Theme
10:29pm July 28, 2014

petabell:

Some unpublished shots of Ben Whishaw from a shoot pegged for the first Menswear issue of The Times Luxx.

So Sad these never got published. 

Ph: Ross Shields

Stylist: Prue White

Art Direction: Peta Bell & Ross Shields

8:03pm July 28, 2014

an-unexpected-hero:

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies - Official Teaser Trailer 

SQUEEEEE!

I’ve still got some trepidation, the second movie was good in itself but played havoc with the source material (which was extra disappointing because the first movie had dealt more accurately with the book than the Lord of the Rings movies did), but I’m still super duper excited!

7:55pm July 28, 2014

“I’ve got the angry emails on record saying “Stop sending me people who are 27, ‘cause they never ever will be able to play the Doctor and they’ll never be able to flirt with Alex Kingston. It’s not going to happen.” So I cast a 26-year-old.”

— 

From this I get two things:

  • Moffat really likes telling stories where the punchline is “And then I was really obviously wrong”
  • Being able to flirt with Alex Kingston was a requirement?

(via tillthenexttimedoctor)

I’m always surprised that flirting with Alex Kingston is seen as a hard thing?  Granted, I’m not into women, but it seems like it would be quite easy if you like women.

(via engrprof)

Flirting with Alex Kingston is one of those things that should be super easy for anyone who isn’t a very young teenager and sees her as mom-age.

7:24pm July 28, 2014
scribblesincrayon:

queerlyobscure:

radicallyvisible:

sleepydumpling:

meredithann:

erstwhilegirl:

natellite:

ladyofthelog:

clawfoottub:

theacheofmodernism:

GUYS I CAN’T STOP LAUGHING

That is so adorable.

TOO SOON

lole

oh no

lol is this real

Ahahahahaha!!

I…do not remember that era.

Tell them about boy bands,

What is this I don’t even

I’m convinced that this is a parody intended to point out the siliness of romanticising the 1950s. Just replace the bands and clothing styles with Elvis and leather jackets, and the eyeliner with lipstick, and viola, I’ve seen that a hundred times.

scribblesincrayon:

queerlyobscure:

radicallyvisible:

sleepydumpling:

meredithann:

erstwhilegirl:

natellite:

ladyofthelog:

clawfoottub:

theacheofmodernism:

GUYS I CAN’T STOP LAUGHING

That is so adorable.

TOO SOON

lole

oh no

lol is this real

Ahahahahaha!!

I…do not remember that era.

Tell them about boy bands,

What is this I don’t even

I’m convinced that this is a parody intended to point out the siliness of romanticising the 1950s. Just replace the bands and clothing styles with Elvis and leather jackets, and the eyeliner with lipstick, and viola, I’ve seen that a hundred times.

7:19pm July 28, 2014

lady-disdain-is-yet-living:

runecestershire:

So I mentioned during my Macbeth liveblog that Shakespeare has so much to say about Kings and kingship.

But the thing about Shakespeare is that he doesn’t really say things. He doesn’t say “this sort of king is no good” or “the best kings look like this” or  “we’d be best off if kings were understood thus” or “if you’re a king, do not do this thing!”. In fact, Shakespeare’s stuff about kings is a matter of “show, don’t tell”. He doesn’t moralise, and his characters (kings, lovers, and all) are too real to be boiled down to simple ideological points.
So “Shakespeare has so much to say about kingship” isn’t really accurate; it’s more like “Shakespeare really enjoys exploring the idea of kingship”.

There was a comic going around a bit ago about how the tragic flaws of one Shakespearian protagonist would be the solution to all of another protagonist’s problems — Hamlet’s hesitation would avoid Othello’s tragic ending (if someone’s got the link to this I’d be much obliged).

So Richard II shows us a god-king coming to terms with his own mortality. Shakespeare doesn’t say “kings are sacred” or “kings should be sacred” or “kings who think they’re sacred are mistaken” or anything; he just shows us a certain character, in a certain situation, and any other character in the same situation might react differently. A different reaction might make things turn out better or worse or just as bad, but Richard II is not a moral tale.

Macbeth shows us very bloodthirsty and ambitious couple taking the throne for themselves through brute force, and Richard III shows the same sort of thing in a very different way, and Richard II's Bolingbroke is the same thing in yet a third way. Mackers' and Bolingbroke's and Dickon's actions are wrong, but Shakespeare never comes down and says that their conception of kingship as something that can be held or taken is necessarily wrong.

Henry V shows us kingship as a profession, but as something a little more incontrovertible than in the previous three plays; Henry’s position as king is never threatened. This isn’t Shakespeare saying “kings [like this] cannot be threatened”, instead he’s exploring what kingship means in the world of that play, both to the king himself and to the people around him. It’s an incredibly complex matter, and again, Shakespeare never comes out and says “this is good” or “don’t do the thing”.

Hamlet shows us kings who are mortal first and foremost. The tricky bits of kingship aren’t addressed at all, but the fact that the characters are kings, princes, queens, etc. means that they have to keep up appearances and that little things like the death of one man really do matter in the grand scheme of things, and this creates an environment where the story can take place. Shakespeare doesn’t say that it is a good thing or a bad thing that kingship creates such an environment, he doesn’t even say that his characters are dealing with it correctly or incorrectly, there is no right answer.

Interesting points here. I feel it’s necessary to add that Shakespeare’s primary patroness was the QUEEN of England, and things probably would not have ended well if he had been a blatant moralizer in regard to what rulers should and should not be or do.

A queen who thought of herself as a king, too. So you can’t even play the “well, she’s a queen and this stuff only applies to kings” card.

7:17pm July 28, 2014

whoiselizabethchilds:

runecestershire:

So I mentioned during my Macbeth liveblog that Shakespeare has so much to say about Kings and kingship.

But the thing about Shakespeare is that he doesn’t really say things. He doesn’t say “this sort of king is no good” or “the best kings look like this” or  “we’d be best off if kings were understood thus” or “if you’re a king, do not do this thing!”. In fact, Shakespeare’s stuff about kings is a matter of “show, don’t tell”. He doesn’t moralise, and his characters (kings, lovers, and all) are too real to be boiled down to simple ideological points.
So “Shakespeare has so much to say about kingship” isn’t really accurate; it’s more like “Shakespeare really enjoys exploring the idea of kingship”.

There was a comic going around a bit ago about how the tragic flaws of one Shakespearian protagonist would be the solution to all of another protagonist’s problems — Hamlet’s hesitation would avoid Othello’s tragic ending (if someone’s got the link to this I’d be much obliged).

So Richard II shows us a god-king coming to terms with his own mortality. Shakespeare doesn’t say “kings are sacred” or “kings should be sacred” or “kings who think they’re sacred are mistaken” or anything; he just shows us a certain character, in a certain situation, and any other character in the same situation might react differently. A different reaction might make things turn out better or worse or just as bad, but Richard II is not a moral tale.

Macbeth shows us very bloodthirsty and ambitious couple taking the throne for themselves through brute force, and Richard III shows the same sort of thing in a very different way, and Richard II's Bolingbroke is the same thing in yet a third way. Mackers' and Bolingbroke's and Dickon's actions are wrong, but Shakespeare never comes down and says that their conception of kingship as something that can be held or taken is necessarily wrong.

Henry V shows us kingship as a profession, but as something a little more incontrovertible than in the previous three plays; Henry’s position as king is never threatened. This isn’t Shakespeare saying “kings [like this] cannot be threatened”, instead he’s exploring what kingship means in the world of that play, both to the king himself and to the people around him. It’s an incredibly complex matter, and again, Shakespeare never comes out and says “this is good” or “don’t do the thing”.

Hamlet shows us kings who are mortal first and foremost. The tricky bits of kingship aren’t addressed at all, but the fact that the characters are kings, princes, queens, etc. means that they have to keep up appearances and that little things like the death of one man really do matter in the grand scheme of things, and this creates an environment where the story can take place. Shakespeare doesn’t say that it is a good thing or a bad thing that kingship creates such an environment, he doesn’t even say that his characters are dealing with it correctly or incorrectly, there is no right answer.

Here is the thing: image

Thank you!

7:04pm July 28, 2014

 http://runecestershire.tumblr.com/post/93149595836/eighttwotwopointthreethree-shakesankle

eglantinebr:

eighttwotwopointthreethree:

shakesankle:

zahhacked:

If you think Romeo and Juliet is an awful example of love then you obviously haven’t read Two Gentlemen of Verona.

Well yes but Two Gentlemen of Verona has a dog in it so your argument is invalid.

if you think r&j is an…

This last. This. And Romeo is not an idealized hero— he is a kid just stepping into the adult world.

Precisely!

I think a lot of the good example vs. bad example thing comes from people thinking that we’re dealing with idealised heroes, and either going “yay, idealised love against all odds!” or “this is a terrible hero to idealise!” when in reality we’re dealing with a very realistic young person who throws himself on the floor and sobs because everything is just too much.

That’s what the play is about, everything is too much, everything is too realistic to be idealised, and as such it’s beautiful (and I’m still really pissed off at Juliet’s parents)

7:00pm July 28, 2014

My computer has taken to making nirnroot noises under its breath. There’ll be just the whir of the fans and my typy noises, and then a very high, very quiet niiirrrrrnnnn will ring out.

6:57pm July 28, 2014

So I mentioned during my Macbeth liveblog that Shakespeare has so much to say about Kings and kingship.

But the thing about Shakespeare is that he doesn’t really say things. He doesn’t say “this sort of king is no good” or “the best kings look like this” or  “we’d be best off if kings were understood thus” or “if you’re a king, do not do this thing!”. In fact, Shakespeare’s stuff about kings is a matter of “show, don’t tell”. He doesn’t moralise, and his characters (kings, lovers, and all) are too real to be boiled down to simple ideological points.
So “Shakespeare has so much to say about kingship” isn’t really accurate; it’s more like “Shakespeare really enjoys exploring the idea of kingship”.

There was a comic going around a bit ago about how the tragic flaws of one Shakespearian protagonist would be the solution to all of another protagonist’s problems — Hamlet’s hesitation would avoid Othello’s tragic ending (if someone’s got the link to this I’d be much obliged).

So Richard II shows us a god-king coming to terms with his own mortality. Shakespeare doesn’t say “kings are sacred” or “kings should be sacred” or “kings who think they’re sacred are mistaken” or anything; he just shows us a certain character, in a certain situation, and any other character in the same situation might react differently. A different reaction might make things turn out better or worse or just as bad, but Richard II is not a moral tale.

Macbeth shows us very bloodthirsty and ambitious couple taking the throne for themselves through brute force, and Richard III shows the same sort of thing in a very different way, and Richard II's Bolingbroke is the same thing in yet a third way. Mackers' and Bolingbroke's and Dickon's actions are wrong, but Shakespeare never comes down and says that their conception of kingship as something that can be held or taken is necessarily wrong.

Henry V shows us kingship as a profession, but as something a little more incontrovertible than in the previous three plays; Henry’s position as king is never threatened. This isn’t Shakespeare saying “kings [like this] cannot be threatened”, instead he’s exploring what kingship means in the world of that play, both to the king himself and to the people around him. It’s an incredibly complex matter, and again, Shakespeare never comes out and says “this is good” or “don’t do the thing”.

Hamlet shows us kings who are mortal first and foremost. The tricky bits of kingship aren’t addressed at all, but the fact that the characters are kings, princes, queens, etc. means that they have to keep up appearances and that little things like the death of one man really do matter in the grand scheme of things, and this creates an environment where the story can take place. Shakespeare doesn’t say that it is a good thing or a bad thing that kingship creates such an environment, he doesn’t even say that his characters are dealing with it correctly or incorrectly, there is no right answer.

6:23pm July 28, 2014

eighttwotwopointthreethree:

shakesankle:

zahhacked:

If you think Romeo and Juliet is an awful example of love then you obviously haven’t read Two Gentlemen of Verona.

Well yes but Two Gentlemen of Verona has a dog in it so your argument is invalid.

if you think r&j is an awful example of love because you’re so fixated on the fact that they died for each other and completely ignoring all the other extenuating circumstances and dramatic irony that led to that action, you’ve bitten your thumb at me, sir, and we must quarrel.

If you think that Romeo and Juliet is an example of love, awful or otherwise, then you are misapprehending the size of the plot and how Shakespeare’s stuff is to big and too realistic to boil down to “don’t do the thing” or “the thing is nice”.

How I see Romeo and Juliet, it’s a painfully realistic portrayal of a very complex situation that doesn’t happen all that often in real life. As such, it portrays very real love (or what passes for very real love in the very real hearts of very real young people) in a way that is both beautiful and hopeless. It’s neither a good nor bad example, but it’s beautiful and it’s true (in both the realistic sense and in the poetic sense). Juliet is not the model of a stupid kid, nor is she the model of a perfect girlfriend; instead, she’s a fully realised person. So of course it’s easy to identify with her, she’s real.