Thanks for this in-between article. It was interesting and entertaining as usual. I might want to borrow your expression about the "sky daddy". It was sarcastically hilarious . I had absolutely forgotten all about the number "2" in Young Royals. Thanks for providing the link and for reminding us of it. I wish I had more time to revisit older posts. There are too many things, I have semi-forgotten part of the contents. I love the way you weave serious matters, food for thought like about euthanasy or childbirth and other more trivial matters. As I have almost zero musical culture (though through this blog, it's slowly developing, growing step by step, thanks for that), I didn't know Satie was linked with Dada.
PS : I know I am a bit persistent and that you don't really want to for many reasons, but if one day you could drop us hints about what are Vincent and Nils characters supposed to be, we would be grateful. You said once something along the lines of "just know, it's not hard to figure that they are bad news". But nevertheless, we had a full article about the other "pair", Henry and Walter and to get some closure, we keep trying to have some clarifications on the other pair, Nils and Vincent. Thanks in advance, just in case, who knows ? :-))
(PPS : about childbirth, what they can't get across in films is also that it's not just painful but also terrifying. I was just petrified with fear at some points. I did anticipate the pain, though I underestimated it, but I didn't anticipate the sheer terror of the "OMG, what's happening right now to my body etc.", like you technically know what's happening but still, it's so "alien". I thought it would be this nicely wrapped beautiful moment of a magical encounter after confronting the pain. It also is but not only. God... Why did we start this convo again ? ) Talk about oversharing and TMI, sorry.
'Sky daddy' isn't by any means my invention. It's a term that's been in use in atheist circles for many decades. It is used to mock religious people, which is exactly why I used it here: I tried to convey the idea that mocking people's beliefs is not a very intelligent use of your time, especially when it's done to hurt these people's feelings and in order to pretend to be intellectually superior to them. What I was trying to say (sarcastically) was that using a term like this because one thinks one is so much more enlightened than those dumb religious rubes isn't a well-informed opinion; it's just offensive. It's something people do from a place of smug haughtiness and always with the express intent to be as offensive as possible in order to really 'hit were it hurts'.
Full disclosure: I did travel in (organized) atheist circles quite extensively and for many years when I was younger. It seemed like a breath of fresh air when compared to my upbringing. Over time I became quite disenchanted with the whole movement, though. Precisely because many people in the movement are just out to offend and hurt religious people as much as possible. These days I just say, "I don't know, man. There's so much I don't know," when the topic comes up. (And no, I specifically don't refer to myself as an agnostic either. At least in this regard, I prefer to remain entirely unlabelled. Especially since there are a lot of cultural issues bound up with my family's identity and thus my own.) But whatever one thinks or doesn't think on the topic, I think one should always start from a place of humility first and foremost.
(I feel this should go without saying, but just in case: There are obviously very nice and lovely atheists. Just like there are nice and kind people of all stripes.)
Thanks for the precision. We don't always acknowledge when using sarcasm how much it can hurt and 'lessen " the people "attacked " by it. I know next to nothing about atheist circles just as I knew next to nothing about pacifists people. I appreciate you bringing nuances wherever, whenever needed.
Hey, I've been meaning to write a reply to this for ages. I'm really sorry for only getting to it now, but that 'Emblematic Shots' post ate up all my free time (and many a sleepless night, too), so I'm just now getting around to sitting down and writing something.
I'm sorry I had totally forgotten you were the lovely reader who had asked me to recommend some info on pacifism as a school of thought. Sorry, sometimes it's really hard to keep track of who is who and who said what on here. And I'm just basically so absurdly overworked and sleep-deprived all the time that I keep muddling up virtually everything in this virtual reality here (and in real life, too).
As far as (organized) atheist circles are concerned, there are a few things that stood out to me, and I think most of that isn’t just anecdotal; I'm reasonably sure that this applies to most of these types of loosely organized groups across many different countries (I could be wrong, of course):
For one, the people you'll meet there are very high-IQ. And I'm specifically NOT saying this to praise myself, but to point out that most of the people I met there were undoubtedly much more intelligent than I am. It was noticeable. Really. I mean it! Sometimes one just has to admit painful truths, right?XD
A large majority are people from the so-called hard sciences (STEM students and scientists who work in those fields), i.e. scholars from the humanities are definitely underrepresented in this movement.
Within the STEM field, the more ‘practical’ sciences (for lack of a better word) are strongly overrepresented. So that would be engineering and technology, software stuff, programming etc. Curiously enough, theoretical physicists and mathematicians aren’t as strongly overrepresented as these ‘practical’ fields. I guess that once you’re carrying out calculations with n-dimensional space-time or spend your day pondering string theory or multiple universes, your openness to people having religious experiences and your tolerance of that sort of thing broadens at least a little bit – not dogmatically, of course, and certainly not in a church context, but you know, spiritually speaking. Mathematicians and theoretical physicists like to joke that there is a metaphysical aspect to what they’re doing, and I did indeed find it noticeable that they tended to be a bit more reticent to join outright atheist circles, let alone get overly preachy about atheist talking points, and often seemed to feel more comfortable in the ‘I don’t know’ camp.
Here's one other fact that some people might find surprising, but that's also extremely noticeable: Organized atheism is a very, very, very male environment. Like...I know that people like to complain whenever some group, association, organization, club etc. has a female-to-male ratio of, say, 20-80 percent or 30-70 percent or even just 40-60 percent. But atheist organizations tend to have a 1-99 percent female-to-male ratio, in my experience. There are very few women there. (Which probably tracks with the fact that religious attendance in all sorts of religious organizations, across the board, skews heavily female.)
You can probably already see how a movement that is as strongly male-centred as this one can come off as a bit, shall we say, peculiar? It's certainly not exactly known for politeness or even just moderation, I'd say. All-male (or almost-all-male) spaces have their specific pathologies. I don’t know about all-female ones, but I’m sure they have their own specific pathologies, too. Both can probably make life pretty miserable and insufferable for the people in them. In all-male spaces like this, every member will constantly try to fight all the others for status. Hierarchies will emerge according to that. In order to fight for a place higher up in the hierarchy, everyone will try to 'out-do' everyone else with a more extreme stance. These types of cockfights will get on your nerves pretty quickly.
Here's another thing. (This might be anecdotal. In fact, I cannot back this up with an actual statistic or anything, but personally, I did find it rather noticeable): There are a lot of people in this movement who are clearly on the neurodivergent spectrum, by which I don't mean people who were diagnosed with dyslexia, ADHD or depression, etc. but specifically people with various levels of autism diagnoses, usually the easier-to-manage varieties, i.e. 'high-functioning' types (please excuse my not-exactly above-board vocab on the question, I understand that 'high-functioning' in and of itself can be a tad offensive; I'm just kinda struggling to find the right words for this here; and obviously I don't mean ANY disrespect to anyone who's on the spectrum; it’s just something I noticed). And again, take this with a grain of salt; this was simply my personal experience: A lot of people just told me right off the bat that they were on the spectrum, and with some others it was just rather noticeable.
One of the things that I found disconcerting about the whole experience was the fact that virtually all criticism of religion there was (and probably still is) centred around Christianity. That's understandable, seeing as it's that one religion that has been dragged by the hair through the Enlightenment, kicking and screaming, for a couple of centuries now.:D But still...it's a very weird experience when your cultural/ethnic/religious background is different because it can often come across as a group of basically disgruntled Christians meeting up to trash-talk their parents and that one time they had to wear the scratchy sweater on Easter Sunday and how they hated all of that. Other religions often only feature as an afterthought, as in: Somebody will write a long article about how Christianity is bad, bad, double bad and then give a very short shout-out at the very end of the text to one or two phenomena from some other religions with a disclaimer, saying something à la, 'Obviously, this problem applies to other religions, too, but I don't know anything about them, so this is where my text ends'. I.e. other religions largely just exist as a footnote.
You probably know the old joke from Northern Ireland where the boy comes home and tells his father, "I've met this pretty and wonderful girl I want to marry. But dad, there’s a problem: She's an atheist." And the father replies, "Son, that's okay. But now for the important question: Is she a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?"
It's a bit like that, in that most (organized) atheists are 'Christian atheists', which is why their criticism and virtually all of their thinking tends to be centred around Christianity. People in the movement are largely uninformed about anything outside of that.
Well, and as far as being informed is concerned... Oh, boy!
After the initial excitement at finding people who are critical of religion wears off a bit, you usually tend to find out just how incredibly uninformed these people actually are. What they criticize about religion is often something they simply do not understand themselves: As in, they will often take religion just as literally as a Christian fundamentalist – only with the positive and the negative image reversed.
They will take some religious text apart at length and never realize that what they've been criticizing isn't typically taken literally, anyway. (And even though there are, of course, fundamentalist believers who take their faith entirely too literally and cannot conceive of a metaphorical meaning of their holy scripture at all, that's by far not the majority. Metaphorical readings of the Bible, for example, go back all the way to Origen in the 2nd/3rd century AD. But good luck explaining this to somebody who is very committed to either a fundamentalist Christian reading of the Bible or an atheist club criticizing exactly that. Both sides usually simply lack the knowledge to analyze allegorical texts, understand the historical-critical method, etc.)
Within (organized) atheist circles, there's often just a lot of bitterness mixed in with personal feelings of resentment towards one’s upbringing (all of which might absolutely be justified, but which will still get on your nerves in no time). You won’t meet a lot of people there with any actual profound and nuanced historical and cultural knowledge. Granted, people will constantly tell you, "Oh, yes, I'm totally all for valuing religion as an important source for poetry, drama, literature, classical music, sculpture, etc. I'm not against the cultural aspects of it. I'm just against this belief in the supernatural." But then when you ask them a few concrete questions about that cultural stuff that they allegedly value so much, they will fold in no time. This is Richard Dawkins’s shtick: He loves to claim that he values the cultural aspects of religion, and simply criticizes the supernatural aspects of it. But then, once you look at his writings, he is actually supremely uninformed and has a very simplistic view of what religions even are and what religious people believe. I always felt it’s okay to find someone like Dawkins interesting as a teenager, but at some point one has to realize just how uneducated he is, right? At some point, one has to grow out of that.
This goes twice for the late Christopher Hitchens who (apart from his famous atheism advocacy) was also on the extreme Islamophobic end of the spectrum of religious criticism. (And yes, I’m of course aware of the fact that ‘Islamophobia’ in and of itself is a highly problematic term and that it’s often applied unfairly to people who are simply critical of Islam. I understand all of that. And yet…I believe there really are, at least SOME people, who can legitimately be called Islamophobic because theirs isn’t a critical stance but simply a virulent phobia and aversion to people they perceive as untouchable and irredeemable. Christopher Hitchens probably fell into that category. Add to that his pro-war advocacy, his love of neoconservative foreign policy – often justified in a ‘we have to bring Enlightenment to the savages over there by bombing them to bits’ kinda way – his advocacy for the Iraq war, etc. and you’ll probably see why I found him and his ‘disciples’ rather unsavoury, to say the least.)
Well, and here’s one last thing about atheist circles that turned me off big time: To me, it often seemed as if people in these circles weren’t really capable of seeing symbolic meanings in the first place. They struggled with anything that didn’t seem to be rational, measurable, easy to weigh, count and categorize.
I remember one particularly ridiculous conversation with an otherwise very intelligent guy (whose name I won’t type out here because he’s kind of a big deal in his field) who kept trying to convince me that he could solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East in a few days. "Just partition the territory according to square footage, take access to water and other natural resources into consideration and then allot each of these ethnicities their own territory. There. Problem solved."
I don't think this even warrants a reply, but just in case you're interested: I tried to calmly explain the error of his ways to him in the following way, "If the house you live in used to belong to your grandparents and the garden behind the house was where you grandmother had you sitting on her knee, if that’s where she read you your favourite books as a child, made you flower crowns and sang you the songs of her childhood…then this house and that garden, that tree under which you sat with her, will mean unfathomably more to you than any grand castle in the world. And you won't ever want to give it away. Not for any sum of money, not for the world. Religions are like that…just more! They have meaning that you cannot measure, not weigh, not count, that you cannot rationally explain, but that doesn't make any of these experiences less real or any less worthy of respect. Because they exist, and they’re real to people. These are deeply human, profound, universal experiences."
Anyway...all of the above are obviously just impressions, just personal experiences in these circles, and they are totally anecdotal. It's perfectly possible that there are groups somewhere out there that are completely different from the ones I encountered (although personally, I doubt it). And obviously, everything I said there just applies to organized (!) atheist circles. I don't mean to say that individual atheists are like that. I don’t mean any disrespect to any individual person! AT ALL.
That guy who made that inane statement about the Middle East is still a friend, by the way. He enjoys me telling him about art and literature and films – and especially about metaphorical meanings underneath those stories, which he somehow never ever sees even though he’s otherwise way, way, way more intelligent than I am. It’s weird how it’s possible for someone to do what he does intellectually...and how he is completely incapable of seeing a simple metaphor in a movie at the same time. Once I explain it to him, he always recognizes it and slaps his forehead in a ‘OF COURSE how did I not see this?’ kinda way. But he never sees it on his own. Never. I have no idea why. But that's what I encountered in atheist circles over and over again: Very literal-minded people. It's not that I don't love them, and it's not that they can't be my friends (this one still is!). It's just that my brain works in a totally different way.:D
P.S. Ex-Muslim circles are their own thing, by the way. There is obviously some overlap there. And yet…they’re very different in some ways, too. Obviously, you'll meet a lot of very intelligent people there. Lots and lots of very brave people, too.
But at the same time, there’s a lot of personal baggage woven into people's thinking and their experiences, and that, too, can be...well, at least a bit problematic. While clearly much more should be done to make sure Ex-Muslims feel safe and protected (and sadly Westerners tend to largely look the other way on this issue, for fear of being labelled a racist or xenophobe or what have you), so, while more should be done to protect people, you should also be careful not to take every last thing an ex-Muslim organizations says at face value – at least not entirely.
If you’re interested in some other country, you would probably not seek out the political dissidents who ran from that country and asked for political asylum in yours. You would be aware of the fact that their views could at least potentially distort the truth about that country at least to some degree. It’s a similar thing with people who drop out of their religious group for whatever reason. Their views can be interesting, and by all means, listen to their stories! But just be aware of the fact that they’re not always a representative sample from whatever religion you happen to look at at any given time. Religious groups can be very, very different between countries and still very diverse within countries, too; there is a broad spectrum of very different people in most traditions and just looking at the ones who 'jumped ship', so to speak, i.e. just looking at the disgruntled ones (no matter how justified their criticism might be!) won't give you a full and fair picture of any religion.
These days, I sometimes call myself an ex-atheist, but I just do that to wind people up.:D
Other than that...I'm sorry I just word-vomited this huge reply in your lap. But I've been meaning to do so for ages.
Thanks for this long reply. It really broadens my horizon and answers some of my questions. It was super interesting. Yes super intelligent people do not have the highest emotional IQ etc. When you meet one who has both, you just appreciate them for being the true gems they are. Are these atheists circles linked with organisations like The Francs maçons ?
Thank you for this entertaining rant, which I feel serves as such a good summary of what you’re writing about in detail on this blog! It was a very effective push and motivation to be thorough and persistent when I try to understand a show or movie better. Especially the reminder that every character serves a deeper subtextual function. I haven’t watched the piano video yet, but I’m looking forward to it - I hardly know Satie, only very superficially, but the one piece I played was just as you described him here, very humorous! (And well, full disclosure, I played it after hearing it in Call Me By Your Name and liking it there, and then I went and played the Clementi Sonatina that it was sort of a riff on - both were fun to play.)
What, his Sonatine bureaucratique? Didn't know that was in the film. (Didn't watch 'Call me by your name' because of rather serious ideological concerns, as you know.)
Sonatine bureaucratique is a staple of piano teachers. But it's only fun when you have your partner stand right next to you and shout Satie's texts over it at the appropriate moments at the top of his lungs. We did that when we were kids. It was so much fun.XD
"Il aime une jolie dame très élégante.
Il aime aussi son porte-plume, ses manches
en lustrine verte et sa calotte chinoise."
I think I can still hear all the lines in my head when I close my eyes. Feels like yesterday.
Ah, that sounds hilarious - what a memory! My teacher didn’t read them aloud to me, unfortunately- although he was French and it sure would have sounded fantastic! And yes, in the film, Elio plays the Sonatine Bureaucratique when his father pretty much pushes him to play something for friends who are visiting, and he really doesn’t want to perform - it seems perfectly ‘pouty’ to me to play this piece in that moment😉.
P.S.: The ending of this post might just be my favourite one of yours yet. All of life is Dada, oh yes. And maybe a future film about this moment in history will be about a rocket falling apart?
I was trying to picture it just now, but to be honest...I doubt it.
It's just that people prior to World War I were defined by this almost boundless optimism that we simply haven't got anymore. They really believed their societies were the best thing ever. They believed technology would solve all problems, cure all ills, make it possible to travel anywhere in days, etc. (And to be fair: They did see incredible progress in all of these areas within their lifetimes, so it's understandable why they would think of themselves and their civilization as the pride of creation.) These people were just so incredibly optimistic that it makes sense to use the sinking of the Titanic as this grand metaphor for the end of an era. In the movie, the (fictional version of) Bruce Ismay says, "She is the largest moving object ever made by the hand of man in all history." (There you've got that hand motif again, by the way!)
It just absolutely makes sense to show how their society was doomed to fail by means of a metaphor that is centred around this ginormous tech disaster, basically.
Compare this to us: We are such a different breed of people these days. Almost a different species.XD
We are so much more pessimistic and cynical: We live in a post-Holocaust world, and we live in a world post-Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We live with the constant threat of nuclear annihilation, and all of our thinking reflects that. The idea of a possible apocalypse looms large at all times: Over the past couple of decades, we have gone from fearing the ozone layer would disappear to fearing global warming would destroy us all, from waging a war on terrorism to anxiously awaiting the next global pandemic – and all of that with the permanent spectre of nuclear annihilation lurking at the back of our minds, knowing at all times that all of this could be over in mere minutes if one of the great powers pushes the nuclear button.
It doesn't matter which of these fears is absolutely justified and which is exaggerated; the point is that on a societal level we constantly live with this basic threat level and an almost existential sense of anxiety. (No wonder, mental health issues are way up, by the way.) We are just so much more pessimistic. We look at any piece of new technology and instantly ask, "What are the risks? What will this do to the environment? Could this harm us? How many jobs will it destroy? Is it toxic? Do I have to be scared of this?" Gone is the boundless optimism of the late 19th and early 20th century.
So, I'm guessing a metaphor in which a piece of tech dramatically fails...just wouldn't really work as a metaphor for us anymore because unlike the Edwardians, who were deeply convinced that progress would solve all ills and the good life was just around the corner, we are already constantly looking over our shoulder, wondering if this or that technology is dangerous/harmful and/or will lead to some catastrophic disaster.
For the Edwardians, it came as a deep, existential shock that something could just fail in this horrific way when they had thought pain, suffering, illnesses, wars...and sinking ships were essentially a thing of the past. To them, this disaster was the deepest shock imaginable.
To us, it just wouldn't even come as a surprise. We really are a very different breed of people today.
Which is why I have great difficulty picturing what people 100 years from now would use as a metaphor. But then...that's why it's called the future, right?:D We can't see what it will bring.
(BTW, I'm still deeply in love with the fact that the Aymara people of Bolivia visualize time as people walking backwards: You're walking away from the past, but you can always see it. The past is known to you. You remember it. You cannot see what's behind your back, which is why that which is behind your back is conceptualized as the future. You're walking towards it, but you have no clue what's there. It's invisible and scary.)
Anyway...sorry for this long reply. Was just trying to think of some metaphor, but I keep drawing a blank.XD
Yes, you‘re absolutely right. I find it hard to imagine the boundless optimism of the Edwardian time that you describe so vividly here, it’s so completely different to our situation and mindset now. The rocket exploding was just a spur-of-the-moment idea that came to me because of Musk’s endeavours to make the world his subject, of which his rocket business is a part, and I kind of liked the contrast between a huge ship that sinks and another means of transport that goes up into space and then explodes. But probably transport wouldn’t be the right category at all. My mind is blank, too.
I'm busily working on the next long post, which I have tentatively scheduled for this weekend. (I have a lot of sketching to do for this one, so I hope I'll get it all done in time. Try to mentally prepare yourselves for many, many, many silly doodles from yours truly, guys.) I have to pack a suitcase right now too, so...holding my fingers crossed; perhaps we will make the weekend.
The post itself will be very visual. I feel we have talked about screenplays and writing and metaphors a lot recently. Even while talking about the visual beast that is 'Titanic', we largely skipped the visuals and concentrated on the metaphorical subtext first and foremost. I want to make up for that and give your eyes something to do in this next post, so...you know...clean your spectacles or give your old pince-nez a workout, try to find your eye-drops...whatever it is you need to do.
You'll get some 'Young Royals' stuff, and you'll get a couple more movies and shows, too.
Till then...I hope you enjoy the way spring is finally coming back to us, take a walk in the sun, listen to the birds sing and smell the first flowers. Ahhh, spring awakening...ahem.
See you all very soon!
Yours,
tvmicroscope
P.S. To the pianists in the crowd, just in case you're interested: I have just had the great pleasure of seeing and hearing the Jussen brothers perform live. And yes, they really are just as good live as they are in their recordings. It's absolutely uncanny. Still reeling (partially out of jealousy, I suppose). But they're really something else.
Finished writing the thing today. Still need to sketch a gazillion things. Will start the proofreading/editing process tomorrow.
Long story short: Didn't make the weekend. Sorry for that. But not long now, I promise!
Oh, and by the way: We will be talking about a number of shows and movies that don't seem to have a lot in common at first glance, but I promise that there's actually a common thread throughout the text, a thread linking them all. In case you want to prepare yourself (and can stand the heartbreak and huge drain on your tissue supplies), re-watch 'Brokeback Mountain' first and foremost.
P.S. And in case you get too depressed doing that, just do what I'm doing right now: I find myself revisiting an old piano classic a lot recently. It's an album you will easily find: "Le bœuf sur le toit" by the wonderful Alexandre Tharaud – proof that piano music can indeed be funny, and not just because of the lyrics or the narrative it's set to, but just in and of itself. Music as a joke. Music as fun. Music which makes you laugh about the notes themselves. It's the kind of music that will have you smirk and even laugh out loud with your earbuds in while every other passenger on the TGV looks at you as if you've lost your mind.
Dear TVM-I thought I responded to this post but I don't see it here. Forgive me if I am repeating myself.
This post is, perhaps, the most important one for me out of your myriad thousands of words. I have listened to Buddhists teaching for 30 years and once in a while there is a moment of clear comprehension. In film, it's a metaphor all the way through!!!! I hope I don't sound like an absolute dummy but I get it. Finally. YR monarchy vs Swedish people-all the way through. As much as I disliked season three, the metaphor was more transparent, more obvious. It was always the scaffolding the story hung on. I was distracted by the beautiful love story or seduced by it to avoid the intent...
It has rearranged my thinking about film in general and my favorite films. What have I missed over the years and hundreds of films that I love or loathe.
Your comments about birth are spot on. Women think their water will break (actually only 30% of the time) first and a few hours (minutes) later the baby emerges. They are very surprised when it takes hours and hours of pain and suffering. I always called it the 'fantasy birth' versus the 'real birth.' The two couldn't be more different. We get so hooked on the fiction, we are convinced it will be so for us. Babies will slide out and everyone will cry...and parenthood will be a snap.
Anyway, I finally get something you have been pointing to forever. Fiction isn't reality and reality isn't fiction. Yes! I found the some of the missing pieces of the jigsaw on the floor-I am closer to finishing the puzzle now...although I'm far from graduating from TVM film school.
Okay, this is getting absurd. But in case anyone is still waiting and you haven't just all given up on me: Yes, I've just finished proofreading this monster of a long post. (Finally! Ugh.)
The reason why this took so long is actually my bad English. Argh! I swear the moment I look up one word, I start to doubt each and every other word in the text, too. And then suddenly, whichever way I write the sentence, it always looks wrong and nothing looks right anymore.
(Just spent about half an hour trying to research what those structural thingies on trains are called. You know the dividing part between windows. I don't know. My English teachers never prepared me for that. Is it a pillar (like in a car)? Or is it a window jamb (like in a house)? And yes, I needed that word for this text, but I couldn't find an answer. Ugh. Another half an hour of internet searches that went essentially nowhere. If anyone knows what they're called, please tell me because it's driving me insane.)
Anyway...I'm finally done. I'm going to start the uploading process now. There are about a thousand images in this one. So, it'll take some time.
Thank you for sticking around, guys. I almost lost my mind with this one!
I'm so glad that you write these posts because I never get any of this when watching a movie! I've gotten that there are metaphors and I identify when something is mentioned or referred to a lot, but I never can understand the meaning of it
Thanks for this in-between article. It was interesting and entertaining as usual. I might want to borrow your expression about the "sky daddy". It was sarcastically hilarious . I had absolutely forgotten all about the number "2" in Young Royals. Thanks for providing the link and for reminding us of it. I wish I had more time to revisit older posts. There are too many things, I have semi-forgotten part of the contents. I love the way you weave serious matters, food for thought like about euthanasy or childbirth and other more trivial matters. As I have almost zero musical culture (though through this blog, it's slowly developing, growing step by step, thanks for that), I didn't know Satie was linked with Dada.
PS : I know I am a bit persistent and that you don't really want to for many reasons, but if one day you could drop us hints about what are Vincent and Nils characters supposed to be, we would be grateful. You said once something along the lines of "just know, it's not hard to figure that they are bad news". But nevertheless, we had a full article about the other "pair", Henry and Walter and to get some closure, we keep trying to have some clarifications on the other pair, Nils and Vincent. Thanks in advance, just in case, who knows ? :-))
(PPS : about childbirth, what they can't get across in films is also that it's not just painful but also terrifying. I was just petrified with fear at some points. I did anticipate the pain, though I underestimated it, but I didn't anticipate the sheer terror of the "OMG, what's happening right now to my body etc.", like you technically know what's happening but still, it's so "alien". I thought it would be this nicely wrapped beautiful moment of a magical encounter after confronting the pain. It also is but not only. God... Why did we start this convo again ? ) Talk about oversharing and TMI, sorry.
Thank you for your comment.
'Sky daddy' isn't by any means my invention. It's a term that's been in use in atheist circles for many decades. It is used to mock religious people, which is exactly why I used it here: I tried to convey the idea that mocking people's beliefs is not a very intelligent use of your time, especially when it's done to hurt these people's feelings and in order to pretend to be intellectually superior to them. What I was trying to say (sarcastically) was that using a term like this because one thinks one is so much more enlightened than those dumb religious rubes isn't a well-informed opinion; it's just offensive. It's something people do from a place of smug haughtiness and always with the express intent to be as offensive as possible in order to really 'hit were it hurts'.
Full disclosure: I did travel in (organized) atheist circles quite extensively and for many years when I was younger. It seemed like a breath of fresh air when compared to my upbringing. Over time I became quite disenchanted with the whole movement, though. Precisely because many people in the movement are just out to offend and hurt religious people as much as possible. These days I just say, "I don't know, man. There's so much I don't know," when the topic comes up. (And no, I specifically don't refer to myself as an agnostic either. At least in this regard, I prefer to remain entirely unlabelled. Especially since there are a lot of cultural issues bound up with my family's identity and thus my own.) But whatever one thinks or doesn't think on the topic, I think one should always start from a place of humility first and foremost.
(I feel this should go without saying, but just in case: There are obviously very nice and lovely atheists. Just like there are nice and kind people of all stripes.)
Thanks for the precision. We don't always acknowledge when using sarcasm how much it can hurt and 'lessen " the people "attacked " by it. I know next to nothing about atheist circles just as I knew next to nothing about pacifists people. I appreciate you bringing nuances wherever, whenever needed.
PART ONE OF COMMENT:
Hey, I've been meaning to write a reply to this for ages. I'm really sorry for only getting to it now, but that 'Emblematic Shots' post ate up all my free time (and many a sleepless night, too), so I'm just now getting around to sitting down and writing something.
I'm sorry I had totally forgotten you were the lovely reader who had asked me to recommend some info on pacifism as a school of thought. Sorry, sometimes it's really hard to keep track of who is who and who said what on here. And I'm just basically so absurdly overworked and sleep-deprived all the time that I keep muddling up virtually everything in this virtual reality here (and in real life, too).
As far as (organized) atheist circles are concerned, there are a few things that stood out to me, and I think most of that isn’t just anecdotal; I'm reasonably sure that this applies to most of these types of loosely organized groups across many different countries (I could be wrong, of course):
For one, the people you'll meet there are very high-IQ. And I'm specifically NOT saying this to praise myself, but to point out that most of the people I met there were undoubtedly much more intelligent than I am. It was noticeable. Really. I mean it! Sometimes one just has to admit painful truths, right?XD
A large majority are people from the so-called hard sciences (STEM students and scientists who work in those fields), i.e. scholars from the humanities are definitely underrepresented in this movement.
Within the STEM field, the more ‘practical’ sciences (for lack of a better word) are strongly overrepresented. So that would be engineering and technology, software stuff, programming etc. Curiously enough, theoretical physicists and mathematicians aren’t as strongly overrepresented as these ‘practical’ fields. I guess that once you’re carrying out calculations with n-dimensional space-time or spend your day pondering string theory or multiple universes, your openness to people having religious experiences and your tolerance of that sort of thing broadens at least a little bit – not dogmatically, of course, and certainly not in a church context, but you know, spiritually speaking. Mathematicians and theoretical physicists like to joke that there is a metaphysical aspect to what they’re doing, and I did indeed find it noticeable that they tended to be a bit more reticent to join outright atheist circles, let alone get overly preachy about atheist talking points, and often seemed to feel more comfortable in the ‘I don’t know’ camp.
PART TWO OF COMMENT:
Here's one other fact that some people might find surprising, but that's also extremely noticeable: Organized atheism is a very, very, very male environment. Like...I know that people like to complain whenever some group, association, organization, club etc. has a female-to-male ratio of, say, 20-80 percent or 30-70 percent or even just 40-60 percent. But atheist organizations tend to have a 1-99 percent female-to-male ratio, in my experience. There are very few women there. (Which probably tracks with the fact that religious attendance in all sorts of religious organizations, across the board, skews heavily female.)
You can probably already see how a movement that is as strongly male-centred as this one can come off as a bit, shall we say, peculiar? It's certainly not exactly known for politeness or even just moderation, I'd say. All-male (or almost-all-male) spaces have their specific pathologies. I don’t know about all-female ones, but I’m sure they have their own specific pathologies, too. Both can probably make life pretty miserable and insufferable for the people in them. In all-male spaces like this, every member will constantly try to fight all the others for status. Hierarchies will emerge according to that. In order to fight for a place higher up in the hierarchy, everyone will try to 'out-do' everyone else with a more extreme stance. These types of cockfights will get on your nerves pretty quickly.
Here's another thing. (This might be anecdotal. In fact, I cannot back this up with an actual statistic or anything, but personally, I did find it rather noticeable): There are a lot of people in this movement who are clearly on the neurodivergent spectrum, by which I don't mean people who were diagnosed with dyslexia, ADHD or depression, etc. but specifically people with various levels of autism diagnoses, usually the easier-to-manage varieties, i.e. 'high-functioning' types (please excuse my not-exactly above-board vocab on the question, I understand that 'high-functioning' in and of itself can be a tad offensive; I'm just kinda struggling to find the right words for this here; and obviously I don't mean ANY disrespect to anyone who's on the spectrum; it’s just something I noticed). And again, take this with a grain of salt; this was simply my personal experience: A lot of people just told me right off the bat that they were on the spectrum, and with some others it was just rather noticeable.
PART THREE OF COMMENT:
One of the things that I found disconcerting about the whole experience was the fact that virtually all criticism of religion there was (and probably still is) centred around Christianity. That's understandable, seeing as it's that one religion that has been dragged by the hair through the Enlightenment, kicking and screaming, for a couple of centuries now.:D But still...it's a very weird experience when your cultural/ethnic/religious background is different because it can often come across as a group of basically disgruntled Christians meeting up to trash-talk their parents and that one time they had to wear the scratchy sweater on Easter Sunday and how they hated all of that. Other religions often only feature as an afterthought, as in: Somebody will write a long article about how Christianity is bad, bad, double bad and then give a very short shout-out at the very end of the text to one or two phenomena from some other religions with a disclaimer, saying something à la, 'Obviously, this problem applies to other religions, too, but I don't know anything about them, so this is where my text ends'. I.e. other religions largely just exist as a footnote.
You probably know the old joke from Northern Ireland where the boy comes home and tells his father, "I've met this pretty and wonderful girl I want to marry. But dad, there’s a problem: She's an atheist." And the father replies, "Son, that's okay. But now for the important question: Is she a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?"
It's a bit like that, in that most (organized) atheists are 'Christian atheists', which is why their criticism and virtually all of their thinking tends to be centred around Christianity. People in the movement are largely uninformed about anything outside of that.
Well, and as far as being informed is concerned... Oh, boy!
After the initial excitement at finding people who are critical of religion wears off a bit, you usually tend to find out just how incredibly uninformed these people actually are. What they criticize about religion is often something they simply do not understand themselves: As in, they will often take religion just as literally as a Christian fundamentalist – only with the positive and the negative image reversed.
They will take some religious text apart at length and never realize that what they've been criticizing isn't typically taken literally, anyway. (And even though there are, of course, fundamentalist believers who take their faith entirely too literally and cannot conceive of a metaphorical meaning of their holy scripture at all, that's by far not the majority. Metaphorical readings of the Bible, for example, go back all the way to Origen in the 2nd/3rd century AD. But good luck explaining this to somebody who is very committed to either a fundamentalist Christian reading of the Bible or an atheist club criticizing exactly that. Both sides usually simply lack the knowledge to analyze allegorical texts, understand the historical-critical method, etc.)
Within (organized) atheist circles, there's often just a lot of bitterness mixed in with personal feelings of resentment towards one’s upbringing (all of which might absolutely be justified, but which will still get on your nerves in no time). You won’t meet a lot of people there with any actual profound and nuanced historical and cultural knowledge. Granted, people will constantly tell you, "Oh, yes, I'm totally all for valuing religion as an important source for poetry, drama, literature, classical music, sculpture, etc. I'm not against the cultural aspects of it. I'm just against this belief in the supernatural." But then when you ask them a few concrete questions about that cultural stuff that they allegedly value so much, they will fold in no time. This is Richard Dawkins’s shtick: He loves to claim that he values the cultural aspects of religion, and simply criticizes the supernatural aspects of it. But then, once you look at his writings, he is actually supremely uninformed and has a very simplistic view of what religions even are and what religious people believe. I always felt it’s okay to find someone like Dawkins interesting as a teenager, but at some point one has to realize just how uneducated he is, right? At some point, one has to grow out of that.
This goes twice for the late Christopher Hitchens who (apart from his famous atheism advocacy) was also on the extreme Islamophobic end of the spectrum of religious criticism. (And yes, I’m of course aware of the fact that ‘Islamophobia’ in and of itself is a highly problematic term and that it’s often applied unfairly to people who are simply critical of Islam. I understand all of that. And yet…I believe there really are, at least SOME people, who can legitimately be called Islamophobic because theirs isn’t a critical stance but simply a virulent phobia and aversion to people they perceive as untouchable and irredeemable. Christopher Hitchens probably fell into that category. Add to that his pro-war advocacy, his love of neoconservative foreign policy – often justified in a ‘we have to bring Enlightenment to the savages over there by bombing them to bits’ kinda way – his advocacy for the Iraq war, etc. and you’ll probably see why I found him and his ‘disciples’ rather unsavoury, to say the least.)
PART FOUR OF COMMENT:
Well, and here’s one last thing about atheist circles that turned me off big time: To me, it often seemed as if people in these circles weren’t really capable of seeing symbolic meanings in the first place. They struggled with anything that didn’t seem to be rational, measurable, easy to weigh, count and categorize.
I remember one particularly ridiculous conversation with an otherwise very intelligent guy (whose name I won’t type out here because he’s kind of a big deal in his field) who kept trying to convince me that he could solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East in a few days. "Just partition the territory according to square footage, take access to water and other natural resources into consideration and then allot each of these ethnicities their own territory. There. Problem solved."
I don't think this even warrants a reply, but just in case you're interested: I tried to calmly explain the error of his ways to him in the following way, "If the house you live in used to belong to your grandparents and the garden behind the house was where you grandmother had you sitting on her knee, if that’s where she read you your favourite books as a child, made you flower crowns and sang you the songs of her childhood…then this house and that garden, that tree under which you sat with her, will mean unfathomably more to you than any grand castle in the world. And you won't ever want to give it away. Not for any sum of money, not for the world. Religions are like that…just more! They have meaning that you cannot measure, not weigh, not count, that you cannot rationally explain, but that doesn't make any of these experiences less real or any less worthy of respect. Because they exist, and they’re real to people. These are deeply human, profound, universal experiences."
Anyway...all of the above are obviously just impressions, just personal experiences in these circles, and they are totally anecdotal. It's perfectly possible that there are groups somewhere out there that are completely different from the ones I encountered (although personally, I doubt it). And obviously, everything I said there just applies to organized (!) atheist circles. I don't mean to say that individual atheists are like that. I don’t mean any disrespect to any individual person! AT ALL.
That guy who made that inane statement about the Middle East is still a friend, by the way. He enjoys me telling him about art and literature and films – and especially about metaphorical meanings underneath those stories, which he somehow never ever sees even though he’s otherwise way, way, way more intelligent than I am. It’s weird how it’s possible for someone to do what he does intellectually...and how he is completely incapable of seeing a simple metaphor in a movie at the same time. Once I explain it to him, he always recognizes it and slaps his forehead in a ‘OF COURSE how did I not see this?’ kinda way. But he never sees it on his own. Never. I have no idea why. But that's what I encountered in atheist circles over and over again: Very literal-minded people. It's not that I don't love them, and it's not that they can't be my friends (this one still is!). It's just that my brain works in a totally different way.:D
PART FIVE OF COMMENT:
P.S. Ex-Muslim circles are their own thing, by the way. There is obviously some overlap there. And yet…they’re very different in some ways, too. Obviously, you'll meet a lot of very intelligent people there. Lots and lots of very brave people, too.
But at the same time, there’s a lot of personal baggage woven into people's thinking and their experiences, and that, too, can be...well, at least a bit problematic. While clearly much more should be done to make sure Ex-Muslims feel safe and protected (and sadly Westerners tend to largely look the other way on this issue, for fear of being labelled a racist or xenophobe or what have you), so, while more should be done to protect people, you should also be careful not to take every last thing an ex-Muslim organizations says at face value – at least not entirely.
If you’re interested in some other country, you would probably not seek out the political dissidents who ran from that country and asked for political asylum in yours. You would be aware of the fact that their views could at least potentially distort the truth about that country at least to some degree. It’s a similar thing with people who drop out of their religious group for whatever reason. Their views can be interesting, and by all means, listen to their stories! But just be aware of the fact that they’re not always a representative sample from whatever religion you happen to look at at any given time. Religious groups can be very, very different between countries and still very diverse within countries, too; there is a broad spectrum of very different people in most traditions and just looking at the ones who 'jumped ship', so to speak, i.e. just looking at the disgruntled ones (no matter how justified their criticism might be!) won't give you a full and fair picture of any religion.
These days, I sometimes call myself an ex-atheist, but I just do that to wind people up.:D
Other than that...I'm sorry I just word-vomited this huge reply in your lap. But I've been meaning to do so for ages.
Phew. Okay, I will shut up now.:)
Thanks for this long reply. It really broadens my horizon and answers some of my questions. It was super interesting. Yes super intelligent people do not have the highest emotional IQ etc. When you meet one who has both, you just appreciate them for being the true gems they are. Are these atheists circles linked with organisations like The Francs maçons ?
Thank you for this entertaining rant, which I feel serves as such a good summary of what you’re writing about in detail on this blog! It was a very effective push and motivation to be thorough and persistent when I try to understand a show or movie better. Especially the reminder that every character serves a deeper subtextual function. I haven’t watched the piano video yet, but I’m looking forward to it - I hardly know Satie, only very superficially, but the one piece I played was just as you described him here, very humorous! (And well, full disclosure, I played it after hearing it in Call Me By Your Name and liking it there, and then I went and played the Clementi Sonatina that it was sort of a riff on - both were fun to play.)
What, his Sonatine bureaucratique? Didn't know that was in the film. (Didn't watch 'Call me by your name' because of rather serious ideological concerns, as you know.)
Sonatine bureaucratique is a staple of piano teachers. But it's only fun when you have your partner stand right next to you and shout Satie's texts over it at the appropriate moments at the top of his lungs. We did that when we were kids. It was so much fun.XD
"Il aime une jolie dame très élégante.
Il aime aussi son porte-plume, ses manches
en lustrine verte et sa calotte chinoise."
I think I can still hear all the lines in my head when I close my eyes. Feels like yesterday.
Ah, that sounds hilarious - what a memory! My teacher didn’t read them aloud to me, unfortunately- although he was French and it sure would have sounded fantastic! And yes, in the film, Elio plays the Sonatine Bureaucratique when his father pretty much pushes him to play something for friends who are visiting, and he really doesn’t want to perform - it seems perfectly ‘pouty’ to me to play this piece in that moment😉.
P.S.: The ending of this post might just be my favourite one of yours yet. All of life is Dada, oh yes. And maybe a future film about this moment in history will be about a rocket falling apart?
I was trying to picture it just now, but to be honest...I doubt it.
It's just that people prior to World War I were defined by this almost boundless optimism that we simply haven't got anymore. They really believed their societies were the best thing ever. They believed technology would solve all problems, cure all ills, make it possible to travel anywhere in days, etc. (And to be fair: They did see incredible progress in all of these areas within their lifetimes, so it's understandable why they would think of themselves and their civilization as the pride of creation.) These people were just so incredibly optimistic that it makes sense to use the sinking of the Titanic as this grand metaphor for the end of an era. In the movie, the (fictional version of) Bruce Ismay says, "She is the largest moving object ever made by the hand of man in all history." (There you've got that hand motif again, by the way!)
It just absolutely makes sense to show how their society was doomed to fail by means of a metaphor that is centred around this ginormous tech disaster, basically.
Compare this to us: We are such a different breed of people these days. Almost a different species.XD
We are so much more pessimistic and cynical: We live in a post-Holocaust world, and we live in a world post-Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We live with the constant threat of nuclear annihilation, and all of our thinking reflects that. The idea of a possible apocalypse looms large at all times: Over the past couple of decades, we have gone from fearing the ozone layer would disappear to fearing global warming would destroy us all, from waging a war on terrorism to anxiously awaiting the next global pandemic – and all of that with the permanent spectre of nuclear annihilation lurking at the back of our minds, knowing at all times that all of this could be over in mere minutes if one of the great powers pushes the nuclear button.
It doesn't matter which of these fears is absolutely justified and which is exaggerated; the point is that on a societal level we constantly live with this basic threat level and an almost existential sense of anxiety. (No wonder, mental health issues are way up, by the way.) We are just so much more pessimistic. We look at any piece of new technology and instantly ask, "What are the risks? What will this do to the environment? Could this harm us? How many jobs will it destroy? Is it toxic? Do I have to be scared of this?" Gone is the boundless optimism of the late 19th and early 20th century.
So, I'm guessing a metaphor in which a piece of tech dramatically fails...just wouldn't really work as a metaphor for us anymore because unlike the Edwardians, who were deeply convinced that progress would solve all ills and the good life was just around the corner, we are already constantly looking over our shoulder, wondering if this or that technology is dangerous/harmful and/or will lead to some catastrophic disaster.
For the Edwardians, it came as a deep, existential shock that something could just fail in this horrific way when they had thought pain, suffering, illnesses, wars...and sinking ships were essentially a thing of the past. To them, this disaster was the deepest shock imaginable.
To us, it just wouldn't even come as a surprise. We really are a very different breed of people today.
Which is why I have great difficulty picturing what people 100 years from now would use as a metaphor. But then...that's why it's called the future, right?:D We can't see what it will bring.
(BTW, I'm still deeply in love with the fact that the Aymara people of Bolivia visualize time as people walking backwards: You're walking away from the past, but you can always see it. The past is known to you. You remember it. You cannot see what's behind your back, which is why that which is behind your back is conceptualized as the future. You're walking towards it, but you have no clue what's there. It's invisible and scary.)
Anyway...sorry for this long reply. Was just trying to think of some metaphor, but I keep drawing a blank.XD
Yes, you‘re absolutely right. I find it hard to imagine the boundless optimism of the Edwardian time that you describe so vividly here, it’s so completely different to our situation and mindset now. The rocket exploding was just a spur-of-the-moment idea that came to me because of Musk’s endeavours to make the world his subject, of which his rocket business is a part, and I kind of liked the contrast between a huge ship that sinks and another means of transport that goes up into space and then explodes. But probably transport wouldn’t be the right category at all. My mind is blank, too.
Dear all,
I'm busily working on the next long post, which I have tentatively scheduled for this weekend. (I have a lot of sketching to do for this one, so I hope I'll get it all done in time. Try to mentally prepare yourselves for many, many, many silly doodles from yours truly, guys.) I have to pack a suitcase right now too, so...holding my fingers crossed; perhaps we will make the weekend.
The post itself will be very visual. I feel we have talked about screenplays and writing and metaphors a lot recently. Even while talking about the visual beast that is 'Titanic', we largely skipped the visuals and concentrated on the metaphorical subtext first and foremost. I want to make up for that and give your eyes something to do in this next post, so...you know...clean your spectacles or give your old pince-nez a workout, try to find your eye-drops...whatever it is you need to do.
You'll get some 'Young Royals' stuff, and you'll get a couple more movies and shows, too.
Till then...I hope you enjoy the way spring is finally coming back to us, take a walk in the sun, listen to the birds sing and smell the first flowers. Ahhh, spring awakening...ahem.
See you all very soon!
Yours,
tvmicroscope
P.S. To the pianists in the crowd, just in case you're interested: I have just had the great pleasure of seeing and hearing the Jussen brothers perform live. And yes, they really are just as good live as they are in their recordings. It's absolutely uncanny. Still reeling (partially out of jealousy, I suppose). But they're really something else.
https://youtu.be/1Lpk5Ro5Ow0?t=37
Liked the Aymara"s time metaphor
Short PSA:
Finished writing the thing today. Still need to sketch a gazillion things. Will start the proofreading/editing process tomorrow.
Long story short: Didn't make the weekend. Sorry for that. But not long now, I promise!
Oh, and by the way: We will be talking about a number of shows and movies that don't seem to have a lot in common at first glance, but I promise that there's actually a common thread throughout the text, a thread linking them all. In case you want to prepare yourself (and can stand the heartbreak and huge drain on your tissue supplies), re-watch 'Brokeback Mountain' first and foremost.
P.S. And in case you get too depressed doing that, just do what I'm doing right now: I find myself revisiting an old piano classic a lot recently. It's an album you will easily find: "Le bœuf sur le toit" by the wonderful Alexandre Tharaud – proof that piano music can indeed be funny, and not just because of the lyrics or the narrative it's set to, but just in and of itself. Music as a joke. Music as fun. Music which makes you laugh about the notes themselves. It's the kind of music that will have you smirk and even laugh out loud with your earbuds in while every other passenger on the TGV looks at you as if you've lost your mind.
Here, have a little amuse-gueule: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rcl9Xu5rZnQ
Dear TVM-I thought I responded to this post but I don't see it here. Forgive me if I am repeating myself.
This post is, perhaps, the most important one for me out of your myriad thousands of words. I have listened to Buddhists teaching for 30 years and once in a while there is a moment of clear comprehension. In film, it's a metaphor all the way through!!!! I hope I don't sound like an absolute dummy but I get it. Finally. YR monarchy vs Swedish people-all the way through. As much as I disliked season three, the metaphor was more transparent, more obvious. It was always the scaffolding the story hung on. I was distracted by the beautiful love story or seduced by it to avoid the intent...
It has rearranged my thinking about film in general and my favorite films. What have I missed over the years and hundreds of films that I love or loathe.
Your comments about birth are spot on. Women think their water will break (actually only 30% of the time) first and a few hours (minutes) later the baby emerges. They are very surprised when it takes hours and hours of pain and suffering. I always called it the 'fantasy birth' versus the 'real birth.' The two couldn't be more different. We get so hooked on the fiction, we are convinced it will be so for us. Babies will slide out and everyone will cry...and parenthood will be a snap.
Anyway, I finally get something you have been pointing to forever. Fiction isn't reality and reality isn't fiction. Yes! I found the some of the missing pieces of the jigsaw on the floor-I am closer to finishing the puzzle now...although I'm far from graduating from TVM film school.
As ever,
a fan
Okay, this is getting absurd. But in case anyone is still waiting and you haven't just all given up on me: Yes, I've just finished proofreading this monster of a long post. (Finally! Ugh.)
The reason why this took so long is actually my bad English. Argh! I swear the moment I look up one word, I start to doubt each and every other word in the text, too. And then suddenly, whichever way I write the sentence, it always looks wrong and nothing looks right anymore.
(Just spent about half an hour trying to research what those structural thingies on trains are called. You know the dividing part between windows. I don't know. My English teachers never prepared me for that. Is it a pillar (like in a car)? Or is it a window jamb (like in a house)? And yes, I needed that word for this text, but I couldn't find an answer. Ugh. Another half an hour of internet searches that went essentially nowhere. If anyone knows what they're called, please tell me because it's driving me insane.)
Anyway...I'm finally done. I'm going to start the uploading process now. There are about a thousand images in this one. So, it'll take some time.
Thank you for sticking around, guys. I almost lost my mind with this one!
Yours,
tvmicroscope
I'm so glad that you write these posts because I never get any of this when watching a movie! I've gotten that there are metaphors and I identify when something is mentioned or referred to a lot, but I never can understand the meaning of it
Thank you!
And no worries, there are more posts to come with more metaphors and such. I'm convinced that this is absolutely a skill that can be learned.