that the Grounders deserve his body. I understand their traditions, which in fact I found quite moving when I first watched this ep, but surely his people have, or could make up, some traditions for his burial also. He is still their friend. This seems like little more than an excuse to be cruel. And Clarke’s so fucking broken she just goes with it. It’s truly awful. I mean she’s doing the only thing she can do I guess but it’s laughable that she sounds as if she has any sort of upper hand, you’re getting played bitch.

(Yeah I know, Lxa is being ‘groundbreaking’ and ‘revolutionary’ by even semi-accepting capital punishment without torture and taking his body is a way of appeasing her harder line advisers but like cry me a river--she’s either the all powerful commander or she’s fucking not.)

“We want the same things.” Lol if you wanted the same things you would have stuck to the original deal. No I’m not over this at all I guess.

I also still can’t get over how Clarke has literally never earned true leadership in the eyes of her own people and yet she continues to be randomly viewed as a leader by the Grounders and thus retains pretty much full de facto control over her own people’s power structure.

Also Kane shut the fuck up. I completely forgot about this but they really did put him through an off-screen 180 where all of a sudden Lxa is a God to him and can literally do nothing wrong and to this day we have never been given an explanation how that came to be. Guess it’s easier to tell not show huh?!?

ALSO I get we’re suppose to see a sort of racism-corollary to lines like “I don’t think they know what peace is” like obviously this rubs one the wrong way automatically. But Abby’s not really wrong. And despite what Kane thinks, Lxa has given, again, NO indication at all that she is interested in peace. She has given a lot of indications that she wants to do whatever she can to wring as much from the Sky People as she can without giving anything in return and hey we’re only halfway through the season and she’s already psychologically broken Clarke (also the only person she acknowledges as the leader even though she is not, cannot emphasize this enough, the leader of anything... and thus the only person L really has to break) and sunk-cost-fallacy-ed her into submission. Now that Finn is dead Clarke would cut off her own tit to make Lxa happy because anything else is “letting him die in vain.”

...Why am I so angry lol?

I understand the positions of both Clarke and Raven in this scene, which is fucking brutal, but I sympathize more with Raven. Clarke’s basically just a messenger, but what the Grounders are demanding is (I know I already said it) cruel, and cruel to Raven above all. And Clarke is almost all business. I think that’s what she needs to be for herself but it’s not helpful to the situation.

Anyway here are my faves in Mount Weather. It’s almost hard to watch these scenes because I want to, like, memorize them. Partially for the C/M story and partially just because. Today’s adventure is getting to a radio to send a message to the Ark-wide channel, which is a term for a thing that exists. Also I forgot how snarky everyone / Miller was to Maya. Which, I get. But--are they not thinking about how her own people have experimented on her? Like she is expendable to them, this is just a known fact at this time. So yes, there is a real risk to her, Nathan.

“Oh, is that all?” / “No--there’s more.” Monty’s so one-track he didn’t even hear the sarcasm. I love him.

“Their army has been getting their ass kicked by Mount Weather forever.” Bellamy speaking the truth. Do they need the alliance, or do they just need the Grounders to back the fuck off from attacking them? (Spoiler: they do not need the alliance.)

Ah Bellarke, always quick to reassure each other. Blindly, even.

“Since I don’t take orders from you, I’m going to need a better reason” is one of my favorite lines, and underrated. Finally someone reminding Clarke she’s not actually in charge of everyone and everything all the time. (I realize this sounds like I dislike Clarke. I don’t. I just find certain traits of hers frustrating. But this just makes her a good character.) Also you can see that, rather like her moment with Raven, she falls back on being business like and direct and issuing orders to avoid talking about feelings or breaking apart.

The United States War Room survives the apocalypse.

I’m sorry but it’s ridiculous to think that Lxa invented the concept of an alliance lol.

I guess Clarke needs to go all in on the alliance because of Finn, but... I also think this is part of who she is. Her sense of practicality outweighs any human desire to hold a grudge, and I think she assumes a level of practicality in others too, automatically, such that she underestimates wariness in others. Like Bellamy and Gustus and everyone is right to be uncertain about this literally hours-old alliance--not even an official alliance, since L’s latest demand hasn’t technically been met!--and Clarke’s like ‘yeah I’ll sleep next to people who would have killed me six hours ago np!’ because now that she’s in, she’s in. She’s neither angry nor afraid.

Linctavia like “Google Earth, always taking pictures.”

Is Lincoln wearing Ark clothes?

I know Raven is made to look kind of wan and sunken and sad but yet this scene where she’s being disarmed is honestly like peak hotness for me and I don’t know why. I like my women sullen and covered in knives?

Interesting how allegedly only the warriors knew English and yet Lxa’s big announcement re: get in line with me or die is made in English. Just going to point out yet again what a big mistake that throwaway S1 line is.

What a sad life to lead, where random declarations followed by “or death” have to form the entirety of your belief system “Don’t be upset that your wife and child are dead...or I’ll beat you to a pulp.” I truly don’t understand how we were ever supposed to get in line with this society as sympathetic or interesting. So much so that they get a whole prequel I guess???

I’d rather have a Mount Weather prequel except not really, don’t ruin it for me.

I love Miller’s canonical insane superhuman strength. This is a trait often overlooked in fics.

The usual comment on Mount Weather scenes: I love all of it.

The thing is that if everyone were on board with the funeral ceremony, it is touching. Murderer and murdered together, and the people who’ve been hurt, on both sides, saying goodbye as a group. It’s just that Clarke’s people were coerced into this--they weren’t convinced it would be a fitting ceremony, just told ‘well this is how it is and if you don’t like it, we could perhaps... KILL YOU?”

Is this a new revelation that Mount Weather crashed the Exodus ship (still a really satisfying belated explanation imo)? Or did we know that because, unlike Monty et al, we knew about the jamming signals already? Can’t remember.

You can see how L came to believe what she believes but nevertheless this is bad advice lol. “Don’t care about other people.” Okay, I’ll just stop doing that then.

Mmmm, a feast in a subway station. Delicious. Fucking full pig head as the centerpiece. Very DC.

Kane (handing over pure space moonshine probably): Just don’t drink too much of it. Clarke (five minutes later): Guzzles whole bottle at once. #partygriff is officially canon.

Waiting until tomorrow to start the war? Procrastinators. Clarke didn’t kill Finn for this.

I love Certified Dramatic Ho Bellamy knocking the cup out of Clarke’s hand even though she had made no move whatsoever to drink it.

“When you plunged your knife into the heart of the boy you loved, did you not wish that it was mine.” Lxa, also a certified Dramatic Ho.

Clarke kinda deserved to be punched in the face given that it wouldn’t actually make sense for Raven to try to poison Lxa--and make Finn’s death mean nothing? And put them all in danger in enemy territory? Nonsense. Nevertheless it’s hard not to feel bad for her when she follows this accusation up with a psychotic break.

Hmmm, do I think Abby turning in Jake was the same as Clarke killing Finn? Not really. She didn’t directly kill Jake, that was Jaha, and Jaha is who Clarke should really be mad at. That said, I don’t think she was really saving anyone in the direct way Clarke was. So, apples and oranges. Crazy awkward moment to bring it up, though lol. “Oh Clarke, you’ll feel better eventually--remember that time I killed your Dad? I got over that! Wait--does talking about your dead father upset you? That’s a surprise!” Nevertheless I appreciate major actions having consequences as that’s a semi-rarity on this show.

Monty Green: hero.

“Lxa needs this alliance as much as we do.” - True, if she intends to get her people out of MW. “She’s shown herself to be flexible.” - Not true. She’s given the bare minimum of concessions. Kane, please crawl back out of her colon for like 5 seconds, get some air.

Interesting that Raven and Bellamy are chilling near each other. I wonder what they were discussing. Tbh Bellamy’s feelings on everything in this episode are rather opaque. Other than understanding why Clarke mercy-killed Finn and being skeptical of the alliance.

“Kill one person and destroy the alliance” is literally only merciful because the default in this society is “kill everyone all the time for any reason.” Like, I guess??? That’s mercy by comparison?? But forgive me if I am not moved to admiration.

“This time justice will be done” says the woman who used the barest sliver of evidence to decide that a random person was guilty so she could have a public execution. A public execution to replace the other public execution, in fact, not to avenge a death because Gustus isn’t dead. (Yet.)

Kane’s really okay with letting Raven be tortured to death, huh? Gah he’s fucking annoying.

Bellarke: Crime Solving Duo. That’s some satisfying teamwork. Clarke figures out how the scheme worked. Bellamy figures out who’s behind the scheme. With all the evidence put together, the motive becomes clear. (Honesty, they should have been suspicious that the poison not only didn’t kill Gustus, it barely harmed him lol.)

Check out all the Department of Homeland Security stuff on Monty’s computer. This is perhaps Dante’s log in? There’s a set of “personal” files too. And a set of President’s Office files, which one would assume not everyone would have.

Anyway, I have a Thing for tense sequences of hackers...hacking.

When I first watched this season I was often so tense my whole body hurt and it’s mostly because of MW scenes like this one where Monty is caught. Like aaaaah it still gets me. He almost makes it... and then almost makes it again, with his silly little salute... (Never forget that he is A Dork.)

On the one hand, Raven being tortured and then seeing Gustus tortured to death allows her to see why Clarke killing Finn was an act of mercy, to forgive her, and to move on, so the narrative can continue with them as allies and nominal friends. And it works, basically. But I also think there’s something to the theory that they were never the same, that the wound never really healed.

I’m sorry but Octavia’s face when Clarke’s like “Yeah B, you’re expendable, go get yourself killed, have a map!!” is hilarious. Like, he’s just said that Gustus doing anything for Lxa made sense, and Octavia responded with “Look at the thanks he got” which seems to me like She Knows and then 5 seconds later Bellamy is basically thrown away by the person we all know he’d do anything for... I mean the face is fair. Also this is Bellamy’s idea and it’s a good idea and so he was right before and Clarke is also right now, but it’s still so... annoying.... like “okay, I’m done caring about you lol bye.”

And Raven’s just totally confused. It’s been a damn long day I guess.

Why are they all such fucking hotties? It’s hard to pay attention to “the plot.”

So the ashes Abby tries to give to Clarke are the same ashes, perhaps, that Jasper scatters in S3? This vial looks smaller. Why did she not immediately give them to Raven? That would seem to be the obvious thing to do.

And here we see Clarke, under L’s direct influence, becoming Increasingly Insufferable. I love her but this is obviously supposed to be her descent into the abyss: she treats her friends like little expendable minions, she turns her back on Finn’s memory, and then she ends the episode by dramatically walking into a dark room in slow motion to creepy chamber music. I mean this is the hero’s fall guys!! That’s what it always was!!!

If only they’d handled Bellamy’s hero’s fall in 3A, and Clarke’s rise again in 3B, as well.

That ending is a straight up horror movie thanks that’s why this is my favorite season.

[hope-for-olicity]

Crushing the romance stigma once and for all Romance novel sales tally in the billions of dollars every year. (That's right: billions. With a "b".) And still, literary critics and other various bookish snobs continue to malign the genre, loudly and with great disdain. Why is that? If you ask these folks, they'll tell you romance novels are nothing but badly written trash. So, y'all have read a bunch of romance novels before forming that opinion, I assume? ​Oh, no, they'll say, noses tipped heavenward. They don't read romance (with all the contempt in the world placed on the word "romance"). Huh. Now I'm confused. Why would people be so openly hostile to a genre they've never read? I think I can tell you why.​The romance stigma and genre misconceptions are so deeply ingrained in us as a society that we have trouble overlooking them, even with glaring examples to the contrary. Heck, even bestselling romance authors like Nicholas Sparks hesitate to admit they write romance. Mr. Sparks insists that he writes “love stories”. On his website, Sparks lays out the difference between “love stories” and romance as follows: “It’s equivalent to the difference between a "legal thriller" and a "techno-thriller." In that instance, both novels include many of the same elements: suspense, good and bad forces pitted against each other, scenes that build to a major plot point, etc. But aside from the obvious, those novels are in different sub-genres and the sub-genres have different requirements. For instance, legal thrillers generally have a court room scene on center stage, techno-thrillers use the world or a city as their setting. Legal thrillers explore the nuances of law, techno-thrillers explore the nuances of scientific or military conflict. ​ The same situation applies with romance novels and love stories. Though both have romantic elements, the sub-genres have different requirements. Love stories must use universal characters and settings. Romance novels are not bound by this requirement and characters can be rich, famous, or people who lived centuries ago, and the settings can be exotic. Love stories can differ in theme, romance novels have a general theme—‘the taming of a man.’ And finally, romance novels usually have happy endings while love stories are not bound by this requirement. Love stories usually end tragically or, at best, on a bittersweet note.” I’m sorry, no disrespect intended, but if you’ve written a story in which the romantic relationship between two characters is the focus, you’ve written a romance novel, Mr. Sparks. The rest is just splitting hairs and can probably be construed as you protesting a bit too much. Throwing in a depressing ending doesn’t completely excuse you from the genre. Sorry. So, let’s take a look at the most common romance complaints and see if there’s actually anything to them: Romance novels are badly written I don’t know if y’all picked up on the implied “all” in that sentence, but I sure did. I don’t know of any genre outside of romance where people feel comfortable saying “all” of it is badly written. Are there some stinkers in the bunch? Absolutely. But I’ve also read plenty of stinkers in the sci fi, horror and mystery genres. I suppose my response to critics who say romance novels are badly written would be: have you read all romance novels? No? Well…there you go. And further...if they’re so badly written, why are they selling so well? Romance novels are formulaic I suppose this might depend on how broadly you define “formula”. For example: 1 person + 1 person = love and happiness Is that how a formula is defined? Because if that’s the definition, it could be argued that romance novels are formulaic. It is a somewhat unspoken “rule” that romance novels end with a HEA (happily ever after). But in my opinion, there’s A LOT that can happen in the middle of that particular formula, and there’s about a gazillion ways that particular equation can be worked out. I’ve read romance novels about everyday people with typical problems, and I’ve read romance novels about vampires and witches and angels. All the lovely variations in which the “formula” can be worked out and twisted about sure can make for some entertaining reading. Romance novels are predictable Again with the implied “all”. Sigh. I’m pretty hard to surprise. I knew that Darth Vadar was Luke’s father well before Luke did. I knew that one of the dead people Haley Joel Osment was seeing was Bruce Willis way before Bruce Willis knew. I knew what was going on at The Red Wedding well before Talisa took that knife to the gut. But I can honestly say that more than a few romance authors have managed to throw me for a loop with their plot gymnastics. (I’m looking at you, J.A. Redmerski!) So, are there some predictable romances out there? Sure. Can it be argued that the HEA is predictable? Absolutely. But to those still arguing this point, I have to ask: is your enjoyment of a book dependent on your inability to predict the story’s ultimate direction? Even if you know where the story will end up, can you not just enjoy the ebb and flow of the story, the writer’s word choices, the snap of the dialog and crackling chemistry between characters? If not...well, that’s kind of sad! Why bother reading at all if that’s the case?     There’s no plot; it’s all just about sex This is another one of those all-inclusive statements that should just be ignored. Are there some romance novels that are all about sex? Sure. And there are plenty of others that are intricately plotted (author Tarryn Fisher comes immediately to mind here) and meticulously researched. Beyond that, there’s even an entire subcategory of sweet and clean romances (even some Amish romances) that don’t contain any sex at all. Lesson to be learned here: As a rule, “all” and “never” statements are crap. “Real” writers don’t write romance Who gets to define what a “real” writer is? Was there some kind of specially appointed task force for this that I wasn’t aware of? As it turns out, writing is an art. So, just like any other art form, opinions on what is “good” and what is “real” will tend to vary greatly. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and there are no wrong answers. And just for the record, Jane Austen wrote romance novels. Anyone care to tell her—and her legions of rabid fans—that she wasn’t a real writer? No? Didn’t think so. Romance novels are unrealistic The “unrealistic” criticism usually exists in a couple of different forms: 1. The heroes and heroines are all perfect looking It’s true that as a society, we like pretty stuff. For that reason, you will find an abundance of pretty, seemingly perfect people in romance novels (especially on the covers). But, you’ll also find plenty of people who don’t fit into a perfect Barbie-and-Ken mold. I’ve read romances about a paraplegic hero, a heroine with CP, and a heroine so unattractive the hero is uncomfortable around her until he gets to know and love her.   2. HEAs don’t happen in real life You know who doesn’t believe in HEAs? Unhappy people. It’s true that no one is happy all the time, but to assume that no one ever gets a HEA is insane. There’s plenty of happiness out there for those who are willing to reach for it. And on a less philosophical note, I think romance readers generally understand that “HEA” is just a phrase. No one assumes that the main couple in the story continued to live out their lives without ever having another care in the world. The HEA is just where the story ends. Romance novels are just “bodice rippers” This one stems from a trend in the 70s and 80s that had innocent virgins (mostly in historical novels) on book covers being accosted by burly, half-dressed dudes (often Fabio) who were pretty much forcing themselves on them. Much like clothing and hairstyles, romance novel trends have also changed quite a bit since the 70s and 80s. For anyone who believes that all romance novels are “bodice rippers”, I encourage you to change out of your velour leisure suit, shut off your 8-track player and lava lamp, and venture to your local bookstore’s romance section. You’re in for a big surprise.   Romance novels promote abusive relationships I’ll let you in on a little secret, folks. (Come closer…wouldn’t want this one getting out to just anyone) Women sometimes fantasize about being overpowered by a man. It’s a pretty standard fantasy, actually. Some dude (who looks like Thor or Wolverine) overcomes all of her good-girl protests and better judgement with nothing more than the raw animal power of his overwhelming manly hotness. No consequences, no one gets hurt. Does reading about such a fantasy make women prone to asking their husband/partner/lover to abuse and overpower them on a regular basis? No more so than reading To Kill a Mockingbird makes people prone to becoming lawyers, or reading The Bourne Identity makes people prone to amnesia. Typically, readers are capable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality. Critics who spew drivel about romance novels promoting abuse against women seem to think otherwise, though. And further, as I’ve mentioned before, I’ve read a lot of romance novels. A. Lot. The portion of those novels that featured a man overpowering a woman amounts to maybe 2% of the total. It’s hardly fair to assume that all romance novels—or even a majority of romance novels, for that matter--promote that kind of relationship.   It’s just “mommy porn”       Sorry, but it’s just not statistically possible that all of the billions of dollars’ worth of romances sold each year were read by mommies. Women and men (yes, men read romance, too) of all ages enjoy romances. This statement is just a desperate attempt by critics to shame readers into buying the types of books theythink everyone should be reading. It’s like trying to convince people they should be watching PBS all the time. PBS is a great channel, but sometimes, you need a little HBO. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just an egocentric bully trying to promote his/her own agenda. Romance novels are silly fluff     I’m not going to argue that romance novels are doing their part to cure cancer or end world hunger. (And truthfully, neither are any novels) Some romances are about light subject matter, and others cover much deeper topics such as the grief of losing a spouse, kidnapping and child abuse, murder and even survival in a post-apocalyptic world. And those are just a few examples of the not-so-silly-fluffy topics you can find in romance novels today. There’s plenty more where those came from. Long-story-short, it would appear that nothing is wrong with the romance genre that isn’t also a problem for any other genre, other than what ignorant critics think of it. So, what can romance lovers do to help crush the romance stigma once and for all? Well, the first step is to admit, out loud and to anyone who asks, that you love romance novels. No more sheepishness. No more hiding your romance novels in speculative fiction dust jackets. No more refusing to let anyone see your Amazon browsing history or your Kindle’s contents. Be PROUD of what you read. The second step is to promote the books you read that help crush these myths. That’s what we’ll be doing here at Romance Rehab. What about all of you proud romance readers out there? What other romance misconceptions piss you off? Let’s talk.

[letterboxd]

McCarthy.

“Give me a real character like Lee who’s complicated and irritating and smart.” Melissa McCarthy talks about her Oscar-nominated performance in the acclaimed true story Can You Ever Forgive Me?

In the media discussion building up to this year’s Academy Awards, the talking points have principally concerned decisions regarding the ceremony itself, leaving many of the nominated films somewhat overlooked in the conversation.

One triple-nominee very much worthy of discussion is Marielle Heller’s Can You Ever Forgive Me?, which received nominations for Best Adapted Screenplay (Nicole Holofcener & Jeff Whitty), Best Supporting Actor (the great Richard E. Grant) and Best Actress for Melissa McCarthy’s caustic and hilarious performance as real-life literary forger Lee Israel.

Based upon Israel’s memoir of the same title, Can You Ever Forgive Me? chronicles how the writer (of biographies of Estée Lauder and Tallulah Bankhead, among others) found herself out of favor and out of work in the ’90s New York literary world.

After discovering that letters by famous writers could be highly valuable to certain collectors, Israel took to forging correspondence by people like Dorothy Parker and Noël Coward, and selling the results via rare book stores.

In addition to profiting from the deception, the acerbic Israel also took considerable pride in her ability to capture her subjects’ trademark wit.

There aren’t many movies made about people like Lee Israel, and that’s what makes Can You Ever Forgive Me? so fascinating. The character fails all the obvious (and idiotic) “likability” standards that afflict many mainstream films: she’s an alcoholic misanthrope who lashes out at everyone around her. Yet she’s impossible to look away from, and we remain wholly invested in her throughout every bad decision.

Richard E. Grant co-stars in the film as Jack Hock, an acquaintance who becomes Lee’s friend, and eventually her collaborator, via their mutual affection for booze. More than one person has accurately observed that if you dim your eyes, Hock could easily be Withnail, thirty years later. His Oscar campaign has been one of the most gleeful joys of awards season, and a pleasing reward for an actor who was “told right from the get-go that I looked like a tombstone”.

Mostly taking place in a Manhattan of wood-lined taverns and fusty bookstores, and quietly celebrating some of the city’s longest lasting icons including Julius, the city’s oldest gay bar, Can You Ever Forgive Me? is a minor miracle of a film that represents a new level of achievement for McCarthy.

The Oscar nomination is not her first (she received a Best Supporting nod for Bridesmaids in 2012), but there’s a complexity to her performance here that makes it undeniably special.

Director Heller (The Diary of a Teenage Girl, and currently in production on the Tom Hanks biopic about Mr Rogers) joined McCarthy to discuss the film at a recent AFI event in Hollywood.

On what made Heller want to direct the film: Marielle Heller: I found Lee really refreshing. I feel like we have male [lead] characters who are assholes all the time and we find them to be the most interesting characters, and you never get to see women like that. And so there was something about her I just immediately went, ‘Yeah, we need more women like Lee’. Also, middle-aged women who kind of don’t fit into society’s norms. Childless, lesbian. She didn’t fit into the model of what we make movies about, and so I just thought there was something nice and radical to me about that. It shouldn’t be radical, but it felt really radical. There was something about the fact that her intellect and her work is so much more important than her appearance, that I loved. And that she’s genuinely the smartest person in every room, but no one gives her that credit.

Marielle Heller directs Melissa McCarthy on the set of ‘Can You Ever Forgive Me?’

On how McCarthy heard about the role: Melissa McCarthy: I had a very quick introduction to Lee. I heard about it first from my husband [Ben Falcone]. There was an earlier incarnation of the movie—movies fall apart all the time for a million different reasons—and my husband had a part in it, the part he ended up playing in this one [of a rare book dealer], and that’s how I read it. We read each other’s scripts and talked about it and after I read it I was like, ‘This is incredible, this is so good and why on earth don’t I know who Lee Israel is?’. I was disappointed with myself that I didn’t know about her.

On McCarthy’s response to the character as written: MM: I had a very strong reaction. I was at page twenty and I thought, ‘Oh I like her so much’. And then I had to stop and I went back through the first twenty pages, because I couldn’t figure out why. It was intangible. There’s no moment, there’s no speech. I started to fall in love with her, and that to me was the most exciting thing. I find her intriguing, challenging. I loved that she didn’t need someone else to validate who she was. Even when she is difficult, which is often. I respected her.

It also just made me think about being so talented at something and being told at 52, ‘You know, we don’t need you to do that anymore. You’re now obsolete.’ So as someone gets better and better and more experienced, the average thing is ‘Now you’re obsolete’. I just found that whole way of thinking so insane, that I thought, what would any of us do if we were pushed to that point? So the more she kind of conned and grifted, I found myself rooting for her.

On how she got into Lee’s headspace: MM: I read everything she wrote. I also listened to stories from people who actually knew Lee, and then there is a bit of conjuring. You just wanna do right by the people. The costume and wardrobe department were very important because I had no interest in looking like myself. I think it’s really freeing to get to walk around in other people’s shoes and I think that allows you to be braver and more vulnerable. It’s a very fantastic part of what I do, I think you get to be steadier or more empowered because it’s happening through someone else. It takes the pressure off of me.

I have a real fascination in what drives us all. What our quirks are. I don’t know any perfect woman, I don’t know how to play pleasant or blonde. Give me a real character like Lee who’s complicated and irritating and smart and all these things that when I look at someone, it makes you kinda fall in love with them. All my friends are nuts. They always need a qualifier like, ‘They’re actually great, just get to know them’. That’s why we love people. You don’t love people because they’re pleasant, you love them because they’ll talk too much or say the wrong thing, but they’ll show up at 3 o’clock when you don’t feel well and help you. It’s so rare that you get to play a woman like that. Those are the women that I know. They’re complicated and challenging.

On Jack and Lee’s friendship: MM: They were both so lonely. And it’s such a universal thing. I don’t know a human that hasn’t felt incredibly lonely and undervalued. We are all so lonely. I think everyone can feel that tether to those characters, and it’s why even though they shouldn’t have been friends, they needed each other.

On Melissa and Richard’s friendship: MH: Those two loved each other from the day they met in a way that was like, every director’s dream, because they showed up and immediately got along. Richard would show up on days he wasn’t filming and take Melissa to lunch. It was amazing because they were truly becoming friends on this movie and when we got to the scene where they were essentially breaking up, they had to hug each other afterwards because it was so painful.

On working alongside Richard E. Grant: MM: He’s so completely present as a person, and that certainly translates into his beautiful acting because he is 1,000% there. If you go this way, he goes with you. There’s just an ease to it. And we do sometimes these incredibly difficult scenes that were just heartbreaking, and then when we finished, we’d both become very silly and throwaway, which is really important sometimes when you’re shooting something that’s difficult. And then we’d go right back to it. I had such an ease working with him. I think we work in a very similar way. I think we fully commit, right or wrong, and trusted that Marielle is at the helm of a ship and she did it with complete authority and a complete lightness at the same time.

Richard E. Grant and Melissa McCarthy in ‘Can You Ever Forgive Me?’

On the benefits of having a female director: MM: Hands down it was fantastic. And I’ve been very fortunate to work a lot of wonderful male directors [who] also have a quote-unquote ‘feminine side’, my husband, Paul Feig, Ted Melfi, they all have a capacity to listen and be collaborative. I think with Mari, what always sticks in my head, there was never a moment where you didn’t feel completely guided. And the crew, you could see it, really felt like they were all part of this, we knew exactly what Mari’s vision is. And working in this kind of time frame, you need that cohesiveness, and you need someone—I think it’s more likely to happen with a female director—you need someone to do the right thing for the movie, instead of proving that they’re right. And there’s a big difference there. And when you get someone like Mari doing that, the world just falls into place.

On approaching a dramatic role versus a comedic role: MM: There’s absolutely no difference to me. If it’s comedy or drama, it doesn’t change for me at all, I think if it’s a straight comedy, I still try to find, or I’m least very interested in, like, what’s tragic about that person. Like, if they’re so overly pleasant and happy, why? What pain are they hiding? So I do the same thing, if someone’s really aggressive, what’s behind that? So I change nothing. Maybe you’re supposed to, but I don’t.

‘Can You Ever Forgive Me?’ is currently available on all the major streaming services. Reporting by West Coast Editor Dominic Corry.