earthboli

What happens when you take a few original L Word cast members who are now much older and throw them in with a gang of 20-somethings who are humorless and one-dimensionally-written? Apparently a mish-mash of uneven writing, a cast that doesn't blend well, and a show that doesn't make sense on its own OR as a nod to the original show.

First of all, the Gen Q script takes itself way too seriously and lacks levity. The characters are mostly one-dimensional and checking boxes for inclusivity rather than being fully fleshed out, complex people who can still be likeable. Most of the young characters are just annoying thanks to bad writing that tries way too hard. I appreciate the intention to be more inclusive-but it almost feels like that was so much of the focus for the show-correcting the original L Word's "wrongs" for its time-that the actual writing in Gen Q is an afterthought here. In addition, we are missing chemistry between...well, anyone really other than the buddy-buddiness of old pals Alice and Shane. The older generation doesn't really mix at all with the younger cast, so any interactions between generations seem forced and out of place. Gone are the funny lunch table conversations with the ensemble of women we saw in the L Word, and instead we get piecemeal interactions and awkwardly-written relationships with "Gen Q."

The original L Word got flack for their treatment of transmen, but I'm not sure Gen Q's transman is any better-he's mopey, rigid, humorless, and as mentioned about many characters on this show, pretty one-dimensional. Not sure you improved things there, Gen Q writers!

At the end of the day, the L Word did have a few issues with its portrayal of bisexuality and trans characters, and it lacked diversity in some ways. But it had heart, laughter, the actors had amazing chemistry, and it was compelling. Gen Q is a bit of a dumpster fire in comparison. The writing is terrible, the ensemble is gone, the cast has no chemistry with each other, and this show won't please either generation watching-the older lesbians who remember the original, or the Gen Z kids wanting a show about fleshed out same sex relationships between women and compelling characters they actually like watching. This new version is a snoozefest and embarrassing compared to the original.

Paul Verhoeven has shown us that he likes weird, wild, sudden spastic sex. Remember the "dolphin sex" in Showgirls? Elizabeth Berkeley bounced and writhed so wildly in the water that she would've fractured Kyle Maclachlan's penis had that scene been real. Well, imagine that, just with nuns.

I am being a bit facetious, because this movie is more than the salacious bits. It's a period biopic/drama that focuses on the life of Benedetta and is she a visionary or a fraud? And does it matter? Well, her sexuality is at the forefront of the controversy, along with her visions.

But Verhoeven isn't subtle by any means. The script is weird. The sex is weird and particularly graphic and implausible. The use of objects goes beyond blasphemy and almost enters the realm of camp. I'm also sure Catholics would be fuming at their portrayal in this film that paints them as unworthy hypocrites (not a problem for me though). Back to the camp, there's a scene where Benedetta licks a body part of a statue of Mary, for example. But yet the movie simultaneously takes itself very seriously, carrying the plot forward and events with an unexpected heaviness and seriousness. One example of the contradictions inherent in this film.

I found the movie interesting, yet disturbing and just weird. And in the second half, it does start to drag a bit. A solid 20 minutes could've been judiciously cut without taking away from the film.

Benedetta and her love aren't given justice though, behaving so oddly with each other (and spastic/wild, as we've seen before) that it takes you out of the film completely because it doesn't seem realistic AT ALL. It's crazy. But then you go back to "normal scenes." What are you trying to create, Verhoeven?

In sum, intriguing, but over the top in some ways, disturbing, and contains lots of boob fetish scenes and some bizarre sex scenes that feel out of place. It's hard to say more about this film. It's weird and full of contradictions...

I first saw this maybe 2003? It was one of the first lesbian dramas I ever saw. Yes, it's not technically a film (but a 3 hour/3 part miniseries), but could've easily been edited to go to theaters. I read the book, and yes, this is a bit of a departure, however in mostly good ways. It's worth watching.

Plot: late 1800s, small village woman Nancy meets a woman named Kitty who sings as a boy in her local venue and is instantly intrigued. Nan starts to fall for her while working with her as a performer and enters into a secret relationship with her. Later she ends up selling herself as a boy on the street, becomes a rich kinky lesbian's tart, and later gets to know a kind woman named Flo while cleaning her house and tries to woo her. There are many challenges along the way, which leads to her growth and becoming more comfortable in her own skin and seeking love. I can't share more details without the spoiler alert, so we'll leave it at that.

What I love: It's an adult coming of age that avoids the usual cliches in lesbian films like really unhappy endings, excessive focus on men in lesbians' worlds, etc. It's witty, fun to watch, and has heart. It has some unhappy subject matter, but is overall a more lighthearted way to view lesbians' lives than MANY lesbian movies out there. Also BBC didn't shy away from sex scenes (in the early 2000s, there are at least 3 sex scenes and a lot of raunchy references and events). Good acting, good script, good score-love some of the orchestral music. Departs from book in such a way as to bypass the most boring part of Waters' book (near the end, the whole political rally, which felt like a complete shift in tone/content for the book that made no sense). Great chemistry between the actors, as well-good buildup of sexual tension.

Tipping the Velvet is sometimes a hint theater campy, but not excessively so and it is fitting for the singing/performance/drama theme. Also, Nan in the book is pretty masculine, but BBC really made sure that they stick to all femmes in this film-Nan is very feminine looking. Rachael Stirling as Nan is polarizing to some folks who think her deep voice and hint of cockney accent are annoying. At times she seems to overact just a shade, but does well most of the time. I don't have as much issue with her as some folks seem to.

Overall, it's a bit of a raunchy but fun and well-written romp through a lesbian's young adult life in the 1800s, and yes, it's going to feel a touch unrealistic for how open some women are in their sexuality at times, but it's so sorely needed after a (continued) barrage of depressing, dark lesbian films that end badly (cheating, death, suicide, leaving for a man, breaking up, etc.). So refreshing to have a change of pace!

I watch this miniseries once a year or so because it is one of my top favorite lesbian-related movies in the dramedy genre. Definitely a feel-good movie/miniseries.