katha

Yes, what makes me so ragey about this is that they don't seem to understand at all what they are presenting there on screen. They think it is "hot" and "sexy" and "edgy." Just nope. These are deeply disturbing relationship dynamics, abusive relationship dynamics presented as "true love."

Yes, but as it ends in the series, I don't want these people together. They are terrible together. They don't know how to communicate, they don't trust each other. Simon lied to Daphne, Daphne assaulted Simon in revenge. Their relationship is from hell. Yet it is presented as some sort of romantic ideal. It's pretty sickening. I'm not prepared to do the writers' work for them and give them the benefit of the doubt when they can't be bothered to produce something that isn't deeply problematic and wrong. And I dread to think what they will teach their children, with how dysfunctional their relationship is. Totally lacking in trust and respect. Blah. ETA: And this really soured the series for me, which was ridiculous fun otherwise. None of this was necessary. A rewrite of Quinn's mess would have been so easy. Yet they produced this total failure. Here is another article where the writer outlines far more eloquently what I find so scary and wrong about this episode: https://www.pajiba.com/film_reviews/the-questions-of-male-consent-that-puncture-both-fantasy-worlds-of-bridgerton-and-wonder-woman-1984-.php

Yes, the problem is that the show wants to critically reflect on some of those past attitudes. They are presented as deeply problematic and wrong. Yet they create this toxic relationship at its center. And IMO the toxicity never gets in any way resolved. You can't claim a modern, progressive view in some instances, when it suits you. And totally abandon it, when it doesn't. The writing for Simon and Daphne was just very bad here. And the discussion here and around the net clearly shows that at the very least the writing really, really failed, in my view.

Yes, I don't think this is a productive discussion going forward. We just disagree. 🙂 Everyone has obviously personal experiences tied to the topic and is getting understandably distressed. I don't want anyone getting further hurt by continuing to dwell on it. Which makes me even angrier at the show and what a mess it made of things.

"She didn't allow him to pull out" is where it turns into rape. That victims of rape rarely get justice, that messed up gender stereotypes trivialize the rape of men to a point that it is turned into a joke regularly in popular media is another matter entirely. That marital rape, that rape between "loving partners" gets trivialized is another matter. That the show doesn't understand what it is depicting turns it into a part of the problem regarding this hugely toxic attitude that still prevails regarding rape and sexual assault in all forms.

No, he consented to the initial sexual act, but then withdrew consent as it progressed, this is exactly what you are describing. She didn't stop. But I think this will just be an agree to disagree topic, I don't want to make the thread contentious.

Yes, continuing a sexual act while your partner withdraws consent and wants to stop is rape. ETA: This is why their relationship is so toxic. They never learn to communicate and Daphne sees that assaulting her partner will solve all her problems. Simon lied and betrayed her. The solution is to confront him about it and bring down the wrath of the family on him or something, if she feels that is necessary. Not assault him in "revenge."

I think going forward, they have written themselves into a corner with Lady W. Because what she has done has been deliberately malicious in the series and really hurt a lot of people, the blowback of Penelope being discovered would consequently be very severe. As in, ostracized by society severe, losing friendships and relationships severe. But I'm not sure they have the stomach to go there. Once again, they wanted the juicy "scandal" of it, I'm not sure they want to do the hard work of presenting consequences and actual development for the characters.

It was just a failure on all fronts tbh and the relationship depicted consequently is so toxic and unhealthy, while they try to sell it as "twu wuv." And I don't get how they didn't just avoid that whole mess. Everything regarding that conflict is terribly written by Quinn, so the obvious solution is a complete rewrite. Have them disagree about children, but address it with actual communication. I know, it's not as "edgy", but also not as deeply disturbing. And I guess that is a whole other discussion about gender stereotypes, toxic masculinity and the wrongheaded notion that men can never be victimized straight out of the 1950ies... Now we have this totally creepy scenario in 2020 where not wanting children is presented as morally repugnant, trauma can just be bullied away by your wife "for your own good." And fundamental differences regarding plans for life can just be solved by "twu wuv" instead of actual discussions and compromises. And since she's gotten away with it once, will Daphne just violate and assault Simon whenever she disagrees with him on anything? This is sort of implied by this toxic "happy ending." I don't know what they attempted to do with that whole mess. Vanity Fair published a pretty decent article on this: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/12/bridgerton-sexual-assault-scene-how-does-it-happen-in-the-book

I think what also hurt the Lucy character was that she was constantly around Carter. And Carter was in many ways the same model, but executed much better: He started off as a bumbling, overeager med student, making a lot of rookie mistakes in the first seasons. And even Carter at his worst, which he was in his treatment of Lucy, was just a much more interesting and layered character. So you had the constant unconscious comparison between the two presented and I think many viewers sensed that she was somehow not properly drawn as a character.

Yeah, I thought it was nice, but with all the build-up surrounding the mystery it felt like a cop-out: It's clear that it has to be Penelope, but the book is cheating to create "suspense." Colin and Penelope have nice enough rapport, but it seemed all rather pedestrian. Quinn has various issues as a writer that go beyond just the usual quirks of the romance genre, but "Romancing"...just isn't that interesting IMO. I actually think Anthony's book is the strongest. He's not the easiest character, but at least the tension between the main couple is real and the conflict actually stems from both their personalities/goals and it's interesting how they try to work it out. There are various instances where they are just cruel to each other, but at least it's acknowledged as terrible behaviour and not swept aside like with Daphne and Simon.

I'd love the Bedwyns by Balogh because I think Wulfric is one of the best romance heroes created in the last decades. Of course that always leaves a lot of potential for really screwing him up in the adaptation, but I'd take the chance. 😉 The Bedwyns aren't the nicest lot around, so it would create dynamic plots and a chance for character evolution. The Hathaways have really interesting ingredients as well. And Cam Rohan is another really unusual and super awesome romance hero, really breaking with the traditional aristocratic lot. If they want two seasons, they can also segue the Wallflower series into a Hathaway series. Though I find the Wallflower series a bit static, I like the first one, "Secrets of a Summer Night", the best. The Pennyroyal Series by Julie Anne Long is also nice, though very convoluted at this point. And I confess, I mainly want it for "What I Did for A Duke" (IMO one of the best romance novels ever) LOL.

Yeah, it plays out like Simon transitioning from an abusive childhood into marrying another abuser. And that at the end he's just been coerced and gaslighted into seeing her abuse as "good for him." That whole line of "you gave me no choice but to abuse you" Daphne trots out afterwards is classical abuser language. It's a super disturbing message to send. It's disturbing as hell in the book, they tried to water it down in the series. I'm not sure they succeeded.

"Muppet Christmas Carol" is a timeless masterpiece, the best adaptation of that story and Michael Caine is the best Scrooge. My inner eight-year-old doesn't tolerate differing opinions. 😉 I love watching "The Last Unicorn" during the holidays. It's so poetic and really suits that time of the season.

Yeah, I thought Dern's work didn't warrant an Oscar, but that's not on her, that's on the script. It's just not very interesting at the end of the day IMO. It has that speech, but shoving a speech at a character is often an easy substitute for doing more subtle groundwork. In fact, kinda half-baking female characters might perhaps be a Baumbach problem when he is not collaborating with Gerwig, now that I think about it. Driver is stunning. But the writing for him is stunning as well. A whole inner life shown through subtle actions, little moments and the song is just a culmination of two hours of build-up. Notably no monologue. Nicole, I feel, gets the beginning of the movie and the affecting speech there and then the movie loses interest in her interiority and personal development to some degree. Yeah, the movie plays with shifting perspectives, but at a certain point it stays with Charlie and follows through with that right until the last shot. And even when Nicole is in scenes without Charlie, she becomes an audience/supporting act/prop for Nora more often than not. And on rewatch it kinda reaffirmed my feeling that Charlie, no matter how much he is still much more in the process of rebuilding, is in an emotionally healthier place. Because the film is interested in his emotional development. While my instinct is that a good sequel would be "Nicole goes to therapy," where she really works on her communication issues and her tendency to get overwhelmed by the people in her life (Charlie, her mother, Nora, even Henry to some degree). And I don't think that was intended by the movie, the external markers of success are supposed to show that everything is fine now. But somewhere along the way the script lost sight of her development and things get muddled.

I haven't seen this particular adaptation, but it kinda harkens back to a certain type of writing for female characters that wants to be read as "empowering" but ultimately makes them flat and two-dimensional, robbing them of their humanity. Men are allowed to be all sorts of things in all sorts of media: weak-willed, strong-willed, good, bad, evil, kind, cruel, a mix of all these things, They're allowed complexity. A certain subset of writing for women insists that only "strong" characters count: Meaning without flaws, not making mistakes, not being allowed dimensionality. Not being allowed to be vulnerable and human, in short. And misreadings of texts like "Rebecca" go in that vein, I think. One brilliant novel that usually also gets killed by inserting a "strong heroine (tm)" where she doesn't belong is Austen's "Mansfield Park", for example. Fanny Price has been bullied, neglected and emotionally abused all her life. Her fearful, reticent manner is a direct manifestation of that trauma. And makes it all the more impressive when she does stand up for herself even when facing dire consequences. Yet all of that is swiped away, because shyness and meekness is not perceived as "cool". It wrecks the whole point of the novel. Yet they do it again and again, thinking they are "improving" things.

Yeah, I've also heard that Ben Affleck is involved in a project that deals with the making of "Chinatown" or something. Hollywood is really just mostly interested in looking endlessly at itself and celebrating its own importance.

See, I thought the parents' situation was ugly and messy but kinda interesting. He had obviously stopped putting in the effort to work on his marriage and left her emotionally alone in certain ways. Instead of communicating that, she lashes out and has an affair. Certainly ugly and destructive behavior, but also something they might have worked on with a therapist. Instead, he goes on a destructive revenge spree as well and the movie then pretends that giving a melodramatic speech at their kid's school event (WTH???) makes everything magically fine again. I think the Gosling/Stone storyline is nice and the Carrell/Moore plot has potential and is well acted, but the movie is certainly strange in its resolution.

I've recently gotten into "This Is Us" and yeah, it's a manipulative mess often, but I like that it focuses on all kinds of relationships and how important and difficult they are. I also think Jack Pearson is perfectly written and acted, in the clever way you get his family's distorted "Saint Jack" narrative after his death and the real, flawed, but loving and kind man behind it. And I like that he's both a man of his time with all the issues and inability to express himself that brings and how he's constantly shown to engage in the emotional work needed for his marriage and as a father to the best of his abilities anyway. He's such a warm and encouraging presence for all of them, despite his more obnoxious sides, it's no wonder their whole world collapses with his death. But his love for them is also something they all use to built themselves up again afterwards.

Thanks for the video! It was really fun! 😎 While I agree that being a stickler for historical accuracy is not the be all and end all and I didn't mind the costumes in the movie. Where I do think she pinpoints genuine weaknesses is how that bleeds into plot and characterization. You want to make a point about subverting gender norms yet rip the story out of its historical context in a way that actually weakens your argument about the realities and social issues of that time, including expectations regarding female behaviour. I also found the whole explanation on hairstyles really fascinating. How they wouldn't have this instagram Boho hair; or how Laura Dern has "Hollywood hair" in a colour wouldn't even have existed in that time period. And how the way their looks take them out of the time period actually weakens their place as supposed "rebels" since they are operating in a fantasy world anyway. Because IMO stuff like Dern's modernity for example totally weakens the character, not only how she's dressed obviously. IMO she is strangely diminished and lacking in authority in the movie and I do think it can be tied back to the fact that she seems like "Laura Dern in vague period garb" and not really like a woman of her times who is trying to change things for the better.

"Crazy, Stupid, Love": The young son somehow being encouraged to stalk and harass that girl he is in love with. The parents' relationship is obviously messy and complicated beyond something that can be applied to a young teenager's experience, so stop trying to draw parallels, movie. And at the end his parents and the stalked girl act as if his behaviour is adorable. No! Stop that! He needs to learn boundaries! "The Devil Wears Prada": An oldie but goodie: Andie's so-called friends and boyfriend. Why is it okay for them to have demanding careers (her boyfriend is a cook and also never home!) but she must be shamed for her demanding job and being ambitious. It's also established that she wants to do it for a year and then branch out, so why be so nasty to her? If she loses herself in that job indefinitely, that's the point where constructive criticism is warranted. But she was just starting out and they were unsupportive jerks. "Marriage Story": That scene at the end where Nora says that she got 5 useless percent more of custody against Nicole's wishes. The quiet horror of that moment really hit me hard. Such self-serving and predatory behaviour. I mean, Charlie can deal, he's aware that she's opposing counsel and that she doesn't have his best interests at heart, obviously. Divorce is hard and once he stops deluding himself that it will change nothing, he has a clear view and it's sad but so is life often. But the way Nora takes Nicole at her most vulnerable and hurt and gets her a drawn-out, antagonistic, dehumanizing divorce that lines her pockets with Nicole's money and then acts as if that is a "win" for Nicole. And then at the end robbing Nicole of her agency, disrespecting her decisions and once again reducing her to passive bystander in her own life. Those five percent are probably also cosmetics to distract from the fact that a different, less antagonistic, less traumatizing strategy might have yielded the same results much quicker and cheaper. That look of dawning shock and recoginition on Nicole's face is some of Johansson's best acting ever IMO.

The acting Oscar categories have always been a mess because the Academy members are obsessed with "making it up" to actors they ignored and in the process constantly create new actors they ignored and then need to reward for inferior work. Vicious cycle. Al Pacino, Paul Newman, Denzel Washington, Colin Firth, Jeff Bridges, Kate Winslet, Julianne Moore are examples of this, and that's just the first batch that comes to mind. Rami Malek has given plenty of good performances. "Bohemian Rhapsody" is not among them, it's a middling imitation stuck in a bad movie. Taron Egerton showed a vastly superior rendition of that kind of acting last year. Honestly, the Oscar attention for "Bohemian Rhapsody" looks already very misguided and I'm sure the more years pass the worse it will seem. Joaquin Phoenix should have won for "Her." He's given a lot of stellar performances, but should have absolutely won for "Her." I thought Adam Driver was incredible in "Marriage Story" last year and should have beaten Phoenix. But the old "Someone's been so good for such a long time and we've slept on a dozen great performances of them, now it's their turn, Lifetime Achievement Award!" nonsense that pretty much ruins the acting categories is always at play. I'm sure that if people like Driver or Egerton keep at it, they'll also get awards for inferior, but prestigious work in the "Traning Day/Scent of a Woman/The Color of Money" mode. 😉 Lupita Nyong'o should have won Best Actress last year. She wasn't even nominated. Stellar work by the Academy as usual. The Supporting Actress Field was pretty weak, but I'm unconvinced by Dern's win. It wasn't that interesting a performance IMO and also had the whiff of "Lifetime Achievement Award." Brad Pitt was very good, but he was lead in his movie and I'm so tired of the constant category fraud. Meryl Streep shouldn't have won for "The Iron Lady." Glenn Close should have an Oscar by now. But not giving her one for "The Wife" was the right choice. Nominating her for it was already sketchy IMO. The movie is weak and her performance is skilled, but really can't elevate the subpar material.

Watched Venom yesterday. It was fun in a dumb B-movie kind of way. But you really can't think too hard about anything that's happening, it's super ridiculous LOL. I did think that Tom Hardy gave the perfect OTT scenery chewing performance such nonsense pulp fiction really needs. He was a major part of the fun. OTOH, Michelle Williams had the worst wig ever and for all her talent just came across as way too serious for the whole movie. You need to match a certain tone with cartoons like that, and IMO she missed.

Daphne Bridgerton in Julia Quinn's "The Duke and I." I like other books in the Bridgerton series but I noped out of that one and couldn't finish it. Look, Simon is no prince, but coercing and manipulating him as she does in their marriage is just wrong. And don't even get me started on the squicky lack of consent in that sex scene. He comes from an abusive background anyway. And their marriage just read like an extension of that emotional abuse she dished out "for his own good." This is a case where total dysfunction sold as "romantic" really squicked me out. To the point that I have to skip past any scenes with Daphne in the following books because she bothers me so much.

Having recently watched "Marriage Story", it really stayed with me. And since the movie does so many things right, the jarring things it IMO gets wrong stand out even more. I've seen criticism of the (lack of) writing for the kid and how it is a dishonest and convenient copout. And underwritten scenes for Nicole lead to the perverse effect that she lacks agency and becomes a supporting act for other people in various instances when the narrative is about her trying to reclaim her own life. All of that I've seen acknowledged as structural weaknesses. But that shoe tying scene at the end is almost universally hailed. And No. Just No. IMO it's a totally sentimental and mawkish beat that isn't at all earned. We just saw these people needlessly destroy each other in unneccesarily traumatic divorce proceedings. I will let the convenient letter reading slide since it acknowledges their total failure to communicate and what they lost. And them actually being accomodating towards each other and not trying to hurt each other at all costs anymore is real progress. Since for a minute there absolute hatred was really on the table (and would certainly have suited the bank accounts of their lawyers some more.) But they walk on broken glass around each other in the other scenes since they've hurt each other so badly and the divorce burned down a lot of their trust in each other. IMO they don't have the relationship for that tender scene anymore. They wilfully destroyed that in the divorce. It's Baumbach throwing away narrative coherence for a pretty moment and most of the movie is better than that.