"WILL BYERS, 12, playing as a wizard." Dustin, "She's basically a wizard." El was always meant to parallel Will, to be his stand-in. Mike transfers his feeling for Will on to her. It's not a coincidence.
seen from China
seen from United States

seen from Brazil
seen from China
seen from Indonesia
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from South Korea
seen from China
seen from China
seen from China

seen from Brazil
seen from China

seen from United States

seen from United States
"WILL BYERS, 12, playing as a wizard." Dustin, "She's basically a wizard." El was always meant to parallel Will, to be his stand-in. Mike transfers his feeling for Will on to her. It's not a coincidence.
Sydcarmy vs Clairecarmy shot type, script, and relationship differences.
I was watching some clips I had for an edit I was working on and then I realized some interesting things about the shot sizes and types used In Carmen's interactions with Claire and Sydney, and the differences between u which can be argued to further push the Sydcarmy agenda. So... Let me cook.
Claire and Carmy
Their INFAMOUS close up shots are often talked about among the fandom. These scenes are often viewed as imposing, absorbing, intrusive and sharp. This shot type is often in their scenes together after medium double shots or over the shoulder shots.
Their initial meeting is quick-cut to these close ups, mirroring how their relationship and connection is brought about. A simple accidental meeting (alternating single medium shots) straight- almost immediately - to these really intense close-ups that, even to people who don't like to analyze these things, felt really affected by.
The cinematography regarding their connection is quick to be close, some would even say too close, and I believe this is meant to reflect their exact relationship.
Let's discuss their "intimate" or "cute" scene at the party in season 2 episode 5. (I cut off the rest of their dialogue because I wanted to discuss/analyze the shot and cinematography choices mostly
- slow push in during initial dialogue about Carmens fake party persona, Logan. (Whom @yannaryartside has discussed EXTENSIVELY and always eats about so I won't go too deep about that just yet but check 'em out.)
- cut-to close up after Carmen attempts to make a genuine observation about Claire's character.
What's the effect?
The initial choice to start this scene off with a slow push into their dialogue gives a personal, real feel. Like you're really there at the party. This makes sense with their topic of discussion at the time, Carmen going along with this fake persona he's adopted at this party.
Then, Carmy changes the subject, trying to make a 'genuine' observation about who Claire is, who he thinks he is.
Carm: "With Kelly, you're really good at that."
Claire: "good at what?"
Carm: "uh... Listening"
But let's think about that observation real quick, it was pretty much fed to him, just like everything else he has ever known about Claire. He sees the image of her his family laid out of her, and now he's seeing this image of a caretaker and listener that she has put out for him. Or, rather, literally made a whole outing with him about, basically saying "lets go to a party so you can watch me comfort my sad friend."
I digress, paired with this dialogue, the slow push in is intentional, to set that kind of real connection and build up a good relationship would have. But then...
Cut to a close up of Claire at his observation. She goes on further to tell him about how in college she was the one that everyone went to and that she would take care of when intoxicated. Not only does this jump straight into the image that's been created and upheld by others of Claire for Carmy, but it also skips a good chunk of the way they could have gotten there from continuing its slow push in. The cut to Claire’s close-up feels like it’s reinforcing the manufactured, performative aspect of her persona. She’s always already presenting an image of herself and the one that Carmy’s been fed by others, and now he's seeing her perform it for him. There’s no real room for them to discover who each other truly are beneath the surface. They get pushed(heh) into that “perfect” intimacy too quickly, (hence the ungodly amount of close ups) and everything gets rushed and artificial. The choice to make their interaction so loose and slow and intentional, to tight and suffocating, cutting to close-ups where Claire is the one “listening” or “comforting,” reinforces how his perception of her has been shaped by external factors rather than his own emotional processing. (Also, kinda wanna talk about how in the clip above you hear the inflection of Carmy's line when he says "listening" goes up, sort of sounding like a question. Does he really know if she's good at listening or is that just what he's been told? Is that just what he's been shown? It sounds like he's questioning whether she is really a good listener or not)
The nature of Clairecarmy cinematography is supposed to be rushed, invading and almost immature, just like them.
As opposed to
Sydney and Carmy
For Sydcarmy, we'll talk about The Table Scene (cue the "oh brother"'s) - sorry I had to speed it up it's a VERY LONG SLOW PUSH
The table scene features a (very) long push-in on Carms and Sydney's interaction under the table with no cuts or major changes in their positions. This scene is often seen as one of the most intimate within this show. It's a real intimacy, as opposed to the contrived "intimacy" we see in clips of Claire and Carmy, where even their dialogue doesn't serve their connection and deepening it as much as the shot types they get do.
Let's discuss the differences between the table scene and the party scene.
That table scene is a chef’s kiss example for tension* in cinematography.
*fun, emotional, and genuine tension, maybe even sexual and romantic, but not malicious
The slow push-in during the Sydney and Carmy's conversation is such a stark contrast to the Claire-Carmy moments. Where Claire and Carmy’s shots are invasive and rushed, Sydney and Carmy’s are carefully measured, building that slow tension that just eats at you. Which is deliberate, of course, as everything with this show is. (Also remember how I brought up the questioning infliction in Carmy's 'observation' he made about Claire? Here, he makes a standing observation about Sydney without any unknowingness. "You like taking care of people." It's resounding. It's real. It's not contrived intimacy, it's natural.)
It's a direct contrast to any scenes of "intimacy" between Carmen and Claire. Just thinking about any scene of them together, there are quick cuts, quick close-ups and shot types that read intimacy parked with dialogue that... Doesn't.
Sydney and Carmy's scenes usually feature these slow push in's, but especially so for the table scene. Just like mentioned with the previous scene, this is supposed to be a reflection of their connection and relationship.
There's a lot of distance in the beginning, a slow, slow push in is like their slow connection building. Not only is this deliberate to bring us as the viewers closer to them, but to bring these characters closer together as well. These cinematography choices are made along with dialogue that is actually intimate rather than cheaply contrived to trick the viewer into believing it is real intimacy (like with almost every Claire and Carmy scene)
Then, there's a still moment in the middle of the push inwards, around when the wide shot becomes a medium. This may be supposed to signify that for them to grow closer, there will be some resistance to face there. Stagnation. This period could possibly be equivalent to season three? That was Carmen's stagnant and regressive state where he began to relive and react his traumas, making Sydney step back. In this moment as the shot stills Carmen's eyes are on Sydney. Just as he always keeps an eye on her. Reminds me of something from season three...
Then the still is broken and we get more of a push in, into an almost close-up, until they both exit from under the table.
This could mean a lot of things in the context of the cinematography reflecting their relationship. But the one that makes the most sense, (and that we pretty much already know) is that
They're both resistant to getting close. But they still want to be there for each other.
Cinematography and shot speaking, the moment ending mid-push felt abrupt. It felt like it could have gotten closer, but it didn't. The intimacy of the moment caught up with both of them, making their clean transition to a more stable position and a still shot type. (Above is a double cowboy shot - waist up, more comfortable[?])
But, script wise, it was a fully realized and well executed moment, that had a beginning middle and end. Their talk was real and cherished, transitioning to another moment where they share that they are not alone. This idea of leaving each other alone is, and becomes a very important motif throughout the series.
The flow of the cinematography differing from the flow of the script is not a mistake or a fluke. I believe that this is all completely intentional.
To us, we hear and we see the intimacy and the connection between these two. We heard their professions, and reassurances and their devotions to one another. What we're shown through the cinematography is a slowly building connection, that takes pauses at times, that has moments of stillness, but continues to push grow and learn alongside each other. We know, just as they know, that there is something there between them, and the transition from under the table to over it is reflective of their resistance. We don't really have those sort of close-up moments between Carm and Syd.
This is sort of saying, if we want to get them to let themselves get close to each other, they need to let it happen.
SO. To sum it up...
Clairecarmy scenes are feigning intimacy and faking the "build" to their connection - really just cutting straight to it
Sydcarmy scenes are real and hold a genuine intimacy between the two, but the only thing keeping it from being a fully realized relationship or connection is themselves. They need to let the build-up happen (because it does) and they need to let each other in(close-up to each other)
Born With Teeth: the three versions
I've been watching the text of Liz Duffy Adams' Born With Teeth evolve as a director with an interest in mounting the show in Canada. I did not get to see the RSC production, but, that said, I read the original script before the RSC rehearsals began and was fascinated to see some of the changes emerge from that collaboration. In particular, Will's final speech shifts and, with it, the tenor of the relationship between him and Kit —
Reading the original version made me gasp out loud. I didn't see it coming, and I could see a variety of ways that callous ending could be played. Honestly, it thrilled me and was part of the ongoing interest.
When the RSC production's version of the script came out, I ordered the Nick Hearn books version from England rather than wait for a Canadian edition because a hyperfixation is a hyperfixation, lol.
There was an interesting disclaimer at the beginning of the text, though:
This — and reading people's discussions of the previews and the shows — had me intrigued as to how things switched up. Between the text of this version —
— and, again, the fan reviews, I got an impression of a much softer, more romantic take on the dynamic. Honestly, I was a little disappointed. It felt like the 'teeth' had been pulled.
Also, I had noticed that for this major production in England by the Royal Shakespeare Company, some of the language around Queen Elizabeth I was considerably softened.
Compare Will's exposition speech in scene one from the original script vs the RSC version —
I was left wondering which version would be available for licensing, and was honestly pleased when Adams announced another revision on January 3rd, 2026.
This version splits the difference beautifully, I think, and restores some of the ambiguity really well—
—and brings back the "the man who wrote Iago" reference that makes me feral. Your mileage may vary, but I'm very pleased with this version.
BONUS stuff from the AOTC screenplay...
1. Yoda probing the Dark Side.
In an earlier draft of the Attack of the Clones screenplay, Scene 51 (which I've already talked about here) ends with this comment by Mace, where he explains what Yoda is doing up in his quarters, followed up by Scene 52, showing Yoda meditating:
And it turns out, this is actually a mini plot point in this draft!
Since Qui-Gon's death, the Jedi are actually on the lookout for the remaining Sith Lord, waiting to sense even a trace of him... but then this happens.
And, like, nobody saw it coming! What the hell!
So that leads to this other cut scene (originally set right after Obi-Wan tells Anakin that Padmé "was happy to see us"), Scene 12, which features an evening conversation between Mace Windu and Yoda.
When Yoda says "the dark side of the Force clouds everything", that's not just an expression to say 'he doesn't know'.
The Dark Side has tainted everything around the Jedi, and THAT'S why the Sith have an advantage. Because they're used to it. They were 'born in the dark, molded by it'.
As a result... in this situation, they're the only ones who can foresee the possibilities of the future, while the Jedi are pretty much walking blind, in a fog.
It's not just that the Sith Lord is a master politician and the Jedi are politically inept. It's that, right now, he's the only one who can truly see the future and roll with it, while the only thing the Jedi can do is go forward, have their guard up and hope for the best.
Which a concept explored in the non-canon comic Sithisis from Star Wars: Visionaries (which, if I recall, was created by Derek Thompson after his regular interactions with George Lucas and a 45-minute interview with Ian McDiarmid)!
2. "Sifo-Dyas", aka Sidious
Okay, so some of y'all probably already knew this tidbit. I did, but didn't know it was in this draft of the script so it was a fun surprise:
Sifo-Dyas was originally a pseudonym used by Darth Sidious.
Throughout the script, his name is spelled "Sido-Dyas" (which sounds a lot more like "Sidious").
And when it comes to the mysterious Sido-Dyas, the Jedi talk about him like they've never heard of him before and full-on say he's an imposter.
At some point, there ended up being a typo in the scene where Obi-Wan talks to Lama Su, and the word was mispelled "Sifo-Dyas" and eventually Lucas decided to make him a different character.
Also the Tyranus who hired Jango Fett is referred to as "Darth Tyranus", in this draft, which I guess was changed because it was gonna be to obvious.
But it does indicate that after TPM, they concluded that Darth Maul was the Master, not the Apprentice.
3. Are Yoda and Padmé friends...?
Okay so there's this moment here:
Yoda taps Padmé with his cane!
Thus CONFIRMING that poking/tapping/hitting people with his cane is Yoda's love language!
Seconds later, there's also this line where Yoda tells Padmé to reign the selflessness and politics back and accept their help:
First off, I'm just picturing Padmé just casually kneeling so she can be at Yoda-height and I'm dying!
But also, like... he calls her "Padmé". They're on a first-name basis!
To me, that's gotta be an implication that in the 10 years between TPM and AOTC... I dunno, Padmé visited the Temple while Anakin was off-planet or just met Yoda at a meeting, and now they've formed a bond and they're pals.
If that's the case, then their Ilum mission in Clone Wars (2003) takes a whole new aspect.
And if we're rolling with this idea... how much of Padmé did Yoda see in Luke?? None? Some?
I think it's a case of when Luke is screwing up royally "he's just like Anakin ffs" and then the few times he's actually listening "nice to see you inherited some of your mother's sense!"
Bear in mind, these bits of dialog never made it on the screen but they did make it to the "final" version of the screenplay published in The Art of Attack of the Clones. So if I had to guess the reason for deletion, it was probably for pacing purposes.
Bonus:
Yoda introducing the younglings in his care is such an adorable thing.
Just in general, this scene is great. George Lucas had this to say in the AOTC commentary track:
"This is a chance for me to play with that more mischievous side of his character and get away from the 'official, serious Yoda' that ends up [...] on the Jedi Council, where he really isn't allowed to be as fun and tease people. In this environment with the kids, he's able to lighten up a little bit, which I really wanted to do for his character. It's much more what his character is in the other movies, especially in Empire Strikes Back."
But also... like Yoda is hyping up the younglings! Is that a thing?
Did Dooku & Yoda have competitions and introduce their respective clans like hype men? I'm picturing a scene where Yoda's like:
Yoda: "To a competition, the mighty Bear Clan challenges the Thranta Clan!" Bear Clan younglings: "GROOAAAAH!"
And Dooku is like:
Dooku: "The gallant Thranta Clan is ready to clean the floors with the Bear Clan whenever you want!" Thranta Clan younglings: *POSE MAJESTICALLY*
Glorious...
Lucifer's Speeches to Sam and Castiel in Abandon All Hope
Both of these speeches are so good and are revealing in how Lucifer not only sees himself but his relationship to these characters. As well as how he's leaving out key information in his story depending on how it suits him.
saltburn review please ? it’s very important to me to know your thoughts
i’m so sorry i took forever to answer this, i wanted to really dive in and needed the time/headspace to do it in. it’s not the best movie i’ve ever seen by any means but there’s so many dynamics/themes/motifs that i can’t stop thinking about.
spoilers and me rambling endlessly under the cut
I was reading the Breaking away script and I found some juicy stuff fjdjdnd
Like Cyril and Mike being gay as hell-- seriously what tf did Cyril mean by that?--
Ik what he is..--
Here's some more stuff! ↓
This for instance LMAO
Also Cyril being wittle BBY..
Again I love Cymike but Cydave is def a close second bc Dave is an absolute sweetheart to Cyril
(Dave x Mike moment)
Cyril, again, being wittle bby, AND cuddling his homies goodnight 🤔
Lastly Cyril again being an absolute darling PLZ someone show him affection, PLZ give him a big fat smooch PLZZZ
Analyzing Nick Dear's Frankenstein (and why we should move on to better play adaptations)
Alrighty y'all, its the long-awaited Nick Dear Frankenstein analysis post! This post is focusing specifically on Dear's characterization of the Creature, and why it negatively affects the play overall (plus some adaption theory added in for funsies). For additional context, I am an MFA candidate studying theatre, and I did this research and the accompanying slides for a project in my graduate-level theatrical criticism class. Basically this post is the text version of that presentation, with some of the slides included, and the fluff trimmed. There is a fair bit of academic jargon in here, but I tried to make it as accessible as possible!
And with all of that out of the way, the Nick Dear Frankenstein deep dive is under the cut! (And citations at the end.)
CW: Discussions of violence and SA.