This one is for all of my Riceans, wherever you may be.
That may sound odd. Allow me to explain. In 1994 Warner Brothers released a fabulous, lush, beautiful film called Interview with the Vampire, based on Anne Rice’s book of the same name. By 2000 the company was set to lose the rights to the books unless principal photography began on another film. Enter the travesty and heartbreak that was 2002’s Queen of the Damned (Aaliyah’s beauty and presence as Akasha notwithstanding). Stuart Townsend was chosen to replace Tom Cruise as the Brat Prince himself, Lestat de Lioncourt. (Incidentally, QOTD was my first exposure to the Eighth Doctor.)
Funny note about Stuart Townsend: there is a character in Rice’s The Witching Hour with the same name. It’s not a particularly common name (and he’s not a particularly important character) so the coincidence was amusing. But I digress. This post is, well, About Adam.
For all the things listed above, I was curious about this movie. I watched it years ago, so I had almost no recollection of it or my reaction to it at the time. Behold, Netflix! This is a cute film, not particularly memorable as I’ve just stated, but fluffy and enjoyable enough. My reaction to Townsend this time around was far more favorable than my reaction to his performance as Lestat (that will never be favorable). Kate Hudson’s Lucy is cute if a bit flighty, Frances O’Connor delivers a charming performance as her sister Laura, and Charlotte Bradley plays the eldest sister Alice. Interestingly it seems Alice is the sister with whom Adam is the most honest (perhaps because she’s the one most able to accept his truths).
The feel of this movie is similar to many British rom-coms of the late ’90s/early ’00s; for some reason I’m particularly reminded of Sliding Doors at the moment. There’s no masterpiece at work here, though this could be one of those movies that some people watch repeatedly because it’s light entertainment that doesn’t require much thinking–and sometimes that’s just the kind of break from life that you need. I have several movies that fall into this category for me personally, and while this likely won’t become one of them, I could see how it might serve the same purpose for someone else.
This was a cute little show I found on Netflix about a department store in northern England toward the end of the 19th century. It’s based on a French novel. It only lasted 2 series (16 episodes total) and I watched it probably over the course of a week.
The central character is Denise Lovett, a young woman whose intent to work for her uncle leads her to the department store across the street, where she quickly becomes a star in ladies’ wear. Meanwhile there’s mystery surrounding the store’s owner, John Moray, and the death of his wife, while he’s also being pursued by an heiress, Katherine Glendenning (and leading her on knowing her feelings run deeper than his). There’s jealousy and backstabbing and romance and heartbreak–all you could want from a fluffy costume drama, really.
While the quality wasn’t always consistent, overall it was cute and entertaining. Of the three characters I mentioned above, I have to say that in the end, I think it was actually Katherine with whom I could sympathize the most. Throughout the series we see John Moray insult and undermine the women he supposedly loves (if it weren’t obvious, he and Denise do end up together), toy with Katherine, and for the most part she just takes it.
At the outset, Katherine is spoiled, used to getting what she wants, won’t accept defeat. My god, you might just call her confident. By the end, I found her quite sympathetic and the most well rounded of the three. While she seems to be painted as an antagonist for much of the series, taking into account the time in which it is set, the status and therefore the rights (and lack thereof) she has, at her core she is, despite appearances, kind hearted. There is one aspect about her story at the end of the show that bothered me, as it seems to sweep away some abuse she suffers, but looking at her critically, I do think she was the best developed.
Denise is likable but there seems to be a missing quality that I can’t quite put my finger on–while her ambition is certainly a focus of the show, I felt like it wasn’t always handled with as much depth as it could have been. The way the show addresses her excitement, ideas, and passion sometimes seems like a project left three-quarters finished. Additionally, the romance never really seems organic or believable–somehow the actors’ chemistry just wasn’t there–and aside from some feminist dialogue brought in by some conflict, I didn’t feel that it served either character’s story.
Overall, though, this was a light, enjoyable series to watch.
Before I dive into my favorite characters, I need to introduce you to Tatiana Maslany. She is an acting goddess. On Orphan Black, she has so far portrayed 9 of 13 known clones (and counting, I’m sure) onscreen (and posed for photos as 3 others). The five characters pictured above are the primary focus of the show, and the subtle changes she makes in her speech, facial expressions, and movements to convey these women and their differences are positively incredible. She has been snubbed for an Emmy nomination 2 years running, thus invalidating the award’s credibility. This show and her performance(s) cannot be praised enough. There’s plenty of discussion online already about how amazing and revolutionary this show is, but this article really hits the nail on the head with regard to portrayals of women in media:
The idea that ladies all think and act the same (many vaginas, one mind?) is an old one: past generations and years engrained societal thought have allowed and perpetuated this for years. By making the main protagonists of the show female clones, Orphan Black forces the viewer — even though they all have the same face; even though they’re all played by the same actress — to see them all as unique, individual humans in spite of that.
All of these women are multi-dimensional characters, despite seeming to fit in perfect little boxes (a Tumblr user actually did a Clone Club/Breakfast Club crossover cartoon which illustrates the point quite nicely). Sarah is the central character of the show, but the grifter (or the “punk rock ho” as one character dubs her look) we initially meet shows deeper layers of intelligence, cunning, loyalty, and a fierce sense of protection for those she loves.
Cosima is the most affable (and consequently a fan favorite), and as an evolutionary developmental biologist, she has the most understanding of the science behind their biology, but isn’t without her own emotional stresses–the cloning project begins to interfere with her physical and emotional well-being as she is welcomed into the inner sanctum of DYAD, the company responsible for her and her sisters’ existence. I haven’t really seen a lot of anti-Cosima sentiment, aside from some valid criticisms re: her wardrobe/hair and cultural appropriation, but as to her overall character, I haven’t really encountered any unwarranted fandom hate.
Alison may be an easier target for that sort of reaction (luckily I have the good fortune to interact with intelligent viewers so I haven’t seen any misogynist names thrown at her directly), given that she epitomizes an uptight soccer mom–Alison is one of those moms who does everything she sees on Pinterest and does it better than the original. But really what Alison is is terrified of what being a part of Project LEDA means, how it affects her biology and her family. Like Sarah, everything she does she does in an effort to protect those she loves, but her life experiences differ from those of her sisters to the point where she often expresses feeling useless compared to Cosima’s scientific knowledge and Sarah’s force of will, and powerless overall as to her very existence. She copes with guns, pills, and alcohol, and eventually forms a close relationship with Sarah’s brother (and honorary Clone Club member) Felix, depending heavily on him for emotional support and validation.
These three are the clones we get to know first, before being introduced to Helena, initially an antagonist. Helena’s mental and emotional stability are nonexistent due to the traumatic abuse of her upbringing, but she eventually recognizes a kinship with Sarah and manages to break free of those who have kept her caged and controlled. (Incidentally, Helena’s theme music is fabulous.)
Finally we meet Rachel–I’ll be honest, my least favorite of our primaries–a woman who has been brought up within DYAD, with full knowledge of what she is. Rachel is ruthless when it comes to dealing with her fellow clones, and emotionally she comes across as incredibly cold and unfeeling–there’s a brilliant scene where Cosima talks to Sarah on the phone as Sarah explores Rachel’s apartment, Cosima’s theories immediately shown to be wrong as Sarah discovers Rachel’s past. Rachel is emotionally wounded due to a variety of factors, and she doesn’t have the human connection that her fellow clones have with one another or a family of her own. Rachel’s entire life is DYAD. Rachel is an antagonist, but she’s still given enough depth and characterization to be HUMAN.
I also need to acknowledge the other principal female characters on the show, not portrayed by Tatiana Maslany: Siobhan Sadler, Sarah and Felix’s mother; Kira Manning, Sarah’s daughter, and Dr. Delphine Cormier, Cosima’s monitor and girlfriend. Siobhan’s strained relationship with Sarah is a point of contention early on, Sarah having left Kira in her care then disappearing for a year. Siobhan (“Mrs. S” as Sarah and Felix call her) has secrets, knowing more about Sarah’s past than she lets on, but her ultimate loyalties lie with the protection of her children (even though that doesn’t always seem to be the case).
Kira, meanwhile, is not only an astoundingly astute child, but there are indications that she has some type of super-human abilities due to being a derivative product of the Project LEDA, and she shows on occasion that she’s willing to go even further than her mother would ask to aid her newfound aunts. Still, she is a child, and even though some of her behaviors might cause viewers to raise an eyebrow, she exhibits innocence and, despite being sharp as a tack, isn’t shown to simply know what things are if she’s entirely unfamiliar with them. She has an uncanny ability to judge a person’s character and enough knowledge to play along with those who she views as a threat. I’m interested to see where they take her, especially considering how season 2 ended. (I won’t spoil you.)
Finally we come to Delphine, whom Cosima pegs as her monitor immediately and then actively pursues a close relationship to find out information. Delphine is more aware of the true purpose of her role than the other monitors (which also serves to bring Cosima into the DYAD fold), but ultimately as her feelings for Cosima grow, her loyalty shifts away from the project and toward Cosima. Still, because of her love for Cosima, she sometimes takes action that may be in Cosima’s personal interest but not in the best interest of her sisters–Cosima makes it clear to Delphine that to love her is to love all of them.
All of these women are complex, and are intentionally presented as such. We see moments of strength and weakness from all of them. And what’s so amazing about Maslany’s performance is how easy it is to forget that she’s only ONE person (credit also to Kathryn Alexandre, Maslany’s stand-in/double for every episode), often acting opposite a tennis ball, bringing such unique life to each of these characters. She is so amazing at her craft that, if a character’s life seems to be in peril, it’s easy to forget that even if that one character dies, she isn’t leaving the show.
So this post is as much a celebration of Tatiana Maslany as it is of ALL the clones (not just the primaries mentioned here).
I’ve tried using this app and another one previously, and they lasted…maybe about 3 weeks. So in an attempt to hold myself accountable (again), I’ve downloaded the app (again), and started logging my food yesterday. I didn’t eat the best yesterday (Monday), but it was at least an improvement:
Breakfast was a 16 ounce caramel latte. Unfortunately I don’t know the actual nutrition info because William in the lobby of my office building doesn’t have an entry in the app database. So I guessed with Starbucks. Anyway, that’s all I had until dinner (I know that’s not good).
For dinner we ended up at O’Charley’s, where I had the 6 ounce steak and shrimp scampi meal, with a side of broccoli and coleslaw. I also caved and had 2 dinner rolls because did I mention that I had previously only “eaten” latte?
So that’s exciting, right?! Today’s “breakfast” again is coffee, but it’s the controversial “Bulletproof™”/butter coffee. It’s not as gross as I thought it would be, but it’s also incredibly bland, and that’s with heavy cream and a teaspoon of vanilla added.
Okay. There was a time lapse, as I began this entry before work this morning. Now that I’ve had time to feel the effects of the coffee, I can tell you that I was not energized and was incredibly hungry all day. If I do this again, I’ll be sure to eat something, but I think the point of the coffee is that it replaces a meal. Well. It doesn’t.
At lunch, which I often do not eat, I couldn’t take it anymore and went to the Wendy’s nearby because between that, Taco Bell, and McD’s, if I’m counting carbs, they had the most meat with the fewest grams. So I got some spicy chicken nuggets and that was that. Right before I left work I had a handful of pistachios.
For dinner I’ve had a small plate of roast beef, and that’s it. I’m still hungry, but I don’t want anymore meat today. Whipped cream for dessert? What kind of dessert can I make with that? I do not have any fruit that would go well with it.
I apologize for the size of this image because I couldn’t find a LARGER ONE. Sorry, I can’t apologize for the size of this image. I can’t decrease the size of the picture when the two fabulous ladies in it have a presence so large.I. Love. This. Show.
I didn’t get to watch this as it aired last season, but Netflix added it not too long ago so I watched the entire season over the course of a weekend and now I’m watching the current season as it airs!
A friend described this show as Gossip Girl in the 16th century, and it is fabulous I never actually watched Gossip Girl, but I know the vibe she’s describing. I wasn’t really sure what direction this show was going to take–a period piece on the CW? Weird. But its look is surprisingly lush, the characters are REALLY good, and I love pretty much every principal female character on the show. Catherine isn’t just painted as a, well, bitch (if I must use that word to convey my meaning), which is what most shows would do with her. I was disappointed that there wasn’t more of Diane de Poitiers, but as that isn’t the real focus of the show, I can live with it.
Adelaide Kane does a superb job showing Mary’s innocence and her evolution into a ruler, both with her strength and missteps, and in her dealings with her future mother-in-law. The Four Marys are present but, for simplicity’s sake I assume, have all been renamed (Aylee, Greer, Kenna, and Lola).
Rounding out the primary cast of characters of course are Henry II; the dauphin Francis; and Sebastian (Bash), a fictional son of Diane and Henry, to vie for Mary’s affections; as well as Nostradamus, whose inclusion brings a somewhat supernatural element to the show. Amy Brenneman also guests as Marie de Guise, and she is equally fabulous in her brief role.
Historical accuracy isn’t something this show is terribly concerned with, and while there are some shows or films that I can’t stand for this sort of thing, Reign gets a pass. It knows its place in the canon of historical drama and it doesn’t apologize for it. The show is very female-centric with complex characters who have clear motivations. It’s positively refreshing. It’s The Tudors for network TV, but with more estrogen and less blatant objectification.
Another thing I love about this show is the wardrobe, particularly that of Mary, her ladies, and others of their age. The dresses are inspired by 16th century clothing but are in no way historically accurate–I feel like I’m looking at haute couture at the French court. They are GORGEOUS (as are the hair and makeup). The costuming manages to help add some levity to the show without being completely laughable, perhaps because the clothes are just so well done.
If you aren’t watching this show, then you definitely should start.
One of my primary areas of concern/interest when it comes to media has to do with the portrayal of women in television and film. Literature as well, but written works aren’t always so immediate in public consciousness, not to mention fandom (series aside; for this I mean stand-alone works). These Awesome Lady Characters posts will focus on some of my favorite characters from TV and film, many of whom have been criticized as being (often a combination of) stupid, whiny, emotional, and everyone’s personal favorite, a bitch.
The Strong Female Character™ is a phrase, an idea, that gets thrown around a lot in discussion of women in media. On the surface, it looks good: these characters are often seen in traditionally male roles, but they end up eschewing roles or activities that would be seen as traditionally feminine. All too often the Strong Female Character™ is a conventionally attractive woman in sexualized attire with a phallic weapon, all designed to appeal to the male gaze.
While the subversion of traditional gender roles in media is important, it is equally important not to demean activities, appearances, or behaviors traditionally seen as feminine. Not to mention for the most part, this subversion is women taking on traditional male roles; men very rarely take on traditional female roles in media without being met with ridicule or some reminder that the male character is taking on a role usually filled by a woman (Mr. Mom and similar titles, for example, and these are generally used to comedic effect). Zoe Washburne may be easily juxtaposed against Inara Serra, but she is never viewed as less of a woman simply for wielding a weapon (meanwhile Inara is derided as a “space hooker” by her would-be love interest, who is also the focal point of the show; i.e., the good guy).
Unfortunately the SFC tends to fall into the same trap of glorifying the traditionally masculine as superior to the traditionally feminine. This is a problem. Androgyny doesn’t only mean that girls play with “boy” toys or women taken on roles requiring physical strength. If boys aren’t also free to play with toys marketed toward girls, or men aren’t free to pursue nursing or childcare or design without a) having their gender status called into question and b) being referred to as women/girls as an insult, then the SFC as a concept has failed.
(Stepping outside of media for a second, comparing a man to a woman as a way to mock him is saying that femaleness in and of itself is laughable, and that women are not worthy of respect. It’s misogyny, plain and simple.)
So let’s put aside the Strong Female Character™, and instead focus on good, complex, well rounded women who are capable of strength in their own unique ways; and for simplicity’s sake, I will be referring to them as Awesome Lady Characters. There will be women who have often been referred to as SFCs in my list of favorites, but let’s shed the implications that to be strong is to be masculine, or that strength of character is indicated only by how many men you can take out in a fight. Besides, being Awesome opens up much more room for inclusion of women who have been rejected as SFCs because of their traditionally feminine qualities. That’s not feminism; that’s a Trojan horse.
I’ve been queuing up a lot of media posts the past few days, trying to get my reactions down before they completely fade from memory, so I thought it was time to change it up a bit and talk about something that matters…my trip to Rome!
As I’ve mentioned before, when I was in the initial planning stages of this trip, one of the first sites I came across was Travel Fashion Girl. This was a really great resource I found while trying to plan how to pack, and since Alex Jimenez, the titular Girl, travels the world full-time carry-on only, it was exactly what I was looking for.
As a child, my mother was a notorious over packer. Seven people on a weeklong trip and her bags took up half of the trunk. (She’ll tell you whenever anyone needed anything she had it, which is true, but a tube of Neosporin isn’t THAT big.) When I went to Europe right after high school, I managed to travel carry-on only, but looking back I still think I took way too many clothes with me. So I was looking for a way to scale back my clothes as well as figuring out the best way to pack them (rolling is key, which I figured, but I wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing anything else). Anyway, I highly recommend checking out TFG!
TFG is all about the capsule wardrobe. The site has lots of checklists available for download (free), and there are also a couple of e-books to help you along. It is geared primarily toward women, though there is this packing guide for men as well. There are different versions of what constitutes a capsule for different people and/or needs, from 6 (minimal) to 15 items (“maximista”), not including shoes or accessories. The big key here is having a single, cohesive color palette so you can mix and match depending on weather, culture, etc. I’m attempting to do a 9 piece list (10 including a jacket) and 7 pieces for Ben (8 with jacket), but I’ll save that for another post a few months down the road.
This post is about accessories! So I’ve chosen my color scheme (and with Polyvore’s help I have a pretty good idea of what pieces I want as far as color or shade go), and thinking about the environment, activities I’m planning to do, and places I’m wanting to go, so I’m looking at my shoes and accessories around that. For instance, I know any churches we go into I’ll need my shoulders covered, and while I plan to wear sleeved shirts on those days anyway, I know my itinerary might not always go exactly as planned. So I have both an infinity scarf (which is REALLY big, by the way) and a more traditional wrap for those occasions.
As for shoes, Rome is a walking city (and Florence is DEFINITELY a walking city), but I also don’t want to stick out like too much of a sore thumb, so I will be leaving the big white running shoes at home with my high waisted khaki shorts and fanny pack (I don’t actually own those things). I think the Keds are innocuous enough and will do nicely some days, and meanwhile the other two pairs I’m bringing, when I want to dress it up, are Crocs. I know, I know, a decade ago I hated them too. But they aren’t just ventilated garden clogs anymore, and they are stupidly comfortable. When I tried them on, the wedges felt like those moon shoes that no one I actually knew had in the ’90s.
The ring? Well, that’s my substitute engagement ring. I don’t really fancy the idea of losing my 120+ year old engagement ring on the other side of the Greenwich Meridian, so that will be staying with my mother while the cute three stone ring above serves its purpose. And the pearls, well, I like color and I like pearls, and those came as a set. And they’ll also serve in place of some jewelry with sentimental value. Then again, taking a piece of Treva (grandmother) to the Trevi would be pretty awesome. Then there’s the watch, which really I just wanted because I wanted it, but it will come in handy if for some reason our phones won’t show us the time (and it’s a lot more convenient than digging through a purse anyway).
I’m still searching for a crossbody bag that’s big enough for my DSLR with the lens on while not being a monster, but for the most part I feel very accomplished with the first leg of my packing journey!
I’m just now getting around to watching American Horror Story. I still haven’t watched the first season because quite frankly I heard about some events in the series that I didn’t want to subject myself to. So I can’t speak to the series which has been retroactively titled Murder House (that’s a terrible name, by the way).
I’ll cut right to the chase: obviously Jessica Lange and Sarah Paulson turned in wonderful performances. I don’t really have anything bad to say about the acting. I do feel the season had some pacing issues, and maybe it’s just because I binge watched and I ended one night on a particular episode which itself had some finality about it, but the last 3 or 4 episodes of the season seemed a bit out of place with the rest of the series. The major thing that bothered me though, as far as the story is concerned, was the alien element. It never really paid off for me and ultimately seemed incredibly out of place with the terrestrial science and the spiritual component (oddly enough I felt those two things worked well together). But the Kit/Alma/Grace storyline eventually lost its cohesiveness with the rest of the series for me.
There is a lot of violence against women in this series, which was much more difficult to watch than the gore (although they often went hand in hand). This is a problem throughout media in general anyway, but there were some especially egregious scenes here which weren’t wholly necessary to the story. There were also two rapes, and while one was explicitly referred to as such, the other fell into the standard, boring trap of ignoring the facts of what happened. Generally speaking I just wish these creative teams would come up with more original ideas than rape as a plot element.
For the most part I felt it was a strong series, but there was definitely room for improvement. I am interested to watch Coven (which I hope will be on Netflix soon), and I have been pleased to see the videos featuring the Freak Show cast telling their personal stories. I hope this bodes well for the series.
I found this little gem on Hulu. It’s only a few years old, but I had never seen this adaptation before. I was made aware of it by one of the many commercials the pay services makes its paying customers watch. Anyway, the first adaptation of Emma I ever saw, really, was Clueless. Then when I was in college, one of my roommates had the 1996 movie with Gwyneth Paltrow (I think I probably watched before I read), and I was really, really, really put off by Emma. I mean that’s the point. Austen specifically set out with that being the point. Cher Horowitz certainly wasn’t perfect, but somehow she’s more likable.
I did find Romola Garai’s version of the character more likable than what I remember of Paltrow’s portrayal–she’s more charming but still maintains Emma’s inherent snobbery. And to be fair, the book Emma is somewhat classist, so there’s only so much a film can do to soften that blow. I could make allowances for the Regency era, but…nah. A snob is a snob. Even Knightley has his moments but with him it’s more about actually knowing the world for what it is and which matches are actually likely to happen. He’s still nice to those beneath his social class. Anyway. Tangent. Read this article. I’ll go on.
This is a four part miniseries, and I was so enthralled by it that I stayed up until about 3 AM watching the whole thing (when you reach your thirties, 3 AM is at least 4 hours past your bedtime, and that’s if you’re childless). In addition to Jonny Lee Miller, Michael Gambon plays Mr. Woodhouse, and you may recognize Mr. Weston as Robert Bathurst, who broke Lady Edith Crawley’s heart ON THEIR WEDDING DAY (the bastard) as Sir Anthony Strallan. (Incidentally, I followed Emma up with Mansfield Park, featuring Hugh Bonneville.)
This was a charming 4 hours, and as far as Austen adaptations go, I think it fits nicely beside the 1995 Pride & Prejudice. I’d really like to see more from Romola Garai, so I guess I’ll have to search that out as well.
Oh, I watched a lot of movies in September. This is where I try to catch up on writing about them.
Okay, so let me tell you about this movie. This movie came out when I was about 14 years old and full throttle into my Christian Slater obsession. It was the ’90s and I was a teenage girl with a pulse and an obsession with Anne Rice, okay? I was eating up every movie I could find with IWTV actors, and Slater really stuck out. My god, I watched Kuffs. Have you seen Kuffs? All I remember is an underage Mila Jovovich playing his girlfriend, and that it was my first exposure to this glorious piece of music. The point is it wasn’t good. Heathers had also become a recent favorite (and still is, thank you very much). I digress.
So Bed of Roses is one of those movies that was a default addition to my expanding Christian Slater catalog. I bought the damn soundtrack (to be fair, I think I was selling magazines and CDs for a school fundraiser at the time and I may have bought it from myself). So watching this movie nearly 20 years later…well let’s just say that time did not fog my judgment. In fact, time probably improved it, because I’m no longer suffering from Slateranity (see what I did there?).
This movie was painful to revisit because it’s painful to watch. The thing about this movie is that everyone just seems so constipated. Oh, Gina Torres was in a couple of scenes. She didn’t seem constipated. But Lisa and Lewis particularly…my god, they’re just tragic people. Lisa doesn’t even know when her birthday is, and there are heavy implications that she was sexually abused by her foster/adoptive father, and so when she gets news of his death (these aren’t spoilers; the movie kicks off this way), she has one of those pained cries where she’s probably crying more from drudged up memories than for the lost life (can you blame her?). And then we have Lewis, who is basically a stalker. He sees Lisa crying while out on a walk and then follows her to work the next day. And then when she refuses him he sends her roses on the hour. THAT IS NEITHER HEALTHY NOR ROMANTIC BEHAVIOR. But of course it eventually leads her straight to him (why would you actively seek out your stalker without law enforcement by your side?) and they embark on a relationship.
I’m giving more a summary of this one than a review, but it’s so old it doesn’t even matter. The point is I’m rating it a C, and I feel like I’m being generous with that. At the same time, my personal reaction to the score and the soundtrack and emotional constipation of it all may be a bit more visceral than the film deserves. So rather than give it an outright F or even saddle it with a D, I’ll settle on C.
And now to 14 year old Stacy, I have to ask, what were you thinking? My god, you had bad taste.