Laughed out loud a few times, "Apollo and Hyacinth were once throwing a discus around in a meadow…as one does, I suppose." Aren't discusses (?) discii (?) heavy?
I did look up the discus thrower but did not uncover the queer story. So kudos for that. And then there's Venus, another clever allusion informing the unfolding story. Well, back to my studies. But thanks always for your insights and humor.
Yeah, I really think what's most important when you spot a work of art in a movie or a show is to closely examine the context it was placed in, i.e. the scene or even the shot. Obviously it's always nice to concentrate on the stories associated with the painting or sculpture in question and try to find parallels between those and the broader narrative of a film or show. But this approach means we're going to miss a lot about the story the filmmakers are trying to tell us.
The old myth of Apollo and Hyacinth is obviously a very well-known story from antiquity, and anyone looking it up will probably instantly see the parallels (on the one hand: the immortal God, i.e. Prince Wilhelm; on the other hand: the beautiful, but mortal youth, i.e. the commoner Simon). But I really think it's simply not enough to look up a story and then look for the parallel. I think film analysis means looking at specific scenes and even specific shots in which the painting or sculpture in question was used and then examining very thoroughly how exactly it was used there. That's the only way we can uncover something the filmmakers have woven into the metaphorical subtext.
That means finding the parallel isn't enough; we have to examine what it means specifically for our story: We have to take a look at where the sculpture is, how it's shown to us (blurry, in focus, from the front, from the side, etc.), which character/s it is associated with in the shot and what lines of dialogue are being said while the sculpture is shown to us. Sometimes we have to take a close look at other (!) sculptures that might appear in the same shot and how they interact on screen (how is the shot composed, where can they be seen, what's the camera angle etc.). That's the only way to find out what the ancient myth in question and the parallel we have looked up earlier actually mean for our (!) story.
I hope that makes any sense?
I mean, it's great to realize that that certain scene in 'Skyfall' with Bond and Q was shot in the National Gallery and to recognize the paintings on the walls, but I think it's even more important to look at these pictures embedded in the context of that specific scene, to examine every single shot and the dialogue that goes with it. (The same goes for the brilliant use of Rembrandt's vanished masterpiece 'Storm on the Sea of Galilee' on the show 'Blacklist', for example.)
Can you guess just how much "fun" it is to watch a movie or TV show with me, i.e. everyone involved hates me after roughly five minutes. I guess, that's why I'm writing the blog: so my friends can say I left them watch something in peace without interrupting.
Anyway, the next 'Young Royals' post is, in fact, going to be about a painting. It should be out sometime over the weekend (Monday/Tuesday at the latest).
Thank you, as always. I hope you're having much fun with your studies and great perseverance when it comes to your thesis!
Again, thank you. I just told my partner when I'm through with my current master's program, I want to study film analysis. I'm only half kidding. Your comment about the "fun' you spread around when watching something with friends made me laugh. I look forward to your next missive, of course. I have another question, of course. Wilhelm is presumably studying on his bed and the book in the scene has a full page illustration of an ? angel bending over a human? It's a bit hard to decipher. Do you know the painting? I looked and looked and couldn't find anything. And it signifies??
On another note, I'm dying to write about 'touch', specifically first touch between people and how it evolves when there is strong attraction. When I watch YR and the way in which Wilhlem and Simon begin their courtship, it has some of the hallmarks of a mother greeting her infant for the first time. I'm a midwife so I've witnessed it many, many times. I don't want to jump the gun, as they say but this idea has taken up residence recently probably as a distraction from my, you know, studies.
I promise I'm getting back to you and your lovely comment. (Just a lot on my plate writing-wise right now.) But I haven't forgotten about it, I promise.
I've just sent you a link regarding your question about the painting. You might like that account. This person's modus operandi is a bit different from mine in that they are brilliant at spotting tiny details (and then collecting them). I tend to work the other way round: I like to first come up with a hypothesis about a metaphor by looking at the text itself, and it's usually only after I have an idea what metaphor I'm going to write about that I venture out and look at shots to find some evidence for my hypothesis. I hope that makes sense?
Anyway...what a wonderful and absolutely necessary profession: being a midwife! And, if I may say so, metaphorically meaningful. (It was Socrates who, I believe, first used midwifery as a metaphor for the process of giving birth to wisdom.) What a lovely and deeply meaningful occupation. As for your question, I have to admit that I don't approach the show by looking at a specific concept on its own first. My process is really more mundane: Spot the metaphor, find the evidence for it, rinse, repeat. If the show, of course, presents us with a midwifery/first touch metaphor in season three, then I'm all on board.
(And, oh, I got a bit nervous when you wrote about your film school plans/considerations. I really don't want that responsibility on my shoulders, you know.)
Quick, slightly random, question: when it comes to visual metaphors, are they likely to be in movies and series that are adaptations of books? Same with subtext and metaphors that weren’t in the original book?
Hey, I'm sorry for replying so late to your question; I'm currently on vacation, so I'm a bit slower than usual when it comes to keeping track of the blog.
As far as the metaphorical subtext of films and TV shows is concerned, I think it's first and foremost the screenwriter's job to build one and make sure every metaphor in it is connected to everything else. (Obviously directors have to be able to read and understand metaphorical subtext to then make sure all of it survives the 'transformation' into a visual medium, so to speak. But first of all, the screenwriter has to make sure it exists in the first place.) In that sense, it doesn't really make that much of a difference if the script in question is an original screenplay or an adaptation of a book. As long as the screenwriter is good and the director knows what they're doing.
When it comes to adaptations of books, it really depends on how good the scriptwriter (and the director is question) is, to be honest. Some work with what they have; some are mediocre, and some are amazing.
Look, the Harry Potter books, for example, aren't just fun children's books (obviously). There's a lot of very carefully researched symbolism in them, that I'm sure J.K. Rowling put a lot of time and effort into. The screenwriter (it was really mostly just one guy who adapted her books for the screen; he actually wrote the screenplays for all the films except for one) largely just worked with what he found in her books when it came to the metaphorical subtext of his movies. He didn't switch out any of the 'monsters', for example, that are obviously all metaphors for something or other, but closely followed the metaphorical subtext J.K. Rowling had laid out for him, so to speak.
An example for the opposite phenomenon is 'Brokeback Mountain', actually. It's based on an okay short story (in my humble opinion; obviously there's no accounting for taste), but the metaphorical fireworks were fired by the movie, no question. The visual metaphors Ang Lee (the director) added to the existing story are incredible. Obviously, a book isn't a medium that can give you the visual aspect of a story, so here the film actually took something and added on to it, big time.
Anyway, those are the examples that came to my mind, as I read your question. Does that make any sense?
Did you have a specific book adaptation in mind, by the way?
Thank you, in any case, for your question, which led to some interesting conversations around the dinner table in my household, and that's obviously always a big plus.
I was mostly thinking about ‘Red, White & Royal Blue’ tbh. Mainly because that film has barely left my mind since it came out (..mostly for negative reasons, but not exactly the point) but also because it was like so much depth in the book (not that it was ever meant to be the most profound piece of literature, it’s literally just meant to be a romcom) just felt like it was missing in the movie (which, yeah, I get that if you’re turning a 400-ish page book into a movie, sacrifices need to be made, scenes need to be cut).
I don’t know though, I could be completely overlooking stuff (because as an audhd person, certain metaphors and subtext just completely go over my head (such as, in the music = love analysis thing you did, I never noticed how abrupt the topic change in their piano conversation was because that’s just fairly normal in my conversations)).
I'm so sorry for only getting back to you now. My only excuse is that I have a rather huge workload with the articles for the next couple of weeks at the moment.
Unfortunately, I haven't red 'Red, White & Royal Blue'. But if I've understood you correctly, then I should definitely put it on my to-read list, yes? While the movie isn't something you would recommend, is that correct?
Honestly, I wouldn’t say I highly recommend Red, White & Royal Blue, as you need to be pretty good at completely ignoring the utter rubbish that is Casey McQuiston’s (they/them) attempt at portraying the British monarchy and American politics (genuinely it almost pains me at times) to really enjoy it, but it’s a (mostly) fun book. (Basically it’s a romance between a prince of England and the first son of the US, loads of people compare them to WilMon but personally, beyond the fact that Henry’s an angsty prince and Alex is hispanic (specifically part Mexican) with divorced parents, I really don’t see it).
Then with the movie, once again, it isn’t a *terrible* movie considering it’s a romcom, but if you’ve already read the book it’s awful. Sorta like the Percy Jackson movies?
Thank you for explaining the sculptures. I knew they must have had some meaning, but wasn’t sure how to interpret it. Now I am going to be nervous any time our dear lads are near the discus statute.
Well, the show could always subvert it's own subtext and set a really, really positive scene near the 'Discobolus' sculpture in season three. To, you know, show Jan-Olof the middle finger and also to finally give that sad story of Apollo and Hyacinth a happy ending after thousands of years.
Laughed out loud a few times, "Apollo and Hyacinth were once throwing a discus around in a meadow…as one does, I suppose." Aren't discusses (?) discii (?) heavy?
I did look up the discus thrower but did not uncover the queer story. So kudos for that. And then there's Venus, another clever allusion informing the unfolding story. Well, back to my studies. But thanks always for your insights and humor.
Hey, thank you for your comment.
Yeah, I really think what's most important when you spot a work of art in a movie or a show is to closely examine the context it was placed in, i.e. the scene or even the shot. Obviously it's always nice to concentrate on the stories associated with the painting or sculpture in question and try to find parallels between those and the broader narrative of a film or show. But this approach means we're going to miss a lot about the story the filmmakers are trying to tell us.
The old myth of Apollo and Hyacinth is obviously a very well-known story from antiquity, and anyone looking it up will probably instantly see the parallels (on the one hand: the immortal God, i.e. Prince Wilhelm; on the other hand: the beautiful, but mortal youth, i.e. the commoner Simon). But I really think it's simply not enough to look up a story and then look for the parallel. I think film analysis means looking at specific scenes and even specific shots in which the painting or sculpture in question was used and then examining very thoroughly how exactly it was used there. That's the only way we can uncover something the filmmakers have woven into the metaphorical subtext.
That means finding the parallel isn't enough; we have to examine what it means specifically for our story: We have to take a look at where the sculpture is, how it's shown to us (blurry, in focus, from the front, from the side, etc.), which character/s it is associated with in the shot and what lines of dialogue are being said while the sculpture is shown to us. Sometimes we have to take a close look at other (!) sculptures that might appear in the same shot and how they interact on screen (how is the shot composed, where can they be seen, what's the camera angle etc.). That's the only way to find out what the ancient myth in question and the parallel we have looked up earlier actually mean for our (!) story.
I hope that makes any sense?
I mean, it's great to realize that that certain scene in 'Skyfall' with Bond and Q was shot in the National Gallery and to recognize the paintings on the walls, but I think it's even more important to look at these pictures embedded in the context of that specific scene, to examine every single shot and the dialogue that goes with it. (The same goes for the brilliant use of Rembrandt's vanished masterpiece 'Storm on the Sea of Galilee' on the show 'Blacklist', for example.)
Can you guess just how much "fun" it is to watch a movie or TV show with me, i.e. everyone involved hates me after roughly five minutes. I guess, that's why I'm writing the blog: so my friends can say I left them watch something in peace without interrupting.
Anyway, the next 'Young Royals' post is, in fact, going to be about a painting. It should be out sometime over the weekend (Monday/Tuesday at the latest).
Thank you, as always. I hope you're having much fun with your studies and great perseverance when it comes to your thesis!
Again, thank you. I just told my partner when I'm through with my current master's program, I want to study film analysis. I'm only half kidding. Your comment about the "fun' you spread around when watching something with friends made me laugh. I look forward to your next missive, of course. I have another question, of course. Wilhelm is presumably studying on his bed and the book in the scene has a full page illustration of an ? angel bending over a human? It's a bit hard to decipher. Do you know the painting? I looked and looked and couldn't find anything. And it signifies??
On another note, I'm dying to write about 'touch', specifically first touch between people and how it evolves when there is strong attraction. When I watch YR and the way in which Wilhlem and Simon begin their courtship, it has some of the hallmarks of a mother greeting her infant for the first time. I'm a midwife so I've witnessed it many, many times. I don't want to jump the gun, as they say but this idea has taken up residence recently probably as a distraction from my, you know, studies.
I promise I'm getting back to you and your lovely comment. (Just a lot on my plate writing-wise right now.) But I haven't forgotten about it, I promise.
Hey,
I've just sent you a link regarding your question about the painting. You might like that account. This person's modus operandi is a bit different from mine in that they are brilliant at spotting tiny details (and then collecting them). I tend to work the other way round: I like to first come up with a hypothesis about a metaphor by looking at the text itself, and it's usually only after I have an idea what metaphor I'm going to write about that I venture out and look at shots to find some evidence for my hypothesis. I hope that makes sense?
Anyway...what a wonderful and absolutely necessary profession: being a midwife! And, if I may say so, metaphorically meaningful. (It was Socrates who, I believe, first used midwifery as a metaphor for the process of giving birth to wisdom.) What a lovely and deeply meaningful occupation. As for your question, I have to admit that I don't approach the show by looking at a specific concept on its own first. My process is really more mundane: Spot the metaphor, find the evidence for it, rinse, repeat. If the show, of course, presents us with a midwifery/first touch metaphor in season three, then I'm all on board.
(And, oh, I got a bit nervous when you wrote about your film school plans/considerations. I really don't want that responsibility on my shoulders, you know.)
Quick, slightly random, question: when it comes to visual metaphors, are they likely to be in movies and series that are adaptations of books? Same with subtext and metaphors that weren’t in the original book?
Hey, I'm sorry for replying so late to your question; I'm currently on vacation, so I'm a bit slower than usual when it comes to keeping track of the blog.
As far as the metaphorical subtext of films and TV shows is concerned, I think it's first and foremost the screenwriter's job to build one and make sure every metaphor in it is connected to everything else. (Obviously directors have to be able to read and understand metaphorical subtext to then make sure all of it survives the 'transformation' into a visual medium, so to speak. But first of all, the screenwriter has to make sure it exists in the first place.) In that sense, it doesn't really make that much of a difference if the script in question is an original screenplay or an adaptation of a book. As long as the screenwriter is good and the director knows what they're doing.
When it comes to adaptations of books, it really depends on how good the scriptwriter (and the director is question) is, to be honest. Some work with what they have; some are mediocre, and some are amazing.
Look, the Harry Potter books, for example, aren't just fun children's books (obviously). There's a lot of very carefully researched symbolism in them, that I'm sure J.K. Rowling put a lot of time and effort into. The screenwriter (it was really mostly just one guy who adapted her books for the screen; he actually wrote the screenplays for all the films except for one) largely just worked with what he found in her books when it came to the metaphorical subtext of his movies. He didn't switch out any of the 'monsters', for example, that are obviously all metaphors for something or other, but closely followed the metaphorical subtext J.K. Rowling had laid out for him, so to speak.
An example for the opposite phenomenon is 'Brokeback Mountain', actually. It's based on an okay short story (in my humble opinion; obviously there's no accounting for taste), but the metaphorical fireworks were fired by the movie, no question. The visual metaphors Ang Lee (the director) added to the existing story are incredible. Obviously, a book isn't a medium that can give you the visual aspect of a story, so here the film actually took something and added on to it, big time.
Anyway, those are the examples that came to my mind, as I read your question. Does that make any sense?
Did you have a specific book adaptation in mind, by the way?
Thank you, in any case, for your question, which led to some interesting conversations around the dinner table in my household, and that's obviously always a big plus.
I was mostly thinking about ‘Red, White & Royal Blue’ tbh. Mainly because that film has barely left my mind since it came out (..mostly for negative reasons, but not exactly the point) but also because it was like so much depth in the book (not that it was ever meant to be the most profound piece of literature, it’s literally just meant to be a romcom) just felt like it was missing in the movie (which, yeah, I get that if you’re turning a 400-ish page book into a movie, sacrifices need to be made, scenes need to be cut).
I don’t know though, I could be completely overlooking stuff (because as an audhd person, certain metaphors and subtext just completely go over my head (such as, in the music = love analysis thing you did, I never noticed how abrupt the topic change in their piano conversation was because that’s just fairly normal in my conversations)).
I'm so sorry for only getting back to you now. My only excuse is that I have a rather huge workload with the articles for the next couple of weeks at the moment.
Unfortunately, I haven't red 'Red, White & Royal Blue'. But if I've understood you correctly, then I should definitely put it on my to-read list, yes? While the movie isn't something you would recommend, is that correct?
It’s fine, really, take all the time you need.
Honestly, I wouldn’t say I highly recommend Red, White & Royal Blue, as you need to be pretty good at completely ignoring the utter rubbish that is Casey McQuiston’s (they/them) attempt at portraying the British monarchy and American politics (genuinely it almost pains me at times) to really enjoy it, but it’s a (mostly) fun book. (Basically it’s a romance between a prince of England and the first son of the US, loads of people compare them to WilMon but personally, beyond the fact that Henry’s an angsty prince and Alex is hispanic (specifically part Mexican) with divorced parents, I really don’t see it).
Then with the movie, once again, it isn’t a *terrible* movie considering it’s a romcom, but if you’ve already read the book it’s awful. Sorta like the Percy Jackson movies?
Oh, I have neither read nor seen those either. I see I have a lot of catching up to do.
Tbh, I was just trying to think of a movie/movies that were notoriously hated by book fans yet weren’t bad standalone movies.
Thank you for explaining the sculptures. I knew they must have had some meaning, but wasn’t sure how to interpret it. Now I am going to be nervous any time our dear lads are near the discus statute.
Well, the show could always subvert it's own subtext and set a really, really positive scene near the 'Discobolus' sculpture in season three. To, you know, show Jan-Olof the middle finger and also to finally give that sad story of Apollo and Hyacinth a happy ending after thousands of years.