katha

I've not been convinced by anything she's done outside of Star Wars so far, unfortunately. She becomes strangely bland/forgettable IMO. SW is a very specific blank slate/self-insert action movie character and I'm not sure that the skillset that had her do well in that setting necessarily translates well into roles where she needs to be more distinct. It might also be a case of bad judgement from her/her management, where they don't know what suits her and chose projects for her that don't really have here stand out and don't do well in general. Boyega has shown much better judgement so far IMO. Though I'm also coming to suspect that he is also just a better actor.

"Chaos Walking" being dumped and buried by the studio last week made me sad for Tom Holland and Daisy Ridley. Both haven't had much luck with picking projects outside their franchises so far. Holland will probably get more chances, given the sexist nature of the industry. Ridley is in that dangerous moment where she needs something notable not tied to Star Wars. Getting your big break in a franchise can be a blessing and a curse..

Pleasantly surprised that Mikkelsen made the cut for Best Actor at the BAFTAs. He's been getting some of the best notices of his career, but since the performance is not in English, it's flown under the radar. I don't think it will get him an Oscar nomination or anything, but at least it's been acknowledged somewhere... He was sensational in "The Hunt" and "After the Wedding" as well, but again the performances weren't in English.

I always wondered how exactly the politics with Zellweger played out last year tbh. On paper, it should have been a slam dunk for Johansson: Praised performance in a praised movie. Big movie star finally getting her due. Yet she garnered no momentum whatsoever it seemed to me. Her history of controversial statements working against her? Overshadowed by Dern and Driver? I mean, she shouldn't be judged against the co-stars in her film, but compared to the other actors in her category. But perhaps unconsciously some voters fought "Driver and/or Dern gave a better performance, so I won't go with ScarJo." A mix of these factors? Something totally different? Yeah, Zellweger is beloved, the performance was great and the Academy has lapped up tons of mediocre biopics in the past. But she came a bit out of nowhere and already had one Oscar. The politics of it all are sometimes fascinating stuff. I could see Mulligan getting it this year, McDormand has an uphill battle with her two Oscars already IMO. But someone like Day might pull off an upset. It should be about the single performance, not life's work or reputation.

Awards season in times of Corona has been very quiet and without much impact IMO. Red carpets and campaigning have their own drawbacks and often put attention on the wrong things. But this sort of muted underwater feel is really weird as well. As if it wasn't really happening. McDormand might have trouble walking through due to this already being her third big award in her career. DDL pulled it off, but he also delivered one of the best awards campaigns ever LOL. Mulligan and Pike seem like classic they're due candidates. But they might go by performance alone and Day certainly has the biography angle working for her. Boseman might be a lock in the male category.

I liked "Lady Bird" and the acting was outstanding, but yeah, the cringe factor for the character's actions was sometimes very high, sometimes in situations where I think the audience was supposed to feel for her. The core selfishness rang very true for a teenager. I did think her perceiving herself as "poor" was somewhat alienating, when they lived in a pretty nice house and she went to a good school and her parents sprung for an expensive college education in the end. I'm never sure if that was the character not understanding money or Gerwig not understanding money, heh. The quaint way she portrayed "poverty" in "Little Women" was also a bit weird after going on about how authentic the movie is supposed to be. Noah Baumbauch, on the other hand, really, really doesn't understand money and it often creates really jarring moments in otherwise good movies. Like the young couple in "While We're Young" living in this absurd big loft in NYC when he's a film student and she makes ice cream, giving them a room mate doesn't make it "relatable." Or in "Frances Ha", when the title character lives in various nice appartments in NYC even though she is a failed dancer and then works as a part-time clerk and the main storyline is how "poor" she is. Or in "Marriage Story", when Nicole's family has a big house in the LA suburbs and she can buy herself a big house in the LA suburbs. Is she a millionaire? Or Charlie who can keep an appartment in both NYC and LA. And they both can burn ridiculous money on obscenely greedy lawyers. Yet we're supposed to have sympathy for their "problems" LOL. I mean, you can have sympathy for Baumbach characters, but need to totally ignore the magical financial set-up in all his films.

The Report (2019) A procedural on the Senate report written on the CIA's torture program after 9/11. Good, traditional film-making. I guess perhaps a bit dour and matter-of-fact, but I can understand the thinking behind that. There's been too much glamorizing of torture and the people doling it out as is. Liked the potshots at "Zero Dark Thirty" and "24" in that context LOL. Showed the corruption, incompetence and petty cruelty being promoted at the CIA to justify these crimes and the complicit political establishment. What really resonated was not only that the torture was morally wrong and criminal, but also that it was useless. It probably maimed and killed innocent people, made martyrs out of the guilty ones, didn't yield much useful intelligence and made prosecution impossible. Fantastic central performance by Adam Driver as Daniel Jones, the man compiling the report over years. Jones is presented as a calm, introverted man and his performance stays quiet, even as it gains intensity the more he uncovers and the more passionate he becomes about at least exposing what had been going on for years. His reactions to everything unfolding are muted and internalized and all the more poignant for it. If he hadn't burned the house down in "Marriage Story" already, that performance would have been a candidate for an Oscar nomination as well IMO. Annette Benning is also very good as Feinstein. Corey Stoll, Maura Tierney and Jon Hamm also deliver in smaller roles.

If there were proper writers on this show, the next seasons could explore how Pen pretending to be friends with Colin and Eloise and being friendly with Daphne and then betraying them like that (yeah, she can tell herself all sorts of pretty stories that she stabs them in the back for their own good or whatevever, but that's just delusion IMO) in her columns would have painful consequences for her relationships. But the writers want to make the columns vicious and cruel, while at the same time somehow not wanting to connect Penelope to their cruelty and sadism. The discussion here shows that this isn't an unmitigated success LOL. They'll just ignore it anyway and play Penelope as a pwecious, aw shucks snowflake who can't be held responsible for her decisions and actions.

That seems like good casting on first glance. Looking forward to how Ashley fares with Bailey. 😊

They just didn't think through what making LW into such a viciously cruel and nasty gossip writer who has no scruples about humiliating people and potentially ruining their lives means for the characterization of Penelope. They want to dissociate the ruthlessness of the writing from "aw shucks!" sweetiepie Penelope. But it doesn't work like that. Added to the points discussed about Marina and Daphne, her friendship with Eloise also appears as a total sham in that light. Something Pen uses to get to the good gossip while pretending to be a friend. But the problem is, I'm sure they didn't intend for Pen to appear as a sociopath and there won't be any consequences for the hurt she has caused. Because once again, they don't know what they are presenting on screen. It's also very troubling/questionable that the most prominent of LW's "victims" we are presented with are other women. As if destroying other women is the best way to gain power and get to the top.

Congratulations to Page! Well deserved! He delivered a stellar performance and really elevated the material.

I hope Lee Pace gets more great opportunities in the future. He's been stellar in everything I've seen him in: "The Fall", "Pushing Daisies", the Hobbit movies, "Halt and Catch Fire". He's been on the brink of a higher profile, but it's never quite happened for him. He's doing some science fiction series for Apple which looks quite interesting, hopefully that is a success for him.

Yeah, IMO they wrote themselves into real trouble with Pen and I don't think they will deliver any kind of satisfying follow-up. Like with all serious topics touched on in the series, it became a mess because they want the scandal but not the in-depth exploration of what the events they present might actually mean. The logistics of Pen being Lady W are pretty out there and the sheer viciousness of what she does is such a contrast to her everyday persona as to hint at sociopathy. But IMO that is done by accident, they just didn't think about what they were doing, as always. I'm not even talking about Marina, though that was brutal. But some sort of teenage lack of foresight, panic and anger can explain that one. But what have the Bridgertons ever done to her? She's basically trying to ruin Daphne's life for no reason? And her friendship with Eloise also gets tainted by Pen being Lady W: Is she just using Eloise for gossip and scoop on the Bridgertons so she can later stab them in the back (as done with Daphne...)?

Yeah, IMO Page just delivered an all-around excellent performance and the great positive response to him bears that out. The character is tropey and it's all romance novel formula and of course he's really handsome, so there's that as well LOL. But he managed to elevate the material beyond what was in the script with his performance choices and his charisma. Dynevor is also really harmstrung by the one-note script and for me doesn't manage to rise beyond that to that extent. And so you also have the dichotomy in the scene of a three-dimensional response from him to a two-dimensional action from her, which piles on an already problematic, terribly written scene. Dynevor has stronger moments in the series, some in the last two episodes. But IMO overall her Daphne isn't as vibrant as in the book, while Page's Simon outstrips the book character. So that's also something that plays into the resonse towards their characters overall, I feel.

Yeah, I think it's somewhat strange that they made her so muted and colorless in the series IMO. She comes across as more vibrant and interesting in the book. Some of it might be the acting, but to me the script also really doesn't give her all that much. And you can do quiet and reserved characters (which Daphne isn't in the book IMO), without making them dull. Perhaps a case of setting up so much intrigue and side plots that the main character suffered? But they improved Simon. A lot of that is on the actor, but somehow the focus on him was better used than much of the stuff with Daphne IMO.

LOL, it jives with the show's rather old-fashioned vibe though. They pretend to be all modern and edgy and "sexy", but the series is rather retro and safe for all that. So that whole "Teheee! There's sex! And naked people!" attitude really clicks with that. It's the most scandalous show from 1987. 😉 Or 1975, even.

The problem is also that Daphne and Simon are acting as romance tropes here, not really as characters IMO. What they actually need to do to solve their problems is talk and assess their behaviour so they can have a better marriage going forward. No amount of "twu wuv" declarations will help their issues. But since people just communicating with each other is "boring", there is never a satisfying conclusion to their story. Just more "romantic" nonsense thrown their way that is supposed to signal that all is awesome now or whatever. Far as I can see, they haven't confronted their problems at all.

They have introduced the bee theme already and dropped a Pall Mall reference, I believe? So hopefully the fundamentals of the second book stay. They also cast someone recognizable as Anthony and gave him a personality and something to do in the first season (I don't think it was all well-handled, but he wasn't sidelined like Colin or Simon IMO), so that is also a good sign. They seem to make most of the characters rather meaner than their book counter parts, so that's just something we'll have to deal with, I guess. ETA: There is also the rather disturbing scene where Anthony kicks and steps on Kate's hand while she's hiding in the library. And how he starts taunting her when she says that she wants to wait for their wedding night. The wedding night itself is one of the better efforts in Romancelandia in that it's respectful, illuminates something about their characters and doesn't fall into all the usual cliches. But the stuff preceding it is certainly sketchy IMO. Quinn is just not very nuanced much of the time and tries to sell outright nastiness as "banter" or whatever. Hopefully they toss that stuff out or at least address it properly. But I'd rather they just toss it, I don't trust them to make good judgement calls when it comes to characters' questionable actions.

I felt very sorry for Marina and didn't think her response was sullen or unreasonable at all. She was throwing herself at the mercy of a stranger. We hope that Phillip is kind and he seems that way, but it was an all-around horrible situation for her. Trying to manipulate Colin into marrying her without telling him the truth was also wrong, even if understandable in her desperation. But it is clearly presented as wrong in the show. Much of the discussion regarding Pen or Daphne is in the context of the show not really wanting to acknowledge that they do problematic things IMO, not necessarily implying that they are horribly worse than Marina or anything (well, IMO they really shot themselves in the foot with Penelope at the end there, but that is another tangent).

Yeah, IMO Eloise's book isn't very strong anyway, just swap out her love interest for someone else and combine her story with one of the other books, it's really not substantial enough to carry a whole season. There was a lot of padding in the first series, I don't see why they can't combine novels going forward. Anthony's is very good and can sustain a whole season with its main plot, but they could deal with some of the other Bridgertons in the background or so.

Marina was just totally lost and desperate at that point and anyone presented to her as a "solution" in a marriage of convenience would look bad to her IMO. With Colin, at least she probably perceived it as having some sort of choice in the matter and he was more or less her age. That looks less threatening than marrying an older virtual stranger because there are really no other options anymore. At least options that would keep her respectable. Phillip seems like a kind man, so hopefully they find happiness in their marriage, even though it is obviously not something either of them would have chosen without her pregnancy.

Balogh's Bedwyn series, because Wulfric LOL. And I think it might make a good comlement/contrast for "Bridgerton". They are like the big, bad wolves to the Bridgerton's adorable puppies. 😁 You wouldn't have to produce drama for them, they are such fierce, melodramatic jerks, you have excitement and character redemption arcs already baked into the source material. I'd start with "A Summer to Remember" tbh, you have the nice, tranquil romance and all the Bedwyns are basically introduced as the villains of the piece and it's awesome and badass. Nice fake-out for a first episode, from my armchair director perspective. 😉 Beyond that, Balogh has written for many decades and produced various series. She tackles war and PTSD in the Survivors series (uniformly very good). Society scandal with the Westcotts (though she spends way too much time in these books explaining how everyone is related to each other, just stop...). Or older works where she has prostitutes as heroines, if producers want the scandal of that.

Yeah, the romance genre has always been disparaged and ridiculed in sexist terms. There are issues in the romance novel community, but that's true for all other literary genres as well. And if spy novel writers like John LeCarre can be regarded as important authors (I agree, I'm not bashing him!), then why can't prolific romance novel figures like Nora Roberts or Mary Balogh? There are many great books and series that could be adapted to the screen, they would be fun and interesting. Many of the authors also have quite nuanced takes on topics like gender, class, psychological problems, war or race (though this is still a blind spot for parts of the writers and parts of the reader community, it seems to me). Quinn isn't particularly sophisticated and we've talked about the various problems in her works, but she can be witty and entertaining. So with the mostly encouraging reception for "Bridgerton", I don't see why other broadcasters/streaming services/producers can't start looking for more source material in the genre.

I think they are quite good at individual character moments sometimes, but don't really understand long-term character arcs beyond the "shock" or "excitement" of the moment. This ties into not understanding that if you cast POCs in your series, the dynamics you are presenting are necessarily changing. It doesn't become some sort of egalitarian utopia, you're just adding another layer of power hierarchies and structures of oppression and exploitation. Arguably both Pen's and Daphne's story arcs are sorta (white?) female "wish-fullfilment" narratives in the books already. Translating them to the screen uncritically, but adding another layer of power structures to it and not really thinking about how that changes things and makes the optics of it troublesome, is what happened in my view. If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt. IMO they're good at "bright shiny objects", not so good at "long-term."