- This topic has 153 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m trying to puzzle out what moral we take about love from ONCE using the ships as our launch pad.
I think that the show is sending the message — and I hope it’s not intentional — that love conquers all. Not just impediments to healthy relationships, but all: sensible judgement, accountability, justice…
I’m worried you’re right.
Honestly, this thread isn’t coming from some place of dissatisfaction with the show and an attempt to get others to see it, but because the more I think about it, the less satisfied I am with what has been presented in text so far.
[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Going back to some thoughts while I drink my morning coffee
Be as bad as you can and you will discover the truest love and a happy ending, because love conquers all. I find that some screwed up message.
I don’t have any problem with the anti-heroes getting their TL’s or their HEA’s. What I have a bigger problem with is when “love saves the day” without that person (the anti-hero) doing any of the work. Because even when they have “love,” without doing the work, they continue to do things that are very questionable. Rumple murdered Zelena, Regina is going after Marian, and if the spoilers are right, Hook is going to blackmail Rumple supposedly for his hand
Love is great and grand, but without contrition on the part of the person, I don’t know if it should have the amount of power ONCE gives it.
As I see it, when talking about love as the only power being able to transform a dark heart, then I think it takes a love coming from within you, not caring at all, not questioning if anyone else loves or will love you, a deep respect to life, to all life, not just of your own and that of your (blood) family, opening up one’s heart and mind to understanding and empathy.
Yes this another big problem for me. When ONCE speaks of love, 90% of the time it’s romantic love. The other 10% is child/parent love. Both of these are perfectly valid, but what about love of self? We don’t have anyone in show who is unattached and redeemed themselves, found peace, however you want to put it…through the love that’s inside them. Ruby was maybe the closest we got, but she got pushed to one side.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I think that the show is sending the message — and I hope it’s not intentional — that love conquers all. Not just impediments to healthy relationships, but all: sensible judgement, accountability, justice…
I have that same bad feeling. There has to be a sense of responsibility.
Sure, the abstract concept of love is supposedly good. Except…what about possessive love? What about love that causes you to hurt people in the name of that love? Self-righteous love? Egotistical love? Love that causes you to do unspeakable acts? That’s good? Cause I’m working with canon text not abstract concepts that sound poetic on paper but perhaps don’t really match to the reality of this show.
The way love is often described in romantic films or books is usually based on an ideal. Fairytale romances aren’t always grounded in the real, everyday challenges of human nature, which has both positive and negative aspects to varying degrees. No person is perfect. We all have our flaws, which is why real love is messy and oftentimes imperfect. These fairytale ideals, while often noble in theory, are much more complex in practice. Real love is never as simple. The most annoying thing about Disney films is that they hardly ever show what comes after the couple gets together. What would “Happily Ever After” even look like? What comes after the wedding? I think even OUAT (like most chick-flicks) struggles to answer that question. The Charmings, the so-called heroes of the tale, sort of took a back seat in S3 while the so-called villains did all the heavy lifting. As much as I like the heroes, the villains were much more interesting to watch. And that is a problem to me. While I don’t mind a good redemption story, I also don’t want the heroes to be presented as weak or 2-dimensional. I want good to win, not because it has to for some odd reason, but because love is strength. That is where I see the so-called villains taking two steps forward, albeit one step back, while the “heroes” are sort of just stuck.
That love coming from with in you might be inspired and supported by love other people have and show you, but the true work is on you. They can’t undo your dark heart for you, no matter how much or little love they show to you, they have shown, it is up to you.
I think that is what OUAT needs to work on. I think characters need to own their past mistakes and take responsibility. The show did make certain strides, such as Rumple’s self-sacrifice or Regina letting go of her son, but then it also doesn’t always fully reveal the consequences of past deeds. Maybe S4 will be about airing the dirty laundry, so to speak, and letting the chips fall where they will. That would actually be pretty entertaining.
OUAT is trying to mix the idealized form of love with the sometimes even dysfunctional forms of love. OUAT does get at least one thing right, which is that everyone has both good and bad in them. Yet, where OUAT struggles sometimes is to show the realistic consequences of bad behavior. While redemption stories can be done well, there still can be a surprising lack of accountability or characters taking real responsibility and ownership of their past misdeeds. Good deeds don’t always result in good ends. Bad deeds sometimes go unpunished and can even be rewarded. Sometimes important issues can be swept under the rug in order to gloss over would-be problems. OUAT takes a very postmodern approach in the story telling. In the end, good may win, but does mean wrong or harmful deeds go unpunished? I think OUAT does a good job of raising issues but doesn’t always give good answers.
I think OUAT does a (somewhat) descent job of showing that love is not just a one-size-fits-all definition. Depending on one’s experiences, one’s interpretation of love can vary. That is why we have so many working definitions of love presented in the show. (“True love is the most powerful magic of all” to “Love is sacrifice” to “Love has killed more than any disease” to “Love is layered.” to “Love is what fuels our dreams” to “I guess if true love were easy, we’d all have it). While I think OUAT could perhaps do a better job of fleshing out certain characters and relationships, as well as do a better job of showing the realistic consequences of one’s actions, the show is so broad that it’s difficult to sum up if there is one overarching theme. In sum, I don’t think there is any one “moral of the story” precisely because OUAT has done away with traditional fairytales in which there usually are clear boundaries of right and wrong, and instead said we’re all a little messed up, but that with enough belief, faith, and hope everything can work out in the end (except when it doesn’t for certain characters).
Moving on from OUAT, I think it’d be nice to branch out and talk about characters from Wonderland. Perhaps my favorite definition of love comes from Will Scarlett, who is soon to join the parent show. Will and Ana’s story is perhaps one of the best in the entire series. I think Will’s definition is by far and away the best I’ve heard in either show when it comes to relating fairytale ideals back to real-life love:
“Love isn’t simple. It’s messy. It’s arguing and making up. It’s laughing and crying and struggling and sometimes, it doesn’t seem worth it. But it is. Because when you’re in love, in the end, you forgive each other.”–Will Scarlett
The reason I prefer this definition of love to any other on the parent show is that it’s not about an unrealistic, unobtainable ideal or some pie-in-the-sky notion that seems ungrounded in reality. It presents love as a choice, as an act of forgiveness. Real love doesn’t have to mean acceptance of wrong doing, but it does allow for forgiveness. I think this gets to the heart of what most real-life couples go through, which can include breaking up and getting back together. It’s not meant to excuse bad behavior, but it does allow for how two imperfect people can make love work.
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
In sum, I don’t think there is any one “moral of the story” precisely because OUAT has done away with traditional fairytales in which there usually are clear boundaries or right and wrong, and instead said we’re all a little messed up, but that with enough belief, faith, and hope everything can work out in the end (except when it doesn’t for certain characters).
See my problem with this, is that it’s wholly unrealistic. You can have all the belief, faith, and hope in the world and sometimes (very often) things simply don’t work out in the end. Sometimes you don’t get that happily ever after, sometimes your dreams do not come true. Now, I recognize we’re dealing with the medium of TV where everyone expect this to have a happily ever after message, but it’s not realistic. And if ONCE is going to realism (and in the first season, I think they were and with each passing season they’ve gotten further away from that) it’s not succeeding anymore. And not having it work out doesn’t have to mean loneliness or isolation or death. It could just be that you accept your fate and any consequences of your actions. Bobby Carlyle has gone on record a few times as saying that he doesn’t think Rumple should get his happy ending with Belle (and formerly with Bae) because of all the terrible things Rumple has done. As a shipper of Rumbelle, I disagree. But as a person who lives on Real! Planet Earth, he’s 100% right. Where’s the realism? Has ONCE lost it?
The reason I prefer this definition of love to any other on the parent show is that it’s not about an unrealistic, unobtainable ideal or some pie-in-the-sky notion that seems ungrounded in reality. It presents love as a choice, as an act of forgiveness. Real loves doesn’t have to mean acceptance of wrong doing, but it does allow for forgiveness. I think this gets to the heart of what most real-life couples go through, which can include breaking up and getting back together. It’s not meant to excuse bad behavior, but it does allow for how to imperfect people can make love work.
Absolutely. Will’s definition of love is my absolute favorite because it’s so grounded in the reality of what love really is. If love were an element–earth, air, fire, water–it would be fire. It can be absolutely destructive. It can kill and main and hurt and traumatize. It can leave cities as dust in the wind. It will consume you and burn you up until you are nothing more than a hollowed out shell of your former self. But like fire, it’s also LIFE. It can save you from the cold and dark. It can light your way, and all these other metaphors I can come up with.
But my problem with ONCE is that they focus on only one aspect–everything is acceptable because love. Well, no. There needs to be accountability and responsibility and a mea cupla. You cannot simply brush away bad deeds or negative aspects and say “loved saved this person” because love is not just a salvation force. Maybe there is forgiveness at the end, but first there must be a reckoning.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Going back to the whole epathising/identifying with the characters, why we like certain characters more than others, and how the past of some characters seems to get whitewashed, I think the reason why Rumple and Regina are so popular with the audience is that not only can the audience identify with them in some way, but some of the characters such as Snow White are less identifiable. The show wants to give the notion that no matter what you’ve done in your past, you can still find happiness in your future.
Why do a lot of fairytales end with a happily ever after? Because subconsciously that is what everyone yearns for. Nobody wants to think they’re going to spend their whole life unloved and alone. The notion that there is someone out there who is your perfect match and it is just a matter of finding them is a comforting one. Much like the idea that all good and kind people go to Heaven upon death whilst those who commit evil acts will be punished for it in Hell. People don’t want to think of life as aimless, that you just exist until you die then you cease to exist. They want hope.
So I think the message of Once, in particular to love and romance, is about hope. You can overcome your past and find love and happiness. Your past doesn’t have to define you.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixI agree @priceofmagic and well put 🙂
Nobody wants to think they’re going to spend their whole life unloved and alone. The notion that there is someone out there who is your perfect match and it is just a matter of finding them is a comforting one.
I have some issues with this, but I’ll boil it down.
Being alone does not make you unloved. Some people actively choose to remain unattached as that is their own personal lifestyle. I hate relationships. HATE. I have ZERO need to be in one. I choose to be unattached and “alone” but that doesn’t make me unloved and it doesn’t make my own version of a happily ever after any less valid or fulfilling than someone who chooses to be in a relationship.
I also think that the idea of a perfect match is not comforting because there is no such thing. It’s a…wait for it…fantasy.
So I think the message of Once, in particular to love and romance, is about hope. You can overcome your past and find love and happiness. Your past doesn’t have to define you.
And I am going to amend this. ONCE’s message might be that, you’re right, but it’s really “you can find love and happiness in OTHERS,” and that’s troubling for people who don’t find happiness by way of romantic attachment. There is no self-love, only the some what super watered down idea that happiness must exist with love of another person, and super specifically: in a romantic love with another person.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Nobody wants to think they’re going to spend their whole life unloved and alone. The notion that there is someone out there who is your perfect match and it is just a matter of finding them is a comforting one.
I have some issues with this, but I’ll boil it down.
Being alone does not make you unloved. Some people actively choose to remain unattached as that is their own personal lifestyle. I hate relationships. HATE. I have ZERO need to be in one. I choose to be unattached and “alone” but that doesn’t make me unloved and it doesn’t make my own version of a happily ever after any less valid or fulfilling than someone who chooses to be in a relationship.
I also think that the idea of a perfect match is not comforting because there is no such thing. It’s a…wait for it…fantasy.
So I think the message of Once, in particular to love and romance, is about hope. You can overcome your past and find love and happiness. Your past doesn’t have to define you.
And I am going to amend this. ONCE’s message might be that, you’re right, but it’s really “you can find love and happiness in OTHERS,” and that’s troubling for people who don’t find happiness by way of romantic attachment. There is no self-love, only the some what super watered down idea that happiness must exist with love of another person, and super specifically: in a romantic love with another person.
What I mean by “unloved and alone” is that you are alone, so don’t have any family or friends etc, therefore the idea that there is someone out there for you is a comforting one. You will find a lot in fairytales that the protagonists are literally unloved and alone.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixThe show wants to give the notion that no matter what you’ve done in your past, you can still find happiness in your future.
I really, really like this.
I was not a fan of Regina in season one and was very skeptical if she could be redeemed especially after everything she had done. But my attitude started to change after watching The Stable Boy.
Now, after having watched the season three finale, is she a character deserving of love after having stolen it and happy endings from other people?
Is Rumple deserving of Belle’s love after he lied to about the kris dagger and for the most, seemed to have reverted back to old habits?
It was said in the narration over Emma and Hook’s character in the season three finale, that they were enemies of love. Love had only given them pain but they started to open up to love again once they found each other. Emma’s a good character, so automatically, we want her to have her own happy ending.
Hook is a hot water character. People either love him or hate him, or just don’t care altogether. I think he’s deserving of love, especially after the arc he went through in season three. Other people probably have a negative opinion that even though he is reformed now, he is not deserving of a happy ending.
Robert Carlyle has also said twice, ‘happy endings are something that are earned. They don’t just happen.’ Is true love or love the same way?
Just to be clear, I’m talking strictly about the villains on Once.
So I think the message of Once, in particular to love and romance, is about hope. You can overcome your past and find love and happiness. Your past doesn’t have to define you.
I really, really like this.
And I think POM’s statement is theoretically good, however, problematic to the workings of ONCE
There are a few problems:
1) your past will always define you. It’s what makes you, you. You can redeem yourself, yes, but you are always going to carry your past with you and be burdened by it, at least if we are playing the rules of reality. Regina will always have the Evil Queen inside her, Rumple will always feel the power of the Dark One and magic, Hook will always have part of his pirate persona. Snow White will always be a bandit, and David will always be a farmer. Emma will be an orphan. Issues like this, especially like abandonment, DO NOT vanish over the course of one day or even one year. They are deeply entrenched in your personality and how you see the world. Some people never get over them. Some people carry them with them wherever they go. Personalities are not hats, you cannot change one at will. To quote my all time favorite series of books: ” “There are ghosts everywhere. We carry them with us wherever we go.”
2) I also think the idea that you can overcome your past is complicated when it comes to the HOW. ONCE would have us believe that there is no work involved; your “issues” are swept aside simply by love. Whatever deity you might pray to, when you seek its forgiveness, you must first ASK for it. And if you are of a particular faith, you may have to work for it. Just because you’ve fallen in love, doesn’t mean your past is erased. It doesn’t mean that you don’t owe your victims recompense. It doesn’t mean you don’t have to stand before the universe and say, “I have erred.” Regina and Rumple have never apologized, for a start, to the town of Storybrooke. The every day peasants who’s lives were so rudely uprooted for 28 years. Some can say, “well they both saved SB too,” and that’s true. But they haven’t acknowledged that they’re the reason SB exists in the first place and they haven’t regretted or at least recognized that their actions HURT a great many people.
Now, after having watched the season three finale, is she a character deserving of love after having stolen it and happy endings from other people? Is Rumple deserving of Belle’s love after he lied to about the kris dagger and for the most, seemed to have reverted back to old habits?
The idea who deserves love is really subjective. This is my own personal view so take it as such: no one “deserves” love outside of the love a parent has for a child. That always needs to be a given. But other than that, no. Love must be earned. And if it turns out that Regina and Rumple don’t get their happy endings because they have done HORRIBLE things to people and those people are not willing to love or forgive them, then that’s the breaks, kids. You are not owed loved just because you’ve ‘seen the light.”
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"
The topic ‘Love and Romance on OUAT: What's the Message?’ is closed to new replies.