Good Rapp

OK, fine. FINE! I get it, I finally get it. I – in a mostly age-appropriate way – get the whole Renee Rapp thing now. Yes, again, she is a young youth. But I see why the Gen. Z gay girlies go wild now. Because, like that whole bikini as top/little cropped jacket thing, made me almost swallow my own tongue. In a respectful(ish) way! Right, anyway, I feel like her SNL musical debut was a real cross-generational moment of understanding among queer women. I mean, who could resist this “little lesbian intern” energy? Also, we see (and love) you O.G. Regina George/Rachel McAdams. How about a “Disobedience 2”? Just a thought.

And, of course, Megan Thee Stallion’s cameo certainly helped. Also, oh to be a lesbian fly on the wall when Megan, Renee and Cara Delevingne got to whatever super Sapphic after party they were cleared all headed to together here – respectfully.

Review: "Disobedience"

After watching (seemingly) endless clips and enduring (seemingly) endless debates about what exactly sensual spitting entrails, I have now seen “Disobedience.” If you are looking for a fun or even remotely playful film (à la “Imagine Me & You” or “Saving Face”) this is not that lesbian movie. Nor is this the kind of lesbian movie that’s a gorgeous period piece with a sumptuous score, angels flung out of space, or Cate Blanchett (but alas, all movies without Cate Blanchett suffer from not having Cate Blanchett).

But if you are looking for something that explores, in depth, a strict, insular religion, which binds those in it together in unspoken and unquestioned ways, “Disobedience” is the movie for you. The film’s central triumvirate is Rachel Weisz’s free-spirited Ronit (who has left her small Orthodox Jewish community), Rachel McAdams’ Esti (who stayed behind) and Alessandro Nivola’s Dovid (who became the protégée of Ronit’s rabbi father and married Esti after she left). The trio were childhood friends, the history between them in palpable.

Now you could look at what transpires in “Disobedience,” when Ronit returns unexpectedly after her father’s death to the community she escaped to face the people she left behind, in one of two ways. One, it’s a fascinating look into a closed community that rarely invites outsiders in and whose deep faith dictates their every move. Or two, a claustrophobic look at what closed communities that rarely invite outsiders in and whose deep faith dictates their every move.

As a person who grew up in a non-religious household, I found the focus on this devout community and its rigid rules for nearly everything (touching someone of the opposite gender, women’s hair, fedora worship) to be stifling. But I can completely understand if you came from a similarly devout background that you would connect inherently to the film’s themes. The pressure and influence it can exert over, again, everything in a person’s life is very real. The search for something higher or more meaningful in life, whatever that may be, is nearly universal.

The acting is, unsurprisingly, superb. I’ll never understand why Rachel Weisz isn’t a bigger movie star. And Rachel McAdams, well she disappears (and I mean that in a good way) completely into Esti and her wig. You can feel Esti’s longing for Ronit down to the bone.

And now, onto that sex scene. I’ll admit, I did not enjoy the spitting – as relatively minor as it was. I understand, everyone has their kink and mean no kink shame. But it felt misplaced without some context. Are we supposed to believe this is something they did together when they were younger, perhaps even before their sexual relationship began? Probably, a lot is left unsaid and we are meant to fill in the gaps.

It should be noted that according to people who have read the book there is no spitting scene, which makes it read less like a childhood remembrance and more like something the director thought would be sexy. If it works for you, that’s cool.

The complex push-pull of obligation, desire and basic human decency are undeniably well done in “Disobedience.” But I couldn’t help feeling like I was watching in a room without enough air, but with plenty of windows just waiting to be opened. It’s a reminder of the things we will accept instead of true freedom and happiness.

Reading Into The Rachels

I have not seen “Disobedience” yet. But the studio’s marketing department has sent me like 30 emails about clips from the films. (Full disclosure: They also sent me a T-shirt.) So, um, I feel a little like I’ve seen it already. Like, I’m serious. Here are all of the clips.






And while I’m still quite excited to see this film (wariness about all the spitting business aside) one thing that has decidedly made me less excited is the big New York Times feature on Rachel Weisz from over the weekend. It’s everything we hate about straight, clueless writers trying to report on “hot lesbian sex.” No, really, there’s a line in the story that read:

“Baby news aside, the real reason I am below 14th Street is to discuss hot lesbian sex.”

Granted, I expect nothing less of Maureen Dowd whose many less than delightful columns during the 2016 election cycle included the all-time atrocious gem “Donald the Dove, Hillary the Hawk” piece. I also worry that the film’s big lesbian sex scene has been entirely orchestrated by its straight male director without, it seems, any kind of input from actual lesbians. We’ve had more than enough prestige lesbian films directed entirely by straight dudes, thank you.

Here’s the exchange about the big hot lesbian sex scene from Dowd’s article:

Did Ms. Weisz do any research for the love scene with lesbian friends?

“Nooooo,” she said. “You can’t ever ask people how they have sex. (Sebastian Lelio, the director) storyboarded it, so it was all his idea to have just faces and spittle and wetness and the other woman’s face. He wasn’t interested in nudity. He was interested in one woman’s face in pleasure in the frame and the other woman outside the frame so you have to imagine where her fingers and tongue are and what’s going on.”

Again, the spittle stuff is deeply off-putting to read about. Still, I want to give the film a truly fair try. I also never, ever want to hear Maureen Dowd write about lesbian sex ever, ever again.

Disobey This

Good news, the trailer for “Disobedience” was recently released. Better news, the infamous “spit” scene is nowhere to be seen. Look, I’m still incredibly excited to see “Disobedience” because any movie where Rachel Weisz and Rachel McAdams have a passionate relationship is incredibly exciting. But the whole sensual spitting scene put me a bit off (I want it to not be gross, but I just can’t see how).

Still the trailer gets me back on the very excited track. It conveys the claustrophobia of forbidden love – and lust. It’s filled with the quiet, devastating strain caused by living a life of restriction and denial. Plus, OK, it’s pretty hot when Rachel and Rachel kiss.



So, thoughts, did the trailer make you more/less excited for this film?

Spit Take

“Rachel Weisz and Rachel McAdams Have Incredible Sex in Disobedience”

Well, hello – now there’s a headline. It’s almost enough to set the Lesbian Bat Signal up to “Carol” levels of anticipation. I’ve written about their new film “Disobedience” before. The pair play childhood friends from an Orthodox Jewish community who rekindle their illicit relationship as adults. And now that it has premiered at Toronto the reviews have started to come in, and they’re good. And then there’s that headline, which certainly makes every gay gal I know want to click the link. If you don’t want spoilers for the plot, stop reading now. If you want to know what qualifies as “incredible sex,” read on:

Apparently the two women (Rachel Weisz as Ronit, a photographer who has left her conservative upbringing to live in New York, and Rachel McAdams as Esti, a schoolteacher who remains in the orthodox community and is married to a man), finally hook up in a hotel where the “mind-blowing meeting of the Rachels can finally be released.” And I quote:

The two drink each other in again, but this time with unhindered relish, McAdams’s Esti groaning as Weisz’s Ronit undoes the crotch of her bodysuit with her teeth, Esti searching every contour of Ronit’s mouth with her tongue, then the ecstasy as they each reach inside the other’s underpants. They are simultaneously ravenous and exquisitely thorough. Though the moment almost everyone will be talking about will be when Weisz straddles McAdams and gently spits into her mouth, as McAdams eagerly receives it and asks for more, and more again.

Yeah, I know. It was all going so well until the whole “spits into her mouth” thing. Seriously, spits into her mouth? What? No. More and more again? No, again no. Is this some hot new lesbian trend I just don’t understand? Because imma NOPE out of that right quick.

I hope, sincerely, that it’s something less gross than actual just spitting into each other’s mouth. That this is some kind of failure to properly describe an erotic act on the author’s part. The writer also calls the scene as “sexy and gorgeous,” which I have never associated with the word “spit” in my entire life. So, yeah. The scene is then also described as “a tad male-gaze-y” which, come on guys. Can’t lesbians have one thing? And can that one thing please not involve spitting?

But, then it redeems itself somewhat by saying:

“Most of all, though, it’s moving, and very different from the coming-of-age lesbian scenes of ‘Blue Is the Warmest Color’ and ‘The Handmaiden.’ Here are two grown women who’ve done this before and are well past the discovery phase. Their only desire is to give pleasure to and receive it from one another, and they’ve been stymied for so long by circumstances…”

Yeah, that’s more like it. That I like. That gets me cranking up the old Lesbian Bat Signal again. Just, you know, keep the spit to yourselves, please.

The Carol Effect

They say three makes a trend. And here we have three lesbian romances coming to our big screens. I call it the Carol Effect, this new slew of movies about ladies who love ladies is – of course – very welcome. The films are in various stages of production from the just announced to the already finished. I have no idea which will be good or even great or remotely worth passing the torch from “Carol.” But I am happy to handicap the field here, based on gloved lunch possibilities.

“Tell It to the Bees”

Just announced this week, the period drama is based on the book by the same name by Fiona Shaw. Set in 1950s small-town Britain it stars Anna Paquin as a young doctor who returns home to take over her late father’s practice who starts a relationship with a young mother, played by Holliday Grainger. A 50s lesbian romance? We are talking major glove lunch opportunities.

“Disobedience”

Completed and set to premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival in September, this film is based on a novel by the same name by Naomi Alderman and is set in present-day London. It stars Rachel Weisz as a rabbi’s daughter who returns home after her father’s death (hold up, I sense a theme) and then rekindles a relationship with her friend, played by Rachel McAdams. From set photos, they may be wearing gloves, but somehow I don’t think they’ll be ordering poached eggs over creamed spinach for lunch anytime soon.

“Vita & Virginia”

Apparently still in pre-production, this film is based on the lives and love of literary greats Virginia Woolf and author Vita Sackville-West. The writers first met each other in 1922 and they had a decade-long affair. Eva Green ETA: Elizabeth Debicki will play Woolf and Gemma Arterton will play Sackville-West. A love story set in the roaring 20s? Gloves lunches and flapper skirts galore!

So, which lesbian (or bisexual – I don’t know how everyone personally identifies) romance are you most excited about? And, yes, I realize these are all very white couplings. Bring a little color into your romances, Hollywood. Alas, baby steps. Still, be sure to remember to lay a fresh glove on your “Carol” alter at home in thanks of this cinematic bounty.

Aloha, White People

I am going to pick on a movie trailer because I feel like it. I am going to pick on a movie trailer because it has something in common with so many other movie trailers. I am going to pick on a movie trailer because, like so many other movie trailers and the movies they represent, it deserves to be picked on.

Hey, “Aloha” trailer,” what’s up with all the white people? Now, I am not stupid. I am well aware of the ratio of white lead actors to nonwhite lead actors in major motion pictures today. I am not somehow deluded into thinking this sort of complete white-out is new or in any way unexpected. And, who knows, this movie might even be good. But, Jesus. That’s a lot of white people. And that’s a fuckton of white people for a movie set in Hawaii. It’s actually a lot of white people for a movie set anywhere. But, especiall for one in Hawaii. I mean, come on.

The population of Hawaii is more than 75 percent not solely white. Some 48 percent of its people are Asian or Pacific Islander. Only 24.7 percent of the state is in fact white. Yet in “Aloha,” 100 percent of the named cast is white. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.

Let’s break it down by order of appearance.

Alec Baldwin: White guy.


Bradley Cooper: White guy.


Danny McBride: White guy.


Bill Murray: White guy.


Emma Stone: White gal.


Rachel McAdams: White gal.


John Krasinski: White guy.


But, hey, the good news is there’s a joke about the way a black guy wears a clock. Black culture is funny, yes? So, for those keeping score, of the seven principal lead roles that’s 7 white folk, zero people of color. But wait, look, is that a possibly Polynesian girl teaching a white woman how to do an indigenous Island dance? Diversity! I should probably stop complaining.



Just kidding, I’ll never stop complaining. And while I’m at it, there’s also the issue of this having only two speaking parts for women out of seven. Also those two parts for women appear to be as the love interest for a man. So, you know, there’s also that.

I guess the most irksome thing is how this film is in fact not extraordinary in its whiteness. (And, while we’re on the subject, pretty much all of Cameron Crowe’s films are big white parties aside for maybe a very small handful of roles for people of color – most notably Cuba Gooding Jr.’s football star in “Jerry Maguire.”) The thing is, I like all of these actors. I really do. And I like Cameron Crowe – “Say Anything” is one of my favorite films of all time. And I like a lot of movies and TV shows that have predominantly white casts. But there comes a point where you can’t ignore the more problematic representational elements of an industry you enjoy so much. I love the movies, and always have, but it’s apparently clear that as a person of color mainstream films simply don’t love me – or showing people like me – back at all.

Trailer Watch: True & Dark

So late last week two new trailers for two new shows were released. One was for the second season of the anthological drama “True Detective” on HBO. The other was for the new graphic novel-based series “Dark Matter” on Syfy. They couldn’t be more different. One is sci-fi, one is crime drama. But each one of them interested me for only one reason and one reason alone. Can you guess the reasons for each? Yep, you guessed it. A lady being a badass.

Let’s start with “True Detective.” I didn’t watch the first season because I’d heard all about its celebration of white male misogyny and I just don’t have time to invest in that sort of bullshit, no matter how good the acting and beautiful the cinematography. I just do.not.care. So I wasn’t expecting much from the trailer and for 99.9 percent of it met my exact expectations. Grim-looking white guy. Grim-looking white guy. Grim-looking white guy. And then, all of a sudden, hellooooo, Rachel Mcadams.



Yes, sometimes all it takes is a badass-looking lady walking purposely with a gun in her hand to pique my interest.

So then let’s move to “Dark Matter.” This is based on a graphic novel and set on board a spacecraft where it passengers wake with no memory of their past lives. While the story sounds interesting enough, I really only care because Zoie Palmer. She plays the ship’s Android. So I watched the whole trailer playing “Where’s Zoie?” And then, BOOM. Fuck. Yeah.



Yes, sometimes all it takes is a badass-looking woman walking purposely with a lead pipe in her hand to pique my interest.

Is it shallow to reduce two trailers to their two most important screencaps? Maybe. But sometimes all you need is just that one frame. So, which seemed most promising to you? Admit it, all you cared about was Rachel and Zoie, too.

French twist

Right, so here we ugly Americans go remaking another foreign film. Subtitles are apparently unpatriotic. Reading is for sissies. Kidding, kidding! Well, not about the remaking a foreign film thing. The latest is “Passion,” a remake of last year’s French film “Love Crime.” Both films feature two strong female leads playing off one another – a female executive and her seemingly naïve protégé. Both involve strong Sapphic (ugh, I know – that word) overtones which are played up in the trailer. But there is one very obvious difference, minus the language barrier, that leaps out immediately.

Whereas the French original “Love Crime” featured Kristin Scott Thomas and Ludivine Sagnier, the American remake “Passion” stars Rachel McAdams and Noomi Rapace. Now, I love all these actresses. I think they are tremendously talented. But let’s play a little game of which one of these is not like the other. First, watch both the trailers.

French Version


American Version

Pick up on the difference? No? Maybe some numbers will help.

Rachel McAdams is 33.
Noomi Rapace is 32.
Ludivine Sagnier is 33.
Kristin Scott Thomas is 52.

Bing-bing-bing! We have a winner! The older woman, younger woman dynamic has been eliminated in the American version. Instead it has been replaced by two younger women of the same age. Which, um, huh? Now, I have not seen this movie. I haven’t even seen the French version of the movie. But I know a large component of the French movie was the age difference and the intrinsic power struggle and dynamic it created. But now in the American version, the women only have their stations, not ages, to spar with. And that is just, well, less interesting. Why make the women so close in age? Why not have an older and a younger women face off together? Because it’s hotter when two younger women kiss? Because older women don’t exist in American cinema outside of maternal roles or lovelorn rom-coms? Ugh. Don’t get me started.

Look, “Passion” may be an excellent movie. I probably will see it because I have a fetish for freaky masked sex scenes. Kidding, kidding! But I am nonetheless annoyed that we had to go take out the old(er) lady and put in two younger hotties instead in the remake. Oh, America.

Vacation Vixen

I've never been a huge fan of pink. I think, however, that Rachel McAdams may have finally swayed me. Happy hump day, indeed.

[Follow my continued loafing @dorothysnarker]

Under the pink

Rachel McAdams has always struck me as one of those All-American Girls. You know the type: blond and cute as a button. She can also dial up the bitch factor as we saw in her turn as head Heather in “Mean Girls” [Note: If you didn’t get the “Heathers” reference because you’re too young, please spare me this knowledge. Now I must go rub Bengay on my aching knees, and possibly my brain…] But who knew that Rachel could be so pretty in pink? As far as I can tell, the pink streaks showed up in mid-December when she attended the Seeds of Tolerance awards with boyfriend (and newly-minted Oscar nominee) Ryan Gosling. I checked to see if the punk-rock look was for a part, but apparently not. She is currently shooting the 40s period piece “Marriage,” and somehow that doesn’t scream Manic Panic. What do you think? Pink is the New Blog, so why not Pink is the New Rachel?