Yadda, Yadda, Yadda

[shipperx]

Rented Day After Tomorrow It's a stupid movie. Not even entertainingly dumb, just dumb.

Also rented From Hell and The Importance of Being Ernest in the guise of "research" for my Kinkathon fic. I haven't actually re-watched From Hell (even the DVD menu kind of gives me the creeps. Though I did see the movie in the theater the first time.) I watched the DVD extras though. I always wonder about the defensiveness of so many "Ripperologists" where Patricia Cornwell's book is concerned (she claims relatively famous artist Walter Sickert was actually the Ripper). It's just... odd. The thing that's kind of annoying is that what she wrote is always mischaracterized by her critics. In the "From Hell" extras they said that most of her work was based on Sickert's paintings. Well kinda... but not really. That's probably one of the easiest things to criticize about her book, but it isn't the gist of her argument (and funnier still coming from a movie which makes even more controversial and unlikely arguments for who the Ripper was). The book makes a quite convincing argument that Walter Sickert most probably wrote many of the Jack the Ripper letters to the police and the evidence for that is actually quite good and rather convincing. Now, of course, there's the whole question of whether those letters were just screwing with the police's minds. All (but one) of the letters have always been considered frauds. So making an excellent case that Sickert wrote many of the letters doesn't prove that he was actually the Ripper himself (but what kind of sick bastard was Walter Sickert if he wrote those letters?) Considering that Sickert's stationary matched the stationary of many of the letters (not just matched but was in the same sheef of papers... as in the same BOX of stationary) and that the sketches on some of the letters match other sketches of Sickert's. Well, it makes you think that Sickert probably wrote several of the letters and that alone means he was one twisted bastard (not to mention the way that he let his wife die). Now, I agree that Cornwell didn't actually prove her thesis that Walter Sickert actually was Jack the Ripper, and her claims that she had definitive proof...well, not so definitive. Good theory but there are many theories and hers, while persuasive in places, is far from conclusive. However, I also see her research quickly dismissed, but, almost always, when it's dismissed it's dismissed by mischaracterizing what she actually wrote. I can understand that Cornwell's penchant of buying Sickert memorabilia and then destroying it in the seach for DNA is upsetting to the artworld, but if you're dismissing her theory it would be nice if you dismissed it on what she had actually said rather than picking just the weakest part of her argument and completely ignoring the rest. (And I did see Sickert's Jack the Ripper's Bedroom painting in Manchester. And, yes, the painting is VERY disturbing.

While doing some of my research for my kinkathon I pulled out my copy of "Portrait of a Killer." The sepia copy of the painting in the book doesn't adequately represent the disturbing nature of the full color (but mostly black and red) painting gives to the person viewing it in real life. (And no wonder the model who he gave it to was so creeped out that she gave it to the museum. Imagine getting into a screaming match with an unapologetic misogynist who the next day hands you a rather scary painting of Jack the Ripper. Shudder. Regardless of whether Sickert actually was Jack the Ripper, he was a complete bastard.)

All of which has next to nothing to do with the kinkathon since Ripper is in 1888 and my story is to be set in 1880. I was just looking at it for "slums in Victorian London" and the design and production part of the DVD extras worked well.

On the other end of the spectrum I also rented "The Importance of Being Ernest." Yawn. It's not as well done as "The Ideal Husband" (Of course Reese Witherspoon is also no Cate Blanchett). The only thing particularly interesting was that I had remembered when the movie came out that Roger Ebert had mentioned that being "Ernest" was also some sort of Victorian slang for being gay. With that in mind, that gave the movie quite the slashy subtext. Certainly Oscar Wilde could have deliberately put that subtext to the novel. The obvious romantic relationships in the story really make no sense. But if you squint and see it as Jack and Algie are lovers and that Algie is pissed that Jack's getting married... it make far more sense. . .at least until you get to the "revelation" at the end of the movie that Jack and Algie are brothers. Which... ew... that'd mean incest. Though then I wonder if that was the purpose in implying in Judi Dench's flashback that it was her character that was pregnant. So either Jack or Algie was probably her child meaning they aren't REALLY brothers. Except it never actually said that one of the boys was her child or even that she was pregnant. And even if she was, it leaves me with Jack and Algie are brothers... or first cousins. So incest or incest-lite. Then again, if you take everything at face value then Jack is marrying his first cousin Gwendolyn. So, hey, incest all the way around! (Weren't those Victorians fun?).

And I must say, contemplating the potential for incest and the gay subtext was far more interesting than the story that was meant to be on screen because -- meh. Those were silly relationships (I'd rather think that Jack and Algie were having a passionate affair somewhere). Not a great movie (but, the Victorian male fashions were quite attractive).

Then I started trying to research Victorian theater. Grr! What is with innocently clicking on a link from Google and being taken to a looping porn site with more porn popups!? There I was looking for information on the history of Drury Lane and suddenly I have an explicit picture of a woman giving a blowjob. Not exactly what I was looking for, thank you very much. And you couldn't just cancel out of the site because it did a weird scrolling thing (look! More blowjobs and more popups). It's really intrusive.

Ran Spybot to make sure it didn't put in Spyware on my computer. My sister once got a virus such that immediately upon signing on it took her to porn sites). It's just annoying as hell how they get away with that.

And... after all this "research" (porn not included), I really haven't gotten very far in writing. I'm having problems with tone. It all seems rather flippant and I think I'm allowing Buffy to use way too many popculture references. Meanwhile, I'm not progressing the plot very much.

To stay on schedule I need to write a rough draft of a chapter and a half tomorrow. Ouch.

Finally, after the childhood crush question and becoming all nostalgic for books I read as a kid, I ordered a copy of Merlin's Keep from Amazon.com. The book has been out of print for ages so I'm getting a "collectible" copy. I'm just curious to read the book again as an adult.

Comments

[paratti.livejournal.com]

There isn't a cousin sex/marriage taboo in the UK. From the discussions I've seen in the HP fandom, that taboo seems to be an American thing. The aristocracy and royalty, for example, have always married cousins of some variety. Queen Victoria was first cousin to her husband Price Albert and no one thought that was incest, or the intermarriages between her grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Just as I would imagine that JKR is gobsmacked that anyone thinks the Blacks family tree shows incest. From a Britsh perspective, it doesn't.

If you're looking for good representations of the period, I'd rec the Sherlock Holmes television series staring Jeremy Brett.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Really? I mean, if I had a kid and that child married one of my nephews or my neice, I'd be squicked. That's just way too close for comfort.

(And Southerners are constantly mocked for the (inaccurate) perception that they would marry first cousins.)

[paratti.livejournal.com]

Straight up. There's no taboo. It's not widespread, especially outside the aristocracy, but it;s not taboo.

[mistraltoes.livejournal.com]

Then again, if you take everything at face value then Jack is marrying his first cousin Gwendolyn. So, hey, incest all the way around!

No. The idea that relations between first cousins are somehow disgusting or otherwise problematic is extremely recent (mid- to late-twentieth century, I believe) and, as far as I know, exclusively American. Definitely not a taboo in Victorian England.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Since Oscar Wilde wrote it as such during the Victorian era, I assumed that he saw it as acceptable, but it still seems squicky to me.

Topsy Turvy

[cy-girl.livejournal.com]

Topsy Turvy might give you a feel for Victorian theater. It's very behind-the-scenes and shows the creative process as well as many rehearsal scenes. I was surprised at how formally everyone treated each other at all times, even actors who had worked together for years.