‘Versace’ miniseries is the first great show of 2018

acsversace-news:

The second installment of Ryan Murphy’s “American Crime Story” franchise is the tragic tale of a globally famous gay talent and an obscure gay parasite.

Based on Maureen Orth’s “Vulgar Favors,” “The Assassination of Gianni Versace” is also a glamorous and frightening portrait of a certain kind of modern monster — the entitled kept boy who snaps when he loses the keys to what he imagined was his kingdom.

In her book, Orth describes Andrew Cunanan (Darren Criss) — who shot Gianni Versace (Edgar Ramirez) at point-blank range on the steps of his Miami villa in July 1997 — as a “narcissistic nightmare of vainglorious self-absorption, a practiced and pathological liar who … was clever enough to pull off his deceptions.”

The nine episodes of Murphy’s series, all carefully crafted by British screenwriter Tom Robb Smith (“London Spy”), track the disintegration of a spoiled child who demanded the maximum payoff for the most minimal effort — and, unable to develop any real relationships with his peers, cruelly targeted older, wealthy gay men who were willing to satisfy his endless needs.

Smith tells his story in reverse, heightening the central mystery of how a scruffy drifter with a baseball cap, backpack and gun approached Versace as he was returning from a stroll to a neighborhood cafe. Was this a random shooting, or did the younger Cunanan know the celebrated Italian fashion designer, recovering from illnesses brought on by a suppressed diagnosis of HIV? Cunanan, already infamous after landing on the FBI’s Most Wanted list following a spree that left four men, including two of his friends, dead, was bumming around Miami for two months to the apparent indifference of the local police. He then killed one last time.

As the mystery unfolds, Murphy, who directs the pilot, and Smith invite us to witness the extremes of gay culture in the 1980s and 1990s. We meet Versace’s boyfriend Antonio D’Amico (Ricky Martin), and Cunanan’s companions (and ultimate victims), former naval officer Jeff Trail (an excellent Finn Wittrock) and rising young architect David Madson (Cody Fern). We get glimpses of the Versace fashion empire with his unimaginative, controlling sister Donatella (Penelope Cruz) watching enviously as her brother silences his detractors with one ravishing creation after another. And we get a ringside seat at the twisted Cunanan home in San Diego, where Andrew’scon-man father, Pete (future Emmy winner Jon Jon Briones), sold the family home from under his wife and four children before fleeing the country on an embezzlement charge. All the tools Andrew needed to embark on his trajectory of murder and menace he learned at his father’s feet.

The performances of the leads are outstanding, but special mention must be made of Criss, who beautifully captures Cunanan’s ability to tell the biggest lies anyone has ever heard and literally charm the pants off anyone he sets his sights on. He’s a lot like Patricia Highsmith’s Mr. Ripley, but Ripley was a fictional creation. Cunanan, who committed suicide after murdering Versace, was sadly all-too-real.

Murphy’s ability to showcase well-known performers in surprising cameos continues apace with gems from Mike Farrell, Max Greenfield and even Cathy Moriarty as a wily pawnshop owner.

“The Assassination of Gianni Versace” is more personal and heartfelt than Murphy’s “The People v. O.J. Simpson,” and proves that when it comes to seductive allure laced with menace, no one in TV is Murphy’s match.

‘Versace’ miniseries is the first great show of 2018

Is there anything Baelon Targaryen could do if his father died before the Great Council and Aemon immediately after? Without the precedent of legally disinheriting women are we looking at another civil war or does Rhaenys take her throne?

Just for the sake of clarity, the timeline in canon starts with Prince Aemon’s death in 92 AC which resulted in King Jaehaerys naming Aemon’s brother Baelon Prince of Dragonstone over his daughter Rhaenys. It was only in 101, after Baelon’s death, that Jaehaerys called the first Great Council that chose then-Prince Viserys as the new heir over Princess Rhaenys’ line.

So if Jaehaerys dies before both Aemon and Baelon, Baelon is never named Prince of Dragonstone and does not get a competing claim to Rhaenys’, so the line of succession would follow the normal Andal inheritance laws and Princess Rhaenys follows her father to the throne. Whether Baelon would still try to challenge her for the throne is unknown since we know next to nothing about Baelon, and the epithet the Brave and his success as Hand of the King do not tell us much about his character or ambitions for the throne, but I think it’s unlikely.

Prince Baelon could try to cite the precedent of King Jaehaerys ascending to the throne over his niece Aerea in an attempt to advance his claim, but in the absence of a separate body of authority to decide, there is no peaceful way for him to take the throne when common inheritance laws favor Rhaenys. Trying to take the throne by force of arms is a terrible idea as well as it would brand Baelon as an attempted usurper trying to steal his niece’s throne which would only serve to link him to Maegor the Cruel – hardly a flattering figure to be associated with – and bring to mind the atrocities and destruction Maegor and his wars brought on the realm as opposed to the peace of King Jaehaerys. The new queen would also have the support of her grandmother the beloved Queen Alysanne, her husband the incredible wealthy and powerful Corlys Velaryon and her uncle Lord Boremund Baratheon of Storm’s End (or perhaps even that of the onetime Protector of the Realm Lord Robar Baratheon since we don’t know when he died) at a time when the would-be Viserys I was yet unmarried and Daemon was a child of 11 (though, of course, there is the matter of dragons and who acquired what when). Even if Baelon’s character is unknown, his admirable tenure as Hand of the King in OTL suggest he’d be politically aware enough to recognize the difficulty and the cost of winning the throne. And I’d personally like to think that a child of Jaehaerys and Alysanne would not be so keen to start another civil war in pursuit of power, given the royal couple’s conciliatory political theory and the personal losses the last war cost them.

Hi! I really enjoy your commentary on Rhaegar, so I thought I would ask a question: Do you think Rhaegar’s privilege (for lack of a better word) had anything to do with his decision-making? As prince of the realm, he could basically do anything save treason and get away with it. Do you think his interpretation of the prophecy and the carelessness of his actions were influenced by the Targaryen elitism rubbing off on him? He seems like a particularly self-centred individual to me.

To an extent. I’ve spoken before about how my reading of Rhaegar’s motivation was that he was not acting out of a sense of entitlement or belief that his rank allowed him to do whatever he wanted with no consequences, but of a deep-rooted belief in magic and an approach of “the end justifies the means”. But that does not negate how selfish and borderline tyrannical his decision to take up arms against the rebels was, or how he displayed a disturbing sense of self-importance in clinging to the throne and refusing any risk of losing it even if securing it meant the lives of thousands. I know the popular defense of his choice to fight for his father is typically about him needing to be on the throne to prepare the realm for the Others, but not only do I find this a flimsy excuse since Rhaegar actually weakened the realm by his actions, but this is where his motivation surpasses his belief in the prophecy and magic and his children’s destiny to be about Rhaegar himself and his unwillingness to pay any price for what he’d done and what he’d allowed to happen. It’s easy to ascribe his clinginess to the throne solely to his desire to prepare for the Others, and I would not say that it did not play a part in Rhaegar’s decision-making but if anything this speaks of how Rhaegar thought himself so important to the coming war that his presence on the throne was worth all the people who would fall on the Trident. That’s self-important no matter how we swing it.

It can be argued that this sense of self-importance drove Rhaegar from the beginning in his interpretation of the prophecy and even after he changed his mind about the identity of the savior. He went from thinking that he was the prince who was promised to thinking that he had to father the three heads of the dragon to thinking he had to be on the throne for sake of the war against the Others. Maester’s Aemon’s recollection of his correspondence with Rhaegar suggests that he only agreed with him on the first but the second and third conclusions were Rhaegar’s own initiative. That strong belief that he just has to be significant to the coming war in some way can be indicative of arrogance and self-centeredness, but 1) we can’t ignore how the circumstances of Rhaegar’s birth and Aegon’s conception could have been easily misinterpreted as part of the prophecy and how that affected Rhaegar’s thought process, and 2) this is where the missing context makes it hard to determine if his initial belief in his place as the prince who was promised was born of his belief of his own importance or something else entirely. 

We simply don’t know where from Rhaegar’s early belief in the prophecy sprang, so strong it was that he altered the course of his life by becoming a warrior and started corresponding with Maester Aemon. It might be a heightened sense of his own importance but it might also be a sense of dutifulness that echoed Rhaella’s own mindfulness of her duty as Barristan Selmy describes her (and Rhaegar himself). It might be an attempt on Rhaegar’s part to rationalize his parents’ abusive marriage, if he’d known the reason they were married in the first place and especially so young, which resulted in significant health complications for Rhaella (and I think that the circumstances of Aerys and Rhaella’s marriage might be where Rhaegar internalized the idea of necessary evil and the willingness to sacrifice others for the greater good). It might be a simple matter of looking at the description of the signs heralding the birth of the savior and his own birth and putting two and two together. Those are just as plausible as the idea of a privileged prince thinking that he has to be the savior figure from a prophecy, and they can easily get distorted into a conviction of Rhaegar’s own singular importance to resisting the Others as the years passed and his belief in the prophecy became a part of his character. The vagueness of the information about this period makes it hard to say so I’m reluctant to commit to any of them, but I will say that being described as melancholy and possessing of a sense of doom does not speak of someone who particularly enjoyed being a prophetic figure, even if that does not necessarily preclude a self-important view of his place in the war for the dawn. Moreover, I can see where the extent of information available to Rhaegar could lead him to the conclusion that he was the prophetic figure in the prophecy and later to believe that Aegon was instead. Wrong as he might have been, those were still logical conclusions to make within the bounds of his knowledge that do not necessarily denote a self-centered view. It’s his actions before and during the rebellion that are unambiguously self-important and unjustifiable, even if propped on a strong belief in magic ensuring his triumph and history exonerating him.

In your Myrcella as heir apparent AU. If Robert pulled a Viserys I and decided his little girl would rule until he had got a son (Cersei & Robert were barely in their thirties, it wasn’t unreasonable) & asked all the lords to swear to it, then he buggers off and dies. What then? The West rises for her, but the North/Riverlands? Does Stannis keep his oath? Call for a Great Council? Does Renly pull a Blackfyre and trim the family tree?

Another one meant for @nobodysuspectsthebutterfly.

On your Myrcella as the only heir scenerio, could Robert actually put Cersei aside a la Renly’s plan? In canon Cersei & the kids get killed off to make way for Maergaery but without the treason is setting aside a queen legal? The marriage was consumated, a trueborn child produced, other that a Great Council, is there away?

It’s actually @nobodysuspectsthebutterfly​ who tackled the scenario of

Myrcella being an only child, not me. However, I can still provide you with an answer because she did answer the question about the possibility of Cersei being set aside recently.