Sorry to Disappoint You but This Is What The Green Knight Movie Is All About | Jonathan Pageau 

People think that everything that's made by these weird "high" art studios like A24 is automatically genius. Most of these movies are obnoxious pseudo-intellectual nonsense disguised in cinematography that looks like psychedelic trips. They're made to impress the immature and empty mind of modern man.

The film really upset me. I saw it opening night, I was so excited. The film inverts everything good about the source material.

It’s shocking when they don’t reverse, invert and just trans everything these days.. it’s like we’re on upside down world...

I feel like the party pooper in my family when we’re watching movies and shows. Because I can’t stand the propaganda. These reviews save me a lot of time so thank you!

It’s so blatant how the foreign lord’s wife looks directly at the camera and says she just decides to change stories, because she can.

From the very start, looking at the promotional posters, the casting, the trailers' tone, the art design, etc. I was getting the "Hereditary" vibe from this movie. Add it to the fact that we are in 2021, and you know you are up for some good ol' corruption by inversion.

Ok we need a list of good movies from JP

Just like Moana, Cars 3, Star Wars, Thor at the end of Avengers: End game etc etc etc.

I had read Tolkien’s Green Knight, filled with Christian themes, and was grossly disappointed in the film.

It must be a kind of surreal experience for film industry people going to debuts and red carpet events to see the same scenes play out over and over. *Little girl picks up crown* !! 5 min standing ovation !!

I had a feeling for why I did not enjoy this movie, and you put my feelings into words here. Great video and thanks!

I should have went with my wife as a measuring rod for this film. She thought it was boring as heck. I'm seeing a trend with her: the more woke a movie is, the more she sleeps through it.

I think Pageau is so used to looking at things through his Moana/Logan/Wonder Woman/Heman/Marvel that he was actually a little blinded on this one. He’s correct about THOSE movies, but I think he didn’t watch this movie carefully enough. This movie is 100% absolutely told from within the frame of those other movies existing... But it is my belief that this movie is a subtle critique and commentary on that frame. I think Pageau is correct that the opening and closing can be used to summarize the whole movie, so I’ll stick to that. And, I’ll note that I need to watch it again and could be very wrong… But, here’s my take: 1) What happens when the crown touches Gawain’s head? He burst into flame. But what happens to Gawain? How does he react? This could be me reading into it from my own frame, and reading into it as a microcosm of the journey he goes on and what happens to him by the end. He isn’t consumed. He is bursting full of divine power, and the divine power is consuming that which is unworthy in him, but he still sits crown on head, scepter in hand, globe in hand. This is what should happen when God places a grown on your head. 2) Queen Guinevere was also wearing a crown. It looked exactly like King Arthur’s. The crown at the end of the movie when the little girl came in could just as easily been the Queen’s crown. But let’s assume for Pageau’s sake that it was Gawain’s crown. The little girl doesn’t wait until she is enthroned. Doesn’t wait until given rod & scepter. She inappropriately takes the crown, which has been casually discarded by those around her, and plops it down on her own head. This is a good impulse (to want to be crowned) but she doesn’t wait until she is worthy. And what happens to her? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. No divine power. Furthermore, she’s not just a little girl, she’s practically a baby. Weak and unable to actually do anything. The crown is useless, just an ornament. THIS is the commentary on society. Viewed in light of Gawain’s divine crowning and its effect, this little girl’s self crowning is an absolute mockery and joke. A child playing and nothing more.

As soon as I saw that they ‘brown-washed’ Gawain I knew it wasn’t going to be good.

When the Green Knight tells Gawain "off with your head," after slashing his finger across the knight's neck; I see it as him saying that he can go home safe, knowing that he met the summons with TRUE courage and honor. I don't get where all this "feminine symbolism" is coming from, to be honest

read the original book and it's great, very moral and traditional. the movie is corrupted

I have a bad feeling the new Bond movie will have a similar ending.

I just started watching “Little house on the Prairie” ...10x better than any Hollywood is making right, or Bollywood for that matter

I, for one, am shocked that a film which replaced an Anglo hero with a foreigner might also subvert the masculine hero. Shocked.

I didn’t watch the post credits. And now I’m happy I didn’t. I took it as nesting paganism underneath a burgeoning Christianity without denigrating either and even the Christian story redeeming the more brutal parts of its pagan counter story. Apparently the post credits ruin that and it becomes more parasitic story telling. Ugh.

Wow, I didn't even know there was a quick scene in the credits. I could more or less get over the fact they cast someone like Dev Patel (even though it doesn't make much sense) because of how surreal and bordering on unreality the whole thing was, but knowing about that final scene kinda ruins it for me. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if that scene was just inserted as a gag for comedic purposes and not necessarily done with the intention to subvert the whole story that came before it, but that doesn't help all that much. That just makes the storytellers negligent and careless with their symbolism. As someone who wants to create more of his own stories, this is just a reminder that symbolism, especially in stories, is a power that needs to be used responsibly and with deliberate care about what you're communicating, because even a small moment that lasts all of 3 seconds can completely undermine everything.

So basically it's Moana lol

The animated Beowulf did the same. A deliberate and studied desecration of legends of a people loathed by the media tribe. So this is no surprise at all. Business as usual.

2:11 The director said that the post/mid credits scene (girl with crown) wasn't actually part of the story and was just something cute that got captured on film. Like a blooper reel. The story ends when Gawain returns to subject himself to the Green Knight's game.

I loved this story as a kid, I read it again and again .. so I thought who cares if you ‘spoil’ it but after you spoiled it I realized it was actually the writers who spoiled it. That is a shallow ending, it sacrifices the beauty of what could be on a universal level to earn cheap points in the present. I suspected this might be the case because the original story does not need to be more than an hour so to flesh it out they have to add something … I was nervous about that concept in general.

I didn't know about the post-credit scene. I *thought* the film was about a character learning to accept death and throw off the over-protection and infantilization of the Oedipal Mother in order to join his heroes. I liked that version. But now the assaulting, traumatizing vibe (I white knuckled through his encounter with the hunters wife because it hurt to watch him betray his dignity) makes a lot more sense.

I picked up on this when I first saw Logan years ago. I was surprised by how much everyone loved it because it honestly made me uncomfortable the way it valorized the wilful self-annihilation of masculinity so as to invert the formula and replace it "empowered" femininity. Now we just have films which outright treat masculinity as a disease. I've also noticed that a lot of GenX conservative men eat this stuff up because it plays into their "daddy self sacrifices to protect his precious little girl who's also a cool tomboy he can fish with" fantasies and also gives them an opportunity to mildly virtue signal how they don't "feel threatened" by female empowerment. But maybe this is just because I'm in Canada, the most pozzed country in the world.

Didn't realize there is a post credit scene either, guess it saved the movie.

As you have described the movie, it seems you may be interpreting this a little bit too literally. This is also an esoteric theme having to do with the freeing of subconsciousness (feminine symbol) from domination by the self-conscious (masculine symbol). The one symbol that encapsulates this in its entirety is Tarot key number six, “The Lovers,” who’s opposite is key 15 (The Devil = The Green Knight).

I know I'm so disappointed with all the movies and series that are coming out lately. I find myself watching Seinfeld, Frazier and Stargate SG-1 and Princess Bride 😄

Of all the movies I wish I could un-see this is at the top of my list.

Or maybe this is a story about an ordinary man who goes on a quest and comes to the painful realization, that he has not been living up to his ideals and becomes honorable by facing the consequences of his own decision to challenge the green knight. I think the scene after the credits does not imply that women should replace men (or are better than them). It could signify that an other future from the one in the vision has come to pass. This movie allows for a lot of different interpretations and it makes me sad, that you and so many of the people in the comments seem to think this movie is an attack on men(hood).

This is the first video I saw of Pageau after seeing him interact with Jordan Peterson from time to time. I frowned a bit at most of his takes, because I found it baffling that an “expert” on symbolism could be so wrong about the symbolism in this film. Gawain sees the life he would lead if he took the cowardly road flash before his eyes right before the green knight is supposedly going to decapitate him. The girl with the crown at the end is an extension of that vision, a negative future. Pretty much the exact opposite of the nonsense Pageau is stating in this video. As a result of his realization of the importance of his decision and the hold the belt would have on him for his entire life, Gawain knows that a betrayal of his ideal would lead to death anyway. He is dead no matter when he dies if he flees, because he won’t have honor in his future. He’ll wear his cowardice about his waist his whole life. He doesn’t want to be a knight, he wants to live honorably, so he removes the belt and succeeds. He becomes his ideal. He becomes the hero. The green knight is satisfied, and we are left with our own imaginings as to what Gawain’s life will be now that he has made the right choice. Replace all of the mistakes he makes in the vision with the right choices, the honorable choices, and you immediately see what the movie’s getting at. How can you guys fall at this guy’s feet and praise his opinions on Christ etc. if he can misinterpret something this relatively straightforward so horrendously?

I didn’t watch the post-credits scene either and found the movie enjoyable. There were a few things that were changed which puzzled me- Morgan as Gawain’s mom, the white old lady in Lord Bertalik’s house, Gawain as a brown man, the part where Lord Bertalik kissed Gawain, the change of when their bargain was implemented, and then Lady Bertalik’s monologue. Wow, while writing this, guess a lot of the story was changed! I thought there were some changes which added some different depth and really enjoyed the scene with the giants. I thought as a cinematic experience, the atmosphere and music really created a dreamlike feeling which sucked me into the world. I do struggle with knowing so much was changed and for what reason? Knowing there was a post-credit scene and, in context of most other Hollywood movies, is interesting.

I saw this movie because I was excited about the story from your video. It was beautifully filmed but I was sorely disappointed by the adaptation and storyline

Can you please do a breakdown of Cartoon Network’s Over The Garden Wall?! I would love to hear breakdown of the unknown and the beast!

A24 films are all style and no substance. I mean the substance is the fact that the directors can show off how smart they think they are.

I'm kind of surprised people who watch this channel even consider seeing any new movie that comes out now

I didn't even know there was a post-credit scene. The movie was so pointless I didn't care to keep watching the credits.

It seems like a tired analysis by JP here. I think the potential tip toward the tyrannical masculine, transmuted by Gawain's final decision at the Green Chapel, is in part an acknowledgment/commentary on the very patterns that have become his main lens of modern culture (not least a pattern of corrupted power we know all too well - it's hardly woke to nod to that). But ultimately, Gawain realises the importance of chivalric duty that it is to be a knight - live or die. For me the post-credit sequence is yet another play with this ambiguity - it's earned the right for a tongue-in-cheek play with our expectations. Ambiguity and living in paradox are hallmarks of myth, of which this telling was for me the best adaptation of any Arthurian text - in fact the only one I felt has been done justice, knowing changes to the narrative are required for cinematic adaptation. We're all human and a lens can easily become a bias when looked through for too long, which in my judgement is what may have happened here for JP.

I have to admit that by the end I had completely forgotten the opening scene and I didn’t stay for the credit scene so I very much missed this frame. My inclination was to breathe some sort of lust vs. cowardice morality play take into it but couldn’t kick the feeling that I was missing a critical piece. From a symbolic standpoint, as Jonathan points out, it plays right into the trope of the feminine assuming headship in an inversion of the divinely ordained patriarchy. Now those elements such as retrieving the head from the depths, the breaking of the Marian icon painted on Gawains shield, the weird feminine take on the Giants causeway, the antics of the lady of the castle rendering his painting upside down, and finally her seemingly out of place monologue about the green of nature overrunning the established masculine order of society, -they all fall into place. While still salient up to a point, my original take on the movie as morality play now reads more like an instruction manual on how to cuck men into submission and usurp their rightful place as leaders: lust makes men cowards.

"It's just the same thing, same nonsense." Nice closure 👌

good lord the pacing of the film just drudged on

More successive attacks on men it seems.. why can't a man die after a fair version of a glorious ruling in the light of divinity? It's difficult to craft such a story but it is a better one than just some ambiguous scene in which some little girl takes the king's place..

Christ, the Head of the Church, giving His Kingdom to His Bride is a distortion of the divine pattern?🤨 None of those films mentioned in this video necessarily imply that the masculine is being replaced by the feminine. I definitely can see how maybe in ways they could be interpreted that way, if you dogmatically intend on seeing that specific pattern as the dominant one within the narrative. But no, if anything, at least for this film, the masculine can be seen as being fulfilled by the feminine. Just like we see in Genesis, Man was alone before Woman came along; and that was deemed the first “not good”. Woman completes Man, while Man, as Her foundation, establishes Her. They both go hand-in-hand. Without the masculine, the feminine could never be, but without the feminine, the masculine would remain incomplete. The handing-down of the royal crown to the feminine, biblically speaking, does not have to speak of replacement whatsoever, but speaks of divine legacy. Christ gave to us, His Church, His crown of glory, as He took up our curse (the crown of thorns) upon His head. If the whole premise of this particular film is about the feminine inheriting some sort of authoritative role, I honestly think that is in favor of the divine narrative. Christ crowns His Bride in glory! That’s not replacing Christ. That’s the feminine as the legacy of the masculine role. But, apparently, that’s not quite that obvious, I guess🤷‍♂️

Hollywood today has one story.

Exactly the same happens in Eggers' the Northman 2022. The protagonist receives the crown and becomes the new king. Bad and good shit happens....... Protagonist sacrifices himself to save the mother of the future maiden king that, as was shown in a vision, will hold a crown and a scepter.

And this scenario is considered the KIND version that supposedly appreciates strong men, at least as a disposable shield for an ‘ultimately stronger’ but as yet undeveloped woman (a trick to salvage the dramatic elements of the traditional “damsel” archetype without letting her simply BE one). Contrast that with “Maleficent”, which basically says that the only good man is a weak and harmless one, so this SEEMS so Much better by comparison.

What I didn't even know they made a movie about the green knight. :O Why didn't they stick to the original story. -_-

Thanks for the "heads up," pun intended.

We know what's going on. Thanks for being a shining light.

Same with James Bond. It does seem to be that it's a sort of period of post-feminist overadjustment. Hopefully it becomes more conscious so it doesn't overstretch to the actual limit. Some might argue it already has. Certainly in abstract art. Reality is always less free to move though. We should be smarter than to just be slaved to ecological equilibrium but as a group we're just too divided. Even as individuals we aren't as connected as we could be so community is a whole bigger mess. As Christians we get to rise above - not to hate and hold grudges mind. We are salt and light the less we fall to fear.

I'm confused Jonathan... is the protagonist sacrificing himself for 'the feminine' or just for women, because there's a big difference (which you obviously know). I think that the story works better without the hidden scene; finishing on a note of "tell the truth even in the face of death/the fear of death is the root of unnecessary suffering." Is Hollywood really concerned with the rise of feminine values (which are up for debate) or are they more concerned with the rise of women as figures of authority and respect? The scene after the credits is like a paste-on addition that takes a timeless narrative and gives it a modern outcome. This is probably the film's biggest issue in my books... spiritual surrender and modern social justice are diametrically opposed. The former is the gate to personal freedom and peace of mind which leads to compassionate action on the basis of universal goodness and the latter is the demand for justice for real or perceived victims on the basis of no clear basis. The modern ideal just seems to fall flat in the face of the more timeless and metaphysical aspects of the film. What a clash of materialistic and spiritual themes.

Didn't know there was an end credit scene. It's such a disappointment to hear the inescapable hollywood tropes but then again... not shocked about it.

I think, i just had a bit if a revelation regarding this movie. Throughout the story you see a pitting of both Christian and Wiccan symbols against each other. The Green Knight represents the Natural (feminine) realm. The Knight the ( masculine ) supernatural realm. At the end, the Green Knight ( the feminine) decapitates Sir Gawaian ( the masculine) . I know this is what Jonathan mentions in this video, but my realization is that its not just a feminine vs masculine but a wiccan vs Christian message where the wiccan wins. Also the fact that it serves as a form of social spell where beside the plethora of movies with same or similar messages you go out and see the government and corporations pushing that same vision, which in turn reinforces the belief seeded by this poisonous movies.

It may not be an official story of the Bible, but the story of Lilith during creation is too true and happening before our eyes.

Wolverine exactly the same and also James Bond.

I'm probably grasping at straws here but did anybody think there was anything to the fact that he wasn't consumed by the fire it didn't spread over his entire body it was almost as if the fire was refining his head burning but not consumed. Like the burning bush.

The axe is the cross.

Now we’ve got another movie to add to this. The new James Bond movie

In a lot of ways, this film was very well done technically. It really sucks that they chose this direction for the story rather than sticking with the traditional telling.

As long as you keep paying for it, they will keep making it.

I’m sure it has to do with the Age of Aquarius.

I think it was a decent play all the way up to when he reaches the house of the Green Knight, then it all rots.

The movie was a desecration of the myth. Pure modernist crap.

I think the film could still be interpreted in different ways. Someone thinks Sir Gawain didn't die and that the girl at the end was his granddaughter or something.

What do you think is the hidden agenda behind the inversion thing. Who would want to subvert the masculine for the feminine and what is the sinister reason to do so? Sorry if you have already talked about that, I haven't seen all the videos.

I don't understand those who are taking digs at the idea of the masculine sacrificing itself for the feminine. To have a problem with that is to have no real understanding about the chilvaric code. It's not about the glory and power. It's about submitting to a greater glory and to chose not to exercise power for self gain, rather for the service of the vulnerable. Piety, friendship, generosity, mercy, honor, kindness, generosity, etc. The movie criticizes the sort of men today that Gawain is made to represent who want the glory and the power with out the self work and virtue. The character Easel asks, "Is not goodness enough?"

I never saw the last scene which changes everything. At first it was clearly a tale of the hero dying in order to become king. The hero died in the end and he became king, but once you consider the post scene hollywood did alter it to be women are better kings and always right. Dang you did ruin this once great tale, well in the modern scene it is horrible.

As for my people, children are their oppressors and women rule over them.

Just like the news blooper reels where every single news reporter is parroting the same script across the entire country for something as mundane as a little kid's birthday party, so too does the movie industry crank out propaganda written by the same film farms and probably owned by the same small number of corporate conglomerates... If you believe this isn't true then please explain why indie films are such a special thing and why do you have the branding jingle memorized for all your favorite film houses?

Rewiring of history continues

Was there a coherent theme though? All I saw was the writers removing any christian or pagan symbolism and replacing it with pop culture references. For example the reference to The Green Ribbon from Scary Stories to tell in the Dark or Alice in Wonderland “off with his head”. Just seemed gratuitous.

Lia Thomas takes the crown back moments later.

I think the film tried to be ambiguous so people would put there own meaning on it. That way people with different values could enjoy it. One thing I disagree with you about is the underlying agenda. Because the opening scene he is crowned by god but burst into flames because he is unworthy. He spends most of the film trying to become worthy evtually chosing virtue over life as well rejecting the protection provided by his mother though the green belt that seams to represent the umbilical chord. Then in the after math some little girl who's gone though no trials or tribulation decides to crown herself. None of the women seemed to actually be virtuous and spent the entire film manipulating and scheming for there own ends. Tepting him into sin while expecting high virtue. Might just be but It dint seam to endorse women in power.

Well said.

The headless horseman

Dev Patel is English.

I watched this on opening night in my city. Everything was so absurd, how Sir Gawain kept failing his trials, it made the whole audience walk out before the post credits scene.

Thanks

I did not know there was a post-credits scene! Wow, that's annoying.

I wasn't aware of the post credit scene but know that I am it ruined the whole movie for me :)). Anyway, while I was watching it I couldn't understand why Gawain is so weak and fails so much in his quest, without any kind of character building. It's a pity because the movie is pretty well done visually

This is why I stick to watching old/older films. More to explore and more honest storytelling. Couldn't care less about anything new unless it shows up on my radar like Joker did.

Thank you for saving me time and money. I wasn't going to watch because of the NONSENSE of placing an Indian as the main actor in an European myth... That completely threw me off. Just as weird as whites actors pretending to be Natives in old Cowboy movies. Too strange for me to keep me enthralled in the movie.

Read Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future. He explains where this comes from

Oh wow, I didn't know there was a post credit scene. That definitely undercuts the whole damn movie. I thought the movie was great otherwise. He was immature and irresponsible so he grew up by letting his past self die off.

I just found your channel! I'm here to understand the essence of sacrifice in the ancient mind. What does it mean to sacrifice a pure innocent animal. And why does this please God? It's quite a thing to cut the throat of an innocent animal.

I was turned off by the Cultural Appropriation in the casting.

I don't know what's wrong with me but modern movies are so boring. I haven't been interested in cinema for many years. 🤔 I do like certain documentaries though.

What movies does Jonathan like? Is there a video where he explains the movies he really likes?

There is a little girl in each of us as all our mothers attest.

Hey Jonathan , she's not getting caput ‼️

This is by far the most disappointing analysis of anything I've ever heard by Pageau. He is completely wrong here. This was a fascinating and complex movie, and he wrote the whole thing off because in a post-credits seen with no context to it whatsoever a little girl puts a crown on her head. There is absolutely nothing in this movie to suggest that that scene should be read as yet another kowtow to wokism. Pageau has become reverse hypnotized by the woke narrative and is seeing it where it doesn't exist. Watch the movie with an open mind and consider that maybe, just maybe, it doesn't all hinge on the ridiculous pop-culture, socio-political trend of the moment like, admittedly, most everything else these days does.

Soooooo, this has nothing to do with the green night 😂 but this video got me thinking about it..can you please do a video on the symbolism of Prince Harry, leaving the royal family, and his wife being so seemingly dominant? I see so many people referring to him (somewhat accurately) as the jester of the royal family. And it makes me think how you always say to "watch the fools". I would be interested to hear your take....

I didnt like it bc the main character was a shitty person the whole way through, so that I had no sympathy or interest in him. I was happy at the scene you think hes killed in the forest. My bf thought it was a redemption arc, but I just found nothing heroic or admiration worthy in the char. He made a decision only at the very end to finally take responsibility, and it was only bc he was forced into it. It also seemed like the woke standard "old white european rulers replaced by virile young poc with no idea of tradition or understanding of duty" He just wants power and to be rich. No moral virtue to aspire to.

sad, I was looking forward to this, now I'm scared for Dune...

You think this is about replacing the masculine with the feminine? Wow. I feel bad that’s how you see the world; which is evolving. To honor one is not to dishonor the other. That’s such childish thinking. The film was a bore but had nothing to do with wokeness.

Why call it nonsense if it makes total sense???

That is the point of the whole story Green replaces everything, we will one day be replaced and accepting that fate bravely is heroic… rather than denying the truth that we will be gone and others will inherit

The book was better. Assuming people can still read