#this is something I really hope greta gerwig understands

[queen-lucy-the-valiant]

Each of the seven Narnia books has a moral message or theme at its foundation. Every major beat of the story is centered on and refers back to this theme, so if you take away or alter the theme, you alter the entire foundation of the story. Obviously these themes/messages align with Christian principles because this is Lewis we’re talking about. So, my interpretations of the themes are the following:

 Magician’s Nephew is about taking responsibilities for your actions, LWW is about being selfless but also about forgiveness, Horse and His Boy is about the golden rule, Prince Caspian is about belief without proof, Voyage is about conquering temptation/evil within yourself, and Silver Chair is about trusting in God’s plan even when it doesn’t make sense, and Last Battle is about hope and doing what you think is good even when it seems hopeless. 

Which I think is one of the reasons the Voyage movie falls flat when compared to the other two. One explanation is that it changes many things from the book, but Prince Caspian does that too. Both movies make drastic changes from their source material, but Prince Caspian doesn’t feel (at least to me) as drastically changed as Voyage, because Voyage’s changes go down to the very foundation of the book’s theme. Lewis is saying that there is ‘evil’ in everyone that we all have to repeatedly overcome while the movie is saying that evil is outside of us and that we can overcome it once and be done with it, which drastically changes the central theme of the story. Prince Caspian on the other hand adds a lot of the story but all of the changes stay true to the central theme of belief without proof (or they correct some of Lewis’ inconsistencies). You can change the details all you want for the most part, but the core theme of the story has to remain the same otherwise it’s just not the same story so it won’t feel the same.

So there’s this really big essay I want to write detailing all the changes and how they alter the theme or go along with the theme etc.

[kiwisa]

Watch Out, Boys ✷ cl16

✷ SECOND INTERLUDE OF THE TAMING OF THE HEARTBREAKER

━━━━━  PREVIOUS & NEXT !

in which... Y/N's invitation to the Miami GP means trouble !

AS THE HALL & OATES' SONG GOES: "Watch out, boys, she'll chew you up." Because, if there's one thing we know, it's that putting Y/N L/N and 20 conventionally attractive men in the same place is never a good idea. 

Yet, that is precisely what's going to happen in a few days at the Miami International Autodrome. The actress, who will play the iconic Barbie in Greta Gerwig's adaptation, has been invited by Ray-Ban to the Miami Grand Prix on May 8.

The news was announced on Ferrari’s TikTok account⏤which the eyewear brand sponsors⏤and has since then sparked numerous reactions. While these vary, one common thread stands out: the fear of havoc. Admittedly, L/N turns heads and sows discord wherever she goes. 

Formula One is already a chaotic world, adding Y/N L/N and her shenanigans to the mix would only make it worse. 

Since her list of actors waiting to be seduced is dwindling, this event presents itself as a bargain for the Academy Award-winning actress, who will only have to draw someone from 20 options to be her next prey. 

If the possibilities are considerably reduced by one small element to consider⏤the WAGs⏤L/N has shown before that she is not above immorality when it comes to getting her way. Her affair with Harry Styles, even though he was rumoured to be in a relationship with Olivia Wilde at the time, is formal proof of this. 

Hide your men, ladies, because The Heartbreaker is in town and ready to pounce!

✷ SEE ALSO ON LOVE CLUB... !

Y/N L/N named the highest-paid actress of 2021 by Forbes

"Name a more iconic character? You can't" Y/N on being cast as Barbie for Greta Gerwig's movie

Is Harry Styles cheating on Olivia Wilde with Y/N L/N?

Of course, all eyes are now on the two Ferrari drivers, with whom L/N will spend most of her time (common sponsor dictates), and more particularly on Charles Leclerc, who is single.

It has been almost a month since the woman was last seen with anyone. A record! She's probably more determined than ever to get her hands on some fresh meat, and what better than a handsome, muscular driver who can speak French? We all know L/N's soft spot for the language of love. Her interviews remind us of it enough. So do her many French conquests.

We just hope that the actress' famous bedroom eyes will not trouble the Monegasque and make him lose his race. The fans of Il Predestinato would not react kindly to this.

He is, after all, one of the current favourites for the championship.

In any case, no matter what happens over the weekend, the outcome is bound to be interesting. Because, while her actions are open to criticism, Y/N L/N's impact is undeniable.

The woman is already the talk of the paddock and she hasn’t even set foot on it yet.

FILED UNDER #Y/NL/N #F1 #ACTORS #SPORTS #MIAMI #DATING

Sort by Latest ↓

Anonymous 15 minutes ago

It's already a miracle that she hasn't tried to fuck football players yet, if she could keep this up with F1 it would be great.

Anonymous 38 minutes ago

I will never understand why celebrities who have nothing to do with F1 and probably don't give a shit about it either are invited to all GP. It's ridiculous.

Anonymous 51 minutes ago

There's something about Y/N that I just hate. It's physical at this point. I can only stand her in movies. Probably because she doesn't act like herself in those...

Anonymous 1 hour ago

No, but I swear she really has a libido problem. This is the only explanation. She must be a nymphomaniac. Or just a whore. Or both.

Load more comments

✷ ━━━━ Subscribe to the Love Club's Newsletter !

@feminefatal @sad1esgf @bellalilo @goldsainz @motorsp0rt @fleetwooods @starsanova @g4ns3y @moonyseyelash @ccallistata @cialovessirlewis @ctrlyomomma @questionableppls @leclerc13 @fercedes @charlesswife @iambored24601 @leclercinvegas @fezlvr @ferraribabe @greigreyhiyyih @rqmanoff @kirke-is-my-name @filmflux @dreamycunt69 @briboweee @yu_55 @tinyshadxws @chasingmemyself @topguncultleader @mirrorball-15 @mae119 @kosmosgalore @nylaslife @indecisivelyconfuzzled @kypostsblog @pikaxyeol @eas-8 @tall-tanned-tattoo @rhaeszn @pockyandme @chonkybonky @moon4moony @wonderfulmumbo @magical-spit @nichmeddar @parkersmjs @landonorizzz @iminlovewithfictionmen @buttonhamy @georgerussellslover @itsmesofia @shotofesspresso @lu-morningstar-2 @kdycvlt @incontention @vex-et-soleil @btwimmel

[acrossfromladystardust]

i’m so upset because so many people say they felt seen after watching barbie but genuinely i felt like if you aren’t a straight girly girl these barbies did nothing for you

i think it’s great they’re not all white and have different careers! but otherwise they were the exact same type of person in my eyes

i loved loved the idea of the “ordinary barbie” but i hoped they would’ve gone a little deeper into that. this was something i felt all throughout the movie honestly, so many good ideas thrown in and none of them explored enough so everything just felt extremely surface level and already obvious

after watching little women 2019 i can’t not be a greta gerwig fan but i feel like this movie was too commercial and therefore didn’t feel like her usual style. all of her other movies explore deeper feeling more subtly, and don’t just spoon-feed you every idea, while this one told you everything word for word so that it could reach a wider audience. i understand the importance of teaching feminist ideas to more people, but this seemed like a very weak way to do it

this is not to say that there weren’t some scenes i really liked, and visually the movie was beautiful and fun, but throwing so many things in and barely analysing them made the movie feel very much not cohesive and somewhat incomplete

overall i was not impressed, and i had such high expectations so i’m really quite disappointed

[ilivedonceinthisworld]

“I think it’s important to have light-hearted movies that don’t take themselves too seriously. Barbie movies are a nice way to escape the stress and craziness of everyday life.”

“While many Barbie movies end with her getting married to Ken or some random guy, getting married or falling in love wasn’t her end goal. Love was just something she found along the way to what she really wanted.”

“I love when Barbie films touch on discovering and learning more about oneself. To see her struggle and even cry about trying to do too much at once or not understanding what she’s trying to do is so validating, and to see her work things out by the end is a little message of hope for the viewer.”

[cloudsintheskylar]

some thoughts on Barbie (2023)

smart and well done

lovely details beautifully executed, unfortunately overshadowed somewhat by a corporate need to prove itself pro woman, but a second watch helped me notice more

greta gerwig’s talent of showcasing love, family, and womanhood once again dazzles

this movie is deep, thoughtful, actually funny, and a good time all around

i realized, and actually really like, that barbie starts her journey thinking she is going to be helping/guiding/ almost parenting a sad child and then as she is hit with obstacles and discovers what the real world is like it turns out to be that she is playing the child role and gloria becomes barbie’s mother figure as she helps her understand and grow in life. which is part of why at the end barbie wants to be human, because she learned of the beauty of life through this maternal figure, and learned how even though it is hard and scary she can tackle it because she has seen the bravery of gloria and now is no longer scared to be a woman. she goes into the real world and tumbles through so many thoughts and emotions that she crashes and gloria is there to help her while simultaneously barbie is helping gloria in the same vein by being a hopeful light for her but also by giving her something to fight for. barbie gives gloria someone to parent, to guide, as she is wishing her own daughter was closer to her.

and the way that barbie cries when she first feels life through her vision of gloria and her daughter. she realizes something about herself, life, and the real world even though she doesn’t yet understand it. she sees this new world in a new way, and feels safe in it probably for the first time since arriving. and while she is experiencing something about herself, so is ken. he finds a confidence and joy that he never had, and while he goes extreme in his excitement and execution of what he understands to be patriarchy, in the end he is able to realize that he is just ken and that is okay. barbie also learns to be just barbie and helps ken realize he can live independent of her. they help each other on their journeys while also dealing with so much inner turmoil and change. the character development between these two characters is great, especially when considering they are the first, stereotypical, barbie and ken so the real world is a complete 180 from their own worlds and experiences

check out my letterboxd for more thoughts!

https://boxd.it/2C4rb

[thatscrewyballyhooeyhollywood]

Barbenheimer.

It is a progeny of some genius on social media: watch two wildly different movies released in theaters on the same day, back-to-back.

One of many "Barbenheimer" images that appeared in print and social media. On the left, Cillian Murphy, in the role of J. Robert Oppenheimer, and on the right is Margot Robbie as the titular Barbie.

And by wildly different, I mean these two films could not have been farther apart from each other. The first - Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer (2023) - is a dark and tense epic about mankind's incredible accomplishments, and the devastation those accomplishments can leave behind, as told through the rise and fall of the "Father of the Atomic Bomb."

The second was Greta Gerwig's Barbie (2023), a bubblegum pink comedy about history's most famous toy, who goes on an adventure to the "Real World" to solve a mystery around changes happening in "Barbie Land."

Pairing these two movies proved to be genius in several ways. Of course, this non-sanctioned marketing campaign (as far as I know, it was strictly a product of social media and something neither Universal (Oppenheimer) nor Warner Bros. (Barbie) threw their weight behind) meant both films blasted past box office expectations.

But at the same time, the back-to-back nature of watching the films prompted many - myself included - who would have only watched one of these movies in other contexts (I was Team Oppenheimer all the way here) instead watch a movie they otherwise would not have seen.

And there is something almost visceral about how differently the two movies looked, and felt, and the questions they each left viewers with as the end credits rolled.

Questions that may seem to conflict, but they are not necessarily mutually exclusive: how far is too far? At what point will the human race destroy itself in the pursuit of something it deems great? And how do we each take control of our own destiny in a world that may not let us?

I personally hope those who participated in Barbenheimer this weekend can appreciate the differences between the two films (whether they like one, or both, or neither of them), and maybe even understand just how vast and endless storytelling can really be.

[ayellowcurtain]

Established Sobbe that has been dating for years (they’re not trying to hide it either, it just never came up), sander’s parents try to set him up with Britt because they think it’s about time he gets in a relationship and robbe’s friends try to set him up with sander, both not realizing that they’re already in a relationship, they go along with it because they think it’s hilarious

“I think this is the last box.” Sander says, throwing himself on Robbe’s brand new bed, not sure if he’ll have the strength to go back downstairs if it’s not. They’ve been moving Robbe’s belongings around all day. Sander knew it wouldn’t be easy so he offered his help from packing Robbe’s old bedroom in his parents’ place to moving to this new flat. 

He doesn’t know who the roomies are but Robbe says they’re friends of his friends so it should be fine. 

“Yeah, I think we’re done.” Robbe comes back from the bathroom across the hall, sighing, tired too, smiling when he sees Sander comfortable on his bed already, sitting up when his boyfriend sits on his lap. 

“Your new bed is comfy.” 

“Yeah? It was Milan’s so I wouldn’t trust to sit on it with no sheets but you did it for me, so...” 

Sander frowns, trying to think Robbe is just teasing him and not being serious about how dirty it can be. 

“Is Milan someone you could find attractive?” Sander puts his arms tighter around Robbe’s waist, keeping them as close as possible, smiling when his boyfriend whines very softly, putting his arms around Sander’s neck. 

“Funny you say that. He tried to kiss me a few months before I met you.” 

“What? I didn’t know that!” Sander is interested now. It was a long road until Robbe could even trust himself and Sander to let them talk, knowing very well Sander was falling for him, wanting more than to just be friends. 

Robbe was so deeply inside his closet is hard to imagine his reaction to a guy trying to kiss him before. Sander will never forget the thrill that ran through his whole body when Robbe finally kissed him. He was almost giving up, thinking Robbe would live his whole life pretending to be straight when it happened. 

It’s true that things moved pretty quickly after the first kiss under the water. They went from being weird friends that were clearly completely attracted to each other to being each other’s first in everything, all in one night. 

“You know how bad I was when we met so I don’t think there’s nothing to worry about. I should even apologize to him for being so rude.” 

“You said he helped you with your dad...” Sander tries not to sound as jealous as he feels thinking about Robbe sharing a flat with people he doesn’t know that well, none that could be consider “responsible” if Robbe’s explanation of each of them is anything to go by. 

“He did, he dressed all weird like an adult and my dad bought his bullshit.” 

“So he’s older...that seems to be your type.” Robbe laughs lightly in that way that makes Sander’s world turn into bright colors and lightheaded feelings. 

“Like you just kissed people your age before me.” 

Sander lifts his brows, pretending to think about it when they both know that’s not the case. “No...but never too old either.” 

“How old is too old for you, mister Driesen?” 

“It really depends on how young the youngest is but if both are of age...I would say 5 years is okay still. Maybe 6 if you really like the person.” 

“That’s a gap...” 

“Yeah...Don’t you think society already puts too much weight on labels and time and what’s possible or not to be loved? Like I said, if both people have their brains fully developed by their ages and if they’re both aware of their own feelings and what’s right and wrong, it feels like another box they’re trying to put us inside. Think about older couples that you know, or famous ones, celebrities and shit.”

Sander lifts them up from the bed for a second so he can grab his phone on his pocket, doing a little research with the first celebrities he can think of. 

“Kanye West and Kim Kardashian, Brie Larson and her guy, Greta Gerwig and her guy, Viola David and her husband, look!” Robbe steals his phone before he can keep going, leaving it behind them on the bed. 

“I get it! And I believe you, no need for proof.” 

“Those seem like pretty healthy relationship. These women seem to have their shit together and they have big gaps with their lovers.”

Robbe pulls Sander closer but before they can kiss, the front door is closed and locked, making both of them jump and look at the hall. 

“Hi...?” The blonde girl that Sander assumes to be Zoe stops at the bedroom door, and a guy follows her, clearly interested in what’s going on inside. 

“Hi...” Robbe jumps out of his lap, blushing so deeply that Sander swallows hard, hoping he didn’t make Robbe too uncomfortable getting caught by his roommates. 

“Who are you?” The guy carefully pushes the girl to the side so he can get inside, offering his hand to Sander.

He looks at Robbe, not sure of how he should introduce himself, “Sander,” he decides, shaking the guy’s hand, noticing how he looks at Robbe with a big smile on his face. 

“I’m Milan, so nice to meet you, Sander!” He tries to smile and quietly look at Robbe, see how can he help because it’s clear that Robbe is freaking out a little bit inside his head, not able to use his words. 

“He’s, hm, my boyfriend.” Robbe finally states and Sander exhales, just then noticing he was holding most of his breath. 

“Oh my god! I know you!” The girl finally comes in like her realization of something is what she needed to come in. Sander looks at her, not recognizing her face or voice, “I saw you on Noor’s insta!” 

She laughs and looks around, nobody else understand where she’s going with this so she explains, “Yeah, we were trying to find someone for Robbe.” 

“What?” Robbe almost scream in shock. 

“What? And why I wasn’t part of that committee?” Milan frowns, so hurt that he didn’t know about this. 

She looks at everyone, still smiling, staring at Robbe lastly with an apologetic look. 

“We...didn’t know what you liked so we were very broad with our options. And you know Noor...” 

“Yeah...we go to the same college...” Sander adds, not sure of how much information Robbe wants him to give, not sure how close he is to his flatmates. 

“You chose well.” Milan says with a smile on his face, and that’s when Robbe suddenly gets tired of this awkward conversation, moving on his feet for the first time since he got up from Sander’s lap. 

“Okay, that’s enough. You can leave my bedroom now...” He tries to walk them out of his bedroom and Sander waits for him, noticing how he and Zoe are whispering things to each other, how big and proud her smile is before they’re finally out and Robbe closes and locks the door, resting his forehead against it. 

“Sorry...” 

Robbe finally relaxes his shoulders, turning back around and he doesn’t look mad but Sander waits until Robbe is close to him again, nuzzling against his chest like a cat, and Sander holds him tightly, kissing his forehead. 

“No need to say sorry. I wasn’t really hiding you, so...” 

Sander smiles against his hair. They really weren’t hiding each other or their relationship but they were often alone, in their bubble, maybe unconsciously keeping this to themselves and nobody else. Sander can’t think of anyone or anything coming between them so that’s why, maybe, this first interaction was so weird. 

His phone starts ringing on the bed and Robbe whines, holding his clothes but Sander walks around with him, keeping Robbe against his chest, grabbing his phone. 

“Hi mom...” Robbe smiles softly and Sander gets lost in how beautiful he is for a second, wrapping one arm around his waist, hiding against his neck to smell him, trying to hear what his mom is saying at the same time. 

“She’s a lovely girl, and I invited her to dinner here tonight.”

“What? Who, mom?” 

“Britt! The girl that came here to give me the pencil case you forgot in your class!” 

Sander closes his eyes, standing up again, feeling Robbe’s fingers in the back of his neck to pull him down and closer, carefully leaving feather-like kisses all over his face, on his eyelids, helping him relax instantly. 

“Shit, mom...!” 

“What? Don’t we like her? She seems so nice, baby! And so interested if you were home...” 

“I’ll be home in an hour.” 

“Okay, sweetie! Then we’ll talk.” 

“Yeah, yeah.” He ends the call and puts his phone back on his pocket. 

His parents should get the hint with how many times Sander didn’t sleep at home for the past year or so. Or how he’s been drawing the same mysterious figure, or how much he uses his phone now, constantly texting Robbe when they’re not together.

“One hour? I thought you were staying for the night!” Robbe talks softly and pouts a little and Sander smiles, kissing the corner of his lips just to tease his boyfriend. 

“We have plans now.” 

Robbe is still pouting a little, hoping his disappointment will make Sander change his mind, “What are you guys doing?” 

“No. Me and you.” He slips his hand down a little bit, patting Robbe’s ass, “Surprise, cutie, it’s “meet the parents” day!” 

Robbe opens his eyes big, stopping with the cute face now, suddenly so uncertain if they should do it like this, “Sander...” 

“It’ll be fun, I promise.” 

Sander sits back on the bed, pulling Robbe with him. He knows Britt, and he knows she wants to have something with him and he won’t be the asshole that breaks the girl’s heart in front of his parents and the love of his life. He just hopes they’ll get home before her and he’ll be able to introduce Robbe to his parents and just have a nice dinner with his parents, a friend from college, and Robbe. 

[svankmajerbaby]

regarding that awful guardian article about mattel wanting to be the next marvel.....

hey uh what if instead of going ham with the IPs and getting oscar nominated actors to play gi joe or whatever they instead invest in, like, good stories that deal with the issues toys are actually meant to embody and represent? thats why i have a sliver of hope for the barbie movie with greta gerwig. like her script for little women was really strong and i have faith in margot robbie understanding the cultural weight of the character of barbie but beyond that. just. live action movies of toys always will sound wrong to me because its simply best to keep it to animation yknow. toy story is the best example of a movie about toys that can talk about real issues uniquely fitted to themes of childhood and maturity while also being only possible through animation. its a medium in which stuff like gameplay and creativity are simply much better suited to. live action and the crushingly realistic style greta gerwig is so good at portraying will weight the barbie movie down when what it needs is to go back to that feeling of wonder and excitement and possibilities that the company itself spouts and which is the main objective of any toy. its like making "singin in the rain" a sour real life exploration of a washed up silent movie actor in the sound era (that movie was called "the artist", and it was forgettable and bordering on mediocre). idk unless the barbie movie engages with issues of how children play with dolls and the sort of stories they construct, a la "life size" (that movie with tyra banks i think it is)....... then why does it even exist. aside from cashing in a popular IP of fucking course

also this ties with my idea that it sounds like mattel wants to make "general audiences" movies with their toy IPs which. Its Toys. any media done about them should probably be geared mostly towards kids. of course you can make a good childrens movie that can also appeal to parents but. idk if they put sex jokes and stuff in a polly pocket movie I Think I Will Do Something Violent

all this to say lego batman and trolls 2 world tour are probably the best modern toy movies will ever get

[talesofafangirlwithadvr]

October/November Picks

Long time no see! So...it’s been a little bit since I’ve posted a wrap up. I had all intentions of posting one after October, but then you know life gets ahead of you and before you know it it’s Thanksgiving. Not much has changed in my viewing habits for these past two months, so I thought I’d group them together for a mega wrap up. Hope you enjoy :)

Without further ado here come some spoilers.....

…..

….

SECRET SOCIETY OF SECOND BORN ROYALS

This Disney + original movie was one of my highly anticipated watches for the fall. I am disappointed to share that it was a let down. The concept was such a cool and creative one. Having the second born in a royal family not simply be the “spare” but be the protector...with superpowers! (In a very YA way, getting their powers at a specific age.) They just should have gone about the story in a better way. I wanted more time with them learning about the powers and to make the villain stronger. Overall the acting wasn’t bad (which is good for a Disney + original), but it was just lacking. The movie was LONG and yet much did not feel like it happened. It was cool seeing Casa Loma (the castle they filmed at) as I was just there two summers ago. Sadly, I will not be watching this movie again.  

VIOLETTA SEASON 3

We all already know how pumped I was when season 3 of Violetta was released on Disney Plus in September. I couldn’t believe it after waiting so long for the second season. I really enjoyed the beginning of this season and knew we would be headed down a road where I would grow tired of the storylines. 

We have hit that point. 

Quick Violetta rant. Things I am done with:

Roxy and Fausta plot

Fran and Diego being a secret

Herman and Priscilla

Pablo not at the studio

Milton being evil

Ludmilla lying

Recently, my sister is catching up to where I am in the season, so this has pushed me to watch more. I am on episode 43 and some of the above venting has been solved, so that is super exciting. I am finding myself wanting to watch it more now, so fingers crossed it continues to get better. 

JULIE AND THE PHANTOMS

Kenny Ortega has done it again! When I first heard the premise for this show and watched the trailer on Netflix I wasn’t too sure. Then both of my sisters watched it and they wouldn’t stop talking about it, so that was a sign that I needed to watch it. Since then, I have watched the show twice and can’t stop listening to the music. THIS. SHOW. :) I get the hype. It’s just so wholesome and feel good. The characters are well crafted and the episodes go way too fast. They are the kind of characters (and cast) that make you wish you were a part of the show. I can’t wait for the next season (because there better be one). Definitely add this one to your list if it’s not on their already. 

THE OUTPOST

The Summer CW shows were pushed to the fall line up due to delays in filming of the originally planned shows. I hope this means that they’re getting a little more love this year. The Outpost deserves it, as it is currently in its third season. (I think it might have gotten a little more now that the 100 is over and the commercial aired during the 100′s last season. Maybe people heard Black-blood and decided to give it a go.) This season has seen a new threat and during the first eight episodes there’s been MANY twists and turns, making it hard for me to remember how this season started. There’s been a lot of unrest in the Outpost and changes in who is in charge. While there are some unnecessary plot-lines (like that Tobin had to be married), I’m really enjoying others. Like how important Janzo is, his relationship with Ren, more Munt and that TALON AND GARRETT FINALLY GOT TOGETHER!!! It makes me so happy and is what we deserve after these three seasons. I love how strong both of their characters are and how they are both Warriors. I hope the season ends strong. 

PANDORA

Just like The Outpost, Pandora was originally a Summer CW show that is now airing its second season. I really enjoyed the first season (like more than I was expecting), so I went in with higher hopes for this new season. Unfortunately, I have been let down so far. With the first season, there were parts that left me confused and my biggest review of this show has always been how there were gaps or moments where I didn’t know how much time had gone by. Those kind of things I could overlook, but this season the overall plot just seems weaker. I think this in part because of so many new characters. I know a lot of the season 1 cast ended their characters’ plots away from the Academy, but I wasn’t expecting them not to be a part of this season’s story. That has been a difficult adjustment. I also feel like I only understand Jax’s story and not so much about the other government/rebellion points. It’s getting a little better, but I hope it gets to be more enjoyable. 

THE SPANISH PRINCESS--SEASON 2

When I originally was creating this list I had just started this season, and felt completely different than I do right now. I just finished this season last week. Much like my above review on Pandora, The Spanish Princess wasn’t sucking me in. I had a few episodes gather on the DVR. Then once we hit episode 3 or 4 and more drama was starting/Henry was starting to show glimpses of the Henry VIII we all know, I was growing more interested. In season 2 of the Spanish Princess, we do not see a loving Catherine and Henry for long. Problems Catherine have in conceiving a boy (male heir) are one of the main focal points, as is Woolsey’s growing influence on the king. With several sub-plots this season, I specifically enjoyed learning more about Meg in Scotland (as a big Mary Queen of Scots/Reign fan, I liked seeing a portrayal of her grandmother) as well as Princess Mary Tudor (who I was unfamiliar with. I loved her and Charlie Brandon’s relationship and wish we could have gotten more.) Each week I watched this show, I found myself Googling a lot. That is always one of my favorite parts of watching a historical drama based on true events. I know right now it looks like the producers aren’t continuing with the Tudor line and might have a different part of history as their next show, but I wish they would. I’m feeling the call to watch the Tudors as it’s on Netflix and I haven’t seen it before. I want to learn more about his wives. 

BLOWN AWAY

In a complete shift from a period piece, here is another Netflix show I thoroughly enjoyed watching last month. Do you find the act of glass blowing to be extremely interesting, but you would never dream of trying yourself? Or do you like competition game shows that are not like anything else you’ve watched before? Then Blown Away might be for you! It’s a very fast watch with only a handful of episodes that are about a half hour a piece. (I honestly wished they were a bit longer because it was SO GOOD!) Each contestant is a glass blower and they get to show off their skills by competing in a specific challenge. Each episode you see someone get eliminated until the final where the winner gets a residency at Corning Museum of Glass in upstate New York. This show came out in 2019 and I am hoping a second season comes out.   

LIFE IN PIECES

This CBS comedy was one that I remember loving when it first came out. But I only remember watching the first season because then I couldn’t remember which day it was on. (It’s going to sound weird, but because I don’t watch a lot on this network I often forget it exists. We also only had a one room DVR at the time, so we couldn’t tape more than 2 things. Oh, the joys of multi-room DVR). After I finished my re-watch of Derry Girls in September, I was looking for another sitcom to re-watch. This was when I stumbled on the full series of Life in Pieces on Amazon video. (It’s free to watch with Prime.) I was so surprised to see there were 4 seasons! Since then I have been watching a good amount of episodes when I sit down to watch it. Now I’m about mid way in the second season. I highly recommend this show if you haven’t seen it before. It gives vibes of Modern Family. Very short episodes that include four storylines. The format is one that I haven’t seen done before in a sitcom.

SUPERMARKET SWEEP

The revival of the beloved game show from the early 90s is now hosted by Leslie Johns and is the best thing you should be watching on Sunday nights. If you know your grocery shopping list like the back of your hand then you are all set for this show. Leslie Johns is hilarious as are the cast of characters that are regulars in her supermarket. I think it would be a great TV show to be on and I’m not just saying that because I want one of the sweatshirts (although that would be great). If you want (another) feel-good watch, look no further! You catch up on demand. 

RE-WATCHING

ANNE WITH AN E

It’s hard to believe that we only got the third season of Anne with an E at the beginning of this year (as this year feels like its been going on forever and when I watched the third season I was in a much less stressed place). Currently, I am teaching a class involving Little Women and Anne of Green Gables. The main focus is on how these stories get adapted in recent times and include such modern plots (and sub-plots). Naturally Anne with an E is perfect for this topic (and after watching season 3 at the start of the year) was one of my major reasons for choosing this topic. (The other being Greta Gerwig’s latest Little Women.) As I’ve been planning my schedule, I’ve re-watched this show. There is something so great about watching it from season 1 all the way through to season 3. You get to watch them grow up and it’s crazy to see how young they first were. Comparing it more to the novel has been a fun time, but also analyzing it more has been great and made me appreciate it even more. With all the stress of our current situation watching this show has made me escape and feel good. (Yes, I know I’ve used that word a lot in this wrap up, but it’s true.)

***

******

Hopefully my next wrap up isn’t as delayed. Wishing everyone a happy holiday season! 

[greatfay]

since ur answering asks and shit can u explain what u meant by generational differences in communication

Damn it’s like 2015 tumblr when my inbox used to be WET. So if you’re talking about the controversial opinions post, YES, like I totally understand where people are coming from when they say that generational divides aren’t real (because they aren’t, they’re arbitrary) and distract us from real problems and yes they paint past generations as collectively bigoted when Civil Rights protestors in the 60s (who are in their 70s and 80s now) are mirrors to BLM protestors today, who could be of any age, but the most vocal and famous (at least online, especially irt to the founders, like Patrisse Cullors who is 37.

But how we communicate is sooooo different. I really point to the Internet and Social Media as a major influence in how younger millennials (more Tom Hollands and less Seth Rogans—see even there, I feel like there are two different types of Millennials) and Gen Zrs/Zoomers and even Generation Alpha behave and communicate. We live in a world where we grew up either knowing right out the gate or discovering the hard way that what we say and do has permanence, the kind of permanence that prior generations have never experienced until today. The dumb things kids have been saying since forever can now follow them... forever. We have an inherent understanding of how online spaces work. Compare that to, idk, let’s say you posted on your Facebook (for the first time in 18 months) “All these big and bad grown ass Senators going after actual child Greta Gerwig lol ok, you’re so brave for attacking a CHILD over climate change” and then your aunt, who’s turning “forty-fifteen” in May replies to your post with “So happy to see my passionate niece! Much love from us, hope you’re doing well. Paul is doing great, waiting on his screening results. Tell your mom I said we miss her, we need to get together, we forgive her for last Christmas.”

Like... ok there’s a lot going on there, but your hypothetical aunt is oversharing on a publicly accessible post. And even with the most strict of privacy settings, she’s oversharing where your other Facebook friends (which may include classmates, coworkers, etc.) can see. But she’s saying things that would only be appropriate in a 1-on-1 conversation. This Aunt doesn’t have an understanding of such boundaries, she’s not as technologically literate and hasn’t grown up in a world of Virtual Space, she still gets most of her news from TV, she trusts what a reporter on Channel 4 will read off a script more than what actual video footage of an incident might reveal on Twitter, and she has no clue that she’s been sharing her location data with every post she makes.

There’s such a huge difference. I think it even affects how we experience and express stress and frustration. I think growing up partially in online spaces has made me more accustomed to conflict and consequence-free arguing than someone who never had to worry about that. I’ve been exposed so much to harassment and bullying, triangulating and echo chambers in forums and threads, and vastly opposing point of views at such an early age that it’s had an effect on how I see the world. Compare this to a customer I helped two weeks ago who was looking for a specific type of supplement for children. I found it for her, I handed her exactly what she was looking for, even though her description of the product actually matched several different products; to make sure I’d done my job thoroughly and that she leaves happy and satisfied and doesn’t bother me again, I then show her more products that match her description so that she knows she has options. And she proceeds to freak out, saying “NO, NO, I’M LOOKING FOR [X] AND IT HAS TO BE [XYZ]” and when I say freak out, she looked stressed and PANICKED. And being a retail employee wears you down bit by bit, and add COVID on top of it and little shit like this makes you snap, sometimes. So I have to cut her off like “Why are you screaming and freaking out, jfc you’re holding what you said you wanted. It’s in your hands. I gave you what you wanted, I’m just showing you more things.”

That customer is not an exception, she’s not a unique case. She’s representative of a frightening percentage of her generation, the kids who watched Grease and The Breakfast Club and Ghost in theaters when they were originally released. This is how they communicate and process information. She could not, for some reason, register that her need had been fulfilled, and defaulted to an extreme emotional response when given new and different information.

I’ve yet to deal with someone younger than 35 act the same way, the exceptions being the kids of very wealthy people at my new job who reek of privilege I gag when they walk in—but even they are like *shrugs* “ok whatever” and understanding when there’s something I can’t do for them.

Me: “sorry, we are totally out of that one in your size, but I can order it for you, it’s 2-3 day shipping at no cost to you and we ship it straight to your house”

A rich, white, attractive 22-year-old who’s had access to organic food, a rigorous dermatologist, and financial security since she was born: “mmm... sure, I’ll order it”

A 47-year-old of any socioeconomic background, of any race, in the same situation: “AHHHHHHHHHHH”

I just think it’s crazy how three generations of kids and young adults raised in a world where everything moves so much faster, where knowledge and entertainment and communication can be gathered so much faster, are often so much more polite and patient and understanding. Yesterday I told an older man (mid-50s) whose native tongue is the same as mine, as clearly and succinct as possible, that what he’s looking for is “in aisle 4.” He proceeded to repeat back, “Aisle 7?” four time before I dropped everything to show him what he needed in aisle 4, despite his insistence that he didn’t need me to walk him there. 4 and 7 sound nothing alike in English. There’s just something going on up there 🧠 that’s different.

Oh, other generational divides!!! We have different approaches to labor and working. Totally different! I’m a “young” millennial where I’m almost Gen Z, and I’ve noticed an awful trend among my demographic where people actually brag about working 90 hour work weeks. Or brag about how they skip breaks and live on-call to get the job done for “the hustle” like this “hustle, become a millionaire by 30″ culture that’s dominated these kids, idk where tf that came from. Like why are you proud of being a wage slave, getting taken advantage of by your millionaire/billionaire overlords. Compare this to my mother’s generation (she’s a borderline Genius X’er, she and her best friend were a year too young to watch Grease when it came out and had a random older woman buy tickets for her; she went to Prince concerts, took photos of him, then sold the photos on buttons at school, that’s her culture and teenage experience), where she’s insistent on her rights and entitlements as an employee, and these things she instilled me: “whatchu mean they didn’t schedule a break for you and you’re working 12 hrs today? oh no, you’re off, don’t answer your phone cuz you are NOT available!” There are Gen X’ers who entered the workforce at a time that America was drifting toward this corporate world, with more strictly defined regulations, roles, and understandings of labor rights (and also, let’s talk about how the 80s there was so much more attention on workplace harassment, misogyny and gender divides in wage gaps, etc. etc... not that much has changed, but at least it was talked about!). There are young people today who are taken advantage of because they aren’t as informed or don’t feel as secure and valuable enough to claim what belongs to them.

At the same time, those generations (Gen X and older) have a different viewpoint of hierarchies in the workplace and respect irt our direct supervisors. That’s how you get this blurring of boundaries between Work Life and one’s Personal Life that leads to common tropes in media written by their generations, where oh no! I’m having my boss over for dinner and the roast beef is still defrosting :O is such a “relatable thing” for them... meanwhile us younger generations are like I don’t even like that you know where I live, and if I see your 2017 Honda Civic pass my place one day, we’re going to have a problem. I think older generations have a different relationship with the word “Respect” than we do. Like, my grandma, who’s turning 87 (?) this year, and the other seniors in my area, they have a different concept of honor and an expectation of professional boundaries that I, and my mom and her generation, just don’t see (so then there’s something in common with Gen X’ers and the rest of us.) My dad grew up in a world where talking and acting like George Bailey and knocking on someone’s door with a big smile could get you a job, a job that could pay for college and rent no problem. My mom grew up in a world that demanded more prestige, where cover letters and references could get you into some cushy jobs if you’re persistent and ballsy enough. And I grew up in a world where potential employers literally don’t see your face when you apply unless they lurk on any social media profiles you have publicly available and they hold all the cards, and you need all those CVs and reference letters just to make minimum wage... so I feel like I am powerless in the face of such employers.

[readytoclimbtothestars]

Greta Gerwig’s Little Women and the importance of theme(s)

I loved Greta Gerwig’s version of Little Women, I literally saw it twice back to back in the cinema. There are many reasons why it is a great movie (the structural approach that Greta takes and its fluidity, the fusion of Jo and Louisa herself, the realness of each character), and these reasons have been explained endlessly already, but I was really fascinated by Greta saying in many interviews that to her it’s about being a woman and making art and reconciling that with the need for money and independence. And to me that right there is why Little Women is a great movie: it speaks to everyone on a personal level. To her that is the main theme, and I imagine it’s because it’s relevant to her and to her career and what she is going through right now. I see those themes and I understand them, but to me that is not what the movie is mostly about. To me, it is about growing up, and being in that period of your life when the dreams and hopes you had as a child should start becoming realities, and whether they do or they don’t. It’s about reconciling the person you thought you would become and the person you actually became, and intertwining 1861 and 1868 enhances the vividness of the comparison. It’s about relationships changing, and grieving not only for the relationship itself or for the other person, but for the person you once were when you were with them. It’s about self-doubt, and not knowing whether what you feel you need to contribute to the world is actually valuable, and it’s about making your own way in the world but also wanting to be loved. To me, it’s about all of those things, because this is how I feel right now in my own life. To someone else, who is going through other experiences, it might be about something different. And that’s why this is a movie I can’t wait to watch again as I get older.

[arecomicsevengood]

Quarantine Movie-Watching Journal, Continued

Throughout all this quarantine time I’ve been chronicling my watching movies, I’ve also been reading books, but have had assorted troubles on a level that seems close to basic comprehension, or just getting on their wavelength. Part of this is having a certain tendency towards the difficult or avant-garde in terms of what I think is “good,” but also wanting things to make sense or have a certain level of clarity: It’s maybe a difficult balance to strike but I don’t know, plenty of books pull it off, I have plenty of favorites. Nothing I’ve read recently has really been hitting, the only thing I’ve found compulsively readable is Virginie Despentes’ Vernon Subutex series, which I would hesitate to recommend as I also think they’re kind of bad. I want clarity on a certain level, and mystery on a deeper one; a lot of things essentially get the formula backwards, and feel incredibly obvious and free of ideas while employing obfuscatory language. (This isn’t to say I like “straightforward” prose, the “mystery” I’m referring to is basically created as an act of alchemy when language is functioning on its highest level, and insight, mood, imagery, and motion are all generated simultaneously. This isn’t “plain speech” I’m describing, but it doesn’t short-circuit the brain’s ability to make sense of it.)

In watching a lot of older movies I find that one of the things that help them maintain a level of interest is I possess a certain confusion about their cultural context. Even if something is a perfectly straightforward mainstream entertainment, there is still a sense of confusion or mystery about it, where you can follow it perfectly, but don’t necessarily know where it’s coming from, so it’s unclear where it’s going. In contrast, watching modern movies, especially more mainstream things but also, generally speaking, everything, I feel like not only do I know exactly where it’s coming from it’s also aggressively spelling everything out, as if to avoid moral confusion. This is also combined with a certain aggressiveness to the editing, so even as everything too fast-paced on certain level, it also ends up being too long, because it needs to fit in a certain level of redundancy. Older things tend to have a greater degree of storytelling clarity that’s also premised on a higher level of trust in the viewer’s ability to intuit things. Maybe there’s also a greater level of reliance on a set of semiotic devices that we’ve become more critical of over time, but what’s emerged in their absence feels more self-consciously insistent.

Little Women (2019) dir. Greta Gerwig

After watching this I looked up on IMDB to see what Gerwig is up to now and she’s slated to direct a Barbie movie? I hate this era, where success doesn’t lead to any actual clout to make important or interesting work, but instead forces artists into these traps of economic contract where they service a trademark. Also this movie is kind of weird because all these actresses are in their twenties but I think are meant to be playing teenagers for most of it? Or even younger? This movie basically feels like it is meant to be for children but is given this gloss over it to maybe seem appealing to young adult modern feminists but it doesn’t really seem like it would be except to the extent they’re indulging a youthful nostalgia.

Shirley (2020) dir. Josephine Decker

I’ve been wanting to watch Decker’s last movie Madeline’s Madeline because a lady I met and thought was cute has a small role in it. I guess all her movies are about artists and performers? I like that this one seems capable of depicting a fiction writer without just presenting their work as autobiographical but I guess that’s because it’s, you know, a real person whose story is being told. Elisabeth Moss is pretty good as Shirley Jackson. Jackson acts real weird and petulant and destructive and I sort of went in feeling like she would be depicted as a manipulative monster, but watching it I felt like it was probably well-researched and accurate to how she was but not in a way that makes me dislike Shirley Jackson — but also I do like destructive difficult personalities and I think that’s basically a fine and acceptable way for artists, or anyone, to behave. I still don’t think this is really a good movie, Shirley Jackson is not really the lead but more like the only interesting character: She’s got an obnoxious and self-satisfied husband, but the movie is more about this couple that moves in — a woman who’s pretty dull is the focal point, and her husband is boring, and manipulative too, albeit in a very commonplace way. Pretty average.

The Predator (2018) dir. Shane Black

A movie about how people with Asperger’s are the next step in human evolution that nonetheless uses the r-word slur to describe them, filled with some of the most generic actors imaginable. I like Shane Black movies as much as the next guy, but am indifferent to the Predator franchise. Maybe because, despite the R rating, they really do feel like they’re made to sell toys, like so many cartoons of the eighties? I hope the sequel the ending transparently sets up never gets made.

The Lighthouse (2019) dir. Robert Eggers

Wasn’t able to finish The Witch and I stopped and started this one a few times. Tries to avoid accusations that “all these modern horror movies are dumb as shit” by not being a horror movie but it also isn’t really anything else — Not funny enough to be a comedy nor evocative enough to be an art movie. Sort of like High Life in the sense that Robert Pattinson isn’t actually good in it but maybe it’s surprising that a mainstream actor would be in a “weird movie,” but he doesn’t really have to do anything in either, at least as far as building a character goes. It’s underwritten enough he might not even know how to read. Willem Dafoe is ok as a guy doing the sea captain voice from The Simpsons.

The Whistlers (2020) dir. Corneliu Poromboiu

Contemporary crime thing that vaguely reminded me of all the other post-Tarantino crime movies made in the past 25 years that I don’t really remember, particularly the ones in other languages. This one’s got characters learning a whistling language to communicate in a way cops will just thing is birds. Also a semi-complicated plot, told non-linearly. The female lead also pretends to be a prostitute and has sex with a criminal dude so the police watching him with hidden cameras don’t figure out what she’s up to, although, if I understand the plot, I’m pretty sure they work it out anyway.

Pain And Glory (2019) dir. Pedro Almodovar

This one stars Antonio Banderas, is pretty plainly autobiographical, being about a filmmaker approaching the end of his life -- Penelope Cruz plays the mother in flashbacks that are then shown to be a filmed recreation as an autobiographical work is begun, which is the sort of twist that could seem corny but isn’t. The film has a weird/interesting structure, the slow revelation of details from the character’s past forming a narrative a film can be made of eventually but before that there’s this totally separate story involving an actor, heroin use, and an ex-lover. That stuff’s good but also it sort of wraps up halfway through. Like, a bundle of narrative threads culminate, and then the film keeps going, to eventually tie up other bits that seem incidental. Maybe this would be fine in a theater but streamed at home I got a bit anxious. Penelope Cruz made me think “I could watch Vanilla Sky” but it turned out I can’t, it’s unwatchable.

High Heels (1991) dir. Pedro Almodovar

I love Almodovar, my stance has been that there’s a degree of diminishing returns the more of his work you see but it’s been years since I’ve seen one of his movies, and at this point I remember very little of any of them. This one’s on Criterion as part of a collection of films with scores by Ryuichi Sakamoto — Sakamoto’s not my favorite member of Yellow Magic Orchestra but he’s certainly an adept talent, and this one operates differently than I’d expect from him, most of the music feels saxophone-led, sort of in a jazz vein. Obviously you can compose for this instrumentation but yeah, not what I’d expect. The movie itself is pretty solid: bright colors, some melodrama, a ridiculous twist, a sense of humor which feels both over the top and somewhat deadpan. A woman’s mother returns to Spain after close to a lifetime away, she ends up sleeping with the daughter’s husband, he turns up dead, the daughter reveals he killed her stepfather as a child. The movie is primarily about the daughter’s yearning for the approval for an emotionally distant mother, at one point she summarizes the Bergman movie Autumn Sonata for her, but Almodovar is gayer and more sexually perverse than Bergman. so it’s less dour than I’m maybe making it sound. At one point the daughter is wearing a sweater with the pattern of the Maryland flag on it? But the credits reveal all her outfits are by Chanel.

The Handmaid’s Tale (1990) dir. Volker Schlondorff

The score is closer to what I would expect from Sakamoto here, in a martial/industrial vein, though not exclusively. Stars Natasha Richardson, and her performance feels related to what she did in Patty Hearst — a depiction of a woman shutting down parts of herself for the sake of her own survival, displaying inner reserves of strength through the appearance of submission. This seems a lot better than the current Hulu show, although I think it’s largely dismissed? It’s been a while since I read the book so I can’t remember how many liberties it takes. Obviously there remain traces of an exploitation bent in a weird way, through depiction of women in dehumanized sexual contexts but I feel like this movie is good at depicting competition between women in the context of a rigged patriarchal system.

Merry Christmas Mister Lawrence (1983) dir. Nagisa Oshima

Never seen any of Oshima’s films, despite the allure of explicit sex in an artsy context. This has Sakamoto in it opposite David Bowie. There’s a lot of English language being spoken in a thick Japanese accent. David Bowie plays a prisoner of war Sakamoto, as a military officer, falls in love with and tries to keep from harm, his score does the heavy lifting of highlighting these emotions. Was not super-into this movie but it’s always interesting to think about how popular YMO were, and if these are the type of faces you enjoy looking at you can do that. Sakamoto’s got a weird hairline. The movie is fine considered in the context of like, 1980s movies (not my fave decade) that are period military dramas (not my favorite genre) and exist in this Japanese film context that is neither super-insane and exuberant in its style nor is it super-austere and minimal.

A Farewell To Arms (1932) dir. Frank Borzage

Very well-shot piece of romance, starring Gary Cooper and Helen Hayes, in an adaptation of a Ernest Hemingway novel I don’t remember whether or not I read in high school. Hemingway didn’t like it, maybe because there were a lot of changes, which confuses the issue of whether or not I know the source material further. I don’t like this movie as much as I liked History Is Made At Night but it makes a lot more sense as a narrative, easily reduced to a bare-bones plot: He’s in the army, she’s a nurse, people don’t want them to be together during World War I, he ends up deserting to be with her. Feels lush, romantic, dreamy and swooning, but I feel like the strengths are more in the cinematography than the characters — the leads are fine enough, though not super deep, beyond the depths of their love, but the supporting cast is a bit dull.

War Of The Worlds (2005) dir. Steven Spielberg

Feel like I had heard this one was good? I appreciate Tom Cruise in the Mission: Impossible movies, and Spielberg some of the time I guess. This is a blockbuster that feels post-9/11 in a way where I wonder what a post-Corona thing would feel like — feel like it would shy away from away from a lot of spectacle or something but probably I’m wrong about that. So this one focuses on a parent and his children making their way across an increasingly demolished landscape to make it to the other parent, alien monsters are in the way, kinda just seems logistically weird or like the premise of the quest is unsound given the stakes should probably just be survival? But maybe this is post-covid thinking of how such a thing would operate — the disaster picture with a “human element” to focus the narrative on is a decades-old form and one I don’t really get down with nor do I think is generally considered to age well - i.e. I don’t remember growing up with The Towering Inferno being on TV.

My Twentieth Century (1989) dir. Ildiko Enyedi

Weird Hungarian movie where like… angels/stars observe? As two twins are born in the late eighteen-hundreds and go on to have separate lives? One as an anarchist, the other as like a party girl type who seduces rich men. The latter gets more attention than the former. Sort of a fairy tale atmosphere, which makes the explicit sex scenes awkward. There’s also a scene where a guy gives a sexist lecture about how women should be allowed to vote even though they have no sense of logic and are obsessed with sex. He draws a dick on the chalkboard and talks about how women can’t understand beauty since they are obsessed with erections which are disgusting. Not really sure what it adds to the movie as a whole since I’m not sure which one of the two characters played by the same actress is meant to be watching it, but it’s funny. A lot of things are confusing about this movie, but it’s still sort of interesting and therefore worthwhile I guess. Apparently the director has a new movie on Netflix — I don’t have Netflix at the moment but might get it for a month or two in the future to catch up on assorted things like Sion Sono’s The Forest Of Love and the David Lynch content.

His Girl Friday (1940) dir. Howard Hawks

not into this one. Rosalind Russell wears a cool suit at first though. Features the thing where a male romantic lead (Cary Grant) is openly manipulative but it’s sort of viewed as fine and funny because the woman in question is confident and modern, which kinda feels like a fascinating view into the gender dynamics of the time, although I don’t think it works as a comedy as far as me being able to figure out what the jokes are. The journalists getting caught up in crime intrigue plot is cool though, that kind of feels like something that always works.

Lured (1947) dir. Douglas Sirk

Kind of have no idea why I watched all the older Douglas Sirk movies on the Criterion Channel at this point, even the ones I liked I don’t think I liked that much? This one stars Lucille Ball, who I don’t love. Other movies I watched recently that were partly comedies and partly suspense things worked better than this. This one’s about attractive young women disappearing and Lucille Ball getting hired by the police to be an undercover detective. She ends up finding love, but then the man she gets engaged to is framed for murder by the actual killer. Features scenes where the police (led by Charles Coburn, who’s fine in this) talk about how crazy Baudelaire was. Wouldn’t recommend.

Far From Heaven (2002) dir. Todd Haynes

Not sure I have any strong feelings towards Todd Haynes, but it seems likely I might end up watching a bunch of his movies eventually. This came out in high school, and I had no interest in it, but I’m more charitable towards the whole fifties melodrama thing it’s paying homage to now. Julianne Moore stars as a woman whose husband (Dennis Quaid) is gay and repressing himself via alcoholism, who strikes up a friendship with her black gardener, (Dennis Haysbert) which scandalizes her neighbors. The moments Moore and Haysbert spend together are maybe the most interesting - particularly them going to an all-black restaurant - but the aspect of them being watched and judged feels more cliched. Similarly, the stuff about Dennis Quaid’s homosexuality is most interesting as a lived-in thing, and his drinking, hitting his wife, etc., is less so. The veins of sensuality running through the movie are richer than the plot structure that unites them. This might be one of the things that makes Carol a superior movie.

The Violent Men (1955) dir. Rudolph Mate

This stars a bunch of people I don’t like — Glenn Ford, Edward G Robinson, Barbara Stanwyck is fine in other stuff but boring here. Dianne Foster plays her daughter, and that’s the meatiest role basically- she gets to denounce violent men. This is a western about a guy being pressured to sell his land for cheap. Criterion Channel programmed this as part of a series called “western noir” and I don’t know about this stuff. Foster’s character is definitely the most interesting part — her parents are essentially these gangsters running the town, her teen angst feels like it stems from an inherent morality and disgust with them. Stanwyck is cheating on Foster’s father (Robinson) with a guy I think is his brother who also enforces the violence. The mom tries to kill the father, and then is herself killed by a woman in love with the person she’s sleeping with, so the daughter, you would think, would go through a gamut of emotions. But she’s a totally secondary to Glenn Ford’s male lead, who she ends up riding off into the sunset with — he initially was involved in a relationship with a woman who didn’t care about his inherent morality in favor of a materialism, but she just sort of gets dropped from the narrative at a certain point. The movie really tries to play it both ways with regards to the violence, but I feel like that’s pretty common actually: While I feel like today the title might primarily be intended as an indictment, it also feels like at the time it was very much the sales pitch to the audience.

Shane (1953) dir. George Stevens

Classic western, about homesteaders just trying to live who end up needing to get in gunfights with people who want their land. Jean Arthur plays the wife and mother, which is why I sought it out (especially sicne she had established rapport with Stevens) but she’s barely in it. The titular Shane is a good dude who wanders through and ends up helping them out. The kid’s infatuation of Shane is really annoying to me personally. I love how this has two big fist-fights though, the second of which is a They Live style thing, a conflict between friends that becomes incredibly drawn out. The first fight is also just incredibly brutal and well-choreographed, probably the high point of the movie.

Cast A Deadly Spell (1991) dir. Martin Campbell

TV movie made for HBO with very Vertigo Comics energy, I started off thinking “this is dumb” but very quickly got on its side. It’s a riff on HP Lovecraft mythology set in a 1940s Los Angeles where everyone uses magic except for one private detective, whose name is Harry Lovecraft. Pretty PG-rated, some practical effects (not the best kind, more like gargoyle demon creature costumes I assume are made of foam), and a pretty easily foreseeable “twist” ending where the apocalypse is averted because the virgin sacrifice just lost her virginity to a cop. Not actually that clever but clever enough to work and be consistently enjoyable. Julianne Moore plays a nightclub singer. My interest in this is brought about because there’s a sequel (where I guess the deal is the detective does use magic, and no one else does) called Witch Hunt starring Dennis Hopper and directed by Paul Schrader.

Jennifer’s Body (2009) dir. Karyn Kusama

The climax of Cast A Deadly Spell shares a plot point with this, which I think is being reevaluated as a “cult classic” to what I assume is the same audience that valued the Scott Pilgrim movie: People ten years younger than me who think it’s charming when things are completely obnoxious. A lot of musical cues, all mixed at too loud relative to the rest of the audio, bad jokes. This tone does help power the whole nihilistic, I-enjoy-seeing-these-superfluous-characters-die aspect of the plot but the sort of emotional core of the horror is less present. This movie is basically fine, by lowered modern movies standards, but it’s perfectly disposable and not really worth valuing in any way. I watched Kusama’s movie Destroyer starring Nicole Kidman a year ago and don’t remember anything about it now.

Dead Ringers (1988) dir. David Cronenberg

Rewatch. I think for a while I would’ve considered this my favorite Cronenberg but nowadays I might favor eXistenZ? Jeremy Irons in dual roles as twin brothers, with different personalities, but who routinely impersonate each other, and whose lives begin to deteriorate as a relationship with a woman leads to them individuate themselves from each other. They’re gynecologists, and the whole thing is suffused with an air of creepiness. There’s this sense of airlessness to the movie, a sense of panic, which is present incredibly early on and just sort of keeps going, getting weirder and more uncomfortable as you become accustomed to it, that feels like a sure sign of mastery. I’m fascinated to think about how watching it in a crowd, or on a date, would feel. Most movies don’t operate like this.

Imagine The Sound (1981) dir. Ron Mann

Mann is the director of Comic Book Confidential, which I saw as a middle schooler. This is a documentary about free jazz, featuring interviews and performance footage. Paul Bley and Cecil Taylor are both shown playing solo piano, which isn’t my favorite context to hear them in. Bill Dixon and Archie Shepp say some cool stuff, there is some nice trio footage of Shepp with a rhythm section.

Born In Flames (1983) dir. Lizzie Borden

Easily the best movie I watched for the first time in the time period I’m covering in this post. I heard about this years ago but only seeing it now, when it feels super-relevant. It is shot in New York in the eighties, features plenty of documentation of the city as it was, but in the context of the movie, there has been a socialist revolution ten years earlier, and this film then documents the struggle of the women, particularly black women, who are slipping through the cracks, and fighting for the ongoing quest to make a utopia, but exist in opposition to the party in power. While focusing on black women, there’s also plenty of white women, also opposed to and more progre.ssive than the people in power, but that are having their own conversations which are very different. There’s also montage sequences of women performing labor that cut between women wrapping up chicken to close-ups of a condom being rolled onto a erect penis. The title song is by the Red Krayola, circa the Kangaroo? era where Lora Logic provided vocals. So yeah, this movie rules! It would be a good double-feature with The Spook Who Sat By The Door, though in a film school context, or a sociology context, you would need to do a great deal of groundwork first. Could also work as a double-feature with The Falls for how what you are seeing is the aftermath of a great sociological reshaping realized on a low-budget. I think I put off this movie I think because I was skeptical of the director’s self-conscious “artist’s name” but it turns out they got it legally named as a young child.

State Of Siege (1972) dir. Costa-Gavras

Also really good! Better than Born In Flames when considered in terms of its level of craft. Would make for a fine double feature with my beloved Patty Hearst. Tightly structured over the course of a week, leftist terrorists kidnap an American and interrogate him about what exactly he’s doing in their Latin American country that’s being run by death squads. He denies wrong-doing, but basically everything he’s done is already known to them. This exists in parallel to police interrogations of leftists. Pretty large scale, tons of characters, some basically incidental. Screenplay’s written by the guy who wrote Battle Of Algiers.

Olivia (1951) dir. Jacqueline Audry

French movie sort of about lesbian love at an all-girl’s boarding school that’s weird because everyone seems like they’re feeling homosexual love, but just for one instructor who eggs everyone on. Everyone acts weird in this one, basically. There’s a lot of doting. The atmosphere is pretty unfathomable to me. Chaste-seeming in some ways, but also like everyone is being psychologically tortured by being subject to the whims of each other, but also just rolling with it in this deferential way. Seems like it could feel “emotionally true” to a lesbian experience but only in highly, highly specific circumstances?

Lucia (1968) dir. Humberto Solas

Good score in this one, which is not that much like I Am Cuba but I feel obligated to compare them anyway - both are from Cuba and use this three-story anthology structure. All the stories in this movie revolve around different women named Lucia, in three different, historically important, time periods. The first is about a woman who falls in love with a man from Spain, during the time of Cuba’s war of independence, he says he doesn’t think about politics, but this is one lie among several. This ends with brutal sequences of war. The second takes place under the dictatorship of Gerardo Machado. The third takes place post-revolution, and is about a literacy coach teaching a woman to read and write under the eye of a domineering chauvinistic husband. As with I Am Cuba, it is the very act of considering these three stories together that brings out their propagandistic aspect, and makes them feel less like individual stories. They’re all beautifully shot, although it’s less in less of a show-offy way than I Am Cuba.

Mr. Klein (1976) dir. Joseph Losey

This one’s got a cool premise- About an art dealer, played by Alain Delon, who is buying art from Jews at low prices as they leave occupied France quickly, but who then starts getting confused for another person with the same name as him, who is Jewish. Gets sort of Kakfa-esque but also remains grounded in this world where there are rational explanations for things. (at least as far as the holocaust is rational) So the line gets walked between bits that feel vaguely verging on nightmare but also sort of maintain the plausible deniability of belonging to the waking world, of a paranoia for something the exact scope of which remains unnamed. Ends with Klein as one of many in a trainyard full of people being sent off to concentration camps, which to me felt sort of tasteless, as a large-scale recreation, but that feels deliberate, as a way of offsetting the scope of the film being primarily focused on one person, whose relationship to the larger horror, before it affected him, was parasitic.

Husbands (1970) dir. John Cassavetes

Not into this one. The semi-improvisatory nature of the dialogue never coalesces into characters that seem to have a real core to them, there’s always just this sort of drunken aggression mode. What even is there to these characters, besides the aggression they treat women with? What separates them from one another, makes them distinct entities, beyond the sense they egg each other on?

Casino (1995) dir. Martin Scorsese

Rewatch. Joe Pesci plays the violent Italian guy, Robert De Niro plays the level-headed Jew, Sharon Stone plays the blonde who gets strung out on drugs. Three hours long to contain everyone’s arcs, but also sort of feels like it neatly has act breaks at pretty close to the hour marks, while also telling this pretty big historical sweeping piece about how corporate control comes to Las Vegas, the notion that “the house always wins” but even the individual whose job it is to run the house is himself situated inside a larger house. Both here and in Raging Bull, De Niro plays a character whose third act involves trying to be an entertainer for reasons of ego, and it’s so weird. Yeah, a great movie, one of the few that the reductive view of Scorsese as “someone who just makes mob movies” applies to, I have no opinion on whether it’s better than Goodfella or not.

Blue Collar (1978) dir. Paul Schrader

Not great. Richard Pryor, Harvey Keitel, and Yaphet Kotto co-star. Sometimes feels like maybe it’s meant to function partly as a comedy but doesn’t. It’s also mostly a crime movie, about people working at an auto plant who decide to rob their union’s vault. They end up not making any money from that robbery, but the union can claim insurance funds, so they get to benefit while the working men continue to be shafted, worried about the consequences of what they’ve done. Kotto dies, and Pryor and Keitel are turned against each other by circumstance, which the film tries to play off as being about the divisions among people that keep the working class weak. I definitely feel like the Schrader oeuvre begins with Hardcore.

Mona Lisa (1986) dir. Neil Jordan

This ends up kind of feeling like a lesser version of Hardcore, with British accents. Bob Hoskins, out of jail, starts driving for a prostitute, they dislike each other at first,  but become friendly. She asks him to track down a younger girl she was friends with, who a pimp has gotten strung out on drugs. (Hoskins is also a father to a daughter, though his relationship with the mother is strained from having gone to prison.) Hoskins’ character isn’t that interesting and the film revolves around him, the female lead is more interesting but deliberately removed from the larger narrative. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a good Neil Jordan movie.

The Untouchables (1987) dir. Brian De Palma

Rewatch. Great Ennio Morricone score in this one, a real reminder of a different era in terms of what constituted a blockbuster or a prestige picture. David Mamet provides the screenplay. De Palma is pretty reined-in, while Mission: Impossible is an insane procession of sequences of top-notch visual storytelling, the most De Palma trademark thing here is a first-person perspective of a home invasion scene, watching Sean Connery, that ends up being a deliberate choice of a limited perspective to surprise as he gets lured to his death. I feel like there’s a straight line between this movie and Warren Beatty’s Dick Tracy (1990), but obviously what that line runs through is the reality-rewriting effect of Tim Burton’s Batman.

Pulp Fiction (1994) dir. Quentin Tarantino

Rewatch. Can scarcely comprehend how it would’ve felt to see this in a theater when it came out. I watched it the first time in college on a laptop and headphones and it blew me away, even after years of a bunch of it being referenced on The Simpsons and everywhere else. I haven’t seen it since. Rewatching is this exercise in seeing what you don’t remember when everything’s been processed a million times. Feels like Tarantino’s best screenplay due to its construction, more so than any dialogue, which is obviously a little in love with itself. Samuel Jackson wears a Krazy Kat t-shirt after his suit gets covered in blood. Quentin Tarantino casts himself as the white guy who gets to say the n-word a bunch.

[fictionadventurer]

Here, have a bunch of scattered thoughts, observations, and opinions about Greta Gerwig’s Little Women:

(Spoilers below, which wouldn’t usually be a big deal for something based on a classic novel, but I will be discussing the ending).

General Thoughts

The colors in this movie are lovely. The cinematography is lovely. This is a movie with so many wonderful things to look at. (Though the lighting was too dark in some scenes).

I loved how tactile this movie was. The things on-screen just feel so real and textured. I don’t know, like, there’s a fence Jo climbs over, and we see the splinters in the fence and it just feels weighty and textured. It made me appreciate the things in this movie’s world and in ours.

The music was great. I want the soundtrack.

I loved, loved, loved all the dancing scenes. Not sedate, not romantic, just so much vibrant joy and life. Jo’s dance in the pub was one of the highlights of her story. Almost as good were her and Laurie’s ridiculous dances at their first meeting–you see how well they get along as friends. The focus on dancing is definitely one of my favorite parts of the movie (and another reason I want the soundtrack). 

A lot of the acting had weird rhythms to it. Especially in group scenes where there was a lot of talking, it felt like people were just rapid-fire reciting lines from the book, rather than saying real things that real people would say. 

The beginning confused me. I couldn’t figure out whether the woman was supposed to be Jo March or Louisa May Alcott (part of the problem is that I wasn’t expecting a blonde Jo). I kind of wish Gerwig had just made a Louisa May Alcott biopic if she wanted to explore Little Women’s publication process, because it just makes this story more confusing.

The flashbacks were less confusing than I was expecting. There were a few times where it took a few seconds to figure out which part of the timeline we were in, but for the most part, I could follow it because I was familiar with the book. I’m not sure I could have followed it if I hadn’t been familiar with the book.

Some of the flashbacks layered together really well.  Other times, it just felt like we were jumping randomly through time. At some points, it didn’t feel like a story. It was just stuff happening, and even if it looked nice, I couldn’t connect to it emotionally.

I kind of like the way they layered Beth’s original bout of illness with her death, but then the story moves on to other storylines and other flashbacks and the death doesn’t really have an impact. Her death is just another thing that happens, rather than an emotional turning point.

The ending is very frustrating. So many of my thoughts about the movie in general are shaped by that ending, so it’s going to get it’s own section (and probably at least two other posts about it).

Character-Focused Thoughts

Laura Dern was a good Marmee. A bit livelier than might be expected, while still being warm and motherly. I can believe this Marmee would struggle with her temper.

(For some reason, I just really like Laura Dern. I don’t know why. Thus, I can’t give a real assessment of her Marmee because I just like that she was in the role).

That conversation between Marmee and Jo about her temper made no sense. Marmee starts out saying that she’s learned to control her temper, and when Jo says she wants to be like that, Marmee responds, “I hope you’ll do better. There are some natures too noble to curb, too lofty to bend.” What? It sounds like she’s saying that Jo doesn’t need to change, which is the exact opposite point this scene should be making. Unless she’s trying to say that she wants Jo to do more than curb her temper, but become someone so strong in her morals that she can stand strong against the temptations in life. But that’s not clear from the scene, and it’s easy to read it as a vague “empowerment” message. It’s another point where conflating Jo with Louisa May Alcott (by giving Marmee a line from one of Alcott’s mother’s letters) made the story more confusing.

To my surprise, I really liked Emma Watson as Meg. Or at least, I liked Meg and was able to forget that she was played by Emma Watson. She was a bit distant, a bit bland, but there was also something compelling about her sedate sweetness. (I loved her purple dress).

Her little subplot with John and the silk was my favorite part of the plot. Just when I was thinking, “This is just like other Little Women adaptations where I can’t connect to the characters”, we get that stunning scene of them discussing the price of the silk and I get teary-eyed over John’s regret that he’s too poor to give his wife what she wants. His compassion warring with his frustration, his love warring with practicality. Exquisite. And the resolution was perfect, with both of them willing to sacrifice for the other’s happiness.

As you can probably guess, I loved James Norton as John Brooke and wish he’d had more to do in the story.

While I kind of wish that we’d seen more of John’s love story with Meg, I also kind of like that we kept the focus on their married life. This movie’s so obsessed with marriage, but this is the only part of the movie where we get to explore what marriage actually looks like, rather than just listening to characters talk about their opinions of it.

Jo was lively and vibrant and I loved how they kept her relationship with Laurie so thoroughly brotherly (until the ending, which I’ll get to later). And I loved the “I’m so lonely” line, but the movie didn’t really do anything with it. There was so much potential for character development, but then she just didn’t develop. It’s the exact opposite of everything that I talked about in my essay about the ‘18 Little Women. The earlier adaptation got a lot wrong, but Jo’s arc was strong and compelling. This movie just assumed that Jo’s already great and didn’t give her an arc at all.

Beth was sweet and adorable and I wish we’d gotten more of her. The scene where she thanks Mr. Laurence for the piano was one of my favorite character moments of the movie. Her barely audible, stammering ‘thank you’ is such Shy Kid Culture.

Florence Pugh played older Amy very well, and highlighting her practicality was an interesting choice. But why didn’t they hire a kid to play younger Amy? She was ridiculous in the role of a twelve-year-old girl. I spent half the movie trying to figure out what young Amy’s voice reminded me of, until I finally realized: It sounds exactly like Mallory from Studio C whenever she plays a little kid in a sketch. I doubt that sketch comedy was what these people were going for in their Oscar-nominated movie.

Amy and Laurie’s romance had very interesting moments to it, and I love how they pushed each other to change. I liked the idea of it (and loved the scenery it took place in). But as two characters who fall in love, I’m not sure that what we saw on-screen was enough to make me really believe in it.

Mr. March was almost a non-character. I really wish that he’d been more present, and I wish they’d highlighted his letter and his role in his daughters’ character development more. (But this movie wasn’t really interested in the virtue-development part of the plot). He was bashed a lot by Aunt March and we didn’t get a chance to see if she was right about him or not.

Aunt March is a delightful old-lady character. I loved a lot about her. I didn’t love how she was a mouthpiece for their most ham-handed ideas about marriage.

Hannah was excellent. Added a nice dose of practical common sense. One of my favorite characters.

Making Mr. Laurence into a Southern gentleman was an interesting choice, especially given how this episode highlighted the Civil War part of the setting. I liked him, especially his relationship with Beth.

I laughed during Laurie’s first appearance, when the camera slowed down and made it into the most cliche romantic-comedy moment possible. Then when he spoke, I understood for the first time in my life why people like Timothee Chalamet. The goodwill toward his character was not to last.

Brotherly Laurie was adorable and likable. One of my favorite scenes was when he first meets the March family, and just stands there silently appreciating their lively, loving, comfortable family atmosphere.

Romantic interest Laurie was a jerk and a creep. The way he kept touching people who didn’t want to be touched, forcing affections on people who didn’t want them. Not cool. And “She calls me ‘my lord’?” Creeeeeepy.

After all the hype over the smock scene, I was expecting a lot more. I was like, “That’s it?” Not that I’m complaining–I was expecting something a lot more overtly sexual and I like that it was restrained.

(The cloak that Amy puts on after the smock scene? Gorgeous. I want it.)

I hate that Jo decides she wants to marry Laurie. After a whole movie spent showing how she’s right that their relationship was brotherly and that Amy’s a better fit for him, suddenly out of nowhere she just wants to attach herself to him because she’s lonely. And then it fails not because Jo has any revelations about herself or life, but because he’s already taken. It was just so bizarre. Especially in light of the ending, but again, I’ll get to it later. (Probably in another post).

Bhaer was a lovely character. I don’t understand why they made him French, but he’s such a steady, sensible, caring presence for Jo, so sweet and intelligent, and the movie completely failed to make use of his character and the arc he could have provided for Jo. 

The Ending

It’s my biggest source of frustration. I’d been fully spoiled for it, knew that it was “ambiguous”, and came fully prepared to do as many mental gymnastics as necessary to allow for the interpretation that Jo and Bhaer’s love story is the “real” ending. I couldn’t do it. There is no way that I can see that chase in the rain as anything other than a “forced” ending to the fictional story in Jo’s book.

When Bhaer visits the March’s, Jo’s not warm. She’s not happy. She’s just stunned and awkward. Frederick saying that he’s taking the job in California is nothing more than the most blatant set-up for a romantic-comedy ending. Even when he leaves, Jo doesn’t seem regretful, he’s just like, “Come and visit me sometime,” and Jo’s only response is, “Yeah, I probably won’t.”

Then, when she turns around, everyone has the most forced, zombie-like smiles on their faces. “You love him,” they all insist, and Jo is just baffled, like she’s in a Twilight Zone episode and struggling to assert her reality against a world that’s warped around her. Then they railroad Jo into a romance plot, setting up everything for the romantic-comedy chase in the rain against all of Jo’s protests that it’s unnecessary. And then the actual declaration of love is so entwined with Jo’s talk to her publisher that I can’t see it as anything other than fiction. The lines are such vague romance stuff that seems unconnected to anything that we’ve seen in Jo and Bhaer’s relationship through the rest of the movie. “I have nothing to give you,” he says, even though there’s never been a mention of him as poor before, no indication that this would have been a problem for their romance.

And then we see the lovely sunlit ending where everyone is happy and living active, fulfilled, love-and-service-filled lives, contrasted with the cold sterility of Jo watching her words get bound into a book. Don’t get me wrong, the binding process was beautiful to watch, but putting it forth as a “better” ending than Jo and Bhaer running a school together was absolutely ridiculous.

At best, I could try to say that the sunlit ending is a happy future brought about by the publication of the book–the royalties fund the school, everyone can be together, and Bhaer works at the school and he and Jo are friends and colleagues even if they don’t get married. But it’s given such an unrealistic gloss, and when the scene fades out and turns into the cover of the book, it seems like the final stamp saying that this is all fiction, and the only real thing about this ending is the book that Jo holds in her hands.

Instead of being surrounded by loving family and friends, she’s alone, holding a book. A book that isn’t even the book she wanted to write, a book that forced her to abandon her artistic principles for the sake of money. And to me, she looks like she’s about to cry (not happy tears), and it’s just such a bleak, sterile ending to a movie with the potential for such vigorous life.

(I do kind of wish I’d seen it without being spoiled for the ending and not knowing Gerwig’s thoughts about the “best” ending for Jo, because I’ll never know if I would have come to the same interpretation of the ending if I’d been coming in completely blind. I kind of feel like I’d have had similar thoughts, but I’ll never know.)

There’s so much more I could say about this ending, but all my thoughts are connected to how it affects the arcs and messages of the rest of the movie, and this post is far too long already. I’ll need at least one significant essay and at least 1-2 other posts to untangle exactly how this ending affects my feelings about this movie.

[phoenix43song]

Little Women [2019] Film Review and Analysis

I have been reading the Little Women series since I was a child and I grew up on the 1994 film version that stars Winona Ryder. I have also watched the 1933, 1949, 2017 (mini series), and the 2018 modern film adaptation. I have watched and enjoyed the web series The March Family Letters on youTube, which is another modern adaptation take on the story, though unfinished. I have a graphic novel and a novel called Meg and Jo that are also modern adaptations. I love the songs from the musical, and I wish to play Jo one day (after I get my singing voice back). You can say I am a bit obsessed, though it has been quite awhile since I last read Little Women and did research on Louisa May Alcott. When I heard Greta Gerwig was going to be making another adapation I reread the whole series. The research I have done on Louisa, and the research that I have read from other fans and scholars has made reading Little Women all the more interesting. I try to be a writer, though I've only ever written novella's and short stories and short films. I love the theatre, acting, and now I am directing for the first time. I have so many story ideas for novels, series, and for feature films (maybe even TV). I've also always loved art, though without praticing much since adulthood my skills have dwindled. I identify with Jo and with Amy and I am really glad that this version of the book did these character justice...well Greta went wayland on Jo a bit.

The character of Jo in this adaptation is fully realized, three dimentional, however she is made to be have way more of a temper when she's an adult, unlike the book. Jo has this Peter Pan mentality where she wants to keep living in childhood and never grow up. She is in denial of her feelings, and she doesn't understand romantic love fully until the end. Greta decided to really incorporate Louisa herself into Jo. Louisa wrote the book loosely based on herself and her sisters growing up because she was pressured in writing a children's novel. She didn't want Jo to get married: she wanted Jo to remain a spinster like herself. Louisa was pressured to marry Jo off so she did. And then she continued to write two more novels after Little Women (technically Good Wives): Little Men and Jo's Boys. She created Friedrich Bhaer for Jo, who was the perfect choice for her...and most readers can't seem to see why Jo fell in love with him when, based on the research that I did and others did, Louisa created him off of men she had crushes on. Yes Louisa had crushes; she most likely had a few short lived romances, but we'll never know because if she wrote any of this down in her diary or in letters they have been destroyed.

Friedrich Bhaer in Greta's Little Women is not Friedrich Bhaer. He shares but a few qualities. Louis Garrel did an amazing job with what material he was given and he understands his characters and Frieidrich's relationship with Jo far better than Greta does. Based off of interviews and other comments that Greta has mentioned Greta hates Friedrich and can't stand that Jo married in the end. She doesn't understand him nor their relationship. She took away everything that Friedrich is, how Jo became friends with him, the courting he does, and one of the most romantic proposals in classic literature. Greta decided on an ambiguous ending for her movie and I absolutely hate it. The umbrella scene is rushed, hurried, and not romantic at all and it's edited in a way that this only happens in the novel that Jo writes because she is pressured, or somewhat forced, to marry off her heroine. Then there are cuts where we see Jo at her school for boys and girls, where her family presents a cake for Marmee's 60thbirthday and we see that Friedrich is there. This is cut where Jo is watching her book being made and she hugs it to herself: I really enjoyed this part of the ending, but the ending could have still followed the book more and not edited and written in a way where Jo's love for Friedrich and marriage isn't fiction. I mean Greta even had Amy and Meg drag Jo to go after him when Friedrich leaves and claim that Jo loves him. This is a change that...it destroys the characters in a huge way.

Friedrich isn't German in this film, though we do see him go into a German Beer Hall with his friends. I did love the dance scene in the Beer Hall and him dancing with Jo. He's French because Louis is French. Part of me wishes Greta would've gotten a German actor because Germany in it's people and culture was a huge part of Louisa's life and German is scattered all over the book. But I love Louis Garrel so this aspect of Friedrich didn't bother me that much. However...we don't get to know him and we don't get his backstory in this film. He doesn't play with the children, his immigration and carring for his orphaned nephews isn't mentioned, and him bringing Jo to intelletual gatherings isn't seen. Him giving Jo Shakespeare is in the film, but it's not done in person. He helps Jo with giving honest feedback on her stories and Jo doesn't take constructive critism well at all and yells at him. Friedrich likes Jo and you can tell. It's even shown that Jo likes him as well, but we sadly don't get to see their friendship: hell they don't really have much of a relationship in this movie. When Friedrich comes to visit Jo at the March house, we can see that Jo is surprised but pleased. I really do love how the family really likes him and gets to know him, and that they can see that the two love each other but that Jo is in denial. Except...Jo isn't really in denial in the book. She blushes when she realizes that Friedrich has come to court her. Jo in the book feels more mature by this point then she does in the movie.

Jo also tries to make herself love Laurie by writing him a letter because she's lonely. She never does this in the book. She does have one mention of a what if scenario but she stands by what she always thought: that she only loved Laurie like a brother. I really loved the scene where Jo rejects Laurie when he proposes because she's telling the truth and we even see in the movie that that have this special commarderie that's close but platonic, and not romantic. I do love how Greta explains and shows different kinds of love and growth in the sisters. But this seemed to degrade Jo a bit when it comes to actual full realized growth. I just don't understand where Greta was going with this and why she doesn't seem to understand Jo and Jo and Friedrich together. She put way too much of Louisa into Jo when Jo is a fictional character and not 100% Louisa. It's made to look like the umbrella propsal is fiction and that Jo did end a spinster. I am so upset right now at this that I will talk about what I did love and more of my analysis from a filmmaking aspect. (I doubled majored in theatre and in film in college and I do know that there will be changes in adaptations. However this doesn't mean that you can change characters and relationships to fit your own idea of how they should act and how they should end up. When you adapt a story you have to keep who the characters are and Greta doesn't do this with Friedrich nor with Jo in the end with her as a character and the relationship between the two).

So. This film is gorgeous. Beautiful cinematography, direction, costumes, acting, score, and editing. The only thing that I didn't like was how the characters read their letters to the camera. It took me out of the story and didn't fit in at all. The editing of present to past was well done, and I loved how it went with parallel themes. Each sister is three dimentional and real, and the different takes on money and love was really interesting. Beth's sickness and death was well done and so heartbreaking poignant. I loved how she got Jo to write again, and I loved the montage of Jo writing her novel. Mr. Dashwood was hilarious, and Meryl Streep had a blast playing Aunt March. Laura Dern made a capible Marmee but she didn't feel like Marmee to me sadly. Mr. March was barely in the film, but he's barely in the book so that was ok. The scenes between Mr. Lawerence and Beth were beautiful, and the scenes between Mr. Lawernce and Jo were good as well. I liked seeing Meg wanting riches, her feelings about being poor, but her love for John was a lot stronger and she made sacrifices. Amy was great, espeacially as an adult in Paris.

Laurie...I have a lot of thoughts on how Laurie was protrayed. I liked how his Italian ancestry was mentioned a lot and that Laurie could never sit still. I liked how he was represented as a drunk and ladies man until Amy talked sense into him. I like how we got to see how Amy and Laurie fell in love, and how Laurie realized that his love for Jo wasn't of the romantic nature either. He does love Jo and you can diffinitely see that, but at the same time they're best friends. Yes it's good to want to marry your best friend but at the same time you need more than just physical attraction ( and that's where Friedrich comes into the pitcuture). But there was something off about how he was represented. I honestly think it's because that Tim looks way too young for the adult version (even though he is an adult in real life), and that he's too skinny. Sorry I said it: Tim needs to put some meat on his bones.

This film does deserve awards and it bothers me that the film wasn't nominated for a Golden Globe (though Saoirse being nominated for Best Actress was a choice well deserved) or for an SAG awards. I hope the film is nominated a lot at the Oscar's at least. I would give this film somewhere between a 2.5 to a 3 out of 4 stars. This would've been a perfect 4/4...I know a lot of critics and fans love the ending, and that's there's only a minority of us that understand and love Friedrich, and Jo/Fritz together. At least we have other film adaptations and the musical – love the musical! - and I am really tempted to write my own version of a Little Women feature or mini series. I want to do more research on Louisa and write a biopic. I even have my own modern adapation ideas. This is a beloved book and I wish more people will read it, along with the rest of the series. To understand Jo/Fritz you have to read the last two books. This isn't really an essay or full on anaylsis, but more of me rambling, but let me know your thoughts in the comments. I would love to discuss Little Women and hear your thoughts and opinions. (Also sorry for spelling and grammar errors: I wrote this up really fast and didn’t bother to edit as I’m rather busy). 

[lostinspidey]

if you're still writing blurbs, could you write something where you're tom's co-star and you guys have to film an emotional scene, except you've never seen him cry before so you're like "wow such a good actor! :) wait no that's my baby :("

i’m pretty sure you wanted the reader and tom to be dating in this one, i’m sorry! asjdskjdh i hope this is still alright!!!

you agree to audition for a big budget romance film, not because you want to but because your agent heard through the grapevine that the director is “the next next greta gerwig” and you could use the exposure. of course, at the time, you hadn’t realized tom holland would be thrown into the mix.

meeting tom for the first time is exciting, sure, but only because you didn’t expect your character’s love interest to be so handsome. from the way he’s described in the script, it’s hard to picture the pretty boy in front of you - the one who has just called you “darling” and clumsily dropped his pen on the ground - as a gritty, no-nonsense cop.

not that you’re complaining. i mean, he called you “darling,” for god’s sake.

the thing is that tom has already been cast, and the line of girls waiting to read with him outside - prettier and taller and some with faces you recognize - have a better shot at landing this part than you do. so giving it your all during this chemistry read is your only option.

you glance around the room, at the dozen pairs of eyes staring back at you. as someone who typically works on smaller films, you can’t help but feel a bit nervous.

tom follows your line of sight, then leans in so no one else can hear him say, “i really like your shirt, you know.”

you tug on your oversized flannel - clearly chosen for comfort over style - and raise your eyebrows. “really? thank you.”

“maybe i can borrow it sometime,” he cracks, and you let out a surprised laugh.

“i hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but i’m pretty sure we’re not the same size.”

“i can’t tell if that’s a compliment or an insult.”

you shrug, still smiling. “me neither,” you say, and it’s him who laughs this time.

from the table at front of the room, the casting director clears her throat loudly enough to get everyone’s attention. “tom? y/n? are you two ready?”

“we are,” tom says, while you nod silently.

“i want to reiterate that, while our director couldn’t make it today, she is fine with improvising as long as you stick to the bones of the script,” the casting director continues, looking directly at you. “we’re looking for someone who is passionate enough about the project to understand their role well enough to go off script at times. so just have fun with it!”

tom, in all his boyish charm, shoots her a thumbs up. then, turning back to you, he winks - actually winks - and gives your shoulder a gentle pat. “good luck, y/n.”

you nod again, managing to get out a quiet, “thank you.”

one of the men in the room says action, and suddenly, tom’s hand is gripping your shoulder much harder than before.

“come with me,” he says urgently, voice low and slurring with the accent of a drunken new york cop. he leads you across the room, presses you against the wall with a convincingly angry look in his eye.

“what the hell was that?” he continues. his face is inches from yours, one arm leaning against the wall above you.

you furrow your eyebrows. “what the hell was what?”

“you get off on embarrassing me in front of my coworkers or somethin’?”

“uh, first of all, john was the one who asked me why you haven’t been coming in lately.” you stand up a bit straighter, trying to exude the confidence your character possesses. “if i didn’t tell him the truth, he was never going to hear it.”

“you have no idea what my truth is,” tom says bitterly.

“because you won’t tell me!” you shout in his face, causing him to back up, dropping his arm back down to his side. the script hadn’t called for you to be so angry, but it feels right to you, so you keep at it.

“you already have me lying to your parents, to our daughter, to our friends who always ask why you refuse to follow through with plans. you’re making me protect a secret i don’t even know. do you realize how much that hurts me?”

something shifts in tom’s eyes at your last line - one that you improvised - and his anger seems to dissipate. he tears his gaze away from you, shaking his head.

“i like to believe that if you had any idea, you wouldn’t be doing it,” you continue, your voice calmer, sadder. you’re way off script - tom’s character was supposed to have stormed out by now. “but… i don’t know. i don’t know anymore.”

“emily,” he mutters, reaching for your hand. “please don’t say what i think you’re about to say.”

you had interpreted tom’s character to be kind of an asshole due to his constant anger and spite. but with tom standing in front of you, vulnerability and pain etched into his soft features, you willingly interlace your fingers with his.

“then don’t make me say it,” you say. “tell me what’s going on with you, ben. tell me now.”

the tears in tom’s eyes - ones that you didn’t even notice were there until now - are starting to spill over one by one, trailing down his face slowly. at first, all you can do is stand there, helplessly watching the way his face crumbles. you’ve seen people cry at auditions before, but it’s never felt so… real.

it’s heartbreaking, and you aren’t even sure you’re in character when you reach up to cup his face, brushing at the wet spots on his cheeks with your thumbs. “ben, honey,” you whisper, because it’s all you can get out right now.

“‘m fine,” he grumbles, true to his character. he pushes your hands away, quickly wiping his eyes and nose with his sleeve. “‘m sorry i got mad, but i - i’m fine. i’m okay.”

“no, you’re not.” you shake your head, a sad smile on your lips. you reach for his face again, and tom - ben - lets you hold it. “you’re not okay.”

he stares so deeply into your eyes that you want to look away, but you will yourself not to. instead, you fixate your gaze on the tears that continue spilling down his cheeks. your chest aches more and more with each second that passes.

“cut!” the casting director finally yells. there’s a content smile on her face, but you’re still staring at tom, at the way he’s still partially in character and looks all too sad.

you realize your hands are still on his face, and you drop them instantly.  “sorry,” you mutter.

tom chuckles, eyes clearing up a bit. “don’t worry about it,” he tells you, back to his normal accent.

the casting director gets up and walks across the room to shake your hand, a promising edge to her tone when she says, “you’ll definitely be hearing from us at some point, y/n.” meanwhile, a production assistant races to tom, offering him a box of tissues.

he smiles politely, turning them down, and you wonder if you’re the only one who can still see tears in his eyes. it’s like he can’t shake it yet, you think.

the industry people in the room make their way back to their seats as tom walks you to the door. you pretend not to notice the way he’s still wiping at his face.

“you gonna do that for all the girls who come in here?” you ask, breaking a bit of an awkward silence. 

he laughs, but it sounds strained. you pretend not to notice that, either.

“yeah, to be honest, i don’t know what came over me. i think it was the way you improvised that one line. you sounded so… betrayed. so hurt.” he shrugs, averting his gaze to the floor. “i dunno. it really got to me, i guess.”

“it was great,” you encourage. “i mean, really depressing, but you sold it for sure.”

“i appreciate that, you know. you were pretty amazing yourself.”

the two of you smile warmly at each other, tom’s eyes clear of tears and your bodies taking up the small space in the doorway. he really is just so handsome, you realize for the tenth time today. even after he’s broken your heart.

“well, for what it’s worth, it was great meeting you,” you tell him, holding your hand out for him to shake.

he nods, hand wrapped around yours as he says, “i have a feeling we’ll be seeing each other again soon, y/n.”

you bite your lip sheepishly as tom gives your hand one final squeeze, and then the next girl from the line outside is squeezing her way between you two, more than eager to start her audition. 

you peer through the doorway on your way out, at a tom who is no longer crying, and think that if this is your last time seeing him, it’s a nice image to have.

(send me more soft peter/tom concepts and i’ll write a lil blurb!)

[carolinesiede]

My 2019 Writing Roundup

Not to get too New Age-y, but 2019 felt like a very ~transformative~ year for me. I turned 30, got a literary agent, and became a member of the Chicago Film Critics Association. After feeling like I’d hit a plateau in my late 20s, it was nice to experience a sense of forward momentum again, even if the lack of financial stability in this career is a constant background stress. Still, on the whole my sixth year as a full-time freelancer felt like a time where I kinda, sorta figured out what I’m doing. Instead of struggling in murky waters, I’m at least actively swimming in them.

I continued to write for The A.V. Club, The Spool, and Consequence of Sound, plus took on new outlets in The Verge and Polygon. I also had an article about romantic comedies published in Southwest Airline’s in-flight magazine and was asked to talk about Hallmark Channel Christmas rom-coms on Canadian radio. Speaking of rom-coms, 2019 was the second year (and first full-year) for When Romance Met Comedy, and I feel like the column really came into its own this year. It’s by far the biggest undertaking of my career (I’ve covered 47 films in total so far!), and I’m really excited to continue shaping its voice in 2020.

Beyond finding a regular fitness routine and seeing Cats onstage for the first time, the biggest personal project I undertook in 2019 was immersing myself in the world of film and film criticism—something I started in mid-2018 and really amped up this year. My goal was to watch 300 new-to-me movies this year, and I wound up watching 355! (Including 129 new releases.) Regular access to CFCA screenings and screeners allowed me to be a bigger part of the film critic conversation than I’ve been in the past, which was exciting. I also tackled a bunch of blindspots from the past decade and put together a list of my 50 favorite films of the 2010s, which you can see right here:

Over on the TV side of things, I bid farewell to the Netflix Defenders universe with binge-review coverage of the final seasons of The Punisher and Jessica Jones. Those Marvel binge-reviews were a big part of my early career, so seeing that universe come to a close was bittersweet. It’s always nerve-wracking when a semi-regular assignment ends, but I’m hopeful that new projects will pop up to take its place.

Putting together this year-end retrospective also made me realize I was on a lot of podcasts in 2019, including jumping in as a regular guest on the Cinematic Universe podcast in the latter half of the year. Podcasting is something I really enjoy (I find talking so much easier than writing!), and I’d love to do more of it in the future.

With that, I’ll leave you with wishes for a Happy New Year and a roundup of all the major writing I did in 2019. If you enjoyed my work this year, it would mean a lot if you would support me on either Kofi or PayPal. Or just share some of your favorite pieces with your friends!

My 15 favorite TV shows of 2019

My 15 favorite films of 2019

Op-eds and Features

“Rom-Com Revival” for Southwest The Magazine

Avengers: Endgame doesn’t earn its big “girl power” moment

An MCU breakup could be a terrific step forward for Spider-Man

“What is a weekend?”: A catch-up guide to Downton Abbey’s cast and characters

Nope, seeing Cats the musical will not help you understand Cats the movie

Let’s talk about the ending of Greta Gerwig’s Little Women

TV Coverage

Doctor Who’s 2019 New Year’s Special

The Punisher S2

Jessica Jones S3

The Crown S3

This Is Us S3 and S4

Supergirl S4 and S5

Rent: Live

Jane The Virgin fill-in

The Tony Awards

The Little Mermaid Live! 

When Romance Met Comedy

27 Dresses doesn’t deserve your hate and neither does Katherine Heigl

Bride & Prejudice weaves an impressive cultural critique into a Bollywood-inspired Jane Austen update

How does the original What Women Want hold up two decades later?

In 1990, Pretty Woman changed romantic comedies forever

For one brief, wonderful moment, Eddie Murphy reinvented himself as a romantic-comedy star

20 years later, 10 Things I Hate About You remains a model for how to do the teen rom-com right

Lloyd Dobler is Cameron Crowe’s original manic pixie dream date

We're just not that into He’s Just Not That Into You

Romance is the weakest aspect of one of the most celebrated rom-coms of the ’90s

To All The Boys and Netflix reminded the world why it’s smitten with rom-coms

Imagine Me & You gives a lesbian love story the classic rom-com treatment

Queer resilience thrives in this rom-com about love in the time of the AIDS crisis

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is bubbly and smart, just like Marilyn Monroe

The Best Man capped off one decade of black rom-coms and inspired another

Nicolas Cage romanced Cher in one of the weirdest rom-coms ever made

After a decade of discourse, (500) Days Of Summer is basically the Fight Club of rom-coms

It’s No Strings Attached versus Friends With Benefits in a rom-com showdown

Adam Sandler’s sweetness makes The Wedding Singer a rom-com worth growing old with

The Philadelphia Story delivered one of the most star-studded love triangles ever

13 Going On 30 made Jennifer Garner a rom-com star—and gave tween girls a sleepover staple

Celebrate Halloween with Warm Bodies, the film that tried to make zom-rom-coms a thing

In the 2010s, rom-coms went indie and saved themselves in the process

Sandra Bullock became a rom-com star with a cozy love story about crushing loneliness

With just two storylines, The Holiday paid tribute to the entire rom-com genre

The A.V. Club

The maudlin Five Feet Apart anoints a new pair of winning young stars

After thinks it’s beautiful, that’s what makes it tiresome

Teen Spirit has plenty of it

Ramy is a Muslim millennial comedy with impressively big questions on its mind

Anne Hathaway and Rebel Wilson’s new comedy The Hustle pulls an inelegant con

The Sun Is Also A Star turns a compelling premise into a lackluster teen romance

The Art Of Racing In The Rain is a doggone mess

You don’t need to love Springsteen to like the thoughtful crowd-pleaser Blinded By The Light

The well-meaning Brittany Runs A Marathon can’t quite go the distance

Renée Zellweger zings in a Judy Garland biopic that clangs

The Downton Abbey movie is as pleasant as a cozy cup of tea

Tall Girl’s familiar teen love story fails to reach new heights

The new Lady And The Tramp feels like a ’90s update of a ’50s classic

The Verge/Polygon

Tigers Are Not Afraid puts a Pan’s Labyrinth spin on a poignant Mexican drug war story

The gloriously surreal space epic Ad Astra is half a great movie

An AI affair fuels a midlife crisis in the eerie science fiction drama Auggie

The painfully generic new animated Addams Family deserves no snaps

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil is boldly bonkers

Netflix’s apocalyptic teen comedy Daybreak is an exhausting sugar rush

The Current War is basically Amadeus for electricity

Is Playmobil: The Movie just a reskinned Lego Movie?

The Spool

The LEGO Movie 2: Everything is About Half as Awesome

Isn’t It Romantic: An Instant Postmodern Rom-Com Classic

The Aftermath: Sumptuous but Surface-Level Melodrama

Late Night: A Sparkling Comedy With a Lot On Its Mind

Plus One: An Indie Millennial When Harry Met Sally

The Farewell is A Poignantly Funny Goodbye

Where’d You Go, Bernadette: A whimsical mid-life crisis

After the Wedding: A grown-up drama that doesn’t trust its own story

Falling Inn Love: Love, New Zealand Style

Paradise Hills: Harajuku Gossip Girls

Consequence of Sound

Brexit Takes An Engaging But Ultimately Shallow Look At the 2016 Vote

What Men Want Flips the Script and Finds Mixed Results

Dumbo Delights Without Ever Fully Taking Flight

Someone Great Continues Netflix’s Romantic Comedy Revival

Aladdin Has the Animated Classic’s Songs, But Less of Its Personality

MindMeet Interviews

Nadine Hack and Global Citizens Circle: Creating Connectedness

Podcast Appearances

Filmography: When Harry Met Sally

Filmography: Tim Burton’s mature films (Ed Wood, Sweeney Todd, Big Fish, Big Eyes)

Debating Doctor Who MCU Edition: Avengers: Endgame

Cinematic Universe: Alita: Battle Angel

Hall of Faces: Friends

Cinematic Universe: Joker

Hall of Faces: The West Wing

CBC Radio: Hallmark Christmas movies

Cinematic Universe: The Wolverine

Cinematic Universe: Awards Special—The Cuppies 2019 (Part One)

And here are similar year-end wrap-ups I did in 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, and 2013.