I'm everyone, paint your label on me
Jan. 26th, 2013 07:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dolorosa_12This has been a somewhat disappointing and frustrating week, so aside from mentioning that the snow is finally starting to melt so I can finally run outside again, I'm not going to talk about life stuff that makes me unhappy and instead talk about fandom stuff that makes me very happy indeed.
Once Upon a Time remains a somewhat patchy show. To a certain extent, I blame the way I got into it. I had no intention of watching it, then I heard Jane Espenson was involved, idly Tumblr-surfed the relevant tags, and realised that Rumplestiltskin/Belle (from Beauty and the Beast) was a thing. It's a terrible thing to admit, but I just love watching that kind of relationship unfold (which is hilarious, because I'm always one of those people quick to criticise things like Twilight for romanticising abuse). But the point is this: I find the vast majority of the characters on OUAT massively one-note and boring. I liked the Snow/Charming stuff in Fairytale Land in season one, but find them tedious in Storybrooke, and have pretty much zero interest in most of the other characters (Ruby and Mulan being the rare exceptions). So when the episode isn't Rumplestiltskin/Belle-focused, I lose interest, start thinking I should drop the show, only to be pulled in again when the focus swings back to my favourite messed-up couple.
There's been some justified criticism for R/B, to the tone of the fact that for all Belle keeps saying she 'sees good in Rumplestiltskin|Gold', he really hasn't done anything to warrant such belief. Rather than romanticising their relationship, I actually think the show is subtly critiquing the whole kind-hearted woman and her beloved monster trope. Dare I hope that a mainstream show is actually attempting to explore the dynamics behind relationships with massive power imbalances? relationships where the woman is more than a little masochistic? I suspect I'm reading too much into things, but as long as the pair are onscreen, I can't look away.
Pretty Little Liars remains the best thing currently airing on TV. Honestly, it's a show whose driving themes are the power of female relationships and the absolute horror suburban, middle-class America has of teenage female sexuality and the honest expression thereof. Even though the characters are cartoonish in some ways and even though their struggles and dramas('someone's manipulating us - and apparently everyone else in our town - through abusive text messages! They know all our secrets!') are ridiculously unrealistic, their relationships and interactions with each other have a reality and resonance that transcends the circumstances of the plot.
I think it's fairly obvious at this point that there are two Alisons. (Please, no book spoilers. I don't want to know what happens in the books.) What I'm unclear on is when exactly Alison's twin showed up, whether Alison is the evil one, whether she's the one who is dead, and at what point both of them were interacting with the Liars before 'Alison's' murder. It seems clear to me that on the night of the murder, we are dealing with two separate girls in the various flashbacks - which in my book means that none of the vindications we've seen of the characters so far hold up. (This will probably make sense to precisely three people reading.) I'm also uncertain as to whether 'A' actually killed 'Alison' or not. What I think more likely is that the circumstances surrounding Alison's death make a lot of people think they know who killed her, and also make those same people think that they might be blamed (Hello, Byron Montgomery, you horrible human being). This has allowed 'A' to gather a massive gang of minions to do his/her bidding, because all these paranoid people have something to hide. But I'm not sure whether one of those people actually committed the murder, or whether 'A' did.
I've been rewatching this series with Matthias, and the more I see, the more angry I am that the show wasn't renewed. It's so rich and interesting, and its actors are so good at the roles they play, and I wish we could have had at least three more seasons. I miss having that cast on my screen. At the time of the cancellation, the rhetoric floating around online was that Fox made a decision to axe either T:TSCC or Dollhouse, and Dollhouse was saved. Whatever the truth of that matter, back then I was happy because OMG Joss Whedon Is God and all that. But looking at it objectively, T:TSCC was actually a better and more interesting show. Eliza Dushku wasn't a good enough actress to carry a show, the quality of the writing and overall story was patchy, and T:TSCC answered the questions Dollhouse asked ('What is identity?' 'What is humanity and consciousness?' 'Do we have any control over our fate') much better. So yeah, I'm retrospectively bitter.
I'm currently reading a non-fiction book about the Wars of the Roses. It's a popular history rather than a proper academic work (as demonstrated by its lack of footnotes and tendency to quote sources in Modern English translation instead of in the original), but it's reminding me just how fascinating I find that period of history. I've always found myself profoundly uninterested in the Tudors - indeed, Hilary Mantel aside, I find Henry VIII and those around him utterly repellant. Give me Plantagenets any day. But this reminded me that the Bell Shakespeare Company is apparently doing Henry IV this year, with John Bell playing Falstaff and directing. It's one of those moments that I'm bitterly disappointed not to be living in Australia any more. I love the Bell, and John Bell in particular. My family saw every show they ever put on in the years between 1994 and 2008. I'm not sure how many more opportunities I'll have to see John Bell act. And although I've seen him in the role three times, I'd love it if his final time onstage was as Prospero in The Tempest, and if I could be there. It would just be so fitting and appropriate.
In other news, I simply cannot stop listening to this playlist:
Once Upon a Time remains a somewhat patchy show. To a certain extent, I blame the way I got into it. I had no intention of watching it, then I heard Jane Espenson was involved, idly Tumblr-surfed the relevant tags, and realised that Rumplestiltskin/Belle (from Beauty and the Beast) was a thing. It's a terrible thing to admit, but I just love watching that kind of relationship unfold (which is hilarious, because I'm always one of those people quick to criticise things like Twilight for romanticising abuse). But the point is this: I find the vast majority of the characters on OUAT massively one-note and boring. I liked the Snow/Charming stuff in Fairytale Land in season one, but find them tedious in Storybrooke, and have pretty much zero interest in most of the other characters (Ruby and Mulan being the rare exceptions). So when the episode isn't Rumplestiltskin/Belle-focused, I lose interest, start thinking I should drop the show, only to be pulled in again when the focus swings back to my favourite messed-up couple.
There's been some justified criticism for R/B, to the tone of the fact that for all Belle keeps saying she 'sees good in Rumplestiltskin|Gold', he really hasn't done anything to warrant such belief. Rather than romanticising their relationship, I actually think the show is subtly critiquing the whole kind-hearted woman and her beloved monster trope. Dare I hope that a mainstream show is actually attempting to explore the dynamics behind relationships with massive power imbalances? relationships where the woman is more than a little masochistic? I suspect I'm reading too much into things, but as long as the pair are onscreen, I can't look away.
Pretty Little Liars remains the best thing currently airing on TV. Honestly, it's a show whose driving themes are the power of female relationships and the absolute horror suburban, middle-class America has of teenage female sexuality and the honest expression thereof. Even though the characters are cartoonish in some ways and even though their struggles and dramas('someone's manipulating us - and apparently everyone else in our town - through abusive text messages! They know all our secrets!') are ridiculously unrealistic, their relationships and interactions with each other have a reality and resonance that transcends the circumstances of the plot.
I think it's fairly obvious at this point that there are two Alisons. (Please, no book spoilers. I don't want to know what happens in the books.) What I'm unclear on is when exactly Alison's twin showed up, whether Alison is the evil one, whether she's the one who is dead, and at what point both of them were interacting with the Liars before 'Alison's' murder. It seems clear to me that on the night of the murder, we are dealing with two separate girls in the various flashbacks - which in my book means that none of the vindications we've seen of the characters so far hold up. (This will probably make sense to precisely three people reading.) I'm also uncertain as to whether 'A' actually killed 'Alison' or not. What I think more likely is that the circumstances surrounding Alison's death make a lot of people think they know who killed her, and also make those same people think that they might be blamed (Hello, Byron Montgomery, you horrible human being). This has allowed 'A' to gather a massive gang of minions to do his/her bidding, because all these paranoid people have something to hide. But I'm not sure whether one of those people actually committed the murder, or whether 'A' did.
I've been rewatching this series with Matthias, and the more I see, the more angry I am that the show wasn't renewed. It's so rich and interesting, and its actors are so good at the roles they play, and I wish we could have had at least three more seasons. I miss having that cast on my screen. At the time of the cancellation, the rhetoric floating around online was that Fox made a decision to axe either T:TSCC or Dollhouse, and Dollhouse was saved. Whatever the truth of that matter, back then I was happy because OMG Joss Whedon Is God and all that. But looking at it objectively, T:TSCC was actually a better and more interesting show. Eliza Dushku wasn't a good enough actress to carry a show, the quality of the writing and overall story was patchy, and T:TSCC answered the questions Dollhouse asked ('What is identity?' 'What is humanity and consciousness?' 'Do we have any control over our fate') much better. So yeah, I'm retrospectively bitter.
I'm currently reading a non-fiction book about the Wars of the Roses. It's a popular history rather than a proper academic work (as demonstrated by its lack of footnotes and tendency to quote sources in Modern English translation instead of in the original), but it's reminding me just how fascinating I find that period of history. I've always found myself profoundly uninterested in the Tudors - indeed, Hilary Mantel aside, I find Henry VIII and those around him utterly repellant. Give me Plantagenets any day. But this reminded me that the Bell Shakespeare Company is apparently doing Henry IV this year, with John Bell playing Falstaff and directing. It's one of those moments that I'm bitterly disappointed not to be living in Australia any more. I love the Bell, and John Bell in particular. My family saw every show they ever put on in the years between 1994 and 2008. I'm not sure how many more opportunities I'll have to see John Bell act. And although I've seen him in the role three times, I'd love it if his final time onstage was as Prospero in The Tempest, and if I could be there. It would just be so fitting and appropriate.
In other news, I simply cannot stop listening to this playlist:
