Lucy Review-cy

Watching TV shows and writing about them so that you don't have to.  Follow me on Twitter @review_cy

[lucyreviewcy]

Made in Chelsea - S07 E08

In this episode, Binky and Alex take a little trip to Breakup Bridge. 

When a show has been running for a certain amount of time, a satisfying kind of lore develops. You expect this from a show like Grimm or The Vampire Diaries where the lore is a whole big part of the story, but in a reality show you forget that this kind of thing still happens. 

Breakup bridge is now ICONIC. The site of Spencer and Louise’s breakup and potentially the all time best line that the show ever produced “It’s hard for me to respect you when you continue to allow me to cheat on you.” Breakup bridge is a shorthand visual language that tells you before the two characters even start talking that big drama is coming. 

This kind of shorthand is interesting, because the drama of the scene is increased automatically without anybody having to say anything. This happens in long running shows or franchises like Star Wars where making a reference to an established part of the lore can either be really satisfying (when Kylo Ren has Vader’s helmet in The Last Jedi) or distracting and weak (everything that happens in Rise of Skywalker.) In Rise of Skywalker visual shorthand is used in place of plot, and that’s where it becomes unhelpful and ineffective. 

In Made in Chelsea the breakup bridge supports the story by providing extra information so that we can anticipate what is going to happen in the scene. As the series develops, I’m excited to find out what else becomes lore... 

[lucyreviewcy]

Made in Chelsea - S07 E07

In this episode, the nightmare cycle of Binky Lovable Binky finding out that Alex has cheated on her again continues. This is what Wagner’s Ring Cycle is really about (I know that it isn’t, don’t @ me.)

A weird and unsettling thing happened in this episode, where Lucy got upset in front of Jamie and he was actually... a ... good friend? Like, he told her that the girls who were upsetting her were wrong, and offered genuine comfort and support. Is it a coincidence that in this episode, I also noticed that Jamie’s eyes are a really unusual and dare I say it, attractive colour? No. Not at all. The fact is that I find men who actually show compassion for women more attractive than men who refer to them as “Their birds” (Sam) or cheat on them repeatedly then make it seem like a mistake (Alex) or convince them that they’re in love with them and then break their hearts (oh...er... Jamie). 

I think that the men in this show are often under the impression that the way to a girl’s heart is to declare their own feelings, take her on expensive dates, and act macho and protective. This is incorrect, my dudes. We just want you to actually listen to us, care about us, and treat us like human beings. Crazy. 

Another good illustration of the difference between the alpha male possessive character and the compassionate friend is illustrated by short lived, yet perfect sci-fi time travel TV show Timeless (which if you haven’t seen...you should, but also, big spoilers ahead.) The character of Lucy (played by popular and famous actress, Lucy from Timeless) is torn during series two between hench soldier Logan and morally dubious time terrorist Garcia Flynn. Lucy is set up with Wyatt early on, but the drama arrives when Wyatt’s wife is brought back from the dead and Lucy is cast aside. Lucy finds solace in an uneasy friendship with Flynn, who listens to her, comforts her and doesn’t treat her like a possession (which is what Wyatt does.) In the end, when the show was cut down in its prime due to TV execs not knowing perfection when they see it, Lucy ends up with Wyatt and Flynn sacrifices himself to save the future. This ending is very disappointing for the many of us who totally shipped Flynn and Wyatt, because Flynn becomes a more attractive character purely because he listens to Lucy. The same can be said of Damon, Stefan and Elena in the vampire diaries. Damon actively works to help Elena resolve issues, while Stefan... well, Stefan’s just sort of there. 

Anyway, the bottom line is, if you want to be a dishy TV man, you gotta actually empathise with female characters. It may seem difficult, but I promise, if Jamie can do it, anybody can. 

[lucyreviewcy]

Made in Chelsea - S07 E06

In this week’s episode Lucy “Interviews” Riley for a role as an intern at her jewellery company.

I found this interview scene hilarious, especially after this Guardian article in which the show’s producer and Ollie claim that the events of the show are pretty much true to life. I have no doubt that parts of the show are real but this interview was so majestically fake.

Lucy asks Riley approximately two questions and then seems to have decided to hire her. I find Riley an intriguing character because besides causing friction between Stevie and tiny stupid Sam, she doesn’t have an enormous amount of personality. She’s a bit like that girl at school that all the boys seem to have a crush on but you’re not exactly sure why? She’s pretty, but not more than any of the other female cast members? She has… really straight hair… I guess? Maybe the real Riley is hilarious or super smart or knows witchcraft or some other trait that she isn’t exhibiting on screen. If the events of the show are as real as the Guardian article claims, then there must be more going on behind the scenes for Riley to be so bizarrely popular.

I also liked the part of this episode where the girls all played netball. I hate to rag on a sport about which many people are passionate, but netball revives exclusively bad memories for me. As a teenager I could not boast a significant proportion of control over my limbs, and a sport where you have to STAND STILL while also making strategic decisions before also running was just too much to take. Eventually I was stuck in remedial PE where we walked around the heath and I tried my first cigarette. It looks like the posh girl experience of netball is vastly different, and I suppose that makes sense. Characters like Lucy and Louise give off the impression that they were the confident sporty girls of their school years, rather than the smoking-on-the-heath type. Being good at netball was a big signifier of femininity and social rank at my upper school, so it’s nice to see that reflected here.

[lucyreviewcy]

Made in Chelsea - S07 E05

In this episode Sam is the most cringeworthy anybody has ever been. 

I’m not sure where Sam has gotten the idea that he has any kind of ownership of Riley. They weren’t together for very long at all, but he takes Stevie’s pursuit of her (even though it’s actually Riley doing the pursuing) extremely personally. This is actually the repetition of another arc from a previous series, because as Christopher Booker definitely 100% said “there are only seven ways that Poshos cause drama.”

This is the same story as Phoebe and Alex, but when the genders are flipped, it is somehow made more obvious how bizarre the “I own my ex” philosophy is. Perhaps because Sam believing he owns Riley plays into patriarchal nonsense which even seems outdated in Chelsea, even the boys in the show are aware of how stupid Sam is being. Riley is a completely free agent, and owes nothing to Sam. 

There are a few moments in this show where male characters claim that they could “have” specific female characters whenever they want. As if, regardless of context, said women will melt with lust from the sheer joy of being wanted. Interestingly, I’m currently reading a Jilly Cooper novel where the women do exactly that. Is this a specific trait only found in extremely posh women? Cooper’s books are targeted at women, so are we meant to find the notion of being easily seduced by men who are unscrupulous bastards romantic? I don’t. There’s nothing attractive about somebody assuming you find them attractive. Smug is not a hot word. 

I’m interested to know where this trope has come from. Mr Darcy doesn’t have it. Elizabeth is in fact categorically uninterested in him. In Greek myths, even super powerful Zeus has to disguise himself in weird ways to get with various nymphs and women. I think it’s going to take more than 250 pages of Jilly Cooper to figure out exactly where producers and authors have gotten the idea that a man who’s so attractive he could “have whoever he wants” is a good character trait. 

I guess there’s Paris from Troy? He’s meant to be pretty hot? But then, he causes a decade of war and bloodshed with those good looks, so maybe he’s not a good example. He’d fit right in on the streets of Chelsea though.

[lucyreviewcy]

Made in Chelsea - S07 E04

In this episode Binky is very sad, yet still lovable. This isn’t a still from this episode, it’s just a really nice picture of our princess, Binky (lovable Binky).

I find Alex very condescending. In general, I think the show and the people on it underestimate Binky. Mark Francis is evidently very fond of her and he doesn’t usually associate with fools, and I’d actually say that other than her mother, he’s the only person who treats Binky with the respect she deserves. 

In this episode, Binky spends a lot of time in a bedroom that looks remarkably like somebody’s actual bedroom. It’s kind of comforting to see that her bedroom isn’t the colour co-ordinated storage solution dream one might expect from a posho. In fact, it’s a bit of a tip. But then that’s completely consistent with Binky’s character in the show - Binky is like us, the viewers, in a way that none of the other poshos really are. When the characters in the show talk down to her, mistreat her or otherwise underestimate her, I find this generates a particularly potent stab of empathy. I’ve never cried at this show but I came pretty bloody close when Alex broke Binky’s heart. 

I return again to the old comparison between Spenny and Alex’s approaches to cheating. Spenny is happy to play the bad guy, while Alex keeps trying to redeem himself to Binky. Neither approach is ideal, and both are insidious in their own unique ways. Alex’s need for Binky to accept him back is driven purely by the need to absolve himself. In an unusual moment of sensitivity and awareness, Jamie is right when he points out that Alex doesn’t want to be in this relationship anymore. What Alex, Spenny and Jamie have in common is that they all want what they can’t have. Alex can’t have Binky’s forgiveness but he keeps pushing for it, regardless of how much distress he causes her. 

In conclusion, Alex is the worst. 

[lucyreviewcy]

Made in Chelsea - S07 E02

Why yes Britbox did skip an episode and no I did not notice until I was half way through. In this episode, we find out the origin of the word Porg. 

Ok, I’ll admit, the fact that Spencer refers to Louise as Porg had begun to weird me out. Porgs were invented for The Last Jedi - but that movie didn’t even come out until 2017! How could Spencer possibly have had such advance warning that there would be enough puffins on the island TLJ was shot on that the production team would need to come up with a way of concealing them, thereby inventing the round fluffy feathered friends we have all come to know and love? Was Spencer somehow involved in the script editing for TLJ? Is Spencer moonlighting as a Hollywood punch up writer? Is Spencer RIAN JOHNSON? He certainly attracts the same amount of ire. Are the Porgs based on Louise?

I had so many questions, it was a real relief to finally have them answered in this episode. 

Porg stands for Person of Restricted Growth. 

I’m genuinely very glad to have been told this. 

Details like this are part of the appeal of constructed reality, because in real life people do in fact have bizarre, inexplicable names for their friends. My nickname in upper school was “Judith” simply because the more influential boys decided I didn’t look like a Lucy. The depth of additional lore makes the events of the show seem more realistic and compelling, which is good in some ways - the world of the show feels more believable, and bad in others - “oh shit, Binky is crying real tears.” 

Sometimes I want my constructed reality shows to lean as far away from realistic as possible, because then there’s a much less intense feeling of guilt when one of the characters experiences something which, if real, is fairly traumatising. These reminders that the characters on the show are living at least part of their real lives on camera can be jarring and distressing because the genre of constructed reality, or reality shows in general, can often feel exploitative. As a new season of Love Island grips viewers the country over, we’re reminded that reality tv contestants experience genuine negative consequences from being on these programmes. Cheska has spoken publicly about the impact the show had on her mental health, and distressingly enough, you can see her confidence wilt as the seasons roll past. 

This show is a comfort to me, and many of its cast have gone on to lead successful, extremely instagrammable lives, but there’s no denying that there is something dangerous about prying the lid off of somebody’s life and broadcasting it for TV. 

[lucyreviewcy]

Made in Chelsea - S07 E03

In this week’s episode, Binky’s heart gets broken and so does mine. 

I remember the Binky and Alex drama of this series from when I was at uni. My mental health was stunningly bad at that time so it’s a miracle I can remember anything, but Binky and Alex stick in my head. 

This is the episode where Alex’s cheating is finally revealed in all its sordid glory to lovable Binky, and her tears feel much more real than the tears of anybody else in the series. Perhaps this is because Binky is such a light hearted character, or because the moment is so gut-wrenchingly abrupt. 

What is interesting is the different positions that Spencer and Alex take on their own infidelity. Spencer always, always goes down fighting, claiming that it isn’t true until weeks after the resultant break up. Alex tries to wash his hands of the guilt by claiming he has nights he can’t remember. He tries to reconcile with Binky by touching her, taking a low status stance and affecting what I can only refer to as a “kicked puppy” look. 

Spencer and Alex are implicitly different archetypes who have committed the same misdeeds. I’m going to lean on some Greek mythology here (because when have I ever not done that), but Spenny is Zeus (obviously not trustworthy but with what I can only assume is some kind of brutish charm), while Alex is more like Paris (beautiful, not visibly dangerous, yet self-centred enough to start a two decade long war). Alex comes across as friendly and sensitive, and perhaps it is this which deflects attention from the fact that he’s dated almost every girl in Chelsea. Even though he appears more interested in Binky’s feelings than Spencer was in Lucy/Funda/Louise’s, in being conciliatory and absolving himself of responsibility he only makes her feel worse. Not only did he cheat on her, but it was such an insignificant act to him that he doesn’t even remember it. 

I’m not saying I’d date either Spencer or Alex, but as we learned from the “Spencer’s Therapy” framing device of last season, Spencer ends relationships in the awful way he does because he doesn’t want his exes to feel bad about themselves. This is a twisted and very flawed logic, but it demonstrates a very misplaced desire to avoid hurting them in the long term. Alex is preoccupied with being liked, as demonstrated by the fact that he’s dated every girl in Chelsea and they were all more annoyed with each other about that than they were with him. Alex deflects responsibility wherever he can, while avoiding real conflict at every turn. Spencer can be explosive, but Alex is insidious. 

[lucyreviewcy]

Made in Chelsea - S07 E01

This episode features another party with a bizarre and strange theme. 

Maybe I missed the point in this episode where somebody explained what the theme of Sophie’s birthday party is. Is it just hats? Jamie has a star painted over his eye, Binky has horns, Cheska... is wearing a fruit basket? But Marc Francis is dressed as a Tudor person with an enormous ruff. Even in this show this feels like a new level of abstraction. 

I also enjoy that most of the girls’ costumes are “regular clothes with hat”, which would be really crap at a normal person party but because of the budgets these women have the disconnect between the clothes and the hats is enormous. Cheska and Fran both look, from the neck down, like they came straight from work at an upmarket PR firm, but from the neck up they look like extras from The Slipper and the Rose ( look it up it’s amazing). 

It feels like there’s a discomfort with fully getting “into costume” for some of the girls, especially compared to Marc Francis who is literally in tights and what I can only assume is a doublet. While femininity is more outwardly about the visual (hair, makeup, clothes), it seems as if the girls here feel less comfortable wearing a full costume than the boys. They’re too self-conscious. This reminds me a lot of the Halloween party in Mean Girls, or the party scene in Legally Blonde, where the embarrassment of the protagonist is rooted almost entirely in their being dressed inappropriately and far too over the top for the social occasion. So while femininity is performed constantly through clothing and makeup, to perform “too much” is embarrassing and (particularly in Mean Girls) childish. Basically, it feels like the women of Chelsea aren’t able to have quite as much fun as the boys because they’re hemmed in by their own inhibitions. The boys have two options, far too much or far too little, and either route will just result in an eye-roll and “ugh, typical boy”. 

In both instances, gender impacts the reception of the costume, regardless of what the costume is meant to represent. If the theme of the party was hats, and Jamie turned up in an enormous three tiered hat depicting scenes from the works of Shakespeare, complete with tights and poofy trousers, that would be perfectly acceptable. If he turned up just in a baseball cap, that would also be fine. But, if he turned up in a costume that was average clothes from the neck down but a middling to average hat, he wouldn’t get a proper “ugh typical Jamie reaction”. Boys make noise by being extreme. 

Girls, though, are more concerned with complying. Most of our central characters are at the same level of fancy dress in the scene. What Jamie does to stand out, the girls can’t do, because they don’t want to stand out. Standing out is getting the rules wrong. Standing out is wearing a big vampire costume to a teen Halloween party where everyone else is in lingerie. Standing out is bad. 

[lucyreviewcy]

My Favourite Thing about Bill and Ted Face the Music

This weekend, I finally watched Bill and Ted Face the Music. Needless to say, I had a wonderful time. 

There’s a lot to love about Bill and Ted Face the Music. The energy of the original Bill and Ted films, along with their well-meaning, guileless humour. Keanu Reeves and Alex Winter are having a lovely time reprising their roles, through a story that you could criticise for being convoluted if you’d never seen a Bill and Ted movie before. 

The highlight though, is the characters of Billie and Thea. Samara Weaving and Brigette Lundy-Paine are outstanding as the wildly-clad daughters of the much loved duo. At a time when casting a woman in a role previously played by a man feels like a cynical box-ticking exercise, Bill and Ted Face the Music is an example of how this can really work. It doesn’t matter what gender Billie and Thea are, they could have cast men or women in these roles and the story would have been the same, and that is what makes it great. 

Billie and Thea are just like their dads, they have the same bizarre vocabulary and blind optimism. They have the same physicality, limbs everywhere, heads tilted back, they’re every bit as ungainly as 1989 Reeves and Winter. They are totally endearing, just as the original characters are. They’re the heart of the film. They’re also still women, but costumed in a way that neither detracts from nor draws attention to their gender. Gender doesn’t matter to these guys, they’re just well-rounded characters who are very easy to love. 

A problem I have with Jodie Whittaker in Doctor Who is that it feels like Whittaker somehow has far less personality than previous Doctors. As if the writers are afraid that too many jokes might make her too masculine or too feminine. The ultimate consequence of this is that Whittaker feels a bit like a principal boy in a pantomime, there to move the plot forward without actually having any memorable characteristics or lines. She doesn’t have David Tennant’s wit, Matt Smith’s eccentricity or Peter Capaldi’s rudeness, all that she has to mark her out from those other Doctors are she/her pronouns, and pronouns are not a personality. 

Thea and Billie are the success story of writing characters and not making their genders their primary characteristic. Co-creator Ed Solomon explained that there was no point in Bill and Ted’s children being boys, because they would have just been duplicate characters of their fathers. Casting women in these roles is empowering because these are rounded, interesting characters who propel much of the story forward, and who show a type of womanhood on screen that we haven’t seen much of before. These are well meaning, occasionally a little dim, passionate, comic women, whose love of music and knowledge of it propels them through their story. Yes, changing their genders differentiates them from their fathers, but the characters also differ in their musical competence which is shown to far outweigh Bill and Ted’s. These characters are more than just “girl Bill” and “girl Ted”, they are a whole new iteration on those characters. 

Not seeing somebody’s gender as the be-all and end-all of who they are is an ideal way to be excellent to each other, and it’s what equality looks like. 

[lucyreviewcy]

Made in Chelsea - S06 E12

This episode was another end of season party, this time with Game of Thrones sketches that I finally sort of understood.

There was some breaking of the constructed reality fourth wall in this episode and it was oddly satisfying. As part of this series, Victoria has for some reason started an unnecessary feud with Cheska. On multiple occasions I’ve talked about the “Gods vs Mortals” structure of the show’s cast, with Victoria and Marc Francis sitting atop Chelsea’s mount Olympus, Binky and Cheska representing the mortals, and everybody else arranged somewhere in between. A feud between Victoria and Cheska seems particularly unfair given this is how things work. This is like Hera cursing Echo for talking too much. Cheska hasn’t done anything particularly bad, and it takes so little effort for Victoria to destroy her that it feels objectively very mean.

The end of season party rolls around, and quirky Media Studies teacher Rick Edwards is here to force Cheska and Victoria to apologise to each other. Except Cheska isn’t playing ball anymore, she refuses to accept Victoria’s apology because “You’ve been asked to come here by Made in Chelsea. You don’t really want to be here.” to which Victoria responds “Who does? Do you enjoy this?”

And at that point, we all remember that the end of season party is a contractual obligation. None of our poshos, with the possible exception of Binky’s mum, are having a good time. This is just work for them, and I’m pretty sure it isn’t even shot in the evening. Going on the boys’ outfits in this episode, this looks like it was shot late afternoon in December. It’s dark outside but the 6PM Simpsons probably hasn’t even started yet. Looking back and comparing past end of season parties, I can’t help but notice that the atmosphere has gotten a lot less relaxed. Our poshos don’t look like they’re having fun anymore. It is also at this point that the original cast begin to drift to the side lines. Where is Olly? He’s just slowly disappeared. Caggie’s long gone. Millie’s rarely making an appearance. Marc Francis and Victoria are becoming more involved in the stories potentially because the rest of the major players are getting more diluted over time, and wanting to distance themselves from the central drama of the show. 

This makes sense, especially when you consider the life stage that our poshos are at. They’re mostly in their mid-20s, at the point when living a life of drama and social entanglement gets a bit... exhausting. It’s possible that younger cast members need to be brought on because people just get more chilled out over time. It’s hard to muster the energy for drama when you’ve become a much more reasonable person!

[lucyreviewcy]

Made in Chelsea - S06 E11

In this episode Jamie makes a big romantic gesture, because those are always the best foundation upon which to build a relationship. 

I worry about big romantic gestures, but then that may just be part of my personality. My husband proposed to me by slipping me a note and then ducking out of the room, which is about of big of a gesture as I can really take. Unless there’s food, if the gesture is “I’ve bought you chips”, that’s also acceptable. 

Romantic gestures are one of those things that only really work on TV. Don’t Tell The Bride is proof of that, couples who know each other really well end up with weddings where the bride is in tears before she’s managed to get into her dress because doing big displays of affection for people is hard, even if you’re their best friend. Weddings are a specific shape too, which probably makes it even harder. If my husband had planned my wedding with me in mind... it probably would have been exactly like what we ended up doing (a 15 guest covid wedding with a meal after, then off home for John Wick and a takeaway.) but if he was being pressured by producers to spend £10,000 he might have ended up organising all the wedding-y type things I really didn’t want, just for the sake of having something to do. 

Knowing someone and loving them is very different from knowing someone and buying things for them. You can love someone all your life and still not know what to get them for Christmas. In fact, if anything, Jamie’s grand gesture for Lucy of organising a horse and carriage on a winter’s night, is so generic that it seems like proof he doesn’t know her at all. Heck, if he thought about it for even five minutes, he probably could have won her over better by telling her he was going to give up eating meat - something she actually does care about. Jane Austen has it right in Pride and Prejudice, it isn’t Darcy’s big emotional proposal (which he does word spectacularly badly) that wins Lizzie over, but the fact that he actually makes an effort to help her family at a time of need, he demonstrates that he knows what is important to her. That’s a good start for a relationship. 

Grand gestures also put the person on the receiving end on a pedestal. It’s uncomfortable to receive too much from someone, it’s uncomfortable to be treated like royalty - Meghan and Harry hated it so much they literally quit. There’s a nice Kate Voegele lyric about just this: 

“You say, “We don’t mess around,  And you’ve got no freedom to come down, ‘Cos you’re an angel.”... ...But that’s a lie,  I’m never gonna be.” 

Voegele doesn’t want to be seen as an angel, it’s too much pressure. The line about freedom tells you how constraining it feels to be considered perfect. I think this actually gets to the heart of Jamie’s problem, which is that he likes girls when they’re a bit distant, a bit hard to get, and then when he gets to know them he gets bored. They’re not perfect anymore, so they get cast aside.

Being put on a pedestal, told you’re an angel, treated like a princess, that’s a lot of pressure, but if someone buys you chips, you know they understand that you’re a greasy carb monster just like everybody else. 

[lucyreviewcy]

Made in Chelsea - S06 E10

In this episode Jamie claims he’s never felt this way before. 

In TV dramas, comedies and films, we love to point out inconsistencies and continuity errors. I love John Wick but I’ll be the first to admit his hair grows abnormally fast over what appears to be three very stressful weeks. In Criminal Minds a character claims to have 5 brothers in an early season and then proudly declares herself an only child further down the line. 

Reality TV shouldn’t have these issues, right? Because even when it’s constructed reality, the characters... are real people... ish. And yet Made in Chelsea captures the truth of humanity, which is that while our hair may not grow three inches in as many days, and siblings don’t tend to evaporate, our internal logic is rarely as clean as it should be. 

Jamie, for example, is forever convinced that he’s “never felt this way before”. He had never felt that way before about Louise, then about Binky, and now he’s never felt this way before about Lucy. Jamie’s insistence that every romantic feeling he has is new and confusing is always used as a bargaining chip, either with the woman in question or with the person he’s battling with for that woman (I’ve put “the person” because I presume this motif will eventually be repeated with an adversary that isn’t Spencer. At some point. Right???) It’s an inherent flaw in his character that Jamie falls back on being “new at this” whenever he’s finding something difficult or complicated. Just as Spencer falls back on “I don’t want to be in a relationship” every time he ends one of the basically unbroken chain of relationships he’s started over the last six seasons. These are excuses which take the responsibility for their actions out of their hands. “I’ve never felt this way before” Jamie claims, as if he’s driving a car for the first time and so it’s not his fault when it crashes. 

We love, as humans, to absolve ourselves of responsibility this way. My husband and I regularly have tasks or chores which we will claim we “Don’t know how to do.” My husband definitely knows how to cook gluten free pasta, and I know how to take the bins out, but rather than simply saying “No, I don’t want to do that” we feel like we have to make some excuse to justify not wanting to do the thing. This is stupid, but I have a suspicion it’s probably a generational thing: Millennials, man. Perhaps it’s a symptom of writing about TV and films, but I often feel like I’ve got to come up with an ideological justification for why I do or don’t like things. I don’t like the Avengers movies. My dislike is not rooted in the fact that there are far too many of them, or that superhero movies are “ruining cinema”. I just don’t enjoy watching them. 

It’s OK to have an opinion on something that isn’t rooted in ideological discourse (I didn’t like Marriage Story because I didn’t enjoy it, not because something something gender), it’s OK not to want to do something because you don’t enjoy it (you can still take out bins even if you don’t like taking out bins) and it is alright to say “I really like this girl but I’m not very good at maintaining relationships” instead of claiming you’ve never felt feelings before. I think we’ve got to stop making excuses for our preferences and just accept that they’re our preferences. There’s a time and a place for reading deeply into things (here, on Tumblr, is an excellent place for it), but having to always justify our preferences is EXHAUSTING and also eventually leaves us feeling powerless and limp. By all means be prepared to argue your point with people, but saying you like or dislike something is an OK thing to do. I can’t believe I feel like that needs to be said.

It’s OK, Jamie, you’ve felt this way before. So have I. 

[lucyreviewcy]

Made in Chelsea - S06 E09

In this episode some of the gang go to South Africa. 

Spencer is for some reason the most well rounded character in this show. Film and TV is endlessly interested in that mysterious and rarely spotted beast: the flawed man. Spencer is the only character whose actions are explored in depth, through his “therapy sessions” framing device. Even though this is constructed reality and so all the characters are versions of real people, Spencer is the only one who feels like he has real development. 

In South Africa, Spencer finds out that Andy has gone on a date with a girl he’s been sleeping with, Vitalia. Spencer’s interest in Vitalia until this point has been casual, but when he feels that he is competing with Andy, he is compelled to “win” her. 

As Princess Jasmine taught us, women are “not just some prize to be won”, but Spencer’s entire world view is rooted in competing. He’s also fairly brutal, he will deliberately sabotage relationships in order to get what he wants. He’s manipulative, leaving Louise and Lucy heartbroken by his infidelity, but presenting the facts to them in such a way that it feels like his cheating is their fault. 

Spencer is almost primal in his need for dominance, and perhaps that is why he has emerged as the most rounded character. He has elbowed his way to the top of the pile by brute force rather than by being more interesting than anybody else. He’s also one of the few remaining original cast members, most of whom have stepped back from the drama and now provide a sounding board for the more prominent newer characters. Spencer is still embroiled in that drama, the linchpin around which much of it evolves, while the other characters (Francis, Rosie) appear distanced and mature in comparison. It’s a bit like the old American fairytale of the quarterback who was a big deal in high school but can’t make it in the real world. Spencer is the Chelsea equivalent of Van Wilder: Party Liaison, still throwing his weight around in a social pool which he is quickly aging out of.  Write that down. 

[lucyreviewcy]

Made in Chelsea - S06 E08

In this episode Phoebe. 

Oh Phoebe, why?

Phoebe has bought a spider. Phoebe loves spiders because she is not like other girls. I can’t help but wonder if Phoebe gets very lonely, being so different from other girls all the time. It makes sense that she’s protective of Alex, given that he’s the only person she seems to be able to speak to without either starting a relationship with them or starting an argument with them. 

There’s a nice scene where Binky makes a conscious effort to take the mature, reasonable line with Phoebe when they’re discussing Alex. This makes me root for Binky and repeat my opening question of “oh, Phoebe, why?” It doesn’t help that she insists on dressing like a Disney Villain half the time, this week’s episode featuring a very misguided smoky eye which leaned more towards “foggy eye” than I would have liked. Phoebe, as a character, always seems to be putting on her “battle dress” for big events, covering herself in ridiculous black feathery garments that demonstrate the aggression she is overflowing with. 

Female rage is an important part of life, and it’s one which is often mocked or pushed under the rug. Phoebe’s rage is near-constant and usually misdirected. Don’t get mad with all your friends for sleeping with Alex, get mad with Alex for sleeping with all your friends. Phoebe is more aggressive towards the female characters she shares the screen with than she is towards any of the men, but her high fashion outfits and over the top makeup lend a cartoonish edge to her emotions. There’s nothing really threatening about her anger, it’s diminished by her silly outfits and by the frequency with which it is dished out. Millie has much more impact when she slaps Spencer because it comes from nowhere, from a character who is often very relaxed, or indeed, languid. Millie doesn’t wear her rage as an outfit, she lets it slowly simmer before it bursts out in targeted, impactful moments (throwing a drink, exposing Hugo’s infidelity, the slap.) I’m not saying that this is a healthy way to deal with anger, but from a narrative perspective Millie’s slow burn fury makes us take her more seriously as a character. 

I think a lot about the following lyric from one of my least favourite Taylor Swift songs: 

You think that it’s funny when I’m mad, mad, mad. 

And I compare it to the lyrics of mad woman: 

What did you think I’d say to that? Does a scorpion sting when fighting back? They strike to kill and you know I will. 

The first lyric suggests that female anger is funny and a partner who laughs at your rage is a good one, while the second, released much later, captures that slow simmering rage that we see Millie demonstrating. Laughing at someone’s anger diminishes whatever it is they’re angry about. There are times when it’s helpful to do that, when a toddler is getting really furious in a supermarket because they can’t have crisps, when you’re getting unnecessarily worked up about how bad The Rise of Skywalker is... But Phoebe’s rage is always dressed up as a joke, and that diminishes her power as a character. 

If we’re always laughing at female rage, we won’t take it seriously. Remember how angry everybody got as part of the #MeToo movement? Did anyone notice how now, when a woman describes being sexually harassed or assaulted, she refers to herself as having been “metooed”. That’s not progress, that’s taking something that women were very angry about and turning it into a meme. I know we’ve come a long way from Phoebe’s foggy eye here, but I think it’s important to think about what the culture exhibited in shows like this tells us about wider culture. In this instance, we’re told that women who are angry all the time are silly, comic villains.

[lucyreviewcy]

Why isn’t that man wearing a shirt?

Adam from Girls and Martin from Friday Night Dinner - they have one thing in common. 

Shirtlessness, it’s everywhere! Well, more specifically it’s a character point in both Girls and Friday Night Dinner, and despite the fact that these shows were made on two different continents in two different cultures, shirtlessness is used in a very similar way. 

Let’s have a brief look at the two characters we’re comparing. Adam Sackler is a rude, gross caricature of the bad boyfriends girls have in their early 20s (and even though I can’t say I particularly enjoy the show, I do think my BFF Adam Driver makes this character surprisingly watchable.) Adam Sackler treats Hannah’s heart “like monkey meat”, he’s inconsiderate, tactless and if you knew somebody who was dating him you’d say “break up with him immediately.” 

Martin Goodman is the quintessential dad character: eccentric is probably the gentlest word to use to describe a character who collects staplers, washes his privates in the bathroom sink, and eats sprigs of parsley just because he “fancied some.” Martin is a very well observed portrait of a dad, and one of the things which drew me into Friday Night Dinner is that I instantly recognised Martin as a dad. Of course he’s got a shed full of old magazines. Of course he’s always the wrong temperature. Of course he’s barely ever wearing a shirt. The late Paul Ritter gave a performance as Martin that was the heart of the show, and there are lines of his which, even remembered out of context, make me laugh every time, “I’m going to go downstairs and stare at my hands” being a particular favorite. 

So the characters are different, yes, but they are both male archetypes: bad boyfriend and cringeworthy dad. What these archetypes share is a lack of social awareness, or interest in social convention, that is often associated with male characters. Remember in Mean Girls where Cady notes that in girl world, all the fighting has to be sneaky - that is an observation about men and women: female aggression is stereotypically considered to be carried out as part of a complex social hierarchy, while masculine aggression is presented as simpler and resolved through physical violence or other confrontation. Martin and Adam both show a disregard for other people, Martin not caring for his sons’ embarrassment, and Adam not caring for Hannah’s feelings, through one simple costume choice: shirtlessness.  

The shirt signifies something. In Friday Night Dinner, Martin often only puts a shirt on when he is told to by Jackie, his wife. It’s a sign of deference to her that he puts on a shirt, respect for a social custom and respect for his wife. Martin’s shirt usually ends up removed because he’s either concentrating on a different activity, frustrated or “bloody boiling”. He doesn’t think about the shirt as a necessity, more of a hinderance. The shirt is only ever donned for the benefit of others. 

Adam Sackler does not wear a shirt when Hannah is around, because he has no respect for her. The impression given by his character is that he is only grudgingly bothering to wear trousers or underwear. Adam is self-centered, and doesn’t think at all about the impact his actions have on others. So no shirt. 

Interestingly, Martin’s shirtlessness is born more out of hapless obliviousness than selfishness, the thought that his son’s new girlfriend might not want to see his naked chest hasn’t occurred to him. When Jackie makes him aware that he should wear a shirt, he puts one on. Adam’s character is presented differently, as if the putting on of a shirt would only take place if it were absolutely necessary for his comfort. To take another example of shirtless Adam Driver to contrast, Kylo Ren appears shirtless in The Last Jedi, and when Rey requests that he “put something on”, he ignores her, because he is laser focused on continuing the conversation the two have been having via their force bond. Shirtlessness here indicates both vulnerability and the same disinterest in social niceties displayed by Adam and Martin. 

Sure, this is a very deep dive into what the wearing of one garment means in two different contexts, but it is a testament to how costume, or lack thereof, can add volumes to character and story. 

[lucyreviewcy]

Made in Chelsea - S06 E07

In this episode, Spencer claims he slept with Louise, and Louise says that didn’t happen. Then things get awkward. 

I initially laughed at the “Spencer in therapy” framing device that’s been used this season, partially because his therapist looks so much like Kirstie Alsopp. (What you gonna do Kirstie? Teach him how to make a new personality out of a toilet roll tube?) But I’ve actually found this to be a really interesting way of framing the events of the series and giving them slightly more structure as part of Spencer’s journey. It won’t happen, but it would be interesting to see this device applied to other characters across different seasons to see how that changes the way we experience the story. If we had, for example, a few snapshots of Louise’s therapy sessions to contrast Spencer’s with, this would add another layer of complexity to the “he-said-she-said” storyline of this particular episode. 

This episode is a little uncomfortable in 2021, now that the phrase “Believe Women” holds a lot more weight and meaning. It’s interesting that the modern gender discourse makes the odds in this episode appear to be stacked very heavily against Louise. To me, even though her giggling denials suggest that she could well be lying, she comes out as the underdog because Spencer is a man. This actually reminds me of the Colin the Catterpillar/Cuthbert debate, I saw a tweet that pointed out that people are assuming that Aldi are the underdog because they sell cheaper food, when in fact they’re a much larger company than Marks and Spencer. In the same way, the cultural context that I am living in has drawn a lot of attention to the silencing of women’s voices, and Spencer has a history of lying to and about women, so Louise comes across as the injured party here. Even though Louise did treat Andy very poorly, and act irrationally when they broke up, I’m more inclined to believe her because she is a woman. 

I think the issue that I’m having is that I’m still judging both characters’ position in the argument purely on the basis of gender, and in a world where equality has been reached, this should not be a deciding factor in the argument. 

[lucyreviewcy]

Made in Chelsea - S06 E06

In this episode Louise is incredibly rude to a girl she has never met before because that girl had the misfortune to sleep with Andy. 

The way people behave towards each other in this show is, frankly, completely mad. Phoebe did not invent being super possessive of your Ex on Made in Chelsea, but she certainly drew my attention to it. The characters in this show love to dole out blame for all of their life’s ills to anybody who is even vaguely linked to their ex. Or interested in their ex. Or shared a taxi with their ex one time. 

This week the weirdly jealous character is Louise “I’ve got a mean streak now” Thompson, who has an astoundingly awkward and borderline illegal interaction with an unnamed girl who slept with Andy and borrowed a jumper from him that happened to belong to Louise. Louise like... physically pushes this girl out of her chair. But this girl has done nothing wrong. Happily for everyone involved, Louise and Andy aren’t married. They aren’t even in a relationship anymore. Louise is 100% the person in the wrong, and yet for some reason that means this girl deserves flat rudeness.

Interestingly, though, this is exactly how Louise treated Lucy when she arrived on the scene, and by this point in the series those two are best buds. A narrative that we see emerging a lot in Made in Chelsea is that of women only being friends once they’ve torn each other apart. Millie and Rosie are good friends now (although Millie is conspicuously absent from many of this series’ episodes), even though they fought a war of words over Hugo. Lucy came into the series and caused tension with all the other girls but is now good friends with many of them. Binky and Fran both pursued Alex and resolved their differences. This show suggests that female friendship is forged in the fiery heart of conflict. 

That’s not actually true, in my experience of being alive and female. Maybe it’s because I hate conflict? But I’ve never felt I needed to have an enormous argument with someone before I could allow them into the circle of trust. The women of Made in Chelsea come across more like Siamese fighting fish than human beings, as if they should be kept apart in individual tanks. 

Now I’m going to have to spend my afternoon reading about Siamese fighting fish.