i’m one more rejection letter away from this

JVL
almost home

blake kathryn
YOU ARE THE REASON
i don't do bad sauce passes

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Cosimo Galluzzi
Keni

pixel skylines
sheepfilms
Cosmic Funnies
RMH
TVSTRANGERTHINGS

Andulka

Kiana Khansmith
Xuebing Du
No title available
Game of Thrones Daily

No title available
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Iraq
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Canada
seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from Iraq

seen from United States
seen from T1

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Türkiye

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
@strangerinthealps1
i’m one more rejection letter away from this
Maurice (1987): James Wilby & hand acting 2/2
“You mean I have a home to go to, as long as I don't go there?”
— James Baldwin, Giovanni's Room
maurice (1987)
dir. by james ivory
FILMS WATCHED IN 2025: 08. Emma. (2020)
Maurice (1987) dir. James Ivory
Alec Scudder and Maurice Hall in Maurice (1987)
"if i was orpheus i would simply not turn around" yes you would. if you were orpheus and you loved eurydice, you would. to love someone is to turn around. to love someone is to look at them. whichever version of the myth — he hears her stumble, he can't hear her at all, he thinks he's been tricked — he turns around because he loves her. that's why it's a tragedy. because he loves her enough to save her. because he loves her so much he can't save her. because he will always, always turn around. "if i was orpheus i would simply —" you wouldn't be orpheus. you wouldn't be brave enough to walk into the underworld and save the person you love. be serious
Since I can't draw rn, have this:
Happy reign day to Fritz!
Armand lived in Venice during the absolute sluttiest period for mens’ clothes and I gotta talk about it.
Anne constantly used Botticelli as a reference for clothes (who was at his peak in the 1470s/1480s) but Armand was in Florence when Savonarola died, which puts him in Venice the late 1490′s. Fashion was moving fast, there was a big moral panic over society falling apart and becoming too secular, and in Venice it was time to let your inner ho out.
The look: Short. Tight. Made of as many expensive scraps as possible.
Let’s get into it.
Keep reading
"Morality becomes murky when your very existence is considered immoral. When you are told you are worse, it’s tempting to believe you are better. When you’re told you’re a sin, maybe it becomes easier to believe it — and to stop caring. At least within the text of the film, the murder feels less like a choice and more like an inevitability. A last resort. They refuse to be separated, they refuse to conform, and so a brick ends up in a stocking and a horror cannot be stopped. The real life Paul and Juliet were released from prison five years after their sentencing. It was a condition of their release that they never meet again. Paul became a recluse. Juliet became a successful crime novelist. And, supposedly, they never did meet again, despite living mere hours apart in Scotland, despite how much I’d love a sequel. But I wonder if they met again through others. I wonder if they discovered a world of people they could connect to and identify with. Maybe not. Maybe it doesn’t matter. But I think if we’re going to condemn these individuals we should also condemn the society that made them — if not for them then for the rest of us who barely survived."
- part of Drew Gregory's review of 'Heavenly Creatures' on Autostraddle.
Was rereading Blood and Gold and got the urge to look at palazzos based on Marius’s description of the home he bought in Venice.
“I had fallen in love with one particular palazzo, a house of great beauty, its facade covered in glistening marble tiles, its arches in the Moorish style […]”
There’s only one palazzo on the Grand Canal I could find that fits that description. It was called the Palazzo Santa Sofia but is now the Ca d’Oro, and the inside is currently an art museum. It was built in the early 15th Century just before Marius settled in Venice.
Keep reading
claudia & lestat + on mothers and daughters
"my infant death. it was never you." bailey bass & sam reid in interview with the vampire (2022) cr. by rolin jones // 1. this post // 2. this post // 3. piss river - kevin morby // 4. a mother's hate - sam gordon // 5. elektra - sophocles // 6. on earth we're briefly gorgeous - ocean vuong // 7. unknown // 8. nayyirah waheed // 9. susan smith - wych elm // 10. unknown // 11. elektra - sophocles // 12. the ghost is dead, long live the ghost - mara avoth // 13. this post // 14. this post // 15. love drought - beyonce // 16. confessions - ijeoma umebinyuo // 17. unknown // 18. mother - john lennon
Raccoon caught on camera trying to catch snow
(via)
One particularly stupid, imo, defense I keep seeing brought up over AMC’s “Interview with the Vampire” show is that Lestat was the “villain” of the first book, from Louis perspective, and so in these people’s minds, that somehow justifies turning Lestat into a villain here in the show. Never mind that in the first book, Lestat NEVER does anything even remotely as horrific or violent or deceitful as he does in the show. But what really galls me about this claim, or this justification, is that it’s completely wrong. Lestat ISN’T the villain in “Interview with the Vampire”. There’s numerous hints and clues throughout the story that there’s far more to him than Louis is conveying, hints that, in fact, Louis’ perception of Lestat is completely wrong. That, in fact, Lestat is a deeply feeling, sensitive and even gentle soul. I guess this just goes over some people’s heads, because it’s not spelled out in big block letters, and subtext is something they’re incapable of picking up on. The interactions early on between Lestat and his father, for example, in which his father cries over how he’s wronged Lestat, making reference to Lestat’s gentle nature and bright mind (a direct contradiction to Louis’ idea of Lestat as a dimwitted, sadistic and unfeeling monster), and Lestat begging Louis to kill his father for him, unable to bring himself to do it. Or Lestat’s almost desperate pleas for Louis to go out with him and spend time together, his childlike exuberance after they’ve watched some play, acting out the lines in the street, Louis even admitting to himself that in those moments, he enjoyed Lestat’s company. Louis guilt ridden realization of how deeply he and Claudia have wronged Lestat after Claudia “kills” him, and how despite his best efforts, he’s unable to put Lestat from his mind. And of course, the biggest clue of all is after Claudia is killed by the Theater of the Vampires, Lestat is completely wrecked by it. Louis describes him as sobbing while clutching her dress. This despite Claudia attempting in cold blood to murder him and nearly succeeding. Lestat, even in the first book, was never meant to be seen as just some black and white villain, or antagonist, like these people are suggesting. Even that early on, Anne Rice had begun to lay the foundations which hinted at Lestat being much more complex and wildly different from how Louis had perceived him. So for people claiming that the show is just mirroring Lestat’s depiction in the first book, I call bullshit. Lestat would never hurt Louis or Claudia the way he does in this show. Lestat was never some manipulative mastermind who’s devious scheming had to be matched by Claudia in order to get away from him. Lestat falls for Claudia’s trap precisely BECAUSE he’s almost childlike in his trusting and accepting nature, unable to conceive for himself her horrible intentions. There was always an innocent and gentle quality to Lestat, even in that first book. That’s what these people don’t seem to get.
I don’t know how the hell they’re going to get show Lestat to convincingly fall for anything Claudia does, considering how much he hates and distrusts her. But I’m sure they’ll pull some hand waved excuse out of their assess.