TV/Movies Megathread

[garbon]

Stuart lezzie sex

I expected Yi to comment on some lesbian scene in a movie, but never thought it would be you...

The whole movie was a lesbian scene. Sort of like Rachel Weisz's other recent film, Disobedience.

[Josephus]

I caught the 3d showing of They Shall Not Grow Old, Peter Jackson's First World War documentary.  It was amazing.  The 30 minute post credits interview/behind the scenes discussion added a lot as well.  I highly recommend it to all Languisites.

Where there any lesbians?

[Malthus]

Anne's life was generally pretty sad so she could probably take it.

She was pretty devoted to her hubby though, I guess this is supposed to take place after his death?

The hubby was just written out. They mention Anne had 17 (dead) kids, but never mention him. Historically, Sarah's lack of caring for the hubby's long illness and sad death is part of what drove her and Anne apart, but this plays no part in the movie.

[Malthus]

I loved it!

I did too - one thing wasn't clear to me though, and that was whether Sarah actually cared for Anne at all or not.

Clearly Abigail didn't care at all, and was just screwing her for a position at court, and to avoid being shoved out on the street, but it wasn't totally clear whether Sarah was basically doing the same thing or not.

If Sarah actually cared for Anne, it's a pretty sad outcome for Anne.

From some of her looks (particularly when she couldn't get through locked door in passageway) it felt like she did actually care for Anne. That's why I liked the end where Abigail's face seemed to convey she was now powerlessly pimped out again like how her father had did and Anne realized she had given up her love. 

Only wish they hadn't overlain endlessly the rabbits. Would have liked better if after panning from Abigail to Anne, they cut immediately to black.

I definitely got the impression basically everyone loses in the end.

Sarah is off in exile, Anne lost the one person who actually cared about her (again, assuming Sarah actually did, which seems likely) in favour of a pretty young flattering liar, and Abigail is, as you say, pimped out to a half crazy woman who has finally realized Abigail is just a flattering liar, and so treats her like a whore.

I guess one clue that Sarah did have feelings for Anne was the scene where she was writing her 'apology' letter. She was just too pissed off to have had no feelings.

[Valmy]

Anne's life was generally pretty sad so she could probably take it.

She was pretty devoted to her hubby though, I guess this is supposed to take place after his death?

The hubby was just written out. They mention Anne had 17 (dead) kids, but never mention him. Historically, Sarah's lack of caring for the hubby's long illness and sad death is part of what drove her and Anne apart, but this plays no part in the movie.

Well I can see how a devoted and tragic marriage to a man would get in the way of a lesbian plot.

[Savonarola]

I saw a filmed version of Wagner's "Das Rheingold".  Wotan sells his sister-in-law, Freia, in order to build his dream house.  Once the house is complete he has remorse, and engages on a wacky scheme involving stealing gold from gnomes in order to ransom his sister.  I wrote that premise up and pitched it to HGTV.  Good news! coming in 2020: "Pimp Your Sister or List It."  Those property brothers better start sending out resumes.



I had listened to Wagner before, but never actually watched a performance.  It's a lot better that way, the music is indeed brilliant moments and dull quarter hours; but the point was that music was supposed to be subordinate to the drama not (as in almost all operas before) drama subordinate to the music.

[Admiral Yi]

Watched the first episode of Black Monday t'other day.  Stock market comedy set in the 80s starring Don Cheadle.  Wasn't that funny.

[Oexmelin]

I had listened to Wagner before, but never actually watched a performance.  It's a lot better that way, the music is indeed brilliant moments and dull quarter hours; but the point was that music was supposed to be subordinate to the drama not (as in almost all operas before) drama subordinate to the music.

I get into arguments with opera-loving friends all the time on that topic. If music (and singing) is all that is important, then don't bother with costumes, acting, decor. A recital is perfect to enjoy a singer's maestria. I'd much prefer good drama and less polished (or even, less contrived) singing, capable of conveying emotion through gesture, and hesitations, and breaks. But somehow, they always seem to want perfect singing, and ridiculously stunted acting to go hand-in-hand. 

[Syt]

I had listened to Wagner before, but never actually watched a performance.  It's a lot better that way, the music is indeed brilliant moments and dull quarter hours; but the point was that music was supposed to be subordinate to the drama not (as in almost all operas before) drama subordinate to the music.

I saw Rheingold 20 or so years ago in Kiel. The opera house was on a shoestring budget, but made it work. E.g. the giants were portrayed by using spot lights and white sheets to project big shadows behind the actors. The weirdest was the stage being open to the back, so you could see the cast sitting on a large table between their scenes, though you quickly tuned them out.

It was quite a good performance, and I agree that seeing the action on stage makes it a lot more palatable and creates the "full experience" as you say.

[celedhring]

I had listened to Wagner before, but never actually watched a performance.  It's a lot better that way, the music is indeed brilliant moments and dull quarter hours; but the point was that music was supposed to be subordinate to the drama not (as in almost all operas before) drama subordinate to the music.

I get into arguments with opera-loving friends all the time on that topic. If music (and singing) is all that is important, then don't bother with costumes, acting, decor. A recital is perfect to enjoy a singer's maestria. I'd much prefer good drama and less polished (or even, less contrived) singing, capable of conveying emotion through gesture, and hesitations, and breaks. But somehow, they always seem to want perfect singing, and ridiculously stunted acting to go hand-in-hand.

I wouldn't expect or even want naturalistic acting in opera of all places  - part of the point of it is that composers (good ones) conveyed their characters' emotions through the music and singing. There's some genuinely great singer-actors in opera.

Italian verismo operas (i.e. Pagliacci, Cavalleria Rusticana, Tosca) is the closest you'll get to what you want. Nowadays they are not sung as "dirty" as originally, but some singers/productions aim for something close to that.

[Duque de Bragança]

I had listened to Wagner before, but never actually watched a performance.  It's a lot better that way, the music is indeed brilliant moments and dull quarter hours; but the point was that music was supposed to be subordinate to the drama not (as in almost all operas before) drama subordinate to the music.

I get into arguments with opera-loving friends all the time on that topic. If music (and singing) is all that is important, then don't bother with costumes, acting, decor. A recital is perfect to enjoy a singer's maestria. I'd much prefer good drama and less polished (or even, less contrived) singing, capable of conveying emotion through gesture, and hesitations, and breaks. But somehow, they always seem to want perfect singing, and ridiculously stunted acting to go hand-in-hand.

Then try oratorios.

[Oexmelin]

I wouldn't expect or even want naturalistic acting in opera of all places  - part of the point of it is that composers (good ones) conveyed their characters' emotions through the music and singing. There's some genuinely great singer-actors in opera.

QED.    If music and signing is all that is needed, then why bother with robotic gestures, and fake laughs. I am not even asking for naturalistic acting - but some decent amount of acting nonetheless...  I love theatre, and I love the music. Live opera should be a favorite, and though I have seen a few really great ones, I get more frustrated by its failures than when I see a terrible play.

But otherwise yes, things have improved greatly in the last few years.

[dps]

I saw a filmed version of Wagner's "Das Rheingold".  Wotan sells his sister-in-law, Freia, in order to build his dream house.  Once the house is complete he has remorse, and engages on a wacky scheme involving stealing gold from gnomes in order to ransom his sister.  I wrote that premise up and pitched it to HGTV.  Good news! coming in 2020: "Pimp Your Sister or List It."  Those property brothers better start sending out resumes.

It is a sad commentary on our times that I'm not entirely sure that this is facetious.

[celedhring]

I wouldn't expect or even want naturalistic acting in opera of all places  - part of the point of it is that composers (good ones) conveyed their characters' emotions through the music and singing. There's some genuinely great singer-actors in opera.

QED.    If music and signing is all that is needed, then why bother with robotic gestures, and fake laughs. I am not even asking for naturalistic acting - but some decent amount of acting nonetheless...  I love theatre, and I love the music. Live opera should be a favorite, and though I have seen a few really great ones, I get more frustrated by its failures than when I see a terrible play.

But otherwise yes, things have improved greatly in the last few years.

What I'm saying is that the codes and styles of a performing art (theater) don't necessarily apply to another (opera). Opera has its own devices to convey emotion, which imho are very rich in the hands of talented singers and directors and are not only limited to signing (i.e., how characters move and relate physically plays a big part in an opera production, just standing there and singing is not good opera). They give a unique expression and I really can't see how having singers try to be more like theater actors would make it better (that said, I'm all for experimentation, and I certainly don't intend to tell people what they should like or not).

And indeed clean, perfect signing is not all that matters. Take a famous fragment, the second Queen of the Night aria in The Magic Flute. That aria is a traditional "bravura" (showoff) piece, with several consecutive notes in the highest registers a soprano singer can theoretically achieve. In fact, though, nowadays many sopranos can pull that one off, but that's just half the job. All those high notes are there to convey the Queen's unbridled wrath and pain on learning of her daughter's betrayal. And the sopranos that can execute the passage on a purely technical level while conveying those emotions are the ones that you'll find headlining the Met Opera or La Scala: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qqDKUKvoIs

[Malthus]

I wouldn't expect or even want naturalistic acting in opera of all places  - part of the point of it is that composers (good ones) conveyed their characters' emotions through the music and singing. There's some genuinely great singer-actors in opera.

QED.    If music and signing is all that is needed, then why bother with robotic gestures, and fake laughs. I am not even asking for naturalistic acting - but some decent amount of acting nonetheless...  I love theatre, and I love the music. Live opera should be a favorite, and though I have seen a few really great ones, I get more frustrated by its failures than when I see a terrible play.

But otherwise yes, things have improved greatly in the last few years.

I look at opera as a specific stylized art form, like a Japanese Kabuki theatre or a Javanese shadow-puppet show.

Can't say as it is a favorite of mine; but then, I don't particularly like Kabuki. Don't know enough about its conventions to like it.