So, about Amazon's Prime The Rings of Power: A Review of Ep. 1-5 S1

As someone who is not familiar with any of Middle-earth lore in terms of the books - I haven't read the trilogy, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales which covers all the movies and the series - I will be honest: At best it's above average and at worst painfully cringe. For the most part it straddles between those two. Those who are familiar with the lore obviously will be much more critical of the series.

I won't give it a 1 star because I think that's underserving from someone who isn't educated on the lore so I realize I may be more generous in my criticisms. A five star? Definitely not. Not even a 4 star. I probably give it solid three if I'm generous, but a 2.5 will suffice. 

Positives

Some shots are really nice, but they're few and far between. The show has some highlights but outside of these the show runs on mediocrity in all aspects of a tv production where, as mentioned, it occasionally dips into cringe. 

Markella Kavenagh, who plays Nori Brandyfoot, is the standout out of all the actors involved. Genuine sincerity in her line delivery, proper facial expressions that match her emotions and lines, decent physical acting too. She gives Nori that naive yet brave demeanor. Nori is probably the best written character, but that is a low bar to accomplish given the rest of the characters are one-dimensional or underdeveloped. 

The only issue I have with Nori as a character is that her character jumps too soon into accepting The Stranger as some benign entity, believing it's her mission to help him all in under a day because "there must be something out there." Not even Bilbo Baggins was this eager (or naive) to engage in something completely unknown to him. 

It was good acting by Daniel Weyman who plays The Stranger alongside Markella. These two are paired together in their storyline throughout S1 and they work well off of one another. Weyman barely has any lines, and his character is truly enigmatic. It's a role that requires more physical and facial acting where words are absent. The lines he does have he delivers them fine enough. The audience can tell he is a man who is slowly regaining his memory and therefore his purpose.

There are some lovely cinematography going on. In episode 1 when the Harfoots are introduced, there is a sweeping shot of a grain field in which two hunters are walking back to the camp. Unknowingly to them they are walking near the Harfoots' village. 

Another beautiful shot was when Nori and Poppy Proudfellow, played by Megan Richards, were pushing The Stranger up a hill to get him to the Harfoot village. In their quarreling, Nori and Poppy let go of the wheel barrel in which The Stranger is in. Gravity enters the picture and slowly brings the wheel barrel down the path that they just climbed up. Both Harfoots scramble to reach him. Here the director focused on giving a portrait view of the scene showing the two Harfoots, The Stranger, their surroundings and the bluish-purple night sky. The shot entirely lovely and brought me back to the scene when Gandalf shares a smoke with Bilbo on his birthday in the very first Lord of the Rings movie.

When Galadriel was sailing to Valinor for eternal life as a reward was also well shot (for the most part - I had an issue when the camera did a close-up on Galadriel's face where it appeared she was adjusting her eyes due to the brightness; that just annoyed me). Great lighting (maybe too much?), sound and set pieces. 

Some set designs were quite nice, but if you put these in Game of Thrones, Spartacus or Rome I wouldn't known any better. 

The makeup and costume designs of the orcs are the absolute best in the show; they'd fit right in with their film orc counterparts. Some shots of Galadriel were done well too. The one that stands out was when she was in full armor when boarding ship with the Numenoreans - I think that costume design was great.

And Durin. Besides Nori, I do enjoy his character. Some don't but I suppose that's because they are familiar with the lore where I am not. Owian Arthur who plays Prince Durin IV is great. As with Markella, he has great line delivery and his facial expressions and physically lines up well with his character in the stations he find himself in. Put him right alongside the other actors who played drwarves in The Hobbit and LOTR and he wouldn't miss a step.

I think there are a few more, but that's what I remember throughout the first five episodes.

The opening title credits of RoP I'm starting to warmup to (nice visuals and music with was written by Howard Shore).

Cons

I will absolutely agree with this one: the writing, in general, is poor. Half the time it's not even mediocre - I give the mediocrity to the pacing. It's poor on what the writers and producers are trying to achieve which is their own PG-13 epic fantasy akin to GoT. It just doesn't pass muster. The dialogue, when the actors go on monologues that give exposition is at times cringe, trying to grasp Peter Jackson like tonality in verbal form. It doesn't work. There's an attempt, but it just doesn't work.

What producers agreed to cast Benjamin Walker as High King Gil-galad? I wonder what was said between his agent and Amazon Prime when casting was being finalized. People will say he was given bad direction and that his character was poorly written. Maybe to both. I say it's just, largely, a miscast. Him trying to be an elf with nobility comes across as a caricature. "This-is-my-idea-of-a-king-elf-who-is-concerned-for-his-people." 

The portrayal of Galadriel played by Morfydd Clark is a poor one. Some don't want to blame the actress, but it's clear - to me - that she's playing this character is a brazen way that makes little sense to me from what I've experienced with how Galadriel is in LOTR trilogy. Granted this Galadriel is a young Galadriel, her portrayed makes it hard to believe that a strong-headed, arrogant elf like Clark's turns into a controlled, tempered wise elf as portrayed by Cate Blanchett.

There's a pattern to Clark's line delivery. When she's saying lines that are meant to portray great sadness, stress or urgency her voice sorta shakes. This was fine at first but it becomes annoying after a while. She is beautiful - both with makeup and without. 

There are other things I have issues with with how Galadriel was written, like how she became a martial art master with a sword when teaching inexperienced soldiers how to fight properly when facing orcs. Or the writers wanting her to be obsessed with finding Sauron because she's addicted to war and battle. She's just horribly written and so far rather one-dimensional. 

CGI is nothing special and it was shown when the series entered the island of Numenor. The sails on the ships? 1 billion dollar budget. 1 billion dollars. When it dwells on the island the series becomes a generic fantasy series set in a time that has a weird mixture of Rome-ish and GoT feel. Again, I'm coming at this as someone who hasn't read any of the books in which Middle-earth is explained so I have zero clue if set pieces and costumes should look the way they do here. 

The portrayal of the village people and the interactions between the Numernoreans and Halbrand were cringe. "Drinks for everyone!" as ancient string instruments are played in the background. 

The writing also just doesn't give enough exposition on what's happening. I'll admit I watched intently but I'm still slightly confused on what exactly is going on. With this, the characters' reactions and reasoning due to the bad writing all adds to the confusion. For example, if Galadriel and the Numernoreans are going to sail to the Southlands to battle Sauron, why are they so content with sailing with inexperienced soldiers - with only three ships that fit 100 men? I'm totally ignorant on anything relating to t military tactics, but given this seems like a major event that will forever change Galadriel psychologically and emotionally, and Middle-earth's future, you'd think they would want a larger army and be excessively concerned about soldier preparation and battle tactics before they set sail. 

The supposed romance between Arondir and Bronwyn just screams "we, the producers, needed a romance so here it is." It adds nothing to the overall series. The actors who play said characters are not given any favors in the script - because they're so thinly written - besides them being in this production to add to their actor brand.

Do I care if Arondir is a non-white elf since it's a rarity in Middle-earth to be a non-white elf or so I'm told? I don't really care because his character is so badly written that the actor's race is not even a concern to me. That enough is a turn off because without solid writing it really doesn't matter if the character has an arm sticking out of his side just for shits and giggles. 

Conclusion

It is as bad as the LOTR die-hards make it out to be? I can only empathize with them. If I knew the lore inside and out like they do, loved every word of Tolkien, I'd probably be much more critical. 

I don't appreciate LOTR normies like myself mocking them, calling them "extreme textual fundamentalists" if they object to the inconsistent racial casting, or when people accuse them of taking it too seriously with them kneeling at "the alter of a 100 year old book." Those types of words say more about those who do the mocking than those who are mocked. 

But what are my thoughts about the remaining three episodes? I don't see the Rings of Power getting anywhere higher than a 3 from me depending how the last three episodes are played out - it's too small of a sample size to redeem the writing from previous episodes - and I don't have great hopes that the quality will improve. Maybe season 2 will be better. 

I won't give it a final rating, but my current rating will be a solid 2.5 out of 5.

Actors: nudity, sex scenes and moans.

I focus a lot on the action of undressing, intimate handling of the body, kissing and humping your co-star, but there's one thing that I left out: the moans.

Usually moans done outside the bedroom are done in a joking manner, at least in the Western world when taking a jab at a friend or foe when a possible love interest come to light. We can see this in tv and film when a bully makes fun of a virgin or a friend urging another friend to have sex because they're too wound up from stress. In real life this rarely happens, but it does happen from time to time - again, mostly around friends. 

When it comes to acting, sex scenes have multiple stages during rehearsal and during filming. I will lay it out below, the sequence 1-3 in each stage is not binding since each can be transitive. 

1. kissing + hand placement, undressing
2. undressing + hand placement + kissing
3. nudity + hand placement + kissing
4. "penetration"/humping + hand placement + moaning
5. cover privates or lay naked
6. director says cut + actor's dress + reset scene 
7. actors wait until lighting and scene is reset
8. repeat scene until director is satisfied 

When filming 1-8 it does take several hours, maybe even half the work day to get a sex scene completed. There's also a very high chance of several takes from different angles and different takes from the actors to see what works best under the lighting conditions and what works best for the camera. What 17 yr old actress who agrees to do nudity at 18 thought "Gee this is what I dreamed of! I'm doing what adult actors do! Who knew I'd be in this situation when I was 16!"

If partial nudity was agreed to (if the following example counts as partial nudity and if partial nudity is a thing) - say no breasts will be bare when filmed - since the actress' hair or bedding will cover her chest, this doesn't mean the actress is not topless because usually they are when such situations are put in place. During movement when filming a nipple or full chest nudity will most likely be accidently shown therefore a reset will have to be done. Hair covering her breasts always reveal "nipple(s) slip" when movement is done so actors may have to keep a mental note to take is slower in order for the hair to remain in place. Such bare nudity is not put into the final cut, but there's no doubt it was caught on film with the director and fellow actor experiencing all that nudity. Now it's the editor's job to take the best take where the hair does cover the breast just enough in order to honor the partial nudity clause (i.e. actress will be topless but hair will cover breasts). Devil is in the details. People who share my concerns concentrate on what's shown and what's not shown, or whether or not the nudity causes one to sin, while forgetting the process of it all. This is just looking at one side of the coin. It's an incomplete view. The other side of the coin is what's done - and what's accidentally shown in takes that aren't used - to get to that point on what the audience experiences. And usually, even if the actress' hair does cover her breasts there's going to be a nipple shown to some degree unless the director directs the actress to to put a vast majority of her hair over her chest. 

What was described was an actual sex scene. The actress was 20 when the sex scene happened. It was clear that they tried to cover as much of her body as possible but, the internet being the internet, found out more was revealed than intended. Plus the sex scene clearly was a waste of time given it added very little to the characters involved and did not move the *plot forward (as we currently suspect). 

When social experiments are done it's usually to make the subject uncomfortable and to see how they react to this feeling. If we told people in public that we'd give them $5 if they could moan out loud as they would having sex, but not in a joking manner, but in a genuine manner - with facials expressions and body movement too, they'd probably feel damn awkward. 

How about this, instead of letting then do the social experiment standing up let them do it on a chair. The men would sit as they usually do when sitting on a chair, but pretend they have a woman on top of them riding, so hand placement, kissing and them thrusting. For women, they're facing the opposite direction so the front of their body is to the backrest. The women hold onto the backrest as if using that as leverage as they grind or move up and done simulating penetration. 

Add in the moans.

A bizarre situation, right? Maybe not. Flash some big money, a promise that you'd be cast in bigger role and you get actors doing that as if it's drinking with their best friend. 

Even if you do that social experiment in the privacy of your own bedroom it's still awkward. 

When actors are required to cry usually they go into a state where they recall a sad memory or really get into the situation their character is in and empathize with them, hence making crying easier. Actors really get into fight scenes and dramatic, tense scenes too. But, for the most part, they don't apply the same enthusiasm towards sex scenes or heavily intimate scene because sex and intimacy is a private matter. Actors usually just bite the bullet and get on with it. You don't have actors saying a fight scene or a tense dramatic scene where monologues are dished out as awkward. Rarely it happens. Why? Because those types of scenes are what actors really cherish. They want to be that action hero or be seen as that prestige thespian. But nudity and sex scenes? A majority of actors, when honest, would rather not do it. What actors don't confess is that even if they're fine with such scenes because "that's just what we do" or "nudity is normal" or "it's my character" they won't do it on command. If an audition required them to undress they'd probably do it but it'll look like it's an auction for a porn shoot. Ah, yes. You see how mainstream acting is just one stone throw away from resembling the porn industry? I told you so. 

There's no "dang this is gonna be fun" like when physically preparing for a role that requires the actor to jump, run and fight. Okay, maybe actors dread this physical work but they aren't going to approach it the same way they do with nudity and sex scenes both mentally and emotionally. When sex scenes are done only the required people are on set - director, lighting, sound people, necessary design crew and actors. That's it. Sex scenes are "closed off" situations. Why? If these scenes are just like any other scenes they wouldn't be treated this way. 

So the stages of a sex scene is more than getting over the nudity and doing the correct hand placement. The actor needs to vocally act too - where their moaning hopefully sounds halfway convincing where it matches their facial expressions. There's no doubt it's both amusing and sad at the same time. I mean, after that first rehearsal and first take ask the actress how she feels. Either she's dead inside because she realizes she just joined CelebrityMovieArchive, she wants this to end or she's laughing inside because it's so utterly ridiculous. 

What counts as professionalism in these situations really is just trivializing the body, the act of sex and all that comes with it. It deadens the soul. It's not like a medical examination at all. Mainstream tv and film can't have its cake and eat it too because sooner o later the actors will come out, or, someone like me will point it out. 

*Theories are saying the sex scene formed a basis for the female character to form a sexual relationship with the man in order for her to get pregnant and therefore remain in the man's family - a permanent, so to speak, blood tie given she is an outsider. This of course is an intriguing theory, but nothing in the past of the female's character proves she's even capable of thinking up such a contrived plan let alone have the ability to effectively execute it.

Actors and Nudity.

If actors are fine with stripping for a role in various scenes in various character situations (i.e. sex scenes, random shower scene, dressing/undressing), would they be fine not wearing clothes for the purpose to promote their film or tv series during their project's premiere on the red carpet? Or maybe wear completely see through blouses and pants and underwear when it comes to press junket rounds? I'm just sayin'. If they give it all for the "art" then arguably they'd do it as well to promote it. After all, they aren't ashamed of their bodies - being nude and all - and as long as the environment is professional.

The tv and film industry waits on minors (notable 17 yr old women) to do nudity once they turn 18.

Even those who succumb to their lusts have some sorta of capacity to question what they're doing, or at least are cognizant enough to have some sort of border.

Taken from a Reddit sub focusing on nudity within mainstream tv and film ("WatchItForthePlot"). This one thread was for an actress who didn't do outright nudity, but her scene was "sexy" (according to one adult site) given it required her to be in see-through lingerie. 

One poster recognized she was fairly young, but not quite 20 (he probably recognized her since she appeared in a tv series that's widely popular and acclaimed), so he had some reservations.

When the official press release announced that she, and others, joined the project it was November of 2017. Her birthday is in October - she just turned 18. Filming was done later that year and concluded in August of 2018. 

Everything is in the waiting. The agent knows this but they don't care - they need their clients to sign the dotted line to as many big name projects as possible and the bigger (whether tent-pole or prestige) the better. The actress knows that they're waiting for her to turn 18 so she can officially sign on as an "legal adult" in order to do any degree of nudity. She's not entirely innocent in the process; she knows exactly what she's doing. And that's the truly sad part.

Sounds awfully similar to pornography signing up young, eager newly minted 18 yr old girls, fresh from their birthday party, to showcase their goods and do sex acts in front of the camera. But, hey tv and film are "different." Yea right.

The "2 yrs ago" label dictates these posts were made in 2020. And as you can see, the comment questioning the age when this was filmed was removed by the moderator. 

About tv series in which this scene took place:

The actress' character is later brutally murdered (shot in the head without any remorse simply because she was collateral, and then later twice once on the ground) in broad daylight when her older boyfriend when they were attacked by a group of criminals (associated with the boyfriend). Her character was 18 as well. I suppose , if the actress even remotely reflected on her character afterwards, is that questionable, if not bad decisions tend to lead to bad consequences. We later learn that her on-screen boyfriend started to date when her character was 16; the boyfriend was arguable in his mid-20s at the time. 

But here's the kicker: Her father ran a skeptical business as he preyed on minors himself. So yea, I suppose we can say she was born into dirt and preyed on my dirt. She's an innocent victim surrounded by outright bad role models. It's a dreary reality no matter how we analyze her situation. 

I equate her character's situation with the siblings of Mathilda in Leon: The Professional who were brutally shot down when corrupt, rogue cops raided their apartment as they went after their drug dealing father. Good company tends to attract good company. Bad company tend to attract bad company. In the latter, innocence - both literally and figuratively - is usually lost in a tragic manner. 

They're not all that different. Actors and the "unofficial" hierarchy of nudity and sex acts.

1. mainstream actresses (tv and/or film)
2. runway model, luxury goods model (perfume, fashion, jewelry)
3. glamour model
4. stripper, softcore porn actress, OF with no sex content (hardcore or solo)
5. hardcore porn actress, OF with hardcore content

This list isn't saying one is better than the other, like saying a mainstream actress performing simulated sex with her chest showing is better than a glamour model or even a hardcore porn star. It's to say that this is how society (unofficial) views #1 in relations to other jobs that makes women strip.

Plenty of #1 do some sort of #2. Sometimes they do #3 (which includes Playboy). Some in #2 make the transition to #1. #3 can either be found in #4 or #5. It's harder for those in #5 to be either a #1 or #2, but there have been those in #1 who have switched to #5. 

What do they all have in common? Each level has plenty of women, or all, willing to shed their clothes to some degree. Only enough #2 is the most tame; it's tamer than #1 given #1 there can me either partial nudity of top half of the body, full and/or full frontal. 

There are a lot of similarities between #1, #3, #4 and #5 on what can be done in front of camera due to age and how sex scenes are setup.  When you have those in #1 supporting their past coworkers who decide to do #5 that's telling. And it ain't telling in a "aren't they so supportive, compassionate and openminded people!" sorta way.

People defend sex scenes in tv/film saying the actors feel awkward in doing them since there are cameras staring back at them, but they don't bring up the very fact that the same thing applies to porn to some degree. Porn actors also receive direction, there are cameras staring back at them, they need to show certain angles (which is "hitting your mark"), there is acting involved contrary to belief, and often times the act of performing sex when needed once the camera rolls can be tiring - just like switching on for mainstream acting once the director gives the green light. Mainstream actors will say that shooting a tv series or film isn't glamorous - well, ask a pornstar whether or not shooting a hardcore scene is glamorous. It's not.

How often times a young, unconnected aspiring actor goes to NYC or LA in hopes to become an established actor to be only shuffled into doing porn work, either soft or hardcore? I bet there are plenty. Why? Because producers and casting directors system of casting is relatively shallow: need a warm body, need to be somewhat decent looking and can read with the ability to memorize lines. 

Am I saying #1 is the same as #5? Not quite, but again they're much closer than you'd think. If anything they're the more posh identical twin of #4.

You see, tv and mainstream acting when nudity and sex scenes enter the picture are not that much difference than their more seedier cousin down the road that is porn.

Mainstream actors can get all offended that their sex scenes are being equated to softcore porn, or even hardcore porn (there have been many plenty of events where actual sex was done on set in a mainstream film), but what you see is what you get as a viewer. You can cut and put a softcore scene right next to a mainstream sex scene, so they're side by side, hit the play button and you'd be hard pressed nowadays to tell the difference. What scene would be the mainstream tv/film scene and what would be the softcore film? Sometimes you can tell due to better cinematography and lighting, but often they can make us hesitant with our confidence to differentiate.

Why so many posts talking about nudity and sex scenes?

 Good question. I think it's good for me to come out clean.

Probably at the age of nine - maybe eight I was exposed to video games like Tombraider and comics like X-Men. I loved video games and comics when I was a kid - and I still do to an extent. Their depiction of women made an impression on my young mind. It would later pave the way to me being receptive to hardcore porn. I do not remember when I began watching hardcore porn, but let's say it was around the age of 10. As the years past I would eventually become a porn addict. With this addiction came other complications healthwise that would arguable jeopardize my ability to start a family. Later, I would actually spend hundreds of money buying hardcore porn. 

In my early twenties I also got into film, so much so I entertained the notion of becoming a film producer. I learned as much as could about funding and casting, the politics of it all and how movies were bought and distributed worldwide. It's an interesting business to be a part of - on the business side of things.

When nudity and sex scenes came up I was sorta kinda indifferent - and this was the best of my reactions. At worst I felt uncomfortable if not disappointed - for the actors and for the storyline. I adopted a "it depends on the context" perspective. Later did I realize that a vast majority of such acts weren't needed, at best they could've been implied, and that if the explicit sex acts and nudity were excluded the story would've been just fine if not better. But given my experience with hardcore porn as a consumer something in me thought "something is really off" about this normalization of sex and nudity on screen. I recognized that they might be more related than different and that those who partook in it weren't nearly the sophisticated "ah-tists" that they believed themselves to be.

I've seen, read and observed many things about the porn industry and what I've seen, read and observed in mainstream tv & film when nudity and sex scenes are involved is that the mainstream process is awfully similar to both softcore and hardcore film making. People who try to separate the two seem desperate at times; their arguments and talking points aren't convincing.

Given today's growing acceptance of sex workers doing OnlyFans and the willingness of young women to shed their clothes to hump their co-stars in the name of "art" and "storytelling" in mainstream tv and film once they turn 18 (if a 17 yr actresses is offered a role that does have nudity in it, some studios and directors actually wait for them to 18 specifically so they can sign the "nude is a go" clause, this would sometimes delay principle photography i.e. Thomasin Mckenzie), I will not go gently into the night and be quiet when such things happen. I feel sorry for such actresses.

Like Beckett Cook or Jospeh Scriambra, both homosexuals and atheists turned Christians, whose mission is to object the LGBT+ lifestyle; like Katy Faust, product of a same-sex household, who advocates for a two parent opposite sex household; part of my reason I bring up sex & nudity within mainstream entertainment a lot on this blog is to talk about the overlapping similarities between them and the adult industry (which includes the likes of OnlyFans and stripping).

Unlike them I am not as articulate, intelligent, patient or charitable as they are. I wish I was. But I will tell it like I see it. Kirk Cameron may not be the best actor in the world, but he has awareness that nudity and (fake) sex acts in front of the camera for "art" is just bizarre. I want to expose this bizarreness - this debauchery for all that it is in hopes to deter actors, actresses, directors, screenwriters, producers and the audience from partaking, normalizing and approving of such acts. 

The medium of tv and film has overstayed its welcome when it introduces bare skin in such a way. We as a society have given it too much power that it does not deserve - and never did deserve. 

Am I being a prude? Who cares. Okay, maybe I am. What's so bad about being a prude? Prudish? Maybe more people should be prudish. If we can question our parents, then we can question tv & film actors and the system that they earn their living from. After all, their tv shows and films are advocated for and whatever nudity and sex is depicted is defended, but not the values of our parents - our parents are finite while tv and film, just by sheer invention of a device they did not build, live on forever. 

What does it make it okay if a younger person seduces an older person but not the other way around? (Given the younger character is 18 or older.)

Lately I've been stumbling upon opinions and thoughts on relationships depicted on tv and film that involved two characters with a relatively large age gap. The amoral-moral relativists and feminists (sometimes one in the same) will say that is all depends on the context of the relationship. What they mean by this is if the younger character, usually the female, has has the upper hand (aka initiates the seduction) then it's amoral if not a good thing because the cards are flipped where normally it's the older character, usually a male, that seduces the young woman.

This strikes me as immensely shallow and hypocritical because according to their reasoning, when they play the age of majority card, that as long as there's consent it doesn't matter who seduces who unless one party later regrets the sexual encounter.

Let's move to real life. Sexual education isn't a crime in the States but there are questions asking if it can be counted as rape to a degree. Sometimes seductions can be said be an art form of manipulation. Again, if we shift back to tv and movies, if the female does the manipulation there won't be much talks of how it's weird that a young female is having sex with a much older male with a healthy "she's 18/an adult she knows what she wants ... " rhetoric thrown in, but if the seduction was done by the older male there'd be a good chance forums and discussion boards would bring this element up and raise concern about it.

Why is it okay for a fictional female character who is 18/19/20/21 to seduce an older man but not the other around? Wouldn't it be cringe either way?

When Actual Bigots (Modern Day Leftists) Can't Take a Little Pushback From Christians.

 

Servant vs Outer Range: Battle of Slow Burn, Mystery Box TV Shows

SPOILERS

Battle of two tv series and their "weirdness." These two tv series are on two different streaming networks - Amazon Prime hosts Outer Range while Apple TV+ hosts Servant. What they have is common is a lot.

• slow burn and "mystery box" type shows
• stranger comes to main characters residences and then strange things happen
• stranger seems to know more than the main characters 
• main characters are trying to figure out what's happening around them as they deal with grief, community pressure and their own personal relationships
• cults are involved via stranger

One show, Servant, was guaranteed renewal with an original six seasons trimmed down to four. Outer Range is your typical series where the renewal is "wait and see." In my mind Outer Range at least deserves two seasons. Servant has overstayed its welcome, though Season 4 is upcoming and as stated is its last. Thank God. 

Servant intrigued me by its first episode. Season 1 was alright, maybe even above average, though it definitely had potential to be great. I was looking forward to Season 2 but I heard very mixed review about it. The writers forced a relationship that can only be said to be disgusting for the sake of - I don't know. The relationship doesn't make much sense. By the sound of it Servant has mostly betrayed its steadiness found in Season 1 for the sake of "things need to happen" and "characters need to to stuff even it's sorta kinda out of left field." It's just screams lazy writing and I'm not the only one who shares this view. It's a slow burn that fell in love with itself because it could given it was riding on M. Night Shymalan's name as an executive producer (which is different from a producer) and it was guaranteed multiple seasons. There was no pressure to have concise writing. 

Out Range seemed more humble. The writer and creator is relatively newbie to entertainment thought sadly some of the actors seemed confused on the meaning of their characters and the overall meaning of the show. I will say Outer Range is more ambitious with its ideas, trying to pull together multiple themes and storylines as it intersects with the main characters.

• Western drama of land issues
• family drama dealing with tragedy and abandonment
• sci-fi aspect of a big black hole in the ground

The relationships in Outer Range also seemed more fleshed out, more mature than Servant despite only having eight episodes to introduce and develop its characters. Servant just arrogantly puts characters in from of you and you have to deal with their inane and out-of-character actions "because-this-what-the-writers-wanted-to-happen-so-you'll-swallow-it-and-love-it."

Servant fans are just stupidly defending the show from any and all criticisms on Reddit. Outer Range, well, I don't think there are a lot of fans of the show for a number of reasons (arguable both shows have the same amount of viewership but Servant has more fans), but discussions are mostly critical of it. Servant fanboys are all "ya just gotta wait and see because in the final season it'll tie in together." Yea, though I heard Season 3 of Servant is better than Season 2 (to some degree), I doubt that the writers in a single and its final season will explain most of everything - both in dialogue and in actions (what is shown and not shown, and to what degree) that's been ailing its audience. The writers of Servant are all over the place and don't know what it wants to be. 

Outer Range also deals with religion (role of faith in everyday life, role of faith facing tragedy and the oddness of life) better than Servant. Servant's take on religion seems utterly shallow and though I have not watched Season 2 yet, it seems it has not developed the religious characters at all. In Servant the main characters, the Turners, are irreligious (atheist and agnostic). In Other Range the Royal is seen as a skeptic who at leasts verbally admits his frustrations. Cecil, his wife, is religious but later develops doubts given some absurdities she has come across. 

But, like Servant, the first season of OR is vague in its particulars. The audience sees Cecilia attend a church which seems non-denomination but in Ep. 6 it directly borrows lines from the Catholic mass with its Eucharist. The place where the religious service is said doesn't resemble a Catholic Church or chapel - it purposely generic with no pews but chairs and a bare cross in the background of the altar. What we do know about OR's denomination is that, for the sake of the Diversity & Inclusion narrative, a chapel member denounces the lesbian couple who were visiting when asked to stand up to receive a prayer in form of a welcome. 

In Servant, what appears to be a religious main character, Leanne, isn't given much exposition on what she actually believes and how those beliefs play out in her actions come duress or being idle. It's just she prays a bastardized version of Our Father in a relatively see through night gown (you can tell the writers wanted to play the "good Christian girl is actually naughty" trope) before she goes to sleep, writes some stuff in her Bible and makes wicker crosses. It's surface level stuff that's never given any deeper meaning or purpose. 

Outer Range >>>> Servant

• Autumn >>>> Leanne
• Royal + Cecilia >> Dorothy + Sean
• Perry & Rhett >>>> Julian
• Big Black Mysterious Hole In Ground = Jericho 
• Servant cult > Outer Range cult
• Cast of Outer Range >> Cast of Servant

It's always been the same thing.

 WARNING: EXPLICIT CONTENT

As one fellow human who also thought about it said, and I paraphrase, "99% of nudity and sex scenes are not needed in mainstream entertainment. Rarely does such scenes add to the character, the narrative or move the plot forward. When nudity and sex scenes are added there's a very good chance the writers and directors got real lazy and needed to fill screen time, or just didn't know how to go about growing intimacy between two characters." 

Boom: Another One Bites The Dust

Another name added to CelebrityMovieArchive and its ilk. Sorta resembles the "naughty wall" found in skeevy hole in the walls or rooms that only select employees are allowed into. 

Predatory Hollywood once again found an actress to shed some skin, or at least wear some lingerie that reveals more than it hides, once they came of age. Of course, this actress is equally responsible for her exposure (no pun intended). She, probably without hesitance, signed her contract that has clauses in it on her acting on what she's willing to do and what not to do. She - and all actresses - with full consciousness accepted being asked to dress in skimpy lingerie, to undress and to hump their co-star. 

This actress' filmography, though short, already has a pattern to it: play easily impressionable young girls who are caught up in highly unfortunate situations where they later deal with their bad actions. In one role she was brutally killed point blank. In another she was also killed via poison. Another role her character was almost raped. And another character she makes a choice that can only be said to be stupid, if not awkward, that belies the logic that was ingrained into her. 

Because art. Or something. 

As I said, actresses are just hired strippers upon request who every now and then do softcore porn scenes. If the scene asked them to jump up and down naked with green paint being thrown at them there's a good chance they'll do it. Just ask Irish actress Sarah Bolger.

Mom, dad, siblings and grandparents must be proud. (I bet they are.) But no judgement, right? Yea right. Their daughter is just a "sophisticated" version of an an actual pornstar, stripper and some girl with an OnlyFans account.

As one person who's familiar with the industry said, and I paraphrase, "Worlds are created when they shouldn't exist. Occasionally there's nudity." 

Edit: And like clockwork, I opened my search engine to find this in its newsfeed -

Actresses don't need to be on the casting couch to get a role, but they will be pressured to do things in the name of "art" that they're unwilling to do. 

Part I: Thoughts on the Entertainment Industry - Sex Scenes and Nudity

Rating: R (for mature content; locker room language)

What's the difference between tv/film actors and, say, glamour models, strippers, and soft and hardcore porn actors?

The answer? In my eyes, not much, especially if the actor/actress agrees to do nudity that often does not move the story forward or adds to the their character.

As I mature my passion and enthusiasm for tv/movies has dwindled. Due to COVID and lockdown I've watched more movies in the past six months than I have in the past three years. I use to be very into movies, wanting to become a movie producer, though I did not know how. This didn't stop me from learning the politics and procedures of how films were made, how casting was done (for the most part), what needed to happened for a movie to make profit, and how the movies were distributed. It's a fascinating industry in those aspects. But that story is for another day. 

I never was fully comfortable with nudity on screen, mostly because when there was nudity it was always done relatively cheap in the sense that it was nonsensical and trivial. The characters were either in affair or were never going to get married; rarely were the sex scenes between a married couple. It was also more or less the same thing in terms of sex positions. The actress riding the actor with her breasts frot and center, either gyrating her hips or bouncing up and down. Or when she's in doggy-style and we see her breasts swing as the actress tries her best to put on her "this-feels-real-good-face" accompanied with moans. Or when the actors are in missionary position where we see the actress' breasts, once again. I wonder how many takes were needed. And of course,  not all actresses do nudity where some opt for a body double. 

I don't necessarily consider myself a prude given I don't mind nudity in say, paintings, life size stone figures, or even nude modeling for a paining. These mediums tend make one admire the bodily form of a woman (or man). There is no true technique of "shooting a sex scene" in movie or tv unlike knowing how to make stone look like flesh and how to make curves of a butt, hips or chest, or how to shade properly when sketching a nude model. What technique is there when a film director shoots a backside, butt and side breast scene (i.e. The True Story of the Kelly Gang - 2019)? Usually when a nude/sex scene is being done only the needed cast and crew are allowed on set with the actors being "very comfortable" and "trusting of" the director (you see where this is going?). 

As the audience, you don't know if there will be nudity or sex scenes unless word gets around after early previews. If not, it's all unraveling before you. Only those who have worked on the film will know. With soft and hardcore porn, photoshoots for glamour models and strippers you definitely know what you're getting. But why does this even matter? What's was the statement about pornography? "You know it when you see it." Now nudity in tv/films aren't porn, but some sex scenes are pretty close to soft porn. 

Defense of nudity will say that American are prudish and are "afraid of sex"; this is a ridiculous accusation. Most nudity and sex scenes are tasteless and aren't needed for the plot to move forward or does it add anything to the character. It's meant purely for titillation. Speaking of titillation ....

Another issue I have is that tv/film industry is predatorial. Take for the example The True Story of the Kelly Gang (2019) as previously mentioned. The actress, Thomasin McKenzie who rose to fame with Leave No Trace (2018) and Jojo Rabbit (2019), with The King (2019) and Kelly Gang (2019) being much smaller roles, just turned 18 when her nude scene was shot (backside, butt, side breast) in the Kelly Gang. On the movie's wiki page it was noted that production was postponed for an unknown reason until July of 2018; shooting was originally schedule for early 2018. Mckenzie's birthday is in July. A coincidence? I think not. It was probably a calculated move to allow an underage actress to come of age in order to shoot her nude scene; after all, when Kristen Stewart turned 18 while filming Twilight, in celebration, they shot throughout the night given the days before they could not due to working hour restriction on minors. 

Now I'm not sure what compelled McKenzie to take the role given it probably wouldn't be seen as a "strong female role" (at best it's neutral), then again she did play a young prostitute who already had a baby (more on actual prostitutes later). I suppose in her mind that scene was her "nudity for beginners" scene, and simply she saw the role as a way to add to her already growing credits (actors like Nicholas Hoult and Russell Crowe were cast), so anything helps I guess. I would not be surprised if within three years we see her breasts on the silver screen. Mom, especially mom (more on mom later) and dad would be proud. 

Other actresses like Rooney Mara and Sydney Sweeney have done nudity where their scenes don't add much to their character. Sure, Mara's sex/nude scene in Side Effects (2013) was between Channing Tatum who played her husband, but was it necessary? No. Did it move the plot forward? I can't say it did. And the scene was relatively "raw" in the sense (if you spot it quick enough) that Tatum was wearing a skin colored piece to cover his penis as Rooney vigorously and loudly dry-humped him, as her character fell back onto the bed after her climax. Rooney's all-too-wet makeup scene between Catherine Zeta Jones added more to the movie and her character. Sweeney's role in the tv-series Euphoria is playing a sexual promiscuous teenager who's boyfriend is having his own sexual identity problems (SPOILER: he's a homosexual; his character it portrayed as totally uninterested in a naked Sweeney riding him - good acting on his part, really). The scenes are raw and literally has Sweeney showing her breasts in all their glory. Yes, glory. I used that word for a very specific purpose and it isn't me getting all riled up as I write. I have never watched an episode of Euphoria (some say it's the US' version of UK's Skins), but besides the series being promoted by HBO Max and receiving a number of Emmy nominations, one would've thought that Sweeney's breasts were given their own Emmy nomination.  Ditto for Alexandra Daddario in True Detective whose filmography hasn't really improved since then, so if she wished showing her amazing rack to all would gain her more prestigious roles and respect (?) that has failed. Men have respect for her chest. Sorry, Daddario - you did this yourself. 

Glory. You see, actresses who are busty in comparison to more flat chested ones (Daddario vs Mara) is what they're known for - especially if they reveal them on screen. (In this aspect, Daddrio's chest has more prestige than Mara's.) How many guys have searched the internet for screen caps of Sweeney's and Daddario's breasts? Hundreds. Thousands. Millions probably. They aren't really known for their acting. Daddario is 34. She's not getting younger; she isn't in the same acting prestige bracket as Mara. Both McKenzie and Sweeney are in their 20s so they have time to build their credits and connections, and if promise of more prestige and better roles means shedding their clothes and having simulated sex then they'll do it. Even better if the director is a "respected" director. 

There is something to be said for all of this. The actresses need to be willing; no one is actually forcing them. Some say it's part of the job. This is partially why I think actors/actresses are just glorified strippers and soft porn actors when need be. If the director and distributing company decide to make a still of two actors in the film being distributed, posing in bed nude, waist up, implying sex, that, by definition would be categorized as an erotic still entering it into soft porn.

Being "trusting" and "comfortable" with a director and actor that you're doing a nude/scene with just raises red flags because it opens up a door into asking "what are you really willing to do for 'art'?" One can do lot of weird and degrading shit they normally wouldn't do when they're trusting of someone and comfortable around them (see: kinky sex, BDSM etc.). Actor Eric Dane of Euphoria, in a sex scene where supposedly a fake penis was used but half the audience wasn't sure of it admitted he'd do "whatever the scene/role called for" if it meant showing his actually penis. In fact, if I remember correctly, he'd say he would've done it anyways. His character was having a sexual encounter with a teenage transgender girl. I wonder if he'd be for actually having sex with a transgender girl, after all he said he'd "do whatever the scene/role called for." Also, why on earth would anyone want to see a tv series about teenagers and their sexual encounters? Yes, that's what Euphoria basically is. One doesn't need to watch a single episode to come to this conclusion. It's basically pushing the "teens have sex okay!" and "you can fall in love with a transgender if you just let it happen ya know!" narrative.

Another question that enters my mind is what does all this seemingly nonchalant view of nudity and sex (scenes) get society? More "bravery" in talking about sex? I mean, Emma Watson, who said she wasn't willing to do sex (used a body double in Regression), instead admits she's interested in reading about sexual kinks and admires couples who are in open relationships because of their transparent communication. Oh vey. 

"Hi I'm Amy. 

"I'm Peter."

"I'm Scott."

"What you're about to see are consensual acts between consenting adults . If at any point any one of us feels uncomfortable and says stop, the action will stop."

In the movie Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) there's a scene that encapsulates how I feel when an actress does their first nude scene that, in 99% of the time, adds nothing to the film (besides an R-rating) and to their character. In this scene Mila Kunis' confesses that the owner of the bar she works at makes the girls who need to use their restroom for the first time flash their breasts where he takes a Polaroid of them and posts it on the wall of the bar's restroom for all to see. It hangs there forever. There's an actual database for tv/film nudity, partial or full, for practically every actress living today. It's called Celebrity Movie Archive. As soon as the tv/film hits streaming platform it'll be posted. Rooney Mara. Sydney Sweeney. Alexandra Daddario. They're all there. No Emma Watson (yet). And then there's nubile Thomasin McKenzie, who arguable is the youngest in the past fives years that I'm aware to do nudity, at 18. Ah, another one bites the dust and joins her fellow thespians into being a "professional actress." Where's that hardy handshake and warm hug? Welcome to the fold. Who will you undress with your eyes next (as her character in Kelly Gang says her lover)? 

There are parallels as well to this when it comes to pornstars. Now this is where I get a bit graphic in my language. I'm entering smut talk here now. As people seek out the scenes and screen caps of actors who have done nudity, those that haven't their admires are waiting patiently. It's only a matter of time - until the right role and director enters some say. Not all pornstars do anal sex. Some refuse to. When some noticed that pornstar Gianna Michaels had never done anal sex, some where "praying," "begging," and "wishing" their hearts out till the day she finally did her first anal scene. Her admires, when looking back on her career, said that she did porn her way and on her terms. Like some actors (i.e. Kate Mara, older sister of Rooney Mara), where the atmosphere needs to be just right to do nudity, some porn stars will do anal. I'm not sure if Michaels ever did an anal scene. Maybe she did. If so, her admires got their wish. But I bet they wanted more.

So what separates a "professional actress" and a glamour model and pornstar? Each can show up on IMDB with their credits given pornstars have been cast in some roles. Even real life escorts were cast as they were. The biggest differences is that aspiring tv/film actresses believe what they do is "art" and the promise of red carpet galas on an annual basis with the big bucks. It can be. A small percent of working actors make a living off of their craft. But we have to remember that actors were once considered bottom barrel "professionals" in the age of Shakespeare; there was no prestige in it and that some of the first actors on stage were prostitutes. Today's actors, if they "make it," are relying on the market and other professionals to make them look good, make them sound good, and guide their careers. Actual strippers that shed their clothes for a living (so do actors, but not as often and not under such unsavory conditions) where some make the crossover to porn, they know what they are. They're strippers. They make no fuss on what they really want: they work for the money. Their patrons don't make them anything more than that. Who wants to date and marry a stripper? Practically no one. Pornstars know what they are; some admit they're modern day prostitutes. Who wants to date and marry a pornstar? Maybe one person. Both the stripper and pornstar, more or less, calls it quits before the age of 40. Let's be honest, no man wants to see sagging breasts, and the stripper and pornstar know it unless they get the bolt-on ones. Actors? Only in today's modern world can they do what they do with the respect they garner (and think they should garner - worldwide). 

Actors are the jocks of the performing arts community so to speak. But they only play jocks on screen; only a few actors actually are athletic let alone know the rules of a sport. Some play strippers but they never go in and out of strip clubs hustling for the money. And they probably despise being compared to a pornstar. What do strippers tell their parents and friends what they do for a living? "Oh, I'm a dancer." What do pornstars tell their parents and friends? "Oh, I'm an actor/actress." What do actors say? "Oh, I'm an actor." 

I'll have the audacity to say that strippers, glamour models and pornstars should garner more respect, whatever left there is, from the public than actors. Unlike Thomasin McKenzie and Emma Watson, the former whose mother is also in the acting community in New Zealand, who had the groundwork paved out for them in terms of who to look up to in acting, strippers and pornstars tend to come from broken backgrounds who have some sort of mental disorder. They don't get the red carpets and the stylists to fit them in beautiful dresses and gowns to celebrate their film. They aren't dotted on by talk show hosts or film journalists. They don't get to work with prestigious directors or producers to either further or stabilize their careers. They get really nothing in comparison to actors who "make it." But here's the thing: the porn industry generates anywhere between $6-15 billion dollars. Strip clubs were deemed a necessary business during COVID lockdowns. Actors? Arguable not as necessary. Society only turned to film during lockdowns because they were bored. I know I did. I forgot about the films that were suppose to be released in 2020 but got delayed. I don't have much interest in going to the cinema in 2021 if society ever opens up to that point. My interest has faded. Filming continued in late July and early August and people got pissed because, in some controversy, small businesses next to film sets couldn't open up.

So what about this rant? It's to say that actresses who pursue a role with nudity that really doesn't add anything to their film besides a mature rating and their own place in Celebrity Movie Archive are actually on the same plain as strippers, glamour models and pornstars. I'll even add cam models. 

Is there any nudity or sex scene I thought was beneficial to a movie? Why yes. The only nude scene that I'm aware of that made sense and moved the story forward wasn't even a sex scene let alone nudity after implied sex. I'd argue this nude scene was, in the most rarest cases, forward thinking. It was the nude scene of Kate Winslet as she posed for Leornardo DiCaprio's character Jack in James Cameron's Titanic (1997). Yes, people were talking about that scene but it wasn't in some salivating way. Unlike Thomasin Mckenzie's nude scene in Kelly Gang (2019), which indeed hovered over her exposed backside, butt and side breast  (there's little doubt in my mind that this was exploitation on behalf of the director and producers), the talk was about how it tied the story together with the fact that it was James Cameron's hands that were shown sketching. The camera didn't focus on Kate's breasts or vagina, but more so on how nervous her character was posing and the talent of Jack's character as an artist. 

With all that said, putting her politics aside, this is why I respect Emma Watson more as an actress - at least for now. She did say that revealing less is better and creates a grander mystery, or something to that effect. I can stand beside that. 

The sad evolution of Jenny Grace Makholm.

Over at collegefix.com I encountered a post defending her alma mater, Emerson College. Jenny is an actress who graduated from Emerson with a BFA and now is an actress living in NYC.

As she writes, she came from a devout Christian household where she was taught that homosexuality was a sin. She also had issues with what she was taught about the earth while attending Emerson; apparently whatever she was taught at her Catholic high school made her confused once she took science courses. Here's her entire passionate post that barely addresses how fellow Emersonians treated a conservative student -

 "Emersonian alum here.

No one should be bullied. I myself was a devout christian who had some conservative values when I entered Emerson College in 2000. I was met with nothing but love, acceptance, and a positive college expereince that I will cherish, as well as life-long friends.

The education alone is enough, but honestly, Emersonians have been some of the most wonderful people I've ever met. Almost without fail, if I happen upon a fellow alum in my travels, I make a friend.

I'm so sorry this woman had this experience. That was not my expereince there.

I will say that I entered Emerson knowing that it is among the MOST socially liberal schools on the east coast. Having been raised in a deeply religious household, I didn't exactly know what that would mean.

What that meant for me was meeting and befriending the first openly gay people (now gratefully of many) who taught me so much about LGBTQI rights. After having been taught it was a sin for so long, I actually met and befriended gay people and started really understanding LGBTQI rights from a personal perspective. I learned empathy and understanding. I learned tolerance and humility from them. I now am a happy advocate and ally for LGBTQI folks, and a better person for it.

It meant learning about evolution from the now sadly deceased genius Alan Hankin, who cradled my thirst for knowledge and answered all of my difficult questions (for the first time to my satisfaction in my academic career) with patience and enthusiasm, combating years of confusion I got from religious schools who taught that dinosaurs walked amoung us, or that the world was only 3,000 years old. He didn't shame me, instead he lit an intellectual fire in me that has burned even brighter in my adulthood; science used to hold dubious interest for me, now I am a enthusiast.

I sat in the student center, huddled along with all of my classmates the day the towers went down on 9-11. I watched a student body be shaken and traumatized by those events. We wept together, terrified and unsure of what the future would hold. Emerson has a great deal of foreign students. Among them was an Afghani princess who regularly spoke before 9-11 about the human rights atrocities going on in her country. Many muslim students were unsure what 9-11 would mean to their place at Emerson, tales of hate crimes against people who appeared to be Muslim were on the rise. They were embraced and defended.

I watched a student body argue respectfully about the war that we then entered, all opinions aired and debated. I went from an independant voter who had voted in the past for both Republicans and Democrats, to a politically empowered citizen. I marched alongside my fellow students.

In class, I had the pleasure of being taught by the now deceased Rhea Gaisner. She taught me so many lessons, but among them was that all Art is in some way political-- Art is a reflection of the times; it can't help but comment on the world. I remember at her memorial an old classmate of mine standing up and telling a story about Rhea: "I was sitting in the hallway on the 3rd floor. Rhea walked past me with her ususal speed. She stopped, looked at me, and asked point blank: 'Did you vote today?' To be honest, I hadn't realized that the midterm elections were that day. I made some excuse about absentee ballots or something, which she waved away with annoyance. 'Not good enough! Voting is your duty as a citizen.' And she walked away. I have voted in every election, rain or shine, since."

I could give you story after story about Emerson and how it made me the more educated, more empathic, more creative, more informed, more progressive person I am today. I am sad for this woman's experience, but know that this was not my experience, and not the expereince of all of the folks I went to school with.

I have my qualms with Emerson-- the expense is a huge issue, and the then college President Jackie Liebergott's sometimes VERY contentious descisions.

I'll say this: if one goes to a highly progressive, highly liberal school, as I did, if one is religious as I was or more conservative, as I was, one cannot expect not to have those values challenged, as mine were. I greeted those challenges with some enthusiasm, and some resistence, but I did understand that I had chosen a place where those things would be called into question. In short I had chosen to have my opinions challenged. I had my pick of schools, but I chose Emerson, and I knew that meant I would have to really start thinking about my political and social values-- not change them, but be able to argue them.

If I wanted a place that did not challenge me or force me to evolve and grow, I would have chosen the Christian colleges many of my friends went to. I'm so SO grateful I did not do that."

90% of it is saying how amazing Emerson is and how her encounters with LGBT people and her professors made her into an empathetic, compassionate, informed and progressive person. The other 10% is how the threatened student should've stayed and become challenged. That's all well and good, the encouragement of staying, but it's not entirely unbiased -



Don't let that first passionate post fool you. She's an actress who, when she has time, has decided to fight those anti-SJW, MGOTW, AllLivesMatter people - she's on their side. Now how does a devout Christian, from a deeply religious household, who attended a Catholic high school basically become an LGBT ally (and she's states her life is better because of it) and an atheist? It's a complex answer but I'm sure it's somewhat obvious in Jenny's case. She posted a link to a picture of her back in her Emerson days when another poster was skeptical of her proclamation of being an Emerson alumnus. This is what she wrote about her final year at Emerson:

When our BFA 2004 class graduated, Sara R. and Maragaret put up 14 of these fliers, one for each of us, as a sort of ad for our vacant spots. I changed a lot that year- chopped off all my hair, dyed it blonde, left my fiance, moved in with frat boys, started cussing like a sailor, and drinking like a fish- even smoking a few cigarettes when the mood inclined- the departure from my old habits was pronounced to say the least. I still have my BFA Vacancy poster, oh yes I do.

Left her fiance? Left? Not called off the engagement or broke off. Left. Maybe that's exactly what she meant, but given the "shedding one's old self" tone I doubt it. Moved in with frat boys? I wonder what happened there. Since she left her fiancee there's no need for commitment and dignity, right? Gotta cuss and drink like a sailor because dammit it's my senior year in college!

I'm not sure what age Jenny entered university life, but it's currently 2017. She said she graduated in 2004. 13 years. Let's say she entered college at 18. That would mean she's about 35 yrs old. I don't believe she's married. It doesn't appear she has any kids. After living in Boston for college she immediately moved to NYC and has stayed there ever since.

I also want to say that she appears to be cordial and reasonable when presenting herself. Clearly not so if we take into consideration her "WOKE FOLKS" FB post. I will guess WOKE means white. Or maybe it means "awoke" as is I'm a aware of the - isms that plague the world.

Jenny Grace Makholm before Emerson: devout Christian with some conservative values.

Jenny Grace Makholm after Emerson, 13 years later: feminist, LGBT ally & advocate, atheist, unmarried and childless.

Ms. Makholm is your typical garden variety "progressive" actress in NYC. All she left out is admitting she got her tubes tied.

IMDB shuts down its infamous forums and the portrayal of LGBT's.

This is disappointing. Every now and then I'd hop on over to see some opinions on an actor/movie/series/director what have you. In fact, I hopped on over a few minutes ago to look for some thoughts on a new tv series, The Good Fight, didn't find the forum on its page, and remembered that IMDB was taking that particular element down.

Reason being because IMDB concluded that the forums were too hard to monitor and that discussion became vile and rude. I sought out the views of this action and some agreed while some didn't. Those that agreed with the move said that vile ones tended to be "racist/sexist/homophobic/off topic.* "Funny enough a couple of posters followed up that though such things can manifest such things were the minority of cases. I tell ya, I'd me rich every time someone complains about racism, sexist, LGBTphobic and whatever so-called phobia or -ism that makes a leftists heart burn with rage.

One poster said that because of indecent comments that "we can't have nice things." I disagree. The forums were fine. If you wanted to express your thoughts then you could. You might get a fruitful discussion going. You might get someone calling you a bigot or an idiot. Okay, that sucks, but oh well. Report the fellow if you feel so.

Interest in certain tv series will slightly suffer because movies are always going to be the ones that gain traction unless the tv series is a major hit. Alternatives to IMDB, the one that I know of, is Criterion Forum. I believe Awards Daily also axed their forum for reasons different than IMDB (Sharon Stone is the worst). I know no other Criterion Forum equivalent solely dedicated to tv series. 

In the end I think IMDB is shutting down an avenue of free speech, at least the exchange of ideas between like-minded and not so like-minded people about a given medium of visual entertainment. The site probably knew its forums weren't seen in much respect (as opposed to The Criterion Forum), saw that some forums weren't getting much traffic, realized that said forums were eating up a lot of space, and decided to ax the entire thing all together. That's a shame.

*Speaking of "homophobic" remarks The Good Fight has one of the main characters, the granddaughter of the main principle, in a same-sex pairing. Okay, fine. The weird part? The girlfriend and the granddaughter  are played by attractive actresses.  In what reality does a same-sex female relationship have two very attractive women? They're the minority within their own minority. In my experience female relationships tend to fall in three categories: one is more butch while the other is sort of attractive, both are meh or both are rather ugly. Not this. I mean, seriously? This is laughable.

There are more Huxtables and (were) Cleavers around in real life than the linked picture. The same thing happened with the House of Cards. TV entertainment has a weird of portraying homosexuals; they're either lovable or one, or both, parties in a relationship is insanely attractive. And the LGBT need "allies"? Proof that the LGBT would never advance as a demographic if it weren't for their straight counterparts. They need straights to get babies. They need straights to rule them into law. They need straights to slowly incorporate their history into education. They need straights to approve them (they say the don't need it but they truly, truly do). A same-sex pairing cannot survive on its own. It is the complete opposite of an opposite-sex couple. In other words, they aren't the same thing.

What happened?

I suppose it was her goal, but the evolution of Miley Cyrus - an obnoxious yet somewhat charming young girl to a an even more obnoxious pansexual tongue wagging girl with weird as heck hair styles - is a case that a psychologist should be jumping on like Cyrus getting excited over a penis cake. I just find the transformation outright sad, embarrassing and puke worthy. And it practically out of the blue. This "new me" was most definitely planned - a calculated PR move.

Not surprisingly a number of child entertainers, who have been established well before they were 18, tend to follow the path similar to Cyrus. Now many will say it's "the system" that forces such transformations in a retaliation to the "be a good girl" but I feel that's a cop-out. Rarely does anyone blame parents, the kids turn young adults and the hedonistic and, at best, amoral atmosphere that permeates the entertainment world, especially the movie/film/theater sect.

You can smell the feminists a mile away.

And it's horrifically foul smelling.

Take for instance this review of Brooklyn by Alex Heeney of The Seventh Row. All is fine, no political sneering involved until the very last paragraph.

Ronan’s Eilis is also not just flattered that Tony is interested in her enough to go along with things: she sees his sweetness and timidity, his insecurities and worries. Cohen plays him with depth, always letting slip through what Tony tries so hard to hide, making Tony a healthy example of masculinity: theirs is a partnership of equals. It makes this a modern romance we can root for rather than a relic of the past, and it makes this thoughtful film an easy crowd-pleaser. I, for one, loved it.

I googled Alex Heeney learned that she's a Phd student at Stanford in its Management Science and Engineering track. As said in her biography -

I am a fourth year PhD Candidate in Management Science and Engineering at Stanford University. I am specializing in Production and Operations Management, and currently working with Professor Warren Hausman and Professor Erica Plambeck on interdisciplinary research in environmental sustainability. Specifically, I research how operations management approaches can be used to reduce system-wide food waste in the US and its environmental impact.

And her twitter explains more -

So she's not actually an engineer just by her research interests. Heeney is more of a person with social justice inclinations getting a Phd in (management) engineering in order to direct actual engineers to fulfill her go-green social justice yearnings. This is mightily similar to Mary Anne Franks. If Heeney is considered an engineer then there should be a new academic doctoral program called "Social Engineering" in engineering departments. Wait a second - that's sort of already been a reality: English Literature, Sociology, Anthropology, African Studies, Psychology. Just amp up the quantitative focus in Sociology, Anthro and Psych and you get the pillars of this "Social Engineering" program.

Academia suffers from detachment from reality. I think that's a somewhat concrete statement that can be said with confidence.  We have people with law degrees and Phds, we you weren't aware that they hold such academic credentials were just plain idiots by the bile they spew. Both Heeney and Franks are self-proclaimed feminists. The professor in my last post, whom I believe concentrates on political science, would've fooled anyone with his astute understanding of the religious and the right. These aren't the only incidences where academics show their laymen understanding of the world. Sociology especially hasn't been blessed with twitter savvy professors: Saida Grundy showed how sharp her Phd made her. As written in her Boston College bio she's a "feminist sociologist." Interesting how feminist comes before sociologist. Another Phd holder by the name of Zandria Robinson tweeted that "whiteness is most certainly an inevitable terror." Robinson was fired from University of Memphis but later was hired by Rhodes College to teach in their Anthropology/Sociology department.

EDIT: This Minding the Campus article succinctly explains what has plagued and taken over academic life, most particularly the humanities & social sciences.

America’s universities are collapsing into a miasma of nihilism, postmodernism, political correctness, multiculturalism, affirmative action, bureaucratization, and skyrocketing costs—and no one seems able to do anything about it.  With the exception of a few “Great Books” colleges, the overarching vision of higher education that once sustained the West for centuries seems all but dead.

American higher education is now defined by an aimless mish-mash of courses on trivial topics that present no clear view of what a human being must know in order to be considered liberally educated. The result: the liberal arts have been gutted and repackaged to serve various ideological and political interests.

This situation is why the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism (CISC) has created the Lyceum Scholars Program, which is America’s first (and only) academic program dedicated to studying the moral, political, and economic foundations of a free society. Drawing inspiration from the Lyceum school founded by Aristotle, the Lyceum Scholars Program takes a Great Books approach to studying liberty, the American Founding, capitalism, and moral character.

Good for Clemson and good for the people who have acknowledged modern liberal arts education as a dumping ground of intellectual sophistry. My only real question is this: How will this institute effect academia on Clemson's campus?  

New link added.

Art Renewal. It's an organization that focuses on the importance and, as the name states, renewal of classical realism.

School Ties

SPOILERS 

The northeast corridor. 1950s. Jukeboxes. Greasers. Preps. Harvard. Privilege.

Welcome to Robert Mandel's School Ties.

A rising senior - smart and athletically talented - David Greene, gets the chance to attend his last year of high school at a prestigious boarding school to help the institution's football team to win against their rival, St. Mary's. This opportunity also gives him a real shot at attending Harvard. David comes from a working-class family, so this experience is a cultural shock. As he says, "It's rather hard to get into Harvard from podunk public school."

As he settles into his new school, makes new friends, finds romance and leads the team to victory, he hasn't told his new friends one thing: He's Jewish. As they lightly make Jewish jokes, he grits his teeth. Then, one of the boys, Charlie Dillon, finds out he's Jewish - the then would-be starting quarterback before David came along - and outs him. After the "outing" he is treated differently. His friends at the boarding school don't talk to him; he enters his dorm room to find a Nazi sign hanging above his bed -- he challenges whoever made it to fight him (since that's how things were settled back in his hometown), yet the perpetrator never shows up. "Cowards!" David yells. None of his supposed friends, save for his roommate, wants anything to with him because of him being a Jew.

Later, during winter finals, one of the teachers suspects someone has cheated on his history exam. He calls the class out, but no one confesses. He then lets the class decide to bring forth the cheater, if not he will fail all of them - making a horrid imprint on their college applications. As the class mauls over who did it, Charlie blames David. David denies this accusation (he saw Charlie cheat during the test, but didn't say anything). Head prefect, Rip, asks both to leave and lets the remaining class to vote by ballot. Before the vote, the anti-Semites rear their ugly heads, voicing their disdain for David founding their bases against him because he "lied" about being Jewish (David didn't lie, he just didn't tell them). David's roommates calls the anti-Semites bigots; they say "So what?" by the accusation because their hate for Jews run deep. "He's a Jew." As the next day approaches, both David and Charlie appear before the class. Rip announces the results: David was voted as the cheater. David agrees to show up before the head master and history teacher on Monday morning to confess.

On Monday, David waits outside the head master's quarters with a pensive yet sad look on his face. He knows he was framed and his voting was due to hatred on his religion. Charlie, being born into a privileged background and being relatively popular with the student body, has clout on his side that never was present on David's behalf. He, Charlie, is a Dillon. David is not - he is a Greene. Charlie's father is educated, well-traveled and worldly. David's father is a working-class man; the most traveling in the Greene clan belongs to now deceased grandpa Greene, who came to America for a better life. David enters the head master's quarters, where he stands in front of the men that decide his future. Unknowing to David, Rip is there, confessing that he saw Charlie cheat. Rip apologizes to David for his lack of courage to stand up for him. Charlie is expelled and David is clear of all charges. 

My Thoughts

I really liked this. I'm pretty much a sucker for settings like this - prep school boys facing dilemmas that call upon old, traditional virtues for guidance. Some follow these virtues while others do not. This greatly reminded me of The Emperor's Club and bit of The Dead Poet's Society. Do teachers and the values of institutions like those depicted in each movie mentioned still exist? I bet, but they'll be a rarity. Values coming from the Latin motto will empty due to failure of true self-examination and moral rigor; in its place it's a hedonistic modern day liberal soul. It's cousin, the amoral libertarian is always close by, appealing to the "as long as you don't hurt anyone" to "why do you care?" cards.

One thing that appeals to me is that the settings are completely different from my own high school days. The northeast is vastly different from the Midwest, which is vastly different from the West. A public high school is different from a prep/private; a northeastern prep school is different from a magnet and parochial. Though one country, and easy to generalize, the US of A hosts different regional cultures, virtues and mindsets depending on where one is geographically. Kids from the Midwest will be different from kids from the northeast, as well as kids from the West and South.

Quotes like these standout -

On missing Rosh Hashanah,

Dr. Bartram: Was it worth it? Breaking a tradition just to win a football game?
David Greene: Your tradition or mine, sir?

to getting caught cheating,

Mr. Gierasch: Be seated, gentlemen. It appears that someone in this class cheated on yesterday's history exam. Today is Saturday. Your next class is on Monday. Therefore, we are faced with a rather bleak situation. If the guilty party does not come forward, or is not identified by then, I shall be forced to fail the entire section.
Chris Reese: Isn't that unfair, sir? Only one of us cheated.
Mr. Gierasch: We have all been dishonored by this person and I will not tolerate it.
David Greene: How can you be sure that someone cheated, sir?
Mr. Gierasch: I would prefer to keep the evidence to myself for the time being.
Rip Van Kelt: Can't you just throw out the old test and give us a new one?
Mr. Gierasch: And pretend that no one cheated? But someone did cheat. Whoever did this has robbed you of your honor. If I ignore it, he will have robbed me of mine as well. I leave it in your hands, gentlemen.

 to the school's honor code,

Dr. Bartram: The honor code is a living thing. It cannot exist in a vacuum.

Also the movie's tagline - "Just Because You're Accepted Doesn't Mean You Belong" In some ways this is true. One has to learn how to fit into a given culture. In David's case, being Jewish in a time when Jews were looked down upon. And just because the setting is in an academic atmosphere, being a conservative on a college campus (Berkley, Swathmore, Bowdoin, Brown) is the new Jew. Yea, I said it.

My favorite scene is the lake scene, where David and Charlie share a moment that reveals the expectation put on the latter, which he knows he cannot achieve through his own right unless it's given through connections. "If you get into Harvard, you'll deserve it," says Charlie. In some way it has a tinge of John Knowle's "A Separate Peace."

Location where the majority of the movie takes places it stupidly gorgeous. Middlesex School, today a co-ed boarding school, in Massachusetts was used.

Besides Brendan Fraser's spotty acting (overall he did fine) the entire ensemble was good. Camera angles and movement weren't nothing special, really "movie standard." Costumes, from the looks of it a quick online glimpse for its time period, seemed accurate enough. I'm not sure if the way the sexual tension between the teenagers portrayed were anyway accurate, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone at a dance actually did put balloons between the two sexes to makes sure there was enough space in between the two. The script, at times was clever, and what is said is biting, especially when it comes to observing religious practices and facing true, real bigotry. The pacing was well done giving the viewer's mind no time to wander.

Truly, the don't make them like they use to.

School Ties - B -

Actors and instagram.

1. Apparently many like to smoke, or at least like being taken a portrait with a smoke to look cool.
2. Many like to throw some hand signs when taking a picture with a fellow cast member, preferably the bird.
3. Many like to take pics in "gangster" poses.
4. As with many instragram pics taken by non-actors, there is a high fetish with filtering every other pic.
5. Many seem really into themselves and arrogant.
6. Not surprisingly at least one of their parents is in the industry, be it an actor or a director/writer.

Look, you got a lot of feels. I get that.

Warning: PG-13 for foul language.

Art is your way to 'express' yourself. I get that as well. Guess what, when you treat art as a venue to "equalize" things then I get annoyed. You tend to treat it like an orgasm which ends up everywhere - you're enjoying yourself. I can't stop you from enjoying yourself, I don't want to. But still. I mean, that shit got on my shirt. But look at this scenario for a moment:

"Hey, if you got a problem with me - like with my sexuality - then it's your problem!"
"Um, okay. Just to play the 'asshole' card, what if you said you got a problem with my religion, beliefs or you want to 'fight' global warming, poverty, racism, sexist etc. etc. and I say 'Well that's just your problem!' since I don't side with global warming types, think poverty will always exist and well as racism and sexism - would that be okay?"
"No, that's different."

I say this after I stumbled upon NYC photographer iO Tillet Wright's "Self-Evident Truths" - an art project consisting of more than 1, 000 portraits of people who aren't "anything other than 100% straight." She will be traveling across the nation in order to find non-straights in various US cities, to help non-straights aware that they are not alone.

As someone who is straight, I'm quite offended by this project's name. It's basically saying "Straight people, don't you feel guilty for building a bigoted, hateful society? There are many non-straight people around you that you unknowingly hate and hurt." To that I say, "Go stick your dick in your partner's anus, suck his dick and hope you don't get AIDS. For the females, you can hold hands together all you want and give each other kisses, and rub your vaginas together but that's where the penis is suppose to be during sex. You both don't have penises. Also a child won't come out of two females rubbing their vagina flaps together."

The only thing that's worth mentioning from that interview is that she doesn't like PC language - that she rejects gender neutral words. At least we have some actually sanity in that department with her. Her goal with is project is to lay down all the faces of her completed "Self-Evident Truths" at the National Mall of the Washington Monument in order to humanize homosexuals and bisexuals. I'll admit, this obsession (they'll call it passion) to humanize non-straights is plain out annoying. If non-straights are being beaten, persecuted, shunned and fired for their sexuality in droves then I'd probably treat Wright's project with more respect. But they aren't.

This project also has an insidious byproduct. It is to help re-socialize the population in not assuming that every woman a man has affection for is straight and vice versa. Instead of the "consent" card played during deviant sex and foreplay, it's the "can't assume" card when trying to ask the opposite sex for date. So guys, if you see that cute girl drinking at the bar alone don't assume she likes guys. You have to ask if she likes guys.

(If you take time to see several interviews from StyleLikeU, many of the people interviewed seem to have baggage. Not the average baggage that comes from an emotional stable person, but baggage that can only be soothed and be turned into self-righteousness in the arts & entertainment circles of NYC and LA. This is one of the many reasons why I think modern day liberal are the most fragile demographic compared to the vulnerable elderly, children and mentally/physically handicapped.)

Ms Wright's other project, a branch of "Self-Evident Truths", is "We Are You" -

No shit, Sherlock.

Her whole message is to treat others with respect, dignity and empathy (remember, this is Kris Kluwe's favorite word). I get that. Empathy is achieved through familiarity. Fair enough. Sounds like a reasonable and noble goal, right? Good intentions pave the road to hell (in my mind this is mediocrity, barely any standards and the loss of romance & distinctions); though Ms. Wright's goal is to humanize the non-straights, which sounds deeply compassionate and no doubt it successfully conjures feelings of "empowerment" to the SJW types, it just comes across, to me, as narcissistic. And annoying as heck.

As Ms. Wright writes, when Yosi Sergant, creator of Obama's "Hope" poster, asked her to be part of Manifest Equality, which I will presume the name was inspired by Manifest Destiny (bold & italics are my own emphasis),

My participation had nothing to do with the fact that I am bisexual, in a committed relationship and living with a woman. It was because the fact that equality is still something that has to be fought for in this country is an embarrassing travesty that our children will have to explain to our grandchildren. They'll say it was a dark mistake made by a grip of conservative septuagenarians with too much influence on our national body politic. Along with racial equality and the late bloom of women's rights, future generations will have to explain how, in the past, gays were misunderstood, and publicly humiliated for loving each other, and eventually, how they stood together and conquered stupidity and hypocritical hatred, and fought their way out of marginalization. They will show them pictures of ecstatic, sweet couples on the steps of city halls across the country, and of artwork made by people who wanted to give the movement a face.

I had to look up the word "septuagenarians." Wright was referring to old, wrinkly, racist, bigoted white guys who were boinking their secretaries as their wife made them sandwiches as they arrived from work. Go figure.

Anyways, I'm in no way "embarrassed" by the this so-called travesty. It's horrid that slavery happened here. If you caught me in my college years, when I proclaimed I was "very, very liberal" in a class speech, I'd probably be embarrassed with the 1960s Civil Rights Era and nod in much agreement with Wright. Now, I've matured (somewhat) and my politics have changed. I do not see the Civil Rights Era or the appeal to woman's suffrage as a national embarrassment. Given the history of the nation, embarrassment is probably the last thing on my 'feels' plate. Should there be strong feelings towards the supposed johnny-come-lately for desegregation of whites & blacks? Maybe. Wright fails to acknowledge the unique history of race in America which played into slavery and the general view on race up until the 1960s. Racial inequality is also a loaded concept so she's most definitely just practicing "1950s was just yesterday, man," mentality. Women in the US gained national suffrage in 1920. Given how young the country was compared to other established nations this isn't something to be embarrassed about. It happened in 1920, end of story. Wishing it be earlier is plain ridiculousness. Roe vs. Wade came into effect in 1973 - compared to other countries, to describe it as a "late bloom" is showing the lack of historical perspective. I guess they don't teach (accurate) history on Wright's art projects, after all she doesn't work a 9-5 and it employed by freelance so ... Tons of freakin' free time.

My kids will only be "embarrassed" if they are  taught by people like Wright, if they see people like Wright as some sort of "unicorn" bravely galloping against the status quo. To compare gay "rights" to the Civil Rights Era and woman's suffrage and access to abortion is just plain vapid and desperate. If I were a black woman I'd want to slap Wright on the side of the head.

Whoa! Violence, you bigot and homophobe!

My comments on the statements in italics: I wonder where are these stories of people who have same-sex attraction, acting upon it in public, and are humiliated by the public. (If Wright thinks not supporting same-sex 'marriage' and relationships counts humiliation then we are dealing with a piece of glass.) Where are all these stories Wright? I am not denying that homosexuals have been marginalized; I'm skeptical of this "gay is new black." Where are these lynching? These job firings if not rejection? Where are these leases being axed because the tenant is not straight? Where are these entertainment articles saying "Homo sighting in The Grove in LA!" Io Wright is a few years older than I am, and I consider myself up-to-date on the supposed "hate" crimes against homosexuals, so I'm very curious what prompts her to say this. The feels, maybe. She also admits that it's equally about gaining social acceptance as it is revenge on people - those old, wrinkly conservatives - by shoving pictures of their governmental sanctioned 'wedding.' All happy. All smiling. Good As You, right?
 
I'll say something quite arrogant, if I haven't already been arrogant before in this post: But it does, Ms. Wright. This is in response to Wright's "had nothing to do with the fact that I am bisexual." It does.You are involved, partly, because you are not "100% straight." You do not like the fact that your sexuality is on the fringes of sexuality. A good majority of the people in the USA are straight - your "anything other than 100% straight" pretty much says "I'm quite upset that straight culture dominates this (US) society."

I am not a "queer artist" -- that is to say, I don't have an identity built around my sexuality, as it pertains to my artwork, which is part of what I found so exciting about the Manifest Equality show. The show was organized by three brilliant straight people, and both the art on the walls, and the crowd on the gallery floor were a totally mixed bag; straight actors who play gay characters on television, straight movie stars who have gay family, and gay superstar activists mingled with kids like me and my sexually ambiguous friends, to look at work made by more straight artists than gay. It wasn't about being homosexual, it was about being human, and the rights that that qualification should afford everyone.

This is pathetic beyond belief.

I'm going to be more mean than I am already. This woman seriously thinks she's the new black. As you said inthe StyleLikeU interview, when describing how she looked like a boy as a kid and not being straight, "I don't fit any box ... I'm like a unicorn!" If a unicorn ever existed its own species - being studied for any particular eating, mating and sleeping patterns. This is one dumb bitch. With that paragraph she just leveled-up to whole new plain of nonsense.

It hit me, on opening night, that I was in LA. Where else would I see Darryl Hannah gazing at my photo, and Erin Daniels (of The L Word) grabbing portraits from my piles?

Yes, you're human. You also have a vagina so you identifying as a boy undermines your entire 'feels.' Such people are admiring your work regardless of your sexuality.

You were brought in by Sergant mainly because of your sexuality. I have no evidence to back this up, but what are the chances of Sergant picking Wright who so happens to be a walking parody of a modern day social activist with her type of mental fucked up logic concerning sexuality? As there are many celebrities that make people go star-struck in LA, photographers like Wright are a dime a dozen in the arts & entertainment circle in places like LA and NYC. The irony.

If there is one thing that non-straights (especially when it comes to 'artsy' non-straights) do that irritates the heck out of me, and further makes me think they truly suffer from some sort of inferiority complex (mainly due to their sexuality - they'll say it's due to society, but it's really due to their sexuality and becoming aware that they are a minority), is their need to constantly remind the world - not just their family and close friends - that they aren't straight. It's weird. Writer J.K. Rowling said "Gay people just look like people." True. And through "Self-Evident Truths" Wright builds upon this, but it's end goal, besides its surface goal, is to normalize non-straight behavior and get government's OKAY on same-sex 'marriage.' It's a middle finger to the old conservatives. It's to paint the people in the portraits as victims of hatred, and the country as a johnny-come-lately in terms of human 'equality.' This sounds like a waiter being chastised for not bringing the food on time -- because table five ordered after table one yet table five has theirs already.

This is a deeply bitter and insecure woman, all wrapped under her "the artist/activist" cloak (see: personal site).

Also, when someone, say an actress, needs a magazine or any form of art medium (or even a drunken speech - see: Jodie Foster), to "come out" that means that dealing with being comfortable with ones sexuality is more of a psychological problem than any actual bigoted societal norm. It's especially telling if that someone grew up in a city, like NYC, went to university to study acting, has friends that are artsy and most likely socially liberal, and who works in an industry that's pro-non-straight like the movie industry (entertainers will say that the movie industry is homophobic, which is a story for another day). If they still feel the need to say "I just want to be happy," due to them feeling marginalized by society for not being "anything other than 100% straight" then that calls for investigation of that person's psyche. Like I said, whatever insecurities and hurt the LGBT community is feeling it's mostly due to some perceived injustice. Then again actors are probably the most insecure people once you get personal, all the while projecting an ego that's much bigger than their own height. I will deduce that such people will never be as comfortable in their sexuality as straights are.