katha

I always thought Meg's and John Brooke's story had the potential to be interesting: Falling in love, then marrying, then dealing with the realities of living together and how both parties need to compromise and adjust to each other. IMO it would be cool if there was more focus on them. Loads of it would need to be modernized, of course. But IMO the books are very much of their time on many issues, and those would presumably need to be either ignored or changed to make a movie today work. Watson and Norton seem well suited to the roles, if that's the characters they will be playing. They'll have to basically rewrite Marmee, of course. IMO the one in the book is supremely obnoxious. Yes, let the bird starve to teach Beth a lesson, Marmee. Grand idea. Geez, sadist much?

Whenever Andrew Davies does yet another literary adaptation, he tends to crank it up and want to make it more daring!sexy!dramatik! And yeah, it's a bit ridiculous, but more often than not, he IMO actually gets the books. Which isn't all that usual, considering how many beloved books get butchered on screen. He understands what's at the heart of them and holds them together. And sometimes, even in his lesser efforts, he manages to find some new aspects that are illuminating: His Emma is rather severe in tone and pretty harsh on the title character, but there's this one scene that's always stayed with me: An unhappy Robert Martin and Jane Fairfax in despair passing each other in a field somewhere. Yes, it's a sledgehammer of a visual metaphor, but it drives the point home: Emma's self-rigtheous and thoughtless meddling in other people's lives has been cruel and if it weren't for a lot of happy coincidences, she would have played a big role in the misery of these two characters who can't defend themselves against her because they are lower in social status. On the other hand you have someone like Joe Wright. Who makes lovely movies out of books, yet it seems like he somehow always misses the point...

Yes, but otoh if the producers want to do the responsible thing here, they don't have much choice. From the current pro lineup, I'd say Artem, Val and perhaps Sasha could do it. The pro needs to be experienced enough and have enough judgement to make this into something positive for the celeb. She'll come with challenges and will perhaps feel vulnerable and frustrated, you need someone there who knows what he's doing. The rest of the pros are either too inexperienced or too unpredictable. And perhaps it will work out fine and Artem will have a good season with her. He did great with Patti, he did super with Nancy, who just had the bad luck of being too quiet a persona in a season full of great women.

I have been re-reading Austen novels and another UO of mine that has been reinforced next to the one about Mansfield Park: Elizabeth Bennet is not my fave heroine. I like her well enough, but I always think that I'm supposed to like her more than I do? In fact, she kinda reminds me of Emma Woodhouse in that they are both about twenty and, perhaps rather typically for that age and well observed by JA, self-righteous, quick to judge and thinking that they know everything. Of course they also have many good qualities. And IMO...Emma is the better portrait, more in-depth, with more complexities. Of course her "sins" are worse since she is in a position of power over people and really almost manages to ruin a few lives with her meddling, but IMO she's also more interestingly drawn. While P+P is pretty neat in itself, but perhaps doesn't have the depth of characterization that JA's later novels show.

Ron isn't the smartest guy (though he can be quick and witty), he's not the most popular, not the most attractive and he's kind of overlooked in his very loud family which has many larger than life personalities. And then he becomes friends with Harry and Hermione. The Boy Who Lived and the smartest witch her age. And he's once again not as exceptional as they are, at least he doesn't feel like it. So he becomes insecure and sometimes even mean and does stupid crap at times, because he doesn't always know how to handle it. But I always think being best friends with Harry and Hermione is probably all you really need to know about Ron's character. The thing is: His life could be so much easier if he stayed away from them. Yeah, Harry is the chosen one, but that often leads to mortal peril and social isolation at Hogwarts, not to mention dealing with his understandable trauma and bad moods. Hermione can be so high-handed and self-righteous it makes your teeth ache, not to mention dismissive and hurtful towards anyone who doesn't agree with her. Ron would have a much easier life if he was friends with say...Sean or someone. But he stays loyal to them, even though he is arguably the only one of the trio who could have a "normal school experience." I don't know if I liked him best, but he was very well written and has a lot of admirable qualities. My UO: I like Austen's "Mansfield Park" and yes, Fanny is dreary and can be annoying, but considering her circumstances, it's probably understandable that she clings to the little security she has. But what I find totally unbelievable is the ending: Henry Crawford would have never behaved as stupidly as he did and eloped with Maria Rushworth. And I suspect that Austen knew that this would strain credibility, which is why she had it happen off stage. I know it was necessary to get to the "happy ending" (though I guess how "happy" it really is can also be discussed...), but I never buy it. But then, the alternative would have been an unhappy marriage between Fanny and Crawford and well, this isn't Tolstoy, I guess. Which, in a way, perhaps speaks to the modern aspects of that particular novel, it has so many complexities that the ending, which tries to bring it back to a more pat solution, doesn't ring true anymore. At least not for me.

I think Artem did very well with Nancy Kerrigan, she just fell victim to a season where there were many good female contestants and they all cancelled each other out. Also relieved that TPTB didn't go the obnoxious route here and saddle him with Harding in an effort to stir up even more drama. Agree that his partner looks promising and I look forward to what he'll show with her. He's perhaps not the loudest or most spectacular pro, but he seems a good teacher and has delivered strong choreography when he's had the chance.

Absolutely agree that V/M needed to get away from Marina way sooner than they did and ultimately it's their responsibility to make necessary coaching and choreography decisions. But still: Zoueva choreographed "Seasons". And it was all wrong for them by that point in time. They weren't these very young skaters anymore who could believably portray "aw shucks, young love" programs. Yet she hadn't come up with anything else for them. And the music wasn't even the problem, it would have been possible to make a soft, flowy program out of those pieces, but have it still have some sort of tension and more somber mood. Yet it was all sentimental fluff...which didn't suit V/M by that point anymore. What's more, by 2014 it was also perfectly clear that V/M were versatile performers who could handle all sorts of themes. But Marina wasn't always playing to these new strengths. Hence my speculation that she might have been a bit stuck in the past with how she perceived them. This wasn't such a big deal for D/W, since they basically stayed fierce and dramatic throughout their career. V/M evolved away from "young love" programs.

I think Shpilband is an excellent technical coach. What you probably need to do after a certain point with him is look for outside choreography. C/P are still at a point where his rather generic programs aren't that big a deal. Mistakes happen. He'll probably know how to transition them into seniors successfully. I'm never sure with Igor if he's capable of producing gold medalists on his own...this is where you need the good choreo. Zoueva is dicey because she doesn't seem as reliable in her technical knowledge. And as was already said, Carreira still really needs to do some work there and improve. And with her, if you're unfortunate you get stuck with certain ideas she has about you as a performer that might not be all that suitable. The Shibs struggled for years with her and IMO she was just unable to tailor convincing programs for them. They themselves discovered that Coldplay stuff for themselves. Not everyone likes it, but it was certainly authentic. IMO she also totally lost the plot with V/M in 2014. How she thought that FD was a good idea, I don't know (or if you're Scott Moir, that's where you insinuate that she did it deliberately lol). Krylova and Camerlengo were in for one hot minute there, but that hasn't panned out either.

I'm interested in how dance plays out at Worlds, with a few pairs already out after the Olys. Mostly I want Chock/Bates to have good skates and have a good end to the season. It seems like the last year has been hell for them...and then seeing them so heartbroken after their Oly FD. It's a really pretty program as well IMO, hope they are satisfied with their Worlds performances. What has slightly cracked me up about the Virtue/Moir comeback is that...they basically became the Davis/White to P/C's V/M lol. Suddenly, they were the fierce, athletic competitors winning comps because of their technical difficulty while their main rivals were doing the soft, flowy stuff. And I think it suited this latter day version of V/M better than whatever Zoueva was giving them by 2014...as performers, they had clearly developed away (particularly Scott) from whatever Marina thought were their strengths (perhaps unintentionally stuck with her view of them as teenagers?). And they knew it, too, hence the various experiments with different choreographers (Carmen, Latin FD etc.). They should have changed coaches way sooner. But...that's easy to say in hindsight. What I also found somewhat curious is P/C and the fact that IMO their SDs still aren't as good as their FDs. Tactically, it's just such a risk? Yeah, the judges were ready to be rather generous in that portion. But the slightest uncertainty was going to cost them dearly. Or do they need a fresh set of eyes to figure out what is holding them back in that portion of the competition? Next year is tango, yes? It should suit Guillaume, not sure about Gabriella (to be fair, to me that seems one of their problems in SDs in general: She's very comfortable in the style they use for FDs, everything outside of that still looks a bit tentative).

Benton/Carter is perhaps my fave TV relationship ever. Everything about it was perfect. It was a great blend of the personal and professional. The actors clicked, the characters brought out things in each other that no one else every managed (mostly positive, but sometimes also ugly aspects of their personalities). And from a character/storytelling perspective it was so crucial, but many shows don't properly see dynamics like that: Carter desperately needed a mentor like Benton to become a decent doctor IMO. For all his kindness and eager puppy dog behaviour, Carter could be hella manipulative and he knew how to wield power and get his way when he wanted. He needed Benton, who just seems totally resistant to any attempts at charming your way out of problems. Imagine Carter with Mark: I think the danger of Carter getting his way too often and not always learning proper consequences would have been great. And Benton trying to shut everyone out, yet somehow coming to care for Carter anyway. But it also felt realistic that he only lets people in so far, and though it broke Carter's heart to not get closer to him, it was cool that the show didn't take the cheap way out. A personality like Benton won't ever get warm and cuddly and start sharing their feelings with people, much less their student.

I actually think the Craig movies have for the most part done a good job of acknowledging and deconstructing the misogynist, racist, imperialist nonsense that's at the root of the series. Skyfall in particular seemed to just say "Well, MI6 is slightly less evil than those other evil guys...so make of that what you will...". Judi Dench's M and with that the whole spy myth was totally debunked IMO and the organization shown as a breeding ground for immoral sociopaths...a world where you can only have a career if you leave your conscience at the door. Craig's Bond is the first one where it's really acknowledged that...he's an assassin. That's his job. And his personality structure feels vaguely in tune with such a job. His treatment of women is sketchy, at best. Though, personally, I find him less creepy than some previous versions because he doesn't sugarcoat the sociopathic tendencies with oily "charm" (the Moore films are the worst offender here IMO). Craig's version of the character also doesn't suffer from self-delusion and seems pretty clear-eyed about himself and who he works for. An interesting aspect of that is that he sometimes seems way more honest about himself than the Ms, Qs and Moneypenneys who can pretend they don't have blood on their hands since they didn't pull the trigger. I always think it's a nice touch when Craig shows Bond's scorn at their "moral lectures": As if they had any kind of moral high ground on anything, they just conveniently distanced themselves from the fallout.

Abby was okay as a character. IMO the problem came in because they wanted to make her center stage. But she was such a low-energy, constantly miserable and downbeat character that IMO it sucked the life right out of the show. Such people exist and had she been one among many main characters...okay. But there were phases where her presence was so dominant that it swallowed everything else. The writers in the later seasons weren't strong enough anymore to create a good balance in the cast. I also thought characters like Neela and Pratt were perfectly interesting in their own right and the actors portraying them were certainly competent enough to give them more interesting things to do. Morris got better as well. You also see it in the last season IMO. For me the show really picks up again there, it becomes vibrant and lively in a way it wasn't for many years before that. And yeah, part of it is that it's not all about Abby anymore and other characters are allowed to take center stage. And it's not that Abby needed to be gone or anything, it's that the show should have done a better job of serving all the characters, not just a few.

The whole problem with the show is this IMO: Obviously they have rejected things like "historical accuracy" and "keeping to the facts". Okay. Sure. Why not. No one is forcing them to to do it that way, and a fictional story with people that look vaguely like the royals and are named like them is totally fine. It also doesn't need to be a hagiography. If they want to portray these fictional characters they created in a negative way, go right ahead. As long as it's interesting and entertaining... But IMO over long stretches it isn't entertaining. Since barely anyone in this series seems to have any sort of agency or interesting, complex motivations for their actions it's just...dull. It's not that Margaret and Elizabeth and Philip are portrayed in a negative way...it's that it's all so boring. Which is also why I don't understand why they rejected the actual historical realities so much and instead focused on made-up soap opera nonsense. They still could have been critical of the people and their actions, but the material would have been more interesting IMO.

I mentioned it already in the UO thread, but IMO that movie is one of the worst offenders since it doesn't seem as if its quite aware how bad things are: Steve Jobs is so brutal on that front. Every rewatch makes Lisa's, the daughter's, situation even more horrible for me. Talk about worst parents ever. I know Sorkin took a lot of creative licence and the situation he portrayed actually says more about his priorities as a writer than about the reality (at least I hope that is the case, because...geez), but still. She's stuck with a mother who is emotionally manipulative, emotionally abusive and it's hinted at that she's also physically abusive at her worst, who refuses to take on the responsibilities of an adult and forces Lisa to be the grown-up and caretaker in the relationship. And her father first doesn't want to admit his paternity, then is cold and emotionally withholding and only offers affection in small, conditional doses. Then Sorkin wanted to swipe that away with a treacly redemption arc or whatever, I think. IMO Fassbender made the right decision to undercut the unconvincing sentimentality of the last act by letting the manipulative streak and coldness of Jobs shine through the "reconciliation" at the end. So yeah, dramatically it saved the screenplay from itself to some degree. But the consequences for Lisa again: She's somewhat broken free emotionally from her father. But then he reels her in again and she's still so heartbreakingly desperate for his love and approval, and he might be as sincere as he knows how to be and he probably loves her in his own dysfunctional way. But you can just see it playing out like that again and again: He's cold and demanding, then will offer some degree of affection to bind her again when she threatens to break away from him. On an emotional level, that movie is a total horror story for that girl. And the thing is: I think Sorkin didn't quite grasp how dire he had made things for her. Sure, other characters refer to her crappy childhood, but in a more off-hand manner. And he also thought the treacly, false "happy end" would be enough. Fassbender seemed to have a better grasp of the complications...and when I think about it, him undercutting the narrative actually makes it less creepy than a fake cheerful ending would have done. It's more honest in how depressing it all is, if that makes sense...

I love Steve Jobs, despite its numerous flaws. I think the performances are brilliant and for all that it is incredibly self-indulgent, a lot of the Sorkin dialogue is also entertaining. But man, every rewatch makes Lisa's, the daughter's, situation even more horrible for me. Talk about worst parents ever. I know Sorkin took a lot of creative licence and the situation he portrayed actually says more about his priorities as a writer than about the reality (at least I hope that is the case, because...geez), but still. She's stuck with a mother who is emotionally manipulative, emotionally abusive and it's hinted at that she's also physically abusive at her worst, who refuses to take on the responsibilities of an adult and forces Lisa to be the grown-up and caretaker in the relationship. And her father first doesn't want to admit his paternity, then is cold and emotionally withholding and only offers affection in small, conditional doses. Then Sorkin wanted to swipe that away with a treacly redemption arc or whatever, I think. IMO Fassbender made the right decision to undercut the unconvincing sentimentality of the last act by letting the manipulative streak and coldness of Jobs shine through the "reconciliation" at the end. So yeah, dramatically it saved the screenplay from itself to some degree. But the consequences for Lisa again: She's somewhat broken free emotionally from her father. But then he reels her in again and she's still so heartbreakingly desperate for his love and approval, and he might be as sincere as he knows how to be and he probably loves her in his own dysfunctional way. But you can just see it playing out like that again and again: He's cold and demanding, then will offer some degree of affection to bind her again when she threatens to break away from him. On an emotional level, that movie is a total horror story for that girl.

That was my point, the show IMO totally wasted an opportunity here. All we saw was Philip having a hissy fit. It's too bad that apparently the writers don't have enough imagination to think up how an internal conflict might play out that goes beyond just shallow nonsense like that. I think all the characters were really let down by the writing, but here it was especially stark. When you read accounts of the royal family during that time, it's clear that Philip was very much an outsider in the household, faced a lot of hostility and many of his efforts to change, modernize things were rebuffed. Ditto with him trying to find a role for himself. As time went on, I think his sheer relentlessness ground some of that resistance down and he found a role for himself that satisfied him. But it was tough going at the beginning. I think the reality was actually way more interesting than what they have presented here in fictional form, is my point, I guess.

What makes me kinda angry about this show is that it seems like one giant missed opportunity IMO. It seems like they didn't know what to do with Elizabeth, so for large parts of two seasons she was just reacting passively to things. Margaret got the soap opera spoilt brat storyline without any nuance. I think Philip's narrative could have been interesting, since the phenomenon they're trying to describe has taken its visible toll on many royal spouses, particularly those with stricter protocol. You think giving up your job is something you can do, but then the reality is different than the theory and your whole existence seems useless to you and you try to cope. In the Netherlands, the husband fell into a depression, it's known that the spouse in Denmark hasn't taken to his role with very good grace. The horror of what happened in Japan with Masako (though of course their protocol seems to be really, really unforgiving...), Letizia of Spain for years looking as if all life had been drained out of her (and though she seems to be doing much better now and has found purpose for herself, IMO she still seems very careful and restrained in her actions as a queen). So it's an interesting story to tell: A man coping with what he perceives as giving up his very existence and trying to keep busy etc. since he comes from a generation that didn't take kindly to men showing "emotional weakness". But did we get that? Not really. Instead there was a lot of petty, frivolous nonsense.

"Natural", unobtrusive performances aren't necessarily "better". Just as "disappearing into character" isn't necessarily "better". That's why I don't trust many reviews of acting, since the reviewer often has dogmatic ideas about what constitutes "good acting" and if someone deviates, it gets a "fail". If it's right for the context and tone of a movie, that's when I enjoy performances. Perhaps my fave performance of all time is DDL in "Gangs of New York". And it's great because of its scenery-chewing hamminess. The movie is deeply flawed pulp fiction and DDL made the (IMO correct) bold decision to match the tone of the movie and basically produce slapstick. Bill the Butcher is both very funny and very scary. It's the ultimate comedy performance and at the same time makes the character even scarier. If he'd played it "straight" and more serious, he might have gotten the Oscar that year. But he did right by the movie and produced something pitch perfect for this concrete setting. Of course this kind of approach would have been wrong for a more low-key movie. But it wasn't a more low-key movie, so it was a great fit. There are also all sorts of actors who "play themselves". If playing versions of their persona works for the movie, then I don't see the harm? There are many different variations of Cary Grant in his movies, most often perfectly suited to the role he's supposed to play and IMO therefore great performances. Julia Roberts has done her share of good work as "Julia Roberts". Morgan Freeman has been the "Morgan Freeman character" in plenty of films, and yeah, sometimes it's tiresome, but if it enhances the movie? Why not? I can agree that someone like Katherine Hepburn gave very affected performances (even in the context of her time) and sometimes this is jarring because it goes against the tone of the rest of the movie. It's not a problem when it suits the movie IMO.

Daniel Day-Lewis was really, really hot in My Beautiful Laundrette and The Last of the Mohicans (which is quite a feat, since so much there is ridiculous...I love it anyway, but yeah...). Kinda shows that he could have gone the traditional leading man route, IMO he was very handsome (he still looks good for 60) and tall (unusual for actors). Also, I found him strangely attractive during his Oscar campaign for Lincoln. The hair and his wardrobe weren't too eccentric for once, but mostly it was his bearing. IMO that was one of the best Oscar campaigns ever and at the end of the day, he deserved that prize alone for his perfect rendition of "Daniel Day-Lewis, Best Actor contender". Like, I thought he was great as Lincoln and the work there was certainly deserving, but that campaign, man. A thing of beauty. Machiavelli would have been proud. He was in the running for his third award, which everyone said would be super difficult. But he was all charming and open, without going over the top and coming across as inauthentic. He toned down the pretentiousness (to be fair, he's probably genuinely less pretentious now than he used to be when he was younger). He poked a bit of fun at his own extreme methods. He gave good acceptance speeches that didn't annoy people. He was careful not to overexpose himself (no late night talk show nonsense). And somehow, though he became the frontrunner, people in the industry didn't get tired of him and seemed happy for him when he won. Compare that to Anne Hathaway and Ben Affleck and their ham-fisted campaigning the same year. It was a bit terrifying tbh. But also somewhat hot.

I always thought Dumbledore was a pretty terrible person tbh? And that didn't change at all later in his life, he just brough a sheen of superficial "niceness" to it that allowed him to manipulate people better. The observation that Snape didn't have many meaningful relationships is right, but IMO the same is true for Dumbledore. That's why I always understood Snape's strange sympathy for him, I'm sure on some level he recognized that DD is as messed up as he is. Just in different ways. And yeah, the books are from Harry's point of view. That does skew things and limit perspective. You have this one chapter with Snape described not by Harry, and you'd barely recognize him as the same person as in the rest of the books. Granted, he's interacting with fellow adults (I think everyone agrees that Snape should never have been a teacher. Snape probably doesn't even think he should be a teacher.), but it's just so different. He comes across as an adult as well, not as stuck in arrested development (which makes sense, since he's not around Harry, who brings out the very worst in him...) and also drives home that Harry just plainly doesn't know some things. Like, Snape dispassionately acknowledges that Hermione is brilliant. So yeah, he probably hates the trio something fierce, but he probably also plays up his resentment for show effect. Which is obviously information that Harry can't ever get.

Both "Proud Marys" are some of my fave dances on the show. It's always a treat to see Mark do a jive with a celeb who can match him. And that was one of the rare times I felt like Derek really danced all out (for obvious reasons) and he also didn't constrain Nicole's movements (which was IMO always a good indicator for how good a Derek partner was: How much did she move on her own, without Derek guiding her? ) and it was just...awesome. Their paso was perhaps "artsier", but this was thrilling for its sheer energy. So yeah, Lindsay and Jordan have a lot to live up to here. The assignment for Lindsey and Mark is also interesting in that I feel that Mark doesn't like doing ballroom tangos. He also hasn't done one on the show for a long time. And again, the original is one of my fave dances on the show. The choreography is pitch-perfect, they matched it in performance and IMO Maks, for all his antics off-stage, knows how to create effects by toning it down when needed. He's super restrained in his facial expressions in that dance, and somehow becomes even more imposing with it and ramps up the tension. But then, I looooove a well-done ballroom tango. It's tough to do because there are rules and restrictions and it can be perceived as "boring", but when it succeeds, the "pure dance" aspect of it is a thrill of its own IMO. So I'm curious to see what Mark will do with it.

Strangely enough, when I think of Mark, my first thought usually is that first season with Bristol Palin. I think that right there showed something incredibly unique he brings to the table that goes beyond choreography and teaching dance: He was stuck with this person who wasn't behaving very pleasantly, who had no work ethic, was constantly complaining, had no talent and no self-esteem. But Mark, in his early twenties and right in the middle of his most annoying "edgy" phase, saw beyond that: He saw that she was overwhelmed with the situation, that she was pushed by her mother into an environment she couldn't handle. And so she lashed out because she couldn't handle any of it. He had compassion for her and the patience of 20 saints. Somehow, by a miracle, he was able to establish a working relationship with her and even got a few vaguely watchable dances out of her. Even Bristol, with her complete lack of self-awareness, seemed to understand at a certain point that he was going out of his way to help her out and so she started trying a bit and started to respond to him. And that's just the most extreme case. I don't think it's an accident that Mark is still on good terms with many of his partners, he seems to bring a level of empathy to the proceedings that's really unusual. Tied to that, IMO that is also why he can do all these "out there" dances with his partners. Someone remarked that it looks like Lindsey wants to please Mark. That's usually the case with his partners. He's a great teacher, he forms good bonds and he's able to make his partners feel confident. So they trust him and want to do well. They also trust him that things like "I'll play the crab in this dance! We'll do duck samba, Super Mario, rabbit foxtrot!, scary clown jive (I love that one, I don't even care)!, Breaking Bad jazz, Sci-fi tango!" will somehow work out. And, more often than not, they do. That's the fun he brings to the show and he can do that in a way that's beneficial to his partners and doesn't make them uncomfortable because he's a great teacher and partner who goes out of his way to build trust in every dance partnership. He's not as slick in "working" the show as Derek. But then, no one in the history of DWTS has ever come close to Derek in that IMO. It's a unique talent of his. But it's not the only worthwhile talent to have and many pros have great qualities that are just different from Derek's. And it would be super boring if everyone was partnered with Derek and the sort of streamlined look that comes with that. And this is in no way, shape or form a criticism of Derek. I recently did a rewatch of his dances and have really come to appreciate him a lot more. He produced some stunning work for the show (though I totally disagree that Shawn was "robbed". IMO she had a very inconsistent season with Derek, Derek made some unusual strategic mistakes with her and boy, do I hate that freestyle. And the rumba! Ugh.). No one can choreograph a ballroom tango like he does. I miss that most of all, I think. But again, the way Derek does DWTS is not the only way to do DWTS and it would be hella boring if everyone tried to do it the same way.

I mean, this isn't new for musicians. The white supremacist movement has tried to co-opt plenty of artists. Johnny Cash's children denounced them. Depeche Mode were called the "official band of the alt-right" by one of them, which everyone thought was ridiculous. Then Depeche Mode promptly denounced the white supremacist movement, Dave Gahan also made some good points on Richard Spencer and his contrived efforts to intellectualize hatred in interviews. That was that, it was no big deal. The musicians distanced themselves, and it only made the neo nazis making these claims look as ridiculous as they are. It didn't reflect badly on the artists, the media also didn't blame them for these unwanted "admirers" and always pointed out that they have rejected these connections. Now, perhaps a band like Depeche Mode doesn't feel the need to pander to the kind of fanbase that is attracted to Taylor Swift. But saying "I'm against nazis" isn't so very controversial. Even the conservative part of her fanbase can't take offense to that, surely? So yeah...the longer it goes on and she keeps silent, the more questionable she will look IMO. As for that latest kerfuffle: Agree, if she'd have just ignored it, no one would have noticed, no one would have cared. Now it's blown up into this big thing because she set her lawyers on it.

I think it's understandable (and probably smart) that Mark wants to get a counter-narrative going for Lindsey. She's not nearly as trained as Jordan, she's arguably been getting underscored the last two weeks for whatever reasons, and now various people have thrown shade at her. Mark's not always the most calm when it comes to these sorts of reactions, and perhaps a more diplomatic one would have been better. But IMO some form of reaction was needed at this point. I'm just waiting for Lindsey to be the shocking elimination, what with her being talked down and scored down. I was almost convinced she'd have to go this week, with how they screwed her over last week. He also probably rightly perceives that the producers have started editing, setting up things for Frankie/Jordan and against Lindsey with the way they have started brushing her aside, so I get the frustration at this sort of manipulation as well. It's not effective that he rants about it, of course. But he's right that there's a problem for Lindsey, and it's not Lindsey's fault at all, but rather deliberately created by the show for her. As for the dances: Jordan was awesome. Corbin was awesome (but then I always liked Corbin and IMO his best dances were some of the best in the show's history). Lindsey's trio was awesome and IMO underscored. I really liked the samba, but I can see why they docked points. Frankie was entertaining enough. Victoria and Drew IMO, unfortunately, weren't so much. TO was probably stronger than those two at this point and he's been improving, so I was sad to see him go.

Yeah, I think Val's been good about giving Victoria stuff she can handle and where she looks decent performing it. I don't expect that to change now in the trio. The show also hasn't been too bad about her story and hasn't completely reduced her to tearjerker material. I've enjoyed Victoria as a contestant well enough and I think their partnership works. Where it gets spotty again is the judging IMO. She's perhaps a bit overscored, but nothing too bad. It's the comparison between her scores and those of stronger dancers where it gets dicey IMO. But we have that discussion about loads of middling contestants who get far, so I don't know the solution here tbh. I think Drew is overscored in a similar way, perhaps it's just the way they don't have the courage to give lower marks in the later half of the season.