#like light and dark in a frame foreshadowing the morality of people in that position in the next frame and the like

[creature-once-removed]

.

[dweemeister]

Oklahoma! (1955)

Composer Richard Rodgers was in search of a new songwriting partner in the early 1940s. His previous partner, the lyricist Lorenz Hart, was devolving into an alcoholism that would soon claim his life. Wanting to transform Lynn Riggs’ rustic play Green Grow the Lilacs into a musical, Rodgers would find a new lyricist in Oscar Hammerstein II, who had not been involved in any Broadway successes for some time. Rodgers and Hammerstein’s 1943 adaptation of Rigg’s play was Oklahoma! and – despite widespread predictions that Broadway audiences would only flock to modern, urbane works – it became the longest-running Broadway musical for another dozen or so years. It began one of the most fruitful, important, and accomplished musical theater partnerships in the medium’s history.

Interest in a cinematic treatment from Hollywood’s major studios for the first Rodgers and Hammerstein musical came almost immediately after the initial reviews for Oklahoma!, but the rights went not to a movie studio, but a film equipment start-up known as the Magna Theatre Corporation. Magna’s owners intended Oklahoma! as a test for the Todd-AO widescreen process (a rival to Cinerama), but more on that and the film’s unique distribution history – which involves RKO and 20th Century Fox – later. Most importantly, the lack of studio executives to appease meant that Rodgers and Hammerstein could have full control over the film’s structure and musical/narrative changes for this adaptation. Directed by Fred Zinnemann (1952’s High Noon, 1953’s From Here to Eternity) – an unorthodox choice, given his expertise for morally complex dramas and no musical experience – 1955’s Oklahoma! is a harbinger for the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical films to come, and an inextricable part of the duo’s legacy.

Somewhere in the Oklahoman countryside, amid corn as high as an elephant’s eye, is the clean-cut cowboy Curly McLain (Gordon MacRae). Curly is en route to the farmstead of his crush, Laurey Williams (Shirley Jones in her cinematic debut), and Laurey’s aunt, Aunt Eller (Charlotte Greenwood). There, Curly invites Laurey to the box social scheduled for later that evening. Annoyed that it took him this long to ask her out, Laurey decides instead to go the box social with the Williams’ antisocial and intimidating farmhand, Jud Fry (Rod Steiger). Elsewhere at the train station, another cowboy, Will Parker (Gene Nelson) might be singing about how much he was entranced by Kansas City, but he is searching for his sweetheart, Ado Annie (Gloria Grahame) – herself entranced by traveling salesman Ali Hakim (Eddie Albert in brownface).

No members of the original Broadway cast reprised their roles for this film, which also stars Barbara Lawrence and character actors James Whitmore, Jay C. Flippen, and Roy Barcroft.

As Curly, MacRae is like a Broadway stage version of the characters Gene Autry or Roy Rogers might have played in another decade. MacRae, who started his career as a Broadway and radio singer, had just run down the end of his contract with Warner Bros. (signed in 1947) when he appeared in Oklahoma!. At Warners, he starred in a number of musicals including Look for the Silver Lining (1949) and opposite Doris Day in On Moonlight Bay (1951), but he had only starred in a film adaptation of stage musical once before. MacRae, despite a long hiatus from the Broadway stage, is a natural here: charming and exuding a natural chemistry with co-star Shirley Jones. This exterior, however, is not without malice – as seen in the scene where Curly tries to influence Jud to commit self-harm. Cut from the same baritone cloth like contemporary Howard Keel (Frank Butler in 1950’s Annie Get Your Gun, Adam Pontipee in 1954’s Seven Brides for Seven Brothers), MacRae never achieved the popularity that other stage-to-screen musical stars of the ‘30s and ‘40s did (and, of course, Julie Andrews much later on).

The film’s surprise package for audiences in 1955 was in Shirley Jones. Jones, rather than subjecting herself to a vetting process by a director, casting director, or studio executives, was hand-picked by Rodgers and Hammerstein. Stunned by her 1953 audition for the premiere of South Pacific but wanting more experience for the then-nineteen-year-old, the songwriting duo kept Jones in mind for future productions and signed her on a contract (Jones was the first and only singer to be contracted to Rodgers and Hammerstein). With a few years of Broadway productions under her belt, Jones still came to Oklahoma! lacking an understanding on how to tailor sharper emotions to a film camera. With Fred Zinnemann’s assistance, she navigates Laurey’s light romantic comedy scenes and tumultuous friendship (if one can call it that) with Jud maturely – one could scarcely believe this is her cinematic debut. For Laurey, she accentuates the character’s naïveté, especially in respect to how she acts around men and romantic idealizations, without feeling grating or overacting (a common problem when approaching characters without much life experience) the part. Jones’ excellence in Oklahoma! would land her the lead in Carousel (1956), with other Hollywood hits in Elmer Gantry (1960) and The Music Man (1962) to follow.

As their artistic collaboration progressed, Rodgers and Hammerstein did not shy away from asking heavier questions in their musicals. Their first two projects, Oklahoma! and the musical film State Fair (1945) are relatively airy, flighty compared to their successors – the darkness of morality in Carousel, the racist beliefs of the lead character in South Pacific. Foreshadowing that later drama in successive musicals is the misanthropic (not just misogynistic) character of Jud Fry. Played by Rod Steiger, Jud is a villain without any redeeming qualities in the original musical. Steiger’s Jud remains a reprehensible character, but Steiger – as have most other actors who have played Jud in on stage in the decades since – positions Jud as more of a loner whose social ineptitude results in an unchecked covetousness over Laurey. To some reading that last sentence, that distinction between portrayals of Jud may not make any meaningful difference in one’s negative opinions about the character and his actions. Yet, Steiger’s portrayal of Jud – as sloppy, maladjusted, knowing little else about life other than farm work – is nevertheless a refinement on the character Rodgers and Hammerstein originally did not give much thought to.

Zinnemann’s dramatic tendencies needed moderation, as they sometimes threated to overshadow the musical features. Although, to Zinnemann’s credit, as a dramatist first, he imbues Oklahoma! with a dramatic fervor that came to define all Rodgers and Hammerstein musical film versions after it – something that one never received from the somewhat assembly line-like musical from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) and Fox. Oklahoma! was Zinnemann’s first widescreen film, as well as the first time he shot in color.  The emotional intensity of his earlier movies would be antithetical to the sweeping rural cinematography that he and cinematographer Robert Surtees (1959’s Ben-Hur, 1971’s The Last Picture Show) and Floyd Crosby (1931’s Tabu: A Story of the South Seas, 1960’s House of Usher) needed to capture. Zinnemann, Surtees, and Crosby offer sumptuous images of the Arizona countryside (Oklahoma’s oil wells proved too plentiful and distracting for the production) and the inviting blue sky that overhangs the cornfields sweeping across the land. With widescreen cameras rather new around 1955, the cameras wisely stay further back in interior scenes (shot at MGM’s studios in Culver City, California) with numerous people, directing our gaze centrally with brilliant blocking from the actors. The staging nevertheless feels like a stagebound musical during some interior scenes, like a lower-budget MGM musical with a trivial plot.

The widescreen cinematography, of course, was purposefully a showcase – see the shots of Gene Nelson spinning his rope directly towards the camera in “Kansas City” and the shot of an overly-excited auctioneer hammering their gavel and having the gavel nearly break the camera in another. Magna Theatre Corporation intended Oklahoma! to be a demonstration of their new Todd-AO 70mm process, in hopes of competing against Cinerama (which used three synchronized projectors at once on a curved screen). Because some theaters could not support the widescreen prints, two different versions of Oklahoma! exist: one in Todd-AO and another in CinemaScope (the latter a 20th Century Fox invention). This review is based on the Todd-AO print – which I recommend over the CinemaScope print – that currently is streaming on Disney+. Another note about the Todd-AO print: the first two films shot on Todd-AO 70mm – Oklahoma! and Around the World in Eighty Days (1956) – were shot in 30 frames per second (FPS) rather than the standard twenty-four. Thus, the Todd-AO print will appear slightly smoother in motion than most all other films, including modern ones.

Why 30 FPS for film screenings in 1955? Higher frames per second result in less noticeable light flickering and more dynamic colors (these effects for movies shot at higher FPS rates only apply to films shot on film stock, not digital). However, film projectors with a Todd-AO print would run hotter, requiring simultaneous cooling of the film while it ran through the projector. All subsequent films shot on Todd-AO reverted to the standard twenty-four frames per second.

Diehard musical fans often consider Fred Zinnemann’s Oklahoma! the most faithful – narratively, musically – of all the Rodgers and Hammerstein film adaptations. Deleted from Oklahoma! are two songs: Ali Hakim’s chauvinistic “It’s a Scandal, It’s a Outrage! [sic]” and Jud’s brooding “Lonely Room”. The former has among the least musical interest in the entire musical, but “Lonely Room” might have been a helpful source of characterization of Steiger’s Jud (the limited vocal range required for the song would suit Steiger). Otherwise, some of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s most iconic songs are present, starting with “Oh, What a Beautiful Mornin’”. Sung solo by MacRae on horseback (as opposed to being sung completely offstage in the original stage version), it serves the same purpose as the title song from The Sound of Music (1965) does. It establishes Curly’s character (mostly), and establishing the vast environs where the film takes place. The atmospheric opening shot of the camera moving through the corn and opening up into a grassy landscape might seem corny inane, but what a visual message it sends for one of the early widescreen American movies. Curly’s solo leads into “The Surrey with the Fringe on Top”, as he attempts to woo Laurey into accompanying him to the box social. A brief visual aside to allow viewers who do not know what a surrey looks like is a touch that a stage musical cannot provide, but this song – along with my choice of the best song in the musical, “People Will Say We’re in Love” (which gives MacRae and Jones a lovely duet with the production’s most romantic melodies) – exemplifies the rapport between MacRae and Jones and their two characters.

There remains charm aplenty across the musical score. Gene Nelson’s rendition of “Kansas City” is by no means essential to the plot of Oklahoma!, but it is a diverting number with some fancy footwork by not only Nelson (essentially the film’s comic relief and using a perfect, non-jarring voice for such a role), but Charlotte Greenwood and the scene’s extras as well. And then, arriving late, there is also the lively title song, delivered by MacRae with a similar energy as he employs for “Oh, What a Beautiful Mornin’”. “Oklahoma” became the official state song for Oklahoma in 1953, replacing a lesser-known song, “Oklahoma – A Toast”. Credit must also go to the extras and chorus for spearheading the song for its second half, as well as Robert Russell Bennett for his gorgeous (and definitive) vocal arrangement.

As its theatrical release drew near, details of the distribution of Oklahoma! would depend on which print a theater received. If a movie theater screened the Todd-AO 70mm print, Magna handled the distribution; if they showed the anamorphic CinemaScope 35mm print, the responsibility fell to RKO. RKO – the studio that gave audiences King Kong (1933), Citizen Kane (1942), and distributed all Disney movies until Rob Roy: The Highland Rogue (1954) – had fallen into turmoil by the mid-1950s and, by decade’s end, would be the first of the Big Five Hollywood studios to cease operations. The studio’s tyrannical owner, the eccentric Howard Hughes, disemboweled the studio from the inside out, and is a story for another day. Due to Hughes’ mismanagement, RKO withdrew from distribution and, in their place, came 20th Century Fox. Todd-AO and Fox shared theatrical and home media rights until Fox’s purchase by Disney in 2019; Todd-AO and Disney retain the split-ownership arrangement over Oklahoma!.

Though Oklahoma! is not usually part of most cinephiles’ and musical nerds’ pantheons of great Hollywood musicals, its contributions to the subsequent Rodgers and Hammerstein film adaptations are unmistakable. The duo’s closeness to numerous parts of the film’s production, the stunning widescreen cinematography, and the casting of actors with proven musical ability are hallmarks to be replicated, even in lesser adaptation such as South Pacific (1958) and Flower Drum Song (1961). For Rodgers and Hammerstein, they were so pleased from working with Fox that they continued to provide the rights to their musicals for all of their works’ adaptations with the exception of Flower Drum Song (which went to Universal). Like their work on Broadway, their best music and best movie adaptations of their musicals was yet to arrive. Oklahoma! marks a solid, healthy start to that run of adaptations, a hallmark of mid-century American moviemaking.

My rating: 7.5/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found in the “Ratings system” page on my blog (as of July 1, 2020, tumblr is not permitting certain posts with links to appear on tag pages, so I cannot provide the URL).

For more of my reviews tagged “My Movie Odyssey”, check out the tag of the same name on my blog.

[bloodraven55]

The Potential of Glimmer's Villain Arc

Okay so a lot of people have been theorising about what's coming next for Glimmer's character with everything that's happened in Season 3. And I have plenty of thoughts of my own so this is going to be my longest analysis post in a while. I'll put it under a cut for ease of reading, and I hope y'all enjoy!

So as an introduction let's briefly look at where Glimmer is now. She's getting ever closer to Shadow Weaver, and we all know how well that ended for her father, plus the loss of Angella is undoubtedly going to be hugely traumatic for her, especially because as she herself says she assumed that Angella would always be there since she was immortal.

Angella is gone, Adora is going to be under a whole lot of mental strain of her own due to the revelations she's had about her past and the pain of having lost both Catra and Angella for good as far as she's concerned, the rest of the Princess Alliance aren't exactly around a whole lot at Bright Moon, and it doesn't look like Shadow Weaver is going anywhere any time soon as long as there's power to be had and the Rebellion is where she can best work towards her own goals.

What I'm saying is, Glimmer likely isn't going to have much of a support system except for Bow next Season, and she's in a prime position for Shadow Weaver to employ similar manipulation tactics and methods of abuse on her as she did on Catra and Adora. Glimmer has no real experience with that type of abuse and manipulation, or any real frame of reference to understand the more nuanced form of evil that Shadow Weaver represents, and so she probably won't realise that she's being played and pushed down a darker path until it's too late.

So with that basis established let's look at some of the other signs that seem to point towards an arc of this sort for Glimmer.

One very significant thing is some of the cinematography in Moment of Truth.

First Glimmer is positioned directly in front of the image of her father in this shot, showing us that she's figuratively as well as literally taking the same position as Micah with regards to becoming Shadow Weaver's pupil. Note that she’s standing in darkness rather than in the light in this frame as well, because that’s going to be important going forward.

It’s also very telling that this shot comes right after Glimmer argues with her mother about the best course of action and first suggests accepting Shadow Weaver’s help. The visual symbolism of her replacing her father on screen reflects her taking the first step towards filling the same role as him in the story as well.

Then we have Glimmer flat out stepping from the light into the darkness as she decides to perform the spell with Shadow Weaver. Which is extremely Not Subtle.

Plus the angle of the following shot making Shadow Weaver's outstretched hand look bigger and more striking to highlight the threat that the offer poses.

And finally there's the way that the scene where they actually do the spell is framed. Shadow Weaver's hand extends through the circle, like a barrier is being crossed metaphorically, and again it fills the screen to make it seem threatening and imposing.

Meanwhile when we get the reverse shot, which I might add is clearly meant to actually be from Shadow Weaver's perspective, Glimmer looks very small and very young, an uncertain and far less powerful figure ripe to be taken advantage of.

There is no way that the tone of this scene was accidental. Without any dialogue being exchanged it's telling us that Glimmer is going to suffer for this choice---it's telling us to be worried---and it's honestly a masterful piece of television.

Another aspect that isn't hugely noticeable on first watching is the undercurrent running through the show of Glimmer's desire for power. She's not obsessively power hungry the way Shadow Weaver is, that's for sure, but she does often demonstrate annoyance at her own limitations.

"Glimmer is frustrated by the constraints of her magic, by the constraints of being a princess, the daughter, of this immortal queen — her mother is this kind of immortal, untouchable angel and her father was the best sorcerer that Mystacor has ever seen. And she’s in the shadow of that." (x)

This quote from a recent interview with Noelle Stevenson pretty much spells it out, and I don't think I need to mention the importance of the use of the word "shadow" here.

With all of that covered, I want to move on to something I haven't seen talked about as much, which is the ways that Glimmer and Catra are paralleled in the story.

"In some ways I think [Glimmer]’s a little bit of a mirror to Catra, although neither of them would ever admit it."

I find this quote from the same interview incredibly intriguing, and it gives me lots of ideas about not only the potential development that a villain arc for Glimmer could bring to her own character, but also the development it could bring in terms of her and Catra as foils for each other in the narrative.

For a start, Noelle then goes on to talk about how "it’s always been this kind of like losing battle for [Glimmer]" and I would like to point out the resemblance to Catra's lines about how she "never gets to win" and "if [she] wins a battle [she] loses the war", because this really does seem to foreshadow that Glimmer could end up in a similar place next season to where Catra was at the end of Season 3.

"So when someone comes to her and offers her more power and the ability to actually really save the day and prove her worth, she takes it. Glimmer’s also sorta crossed the line in the sand this season."

This part of the interview I want to bring up just to further prove that the way these things were written this season was certainly deliberate and it isn't reaching to draw these conclusions from them. It's apparent that the writers are very aware of what they're doing in terms of Glimmer and Catra's character arcs and the possible link between the two so I simply wanted to include this quote to give my analysis here a more solid grounding.

The one thing I'd like to pick out of that as well is the idea that Glimmer is looking to "prove her worth", which is something that has been the core of Catra's decision making throughout most of the show so far. In the past it was Catra making bad choices in an attempt to get respect and admiration from Shadow Weaver, and now I believe it will be Glimmer's turn to do the same.

But beyond that, I want to wind the clock back to the beginning of Season 3 for a moment, specifically to when Glimmer asserts that "evil people don't change." Adora is quick to point out that that is an extremely reductive mindset to have and far from always the case, though she does so by applying it to completely the wrong target in the form of Shadow Weaver who is almost certainly not going to be redeemed in any way, but that got me thinking about how Glimmer flirting with her inner darkness could be utilised in the story in exceedingly interesting ways.

The most obvious path is that through having to redeem herself for bad decisions that she made for understandable reasons, Glimmer would come to realise that things aren't as black and white as people being good and evil but rather there is far more nuance to be found with regards to morality. Basically, she would gain a greater understanding of what it means to be good or bad and the possibility of redemption first hand and grow to acknowledge that she was wrong to oversimplify it down to a binary choice of people being immutably good or evil and never able to change.

However, I would also like to discuss how Glimmer's villain arc could intersect with Catra's redemption arc. Glimmer has always balked at Adora's attempts to get through to Catra, telling her that Catra is evil because she's with the Horde and dismissing the notion of a redemption for her. But if Glimmer sinks to that same point---if she hits rock bottom the way Catra did---and she sees Catra pick herself back up and rebuild herself successfully to become a better person than she was before?

Well, then that could provide some amazing inspiration for Glimmer to then follow in her footsteps and break free from the cycle of Shadow Weaver's abuse herself as well. Add Catra getting to see that the Princesses are far from perfect but fallible people just like everyone else on top of that, and both Glimmer and Catra would evolve as part of the same arc and come out of it with a much stronger understanding of each other and just how people work in general.

Lastly I want to bring up this quote that I’ve put below from a recent convention.

"Interesting foil! Catra is a secretly sweet person with her darkness on the outside. While Glimmer is the opposite."

As well as again emphasising that Glimmer and Catra are in some ways two sides of the same coin, this would definitely seem to back up my theory and indicate that Glimmer has depths that she herself doesn't even understand that are now going to be pulled to the surface by Shadow Weaver.

To add to this, in the interview I drew from earlier Noelle comments that "the way this season ends has major repercussions for Glimmer. It throws her into a world that she never expected to be in." I think the second half of that quote is key. Glimmer never realised that she had this darkness within her, let alone expected to tap into it, and this is why it could lead to serious growth for her as a person to discover the worst of herself and in the end choose to cultivate the best of herself despite that.

There’s one more layer to the Glimmer/Catra aspect of all this as well if you combine this theory with the concept of Micah being alive and mentoring Catra during her redemption process. Because it would link Glimmer and Catra even more closely and beyond that it would create a great call back to the fact that this arc started with Glimmer being paralleled with her father.

And if Catra does work with the Rebellion at some point in the distant future, this could also serve as a starting point for the two of them constructing a friendship using the foundation of that shared similar experience (and also a shared father figure potentially) as they learn how to be part of the same team. It might also play into restoring Adora's faith in the people around her as seemingly losing Glimmer to darkness so soon after losing Catra the same way would undoubtedly nearly destroy her and it would give her some much-needed motivation to see both of them pull themselves back from that.

Anyway, there we have it. Those are all of my thoughts on why I do definitely see some kind of villain arc for Glimmer, and how I think it could be an excellent addition to the show for a number of reasons. Thanks for reading and see y'all next time.

[j-philly-b]

OUaT 7x02 – Thoughts & Observations

“I’ll send an SOS to the world; I hope that someone gets my message in a bottle.”

           - The Police, Message in a Bottle

Ugh, seriously? We’re back to this bullshit? I thought we were done with the realm that shall not be named. But no, instead we’re going to be reminded of it on a weekly basis. Or at least I will be, because my anger over that entire plotline is unflagging.

But I am talented in unhealthy avoidance techniques, and will likely continue on because (1) I am a glutton for punishment, (e) Colin O’Donoghue’s face, and (!) I can’t stop myself from trying to puzzle this show out. Hi, my name is Joanne and I can’t get OUaT.

 Random Thoughts:

I was not prepared to say goodbye to Killian Jones, he of the multiple redemption and hero arcs. It was that and the high expectations I had for a story written by Jane and Jerome that left me in a pit of despair after the episode was over. I’ve gone through my stages of grief, I am almost at acceptance, almost.

I am relieved that CS have their happy ending/beginning together in SB. While I’m in the they don’t need a baby to be happy camp, it’s a fine development and everyone’s fic with a CS kid post-S6 is perfectly valid and canon compliant. So there’s that!

I know that many viewers, including myself, took Emma and Killian’s concern as an implication that they had a difficult time conceiving, maybe even suffering a miscarriage at some point. I’m going to go the lighter route and assume that Killian’s penchant for leather pants and skinny jeans slowed down the baby making process, which is why we saw him show up in the alt!EF in regular blue jeans.

I loved how Killian jumped into action and was instantly stabby as soon as he and Regina showed up in response to Henry’s call. Struck me as a very strong parental instinct to go on the offensive like that when you get a distress call from your kid.

Emma tells Henry that she has to give Henry what he gave her – family, and she starts by giving him Hook 2. Then Henry keeps Regina – and no one in SB is complaining because obviously Regina has absolutely nothing in SB and can walk away on a whim, what else do you do with a middle-aged woman with no spouse or child to look after?

I’m bitter because I can’t believe A&E or J&J put me in a position to feel defensive over Regina.

Interesting that being in the alt!EF meant that Regina and Emma’s magic wouldn’t work. But here’s the thing, Regina’s use of magic in the beginning showed us two things – her magic worked when she was protecting her TL, but didn’t work when she was to cast a locator spell. Subtle foreshadowing of what was to come later with Emma and Hook 2.

 Hook 2 using Killian’s blood to become him may have created a deeper connection than simply surface appearance. So not only was Emma able to connect to him by recognizing the man he could be, used to be, but maybe whatever it is that makes TL a physical manifestation was also able to recognize something in Hook 2 because of that blood connection? I’m not being clear, but I think this blood connection and TL is going to come up again for Hook 2 and his daughter. I am really leaning toward the daughter being created using some form of blood magic.

So Hook 2 has a daughter and now we’re going to be following his story. In a way, it makes sense, it allows CS peace and to continue living their happily ever after without unnecessary angst and separation. I just don’t know if I feel as invested in Hook 2 as I was in Killian Jones.

I had work it out in my head when Hook 2’s path diverged from Killian. I’m going with the wish realm diverging at the point of the flashbacks in the Cricket Game – in the wish realm Snow’s attempt to banish Regina worked, and she was no longer a threat to them from that point on. Therefore, Hook 2 never sang with Snowing and did not kill his father to leave Liam 2.0 an orphan out for revenge.

“I’ve always tried to do good.” Where did that come from with Hook 2? Did he turn around when his daughter was born? Was that his “you can be a part of something” moment?

I’m assuming his fall back into darkness was when his heart was poisoned/cursed and he was stopped from seeing his daughter. I’m just… ARGH!!! Another Hook redemption arc? Yeah, I’m still not quite over it yet.

Hook 2 roaming the realms looking for TL to cure his poisoned/cursed heart and then trying to use Killian’s connection with Emma for that purpose tells us what? That Hook 2 thought himself incapable of TL, and maybe now feels guilty that he didn’t try hard enough or believe in himself enough to save his daughter? That now that he has his second chance he will fulfill his role as his daughter’s white knight?

I like the carry through to HH and seeing that Rogers does not like hearing Henry’s daughter referred to as a vulnerability.

Roger’s curse memories of Emma are not too far afield from the truth. Their cursed personalities aren’t too far off from their true-selves either. Very unlike Regina’s curse when she tried to suppress people’s true selves. We’ve seen how Jacinda isn’t afraid to push back against Victoria, how Rogers, Regina, and Henry were able to come together easily, and how Rumple is on the periphery of that as well. So was the curse cast for evil intent or not?

Ok, so I think I called it last week with Weaver being the one to get Rogers promoted and reassigned to him. I’m sticking with my theory that Rumple knows what is going on and is more involved in the curse than we think at this point. It was more heavy-handed in this episode, mainly because there was more Weaver in this episode, but I’m fine with a Rumple that plays on both sides of the fence. I’m wondering if Weaver’s relationship with Victoria is a case of keeping your enemies close?

Interesting that Weaver was not included in the final scene with Roni, Rogers, and Henry.

 Also interesting that Weaver doesn’t push Roni when she says no, not the tactic we’ve been lead to believe he usually follows.

The shot of Weaver and Rogers from behind the bookcase in Henry’s apartment was great. The view of them was slightly obscured, Rogers is in the light, Weaver is in the dark. I like how it framed their characters at that point in time.

 The matching denim jackets of Rogers and Weaver, was there a Starsky & Hutch in the alt!EF?

So Weaver was testing Rogers’ moral core, why?

 Hook 2 is very good at strategizing, probably all the chess, but Rogers was way ahead of Weaver when he thought to grab Henry’s keys before they left the apartment. Not a surprise that Rogers has a healthy distrust of Weaver and can look out for himself.

 Random Observations:

Why are there no evil Kermit memes with Hook 2 in the hood confronting Killian?

Captain Youthful!

I also liked Killian referring to Hook 2 and his existence in the realm to be ignored as a bad dream, not real, a cracked mirror, and a twisted version of the truth.

Why do LT and Tiana jump to Henry being in love with Cinderella/Jacinda? They’ve known each other a total of ten minutes.

THE HAND!!!

Henry is a total hipster.

“I gotta hop.” “You must have a fairy godmother somewhere.” Tiana gets all the good lines.

Lady Tremaine uses that wand a helluva a lot for someone who doesn’t rely on magic.

Ok, but what did Gabrielle’s teenage daughter think about her mother getting all up in Colin’s face like that?

Tune in next week when Weave tests out his Welsh accent!

The Nancy Drews! Even before Weaver pulled the book off the shelf, I knew what they were by the yellow binding. My dad bought me one a week for a little over a year when I was kid. I’m getting teary just thinking about it…

Henry looking for buried family and “keeps hitting dead ends”? Yeesh

Ivy wearing a green shirt with fleur de lis in her first scene with Jacinda – green for a reason?

Jacinda can save herself. We get it, we’ve also heard it before.

How exactly did Hook 2 wind up stabbed?

Emma does have a little bit of a bump when they’re sitting on that log.

Why is Killian so angry when he throws that bean? Does he know Emma has terrible aim when it comes to portals and he’s worried she might run on the wrong side of it?

Henry creeping on Cinderella’s bedroom.

Of course Killian has another magical method of communication. Shellphones, messages in a bottle, does he keep a coop for talking seagulls on the Jolly Roger as well, enchanted semaphore flags?

Ok, Killian and Regina discussing Emma was about 10x more overdramatic than it needed to be.

Emma is “the mother [Henry] wanted, a hero.”  That’s gotta be a kick in the gut to Regina.

God damnit Henry, operation glass slipper is still going on and now you’re staring operation next chapter? Get your shit together kid.

Colin wetn super-irish at the end when Rogers was telling his story to Henry, yes?

Were the hair extensions for Emma totally unnecessary? Or are saviors like Samson and lose their power if they get a haircut? Wait, is that why Rumple got a haircut at the beginning of s6? It was a hint that he was a powerless savior?! AHA! I’ve cracked the code!! Sorry, there are certain storylines I will never not be bitter about

Why is Tilda Swinton doing adverts for Lyft? Someone write an androgynous preternatural character for that woman stat! Speaking of, I need to rewatch Orlando, it’s been way too long…