u/SilverEquipment4934

Some characters from books, plays and folklore/mythology are frequently adapted in completely different ways. There might be a core to the character each adaptation sticks to, or they might be completely different, but regardless, each incarnation of the character is very, very distinct from the last.

This naturally depends on the execution, but I actually love this trope. It's cool seeing the same character constantly reinterpreted and reimagined.

• Image 1 - Dracula over the years. Left to right, top to bottom: Orlok in Nosferatu, Dracula in Dracula (1931), Dracula in Horror of Dracula/Dracula (1958), Dracula in Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), Dracula in Castlevania, Vlad III "the Impaler" Dracula in Dracula Untold, Dracula in Hotel Transylvania, Orlok in Nosferatu (2024).
• Image 2 - Amleth/Hamlet in various adaptations/productions. Left to right, top to bottom: Hamlet in Hamlet (1948), Hamlet in Hamlet (1996), Hamlet in Hamlet (2000), Hamlet in a stage production starring Andrew Scott (2017, filmed version released 2018), Amleth in The Northman, an actor playing Hamlet in-universe in Hamnet. I excluded characters who were influenced by Hamlet/Amleth but not directly based on him, like Simba from The Lion Kings and Jax Teller in Sons of Anarchy. Obviously, if I included them too, that would really get across the variety in adaptations of the character.

What are some shots/scenes that you find subtly unsettling? Maybe there's something disturbing in the background, or a sense of foreboding, or anything else that subtly unnerves you.

My examples:

Image 1 - the Mermaid in The Lighthouse. The darkness, the Mermaid slowly swimming towards the camera, there's something so unnerving about it.

Image 2 - a cityscape in Enemy (2013). If you look carefully, there's a giant fuck off spider in the background. There's another shot in this film of a big spider in a city, but I think this one is much more disturbing because of how far in the background it is.

Who are some of the most versatile actors you can think of? Actors who are truly versatile, who can completely transform as the role demand. Chameleons. Actors who can change their accent, posture, tone. Actors who can do all sorts of genres. For me:

• Image 1 - Daniel Day-Lewis in several films. Left to right, top to bottom: Lincoln, The Age of Innocence, There Will Be Blood, My Left Foot, My Beautiful Laundrette, A Room with a View
• Image 2 - Cate Blanchett in several films. Left to right, top to bottom: The Lord of the Rings, The Aviator, Thor: Ragnarok, I'm Not There, Tár, Coffee and Cigarettes
• Image 3 - Cate Blanchett in Manifesto.
• Image 4 - Meryl Streep in several films. Left to right, top to bottom: Sophie's Choice, A Cry in the Dark (Evil Angels in Australia/New Zealand), The Devil Wears Prada, She Devil, Angels in America, The French Lieutenant's Woman

Under the Skin (2013, not to be confused with the 1997 film of the same name starring Samantha Morton) is a sci-fi horror film directed and co-written by Jonathan Glazer, based on the book of the same name by Michel Faber. It stars Scarlett Johansson as an alien who seduces men.

It was distributed by A24 in the US. Now, I'm not American, but I wanted to discuss this strange, strange film and thought this would be the best place to do it.

I loved it! It was so, so unsettling. The sci-fi horror was certainly unsettling - that dark room, that scene with the decomposing corpse under the strange black water (though I did think the other guy looked a bit silly - looked like a Smurf holding his breath), that beautifully disturbing soundtrack. Yet, I think the film was at its most unsettling when dealing with mundane, more real sorts of horror.

That scene where the woman drowns trying to help her dog and her husband drowns trying to save her was so horrifying. It just happens. There's no build up, you just see them swimming out to sea and then they're gone. As someone who has spent a lot of time in the British coast - and loves it there, don't get me wrong - this was especially horrifying. At any moment you could be swept away...

Then there's the scene in the woods at the end, where our protagonist is approached by a strange man and later, when she falls asleep in a cabin, is nearly raped by him. She escapes, but he chases her through the woods. No music plays, it feels so real and horrible.

On that note, the way the protagonist changes from predator to prey (as she becomes more human?) is really well done and a good way of shifting the horror.

One of the greatest things about this film is Scarlett Johansson's performance. She's so, well, alien. She's so cold and unsettling and, when she tries to be affable and seductive, she's charismatic enough that you can see why men are convinced but also just a little off. Every little move of her face, every little move of her body - it's all so stilted and strange. In the middle of the film, when she seems to be questioning her purpose and is travelling on the bus, she just seems so dead inside, so completely inhuman, yet becoming human. I'm probably not giving this performance justice with my description - it's damn good. Also, I have to give kudos to her English accent. I think she's struggled a bit with English accents in the past, but it felt really natural here (though the protagonist doesn't talk much).

The other performances were good too - I know there was a mix of actors and real people. This gives the film such an authenticity which, in turn, makes it all the more frightening, as it feels like it's really happening.

The visuals are amazing, from the sci-fi intro, to that disturbing scene with the flowing blood, to the various shots of the beautiful Scottish countryside, to that scene at the end where we see what is, well, under the skin. I have no idea how they accomplished that scene, but it's amazing.

Now, what is this film about? I have a few ideas, some more serious than others:

• On a literal level, it's about an alien woman who slowly gains humanity, shifting from predator to prey as a result.
• The man she's with (a fellow alien?) seems to have power above her - is he abusive to her, and the film is about the cycle of abuse?
• I did see one interview (otherwise I went in blind) were Johansson IIRC discussed how importance loneliness was in the film. And that's true. The protagonist is so completely alone - those she seduces die and, otherwise, she's a stranger in a strange land. A metaphor for immigration? For new beginnings? For making your own way in the world? For being a woman?
• It is about being a woman? Feeling like you can't trust anyone, feeling out of place and like an alien, feeling like a monster? I'm not a woman, if you couldn't tell from my amazing analysis.
• Is Adam Pearson's character the key? Is that why the protagonist gains a conscience and becomes more human? She finds someone who can relate to feeling so out of place?

I'm sure I'm completely off base. Still, though I might not have fully understood it, I sure did enjoy this film. What were your thoughts?

Who are some divisive or even hated hosts that you enjoyed? To make something clear, I don't mean that the host as a person/creative is divisive, I mean that their time hosting was divisive. So a person could be controversial outside of SNL but have had a unanimously acclaimed episode hosting, while a person who is widely beloved outside of SNL could have a divisive or even fully hated episode they hosted.

For me, Felicity Jones (2017) - pictured in this sketch. It seems general consensus is that she clearly struggled in the live format and didn't do very well overall. I actually disagree and think she had a solid time hosting. I think the episodes played to her strengths, granted, as the humour from Movie Interview is how earnest and dramatic her performance is (outside the Hot Robot scenes, though in those scenes her voice is altered). The other sketches generally just needed her to do a silly voice or were pre-recorded. So while live comedy probably isn't her forte, I thought she did well enough in an episode that accommodated her well. I know she struggled with her monologue a bit, but I thought her actual episode was good.

What is your favourite performance by Natalie Portman? I've excluded Black Swan, since it's generally held to be her best. She has been nominated thrice for acting: Best Supporting Actress for Closer, Best Actress for Black Swan, Best Actress for Jackie. She won for Black Swan. She also has a producing credit on Arco, which was nominated for Best Animated Feature.

Did you love her other nominated performances? Were there others you thought were Oscar-worthy, or even completely snubbed?

For me, I thought she was incredible in Vox Lux. I can see why it's a divisive performance in a divisive film, but she's so magnetic in that role and it's so different to her other characters.

What Home Invasion films do you think are the best and/or the most disturbing?

Edit: Damn misspelling, I meant "favourite" in the title.

I absolutely loved it! I think it might be my second favourite comedy, after Frasier. Oh, wait, sorry... Frajer.

I already knew the work of Tina Fey through watching Mean Girls and Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, so I was already aware that she was a great comedy writer. It was between my previous experiences with Fey's works and my burgeoning interest in Saturday Night Live that I decided to start watching this show.

It's so good, start to finish. I think it also, generally, gets funnier as it goes along (and it starts funny), especially as it keeps getting wackier. I think the last season is the funniest (though it's also a shame that it's so short). A lot of the comedy catches you off guard, as a character (usually Jenna or Tracy, though Kenneth and Jack do it a lot as well) says something absolutely insane but in such a nonchalant manner that it takes you a few seconds to notice. It's the same with a lot of the jokes. I loved the celebrity cameos, I think they were mostly well used.

I love all the characters, they bounce off each other very well, especially the central 5 (Liz, Jack, Tracy, Jenna and Kenneth).

Jenna is probably my favourite character, I love how she's just a complete, unapologetic narcissistic monster. Her awful childhood I also think gives her just enough sympathy to make you understand why she's such an insane, self-centred person. I love her relationships with Tracy and Liz.

The relationship between Liz and Jack is a major highpoint of the show. While I can't pretend I didn't ship them, I think it's great it was this entirely platonic, mentor-mentee best friend relationship. A show about Liz and Jack fighting over the show would have been fun, but focusing on them actually getting on I think made the show much more distinct.

The first season was good and did a great job introducing the characters. It has a slightly different vibe to the later seasons, especially the earlier episodes, but you don't really notice at the time because the gradual descent into madness is subtle.

One issue I think the first few seasons had was that Frank, Lutz and Josh felt pretty interchangeable at first, with all 3 being the crass, unlikeable, unintelligent, lecherous employees. Plus, while Twofer and Pete are much more distinct, they would also sometimes play similar roles to those 3. I liked Josh, but I think it was sensible to remove him, with the Frank and Lutz also becoming much more distinct as the show goes on (the former being more self-aware and intelligent, the latter being... the most sad and pathetic man in existence). I thought Danny was a good replacement of Josh, bringing something new to the show, though he was rarely used.

I like most of the side characters. I think Devon is such a fun rival and I love how, despite him being gay and that occasionally being the butt of the joke, he's not at all stereotypical. Hazel seems quite divisive, but I thought she was great, she has some hilarious lines. I was a bit unsure of her at first since I wasn't really sure what her character was, but as it became more apparent I really liked her. And Dr. Spaceman... I don't need to explain why he's great.

Separated-at-birth casting (link to TVTropes page) is when two actors are cast in roles where resemblance would make sense (relatives, the same person at different points in their life, characters who are meant to be lookalikes) and genuinely look very similar. It's only for cases where the actors aren't related (otherwise that would explain the resemblance) - it's just too unrelated actors who happen to look similar.

For example, in Better Call Saul, the actors playing Kim and her mother during a flashback look very similar - they are convincing as mother and daughter.

For another example, in House of the Dragon, the actors playing Rhaenyra at two points in her life also look very similar. The white-hair wig probably does some work, but the eye colours, brows and mouth shapes are almost identical between the two.

What are some of you favourite examples of this?

The two men who get absolutely crushed by the debris, probably killed or at least heavily incapacitated. The contrast between them and the triumphant music is also something.

As well all know, there have been two Pete Davidsons who have been cast members (Devon Walker and Pete Davidson) and one who has hosted (Rami Malek). Which Pete Davidson is your favourite?

Speaking seriously, obviously I don't want to diminish Rami Malek and Devon Walker to just 'Pete Davidson' lookalikes. Hell, Malek is an Oscar-winning actor. It's just funny that there has been a cast member and a host that people joke (and the show itself is in on) look like Pete Davidson.

To be honest, I didn't really see the resemblance between them at first, but I can now see it better. I think Walker and Davidson have very similar smiles and somewhat similar acting. Malek also has a similar-ish smile and has some facial features that look somewhat like Davidson.

What's your top 4 favourite horror films?

Mine are (in no particular order): John Carpenter's The Thing, the original What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?, the original Nosferatu and the original Psycho (blimey, just realised 3/4 of those have since received remakes).

Granted, two of my favourite films are Pan's Labyrinth and Perfect Blue, which are (at least) horror-adjacent, but I wouldn't list them here.

There's a TLDR at the bottom.

If it were possible, I'd put emphasis on the word "meant" in the title. Tyrion is almost certainly meant to be a good Hand of the King.

I think it's fairly common nowadays to describe Tyrion as someone who, though clearly intelligent, isn't an especially good Hand of the King. He alienates allies, doesn't particularly endear himself to many and seems to overestimate his own ability (a shared flaw between the Lannisters).

However, I do wonder if this is where authorial intent and reader interpretation differ. I'm not trying to enforce a canon viewpoint - I believe in Death of the Author - I just want to look into whether Tyrion is meant to be a good Hand of the King, regardless of whether he actually is or not.

First, we have statements from George R. R. Martin himself:

>Fan: Which of your characters would you say is the most suitable to be a leader nowadays, and why?

>George: Probably Tyrion. Tyrion is very smart. He's also very ruthless, sadly, which you need. I don't know necessarily that he'd be a beloved leader, but he has the intellectual ability to do it. He has a certain understanding of politics and a lot of experience in the dark side of humanity, so he wouldn't be too naïve for the job. He might be a good choice.

The source is this question and answer. I have this post to thank for discovering the quote.

This quote establishes that Martin thinks Tyrion is smart and ruthless (though who's refuting that?), has a keen understanding of politics and would avoid being too naïve for the job. The main setback would be that he wouldn't be beloved. He's not the only person Martin mentions, but he's the first.

Now, the question is specifically about the most suitable to be a leader nowadays. While I'm sure there are some universals, a good leader today is very different to a good leader in Westeros. However, I think Martin's quote speaks to some of those fundamentals. Being "smart", "ruthless", having "a certain understanding of politics" and "experience in the dark side of humanity" would all serve him well in Westeros, as perhaps in the real world.

I also think the novels themselves suggest that Tyrion is meant to be seen as a good Hand.

He is set up as a foil to Ned as Hand of the King. Ned and Tyrion's tenures mirror each other. Unlike Ned, Tyrion deals with untrustworthy elements, Pycelle and Slynt (we'll get to Varys and Baelish late) and staffs the Keep and the City at large with his own men (the Mountain Clans). Dealing with Janos Slynt is especially meaningful, as Tyrion almost immediately deals with the man who played a role in Ned's downfall.

Then there's Blackwater. Granted, there's a difference between being a good leader, a good politician, and a good wartime strategist. Still, I think the way he's portrayed with Blackwater - from perfecting Cersei's wildfire plan, to giving a rousing speech - suggests he's meant to be seen as a good leader. The biggest indication is what happens afterwards - it's something of a tragedy that, despite playing a key role in saving the city, Tyrion's contribution is overlooked. At least to me, this suggests the intended interpretation is that Tyrion was a great Hand whose usefulness is overlooked. It still works if it's purely about his contributions at the Battle of the Blackwater (which few would deny were important), but I do think there's an added gravitas if it's also about his success as Hand. Indeed, the scene where he asks to be Tywin's heir works much better if his actions in A Clash of Kings how him to be a competent leader.

There's also Joanna calling him the child of Tywin closest to him. Now, Tywin is a very flawed person and I think Martin is critical of him as a leader, but Tywin's did have qualities that (for a leader) could be considered 'positive' (ruthlessness - though too much, cunning, willing to be diplomatic when necessary - though not enough) and I think it is likely that this scene is meant to suggest Tyrion shares those.

Now, it's clearly intended for Tyrion to have flaws as a leader. He has issues in his personal life - see his delusions about Shae - that impact him as Hand. In the previous quote, Martin says that he'd be a good leader but not beloved, and he does have an issue with alienating people at court and the commons (though I don't think this is intended to be quite the dealbreaker people think it is). While some of his harsher acts as leader (like destroying the slum housing) might be intended to be pragmatic, others are clearly intended to go too far. Killing that singer who was blackmailing him was arguably the correct decision, but what Tyrion did after was excessive. We also have the fact that we know Tyrion is going down a darker route and might well, if he's put in a similar position with Dany, be a less positive influence.

That's also a key thing to establish - I don't think Martin intends for Tyrion to be a good person, I believe he's called him a villain. I just think Martin intends for Tyrion to be a good leader. Tyrion is presented as intelligent, cunning, ruthless and his actions as Hand are vital for the city surviving Stannis' assault. Martin himself as said he'd be a good leader, at least today.

Now, I want to make it clear, just because Martin seemingly intends for Tyrion to have been a good Hand of the King - a good leader, a good politician - doesn't mean he actually was. Death of the Author and all that. Tyrion dealt with Pycelle and Slynt, but Varys and (especially) Baelish were much more dangerous. This is especially egregious with Baelish, since Tyrion knows Baelish framed him and tried to destabilise the realm. You can argue the wartime made Baelish a necessity (though I'd argue removing a traitor is more important in war than keeping him in the finances), but he also doesn't do anything afterwards.

TLDR - Whether Tyrion is or is not a good leader, a good Hand of the King, a good politician, can be debated. It should be debated. However, I do think the intention is that Tyrion is a strong, competent leader, Hand, politician. Both the framing of the text and the words of Martin himself suggest this. Now, that doesn't mean people have to think Tyrion is a good leader - Death of the Author and all that - just that I don't necessarily think it's the intention.

Scarlett Johansson has had one hell of a career. It has ranged from blockbusters and major animated films, to prestige and art films. The MCU; Her; Under the Skin; Hail, Caesar!; Lost in Translation; The Jungle Book; The Girl with the Peal Earring; Asteroid City; Marriage Story; Jo Jo Rabbit; The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie.

What are some of your favourite performances by her?

For me, my favourite is possible Samantha in Her. Some actors struggle with voice roles, but I personally think this is one of the best voice performances ever. There's so much warmth and texture to her role.