#me coming with my controversial old ben opinions | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

physicalee-tired · 9 months

Text

Fandom HCs

I might make a master list in the future but for now I just feel like screaming random headcanon’s into the void because I can. I will make other when the mood strikes but for now have fun with this 5-10 people who follow me lmaooo.

• Creepypasta

Non-Tk

I have a lot of opinions on this fandom but my number 1 is that Ticci Toby as a character (disregarding his creator) deserved better because let’s be real the fandom fucking BUTCHERED him 😭. As miserable little preteens we just turned him into a soft murderous boyfriend stand in (Jeff the Killer was the Hot Edgy Emo version of this). Another complain is his tics… they were never explicitly explained as to whether they were verbal or physical but… he never had a stutter in his poorly written origin story where did that come from??? Personally I think he whistles and snaps his fingers twice as a main tic while the others are things like twitching his neck and smacking his chest or smth.

Marble Hornets is NOT the same as Creepypasta! That being said I DO adore people managing to connect it to Creepypasta and Slenderman in cool ways. If anything I feel like the entire “Proxy” thing needs a reboot, like have people make an entirely new trio of Proxy’s like Masky, Hoody, and Toby. Like bro just let them rest-

Let’s talk about Liu Woods, because I would like to talk about Liu Woods. I would like to talk about how ridiculous the whole “multiple personalities” thing the fandom did was. I mean let’s set aside the fact that he survived being stabbed who-knows-how-many-times by his brother and just talk about how ridiculous people took “he just sort of heard another voice in his head” and turned it into DID lmfaoooo. In my personal HC he just becomes a deeply troubled hit man that has mixed feelings for his brother and lives in a cabin within Slenderman’s territory (Shut up I love the Creepypasta Mansion idea 😭)

BEN_Drowned, a controversial yet beloved figure of the fandom. LET THE FICTIONAL KILLER INTERNET GREMLIN AGE FOR FUCKS SAKE! Look, I’m all for lore accurate characters and people not sexualizing minors but he’s been like 13 for YEARS. Most of the people in the Creepypasta Fandom are in fucking college now and just want to relive their old crushes (Not me tho, ya’ll BEN fans stay safe tho ;)). Which is where my personal headcanon for this sadistic little hobgoblin comes in. He, in fact, has 2 forms! One is the kid Link of himself and the other is the Twilight Princess version that a lot of people fangirled/fanboyed over. He can also switch to the BOTW version of himself IG im not a Zelda fan lol. Anyways his child form has full sentience, he literally uses it for manipulation because y’know he’s a SERIAL KILLER.

and finally (for now), you can be apart of BOTH sides of the fandom :D. An excellent example is: Jeff the Killer’s broken psyche could have been a result of underlying neglect considering his parents seemed to be the types to show face to their neighbors but who knows how they acted otherwise? Realistically he wouldn’t really be interested in relationships other than purely physical reasons, and even then he’d gaslight and mentally abuse the fuck out of them. However you can also go into the more fun side of the fandom and say shit like “He unironically listens to Animal I have become from three days grace and pretends to go “berserk mode” Lmfaoo. As a BF he’d probably tease you a lot about your height and likes would like your smile and if you complain about it he’ll offer to fix it (read; carve it into your face). Both are totally okay as long as you’re not butthurt about other people having fun or totally delusional and thinking fictional serial killers would be any better than real serial killers :3

in case anyone is wondering (they are not lmao); my crushes were always Ticci Toby (very surprising I know), Eyeless Jack, and Homicidal Liu although now for different reasons lmao. I might do individual HCs for characters if anyone asks or just if I feel like it.

Jeeze I didn’t expect this to be so long so fun TK HCs under the cut!

Jeff and Liu used to have tickle fights all the time back in the Good Old Days (TM) so Jeff pretty much uses it against anyone that’s bothering him or in order to get what he wants. The worst part is he’s strong enough to get away with it a majority of the time.

Liu on the other hand, doesn’t really like physical touch anymore unless its someone he really really trusts. The reason being that he enjoys tickling, not only because it reminds him of the Good Old Days (TM) but also because he thinks its fun for both parties involved and enjoys hearing people he likes laugh.

BEN is a fucking gremlin and the main Lee of the mansion tbh, mostly because its so easy to just yoink him midair and wreck him for something or other. Very ticklish tummy, no clue why I think it’s true, its just canon now

Laughing Jack is obviously a fucking tickle monster with those god damn claws and sometimes uses them for evil. By that I mean maybe Bloody Painter is doing a very delicate art piece and LJ just comes by and casually drags his claws down the others back just to make him fuck it up by arching his back violently

Eyeless Jack doesn’t really care for tickling, as in he isn’t opposed to it but he also doesn’t actively seek it out… except for one spot. In my HCs EJ has a tail and it’s fairly ticklish, he enjoys having it gently scratched and scribbled at. He lets out these cute purr laugh which he finds mildly embarrassing but he doesn’t really care since the feelings is strangely relaxing to him.

I have more but I’ve been on this app too long and have Adult Stuff(TM) to do so I might make a second part with the Proxy’s and maybe some underrated characters lol.

#creeppasta #creepyasta tickle #eyeless jack #laughing jack #creepypasta headcanon #homicidal liu #headcannons

33 notes · View notes

georgiapeach30513 · 2 months

Note

I'm going to counterpoint that American Psycho anon with Matt Damon's character in the Drive Away Dolls movie. I wouldn't say his role in this film (no spoilers but it is readable on the film's wiki) is particularly level with his current career. I mean he was just in Oppenheimer...lol. Can we also mention him appearing in the Dunkin commercial with Ben for the Super Bowl? But, he's Matt Damon. He can do what he wants.

Here's the thing: Actors will do the things they do because they want to or it's an opportunity or they were convinced for whatever reason. Or they just needed something on their resume. Or it could be a million other reasons.

We don't know for sure Chris is playing the Priest guy. It can be inferred because in the PR of the movie, he's listed as playing a cult leader and cult leaders are usually akin to religious leaders, and Priest Dean makes sense. However, these are simply context clues, like Jen has mentioned previously. You don't know what his entire role will be. I don't think having raunchy sex onscreen, if his character does do this, means it's downgrading his career. I think if anything it's meant to be comical, but maybe people should watch Drive Away Dolls and see what type of vibe Ethan and Tricia were going for. I think it'll be in the same realm in Honey Don't. But it could also be completely different. Who knows what's going on in that brain of Coen.

And I'm going to be dead honest...I recently tried to watch the Pam and Tommy show and I was extremely turned off by it and everyone involved. TBF, I think Seth Rogen and co are way too old to be doing something like a show about a sex tape....and the fact that they needed to put Tommy talking to his penis. To me....that was unnecessary and not something I would do if I was trying to be taken seriously. It somewhat worked for the Awards circuit, and the show and the cast got recognized. But if you asked me if on paper, a show focusing on a sextape that gets stolen of two famous people would garner Awards...I would have rolled my eyes. But you really never know. Until the finished product.

And...last controversial take. Everything Everywhere All at once. I am a huge Michelle Yeoh fan. But I did not enjoy this film. There was a butt plugs fight scene...(For anyone who hasn't seen it, well...yeah) Again, it worked out for the Academy and for viewers, but I couldn't take it seriously. But I don't hold it against the actors because this is something unexpected and out of pocket. For Michelle, I wouldn't have expected her at this point in her career to be doing a film like this but glad she did. Because it got her the Oscar. And the mainstream recognition she's deserved, in my opinion, for a very long time.

Again - I am not saying that Honey Don't is going to be some Oscar darling because I'm going to go ahead and say it's not. Lol. But it is coming from the brainchild of an auteur Oscar nominated/winning director whose made some very out of pocket and unique films in his career. I'd more like to ask Margaret Qualley what made her decide to sign onto a sequel before the first one even came out.

Whatever happens, I think this will be at the very least, an interesting role for Chris.

You do bring up a great point with Matt Damon. I feel throughout most of his career Matt has been a very respected actor, and he’s still done some raunchy comedies. Dogma, anyone?

And we don’t know, and may never know why Chris chose this role. At the end of the day, he’s going to do what is best for him and his career. And we can continue to watch, or don’t. And that’s okay. Once upon a time I was a HUGE Elijah Wood fan. I still adore him, but I don’t check out every single project he does.

Okay, so as far as the talking penis in Pam and Tommy, that was literally taken from Tommy’s memoir. And unfortunately sometimes the shock value is what people do. And Seth Rogan is one that loves a good shocking moment. And those moments can cause buzz. Buzz is what makes people want to watch something. I work with a lot of people, from a lot of different walks of life. And one of my clients, has no idea who Sebastian is, but heard enough about P&T and decided to watch it. She now is a Sebastian fan.

I have yet to see Everything Everywhere All at Once, but @nancydrewwouldnever told me I need to check it out more than once 😂 I’m currently finishing up the Fall of the House of Usher, yes, I know I’m late. And look at what it earned Michelle! So good on her!

We don’t know what Honey, Don’t will entail. We aren’t even 100% sure if Priest Dean is Chris, I think it’s a great guess. But he will be doing a panel this Saturday, and I’m going out on a limb and predicting that he will mention his upcoming projects. He has a lot of work he can talk about this time.

And what we can say for certain, is with Honey, Don’t, Chris is stepping out of his comfort zone. He’s taking a risk. And this is what I and several other people have asked for ALL last year. So I am excited to see what his future holds.

3 notes · View notes

antisociallilbrat · 1 year

Text

IT/TUA Crossover

Okay I've been bouncing this idea around in my head for a while and I want to share my thoughts. I also kinda want to write this into a oneshot but we will see. Also this is only a crossover in the sense that the Losers are in the place of the TUA fam. So like what would happen if the Losers were the ones born with the marigold and adopted by Reginal Hargreeves. I mean....both TUA and IT have seven main characters so how could I not try to merge the two?

Anyways moving on to who get's what marigold (powers) and I have some maybe controversial opinions

I'm not basing this on the TUA character's personalities, just their powers btw

AAAA also for those not familiar with TUA, the numbers don't really matter, like just because someone is "Number 1" doesn't necessarily make them the leader

Number 1 with the power of strength should be Mike and my reasoning for this is because Mike has a strong heart and he would love his adopted siblings (the Losers) and would use his strength to protect them- also Mike staying at the academy the longest, hoping his family would come back

Number 2 who's power is uhhhh how do you word that? Super Aim? Basically he never misses AND he can stop something in motion in it's tracks, like bullets fired from a gun- Anywho I think this should be Ben. I feel bad bc this is my least favorite power (but I LOVE Deigo) but I like the idea of Ben being a knife guy, it's outta pocket and no one would expect it

Number 3- Mind control- Miss little "I heard a rumor" is definitely Bev. I don't have to say much about this, but Bev using her rumor power to get ahead and be one of the most successful people in Hollywood- not that she needs much help. But also like how Luther and Allison have that weird relationship, her and Ben would have that too

Number 4, the power to commune with the dead and *Spoilers for TUA season 3* the power to come back to life after dying. This is where I get a little controversial but hear me out...I feel like this should be Bill. Unlike his TUA counterpart Klaus, Bill would channel his fear of ghosts into writing and he becomes a bestselling authors selling stories that the ghosts tell him. In an interview he gets asked how he comes up with these ideas and he just shrugs "They just come to me" and meanwhile the ghost who told him the story is yelling at him. I do think that LIKE Klaus he would distance himself from his family

Number 5 who can teleport and time travel is obviously Stan. Stan is literally an 85 year old man in a 13 year olds body. Stan is already a little unhinged but getting lost in time, seeing THREE apocalypses and constantly trying to save his hairbrained family. Five in TUA IS Stan. An old soul who loves his family but also wants to murder them because they somehow keep causing the world to end. Also Stan would be so mad at himself that he hasn't mastered time travel since teleporting came so naturally to him

Number 6, the ability to summon tentacles out of his chest is Richie. Which also means Richie is dead. RIP. He's dead for everyone else but Bill can NOT get rid of him. Remember Bill talks to the dead? Richie would be following him around and aggravating Bill every chance he gets. Bill acts annoyed but he is happy he gets to talk to his technically dead brother while the rest of his adopted siblings had to mourn him. Just imagine all of the BICHIE friendship moments I could write if I wrote this ship. Richie would make so many dead jokes

Number 7, the power to turn sound waves into energy is Eddie. Poor Eddie who was constantly told he didn't have any powers bc Reggie was terrified of them. Jokes on Reggie. Eddie ended the world. Twice. And he's the strongest one of the bunch. I feel like that would be a strong character moment for him

I want write parts of this AU, I love it. Who knows if I'll ever find the time. Also yes ik there's spelling/grammar errors. I am tired

#tua #the umbrella academy #it 2 #it 2017 #it 2019 #it chp 2 #it chp 1 #the losers club #bill denbrough #stan uris #stanley uris #richie tozier #eddie kaspbrack #beverly marsh #bev marsh #ben hanscom #mike hanlon #stenbrough #reddie

36 notes · View notes

itstheantiheroesforme · 1 year

Text

my controversial shadow & bone (show) opinions

Please dont hate me, I just have lots of thoughts on season 2 okay

Im sorry no shade to the actor but Patrick Gibson is not my Nikolai and he never will be. He delivers the lines from the books well enough but he looks like somebody's dad. He looks like he's forty. And his eyes dont glitter. He does not look like a puppy. He's not pretty enough. Idk it just didn't work for me.

Speaking of! I will die mad that Nikolai and Sturmhond look literally exactly the same. Like what. No. Why. Come on.

I dont like Ben Barnes. I liked him when he was prince Caspian but I dont like him as the Darkling. Some of his moments in season two were really well-acted, but again, he's too old and he just doesn't do it for me.

Book alina = loml. Show alina = annoying.

Basically I think the casting director fell flat for pretty much every character in the shadow & bone portion of the show. They went off with the crows though. Freddy carter and jack Wolfe and Danielle Galligan? Chefs kiss.

Pekka Rollins is hot.

I saw someone say that season 2 was like they took the second two grisha books and both the crows books and put them in a blender and I could not agree more. Im hoping there was some clever purpose behind the way they structured season 2 but honestly? It was a m e s s . Not that I didn't enjoy it. But still. Wtf.

THE DARKLINGS DEATH WAS SO BAD. okay so they mostly stuck to the book BUT it was over too fast and they skipped some of the best lines and honestly it didn't hit the way the book did. Don't let me be alone????

ALSO why do we not call him the Darkling? Like why not? He is the Darkling. Wtf is Kirigan? Sorry that's the Darkling. Calling him Aleksander from the beginning kinda screwed one of the most emotional points of his story.

I dont like Tamar. I love book Tamar but I dont like show Tamar. No I will not elaborate.

The little "shadow & bone" graphics at the start of every episode were tacky as fuck.

They showed too much of Kaz's backstory too soon.

Mal leaving alina in the end? Yes please give this couple some depth.

Mal becoming sturmhond? No thank you.

Also I didn't like how they skipped over so much of Mal's character in the show. What about his asshole arc? We had to read hundreds of pages of him being a massive jerk to Alina about her powers, her bond with the Darkling, her desire to save ravka, etc etc. Mal is a jerk but the show said no no he's nice he's sweet.

Totally random but I wish they weren't all British.

GIVE ME DARKLINA YOU COWARDS. Okay so y'all darklina bitches know what I'm talking about - why did they change that scene??? Darklina should've been endgame imo.

And one noncontroversial opinion: tolya is the best part of the books and the best part of the show can I get a amen

17 notes · View notes

not-for-granted · 10 months

Text

Zeus Actor (for PJO).

Since they’ve announced a “Percy Jackson & the Olympians” series to be released on Disney+, I’ve been pretty quiet, trying to keep my opinions to myself in spite of all the controversy and strong opinions surrounding it. I’ll just say, without too much vitriol or bitterness, that I think the whole thing is a misstep and it should’ve been animated, it should’ve been animated, it should have been animated. I think about what could have been with a PJO series done in a similar style to “Avatar: The Last Airbender” and it could’ve been so great.

That being said, it’s happening, might as well get used to it, and hope for the best for all the actors involved. And since the passing of Lance Reddick, who was a terrific actor, I’ve been thinking about who could take on the role of Zeus. That’s not accurate, I’ve been thinking about who could play Zeus since before the casting was announced. Now I can read the writing on the wall as good as anyone else, and I know that they’ll probably recast with another black actor with a gorgeous voice and majestic presence, sure... Dennis Haysbert and Peter Mensah both come to mind, I wouldn’t hate either.

However, my original choice for Zeus has always been Dean Jagger since “Warrior” dropped. He’s not been in a lot of other stuff though, he’s best known for a short appearance in “Game of Thrones” as treacherous Northern heavy ‘Smalljon Umber’, but in “Warrior” he is given a lot more to work with as a jingoistic Irish legbreaker in terms of muscles to flex and, well, acting muscles to flex. Between his imposing build, a jawline that could cut glass, and his ability to make even the most reprehensible character remotely sympathetic and authoritative, I’m sure he’d do really well.

Then though, I got to thinking about a bigger name who might be interesting and something unique came to mind. Before watching “Cabinet of Curiosities”, I didn’t think he had the mature, patrician... ugh, fine, ‘daddy’ energies to sufficiently embody Zeus but now? I think Ben Barnes could crush it.

I mean this in all seriousness, aside from residual fanboy-isms and overhype, and in fact I think his past as a go-to heartthrob (not that far in the past, fair enough) is perfect for Zeus. Let’s be real, Zeus is a bit of a (complete) bastard, manipulative and demanding and hypocritical, abusive and narcissistic to the extreme and he only manages to look reasonable / sympathetic due to being the best of a series of bad options for ‘Ruler of the Cosmos’. Casting someone who is bringing some goodwill from past works, young and old fans from prior fandoms, will go a long way to ah ‘put him in Leather Pants’, so to speak. Let there be some conflict with how they feel about Zeus, and charisma to contrast with everything we all know about Zeus too. Fresh off of “The Punisher” playing a sociopathic ex-Marine, and “Shadow and Bone” playing a seductive but power-mad shadow-bendy type of megalomaniac, Ben Barnes would be splendid in a ‘recast’ Zeus. Since all the Olympians are shapeshifters anyway, they could end up casting new/multiple actors for each of the Olympians. I mean to say they could even go the route of “Joan of Arcadia” and have them have multiple ‘guises’ that they adopt for each of their children, each of their ‘audience’, depending on the vibe they want to set. Yes, Aphrodite makes it particularly famous, but all of them have their way of shifting to appeal to who views them (and that’s not even getting into the Roman aspect nonsense!).

So yes, Ben Barnes as my pick for who they could utilize as an aspect of Zeus going forward in the PJO series, and that could further influence who they cast for Thalia (not going to even dream of casting Jason). I hope these reasons and helpful pictures explain why. If anyone is interested in some of my other casting ideas (Thalia, Hera, Aphrodite, etc.) and the explanations behind them, do let me know, maybe I’ll drop another post.

#the PJO series #casting #pjo zeus #zeus #lance reddick #dean jagger #ben barnes #give zeus that vibe #you know the kind #joan of arcadia #at least tangentially #cabinet of curiosities #shadow and bone

4 notes · View notes

estelscinema · 4 months

Text

Quickie Movie Reviews

Nyad Review

Athlete Diana Nyad sets out at 60 to achieve a nearly impossible lifelong dream: to swim from Cuba to Florida across more than 100 miles of open ocean.

Diana Nyad performed the impossible as she swam from Cuba to Florida at 60 years old. So a film documenting her achievement should have been exceptional in the sports biopic genre. Yet, Nyad is a standard sports biopic that falls into the worst cliches of the genre.

If you have seen any underdog sports biopic, Nyad follows those standard storytelling elements beat per beat. So from a story perspective, it doesn’t do anything new. However, Nyad has a theme that is rarely explored in this genre, ageism. Yet, Nyad completely wastes an opportunity to bring up the theme of ageism in professional sports. This theme should have been the central conflict that she has to overcome to achieve her goal. The idea of pushing your body to its limits while you are past your physical prime is a very interesting conflict to explore. Nyad completely wastes this theme as it decides to use cheap, manipulative, flashbacks as character development. These flashbacks provide only a backstory to her character and not development as the film tries to present it.

On top of this lacking character development, they made Diana Nyad, to simply state it, an egomaniac asshole. She shows little to no regard for not only her life but for the lives of those trying to help her achieve this achievement. She constantly puts her team in life-threatening situations and she doesn’t care what it costs to make this achievement. Then when her team finally abandons her due to her selfish desires, it only lasts for about five minutes before the team is back together again. After this brief breakup, she finally achieves her goal of swimming from Cuba to Florida. However, the movie completely glosses over her groundbreaking swim was never officially certified by the WOWSA and the Guinness World Records due to conflicting reports coming from her team and Nyad herself, who has a long documented history of embellishing her achievements. All of these elements combined do not make for a compelling protagonist to cheer for.

Annett Benning and Jodi Foster carry the hell out of this movie with their performances. Though neither performance is really special, their chemistry is still enjoyable to watch. Rhys Ifans gives the best performance in my opinion. His character was written as a one-dimensional supporter, but Ifans performance gave his character so much depth that was clearly not in the material. Overall, Nyad is a standard sports biopic with a bit of Oscar-bait flair. It’s nothing special and can be skipped when it randomly appears in your Netflix recommendations in January.

My Rating: C

Fingernails Review

Anna and Ryan have found true love together. It's been proven by a controversial test. There's just one problem: Anna still isn't sure. Then she meets Amir.

Imagine a world where all one would have to do to determine if their partner is their one and only soul mate is to sacrifice one of their fingernails for a test to prove it. A dystopian concept out of the Twilight Zone and Black Mirror that will forever change how humanity searches for our true love. So it makes me angry that Fingernails doesn’t fully commit to the concept that it sets up and instead, it chooses to be a simple romance.

Fingernails is inspired by the work of Charlie Kaufman and Yorgos Lanthimos, as they take a dystopian element/concept and use it to explore human nature. Fingernails has that dystopian element, but it doesn't fully show the dystopian consequences of said element. A test as shown in Fingernails would have massive consequences on society. How does it change society's view of love? How does the dating world change because of this test? What consequences would it have on people who believe they are soul mates but get a negative score and vice versa? These questions and many more are either vaguely or never explored. And instead of exploring this dystopian world, it chooses to be an awkward love triangle of a bored woman.

Anna (Jessie Buckley) has fallen out of love with her current beau, Ryan. She hates how they have fallen into a routine that she finds to be boring. Then she meets Amir who sparks love in her heart. This love triangle explores one of the more interesting themes that Fingernails introduces, “falling in love is easier than staying in love as staying in love requires hard work”. It is a very interesting theme that the film somewhat explores but not to its fullest potential. The relationship between Anna and Ryan is very basic, and if it were not for the test, they would obviously not be together. Thus creating a relationship I didn’t believe was initially true love. Then when Amir is introduced, the breaking between Anna and Ryan just doesn’t feel real or artificial. This year Past Lives handles this exact theme better as the romances there felt real.

Jessie Buckley, Riz Ahmed, and Jeremy Allen White, all do a great job with the material they are given and carry much of the film. But it is clear they deserve a much better script and direction. Overall, Fingernails is a very interesting watch, but it fails to commit to the premise that it sets up.

My Rating: C+

Godzilla Minus One

In postwar Japan, a new terror rises. Will the devastated people be able to survive … let alone fight back against the monstrous Godzilla?

Over the decades, many countries around the world have attempted to put their mark on the infamous Godzilla. From fighting against King Kong to multi-million dollar blockbusters, Godzilla has had his fair share of iterations. Yet, Godzilla Minus One is a stern reminder that the only people who know how to do Godzilla justice, are the people of Japan.

Godzilla Minus One reminds the audience how terrifying Godzilla is. When he tramples the city of Ginza, it is more than just a destructive spectacle. Nearly every single shot of that city's destruction is from the point of view of its inhabitants as they look in horror at the destruction that Godzilla creates. Then when the military finally arrives they are useless as Godzilla becomes an unstoppable monster. With every new weapon that the people of Japan throw at him, he just regenerates and becomes stronger. Then after having a nuke dropped on him, he gains the power of his atomic breath. His breath is a terrifying special as it is reminiscent of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Reminiscent not only in looks but in the sheer destruction that it causes. It obliterates everything in its path, leaving nothing but rubble behind. Yet, this iteration of Godzilla is more than just a destructive spectacle.

Godzilla Minus One takes place in the years following the end of the Second World War. We follow a former Kamakazi pilot who is riddled with guilt, shame, and trauma, as he is shamed by his society for not performing his duty during the war. While reconciling his emotions in the rubble of Tokyo, he takes in a young woman and her adopted newborn daughter. Together they form an unconventional family as they rebuild their lives. Then when Godzilla arrives he is forced to confront his demons. Through his family and Godzilla’s arrival, he slowly begins to regain his courage and learns who he is truly fighting for. He redeems himself not only in his community but to himself. This transformation from a broken man to one with a fiery heart of courage to protect the ones he loves is perfectly portrayed by Ryunosuke Kamiki. This human arc was unexpected, and it had no right to be this good in a film about Godzilla.

Overall, Godzilla Minus One was a pleasant surprise. Its human story combined with its destructive spectacle proves yet again that Japan are the only people who know how to do Gozilla. And what is even more surprising was its small budget of $15 million, which is less than 10% of the Godzilla blockbusters made in Hollywood.

My Rating: A-

Dream Scenario

Hapless family man Paul Matthews finds his life turned upside down when millions of strangers suddenly start seeing him in their dreams. But when his nighttime appearances take a nightmarish turn, Paul is forced to navigate his newfound stardom.

Since the dawn of humanity, dreams have been interpreted in many different ways. From Omens to our innermost thoughts and desires, dreams have become a way to interpret our complicated lives. So when Nicolas Cage starts popping up in everyone's dreams, I believe we would all be confused and fascinated by the meme king.

We follow Paul (Nicolas Cage), a nobody professor of evolutionary biology, who becomes an internet phenomenon when he randomly starts appearing in people's dreams. He struggles as he navigates his newfound stardom, from weird sexual reenactments to being the most wanted man for advertising, and his emotions become more complicated. Then it takes a turn for the worse as Paul's dream doppelganger becomes violent to those who dream about him, causing his life to turn upside down as he is shunned and brutalized by society. At the heart of Dream Scenario, is the theme of how keeping our emotions bundled on the inside, will eventually outwardly project onto others in the worst way possible. Paul is a passenger in his own life as he refuses to take charge of it and continues to blame others for why he can’t move forward. This is why when people first begin to dream about him, he is just there watching. Then as his anger brews from everyone's mundane projection of him, their strange dreams turn into graphic nightmares. This is a fascinating metaphor to explore how emotional suppression can lead to unexpected consequences. However, instead of exploring this metaphor to its fullest, Dream Scenario turns into a commentary on cancel culture and mod mentality.

Don’t get me wrong, Dream Scenario’s commentary on this subject is tragic and is well done, but it doesn’t fit into the overall narrative of the feature. He is canceled by society not because of his actions, but because of what people dream about him. This commentary does not work for me as cancel culture is very complicated when it comes to someone canceling. Don’t me wrong many people are unjustly canceled because of a single statement or a single accusation, and they are never given their day in court to defend themselves (innocent until proven guilty in the court of law). Dream Scenario does perfectly shows what it is like to be unjustly canceled, but it never explores its complicated nature of cancel culture and mob mentality. The film should have either stuck to the emotional suppression theme or fully committed to its commentary on cancel culture.

With that stated, Dream Scenario is a wildly entertaining and hysterical film. Nicolas Cage is perfect as his character Paul. His subtle comedic timing paired with his character's pathetic nature is perfection. Cage going back and forth between his pathetic character, to his iconic meme acting is hysterical. Dream Scenario definitely is one of the best performances in Cage’s career. Overall, Dream Scenario does not come together thematically, it is still an entertaining film that continues to push the boundaries of filmmaking.

My Rating: B

1 note · View note

unpopularwiththepopulace · 3 years

Text

Michael Riedel vs Bernadette Peters – the Broadway Battle of 2003 and beyond

My previous piece gives a fairly comprehensive look at Bernadette and Gypsy through the ages; though there is at least one aspect of the 2003 revival that warrants further discussion:

Namely, Michael Riedel.

Today’s essay question then: “Riedel – gossip columnist extraordinaire, the “Butcher of Broadway”, spited male vindictive over not getting a lunch date with Bernadette Peters, or puppet-like mouthpiece of theatre’s shadowed elite? Discuss.”

It’s matter retrievable in print, or even kept alive in apocryphal memory throughout the theatre community to this day that Riedel was responsible for a campaign of unrelenting and caustic defamation against Bernadette as Rose in Gypsy around the 2003 season.

While “tabloids may [have been] sniping and the Internet chat rooms chirping”, when looking back at the minutiae, none were more vocal, prolific or influential in colouring early judgment than the “chief vulture [of] Mr. Riedel, who had written a string of vitriolic columns in which he said from the start that Ms. Peters was miscast”.

He continued to find other complaints and regularly attack her in print over an extended period of time.

Why? We’ll get there. There are a few theories to suggest. Firstly, how and what.

Primary to establish is that it perhaps would be foolish to expect anything else of Riedel.

Also an author and radio and TV show host, Riedel is best known as the “vituperative and compulsively readable” theatre columnist at The New York Post.

He’s a man who thrives on controversy, decrying: “Gossip is life!”

The man who says, “I’m a wimp when it comes to physical violence, but give me a keyboard and I’ll kill ya.”

“Inflicting pain, for him, is a jokey thing. ‘Michael has this cruel streak and a lack of empathy,’ says Susan Haskins, his close friend and co-host.”

And inflicting pain is what he did with Bernadette, in a saga that has become one of the most talked about and enduring moments of his career.

From the beginning, then.

Riedel started work at The Post in 1998.

His first words on Bernadette? “Oddly miscast in the Ethel Merman role,” in August of that year on Annie Get Your Gun. It was a sentiment he would carry across to his second mention six months later (“a seemingly odd choice to play the robust Annie Oakley”), and also across to the heart of his vitriolic coverage on her next Merman role in Gypsy.

Negative coverage on Bernadette in Gypsy started in August 2002 when Riedel discussed the search for trying to find a new American producer for the show. It had initially been reported in late 2000 that a Gypsy revival with Bernadette was planned for London, before it was to transfer to Broadway. To begin with, Arthur Laurents was “eager to do Gypsy in London because it hadn't been seen in the West End since 1973”, and he “wanted to repeat [the] dreamlike triumph” he said Angela Lansbury’s production had been. But economic matters prevented this original plan, leaving the team looking for new producers in the US. Riedel suggested that Fran and Barry Wiessler step up as, “after all, they managed to sell the hell out of "Annie Get Your Gun," in which Peters…was also woefully miscast.”

He also quipped: “Industry joke: "Bernadette Peters in 'Gypsy'? Isn't she a little old to be playing Baby June?”, calling her “cutesy Peters” and again a “kewpie doll”.

Bernadette here seen side by side with the actual Baby June of the 2003 production – Kate Reinders.

Other publications to this point had discussed her “unusual” casting. Which was fairly self-evident. In contrast to being a surprising revelation that Bernadette Peters was not, in fact, Ethel Merman, this had been the intention from the start. Librettist Arthur “Laurents – whose idea it was to hire her – [said] going against type is exactly the point,” and Sam Mendes, as director, qualified “the tradition of battle axes in that role has been explored”.

It was Riedel who was the first to shift the focus from the obvious point that she was ‘differently cast’, to instead attach the negative prefix and intone that she was actually ‘MIS’ cast. According to him then, she was unsuitable, and would be unable to “carry the show, dramatically or vocally”. All before she had so much as sung a note or donned a stitch of her costume.

So no, it wasn’t then “the perception, widely held within the theater industry,” as he presented it, “that Peters is woefully miscast as Mama Rose”.

It was Riedel’s perception. And he took it, and ran with it, along with whatever else he could throw into the mix to drag both her and the show down for the next two years.

As to another indication of how one single columnist can influence opinion and warp wider perception, just look to Riedel’s assessment of the show’s first preview. It is typically known as Riedel’s forte to “[break] with Broadway convention, [where] he attends the first night of previews, and reports on the problems…before the critics have their say”. This gives him “clout” by way of mining “terrain that goes relatively uncovered elsewhere”, and it means subsequent journals are frequently looking to him from whom to take their lead – and quotes.

At Gypsy’s opening preview then, he reported visions of “Arthur Laurents [charging] up the aisle…on fire”, loudly and vocally expressing his dissatisfaction with the show as he then “read Fox [a producer] the riot act”. Despite the fact that this was “not true, according to Laurents,” the damage was already done, with the sentiment of trouble and tension being subsequently reprinted and distributed out to the public across many a regional paper.

News travels fast, bad news travels faster.

And news can be created at an ample rate, when in possession of one’s own regular periodical column. This recurring domain allowed plentiful opportunity for attack on Bernadette and Gypsy, and Riedel “began devoting nearly every column to the subject,” which amounted to weekly or even more frequent references.

As the show progressed beyond its first preview, Riedel brought in the next aspects of his smear-campaign – assailing Bernadette for missing performances through illness and accusing Ben Brantley, who reviewed the show positively in The New York Times, of unfair favouritism and “hyperbolic spin”.

The issue is not that Bernadette was not in fact ill or missing performances. She was. She had a diagnosis at first of “a cold and vocal strain”, that then progressed more seriously to a “respiratory infection” the following week, and was “told by her doctors that she needs to rest”. So rest she did.

The issue is the way in which Riedel depicted the situation and her absences via hyperbole and “insinuating she was shirking” responsibility. He went further than continual, repeated mentions and cruel article titles like “wilted Rose”, or “sick Rose losing bloom”, or “beloved but - ahem-cough-cough-ahem - vocally challenged and miscast star”. He went as far as the sensationalist and degrading action of putting “Peters' face on the side of a milk carton, the kind of advertisement typically used to recover lost children,” and asking readers to look out for “bee-stung lips, [a] high-pitched voice, [and a] kewpie doll figure”, who “may be clutching a box of tissues and a love letter from Ben Brantley”.

It was quantified in May of 2003 after the show had officially opened, that “out of the 39 performances "Gypsy" has played so far, [Bernadette] has missed six – an absence rate of 15 percent.”

As an interesting comparison, it was reported in The Times in February 2002 that “‘The Producers' stars Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick have performed together only eight times in last 43 performances due to scheduling problems and health concerns,” – an absence rate of 81%.

Did Riedel have anything nearly as ardent to say about the main male stars of the previous season’s hit missing such a rate of performances? Of course not.

Riedel arguably has a disproportionate rate for criticising female divas.

One need only heed his recommendations that certain women check into his illuminatingly named “Rosie's Rest Home for Broadway Divas.” Divos need not apply.

Not that he was unaware of this.

In 2004, Riedel would jovially lay out that “Liz Smith and I have developed a nice tag-team act: I bash fragile Broadway leading ladies who miss performances, and she rides to their rescue.”

Donna Murphy was the recipient of what he that year dubbed his “BERNADETTE PETERS ATTENDANCE AWARD”, when she began missing performances in “Wonderful Town”, due to “severe back and neck injuries and a series of colds and sinus infections”.

This speaks to his remarkably cavalier and joyful attitude with which he tears down shows and performers. “The more Mr. Riedel's work upsets people, the more he enjoys it.”

He knows he yields influence – it was recognised he had “eclipsed Ben Brantley as the single most discussed element in marketing meetings for Broadway shows” – and he delights in his capacity to lead shows to premature demises through his poison-tipped quill yielding.

When it was reported Gypsy would be closing earlier than had been planned, he made mention of “hop[ping] around on [its] grave” and debonairly applauding himself, “I suppose I can take some credit for bringing it down”.

His premonition from the previous year’s Tony’s ceremony was both ominous and prescient, when he predicted the show’s failure to win any awards “could spell trouble at the box office”. He was right. It did. The 8.5 million dollar revival closed months before anticipated and failed to return a profit.

Multiple factors can be attributed to Gypsy’s poor success at the Tony’s, but it’s clear to say Riedel’s continual bashing leading up to the fated night throughout the voting period certainly didn’t help matters.

His suggestions to do with Bernadette’s performances were not helpful either.

After alleging Laurents as the director of the 1991 revival “practically beat a performance out of” Tyne Daly when she was struggling with the role, he proffers that to improve Bernadette’s success, “it may be time for [Laurents] to take up the switch and thrash one out of Peters”.

Great.

It was irresponsible and unrelenting commentary that did not go unnoticed.

His “ruthless heckling of beloved Broadway star Ms. Peters” was deemed in print “his most egregious stunt so far”.

Vividly, in person, Riedel was accosted at a party one night by Floria Lasky, the venerable showbiz lawyer, who “grab[bed] Riedel’s tie and jerk[ed] it, nooselike, scolding, ‘It was unfair, what you did to Bernadette’”.

Moreover, the wide-reaching influential hold Riedel occupied over the environment surrounding Gypsy was tangible in the fact his words spread beyond just average readers, and even unusually “started seeping into the reviews of New York's top critics”. Riedel himself, as the “chief vulture”, was indeed what Ben Brantley was referring to in his own New York Times review by stating how the production was “shadowed by vultures predicting disaster”.

Even more substantially, the “whole Peters-Riedel-Brantley episode” became its own enduring cultural reference – being converted into its very own “satiric cabaret piece, ‘Bernadette and the Butcher of Broadway’”. All three parties were featured, with Riedel characterised as the butcher, and it played Off-Broadway later in 2003 “to positive notices”.

But penitent for his sins and begging for absolution Riedel was not. “Riedel saw nothing but a great story and a great time,” and for many years after, he would continue to hark back to the matter in self-referential (almost reverential) and flippant ways.

In 2008 as Patti LuPone won her Tony for her turn as Rose in the subsequent revival, Riedel couldn’t help but jibe, “Not to rip open an old wound, but I'd love to know if Bernadette Peters was watching”. (He neglects also to mention that “Mendes’s Gypsy was seen by 100,000 more people than saw Laurents’s and grossed $6 million more”.)

More jibes are to be found in 2012 as he reported on the auction after Arthur Laurents’ funeral, or even as recently in 2019, as he asked, “Remember the outcry that greeted Sam Mendes’ Brechtian “Gypsy,” with Bernadette Peters, in 2003?”

As with in 2004 where he points to the “pack of jackals who have been snarling” about Bernadette’s failures, this brings up the canny knack Riedel has of offloading his views to bigger and detached third party sources – thus absolving himself of personal centrality, and thus culpability.

If there was an outcry, HE was its loudest contributor. If there were snarling jackals, HE was their leader.

Maybe Riedel’s third person detached approach to referencing matters was intended to be a humorous stylistic quirk for those in the know. Or maybe it was his way of expressing some inner turmoil over the event.

In some rare display of morality and emotional authenticity, Riedel would at one point admit “I find it kind of sad and pathetic that the high point of my life supposedly has been about beating up on Bernadette Peters”.

Fortunately for him then, a degree of absolution was eventually achieved in 2018, where Riedel visited Bernadette at her opening night in Hello Dolly in 2018, with the intention of ending their “15-year feud”. He “got down on one knee at Sardi’s and extended his hand,” with Bernadette reportedly yelling “Take a picture!” while he held his deferential and obsequious position on the floor.

So if eventually this “feud” has some kind of circular resolution and Riedel was glad it was over, why on earth did it begin in the first place?

One notion is that it was simply another day on the job. Riedel is a man who sees Broadway as “a game for rich people”. Positioned as an “an industry that brought in $720.9 million in the 2002-2003 season”, it is “not a fragile business”, he remarked. As such, he “[could not] fathom the point of donning kid gloves” in covering it, and reasoned the business as a whole was robust enough to weather a few hard knocks. “Thus, Riedel can coolly view Bernadette Peters as fair game, as opposed to, say, a national treasure”.

More to the point, he was a man in search of words. During the season in question, Riedel was “one of just three New York newspaper columnists covering the stage” – a “throwback to a bygone era when…Broadway gossipmeisters…such as Walter Winchell and Dorothy Kilgallen ruled”. Now at the time, as the “last of a great tabloid tradition”, Riedel presided over not just one but two columns a week at The Post. As a result, he was in need of content. “One of the reasons I've become more opinionated is I just have more space to fill,” he admitted. Robert Simonson hypothesises in his book ‘On Broadway Men, Still Wear Hats’ that Riedel may have consequently picked “the thrashing of Bernadette” as his main target simply because “it was a slow news cycle”. Options for ‘titillating’ and durable content were scarce elsewhere that season.

And after all, if Riedel would later cite Bernadette in an article concerning the Top 10 Powerhouses of Broadway in 2004, saying even despite a few knocks or bad shows, “she’ll bounce back” – surely there was no real damage done.

If her career wouldn’t be toppled by his continual public defamation and haranguing, what was the harm?

Feelings? Who cares about feelings or Bernadette’s extremely complex and personal history with the show stretching back to when she was a teenager.

It was just part of the territory, there was nothing personal in it.

Or was there?

Maybe there was something personal in Riedel’s campaign after all.

He makes a curious comment while discussing ‘A Raisin in the Sun’ in 2004. The then incoming star of the show, rapper P. Diddy, had invited Riedel to dinner, and he makes judgement that this was “a smart p.r. move”. Then he ponders, “you do have to wonder: If Bernadette Peters had broken bread with me this time last year, would her chorus boys have to be out there now working the TKTS line to keep "Gypsy" afloat?”

Might he be going as far to suggest that if Bernadette had indulged him in a meal, her show might not have suffered so, by way of him being more inclined to cover it with greater lenience?

It may seem that way, at least in considering how Riedel reviewed P. Diddy’s performance thus after their dinner: “Riedel pronounced himself impressed. ‘He could have forgotten his lines or had to be carried offstage. He didn’t do anything terrible, he didn’t do anything astonishing.’”

Seemingly all the rapper had to do was remember some words and remain physically onstage, and he sails through scot-free. That’s a rather different outcome, one could say, to being absolutely eviscerated for what became a Tony nominated effort at one of the appreciably hardest and most demanding musical theatre roles in existence.

Though perhaps it’s hard to tell if that was really his insinuation from just one isolated comment pertaining to lunch.

This argument might be fine, if it WAS the only isolated comment pertaining to wanting Bernadette to have lunch with him. But it isn’t. Riedel continues to make a further two references over protracted periods of time to the fact Bernadette hasn’t dined with him.

One begins to get the sense of him feeling desiring of or somewhat entitled to such a private lunch with the lady he’s verbally decimated for years, and a sense of bitter rejection that he hasn’t been granted one.

“If Tonya Pinkins doesn't win the Tony Award this year, I'll buy Bernadette Peters lunch,” he simpered, and later, “I invite Bernadette to be my guest for lunch at a restaurant of her choosing. She can reach me at The Post anytime she's hungry”.

The embittered columnist in this light takes on now the marred tinge of a small boy in the playground who doesn’t get to hold the hand of the girl he wants in front of his friends, so spends the next three years pushing her over in the sandpit in revenge.

Moreover, the last statement makes undeniable comment on Bernadette’s troubled relationship with food, body image and public eating.

So now not only so far has he insulted and mocked her physical appearance and played into all the usual trite shots calling her a “kewpie doll”; suggested Arthur Laurents violently hit her in order to elicit a better performance; continually publicly harassed her regarding a show that strikes close to the nerve with deep personal and psychological resonances due to her mother and childhood; but now he’s going for the low-blows of ridiculing her over her eating habits.

Flawless behaviour.

Maybe it’s far-fetched to suggest a man would have such a fragile ego to run a multi-year public defamation campaign after so little as not getting his hypothesised fantasy of a personal lunch date. But then again, this was the man who “left Johns Hopkins University after his first year because of a broken heart.” (“I was in love with her; she wasn't in love with me,” he said.)

And also the man described as “an insomniac who pops the occasional Ambien,” living in a “small one-bedroom” that is “single-guy sloppy”, who has “been living alone since a four-year romance ended in 1996”.

The man whose own best friend called “cruel” and with a “lack of empathy”.

The man whose own sister answered that “well, yes,” he’s always been mean; and after being picked on as a kid for “being the small guy and the intellectual”, he grew dependent on using “his verbal ability to beat someone” and put himself in positions of defensive impenetrability.

See, writing Riedel-esque, vindictive and provocative conjecture is no especially challenging or cerebral task.

Riedel may well see his approach to ‘journalism’ or reporting as “all fun and games”.

But I for one am not laughing.

One final aspect to address when considering Riedel’s reasoning for the depth of his coverage on Bernadette demands attention of how he gets his information. His own personal opinions and motivations aside, crucially he depends on insider providers for insider details. Perhaps somewhat alarmingly then, “leading Broadway producers themselves are among his sources”.

“Half of Broadway hates him. The other half leaks to him”, John Heilpern titled his 2012 Vanity Fair profile on Riedel.

As such, in frequently taking his lead from “theater folk, usually with an ax to grind”, Riedel acts as the mouthpiece to bring secretive backstage reports out front. High-up, influential characters are thus able to funnel their agendas into public view, while keeping their identities hidden.

Notably, it was raised in the above article that Riedel’s “merciless running story” regarding Bernadette in Gypsy “was fed by none other than its renowned librettist, Arthur Laurents—or, more precisely, by Laurents's lover”.

Contrary to the smiley picture below between members of the show’s creative team and it’s beloved star, it was no secret that Laurents did not like Mendes’ 2003 revival. Laurents told Riedel that “Sam did a terrible disservice to Bernadette and the play, and I wanted a Gypsy seen in New York that was good… You have to have musical theater in your bones, and Sam doesn't”. In fact, Laurents admitted the only reason his 2009 book ‘Mainly on Directing’ came into existence was because of how much he had to criticise about the show – it grew out of the extensive set of notes he gave Mendes.

Additionally, it was no secret that Laurents’ lover, Tom Hatcher, demonstrated both a desire and capacity to influence Arthur’s productions. As well as being the driving force for the 2009 Spanish-speaking reworking of West Side Story, Hatcher had intense investment in Gypsy specifically. Patti LuPone writes in her memoir, “From his deathbed, Tom had told Arthur, ‘You have to do Gypsy, and you have to do it with Patti’. It was one of his dying wishes”. Laurents himself, in corroboration of this, explained Tom’s reasoning – “he didn't want the Sam Mendes production to be New York's last memory of Gypsy”.

The allegation in Heilpern’s profile might be hard to prove from an outsider perspective. But given that neither were happy with Mendes’ production and both actively took steps to ensuring it would be superseded in memory, it is not completely implausible.

Overarchingly, as much as Riedel’s writing may benefit FROM insider sources, it is said he does not write in benefit OF them. For instance, although friends with Scott Rudin in 2004, an animated (nay threatening) warning from Mr Rudin asking Riedel to “back off” from “slamming” his show, Caroline or Change, seemingly “had no impact”.

That’s not to cite total impartiality or exemption from personal connections and higher up influences colouring his reports of shows. Theatre publicist John Barlow would describe that sometimes “if you ask Michael to kill [one of his pieces], he will, if it’s someone with whom he does business”.

But it would be remiss not to mention that his influences and sources stretch beyond just the big wigs. Amongst his other informants too are the more lowly, overlooked folk like “the stagehands, the ushers, chorus kids, house managers, and press agents… the guys who build sets in the Bronx”. Basically, for anyone who’ll talk, Riedel will listen.

“Michael Riedel doesn't work for the producers or the publicists; he works for the reader,” one publicist said. “Sometimes we're glad of that, sometimes we're not-but at the end of the day, that's the reality.”

Sometimes he’s nice, sometimes he’s not – but the world goes round.

Through all that’s been explored, it should be stated how painful and injurious it must be for individual performers or shows to fall upon the unmitigated, maiming force of being on the wrong side of Riedel’s favour. The way he approached coverage on Bernadette is deplorable from an emotional and personal standpoint. Some would argue that it was too far and crossed a line and was most definitely unfair. Others would say it was justified. It’s hard not to sound petulant as the former, or heartless as the latter.

While his actions may indeed be abrasively wounding in isolated (often plentiful) cases, it’s unreasonable to say Riedel’s intentions would be to cripple the Broadway industry as a whole. There are those who purport that Riedel in fact “keeps Broadway alive with his controversies”. His words may not always be ‘nice’ but it’s difficult to argue they're not engaging.

Many are quick to criticize or react impassionedly to him and his columns; but few are quick to stop reading them. And Riedel “knows that the most important thing is being well read”.

Hence it is understandable why Riedel is appraised as “the columnist Broadway loves to hate”. Through his enthralling and stimulating bag of linguistic and dramatic tricks, Riedel knows how to keep the readers coming back. “He’s lively, and he makes the theater seem like an interesting place,” one producer did reason.

“There are times when no one's going to care about Broadway if you don't have a gossip angle that focuses on the backstage drama,” opined George Rush, the Daily News gossip columnist who was once Riedel's boss.

Perhaps it is logically and principally then, if somewhat cynically, a matter of believing “it's just business” and knowing how to “play the game”.

As Riedel himself would rationalise, “It’s all an act. You gotta have a gimmick, as they say in Gypsy.”

It may not be pleasant, but in a world increasingly dependent on sensationalistic and clickbait-driven engagement, it’s probably not going to change any time soon.

Well then, if he can live with the toll of the position of moral tumult his column puts him in, so be it.

That he described his mind as being “constantly on the next deadline”, saying “I always think about the column”, and likening writing it to “standing under a windmill”, where “you dodge one blade, but there's always another one coming right behind it”, may be some indication that he can't. At least not wholly easily.

I’ll leave that to him to figure out. Off the record.

39 notes · View notes

nitrateglow · 3 years

Text

Favorite films discovered in 2020

Well, this year sucked. I did see some good movies though. Some even made after I was born!

Perfect Blue (dir. Satoshi Kon, 1997)

I watch a lot of thrillers and horror movies, but precious few actually unsettle me in any lasting way. This cannot be said of Perfect Blue, which gave me one of the most visceral cinematic experiences of my life. Beyond the brief flashes of bloodletting (you will never look at a screwdriver the same way again), the scariest thing about Perfect Blue might be how the protagonist has both her life and her sense of self threatened by the villains. The movie’s prescience regarding public persona is also incredibly eerie, especially in our age of social media. While anime is seen as a very niche interest (albeit one that has become more mainstream in recent years), I would highly recommend this movie to thriller fans, whether they typically watch anime or not. It’s right up there with the best of Hitchcock or De Palma.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (dir. Sergio Leone, 1966)

Nothing is better than when an iconic movie lives up to the hype. Clint Eastwood, Eli Wallach, and Lee Van Cleef play off of one another perfectly. I was impressed by Wallach as Tuco in particular: his character initially seems like a one-dimensional greedy criminal, but the performance is packed with wonderful moments of humanity. Do I really need to say anything about the direction? Or about the wonderful storyline, which takes on an almost mythic feel in its grandeur? Or that soundtrack?

Die Niebelungen (both movies) (dir. Fritz Lang, 1924)

I did NOT expect to love these movies as much as I did. That they would be dazzlingly gorgeous I never doubted: the medieval world of the story is brought to vivid life through the geometrical mise en scene and detailed costuming. However, the plot itself is so, so riveting, never losing steam over the course of the four hours it takes to watch both movies. The first half is heroic fantasy; the second half involves a revenge plot of almost Shakespearean proportions. This might actually be my favorite silent Fritz Lang movie now.

Muppet Treasure Island (dir. Brian Henson, 1996)

I understand that people have different tastes and all, but how does this movie have such a mixed reception? It’s absolutely hilarious. How could anybody get through the scene with “THA BLACK SPOT AGGHHHHHHH” and not declare this a masterpiece of comedy? And I risk being excommunicated from the Muppet fandom for saying it, but I like this one more than The Great Muppet Caper. It’s probably now my second favorite Muppet movie.

Belle de Jour (dir. Luis Bunuel, 1967)

I confess I’m not terribly fond of “but was it real???” movies. They tend to feel gimmicky more often than not. Belle de Jour is an exception. This is about more than a repressed housewife getting her kicks working as a daytime prostitute. The film delves into victim blaming, trauma, class, and identity-- sure, this sounds academic and dry when I put it that way, but what I’m trying to say is that these are very complicated characters and the blurring of fantasy and reality becomes thought-provoking rather than trite due to that complexity.

Secondhand Lions (dir. Tim McCanlies, 2003)

The term “family movie” is often used as a synonym for “children’s movie.” However, there is an important distinction: children’s movies only appeal to kids, while family movies retain their appeal as one grows up. Secondhand Lions is perhaps a perfect family movie, with a great deal more nuance than one might expect regarding the need for storytelling and its purpose in creating meaning for one’s life. It’s also amazingly cast: Haley Joel Osment is excellent as the juvenile lead, and Michael Caine and Robert Duvall steal the show as Osment’s eccentric uncles.

The Pawnbroker (dir. Sidney Lumet, 1964)

Controversial in its day for depicting frontal nudity, The Pawnbroker shocks today for different reasons. As the top review of the film on IMDB says, we’re used to victims of great atrocities being presented as sympathetic, good people in fiction. Here, Rod Steiger’s Sol Nazerman subverts such a trope: his suffering at the hands of the Nazis has made him a hard, closed-off person, dismissive of his second wife (herself also a survivor of the Holocaust), cold to his friendly assistant, and bitter towards himself. The movie follows Nazerman’s postwar life, vividly presenting his inner pain in a way that is almost too much to bear. Gotta say, Steiger gives one of the best performances I have ever seen in a movie here: he’s so three-dimensional and complex. The emotions on his face are registered with Falconetti-level brilliance.

The Apartment (dir. Billy Wilder, 1960)

While not the most depressing Christmas movie ever, The Apartment certainly puts a good injection of cynicism into the season. I have rarely seen a movie so adept at blending comedy, romance, and satire without feeling tone-deaf. There are a lot of things to praise about The Apartment, but I want to give a special shoutout to the dialogue. “Witty” dialogue that sounds natural is hard to come by-- so often, it just feels smart-assy and strained. Not here.

Anatomy of a Murder (dir. Otto Preminger, 1959)

I’m not big into courtroom dramas, but Anatomy of a Murder is a big exception. Its morally ambiguous characters elevate it from being a mere “whodunit” (or I guess in the case of this movie, “whydunit”), because if there’s something you’re not going to get with this movie, it’s a clear answer as to what happened on the night of the crime. Jimmy Stewart gives one of his least characteristic performances as the cynical lawyer, and is absolutely brilliant.

Oldboy (dir. Park Chan-Wook, 2003)

Oldboy reminded me a great deal of John Webster’s 17th century tragedy The Duchess of Malfi. Both are gruesome, frightening, and heartbreaking works of art, straddling the line between sensationalism and intelligence, proving the two are not mutually exclusive. It’s both entertaining and difficult to watch. The thought of revisiting it terrifies me but I feel there is so much more to appreciate about the sheer craft on display.

Family Plot (dir. Alfred Hitchcock, 1976)

Family Plot is an enjoyable comedy; you guys are just mean. I know in an ideal world, Hitchcock’s swan song would be a great thriller masterpiece in the vein of Vertigo or Psycho. Family Plot is instead a silly send-up of Hitchcock’s favorite tropes, lampooning everything from the dangerous blonde archetype (with not one but two characters) to complicated MacGuffin plots. You’ll probably demand my film buff card be revoked for my opinion, but to hell with it-- this is my favorite of Hitchcock’s post-Psycho movies.

My Best Girl (dir. Sam Taylor, 1927)

Mary Pickford’s farewell to silent film also happens to be among her best movies. It’s a simple, charming romantic comedy starring her future husband, Charles “Buddy” Rogers. Pickford also gets to play an adult character here, rather than the little girl parts her public demanded she essay even well into her thirties. She and Rogers are sweet together without being diabetes-inducing, and the comedy is often laugh out loud funny. It even mocks a few tropes that anyone who watches enough old movies will recognize and probably dislike-- such as “break his heart to save him!!” (my personal most loathed 1920s/1930s trope).

Parasite (dir. Bong Joon-ho, 2019)

This feels like such a zeitgeist movie. It’s about the gap between the rich and the poor, it’s ironic, it’s depressing, it’s unpredictable as hell. I don’t like terms like “modern classic,” because by its very definition, a classic can only be deemed as such after a long passage of time, but I have a good feeling Parasite will be considered one of the definitive films of the 2010s in the years to come.

Indiscreet (dir. Stanley Donen, 1958)

Indiscreet often gets criticized for not being Notorious more or less, which is a shame. It’s not SUPPOSED to be-- it’s cinematic souffle and both Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant elevate that light material with their perfect chemistry and comedic timing. It’s also refreshing to see a rom-com with characters over 40 as the leads-- and the movie does not try to make them seem younger or less mature, making the zany moments all the more hilarious. It’s worth seeing for Cary Grant’s jig (picture above) alone.

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (dir. Joseph Sargent, 1974)

This movie embodies so much of what I love about 70s cinema: it’s gritty, irreverent, and hard-hitting. It’s both hilarious and suspenseful-- I was tense all throughout the run time. I heard there was a remake and it just seems... so, so pointless when you already have this gem perfect as it is.

They All Laughed (dir. Peter Bogdonavich, 1981)

Bogdonavich’s lesser known homage to 1930s screwball comedy is also a weirdly autumnal movie. Among the last gasps of the New Hollywood movement, it is also marks the final time Audrey Hepburn would star in a theatrical release. The gentle comedy, excellent ensemble cast (John Ritter is the standout), and the mature but short-lived romance between Hepburn and Ben Gazarra’s characters make this a memorably bittersweet gem.

The Palm Beach Story (dir. Preston Sturges, 1942)

Absolutely hilarious. I was watching this with my parents in the room. My mom tends to like old movies while my dad doesn’t, but both of them were laughing aloud at this one. Not much else to say about it, other than I love Joel McCrea the more movies I see him in-- though it’s weird seeing him in comedies since I’m so used to him as a back-breaking man on the edge in The Most Dangerous Game!

Nothing Sacred (dir. William Wellman, 1937)

I tend to associate William Wellman with the pre-code era, so I’ve tried delving more into his post-code work. Nothing Sacred is easily my favorite of those films thus far, mainly for Carole Lombard but also because the story still feels pretty fresh due to the jabs it takes at celebrity worship and moral hypocrisy. For a satire, it’s still very warm towards its characters, even when they’re misbehaving or deluding themselves, so it’s oddly a feel-good film too.

Applause (dir. Rouben Mamoulian, 1929)

I love watching early sound movies, but my inner history nerd tends to enjoy them more than the part of me that, well, craves good, well-made movies. Most early sound films are pure awkward, but there’s always an exception and Applause is one of them. While the plot’s backstage melodrama is nothing special, the way the story is told is super sophisticated and expressive for this period of cinema history, and Helen Morgan makes the figure of the discarded burlesque queen seem truly human and tragic rather than merely sentimental.

Topaz (dir. Alfred Hitchcock, 1969)

Another late Hitchcock everyone but me seems to hate. After suffering through Torn Curtain, I expected Hitchcock’s other cold war thriller was going to be dull as dishwater, but instead I found an understated espionage movie standing in stark contrast to the more popular spy movies of the period. It’ll never be top Hitchcock, of course-- still it was stylish and enjoyable, with some truly haunting moments. I think it deserves more appreciation than it’s been given.

What were your favorite cinematic discoveries in 2020?

155 notes · View notes

where-theres-smoak-2 · 3 years

Text

This Needs To Stop.

Trigger warning: Sensitive topics, p*dopilia, grooming, mental health and r*cism.

Ok so this is a bit of a rant so apologies for that, I usually try to stay away from sensitive or controversial topics but this is something that I am passionate about and that I think is important. Also I just want to say that I am in no way directing this to the entirety of the M*lina fandom, I know most are just enjoying their ship, but there are those few who are deliberately seeking out darklina posts or are cross tagging and coming into darklina’s asks and just generally harassing the fandom which sadly I am seeing happen more and more often. Also I do feel like this can apply to all fandoms not just exclusively shadow and bone/ grishaverse, its just this is the one I am experiencing it in right now.

I’ve seen antis call darkling/darklina fans many problematic things, delusional, mentally ill, ab*se apologists. They also like throwing around words like grooming and p*dophile. The thing that makes me angry about this is that they are taking sensitive topics, topics that many users have been effected by and they are using them to attack shippers merely for liking a character or ship that they don’t. What is even more frustrating is they seem to be throwing these words around without evening fully understanding what they even mean. For example the claim that the Darkling is a p*dophile because Alina is only 17 in the books. Well p*dophilia is a psychiatric disorder where adults are attracted to children and in order for it to be classed as p*dophilia the child involved has to be 13 or younger. A 16 year old can be diagnosed as a p*dophile if they become attracted to a child that is five years or more younger than them. So the relationship between the Darkling and Alina does not meet the criteria to be categorised this way as Alina is over the age of 13. As for it being a case of Alina is underaged, well, for one that depends on where in the world you are. This is based on imperial russia, in russia the age of consent is 16. This means that a 16 year old can have a sexual relationship with a 30 year old, a 70 year old or a 500 year old immortal and in a court of law it is still legal, whatever your own moral issues around age gaps might be. Even then it can be argued that it is irrelevant because, as with most historical literature where young girls marry older men, you cannot put modern day concepts onto them. Like I said this story is based on Imperial Russia, the life expectancy of a person in that time was around 30 years old. That means a 15 year old girl is already half way through her life, she is literally middle aged. It is at this point usually that girls started to prepare to get married and have children and yes sometimes it was to an older man because men were expected to provide for their wife and family which means having a house and job and means to support a family which an older man was more likely to have. My point is a 15-17 year old in say Imperial Russia is not the same as a 15-17 year old in modern day therefore you can’t take modern day laws and morals and place them onto that situation, it doesn’t work, they lived completely different lives. In Alina’s world, she is at the age where girls might get married and her being courted by a man of the general’s status would have been a normal occurrence, for her to have caught the attention of someone with his standing would have been considered very advantageous for her. I mean she literally gets two marriage proposals in book 2, where I believe she is still 17, and Nikolai is talking about how if she marries him it’ll be in name only and they can make Mal her guard so she can do the horizontal tango with him whenever she feels like it, so clearly the characters themselves feel like Alina is at an age where she can, one get married, and two be engaging in a sexual relationship.

So why does all of this matter? Well it matters because people reading these posts, asks and comments left on posts, may be victims of p*dophilia and grooming. A lot of these comments don’t have trigger warnings and when you are talking about sensitive and triggering topics like this you need to be careful and when you are talking about them without even really understanding them, and where they can’t apply to the characters you are talking about anyway, then you are potentially triggering someone needlessly because you didn’t need to be talking about it in the first place, I hope I am making sense there. I am not saying don’t talk about these subjects if you do think they are relevant, I am saying make sure you do the research, that you understand the subject you are addressing and when you do talk about it do it in a respectful manner, don’t throw it out there in an angry spew accompanied by alot of other derogatory words because that won’t help anyone.

Another subject I want to talk about is I am also seeing a lot of posts about how darklinas must be delusional or mentally unwell. This, again, is hurtful and harmful. Mental illness for a very long time has had a stigma around it, one that makes the person suffering from it feel weak and ashamed. There was always the attitude of if you are mentally ill then there is something wrong with you, or the attitude of oh just get over it, cheer up, think a different way. But mental illness isn’t just a state of emotion its often caused by hormonal imbalances and chemicals. Genetics can also play a part. There is nothing wrong with someone who is mentally ill their brain is just wired a different way. I also find it problematic when people throw around the word delusional. Maybe its nothing to you, just a word, but alot of mental illnesses have actual delusions as one of their symptoms. These can be scary and upsetting and are outside the control of the person experiencing them. Making the suggestion that liking a particular ships means you are delusional is potentially very triggering to those who do battle delusions and have fought to overcome them. The stigma around mental illness has prevented alot of people suffering from mental illness from seeking help out of shame or embarrassment or even out of fear of being judged and although I do feel like as a society we’ve become alot more open about mental health and alot more accepting there is still a long way to go. When antis start saying things like ‘I can’t believe people ship this, they must be mentally ill,’ or ‘they must be sick in the head’, or ‘if you like this ship than you must be delusional’ not only are they being incredibly prejudice against people who have mental illnesses but it is also so harmful because if there is someone reading that post who is struggling with their mental health and are considering seeking help then you’ve just made them feel more ashamed, more like there is something wrong with them which will make them even less likely to seek out help and as I said before there isn’t anything wrong with a person who has a mental health condition they are just different from you. That doesn’t give you the right to make them feel like they are less capable of deciding what they do or do not like or even what they should or should not like to be classified as a ‘normal’ person.

The most latest problematic statements I’ve seen have been those accusing Darklina’s of being r*cist. This one I found a bit funny in a it’s not funny kind of way. I just don’t think there is much logic behind this view point. I’m not sure I understand the antis reasoning here. Mostly because I’m pretty sure the majority of the Darklina fandom comes from the books where Mal is described as being a white, brown haired, blue eyed guy. Funnily enough the Darkling is described as being able to pass for Shu, though to be clear it isn’t confirmed that he is a POC, but out of the two in the books the Darkling is more likely to be a POC than Mal. On top of that whilst many darklina fans have made it clear they are not a fan of Mal in the books many have said they like the show version of Mal who, as we all know, the actor Archie is a POC. So by anti logic darklinas are all r*cist because they don’t like book Mal who is depicted as white but we do like show Mal who is a POC. It just doesn’t make sense to me. I do understand that there were some ‘fans’ who made inappropriate and r*cist comments to some cast members including Archie and I would never ever condone that no matter who I ship. But you also can’t condemn an entire fandom just because of the actions of a select few. I don’t judge all M*linas for that one fan who accused Ben of being a pr*dator and p*dophile because of his friendship with Jessie. Once again my point is r*cism is a serious topic and not something someone should use as a retort or comeback to someone not shipping your ship. When we use these words casually it makes it less likely that they’ll be taking seriously when they really do need to be taken seriously, when they really are relevant to what is happening. If we keep using them so casually then when we really do need to talk about them, when it really matters, people will just shrug and go ‘its just antis being antis.’

I think it is possible for people to like different things, to debate and analyse different relationships and characters and talk about what flaws they may have in a respectful manner. I wouldn’t say I am anti m*lina but at the same time there are things about them that I find problematic but when I talk about those things I hope I do so in a way that doesn’t demean those who do like the ship. I understand that people will have a different interpretation than me and whilst I might not understand where their thinking comes from or why they have a particular opinion I would never make the assumption that they are mentally unwell or make judgements on their character or morals. I try to think about the words I am writing. I know how easy it can be to just throw a word out there without thinking about it. I used to use the word delusional to describe fans of certain ships, but when I recognised how damaging and problematic that was I stopped and I changed my behaviour because it was never my intention to hurt others. I guess the main message I am trying to convey here is we need to be careful with our words they’re not as insignificant as we might think.

#darklina #anti anti #anti anon hate #anti anti darklina #excuse the rant

23 notes · View notes

cherry-interlude · 3 years

Text

Lana Del Rey Unreleased Ranked (2)

This is a re-ranking of Lana's unreleased songs, after making a first a few years ago. This is all my opinion, which I don't mind anyone disagreeing with but don't come for me for it - honestly, I like every song, despite any criticism, and this ranking is very vague. It's based on objective and subjective opinion.

This is the second of five posts, going past my least favourites.

Money Hunny

Lana details the downside of money, detailing the ways it ruins lives and causes more problems that good for some. However, it’s simplicity isn’t what makes Money Hunny fall short – it doesn’t resonate at all compared to Lana’s countless songs where she is either rich and famous or she is desperate for money (or men with money). As thought-provoking as Money Hunny is, it feels too twee and out of place in her money-adoring music to really hit hard. If Lana has spoken on the topic of how money can literally damage lives more, it would perhaps gel better with me, but with songs like Money Power Glory, National Anthem and Off To The Races (among many, many others), it doesn’t hit the mark as a Lana Del Rey (alternate names included) song.

Strangelove

Strangelove is hypnotising, from Lana’s mesmerising voice that gives her the impression of a Las Vegas desert temptress, seducing strangers and wishing for the simple pleasures of Christmas lights and mint juleps. It hits best for the first opening chorus.

Stoplight Delite

Opening with a tuneful mechanical whir, Lana’s song wouldn’t be amiss in a teen romance film. I’m not convinced by the mishmash of music – the more classical band instruments with unrelenting whirring begins to overwhelm the song. Lana’s at her sweetest in this however.

Daddy Issues

The music is a bit too harsh but it’s a nice enough song, referencing Baby Blue Love among others. It isn’t Lana’s best by far, messy with lyrics that go all over the place, but (yet again), it would be more promising if it was completely remade and produced properly. The demo, I Was In A Bad Way, is a lot more maudlin and less enthusiastic, so it does fall behind Daddy Issues.

Catch and Release

It’s another song that’s kind of creepy, with an eerie vibe thanks to the relentless, whining music and Lana’s razor-edged warnings in her lyrics. Lana is practically a megalomaniac in this song, completely selfish and unafraid to ask for – and get – what she wants. Yet it’s quite a hypnotising track that, with further production, could be more cohesive and dramatic.

Marilyn

One of her old live performances, Marilyn is too simple in its lyrics but is a strangely erotic tribute to Lana’s icon. Lana owns the stage in this performance, a more carnal honouring than some of her other outputs.

Noir

Lana really goes for it in this furious song of crushed self-esteem and badly treated lover. Lana lets her vocals rip and tear as she growls about her “papi”, her being merely his dolly to do as he pleases. It's not her most perfect song but she doesn’t hold back from letting her hurt and frustration spill over.

Bellevue

Lana utilises haunting harmonising in Bellevue and though she seems hung up on her lover not wanting her around (she repeats it, as if she can’t let go, throughout the song) she still convinces herself she could go back to the old days of drinking and not being hurt. It helps – her chanting – to bring out the emotion of the lyrics, and maintain that broken feeling she is so good at conveying whilst saying how happy she is.

Put Your Lips Together

Taking on the character of a femme fatale who can hold her own, Lana seduces the listener on top of a chilled instrumental. Her lyrics are little bit dirtier as much as her vocals aren’t their best in the choruses (of course, it being a rough demo might have something to do with that). It’s definitely a song that, if completed, could rank alongside Beautiful Player and Ooh Baby in her seduction library.

Starry Eyed

Starry Eyed is a romantic enough song, with a gentle plinking intro that leads to a rumbling, Born To Die-esque track – complete with Lana’s pretty vocals. However, it does tend to drag, a slow song that I find majorly skippable. The dragged-out choruses get tiring after a while of listening so I don’t frequently listen to this song.

Breaking My Heart

Lana is fully materialistic in this song, referencing multiple designer companies as well as her desire to be loved and party. It’s not too imaginative in its lyrics, instead pure pop with a mixture of lyrics that never quite come through with a particular meaning, but it’s a good enough bop.

Butterflies Part 1

A little love song about a tumultuous teen romance, Lana plays off the lovestruck teen ultimately in love with a guy not good for her perfectly. It’s heady and full of the rushes of love, emotive enough to get the feeling of a girl going mad from her relationship.

Ben

Lana, using the rain to her advantages, moodily comforts her executive love in the full femme fatale façade, quietly passionate. Lana, as much as she loves him, is still her own woman, insisting she will smoke if she wants and playing with her voice to showcase such control.

All Smiles

Lana puts on a happy smile as she mopes over Jimmy in this small-town, fifties-painted tale of a girl who wants a man she can’t have. She mostly hits the mark in this acoustic track and has the right foundations for a decent country ballad.

My Best Days

My Best Days is a short song of cleverly utilised trap beats, autotune and slowly layering instrumental in which Lana isn’t happy without her lover. The organ outro is gorgeous, and it’s a track that can perk you up or calm you down.

Get Drunk

Restless pace, whispered mocking and an overall darkly seductive tone – it’s unembellished and, in some ways, could play as Lana dealing with her past alcoholism (demanding whomever the song is directed to should get drunk). It’s a vibe Lana should explore more over a decade since Get Drunk and the like were made.

Let My Hair Down

A simple and spooky track, Lana has an acoustic jam session consisting of unsettled guitar, bongos and her voice. It’s rather repetitive but it’s something different that works well. It shows Lana doesn’t need too many fusses and frills on her tracks to make something captivating, much like her Sirens album.

Every Man Gets His Wish

The intro of upbeat whistling climbs into a lowkey track that goes from sensual stuttering and a sad chorus that still sounds like Lana has a smile on her face. The mood shifts along with the tune but it is altogether cohesive.

Dance For Money

As stripped as the pole dancer Lana plays, Lana gently teases and cajoles in her ode to older men, lemonade and motorcycles with little else.

Back To Tha Basics

Much like the title, this track is a little bit basic but it’s still zesty with a wonderful instrumental and some pop-inspired vocals.

Butterflies Part 2

Production isn’t perfect on this track but Lana has such promise in this song in which she compares to lured in girls to butterflies pinned to a wall, all at once melancholy, knowing and cheeky. It’s unfortunate that the lyrics are so hidden beneath the dominating instrumental, but with tweaking this stormer could be even better.

Children of the Bad Revolution

The kind of song that would be found on one of her albums, Children of the Bad Revolution is a pacy dedication to Lana’s life as a delinquent a la the 1950s starlets. It’s good but it’s not anything too impressive, instead a chilled track that is simply about being free.

Beautiful Player

Lana mopes in the track about a somewhat disliked girl (perhaps they’re all jealous of her) who is in love with one of her players, giving the feel of a villain club performer smiling with red lipstick on and black mascara staining her cheeks.

Lift Your Eyes

Lana takes control in this song, instructing her lover to lift his eyes, rise above his demons and join her in self-respect. It’s a fine alternative to her gushing and moping characters, and with machine-like music running under the song, Lana sounds stronger than ever.

Valley of the Dolls

In this compact track Lana is once again frustrated by her lover. It’s pained but pretty with her vocals once again taking the forefront.

C U L8r Alligator

Just an acapella demo, C U L8r Alligator is simply Lana’s voice with her beating a rhythm in time. However, I really do like this song. I think it would sound even better polished and complete, but for a rough demo it’s promising. The Kristijan Majic remix is the version I most listen to, which makes it sound even more eerie (and if anyone remembers the D1ETPUSSY video that went with it, you’ll get why this song doubly haunts me). It’s not Lana’s finest but it’s a song I would have loved to see developed.

In The Sun

In The Sun is so hot it burns, more heatwave than refreshing sunshine, as she scorns her ex-lover. It’s not the finest instrumental but Lana sticks her fingers up with incredulous shock that someone could betray her so. She keeps the vibe great paired with blue skies and swimming pools with the upbeat music.

Hot Hot Hot

Big Bad Wolf, a slightly different demo track, is what I favour – stripped back, sexily uneasy, the lyrics letting the vivid imagery of red skirts, red cars and devilish men shine. Yet Hot Hot Hot is a decent, if not cheesier, song too, the chanting great for singing along.

Trees

Lana and The Rich Whores strike out with this kickass band-driven track that showcases Lana’s feistier vocals strongly. The lyrics are sparse but the overall feel of Lana going nineties-rock-chick keeps me wanting more of her in this style.

Push Me Down

Rather than being like the controversial Ultraviolence, Lana keeps the ‘violence’ fun in this pacy song, demanding her bad boy treats her badly in the best way possible. With a mildly rock edge, it’s still distinctively party-Lana, reminding of a pop-ier True Love On The Side.

She’s Not Me

It isn’t particularly imaginative pop but Lana lets the guitars do the talking as she whispers her warnings to her ex-lover. Lana owns this track, and though it feels a bit amateur in comparison to her discography and some of her stronger unreleased music, it shows she would have been great even if she went for the noughties chart pop scene. Fun and punchy, it’s a song to play on repeat.

I Don’t Wanna Go

The tentative and tight intro gives me the vibe that Lana wants to avoid going home rather than simply wanting to hang out with her lover, and her pain-tinted vocals in the chorus only add to the theory. She compliments her fascinating guy throughout the verses, a little more restrained but ultimately tense in delivery, before confessing how much she wants to stay out.

St Tropez

This is a great track for dancing and a celebration of being a party girl with plenty of attention. Best played when you want to imagine yourself as the main character.

Summer of Sam

Lana has yet another song of being a cutesy bad girl, comparable to the likes of Dangerous Girl and Playground, but it’s still fairly generic, standard pop fare. Summer of Sam is still quite fun however, drenched in pop and even with a hint of rap-talking keeping the song lively.

I Talk To Jesus

Lana returns to her religious roots in a less blasphemous way (Body Electric, for example) and instead sings a sad ditty about wishing she could have her old life. Solemnly it remembers her past (as seen in her older music) where she had the trailer parks, Christmas lights and her equally holy boyfriend.

Axl Rose Husband

The imagery is rich and gorgeous, not to mention the reference to one of Lana’s idols, but Axl Rose Husband doesn’t always do it for me – despite her strained, desperate vocals that perfectly exemplify her emotion.

Ooh Baby

Sampling Sexual Healing, Lana ramps up the sex appeal as she lets the listener know how much they want her, all while keeping it a little but more upbeat than the original song.

Other Woman

Lana’s tired of being the other woman in this track, and I like the way the lyrics flesh out the story a bit more rather. However, the chorus does get a bit tiresome sometimes.

Girl That Got Away

Lana shows you exactly what you’re missing as she mopes for her ex-lover with a smile on her face, taking the reins and knowing she has something he misses in a bubble-gum pop song about being the it girl you’ll regret letting go of.

#lana del rey #lana del rey songs #lana del rey unreleased #cherry-interlude

12 notes · View notes

journen · 3 years

Note

I sort of have to ask "Obi Wan" as a character

(for science)

Oh yes, of course, for science.

(Strap in for what I’m sure are going to be several very long answers lol.)

First impression

Okay, I first watched SW in a very strange order… so I think my first impression of him was Old Ben! And I remember being confused when he died lol. But the most distinctive first impression I remember was as we were watching the Clone Wars(this was before I watched the prequels) we were a few episodes in, so I was still learning who everyone and anything were because my SW knowledge was 0, but I remember saying to my roommate during that snowy episode in season 1, “I think I like Obi-Wan Kenobi. I like how he talks!” LOL!

Then the moment that solidified him as my favourite character was from Attack of the Clones when he goes to visit Dex, and was fiddling with the little Kamino dart looking super awkward, I thought that was so funny. And I never recovered I guess lol.

Impression now

He is literally my favourite character of all time. And his story is so sad.

Favourite moment

Oh my.. there are too many. I honestly love every scene he's in… anything between him and Qui Gon, Maul, and Satine I really enjoy. I love his “Good job!” moment in AOTC, I love when he rides Boga in ROTS, and all of his fight scenes, vs Maul(and Savage too) Anakin.. all are so damn cool!

Oh, but some of my other favourite moments of his are from the books. In M&A where Obi-Wan learns about Qui Gon's invitation to the council and the argument they have afterwards is up there, as well as pretty much EVERY scene he's in in the Kenobi book, including his meditations. They are all so emotional. But I’m just gonna leave it as that because if I write more this answer is gonna be double the length lol.

Idea for a story

I also have so many! I keep a google doc where I write out all my story ideas(needless to say, it is very long) and I’ll pick a few I’m not too shy to share lol.

-A story about young Anakin(in the v early ages of his Jedi training) and Obi getting stranded on a planet with no ships or communication devices. They go through many struggles to get back to safety, but ultimately learn more about each other how to work together.

-On Tatooine, there is an event where kid Luke gets stranded alone in danger, and Obi-Wan comes to the rescue, and it’s the first time he’s really seen Luke up close in a long time bc Owen doesn’t let him near, and poor Luke was so scared he runs and gives Obi-Wan a big hug and is crying :(

I also have many AU ideas I’m working through, like what if Satine(and Korkie) survived and joined Obi-Wan on Tatooine, what if Anakin told Obi-Wan about his feelings towards Padmé and if that would have changed anything… As well as many ideas for what could have happened during Qui Gon, Satine and Obi's year on Mandalore.

Unpopular opinion

I don’t know if I have a real unpopular one! Maybe, and I don’t think this is really that controversial, is that to me he has one of if not the saddest story of all the Star Wars characters. He goes through so much tragedy and pain, but maybe the saddest part is that he always remains good throughout all of it.

Favourite relationship

Obi-Wan and Satine! Nothing even comes close. I’m usually not big on romances(normally because I think they aren’t done well) but this one is everything I could have wanted. I just wish in a way it didn’t end so tragically, but if it did then we wouldn’t have the story we do in the movies would we. Lol.

Favourite headcanon

Omg, again, there are so many. I’ve seen some people write Obi-Wan getting really painful periodic migraines and I kinda liked that idea, as well as that he barely gets any sleep because he’s always working so hard(but I think the fandom has pretty much made that one canon lol).

One head-canon idea I had is that he was bullied a lot when he was young. He was kind of small, and so some of the meaner kids underestimated/targeted him. :( This led him to develop some of his aggressive tendencies, which he eventually grew out of of course under Qui-Gon’s tutelage, but I liked the idea that maybe Anakin, once he was a knight, somehow found out from one of Obi's old friends that he used to be bullied a lot(because Obi Wan often keeps his past a secret) and was like… “What…Obi-Wan?? How? That doesn’t make any sense??” Lol.

Wow, I swear I tried to keep this shorter LOL! RIP me. 😭 Thank you though for the ask, my friend!!

Character ask post is here 😊

#IM SO SORRY I WROTE SO MUCH #it’s an awful habit but I always have so many thoughts and don’t know how to express them in fewer words lol #obi wan kenobi #text post #journen speaks #ask #Star Wars #headcanon #headcanons #story ideas #starwarsite

10 notes · View notes

ingek73 · 3 years

Text

UK republicans take heart from royals’ recent travails

Campaign group Republic believes bad headlines are increasing support for abolition of monarchy

Ben Quinn

Published: 17:34 Sunday, 29 August 2021

It has been another run of weeks in which the royal family’s open sores have been publicised around the world.

Prince Andrew was confirmed to be a “person of interest” in a new US investigation into the disgraced late financier Jeffrey Epstein. Days later, it transpired that a new epilogue of a biography of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex states the pair believe the royal family did not take accountability for the concerns raised in their interview with Oprah Winfrey.

Separately, an unwelcome development of a different kind for the royals came on Sunday when a charity founded by Prince Charles said it was launching an ethics investigation into claims of “cash for access” – the allegation that middlemen were taking payments for setting up dinner between wealthy donors and the future king.

It is a backdrop that leaves those making the often lonely case for a republic in the UK convinced they are quietly making headway, not only by claiming a recent increase in formal support but also by the reaction to a publicity campaign designed to get people talking about their cause.

A set of billboards rolled out by the campaign group Republic is unprecedentedly stark in calling for the abolition of the monarchy.

And it has achieved one of its desired goals – provoking a reaction – even if that includes at least one being vandalised. New billboards, including one depicting Andrew as “Wanted”, are set to go up in the near future.

But while royal controversies continue to indirectly aid the cause, lesser-appreciated and perhaps counterintuitive factors are also driving newer recruits into the republican fold, not least the television juggernaut The Crown.

Richard Crane, 23, a PhD student at York University who joined Republic two months ago, credits the series with beginning his journey from being a “half-monarchist” to somebody actively supporting the institution’s abolition.

“It prompted me to do a bit more research about what their role is, and what systems are in place in other countries such as India and Ireland, which made me realise a lot of things,” he said.

Another who joined in the past year, Henry Beach, a conservative-leaning 29-year-old Londoner working in marketing, is an example of the campaign reaching further than left-of-centre silos, despite it remaining small.

“My interest actually kicked during the purchase of the flat where I live with my girlfriend,” he said.

“It’s under leasehold and there’s a freeholder above that, which I find quite wrong. It really sparked the idea that we are still living in a feudalistic system and all that flows from that.”

Republic’s CEO, Graham Smith, expresses satisfaction with the impact of the latest campaign and claims the winds are beginning to change. And he credits the furore around Prince Harry and Meghan as one trigger.

“It’s dividing opinion again. I think there are a lot of people who are sympathetic to them and lot of people who really wish they would go away,” he said.

“But I think a lot of people were pretty shocked by the allegations of racism, towards Meghan’s health for example.”

Smith said Republic’s main focus remains on preparing for the opportunity around the royal succession. He said a potentially much less popular King Charles presents a headache for those seeking to preserve the monarchy.

“I don’t think a constitutional crisis will be inevitable, but I think it is a very serious problem,” he said. “We feel he will find it very difficult to keep his mouth closed and to say nothing on issues that matter to him. I think he has a kind of messianic complex way, he feels he is here to save us from ourselves.”

Polling consistently underlines the popularity of the monarchy in the UK. Three in five Britons (61%) still support the monarchy, according to YouGov polling in May, a small fall on the previous year. However, the same polling found that 41% of 18- to 24-year-olds say Britain should have an elected head of state, while 31% continue to support the monarchy.

Malcolm Turnbull, the former Australian prime minister who led his country’s Republican movement in a failed 1999 poll, stresses this is a key moment on the other side of the world, too.

“The Queen’s death or abdication will be a historic watershed, and we just can’t be sure what attitudes will be on the other side,” he told the Guardian.

“In the United Kingdom the argument has to be an egalitarian one. In a modern democracy, republicans will argue, every office should be open to every citizen. Why is the taxpayer spending a fortune to keep one family in such incredible grandeur?”

He added: “In the UK I think it’s a harder sell but the message in Australia is still the same and I think that the view in London, among most people and certainly in and around the royal family, is amazement that Australia isn’t a republic already.”

Turnbull is also confident that the aura around a new generation of royals will not be enough to save the monarchy in any future poll in Australia.

“There are a lot of people that think there’s just such enthusiasm for the younger royals and that will overwhelm it, but I think that is confusing enthusiasm for celebrity with something else entirely,” he said.

“The Americans are great fans of royal gossip and the glamour that comes with it, but they are not about to become a member of the British Commonwealth.”

#royals #prince harry #meghan markle #prince andrew #prince charles #queen elizabeth ii #brf #british royal family #anti monarchy #the guardian #abolish the monarchy

5 notes · View notes

ins0mnia-an0nym0us-au · 4 years

Text

my thoughts on The Umbrella Academy S2 [spoilers ahead]

so putting all my thoughts down was really hard. i decided to do it per character instead of like per appearance/episode - sorry if this is kinda hard to follow. this is also VERY LONG... hence the keep reading but here is a small taste -

he really overestimates his ability to time-travel

she told those men that she blew their mind + their heads literally blew up - mine about did too

FIVE

he really overestimates his ability to time-travel

k - he really needs to learn to TALK to his siblings more

but also he needs to work on his talking skills...

seeing five just mass murder people is highly amusing because he’s in the body of a 13yr old

also but how soft five was with vanya - i cry

i wanted a mention of dolores but alas only klaus remembered

though i did enjoy the continued coffee obsession - even if it was subtle

ALLISON

she told those men that she blew those their mind + their heads literally blew up - mine about did too

the second she walked into that diner - i was pAniCKing

the way those women were READY to throw down when allison ran into their shop - we stan them all (one of them was wielding a piping hot curling iron)

her husband ray is the sweetest of men + just what she needed before having to go back to twentieth century/glamour

i really liked the way they showed the consequences of allison using her powers - how she quickly slips back into bad habits. how it makes her into someone she doesn’t like

i’m really glad they didn’t forget claire - i was gonna be mad if she wasn’t mentioned

LUTHER

i stan luther hargreeves + i run the luther hargreeves protection squad cuz all of you are meanies who like to blame him for everything when in reality the real problem is their father

controversial opinion that i will be making a much larger post on but i ship allison x luther - they aren’t biologically related, they were only raised as siblings, there is 0% wrong with them falling in love

luther didn’t bother me in s1 like he did all y’all but that’s cause i’m mature enough to realize all of the siblings are fucked up - so the fact they made him more likeable this season is so nice. maybe ya’ll will take a chill pill on your luther hate-train

it was very interesting seeing luther so apathetic for the first bit of the season, when he had such a hero-complex last season

listen his talk with vanya in the barn was amazing - some people might be upset about the gun but the last time any of them saw her she had just blown up the fucking moon mkay?

he apologized for failing as a brother

for not being there

and he even said he didn’t care if vanya was bullshitting him

last thing - luther underestimating his self-importance now because of how he overestimated his self-importance in s1. i love that psychological circle

DIEGO

him being in the nuthouse makes perfect sense - i won’t lie

his role-reversal with luther this season was so *chef’s kiss*

TEAM ZERO *gives diego the fist-bump he deserved*

the moment lila slapped him when he leaned in for a kiss was the funniest shit ever - ‘i don’t understand you’ - then she kisses him - i was cackling

she gave him so much shit + i love that about her

when reginald yelled at him + it made his stutter come back for the fist time since he was a kid - FEELINGS

so in that last battle when diego redirected those bullets - that’s a power of his in the comics isn’t it? or is that just his power? projectile redirection? cause that was a confusing ass way to introduce that. just saying

him interacting with grace this season was like... hard cuz it’s not really her

KLAUS

the fact he made a cult is just so... klaus

he very much so looks like a hippie jesus

i’m kinda glad they showed him relapse because in a lot of media once someone gets clean it’s all butterflies + roses + unicorns out the ass. in reality - relapses happen

the family still isn’t very nice to klaus but we can work on that - they are better than before. it’s a work in progress

klaus trying to stop dave from dying but instead moving up his enlistment date

that diner scene made me hurt

BEN

the fact he is so over getting klaus out of things - I'M So tIrED oF YouR shIt Klaus

WE GOT KLAUS’S LEVITATING ABILITY BUT IT WAS JUST BEN AND I LOVE THIS ADLGFJGKLSDFJG

when the two of them were just fighting on the side of the road - i cackled

ben being the one to talk vanya down? what we deserved

‘hug me while i go’ - i cry

THE ENDING WITH BEN BEING THAT LITTLE SHIT HEEL BUT ALIVE

i can’t wait for jackass alive ben next season

VANYA

poor girl is awake for a whole ass 5 seconds before getting hit by a car

i really thought vanya was pretending to have amnesia

may i say that s1 vanya dressed far too gay to be heterosexual + s2 vanya did not disappoint

as a gay i appreciate the fact the writers heard all of us saying vanya is 100% gay + being like ‘ok sure’

it makes me kinda sad how happy vanya was with no memories vs s1

her connection with harlan was just so - amazing

also, i think harlan always had powers + that’s why vanya was able to pull a moses at the lake + jesus harlan back to life

i liked sissy. i also liked how she gave us a glimpse into a very realistic thing that used to happen to women who loved women. they would marry men because it was the norm. they’d also have affairs.

and her choice to stay was one made by a good mother - she was putting harlan first. every good mom puts their child first. even if they so desperately want to be selfish.

in good news - vanya now knows she likes vagina!

the fact they legit used LSD on vanya while she was being electrocuted was A LOT

seeing inside vanya’s mind was super interesting - especially when she remembered + how she was trapped inside the white violin

she wanted to die - let’s all take that in for a second

she ASKED for her siblings help + they didn’t disappoint for ONCE

her POWER at the farm... she leveled an ARMY

MISC.

i stan herb + elliot

the handler is super conniving - i wasn’t expecting to dislike her this much

ngl i was rooting for fish-man

lila had me convinced she was crazy the first half ngl - also i guessed she was one of their lost siblings when she first fought five

the three swedes weren’t as fun as hazel + cha-cha but still decent

reginald continues to be #worstDadever

anyone else a little confused why he peeled his face off? s1 flashback he was in human form on his home-planet but apparently it’s a mask???

we saw the original grace!!! she was just as perfect as the robot version too!

BABY POGO IN HIS LITTLE JAMMIES MADE ME WANT TO SNUGGLE HIM SO BADLY - that is all

#the umbrella academy #the umbrella academy season 2 #spoilers #the umbrella academy spoilers #tua #tua2 spoilers #tua spoilers #vanya hargreeves #ben hargreeves #diego hargreeves #luther hargreeves #allison hargreeves #five hargreeves #klaus hargreeves #reginald hargreeves #baby pogo #grace #hazel #cha-cha

119 notes · View notes

auty-ren · 3 years

Note

Personally, nobody should lose their livelihoods based on their personal opinions reflected on social media posts. Its reminiscent of blacklisting and China's 'cultural revolution'. You don't like the person? Fair enough. But there's sides to every story; and there's the truth. Social media is nice, but can create an emotional disconnect between each other. Hence why it feels like such a toxic environment. Why I don't use twitter, Instagram & facebook. Yeah, I'm old-fashioned.

Adding on to my previous post, its why I try to remain skeptical whenever I hear drama about 'something' (I.e. Pedro quitting the Mandalorian because of the helmet). How do I know its one-hundred percent true? Or how do I truly know how this person feels based off this minor post? I was tempted to go on Twitter to see for myself, but I'll wait for more details to unfold. Its not worth the overhaul of emotions when my life's right in front of me.

Remaining skeptical is a good thing with any form of informative media. You should always read several articles or newscasts outlining details so you can be informed of all aspects of the situation.

However, I think this whole G*na thing is pretty open and shut if you ask me.

She admits to saying and believing all the controversy she's posted on her social media. This isn't a they said-she said. G*na knew what she was saying, and she refused to apologize for it so she got fired.

I also read today she's supposed to be producing and staring in a documentary for 'The Daily Wire' (a conservative news outlet co-founded by Ben Shapiro) and here's what she had to say:

“I am sending out a direct message of hope to everyone living in fear of cancellation by the totalitarian mob. I have only just begun using my voice which is now freer than ever before, and I hope it inspires others to do the same. They can’t cancel us if we don’t let them.”

G*na is not sorry, she actually finds this firing and publicity as a god send because now she can use her voice 'freer than ever before.'

Don't get me wrong, that is her right, even if I don't agree with a word she says. But it doesn't protect her from being fired for making distasteful and downright harmful statements that she refused to apologize for, under the guise of conservatism.

This is also not one-sided coming from Disney. They made Pedro delete posts he made calling Trump supporters loosers after the results of the election were decided.

The difference? Pedro listened, deleted the posts, publicly apologized, and has yet to exhibit any other kind of behavior that would warrant Disney calling him out.

G*na didn't listen, she didn't care. She basically fucked around and found out. And now she's dealing with the consequences.

#i really don't think there's a grey area here #ask me anything

15 notes · View notes

piccolina-mina · 4 years

Text

I have very mixed feelings about the sudden policing of shows and movies for casting “teen” romantic leads whose actors have an age difference. Whether you like it or not, this is how Hollywood works.

Yes, adults are usually cast to play teens to get around working hours, child labor laws and schooling. Yeah, there is something to say about the disproportionate casting of mostly older guys as teens when casting actual teens as female leads.

And yeah, in the past 40 years of film and television some of it has been downright disturbing, but there’s the almost irksome tone policing that’s happening now where we’re hyper-critical of works where romantic leads have real life age differences between actors, even when the actors are both legal, and even when the characters they’re playing don’t have an age gap.

And people being told they can’t promote or enjoy a work’s in canon love story because of the age difference between the actors portraying the characters. And even comparing or accusing shows who happen to have this type of casting and who have a love story as essentially peddling kiddie/philia, and I just cannot … I can’t. Sorry. No.

Things aren’t taken into consideration such as typically an entire story may be written before casting even happens. Sometimes casting the right person for the role will include someone who isn’t the same age as the character. This is how the acting field functions, and within reason, this is something that all actors, including the young ones and their parents are aware of etc.

I do find it interesting and have noticed an unfortunate pattern that folks are particularly critical of this when it comes to young actors of color as romantic leads, and it doesn’t sit well. Because while the concerns are valid and shouldn’t be discounted, only being this consistently vocal about it to the point of policing fandom and chastising and discouraging fans from daring to enjoy a ship between the CHARACTERS … there’s a lot to unpack there too.

I’ve seen this recently with Never Have I Ever. Maitreyi Ramakrishen is 18, and Darren Barnet is 29. Yeah, no lie, it is hella weird even within the context of the show because of Devi actively seeking out a physical relationship and also Darren LOOKS like a 30 year old man.

I saw it with The Sun is Also a Star with Yara Shahidi and Charles Melton who are like a decade apart in age. But was something I didn’t notice while watching at least.

But I’m also seeing this with Julie and the Phantoms. The show could not get more wholesome and chaste. The romance between Julie and Luke is innocent pining, but folks are still super worked up about Madison being 16 and Charles being 21, and you would think the characters got it on with no clothes in the backseat of a Volvo or something. And I’m just trying to understand what the guidelines are now.

Because there are DEFINITELY some fkd up and problematic age gaps. Brooke Shields’ mother basically p*mped her daughter out doing films like Pretty Baby. It’s grotesque and should be criminal. She was 14 doing s*x scenes. Simonetta Stefanell was 16 doing them and playing Al Pacino’s wife in The Godfather. Kristen Stewart, Drew Barrymore, Jennifer Lawrence, Dakota Fanning (ironically with Stewart) and more have definitely been in some questionable roles doing questionable things with questionable age differences.

But then, specifically teen stuff we’ve collectively enjoyed is open to critique, no doubt, but it’s also not dissected the same way or has the same expectations? And I don’t know.

No one batted an eye over 19 year old Tyler Posey paired with 26 year old Crystal Reed, and it definitely didn’t discourage anyone from enjoying their ship…

Trina Mcgee was 28 when she started playing Angela Moore on Boy Meets World and was even expecting at some point, and Rider was 17, but we weren’t discouraged from enjoying Shawngela (because of that anyway 😒).

Mila Kunis was 15 on That 70s Show with a 20 year old Ashton Kutcher.

Selena Gomez was 16 and Drew Seeley was 26 in Another Cinderella Story.

Andrea in the original BH90210 was in her 30s.

Taylor Momsen was 13 on Gossip Girl (still weird AF casting choice honestly) With 19 and 22 year olds over time.

Claire Danes was 14 to Leonardo Dicaprio’s 22 in Romeo and Juliet. And to 21 year old Jared Leto (which eww) in My So Called Life.

Lyndsy Fonseca was 14 with a 25 year old costar playing teen love interest on Y&R

Peyton Kennedy was like 15 with Sydney Sweeney being 22 years old in Everything S*cks.

Mischa Barton was 17 The O. C. with 24 year old Ben Mckenzie.

And Sasha Pieterse was 14 made out with 23 year old Shay Mitchell in PLL.

Cobra Kai, which is two seasons in now, has a love triangle between Sam, Mary Mouser who is 24, Diego, Xolo who is 19, and Tanner Buchanan who is 21.

I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t feel some kind of way about some casting choices or aren’t entitled to feel a certain way about this. I’m not even arguing that Hollywood doesn’t have an issue here because they clearly do as evidenced by examples above.

But I’m just genuinely trying to understand where we’re expected to be as consumers and fans of fictional works, characters, and relationships (again, within reason) if we’re not allowed (by public opinion and fandom space) to enjoy the fictional stories and relationships, romantic or otherwise because of casting choices…

Because I’ll admit, Devi and Paxton on Never Have I Ever was distracting as hell because Darren has like crow’s feet and everything and doesn’t pass as a teenager even by the absurd tv standards, so I couldn’t get into the pairing.

But I’ve been a diehard Shawngela fan for years, and that age gap between the actors didn’t deter me back then and it still doesn’t now.

And imagine my surprise when I bingewatched one of the most wholesome shows of this godforsaken year only to discover it’s now wrong to enjoy two adorable teens singing to each other lovingly and hugging because apparently there’s a five year age gap between the actors playing them and therefore it’s problematic to like the fictional pairing.

Like, I guess this is controversial, but Tumblr, I’m tired.

#julie and the phantoms #never have i ever #but let me hush...

56 notes · View notes