#in both situations she’s the anne hathaway character | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cherrycheridarling · 3 years

Text

dap me up | t.h.

tom holland x actress!reader

warnings: somewhat smut? swearing and fluff

summary: during an interview for your new film, tom exposes your odd routine during intimate scenes and your favourite flower.

a/n: i got carried away. there's a lot going on in here. enjoy?

wc: 2.6k

"Hello! I'm Adrien Fox with Pop Sugar and we are here with stars of the new film 'Week Off', Tom Holland and Y/N Y/L/N!" Adrien introduced you and Tom to the cameras.

You and Tom gave little waves, "Hello!"

"Now, let's get right into it."

Adrien began asking generic questions while you tried your best to prevent any spoilers from leaving Tom's lips.

"Can you explain the movie a bit to anyone who is unfamiliar with the book or hasn't watched the trailer?"

Tom opened his mouth to speak before closing it, "I think I'll let Y/N do that."

Adrien laughed before you spoke, "Yeah, um. It's basically a comedy with a little rated R content. Some romance, but mostly raunchy and hilarious stuff. It follows the employees in this law firm and their vacation away from work. Lots ensues during said trip including relationships, arguments and too much drinking."

"And you guys worked with many famous actors and actresses in this film. Like, Jennifer Lawrence, Emma Stone, Anne Hathaway, Zendaya, Chris Hemsworth, Kevin Hart, Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum and The Rock. How was working with that many iconic people in the industry? You guys are obviously incredibly well known as well, but I imagine some of these people were your idols growing up." Adrien asked and you and Tom nodded.

"Yeah, uh, yeah. It was an honour. Absolutely amazing. Like, I never imagined I'd be making films, let alone films with stars like Kevin Hart and Emma Stone, you know? I'm just really proud of this one and I love everyone who we worked on it with." Tom gave his answer making you nod.

You cleared your throat, "Yeah, Zendaya is my best friend and she has been for years, long before this movie came along, but I still got so excited about working with her. Jennifer Lawrence is amazing, so hilarious. You put her and Chris into a room together and it's just comedy central." you laughed with Tom at the memory.

"We've seen in the trailer that you two share many intimate and – may I say – risqué scenes in this film. Was it hard to keep that level of professionalism and friendship while shooting those scenes?"

You let out a little chuckle at the question before Tom rubbed his chin and spoke, "Since Y/N and I are already good friends off screen, I thought it would be awkward filming those scenes, but Y/N does this weird handshake after every take and it wasn't awkward 'cause it just made me laugh."

Adrien laughed a little before speaking, "What handshake?"

You shook your head with a smile as you recalled the first time you ever did the handshake with Tom.

"Ready, Holland?" you had your pyjamas on and were making your way to your mark in the set of your character's hotel room.

Tom nodded before following you in, cameras and crew hot on his heels, "Ready as I'll ever be."

He was shirtless. A pair of loose fitting grey shorts hung low on his waist. His costume for this scene as Niko Sai.

A black silk slip hung carelessly off of your frame. Ending at the middle of your thighs, v-neck dipping low on your chest. Your costume for Kora Patel.

"We're going to take it from Tom's line; 'You want me just as much as I want you'. Okay?" you and Tom gave a thumbs up, "Action!"

"You want me just as much as I want you. Everytime you sneak a glance at me and you think I don't see, but I do because I'm already looking at you, Patel." Tom walked behind you, looking at you through the mirror in front of you. "I don't blame you, I am incredibly good looking." he smirked to himself.

"I'm guessing you couldn't fit your shirt over your ginormous head?" you rolled your eyes.

Tom's smirk only grew, "Is that a little bit of drool on your mouth, Patel? Who knew the Kora Patel had a thing for Niko Sai? Oh, the Lord is good."

You rested your hands on the sink and leaned forward, "This is a useless conversation, Sai." you turned to face him, "I feel nothing for you. Don't you get that?"

He stepped closer to you and cupped your face in his palm, "Yes you do, you just don't want to." his face showed pain, all humour drained from his character.

You shook your head with a dry laugh, "You're only trying with me because it's convenient. The company's quiet little Kora Patel, right?"

He took another step towards you, holding your hip in a tight grip, "That's a lie. Nothing about us is convenient."

You chuckled before your hand flew to grasp his hair, tangling your fingers in his curls. Your other hand pressed against his pec. Nails tracing patterns on his skin. Tom's breath hitched along with yours as his body automatically drew closer to you.

You tightened your grip on his hair, "It is convenient because you know I keep to myself. You know that I won't go running my mouth about how long you last or if size really does matter. You know that I'm an easy one to fuck," you pulled him closer, "And toss aside, right, Sai?"

"No." Tom swallowed, "You're wrong, Patel."

You shrugged, "I can give you what you want," you ran your thumb across his bottom lip, "Physically." your eyes met his with heavy lids, "Not emotionally. That's why you need Remedy. Not me." your lips brushed his as you spoke, your voice just loud enough for the mics to pick up.

He leaned in and nearly kissed you before you pushed him away slightly by his chest, foreheads still touching, "Let me kiss you." he whispered, sounding so desperate that you nearly abandoned the script and pulled him into you.

You rolled your lips between your teeth, "And if I don't?" you raised an eyebrow, challenging him.

"I'll leave you alone. If that's what you want, I'll go and have a useless one night stand with a girl who could never measure up to you." he pulled your hips flesh against his, "But if you let me kiss you. I promise to show you how much I mean it when I say that I'll spend all night showering every inch of your body with the love it deserves." he brushed his lips against yours again before bringing his mouth to your ear, "Just say the word, darling, and I'm yours."

Your heavy breaths were the only things that could be heard besides the small sound of shuffling behind the cameras. Your eyes flickered from his eyes to his lips before you closed the distance and pushed your lips to his.

Fighting for dominancy, teeth clashing, hands roaming. Unscripted groans falling from Tom's lips as you tugged on his hair, running your fingers along his scalp. His hands gripped the bottom of your thighs before you jumped and wrapped your legs around his waist.

"I still hate you." you breathed against his lips as he kissed the corner of your mouth.

You felt him smirk, "You sure have a funny way of showing it."

He carried you to the bedroom, gently laying you down and climbing on top of you, never breaking the kiss. His hands running down your sides, squeezing and rubbing. Your lips moving in sync until he pulled away only to attach his lips to your jawline, leaving slow but hard kisses down your neck, leading to your collarbone.

"Still hate me?" Tom mumbled against your skin.

You let out a breathy moan, "More than ever."

"What do you hate about me, Patel?" he lifted up the bottom of your black slip.

"E-everything." you fake gasped as he rolled his hips into yours.

He laughed dryly, "Everything, huh? The noises you're making say otherwise."

"You're such a dick." you moaned.

He smirked against your breast, "You're about to take my—"

"—Don't finish that fucking sentence, Sai."

Soft moans fell from your lips as you wrapped your legs around his waist again and pulled him closer to you. He groaned against your skin as the cameras picked up every noise, every movement, every kiss. You ran your nails down his back, surely leaving marks in its wake. His grip on your hips was almost punishing, as if he wanted there to be bruises the next day.

"And cut! Great work, guys. Ten minute break and we'll shoot it again."

Tom immediately got off of you and sat to the side of the bed before looking at you with concern, "Are you okay? Did I hurt you?"

You let out a laugh before shaking your head, "No, you didn't hurt me. Dap me up." you held out your hand and he stared confused.

"What you up?" he chuckled.

You smiled before lifting his hand and doing the movements for him, "Just like that." he finally got it down and smiled.

"You Americans are definitely odd." he teased.

You tossed him a wink as an assistant handed you a robe, "See you in ten, Holland."

"And that's the handshake. It's not really a handshake, more of a greeting. I just did it after our first intimate scene because Tom was acting weird and I didn't want things to be awkward." you explained with a shrug as Adrien and Tom laughed.

Tom nodded, "I thought I hurt her! So I asked if I did and all she said was 'dap me up', like, what?" he laughed with you.

"You guys have really great chemistry on and off screen." Adrien complimented making your cheeks heat up.

You nodded, "Thank you. It took a lot of work to break through his industrial ego." you joked with an exhausted sigh as Adrien laughed.

Tom gasped beside you, "I do not have an industrial ego!"

"Mhm, sure." you joked before reaching over and giving Tom's thigh a gentle squeeze, "I meant indestructible."

Tom huffed and crossed his arms, "This is bullying."

Adrien laughed again, "We have to talk about something," he started and you already knew what was coming, "Lots of fans have speculated that the romance on screen carries on off screen." he smirked.

You and Tom laughed nervously. Almost awkwardly.

The situations that you went through with Tom while filming definitely built your relationship with him and strengthened it. In all honesty, you didn't know if the feelings you had for him were reciprocated.

In Tom's head, he was adamant that you had no feelings for him beyond the big screen. Both of you were too timid to confess first. His feelings for you developed a few weeks into filming and since then have only gotten stronger as your friendship grew and you spent more time together.

The amount of times that this topic had been brought up today was tiring. Every answer was the same: "No, no. We're just really good friends."

You decided to joke around, "Honestly, I've asked Tom out at least twenty times and he keeps rejecting me." you pouted and sniffled.

Adrien let out a joyous laugh as Tom gasped and choked on air at your words.

"That is not true! She has never asked me out!" he defended himself.

You shook your head with a deep frown, "He's broken my heart too many times. This is probably my last time acting with him." you continued on with the joke.

Tom shook his head furiously, "That is one hundred percent false. If she had asked me out, we would already be dating." he let the words fall from his lips without a second thought.

You fought the instinct to snap your head towards him. His confession catching you off guard. You played it off with another pout and shrug. Unsure if he was joining in on the prank or not.

Adrien raised a suggestive eyebrow, "What I'm hearing is that Y/N just needs to ask you out and we have our new couple."

You fake gasped, "Why do I have to ask him out? He should be asking me out with a million roses and a horse drawn carriage." you flipped your hair over your shoulder.

"You don't even like roses." Tom laughed, "You like dandelions because they turn into those fluffy things that you can make a wish with." he remembered the information off of the top of his head, "And because it sounds like you're saying 'dandy lions' when you say their name."

You nodded with a smile, "A million dandelions then. And maybe I'll think about it." you joked with a yawn making the two men laugh.

"You heard it here first. We have a new couple on the rise. Tom just needs to find a million dandelions and a horse drawn carriage." Adrien laughed again.

Tom scoffed dramatically, "Find? I already have them in my garage, ready to go."

Adrien cheered as you felt a heat creep up your neck, "Did I say dandelions? I meant daisies."

"Got those, too." Tom smirked making you roll your eyes.

"Okay, we need to end this interview before Tom buys all the flowers in Berlin." you joked.

After the interview ended, you said your goodbyes to Adrien and the crew before you and Tom made your way back to your temporary hotel suite for the week of press junkets.

Tom walked you to your room, stopping at the door, "That was an odd interview." he chuckled.

You nodded, "Indeed. It was fun, though." you smiled and he returned the expression.

There was an awkward beat of silence before he spoke again, "T-that whole asking me out thing. You were kidding, right? Like, just a show for the cameras?" he laughed nervously.

You swallowed air before replying with a timid smile, "Y-yeah. Totally. Just for the fans." you nodded again, "Um, I should head to bed. More interviews tomorrow. See you in the morning." you gave him a little wave before turning to your door and pulling out your key.

He nodded with the smallest of pouts before turning on his heel and starting the walk back to his suite.

Just as your hand was turning the knob, Tom's voice called out to you again.

"Would you like to go on a date with me?" he spoke in one breath.

You bit your lip to conceal your smile, but it was no use. His question sparked a flame in your stomach that wasn't dying out anytime soon.

You turned with a bright grin, "I'd love to."

His features went from pure fright to relief in a matter of seconds, "G-great. I'll- uh, I'll text you the details. Goodnight." he gave you a little salute making you laugh.

"Sounds good. Night, Holland." you nodded your head before entering your hotel room.

You leaned against the door as soon as it shut. A euphoric glow radiating off of you. You were going on a date with Tom Holland.

Tom happily punched the air. Skipping down the hallway, a new found joy in his step. Chris Hemsworth walked out of his room and examined the gleeful boy.

"What's got you all smiley?" he chuckled.

Tom stopped and smiled, staring at the ceiling, "I just got myself a date."

Chris raised an impressed eyebrow before laughing, "You really are Peter Parker. Night, kid."

"Goodnight, Chris." Tom's smile never faded as he made his way back to his suite.

Not even ten minutes had gone by since he last spoke to you and he already missed you. He pulled out his phone and pressed on your contact.

Tom: sorry i didn't have any dandelions. hope you can make an exception x

Y/N: i suppose but the horse drawn carriage is a must x

1K notes · View notes

uncloseted · 2 years

Note

Thank you for being so reasonable and nuanced in your depp and heard opinion. I agree that they are probably both abusers. It's been irritating seeing so many people on twitter acting like depp is completely the victim and heard is a complete monster. Why do you think that's been happening? Maybe this is petty but I don't think I've seen a female abuse victim getting such huge amount of support and believability

Thanks! I'm trying 😭

I think the support for Depp is probably a combination of a few different things. I think the biggest factor is that he was way more of a public figure than Amber Heard before the abuse allegations came out. A lot of people considered his characters to be a formative part of their childhoods/young adult years, and so I think a lot of people were more attached to him than they were to Amber Heard. Amber wasn't really a huge star before she started dating Depp- some people knew who she was, but her real career breakthrough was her role in Aquaman in 2018. So the allegations against Heard are kind of a "get out of jail free" card for people who don't want their fave to be problematic. It solves the cognitive dissonance people were feeling about "such a nice guy" having been abusive. Heard doesn't have that same level of popularity or the same reputation, so she wasn't really anyone's "problematic fave" to begin with.

Kind of along with that, I think likability plays a factor. I think to a lot of people, Johnny Depp seems more likable than Amber Heard does, and so they want him to be the "good guy". Women in general are held to higher standards of likability and there are a lot of things that can cause them to go from being "likable" to being hated overnight (see: Jennifer Lawrence and Anne Hathaway).

Misogyny also plays a part. The idea that women are falsely accusing men of sexual assault or domestic violence for person gain is one that's tantalizing to a certain group of people, and any time that seems like it may be happening, they jump on it. Female victims aren't believed a lot of the time, and that gets compounded when you're a celebrity and when there are allegations against you as well. People see her as "manipulative" (a criticism that is almost exclusively leveraged against women) and inauthentic (as if accusing one of the biggest actors in the world of abuse would somehow be to her benefit?). I think a non-zero part of this is also that she's not seen as a "perfect" or "respectable" victim. She has a previous history of physical violence, she was a victim of the celebrity nude photo link, she's openly bisexual, etc. I think people sometimes expect victims to be innocent and chaste if they're "to be believed", and so part of this may be indirect slut-shaming. People also accuse her of devaluing the narrative of "real victims" by "lying about abuse".

Finally, I think it's that people feel like there has to be "an abuser" and "a victim" in situations of domestic violence. It makes them uncomfortable to acknowledge the ways in which abuse is sometimes mutual, or to acknowledge that some situations exist with grey areas. It's easier to pick a side. And when people are picking sides, the more popular person tends to get more support.

Don't get me wrong, I do think she's probably guilty of abuse. But Depp is probably guilty of abuse as well, and there's a whole lot more evidence against him. If you're going to cancel Heard, I think you kind of have to cancel Depp, too.

3 notes · View notes

letterboxd · 3 years

Photo

In Focus: Interstellar.

Inspired by Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar placing high across three notable Letterboxd metrics, Dominic Corry reflects on how the film successfully hung its messaging around the concept of love—and what pandemic responses worldwide could learn from its wholehearted embrace of empathetic science.

“Love isn’t something we invented. It’s observable, it’s powerful. It has to mean something.” —Dr. Amelia Brand (Anne Hathaway)

This story contains spoilers for ‘Interstellar’ (2014).

Although it is insultingly reductionist to both filmmakers, there are many reasons Christopher Nolan is often described as a modern-day Stanley Kubrick. The one most people usually settle on is the notion that both men supposedly make exacting, ambitious films that lack emotion.

It is an incorrect assessment of either director, but it’s beyond amazing that anyone could still accuse Nolan of such a thing after he delivered what is unquestionably his masterwork, the emotional rollercoaster that is 2014’s Interstellar.

In the epic sci-fi adventure drama, Nolan managed to pull off something that many filmmakers have attempted and few have achieved. He told a story of boundless sci-fi scope, and had it be all about love in the end. It sounds cheesy to even write it down, but Nolan did it.

That Interstellar is such an overtly cutting-edge genre film that chooses to center itself so brazenly and unapologetically around love, is frankly awesome.

Love informs Interstellar both metaphorically and literally: the expansive scope of the film effectively represents love’s infinite potential, and love itself ends up being the tangible thread that allows far-flung astronaut Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) to communicate with his Earth-bound daughter Murph (played as an adult by Jessica Chastain) from the tesseract (a three-dimensional rendering of a five-dimensional space) after Cooper enters the black hole towards the end of the film.

Matthew McConaughey as Joseph ‘Coop’ Cooper, Mackenzie Foy as Murph, and Timothée Chalamet as Tom.

In transmitting (via morse code) what the robot TARS has observed from inside the black hole, Cooper provides Murph with the data to solve the gravity problem required to uplift Earth’s population from its depleted home planet. Humanity is saved. Love wins again. Hard sci-fi goes soft. Christopher Nolan’s genius is confirmed, and any notions of emotionlessness are emphatically washed away.

This earnest centering of love in Interstellar is key to the film’s universal appeal, and undoubtedly plays a large role in why it features so prominently in three significant Letterboxd lists determined by pronoun: Interstellar is the only film that appears in all three top tens of “most fans on Letterboxd” when considering members who use the pronoun he/him, she/her and xe/ze. (“Most fans” refers to Letterboxd members who have selected the film as one of the four favorites on their profile.)

To get a bit reductionist myself, sci-fi adventure—in cinema, at least—has traditionally been a masculine-leaning genre, but Interstellar’s placement across these three lists points to it having superseded that traditional leaning, hopefully for the better.

Yet the film reliably still provokes reactions like this delightful tweet:

few movies make me as mad as Interstellar. who the fuck makes 3/4 of an excellent hard sci-fi movie backed up by actual science and then abruptly turns it into soft sci-fi about how the power of love and time traveling bookshelves can save us in the final 1/4? damn you, Nolan

— the thicc husband & father (@lukeisamazing)

February 13, 2021

Although this tweet is somewhat indicative of how many men (and women, for that matter) respond to the film, I think it’s pretty clear the writer actually loves Interstellar wholeheartedly, final quarter and all, but perhaps feels inhibited from expressing that love by the expectations of a gendered society that is becoming increasingly outdated. The “damn you, Nolan” is possibly a concession of sorts—he’s damning how Nolan really made him feel the love at the end. It’s okay, @lukeisamazing, you don’t have to say it out loud.

Conversely, it can be put like this:

“The emotion of Interstellar is three-fold: Nolan’s script, co-written with his brother as with all his best stuff, masters not only notions of black holes, wormholes, quantum data and telemetry, but it also makes a case for love as the one thing—feeling, fact, movement, message—that can mean more and do more than anyone in our current time, on our existing planet, can comprehend.”

The writer of this stirring summation, our own Ella Kemp, is paraphrasing a critical section of the film, when Nolan goes full literal on the concept of love and has Cooper and Dr Amelia Brand (Anne Hathaway) debate its very nature, quoted in part at the top of this story. It comes when the pair are trying to decide which potentially humanity-saving planet to use their dwindling fuel reserves to travel to. Brand is advocating for the planet where a man she loves might be waiting for her, instead of the planet that has ostensibly better circumstances for life.

Brand: “Love is the one thing we’re capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space. Maybe we should trust that even if we can’t understand it.”

“Love has meaning, yes,” responds Cooper, heretofore the film’s most outwardly love-centric character, exhibiting a stoic longing for his dead wife, while also abandoning his ten-year-old daughter on Earth for a space adventure (albeit one designed to save humanity) than has now inadvertently taken decades. “Social utility. Social bonding. Child rearing.” Ouch.

McConaughey with Anne Hathaway as Dr. Amelia Brand.

Brand: “You love people who have died. Where’s the social utility in that? Maybe it means something more. Something we don’t yet understand. Some evidence, some artefact of a higher dimension that we can’t consciously perceive. I’m drawn across the universe to someone I haven’t seen in a decade who I know is probably dead. Love is the one thing we’re capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space. Maybe we should trust that even if we can’t understand it yet.” Amen.

Cooper remains unconvinced by Brand’s rationale, but this dispassionate display presages him going on to realize the true (literal) power of love (and his poor, science-only decision-making—thanks Matt Damon) when it provides him the aforementioned channel of communication with Murph in the tesseract. Nolan has a female character make the most eloquent vocal argument for love, but it’s the male character who has to learn it through experience.

So while Interstellar does initially conform to some prevailing cultural ideas about love and how it supposedly relates to gender, it ultimately advocates for a greater appreciation of the concept that moves beyond such binary notions. That is reflected in how important the film is to Letterboxd members who self-identify as he/him, she/her and xe/ze. We all love this movie. Emphasis on love.

Brand’s speech—not to mention the film as a whole—also can’t help but inform the current global situation. Interstellar argues for a greater devotion to both science and love, in harmony; such devotion might have mitigated the devastating effects of the coronavirus pandemic where both concepts were drastically undervalued by many of those in charge of the response.

Jessica Chastain and Casey Affleck as the grown-up Cooper siblings.

Despite the reactions cited above, responses to Interstellar aren’t always split down gender lines. We’re all allowed to feel whatever we like about it, and substantial variety comes across in the many, many reviews for the film.

Zaidius says Interstellar is so good that, “after watching [it], you will want to downgrade all of the ratings you have ever given on Letterboxd.”

On the other hand, Singlewhitefemalien takes issue with Dr. Brand’s aforementioned love-based decision-making in her two-star review: “She wants to fuckin’ go to Planet Whatever to chase after a dude she banged ten years ago because women are guided by their emotions and love is all you need.” A perhaps fair assessment of the role Nolan chose his sole female astronaut to play in the film?

Sam offers food for thought when he writes “First, you love Interstellar; then you understand Interstellar.”

Letterboxd stalwart Lucy boils it down effectively in one of her multiple five-star reviews of the film: “I needed a really good cry.” It’s hard to say whether Vince is agreeing or disagreeing with Lucy in his review: “Fuck you Matthew McConaughey for making me cry.” The catharsis this movie provides for dudes becomes clearer the deeper you venture into our Interstellar reviews (and I ventured deep): “How dare this fucking movie make me cry… twice,” writes John. Let it out, John.

Then there’s Rudi’s take: “I sobbed like an animal while watching this but I’m not exactly sure what animal it was like. Like a pig? Like a whale? I don’t know but I do know that I cried a whole fucking lot.”

Emotionless? With all this crying?

Christopher Nolan inspires more debate than any other filmmaker of the modern age (when we’re not getting unnecessarily riled up about something Marty has said, that is) and while Nolan has the passionate devotion of millions of viewers, I’d argue he still doesn’t quite get his due. Especially when it comes to Interstellar.

By so successfully using love as both a metaphorical vessel and a palpable plot point in a sci-fi adventure film, he built on notable antecedents like James Cameron’s The Abyss and Robert Zemeckis’ Contact, two (great) films with similar aspirations that didn’t stick the landing as well as Interstellar does. In Contact, McConaughey engages in a similar debate about love to the one quoted above, but notably takes the opposing side.

Steven Spielberg (who at one point was going to direct an earlier iteration of Interstellar) did a pretty good job of showing love as the most powerful force in the universe with E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, but there hasn’t been a huge amount of room for such notions in the genre since then.

Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, Interstellar’s most obvious forebear, is often accused of being the director’s most brazenly emotionless film. And while that’s perhaps a bit more understandable than some of the brickbats hurled Nolan’s way, there’s more emotion in the character of Hal 9000 than in many major directors’ entire oeuvre. It’s also, in part due to Hal’s place in the examination of queer consciousness in the sci-fi realm, the film currently in the number one spot on the xe/ze list.

Two films that notably exist in Interstellar’s wake are Denis Villeneuve’s Arrival, which expands upon Interstellar’s creative use of time-bending (and like Contact, features a female protagonist) and James Gray’s Ad Astra, which tackles the perils of traditional masculinity with more directness.

Interstellar doesn’t solve the sci-fi genre’s cumbersome relationship with masculinity and gender, but it makes significant strides in breaking down the existing paradigms, if only from all the GIFs of McConaughey crying it has spawned. Its appeal across the gender spectrum is an interesting and encouraging sign of the universality of its themes. And the power of love.

Fans out of touch with their feelings may complain about the role love plays in the film, but that says more about them than it does the film. Love wins. Also: TARS. How could anyone not love TARS?

TARS and Christopher Nolan.

Related content

Men/Boys Crying: a master list

“I Ugly-Cried Like Matthew McConaughey in Interstellar”: Amanda’s list

“I Liked Interstellar”: Sar’s list of what to watch afterwards

Follow Dominic on Letterboxd

#interstellar #christopher nolan #2001 a space odyssey #stanley kubrick #letterboxd #science fiction #sci fi #sci fi film #sci fi movies #queer consciousness #the meaning of life #love

27 notes · View notes

ultrahpfan5blog · 3 years

Text

Rewatching TDK Trilogy

Easily my favorite superhero trilogy and arguably one of my favorite trilogies of all time. I think in terms of superhero trilogies, Captain America is the one that comes closest because I love all three movies, but they aren’t a trilogy in the normal sense in that Civil War is essentially Avengers 2.5 and neither Civil War nor Winter Soldier can be understood without having watched Avengers and Age of Ultron. But even putting that aside, I adore TDK trilogy and it still ranks as my favorite superhero movies. The trilogy, obviously starting with Batman Begins, is what put introduced me to Nolan. I hadn’t seen Memento and Insomnia till then so Batman Begins was literally my first introduction to him.

I was always a big Batman fan as a huge follower of the DCAU cartoons with Kevin Conroy voicing a really badass Batman throughout the 90′s and into the early 2000′s. While I enjoyed the first 4 Batman movies as a kid, yes even B&R, I always wanted to see the more somber version from the cartoons. Batman Begins hit me at the perfect time where I started to have longer attention spans and wasn’t just looking for the next action scene. Rewatching the movie, it amazes me that Batman doesn’t show up for half the movie. I think that was a really brave call given pretty much all previous Batman movies introduced Batman almost immediately. I genuinely love all the prelude to Bruce becoming Batman. I liked that we got to see his training extensively and we are introduced to the city and see the dynamics of the rich and the poor, the police, the mob, the lawyers etc... It really gives Gotham a very grounded personality. I think Nolan really killed it at the casting level. By getting Caine as Alfred, Freeman as Fox, and Oldman as Gordon, he created a superbly acted support structure around Bruce/Batman, so we aren’t just always waiting for Bruce to show up. On top of that, they had Liam Neeson as Ra’s, who is effortlessly compelling, as well as other strong supporting actors like Cillian Murphy as a scene stealing Scarecrow, Tom Wilkinson as Falcone, Rutger Hauer as Earle etc... All giving personality to a difference facet of the city and Bruce’s life. But this truly is Bale’s movie. I didn’t know him at all prior to this film, but I have been a fan ever since. He carries the movie on his shoulders and he delivers the ferociousness of Batman and the humanity of Bruce Wayne effortlessly. If there is someone who doesn’t make a big impression, its Katie Holmes. I didn’t find her terrible, but rather the character isn’t exactly well written which bleeds into the next movie with Maggie Gyllenhall as well. My favorite Batman performance. Rewatching, what surprised me the most is the amount of humor in the movie. This is actually reflective of the entire trilogy. The movies deal with darkness and death, but there is actually plenty of humor sprinkled throughout these movies which prevent it from being dour. There have been a lot of superhero origin stories, but this still remains the gold standard of superhero origin stories. A 9/10 for me.

There is nothing I can say about The Dark Knight that hasn’t been said a 100 times over. It quite literally is the best comic book movie of all time. But it basically is at heart a drama about Gotham. Whereas BB acts as a character centric piece, this film is about all the characters living in Gotham. Arguable, the character that has the biggest arc in the film is Harvey Dent. Again, the casting department knocked it out of the park with the casting of Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. Unfortunately, Eckhart never really capitalized on his performance here because he really was terrific in the film, both as Harvey and as Two-Face, to the point where you wished you had more of Two-Face. Gary Oldman gave his best work in the trilogy in this movie. The desperation as the situation spins out of control is fabulous. Freeman also has a very meaty role in the movie and continues to add a lot of weight to the scenes as well as plenty of humor, as does Michael Caine. Christian Bale continued to be terrific. There were some complaints about his voice, which I feel have been overexaggerated over the years. I definitely think his Begins voice is better, but barring one or two scenes, I never really had an issue with Bale’s voice in this film. He delivers a very nuanced performance. Maggie Gyllenhaal took over from Katie Holmes in TDK and while I think she is a far better actress than Katie Holmes, I think the character itself is not very well written. In both movies, Rachel comes off as very judgmental. Whereas in BB I can understand her reason in being so, given Bruce was ready to commit murder and later was out being a playboy in front of her for the sake of appearances, in this movie she is judgmental towards Bruce even though she knows what he has been doing to help the city. Also, she did come off a bit flaky in the whole Bruce/Rachel/Harvey triangle. And then there is Heath Ledger. There are very few performances that I consider perfect. This is one of them. I think every choice Ledger makes in this movie, be it intentional or unintentional, works amazingly well. Like him licking his lips to keep the make up on. It just adds a creepy quality to his character, even if it is completely unintentional. There are so many ticks and quirks in Ledger’s performance that make this a phenomenal performance. I don’t see any villain performance having matches that since 2008. I think the closest I have seen prior to that is Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs. It really is a performance that adds such a big extra edge to the movie. I love that Nolan sticks to certain details such as Bruce never actually drinking alcohol and throwing it away at the part and then Joker showing up and taking a glass and him spilling almost all of it. It gives a lot of personality to the characters. If I have any complaint about the movie, it is that Bruce does at times feel like a stationary character as he does not have as big of an arc as a Harvey Dent. And if you want, you can pick apart the holes in the series of events that happen that cause the chaos. But the drama of the film is just so intense that you forget all of that behind. I give it a 9.5/10

The Dark Knight Rises to me is the film that gets often maligned just because it isn’t TDK. And that is a crazy yardstick to compare it to. But as a movie on its own, its pretty damn awesome. TDKR is where the film truly steps away from being a version of the comics to being an Elseworld story with Batman having been absent for 8 years and then Bruce retiring and leaving Gotham at the end of the movie. But I don’t think there was any way for Nolan to close out his trilogy without it becoming an Elseworld story and it really didn’t matter because I always figured that as long as Bruce is out there, if Gotham needed him, he would come back. Its not as if there aren’t existing comic book stories of Bruce having retired or left being Batman behind. Again, there is some superb new casting. JGL ends up being surprising integral and he is terrific. Tom Hardy is awesome as Bane. He manages to provide a terrifying presence. I actually loved his voice. I love that a terrifying brute of a man has a polite, gentlemanly sounding voice. It gave him a unique personality. Marion Cotillard is pretty good as Talia/Miranda. She has an awkwardly filmed death scene but she’s good throughout the rest of the film, particularly during the reveal scene. But the casting of the movie for me was Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle. I knew Anne Hathaway mostly from the Princess Bride movies till then even though she had gotten an academy award nomination by then. But I really didn’t envisage her as Selina Kyle but she blew me out of the water with her performance. She was seductive, yet very likable. I love the clever costume design of her goggles looking like cat ears when she puts them up. I also love Nolan’s version of the Lazarus Pit. Certainly Bruce’s climb out of the pit is one of the most compelling scenes of the movie. You truly feel the emotion. The film also has one of the best acted scenes I have scene between Michael Caine and Christian Bale in the hallway. Its the scene I remember first whenever I think about TDKR. Oscar quality acting by both in that scene. The returning cast is all terrific but Michael Caine has a few gut wrenching scenes, including this one and the scene at the funeral at the end. Oldman and Freeman continue to be stalwarts throughout the movie, I really admire that Nolan did not waste these actors and given them very substantial roles in all the movies and all these actors really respected the material to not sleep walk through the roles. I think Bale’s performance here rivals his performance in Begins. Particularly in the scenes in the Pit. You get to see a full range of emotions, from pain, to despair, to anger, to hope. Its a superb performance. The film isn’t flawless. Its just a tad too long and there is some clunky editing at times. None of the three films can be said to contain very memorable action sequences because Nolan is not known to have great action sequences in his film until more recently, but the drama in the action negates that. Like, the Bane vs Batman fight where Bane breaks Batman, isn’t the greatest action scene in terms of fight choreography, but there is a lot weight to these characters which is what makes it incredibly compelling. Same is true to an extent for the climax at the end. When Batman beats Bane, I felt a sense of satisfaction after what I had witnessed in the previous fight. Overall, I genuinely feel that I love the last act of TDKR the most out of all three films. The Batplane, Batpod, and Tumbler chase scene was thrilling and it was cool to watch all three Bat vehicles in operation. The ending montage also ends the movie on a real uplifting note for all characters, which is very satisfying. I really love the movie. A 9/10.

It has to be said that Zimmer’s score across all three films contributes enormously to these movies. All in all, these set of movies are still my favorite superhero movies and my favorite Nolan movies till date.

#batman #batman begins #the dark knight #the dark knight rises #christopher nolan #christian bale #michael caine #heath ledger #morgan freeman #gary oldman #anne hathaway #tom hardy #joseph gordon levitt #liam neeson #cillian murphy #hans zimmer #katie holmes #maggie gyllenhaal #aaron eckhart

33 notes · View notes

ratingtheframe · 3 years

Text

Everything Wrong With… Ep 2 - The Devil Wears Prada

Welcome back to Everything Wrong With...the series where dive head first into some of the seemingly okay-ish films and analyse why in fact they do more harm than good in providing us with satiable entertainment. Follow me on instagram @ratingtheframe for more movie related content and without further ado, let's get into this chick flick and see how far we’ve come since 2006.

If you aren’t aware, The Devil Wears Prada is a 2006 “chick flick” originally written as a book by Lauren Weisenburger. I remember seeing The Devil Wears Prada as one of those grown up lady films, for mature women on tampon adverts who had wine on Thursday evenings from M&S and wore heels practically everywhere. My perception of this film and the audience it caters towards has changed dramatically after watching it and it kills me inside to imagine the popularity and praise such a film got back in 2006, an extremely harsh time for women and the perception of beauty standards.

The world was still getting into the internet, magazines and runways were adjusting to the 2000s and the way that women were viewed in the media was a lot more damaging than today. Former supermodels such as Kate Moss and Cara Delevingne have since come out and talked about their experiences in the modelling industry and how it creates unhealthy stereotypes for women and young girls to abide by. The ‘size 0’ and ‘heroin chic look’ has since been banished from the modelling industry, two expectations that were pretty popular in the late and early 2000s for models. We are witnessing a revolution for the modelling industry as they (very) slowly but surely are beginning to introduce more plus sized, diverse and unfiltered faces for their campaigns. We can breathe easier knowing that the only way is forward for the fashion industry and that very little people will stand for the mid 2000s ideologies that were pumped out to the entire world.

Back to 2006 and one of the year’s most popular films with female audiences; The Devil Wears Prada, starring the likes of Anne Hathaway, Meryl Streep and Emily Blunt. The film follows Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) , a wannabe journalist newly welcomed into New York City and is currently on the hunt for her career. She manages to land a job at Runway Magazine, a large, corporate editorial magazine for women’s fashion run by the one and only Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep), a devious, beautiful and highly successful media personality and editor.

So far so good as we have two tangible and likeable female leads. The opening sequence (one of the most important in any film) had me eye rolling a touch in the way it depicted women of the 2000s and seemingly created the idea that there are two sides to women.

The five or so minute montage consisted of the various women who are models at Runway, getting ready for their long day of work, right from being undressed to fully made up. This was supposed to be a contrast to how our lead Andy gets ready, barely throwing on any makeup and throwing on whatever she wants whilst heading out the door. When you put the way women choose to be perceived in the world at an opposition, you create this divide between women and further place their worth on how they choose to look. The stereotype of a ‘pick me girl’ arises from this opposition, a girl who actively shames other women for choosing to be more openly feminine in their appearance and actions. The intelligence and respect of women should not be based on how they look when they show up, rather how they BEHAVE when they show up. I just thought this montage was a little unnecessary and if anything, introduced us into a misogynistic world of 2006 really well. One point for accuracy, no points for progression. Everyone gets dressed in the morning and (often) everyone wears underwear, showing this activity on screen didn’t really add much to the film besides the pressures of women to look a certain way.

Once Andy arrives at the company, she is rudely introduced by Emily (Emily Blunt) Miranda’s current right hand. Now the entire character of Emily is again, another concept to this film that is left better in the 2000s; a mean girl and a VERY mean one at that. This world is already a patriarchal mess for women like Andy and Emily and having women join the bandwagon in showing an oppressive side to those who don’t conform to the female societal norms is non progressive. It was almost as if Emily was an investor into the patriarchy by behaving abhorrently towards her from the way she dressed as opposed to her actual character and qualifications. Please, let's not have women against women based on their desirability in the eyes of the male gaze. Emily has already become a clear victim to her own policies, as her lack of eating is laid bare to us as an entertaining gimmick as opposed to a cause of concern. Last time I checked making fun of eating disorders wasn’t chic.

Now the argument whether Miranda Priestly is also an investor in the patriarchy is a little clouded. Through her mean spirit and harsh words towards Andy and her appearance, she comes across as someone who is doing more harm than good by joining the patriarchal view of women in the 2000s. I found myself having to bite my tongue a little instead of calling her bitch because that would be letting my internalized misogyny get the best of me.

Even though Miranda is tough talking and spiteful, I really can’t blame her for it as a character. She is one of the strongest female characters I’ve come across on screen for both her strengths and flaws. Had such a character been placed in a Roman Army or Italian Mob, my views of her would have stayed the same. She is a strong woman with enough versatility and strength to face any situation. The way she asserts her authority in a funny and patronizing way is hard not to fall in love with and any woman who asserts their authority and relishes in their own power is already technically against the patriarchy. Her industry may be patriarchal, however her spirit is not and the things she does in order to keep her status is admirable. I found myself comparing her to the way a man maneuvers the world (again, internalised misogyny, working on it) which in some parts is the reason there should be more Miranda Priestly's in films. Instead of comparing strong women to men, with more strong female leads we’ll start comparing these women to other women.

Thank god for the zilch, overly graphic sex scenes in this film (maybe cuz the screenplay was written by a woman, but who knows-), however their is one character I’d like to address that rubbed me the wrong way and spoke for a big hole in the modelling/fashion industry that still exists today. Christian Thompson (Simon Baker) is this handsome, 40 summit journalist who meets Andy at a social event for a fashion designer. I admit he was charming in his demeanour but also overtly creepy at points. Andy and Christian bump into each other in Paris where he leads her down a street (his hand on THAT part of the elbow) and kisses Andy without consent, knowing she has a boyfriend. “Oh, it's just a movie” you’re probably thinking, but yet I couldn’t help but cringe at such a thing. Movies are a reflection of our society after all. He kisses her several more times until Andy gives in. If we’re trying to get films to reach audiences and affect them in some way, encouraging consent should be one of those things. Depicting such a madness on screen makes my rolls right to the back of my head and speaks for the entire society behind the modelling and fashion industry; a society run by men who can do what they like with or without consent. Though the wellbeing of Andy wasn’t in imminent danger, I felt Christian Thompson as a character to be a representation of those in the fashion industry who take advantage of women because of their status and so called connections. No more of this please!

Andy has a transformation a little later into the film, a concept that we thought had been left in the patriarchy trash can, but quickly emerged in Debby Ryan’s Insatiable (2018). Lasting only 2 seasons from 2018-19, the Netflix series followed Patty Bladell who gets afforded niceties and respect after she loses weight and becomes a “hot girl”. The show was created by Lauren Guissis based on an article about a (male) Pageant Guru who tells women how they can become pageant queens for a small fee...EW. The fact that such a show got picked up in a day and age that was beginning to open up to body positivity and more inclusivity in the media, the show was insensitive to its current surroundings.

This same “ugly duckling” transformation isn’t something new or old apparently, with the one in The Devil Wears Prada being one of the least progressive moments of the film. Now that Andy looked like she could work at Runway, somehow she was working a lot better at Runway and was being afforded privileges she didn’t get before her new haircut. Is this the message we want to send out to the world anymore? That in order to get a one up in life, all you need is new clothes and better make up skills? Of course, glo ups can be fun but the purest, healthiest form of a glow up comes from within.

A tiring cliché that “beauty comes from within” but one that makes a lot of sense and something I experienced in my mid teens. Having never experienced male validity or the feeling of desirability, once I began to believe I was beautiful on the outside, others began to notice, because they could read the confidence and self worth I had from my outward energy. An energy that can’t be felt beyond a face tuned Instagram picture. Beauty can be an energy as well as a look and had Andy embraced this more and rejected the passing comments people made at her, it would have taught us that one doesn’t have to conform in order to be respected. On the other hand, I don’t want to shame nor blame her as conforming to societal standards as for most women ,it’s an act of survival, to secure their places in certain spaces, with Andy being no expectation. A sad reality that a woman may have to wear makeup in order to stay in people’s good books, but a choice that should be discussed as opposed to shamed.

I truly could go on and on about the harmful stereotypes and implications of The Devil Wears Prada and it's sad, yet true similarities to the real fashion industry of today and the mid 2000s. It was and still is cut throat, with many models developing eating disorders, low self esteem issues and even substance abuse due to the mounting pressures of trying to reach perfection. A perfection that doesn’t exist seeing as the fashion and modelling industry alters their version of perfection every single day. I’m glad that by the end of the film Andy ditched Runway in favour of living a more healthy and truthful lifestyle, one that wasn’t swapped in ridiculous pressures and the threat to conform or else leave. Which she did in the end. Miranda isn’t a devil, but a force to be reckoned with in a world that is ready to make her feel lesser than herself because of her gender. I hope to never see such a film like The Devil Wears Prada, ever again, in a world that no longer needs this sort of film to represent the strengths of women. It's best left in 2006 and hopefully you’ve learnt something you’ve never thought about from this in depth analysis.

#the devil wears prada #meryl streep #anne hathaway #emily blunt #2000s movies #fashion #fashionindustry #badmovies #cinema #feminisim #everyday feminism

10 notes · View notes

dearjohnnyflynn · 4 years

Text

https://thelast-magazine.com/tlm13-johnny-flynn/

JANUARY 22, 2015 ACTORCULTUREFILMMUSIC

TLM13: JOHNNY FLYNN

A resonator is a type of guitar built for a sound many generations old. It hums and shines, as if an acoustic guitar was broadcast through a tinny phone line. Rather than a wood sounding board, the heart of the guitar is a metal cone, ornately decorated, that brittles the sound and projects it even without electronic amplification. Resonators are rarer now; they’re hard to come by. But they carry a unique magic in their sound, their history, and their owners.

It was one of the first things he purchased with his record-deal money, and it has followed Flynn’s eclectic artistic path as band leader of the Sussex Wit and now as an actor, where he strums and plucks it through Song One, a film about a folk musician searching for inspiration and finding it in a woman and the New York music scene she traverses.

“I’ve learned that when a creative path dies out, another door opens, and you have to stay loose enough, present enough, and absorbent enough to figure out what path you have to walk down,” Flynn says in his soft English accent. “That sounds like a terrible cliché, but being in creative industries, for me, is a spiritual path.”

Flynn has been carving that path, guitar in tow, with a balance of wide-eyed enthusiasm and artistic curiosity. He has sought out company that emphasizes shared forms of creativity, whether onstage, on camera, or in the pubs and music nights of London’s early-Aughts folk scene.

Flynn is in London now helping produce English singer-songwriter Nick Mulvey’s album. We speak after a studio session with Flynn in a cab back to his London flat just after sunset, a small break from a schedule that has permitted him more time to his songwriting and the musical community that gave him so much of his identity. Flynn never left music, but he felt the need to slow down to give acting his full focus. “I hate having to rush a job because you need the space to say what you have to say with your fullest voice and as much confidence as possible,” Flynn says.

“Not being honest in those circumstances is my version of being sacrilegious or blasphemous. There’re lots of ways of doing something, but if you find a way that’s true, then you’re happy.

Several years ago, Flynn stopped touring in order to pursue a series of increasingly meaty acting roles, including a run at Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre in the acclaimed, all-male Shakespearean troupe Propeller. Now Flynn’s about to have even less time, thanks to a breakout role in Song One, opposite Anne Hathaway, and the upcoming Olivier Assayas film, Clouds of Sils Maria, opposite Juliette Binoche, Kristen Stewart, and Chloë Grace Moretz.

In some ways, it has improved his songwriting. “I’m never going to abandon music,” Flynn says. “I was dragged back out to play shows here, and it was a good thing to be reminded that this is something I love doing.” Flynn’s friends did everything they could to “drag” him out for some gigs. It helps when your friends happen to be Mumford & Sons, who actually played one of their first performances opening for Flynn. “So many bands only get to write songs about the view from their hotel window, but I get to work with language and be inspired by that,” Flynn continues. “That seems invaluable as a song- writer. I am very grateful for that.”

To hear Flynn sing is not to see him. His solid build, tousled hair, and craggy features absolutely do not set you up for the lilting way his lyrics seem to fall and float out of him. His voice can crackle or rise sweetly into a falsetto, all while singing stories of small towns, large hopes, and even larger characters.

There seems to be a minor groundswell of British folk musicians waiting for Flynn to finish with all this acting business and get back to music full-time. But Flynn embodies a new creative state of mind, one that is not bordered by form— musician, actor, painter, poet—but one that applies considerable talents to tell better stories.

The story of Song One hews close to Flynn’s own. James Forester is a folk guitarist, resonator in hand, searching for inspiration. Forester, like Flynn, is exceedingly polite, a dewy-eyed talent capable of heart-grabbing honesty both onstage and off. “In terms of lifestyle and where his head is at, a lot of that stuff came from conversations with Kate [Barker-Froyland], the director, of what it was like to be a musician out on the road,” Flynn says. “I think he’s a character that is quite close to me, so I have to find a fine line. In real life, I’ve got a wife and a kid.”

Song One’s music went through a similar process; written for—but not by—Flynn, he used the songs as a way to find his character. “That’s what being an actor is about,” Flynn says. “You’re doing a good job if you’re serving the piece. It was quite a relief in a way to not have to worry about every aspect of the music. I think I enjoy giving up that leadership role for those situations.” The collaboration between Flynn and songwriters Jenny Flynn, Johnathan Rice, and Nate Walcott resulted in an album, which they recorded on weekends between shoots. Even though the songs are not Flynn’s, it’s hard to imagine anyone taking them from him. There is a stamp Flynn places on his projects, a vibration that is all his own.

In a way, Song One best captures the hell and catharsis of creativity. “You sometimes lose your way or you end up turning out the same stuff for a while, and before you know it you end up losing your inspiration, what put you there in the first place,” Flynn says. “And then you find it.”

What put Flynn there in the first place was an old book of hand-written folk songs and The Freewheeling Bob Dylan. Born in Johannesburg, Flynn moved with his family to Hampshire, England, when he was three. He earned a music scholarship, picking up violin and trumpet, but classes felt forced and dull.

“I learned to play the guitar using an old songbook of my mum’s that she’d handwritten, and it was full of traditional folk songs, songs that she loved,” Flynn recalls. “I got really obsessed with the Bob Dylan songs because they were really exciting to me. I was studying music as a music scholar, but I was listening to all of that stuff.”

Folk music has a tendency to take care of its own, and Flynn found himself mingling with the artists who would come to define the modern folk sound in its early London years. He and some friends established a music night, called Apocalypso, with fellow folk musicians Emmy the Great and Tom Hatred. “We played with people like Laura Marling when she was starting out, and Florence from Florence and the Machine when she was around,” Flynn says. “It was an early scene to be a part of in London at that time when I was forming my musical identity. When I was growing up, we didn’t have much money, but it was about finding something to do together.”

If Flynn found a musical family in Apocalypso, it was a mirror of his own upbringing. “My dad was writing songs in the Sixties and Seventies, and my mum sang songs and had been a folk singer in the Seventies,” Flynn says. “My older brothers are actors and keen on music. Yes, I guess, I loved hanging around backstage when my dad was doing shows. That atmosphere was what really infected me and made me want to become an actor. It seemed like this magical world of storytelling that my family was privileged to be involved in. Because I went away to boarding school, and I was studying classical music, my way of rebelling was to write my own music. I just fell in with a group of friends who liked to make music and were obsessed with studying the history as well, both American and British. Those are our heroes. It kind of took me over.

It was Emmy who initially introduced Flynn to resonator guitars. She had an old metal resonator lying around and Flynn took to it. “At one point I was crashing on her sofa and I was using her guitar a lot,” Flynn says. “I used it for a lot of bedroom recordings and things, and I fell in love with it.”

That guitar, with its odd metal heart, helped Flynn find his voice, a voice he is now rediscovering in film. “I think playing characters onstage and things like that has told me that you can take on various entities and channel your own voice through the habits of a certain character, the rhythm of someone else’s voice or using someone else’s language,” Flynn says. “But you still have to have your own heart in the middle of it.”

Song One is out January 23. Clouds of Sils Maria is out April 10.

Zachary Sniderman is the associate editor of The Last Magazine.

Styling by Celestine Cooney. Hair by Lee Machin at Caren. Grooming by Jenny Coombs at Streeters. Photographer’s assistants: Iain Anderson and Alec McLeish. Stylist’s assistant: Poppie Clinch. Digital technician: Mike Harris. Production by Lucie Mamont.

Zachary Sniderman

Photography by

Ben Weller

#johnnyflynn #johnny flynn

2 notes · View notes

dweemeister · 4 years

Photo

The Scar of Shame (1927)

From cinema’s earliest days, depictions of black people on film seldom delve into the beauty and complexities of their lives. More than a century after the artform’s emergence in France and the United States, it remains a problem in Western cinema. Two men who recognized this problem at the height of the silent era were Austrian-born movie theater owner David Starkman and African-American vaudeville comedian Sherman H. Dudley. Starkman’s theater in Philadelphia was situated in a neighborhood that was becoming increasingly populated by blacks, and he wanted to promote local interest in his theater by finding films starring black characters. With nothing being churned out of Hollywood to assist Starkman, he allied himself with Dudley to finance films featuring all-black casts. Their company, The Colored Players Film Corporation, made four films before financial difficulties stemming from unwise budgetary decisions on their last production saw the company bought out. Half of the Colored Players Film Corporation’s works are lost films (check your attics, basements, and fallout shelters). Their final film is The Scar of Shame, directed by Italian-American Frank Perugini, and is one of the best examples of “race film” still accessible.

While Hollywood neglected black actors and actresses and often put them in stereotypical, oftentimes subservient roles, independent studios from the silent era to the 1950s pooled their resources to provide these black actors and filmmakers work. The films often played to cinemas primarily serving a black community, especially in the American South where cinemas there were segregated (in the North and West, Jim Crow laws were not as extensive, but there may have been de facto segregation). Race films, when presented to modern audiences, trod upon unfamiliar thematic ground, covering issues that audiences of all races might never have seen in any film – even in contemporary black cinema made apart from the major Hollywood studios. The Scar of Shame examines class differences among African-Americans with delicacy, employing some of the best filmmaking seen in a silent-era race film.

Alvin Hillyard (Harry Henderson) is a composer-pianist living in the city, trying to make a name for himself. One day, he sees a young woman named Louise Howard (Lucia Lynn Moses) being physically abused her alcoholic stepfather “Spike” (William E. Pettus). Alvin stops the altercation, knocks the daylights out of Spike, and brings Louise to the boarding house where he is staying. As Alvin’s landlady, Lucretia Green (Ann Kennedy), agrees to let Louise stay if she helps with house chores, Spike considers a deal by his friend, Eddie Blake (Norman Johnstone), that would see Louise hired as an entertainer. Eddie is Spike’s liquor supplier, but the latter has reservations in following his friend’s scheme. Later, Alvin proposes to Louise and she accepts. Their rapid marriage is complicated when Alvin refuses to introduce Louise to his mother, saying: “You don’t understand – Caste is one of the things mother is very determined about – and you – don’t belong to our set!”

Also starring in this film are Alvin’s student Alice Hathaway (Pearl McCormack) and her father, Ralph (Lawrence Chenault). The Nicholas Brothers, Fayard and Harold, are uncredited as tap dancers at the Lido Club, at the very beginning of their careers in dance.

David Starkman is credited as the screenwriter for The Scar of Shame, but the presence of class divides in this film may have been a compilation of suggestions made by the many African-Americans who informally advised him and director Frank Peregini on this film. The Scar of Shame indirectly touches upon race relations, preferring instead to show how two protagonists attempt to distance themselves from poverty (which, arguably, is portrayed as something “inherent” to being black in the United States). The opening intertitle frames the film as such: the culture and environment where one was raised in determines the conditions of an individual life. There is nothing groundbreaking in that observation, but Peregini’s work treats this as a determiner in life and death. Alvin may be African-American, but much of his behavior is coded as white. From the music he composes, his attire, and the way he speaks through intertitles, the film suggests that – in order to make a living as a composer – he has been forced to adapt to white norms to distinguish himself from his colleagues. His paternalistic behavior towards Lucretia positions him as the embodiment of the opening title card.

Lucretia, who attempts to adopt Alvin’s bootstrap-pulling ways (but “remains” black where Alvin is not, despite the fact both actors have paler skin than the rest of the cast), is occasionally condescended towards because of her class and gender. As a woman, The Scar of Shame believes, she is not as wise or aware of life’s struggles and paradoxes. But her conduct, portrayed beautifully by Lucia Lynn Moses in the film’s best performance, seems incongruent in times of contentment and desperation. Lucretia’s inconsistent characterization muddies the intentions of the storytelling – The Scar of Shame wants to pry into the imperfections of even it seemingly virtuous characters, but stumbles because of its internal contradictions (almost entirely placed on Lucretia). Despite all these writing flaws, The Scar of Shame’s final scenes feel earned, encapsulating the film’s message in respect to the stations in life that Alvin and Lucretia were born into and grew to subvert.

The most famous (and prolific) producer/director of race films is Oscar Micheaux. Micheaux, who worked in the silent era and in talkies, had spartan production values to his films, which – when adding in the rough editing often found in Micheaux’s movies – can make his work difficult to watch. No such concerns exist for The Scar of Shame, which, over a variable runtime which is generally just a few minutes over an hour (it depends on the speed of one’s print), is patiently shot by cinematographer Al Liguori and edited brilliantly (uncredited editor). The Scar of Shame is sophisticated in its use of framing and editing devices, most notably a very early use of flashback – a device used in film as early as 1901, but almost never utilized in silent films.

For the Colored Players Film Corporation, they decided to open their checkbooks for The Scar of Shame to pay for higher-quality actors and production design. Starkman and Dudley believed this investment would fend off competitors, and attract a surge of ticket sales for their latest film. A sales surge did transpire, but it was not enough to cover the new expenses both men agreed upon. With the rise of synchronized sound in motion pictures, this spelled the financial doom for the Colored Players Film Corporation – The Scar of Shame would become the company’s fourth and final film.

Thus ended a noble joint attempt between white and black filmmakers to provide black audiences movies that cast them in different lights than most of Hollywood at that time. Even without the Colored Players Film Corporation, the race film industry remained competitive if only because studios specializing in race film were prone to financial trouble. Recently restored by the Library of Congress (albeit not an inductee to its National Film Registry), The Scar of Shame will continue to be an outlier in its depiction of class tensions among African-Americans. It may be an imperfect attempt to do so, but one can scarcely list off modern titles than intently do the same. Hopefully with a greater groundswell in scholarship regarding race films will audiences be more conscious of this parallel industry to a Golden Age of Hollywood barely noticing what is transpiring beyond its studio lots.

My rating: 8/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. Half-points are always rounded down. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found here.

#The Scar of Shame #race film #silent film #black film #TCM #Frank Perugini #David Starkman #Lucia Lynn Moses #Harry Henderson #Norman Johnstone #Ann Kennedy #William A. Pettus #Lawrence Chenault #Pearl McCormack #My Movie Odyssey

3 notes · View notes

jane-fucking-seymour · 4 years

Text

& Juliet Fanfic - “Don’t Give Up On Your Faith”

Words: 4,224

AO3 Link (first in the fandom?)

NOTE: still getting used to the characters.... so yeah.

Even after the play had been written, the piece was published, and the world fell in love with Romeo and Juliet’s story, Anne Hathaway found that she could still enter the Story.

At least, that’s what she was calling it; the realm that seemed to be some sort of suspended reality, something similar to, but definitely not completely tethered, to their usual world. The Real Life, as William coined it.

In Story, the tale of Juliet and Romeo continued, far beyond what the two writers originally intended. It was confusing even to William, who found that he, too, could reprise his usual roles, as time passed in Story.

“Might be good for a sequel of sorts,” William quipped one morning, sitting next to April as they watched Juliet, May and Nurse from afar.

“Eh, I think they deserve some peace, don’t they?” Anne asks, slipping her hand into his. “Everyone does. It’s been quite the last few months for them, a small break won’t kill anyone-” she makes a face at the bad phrasing, which makes William laugh.

“Fine, fine, no Romeo & Juliet 2, I suppose,” he quips with a smile. “I rather like it here.”

“It is quite nice, isn’t it?” Anne asks with a grin, looking over at him. “A few rules, though: we don’t stay in here for more than a day maximum, and we definitely don’t bring the girls in here.” She looks down at their hands. “We don’t know the full extent of this place, so-”

“April!”

The name is second nature to Anne now: April, the woman of Story, best friend to Juliet. When she’s in the Real World - or alone with William - she’s Anne; but here, with Juliet and company, she’s April. It’s all as compartmentalized as she could make it.

“Oh, ready to go?” April asks, jumping off the ledge to move to meet them. “What’s the plan today, everyone?”

April did always love the adventures and antics they got into in this world; she had a freedom here that, in the Real World, she wasn’t allowed. It was refreshing on multiple levels.

“Probably just going to hang out in the square,” Juliet says with a shrug. “Then I’m meeting up with Romeo for a nice dinner.��

“Oh?” April asks with a smile. “That sounds lovely… how’s that all going, anyways?”

William, who was following originally, is suddenly stopped by a few of Romeo’s friends. With a smile and a wave, he moves away, towards the other side of the square, still in eyeline of each other should they need it. Now that they weren’t fighting, they never wanted to leave each other’s sides - as much as possible, anyways.

“We’re alright,” Juliet continues. “We’re getting through some things. Not really sure what we are currently, but that’s okay for now, you know? We’re definitely friends. I just hope we can get closer.”

April smiles. “That’s a good way to go about it.”

“It’s a fresh start,” Juliet replies. “I like where it’s going.”

“And how about you, May?” April asks, smiling a bit coyly at them. “What about you?”

“Oh, uh… me and Frankie are doing well, thank you,” they reply, a soft smile on their face. “It’s been wonderful, really.”

Juliet laughs at that, pulling May closer. “You can’t stop talking about him, May! It’s adorable.”

May chuckles at that, shrugging a bit shyly. “It’s nice, you know? To have that connection with someone. It’s nice.”

April nods understandingly, smile growing wider as she looks over at…

“Angelique?”

“Oh, uh,” Angelique replies, chuckling. “We’ll see how it goes. Lance has been quite the charmer since we decided to… er, you know.” She chuckles. “I’m meeting with him tonight, actually, while Juliet and Romeo go on their little date of sorts.

“Oh, it must be a date night,” May quips. “I’ll be with Frankie. We’ve got a faire to go see.”

April tilts her head. “Oh, where is it? I might take-”

April stops, though, and stares, straightening up a bit.

It’s a chill down her spine, a stoppage of breath, a terrifying reaction to something unseen.

The group stops to look at her. “April? You alright?” Juliet asks, frowning.

April doesn’t react for a moment before, suddenly, she looks down, a bit confused.

She’s not sure what just happened, but she’s sure of what she needs to do.

“I… need to go,” she says, looking around; sure enough, William is rushing to her side. “Emergency.”

“Can we help-” Juliet starts, but Anne’s already rushing off, having taken William by the hand.

“I’ll be back in a bit!” Anne replies. “Don’t wait up!”

William follows quickly. “You felt it too, right?”

“Yeah,” Anne nods. “Something’s off.”

The duo end up in an alleyway, where they close there eyes, take a deep breath, focus…

… and William opens his eyes to find himself in the Real World. He’s thankful that little trick hasn’t failed them.

The first thing he does is check on the girls; they’re safe, still not back from their trip. With that anxiety lessened, he continues the search for whatever has gone wrong.

Will looks around anxiously; something’s off, he knows it, but he can’t seem to find anything at the moment-

-which, with a terrifying realization, he knows is part of the problem.

“Anne?” he asks, rushing through the home. “Anne, where are you-”

He stops, however, when he enters the next room, eyes wide.

“Christopher Marlowe?”

Sure enough, the man was standing there, Anne being forced to stand in front of him, a knife to her back.

“Hello, William,” Chrisopher says. “It’s nice to see you again.”

William shakes the shock away.

“Where are the girls?” Anne asks; it’s the biggest concern to her right now, not even her own safety.

William expected nothing less; it’s what he would worry about as well.

“Safe, not here, still on that trip,” Will explains. When Anne visibly relaxes, William turns his attention back to the current situation. “I thought you died, right about the time you were outed as not the writer of all my plays.”

“Greatly exaggerated,” Christopher explains. “But don’t worry, I’ll soon reveal myself to the masses… as the new William Shakespeare.”

William blinks.

Anne blinks.

They both reply:

“What?”

Christopher sighs.

“Both of you are rather cute with the whole do-the-same-thing-at-the-same-time thing,” Christopher grumbles, “but now’s really not the time for it.”

He pulls Anne closer.

“I’m done with being in your shadow, William,” Christopher says, taking out something. “And I think this finally my chance to take what’s mine: your works, your legacy… your lady here.”

“Since when are you even remotely interested in Anne?” William asks, giving him a confused look. William was getting more and more confused by the moment.

Christopher takes a moment before he shrugs and nods.

“Okay, fair play, I’m not really after her, but… the Story, that’s what you’ve been calling it, haven’t you?”

Anne tries to look back. “How do you know about that-”

“That’s a conversation for another time,” Christopher says. He starts to move and Anne’s scared he’ll move towards her husband.

“William, back away,” Anne says, voice as steady as it could be given the moment. She tenses when she feels something against her back - something that’s getting hotter by the second. “Get help. Don’t worry about me.”

“And leave you here with him? Not a chance,” William growls out, glaring daggers at his opponent.

Christopher smiles. “One more chance, Will. Give me the play, or I’ll take her from you.”

“Christopher Marlowe, get the hell away from her-” William starts, but then Marlowe presses the thing further into Anne’s back, and the woman gasps, eyes wide.

There’s some sort of… darkness, of shadow, that floats through the air, coming from Anne’s back and into the woman’s heart. Marlowe backs up, away from Anne, but the woman is still floating in the air, darkness surrounding her.

“Anne!” Will tries to yell, but he’s suddenly knocked down by an unknown, invisible force.

When he sits back up, he looks with wide eyes.

Standing before him is his wife, but her eyes… they’re as black as night. They look straight through him.

Christopher looks pleased.

“Now then,” he says happily, gently carding a hand through Anne’s hair. “I think another rewrite is in order, wouldn’t you agree, love?”

He offers her a dagger… which she takes.

“Anne, please-” William starts, but then the ground shakes and a sigil appears on the ground. His eyes go wide.

“We’re not killing you, William, don’t worry,” he says. “Just everything you’ve held dear will be destroyed over the next 24 hours. Isn’t that right, Anne?”

Anne says nothing as she’s suddenly engulfed in the shadow… and they’re gone. They’re both gone.

William can only stare.

Back within the Story, Juliet was a bit panicked.

“I know April does this sometimes,” Juliet said with a frown, “but never for this long. Does anyone know where she’s gone off to?”

“Not that I know of,” Nurse replies. “She’s usually here by now-”

“There you two are.”

The duo turns to find April there. Juliet almost smiles in relief, but…

“Are you alright, April?” Juliet asks, moving over to the woman with urgency.

April looks over and, for a moment, Juliet feels a coldness. It’s gone as soon as it came, though, and April gives her a smile.

“Of course, Juliet, why wouldn’t I be?” she asks, the normal tone and warm smile back in play.

Juliet shrugs. “You were gone for half a day without telling anyone where you were.”

April shrugs. “Sorry. Shall we get going?”

Juliet narrows her eyes as April walks past.

A few hours later, it’s clear to Juliet that something’s wrong.

It’s April, she’s sure of it, but it’s also… just… not.

When the two of them were alone for a moment, Juliet takes the opportunity to talk to her privately.

“You’ve been acting strange all day, April,” Juliet says gently, taking the girl’s hand. “Are you sure there’s nothing the matter?”

April, for the record, isn’t really hearing Juliet right now; all she can focus on is the voice in her head, repeating the same thing over and over:

Kill her.

Kill-

As it continues, April can’t help but remember a time, not so long ago, where she and Juliet fought back against demands like this. April had helped Juliet make her own choices, her own decisions… the same things that aren’t being allowed for April - for Anne - right now.

It helps give her strength and, for a moment, April can see the light in the darkness.

“Shut up!”

Juliet starts in surprise, stopping. “I’m sorry-?”

“No, not…” April sighs; she’s surprised that came out of her mouth. She winces, a hand to her head.

“Are you alright-” Juliet tries, a hand reaching out to try to help steady her friend, but April pulls away rather harshly.

“I’m fine, don’t touch me,” April growls out. “I need a moment.”

April moves past without much fanfare.

Juliet frowns, watching her friend as she moves into a dark, shadowy back alley.

In said alley, April walks fairly unsteadily, eventually toppling towards the wall. With a deep, shaking breath, she steadies herself.

“This… th-this isn’t right,” April says quietly, to herself. “All of this, it’s not-!”

“But it is, April~”

She can hear him, she can feel him… but she can’t see him.

“What did you do to me?” Anne demands, anger rising the longer this continues. She looks up. “Show yourself, Marlowe!”

“Where’s the fun in that?” he asks, though clearly not anywhere near Anne. She looks around wildly, angrily… but nothing. “No, no, you still have a job to do, Annie.”

A dagger suddenly appears in April’s hands.

“No,” Anne says. “I refuse. I absolutely refuse-”

“You can and you will,” Marlowe cuts in. “You won’t have a choice. This isn’t your narrative anymore, Hathaway. This is mine. It will all be mine.”

“I have a choice,” Anne growls out; to herself or to Marlowe, she’s not sure, but she clings onto the reminder like a lifeline. “I have a fucking choice-”

“Oh, sweetheart,” Marlowe starts, just as the darkness rises once again. Anne feels like she’s drowning in it, fading off into obscurity because of it, completely unable to overcome it.

“You will never have a choice again.”

Anne shakes, dagger laying in her hands… and then slowly but surely, she grabs it and holds onto it tightly.

The darkness is eternal, swirled around her, and she relaxes into it.

“I will,” she replies, her voice devoid of emotion. “I will.”

She’s resigned to it, suddenly; she knows there’s no other way. She knows what she must do - what she has no choice but to do.

The darkness has taken hold again.

“Good,” Marlowe replies. “Now, it must be done before midnight,” he says. “Which is in about… four hours.”

The darkness swirls around Anne more and she closes her eyes, taking a deep breath. Succumbing to it.

“I will, before midnight,” she promises.

The darkness fades.

Anne puts the dagger on her belt, hiding it from view, before she moves back towards the others.

Juliet looks back as soon as April is seen.

“Are you sure you’re alright?” Juliet tries again, but April gives her a smile.

“Never better, I assure you,” April replies with a grin. “Come on, Juliet, we have much to do before tonight.”

Juliet raises an eyebrow but follows. “What’s tonight?”

April just grins.

“You’ll see.”

Back in the Real World, William has been trying over and over to get back into the Story… but for some reason, he just can’t. No matter how hard he focuses, how hard he writes… there’s nothing. He’s blocked, it seems, from his own creation.

“Come on, Anne,” he says, a frustrated sigh following. “You need to let me in-”

“She’s not coming, William.”

William glares at the man in front of him: Marlowe, once again, holding a book. He recognizes it immediately, but he doesn’t care.

“Give her back to me,” William demands. “Now.”

“So sorry, can’t do it,” Marlowe replies. “You can read along, though, if you’d like.”

When William gives him a questioning look, Marlowe throws the book at him. William catches it, opens it up… and his eyes go wide and he drops the book immediately.

“Witchcraft!” he exclaims. “That must be witchcraft.”

“It’s something far worse, I assure you,” Marlowe replies. “It won’t hurt you, though. And you can follow along with what’s happening in that realm of hers… and watch when she completely destroys it.”

William glares… but takes the book anyways. When he looks up, Marlowe is gone.

All he thinks he can do is just… read along, as the words appear on the page.

He joins in just as the clock is about to strike 11:30 at night.

“What’s happening in half an hour again?” Juliet asks; at this point, she and April are alone, walking the streets of Paris, arms linked. “It’s dangerous to be out here alone like this, you know… we should have waited for Romeo, he said he was only going to be another minute or so.”

“I assure you, Juliet,” April replies, “he won’t be needed.”

Juliet stops then.

“Alright, come off it, then, what’s going on?”

April looks back, questioning. “What do you mean?”

“April wouldn’t just blow him off like that,” Juliet replies. “Something’s wrong here. Can’t you feel it?” Juliet shivers a bit. “It’s like a coldness… it’s you, but it’s the air around you, too. Something’s off, and I think it starts with you.”

April tilts her head in thought before she shrugs. The dagger appears in her hands.

Juliet instantly backs up a few steps.

“April?” Juliet tries, but then the girl strikes, trying to slash at the woman. “April!”

Back in the Real World, William squeezes his eyes shut, trying to focus; why can’t he get in?

Juliet backs up again, eyes wide. “What’s gotten into you? Snap out of this!”

April moves forward once more, once again being dodged. “April!”

“Will you just be a good girl for us and die already?” Anne growls out, going for the stab once again.

“Us?” Juliet asks, suddenly moving forward. Somehow, against all odds, she’s managed to grab the arm with the knife without injuring anyone. “Who’s us?”

They struggle. William tries harder, as hard as he can.

Come on, William, he thinks to himself, your wife’s in danger and you can’t even save her? Do something!

Juliet looks around for a moment before she pushes April away, the knife clamoring to the ground. April stumbles, a hand on the wall as she glares.

“Whatever this is… this isn’t you, April, I can tell that much,” Juliet tries.

April sneers. “Be a good little Capulet and stay still, alright?”

Juliet stands firm. “Absolutely not.”

“Then I’ll make you.”

“We’ll see about that.”

They struggle, once again, and April tries to grab the knife, but Juliet successfully kicks it back towards the opening of the alley.

They’re in a standoff once again.

“So, what, whatever this is… you’re just going to let it control you, April?”

“I’m doing what I must,” April replies. “You wouldn’t understand, you foolish girl.”

“You clearly didn’t do your history, because I do understand,” Juliet replies. “I’m the one that would understand more than anyone, April. You know that.”

April winces at the comment, and Juliet takes it as encouragement.

“I thought we learned from before that we all need to be able to make our choices, our own decisions.” Juliet moves towards April now. “Whatever is stealing that from you… you need to take it back. Please, April, we’re counting on you.”

Juliet notices it immediately, but something starts to happen: April is shaking, eyes wide for a moment in fear, lips trying to form sentences that aren’t coming out. April shakes her head, squeezes her eyes shut, tries to talk… but she just can’t.

April collects herself too quickly and suddenly pushes Juliet down. With her towering over Juliet, April smirks… but is stopped by Juliet herself.

“Wait!”

April stops, raising an eyebrow. “You’ve got two minutes before you die, girl,” she says, a hand extended to telepathically take the dagger back. “Make these last words quick.”

Juliet watches the girl carefully - Romeo should know that something’s up, he should be headed this way soon. April clearly wants something to happen before the stroke of midnight, so… she needs to stall. Just for that long.

Okay, Juliet thinks. She can do this. “Remember when things with Romeo were a bit messy?” Juliet asks. “Remember when I wasn’t able to have a choice in my own life? Remember when you helped me take back my agency, my story?”

April narrows her eyes, but Juliet continues.

“April, what happened to me then, it’s happening to you now. I don’t understand all of it, but I know you don’t want to do this. You’d never want to hurt me, or anyone. Something is making you. But April… you’re not the type of girl to take this and just go along with it. This isn’t you, this isn’t your story, you have a choice here and I know - I know - that you can beat it.”

April is starting to shake, eyes suddenly less sure and harsh and dark. Juliet takes it as encouragement.

“Whatever’s going on, I promise you, it’s something you can break,” Juliet tried. “It’s something you’re stronger than - something you’ve been stronger than.”

April’s dagger rises into the air, but April’s face clearly shows that she’s unsure of the situation.

“April. Please. Remember yourself, your mission, your entire story. You can beat this. I know you can.”

April looks conflicted - more than she’s ever been, as far as Juliet’s concerned - and when the dagger slowly starts to lower back to April’s side, Juliet has a hopeful look on her face.

April seems to look at her then - really look at her - and there’s a spark of recognition.

“Juliet?”

“That’s me, exactly,” Juliet replies with a nod. “There you go, April, come on, just a bit more. Keep rising above it, you’re almost there-”

But then, suddenly, the darkness surges.

The dagger disappears suddenly and April collapses to her knees, holding her head in her hands, scraming as the whirlwind of darkness continues to surround her and Juliet. Juliet grabs onto her, holding the girl tightly, but eventually the darkness is just too much, even for the Capulet.

The last thing Juliet hears is Romeo calling her name as she collapses to the ground, April having disappeared in the dark.

William feels something break in the back of his mind - a barrier of sorts - before his eyes open to the sight of his wife, on the floor, struggling for breath.

“Anne!” he yells, quickly moving over to her. “Hey, hey, you’re okay, you’re out, it’s alright-”

“For her, yes. For you… hm.”

Anne suddenly straightens up, eyes wide for a moment as tears start to form. She suddenly has the knife in her hands again.

William glares at the man behind her. “I thought you said you weren’t going to kill me.”

“Change of plans,” Christopher replies with a shrug. “Go on then, Anne. You know what you have to do.”

Anne looks down at the dagger, then over at her husband, who is standing way too close for comfort, and Anne just…

…. Stops.

She’s conflicted - she still is - but she can’t do this. She remembers what Juliet said - remembers how right the girl was, how the choice is hers and hers alone, and she’ll be damned before she lets someone else take that choice.

She’s Anne fucking Hathaway, thank you, and she will not be denied her choice.

“You had…” Anne says, standing up. She stumbles, but William is there to help. “You had a better chance of me killing Juliet before I killed him.”

William smirks at that, pulling her in for a moment before she moves away, looking back at the guy that had cursed her in the first place.

The clock strikes midnight then, much to Christopher’s alarment.

“How did you do it?” He demands as, suddenly the room gets impossibly darker. “The magick, it was ancient, no one’s defeated it before.”

Anne smirks, the dagger falling from her hands.

The dagger turns into smoke and, with the rest of the darkness in the room, swirls around Christopher instead. Anne feels it leaving her as well - the darkness, the compulsion - and she falls to her knees as Christopher yells in pain.

When she looks back up, he’s gone.

“Finally.”

She feels someone close pull her in, checking her over. She smiles softly at him.

“You need to rest,” he says quietly. “Whatever that was, it wasn’t good.”

Anne shakes her head, though, leaning into him for a moment before standing. “We need to go into Story. Juliet… we need to get to her.”

William knows better than to argue at the moment.

Sure enough, when they arrive in Story, Juliet is still down for the count.

Romeo quickly ushers them over. “Please! I don’t know what’s happened, I just found her like this and… and some shadows-”

“I know,” Anne replies, instantly at the girl’s side. She holds Juliet closely now, worried eyes scanning her over. “Go get Nurse, please.”

Romeo nods, rushing off. William kneels next to his wife and Juliet, staying close but staying quiet.

“Come on, Juliet, breathe,” Anne says, trying to wake the girl up. She frowns. “Can you see that, William?”

“See what?” he asks, looking down.

“The Darkness… it’s there.” Anne says. Then, with an understanding nod, she gently puts a hand on the girl’s shoulder and focuses.

Suddenly, without warning, Juliet gasps awake.

“I’m honestly surprised that worked,” Anne mumbles, suddenly out of energy.

Juliet scrambles to sit up, looking around.

“April?” she asks, a bit suspicious, but the soft, warm smile from the woman in question allows Juliet to relax. “Is that actually you this time?”

April nods. “It’s… a long story. I think. I don’t quite remember, but… you saved me, Juliet. Thank you-”

That’s all she can say, however, as Juliet quickly pulls the girl into a tight embrace.

“Don’t you EVER do that to me again,” Juliet mumbles against April’s shoulder.

April smiles. “I’m not planning on it, love. Promise.”

Juliet pulls back with a watery smile.

In the days that follow, Juliet is put on bedrest while April is sent away for rest as well. When she arrives back in Story, Juliet is happy to see her.

“Can you explain what happened, though?” Juliet asks. “That guy you’re always with, William… he’s something special, isn’t he?”

“Yeah, he’s something, alright,” April quips with a smirk.

“No, I mean… he’s special. Like you.”

April looks over at Juliet for a moment; she knew Juliet would figure it out eventually, but… eh, where’s the fun in just telling her?

“Not sure what you mean,” April replies with a grin. “I’m just your best friend, that’s all I need to be.”

Juliet narrows her eyes, but a soft smile rises on her face. “Alright then, April, keep your secrets.” She nudges the girl with a grin.

“It’s your choice, after all.”

#& Juliet #& Juliet Fanfic #& Juliet Fanfiction #& Juliet ff #&Juliet fanfic #&Juliet fanfiction #juliet #anne #william

16 notes · View notes

starberry-cupcake · 5 years

Text

Overall thoughts on Les Mis BBC

I decided, after all those summaries I made, to write what I hope can be a more coherent opinion on what I thought of the adaptation as a whole. I wanted to make sure to state that my critical reactions weren’t for entertainment purposes only or exaggerated for the fun of it but based on real concerns I’ll expand in this post. This is like the “serious companion”, if you will.

I don’t know if anyone cares about it at this point, but I feel that even though my summaries helped me go through the immediate frustrations in a (mostly) lighthearted way, it’s the distance from having watched it all what gave me a little bit more clarity to order my thoughts.

I’ve established my opinion isn’t worth a damn, I’m not smart or knowledgeable enough for this fandom and, needless to say, these are all my personal opinions, take them with a grain of salt or a bathtub of it. I’m a worthless nobody and my words have no value, but the internet is still (sort of) free, so here I go.

Introduction: the initial news, Andrew Davies & the PR mess

BBC announced the adaptations of 2 media phenomenons which started as books that I love so much I’m considering tattoos of both. And, for both of them, my main concerns were on the person adapting the script.

On the one hand, there’s His Dark Materials, a book series that made me the person I am today, pretty much. One of the directors is none other than Tom Hooper (what are the odds) and the script adaptation was in the hands of Jack Thorne. Cursed Child Jack Thorne. Yeah, not thrilled about that.

Surprisingly enough, His Dark Materials was given a projection of 3 possible seasons, rather than just one, the 3rd hasn’t been yet confirmed but the fact that the script was made thinking on one season per major book on the series, and that each season has 8 episodes planned, at least gives me a bit of hope, even if the person adapting it isn’t in my favorites list.

Les Mis, on the other hand, went to the hands of Andrew Davies, another person I don’t trust.

I’m one of those folk who was never too fond of the ‘95 version of Pride and Prejudice, mainly because of how Darcy was made into a sort of sex symbol, where his flaws were seen as “attractive marks of broody character” rather than vulnerability and with gratuitous sexualizing fanservice. I know a lot of people love it for that and that’s cool, you do you, but it’s not for me.

Then, when he adapted War and Peace, he talked about adding more sex to it and had the Kuragin siblings shown explicitly sleeping together from the get-go in episode 1 and that’s when I stopped watching (there were other things I didn’t like but that one was my limit).

To make matters worse, it made me weary that Les Mis was getting an overall amount of only 6 episodes whereas HDM was getting a potential 24-ish. That was an odd choice.

So, as you can guess, I knew coming in that Davies writing the script, a script with a limited time-frame for the story, was a huge risk.

But, on the other hand, as the cast was announced, I got excited. Especially for people like Archie Madekwe, Turlough Convery, Erin Kellyman and some famous actors like David Oyelowo. Their filming logs on social media, how nice they all were and how much fun they had filming made me happy. I felt that maybe these great folks could turn around whatever the scrip had to disappoint me.

But then came all the PR stuff.

The more I read Davies & co. talking about the show, the less hope I had for it. Talking very badly about the musical and the 2012 movie, calling female characters “not complicated”, insulting Cosette, saying that Javert’s lack of explicit heterosexual sex in the brick was reason enough to push a homosexual narrative centered on an unhealthy behavior, patting themselves on the back for having a diverse cast as if no other adaptation of Les Mis had ever done it before...even their talks about Fantine’s make up made me weary. And, let’s not forget their ridiculous insistence on not having songs.

By the time the show premiered, my hopes had dwindled. The excitement I had upon knowing there would be another Les Mis adaptation so soon, a BBC one at that, and with a cast I had hopes for, was blurred by all the nonsense of PR and I was more afraid than hopeful.

In the end, after having watched it completely, and as you can see for my summaries, I was heavily disappointed. I’ll try to list some of my biggest concerns, in no particular order.

I can’t be super extensive about it, because there are a lot of points to go over, but there are a lot of amazing opinion pieces out there about specific issues, so you don’t need me for that.

Anyway, let’s delve into some of my biggest problems with BBC Les Mis.

Problem #1: The portrayal of femininity

Solely by the fact that Davies stated that women on Les Mis “are not terribly complicated” you know that things are not going to go all too well on that front.

I’m going to pick 3 characters to showcase how badly women were portrayed in this: Fantine, Cosette and Éponine. I’ll leave other characters for another section.

1. Fantine

I’ve talked about Fantine before, upon receiving some questions on my summaries, but I’ll try to explain it all in a more understandable way.

The lens in which Fantine was seen was sexist from the get-go. The way in which the story was framed made the audience complicit in the choices she was making, choices that were negatively regarded by the narrative perspective alone. Her “fall to disgrace” was framed as her own decisions being incorrect, silly mistakes that were easily avoidable, and never regarded as the result of living in a society that was unable to contain her and see her as a valid human being. But we’ll get to that when we talk about the politics (or lack thereof) on this show.

Like I said in my response before, the way in which Fantine is portrayed, even in the musical itself, varies greatly performance to performance. Patti LuPone performing I Dreamed a Dream after Fantine gets dismissed isn’t like Anne Hathaway performing it after she has become a prostitute and neither carry the same implications as Allison Blackwell in the Liesl Tommy’s Dallas modern production, influenced by her experience in apartheid South Africa.

Still, the key element to developing Fantine’s portrayal, when it comes to sexism and the showcasing of her environment, has two layers: the actual oppression showcased in the source material and the contemporary interpretation or lens in which an adaptation will view it.

In this version, Fantine’s character was toned down in her attitude. She was less reactive than in the brick, a lot more passive, a lot more of a tragic figure, which paired up with the fact that this adaptation covered her entire “fall to ruin”, from meeting Tholomyès onward, made her a victim of everything that happened to her.

A victim of her own bad decisions, though, not of a social context that was failing her.

But the worst part is in how the focus of the show is placed. You can have Fantine being a summarized version of herself, with less spunk, and still showcase through her that the circumstances she was in were permeated by an escalating force of social disadvantage and oppression.

This adaptation made, like I said, the audience complicit in Fantine’s decisions as if she was a princess in a movie, unaware of the threats she was getting herself into by her own naive foolishness.

Tholomyès is blatantly shady, clearly dishonest, not at all charming or in any way trustworthy and Fantine gets a “voice of reason” on a friend who tells her various times that he will eventually leave. There are a lot of red flags, blatant for the audience, that Fantine chooses to dismiss. The show focuses less on why Fantine trusted Tholomyès and more on her making a clear bad choice we all knew was doomed from the start.

This becomes a problem once again when she chooses to leave Cosette with the Thénardiers. They are very clearly shady, very blatantly aggressive and ready to take advantage of her, visibly manhandling Cosette in front of her and asking for more money on the spot, and Fantine again naively ignores all of this.

They do it again when she enters employment in Montreuil. She talks to Valjean himself in this version, and is asked repeatedly and with kindness if she has a family. The scene makes it seem as if she could have easily told the truth, especially because we were previously given a scene in which Fantine hears a speech talking about how Valjean is the Best Person Ever and could potentially help her. Still, she chooses to repeatedly lie and the show makes it seem less for necessity and more for a sense of pride of some sort.

(Also, as a foreshadowing of creepy Valjean to come, there are some insinuations from her co-workers that she could seduce Valjean, which is confusingly placed and awkwardly added where it is.)

Then, after she’s dismissed, there’s a man in a post office who asks her, after receiving letters from the Thénardiers (to which she reacts a lot more passively than in the brick), why she doesn’t bring Cosette to live with her, in a condescending tone, as if he was stating the obvious. Fantine responds again as if she was doing it out of pride. The same man is the one to suggest her to start selling her body and then tell her she should have done it before selling her hair and teeth because “nobody would pay for her after that”.

Every turn we’re met with ways in which Fantine’s decisions are seen as foolish in the eyes of the viewer. It’s like Blue’s Clues or Dora the Explorer when they ask stuff to the audience for the kids to say they shouldn’t do something. It’s patronizing as fuck, is what it is. And, yes, sexist.

These narrative choices are sexist because they erase most of the social and political situation which made Fantine vulnerable in the first place, to push the tragic drama as if she was a victim of being “too naive”. It’s sexist because it makes the audience know from the get go that what Fantine is doing is a “bad choice”, easily avoidable mistakes that whoever writes is smart enough to sense are bad but poor naive Fantine can’t understand.

It isn’t just that she’s called a whore a lot of times, that she’s smashed against walls and the ground hard enough that Lily Collins was actually hurt, that she’s shown explicitly being used by a patron on the street. It’s that all of it is done with the added layer of her having “chosen wrong”. That everything is framed as the consequences of actions that the narrative voice, as well as the audience, are smart enough to know are wrong, but poor little Fantine can’t handle.

Like many things in this adaptation we’ll see later, Fantine’s journey is framed more like the tragic end of a woman who didn’t know how to choose right and was punished for said choices rather than the result of an unfair society which didn’t allow women any freedom to choose and didn’t see them as worthy human beings.

2. Cosette

When Andrew Davies called Cosette a “pretty nauseating character” in need of change, I knew I was up against one of those people.

Cosette is probably one of the most underestimated female characters in literature, and adaptations tend to do her dirty very often. I’m not even fond of her interpretation in the musical all that much, which goes in tow with the interpretation of Éponine. I’ve seen my fair share of men on youtube claiming Gavroche should be the face of Les Mis rather than Cosette, I’ve received my fair amount of messages claiming she’s The Worst, I’ve seen it all.

This adaptation does with Cosette something that, out of context, I would have thought impossible. They manage to somehow attempt to make her more “active” (they would call it “strong” but I have problems with that denomination) while making her even more of a helpless victim. It’s a pretty impressive oxymoron.

Let’s begin with little Cosette.

This adaptation does something very weird in that it only showcases Cosette’s storyline as a child when it serves other characters, but then intends to build upon the abuse by mentioning it or making it clear that adult Cosette remembers it well.

So we see Cosette when she’s important to Fantine’s storyline, the Thénardiers’s storyline or Valjean’s storyline, but not much about her on her own, aside from one time she’s looking at dolls and another time when she’s being beaten up by Madame Thénardier, which could be also a moment for the Thénardiers and not solely for Cosette’s narrative.

What I mean with this is that the view on her is reduced to a side character rather than a main one and, with that, her perspective on her own abuse isn’t taken into account. You don’t know how Cosette feels about things, you don’t see her perspective on it, you only see what others do to her but never get to see her side of it. For all the musical erases of her narrative, at least they give her Castle on a Cloud.

It’s with little Cosette where we start to see this weird sense of sexually charged perception towards her relationship with Valjean.

For some inexplicable and highly alarming reason, it’s implied by various witnesses in different occasions that Valjean’s intentions with Cosette may be inappropriate, and I would have let it slide as just people thinking The Worst out of living in a social context in which The Worst is most often the truth, hadn’t that perception carried throughout the series and mixed with Valjean’s erratic and possessive characterization.

When Cosette grows up, she gains a bit more focus, but she also starts to be charged a lot more sexually.

Both Cosette and Éponine are sexualized and objectivized in this adaptation. This will be addressed later, but most often than not this sexualization acts as an accessory to a narrative about masculinity.

Cosette’s virtue, beauty and body are talked about and even exposed in various moments. They tell her she can’t be a nun because that would be “a waste of her beauty”. In that dreadful scene in the dress shop I talked about in summary 4, the shop assistant again implies that Cosette is Valjean’s lover and lets him see her in undergarments through the curtain, with clear intentions. Valjean’s erratic persona is intent on separating her from Marius, explicitly telling her he’s worried that she will be taken advantage of by men, bringing up Fantine’s history to her with that in mind, while putting her in danger and in the company of the Thénardiers again, in more than one occasion.

Adult Cosette has visible signs of the trauma she suffered, which is an interesting direction to go. I haven’t seen an adaptation taking such a big route on her remembering her past abuse, and is a change that worked in performance, Ellie did some great visible responses like covering herself when Valjean wakes her up or going fight or flight every time she sees Thénardier. She is visibly upset when Marius gives him money and looks both angry yet still hesitant when she sees the man for the last time.

But all that kind of loses its importance when the men around her not only don’t give a shit but also do their worst.

Valjean manhandles her, harms her even, pushes her to the limits of her emotional state by taking her to see the prisoners intentionally after she mentioned prison, acting more possessive than caring and more erratically violent than conflicted and concerned.

Marius has a somewhat wet dream about her and then again dreams with her in confusing ways when he’s out of the barricade, with his grandfather talking about her as if she’s a piece of meat even after he meets her and she’s right in front of him.

They tried to make Cosette more aggressive, I think, more reactive, which in some moments worked. But when the lens in which she’s viewed is objectivizing, when she’s being commented on, offered and treated as an object, then it isn’t enough. It makes it worse, actually.

I’m sorry for Ellie, though, she did good.

3. Éponine

Much like Cosette, Éponine’s childhood was all but a few cameos. It’s very often that adaptations try to “tone down” Éponine in order to pull a narrative of her as an underdog in a love triangle, the “friendzoned” girl who tragically dies. The musical does that, for example.

Some of Éponine’s most controversial actions in the brick tend to be most often deleted or changed, except for adaptations in which she’s an “enemy” to Cosette’s narrative of a classic heroine.

It isn’t easy to find adaptations that are able to make Éponine showcase the complexity of her canon character not as a problem but as what makes her character so good and important in the overall story. Hey, even fandom sometimes tends to romanticize Éponine as if she had to be “redeemed” in order to be seen as a worthy character (but that happens a lot with female characters in general).

Éponine doesn’t exist for Marius’s narrative, as the other girl in a love triangle, or for Cosette’s narrative, as an enemy, she’s her own character with her own reason for existing and complex human dynamics that are extremely permeated by the social circumstances she’s immersed in and represents.

I’d say this adaptation is on the group that uses her for Marius’s storyline.

Added to that, it’s one of the worst I’ve seen on that case, because in this one, Marius is complicit of Éponine’s intentions, which are sexualized to a degree I don’t feel comfortable with.

We’ll talk a bit more about the Marius side of things later, but for Éponine, it meant she was reduced to a character that exists to sexually awaken Marius rather than a tragic figure on her own or even a piece of a love triangle. So, basically, this is the worst I’ve seen in a while.

This is clearly seen in that interview when Davies explained why he added that “wet dream” scene, saying:

“One of the best things Hugo does is to have Eponine tease Marius with her sexiness because he is a bit of a prig. So I have introduced a scene where Marius, even though he is in love with Cosette, has a wet dream about Eponine and feels rather guilty about it. I think it fits into the psychology of the book.” Source

Let’s leave out the part where he considers that to be “one of the best things Hugo does” because I cannot deal with that right now. Let’s focus on the other bit.

Like this quote suggests and I said before, Éponine was rather reduced to a tool for Marius’s sexual awakening. In this version, it isn’t only the “wet dream” which precedes more crucial interactions between Marius and Éponine, there’s also a scene where she strips for him through the hole in the wall and another where Courfeyrac is commenting on her and Azelma as Marius moves into the building for the first time.

By the time Marius gives her his money and any sort of bond can occur, it’s evidently clear in this version that Éponine has been teasing Marius and he is fully aware of it. He looks at her through the peep hole licking his lips and then has that disturbing dream where she’s kind of forcing him onto her in a very questionable way.

So, this Marius is by no means unaware of the fact that Éponine was attracted to him in some capacity and has played along her seduction, which makes his dismissal of her and his request for her to find Cosette a lot like he is using her for his own gain and replacing her for another girl.

Éponine’s attitude, much like Cosette’s, tries to be more active at times. She’s confrontational to her parents, seems protective of Azelma and is pleased to see her mother stuck in jail.

However, much like with Cosette, any kind of agency is compromised for having her narrative be serving a male character’s development rather than her own. Her involvement in the barricade is also somewhat modified but, by that time, her journey has already been substantially affected.

Much like Ellie, Erin was a very good Éponine when she was allowed to perform at her best and I wish she had been involved in an adaptation that was able to portray Éponine with more justice.

I’ll talk a bit more about women on the show in general in problem #3 but, for now, let’s move on.

Problem #2: The portrayal of masculinity

1. Javert

I am not the best person to write an essay on Javert, there are a lot of people more capable than me for that, and I may be called out for this and mess everything up, but I can’t write overall opinions without mentioning my issues with his characterization, at least summarized.

Javert is a complicated character. He is, as much as everyone else, affected by the circumstances and a man who goes through a huge emotional impact and sees his values questioned and compromised. His and Valjean’s journeys have a lot in common, in different ways and with different outcomes.

Sadly, Javert tends to be seen as a villain in a lot of adaptations. It’s a way to simplify the plot in the way movies tend to do: something is defined by what the other isn’t, if Valjean is the protagonist, then Javert must be his antagonist. I was worried that this version was going to fall into that trap, because of time restraint and Davies’s tendencies of simplifying complex characters.

Javert’s characterization was erratic, much like Valjean’s. His attitude was blurred by fits of rage and moments of confusing violence, followed by charged pauses in strange cadences which tended to fluctuate. I don’t think his attitude was as all-over-the-place as Valjean’s, but it was certainly not as well defined as other Javerts I’ve seen through the years.

This Javert, however, had a choice made for him that separates him from other versions:

Over tea in central London, Davies tells me that he was surprised to discover that, in Hugo’s 1862 novel, neither character [Javert or Valjean] mentions any sort of sexual experience, leaving the 82-year-old screenwriter wondering, at least in the case of Javert, whether it was indicative of a latent homosexuality. Source

There is a lot to unpack there.

First, there’s this idea of masculinity in which the lack of explicit heterosexual intercourse in canon is directly representative of homosexuality. I’m not gonna delve a lot in the brick but there are a good bunch of characters you can easily read as gay. Hell, there’s that whole thing going on with comparing Enjolras and Grantaire to greek couples. And if you want to write Javert as gay, go ahead, there’s a lot of fanfiction out there who is with you on that and I’m here for all interpretations, no problem at all.

But if you’re going to take that route, you need to be careful with your optics.

This Javert is, at the end of the day, in this adaptation, a gay man of color. He is also explicitly obsessed with Valjean in a way that exceeds his sense of justice. He looks at him undress in prison, is all over his personal space while he’s in chains and later interrogates him believing Marius is his lover, clearly attempting Valjean to confess to him if he was. He receives a lot of comments from an officer who touches him and looks at him strangely in the last episode, prompting an immediate rejection from him.

Everything points to Javert’s homosexuality being in the plot only as a further motivator for his need to capture Valjean, which makes for both a problematic portrayal of predatory homosexuality and a subsequent narrative of police abuse, both very problematic aspects to portray through a gay man of color. The way he acts and the way in which people act around him make it seem like his obsession with capturing him is fueled by the fact that Valjean represents his closeted feelings and that is all kinds of messed up.

He is also clearly not as involved in other aspects of the law as he is in capturing Valjean, since Thénardier ends up being a secondary worry to him, even explicitly knowing he has been mistreating and abusing a child, and he also explicitly doesn’t care about his achievements or the ones of his other officers as long as Valjean is on the loose. He lets Thénardier escape prison on his watch and doesn’t take care of it himself, prioritizing Valjean.

It isn’t about what happens in canon or not but in how all of this, in this version, is framed under this idea that Javert is also gay and has an obsession with Valjean that seems predatory in part, rather than fueled by his beliefs. And that is a dangerous optic to write a gay character under. Especially a police officer who is also a man of color.

I’m not the one to talk about that, it’s not my experience to tell and I’m not going to speak over those whose experience this is, but as a content creator, I’d question if my need to diversify is stepping over the lines of problematic aspects that may ill represent the identities I’m trying to integrate. Just saying.

David’s performance hits some very good moments, especially when Javert starts contemplating suicide. That is a very important scene in every adaptation and a very amazing chapter in canon and David does well in performing the turmoil in Javert’s decision. They also add, as a voice in off, the notes he left to improve the service, which is a great touch.

But, much like the other characters I mentioned, his performance is blurred by these writing choices in which Javert has been added this sort of predatory sense in which Valjean in jail symbolizes also keeping his identity hidden away. Davies would probably say his “desires” because that’s the kind of guy he is.

I hope my opinion isn’t overstepping anyone’s voice and I’ll leave the further of this discussion to someone more appropriate, but I felt it was an important matter to include and something we all, as media consumers, must pay attention to.

2. Marius

I had higher hopes for this boy, I really did.

The good thing this adaptation does for Marius is give him a bit more room than others do. They touch more on his relationship with his father and his grandfather, they bring up the Thénardier connection to his dad, they introduce Mabeuf, and they bring him on as a kid in the beginning, which even though questionable in comparison to him having more development as a child than Cosette and Éponine, at least helped to introduce him as another key character of the whole story.

I had hopes that this earlier introduction, albeit unfairly unbalanced with Cosette’s and Éponine’s, would allow for his character to develop more strongly, especially since politics were very present in his conversations with his grandfather and the ideals of his dad. I thought that by introducing politics through Marius that would allow his connection to Les Amis de l’ABC be more profound when the moment for revolution came.

Yeah, no, that didn’t happen.

Les Mis is a book where people are the heart and soul of it. With that in mind, characters aren’t like each other, they aren’t repetitions of the other’s attitude, they are diverse reflections of the complexity of humanity. The portrayal of masculinity in characters like Javert, Valjean, Gavroche or each individual member of Les Amis aren’t the same between each other, and neither are the same as Marius’s.

Marius represents a very wide emotional spectrum. He’s sensitive and vulnerable, passionate and driven, but at the same time can take action into his own hands when he has to and fight, even at the cost of his own life. There are layers in Marius. Like a Rogel cake.

I don’t want to generalize but a problem I have often with older male writers is that they see emotional complexity as weakness, especially when it comes to the portrayal of masculinity. There’s this idea in which something that is undefined or conflicting isn’t “strong” enough and therefore requires forcing.

Remember that quote I brought up for Éponine’s characterization? we’re going back to that. To Davies calling Marius “a prig” in need of being seduced.

Like I said, this version made Marius complicit in Éponine’s advances and aware of her sexually charged intentions, and this was made in an attempt to “upgrade” Marius’s masculinity and make him “less of a prig”. Because in order to be a Man, Marius needs to objectivize women. Apparently.

Like I mentioned, the gesture of Marius giving Éponine the little money he had ended up being a lot less effective by the fact that he had already fantasized about her more than once, and with her knowing that. He is taken to a brothel by Courfeyrac and Grantaire in which women pretty much throw themselves at him while he looks for Cosette. The “wet dream” he has is a very eerie combination of idealization and assault, in which Éponine, taking Cosette’s place, forces him onto her (much like Davies is forcing this onto Marius).

It isn’t about sex or eroticism being introduced to Marius’s storyline, is that they appear forced and almost violently thrust upon him in order to validate him in this idea of masculinity the adaptation seems to have, which seems to be very narrow.

And, with that in mind, we’ll move on to the last bit of this section.

3. Valjean

I am unable to write a piece about how many layers of wrong this Valjean embodied.

There are a lot of good tumblr scholars and Les Mis experts talking about it already, they can explain better than I ever could, but we need to, at least, try to glimpse at the mess this was, because this is a post on problems and this was a major one.

There are a lot of interpretations of Valjean, some of which are astronomically awful. He’s a character that can be easily fucked up, maybe because he also represents a very complex range of emotions, a very wide spectrum of masculinity, and is inserted in a wide variety of social contexts and spheres during his lifetime, which permeate his way of living as well as his agency to do things.

Any adaptation of Les Mis from the get go starts with the challenge of representing all of this in a limited time frame and with a limited perspective. It’s very difficult to translate not only all of this complexity but also all the thoughts the narrator can rely, all the feelings and conflicts and internal turmoil that we can get from the book because it’s written.

The musical, in that sense, has some elements from its medium that help, like the soliloquies, the changes of key, the ability for characters to bear their souls through song without interrupting the believability of the story.

Representing Valjean without a medium that allows a peek inside his head is a big challenge. He is a character whose turmoil is most often interior, so showcasing that externally poses difficulty.

Still, you can’t fuck up this much, my dude.

I’ve seen bad Valjeans in my life, this one is...complicated. He’s not good, don’t get me wrong, but he isn’t as clear-cut godawful as others I’ve seen, he’s too erratic to be easily described.

I think this adaptation tried to showcase complexity through visible emotional distress and physical violence. Instead of having a soliloquy or symbolism, we have Valjean shouting or screaming or burning his hand with a coin and staring at it for a while or shouting at nuns or carrying Cosette by force so hard her arm is in pain.

Everything gets even more confusing when everyone around him treats him weirdly.

You get years of exposition clumsily thrown at you via a speech Fantine hears when she arrives at Montreuil and he’s been elected. You get girls looking at him naughtily and suggesting Fantine to try to seduce him. You get inkeepers and Thénardier suggesting his intentions with child Cosette aren’t appropriate. You get women in dress shops thinking his intentions with young adult Cosette aren’t appropriate. You get Javert thinking his intentions with Marius aren’t appropriate. Everyone wants to talk about Valjean’s sex life or something, I don’t know.

His attitude towards Cosette is also muddled by this erratic behavior and the very strange way in which he sees her and Fantine.

He is visibly more worried about men taking advantage of her, of “defiling” her, than other dangers she could be in, like his identity being found out by the police or her falling in the hands of the Thénardiers again. He forcibly removes her from Marius’s presence and has a fight with her about it that ends on him taking her to see the prisoners. He knows she still, as an adult, visibly flinches when she’s approached harshly yet manhandles her when he wants to keep her locked up.

There’s something possessive about this Valjean that ties in to how Cosette is portrayed as an object. He talks about Cosette as if she was something he needs to keep, says Marius will “rob” her, not because he wants to be a good father or see her happy but because she is his to have.

This Valjean feels as if Cosette was his attempt to get rid of the guilt he feels for having failed Fantine more so than anything else. She’s less of a person and more an object he needs to keep for himself like a third candlestick. That’s the impression I got of their relationship with his characterization.

By the time the series ended, I felt upset with Valjean.

I didn’t care if he died, I didn’t care if he suffered. And that’s pretty shitty for a Les Mis adaptation to prompt. He made me feel uncomfortable, uneasy, as if he was the last person I would trust to take care of a young girl. And whatever internal journey he was going on wasn’t developed well enough to understand any of these choices.

I don’t know, like I said, I’m not an expert of the subject of Jean Valjean, but I’m pretty sure this is not how you adapt him.

Problem #3: Diversity without optics

This show hadn’t even started and it was already patting itself on the back for being diverse.

Now, if you haven’t been in the world of Les Mis for too long, let me tell you there are a lot of adaptations which are diverse, and not only of the musical. In itself, it wasn’t a pioneer move, but I was nonetheless happy that they were going to pay attention to that. At the end of the day, Les Mis is about society, about oppression, and adaptations of it should represent the diversity of the social landscape of the time and place they’re created in.

That being said, diversity in a highly political storyline needs to be carefully worked through, because without optics you can make questionable choices. And, you guessed it, questionable choices were made here.

I can’t and won’t go over all of the issues with this that there are, but I can give a few examples.

There is, of course, the always present argument of casting Fantine and Cosette white and the majority of the Thénardiers and Éponine as poc. And of casting the majority of Les Amis as white and the majority or most visible part of Patron Minette as poc. People have discussed this at length so I won’t go over that.

There is also how constantly woc were cast in roles of service, some of which were questionable given the context. Simplice, for example, is cast this way, which I overlooked at the time but as it kept escalating with other characters like Matelote and eventually Toussaint, it grew a bit more complex.

Toussaint was...a very problematic choice.

When you present the character of a “housekeeper” in a period series which is meant to represent France in the 1800s, and she is a woman of color, some alarms start ringing. I don’t specialize in French history, but my instincts were proven correct when I checked various sources on dates, after seeing the episode, and I’m quoting wiki for easier access here:

Slavery was first abolished by the French Republic in 1794, but Napoleon revoked that decree in 1802. In 1815, the Republic abolished the slave trade but the decree did not come into effect until 1826. France re-abolished slavery in her colonies in 1848 with a general and unconditional emancipation.

This series has a weirdly set timeline in comparison to the book but, for all intents and purposes, we’re in the early 1830s at the time she’s first introduced, correct? There was still an unstable situation regarding abolition at the time. The general emancipation hadn’t been yet stated in the colonies and the decree had just been starting to hold effect.

I know this show is casting in a general way as a suspension of disbelief of some historical facts and I’m all for diversity in casting in period dramas, regardless of anything else, if it’s allowing for representation in media.

But, at the same time, you need to be careful with your optics. She could have been cast as anyone else.

I don’t wanna go over this a lot because I don’t know enough about these parts of French history nor is it my story to tell, but the problem is in the erasure of conflicts or racism altogether as a way to prompt a shallow sense of diversity in a story that is directly linked with the subject of oppression.

Let’s continue with another similar optics problem involving “diversity” to exemplify this issue further, so that I can clarify.

This barricade had women on it and didn’t have Combeferre.

Now, here is the thing about that. In the barricade my man Combeferre gives an amazing speech about women and children.

In case you weren’t aware, the 1800s were the moment when European women and children barely started to be seen as separate members of society and not only “men but worse” and “men but small”. There are a lot of good articles about that, including one by Martyn Lyons about the new readers of the 19th Century, which changed the course of the editorial market, those being women, children and working class men, who didn’t have access to literature or literacy before that. The idea of childhood as we know it started then, and the later editions of the Grimm fairy tales was one of the first published books of fairy tales explicitly aimed at children’s education. And since a lot of us, in other places of the world that aren’t Europe, were colonized af or barely getting free from colonial governments in the 1800s, we kinda had to go with the flow, regardless of the social structure of native peoples, because colonialism sucks.

But you all came here for Les Mis so, let’s get back to that.

As this terrible and summarized dive into history implies, women and children were vulnerable to the fucked up state of social strife. Education was scarce and only accessible to some, employment was scarce and only accessible to some, food was scarce and only accessible to some. Most often than not, “some” did not include women and children.

In comes the the sun to my moon, Combeferre, with his speech.

He talks about all of this. Basically he talks to men who are the main providers of families, providers of women and children who depend on them and goes (I’ll paraphrase) “it’s our fault as a society that women can’t be here now, it’s our fault they don’t have the same possibilities and education we do, so at least do them a solid and don’t die today here if they depend on you to live, because the only possibility they have without your support is prostitution”. It was a fucking power move to include that on Les Mis. I mean, the entire book is a call out to the social and political situation, but damn.

So yes, there aren’t women there but the reason for it is that patriarchy sucks and the consequences would be disastrous for them.

Davies & co. pretty much didn’t give a shit about this. But, at this point, considering Problem #1, who’s surprised.

They removed Combeferre, his speech and placed random women on the barricade, as if nothing of that was going on and the patriarchy didn’t exist. Because ~diversity~.

The fact that they thought more woke to put some random women there on the barricade to die fighting instead of acknowledging the existence of sexism altogether pretty much sums up what this whole show thought diversity was.

For them, diversity wasn’t a political and social standpoint born from reality, a way to represent the dynamics of oppression that are at stake even on this day, but an aesthetic.

And, talking about speeches, let’s move on to the next bit.

Problem #4: Where are the politics?

1. The social and political landscape

Les Mis adaptations have a fluctuating balance with politics and social conflicts.

That is, at the end of the day, the very core of the existence of this story, the reason why still, to this very day, it is relevant and quoted, adapted and regarded is the fact that we still need it.

All of us, as human beings living as members of society, are always immersed in political decisions. It’s not only unavoidable, it’s part of our lives as people living together.

In the same way, the personal narratives of the characters of Les Mis are intrinsically linked to this landscape. They are set in different places of the social spectrum and hold different power dynamics and actions that relate to political standpoints.

Adaptations tend to work this in very different ways.

Some focus less on the politics and more on the social strife, with a greater focus on the characters. Others re-insert the characters in other different historical moments with the same levels of social and political strife. Others just copy-paste the situations and put them in another context, without really explaining what revolution it is, what they’re fighting for and why they’re being killed. The focus varies.

It seems, for how this adaptation starts, with Waterloo and a subsequent argument between Gillenormand and Baron Pontmercy about Napoleon, that politics are going to be important. This doesn’t last very long.

My biggest issue with the introduction of these circumstances is that they don’t bother on them but then attempt to use them for gratuitous self righteousness. It isn’t that they abandon them altogether, they overlook them but then attempt to use them for shock value.

There is a constant use of exaggerated, almost cartoon-y, stagings of social depiction:

- You have Gillenormand dining with his boys, in a luxurious and incredibly flamboyant scenery, while dissing political views in an almost comical fashion

- You have beggars downright assaulting Valjean and Cosette on the street right outside the convent, as a means of shock to Cosette’s expectations of the world outside of it

- You have Fantine’s entire sequences as a prostitute with higher and higher degrees of abuse

- You have the streets before the barricades, in some sort of confusing clamor that loses focus in favor of Valjean’s storyline

- You have a god awful last scene which attempts to say something socially compromising by showcasing the kids Gavroche was helping (I don’t think they’re siblings in this version), as a means to say “the revolution wasn’t successful and social strife will always continue” I guess, I don’t know, because it’s not like they gave a shit about it all before, so this kind of Perrault-ish moral of the story at the end makes no goddamn sense

They are exaggerated snippets of things without context, with very little exposition, that are used more as props to shock than they are to actually take a stand on what the original story is trying to tell.

Even the reality Fantine has to suffer is blurred by the fact that the social situation isn’t seen as much as a reality in itself but a combination of Fantine’s “choices” and Valjean’s “guilt”.

But, in order to delve more into the non-political aspect of this adaptation, let’s focus on some specific characters.

2. Enjolras

Well, I’ve seen a lot of Enjolrai in my life (is that be the plural of Enjolras? yes? no? can it be?).

Enjolras has very different characterizations, even within fandom itself, but we can all agree that he’s a) highly political, b) highly committed to the cause and c) extremely charismatic.

And when I say “charismatic” I mean it in the sense that his speeches are so beautifully crafted, so certain and commanding, that you just wanna listen to what he has to say, regardless of your views. They’re political discourse but also very poetic, which is a very interesting literary opposite to Grantaire’s voice, but I digress.

Still, Enjolras doesn’t stand on his own.

He represents a part of a whole, an important part, but a part nonetheless. Les Amis are a very diverse mixture of individuals, and the main triumvirate represents different stances on the same political action that coexist together.

Without others to stand with, Enjolras loses context. Not because he can’t support himself as a character, but because his biggest value is within other people.

This Enjolras is confusing, angry and loses a lot of steam when most of the people who should be around him aren’t really paying attention.

Courfeyrac, although performed really well, doesn’t really get a chance to show his political ideas without Enjolras around, and that makes it seem like he’s being convinced to participate rather than doing it for his own reasons and being one key part of the group.

In the barricade, Enjolras acts as if he doesn’t know what he’s doing half the time, and the other half he doesn’t give a shit about killing soldiers, smiling and laughing while shooting people.

It isn’t just that the scene with Le Cabuc doesn’t exist, Enjolras doesn’t seem to have empathy, which is all given to Grantaire instead.

By taking away Enjolras’s vulnerability, his complexity, they make him seem more shallow overall, and in tow, make his cause lose importance.

And without a clear political standpoint, because his expositions about the situation are very shout-y and unclear, and his speeches are summarized with some actual quotes but without their meaning and true feeling, he seems to be fighting just because, rather than having strong ideals.

Enjolras in the brick is eloquent enough, humane enough, that you understand what he’s doing and why. This Enjolras is a mess that I couldn’t understand at all.

I don’t think people who have never seen, read or heard of Les Mis before will understand Enjolras as a character through this. He’s just a very angry student with weird facial hair (why?) who rants in a cafe while his friends are playing games and making jokes, who is friends with some workers and is the leader because he shouts the loudest but doesn’t seem to know what he’s doing.

And, worst of all, doesn’t seem to care for human life. Which brings me to the next bit...

3. Grantaire

Man, was I excited with this casting choice.

When I heard Turlough was playing Grantaire, I was delighted. And, at the end of the day, his performance was very good, but for a character who wasn’t quite Grantaire at times.

I mean, he wasn’t as off as Enjolras, but he was also so erratically written.

They decided to make Grantaire hesitant rather than a cynic. He didn’t get to express his cynicism or his attachment to his friends (what friends though? only Bossuet had a name other than Courfeyrac and Enjolras) and his involvement with the fight was shown as insecure rather than questioning of ideals.

He is shown conflicted when he decides to fight with them, he doesn’t have any of his long speeches, the Barrière du Maine scene or anything of the sort. He is just...hesitant about death, I guess. About dying and killing people. That’s his conflict.

This has, to me, two big problems attached to it.

First, it’s a simplification of the entirety of Grantaire’s thoughts. It’s taking the cornucopia of drunken philosophy that Grantaire’s voice in the brick represents and replacing it with a single fear, which while very valid doesn’t reflect Grantaire’s true extensive complexities.

Second, it takes away from Enjolras’s humanity. Enjolras is showcased as an indiscriminate machine of shooting soldiers while Grantaire is conflicted about having to do this and, in tow, makes Enjolras’s rejection of him when he leaves and gets drunk like a jerk move of an insensitive asshole.

There isn’t a clear instance of Enjolras giving Grantaire a chance to do something before the barricade and Grantaire failing at it, with all the dominoes symbolism and all the stuff it implies. There isn’t a complementary set of complexities between each other. Grantaire seems to care about human life more than Enjolras does in this version, at the end of the day, because Enjolras’s speeches, even if carrying canon quotes, are inserted in a context in which he laughs while shooting people, knowingly sends Gavroche into danger and chastises Grantaire for being conflicted about human lives at stake.

So, instead of representing Grantaire’s true complexity as a character, they chose to give him something else that they think makes him more dimensional, when, in reality, takes away from his (and Enjolras’s) worth as a character.

All of this is very weirdly intersected with drunken jokes. Sometimes, the jokes and the behavior pays off and is inserted in good moments, sometimes they just don’t know when to stop and they kind of ruin their death scene with them, which is even worse considering it’s one of the few where they’re actually holding hands.

Overall, I think this was a simplification of Grantaire, in a way, a simplification which falls apart without a solid context to exist in. And it’s a pity, because Turlough was good.

4. Gavroche

The only reason I’d want an immediate new adaptation of Les Mis is so we can cast this same Gavroche in a decent one. He’s one of the best Gavroches I’ve ever seen, hands down.

In this case, the problem isn’t with his interpretation or how he was written, necessarily, and all time frame and socio-political simplifications aside, the problem is in how the context reacts to him.

A lot of Gavroche’s agency is deleted in this version.

For starters, his age is kind of all over the place at the beginning. He’s fine by the time of the barricade, but before it’s kind of a mess. As a result, he lives with his parents for a bit longer than necessary and the few times we see him on his own, being his independent self, are in conflict with how his involvement in the main events come to happen.

It feels as if he’s been used in the barricade. When he’s off to find bullets, only Marius tries to get him back to safety, while the rest cheer him and laugh.

His character is well performed and we get to see his personality and his situation when he’s allowed to act on his own, but within the context he’s inserted in, he seems more like a prop than a character.

This makes it so that when he dies, you’re upset more so than sad. It doesn’t feel like a tragic circumstance born out of a lot of layers of social strife which culminate in a dead end for a kid who deserved a better life. It feels like every adult around him, every person he encounters, either neglects him, mistreats him or sends him into danger. It feels, much like with Fantine, like an easily avoidable situation.

And things get worse with this guy:

Like I said in my summary, this David Harbour-ish soldier is the one who is shown to mercilessly kill both Gavroche and execute Enjolras and Grantaire.

This is another layer in the modus operandi of an adaptation who uses social oppression and political strife as shock value rather than commentary and discourse.

By personalizing “evil” in one stern, mean, unreasonable, power-hungry soldier, they’re villanizing (and trivializing) the social context as a whole. It isn’t about how Gavroche got to that point, how we as a society failed so hard that he has to die in that way. It’s just one bad guy.

But then, they try to be fake deep about it, by doing that last scene with his brothers or by placing him alongside Mabeuf and Éponine but not explaining what that means, why those juxtapositions are socially relevant and important to the plot (maybe they don’t know why).

Overall, this was such a waste of a great Gavroche that I just feel really bad. Reece deserved so much better.

5. The barricade

Needless to say, this barricade was more of a mess than you would have expected.

The lack of proper introduction to the political landscape, the clumsy exposition, the out of context shout-y speeches and the erratic behavior of its characters, paired together with the fact that it ends about 1/4 into the last episode, giving more time to personal drama than any of what happens in it, makes it one confusing mess.

It’s also in the barricade where it’s super clear how visually similar this series is to the 2012 movie. A lot of visual choices are extremely similar, even when they didn’t need to be (Fantine’s and Cosette’s hair choices? the shots in the hulks? the scaled down yet very similar camera angles and movements during the entire fight? the color schemes of some particular scenes?), and it’s pretty heightened in this barricade.

Which I wouldn’t care about hadn’t they talked crap about the movie during their entire PR campaign.

Like I said, there were so many issues within the people involved in the barricade. With the women, with the characters, with the soldiers. There was also a very strangely set line between workers and students that they were very clumsy about setting yet didn’t get to do much aside from having the leader of the working class men leave when Enjolras prompted it.

By the way, Enjolras was a lot less convinced about the whole ordeal in this version, which made his characterization even more confusing.

The barricade had a lot of messed up ingredients and not enough time to even simmer. At least the musical, which doesn’t have a lot of time dedicated to the students either, has Drink With Me, which doesn’t only serve as a way to characterize different students and their beliefs and personalities (“Is your life just one more lie?”) but also brings some melancholic change of pace, a pause between the action.

The highlight of this barricade, though, is Marius going apeshit with the torch.

But, all in all, there’s no much we can expect from a barricade born of confused ideas and even more confusing characterizations. This barricade feels less like a climax and more like a thing they had to do because it was in the book.

And don’t even make me talk about how they butchered my favorite speech. I’d rather not have it there at all, tbh.

Conclusion: A writer’s ego

We arrive to the end of this long and boring trip through my thoughts. If you’re reached this point, thank you for your time.

All in all, I feel like a lot of the issues of this adaptation stem from the fact that Davies thinks he’s better than everyone else and other men around him agree so much that they let him do as he pleases, without questioning anything.

I can’t really understand how you’re going through the script of this and see some of these choices (like the dress shop scene, the carriage scene and let’s not even mention the peeing in the park scene) and you go, and I’m quoting Shankland here:

“Andrew’s scripts made these characters feel modern. That was nothing to do with having them speak in a very modern way or changing their behaviour, he just found the humanity and earthiness of it,” Shankland says, recalling a scene in which Fantine and her companions urinate in a Paris park. “I thought, ‘Oh god, they’re going to pee in Les Misérables, that’s exciting.’” Source

That just sums it all up, doesn’t it?

After I watched this, I let some time pass. I watched all 3 fanmade adaptations that are currently out at this moment (back to back), revisited some of the ones I had seen before, read fics, read people’s articles and rants, looked into other adaptations on stage, from the classic ones to the more interpretative versions, and other current tv adaptations being done in other countries.

All of those things are vastly different. Some are more similar to each other, some are widely different, but they’re all different points of view on the same canon.

This is a canon that has some of the wildest possible interpretations coexisting. You can have a play centered on one specific character told through the songs of a specific album, a tv drama in modern times with a lawyer Valjean, a coffee shop au starring Les Amis, a parody comedy set in 1832, all happening at the same exact time.

And that’s great. That’s fascinating. That means this book is still alive because we need it still today.

Some days you’re in the mood for a heavily political adaptation which gives you goosebumps for setting canon in a context that is closer to your everyday reality, other days you just want all the Amis to live and have movie marathons cuddled together. It’s all valid.

But what all of those adaptations have in common is that they aren’t trying to be more than they are. They aren’t acting brand new, they aren’t pretending they’re re-inventing the wheel or that they are smarter than Victor Hugo himself because what Hugo didn’t know he needed in the “psychology of the book” was a soulmate au or a documentary series.

This adaptation, through what they said and how it was written, acted as if it was going to be the ultimate Les Mis adaptation to end them all. It presented itself as smarter than us all, as holding the keys to the meaning of Victor Hugo’s thoughts, as being able to fix his “mistakes”, fix other adaptation’s “mistakes” and deliver the best interpretation of canon possible.

And it managed to be a sexist, socially insensitive, problematic, un-political, homophobic mess.

Which, is a problem in itself, but even more so when the canon you’re adapting should be, first and foremost, against all that. It isn’t about how many brick quotes you use, it’s about channeling the soul of the story.

#les mis #les miserables #les mis bbc #les mis bbc a summary #jean valjean #cosette #fantine #eponine #marius pontmercy #enjolras #grantaire #gavroche #death cw #long post when expanded #luly rambles #bbc les mis

50 notes · View notes