And I Looked, And Behold A Pale Horse: And His Name That Sat On Him Was Death, And Hell Followed With

Got controversial opinion (i guess?!)

This is insane!? I cant believe how many people are going up in arms about the portrayl of some of these charecters in the latest episode. This was outstanding and a great culmination and rep of a lot of these charecters story lines. Danerys has been slowly slipping into the deep end for a long while and the unsullied are trained to follow their specified leader (which is stregnthend by the fact they chose her). Tyrion (while clever and smart) is a man who is heavily influenced by his moral compass and emotions, as well as his own sense of honor. Of course hes going to try to save everyone he can in a way that dosent involve him betraying danerys, thats what hes been doing for the longest time. Johns not a man whos being represented as a hero right now, hes a man who fucked up BIG TIME and is only now seeing past the tosy eyes lenses of love. Im truly sorry to all the people who feel as if they have been wronged by writers. Its hard seeing a charecter(s) who you have loved for years, identified with, and gave you hope die or turn against the very ideals and characteristics that made you love them, but please dont blame these feelings on the writers and start shouting blasphemy. This was the natural culmination and it was great. Have a nice day, and i wish you luck for next sunday.

Movie Reflections: Swept Away

This reflection is about the 1974 film, Swept Away, directed by Lina Wertmüller. It is not about the 2002 remake of this movie, which stars Madonna.    

The volatile, isolated relationship between Gennarino and Raffaella made me very uncomfortable as I witnessed the two individuals bicker about a variety of issues from democracy to taxes. Then, they eventually start to enjoy each other’s companies, or it at least appears that they are starting to become fond of each other. Gennarino and Raffaella even start to have sex. They communicated by surviving on an ideal island void of yachts, champagne, and spouses. After suffering an extended period with no luxuries, the hostility between Gennarino and Raffaella evolves into a negotiation of lifestyles. Gennarino quickly roasts meals and lives in shelters as Raffaella eventually gives in to his order and command. I did not know how to respond to their acceptance of each other after witnessing the two characters cuss at each other and viciously fight on a desert shore. I was even more stunned by the brooding power of class or economic status that controlled Raffaella. Her power is inevitable once Gennarino and Raffaella leave their twisted form of paradise. She returns to her bourgeois lifestyle leaving Gennarino stuck with his struggling third-world culture. I was anticipating that Raffaella would have a change of heart towards her servant. Then, it dawned on me why Wertmüller would build up and tear down Gennarino.

There is the sense that Wertmüller wants her audience to feel shocked, disturbed or even frustrated with how distant the servant and the socialite truly are. Their class controls a specific character. It is as if power and selfishness manipulates every move that Raffaella makes once she is back home. It makes more sense now why Wertmüller mentioned Caligula while talking with Ernest Ferlita since he was consumed with the same ideals revealed in Raffaella. She never felt true, intimate concern for Gennarino. She thinks according to her husband and their democratic principles. Her adamant contradiction towards third-world classes is why I was so shocked by the heartless ending. She never had a heart in the first place. She personifies the materialism associated with the bourgeois class. Wertmüller paints her as a victim privileged by her class. Yet, I only recognize her as a victim on the island, not on the dock. She receives back her identity once they are rescued. A scene that was pivotal in the relationship between Gennarino and Raffaella was when Gennarino skinned and roasted the rabbit. Raffaella realized that she was nothing without her democracy and wealth. She even cried to Gennarino that she felt like that rabbit. She is metaphorically being stripped of customs that spoil her. I even felt sympathy for Raffaella as the medium shot unflinchingly focused on her desperate, hurt expression. Then, the tension between the two main characters adheres to how Wertmüller thinks. She feels that men and women should not be separated, according to an interview with Ferlita.

As Gennarino and Raffaella are stranded, the island is representative of  society, but the isolated desert also does not have the luxuries that allow Raffaella to feel like that she is above everyone else. The dominance of each role becomes reversed once they are stranded on the island. It is also through the freedom of the isolation that Gennarino and Raffaella confront their difference. Although they start helping each other, there is always some distance between the characters. Bird’s eye angle showed Gennarino and Raffaella fighting with each other. There are no close-ups or sudden cutting. It is just an abandoned atmosphere stained by a ridiculous feud. I do not feel a part of the feud, for it is their problem or circumstances. They are fighting, but there is no one to help Raffaella from her impoverished conditions. The extreme long shot amidst the desert only makes the bird’s eye angle more effective according to the mood of the ridiculous argument. No one is listening or paying attention to them. They have to deal with each other. The camera follows each individual around with the presence of classical cutting in order to develop his or her search for identity. It ranges from Gennarino reminding himself of his masculine traits or Raffaella helplessly wandering around the island. I think the island also symbolizes people who are built by the power of disorder because Gennarino and Raffaella are still the same people dictated by their class and country. They think everything is fine once they get to make love or make a necklace of flowers. The impending doom of betrayal only awaits them once they leave their illusion of harmony. I feel that Wertmüller made us uncomfortable as a means to think more critically about society.

This is an interesting theory. If it is true, then maybe it’s one of the first times Littlefinger realized the power his words can have over other people’s actions. Maybe at first he felt guilty, but then the power started to feel good, leading him down the path to the man we meet in AGOT.

Do you think it’s possible that Littlefinger tricked Brandon into thinking Lyanna was kidnapped by Rhaegar? All four were in the same area around the same time and it’s definitely within his MO. Not to mention that he just came off a brutal beating from Catelyn’s betrothed and we know what he’d do to get his competition out of the way.

I’m going to preface this with saying that I don’t think we have direct textual evidence disproving this theory. I’m skeptical on Watsonian grounds - first and foremost, it requires Littlefinger to know of Lyanna’s disappearance well before Brandon himself learned of it. While he was recovering from a serious wound half the width of the continent away.

I also dislike this theory from a Doylist standpoint.

First, in terms of LIttlefinger’s backstory, he’s the little guy everyone underestimated, only realising too late that he was their biggest problem. That sort of thing requires time and buildup on the villain’s part; I can’t help but feel that it takes some of the punch out of Littlefinger successfully orchestrating the start of the War of Five Kings if this is his second successful attempt at kicking off a war.

Second, I don’t think it adds anything, really. It doesn’t tell us anything new about Littlefinger (we already knew he’s manipulative), it doesn’t tell us anything new about Brandon (we already knew he was rash). The idea that Brandon learned about Lyanna’s disappearance and believed it was abduction works as a story no matter the source the original news came from.

I wish I had Hyacinth’s self-confidence...

Ideas for Season 2

What if next season the writers kept up the unreliable narrator device? 

There could be an episode next season centering on the Massacre at Vassy - the start of the many wars of religion - where Louis de Bourbon (Prince of Conde) tells Ramira HIS side of the story. In his version he is the only one fighting for Protestants to have the same freedoms and rights as everyone else. This would make for a more rounded character and an interesting look at how Louis sees himself. With his narration he becomes a freedom fighter for the oppressed. Protestants can’t teach/study at Universities, hold certain jobs, worship in public in many cities/provinces. He sees himself as the Huguenots’ savior in many ways--their version of Martin Luther King Jr. He can even physically look thinner and more dignified instead of fulfilling the short/fat one dynamic he has with Antoine when Catherine is narrating. 

Since other shows set in this time period do not have the unreliable narrator device, this show should use it to their advantage. This story is filled with people manipulating each other--why not manipulate the audience while you’re at it? 

Plus it gives Ramira some internal conflict: who does she believe? Maybe Catherine could try to make her into one of her Flying Squadron (spy/seductresses) but Ramira doesn’t like this, so hearing Louis’s side of the story could help bring tension between her and Catherine, giving Ramira something to do next season since historically she never existed and could easily be overshadowed by the show’s historical figures and events. 

Man I really can’t stand people who actively complain about a show not going the way they want it currently. Like, hypothesize the hell out of it, analyze, search for clues, and hopes, but once canon comes out, that’s canon. Deal with it I guess, sorry if the people you ship together had an argument and aren’t getting along. You might think it’s unrealistic but you’re not the creator? Sorry if your fan theory was contradicted, you’re not the creator? Sorry if you were positive about this characters personality but turned out to be wrong, you’re not the creator? Sorry if your favourite character that you thought would be central to the show died, but you’re not the creator. Make aus and have fun with it but don’t…..dismiss canon. If you didn’t have canon you literally wouldn’t have your show at all. You wouldn’t have the characters, or the memories.

Last but not least, stop complaining about lack of screen time for a clear background character. if you fall in love with a character that is clearly a background character, who is destined for limited screen time, own it. Wish for more, hope, enjoy what you get but don’t angrily demand more content that you are not entitled to.

Remember that every story has a writer. Every story has a beginning, middle, and end, dictated by the one who created it. And you have literally no say in that. People are gonna tell the story they tell. That’s that.

(Normally I’d want to be more polite about this but I’ve seen too many posts like this today, TOO MANY)

august slipped away | sidney/charlotte

Honestly, if Theon ends up dying I will just be dead inside because he’s had the BIGGEST character development throughout the seasons and I know it will be a beautiful parallel to have him die for the family that he realized he loves so much, but it will be such a huge blow. He’s become my favorite character as I witnessed the mistakes, damage, change, and growth and my heart will seriously break over the beauty of him dying for his family but also from the pain. I’ve loved this character for so many seasons and I became so invested. It says a lot about character development and especially an actor when you unconditionally love them despite all of the wrong they’ve done.

Hercule de Valois

Hercule Valois, aka Francois Duke of Anjou and Alencon, would like to challenge (former) Prince Harry to a literary duel.

If Anjou could write a memoir about his life as the “spare” brother, it would be far more entertaining than Harry’s “Spare.” 

Elizabeth II seems a much nicer grandmother than Catherine de Medici was a mother to her youngest two children. 

{Megan and Harry fans, please disregard this post, this post is for people who know a lot about the Valois family and Catherine de Medici’s children. I don’t know (or care) enough about Megan and Harry to have an opinion on them. I do, however, love to learn about 16th century royal scandals.} 

They probably will in later seasons. She did NOT get on well with her youngest daughter Marguerite or her youngest son Hercule (also called Francis). Both children went on to rebel against her. So much family drama!

Sure she had to run the country while these two were growing up, but still...things got tense between them. 

i wish they expanded on catherine being a deadbeat mother. this is where series bias in her favor is showing imo (or is it catherine storytelling bias? either way it's unsatisfactory.) because none of her scenes with her children explain why francis is so bitter and untrusting with her. i believe he had strong reasons to act that way and him leaning on mary who was always here for him makes complete sense. unlike his mother who i suspect secretly liked to spent time busy with court intrigues instead of wasting her lively brain energy on clueless little kids. she's like one of those fathers who prefer to only acknowledge their kid when they are old enough to hold adequate conversation not bothering to form any kind of bond with them beforehand. but i am sure catherine will fix that mistake with little charles.