Professional children's therapist analyzing the meaning and psychology behind characters, movies, TV, and books. I explore a wide variety from Game of Thrones and ASOIAF, to Good Will Hunting, Studio Ghibli, Avatar TLA, The Breakfast Club, The Last of Us, and anything else I feel passionate to talk about
I personally think that George was setting up Brans ascension to be kind of sinister and foreboding, like to leave the audience with the sense that the cycle will just continue over and over, even though the characters feel like the war is won and everything is alright now, but the show runners were too scared of making any of the main characters unlikable or possess any possible negative traits (meaning the “bad” characters get cranked up to 11 to compensate)
Hold on I thought Silko was pointing the gun at Vi to get her to stop torturing his daughter and killing Jynx. Did I misunderstand the sequence? If so then I’ve been entirely wrong about Silko’s character and quality as a father figure. Is so my bad
1:34 i may be wrong but the entire lake is one of the drainage dumps for all the runoff from the upper city, and it’s not just rust and paint, those are chemicals and toxins that have infiltrated the entire lake, including where the kids are playing. i know this is some kind of chemical because when silco poisons the drug lords, the same colors fill the air after he releases the toxins. the sad thing is that it doesn’t matter which part of the lake, sunny or shady, the kids swim in, they’re surrounded by death and possible (probably) the same kind of illness as viktor.
I feel the main problem with Joker & Joker 2 is that most parts of the audience desperately wanted to watch them as movies about literally THE JOKER ™ such as these stories have been told over and over again before, and what they got instead were movies about Arthur Fleck, movies which merely toyed with certain elements from DC's The Batman lore, playing them partly for parallels, partly for contrast, partly for red herrings, partly for moral ambivalence and partly for narrative ambivalence (blurring lines between imagination and reality). First and foremost, both movies had Arthur Fleck not as hero, villain nor antihero, but as a tragic protagonist, who is dealt a bad set of cards and makes the worst of it - with certain intentions and under certain circumstances, both of which he himself never fully grasps until it is too late. In a way, Arthur Fleck isn't more of a protagonist than the City of Gotham itself, as it is the interplay of Gotham's ruthlessness towards him, at least just as much as Arthur's own agency, together with the chance encounters he makes, that contributes to his downfall. It is indeed a very tragic one, the entire story of Arthur Fleck as it plays out over the course of Joker and Joker 2. The way I see it, these movies are only in part about Arthur Fleck's ultimate demise, but even more so about the ultimate triumph of Gotham City's heart of darkness within its citizens' souls: All of them (as far as we can see, with only four exceptions of minor characters, a toddler Bruce Wayne, a man mocked for dwarfism, a single mother we barely get to see, and a defense lawyer) take advantage of Arthur in one way or another. Joker/Joker 2 is the first ever Gotham City tale - that I know of - told not from the perspective of a hero, villain, or anti-hero, but straight from the bottom, from the point of view of an average person born into outsider circumstances. And then, after much of a struggle, for good as much as for being seen, Gotham City grinds him down, makes him spiteful, become a criminal, and even when he tries to accept what he had coming, exploits him further, desperately tries to play him for fortune or fame, to paint him either as a supervillain or as its own twisted version of a stand-in hero, denies to see him as what he really is, and ultimately kills him for standing up for himself, for owning his life, his history and deeds, his mistakes and also his lifelong illusions which he has finally decided to shed once and for good, for all to see. That's a depressing tale to tell, but a daring one. Because THIS Gotham City tale is holding up a mirror to our own society, by cutting away larger-than-life stand-in figures of authority and responsibility such as Bruce Wayne / The Batman or any larger-than-life supervillains to push the blame onto for everything that is wrong in society. And when you peel that back, the question remains: Is our society so much different from Gotham's, and either way what is our own role in shaping society that way?
This is the one DC story that dares to go that far, the one where escapism doesn't triumph in the end, the one that takes the society of its own world to a more consistent and realistic conclusion. To me, it is a great depiction of Gotham City up from the bottom rather than from high above out of its manors, penthouses, skyscrapers and spires. With the first movie, it was possible for parts of the audience to not get what it was about (a movie about Gotham City rather than THE Joker, a movie that tells us that in a city like Gotham the evolution of a Joker-like character is not a break away from the norm, but that staying innocent and pure would be a break from the norm - and ultimately lead to a life of exploitation, misery and pain) but rather to interpret it as an origin story of THE Joker. Joker as a movie was a tragedy dressed up as a comedy, with just one highly ironic and tragicomic punchline: Fleck thought that a veil fell from his eyes and he had finally realized that his life was not a tragedy but a comedy - right when he made it into even more of a tragedy. Joker wasn't a movie about The Joker being triumphant over his surroundings, but a movie about Gotham City being triumphant over Arthur Fleck. The second movie sort of tells the same story (namely, that only the Joker role could raise people's interest in Fleck, either as an "evil twin in control of him" or as "his true evil self", for no one cared what Arthur himself went through to have him arrive at his murders, outside of wearing the makeup of a madman), but this time it hammers home the point more heavily, leaving no way out of interpreting it as a movie about Gotham City and Arthur Fleck - not about THE Joker. Both films are films about a society which is not only interested in but appreciates a Joker™, ANY Joker™ more than it appreciates an Arthur Fleck, more than a person who is kind to outsiders (be it on the job as in Joker, or in prison as in Joker 2). As things stand now, I assume that the first Joker movie was not well received for what it was going for, but rather for its misinterpretation; Joker 2, however, is not disliked for failing to achieve what it set out to do, but for driving home its theme even more so than the first one did; by drawing more attention to people outside of Arthur Fleck's immediate circle, to the media circus evolving around him, to people's self-interests projected onto him, to even the people being closest to him (mother, Lee, doctors, wardens) never trying to actually see and get to know him outside of how his image or role have a function in fulfilling their own self-interest. If you can get out of the rut of expecting a bland DC villain origin story as told a gazillion times before in comics and movies, and if you are willing to settle instead for an extended tale of how Gotham City treats outsiders who are neither normies nor supergifted, then Joker & Joker 2 might work very well for you, actually; with part 1 focusing more on the abandonment by society and on cruelties dealt out on a personal level, and with part 2 focusing more on cruelties dealt out by institutions such as the prison system and the media, and on the abandonment and betrayal experienced on a more personal level.
While they were not perfectly utilised, I think the new emotions are great, envy works close together with anxiety, wanting to have what others have, or be like them, but unable to, as well as giving rise to emulation and wanting to get closer. Ennui is really important in stablising a rushing mind, in introspection and a more logical way of thinking with greater control. Anxiety everyone has talked to death about, we all know what she is. She can eb good at rushing us to achieve something, I suppose. Embarassment... is there. I love the character, but I do not believe it makes all that much sense for him to be there, then. I suppose as you are getting more socially aware, you also get more embarrassed, and you get anxious that you could embarass yourself in the future. I adore all of these emotions, and I think people are beeing to hard on `em.
I was just thinking to myself that Coraline reminds me of myself as a child and the beldam reminds me of myself as an adult (obviously a little more tame) but it was a trip watching you explain the parallels
Just have to say how much I loved this video, I love the way your break things down and explain them it soothes my brain, thank you for the great analysis video :)
I won't spoil but if you haven't spoiled yourself by looking up Viktor's story yourself - Arcane is a prequel after all - don't. Let Season Two fill you in and I can promise these themes of progress and quality of life will be expanded upon. Also more Arcane. There is so much to mine from it and each perspective adds more.
Ah yes, the empty argunents of "agency" and "empowerment." Things that are meant to bring some sort of equality with men. Except they don't. Because they're not mentioned with male characters. It's one of my favorite examples of cognitive dissonance presented by the DEI crowd. Also, yeah Daeny was so great. Crucifying people who crucified other people, in effect perpetuating the wheel that she claims to want to break. And then she keeps the Unsullied. Slaves. And there's no indication that she pays them. So they're still slaves, but this time to satiate her bloodlust. Threatening people with her dragons rather than negotiating. And on and on. Face it, she was always the villain. More reprehensible than Cersei and Ramsay Bolton put together. Impulsiveness doesn't matter. In fact, these actions not being impulsive makes them even worse.
This is a great video, really didn't feel scattered to me. It's to the point but also detailed and descriptive when needed. I for one loved it. See you next time.
After having watched the movie i thought that the scene where Anxiety first chucked Riley's original sense of self into the back of her mind along with all of the negative memories that Joy had disposed of and the formation of Riley's self that anxiety built I immediately recognized that as the formation of the Jungian Shadow. Also I was really impressed by how they depicted sarcasm and the kind of damage that sarcasm can do to our psyche.
I wondered why Nate suddenly went very gray. That usually only happens under extreme stress, or sudden changes in health (massive drop off in hormone levels, for instance). It's jarring enough that I have to suspect that the writers are using it to convey additional clues about his personality and circumstances.
I think Nate's thing with the term "Wunderkind" (a child prodigy, which literally translates to "wonder child" or "wonder kid") is that he can't tolerate being *wrong*. People immediately correct him saying that he meant to use the traditional German phrasing. He could have laughed it off and said "Hey, I'm English, not German, so I'm sticking with "Wonderkid"! But instead he gets deeply embarrassed and insists that he used the German version, which he did not, then become enraged when others good naturedly call him the "Wonderkid", thinking his English version original and charming. Nate can't tolerate feeling like he's made even the slightest mistake, he can't laugh at himself, and that trait in a more physically imposing man can often be a dangerous one.
Love this video & love arcane so much! Btw, Silco was never going to give up Jinx nor was he going to shoot her. He was reaching for the gun to shoot Vi, not Jinx.🙏🏻🩵 important detail to remember as well because Jinx is probably the only person Silco would ever actually choose to die for.
If D&D wrote the entire series with the dismissive haste they had by season 7, in s1ep1 Hodor would hold the door for Sansa to go into the wheelhouse and there would be Disney product placement inside and that would be the end of both their arcs.
I’d read the books several times over the decade and I didn’t think even season 1 was good enough to match my vision so I didn’t watch any of it as it got popular. Then when the ending came near, I knew I’d be hearing about it so I quickly binged seasons 6-8 because that’s where the differences from the books were, and then watched the ending as it came out. The whole thing I was thinking “this really isn’t that great” and then “this is stupid” and it totally confirmed my initial opinion that it was never good. Turns out, I’d skipped watching the only parts worth watching at all!
I have one question: What do you think are the themes of Arcane? Maybe you could do a video about it as a deepdive (as I never found something like this and honestly this is something I struggle the most in my own writing). Sure the obvious things are that Arcane is about Duality and progress, but for example all characters from the undercity have a theme of inferiority, then it goes on with smaller stuff like sacrifices and the inability to take those because of love. Line there is so much you can talk about there.
It would've been mad nice to see him struggle with the means and ends. Everyone should, very few do, but it makes for great storytelling. Cause he should be absolutely horrified by what he does to Hodor, among other things. But it should be a conflict because he may see it as what was necessary to achieve a greater good, something he did when he was young, as well as the conflict between what he's been told and what he feels (like being told some things are abominations but seeing little to no harm in em, maybe even some benefits, etc). But nah, none of that lol
If you want some really awesome literary/thematic analysis of Arcane that will make you appreciate even more just how intricately crafted the story is, I recommend the channel Schnee
Actually Silco was going to shoot Vi and not Jinx at least that’s kinda the general consensus, Jinx chooses to either protect Vi in that moment or to shoot at wherever the sound of the gun is coming from, likely a mix of both Love your video btw, very excited for season 2!!!
I knew Coraline's mom truly loved her when she looked genuinely sad after Coraline said "That's what you always say", refusing her mom's promise to make it up if things go well.
I watched my fair share of cartoons when I was younger and although I don't have an issue with animation as a form of storytelling it's generally not part of my viewing habits. I never played the game but was intrigued by the animation style in the videos that popped up. When the Netflix series came out I watched it twice through but never returned to it. I love the subtleties and detail of the animation, I love the character depth and performances. It has so much emotional resonance. In the last week I have come across 3 content creators doing character analysis on Arcane, all fantastic videos.
25:45 You might want to rewatch that scene. Silco doesn't shoot at Jinx. He shoots at Vi. There's a bullet hole right next to her head. Jinx instinctively shoots at Silco to protect her sister
Also if you rewatch the scene, Jinx isn’t instinctively shooting to protect her sister. She’s completely out of it due to being in the middle of a really bad episode and shoots towards the sound of the gun (which sounds similar to her monkey bomb in ep 3). You can notice it when they cut back to her, she’s breathing heavily and she’s not even looking in the direction she shot at. Her eyes are just glazed over and you can tell she’s spacing out. Once Jinx calms down a little, she looks up to the right and realizes that she shot Silco. The way her face drops and she starts crying breaks my heart. I don’t think she ever meant to harm Silco or Vi In this scene, the only person she wanted to die on this night was Caitlyn.
Viktor: I'm alone because I'm too disabled to play with the other kids Singed: Ah, the other kids can't fathom your genius About 15 years later: Jayce: You can't take this away from me! This can change the world for the better! Viktor: I've gone through the painful climb out of the polluted waters of Zaun that took away my mobility and into this cushy job as the vice dean of Piltover's most prestigfious university. But can I truly turn away a genius as others have turned me away? I think this perfectly encapsulates the character rc he and Jayce have gone through in Act 1. As for Powder/Jinx, I see her in Rhea and not Singed nor adult Viktor. Her intellect has never been the reason for her being cast out, and it has always been made clear for her - her intellect is what gave her strength. Her tendency for chaos, for destruction, "jinxing it" is what stopped her from fitting in. The other kids could jump through roofs and either outrun or outpunch street thugs, while Powder could only run away and try inventions that didn't quite pan out. Silco is the one most closely equivalent to Singed, I think.
I believe Silco was aiming for Vi. That's why Jinx shot him without thinking. Her last act as Powder was to protect her sister. Now Powder is pretty much gone (according to the s2 trailers). Jinx officially lost her younger self at that tea party.
I would LOVE to see more arcane analysis from you! This is an amazing video, ive seen this show upwards of 40 times (autism) and still didnt realize just how deep this scene went. Fantastic analysis