It is a controversial topic and one that may make for uncomfortable viewing.
BBC drama Call The Midwife is to tell the story of a pair of disabled lovers forced apart and ridiculed after the woman becomes pregnant.
Disability charities yesterday welcomed the plotline, saying it highlights how far society has come since the judgmental 1950s in which the programme is set.
The episode, which is to be aired on Sunday night, will feature the characters of Sally Harper, who has Down’s syndrome, and Jacob Milligan, who has cerebral palsy.
The pair live in an institution, having been sent there by their parents – as was common at the time.
But after they fall in love and Sally becomes pregnant, the couple are separated and Sally faces ridicule from her mother and father.
The episode deals with the prejudice and stigma she would have experienced.
Call The Midwife is shown on BBC One before the nine o’clock watershed, and in the past storylines featuring abortion, incest and infidelity have shocked viewers. But yesterday campaigners welcomed the inclusion of disability and love as a theme.
The character of Sally is played by Sarah Gordy, and Jacob by Colin Young. Both actors have the disability that they portray on screen.
Both actors have the disability that they portray on screen.
Both actors have the disability that they portray on screen.
Dear Miss Mills,
I trust this arrow missive finds you well, if it finds you at all. I’m still trying to fathom the notion that my words are somehow recorded onto your smartphone. After consideration, I agree it is wholly unjust that you are prohibited from attending the Masons assembly. I will rectify this the moment I arrive. Please join us as we strategize our plan of attack against the Horseman’s imminent arrival.
I am, most respectfully,
I love that the show recognizes we can have an old timey white dude living in the 21st century and NOT have him act like a douche bag because “OH HEY BACK THEN EVERYONE WAS LIKE THIS YO!”
All of my future voicemails on your phone will sound like Ichabod’s because it’s hilarious. Also I just watched this episode and made a really undignified face. The bit where they tore down his totally misinformed opinion of Jefferson was brilliant. Thank you for convincing me to give this ridiculous show a try. In gratitude, I remain
P.S. I agree. It’s refreshing to see a show where “time traveling white guy” isn’t immediately license to let fly a bunch of racist, sexist bullshit.
List of reasons for admittance to an insane asylum.
A lot of these are code for “inconvenient femaleness” (and/or anything other than quiet stifled heterosexuality, for that matter).
this is why it’s so important to recognize the scientific establishment as operating within a Foucauldian discourse—science is never neutral or non-biased, it can easily be appropriated to serve a variety of ideologies.
kayla-bird asked: What do you think the way Hamlet should be done is?
"Hamlet" should be performed with the character of Hamlet cast as the villain. To me, literally no other interpretation makes sense; the things he does, the way he behaves, are absolutely the deeds and behavior of a bad guy. Murdering an old man and then trying (and failing) to hide the body, driving an innocent girl insane for the hell of it, scheming a plot to catch his uncle making a guilty face during a play, acting wounded and hurt and yet never making any public declaration of his intentions - everything he does is either petty or outright evil. And yet every single production I’ve seen (and I’ve seen a lot - my dad’s a huge Shakespeare fan and "Hamlet" is his favorite play) makes Hamlet into a tragic, flawed, but protagonist figure.
And the same problem goes for Claudius, albeit in reverse. How are any of his actions explicable as a villain? After literally years, he suddenly decides to poison his brother - while the heir to the throne is in England, a country so loyal to Denmark that they unquestioningly execute two innocent people simply on the ruler’s say-so and who would most certainly, if Hamlet had contested his uncle’s legitimacy from the first, have helped the young prince raise an army. How does that make sense, coming from a man who’s allegedly so cunning and evil? He and Gertrude then get married a month later because apparently… what, Claudius has a big dick? No - the logical explanation here is that Old Hamlet was a terrible ruler, husband, and person in general, and something happened that made Claudius realize the only hope was to remove his brother and take the regency for himself until Hamlet came of age to be King. Only the people proclaimed him king, putting him in an awkward position when Hamlet returned and made no move to claim the title for himself.
And besides, the play would be so much more interesting if Hamlet were the villain - think about it! It makes all of his actions understandable, at least within a narrative frame. All those whining, unending, unendurable fucking monologues where he cries about his awful dad being dead and him not being king - they become another part of Hamlet’s act, a scheme to get anyone who may be overhearing to think that he’s a harmless lunatic when in fact he’s cooking up a scheme to get rid of his uncle. His abuse of Ophelia becomes now not a sign of how sadface the poor little prince is, but another indication of Hamlet’s own twisted ideas of loyalty and fidelity, an example of the sadistic way he treats his friends.
And other characters’ actions make more sense like this, too. Rosencrantz & Guildenstern’s decision to accept Claudius’s instructions now becomes something that is not bafflingly venal - what kind of childhood friends suddenly decide to take an innocent man to be executed just for some money? - but the act of two people who see what Hamlet has become and are prepared to go to great lengths to stop him. And Horatio becomes not the one true friend that poor little Hamlet has, but a starstruck toady blinded by the regard he’s given by the prince of the realm to see what Hamlet’s really like. Gertrude and Claudius become the guardian of a monster - how interesting would it be if Gertrude knew about the poison, and has a last-minute change of heart? The ghost of Old Hamlet could be staged as nothing more than a trick Hamlet plays on the guards and Horatio, a way to convince them to be on his side. And that last speech of Horatio’s to Fortinbras (and oh my god how awesome would Fortinbras’s plotline be if he knew about Hamlet’s villainy) would be such bitter irony, perfecly encapsulating the way that history can be written, not necessarily by the victors, but by the survivors who have the best story to tell.
1. one who is consumed by hatred.
2. pertaining to experiencing hatred.
Etymology: from Ancient Greek miso- (from miseō “to hate”) + -phrenic (from phrēn - the diaphragm, mind, heart, as seat of emotions).
You’re not a REAL Gatsby fan unless you’ve read the book. Unless you’ve read every Fitzgerald book. Unless you’ve read their early drafts, mailed to you by Fitzgerald himself. Unless you first read Gatsby when Scott handed it to you in a Parisian bar in 1925, apologising for the…