Please read this.
The Mind-Game Film (pdf)
It is the first chapter, written by Thomas Elsaesser, an international film historian and professor of Film and Television Studies at the University of Amsterdam, of a book entitled “Puzzle Films: Complex Storytelling in Contemporary Cinema”.
I stumbled across it the other day as I was once again googling ‘unreliable narrators’ and such, as I am wont to do in my ongoing efforts to make film theoretical sense of my True Blood conspiracy theories. (see link in blogroll “Film Studies For Free”)
To say I was absolutely blown away by Professor Elsaesser’s chapter is a huge understatement. I felt at once validated and like a complete idiot. How had I missed the concept of a ‘mind-game’ or ‘mind-fuck’ film? At the same time, it was like the chapter articulated in film-scholarly language every single thing I have intuited about True Blood and have been blindly stumbling around this blog trying to explain, in my backwoods-Alabama-conspiracy-weirdo kind of way. It even mentions Fight Club and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, two films I have at various times and places tried to relate to Mr. Ball’s ‘mind-control experiment’.
A few snippets (no copywright infringement intended. quoted for educational purposes only):
..one overriding common feature of mind-game films is a delight indisorienting or misleading spectators (besides carefully hidden or altogether withheld information, there are the frequent plot twists and trick endings). Another feature is that spectators on the whole do not mind being “played with”: on the contrary, they rise to the challenge. The fact that audiences are set conundrums, or are sprung “traps for mind and eye,” that they are– as with von Trier’s Lookeys – confronted with odd objects or puzzling details that do not “add up” – even though the overall experience “makes sense” – would indicate we are dealing with a phenomenon that spectators recognize as relevant to their own worlds. Mind-game films thus transcend not only genre, but also authorial signature (even though recognized auteurs are prominent)
Auteur!
The List of Common Motifs beginning on page 17 is particularly edifying, after which the Professor elaborates:
From such ad hoc definitions and the folk/fan wisdom, it is evident that the mind-game film can usefully be analyzed under several headings: for instance, one can foreground issues of narrative and narratology (by concentrating on the unreliable narrators, the multiple time-lines, unusual point of view structures, unmarked flashbacks, problems in focalization and perspectivism, unexpected causal reversals and narrative loops); one can highlight questions of psychology and psychopathology (characters suffering from amnesia, schizophrenia, paranoia, “second sight” or clairvoyance);
Then, beginning on page 24 under the heading “Mind-Game Films as Examples of ‘Productive Pathologies’, the motherlode:
Yet paranoia, one can argue, is also the appropriate-or even ‘productive’-pathology of our contemporary network society. Being able to discover new connections, where ordinary people operate only by analogy or antithesis; being able to rely on bodily “intuition” as much as ocular perception; or being able to think “laterally” and respond hyper-sensitively to changes in the environment may turn out to be assets and not just an affliction. The “creative potential” of conspiracy theories lies in the way they help deal with impersonal bureaucratic systems, based on protocols and routines, and practicing mysterious forms of inclusion and exlusion, rather than implementing transparent laws and explicit prohibitions…Paranoia and conspiracy theories, by shifting perspectives and generating horizons with higher degrees of complexity can lead to new kinds of knowledge.
This is all I’ve been trying to say, in my clumsy fashion. Thank you Professor Elsaesser, for providing me a frame in which to place my incoherent ramblings.
Natch! You couldn’t be more timely with this post since we were just talking about Hitchock in relation to TB.
The Rene-Jason storyline from season 1 sounds like it comes right out of Hitchcock’s ‘Frenzy.’ I think that in each and every way the characters are misled, AB viewers is misleading the viewers, too.
That is exactly why I went ahead and posted. I hesitated because I wasn’t exactly sure how to present the information without coming off like I thought I was all that and a bag of chips. (althought I am feeling pretty pleased with myself right now lol) Hitchcock is the classical auteur of the mind-game film and I would bet money the ep title ‘Frenzy’ was not only a clue but an homage.
Sunny, you are all that and a bag of chips, too! ROTFL!
This is why I love, love, love both Harris and Ball. The novels are an homage to Cupid and Psyche, ‘The Symposium,’ ‘North and South,’ ‘Pride and Prejudice,’ and the Harry Potter series. When AB took over, he upped the ante. He kept CH’s allusions, deepened them, and then incorporated his own instpirations: Aristophanes’s ‘The Birds,’ and Harryhausen’s ‘The Golden Voyage of Sinbad,’ in addition to ‘The Screaming Skull’ and ‘Frenzy,’ which we’ve already talked about. So…the hunt is on to find his other inspirations. Where did he pull the other plots from? Sam and the search for his family? Jason’s transformation into a paramilitary thug? Lettie Mae’s transformation? SA’s V dealing? The senator’s hypocracy?
The changes AB has made are what would be expected of someone who is exploring epistemology the way Plato did in ‘The Symposium.’ Why would AB be doing that? Because he is keeping with the spirit of the novels, and CH started it. I have 100% faith in AB because he absolutely gets CH at the deepest levels.
When AB took over, he upped the ante. He kept CH’s allusions, deepened them, and then incorporated his own instpirations..
I have 100% faith in AB because he absolutely gets CH at the deepest levels
Totally agreed!
Where did he pull the other plots from?
“Little Red Riding Hood” for one, and I’ve thought all along we could find numerous other allusions to folk and fairytales, including especially “Bluebeard”.
So we’re on the hunt! So exciting.
Well, there is an allusion to the Three Little Pigs with Daphne in the playhouse at MA’s first orgy. The other thing I’m looking for superstitous references. There is some very bad luck attatched to sweeping outside and sweeping after dark, which is what Sookie was doing the night Bill shows up to meet Gran and she invites him into the house.
Great point about Daphne’s ‘pig house’!
I have been keen to focus on the occult/magickal significance of some of the details, but you’ve got a good point in that it might be useful to concentrate jsut as much on Southern superstitions. Although I am organically aware of a lot of them I’m going to google and see if I can find any more connections.
This looks to be a good resource on Southern folklore in literature:
http://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/folklore.html
Thanks for the reference. I’m going to make good use of it. It looks like HBO just updated their iphone extras. Can’t wait to explore Sam’s office.
YAY!!! You’re not crazy!! I always knew you were on the right track, and this backs you up!!! Nice find!!!
Haha, some will still disagree Dazed!
I loved this, #6 in The List of Common Motifs:
This may be a stretch, but I wonder if Yvetta (Blech) wearing Fox pelts has any folkloric meaning in southern lit? I’m vaguely aware of eastern european lore, but not
Native American or southern US. I love this site. So much stuff leads to even more stuff. Eloquent I’m not.
Bless you Bobsgran.
You’ve raised an interesting question. Off to google!
This is interesting:
Foxes are an important part of human culture, being central characters of many myths and folklore. In the past, they were associated with forces of the supernatural. The Achumawi Indians believed that a silver fox assisted the coyote in preparing the world for the coming of the first people.
In Finland, the aurora borealis is known as revontulet (“fox fires”) because it was believed that the lights were produced by a fox, painting the sky with its tail as it ran through the sky.
Shape shifting is also commonly associated with foxes. In particular, kitsune, or spirit fox, is part of the Shinto religion. In many of these stories, foxes take the form of humans, particularly women, to ensnare unwary humans. Fox shape shifting has also been explored in contemporary western literature, such as Lady into Fox (1923) and Foxwoman (2000). It is also a key component of Janáček’s opera The cunning little vixen (1922-3).
It’s interesting that women, who do not fulfil a paternalistic ideal, are always referred to as vixens.
The part about foxes being associated with shifting is especially interesting. I’ve been pondering why CH felt the need for a fictional parish name and why she chose Renard. In adddition to the Renard fables that are common in LA, the word itself is French for fox. I’m wondering if the early settlers might have been werefoxes. There could have been some animosity with the panthers in Hot Shot.
Good point, BobsGran!
True that, Bobsgran..or even worse.
Renee–maybe we’re in for some sort of war between the two shifter factions?
I am a bit late for the discussion, sorry but I was in a hurry the last week.
Sunny, you are not the only one who noted the Frenzy references, I also thought there were quite a few similarities. But to me AB (and CH) also refer to a lot of pop cultural stuff, especially to Buffy. When I rewatched Buffy half a year ago I found some interesting parallels to TB and the SVM. Especially the Sookie-Eric-Bill constellation reminds me of Buffy-Angel(us)-Spike.
In both cases we have a young woman, whose life is highly influenced by something that is beyond her control. Buffy has to deal with her “fate” as slayer, and Sookie can´t simply stop being a telegraph. Both women feel estranged to her environment due to her abilities. Their first loves ends terrible bad but nevertheless they don`t manage wholly to move over this relationsship.We have two scenes which highlighed this: The scene in dead and gone when Sookie has sex with Eric again and still thinks of her relationship with Bill and the other scene where Buffy tells Spike after sleeping with him that he is only “convenient” while Angel made her scream
The men: Angel(us) and Bill. Both are virgins´first lovers. They seem to be perfect boyfriends whose ugly past is easly forgotten or ignored by their young lovers. But after a short time of happiness (I have to admit that it is a really short time in Buffy ^^) the other side of their character appears. They show a tendency not to fight a “decent” open fight, but to use manipulation and mental terror. Before someone in here protests: I know that Angel(us) with the whole “soul lost / regained” thing is a bit more complicated, but I always prefered the theory that even the soulless demon part can´t create new traits, but uses the ones that already exist inside his “victim” and perverts them.
Let´s come to Spike and Eric: before you all kill me:I never would tell you they are the same: Eric is much older, he managed to deal better with his flaws, he has the better character. Spike is a far more developing character, but give him 500 years more, and maybe…
However I see some similarities between them: But are introduced as more dark and sinister characters (in contrast to Bill and Angel who are shown as white knights). They stay ambivalent characters but they definitely are better persons than meets the eye, although there are also heavy backlashes concerning their “goodness” (We haven´t seen the real hard ones concerning Sookie and Eric but CH said that the book after dead in the family will show us some). Both of them have to deal with women who are highly traumatazied due to experiences with the first lover. They have to deal with they mistrust of their lovers, who refuse over a long time to see more than sexuality in their relationsship. In contrast to Bill and Angel they prefer (and even love, this is a great similarity) a open fight to intrigues and mental terror.
I liked that both characters “play” with traditionel gender roles. On the one hand they are “manly” and love the fight, one the other hand they have no problems to show love and affection openly.
Of course there are lot of differences, but I think the general pattern is similar. I am also sure that AB and CH both watched these serie. What do you think about this?
Sarah, I never watched Buffy but your comment is fascinating on a number of levels. First, I think it is entirely possible AB has taken the basic structure of the Angel/Buffy/Spike dynamic and put his own spin on it. Second, I’m obviously intrigued by the notion of a young virginal girl, learning and growing and having her eyes opened through the process of taking positive and assertive actions that she has no choice but to take because of her special ‘gifts’ and association with supernatural creatures. AB can put his own spin on this as well, through a character that seems similar to Buffy but comes from a different cultural background and socioeconomic circumstances. How it all plays out will be fascinating to watch.
Oh, Sarah, fellow Buffy lover! Indeed there are a lot of similarities, as you’ve pointed out, but I hope the differences are/will be bigger – otherwise it’s gonna be a very boring watch. However, Bill immediately struck me as a duller version of Angel. (So yawn, TB, I’ve seen that play out already, kthxbai.) Also, did you ever think that Charlaine named him Bill as an hommage to the BtVS vampires Spike (William) and Angel (Liam)? I would like to think that she did, but I have no idea if it’s true.
Sookie isn’t a lot like Buffy, except on the surface-y stuff. Most importantly: Buffy is a real character from the get-go. She’s the star and center of the show, whereas Sookie on TB is a shell of a woman, despite being ten years older than Buffy, and acts in the most peculiar manner, not to mention the inconsistencies in her behaviour – and she takes a back seat to Bill! Buffy never played second fiddle to any man. Book Sookie might be different, I don’t know for sure, but I certainly get the impression from “the bookies” that she’s a real person in the novels.
Eric is the interesting one and that character could stay on television for a decade, if they do things right. The vampire viking and his merry men and women could be the vamp equivalent of the Stargate franchise (in terms of financial success, nothing else). If they just get it right.
I’ve known and loved Spike for more than a decade and I’m just getting to be acquainted with Eric, so it’s hard to compare the two, but I can certainly envision the pair of them interacting (not slash, don’t get that vibe from them) and I demand a string of fanfiction devoted to these vampires. It has to be done! On the other hand, maybe Angel-Bill fanfic isn’t such a bad idea either. They’re ideal to make fun of, aren’t they. (Welcome to Brood’n'Gloom, the site where you can read all about the un-dynamic duo…)
It seems to me that the TB love triangle is a parody of the Buffy one. Angel is the classic tortured vampire that CH & AB are making fun of. It’s because Bill and Angel share the same archetype that the BLs are blinded by what they see on screen. However Bill is not Angel. He has Spike’s whiney, immature, seflish, spiteful personality. Granted Spike was much sexier and, in the end, rose to the occasion, got his soul back, and saved the world, but Bill is on the same path to redemption, and Angel had already saved the world how many times? My memory of the later seasons is fuzzy, so I had to go to Wikipedia to refresh my memory. There Buffy and Spike’s relationship in S6 is described as mutally abusive. Could that apply any better to Sookie and Bill? I just notice how even their names correspospond. Buffy/Sookie and Bill/Spike. BS either way. LOL! I do think Spike was one of the inspirations for Bill’s name, but there is more to it. William means ‘head protection,’ which is what Bill provides for Sookie, and I also think that Sir William Compton was was the inspiration for CH’s original plot.
http://www.ancientpythoness.com/2010/04/27/lets-play-again/
I love the idea of a Angel-Bill fic. “meeting at the self-help group for self-loathing vampires who at least used to be interesting and evil in their past days” would be a fic I like to read. Unfortunatelly I am more an analyst than a writer and besides english is not my mother tongue so it´s your turn, girl
I agree with you that Bill might be an allusion to Liam and William, maybe the American version of those Scottish and English names?
Concerning Sookie: Of course, you have to distinguish between TB Sookie and book Sookie. In the books she is more Buffylike and has the same independent attitude. In TB she is portayed rather weak but I think sometimes (especially in season I as Viking Lover pointed out) glimpses of the “real” Sookie are shown. I hope that the end of Bill-Sookie will be accompanied by Sookie being more self reliant.
I don´t think that TB will follow the same route as BtVS. As I pointed out we habe a similar constellation but the whole circumstances are completly different which leads to a totally new story. For examples even in the series Eric and Sookie´s starting point is much better than Spike´s and Buffy´s. So don´t worry about this. I also hope we will see Eric for a long time on TV. The biggest mistake they could make would be to take all his ambivalence away and make him the white knight. How do you think about this perspective? Because I know some Ericfans like this idea.
Hey Rene
Bye the way, i read your latest post and I loved them, especially the one about the “north-south” thing. For me as a German it is impossible to find these hints on my own so I am very grateful for you pointing them out.
Very interesting point of view, although I have to disagree on some things you mentioned.
Firstly: The sexual relationship between Spike and Buffy was highly abusive , you are right. But there is one point that is easily forgotten: Buffy was highly depressive at that time. It was Spike (not her other friends) who noticed her feeling, who prevented her from committing suicide. As twisted and unhealthy their relationship was, it keept her at least alive. I do not think that this is comparable with the one-side abusive relationship between Bill and Sookie, that makes Sookie weak and subservient while Beel is feeling good.
There is also one important difference between Spike and Angel in their attempt to save the world: While the soulless Angelus was very evil and cursed(!) with a soul, Spike did already good things out of love while beeing soulless and later fought for a soul on his free will in order to atone his attempt of raping Buffy. I am the last to deny that Spike was a dark, sometimes even despicable character but he in contrast to Angel he was not forced to become “good”, he did it out of free will in full knowledge of the consequences.
Maybe we can agree to disagree in this point
Sarah,
You’re right, we may have to agree to disagree on this one, but it’s bothering me because I usually agree whole heartedly with you, and I did so enjoy Spike’s transformation from badboy to hero. No one can beat his deliciously wicked sense of humor.
I think I’m having trouble relating the Buffyverse to the Sookieverse because the mythologies are so different. In Buffy’s world, vampires are inherently evil and deserve killing, no questions asked. That’s what the slayer is all about.
Angel was only different because he had a soul. We saw with him, and later Spike and Darla, that when vampires were able to regain their souls, they regained their consciouses. However, vampires were always capable of love.
Spike’s transformation seems to me to be because he had the misfortune of falling in love with a slayer instead of a vampire. That started him on a quest to become what he needed to be in order for her to love him, and to do that, he knew he needed to regain his soul, like Angel. We saw how he did the same thing with his psychotic vampire love, Drusilla. He became depraved, even by vampire standards, because that was what she needed him to be. That’s why I can’t credit Spike with any moral superiority. As a human he was an overly romantic milksop, and I think that carried over into his vampire years. If I could do a Meatloaf impersonation, this is where I would break into song–”Anything for love. I would do anything for love.” LOL! To me, that’s Spike, which is strangely endearing under his badass exterior. Holy moly! I’m beginning to sound like Lorena.
Hmmm…now I’m wondering if Drusilla wasn’t AB’s inspiration for Lorena. What do you think, Sunny?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drusilla_(Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer)
Wow! Very interesting, I think you could be right. (innocent young novice nun turned into a monster)
Do not panic, Rene. After season II being called a Lorena is not nearly as bad as being called Sookie. At least our favorite psychotic vamp is always very nicely dressed and does not scream, “Beel” every five minutes
I have to admit that Spike always hit one of my soft spots. I can excuse a little bit of evilness but what never can´t be atoned is a lack of humour. So maybe this is the reason why I did not like Bill or Angel in the beginning. Never trust people without humour. Spike on the other hand was wunderful, I loved this self ironic attitude he even had in his darkest times.
“We saw how he did the same thing with his psychotic vampire love, Drusilla. He became depraved, even by vampire standards”
Here I have to disagree again . It is mentioned in the series that Drusilla actually made him but due to her insanity it was Angelus who was some kind of mentor to him and teached him cruelity. Spoikes depravity to me is more the result of group dynamic and not of Drusilla´s influence.
Again, we agree to disagree but don´t worry. In one month season III will be aired and we get enough stuff to condemn Mister Compton in old mutual consent
I praise you for begining to show your bibliography, is most important when you want to be listened and be taken seriously. Now you can be refuted with more difficulty, lol.
[whereas Sookie on TB is a shell of a woman, despite being ten years older than Buffy, and acts in the most peculiar manner, not to mention the inconsistencies in her behaviour – and she takes a back seat to Bill! Buffy never played second fiddle to any man. ]
I really hope they “fix” this character next season. I hope they change her (for the better) because I can’t take any more of S2 Sookie. She started out great in S1 and then took 10 steps backward in S2. Some of her behavior is just not rational sometimes. Sometimes it’s completely unbelievable.
The Reply function on this blog is eccentric – it has a “now you see it, now you don’t” quality – so here’s a list of comments to various posts.
Sarah:
- At this moment I don’t “ship” Eric with anyone, I just want to get to know him better, get a deeper understanding of what it’s like to be him. And for the love of Glory: No white knights! I want my characters flawed and complicated.
- “I love the idea of a Angel-Bill fic. “meeting at the self-help group for self-loathing vampires who at least used to be interesting and evil in their past days” would be a fic I like to read.” Me too, honey, me too. Other members of the group could be Edward Cullen, Mick St John, Louis de Pointe du Lac and Stefan Salvatore. Dear lord, someone needs to write this. Pronto! Sadly I’m useless too when it comes to writing fanfic, but spread the word!
Sunny:
- Alan Ball has never watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Twatlight or any of that newer stuff. I’m sure he knows his Dracula, but I think that’s about it. Charlaine Harris, on the other hand, has watched Buffy, Firefly and Serenity (all Whedon) and not only likes it, but respects it and recommends it.
Point: If anything on TB has Buffy references/origins, it doesn’t stem from AB.
Renee:
- Hmm…well, it’s rather obvious we have wildly different opinions about Spike and BtVS as a whole. “In Buffy’s world, vampires are inherently evil and deserve killing, no questions asked. That’s what the slayer is all about.” No, not really. This was true (for Buffy herself) to begin with, but it started to change rather early on in the series and it kept changing. BtVS evolved as a show, along with its characters. It was very organic, which is one of the reasons I love it so much.
“However Bill is not Angel. He has Spike’s whiney, immature, seflish, spiteful personality.” Oh boy. We sure disagree on Spike. Never in a million years would I describe him with those words. Did we watch the same show?
I don’t think I agree with anything you wrote, but the most disturbing part has to be your comparison of the Buffy/Spike relationship in Season six to Sookie’s and Bill’s. How on earth can you see any similarities whatsoever? This is mind-boggling. I see it like Sarah does, that the BtVS equivalent of Bill is Angel(us).
Sunny:
- Alan Ball has never watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Twatlight or any of that newer stuff. I’m sure he knows his Dracula, but I think that’s about it. Charlaine Harris, on the other hand, has watched Buffy, Firefly and Serenity (all Whedon) and not only likes it, but respects it and recommends it.
Point: If anything on TB has Buffy references/origins, it doesn’t stem from AB.
Hey, this is good to know and I’m actually somewhat relieved. Not to offend any fans, but anything more than an ironic nod to these shows from AB would surprise me very, very much.
Morissa, like, I said, I’m pretty fuzzy on the later seasons, but I’m not getting the part of all vampires not being evil, though. Buffy does her cemetary stakeouts right up until the end of the show doesn’t she? She doesn’t stop to find out what kind of vamps they’re going to be. No questions asked, as they are born, she just stakes them. If soulless vampires aren’t inherently evil, Buffy is a monster.
I have to admit that you and Sarah are making me reevalute the series, but how would you describe Spike? I thought I was giving a pretty straightfordward characterization.
Buffy discussion ahead..
Concerning the vampire love topic: As I see it vampires are perfectly capable of loving each other but the most are not able to love humans because it is kind of weird to fall in love with your next meal.(Something we also see in TB only in a weaker form) I think sexuality between vampire and human is always a possible form of “contact” even it is more the rough sex or even rape thing and not the “sweet” kind of sex. (also a topic TB deals with).
In a nutshell not a lot of vampires might fall in love with humans but Spike had the potencial because his ability to love was already strong when he was human. It was not the human form of love because his demon nature and his soulless state perverted it into obsession. Only when he regains his soul he can feel “healthy” love that is controlled by rationality and conscience.
The most difficult question in the end. How to describe Spike´s character. He is so amivalent but i will try. Start with the plus side: He is passionate, has a great love for life, a wunderful sense of humour, cares for the one he loves even after their dead, he does not feel the need to hide his feelings in order to be judged as “manly” and he is determined. On the other hand he has great flaws: His determinedness makes him somtimes ignore the feelings of others, he enjoys the fight a bit to much and he often is too impulsive. But always he is aware of this flaws and deals ironically with them, what I like.
Rene, maybe you have someday the time and delight to rewatch the series. If you do so we can have the discussion again because wikipedia as source can be a bit misleading sometimes.
Sarah, I sincerely thank you and Morissa for engaging me in this topic today. Because of y’all, I did some Spike research and realized that I underestimated the significance of his capacity to love and Angelus’s influence on him. I’ll definitely be rewatching Buffy and Angel soon with new eyes.
Even before today, though, I would agree with everything you just said about Spike and the ability of Buffyverse vampires to love. I still contend, however, that he’s always in a tizzy and whining or pouting about something. That I read as spoiled immature behavior.
[The biggest mistake they could make would be to take all his ambivalence away and make him the white knight. How do you think about this perspective? Because I know some Ericfans like this idea.}
No, I don't want him to be the stereotypical white night. I want him to be "realistic" and want them to be equal partners as they are in the books.
Oh no, me either. I love the fact that you really have to think about Eric in order to ‘get’ him. He’s complicated, he’s enigmatic, he’s paradoxical. He’s a fortress, a soldier, and a weapon all at once. We’ll never see him as Hoyt, though some people took my Eric parallel with the momma’s boy quite literally. I only meant that DEEP DEEP down where you have to peel away the thousands of years of armor to find him, he’s a sweet boy who is devoted, honest, thoughtful, and kind. Wear it on his sleeve? Never.
Whew! I was starting to feel like I fell down the rabbit hole today, but I can agree wholeheartedly with this characterization. Guess I better shut up about Buffy and stick to TB!
Bless your heart, I feel that way everyday. LOL!
Yes, me too. And I want to see a lot of banter between them…this is the thing I loved most in SVM.
Oh yes Sarah, me too!!
I really think they’ll amp up their relationship in S3. I think they have to at this point because they lost a lot of ground in S1 and S2.
I have just rewatched some scenes on TB and I found very curious somethings I hadn’t really listened with intention.
Bill and SA’s conversation about the menead… The first night she talks about “how and why the meneades appeared and are how they are” = how we make ourselves believe in a lie to make it real even though if it’s nonsense to run away of a unpleasant reality (giving up to miliciousness)… And something more: “we (vampires) started that way too”
Then we have Eric and Sam (Eric is already wearing the Ring, by the way) and Eric says “your known to not be friendly towards those like me”… And Eric has his phone number, which didn’t get that night in the bar (we show them leaving)… So we know for sure Sam is much much more than he lets to see. Then Sams talks about trusting and Eric accepts to help because “divide and win”.
And to finish we get a second conversation about “maenads” between B and SA. How these “sad silly things” wait for the “god who comes”, but in the end god never shows up (turns up to be more like evil than god? lol). And we finally get the literal comparation with humans: “he only exists in their minds, like money and morality”. And how to defeat her… Letting her believe that she has been succesfull and killing her while she is distracted in her victory … “they are not really that smart”.
Sounds familiar? I don’t know you, but we got a class on phylosophy and psicology in ep 11. But we know… Most people wouldn’t listen for a metaphor, lesser when the conversation is about something that doesn’t exist, about a plot we despise and find uninteresting, in statements that are unreliable and stupid (fantasy has to be reliable even if it’s not real)… I wonder about the point on spending so much time in it…
Love this parallelisms. lol.
Pingback: The Ancient Pythoness » Blog Archive » Tainted Love
Pingback: “It’s Just True Blood” « True Blood Underground