Rewatching The Bear 2x03 is actually crazy and feels so clarifying because like...
The ep starts with Carmy speaking at Al-Anon about fun, and how maybe he needs to have more of it. He acknowledges that fun is complicated for him because as a kid his family tended to ruin things for him, even though this was often unintentionally done. He says that he thinks if he had more amusement or enjoyment in his own life then it would be easier to provide that for other people. (Big note here that part of the purpose OF a restaurant is to provide amusement and enjoyment for people. Then add in Luca's conversation with Marcus in 2x04 about how the best food comes from being open and inspired, and spending time in the world. So Carmy having fun could theoretically make him better at his job.)
Anyway, Carmy gives that spiel at Al-Anon. Then we get a brief interlude of Syd looking at articles about recent restaurant closings and being stressed.
And then we're immediately back with Syd and Carmy cooking together in his kitchen. She fucks up a dish again, and he suggests they stop cooking and do a palate reset.
Like... this all happens within the first five minutes of the ep. This man has been musing about how he needs to have more fun.... and then he suggests spending the day eating in the city with Syd..... ergo that's his definition of fun. This is literally him making an attempt at doing something for amusement or enjoyment!! He planned this!! I fully believe he had this idea even before Sydney fucked up the dish. This man said I need to have more fun and you know what would be fun? Spending the day with my business partner eating delicious food. So he sends her home with plans to meet in an hour.
And then. AND THEN. Claire calls. First of all when she asks if he's busy, he looks at the white board and the very first thing on the To Do list is "call fridge guy" so like. lmao. I love foreshadowing. And he literally is busy!!! Not with unpleasant tasks to do but with something FUN. Something fun that he planned FOR himself.
And what is it that Claire asks him to do? Is it something fun? No. She asks him to HELP HER MOVE her mom. Like, the least fun task in the history of anything, the thing that people historically HATE being asked to help with. And he doesn't look excited about it! He looks torn. He looks...weird idk. Like ohhhh it's actually so crazy that Carmy bails on a truly fun day with Sydney in order to do a manual labor favor for Claire.
This is so ripe for analysis you simply cannot tell me it doesn't mean anything.
Carmy thinks about how he needs more fun, plans a fun day for himself, and then, when someone he tried to avoid asks him to do a not fun favor, he says yeah, I'll do that instead.
936 notes
·
View notes
if you're wondering why I kind of abandoned this blog, there's several reasons (fandom just doesn't feel fun anymore, I'm trying to cut back on screen time, I've been feeling like my faith is in contradiction to what I see/read/interact with on here is for years and years now) but the final straw has been what I see on my dash every day about Israel/Palestine.
I keep seeing people I used to interact with and used to like now peddling conspiracy theories, debunked claims, inflammatory headlines, and even bloodthirsty rhetoric with tens of thousands of notes (when corrections of those posts get ~500 notes at best), and reacting to nuanced conversations like they're calls for hatred, all while turning a blind eye to the very literal vicious hatred or sheer ignorance in many of those big posts. The level of black-and-white thinking is so strong that we are wayyyy past 'us-vs-them,' we're in the kind of discourse where even 'know thy enemy' (being interested in understanding the opposing arguments even just so you can dismantle them) is considered hatred - people can't be bothered to know what they're arguing for or against, nothing short of plugging your ears and screaming for the death of the Bad People is enough. This is a wave of just about the most hypocritical, callous and uninformed 'activism' this website has ever been guilty of and it's too much. I'm done with this.
And yes, this is about antisemitism. You can all shout 'not antisemitic, just anti-zionist' all day long but you have done jack shit to prove you don't hate Jews beside chanting 'punch a nazi' in the same breath you use KKK slurs and cheer for groups that have 'curse the Jews' in their slogan. I trust none of you anymore.
191 notes
·
View notes
Coriolanus Snow and Anakin Skywalker are perfect examples of really interesting characters who had every chance to do the right thing but repeatedly chose wrong even though they were surrounded by good people, all because they had one person whispering in their ear and convincing them to be selfish and to hurt people instead. There is no point where they have to do what they do, it’s their choices that make them compelling.
They’re also both incredibly controlling over the women they claim to love but are quick to try and physically harm them when they realise that they’re actually human beings who will not blindly follow them. It’s very clear they were possessive, not actually in love. To sincerely love is to respect someone’s agency and neither of them were capable of that.
Another trait they both share is that, despite being layered and well written but fundamentally flawed characters who turn to evil by their own free will, if you cast an attractive actor to play them, there are always going to be people who blindly ignore the entire plot just to defend them and justify their actions. Being a victim of abuse or oppression does not excuse you from being a perpetrator.
267 notes
·
View notes
tried watching the new queen charlotte series but was immediately put off by the ridiculous anti-corset propaganda, so get ready for another rant.
first of all, this is the georgian era so what she's wearing are called /stays/ - corsets are a victorian invention. why do we still not know this in 2023 when period productions have remained consistently popular throughout the years? the concept of tighlacing (the goal being a reduction of the waist) is also victorian and was not the norm at all and v much an extreme practice. this understanding of history is so superficial, it's as if an alien were to open up People magazine and conclude that all human women resort to butt injections and lip fillers to stay with the fashion of the times. also, no, you cannot tighlace in stays to obtain a waist reduction because they are shaped like a funnel (picture 1 = long stays, 2 = short regency stays, 3 = corset)
charlotte goes on to complain about how dangerous whalebone is and that it might kill her if she makes the wrong move. what the actual fuck? whalebone was actually the very best material to use for this because it was sturdy yet flexible and allowed the /stays/ to completely and comfortably mold around a woman's unique body shape. one of the reasons why today it is v difficult to replicate the same effect in corsetry is because we do not have access to whalebone (killing whales is not cool for obvious reasons) so corset-makers have to resort to other materials like plastic or metal, which CAN break. whereas whalebone doesn't really break as easily. furthermore, stays/corsets were NEVER worn on bare skin, but with a chemise/shift underneath.
why did women in the past resort to this type of undergarment, you ask? well, apart from the fact that women need bust support, the stays also serve the purpose of allowing all the many skirts and petticoats to be placed comfortably onto the waist. you try piling on that much fabric around your bare waist and see how you like it and if you can even carry it all around without it cutting into your stomach.
clothes throughout human history did cater to the popular fashions of the time, yes, but they also reflected the technological limitations and there was thus a practical aspect to it. this is a time before elastic bands, before industrialization and fast fashion, clothes are v difficult to make, everything is done by hand, so a lot of care is put into preserving them, because they are /expensive/ and labour intensive. you don't want your fancy outergarments to get ruined so you wear a lot of undergarments to absorb your bodily fluids since those are easier to make and don't have to look "pretty", can be stained and patchy etc. again, why do you need so many layers in the first place? because this is a time before comfortable heating, with poorly isolated and drafty houses, and it's bloody cold otherwise.
the third reason why that monologue was so dumb is because CHARLOTTE is the reason regency court dress was so preposterous. long story short, in a few decades, the fashionable silhouette changes wildly from the late 1700s to the 1810s.
the regency waistline was much higher and the gowns were much more flowy and unstructured than the late georgian ones (what's commonly known as the empire waistline). the long stays of the late 1700s were now replaced with short stays that really were similar to modern bras. the scene in the first season of bridgerton where they squeeze penelope's sister into what looks like a pair of long stays (?) is bonkers bc no one would wear a waist-constricting boned undergarment under a regency dress. why would they? the natural waist is not even emphasized in any way. this is just another reason to peddle the women-were-oppressed-by-their-lingerie agenda. so if charlotte really hated long stays that much, regency would really have been her time to shine, right? wrong. the woman loved the fashions of her youth so much she forced everyone who came to court to still comply to them, which is why we get the absolutely atrocious regency court dresses - essentially a combination of the georgian style with side panniers, but with an empire waistline.
yeah, this is how daphne SHOULD have looked like when she was presented at court in front of charlotte. i can understand why the showrunners decided to just leave her in a regency silhouette because this is ugly af. but, anyway, queen charlotte is the last person on earth to be complaining about how uncomfortable stays are.
creative licence aside, the reason this pisses me off is because it is SUCH lazy storytelling. the show wants us to know charlotte is a spunky pseudo-feminist character so the easiest way to do that is to have her complain about the evil 'corset' trying to kill her. it is so profoundly ahistorical and does nothing to contribute to the conversation about women's true problems and true limitations during that time. instead of genuinely exploring social history and women's actual lived experiences, we are STILL, in the year of our lord 2023, diverting the discourse towards fabricated issues that never existed in the first place.
the reasons actresses complain about boned underwear in interviews are manifold. costume designers are very overworked, they have to produce clothes for hundreds of people in a very short time, so they simply do not have the time or resources to construct corsets/stays that fit the actresses like they are supposed to. in the past, these garments were made individually for every person and completely to their own requirements. they also make these actresses wear the boning on BARE skin to look extra sexy to the audience or to emphasize their oppression - that never happened, a shift was always worn underneath (hello dakota fanning scene in the alienist??).
moreover, they lace them up until they constrict their ribcages - these women are already super thin and their bodies cannot support more reduction - instead of relying on the historical practices of padding and illusion. nowadays, body parts are what's fashionable - that's why so many resort to fat transfers or breast implants or starving themselves to achieve a flat stomach. in the past, anyone of any size could have accomplished the fashionable silhouette because they had a wide array of accouterments to plop underneath their garments - panniers, bustles, hoop skirts, padding of any sort. it didn't matter how big your waist was, you just padded other areas until you achieved the desired shape. fat women wore corsets/stays, too. working women, who did a lot of physical labour, did the same. how were they able to perform all of their tasks if they were incapable of moving or breathing? even today, people wear medical corsets all the time.
TLDR the media's obsession with portraying modern women as so liberated because they wear bras instead of "patriarchal" underwear is so tedious.
EDIT: Some very basic chronological tadpoles to make this easier to place within historical context. "Georgian" is used to denote the 18th+ century when Great Britain was ruled by several kings named George, so roughly 1714-1830. Within this interval, we refer to the Regency period as encompassing the regency of Prince George, future King George IV, when his father George III was incapacitated by mental illness. The official political regency took place during 1811-1820, but culturally speaking, this was extended to roughly the end of the 18th century up to maybe 1830 or 1837. This is the time period of Napoleonic wars and Jane Austen novels, so all her heroines should normally wear Regency styles. Think "empire waistline" as in Imperial France and Napoleon. The Victorian era (and its corsets) follows throughout the rest of the 19th century. Queen Charlotte was a contemporary of Marie Antoinette's, so they should be dressed in similar fashions (robe à la française vs robe à la anglais).
533 notes
·
View notes