One of the movie/TV reaction channels I've been watching is making their way through The West Wing and, as we've gotten further into the fourth season, the reactors are starting to realize that Josh and Donna are probably going to be a Thing. I'll leave aside the fact that they're a bit late to the party (Joey Lucas is shipping them way back in season 2) and focus on what they (and a few frequent commenters) have said more than once -- that they can't see the romance because they've only ever seen Josh and Donna's relationship as akin to that of an elder brother and younger sister. Commenters who likewise "can't see it" -- despite having seen the whole show multiple times and knowing that it definitely Goes There eventually -- say the same.

I remember some similar arguments from back in Ye Olde Shippe Debayte days in the Potter fandom, and it occurred to me how extremely useless I find the phrase "like brother and sister" or "like incest" when it's used about characters who are not actually related to one another. I think if you could scour through the (now tragically disappeared) forums on which I used to debate, or even my old LJ posts, I'll bet I never used "they're like siblings" as an argument against Harry/Hermione. I seem to recall a lot of talk about Hermione "mothering" Harry, but that was never (to my recollection) used as an argument against them getting together either (just that the mothering itself was not romantic, which the H/Hers that we used to debate found difficult to grasp).

Josh and Donna isn't quite the same as Harry and Hermione (I mean, they're obviously not, because Josh/Donna eventually became canon *taps GLOAT button*). Because while there was nothing in the way of Harry and Hermione getting together -- except a simple lack of attraction from either side, which there was nothing wrong with -- there *is* an obstacle to Josh and Donna being together in that way. He's her boss and it would be inappropriate. It's significant enough of a no-go to Josh that it's the only answer he gives Amy Gardner when she asks if he's dating his assistant. And once that obstacle no longer exists, there's another one to take its place -- their working on opposing presidential campaigns and the complicated new politics (if you'll forgive the pun) of their relationship. There's no squick there, ever, and anyone who has only ever seen a sibling-like relationship between them (even before their celebratory kiss in "The Cold") is just not paying attention.

Just like with Ron and Hermione (who I recall H/Hers definitely compared to siblings), there are obviously behaviors with Josh and Donna that resemble how siblings or other family act with one another, but there are also definitely behaviors that are incompatible with a merely familial relationship. (See also Emma Woodhouse and George Knightley.) Hermione getting disproportionately upset that Ron is only interested in asking good-looking girls to the Yule Ball. Ron's jealousy of Viktor Krum -- even after Krum has left the country. Josh staring at Donna from the Mess as she walks back to her desk, only looking back at the Congressman he's meeting with when she's fully out of sight (season 2's "The Portland Trip"). "If you were in an accident, I wouldn't stop for red lights" -- that might be *true* for a sibling, but it seems a rather intense way to put it. Heck, even Colin (Jason Isaacs) in season 6 can sense he's third-wheeling it and comments insightfully on Josh's dramatic transatlantic dash to Donna's side.

I also find it amusing that, once Harry starts to feel things for Ginny in Book 6, he tries to convince himself that his anger at Dean Thomas is purely elder brotherly protectiveness. Like with Knightley, familial concern is an excellent cover for romantic jealousy. The reader, of course, knows better, and it's why, when he tells Ron in Book 7 that his feelings for Hermione are like a brother for a sister, we believe him (provided we're not smoking crax) because we've seen their interactions and even been inside Harry's head and his respective responses to Hermione and Ginny are clearly distinct from one another.

I just feel like, when people say a man and a woman (or boy and girl) are "like brother and sister," it really just means that person really doesn't want those characters to be romantic and can't find another argument to use against it.

In any case, there are surely countless romantic couples in real life who started out as platonic friends or "like brother and sister." If they were really brother and sister, that would never change. But feelings and relationships do change. People grow and change. And for non-siblings, including fictional ones, being sibling-like can change as well, especially as it's not an actual obstacle in the first place.

Icon chosen for Tartt & K*nt.

This show keeps topping itself and I don't know how. Also a mystery to me, how anyone can still say after this episode that this season is garbage. *shrugs* Must be watching an entirely different show than I am.

( Well, boss, I'm like an incomplete list of Madeline Kahn's best films. I ain't got no Clue.Collapse )

With three episodes left, it seems a bit late to chew over this, but here goes.



I started watching Ted Lasso between the first two seasons. I fell for it very early in the first episode, when Ted and Coach Beard are on the plane to London and Ted -- just before turning around to take a nap -- tells his friend "Hey, if we run into each other in our dreams, let's play it cool, pretend like we don't know each other." I don't know why but it struck me as the perfect introduction of two friends with a long history and I instantly wanted to hang out with them forever.

I also fell hard for Roy/Keeley and wanted to see them together from basically the first time they had a scene together. And I've loved getting to know all of these characters -- even ones you think are background characters in the beginning -- and watching them grow.

So here we are near the end. I mentioned on Facebook that I'll be in London the day the finale goes online and I'll probably watch it at the hotel before I leave for the airport to fly home. That's going to be an emotional day. So while I have the chance, I wanted to write some stuff about what's currently happening on the show and in the fandom (well, the part of fandom that's on the #TedLasso tag on Twitter) on what is one of the only forums still around where one can adequately discuss stuff like this.


( Don't fight back. Fight forward.Collapse )

Ann: How did your show go?
Henry: I killed them. And your gig?
Ann: I saved them.

This movie is not easy to talk about without spoiling things that would be much better experienced in the theater (or, in a couple of weeks, streaming) unspoiled, but I’ll do my best. I’ve only seen one other film of the director, Leos Carax — his 2012 film HOLY MOTORS, which I loved (it was on my Best of 2012 list) but which was also strange and hard to describe, like ANNETTE. He has a wonderful sense of the absurd and unreal that I found really compelling to watch, and his lead actor in that film (Denis Levant) was really good at grounding material that, in other hands, could have been truly ridiculous and unwatchable.

ANNETTE is playing with a lot of ideas, perhaps chief among them the notion of fame and how it can corrupt and consume. It is partially a love story, but not entirely, and this love story is not a “feel good” one. It is also a musical (or, perhaps more accurately, a rock opera), with music and lyrics by Ron and Russell Mael of my beloved Sparks (who also have a story credit and are having quite the moment this summer, with this movie and Edgar Wright’s documentary about them, THE SPARKS BROTHERS). But it’s not a song-song-song musical. A lot of the music is sung dialogue — a bit like THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG, though unlike that movie, not *all* of the dialogue is sung.

The movie starts rather charmingly with the opening number “So May We Start” (with what seems to be a clever play on “mais oui, mais oui, now start”), starting in a recording studio and transitioning into a rather breathtaking one-take tracking shot (reminiscent of the accordion scene in HOLY MOTORS). This is a very self-aware “you are about to watch a piece of fiction” introduction to the film, and it features Sparks, Leos Carax, stars Adam Driver, Marion Cotillard and Simon Helberg, and several others, seemingly as themselves just getting pumped to have a good time and entertain you. And then we segue into the story.

Adam Driver plays Henry, a provocative insult comic. Marion Cotillard plays Ann, an opera soprano. Both of them are on the rise in their respective careers, and they are in a relationship that has captured the public’s and the media’s attention, Despite being apparent opposites, they are very much in love, but from the very beginning you can sense something ominous. Early on, they sing the obviously titled “We Love Each Other So Much,” a love song that sounds a lot like a funeral dirge and that culminates in a frankly sexual moment that was much giggled over when the movie screened at Cannes a few weeks ago. They soon marry and have a child, who they name Annette, and eventually we learn that Annette has a special talent. And that’s where I’ll stop because part of the magic of this movie is the unexpected places it takes you and the unexpected tools it uses to tell its story.

Like many of Carax’s previous films, ANNETTE explores reality and artifice, and in many ways (and I swear I don't mean this the way it's going to sound) it resembles Shakespeare. It revels in its own artifice — the opening number resembles a chorus introducing the drama to come, or Puck addressing the audience in A Midsummer Night’s Dream — and it’s built like many of Shakespeare’s tragedies — everything comes to a head in Act III and progressively deteriorates from there to the tragic but inevitable end. There are many moments that are deliberately made to look fabricated, and I imagine some people will dismiss the movie entirely for this, not reasoning that these are conscious choices by the filmmaker meant to evoke a particular idea or feeling. This is one of the reasons to go into the movie as fresh as possible and not be put off by some particular detail or other that you may have heard out of context. This movie is an experience and one that wants you to think about it and talk about it, not just idly enjoy it as popcorn entertainment (nothing against popcorn entertainment, which I also dearly love, but this is quite a different endeavor).

All of the cast is great in this. Adam Driver in particular gives what may be his best performance to date. He and Marion Cotillard boldly sell these roles and take the absurd elements of the film (including one element that is especially absurd — you’ll know it when you see it) and ground them in reality. And if you've only ever seen Simon Helberg in The Big Bang Theory, he's a revelation here. The music is wonderful and is a great match for the tone of the movie. There are only a handful of songs that can exist on their own as songs; the rest of them are brief moments in the film and depend on the context of the film to feel complete (not a criticism at all). The movie is also gorgeous to look at, with some stunning visuals and interesting effects, as well as copious use of the color green.

The movie is in a few theaters now, and I would advocate seeing it that way if you can, and if you feel safe doing so -- it's a great film for immersing yourself. If not, it will be streaming on Amazon starting August 20 (for goodness sake, watch it on your big TV and not your phone). Oh, and stay for the credits.

If you’d like a taste of the movie before diving in, here’s a two-minute clip with the part of the opening number (the way Russell Mael dramatically turns to direct our attention to Driver and Cotillard coming down a staircase fills me with such joy, I can’t explain it), and about halfway through the clip it begins to show brief not-too-spoilery moments from the rest of the film (including a tease of Adam Driver’s bewtocks, if you’re into that kind of thing).

I'm dying to talk about this movie, but most social media isn't compatible with spoiler talk because there aren't cut tags. So LJ it is, and I'm just going to type for a bit, so when I link this on Facebook the preview doesn't cut into the spoilers below. So here we go...

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

( Cut for SPOILERSCollapse )

I have seen more versions of this play than probably any other Shakespeare play except Hamlet. I am very familiar with the story and the dialogue (I usually reread a Shakespeare play before I see it, but I didn't feel the need to with this one). I love the pure confection and Italian countryside porn of the 90s Branagh version. I loved the lo-fi homemade version of Whedon's take (and the especially remarkable performance of Amy Acker). I enjoyed the SITP production a few years ago with Lily Rabe and Hamish Linklater (the one where I sat in front of Alan Rickman). I loved the Utah Shakespeare Festival production (of *several* years ago now), though I was "meh" on their Beatrice. I love this play, despite all the issues a modern lens brings to it (ugh, Claudio amirite?).

All that to say that last night I saw my absolute favorite production of this play. Period. The Public Theater made history this year by having its first ever all-black cast at the Delacorte Theater. I didn't know most of the actors beforehand, but I knew Danielle Brooks played someone called "Taystee" in Orange Is the New Black (which I've never seen). She apparently turned down other projects to do this because, as a black actress of a particular size, she never gets to do roles like this.

I'm going to spoil the heck of this because this production only runs for a couple more weeks and I suspect none of you will get a chance to see this. I'll obviously be spoiling the play, and if you have somehow missed the bajillion productions of this text, then that's on you.

( Read more...Collapse )

First, and most generally, believe the hype. It is phenomenal, truly. Even if you have read the playscript (of which there are two versions now available, the rehearsal version and the final version), you are still going to have your face rocked off. I am very curious to see what happens with the Tony nominations next week (HPCC *just* got in before the eligibility deadline). It's not exactly Eugene O'Neill or anything, but it's such an immersive, breathtaking experience, and I absolutely see what JKR meant when she said it could only have been done as a play. Just reading it doesn't compare. And a movie version, where everything is CGI, wouldn't have been nearly as impressive.

( The best bits of you are -- have always been -- heroic in really quiet ways.Collapse )

I want to squee so hard about specifics, but I'd better not. :P (I will, however, happily answer any question I can, for those who are curious.)

I had seriously planned to do a vlog this year instead of a long breathless post, and I took a bunch of video, but my taciturn nature led me to shoot a lot more things and places than people (not wanting to bother people, natch -- #shypeopleproblems) so while I do have more pictures than usual, I wasn't quite ready for a vlog. Maybe next year.

Also, for the first time in my BNAT-going history, I brought my phone into the room (for picture-taking only), but I think I only ended up with one picture over the whole 25.5 hours. Again, next year. Baby steps. :P

( Read more...Collapse )

Thanks to Harry for letting me be part of this movie lovefest again. Thanks to David for giving me a place to crash. Thanks to the Drafthouse and Kristen Bell for making it all happen. And thanks to all my fellow BNAT-ers for the hugs and the discussions and the squees and OMG WE'RE GOING TO BE IN STAR WARS YOU GUYS!