Fleabag

that “moral trust hocked cheaply” bit may be where a specifically *male* envy comes in potentially making unfair judgments - to Trayce’s thought. to what extent that drives or taints the more general observations i made above, i’m not sure. not much is my immediate feeling.

Wow I love this show. I hoovered the first season on a flight and immediately subscribed to the appropriate service so I could watch it again with my boyfriend when I got home.

I cannot think of any “best actress” who I would compulsively watch anything in which she appears but Olivia Coleman is it.

Her speech about “the show is not about sex... it’s about power” was so chillingly perfect that I gasped and paused and massaged my temples for a couple minutes

Also Moriarty is extremely hot, he could wreck my fourth wall any time

I was taken aback at the moment in s2 when something actually happens between them because there's a formulaic way that unravels in drama/comedy and there's something I can't put my finger on about how this show broke that convention. As if the plot resolved how they didn't need to hook up, and then dropped it immediately after?

I am just now watching this and the opening to s1e2 is incredible

Just you wait for the s2 premiere.

v disappointed she signed with amazon.

the backlash begins here!

enh all the major streaming giants are varying degrees of evil. netflix is doing all they can to tamp down creatives' pay rates for example

every entertainment company since the dawn of man has done whatever it can to reduce the amount it pays talent, I'm not sure that's here or there?

if ISIS offered same-day delivery & streamed a snappy comedy abt millennials ppl wld shrug "eh, all countries are borne of violence"

Why wouldn’t she sign with the commercial company that picked up Fleabag first?

Sure, after all she doesn't have to worry about them slashing her health care benefits.

I don’t use Amazon fwiw.

But even the BBC is helping revitalise the Nazis, not sure what she could do to stay "pure" in today's tv environment.

also,

'You Know That Feeling When You Waste Time at Work Using an "AI" to Translate the Faces of Various Noh Masks on Phoebe Waller-Bridge?'
(an art project in honour of @robpalkwriter) pic.twitter.com/otZ7NAsmfN

— Caustic Cover Critic (@Unwise_Trousers) October 3, 2019

amazon isn't impure, it's a toxic and endlessly exploitative authoritarian monopoly which has destroyed tens of thousands of businesses, created and profited from unregulated markets, and reduced working standards, all in service of a much-exaggerated and often hugely inefficient convenience to the customer.

you can also watch the show on IFC in the United States, I guess

she's hosting snl this weekend btw.

every entertainment company since the dawn of man has done whatever it can to reduce the amount it pays talent, I'm not sure that's here or there?

yes, netflix is just breaking new ground in how to do it in their particular industry

her SNL hosting is at least as objectionable as working with amazon tbh

blah

amazon isn't impure, it's a toxic and endlessly exploitative authoritarian monopoly which has destroyed tens of thousands of businesses, created and profited from unregulated markets, and reduced working standards, all in service of a much-exaggerated and often hugely inefficient convenience to the customer.

― ogmor, Thursday, October 3, 2019 1:39 AM (six hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

otm. streaming services are all varying degrees of evil but prime is 1) varying degrees of evil 2) attached to a more evil apparatus

season 2 of fleabag is a masterpiece so like, whatever

we're *all* attached to the apparatus via AWS if nothing else, it seems silly to attack artists for getting paid. fight the real enemy imo

fight the real enemy imo

SNL

yes.

fight the real enemy imo

― Simon H., Thursday, October 3, 2019 8:05 AM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

how

Speaking of a backlash..

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2019/aug/29/fleabag-stage-theatre-show-phoebe-waller-bridge

lol, that piece is very dumb.
i saw the televised performance; it was good but served as proof of how skilled she and her team are at translating her vision to a larger audience. The show is a definite quantum leap forward.

there's one subtextual bit of that piece about how we write characters that are horrible people, and whether past depictions differ from the more contemporary due to our tolerances of what we allow in our fiction. 2013 still seems relatively contemporary, but from a writer working in cultural commentary I can see where there's some blanket changing of the rules that is in no way evenly distributed among people who have never read a thinkpiece

re: the show, I'm still on s1 but the slow revelation of what happened and why everyone keeps asking if she's okay is fantastic

how

lots of competing theories on this but pretty sure "tut-tutting creatives for signing with the incorrect godless conglomerate" can be safely ruled out

Which of the three millennial women describing how they felt about this work by a millennial woman would you say was the dumbest, Ulysses?

And when did you stop beating your three dumb millennial wives?

There isn't anything else in the article though - it's just a roundtable of three women discussing the play (and the TV series, and how things have changed in the last 6 years).

forks said that (I infer, from reading half of it) the structure and content of the Guardian piece were fruitless and unenlightening about the performed text. He did not say anything about the intelligences of the participants, nor about how their gender or age relate to their intelligence, nor that their age & gender should qualify one’s apprehension of their personal reactions.

(I’ve read smart things written by at least two of the participants. As a conversation in the bar, after a show, between folks who know each other, nobody comes off as fundamentally dipshitted. As a ‘printed’ article reflecting on the original play and how its context has altered since first production, it’s at best an 1/8th-arsed aide-mémoire toward writing up a roundtable.)

The structure is literally them talking - the content is literally them talking (I assume cleaned up in the usual ways, I'll grant it's not just tape recorder audio) - there isn't a distance between "this article is dumb" and "the participants are dumb".

Thread's taken an odd turn tbh.

Fair.

roundtables are inherently dumb no matter the participants

*King Arthur pauses, sadly deletes half-written post*

lol

smart people say dumb things all the time, particularly in round tables

I didn’t think anything they said was particularly dumb, but the central theme of the conversation took a route through examining how an intentionally offensive character monologue from 2013 was offensive in unintentional ways in 2019 and that didn’t feel fruitful.

Tbf that Guardian round table is extremely bad

I thought the discussion of how it feels like a cash-in, and how the intimacy of the original experience was lost (my immediate mental comparison was a "band plays their classic album in full" tour), was interesting.

That was the only good point, the rest is garbled and inane. The show is far more complex and interesting than the commentators were giving it credit for

Lol at DJP's post, yes to Brad's "round tables are bad" assessment, and yes exactly to mh's comments

I was laughing at this line:

I’ve just been at the Edinburgh fringe, where I saw 50 more exciting shows.

I mean, it might be gauche to drop names in a roundtable like this, but if other shows are worth going to and would hold appeal for this audience, NAME SOME!
That kind of phrasing -- and the following admission that the Waller-Bridge's show is probably pulling traffic to the West End that may not usually attend -- is recognition that the audience might not be fringe festival-goers and it comes off as "well, they're not REAL theater fans.."