What’s wrong about Pizza? – The ‘Pizza’ metaphor (example: “Young Royals”)

When you watch a TV show or a movie, you sometimes get emotionally attached to an idea, without first analyzing the metaphorical subtext. (This happens to me all the time, actually.)

You might, for example, see a vast lake landscape and think, “Wouldn’t it be great if these two characters jumped in the water?”

Or you might hear one of the characters in question sing his heart out and go, “Wouldn’t it be nice if these two made music together?”

Or you might hear someone mention a pizza place in a small nearby town and instinctively conclude, “Wouldn’t it be cute if they went on a date at that pizzeria sometime in season three?”

Only later, once you’ve really analyzed the metaphorical subtext of the show, do you realize that your instinctive reaction was probably spot on when it came to the first two theories (jumping in the lake would fit a major metaphor of this story quite well, cf. the ‘water’ metaphor, and making music together would brilliantly work on a metaphorical level, too, cf. the ‘music’ metaphor) but unfortunately dead wrong when it came to the third.

Because once you start to actually analyze the subtext associated with pizza on this show, you realize that things are suddenly getting very ugly very fast…

So, why am I so sceptical of the idea of a pizza date in season three of ‘Young Royals’? What's wrong about pizza?

Well…everything, actually!

Pizza is wrong, deeply wrong. It isn’t just bad; it’s specifically wrong, as you will see in a moment.

Of course, nothing is wrong with pizza as long as we’re talking actual pizza in real life (unless you put pineapple on it, in which case you have just become my mortal enemy), but everything about it is wrong once we examine metaphorical ‘pizza’ as a stylistic literary device on this particular show.

So, let’s sift through the evidence, shall we?

The first time pizza is brought up on ‘Young Royals’ (at least, as far as I can recall) happens in episode two of season one: August is hitting on Felice, trying to ask her out on a date, and she replies sarcastically, “What, at the pizzeria in Bjärstad?” indicating that she thinks this place and setting for a date would be the wrong choice if one wanted to woo her.

Pizza isn’t something positive here if Felice’s disdainful tone of voice is to be believed. (Also, let’s make a mental note that the concept of pizza is specifically linked to Bjärstad here, alright?)

Now, of course, you could read this as just another instance of a spoilt rich girl being dismissive of working-class people’s lives and spaces, but keep in mind that Felice doesn’t seem any more enthusiastic once August offers to fly her to Verbier and take her to a three-Michelin-star restaurant. (And she doesn’t even know he can’t pay for that, and she would have to pick up the tab.)

In short, it really seems as if, at least subtextually, she isn’t just dismissive of the (small-town, poor-people) pizza place itself but of August as a person, of him as a ‘boyfriend option’. 

The subtext thus links the following concepts: Eating pizza in Bjärstad is the wrong choice; being taken out to the pizzeria there is the wrong kind of date, and August as a person is the wrong date.

Note that I think it’s perfectly fine to be sceptical of my argument that metaphorical ‘pizza’ represents a wrong choice, a wrong option, a wrong date, at this point in the article, seeing as the scene between August and Felice gives us just a first little hint of this metaphor. More solid evidence is going to turn up the further the show progresses, you’ll see.

(By the way, there are actually more reasons why this scene is important, but we will get to that once we start to descend deeper down the rabbit hole of this ‘Young Royals’ analysis series in our character-centred posts, I promise.)

But let’s get back to pizza, the metaphor for all things wrong…

Next stop: Same episode. 

Simon shows up late for an evening with his friends. Rosh and Ayub are already waiting for him in his room. The conversation quickly turns to the question of good grades/marks and what Simon’s ambitions are, essentially.

Now, I would like you to close your eyes for a moment and imagine you would have to summarize the gist of this conversation for one of your friends who hasn’t watched the show – all while trying to keep in mind that none of these fictional characters are real people and all of what is being said in that scene is basically just the writers’ way of communicating an idea to us, the audience.

Wouldn’t you summarize it, more or less, in the following way: The writers present Simon with an offer; they offer him a small-town life with scarce opportunities to realize his potential. His two friends are the embodiment of that offer, of that option of a stagnant, boring life, of remaining stuck in Bjärstad forever and working some dead-end job. The writers then make it clear to us that Simon considers this to be the wrong choice, i.e. what’s on offer here is not what he wants.

Then Simon is offered pizza!

Even if you dismissed the evidence we uncovered during the conversation between August and Felice earlier in the very same episode, this should be the moment where you go, “Hang on a minute…This is suspicious.” Because when two things are discussed in close (textual) proximity in a script, they are often subtextually linked – especially when their core logic is structured in a parallel way: Simon is being offered something…and then he is being offered something again.

That whole conversation is a figurative offer the writers are making Simon through his friends: Simon is figuratively being offered a certain kind of life. (An offer he rejects outright.)

And then, there’s the literal offer: The offer of pizza.

So, there’s a structural parallel in that scene of two things being offered to Simon: Staying in Bjärstad forever…and pizza.

The close proximity in the script and the structural parallel suggest that most likely one thing stands for the other.

That is the textbook definition of a metaphor!

Remaining stuck in this life forever is the wrong option for Simon, i.e. pizza is once again linked to the idea of a wrong option, a wrong choice. And just as with the Felice example above, we once again get a subtextual link to Bjärstad as a place, as a physical representation of the concept of ‘wrongness’, so to speak.

Note that Simon gnaws on his slice of pizza for a bit (I mean, he told his friends he doesn’t hate Bjärstad, i.e. he likes the place and the people there; he just doesn’t want to be stuck there forever), then he chucks it back in the box and gives his friends a challenging grin. On the literal surface-layer of the text, this probably just means that he’s ready to play video games now, but in the context of their earlier conversation, it screams, “Okay, challenge accepted. I’ll get out of here, you’ll see.” He then resolutely closes the box containing the pizza, slamming shut the lid on their offer, so to speak.

As I mentioned above, pizza is wrong, deeply wrong. It isn’t just bad; it’s specifically wrong.

One of the first things you will be taught in any writing class is that you have to work out not only what the right choices in life are for your character, but also what the wrong choices are. The wrong choices elucidate on your character’s motivations. The things your character is trying to avoid drive all the character development and thus move the plot forward. They show us what he or she has to reject in order to realize their goals in life.

So, showing your audience what the wrong choice would entail is very important. Ultimately, your character can never take that wrong turn, never pick the wrong offer. Ultimately, he or she has to take the right path.

Bad things can happen to your character; sometimes they even have to happen. It’s what creates the tension between the right choice and the wrong choice for them. But bad things and wrong things are two separate entities. Bad things are allowed to happen, wrong things…not so much (unless you want a story to turn into a tragedy where all your character has left is a choice between wrong and wrong). Have your character struggle with the bad stuff, but avoid the wrong outcome, is the lesson you’re usually taught as a writer.

Pizza is precisely that: a metaphor for a wrong outcome.

Pizza is not just bad; it’s wrong. And each and every ‘pizza’ reference on the show should be read as a hint at what could happen if everything went wrong. (Ultimately, however, the wrong outcome will be avoided, obviously.)

Okay, I think we have found the thread we need to pull on now, so let’s see where it will lead us:

The next time our three friends mention pizza, the whole metaphor becomes much, much more obvious. It happens in episode three of season two. Rosh is helping Simon prepare for his rowing competition – a competition that, as we have already discussed, is all just one giant metaphor for the supposed love triangle between Simon, Wilhelm and Marcus (and, of course, it’s a fake competition that doesn’t even feature any real water).

While the snow comes down in thick white flakes (we’ve discussed the metaphorical meaning of this), Simon, Rosh and Ayub discuss Marcus. This time Simon explicitly says that he isn’t in love with Marcus and can’t make himself fall in love with him either. It’s right there, in plain text: Marcus, the down-to-earth guy from Bjärstad, the epitome of small-town, working-class life, is the wrong choice for Simon. He doesn’t love him.

About a split second after these words leave Simon’s mouth, Ayub proposes to eat pizza again!

The two things (Marcus and pizza) show up in extremely close proximity in the script; these two lines immediately follow each other in the text, as a matter of fact. And this time, it’s Rosh who voices Simon’s (metaphorical) thoughts and rejects pizza out right (“Again? We had pizza yesterday!”). She’s bored of eating pizza all the time. Sorry, it’s the wrong choice for dinner. She (and we as the audience) simply can’t bear to see this presented as an option anymore. Translation: Marcus is the wrong choice for Simon, and we’re all getting sick and tired of hearing about him all the time. Enough is enough.

What’s even more brilliant about this scene is what literally happens next: Simon’s phone chimes and Marcus asks via text message, “Do you want to get together this week?”

In other words, in the script, the discussion about pizza being the wrong thing to eat is bracketed by Simon’s lines about being unable to fall in love with Marcus and Marcus asking for another date. You cannot get any clearer than this when it comes to writing metaphorical subtext.

Pizza is a metaphor for a wrong choice. And Marcus represents that wrong choice by being closely associated with Simon’s small-town, working-class background and the idea of being stuck in that life forever.

This scene makes the whole metaphor abundantly clear already, but the next one goes one step further even: Not only are we visually shown this wrong option (pizza) again, but we’re shown it in conjunction with Marcus. Yes, this is the crowning moment of the ‘pizza’ metaphor in action:

In episode four of season two, Simon is very upset about Wilhelm having kissed Felice. He meets Marcus for an impromptu date. And as they sit on Marcus' car on some hill overlooking Bjärstad, what do we spy with our little metaphor-seeking eye?

Right! Marcus brought pizza.

The ‘wrong choice’ literally brought the metaphor for the wrong choice. This is too much, seriously!

Please, Simon, don’t eat it; eating pizza is a metaphor for you currently heading down the wrong path…Oh, no. Too late. Well, Simon’s very upset; it’s understandable, really.

At least we can’t miss the metaphor in this scene; it’s so obvious. 

But he takes just two bites. Phew. I’m guessing Omar Rydberg was specifically told by the director that Simon isn’t supposed to look all that hungry for that (wrong) kind of life. So, Simon puts the rest of the slice back in the box (again). He tasted it, but he didn’t devour the whole thing; he didn’t even finish his slice.

Pizza is a metaphor for the wrong option, the wrong choice…and as we have seen with the Felice example, the wrong date, as well. Marcus is the wrong date for Simon. Simon had a little taste of that, but then he decided he didn’t want more and put Marcus back in the box…so to speak.

This entire ‘pizza’ scene is literally unfolding above the rooftops of Bjärstad too, so we are visually reminded of the fact that Marcus is an embodiment of that wrong life in a small town with zero opportunities, the life Simon should reject if he wants to grow as a character. I mean, Bjärstad literally takes up all the background in the frame in that scene to show us what the metaphorical background of this wrong choice would mean for Simon: a future where his horizon is literally just Bjärstad, a limited and narrow life.

By the way, did you notice that it’s Marcus who turns the music louder in the car? We know that music is a very consistent metaphor on this show (‘music’ represents love, remember?), so the fact that Marcus thinks he is in charge of the ‘music’ here is significant. He is really vibing with this, ahem, ‘music’ too, much more than Simon, it seems. And he increases the volume (!), i.e. he is trying to come on stronger to Simon. But Simon isn’t singing; he isn’t even humming. Simon doesn’t seem all that interested. First he put the metaphorical ‘pizza’ down, now this. I’m getting the feeling that Simon isn’t as much into this as he should be if he wanted to pursue an actual relationship with this guy.

Didn’t I have a list somewhere with all the metaphorical, subtextual evidence that Marcus isn’t the one for Simon? I think we can add quite a few new items to that list by now.

A few moments later, we get a fascinating shot as well, by the way: Simon asks if this is the place Marcus brings all his dates. (Do we need any more confirmation that a metaphorical view of Bjärstad is all Marcus has to offer Simon in the future?) As Simon asks the question, we see several piles of snow in the background of the shot. We know what ‘water’ represents on this show (feelings), and we’ve already discussed the fact that Simon’s feelings for Marcus are really, really cold (metaphorically: snow). Here we get another confirmation of that, and it happens precisely at the moment that Marcus verbally confirms he likes Simon very much. Ouch.

Then the two of them both run uphill, showing us that their potential relationship would be a permanent uphill struggle from the get-go. Well, that’s what happens when you’re not really in love with the man you’re trying to date, Simon. It’s like running uphill – an unending, unbearable Sisyphean task that can easily devolve into you calling your partner a ‘turd’ or the other way round. It’s Simon, too, who comes up with it all (both the sprint and the name-calling), so we know these are Simon’s unconscious thoughts and feelings talking, not Marcus’s.

Did I say this scene was the crowning moment of the ‘pizza’ metaphor on this show? I take it all back. Because actually, there’s one that’s even better. It’s the jewel in the crown of this doughy horrible mess of a metaphor, and yes I’m still cackling about it.

In episode five of season one, Wilhelm has just spent a night with Simon for the very first time. While he strolls out of the school all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, surreptitiously whistling at Simon to catch his attention, he is suddenly stopped short by August and Vincent.

The next thing we all find out is that Krille didn’t weather the (drug- and booze-fuelled party) night as well as Wilhelm did; he threw up in the morning.

And we are told about this in the following way: Krille laid a pizza in the morning, and it was a fat fucker, too.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. Pizza isn’t just referred to as wrong here. Pizza is specifically likened to vomit in this scene. If that’s not foreshadowing, I don’t know what is.

This line tells us so much right there: You can read this as a general reference to the (wrong) kind of life spent stuck in Bjärstad. But I like to think that this right there already foreshadows the whole Marcus storyline: It’s sickening. It should make you want to puke your guts out. (Again, where’s my ‘Anti-Marcus metaphor’ list?)

If Marcus is metaphorically ‘pizza’, and vomit is said to look like pizza, well, then the writers have made their feelings about Marcus clear, I think.

Marcus should make us all merrily barf all over the place for a few jolly hours. Thank you, Krille, for your service. We appreciate the lengths you went to to ensure we all understood the metaphor. We won’t forget your brave sacrifice. A lot of us already had the distinct feeling that Marcus and vomit were a bit similar (they leave a similar taste in your mouth, don’t they?), now we know why.

And that’s why this particular reference to ‘pizza’ wins my personal ‘hysterical-metaphors-on-the-show’ award. Cheers.

Last but not least…

An honorary mention goes to this scene: In episode five of season two, right before Wilhelm tells Simon he would abdicate the throne for him, we see Simon, Ayub and Rosh return home. As Wilhelm approaches them, the backend of some conversation/argument between Ayub and Rosh can be heard. 

Rule of thumb: Whenever you hear some background chatter on a show that’s as well written as this one, pay attention to it (unless it’s just some indistinct murmur that’s completely incomprehensible, of course). It’s usually not just there to set the scene; it means something.

Rosh and Ayub are arguing whether pizza (!) and a hamburger can be combined into one meal.

I can’t pretend to know how the writers’ minds work, but one thing seems clear to me: 

We know what and who pizza is (Marcus and a boring life back in Bjärstad). So it stands to reason that the hamburger here is the opposite. After all, those short lines of dialogue suggest that the two dishes (pizza and a hamburger) are actually very different and aren’t usually combined into one meal. They are incongruous. They don’t belong together, in culinary terms. 

And this, in turn, means that now is the time for you to snort out loud at what the show seems to be suggesting there: The ‘hamburger’ must be Wilhelm and a life with him. Yeah, I know…

This show is not above sneaking in some childish humour here and there. I mean, they compared Marcus to vomit, for crying out loud. And after the rowing competition, they told us that sometimes men throw eggs at unsolvable problems, implying that Wilhelm trying to hook up with Felice was exactly that: him (however unconsciously) throwing lady parts at the core problem of his love life (being in love with a boy) – an obviously futile attempt at solving the problem in the first place.

This show can have the humour of a thirteen-year-old kid sometimes and throw around a few groan-inducing jokes in its metaphorical subtext. Just try to keep that in mind. We’ve had the eggs; we’ve had the pizza-vomit joke. Now I give you: Wilhelm – the juicy, tasty hamburger. The real meat, so to speak. (There are about a hundred other stupid jokes one could make in comparing Wilhelm and a life with him to a hamburger, but I’m going to exercise some self-restraint here and refrain from those. I’m sure you don’t need my input for that.)

So, back to Ayub’s and Rosh’s conversation: Rosh claims putting a hamburger on a pizza would be a nice idea. Ayub, on the other hand, proposes to get it on the side.

Now, I will come right out and say it’s possible to read that in two different ways.

1) You can read the whole thing as a reference to Marcus and Wilhelm. 

2) Or you can interpret it more broadly as a reference to Simon’s small-town life in Bjärstad versus a complicated life with someone as high-status as Wilhelm.

1) If you follow the first interpretation, then the ‘pizza’ metaphor yields the following lesson:

Simon’s friends don’t know what to think of Simon’s complicated love life; it’s a ‘hamburger pizza’, we’re told.

‘Pizza’ represents Simon’s (somewhat complicated) situationship with Marcus. Should he really add a no less complicated (undeclared) relationship with Wilhelm on top of that? A hamburger on top of the pizza? “It sounds good, but it’s crazy,” we are told.

Ayub recommends Simon try to have the ‘hamburger’ (relationship with Wilhelm) ‘on the side’, i.e. have a steady boyfriend back in Bjärstad (someone like Marcus, a.k.a. ‘pizza’) and only see Wilhelm in secret. Lead two separate lives: a normal life and a secret one in which he can see Wilhelm ‘on the side’.

2) If you interpret the whole dialogue more broadly as a general reference to Simon’s small-town life versus his life with the Crown Prince, you get the following reading:

Simon’s life so far, his whole identity is characterized by…pizza. Metaphorical ‘pizza’, i.e. he is a guy from the small town of Bjärstad with a working-class background. That’s the foundation, the basis of his identity. The pizza.

But now there is this conundrum that Rosh is pondering: Is it possible to put a metaphorical ‘hamburger’ on top of that base? I.e. can Simon, who has this sort of background, ever date someone like Wilhelm, lead a life of royal aspirations and international fame if his identity is based in, well…pizza. Can Simon put a different life on top of that foundation? Is this a thing? Is it even possible?

Ayub then interrupts Rosh, “What? Hamburger on a pizza?”

Yes, we all get that the turn Simon’s life is about to take is crazy. (The show tells us, “It sounds good, but it’s crazy, man!”) And Rosh confirms that, for Simon, this sort of life would be a ‘hamburger pizza’.

Ayub actually has a slightly different idea. He proposes to ‘get it on the side’. In other words, lead two different lives, keep one strictly separate from the other. This, again, would imply keeping the relationship with Wilhelm a secret, I think.

Nice try, Ayub, but we all know that’s not going to work. If Simon chooses to actually be with Wilhelm, all hell is going to break loose. It’s going to get out one way or the other. (In the case of the actual storyline on the show, Wilhelm will actually out himself and their relationship at the end of that season.) So, there’s no keeping these two lives separate for Simon. This meal is pretty much exactly what Rosh correctly tells us it is: A hamburger on top of a pizza – a ‘hamburger pizza’. And thus pretty difficult to digest.

And then, of course, Wilhelm approaches them and tells Simon how he’s actually considering abdicating so he can be with Simon.

You can see how the seemingly insignificant background conversation Rosh and Ayub had just there directly relates to Wilhelm’s declaration, right? One is metaphorically laying the groundwork for the other: Rosh and Ayub are discussing the question of whether Simon (whose background is so very modest) is even cut out for a relationship with the future King of the country, if it’s possible for two things to be combined that are so very, very different. And right at that moment the future King in question shows up on Simon’s doorstep and verbally lays his crown, his future and his birthright down at Simon’s feet.

Now, whether you go with interpretation 1) or 2) is entirely up to you, of course. (You may have realized that I prefer reading 2) just by counting how many more paragraphs I wrote about it.)

But one thing is certain: These few lines that Ayub and Rosh exchange there aren’t just background chatter to set the scene. They are deeply meaningful and serious, and best of all, they fit into and culminate in the ultimate romantic gesture on this show. (Wilhelm is archetypically a very romantic character; we will talk about this in a later installment of this ‘Young Royals’ analysis series.)

So, those are all the ‘pizza’ references on this show so far. At least the ones that I can think of. Maybe you spotted more than I. (Pizza imagery anywhere? Pictures? Posters? Flyers? Ads? I don’t remember.) If you found something that currently eludes me, feel free to tell me in the comments. I really love it when people find more evidence for a metaphor I’m proposing for consideration.

Anyway, this, in short, is the reason why I don’t think we’re in for a pizzeria date in Bjärstad in season three. Pizza just doesn’t fit as a metaphor for our two boys. Pizza is wrong, deeply wrong. And these two aren’t wrong for each other.

If anything happens at that pizzeria at all (which I doubt), it won’t be a good thing, mark my words. It will most definitely show us that Simon has outgrown his Bjärstad background, and it’s all simply not for him. It might show us something about his backstory too and tell us in yet another way why Simon wants to leave that world behind. So, a pizza date itself is either not in the cards at all or will be framed as an utter disaster in which Simon’s ‘old background’ will try to catch up with him and make the two boys unhappy one way or another. Pizza is just not the right option for them.

If you take one lesson away from this whole article, then it should be this: Don’t get too attached to details, props or attributes of characters before you’ve looked at the metaphorical subtext of a show or movie. Sometimes they’re fine, but sometimes they’re, well…pizza, i.e. vomit-inducing and sick.

I have to admit that this happens to me all the time as well, though: I like something at first glance and think it’s a cute detail, and it’s not even on my radar that it could actually mean something. I fall in love with a character’s orange backpack or the fact that he eats clementines all the time, and I don’t consider their metaphorical meaning.

Then I look at them a bit more closely, and I realize that, oh, the backpack is actually not a good thing, it’s actually a bad thing – at least until you unpack it.

The clementines aren’t a good thing either. They’re a bad thing – until you peel them.

And pizza is just simply not a good thing at all – no matter which way you slice it.

There’s nothing we can do about it: Pizza is not just bad; it’s wrong. There’s no getting around that.

So, if Simon and Wilhelm want to consume some food together, may I suggest a clementine? After all, citrus fruits are known to contain a lot of Vitamin C. Metaphorical clementines, too, should be a much more healthy meal option than gorging yourself on pizza. They have to be peeled for that, of course, which can be quite the hassle, but once you’ve got through that hard, thick peel, the sweetness underneath is so, so worth it.

~fin~

As you can probably imagine, writing these articles takes a lot of time and effort, so I’m grateful to anyone who supports me by becoming a free or paid subscriber.

A FREE subscription means you receive an email every time I update, so you don’t miss anything (it’s basically a notification option).

A PAID subscription gives you access to an exclusive bonus ‘treat’ article every couple of weeks that provides you with a more in-depth view on camera angles, rules of cinematography, literary devices, etc. (using examples from ‘Young Royals’ and comparing it with other shows and movies).