film noire
-
Posts
5.0k -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by film noire
-
-
5 hours ago, Adgirl said:
However Shiv is the one who thought herself superior, smarter, in on the joke, but in reality, she's not as clever as she thinks she is--as Holly Hunter pointed out.
Yes. And in the end, she's the wife waiting in the car; a wife looking for a way to make herself fit. What a brutal ending for Shiv, who always thought she mattered.
-
16
-
1
-
-
On 5/2/2023 at 2:10 PM, weaver said:
Folks, for a fee you can now ask Bethenny anything!
I got a million questions! Here's two:
How is Jason and Brynn's relationship these days? And when was their last father-daughter outing?
-
9
-
4
-
-
Couple of weeks ago, Skinny Girl graced us with yet another one of her mighty insights - this time re: eating disorders (while clutching a prop ice cream carton as an accessory). In Bethenny Frankel's world, only tweenagers are susceptible to pressure to have "perfect" bodies, not middle-aged women;
"Bethenny Frankel doesn’t believe Gwyneth Paltrow can promote disordered eating with a “middle-aged mom” audience. “When people are talking about eating disorders … her base isn’t tweens,” Frankel, 52, said while holding a carton of ice cream she promised to eat “soon.”
https://pagesix.com/2023/03/17/bethenny-frankel-denies-gwyneth-paltrow-promotes-disordered-eating/
She's obviously kissing Paltrow's ass (in hopes of getting her on the podcast, probably) but what a fucking stupid thing to say - esp. since she claimed, back in the day, to have had food issues herself (while insisting that's over, and she "never diets or exercises to lose weight" now. Sure, Jan).
-
7
-
2
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, proserpina65 said:
There are tons of potential contestants who never get on the show and yet they're wasting 3 weeks on some teen tournament contestants who are completely unmemorable and have done nothing to merit being brought back.
Amen! I'm beyond bummed it's going on this long. (I made an extremely childish and very snotty noise when I saw the schedule - I'm showing way less maturity than these contestants did as teenagers, back in the day ; )
-
3
-
7
-
-
6 hours ago, Melonie77 said:
The chicken story is not insignificantMeghan was prepping and roasting a chicken while Harry was setting up the candles and blanket outdoors...not sure what the Big Hoax is here.
QuoteAnd you did not mention anything about the timeline of the dog's broken legs.
All due respect, but you're trusting that the tabs (and all subsequent media quoting the tabs) are the Word of God; trusting that Guy wasn't injured earlier in November, weeks before the engagement was announced (as opposed to when the tabs - confusingly - reported the accident as "believed to have happened" in late December or early December or maybe mid-December or maybe November 28th, the day after the palace announced the engagment). There's no actual confirmation from anybody in the know - Markle, Harry or a named rep of either of them ("Meghan Markle's press secretary, X, told The Daily Mail the dog was injured this way on this day") so as usual with the Sussexes, it's smoke and mirrors and "insider sources" giving rise to diabolical conspiracies and rumours of faked photos in the Netflix series. (The same tabs have reported the most egregious and vicious things about Charles, Camilla, Kate and William - I guess we need to take those stories as gospel as well.)
While we're on the topic of press trustworthiness; Jeremy Clarkson's column about Meghan has the honour of becoming the most complained-about article in the history of IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation). At 25, 100 complaints, Clarkson is a winner, baby! Sombeody give the man a fiction BAFTA (Barf Activating Fecal Transmitting Asshole award).
-
2
-
3
-
3
-
-
On 2/21/2023 at 2:56 AM, Melonie77 said:
They are a mark of distinction for companies that are approved by and have served the royal family. The practice has been around for centuries and does not benefit the royal family - only the tradesmen.
I'm aware the Warrants don't provide a financial benefit to the royals* but they show the royals are more than happy to confer their status on commercial ventures.
*with the exception of Duchy Organic which is partnered with Waitrose, which has a Royal Warrant - too close to home, imo.
QuoteI think this couple is dangerous and they make me nervous for reasons I won't be able to explain here.
I find nothing dangerous about Harry or Meghan - just a couple of people very much in love, with two children they adore - what I do find dangerous are the lengths the tabs went to in order to incite sexist/racist/blind hated against them based on rumours, innnuendo, and outright lies. That is absolutely terrifying.
-
9
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 2/16/2023 at 10:33 PM, Melonie77 said:
It was all down to the Sussexes wanting to earn money by branding themselves as royals. This is something that is not allowed as a working royal.
There was historic leg room for Meghan and Harry to make money if the Firm had been genuinely willing. I think that was actually a large part re: why the Queen was kept from seeing Harry after she had invited Harry and Meghan to see her (and stay overnight, iirc, from this episode) at Sandringham.
Elizabeth would have seen a way forward, since she'd been down the same road before - Princess Anne makes money breeding and selling horses, and Charles owns Duchy Originals, the largest organic food/drink company in the UK, with products in over 30 countries (and Waitrose makes no attempt to hide the royal nature of the products). Charles donates profits to charity (and has followed through, unlike Sarah Ferguson, who kept the money she made from her Budgie books, first one published in '89 when she was a full time royal). And then there are the "Royal Warrants" which enable companies (like Aston Martin, Boots pharmacy, Bacardi, etc) to advertise they supply the royal family & have the right to show the royal arms, a boost in the marketplace to companies so favoured.
All to say, royals are not adverse to using their royal status related to comercial ventures or to make money (and with the blessing of the Queen) so a place could have been found for Harry and Meghan within the same parameters - write books for kids (and donate some of the profits to charity). Start a do-good company like Duchy. Partner with a retailer to sell products helpful to veterans, with an Invictus Games connection. Create STEM toys for kids in underserved schools. With Charles selling beer and boxed wine, I'm sure there were dozens of tasteful options that would have provided Harry and Mehan with a way to support themselves in keeping with already-in-place royal standards.
Bottom line, the Firm wanted them gone and Harry knew that the minute his emails to Charles were leaked, only days after he'd sent them to his father.
Quote@PepSinger it was the toxic British media and the trolls they created that wanted to do her harm.
The moment in the episode where Meghan describes her fear is so awful:
"You are making people want to kill me. It's not just a tabloid. It's not just some story. You are making me scared....Are we safe? Are the doors locked? Is security on? Are my babies safe? And you've created it for what? Because you're bored, or it sells your papers? Or it makes you feel better about your own life? It's real what you're doing."
-
8
-
-
Clarkson investigated by a press watchdog agency:
"The U.K. press watchdog has launched an investigation into a British tabloid column by former Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson that attracted around 25,100 complaints....“We will make public the outcome of this investigation through our website and on our social media channels when it is concluded,” the press watchdog said in a statement.
Not sure what happens if they find against Clarkson, I'm just glad this disgusting asshole is still in the news for the vicious crap he wrote. Anything that keeps heaping shame on his repulsive head is a win, imo.
-
6
-
1
-
-
On 2/2/2023 at 11:12 PM, laredhead said:
I'm sorry that Patty didn't win today, but she certain amassed a lot of money in just 2 days. I wanted her to hang around for a couple of more days.
Me, too. She was a delight.
But if Patty had to go, at least she was beaten by somebody with an accent suitable to Pemberley ; )
-
5
-
-
That was such a fun win. A personable contestant + she (almost) bet it all, baby! +unexpected win = me and mr film noire spontaneously applauding.
Go, Patti, Go!
-
9
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Scout Finch said:
"Cabbage"? WTF? 👎🏼
Begs the quesiton - what the hell was her nickame for him? ; )
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Scout Finch said:
I also think it was in really poor taste for them to use Prince Phillip's very personal nickname for the Queen, 'Lilibet,' as their daughter's name, especially so soon after Phillip's death.
The name 'Lilibet' had nothing to do with Philip - Elizabeth called herself 'Lilibet' when she was a toddler because she had difficulty pronouncing her full name. (Probably why the Queen happily gave permission to Harry and Meghan to use the name - bet it made Elizabeth smile imagining her own great-grandaugther saying "Lilibet", as she herself once did.)
Philip's nickname for Elizabeth was (supposedly) "Cabbage".
Yikes.
-
6
-
2
-
-
The media, once again, proving Meghan and Harry right - Ndileka Mandela has denounced "The Australian" for misquoting her:
"...Weeks after Nelson Mandela’s granddaughter was quoted as saying Prince Harry and Meghan Markle were “using” his legacy for profit in their new Netflix documentary series, Ndileka Mandela insisted Saturday she had been misquoted.
...In an essay published in The Independent, Mandela said she never claimed Harry and Meghan were “‘profiteering’ from my grandfather’s name,” and the people who actually did this were the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s “critics, who falsely exploited my grandfather’s name to attack them.”
Mandela said she is “mortified” to see how her comments to the Australian—a large Rupert Murdoch-controlled paper—about “my genuine concerns about the commercial exploitation of my grandfather’s legacy” were twisted, and how they were “misused to attack a woman of colour who was, effectively, hounded out of the British royal family.”
....“I greatly admire Prince Harry and Meghan Markle for their courageous commitment to defending those less privileged than them – vulnerable people, women, and people of colour,” Madela wrote.
Murdoch's media empire cannot topple soon enough, imo - the man lives and breathes toxic waste.
-
6
-
3
-
1
-
-
Interesting article in Vanity Fair, about the director, Liz Garbus:
"...Feedback in the UK was especially vitriolic—with the series dubbed “a very Californian exercise in grievance,” a “tedious, narcissistic wallow,” and “a one-sided PR effort.” To those naysayers, Garbus offers a pointed response.
“People are very happy to read everything about Harry and Meghan when it’s somebody else writing about them,” says the filmmaker. “But when Harry and Meghan want to tell their story in their own words, it suddenly becomes an issue... There have been more documentaries and books written about Harry and Meghan than Harry and Meghan have produced themselves. So I think it’s an interesting kind of pearl-clutching that doesn’t quite add up with the public’s appetite for reading stuff about them from other people.”
...Though she wasn’t a royal watcher, Garbus says making the documentary was, at times, a surreal immersion exercise into the alleged palace mind games Harry and Meghan described to her. “For instance, Buckingham Palace said that we didn’t reach out for comment [on the docuseries] when we did,” says Garbus. “They did that to discredit us and by discrediting us, they can discredit the content of the show."
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/01/liz-garbus-netflix-harry-and-meghan
-
6
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, CountryGirl said:
That the media took the extra step of criticizing one woman (Meghan) while praising another (Kate) is an extra layer of misogyny.
Amen. Hate-mongers, all of them.
On 12/19/2022 at 3:02 AM, Proclone said:And quite frankly I feel like implying that things like the avocado thing had merit is completely missing the point of the series.
The avocado headline is such a slam-dunk re: different treatment, imo. The British media (including The Evening Standard) released a report about the negative carbon footprint of avocados back in 2017, the same year Kate was given a charming headline about eating avocado - not a hint anywhere about Kate eating something connected to "human rights abuse, drought and Millennial shame" - and just last year, the Express described Kate's favourite lunchtime recipe (watermleon salad with avocado) as healthy and delicious. Not a single bite came with a warning of earth-murder:
These shameless assholes are still absolutely brazen about their media double standard - Kate enjoys a healthy Haas, but Meghan chowed down on Killer Avocados! - the British press coverage has been beyond frustrating to watch over the years, and it was a relief to see it included in the episode.
-
6
-
-
2 hours ago, BloomsburyRez said:
Yes the two photos were what I was talking about the one at the award show and the other looks like she’s at a cafe?
Not sure which cafe photo you find odd, as both look standard issue to me - two hands, one above the other, on the baby bump.
QuoteIf one of the York princesses or Catherine had done something odd they’d get called out too
I remember seeing pics of Beatrice at Wimbledon touching her baby bump in several ways, but nobody in the press felt the need to label and deconstruct each gesture as they did with Meghan:
Mileage varies, but I see Meghan's pregnancy treated in very different ways than Kate's, the Yorks, etc.
-
8
-
-
On 12/18/2022 at 7:49 PM, BloomsburyRez said:
Bump - the bump mocking wasn’t the random one hand resting on the bump that every pregnant woman has done
The story actually did use photos of Meghan with one or two hands casually resting on her belly, and among 18 photos, only one was what I think you were describing ( "odd double arm wrap bump with both arms circling").
And I think the headline is pretty dehumanizing ("Why can't Meghan keep her hands off her baby bump? Experts tackle the question that has got the nation talking: is it pride, vanity, acting - or a new age bonding technique?") As if touching her baby bump constituted a behaviour so bizarre, it needed inquiry from experts to puzzle it out, experts choosing from options that were either disreputable or fringy. Just an accident that not a single option in that headline is "normal" maternal nurturing/tenderness (as Kate was praised for "tenderly cradling her baby bump.") An expectant mother placing her hands on her belly is an iconic image, one literally going back to cave paintings, an action considered normal and maternal and wonderful when Kate did it, but when Meghan touched her belly, experts needed to weigh in on the cray-cray. Why is that? What was so different about Meghan's interrogated cradling versus Kate's much-praised cradling? Hmm. I can almost put my finger on it...
Photos here:
-
8
-
2
-
-
Jeremy Clarkson has (a month later) finally apologized for the column he wrote about Meghan Markle. He says he was quite shocked rereading his own words in print (for anyone who missed it the first time: "At night, I am unable to sleep, dreaming of the day Meghan is made to parade naked through the streets of every town in Britain, while the crowds chant ‘Shame!’ and throw lumps of excrement at her.") As it turns out, karma is instead throwing shit all over Jeremy. Amazon is dropping him:
https://variety.com/2023/tv/global/jeremy-clarkson-amazon-grand-tour-canceled-1235490701/
In keeping with a certain kind of ratfuck misogynist, Clarkson addressed the apology only to Harry (Meghan being Harry's possession and all). In a book interview he did last week, Harry described the column as “horrific, and is hurtful and cruel towards my wife, but it also encourages other people around the UK and around the world, men particularly, to go and think that it’s acceptable to treat women that way” which I found insightful (and remarkably restrained).
One of the most disturbing things in Clarkson's column was overshadowed by his Mr. Sandman dreams of throwing shit at the Duchess of Sussex; he said he hated Meghan Markle more than Rose West, an infamous British serial killer who, alongside her dear husband, spent twenty years committing crimes so heinous, the jurors at the trial were offered psychiatric care at the end of the trial. Rape, torture, dismemberment, murder (including Rose killing her stepdaughter and daughter, after sexually abusing her daughter for years). That's Clarkson's moral code: Meghan Markle, a young wife and mother with a record of volunteer work going back decades, incites more incendiary hate in him than a woman who raped and murdered young women, their last moments the stuff of nightmares.
-
7
-
1
-
5
-
2
-
-
On 12/25/2022 at 3:46 AM, Roseanna said:
While there is of course nothing wrong to have divorced parents in itself, I doubt that many can relate with Meghan's dysfunctional family
The royals can certainly relate to dysfunctional behaviour - financial scandals (including the current monarch) divorce (including the current monarch) public & adulterous affairs (including the current monarch) alcoholism, sex crimes, racist incidents, and love of the Third Reich. Compared to all that, Meghan's family looks like The Brady Bunch ; )
This episode convinced me that (minus a major shift in priorities and self awareness) the monarchy is in profound trouble, and likely dying. The royals had a talented WOC not only willing to be a member of their famously fucked-up famiy, but also willing to work like the proverbial dog (dazzling crowds as she did so). And what did they do with all that talent - use it wisely? Thank the gods they were given the brass ring of modern relevancy? Nope. They just pulled another Diana: degrading and diminishing a gifted young woman, with the added delight of racism being allowed to run unchecked. So very stupid and shameful on their part.
But (thank god) unlike Diana, Meghan had a husband by her side who loved and cherished her, a man who refused to make his wife endure what his mother had suffered. Bravo to the ginger for keeping faith (bravo to them both). I hope they live well. They've earned it.
-
15
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, PepSinger said:
I don’t think that was point being made. The point was that someone said Meghan never showed any interest in Asia, Africa, or any of the Commonwealth countries prior to being with Harry, and that is simply not true.
Yes, that was exactly my point - before Harry entered her life, Markle had already shown interest and "on the ground" commitment to the culture/issues in non-American nations.
-
4
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
6 hours ago, shang yiet said:So I disagree with that expert who was so sure M would have been such as asset for the Commonwealth. She never lived in Asia, Africa or the Caribbean or showed any interest in the culture and people there. How would she have been an asset?
Pretty sure Meghan Markle's volunteer work is a large part of the reason she was seen as a valuable asset to the crown:
"...Markle also served the United Nations (UN) as the Women’s Advocate for Women’s Political Participation and Leadership, visiting refugee camps and meeting with women around the world who are also making positive changes in their communities."
"...In 2016, Markle became a Global Ambassador for World Vision. The campaigns she has promoted help provide clean water to those in need and bring greater awareness to the lack of education that young girls around the globe can access. She visited India and saw firsthand how the stigmas associated with menstrual cycles prevent many girls from continuing their education and even working. While in India, Markle was introduced to the Myna Mahila Foundation, an organization that empowers women by encouraging the discussion of taboo subjects, such as menstruation, and by setting up workshops to produce low-cost sanitary protection to enable girls to stay in school."
https://professionalwomanmag.com/2018/09/meghan-markle-making-activism-top-priority/
Markle also volunteered regularly throughout her seven years in Toronto, at the St. Felix Centre ( in their community meals program). To me, the ugliest fall-out from all the media Meg-hate is that the real woman has been erased - the woman who had a rich full life long before she met Harry, the woman who volunteered, who built a successful career in a deeply misogynistic industry, who had friends and a sweet rescue dog and a popular blog and a mother she adored - all of that has been erased by a perverse & often racist media (plus the feeding frenzy trolls Bot Sentinel hunted down). What a wasted opportunity. As a Canadian (and a white woman) I have no doubt Markle would have been a wonderful asset to the crown.
-
22
-
1
-
5
-
5 hours ago, PeterPirate said:
Samantha Markle also gave an interview on the YouTube channel Nate The Lawyer. I'm not taking sides on this issue (yet), but Nate is one of my favorite YouTubers because of his just-the-facts objectivity.
Agree to disagree re: seeing Nate the Lawyer as trustworthy - not a fan of his "defamation" lawsuit against Christopher Bouzy (or Nate using the lawsuit as an excuse to raise cash from his you tube followers). And, more damagingly, Nate admitted (on camera) that he engaged in dirty tricks when he was a cop (and laughed about it, instead of apologizing).
3 hours ago, Brn2bwild said:Supposedly Christopher Bouzy found that a lot of them are bots.
Yes - Bot Sentinel (his data analytics service) also deconstructed the targerted anti-Meghan hate campaign (and it being a cash cow) on you tube - he was in the trailer, so presumably, he'll turn up to discuss all that in the series.
-
6
-
-
1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:
Maybe she was just pointing out how out-of-place she felt.
I agree (especially since Meghan never mentioned what Kate & Will wore, just her own clothing - we'd be judging her as having negative motives for saying things she never said). To me, it seemed clear that Meghan was explaining she'd assumed the royals were not as formal behind-the-scenes, and was surprised to find out she was wrong on that front. I really didn't get any "I'm better than Kate!" brag (mostly because I'm sure there's no way in hell that Meghan, a woman who knows how to rock a dress, would have dressed like Elly May Clampett if she'd known a behind-the-scenes dinner requires formality, or come in for a hug if Harry had told her hugging was not something she should do).
QuoteIt's always hard to tell what someone else really means, but unless she said something that was actually critical, I wouldn't impute a negative motivation onto her.
Agreed.
-
7
-
-
1 hour ago, ancslove said:
Follow-up questions aren’t for tripping them up, it’s to let them give further context, not just one sound bite on a topic.
I don't think there's any clarification Meghan could provide on any topic that the tabs wouldn't trash - she clarified googling versus her friend giving her access to Harry's private feed, and the clarification just led to more attacks on her honesty. She can't win for losing, imo.
36 minutes ago, Dani said:It’s bizarre for me since I tend to agree with both sides at different points.
I like both Kate/Will and Meghan/Harry - all of them have had to negotiate their way through institutional blindness to misogyny (W & K) and misogyny plus racism (H & M) - they would've made an extraordinary foursome, imo.
-
4
-
4
-
6
-
Jeopardy! Masters
in Jeopardy!
· Edited by film noire
I loved every minute of the tournament - Ken's hosting, the camaraderie of the contestants, the hugs and handshakes, the upbeat mood of the audience - it all felt so lighthearted, but also important to the players. A pleasure to watch.