#what they were saying about mary ann as like the most realistic depiction of a teenage girl this episode... yeah

[paceypeternathanslawyer]

Iconic things about The Dick Van Dyke Show

-For the time The Dick Van Dyke Show was incredibly diverse. You got to remember this was the early 1960s, back in the day you were lucky to see African Americans in any capacity and when they were in shows or movies they were strictly in the service industry. That started to change in the late 50s to early 60s and TDVDS was kinda the start of that in Television. People of color were depicted in different capacities than usual. In the episode “That’s My Boy??” the actors Greg Morris and Mimi Dillard played a normal upper middle class family. In this episode Rob thinks that Laura and himself were sent home with the wrong baby from the hospital and he believes that their baby was taken by a family with the last name Peters. The Peters ended up being African American and they were depicted as well dressed and well spoken people who seemed to live in a similar area and walk of life as the Petries and in that episode the black couple is funny and completely sane whereas the white man (Rob) is depicted as the butt of the joke. Also at the end of the episode Rob subtly mentions how their son Richie is getting horrible grades and the Peters’ son is at the top of the class. It’s small things like that, that had never been seen on Television. In a episode named “The Man from My Uncle“ an actor by the name of Godfrey Campbell played an FBI agent. And that’s not counting the numerous POC in smaller roles or as extras in scenes. This was a time where you were lucky to see POC even as extras. -The feminism in TDVDS took amazing strides as well. There were times where Rob is shown to be very insecure, and I think that’s some of the most of it’s time aspects of the show. It’s not great, but it’s realistic. One of my favorite character choices for Laura Petrie is that we find out that she is proficient in self defense.... she learned self defense techniques when she was an entertainer for the troops. In the episode “My Mother Can Beat Up My Father,” a drunk at a bar harasses Laura and Rob tries to defend her and he gets laid out by the drunk. Laura then does a judo throw on the guy and lays him out. It becomes a big thing for Rob in that episode and he’s very insecure about the fact that Laura can take a guy that Rob can’t. But Laura does not apologize for that fact, and in one scene Rob is trying to prove that he’s all tough and so he challenges Laura to do the same throw with him. Laura doesn’t pretend she can’t do it to spare his fragile masculinity, she lays him out and if I remember correctly he broke a few bones. Also the character of Sally Rogers has been touted as one of the first women’s lib characters. She’s a Television writer alongside Rob and Buddy and she is treated with respect and is presumably paid the same as Buddy who is a writer on her same level. She is a proud career woman who is damn good at her job, and is an equal to the men in her workplace. Another big way that TDVDS broke ground was the fact that Laura wears capri pants. Believe it or not that caused a firestorm of controversy.... up to that point housewives had been shown as wearing dresses and skirts on TV and once the dust settled the fact that Mary Tyler Moore wore capri pants on TDVDS caused those pants to become a huge fashion craze in the 60s. -TDVDS became a huge hit starting with the second season against all odds. First off Carl Reiner had created the show a couple years prior and had actually shot a pilot with an entirely different cast and with himself in the lead, at that time it was called “Head Of The Family.” It aired and did not get picked up. Carl just gave up on it and it lay on a shelf collecting dust. A couple years later someone with the William Morris Agency tried to get Carl to retry it and he refused. That agent then went to the most successful producer at that time, Sheldon Leonard. Sheldon was known for having a perfect record for his pilots, absolutely all of them had been picked up to series, some of which were huge hit shows. Sheldon saw the show and immediately saw the potential. He approached Carl about the idea of retrying with an entirely different cast and name.... once a famous producer says they have faith in your show, how can you say no. So they set to the task of finding a cast. Dick Van Dyke was one of the first people to be cast in the show, and at that point Dick was in the middle of a successful run on Broadway in the show “Bye Bye Birdie” which he’d won a Tony Award for, but being successful on Broadway doesn’t usually translate to fame with the general public (up until Lin Manuel Miranda that was true). So not only did they cast an unknown in the lead role but they then turned around and named the show on the said unknown actor. That was an extremely ballsy and risky move. At the time there were a lot of shows named after actors but they were all famous stars like Doris Day etc. To name a show after an unknown actor was unheard of!! They then cast Mary Tyler Moore (who was an unknown), they cast Rose Marie (who was never hugely famous, but had a really good career on radio and in night clubs. But even if you consider her to have been famous, she was kind of a has been), Morey Amsterdam was cast (an unknown), Jerry Paris and Ann Morgan Guilbert were cast (also unknowns). It was really a cast full of unknowns in the leads. There were no big names. Which was really a disadvantage going in. The first season bombed, it was near the end of the Nielsen ratings and morale was severely low at the end of the season. Sheldon Leonard actually got word from a friend who was on the committee that decided which shows were cancelled and which her renewed, that the show had indeed been cancelled and it just hadn’t been announced yet. So Sheldon went into problem solving mode. He knew that going to the network wouldn’t get him anywhere. At that time sponsors were king and TDVDS had one of the biggest sponsors in the game, Proctor And Gamble. So Sheldon flew to Proctor And Gamble’s headquarters and in his own words he “sang mammy” in other words he begged and he charmed their pants off (figuratively) :) At the end of his pitch, they agreed to go to bat for the show... on one condition.... that he found a sponsor to sponsor the second half of the season. So he raced from sponsor to sponsor pitching his show and begging them to co sponsor them. He was in the middle of a pitch when he was alerted that Kent Cigarettes had decided to sponsor their second half. Proctor And Gamble and Kent Cigarettes went up against CBS and demanded that they renew TDVDS or else they would withdraw support from all their other popular shows. And CBS caved and renewed the show. With S2, TDVDS became a massive success and by the end of S5 the network was begging Carl Reiner to make another season but Carl wanted to end the show while they were still on top. TDVDS also became the darling of the awards shows. They continually swept the Emmys every year starting with S2. They won for writing, directing, and acting, it also won Best Comedy in 1966 with it’s final season.

-The scripts were largely based off of real life. Nowadays it’s more common for shows to take ideas from real life, but at the time Carl Reiner’s wish for authenticity was largely unheard of. Writers on the show described the writing sessions as therapy sessions because it would start with Carl probing into their life and them talking about embarrassing things that happened to them. Carl and the writers would take those ideas and make them bigger and crazier but there was always that nugget of truth in there.

-The marriage between Rob and Laura was also iconic. You gotta figure that I Love Lucy was a huge show of the past decade and it really shaped most future shows. In some ways TDVDS was the antithesis of that. Carl wanted to create a show where the main married couple was united... it was them against the world. He shied away from battle of the sexes storylines whenever possible. He wanted Rob and Laura to be clearly in love. And it’s a unique relationship where you can tell that those two have an active sex life... and that was really unique for the time.

-Carl Reiner made a decision at the beginning of the show that he would never use popular slang terms of the 60s. In fact if you watch beginning to end, only one slang term slipped in, in S5. Otherwise, he remarkably kept to that. Because of that crucial decision, TDVDS is not as dated as it could be and it has a very timeless feel to it.

-The cast was known to get along famously, there were only a few moments of tension, otherwise the set was known to be very light and there was little tension. They were all pranksters and the set was alive with hilarity, laughter, and pranks. They used to haze guest stars... most of the guest stars were fine with being hazed but there was one who did not take it so well. During the filming of one episode Robert Vaughn was the guest star and he was on the outskirts of the set waiting for his cue to come in. The actors led the entire cast and crew off the set and turned off the lights and left Robert waiting for his cue for about an hour, until he walked in to see what the holdup was only to find the entire cast and crew gone. It’s hilarious, but he wasn’t too happy. The cast was like a huge family, but most guest stars described them as being very welcoming as well.

Edit. Another iconic thing I almost forgot is the fact that certain episodes are used in film classes as examples of how to write comedy. It’s so funny and iconic that it is the textbook case of how to write comedy shows!!!! When will your favorite show ever... ;)

[funkymbtifiction]

Why the movie Elizabeth I is Isfp? Could you compare her to real life Elizabeth I? And how would 458 tritype manifests in ENFP? Thanks!!

Why is she an ISFP? Coz Michael Hurst wrote her that way. ‘Course I don’t have much respect for how he depicts the Tudors, honesty. He got Henry VIII wrong (too many mistresses, too open about his affairs, too many public tantrums – the real Henry VIII was a 3w2 to whom the appearance of propriety was everything, and he only had two mistresses we’re sure about); he got Katharine of Aragon wrong (she comes across as a bitter old thing, constantly moping – the real Katharine was a bad-ass, probably also a 3w2, who threw parties up until the bitter end, which cracked me up so hard); he got Anne Boleyn wrong (making her a manipulative, sexually promiscuous schemer rather than a virginal sexually harassed woman who kept telling Henry “no” until he wore her down – watch Anne of the Thousand Days for a MUCH more realistic Anne Boleyn); he got Thomas Cromwell wrong (frankly, his is nicer); the only two characters in The Tudors I think he got right on were Mary I and Sir Thomas More. So naturally he’d get Elizabeth wrong. ;)

Movie Elizabeth: Makes all emotional decisions, lets people off the hook who betray her out of sentiment, is oblivious to how her sexual affair with Dudley is going to have repercussions for future alliances, isn’t sure what to do, has no grand vision until she decides to become a symbol of England.

Historical Elizabeth: A shrewd, scheming power-manipulator, who never let her emotions get away from her, who likely preserved her virginity her entire life (unless Thomas Seymour took it from her, but let’s not talk about That Asshole) because she knew that was a goldmine for a queen (and also, that once she gave it away, her power would go with it), who learned from all her sister’s mistakes when it came to dynastic alliances and pushing religion down people’s throats, who evaded execution because they could never trap her into saying anything incriminating, who always knew well in advance what she was going to do (and then tricked / mislead her advisers into thinking she didn’t), who never let sentiment stand in her way of securing her throne, and who had the most enormous inferior Fi / 8-fix tantrums that she would pass out from being unable to breathe in her corset, from screaming so loud. Also, she had a servant whose permanent job was to follow her around and pick up the diamonds that fell off her dresses. That is your free historical tidbit.

If you want a more historically accurate (in terms of personality) Elizabeth I on screen, Glenda Jackson from the old BBC Miniseries is probably THE Elizabeth. She also plays the same role across from Vanessa Redgrave’s Mary Queen of Scots. If those are too old for your taste, the Masterpiece Theatre’s Elizabeth I isn’t half bad (… didn’t Tom Hardy even play Robert Dudley? I think so?, with Anne Marie Duff) and, of course, Helen Mirren plays her extremely well in the HBO miniseries. It’ll be interesting to see Margot Robbie’s take. ;)

If pressed, I’d say historical Elizabeth was a ENTJ 683. She had the distrust, suspicion, and charm of the 6, also a tendency to pull away from blame; the aggression and domineering nature of an 8 (which never apologized for her anger), and the frankly egotism of a 3 (but also the melodrama of a 4, so…). Not sure about her wings. Likely 6w7 8w9 3w4 or even 4w3. She could be a real “sexual tease” (leading men on, and never giving them an inch). sp/sx maybe?

I don’t do tritype + MBTI variation asks anymore, since if I do one, everyone will want one, and it’s all speculation that you can put together based on how you handle fear, your ego, and your anger. You can visit our /enneagram page and reading the fixes under Profiles. =)

- ENFP Mod

[melis-ash]

аноним  спросил(а):

Hey! Ignoring the Flint plot why do you hate 4x10 so much?

I think 410 was very unfitting ending for Black Sails. That episode looks very allogenic to the rest of show, too much like soap opera or Disney movie, if you understand what I mean. Whole episode was poorly written and directed, for me it’s the weakest episode of show. They couldn`t even make good final battle, it was incredibly boring. On fight between Flint, Jack and Rogers, which interrupts  SilverMadi reunion scene, I almost laugh. But it`s really sadly. There are many good action scenes in show, and that final battle was so bad… It`s hurts almost physically

That show in best moments spoke really interesting things about human nature, but 410 most part of time avoid honestly to speak about it, despite there are very much unresolved problems, and question without answers, and it looks… cowardly.

We saw Flinthomas reunion, but these two people don`t saw each other 10 years, and Thomas, but matter, how much he loved James Mcgrow, never knewn Flint, and Flint destroyed Thomas dream, when it could become something real. (Sorry, I write about Flint`s plot, but it really necessary). So that sweet scene on plantation as final for them  looks adsurdly and lying.

And Silver/Madi ending was shortened. Their relationship went on almost two season, and when we finally had conflict between them which must define their future that happened  at 15 minutes before final title, and that conflict factically was resolved OFFSCREEN. I mean, seriously? It`s not how things like it happened in that show before. We see only that scene on coast without any word, but Madi`s motivations don`t explain. Did she chose Silver because she realized he more important for her than her offense on him, or she didn`t saw other good options for herself (the maroon on her island made the deal with England and she couldnt live in other maroon villages, because for them she was traitor`s women), or she was sorry she didn’t tried to save him, when he tried to save her, and wanted to give their relationship chance because it? There are too much options and not really answer. Silver and Madi relationship suffered enough before, even their first kiss and first sex were offscreen, but their ending looks like a bad joke. I really sorry for them, that storyline deserved better, there was a lot of potential.

And Jack`s ending. Main Jack`s problem was his vanity and unreasonable pride. He always wanted to be person he really couldnt be. In season 3 Jack was ready arranged second Spanish Raid because it. He factically responsible for his best friend was arrested and hanged, also Anne could be kiiled because Jack`s decisions in season 3. Jack was only happy enough Anne stay alive. But in 402 only Jack`s regret he really confessed he couldn`t killed Rogers. And further he sees other people (mainly Rogers) as evil, but not really realize how much shit he did himself. Yes, Jack has right to hate Rogers, but also Rogers has right to hate Jack, and it was Jack who began this conflict first. So Jack`s position in final episode is incredibly hypocritical. He think he can judge other people, but he forgets to judge himself for very similar things. Jack just forgot it was he himself, who first wanted Spaniards burn Nassau. And it looks very sad character development. I mean, but badly written, but really very sad, and partly illogical. When character ends story on victors side and it depicts like in 410, you want to see positive character development for him. But I see only hypocrite with double standarts. But it could work if final was dark and realistic, because in real life people lie themselves and deny their mistake, but as I said, whole episode was too much bad soap opera, and last Jack`s scene looks like sweet Disney movie.

Also in final episode we see Jack in dangerous selfdelusion. He sees himself as victor, despite his “victory” is mainly good fortune and efforts of other people (lol, Flint even saved his ass during battle with Rogers), and instead to try to change his life and do something he really can do well, he stay pirate (despite he is not good leader and bad fighter), and in final scene sail off into the sunset with Anne and Mary Read. But everybody who read at least Wikipedia, know Jack was hanged very soon after Mary Read become his crew member. So logically Jack`s selfdelusion will lead him on gibbet.  But as I say, episode avoid to speak about it honestly, and  depicts Jack`s and Anne meeting with Mary as something sweet and romantic, despite it`s hint on tragic ending for Jack and Anne.

As I understand it was Mr Steinberg`s debut as director and may be it`s one causes why episode is so bad. (Good writer is but necessary good director) But it`s only one factor, there many others.

[artfoli]

The Renaissance: The Early Renaissance

The Renaissance

The time following the Medieval Period (and in some places, overlapping it) welcomed a reform in not just art, but also education and life itself. It was the “rebirth” of ancient Rome and Greek ideals. While the Medieval period had primarily focused on religious teachings, those after decided to incorporate science, the world’s beauty, philosophy, and astronomy. Naturally this became represented in art. Focusing on painting, you can see the differences between art of the Medieval time, and that of the different periods of Renaissance. Medieval art was considerably abstract, while Renaissance artists aimed to capture the world in a more realistic way. Because of this change, new techniques, which we continue to use today, were developed. This included both shading, and use of space. The Renaissance spanned over a long period of time, and in many areas. Because of this, it is divided into three stages: The Early, Middle, and High Renaissance. This first set of long posts will be on the Early Renaissance.

Early Renaissance

The Renaissance first emerged in the 1400’s. It eventually spread all over Europe, as people were enamoured with the realism depicted. More political stability contributed to a focus on art and the Renaissance. To our contemporary eyes these works may seem quite simple, but it was a sudden and revolutionary change to the spiritual abstract works the people of the time were used to. There was reason to that Medieval abstraction. The church believed that the more realistic that figures were depicted in paintings, the less “spiritual” they were. So, naturally, if an artist were to depict the Virgin Mary as a realistic woman, it would be comparing the mother of Jesus to any other woman on Earth. The reason behind the abstraction of the Medieval times was to show that holy spirits were very different from men on Earth. That is what made the Renaissance so revolutionary - and caused so much controversy. It was not until later stages of the Renaissance that artists managed to capture a more religious and holy atmosphere, but you can imagine the early years of these new depictions could have been considered by some as heresy.

Of course, Renaissance art did not gain popularity overnight. In fact the ideas which influenced the movement was set back by plague and disease. It took quite some time before the style became widespread among artists. It was artists such as Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-1375) and Petrarch (1304-1374), that helped to start the spread and influence of the Renaissance. Because different areas of Europe adopted this movement at different times, it is difficult to say “the Renaissance began and ended on this date.” When talking about the ‘Northern Renaissance,’ we are including countries such as the Netherlands, France, and Germany and the ‘Italian Renaissance’ being in, of course, Italy. When talking about the Renaissance, Italy is the country that most likely comes to mind, as famous artists such as Titan (1490-1586) and Sandro Botticelli (c.1445-1510) were Italian.

Above: artists Petrarch (1304-1374) and Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-1375), who were known as ‘pre-humanists,’ and helped to spread the influence of the Renaissance.

Different regions with artists that practiced the ideas of the Renaissance valued different techniques and the look. For example, artists of the Italian Renaissance studied ways to make the composition more life-like through perspective and other techniques. While those of the Northern Renaissance focused more on colour and the overall look of the artwork. Also the materials with which they used were different - from egg tempera and stained glass windows, to oil paints. The Netherlandish artists were obsessed with oil paint.

Above: The Madonna in the Church, 1438, by Netherlandish artist Jan van Eyck (c. before 1390-1441) and the Virgin and Child with Saint Anne, c. 1424, by Italian artists Masolino da Panicale (c. 1383-1447) and Masaccio (1401-1428).

Above: The Arnolfini Portrait (oil), 1434, by Netherlandish artist Jan van Eyck (c. before 1390-1441) and The Adoration of the Magi (tempera), c. 1440/1460, by Italian Renaissance artist Fra Angelico (c. 1395-1455). As you can see, the Northern piece remains in a more abstract and mannerist manner.

While there are many difference between the regions, both Northern and Italy hold similarities. The Church supplied them with all the religious subject matter. An interesting artist of note is Antonello da Messina (1430-1479), who was in fact an Italian artist. His works are clearly influenced by those of the Northern Renaissance artists.

Above: Saint Jerome in his Study, c. 1475, by Antonello da Messina (1430-1479)