Strictly Ornamental

Hard Quiz - fandom diversion

daasgrrl — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 22:48:22 GMT

So there's this quiz show on the ABC (Australia's national broadcaster) that I rather enjoy called Hard Quiz. It's hosted by an entertainingly prickly comedian (Tom Gleeson) and starts with four contestants per show, the schtick being that they each have an "expert subject" to be quizzed on. The first round features each contestant being given five fairly easy questions about their expert subject to answer, while other contestants can buzz in to "steal" that answer for double points. Then there's a round of specialist questions on a random subject (say dinosaurs, or Australian Prime Ministers), after which one contestant is sent home. Then there's a round of "people's" questions (current affairs/pop culture/basic knowledge) followed by another exit. The remaining two contestants then go "head to head" with harder questions on their expert subjects. I've often thought if I were to go on this show I would obviously want to choose Sherlock. So far there have been experts in Buffy, The Simpsons and Modern Family, but I haven't seen Sherlock yet *g*

Anyway, while I'm several weeks behind on shows, I watched one yesterday and was highly amused when one contestant (Dave, from the Australian Bureau of Statistics) had chosen "Benedict Cumberbatch" as his expert subject. Even though I've fallen out of the Cumberbatch fandom for the most part I got all of his easy questions, plus two harder ones he didn't get. So I thought I'd share, for you would-be experts.

Easy round
1. Cumberbatch earned his first BAFTA nomination in 2005 for his portrayal of which theoretical physicist?
2. In which Benedict Cumberbatch show are his character's parents played by his actual parents in recurring roles? (LOL - I think there are an exceedingly limited number of BC "shows" to pick from!)
3. Cumberbatch has expressed concerns that the cause of feminism was being set back by which collective name used by his fans?
(During the ensuing discussion, Dave mentioned he'd also heard "CumberOtters" as an alternative but could not - or possibly would not - explain why this might be a collective noun, saying only that it probably referred to "cute" fans because otters are cute :P)
4. In 2013, Cumberbatch played two roles in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, and also played two roles in which long-running animated sitcom?
5. In 2015, the Queen appointed Cumberbatch as a Commander of what?

Head to head
1. Early in his career, Cumberbatch experimented with a change of name. What professional name did he take?
2. In a stage version of Frankenstein at the Royal National Theatre, Cumberbatch alternated the lead roles with which actor?
3. For scenes in Sherlock, where Holmes plays the violin, Cumberbatch was coached by a member of which best-selling band? (I would not have got this one, or even known her name, although I do know she wrote about it, lol.)
4. In a prank while filming Star Trek: Into Darkness, Cumberbatch was convinced he had to wear protective cream on a laboratory set. What was the protective cream called?
5. According to his high school drama teacher, a teenage Cumberbatch was strikingly mature as a saucy French maid in which farce? (Nope, although I recognised the title once I'd heard it.)

How did you go? For the record, Dave got all five of the first round but only one of the second round correct (2). He lost to the expert on Led Zeppelin *g*

April Fool? No, genuine update...

daasgrrl — Sun, 01 Apr 2018 10:42:12 GMT

Wow, long time no... anything. It's been a hell of a year, is all I'm going to say. Nevertheless, movies and shows have still been watched, so I'll stick to those.

January

Downsizing - they had me at the trailer, with Matt Damon and Kristen Wiig deciding to solve all their financial woes by literally "downsizing" to six inches tall, where they can have a luxurious lifestyle at a fraction of the cost. The trailer pretty much leaves it there, giving the impression that it's about some kind of ultimate lifestyle change and its repercussions, like those people who decide to be global nomads or live in tiny houses or some such. But after the initial set-up it takes a hard left into darker issues - hardcore environmental groups who want everyone to downsize to save the planet, middlemen who make their fortunes by converting "large" products for the smaller world, and despotic governments who see downsizing troublemakers involuntarily as a neat solution to their problems. They also hint at the uglier side of "regular" downsizing - where everyone lives like a king, where do you get the underclass to clean the houses and do the thankless service jobs? In short, it was a lot more complicated than the whimsical comedy it appeared to be on the surface. I don't think it quite reached the heights it was aiming for - it was too lightly filmed for that, and the premise is intrinsically a bit smile-inducing - but it did have interesting ideas that went a lot further than, "hey, what if we could shrink people"?

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri - I enjoyed this a lot, probably more than I should have. Nuanced, self-contradictory characters shouldn't really be a big deal but I guess it says a lot about typical Hollywood movies that they seemed to be much more interesting than average. Of all the Academy Award nominees for Best Picture that I actually saw, I would have given it to this one.

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle - I like Jack Black a lot, and the Rock is fun, don't judge me. Did pretty much exactly what I expected, neither more or less. Which was to deliver light, fluffy entertainment with a feel-good ending.

February

I, Tonya - I remember the attack on Kerrigan when it happened, and the redneck vs princess boxes Harding and Kerrigan were put into at the time, which were apparently not completely true. I only have a passing interest in figure skating, and I know the movie is meant to be overly sympathetic to Harding, but I really enjoyed it as a "based on a true story" piece. Margot Robbie did a great job, and it was thoroughly compelling. I think it says something about the sheltered life I've led that I still find it shocking that any objectively successful, talented woman would fall into and continue a relationship that involved domestic abuse. Intellectually, I get that people can be weak in some places and strong in others, and that abusers are often manipulators, but I don't emotionally comprehend it (which I realise I should be grateful for). And I'm sure she gave some of her own back as well, but in the movie it bothered me almost as much as the attack.

Welcome to Night Vale: All Hail (live show, Sydney Opera House) - I've only listened to a handful of Night Vale shows, and read the transcripts of maybe 20-odd more, but the show has such a cult following I thought it'd be fun. Judging from the reaction of the fans, it was a great show for them. Whereas I thought it resembled a university revue that had been put together over a drunken weekend - that's actually unfair, I've seen some very clever university revues. But here there was far too much made of far too little substance. I did enjoy the skit with one of the writers that involved a complex rumination about time travel and avoidance of responsibility, but otherwise there was little memorable about it, and there were some small technical and vocal hitches that made the show feel like what there was of it hadn't even been properly rehearsed. It's nice that the true fans enjoyed it (and they were there, in cosplay and everything), but never again

Follies (NT Live) - Philip Quast and Imelda Staunton OMG. The catch being, of course, that this level of casting naturally raises expectations high, inviting subsequent disappointment. I'm very pleased to say that did not happen. Now, I'm not a big fan of this show as such (knew many of the songs quite well, but have never seen it performed) but it was brilliant, moving, all the superlatives. For anyone unfamiliar with the story, it's notionally about the reunion of the "Weismann Girls" (revue/burlesque performers) in a crumbling theatre, remnants of a former glorious age. It's a general tribute to the era intertwined with the stories of two couples who attend the reunion - Phyllis and Ben, Sally and Buddy. Structurally I found much of the first half a bit of a random walk through past and present, spiced with nostalgic side trips, and it seemed as though it would continue that way pleasantly enough throughout, but then everything suddenly snapped together like a bear trap covered in feathers and it hurt. Ouch and yes, and I think I'm finally old enough to appreciate this show for what it says about life, love and relationships. And again, ouch.

March

The Shape of Water - Hmm. This contained so many of my favourite things - a world dominated by water and the colour green, beautifully shot, and about misfits and outsiders struggling in an enviroment not made for them. And I did enjoy it, very much, but it didn't speak to me as much as I thought and/or hoped it would. I know it was meant to have a fairytale quality, but it felt too pat, too overdetermined for something that also attempted to mimic a certain level of realism. I also thought there were too many loose threads and underdeveloped characters for it to be truly gripping. I don't know. As I say, very much enjoyed, many beautiful moments, but still not really for me. It would be difficult to ever match Pan's Labyrinth, but even Crimson Peak appealed to my personal kinks so much more.

In the Heights (Hayes Theatre) - I was a bit dubious about an Australian production of this show, much less a relatively low-budget version in a tiny theatre, but they pulled it off admirably. Sydney has an incredibly diverse population, and while not all of the cast were of Hispanic descent, most of them were, and the remaining cast were at least non-Anglo. Result being a lot of very talented people I'd never seen on stage before (or at least not in featured roles). American-infused accents were fine to my ear - probably easier to pull off while singing and rapping, and given the setting the small theatre and set rather worked in the show's favour than against it. As a musical I thought the lyrics ranged from "omg brilliant" to "if you say ninety-six thousand one more time I WILL SCREAM" but the music and sheer energy held it all together. Absolutely fantastic production of an imperfect, but authentic, brash and passionate musical. Particularly enjoyed Ryan Gonzales (Uznavi), Tim Omaji (Benny), Monique Montez (Daniela) and Ana Maria Belo (Camila). (I just discovered from googling the cast names that Belo is also deaf and uses hearing aids. She was fantastic - I did notice her voice was very slightly unusual, but would never have known.) Glad that I got to see a version of this, even if it's a long way from home. I felt that it wasn't a musical "for me" as such - I think LMM's tribe would have been thrilled with it and understood it on a level I never will - but it was still very accessible and universal in its themes.

And that's mostly it. Oh, and I also read Aciman's Call Me By Your Name just for the sake of it, the same way I shouldered my way through Twilight just to make sure I wasn't secretly missing something really amazing (in the case of Twilight: I wasn't). It was a rough start - I actually deserted it mid-way through in favour of reading Helter-Skelter, a creepy but fascinating account of the Manson murders - but managed to circle back before it was due back at the library. And surprisingly, I did find some of it quite good and worthwhile, just not the bits I was expecting. The setup of the love story was - for me - every bit as lacking in conviction as in the movie. It feels very much about the summer Elio falls in love with himself - for all the supposed passion, I still got a "told, not shown" vibe about it. It just didn't leave me convinced of the attraction from Elio's point of view or from Oliver's. Like the movie, Elio's relationship with Marzia feels much more authentic, and it's not like I have any preference for hetero couples. So that left me completely cold, no surprise there. However I did enjoy some parts very much - which were all pretty much glossed over or left out in the film. I thought the character of Vimini - the child dying of leukemia who Oliver befriends - was essential to the themes of the book and think it would have added so much if she had been included, in tandem with a much more lengthy and complex ending than "Oliver leaves and announces he's getting married". Then it wouldn't have been so much a rather uninspiring love story as a meditation on choices made and not made, and lives lived and not lived - hinted at in Elio's father's speech, but imo without Vimini never fully realised in the movie. Another part that was magical was Elio's night in Rome, caught up in the sweep of adulthood as in one endless night he follows along from book-signing to restaurant to bar, and through the streets of Rome. Oliver was really only incidental to this part, but I felt that Aciman captured the sharp thrill of a post-adolescent world suddenly opening up in all directions. The third thing that surprised me in a good way was that Elio and Oliver do meet again, over and over, and both move on in their own ways - but for Elio especially, part of him still seems "trapped" in that time, never to move on, much like Vimini, who never makes it to adulthood. Thematically, I liked those ideas very much and felt they gave the book a balance and depth which I found lacking in the movie. So I do give the novel a grudging nod of appreciation for the last two chapters, but I sadly still do not give a damn about the "love story" that was the main feature of the movie.

We're werewolves, not swearwolves!

daasgrrl — Fri, 19 Jan 2018 01:09:12 GMT

It's already the third week of January, but happy new year, etc. *g*. I don't really make resolutions, but I did think it might be nice to spend more time writing ANYTHING, and a journal entry is better than nothing. Surely once every couple of weeks isn't too much to ask...

Just got back from a holiday in New Zealand, which was as picturesque as you'd imagine and more so. Will probably put all that in a separate post. But the sense of space and endless lakes and mountains was amazing - there aren't many places in the world I've visited that feel as though people have barely touched them.

A couple of leftover movies from last year:

The Killing of a Sacred Deer - this was written and directed by Yorgos Lanthimos, who also wrote and directed The Lobster. There's something about his off-kilter worldview I find irresistible, which is the main reason I saw this. At heart, it's a revenge tale about a surgeon, Steven (Colin Farrell) who has everything - successful career, beautiful wife (Nicole Kidman) and family, and an enigmatic teenage boy Martin (Barry Keoghan) whose late father was operated on by Steven under questionable circumstances. It has all of the odd, inexplicable quirks of The Lobster, meaning that if you tend to nitpick, "but how did...", there will be no satisfactory answers. However, I love his style so much that I can actually go with it for once *g*

One thing I noticed here that escaped me in The Lobster (but was present in hindsight) is that he has his actors speak in this stylised, almost monotonic way, at which Colin Farrell is particularly accomplished, but they all did this, even the children. The writing also did remind me somewhat of theatre, something about the measured pacing of it, the rhythms. One unexpected benefit was that I enjoyed Nicole Kidman in this much more than I usually do - I'd never realised the way she talked was one of the things I disliked about her acting, but having her speech reshaped in this way made her much more palatable. The net effect is that the movie is this bizarre, surrealistic thing, while the actors all sound extraordinarily matter-of-fact about everything. I don't know, the movie definitely risks the charge of being arty and pretentious, but it's totally the kind of arty and pretentious that works for me.

Call Me By Your Name - oh dear. I did originally feel this was not at all my kind of thing, despite the m/m romance, but it's received such hype and enthusiasm I thought I should reconsider. Yeah, I should probably trust my instincts in future *g*. I will spare you all by putting the ~~meaner~~ more honest version under the cut.

Oh, god, I can't even with this movie. By the end, I was just desperately, desperately waiting for Oliver to leave and for the movie to be over. It was like The Lord of the Rings - The Movie That Would Not End. It really felt like a hostage situation. First, time was up and Oliver was getting on the bus - yay! But wait ... Elio is going with him! Nooo. Okay, they've had their little holiday, now Oliver is getting on the train. Bye, Oliver! Elio is sad and calls his mum to take him home (okay, that was the one moment I did find moving). But now we're done, right? No! Elio needs to talk with his ex-girlfriend and have a heart-to-heart with his (apparently closeted) dad. But surely that's the end, right? No again! We have to wait until one last letter from Oliver, and watch Elio cry a single endless tear over the flickering flames forever and ever, amen. I went to see this with M, who happens to be gay, and has been dragged along to many dubious shows and movies. By the end, we were both in silent paroxysms of laughter. You know where you know intellectually that what is being shown on the screen is Deeply Moving, and so you cannot make a sound, but at the same time can't stop laughing? It's more difficult than you might imagine - I was literally struggling to breathe for a few seconds because I had to calm down enough to draw breath without giggling out loud.

One scene stands out - when Oliver and Elio go on their little holiday together, they inexplicably happen across a man and two women in a car blaring music down an alley. It's night-time. Oliver goes off to dance with one of the girls, while Elio watches. Why? Because. The man stands stoically beside the car, while the other woman, dressed all in black, sits in the front seat silently smoking and looking incredibly fed up with everything. Bitchface to the power of ten. Afterwards, M and I agreed that she was definitely the character with whom we empathised the most. Also that we hadn't laughed so hard in a movie in years *g*

M thought it was "unrealistic" that Elio hadn't bothered experimenting with boys his own age but throws himself at this stranger, which I can't speak to, but okay. I personally got a very "women = second best" vibe, heightened by the father's speech I think. I did manage to entertain myself in the middle section by visualising Oliver as a reluctant Mycroft and Elio as Sherlock, but my heart wasn't in it.

The few things I liked about this movie - um, it was pretty, I guess? In a completely bland and uninspiring way. Elio's girlfriend and mother were both vibrant and attractive. I found Elio's relationship with Marzia far more convincing than his with Oliver, which kind of defeats the emotional drive of the movie. I felt no spark whatsoever between Oliver and Elio, and am baffled by the reviews that talk about their longing and chemistry. Elio's dad reminded me of Robin Williams Lite, which was insanely distracting. I do not find Arnie Hammer or Timothee Chalamet remotely attractive, which probably didn't help. I did genuinely enjoy all the little period details - the clothes, the accessories - and as I said earlier, the scene where Elio calls his mother. The rest was just indifference. I wasn't bored as such, but I wasn't engaged either - well, at least not until I gave up on it entirely and started waiting for it to be over with. Mostly, I was just there. This is the kind of arty and pretentious that I loathe with every fibre of my being. If this is the pinnacle of gay romance movies, I am disappoint. God's Own Country and Moonlight were both better than this, and I didn't like them overmuch either.

Pitch Perfect 3 - first movie of 2018. Loved it and had a thoroughly good time. Pretty people, much lovely and completely gratuitous singing, great choreography, ridiculous plot, Anna Kendrick and Rebel Wilson. John Lithgow doing an appalling Australian accent. Girl power, friends sticking together, a touch of melancholy to cut through the sweetness, but otherwise all the joys of silliness and fun. It exceeded expectations in that it was far better than it strictly needed to be for me to enjoy it. Also, Rebel Wilson should do action movies - she is totally convincing *g*

Have finally entered the 21st century by signing up to a streaming service (Stan). Watched What We Do in the Shadows, Taika Waititi's vampire sharehouse mockumentary, which was delightful. I refused to see it when it came out because I had had it up to here with vampires, but apparently, like versions of Sherlock Holmes, there's always room for one more. Loved the prissy werewolves as well. OMG. Also partway through Electric Dreams (the Philip K Dick short story adaptations, not the 80s computer-girl romance). Have found them to be big on budget, but not particularly well written (imo, obviously). Always great to see Steve Buscemi and Anna Paquin, though. Also started watching The Thick of It (British political comedy featuring Peter Capaldi) which is wincingly funny.

The mention of Capaldi reminds me that I also watched Twice Upon a Time (the Doctor Who Christmas special) pretty much just to see Mark Gatiss. I enjoyed it in a vaguely nostalgic way - I haven't watched Doctor Who on a regular basis since Tom Baker. I do like Capaldi in general much better than Tennant or Smith though.

What have y'all been watching/reading?

Merry... oh wait, not yet

daasgrrl — Fri, 22 Dec 2017 23:46:18 GMT

Man, it's been a year. It started off pretty well (on a personal level - not even going to circle outwards) and went downhill from there. But still, I'm going to tidy up quickly with the stuff I've been seeing.

Blade Runner: 2049 - liked the original, although not with the same reverence as some. So I tended to watch this half as a stand-alone rather than a continuation, and on that level it worked well. Although I did really love that they extended the "future" already shown in the original, rather than making it too much about today, so that it had that feeling of carrying forward the preoccupations of the "past future" world, if that even makes sense. Retro and futuristic at the same time.

Loved seeing Harrison Ford again, the tension between humans and replicants and the blurry lines around their respective characteristics was interesting as always. One of the characters reminded me irresistibly ofindybaggins, which was entertaining in itself. The "world" didn't make sense to me at times, like the deserted area and building around the "bubble girl" and how she fits into that society, but was vibrant and interesting. I do like science fiction that is by and large less flashy and blasty and more thinky, so I appreciated that.

Murder on the Orient Express - saw this mainly for Branagh and the amazing cast. It didn't work for me as a book adaptation - I think if you'd never read the book it would be somewhat unsatisfying in terms of clues and the piecing together of the actual mystery. But I love Branagh's extravagant eye for scenery and his general earnestness in storytelling. It's almost quaint nowadays, and I adore it. Cast of course were really fun to watch as well - Judi Dench, Olivia Colman, Johnny Depp, Josh Gad. The first 15 minutes or so, and its introductory "mini-mystery" was slick and super-flashy, imo much more inspired by modern Sherlock than in the spirit of Hercule Poirot. But nevertheless extremely entertaining.

Beautiful - The Carole King story - good script, great cast, so a pleasant enough experience, but the laziest jukebox musical I've ever seen. There was very little attempt to let the songs "tell" the story in any sense - generally it was King or one of her friends sitting at a piano and saying, "hey, listen to this song I wrote" or "let's work on a song!", sometimes segueing into bands reprising her songs on stage - which really isn't the most inspiring or cohesive way to present what's supposed to be a musical based on her life. It was nice to see a tribute to a quiet songwriter, rather than a big flashy entertainer, but made the musical rather mousy as well. Was staged in a 2,000-seat theatre - may have suited an intimate space better.

Culture Club - hey, they still exist! I think Boy George is taking up residence in Australia, so I guess why not tour. I did/do really enjoy the songs, and had great company, so it was a really fun evening, and it's always interesting to experience a new venue (the 8,000-capacity ICC at Darling Harbour). However, the sound was very harsh on the ears, Boy George's voice isn't what it used to be, and I swear to you his ego was large enough to reach to the very back of the venue (where we were sitting). The rest of the band barely got a mention (the backup singers were introduced early in the show, and the band completely ignored until the end) so it was more "Boy George plus some other people who were also there". I still love the old songs, but came away rather actively disliking Boy George. Sad! *g*

The Bodybag - another Trevor Ashley and Phil Scott production, being a sendup of "The Bodyguard". Trevor Ashley still has a great voice and stage presence (he starred as "Rachel Marinade" and wore slinky sequins throughout), and I loved Gus Murray as the ex-ASIO agent turned Uber driver, but the script was a bit weak. Their first co-production, Fat Swan, was absolutely brilliant, but this one felt like they drafted it in a weekend and went, "okay, that'll do". It tried to play off the movie/musical without having its own clear internal storyline, which made it feel more like a series of skits loosely joined together. Was okay, but would probably hesitate to see their next production.

Muriel the Musical - :D This was one I walked away from thinking that I liked, not loved it, but in the past week the music has kept playing in my head, and I am going to buy the OCR once it comes out. Which means I really think I loved it after all *g*.

I don't know how well Muriel's Wedding is known overseas, but it's a defining Australian movie that was Toni Collette's breakout role. Muriel is an overweight, plain girl living in the little town of Porpoise Spit, who consoles herself by listening to ABBA and dreaming of one day becoming a beautiful bride. She tries to fit in with the popular girls who disdain her for her appearance, her lack of fashion sense, her general dagginess. Desperate to fit in, she steals her parents' chequebook (the musical is updated, so it's a credit card there) and books herself on the same holiday that her not-friends are on. They are predictably appalled to see her there. However, she bumps into an old classmate, Rhonda, who left Porpoise Spit the moment she was able, and finds a new friend.

It sounds like a feel-good show, and it is on one level, but at the same time the movie (and musical) are very, very dark, and not in the usual "surmountable" ways. Terrible things happen that there's simply no coming back from, and it's somewhat head-spinning that the movie and musical still manage to still be joyous and uplifting at heart. It also contains many lines that are imprinted on the Australian cultural consciousness: "You're terrible, Muriel" - "Who do you think you are to call me that?! I'm married! I'm beauuuutiful" (screeched by the head mean girl) - "Goodbye, Porpoise Spit!". Anyway, I will bombard you with videos, because I love it so much. It is very, very Australian in tone - it deserves to go overseas, but I'll be very curious how it translates if it ever does. Hell, it's such a love letter to Sydney, I'll even be curious what Melbourne makes of it :D

Sunshine State of Mind

Here Comes the Bride

Sydney

The Disaster Artist - Saw mainly for James Franco, who was unrecognisable. Not my usual kind of film, but thoroughly enjoyed it. Deserves the Golden Globe nomination, imo. In a way it's still a love letter to Hollywood, but more like the kind written by a crazed stalker.

Sucked in by all the hype around Call Me By Your Name, so planning to see it next week. The trailer still left me kind of meh, but James Ivory screenplay is a plus. I also want to see Downsizing and Pitch Perfect 3 *g*

Choice, bro

daasgrrl — Sun, 29 Oct 2017 07:02:09 GMT

I have been in the absolute filthiest mood lately - on the face of it, there's nothing to really justify it, but nevertheless. I blame hormones. Or the weather. Or something.

But hey, Thor: Ragnarok was fun! :D Bearing in mind that I am not intrinsically a Marvel fan, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I adored that it had a Kiwi director, and some of the humour had a very Australasian feel to it - I know in the broader sense funny is funny, but there's still a distinctive cultural element to it. It was also a joy seeing so many Aussies and Kiwis in a major movie (plus of course, Hiddles and Cumberbatch).

- Korg wins everything in my book. If a director's determined to muscle in on his own movie, at least he was bloody entertaining. The "bro" at the end just capped everything off. He should have his own movie.
- "Tell her she's dreaming." LOL. There's no way that wasn't a The Castle shout-out.
- Jeff Goldblum - where have you been?
- Chris Hemsworth - great in full-fledged comic mode. Also still amazing shirtless. Loved him habitually tossing things at Loki to see whether he's really there
- Tom Hiddleston - still weirdly gorgeous as Loki. It really is the role he's bestest at
- Benedict Cumberbatch - good job fitting in with the insanity, but still singularly unconvincing as an American
- Tessa Thompson - gorgeous and awesome in action
- Rachel House - loved her character - so very cutting, so very dry

Weirdly, I wasn't so keen on Cate Blanchett - while she looked and sounded amazing, in a way she gave the role too much gravitas. I think I just wanted someone a bit sillier and camper *g*

Anyway, fantastic cast (including Taika himself) and fun movie. Didn't even think of falling asleep.

Other things I've watched lately:

Kingsman: The Golden Circle - really enjoyed this, in some ways more than the first one. Julianne Moore was a delightful villain, and was great to see some familiar faces. I was worried this might be too "American" given its theme, but I thought it stayed true to its origins, and picked up all the existing plot threads - even minor ones - in a a very satisfying way.

LEGO Ninjago movie - hmm, having trouble remembering much about this one, but it was good for what it was. Lloyd and his group of mates are Ninjago warriors who must battle the evil Garmadon... who also happens to be Lloyd's dad. Bummer. I vaguely remember it being fun, and very much enjoyed the framing story featuring Jackie Chan (and his cat).

I am Not Your Negro - documentary on an unfinished project by James Baldwin about major figures in the civil rights struggle - Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, and Medgar Evers (who I'd never heard of). Obviously to me this is far less personal than it would be to Americans, especially African-Americans, but I found it very interesting and quite a startling reminder that segregation really wasn't that long ago. I was particularly struck by the young girl going to a "white school" for the first time, head held high, surrounded by police/guards, while white adults screamed abuse and spat at her. How low do you have to be to do that to a child? Anyway, I mainly went to see it because one of James Baldwin's short stories was in my English syllabus ("Previous Condition"), which I really liked.

Miracle City (Nick Enright, Max Lambert)- an unusual Australian musical, mainly because it's about a "day in the life" of an American televangelical family. It's true that when I was a kid, we did get a lot of the American "praise the lord" stuff in the early hours of the morning, so it's not unfamiliar to a generation of Australians. Anyway, Miracle City pretty much takes place over one episode of Reverend Truswell and his family's long-running TV show. This week they have a very special guest in the form of ageing-but-influential Reverend Sizemore, who they are honoured to have on. The Truswells are a picture-perfect Christian family - Ricky Truswell is charismatic and charming, as is his lovely "platinum blonde" wife, Lora Lee. They have two devout and equally attractive children in Loretta (sweet sixteen) and Billy Bob. The family's dream is to open their Christian theme park - Miracle City - but they're running dangerously low on funds. Reverend Sizemore offers to save their foundering dream - if he can have the hand of their teenage daughter in marriage.

Nick Enright is a beloved Australian playwright, and the story didn't disappoint - I really liked that for all intents and purposes the musical seems like it's going to be about one thing, but ends up being about something completely different. The music was not particularly memorable, but on-point and entertaining, and the cast was great. Well worth seeing.

Currently reading Sleeping Beauties by Stephen and Owen King. Not sure what to make of it yet - it's epic, and entertaining, but I'm not yet entirely on board.

Meanwhile, Down Under...

daasgrrl — Mon, 18 Sep 2017 22:59:35 GMT

This is possibly the most pointless survey in the world - it's literally just a super-expensive national opinion poll that has no legal standing or promise of influencing government policy. But since it's happening, might as well. Yay?

Diamonds never lie to me...

daasgrrl — Sat, 09 Sep 2017 11:29:41 GMT

So apparently my last update was in July? That's... a while, lol. I'm still here, although not very fannish at all these days - I seem to be spending a lot of time in RL this year, such as it is. Having finished my media degree last year, I took up a couple of volunteer jobs that have taken up a lot of my attention. But I really miss having a fandom - I'm still vaguely following the various projects of the Sherlock cast, but not much more than that.

Quick media summary:

Wonder Woman (yes, this is going waaay back now) - I used to watch the TV series as a kid, but was still not terribly enthused about the movie, just because I reached my superhero limit a while back. But I did actually enjoy it, which was surprising and a nice change. Exceeded expectations.

1984 - this was the Australian staging of Robert Icke's London production, and I knew the reviews had been mixed, but I love the book so was still looking forward to it. There were some great moments - especially O'Brien, who was basically channelling dark!Mycroft - but I thought this production rather fell under the category of "too clever for its own good".
Here the play is framed by "new" scenes that show the world has moved on since Winston's experience, and a book club is now examining his diaries as historical documents. There's some meaningful doubling and intercutting of past/future character roles, paired with a cursory rendition of the story that I felt assumed an underlying knowledge of the book. I think it would have been too perfunctory to give the full sweep of the world if you didn't already know the text. Admittedly, most people probably would know it, but I still didn't see it justifying the concept. I can understand that it was a way of putting a new "spin" on the production, like that Almeida Richard III that bookended the play with his bones being excavated from the carpark. But while I really liked that particular conceit, and felt it added something to the story, this one did nothing for me. I don't think it underlined the themes - if anything, it shortchanged them by pulling focus. The real power of the play came mostly from the original text.

Cloud Nine (Caryl Churchill) - Very interesting production of a play that toys with the ideas of gender, race and identity. The first part is set in colonial Africa, in which a prim, white, upper-class household is filled with people all longing for the freedom to be something or someone else. The female nanny is in love with the mistress of the house, while she lusts after her husband's male friend, who in turn fancies their houseboy. Meanwhile, the husband is having an affair with another woman, and the little boy just wants to grow up and be a man. But the housewife is played by a man, the little boy by a mature-age woman, the husband's upper-class friend by a black man, and the house servant by a white man.

The story itself is along the lines of a classic relationship comedy of errors - at least until the end - but the casting gives it an interesting edge. Some very nice staging with a big glass box at the back that served as the "house" interior, with the characters stepping out onto red dirt that gradually stained their crisp white clothing. Then after the interval we move to the present day, the cast swap around again, and we end up with a modern-day scenario of love and longing in England where time has somehow warped so that the characters have only aged one generation in the interim, and some still remember their time living overseas.

Well worth seeing, but I felt it didn't quite come together - the first half was brilliant, but didn't really tie into the the second half and its themes to form a coherent whole. It was almost like they were crafted as two separate one-act plays, and then stapled together. But still good.

Atomic Blonde - I would never have gone to see this, but was offered free tickets, and hey, Charlize Theron and James MacAvoy, why not? And it was actually pretty good, mainly due to Charlize Theron kicking serious ass. It's basically spy thriller crossed with action movie, where she does everything a typical male spy would - including sleeping with a mysterious femme fatale - except in awesome outfits. Also gets points for the 80s setting, in Berlin just before the Wall fell, with an atmospheric soundtrack to boot. It made the 80s seem way cooler than I remember them being at the time, full of moody blue lighting and synth beats. James MacAvoy was good, but his role wasn't really all that important. John Goodman was in there as well as her grumpy boss, and he was great.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (NT Live screening) - I studied this in high school and enjoyed its rhythms, but it didn't have the same weight it does seeing it now. Went mainly for Imelda Staunton, who was flat out INCREDIBLE. Even on the screen - or maybe especially on the screen, I have no comparison - she was a force of nature. People often write "her eyes flashed", but I don't think I've ever seen it demonstrated quite so vividly before. She was sweet, seductive, and terrifying. When Nick and Honey finally leave, I was reminded of the aftermath of a horror movie, where the survivors finally stagger out into the sunlight, bloodied and beaten but still alive. But of course in this one, the monster still manages to elicit sympathy.

I've known who she was since Peter's Friends (and she was lots of fun in Psychoville) but have never seen her in starring roles until Gypsy (which I saw with flywoman two years back). Anyway, she's amazing. I know she's doing Follies right now with Philip Quast, which will be recorded, and cannot wait. I should spare a mention for George (Conleth Hill), who was also excellent, and a worthy foil for her.

The Book of Mormon (Princess Theatre, Melbourne) - I went down to Melbourne for a conference (long story), and thought I'd try the Lottery since I'd already seen it in London and didn't mind too much if I happened to miss out on seeing the show entirely. I won! Eeeee! (It means you can buy front row seats for $40, yes please and thank you.). Anyway, this was a really fun time as always - I liked this production a little better than the one in London, mainly because our Arnold Cunningham was much more ungainly - the actor in London was so conventionally attractive that he didn't have much to work with *g*. Everything was top-notch, as you'd hope, and the front row was a fantastic place to be. Will probably see again when it comes to Sydney.

Bernadette Robinson - The Show Goes On (Opera House) - I've followed Bernadette Robinson's career since the 90s - she's basically a cabaret-style singer who specialises in vocal impersonations, and she's amazing at what she does. This show was loosely based around Judy Garland talking about her life (as well as singing The Trolley Song) and going on to introduce fellow divas like Barbra Streisand, Julie Andrews, Shirley Bassey (singing a glorious Diamonds are Forever), Piaf, Patsy Cline, and an amazing Maria Callas. Just think of what it takes for someone to be able to sing like Shirley Bassey, Patsy Cline AND Maria Callas, and you'll have some idea of her sheer vocal technique. There was also a "duet" between Judy Garland and Julie Andrews that had to be heard to be believed. I am pretty sure she could just have been an opera singer, but I've read that she enjoyed the challenge of the different vocal styles. Solidly entertaining, as always.

The Dark Tower - wow, way to end on a low note. Aiyiyi. Not even Idris Elba could save this one, sorry. It bore the same resemblance to the Dark Tower book series as a porn version of Harry Potter might to its source material. Like, you know who the characters are meant to be, and they kind of have the personalities you'd expect, and there's a superficial attempt at recreating the vibe of the thing, but nothing that happens in it remotely resembles the text. I was more bemused by it than anything else. Entertaining in its own YA way, but a bit... silly. Please, no sequels. Try a TV mini-series instead.

Wait, that reminded me of something that really was good - I recently read Born a Crime by Trevor Noah (now host of The Daily Show) and it was both dazzlingly entertaining and thought-provoking. I know very little about what apartheid-era life in South Africa was actually like, and it was fascinating to hear about it from his unique perspective. Not only has he had an amazing life, but he really knows how to tell a story. I thought this was so worth reading I've been pushing it onto people, and I can't remember the last time I did that. So let me also recommend it to you all now :)

Mr Burns, Sydney Film Festival, Ros and Guil, Only Heaven Knows, DM3

daasgrrl — Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:48:54 GMT

Lazy. And busy. Mostly lazy. But a quick run-down of stuff, some six weeks old now:

Mr Burns, a Post-Electric Play (Anne Washburn) - Belvoir Theatre

Some unnamed apocalypse has devastated the earth, and the survivors attempt to reconstruct popular culture, one group beginning with the Simpsons episode "Cape Feare". (If you're a Simpsons fan, you will recall this as the one where Sideshow Bob escapes from prison, kidnaps Bart, trips over a few rakes, and sails down the river giving a lone rendition of the entire score of HMS Pinafore - I loved it.). A few years later, travelling reconstructions of various Simpsons episodes (presumably together with other shows and plays) tour the countryside, exchanging "repertoire" in the form of episodes and remembered lines, all jealously guarded. A hundred years on, the reclaimed scraps of popular culture have morphed into some bizarre quasi-religious performance.

Let's just say this summary makes the play sound about a thousand times better than it was. Nice idea, but... there were essentially no characters, no plot development, no explanation of past events or current social conditions, and no discernible themes. Now, I like to think that it could have been a tribute to the power of storytelling, and the ways in which culture binds a civilisation together, and can flow and morph to fill human and social needs (an idea captured perfectly in The Book of Mormon) but it was a complete mess, imo. The most entertaining bits were all lifted from elsewhere, and the rest was just sound and fury. Ick.

Dream Empire - Sydney Film Festival

This was a documentary about the rise and fall of the Chinese real estate dream, told through the story of Yana, a girl from the countryside who came to Chongqing hoping to make something of herself and send money home to her impoverished parents. She finds a job in the promotion machine for new apartment sales, which are grand events featuring performing foreigners - "singers", "musicians", "models", "dancers" - to show how progressive and cosmopolitan the apartments are. Yana's job is basically to go around to pubs and recruit as many white (and black) people as she can, train them to put on a show of some kind, and "sell" their performances to real estate developers. These are known to said foreigners as "white monkey shows", and the documentary itself was made by one of the "white monkeys", a Danish guy called David Borenstein (also a passable saxophone player). The performances are pretty dismal - in some cases, hilariously terrible - but do their job in helping sell the apartments. But since many of the apartments are in the middle of nowhere, with no infrastructure and no jobs nearby, the boom can't last forever...

It was a film that touched on so many interesting things - the rapid growth of China, urban migration, the sheer overweening ambition of real estate developers, ghost cities, the status of women in China, naivety and exploitation, and a mirror-world where white people only exist as promotional gimmicks. Disturbing, but fascinating.

Liberation Day - Sydney Film Festival

In 2015, ex-Yugoslavian band Laibach (the Guardian describes them as "art-rock", so I'll go with that) were somehow invited to perform in North Korea, making them the first "Western" band to do so. The result is a mix of travelogue, music documentary, and satire, only it's difficult to be sure where one ends and another begins. Laibach appear to have made their name in populating their songs and cover versions with extreme facist imagery, but with the aim of subversion, not promotion. However, it's difficult to know exactly how the North Koreans perceive them, or why they chose them to come. Wildly entertaining and very, very strange.

Laibach's version of "Do-Re-Mi" (apparently The Sound of Music is big in North Korea, so part of their performance included a medley) is enough to give any child nightmares. But their English rendition of "Mt Paektu" is great, with the lead singer's growling bass declaring, "We’ll go in springtime / we’ll go in winter too / we'll go in our dreams /we’ll go at any time. We’ll go for a lifetime /we'll continue going through generations" giving it a thoroughly menacing edge. (Mt. Paektu is a sacred site in North Korea, being the alleged birthplace of Kim Jong-Il (it's not); the original version of the song is super-bubbly and upbeat, like a children's show.)

God's Own Country - Sydney Film Festival

Marketed as a British Brokeback Mountain, but really nothing of the kind. A romance between a lonely Yorkshire sheep farmer (don't laugh) and a Romanian labourer who comes to work for him. I liked it well enough, but I have to say that I noticed that it was one of those films where the pathetic grumpy racist white English Johnny's journey is all that matters, and the gorgeous and capable Gheorghe, who outclasses him in every way apart from "not being English", exists only to guide Johnny along the path to self-actualisation without having a significant or meaningful story of his own. Maybe I should give it a pass because it's a gay film, but I can't, sorry. Despite the tragic gay trope, if we're comparing, I'd still say Brokeback Mountain was the better film.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead - NT Live screening

Starring Joshua McGuire as Guildenstern and Daniel Radcliffe as Rosencrantz. I thoroughly enjoyed this without loving it to pieces. It's probably the best version I've seen, in terms of hitting most - not all - of the beats that I wanted it to hit, but still lacking something. McGuire was great, but Radcliffe was fine without having any particular energy to him. I'd like to pair McGuire's Guildenstern with Tim Minchin's Rosencrantz from the Sydney Theatre Company production a few years back - then there might be sparks. The Player King was good, but the rest of the cast were once again acting in different plays - the King, Gertrude, and Ophelia straight down the line, Hamlet subtly satirical, Polonius with a foot in both camps. I really enjoyed Hamlet's take once I warmed up to what he was doing, then realised during the credits he was played by Luke Mullins, who stole the show in Sydney Theatre Company's Waiting for Godot. And another one runs off to London *g*

Only Heaven Knows (Alex Harding) - Hayes Theatre

That rarest of creatures, a revival of a 1988 boy-meets-boy Australian musical. Set in the 1940s, it shows fresh-faced Tim leaving his disapproving aunt and uncle for the seedy glamour of Sydney's King's Cross (our red-light district and drug hub). There he settles in, finds a job, makes a few friends - supportive landlady Guinea, raging queen Lana, arch Alan - and takes a lover, Cliff (still illegal back then, of course). At first it's all parties and good times, but then darker questions emerge. Alan isn't sure he wants to be gay and dabbles in shock aversion therapy while Lana worries about him, and Tim wants to go to London to pursue his playwriting dream, while Cliff wants them to buy a house together and settle down. Guinea just wants everyone to pay their rent and be happy.

It's one of those productions that I basically enjoyed because it existed, rather than anything particularly great about the show, although it was pleasant enough. It's just lovely to see something set locally (the Hayes Theatre is basically next door to King's Cross) and hear unabashedly Australian-accented dialogue for a change. Standouts performances were Lana (Hayden Tee) and Alan (Tom Sharah), while the lead pair Tim (Ben Hall) and Cliff (Tim Draxl) were very... pretty. Blazey Best (Guinea) was strong and charismatic, as she always is.

Despicable Me 3

I have issues with these films, but I went anyway, lured by Trey Parker as 80s-throwback villain, Balthazar Bratt (think Rubik's cubes, bubble gum, lycra, and sweatbands). It was charming in parts, but I... still have issues with these films.

Remembering Redbeard (Mycroft & Sherlock, gen, G)

daasgrrl — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:45:44 GMT

More Holmes brothers fic meta...

Title: Remembering Redbeard
Characters/Pairings: Mycroft Holmes & Sherlock Holmes, Eurus Holmes (referenced)
Rating: G
Word count: 3,900
Warnings/contents: family issues, brotherly love, kidlock
Notes: Inspired by donut_donut, who asked why Mycroft didn't just tell Sherlock who Redbeard was. This brought up a related question that's always bothered me, which is why Mycroft chooses to remind Sherlock of Redbeard on the day of John's wedding, which could be seen as - in my opinion, uncharacteristically - cruel. This fic may or may not provide satisfactory answers, but I still liked the idea enough to write it.

Summary: “So…” Sherlock glanced at him, then away, staring sightlessly out the window, “…does that mean I’ll go crazy too?"

Eurus' song is ended, but her melody lingers on.

Read at AO3.

Media update - Get Out, Hedda Gabler, GotGv2, Nazeem Hussain

daasgrrl — Wed, 17 May 2017 00:01:28 GMT

It's so quiet in here - kudos to those of you who go on filling the silences :)

Been spending a lot of time in RL and feeling terribly uncommunicative, but still seeing stuff, so here are some rather terse reviews.

Get Out - excellent, and much more my thing than the worthier African-American dramas nominated for Oscars this year. But then I love horror/comedy, and this is perfectly in that vein - scary and a touch gruesome, but very funny in parts as well. Chris Washington (Daniel Kaluuya) is getting ready to visit his white girlfriend's parents - only she hasn't told them he's black, and this worries him. The result is like a weird cross between Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? and The Stepford Wives. It's got pointed social commentary if you want to view it in that light, but it works on a pure horror/thriller basis - complete with jump scares - even if you don't. I did like the way it appears to lay all its cards out on the table quite early on, but actually keeps a few up its sleeve, so to speak. Also I'm very fond of Kaluuya, who I first saw in Psychoville (Tealeaf!) and who also starred in my favourite episode of Black Mirror, "Ten Million Merits". So in a way, this role was made for him. Of course, that makes him yet another member of the British invasion of Hollywood, but I thought his accent was flawless, and have been backed up on this by a genuine American ;)

I don't think I've read a single negative review of this movie yet - some 'mehs' but nothing stronger than that. Personally, I was on the edge of my seat throughout - there wasn't a single flat spot, and that takes some doing given my attention span. Highly recommended, if you like the genre :D

Hedda Gabler (Ibsen) - NT Live Screening - I love Ruth Wilson (Luther) and she was great, but I'm over Ivo Van Hove, sorry (although his name is delightfully alliterative). I liked View from a Bridge, but the sound design in this production was incredibly jarring, and he appears to have a ongoing compulsion to douse his actors in red liquid. Although I will give him grudging points for pacing. Hedda Gabler (Ruth Wilson) is newly-married, and bored, so sets out to stir up trouble and revisit old flames. I love what I've seen of Ibsen (A Doll's House, Ghosts), but I've never seen this play before, and I'd assume the style of translation has a noticeable impact, so I'd rather like to read a version that doesn't have Patrick Marber's fingerprints all over it. As it was, it was like a diluted, slightly dull version of Les Liaisons Dangereuses, only nowhere near as well written. Theatrically, I did enjoy Hedda madly staple-gunning flowers to the walls, and that's... virtually all I remember about this production. She was gorgeous, though. The play less so.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. II - I am Groot? I am Groot. It was fine. It was fun. I liked it as much as I was ever going to *g*

Nazeem Hussain - Public Frenemy - I've been a minor fan of his since his show on SBS, Legally Brown. It was wildly uneven, but he used to do some fairly outrageous things, such as public posturing as hardline Islamist "Uncle Sam" and the highlight of his show was the recurring segment "Muslim Shore", which I loved. Apparently he recently appeared on I'm a Celebrity... which I didn't watch but which he says has brought him much more fame than his other shows ever did. It was fun to see him do stand-up, and he is immensely charming, but I was nearer mildly amused than crying with laughter. I think I prefer him in sketch comedy. He does obviously have his own interesting comedic perspectives, though.

Moonlight, The Play That Goes Wrong, The Lego Batman Movie

daasgrrl — Mon, 17 Apr 2017 06:18:40 GMT

Like everyone else, I've pretty much made the transition to having DW as my main site now, but haven't quite got the hang of how to post from Semagic, so working on it. A couple of days ago I was also delighted to discover that mindstalk, who I don't actually know, had pulled my username randomly from the DW hat, so to speak, and gifted me a year's paid time in order to support DW. That was a lovely gesture, and so I suppose I'd better start using it. Thanks again to them :)

Finally got around to seeing Moonlight (um... several weeks ago now), another film I wanted to see before I knew it had been nominated for an Oscar - call me a sucker for a serious film featuring a gay black protagonist. I went in expecting at the very least to be pleased, given that it won Best Movie (...eventually) and everything. And then it finished, and I was all "...what?"

The movie depicts its main character, Chiron (pronounced Shy-rone), in three main stages of his life - childhood, teenager, adult. It's established early on that Chiron doesn't talk much, but can eat a lot. People also assume/realise early on that he's gay, for no apparent reason that is shown or spoken of, except that maybe he's kind of slightly built and introverted and slouchy. If you were looking for much more about his inner life, you're not getting it. And it didn't help that in my opinion the child and teenage versions of Chiron lacked - or were not directed to - convey much in the way of deeper thought behind the blank - not even stoic, blank - surface. Therefore apart from a few scattered words and actions, the Chirons were the equivalent of human placeholders - he drifts like a person-shaped ghost through all three phases of his life, and then the movie ends. The adult Chiron (Trevante Rhodes) at least had the benefit of being extremely attractive, so that was a very shallow aesthetic plus.

During the first third of the movie, the adult actors were a pleasure to watch. I loved Juan (Mahershala Ali), and was happy to discover afterwards that it was he who won the Oscar for this role, and not Rhodes, who I found appealing but not outstandingly impressive, acting-wise (again, perhaps to do with script/direction, not his innate abilities). I also really enjoy Naomie Harris, and Janelle Monaé (who was also in Hidden Figures with Ali, so it was a big year for both of them), who did a great job as well. Harris did sound a bit odd being not-British, but seemed passable enough, and she's the most gorgeous crack addict you'll ever see. I did wonder whether she fed into Samuel Jackson's recent rant about Black British actors taking American jobs, though. So they sparkled, as far as it went, but it still wasn't quite enough.

I'm also going to go out on a very shaky limb here, and say I found a lot of the conversations and scenes weirdly unconvincing. They felt very 'white middle-class' in content to me, which I realise opens up a whole racist can of worms, but I felt like I was being shown very little that I haven't seen in a hundred standard (white) Hollywood movies - kid gets chased by bullies, kid's mom has Serious Issues, sympathetic adult gives kid pep talk, kid dabbles in sex, high school bullies gang up on weak kid, kindly principal tries to intervene, to no avail. The style of dialogue was perhaps distinctively black, but I felt like you could almost switch races, "whiten" the language and make a few cosmetic changes - like, the kids kick around a football, not a newspaper-wrapped bundle; the mom is a drunk, rather than a crack addict - and make pretty much exactly the same movie. I know virtually nothing first-hand about African-American culture at any level, let alone drug dealers and their clients, so the obvious response is "well then, how the hell would you know?", which is... perhaps fair, but even avoiding all the obvious stereotypes, I just don't think they should feel quite that effortlessly interchangeable. There was literally only one moment, where Chiron takes out his gold grills in order to eat, where I thought, "okay, I haven't see that before".

Anyway, it was a movie that I'd say engaged me intellectually, but not emotionally, apart from maybe one scene where Chiron meets up again with his old friend Kevin (a charming André Holland), which was shot in such a cheesy manner I wanted to laugh at the same time I wanted to "awww". But at least I cared. Although my friend and I both agreed that had the meeting with Kevin gone badly, that would have at least given the movie some emotional weight - but then also would have fed into the Tragic Gay Trope and been shot down for it, and perhaps rightfully so. But imo it would nevertheless have been a stronger and more cohesive story overall. Overall, I really like the idea of it, and I'm glad that it got made, but I just found it a very ordinary movie about an unusual subject. It was all shimmering mock-gravitas with no substance underneath. Much like... moonlight, haha. Of the five Oscar "best picture" noms I've seen (there aren't any more I'm planning to see), I'd have given it to Lion.

Also went to see The Play That Goes Wrong, another production I'm pleased we stole from London's West End. The conceit is that we are watching a production of "A Murder at Haversham Manor", proudly brought to you by the Cornley Polytechnic Drama Society, not generally known for its high quality productions. But this year it'll be different! as the proud first-time director (and cast member) informs us. And just as you'd expect, everything that can go wrong, does.

This is a play that relies on a great deal of mugging, slapstick, and more reliance on props and scenery than found in many major musicals. Just not in the usual way. It is pretty much pure farce, but the thing I loved about it is that it was farce of the very highest quality - the laughs are so cheap for this kind of production you'd think it's not really necessary to put a great deal of thought into it - the audience are primed to laugh anyway. But the standard was superb - the underlying play itself was quite interesting even as a standard whodunnit, and so many things had to be done with impeccable timing and/or a lot of physical agility to make the play go properly "wrong" that I was impressed by the technical and movement aspects alone. Trying to reset everything before each show must be a nightmare for the set crew.

The actors too are playing their characters playing other characters, so even that's a lot of twisty fun, especially when their "drama society" characters start bleeding into their "Haversham Manor" characters. Not to mention Trevor, who's in charge of lighting and incidentally a big fan of Duran Duran (silsabee, I thought of you *g*) And the script was packed with such a variety of mishaps and idiocies and lovingly structured running jokes that it was a pleasure to listen to. I didn't laugh in the tears running down my face sense, but I smiled, giggled, and gasped in turn at many of the things that happened. (There was even an unexpected m/m kiss, which I think delighted half the audience and boggled the rest *g*) So for a play entirely reliant on the cheapest of laughs, the workmanship in all aspects - script, staging, sound, acting - was excellent, and took it to the next level and beyond. I remained thoroughly engaged and awake throughout, which almost never happens with plays, even those I love. It was like watching a three-ring circus, and while admittedly I didn't take away any deeper message from it whatsoever, it was an all-round good time. Well worth seeing.

Bonus weird mental associations - the actor who played Max (James Marlowe, second from left) has a very Gatissian nose (more obvious in profile) and a similar comedic manner when in full flight (and of course the entire cast are affecting posh British accents - although I discovered while googling that Marlowe is actually an original London cast member), so I found him particularly fun to watch. While simultaneously the Understudy (Francine Cain, seen below) reminded me a lot of indybaggins, what with the funky clothes and the slightly manic smile and boundless energy *g*. So I also found it amusing on a bizarre metafannish level that I'm sure only I understand. But that did add to the entertainment value *g*

Then saw The Lego Batman Movie today. Um, that was... weird. It was entertaining, certainly, and felt like the kind of thing I ought to have liked, but it was so OTT and fanservicey in so many ways (I could hear the hypothetical squee even while I was watching) that it left me kind of bemused. It felt post-post-modern, if that even makes sense, and if it doesn't, so be it. But it had that hyper-self-aware quality about it that goes another step beyond the intertextuality that's become standard fare nowadays. It not only referenced other Batman movies (as well as many others), but the entire culture and viewership and fandom surrounding those movies/comics/TV shows. I guess I just don't appreciate too much meta in my media in general, and there was so much meta. But then I also sometimes long for the days when the fourth wall was firmly in place. Old-fashioned, I know.

Anyway, there was an emotional arc beneath the relentless humour and movement that was overblown in that typical G-rated way, but at least it was there, and I really did love the '80s references and the callbacks to the classic Adam Wayne era that shaped my childhood. Having seen it on the heels of The Play That Goes Wrong, they struck me as having similarities in that they were both frenetic enough to hold the shortest attention spans, packed with lovingly crafted jokes and extras, and technically excellent. But the price of all that was (my) relative lack of emotional engagement. So while I didn't really care, it was undeniably a lot of fun while it lasted.

Tales Before Bedtime (Mycroft & Eurus, gen, PG-13)

daasgrrl — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 23:02:50 GMT

Another tangle of S4 thoughts masquerading as fic :)

Title: Tales Before Bedtime
Characters/Pairings: Mycroft Holmes & Eurus Holmes, Mycroft Holmes/Sherlock Holmes (referenced)
Rating: PG-13
Word count: 3,900
Warnings/contents: family issues, referenced incest
Notes: Everything I've written since S4 ended has felt just a little bit off, which I suppose isn't that surprising - I think it threw me for a loop. Which is to say, this is weird, but I'm posting it anyway.

Summary: Missing scene from The Final Problem. With Sherlock and John safely unconscious, Mycroft and Eurus find time for a little chat.

Read at AO3.

Life is a cabaret, old chum...

daasgrrl — Sat, 18 Mar 2017 23:19:03 GMT

Ah, where does the time go? I think about fandom (and read lj, although not tumblr) almost every day, and yet it's been a month since I posted anything. Which of course means I've seen too many things and can't be bothered writing about them in detail. But here's a rundown in brief:

T2: Trainspotting

This was such a pleasure to watch. I wasn't entirely convinced a sequel was a good idea, but after seeing the trailer decided I had to see it anyway. Ewan McGregor, Jonny Lee Miller, Robert Carlyle, and easily overlooked Ewen Bremner, what's not to love? I see Shirley Henderson everywhere as well. It's not even as though I was a particular fan of Trainspotting when it first came out, but it was somehow still one of those defining movies of the era, and left its imprint on me. Catching up with everyone 20 years on is a bittersweet reunion, as both its cast and its target audience have aged, and I think the movie captures that sense of wistfulness without entirely losing the energy and edge that drove the first one. I wasn't too fond of the reprise of Renton's iconic speech, but the rest totally worked for me. Pure enjoyment, even if it did take me at least a minute or two to settle back into the accents *g*. And Begbie is still a force to be reckoned with - I've been watching Carlyle in Once Upon a Time and love how he disappears into his roles.

Newsies: the Musical (filmed Broadway production)

I've seen the movie with all-singing, all-dancing Christian Bale (hee - loved him in Swing Kids as well) and all I really remember about it was that there were newspaper boys singing and dancing en masse. And that's... pretty much all I remember about this version as well. Big bad newspaper company tries to increase profits by cutting the already slim margins the newsies get for selling their papers. Newsies decide to go on strike. Chaos and life lessons ensue. Also, I still don't know anything about Santa Fe, but it seems to be some kind of magical fantasyland for New Yorkers (I'm pretty sure the people in Rent were hung up on Santa Fe as well).

Lion

I didn't realise this had been nominated for an Academy Award until well after seeing it, but I'm very glad it was. I wanted to see it mostly based on the trailer, wherein Dev Patel does the most immaculate Australian accent from a non-Australian I've ever seen on screen. I was all,"who is this Indian Australian guy, and why does he look familiar even though I don't... actually know any Indian Australian actors?". I'm afraid I didn't recognise him from Slumdog Millionaire, even though I saw that as well. His accent is more authentically Australian than Nicole Kidman's at this point, seriously.

Anyway, Lion is the story of young Saroo (played by Sunny Pawar, who is the real star of the movie, and by rights should probably have received an acting nomination in some category) who through a series of misadventures ends up lost in the city of Calcutta, far from his home village. He doesn't even speak the language (they speak Hindi; he speaks Bengali), and when he tells people the name of his village, no one recognises it. Eventually, he is put into an orphanage and adopted by an Australian couple. Despite a good life and loving parents, as a young adult he nevertheless feels compelled to try and track down his village and find his way "home" (this part of the movie was brought to you by Google Earth). Anyway, it's an amazing (true) story, and like just about everyone else I was reduced to a pile of mush during several scenes. It was a little flat in the middle, when Saroo was reduced to an excessive amount of moping, angsting, and snapping at his girlfriend and family, but the rest of it was good enough to counteract that. It was also incredible to see the real "Saroo" (and the other people in his life) at the end.

Away (Michael Gow) - Drama Theatre, Sydney Opera House

Away is regarded as a classic Australian play, but having seen it, I don't really see why it's such a big deal. After a school production of A Midsummer Night's Dream, three families go "away" for the summer holidays - Tom and his family, who are British immigrants, Meg and her neurotic mother and placatory father, and the headmaster and his wife, who are recovering from the loss of their son in the Vietnam War and are having marriage difficulties. Initially, the internal dynamics of each family are explored as they set off for their respective holidays, and when they all end up on the same beach after a huge storm, the families come together to interact (or not) in various ways. It was interesting enough, the characters were vividly drawn, and it's always good to see Australian drama performed on stage instead of something imported, but it still lacked something for me. I think I subconsciously resented that the play leaned so heavily on Shakespearean references - the school play, the huge storm - and I also found it unbalanced in the amount and depth of character exploration and interaction that occurred. Worth seeing once, but eh.

Cabaret - Hayes Theatre

I've seen at least three different versions of this, plus the movie, and I think every time I see it I get more out of it. I've never been particularly fond of this musical, I think because it has a lot of songs that don't strictly move the plot forward, but I'm admiring it more and more as time goes on. I think the themes have just never become irrelevant or dated, and it feels quite cutting even today. The Emcee was played by Paul Capsis, which was probably the major drawcard for me, but it was the musical itself that ended up being the star. Somehow this production felt darker than others I've seen, and the brutal repercussions of a time when civilisation is collapsing - some get trampled underfoot, some escape while they can, and some just stay put, put on a bright smile, and keep right on dancing - feel very relevant right now. In other productions I've seen, Cliff and Sally are very much the focus, but in this one Fraulein Schnieder and Herr Schultz (played by Kate Fitzpatrick and John O'May) became the heart of the show, and I think the strength of their performances very much influenced the overall effect.

The Tempest (RSC Live screening)

I hate The Tempest, but went to it with G out of a sense of obligation. Um... let's see, the special effects were great, Simon Russell Beale as Prospero is apparently a big deal but means nothing to me, and Ariel (Mark Quartley) just took the show and walked off with it. In my head The Tempest is now really the story of a magical spirit, Ariel, who is rescued from a tree by a grumpy magician, and strives with all his might to earn his freedom. Some other people were also there. Okay, that's probably unfair. Trinculo (Simon Trinder) and Stephano (Tony Jayawardena) were ridiculously entertaining, but then they were comic relief. Miranda (Jenny Rainsford) was... fine. Did I mention how amazing Ariel was?

Chimerica (Lucy Kirkwood) - Sydney Theatre Company, Roslyn Packer Theatre

I first heard about this play when it was on in London a while ago, and while the premise interested me, I probably wouldn't have paid full price to see it here (like Away, I bought cheap tickets through a scheme similar to the NT's 10 pound tickets). Chimerica, of course, is a portmanteau of "China" and "America", reflecting the intertwined relationship of the two global powers. The play is about a photojournalist, Joe, who was covering the 1989 Tiananmen Square student protests that turned into the Tiananmen Square massacre, and who took a photo of the iconic "Tank Man"- the guy who stood in front of an entire line of tanks with his shopping bags and angrily tried to wave them off. If you are old enough to remember coverage of Tiananmen, you'll remember him. (While he is real, the play is fictionalised.)

Twenty years later, Joe wants to do a followup on Tiananmen, and becomes obsessed with trying to identify and trace the mysterious Tank Man, a search that takes him around Beijing and various parts of the US. In Beijing he hits up old language teacher friend Zhang Lin to help him, and along the way also meets a British businesswoman, Tessa, who is trying to work out ways of segmenting the huge Chinese population for the benefit of future marketing strategies.

The production was distinctive in that it had a significant Asian/Chinese cast, obviously quite rare in Anglo theatre, and while the London production had about 17 people, this production had around 30. This is huge for a non-musical production, and made for some stunning group choreography and crowd scenes. At the very beginning, the entire cast stood in diagonal lines, backs to the audience, all dressed up as Tank Man. In unison, they replicated the gestures he made towards the tanks. The choreography here, as well as in several group scenes, really evoked the sense of scale and unity associated with China, and I loved the use of the cast to populate scenes in general. While the production was a daunting three hours long, each scene moved along at a rapid pace, and I don't remember being bored. Not life-changing in any way, but an intriguing mix of historical fact, detective story, political commentary, and romance, which was well worth seeing.

Aladdin (the musical) - Capitol Theatre

This was a Christmas present for my mum, and therefore I felt I had to go along, even though I really didn't think it'd be my kind of thing. I was right. Although I have to stress that it wasn't bad in any way. It had all the fun tunes you remember from the animated movie. It had many impressive special effects, particularly the scintillating Cave of Wonders, a "flying" carpet, and Jafar's amazing quick changes. The cast were all competent and appealing, although the Genie (an imported Michael James Scott) swept all before him without contest. There were beautiful costumes and well-choreographed dancing and running gags. Everyone around me - including my mum - loved it.

It's just that... compared to musicals like Wicked and Book of Mormon (not necessarily deep, but a little more thought-provoking) it felt like there was no there there. All flash and minimal substance, and I think I would have enjoyed watching the movie again every bit as much, if not more. The stage show did very little for me (except for the impressive "how did they...?" stage magic) that the movie didn't do better. Okay, it didn't help that I sat next to a woman who smelled like she had drenched herself in perfume, and I am particularly sensitive to smell. Given that the musical was two and a half hours long, it was pretty trying. It would be bearable for a while, and then I'd get another huge waft and have to discreetly scrunch up my nose. There's just no polite way of asking someone sitting next to you whether they'd mind go taking a shower :/

And... I'm done. Ooh, and Inside No. 9 is back on, for those who care. Loving it :D

Additional thought: I have been wondering "where to now?" for the Sherlock fandom. While I'm sure there's still hope for another season, The Final Problem did feel quite "final", and I'm getting the vibe - rightly or wrongly - that despite whatever public declarations they might have made, BC and MF would like to move on to other things for a long while, and maybe only come back after things have settled down substantially. Also, I get the feeling S3 split off a lot of avid fans, followed by more in S4. So I'm wondering whether Sherlock fandom will now settle to "cancelled show" levels or whether there's enough likelihood of S5 to keep things going strong. I haven't been on tumblr much, so maybe this is all just a reflection of my own mixed feelings about the show, so what are your thoughts about where fandom is headed (not necessarily based on your own personal feelings)?

Media update - Xander Cage, Split, Celebrating David Bowie, No Man's Land, Hidden Figures

daasgrrl — Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:42:44 GMT

It feels like ages since I've updated - I've been so lazy, and it's been so hot. Like, record-setting, power-grid-breaking hot. I didn't actually realise "catastrophic" fire danger warnings existed - it stopped at "extreme" when I was a kid. And we lost power for a few hours on Friday night (local fault, not load shedding) when it was still around 40C (about 104F) so I ended up lying on the sofa clutching an ice pack by candlelight. I realise other places in the world are hot, but they're set up for it - like, if you go to Singapore or Dubai, air-conditioning is pretty much standard. Whereas at home we only have portable fans that at those temperatures really only work when you're sitting right in front of them. My PC would only function for about half an hour at a time before its fan started going crazy. Fun times *g* But now we've hit a temperature range at which my brain actually functions again, so I thought I'd do a quick write-up.

Saw, um, xXx 3: Return of Xander Cage (!), which is the kind of movie I never thought I would see. I haven't seen either (presumably) of the prequels, nor any of the Fast and the Furious movies, which I am told spawned this franchise. Whatever *g*. I offered to go along and see it out of the goodness of my heart, and because having seen a trailer, it didn't look like it would be too painful. It did end up having some nice things going for it:

1) the cast were the most thoroughly diverse group I've seen in a a movie for a very long time, which is still rare enough to be notable. The female lead was Indian, which may or may not explain the Hindi version that was also showing locally
2) I enjoyed seeing Toni Collette and Samuel L Jackson a great deal, even though I'm not entirely sure what they were doing in this movie
3 ) I've never seen Van Diesel in anything - heard the name, but couldn't have told you what he looked like. He was pleasant enough - kind of like a genial Bruce Willis. And I did like the action sequence at the beginning where he steals something from a South American (I think) transmission tower, then skateboards madly down the hill with a countdown timer ticking away... and it turns out he was stealing a satellite TV receiver so the impoverished community below can watch the crucial football (soccer) match which is just about to begin *g*
4 ) Donnie Yen deserves a entire point to himself - had never heard of him before (although I had heard in passing of the Ip Man movies), but I really enjoyed his character in Rogue One (Chirrut Îmwe), and spotting him in the xXx trailer (along with Toni Collette) was one of the major reasons I was willing to watch this film to begin with. I'm now a fan - he's very charismatic.

Apart from that, it wasn't dreadful, but it wasn't particularly appealing either. Mostly, it was very action-y and... loud. That kind of loud where changes in volume begin to lose their meaning and you just have to sit tight and wait for it to be over. But the cast were generally charming, and Donnie Yen was cool :)

Then saw Split, the latest from M Night Shyamalan, starring James McAvoy as a man with 23 personalities and counting. He kidnaps three teenagers, who are faced not only with his existing personalities, but with the threat of a new and immensely dangerous new one that may be on the brink of emerging.

I adore James McAvoy, and this is his movie. Obviously he gets to showcase some very distinctive and memorable 'personalities', including the challenge of portraying one personality attempting to masquerade as a different one, which was particularly interesting. The costume changes help with this, but there are very nice scenes where he switches personalities without changing clothes, and there's never the least doubt about 'who' he is. He was great, as always. Also excellent was Anna Taylor-Joy as Casey, the troubled teen who is the other main focus of the movie. The trailers are slightly misleading in that this film really is Casey's story every bit as much as - or even more than - Kevin's, and she more than holds her own against McAvoy. I also loved Betty Buckley, who played Kevin's psychiatrist. I don't really know who she is, but she's like an American Judi Dench *g*.

Overall, I thought the movie was solidly well done and gripping up until the ending, which was just... weak. It was one of those endings that just made me itch to rewrite it in my head. I felt that in the end Shyamalan was too in love with Kevin (who, let's face it, is a focus-pulling character) to see that it was really Casey's story, and should have ended with her, not him. In a way this is the flipside of the other issue I had, which is that Kevin was such a fascinating character, but we didn't hear very much about his past and how he 'became' this way (apart from one admittedly terrifying childhood flashback). If we had learned more about him, then the ending may well have felt more justified. Also, I greatly dislike self-referential creators. Yes, you made other movies, Shyamalan, we remember, thanks ever so much. Now how about you just concentrate on this one?

After that there was one more Bowie tribute show - Celebrating David Bowie - at the Opera House. This has toured internationally, and the big thing about it was meant to be that it featured musicians who had all played with Bowie (of whom Earl Slick was pretty much the only one known to me, but okay). I have to say that despite everything about this show being one step up in all respects from the one I saw at the Enmore - venue, musicians, singers - I was still underwhelmed. There were a handful of genuinely spine-tingling moments, and the saxophonist, drummers/percussionists (both of them), most of the guitarists, and the string quartet were amazing, but... still. I did try and think about what I thought it lacked, and it pretty much boiled down to "narrative".

I know, it's a rock concert, what kind of narrative would you expect? But I'd say that a lot of what appealed to me about Bowie was his theatrical quality, and that many of his songs were in fact stories, some more obviously so than others. And even a good rock concert does have a certain structural progression, at least musically. This show, like the other one, just felt like a bunch of random songs that the musicians wanted to do, arranged in no particular order - and while the musicians may well all have worked with Bowie, only the introduction contained any personal memories of him. It was literally: "and now we're going to do this next song". Several times - not once, but repeatedly - people couldn't even get the words right, which just annoyed me no end. However, everyone seemed well pleased in general, and people were encouraged to get up and dance (and I did, and it was fun). But I'd had more than enough after 165 minutes (it was a three-hour show) and we left at the first encore.

I still think there's room somewhere for a "proper" retrospective, where his music might be strung together with projected photographs and anecdotes and memories to create a show about Bowie and his life and work, rather than just being an extended playlist of his songs. But maybe that's just me.

Then there was the NT Live screening of No Man's Land (Pinter) starring Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen. I must say I've never seen a Pinter play, and while I did like the theme and idea of being trapped in limbo (as you might expect from the title) which reminded me a bit of Beckett, I didn't find the same kind of memorable whimsy or wordplay that I enjoy in Beckett's plays. The play is a four-hander, in which wealthy Hirst (Stewart) meets a man called Spooner (McKellen) at a pub, and brings him home for some mutual drunken storytelling. There are also two mysterious younger men who hang around Hirst - one of whom claims to be his son, but likely isn't, and his friend Briggs. Hirst appears to be in decline, and next day confuses Spooner for an old friend, while the young men appear to be his long-term employees. Nothing happens, and goes right on not happening until the play ends.

I did find a handful of interesting themes in the play - there definitely seemed to be some kind of gay undercurrent going on, what with Spooner admitting to spying on people on Hampstead Heath, and the unspoken relationship between Foster and Briggs, and how they met 'on a street corner'. However, that's as far as it goes, and they do go on to talk about women a great deal. Hirst's confusion (which Stewart attributes to dementia) is also interesting, and I like the idea of Hirst's house as this waiting-room where people who have nowhere better to go congregate and wait for whatever comes next. The lines about how no man's land is a place where nothing every changes or grows (or something) did make for a genuinely chilling and memorable ending - McKellen delivers them perhaps slightly out of character, but to incredible effect. It's just that it takes the entire play to get there. And they're both fantastic actors - McKellen especially. I always worry a bit about 'name' actors, whether they'll really be any good on stage, but they were brilliant, and I really don't think anyone could have delivered the lines any better. After some of the things I've seen lately, it was such a relief to see something where the lines actually had weight and meaning and understanding behind them rather than the actors just hurling them machine-gun-fire at each other and pretending that it constitutes "rapport". Owen Teale (Briggs) and Damien Moloney (Foster) were also both very good in what were clearly 'support' roles.

But... on the other hand, I didn't see that the play really justified all the love and talent and effort put into it at all. It felt very abstruse, very white, and very male, the kind of play designed for snobbish theatre critic cries of, "well you just don't understand its greatness". It might well reward studying, but it doesn't speak to me enough to want to bother. (And yes, as always, I fell asleep several times *g*.) However, I have to say the Q&A shown after the screening was delightful. Stewart and McKellen obviously adore working with each other, and there were lots of lovely stories, such as when they talked about their previous experiences with Pinter, and Patrick Stewart admitted he saw the play three times while Gielgud was doing it, loved it, but didn't understand it at all. Hee.

There was also a discussion of what different audiences were like, which was fascinating - they pointed out quite correctly that London audiences were in effect 'international' audiences (having often come from all over), and hence did not have a predictable feel to them, while they found that the farther-flung parts of England had very distinguishable local characteristics when the company toured there. Another amusing segment involved director Sean Mathias calling out Stewart for getting the giggles during this performance - while he carried on magnificently with his back to the audience, the camera lingered on McKellen's face, and you could see he was desperately trying not to laugh. I only noticed this part, not what prompted it, but the director was all mock-despairing, "this was being screened live to a huge audience, how could you?". Oh, and there was the saga of the glass throwing, too - every night, Hirst hurls a glass across the room, and in this particular performance, it shattered beautifully on the floor, which apparently it's only done four or five times - mostly it just lands on the rug and rolls. Which led them to talk about the time the actor playing Foster made his entrance, but the glass was obstructing him, so he kicked it away... and it flew into the audience. I do love anecdotes like that. So I guess if you include the great performances, the play's handful of interesting ideas, and the Q&A, the experience overall was still very worthwhile.

Which brings me to what was probably the best, or at least the most consistently appealing, of the lot - Hidden Figures. This is a 'based on a true story' movie about three African-American women (amongst a division of others like them) who worked for NASA back in the day when they were trying to get a man into orbit - in preparation for maybe, one day, sending a man to the moon. I wanted this to be good so much that I worried it wouldn't be, but it ended up being everything I wanted. It does blow my mind a bit to see segregation and the fight for civil rights running parallel with NASA trying to put a man in space, a juxtaposition I haven't seen made so starkly before. The three women - Katherine Goble (Taraji P Henson), Mary Jackson (Janelle Monae) and Dorothy Vaughn (Octavia Spencer) - all worked as 'colored computers', where obviously 'computer' means that they computed things, but I think it's also a nice underlining of the theme in that we now think of 'computers' as inanimate objects.

This movie just pushes a lot of my personal buttons - women who can math (I breathed a sigh of appreciation when Henson pronounced 'Euler' correctly, unlike some movies), people fighting for their right to be recognised as equals, NASA and the space program, great acting all around... and while we're at it, fabulous outfits *g*. I pretty much enjoyed everything about this movie, and incidentally, remained wide awake and engaged throughout. The movie does really centre around Goble, who supplied and rechecked crucial calculations for John Glenn's orbital flight, but I particularly loved Jackson's character and her sheer fearlessness about getting what she wants. And I think Vaughn's battle to get a supervisor's position nicely captures the importance of names and titles in showing respect. I do have to spare a special mention for Paul Stafford, who as Goble's snooty superior/co-worker most resembles the 'villain' of the piece, because, um, you see, he was played by Jim Parsons, who I instantly recognised as being Walter's human double in The Muppets (2011). So literally every time he appeared on screen being a dickhead, the little stereo in my head would crank up with: "Am I a maaaan? Or am I a muppet? If I'm a man... that makes me a muppet of a man." It was immensely, if inadvertently, entertaining. ANYWAY. I loved all three of the women and their stories, and will now go read the book. I'm sure some will say the movie is a romanticised, glamourised portrayal, and in some ways it is, but at the same time there's nothing wrong with a feel-good movie where women - especially women of colour - get to come out on top and be the larger-than-life heroes of their own stories. In short: movie is good. Go see :D

FIC: But Where Are The Clowns? (There Ought To Be Clowns...) (Sherlock/John, G)

daasgrrl — Sun, 22 Jan 2017 05:22:48 GMT

I really didn't intend to, it just sort of... happened.

Title: But Where Are The Clowns? (There Ought To Be Clowns...)
Characters/Pairings: Sherlock Holmes/John Watson, Mycroft Holmes (referenced)
Rating: G
Word count: 3,500
Warnings/contents: slash, meta, first kiss, clowns, cunning plans
Notes: Written as a reaction to the "horror movie" sequence at Mycroft's house that I thought might end up being a rant - but somehow came out as Johnlock meta instead *g*. Many thanks to evila_elf for comments and corrections. Remaining mistakes are my own.

Summary: After being shot by his therapist, John runs to Sherlock, and together they come up with a brilliant and not at all impractical plan for discovering the truth about Eurus.

Read at AO3.

Media update

daasgrrl — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 05:21:16 GMT

I feel like I should think about Sherlock more, but a) I'm just not as invested as I used to be, even though I am still enjoying it and b) my brain is insisting that I deal with unfinished business first, which means writing about stuff I've seen so far this month. I'll keep it brief, since it's mostly for my own benefit anyway *g*

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

This is one I almost didn't see, since I'm not a big Harry Potter fan, and we kept putting it off for various reasons - too early, too late, too lazy, too crowded. But at the last possible moment we did go, and so glad I did, loved it! Way more than any of the Harry Potter movies, actually, although the shared universe of course contributes massively to both. I think I just prefer things with grown-ups doing stuff, and I also like Eddie Redmayne, so that helped. But I hadn't counted on so many aspects being delightful, not least of all the fantastic beasts in question - each of them incredibly interesting in its own way. It was visually spectacular in general, and while that's never enough to 'carry' a movie for me, in conjunction with the appealing characters and solidly entertaining story, I was pretty blown away. Even the costumes - I'm not a clothes person, I rarely notice clothes, but OMG the dresses. I loved, like, everything Queenie wore throughout. Lastly, the whole Graves/Credence subplot was so wonderfully gothic and dare I say it, kind of kinky *g*. Would probably not watch again, but would heartily recommend.

La La Land

I know, I know, critically acclaimed, bringing back old-fashioned musicals, destined to win all the awards, yada yada. Yeah, it was pretty and all, but left me completely cold. Like, I've walked out of exactly two movies in my life, and this was the second one, so I guess it was memorable in that respect. Usually I hang in there, because I enjoy the cinema experience, and I usually find something worth staying for, even if it's just "to find out what happens" but I couldn't seem to find anything or anyone to care about enough to hold onto. I do like J K Simmons, but he was only there for about two seconds.

The story concerns an aspiring starlet Mia (Emma Stone), who goes to Hollywood to Realise Her Dreams, and there meets jazz pianist Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) who hopes to one day open his own jazz club. There's a scene in the first hour or so where Mia is at a fancy restaurant with her current beau (a high-flying corporate type) and another couple, and the men are discussing global business prospects, and the other woman is gamely smiling and laughing along, and Mia is sitting there with a haunted, desperate look on her face. A few minutes later she makes some hurried excuses and flees, practically (or possibly literally - I can't remember) dancing her way down the street towards a date with Sebastian. She's freeeeee! I felt that scene. In fact, I related to that scene so much I couldn't help thinking how much happier I would be anywhere else but trapped in a theatre watching a film I couldn't care less about. I whispered to my mum that she should stay and I'd meet her afterwards, but as it turns out she wanted to leave too *g*

If you're the type of person who likes ye olde school Hollywood "tributes" like Hail, Caesar, or "romance", or "quality cinema", or are a fan of either of the leads, you should totally go. I... just. No. No. The highlight of the whole experience was seeing the trailer for Hidden Figures. I am so there *g*

Bowie in Berlin

Also saw a Bowie tribute show at the Enmore celebrating his Berlin period (1977-1979). The band were excellent, but the vocalists were generally... pretty bad. Like, Bowie wasn't generally noted for being a "good singer" in the traditional sense, but I genuinely love the sound of his voice, and the performance aspect, and that proved to be sorely missing here. Luckily, that period was fairly light on vocals anyway. Given the average age of the audience, I felt like I was attending a classical music concert, which in a sense, it was *g*.The most memorable highlight for me was watching the guy playing the theremin - I'd never seen one played live before, and he was amazing. It was also fascinating to see and hear how the instrument itself contributed to the distinctive sound of some of the songs of that period (notably, "Heroes").

Moana

It's Disney, so you pretty much know what you're going to get. Plucky Moana, daughter of the island's chief (accompanied by comic relief in the form of a clueless chicken), sets out on a quest to find demi-god Maui and force him to help her save her island. Lin-Manuel Miranda wrote some of the songs, which was a minor draw as well. Enjoyed it very much without finding it particularly notable - it hit all the right beats at all the right times, was beautiful to look at, and was amusing and heartwarming by turns. I also appreciated hearing the familiar Kiwi accents of Temuera Morrison and Jermaine Clement, which came as a pleasant surprise. And Auli'i Cravalho (Moana), who is apparently an unknown, is vocally stunning (in her purity and quality of tone, not in that showy diva way). I feel like I'm selling it short, but that's probably because it wasn't something that inspired incredible joy or loathing, more a kind of consistent mellow satisfaction, which is still a rare and valuable quality in a movie. Highly recommended.

Rogue One

Also not particularly a Star Wars fan, but went along for the ride, and came away pleased. splix totally ruined Mads Mikkelsen's appearance for me (just kidding *g*) with her assertion that he only had one expression. It's a lie, anyway. He has at least two. Possibly two and a half, even. LOL. And if any Sherlock fan resisted mentally telling "Anderson" he was lowering the IQ of the whole galaxy, then they have better thought control than I do. Anyway, I was dubious at the beginning, but the characters, the teamwork and the cranky droid won me over by the end, and I liked that the ending was much darker than the conventional action movie ending (canon probably has something to do with this, but I really don't know what restrictions there were on that part of the story, if any). The very last scene, which came as a complete surprise, hurt my heart just a little bit, Star Wars fan or no. But it was the perfect ending.

Throw in Sherlock, and it's been a busy couple of weeks :)

Anyone?

daasgrrl — Sun, 15 Jan 2017 05:48:17 GMT

I'm guessing most people are staying far away from Sherlock spoilers until tomorrow (my time), but if anyone would like to talk about spoilery stuff, I'm leaving this post here until then.

[Obvious warning for potential spoilers in comments.]

Speed the Plow / Arrival

daasgrrl — Sat, 31 Dec 2016 09:12:40 GMT

...I haven't quite got the hang of crossposting yet, clearly...

***

In which I see off the old year with a post to the new journal :)

Saw Speed the Plow (David Mamet), with the excellent Rose Byrne, who I loved in Annie (shhh) but is probably better known for things like Spy and some X-Men movies. I've never seen anything by Mamet, so had no idea what to expect, but I generally trust that when people stage things, there's a good reason for doing so.

The plot concerns a big-time Hollywood producer, Bobby Gould, and his sidekick Charlie Fox, who has just brought his boss the film of a lifetime with star attached. It will make Charlie's name at last, and cover Bobby in glory, and all he has to do is say yes. The news is a delight to Bobby, who has been plowing through ideas for scripts (no pun intended) that are downright terrible, such as this depressing crackpot novel about survivors after some kind of apocalypse who have to rebuild their world. Terrible! His usual assistant is away, and the attractive temp Karen (Byrne) is shy and deferential, but enthusiastic about helping out. Half-flirtatiously, Bobby tosses her the terrible novel to read to let her feel useful. Boys being boys, Charlie privately bets Bobby that he can't get her into bed. That night Karen comes over, full of enthusiasm for the novel, and begs Bobby to produce it. He has some kind of revelation brought on by her purity and innocence, and realises that he's never been true to his emotions, that he's never really lived, or some such. He agrees, and sleeps with her. In the morning, he has to make a terrible decision between his promise to her (which could also spell the end of his career), and his promise to Charlie.

The main thing I got from this play is that... drama has moved on. I have seen episodes of long-running TV shows with more depth and complexity than this play. I think I and the people I saw it with were waiting for a twist that never came. It's really that straightforward - setup, crisis, resolution, with some pretty speeches in between. The End. And for all the advertised praise of Mamet's witty dialogue, I didn't especially feel that either. Sure, it was entertaining, but not startlingly so. You want sparkling dialogue, watch Buffy.

Also, the play relies greatly on the actors to make Bobby's change of heart convincing, and I really didn't buy it. Byrne was hilarious and gave a great comedic turn as the initially klutzy Karen, but that made her subsequent earnest push for the 'terrible' book to be filmed a little too meta. Karen felt almost like a parody of herself - as though she were acting wide-eyed and innocent and poking fun at her own portrayal at the same time. It needed genuine conviction. Bobby (Damon Herriman) was played by a smallish, thin guy who reminded me a lot of Doogie Howser and was a bit milk-and-water, while Charlie (Lachy Hulme) was about a foot taller, big and booming, with real stage presence, which made it singularly unconvincing on a dramatic level that he would be the 'sidekick'/assistant in the first place. In the end, only Charlie was convincing in his initial enthusiasm and subsequent rage, while the other two simply weren't in their roles, which admittedly were also more complex.

Lastly, I hate it when actors think 'snappy' dialogue means almost cutting off each other's sentences so the script effectively gets hurled at your head in a word blizzard. IMO, meaning is also found in the pauses.

I realise this all sounds a bit harsh, but I didn't actually hate it - it was fine, and I enjoyed the general world of the play and the dilemma at its heart. And the resolution was satisfying, if slight. I loved the connection between set and costume where Bobby's office was being renovated, and the walls and door were all white and beige, which matched Karen's outfit perfectly and suggested her "blank canvas" innocence (or so I read it). There were some amusing moments and some dramatic moments. It just all felt a bit light and insubstantial for the effort put into it.

Then there was Arrival, which I'd heard good things about, and I still don't quite know what to think about it. I do adore Amy Adams, who I first saw singing and dancing in The Muppet Movie, so she was a big plus. And she was excellent in her role - I have absolutely no quibbles from an acting point of view. I did however have extremely mixed feelings about the plot, or at least its execution. It opens well with some effective backstory about eminent linguist Louise Banks (Adams) that helps establish her character, but the 'real' story begins when alien ships mysteriously land (well, hover) at twelve places around the world, and she is approached by the military to help establish communication with them.

Looked at as a psychological thriller, I found the movie brilliant, beautifully structured, and very satisfying. Looked at as a quasi-realistic portrayal of first contact, I found it... absolutely ludicrous. See, one of the great things about this movie was how detailed and realistic it felt - the chaos on the streets at the alien arrival, the repercussions for international relations, the various media reports and the predictable emergence of internet crackpots and conspiracy theories, the huge military presence, the concern over germs and decontamination procedures. And on a more personal level, the trepidation Louise feels as she prepares to meet the aliens for the first time. I loved all that stuff. It was effective and convincing and genuinely, nail-bitingly tense. But given that fantastic setup, it then put me into a similarly 'realistic' frame of mind by the time Louise actually encounters the aliens.

Seriously, beings from another planet, and you expect me to believe a skilled linguist writes "HUMAN" on a tiny whiteboard, and holds it up to them... and that totally works? Oookay then. Meanwhile, I'm thinking, well, they have seven "fingers" (and hence are given the name heptapods), so you might want to start with numbers, show them multiples of seven dots or objects or whatever, especially with a mathematician (physicist) on hand in the shape of Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) and work up some early points of understanding. But no, there will be no mathematics, the linguist will Save The World. Somehow... somehow... they manage to establish communication in the form of the alien's ink circles, quickly achieving understanding of some very complex philosophical concepts that I found less than believable. As a linguist, she was so culturally American/Western as well - I particularly remember one scene where she and Ian hold up their little whiteboards in front of themselves - hers reads "LOUISE" and his reads "IAN". Because of course establishing individual names is of utmost importance! Me, I would have thought that establishing the existence of sex/genders might be a bit more relevant to a generalised understanding of humanity at this point. But no, the individual is paramount. Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but aliens are... alien. A lifetime of science fiction has conditioned me to think that they may have no points of similarity at all. What appear to be individuals may be extremities of a collective mind. They may reproduce in some undreamed-of way, or not at all. They may experience the world through different wavelengths of light, or a sense for which we have no words. Granted, we pretty much have to pretend communication is possible, or there's no movie, so I'm willing to do so to some extent, but not so much that I'm going to believe "LOUISE" and "IAN" is the way to go. And Ian walking back and forth, accompanied by a whiteboard pronouncing "IAN WALKS" is again totally effective. I just.... can't.

Also, the film relies heavily on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which I learned a teeny bit about in LING101 (technically, LING110) and... no. The hypothesis is basically that language determines (or at least influences) the way people see the world. Which I believe is true to some extent (the weak form of the hypothesis). I know that Chinese, for example, has very complex words for familial relations, so you cannot really have an 'aunt', you can only have 'my mother's older sister' or whatever. So being fluent in Chinese might affect the way you think about family. But it doesn't enable your brain to do what it is physically incapable of doing. Things do not work that way. It reminded me of Prince Phillip and his bizarre comment to British students in China that, "If you stay here much longer you’ll all be slitty-eyed." First of all, screw you Prince Phillip, but secondly, in this universe, that's... just about plausible.

BUT... and this is the other side of the coin. I loved the ideas in the story so much. I loved the way the film built up the flashbacks to Louise's daughter, and her fate, and how that information was released to the audience over time, the perfectly-paced flow of it. I enjoyed the idea of different countries trying to communicate with the aliens in their own ways, and the tension among them as they have to decide whether to collaborate with and trust each other or keep their breakthroughs to themselves. I loved that the film centered on Louise and her story, and I loved her courage in the face of uncertainty, and her determination and her vulnerability. The ideas about time and love and loss and the point of existence were big and profound and deeply satisfying. I even liked the way the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was twisted to allow Louise's journey to happen, which I realise sounds contradictory to what I've just said, but the concept worked so beautifully with the ink circles as "language" that I dearly wanted to believe it. It's one of those ideas that make perfect sense, artistically. I understand this movie began life as a novella, and I think in that form, I would possibly believe it - imo you can get away with a lot in fiction, because it's so reliant on imagination to begin with. But I think a film carries its own innate realism, which can be modified, but if you do that, it automatically changes the tone of the film. Like, if you have a big trashy action thriller with killer spaceships, you can make up pretty much whatever you like, as long as you make an attempt at plausibility, and I'll go along with the spirit of things and 'believe' it. But this is a thoughtful, intellectual film, and so encourages contemplation and consideration. So maybe my inability to 'believe' the science was pretty much inevitable in this medium, idk.

So there it is. Loved it AND thought it was ridiculous. Would recommend, but as a emotional exploration of "what it means to be human", rather than a thoughtful intellectual exploration of a first contact scenario.

Move in progress - how about you?

daasgrrl — Sat, 31 Dec 2016 00:28:33 GMT

Given the heads-up from several members of my f-list, I'm joining the move to DW. I'm still not entirely committed to moving wholesale and crossposting, but will head in that direction as and when more people make the transition. If you're on DW and haven't added me, I'd love it if you would do so please! I think my f-list is automatically importing, so everything should stay more or less the same at DW. I think *g*

...and I'm done importing. Hmm, DW is pretty. I like it.

Immovable (Mycroft & Sherlock, gen, G)

daasgrrl — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:37:03 GMT

Just a tiny Christmas bunny that came hopping by (...it clearly got lost), carrying all my S4 angst with it.

Title: Immovable
Characters/Pairings: Mycroft Holmes & Sherlock Holmes
Rating: G
Word count: 221(b)
Warnings/contents: none
Notes: Product of my reaction to S4 speculation. No spoilers.

Summary: A Christmas conversation between brothers.

Read at AO3.

The Entertainer, Faith Healer, The Wharf Revue, Denial

daasgrrl — Sun, 11 Dec 2016 04:48:42 GMT

Hmmm. I tend to forget that 'reading' is not the same thing as 'communicating'. Hi! Things are piling up, and I do pretty much use this journal as my record of events, so here goes.

Theatre

Saw the Kenneth Branagh Theatre Company screening of The Entertainer (by John Osborne), starring the aforementioned Kenneth Branagh. This production was originally slated to co-star John Hurt, but he had to pull out due to health issues, which is sad. Branagh is Archie Rice, a ye olde music hall entertainer, and the play charts the decline not only of his profession and way of life, but of grand old England, which is getting involved in foreign wars while being overrun by immigrants who don't know their place (those bloody Poles!). Archie is white, male, middle-aged, angry and bitter, and holding on to his past and future as best he can. So it would appear to hold a lot of thematic promise and relevance, but considering I only pieced the connections together for myself after the fact, it didn't really deliver.

The first obstacle for me was that the play was intended for audiences of its time (1957). And unlike many other plays, which are pretty self-explanatory regardless of when they are set, it did not bother explaining the prevailing circumstances, because the original audience would have already understood them. So when Rice's daughter returns home right at the beginning, one of the major controversies that is referred to repeatedly is that she "was at Trafalgar Square", and this may be related to her breaking up with her boyfriend. I had no idea what this was about, and mentally subbed in a theory about women's rights until I could google it. Secondly, one of Rice's sons is fighting in a war overseas. Much later we are informed he's in Egypt. Again, sorry for not knowing my history, but in a quiz show I would never choose the category "British military conflicts of the 50s" for double points.

The answer is "the Suez Crisis", during which there were British soldiers in Egypt, and about which protests were held in Trafalgar Square against British involvement. Do you see how crucial these minor pieces of information are in understanding the play? And if so, do you not think it might be nice to include a teeny-tiny explanation at the beginning (the way the National Theatre often does) if you're going to have an introduction at all? No, INSTEAD - and I wish I were making this up - we got a 10-minute "documentary" by a guy called John Osborne (no, another one), who wandered around some town (probably the one playwright Osborne grew up in) and talked about his personal connection with the other John Osborne, and how it made him want to become a writer. Well, thanks for that. Only during interval did we get a mock radio quiz that still wasn't that enlightening but at least yielded helpful google search terms. Granted, maybe if you were British you'd know all this and I ought to have read up on it. My bad.

Anyway, so even subbing in Xs for unknowns, the play could still have been good on a moment-by-moment basis, but that didn't work for me either. Parts of the writing were interesting - Rice's bitter speeches and songs are compelling, and basically the high points of the show, but other parts were just odd, seeming to set up dramatic moments that never eventuate, making it all feel very random. And some of the moments of actual drama were incredibly cheesy - which perhaps can't be helped, because they made me think of those overwrought 1950s dramas... and this is one, so that's probably where the trope originally came from *g*

The acting was also patchy. Branagh displayed some lovely tap dancing (seriously, who knew?) but just wasn't terribly convincing - he felt like a parody of a working class vaudevillian rather than someone who'd actually been one. There's something about him that just screams "luvvie". I also read a review that said he wasn't bitter enough, and I recognise the truth in that too - he tried, but he has such a genial face that there always seemed to be a glimmer of optimism in it rather than true loathing and despair. Greta Scacchi as Archie's second wife Phoebe (it took me until the second act to get all the family relationships clear as well - again, the play doesn't bother explaining) was basically being Mrs Lovett without the psychopathic tendencies - seriously, her physical and vocal mannerisms could all have been transplanted. Most painful of all was daughter Jean (Sophie McShera), whose voice was basically a piping chirp that never altered in pitch or intensity. Imagine a tiny smoke alarm going off for three hours - peep peep! Peep peep peep peep. Peep peep. Peep peep peep! After a while it just became white noise - I couldn't imagine why they cast her until I read that she played someone in Downton Abbey, so I imagine that makes her a drawcard for some people. By far the best performer was Gawn Grainger (who?) as Archie's declining father, Bill Rice. He had a wonderful voice, great delivery, and I could truly believe that he used to work in vaudeville. He had a relatively small role, and I don't know who he is, but he outshone them all, including Branagh.

Then saw an actual play at the Belvoir, Faith Healer, by the late Brian Friel. A production of this was on in London recently, and to be honest, half the philosophy of the Australian theatre scene seems to be "let's copy what's on in London". We had Charles III and Hamlet last year, and next year we're getting a production of Chimerica and Icke's 1984 (which I do want to see). Sure, some of these are new plays, and therefore you might expect them to be picked up and produced, but given how small the theatre scene is in comparison, it really is an ongoing theme.

This was an interesting play, structurally, in the sense that it was not so much a play but three separate monologues, something none of us realised going in. I spent the first 15 minutes wondering if anyone else was going to come on and wondering if I'd inadvertently booked a one-man show. The play begins with the Irish "faith healer" in questions, Francis Hardy (played by Colin Friels, no relation, note the 's'). He talks about his life travelling from town to town, and admits that most of the time he's a complete fake, but sometimes... sometimes he really does have the gift. He just can't predict when he'll have it, but he knows when it happens. He talks about his dear wife Grace and his eccentric manager Teddy, and that time he cured an entire room of people, and the time he was in a bar with a roomful of drunken men who ask him to cure one of their friends - and he agrees even though he knows he won't be able to. The second monologue is from Grace (Alison Whyte) who talks about her own life with Francis, and through her we realise that Francis' version of events may not be entirely reliable. Finally, we have manager Teddy (Pip Miller) who elaborates on, corrects, and extends the first two versions.

I really liked the structure, once I understood the intent of it, but other people I went with hated it. I did find that one problem with having three monologues is that each is extremely dependent on the individual skill of the actor. While the biggest 'name', and well-respected from his movie career, Friels was not quite interesting enough to listen to for half an hour. He was good in Death of a Salesman, but he really does need people to bounce off. I adore Alison Whyte from her TV work, and she cried nicely on demand, but again it was difficult to care too much despite the tragedy of Grace's story. I could see members of the audience falling asleep around us and I may have lapsed into microsleeps a few times myself. However, Teddy (Pip Miller) saved the day - I don't know the actor from anywhere, but it was like a huge wave of relief when he started talking. Unlike the other two, it took no effort of concentration to listen to him at all. Perhaps the writing helped, but I think this is where you see - or rather hear - the difference between someone suited to stage rather than screen. He just had the kind of vocal delivery and warmth that drew me into whatever he was talking about - he could probably have made his laundry list seem fascinating. He inhabited his role rather than reciting it.

All in all, it felt like a really long set-up that only paid off at the end, but I really did like the play, and Pip Miller.

Also went to see The Wharf Revue. This is an annual comedy revue at the Wharf Theatre based on current and political events of the preceding year, and a well-loved tradition. I've only been once before, but it's generally a lot of fun, and given the year's events I decided at the last moment that I wanted to go. Tickets were already sold out, but I managed to get some discount last-minute releases (similar to the NT's Friday rush tickets) which I was really happy about. It's always written and performed by the core cast of Jonathan Biggins, Drew Forsythe, and Phillip Scott, who are all amazingly talented, and this year with Katrina Retallick playing many (not all) of the female roles and supplying some excellent vocals.

The actors really are chameleons, and their impersonations of our local politicians were spot on - Tony Abbott (Jonathan Biggins) fan-dancing in red budgie smugglers was terrifyingly realistic, and Drew Forsythe as Pauline Hanson and Philip Scott as Derryn Hinch (a former controversial current affairs host - I can't believe he's a for-real politician now) were other highlights. They rounded off with a nod to US politics in the form of 'Little GOP of Horrors" (I never said it was high-brow comedy) which featured the songs "Suddenly Donald" and Bernie Sanders with his flyaway hair imploring the public to "Vote for Me". There was also a bizarre but hilarious parody of Disney's "Under the Sea" (because we should all go back where we came from!) featuring the cast in full-size turtle, lobster and starfish costumes.

Movies

Movie-wise, I keep meaning to see Arrival and Fantastic Beasts, but have seen neither of them. However, I did go see Denial, which screened here as part of the Jewish International Film Festival. I mainly went to see it for Mark Gatiss (and bonus Andrew Scott), but I was interested in the subject matter as well. I grew up with Holocaust books and movies, which in hindsight is kind of weird, because Jewishness isn't really a part of the cultural landscape here, the way it seems to be in the US. While the media might occasionally have a story on Lunar New Year or Ramadan, everything I know about Jewish cultural traditions I got from my f-list (and/or research and reading). Nevertheless.

The movie centers around the true story of US historian Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz), and the legal case brought against her by British Holocaust denier David Irving (Timothy Spall) for defamation. Apparently she called him a Holocaust denier, which is libel... because the Holocaust didn't happen. Okay then. I thought it was fascinating that it was Irving who sued her, a fact that is easy to forget in the flurry of legal activity around trying to defend Lipstadt's position and discredit Irving, and it's good that the movie reminds the audience of this when Lipstadt's legal team start playing hardball. Andrew Scott plays Anthony Julius, the barrister heading her defense team (and apparently famous for representing Princess Diana in her divorce), and is nicely ruthless doing so. Mark Gatiss is a professor of Holocaust studies who takes her team on a 'tour' of Auschwitz and points out the evidence. I think this was probably the most affecting part of the movie - I've never been sure whether I actually want to visit Auschwitz for various reasons, but even the idea has a weight that's impossible to ignore.

Anyway, Mark's character turned out to be Dutch, meaning he sounded very unlike his usual self. I have no idea whether it was a decent accent, but at least it was light and subtle, no more than an inflection here and there, which was nice. He's only in a couple of scenes - after the tour of Auschwitz, Van der Pelt and Lipstadt stand by the fence to bow their heads and chant a prayer (?) together, which was solemn and moving. He also appears on the witness stand wearing a black suit that is just a little too big for him (...obviously I only noticed this because I couldn't help comparing him to Mycroft), and is bewildered and hurt when Irving (representing himself) tries to cast doubt on his testimony. Being a British courtroom, it pretty much looks exactly the same as the one in The Reichenbach Fall, so if you lose your bearings for a second it's a bit freaky seeing Mycroft in the stand with Moriarty as lead counsel for the defence *g*

Overall, I'd say it was a solid film without being particularly noteworthy. The acting was good all around, the characters had appropriate depth and occasional flashes of humour, the script was well written, and the story was interesting, so it wasn't really as though it lacked anything - it did everything it promised, and did it well, but it just didn't do anything more.

Oh, and last and very much least, I watched The Visit (M Night Shyamalan) on DVD. Two children go and stay with their grandparents, who seem to be acting very strangely. But, as their mother reassures them over Skype, they're just a bit eccentric - because they're old. The kids were both great actors, but the resolution was obvious in the first half hour (even though I am generally Captain Clueless), then took forever to get there, and was thoroughly unsatisfying when it finally did. Eh.

I'm really looking forward to Split (James McAvoy) and T2. Honestly, I was put off by the idea of a sequel to Trainspotting, but the trailer looked unexpectedly cool and now I must see it :D. What movies are you looking forward to?

Media Update

daasgrrl — Sat, 05 Nov 2016 22:49:52 GMT

My Friend Totoro

Finally saw this on DVD, and all I really have to say is that it was charming. Two young girls move to the countryside with their father to be nearer the hospital where their sick mother currently resides. They quickly get to know their human neighbours... and their more magical ones, like Totoro. Miyazaki portrays children so accurately, it's uncanny. It did not have the same personal appeal to me as Spirited Away, The Wind Rises, or Ponyo, but it was still gorgeous in every way :D

White House Down

Saw this on DVD, mainly for James Woods, who I still like despite his political affiliations. Police officer John Cale (Channing Tatum - oh, so that's who Channing Tatum is) applies for a security position at the White House, but is refused on character grounds. He's brought his young daughter along for some convoluted reason and can't bear to disappoint her so tells her that he won't know the outcome for a little bit. Before they can leave, terrorists storm the White House and take hostages, including his daughter. It's up to Cale to Rescue The President (Jamie Foxx) and Save His Family. Can He Do It? Yeah, no prizes. I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to the movie (I was exercising), but it hit all the right notes, and had a satisfying resolution that was one notch above where it needed to be, which was nice. And as always I did enjoy James Woods (playing Walker, the head of the Secret Service), doing all the menacingly stern things he does best.

The Girl on the Train

I actually saw this a few days before Doctor Strange, but didn't feel it was fannish enough to justify a post on its own *g*. Read the book a little while ago, and enjoyed it for what it was, but I probably wouldn't have seen this except that I got a free pass for it. (I ordered a book of discount tickets a little while ago, which they decided not to bother sending me, and I had to chase them up. Then I received the pass in the mail a couple of days after I finally got the tickets, which was a nice gesture.)

I wasn't sure how much I'd like it, given there were no actors in it I really know, and they changed the setting from London to New York, which I also wasn't sure would work. Especially since I know exactly what those terrace houses that back onto the train line look like - we have them here as well - and I wasn't sure how things would translate to an American setting. As it turns out, the houses became much larger individual residences beside the train line, with a gorgeous stretch of water on the other side, so scenically, that ended up being very nice indeed.

Anyway, I enjoyed this movie a lot, which surprised me, because as I say it's not the type of thing I'd normally see. Rachel (Emily Blunt) is The Girl on the Train, who commutes to New York every day past the the house in which she used to live with her ex-husband, Tom. Tom has since remarried and had a child with new wife Anna, which hurts Rachel deeply, but she can't help looking for glimpses of them as she passes. A few doors down from her old house live a young couple who seem to embody everything she wants in a relationship, and she gives them names and makes up backgrounds for them which she embellishes as she goes along. Rachel is an alcoholic, and prone to blackouts and stalking her ex when drunk. One day, she sees the female half of the perfect young couple (her name turns out to be Megan) kissing a man who is not her usual partner. This infuriates Rachel, that the woman should have everything and throw it away. Shortly thereafter, Megan goes missing, and Rachel has the memory of waking up with bruises and blood on her, and not knowing where they came from. She's told by several people that she was seen in the area the night Megan went missing. She must know something - but she doesn't know what it is.

This forms the basis for what is basically a mystery combined with character studies of three women - Rachel, Anna, Megan - which I found unusual and very engaging, although perhaps it's just that I don't watch much in the genre (whatever it is). I felt very strongly that it was a "feminine" murder mystery, in the sense that it centered around character as much as plot, and also took a strong feminine perspective in the subjects and themes it was concerned with. But it wasn't what I'd call a "chick flick", either; it was a regular mystery with a different emphasis, where the resolution is every bit as much concerned with character development and the women's stories as "what happened". Which was an excellent combination, for me.

All the performances were solid, but Emily Blunt (Rachel) in particular was amazing as a woman slowly drowning in a bottle and trying desperately to drag herself out again. There was also surprise!Lisa Kudrow in it, which made me happy - as much as for her character as for the actress - and the glorious Alison Janney (CJ from The West Wing) as a suspicious cop. It's not something I would particularly want to watch again, but I do recommend it.

***

I didn't realise America always votes on a Tuesday (and only because I saw John Oliver's video on the subject *g*). Wow, it sounds like an enormous PITA for those who work regular hours, on top of everything else. Good luck, guys :)

Doctor Strange!

daasgrrl — Sun, 30 Oct 2016 01:48:10 GMT

It seems like we've been waiting for this movie forever, and that's the problem, I guess. I was enthusiastic but trying to have no expectations whatsoever - given Marvel superheroes aren't my thing - but I probably built up some anyway.

As far as non-spoilery things go, I will say that the visuals are amazing^3 and far and away the most impressive thing about the movie. Think Inception on LSD. So I did very much ooh and ahh at all the spinny-sparkly-pretty, and the international locations, and the gorgeous costume design and fabrics, but at other times almost nodded off from the clunky dialogue. Honestly, some scenes were like someone had done a Burroughs cut-up on the Big Book of Cliches, and called it a script. There were moments of "humour", but I'm putting it in quotes for a reason. I think I may have laughed once. Maybe twice. Oh, and Doctor Strange was officially brought to you by Jaeger-LeCoultre, Adidas, and Yakult *eyeroll*.

Anyway, the best things about the movie were:

1. The visuals - including CGI, set design, and costuming - should probably take at least the first six places in a top ten list
2. The cape. It was so noble, plucky and strong-willed it should get its own movie. The Cape Crusader :P
3. Mads Mikkelsen. He gave my favourite performance, in that he seemed the only person who gave the role his full conviction, without that kind of ironic "oh, look, we're doing a superhero movie, wink wink". He had to do some ridiculous things (like everyone else), but he committed to all of them. Bit of an anti-climactic ending, but he held the movie together for me. To be fair, a lot of the jarring elements were in the script, so the actors can only deliver the lines as best they can.

The movie as a whole was... okay. Stunning visuals are all very well, but I'm really mostly interested in character and story. I did find it very difficult to see BC as anything but "BC" throughout. I probably know his mannerisms far too well, which is entirely my own fault, but at times Strange was pretty much exactly like Sherlock with an "American" accent. I obviously can't tell how good BC's accent is - it might be quite okay, but what I really notice is that he doesn't change his speech patterns or intonations at all. He just talks exactly the way he always does while trying to sound American. While Hugh Laurie as House changed his entire manner of speaking, not just his accent, which is what I think made him so much more convincing (to me). So I really can't say much except that he was pretty, takes his shirt off once, and gets beaten up an awful lot, which some of you ought to enjoy immensely *g*

Tilda Swinton was good, and as striking as always, but I don't think she was so good that they can justify not using an Asian actress in the role. Especially given the heavy reliance of the mystic arts on kung fu and fan fighting and magical finger gestures and the like. I realise people will have different views on this, so I'm just going to leave it there.

I really enjoyed Chiwetel Ejiofor's character - I think Mordo's arc is the best in the movie, and I felt for him - but that was more in the storyline than in what he personally brought to the performance, although he was perfectly fine. Benedict Wong and Rachel McAdams were also fine but mostly just kind of there. Also cool to see Kobna Holdbrook-Smith (Laertes to BC's Hamlet) in a cameo.

Trivial things:
- I really loved the translucent energy 'spears' the bad guys used - like killer cling wrap
- apparently you don't need to tell the audience they're in London or New York with helpful titles (or maybe I missed them), but you do need to point out they're in Nepal or Hong Kong
- I really don't get why the big bad books are chained up when you can just walk over and undo the chains to have a browse. I was hoping they'd be Harry Potter books, with teeth or something
- where did all the other students go when everything was going down?
- every time they talked about Dormammu, I kept picturing this guy, whose name I couldn't remember at the time (it's Domo)

You have to admit, there is a resemblance...

I'm really trying to think of something more substantial to say than "wow, pretty", but coming up blank. There were certainly story elements, but it was mostly run, fight, run, jump, talk, run, fight some more, with some obligatory quasi-romance and quasi-philosophical musing on the side. It was worth seeing, I guess, but a movie clearly not designed for my personal enjoyment, and I never emotionally engaged with most of the characters. As such, it really only left me with a whole host of vivid sensory impressions, and the vague memory of dialogue that contributed very little, and was funniest when it was trying to be profound. How about you?

Oh, and for anyone who hasn't seen it, evila_elf very kindly pointed me to Doctor Strange's appearance on Jimmy Kimmel, which I did quite enjoy :)

Media update

daasgrrl — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 03:08:13 GMT

Wow, long time no update - still around, though, and reading lj. In the absence of studying, I seem to have taken up reading books again, which is nice :)

Theatre

Saw Liza's Back! (is Broken), which was a Minnelli tribute show by Trevor Ashley, star of the comedic revues Fat Swan and Little Orphan Tr(Ashley) (quickly renamed after the original title did not go down well). He's a good performer, and the other shows were great fun, but I was wondering whether a rather good Minnelli impersonation was enough to keep me entertained for almost two hours. The answer was no. There was a sizable band - maybe ten people or so - who added class and energy to the show, but this suffered from being a solo performance rather than an ensemble one, and didn't really have a story to speak of, just Ashley-as-Liza telling anecdotes from her past, and singing show tunes.

The other issue here was that while I understand classic show tunes may be a pleasure to sing, I'm middle-aged and jaded and I really, REALLY didn't need to hear anything from The Sound of Music, A Chorus Line or Cats again, and if you want to sing Sondheim, great, but PLEASE, of all the fabulous material, something apart from "Send in the Clowns" and "I'm Still Here" would be nice. Also, breaking up the night with a little Judy Garland was very nice and in keeping with the Minnelli theme, but... "Over the Rainbow" is another of those songs I Didn't Really Need To Hear Another Version Of. It may be just that I was hoping for "The Trolley Song" *g*. I do remember vaguely enjoying the songs from Sunset Boulevard, which I know but haven't actually seen, and that was about it. My friend said he would have been satisfied and enjoyed the evening better if the show had been half its length and ended at interval, and I totally agree. The impersonation and the schtick and bad jokes were fun for a while, but there wasn't anything more substantial there to hold it together.

Also saw the NT Live screening of Richard III with Ralph Fiennes (woo!) - I was so thrilled to at least get to see a filmed version of this. It was good, but not amazing - his performance in Man and Superman blew me away, but this was just another Shakespeare production, really. It may be that I have no great love for this play, or for the histories in general - the first time I saw it was actually the Cumberbatch version, so that's literally all I have to compare it to. The play itself has a handful of great moments, but it's one of those ones I still don't get all the fuss over. Anyway, Richard the III plots to become King of England, kills a few people, and succeeds. I do hope that wasn't a spoiler.

The thing I thought Fiennes did best with the role was create a Richard who was at least a coherent person - that is, I could see that he had a certain overriding character which he retained throughout the play. The main issue I had with Cumberbatch's performance is that he seemed to act each scene separately from the others, so that his entire being was invested in the current scene, even the ones where he's dissembling. Now, I realise in theory Richard could just have a been a very good actor capable of coming up with whatever the occasion requires, but that implicitly plays on the audience having an existing understanding of who he is, rather than presenting both layers to the audience through the performance. I hope that makes sense; I know what I mean, anyway *g*. While his acting was good, I found it difficult to believe his Richard was a whole person rather than a series of them; at least Fiennes gave me a rather businesslike, amoral Richard who methodically does whatever it takes to get his way.

I wasn't sure about the staging at first, but it really grew on me - the play has a startlingly modern opening with the remains of Richard III being unearthed from a large grave-shaped hole in the middle of the carpark. Snippets of reportage are heard as bits of his skeleton are recovered and handed up for examination. I thought this was a bit silly and unnecessary, but then the "grave" returned throughout the play as various characters end up being dispatched and disappear into it. One of Richard's last scenes involved him circling it repeatedly before his eventual demise. The play then closes with a repeat of the opening, where his bones are put on display. I found it really quite a effective idea - score one for arty concepts that actually work. Anyway, Fiennes was entirely competent, if not exceptionally impressive, and while I feel bad about essentially ignoring the rest of the cast, they were... good without being amazing. I really missed Okenedo's fiery Queen Margaret from the BBC series - I knew the doddery old woman (referring to the interpretation, not the actress) was someone famous (Vanessa Redgrave, as it turns out), but I wasn't particularly impressed, sorry.

Movies

Don't Breathe - weirdly enough, I saw this with my mum, who likes thrillers, but had no one to go with, so I thought it'd be fun. Within about thirty seconds of the movie starting I suddenly remembered why I don't usually see this kind of thing, and ended up shutting my eyes a lot of the time and watching a great deal of the rest of it from behind my fingers. My mum was perfectly fine, by the way.

Three young people - two guys, one girl - lead fairly purposeless existences in Detroit, going nowhere (I thought the city shots alone added a great deal of atmosphere). Just for fun, and to get a little bit of cash, they break into people's houses and steal stuff (one of their fathers works for a security agency, so they have illicit access to keys). One day they hear that this blind guy on the edge of town received a hundred thousand dollars in a court judgment a few years back, and it's probably still stashed in his house. He's blind, so how hard can it be? Only it turns out he's a war veteran, and a force to be reckoned with when you're on his turf.

What I really enjoyed about this movie was that it took the time to humanise the young people - they're not "bad" as such, just directionless and lost. But obviously if it was your house they invaded, you wouldn't see it quite that way. Similarly their "victim" is a disabled war vet, and you'd think he'd have the right to protect his territory as best he can. But in protecting your home, how far is too far? He's not exactly a defenceless, innocent victim, either. So aside from the thriller aspect - and it was an excellent roller-coaster ride if you like that kind of thing, there were nicely-drawn characters and an interesting moral dimension that made it a cut above the average. I also really appreciated that there was only one moment of "movie stupidity" that I noticed - you know, "there's a serial killer on the loose and I heard a noise in the garden! Let's investigate!". Meaning that for the most part the characters needed to do the things they did rather than being randomly dumb. People will always complain about endings, but I thought it ended satisfyingly, and that's all I could ask for. I would actually watch this again - maybe now that I know how everything turns out I might be able to watch it without covering my eyes *g*

Books

Presto! (Penn Jilette) - I bought this one through iTunes - couldn't find it at the library, and I didn't think it was one I needed a physical copy of. I'm a big fan of Penn and Teller, but I don't quite know whether I like Jilette or not - he's kind of an asshole, but an entertaining asshole? I don't know. I do totally relate to the jumpy, slightly defensive way he talks/writes, though, like he knows you're judging him, and he wants you to know he knows - I feel like that when I write opinion posts *g*. Anyway, the book is about his massive 100-pound weight loss and How He Did It. Basically, he ate only potatoes for two weeks to reset his taste buds, and is now an unethical vegan who only eats in a daily eight-hour window (I think) and indulges in "rare and appropriate" blow-outs not more than once every two weeks. There, I just saved you from buying the book. What was more interesting to me is probably the glimpses into his life - his family, his relationship with Teller, his work, his opinions. He is a great storyteller, despite the massive amounts of name-dropping, and I enjoyed reading it. Once.

The Lady in the Van (Alan Bennett) - This was recently made into a movie (which I've not yet seen), and it was seeing the trailer that made me want to read it. As its name implies, it's the (true) story of the elderly lady who lived in a van that ended up permanently parked in Bennett's driveway. I would class this book as an extended character study - a portrait of her habits, her appearance, her relationship with Bennett, the neighbourhood, and the world. I don't think it really goes much deeper than that, but it's enough to be fascinating. I did really enjoy Bennett's eye for detail, and that he mostly keeps himself and his parallel middle-class life out of it - she is very much the focus of the memoir, and so she should be. In some ways she lived in terrible conditions, but on the other hand she fiercely maintained her independence and her dignity by doing so - I'd class it as melancholy rather than sad. A very short, easy read - more novella than novel.

Sugarbabe (Holly Hill) - an Australian memoir of a woman's time as a "sugarbabe". Having just broken up with a wealthy (married) boyfriend, and needing money to pay her rent and write her book, Hill (not her real name, although it's out there now) advertised online for a sugar daddy arrangement. This book is an account of the replies she got, the people she met, and how well the arrangements did - or didn't - work out. While the book is "fictionalised" - names changed, elements compressed or altered, it's a thoroughly entertaining read anyway. She does sound like tremendous fun to be around, and is very frank about sex and money. (I believe she went onto a career in erotic fiction, and as a connoisseur of porny fanfic, she at least passes muster *g*). I really enjoyed the Sydney setting of this book - I'm so used to reading as an outsider that it's nice to be intimately familiar (haha) with all the places she describes and get that thrill of recognition. Good fun, although something I think very few people would be able to pull off (...and suddenly everything turns into sexual innuendo). An interesting footnote is that this is the book she ended up writing rather than the book she became a sugarbabe to write *g*

The Watchmaker of Filigree Street (Natasha Pulley) - I read this due to a rec from flywoman, and it was absolutely worth it. I don't think my summary could do the book justice, so I'll settle for the official one.

London, 1883: Thaniel Steepleton returns to his tiny flat to find a mysterious gold pocket watch on his pillow. When the watch saves his life from a bomb blast that destroys Scotland Yard, Thaniel goes in search of its maker, Keita Mori - a kind, lonely immigrant who sweeps him into a new world of clockwork and music. Although Mori seems harmless at first, a chain of unexpected slips proves that he must be hiding something. Meanwhile, Grace Carrow is sneaking into an Oxford library dressed as a man. A theoretical physicist, she is desperate to prove the existence of the luminiferous ether before her mother can force her to marry. As the lives of these three characters become entwined, events spiral out of control.

What is not to love? There is some serious genre-bending here - it's Victorian magical realism (steampunk) that has a mystery at its heart (who set the bomb?) and also touches on history, science, feminism, travelogue, and romance. And to digress slightly... you know, over the years I've seen the expression "just like fanfic" as a bit of a double-edged sword. It's often used disparagingly, especially in reference to canon, but I think it can have positive connotations, too. To me one of the greatest things about fanfiction is that many of the usual rules of "literature" are up for grabs, leading to some amazingly inventive work. So I'm just going to say that I would bet that the author has read (and/or written) fanfiction in her time, and while this book is firmly "literary", in the sense of meeting all traditional established criteria for a novel, for me it also replicated a lot of the imaginative and emotional feel of first-class fanfic. And I mean that in its most positive sense. Highly recommended.

The Girl on the Train (Paula Hawkins) - another read prompted by a movie trailer. I suppose I tend to reason that if someone wanted to make it into a movie, it's probably at least a half-decent read *g*. The biggest initial surprise was that it's set in the area around London, because I was sure the trailer I saw was set in the US - and sure enough, it is. They changed it for the purposes of the movie. So the UK setting was a plus for me. A woman catches the train into London every day, past the house in which she used to live with her ex-husband, and makes up stories about the people and things she sees on the way. She's an alcoholic, and prone to blackouts and lost memories. So when a woman in her old neighbourhood goes missing, a woman she's only seen from the train window, she thinks she might know something about her disappearance, but she can't quite remember what it might be.

The story is told from three perspectives, all female - Rachel (the alcoholic "girl on the train"), Megan (the woman who goes missing), and Anna (the new wife of Rachel's ex-husband) and jumps back and forth in time. It's a super-easy read - the kind of thing you can pretty much inhale - and reaches a satisfying resolution. Which is all I really ask for from this kind of book. An enjoyable distraction.

Absolutely Fabulous, Songs for a New World, Sausage Party, Suicide Squad

daasgrrl — Fri, 09 Sep 2016 06:40:25 GMT

Hi! I was going to tell you the course of all my woes, but let's face it, I don't want to do that, and you don't want to hear it :) So let's chat about the fun stuff I've been seeing instead.

Absolutely Fabulous

I grew up with this show, and still enjoy inflicting "sweetie darling" on people. I have no interest in fashion whatsoever, but Eddie and Patsy (and Saffy and Bubbles) were just thoroughly entertaining at the time. So I went in wanting to be pleased, and I was. Although to be fair, were it not for the promised Mark Gatiss, I might not have made the effort *g*. So the storyline is completely bonkers, but fun - washed-up publicist Edwina "Eddie" Monsoon (Jennifer Saunders) is held responsible for killing Kate Moss in a terrible accident at a fashion gala, and goes on the run with best mate fash mag slag Patsy (Joanna Lumley) and Saffy's rebellious daughter Lola (Indeyama Donaldson-Holness). Hijinks ensue, while Bubbles (Jane Horrocks) parades around in a series of increasingly improbable costumes (the inflatable hashtags one is a gift to the ages, I tell you). Silly and fun, with a melancholy edge in Eddie and Patsy's refusal to grow up and/or grow old. I also adore Saffy (Julia Sawalha) and I swear she's barely aged at all.

Dozens of cameos, but Mark gets an entire scene as the editor at a publishing house, who has some rather unkind things to say about Edwina's biographical manuscript. He looked as though he were thoroughly enjoying himself. Lovely :)

But I'm afraid what was probably most memorable about this particular evening was its aftermath. I took the train home around 9.30pm, which isn't even that late, and walked home from the station as always. Now, the suburb I used to live in is not in my opinion particularly dangerous, but the street I walk down does have warning signs for people to watch their possessions, etc. So it's not exactly suburbia either. Anyway, I passed a few people heading the other way on the first stretch, and then kept heading home. Now, one side of the street is tree-lined, while the other side is better lit and open. I habitually take the tree-lined side during the day because it's shadier and there are fewer roads to cross, and didn't think to change my habits, since it wasn't that late, and it was a Thursday, so no drunk weekend revellers. So I'm just walking through the trees when I hear this soft grunt, and I jump, because I haven't seen a thing - I don't have great night vision, and the trees block out a lot of the streetlight. I realise about 10 feet away, there's a guy leaning back against the trunk of the tree with his hand down his pants, staring at me and obviously getting off. Looovely. I didn't run, exactly, but I walked off so fast I almost ran into the road - there was a car, too - and was buzzing with adrenaline when I got home. Intellectually I know such types aren't usually dangerous, but euwww. I think that's only the second time I've seen a guy jacking off in public. I'm sheltered *g*. So that was rather a memorable evening.

Songs for a New World

This is a musical by Jason Robert Brown (he also wrote The Last Five Years) and I think he actually called it a "song cycle" in that all the songs are self-contained and separate, but are connected thematically, and one will sometimes call back to the others. It's about moments from people's lives when they're on the brink of something life-changing - such as discovering America, or deciding to leave their partner, or discovering they're pregnant. So it didn't have the narrative structure of a normal musical, but at the same time it was consistently engaging because each song brought a completely "new world" to the stage.

I really liked the main theme ("The New World"), which was just as well since it was repeated quite often. "Stars and the Moon" was the only song I'd heard before, about a woman who meets various men offering her new lives with them, but she holds out for riches and security. I adore the song - even though if you think about it, it's like a much less cheesy version of "I've Never Been To Me". Particularly hilarious was "Surabaya Santa" which was like the Brecht/Weill parody to end all parodies - the opening chords alone are hysterical. It's the farewell lament of Mrs Claus as she prepares to ditch her loveless marriage *g*

One of the most impressive things about this performance was actually that it went on at all. The cast was only four people, and flu has been hitting Sydney pretty hard lately. So, as the stage manager explained, earlier in the run one cast member had got sick, so they flew in someone who had just done the Melbourne season to take her place. Then a second cast member went down, but luckily they knew someone who lived "just round the corner" who could step in, script in hand, to take her place (she was actually the lead in the production of Heathers I saw recently). They had to cancel the Wednesday show, then spent Thursday rehearsing her. Then - and you saw this coming - a third cast member fell ill, and they had to hurriedly find a replacement and rehearse him. So the production I saw on Sunday had one original cast member (Christopher Scalzo, who was fantastic), one "imported" cast member, and two others on book, who both did an amazing job considering the complex four-part harmonies throughout the show. I haven't stood up to applaud a performance in ages, but I did this one.

Sausage Party

Literally the only thing I knew about Seth Rogan is The Interview, which I loved beyond reason, and come on, the premise of Sausage Party is pretty awesome. See all the innocent food in the supermarket. See how it reveres the Gods who walk among it, picking and choosing the righteous (shades of "the Claw is my master! I have been chosen!") and taking them away to paradise in "The Great Beyond". The food even sings a hymn to this concept every morning. Of course what actually happens to said produce when it gets to said paradise is a horror movie of being peeled, boiled, sliced into bits, and in some cases, eaten alive. There is no escape. I was amused, anyway. How could it miss?

Eh. What I felt most was that this was a great opportunity for a comedic horror movie with some deeper ideas about religion and belief entirely squandered in the service of unfunny frat-boy humour. Like, firstly, everything swears constantly, which is funny for about two seconds, and then just gets wearing. I don't mind swearing in the slightest, but it serves no point, and in my view, actually detracts from the theme. I mean, part of me wonders where the food even gets the idea that this is the normal way to talk, since presumably most of the humans they see don't walk up and down the aisles going "eat my shit, you fucking cunt motherfucker" (sorry, but it's really like that. Constantly.). That doesn't even make sense from a characterisation view (and yes, I am discussing the characterisation of produce - deal with it *g*). I would have thought the obvious development would be for the food to start off all pure and unsullied in its packaging, and gradually descend into depravity as it realises what the real world is like and rebels against its unjust fate. Or something. Secondly, there's truckloads of sexual innuendo, which again, no problem, but this is... food. It doesn't have... parts. But I'm meant to overlook that as well, because food talking about fucking is just intrinsically funny. Apparently. Whatever, dude. And I haven't even started on the racial stereotyping of food, which is apparently totally hilarious in this context. Okay, things like the bagel/lavosh squabble over disputed territory was a solid and worthwhile joke, even if not quite strong enough for an entire subplot. But I'm taking Big Chief tobacco with warpaint and stripes, and curries with sing-song accents and all the rest of the cheap stuff that doesn't say anything new (to me).

...okay, maybe all you really need to know is that the major villain in the movie is a psychopathic douche who goes around trying to kill everyone. BECAUSE.... HE'S A GIANT DOUCHE! LIKE, FOR REAL! A DOUCHE! GET IT? DO YOU? DO YOU? ISN'T IT HILARIOUS? Oh, god. I loved the premise and the animation, but this movie just made me tired.

Suicide Squad

I'd heard this wasn't all that great, but went to see it anyway. And yeah, I didn't love it, but then I'm not a superheroes type anyway. I will say that I did enjoy the focus on character rather than action, but this movie needed some serious cutting and pasting. The beginning is basically one big info-dump, which I didn't mind, but nothing actually happened. And then having worked up some momentum, everything comes slamming to a halt for some more flashbacks (that scene in the bar was absurd), and never properly gets going again. My personal theory is that this movie is actually a sequel that doen't realise it should have been a sequel. I can't believe I'm saying this, but what it needed was a previous movie where one by one, all of the characters live out their backstories (which were great) in real time, and successively go to prison. Then that movie ENDS with some disaster, and the first inkling that someone in the government is contemplating, hey, it might be a good idea to put all these criminals into the Service of Justice. And then we get this movie, which starts with us already knowing the characters and their pasts.

Anyway. Margot Robbie is amazing (and gorgeous), and I always like Will Smith, who seems much buffer than I remember. I can't see Jared Leto without thinking about all the disgusting things he reportedly did on set, so i just automatically hated him, sorry. I noticed one superhero - the climbing one who was killed - didn't even get a backstory. Come on, guys. A two-hour extravaganza, and you can't even spare three minutes for poor old whatshisname? Geez. And I thought the Enchantress was ridiculous, sorry again. She was roughly as scary as a super-annoyed Gwyneth Paltrow. And I know it's a superhero flick, but there was still way too much suspension of disbelief and "wait, why didn't someone...?" for my tastes.

Lastly, I have now started watching Once Upon a Time, years after it started It's great so far - love Robert Carlyle and it's even nice seeing Jennifer Morrison again. Lana Parrilla is fun, but totally Housewives of New Storybrooke (and I haven't watched a single one of those shows, but I still think that *g*). And I may have squeed a little at surprise!Nick Lea :)