Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Feb 10, 2021 8:53:37 GMT
Come on, that's splitting hairs. It was a dig at her appearance using sexist language. She has a right to be offended even if you don't think it's offensive. It's not splitting hairs to quote the literal words that someone used to explain what they meant. It was an explicit comment on Cassie's attire, not a comment on Mulligan's looks. You're making up things that weren't said. Of course Mulligan has the right to be offended. Everybody has the right to be offended over nothing. Doesn't mean Harvey has to apologize for things he never said. No, this suggests that reading sexist language into non-sexist language is uncharitable, because Harvey didn't use sexist language in his review. I've been over this already. Making things up about what he said doesn't change what he actually said. That's like saying the arrogance of Mulligan to think that there couldn't be anything wrong with her interpretation and the insinuations she made towards Harvey speaks well to her character. Like I said, both parties have been uncharitable. So you're saying it's okay to make Harvey the scapegoat by disregarding what he actually said?
|
|
|
Post by pendragon on Feb 10, 2021 9:10:49 GMT
Come on, that's splitting hairs. It was a dig at her appearance using sexist language. She has a right to be offended even if you don't think it's offensive. It's not splitting hairs to quote the literal words that someone used to explain what they meant. It was an explicit comment on Cassie's attire, not a comment on Mulligan's looks. You're making up things that weren't said. Of course Mulligan has the right to be offended. Everybody has the right to be offended over nothing. Doesn't mean Harvey has to apologize for things he never said. No, this suggests that reading sexist language into non-sexist language is uncharitable, because Harvey didn't use sexist language in his review. I've been over this already. Making things up about what he said doesn't change what he actually said. That's like saying the arrogance of Mulligan to think that there couldn't be anything wrong with her interpretation and the insinuations she made towards Harvey speaks well to her character. Like I said, both parties have been uncharitable. So you're saying it's okay to make Harvey the scapegoat by disregarding what he actually said? This is clearly going to go nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Feb 10, 2021 10:08:55 GMT
don't lump me in w/ duders. just trying to point out that the following sentiment wasn't expressed in the review. He was referring to the femme-fatale like nature of the role, not some attractive meter pertaining to whether or not a woman is able to raped(ew). It's an odd gap to fill in, but you and Carey and whoever have every right to do so. Using that quote as a cover-all blanket statement to try and dunk on poster's characters is bizarre. RiverleavesElmius , why is it automatic and immediate to turn to just insults? You're 100% correct that my initial comment was too harsh and too much of a blanket statement, I apologise.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Feb 11, 2021 3:35:53 GMT
Good God, what a shit show this debacle is Critics really made fools of themselves here in my opinion. There is absolutely nothing wrong in saying or thinking that Mulligan is an unexpected choice for this part. I mean, it is a left-field choice to pick a low-profile, brainy, introspective and sweet woman - who notoriously and brilliantly plays a wide range of women like that - to play the leading role of a sex-themed revenge movie. Of course, that ignores some other great performances Mulligan has delivered (like Shame) that were very far from this preconcieved notion of her persona, but whatever. I felt surprised by that choice. The thing is - and what people like the NSFC are ironically omitting - the objection was never over how surprising her casting was to the review's author. It's a quite poorly written piece and, even if we give the writer the benefit of the doubt that he meant no harm in it, saying she looks like "in bad drag" and thus, less believable as a woman guys pick up in bars is... a choice. Maybe he meant no harm, but the wording obviously opens doors to many interpretations. It's a laughably bad take if you consider the context of the movie, and even more if you look at real life issues that go beyond the movie. First, like @tyler has pointed out (and a line I didn't remember from the movie), Cassie says that she indeed was the sweet, bookworm girl we are inclined to believe Carey Mulligan is. When she goes to bars, she's putting up a costume just like the nurse one in the finale. So, having heightened aspects of her visual appearance - make-up, hair, clothes - is the point. Cassie is doing a parody of druken bombshells on purpose. The writer misses this point, which means he doesn't get the movie and that he doesn't get gender relations as well - or at least he can't stop putting his foot on his mouth when talking about it. It's the text and the subtext of the movie you're supposed to analyse. Then, I could talk a little about how unprofessional and out of place it is to comment how "attractive" some actor - be it a woman or a man - is when you're writing a critical analysis of their work. Someone showed up everyday to work, and maybe their work was good, maybe it was bad. But Average Joe here can't just talk about it without remarking subtly or not if the person looks good. And it happens so often with women. A brazilian critic wrote in his piece on Blue Is The Warmest Color two whole paragraphs about how it is every man's dream to watch two beautiful women kissing and having sex, and then goes on and on about how beautiful it is to watch those two young, beautiful actresses having sex on screen. It was such a disturbing thing to read when you just wanna know if the acting was good, plot was good, writing was good, etc etc etc. It was gross, and it also happens in more subtle ways. Another brazilian writer whose work I admire a lot wrote in his review of Fantastic Four that Jessica Alba isn't talented, "but she indeed looks pretty when she cries". Some guy said Melissa McCarthy looked like a truck in one of her movies. Why do these men think we all want to their input on how attractive they think someone is? And do they think hot girl = good/bad movie? If so, they're just plain dumb, shallow and futile. They can't articulate a profound thought or think critically about the movie they're literally paid to write about. Adele and Lea deliver good performances in BITWC not because they're gorgeous, but because they wrestle many emotions and personality traits. Fantastic Four isn't less bad because Alba looks pretty in it. And the less said about the words directed towards McCarthy the better. Just to make it clear, using a man as an example: do I find John Travolta attractive? No, never did and probably never will. I don't think he looked good at any stage of his life. But do I find him less believable as a heartrob in Grease or Saturday Night Fever? Of course not. Because his acting pulls it off. And if I didn't find a supposed heartrob believable, it was because of he was out of his depth, didn't have the chops or maybe not the charisma. On the other hand, I find Al Pacino out-of-this world beautiful in The Godfather, but that does not and should not distract me from everything else he's doing in that movie, and I can assure you that's not the reason I consider that one of the most brilliant pieces of acting ever. I tried to talk about why I think saying "bad drag" = "unconvincing" is a wrong read on Cassie's role, the whole concept of the movie and what Mulligan achieves in her acting and a failure of film criticism in itself, but it goes beyond that tbh. When he says her looks are off-putting, she looks like she's in bad drag, so he doesn't believe her role - that she gets guys to take her home and try to take advantage of her thinking she's drunk -, well. That's sexist in astronomical leves. It is saying that you have to look like Margot Robbie so a guy would come up to you in a bar and try to rape you. That some women just aren't hot enough to rape, and that if they try to "doll up", they'll just look like a fool in bad drag and no guy would consider taking them home. It's insulting to all women - the ones "hot enough", and the ones who "are not". You don't have to look convincing to be a sexual assault victim, because it isn't the victims' fault. It's not about how women dress or act or talk when they're assaulted. Women (people in general, but especially women) of all backgrounds, with all kinds of looks and ages, are survivors of sexual assault - you don't have to think they're hot enough to someone be attracted to them so you believe them. Men (or women, both genders can be criminal lol) will assault someone because they want to, not because someone fits more or less into the profile of a victim. The writer of that unfortunate review probably didn't think about how far the implications of his mediocre writing skills, so that's just a sign of how deep this line of thought is in our society. And regardind the whole debacle that came because of this whole thing... Geez, is this the hill people wanna die on? Men's right to call a woman ugly in a professional film review as the ultimate fight for free speech? Go off, I guess. But isn't Mulligan also entitled to free speech her way into calling out that review? But whatever. I guess some people just don't like to be taken off their pedestal of being taste-makers. I'm sorry to everyone who I'm forcing to read through this whole thing
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Feb 11, 2021 3:53:38 GMT
Good God, what a shit show this debacle is Critics really made fools of themselves here in my opinion. There is absolutely nothing wrong in saying or thinking that Mulligan is an unexpected choice for this part. I mean, it is a left-field choice to pick a low-profile, brainy, introspective and sweet woman - who notoriously and brilliantly plays a wide range of women like that - to play the leading role of a sex-themed revenge movie. Of course, that ignores some other great performances Mulligan has delivered (like Shame) that were very far from this preconcieved notion of her persona, but whatever. I felt surprised by that choice. The thing is - and what people like the NSFC are ironically omitting - the objection was never over how surprising her casting was to the review's author. It's a quite poorly written piece and, even if we give the writer the benefit of the doubt that he meant no harm in it, saying she looks like "in bad drag" and thus, less believable as a woman guys pick up in bars is... a choice. Maybe he meant no harm, but the wording obviously opens doors to many interpretations. It's a laughably bad take if you consider the context of the movie, and even more if you look at real life issues that go beyond the movie. First, like @tyler has pointed out (and a line I didn't remember from the movie), Cassie says that she indeed was the sweet, bookworm girl we are inclined to believe Carey Mulligan is. When she goes to bars, she's putting up a costume just like the nurse one in the finale. So, having heightened aspects of her visual appearance - make-up, hair, clothes - is the point. Cassie is doing a parody of druken bombshells on purpose. The writer misses this point, which means he doesn't get the movie and that he doesn't get gender relations as well - or at least he can't stop putting his foot on his mouth when talking about it. It's the text and the subtext of the movie you're supposed to analyse. Then, I could talk a little about how unprofessional and out of place it is to comment how "attractive" some actor - be it a woman or a man - is when you're writing a critical analysis of their work. Someone showed up everyday to work, and maybe their work was good, maybe it was bad. But Average Joe here can't just talk about it without remarking subtly or not if the person looks good. And it happens so often with women. A brazilian critic wrote in his piece on Blue Is The Warmest Color two whole paragraphs about how it is every man's dream to watch two beautiful women kissing and having sex, and then goes on and on about how beautiful it is to watch those two young, beautiful actresses having sex on screen. It was such a disturbing thing to read when you just wanna know if the acting was good, plot was good, writing was good, etc etc etc. It was gross, and it also happens in more subtle ways. Another brazilian writer whose work I admire a lot wrote in his review of Fantastic Four that Jessica Alba isn't talented, "but she indeed looks pretty when she cries". Some guy said Melissa McCarthy looked like a truck in one of her movies. Why do these men think we all want to their input on how attractive they think someone is? And do they think hot girl = good/bad movie? If so, they're just plain dumb, shallow and futile. They can't articulate a profound thought or think critically about the movie they're literally paid to write about. Adele and Lea deliver good performances in BITWC not because they're gorgeous, but because they wrestle many emotions and personality traits. Fantastic Four isn't less bad because Alba looks pretty in it. And the less said about the words directed towards McCarthy the better. Just to make it clear, using a man as an example: do I find John Travolta attractive? No, never did and probably never will. I don't think he looked good at any stage of his life. But do I find him less believable as a heartrob in Grease or Saturday Night Fever? Of course not. Because his acting pulls it off. And if I didn't find a supposed heartrob believable, it was because of he was out of his depth, didn't have the chops or maybe not the charisma. On the other hand, I find Al Pacino out-of-this world beautiful in The Godfather, but that does not and should not distract me from everything else he's doing in that movie, and I can assure you that's not the reason I consider that one of the most brilliant pieces of acting ever. I tried to talk about why I think saying "bad drag" = "unconvincing" is a wrong read on Cassie's role, the whole concept of the movie and what Mulligan achieves in her acting and a failure of film criticism in itself, but it goes beyond that tbh. When he says her looks are off-putting, she looks like she's in bad drag, so he doesn't believe her role - that she gets guys to take her home and try to take advantage of her thinking she's drunk -, well. That's sexist in astronomical leves. It is saying that you have to look like Margot Robbie so a guy would come up to you in a bar and try to rape you. That some women just aren't hot enough to rape, and that if they try to "doll up", they'll just look like a fool in bad drag and no guy would consider taking them home. It's insulting to all women - the ones "hot enough", and the ones who "are not". You don't have to look convincing to be a sexual assault victim, because it isn't the victims' fault. It's not about how women dress or act or talk when they're assaulted. Women (people in general, but especially women) of all backgrounds, with all kinds of looks and ages, are survivors of sexual assault - you don't have to think they're hot enough to someone be attracted to them so you believe them. Men (or women, both genders can be criminal lol) will assault someone because they want to, not because someone fits more or less into the profile of a victim. The writer of that unfortunate review probably didn't think about how far the implications of his mediocre writing skills, so that's just a sign of how deep this line of thought is in our society. And regardind the whole debacle that came because of this whole thing... Geez, is this the hill people wanna die on? Men's right to call a woman ugly in a professional film review as the ultimate fight for free speech? Go off, I guess. But isn't Mulligan also entitled to free speech her way into calling out that review? But whatever. I guess some people just don't like to be taken off their pedestal of being taste-makers. I'm sorry to everyone who I'm forcing to read through this whole thing Translation: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!! š“š“š“
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Feb 11, 2021 3:59:29 GMT
Good God, what a shit show this debacle is Critics really made fools of themselves here in my opinion. There is absolutely nothing wrong in saying or thinking that Mulligan is an unexpected choice for this part. I mean, it is a left-field choice to pick a low-profile, brainy, introspective and sweet woman - who notoriously and brilliantly plays a wide range of women like that - to play the leading role of a sex-themed revenge movie. Of course, that ignores some other great performances Mulligan has delivered (like Shame) that were very far from this preconcieved notion of her persona, but whatever. I felt surprised by that choice. The thing is - and what people like the NSFC are ironically omitting - the objection was never over how surprising her casting was to the review's author. It's a quite poorly written piece and, even if we give the writer the benefit of the doubt that he meant no harm in it, saying she looks like "in bad drag" and thus, less believable as a woman guys pick up in bars is... a choice. Maybe he meant no harm, but the wording obviously opens doors to many interpretations. It's a laughably bad take if you consider the context of the movie, and even more if you look at real life issues that go beyond the movie. First, like @tyler has pointed out (and a line I didn't remember from the movie), Cassie says that she indeed was the sweet, bookworm girl we are inclined to believe Carey Mulligan is. When she goes to bars, she's putting up a costume just like the nurse one in the finale. So, having heightened aspects of her visual appearance - make-up, hair, clothes - is the point. Cassie is doing a parody of druken bombshells on purpose. The writer misses this point, which means he doesn't get the movie and that he doesn't get gender relations as well - or at least he can't stop putting his foot on his mouth when talking about it. It's the text and the subtext of the movie you're supposed to analyse. Then, I could talk a little about how unprofessional and out of place it is to comment how "attractive" some actor - be it a woman or a man - is when you're writing a critical analysis of their work. Someone showed up everyday to work, and maybe their work was good, maybe it was bad. But Average Joe here can't just talk about it without remarking subtly or not if the person looks good. And it happens so often with women. A brazilian critic wrote in his piece on Blue Is The Warmest Color two whole paragraphs about how it is every man's dream to watch two beautiful women kissing and having sex, and then goes on and on about how beautiful it is to watch those two young, beautiful actresses having sex on screen. It was such a disturbing thing to read when you just wanna know if the acting was good, plot was good, writing was good, etc etc etc. It was gross, and it also happens in more subtle ways. Another brazilian writer whose work I admire a lot wrote in his review of Fantastic Four that Jessica Alba isn't talented, "but she indeed looks pretty when she cries". Some guy said Melissa McCarthy looked like a truck in one of her movies. Why do these men think we all want to their input on how attractive they think someone is? And do they think hot girl = good/bad movie? If so, they're just plain dumb, shallow and futile. They can't articulate a profound thought or think critically about the movie they're literally paid to write about. Adele and Lea deliver good performances in BITWC not because they're gorgeous, but because they wrestle many emotions and personality traits. Fantastic Four isn't less bad because Alba looks pretty in it. And the less said about the words directed towards McCarthy the better. Just to make it clear, using a man as an example: do I find John Travolta attractive? No, never did and probably never will. I don't think he looked good at any stage of his life. But do I find him less believable as a heartrob in Grease or Saturday Night Fever? Of course not. Because his acting pulls it off. And if I didn't find a supposed heartrob believable, it was because of he was out of his depth, didn't have the chops or maybe not the charisma. On the other hand, I find Al Pacino out-of-this world beautiful in The Godfather, but that does not and should not distract me from everything else he's doing in that movie, and I can assure you that's not the reason I consider that one of the most brilliant pieces of acting ever. I tried to talk about why I think saying "bad drag" = "unconvincing" is a wrong read on Cassie's role, the whole concept of the movie and what Mulligan achieves in her acting and a failure of film criticism in itself, but it goes beyond that tbh. When he says her looks are off-putting, she looks like she's in bad drag, so he doesn't believe her role - that she gets guys to take her home and try to take advantage of her thinking she's drunk -, well. That's sexist in astronomical leves. It is saying that you have to look like Margot Robbie so a guy would come up to you in a bar and try to rape you. That some women just aren't hot enough to rape, and that if they try to "doll up", they'll just look like a fool in bad drag and no guy would consider taking them home. It's insulting to all women - the ones "hot enough", and the ones who "are not". You don't have to look convincing to be a sexual assault victim, because it isn't the victims' fault. It's not about how women dress or act or talk when they're assaulted. Women (people in general, but especially women) of all backgrounds, with all kinds of looks and ages, are survivors of sexual assault - you don't have to think they're hot enough to someone be attracted to them so you believe them. Men (or women, both genders can be criminal lol) will assault someone because they want to, not because someone fits more or less into the profile of a victim. The writer of that unfortunate review probably didn't think about how far the implications of his mediocre writing skills, so that's just a sign of how deep this line of thought is in our society. And regardind the whole debacle that came because of this whole thing... Geez, is this the hill people wanna die on? Men's right to call a woman ugly in a professional film review as the ultimate fight for free speech? Go off, I guess. But isn't Mulligan also entitled to free speech her way into calling out that review? But whatever. I guess some people just don't like to be taken off their pedestal of being taste-makers. I'm sorry to everyone who I'm forcing to read through this whole thing Translation: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!! š“š“š“ We live in a democracy. You're free to just not read what I write.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Feb 11, 2021 4:46:11 GMT
Good God, what a shit show this debacle is Critics really made fools of themselves here in my opinion. There is absolutely nothing wrong in saying or thinking that Mulligan is an unexpected choice for this part. I mean, it is a left-field choice to pick a low-profile, brainy, introspective and sweet woman - who notoriously and brilliantly plays a wide range of women like that - to play the leading role of a sex-themed revenge movie. Of course, that ignores some other great performances Mulligan has delivered (like Shame) that were very far from this preconcieved notion of her persona, but whatever. I felt surprised by that choice. The thing is - and what people like the NSFC are ironically omitting - the objection was never over how surprising her casting was to the review's author. It's a quite poorly written piece and, even if we give the writer the benefit of the doubt that he meant no harm in it, saying she looks like "in bad drag" and thus, less believable as a woman guys pick up in bars is... a choice. Maybe he meant no harm, but the wording obviously opens doors to many interpretations. It's a laughably bad take if you consider the context of the movie, and even more if you look at real life issues that go beyond the movie. First, like @tyler has pointed out (and a line I didn't remember from the movie), Cassie says that she indeed was the sweet, bookworm girl we are inclined to believe Carey Mulligan is. When she goes to bars, she's putting up a costume just like the nurse one in the finale. So, having heightened aspects of her visual appearance - make-up, hair, clothes - is the point. Cassie is doing a parody of druken bombshells on purpose. The writer misses this point, which means he doesn't get the movie and that he doesn't get gender relations as well - or at least he can't stop putting his foot on his mouth when talking about it. It's the text and the subtext of the movie you're supposed to analyse. Then, I could talk a little about how unprofessional and out of place it is to comment how "attractive" some actor - be it a woman or a man - is when you're writing a critical analysis of their work. Someone showed up everyday to work, and maybe their work was good, maybe it was bad. But Average Joe here can't just talk about it without remarking subtly or not if the person looks good. And it happens so often with women. A brazilian critic wrote in his piece on Blue Is The Warmest Color two whole paragraphs about how it is every man's dream to watch two beautiful women kissing and having sex, and then goes on and on about how beautiful it is to watch those two young, beautiful actresses having sex on screen. It was such a disturbing thing to read when you just wanna know if the acting was good, plot was good, writing was good, etc etc etc. It was gross, and it also happens in more subtle ways. Another brazilian writer whose work I admire a lot wrote in his review of Fantastic Four that Jessica Alba isn't talented, "but she indeed looks pretty when she cries". Some guy said Melissa McCarthy looked like a truck in one of her movies. Why do these men think we all want to their input on how attractive they think someone is? And do they think hot girl = good/bad movie? If so, they're just plain dumb, shallow and futile. They can't articulate a profound thought or think critically about the movie they're literally paid to write about. Adele and Lea deliver good performances in BITWC not because they're gorgeous, but because they wrestle many emotions and personality traits. Fantastic Four isn't less bad because Alba looks pretty in it. And the less said about the words directed towards McCarthy the better. Just to make it clear, using a man as an example: do I find John Travolta attractive? No, never did and probably never will. I don't think he looked good at any stage of his life. But do I find him less believable as a heartrob in Grease or Saturday Night Fever? Of course not. Because his acting pulls it off. And if I didn't find a supposed heartrob believable, it was because of he was out of his depth, didn't have the chops or maybe not the charisma. On the other hand, I find Al Pacino out-of-this world beautiful in The Godfather, but that does not and should not distract me from everything else he's doing in that movie, and I can assure you that's not the reason I consider that one of the most brilliant pieces of acting ever. I tried to talk about why I think saying "bad drag" = "unconvincing" is a wrong read on Cassie's role, the whole concept of the movie and what Mulligan achieves in her acting and a failure of film criticism in itself, but it goes beyond that tbh. When he says her looks are off-putting, she looks like she's in bad drag, so he doesn't believe her role - that she gets guys to take her home and try to take advantage of her thinking she's drunk -, well. That's sexist in astronomical leves. It is saying that you have to look like Margot Robbie so a guy would come up to you in a bar and try to rape you. That some women just aren't hot enough to rape, and that if they try to "doll up", they'll just look like a fool in bad drag and no guy would consider taking them home. It's insulting to all women - the ones "hot enough", and the ones who "are not". You don't have to look convincing to be a sexual assault victim, because it isn't the victims' fault. It's not about how women dress or act or talk when they're assaulted. Women (people in general, but especially women) of all backgrounds, with all kinds of looks and ages, are survivors of sexual assault - you don't have to think they're hot enough to someone be attracted to them so you believe them. Men (or women, both genders can be criminal lol) will assault someone because they want to, not because someone fits more or less into the profile of a victim. The writer of that unfortunate review probably didn't think about how far the implications of his mediocre writing skills, so that's just a sign of how deep this line of thought is in our society. And regardind the whole debacle that came because of this whole thing... Geez, is this the hill people wanna die on? Men's right to call a woman ugly in a professional film review as the ultimate fight for free speech? Go off, I guess. But isn't Mulligan also entitled to free speech her way into calling out that review? But whatever. I guess some people just don't like to be taken off their pedestal of being taste-makers. I'm sorry to everyone who I'm forcing to read through this whole thing There is NOTHING wrong with mentioning your opinion of an actor's looks in films where the look is important. Would you object to a male critic mentioning how sexy Ellen Barkin looks in THE BIG EASY in their review of the movie, even though it's clearly relevant to his opinion of the success of the film since it's supposed to be an "erotic thriller"?? If you do, you understand less about film criticism than these supposedly terrible critics you're bitching and moaning about. Would you then object if a female critic said the same thing about Dennis Quaid in the film? Same thing & just as valid. Gene Siskel (whom at his worst was an insufferable SJW before it became a thing) said several times he didn't understand why critics were afraid to talk about being turned on by a film (or, as he put it, finding it "erotic") because it was a genuine reaction to a film, just like any other reactions one might have to art, and it was clearly in most of those cases one of the desired reactions the filmmakers themselves were aiming for. As for your statement that Jessica Alba's hotness doesn't make F4 even a little less awful?? Just your opinion, lol, hardly a universal truth. For instance, STRIPTEASE is a painfully unfunny & embarrassing piece of dogshit, and I would NEVER see it again voluntarily, but if I was forced by whatever unforseen reason to endure it again, it would be intellectually dishonest of me to say the only pleasurable thing about such an ordeal wouldn't be looking at Demi Moore's jaw-droppingly flawless 90's body.
|
|
|
Post by Sharbs on Feb 11, 2021 6:47:36 GMT
I think the insinuation that a person would state that one person is more available to be raped based on looks is so nefarious that I was trying to dilute that for my own sanity and I readily believe that is not this personās intention. I can see where that is being connected and I appreciate bobcoppola for making that connection that I didnāt which was to connect the two halves of that paragraph and relate the ābad dragā to the reviewerās wish to reallocate the role, which is how language and sentences work so thatās on me. I do think this probably lies somewhere in the middle, as in this dude is just bad at writing reviews in a clear manner rather than an intended dig at Mulligan because it does take a few steps to get to that inference. I looked at it more in the lines of his desired role switch to Margot, and that by itself isnāt inferring any negativity to Carey, and that section of it and not relating it to how the reviewer relates his opinion upon Cassie, which mhynson you tried to relay that but it took the long-windedness of sircoppola to get me to understand what was even happening.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Feb 11, 2021 8:02:15 GMT
Man, this Variety review is proving to be quite the Rorschach test...
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Feb 11, 2021 8:49:04 GMT
At the end of the day, Carey will have the last laugh, as this is only going to help her already stellar chances.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Feb 11, 2021 14:16:48 GMT
At the end of the day, Carey will have the last laugh, as this is only going to help her already stellar chances. Fingers crossed
|
|