Till We Meet Again is an award-winning indie film focused on the way relationships can both begin and change when traveling abroad. So far I have been given the opportunity to watch and review the film, as well as bounce a few questions off of director Bank Tangjaitrong in the first installment of “Making Till We Meet Again“.

Today I’ll be sharing an interview I conducted via email with Johan Matton, whose role in the production include writer, executive producer, and acting as Erik, one of the leads. That being said, while the film was ultimately directed and brought to life by Tangjaitrong it can’t be argued that its very existence largely lies on Matton’s shoulders.

David tells Joanna that being in Thailand “realigns you with who you really are.” It seems apparent from the film, which you wrote as well as starred in, that you’d been there before. How much truth do you think there is in that statement?

I wanted the character David (Emrhys Cooper) to come across as a flirtatious, charming person who always knows what to say but is still real and sincere, not the stereotypical obstacle of a man for Erik and Joanna that he could have been. I believe in this moment he speaks about what is true to him; he is not just using catchy lines to charm Joanna (Linnea Larsdotter) at this point, I think he means it sincerely and believes this to be true. For me I believe in individuality [laughs] and that expressions such as this where “you” means “everyone” can be a bit naive.

Some people might be aligned, some people may not. However, empirically for me, Thailand definitely aligns me and I find myself looking inwards and realizing what more I can give to the world and how egotistical New York makes me if I do not take enough pauses from the city. I also believe strongly that some people do tend to get grounded sometimes when they travel and change perspectives from the loop of life we are usually in. So the statement is true to David and for me, but most likely not to everyone.

Do you think Eric ends up finding out who he really is?

I believe he finds out a lot throughout the film and he grows to become someone that can do much more than he could at the beginning (trying to avoid spoilers, haha). I believe at the end of the film it is not that he found himself completely, and the same goes for everyone; the search is not “over” for all these characters, maybe it is now the real journey can begin. I think Erik will find more in the coming months moving forward from where the film leaves him.

Your character tells his newfound friends that the past few days are the longest he’s ever been away from Joanna. Given how extreme his neediness is, does it go beyond that at all [especially given what he says about his sister taking care of him]? At times he appeared to struggle with anxiety at the very least.

Erik struggles with anxiety when alone, and his problem has been that he chooses to escape rather to deal with it and jumps from his sister’s support to Joanna to Miranda, which ultimately makes Miranda frustrated because she sees this pattern and tries to help him. Does it go beyond that? It did in earlier screenplays, where Erik had recurring panic attacks. But we switched focus a bit here, after discussing with the director and my co-writer, as inner struggles are not always as easy and interesting to showcase in a character on the screen. Frankly a screenplay usually works better when the protagonist actively is trying to achieve something outside his/her own mind. With some great exceptions of films I love [laughs].

However I think it is utterly important to showcase anxiety amongst young and adult people and that it can happen even in a relationship between young 20-somethings, and in the paradise of sandy beaches in Thailand. I thought initially there had been too much focus on depression and anxiety amongst adults and older people in film and wanted to showcase these millennials struggling and dealing with emotions and life as well.

That also connects to the title, Till We Meet Again, which applies to Eric and Joanna reconnecting after their time apart. What expectations were there for Eric surrounding that event, and did they change the more time passed?  

Throughout the film Erik is searching to find a way to get back to Joanna again, and I think Erik is almost surprised by his own reactions to what happens to him and the way he approaches their meeting when they finally see one another again.

When Miranda asks Eric what he’ll miss about Thailand he answers with “the people”, and jokes that he doesn’t mean her and her friends. How serious was he being? We don’t really see him engage with any Thais until right at the end of the film.

Good question. Erik is referring mostly to everyone he met throughout the journey: mostly Miranda, Jamie and Cecile, backpackers, and Thai locals. I wrote the joke into this scene to showcase that Erik is so much more comfortable now compared to the previous scenes with Miranda, Jamie, and Cecile, and he allows himself to relax and be a person who stops walking on eggshells trying not to do something wrong. I also wanted give Erik some humor and charm to give a better reason for Miranda to find liking to him.

We did initially have many scenes with Erik interacting with Thai locals but had to cut multiple scenes due to runtime. We kept snippets of Erik shopping and interacting with the locals before the night market but the 3 bigger scenes were cut. Maybe we can find them on a DVD special in the future.

I hope this question doesn’t come across the wrong way, but would you say that this story is for everyone? The reason I ask that is because all of the characters appear to be able to travel without worry. That’s not a freedom I can say many of my peers have, given full-time jobs and college loans to pay off. 

I think the story can be for everyone, I believe this is one of the crucial points of films and filmmaking: that we can create something and envision ourselves in a land or a place we have never been to, or with an economy we can only dream of and might never have. Some people need films to see other characters cry and laugh because they may or may not have enough laughter and/or crying in their own lives. I always hope to inspire when I write, and these backpackers are by no means rich people.

When I myself backpacked I spent less than $1000 and was gone for almost 2 months and in 6 different countries in South East Asia, traveling to places in Cambodia where I slept on mats on the floor for $1 a night and eating only rice and vegetables (I lost 15 pounds!). Backpackers we met said they had traveled 2 weeks (not months) and already spent over $4000 in 2-3 countries, so there are different ways of traveling. We didn’t fly anywhere; we took local boats, buses and hitchhiked between each country, 32 hours with goats on one bus and trains in 3rd class without windows where we dodged branches from palm trees that would stick into the train car from the thick Malaysian jungle outside. And believe me we both had (and still have) major student loans. We did indeed quit our jobs to be able to travel, though.

Thank you so much, Evan.

Till We Meet Again is now available on VOD, and is available on iTunes as well as other online services. Tune in soon for our final interview with Emrhys Coope!

There are many things I expect from 2 Broke Girls. Off-colour humour and painfully bad puns number among them, of course, and as of this season solid jokes/gags as well. What I don’t tune into this CBS sitcom for, however, is a strong theme that is heavily featured throughout an episode. All that said, “And the About FaceTime” was a pleasant surprise, especially after having taken last week off.

A fairly successful cold open kicks things off, with the gang trapped inside the Williamsburg Diner due to aggressive canvassers blocking off both exits. Nobody wants to be confronted by the unnervingly gleeful young people, and it’s that same procrastination and fear of facing things head-on that will be experienced and dealt with by various members of the cast moving forward.

For Oleg it’s putting off selling his beloved Toyota Yaris, as Sophie wants them to become a minivan-owning family. For Caroline it’s the fact that she hasn’t had sex in two straight years, the implication being that she’s been too preoccupied with her business and the rest of her life to give it any attention. For Oleg it’s death [wow, making old people jokes really is that easy]. When it comes to Max, however, it’s not made explicitly clear until over halfway through the episode.

Randy makes a reappearance after two episodes away, though solely through the screen of Max’s iPad. They’re still making the long-distance thing work, which makes sense since it was almost exactly a month ago that they decided to get back together. In order to turn their tricycle into a/an [insert your four-wheeled vehicle of choice here] Randy snags Caroline a date with his co-worker Tyler. It’s his introduction that acts as a catalyst for whatever it is that Max and Randy have going on.

On one hand, seeing the forming Channing heiress get physical with the former star of Nickelodeon’s Ned’s Declassified School Survival Guide- 

Thanks, 2paragraphs, I had a strong suspicion but you confirmed it.

-is understandably difficult for Max. She misses actually being able to touch her boyfriend, and sexting only gets you so far [no pun intended]. Following up on that is Randy flaking on their date, which leads her to cock blocking Tyler and [the-female-equivalent-of-cock-blocking] Caroline. In his frustration The-Child-Star-Formerly-Known-As-Ned drops a bomb, asking her “what do you expect?”

See, Randy and Max broke up in the Season 6 premiere because neither of them was willing to move for the other. Tyler spells that out, indicating that if neither of them were willing to make the big step it can’t be something they consider very important. After a very brief phone call Max breaks things off for the second time in under a dozen episodes.

While things could have been seeded better in the weeks leading up to this one, just as far as a certain level of dissatisfaction in their relationship, the conclusion was an impactful one. Better couples have kept things going in-person for much less, and the realization that they never should’ve gotten this far is something I can deeply relate to.

In the end Caroline never seals the deal, which maintains the longstanding status quo, and Max is once again single. It’s an interesting place to leave things, especially so close to the midseason finale, but as with most things it’s satisfying because it was done well. To reiterate, episodes with a strong theme are not at all something I expect from 2 Broke Girls, but if there are more down the pipeline I’m certainly not complaining.

Oh, also there were parts that I thought were funny which are listed, as usual, down below.

Current Total: $4,840.35.

New Total: $5,821.62. No clue, sorry.

The Title Refers To: FaceTime is a popular video calling app for smartphones and tablet. The term “about time” implies that something was a long time coming, and “about face” refers to turning around, but I’m not sure which was intended in this case.

Stray Observations

• Causes the canvassers might be raising money for: “OCD pandas or owls who say ‘whom’.”
• “Rest in peace, Earl. Taken seconds before his time.”
• “Don’t worry, everything’s okay. Unless you’re the North American Honeybee.”
• Caroline’s perfect match: “a gay guy who doesn’t mind loud chewing”

“Oleg, did you really think you could pass this off as you? You don’t wear glasses!”

• “Are these prices, ’cause they’re all two numbers-“
• Caroline and Tyler say Spanish words with a lisp.
• Max talks about not having more than one plate in the same episode she complains about not liking the taste of fennel.
• Every instance of Caroline talking about sex is a gem:

“break off a piece of that Kit-Kat bar” sexually

“I’m gonna have sex tonight, if you know what I mean.”

“Hey, Randy, I can’t hear you I’m going through a tunnel!” / “I wish.”

• After Sophie violently shoves her stroller down the stairs she says “Baby Barbara loves that,” followed by a shot of the laughing infant. I guess it’s fine then.
• “That car was magic. And now the only tail my Yaris will ever see belongs to a lasagna-eating cat!” I wish I could communicate just how much Jonathan Kite nails that line.
• “Max please don’t threaten my date, he’s not a kid with a McFlurry!”
• “I need to be alone. Maybe I’ll go to a taping of Carson Daly.”
• The diner has a betting pool on Caroline having sex and Sophie actively prevents that from happening, which is not how betting pools work.
• The episode closes with Han running the metaphorical bases in Oleg’s old Yaris with some pretty young blonde. They don’t make as big a deal out of this as I thought they might.

For a number of years now I’ve wondered how many of the jokes on 2 Broke Girls, especially the ones referencing pedophilia and sexual assault or abuse, have been able to make it onto the air. Every now and then, however, I find myself asking if something can be shown. This week our newest feature, and one that will likely be returning, is called-

Can She Do That?

“And the About FaceTime” brought that question to mind just a couple of minutes into the episode, when I saw the following take place:

Immediately my mind jumped to the fact that you’re not allowed to show people drinking alcohol on television, but there’s no way that could possibly be true, right? After all, we can all think back to at least one instance of a character sipping at a hard beverage on-screen. With that in mind, perhaps it’s just shows on basic cable?

A writeup on Adweek revealed that it’s actually more complicated than that. In America, where 2 Broke Girls is produced and aired, does not have any laws in place that might limit alcohol marketing, ie. beer commercials and the like. That said there was once a Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters that was enacted in 1951, which prohibited:

“prohibited the use of profanity, the negative portrayal of family life, irreverence for God and religion, illicit sex, drunkenness and addiction, presentation of cruelty, detailed techniques of crime, the use of horror for its own sake, and the negative portrayal of law enforcement officials, among others”

While the code was suspended in 1983 it turns out that many broadcast networks tend to stick to much of its contents, in particular to the consumption of alcoholic beverages on-screen. With that in mind, it’s pretty safe to say that 2 Broke Girls already portrays the vast majority of the items listed above on a regular basis, so what’s adding one more to the list?

2 Broke Girls is not exactly a show that I would call jet-setting, let alone, uh . . . taxi-setting. I mean, sure, they’ve gone off to Rhode Island and even Paris, but for the most part this is a sitcom that revolves around either The Williamsburg Diner or the recently renovated Dessert Bar. In this episode, however, the girls take a page from Sun Wukong and embark on their very own journey to the west [just look it up, it’s a great reference].

Despite Max’s sobering realization last week that things between her and Randy are officially donzo we open up, after what I believe is an unprecedented “Previously on 2 Broke Girls” segment, with her announcing that she’s off to LA to save their relationship. “And the Himmicane” marked a real low for the character, with half of the titular duo actively deluding herself that the breakup was in fact just a break. Watching “And the Planes, Fingers and Automobiles” I kept noting how much stronger Max appeared compared to the last time I saw her, but also observed that it was still in service to keeping things with Randy going. 

Caroline spins the quest to save . . . Mandy? Rax? [I like the latter’s double entendre] into a vacation, since the Dessert Bar needs to be heavily renovated anyway after the hurricane damage. Since Max strong-arming Han into letting them use his recently acquired Toyota Yaris results in him chauffeuring the two the diner is left to, Earl and Oleg, “a real murderer’s row.”

A predictable series of mishaps has them go from Yaris to 18-wheeler to single engine plane, and while that’s all fun and games one brush with death after another what’s far more compelling is the reason they’re on this trip to begin with. Regardless of the vehicle Max is constantly stalking Randy on social media, and has a miniature crisis when she sees a finger on his shoulder in the last split second of a Snapchat story.

I mentioned just a little earlier that I thought Max was stronger this episode, and that’s certainly true. She creates a goal for herself and doesn’t let anything get in her way, including the extremely high chance of dying in a plane crash. The thing is that her obsession with Randy, and the fear that he’s already moved on, are so palpable. There have been a surprisingly high number of emotionally vulnerable moments for Max this season, and it’s made her a much more compelling character. Whereas other sitcoms have boiled their characters down to their base elements by now 2 Broke Girls actually appears to be imbuing one of its leads with more depth, a laudable feat in its sixth season.

As the plane starts to nosedive, with the girls ostensibly having to make their own way to Texas from wherever it lands, it feels like a metaphor for Rax [yeah, I’m sticking with it]. Max Black is really doubling down on this working out and there doesn’t appear to be any going back.

Speaking of going back, the diner manages to not burn itself down in their absence. It’s actually pretty entertaining having the rest of the cast interact with one another, especially when Sophie, who’s taken over as a waitress, actively tries to fill the hole they left behind. When Earl asks her why she’s calling him “girl” she replies matter-of-factly that she’s just “calling [him] a woman like the girls do with Han, except he takes it!”

Oh, also the finger belonged to Randy’s mom, so no big deal.

Current Total: $5,521.62.

New Total: $3,521.62. When the plane starts to lose control pilot Sloppy Joe [currently uncredited on IMDb] tosses out Caroline’s suitcase which is holding “all my clothes, all our money, our credit cards!” She is also reported to have gotten extra money from the insurance people because she told them she and Max were pregnant. Either way, the loss of the two grand likely stems from the now-missing suitcase.

The Title Refers To: The 1987 John Hughes comedy Planes, Trains and Automobiles, which also neglects to use the Oxford comma. The choice to insert “Fingers” in lieu of “Trains” is due to the finger Max is consumed by for much of the episode.

Stray Observations:

• Sophie got into a fight with Barbara’s friends in the ball pit, but assuming their her peers age-wise they never should’ve been in there to begin with.
• Oleg once ran a pretty successful jerk shack: “We sold Jamaican-style chicken [pause] as a front for full-release massages.”
• “Can I interest anyone in a side trip to Pine Creek Gorge? If you love the Grand Canyon you’ll think Pine Creek Gorge is . . . pretty good.”
• Caroline and Han rocking out to the 1997 Hanson hit “MMMBop” was easily the standout moment for me:

“What’s a road trip without a singalong?” / “I don’t know, tolerable?”

• “Good luck phoning the police now, Table 2!”
• “Wow, you unplugged that phone faster than we unplugged my Aunt Esther. She was a mean lady.”
• “I can take you as far as Missouri, home to street violence and a large percentage of America’s Oxycontin epidemic.”
• Apparently truck driver Becky “with the good hair” was part of Seal Team Six, more specifically the group that killed Osama Bin Ladin.
• Beck and Han end up
• “And that’s when I married my high school sweetheart. Well, she was in high school, I was 38.” Gross, Sloppy Joe.
• This actually marks, ostensibly, the second time [the last one was two episodes back] Han has had sex this season, which I believe is an all-time high. Sure, each tryst is played up as a joke, and his fling with Becky is no exception, but it’s something.
• “Oh, I like this, too-” Caroline realizations that she enjoyed steering both an 18-wheeler and a plane were delivered with an infectious excitement.
• Sophie and Oleg having sex in the diner? “Well, it wouldn’t be the first time. Hell, it wouldn’t be the eighth time.”

Every time I think of the relationship between correlation and causation I think of the 552nd xkcd strip:

“Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing ‘look over there’.”

It’s one that passed through my mind again while I was watching “And the Planes, Finger and Automobiles” due to a relationship I observed between Max’s lines and her own emotional distress. This feature, repeating weekly, is dedicated to those connections which may be directly related to one another but, then again, may not be.

State of the Correlation/Causation

It’s apparent throughout this episode, as well as the ones preceding it, that Max is undergoing a lot of emotional distress. You could even argue that it reaches a peak here due to her taking drastic action to revive a relationship for what I believe is the third time.

HelpGuide.org lists the symptoms of stress as being:

• Depression or general unhappiness.
• Anxiety and agitation.
• Moodiness, irritability, or anger.
• Feeling overwhelmed.
• Loneliness and isolation.
• Other mental or emotional health problems.

Given the sitcom format I want to posit that another way this can be seen in Max is a noticeable downturn in her wit and snark. To start with, upon seeing the offending digit in Randy’s Snapchat Story she declares “I gotta finger this out!” Later on in the plane she says the title of the film “Silver Linings Playbook” twice in reference to the positive in what’s an increasingly grim situation. A single mention is understandable, but twice feels out of character for her.

It could even be argued that, as the core of the show, the poor writing Max receives has an effect on the other characters in her orbit. When referring to his Yaris Han initially says-

“Um, this thing is smoking more than my grandma at the bingo finals”

-then, mere minutes later, he follows that up with-

“…’cause that car is deader than the conversation at the Jolie-Pitt Thanksgiving this year.”

Again, a single analogy to describe the state of his vehicle would be more than enough, but we receive two. The question I would like to introduce, but don’t necessarily have the answer to, is whether or not Max’s precarious emotional state, which ultimately makes the show more interesting, could result in a decline in comedic writing, making the show less funny. Please consider and discuss amongst yourselves.

I began the first installment of this two-parter making note of the long and ultimately wearying experience it has been, starting with Doctor Strange going into pre-production and continuing on to the recent exposure of the Swinton-Cho Letters. While I spent time describing the ups and downs of casting news what I neglected to mention, and what I’m going to focus on today, is the outset and ultimate resurgence of an argument in defence of whitewashing.

That’s right, an argument defending what Wikipedia helpfully defines as “a casting practice [. . .] in which white actors are cast in historically non-white character roles.” The very faint silver lining is that the justification here does not revolve around star power and A-list draw, or the idea that “the best person for the role” was hired, the latter of which rarely ever swings the other direction. In spite of not being deeply rooted in these ways of thinking, however, the argument is remains deeply flawed.

Before we get into that, however, we should probably get to its origin story.

Like I Said Last Time, “It’s Always Podcasts”

Having to hit all of this again it’s important to be thankful for small blessings, with one being that I don’t need to hear C. Robert Cargill’s voice again due to already having done the research for another post. The person in question was one of the screenwriters for Doctor Strange, and dropped in on the  Double Toasted podcast mid-April to answer a few questions about it.

Eventually, and and unsurprisingly, the issue of the Ancient One’s casting was brought up. Cargill’s response, as transcribed by CINEMABLEND’s “The Blunt, Yet Difficult Reason Doctor Strange’s Ancient One Isn’t Asian”, is as follows:

“The Ancient One was a racist stereotype who comes from a region of the world that is in a very weird political place. He originates from Tibet. So if you acknowledge that Tibet is a place and that he’s Tibetan, you risk alienating one billion people who think that that’s bullshit and risk the Chinese government going, ‘Hey, you know one of the biggest film-watching countries in the world? We’re not going to show your movie because you decided to get political.’ If we decide to go the other way and cater to China in particular and have him be in Tibet [. . .] If you think it’s a good idea to cast a Chinese actress as a Tibetan character, you are out of your damn fool mind and have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about.”

In essence Cargill chalked the reasons for the casting decision up to politics and economics, implying that having the character played by a Tibetan would cause Marvel Studios to lose out on Chinese box office sales. He also suggests quite strongly that, conversely, having a Chinese actor play a Tibetan would cause a large amount of controversy. This was picked up by sites from IndieWire to ScreenRant to The Hollywood Reporter, with several using words like “reveal” in their headlines, as if a longstanding mystery had finally been solved.

The justifications he laid out were to become the go-to response for every commenter looking to defend the Swinton’s casting, and why not? After all, as one of the screenwriters of the film Cargill should be a direct and dependable source. The answer to that hypothetical starts with what happened a few short days later-

Cargill Clarifies [But Few Listen]

On April 25th, shortly after news outlets had reported on what he had said during the podcast, the following tweets were posted online:

To reiterate, Cargill states that “contrary to the headlines , [he] didn’t confirm anything.” Unfortunately what was shared on Twitter gained so little traction, with only the first garnering a little over three dozen retweets at the time of this writing, that he also wrote an email that was shared on the New York Times website:

“I’ve made a lot of mistakes in my life, but none that I regret as much as choosing to answer a question to which I had no place in speaking. I tried to make it right by clarifying my position on Twitter Monday but unfortunately — perhaps ironically, given that this story gained so much steam on social media — those comments were not picked up by those reporting on my statements from the original podcast. Those original statements were my own personal musings about a character, and although I worked on the film script, I came to the project after the first draft and was not part of any casting discussions or decisions so I had no right or knowledge to speak about them as if I was. It was a moronic decision, and worst of all, I embarrassed my friends and colleagues by coming across as if I were speaking for them. I was not.”

To restate his point: the comments made by Cargill on Double Toasted did not by any means reflect on Marvel Studios and their own choices that led to what actually ended up taking place. They were, to quote him directly, “[his] own personal musings about a character”.

While this has received considerably less coverage than his original statements, which can be laid in part at the feet of the journalists who failed to cover the second part of this story, an additional problem is that Cargill’s rationale wouldn’t hold water even if he was speaking on behalf of the film’s other creators.

“you risk alienating one billion people”

A specific aspect of this entire issue that has worn away at me as the months have gone by is the number of armchair experts that have cropped up due to Cargill’s initial statements. Suddenly everyone and the entirety of their extended family appeared to have received doctorates in both Film and Geopolitical Studies, unveiling an in-depth understanding of China’s censorship laws.

The biggest irony, to pull a phrase from the Swinton-Cho Letters, is that actual knowledge of the debate over Tibetan sovereignty is completely moot because, and get this, there are no references to Tibet in Doctor Strange. Here are the first three words of the Plot section on the Wikipedia page for the film [at the time of this writing]:

After noting that the film does not eventually shift to take place in Tibet, let’s really break it down:

• Tibet is a politically complex area on the aptly-named Tibetan Plateau, which many Chinese people view as being an autonomous region of their country.
• Nepal is a Federal Democratic Republic that shares a border with the aforementioned geographical area; Kathmandu is its capital.

To put it more bluntly: Nepal is not Tibet. Asian American actor George Takei shared an article on his Facebook page with the accompanying comment that “Marvel must think we’re all idiots,” which he further elaborates on in the comments below, noting:

“Marvel already addressed the Tibetan question by setting the action and The Ancient One in Kathmandu, Nepal in the film. It wouldn’t have mattered to the Chinese government by that point whether the character was white or Asian, as it was already in another country. So this is a red herring, and it’s insulting that they expect us to buy their explanation.”

Even without his decades of experience within the film industry as a minority it’s impossible to ignore the logic behind this simple observation: without any references to Tibet there wouldn’t have been any issue with the Ancient One being Asian as they would not have ostensibly hailed from that particular region of the world. Having addressed the potential impact the loss of the Chinese box office might have had on Doctor Strange, let’s actually talk about what the film doesn’t-

“if you think it’s a good idea to cast a Chinese actress as a Tibetan character…”

There’s a great deal to unpack in this next section. The first is the idea that they ever had the option of simply casting a Chinese actor in the part, while stating the actual character themselves is Tibetan, as if that would have mollified the world power while offering a concession to the region they claim power over. Cargill saying that supporters of this “have no idea what [they’re] talking about” is entirely accurate, but it’s just throwing out an unrealistic suggestion and then crucifying those who might hold it up as a solution.

What that section does imply, however, is that representation of Tibetan people is something they value, and that there’s a concern that those who call for that representation might be vocal in the event that it’s handled poorly. Which is hilarious to think about, in retrospect.

If representation of Tibetan people was truly of any importance you’d think they might have been included in Doctor Strange. That said, it was actually their complete exclusion which resulted in a group of Tibetans and Tibet supporters silently protesting the film around the time of its release. In charge of gathering the small group of no more than a dozen Urgyen Badheytsang, campaign director of Students for a Free Tibet, levelled the accusation that:

“They’re doing worse than just whitewashing. Right now they are just completely [sic] mish mashing cultures. They’re making people dumber by placing this white woman in the middle of a monastery in Nepal.”

Any ire or sorrow Badheytsang may have felt over their not casting a Tibetan in the role appears to be amplified by their choice of Tilda Swinton. Not only is a part that could have been Asian given to a White actor, it’s the juxtaposition of the setting which exacerbates how jarring it really is.

Cargill’s rationale has been so closely repeated that this is a point that almost always proceeds the other. Once the Chinese box office and the country’s government have been mentioned the need for Tibetan representation and its accuracy swiftly follows. While I’m dubious in regards to how much those calling for authenticity ever valued it prior to this movie, what I never want to do is downplay the desire for entertainment to better depict minorities, regardless of their actual number.

The truth is that Doctor Strange does not in fact do right by Tibet, and the reason for that is-

“because you decided to get political”

The title of ScreenRant’s write-up really says it all: “Doctor Strange’s Erasure Of Tibet Is A Political Statement”. While the entire thing is worth reading, one section is particularly insightful:

“It scarcely needs to be said, but Marvel’s decision to quietly excise Tibet from Doctor Strange’s origin story is not apolitical. The studio has absolutely taken a side on the issue of the Tibet-China conflict, and it has sided with the Chinese government – an obvious choice, considering that the SAPPRFT [State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television] is the gatekeeper to China’s massive population and substantial Marvel fanbase. But [. . .] the erasure of Tibet from a major Hollywood blockbuster isn’t so easy to just shrug off. At worst, it could be argued that Marvel is being complicit in the oppression of a people whose troubled history has included human rights violations [. . .]. With all that in mind, Marvel’s decision to play along with the Chinese government’s stance on Tibet, even by simply avoiding acknowledgement of its existence, suddenly doesn’t seem so harmless.”

As such Doctor Strange joins a number of other works of art that are straddling the line between being apolitical and communicating a strongly-held stance. Rogue One, which hit theatres last week and was likewise ultimately created by Disney, appears to lean more towards the former. In response to one of the film’s writers tweeting [since deleted] that the “Empire is a white supremacist (human organization)” Disney CEO Bob Iger sought to clear the air, telling The Hollywood Reporter:

“”I have no reaction to [this] story at all. Frankly, this is a film that the world should enjoy. It is not a film that is, in any way, a political film. There are no political statements in it, at all.”

He doubled down on the sentiment, further saying:

“[Rogue One] has one of the greatest and most diverse casts of any film we have ever made and we are very proud of that, and that is not a political statement, at all.”

Only two days ago Blizzard released a comic called “Reflections” for their increasingly popular FPS Overwatch. Taking place within the game universe [in a way that actual gameplay doesn’t] the issue revealed a lot about a number of characters, though none more shocking to the internet than the following panel:

Overwatch #10. Written by Michael Chu, Illustrated by Miki Montlló.

Pictured is Tracer, on the left [the actual face of the game as she appears on box and case covers, and most promotional material] being kissed/kissing Emily, who she appears to be in a romantic relationship with. People reacted exactly as you might expect them to.

After allowing a lot of the initial furor to die down, Blizzard released a statement to IGN which reads:

“Tracer is a lesbian on the LGBTQ+ spectrum. As in real life, having variety in our characters and their identities and backgrounds helps create a richer and deeper overall fictional universe. From the beginning, we’ve wanted the universe of Overwatch to feel welcoming and inclusive, and to reflect the diversity of our players around the world. As with any aspect of our characters’ backgrounds, their sexuality is just one part of what makes our heroes who they are.”

The question is, are these works of art political? Is Rogue One, a film in which a group of rebels battles against a fascist regime political, in a year where “fascist” was the most-searched term on Merriam-Webster and that marks the most contentious election in recent US history? What does it mean for the latest film in the Star Wars franchise to star “one of the greatest and most diverse casts of any film [they] have ever made” or for Overwatch to feature an LGBT hero, in a world where non-White people have had a history of being excluded from military service and where the US Armed Forces’ “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding homosexuals was repealed less than a decade ago?

In the world that we currently live in it has become a matter of politics to state that members of the LGBT community can be heroes, not as mech-pilots or cyborg defenders, or even military personnel, but as school teachers and Boy Scout leaders. It has become a matter of politics to believe that people who don’t look like us can find a place not only in our home countries, but on our TV and movie screens.

Art makes a statement. It speaks volumes even if you won’t, and oftentimes says the opposite even if you do.

What Do We Say to the God of Death People Who Won’t Let This Die?

Cargill describes a worst case scenario as the filmmakers “[deciding] to get political”, yet even their decision to cast an older woman was their own way of resisting a common, unspoken opinion that this demographic has no place in Hollywood blockbusters. In addition to that, as Hannah Shaw-Williams at ScreenRant so eloquently put it, omitting Tibet is firm evidence that “the studio has absolutely taken a side”.

Actual concern about the potential Chinese box office and any perceived concern for actual Tibetans having been eradicated, we are still left with a character commonly depicted as Asian being played by White actor Tilda Swinton. As I mentioned in my takeaway from Doctor Strange the Ancient Once as they appeared on-screen was portrayed, “with nuance and multidimensionality.” Why Asian talent could not have played and redeemed the character can and should be asked of director Scott Derrickson, who is on record as saying Wong, who himself made it into the film with original race intact, “was a worse stereotype than The Ancient One”.

There’s only so much good you can do arguing with people online, but should you come across this same, tired argument I hope you’re now better equipped to respond to it. While China may have resulted in Tibet never even being mentioned, what that country’s government did not contribute to was Swinton landing the part. What’s truly saddening is the inability for what was ostensibly a room full of White men to come up with a creative solution to the problem they were faced with, and that’s all it was.

In his episode of Double Toasted Cargill mentioned that “every single decision that involves the Ancient One is a bad one, and just like the Kobayashi Maru, it all comes down on which way you’re willing to lose.” As Edward Wong of the New York Times points out, the comparison is flaw as it can in fact be beaten. That’s the thing about unwinnable scenarios, referring to them as such is the easy response.

As I say at the beginning of every year, you can look back at the first-ever Evan Yeong Literary Awards in 2014 for a fuller description of my relationship with reading, which in turn led to their inception.

While eventually I’ll run out of ways to write this, the purpose of the third installment of the Evan Yeong Literary Awards is to shine a spotlight on an artistic medium that has taken a bit of a back seat as screen media becomes increasingly more prevalent, calling attention to a select handful of books I read these past 12 months. In 2015 every pick was objectively a winner, but given the rocky year following it’s no surprise that these awards have their ups and downs.

In 2016 my resolution was, just as it will likely be every year moving forward until it becomes unfeasible, to read more than the year before. That said I was devastated to do the final count to see that I read exactly the same number as I did in 2015. You can check out a full list [with the exact dates of when I read each one] at this link.

wokest novel, PRE-2000’s

The Wayward Bus by John Steinbeck
Published 1947

Although it’s fallen out of fashion since the time of its coinage in 2015, “woke” is still the most concise way to say “aware of racism and social in justice”. Throughout a novel that could serve merely as a cautionary tale of public transportation Steinbeck communicates time and time again that even though he lived as a person of great privilege, during an era where those privileges were even greater than they are now, he wasn’t afraid to pen several scathing indictments against the very class he was a part of.

most disappointing, though by no means awful

Eleanor & Park by Rainbow Rowell
Published 2012

The fault with this YA novel can be laid at the feet of those who framed it as a solid example of an interracial relationship in the genre. Although the titular Park is half-Korean the fact is that this is not something he personally relates to as a character, and certainly isn’t a factor that others take into consideration when viewing him [save for Eleanor, who gushes over his features in a way that borders on the fetishistic]. Apart from that this book very competently portrays the familial issues that can plague teenagers, as well as the most authentic depiction of how intense young love can be that I’ve ever read.

sobering reminder for many north americans that colonization led to where we live today – winner and runner-up

The Name of War: King Philip’s War and The Origins of American Identity by Jill Lepore
Published 1998

History books can be a tough sell, especially when it’s recommended that you flip to the back over and over to read the author’s notes and further research on what’s being discussed. It’s much to her credit that from the very introduction, in which she breaks down the very etymology of the conflict in the subtitle, Lepore so compellingly presents both sides of what boils down to a violent exchange of beliefs and ideas. The question ultimately raised is whether or not a war can be waged at all when the parties involved have starkly different definitions of what it entails.

Yellow Dirt: An American Story of a Poisoned Land and a People Betrayed by Judy Pasternak
Published 2010

Honourable mention goes to a book that reads, at least initially, like a multigenerational story about a Navajo family. While they remain a core component of the narrative, it’s specifically how their labour and the mining of their tribal land led to the creation of the atomic bomb that propels it forward. In spite of numerous laws meant to protect the indigenous people and their property it’s, perhaps unsurprisingly, the US government’s insatiable hunger for uranium that ends up leading to widespread conditions that still affect the Navajo Nation to this day.

most like a previous winner but so much better

Everything I Never Told You by Celeste Ng
Published 2014

A number of comparisons have been drawn between Ng’s debut novel and The Lovely Bones, one of my 2014 award winners which likewise covered a family processing the loss of one of their daughters. While the latter delved into the fantastical, conjuring up an afterlife for its deceased character, Everything I Never Told You doesn’t allow such diversions to buoy the narrative. Add to that the pressures of an interracial marriage and the resulting biracial children before the turn of the century and you end up with a book that explores the multiple dimensions of of heartbreak.

greatest sense of dread, non-horror division

Let It Be Morning by Sayed Kashua
Published 2006

It doesn’t take a deep knowledge of the Second Intifada for this novel about an Arab-Israeli man moving back to his village to effectively instill a deep and lingering apprehension in the reader. All throughout the novel characters either shrug and wait for things to pass or outright laugh in the face of inconveniences as they pile ever higher. Given how recently the events took place it can hardly be a spoiler to say that optimism is not met with a reward come the final few pages, yet it doesn’t make getting to that point any easier.

published against all odds, to the detriment of the world

The Day I Shot Cupid: Hello, My Name is Jennifer Love Hewitt and I’m a Love-aholic by Jennifer Love Hewitt
Published 2010

In her final chapter Jennifer Love Hewitt, of Ghost Whisperer fame, tells us that she ends this book where she began, only “four years later”. That’s four years in which the actor spent writing about singledom as a hopeless romantic, relating such nuggets of wisdom as, “[guys] prefer to fork, lol!” That’s in addition to her revealing a secret about the word “trust” [it has “us” in the middle], her support of vagazzling, and the fact that she had her personal trainer write an entire chapter of her book. All in all it’s incredible that a volume that falls just short of 200 pages took four years to put together, and how jarringly awful it is as a whole.

PUBLISHED AGAINST ALL ODDS, TO THE benefiT OF THE WORLD

Juneteenth by Ralph Ellison
Published 1999

Author of Invisible Man, which is not to be confused with the H.G. Wells novel, Ellison wrote the over 2,000 pages that are the basis for Juneteenth over the course of 40 years before passing away. What’s more the author’s friend and biographer John F. Callahan had to piece the narrative together himself, as there was no definitive order in which events took place. Named after the day on which slavery was abolished in Texas, and undoubtedly a little rough around the edges due to the circumstances of its publishing, its take on race relations and internalized hatred rings as true today as it ever did.

very, very loosely adapted to film

The Duff by Kody Keplinger
Published 2011

The 2015 film adaptation was the reason I picked up this YA novel, and given my very loose familiarity with the trailer was taken aback by the sheer amount of sex Keplinger fit between the front and back cover. Having rewatched it for the sake of this blog post I can say with absolute certainty that while the rough outline may be the same, a great number of the specifics must be very, very different. Though I suppose that much fornication between high school students had to be toned way down, even for the PG-13 crowd.

the definition of “machiavellian”

How to Dump a Guy: A Coward’s Manual by Kate Fillion & Ellen Ladowsky
Published 1997

It’s not well recorded the perspectives that 16th century writer and politician Niccolò Machiavelli might have on breaking up with your boyfriend, but if he had left behind a tome covering the subject it might read a lot like this book. Both Fillion and Ladowsky include helpful information as far as the when, where, and how of hammering the nails into the relationship coffin, but really come to life when going a step beyond. Much of How to Dump a Guy covers “winning” the breakup, influencing those in your mutual social circles to see you as the victim but never one to be pitied, the one who ended things but only because you had to.

most relevant given the results of the US presidential election

The Year of the Runaways by Sunjeev Sahota
Published 2015

Given how much president-elect Donald Trump’s campaign had its foundations set in giving attention and power back to those who feel like they have lost it [to avoid outright stating his popular slogan], the issue of illegal immigration has been particularly topical. Sahota’s sophomore outing provides a long, hard look at the lives many Indians seek to escape, and the lengths, and more importantly depths, they’ll go to make a new life in the UK. It shouldn’t need to be stated, but people can’t be boiled down to mere adjectives like “criminals”, or even “good people”.

As mentioned above a full list of books read can be seen here. To further break down that number, however, I have a few stats for your consideration:

• Number of Books Read: 57
• Books by White/Male Authors/Editors: 18 [it should be noted that of these 17 two of the authors are gay, a statistic that may be counted this upcoming year]
• Books by Everyone Else: [in addition to author Chris Gardner The Pursuit of Happyness was co-written by both Quincy Troupe, a Black man, and Mim Eichler Rivas, a White woman, and as a result has been counted in both categories]
  • Books by Non-White Authors: 20
  • Books by Female Authors: 25
  • Books by Both of the Above: 5
• Books by Canadian Authors/Editors: 5
• Fiction Books: 50
  • Full-Length Novels: 43
  • Short Story Collections: 6 [although A Visit from the Goon Squad is framed and can read like a short story collection I’ve categorized it as a novel due to its interconnected narratives]
  • Short Novel Collections: 1
• YA Books Read: 4 [this includes The Mystery of the 99 Steps, a Nancy Drew book]
• Children’s Books Read: 3
• Non-Fiction Books: 7
  • Memoir/Autobiography: 2
• Books That Have Received Film Adaptations: 17 [Crazy Rich Asians was not counted, though it was fast-tracked to production by WB last October]
  • Above Film Adaptations That I’ve Seen: 4
• Authors I Read The Most Of: John Steinbeck

So I’ll be honest, I’m actually frightened that three years later we’re seeing a retread of “And the Not Broke Parents”. That episode marked the last we saw of Deke, Max’s then-boyfriend, and he left with so little fanfare that for months after the fact people came across these reviews by Googling “when did max and deke break up”. Essentially what I’m saying is that I think this might be the end of Rax.

“And the Stalking Dead” is Ed Quinn’s 17th episode playing the incredibly fit Hollywood lawyer, and it’s much to his credit that their on-again, off-again relationship has proven so compelling; his dynamic with Kat Dennings works, even when he’s a face on a phone or tablet. Adding to that is the show’s tendency to push Max after him, her increased vulnerability showcasing a side of her we rarely get to see. If there’s any hope that he’ll be returning it’s that last point, as the 2 Broke Girls writers’ room appears to be really into exploring that facet of her character.

To dive right into it, our titular duo make it to Texas thanks to a little assistance from RuPaul, and head straight to the hotel where Randy is staying. Thwarted by Richie, the sassy and deeply closeted hotel clerk, the two decide to audition as extras in the film to get near to Max’s ex. As zombies hanging from hooks they’re able to overhear Randy’s client offer to set him up with a girl who drives a Prius.

Their swinging in from off-screen is some excellent comedic work.

The lawyer reveals to everyone in the meat locker that he’s been doing his best to get over Max after realizing that the long-distance thing “just can’t be enough”. After touching on just how difficult it’s been he ends with-

“But I’m not ready to meet that girl with the Prius just yet. I mean, I’m all for good gas mileage. Just not yet.”

That’s all it takes for Max, who literally traveled across the country to save their relationship, to give up. It’s “only fair that [she] lets him move on”, so let’s pack it up and head home. While it could be taken as a very direct indication that things are over, it’s impossible to ignore the corpse makeup on our protagonists’ faces. Zombies rise from the grave to shamble for eternity, and if Rax can be resurrected twice there’s no reason to dismiss it happening a third time.

Before we move on from the two best friends I do want to highlight Caroline’s excitement over auditioning possibly jump starting her acting career. She quips that it’s “something finally about me,” which Max rebuts saying that everything is always about her. The thing is that this isn’t even true within the universe of the show itself, since the whole reason they’re even in Texas is because of Max. It’s almost embarrassing how little focus Caroline has received in the later seasons of 2 Broke Girls, and to have Max outright state that anything at all is “about her” only emphasizes how false that is.

Back at the ranch there are the inklings of a fascinating character arc for Oleg. Given his reputation as a gross pervert there’s a lot to unpack regarding his sense of masculinity, especially as it contrasts with his new role as a father. This is put at risk when Sophie shames him, saying that his daughter is starting to refer to him as “mama” due to his inability to be manly in her presence. She backtracks on the statement later and affirms him, but the entire concept is something they devote more time to in the future.

Current Total: $500.

New Total: $484. I don’t recall them spending $16 at any point in this episode, especially since they make a point of mentioning how refreshments in the hotel lobby and during the auditions are free.

The Title Refers To: The extremely popular comic book series, as well as the AMC television adaptation, The Walking Dead. It also references Max stalking Randy and tracking him down to Texas.

Stray Observations:

• They say “Randy Walsh” a number of times searching for him, and I can’t remember them mentioning his surname before now.
• “It looks like he’s in room number ‘what-hotel-clerk-in-the-world-would-give-out-guest-info-to-two-dusty-randos.'”
• Max initially hides because she looks dirty and gross. “It’s complicated, he likes it when I start out clean.”
• “I am getting really good at bathing in public restrooms. And I want it to end!“
• “Excuse me, sir, if that is your real name.”
• Caroline’s zombie impressions do not disappoint:

“HERE I COME, I’M A ZOMBIE!”

“MOW MOW MOW MOW MOW MOW MOW MOW MOW MOW MOW MOW MOW!”

• “Why do you get to be a hot zombie? I look like dead David Spade.”
• “So as your lawyer can you please stop asking me for a ‘drunk driver’s license’? It’s not a real thing. Neither is a cocaine permit.”
• There’s probably a good reason the studio demanded Randy be on-set with his client at all times.
• Apparently this zombie movie is aiming for a PG rating.
• “There’s literally no one working in your diner right now.”
• “It doesn’t matter if you can’t build anything, or protect us, or be a man. What’s really important is how much you love Barbara.”
• “Call me stupid for being a romantic and believing love could conquer all.” / “Stupid!”

   

It’s not uncommon for minor characters on 2 Broke Girls to be a little odd, and those peculiarities can extend to their sexual lives as well. An episode early on in Season 5 featuring Owen, a man with diphallia, is a particularly notable example. That being said it can be beneficial to learn a little bit more about these cases, as it’s important to remember that they’re based on real life human beings. Our newest weekly feature, which should show up again next week, is:

Strange Different-But-Also-Yeah-I-Guess-Kind-Of-Strange-In-Comparison Sex  

Casting director Bonnie, whose name I didn’t know until I looked it up on 2paragraphs, is played by Beth Littleford who I should have recognized as the mom from Dog with a Blog. She doesn’t have patience for Caroline’s terrible acting and, most importantly to this feature, “[her] entire body is an erogenous zone.”

This brings to mind the case of Rachel from Atlanta, Georgia, who suffers from something called “persistent sexual arousal syndrome”, or “persistent genital arousal disorder”. Wikipedia defines it as being:

“results in a spontaneous, persistent, and uncontrollable genital arousal, with or without orgasm or genital engorgement, unrelated to any feelings of sexual desire”

PSAS can make it difficult to ride in vehicles or even hold a vibrating cellphone. While not exactly the same thing as one’s entire body being an erogenous zone, the intense sensitivity that this disorder carries with it makes the two very similar.

It should be noted that while it may seem like a blessing to some, the complications it adds to one’s sex life can actually be detrimental to a relationship.

After the events of this past week [and given the temporary resolution] now is as good a time as any to have a little bit of fun. With so many of us actively fighting for both our rights and the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves a momentary reprieve is needed, a way of recovering in between bouts. It may even be a good idea to turn to comedy, to try laughter in the face of the shockingly grim edicts being rained down by a particular governmental administration.

For a broad number of reasons 2017 appears to be the only year where the current POTUS could ever have been inaugurated. It’s not just our contemporary political landscape that has become so dauntingly complex, however, the same can be said of the comedic sphere as well.

Back in 2015 comedian Jerry Seinfeld was a guest on the ESPN podcast The Herd with Colin Cowherd where he responded to the host commenting about other notable stand-up comedians opting to steer clear of performing on college campuses.

“I don’t play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, ‘Don’t go near colleges. They’re so PC.’

He elaborated on that a bit, saying-

[College students] just want to use these words: ‘That’s racist;’ ‘That’s sexist;’ ‘That’s prejudiced.’ They don’t know even know what they’re talkin’ about.”

-before agreeing with Cowherd that these people are “hurting comedy.”

My favourite thing about this is the “PRESENTED BY PROGRESSIVE” right at the bottom.

Less than half a week later Seinfeld doubled down on his sentiments when he appeared on Late Night With Seth Meyers. The host of that show brought up the idea that comedy is “supposed to push the line” but that nowadays “there are more people [. . . ] who will let you know if they think you went over the line than ever before.” The former sitcom star agreed wholeheartedly, relating a joke he said recently, the punchline of which referenced a “gay French king.”

“And they thought, ‘What do you mean gay? What are you talking about gay?’ [. . .] And I thought, ‘Are you kidding me?'”

He ended that story by stating that “There’s a creepy PC thing out there that bothers me.” David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker, seemed to agree for the most part, but chimed in to mention that “you can also screw up,” before relating that criticism does and should cause you to think twice about what you’re doing.

Now Seinfeld is far from the only comedian, joined by other prominent figures in the scene such as Chris Rock, Russell Peters, and even Patton Oswalt. While there have been a number of voices in opposition to the idea that “politically correctness is killing comedy” from a number of online journalism outlets, with one even penned by “a Stand-Up Comic Who Once Railed Against ‘PC Culture’ and ‘SJWs'”, there are some of his peers who tend to side more with Remnick.

The discourse continued on in a few months later, when Sarah Silverman was questioned about it in a Vanity Fair interview. Her perspective was that it’s better to try to learn from the feedback then to rail against it.

“I do think it’s important, as a comedian, as a human; to change with the times, to change with new information. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with changing with the times. I think it’s a sign of being old if you’re put off by that.”

The year after that Paul F. Tompkins, who you may know as the voice of Mr. Peanutbutter on Netflix’s Bojack Horseman, did a video with Big Think titled “Political Correctness Doesn’t Censor, It Keeps Comedy Fresh”.

Let’s just say that at the moment of this writing, and probably forever unless there’s a groundswell of support for a video that’s almost a year old, the number of dislikes heavily outweighs the likes. The entire thing is worth watching, but I want to spotlight a particularly poignant line:

“Most cases, audiences are not [comedians] ‘you can’t joke about this.’ What they’re saying is, ‘that wasn’t funny.’ And that’s a different thing.”

Similar to Silverman, Tompkins also encourages people to change with the times, emphasizing improving oneself and one’s material. He puts it more strongly when he describes his personal motto as “adapt or die.”

Now given the way I’ve framed these ideas it’s very easy to view Seinfeld as, well . . .

It certainly doesn’t help his cause that he appears to be deeply offended that a joke didn’t land, that his audience didn’t find that particular part of his set to be funny. His reaction smacks of entitlement, that the punchline deserved laughs and the problem must be with the crowd and not with the material. While it’s probably no surprise that I side with Remnick, Silverman, and Tompkins on this one, I will admit that I can see and strongly empathize with Seinfeld.

I’ll also admit that, similar to last week’s post on my experience with instagram and proper attribution, this one is also of a more personal nature. One of my goals for 2017 is to create more content, one of the forms I hope for this to take is stand-up comedy. As someone who considers himself aware of social issues, the desire to portray myself authentically has proven to be paralyzing when it comes to the process of writing material.

Take one joke I’ve been workshopping which touches on women being afraid of blood being strange, given their time of the month. Might that be taken as trans-exclusionary, as it implies that trans women are not in fact women? Is a one-liner that lampoons [and does not praise] abuse make light of actual abuse victims? What about a punchline that features dyslexics being the lesser of two evils?

I’ve gone over this material a lot, and while I’m not an objective party consider it to be pretty tame all things considered. There are a few lines that I might not perform in front of my parents, but even then I’ve tried my best to not further disenfranchise those voiceless and to rely on genuine humour as opposed to shock value. Yet even still I’m apprehensive about the reactions I might get.

Part of that may be because I live in Toronto, where a University of Toronto professor’s refusal to non-gender-specific-pronouns took up much of last November’s news coverage. It’s a very progressive city and one I am very grateful and happy to live in, but might that make performing stand-up comedy that much more difficult?

At the end of the day I do believe that if my material is funny it will be allowed to stand on its own merits, and that any of the performing arts is a process that requires repeated trips back to the drawing board. I want to take a page from Tompkins’ book and allow the current social climate to allow me to improve myself, though I relate to Seinfeld in that it’s not easy. It’s harder now than ever to be a comic, though maybe that’s a good thing.

Move over, 2 Broke Girls, Superior Donuts owns the 9 PM Monday time slot now! The half hour delay of gratification for fans of the sitcom may have been frustrating, but it’s far from something to worry about. After all, it’s not like CBS has moved the show to Friday evenings, where programs go to die.

This week feels like things are back to basics, although the showrunners do try something new within that framework. What’s notable is the absence of an expected Sophie and Oleg B story, with the two narratives instead belonging to the title characters. That’s right, while we get our regular dose of Max we’re also treated to much more Caroline than usual!

Not to be cynical regarding their treatment of one of their two stars, but the reason for that is clear: Caroline now has a love interest. Two weeks back we finally closed the door on Max and Randy’s relationship, or “Rax”, as I liked to call it. We’re now firmly in the era of . . . “Cobby”? “Baroline”? They don’t have good names for cute couple portmanteaus, but that’s life I guess. The Caroline and Bobby pairing off is also what ends up temporarily separating the roommates/best friends.

As someone who has been running this blog for going on six years now, as well as a college publication prior to that, I know how important it is to be on top of things as well as how difficult it can be to relinquish control. It turns out that the reason Caroline and Bobby have a day date scheduled is not because of the latter actually being married, but because the alternative would mean Max taking charge of the Dessert Bar by herself. To be clear the reason for Caroline’s hesitancy is not because she wants to be with her and keep her company, but because she doesn’t trust her.

I described Caroline owning the B story, but in reality her and Max own two halves of a single narrative this episode. Sequestered in a cushy new movie theatre the former heiress wrestles with anxiety over leaving her friend alone the Dessert Bar still standing when she returns, while the latter has to manage the stress of running a bar solo [they’re embarrassingly understaffed, and probably should’ve kept that bartender]. It’s really not about progressing Bobby and Caroline’s relationship or Max’s ability to handle things on their own, but instead about one trusting the other. Their friendship is familiar territory to be sure, but it’s nice to have their conflict be centred more around their business again.

Caroline’s concern skyrockets when, right before she leaves, a number of sorority girls start flooding in, and to be fair Max is nearly overwhelmed by the co-eds vomiting, passing out, and, worst of all, requesting separate cheques. Ultimately everything works out, however, with Earl and Han acting as impromptu servers and Max using her years of experience as a Negotiation Expert [I have no idea where that came from] to create an agreed upon payment method involving PayPal, Venmo, a manicure, and the rental of a gay friend named Dave for a sister’s wedding.

While on the surface the newfound trust and corresponding responsibility seem pretty straightforward, the show also establishes that Max and Caroline are not always a package deal. Yes, they’ve split off in the past, but never in regards to their shared enterprise. The line “Is it strange that I’m a little sad you don’t need me?” is meant to establish a quick emotional beat, but it also promises that their reliance on one another is less strong than it once was. This could be a step towards spending more time apart, and I’m curious to see if anything more happens with that.

Current Total: $2,372.

New Total: $3,145. The Dessert Bar was really poppin’ this week. Profits are good, I guess.

The Title Refers To: Caroline explains to Bobby that “turtles can sense if their turtle best friend is stuck upside down on its shell, its turtle legs all wiggling in the air”.

Stray Observations:

• The garbage can chasing Han in the header image is a room service robot he got from a relative. That CBS budget, huh.
• “R2, no, Yoda’s our friend!” The second of two Star Wars jokes from Earl.
• “I thought your mother was our shrimp supplier-” is pretty much the best short joke they’ve ever made.
• Han’s opinion on Max running things? “Sure, like when I ran the diner via cell, which never happened because I’m not a damn fool!”
• Max and Caroline’s apartment keys “specifically say on them ‘Do Not Copy For Oleg.'”
• Apparently Poland is rife with wild dogs, wolves, and vultures. Sometimes I wonder if the writers realize that Poland is a sizable European country with a population of 40 million people.
• Earl has some high-grade pot “to turn into the authorities immediately.” He knows medical marijuana is legal in the state of New York, right?
• I might try to brighten this up later, but Caroline is, very frustratingly, one of those moviegoers.

She saw the dancing hotdog, too. She really has no excuse.

• Sophie and Oleg used Barbara’s stroller to sneak in their dinner. “[They’re] not gonna pay movie chicken prices!”
• “Wow, Max, are you really gonna let the cast of Pitch Perfect talk to you like that?”
• In a weirdly meta turn Max makes the same face I assume most audience members do when hearing one of Oleg’s sexual assault “jokes”.

“I was in a sorority once. Until they found me.”

• Max is so bad at numbers she says “ten-three” instead of “thirteen”. I’m not about to go back through old episodes and fact-check that but there is no way that’s true.
• “You have a real strange way of talking to dudes.”

Bobby, played by Christopher Gorham, is the latest love interest to grace 2 Broke Girls, but I noticed a little something about him, in particular because of how quickly he followed on the heels of Ed Quinn’s Randy. With that being said a new feature this week is focused on the men in Max and Caroline’s respective lives, and is a little something I like to call:

#YesAllMen

“And the Turtle Sense” was written by Michael Glouberman, who also penned “And the Sophie Doll”. Although these are the only episodes that he’s able to take the majority of credit for it’s worth noting how seamlessly it fits into the 2 Broke Girls installments that precede it. The show’s cast is made up of very distinct voices, such as they are, and a line for Han would feel wrong coming from, say, Earl or Sophie. When it comes to Bobby, on the other hand…

Bobby sounds exactly like Randy.

His lines are written and delivered with a tone that’s flirtatious and, importantly, only lightly jokey. Given the penchant for Max and co. to deliver the zingers both Randy’s and Bobby’s lines are more grounded, providing comedy but only in moderate doses. The following line has a bit of humour to it, but it’s more sweet than anything else.

“Okay, I know you’re talking about me, but I get jealous.”

Bobby exclaiming-

“I chicken-proofed those sinks!”

-as he runs towards the bathrooms is ludicrous on the surface, but he’s responding to the actions of other characters, namely Sophie and Oleg engaging in some poultry-assisted lovemaking. What’s more, both lines could easily have been said by Randy and you wouldn’t think twice about it.

At this point Bobby’s only starred in two episodes so far, but we don’t know anything about him besides the fact that he’s attracted to Caroline. I’m not saying that he needs to be fleshed out to the point of becoming a primary castmember, only that having him become his own character can only help audiences to become more invested in his and Caroline’s relationship.

Caroline won’t shut up about her boyfriend Bobby. You know, that cute guy Bobby, her boyfriend? Given their burgeoning relationship, and the fact that he also mentions her in the same way, it makes perfect sense that this would be a Caroline-centric episode. With how few and far between these moments are, however, it doesn’t seem like the writers’ room is as comfortable with the setup as they probably should be.

That being said this is just about as linear a narrative as you can get, and while the premise is tried and true the actual scenario presented is a little harder to swallow.

Meeting your significant other’s family is such a comedic staple that it spawned an actual trilogy [everyone forgets Little Fockers], so Caroline being invited to Bobby’s childhood home, which he moved back into after his father died, is pretty standard fare. His insisting that Max go as well also makes sense, since he considers her Caroline’s family. What’s far less plausible is the entire diner staff being able to just tag along with them.

Look, I get that it’s a sitcom. I also fully buy Max and Caroline warning Bobby to “never discuss a party in the diner” due to their coworkers latching on to their plans. That all checks out. What I’m less on-board with is Bobby not minding having Han, Earl, Sophie, and Oleg over to his house. He’s a nice guy, sure, but he also knows that this evening is a chance for Caroline and his family to make good impressions on each other. Having all of these other people complicates that, and also has the very high likelihood of reflecting poorly on his girlfriend due to them being described as her friends.

I was going to describe what actually takes place as having its highs and lows, but it would be more apt to say that it flatlines and then dips periodically. It’s not awful, as 2 Broke Girls episodes go, just extremely uneventful. It certainly doesn’t help that Bobby’s sister Chrissy, who yells off-camera from the bedroom where she’s sequestered herself, cribs a middling gag from fellow CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory.

The true conflict of the episode comes from Bobby’s very conservative mother Teresa [Nora Dunn, who also played Schmidt’s mother on New Girl]. She’s still very much hung up on her son’s ex-girlfriend Jessica, who left a lasting impression on the entire family and her face in a framed photo on the staircase wall. She does not warm up to Caroline, who has to live up to what is essentially perfection. That’s a tall order for anyone, but it also doesn’t take long to be filled.

After a few shenanigans involving said framed photo, and the reveal that Caroline and Bobby have been doing the horizontal tango, Teresa concedes that: “You know what, you make my Bobby smile, and he’s even more handsome when he smiles.” While she didn’t make things easy, I also wouldn’t say that the battle was particularly hard-fought, with Caroline wrestling with her own anxieties far more than with her boyfriend’s mother.

At the end of the day what we’re left with is a very lacklustre installment of 2 Broke Girls where the stakes weren’t high and the jokes, when they did land, did so lightly. It’s not a huge mark against the show by any means, the problem is that it doesn’t leave much of a mark at all.

Current Total: $4,895.

New Total: $5,672.72. As I said last week, who even cares about this anymore-

The Title Refers To: Bobby’s ex-girlfriend Jessica, said using a classic example of Shm-reduplication, a construction “generally used to indicate irony, derision, skepticism, or disinterest with respect to comments about the discussed object.”

Stray Observations:

• Han drags Bobby for living at home only to find out the true reason why. “The one guy I take a shot at and he’s the freaking Orphan Annie.” What Han doesn’t realize is that orphans have two dead parents, not just one.
• Max and Caroline used the word “Navajo” as their code word for party, which feels pretty on the nose.
• “It goes without saying, but she’s gonna love me.”
• “I Google Earth’d the house; there’s a pool at the house next door. And a short fence!” Oleg, ever the opportunist.
• “I know this sounds insane, but I’m not sure if she love-love-loved me-“
• Max saying “I took my shoes off, I hope that’s okay,” is meant to be framed as her being too comfortable, but that’s the norm in much of the world.
• “I’m not paying $9.99 a month for you to be a slut!” Teresa has very low opinions of Match.com.
• “We thank God and his mother, ’cause we know his mother does everything, and he would never date a woman without getting his approval.”
• They’re all eating off of paper plates, and let me tell you, it made me judge Teresa pretty hard as both a homeowner and a host.
• There’s a whole thing between Han and Bobby’s sister Denise, but all I’m going to say about it is that their romance blossoms when he sees she does karate, as he has a yellow belt. That struck me as weird, since you’d think he’d be a practitioner of either Tae kwon do or Hapkido, which are both Korean martial arts. He even makes a pun with the first when seeing her in a gi.

I very briefly covered this in last week’s “Odds and Ends”, but it was so noticeable this week that I couldn’t help but devote a brand new weekly feature to it. This one is dedicated to a cartoonish style of overacting dubbed-

Happier With Your Mouth Open

For reference, here’s the Whitest Kids U’ Know sketch I derived the title from:

Don Scardino, who directed both this episode and last week’s, appears to have taken a page from the director featured in the sketch. When it comes to Kat Dennings reacting to, well, almost anything, “happier with your mouth open” appears to be the primary instruction given.

Here are the most egregious examples in “And the Jessica Shmessica”:

Reacting to Bobby saying: “My whole family’s gonna be there, Caroline’s whole family should be there too.”

Reacting to a particularly steamy make out sesh between Bobby and Caroline.

Reacting to a regular middle class American home. “You didn’t tell us you lived in a castle!”

Reacting to Caroline saying: “I don’t even like this sauce.”

Now Dennings is not a bad actor by any means. Extremely typecast as of late, sure, but she has a moderate enough range. The problem here is the people running the show and their belief that over-the-top emoting is what will get laughs out of the audience. Once would be enough for a single episode, but four is pushing it and then some. Dennings is an expressive performer and this is clearly one of her strengths, but Scardino’s directing is putting it to very poor use.

With the 89th Academy Awards coming in just a few short days I’m grateful for the opportunity to interview director Juanjo Giménez and pick his brain about Timecode, which has been nominated for Best Short Film.

This comes roughly two weeks after my review, and I made the most of the occasion by trying to unpack so much of what I enjoyed about this particular piece of work. While I was only able to ask so many questions, I hope that Giménez’s answers help shine a little light on why Timecode was considered for this great honour, as well as why it might deserve it.

To start with, it’s almost no surprise that Timecode was nominated for both an Academy Award and a Goya Award given your impressive filmography. Has having written, directed, and produced so much award-winning work changed your approach with each new project?

I don’t think so. I think that no filmmaker thinks about awards or recognition when making a new film. In our case, financing every new project has always been difficult, even if the previous film has been a successful one. The only thing that is essential for approaching a new project is the need to make it.

 It’s notable that much of the work you’ve received the most attention for are your short films. What is it that appeals to you about that particular format?

Timecode is my ninth short film as director. I learned that short films usually fit the way I approach filmmaking better. And what’s more important, there’s nothing wrong with that! That doesn’t mean I won’t make a feature film again, but shorts provide a great platform for experimenting without the financial struggles that usually constrain a fiction feature. Even if I speak as a producer, in terms of financial results, my shorts have always been more profitable than my features. 

As I mentioned in my review, Timecode is a work that eschews a lot of dialogue for action. Given that you wrote the screenplay as well as directed the short film the transition from what’s on the page to the screen must have been fairly straightforward. Do you think it might have been more difficult only taking on one of the two roles?

The original idea was just that: lot of dance, little dialogue. I always start my projects from the beginning, that means from the screenplay. I wrote my last fiction films with the help of a co-writer, Pere Altimira. Both Lali Ayguadé and Nicolas Ricchini are immensely talented performers, but also have a great deal of experience with choreography – that made the things easier.

Lali Ayguadé and Nicolas Ricchini.

I’m unsure of your own personal background with dance, but what was the process like directing the two of them? How much were they able to contribute to the finished product beyond merely acting in it?

Some of the choreography used in Timecode comes from “Incognito”, the show that Lali Ayguade and Nico Ricchini were performing at that moment. The fact is that we didn’t have much time for rehearsals, so we wanted a couple that were accustomed to dancing together. I was focused more on giving normal acting guidance for dramatic scenes, rather than dance sequences where they were the real masters. I stepped in only when dancing implied a narrative intention, and especially when it came to the integration with the space. We chose the concrete shooting places inside the parking garage even before Lali and Nico were recruited. When they were on board, some choreography was prepared exclusively for that location. However, every decision in that field was always discussed between the two dancers and myself. The “dancing” work, for me, was at the editing. And I’m really bad at dancing!

What inspired the idea of having much of Timecode filmed through security cameras, and what kind of extra elements, if any, do you think that perspective adds?

There’s always a sense of being the “voyeur”, watching something you’re not allowed to. There is always a character between the spectator and the CCTV screens, that acts as a reinforcement. That’s one of the essences of cinema: entering other people lives and knowing their secrets without being noticed. We communicate with other people through screens constantly these days, but we consider this way of communication a substitute of the real thing. What makes this story different is that CCTV systems are not intended to be used as communication tools. We usually associate surveillance systems with crimes or bad behaviour. And that’s a film cliché. It’s this contrast that makes the story of Timecode powerful. On the other hand, in the time between the timecodes, the love story is in the head of the spectators, and that’s more powerful than showing specifically how the story is developing.

In addition to the Academy Award nomination, Timecode has also won numerous awards, the most notable being the Palme d’Or for Best Short Film at the Cannes Film Festival. It has also been nominated for Best Short Film at the 2017 Goya Awards.

I couldn’t believe my eyes when I began watching the promo for this week’s 2 Broke Girls. Max meeting her father, really? Typically any references to her upbringing are about her extremely neglectful mother, and the last time that was touched on in any major way was literally three seasons ago.

That episode was the Season 3 finale, “And the First Degree”, and it’s impossible for “And the Dad Day Afternoon” not to be compared to it, for better or for worse.

At this point in time we don’t know how many more episodes of Season 6 of 2 Broke Girls has left, but we know this isn’t how it ends. The title for the one following has already been released, and if past seasons are any indicator there are a total of four more to go. All that being said, Han doing the legwork for Max to see her deadbeat dad for the first time in her life is the kind of momentous event which one might think would be reserved for a finale, especially given the whole gang embarking on a road trip to Rhode Island [“America’s least exciting state”].

With that in mind, I guess it really shouldn’t have been a surprise that it never actually takes place. Max’s resigned prediction of “If I know one thing about the man I know nothing about: he’s not coming” 100% ends up coming true.

Thinking about it more, the fact that they were directed by Gary’s sister, a police psychic, should have been further evidence things may not work out.

“And the First Degree” revolves around Max getting her GED and inviting her mother to see her graduate with the Northeast High Class of 2014. Mrs. Black never ends up showing, but her friends at the diner do. To quote a famous line from Harper Lee’s magnum opus, “You can choose your friends but you sho’ can’t choose your family.”

It’s not a terrible theme or story element, especially at that point in time when the relationships between the cast weren’t as polished as they are now. By repeating it again, however, even three years down the line, the showrunners end up not saying much at all. We already know that Earl, Sophie, Oleg, and, whether there’s a lot of admission of this or not, Han [AKA “the cast of American Horror Story: Minivan”] are all people who care about and support Max. Hearing it again is a nice reminder, but it’s also an unneeded one.

Although the narratives and story beats are essentially the same, there are a handful of differences worth noting. One is how much more comfortable 2 Broke Girls is now in the first few months of 2017. The characters not only feel like they genuinely enjoy being around one another, but their general camaraderie is allowed to rub off on audiences as well. Intentional or not, there’s also Max tempering her excitement, and her resulting disappointment being far less crushing than the last time this happened.

“And the Dad Day Afternoon” wraps up an enjoyable Sunday out that had the goal of emotional resolution. While that’s never actually accomplished, the characters and [hopefully] audiences are nonetheless left with the good time that resulted. Max closing the episode by affirming an injured squirrel [“C’mon, little guy. We don’t abandon anybody.”] may seem heavy, but it’s couched more in optimism than bad experiences and the ability to persevere through them. Much like its central character, no offence at all to Beth Behrs, 2 Broke Girls has come a long way.

Current Total: $5,672.72.

New Total: $6,475.54.

The Title Refers To: Max’s father and the phrase “dog day afternoon”, which essentially means “a very bad day”. Possibly also a reference to the 1975 crime drama of the same name starring Al Pacino.

Stray Observations:

• “Oh my god, the customers are nakee!” It has been years since I heard that particular Rugrats terminology.
• I enjoyed the censorship of well-placed menus, booths, et cetera.
• Earl thinks that daddy issues are bunk. His daughter is also married to a forgetful old man named Burl.
• “Barbara just smiled politely at her first ugly baby.”
• “I don’t know his name, or where he lives, or where he gets dialysis, I’m assuming.”
• Caroline was a runner-up for Jigsaw Palooza 2003.
• Han’s not working on his Gary-prescribed day off, he’s meeting his friend, “Friendo”.
• Oleg’s “XXX GPS” was my favourite joke of the episode. “Oh, that exit is closed for construction, naughty boy.”
• “Can’t a woman just talk to you? This is why we march.”
• Han learned how to speak squirrel on Zoboomafoo.
• “It’s illegal to kill squirrels in the Ukraine. Ever since Putin trained them as spies.”
• “You’re Trevor Noah and I’m John Stewart! I got my Emmys, I’m done now!”

This episode opens up on the Williamsburg Diner filled with mostly nude patrons. In the event that a large number of naked extras pop up again, and need explanation, our latest feature is:

Why Am I Naked?

Han explains this scene-

-as being due to the “annual naked bike ride”. This is likely a reference to the World Naked Bike Ride, which is an international event. Contrary to its name one does not need to be naked to participate, although that is certainly permitted and encouraged. I know for a fact it’s a real thing because my aunt and uncle witnessed one while in Paris and took a few pictures.

As of 2010 the World Naked Bike Ride had expanded to 74 cities in over a dozen countries, and the US being one of them certainly goes without saying.

The following is research that was done for my post titled “The K’un-Lun of Netflix’s Iron Fist [Within the Larger Context]”, as a means of supporting one of my points. Due to its length I decided to dedicate another short post to it to avoid adding to what was already too lengthy an article.

I would encourage you to read that one in full, though this should certainly be interesting enough on its own.

For the vast majority of my blog posts about Marvel comic books I refer to the Marvel Database, an unofficial wiki updated by fans. While that format can and does lend itself to the occasional error, the citations at the bottom of the page referring to specific runs and issue numbers allow for fact-checking if needed. At this point in time there are no direct mentions to K’un-Lun being anything other than one of the Capital Cities of Heaven, besides a heading for the alien race the H’ylthri with no text underneath it.

Unfortunately there are no citations listed anywhere. This tidbit of information is also listed on Marvel Directory, a largely defunct site that appears to have been last updated in 2015. Their entry categorizes K’un-Lun as an “Alien world” and only refers to the issue where the location first appeared, Marvel Premiere #15. As far as anything from Marvel themselves, the page on the publisher’s own wiki currently does not exist.

Power Man and Iron Fist Vol. 1, #69. Written by Jo Duffy and Steven Grant, illustrated by Alan Weiss.

An explanation for these unsubstantiated claims can be found on The Appendix to the Handbook of the Marvel Universe which has been compiled by one Jeff Christiansen, which exists to “stimulate interest and supply information about the vast universe Marvel has created (and to have fun).” It should be clear that this is a passion project of his, and not an official source.

On the page for Yu-Ti, one of K’un-Lun’s rulers, he reveals:

“The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe I#6: K’un-Lun entry revealed(?) that the natives of K’un-Lun were actually aliens who had crash-landed upon a small extradimensional world a million years ago. I don’t THINK that information was mentioned elsewhere prior to that, but I thought the H’ylthri had described them as aliens at some point…meaning only that they weren’t native to K’un-Lun (meaning possibly from Earth).”

Down below that are comments from another contributor, Daniel Campbell, who searched for further clues in the text in support of the place being founded by aliens:

“…the idea that the people of K’un-Lun are the descendants of extraterrestrials has not been substantiated and in fact has been contradicted somewhat. Chris Claremont first introduced the idea that the people of K’un-Lun were “alien” to the H’ylthri-dominated planet in Iron Fist #2 and I have no doubt that the back-story which he had planned for them would have been somewhat that they were extraterrestrials who had been trapped in K’un-Lun since their spaceship crashed there long ago. Unfortunately, as with so many of his storylines, Claremont never got around to developing that back-story and so it appeared only in the pages of the OHotMU [Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe]. Eventually, John Byrne decided to resurrect Iron First and, in the course of the storyline which did so, he consistently referred to the people of K’un-Lun as “human” (as in Doctor Strange’s statement that “The H’ylthri had gained dominance on that world long before the human settler came.”). In Namor I#24 the Plantman stated: “The H’ylthri were seeking a means to attack the world from which their greatest enemies originated.” I take this to mean that the people of K’un-Lun came from Earth. Sure, these statements could be explaiend away (like, maybe the H’ylthri lied to the Plantman) but until it is, it remains something that contradicts OHotMU material.”

On one hand we have a few sources which point towards the extraterrestrial origin of this mystic city, although none of them have any citations whatsoever. Debunking that are two Marvel superfans with references to several issues and sources. While once again neither side are definitive authorities on the matter, I’m far more likely to side with the latter than the former.

To start with, I hope that the reference in the title is apparent.

If not, let’s flashback to September 2005 and A Concert for Hurricane Relief. It was during this live star-studded benefit concert that Kanye West very famously said:

“George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”

The following week, on The Ellen Degeneres Show, West elaborated on the incident. Given the immense loss caused by Hurricane Katrina, he explained that “[it was] the least [he] could do to go up there and say something from [his] heart, to say something that’s real.” At the risk of misrepresenting him, my takeaway was that there’s something very pure and genuine about personal emotional reactions that makes them worth expressing. While the facts may reveal otherwise, their having elicited this response speaks for itself, in a way.

It’s a sentiment that many readers of Marvel comics may strongly agree with given the fallout of Guardians of the Galaxy #18, which hit stands this past Wednesday.

Rich Johnston of Bleeding Cool reported on the resulting outcry, first presenting a fairly comprehensive rundown on both Angela and Sera, albeit with the handful of errors many have come to expect from the site [they appeared in Angela: Asgard’s (not “Angel’s) Assassin and 1602: Witch Hunter (not “Witchfinder”) Angela]. To recap: while the former is Thor’s long-lost sister, Sera was once a male angel [or “anchorite”] who became a female, ostensibly through magical means.

Angela: Asgard’s Assassin, #3. Written by Marguerite Bennett & Kieron Gillen, illustrated by Stephanie Hans.

The two are also in a romantic relationship.

Angela: Queen of Hel, #1. Written by Marguerite Bennett, illustrated by Kim Jacinto & Israel Silva.

The aforementioned issue of Guardians of the Galaxy has Angela departing from the team to see her partner, only to find Sera missing without a trace. Given the scarcity of LGBT couples in the Marvel universe, let alone trans characters, reactions were far from subdued. Johnston compiled a number of tweets, as well as one tumblr post that’s so toxic I’ve decided to allow you all to find it and read it on your own, that heavily criticized the creative decision.

My first response to the majority of these fans is empathy. With so much at stake, and with so little faith that the publisher will do the right thing, it’s painfully easy to expect the worse and lash out before those fears have been confirmed. They’re words from people who have been hurt so often they’re ready to strike back before being hurt again. What follows, however, is a deep disappointment in the form that takes. The aforementioned tumblr post not only declares that Marvel will surely retcon Angela’s sexual orientation, but personally attacks Brian Michael Bendis, who wrote the issue.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 4, #18. Written by Brian Michael Bendis, illustrated by Valerio Schiti.

At the end of the day all we really know is that Angela and Sera have been separated. While the repetition of this theme [Angela: Queen of Hel was centred on the title character journeying to the underworld to save her love] may feel needless, there’s nothing that directly implies that the two have broken up or that their relationship has come to an end.

In summary, I acknowledge and understand why fans have reacted this way, but at this point it doesn’t seem to be predicated on quite enough evidence. I get why people are upset, but both Bendis and Marvel deserve the benefit of the doubt at this point. What I think people should actually be getting riled up about is the article Johnston links to at the bottom.

March is Women’s History Month, and Marvel celebrated it in part by publishing an article subtitled “Friends Forever” on their website. It begins by describing the characters in question as being:

“friends and teammates. These ladies support one another through challenging hardships and we enjoy seeing how this helps them grow and evolve.”

Before digging deep into her list Sarah Cooke once again frames them as being  “the Marvel Universe’s most notable female friendships.”

Given the introduction it may be a little surprising that, close to the bottom, we see Angela and Sera’s names pop up. As one of the publisher’s “true ‘power couples'” what they share is illustrated as “a companionship that grew to a romance”, but it’s still curious that they’re listed under the heading “Friends Forever”.

Right below them are Ayo and Aneka, who were introduced in Ta-Nehisi Coates’ Black Panther. Both former Dora Milaje, or personal bodyguards of the Wakandan hero, the end of that issue shows them being more than just sisters in arms:

Black Panther Vol. 6, #1. Written by Ta-Nehisi Coates, illustrated by Brian Stelfreeze.

Ayo and Aneka are likened to Angela and Sera, in that their relationship “grew out of the bond that forms as a result of fighting side by side”. A currently published title, though soon to be ending, Black Panther: World of Wakanda actually focuses on the couple, beginning with their meeting and continuing on up until their first appearance in Coates’ book. Given the number of pages dedicated to what began as a burgeoning affair, the following description isn’t inaccurate:

“Their relationship is complex, and their development as characters nuanced. They know how to fight, but they also know how to be there for one another.”

The primary issue once again is the title of the article, “Women’s History Month: Friends Forever”. It’s not to say that romantic relationships don’t or shouldn’t have a strong basis in friendship, but that the term is so often used to offset potential romance. Consider the line “we’re just friends” or what has been dubbed “the friend zone”.

The question is whether or not heterosexual couples would have been presented in the same fashion. Would an article generally titled “Friends Forever” highlight Luke Cage and Jessica Jones, husband and wife? How about the on-again off-again Daredevil and Elektra, or Spider-Man and his various girlfriends [including one-time-wife Mary Jane Watson]?

Comic books are a visual medium, and anyone who works in the industry should know the importance of how something looks. If the story is sound and the art middling, a title will fail [I’m looking at you, Silk]. Allowing these two couples to have the spotlight is commendable, but the way it’s presented doesn’t look good. Or, at the risk of overusing a line, the optics are bad, man.

It’s also not like things haven’t been shaky with Angela and Sera in the past, either. Back in 2015 a Q&A with editor-in-chief Axel Alonso, in a since discontinued feature on Comic Book Resources, held the following exchange:

The issue also confirmed the romantic relationship between Angela and Sera, something that had been speculated about by fans. So is it accurate to say that Angela is the first gay or bisexual lead character in the All-New, All-Different Marvel era?

Alonso: That’s a question for readers to ponder and answer for themselves. We’re not looking to put labels on the character or the series. We’d prefer that the story Marguerite, Kim and Stephanie are telling — all aspects of it — speak for itself.

Why was there so much hesitancy to directly state that Angela was an LGBT character? If your company surely believes enough in the story to publish it, so why the coyness in outright telling people that, yes, at its heart this title has a gay relationship at its core?

All of that being said, “Marvel Doesn’t Care About LGBT People” is far from the truth. Sina Grace, a gay man himself, will be penning an upcoming Iceman solo that will touch on the titular character’s experiences as a superhero and a homosexual. The first of this month gave us America #1, which stars America Chavez, a lesbian interdimensional adventurer. Add to that an LGBT couple in the pages of U.S.Avengers and LGBT characters in titles from Patsy Walker, A.K.A. Hellcat! to The Totally Awesome Hulk and it’s apparent that the publisher doesn’t have anything against the demographic.

What Marvel does have, however, is an issue with not taking more pride in these characters. Maybe the response to Guardians of the Galaxy #18 wouldn’t have been as strong if readers felt that these individuals were valued by the company. October is LGBT History Month, yet if we look back at their website there aren’t any articles from then in the same vein of the one Cooke wrote. Again, I’m not defending or excusing a lot of what was said this past Wednesday, but nothing takes place in a vacuum.

To refer back to another line I’ve dropped here on this blog, better doesn’t equal good. It’s undeniable that Marvel has taken significant strides in this area, and they’re definitely worth noting and applauding. On that same note, mistakes will still be made, and there should also be efforts to address the concerns of fans if possible. I do not believe Bendis or Marvel or homophobic, but the dialogue surrounding LGBT representation, as a whole, is much in need of improvement.

I mentioned not too long ago that chances are Season 6 of 2 Broke Girls will be 22 episodes. That means that “And the Alley-Oops” is the antepenultimate installment, and you would hope that at this point the showrunners would begin lining things up in preparation for the finale. Nope, this is just an episode about bowling.

Caroline and Bobby have some mild conflict, but even it describing it that way feels hyperbolic. Max is very much a footnote to the episode, and on the outskirts the rest of the diner gang get up to their own light shenanigans. In other words it’s pretty par for the course, as 2 Broke Girls has been lately, but at Episode 20 we should expect a little more.

All relationships have their share of secrets, big and small, and Bobby’s is [hilariously] that he likes to bowl. His confession is treated a lot like Zeke’s, from High School Musical, when the jock admits that he “likes to bake”.  Initially reticent to share, Bobby understands the apparent stigma surrounding the sport and tells Caroline directly that “We can have separate things!”

The episode proceeds in a very formulaic fashion. Caroline’s disregards Bobby’s assurance and throws herself into supporting him and his team. Along the way she injures Frank, their star player, and then Max, who fills in with surprising ease [she used to be on a team in juvie, “The Girls Who Escaped When the Guards Took Us to the Bowling Alley”]. At which point Caroline must take her place to help them win the tournament, her first attempt being one of the few genuinely funny moments in the episode:

It’s flawlessly directed straight into the gutter.

The one swerve introduced is after Caroline ends up pulling off a spare, with her second try knocking down all of the pins [complete with the theme from Chariots of Fire], it’s revealed that Max was the one who knocked them all down. It’s a pleasant surprise, to be sure, but not quite enough to offset the thoroughly predictable lead up to it.

What’s frustrating to me is how Bobby isn’t frustrated by the course of events. Her obnoxious cheering at the bowling alley doesn’t grate at his nerves, and her maiming Frank doesn’t lead to any sort of strong emotional reaction from him. They’re so confident that Max is going to win the game for them that it’s shocking he doesn’t explode at Caroline when she inadvertently takes her out of the game as well.

The fact of the matter is that sitcoms require some form of conflict. It’s not satisfying when the two reconcile, because their relationship was never really in jeopardy to begin with. While Modern Family is a far cry from the heights it once reached, one element they successfully pull off week after week is the embarrassment and shame that inevitably results when someone is proven wrong by a person they’re close to. There’s no biting back of pride with either Caroline or Bobby. He tells her that she’s “never coming here again,” but all it does is repeat his initial statement that they can have different things.

As a result there’s no real progression to their relationship. Max has spent a lot of time throwing her best friend under the bus for being boring and vanilla, but that actually seems to be the case for her and Bobby. If their relationship is what 2 Broke Girls is going to focus on in order to raise ratings I would advise an immediate course correction.

In other news, if Max isn’t going to be the centre of attention it looks like the show is going to fall back on her being the weird little Danny DeVito-y gremlin we last saw in the 16th episode. Again, I’m not trying to bodyshame or anything, but the direction apparently seems to be for Kat Dennings to hunch over and do little inhuman jigs.

As Bobby says, “what [she’s] doing now is very off-putting.”

Current Total: $6,922.14.

New Total: $7,836.72. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The Title Refers To: An accident [hence the “oops”] that takes place in a bowling alley. Does not refer to an offensive play in basketball where one player throws the ball near the basket for a teammate to catches in mid air and score with.

Stray Observations:

• The cold open features  a drug-sniffing dog. Max tokes up not fifteen feet away and it does nothing.
• Oleg’s family won Family Feud in Ukraine. “…it takes intelligence to kill another family.”
• The diner gang calls Han a dumb baby and then mock his “giant potato head”. It’s really ugly teasing that wouldn’t feel out of place in earlier seasons.
• Sophie and Oleg bring little baby Barbara to the bowling alley as a means of stimulating her intellect. After all, it is a place full of “flashing lights and fist fights”.
• “Wow, a curtain on the sex booth? Classy place. They had the same thing on the sex booth where we voted.”
• Caroline knows what’s going on in Max’s room due to the sounds of the Sex Bell and Hand Stuff Buzzer.
• I’ve never seen 3 Men and a Baby, but-

This week’s feature is about ethics!

This Feature Is About Ethics

Frank is really dumb!

This is explicitly stated when Max says:

“Cute and dumb. Where have you been all my life?”

Frank actually confirms this when he discloses:

“Well, I was in high school for ten years.”

Frank is so dumb it’s heavily implied that he doesn’t understand sex, and therefore is unable to give consent!

That said, Max is going to work on that with him!

That sounds like the abuse of a disabled person!

This is short [and quite late] even as “For Your Consideration” posts go. While past instances have been particularly research heavy, this installment really leans into the gist of those three words. I’m here to present all of you nice people with a little something to ruminate on, and this time I don’t even have a particular stance on it myself.

Jeremy Whitley is a comic book writer that Marvel appears to be actively grooming, and who I first read due to his penning one of a handful of short stories in the Secret Wars: Secret Love one-shot [a truly excellent Danny/Misty Knight romance].

Secret Wars: Secret Love – “Misty and Danny Forever”. Written by Jeremy Whitley, illustrated by Gurihiru.

Since then he’s also written a tie-in issue of Champions, and is currently on the ongoing The Unstoppable Wasp as well as responsible for another upcoming event one-shot [this time for the summer’s Secret Empire]. Suffice to say, Whitley is swiftly making a name for himself at one of the two largest publishers in the industry.

What he was once primarily known for, and which I’m positive he’s very proud of, is Princeless. Starting back in 2012, the all-ages series has released six volumes and been nominated for two Eisner awards. What’s particularly notable is how he has in part been writing the book for his daughter, with the following interview answer explaining a lot about the title hero’s character design:

“My daughter is black and while I encourage her to look for role models of all colors, girls need to be able to see girls that are like themselves in media. They need it even more when it comes to seeing them portrayed with strength. And, unfortunately, I think that’s sort of a symptom of this exclusionary tendency in the self-professed nerd culture circles. I would love nothing more than to change that culture, but barring that, I’ll help create another one.”

With that in mind it should be of no surprise whatsoever that Whitley is very concerned about diversity and representation in media, and has made a concerted effort to include that in all of his books.

Now to get to the actual meat of this post, I began following him on tumblr not too long ago where he’s very active in engaging with his fans. It was a couple of weeks back that I came across the following exchange between Whitley and two such comic readers:

Now as far as sources go, I am fairly positive that the pages are from Princeless – Raven: The Pirate Princess Vol. 2: Free Women, but I’m not certain. The point, however, is obviously a question that I’m going to boil down to, “Why can’t LGBT characters just be happy?”

This ties directly back to my inflammatorily titled post last-last Friday, which partially covered a lot of the backlash writer Brian Michael Bendis received upon appearing to split up a lesbian couple in his most recent issue of Guardians of the Galaxy. I say “appearing to” as nothing has yet been confirmed as far as the status of their relationship. I further described these fans as “people who have been hurt so often they’re ready to strike back before being hurt again.”

It should also be clearly stated that their being hurt is not fabricated or unfounded. The fact that there’s an entry for “Bury Your Gays” on TV Tropes really speaks for itself: LGBT characters very often exist to be sacrificed. The same can also be said of their relationships. As Whitley very insightfully points out, however, “If all of the queer women in this book have to be happy, that leaves maybe two women to be miserable.”

Given that his readers are invested in the lesbian characters in his books speaks to his ability to write men and women that an audience connects strongly with. That being said, it’s also Whitley’s job as a writer to construct dramatic scenarios that test applies stress and adds conflict to his cast. After all, that’s what narrative is built on. Without a goal and an obstruction to that goal there’s no story. “[Being] happy” on its own is not something that people will tune into month after month, or even week after week.

Or is it?

Is there a large enough audience that simply wants to see LGBT relationships presented in a way that isn’t fraught with drama? Even Mitch and Cam couldn’t stop bickering long enough to kiss during the first season of Modern Family [though there are obviously additional reasons for that]. Even it sitcoms, which are a naturally lighter TV genre, some form of conflict must exist.

Another instance of backlash is a SPOILER FOR THE WALKING DEAD, which should also be common knowledge as we’re a few months into 2017 at this point. Seriously, though, Facebook was blowing up with news about how Glenn, played by Stephen Yeun, was shown being killed in the Season 7 premiere.

On his Facebook page Ranier Maningding [better known as LLAG, an acronym of the page], shared a post about the character’s demise:

“As we progress towards more inclusive and fully developed POC characters and stories, it’s worth asking WHY we constantly have to write stories where POC characters die, and YT [White] ones do not. Why are POC characters written as teachers, lovers, and obstacles that YT characters must overcome? Why can’t we have our own, independent arc?”

Of course the polar opposite of minorities, whether in terms of ethnicity or sexual orientation, being given their own plot armour. With that in place they are never in any real danger, and as audiences we know that whatever happens they will remain safe from harm. Would this be acceptable, going to the other extreme as a means of balancing things out?

As mentioned, I honestly have no idea. Yes, I want fully realized minority characters in all media, but at the same time I believe part of being a good character means experiencing loss, or even being a source of loss to someone else. I don’t want to see a trans character and know that they’ll survive by virtue of being LGBT, I want them to survive because there’s a good story behind it.

Nothing, least of all art, exists in a vacuum. When Black people and police are shown interacting in the media that takes place given the knowledge that similar real life encounters have ended in tragedy. As a whole minorities have faced death and disenfranchisement in North America and elsewhere, and to see that play out again, whether it’s on TV or in the pages of a comic book, only hurts that much more. So what is the ideal way for writers present these characters realistically, and is that the adverb that fans truly desire?

Like I said way up top, this is something for all of you to consider.

Look, at this point pretty much everything is pointing towards 2 Broke Girls not getting a Season 7. I have a Google Alert set up for any related news, and week after week I’m sent articles tracking its flagging viewership and overall ratings. At 4.6 million, last month’s “And the Alley Oops”  marks the smallest audience the show has ever had throughout the course of it airing. What’s more, at the time of this writing CBS still has yet to renew the sitcom for its 2017 fall lineup.

With all of that being said, and this very likely being the penultimate episode, I’m definitely realizing very late in the game that this show is all about Ms. Caroline Channing.

It’s an odd prospect to consider given how much the sitcom has focused on Kat Dennings’ Max Black. Dennings objectively has the larger personality and star power, given her minor role in the Thor franchise. Considering how much 2 Broke Girls has doubled down on their crass humour and one-liners, Max shares the title role but commands a larger portion of the spotlight. So what do I mean when I say it’s really all about Caroline?

Because Caroline is the entire reason the premise of 2 Broke Girls exists.

Sure, without Caroline in the picture Max continues working in The Williamsburg Diner, which she does now, but there are some significant differences. Max never learns to expand on her baking ability, or get her GED, or co-own not one, but several, businesses, or, and this is most important to the show, make close connections to the people around her.

It’s very easy to argue that without having met and befriended and lived with Caroline the chances of Max one day witnessing a baby ride around in its own little car, and considering that baby’s mother one of her friends, drop down to zero.

They see me rolin’, they hatin’-

Caroline Channing is the catalyst of 2 Broke Girls, the reason there’s a New Total tally at the end of every episode to begin with. Not that we’re trying to count up to any particular number at this point, but right now her and Max are profiting and keeping track, as opposed to whatever hand-to-mouth lifestyle the latter was living previously.

So why does everything feel so abruptly centred around her now?

The answer to that, which I’ve intimated in past reviews, is that “2 Broke Girls has never been great about balance.” As far as a central focus the pendulum tends to swing from one extreme to the next, a strong emphasis on Max’s relationship with Randy that eventually makes way for Caroline and Bobby. It’s so much more jarring here at the end, however, because, well . . . it’s the end. Or at least we think it is.

With the last 2 Broke Girls episode ever possibly in our sights what we expect as viewers is for there to be some kind of end goal for both Broke Girls. Previous finales have ramped up to their reaching a particular milestone in their business, a shared triumph for the two of them.

I suppose that Caroline’s big movie could be that, sort of. Remember that? Both her and Max spent almost a fifth of Season 5 in Hollywood, starting with “And the Lost Baggage” and wrapping things up by “And the Pity Party”. The film based on her life story of riches to rags to somewhat-richer-but-still-poor-at-least-by-the-standards-of-this-show is finally being released, and the only reason no one knew about it is because Sophie is terrible at forwarding mail.

It’s a potentially exciting time for them, but it’s all about Caroline when it’s revealed that Candy Andy, who we last saw getting married at the start of Season 5, is who she ends up with in the movie. As a result he’s also invited to the press junket, and due to his marriage falling apart ends up wanting her back.

There’s a bit of fun with her current beau Bobby stifling and becoming “violently jealous”, though Caroline’s indecision over what to do given that some screenwriter though Andy was the one for her isn’t nearly as compelling. What’s more, Andy’s confessing that he’s ludicrously wealthy [he tripped on a fat kid and fell on a skinny kid at Six Flags], in the lame hopes of beating out Bobby in that way, is likewise poorly executed. There’s no real conflict for Caroline, in spite of the fact that he’s offering her a shot at her old life. She appears to want what he’s teasing her with, but no more than Bobby, it turns out, and it’s ultimately played up as a joke.

At the end of it all Caroline commands the narrative of the episode, and doesn’t end up doing much with it. Max does her own thing on the sidelines. This episode, with the next being the finale, has them coming up on the premiere of a “2 Broke Girls Movie“, but then what? Whatever the conclusion is, at least to this season, I’m hoping it’s a satisfying one for both leads.

Current Total: $7,836.72.

New Total: $9,999.12. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The Title Refers To: A dais, which is “a low platform for a lectern, seats of honor, or a throne,” which in this case is clearly where the press junket takes place. My best guess is that “Rock Me on the Dais” is a play on words on “Rock Me Amadeus”, a 1985 song by Austrian pop star Falco. Not that the episode itself has anything to do with that hit at all.

Stray Observations:

• Max’s accountant, who she met in a dumpster, said “[They’re] not doing great, by the way,” though they very clearly are.
• The heart machine at Rite-Aid said Max was 80 and printed her a prescription for a wheelchair.
• “And Barbara wanted to show off her car, because- you girls are poor.” Again, this can hardly be true anymore.
• “Shouldn’t he be old enough to go by ‘Candrew Andrew’ at this point?” This is referenced again later, but to diminishing returns.
• “I get it, why break your six-year streak?” I’m not even going to pretend I care about continuity in this show anymore.
• Daisy, on the PR team, has such big pupils because Kylie Jenner threw a full can of Sprite at her head once. I have no idea if this episode was written and filmed when her sister’s Pepsi fiasco took place or not.
• Caroline to the actor playing Candy Andy: “Should it be awkward between us since you’re playing one of a long string of two ex-boyfriends?”
• If this is the penultimate episode ever of 2 Broke Girls, aren’t we glad they broke out the pedophilia jokes again?

“You two are like me and my 8th Grade science teacher. Just can’t keep your hands off each other.

“Max you ruined Mr. Brillstein’s life.”

• “You’re sweating like skinny Jonah Hill trying to be funny or fat Jonah Hill trying to be serious-“
• “CAN YOU AT LEAST GIVE ME ONE THING OF MY OWN, EARL?” Typically Sophie yelling is grating, but that line was really funny.
• “My mom said I had to start helping out in this family if I wanted unlimited data.”
• “I’m sorry, Caroline, I just couldn’t stand the thought of you doing it with another guy once a week. In the beginning.”

Han had a line about children’s programming, and given that I’m somewhat of an aficionado of live action sitcoms for a demographic I aged out of long ago, I think it’s time for-

Evan Shows Off His Knowledge of Children’s Programming

Max’s character, in the movie based on Caroline’s life, is being played by an actress named Vanessa Robinson. Han excited shares, upon finding this out:

“Vanessa Robinson is on my favourite Disney show: That’s So Vanessa Robinson!”

Matthew Moy, who plays Han, has actually starred on his fair share of tween sitcoms, starring with a three episode stint on iCarly. He was also on one episode of Big Time Rush, with those two shows together created by, and airing on, Nickelodeon.

When it comes to Disney, however, he’s done much more. Moy appeared on Zeke and Luther, Big Time Rush, and Good Luck Charlie in 2010, all of which are live action sitcoms for either the Disney Channel or Disney XD. Two years later, after he was already a solid part of the 2 Broke Girls cast, he had a role in Kickin’ It, also for the latter channel.

It’s just an interesting connection I couldn’t ignore. Unfortunately he doesn’t have a reel anywhere that I could find, but if you do some digging it shouldn’t be too hard to locate the specific episodes.

Also Disney has never, ever made another show with the same title format as the hit That’s So Raven.

Is this the end of 2 Broke Girls? That’s a question that may have been on your mind while watching this episode, and which I’m actually going to be addressing a little later this week. For now let’s live in the moment and break down whether or not “And 2 Broke Girls: The Movie” was a successful season finale.

This is the fifth I’ve reviewed, so in addition to what’s expected of a typical season finale it’s also worth considering how 2 Broke Girls in particular tends to wrap things up. For the past few episodes what can only be assumed are the profits from Max and Caroline’s Dessert Bar have been climbing, but without any indication as to why that number is important. Now that the season is coming to a close tradition dictates that money come back into focus.It’s been quite a while since I last brought up Dan Harmon’s basic story structure, which he used to guide Community and very likely continues to employ with Rick & Morty. While there are eight distinct points, as well as a helpful graph, it essentially boils down to: a status quo is altered then reverted, but with the character[s] having changed. Say what you will about the show, but 2 Broke Girls truly exemplifies this.

Right off the bat we have Caroline telling Han that she and Max are moving up in the world, and that they’re giving their two weeks notice from the diner. It’s a significant step, especially given that all of the sitcom’s promo material revolves around their ugly waitress uniforms. That being said, and with their closing last week with almost $10K, it looks like a huge shift for the titular duo. At least until disaster strikes, as it is wont to do.

Caroline manages to, with a little help from Bobby, destroy a ludicrously expensive dress at the premiere of her biopic, which we’re finally told is titled The Princess and the Ponzi. Before she can even begin begging Han for their jobs back he extends an olive branch and offers to rehire them first. Consider the status quo stuck to.

The most groundbreaking thing that happens actually has nothing to do with money.

That’s right, not only is Randy back, but he’s down on one knee, and for non-sexual purposes!

I re-read my review to the Season 5 finale in preparation for this one, and it reminded me just how strong the emotional beats in that episode were. Randy and Max part ways, and Kat Dennings pulls out all the stops, presenting us with probably the best performance the show has ever featured [up to that point and until now]. While this proposal doesn’t quite reach those heights, it appears to be a clear callback to that finale, and may be just what it takes to draw audiences back in.

“You say you love me, you say you can’t live without me, and then you go and live without me.”

That’s just one of several lines that Dennings drops, such a far cry from the cheap snark or clownish physical comedy she often utilizes, and does elsewhere in this episode. They’re in response to Randy coming on strong, and when he tells her that he “[doesn’t] want to live without [her]” she doesn’t hesitate in asking him to prove it. And down he goes.

As in down on one knee, like in the screenshot, you pervs.

Much like last week, Bobby and Caroline’s relationship suffers a mishap so brief that using either word feels like an overexaggeration. She’s being fussy about his general appearance for the red carpet event, but the problem is he never expresses that it bothers him. In the end she’s the one who approaches him to apologize, and he forgives her immediately, saying that he understands the pressure the situation might lead to, and that it logically “brought up what I hope is the worst in you”. Injecting conflict into their romance is appreciated, but it appears perfunctory at best, dictated by convention and not by the narrative itself.

The finale closes with Max telling Caroline that she got her wish, they’re both wish someone now. Still working at the diner and [supposedly] without a cent to their name, but having succeeded in another, arguably more important part of their lives. Again, I’m not going to go into the likelihood of Season 7 just yet, but as it stands this isn’t a terrible place to end. If the general message is going to be that love matters more than money they could certainly do far worse.

Current Total: $9,999.12.

New Total: $0.00. Back to rock bottom.

The Title Refers To: The movie that’s based on Max’s and Caroline’s time together. It’s a much more balanced title than The Princess and the Ponzi.

Stray Observations:

• “So it has been quite a journey. But through it all the key for me has been bravery and the deep down knowledge that I am better than everyone else.”
• The Princess and the Ponzi has received Oscar buzz! For Sound Editing.
• “Your clothes, your hair, your face. Also your walk’s not great.”
• As per uje, 2paragraphs has a decent write-up on exactly who special guest star Brad Goreski is.
• Upon hearing about the $10K dress: “I could own and operate an Old Navy for that!”
• “Can I have some of that ‘Deal With Caroline’ Juice?” Max and Bobby share a few fun bonding moments in the limo, and makes me wish so badly that the writers decided to have their connection be the source of conflict between him and Caroline.
• I’ve scaled back on Sophie and Oleg being abusive parents quite a bit recently, but here’s a screenshot of her swinging a kielbasa in front of her daughter to wow red carpet paparazzi:

• Also apparently Sophie’s dress it literally made out of a red carpet, but as far as I can tell this is not the case.
• “This is worse than Eric Stonestreet’s nip slip.”
• Olmeca Altos Plata tequila makes another appearance in this episode, and I swear they must have thrown some money CBS’ way to pull this off.
• “Max George Black. I love you.”
• Han’s flush with cash now that they’ve stopped making Doctor Who figurines.
• “I’m keeping my name, by the way. It’d be weird for people to call me ‘Randy’.”

Given that Season 7 is a little up in the air right now, I thought it would be good for me to fall back on a Season 4 stalwart feature for old time’s sake:

2 Broke Girls Cheesecake/Beefcake Menu

Back in the day Max wasn’t periodically doing little goblin jigs, and as a whole there were a lot more attention drawn to either her breasts or Caroline’s legs. “Cheesecake” of course refers to art that plays up women’s sexual attractiveness in women, and in conjunction with “menu” is a fun play on words given that they work in a diner. Anyway. Here’s Caroline’s wardrobe malfunction:

I can’t explain why exactly her dress unravels like that, or how it got attached to Bobby’s suit, or how he doesn’t realize that he’s pulling her across the floor, but there it is. I am sorry, though, that I didn’t figure out how to make these gifs before now.

“Beefcake” is, well, the male equivalent, and there’s been much more of that thanks to Randy’s appearance on the show. The episode closes with him and Bobby getting into a physical altercation, due to the former being the reason that the latter’s family was screwed out of reality TV deal.

As Max says, “Is it weird that I think that’s a little hot?” And no, Max, it isn’t.

Way back in early 2012 I posted a three-part series about two sitcoms that had premiered the previous fall. Covering 2 Broke Girls‘ and New Girl‘s respective casts, styles of humour, and approaches to race, these posts exist as a window into their first seasons as well as an unfortunate snapshot of some embarrassingly unrefined writing from yours truly [with some unrefined opinions as well, as my perspective on Morgan Freeman and Black History Month has certainly shifted since then].

All credit where it’s due, both have come a long way since their inceptions, and in generally positive ways. While not shying away from their trademark “classy-dirty” style of comedy, 2 Broke Girls eased off of the racist humour and began giving their secondary cast members more screen time and character development. New Girl had Hannah Simon’s Cece join the primary cast, with Damon Wayans Jr. even returning for a lengthy stint after his departure following the pilot. I feel fairly confident in saying that neither show every truly dipped in quality, which is saying a lot for the medium and genre they share. I would even go so far as to say that both managed to improve with each passing season.

Now, in 2017, there were a few weeks where the fate of these two sitcoms was in question. To address them consecutively…

2 Networkless Girls?

After months of reviews in which I mused on the future of the show I finally penned a post in April asking “Is 2 Broke Girls Cancelled?”. It has since garnered more comments than anything else on this blog. In it I catalogued what the creators and industry insiders had to say about its future, as well as my personal opinion as someone who has reviewed 101 episodes of the show. I felt like, as someone who stuck with 2 Broke Girls longer than the contributors to its very own wiki even did I was allowed some say.

It was Deadline that pulled back the curtain on the fact that CBS was airing a sitcom that was produced for Warner Bros. That same outlet also broke the news that the network had axed 2 Broke Girls. CBS scheduling director Kelly Kahl is quoted as saying that, as far as she knows:

“it was a creative decision more than anything else. It was not a show we own but we picked up (new comedy series Me, Myself & I and By The Book) from Warner Bros. So I don’t think it was a business decision, I think it was creatively we felt it was time.”

It’s noted that the show made Warner Bros. a very significant amount of money per episode. In spite of being a key players in their weekday lineup, CBS appears to be searching for something else they can wholly own, distribute, and profit from. Kahl even says in the same breath as “was not a show [they owned]” that it was “a creative decision”, but as with all art it comes down to profits.

Renewed Girl?

In an interview with The Daily Beast way back in March Jake Johnson, who plays Nick, admitted that, as far as he knew, “I think after this season it’s done.” The outlet very reasonably took this to be a good sign that the sitcom was coming to a permanent end, titling their article “Jake Johnson: ‘New Girl’ Almost Definitely Ending After Season 6”.

Then, just one day shy of Fox announcing their 2017-2018 schedule, it was announced that New Girl would be receiving a final shortened season. It was Johnson, who again introduced the idea that things were likely wrapping up, who ended up confirming the remaining number of episodes left on Twitter:

Deadline also points out that throughout its entire run New Girl was the network’s highest rated comedy, which certainly helps position it against 2 Broke Girls, which had The Big Bang Theory to contend with. As far as further reasons for its renewal, there was the mention that the show is “a legacy series for Fox”, and as a result “will be getting a proper sendoff”.

Given that both shows were seemingly on the chopping block and only one made it out alive, I looked to see what the reactions were to 2 Broke Girls‘ cancellation.

Who Cares? The Stars, For One

I’ve never hidden my deep appreciation for Beth Behrs, who plays Caroline, and her knack for physical comedy. More often than not she was the bright spot that could save an episode for me. While it’s currently unknown what she has lined up, my hope is that she eventually finds her way back to TV but on a much better show. Her response was seemingly optimistic:

Kat Dennings’ was, well, appropriate to her character Max. Enjoy, if you can, her rendition of Semisonic’s most popular tune:

Behrs had more to say, tweeting a message from both her and Dennings to their fans, a hugging gif to her co-star, and lastly, and hilariously, stated that she [and others] would miss the horse the most:

Who Cares? The Critics, Apparently

Perusing the internet it wasn’t difficult to find fans mourning the loss of a favourite sitcom, and presumably many of them are the very same people who commented on that post I wrote regarding its possible cancellation. That said, there were also a few voices who definitely don’t hold themselves among that number, yet still had something to say.

Over at The Boston Globe Matthew Gilbert requests that readers “send [their] prayers [his] way” in an article that wonders “What will this critic use as a punching bag if ‘2 Broke Girls’ is canceled?” He asks a few more things in the following block quote that accurately sums up his take:

“Now what bad comedy can I kick around with abandon and name as a handy symbol of the worst of network TV comedy? What title can I use to signify all the many qualities of a thoroughly banal show without having to detail them each time? A critic needs a punching bag, you know.”

Emily Yahr of The Washington Post also wrote an article with a question in its title, this one about its actual content. For those who might be unfamiliar with the comedy she provides the context and setting for the vast majority of 2 Broke Girls‘ raunchy jokes, allowing her readers to come to their own conclusions [i.e. it takes place in a diner, yes, a diner]. While Yahr never outright states her opinion it’s fairly easy to determine it by reading between the lines.

“My Emotions, My Emotions!”

Cue my favourite Community reaction gif-

-as I thought it would be appropriate to provide my own personal opinion on last month’s announcements on these two shows.

To start with, regarding 2 Broke Girls, I largely echo Gilbert and Yahr’s sentiments. The number of episodes I reviewed just barely broke into three digits, and I began watching with the pilot. Not only does its cancellation mark the end of a pretty crappy show, it also indicates an end to a job of sorts.

Those who have been following my reviews since the beginning will remember that I took on this assignment once The A.V. Club dropped their coverage, more than eager to fill the gap that had just been vacated. As the four years passed I found myself wondering each spring if I would need to pick things back up after the summer, which up until now had always been followed by disappointment.

In the end I’ll admit to appreciating how 2 Broke Girls made me a better writer over the course of its running. I will always appreciate the moments, few and far between, when I was able to photoshop a little something together for my reviews. I want to remind readers that this show featured Sam Hart’s “Mario Kart Love Song” in one episode, and honestly how incredibly cool is that? And, lest we forget, there were the many features over the years. Searching each and every episode for the same Maxoline fodder the shippers were, keeping tally of how the showrunners leveraged the sex appeal of its stars so that I could make note of it in the “2 Broke Girls Cheesecake Menu”. It’s been a ride, and much of it has been incredibly bumpy, but overall I don’t regret the experience.

As a peek behind the curtain, and a final point, let it be known that 2 Broke Girls reviews have for quite some time taken up the lion’s share of hits on this site.

Contrast all of that with how I felt after watching Season 6 of New Girl come to a close. There was such an air of finality to it that even before reading any of what Johnson had to say I was certain that things were over. As that realization sank in I came painfully close to having an anxiety attack, which I avoid outright stating if only to be respectful of those who have for a fact had to weather them in their own lives. I truly felt that there would be no more New Girl, and actively struggled with a sense of profound loss.

After calming down and dwelling on it I realized that New Girl was and is the last show I began watching with friends during college, which was a pretty great time. I’ve long connected screen media with specific places and people, and thinking that I was seeing it go was hard. When talking about this show on this blog it’s more often than not been about its approach to diverse casting, but it’s also a painfully funny sitcom that has always treated its characters and their relationships with love and respect. I had an emotional reaction to both pieces of news, but an objectively stronger one for the latter.

Which unearths a topic we’ve covered here time and time again, about art, the artist, and the consumer. How engaging with entertainment is a tricky and often problematic and ultimately complex task that we all undertake on a daily basis. To put it another way, it’s a conversation that lies at the heart of Culture War Reporters.

Those who continue to tune in week after week may have been wondering about what’s happening to this blog, and the truth that I’ve neglected to share is how little time I’ve personally had available to devote to it in recent months. At this point there are still a handful of posts I want to get to, and have already decided that CWR will always remain up with the url you’re all so familiar with, but it’s been a long six years. Hopefully before the month is up I’ll have more concrete answers for those of you who want and need them, but until then thanks once again for tuning in.

To say that the relationship between a child and parent is fraught with emotions, most of them far from easy to put into words, is putting it lightly. Yet this is the subject of Mum, a short film that captures a visit from a trans woman to her aging mother. Having already won a handful of accolades, it began screening as part of New Irish Shorts 3 at the Galway Film Fleadh just this past Thursday, July 13th.

Mum is the creation of many talented individuals, chief among them being director Anne-Marie O’Connor and actor and star Kate O’Donnell. In addition to being able to review the short film I was also offered an interview with the two of them that allowed me to gain a better understanding of how this particular work came to be.

First off, congratulations to the both of you on the awards that Mum has won so far, at both the London Independent Film Festival and Global Shorts. To springboard off of that into our first question, as it’s screened as part of “New Irish Shorts 3” at the Galway Film Fleadh, what helps to make this an Irish film outside of the talent involved?

O’Connor: The song that is played and sung throughout the short is Black Velvet Band. It was important to me for this to link the film as it was a song that Kate’s mum used to sing to her and a song that my dad used to sing to me as a child. And although geographically it isn’t set in Ireland, the relationship between Kate and her mum feels very Irish to me and in writing this I felt that Linda was second-generation Irish and that Kate was a product of that upbringing.

I noticed in the credits that Mum was created by the two of you, but that it was only written by Anne-Marie. Could you both go into some detail regarding the creative process?

O’Connor: Kate and I are good friends and have been for years, and as she’s a leading trans actor and activist I’ve always wanted to work with her creatively. We often discuss the way that transgender people are portrayed in film and TV (the fascination with the transition, the no-one-will-ever-love-me storyline, sex workers or outsiders) and wanted to make a short that didn’t fall into those familiar tropes, to have a transgender central character in a universal story.

So I met with Kate and I asked her what story she would tell if she could and it simply came from her saying she’d love to go home and paint her mum’s nails; something she used to do when she was younger but is impossible to do because her stepfather makes life difficult (he’s always been difficult, way before Kate transitioned!). And so we built the story around her own story. It was very important for both of us that Kate was acknowledged in the creative process. So that is why it is created by both of us.

How significant is it that Kate, in the film, and Kate the actor share the same name?

O’Connor: It’s autobiographical, so Kate is playing more than a version of herself, she’s playing herself living out a fictitious day that she cannot have with her own mum because of the given circumstances.

For Anne-Marie specifically, there were a number of beautiful shots in Mum, with one breathtaking moment where Kate is sitting alone thinking back on her past. How did you use the camera to convey a lot of what must be left unsaid given the short run time?

O’Connor: This is down to our fantastic DOP [Director of Photography] Colm Whelan. Kate was framed in every shot where she was under pressure and unframed when she was free (for example, as Little Andrew in the park and Kate on the wall). I’m very concerned with character and story but Colm taught me to let the camera help convey that as well.

A few of the things I wanted to do when we first set out to storyboard the film was to use the sky to denote freedom, and that when Kate dressed and put makeup on at the beginning it was symbolic of her arming herself.

For the two of you, what was the importance of having the two of Kate’s past selves be played by trans actors? 

O’Connor: Very important. We wanted the actors that played Kate to understand her experience and thought, and what better way than to cast trans actors. And we wanted the film to be trans positive and felt that trans casting was a big part of that.

For Kate, it should go without saying that Laverne Cox has broken a lot of ground for transgender actors in Hollywood, and earlier this year was cast in a role where that part of her identity does not come into play. After Boy Meets Girl, and now Mum, I was wondering if you were hoping your career might follow a similar path.

O’Donnell: I think casting trans actors is positive and adds a new dimension to story and gender and it’s good that that further step has been taken to cast a trans actor in a role where her trans-identity doesn’t come into play. But trans-visibility is still low and rests on a few shoulders like Cox.

As for me, I have thoroughly enjoyed being in Mum but I am more known for my theatre work. Recently I played the fool in the Royal Exchange’s critically acclaimed Twelfth Night as a trans woman and this brought something people hadn’t seen before in what has always been a “gender bending” play. I am about to premier my new one woman show, You’ve Changed at the Edinburgh International Festival. My theatre work is gently political and is written for queer and trans people but happily happens to have appeal with a wider audience but I’m happy to take every opportunity that comes my way. I’m a 52-year-old trans woman. If someone had told me five years ago that I would be offered such great roles and also creating work for myself, I wouldn’t have believed them.

Lastly, and this is for you both once more, could you share your own takes on the final shot of the film? It’s not a specific callback to the character’s past with her mother, which made it stand out that much more for me.

O’Connor: I wanted to leave the film with a powerful image of a mother and a daughter curled up together. As a mum myself I was concerned with the stages of life we experience with our children (and reversing that when Kate realizes how ill Margot is), and to curl up with a child in the foetal position is a very natural thing. To reverse this and have Kate taking on the role of the nurturer seemed the right ending to me.

O’Donnell: It is a lovely scene and one that I imagined on the day would be very emotional to shoot. But the reality was very different. We were up against time to get some of the kit back to the supplier and the DOP was in an awkward position on top of a ladder, so what looks like a serene moment was anything but… The moment Anne-Marie called cut everyone started rushing around and dismantling lights and everyone ignore me and Margot lying on the bed. That’s showbiz for you!

Thank you so much for your time, and for allowing me to watch and review this film.

O’Connor: No problem. Thanks for taking your time to review it.  

As laid out in the first-ever Evan Yeong Literary Awards, the purpose of these blog posts has been to provide a retrospective of the books read in the past year. Typically these have been written and published in January, but here we are. Better late than never, as I always say.

This is the first of these awards to be written during my relatively new career in publishing. While I wouldn’t say I have a strong understanding of the ins and outs of what’s hot in the industry, I certainly have a healthier grasp of things, especially compared to past years when I had none whatsoever.

The other notable difference is that the list of books read has been censored in part, due to a number of the books having been unsolicited manuscripts that I was asked to read during my time as an Editorial Intern at Penguin Random House Canada. A handful were also unpublished manuscripts or ARCs (Advanced Reader Copies) and have been marked as such. You can check out a full list [with the exact dates of when I read each one] at this link.

ALMOST AS COMPLEX AS THEIR NAMESAKE

Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan
Published 2013

Those who aren’t as familiar with the works of C.S. Lewis should know that “Aslan” is the name of the Judeo-Christian-God-stand-in of that author’s Narnia series. The lion is a complex figure, embodying a dichotomy of a being that is “isn’t safe” while also “good”. Aslan himself is a likewise complicated man, having been raised Muslim, converted to Christianity in his teens, then back to Islam, a faith he continues to practice, and did during the writing of this book. A fascinating fact for both believers and nonbelievers alike is his statement that whether or not he was the son of God, the Nazarene definitively performed miracles.

SHOULD HAVE WON THE 2017 GILLER PRIZE

Brother by David Chariandy
Published 2017

One of many short, powerful works of fiction that I read this year, Brother is as unpretentious and beautiful a novel as you’re likely to find, and a worthy contender for Canada’s loftiest and most coveted literary prize. Shining a spotlight on Scarborough in the 90s, an area that I have (recently) shamefully joked about only “technically being Toronto”, this book would have served as a reminder of the real life stories that are overlooked and underheard.

The actual winner of the 2017 Scotiabank Giller Prize was Michael Redhill’s Bellevue Square, which I read the ARC of. Brother was longlisted.

SHOULD HAVE WON THE 2018 GILLER PRIZE

An Ocean of Minutes by Thea Lim
Published 2018

When I was first told about this time travel love story I was dubious at best. What could Lim do that Niffenegger (as well as so many countless others) hadn’t already done? To start with, she cuts the fat and simplifies the often convoluted worldbuilding to the point that readers won’t stop to wonder how or why things make sense, they simply do. Having captured their full attention she then reaches into their chests to grab their hearts and break them. (Read as unpublished manuscript)

The actual winner of the 2018 Scotiabank Giller Prize was Washington Black by Esi Edugyan. An Ocean of Minutes was shortlisted.

GRIN→CHAGRIN

Blink by Ted Dekker
Published 2003

Ted Dekker burst onto the scene as a Christian author with a strong narrative voice and a confident grasp of genre fiction. In this novel a young former prodigy gains abilities that appear to mirror Nicolas Cage’s in the 2007 flick Next (which was in turn based on a 1954 novella by Phillip K. Dick). The action is fast-paced, bordering on frenetic, and the stakes are high, but it’s when Dekker uses the novel to support his own religious beliefs that things get iffy. While I’m a Christian myself, it’s when his apologetics turn to shaming Muslims and deriding Islam that turned what was once the smile I wore when I first read this over a decade ago into a shamefaced wince.

REFUTES THE IDEA THAT AMERICA IS THE BEST AT EVERYTHING

Obasan by Joy Kogawa
Published 1981

America holds a number of first place medals when ranking itself among other countries, but there’s one in particular that I’d like to reaward to their longtime northern ally. Although the harsh truth that the United Stated created internment camps for their citizens of Japanese heritage during World War II is far from widely known, even less is discussed about Canada’s own participation in such practices. It’s been argued by some that the way that Japanese-Canadians were treated by the True North (Strong and Free) was ultimately much worse, resulting in their overall much lower population here. Kogawa’s novel is frustrating in the way that all recounted injustices are, but more so in its revelation that the sins of our neighbours are so often our very own.

NOT FOR ME (BUT HOPEFULLY FOR SOMEONE)

The Incest Diary by Anonymous
Published 2017

It’s important for us to believe that we’re not alone. This is especially true for victims of trauma, as knowing that others have shared in similar experiences can be the first step on the path to recovery. While it’s undoubtedly true that the issue of sexual abuse by family members is altogether too common (even a single incident would be too much) the graphic, to-the-point-of-pornographic, way this memoir was written made it difficult for me to find the redeeming factor in this retelling of the author’s life. I dearly hope that there are survivors out there who take what they need to from this, but am just as worried that there are others who might read it for entirely different, less virtuous reasons.

MOST PLEASANT SURPRISE

Malagash by Joey Comeau
Published 2017

This isn’t to say that I ever had any doubts about Comeau, at one point most well-known for his work as the writer behind the webcomic A Softer World, and his abilities as an author. In fact, one of his novels made it onto the 2014 Evan Yeong Literary Awards list! While always maintaining a strong sentimental centre, the outstanding qualities of his work have ranged from the more lurid (Lockpick Pornography) to the bleakly and vulgarly introspective (Overqualified). With Malagash readers are presented with a quiet tale of loss that proves to be the clearest distillation of the authentic emotional writing he’s been mastering to date.

BEST ANTI-DRUG PSA

The Botany of Desire: A Plant’s-Eye View of the World by Michael Pollan
Published 2001

Yet another author with a 2014 award-winner, five years after An Omnivore’s Dilemma Pollan turns the focus towards flora. By following four domesticated species though the centuries he chronicles not only how we’ve had an impact on plants, but how they have in turn changed our own existence as part of this ecosystem. It’s in the section where Pollan delves into marijuana that things go off the rails. These pages (likely purposefully) mirror the effects of the drug in their hazy, speculative musings. It’s a perfect example of a man veering out of his own lanes of science and history and not quite being able to match the speed limit and traffic laws required for philosophy.

UNINTENTIONAL HORROR-COMEDY

Horns by Joe Hill
Published 2010

The titular growths on his forehead are of rising concern to protagonist Ig Parrish, but even more troubling is the fact that the people in his life can’t help from confessing their deepest (and darkest) secrets to him. A sordid affair or two are to be expected, but the atrociousness of the admissions soon begins to border on the comical. Isn’t there a single person in this town whose greatest sin is that they once started a petty rumour about a friend? A compelling device in its own right, Hill doubles down on his characters’ depravity to the point of meaninglessness and, at best, mirth.

MOST SELF-CONSCIOUS SUBWAY READ

Beauty Queens by Libba Bray
Published 2011

Far from being a Fifty Shades of Grey, the half-naked model on the front cover of this book nonetheless made me want to sit with it flat on my lap, away from judging eyes. That said, it’s not as if fellow passengers being aware of its actual contents would protect me from scrutiny. Starring a passel of pageant contestants stranded on a desert island, Bray’s novel is a true, unabashed satire. I never knew what to expect from one moment to the next, only that it would be biting and bombastic, a no-holds-barred approach to literature that turned out to be impossible not to enjoy.

PROOF THAT THESE STORIES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AROUND

The Case of the One-Penny Orange by E. V. Cunningham
Published 1977

Writing under a pseudonym, this is one of Howard Fast’s seven books which make up the Masao Masuto Mysteries series. Literature from decades past rarely holds positive portrayals of people of colour, let alone awards them centre stage, yet this mystery offers both. The protagonist is not only a well-rounded and human character, his cultural differences, spanning from his religious beliefs to his identity as an Asian man, are portrayed in a way that never veers into xenophobia or exposes poor research. For as much as Hollywood has transformed into a remake factory, it’s tales like this that are never considered for adaptation.

As mentioned above a full list of books read can be seen here. To further break down that number, however, I have a few stats for your consideration:

(The Books of the Bible New Testament was the New Testament formatted without verses or chapter breaks, and with the books “naturally” ordered; as such it has been omitted from the stats below.)

• Number of Books Read: 59
• Books by White/Male Authors/Editors: 26
• Books by Everyone Else: 31
  • Books by Non-White Authors: 18
  • Books by Female Authors: 24 (objectively counted as a female author, it may also worth noting that Charlie Jane Anders is a trans woman)
  • Books by Both of the Above: 11
• Books by Canadian Authors/Editors: 21
• Fiction Books: 48
  • Full-Length Novels: 44
  • Short Story Collections: 4
• YA Books Read: 2
• Children’s Books Read: 0
• Non-Fiction Books: 9
  • Memoir/Autobiography: 2
  • Essay Collections: 3
• Books That Have Received Film/TV Adaptations: 11 (although not included, at the time of this writing The End We Start From is to be adapted by Sunnymarch and Hera Pictures, and Little Fires Everywhere will be released as an eight-episode miniseries on Hulu)
  • Above Adaptations That I’ve Seen: 1
• Authors I Read The Most Of: N/A