i keep seeing people criticising tv shows and movies by being like "i thought x character was bad but im NOT BLAMING the actor i think the actor is GREAT and WONDERFUL i blame the WRITERS and DIRECTORS"

usually this is directed at female characters and characters of colour and like while i understand the impulse to not dunk on actors and actresses who are more likely to be receiving really shitty hate comments just for existing i do think a) the attacks on writers and directors are also really mean and personal sometimes? and also b) this feels incredibly performative

BUILD ME A CANON

Earlier this week, Delhi University's Oversight Committee removed works by writers Bama, Mahasweta Devi and Sukirtharani from the university's syllabus for undergraduate students of English. Bama and Sukirtharani are Tamil Dalit writers whose work looks at the experiences of the marginalised. Mahasweta Devi, a Bengali writer, was well-known for her Left-leaning politics and for being an advocate for tribal communities and their rights. She passed away in 2016.

I'd suggest one moment's silence for the Oversight Committee committing an oversight, except this is not an oversight. An oversight is an unintentional mistake, but this seems very intentional. As the DU clarified in a statement later, "the syllabus of the course has been passed through a democratic process with the involvement of all the relevant stakeholders and necessary deliberations at appropriate forums” (emphases mine). The university claims the English syllabus is suitably diverse and inclusive (suitably being the key word here) and it's interesting that as part of its defence of the Oversight Committee's decision, DU has pointed out the process of coming to that decision was "democratic". What it doesn't acknowledge is that if the committee is full of people who belong to dominant groups and doesn't have members who represent the minorities and the marginalised, then the committee's "democratic process" is critically flawed.

The DU statement came after the Academic Council submitted a dissent note, protesting the Oversight Committee's decision. The Academic Council described the Oversight Committee's functioning as vandalism and alleged it has been harassing liberal arts departments. "It is important to note that the Oversight Committee does not have any member from the Dalit or the Tribal community who can possibly bring in some sensitivity to the issue," said the Academic Council in its note.

There was some noise on social media about the decision to drop works by these three writers. Most of the discussion that I saw was about Mahasweta Devi's dropped short story, Draupadi. (Apparently the Oversight Committee chair complained the short story doesn't show the military in a good light. From what I remember, it's the police. They carry out wrongful arrests and brutally gangrape a tribal woman.) There's been far less discussion of Bama and Sukirtharani's works on English Twitter, who have mostly been referred to as the "two Dalit writers", like an addendum to Mahasweta, which is infuriating in itself. I know that this is probably because not enough people read translations. Particularly translations of literature from Indian languages.

There is also little talk about what has replaced the dropped works. One of the authors who has been included is apparently Pandita Ramabai, identified as an upper caste writer (Brahmin, if I'm not mistaken). I've no idea if her writing continues to feel relevant and/ or engaging, but it is all sorts of bizarre to "replace" a 20th century author with someone who died in 1922. Also, if she was included because she was Brahmin, I hope they have fun reading her book The High Caste Hindu Woman which is, I'm told, deeply critical of how sexist Hinduism. Whether or not Pandita Ramabai voiced any opinions of casteism in Hinduism, I don't know.

Even though translations don't get read as much, the fact is, the writings of Bama, Mahasweta Devi and Sukirtharani have been translated to English and other languages. They're part of different university's syllabi and for better or for worse, DU is not such an influential player in academia. If DU's decision to drop these writers convinces some Indian universities to do the same, we can only hope that other universities (in India and abroad) will start thinking about including them in their syllabi (if the writers aren't in them already). In a not-so-distant future, it's very likely that there will be universities abroad that will have a more diverse, inclusive and representative portrait of Indian culture in their syllabi while institutions like DU remain mired in a casteist, Hindutva bog. At that point, who should decide what will make the canon for Indian literature? The Indians or the foreigners?

It's the second time this week that we've heard conversations about erasure in the Indian cultural scene. Earlier this week, social media was on fire after the Indian edition of the Rolling Stone carried a cover story about the record label and music platform Majja, featuring two artists best known for their collaborations with Dalit rapper and lyricist Arivu. Rumour has it that the Rolling Stone cover was bought by Majja, presumably to promote upcoming albums by those two artists. However, since Dhee and Shan Vincent de Paul are currently riding a popularity wave because of their work with Arivu, many readers — beginning with director Pa Ranjith — expected the cover story would be as much about Arivu as Dhee and Shan Vincent de Paul. People also pointed out that Arivu had effectively been removed from a (disastrous) remix of "Enjoy Enjaami" (the original song is amazing).

Shan Vincent de Paul, one of the artists featured on the Rolling Stone cover, issued a statement on social media saying he had the utmost respect for Arivu and had no intention of erasing him. He clarified that the story was part of his efforts to promote his new album Made in Jaffna, which he's releasing with Majja. "I have no control over how the Press chooses their messaging or what narratives they push," de Paul wrote, which would be an excellent point if the cover wasn't bought. He may not have control over the narrative, but he's hardly an irrelevant cog in the wheel. Instead of attempting to exonerate himself, de Paul could have acknowledged that the story doesn't give as much space to Arivu as it should. I am, of course, presuming he's read the story.

If the rumour about the cover being bought is true then Rolling Stone and Majja are complicit in deciding a narrative that sidelines Arivu, either intentionally or carelessly. More than half of Rolling Stone's cover story is about "Enjoy Enjaami" and there is just one quote from Arivu. This sidelining may not be deliberate — the way DU's Oversight Committee's decision was — and it could be an example of the kind of unthinking oversight that the privileged commit all the time when it comes to acknowledging the contribution of the marginalised. Either way, the impression conveyed by the two organisations is that Arivu is not the person they want to promote. Countering the decision of the establishment — it doesn't get more establishment than Rolling Stone and Majja. One of Majja's founders is legendary music director AR Rahman — is the reaction on social media. The songs being freely available on multiple platforms and the (relatively) free access to the artwork and arguments by Dalit creators and critics on social media makes it difficult to invisibilise Arivu.

A translation of Mahasweta Devi's Draupadi is available online as are some of Sukirtharani's poems. DU has dropped Bama's novel Sangati. I'm not sure if there's an extract that's available online. It is not lost on me that it's easier to listen to a song than it is to read a novel, or a short story, or a poem. It is also not lost on me that the fact you can bob to an infectious beat makes it easier to not register the deep-rooted casteism referenced in the lyric, "Enna kora, enna kora, yein chella peraandikku enna kora? (In what way is my darling grandson any less?)" There are no such distractions when you read, for example, Sukirtharani's My Room Needs No Calendar: "As they write on me/ with their penises,/ I will my body to stop/ slithering away."

Sukirtharani and Bama minced no words when they were asked to respond to their works being dropped from the DU syllabus. "I was not surprised at all. Dalit voices such as myself and Bama’s are speaking for all oppressed women, not just Dalit women," said Sukirtharani. "I don’t see this necessary as an exclusion of just Dalit writers as we have seen how progressive writers whose works speak against caste, Hindutva, fundamentalism have also been removed in the recent past. These things will happen in our society, but we cannot be ignored." She said she wasn't going to ask for an explanation, but believed DU owed her an explanation. At the very least, they should have intimated her about the works being dropped. "When they want to project an image of India wherein there are no caste and religious inequalities, our works point out that caste and religious inequalities exist in our society. So, it is obvious that they want such works removed from the syllabus," she said.

Bama said, "For more than 2,000 years, we have been segregated, our histories have not been written. This government is trying to strangulate our voices, but we will shout. The youth of this nation have understood [what is happening]. Rather than being upset, we are angry. The anger will reflect in our works in future.”

I find myself wondering if the business of building a canon was always so complicated and rife with uncertainties. Will the books, music and art propped up by commerce and politics be the ones that make up our mainstream cultural identity? Could we build a better literary canon for Indian literature if more excerpts and poems were available online for free, if more works were translated? Would we care more if the literature was easier to access or would we still dismiss it because they're translations, because the works are by Dalit women? Can the conversations that we hold in the informal spaces of the internet be loud enough to make the canon more inclusive, to make the mainstream expand its narrow definitions? What is more likely to make it into an archive and survive into posterity — the Rolling Stone Cover image or the many "fixed it" versions that people created online? Is it possible that both can and will be preserved? Does dropping the works of writers like Bama and Sukirtharani and Mahasweta Devi make them invisible? Will the dissent make a few more people buy Bama's novel? Will it make some curious enough to look up Sukirtharani's poems?

The words, the tech, the platforms, the imagery — are all these still the master's tools? How long must one wield them before they can claim the tools to be theirs? Will they always be the master's tools and not "our" tools? Is the master the one who cares for the tools and uses them better? Is the master the one with the loudest voice and the deepest pockets, the one who can bribe the boys and hire the deadliest mercenaries? Who decides when the tools have been reclaimed?

Star Wars, the Last 20 Years or Can We Please Try to Stop the Blame Train?

I would like to touch a subject that’s starting to grate on my nerves a little.

Anyone here knows that I disliked The Rise of Skywalker heartily. And I’m not the only person here or elsewhere who tore it to shreds. But I am reading (again) over and over why and how JJ Abrams, Chris Terrio, Kathleen Kennedy and Co. made this mess. Instead of searching for culprits, this time I would like to point out a few things.

I. Star Wars Prequels

Jake Lloyd, Ahmed Best and Hayden Christensen had to endure awful harassment in their time: the audience largely vented their frustration on them because when the prequels hit theatres, they did not get the Star Wars they had wanted. Politics are a dry subject, and young Anakin and the Jedi Council were all too human to be liked by fans who expect coolness in a hero more than everything else; which is probably why Darth Maul is a huge favorite although we hardly learn anything about him and he says almost nothing. Ditto Obi-Wan although he is clearly not suited to train Anakin and it’s him who maims him and leaves him to burn in the lava. (Until I saw the film, I had always assumed Palpatine had tortured Anakin to push him to the Dark Side.) 

The prequels’ messages in general were not liked: the Jedi were not perfectly wise and cool wizards, the Old Republic was stagnant, Anakin was a hot-headed, frustrated young man desperate to save his wife and unborn children. The films do not want to excuse what he did; however they portray him not as a monster but as a human being who was under an almost unendurable pressure for years and years until he finally snapped.

These messages may not be “cool”, but they were realistic and most of all, humane. Portraying the Jedi as well as Anakin as powerful, flawless heroes and the old Republic as a just, prosperous and balanced place would have meant undermining a central theme of the original trilogy: the former generation could not have been all that powerful and wise, else the collapse of their world and the failure of their convictions would not have happened in the first place. It is a sore point, but still twenty years later Obi-Wan and Yoda denied that Vader was human and expected Luke to commit patricide. 

All of this goes to show that the Jedi’s moral standard was flawed and their attitude not rooted in compassion and pacifism the way they claimed. In the end, what they cared about was winning, no matter the cost. In this, they were no better than the Sith.

~~~more under the cut~~~

II. Star Wars Sequels

J.J. Abrams, Kathleen Kennedy, Bob Iger and company were the ones who introduced the Star Wars sequel trilogy and with it its themes, characters, setting etc. to us in the first place: I think we should give them credit where it’s due. Rian Johnson made a very beautiful second chapter with The Last Jedi, but he did pick up where the others had left. 

Kelly Marie Tran made experiences similar to Jake Lloyds or Hayden Christensen’s when The Last Jedi was hit theatres. She was disliked for not being “Star-Wars-y” enough, chubby and lively instead of wiry and spitfire, and also taking a lot of screen time while many fans were impatiently waiting for some grand scenes from Luke and / or Leia. 

That Episode VIII, the central and most important one, was called “The Last Jedi” cannot be overstated. Luke was literally alone with the heavy task of rebuilding a religious order that was gone and destroyed long before he even learned about it, and at the same time he had to patch together his own family and atone for his father’s sins. This is a crushing burden for anyone to carry. It was important both for Rey and for the audience to meet Luke to see that he was a good man, but still just a man.

When Luke spoke openly to Rey about the failure of the Jedi Order, it was the first time he ever spoke about it that we know of; this wisdom he obviously acquired only after his nephew’s fall to the Dark Side. Luke has understood that the ways of the Jedi were wrong; but he does not know a better alternative. Force users are still born all over the galaxy, and they have to learn to use their powers - only how? Again, Luke is not to blame. How is he to know, when the Jedi of the Old Republic had lost sight of Balance in the Force for so long that they didn’t know what it actually meant anymore? 

Same goes for Leia, the princess without a realm, who tried to rebuild the Republic after the galaxy had been terrorized by the Empire and devastated by war for many years. She assuredly did her best, but she was only human. That she failed her son is of course shocking, but after the horror she had to endure at the hands of her own father it is not surprising that she would be terrified of her son possibly going the same way. Ben, like Anakin, was crushed under a legacy and responsibility that was by far too heavy for him. The tragedy of his life and the disruption - and in the end, obliteration - of his family was another proof for the failure of the ways of the Jedi. 

All of these lessons until now were not learned from. But let’s be honest: how many of us come from dysfunctional families? If we do, was getting away from them enough to heal the wounds of the past? Did we find out what to give our children on their way in life, or did we fail them because we had not elaborated the past enough to make way for a better future? Such problems are very common, and to heal them is complicated and takes time. A “happy ending” e.g. in form of finding a new family is not enough, on the contrary, it can lead to wanting to leave the past behind, leaving wounds unhealed that will fester their way through our lives again, sooner or later. Star Wars always was an allegory of the human mind, even if deeply cloaked in symbolism. The saga also abundantly takes inspiration from the Bible, and I think it’s not coincidentally said there that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children. 

As fans, we would have wanted to see films that cemented the Jedi as guardians of the galaxy, with the Skywalker family right at the center. Which in itself is impossible because Jedi are supposed to remain unattached, making the mere idea of a Jedi having a family absurd. If the prequels told us that the Jedi were flawed, the sequels tore down the myth of the Skywalker family. And both trilogies showed that you can’t be a Skywalker and / or a Jedi / Force user and have attachments and a happy family of your own at the same time. At least, not until now. 

 III. Film production

Many fans of old complained because the sequel trilogy implied that the “happy ending” of the original trilogy’s heroes had not been so happy after all and that after having made peace for the galaxy, they had failed to keep it that way. Other viewers however liked the new trilogy and new characters right away and began to root for them. But they, too, jumped on the blame train when the trilogy had ended: expectations were not met, and now director, producers, script writers, cutters etc. are faulted all over again.

The first person coming up with the idea of Han’s and Leia’s only child turning to the Dark Side was Lucas himself. It always was a main theme of the saga that war separates people who actually belong together, like family, couples or close friends; that is not played for mere drama, but because it emphasizes the absurdity of war.

We as the audience do not know how production went - it is very possible that Lucas approved the general storyline, and there is always a whole team on board. It is not easy to purchase such a large and immensely popular franchise; it was to be expected that if things went not the way the audience expected, the Disney studios would be blamed harshly for having “ruined Star Wars”. With the prequels, at least Lucas was still at the helm; it was conceded that maybe he had lost his magic touch with storytelling, but certainly not that he was trying deliberately to ruin his own creation. And the fans who could not praise the Disney studios enough after The Last Jedi came out, now blame them over and over.

The Disney studios have long-term politics to consider and contracts to observe, and we don’t know their contents. We have every right to be disappointed, but I think it’s not fair to blame one or a particular group of persons who are trying their best to satisfy as many viewers as possible. If they simply wanted to satisfy the average dudebro who sees nothing but clichés, two-dimensional characters and Good against Evil - then why did they allow The Last Jedi to be produced in the first place? The studios obviously are aware that there are fans out there who are ready to look deeper in the saga’s themes, who wish to see the Force coming to Balance, who value family, friendship and love over “victory at any cost”, and who do not place the Jedi on some kind of pedestal.

In a sense, The Rise of Skywalker seems like a bow before The Last Jedi: the weakest chapter of the saga followed one of its strongest. Maybe the authors were aware that equaling or even topping what Rian Johnson had created would be next to impossible, so they patched up the open threads of The Force Awakens together with some fan service hoping to be out of the business as quickly as possible.

In retrospect, the infamous podcast with Charles Soule might also be tell-tale: Soule obviously is not elbows-deep in the saga and largely ignores its subtext. Since his The Rise of Kylo Ren comics are quite well-made, I assume that the general storyline did not stem from his own creativity and that he only carried out what he had been advised to do. The production of the whole sequel trilogy may have happened in a similar way. I am not excusing the poor choices of The Rise of Skywalker; merely considering that one or a few persons cannot be blamed in a studio that has thousands of creative minds on board.

I am still hoping for the next trilogy to finally bring Balance to the galaxy, and also into the fandom. Rian Johnson had negotiated the rights for the next trilogy along with The Last Jedi; I assume it is very possible that there was a clause about intellectual property saying that only he would continue Episode VIII’s topics, nobody else. This would at least be an explanation, given the embarrassing, jumbled mess that Episode IX was.

The overall title of the saga assuredly never wanted to inspire the audience to start online wars attacking the studios or the actors or other fans out of the conviction of being entitled to blame someone else’s worldview. The saga’s message is compassion. Both George Lucas and the Disney studios are telling us their story; the idea and the rights do not belong to us. Harping on “whose fault” it allegedly is won’t bring us anywhere; what we can do is make the studios understand that we’re not too stupid not to understand the subtext, the symbolism and metaphysics of the saga beyond the action story. If they listened to the Last Jedi haters, in all fairness they are bound to listen to us, too. 😊

  IV. Will Ben’s story continue?

My husband already warned me years ago that Ben most probably wouldn’t survive, or at least not get a happy ending. As Kylo Ren he had already been the head of a criminal organization for six years at the start of The Force Awakens, but all of that perhaps could still have been condoned within the scope of war. It was the very personal and intentional act of patricide, the killing of an unarmed, forgiving man, who turned him into a damned person. And after the deed, Ben was aware of it. He knew there was no way out for him, he had gone too far.

Many members of the audience did not understand that Kylo / Ben is not an out-and-out villain and that this narrative ultimately was about his redemption. Bringing him back to the Resistance after the Exegol battle alive and by Rey’s side would not have been accepted; how was Rey to explain everything when she hardly understood it herself? How would the audience have reacted to the former head of a criminal organization, a patricide, suddenly standing out as a hero? Remember how in Return of the Jedi Luke asked Vader to come away with him. Now suppose Vader had complied? It would have seemed (and been) sheer madness. Nobody would have believed neither father nor son that the terror of the galaxy had had a sudden turn of heart. Nobody knew that he was Luke’s father; Luke himself did not know Anakin’s backstory; nobody knew what had transpired between Luke and Vader so far. Yes, Ben was young and healthy, but he still had terrorized the galaxy for years and killed his own father. He knew himself that he was damned and could not go back to normality, as Vader did.

Rey was coded as the heroine: narratively, the sequel trilogy was her story. Ben couldn’t become the hero, with or without her, at the very last moment. She usurped power like her grandfather in his time, the Skywalker family was obliterated the way the Jedi were, she takes over another mantle (Skywalker) the way Palpatine did (becoming the Emperor). Balance in the Force never was truly in the cards, it was only vaguely hinted at in The Last Jedi by the Force mosaic in the Ahch-To temple. Balance is a complex and difficult subject; it would have been extremely difficult to develop it in the sequel trilogy together with introducing the new characters and giving the old ones closure.

However: if Ben is brought back in the next trilogy, his sacrifice for Rey will have been his atonement. If his role this time is not that of the villain but of the hero, it would reverse Anakin’s path and make clear that he no longer is the same man. Vader was redeemed, not rehabilitated. His grandson might still have the chance to go that way.

- Luke had promised Rey a third lesson, and it happened. He also had promised Ben to “see him around”, which has not taken place yet.

- On Tatooine, Rey watches the twin suns setting, same as Luke before he met the other half of his soul (his twin sister) again.

- The studios had said that the sequels would be “very much like the prequels”; the prequels were a tragedy where the Dark Side (Palpatine) won that was followed by a fairy tale where the Light Side won.

- The Skywalker saga is closed, so if Ben comes back it would be justified by his being a Solo, i.e. the story of his own family and not his grandfather’s.

- Given the parallels with Beauty and the Beast, the Beast died before the broken spell brought him back, making him a wholly new person - his past identity, purged and redeemed.

- George Lucas repeatedly said that the prequels and the classics belong together as one narrative, with Anakin Skywalker at its center. First news of the next trilogy came up with The Last Jedi. Since there are strong parallels between Ben and his grandfather, we may assume that this six-chapter instalment will be his; Anakin also was left for dead but came back with a wholly different role and name.

- When Anakin was reborn as Darth Vader, he “rose” slowly from the ground, clad in his black armor. Ben fell to the ground abruptly and shed his black clothes, disappearing. This could be another clue. (It was also already speculated that Leia’s body dissolved exactly in this moment because she gave her life-force to her son for him to have another chance to live. Both Han and Luke had done what they could to atone for their remorse towards Ben; this might be her turn.)

- Much as I love Luke Skywalker, I can understand that Lucas did not see him as the saga’s protagonist. The overall arch is not so much about Luke’s heroism than about Anakin’s redemption and atonement. It is unusual because we expect the story’s “hero” to be the one who kills the Bad Guy; and indeed Anakin is, because he kills Palpatine in the end, the twist being that technically he is also a villain though not the archvillain.

- Ben had promised Anakin he would finish what he started. Anakin had been meant to bring Balance to the Force, and he had started a family. Until now, Ben did neither.

- If Ben and Rey are a dyad, i.e. one soul in two bodies, then Rey is in urgent need of her soulmate for her future tasks. She has her friends of course, but none of them gets her the way he did.

So, I still see reason to hope for a continuation, and, hopefully, satisfying conclusion of The Last Jedi’s themes.

  Film production: on a side note…

In the Nineties, Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale were the directors both of Beauty and the Beast and Atlantis: two more different stories are hardly imaginable with regard to everything - drawing style, setting, characters, development, music etc. This outcome can’t have been only due to the director’s choices, there must have been a wholly different idea behind both films right from the beginning. Just saying.

Olly Alexander: ‘I want to make the community proud. I don’t know if I've always got it right’

By

David Levesley

As Ritchie Tozer in Russell T Davies’ devastating 1980s-set drama It's A Sin, Olly Alexander told a story from a tragically formative decade in gay history. As himself and as frontman of synthpop trio Years & Years, he contributes to a new narrative. But, as he reveals here, the insecurities and anxieties written into minority identities are not just a personal challenge: they can shape stories told by, for and about all his peers

It is the afternoon before It’s A Sin is broadcast to the nation and its star, 30-year-old musician and actor Olly Alexander, is buying a cat cushion. “It’s for a friend!” he says, mortified to be caught in the act of buying a plush feline.

Where once being the star of a primetime Channel 4 drama might mean greenrooms, watch parties and a celebratory afters, this is January 2021, so a flame-haired Alexander is sitting in his kitchen, drinking a smoothie the exact same lilac as his top.

“I’ve had a lot of restless energy,” he says, having binge-watched The Real Housewives Of New York City in between doing lots of squats and “watching homoerotic YouTube workout videos”. It’s not quite the normal build-up to a game-changing drama, but is there a better way to remember peacetime than watching a show filled with period pieces such as “friends drink indoors” or “strangers have guiltless sex at a house party”? It’s A Sin is both a masterpiece and a reminder that someday we will, once again, be able to be eaten out by hot men. “You’re so welcome,” Alexander says, laughing. “If I can bring anything to the British public, it’s a lesson in anal hygiene.”

Anal hygiene are two words we have probably never published together in GQ, but, more importantly, are probably not the subject of many – if any! – scenes in a piece of media not uploaded to OnlyFans. They are, however, the subject of a crucial scene in the first episode of It’s A Sin, in which Alexander’s character – an 18-year-old fledgling queer from the Isle Of Wight called Ritchie Tozer – gets rimmed by his campus crush, Ash Mukherjee (Nathaniel Curtis). No gay men watching came out of that scene not feeling seen and, like all the other sex scenes in It’s A Sin, it feels deeply realistic and fantastically homosexual.

“I can tell you I’ll never forget being practically butt-naked with my arse in the air in front of colleagues,” says Alexander, laughing. But by that point, he says, he had done so many sex scenes that it felt somewhat rote. “‘Ritchie’s got a dirty bum! Stick that arse in the air and look disappointed!’” What was interesting, he says, was the dynamic of trying to produce the most authentically gay experiences possible on camera.

‘WE UNDERSTOOD THESE CHARACTERS WITH A KIND OF SHORTHAND THAT GAY PEOPLE UNDERSTAND’

They were working with Ita O’Brien – a movement director and arguably the OG intimacy coordinator – but, for her sins, not a gay man. So while everyone would have an input in how a sex scene would be best shot, “There came a point when they would say, ‘Please tell us, because we’re not gay men.’” So then the writer, the performers, the director and O’Brien’s team would come to a consensus on how to make a threesome look like three men shagging, yet also make it look the best it could on camera and make sure “you never touch each other’s genitals, basically”.

Alexander says O’Brien’s input was a “lifesaver” for him on set. Although by the end he felt comfortable, he was at first intimidated by just how exposing this would be. “I had a bit of a hysterical breakdown. I was really worried I couldn’t do it. I just didn’t feel safe.” This was interesting to hear from Alexander, the proudly queer frontman of the band Years & Years, who “spent four years on the road performing and finding this character that I do feel sexy in”. It was then that O’Brien and the team asked him to bring whatever made him feel comfortable on stage into the room before the cameras rolled. “So I would sing before the takes, be a little bit of Olly on stage,” he says, laughing. “That was my way of tricking my brain and thinking it was a character. Which, of course, it was.”

Before he was Olly Alexander, consummate gamine artiste, Olly Alexander Thornton was a singled-out kid at a primary school in Gloucestershire (where his mother ran a music festival). He was, like many other gay kids growing up, bullied and harassed for being something “other”, which everyone is able to see long before you can define it yourself. “I remember being in primary school and I had long hair and people would call me a girl,” he says, and the wound still feels raw when he recounts it.

“I knew that was bad for boys. I didn’t like the things that other boys liked: I just wanted to play with the girls and watch Disney movies. Which obviously straight boys do as well,” he mentions, always making sure to provide caveats to include all facets of the human experience. Although the bullying began to subside by secondary school in Monmouthshire, he still stood out: he had big curly hair – “I was trying to hide my ears” – and would wear make-up or a choker sometimes on nonuniform days. “I think I was trying to figure out who I was,” he says. “Imagine getting to discover your own sexuality without any preconceived ideas! I mean, maybe that’s impossible. But it would be nice, right? Why should people bullying you be your first brush with your own sexuality?”

Like Ritchie Tozer, Alexander moved to London at 18 to pursue acting, but he also had designs on becoming a musician. “Because when you’re writing a song, you’re the director, the star, the producer, the writer. I wanted all of that! I needed that to be able to express myself,” he proclaims with faux hysteria. For years he found success as an actor in a diverse selection of roles: he appeared in Gaspar Noé’s Enter The Void, costarred with seemingly every other white British actor in The Riot Club and also in God Help The Girl, a musical film written by Belle And Sebastian’s Stuart Murdoch. “Then Years & Years just got to a place where it was going to take over and needed my full time,” Alexander says. So his focus moved to the music.

‘IMAGINE DISCOVERING YOUR SEXUALITY WITHOUT ANY PRECONCEIVED IDEAS!’

It was on their third single, “Real” – released in 2014 – that Alexander first felt his art and his sexuality really intermingle. “It was the first time I put in a male pronoun – I say ‘Do it, boy’ – and it’s quite subtle, but it was a big deal for me at the time.” This was when Years & Years were trying to get signed to a major label, so doing something so consciously queer felt like a risk (the band went on to sign with Polydor later that year).

While pop music has long had an element of queerness about it – you need only look at the artists featured in It’s A Sin to see how gay 1980s pop was – Alexander has long been frank that sexuality and success are not always seen as natural bedfellows. At a Stonewall event in 2018 he recounted being told during his media training, “Maybe it’s better not to say anything about your sexuality at all.” In the same year, he told NME there had been progress, but that “I just know there are people who are hiding their sexuality, so it’s still not gone completely”.

Alexander doubled down on it with the music video – featuring his Bright Star costar Ben Whishaw – where he “purposefully made it gay. There’s a cruising element to the very beginning. It’s slightly ambiguous, though, because back then I wasn’t quite ready to launch into being the gay crusader I think I am now.” In 2015 the band won the BBC’s Sound Of 2015 poll, releasing their first album, Communion, the same year. It became 2015’s fastest-selling debut album from a UK-signed band.

‘I JUST WATCHED LIAM PAYNE TAKE HIS TOP OFF, BUT NOW I’M NOT ALLOWED TO?’

But despite the success, and the realisation that audiences were either supportive of – or simply unfazed by – the queerness of Years & Years’ music, there is always an anxiety for Alexander about just how accepting people are willing to be. “I’ll tell you for real,” says Alexander, “I go out on stage – even if it’s for our own audience – and I’m like, ‘What if some of them don’t like me? What if some of them have an issue with me today?’ I always feel like I’m going to try a bit harder next time, try to do a bit more.”

While the character of “Olly Alexander, Years & Years frontman” is one that bespangles its performer with confidence, being queer in the music industry isn’t always an easy thing to navigate. He remembers seeing a tweet from someone who said Alexander’s sexuality was a ruse to try to attract the pink pound – a term for the spending power of gay men – “And it had an impact on me, because I’ve consciously tried to [be openly gay] in a lot of circumstances where I wouldn’t normally. And then for someone...” He tries to think of how to put it and comes up short. “It can chip away at you.”

He wouldn’t change a thing about his success, he says, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t times when it isn’t hard to be out and proud while also getting your foot in the door. “When we’re playing a pop music festival, I’m looking at the other acts in the lineup and there aren’t that many gay people on them,” he says. “You see how quickly your show isn’t family friendly any more because I want to take my top off and I’m like, ‘Well, I just watched Jason Derulo and Liam Payne take their tops off and have all these women in underwear, but now I’m not allowed?’ What do you do with that?”

It’s A Sin marks a return to acting but, also, a chance to refresh Alexander’s musical batteries too. Following Years & Years’ second album – 2018’s Palo Santo – the third album was proving hard to pin down. “I’ve been trying to make this album for about 18 months at this point, stopping and starting, listening to all the songs and... it’s just not feeling relevant any more.” Alexander had always loved Russell T Davies’ work, so when he heard Davies was making a new TV show he “had to be in it. I would just jump at the chance to work with him. And that was before I read the script.” Years & Years had just finished touring Palo Santo and, to Alexander, it felt like the stars had aligned.

While the anxiety of performing queer sex scenes might have been particularly exposing for a gay man like Alexander, there were huge benefits for him being in a cast and crew that were predominantly LGBTQ+. “It was a revelation. I’ve never been on a set with so many queer people. I’ve never even worked with a gay director, so it was a completely new experience.” Plus, being asked to play part of a group of gay best friends, portrayed predominantly by gay actors, meant the chemistry came very quickly: “We understood these characters [with a] kind of shorthand that gay people understand.”

An inclusive, comfortable environment was beneficial for more than just sex scenes and simulating a decade of friendship. It’s A Sin also required its cast to grapple with the issue of HIV and aids, not just as a part of the furniture – as we do in the 21st century, with our knowledge of viral loads, sleeping with undetectable partners and new medications such as Prep – but really putting a forgotten part of British queer history under the lens, who it affected and how it changed the LGBTQ+ community irrevocably. “It’s an issue that is deeply surrounded by stigma and there’s a lot of trauma there and a lot of fear,” Alexander explains. “I know, personally, it was an area that I was scared to really engage with.”

He mentions that just before filming he made friends with an older gay couple at his gym and in talking about the show with them he was offered a rare opportunity to hear about personal experiences of the aids crisis. “It can be so difficult as a gay person to feel like you have intergenerational support,” says Alexander. “Elders are so important in our community. You can get so much from the people who have gone through so much before and fought that fight.”

For Alexander and the cast, It’s A Sin was a rare opportunity: a chance to be brought together with a whole group of men and women who were there at the time and who were willing to share their experiences with them. “I feel so lucky that I got to engage with that and keep learning. I was just scratching the surface and there are so many stories you can tell from this period. It’s impacted us all the way until now and it will in the future.”

Starring in It’s A Sin has also changed what Years & Years’ third album is going to sound like. After the initial writer’s block, Alexander says, he focused instead on the music of the show (Bronski Beat, Kelly Marie, the titular song by Pet Shop Boys) “and it really took my mind back to the club” – especially in the midst of a pandemic, when the queer nightlife venues that are the backbone of our community are so desperately missed.

“All the music I wanted to listen to in lockdown was high energy. It was dance floor. It was club music.” This was the music that had played such a huge role in his early life in London, had inspired the first Years & Years album and a genre that owes a great debt to the LGBTQ+ community. “I think at their heart, lots of these songs are about joy despite crushing pain. I just thought, ‘God, imagine hearing “I Feel Love” on the dance floor for the first time.’ What a transcendent experience that would be.”

‘ELDERS ARE SO IMPORTANT IN OUR COMMUNITY. YOU CAN GET SO MUCH FROM THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE FOUGHT THAT FIGHT’

And so Alexander went into the studio – as soon as it was safe to do so – and created a bunch of new songs. Is it easy to find collaborators behind the scenes who get it when he says, “I want it to feel like Britney meets Rihanna meets Hot Chip via New Order”?

“It can be a challenge to find someone that really understands,” admits Alexander. He recalled being sent round the songwriters and producers in Los Angeles that all artists are sent round at a certain point, “And some of those people are amazing – some amazing queer people as well – but predominantly... You know, they’re straight, so it can be quite challenging.”

Feeling safe with his collaborators hasn’t been an easy journey, but now he’s in a good place for it. He also pointed out that it’s not just queers who can understand his vision: his bandmates are straight, he points out – “I really believe in working with straight people! Some of my best friends are straight!” – and his frequent collaborator, the producer Mark Ralph, “is a real ally to us gays”, who was always willing to vibe along to Paris Hilton singles with him.

A new sound – a queerer sound – isn’t just a risk in a world where Alexander’s performances are held to double standards and the linchpins of queer culture can still be seen as synonymous with perversion. The impossible standards queer work is held to don’t just come from the straight world: gay men can be terrible recipients of work designed for them too.

Russell T Davies has dealt with it his entire career: “There’s the problem of lack of representation, but there’s the problem that when you are represented, it’s just not seen,” he explained when I spoke to him recently. “You just learn to cope. I worry about it. I probably worry about it more than I say here, but at the end of the day it’s never stopped me writing the next thing.” But he gets it because he, too, is a gay man who consumes art and he sees the same biases coming out when he watches other queer-centric work.

Yet he was amazed that artists younger than him are still dealing with the same crises: “It’s what comes with being a minority. It’s what comes of oppression and you kind of expect this to pass. But then you talk to young people like Olly, who’s a different generation from me, and you find them thinking the same things,” Davies said. “I was lucky to have my training during an age when you’d be lucky to get one review in the Times. Now you live in a world of reviewers.”

When I ask Alexander if he worries how gay men will respond to a gay artist’s work, it is no easier for him to respond than it was for Davies. “Oh, God, you’re making my heart race now,” he says, breathless. “I should be careful, because I don’t want to demonise anybody. But I tried to really unpack this myself and... I’ll just sort of say it.” It is clear that this is intense for him: his eyes are looking watery as he tries to phrase it delicately.

“I have this – I think irrational – anxiety about gay men tearing me down. And I tried to interrogate that within myself and I think it’s complicated, because a lot of it has to do with internalised phobias and shame, about how I see myself versus how other people see me.” He begins to cry. “What I do know is that I want them to not hate me. And I want to make the community proud. It’s been at the heart of pretty much every decision I’ve ever made. And I don’t know if I’ve always got it right.”

‘I HAVE THIS – I THINK IRRATIONAL – ANXIETY ABOUT GAY MEN TEARING ME DOWN’

It’s tough being an actor asked to shed light and humanity on a complex phase in British LGBTQ+ history; it’s just as tough to be a gay man trying to make pop music that speaks to the queer experience. But Alexander is doing both and, what’s more, he’s being unapologetically queer in the public eye. There aren’t many LGBTQ+ people in the position Alexander is in and it must be exhausting, I suggest, to be expected to speak for the needs and fears of an entire spectrum of sexual and gender identities. After all, he’s just one man who wants to be proud of who he is. “Sometimes, when I feel the most anxious, I have a voice in my head that goes, ‘Oh, Olly, why on earth did you put yourself in this position? You really are not the strong person people think you are.’” But, he says, he is learning he can’t speak for everyone, even if people expect it of him.

Instead, he’s focusing on being proud of what he’s done – the visibility, the audacity, the bravery – rather than the critique of his anxieties or Twitter trolls. “I’m always thinking about me as a teenager and how I’m creating the person I wanted to be in the world. I’m actually doing it! Holy fuck!”

NYFF 2020: Part 1

It’s been a curious season of festivals  —  as always, Venice, TIFF, and the NYFF go more or less back-to-back-to-back, making for an almost indecent amount of captivating offerings for all but the most gluttonous of cinephiles  —  but not without its charms. In this time of massive uncertainty in the industry, amongst film distributors and theaters particularly, it’s deeply reassuring to know the medium is still capable of powerful statements, exquisite imagery, and haunting performances as it ever has.

Mind you, next year at this time, if there’s still no widely available vaccine, there might be a more serious dearth of selections, but for what has been an unsettling and mostly miserable 2020, we can thank the stars that films are often shot a year or more in advance of their release.

This year’s NYFF (still ongoing, as I write this) has provided some glories and some failures, more or less in keeping with the usual standard. Herewith, a quartet of selections, ranging from a resurrected Hungarian triumph, to a modern French non-romance, to the debut of a new and energizing auteur.

Damnation (1988) Dir. Bela Tarr

Perhaps no setting in cinematic history is more appropriate for shooting in low-contrast black and white than late ‘80s, post-communist Hungary. Bleak, drab, and pelting with rain, the landscape bleeds in shades of grey. Bela Tarr’s 1988 film, a newly restored 4K edition from the Festival’s “Revival” section, begins with a long shot of a ski lift-like apparatus, endlessly transporting buckets of coal to a repository, whose grinding machinery offers a looping hum throughout the film. Much as Tarr’s various musical interludes include similarly cyclical drones of accordion music, are the men and women of this nameless small city seemingly doomed to their various loops of behavior and experience. In Tarr’s Hungary, everyone looks haunted and morose, like a selection of down-on-their-luck rummies in a dive bar at last call. One such bar patron, Karrer (Miklos Szekely B.), is deeply in love with a beautiful, depressed (unnamed) nightclub singer (Vali Kerekes), married to a loutish man, Sebestyén (Gyorgy Cserthalmi), in bad debt to the wrong sorts of people. When Karrer’s friend, bar owner Willarsky (Gyula Pauer), offers him a potentially lucrative gig picking up a mystery package abroad and bringing it back to him, Karrer instead offers it to Sebestyén as a means of getting him out of debt, but more importantly getting him away from his wife, so their affair can continue apace. Tarr’s films move slowly, with long, static shots, or slow-panning camera movement, but within his frame, he packs in detail  —  from the pellet-like surface of a wall, to the expression of a group of people huddled under a station roof, staring out at the endless rain  —  and adds in acute sound effects as further punctuation (the sound of a man close shaving over his scruff with a straight-edge, for example, or water dripping from an unseen leak). As with his 1994 opus, Satantango, he includes extended shots of drunken merriment, with people dancing, stumbling, falling over each other, and coming back again, but the effect isn’t exactly heartening. As packs of stray dogs work their way over muddy, mostly deserted fields, and Karrer continues to imbibe the depressed resignation of his life’s trajectory (“the fog settles into your soul,” Willarsky helpfully explains), Tarr’s film, his first collaboration with Hungarian novelist László Krasznahorkai, presents a remarkably tactile vision of life under a blundering political machine, well past the point of repair. With its deep shadows, and obvious femme fatale, you could make the case that the film is a ripened Noir, but one with much of the magistry beaten out of it, tarnished in the mud of the fields. Karrer wears a trenchcoat, alright, but it’s only there to keep out the rain.

Mangrove (2020) Dir. Steve McQueen

Frank Crichlow (Shaun Parkes) didn’t mean to create a community, exactly, when he opened his restaurant in the section of West London that had become home to many immigrants from Trinidad and Jamaica. He just wanted to have a clean business that wouldn’t attract undue police attention, as his former nightclub, Rio, had done. As more and more natives of the Caribbean moved abroad, however, there became a greater need for a place where the community could gather and feel at home. Frank’s place became a local landmark, and Frank himself, a reluctant leader of the growing movement against the continual police harassment many of the residents faced on a daily basis. In this, he wasn’t given much of a choice: Led by a deeply racist police force  —  more or less personified by writer/director Steve McQueen in the form of the sneering PC Frank Pulley (Sam Spruell)  —  Frank’s place had been unnecessarily raided nine times in six weeks. So, when approached by local Black activists, including Darcus Howe (Malachi Kirby) and Altheia Jones-Lecointe (Letitia Wright), he agrees to take part in a peaceful protest against the constables. Naturally, the police turn violent, and in the resulting chaos, nine protestors, including Frank, Darcus, and Altheia are arrested. Over time, they are tried, acquitted, and re-tried for even more serious charges. McQueen’s film, another segment from Small Axe, his chronicle of London’s West-Indies neighborhood through the decades, focuses on this specific case, not just because two of the defendants decided to represent themselves (proving to be adept barristers), but because it became a landmark part of the British crusade for civil rights (even though, as the film’s postscript explains, Frank was still routinely harassed by the police for another 18 years after the trial). To capture the sense of the complexity of the community, McQueen employs a David Simon-esque narrative hodge-podge of smaller scenes from different characters’ vantage points and views, allowing us an in-depth sense of the neighborhood and the stakes, while rarely dipping into the more played out elements of the courtroom genre. I would say, in light of the recent racial protests after the Louisville grand jury failed to hold two of the three officers involved in the death of Breonna Taylor responsible, the film could not be more prescient, but, sadly, this would have also been true just about anytime in the last three decades. As Frank says of the incorrigibly racist leaders and henchpeople continually holding them down, “These people are like vampires, you think you beat them, but they keep coming back again.”

The Salt of Tears (2020) Dir. Philippe Garrel

From the flinch-inducing title (a direct translation from the French), which sounds like a YA novel steeped in melodrama, to the mournful piano soundtrack of the intro, Philippe Garrel’s (very) French counter-romance would seem to indicate a different sort of film than what he’s actually made. It’s a bit of flim-flammery from a celebrated director unafraid to throw his audience for a loop or two (take that title, which proves to be thoroughly ironic until the very last scene). Luc (Logann Antoufermo), a young man from the provinces, has come to Paris to take an entrance exam at an exacting wood-working institute in order to receive a degree in joining, in order to better emulate his woodworking father (Andre Wilms), a kind, elderly man with a “poet’s soul.” In Paris, he happens to meet Djemila (Oulaya Amamra), a sweet young woman falling hard for the handsome Luc, who callously breaks her heart after he returns to his village. Back home, he takes up with Genevieve (Louise Chevillote), an old high-school flame, who also falls deeply for him, getting pregnant in the process, but when he unexpectedly gets accepted to the woodworking school, he dumps her to return to Paris, where  —  you guessed it!  —  he meets up with yet another woman, Betsy (Souheila Yacoub), a stunning brunette whom, we are told via our occasional narrator (Jean Chevalier), is finally “his equal.” Or more so, to be precise, as she takes in a second lover (Martin Mesnier) to their apartment, making the unhappy Luc live as a threesome. Garrel’s charting of Luc’s endless relationship explorations themselves gets tiresome, but the director isn’t much interested in his protagonist’s romantic investments, as he is the callousness of Luc, and the young in general  —  Luc crushes two loving women; then himself gets crushed; while treating his loving father as yet another irritation from time to time  —  and the manner in which their decision-making has often not matured enough to include the expansiveness of empathy. They know not what they do, until it’s too late.

Beginning (2020) Dir. Dea Kulumbegashvili

Georgian director Dea Kulumbegashvili’s debut feature, about a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses working as missionaries in a small village outside Tbilisi, and the abuse they endure at the hands of religious extremists, captivates and bewilders in equal measure. The film begins with a long single shot from inside a “prayer house,” as congregants slowly file in and fill the pews, eventually allowing David (Rati Oneli) to begin his sermon concerning the story of Abraham, willing to sacrifice his beloved son in order to appease God. The shot remains static for so long, building its own rhythm, that it becomes that much more shocking when a side door suddenly opens, and an unseen assailant tosses in a fire bomb, lighting the floor and sending everyone into terrified tumult. Kulumbegashvili’s film is filled with similar striking compositions, long single shots with very little camera movement, the edges of the frame gradually generating increasing levels of apprehension, as the action swirls often out of our visual range. She has a way of filming the opposite of what you expect: Several key conversations between pairs of characters are shot with the focus on the reaction rather than the speaker, and vitally significant scenes are crafted with characters’ backs to us, such that we can’t read their expressions or get our normal bearings. It’s a similar conundrum for the missionaries themselves, especially Yana (Ia Sukhitashvili), David’s dutiful wife, a former actress, who tries to make the best of their difficult situation, even in the face of such violent opposition to her husband’s proselytizing, a job David, ambitious he is, sees as the key to rising up in the Church’s hierarchy. After their prayer house is burned to the ground, David leaves for a few days to meet with the Elders in order to secure funding for its replacement. Into that void, enter a detective (Kakha Kintsurashvili), who appears one night to “talk” with Yana, but ends up intimidating her into a sort of sexual compromise, an event that leaves her strangely unfazed, even, it might be said, oddly curious. From there, things get both more dire, and more peculiar, with Kulumbegashvili’s implacable camera remaining stoically witness to her characters’ increasingly distressing plight. As curious as it can be tonally, she is so in command of her narrative, the film is never less than compelling, even as tragedy becomes something else entirely. By film’s end, true to David’s earlier sermons, it’s clear that at least his most devoted acolyte has taken in the biblical lessons he proffered, for better or worse.

iron husbands?

yaaaaaas thank u ❤️❤️❤️

who’s the werewolf and who’s the hunter

tony is the hunter; he comes from a long family of hunters who hunted werewolves in europe and then crossed the pond to come to the us. rhodey is heir/alpha to one of the royal bloodlines and centuries of survival instincts carved into his very dna has taught him to keep a low profile. rhodey's kept an eye on tony since college because their respective bloodlines have a long, bloody history. when wolves start turning up dead, rhodey assumes tony must be responsible, so he shows up in new york, ready to put tony's entrails on display in time square as a statement to the humans. except, to his surprise, he finds out tony has not only left his family's bloody history behind in the past, he's become a vocal activist campaigning for the rights of magical creatures in the country, including the werewolves. cue, rhodey and tony team up to find out who's killing the wolves and take them down; in the process, they obviously fall in love.

who’s the mermaid and who’s the fisherman

tony is the mermaid; he's been cast out of his family because of a mistake that got many merpeople and other marine creatures killed. he's been struggling to survive in the vast depths of the ocean, depressed, lonely and almost going out of his mind. one day, he sees a fishing boat capsize; while the land breathers are obviously an enemy, he ignores his basic survival instincts to help the fisherman struggling to stay afloat in the rough waters. tony brings the fisherman to a nearby island, with lots of greenery in the middle and no humans on it, and tends to his wounds (a broken arm, cuts and bruises etc). when the fisherman comes to, tony learns his name is rhodey and that, like him, he had also been cast out of his family and has nowhere else to go; that's why rhodey had set off for the ocean, hoping the waters would take him somewhere new. tony proposes that given their similar situation, they can begin their life anew on the island. and rhodey agrees.

who’s the witch and who’s the familiar

tony's the witch, rhodey is the familiar. tony spent the first 20 years of his life thinking he didn't have magic, even though everyone in his family is a witch or a warlock. rhodey's an animagus; his animal form is a grey wolf, and he had been with tony since he was a puppy and tony an infant. one day, tony is being chased by a wendigo and rhodey leaps in front of it to save tony's life, getting seriously wounded in the process. tony panics because rhodey's literally bleeding out in his arms and he summons every last bit of strength and wills rhodey's wounds to close shut. they do; and suddenly tony feels the magic surge through his veins, beat against his pulse and thrum in his ears. rhodey's wounds heal completely within minutes and tony, with his newfound powers, drags his best friend and familiar to the nearest bar for a celebratory drink because "fuck you, howard, i'm a witch."

who’s the barista and who’s the coffee addict

tony is the barista. he runs a small coffee shop that fits barely 10 people indoors and business has been bad ever since a fancier café opened across the road. tony knows he's going to probably have to close down soon and move out of the city because he can no longer afford rent. one night, right before he's about to close for the day, a tired businessman comes stumbling in and offers a $100 bill for a cup of coffee. tony notices how distressed and tired the man looks, so he lets him in and makes him a strong cup of coffee and warms up some meat pie, which the latter accepts gratefully. he finds out that rhodey's under a lot of stress because the board of directors at his company is trying to oust him from power. tony lends rhodey a listening ear that he desperately needs and they stay there in the café until 3am. from next day onwards, rhodey becomes a regular patron at the café, but business still dwindles until one day, tony puts up a notice outside informing customers that he will close down by the end of the week. rhodey doesn't show up for the next several days and tony assumes he probably gets his coffee from the other café now; until, on friday, as tony's about to close his outlet for the final time, rhodey shows up and hands him a stack of papers: it's the purchase deed for the space across the road. turns out, rhodey made the other café owner an offer they couldn't turn down. rhodey tells tony that he quit his job as ceo of his company and asks tony if he wants to be business partners. within a month, they're running the café from across the road and business has never been better; tony still works as barista from time to time even though they now have 10 full-time staff and rhodey's already talking about plans to create more franchises across the country. at some point, they evolve from being just business partners to...well, partners.

who’s the professor and who’s the TA

tony's the TA/PhD candidate and rhodey's the professor. they are both astrophysicists by training and they study pulsars for research. needless to say, their academic opinions differ plenty and whenever tony isn't marking problem sets and rhodey isn't lecturing young, impressionable minds, they're arguing about pulsars and what they can tell the world about matter and the existence of other exo-planets over a night cap. tony is envied by the other doctoral candidates in his year because he gets to spend so much time in professor rhodes' proximity (hello??? hot, youngish professor who's super accomplished, super smart, has some graying hair, wears tight polos and black-rimmed glasses? fucking hell...) in this instance tony's like 29, rhodey's about 34.

who’s the knight and who’s the prince(ss)

rhodey's the knight and tony's the prince. here's the backstory: tony's mum was king howard's first wife. when howard remarried, he had another son, prince arno. per the kingdom's rules on succession, you can only ascend the throne if you're of pure royal blood. tony's mum was a commoner, so she was never afforded the royal title of queen, whereas howard's second wife was a princess from a neighbouring kingdom. that said, king howard wants tony to inherit the throne, something that many of his close advisors as well as arno and his mother refuse to accept. they see tony as an impediment and when howard falls ill, numerous attempts are made on tony's life. tony is obviously very booksmart and he excels at strategy, which is why howard wants him to be king. when howard senses a possible civil war could be brewing in the kingdom, between supporters who want tony to be king and those who'd prefer arno, he calls aside a young knight, sir james, and makes him swear on his life to protect tony. (howard knew tony and rhodey had been childhood friends, which is why he approached him in the first place) when shit hits the proverbial ceiling, rhodey protects tony from all manners of assassination attempts until arno and his mother are finally thwarted and kicked out of the kingdom. tony becomes king and rhodey becomes his most trusted advisor, friend, confidante, and general. basically, tony hands the keys of the kingdom to rhodey and relies on him and his decisions to run it.

who’s the teacher and who’s the single parent

tony teaches kindergarten and loves his young charges very much. one day, they're joined by a shy, quiet new student, lila, and her overly anxious uncle, james. tony tries to reassure rhodey that lila, who had just lost her parents, would be fine and that he'd make sure she isn't being bullied or harassed for being the new kid. as the term progresses, lila slowly comes out of her shell; she makes friends, she loves recess, she loves colouring, and she is good with numbers. every week tony calls his kids' parents to update them on their children; his conversations with rhodey, however, last twice as long and become twice as frequent, until one day rhodey invites tony to lila's birthday party. tony isn't sure how to read into this: the other parents have never really invited him to their kids' birthdays and yet he doesn't want to turn down the invitation from the rhodes' (mostly because he doesn't want to upset young lila). though nothing happens at the birthday party, rhodey keeps asking him out. it starts under the pretext of wanting to know how lila is doing and morphs into them just spending time together until tony impulsively kisses rhodey on the day of lila's graduation to k2. with lila no longer his student, tony asks rhodey out on a proper date and soon he's spending his weekends at the rhodes' place until about a year later, he moves in with rhodey and lila.

who’s the writer and who’s the editor

rhodey is the editor for the opinions section in one of the top newspapers; he has a pretty fierce reputation of being a hardass editor who would chew and spit out anyone making rookie mistakes in the entire newsroom. new writers and reporters basically cower in fear; tony's an established hotshot columnist who's been headhunted from a rival paper to write a weekly political column. he is pretty well-known among politicos and is well read by a loyal audience, both offline and online. tony is basically used to getting his way until he submits his first copy for edit and rhodey returns it, each page crossed out in red, and with a remark on the final page that read: our company motto may be all news fit to print, but i am not letting this garbage print. tony is furious. how dare someone call his columns garbage when the news organisation is literally paying him a six-figure salary to write them. he marches up to rhodey's office and barges in, ready to fight. but he stops on track and blushes when he realises this asshole editor is the same handsome college senior that tony had a short, deeply physical relationship with almost 20 years ago. the argument just melts away from him and even rhodey can't find it in him to be as curt and critical as he is to the other writers because damn...the encounter brings up a lot of memories and regrets they have both had since leaving college and then losing touch.

send me a ship!

137. i love to singa (1936)

release date: july 18th, 1936

series: merrie melodies

director: tex avery

starring: tommy bond (owl jolson), billy bletcher (fritz owl, penguin), martha wentworth (mama), bernice hansen (fat chicken), joe dougherty (stuttering bird), tedd pierce (jack bunny)

a certified classic that almost everyone has either seen or at least heard of, and for good reason! tedd pierce, writer for mckimson, freleng, and jones, as well as inspiration for pepé le pew, makes his vocal debut as the voice of jack bunny (a very obvious take on radio show entertainer jack benny, who’d be parodied as jack bunny in a handful of cartoons such as slap happy pappy and goofy groceries.) the father owl was originally going to be voiced by bert lahr, who you may recognize as the cowardly lion from the wizard of oz, but was changed to bletcher instead. a parody of the al jolson movie the jazz singer, little owl jolson is born into a musical family that forbids any jazz. kicked out for breaking the strict family rule, owl finds solace in jack bunny’s radio show, where his talents shine—much to the bewilderment of his parents.

pan into a lovely shot of a quaint little home in a tree trunk, trees creating a framing in the foreground as butterflies flit along. a serene home that can do no wrong. a sign in the shape of a violin is posted just above the door: prof. FRITZ OWL teacher of “VOICE, PIANO, & VIOLIN” BUT— pan down to a sign below it, painted in all red letters: NO JAZZ!

tex playful as ever with his transitions as we peer through the keyhole of the door. professor fritz (not friz!) owl himself paces nervously in front of his wife, nesting on eggs while observing her anxious husband. the underscore is a fitting medley of solfeggios. fritz approaches his wife solemnly, who stands up and checks to see if her eggs have hatched yet. nothing but a sympathetic shake of the head.

time lapses, as we see from the rug below fritz’s feet. he’s paced so much that he’s worn it into the ground and then some—tex liked to play around with simple time lapses, a changing background the only indicator of passing time while the animation itself stays the same. once more, fritz returns to his wife. this time, we hear faint knocking. they both observe, and his wife is now beaming and nodding expectantly. the big moment at last! she crawls out of her nest, and fritz takes a conductor’s wand, tapping each egg gently. each makes a strong, reverberating ring of a bell. music to his ears... save for the last one, who creates a jangly dissonant sound instead. fritz and his wife exchange bewildered looks, fritz tapping on the egg again for confirmation. still a dud. very clever use of sound effects by treg brown.

before fritz can mull on his dud for too long, the first egg hatches. a mini owl version of himself dons a sharp suit, singing a beautiful rendition of “chi mi frena in tal momento” from the opera lucia di lammermoor. fritz is absolutely delighted, cooing “ah, what a fine voice! a caruso!” (of course referring to italian tenor enrico caruso) the next egg is set to hatch, this time the owl playing robert schumann’s “traumerei” on violin. he too is met with praise: “what sweet music, a fritz kreisler!” third egg hatches, the owl touting a flute and playing felix mendelssohn’s “spring song”, fritz appropriately commenting “a lovely melody, a mendelssohn.”

and, of course, the final egg. wonderful incongruity and juxtaposition as owl jolson pops out of the egg, blaring red suit and all, informally greeting “hullo, strenza!” “hello, strenza!” was a popular catchphrase at the time and yiddishism for “hello, stranger!”, originated from jack benny’s character schlepperman. appropriate considering jack bunny serves as an important character in the cartoon. owl thusly launches into the eponymous “i love to singa”, written by harold arlen and e. y. harburg (who both worked on the music for the wizard of oz) and featured thrice in 1936’s the singing kid. criminally catchy and a lethal earworm to all... except father fritz.

“ach, a jazz singer! a CROONER! stop! STOP! STOP!!!” fritz is horrified, tearing his feathers out in agony, only pausing to catch his wife, struck unconscious from the horrible thought of her child becoming the next bing crosby. fritz fans her awake, desperately reassuring “listen mama, if he must sing, we will teach him to sing like we want him to.” a sensible plan, right?

apparently not. owl is desperately uncomfortable and unhappy as he begrudgingly sings “drink to me only with thine eyes”, his mother oblivious to his plight as she accompanies him on piano. she pauses to turn the page, and owl gives a quick, hurried, whispered rendition of “i love to singa” behind her back. haven’t we all done that before? personality is very strong in this cartoon, and that’s what sells it, even more than the song itself. mama resumes her playing, and owl resumes his torture session. fritz walks in the doorway to admire his converted son, beaming. owl is unaware of his father’s presence, and as his mother pauses to turn the page he sings some more jazz, but it doesn’t go unnoticed.

bob clampett animates fritz kicking owl out of the house, groveling “enough, it’s too much! out of my house, you hotcha, you crooner! you falsetto! you jazz singer! you... you...YOU..!” fritz is red-faced, sputtering and struggling desperately to find the perfect insult. instead, he opts for slamming the door shut. a pause. he opens it back up and quips “PHOOEY!” before slamming it back shut. perfect comedic timing for a gag that will be used in many a cartoon.

owl is frustrated at first, sardonically introducing to the camera “that’s mein pop.” nevertheless, his mood changes in an instant as he realizes he’s free to sing all the jazz he wants. he strolls along, happily singing his favorite song. a much happier scene than indoors, where mama tearfully suggests that fritz was being “a bit too hasty.” back outside, where owl is strolling along gaily as ever, whistling all the way. there’s a beautiful pan with trees and scenery overlaying in the foreground. you get the sense that everything is going to be just fine, that the world is worth singing about. a very positive and upbeat yet subtle scene. inside once more, where mama calls the police in tears to search for her missing child.

the happy go lucky expedition of owl jolson is put to a halt when he hears a harmonica. it’s coming from a building with a line in front of it: RADIO STATION G-O-N-G. below it: AUDITIONS TODAY. various people are given the boot, the telltale gong sounding as they’re plummeted down a slide and out into the cruel world. owl is enticed, and hurries to join the line.

a few animals perform their failed auditions: a few birds on a flute and saxophone each, another on the accordion, a penguin singing “laugh, clown, laugh” (which daffy would sing in both yankee doodle daffy and duck soup to nuts, both freleng cartoons), a fat chicken singing “i’m forever blowing bubbles” (which was featured in sinkin’ in the bathtub! shows you how far we’ve come)... all of the potential candidates get gonged by a caricature of jack benny (jack BUNNY), and they’re all sent plummeting through a bottomless chute. the fat chicken is so plump that she gets stuck in the chute, and bunny has to give her an extra thwack on the head to get her to go down. very amusing timing.

back at home, mama and fritz are both listening to the radio for an update on their son. mama exclaims tearfully, “i wonder if they found my little boy...” and in a bit of tex avery genius, the radio announcer answers in a deadpan voice “no we didn’t, lady.” a staple that would be used in many a cartoon!

at the radio station, joe dougherty voices a hayseed, stuttering bird with an overbite (a parallel to his role as a hayseed, stuttering dog with an overbite in into your dance) struggling to recount the tongue twister of simple simon. after awhile, the bird gets tired of his OWN act, muttering “oh well, shucks.” and hitting the gong himself and tugging on the rope that would send him into oblivion. elsewhere, a bird reads a telegram out loud, delivered by the telegram boy. she pronounces each “stop” (as i mentioned in my last review, since there is no morse code equivalent to a period, telegrams would use “stop” instead), and we pan over to owl jolson and jack bunny. however, the bird continues to read each stop, growing louder and louder, and we pan back over to see the telegram boy repeatedly attempting to hug her while she keeps shouting “stop!” ain’t sexual harassment funny??? in terms of technicality, it’s a very well structured gag, but is in poor taste and doesn’t feel as funny as it should.

nevertheless, jack bunny asks “well, what’s your name, son?” owl eagerly hands him his very own card, proudly displaying the words “owl jolson” in red ink. he gives a happy salute, and thus formally starts the musical number. it’s been rumored that singer johnnie davis provided the singing voice, but i don’t think that’s true. it still sounds like bond to me, and even when i heard him singing in my green fedora as peter i knew he voiced owl jolson right away, connecting it back to this scene. i could be wrong! but i doubt they hired a separate person for singing. nevertheless, as i’ve repeatedly mentioned, the song is criminally catchy and the animation is cute and fun. bunny is immediately impressed, his defensive glower melting into a gleeful grin.

mama catches wind of her own son back at home, hearing his voice singing on the radio. once more, bob clampett animates mama dragging her entire family outside, happily declaring “it’s him at the radio station!” owl has clearly won bunny’s heart, already displaying the hearty first prize trophy on his desk while he dances along ecstatically to the music.

at long last, the owl family arrives at the station, and they can hardly believe it. everyone crowds around the window outside, peering inside with awestruck disbelief. just as owl as surely clinched the award, he catches a glance of his family and freezes up immediately. now terrified and fearing the worst, he reverts back to his nasally rendition of “drink to me only with thine own eyes”. bunny can’t believe it, even pausing to take his cigar out in disbelief as he ogles at his star pupil. he shoves aside the first prize trophy, ready to pounce.

thankfully, the owl family notices this and they all rush inside. just as bunny is about to call it a day, raising the faithful hammer, fritz cries “STOP! STOP! STOP!!!” he rushes to his previously disavowed son, once more repeating “enough, it’s too much!” but in an entirely different context. a very clever parallel. slowly he attempts to coerce owl back into his song, urging him that it’s okay. “you want to singa! about your moon-a and your june-a and your spring-a, go on and singa!”

hesitant at first, owl picks up his rendition, and in no time things are back to normal. a relieved and ecstatic jack bunny snags the first prize trophy and hands it to owl, shaking his hand. a very endearing, happy, ultimately feel good scene as the entire owl family dances behind their star, the entire family giving one last chorus of “we love to sing!” iris out... leaving the first prize trophy on the black screen. owl pries the iris open and collects his prize, irising out for good (a gag that would be recycled in another avery cartoon, porky’s garden, though porky angrily pries his cash prize away from the clutches of a greedy gardener instead).

a lot to unpack, but all you need to know: a great short that is absolutely worth the watch. if you haven’t seen it already, watch it! if you have, watch it again! one of those cartoons that everyone knows or has at least heard of. do i think this is tex’s best cartoon? probably not. but i DO think this is a major turning point for warner bros. tex saved the studio by shunning the disney attitude instead of adopting it, and this cartoon reflects that. a strong, solid plot with amusing gags (such as the radio bit) would eventually become the norm for the upcoming cartoons. the songs were really beginning to be put on the back burner, and eventually dropped altogether—i don’t have an official date for the last merrie melody to feature a song, but probably anywhere from 1938 to 1939.

i argue that the success of this cartoon lies in the personality moreso than the song. absolutely the song is a big contributor. very catchy, fun to sing, and one that everyone knows. but i don’t think the cartoon is great just BECAUSE of the song. many of the merrie melodies have a lot of great songs, but have faded into obscurity because of weak plots or personality. when was the last time you saw someone lauding harman and ising’s we’re in the money? a very popular song no doubt, but it isn’t held to the same candle as i love to singa because the personality is so staunch. no memorable characters or emotions or motivations or what have you.

all of the personalities are strong, subtle or not. owl has a strong personality, even though 90% of his dialogue is singing. where he begrudgingly sings “drink to me only with thine eyes”, glaring and moping, kicking his feet or making mocking expressions, pausing to give a few breathless verses of “i love to singa”... strong personality. fritz owl has a very strong personality, if not overbearing. 10 seconds into the cartoon and you already know he hates jazz, holding so much contempt for it that he has a sign outside of his house to advertise it. the mother another strong figure, caring deeply for her son and even calling the police to get her son back. even jack bunny, who only says one line in the entire cartoon. it’s obvious he’s fed up with listening to the same old amateur hour acts, and his genuine glee at the freshness of owl’s act feels real and relatable. pair all this with a catchy song and you have yourself a deal.

i think, at the same time, this follows the formula of a lot of tex’s merrie melodies at the time, and i suppose it may be just a bit (for lack of a better term) overrated. not in a bad way, but it isn’t STAUNCHLY different from other merrie melodies tex has been pumping out. but with that said, it’s still a classic and a great short that you certainly need to watch. it’s definitely a spirit raiser.

link!

A Love So Beautiful Episode 2 Recap: Can I Hop On Your Bike?

Netflix oh Netflix. Why do you tease me so! With that picture, I suddenly have visions of these two all grown up and married. No!! Please just let me live in their teenage past and experience their budding love.

So. The world building continues in episode 2. Jiang Chen still appears to be an emotionless robot, but the writers have crafted a believable sob story to explain his emotional detachment and why Xiaoxi is so protective of him.

I’m still not taken in with Jiang Chen’s character yet. And the issue isn’t with the acting at all. For the stoic lead, he has a generous amount of micro-expressions and his “poker face” matches his sarcastic quips. However, something in the writing/directing leaves more to be desired. The parts about Jiang Chen’s past feels like clunky exposition to me.

On the other hand, I’m really liking the second lead, Wu Bo Song 吴柏松.In any other show, Bo Song would have been the main lead. He’s a charming and sporty dude with a sense of humor. I do feel kinda upset every time he interacts with Xiaoxi though. As the second lead, he’s fated to not get the girl. But he really puts in so much more effort than Jiang Chen - it’s not fair!

At Bo Song’s swim competition, silly Xiaoxi jumbles up the characters on her hand-drawn cheer poster, leading to a "Wu Song Bo" instead. Hahaha! Later on, after the race, when Bo Song was getting harassed by interviewers, Xiaoxi and her poster comes to his rescue with a giant cheer. Bo Song appears really touched by her support, so much so that he offered to trade her for the poster.

The camera work during the dinner scene deliberately included many many lingering closeups of Bo Song's hopeful face. As well as his repeated requests for the poster. It's obvious to us that Bo Song places a great significance on what happened and really wanted a keepsake. However Xiaoxi doesn't place the same importance on the interaction. In her eyes, she was just keeping her word to come and watch the race - she was merely being a friend, and not a very good one at that (the poster typo being an embarrassing bit of evidence).

So. Storytime now. As an old codger I watch shows like this and cringe unabashedly at scenes of young love like this. I have been Xiaoxi in various situations in my life where I have been absolutely oblivious that my actions were leading someone on. I was just being myself, you know? In interactions with said guy, a sentence might have some significant meaning to the guy, but because things seem innocuous on the surface, I end up answering carelessly and hurting his feelings. 

Here, Xiaoxi is so preoccupied with her life (and Jiang Chen) that she isn’t able to be properly present in the conversation, thus completely missing the social cues from Bo Song.

Personally I find Bo Song’s attraction to Xiaoxi far more organic and interesting rather than the shoehorned Xiaoxi and Jiang Chen childhood friends next door arrangement. Perhaps it's because Bo Song is such an expressive actor. He also has such a natural chemistry with Xiaoxi, I enjoyed him popping up to save Xiaoxi and giving her bike rides. And the impetus for the bike rides are so spontaneous and fun. Early in the episode, he smoothly glided up to save her from a group of girls. And in another instance, when they needed to escape quickly from their teacher, she just mounted up on his bike and they sped away crazily. Ah, youth.

Of course, the title of this episode “Can I Hop On Your Bike?” actually refers to the bike ride that Xiaoxi wants Jiang Chen to give her. It’s establised early on in the episode that Xiaoxi lost her bike. So it’s a running gag that throughout the episode, Xiaoxi gazes mornfully at Jiang Chen whenever she needs a ride, and he always ignores her. But in end, he eventually does give her a ride to school. 

Unfortunately, the payoff is so disappointing in this episode. I don't feel inclined to root for Jiang Chen at all, not even when I learnt that he doesn't have parental support. Nor does Jiang Chen's discovery that "someone" came and looked after him when he was ill make me feel like there was any significant development in their relationship. The bike ride at the end seems more like “payment” for Xiaoxi’s care, rather than an actual joyful and spontaneous event. I personally feel like this cheapens Xiaoxi and Jiang Chen’s interaction. A key part of my inability to accept their relationship, is due to the lack of communication between them. Well, Xiaoxi tries. She has made her intentions Vey Clear. But Jiang Chen is still a closed box. And until he opens up and reciprocates, their interactions just seem awkward and forced.

On to other stuff now. This story occurs in 2005 and in this episode the directors do try make an effort to pay homage to the era. I'm reminded of my trusty old Nokia phone whenever one appears on screen. In those days, everyone had a Nokia. A phone was literally only able to be used for calling and texting. Apps hadn’t even been invented yet, so the telcos had a powerful monopoly on phone usage. Depending on your phone plan, every month you had a finite amount of call minute and text messages to make. Any extra text message past your limit would cost a ridiculous amount of money. You had to stay within the character limit for each text and ration your texts or end up with your parents refusing to pay your phone bills. I’m so glad that telecommunication these days have improved so drastically.

Speaking of communication, the Internet was a vastly different place back in 2005. As we learn in this episode, being a moderator for a fangirl website is a big honor. Back then, going on the Internet did not consist of scrolling mindlessly on Facebook. You actually had to look for the content you wanted. Thus, there were hives of activity on specialty sites, and each community developed their own form of management. Typically websites would consist of a forum section where users could post their questions and comments on various topics. For a fangirl site, this forum is arguably the most important part of the website. A moderator would have the power to highlight or sticky a post to the top, or delete and ban users.

Although Facebook was not available yet, there were various blogging and sharing sites on the Internet in 2005. As shown in the episode, QQ was widely popular in China (and still is). Each user account could access various functions on the platform which included a friends list, chat message, a personal blog and private memos.

Next historical relic spotted, the Warcraft poster pasted on the door of the Internet Cafe that the boys frequent. Warcraft was released in 2004, so that was absolutely the era of the original Warcraft game. There has been loads of Warcraft sequels since, but the poster is the classic original one. Kudos to the props team on that one.

In the previous episode, the boys spent time in the Internet Cafe as well, and I'm pretty sure that the game they were playing was Counterstrike - another massively popular computer game in that era. Counterstrike is a fantastic bonding game. Every round is approximately 2 to 5 minutes. There is almost no learning curve to this game. You literally team up with your buddies, connect to a game, and try to shoot down anyone who isn't on your team. In an hour, you theoretically could play 50 short games. It's low stress and involves loads of incoherent yelling. It's therefore really believable that the guys could become fast friends after just one gaming session. And that they would make plans to go regularly after school.

That marriage game though............ I'm not sure I ever encountered anything like that. It’s also not within my personal experience that any 16 year old guy would be interested in broadcasting his impending marriage with his virtual waifu. Haha, just my take but this mindset seems too modern for 2005.

I'll try to keep my eyes peeled for more 2005 pop culture references throughout this show.

A Viewer’s Review of...

One of the biggest complaints that people have against Superman is that he's overpowered. I'm no comicbook expert but based on what I've heard from comicbook analysts, the fact that he is overpowered can be an issue with bad writers; however, the best stories turn that "flaw" into a feature, by focusing on the conflict others face by having to confront the a perfect, powerful hero. So, with such an all-powerful good guy, it practically begs the question...      What if Superman was evil? For legal reasons, this Sony movie can't just outright admit that their main character is based on Superman™ (since the movie rights still belong to Warner Brothers despite how much they've been abusing it), so instead of “Clark Kent”, Brandon Breyer is a child with an alliterative name who is completely invulnerable to harm, possesses astonishing strength, develops the ability to fly as fast as a speeding bullet and can fire lasers from his eyes. This guy is Superman in all but name and, of course, personality, since he turns out to not exactly be a "good guy". And, rather than being from Smallville, this kid's alien pod crash-landed in Brightburn, Kansas - hence the title. See, this isn't just an evil superman, but an evil Superman origin story...

And to be honest, and that's the first mistake. Don't get me wrong, piecemeal revelations regarding this kid's powers are cool, but this movie doesn't really dwell on that. Instead, we're given one or two creepy scenes where the kid learns about his powers (and his origins not long after). But, he basically learns his abilities through the course of a single day, and can use them with great skill and accuracy from then on out. The only reason I can think of as to why they fast-forward through these is because the writer didn’t know how to make an immortal, unstoppable child scary unless he had all of superman’s powers, so they wrote him to have his full loadout from the offset.

Sure, the way those scenes are shot are very effective, and the music swells appropriately - but you probably already knew that since they were all in the trailer. In fact, everything original in this movie shows up in the trailer - the first few "kills", the creepy outfit, his interaction with fellow kids and even some of the scenes from the third act (although, in the movie the gore isn't censored). To be frank,  this whole movie feels like it was shot for the trailer. Each scene feels like it was designed to be cut up and edited into a cool scene for the trailer, to advertise the "evil superman" gimmick. So, despite the fact that this has good cinematography and editing, it feels like it was wasted.

Part of the reason why it feels that way is because there aren't really any characters in this movie, they don’t act like normal people, but rather they need to act in a contrived way to take us from one horror set-piece to another. So, there's not so much character growth and development, as instead there are a series of character actions, to keep the plot going. The kid dresses up in a creepy cape and hood for no explained reason - and at one point he actually flies away in the middle of a scene just so that he can make a costume change and return wearing the creepy hood. The mother keeps secrets, for no explained reason, only to reveal them at the most dramatic moment. The kid goes from an all-powerful tyrannical psycho back to pretending to be a regular boy as easily as the flick of a lightswitch, whenever the plot requires it. The local police somehow intuits that the most likely killer in the town is an eleven year old child, simply because of a tag at the crime scene which looks like his initials, despite the fact that they have no reason to believe that this kid is capable of the such superhuman acts. The kid himself also decides to draw detailed sketches of all of his crimes, for no explicable reason other than so that someone can find it later in the movie. And worst of all, there are some really effective scenes in this movie which I thought were interesting, but each time those subplots were quickly dropped.

One subplot was based around Caitlyn, a local schoolgirl played wonderfully by Emmie Hunter that the superpowered kid seems to find cute, but when he discovers his powers he starts to stalk, abuse and harass her. In each scene she acts the hell out of it, making you feel terrified for her, since she looks so scared and vulnerable, but there’s a total of two, maybe two-and-a-half scenes where this happens, only to then move on to more horror set-pieces. There are also a few scenes where Mr Breyer, the father played with convincing fear and anger by David Denman starts to suspect that his “son” is even more alien than he first thought, but this whole subplot seems to occupy a little over five minutes of screentime. I also want to praise the work of Duncan A. Dunn, who portrays Brandon Breyer the main “evil superhero” character, because although he sometimes seems kinda dull, I know that this isn't bad kid acting. In the earliest scenes we get to see him emote, and when he resorts to intimidation in one scene, he is scary even without the mask on, so I know for a fact that this this kid can act very well, which means it has to be the direction making him to act so unnaturally.

See, the absolute worst part of this movie is that this kid isn't a real character. Sure, he is an “evil superman”, but the thing is, the kid never chooses to be evil, there’s not actually a character-driven reason behind it. What makes him evil is that a creepy voice from his birth-pod tells him to be evil. In fact, by the way that he’s forced to repeat the alien words, and even slowly understands what they mean, it seems to be implying that it’s compelling him to be evil. Sure, there is a scene or two where he acts uncaring, and he outright says that he's superior to other people, but there's no reason to believe that he chose to believe that, or was raised to have these evil feelings. Instead, he might as well have got an "evil" software update when he synced with his birth-pod... 

You might be thinking that I'm being a spoilsport - that it's not about the story but the horror and death scenes. Well maybe, but they're not done very well either. Okay, that's not fair, they are done as well as any other horror these days... there is pretty convincing blood and gore, and they take advantage of that R-rating.  The kid’s victims experience very explicit trauma and it’s not discreet - it’s often framed centre-screen for us to see in explicit detail. Although one or two scenes made me question the director’s understanding of biology, it wasn’t blatant enough to detract from the effect they were going for, so if you’re squeamish, this is not the film for you. This is your standard gory R-rated Horror. And that’s my problem here - they don’t really seem to do anything interesting with the evil superman concept. Sure, he wears a spooky mask, but other than that, there’s nothing that gives this monster any personality. For instance, Brandon (for reasons that aren't really explained) seems to makes electronics malfunction and lights flicker when he's angry; but the only reason for this is so that they can play into the spooky flickering lights trope. He also has the ability to move at superhuman speed which he uses effectively - in one scene (which, again, we saw in the trailer); but the main reason for this power is either so that they can justify the offscreen teleportation trope, or simply to make him pop up in a few dozen jump-scares, like every other teleporting ghost or demon in horror films since the early 2000s. The kid also has laser vision, which he does use for just one interesting scene; but, the main reason he has it seems to be so that they can make his eyes glow red against his dark silhouette when he's chasing people in the scary scenes.

The part that annoys me the most is that he keeps playing hide-and-seek with his victims (often using superspeed) during the scary scenes, and will even slip away before he's caught, which doesn't make any sense. To me the scariest part about an evil superman would be that he's invincible - he’s literally an unstoppable monster - but even if you don't agree, you can't deny that this kid has no reason to run away, since literally nothing can hurt him. Rather than playing peekaboo, he could simply stalk them like Terminator, or maybe even like the succubus from It Follows, and just tear through anything that tries to stop them. This might make sense if he was doing these things in secret, but the story seems to go out of its way to debunk that theory, since it is both heavily implied and explicitly stated that he sees human beings as inferior and worthless, so why does he keep lying to appease “inferior” human beings? It’s not even like there appears to be some conflict within him about whether he should be evil or not because as I mentioned there’s no character growth, he’s just suddenly evil because alien technology told him to be.

Now, if they did some of this stuff to pay homage to the horror tropes that inspired this, but also did something new and original as well to really take advantage of the fact that they have an evil superman on their hands, then I would be rejoicing instead of ranting, but they don't do that. You could easily rewrite this so that the kid is possessed by a demon, or being haunted by a killer ghost, and the movie could be identical. I think you'd only have to rewrite the end, and that's just because they saved one of their iconic "evil superman" moments for the end, but it’s not enough to give this film a personality of its own - this kid may be superman in all but name, but this film is just a generic, modern horror movie in all but marketing.

So, at the end of the day (and the film) the best part of this movie appears to have been the pitch:     What if Superman was evil? Yeah, it's a great question, but so far we haven't gotten a very good answer. The best that this movie can come up with is "well, if he was evil, then he'd probably kill a bunch of people" ... yeah that's true, but whilst they're not wrong, I don't think that's the same thing as being right.

Death, Bloodlust and the Hollywood Way... 6.0 ⁄₁₀

Let’s Catch Up: Your Questions, Answered.

Hey lovelies,  I’m sorry for being away for so long, however, you may have noticed over the past couple of weeks -- I’ve been posting a little bit more frequently. In the meantime, I've also been getting a lot of IM’s lately asking if I’ve left, where am I; as well as asking how I’m doing or what’s going on. 

If you want to know what’s been going on with me lately, click on the “Keep Reading” link below, for all info regarding me and my return to the blog.

Question: Are you leaving? / Have you left?

Answer: No. I’m not leaving, nor have I left / abandoned my blog. Between a nasty case of writer's block earlier this year, and working a job I grew to hate which caused me to start looking for a new job for the better part of a year -- I’ve seldom had the opportunity to check in here. I was still watching, but to be honest... I’m looking forward to coming back here and being more involved, now that things have properly calmed down.

Question: Where have you been?

Answer: Working, looking for another job, landing another job; as well as traveling and privately working on getting my own inspiration back. The better part of this year, was spent on so many other important tasks that I felt my own inspiration slipping. So I would poke at my writing, whenever I could, and worried about getting other things off my plate first.

Question: When can we expect Assistant updates?

Answer: I’m hoping to get a good chunk of the next few chapters, written this month and some next month. Unfortunately, around February the High Season starts with my new job. From February - May, we’re going to be very busy. Then from July - October, it’ll be another High Season for me again. My Low-Seasons are the best time I’ll be able to work on my writing. 

So here’s a tentative preview of my new schedule: 

2018:

Rest of December: Writing + New releases start happening. 2019:

January: Low-Season at work, therefore more writing + new releases.

February - May: The first High-Season of the year. I’ll be more committed to work than ever, however, I hope to write whenever I get a chance and on some of my off-days. New releases will be very limited, until I get a better understanding of what I’ll be looking at as far as work load goes. I could also be flying around to different states, to repersent the company I work for. If this is the case, my number one committment will be to work during those times. 

June: Technically, this is our “first” Low-Season of the year, but it is a toss-up though, especially since it’s only a month long break before things are expected to pick up again. we could be busy or we could have slow days. I’ll be writing during this time and again, new materials could be limited. We’ll see. My bosses can’t tell me what to expect, because they said it varies.

July - October: High-Season #2. The great news is, things actually start to slowing down in into October. I expect that while I’ll be busy, I can start making the transition into writing more and beginning to post more materials on a more frequent basis. I usually take a yearly trip to go home and see my friends and family around July, so please keep this in mind as well. Possibility to fly to more areas for work, is also high during this time.

November - January: Low-Season. This is going to be the best time for me to write, and put out materials. While I will continue to work and get as much out as I can throughout the rest of the year (and I suspect I’ll be able to, once I know for certain about what I’m dealing with), this will still be the time when you can expect the most postings and materials. 

Question: What’s been going on with you?

Answer: Holy shit, a lot lol. Between the company I previously worked for, last year and earlier this year, flushing itself down the proverbial toilet and starting a brand new job -- there’s been a lot going on. I spent the better half of 2018 searching for a new job, so I can basically get the hell out of the company I was previously employed with. It was mentally and physically exhausting, but this new company is so much better and they have a healthier work environment. My last job? We found out the hard way that the company director hated women, as he would fire them right before they were due to go on maternity leave -- just so he wouldn’t have to pay them for their maternity leave. Smh.

Side note: One of the girls he did this to, had enough and reported him to the labor board in their country, and she won her case (which is rare in their country as they usually protect business owners harder than we do in the US). He got so angry about being ordered to pay her the maternity leave that he called, texted and harassed this poor woman (and filed a slanderous lawsuit against her) -- until she was so scared that she settled out of court for much less than she deserved. After that, myself and 3 other people on our staff decided that was enough and we all quit and found new jobs. Guys, it was fucking bad. Hopefully, you see why I spent more time trying to get out, find a new job, etc.

Question: What new projects are you working on?

Answer: At the moment, I’m working on Bring Me To Heaven Part 2; a new one-shot called Scarlet Secrets (Roman Godfrey centric), and new chapters for The Assistant & A Night In... Other than that, I’m not taking on making any new stories just yet. 

___

Okay, so this is the jest of the questions I’ve been getting from various people via the IM feature on here -- and now I’ve published this so you can all have these answers too.

If you have any questions, my ask box and IM box are both on -- feel free to send them in.

I hope everyone is doing well.

Until next time, lovelies xoxo

1/3 I get where you’re coming from partly and you don’t sound rude at all. But things like suicide, rape, eating disorder, etc ARE NOT things that are common in horror movies. Viewers deserve to get the notice. (Agreeing with the anon you answered). blood/gore/violence are expected and assumed but not is depression and sexual assault. People deserve to be notified. ESPECIALLY if it could trigger them. “research” doesn’t do justice. I personally like to do research before I watch most things+

2/3 because that’s just me. But at the same time, not everyone is like that. For something I’m not triggered by like rape, doesn’t mean it’s not triggering/hurtful for someone else. And if you’re not triggered by suicide or depression, that’s good for you but it’s a VERY SENSITIVE and important topic for many. birdbox is based off of a book. But not everyone is assumed to have done research/read whatever that film/show came from. And they shouldn’t have to. The obvious such as violence and gore+ 3/3 gore in horror movies is expected and assumed. But people shouldn’t have to assume that something that hurts them, is in something they’re interested in seeing. Viewers deserve a notice. Like that anon said, it’s like a writer warning of death, smut and more, because the reader can avoid what could potentially trigger them, while still enjoying the rest of the story. Television watchers and movie goers deserve to know so too. Not everyone does their research and honestly movie directors+ 4/3 (I didn’t think it would be this long oop I estimated) producers and actors, have their own responsibility to get people to see whatever their project is. - BUT it doesn’t hurt to put in a potential trigger warning. If creators/performers want people to view their job, they should put out a notice/warning. Watchers deserve that. The obvious in horror movies again aren’t the same. Rape, molestation, suicide, self harm, aren’t things expected in horror movies. That’s not a part of the “genre”+ 5/3 a genre is simply stated as, “comedy”, “horror”, “drama”, “sci-fi”, “dramedy”, “action”, etc. comedy: pretty self explanatory. horror: the usual/assumed is gore and violence. But again w/ things like sexual assault, sexual harassment, depression, suicidal thoughts or actions, & eating disorders AREN’T a part of the “genre”, they don’t fall under any movie genre. There should be a notice. (This is the last part, again sorry for it being longer than I thought & again sorry if it sounds rude!)

No, no you’re fine!! I don’t think you’re being rude! We’re just having a discussion of different POVs!

Okay, I’m gonna explain why I don’t mention rape because that’s not a given. Rape scenes, in any genre, in any context, are POINTLESs. There is NO reason for them. Like, The Last House On The Left, for example, is it a good movie? HELL YEAH. But, as a rape victim, that rape scene did not sit well. It was too real and too graphic. If they wanted it, which it was fairly important to her parents finding out and such, they could have her underwear being partially torn off and then faded to black and then came back with her crying. Like that’s it. That’s how you show a rape happened. So, when I say that things in the horror/suspense/thriller genres don’t need trigger warnings, rape isn’t a part of that because there is absolutely no reason for a rape scene. None.

But when you get into suicide and eating disorders, 9/10 those things ARE mentioned in a review or even the description (Bird Box). Regardless, though, those themes are normal in horror/thriller/suspense films. I mean, the Nun has a suicide but it’s crucial to the plot. The Haunting Of Hill House, crucial to the plot but if you go out and you say “suicide” that’s a big spoiler.

That’s the entire point of these genres though. You SHOULD expect that these films WILL show something that makes you uncomfortable. It’s what they are supposed to do. To expect otherwise is discrediting the genres as a whole. Those genres are not made to warn you. They are not made to make sure you’re going to walk out a cinema perfectly fine, they wanna scar you. Eli Roth, that’s his literal goal. He wants to show you the most fucked up things he can because he can. That’s the genre. And he’s brilliant. But, if he told you “this film contains x,y,z” he won’t get that reaction. The whole of horror/thriller/suspense is SHOCK value. Making everyone as scared and uncomfortable as humanly possible while telling a story. They can’t do that by giving trigger warnings to every possible trigger because that just gives away the movie. Mental illness for example, if Oculus had told you that, the entire film would have been spoiled. Don’t Breathe, had the scene at the end where he tries to impregnate her through a turkey baster. That scene HAD to be there, it wasn’t graphic, just enough to give you the idea and she gets saved anyway. BUT, if there had been a trigger warning, that’s it. It’s spoiled.

I’m not saying everyone has to go read a book if the movie/show is based off the book, however, there is a book. There is a book which means there are reviews. There are people who have read it. It’s out there. People can do their research and if they’re people who get triggered by the horror/thriller/suspense genres, they should have to do their research before they see a film and then try to convince other people how shitty it is.

Why should people who like these genres have to deal with spoilers because people are lazy? That’s all it is. People are too lazy to look into a film before seeing it and because of that, people who genuinely LOVE the genres, should have to suffer? I don’t think that’s fair.

And trailers do exist and trailers are pretty indicators about where a film is going to go. Take Edge Of Winter for example. If you watch the trailer, it’s very obvious that there will be SOME form of child abuse. The dad is out of his fucking mind and traps his kids in the woods with him. But, people ARE STILL complaining that there wasn’t a warning. But, had they watched the trailer or done a simple search about the film, they would have known.

That’s not it though. Horror as the genre stands isn’t ABOUT the gore or the violence, it’s scaring you and making you uncomfortable. That’s why it’s called “horror” so everything goes. Everything SHOULD be expected. Child abuse, molestation, gore, violence, animal death, suicide, everything because everything can people uncomfortable. IF horror movies had to start labeling their triggers, they’d never get a person in the door to see the film because people would still be reading the ridiculously long list of unneeded trigger warnings.

Criminal Minds has never once had a trigger warning and they’ve dealt with everything I’ve just listed. Same goes for SVU. Why is that horror/thriller/suspense films/Netflix shows get backlash for “not having trigger warnings” but shows played on regular TV don’t? You know what you’re getting into with all of these. The information is all right there. You can easily access anything. If shows on regular cable don’t need trigger warnings, tv shows/films in the horror/thriller/suspense genres DEFINITELY don’t.

Highlights from DC in DC-Wonder Women

My final thoughts on DC in DC include the 3rd panel, Wonder Women.  The Wonder Women video reel showcased Candice Patton as Iris West-Allen with a weapon in her hand ready for action. Oh, it was glorious.  There it was, her married name in big, bold letters. Her importance was not cast to the background as mediocre, but instead, on the same level of empowerment as the other female characters.  What a day to be alive for that moment.  The moderator pointed out that it was Geoff Johns who said, “DC has the best female heroes.”  I still yearn for the day when Storm will be showcased properly in all her glory, but that’s a different franchise.  Moving on…the moderator continued explaining that 53% of comic book readership is women. I knew the number was high, but not that high and I’m not surprised.  On the other hand, there were a few disagreeing grunts in the section I sat in.  Perhaps they don’t know any of the percentage who read them.  Comic book fans in general are very specific about what they like, are very particular about their favorite characters/stories.  The moderator admitted she was never into comic books, but she was ready to fight after watching “Wonder Woman.”  She felt so empowered by that movie that she knew she could be strong and sexy without compromise.  Most of the women on the panel nodded in agreement.

I sort of had the same reaction to “Wonder Woman.”  Yes, I felt more empowered than usual, but I also felt a sense of relief that I finally got to see her solo movie.  I sobbed over that movie the moment the credits started rolling.  The tears were coming down so much that I didn’t even have enough tissue for them.  She’s one of our oldest female superheroes, and look at how long it took for a cinematic origin story to be made.  She has always been my favorite.  While I enjoy the Superman and Batman movies, I’ve always ALWAYS asked when is Wonder Woman getting her due.  How many more Superman/Batman origin stories do we need?!  So, I sobbed over finally getting her movie, and I sobbed over Steve Trevor’s death.  I hope, by some miracle, he can come back.  I ship them, so what.

Erin Richards interjected with the fact that “Wonder Woman” brought in so much money, that executives had to take notice.

Jessica Lucas used to wonder if she needed to make her character on “Gotham” more likable by dialing down the evil, sort of speak, until she realized it’s not about likability. It’s about what’s the best way to bring this character to life, whether evil or not.

Cameron Bicondova learned that sometimes, she must openly disagree with certain writers/directors about who her character is or would really do in a scene.  She was such a true delight that I wasn’t even expecting in this panel. I might have to watch “Gotham” for her.  She almost made me emotional when she answered a new father’s question about how to raise his own ‘wonder woman.’  She shared that her own father is her hero and that those moments when he just gave a listening ear and let her cry on his shoulder meant a lot to her.  You can be strong and still know it’s ok to cry.  It doesn’t mean you’re weak.  Caity Lotz added to “believe in her, and give her lots of comics.”

Sarah Schechter was back to talk about objectification.  A producer should listen when an actress says, “I don’t agree with my character’s choice in actions or outfits.”  If your character is a fighter or hacker, she can be sexy too, as long as the outfit is comfortable and/or appropriate for the scene.  Julie Benson chimed in to say you can look sexy without being sexist.  Sarah also seemed proud of the fact that #KeepIrisBlack has been trending all over Twitter in relation to ‘The Flash’ show/movie.

 Candice Patton continued the objectification conversation by saying that “women are more than what we wear.” If they are written with a story arc, then “it shouldn’t matter how my hair is or what my clothes look like.”  I enjoyed watching Cameron shake her head and snap her fingers in agreement. It is also so important to have a diverse group of people in the room who will stand up for you.  This role has become accidental activism for her.  She was always “cast as the best friend to the main, pretty white girl. Now, she gets “to be the pretty white girl” as a pretty BROWN girl.  Ironically, in ‘The Flash,’ she is the best friend to the main white guy.  However, she gets to be married to him as well and is treated as the center of his world.  That’s the difference.  It was also refreshing to hear her say that when it comes to equality, pay, harassment, “we can’t fight the fight without our male comrades.  That’s really feminism.”  Lastly, she made the statement she always makes in relation to her character, Felicity Smoak of Arrow, and countless others who get in on the action of the shows, that you don’t have to have powers to be a hero.  Cameron, again, showed how much she agreed with, “Go, Candice!”  Should there be a crossover with ‘Gotham’ in the future?

It was surprising as well as nice to hear Danielle Panabaker say that she would like to hear more about the other characters’ stories on the show, including Iris’ and how Mrs. West-Allen will play a role in Barry’s upcoming, “The Trial of the Flash” arc.  *gasp*

Well, those were all the moments that stood out to me the most.  As an audience member pointed out at the microphone, this event was great to have because we don’t get a lot of love on the east coast unless it’s in New York or Florida.  I’m 8 hrs away from each state.  This was also a way for me to branch out more and get back into writing.  Surprise!  I’m a freelance journalist/editor/blogger with a natural hair website I’ve been on leave from due to some personal issues which left me in a stuck rut.  Being on this platform has opened a whole new world to me, and hopefully, these types of events will continue to inspire me and everyone else to be their own kind of hero.

Oh Boy, What a Week

Disney is a lot like Survivor in the way that "just when you think you know what's going on, you have no idea what's going on." (Shoutout to Sebastian from Survivor: Ghost Island...) A company can campaign all it wants about inspiring young girls to Dream Big, Princess while its men (both in the company and within its fandom) get away with belittling women and girls of all ages. Just this week, it was announced that John Lasseter would step down from his role of Principal Creative Advisor, following allegations of sexual misconduct from numerous women he's worked with. Earlier in the week, newly-minted Star Wars star Kelly Marie Tran disappeared from Instagram following overwhelming harassment from angry male Star Wars fans. As this is a Disney blog that discusses gender-focused issues (especially surrounding females), I feel compelled to discuss these issues as a kind of break from Princess discussion, as Disney Princesses are just one facet of so-called Disney Feminism. What happens in our films is one thing, but we still need to focus on what is happening around us, behind the scenes and off the page.

Monsters, Inc, or, the Scary Stuff Behind Pixar's Closed Doors

Let's begin with Lasseter. John Lasseter is best known as one of the co-founders of Pixar Animation Studios, the studio that brought us Toy Story, Finding Nemo, and Cars. Up until recently, he was Chief Creative Officer at Walt Disney Animation Studios (Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen, Moana) as well as DisneyToon Studios (DuckTales, Planes), as well as Principal Creative Director of Walt Disney Imagineering. So, naturally, we all associate Lasseter with his achievements and creations (as well as his trademark Hawaiian shirts). In late 2017, just days before the theatrical release of Disney-Pixar's Coco, Lasseter came under fire for sexual misconduct towards several female employees. Numerous women came out in protest of Lasseter, claiming the 61-year-old Disney head had repeatedly tried to kiss other female employees on the mouth without their consent, give very lengthy and inappropriate hugs (particularly with the actresses of the Disney Fairies franchise), touch inappropriately (one employee stated he would rub her leg under the table at meetings), and make comments about employees' appearances. This led to an apologetic statement from Lasseter, who subsequently took a six-month sabbatical from Disney, after which he will take on a lesser role before leaving for good this December. As I said, Lasseter is renowned for his art and his leadership, as well as his innovative contributions to the animation medium. Rightfully so. 1995's Toy Story, directed by Lasseter, was the first-ever feature film to be animated completely in 3D animation. Pixar specialized in this medium, but Walt Disney Animation Studios would not give it a shot for itself until 2005's Chicken Little, just before Lasseter took over WDAS. Today, nearly every Disney animated feature since 2010's Tangled has been animated in CGI. Lasseter and Pixar blew the door wide open on CGI animation, which dominates the animation industry today, Disney or otherwise. Add that to the work he's done as a writer or producer on films as early as The Fox and The Hound, through the Disney Renaissance, numerous Studio Ghibli classics, all the way up to the upcoming sequels to Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen, and Toy Story--the film that put his company on the map. These are all great accomplishments, but are they really worth putting over the basic needs of security and safety for women in the workplace? Should we really excuse habitual predators and violators based solely on the fact that they're great artists, actors, athletes, musicians? Perhaps it's best left to an individual basis, as some people are better at separating art from artist. For example, I love Toy Story. It is indeed a revolutionary film, a well-written one, and incredibly memorable. In fact, I love a lot of the work Lasseter has done with Disney, and Disney-Pixar. That said, while I cannot put myself in the shoes of the women he affected, I won't simply forgive him because of how much I loved WALL-E. It doesn't work like that. So then, why are so many supporters of the #MeToo movement quick to initiate boycotts of someone's work after these allegations come out? Great question. It's as simple as cutting off a supply, so to speak. Since the allegations against Lasseter came out just before Coco's release, some had planned to boycott the film in protest of Lasseter (which I don't recommend, because 1. a loooooot of other people worked on that film, and 2. it's the only feature film Disney has produced around Mexican culture that also features Hispanic voice talent). What it says is, "if you hurt or violate other women, we will no longer support you." The accused no longer have that supply. It could be a financial supply, an emotional supply of "but you're still so great though!" or "it's okay because I'll still be up at the Oscars/Golden Globes/Annies this year anyway." That, again, is probably best left to an individual basis, that is, you do what you feel is right. 

For example, T.J. Miller very quickly lost favor with me after he came under fire for numerous actions (including violence, transphobia, and also calling in a fake bomb threat! A piece of work, this one), yet still, I saw Deadpool 2...mostly because Ryan Reynolds and Zazie Beetz. And Yukio. (Hi, Yukio.)

If Disney wants to continue to promise a safe workplace environment for women, then it has to commit to punishing violators within its doors, no matter how high on the food chain they are. Nobody should be "too big to fail." Misogyny: A Star Wars Story

You could argue that Star Wars has declined in quality since Disney's acquisition of Lucasfilm in the early-to-mid 2010s. Perhaps it got too...you know, Disney. Too soft? Maybe. Too predictable? Yeah, sure, I could see that. But the most common scapegoats for this tend to be not Disney, and not Lucasfilm. Not even J.J. Abrams, or Rian Johnson, or Ron Howard.

Nope. It's the women. Earlier in the week, actress Kelly Marie Tran suddenly disappeared from Instagram amid a flurry of hateful comments from angry Star Wars fans. Tran made her Star Wars debut in last year's polarizing eighth installment, Star Wars: The Last Jedi, as Resistance tech Rose Tico. Since the film's release, many have criticized and questioned the need for Rose, as well as Tran's talents as an actress, in addition to her appearance. I know. Surprise. Granted, a lot of post-Disney Star Wars has seen its fair share of criticism, and it's normal to criticize cinema, regardless of how much you like it. However, I have to point out a glaring pattern with some recent Star Wars gripes. A lot of issues, particularly with male Star Wars fans, are with its new streak of female protagonists. Rey. Jyn Erso. Rose Tico. Maz Kanata. Captain Phasma. Qi'ra. Vice Admiral Amilyn Holdo. These are just a portion of the cinematic female characters introduced by Lucasfilm since its acquisition by Disney, many of which have been panned by the saga's male fanbase not only as "useless" or "boring," but also "pandering to women because representation/SJWs/libtards/[insert buzzword here]!" While I think all those characters invite their own well-deserved criticisms. However, simply blaming the new films' failures on the fact that they have female protagonists? Sounds fake, but okay. "Rey is the hero? But Finn was holding the lightsaber in the trailer! WTF is this?" You didn't complain about Poe Dameron essentially being the new Han Solo. "Captain Phasma is a waste of space! She didn't do anything!" Boba Fett though? "Rose stole Finn's heroic moment, what a bitch!" BECAUSE WE'RE NOT FIGHTING THE THINGS WE HATE, WE'RE SAVING THINGS WE LOVE, KEVIN "Jyn Erso is such a flat character, why is it all about women now?" Because maybe, just maybe, it would be awesome for female fans of Star Wars to see other females in Star Wars. Sounds pretty novel if you ask me. This seems to be a long-running problem with Star Wars. In fact, Tran is not the only Star Wars lady bullied off Instagram by overzealous male fans. Only a few years ago, Rey herself, Daisy Ridley, suffered the same fate and still hasn't returned to the website (honestly? Probably for the best). You can't claim that just because Emilia Clarke, Gwendoline Christie, Lupita Nyong'o, and Laura Dern haven't buckled as well, that Tran and Ridley are "sissies" and not oppressed. Believe me, they are (Clarke and Christie probably deal with this crap as Game of Thrones stars as well so they're probably just used to it). "But we didn't harass Carrie Fisher!" You reduced Princess Leia to a metal bikini until Disney intervened and conveniently forgot about it when it came to merchandising.

Again, you can argue that Disney is ruining Star Wars. I might even agree. But it's not because they keep utilizing female protagonists. In fact, Disney's only Star Wars film with a male protagonist, Solo: A Star Wars Story, has been the least profitable of the Disney/Lucasfilm era. That's not to say the male protagonist was to blame, of course. Personally, I think the problem is Star Wars fatigue, that is, Disney oversaturating us with Star Wars to the point where we just can't take it anymore. But yeah, go ahead and blame the women, sure. Clearly it has been an interesting week for female Disney fans. Some good, some bad. But, hakuna matata, I guess. The world still sucks. But remember the Fairy Godmother's words: "Even miracles take a little time." (I don't remember if she actually said this, but there's a lot of cute Tumblr gifs of her saying it, so she must have said it, right?) I'll be swimming back this way soon for The Little Mermaid, so hang tight. I've just got some bigger fish to fry at the moment. Dream Big Princess!

Latest story from https://movietvtechgeeks.com/hollywoods-tiny-dip-lgbt-pool-power-rangers-trini-sulu-lefou/

Hollywood's tiny dip into LGBT pool with 'Power Rangers' Trini, Sulu and LeFou

While many people love saying that Hollywood is so liberal, there are still many topics that make the major studios nervous. Now that a few high-profile studio movies have added gay characters to their mainstream films, they are expecting high praise for being so LGBT-inclusive. You actually see much more of that on television since the 90's, but Hollywood has always been slow in catching up to the trends. So exactly what are the big gay moments? A hug. A wink. A dance. A non-answer. Yup, that's it. From Sulu in "Star Trek Beyond" to LeFou in "Beauty and the Beast" and now Trini in "Power Rangers," the latest Hollywood fascination is the subtle nod that a once straight or undefined character is now or has always been gay. But it's often so subtle that if it wasn't first discussed by filmmakers or actors, it's a wonder whether anyone would notice at all. Sulu can be seen hugging a man. LeFou winks at Gaston and later dances with a man. And Trini fails to answer a flirty question about whether she's having "boyfriend problems"... or "girlfriend problems?" What are we to make of these "blink and you'll miss them" moments in a year when "Moonlight," with its explicit exploration of gay themes, can rise to become the best picture winner at the Academy Awards? Is this progress? For some, it is. For others, it's too much acclaim for too little action. Buzzfeed film critic Alison Willmore wrote an article on Wednesday exploring the "outsized credit" that Hollywood is getting for the recent "seriously small moments of LGBT inclusivity." "While, to be sure, even incremental progress should be celebrated - any forward movement is better than none - this is an incredibly unsatisfactory beat to go on to be widely disseminated as a breakthrough for inclusivity," Willmore wrote of the ambiguous "Power Rangers" moment. Not so ambiguous is how the film industry is lagging in LGBT representation, especially compared with strides that have been made in television. A 2016 report by the University of Southern California found that 82 of the 100 top movies of 2015 did not depict one LGBT speaking or named character. In a study by the gay advocacy group GLAAD of major studio releases in 2015, 17.5 percent contained characters identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender - a percentage that was unchanged from 2014. But even "Beauty and the Beast" director Bill Condon and many of his cast quickly retreated from previous comments about the film's "gay moment," saying the response had been "overblown." Hollywood might not be to blame for the dozens of articles that help to amplify small moments that are also socially significant firsts ("first gay superhero" and "first gay Disney character"). They're eminently clickable and part of the modern business model of internet news, especially as the public, actors and filmmakers weigh in. For GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis, however, the minor moments are "incredibly important," especially in major studio films with significant youth audiences. A film like "Moonlight," she noted, is an adult film that came out from an independent distributor and producer. "LGBT youth have a right to see their happily ever after, too," Ellis said. A recent exhaustive GLAAD study found that 20 percent of millennials identify as LGBT - a statistic she thinks might have contributed to social media movements like the #GiveElsaaGirlfriend and #GiveCaptainAmericaaBoyfriend campaigns. Ellis knows the "moments" are just a first step - she would like to eventually see LGBT protagonists in all-ages films - but for her, it shows that major studios, often too risk averse to change, are making an effort to test the waters. For years, writers, fans and LGBT scholars have enjoyed speculating about which Disney characters were secretly gay - from "The Lion King's" isolated bachelor Scar to the marriage-averse Merida from "Brave." But none have ever been outwardly confirmed as such. It's also noteworthy that all three recent gay-moment examples can be justified as tributes to the unsung gay history behind many of these stories. LGBT activist George Takei originated the character of Sulu. The late lyricist Howard Ashman wrote much of "Beauty and the Beast" while dying of AIDS and passed away before the film even came out. And, in the case of "Power Rangers," the original Blue Ranger David Yost left the series after being harassed for his sexual orientation. "There have been in the past these coded moments threaded through stories that we've seen on the big screen, but no studio has been big enough or bold enough to own those moments," Ellis said. "If you were part of the LGBT community or ultra-observant, you might pick up on it. But having the studio own it and not back down from it was a big move forward for us." From a business perspective, there was speculation that perhaps there could be a downside when reports emerged that a theater in Alabama was not going to show "Beauty and the Beast," and a few predominantly Muslim countries had pulled the film for review because of the gay moment. Then the film opened to a whopping $357.1 million globally. "I don't think it impacted Disney's bottom line one bit," said Paul Dergarabedian, a senior media analyst for comScore. In fact, he said the spotlight on LeFou likely benefited the movie in the end, creating buzz, awareness and a conversation. Ellis has observed that in just a few weeks, the tides have turned significantly. She saw some extremist anti-LGBT sentiments being thrown at "Beauty and the Beast," but now, with "Power Rangers," she's had trouble finding any backlash. It's the perfect scenario to prove their point that "inclusive content wins across the board." Ellis just hopes that studios are taking notice.

Movie TV Tech Geeks News

Okay. I don’t usually like to get into fandom and shipping drama completely unsolicited, but this has just been bothering me and I feel compelled to write my thoughts out.

What’s with the recent phenomena of anti-shippers who are against “problematic” ships?

And I wanna emphasize recent. I’ll get more into that later.

(Also no read more because I feel like my blog’s text is hard to read. D: This is going to be long.)

More specifically, what’s with these anti-shippers who are against ships where one character is 18 or older while the other is still a “minor” (”minor” is in quotes because the definition is different depending on what country you live in)?

These anti-shippers go so far as to call shippers of these ships “pedophile apologists”. Or even harass the crew (writers, directors, actors, etc.) of the show. Y’all are ridiculous.

Psychology Today defines pedophilia as “the fantasy or act of sexual activity with prepubescent children ” The National Center for Biotechnology Information backs up this definition, defining it “as an ongoing sexual attraction toward pre-pubertal children.“

What do these two definitions have in common? Prepubescent. If the “minor” of a ship is a 10-year-old, then yeah I can see why you’d have a problem with that. When the “minor” is a 16-year-old, a character who has gone through puberty, who has their adult body already, it is not the same. And y’all are hating on ships where the “minor” is a teenager who has obviously already gone through puberty.

So long as the “minor” in the ship is post-puberty, I really don’t understand the issue here. For people to call the 18-year-old in the ship a pedo and to call shippers apologists is just... really wrong. Like factually wrong.

“But it’s illegal because age of consent!” you say. Yeah but the age of consent varies from country to country. In the United States, it varies state to state. That’s not a good basis to use.

I could maybe understand the “it’s predatory” argument. But that will vary depending on the context of a show’s plot and the dynamic of its characters.

In real life, where the adult would be college or working age and the “minor” would still be in high school, yeah I can see why people would not be okay with that. If in reality, a 20+ adult who’s in college/working shows interest in a 16-year-old high school student, that would bother me a bit too. I would question the adult’s intentions. What do they have in common with a high schooler to want to date them or be romantic with them?

But reality is not fiction. Not every fictional ship with an 18+ year-old is predatory. In fictional shows, where the characters are professional world-class athletes or flying through outer space fighting aliens, can you really compare it to reality? No, you can’t. The dynamics of the characters involved are way different from real life people.

Now to get to the point that compelled me to even type this.

This is a recent thing too.

I got into anime back in 2013. I had watched a few old/classic anime, but the first new/currently-airing anime I watched that year was Free! One of the first ships I shipped in Free! (and a ship I still do to this day) is SeiGou. If you don’t watch the anime, Seijuro is a 3rd year and Gou is a 1st year when they meet. Seijuro very obviously has an adorable crush on her. They don’t end up together or anything, but I think they’d make a cute couple! And Free! being one of my first anime fandoms, I was happy to see so many people ship SeiGou too. There was a lot of lovely fan art of them, it was wonderful. If people disliked SeiGou, it was only because they shipped either character with someone else, no biggie.

Now why am I mentioning SeiGou? Because they have the exact same age difference as a more recent ship that has a lot of antis. People who think this new ship is wrong because one of the characters is 18 and the other is 15. That ship is Otayuri.

If you don’t watch Yuri on Ice, Otabek is 18 and Yurio is 15. The episode they meet takes place in December. Otabek’s birthday is on Halloween in October. He barely turned 18 less than 2 months prior. Yurio’s birthday is March 1st. He’ll be 16 in less than 3 months. If they went to regular high schools like in typical sports anime, Otabek would be a 3rd year and Yurio would be a 1st year.

Hmmm look at that. Exact same age difference/gap as SeiGou. But for some reason, there are anti-Otayuri shippers. There were never anti-SeiGou shippers.

While we don’t know Seijuro’s birthday, we can safely assume he turned 18 at some point in season 1 since he was a third year in high school. Either way, he is for sure 18 when he returns in season 2 as a college student, where he is still very obviously crushing on Gou. Season 2 aired in 2014. There was not a single word about the ship being inappropriate or problematic because Seijuro is an 18+ year-old legal adult and Gou is still a “minor”. I never saw any “anti”-SeiGou shippers because Sei was 18+.

So this is completely a recent thing. Why is that? Two things about this are baffling me. 

1) Where did this “anti” thing come from? I’m gonna quickly address this one. When did that become a thing? I think the earliest I remember seeing anything tagged as “anti-(ship)” was when the Legend of Korra was on, I could be wrong though. I’ve never seen it before then though. Before, if you disliked a ship, you ignored it. Simple. You maybe called it your “notp” at the most. You didn’t make posts against it tagging it with “anti-(ship)” as if that will prevent it from coming up in the search when people search for (ship). There are some ships I dislike, and I don’t make negative posts about them. I don’t waste my time on them at all. So first of all, screw this whole “anti” thing. If you don’t like a ship or a show, don’t blog about it at all. And let people who do enjoy the thing enjoy it, without having to see your negative posts when they search for the thing.   

2) Where did this sudden “the moment you turn 18 you cannot be shipped with anyone younger” shipping mindset this come from?

Newsflash: You do not automatically become some pedo or child predator the moment you turn 18. It doesn’t work that way.

If an 18-year-old was interested in a pre-pubescent child, yes that would be very concerning.

But an 18-year-old being interested in a 15-year-old who’s in the same school club as them? Not a big deal.

When I turned 18, I was still a senior in high school. I had more in common with my 15/16-year-old sophomore friends than I did with any of my friends who had been in college a year or two.

During my senior year, I probably found a sophomore boy or two in my church youth group to be cute. At midnight on my 18th birthday, those feelings did not change. I still thought those sophomore boys were cute. Why? Because we were in the same age group. Just because I could now legally get a tattoo without my parents’ permission and join the military, any attraction I had towards them did not change, and that did not make me a predator.

To relate this to Otayuri: they have a 2 and a half year age difference. They are still in the same age group. If they were to date, that would not make Otabek a predator. 

Also just because people ship something, that doesn’t mean they want the characters to bang right away. Why do antis assume that shipping something means shipping it sexually?

I ship Otayuri. I like the idea of them talking on Skype late into the night and having cute sightseeing dates when they have competitions in the same city . I don’t want them having wild sex. I want them to have a sweet long-distance relationship. I know a lot of people ship them in this same way.

And I’m sure most people who draw or write NSFW art and fics age-up the characters. I know a lot of people have a problem with this “aging up” but I don’t know why. These characters may be in suspended animation in the show, but time goes on. They’ll age eventually. Even if the official show doesn’t show them aging or show an epilogue, the characters are still going to age. Let people age them up. I can understand why it may make some uncomfortable or uneasy, but I don’t see how that hurts anyone.

Now another, more controversial topic that I might as well include while I’m at it because why the hell not

I’m gonna start off saying now: I haven’t really watched Voltron completely yet. I watched the first two episodes and I’m enjoying it so far. However at the moment I’ve only seen a couple episode, so I do not really know the dynamics of the characters completely yet, so I do not really ship anything. (I have reblogged lots of Voltron shipping posts though, but it’s mostly because I saw some fan art that was well-drawn and I wanted to give the artist a like and reblog.)

That said, I really don’t see the problem with Shiro being shipped with Keith or Lance (or Hunk, though I don’t see that ship much so I’ve never seen hate for it either). The age gap isn’t the big of a difference given the context/plot/setting of the show. Let’s say Shrio is 25. Okay. Keith and Lance have been said to be around 16 or 17, I believe?

I’m gonna repeat what I said above. In real life, a relationship between a 25-year-old and a 16-year-old would make me a little uncomfy. Why? Again, because they have little - if anything - in common. Why would a 25-year-old adult who is either in college or the work force want to date someone who is still in high school? I would question the older person’s intentions. And if that relationship did happen, I would probably be a little weary of it and find it inappropriate. It’s not so much the age gap as it is the timing, because in 2-3 years, these two people could date and most others wouldn’t care.

But guess what? FICTION AND REALITY ARE DIFFERENT. Voltron is fiction. It is not real life.

Again I haven’t watched much of the show yet, but I’m seeing that the basic gist of the plot is that they’re defending outer space and have to defeat the bad aliens, right? Shiro and Keith/or/Lance have a much different dynamic than a real-life 20-something/high schooler would. They’re IN SPACE FIGHTING ALIENS TOGETHER for crying out loud. It’s not real life. Shiro is not a college student. Keith and Lance are not high school students. They’re on equal grounds as defenders of space. It seems like their lives are at stake quite often and they’ve been through a lot. I think it’s safe to say that they have enough in common and have gone through important life-changing moments and character development together that a relationship between Shiro and Keith/or/Lance, despite the age gap, would be okay and healthy.

Even if Shrio is their “leader,” I don’t think it’s much of a power dynamic either. Nothing to be concerned about at least. Especially since there’s so few characters and they seem to go through a lot of things together. (Also Shiro seems like a nice guy who would have no ill-intentions in a relationship.)

One thing about anti-shippers that always bother me is they say that if you ship this “problematic” ship, you would support something similar in real life. Hence the apologists arguments. Um. No? No, that’s not at all the case.

Again I must emphasize that fiction is not reality. Most people have a healthy enough mindset to separate the two.

I love the Hunger Games. Does that mean I condone the murder of children in real life? Of course not. It’s just a book/movie for entertainment purposes. I would be horrified if it was a real-life occurrence (praying that it doesn’t actually become real since we’ve got the equivalent of President Snow now).

Most people who enjoy the Hunger Games or any kind of violent book or movie or show would never condone violence in real life. A good chunk of media is violent. So many graphic movies and video games out there nowadays where you kill people. Doesn’t mean it’s okay in reality. And most people know that it’s just fiction and would never condone it in real life. If they do, they’re gonna be put in jail for it. Violence isn’t “normalized” just because there are so many violent video games and movies that “glorify” it. Violence is still a crime (unless self-defense) and looked-down upon.

I’m gonna end this by saying...

If a ship makes you uncomfortable, that is 100% valid. Maybe when you were a young teen, you were in a relationship with an 18 year old who took advantage of you/the relationship was a bad experience/etc. Maybe you just think it’s icky. A few ships squick me out for various reasons, nothing wrong with that. For whatever reason, if a ship makes you uneasy, that is fine.

What is not fine is you harassing and sending hate to people who do ship those ships. 

What is not fine is you harassing the crew and cast of a show for mentioning/supporting/being okay with those ships. Here’s looking at those of you who harassed that one Voltron voice actor on Twitter a few days ago that I heard about. If you participated in that harassment or support those who did it, you should be ashamed of yourselves. 

What is not fine is you making negative posts and tagging it as “anti (thing).” Freedom of speech, yeah, you can do whatever the hell you want, make all the negative posts you want, I can’t stop you. But it’s childish. Especially the passive aggressive, condescending ones like “friendly reminder that (ship/show) is problematic because (reasons) (emoji).” Also tagging it as “anti (thing)” does nothing. That may prevent it from appearing in the “/tagged/(thing),” but I don’t look at tags, I just use the regular search which is /search(thing).” You putting “anti” in front of the thing doesn’t make it not appear in search. When I search (thing) I’m still going to see your negative “anti” post. Imagine someone trying to have a positive experience, wanting to find new art to reblog, and stumbling across your anti post. That instantly puts me in a bad mood. Stop that crap. If you dislike something, why waste your time and energy making posts against it? I don’t understand. I’m going to have to black list the word “anti” so I don’t see all the negativity when I’m just trying to find cute fan art or a translation of an official interview or something, jeez

You have tools to avoid any ships you dislike. Blacklist, unfollow, and block if you have to. It’s simple.

Top 10 Worst Anti-Sharon Things of 2016

(I feel like it’d be fitting if this is in the format of a WatchMojo video.)

The purpose of this is to show that fandom can be rude, disgusting, and down-right offensive because of a character. The list below the cut refers to things said towards the character and actress through fans and her fellow actors alike. I ranked them based on personal offense, its offensiveness towards its blatant or “subtle” hatred towards certain groups of people, and the all-around laughable content these people come up with. Their rank affects two posts, because the original ones were deleted by their respective posters but still exist on this site. Most of these have links, but two don’t, purely because a trip through most Sharon Carter tags will lead you to them.

If you guys want to add anything on, feel free! I’m there are things I’ve missed that you’re aware of or have personally experienced.

Honorable Mentions:

Every individual shitty post made by antis that I can’t look up because it would take me days to collect. You guys are the real MVPs.

Not one, but at least four active anti-Sharon blogs who have harassed people on this site. We do keep track of them so people can block them and not have to interact with them, because they are known to coming after certain bloggers.

Target Sharon Carter Appreciation Day, which was set up so fans can have one day a month, outside of SCAM, to not have hate in the Sharon Carter tags.

Numerous insinuations that Sharon was at her great-aunt’s funeral to hook up with Cap, instead of mourning and giving a eulogy at the funeral of her great-aunt who she admired, who influenced her decision to join SHIELD and even bought Sharon her first thigh holster when Sharon’s mother didn’t support her choice. Also, insinuating that Steve’s sadness somehow means more than Sharon’s when she knew Peggy way longer and way deeper than he ever would.

Now let’s begin:

10)  Calling the friendship between Sharon and Sam racist without any reason or proof.

9)  Hate and death threats being sent to Sharon fans and cosplayers. (Not naming names, because it’s not my place to. However, I’ll link my experience as cosplaying Sharon at a fan-heavy convention as an example.)

8)  This bullshit. (I would like to note that OP has since deleted the post on their own blog, but as we can see it still exists. But it did have a great response from another blog.)

7)  Wanting to start a petition to remove Sharon Carter/Emily VanCamp from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. (I don’t remember if it became a real thing, nor do I want to go searching for it.)

6)  That #givecaptainamericaaboyfriend movement, which is one of the most biphobic, racist, and misogynistic mainstream fandom things I’ve seen, as it purposefully excluded Sharon and Sam, attacked both, insinuates that two male friends can’t go out on a limb for each other without being romantic, insinuates that Steve can’t be bi because him kissing girls (read: only Sharon) makes him straight, and was essentially just propping one ship while taking away the meaning from the original #giveelsaagirlfriend movement. Even the creator of that hashtag admitted it was to promote Steve and Bucky, and it spawned into #givecaptainamericaabucky because it wasn’t obvious enough before.

5) Saying Staron is worst than Harley/Joker, a well-known and extremely abusive ship.

4) Comparing Staron to the Holocaust, because two people kissing is exactly like a genocide that kills 11 million people and continued the decimation of two cultures. (I would like to note that OP has since deleted the post on their own blog, but as we can see it still exists. They have also “apologized”.) To match this from #6, people saying “Marvel would make Steve a Nazi before gay” in response to HYDRA!Cap, when the two are not related.

3) Evans’ calling the kiss “icky” and not being as supportive of VanCamp, whereas costars RDJ, Mackie, Olsen (who was also getting shit from interviewers insinuating her and VanCamp couldn’t handle swearing because there were men present on set during filming), and Cheadle have all been supportive and friendly throughout the press tour. Considering that many tweets targeted at VanCamp when the kiss was revealed had some tagging Evans, him not knowing that VanCamp was going through hell isn’t convincing, especially when she constantly discussed this in her interviews. (Evans also has been rude to other female costars, such as his blatant staring down Olsen’s dress with that being treated as a joke and calling longtime-friend Johansson’s character a “slut” and other equally and worse offensive terms with Renner during the Avengers 2 press tour.)

2) Hate and death threats being sent to Emily VanCamp after the kiss was announced. Only Emily VanCamp has been talking about this. No costar, director, writer, producer, or news/entertainment outlet has discussed this. She was the one to bring them up when interviewers asked about the relationship between her and Steve.

And finally:

1) Atwell proudly bashing Sharon/Staron, and the fans’ constant encouragement of this behavior AND fans saying that because Atwell says this, then no one else should like the character or ship, while ignoring that Atwell has also called out Steve because they don’t care about that part, claiming it’s incestuous when it’s not (the screenwriters of the Cap movies have very clearly stated before she said anything), and that Hayley herself said she wanted to play Sharon by putting on a blonde wig. (Her show not getting renewed for a third season is not an excuse for this either, as people had tried saying, “Well, she’s doing this because she died in the movies and her show was cancelled.” She’s an adult. She got another show with ABC as the lead. Her behavior is unprofessional and, considering that both Steve and Peggy had moved on, him at her request might I add, uncalled for.) How can you defend someone saying that her fellow actress doesn’t deserve/shouldn’t get more screen time because she did the job she was hired for? Note that fans very much praised her and very few people called her out compared to Chris Evans. (Please note that there are, in total, 8 links for #1.)