Boys get to be future geniuses. Girls get cupcakes.

Origami Around
No title available

No title available
Doug Jones

ellievsbear
macklin celebrini has autism
taylor price
Cookie Run:Kingdom Official!

roma★

tannertan36
One Nice Bug Per Day
EXPECTATIONS
RMH
Misplaced Lens Cap
Xuebing Du
ojovivo

shark vs the universe
𓃗

Kiana Khansmith
The Bowery Presents

seen from Türkiye
seen from Germany

seen from Germany
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Bangladesh
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Philippines

seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from Bangladesh
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Finland

seen from Germany
@pessimistsguide
Boys get to be future geniuses. Girls get cupcakes.
Straight White People Saving the World! (Or, my annoyed reaction to the 2014 Oscars)
Okay, I know I'm going to rile a few people up with this, so I'm going to leave this open for discussion. But as a warning, I'm going to rant a bit.
I will be the first to admit that I don't like Matthew McConaughey. I have repeatedly said I hate Matthew McConaughey. I know that's a strong word, but he constantly underwhelms me. He doesn't choose movies that I want to see, or would even enjoy seeing. He looks like he smells like Stetson, body odor, and earwax. I know that some people think he's attractive, but I don't see it. At all. Never have. His voice makes me want to punch him.
But I digress.
The point of this blog entry is that I couldn't quite pin down what bothered me so much about his win. True, I don't like him. I didn't love Dallas Buyers Club, but I didn't hate it. I loved Leto. He blew me away. But what didn't blow me away was McConaughey, or his character. But I couldn't quite pinpoint why until I drew the comparison to my feelings after Sandra Bullock won for The Blind Side.
What do those two movies have in common? Let's look at it.
The Gospel According to JK Rowling
Friend Dumped: A Tragedy
I have mastered the art of being dumped. To be fair, I have only dated one person in my whole life, and it was in fifth grade and we lasted about a week. He kept asking me if we were still going out, because I would ignore him pretty much all the time, until finally I got mad at him. I yelled “No, Josh, we aren’t going out anymore!” and that was the end of that. We never even kissed. I think he only asked me to be his girlfriend so he could officially say he had dated every girl in our class.
In Which I, Again, Review Benedict Cumberbatch and Johnny Lee Miller's Frankenstein for the National Theatre, Roles Reversed
This time I saw Cumberbatch as Victor. Oh my darling. Everything that I had read said that this was the better version of the play, and I must say that I agree. Now, this isn't to say that the other version wasn't good, but really thematically they became about two separate things. Which is what I love about theatre. You can see the same play one hundred times and get something different out of the experience every time.
The first time round it was the story of a stranger in a strange world: The Creature was not of this world and had no way of understanding the intricacies of human emotion or empathy. He was apart-- he was better, in most aspects. Victor had created the Creature for the glory of having done so-- he was a cold, intense, deeply emotional man. The dynamic was the same-- someone who feels and understands the world deeply versus someone who has no hope of understanding. The interesting thing to note is that as the actors switched roles, they kept the same attributes. Ben as The Creature and as Victor lacked the emotional vocabulary that Miller exhibited in the parts.
Ben's Victor was, first and foremost, a scientist. He wanted to dissect Mother Nature and understand how the world worked. And he achieved this task, and it both frightened and exhilirated him. Even though he understood how things worked, he never understood why. He, much in the same vein as his portrayal of the Creature, had no way of understanding the intricacies of human emotion or empathy. A number of Victor's lines suddenly made sense to me-- when he asks the Creature what it feels like to be in love, and after the Creature's explanation asks, yet again, "That's what it feels like?" He has ultimately created a being that is more human than himself, and more human than he could ever wish to be. He isn't driven at all by any sort of emotion. He finds it quite easy to leave after the death of his brother, even easier to leave after the death of his new bride. I found this portrayal much more fitting of the character of the Creator, not wanting glory for what he has done, but wanting a full understanding of what makes a being 'human'? What creates life? What the human mind is capable of accomplishing and creating through science rather than simply accepting a Creation myth.
I will say that I didn't really find Miller's Creature more sympathetic. Quite the opposite, in fact, but for reasons previously stated. In both roles Miller was emotion-driven, throwing tantrums, yelling more, stomping more, throwing his weight around. Miller has said that his interpretation of the Creature was based on his two year-old son, and that was very apparent. His 'birth' scene was shorter and much more controlled. Ben's Creature was inspired by people recovering from strokes, war injuries, and other severe injuries, and the Creature in Miller's adaptation had much more control over his body. He learned much quicker, he was tense and solid, where as Ben was more loose and unsure. It appeared to me that Ben's Creature didn't have much control-- he would try to move a body part, say a leg, and it wouldn't quite do what he wanted it to. That there were missed synapses and his brain had been seriously impaired. His Creature had been mentally incapacitated and was also recovering from said injury. Miller's creature had no such injury-- he was, in essence, a child in the beginning and by the end he is a man.
Miller's Creature had a very real understanding of the world around him. The Creature was driven by wants and needs, love and revenge. Not just because it is what the men he had read about in Roman history had done, but because it was what he wanted. What his body and mind craved. Victor really spurred this on when he presents the Creature with the body of the woman he is to make the Creature's bride, and he touches her breasts while he speaks about how beautiful she is and how monstrous the Creature is. Miller didn't do this as Victor, and it was only later did I really note why this addition was so important.
Miller's Creature more obviously raped Victor's wife Elizabeth as revenge. With Cumberbatch it was more implied and it didn't take Victor as long to intervene. Miller's Creature raped her to climax, and it was only then that Victor intervened. In fact, Victor is so stunned with fear that he falls to the ground, watches the Creature climax, and then watches him snap Elizabeth's neck. This was so so so much more moving and disturbing. This was not a cold, calculated act, this was driven by sadness, disappointment, and the need for revenge. It's a child with a man's needs and body-- he has overwhelming urges and acts on them without considering the consequences.
I will say that I found the final scene more moving with Miller. When he thinks Victor is dead he asks, while he cries, "What is death?" I was reminded again of a child-- unable to comprehend finality. He still has so much to learn, and he still is vunerable.
In all, I think the Heart Versus the Mind idea worked better in this version of the production. I really thought I would come out of it saying it should have been Cumberbatch as Victor and Cumberbatch as the Creature, but I don't think that would have worked as well. They would have understood each other. Miller is a good counterpoint in both versions because he brings the necessary emotion and passion, while Cumberbatch brings a more calculating, analytical, and intensely focused mind.
Conclusion: I think that Sherlock would definitely had despised this Creature and found a kindred spirit in Victor. The need to understand everything...Victor even proclaimed that music was 'dull' and school was 'boring'. Ring any bells?
What a fine, surprised ginger.
In Which I Review Benedict Cumberbatch and Johnny Lee Miller's Frankenstein for the National Theatre
Thoughts on Frankenstein, Take One
14 June 2012 at 20:31
Alright, the version I ended up seeing first was Cumberbatch as the Creature, which I am pleased with, to be honest. I have heard the other version is better, so it was nice to see this one first.
Okay, before I dive in, I will preface this review with this: Frankenstein was the first book to ever make me cry. I was at a sleepover as a child and was bored (Usually I would commandeer the host of the sleepover's barbie dolls and play by my self until it was time to go to bed, then I would call my mom to have her come get me. Sometimes she did, sometimes she told me I had to suck it up and stay the night.). I was rather young, probably eight or nine, and it was one of the 'suck-it-up' nights. I was tired of playing with barbie dolls, so I picked out the scariest-looking book from the book shelf, and started reading.
It was Frankenstein, and it was a version that had illustrations in. I didn't sleep that night, but I did read all of Frankenstein. I was in tears at the end. The Creature is a character that I identified with so strongly as a child, alone in a room full of children who had no problem socializing, playing, and generally being children. Then there was me, who could not communicate in their language. I hold the story of the Creature very dear to my heart, and I knew that I would be deeply moved by this version.
I was not disappointed. The birth of the Creature, complete with a knotted 'umbilical' cord, was breathtaking. The entire sequence of him learning how to control his body and, ultimately, standing, had me in tears. The scene was excruciatingly long-- it seemed to go on for at least ten minutes, but witnessing the absolute control Cumberbatch had over every single muscle in his body was nothing short of brilliance. It seemed so long because he was alone-- a stranger in a strange world having to learn what most of us find instinctual all on his own. I wanted so much to help him, to reach out and help him stand, because I could sense real fear and discomfort. I made a mental note that every student of Movement should see that sequence and really witness what we all take for granted. I would have LOVED to see the rehearsals where he was trying to find those movements, find the sounds. The way the stitches and wounds were coloured also highlighted the contours of his muscles, which pulled even more attention to the conscious decision to move each one in turn. For someone who seems so uncomfortable with his physical appearance, Cumberbatch is deeply in tune with how his body works, and is a master at using his body as an instrument for dramatic art.
Additionally, I was mesmerized with his feet. I seem to have this fascination with bare feet on stage-- they tell such an interesting story. Cumberbatch used his feet as tools-- curling them in to help him stand, flexing his toes as a child would. His feet are long and thin, and much like his hands, are elegant and beautiful. His hands curled like a dancers would, his wrists rolling and fingers fluttering like a conductor.
I also was astounded with what he did with his voice. Now, Cumberbatch has a lisp. He has worked very hard to work around this lisp, but a lisp isn't something that is simply 'cured', which I know from experience (I have one too). He did, however, use this lisp to his advantage as the Creature. Lisps automatically lend a more 'child-like' tone to one's voice, and because the Creature is just learning to talk and articulate thought, it was a really smart touch. Most people probably didn't notice it, but I have a sharp ear for it because I have been trained to. And because I'm a bit of a Cumberbatch stalker, I knew that little tidbit about him.
Jonny Lee Miller as Victor was...lackluster. And I know I am biased, which is why I will save most of my consideration of him for when I see him play the Creature, as it is really the Creature's story. He seemed unfamiliar with the basics of stage acting, specifically cheating out, because I lost his face quite often. He also didn't seem to have much emotional variance-- he was either screaming or talking very intensely. He sounded a bit hoarse and grumbly, which could be a character choice or it could be he had a sore throat. I think the moment that really lost me what when he discovered his brother had been killed by the Creature. In the very next scene he meets the creature and is proud of himself and his accomplishments. That is an ENORMOUS shift and it was one I didn't believe.
Lastly, there were some quotes that really stuck with me, and all are from the Creature:
"I will not rest until I desolate your heart."
"Do not be inconsistent; it infuriates me."
"All I wanted was your love. I would have loved you with all of my heart."
All I know is that Sherlock Holmes surely is a fan of Frankenstein. How could he not relate to that?
A Poem That I Wrote in 2011 to Coincide With the Release of The Three Musketeers (Which I Never Saw)
Oh! Orlando,
My love for thee blooms deep within my soul
In the dark and quiet nights
I work at Wal-Mart
Oh! Orlando,
My love for your films knows no bounds
I own them all
Even the shitty ones
Oh! Orlando,
Even though you aren't really blond
You were blond when I first laid eyes upon you
And that's good enough for me
Oh! Orlando,
You are finally playing a villain
In a period drama, no less
Which is really your niche, if I'm being honest
Oh! Orlando,
You are more than a pretty boy
With eyes the colour of fertile mud
You are a pretty man now
Oh! Orlando,
Bloom within my heart
When I stare longingly
At the Three Musketeers movie poster.