#why can't I get paid to do media analysis... Why must I toil away

[holly-mckenzie]

Hello! I love LOVE your blog it's so good. I always find the most interesting shows because of your posts so i wanted to ask what are your fav ships with the best chemistry in a newer film/tv show? I saw a whole debate a few days ago about how "ships nowadays are always lacking chemistry " and i was interested in your opinion. Have a nice day!

Hello anon... I need to clarify, I wrote this answer essay thinking about romcoms, bc that's what film twitter has been talking about, but I realised you said "ships". I will answer your question here. Under the cut, is my thoughts on romcoms, please be aware what is hiding beneath the cut is a behemoth of an answer.

But in terms of "ships" and lacking chemistry. I think there's a few things to think about. Specifically, I believe there has been way to much focus on "ships" and sometimes this conversation detracts from other elements of storytelling, or completely takes over the entire story and what it makes it interesting (e.g. - the conversation surrounding Anatomy of a Fall or what Reylo did to Star Wars). On the subject of Star Wars, one of the things to think about in this conversation is how racism, misogyny, or general bigotry shape peoples opinions. The argument of "they don't have chemistry" is a common phrase used by racists and bigots who don't want to engage with their faves being involved with characters of colour/woman etc.

Now unto other reasons why "ships" might not have chemistry. I think if you are discussing American Television, one thing to note is the departure of shows that had 20+ episodes. With the fear that the show might get cancelled and with a shorter time to establish the narrative, I think we, as audiences, are seeing less of the long con, "will they, won't they" game, that we saw in the late 90's/2000's. I would argue this could be one of the reasons that British TV does so well, most British series are only 6 episodes long, and there may be a better understanding of how to write a more compact narrative, and perhaps there's even better job security... But maybe not considering Joe Barton's history.

Lastly, there is a world of media out there and you need to make the effort to find and engage with it. I talk more about this under the cut, but so many people who are minorities are not given the same advantages as white straight people... So if you want to find good stuff. You gots to look for it. It might not be in a language you understand, or about people who you can relate to, but its out there. Go find it.

So in Answer to your Question, what are my fav ships with the best chemistry in a newer film/tv show.

Television: Starstruck (2021– ) : Tom x Jessie The Lazarus Project (2022– ) : Janet x Rebrov & Zhao x Archie & Shiv x George The Artful Dodger (2023) : Belle x Jack Foundation (2021– ) : Hober Mallow x Brother Constant Alex Rider (2020– ) : Alex x Kyra Animal Control (2023– ) : Shred x Emily Tom Jones (2023) : Tom x Sophia

Other Honourable Mentions: Summer Love (2022– ), Colin from Accounts (2022), Still Up (2023– ), Little Woman (2022), Lockwood and Co. (2023), The Flatshare (2022), The Other Two, Suzhal (2022), In Limbo (2023– ), The Buccaneers (2023– ).

Films: Femme (2023), Here (2023), Decision to Leave (2022), Stay the Night (2022), The Big Four (2022), Ponniyan Selvan i & ii, Stellar (2022), Wildhood (2022), Lakelands (2023), Wedding Season (2022), 7 Days (2021), Scream VI, Sanctuary (2022)

Books: Anything by Tia Williams, Sarah Beth Durst, Uzma Jalaluddin, Jane Igharo

Stage: The Effect (2023/2024), Much Ado About Nothing (2019), Much Ado About Nothing (2022), The Notebook (2024), Hadestown

My Original Answer:

Hello anon, thank you so much! Thanks for appreciating my questionable taste. I do really enjoy watching TV, film, and books and then writing academic papers about them in my head. So obviously this question is really fun.

I need to start by saying, I have been thinking about chemistry for weeks, so I am going to answer your question, just maybe not the question you were asking. Brace yourselves, I wrote an essay.

The whole debate is deeply fascinating to me for various reasons. In part I do really believe that people need to broaden their horizons when it comes to the art they interact with. There is a world of cinema out there. If you surround yourselves by clowns and then complain you are in a circus... that's a choice, no?

Expand your horizons, dip into Asian cinema, African cinema, American Cinema (North, South, and Central), that European stuff (that isn't just what the BBC is pumping out or starring your French favs). And if you must watch Hollywood, then watch some indie stuff. Watch some gay stuff. Watch some stuff by people of colour.

Lichrelly no one is forcing you to watch the blandest/whitest romcoms/romdrams. Are they more accessible to watch? Sure. But complaining, when you don't even care to do the research is a choice. Especially, bc of the way that racism/misogyny/homophobia/ableism makes it harder for people to get their stories out. If you really care about these things. You gots to put the effort into caring and finding them.

Secondly, boiling down chemistry to romance is absolutely wild, considering there are different type of chemistry needed for different roles. For example Rob Collins and Shantae Barnes-Cowan have mad chemistry in the show Firebite. Now let me clarify, I am not saying its romantic. They pulled off the single dad and adopted daughter in a survival/action story story so well. Pedro Pascal, who? And it takes chemistry to pull that off. More popularly, one of the reasons that Succession works as a show is because the actors have chemistry. Some of which is romantic ofc, but the vast majority of it isn't (no matter what the in*est shippers on A*3 say). But I understand, the people want what they want, and that's romance.

I also think that chemistry is an odd thing. I know people are inclined to think that its an objective. You look at two people and are like, "Wow, they have chemistry!", and everyone agrees, because "Wow, they have chemistry!". But I am inclined to think its not that straight forward. There is something to be said about our interactions with art being subjective and biased. This is because as we interact with art, we are interacting with it through our own lens. The author is truly dead, and all that matters is the individual reader's interpretation. So, for example, many people love the movie Anyone But You. If you go on YouTube there are many people who have made ship videos about Bea and Ben. But there is a category of people who fucking hate it and think that its trash and the leads don't have chemistry (Yes, I am talking about myself in third person. I will avenge you Much Ado About Nothing).

So, who is right? Who is wrong? Honestly, it really doesn't matter, because its a fucking movie, and like I said, the author is dead. Similarly, some critics really didn't like the series Tom Jones. In certain reviews and articles, criticism of the series was that Solly McLead and Sophie Wilde don't have chemistry. However, if you follow me, you know I completely disagree and made that show my personality for a couple of months.

But on the subject of chemistry (of the romantic variety), I definitely think its more complicated then people let on. I think most people believe that it's about the actors. You put them in a movie, show, whatever, and chemistry they have just happens. It's like love, you can't explain it, but its there. Or, according to my friend, who used to work in the film industry, the best chemistry comes across when the actors hate each other or they secretly like each other/are fucking each other. It's brought on by strong emotions. Which is obviously a school of thought.

However, as my bestie Merry (@akajustmerry) has been discussing, there are actors who are dating/fucking IRL and none of that comes across in the film/show. I highly recommend checking out Merry's blog to see their opinions on this bc Merry is THE film critic of our generation! Someone please hire them!

But I do think it takes more than just what the actors can bring. It's about the direction they are being given, its about the script, its about the staging. It's about the framing. And it's about the actors and their acting ability. Actors are working professionals and contrary to popular belief, it takes skills to act (not just a pretty face). And one of the skills needed is the ability to create trust between the leads, as Merry and an anon discusses in this post. Because without trust, how can there be chemistry. Which is why intimacy coordinators are SO important. Fuck anyone who says otherwise!

To argue against my friend who used to work in the industry, yes hating/loving someone IRL can create tangible chemistry. And yeah, it might be hard to overcome friendship, if you are friends with your co-star (e.g. - that one interview where Jessica Matten jokes about how weird it was to kiss Kiowa Gordan in Dark Winds). But think about Nikesh Patel and Rose Matafeo in Starstruck. From what I can tell, which is little bc I don't know them IRL and its none of my business, Rose and Nikesh weren't hating each other or fucking in each other. They seem to be friends, but mostly co-workers. But regardless of all of that, Starstruck is literally one of the greatest romcoms of our era. And they have mad chemistry.

Additionally, in my opinion, Lee Pace and Laura Birn of Foundation fame, and Lana Gordon and MPQ/Zachary James and Gloria Onitiri of Hadestown fame have chemistry. But all the men I just listed are gay/in relationship with men, so we can't chalk up chemistry to already existing romantic tension. It is an aspect of acting and skill. Both Zachary James and MPQ have spoken about how the trust they have in their co-stars, have allowed space to shape and cultivate the characters they play (including the romance of the show).

You can't just cast two conventionally attractive people and expect their attractiveness to do the rest. You know my thoughts on Anyone But You. But similarly, think about the way that people were thirsting over Zoë Kravitz and Robert Pattinson bc of all the press and photo shoots they did for The Batman. But then also think of the accusations of whorebaiting, that followed. They simply, in my opinion, did not have chemistry. Even if the Bat and the Cat are one of the funnest dynamics in them comics.

So now that we have discussed actors, and audiences. We gots to discuss actual story telling. Writing is a skill. I know on the tumblr dot com, we have discussed that writing good sex scenes is a skill. Writing good romance is the same... I don't want to labour on about this, bc I feel like you must already know that. But some things to consider is the way in which the focus on tropes instead of storytelling is a detriment to the genre. The fanfictionization of romance. The way in which abuse is touted as romance. The way that studios (coughcough Netflix) are churning out these stories (some of which are def US military propaganda). The lean towards making these movies, more and more explicit. The way that some studios/book publishers are trying to profit off already successful stories without realising what made it successful (e.g. - the amount of fake dating stories in the wake of To All the Boys, or the remakes of older movies).

So what made the movies of old so special. What made romcoms from the late 90's early 2000's, the movies by Nora Ephron and Garry Marshall oh so special. The bleak answer is nostalgia. But you could also discuss the type of narratives that were told during the time. The type of backgrounds these actors and storytellers had before they took these roles. The socio-political enviroment that cultivated these stories. The amount of money and time the studios were willing to invest in these movies. The lack of AI technology... All of the cheating scandals that arose on the sets. The existence of the Film Stars™ vs. just actors.

The fact that streaming has changed the way that movies/tv are made, and the way people consume them. Which could potentially lesson the impact on audiences, as there is less need to go to theatres. To wait for the movies to be released on DVD/VCD/VHS. Lessen the need to re-watch the movies obsessively, bc it was one of three movies you owned on DVD/VCD/VHS, and thus a lack of cementing it in your brain as THE RomCom. Yes, this is just an excuse to yell: BRING BACK PHYSICAL MEDIA, YOU COWARDS!

But one thing that I haven't seen discussed as much is the existence of the Hays Code.

A couple years ago, I watched this lecture and read this book by this academic that focused on RomComs. (I forgot the academic, but I can find it later, if you want. Can you tell I studied English and Film in school?). Regardless, the academic argued that during the 90's filmmakers had to grapple with the remnants of the Hays Code. The code was a "self-imposed industry set of guidelines for all the motion pictures that were released between 1934 and 1968." The Code prohibited things like "profanity, suggestive nudity, graphic or realistic violence, sexual persuasions and rape."

So, while RomComs, like Pretty Woman, were in production, more then 20 years after the Hays Code, this academic argued that filmmakers were grappling with what this freedom meant. That while Pretty Woman was definitely a movie that could have never been made during the time of the Code, the affect of the Code meant that these narratives were adhering to the Code, whether intentional or not.

I think one of the things to consider about the Code was the way that filmmakers had to figure out ways to work around the restrictions in order to tell the stories they wanted. So, for example the Noir is a genre came about during the height of the Code and a time where film-makers didn't have access to that much money. So, the filmmakers had to be creative to get the shots they wanted, which is how we got the highly stylized way of filming that is so iconic to the genre. Not out of excess but out of need. Additionally, the iconic archetypes of the Noir Detective and the Femme Fatale are directly due to the Hayes Code and the period that villanized certain types of woman, and esteemed certain types of men.

Yet, there is an entire study on the homosexual subtext, which was written into these films. For example in The Maltese Falcon, the main character, Sam Spade, refers to another character as a "gunsel". The the censors wrongly assumed this was a reference to a gunman, however, it is vulgar way to refer to someone who is gay. This is the same movie that features a different character, Joel Cairo, who is suggested to be gay (which is one of the reasons the film could not be legally shown on US television stations). Being a filmmaker meant learning how to navigate around the code. Being a filmmaker meant taking a risk, bc you may end up on wrong side of it.

If you want more information on queer films of the time, I believe that Merry or Deah would be able to help you seeing they have an entire podcast on gay movies/shows/games. Check out the @gayvclubpodcast.

So, going back to the RomComs of the 90's. You are talking about an entire industry of filmmakers, who were making movies after the wake of an extreme censorship, and on some level they must known or have heard stories about navigating that terrain. They must have also, on some level, understood what it meant to cultivate stories where characters want each other, like each other, yearn for each other. Because during the Code you couldn't just point a camera at them and say "See they are fucking each other, they did fuck each other, they will continue to do so. Clearly this is a romance". More work needed to be done and laid out in order to cultivate the romances that we now love.

I would argue, if you want to buy this argument, that this is the same reason that K-Dramas/Movies are SO popular. Because it was not that long ago, that Korea was more strict about the way in which physical intimacy was filmed. Think about the era, where actors would stand next to each other, lips touching, and the camera would spin in a dizzying way around them. Now, obviously, kisses aren't filmed in that way, and some movies feature open mouth kisses. Scandalous, I know. But I would argue this is one of the reasons that K-Dramas are so famous, because of the knowledge on how to draw out emotions from the audience that does not rely on physical/sexual intimacy.

So, I suppose the conversation of "ships nowadays are always lacking chemistry " comes down to a skill issue. Skill on the filmmakers parts for not being able to cultivate good stories. Skill on the Actors part, for not being able to do what is required of the role. Skill of the studios parts, for not realising the long term impact of physical media and what sells. And skill on the audiences part, for not seeing the world in one way, and not caring to do the research to find the stories you are looking for.