As an audience, if you see 1800s or something, it more often seems that the actors are carrying the weight of the time. It always has a Shakespearean tone to it. To me, that always feels very theatrical and very unrelatable.
For me, Bloodshot was the least appealing character that Valiant had. He was so cold.
There's probably no experience more alienating than fame, other than a terminal illness, where you actually find yourself in a situation that nobody around you can relate to.
Part of the problem is voters know relatively little about Romney. And some of what they know about him complicates his task: Romney has a history of flip-flopping on issues, he's extraordinarily wealthy, and he can be tone-deaf about what moves voters. He just doesn't seem comfortable in his skin.
If you've lived through it, you already know there are no words that will ever come close to describing it, and if you didn't - you will never understand.
It's hard to penetrate characters who are very cut off and lack empathy and to do it with sympathy. It's so easy to make a damaged character repugnant.
No connection to the average voter - Clinton has an air of superiority. Despite her wide smile and pleasant appearance, she is envisioned as someone who is trying to hide something all the time.
There should be characters and situations that we cannot identify with, that retain either too much horror or too much wonder to allow for simple identification. That feels to me like an accurate depiction of what it is like to be in the world, rather than a neutered register of continual empathy.
Solitary and farouche people don't have relationships; they are quite unrelatable.
I don't like the idea that fame could mean that people can no longer relate to me.
