+

Dylanist, Bibliophile, Cinephile, Audiophile.
I watch Richard Kern film so that I can give the appearance of being an artsy transgressive avant-punk when I really just want to watch some naughty pictures.
The previous statement is only partially true.
robbresson
33
via
I think that people really need to calm down with this The Sunday Times thing. Martin is Martin, plus he is right. There is a lot of people who are not really driving LGBT-rights but accusing other people for shipping something else than Johnlock and claiming that they are homophobic. And that is a serious problem in this fandom.
asked by Anonymous

incurablylazydevil:

I think I’m not the best person to send this ask to, because, yeah, I believe that most of the hostility towards johnlock is rooted in homophobia. If you’re you’re trying to mock, ridicule and silence MY belief in tjlc while simultaneously shipping Sherlock with some random woman who has like max 5 min screen time each episode and you’re trying to tell me that I should keep my gay ships within fandom but god forbid I believe that they might actually be canon, then yes, I do believe you’re being absolutely homophobic.  

23
via
Don't people actually see how idiotic it sounds when they say queer ships belong to fandoms and should be kept away? What. The. Fuck. Is. That?! It's perfectly okay to talk about how cute Sherlock would be with a woman and how in love they so are but as soon as it's a queer ship it's a joke and something 'quite amusing'. I am mad. Fuck this world.
asked by Anonymous

incurablylazydevil:

yeah, it’s either ‘amusing’ or ‘disrespectful’ to the people who intentionally write and play it this way, while someone coming to my blog and telling me how I’m being delusional because I think that there can be a show on tv which would portray a slow burn love story between two men is not ‘disrespectful’ at all… like fuck you.

28
via
And it IS politic because the show made it possible to have a queer reading to the point that big, big chunks of the fandom believe it almost to certainty. So when people oppose it (I don't see it, I don't like it) or if the show doesn't deliver, the question is WHY? If the characters and their story is such a big part of the show, if their relationship so crucial, if their chemistry so fantastic, if the romance clues are all there, WHY NOT give that step? The answer reeks of homophobia.
asked by Anonymous

incurablylazydevil:

precisely, anon.

126442
©
via

tylerslittleshit:

tylerslittleshit:

english is not my first language and all my life i thought brussel sprouts was the name of some celebrity

everyone is always like “i hate brussel sprouts” and all this time i was here thinking what the fuck did that poor guy do

699
©
via

I deduce, Watson, you hate being an everyman | The Sunday Times

ceywoozle:

welovethebeekeeper:

channybatch:

welovethebeekeeper:

incurablylazydevil:

Martin Freeman won an Emmy last week for his role in Sherlock but summons up the fire of his new stage role as Richard III to warn against seeing him solely as a sardonic Englishman

by Josh Glancy 

Freeman as Watson with Benedict Cumberbatch’s SherlockFreeman as Watson with Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock (BBC)

If they were having a race to the top, Martin Freeman would be the tortoise and Benedict Cumberbatch would be the hare. Cumberbatch, tall and unconventionally handsome, brimming with public school charm and swagger. Freeman looking like a bloke you’d meet down the pub. Cumberbatch hared to global stardom, but Freeman is running his own race; slower, less ostentatious but ever so successful.

Since their Sherlock bromance first captivated the nation in 2010, this unlikely duo have conquered Hollywood and the world. Their careers have become strangely symbiotic: Sherlock Holmes and Dr John Watson, Bilbo Baggins and Smaug the dragon, little and large. So it was no surprise when the pair won awards at last week’s Emmys. Cumberbatch as Sherlock pipped Freeman in Fargo for outstanding lead actor in a mini-series or a movie, but Freeman picked up outstanding supporting actor in a mini-series or a movie for his role as Watson.

Freeman was reading in bed when he received the news in a text from his agent. Did it feel like a bit of a consolation prize? “Yeah, I really hated it,” he says. “No, really, we’re all very pleased for each other. We all win because it’s all good for Sherlock. For a British show to be doing that well is a thrill. I emailed Ben in the morning to congratulate him and he rang me later on.”

Such is the on-screen chemistry between Cumberbatch and Freeman, there has been widespread suggestion that the Sherlock-Watson relationship is about more than just solving crimes and banter in Baker Street. Much of China is convinced the pair are lovers.

“It’s not just in China — plenty of places, plenty of households,” he says. “I don’t really quite know why that has caught on. It’s now taken on a political dimension to it. What started as a bit of fun — a slightly irreverent, sly, mocking thing — has now turned into, for some people, if you don’t think they’re gay, then you’re denying they’re gay and you are somehow homophobic. I mean genuinely — it’s that strong. It’s very odd, the fact that it has become a po-faced, political thing.”

Where does this relationship, at once fractious and deeply affectionate, come from? “Chemistry just happens or it doesn’t; you can’t work at it, you can’t manufacture it. Obviously it helps if people have got their chops about them and can actually do the work. But there are plenty of good actors who you could put together who don’t have that chemistry. We were lucky. It just worked.”

Freeman wasn’t in Los Angeles to collect his award because he is playing Richard III at the Trafalgar Studios in London’s West End. Cumberbatch wasn’t there either, leading Sherlock’s co-creator, Steven Moffat, to joke that he was “too big to come the Emmys”.

The suspicion with Freeman was that he doesn’t much fancy the gilded backslappery of Hollywood. “Look, if I wasn’t doing a play, I would definitely have been at the Emmys — I don’t mind all that. It’s nice for a little holiday, but it’s not my life. I think most of the people who were there, it’s not their life either. Everyone basically goes home to their family and puts the kettle on.”

Freeman has come a long way from playing the sales representative Tim Canterbury in The Office, but the critics have been quick to draw a thread through his work. Tim, John Watson, Bilbo Baggins, and Lester Nygaard in Fargo. The everyman, the ordinary guy everyone can identify with, the middle-of-the-road Englishman; sardonic, wry and slightly low on self-confidence.

Freeman isn’t convinced. In fact, he’s a bit fed up with it. He is generally polite and good-natured, but the merest mention of the word everyman rouses his ire. “People ask, ‘Is there any difference between Tim and John Watson?’ Well, I’m afraid if you can’t see that, you’re a f****** moron. People have no business writing about the art of television if they can’t see it.

“I’m not denying you can’t find a thread between the parts I’ve played, which you could probably do with every single other actor working. Whether it’s me or Daniel Day-Lewis — he’s not often going to play a bit-part waiter. I think a lot of it is Pavlovian; people see what they want to see.

“I have played some things that have a thread in them but that’s never been my plan. To be honest, I’ve played lots of other things, and they’ve not been that famous, they’ve not been huge hits.”

Freeman, here playing Bilbo Baggins, says it is wrong to suggest he plays only one kind of characterFreeman, here playing Bilbo Baggins, says it is wrong to suggest he plays only one kind of character (Warner Bros)

Freeman’s gig as Richard III is one of these less-famous roles. He’s garnered mixed reviews, with some critics suggesting his performance is “underpowered” and “lacks all spark and charisma”.

Is he less well suited to playing a king? “What I’m able to play in Richard III is something that I’ve had about me for as long as I’ve been acting. It’s a surprise to other people but that’s always been in there. It was all that stuff that made me want to act, it wasn’t thinking, ‘Oh, I want to be a lovelorn everyman.’”

He doesn’t have Cumberbatch’s swagger, but Freeman has plenty of confidence in himself and his acting ability. The remarkable journey of the tortoise and the hare will continue next year, when the pair are reunited for series four of Sherlock. The character of Watson has married Mary Morstan, who turned out to be a gun-toting secret agent with a murky past.

Will Sherlock leave them alone to be happily married? “Presumably not. It’s the tensions within those characters that make the show. Now that Mary is very much part of the setup, that can’t be a happy, or rather a straightforward, thing. Without the tension between John and Sherlock there is no show. So no, it won’t be un-rocky.”

Yes, it is political. I do take offence that MF makes it appear as if the homosexual issue is a new thing, based on his chemistry with BC. This issue has surrounded Holmes and Watson since their genesis in print. MF is part of a historical debate/movement and he should address that when this subject is raised. Of course that is if he knows about it, and if he doesn’t, he should.

Things I’ve learned from ‘His Last Vow’:
Never take a written word for true. Not ever.
(thank you Moffat!)

But Martin is right, there is chemistry between them, and not every Watson and Holmes have that chemistry to make it more. And even though Martin himself once said that this is the gayest story in history, he also got a load of shit on his shoulders for saying that, So maybe he’s choosing his words a bit. Please, keep al this in mind when you read ‘interviews’ like this. 
We see what they show us on the series, it speaks for itself.
*Johnlock, it whispered* 

My issue is not about chemistry, which of course is there between MF and BC, it’s MF’s statement about making the Johnlock issue political. He also has mentioned this in previous interviews. Johnlock aside, I am tired of people reducing the Holmes and Watson subtextual romance, and his comments are insensitive to those who have been fighting this fight for much longer than BBC Sherlock has been around. I agree, not every Holmes and Watson portrayed on screen have had chemistry, but that has not derailed the homoerotic readings or viewings overall. My point is not about BBC Sherlock endgame, as nothing in his interview derailed TJLC ending, nor I am insensitive to the weight his words carry in that regard. My point is that bringing up the people who view the show with a view to the political issues of queer representation was not a wise or sensitive choice.

agreed. christ. if it’s happening, then i understand they can’t talk about it. but for christ sake, they all just need to learn to shut the fuck up and stop going out of their way to see which one of them can be the biggest fucking asshole among them. i know they must get tired of answering the same bloody questions, but surely there’s some way to answer it without offending and enraging half their audience.

lol fuck martin freeman tbh. fuck you, you miserable homophobic racist cunt. sorry if my passion to see my queer representation bother ur edgy anti-political correctness view.

#martin freeman
647
via

shylocks:

did you know Sherlock Holmes and John Watson are in love and no one cares what you think

95
©
via

thetwogaydetectives:

"I’m not homophobic but"

How every homophobe starts a homophobic sentence

22817
©
via

timsaturday:

youarenotdesi:

M.I.A. shitting on ignorant opinions

This isn’t a Nazi Swastika what so ever, as a JEW I can recognize this unlike some people.

Gonna quote straight from wikipedia here.

It is a symbol among the ancient Celts, Indians, and Greeks,[2]as well as in later Buddhism,[4]Jainism,[5]Hinduism,[6][4]and Nazism,[3][4]among other cultures and religions.[4][2]

The word swastika derives from the Sanskrit root ssu(“Good”),asti(“to be”),[4][6]andka(making)[6]The older term gammadion cross derives from its appearance, which is identical to four Greek gamma letters affixed to each other.

What I find interesting is that this is actually a very very good representation of what can happen when white people culturally appropriate something.

The Swastika, long before the Nazis came about and started brandishing their own bastardization of it, had a strong religious and cultural significance to a LOT of people.

It didn’t represent anything evil, it didn’t represent a dictatorship that perpetuated one of the most well known genocides taught today.

It only started having this horrible association in the 1920’s when the Nazi party appropriated it as for their logo.

White people, white supremacists, taking something with an already well established past and meaning; and placing their own over it.

Because of these people, swastikas that do not have anything to do with the Nazi party are demonized in most people’s eyes because they don’t know any better, because white people wiped out it’s original meaning in white culture.

People seriously need to learn some history.
THIS is the sort of damage that cultural appropriation can do in the long run.

16088
©
via

thexth:

trashholmes:

john messing with sherlock when he’s in his mind palace like

image

john would definitely put the most random things in sherlock’s hands. like a single egg. and sherlock would come out of it and either break it immediately and stare at his messy hand for 5 seconds or look at it like “…why this. when this.”

77998
©
via

HOW WAS SPY KIDS 3 A MOVIE

dilapidatedragamuffin:

Can we talk about Spy Kids 3 for a second because it’s just the MOST BAFFLING CINEMATIC EXPERIENCE EVER

First we open to LITTLE BABY SELENA GOMEZ

image

THE PRESIDENT IS GEORGE CLOONEY?

image

Later we see Juni’s grandpa who is KHAN??

image

who spends the whole movie chasing a butterfly

image

THE VILLAIN IS SYLVESTER STALLONE

image

WHO GETS VILLAIN ADVICE FROM THREE OTHER SYLVESTER STALLONES

image

ELIJAH WOOD SHOWS UP

image

ONLY TO DIE IN THE NEXT SCENE

image

Then we find out that the president was actually the villain the whole time which makes ZERO SENSE but leads to this glorious George Clooney Sylvester Stallone impression

image

image

image

image

Then we get Antonio Benderez doing this?

image

image

AND THEIR UNCLE WHO IS STILL MACHETE image

AND THEN STEVE BUSCEMI SHOWS UP ON A FLYING PIG FOR NO REASON

image

HOW WAS THIS A MOVIE???n

5340
©
via

sinyhale:

watch in the flesh they said

it’s an amazing show they said

no queer baiting they said

fascinating female characters they said

cutest otp they said

i caved in (pun intended)

they were right

#in the flesh
26945
©
via
320
via

mizoguchi:

The past week I kept thinking how much the unnamed gurumike cats remind me of Ingmar Bergman’s Purrsona Fursona Persona and yeah…jesus christ I didn’t realize how accurate that realization was.

11108
©
via
70
via
Girl
Jamie xx

majestictunes:

girl || jamie xx

theme