#who could be played by daniel craig as well

[egobuzz]

benoit blanc is famous in the knives out universe, which means one day we could get a movie about blanc solving a murder at a film set where they’re filming a benoit blanc biopic

[rebeljyn-moved]

Someone on TikTok made a list of actors they thought would be good at playing James Bond and some pros and cons of each of them and they put Dev Patel in there and now I can’t get it out of my head because putting someone like him to play James Bond is probably the only way to make me watch those movies at all.

[rachelzeglertruther]

Why You're Wrong About Rachel Zegler

This is a long post, but there's a lot of context missing from the Rachel Zegler "discourse" that I thought I could add with my history of watching this unfold from the beginning.

The Snow White Thing

You probably know this part. There's a curated video of Rachel going viral, framed to make her seem like she's never seen Snow White, she hates the story, she hates the character, she's ungrateful, and single-handedly ruined Disney's brand. The clips from these videos are not new— they were released nearly a year ago in September 2022 and nobody cared about them at the time. Why? Because all the full interviews she did that day at the Disney Exo in 2022 showed a young, charming woman who was excited and proud to be cast in an iconic role. The interviews were very well received and it was a non story. Now that it's been edited down and cut together in a malicious way, and the people sharing them are purposefully misquoting her, they've twisted the context. Normally, this would be a non controversy. Even if that video wasn't taken out of context and spliced together to make her seem like she hates the film, most people wouldn't care. The issue is the response to the video.

Let's get this out of the way: Rachel Zegler doesn't hate Snow White. She relayed that she was afraid of the forest scene as a child and didn't revisit it again until after she was cast in the role. She has since then watched it several times and has expressed for YEARS before that interview came out that she was incredibly honored and grateful to be playing such an iconic Disney princess. If you watch the full videos that those clips came from, this comes across immediately to anyone with their own mind. If you hate someone for being scared of something as a child, I don't know what to tell you. If the role was being given to the biggest Snow White fan, you would be correct that she doesn't deserve it. Unfortunately for you, this role requires talent and Rachel has the Golden Globe and critical acclaim from people who matter within the industry (her peers and critics).

You know who does hate their beloved characters in beloved franchises but the general public still applauds them? Harrison Ford, Sean Connery, Daniel Craig, and Robert Pattinson. They've all expressed outright contempt for the roles and the films they were part of, but nobody cared. People had fun with their quotes but they still respected them. Rachel said nothing even closely resembling their remarks, but she's being torn to shreds. Are we seeing a pattern here?

Rachel never said a single bad thing about the character or the animated film— she said that it was outdated and that set people over the edge, foaming at the mouth to have her burned at the stake. If you think it would be perfectly fine to have a movie about an abused 14 year old girl run away to play housemaid for a bunch of men, get kissed in her sleep/death by an adult man, and then wake up to fall into his arms in 2024, that's certainly a hot take. If you're against remakes, direct your ire at Disney. But if you truly think that plot would work with young girls today, you're the one who's out of touch. It would do far more harm than good to portray a young woman in that light.

She also never said that there was anything wrong with romance or love. She said that the new Snow White wasn't only dreaming of that. I can't stress enough that this wasn't her decision… she was describing the plot of the new film that was written by Greta Gerwig and approved by Disney. There's a prince in the film and he will also have a more developed personality and storyline. If you have a problem with the writing, wait until it comes out so you can write your strongly worded letter to Greta. If you have a problem with the concept in general, take it up with Disney. There's no need for you to be defensive over hurting the legacy of a multi-billion dollar company or a 87 year old cartoon written by a proud racist antisemite. This is the most confusing part of the hate campaign to me because it wasn't even her opinion— she was literally describing the plot of the film she had nothing to do with. It also isn't a new thing. Disney actors have been promoting their newer films this way for years.

It's perfectly okay to like things that are problematic. It's becoming an issue that we refuse to acknowledge that maybe some things we love are harmful. What we can't do is justify why it's not problematic, and in fact everyone who calls it out is the problem and NOT their precious cartoon. The 1937 Snow White was an amazing feat of animation. It's a classic for a reason. But it was also Hitler's favorite film and was directed by a white supremacist (the one who is "rolling in his grave" due to Rachel's existence, according to his son). Things don't exist in a vacuum and we can't ignore the bad parts.

How We Got Here:

The thing that everyone is missing is the source of this campaign. This started in September of 2020 when transphobic actor Gina Carano made fun of trans people by changing her pronouns to beep/bop.boop. Rachel indirectly called her out by coming to the defense of the trans community.

She never called out Gina by name (though she rightfully could have). Mind you, Rachel's first film hadn't come out yet. Nobody knew who she was outside of those of us who were anticipating West Side Story and were fans of her covers on YouTube. She was a "nobody" in the industry. Take this part with a grain of salt because I can't confirm it, but Gina and her fans directly blame Rachel for her being banned from Twitter. Again, I really don't think that matters as she's harmful to the trans community and shouldn't have a platform. What does matter is that fans of Gina (which, let's be real, are just fans of transphobia) have been stalking Rachel's every move since then. Unfortunately for them, there wasn't much they could use against her other than to call her woke and #snowbrown when she was cast a year later as the Disney princess. The noise has always been there, but unless you were a fan of hers, you probably didn't hear about it. It wasn't until two years after this that they had something else against her.

If you've recently seen a video of Rachel crying circulating that claims to be her reaction to the recent Snow White backlash, it's an old video. It's from a vlog from her youtube channel posted in June 2022. It was in response to these exact same transphobic anti-woke conservatives who thought that they had something when she did an interview on the red carpet of the Shazam premiere. When asked why she joined the DC universe, she responded "I needed a job." It was generally well received by most people who thought it was cute and funny, but those who were waiting in the shadows latched onto it as an excuse to send her death threats.

The video was also about a month after she was invited to present at the 2022 Oscars and was made to seem like she bullied the Academy (as a no name newcomer, mind you) into letting her attend. In reality, a fan left a comment on her Instagram asking what she was wearing to the event. She responded that she wasn't invited but would be rooting for everyone from her couch in her boyfriend's pajamas. It was the public who demanded she get an invite and the Oscar's must have agreed that it was very odd that the lead actress of a film that was nominated for Best Film wouldn't get an invite. Whether it was an oversight on their part or a scheduling issue with Rachel's filming, I truly think there was no malicious intent from either party. Keep in mind, she used to be very active with her fans (she's a huge fangirl of things herself and has always had a strong relationship with her fans) and she wasn't used to her comments becoming articles and national tv segments. This was the first time it happened to her. It appears she learned that she's not just a girl who posts on YouTube anymore and she's going to be put under a microscope for every move she makes. She has since shut down her Instagram comments and rarely interacts with fans outside of liking comments these days because of this.

I know this is long, but I need people to understand where this is all coming from. It didn't just happen out of nowhere. It's an orchestrated campaign built by violent conservatives, and thousands of women who saw Barbie this summer are hopping on the bandwagon to beat another woman into submission because they have a lot of internalized misogyny to deal with. She's not smug, you just hate women. It's okay to find people annoying, but it's valuable to look into why you think that. If you see a confident young woman expressing views that don't actually harm anyone and you think she needs to be "humbled" and "put in her place" by the entire internet dogpiling her, you've lost your mind. Using "body language experts" (fake job) to diagnose her as a psychopath is so vile. Everytime someone mentions her name online, the comments beneath it are full of the most violent, misogynistic, racist things I've ever seen. If you're contributing to that, you've chosen your side. Reevaluate or seek help.

I'm tired of seeing this happen to young women. We let this happen to Jennifer Lawrence, Brie Larson, Millie Bobby Brown, Halle Bailey, and Jenna Ortega. It's one thing to call out celebrities and hold them accountable when they're doing something actively harmful, but that's not what this is about. That's never been what this is about. We pick these girls to pieces and examine them and pull them apart to justify our hatred of young women who rise to success too quickly for our liking. We dogpile and try to stamp out the flame before they burn too bright. Barbie is still in theaters and you all loved it, yet you're demanding that a bright girl with a big future be small and submissive and humbled because you have issues. That's not feminism. You're just the girls who would have bullied Weird Barbie for using her hands too much when she talks.

[visorforavisor]

i’ve seen a post or two pointing out how the “benoit blanc has a male romantic partner” moment is not as explicit as it could have been about it, but i don’t think it’s right to compare it to all the classic implied queer characters who turn out to be bait.

to me personally the difference is the intention.

if you look at interviews of rian johnson, he’s very very unapolagetic and clear about blanc being gay. while, yes, he could have made it a bit more explicit in the film itself (seriously, dude, all it needed was a quick pet name exchanged between them), i do firmly believe he intended hugh grant’s character to be read as a romantic partner. i don’t think he wanted it to be ambiguous — hell, he said blanc was “obviously” queer. (he was wrong about it being obvious, but the fact that he said it shows a lot.)

let’s be real here, if that character had been a woman nobody would be having any confusion about whether that was a romantic partner.

to me it very much seems like well-intentioned, slightly fumbling, and really sweet representation. especially because it’s not like he ever really tells us anything about blanc. it’s not like he goes into loads of depth about everything else and then leaves the sexuality all without detail.

also, hugh grant is more or less synonymous with romance at this point. you don’t have hugh grant playing a character who lives with your main character and expect people not to assume they’re romantic. rian johnson seems to have put that in, assuming people would know what was up between those two characters. and, yep, he was wrong on that, but he’s not doing it for brownie points. he’s actually, if you look at the interviews, really specifically not doing that. he said “i think it makes sense that he’s… that blanc is gay”, and daniel craig said “the less of a song and dance we make about that, the better, really, for me, because it just made sense”. it’s so small because they’re trying not to be all “aren’t we good people for making him gay” about it.

it was done a little clumsily, but it was done with fantastic intent and fantastic thought behind it and it was done with other moments like blanc’s clear discomfort when birdie flirted with him (and phillip letting blanc’s friends know that blanc’s spending too much time in the bath — i mean come on, that’s romance).

i think that rian johnson just underestimated an audience’s confidence in people actually putting queer characters in stuff. we question everything because we have to. but, once again, if that had been a woman nobody would have questioned the romance. so i don’t fault rian johnson for thinking it would be more than clear.

i’m frustrated at how little the moment was, but i’m sure as hell not angry at rian johnson for it. (but please give us more next time.)

[alexjcrowley]

I realised my passion for crossover has just created a multiverse of, I don't fucking know, detectives and supernatural stuff (no, it's NOT superwholock)

So we start by assuming, like some already did, that Q from the Daniel Craig's James Bond movies is the fourth Holmes's siblings. So you get four Holmes: Mycroft, Sherlock, Eurus and Q. But then Q in clearly in a romantic relationship with James Bond.

Now it's undeniable that James Bond has a twin brother, Benoit Blanc, who is the world's most famous detective, and he is married to Philip (Hugh Grant). You can clearly notice from Benoit's...everything (passion for mistery and fasion sense most of all) that he is related to Fred Jones from Scooby Doo, he and Philip are in fact Fred's parents.

To conclude this part of multiverse of hyperfixation, James Bond exists in the same world of a bunch of teenagers with 1970's van and a talking dog. I cannot stress how important it is for me that Sherlock Holmes DOES NOT solve the mustery of why Scooby Doo can talk.

But let's now expand in a different direction.

For some of you who might not be acquainted with the medical drama House MD, it's one of the gayest shows ever made on God's green earth. And, as all the fans know, the REAL finale is House and Wilson running away together after all Wilson's problems suddenly disappeared (I am phrasing it like that because I don't want to spoil it). Now, of course they can't live in America because House can't exactly recover from his own Reichenbach falls, so obviously they have go to London. Like, no questions asked.

And as many have already speculated they are probably the married couple Mrs Hudson's friend was renting an apartment to.

Sherlock-Watson and House-Wilson have a complicated dynamic going on, I just know they suspect of eachothers because there's something wrong with the other couple.

London comes, of course, with all it inhabitants, such as Crowley and Aziraphale (whose supernatural presence could explain Scooby Doo being able to talk???? Maybe he is an ex-infernal hound sent to Shaggy??? Was Shaggy another aborted attempt at an Antichrist?????). I really likes to believe they're House-Wilson and Sherlock-Watson neighbours. And every one of these three couples tries to pretend they're a very normal couple, and not, like, non-human or a Government's resource or technically dead.

But also, you must not forget, London comes with Hob Gadling, the immortal lover of Sandman, who might as well exist in this universe, because why the fuck not, he stole the "meet every x years" idea from Crowley, the goddamn poser. Hob Gadling and Crowley clocked eachothers in a minute and now the two couples have dinners together because "they're the only other supernatural couple in the neighbourhood, we should befriend them!" (said Aziraphale and Hob while Crowley and Morpheus sighed).

ALSO to House MD fans I want to remind you that Wilson got arrested in Louisiana when he met House and there's a popular headcanon going on that Benoit Blanc is from Louisiana so do you think??? Benoit Blanc one day happened to interact with the police department of a city in Louisiana and a policeman was like "hey last week you missed a guy from New Jersey who deadass smashed an ancient mirror in a bar because they were playing a song he didn't like on the jukebox". And Benoit was like (I can't write his dialogues I am so sorry) "Mmhh yeah muhst say thur arh sum jingles I simply cannut grow fund of but by Guhd to,,, smash an ancient mirruh that wuld be bee-YOnd mahself"

And these connections are all canonical in my mind. (There are crossover fanfics between Good Omens and Sandman, and between House and BBC Sherlock, and between Sherlock and the James Bond franchise, and between House and Good Omens- there's a fic I really like with these fandoms- and there's a drawing I also reblogged on Tumblr of Fred presenting Benoit Blanc as his dad).

So, basically, in my head, Sherlock is highly pissed off by Benoit Blanc being considered the best detective in the world though he respects him, Q is Fred Jones's uncle and probably added a lot of cool MI6 features to the mystery machine, Gregory House, notorious atheist, lives in the same universe of angels and demons and the Sandman and pisses off Sherlock Holmes costantly just because they don't like eachothers, Hob Gadling amd Crowley looked at eachothers once and they knew neither of them were humans, Aziraphale and Crowley always stumble in every other characters' shenanigans and once in a while throw a miracle their way and Hugh Grant/Philip makes cupcakes for everyone.

And if you really want me to be precise, Dead Poet Society lore counts for Wilson, but Neil didn't, well, if you saw the movie you know.

And I know they are technically not correlated, but I would love to find a way to connect Dirk Gently, Todd Brotzman and The Rowdy Three in all this.

There's a part 2 to this post here

[denimbex1986]

'Andrew Scott’s success did not arrive overnight. His has been a slow and steady ascent from supporting player to leading man. But his status is now assured: at 47, the Irishman is among the most talented and prominent actors of his generation, on stage and screen.

Dublin-born and raised, Scott first took drama classes at the suggestion of his mother, an art teacher, to try to overcome a childhood lisp. At 17 he won his first part in a film, Korea (1995), about an Irish boy who finds himself fighting in the Korean War. By 21, he was winning awards for his performance in Eugene O’Neill’s Long Day’s Journey into Night, for director Karel Reisz, no less, at The Gate. He arrived in London, where he continues to live, at the end of the 1990s, and worked regularly, with smaller parts in bigger TV shows (Band of Brothers, Longitude) and bigger parts in smaller plays (A Girl in a Car With a Man, Dying City). By the mid-2000s he was well established, especially in the theatre. In 2006, on Broadway, he was Julianne Moore’s lover, and Bill Nighy’s son, in David Hare’s Iraq War drama, The Vertical Hour, directed by Sam Mendes. In 2009, he was Ben Whishaw’s betrayed boyfriend in Mike Bartlett’s Cock, at the Royal Court. He won excellent notices for these and other performances, but he was not yet a star. If you knew, you knew. If you didn’t know, you didn’t know. Most of us didn’t know; not yet.

That changed in 2010 when, at the age of 33, he played Jim Moriarty, arch nemesis of Benedict Cumberbatch’s egocentric detective, in the BBC’s smash hit Sherlock. The appearance many remember best is his incendiary debut, in an episode called “The Great Game”. When first we meet him, Moriarty is disguised as a creepy IT geek, a human flinch with an ingratiating smile. It’s an act so convincing that even Sherlock doesn’t catch on. Next time we see him, he’s a dapper psychotic in a Westwood suit, with an uncannily pitched singsong delivery and an air of casual menace that flips, suddenly, into rage so consuming he’s close to tears. Such was the relish with which Scott played the villain — he won a Bafta for it — that he risked the black hat becoming stuck to his head. In Spectre (2015), the fourth of Daniel Craig’s Bond movies, and the second directed by Sam Mendes, Scott played Max Denbigh, or C, a smug Whitehall mandarin who wants to merge MI5 and MI6, sacrilegiously replacing the 00 agents with drones. (If only.)

There were other decent roles in movies and TV series, as well as substantial achievements on stage, and he might have carried on in this way for who knows how long, even for his whole career, as a fêted stage performer who never quite breaks through as a leading man on screen.

But Scott had more to offer than flashy baddies and scene-stealing cameos. His Hamlet, at The Almeida in London, in 2017, was rapturously received. I’ve seen it only on YouTube, but even watching on that degraded format, you can appreciate the fuss. Scott is magnetic: funny, compelling, and so adept with the language that, while you never forget he’s speaking some of the most profound and beautiful verse ever written, it feels as conversational as pub chat.

Another banner year was 2019: a memorable cameo in 1917 (Mendes again) as a laconic English lieutenant; an Emmy nomination for his performance in an episode of Black Mirror; and the matinée idol in Noel Coward’s Present Laughter at London’s Old Vic, for which he won the Olivier for Best Actor, the most prestigious award in British theatre.

The second series of Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s phenomenal Fleabag, also in 2019, proved to a wider public what theatregoers already knew: Scott could play the mainstream romantic lead, and then some. His character was unnamed. The credits read, simply, “The Priest”. But social media and the newspapers interpolated an adjective and Scott became The Hot Priest, Fleabag’s unlucky-in-love interest, a heavy-drinking heartbreaker in a winningly spiffy cassock, and an internet sensation.

Fleabag began as a spiky dramedy about a traumatised young woman. Scott’s storyline saw it develop into a bittersweet rom-com, brimming with compassion for its two clever, funny, horny, lonely, awkward, baggage-carrying heroes, lovers who can’t get together because, for all the snogging in the confessional, one of them is already taken, in this case by God.

It was the best and brightest British comedy of the 2010s, and Scott’s fizzing chemistry with Waller-Bridge had much to do with that. The ending, when she confesses her feelings at a bus stop, is already a classic. “I love you,” she tells him. “It’ll pass,” he says.

Over the past 12 months, in particular, Scott has piled triumph on top of victory, and his star has risen still further. At the National, last year, he executed a coup de théâtre in Vanya, for which he was again nominated for an Olivier. (He lost out to an old Sherlock sparring partner, Mark Gatiss, for his superb turn in The Motive and the Cue, about the making of an earlier Hamlet.) For Simon Stephens’s reworking of Chekhov’s play, Scott was the only actor on stage. On a sparsely furnished set, in modern dress — actually his own clothes: a turquoise short sleeve shirt, pleated chinos, Reebok Classics and a thin gold chain — and with only very slight modulations of his voice and movements, he successfully embodied eight separate people including an ageing professor and his glamorous young wife; an alcoholic doctor and the woman who loves him; and Vanya himself, the hangdog estate manager. He argued with himself, flirted with himself and even, in one indelible moment, had it off with himself.

It’s the kind of thing that could have been indulgent showboating, a drama-school exercise taken too far, more fun for the performer than the audience. But Scott carried it off with brio. In the simplest terms, he can play two people wrestling over a bottle of vodka in the middle of the night — and make you forget that there’s only one of him, and he’s an Irish actor, not a provincial Russian(s). An astonishing feat.

For his next trick: All of Us Strangers, among the very best films released in 2023. Writer-director Andrew Haigh’s ghost story is about Adam (Scott), a lonely writer, isolated in a Ballardian west-London high-rise, who returns to his suburban childhood home to find that his parents — killed in a car crash when he was 11 — are still living there, apparently unaltered since 1987. Meanwhile, Adam begins a tentative romance with a neighbour, Henry (Paul Mescal), a younger man, also lonely, also vulnerable, also cut off from family and friends.

Tender, lyrical, sentimental, sad, strange, and ultimately quite devastating, All of Us Strangers was another potential artistic banana skin. At one point, Scott’s character climbs into bed with his parents and lies between them, as a child might, seeking comfort. In less accomplished hands, this sort of thing could have been exasperating and embarrassing. But Scott’s performance grounds the film. He is exceptionally moving in it. He was nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Actor, losing to his fellow Irishman, Cillian Murphy, for Oppenheimer. Earlier this year, he made history as the first person to receive Critics Circle awards in the same year for Best Actor in a film (All of Us Strangers) and a play (Vanya).

Finally, last month, the title role in Ripley, a new spin on the lurid Patricia Highsmith novels. That show, which unspools over eight episodes on Netflix, was a long time coming. Announced in 2019, it was filmed during the pandemic, at locations across Italy and in New York. Scott is in almost every scene and delivers an immensely subtle and nuanced portrayal of Highsmith’s identity thief, a character previously played by actors including Alain Delon, Dennis Hopper, and Matt Damon in the famous Anthony Minghella film The Talented Mr Ripley, from 1999.

The fragile almost-charm that makes Tom Ripley such an enduring antihero is there in Scott’s portrayal, but so is the creepiness, the isolation, the fear and desperation. His Ripley can turn on a smile, but it quickly curdles. Filmed in high-contrast black and white, Ripley is a sombre, chilly work by design, but doggedly compelling, and not without a mordant wit. Again, critics swooned.

So the actor is on a hot streak. Later this year he’ll appear in Back in Action, a Hollywood spy caper, alongside Cameron Diaz and Jamie Foxx, above-the-title stars with dazzling, wide-screen smiles. But could they play Chekhov single-handed? They’ll need to be on their toes.

Before our shoot and subsequent interview, in April, I had met Scott briefly on two previous occasions, both times at fancy dinners for fashion brands. Compact, stylish, dynamic, he is impishly witty and charismatic: good in a room. Also, obliging: the second time I met him, he took my phone and spoke into it in his most diabolical Moriarty voice for a wickedly funny voice message to my son, a Sherlock fan.

At the Esquire shoot, on an overcast day in south London, Scott again demonstrated his good sportiness: dancing in the drizzle in a Gucci suit; generously sharing his moment in the spotlight with an unexpected co-star, a local cat who sauntered on to the set and decided to stick around for the close-ups; and entertaining the crew — and hangers-on, including me — with rude jokes. At one point, while for some reason discussing the contents of our respective fridges, I asked him where he kept his tomatoes. “Easy, Tiger,” he said.

At lunch the following day, upstairs at Quo Vadis, the restaurant and members’ club in Soho (my suggestion), the actor arrived promptly, settled himself on a banquette, and we got straight to business. It’s standard practice now for interviews published in the Q&A format to include a disclaimer, in the American style: “This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.” (Well, duh.) In this case, we talked for close to three hours. Inevitably, paper costs being what they are, and Esquire readers having busy lives, some of that verbiage has ended up on the cutting-room floor. But not much! I’ve tried to let it flow as much as possible, and to keep the spirit of the thing, in which we toggled, like all good performances, between light and dark, comedy and tragedy.

In early March, a month before this interview took place, Scott and his family suffered a terrible and unexpected loss: his mother, Nora, suddenly died. He went home to Dublin to be with his dad, Jim, his sisters, Sarah and Hannah, and their family and friends.

As an interviewee and, I suspect, as a person, Scott is thoughtful, convivial and solicitous: he doesn’t just answer questions, he also asks them. He is not above the occasional forearm squeeze when he wants to emphasise a point. He seems to possess a sharp emotional intelligence. Perhaps one should expect empathy in a great actor, but in him it seems particularly marked.

Before we began talking, there was some studying of the menu. Scott wondered, since I eat often at Quo Vadis, if I had any recommendations. I told him I had my eye on the pie: chicken, ham and leek. “Why would you not have the pie?” wondered Scott. A good question.

So, how was your morning? Where have you come from?

This morning I’ve been at the gym, Alex.

Are you working out for a specific reason or are you just a healthy man?

Just trying to keep it going. Exercise is so helpful to me. I don’t know if you know, but my mum died four weeks ago.

I did know, and I’m so sorry.

Thank you. So, yeah. Just trying to keep it going. They say your body feels it as much as your mind.

The grief?

Yeah, the grief. My friend said a brilliant thing last night. She’s been through grief. She said, if you think of it like weights, the weight of it doesn’t decrease, but your ability to lift the weights does. So, if you go to the gym and you’re completely unpractised you won’t be able to lift the weight. But the more you get used to it, the more you can lift. There’s a slight analogy to grief. I’m just learning about it.

Have you been through grief before?

Not really. A little bit, but not to this extent. And it’s a strange thing because, obviously, I’m in the middle of having to talk a lot [promoting Ripley] and making that decision of whether to talk about it or whether not to talk about it. I’m finding myself talking about it, because it’s what’s going on, and without giving away too much of it she was such an important figure. It feels right. It’s such a natural thing.

Is it helpful to talk about it?

I think it has to be. I feel very lucky with my job, in the sense that, all those more complex, difficult feelings, that’s what you have to do in a rehearsal room; you have to explore these things. So strange: a lot of the recent work that I’ve done has been exploring grief. With Vanya, and All of Us Strangers. So it’s odd to be experiencing it this time for real.

I wasn’t planning on making that the focal point of this piece, so it’s up to you how much you feel comfortable talking about it.

I appreciate that.

Was it unexpected? Did it happen out of the blue?

Yes. She was very alive four weeks ago. She just deteriorated very quickly. She got pneumonia and she just… it was all over within 24 hours.

What sort of person was she?

She was the most enormously fun person that you could possibly imagine. Insanely fun and very, very creative. She’s the person who sort of introduced me to acting and art. She taught me to draw and paint when I was really young —that’s another big passion of mine, drawing and painting. She was amazing with all of us. My sister Sarah is very talented in sport, she’s now a sports coach. And my sister Hannah was very artistic and she’s an actor now. So, she was really good at supporting us throughout all our different interests. What I say is that we’ve been left a huge fortune by her. Not financially, but an emotional fortune, if you know what I mean? I feel that really strongly. And once this horrible shock is over, I just have to figure out how I’m going to spend it. Because I think when someone else is alive and they’ve got amazing attributes, they look after those attributes. And then when they die, particularly if they are your parent, you feel like you want to inhabit them, these incredible enthusiasts for life. She just made connections with people very easily. I feel enormously grateful to have had her. Have you had much grief in your life?

My mother died, during Covid. She had been ill for a long time, so it was a very different experience to yours. But I think they are all different experiences, for each of us. I don’t know if that loss would be in any way analogous to yours. But like you, I love art and books and music, and that’s all from her. Last night, I watched a rom-com with my daughter, who is 14. And I don’t know if I would like rom-coms so much, if it wasn’t for my mum.

Love a rom-com! What did you watch?

Annie Hall.

Did she like it, your daughter?

She absolutely loved it. She was properly laughing.

Oh, that’s great!

And she’s a tough one to impress. But she loved it, and my mum loved Woody Allen. My mum can’t recommend Woody Allen to my daughter now, but I can, and that’s come down from her. So it goes on.

That’s what I mean. Your spirit doesn’t die. And I’m sure you went to bed going, “Yes!”

I did! It was a lovely evening, it really was. Tonight we’ll watch something else.

Are you going to watch another Woody Allen? Which one are you going to watch?

I thought maybe we’d watch Manhattan? More Diane Keaton.

Or Hannah and Her Sisters? That’s a good one. Insanely good. Yeah, it’s amazing that legacy, what you’re left with. My mum was so good at connecting with people. She was not very good at small talk. She was quite socially bold. She would say things to people. If she thought you looked well, she’d tell you. She’d always come home with some story about some pot thrower she met at some sort of craft fair. Being socially bold, there’s a sort of kindness in it. When someone says something surprising, it’s completely delightful. My mother sent me something when I was going through a bad time in my twenties. It was just a little card. It said, “The greatest failure is not to delight.” What a beautiful quote. And she was just delighted by so many things, and she was also delightful. And like her, I really love people. I really get a kick out of people.

I can tell.

But there’s a kind of thing, if you become recognisable, people become the enemy? And it’s something I have to try and weigh up a little bit. Because people are my favourite thing about the world. I think it’s part of my nature. My dad is pretty sociable too. And so it’s weighing that up, how you keep that going. Because certain parts of that are out of your control: people treat you slightly differently. But this phase, the past four weeks, it still feels so new. Just thinking about legacy and kindness and love and the finite-ness of life. All that stuff.

Big stuff.

Yeah, it’s big stuff. And it’s very interesting, talking about grief. Because it’s not all just low-energy sadness. There’s something galvanising about it as well. I don’t know if you found that, too?

One of the things about someone else dying is it makes you feel alive.

Yes, exactly. Even though we have no choice, it does that. It’s that amazing thing, the year of magical thinking.

[Waiter approaches. Are we ready to order?]

We are.

I think so. Are we two pie guys?

We’re two pie guys!

We’re pretty fly for pie guys.

Are we salad guys? Tomato, fennel and cucumber salad?

Yeah.

And chips, maybe?

Listen, you only live once.

So, the year of magical thinking…

You know, when you’re walking along, are you allowed to have a surge of joy? Or are you allowed to just stay home and… It’s extraordinary when it gets you.

Like a wave of emotion?

I had one on the rowing machine today. I’m glad of it, though.

That was sadness.

Just loss, yeah. Just loss.

So, there’s two ways to do this. You can choose. We can do the usual interview where we start at the beginning with your childhood and go all the way through to now. That’s totally fine. Or, I can throw more random questions at you, and see where that takes us?

Random!

Shall we random it?

Let’s random it.

OK. That means I might sometimes read questions off this piece of paper.

Reading takes just slightly away from the randomness of it, Alex…

That is a very good point. You are quite right. But I don’t read them out in order! They’re just prompts.

[Sardonically] Oh, I see!

Talk me through what you’re wearing.

Oh, this is so old. What does it say?

[I peer at the label on the inside of his shirt collar. It says Hartford.]

What colour would you call that?

I’d call it a bit of a duck egg, Alex, would you?

I’d go with that. And it’s like a…

Like a Henley?

And these [pointing to trousers]?

Mr P trousers. And a pair of old Nikes.

And sports socks.

When I am off duty, I think I dress slightly like an 11-year-old. You know, when you’re just plodding the streets, I wear, like, a hoodie and trainers.

And you have a chain round your neck.

This is a chain that I bought in New York. No, maybe I bought it in Italy. It was a replacement chain. I’ve worn a chain for years. Sometimes I like to have it as a reminder that I’m not working. When you’re in character, you take it off. Because when you’re in a show or a play, they sort of own you. They own your hair.

They own your hair!

Or sometimes you have to walk around with, like, a stupid moustache. Or, worse, chops. Actors fucking hate that. Like, nobody suits that, I don’t think. Right? I’m trying to think of someone who suits that.

Daniel Day Lewis, maybe? He can carry it off.

He’s got the chops for chops!

What’s something about you that you think is typically Irish?

It goes back to that people thing. When I go home to Ireland, I’m aware that people talk to each other a lot more. And I think there’s a sense of humour that Irish people have that I love. And I suppose a softness, too, that I love. Those are the positive things. And then the guilt and the shame is the negative stuff.

Catholic guilt?

Catholic guilt. I feel very strongly, though, that I’ve worked to emancipate myself from it. There’s a certain unthinking-ness to guilt. Your first thought, always: “What have I done wrong? It’s gotta be me.” That doesn’t benefit anyone. And with shame, I don’t feel shame anymore. I think I probably did before. But in a way, it’s an irrelevant thing for me to talk about now. The thing I prefer to talk about is how great it is not to have that anymore. Rather than how horrible it was. The thing I feel enthusiastic about is how there are so many beautiful and different ways to live a life that aren’t centred on the very strict, Catholic, cultural idea of what a good life might be. Namely, 2.4 children and certain ideas and a very specific life.

Are there positives to be taken away from a Catholic education?

The rituals around grief, I think, are really beautiful, having gone through what I’ve just been going through. And the community that you get in Catholicism. Because that’s what Catholicism is about, in some ways: devotion to your community. The amount of love and support you get is to be admired. It’s the organisation that has been the problem, not the values. Random question number 16!

When’s the last time you were horrifically drunk?

Good question! I was in New York doing press recently for Ripley. And I met Paul Mescal. He had a negroni waiting for me. Love a negroni. And then we went dancing.

Are you a good dancer?

I’m pretty good, freestyle. Slow on choreography but once I get it, I’m OK. I love dancing.

I love dancing.

Do you really? Do you do, like, choreographed dancing as well?

No! But I’m a good dancer.

Do you have moves?

Oh, I have moves.

Ha! I love that!

It’s so freeing, so liberating.

It totally is.

And it’s sexy and fun.

Exactly! It’ll get you a kiss at the end of the night.

It’s sort of showing off, too, isn’t it?

But it’s also completely communal. It connects you with people. Also, you can learn so much about someone by watching how they connect with people on a dance floor. How much of communication do they say is non-verbal? An enormous amount.

If you didn’t live in London, where would you most like to live?

I suppose Dublin. I do live a wee bit in Dublin. But one of the things I feel really grateful for is that I have sort of been able to live all over the place. I lived in Italy for a year, during the pandemic.

You were making Ripley?

Yeah, we were all over. Rome, Venice, Capri, Naples… A bit of New York. I’d love to spend more time in New York. I was very lucky recently to have my picture taken by Annie Leibovitz. We were outside the Chelsea Hotel, and this woman came up. [Thick Noo Yawk accent, shouting]: “Hey, Annie! Why don’t you take a picture of this dumpster? It’s been outside my block for two months! Take a picture of that!” There’s something about that New York-iness that I love. It still has such romance for me.

How old do you feel?

Really young. I don’t have an exact age for you. Thirties?

Some people feel in touch with their childhood selves, or almost unchanged from adolescence. Others seem to have been born an adult.

That’s really true. I think of playgrounds for children: you’re actively encouraged to play, as a kid. “Go out and play!” And I hate that at some point, maybe in your mid-twenties, someone goes, “Now, don’t play! Now, know everything. Now, turn on the television, acquire a mortgage and tell people what you know.” I have to play for a living. It’s so important, not just in your job, but in life. It’s a great pleasure of life, if you can hold on to that. Talking about my mum again, she had an amazing sense of fun.

She was a funny person? She made people laugh?

Absolutely.

That’s important, isn’t it?

It’s really important. I think having a sense of humour is one of the most important things in life. It’s such a tool. And you can develop it. My family were all funny. Laughter was a currency in our family. Humour is a magic weapon. It separates us from the other species. Like, I love my dog. I think dogs are amazing. And he can have fun, but he’s not able to go, “This is fucking ridiculous.” He’s not able to do that! So it’s a real signifier of your humanity, in some ways.

Also, being a funny person, or someone who can connect with people through humour, that’s how we make friends.

I think actors make really good friends. Because you’re in the empathy game. And because you’re making the decision to go into an industry that is really tough, you need to have your priorities straight: “I know this is tough, I know the chances of me succeeding in it are slim, but I’m going to go in anyway.” It shows a sort of self-possession that I think is a wonderful thing to have in a friend. Also, actors are just funny. And a lot of them are sexy!

Funny and sexy: good combination.

I know! Not that you want all your friends to be sexy, that’s not how you should choose your friends.

Oh, I don’t know. It’s not the worst idea.

It’s not. But I think it’s something to do with empathy. And it’s a troupe mentality as well. You’re good in groups.

It’s a gang.

I love a gang. Do you like a gang?

I do. Magazines are like that. A good magazine is a team, a great magazine is a gang. And the thing we produce is only part of it: you put it out there and people make of it what they will. The process of making it is the thing, for me.

Oh, my God. That’s something I feel more and more. Process is as important as product. I really believe that. You can have an extraordinary product, but if it was an absolute nightmare to make then, ultimately, that’s what you’re going to remember about it. You make good things that are successful that everybody loves? That’s lovely. But also, you make stuff that people don’t respond to. So, if you have a good time in the process, and the attempt is a valiant one, and there’s a good atmosphere, if it’s kind and fun, that’s the stuff you hold on to. One of the reasons I love the theatre is you don’t have to see the product. You just do it, and then it’s done. It’s an art form that is ephemeral. There’s a big liberation, too, in discovering you don’t have to watch any of your films if you don’t want to.

Have you watched Ripley?

I watched Ripley once.

And?

It’s a lot of me in it! Jesus!

Is that a problem?

I find it hard to watch myself. I do. There’s something quite stressful about looking at yourself. Have you ever heard yourself on someone’s answering machine? Horrific! You’re like, “Oh, my God, that can’t be me. How do they let me out in the day?” It’s like that, and then it’s your big, stupid face as well. Mostly, I have a feeling of overwhelming embarrassment.

On a cinema screen, I can’t even imagine. Your face the size of a house!

The size of a house, and there’s 400 people watching you.

Nature did not intend humans to ever experience this.

That is so true. It’s not natural.

I mean, even mirrors are to be avoided.

Maybe looking in the sea is the only natural way?

Well, Narcissus!

Yeah, true. That didn’t turn out well. I’d love for that to be a tagline for a movie, though: “Nature did not intend humans to ever experience this…”

But equally, nature didn’t intend the rest of us to gaze upon you in quite that way. We sit in the dark, staring up worshipfully at this giant image of you projected on a screen for hours. Is that healthy?

Without talking about the purity of theatre again, when you’re in the theatre, you, as the audience, see someone walking on the stage, and technically you could go up there, too. There’s not that remove. It’s live. There’s a real intimacy. That’s why I feel it’s the real actor’s medium. Your job is to create an atmosphere. I always find it insanely moving, even still, that adults go into the dark and say, “I know this is fake, but I don’t care: tell me a story.” And they gasp, and they cry, or they’re rolling around the aisles laughing. It’s so extraordinary, so wonderful that it exists. I really do believe in the arts as a human need. I believe in it so deeply. During the pandemic, our first question to each other was, “What are you watching? What book are you reading?” Just to get through it, to survive. It’s not just some sort of frivolous thing. It’s a necessity. As human beings, we tell stories. Expert storytellers are really vital. No, it’s not brain surgery. But, “Hearts starve as well as bodies. Give us bread, but give us roses.” I love that quote.

Tell me about playing Hamlet. Was it what you expected it would be?

It’s extraordinary. Loads of different reasons why. From an acting point of view, there’s no part of you that isn’t being used. So you have to, first of all, have enormous physical stamina, because it’s nearly four hours long. Our version was three hours, 50 minutes. And you have to be a comedian, you have to be a soldier, you have to be a prince, you have to be the romantic hero, you have to be the sorrowful son, you have to understand the rhythm of the language, you have to be able to hit the back of the auditorium — there are just so many things about it that require all those muscles to be exercised. You know, it’s so funny that we’re talking about this today. Because at the beginning of Hamlet, it’s two months since his dad died. His mother has already remarried, to his uncle! What are they doing? I mean the idea that next month my dad might marry someone else is so extraordinary! So, Hamlet’s not mad. Of course he would wear black clothes and be a bit moody. The more interesting question [than whether or not Hamlet is mad] is, who was he before? I think he’s incredibly funny. It’s a really funny play, Hamlet. And it’s a funny play that deals in life and death: the undiscovered country from which no traveller returns. It’s about what it is to be human. And what it’s like to be human is funny, and sad. The language is so incredibly beautiful and it’s also incredibly actable. And it’s also a thriller.

And a ghost story. It’s supernatural.

It’s a supernatural ghost story. And because the character is so well-rounded, I always think of it like a vessel into which you can pour any actor or actress. So, your version, the bits you would respond to if you were playing Hamlet, would be completely different to mine or anyone else’s. It can embrace so many kinds of actors. So Richard Burton can play it or Ben Whishaw can play it or Ruth Negga can play it or I can play it, and it’s going to bring out completely different sides. Did you do much Shakespeare at school?

I did. I studied Hamlet.

I remember Mark Rylance said…

[The waiter arrives with our pies and we both take a moment to admire them before breaking the crusts… The following passages are occasionally hard to make out due to enthusiastic chewing.]

You were about to say something about Mark Rylance. I saw his Hamlet in… must have been 1989, when I was doing my A-levels. He did it in his pyjamas.

I’ve heard. He came to see [my] Hamlet. He said, you feel like you’re on a level with it, and then in week four, you plummet through the layers of the floor and you’re on a deeper level. He was exactly right. Something happens. It’s just got depth.

Does it change you? Do you learn something new about yourself, as an actor?

I think because it’s such a tall order for an actor, it’s sort of like you feel you can do anything after that. Like, at least this is not as hard as Hamlet. You know you have those muscles now. We transferred it from The Almeida on to the West End. So, we did it loads of times. That’s a big achievement.

How many times did you play him?

One hundred and fifty. Twice on a Wednesday, twice on a Saturday. Eight hours [on those days]. Even just for your voice, it’s a lot.

We keep coming back to theatre. Is that because you prefer it?

It goes directly into your veins. It’s pure. You start at the beginning of the story and you go through to the end. When you’re making a movie, it’s a different process. Your imagination is constantly interrupted. You do something for two minutes and then someone comes in and goes, “OK, now we’re going to do Alex’s close-up, so you go back to your trailer and we’re going to set up all the lights and make sure that window across the street is properly lit.” And that’s another 20 minutes, and then you try to get back into the conversation we’ve just been having… And so the impetus is a different one.

The Hot Priest…

What’s that?

Ha! I watched Fleabag again, last week. It’s so good. But The Hot Priest, he’s a coward. He gets a chance at happiness with the love of his life and he doesn’t take it.

Well, not to judge my character, but I suppose there’s an argument that he does choose love. He chooses God. That’s the great love of his life. Whatever his spirituality has given him, he has to choose that. Is there a way that they could have made that [relationship] work? Of course there is. We’re seeing it from Fleabag’s point of view, literally, so of course it feels awful [that Fleabag and the Priest can’t be together]. But I think we understand it, the thing that is not often represented on screen but which an awful lot of people have, which is the experience of having a massive connection with somebody, a real love, that doesn’t last forever. I think somebody watching that can think, “I have my version of that. And I know that I loved that person, but I also know why we couldn’t be together.” And that doesn’t mean those relationships are any less significant. It just means that they are impossible to make work on a practical level. Not all love stories end the same way.

Annie Hall.

There you go! La La Land. Love that movie.

The Hot Priest is damaged. There’s a darkness there. Journalists interviewing actors look at the body of work and try to find through lines that we can use to create a narrative. It’s often a false narrative, I know that. However, that’s what we’re here for! Let’s take Hamlet, and the Priest, and Adam from All of Us Strangers, and, I guess, Vanya himself, even Moriarty. These are not happy-go-lucky guys. Ripley! These men seem lost, lonely, sad. Is it ridiculous to suggest that there’s something in you that draws you to these characters — or is it a coincidence?

That’s a really good question. I think it can’t be a coincidence. Like, even when you said “happy-go-lucky”, right? My immediate instinct is to say, “Show me this happy-go-lucky person.” With a different prism on this person, there would be a part of him that’s not happy-go-lucky, because that’s the way human beings are. If we could think now of a part that’s the opposite of the kind of part [he typically plays], a happy-go-lucky character…

How about the kinds of roles that Hugh Grant plays in those rom-coms? Yeah, the character might be a little bit repressed, a bit awkward at first, but basically everything’s cool, then he meets a beautiful woman, it doesn’t work out for about five minutes, and then it does. The end.

[Chuckles] OK, yeah. I’d love to have a go at that.

Wouldn’t you like to do that?

I would! I really would.

Why haven’t you?

I don’t know! It’s weird. That is something I would really love to do. Because I love those films. There’s a joy to them. It’s something I would love to embrace now. When I was growing up, as a young actor, I did want to play the darkness. With Moriarty, I was like, “I’ve got this in me and I’d like to express it.” And, conversely, now I think the opposite. I know that’s a little bit ironic, given I’ve just played Tom Ripley. Ha! But I have just played it, and I have spent a lot of time in characters that are isolated. And I was in a play [Vanya] that was one person. I don’t feel sad doing those things. It’s cathartic. But I would love the idea of doing something different.

Also, you don’t strike me as a person who is especially morose.

No! No, no, no. I’m not. But again, we all contain multitudes. My mother’s legacy was so joyful. Not that she didn’t have her soulful moments, because of course she did. I mean this as the opposite of morbidity, but it doesn’t end well for any of us, it really doesn’t. So bathing in the murkier waters, it’s wonderful to be able to explore that side of you, but also the opposite is true, the idea of joy and fun and lightness is something I’m definitely interested in. Like a musical! I’d love to be in a musical. I’ve just done a cameo in a comedy that I can’t talk about yet. It was just a day, with someone I really love, and it just lifted me up. But of course, there’s the stuff that people associate you with, and that’s what brings you to the table.

You played a baddie really well, so you get more baddies.

Yeah. You have to be quite ferocious about that. You have to go, “Oh, wow, that really is a great film-maker, that’s a lovely opportunity…” But how much time do you have left and what do you want to put out to the world? I feel like I want to be able to manifest what I have within me now. That’s a wonderful thing to be able to do. It’s such a privilege. And I feel so grateful for the opportunities I’ve been given. But why not get out of the hay barn and play in the hay?

Ripley has been well received. Do you read reviews?

I read some of them.

Why?

I’m interested in the audience. You know when people say, “You should never care about what other people think?” Of course I care what people think.

Ripley is excellent, but it’s quite gruelling to watch. Was it gruelling to make?

Yeah.

Because you have to inhabit this deeply unhappy person?

Maybe not unhappy. But very isolated, I think that’s key. It was hard. There was a huge amount of actual acting. Doing 12-hour days for almost a year. I’m not necessarily convinced you should act that much.

Ripley is himself an actor. He puts on other people’s identities because he doesn’t like his own. He doesn’t like himself. Some people think actors are people who don’t like themselves so you pretend to be other people, assume other identities. Or maybe it’s that actors are hollow shells. When you’re not acting, there’s no one there. No you. Sorry to be rude.

No, it’s not rude at all. I totally understand it. But I find it to be completely the opposite of what I’ve learnt. The essence of acting, for me, the great catharsis of it, is that you’re not pretending to be somebody else, you’re exploring different sides of yourself. You’re going, who would I be in these circumstances? Some of the darkest, most unhappy people I know are the people who say, “I don’t have an angry bone in my body.” Then why do I feel so tense around you? People who have no anger… I remember I used to have it with some religious people when I was growing up. People proclaiming that they’re happy or good or kind, that does not necessarily mean that they are happy or good or kind. That’s the brand they’re selling. I’ve always liked that expression: “fame is the mask that eats into the face.” How do you keep a healthy life when you’re pretending to be other people? You do it by going, “I’m going to admit I have a dark side.” It’s much healthier to shout at a fictional character in a swimming pool [as Moriarty does in Sherlock] than it is to be rude to a waiter in a restaurant, in real life.

You find that therapeutic?

Yes, you’re still expressing that anger. I think it is therapeutic.

So playing Tom Ripley every day for a year, were you able to exorcise something, or work through something?

Well, that’s why I found Tom Ripley quite difficult. He’s hard to know, and a harder character to love. If you think of Adam in All of Us Strangers, you go, “OK, I understand what your pain is.” What I understand with Tom, the essence of that character, is that he’s somebody who has a big chasm that is unknowable, perhaps even to himself. We’re all a little bit like that, we’re all sometimes mysterious to ourselves — “I don’t know why I did that…” — but to have empathy for someone like that is difficult. You know the boy in your class who gets bullied, and it’s awful, and you try and understand it but he doesn’t make it easier for himself? That’s the way I feel about Tom Ripley. It’s a thorny relationship. Your first job as an actor is to advocate for the character. That’s why I hate him being described as a psychopath. Everyone else can say what they like about him, but I have to be like, ‘Maybe he’s just… hangry?’ So you have to try and empathise, try and understand. When we call people who do terrible things monsters — “This evil monster!” — I think that’s a way of absenting yourself from that darkness. Because it’s not a monster. It’s a human being that did this. You can’t look away from the fact that human beings, sometimes for completely unknowable reasons, do terrible things. And that’s why it’s interesting when people talk about Tom Ripley. They say, “Have you ever met a Tom Ripley type?” The reason the character is so enduring is because there’s Tom Ripley in all of us. That’s why we kind of want him to get away with it. That’s [Highsmith’s] singular achievement, I think.

I find reading the Ripley books quite unpleasant. It’s a world I really don’t want to spend any time in. I read two of them preparing for this. She’s a great writer, but they’re horrible characters; it’s a depressing world.

I agree. That’s what I found most challenging. Where is the beating heart here? How much time do I want to spend here? And when you do, well, it took its toll. It did make me question how much time I want to spend with that character, absolutely. That’s the truth.

The way you play him, he’s very controlled. You didn’t play him big.

I think it’s important to offer up difference facets of the character to the director and he chooses the ones he feels marry to his vision. And those are the ones [Steven Zaillian] chose. And he executed those expertly.

Are you a member of any clubs?

Yeah, I’m a member of the Mile High Club. No, no…

That’ll do nicely.

OK, that’s my answer.

What’s your earliest memory?

Do they still have, I think it’s called a play pen?

Sort of like tiny little jails for toddlers? What a good idea they were!

I remember being massively happy in it. My mother used to say she just used to fling me in that thing and give me random kitchen utensils. I don’t know, like a spoon. I’ve always been quite good in my own company. I really remember being left to my own imagination and being very happy.

Do you live alone now?

Yeah.

Is that not lonely?

Of course I’ve experienced that but, ultimately, no. I don’t know if that’s the way I’m going to be for the rest of my life. But I certainly don’t feel lonely. I’ve got so much love in my life.

Would it be OK if you lived alone for the rest of your life?

Yeah. It would be OK. One of my great heroes is Esther Perel.

I don’t know who that is.

Esther Perel. She’s a sort of love and relationships expert, a therapist, and she’s a writer. A real hero, I think you’d really dig her. She talks about relationships and the mythology around them. The difference between safety and freedom. She talks with real compassion about both men and women; she talks about this idea of what we think we want, and what we really want. And how there’s only one prototype for a successful life, really, or a successful relationship. Which is: you meet somebody, da-da-da, you fall in love, da-da-da, you have kids, da-da-da. And that prototype just can’t suit every person in the world. There are some people who live in the world who might see their partner every second Tuesday and that suits them. And to be able to understand and communicate your own preference at any given time is really the aim. To be able to say, “At the moment I’m happy in the way I am, but maybe at some point…” I’ve lived with people before, and maybe I will again, but at the moment it feels right to sort of keep it fluid.

The difficulty, of course, with relationships, is there’s another person with their own preferences. Maybe you’re OK with every second Tuesday, but they need Thursdays and Fridays, too…

But isn’t that the beauty of love? That you construct something, like a blanket. You stitch all these things together. One of the things about being gay and having a life that ultimately is slightly different from the majority of people’s, is you learn that you can create your own way of living, that is different and wonderful. A homosexual relationship doesn’t necessarily have to ape what a heterosexual relationship is. That’s a very important thing to acknowledge. I mean, of course, if you want to do that, that’s brilliant. But you don’t have to. To me, the worst thing is to be dishonest or uncommunicative or unhappy or joyless in a relationship. It’s much more important to be able to have a difficult conversation or a brave conversation about how you feel or what you want. So many of my gay friends, I feel very proud of them, really admiring of the fact we have these conversations. It seems very adult and very loving to be able to acknowledge that the difference between safety and freedom can be real torture for some people. How do I love somebody, and still keep my own sense of autonomy and adventure? That’s a real problem. That’s what Esther Perel says. It’s one of the biggest causes of the demise of a relationship. That people coast along, they can’t have that conversation, and then the whole bottom falls out of the boat.

I wasn’t necessarily going to ask you about being gay. One tries to avoid labelling you as “gay actor Andrew Scott” instead of “actor Andrew Scott, who happens to be gay”. But since we’re talking about it already: because you’re famous, you become a de facto spokesperson for gay people. People look to you for the “gay opinion.” Are you OK with that?

I’ll tell you my thoughts on that. If I talk about it in every interview, it sounds like I want to talk about it in every interview. And, of course, I’m asked about it in most interviews, so I’m going to answer it because I’m not ashamed of it. But sometimes I think the more progressive thing to do is what you’re saying: to not talk about it and hopefully for people to realise that if you had to go into work every single day and they said, “Hey, Alex! Still straight? How’s that going?”… I mean, being gay is not even particularly interesting, any more than being straight is. But I understand, and I’m happy to talk about it. I suppose it depends on the scenario. I just don’t want to ever give the impression that it isn’t a source of huge joy in my life. And at this stage in my life, rather than talk about how painful it might have been or the shame, or not getting cast in things [because of it], actually, I’m so proud of the fact that I’m able to play all these different parts and, hopefully, in some ways it demystifies it and makes people — not just gay people, but all people — go, “Oh, yeah, that’s great that it’s represented in the world, but being gay is not your number-one attribute.” The problem is it becomes your schtick. Frankly, I feel like I’ve got just a bit more to offer than that.

Two reasons I think you get asked about being gay. One is just prurience — you’re famous and we want to know who you’re shagging — and the other is that identity politics is such an obsession, and so polarising, and we hope you’ll say something controversial.

I think that’s right, I think that’s what it is. But sometimes people think there’s just one answer, in 15 characters or less. That’s something I resist, slightly.

All of Us Strangers is about loads of things, about grief, love, loneliness, but it’s also very specifically about being gay. To me, anyway.

Yes, it is.

I thought, in particular, that the scene with Claire Foy, where your character comes out to his mother, was incredibly moving.

Isn’t it extraordinary, though, that you, who is not a gay person, could find that so moving? There’s no way you’d find that moving if it was only about being gay. I always say that coming out has nothing to do with sex. When you’re talking to your parent, you’re not thinking, “Oh, this is making me feel a bit frisky.” Anyone can understand that this is about somebody who has something within them — in this case, it’s about sexuality — that he hopes is not going to be the reason that his parents don’t speak to him anymore. And I think we all have that: “I hope you still love me.” And the great pleasure about All of Us Strangers is that it’s reached not just a particular type of audience, but all types of people. And I love they’re able to market it to everyone. Usually they do this weird thing where they pretend the film’s not gay…

Right. There would be a picture of a woman on the poster.

Exactly. Someone who’s playing the neighbour! But now you’re able to market a film with Paul [Mescal] and I, and the fact is that that’s going to sell tickets. I know there’s a long way to go, but that is progression. Before, that wasn’t the case. This time, no one gave a fuck. Nothing bad happened. The world didn’t explode. Family didn’t collapse.

Identity politics question: there’s an opinion now frequently expressed that gay people ought to be played by gay actors, and so on. What are your thoughts on that?

The way I look at it, if somebody was to make a film about my life — it’d be quite a weird film — would I want only gay actors to be auditioned to play me? I would say that I’m more than my sexuality. But there might be another gay person who feels that’s incredibly important to who they are and how they would like to be represented on film. How do we balance that? I don’t know. I don’t have an easy answer on that. I think it’s a case-by-case thing.

You’ve played straight people and gay people. You’re Irish but you’ve played English people and American people. I would hope you would be able to continue doing that.

The question I suppose is opportunity, and who gets it. It was very frustrating to me, when I was growing up, that there were no gay actors.

Well, there were lots of gay actors…

But not “out” gay actors. Now there are more. Representation is so important. So I think it’s complicated, and nuanced. And talking about it in a general way rather than a specific way is not always helpful. It depends which film we are talking about. Which actor.

You were spared the curse of instant mega-fame, aged 22. Would you have handled that well?

No. I think all that scrutiny and opinion, it’s a lot. Now I’m able to look at a bad review or somebody saying something really horrible about the way I look, or even someone saying really nice things about that, and go [shrugs]. Before, when that happened, it was devastating. But I survived and it was fine, and I got another job and I was able to kiss someone at a disco, so… Whereas if you’re 22 and you don’t have that experience behind you, you go, “Oh, my God. This is horrible, what do I do?” And also, there’s much more scrutiny now, so much more. I think that must be really hard. Social media is a crazy thing, isn’t it?

I think it’s a horrible thing, on the whole.

That thing you were saying about cinema, about how it’s not natural to see yourself, or other people like that… The amount of information that we’re supposed to absorb and process? Wow. You wake up in the morning and you’re already looking at it.

They used to say that the fame of TV actors was of a different order because they are in your home. People felt they knew the stars of Coronation Street in a much more intimate way, while movie stars, Cary Grant or whoever, these were much more remote, almost mythical creatures. People who are famous on Instagram or TikTok are in the palm of your hand talking to you all day.

And it’s so interesting what people on social media choose to tell you about their lives, even when nobody’s asking them any questions. Like, is that person insane? It’s a very dangerous thing. I find it troubling.

Do you think things are getting better or are they getting worse?

That’s such a good question. I have to believe they’re getting better. I don’t know what that says about me.

It says you’re an optimist.

I think I am an optimist.

What’s the weirdest thing you’ve ever put in your mouth?

Fucking hell. Do you know what I don’t like? Any food that you don’t have to put any effort into eating.

Give me an example.

Custard.

Yes!

I don’t mind ice cream, because it’s got a bit of texture. But I don’t like mashed potato. I don’t like creamed potatoes, or creamed anything.

Risotto?

Absolutely borderline. So if it’s got a little bite to it, it’s OK. But baby food. Ugh! Makes me feel a bit sick.

What’s your favourite of your own body parts?

Ahahah! What do I like? What have we got? I don’t mind my nose? My eyes are OK. Like, my eyes are definitely expressive, God knows. Fucking hell. I remember I was in rehearsal once, and the director said, “Andrew, I just don’t know what you’re thinking.” And the whole company started to laugh. They were like “You don’t? What the fuck is wrong with you?” Because I think I’ve got quite a readable face.

Which is a tool for an actor, right?

It can be a tool for an actor. But you have to learn what your face does, as an actor. On film, your thoughts really are picked up.

What’s your favourite body part that belongs to someone else?

I like hands. And I like teeth. Someone with a nice smile.

Are you similar to your dad?

Yeah, I am. He’s pretty soft-natured, which I think I am, to a degree. He likes fun, too. And he likes people. He’s good at talking to people. He’s kind of sensitive, emotional. He’s a lovely man, a very dutiful dad to us, very loyal.

Would you miss the attention if your fame disappeared overnight?

I definitely think I would miss an audience, if that’s what you mean. The ability to tell a story in front of an audience, I’d miss that. Not to have that outlet.

Before you got famous, you were having a pretty decent career, working with good people, getting interesting parts. Would it have been OK to just carry on being that guy, under the radar?

Oh, my God, yes. Absolutely.

Would you have preferred that to the fame?

The thing is, what it affords you is the opportunity to be cast in really good stuff. You get better roles, particularly on screen. And I’m quite lucky. I have a manageable amount of fame, for the most part.

Some people are born for fame. They love it. They’re flowers to the sun. Others should never have become famous. They can’t handle it. You’ve found you’re OK with it.

Do you know what I feel? I feel, if I was in something I didn’t like, if I was getting lots of attention for something I didn’t feel was representative of me, I think I’d feel quite differently. I feel very relaxed, doing this interview with you today. I feel like, whatever you’re going to ask me, I would feel self-possessed enough to say, “Alex, do you mind if we don’t talk about that?”

Shall we leave it there, then?

Thank you. That was lovely.'

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Michael in the Mainstream: Top 100 Movies #75 - #51

Here is part 2, a follow up to the previous part! Let's not waste any time here, no need for a big ass intro for the second quarter:

75. Blue Velvet

This is weirdly one of David Lynch’s most straightforward works and yet is still one of his best ever. It’s a dark, seedy thriller that has the single best Dennis Hopper performance of all time—and this is a man with no shortage of great performances.

74. Wet Hot American Summer

I love comedies that are just a random collection of the funniest possible people you can think of doing gags, and that's exactly what this cult classic is. It’s hard for me to decide what’s funnier between Paul Rudd tossing children out of moving vehicles or H. Jon Benjamin portraying a talking can of mixed vegetables.

73. The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Easily one of the darkest films in Disney’s entire filmography, something that helps it stand out and shine. Yes, it isn’t a perfect film—the gargoyles can be extremely grating as I’m sure you know, though I’m a lot more forgiving than most because I just love hearing Jason Alexander’s voice—but I think the rest of the movie is so exceptional it makes the bad bits easier to swallow. Tony Jay’s performance as Frollo helps solidify him as one of the greatest and most depraved Disney villains ever. The dude is both horny and genocidal, a feat only matched by Thanos.

72. Jaws

The original summer blockbuster, and one of my favorite thrill rides since I was a teen. The sparing use of the shark really helps build the suspense like nothing else, and that opening is still utterly terrifying due to how chillingly plausible such a thing could be. This is an adaptation that is leagues better than what it’s adapting; muchlike the shark at the end, the movie blows Benchley’s novel out of the water.

71. Glass Onion

I think I may be a lunatic, because I genuinely prefer Glass Onion to Knives Out. Yes, the mystery is far less clever here mainly because the murders are caused by an egotistical idiot with no common sense. And yes, the comedy is amped up in this one. But these are all things that make me love it more. You’ve got Edward Norton playing a self-righteous pastiche of Elon Musk, which makes it so satisfying to see him flounder, and then you have the rest of the core cast portrayed by heavy hitters like Kathryn Hahn and Dave Bautista as well as a shockingly impressive turn as the co-lead alongside Daniel Craig from singer Jenelle Monae. In a world where obnoxious billionaires and other rich assholes are constantly getting away with crimes they’re flagrantly flaunting, it’s nice to see a character who resembles the worst of that group get what’s coming to him.

70. Holes

It is genuinely astonishing just how faithful to the book this movie is. Stanley being skinny is the most notable change, with everything else being just as it was in the novel. The Kissing Kate Barlow backstory segments are easily the best part, but the whole movie is a fun hunt movie with a delicious villain performance courtesy of Sigourney Weaver. This movie is as sweet as a peach and as savory as an onion.

69. Unbreakable

Forget The Sixth Sense (or don’t because that’s still a classic), this is M. Night’s magnum opus. The man completely deconstructed the superhero movie genre before it was even a thing, and he got Bruce Willis to give a performance second only to his role as John McClane in my humble opinion. Plus that final twist… Hoo boy. It’s honestly impressive that it hasn’t been as spoiled to Hell and back as The Sixth Sense’s twist, but that’s just a sign that this movie needs to be experienced for yourself.

68. Candyman

An epic meditation on the nature of urban myth with amazing atmosphere and a haunting score, all from the mind of horror master Clive Barker. Tony Todd plays horror’s sexiest supernatural slasher, which is all the more impressive when he is covered with thousands of live bees and yet still somehow oozes seductiveness.

67. The Goonies

80s kid adventure movies never got better than this one. There’s such a sweet, cheesy earnestness to the proceedings here; this is such an unbelievably goofy premise, but it’s played so straight that I can’t help but love it. All of the child actors here feel fun and natural, with Jeff Cohen’s Chunk easily stealing the show with his antics, but I’d also like to highlight Anne Ramsey as Ma Fratelli. She’s such a delightfully nasty villain, and she plays it with such conviction.

66. The Truman Show

Jim Carrey is a fantastic comedic actor. Everyone knew that back in the day. What many didn’t realize was that the man could deliver one of the most heartfelt and powerful dramatic performances you’ll ever see, all with a light comedic touch to pull it all together. I will say that if he deserved an Oscar for anything, it would be Eternal Sunshine, but this movie is far more enjoyable in my opinion. The movie was also scarily prescient in its vision of a future where every moment of a person’s life is recorded for the entertainment of others, to the point where this can almost be considered a horror film.

65. The Crow

A Gothic supernatural superhero story about revenge, a film that is sadly trapped in the shadow of the tragic on-set accident that claimed the life of its star Brandon Lee. It really is sad watching this, imagining the career his immense talent and charisma would have so easily given him, but it’s also awesome because this film kicks so much ass that it’s unreal. Considering I’m literally writing an urban Gothic horror fantasy series as we speak, it should come as no surprise that this movie is one of my favorites (as well as a minor inspiration).

64. The Lego Movie

When you put actual effort into your toy commercial, people will actually forget it’s supposed to be a toy commercial. And boy, did they go the extra mile with this one! This is animated so brilliantly it really emulates stop-motion, just with more polish. And where the sudden transition to he real world in the third act could have easily derailed the movie, it leads to a really powerful, heartfelt emotional reconciliation that ties the whole film together. The plot may be your standard family film adventure, but it just goes to show with enough skill (and Batman) you can do any plot really well.

63. Whiplash

I’ve called this one of the scariest horror movies in recent memory, and I stand by it. This is a movie where an abusive man in a position of power slowly erodes the willpower and self-esteem of a young man and drives him more and more insane in his never-ending chase of perfection. It’s far more chilling than any masked lunatic butchering girls for sick thrills.

62. Halloween

Ok, well, almost more chilling. John Carpenter is just that damn good at it… Though, to be fair, this movie basically invented the tropes the genre would later run into the ground. As far as slashers go, this is still one of the few that genuinely feels like more than just a showcase of gore and sex, and it’s also the last time for several decades that Michael Meyers truly felt like the unknowable, evil Shape.

61. Deadpool

You can say whatever you want about Ryan Reynolds, but you can never convince me he is not passionate to the character of Deadpool to a degree most superstars aren’t these days. Think about how Craig hated being Bond (I do not blame him); it’s just nice there’s a guy who not only adores the role he plays to the point he practically lives the role, but also worked tirelessly to ensure the character was brought to life properly on the big screen. As far as a straight Deadpool film goes, this is easily my favorite.

60. Spider-Man

Sam Raimi came out the gate swinging with his first shot at Spidey. Equal parts heart and cheese, just like a classic comic, this is as good of a Spidey origin as we could see on the big screen. As much as I love Spidey though, it’s Dafoe’s Green Goblin and J.K. Simmons’ JJJ who really steal the show here.

59. Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Forget Endgame. Forget Super Smash Bros. This right here is the single most ambitious crossover of all time. Bugs goddamn Bunny and Mickey motherfucking Mouse share a screen together; we are never gonna see something of this magnitude ever again. But let’s not pretend like the crossover part is the only reason I love this film; being a perfect blend of film noir and classic cartoon silliness is what really makes this the stone-cold classic that it is.

58. Army of Darkness

Ditching horror for comedic fantasy seems like a bad move for anyone else, but no one else is Sam Raimi. This is the movie that codified Ash Williams as one of my favorite heroes ever, solidifying his status as a snarky, quip-spouting badass who wields a boomstick and chainsaw with equal finesse.

57. The Shining

This is proof that sometimes being pragmatic when it comes to adapting novels. Maybe it isn’t the most faithful to King’s vision, but when you get one of the most atmospheric horror films ever made complete with an amazing soundtrack and career-defining performances from Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall, it’s hard to be too mad that they left King at the wayside so Kubrick could do his thing.

56. Spider-Man 2

This movie has a reputation as one of the greatest action films ever made. And, well, have you seen that fucking train fight? I love Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy a lot, but it is undeniable that this is where everything came together. Peter’s struggles in this film are more relatable than ever, Molina’s Doc Ock is sinister and tragic in equal measure… As far as Spider-Man in live action goes, this is as amazing as it gets. Guess when Doc Ock and Spidey collide it always results in a superior Spider-Man, eh? Eh?

55. Avengers: Infinity War

I think the reason Endgame gets a lot of flak for feeling more like an event than an actual movie is because it is following up an actual movie that is also an event. This is The Empire Strikes Back of superhero films, an epic step forward for the story that ends in a crushing defeat. Thanos picks up the pace after almost a decade of slack and effortlessly cements himself as one of the superhero movie genre’s greatest villains, in no small part to Josh Brolin’s compelling performance. It’s fun, funny, exciting, sad… It was always gonna be an uphill battle for Endgame to live up to this one.

54. A Nightmare on Elm Street

I always go back and forth over which between the first and third one is my favorite, because both are excellent slashers in their own right. It really depends on what day you ask me, really. Still, if we’re talking about which of the movies is actually genuinely chilling, the one where Freddy’s at his scariest, it is hands down this one. This is before he became more of a quipster, so he’s just a nasty fucking freak with a dark sense of humor here. What really gives this movie an edge, though, is you get to see Johnny Depp brutally murdered in a giant geyser of blood.

53. House

Surreal, trippy, dream-like horror films are totally my jam, and this is one that stuck with me ever since I saw it. It’s so strange and inventive, so batshit insane, so fucking cool! It also has the scariest piano this side of Super Mario 64 (that thing has to be an homage to this film).

52. Freddy Got Fingered

This movie is not simply “so bad, it’s good;” no, this movie is so bad, it’s art. Only an absolute genius troll of the highest order could create something that defies every bit of logic and crosses every single boundary to such a degree as this film. Tom Green absolutely knew what he was doing, and by god did he succeed beyond his wildest dreams! I didn’t get this film the first time I saw it, but boy do I get it now.

51. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

The middle film in a trilogy is always the hardest one to stick the landing on I feel. You make one misstep and no one’s coming back for the third one, you know? This movie does not have that problem at all. It starts with the full Gandalf vs. Balrog fight, it has Legolas deliver his world-famous line about where they’re taking the hobbits, it has Viggo Mortensen kicking that helmet (DID YOU KNOW HE BROKE HIS TOE FOR REAL? BET YOU NEVER HEARD THAT ONE), it has Treebeard, it has the epic battle of Helm’s Deep, it has dwarf tossing, it has it all! But most importantly, it has one of the best characters ever: Gollum. Andy Serkis as Middle Earth’s resident split personality crackhead is one of the most compelling characters in a movie that is genuinely stuffed with compelling characters. How he didn’t get an Oscar for this I’ll never know.

[thealogie]

DT was as flabbergasted as you by his name being in the running, he never thought he could be considered at all. I'm trying to see the situation with the Bond producers' eyes, and maybe in the early 2000s it looked differently. A lot of skinny ass actors pulled becoming muscle machines for a role, Bond people didn't know DT's physique wasn't that accommodating. We are used to associating his asymmetrical yet weirdly pretty face with quirky idiosyncratic characters, but they didn't have such associations and maybe thought it could be Bond's new flavour of the decade. Now we understand that the above is the sort of characters DT is naturally drawn to as well, with rich inner life, big thoughts and fast speech, so trying to imagine him as an inscrutable muscly assassin is ridiculous, but is it really, was it like that in the early 2000s? I don't see how he could be cast in the end, but I would say the only really impossible obstacle would've been his inability to put on weight and any reasonable amount of muscle mass.

You know I made fun of the idea and I stand by it but he’s actually so good at playing it straight (but not heterosexual). I think he could have been a very interesting “spy not soldier” bond. But as someone who doesn’t really enjoy that franchise I’m glad we got him in broadchurch and good omens instead. Like if he’d been cast he wouldn’t have hated it like Daniel Craig and he’d still be churning them out now. We’d be like “get him outta there”

[ramblingsofamuskrat]

Can you connect the German city of Kiel to Diehard please? Thanks

Well the lazy way of doing this is the villain in Die Hard is Hans Gruber who was German and Kiel is in Germany. I could also be like: Oh Bruce Willis was born in Germany and yeah. But I love making things more convoluted than that...

So, we all know that Bruce Willis is in Die Hard, but an even more important role was his role as Tony Amato in one singular episode of Miami Vice, which we all know stars Don Johnson in it, who we all know was in Rian Johnson's movie Knives Out, which we all know. Ok I'll stop, even if this is just for you. You know actually I really wanted to connect this to Knives Out and then to 10 Things I Hate About You or 3rd Rock from the Sun because of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, but I have changed my mind, as it turns out Edward James Olmos is in the same Miami Vice episode as Don Johnson. Okay, so Edward James Olmos is Admiral Adama in Battlestar Galactica, which also stars Michael Hogan, from your favorite TV show ever, Teen Wolf. BUT, he is also in Skyrim as General Tullius. Skyrim also has Christopher Plummer as Arngeir, who was also in Knives Out. But that's not as fun as connecting to Charles Martinet, who was in the Mario movie despite not playing Mario but whatever. Now, as much as I love Charlie Day and want to connect through him, I feel the need to connect through Crisp Rat, but I'm resisting that cause I had a revelation. Charlie Day is in It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, starring Danny DeVito, but Kim Whalen was in an episode of that show, and I love Starkid. Corey Dorris is also in Starkid and he was in an episode of Future Man, which has our icon, Josh Hutcherson, who was in Journey to the Centre of the Earth with Brendan Frasier, who was in the Mummy with Rachel Weisz, and she is married to Daniel Craig, bringing us BACK to Knives Out. Am I losing track of the mission?? NO!!!! So, Knives Out has many amazing cast members, but one of the more iconic ones, is Frank Oz. I just realized that my goal was to eventually bring my connection to the Lion King, and I can easily do that now cause Frank Oz is Yoda, but also that's lame cause I wanted to bring it to Matthew Broderick, but let it be known that we could just do Frank Oz to James Earl Jones at this point. So, Frank Oz was in Star Wars with Mark Hamill, who is in many, many things, such as Avatar, which features Dee Bradley Baker as Appa. He is also Perry the Platypus in Phineas and Ferb (for some reason my brain broke and almost wrote Despicable Me). Phineas and Ferb features Thomas Brodie-Sangster, which is always very funny to me, but it also has Ashley Tisdale, who was in the wonderful movie, 2009's Aliens in the Attic. Aliens in the Attic features many people, including Austin Butler, someone who was in the After movies, Tim Meadows, and Andy Richter, who played Mort in Madagascar. Ben Stiller is in Madagascar, who was in Night as the Museum, which has Rami Malek, who was in Bohemian Rhapsody with Joe Mazzello, who is in Jurassic Park (AND a movie called Star Kid). Jeff Goldblum is in Jurassic Park and also in Thor: Ragnarok, which also has Sam Neill in it, but unrelated to the goal at hand. Thor has Chris Hemsworth, who was in 2009's Star Trek, starring Chris Pine, who was in Wonder Woman with Robin Wright, who is in the Princess Bride with Cary Elwes, who was in Psych. Since they are not in the same episode, James Roday Rodriguez is in Psych, and so is Ally Sheedy, who was in War Games with Matthew Broderick.

To answer your question, yes, I came to the official conclusion that I really needed to get on track or this would literally last forever. Crazy how I can get myself to do this and not my homework. Ignore the fact that it took me over a month to respond to your question. Matthew Broderick is Simba in the Lion King, which also features Nathan Lane as Timon. Nathan Lane was in The Nutcracker: The Untold Story, which I know about solely because of Danny Gonzalez. Nathan Lane plays Albert Einstein in this movie, and so, within the lore of the movie, we could accurately state that because Albert Einstein exists within the movie, so does Max Planck, who knew Lise Meitner. I just wanted to say that cause I am aware as to how much you love her. But Max Planck was born in Kiel. Thank you and goodnight.

If I wanted to play this seriously, and not in my convoluted "6" Degrees of Michael Sheen way, probably could've connected Die Hard to Charlie Chaplin somehow, who met Albert Einstein but NO!!

I hope you enjoy this well thought out response, @wiggogwiggogywrath :)

P.S. That point where I was nervous about this going on forever took A LOT of willpower to not continue. Like I was gonna go into the After series and then end up in Harry Potter or some shit. I'm sure I would eventually run into both Smosh and Dropout cause I am addicted. Luckily for you, I was so concentrated at the task at hand, I somehow like forgot that I usually include those too but whatever. There ya go. Bitch.

P.P.S. I just wanted to do this cause now I can't stop please send help oh god oh no I can't stop, can't stop typing why did you do this to me I can't escape

P.P.P.S. Bye :)

[geralehane]

PLEASE yell about reincarnation au to us PLEASE

when did you first think of it? how did you first think of it? did you have a Scene™ that you built the fic around? was it vibes? dialogue? how did you decide on bowan? tell us everything you can pls

LETS YELL

i thought about it bc it’s one of my fav tropes and it works so well with rhaenicent - i mean all the angst good lord

i actually did have a Scene! idk if it’s weird or like, underwhelming, but the very first Scene i thought of in the context of this au and really wanted to write is the scene where they meet after some time in Greece, on a terrace by the sea. i just really wanted to have them greet each other like that, in this sunny effortless setting, after having done some much needed work on themselves while apart - and then coming together once again and basically going ‘oh. it’s you. it’s always going to be you, no matter what i do, no matter what happens.’ i specifically wanted alicent to accept it, and do so in this almost breezy manner that suits the environment they are in - both on vacation, both more open, more calm and wise about everything. neither one having planned for this but content about it nonetheless. you know? the way they are dressed, alicent’s timeless classic look of a white sundress and raybans, golden sandals and golden penchant on delicate neck. rhaenyra’s linen trousers, wide leg of course, paired with a simple white shirt; against the backdrop of Aegean Sea, they are Greek god-like, almost, transitioning into this new carefree journey ahead of them. that scene specifically for me was about them truly letting go of the dragon and starting on a path of healing together. man i wanna see it, like, televised, that specific Scene, you know?

my buddy BOWEN MY TRUE KING i honestly didn’t even expect to end up loving him so much! i just needed someone neutral so not a part of either family but still aware of everything that’s happened. i made him part of alicent’s guard after rhaenyra’s death specifically so rhaenyra had someone neutral who could tell her what happened after she crossed over to the next world. and i was also struggling to come up with a plausible scenario where rhaenyra would be able to be in therapy without her therapists trying to check her into a mental hospital for making up her horrific life story, so i just went ‘fuck it im creating a whole new character who’s from their world and is a therapist’ and that’s how bowen was born. fun little detail, i also didn’t plan on making him gay at first but then i started writing his second reincarnation as this southern gentlemen and i went ‘GLASS ONION’ (if you haven’t seen it, the main character is this delightful gay detective with a fake southern accent played by daniel craig).

I TALKED ABOUT IT AND NOW I WANNA WRITE MORE OF IT

[twistedtummies2]

Gathering of the Greatest Gumshoes - Honorable Mentions

Welcome to A Gathering of the Greatest Gumshoes! During this month-long event, I’ll be counting my Top 31 Favorite Fictional Detectives, from movies, television, literature, video games, and more!

With that said, the countdown shall start tomorrow. Before we get to it, I want to go over some Honorable Mentions. These were Twelve Terrific Detectives who ALMOST made the cut, but not quite…

Benoit Blanc.

Combine Tennessee Williams with Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot, and you’ll basically have Benoit Blanc. Played by James Bond himself, of all people, Daniel Craig, Blanc is probably the most significant old-school detective character to come out within the past few years. The central sleuth of the film “Knives Out,” and its sequel, “Glass Onion,” Blanc is a Southern gentleman detective; a slightly eccentric private eye whose somewhat cartoonish attributes bely a steely mind and equally iron-clad will. The films are actually inspired by Christie’s works, and give a sort of Americanized view of the same sort of fiction. They play out with a similar sense of humor and style, but with a few unique twists of their own. I’m mostly including Blanc here because I’m 90% certain that if I DIDN’T, someone would call me out on it; nevertheless, he’s definitely worthy of praise.

2. C. Auguste Dupin.

Of all the detectives to come throughout this event, arguably none are as IMPORTANT as C. Auguste Dupin. This French gentleman sleuth was the invention of my favorite author, Edgar Allan Poe, who wrote three short tales featuring this character. The Dupin Trilogy – consisting of the stories “Murders in the Rue Morgue,” “The Mystery of Marie Roget,” and “The Purloined Letter” – is widely considered to be the birth of the modern detective story, and Dupin is just as widely credited as the first proper detective character in literature. Characters like Sherlock Holmes, Father Brown, and the aforementioned Hercule Poirot likely never would have existed if it weren’t for Poe’s “studies in ratiocination.” While this definitely makes Dupin worth noting – especially since I am a huge fan of Poe, and two of his Dupin stories (“Marie Roget” is sort of underbaked, in my opinion) – there’s not that much to say about the character, and he hasn’t captured the public imagination as strongly as other detectives who would follow him. Therefore, I don’t think I can, in all fairness, give him a place in the Top 31. For being the first of many, however, he has at least earned an Honorable Mention.

3. Eddie Valiant, from Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

I’m specifically talking about the movie version here; I’ve never read the (much darker) book the famous film is based on. On that note: “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” is a bizarre little picture, which combines literal cartoon hijinks with the trappings of a film noir styled crime story. The story focuses on hard-boiled detective Eddie Valiant – played by Bob Hoskins, in perhaps my favorite of all his roles (well...more like second favorite) – going through the wacky world of Toontown to try and solve the titular mystery. He’s joined on his quest by Roger Rabbit himself, Roger’s human bride, Jessica, and a talking taxi cab. (Because why not?) Throw in encounters with tons and tons of famous cartoon characters, from Mickey Mouse to Bugs Bunny and so many more in-between, and it’s not a surprise this film has become so beloved. Eddie, himself, is a really fun character; much of the joy of the picture comes from the fact Hoskins generally plays the character pretty straight, which makes his reactions to the zany insanity of the cartoon world around him all the more hilarious.

4. Encyclopedia Brown.

I felt I had to include at least one “kid detective” in the bunch, and out of all the characters I could have chosen there, perhaps none are more emblematic of the genre than Encyclopedia Brown. The titular protagonist of a series of children’s detective books, Leroy “Encyclopedia” Brown is a highly observant and intelligent young man, who sells his deductive abilities the way most kids stereotypically work lemonade stands. Encyclopedia is the son of a police chief, who works and lives in the fictional seaside town of Idaville, U.S.A. Despite his youth, Encyclopedia often seems smarter than his old man, as he is extremely skilled at noticing little details that other people miss, and thus uses these inconsistencies to piece together the problem. He even has his own Mini-Moriarty to match wits with, in the form of a cunning but nasty town bully known as Bugs Meany. (Yes, that is apparently his real name.) While not especially complex, the Encyclopedia Brown books are still staples of children’s literature, being reprinted and pastiched numerous times since the 1960s. When I think of kid detectives, he’s probably the first character that comes to mind.

5. Jake Gittes, from Chinatown.

Jack Nicholson as a noir-style detective in some slick shades. (pauses) Do I really need to say anything else about why this one is awesome? I think that pretty much sums it all up in a nutshell. XD Honestly, more people are probably curious why Jake here isn’t in the actual countdown. Well, the fact of the matter is that I just don’t have a lot to SAY about Jake, and I blame this partially on the fact he only shows up in one movie. Most (though not all) of the detectives on the main countdown come from serialized pieces, having multiple episodes, installments, or general stories to their name. With only one film to his credit, Jake isn’t a bad detective, but it’s just hard to think of a whole lot to talk about with him, specifically, and he doesn’t stand out AS much compared to all the others who have so many appearances and so much more development behind them.

6. Johnny Dollar, from Yours Truly, Johnny Dollar.

Most of the detectives to come are the residents of film, television, and literature, primarily. However, there’s one medium that I feel doesn’t get enough credit nowadays: radio. Back in the golden age of radio, especially in America, detective radio programs were VERY popular; crime and mystery were hot topics, and there were TONS of shows and detective characters to choose from. One of my favorites was Johnny Dollar. Dollar is an insurance investigator, whose desire to help his clients often leads to him taking on cases larger than one would expect, and he has to adventure and snoop around a great deal to figure out the problem and bring those responsible to justice. The character was so popular, they would even have him break the fourth wall of reality at times, with guest stars who literally just played themselves (such as Vincent Price, who, in one episode, joins Dollar as a guest, acting as both client and sidekick at the same time). The character was played by several actors over the series run, the most popular arguably being Bob Bailey, who tackled the role for five whole years out its near-fifteen-year run. Johnny Dollar was so popular he would later be adapted into a TV film and a graphic novel, but most people will remember this intrepid investigator best for his radio adventures.

7. Mark McPherson, from Laura.

Played by Dana Andrews, Mark McPherson – the NYPD police detective protagonist of the classic film “Laura” – is a character who is sort of in the same boat as Jake Gittes. I absolutely love this movie; much like “Chinatown,” I think this is one of the absolute best examples of film noir storytelling there’s ever been. Not only that, but the film actually works as a legitimate mystery, with a couple of surprising twists and turns; something a lot of people don’t realize is that noir-style detective fiction doesn’t always focus on the mystery aspect of things, so it’s cool to see something that does while having all the other elements of that field. I also find it interesting how Mark’s character develops across the film, particularly in terms of his relationship to the titular character. However, beyond all that…again, I just don’t have a lot to say about McPherson, so I don’t think I can, in good conscience, give him placement in the Top 31.

8. Mike Hammer.

One of the most renowned noir-style detectives, private eye Mike Hammer really does live up to his name. He was originally created by author and actor Mickey Spillane, who wrote for Hammer in a series of books. Unlike some other sleuths of the era, such as Sam Spade or Philip Marlowe (the latter of whom won’t be on this countdown, apologies), Hammer isn’t just a hard-boiled cynic with a biting sense of wit that’s as sharp as his mind. He is a person with an outright vendetta, who goes after criminals with a stone-cold sense of focus and intensity. He is fiery and ferocious, not simply stopping but ATTACKING crime, as he harbors a deep-seated hatred for those who hurt other people for their own evil ends. His sense of morality and justice is a bit more ambiguous than most, as he is willing to bend and even break laws in order to see what he perceives as justice done, but at the same time has great respect for the police and is a highly patriotic figure. There’s a lot of gray areas to Hammer that make him stand out amongst the crowd of snap-brim-hat-toting detectives of this style and period. The character has been played excellently by a few actors, including Humphrey Bogart, Stacy Keach (my personal favorite, pictured here), and – get this – Mickey Spillane, the creator, himself! Talk about great casting!

9. Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys.

I already talked about kid detectives with Encyclopedia Brown, but we mustn’t forget the ever-so-slightly more advanced stage of things: teenaged detectives. When it comes to that sub-genre, few have been as long-lasting as Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys. These characters were the invention of Edward Stratemeyer: he was the head of the self-named publishing company Stratemeyer Syndicate, and acted as its editor and chief writer. Stratemeyer first created the Hardy Boys under the pseudonym “Franklin W. Dixon,” then later – wanting to create a female counterpart to fit into their universe, to appeal more to ladies – also thought up Nancy Drew, under the pseudonym “Carolyn Keene.” These pen names were important, as they allowed later ghost writers and other creators to publish the characters under the same oft-used pseudonym, that way Stratemeyer himself wouldn’t grow overtired due to all the other work he had to deal with. (This was a common practice back in the day.) The Hardy Boys were made in the late 1920s, and Nancy Drew first appeared in 1930; despite this age, not only are books still published and reprinted featuring these characters, but they’ve even been adapted to other media many times! In fact, as recently as 2019 there was a new Nancy Drew TV series, and in 2020 Hulu began airing a Hardy Boys series! That shows you, doesn’t it?

10. Richard Diamond.

This character was the invention of Blake Edwards, who is probably best-remembered today – especially when it comes to detective stories – for his comedy film series “The Pink Panther,” starring the determined but utterly dull-witted Inspector Clouseau. Before the antics of Clouseau, however, Edwards put his spin on the film noir genre with the radio production “Richard Diamond, Private Detective,” starring Dick Powell (pictured here, in costume for a promo photo). The series was a sort of semi-satire of the noir-style detective story, with a sarcastic and often tongue-in-cheek sense of humor, but also with a dark and dangerous edge that was typical of the genre. Even though what happened in it could be very funny (one of my favorite running gags was Elmer Fudd himself, Arthur Q. Bryant, as the voice of Diamond’s conscience), and the plots were sometimes absurd, it didn’t treat everything like a joke. When things got serious, you never doubted people could be hurt or worse. The radio show was so well-received that the character was later adapted into a TV series by the same title, featuring David Janssen as Diamond. The TV version was even more deliberately campy in tone, with Janssen’s Diamond as a somewhat “softer” character than Powell’s. Both are great (though I personally prefer the radio version), and well-worth looking up.

11. The Question.

As I said in the rules during my opening post, superhero characters are not going to be included here…depending on which superheroes you are talking about. Many superheroes can qualify as detectives, when you get down to it; most, if not all, are essentially fulfilling that role in their universe, by tackling crimes and facing foes that typical police can’t handle. However, there’s a big difference between a character like, say, Wonder Woman…and a character like The Question. True name Vic Sage, the Question is one of those characters you can basically consider a “super detective”: yes, they are included in the vein of the superhero genre, but the way they work is more like a classic detective than someone like Superman or the Grene Lantern. I use the DC analogies, by the way, because that is the company the Question hails from: originally created by rival company Charlton Comics, the Question was one of many Charlton characters “adopted” into the DC Universe when DC eventually bought out said rival. With his faceless demeanor, courtesy of a special mask, the Question is just as much a mystery as the crimes he seeks to solve. One of the more interesting elements of the character is that he has changed quite a lot over the years, with different writers putting a different spin on Vic Sage’s core philosophies and the kinds of adventures he goes on. Indeed, nowadays, Sage is not the ONLY Question; for a brief time, Gotham City police officer Renee Montoya – who had developed a romantic relationship with Vic – became the second Question. In typical comic book fashion, however, this was later retconned and Sage put on the mysterious mask once more. I was sorely tempted to include this character in the main list, but I actually haven’t read very many actual COMICS with the Question, so I don’t feel like it would be fair to do so.

12. Vincent Price’s Version of “The Saint.”

Our last Honorable Mention is kind of a case of cheating, I’ll admit, and that’s the main reason he IS just an Honorable Mention. Once again referring to my rules, I declared that characters like Arsene Lupin or William James Moriarty wouldn’t count here: while they have detective ELEMENTS, those characters I feel are really very different. They are what I would call “noble rogues,” characters more similar to Robin Hood than the aforementioned C. Auguste Dupin. The Saint is one of those characters…in his original format. In the books by Leslie Charteris, from which he originates, as well as in many other interpretations, Simon Templar – a.k.a. The Saint – is the so-called “Robin Hood of Modern Crime.” He is a gentleman thief who commits crimes against other criminals, for noble goals of his own. This, however, was NOT the case in the RADIO version of The Saint, which starred Vincent Price in the role of Templar. In the radio version, the character was softened up to be a more typical private detective, whose title of The Saint came from his impeccable manners and many good deeds. I absolutely loved this radio show; it’s one of my favorite detective radio programs of the period, and among my top ten Price pieces. HOWEVER, since this version of the Saint was an outlier to basically every other take on the same character, I didn’t feel like this one really ought to count in the Top 31. Sorry, Simon. I still love ya.

Tomorrow, the countdown begins in earnest, with Number 31! For clues in this event, I’ll be using quotes uttered by each detective featured in the main list. CLUE: “Be careful, Brain! Those are probably priceless fake artifacts!”

[epicmiscellaneousponderings]

Top Thirteen Thursday

It's spooky season and while it has been some time since my last post. So let's make a change about that! Have some of my Top Thirteen movies, more or less ;) to watch for Halloween in no particular order. As always feel free to buy me a coffee and to leave your favorite Halloween movies in the comments!

The Canterville Ghost (1996) staring Sir Patrick Stewart. This is an easy and mild movie for Halloween but a classic non the less.

2. Winchester (2018). This another fairly mild movie with a rating of PG-13 that has some well placed jump scares and tense moments, overall a more story driven movie with supernatural/ghost elements.

3. Tower of Terror (1997). This is a Disney movie and honestly just a lot of good fun, it is not rated oddly enough though I can't really see it being rated more than PG-13 at most.

4. What Lies Beneath (2000). Rated PG-13 and staring Harrison Ford. This is more of a psychological supernatural story. Fun fact is that it's screenplay was written by Clark Gregg so that's cool!

5. When A Stranger Call (1979 rated R & 2006 rated PG-13). So speaking of Clark Gregg, he shows up momentarily in the 2006 version of this movie. Both of these versions are a good suspense thriller as the protagonist tries to stay alive with killer playing cat and mouse with them. Also When a Stranger Calls Back (1993 rated R) is worth a look if you like the 1979 movie.

6. Dream House (2011). Rated PG-13 staring Daniel Craig, Rachel Weisz, and Naomi Watts. A simple plot with a mystery. The actors do a good job of carrying the story, which yes isn't very deed but it is well executed.

7. Sleepy Hollow (1999). Rated R and staring Johnny Depp. It's a ride wild on Irving's Legend of Sleepy Hollow and slightly odd at times but a good watch and an interesting take on the characters involved.

8. House on Haunted Hill (1959). Not Rated and staring Vincent Price. Five guests in a maybe haunted mansion and murder afoot. Honestly just about anything staring Vincent Price will more than likely fit right on in with the spooky season!

9. A Quiet Place (2018). Rated PG-13 and more of a science fiction suspense than a horror, but let me tell you that had to be the quietest theater full of people ever when I went and saw it with family.

10. The Sixth Sense (1999). Rated PG-13 this movie is a classic with it's famous line of "I see dead people" and if you don't know the twist I most certainly am not going to spoil it.

11. Shutter Island (2010). Rated R and staring Mark Ruffalo, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Ben Kingsley. This is categorized as a Thriller/Mystery and the story that is told has re-watch value to notice all the details that the makers made sure to put in there. I'm not saying a lot here cause I don't want to spoil it but my family when we first watched went right back and watched it immediately again, not because we were confused but because you can get a new experience with knowing eyes the second time around.

12. Stonehearst Asylum (2014). Rated PG-13 and staring Ben Kingsley, Micheal Caine, and David Thewlis. This is a Thriller/Mystery/Horror mix that keeps you on your toes trying to guess what is really going on and who the main character can actually trust.

13. It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown (1966). A classic and only 25 minutes long, I got a rock.

And there you have my Top Thirteen Halloween movies! There is certainly a list I could make of Honorable Mentions, but maybe I'll do that next year... Stay Spooky!

[sleepymarmot]

Glass Onion

Yes, I had been waiting for this movie for a while and dropped everything to watch it the day of release. What about it?

Liveblog

Is it bad that I’m already like “I want all of these people to die”? Well, maybe not Lionel I guess.

Lol a bit of sci-fi to justify the actors not wearing masks for the entire movie

Is the bad CGI robot some kind of Star Wars legacy? :D

Aww, poor Benoit Soo, one of the guests plans to murder the host for real, and invites a detective to frame another guest?

It’s been 30 minutes, can people start dying please (Not Andi though, that’d be uncool)

Love the scenery, and Craig’s outfit is nice

Cool shot where Andi has the same expression as the Mona Lisa

“This is reckless. And you’re gonna get somebody killed.”

Okay, so far we’ve established the motive for: Peg, Duke, Lionel, maybe Claire. What about Birdie? And the random guy hanging around? And Andi? Is Andi automatically disqualified because we saw her destroy the box? That could be a real alibi or a red herring.

Nooo, so awkward, I can’t watch this Oh, he did it on purpose, that makes it a bit less painful

Huh, he didn’t mention Andi in the monologue...

Oh good, exactly an hour into a murder mystery, someone finally died! Yes, yes, of course it was an attempt on Miles’ life, I thought we’ve already established he’s who everyone wants dead. Cool trick to keep Norton among the active cast, I thought it was weird for the most famous actor to play the victim. (It’s nice to see Norton again btw, I wondered a while ago why I hadn’t seen him in new movies recently.)

Lmao the lights! Now this is fun

Oh no, Andi! :(

Plot twist!! Well now he's responsible for an innocent woman’s death, that’s going to give him a motive to find the killer

This shit is wild

Hell yeah she’s alive!!!

Is she going to attack the Mona Lisa?..

I feel bad about the painting. The way this was framed as a triumphant moment has the same energy as that Tumblr post about destroying famous paintings because rich people like them.

Review

[Additional spoilers for Knives Out, The Last Jedi, Midsommar, and The Handmaiden]

The film takes too much time to get started. The characters are too flat to carry it until the plot actually launches. Only gets good after the plot twist. The secondhand embarrassment scenes are excruciating.

The plot: “rich people bad, the detective teams up with a pure-hearted woman of color and helps her win”, take two. Are they going to make a whole franchise out of this? Not a great foundation for murder mystery: just look for the most entitled white man and that’s your killer.

Benoit Blanc himself, though, is a good character to build a movie series around. A classic independent detective with a kind heart and a taste for adventure — I want to see more of him. Many people have said it already, but I want Blanc to replace Bond as Daniel Craig’s #1 role.

The biggest strength of the film were, of course, all of the clever and fun twists and reveals. As you can see from the liveblog, I was misdirected very successfully and loved it every time.

And now for the biggest flaw of Glass Onion in my eyes. Just like Knives Out, this film has an extremely fun outer layer wrapped around the heart that I find a genuine downer. Most of the shallow, annoying characters got off scot-free, and what was harmed the most in act 3 was an innocent painting. I’ve already seen The Last Jedi, I don’t really need the same ending scene as the Canto Bight storyline — except worse because the writer doesn’t see the difference between “rich asshole’s property” and “priceless piece of art”. Which is a bad enough take to see on Tumblr, but straight up baffling to encounter in a high budget movie, written by a professional filmmaker. (Amazing timing, though. How did they manage to release this not only in the middle of the Musk major meltdown/Twitter takeover but also soon after the Van Gogh soup discourse?)

In retrospect it also reminds me of a couple of other famous scenes with a female protagonist involved in destruction, and the comparison is not in Glass Onion’s favor. Midsommar also ends with the heroine and a huge symbolic fire, but it’s a horror/drama, and the event takes not only the lives of those caught in the fire but the soul of the heroine. The Handmaiden, on the other hand, features a scene of art destruction that is genuinely positive and cathartic, but the nature of art and the role it plays in human lives is radically different.

[Edited to add] I’ve seen people who liked the ending defend it by saying that people are more important than art. The thing is, if this were framed as the trolley problem — if destroying a priceless work of art were presented as the only way to save an unknown number of lives — I would feel differently. Instead, the film seems to want the viewer not to value the Mona Lisa just because the rich amoral characters do value it.

In a more Watsonian and practical sense, I don’t see how this is a win for Helen. She was the one who burned the painting. The fuel played only a minor part, the painting would have been destroyed just the same without it (in fact, that’s what expected Miles’ lighter to be for). But even if it were otherwise — okay, so this new fuel can easily cause a fire; well, so can electricity and gas if you’re not careful! Not great for PR of this specific product, but not a death sentence either. Most importantly, it’s the person who committed arson that will be charged for it, not the person who unwittingly provided the fuel for the fire.

I did have a good time, to be clear! Very worth watching unspoiled. The release was timed well: the overall lighthearted tone, clever twists, vibrant visuals (bright colors, stylish outfits, idyllic location) make this a good holiday movie.

I’m having trouble with a numerical grade (the worst part of IMDB and Letterboxd is that they make me care about grading, even though it doesn’t work with how I think about media at all). Glass Onion feels like a 7, but I gave Knives Out a 9 and they don’t feel two whole grades apart.

[livvyofthelake]

does anyone wanna talk about nora love victor.... yes her name is mia i know that but well. she's nora to me and i squeal and cheer for her when i see her on the screen because she's nora my friend nora who deserved better than playing bbc merlin fanon gwen in a shitty movie. yeah it's still better than what they did to angel coulby though. anyway. yeah so that's my friend nora. anyway. i literally love her in love victor i actually think her character has been sooo insanely well written from the beginning like you can tell that the writers of this show are normal about women which is crazy because they also wrote love simon and did all that shit to leah my friend leah. ok maybe they just learned from their mistakes, choosing love <3 anyway yeah they've genuinely been soooo kind to nora throughout this whole plotline, with her being allowed to be sad and angry at victor where i feel like in general gay media does not let the hag girlfriend character ever feel that way. but she's allowed to be mad at him and she's allowed to not forgive him immediately and it's entirely on him to apologize and show her that he truly does still love her as a friend and she was never nothing to him. and andrew was allowed to be pissed at victor on her behalf without being a bad person for ir. i just feel like this is so like. unprecedented i've never seen this level of care for this type of character i really love it.... there are many other things i could say about her and everything i love about her as a character but we do not have the time to be getting into everything on this post. i will later though. godddd i love her so much i'm literally on her imdb rn looking to watch everything she's ever been in, which i will likely not do because well i cannot watch multiple one episode of a tv shows just for her. but i can watch some mid looking daniel craig movie she's in. anyway. i love you rachel hilson on god someday we are getting you in a good movie and you are going to slay i know you are i know you were built for better things than this.....

[ultrahpfan5blog]

Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery - a truly delightful sequel

As a big fan of Knives Out, I was really looking forward to Glass Onion. With the reviews being so good and loving the first movie, I was very excited. I have enjoyed Branaugh's Hercule Poirot films too. As someone who loves such movies and Knives Out, I can honestly say that this film lived up to those high expectations. I really wish I had gotten the opportunity to watch this in a theater because I am a sucker for murder mystery movies.

When you have a film that is as well liked as Knives Out, it could have been very easy to just ape its structure. But Rian Johnson resists that temptation. Like with Knives Out, there is a core group of characters. In this movie, there are actually fewer characters than in Knives Out. And like in Knives Out, whose moral center was Ana de Armas' Marta, this film's moral center is Janelle Monae. This film plays out structurally different. Whereas Knives Out threw us into events after the main death had already occurred and then slowly pealed back the layers of what happened through each character, this film shows a fairly conventional chronology of events before upending things midway through the film and then showing the same set of events through a different Lense and adding more context. We don't even know what the main mystery is until halfway through the film. Because Rian Johnson is playing with the audience just as much as he's playing with the characters, it keeps us on our toes, not really knowing what will happen next. As with Knives Out, Rian Johnson subverts the audience's expectations by focusing on what happened, rather than who did it. And its a clever tactic, because it makes the film a lot more rewatchable, the same way it did with Knives Out.

This film is also really funny. There is definitely a looser and more comedic tone to this film, compared to Knives Out, which wasn't a serious film by any measure. But the humor in this film works. It also has a much more open and brighter setting. Thankfully the film doesn't put too much focus on the pandemic setting other than to poke at how the rich handled those restrictions. The film makes a lot of fun of the elite. You could say there are very strong allusions to really live billionaires as well as references to real life celebrities. I also love that the character of Benoit Blanc is such an innately likable guy. Quite often, these uber smart detectives are always tortured and introverted. Blanc is brilliant but he's also just an empathetic nice guy.

If there are any complaints, you can maybe say that the actually 'who is the murderer?' is not very complicated, but that is sort of the point.

The performances are all terrific. Daniel Craig really leads the way in this film. While he was every present in Knives Out, he largely lurked in the background until he needed to make his presence felt. Here he is more front and center and he is clearly having a blast. Again, the sequence in which he unveils the mystery is hysterical. I love his accent, no matter what anyone says. Janelle Monae is fantastic. There is a very sharp turn in her character which gives her so many different layers to play across the movie. Edward Norton, Kathryn Hahn, Leslie Odom Jr, Kate Hudson, Dave Bautista, Jessica Henwick, and Madelyn Cline are all great. Kate Hudson and Edward Norton are particularly notable. There are some who get more scope than others but all actors managed to leave a mark.

All in all, a really fun movie. Laughed a lot, enjoyed the mystery and all the performances. Can't wait for more Benoit Blanc mysteries from Rian Johnson. A 9/10.

[aniron48]

I'm just heading to bed, but if you have time I'd like to to hear your deeply held but tipsy opinions on who you would like to see in the next Knives Out Mystery film (whatever/whenever that might be).

Bishy mi vida!!! I hope you are feeling much better and that, either way, you've had a relaxing and cozy holiday. 💜 I have decided to use my tipsy ask box to also say my favorite things about the people asking them, because I am a smooshy drunk. (I don't know how to say the word for this in either Spanish or Enlgish, it means I am usually a happy drink and it makes me love everyone, who knows the word for this? Does smooshy make sense? I am smooshy)! At any rate here are some things I love about bishy: 1) she is so funny. really so funny. not only her posts with Bond photos overlaid with birds tweets or movie reviews, which are amazing, but also her tags--I think she has the highest rate of when I reblog and just hit "omg prev tags" or something like that. and 3) her music lyrics photo sets are 🔥.

I have not forogteen about your actual ask bishy! It is below the cut for glass onion spoilers:

First I think this may not be exactly what you asked, pero I would love to see the franchise continue its tradition of taking down billionaires in the most satisfying way possible. I would love to see Benoit Blanc solve a mystery against the backdrop of a family or person with ties to something like the pharmaceutical or student loan industries, or even political lobbyists. Many of these are US-centric things, however, so I would love to hear what other thematic areas people are interested in as well.

And in terms of actors ya tu sabes, I have to say I would love to see Ben Whishaw in one of these! First because he is an incredible actor and I could see him playing any number of parts well, and second because he and Daniel Craig have such chemistry together as actors, and third because of all the obvious reasons that everybody are already thinking. 🥹 <-- I don't know if that is the right emoji but it is ahrd to see when I am squinting at it.

Other actors: I would love to see Emma Thompson in one because I adore her and would watch her read a grocery list, she is that compelling. Same with Maggie Smith. America Ferrera would be amazing (I have loved her since her days of Ugly Betty and Real Women Have Curves) as an ingenue of some sort, or if we are thinking the next movie would reprise "young woman up against the system working with Benoit Blanc" to take down eg the student loan industry, America would be great in this role I think!

Now I am just shamelessly saying actors I love but while we are at it, Diego Luna y Gael Garcia Bernal, Idris Elba, Kristen Bell, and Allison Janney. 😁 <-- I hope that also is the right emoji.

Thank you so much for this question, bishy--I loved it so much and would love to hear what other people think on this!