
I'm too tired to talk about Little Ashes just this second, cos I've got to go a see a monk about a job, but I shall blog about it in due (inter)course.
The show - Snog, Marry or Avoid - tries to create hate-figures out of the charmingly deluded and instead comes across as patronising and sententious. Some of the candidates are genuinely convinced that the artificial is beautiful, and that the natural is nothing. And as a confirmed aesthe I am forced to agree. Who are the BBC to tell them that they're wrong? Vicki James ("occupation: single mum") sounded like Baudelaire in a D-Cup when she presented her own Défence du maquillage, saying that "there is nothing that is naturally beautiful without make-up." That's almost an epigram.
I think their looks are interesting, and the programme simply suppresses the imitation of people like Jodie Marsh and Jordan in favour of the more socially-acceptable and middle-class models which the show offers them, like Anne Hathaway and Jennifer Aniston. Just as the drag-queen demonstrates the construction of feminity, the artifiality of these people, and the show itself, simply demonstrates how "the natural" is itself an artificial construction. It was meaningless of the dullard voxpops to say that they have bad dress sense. They have no dress sense, and that's much more interesting.


They're making an actual triangle with their bodies! Fucking triangulation. Story of my bleeding life. Despite there being a sex scene between Julian and Charles, there is only one kiss between Charles and Sebastian, which helps to strengthen the heteronormativity of the book. Thanks a bunch, Andy Davies!
Bloody good kiss though. Ryder is completely passive (as he is throughout the film) and Sebastian is surprisingly wilful. And I LOVE the little blushing smirks in the awkward silence afterwards. (Click for greater detail).
After "snogging", there is a lovely bathing scene (cf. Little Ashes, The Swimming-Pool Library, A Room With a View and My Summer of Love. Those gays sure love to swim.)
The film takes so many liberties, I don't know why they didn't just put a sex scene in between Charles and Sebastian. Instead of having Whishaw try to kiss Goode in the middle of a ballroom, they could have just had them kissing each other's ballrooms. I would have enjoyed it so.much. more.
The women's fashions were neglible, and the men were rather appropriately the focus of the gayze. Lots of crepe-de-chine, flannel, loose-knits, muted salmons, and pomade. Beautiful though the costumes were, and doubtless accurate, they were worn without the sort of louche insouciance and absolute confidence that they were immaculately dresed which characterise men of their rank and generation. Almost all period-dramas since Pride & Prejudice look like they have stepped out of the historical equivalent of Topshop.
I enjoyed it, but the film has many faults. Although the leads' faces fit together a lot better than Anthony Andrews and Jeremy Irons, I still couldn't quite believe it. Whishaw is undoubtedly sexy, but he comes across as far too wet, and Goode can never manage to express desire for either sibling. And much like Sebastian, the film feels an overwhelming weight of duty towards its predecessors, and eventually crumbles under the weight of its own beauty. It is chilling and thrillingly appropriate.
My eyes! My beautiful eyes! I am inconsolable. He looks like he's dressed up as Zac Efron for Hallowe'en.
Full marks for faghag bagging numbers one and two on the list of all time amazing women, but christ! But perhaps these are particularly bad pics: in real life he seems not quite so damaged, as this video evidences: