katha

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."

I think it is also a problem of genre and that the show wants to pretend that it's 1987 or something. The term "bodice ripper" wasn't coined for nothing. There has always been at least a subset of romance novels that actually have presented very questionable/non-existent consent as a feature. Romance novels, particularly historicals, have been criticized for glamorizing rape and assault since forever. This is of course way too broad and fueled by all kinds of misogyny as well, but this is a stylistic and content choice used often enough to have become notorious/infamous. Of course the more egregious examples are older books, discourse and awareness has progressed since the 80ies or so when this sort of romance was really booming. What can be dismissed as harmless fantasy when it is written down, hits differently when presented on screen IMO. It isn't some harmless fairytale anymore, it's acted out by real people. And that's why discussion and controversy in the media has started up (I'm actually pleasantly surprised that the media is taking the romance genre seriously enough to talk about this tbh). It probably goes beyond "Bridgerton" and Julia Quinn. The romance novel community might need to start some soul-searching when it comes to presentation of consent. Unfortunately, it's often shown itself to be resistant to criticism and anyone trying to question the status quo (the RWA disaster this year comes to mind...).

I just think they want to have it in all ways and consequently created a situation where Penelope has acquired way more "baggage" than she ever had in the books. It's not insurmountable, but I don't trust them to know how to handle it in a satisfying fashion. They're good at the froth and fun and vaguely naughty, pretty terrible at the more serious stuff. That only works in individual moments, never in a coherent storytelling way. They wanted to have Lady W wreck way more havoc in society so as to create maximum drama, but don't really want to connect it to Pen and how her actions as Lady W reflect on her and call a lot that she does as "herself" into question.

For all that I found the treatment of the topic in the series very problematic, IMO it's encouraging that it has spurred some productive discourse regarding the presentation of consent in the media: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/12/bridgerton-sexual-assault-scene-how-does-it-happen-in-the-book https://www.pajiba.com/film_reviews/the-questions-of-male-consent-that-puncture-both-fantasy-worlds-of-bridgerton-and-wonder-woman-1984-.php https://www.vox.com/22194033/bridgerton-netflix-rape-scene-novel https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/bridgertons-rape-scene-exposes-problem-historical-romantic-fiction/ Usually with something seen as "frothy" like the romance genre, things like that just aren't taken seriously. OTOH, it's unfortunate that a bigger audience is first exposed to a romance series where the handling of the topic is as oblivious as IMO Quinn and the series (in a different way) are. Issues regarding consent are of course present in the romance genre as a whole, particularly in older works. But the genre in my view also often does very good work in very sensitively and intelligently depicting the complexities involved. That said, if they wanted to adapt something like the Wallflower series by Kleypas, for example, I would also want them to deal with "The Devil in Winter" in a manner that either acknowledges that St. Vincent abducted and threatened rape in a previous book or drop that plot point altogether. None of that "He didn't really mean it, it was just a joke, he has a heart of gold LOL" nonsense the novel tries to pull. One of the best historicals dealing with this and one of the best books of the genre IMO is "Indiscreet" by Balogh, really taking into account the brutal reality for women and the societal consequences. With an anti-hero slowly coming to understand and genuinely repent that him ruining the reputation of the heroine and consequently having to marry her re-victimized her after her family had shunned her already years before for refusing to marry her rapist. It didn't even seem anachronistic that he gained this awareness and took responsibility for his own actions because Balogh gives it all so much nuance. But I guess this is also a case where you wouldn't have silly fun, adapted to the screen it would translate into a serious historical drama.

Yeah, for all my issues with the adaptation, I am kinda gleeful that they are stomping all over most of Quinn's regressive views. She can't really say anything, because they are giving her money, but LOL. I hope they continue with that aspect. And how backwards she is can't really be explained with genre or her age or anything. Someone like Balogh, who is way older, has tried to adapt her writing. With failures, of course, but when called out for "Someone to Love", for example, she was gracious and able to take criticism. Kleypas has included working-class and non-white heroes in her historicals. It's not some grand progressive stance, but other established figures of the genre have been somewhat able to evolve beyond their comfort zones.

In the moment when traumatic and distressing things are happening, people can also freeze up and become overwhelmed by the situation. The actor portrays Simon as in shock, so much so that he regresses to the stutter from his abusive childhood. So it is clearly portrayed as an extremely disturbing event for him. And he's left reeling by the end. His body language around Daphne also changes after that, as if he is constantly wating for her to do something again and walking on eggshells around her. So some of the writing and the acting doesn't treat it as a joke. But then the script doesn't want to properly acknowledge it either. It's just an endless trainwreck. Another factor is that Regé-Jean Page just gives a superior performance to Phoebe Dynevor IMO, often transcending the writing. So while Daphne sort of stays this cartoon character who does something bad without giving her layers (that the script also denies her, of course), Simon has a more three-dimensional reaction to what is happening around him and to him, probably exceeding what the script wants to give him.

Pen is a bit delusional in the books when it comes to possible consequences for writing as Lady W. But it's mostly handled as denial and when she's exposed, there is blowback. But it's also believable that it's not too bad, since she has the Bridgertons defending her, the column was super popular in society and Lady W wasn't really malicious and out to ruin lives for the most part. It's fun gossip in the books. In the series it has taken on a much darker edge and she's deliberately hurting people she is also supposedly friends with or even loves. Marina is bad, but at least it has some form of context, however misguided. Going so hard after Daphne for no reason in a way that she knows could ruin her, for example? I don't understand the motivation there and I'm afraid the writers don't, either. The series is just not very well thought-out when it is supposed to provide characterization. Bright shiny objects are more important than building good relationships or creating consistent characters.

Yeah, they're off with Anthony, like they are with most of the characters, I'd argue (Simon is perhaps the only one who fares better than in the book, but that is also the personal charisma of the actor, more than the writing, probably). But at least he has some sort of recognizable personality? And IMO he did improve throughout the series, his interactions with the family were nice. But don't know how well they will translate the second book. They kept all the wrong parts of the first one IMO, so no idea how it will play out in the second season.