katha

Yeah, I think they overcomplicated matters and I'm not sure it was necessary. They could have constructed a plot that differed from season one and forced marriage blah blah without stretching quite so much. Everyone has to act a bit nonsensical for it to go on as long as it does.

I rewatched this in the aftermath of season two and the interaction with Anthony and Violet now has this additional layer of meaning, which is cool. She rightly knocks him down for the way he mishandled Daphne's debut and he doesn't say anything after she has rebuked him. But Bailey gives it a nuance of hurt and holding himself back from saying something more that now reads as more complex. It has this echo of "Oh, now you want to be a parent? But when dad died you emotionally checked out for years and I had to take charge of the family when I was a teenager." But of course he doesn't say it because blaming her for her grief would be cruel. The tense and complex relationship between Anthony and Violet is really enriched by the second season, I think. It's always messy when children take on the role of parents for whatever reason and it can't ever be completely restored to the way it was before. Which I think Bailey and Gemmel play beautifully in the second season, the hurt and confusion of that.

Four Weddings also suffers from the fact that the friendships in the group are so well written and acted. You really believe that all these people love each other and have a bond for life. And then there's Andie and she's neither well written nor well acted and...eh. What adds to it is that it is a star-making turn for Hugh Grant. IMO one of the great comic performances and rightly made him famous. MacDowell can't keep up in any way.

What I think both the book and the series do well is also establish that the Bridgertons being such a good-natured, well-off and generally happy lot is closely tied to how much Anthony takes on for them all. To the point that they don't even notice and poke fun at their overly protective and fussy brother. Only once Anthony starts hurting himself because he takes on too much and in wrong-headed ways does it dawn on them that this all comes at a cost for him. I liked Violet, Daphne and Benedict all getting a bit of a reality check on this. Colin didn't because as opposed to the book for whatever reason they don't write anything useful for Colin. . ;-) So while I quibbled with some of the changes from the book, even as I understood the reasoning behind it, that was well translated. Benedict doing his art stuff, Colin swanning around Europe, Eloise feeling free and protected enough to be as openly defiant as she is, all of that is possible because Anthony does all the boring stuff they don't have to do. Including keeping their estate flourishing over a decade after their father's death. In that timeframe, mismanagement would have already started showing severe consequences. But the Bridgertons are doing better than ever. The series nicely laid that out without getting bogged down in the technicalities of it.

What I most liked about their tryst, whatever happened or didn't happen, is that Anthony is not fazed and caught up in thinking less of her or somehow perceiving that sleeping with him (in whatever form) somehow sullies Kate's character. He proposes because he wants to and because he acknowledges that the mores of their time make it now his responsibility after getting intimate with her, but is otherwise totally unfazed by it all. I'm in the camp that thinks Kate was probably a virgin for purely pragmatic reasons (including the high risk of getting pregnant or contracting any kind of diseases), but knows what's going to happen. That's also why the guilt kicks in afterwards. But it's not a big focus either way and it's not a big deal for Anythony either, which I thought was cool.

I think I disagree. ;-) Anthony as the head of the family is expected to marry well and to marry someone who can keep the Bridgertons running. So he was not wrong that him choosing someone not suitable (as defined by their time and social standing) would have great repercussions not only on himself, but on the whole family. Where it became wrong-headed is that his trauma/being swamped by duties since he was a teenager had given him really skewed ideas how he should go about finding a bride and that his feelings don't matter/are evil. IMO what was interesting, if perhaps not quite intended by the show, is that Anthony/Edwina didn't look absurd. Yes, it would have been a marriage of convenience. But they liked each other all right and both seem decent enough sorts that they would have tried to treat each other well, learned to care for each other and make the marriage work. Obviously Kate and Anthony are in love, but because they are so alike that has the potential for problems and conflicts, as seen during the season. Edwina was too naive and conventional perhaps, but Kate is inflexible and unwilling to adjust/compromise, by what we have seen of her. Both approaches have positive and negative aspects once you become the lady of the house.

Yeah, I could understand Edwina lashing out. She really became the victim of Anthony and Kate getting stuck in their self-denial. IMO Anthony kinda figures out earlier what a disastrous mess it will be, but by that point he can't break the engagement. Edwina would be ruined. Kate doesn't really consider what an emotional betrayal towards Edwina their decisions are tbh. And they also deny her agency by not coming clean about their emotional entanglement. She's in no position to make an informed choice of her own and is treated like a child, mostly by Kate. The way she goes at Kate is nasty. But IMO it is pretty clear where the motivation comes from and yeah, Kate and Anthony totally mishandled that. Her sense of betrayal towards Kate is bigger because she's been her mother figure/sister all her life. I do also think that Anthony is pretty transparent about the fact that he's not searching for a love match and doesn't love Edwina.

I think McKay is trying to strike again like he did with "The Big Short" and is never quite getting the tone right tbh. "The Big Short" went for these broad comedic asides and it was deliberately smug and annoying until it went full horror movie in the last part and you realized "Holy hell, this is still happening, there were no consequences, the same people will get victimized and the same assholes will keep getting away with it." It was a drastic tonal shift and yeah, broad, but really worked for me. The stuff he's done after that kinda wants to go in the same direction but isn't hitting as hard IMO.

I think there was way too much melodrama/soap opera, but Kate and Anthony were reasonably characterized and very well acted that I bought why they were drawn to each other and why that was so difficult for them. They are so alike, which can be strange and even repellent, yet at the same time there's a great understanding between them to go with the attraction. And how they were shackled by circumstances and their own sense of duty into thinking about what they ought to be doing seemed plausible enough as well. I also think that they've written themselves into a corner with Penelope tbh. And the conflict with Eloise seemed like an attempt to address it, but where do we go from here? Someone/Eloise has finally pulled into the open that some of the stuff that Penelope is doing is actively malicious and destructive (and yeah, does she want to ruin the Bridgertons? Both the attacks on Daphne and Eloise seemed way awful...), which she does not want to acknowledge and tries to rationalize away. Will there be some character growth and she acknowledges how much grief and hurt she has caused everyone around her? Because yeah, Lady W is the TMZ of her time, sadistic and mean-spirited. I'm not quite sure if the powers that be are consistent in how this is presented. She can't be this manipulative schemer who doesn't give a damn about anyone she's hurting with the "scoops" in her column and poor widdle Penelope who's just following around Colin like a lost puppy and wants to be bestest friends with Eloise.

I haven't seen "Coda" and also think that the Oscars are a very screwy barometer of anything "best" in the film industry. But yeah, Netflix and Amazon have been trying hardcore for years and Apple was always kinda laughed at as the ugly stepchild among the streamers and as if they basically just started it to get more people to buy their hardware (which isn't totally wrong, to be fair...). And now they have "Ted Lasso" and "Coda." It is kinda funny.

Err, I've made the mistake to read some reviews and it all sounds a bit concerning tbh? They basically threw out the plot of the book and made up soap opera stuff of their own to unnecessarily draw everything out, it seems. A lot of complaining that Anthony and Kate just don't get together for too long, which makes it tiresome. Which is a bit what I feared, IMO it is the strongest book, and they showed pretty bad judgement already in the first season on what to include/exclude from the first novel. More's the pity that they seemingly threw out all plot and most of the characterization from the second, which is much stronger. Oh well, perhaps they'll prove me wrong and it won't be so bad. ;-)

Ana de Armas is a curious case here, I think. She was on the verge of a big breakout after "Knives Out" and then the pandemic happened and destroyed all her momentum IMO. Her stint in the Bond franchise only came out two years later instead of right after her good run with the Rian Johnson flick. That Ben Affleck movie is goofy, but it might not have much mattered for her trajectory if it could have been hidden somewhere in the big Bond press. Now it's prominently embarassing...

"Notorious" is ridiculously romantic, even as it deconstructs romance tropes and the toxic central relationships. IMO it's Hitchcock's best work. Grant and Bergman have ridiculous chemistry. And yet the film is good in acknowledging that Claude Rains' Nazi mama's boy probably loves Ingrid more than Grant's Devlin, who really goes to sadistic lengths to taunt her. I mean, until Claude starts poisoning her, that's not so cool obviously. ;-) For being shot in the 1940ies it is pretty open about showing how screwed up it all is and how Bergman's Alicia deserves better. Yet also it's totally understandable why she'd fall for Grant: That last sequence when he gets her out of the house and she's in her poisoned delirium is a great metaphor for all that is right/wrong with that pairing. And never has Grant looked better and never used his looks to such devastating effect. It's one of the only films with a homme fatale, I'd argue, and he really nails it. "Paterson" barely qualifies as "drama" LOL, because nothing much happens in it, but I think the relationship between Paterson and Laura is very moving. Adam Driver and Golshifteh Farahani give it such a quiet, lived-in chemistry. Two people who just accept and support each other. Yeah, Laura is a bit annoying and flighty with all her projects and Paterson is a bit too set in his ways, but neither is trying to change the other or remake them into something different. And I always cry when the dog tears apart Paterson's poems and Laura kneels there and says that they might try to glue them back together. Such a show of love in such a quiet way. She's been asking him about perhaps making a copy of his work all week, yet wouldn't even dream of going all "I told you so" in that moment.

Yeah, in that sense it is a real pity that Disney dumped the movie basically, the promo was bad/nonexistent and it was such a flop (came out in a very competitive weekend and had bad advertising plus difficult subject matter). It only reinforces for the studios that they should only spend money on franchises, basically. This is not a low-budget Netflix/Amazon for-streaming thing, it's an old-fashioned event movie. The big budget was needed for the setting and it's best suited for the big screen (the duel is practically made for cinema IMO). And in general it's a pity that film-making like that is dying. So in that sense I understand Scott's frustration, but he's aiming it at the wrong crowd. It's a structural problem within the industry.

With the hype regarding "Bridgerton", this whole topic just becomes more obvious IMO. There are a number of very good romance novel writers that don't get their due because they write in a genre that is associated with a female readership. Like, Mary Balogh, for example, is fantastic at what she does and has produced a very rich and complex tapestry of work over the decades. Yet no one lauds her like they do George R.R. Martin, or Tolkien or le Carre or Stephen King etc. Though they are also genre writers, just in more "respectable" genres for some (sexist) reason....

Gerwig's "Little Women" adaptation is inferior to Armstrong's version. Yes, Armstrong is too picturesque and traditional in places. But Gerwig really robs the story of its emotional heft by using the fragmented structure, no matter how artsy. Also, the acting is more uneven in the Gerwig version. Ronan and Pugh are great (when Pugh is not playing 12...). But Dern, Chalamet and Watson, for example, are all weaker than their counterparts in the Armstrong film IMO. Also, yeah, trying to make it too cutesy "historically authentic" can make things sterile, but Gerwig's Boho-Town in Instagram-Landia setting undercuts the radicality of these women, something she constantly talked about yet inadvertedly diminished by placing them in some sort of fantasy land disconnected from even an attempt at historical accuracy, I felt. To stay in the family: Noah Baumbach is very talented, yet constantly limits himself by making 3000 versions of the same mumblecore self-insert movie and it's a waste. Even his best efforts like "Marriage Story" suffer from how narrow their horizon is and how very low the stakes are. Yeah, there's "write what you know", but he's over 50 now and has taken it to really claustrophobic extremes IMO. There's gotta be more for him than "dimestore Woody Allen", or "dimestore Cassavetes" or whatever.

Not ruins, but always pulls me out of the experience: Actors who look too "modern" in historical settings. You know what I mean: Kevin Costner in medieval Britain, Keanu Reeves trying to be a Victorian. ;-) Perfectly appealing performers in other settings...but no. I think it's not even the accents, even though everyone focuses on that, it's a modern way of moving and occupying space and somehow not knowing how to wear the clothes in a natural manner that just stands out in contrast to their scene partners as well. Laura Dern in "Little Women" seemed wholly unconvincing to me, and it diminished her presence. Ronan and Pugh, in contrast, looked "right" in the setting. Dern is very good in other stuff, but I was really underwhelmed with her. In "Last Duel" you have it as well IMO. Comer and Driver seem to fit the time as conceived, no matter how fictionalized, they move and inhabit those clothes/manners as if they were born into it. Damon can't always shed his persona and Affleck is entertainig, but sometimes also totally falling out of the picture.

I do think that a conversation that was also never had is that Kerrigan was the victim of the assault. Then she was re-victimized by the media spectacle that told the story that she was somehow a victim in the wrong way. And then movies like this one arguably re-victimize her again. I've always been stunned by the lack of sympathy for Kerrigan because she didn't present a "perfect victim." Like Harding, she wasn't some perfect ice princess and the efforts to package her like that often didn't quite work out (see her being too honest about cheesy Disney parades...). Yet there is zero understanding extended towards her and the various ways she suffered from both the assault and the largely sensationalist and unsympathetic media spectacle that followed.

I think the "it was grandpa's heart medication" has been thrown in to deflect blame from the coaching environment. As long as Tutberidze is protected, that's all that matters. They can deal with a suspension for Valieva. And as various commentators have pointed out, everything that makes Valieva so great (she is a generational talent IMO), that can't be achieved with doping. Her incredible skills are the result of hard (probably backbreaking...) work. The doping would have been used to counter the various abuses that are going on at camp Tutberidze. To make her fit and able to recover quickly even though she is being starved and overtrained... Allegedly, but come on now. Everyone was way too quiet about the BS the Karolyis were pulling, abusing generations of young girls. There should be no more handwaving about the awful stuff Tutberidze is doing. Child abuse, child abuse, child abuse.

Yeah, that's how I interpreted it as well. Le Gris is such an entitled narcissist who thinks that all women must adore him that he just can't grasp that someone wouldn't. He's convinced himself that he's in love with Marguerite and so she must be in love with him as well and in his mind her refusal is just for show because she is a married lady. It's a supremely warped world view, but the tragedy the movie depicts is that no one treats Marguerite as a human being or sees/hears her. See also her husband making her rape all about himself and his "damaged property." Ugh.

I loooved Sinitsina/Katsalapov in this, which was a surprise. I think this RD is not a natural fit for them and their program always looked like the best compromise to package them in something that isn't quite their style. But they were selling that disco vibe and they looked razor sharp and precise on technique. And after everyone was already crowing how they are getting dumped after the team event. Good for them! P/C are not my groove either, but they are undeniable very, very skilled and I'm okay with them being first. It's an interesting dance and it was cute how relieved they seemed after skating cleanly. :-) Hubbel/Donahue I feel are always held back by both their costume and music choices. IMO here as well. The costumes are on theme but seem ponderous and the first two parts of the music selection are eh... You really notice how the "Rhythm Nation" section is so much more dynamic than the parts coming before it. Chock/Bates have a really cool concept, but mistakes are fatal in ice dance. I like them and it's a bummer that they often get nervous in big events. I also think Elek is a good technical specialist choice for the Olympics. He's tough and finicky, but he's tough on everyone and doesn't close his eyes just because favorites are skating. See the markdowns of SinKats in the team event or the markdown of Chock/Bates here.

It seems he likes hanging out in Italy and driving fancy cars. 😉 I thought the "Italian" accents in Gucci were silly and totally unnecessary. And everyone was bad at them, but bad in different ways LOL. Perhaps Mann will just let go of that particular convention, it never made sense to me.

Everyone said that the 2022 film season would be clogged up and in some ways it is, but it also feels weirdly underwhelming? I don't know if it was because some movies disappointed or the awards bodies have such a narrow focus, but it feels strangely meh. Also, I just think some of the acting contenders in particular are just not particularly impressive or well chosen. Bardem should not be up there IMO and it's a mix of reputation and being in a prestigious movie that got him the nod. He was miscast and also didn't deliver against that as well as Kidman, who was also miscast but IMO really offered something despite that. Various other performers like Isaac, Cage or hell even Driver in that weird French musical presented more interesting work. The best actress category is just a mess. I'm barely convinced by any of the performances there. They're either hindered by weak scripts, shaky concepts, being wrong for the role, extensive prosthetics masquerading as acting and so on. I guess Cruz by default? I will say that I agree with Lady Gaga not getting a nom and "House of Gucci" getting shut out. It was entertaining, but also messy. The accents were all over the place and the script was too weak to allow any of them to really deliver exceptional work. Gaga, Pacino and Driver did well with limited material IMO, but it was too muddled. Gaga had the flashy role, but there was not much there there. "The Last Duel" was the better Scott movie, but also a total flop that was dumped by Disney, so... And I'm really glad that Leto's antics weren't rewarded. He was terrible IMO. I'm glad that his awards run ended with a Razzie nom LOL.

Yeah, IMO they didn't always show the best judgement about what to adapt in the first season. Bailey is a really strong actor who managed to salvage some questionable writing for the character. The "problem" for the second season might become that they try to doctor strong source material (I think the second book is the best in the whole series) and weaken it in the process. The drama and characterization is strong enough, adding superfluous stuff might damage it.

I hope they get Pall Mall right. Yeah, it shows how bonkers the Bridgertons are and that Kate fits right in. But it also is one of the scenes that really highlights that Anthony is not the immature jerk Kate wants to think he is. He's all competitive during Pall Mall, but immediately switches off afterwards. Showing that he's not actually puffed up about inconsequential things and doesn't have a fragile ego etc. Which ties into all the various other surrounding scenes that show that he's kind, caring and responsible. And yeah... I hope "love triangle" is just exaggerated for PR. Anthony does like Edwina and he thinks it's the sensible thing to marry her. If you want to get some scandalous PR for your show going, I guess that qualifies as "love triangle" in the broadest terms. ;-)