Showing posts with label The Royals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Royals. Show all posts

Monday, November 08, 2021

OVP: Spencer (2021)

Film: Spencer (2021)
Stars: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris, Sally Hawkins
Director: Pablo Larrain
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Actress-Kristen Stewart)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

For some reason, 24 years after her tragic death became the most-covered story I remember of my childhood until 9/11 (seriously, if you lived through Diana-mania, and I was there for the tale-end of it, it can't compare to literally any other celebrity coverage in the decades since-Bennifer & the Kardashians could never), Princess Diana is making a comeback.  There's a Diana-led musical on Netflix.  Emma Corrin is getting praise for her performance on The Crown, a role Elizabeth Debicki will be taking on in the next season.  And then we have Spencer, where Kristen Stewart, a quintessential Southern California actress takes on the blue-blooded British noblewoman who became the "People's Princess."  The film has attracted both grand praise for Stewart as well as some divisive reactions on Film Twitter (I hadn't read the reviews as I try to go into all films with an open mind, I'd just seen that the tweets were mixed).  So when I had the chance on vacation (I always try to see movies while I'm on vacation as I'm not a night life person & also I'm traveling alone so movies in new theaters feels the best approach to not just lounging in a hotel room after 6 PM), I was curious where I would land, particularly as someone who adored Lorrain's other film about a woman who the world "only wanted to be beautiful," Jackie.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film takes place over a three-day Christmas period at Sandringham Castle.  Diana (Stewart) arrives separate from her husband, and late, which is a perpetual theme of the film-Diana is always missing expectations, missing dinners, ending up in the bathroom dealing with her (true-to-life) bulimia.  She has only one friend in the house other than her two young sons, Maggie (Hawkins) a devoted dresser whom her husband Prince Charles (Farthing) is frequently trying to keep her from.  The movie takes on a supernatural element when Diana is haunted by the ghost of Anne Boleyn, whom she worries is a direct corollary to her current affair (Diana is even related to the late, beheaded queen through her older sister Mary Boleyn).  Diana worries that she's going to be replaced by Camilla, Charles true love, and whether she's losing herself in this world.  Ultimately, she leaves the castle & flees from royal life, headed to a KFC while singing "All I Need is a Miracle" with her two devoted sons in tow, hopefully freeing herself to a new life.

As you can imagine, this didn't actually happen in real life.  While there are definitely connections to real life (Diana's eating disorder, Charles' affair, the late princess's fondness for buying fast food for her children), the events in the film are presented as a fable, and play out that way.  Unlike the more realistic Jackie, Spencer takes on a different motif, a more fanciful one.  This theoretically should work.  Beautiful princesses are a staple of fairy tales, after all, and one haunted by ghosts feels all-the-more appropriate.

The problem is that Spencer never grounds itself in something real.  When you introduce such intense flights of fancy, you need more depth in the characters, and there's virtually none here.  It's a movie that wants you to treat Diana outside of what we know about her...but every other character is so inconsequential you can only rely upon your own Us Weekly-inspired shorthand.  Larrain doesn't owe us a complicated portrayal of the Queen or Prince Charles, and it's not inappropriate to view these two as villains in the Diana tale, particularly considering the tragedy that ended up befalling her (this movie has a happy ending, Diana's life did not).  But it also hurts your cause when you are making a point of giving a flesh-and-blood Diana while (on purpose) showing us nothing real in her two onscreen enemies.

This also hurts Stewart's performance.  I feel like reviews of Kristen Stewart always feel the need to defend her, but at this point we're beyond that.  Stewart's work in the Twilight movies was butchered at the time (in retrospect, if you watch the films it kind of works better as a stylized approach to schlocky fare).  But she has since turned in two Oscar-worthy turns in Clouds of Sils Maria and Personal Shopper (I'd have nominated her for both), and can give a lackluster performance without being labeled a "bad actress."  I think her accent & mimicry is to-die-for here-she has Diana down-cold, which considering she grew up in LA, is a testament to her abilities.  But she also feels adrift in a movie that oftentimes feels rudderless, and while that's more on Larrain & his story than Stewart, it also makes it harder for me to get behind this work (and I like dreamy movies like this as a rule...check out my reviews of Terrence Malick pictures).  It just can't find its center, and as a result this was a miss for me even if it was in my wheelhouse.

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

OVP: The Favourite (2018)

Film: The Favourite (2018)
Stars: Olivia Colman, Emma Stone, Rachel Weisz, Nicholas Hoult, Joe Alwyn
Director: Yorgos Lanthimos
Oscar History: 10 nominations/1 win (Best Picture, Director, Actress-Olivia Colman*, Supporting Actress-Rachel Weisz, Supporting Actress-Emma Stone, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Production Design, Original Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

I have so far struggled when it comes to the films of Yorgos Lanthimos.  Dogtooth I hated with a visceral passion even if I recognized the artistry, while The Lobster and The Killing of a Sacred Deer I quite liked, but felt they were going to be hard for me to love.  I'm not incapable of loving cold cinema (it's kind of what I'm known for loving, to be honest), but these are hard sits, featuring the worst of humanity, and they have characters that make you appreciate the filmmaking and the acting, but it's difficult for me to feel "that's brilliant" so much as to say "that's brilliant."  This opinion, however, totally changed with my recent viewing of The Favourite.  The surprise Best Actress winner which was cited for ten Oscars (you'll notice over the next two weeks a concerted effort from me to get as many of the 2018 Oscar nominees out as possible, a promise I've made a few times but will actually back this time around as I'm feeling weirdly grounded after a lot of soul-searching this past weekend) is a riot, a wonderfully-acted and scripted feast for anyone who loves the movies, and anchored by enough depth from Colman, Stone, and Weisz to be Lanthimos's best film, and the first one I can certainly say I love without qualification.

(Spoilers Ahead, Though, You Know, It's History) The film's central focus is on a love triangle between Queen Anne (Colman) and two of her trusted aides-longtime friend Sarah Churchill, the Duchess of Marlborough (Weisz) and her cousin Abigail Hill (Stone), who is down-on-her-luck after her father literally bet her in a game of cards.  Initially Abigail is forced to do the work of a maid, and is hazed for it, but a chance encounter with the queen where she can ease the monarch's pain from gout allows her to become one of her ladies in waiting, and sets off a gigantic feud between Abigail and Sarah, particularly after Abigail finds out about the sexual relationship between the Queen and Sarah.  Abigail starts her own sexual relationship with the Queen, causing a further divide, and eventually gains her trust after poisoning Sarah and nearly killing her.  The film ends with Sarah banished from the kingdom, with Abigail showing her true colors as duplicitous while Sarah shows that she actually loved the Queen, and the Queen realizing her folly but knowing its too late.  In pure Lanthimos fashion, the film ends with Anne forcing Abigail to massage her legs, humiliating her and reminding her that all of her power is coming from the Queen & can be snatched away at any moment, but also underlining that the Queen has given up the thing that had alluded her her whole life-love.

The film sums itself up quite neatly in part because the base plot is relatively straight-forward.  There's not a lot of invention or world-building like in previous Lanthimos creations, where figuring out how the world will normalize is a critical component of the story's end game.  This actually happened, well a less-fictionalized version of it certainly happened, and as a result we are positioned in reality.

Weirdly this reality actually helps Lanthimos's direction, as the departures are clearer and stronger, in my opinion, than even something as inventive as The Lobster.  It's not often (it's, in fact, never) where I prefer real life to an original story, but I sometimes feel that Lanthimos as a writer favors shocking the audience more than he does creating a compelling finish to his story, and as a result we get a really strong ending here, as well as a showcase for the wit of the dialogue rather than always taking the plot in endless directions.

Because the script itself is the greatest star here.  Weisz, Stone, and Colman are all the best they've ever been (no hyperbole-I mean that, and I've loved them all before), but they are aided by a truly splendid script filled with clever one-liners and turns-of-phrase.  Weisz gets the best lines (my personal favorite is Stone/Weisz's: "How good to see you've returned from..." "Hell-I'm sure you shall pass through it one day."), but everyone's on fire here with dialogue that envies film classics like All About Eve.  After such a pleasurable, marvelous picture I'm intrigued to see where Lanthimos goes with his career-will the creative freedom such a critical hit affords him doom him, or is The Favourite the type of film he's wanted to make all along?  We shall see, but know I'll be there opening weekend after this movie.

Thursday, May 17, 2018

My Royal Wedding Odds Table

The Royal Wedding is on Saturday, and while I may or may not watch (my decades-long crush on Prince Harry leaves me with conflicting feelings on whether or not I can watch him get hitched while I am still very much "the single"), I can't just ignore the moment, so without further adieu, I shall make my Vegas odds chart for the Royal shindig:


Meghan Markle's dress is "better" than Kate's (or at least that's what 1000 random websites you've never heard of claim): 2-1
Princess Beatrice wears the crazier hat: 5-2
Elton John does a surprise performance: 3-1
The new couple becomes the Duke and Duchess of Sussex: 4-1
Sarah Ferguson still shows up at one of the after-parties despite not being invited to wedding: 6-1
Guy Pelly flirts with at least two of Meghan Markle's cousins before someone reminds him that he's married: 8-1
Princess Eugenie wears the crazier hat: 9-1
David & Victoria Beckham arrive late, but look fabulous so no one cares: 10-1
Theresa May misspells Meghan in her morning-of statement to a wedding she wasn't invited to: 12-1
Queen Elizabeth II Smiles: 50-1
Prince Philip Smiles: 75-1
The camera pans to Camilla Parker-Bowles at the first mention of Diana: I can't give this one to you until I know on a scale from '1 to Graham Norton' how gay the video operator is.
Princess Michael of Kent makes a horribly racist choice with her fashion: 100-1, unless the Queen got distracted and forgot to approve her clothes, in which case 3-2
Odds that Mike Tindall shows up on a motorcycle: 500-1
Odds that Chelsy Davys pulls a Ben Braddock at the ceremony: 1000-1
Odds that it's Cressida Bonas: 2500-1
Kate reveals she's pregnant again during the ceremony: 5000-1
Least likely royal to get drunk at the reception: Prince Edward
Most likely royal to get drunk at the reception: With Harry distracted, my money is on Ella Windsor
Piers Morgan tweets something obnoxious: Evergreen
Someone on your Facebook chastises you for obsessing about the Royal Wedding, calling it "stupid": Have you ever been on the internet?
Odds Harry looks sexy-as-hell on his big day: Eternal

Monday, November 27, 2017

The 5 Stages of Grief: Prince Harry's Engagement


As you may have heard, my crush of 22 years (we're the same age, it's fine), Prince Henry Charles Albert David has announced his engagement to Meghan Markle.  Yes, yes, I'm sure she's a nice person and pretty, but I have had my designs on him for 22 years, so I figured it was appropriate I still go through the five stages of grief as I wonder what might have been:


1. Denial

"I mean, can you really believe anything on the internet anymore?  Can't Fake News work in my favor just once?"


2. Anger

"Maybe I dumped him!  Did you ever think of that?!?"


3. Bargaining

"Perhaps the marriage only counts in England, and he's still single in the states."


4. Depression

"How do you change the background on you computer again?!?"


5. Acceptance

"Oscar Isaac's still single, right?"

Monday, November 21, 2016

Thoughts on The Crown

I am now eight episodes into Netflix's newest, most ambitious affair The Crown, and wanted to start sharing some of my thoughts on the series.  The show, one I was planning on waiting until Thanksgiving to watch but for reasons that have suddenly escaped me, I decided I should commence right now (perhaps it's the fact that the discs I have home from Netflix currently are all less-than-impressive looking movies), and so I've binged through the first episodes.  Here are my thoughts on this handsome production thusfar.

1. It's Terribly Beautiful

The show cost a fortune (at $130 million, it's the most expensive series ever made), but it looks it.  It's impossible to imagine the series not gaining every Art Direction and Costume Design Emmy it can lay its hands upon, and with good reason.  The series is meticulous in its detailing, from the pristine walls of Buckingham Palace and Clarence House (we don't get that repeat set situation where we're always in the same rooms, a trick so common in TV), to the gigantic plains of Africa or the wide-open fields surrounding Sandringham.

This pays off in a lot of ways-you don't really have to imagine being a part of this world-it's there for you.  There's a lavishness in seeing two-story tall rooms, bedecked in Old Master paintings, simply flung about, and seeming real enough that if they're using a green screen, they also deserve a Visual Effects Emmy.  This critical eye for detail is something that I'd missed from television in general, but particularly with Netflix, whose business model didn't really lend itself to having such a lavish, intense series of homes.  For this alone, you should at least give the first episode a shot-I want more detailed and vibrant sets like this for actors to play with in television.

2. History is a Problem

My biggest problem with biopics, which is what this is even if it unfolds more like a Mad Men or Boardwalk Empire, is that you know exactly what's going to happen, a problem in particular for a story that's so incredibly famous, and still going for several characters we're introduced to onscreen (Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip both still being alive).  The series hasn't quite gotten to the point where it is riveting television even if we already know what happens, a problem most historical epics face but since this is a television series rather than a motion picture, one where you have to keep coming back, it's a bigger problem.

Forget, for example, the two main characters, and simply look at some side performances.  Any student of history, for example, knows that Churchill survives until 1955 as Prime Minister, and is of course succeeded by his rival on the program Anthony Eden, or that Princess Margaret's romance with Peter Townsend will end in a disaster that badly damaged her relationship with her sister.  Knowing this means that writer Peter Morgan needs to find different tactics to skate through issues that are obvious to any fan of the Royal Family, and he hasn't quite gotten there yet.  He succeeded in The Queen ten years ago in part because he showed us a side of a woman we hadn't considered, but in the years since much ink has been spilled over QEII and as she has aged, she's become significantly more beloved so seeing her inner-turmoil isn't quite as revolutionary as it was when Helen Mirren brought it about in Morgan's first interaction with the monarch.

3. The Acting is Okay So Far

I will admit that I haven't been particularly wowed by the acting as well as the writing.  There are exceptions here-Eileen Atkins is winning as the frosty Queen Mary, even if she could do this in her sleep, and I love Matt Smith's take on Prince Philip, a caddish brute who is still somehow quite charming (easily the cast's MVP), but the rest of the cast is hit-or-miss.  Claire Foy doesn't adopt Mirren's sense of inner-world, truly playing her queen as more vacant than someone struggling with the ornateness around her, and Lithgow's Churchill is too hard to read, though Lithgow, he of the thespian roots, lands all of the jokes and embellished speeches to the nation.

I will admit I'm only eight episodes in, but the acting is also hampered, as is the writing, by the truth.  It's worth noting that while there are embellishments, they aren't of the kind that is easy to disprove and hardly add to the best elements of the show to give the actors more to do.  For example, thus far we have yet to interact with Prince Philip's famed wandering eye other than a sideways glance on a plane, something that his son clearly emulated, probably out of necessity to stay in good company with the Royal Family (these are alleged affairs, after all), but it also makes for so many of the characters to be rather dull.  Even stories that are more within the confines of a traditional television series (say, Princess Margaret's affair with Peter Townsend), are given short shift and so little is known of these two characters it's hard to see this progressing to much more than a couple of episodes of drama.  This is partially the fault of Netflix (they don't know how people will react or grow with a character, still the greatest flaw in the binge process), but also with the writing and acting-it feels too plain, and not in a good way where we're naturally building to something-we know how history works, and we know the history of every major character-where is the excitement in stretching this out?

4. This Has an Anthology Feel...And Aren't We Tired of Anthologies?

Listen, when American Horror Story decided to bring back the anthology, I was all on-board.  I thought, first off, that Ryan Murphy finally found a TV format that actually worked for him and wasn't doomed to failure, and that this would be a way to create a twisty, fun approach to television where you're not entirely certain how things will turn out in the end.

That being said, it's now transformed from a great plot twist to a crutch for lazy television writers, and I worry that The Crown may in some ways borrow from it.  After all, part of the appeal in television is watching the same actors grow over the course of multiple years in the same roles, slowly watching the way that they inhabit characters and suddenly find places in those people we didn't know could exist.  Think of the empowered, emboldened way Elisabeth Moss drove Peggy Olson or the fascinating way that Josh Holloway found humanity in the initially one-note Sawyer on Lost.  There's something that's powerful about knowing that a series of actors are going to be centered around the same plot for a number of years-you get to see evolution in acting and invest more emotionally into the series.

That's a problem with The Crown which moves at a ridiculously quick clip, to the point where it's hard to imagine Matt Smith and Claire Foy playing the characters past the birth of Prince Edward without too much reliance on greying temples and prosthetic bags under their eyes.  Knowing this, it feels like the characters themselves won't have the same level of consistency, which is hard to stomach since some of the more interesting aspects of Queen Elizabeth's life, particularly those in the 1980's and early 1990's, are several seasons away.  By then, we'd rely on a more age appropriate Emma Thompson to take on the role, but there's no one who will be able to perfectly mirror what Foy and Smith are doing (even if I'm not all that impressed with the former so far), and so it just becomes a series of interpretations, rather than a comprehensive series.  Considering the investment on Netflix's behalf, this is disappointing that they couldn't get something that might end up being something comprehensive and wonderful, rather than potentially disjointed.

5. So...Do I Come Back for a Second Season?

It seems apparent given the hubbub of the show that a second season is going to happen-Netflix has only so many massive hits to be able to hang onto, after all-but will I return?  I definitely will finish out the final two episodes-I like to see where these binges take me.  However, I'm not going to stick around if it doesn't improve slightly in terms of story or acting.

There are moments that feel, especially as the show has gone forward, more interesting and key character struggles that history might not inform that I've liked.  The Queen Mother, for example, feels vastly underused.  She was trained to literally be a queen, and then has to watch as her daughter takes her out during her prime, or the strangely marvelous scenes involving the Duke of Windsor.  I thought the scene where he's got a room he goes into to reflect on his brief series of months as a god amongst men, and the way that he reminds people that he too was once a god, constantly reminding himself out loud that he gave all of this up for love (even if, occasionally, one wonders if he questioned that decision), was the best of the series.  But these moments are too far-and-in-between, and Claire Foy's queen is too central and by-far the least interesting character in the series so far, constantly buckling and frustratingly unknowing, even in quiet reflections.  It's not often you stick with a series that doesn't know how to present its main character, and so I will probably need something a bit more exhilarating or tantalizing to happen with her before I sign up for another go-around.  Still, the costumes, sets, and Matt Smith are all wonderful, and there's definitely promise in these episodes for something magnificent.

Friday, May 27, 2016

OVP: Young Bess (1953)

Film: Young Bess (1953)
Stars: Jean Simmons, Stewart Granger, Deborah Kerr, Charles Laughton
Director: George Sidney
Oscar History: 2 nomination (Best Art Direction, Costume Design)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

I doubt I will ever be able to get through a Jean Simmons movie, ever, and not think "man does she look like Vivien Leigh."  I mean, it's remarkable, isn't it?  It's like Tom Hardy and Logan-Marshall Green crazy.  That's literally the first thing I thought as Young Bess began, but then my mind pivoted to how strange Golden Age biopics are, particularly in the way that they try to encompass all of the grandeur of history with the very staid, G-rated mores of what was required onscreen at the time.  Young Bess is a bit of a piffle, and probably would have been better off had they not relied so heavily on history and just made up a story, but there it is and as a result we get a dated, rather dull look at the early life of Queen Elizabeth.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film starts where it eventually ends, on the day that a young Princess Elizabeth (Simmons) finds out that she is to be the Queen of England, but the film quickly recedes into flashback, where we see Elizabeth as a child next to her rather ridiculous father King Henry VIII (Laughton, because of course Charles Laughton plays this role again), and we get a lot of foreshadowing with Henry intermittently hating his daughter and thinking her the greatest thing ever.  In one of the more ridiculous scenes of the film, Henry watches his daughter as he's dying and suddenly has an epiphany that she is his "true successor," which seems to jive with history, well, not, at all, as Henry VIII was a famously chauvinistic monarch who couldn't possibly have seen anyone other than Edward as his rightful heir.

Like any good Classical Hollywood film, the movie is centered primarily on a love triangle, this time between Princess Elizabeth, her paramour Thomas Seymour (Granger), and the woman he truly loves, Elizabeth's former stepmother Catherine Parr (Kerr).  It's actually slightly interesting earlier on in the love triangle because our prime heroine doesn't seem to be the love of Seymour's life-he's clearly more in love with Catherine, and seems to only caddishly be interested in the young princess in hopes of perhaps utilizing his power over her should she become queen (side point-considering she was second inline and they rarely mention that Edward, who is a spritely lad in the film is sick, how likely was it that Elizabeth would become queen to the point that literally everyone talked about it).  However, Hollywood can't have such a thing and as the film progresses he turns out to equally love her too, and is cleared of his roguish behavior when Catherine Parr dies, and he is free to seek Elizabeth, but it's too late, as he is executed by his jealous brother, who does so in the name of the sickly boy king.  The film progresses with Elizabeth, defiant, becoming queen after the deaths of her two siblings, and standing tall and proud on a balcony, knowing she's fulfilled her destiny but lost her great love.

The film's silliness is not necessarily a match for its costume work, which is actually quite good and was Oscar-nominated.  Legendary designer Walter Plunkett (who at this point had already done both Gone with the Wind and Singin' in the Rain) finds a lot of excuses to gown up both of his leading ladies, but the work is impeccable and has an eye for detailing-I loved the way that Jean Simmons wears her dress in the final scene, as if she's forcing it to stand upright (though I suspect the costume designers had a say there), and the Tudor green dress was a particular favorite (you can see it here), as it's both ugly and incredibly detailed, something you might not notice until looking at the movie for a while, but that is perhaps the way a complicated queen would dress.  The film isn't as inspired in some of the supporting roles (dressing Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard as promiscuous is hardly thinking outside the box), but overall it's rather strong work.  The art direction is good, but nearly as uniform as we see a lot of the same empty castle and very little detailing into drawing rooms or trying to transform much outside of every other castle you see in a movie-there's nothing distinctive or sticking out in the way that warrants a lot of attention, and it borders on being a default nominee if we're being honest.

Those are my thoughts on this 1953 movie-what about yours?  If you've seen Young Bess, were you laughing a bit at how silly the treatment of history was, or were you swept up in the epic love triangle?  For those that haven't, are you frequently struck by the similarity between Simmons and Leigh?  And do you think Charles Laughton just kept playing Henry VIII for the food?  Share your thoughts below!

Tuesday, July 07, 2015

OVP: Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)

Film: Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)
Stars: Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Clive Owen, Abbie Cornish, Samantha Morton, Jordi Molla, Rhys Ifans, Eddie Redmayne
Director: Shekhar Kapur
Oscar History: 2 nominations/1 win (Best Actress-Cate Blanchett, Best Costume Design*)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Movies are not supposed to provide a history lesson.  I have frequently longed for, quite frankly, a world where history isn't quite as followed on film as it needs to be, as contrary to popular opinion truth is almost never stranger than fiction.  In fiction, you can create convenient plot devices, and utilize everything from mummies to aliens to flying men in spandex to help shelter your little universe.  As a result of this I liked the idea of Elizabeth: The Golden Age, a film that threw out multiple aspects of English and Spanish history to create a rather crowning story about a queen, someone who would eventually be considered one of England's great rulers who made several tactical mistakes during her lifetime, throwing caution to the wind and giving us a film that grossly exaggerates, bends, and occasionally just breaks history into smithereens.  What I didn't like about the film is that it occasionally features hackneyed romantic triangles, ridiculous overacting and far too much bombast from its lead.

(Spoilers Ahead) Yes, this is the review that I take one of the truly great actors of her generation, Cate Blanchett, to task a bit as this is hardly what you'd consider a fine performance.  It's not unfun, I want to point out-Blanchett overacting is still better than someone like, say, Tara Reid overacting because Blanchett's technical training and stage roots bring a theatricality to the world of Elizabeth that lesser actors wouldn't have been able to find.  However, her queen here is nowhere near the sharp, polished achievement she pulled off nine years earlier in her star-making role in the original.  Here she gives too little care to some of the subplots (such as her relationship with Sir Walter Raleigh) and is only really fun during the film's few comic bits.

Perhaps she should have gotten a lesson from Samantha Morton, who finds room to play the quiet parts of her role as Mary, Queen of Scots a bit more levelly while also finding a deliciousness in her portrayal (both women find the over-the-top privilege afforded to them as queen's, something that most movies lack because they want to make them relatable, but this is silly-these people were gods amongst men in their time, it's hard to fathom that that didn't go to their head).  The rest of the cast isn't nearly as strong as Morton or as admittedly fun as Blanchett.  Eddie Redmayne and Rhys Ifans border onto the bad as would-be assassins, while Clive Owen relies mostly on his dark eyes and enamoring accent rather than any semblance of direction for his character (Abbie Cornish, like everything she does that isn't Bright Star, is Novocaine).

If there's a cattiness to this review it's because this is a gigantic David O. Selznick style tragedy that succeeds when it's more Dynasty than Upstairs, Downstairs, but it doesn't have the good sense to stick to the trashy aspects of the film, instead deciding that the very flawed Elizabeth needs to be a hero instead of just deeply flawed.  The film's position as an Oscar-nominee puts a harsher light on the film than what it could have been (Blanchett's Mommie Dearest), and as a result I find myself critiquing it more harshly than I normally would have.  Perhaps the only person on the set who 100% got the camp of the entire thing would be costume designer Alexandra Byrne, who creates decadent, marvelous costumes for the film, particularly those worn by Elizabeth.  She has little shame while creating increasingly outlandish and gaudy (but always stunning) gowns, which normally I'd find a bit much but here it matches the mood of the film.  Byrne, a long-time Oscar bridesmaid, knew this was her moment and went to the hilt, gaining her little gold man in the process.

We'll end there, as I need to breathe from the whirlwind of feelings I had about this movie, but I'd love your thoughts.  What'd you think of Elizabeth: The Golden Age?  Do you agree that this is Blanchett's least Oscar-nominated work, or are you going to defend the scenery-chewing?  And considering the showy competition she had from Atonement and Sweeney Todd, are you on-board with Alexandra Byrne finally winning her Oscar?

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Everybody's Linking for the Weekend

I'm going to be a little bit sketchy potentially about posting over the next couple of days (I have company in town), though I'll try to get something out.  If nothing else, I'll try and tweet more to stay in touch (we'll be having a massive influx of posts the week before the 4th, though, since I have the week off and am going to be watching SOOOO many movies).  In the meantime, let's link it up!

In Entertainment...

-Finn Wittrock is returning to American Horror Story next season, and Jason over at MNPP chronicles his hope for Wittrock's story line (as always with Jason, it's slightly NSFW, but his blog is always so funny, and just turned ten so celebrate!).  I have to say, I'm really uneasy about the next season of American Horror Story, mostly because I think I might be done with it.  I was glued the first two seasons, got incredibly bored with the highly-convoluted third season, and was really underwhelmed in Season Four with the HUGE exception of Dandy Mott, Wittrock's Emmy-worthy creation.  As a result, with Jessica Lange gone I was really ready to give up, and Lady Gaga's entry as a leading actor was all the more reason, in my opinion, to get out (I get it, she can "actually sing," but so can Audra McDonald, Sutton Foster, Kelli O'Hara, and Jessie Mueller, and yet none of them ever get this sort of break despite also being able to "actually act"...and being better singers).  Until Gaga has her Silkwood moment, I'm out, but will probably still try and find the clips of what Finn does next on the series.

-(Spoilers Ahead if you haven't caught up with Game of ThronesAfter this past week, when we saw the Walk of Shame from Cersei on Game of Thrones, more and more people are talking about quitting watching Game of Thrones.  This, combined with Sansa's rape scene, Princess Shireen's heinous death, and the wildly discussed death of Jon Snow, arguably the series most popular character give or take Tyrion, has made people wonder if perhaps the show has jumped the shark.  While I will not be amongst those who quits and think that some of these decisions were interesting (the Cersei Walk of Shame was painful to watch, but it does give her a different sort of motive for the next season if you look at this from a purely character-based angle, since she is the de facto monarch), I have to agree that this wasn't the greatest season of the show from a completely story-structure angle (though it exhibited some of the best acting), and I wonder if occasionally these moments were utilized more as water-cooler than in ways that will actually aid the storyline (I refuse to believe there's a better resolution to this series than Jon Snow ending up either taking the Iron Throne, or at the very least becoming the Lord of Winterfell).  I think the principle problem is that the show bit off more than it could handle this season-the Tyrells' imprisonment felt completely forgotten, and the Jamie/Marcella bit seemed too rushed.  All-in-all, while it may still be my favorite show on TV (it has competition from a couple of other series, including the soon-to-arrive Leftovers), I do wish they would have paced it a bit more-we don't want this to become a polarizing Lost-style situation in the final two years, and if they needed it to be eight, HBO is hardly going to quibble considering the continued ratings.

-IndieWire chronicles why television is far more diverse when it comes to celebrated TV movies than film is.  While IndieWire is always a site with a ridiculously short memory (seriously-Frances McDormand's career-best performance in Olive Kitteridge and not Fargo?), they have a point about the elasticity of television and the way that its business model allows for more risk since so much original content is needed.

In Politics...


Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC)
-The Washington Post has a great article chronicling the history of the Confederate flag flying over the South Carolina Capitol, which was notably not at half-mast after the racially-charged shootings in Charleston early last week.  The article provides a good explanation on its history, but it doesn't answer the obvious question everyone in the country that doesn't participate in Civil War reenactments is asking: "why the hell didn't this flag get taken down over a century ago?"  Seriously, no one in their right mind could look at the Confederate Flag and not see the clear racist implications behind it.  It'd be as if Germans wanted to keep flying the Swastika because of its link to history.  I think it is a damn shame that despite the fact that other modernized countries don't have these sorts of mass shootings and the only major difference is their gun laws, we have politicians like Gov. Haley who refuse to endorse the need for gun legislation.  But I think it's truly beyond reprehensible that that flag is still flying in the wake of this tragedy, and that it gets to fly at all on government property.

-If there's an under-the-radar story of the week, it has to have been the continued unease between organized labor and House Democrats after the past few weeks of the fast-track votes.  Yes, the AFL-CIO scored a coup by getting Nancy Pelosi and the majority of the caucus to buck the president, but it was at a price.  Democrats have done a really good job of backing incumbents and their own regardless of tough votes, but targeted attacks on people like Reps. Ami Bera, Scott Peters, and Kathleen Rice not only make Democrats uneasy, but they also potentially alienate allies on almost every other labor issue.  More than one Democrat has noted that labor has been attacking only Democrats, not Republicans in marginal districts on this vote, and that strategy didn't work at all for the Tea Party in the long run...

-If you don't have the time to read through the pope's entire encyclical, but you do want to stay informed, here's your perfect article.  It details the Pope's stances on coal specifically (he views it more unfavorably than even oil or gas), he's against carbon trading, and has some sharp things to say about iPhones.  Overall I'm pumped about this, I have to say-while I don't 100% agree with every point he makes, this is a huge step in the right direction on a critical issue.

Shameless Self-Promotion of the Week...

-With all due respect to all of the women who got dressed up for the Swedish royal wedding, this is the only picture you're going to care about seeing.

YouTube Video of the Week...

-Caspar Lee has arguably his funniest video of all time with Jurassic World star Chris Pratt.  Somewhere my brother is wishing he had started making YouTube videos five years ago so he could have done this interview:




Just One More...

-You might know this about me, but I have a mild obsession with Pippa Middleton.  I have lurved her since the Royal Wedding, and am constantly looking in the Wimbledon stands to see if she is there (Middleton sister watching is basically as important to Wimbledon now as Pimm's and strawberries-and-cream and Andy Murray's white underwear).  It seems that Tommy Hilfiger is also interested in Pippa, as she may soon be the face of his brand.  I say go for it-if you aren't going to date Harry, you might as well jump into fully-fledged celebrity stardom.

Saturday, May 09, 2015

Everybody's Linking for the Weekend

I am running off to a Mother's Day brunch in a few hours, so up I'm early for our linking today!  Let's see what we missed this week!

On Entertainment...


-Katherine Heigl's show State of Affairs has been cancelled, posing the question of what's next for the (former, let's be honest here) movie star.  At only 36, she's hardly past her prime in terms of still landing movies and has a gay-themed comedy out later this year, but I wonder if the star of hits like Knocked Up and 27 Dresses can actually make it to a second phase in her career-her public battles with Shonda Rhimes, the high-profile cancellation of her NBC series, and perhaps most critically, the major tanking of the Stephanie Plum franchise (which could have been HUGE if the film had been successful as there's a major fan-base for the Janet Evanovich series, particularly amongst middle-aged women), have left her with no major hit in four years.  Very few actors can go that long (save Ryan Reynolds) without Hollywood starting to pull-back.  If I were her I'd take a year off and then try my hand at an Indie drama or something of that ilk where she's working for scale but might win back the critics.

-Legendary R&B singer Ben E. King passed away this week.  King didn't always receive the same sort of plaudits that some of his contemporaries like Smokey Robinson did, but he had a dynamite voice and had some of the finest songs of the era, first as lead singer of The Drifters ("There Goes My Baby," "Save the Last Dance") before embarking on a solo career with "Spanish Harlem" and the picture-perfect "Stand By Me."

-As my brother put it, "do we have another Grey Gardens on our hands?" with the news that Reese Witherspoon and Nicole Kidman will costar in an adaptation of Liane Moriarty's Little Big Lies.  For those of you who don't partake in constant conversations about show business awards, this is an allusion to the Emmy/Globe/SAG battles that took place between Grey Gardens' stars Jessica Lange and Drew Barrymore.  The two Oscar winners will be joined by a third actress considering the book has three key roles for women-wonder if they'll go with the theme of blonde Oscar winners and pick Charlize Theron?  We shall see!

On Politics...


-One of the principle reasons I'm excited for debates in the presidential elections for the Democrats is that it will push Hillary Clinton to talk about a few pet issues of Democrats that we definitely want amped up in the next administration, principally surrounding climate change.  As we learned this past week, we had yet another warmest quarter on record, and California's tragic drought continues to ravage the state (thankfully Gov. Jerry Brown has realized the correlation and started to pass massive environmental law changes, but we need all 49 other states to get on board as well).  In other related environmental news, we saw another reason for Gov. Brown's need for change to California laws: air pollution.  A list of the ten most air-polluted cities in America included four in the Golden State.  It's worth noting that these cities are almost certainly getting more air pollution due to the increased amount of dust in the air, causing in some cases an entire month of unhealthy breathing.  Like almost every environmental cause, getting climate change under control would solve this, but instead we get presidential candidates like Marco Rubio who think it's no big deal.  And for the record (this link should always be shared), here is a link to the list of senators who think that Climate Change is real and man-made.  If your senator voted no, I suggest you write them or at the very least don't vote for them the next election.

-The United Kingdom had what was one of the more shocking election results in recent history, when David Cameron, after running neck-and-neck in polls, saw his majority increase and defied all of the polling.  After rather abysmal results in the Midterms in November and in Israel earlier this year, one has to wonder if polling, at least in its traditional model, is going the way of the dodo.  Honestly, I don't recall three elections being so out-and-out wrong, and political insiders ranging from Nate Silver to David Axelrod all seem to agree.  Labour will also have to do a lot of soul-searching.  Ed Miliband, who hasn't been able to unify the English and Scottish elements of his party, ended up losing both and had to resign as leader, while Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats learned five years later how much the members of his party hated his deal with the Conservatives, watching his party all-but-evaporate from Parliament.  Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, and perhaps even Ed Milband's brother David (whom he had a famously public battle with for the leadership position in 2010) all are the leading contenders, but after the shellacking they received this past week, they have their work cut out for them.

-The Providence Journal eviscerated former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee over his purported plans to run for president, and I have to say that I agree, and I wish that the press would have such a discerning eye when it came to the Republican side of the aisle.  Chafee, who has been a member of three different parties in recent years, has an unimpressive tenure as governor (he wouldn't even have won the primary) and his term in the Senate was as a Republican-in what universe does that translate into a Democratic nominee?  That being said, people like Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina continue to inexplicably get press coverage.  Carson is famous for giving one speech in 2013 and for filling the Pat Robertson-void in the Republican primary (which, let's face it, is already being filled by Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee).  Carly Fiorina's two most public endeavors were universal failures (her tenure at Hewlett-Packard and her 2010 Senate bid).  These people have absolutely no right to the press coverage they are receiving, and have the same shot at being president as I do.

Shameless Self-Promotion of the Week...

The Harries brothers need to stop getting so attractive, as it's going to create conspiracy theories.

YouTube Video of the Week...

-Rupert Everett shares a rather hilarious story about a night out with Princess Margaret on The Graham Norton Show




Just One More...

-Time magazine has a fascinating look at the political views of Laura Ingalls Wilder, who was a Libertarian before that became a thing, and has finally seen her autobiography come to life on the Bestseller list.  In fact, I recommend you also read this article to get the full picture, as the memoir has become one of the hottest books of the season and is being printed. by a seven-person team in the middle of South Dakota (hardly what you'd typically consider a publishing hotspot).

Monday, May 04, 2015

Welcome to the World Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge!!!

Well, we officially have a name for the princess the world is about to watch grow-up.  Charlotte Elizabeth Diana (Mountbatten-Windsor, if we're getting technical) officially got her name today, and I figured in honor of that we should review five facts you might not have known about her name:

1. It's not just about the Royals

While everyone was quick to point out that Elizabeth is the name of the Queen, Charlotte is the feminine version of Charles (William's father), and Diana is of course the name of William's mother, there's some Middleton in there too.  It's worth mentioning that Elizabeth is the middle name of both Kate Middleton as well as her mother Carole, while Charlotte is the middle name of Kate's sister Pippa, whom she is extremely close with and who is a frontrunner to be a godparent (the next big royal headline).

2. The Diana Thing Should Have Been Expected

It's actually worth noting that first-born daughters of royals are quite frequently named after their mothers in some way.  Queen Elizabeth II sported the same first-name as her mother, while her daughter Princess Anne has the middle name Elizabeth.  King George V named his eldest daughter Mary after her mother, also Mary.  In fact, the past six monarchs who had a daughter named at least one of them after her mother, either by using the same first name or using the mother's name as a middle name.  Weirdly enough, the last time someone didn't was when King George IV (who famously hated his wife Queen Caroline, who was wildly popular while he was wildly not-so) had a daughter named Princess Charlotte.

3. The Elizabeth Thing Should Have Been Expected As Well

Every blood-member woman in the royal family, unless they have a sister who beat them to it, has the middle name of Elizabeth except the Queen, who of course has the first name Elizabeth.  This includes the Princess Royal (Princess Anne), Princess Alexandra, Princess Beatrice of York, Lady Louise Windsor, Zara Phillips, and Lady Sarah Chatto (some of these are "collateral" members of the Royal Family, but you get my point).  In fact there is no female descendant of King George VI who doesn't have the middle name of Elizabeth or a sister with the middle name except for Mia Tindall, the daughter of Zara Phillips.

4. The Name Charlotte Has Been a Bit of a Curse on the Royal Family

Princess Charlotte has twice been the name of the direct heir to the throne of England.  Once from 1796-1817, when Princess Charlotte of Wales, the daughter of the then Prince of Wales (later King George IV) before Princess Charlotte died in childbirth (in a moment that was wildly mourned by the people who adored in a similar fashion to a future Princess of Wales) and then again in 1819, when the heir presumptive to the throne Princess Charlotte died just hours after she was born.  Though Queen Victoria did have a granddaughter named Princess Charlotte, this will be the first time since those ill-fated princesses that a future monarch's daughter will sport these names.

5. If They Stop Here...

While a boy and a girl is the ideal for so many people, it hasn't been the ideal for the monarchs of England.  Assuming that Will and Kate stop here and that Will becomes king, the last time a Monarch of England had just a boy and a girl was King George I of Great Britain who reigned from 1714-1727. His son, like William's, was also named George and his daughter (Sophia Dorothea) eventually became Queen of Prussia.

Those are just a few facts-if you have any more trivia tidbits, share them in the comments!

Sunday, May 03, 2015

My 10 Favorite Trivia Questions

I love trivia.  It's one of my absolute favorite things-I cannot get enough of it, and I am a bit of a fountain for it.  One of my goals in life is to know at least five minutes worth of conversation about any given topic.  As a result of this, I have MANY different trivia questions that I love to whip out to stump people, but here are ten of my favorites:

Gov. Samuel J. Tilden (D-NY)
1. Which Men Lost the Presidency by One Vote?

These are not in order of personal preference, except for this one, as this is one that I came up with myself and it's my favorite stumper.  Three men have lost the presidency by one vote.  The first was in 1868.  President Andrew Johnson was on trial at the time and was impeached by Congress.  As a result, his removal from office was put to a vote and 36 "guilty" votes were required to remove him as president.  Only 35 were cast, however, so he stayed as president by one vote.  Had one more vote been cast, Senate President Pro Tempore Benjamin Wade of Ohio would have assumed the presidency.  Wade would have a rough year in 1868: he lost the presidency by one vote, was denied the vice presidency when Ulysses S. Grant refused to give in to party pressure and nominate him, and then would lose reelection to his Senate seat later that year.  Were it not for one vote, he would have become our nation's 18th president for about ten months in 1868.

The second man was eight years later, and his name is Samuel J. Tilden, at the time a New York governor who was running for the presidency.  Tilden actually won the popular vote by a healthy three-points in 1876, but the electoral college was basically a tie against Ohio Governor Rutherford B. Hayes.  Several states (Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon) had electors that were disputed whether or not the Republican or the Democrat had won.  Since Tilden had 184 electors already locked up, had he taken just one of the twenty electoral votes these states had, he would have won the election.  Since no one could properly decide who won the states, Congress decided a commission of seven Republicans, seven Democrats, and one Supreme Court justice would decide on the victors.  Justice David Davis, famously independent, was to be that justice, but the Illinois State Senate, in hopes of bribing Davis to pick Tilden, offered him a Senate seat, which he took, but as a result had to resign his position on the Court.  As a result, there were only Republicans left on the court and the commission voted 8-7 on all twenty electoral college votes, effectively handing the election to Hayes.

The final instance happened relatively recently, with Vice President Al Gore and Governor George W. Bush.  With the election being hauntingly close (though Gore won the popular vote), everything came down to Florida.  The recounts intricacies were so minute (this was the closest statewide election in the history of the Republic, so pretty much any nuance you could find in election law could result in a switch of the victor) that the Supreme Court's decision may well have cost Vice President Gore the election (the media in subsequent analysis decided that a victory for Gore at the high court would have resulted in anything from a win for Governor Bush by 496 votes to a victory for the Vice President by 161 votes).  The Supreme Court denied Gore's recount in select counties in Florida by a 5-4 decision, effectively handing the White House to Governor Bush.

It should be noted that we actually know who cast these three deciding votes: Sen. Edmund Ross of Kansas was the final Republican defector in 1868, denying Wade the presidency, Justice Joseph Bradley was the Supreme Court justice who got Republicans their eighth vote in the Tilden/Hayes elections, and based on the order in which the Supreme Court votes, Justice Clarence Thomas (who was appointed by George W. Bush's father, coincidentally enough) would have been the fifth vote in 2000.  It's also worth noting that Wade, Tilden, and (so far) Gore never ran for the White House again.

Emil Jannings
2. What Oscar Winner used his Oscar statue to prove to Allied troops he was from Hollywood?

Emil Jannings was a German actor who won the first Best Actor Oscar (I believe it was actually the first award of the night, so he won the first Oscar, period) for his performances in The Last Command and The Way of All Flesh.  Later in his career, the man with a thick German accent couldn't transition into talkies, but did find his way into Nazi propaganda films, many under the supervision of Joseph Goebbels.  As a result of this, when the Allied troops came to Germany in the Spring of 1945, he was potentially in danger, and as a result, reportedly came out into the streets waving his Oscar over his head in hopes of them recognizing his association with Hollywood.  Jannings was subject to denazification, and as a result never made another motion picture after the war.

It's worth noting that Jannings is associated with two other pieces of Oscar trivia, both also quite sad.  His performance in The Way of All Flesh is the only Oscar-winning performance to currently be considered "lost," while his performance in The Patriot is also lost.  The Patriot is the only Best Picture nominee to have that designation.  In fact, only one of Jannings' five Hollywood films (The Last Command) is fully-intact.  Jannings played a role in a later Best Picture, however, as he was a character (played by Hilmar Eichhorn) in Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds.

Park Young-Seok
3. What is a True Explorers' Grand Slam, and who was the first person to complete it?

If there is a Mount Everest of adventuring, it oddly enough doesn't end with Mount Everest.  It's the True Explorers' Grand Slam, which is topping all of the Seven Summits (the seven highest mountains on each continent), as well all of the 8000-meter mountains in the word (there are 14 of them, all in the Himalayas), and also reaching the North and South Pole.  This feat was first accomplished in 2005 by Park Young-Seok, who reached the North Pole in 2005 after completing all of the other mountains and expeditions.  Young-Seok went missing six years later while mounting Annapurna (one of the more treacherous eight-thousanders), and is considered dead, but lives on in adventuring legend for this accomplishment.

Gabriel in Da Vinci's Annunciation
4. How many angels are there in the Bible?

The answer is roughly 2.5, cheekily enough.  Two full-on angels are named in the Bible: Gabriel, who is the most mentioned angel in the Bible by name, who appears in the Book of Daniel as well as is the angel who announces the births of John the Baptist and Jesus, and then there's Michael, the archangel who appears in the Books of Daniel and Jude.

However, there are two angels that appear in the Bible that are "fallen angels," so 2.5 seems like a more appropriate answer.  The first of these is Lucifer, who is mentioned in the Books of Isaiah and Luke, and was considered the "most beautiful and powerful" angel until his fall, and he is generally associated with Satan.  Then there is Abaddon, who is briefly mentioned in Revelation 9:11 as the king of an army of locusts.

It's worth noting that there are two other angels that feature prominently in sects of the Christian faith, though are not mentioned in all different versions of the Bible.  Raphael, for example, features prominently in the Book of Tobit, which is part of the Catholic Bible but not part of the Protestant or Jewish Bibles, while the Book of Enoch (which is part of some Orthodox liturgy) features the angel Uriel.

Gen. Galusha Pennypacker
5. What General Couldn't Vote for His President?

Galusha Pennypacker is not just a man with the greatest name you've ever heard, he's also a famous overachiever.  During the Civil War, Pennypacker was in the Second Battle of Fort Fisher and fought valiantly, though received what at the time was thought to be a fatal wound, and was promised by General Alfred Terry that he would receive a brevet promotion for his bravery that day.  As a result, he was promoted to brigadier general on January 15, 1865.

However, Pennypacker actually survived this incident, and won a full promotion on February 18th, just four months shy of his 21st birthday.  As the voting age at the time was 21, Pennypacker became the first and so far only man to hold the office of general while not being able to legally vote for his president (he also received the Medal of Honor).  Considering that the voting age and the age for admission into the Army are now the same, it seems extremely likely that this is a distinction that Pennypacker will hold forever.  Pennypacker did eventually die of his Civil War injuries, but not until fifty years later, and is buried at Philadelphia National Cemetary

Queen Elizabeth II
6. What is the Royal Family's Last Name?

The (as of today) still unnamed princess born to William and Kate may not have a first name yet, but she does have a last name, even if it isn't widely-known by the public.  The last name of members of the Royal Family is either Mountbatten-Windsor or just Windsor.

The distinction is between those who have their "royal family" status as a result of Queen Elizabeth II and those that have it as a result of George V.  The former were given their last name as a result of an Order in Council issued by the Queen in 1960, which combined the royal names of Prince Philip's family and her majesty's family.  Prince Philip's family (he was a Greek prince) actually assumed Mountbatten during the war after a request from Prince Louis to King George V to move from Battenberg to Mountbatten.  Prince Louis of Battenberg was the grandfather of Prince Philip.

The House of Windsor started in 1917. At the time, anti-German sentiment was high in England and there was an emerging anti-monarchy sentiment across the continent (resulting in the assassinations of Emperor Nicholas II and his family in Russia).  As Nicholas II was a cousin of King George V, the monarch was convinced to change the family's name, which was the extremely German Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to something a bit more British.  They chose Windsor since it was the name of a well-known castle, and declared it by royal proclamation in 1917.

As a result of this, any member of the royal family who derives their royal status from Queen Elizabeth II (such as her children and male-line grandchildren) have the last name of Mountbatten-Windsor, while any members of the royal family who derive their royal status from King George V (these would be the Queen's cousins, such as the Duke of Gloucester and Prince Michael of Kent) have the last name Windsor.

Eva, Zsa Zsa, and Magda Gabor
7. How many times did the Gabor sisters get married?

Long before the Kardashians became the fodder of every tabloid story known to man, there was another trio of sisters whose every move and romance was chronicled by the press: the Gabors.  Extremely glamorous, the sisters were famed occasionally for their acting but mostly for their gossip-ready marriages.  Throughout their lives, the sisters married a combined total of twenty men (so far-Zsa Zsa is still kicking at age 98, though is reportedly in extremely bad health, so this number will probably remain concrete).  Amongst their conquests were plastic surgeons, stock brokers, millionaires, playwrights, hotel magnates, a count, a prince (Zsa Zsa's current husband) and most famously an Oscar-winning actor, George Sanders.  Sanders has the distinction of being married to both Magda and Zsa Zsa.

It's worth noting that in twenty marriages, only one of them resulted in one of the women having a child (Zsa Zsa and Conrad Hilton had a daughter in 1947...Zsa Zsa also famously slept with her stepson Nicky Hilton during the marriage, and Nicky went on to marry Elizabeth Taylor, another serial bride).  Only two of the marriages didn't end in divorce: Magda's first marriage to Jan Bychowsky ended when Bychowsky died and Zsa Zsa's present marriage to Frederic Prinz von Anhalt is still valid (yes, this is the guy who was one of the men that could have been the father to Anna Nicole Smith's daughter...it's a fine line of millions of dollars and a royal title that distinguishes "trash" from "socialite").

8. What are the only states never to have elected a woman to Congress?

This used to be four states, but with the election of Joni Ernst In Iowa this past fall the list is down to three.  The states are Delaware, Vermont, and Mississippi.  It's worth noting that women have run for Congress in all three of these states, but none have emerged victorious.  Of the three, Mississippi comes across the worst of the trio: not only has no woman won a congressional seat in the state, but the state has never elected a woman as their governor (this isn't the case for Delaware or Vermont, where Ruth Ann Minner and Madeline Kunin have served, respectively).  It's also worth noting that as-of-today, Mississippi has six congressional seats representing it while the other two states only have three.  Mississippi does have a prominent state senator running in the special election to succeed Alan Nunnelee, but it looks to be a very competitive primary so we shall see if this finally removes this distinction.

If you want to expand this a bit, six states have never had a woman serve in the House (in addition to the above three, there's Iowa, North Dakota, and Alaska), but all three of those states have had female senators.  22 states have not had female senators as of today-looking ahead to the upcoming elections the most likely contenders to rectify this (should candidates run and win) are Colorado (where Attorney General Cynthia Coffman is considering a Senate bid) and Nevada (where Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and Rep. Dina Titus are both looking at running or are already in the race).

Georges Braque's The Birds
9. Who was the first living person to be displayed at the Louvre?

Georges Braque was the first living artist to have his work displayed at the Louvre.  I cannot find the specific piece that it was (a little help in the comments?), but I do know that he had an installation piece called "The Birds" that was put into the Louvre in the 1950's, an extremely high honor for any artist.  Braque's career was significantly overshadowed by his friend and professional rival Pablo Picasso.  Picasso is frequently cited with being the creator of Cubism, but he actually did this in conjunction with Braque.  The two worked together for several years leading up to World War I (when Braque would serve in the French Army), and their art during this period is extremely similar.  Braque never really strayed from Cubism (while Picasso was constantly trying a new artistic style), and therefore has been relegated to more of a footnote status in art history than Picasso, who enjoys a position as one of the "greats."

Sigourney Weaver and Meryl Streep
10. What roles was Meryl Streep turned down for?

Like all things behind-the-scenes in Hollywood, there is some different interpretation for this question, but there are three roles that definitely Streep was turned down for: Miss Kenton in The Remains of the Day, Queen Elizabeth in Elizabeth, and Patsy Cline in Sweet Dreams.  It's worth noting that all three of these parts (which went to Emma Thompson, Cate Blanchett, and Jessica Lange, respectively) won Oscar nominations, which means that Streep's awards count could, staggeringly enough could be even higher by now.  There's also rumors that she was turned down for the part of Michelle Straton in American Gigolo, while other sources state that she was offered the role (which eventually went to Lauren Hutton) but turned it down because she didn't like the direction of the script.  She also was brought in to read for the part of Dwan in King Kong, but was thought to be "too ugly" by Dino de Laurentiis (this part also went to Jessica Lange).

Streep was also considered for two other Oscar-nominated roles.  She was originally going to star in Thelma and Louise with her pal Goldie Hawn but had to drop out when she got pregnant (not sure who was playing which role, but both parts won Oscar nominations, the same of which can't be said for Hawn/Streep's eventual pairing in the cult classic Death Becomes Her).  She was also considered for the part of Ripley in the Alien films, which won Sigourney Weaver an Oscar nomination in 1986 for Aliens.  Weaver and Streep were classmates at Yale together, and were constantly fighting over parts, with Meryl usually winning the leads (also, if you trade in celebrity gossip, Weaver purportedly dated Don Gummer before Meryl ended up marrying him), so this is probably a nice vindication for Weaver.

And there you have it-ten of my favorite pieces of trivia!  If you like this article, please re-tweet it or share in the comments, and I'll do another one soon!  If any of these trivia pieces surprised you or you have additional shares, put them there as well!

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Naming a Prince...What Will We Call the Royal Baby?

After yesterday's look at the leading girls' names for the new royal baby, we take a gander at what might happen if George gets a baby brother.  Take a look at the Top 10 names according to Oddschecker:

Prince Arthur,
Duke of Connaught and Strathearn
1. Arthur
Source: Obviously, the most famous Arthur was one that may never have existed, and sailed off centuries ago into Avalon.  In addition, Queen Victoria had a son who was named Prince Arthur, who was Duke of Connaught and Strathearn (her last living son), and he had a son named Arthur who was Governor-General of South Africa in the 1920’s.  Also, Arthur is one of Prince William’s three middle names.
Pro: Though history has long debated whether Arthur was indeed a real person (much less a king), there is little doubt that his name has great reverence within the canons of both British myth and literature.  We still allude to Camelot when we refer to everyone from the Kennedys to the Obamas in America, and the world likely views Kate and Will in a similar way.
Con: While there's little risk he'll be king someday, there's always some, and being the first undisputed King Arthur is a lot of pressure to put on someone.

2. James
Source: James has been the name of two British monarchs, as well as seven Scottish kings, most recently James II of England (a seventeenth century king).  Kate Middleton’s younger brother is also named James, as is Princess Diana's great-grandfather.
Pro: It’s a name steeped in both English and Scottish tradition, which is a good thing for British unity as the Scottish independence movement remains strong.
Con: The biggest one is that Will’s cousin is also named James (the Viscount Severn, or depending on how you handle the Letters Patent debate that surround the Earl of Wessex’s children, HRH Prince James, The Viscount Severn, and yes, I side with the latter).  There is also the fact that King James II did not get along well with Parliament (there’s a reason they stopped using his name for a number of years.  Additionally, Jacobitism, a period when there was a struggle with Hanoverians (the current British dynasty) and the Stuarts (the previous dynasty), started with James Francis Edward Stuart, so there’s a bit of a sting to the current monarchs.

Prince Harry
3. Henry
Source: Well, for starters there are eight kings with this name.  As a result, outside of Edward there's no name more popular in the royal monarchy than Henry.  In addition to this, there are a plethora of Prince Henry's in recent times, most notably Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (the Queen's uncle, and one point the man who would have been her regent if her father had died while she was still a minor) and of course everyone's favorite royal Prince Harry (whose real name is Henry).
Pro: It's a name that doesn't have a huge risk of being king, which is good because the last King Henry caused quite a stir with his many wives and penchant for executing them.  As a result, it's a way to celebrate one of the biggest names in the royal lexicon without inviting too much trouble; what's good for the spare ain't good for the heir, so to speak.
Con: Aside from Henry VIII, there's also the matter of being named after his wildly popular, but occasionally scandalized uncle.  As much as the media may want another spare heir just like Harry, it's unlikely the royal family wants one who behaves as such.

4. Phillip/Philip
Source: Prince Philip is obviously the inspiration for this, as he is Prince William’s grandfather, and as we just mentioned, a favorite of the Duke of Cambridge’s.   Philip is also the final of William’s three middle names.
Pro: This is a great way to honor the Royal Family’s current patriarch, and it’s a name that has been added with great gusto to the Royal Family lexicon since the Queen married the Greek prince.
Con: Not much-with the likelihood that he'll stay off the throne out of the way, there's no risk of Philip I on the throne, and they already used one of William's middle names.  I think this should be higher, personally.

Prince Alexander of Hesse and by Rhine
5. Alexander/Alex
Source: It's a ridiculously popular middle name (the Queen's uncle the Duke of Kent as well as the current Duke of Gloucester both had it).  The list of royal men who sported the name as their first name is relatively shorter.  Some of the more notable examples include Prince Alexander of Hesse and by Rhine, who had two sons marry daughters of Queen Victoria, Alexander Mountbatton, the Marquess of Carisbrooke (grandson of Queen Victoria), Prince Alexander John of Wales (son of King Edward VII), and the current Earl of Ulster, son of the Duke of Gloucester (the Queen's first cousin).
Pro: It's definitely one of those names that hasn't reached the throne but has been sported for a long time by the royals-plus, with Alexandra continually doing well on the girl's side, if this a name style Will and Kate like and they are only doing two children-it might be now or never time.
Con: Prince Alexander John of Wales died after 24 hours, so there is a bit of stigma there.  Plus, it's one of Prince George's middle names-shouldn't they spread the wealth a bit?

6. Richard
Source: I don't actually recall this one being bandied about with great frequency last time, certainly not in the Top 10 names.  It's definitely a name storied in English history, with three monarchs sporting the name, including the famed Richard the Lionheart.  There's also Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, who was the younger brother to King Edward IV, and the current Prince Richard, the Duke of Gloucester, who is the Queen's first cousin.
Pro: It's a name that hasn't been used for a royal family member recently, and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge showed with George that they aren't worried about names that are a bit antiquated.  The Duke of Gloucester is one of the less controversial of the Queen's cousins (notice how Michael is nowhere near this list).
Con: The entire story behind the Duke of York, who was killed by his uncle King Richard III along with his older brother is a bit discomforting and might not be something we want to recall, particularly with Richard III's recent exhumation making headlines.

Prince Louis of Battenburg
7. Louis
Source: There’s no shortage of King Louis’s (France has roughly twenty of them, depending on how you count some of the later ones), but your best bet to find a direction to Will and Kate is through Prince Louis of Battenburg, who was the grandfather of Prince Philip (and he also married a granddaughter of Queen Victoria).  In addition to this, one of William’s middle names is Louis. 
Pro: This is another way to honor Prince Philip.  There seems to be quite an assumption that a male child would be honoring the Duke of Edinburgh, whom Prince William is very close with, and so this seems like a plausible guess.
Con: Louis is so completely associated with the French monarchy, it’s hard to believe they’d go this route.  Plus, it's already one of George's middle names, so this is unlikely to be duplicated.

8. Edward
Source: There are no shortages of kings named Edward-the throne has hosted eight of them, in fact, and this is one of the most popular names in the Royal Family besides that.  There's also Edward the Black Prince (son of King Edward III), Prince Edward the Duke of Kent (father of Queen Victoria), and two living royals: the Duke of Kent and the Earl of Wessex.
Pro: This is a major name in the British lexicon, and there's minimal risk that he'll end up becoming king (one of the holdups with this name for Prince George was that the British monarchy still shudders at what happened with King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson).
Con: Aside from the Wallis Simpson debacle, do we really need three Prince Edwards?  The Earl of Wessex in particular is most commonly called Prince Edward in the media-wouldn't this be confusing?

Prince Charles
9. Charles
Source: Charles is of course the name of Prince William’s father, and the next monarch of England.  It's also the name of Princess Diana's younger brother.  In addition, this is one of Prince Harry’s middle names, and as the princes are quite close, would be a way for Will and Kate to honor the “current spare heir" by naming the new "spare heir" after him.
Pro: Charles is a very traditional name in the monarchy, and this would be a wonderful way to pay tribute to William's father.  Naming a child after a father or grandfather is very common in the Royal Family.
Con: This doesn't seem as in-fashion these days as it was a hundred years ago, and there's a lot of bad will with the previous two King Charles.  Plus, considering the media's fascination with skipping Charles on the way to the throne, would naming a spare heir after him exacerbate the British tabloids ("no Charles's will make the throne!")?

10. Andrew
Source: There has oddly not been a King Andrew in Britain (Hungary has had several), so this will be based on two Princes that are closely related to Prince William.  First, there is his uncle, Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, the younger brother of Prince Charles.  Secondly, there is William’s great-grandfather, the father of Prince Philip, Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark.  Andrew is also an exceedingly common middle name in the royal family.
Pro: It’s classic, but not entirely dated.  The name has risen in prominence within the Royal Family in recent years.
Con: The Duke of York is hardly a royal that one would want to emulate (he has courted controversy, along with his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, for most of his adult life, most recently in an alleged underage sex scandal), and Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark's reputation has not enjoyed the sterling nature that his wife Princess Alice’s has.

I'm Surprised It's Not in Contention...

John
Source: I’m clearly partial to this one, though the only British monarch that sported the name was King John, generally considered one of the Britain’s worst kings.  Kate Middleton has three great-great grandfathers who sported the name, and John is the name of William’s grandfather (on Diana’s side).
Pro: This is probably the best way that William could pay homage to his mother if the child is a boy and still stick to a name that is common with the British monarchy.
Con: John is a fairly cursed name in the British family.  In addition to King John, there’s John of Gaunt, perhaps the most significant man in the British Royal Family that never managed to take the throne, and most recently, Prince John, Queen Elizabeth’s young uncle who died at age thirteen from a seizure.

And there you have it-what's your guess for the fourth-in-line-to-the-throne?  Share your thoughts in the comments!