#andrew davies critical

[anghraine]

petty ranting about the LOTR movies

I've been in various fandoms where an ostensibly "faithful" adaptation was frequently held up as the One True Version of the text, the author's vision brought to life, the one nothing could ever compare to and the reason no others should ever be made, how is it possible to envision the characters or interpretations of them differently blah blah blah. (1995 P&P fandom is very frequently like this, sometimes Faith and Fear fans are, esp wrt The Borgias, etc.)

But I'm not sure I've ever seen an adaptation so uncritically adored by so many as the Jackson LOTR movies. I don't think any fandom is so insistent on an adaptation as people are insistent on the movies as the one true version of Middle-earth, even where they're radically different. Even when people agree with criticisms, it's been really noticeable that people often also add disclaimers about how they love the movies, they're perfect in almost every way, they're super faithful apart from this thing, of course the reason for [choice that was made] was understandable it's just that... etc.

And the thing is, I may hate some of the interpretations in other allegedly faithful adaptations. Like, speaking of the 1995 P&P, I dislike a lot about it and its influence on popular perception of what P&P is, of what adaptation should look like, of the brooding version of my fave hero Darcy, and so on. But I do understand why it's often held up as a faithful adaptation.

It uses a lot of the original text (though it can be subtly or glaringly different in execution), it's able to blur the lines between its own inventions and material from the text in a way that's often convinced audiences that things from the adaptation are actually in the novel, and it's more successful at doing this than any other Davies version of Austen IMO, it has a very convincing cast, blahblah. Like, I disagree that it is as faithful as it's reputed to be (by a long ways), but I get why it has that reputation, at least.

But I genuinely find Jackson's LOTR so different from the book! The movies certainly draw from it in significant ways, but dialogue is heavily altered or manufactured, motivations and characterization are simplified, altered, or just outright transformed into something entirely different, themes are shifted around, the structure is seriously changed (something Tolkien specifically did not want to happen), the relatively compact battles in the book are turned into big action set pieces taking up major swaths of screen time, a lot of the lore is heavily contracted, changed, or simply absent where it casts heavy shadows over the dynamics in the book, and oh yeah, they manage to be even more racist.

Some of this (not the racism) is defensible even if I don't personally agree w/ those defenses in a lot of cases. But there are a ton of differences between them! And you can talk about the films as their own thing cinematically and that's its own discussion. But the conflation of the movies with the actual things Tolkien actually wrote is even more widespread and absolute and annoying than with things like the 1995 P&P, with not half as much reason for it.

[dykeofcornwall]

Some of you need to understand that adaptations do not exist exclusively to be faithful to the text

[areyoudoingthis]

people will make fun of tjlc for being a conspiracy and then turn around and do the same thing with their show and be 100% convinced that they're right actually and the difference is that the tjlcers were wrong

[kenpiercemedia]

Presenting The 2nd Critics Choice Super Awards Winners

Presenting The 2nd Critics Choice Super Awards Winners

The Press Release: The Critics Choice Association (CCA) announced today the winners of the 2nd annual Critics Choice Super Awards, honoring the most popular, fan-obsessed genres across both movies and television, including Superhero, Science Fiction/Fantasy, Horror, and Action. “Spider-Man: No Way Home” led the film winners this year, garnering three awards overall. The film was awarded Best…

[homomenhommes]

THIS DAY IN GAY HISTORY

based on: The White Crane Institute's 'Gay Wisdom', Gay Birthdays, Gay For Today, Famous GLBT, glbt-Gay Encylopedia, Today in Gay History, Wikipedia, and more … March 27

1878 – Henry Davis Sleeper (d.1934) was an American antiquarian, collector, and interior decorator best known for Beauport, his Gloucester, Massachusetts, country home that is "one of the most widely published houses of the twentieth century."

Henry Davis Sleeper was born in Boston. He was grandson of Jacob Sleeper, one of the founders of Boston University as well as a clothier and manager of a real estate trust.

Henry's education appears to have been by private tutors due to ill health as a child, and it is unclear as to whether he was ever formally educated.

Sleeper was introduced to the Eastern Point in Gloucester, Massachusetts, in the spring of 1906 by the Harvard economist A. Piatt Andrew, who later served in the U.S. House of Representatives, who had built a handsome summer mansion, Red Roof, on a rock ledge above the harbor.

Sleeper was much taken by the location and immediately decided to build a little further along the ledge from Red Roof. He purchased the land on Eastern Point in Gloucester on August 13, 1907.In the fall of 1907, construction of Beauport, Sleeper's relatively modestly scaled Arts and Crafts-style house, began and was sufficiently finished to receive A. Piatt Andrew as a house guest in May 1908. As property flanking Sleeper's became available, Beauport was expanded several times until 1925, often in response to events or important experiences in his life.

In 1918, Sleeper became the U.S. Representative of, and a major fundraiser for, the American Field Service, an ambulance corps founded by A. Piatt Andrew early in World War I. While Andrew served in the battle zones, Sleeper crisscrossed the Atlantic with supplies and funds, and worked closely with the French military. France awarded him the Croix de Guerre and the Legion of Honor.

Sleeper had never married and left no direct descendants. His relationship with Andrew, also a lifelong bachelor, was intense, and may have been a sexual one as well.

Sleeper died in Massachusetts General Hospital of leukemia on September 22, 1934, and is buried in his family's plot in Mount Auburn Cemetery in Watertown and Cambridge, Massachusetts. Andrew wrote the memorial tribute published in the Gloucester Daily Times.

Beauport House was declared a National Historic Landmark in 2003. In 2008, due to new information on Sleeper's life emerging, the decision was made to acknowledge his homosexuality in tour guides of Beauport, "not to define Sleeper but to contextualize him."

Portrait of de Maistre by Jean Shepeard

1894 – Roy de Maistre CBE (d.1968) was an Australian artist of international fame. He is famous in Australian art for his early experimentation in "colour-music", and is recognized as the first Australian artist to use pure abstractionism. His later works were painted in a figurative style generally influenced by Cubism. His 'Stations of the Cross' series hangs in Westminster Cathedral and works of his are hung in the Tate Gallery, London and in the Art Gallery of New South Wales. He was very close friends with the Australian writer Patrick White.

From his family's very prominent position in Australian society, he helped to make modern art fashionable in Sydney in the late 1920s, or at least as fashionable as it could be., but the anti-modernist criticism he received following his first one-man exhibition in Sydney convinced him that his art could not flourish in Australia.

The Footballers

In March 1930 he left Australia to live permanently in London. He held one-man shows at the Beaux-Arts Gallery, London (1930); in the studio of his colleague Francis Bacon (1930); at Bernheim Jeune, Paris (1932); Mayor Gallery, London (1934); and at Calmann Gallery, London (1938).

In 1936 de Maistre met the 18 years younger novelist Patrick White. The two men never became lovers, but firm friends. In Patrick White's own words "He became what I most needed, an intellectual and aesthetic mentor". They had many similarities. They were both homosexual; they both felt like outsiders in their own families (for example de Maistre's family disapproved of his painting and described it as 'horrible'); as a result they both had ambivalent feelings about their families and backgrounds, yet both maintained close and life-long links with their families, particularly their mothers. They also both appreciated the benefits of social standing and connections; and Christian symbolism and biblical themes are common in both artists' work.

de Maistre's portrait of Patrick White

Patrick White dedicated his first novel Happy Valley (1939) to de Maistre, and acknowledged de Maistre's influence on his writing. He even went to St Jean de Luz during the writing of the novel under encouragement from de Maistre. In 1947 de Maistre's painting Figure in a Garden (The Aunt) was used as the cover for the first edition of Patrick White's The Aunt's Story. Patrick White also bought many of de Maistre's paintings for himself. In 1974 Patrick White gave all his paintings by de Maistre to the Art Gallery of New South Wales.

In 1940 de Maistre started work for the French Section, Joint War Organization of the British Red Cross Society and the Order of St John, London. In 1942 he was posted to Foreign Relations Department, British Red Cross Society. During this time de Maistre scarcely painted. After World War II, however, he had become an artist of the establishment. He had no trouble selling his paintings, and continuing to accept private commissions for society portraits. He died in 1968 in London.

Denton Welch: Self-portrait

1915 – Maurice Denton Welch was an English writer and painter, admired for his vivid prose and precise descriptions.(d.1948)

Welch was born in Shanghai and spent his childhood in China — he recorded this in his fictionalised autobiography of his early years, Maiden Voyage (1935). With the help and patronage of Edith Sitwell and John Lehmann this became a small but lasting success and made his reputation. It was followed by the novel In Youth is Pleasure (1943), a study of adolescence, and by Brave and Cruel (1949). An unfinished autobiographical novel A Voice through a Cloud was published posthumously in 1950.

Welch did not set out to be a writer. He originally studied art in London with the intention of becoming a painter. At the age of 20, he was hit by a car while cycling in Surrey and suffered a fractured spine. Although he was not paralysed, he suffered severe pain and complications, including spinal tuberculosis that ultimately led to his early death.

He met his companion, Eric Oliver, in November 1943 while he was convalescing. Oliver was a farm-worker living in Maidstone, and was a regular visitor. He acted as nurse for Welch, then his secretary, and finally as his literary executor when Welch died at the age of 33.

His literary work, intense and introverted, includes insightful portraits of his friends. He continued occasionally to paint; there is a fine self-portrait (in the National Portrait Gallery), and some line illustrations in the first editions of his books.

What is clear from Welch's writing is that his chief limitation is also his chief virtue: his focus on himself. For his time and place, Welch's novels are surprisingly suffused with homosexuality. His examination of the people around him, very thinly disguised in the novels, and his exploration of his own homosexual feelings and responses to the world show Welch to be a writer of consequence, if an over-looked one.

William S Burroughs cited Denton Welch as the writer who most influenced his own work, and dedicated his novel The Place of Dead Roads to Welch.

It may be that his most lasting work will be his posthumously published Journals, in which he is frank about his homosexuality.

1943 – The Netherlands: A group of resistance activists led by Willem Arondeus, a gay man, dress as German soldiers, infiltrate the citizen registration building, and destroy it, hindering the Nazi German effort to identify Dutch Jews. The attack inspires similar ones throughout The Netherlands. Arondeus was a Dutch artist and author who joined the Dutch anti-Nazi resistance movement during World War II. Arondeus was caught and executed soon after his arrest. He was openly gay before the war and defiantly asserted his sexuality before his execution. His final words were "Let it be known that homosexuals are not cowards".

1963 – Dave Koz is an American smooth jazz saxophonist.

Dave Koz was born in Encino, California to Jewish parents. Although he is Jewish, Koz plays both Christmas and occasional Hanukkah songs at his concerts. He attended William Howard Taft High School in Woodland Hills, Los Angeles, California performing on saxophone as a member of the school jazz band. He later graduated from UCLA with a degree in mass communications in 1986, and only weeks after his graduation, decided to make a go of becoming a professional musician.

Within weeks of that decision, he was recruited as a member of Bobby Caldwell's tour. For the rest of the 1980s, Koz served as a session musician in several bands, and toured with Jeff Lorber. Koz was a member of Richard Marx's band and toured with Marx throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s. He also played in the house band of CBS' short-lived The Pat Sajak Show, with Tom Scott as bandleader.In 1990, Koz decided to pursue a solo career, and began recording for Capitol Records. His albums there include Lucky Man, The Dance, and Saxophonic. Saxophonic was nominated for both a Grammy Award and an NAACP Image Award. In 1994, Koz began hosting a syndicated radio program, The Dave Koz Radio Show (formerly Personal Notes), featuring the latest music and interviews with who's who in the genre. Dave co-hosted The Dave Koz Morning Show on 94.7 The Wave, a smooth jazz station in Los Angeles for six years. He decided to leave the show in January 2007 and was replaced by Brian McKnight. In 2002, Koz started a record label, Rendezvous Entertainment, with Frank Cody and Hyman Katz.

In an April 2004 interview with The Advocate, Koz came out publicly as gay.

Blake McIver Ewing - Then and Now

1985 – Blake McIver Ewing also known as Blake McIver and Blake Ewing, is an American singer-songwriter, actor, model and pianist. He was known for playing Michelle's friend, Derek, on the sitcom Full House. Ewing also portrayed the role of Waldo in the 1994 feature film version of The Little Rascals, and voiced Eugene on Hey Arnold! during its 5th season. He is currently one of the hosts of the Bravo series The People's Couch.Ewing co-wrote and performed the song "Along the River", the end credit song for the film End of the Spear. He has contributed his work to the It Gets Better Project, citing his own experiences as a gay teenager as his motivation. His debut album, The Time Manipulator, was released in May 2014. Throughout 2013 Ewing worked as a go-go dancer in Los Angeles. "The tips were good. In fact, I raised so much money, I was able to finish my record — mission accomplished."

Ewing was nominated for an Ovation Award for his role as "The Little Boy" in the Los Angeles production of Ragtime. He is a graduate of UCLA.

Blake released his equality anthem "This Is Who We Are" on July 14, 2015 and works as a host for AfterBuzz TV.

Blake Mciver Ewing has apparently done a lot of growing up over the years and is now a living his life as a proud gay man. He is also a regular fixture on "The People's Couch," providing witty commentary about television shows and viral clips alongside openly gay entertainer Scott Nevins.

"When I was 14 I came very close to becoming a gay teen suicide 'statistic' but I then turned to music, my piano, my loved ones, and discovered that it does in fact get better," the actor noted in a YouTube description of him performing a poignant anti-bullying song. "But that being said, I believe we must raise awareness to protect the LGBT teens who are still being physically and verbally assaulted and fear for their lives every day. We also have a responsibility to end this suicide epidemic."

2009 – Japan acknowledges its nationals same-sex marriages to foreigners from countries or states where same-sex marriages are legal.

[anarchistfrogposting]

Hey just wanted to quickly ask if you could maybe explain what settler colonialism is, I'm a bit confused by the term because it seems like it doesn't really apply anymore in places like the US. There aren't really colonies, but fully developed capitalist states that oppress both the people who were originally colonized as well as the working class there.

Colonialism is an aspect of imperialism which focuses on an imperialist state (most obvious examples of this are Britain and France, for example) extracting natural resources from conquered/bought/stolen land abroad, wherein the country that forms the core of said colonial empire takes those resources and uses them to develop their own industries and thereupon its productive capabilities. Many places in Africa experienced considerable colonial oppression, but comparatively little settler-colonial oppression (although I will be clear; there were and are many large-scale settler colonial operations that aimed and some to support and protect European hegemony over Africa).

Settler colonialism is a specific form of colonialism wherein settlers from the imperial core travel to and form significant communities within colonial nations, stealing land from and displacing the local, native populace and replacing it with the native population of the imperial power. These projects inevitably and necessarily involve attempts to wipe out native culture and heritage and replace them with a new settler identity. Prominent examples of this can be seen in former colonies of the British empire; the US, Canada and Australia, e.g., but settler colonialism is a critical aspect of the success of colonial projects; the impacts thereof can be seen in a huge way in Latin America, India, all across Africa (prominently Algeria), and Oceania. In all the aforementioned native populations were displaced and their culture and identity intentionally erased.

Israel is certainly a settler colony, but it stands out as having a somewhat unique background and history. If you are interested in what I mean by this, I’d recommend you to watch this video by crash course (now quite old), which seems to do a decent job of quickly providing a brief overview.

Without significant decolonisation efforts, many of these places are, in a sense, still settler colonies. America will arguably always be a settler colony, but notably still colonises Native Americans in its borders. As does Canada. You could argue that these are postcolonial nations, but I feel that obscures the fact that many of these nations still actively engage in colonialism.

The line between colonialism and not colonialism, I would posit, is not a matter of development but a matter of policy and direction.

There are many many people far more qualified to talk about colonialism and settler colonialism than me, a white person from the UK, but I hope this helps. If you’re interested in exploring black and anti-colonialist anarchism, I would recommend Andrewism on YouTube, and would look into Angela Davis, who, along with being a prison abolitionist has also written extensively on colonialism.

[denimbex1986]

'Writer Russell T Davies has shared his theory on why Andrew Scott was shunned for awards for his role as Adam in devastating queer romance film All of Us Strangers.

In All of Us Strangers, Andrew Scott, 47, plays a depressed gay writer who heads back to his childhood home, only to discover that his parents – who died thirty years earlier – are still living there.

He spends several weeks journeying back home to meet their apparitions, even coming out to them as gay. Meanwhile, he sparks up an intense relationship with lonely neighbour Harry (Aftersun star Paul Mescal).

The tear-jerking film was critically acclaimed by fans and critics alike, and ahead of award season beginning in January, was seen as a shoo-in for nominations – particularly for leading man Andrew Scott.

However, All of Us Strangers was shockingly snubbed entirely by the Oscars. While it was nominated for six BAFTA awards, including Best Director for Andrew Haigh and Outstanding British Film, it took zero awards home.

Supporting actors Paul Mescal and Claire Foy, who played Adam’s mother, were both nominated, but Andrew Scott was not, much to the fury of the film’s fans.

Scott was nominated for a Golden Globe for his performance, but lost out to Oppenheimer’s Cillian Murphy.

Now, Russell T Davies – the man behind some of the UK’s queerest TV shows, including It’s A Sin, Queer As Folk, and the new, super gay Doctor Who season – has explained why he thinks Scott was snubbed.

“What I think happened there was, when a gay man plays a gay man, he’s not considered to be acting,” Davies said at a panel with Attitude Magazine during National Student Pride on Saturday (24 February).

“I genuinely think that happened there, that people thought, ‘Oh, he’s very good, but he’s not acting there. He’s not reaching; he was just being himself.”

Davies, who has spoken passionately about queer roles being given to queer actors, also said that Scott’s was a “world-class performance” but was “massively underrated because he’s gay and very publicly and visibly gay”.

During the panel, which Davies spoke on alongside Heartstopper’s Bel Priestly, Everything Now actor Noah Thomas, It’s A Sin’s Nathaniel Curtis and Shadow and Bone actor Jack Wolfe, the Cucumber writer reaffirmed his belief that gay actors deserve to star in gay roles.

“I very publicly and loudly proclaim that gay actors should play gay roles knowing full well that I’m not in charge of the entire industry,” he explained.

“All I’m trying to do is shift [the industry] slightly so that more queer people are seen for queer roles, so that the door is more open.”

Curtis agreed, adding: “If a queer person plays a queer role, people are like, ‘Oh yeah, very well done, lovely.’ But if a straight actor plays a queer role, a lot of the time, they’re like, ‘Give them an Oscar.’”

Following his BAFTA snub, Scott has also been in the spotlight this week after an awkward interview with the BBC which was dubbed by many as “homophobic”.

During the conversation, Scott was asked “how well” he knew Saltburn star Barry Keoghan, in the context of whether Keoghan used a prosthetic penis in the film’s final scene. In response, Scott walked away from the reporter.

Over the weekend, the BBC released a statement about the interview, saying that it was “misjudged” but not intentionally offensive.

“Our question to Andrew Scott was meant to be a light-hearted reflection of the discussion around the scene and was not intended to cause offence,” the statement read.'

[fatehbaz]

Yes, it is critical to acknowledge the centrality of Britain to the world economy in order to understand how Chinese and Indian tea fitted into it. [...] Asian tea relied on forms of employment [...] such as independent family farms in China and indentured ‘coolies’ in India. [...] It would be very difficult to explain how and why Asian tea became driven by the modern dynamics of accumulation then, unless we connect China and India to the broader global division of labor, centered on the most cutting-edge industrial sectors in the north Atlantic. [...] But I also wish to reframe the idea of British capital as “protagonist,” because when we think about capital, agency is a weird thing. [...] Nothing about accumulation is inherently loyal to this or that region, though it has been concentrated in certain sites, such as nineteenth-century Britain or twentieth-century US, and it has been territorialized by nationalist institutions. Thus, although British firms drove the Asian tea trade at first, by the twentieth century Indian and Chinese nationalists alike protested British capital [...].

Most economic histories were focused on whether other countries could ever develop into nineteenth-century England. For labor historians, Mike Davis recently wrote, the “classical proletariat” was the working classes of the North Atlantic from 1838-1921. These modular assumptions jump out when you flip through the classics of Asian economic and labor history, almost always focused on some sort of textile industry (silk, cotton, jute) and in cities such as Shanghai, Osaka, Bombay, Calcutta. By contrast, I was really inspired by a field pioneered by South Asia scholars known as “global labor history” — especially the work of Jairus Banaji — which has been critical of the centrality of urban industry in economic history. Instead, these scholars reconsider labor in light of our current world of late capitalism, including transportation workers, agrarian families, servants, and unfree and coerced labor. These activities have enabled global capitalism to function smoothly for centuries but were overlooked because they did not share the spectacular novelty of the steam-powered factories of urban Europe, US, and Japan.

As far as how tea production worked: in simple terms, Chinese tea was a segmented trade and Indian tea was centralized in plantations known as ‘tea gardens.’ The Chinese trade relied on independent family farms, workshops in market towns, and porters ferrying tea to the coastal ports: Guangzhou (Canton) then later Fuzhou and Shanghai. By contrast, British officials and planters built Indian tea from scratch in Assam, which had not been nearly as commercialized as coastal China or Bengal. They first tried to replicate the ‘natural’ Chinese model of local agriculture and trade, but frustrated British planters ultimately decided to undertake all of the tasks themselves, from clearing the land to packaging the finished leaves. [...] Indian tea was championed as futuristic and mechanized. [...]

In India [...] the tea industry’s penal labor contract became one of the original cause célèbres of the nationalist movement in the 1880s. The plantations later became a site for strikes and hartals, the most famous occurring in the Chargola Valley in 1921. But even though tea workers chanted, “Gandhi Maharaj ki jai” at the time, Gandhi himself had allegedly visited Assam and declined to see the workers, meeting instead with British planters to assure them they were safe. While Indian nationalists had politicized indenture in Assam tea, their main complaint was the racialized split between British capital and Indian labor. Their remedy was not to liquidate the tea gardens but to diversify ownership over them. The cause of labor was subordinated to the nationalist struggle.

---

Words of Andrew B. Liu. As interviewed by Mark Frazier. Transcript published as “Andrew B. Liu - Tea War: A History of Capitalism in China and India.” Published online by India China Institute. 23 March 2020. [Some paragraph breaks and contractions added by me.]

[whatjaswatched]

I’m currently watching the 1995 Pride and Prejudice series for the first time. I’m on episode 3/6.

My first thoughts are that I love how true to the story a series is able to be. The characters were cast spectacularly.

I first came across Colin Firth in film as Amanda Bynes’ dad in ‘What a Girl Wants’. I was only 10, but he had an impact in both the coco pops scene and the air guitar/leather pants dance scene. I have since loved every single thing I’ve seen him in. I’m so glad to be able to go back through his work and finally understand the people who claim him as Mr. Darcy. He is, as only Colin Firth can be.

The writing in this version is amazing. It really captures Austen’s humour and wit in the way it’s delivered to audiences and truly, I’m yet to see something written by Andrew Davies that I don’t like.

My only criticism for this series so far is purely personal - that I far prefer the Bennett’s hairstyles in the 2005 version, even the wigs. Accurate or not, their hair in the 1995 version is not a vibe.

[anghraine]

What are your opinions on Pride and Prejudice 1980 overall?

Would you say that it is a faithful adaptation? Would you recommend it to a P&P fan?

I'm very partial to it and I would rate it over the 1995. I know most people adore the 1995 version, though.

I love it!

I was just talking about my two favorite adaptational takes on P&P here, and the 1980 P&P is one of them.

It definitely has flaws, both as a work in its own right and as an adaptation. You were asking about how it functions as adaptation, so I'm going to focus on that, but the overall aesthetic is extremely 1979 on a limited budget. Some of the visual/narrative choices are very staid adaptationally (like showing Elizabeth reading Darcy's letter by ... literally showing Elizabeth reading the letter).

On the flip side, there are a few improbable divergences, most notably the rushed and peculiar presentation of the second proposal (though getting a glimpse of post-proposal Darcy and Elizabeth's happiness counts for a lot for me!). There's also stuff added that doesn't really change anything, but is arguably not faithful per se. And this is not always acknowledged by the fans it does still have. Personally, I love the weird instrumentation that follows Mr Collins around and Mr Hurst's anti-mountain agenda, but people's mileage may vary.

Beyond that, I love it as an adaptation that veers away from tapping into accessible (or caricatured) stereotypes the way the 1995 does. The 1980 P&P's characters really do feel to me like very specific and usually more nuanced interpretations of the original characters compared to basically every other version of P&P—not necessarily my interpretations, but I always feel like I can see where the interpretation is coming from, beyond appeals to contemporary audience sensibilities.

Elizabeth Garvie's Elizabeth is the jewel of the production for me—charming, lively, witty, vain, with a distinct tinge of sweetness that I think adaptations often lose sight of. It's honestly difficult to even say much about her because she is simply perfect to me.

David Rintoul's Darcy is probably my favorite Darcy, too. His demeanor isn't exactly what I personally imagine, to be sure (he's not as somberly brooding as Colin Firth's Darcy, but the spirited, smiling cleverness Darcy shares with Elizabeth isn't quite there for me). But I truly respect the choice to retain the general stiffness and formality of his character rather than reducing him to a more palatable love interest/sex object. He's allowed to be odd and to make us uncomfortable in a way I don't think other adaptations are willing to risk with him.

As for the others, Bingley, Jane, and Georgiana all give the impression of more substance to them than they usually get IMO. Mrs Bennet and Caroline are obnoxious but not particularly caricatured (without the adaptation seeming apologetic towards them, either). I love the stylish, younger Mrs Gardiner and Lady Catherine, and the relatively subtle versions of their personalities. Probably the only character choice that doesn't work adaptationally for me is the very harsh Mr Bennet, who lacks much of the endearing wit of the original—though even there, I can appreciate how unwilling the adaptation is to give him a pass (by stark contrast with the much cuddlier Mr Bennets of most other productions).

Would I call it faithful? Not universally, but it is the most engaged with the novel IMO. I don't think anything is so faithful that an adaptation can be a perfect interpretation that shouldn't ever be tried again and done better, but it is the most faithful P&P out there for me, still.

Would I recommend it to a P&P fan? That's a bit harder. It's aesthetically/cinematically dated and in some ways, it's better as interpretation than as television. For people who aren't used to that staid late 70s BBC approach ... idk, it can be a tough sell. I wouldn't casually recommend it, I guess, just because the contrast with the polish of the 1995 and the beauty of the 2005 is so stark. But for people who can look past that 70s BBC period drama baggage, there's a lot that's really interesting and engaging about it.

I certainly prefer it to the 1995, but since I intensely dislike the 1995, that's not saying a whole lot. It's probably more useful on my end to say that I just really love the 1980 P&P, despite having criticisms of it. I don't even know how many times I've watched it. For me, it's a joy.

[asgoodeasgold]

If you 💜 Brideshead, check My Archive for more - I am blogging about the whole film.

I am starting a rewatch of the 2008 movie adaptation of Brideshead Revisited, a 1945 novel by Evelyn Waugh. This is my most loved Matthew Goode film, based on one of my favourite novels, so it is very close to my heart.

I’ll be using the Director’s Cut bluray.

The collage above shows Charles Ryder's journey from young innocence to loss, love found and disillusion.

📷 My edit from Brideshead Revisited (2008)

The cast of Brideshead Revisited (2008) is magnificent and includes, in addition to Matthew Goode (Charles Ryder), Hayley Awell (Julia Flyte), Ben Wishaw (Sebastian Flyte), Emma Thompson (Lady Marchmain) and Michael Gambon (Lord Marchmain). Emma Thompson took the young actors, who really got on well together, under her wings.

📷 My edit from Brideshead Revisited 📀 bonus features

Brideshead Revisited: The Sacred & Profane Memories of Captain Charles Ryder is a 1945 novel by Evelyn Waugh. It follows, from the 1920s to the early 1940s, the life and romances of Charles Ryder, his encounter with the aristocratic Flytes and their beautiful stately home Brideshead and his journey of discovery. It explores themes around nostalgia for the past and English nobility, happiness, love and loss and Catholic faith and guilt.

The novel (and film) start and end with older bittersweet Charles as an officer during the war billetted at Brideshead and reminiscing about the past.

📷 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brideshead_Revisited

Brideshead Revisited was turned into a stupendous 11-part mini-series in 1981 by Granada TV with Jeremey Irons and Anthony Andrews. It is an excellent adaptation which received critical acclaim. A high bar for the cast and crew of the 2008 movie who must have felt the weight of history on their shoulders.

Trailer:

https://youtu.be/_ZtPGYLEzpw

📷 My edit from Brideshead Revisited and IMDB

Brideshead Revisited was directed by Julian Jarrold and cinematography is by Jess Hall (both pictured with Matthew Goode). The screenplay is by Jeremy Brock and Andrew Davies. I think the film is a cinematographic gem and feast for the eyes. It’s a shame it got a lukewarm reception. I think the comparisons with an 11-part miniseries, which had the time to unfold the story, are unfair. The film had to condense quite a lot of the book and made some adaptive choices which may be seen as a departure from the novel but it remains, in my view, true to the spirit of the book and is a very good adaptation in its own right.

📷 My edit from Brideshead Revisited 📀 bonus features

The main locations for Brideshead Revisited are Oxford, Venice and Castle Howard, a stately home in Yorkshire. The miniseries used Castle Howard for Brideshead so the director Julian Jarrold hesitated about reusing it, wanting to forge his own path. But he decided to go for it in the end as it fits the descriptions in the book and the baroque architecture “instinctively evokes Catholicism”.

It is a stunning place and one understands why Charles Ryder fell under its spell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Howard

📷 My edit from Brideshead Revisited 📀 bonus features

The original score for Brideshead Revisited was written by Adrian Johnston and is one of my many favourite things about the film. It is beautiful and mirrors wonderfully all the emotions of hope, loss, heartbreak and nostalgia from the story.

Here are a few samples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjq62bxvWE8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chp7LszUYp8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2YXscQND64 

[dustedmagazine]

Listening Post:  John Coltrane/Eric Dolphy’s Evenings at the Village Gate

In 1961, John Coltrane was reaching a wider audience via his edited single version of the Sound of Music classic "My Favorite Things.”  He was also, although it seems trite to say given the trajectory of his career, in a state of transition. Moving away from his "sheets of sound" period to exploring modality, non-western scales and polyrhythms which allowed him to improvise more deeply within the constraints of more familiar Jazz tropes.

His personal and musical relationship with Eric Dolphy was an important catalyst for the development of his sound. Dolphy was an important presence on Coltrane's other key album from 1961, Africa/Brass and here officially joins the quartet on alto, bass clarinet and flute. Evenings at the Village Gate was recorded towards the end of a month-long residency with a core band of Coltrane, Dolphy, Jones, McCoy Tyner on piano and Reggie Workman on bass. The other musician featured here, on "Africa,” is bassist Art Davis.

The recording captures the band moving towards the more incandescent sound that made Live at the Village Vanguard, recorded just a few weeks later in November 1961, such a viscerally thrilling album. The hit "My Favorite Things" and traditional English folk tune "Greensleeves"  are extended into long trance-like vamps. Benny Carter's 1936 classic "When Lights Are Low" showcases Dolphy's bass clarinet and in the originals "Impressions" and particularly "Africa"  the quintet hit almost ecstatic grooves. Dolphy's solos push Coltrane further into the spiritual free jazz that so divided later audiences. Dolphy's flute on "My Favorite Things" and especially his clarinet on "When Lights Are Low" are extraordinary, particularly the clarity of his upper register.

The highlight for me is the 22 minute version of "Africa" that closes the set. The two basses, bowed and plucked, Tyner's chordal work and solo, the slow build from the bass solo where the music seems to meander before Jones' explosive solo heralds the return of Dolphy and Coltrane improvising together on the theme, spiralling up the register, contrasting Coltrane's long slurries with Dolphy's staccato bursts which lead to the thunderous conclusion. 

As an archivist, sudden discoveries in forgotten basement boxes never surprises and the excitement never gets old. The tapes of Evenings at the Village Gate were recently unearthed in the NY Public Library sound archive after having been lost, found and lost again. Recorded by the Village Gate's sound engineer Rich Alderson these tapes were not meant for commercial use but rather to test the room's sound and a new ribbon microphone. As Alderson says in his notes, this was the only time he made a live recording with a single mic and, yes, there have been grumblings from fans and critics about the sound quality and mix particularly the dominance of Elvin Jones' drums. For me, one the best things about this is that you hear how integral Jones is not just as a fulcrum for the other soloists but as an inventive polyrhythmic presence, playing within and around his bandmates. I know that many of the Dusted crew are Coltrane fans and would love to hear your takes on the music and whether the single mic recording affects your enjoyment in any way. 

Andrew Forell

Justin Cober-Lake: There's so much to get into here, but I'll respond to your most direct question. The single-mic recording doesn't affect my enjoyment at all. I understand (sort of) the complaints, but I think they overstate the problem. More to the point, when I hear an archival release, I really want to get something new out of it. That doesn't mean I want a bad recording, but there's not too much point in digging up yet-another-nearly-the-same show (and I have nearly unlimited patience for Coltrane releases) or outtakes that give the cuts the same basic idea but just don't do it as well. I was really looking forward to hearing Coltrane and Dolphy interact, and nothing here disappoints. Having Jones so dominant just means I get to hear and think more about the role he plays in this combo. It would sound better to have the other instruments a little more to the fore, but it's not a problem (and actually Tyner's the one I wish I could hear a little better).

I think your topic suggests ideas about what these sorts of recordings — when made publicly available — are for. Is it academic material (the way we might look at a writer's journals or correspondence)? Is it to get truly new and good music out there? Is it a commercial ploy? Is it a time capsule to get us in the moment? The best curating does at least three of those with the commercial aspect a hoped-for benefit. This one probably hits all four, but I suspect the recording pushes it a little more toward that first category.

Bill Meyer: I’m playing this for the first time as I type, and I’m only to track three, so my (ahem) impressions could not be fresher. 

First, I’ll say that, like Justin, I have a lot of time for Coltrane, and especially the quartet/quintet music from the Impulse years. The band’s on point, it sounds like Dolphy is sparking Coltrane, and Jones is firing up the whole band. Tyner’s low in the mix and Workman’s more felt than heard; the recording probably reflects what it was like to actually hear this band most nights, i.e. Jones and the horn(s) were overwhelming. 

How essential is it? If you’re a deep student of Coltrane, there are no inessential records, and the chance to hear him with Dolphy, fairly early on, should not be passed up. But if you’re big fan, not a scholar, then you need to get The Complete 1961 Village Vanguard Recordings box and the 7-CD set, Live Trane: The European Tours, before you drop a penny on this album. And if you’re just curious, start with Impressions. This group is hardly under-documented. The sound quality, while tolerable, is compromised enough to make Evenings At The Village Gate less essential than everything I just mentioned. 

I’m only just now starting to play “Africa,” so I’ll check in again after I play that. 

“Africa” might be the best reason for a merely curious listener to get this album. It’s very exploratory, the bass conversation is almost casual (not a phrase I use much when discussing Coltrane), and they manage to tap into the piece’s inherent grandeur by the end. 

“Africa” is a great example of this band working out what they’re doing while they’re doing it. 

Andrew Forell: On Justin’s points about the function of archival releases, I’ve been going back and forth on the academic versus time capsule/good music uncovered question. There is a degree of cynicism and skepticism in these days of multidisc, anniversary box sets in arrays of tastefully colored vinyl which seemed designed for the super(liquid)fan and cater to a mix of nostalgia and fetish. Having said that specialist archival labels have done us a great service unearthing so much "lost" and under-represented music. On one hand I agree with your summation and to Bill’s point, yes this quintet has been pretty thoroughly documented and yes the Vanguard tapes would be the place to start. But purely as a fan I am more interested in live recordings than discs of out- and alternative takes. I’m thinking for example of the 1957 Monk/Coltrane at Carnegie Hall and Dolphy’s 1963 Illinois concert especially his solo rendition of “God Bless the Child," recordings that sat in archives for 48 and 36 years respectively.

By contrast, the other recent Coltrane excavation, Both Directions at Once is wonderful but I’m not listening to it as an academic exercise, taking notes and mulling over the different takes, interesting as they are. I approach Evenings as another opportunity to hear two great musicians, in a live setting, early on in their short partnership. As Justin says, this aspect doesn’t disappoint. I agree with Bill that the mix is close to what you would you hear in the room, the drums and horns to the fore. All this is a long way to a short answer. A moment in time, a band we’ll never experience in person and when all is said and done, 80 minutes of music I’d otherwise not hear.

Jonathan Shaw: As a relative newb to this music, I can't contribute cogently to discussions of this set's relative value. Most of the Coltrane I've listened to closely is from very late in his life, when he was playing wild and free--big fan of the set from Temple University in 1966 and the Live at the Village Vanguard Again! record from the same year. None of that is music I understand, but I feel it and respond to it strongly. The only Dolphy I've listened to closely is Out There. So I'll be the naif here.

I need to listen to these songs another few times before I can say anything about them as songs, but I really love the right-there-ness of the sound. I like being pushed around by the drums and squeezed between the horns (the first few minutes of "Greensleeves" are delightful in that respect). Maybe I'm lucky to come to the music with so little context. It's a thrill to hear the playing of these folks, about whom there is so much talk of collective genius. Perhaps because my ears are so raw to these sounds, I feel like that talk is being fleshed out for me.

Jim Marks: I think that this release has both academic and aesthetic (if that’s the right word) significance for Dolphy’s presence alone. I am more familiar with the original releases than the various re-releases from the period, but it’s my impression that there just isn’t that much Dolphy and Trane out there; for instance, I think Dolphy appears on just one cut of the Village Vanguard recordings (again, at least the original release). In particular, I’ve heard and loved various versions of “Favorite Things,” but this one seems unique for the six-plus-minute flute solo that opens the track. The solo is both brilliant in itself and creates a thrilling contrast with Coltrane when he comes in. This track alone is worth the price of admission for me.

Marc Medwin: I agree concerning Dolphy's importance to these performances, and while there is indeed plenty of Coltrane and Dolphy floating around (he took part in the Africa/Brass sessions that gave us both Africa and a big band version of "Greensleeves") his playing is really edgy here. Bill is right to point toward the sparks Dolphy's playing showers on the music. Yes, the flute on "My Favorite Things" is really stunning. He's all over the instrument, even more so than in those solos I've heard from the group's time in Europe.

Jon, I'd suggest that there's a strong link between the albums you mention and the Village Gate recordings we're discussing, a kind of continuum into which you're tapping when you describe the excitement generated by the playing. The musicians were as excited at the time as we are on hearing it all now! It was all new territory, the descriptors were in the process of forming, and while Cecil Taylor, Ornette Coleman, Sun Ra and a small group of kindred spirits were already exploring the spaceways, they were marginalized. That may be a component of the case today, but it's tempered by a veneration unimaginable at the time. That's part of the reason Dolphy lived in apartments where the snow came through the walls. Coltrane had plenty to lose by alienating the critics, but ultimately, it did not stop his progress. These recordings mark an early stage of that halting but inexorable voyage. With the possible exception of OM, Coltrane's final work never abandoned the tonal and modal extremes at which he was grabbing in the spring and summer of 1961.

Jennifer Kelly: Like Jon, I'm not well enough versed in this stuff to put it context or even really offer an opinion. I'm enjoying it a lot, and I, also, like the roughness and liveness of the mix with the foregrounded drums. But I think mostly what I am drawn to is the idea that this show happened in 1961, the year I was born, and that these sounds were lost for decades, and now you can hear them again, not just the music but the room tone, the people applauding, the shuffling of feet etc. from people who are almost all probably dead now.  It seems incredibly moving, and I am also taken by the part that the library took in this, in conserving this stuff and forgetting it had it and then rediscovering it.  In this age of online everything-available-all-the-time, that seems remarkable to me, and proves that libraries are so crucial to civilization now and always, even as they're under threat.  

Marc Medwin: A real time machine, isn't it? We are fortunate that we have these documents at all, and yes, the story of the tapes resurfacing is a compelling one! To your observations, audience reaction seems pretty enthusiastic to music that would eventually be dubbed anti-jazz by prominent members of the critical establishment!

Bill Meyer: I can imagine this music being more sympathetically received by audiences experiencing its intensity, whereas critics might have fretted because it represented a paradigm shift away from bebop models, so they had to decide if it was jazz or not.

It is amusing, given the knowledge we have of what Coltrane would be playing in five years, that this music is where a lot of critics drew a line in the sane and said, "this is antijazz."

Jon Shaw: Yes, Bill, that seems bonkers to me. I am particularly moved by the minutes in that 1966 set at Temple when Coltrane abandons his horn altogether and starts beating his chest and humming and grunting. Wonder what the chin-stroking jazz authorities made of that.

Given my points of reference, this set sounds so much more musically conventional. But the emotional force of the music is still immediate, viscerally present. Beautifully so.

Andrew Forell: In retrospect, all those arguments seem kind of crazy. Yesterday’s heresies become tomorrow’s orthodoxies but what we’re left with is, as Jonathan says, the visceral beauty of Coltrane’s striving for transcendence and his interplay with Dolphy’s extraordinary talent which we hear here working as a catalyst for Coltrane. As Marc and Jen note the audience is there with them..

Come Shepp, Sanders & Rashid Ali, the inquisitors’ fulminations only increased and you think what weren’t you hearing?

Marc Medwin: I was just listening to a Jaimie Branch interview where she's talking about her visual art, about throwing down a lot of material and finding the forms within it. I think that might be another throughline in Coltrane's and certainly Dolphy's work, a gradual discarding of traditional forms and poossibly structures based on what I hate to call intuition, because it diminishes the process.

Then, I was thinking again about our discussion of the critics. I see their role, or their assessment of that role, as a kind of investment without reward, and yeah, it does seem bonkers now! Bill Dixon once talked about how the writers might spend considerable time and expend commensurate energy learning to pick out "I Got Rhythm" on the piano, and they're suddenly confronted with... well, the sounds we're discussing! What would you do, or have done, in that situation? It's really easy for me, like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel, to disparage critical efforts of the time, especially in light of the ideas and philosophies Branch and so many others are at liberty and encouraged to play and express now, but I wonder how I would have reacted, what my biases and predilections would have involved at that pivotal moment.

Ian Mathers: The points about historical reception are really interesting, I think. There's a famous (in Canada!) bunch of Canadian painters called the Group of Seven, hugely influential on Canadian art in the 20th century and still well known today. In all the major museums, reproductions everywhere, etc. They were largely landscape painters, and while I think most of the work is beautiful, it's so culturally prominent that it runs the risk of seeming boring or staid. I literally grew up with it being around! So it was a delightful shock to read a group biography of them (Ross King's Defiant Spirits: The Modernist Revolution of the Group of Seven, if anyone is hankering for some CanCon) and see from contemporary reviews that people were so shocked and appalled by the vividness of their colour palettes and other aesthetic choices that they were practically called anti-art at the time. It's not surprising to me that this music would both attract similar furore at the time and, from the vantage point of a new listener in 2022 who loves A Love Supreme and some of the other obvious works but hasn't delved particularly far into Dolphy, Coltrane live, or this era in jazz in general (that would be me), be heard and felt as great, exciting, but not exactly formally radical stuff.

I don't think I would have noticed much about the recording quality were people not talking about it. "My Favorite Things" seems to have the overall volume down a bit, but still seemed pretty clear to me (agree with the assessments above; Coltrane, Dolphy, and Jones very forward, others further back although even when less prominent I find myself 'following' Tyner's work through these tracks more often than not), and starting with "When Lights Are Low" that seems to be corrected. It actually sounds pretty great to me! Although I absolutely defer to Bill's recommendations for better starting places for serious investigations, I can also say as a casual but interested fan who tends to quail in the face of box sets and other similarly lengthy efforts this feels from my relatively ignorant vantage like a perfectly nice place to start. I like Justin's rubric for why these releases might come about (or be valuable), but if I hadn't heard any Coltrane and you just gave me this one, my unnuanced perspective would just be something like "wow, this is great!" But maybe I'm underthinking it. And having that reaction doesn't mean that others aren't right to recommend better/more edifying entry points, or that having that reaction shouldn't lead one to educate oneself.

Jonathan Shaw: Maybe it's a lucky thing for me to be so poorly versed in Coltrane's music, not just in the sense of having listened to precious little of it. I am even less familiar with the catalog of music criticism, which in jazz seems to me voluminous, archival in scale. But even with music I'm extensively engaged with — historically, critically — I try to understand it and also to feel it. I can't imagine not feeling what's exciting in this music, energizing and challenging in equal measure.

Like Marc, I don't want to recursively impugn the critical writing of folks working in very different contexts. But I don't like it when the thinking gets in the way of the music's emotional and aesthetic force, which to me feels unmistakably powerful here.

Ian Mathers: Yeah, maybe that's a good distinction to draw; I can imagine in a different time and place feeling like the music here is more radical or challenging than it sounds to us now. But I can't quite imagine not getting a visceral thrill out of it.

Marc Medwin: And doesn't this contradiction get at the essence of what we're trying to do? Those of us who've chosen to write about music are absolutely stuck grasping at the ephemeral in whatever way we're able! How do we balance the ordering of considerations and explanations in unfolding sentences with the  spontaneity of action and reaction that made us pick up a pen in the first place?! We add and subtract layers of whatever that alchemical intersection of meaning and energy involves that hits so hard and compels us to write! In fact, the more time I'm spending with these snapshots of summer 1961, the more I decamp from my own philosophizing about critical relativity to sit beside Ian. The stuff is powerful and original, and the fact that so much of what we're hearing now is a direct result of those modal explorations and harmonically inventive interventions says that the dissenting voices were fundamentally, if understandably, wrong! It could be that the musician can be inclusive in a way the writer simply can't.

I'm listening to "Africa" again, which is for me the disc's biggest single revelation in that it's the only concert version we have, so far as I know. How exciting is that Jones solo, and how much does it say about his art and the group's collective art?!! He starts out in this kind of "Latin" groove with layers of swing and syncopation over it, he goes into a melodic/motivic thing like you'd eventually hear Ginger Baker doing on Toad, and then eases back into the groove, all (if no editing has occured) in about two minutes. He's got the music's history summed up in the time it would take somebody to get through a proper hello!! Took me longer to scribble about it than for him to play it!!

Justin Cober-Lake: I'm not sure if Marc is making me want to put down or pick up a pen, but he's definitely making me want to listen to "Africa" again. (Not that I needed much encouragement.)

Andrew Forell: Africa/Brass was the first jazz album I bought. Coming from post-punk, I found it immediately the most exciting and challenging music I’d heard and it set me off on my exploration of Coltrane, Dolphy, Coleman and their contemporaries. This version of “Africa” is a highlight for me also for all the reasons Marc, Ian and Jon have talked about.

Bill Meyer: Yeah, "Africa" is quite the jam! 

A thought about critical perspective — our discussion has gotten me thinking, not for the first time, about the impacts of measures upon experience, and the limits of critical thinking when I’m also an avid listener. If I’m listening for “the best” Coltrane/Dolphy, in terms of sound quality or most focused performances,  this album isn’t it. But if I’m looking for excitement, this album has loads of it, and that might be enhanced by the drums-forward mix. 

[bolllywoodhungama]

Critics Choice Awards 2024: Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer, Barbie, Succession, The Bear lead the wins

The Critics Choice Awards 2024 celebrated cinematic and television excellence on Sunday night, January 14, 2024. Chelsea Handler returned as the host for the evening. Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer shone, securing eight wins, including Best Picture and Best Director though Cillian Murphy missed the Best Actor win. Greta Gerwig’s Barbie claimed six awards, winning in categories like Best Comedy and Best Original Screenplay. Emma Stone earned Best Actress for Poor Things. On the TV front, Succession, The Bear, and Beef led the wins.

FILM BEST PICTURE American Fiction Barbie The Color Purple The Holdovers Killers of the Flower Moon Maestro Oppenheimer - WINNER Past Lives Poor Things Saltburn

BEST ACTOR Bradley Cooper, Maestro Leonardo DiCaprio, Killers of the Flower Moon Colman Domingo, Rustin Paul Giamatti, The Holdovers - WINNER Cillian Murphy, Oppenheimer Jeffrey Wright, American Fiction

BEST ACTRESS Lily Gladstone, Killers of the Flower Moon Sandra Hüller, Anatomy of a Fall Greta Lee, Past Lives Carey Mulligan, Maestro Margot Robbie, Barbie Emma Stone, Poor Things - WINNER

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR Sterling K. Brown, American Fiction Robert De Niro, Killers of the Flower Moon Robert Downey Jr., Oppenheimer - WINNER Ryan Gosling, Barbie Charles Melton, May December Mark Ruffalo, Poor Things

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS Emily Blunt, Oppenheimer Danielle Brooks, The Color Purple America Ferrera, Barbie Jodie Foster, Nyad Julianne Moore, May December Da'Vine Joy Randolph, The Holdovers - WINNER

BEST YOUNG ACTOR/ACTRESS Abby Ryder Fortson, Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. Ariana Greenblatt, Barbie Calah Lane, Wonka Milo Machado Graner, Anatomy of a Fall Dominic Sessa, The Holdovers - WINNER Madeleine Yuna Voyles, The Creator

BEST ACTING ENSEMBLE Air Barbie The Color Purple The Holdovers Killers of the Flower Moon Oppenheimer - WINNER

BEST DIRECTOR Bradley Cooper, Maestro Greta Gerwig, Barbie Yorgos Lanthimos, Poor Things Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer - WINNER Alexander Payne, The Holdovers Martin Scorsese, Killers of the Flower Moon

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY Kelly Fremon Craig, Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. Andrew Haigh, All of Us Strangers Cord Jefferson, American Fiction - WINNER Tony McNamara, Poor Things Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer Eric Roth and Martin Scorsese, Killers of the Flower Moon

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY Samy Burch, May December Alex Convery, Air Bradley Cooper & Josh Singer, Maestro Greta Gerwig & Noah Baumbach, Barbie - WINNER David Hemingson, The Holdovers Celine Song, Past Lives

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY Matthew Libatique, Maestro Rodrigo Prieto, Barbie Rodrigo Prieto, Killers of the Flower Moon Robbie Ryan, Poor Things Linus Sandgren, Saltburn Hoyte van Hoytema, Oppenheimer - WINNER

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN Suzie Davies, Charlotte Dirickx, Saltburn Ruth De Jong, Claire Kaufman, Oppenheimer Jack Fisk, Adam Willis, Killers of the Flower Moon Sarah Greenwood, Katie Spencer, Barbie - WINNER James Price, Shona Heath, Szusza Mihalek, Poor Things Adam Stockhausen, Kris Moran, Asteroid City

BEST EDITING William Goldenberg – Air Nick Houy – Barbie Jennifer Lame – Oppenheimer - WINNER Yorgos Mavropsaridis – Poor Things Thelma Schoonmaker – Killers of the Flower Moon Michelle Tesoro – Maestro

BEST COSTUME DESIGN Jacqueline Durran, Barbie - WINNER Lindy Hemming, Wonka Francine Jamison-Tanchuck, The Color Purple Holly Waddington, Poor Things Jacqueline West, Killers of the Flower Moon Janty Yates, David Crossman, Napoleon

BEST HAIR AND MAKEUP Barbie - WINNER The Color Purple Maestro Oppenheimer Poor Things Priscilla

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS The Creator Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One Oppenheimer - WINNER Poor Things Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse

BEST COMEDY American Fiction Barbie - WINNER Bottoms The Holdovers No Hard Feelings Poor Things

BEST ANIMATED FILM The Boy and the Heron Elemental Nimona Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse - WINNER Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem Wish

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM Anatomy of a Fall - WINNER Godzilla Minus One Perfect Days Society of the Snow The Taste of Things The Zone of Interest

BEST SONG “Dance the Night," Barbie “I’m Just Ken," Barbie - WINNER “Peaches," The Super Mario Bros. Movie “Road to Freedom," Rustin "This Wish," Wish "What Was I Made For," Barbie

BEST SCORE Jerskin Fendrix, Poor Things Michael Giacchino, Society of the Snow Ludwig Göransson, Oppenheimer - WINNER Daniel Pemberton, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Robbie Robertson, Killers of the Flower Moon Mark Ronson, Andrew Wyatt, Barbie

TELEVISION BEST DRAMA SERIES The Crown The Diplomat The Last of Us Loki The Morning Show Stark Trek: Strange New Worlds Succession - WINNER Winning Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty

BEST ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES Kieran Culkin – Succession - WINNER Tom Hiddleston – Loki Timothy Olyphant – Justified: City Primeval Pedro Pascal – The Last of Us Ramón Rodríguez – Will Trent Jeremy Strong – Succession

BEST ACTRESS IN A DRAMA SERIES Jennifer Aniston – The Morning Show Aunjanue Ellis – Justified: City Primeval Bella Ramsey – The Last of Us Keri Russell – The Diplomat Sarah Snook – Succession - WINNER Reese Witherspoon – The Morning Show

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES Khalid Abdalla – The Crown Billy Crudup – The Morning Show - WINNER Ron Cephas Jones – Truth Be Told Matthew MacFadyen – Succession Ke Huy Quan – Loki Rufus Sewell – The Diplomat

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A DRAMA SERIES Nicole Beharie – The Morning Show Elizabeth Debicki – The Crown - WINNER Sophia Di Martino – Loki Celia Rose Gooding – Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Karen Pittman – The Morning Show Christina Ricci – Yellowjackets

BEST COMEDY SERIES Abbott Elementary Barry The Bear - WINNER The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel Poker Face Reservation Dogs Shrinking What We Do in the Shadows

BEST ACTOR IN A COMEDY SERIES Bill Hader – Barry Steve Martin – Only Murders in the Building Kayvan Novak – What We Do in the Shadows Drew Tarver – The Other Two Jeremy Allen White – The Bear - WINNER D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai – Reservation Dogs

BEST ACTRESS IN A COMEDY SERIES Rachel Brosnahan – The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel Quinta Brunson – Abbott Elementary Ayo Edebiri – The Bear - WINNER Bridget Everett – Somebody Somewhere Devery Jacobs – Reservation Dogs Natasha Lyonne – Poker Face

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A COMEDY SERIES Phil Dunster – Ted Lasso Harrison Ford – Shrinking Harvey Guillén – What We Do in the Shadows James Marsden – Jury Duty Ebon Moss-Bachrach – The Bear - WINNER Henry Winkler – Barry

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A COMEDY SERIES Paulina Alexis – Reservation Dogs Alex Borstein – The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel Janelle James – Abbott Elementary Sheryl Lee Ralph – Abbott Elementary Meryl Streep – Only Murders in the Building - WINNER Jessica Williams – Shrinking

BEST LIMITED SERIES Beef - WINNER Daisy Jones & the Six Fargo Fellow Travelers Lessons in Chemistry Love & Death A Murder at the End of the World A Small Light

BEST MOVIE MADE FOR TELEVISION The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial Finestkind Mr. Monk’s Last Case: A Monk Movie No One Will Save You Quiz Lady - WINNER Reality

BEST ACTOR IN A LIMITED SERIES OR MOVIE MADE FOR TELEVISION Matt Bomer – Fellow Travelers Tom Holland – The Crowded Room David Oyelowo – Lawmen: Bass Reeves Tony Shalhoub – Mr. Monk’s Last Case: A Monk Movie Kiefer Sutherland – The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial Steven Yeun – Beef - WINNER

BEST ACTRESS IN A LIMITED SERIES OR MOVIE MADE FOR TELEVISION Kaitlyn Dever – No One Will Save You Carla Gugino – The Fall of the House of Usher Brie Larson – Lessons in Chemistry Bel Powley – A Small Light Sydney Sweeney – Reality Juno Temple – Fargo Ali Wong – Beef - WINNER

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A LIMITED SERIES OR MOVIE MADE FOR TELEVISION Jonathan Bailey – Fellow Travelers - WINNER Taylor Kitsch – Painkiller Jesse Plemons – Love & Death Lewis Pullman – Lessons in Chemistry Liev Schreiber – A Small Light Justin Theroux – White House Plumbers

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A LIMITED SERIES OR MOVIE MADE FOR TELEVISION Maria Bello – Beef - WINNER Billie Boullet – A Small Light Willa Fitzgerald – The Fall of the House of Usher Aja Naomi King – Lessons in Chemistry Mary McDonnell – The Fall of the House of Usher Camila Morrone – Daisy Jones & the Six

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE SERIES Bargain The Glory The Good Mothers The Interpreter of Silence Lupin - WINNER Mask Girl Moving

BEST ANIMATED SERIES Bluey Bob’s Burgers Harley Quinn Scott Pilgrim Takes Off - WINNER Star Trek: Lower Decks Young Love

BEST TALK SHOW The Graham Norton Show Jimmy Kimmel Live! The Kelly Clarkson Show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver - WINNER Late Night with Seth Meyers The Late Show with Stephen Colbert

BEST COMEDY SPECIAL Mike Birbiglia: The Old Man and the Pool Alex Borstein: Corsets & Clown Suits John Early: Now More Than Ever John Mulaney: Baby J - Winner Trevor Noah: Where Was I Wanda Sykes – I’m an Entertainer

[byneddiedingo]

Bette Davis in The Letter (William Wyler, 1940)

Cast: Bette Davis, Herbert Marshall, James Stephenson, Frieda Inescort, Gale Sondergaard, Bruce Lester, Elizabeth Inglis, Cecil Kellaway, Victor Sen Yung, Doris Lloyd, Willie Fung, Tetsu Komai. Screenplay: Howard Koch, based on a play by W. Somerset Maugham. Cinematography: Tony Gaudio. Art direction: Carl Jules Weyl. Film editing: George Amy, Warren Low. Music: Max Steiner.

As Tony Gaudio's camera travels across the Malayan rubber plantation we hear shots being fired, and as we track closer we see Leslie Crosbie (Bette Davis), coming down her front steps with a grimly determined look on her face, firing the remaining bullets from her revolver into a man on the ground. And we sit back and relax and think, "Oh, yeah, Bette's here. This is gonna be good." Davis is one of the few stars who can almost always make us feel this way -- maybe Cary Grant or Barbara Stanwyck for me -- who else for you? And it is good, perhaps the best of the three films Davis made with William Wyler. For me, Jezebel (1938) is too steeped in the Hollywood Old South myth, and The Little Foxes (1941) too hamstrung by Lillian Hellman's dramaturgy. This one has a very fine screenplay by Howard Koch that deftly steps on and around the restrictions placed on it by the Production Code. For one thing, Leslie has to be punished for her crime, which involves not only murder but also, with the help of her lawyer, Howard Joyce (James Stephenson), suborning justice. (Joyce somehow gets off scot-free, though with an embittered conscience.) Wyler got a bad rap from the auteur critics like Andrew Sarris, who found his technical skills insufficiently personal. But we see something of Wyler's daring early in the film as Leslie is recounting her version of why she shot Geoffrey Hammond to her lawyer, her husband (Herbert Marshall), and a government official (Bruce Lester) who has been called to the scene. Wyler chooses to shoot a long segment of Leslie's story with the backs of Leslie and the three men to the camera: We don't see their faces, but only the room where the initial shooting took place. The effect, relying heavily on Davis's voice acting and Koch's script, is to place Leslie's narrative -- which as others comment rarely varies by a word -- in our minds instead of the truth. It is, for Davis, a splendidly icy and controlled performance. The major fault in the film today is in the condescension toward Asian characters typical of Hollywood in the era, though it's not as bad perhaps in 1940 as it would be after Pearl Harbor a year later. We learn that Hammond had a Eurasian wife (the Code-enforced substitute for the Chinese mistress of W. Somerset Maugham's 1927 play), and in 1940s Hollywood "Eurasian" invariable meant "sinister," especially when she's played by Gale Sondergaard. The other Asians in the film are treated as subordinates, including Joyce's Chinese law clerk, Ong Chi Seng (Victor Sen Yung), who is all smiles and passive aggressiveness. That we are expected to share in this colonialist order of things is especially apparent when Leslie is forced to deliver the payment for the incriminating letter to Mrs. Hammond, who lords it over Leslie, making her remove her shawl to bare her head and to place the money in her hands; then Mrs. Hammond drops the letter on the floor, making Leslie pick it up. If today we cheer at Mrs. Hammond's abasement of Leslie, who after all killed her husband, you can bet that 1940s audiences, or at least the white ones, didn't.

[internalintestines]

things i read last month (february 2023)

poetry

my mother would be a falconress - robert duncan

kink - imani davis

words for the sri lanka tourist office - indran amirthanayagam

substitution - anne spencer

ice - gail mazur

when the dawn comes to the city - claude mckay

the lammegerier daughter - pascale petit

canopy - arlene keizer

regarding the rottgen piete - elle emerson

missed time - ha jin

february 11th 1990 - wanda coleman

the venus of milo - henrietta cordelia ray

there are no boring people in this world - yevgent yevtushenko

we have not long to love - tennessee williams

eating together - kim addonizio

i have just said - mary oliver

challenge - sterling a. brown

on a train - wendy cope

books

detransition, baby - torrey peters

closer baby closer - savannah brown (poetry collection)

university readings

‘literary criticism’ in lesbian and gay studies: an introduction, vincent quinn, 1987 (intro to queer studies)

‘the greyhound bus station in the evolution of lesbian popular culture’ in new lesbian criticism, angela weir and elizabeth wilson, 1992 (intro to queer studies)

extract from ‘beebo brinker’, ann bannon, (intro to queer studies)

‘modernism, post modernism and art education’, in art education vol 39, patricia clahassey, 1989 (modernism and after)

‘modernity and modernism’ chapter 2 from the condition of postmodernity, david harvey, 1990 (modernism and after)

‘the bauhaus and studio art education’ in art education vol 34, andrew phelan, 1981 (modernism and after)

‘johannes itten and the background of modern art education’ in art journal vol 27, henry p raleigh, 1968 (modernism and after)

substack

evil female: on sensitivitiy, sadness and noticing things

evil female: everyone is grotesque and no one is turned on

grace rother: warmth

evil female: personal style is dead and the algorithm killed it

maybe baby: #135 anti anti social social club

joshua citarella's newsletter: there is no alternative

joshua citarella's newsletter: tag yourself

grace rother: into march

patti smith: milan in three segments

evil female: the tragedy of work shakespear

articles

‘raw eggs, pink pills and embodied identity: online communities creates their own proof in a vaccum of truth’, joshua citarella, document journal, 2023

[magicpotiondaily]

Critics Choice Awards 2023 - fave looks ♥️

~ Britt Lower, Phoebe Dynevor, Amy Brenneman, Niecy Nash, Anya Taylor-Joy, Elle Fanning, Kate Hudson, Cate Blanchett, Rhea Seehorn, Adam Scott, Tyler James Williams, Daisy Edgar-Jones, Thuso Mbedu, Eve Hewson, Matt Smith, Jin Ha, Soji Arai, Jay Ellis, Brendan Fraser, Niv Sultan, Austin Butler, D’Arcy Carden, Lewis Pullman, Amber Midthunder, Quinta Brunson, Jessie Buckley, Aubrey Plaza, Marcia Gay Harden, Seth Rogan, Viola Davis, Anna Sawai, Andrew Garfield, Chelsea Handler, Stephanie Hsu, Jen Tullock, Monica Barbaro, Michelle Yeoh, Billy Eichner, Brian Tyree Henry, Paul Dano, Glen Powell, Stephen Lang, Henry Golding, Giancarlo Esposito