Ms. Magazine was co-founded in 1972 by journalist and activist Gloria Steinem, along with editors Letty Cottin Pogrebin, Patricia Carbine, and Suzanne Braun Levine. The magazine challenged the usual woman-oriented publications that focused on housekeeping, suburban fashion, or recipes. These typical magazines were supported by brands and felt more like advertisements than journalism, let alone spaces for opinionated writing.

In reality, the debut of Ms. Magazine happened months earlier, on 20 December 1971. What is seen as the first edition was a 40-page insert in New York magazine, which had, in its ranks, founding editor Gloria Steinem as a staff writer. Considering that it could be their only shot to bring more serious conversations, the issue featured pieces on Black Family and Feminism, the need to review the roles of sex and gender in the English Language, and the strong story We Have Had Abortions which brought a list of 53 signatures by well-known American women, including Anaïs Nin, Susan Sontag, and Steinem herself. In eight days, the 300,000 available copies sold out. What followed was a successful story of a magazine founded and run by women, negating the voices rooting for its failure.

Having non-reader-friendly pages meant that announcers wouldn’t throw money at the magazine; still, it approached subjects that were avoided, and by its reception, the publication showed that society needed to face itself in the mirror.

“Domestic violence” and “sexual harassment” might come up every now and then in the media and at the workplace when discussing the trials that women go through in their daily lives; still, it is due to Ms. Magazine’s trailblazing that such terms for these dreadful situations are part of the lexicon. Although there is still much to be done regarding women’s and other minorities’ rights, the documentary features film and TV clips from that era and interviews with women recounting their experiences, showing what may feel like a different world but is still very present today. Thus, conforming to the defining work by such publications.
One of the highlights of the documentary is that, even though it uses archival footage and shows interviews from that time and period, it has never-seen-before footage of the period and interviews with the Ms. Magazine staff, allies, and collaborators, which makes it more valuable, considering that many of those voices are now in their twilight, thus giving more credibility to this work.

A precise look at the complexity of the feminist movement

By not turning it in a pinkish nostalgia dream, ‘Dear Ms.’ goes into the deep conversations between feminism and intersectionalities showcasing how with all the good intentions, White feminism can have it blind spots for Black women and other non-white women hailing from impoverished backgrounds that have to deal with their condition as women plus racial background and economic realities that push them downward in the stairs as they struggle for a better place in society and more respect from their peers.

The delusion of Black women can be seen in how the magazine Essence, which focused on Black women, didn’t flourish as its bigger cousin. Pain and frustration can be heard in these Black voices, but so too can the ways in which such hard and disappointing experiences can reinvigorate and be turned to other ways for female Blackness.

The documentary’s third act explores the difficult topic of feminism and sex work, showing that the movement is not a heterogeneous body. Some radical feminists oppose sex work, sometimes mirroring conservative or religious positions. Still, some women view sex work as part of their feminist expression, and it provides income for many disenfranchised women.

Former porn actress, sexologist and activist Annie Sprinkle shines in this section. She shares her decades-long perspective and offers a profile of sex worker life in America. In the end, Sprinkle speaks about her Ms. Magazine piece on cookies. While she does not mention sex work there, the piece serves as a metalinguistic microcosm of how sex work fits into society. It is controversial, but it won’t go away, much like cookies.

The trio of directors is competent and made good use of the subjects, themes, and interviewees to avoid having a bloated doc; on the other hand, giving Ms. Magazine a proper look through, and the helmer’s skills open up opportunities for other documentaries: one focused on Black Women Magazine Essence, and the other featuring Sprinkle as a character study. Sprinkle is a character from the 70s and 80s gritty New York and should have a biopic by now.

‘Dear Ms.: A Revolution in Print’ should be available in physical form, and Journalism, Sociology, History, and Anthropology colleges, among other Humanities areas, would do their students and staff a favour by showing it to them. Ms. Magazine is still in print, and it has a younger sister, the Women’s Media Center (WMC), which counts Gloria Steinem among its founders. I’m glad that at the start of my foreign writing career, I was able to publish with WMC, where I learned not only about journalism but also how to approach and cover minorities and distressing realities.

The post HBO’s Dear Ms. Documentary Review: How Ms. Magazine Shaped Feminism and Media Culture appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

HBO’s Perry Mason (2020-2023) brought a 21st Century take on the character from detective novels created by Erle Stanley Gardner in 1933, who also appeared in radio, movies and had its most famous portrayal in the CBS’ Perry Mason (1957-1966) series starred by the very skilled Canadian actor Raymond Burr (Rear Window), who would later come back to Mason’s TV movies until his death in 1993. Burr is the most associated face with Mason though there is a whole plethora of names that interpreted the attorney.

The HBO drama gives Mason an origin story as the other interactions followed him already as a lawyer willing to defend the oppressed. In this series, Mason is a broken man, struggling with PTSD, alcoholism and investigating love affairs to make a living as a P.I. Fans of the previous adaptations won’t behold the ‘Perry Mason moment’ when in the courtroom, Mason marvelled the jury when he saved his clients from wrongful convictions at the last minute by putting the real guilty party on the stand and making them expose their venom while watched by the courtroom.
British actor Mathew Rhys strays away from his predecessors by interpreting a troubled man who employs unorthodox methods, and, even with good intent, he lacks the experience and what unfolds are character studies of the protagonist and of the other members of the cast.

The premiere season revolves around the disturbing kidnapping and murder of a baby and by the later episodes Mason enters the world of lawyers to not let the accused party fend off by themselves while also dealing with a religious cult. In the second season, the story focuses on a pair of Mexican-American brothers accused of murdering an oil heir, and they feel the weight of a rigged system and the hatred of the populace piled up with the invisible hands that really rule Los Angeles.

One of the aspects that makes Perry Mason stand out from its contemporaries is the nuanced representation of minorities while not indulging in lecturing nor painting them as victims. Paul Drake is a law enforcement member turned P.I. who can’t climb the ranks due to his skin colour and he and his relatives endure surviving in a city that doesn’t welcome them and only sees them as people for undesirable work or entertainers.

Della Street (Juliet Rylance) is a closeted lesbian who aspires to be something more than a competent secretary; Street lives under the unwritten rule of minorities have to be three times better than their peers to make half or even less. But not everything is sadness, because, in the Hollywood screenwriter Anita St. Pierre (Jen Tullock), Street finds a love that takes her away from the stress that a career in law charges.

In the character of St. Pierre, the series finds its metalanguage for what is to navigate in Hollywood and being part of the LGBTQIA+ community which is a considerable part of the backbone of this institution but is shamefully relegated to the shadows. Surrounded by luxury St. Pierre has to hide her true colours as it still happens today.

The realistic portrayal gives their moments a tenderness akin to Brokeback Mountain (2005). Tullock is one of the most interesting actors to join in season two. The city and the times compose two other characters: an art deco Los Angeles with its warm weather under orangish landscapes that is bound to become a powerhouse. L.A. is not new to detective stories as in L.A. Confidential (1997) or To Live and Die in L.A. (1985), still Mason brings its own flair to the City of Damned Angels.

Perry Mason navigates from impoverished neighbourhoods and shanty towns to the mansions and halls of power in a way that Michael Mann showed in the Miami Vice series. Mason does it with its own codes in the early 20th Century West Coast where elegance is not too distinctive from decadence. Well-acted and written, it is pleasing to the senses, still even all the charm of that era won’t save the Los Angelinos from the darkness that fuels the stories. The technical aspects of the series give it a high-end appeal.

HBO lost a great opportunity by cancelling it, and the team didn’t have at least a third season or a special movie to wrap the narratives and present how the former detective Mason played by Rhys became the paladin of justice interpreted by Burr or something of his own.

Also Read: Miami Vice: The Revolutionary Series That Changed the Landscape of TV and Cinema

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Perry Mason Revisited: HBO Revives the Timeless Tale with a Riveting Modern Twist appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

The Background

President Nixon is up for re-election and things seem to be going his way but after a number of people in government leak sensitive documents, it is decided by his administration to crack down on this sort of thing and discredit these individuals. Enter Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt, both staunch Republicans, Liddy a former FBI agent, Hunt a former CIA employee who will run a campaign of “dirty tricks” to help ensure Nixon is re-elected. Things do not go well.

The Characters

E. Howard Hunt – (Woody Harrelson) is a former CIA agent who was heavily involved in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, costing him his job and reputation, and he is desperate to get back into that world. For a spook Hunt talks an awful lot about what he does, constantly name-dropping or leaving not-very-cryptic hints at what he has done. Hunt is a firm believer that the Democrats = Communists = Evil and so these “illegal” plots are entirely justified. A family man Hunt has four children and is married to Dorothy (Lena Heady), another former CIA agent who is a lot more discreet.

G. Gordon Liddy – for some reason a number of people involved in this have first names they do not use – (Justin Theroux) where do you start with Liddy? This is a man who will spontaneously hold his hand over a flame to prove his loyalty, who draws a gun on Hunt’s young son when he surprises him and proclaims that Nixon need only tell him to stand on a particular street corner and he will happily take a bullet. He seems delusional to the point of ridiculousness, convinced he is some sort of super-spy doing great work. Then there is the stuff with the Nazis. Liddy has a habit of naming things after things associated with Nazi Germany, he calls his first plan Operation Odessa, after the codename for Nazis fleeing Germany at the end of the war, at a dinner party he literally puts on a record of Hitler speeches the same way other people would put on jazz. He will point out he doesn’t believe in fascism BUT does think Hitler was very charismatic.

There is an array of other characters ranging from officials in the Nixon administration, the Cuban dissidents hired by Hunt to carry out the burglaries and more but of particular note is Lena Headey playing Dorothy Hunt (wife of Howard Hunt) playing one of the very few reasonable people in the show, you will scream at your television just for everyone to listen to her.

Behind The Scenes

The show’s creators are Alex Gregory and Peter Huyck, two comedy writers who have worked on a number of successful shows, with Veep being the most relevant to this show as it has a similar tone of incompetence and madness amongst the powerful. David Mandel directs all five episodes, a director and writer of SNL, Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm and more. The show is based on the book Integrity, written by Egil and Matthew Krogh, Egil Krogh being one of the people in the Nixon administration who went to prison over Watergate.

The show points out every episode that whilst this is based on real events some details have been changed for storytelling purposes and that is worth bearing in mind. As it is based on real events the audience does know where this is heading – failure, scandal and ruin. For all the talk of Hunt and Liddy about saving President Nixon it is repeatedly pointed out he is doing well in the polls and does indeed win re-election, but it is this scandal that brings him down. The central characters go beyond failure in their mission but bring everything down. The five episodes follow this unmitigated tale of failure through Hunt and Liddy.

The stand out in the whole show is Theroux as Liddy. Hunt is sometimes unprofessional and incompetent, Liddy is an Alexander the Great of failure, a Napoleon of delusions, a generation-defining personification of disaster. Liddy is incompetent, delusional, paranoid, obsessive, violent, potentially a Nazi, arrogant, and authoritarian and it is hard to imagine a worse conspirator…he will keep his mouth shut through a bizarre sense of loyalty and duty but he will do worse through sheer stupidity. He constantly infuriates those around him by making a bad situation much worse. Theroux expertly displays his intensity and his frustration when colleagues, friends and family members don’t go along with his ridiculous ideas.

White House Plumbers is a great historical comedy-drama which shows the great events of history are often as ridiculous as they are important.

Rating: (4 / 5)

Also Read: Political Thrillers: Between Fact, Fiction, and Hidden Agendas

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Nixon, Madness & Comedy: ‘White House Plumbers’ Takes You On A Historical Farce Like No Other appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

The Rise of Streaming

With faster and cheaper internet speeds in the 2000s, it was only natural for some entertainment content to start moving from cable to online. At first, it was limited to YouTube and small websites. Then Netflix, a small video subscription service, came online. With House of Cards, it broke the barrier and made TV streaming mainstream.

And yet, with pirated video material getting over 230 billion views a year, we are in the Golden Age of digital piracy. Here’s why;

Subscription Fatigue

Back in the day, you just needed to invest in one really good cable subscription and you were set. Now, video entertainment is split over a dozen online platforms each specializing in different genres. Maybe you’re satisfied with the dramas on Hulu but your spouse wants to watch reality shows on Netflix and your kid simply can’t settle for less than Disney+. Regularly paying for three or more costs far more than cable ever did. So the average person does what they can to cut costs.

Streamers Hiking Prices and Tightening Regulations

Over the last couple of years, most streamers have hiked their prices a couple of bucks. This has put more financial pressure on the subscribers already experiencing subscription fatigue. On top of that, Netflix recently created measures to prevent password sharing outside a subscriber’s household. This extremely unpopular move means that an account (even a family account) can no longer be shared among people who don’t physically live together. Once again, streamers are forcing subscribers to spend more money.

Content Deletions

Perhaps the most egregious of all, many streamers are pulling huge chunks of content off their platforms. Netflix is notorious for cancelling shows only one season after their release. This frustration is causing many people to opt out of streaming altogether. Worse than that is streamers like Disney+ deleting swathes of completed TV shows and classic films that only exist online. Many people see piracy of such content as historical preservation of art which would otherwise be completely erased from living memory.

So, what Are Streamers Doing About It?

While the ethical concerns of piracy can be debated, the fact is that the movie industry loses between $40 and $97.1 billion every year from digital piracy. And, of course, streamers want their cut. A few measures are being taken to curb movie piracy. As anyone who uses Netflix knows, you can’t screenshot or screen record any image on the Netflix app. This is a measure applied by quite a few streaming services. Platforms can also embed invisible digital watermarks in their content which helps to identify whether duplicate content has been stolen. Website blocking is used to limit access to the most notorious TV and movie piracy sites. But despite preventative methods and thousands of take-down notices issued to pirates, the issue persists.

All in All,

Streaming has changed the landscape of movie consumption by making TV and film accessible to thousands of more people. But the increased access to the internet coupled with the pitfalls of streaming has also opened the floodgates to rampant movie piracy. What’s your take?

Also Read: The New Hollywood: Streaming Giants

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post How the Streaming Revolution Has Fuelled Movie Piracy appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Supposedly the final words of Alexander the Great when asked who should inherit his empire were “to the strongest” and in a succession battle that has been as fierce as the heirs of Alexander fighting (albeit with fewer people being trampled by elephants despite how much they deserved it, looking at you Hugo) HBO drama Succession has come to an end. Over four seasons we have watched Jesse Armstrong’s superb drama play out, with the characters fighting to be the successor to Logan Roy and control his vast business empire. So who is the strongest…or as Logan Roy might put it, who is the killer? In this final season, Logan died and a brief union of three of his children Kendall, Shiv and Roman saw the two brothers elevated to co-CEO with Shiv a supposed equal but unofficial partner. However, the company was being sold to tech billionaire and possible sociopath LuKas Matsson, if they wanted to actually run this company they would need to halt the deal. Eventually, it came down to Kendall and Roman versus Shiv and Matsson.

What Happened?

As Shiv’s plan to have Matsson make her CEO collapsed the three siblings agreed to support Kendall as sole CEO as the only alternative. And then in the board meeting, Shiv changed her mind and supported the sale, Mattson bought it, and her estranged husband Tom was installed as CEO, but very much Matsson’s puppet.

Conference Room Conversations

The finale was a fitting end for the show, the company left family control and Logan’s three children (as usual his eldest son Connor is forgotten) are at odds, possibly hating each other whilst possibly still loving each other. As Shiv delayed her vote the three siblings went into one of the many glass conference rooms; still in sight of and audible to everyone. With this episode and the last one (Logan’s funeral), we saw just how broken both Kendall and Roman are.

Roman

After building himself for what he imagined his effective crowning, Roman crumbled into tears and panicked sobbing as he tried to give a speech at his father’s funeral and while dealing with powerful emotions is entirely normal and understandable in this situation it didn’t impress some of his allies. More telling to his damage was that his only way to deal with this was to head out into the masses of protestors on the streets of New York, provoking them to attack him, which they did. Roman vanished and actually sought comfort from his mother Lady Caroline, the same woman who had walked around Shiv’s wedding and asked how long they thought the wedding would last and when Kendall was on the edge of a breakdown and asked for help she fled the home. Roman begrudgingly agreed to support Kendall as CEO, clearly heartbroken that it wasn’t him and moments before the board meeting he broke down into tears, hugging Kendall tightly, both brothers giving off equal feelings of love and contemplating whether they could murder the other.

Kendall

In the conference room, Kendall quickly comes apart, screaming about logic and Shiv’s decision making no sense, roaring at one point that he was the eldest boy and so he deserves the multi-billion dollar business empire. Worse yet the emotionally devastating end of season 3 saw Kendall confess his role in the death of a waiter in a driving accident to Roman and Shiv and their various rivalries were forgotten while they comforted him. When this is brought up Kendall quickly says he had made the story up (he didn’t, it was completely true) and so that shouldn’t stop him; completely destroying one of the precious few moments in the show of genuine sibling care. This breakout discussion descends into violence as Kendall and Roman come to blows while Shiv goes to cast her vote.

In Kendall’s conference room pitch to Shiv he declares that he is “a cog built for one machine” meaning CEO of the company and without it he has nothing. It’s worth bearing in mind that Kendall has two children and will continue to be exceptionally and ridiculously rich and at previous points Kendall has mused about stepping away from the company to live his own life.

In an earlier scene in the finale when trying to work out which of the three of them should be CEO they each give examples of when their father had promised them the job. All three of them at various times had been lined up to be the successor…or had they? A recurring theme in the show is that Logan clearly couldn’t stand his children to have their own power or threaten his pre-eminence. Considering Kendall says that their father promised it to him when was seven (one wonders what insightful opinions this little boy had that convinced Logan he was suitable) it’s entirely possible Logan wasn’t always acting in good faith with these declarations.

Shiv (and to a lesser extent Tom)

At the beginning of the finale, Shiv was working on securing the sale of the company and being named CEO by Matsson and then when it turned out the man who literally confessed to sending bricks made of his own blood to one of his employees he had a relationship with wasn’t completely dependable, teamed up with her brothers to stop the sale. Quite what drove her change of mind is debatable – was she tired of the fighting and bile and pain that being part of this company (and family) had brought her? Was it because as she said in the show she loved Kendall but couldn’t stomach him? Was it spite that it wasn’t her getting the job? Right now, and this may well change, my opinion is a mix of she thought Kendall would be a disaster and it wasn’t her. Roman would be a different disaster, and she would have been a different disaster again, but had it been her to run the company she would have risked that disaster. We learned that it would be Tom, her estranged husband, who would become CEO if Matsson bought the company and while this was the plan Shiv and Tom had originally crafted it wasn’t meant to be like this. The fact that Shiv is pregnant with Tom’s child is perhaps a complicating factor in this decision, but despite one of the final shots of the episode being Shiv and Tom awkwardly half-holding hands, it’s virtually impossible to imagine the two of them building a happy family life.

Already the show is being lauded as one of the greatest television shows of all time with a finale worthy of that status. Personally, I think it best to give it some time before declaring something one of the greats but undoubtedly this show combined spectacular writing, directing and acting; a show so full of acting talent that it could bring in Oscar winners Adrien Brody and Holly Hunter as guest stars.

Throughout the show fans, critics and more speculated on who would and who should succeed Logan Roy, in fact, none of the characters did succeed him and none of them could. In fact, the outsider Lukas Mattson, a character only introduced at the end of season 3, most matches the criteria of Alexander the Great and Logan Roy. We were not watching a titanic succession battle for a business empire but a damaged family hurting each other.

Also Read: Iconic Scenes: Succession – “Boar On The Floor” & “Beach Scene”

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post The Final Successor: Dissecting the Epic Conclusion of HBO’s Succession appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Spoiler Warning – Massive spoilers for the first three seasons of Succession

Kendall Roy

The first season starts with Kendall being the designated successor to Logan, a bit of a business-bro but has spent years learning how to run the company and is the only one of the Roy children who seems capable of getting into figures, legal issues etc. Of course, Kendall has led two, maybe three, revolts against his father, on top of that Kendall has severe addiction and mental health issues. And, biggest of all, was involved in the death of a waiter in a car accident where he left the scene and hid his involvement.

Chances of winning – 50%

Capable of doing the job – 60%

Shiv Roy

Shiv Roy seemed to be Logan’s choice in Season 2, despite not working in the company and her liberal politics clashing with a lot of the company’s business interests. Shiv has essentially zero experience in business, previously working in politics. Shiv is clearly intelligent and at times can play the game very well – setting up a rival to take the fall for a scandal, convincing a witness to company crimes to back down. The negatives for Shiv are that she has no experience and angered her father, and like Kendall, perhaps lacks the killer instinct that Logan demands.

Chances of winning – 40%

Capable of doing the job – 50%

Roman Roy

By his own admission, Roman doesn’t get the business side of the business, seemingly with little time for the boring technicalities and instead seeing his role as some sort of CEO rock star, leaning on the far more experienced Gerri Kellman for that side of things. Roman is certainly charismatic and at one point is taken hostage in Turkey but manages to negotiate a huge deal which is pretty impressive. However, Roman is impulsive and rash, and seems unable to stop himself from saying – and doing – hugely offensive things. There is a petty cruelty to Roman not seen too much in the other siblings. In Season 3 when Roman seems in the ascendance his awfulness just gets more and more awful. Roman ended Season 3 mistaking sending a dick pic to his father – meant for Gerri – in the middle of an important meeting, which sums up Roman’s liabilities quite well.

Chance of winning – 70%,

Capable of doing the job – 20%

Chance of destroying the company in a firestorm of scandal – 90%

Connor Roy

Oh Connor, the eldest of Logan’s children and until the last few years was clear in his disinterest in the company. Shiv has zero business experience but Connor has zero experience. Connor decided in Season 1 to run for President, a truly terrible idea and has persisted with this delusion, believing himself to be some outsider candidate with a chance. It’s bizarre. Connor has also shown resentment at how he is left out of the company and family decisions, Kendall is often referred to as the first-born, despite Connor actually being the first-born. Connor has little to recommend him in way of business or intelligence but is perhaps the nicest of the siblings (whilst still having huge problems), he often tries to calm the others nastiness, advocating for civility, and seems to have genuine affection for his younger siblings.

Chance of winning – 5%,

Capable of doing the job – 25% – only scores higher than Roman as if Connor simply sat in a dark room doing nothing he might last longer than Roman.

Tom Wambsgams

Arguably the most fascinating character of the bunch – Tom is Shiv’s husband and there was a stated plan that Shiv would pursue politics and help push Tom into being the successor to Logan, not in the family, but married to the family. Tom has run various parts of the Roy business empire and was disliked by just about everyone but really made a leap forward for the prize in Season 3. Very early in the show a scandal was brewing in the cruise division and Tom helped destroy evidence that would harm the company as such in Season 3 it seemed likely he would go to prison. With this in mind, Tom offered to be the person who could be sacrificed to appease public opinion and the authorities, earning Logan’s gratitude. And of course in the Season 3 finale when Kendall, Roman and Shiv gang up against their father Tom betrays his wife and informs Logan of the plan. With Logan’s children seriously out of favour and Tom already one of the most senior people in the company it is perhaps within Tom’s grasp.

Chance of winning – 65%

Capable of doing the job – 65%

Greg Hirsch

Greg – Greg is a cousin of the main siblings, his grandfather being Logan’s brother, and shows up in episode 1 looking for a job, and somehow he gets it, essentially being Tom’s assistant. Greg clearly grew up wealth off but not in the ridiculous luxury of the Roys and is mocked by all of them. The bizarre relationship with Tom starts with Tom recognising someone with less status and so bullies him but at some point a genuine and strong – if conditional – friendship develops. On paper Greg has nothing going for him – little experience, a distant family connection that is also a liability (given Logan hates his brother) and no particular skills. But…Greg has went from being unemployed to someone a position at the company in a couple of years.

Chance of winning – 5%

Capable of doing the job – either 5% or 95%, is he a genius or an idiot?

The Winner…

So who to pick? In this exercise, Tom and Roman were rated the highest, but Roman is very much the high-risk could be brilliant but could also cause a rocket to explode (which he did in Season 1). Tom is the safer choice and that is who might be the most logical candidate. But. But there is Greg…who is a constant surprise.

Also Read: Iconic Scenes: Succession – “Boar On The Floor” & “Beach Scene”

Also Read: Succession: Season 3 – Where Are We Now?

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Succession (Final Season): Who Will Win? appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Most Complicated Spoiler Warning Ever: Content from various books in the A Song Of Ice and Fire series will be discussed, including Fire and Blood, and differences in the books and the tv show will be discussed but mostly around the setup of the story.

The Source Material

GoT is based on the still unfinished A Song of Ice and Fire book series by George RR Martin – the first book being A Game of Thrones from which the tv show took it’s name. HotD is based largely on the book Fire and Blood, a “history” of the Targaryen Family (also written by Martin) as well as other facts established in the book series.

The Premise

HotD is based on an event alluded to much in ASOIAF and Fire and Blood – The Dance of the Dragons, a civil war fought between rival heirs to the Iron Throne. King Viserys I’s eldest child is Rhaenyra and expecting resistance to a ruling queen he has the major lords swear to follow his daughter. On the King’s death though many would still rather the King’s son, Aegon (and half-brother to Rhaenyra) take the throne. The disagreement turns violent and soon it is all out war, splitting both Westeros and the Targaryen family. As the Targaryens have plentiful dragons to use in this war it was given the name The Dance of the Dragons (one of the reasons dragons have died out in GoT is many died in this war).

The tv show has changed a few details, most importantly Rhaenyra’s challenger is not her half-brother but her uncle – Daemon. This would presumably be as Aegon was little more than a child and an older – and far more dangerous – challenger could be a more satisfying opponent. Or it could be that as far as HotD is concerned the conflict between Daemon and Rhaenyra is only the first part of this war.

HotD shows events over several decades, looking through IMDb there are a number of actors who play some characters, with child actors standing in for the appropriate stage in life. Indeed it has been said the first season covers nearly thirty years, from the first inkling of a problem to the war itself.

Who’s Who?

Game of Thrones was already a nightmare of characters, families and factions and this is perhaps even more complicated but here is a quick guide to the major characters.

Viserys I – Paddy Considine – the ruler of the Seven Kingdoms at the start of the show and apparently a more tragic character than the one in the books, who is pleasant and generous and the reign was one of peace and prosperity. It is his decision to break with precedence and name his daughter as heir that leads to civil war.

Rhaenyra Targaryen – Emma D’arcy – the first-born child of King Viserys who clearly sees the throne as her birth-right, even though there has never been a queen-regnant (a queen who is the ruler, as opposed to a queen consort, the wife of the ruler. Queen Elizabeth II is queen-regnant).

Daemon Targaryen – Matt Smith – King Viserys’ younger brother and judging from the trailer was the king’s presumed heir until recent events stirred things up. Daemon is a respected warrior and dragon-rider, and of course, is a man. Confusingly in the books, Daemon Targaryen is Rhaenyra’s husband (as well as uncle, yes, the Targaryens are weird) and is one of Rhaenyra’s strongest supporters.

Other important characters – Alicent Hightower – Olivia Cooke – Queen and wife of King Viserys, in the books Alicent was the mother of Aegon, the rival to Rhaenyra, but as in this version it is Daemon who is the rival. Her son, Aegon, seemingly has been cast but has thrown my faction understanding into a muddle as if there is a son then Daemon would be completely cut out of the succession – if you didn’t want a female heir in Rhaenyra you’d have a male heir in Aegon.

Lord Corlys Velaryon – Steve Toussaint – the Velaryons are one of the Targaryen’s closest allies, Corlys is a famed seafarer and adventurer and one of the wealthiest people in Westeros and is married to a Targaryen princess. Also a member of the Small Council (the closest advisors to the king) he will have a lot of sway. In the books he became Hand of the King to Rhaenyra but it is unclear what side he is taking, although in one trailer he says, “The King has an heir, Daemon Targaryen.”

Rhaenys Velaryon – Eve Best – a character always described in the books as Rhaenys Targaryen even after she marries Corlys, this change of name is significant, perhaps indicating this character’s loyalty to her new family and not the Targaryens. Interestingly in the books Rhaenys found herself in a similar position where – if gender were ignored – she would have become queen but was passed over for a male relative.

Ser Otto Hightower – Rhys Ifans – not only is Otto the Hand to the King of Viserys but his daughter is Alicent – Viserys’ second wife. The trailer has Ser Otto bring the issue of succession to Viserys, stressing the importance of having a clear successor. In the books Otto supported Aegon (his grandson) but as this struggle is different who will he support?

So as we travel to Westeros once again for more plotting, betrayal and dragons hopefully you’ll not have to ask quite so often – “who are they again?”

Also Read: Iconic Scenes: Game of Thrones – “The Mountain & The Viper” & “Chaos Isn’t A Pit…”

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post House of The Dragon: A Guide To What’s Going On appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

As the show starts tensions are running high in the city. The Department of Justice has a team of lawyers working in the city in response to the killing of Freddie Gray, a black man who died in police custody on his way to a police station. Following this there were trials of police officers, protests, clashes between police and protestors. An early scene in the show sees several officers trying to arrest people and being filmed by the crowd, eventually the officers just walking away. It seemed many officers were unwilling to get in situations where they could be accused of police brutality.

After some unusual discoveries in a case involving drug dealers, it becomes apparent to some of the city’s police officers that something very odd, and probably criminal, is going on with the Gun Trace Task Force, and they become the target of an investigation.

The Creators

David Simon and George Pelecanos have worked together on numerous tv shows, with Simon being the creator of The Wire and Pelecanos being a producer and writer on it. They both went on to make Treme and The Deuce and have a stellar reputation for intelligent, complex, character-driven tv shows.

Sidenote – David Simon’s Twitter is spectacular. You might think the hugely successful creator of a number of tv shows wouldn’t get in vicious social media knife fights with any random person with eight followers and you’d be wrong.

The Cast

Like The Wire, the show has a very big cast who often fall into different sides: the Gun Trace Task Force, the Baltimore police authorities, the federal investigators conducting a thorough review of the police force, the local political authorities. It’s impossible to get into the entire roster of actors in this article but the main stars are Jon Bernthal playing Wayne Jenkins, head of the Gun Trace Task Force and Wunmi Mosaku as lawyer Nicole Steele. Whilst Jenkins is a real character, Steele is not, and is more an amalgamation of various civil rights lawyers involved in the case. Bernthal is sensational as always – the first episode starts with a blistering lecture/speech by Jenkins on police brutality to other officers, explaining how brutality will cause problems getting convictions, will mean no one in the community will talk to you and mean you get taken off the streets (whilst also insisting on the importance of fighting to keep the streets and not mentioning that police brutality is illegal and wrong).

Mosaku is a lawyer from the Department of Justice, fighting a battle so uphill it’s almost vertical, her working day seems to an endless procession of people telling her terrible things. Mosaku is very good as person who knows the odds of them actually being able to significantly change things are very bad but she will always keep fighting.

The Show

Like all of the shows David Simon has worked on there is a lot going on and the viewer has to work hard to keep up with it. At times you will be lost. Shows like Game of Thrones do a good job of introducing various factions and the background information you need. We Own This City intentionally doesn’t do that, you watch and have to discover, and at some point something mentioned two episodes ago will suddenly make sense.

The show has all the trademarks of a first-rate drama and anyone wanting to see the very best television has to offer should watch We Own This City.

Also Read: Why You Should Be Watching Yellowjackets

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Why You Should Be Watching “We Own This City” appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

What’s Going On?

The White Lotus is a luxury hotel in Hawaii. It has just about everything a person could want for a fantastic holiday, where your every whim will be catered for by the staff. In one of the first scenes the manager, Armond, explains staff should be blandly anonymous yet always there. The show focuses on three sets of guests: the Mossbacher Family; newlyweds, Shane and Rachel; Tanya, a woman in deep grief for the passing of her mother; as well as Armond and the resort’s spa manager, Belinda. It’s hard to get into too much more of a plot as there is a big event revealed at the beginning of the show and, well, it’s all about the relationships between these people.

The Mossbacher Family

The Mossbacher Family consist of mother Nicole (Connie Britton), father Mark (Steve Zahn), son Quinn, daughter Olivia and her friend Paula. Nicole is a very successful executive and this accounts for the family wealth, she makes far more than Mark and this is an issue. Olivia and Paula are college students and are extremely engaged in political causes but actually quite unpleasant to people they meet. Quinn is seemingly addicted to his devices and lets himself be pushed around by his older sister, in so much that he ends up sleeping on the beach. For Mark, a recent health scare leads to learning a family secret that completely rocks him leading to him making some very poor choices.

The Pattons

Newly wed couple Rachel and Shane Patton are also very wealthy and on the first leg of their honeymoon. Shane is the son of very rich parents and an exceedingly entitled person, Rachel is a more laid-back person from a far less wealthy family. They got married very early in their relationship and clearly, there are some issues that need to be addressed. Shane is constantly demanding from everyone and everything, seemingly unable to engage at all with Rachel’s feelings or inner life in a meaningful way. Whereas Shane feels insulted by anything that isn’t perfect Rachel implores him to simply enjoy the wonderful things they have, even if not exactly what they ordered.

Tanya McQuoid & Belinda Lindsey

Tanya is liable to steal every scene she is in, a person with big emotions that are very close to the surface. Holidaying alone and still in grief from a family death Tanya bounces from person to person, sharing too much and unsettling them. A session with the spa resort manager Belinda who seemingly offers not just a massage but is someone who listens to Tanya (which she desperately needs), leads to an instant and curious obsession. It becomes quickly clear that Tanya latches onto people, she confesses that she forms very quick, intense and ill-advised relationships with men but seems to do this with everyone. Belinda is an exceedingly kind person which when coupled with the over-the-top deference and service leads to many people leaning on her for support.

Armond

Resort manager Armond at first seems a perfect host combining flawless politeness with eagerness to solve any and all problems. However, an incident in the first episode leads to him questioning his priorities and the rivalry that grows between Armond and Shane Patton around a potential mistake pushes at Armond’s tolerances.

Paula

While part of the Mossbacher party Paula is most definitely separate. She is a close friend to Olivia but it is a friendship with a lot of baggage. Paula’s stay is being paid for by the Mossbacher family, whatever her family situation is, it does not compare to the Mossbacher’s. Paula is also a person of colour and the issues of white privilege, cultural appropriation and colonization are near constants in the show – with the hotel on a Hawaiian island there are displays of traditional Hawaiian culture that many find uncomfortable.

The show is very tense, very funny and very poignant. It’s hard to watch and not think of your own relationships and your own behaviour. For example, Shane, the entitled rich man, clearly is very demanding and expects everything to be perfect, he wants the best, not because it is more comfortable or higher quality but because having the best is a status requirement. When he can’t get exactly what he wants immediately this causes massive problems for him. Annoyingly though, at times he has a genuine grievance. All of the guests (apart from Paula) are very wealthy and their lack of understanding of what things can be like for people without that wealth is infuriating. They throw around life-changing offers of money, unaware of the significance of what they’re doing, and what will happen if they change their minds.

There are only seven episodes and each episode is around an hour long and this makes White Lotus a great show you can finish in a weekend. The relatively short time scale of the programme, it covers the holiday people are having and so is only a matter of days, makes watching it quickly all the more tempting.

Also Read: New Research Shows 70% of International Audiences View British film and TV As High-Quality

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Why You Should Be Watching The White Lotus appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

If you, like me, have been watching the second season of Euphoria, then you’ll know what it means to feel stressed. The opening episode alone featured a girl hanging her head out the window of a truck while the boy driving hit up to 90 mph, and later that same girl hid in a bathtub to avoid being caught having an affair (that second one was tenser than it sounds, I promise!). The premiere ended on a distinctly violent note, too, in which the show’s villain, if one can talk about Euphoria in such binary terms, was beaten to a pulp by the local drug dealer. Yet none of that compares to episode five, in which Rue (played exquisitely by Zendaya) goes on the run after refusing rehab, and, honestly, it’s still too soon to talk about it even two weeks later. But, in all the chaos, the show is often funny. A scene in a recent episode in which a large number of the female cast discuss the musical Oklahoma! in the school bathroom is a brilliant piece of comic writing. 

Amongst all this tension and humour, though, the show has consistently been a lightning rod for discussion by those who say they get the show and those who don’t. Its first season was measured by how many dicks were on screen (was it 30 or 80?), and it was dogged by a moralistic discussion of how much sex was too much. Was it appropriate to show teen characters, albeit those being played by adults, taking drugs and having sex? This was mixed up in the endless debate surrounding whether shows like Euphoria glamorise sex and drug use or condemn them, as if each piece of art needs to have a clear moral position on every issue it chooses to engage with. 

The show’s second season, currently airing on Now TV in the UK, has been chiefly used as a litmus test for coolness. If you say you don’t understand the show, you’re old and out of touch (either that or you admit to your own “uncool” teenage years). Moreover, people have questioned whether the show is any good when you peel back its shocking parts. Recently, various writers have levelled accusations of valuing style over substance, with Dazed calling the show a walking meme and The Guardian proclaiming season two contains “far too much nudity, sex and violence.” Still, the show has repeatedly dominated online conversation each week and has seen its viewing figures double since it premiered in 2019. Clearly, something appeals to people, and surely that can’t all be smoke and mirrors? 

I have found, perhaps surprisingly given its success, that the show’s second season reminds me of  John Cassavetes’ deeply depressing 1974 independent masterpiece about a woman’s declining mental state, A Woman Under the Influence. Not in its style – Cassavetes always favoured realism, and his films are brutal in their commitment to the grimness of reality – but in its central performance. It is certainly not light praise to compare Zendaya’s turn as Rue Bennett, a teenage drug addict, to that of Gena Rowland’s as Mabel, the latter a performance which crops up often in discussions of the greatest ever captured on film. Yet there is something to be said for the sheer panic of them; the way both actresses relinquish themselves totally to their respective roles.

Watching the first ten minutes of episode five, when Rue discovers her mother has flushed her stash, I saw shades of the scene in which Mabel’s family try to convince her to go to the hospital. Mabel’s demeanour moves from fear to denial to anger. When the doctor shows up, she makes nervous jokes, becoming increasingly uneasy as the inevitable dawns on her.  It is a heart-breaking scene, one that feels painful to watch—much like those opening ten minutes of episode five were, with Rue spiralling between severe anger, terror, and regret. 

A Woman Under the Influence was initially written as a play, but Rowlands told her husband, Cassavetes, she could not do the role eight times a week. It would be too demanding and too draining. Her performance earned her an Oscar nomination although, shockingly, she did not win, a decision that looks even more bizarre in hindsight. Zendaya has already won an Emmy for her role on Euphoria, and rightly so, but just as Rowlands found the idea of performing as Mabel, again and again, to be impossible, it’s a wonder Zendaya is able to manage the long shoots the show demands. Even the actress herself took to social media before season two started and told fans that it would not be an easy ride. Of course, the vehicle is different. A Woman Under the Influence was made with very little money, with Cassavetes literally stealing electricity and casting his own family in most of the roles. By contrast, Euphoria is a buzzy and expensive show funded by HBO. It routinely employs complex camera tricks, dream sequences, and complex deconstructions of its artifice, but the whole show feels rooted around Zendaya. Like Rowlands before her, Zendaya is carrying the weight of something on her back. Still, both actresses handle it with total grace and leave their audience in awe. I find myself, each week, texting my friends with the same simple worlds: Zendaya really is the best actress of her generation.

Also Read: Did High-End TV Replace The Mid-Budget Indie Film?

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post How Film Changed Me: On Euphoria appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Boar On The Floor

This is one of the most intense and uncomfortable things I have ever watched. At a retreat comprising of the Roy family and the top people in Waystar RoyCo, Logan is determined to find out if there is a traitor in the group and to demonstrate his authority. Logan picks out three potential traitors – Karl, CFO of the company; Tom, his son-in-law; and Greg, his brother’s grandson and they play the “game” Boar on the Floor. What follows could be a scene from Lord of the Flies or a documentary on a sinister cult as they break people.

Logan whips up the non-boars into chants and accusations, whilst ritual humiliation is doled out to the “boars”. It is awful to see those who could have been picked but weren’t take gleeful enjoyment out of the game and only a few of the older, more seasoned professionals present seem troubled. No one objects. This is Logan, a man known for his cruelty and ruthlessness, in his most frightening and upsetting. It’s hard to tell whether this is Logan genuinely blind with fury lashing out or this is a more calculated display of power and I’m not sure which is scarier. We see Logan’s fixer Colin quickly ushering out the wait staff and Kendall stop his brother Roman filming the display, both aware that this is not something where you want to have witnesses. Logan flicks between his usual shouting and bullying behaviour to, whenever anyone questions what is going on, saying it’s just a fun game.

Notably, it is not Logan’s children, Kendall and Roman, who are singled out, despite Kendall already launching one coup against his father and Roman having suspicious phone calls and are as likely traitors as anyone else. This perhaps suggests it was never about finding the traitor but simply exerting authority by humiliating people. The other child in the picture of taking over, Shiv, is not present and as Tom is her husband you would hope she would object to this.

Beach Scene

In the final episode of the second season, we see a heartbreaking scene between Shiv and Tom. The two characters married at the end of the first season and the second season has been hard on their relationship (see Boar on the Floor). It is one of the most honest conversations the two ever have, or at least Tom’s part of it is.

Many people, including me, thought at the beginning of the show Tom was only with Shiv for the money and power. So to hear Tom actually complain, to share how he’s been hurt by Shiv (and her family) is almost a surprise, someone only out for money would not do this. Tom delivers one of the most heartbreaking lines of the entire show, in fairness a show not known for dealing with romantic heartbreak or romantic happiness, “I just, uh, I wonder if, I wonder if the sad I’d be without you would be less than the sad I get from being with you.” It is hard to feel too sorry for Tom, or indeed most of the characters, as he’s done terrible things but it is an incredibly rare moment of vulnerability. The battle to control the multi-billion dollar business empire relies on constant lies and schemes to get power and it’s sad that Shiv and Tom’s relationship works in a similar way. In an earlier episode, Logan tells Shiv she purposefully married a man who was not her equal so she would never feel threatened by him, the only way she could trust a husband was to have one she would always have far more power then. Tom’s declaration of his unhappiness and the potential end of their relationship is probably not what Shiv had in mind.

While Shiv was not present for Boar on the Floor she was present for the discussion about who should be the “blood sacrifice” needed in the scandal engulfing Waystar RoyCo and she barely objected when Tom was put forward. Shiv’s argument that if Logan thought she was just sticking up for her husband out of loyalty that would have been worse for Tom, but I think that’s what he really wanted.

Succession can be incredibly funny and anyone looking for comedy I’d suggest these scenes – Tom and Greg testifying before congress, any scene concerning Connor’s political ambitions (Connor being the eldest of Logan’s children but showed no interest in running the business), Kendall’s rap tribute to his father, the game of Good Tweet Bad Tweet.

Also Read: Five Reasons To Watch Succession

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Iconic Scenes: Succession – “Boar On The Floor” & “Beach Scene” appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

HBO hit Succession is about to return for its third season. Succession is the story of the Roy family – billionaire media-cruise ship-theme park magnates who are also amongst the most despicable people you will ever see on television. It’s hard to work out who is worst – is it Logan Roy, the patriarch and man responsible for their great wealth who started a version of Fox News and blackmails his children? Is it Roman “can’t even sit on a chair properly” Roy, the youngest son who in the first episode tears a cheque up in front of a child for fun? What about Tom Wambsgam – partner to Logan’s daughter Shiv Roy – who is an insufferable suck-up to every person of higher status to him and unrelentingly horrible to anyone of perceived lower status? We’ve had two seasons of billionaire excess, horrific scandals and the occasional hostage situation, how will the third season do?

Logan Vs Kendall

Season 2 ended with Kendall Roy essentially declaring war on his father Logan. Kendall was set up as the fall guy for the most recent scandal engulfing the company but instead chose to blame his father for everything – on live television. There is a theme in Succession that nearly everyone thinks they’re some sort of business genius, despite having done nothing to justify that, with the exception of Logan Roy. Kendall sees himself as the rightful successor to his father but clearly is not in the same league in terms of intelligence or ruthlessness. Kendall has two things going for him – he is decades younger (the show starts with Logan having a stroke, bringing the question of succession into sharp focus) and pretty much the whole world hates Logan Roy.

The Heir Apparent

With Kendall being the eldest son (not including the ridiculous Connor as well…he’s Connor, whose disinterest in the company at first is encouraging but that doesn’t last long) and the child who has really committed himself to the company he assumed he would take Logan’s place, but throughout season two it was his sister Shiv who seemed Logan’s favourite for taking over. Shiv is the supposedly “liberal” member of the family and briefly worked for a Bernie Sanders type politician but caused a major public transit problem because of the number of principles, people and marriages she has thrown under various buses to get this position. Roman has made progress with foreign billionaires who, to borrow a phrase from Red Dwarf, are “a bit dodgy” as well as allying himself with one of Logan’s top people, Gerri. Roman and Gerri are also engaged in an atypical romantic relationship which I have tried and failed to describe in a Safe For Work way and as such will leave to your own google searches. Tom has occasionally been in the picture (at least in his own mind) as a way for Shiv to effectively run the company but keep her other work.

Cousin Greg

Oh Cousin Greg, you innocent, guileless, easily corruptible fool. A character of such tragic proportions Hamlet himself would weep at the mess Cousin Greg has made of the situation. Greg is a cousin, grandson of Logan’s brother, and enters the show in Episode 1 after losing a job at one of their many companies. A man who originally had nothing more than enough money to get by…for a rich person, but certainly no dreams of billions has become an integral part of the show and the family business. Utterly unsuited for the backstabbing world of Roy power struggles Greg is constantly in way over his head, mocked and belittled by everyone. He is one of the very few people who ever expressed any moral doubts, feeling very unhappy at working at the news division as he clearly sees them as borderline evil but is quickly beaten down by Tom. By the end of Season 2 while still rather incompetent Greg is very much part of their awful world.

Is Succession A Classic already?

I was hooked on Succession from the first episode. A mix of the drama of billion-dollar companies and the drama of family relationships mixed perfectly into an unsettling and perhaps all too realistic portrayal of what such companies ran by families are like. A range of brilliant, if unpleasant, characters all awful in their own unique ways. The show has fantastic dialogue – and I’m not just talking about the swearing which is comparable to The Thick Of It for inventiveness and brutality (which is not surprising as the show’s creator is Jesse Armstrong, a writer for The Thick Of It). There are scenes burned into my mind because of their brilliance: from the infamous Boar on the Floor scene of genuinely insane horror, to the testifying before congress of Tom and Cousin Greg, to when Roman buys the wrong Scottish football club as a gift to his father. There is perhaps no greater signifier of its quality in that in the daily discussion of what should we watch on tv in our home if there is a new episode of Succession, it’s a very short debate. In terms of declaring something a classic I like to wait a few years to get a little perspective but Succession is definitely worthy of consideration.

Also Read: Did High-End TV Replace The Mid-Budget Indie Film?

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Succession: Season 3 – Where Are We Now? appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

If you aren’t entirely sure what AfroFuturism is, there’s a reason for that: There isn’t a lot of it. And it casts a wide net. It includes the music of performers like Jimi Hendrix, George Clinton, Afrika Bambaataa, even more modern artists like Erykah Badu, Outkast, and Beyonce.

Out of these many branches, its deepest roots lie in literature. Novels like Rose Water (Tade Thompson), set in a Nigerian settlement on the edge of an alien biodome, The Unkindness of Ghosts (Rivers Solomon), set on a segregated spaceship carrying the last of humanity, and the better known Kindred (Octavia Butler), the story of a modern woman dropped into the time of Black slavery, forced to relive it, with no idea how to escape.

As for film, everyone points to Marvel’s Black Panther as the most popular example. I disagree. Although it technically encapsulates the tenets of AfroFuturism: Black characters, in a technologically advanced African country, that exhibits magic in a SciFi world, I contend that it’s still a Marvel movie. Which constrains the story to the “White gaze”.

A better example would be Brother from Another Planet, the 1984 film by writer/director John Sayles, starring Joe Morton (Justice League). Although not a Black director, the film is so intrinsically from the Black point of view, you’d never know it. It follows the experience of an alien (Joe Morton) who finds himself in Harlem, New York. We later find he is being chased by interplanetary law enforcers– Who happen to be the White versions of the Men in Black. I’d even go so far as to say that Men in Black was loosely based on this film.

Another great example is Sleight, written/directed in 2016 by J.D. Dillard, starring Jacob Latimore (‘The Chi’). This film would be easy to miss because its description on Netflix is as follows:

“Struggling to raise his little sister on his own, a young street magician turns to drug dealing, unaware of how ruthless his supplier can be.”

Does that in anyway sound like a movie that has SciFi or is afro-futuristic in nature? Here’s my description:

“A scientific savant has to resort to dealing drugs after he and his sister are orphaned. When he gets in over his head, he and his mentor build a machine that will get him out of trouble… And change the power structure of his world.”

Neither of the aforementioned films feel like fantasy; They just tell their stories as if the world we live in is a world where these things exist. Both completely grounded in Black culture, or at least, American Black culture.

But I think the true destiny of Afro-Futurism is in television. 2020 birthed several Afrocentric shows, all taking racial issues by the horns. For instance, HBO’s ‘Lovecraft Country’, written by Misha Green, produced by Jordan Peele (Get Out) and co-starring Jonathan Majors (Da 5 Bloods), Jurnee Smollett (Birds of Prey), and Wunmi Mosaku (Luther). Based on the 2016 novel by Matt Ruff, which in turn was based on the collective works of author H.P. Lovecraft, the series pairs outrageous aspects of magic, science, and mysticism with the equally outrageous environment of the American Jim Crow era.

Second on the list is another HBO series, Watchmen. Though not solely told as a Black story, Watchmen in anchored by them. Written/produced by Damon Lindelof, and starring Regina King (‘Ray’), the show is based on the 2009 film also entitled ‘Watchmen’, which itself was based on the 1986 graphic novel of the same name. The show is centred around the Tulsa Massacre of 1921 and follows the exploits of self-appointed gods and heroes while wrestling with the likes of crime, betrayal, clones, and mind control.

With all this in mind, I think Mark Dery’s original question is still valid: Why aren’t there more Black voices in AfroFuturism? Many of the projects I mention have their origins in White America. But my theory and my answer to his question is this: HOPE. Many in the Black Community cannot stretch our imaginations far enough away from the horrors of our realities to see a future at all. To quote a few lines from Lin-Manuel Miranda’s ‘Hamilton’:

“I never thought I’d live past twenty. Where I come from, some get half as many. Ask anybody why we livin’ fast, and we laugh, reach for a flask… We have to make this moment last.”

But, we’re finally starting to shake off the demoralization that racism has wrapped like a blanket around our shoulders. And many of us are opening our eyes to see, not just the pain of the past, but the power of the future. As we step into a literal Golden age for this genre, where our stories are told by us, for us, we’re breathing new air, and we are indeed going BLACK to the FUTURE.

Also Read: The Rise of Nigerian-British Filmmakers

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post BLACK to the Future: The Rise of AfroFuturism appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

I felt, with online dating, we now had to navigate specific hurdles; when (if ever) do you move from the app to swapping numbers? If you do it too soon, your contacts might look like mine, filled with various men I’ve never actually met saved alongside the app they came from (Dan (Grindr), Alex (Tinder), Max (Hinge) etc.) but, do it too late, and you risk looking uninterested, or unbothered about where things might be going. If you break through that barrier, another appears: when do you graduate from a purely online existence to “IRL”? Talk for too long, and you exhaust all topics of conversation until it ends in a drab fizzle. Do it too soon and you risk being stuck in a pub garden trying to reconcile the fact the thirty-two-year-old man in front of you “loves” rollercoasters. 

Navigating online chat has been a staple of the past decade; the how’s, when’s and why’s of it seeping into the shows we watched. In the first episode of Lena Dunham’s show GIRLS, which premiered in 2012, Marnie, a 23-year-old gallery assistant, discusses what she calls “the totem of chat”. The lowest form of communication with men “would be Facebook, followed by Gchat, then texting, then email, then phone. Face to face is, of course, ideal, but it’s not of this time.” She says this in response to Hannah, a wannabe writer recently cut off financially by her parents, who is complaining that she can’t read the boy she’s seeing. Sometimes he feels so present, and, at other times, he’s so absent she feels as though she “invented him”. 

Just as Dunham did with GIRLS, many shows in recent years have tried to explore the complexities of millennial life which, quite often, includes online dating. There’s Abbi, on Broad City, a Tinder-novice who doesn’t realise there is an option to swipe left, or Molly, on Insecure, desperately waiting to be let into “The League” – an elite invite-only dating app – because, she says, tinder is a “fuck app”. The spectre of online dating seems prevalent on these shows because it highlights that generational divide most precisely; this specific 21^st Century problem that millennials are forced to deal with. 

In fact, due to online dating, millennial comedies often claim romance is dead, at least in any traditional sense. Instead, these shows attempt to move away from a kind of Gen X idealism, for better or worse. What linked shows like Sex and the City, Girlfriends, Will and Grace, and Friends was their role as escapism, but now protagonists meet their love interests online or as sex buddies first instead of with grand meet-cutes or ten years of “will-they-won’t-they” storylines. Elsewhere, we see these characters wear the same clothes again and again, watch them live in rundown housing complexes or tiny apartments, and see them work at jobs they don’t love and/or aren’t fit for. Long gone are the days of large offices at Ralph Lauren, walk-in closets, and spacious “rent-controlled” apartments. Instead, they’ve been replaced with relying on parents for financial support and bad, but realistic, sex with men who won’t text back. 

Of course, this is only one kind of millennial experience and TV shows that aim to capture it often receive substantial criticism. It seemed an episode of GIRLS couldn’t pass without controversy, which was often, though not always, valid. Other shows were critiqued for their whiteness, their privilege, their appropriation of other cultures, their relation to the middle classes, and their representation of a singular millennial voice that doesn’t exist. The millennial experience is vast and diverse, categorised for most by significant gaps in privilege and generational wealth, and those in receipt of those things seem to be the ones who – whether they want to or not – get to define the experience for all. 

In its attempts to tackle what’s real rather than fantasy, millennial comedy has tried to latch onto the things that seem murky or depressing. It has thought it might, to varying degrees of success, turn those experiences into television. But, in 2021, there has been a move away from that, at least in a way that’s so defined. Most recently, Rose Matafeo’s Starstruck added a millennial spin on romantic comedy with a diverse cast of well-drawn and loveable characters. Shrill, which returns for its third and final season next month, critiques #Girlboss feminism, body shaming, and online troll culture. Both shows offer a sense of awareness; they seem to know how annoying shows like theirs can be to general audiences, and make strides to distinguish themselves. 

Does this mean that millennial comedy, after nearly a decade, is maturing into something else? Maybe. Influenced by years of controversy, think-pieces, accusations of navel-gazing and solipsism shows now know that any attempt at proclaiming universality will be met with resistance. You only have to look back to Dunham, whose character proclaimed, whilst high on Shrooms, she thought she might be “the voice of generation”. Whether or not an audience could tell they were satirical (they were!), those words have haunted Dunham for the better part of a decade, as a seeming example of the narcissism most (though not this writer) saw at the heart of GIRLS. Those words have been used as a stick to beat any millennial comedy that attempted to speak for all, and perhaps for good reason. After all, despite a few misses now and then, millennial comedies seem less interested in appealing to everyone. The voice of our generation is nowhere to be seen. 

Also Read: How Film Changed Me: On Teen Shows

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post How Film Changed Me: On Millennial Comedies appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

That, in its way, speaks to the conversations that have evolved around sexual assault. What’s in the detail? The small pieces of DNA that disappear so quickly, the intricate specifics of the assault, and how it all comes together in the mind. The memories of those who have been assaulted are so often questioned, the details of a story might change, and deniers latch onto that as a sign of deception. The fallibility of memory is weaponised against survivors, and the societal shame attached to it used to discourage those who might want to speak. 

In I May Destroy You, Coel plays Arabella, a young writer trying to finish her second book. As her deadline looms she pulls an all-nighter but, when inspiration doesn’t come, she heads out and meets up with some friends in a local bar called Ego Death. It is there, in that cunningly named bar, that Arabella’s life is altered when she is spiked and sexually assaulted. Over the next eleven episodes, Arabella reckons with the trauma of the assault and explores the boundaries of consent. When is it given? In what circumstances is it taken away? How can it be manipulated? In this journey, Coel leaves no stone unturned as the show explores ‘stealthing’, withholding information, rape, and so much more while delving into those commonly discussed ‘grey areas’, which was something that hit hard with me. 

In January of 2014, when I was living in University halls, I met up with a guy from Grindr. We were both back on campus earlier than anyone else, and we struck up a conversation about how quiet the city was without the throngs of students piling into clubs and bars. He suggested we meet up for a cigarette, for some in-person conversation to fend off that post-Christmas isolation. 

Outside my halls, we smoked together. He talked about his friends, most of whom were international students and weren’t due back in Liverpool for another few weeks. He hadn’t been able to afford to go home and so spent Christmas alone in his halls. He became emotional – talking about how hard it had been and how much he’d missed being with people. This was his first time living away from home and each day seemed more laborious than the last. 

He asked if I wanted to go back to his halls. They were a short walk away, and he needed to piss but didn’t want our conversation to end. I agreed under the understanding that I wasn’t going have sex with him – something that I felt I needed to say because we’d met on Grindr. He smiled, sweetly, and said he understood. 

In his room, I sat on his single bed while he pissed in the small en-suite bathroom. When he came out, he sat down next to me and said he was grateful that I’d met up with him, that he was feeling so much better. He put his hand on my leg and slowly drew it up my thigh, and I froze. It dawned on me that I’d taken him at his word and foolishly not told anyone where I was going. No one knew where I was and, from what he’d told me, his flatmates hadn’t yet returned. 

He reached over, took off my glasses, then leaned in to kiss me. I made no effort to receive his kiss, my face remained utterly still,  but that didn’t seem to bother him. He kept on pushing, slowly asking more of me – not with words but with his hands, rubbing against me, unbuttoning my jeans – and because I was afraid, I didn’t stop him. 

I knew that what had happened wasn’t within the realms of acceptability. As I got in the lift afterwards, I knew I had been taken advantage of. I questioned everything he’d told me. Was he really alone? Was it all a ruse? Had he actually spent Christmas surrounded by loving family members?  Mostly, I felt stupid and, when I played it back to myself, I saw how it would sound to others. I met a guy on Grindr and did sexual things with him in his bedroom. What did I think would happen? I felt, though I hadn’t seen it yet, I understood that deleted ‘you’. I May Destroy… my relationship with sex, men, and intimacy. 

I told a few friends what happened in the weeks that followed, but it was so hard to find the language to convey how it made me feel. Outside of that, I rarely talked about that night but watching I May Destroy You has allowed me to revisit it over and over. I’ve thought a lot about Terry, played expertly by Weruche Opia, who enters into a threesome that seems liberating only to realise it wasn’t quite as it seemed. She didn’t have all the information when she consented, and thus the consent she gave was rendered moot. I’ve thought a lot about Kwame, brilliantly brought to life by Paapa Essiedu, who is assaulted on a Grindr hook-up and feels immense shame about it – which is fuelled by the response of the police. I’ve considered Theo, a teenage girl abused in various ways, lying about an assault at the hands of another black male student. I’ve wondered about the ramifications of Zain’s exposure as a rapist and his scope for redemption. 

This is the power of Coel’s writing; she explores her subjects without judgement. She leaves room for a viewer to consider what is presented and for them to examine themselves in relation to it. The root of the show was her own experience with assault, and that truthfulness has extended to allow Coel to work from a place that is both radical and empathetic. 

I May Destroy You is bold television; in fact, it might be the boldest. I am already comfortable writing that is the best show of 2020, and there are still five months left. It has, for me and likely many others helped reframe and contextualise experiences in a way that only art can. It has also opened up space for discussion, forgiveness, and light. It also speaks to the broader debate around consent that began with this show and Normal People and will continue with the release of Promising Young Women, and I Hate Suzie later this year. Hopefully, this is a sign of the tide turning. 

In episode eight, entitled ‘Line Spectrum Border’, Arabella walks out into the ocean, seemingly to kill herself, but at the last second, she reappears. She is reborn. She sheds the choices she’s made and the trauma she’s been through and emerges as a different woman. That is precisely what Coel has done to the landscape of television – remade it. Be wary of those who enter post-I May Destroy You; it is an entirely different world. 

I May Destroy You is available to stream on BBC iPlayer in the UK.

Also Read: How Film Changed Me: On Change

Read the rest of the How Film Changed Me series

The post How Film Changed Me: On ‘I May Destroy You’ appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

1. It’s Being Called The New Game Of Thrones

So, I should say Succession is it’s own programme, with its own ideas, but there are similarities. I should also say Game of Thrones is a fantasy programme filled with zombies and dragons and Succession is set in present-day America about a rich family so there are plenty of differences. The main similarity is the struggle for power. The show is focused on the Roy family – Logan Roy is a self-made billionaire and owner of a huge business empire and he has a number of children vying to take over that company. As far as I’ve seen no one has yet murdered anyone to seize power but sometimes it feels like that is definitely coming. In fact, if people start poisoning each other it would feel very much like I, Claudius the masterpiece BBC drama showing the struggle to control the Roman Empire.

2. You Will Hate All The Characters So Much

I don’t have if I have ever wanted to punch a character more than Roman Roy (played wonderfully by Kieran Culkin). Not actually evil but smug to the point of ridiculousness when he has achieved precisely nothing. There are two things in particular that incur my ire in regards to Roman: 1- he is unbelievably wealthy and is a dick about it. There are few things I hate more than rich people who love to shove that wealth in everyone else’s face, something Roman does repeatedly. 2. Perhaps, more importantly, the man cannot sit on a chair. Throughout season one virtually every time you see him sitting it’s never the right way. But Roman is simply the most immediately objectionable of a very bad bunch – there’s Logan who seemingly enjoys pitting chis children against each other, Kendall, the heir-apparent business bro, the already mentioned deplorable Roman and their sister manipulative Shiv. The oldest child, Connor, who has decided to stay out of the family business and perhaps seems the most likeable quickly turns out to be not so nice and even Greg, the stoner-slacker cousin is soon corrupted.

3. Fantastic Insults and Swearing

Perhaps the best swearing in television since The Thick Of It and while the characters don’t have the verbal imagination of Malcolm Tucker the delivery of each curse is wonderful. You can spend a lot of time admiring the way Logan Roy tells people to “f**k off”. There are no punches pulled when it comes to insults with everything from recovering addiction problems to childhood trauma seen as fair game.

4. Character Complexity

It’s almost impossible to work out the motivations of any character with my idea of every character being rewritten with every episode (with the possible exception of Roman who is just a dirtbag through and through). The two characters where this is most apparent is Logan Roy and Tom Wambsgans. Logan at first seems to have virtually an Alexander the Great plan of succession, wanting to leave his empire to the strongest, but there are moments, glimpses, of when you think he might actually care about his children. Tom is even more fascinating – starting the show as Shiv’s fiancee I was 100% convinced he did not care about her at all, his only goal being the advancement in her family’s company. But as the show goes on this becomes less and less clear and their relationship more complicated. Perhaps even more enjoyable is his bizarre “friendship” with Greg, does he hate Greg? Does he like him? Is he trying to destroy him? Is he trying to mentor him?

5. The Worst Family In America

The Roys are undoubtedly a contender for the worst family ever portrayed on television. The siblings are constantly at each others’ throats looking for any potential weakness. At times when Logan asks them to be on their best behaviour to look vaguely normal, they can barely manage five minutes. Another show it reminds me of which has a similarly dysfunctional family is Arrested Development, with some of the characters like Tom, Roman and Greg needing only a minor tweak to fit into the world of the more comedic and silly world of the Bluths.

Also Read: Why Watchmen Is One of The Best TV Series Ever

The post Five Reasons To Watch Succession appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

The TV Series

While some characters from the graphic novel/film reappear like Adrian Veidt and Laurie Blake the central character is newcomer Angela Abar (played in a superb performance by Regina King), a detective in the Tulsa police department. Importantly in this world, all cops wear masks after a coordinated attack on police officers at their homes years before so cops became anonymous and detectives adopted costumes – Angela is Sister Night. The show effectively goes through Angela’s entire life over the course of the season (something it does for other characters in less detail) explaining how she became the person she is. The main plot follows the machinations of The 7th Cavalry, an extreme right-wing racist organisation who seem to want to wage an all-out race-war and were behind the “White Night” when police officers were attacked.

Seemingly completely separately a bizarre story of an old man living a lonely if palatial existence on a grand English estate (that maybe doubles as a prison) is played out, his only companions are maddeningly obedient servants. I don’t think it’s meant to be a secret that this is Adrian Veidt (played by Jeremy Irons in the best performance I’ve seen from him in a long time), one of the characters from the graphic novel whose superhero identity is Ozymandias. As well as being incredibly wealthy and the smartest man in the world Veidt takes credit for saving the world whilst killing three million people – but only a handful of people are aware of this.

Why Is It Great?

Characters Are Key

Watchmen is a television show that puts understanding characters first and all the events that transpire are rooted in how these characters would act. It could be said that the whole season is explaining Angela Abar – her childhood, her marriage, her family, her job, her whole life and even events that happened before she was born. All of what happens makes sense, there are no inexplicable character decisions just to make the plot more exciting. And it is not just Angela whose life is analysed, many of the main characters’ lives are examined through flashbacks, such as her costumed cop colleague Wade Tillman/Looking Glass. The single most important thing in any story is you have to care about the characters, love them or hate them, the outcome is important and Watchmen achieved this in spectacular fashion. Rarely have I been as invested in a character as I was with Angela.

Dealing With Loss

Everyone in this show has lost something – whether it be people or sometimes more intangible concepts. Fitting in with a common superhero trope Angela is an orphan, Looking Glass lost his faith and peace of mind, Laurie Blake lost her superhero identity as well as an actual superhero. Much of the plot revolves around a murder that takes place in the first episode. Adrian Veidt rages against his lost power and influence and when someone as talented as him is going through grief there will be consequences.

Relevance Today

The first scene of the TV show is a portrayal of the Tulsa Massacre, a real event where white people essentially destroyed one of the most prosperous black neighbourhoods in all of America. The significance of this event on the rest of the story is not immediately apparent but slowly comes together across the episodes gradually unfolding, making more sense and not only shedding light on the current TV series but origin stories of characters created in the graphic novel. The 7th Cavalry talk about race traitors, look up to the KKK and occasionally complain about how hard it is to be a white man in America – it is difficult viewing.

A lot of time is spent analysing the never-ending struggle between freedom and security, justice and vengeance. The graphic novel did not like the idea of superheroes a great deal and thought about who actually goes out and beats criminals to a pulp (or worse) and the TV show continues that tradition.

There is also the dive into the worlds of the super-rich, mega-billionaires with resources that eclipse nations and what exactly their motivations are.

The Story

The intricate story at the heart of the TV show is expertly delivered to the audience, there are plots, secrets, twists, villains and maybe one or two heroes, all of it is fascinating and told in an original and exciting way.

The End

There are many more reasons to watch this show than just what I’ve been able to list in this article and I am sure it will stand up to repeat viewings. And it may well have to as Damon Lindelof has stated he doesn’t want to do a second season and HBO aren’t going to do it without him, So you have just one practically perfect season to enjoy.

Also Read: Why James Cameron’s Avatar Sequel Has Come At The Right Time

The post Why Watchmen Is One Of The Best TV Shows In Recent Times appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.