Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Does the baby go to the Red Room of Fire as well?
I suppose this depends on what the show runners’ assumptions are regarding consciousness and ensoulment. Minimally, Belle clearly believes that the sleeping curse is subject to vertical transmission.
With the Dark Curse, it seems that time stoppage/prolonged gestation didn’t have any nefarious effects on Cinderella’s offspring (as far as we know, since they’re been long gone to FCI). But it seems to me that these two conditions are different. In one instance, time has literally stopped, and the person is endlessly repeating the same day, like a broken record. In the other, though, it sounds like one’s consciousness is aware, while bodily processes stop (and the body is, de-facto, dead until such a time as TLK happens). Hence Snow was, iconically, in a coffin. In fact, this is the central horror/drama of the original “Dead Princess” trope. I don’t know how I feel about zombie pregnancies. I stopped watching The Walking Dead once it started shambling into that general direction.
Alternatively, if Belle’s body is not, in fact, “dead” but rather “comatose,” then what is to prevent Hades from accelerating the pregnancy without needing the mother to be “present” as it were? We’ve certainly had “real world” precedents, of a sort. At best, this whole thing gets us into a medical ethics quagmire. And the most vexing thing about it all is that I’m afraid that when it comes time to resolve this birdbrained plot point we are going to get something like… wait for it… wait for it…
YOUR QUESTIONS ARE POINTLESS! (Has it been gif-ed yet?)
[adrotate group="5"]I don’t really have time to review the epi, or weigh in too much right now, but here is a couple of thoughts.
First, just on the acting — we are back to our standard scenario where Bobby and EdR masterfully float an otherwise nonsensical, shoddy script.
You folks have already said a lot of what I was thinking. I thought this writing choice was terrible. It annulled a lot of the progress we’ve seen Rumbelle make in the last few episodes. And really, I understand the necessity of maternity leave, but this is not a good way to approach the problem, from the perspective of characterization.
Belle comes across as, in the best case scenario, incredibly naive verging on self-destructive (but this is a pattern with her: she’s more than willing to give a chance to Hook and Zelena, no matter how much abuse those two have rained upon her and her loved ones. Her hope that her father might be able to TLK her back to life, despite the fact that he has consistently put other interests — his kingdom, and his own personal sense of decorum — ahead of her own, seems to go hand in hand with this tendency to extent infinite credit to people who, by all accounts, don’t deserve it). And at worse, she comes across as a bit manipulative. My biggest issue though isn’t just what @RG mentioned, which is that it might appear that Belle is in fact, yet again, trying to force Rumple’s hand. Rather, it’s the underlying logic: that she is essentially putting herself under because, among other things, she doesn’t want to darken her soul further while getting herself and her child out of the current bind. Instead, she is outsourcing the weight of moral ambiguity to Rumple.
One might argue that Rumple’s already the Dark One, so what’s the harm — he chose his path, so he can take care of business. But to me, it felt OOC — Belle has always wanted to be a hero. Burying her hand in the sand while “things take care of themselves” (read, Rumple kills some more peasants to solve the current crisis) isn’t the moral high ground by any stretch of the imagination. It’s like the mobster’s wife who willfully ignores her husband’s dealings — but still wants to enjoy the wealth without getting her hands muddy, or sitting with the cognitive dissonance. Or, approaching the whole thing with eyes open and a good dose of sobriety, trying to mitigate the damage.
And if this is solely to protect the child, then this also feels like a crazy decision: why does she think that being under the sleeping curse will be essentially harmless to the fetus? Am I remembering wrong, or does her “soul” (or consciousness) get stuck in the Red Room of Fire? That doesn’t seem like a good place to spend your second trimester.
Anyway, point is, I think this is either OOC for Belle, or that Belle’s characterization as a “hero” just took a hit. At least for me.
I think there is going to be a twist of some sort — there is obviously a connection between the frozen heart, the souls’ entrapment in UW, and the need for hopelessness. But so far, I have no idea how to put it all together. I can see how trapped souls might be powering the UW, and hopelessness prevents them from moving on. But wouldn’t the simple solution be to plop them all down into the River of Lost Souls (or whatever it’s called), and just call it a day? Trapped for all eternity, and voila, problem solved. No person, no problem. Or is Hades not able to do that? In the case of Hook, he didn’t seem to have any problem dunking him (outsourced to some sort of crane, but still). In the case of Gaston vs Rumple, he was setting up Gaston or Rumple to do it. But again, if he wanted a particular outcome, why not do it himself? I get it that he probably can’t drop a living person in the water of doom – some kind of limitation on his powers – so my only explanation was that he was really banking on Gaston getting the best of Rumple, but would have been satisfied with the opposite outcome because it fulfilled another function. I’m guessing in this case that quantity of souls in river of doom is in direct correlation with amount of general hopelessness in UW.
On the other hand, what would restarting his heart do, pragmatically, for Hades and UW? Clearly, Hades isn’t trapped in UW, but I wonder if his stopped heart is something that limits his powers? On the other hand, I wonder if a stopped heart might connect to immortality? What if Zeus was actually doing him a favor?
I don’t think the show knows. All of Hook’s crimes seem to be wiped clean by the fact that he returned to SB with the stolen bean (that he stole) at the end of S2. From then on out, it’s “hero” status for him, with the exception of Dark One Hook, and despite cursing everyone to Hell, they all go to rescue him because of some perceived sacrifice. Yet Rumple sacrificing himself for the entire town doesn’t seem to make a lick of difference to the heroes in 5A when they said he had his chance for redemption and if he dies, so be it.
Precisely. This, and the lack of clarity on the nature of dark magic causes inconsistencies in the storytelling. On a side note — I think that the “hero/villain” distinction in OUAT can be interpreted as an emic (in-world) discourse/ideology, one that maps poorly on the experiential reality of the world being depicted. Whether that’s intentional or sort of “emerged” at some point, I really don’t know. But from that perspective the statement that Hook is a hero (or, really, anyone is a hero) should be taken with a large grain of salt. This past season, the term “hero” is increasingly used in quotations marks — last time, by Hades, if I recall.
But then what do we make of her crying on Rumple’s shoulder? Is she going to give in a little to Rumple’s dark side?
Well, the way I interpreted this was more along the lines of “Dude, this whole thing really sucks.” It felt like a very natural reaction to me — whatever we might feel about Rumbelle, these two really only have each other to lean on. They’re extremely tangential to the “heroes” — as @RG pointed out, said heroes were more than willing to toss Rumple under the bus the second it suited them, and they tend to use Belle as either Google or leverage. Even if it’s a dysfunctional marriage, I think there is a real commitment. They’re expecting a child. And they’re faced with what seems like an overwhelming external threat. Whatever their internal marital issues and philosophical disagreements might be, they’ve been put in a position where they’re de-facto allies.
@RG, I think you kinda said it all. But here are a few thoughts:
I think as far as morality goes, almost all cultures have prohibitions/taboos on who one may/can/should kill, eat, or have intercourse with — but what those prohibitions are varies. In this sense, it depends on what you mean by “moral relativity”. If you mean, is there one absolute/universal system of moral coordinates, then no. But should there be a system, whether individual or collective? I think this is where it gets complicated. I think, collectively, there is always a morality. But within that, individual morality may vary — including outliers, who often end up being social outcasts.
Rumple’s claim seems to be that one protects one’s loved ones by “all means necessary.” This is the Machiavellian position, I guess. We’ve seen something similar with Snowing and Lily, but unlike Snowing, Rumple’s statement that he is dark — incorporating this into his identity — allows him to forego the sort of mental gymnastics we saw from Snow White where she had to literally dehumanize Maleficient’s child to justify her actions. But that’s not surprising — the Machiavellian position if actually a quite “honest” one.
For what it’s worth, I think Rumple is digging in his heels to counteract what he perceives as Belle’s intransigence, but they will need to find a middle-ground if this is to work. Belle’s a bit black/white on things. So when Rumple counters Belle’s (over-)statement that “darkness always wins” with “I’m sorry this happened to you” — this I think speaks more to something like “I’m sorry you had to stumble into the gray area in this particular way.”
There’s another theme that emerges out of much of this: does negative … lets call it “karma” balance out with positive “karma” (can they cancel each other out, for example), or are they entirely separate “bank accounts”, as it were? If someone does a good deed, does this good deed cancel out their bad deed?
Late to the party. I thought this episode was overall quite good, with some meaty, open-ended themes. One of the things I used to love about OUAT is that it made me think, and not just entertained me. This hasn’t been the case for some time, but the last few episodes open up some really interesting questions.
Liked:
So, EdR is so amazing. I forgot how good she is — if only the show made actual use of her talent.
I normally dislike flashbacks, but this one brought up some interesting themes. Like, to what extent were the Ogre wars a kind of colonial/expansionist conflict? Sounds like the humans were encroaching on Ogre territory, and got more push back than they bargained for. And then, when there is essentially a case of martial law — that normal life is suspended in favor of the war effort — how does this change the micro-ethics of everyday life? Like, say, what does it mean for Belle’s father to offer his daughter in marriage to cement a political alliance to a guy that clearly has a manipulative, sadistic streak (or to be “blind” to it, despite the evidence). And what does it mean for Belle to accept? Also, it makes me wonder how this recasts Belle’s decision to go with Rumple in Skin Deep.
Rumple/Belle dynamic. This is pretty good writing, overall. There are both external and internal conflicts, and neither character is “de-fanged.” There is a kind of opposition between them, which doesn’t resolve into hand-wringing drama llama. It’s almost… *gasp* … a believable depiction of what that sort of relationship might be?
Hades’ coat is amazing. Also, I do enjoy Hades — so far, he makes for a really interesting villain, especially because he manages to walk the line between charming and actually threatening. That scene where he offered Belle a deal actually made me a bit anxious, and OUAT hasn’t managed that since S3.
Mixed:
The whole sub-quest with Emma, the prophetic dream, and the running about in the woods was OUAT-as-usual, as far as things go these days, but good grief does it pale in comparison to actually competent writing where the writing team isn’t just trying to cram too much plot into too little space, and allows itself to explore some more complicated themes. I know that this isn’t something everyone’s probably interested in sitting with, but for me, this is what makes this show more than just something I keep watching out of sheer spite for having invested too much time into it. I guess my biggest gripe is with Emma — that whole revelation “Oh no, I think I might have failed everyone and am feeling anxious about it” felt both forced and asinine. At the moment, Emma is written as if she has the emotional complexity of potato salad.
Dislike:
Hades’ blue hair. It’s distracting. Also, the fact that he always opens his mouth when the hair goes aflame makes me wonder whether the gas stove effect is somehow linked to him having to pop his ears.
I have no use for Hook’s snark. Why do they insist on giving him these ridiculously petulant lines? I’d be OK with Henry saying them — he’s a teenager, this is exactly the sort of dialogue one might expect. But Hook?
Confused:
Hades. The wilting flowers. The Gaston vs Rumple thing. The original thing with why he wanted Regina gone. Pretty much everything having to do with Hades’ motivations.
Suspicions:
I have a very bad feeling about Hades/Zelena. I think this is a red herring. But maybe OUAT has just made me paranoid.
Whether that is “disciplining” is just something I’m not sure I agree with. I use sarcasm all the time. Most of the time, to just be funny.
I use sarcasm all the time. Most of the time, to just be funny. But when I do use it to “make fun” of something or someone, I’m not really “punishing” them. If anything, I’m pointing out something they may not have seen, and instead of straight up telling them, I’m using humor instead.
Oh, sure. Me too. But I bet you we mostly do it with our peers. Like, say, your original comment to my post on this topic could be interpreted as sarcastic. Which is totally fine, since on this platform, we’re structurally equals. So I think it depends on whether we consider Hook and Henry to be “peers.” I would argue that they’re not. Nor was Hook’s comment gentle or humorous teasing. Combine that with the character’s general tendency to choose weaker or vulnerable people to be the object of his ire/sarcasm/snappy remarks/violence, and it’s hard to interpret his lines in the spirit of sassy, snappy cuteness.
More broadly, and this goes to @POM’s commentary, this might be about a disconnect between writing and perception. I interpret Hook as a self-absorbed man-child. Much of my reaction to him is probably colored by my general lack of patience with that sort of character. But I’m sure some people find that sort of thing endearing, and that’s fine.
I had a quick thought about Emma in relation to this. It’s interesting that in order to be with Hook, Emma’s character has to be re-written as a sullen, selfish, lovelorn teen. In part, I think this is because this is where Hook’s at in terms of his emotional development. But then, it struck me that this might be also where Emma’s at, as a character. She’s had some very hard experiences, but she’s also skipped some crucial things that might have allowed her (or forced her) to mature in particular ways. She’d been robbed of a “normal” childhood by Regina, she did not have the experience of being a parent to Henry and missed most of his childhood — that diaper changing, up every 3 hours at night with colic, learning to crawl/walk/talk part that Regina was there for — and she will never (or not for a long time) have to face her parents getting older, frailer, and vulnerable in a way that forces one to invert one’s sense of self to become the care giver, rather than the recipient of care. So many of the emotional milestones that regular people go through, Emma simply hasn’t had.
Haven’t quite finished listening to the episode — btw @RG, I really enjoy your contributions to the discussion — but I think @Marty’s onto something with the power thing.
I’ve posted many times at this point that OUAT has some pretty weird messages on power/gender/class which might be subtle social commentary, or might be straight forward classist ideology. I can’t tell anymore. Anyway, I think the question of “why is power evil?” is a legitimate one.
There is a theme in OUAT about dark magic vs light magic, and the nature of magic more generally as something that can be tinged with a particular emotion and intent (and thus acquires a certain quality). Magic itself is a kind of element of nature — it even seems to obey some sort of Newtonian conservation law, since you can’t destroy it, only transform it — but the question then becomes whether DO magic is the same thing as Dark Magic (in its extreme manifestation), or whether it is a qualitatively different thing.
Because if it is the same thing, then it can be whitewashed. And if it’s not, but still obeys Newtonian physics, then it can presumably still be transformed?
Anyway, this isn’t precisely a discussion on Rumple, but I think OUAT’s magic system does affect the possible outcomes and trajectories for the character. If only it were consistent…
A sarcastic comment followed by a legitimate question turns into disciplining. My goodness.
Let me put it a different way. I am taking “discipline” in its broader sense, as a form of power aimed at changing someone else’s behavior. Sarcastic commentary certainly can act this way, especially if there’s already a power differential at play. If I’m your boss, and you are my employee, and I make a sarcastic comment about what I consider your poor performance, that’s a form of disciplining. Your colleagues around the cooler will agree that I’m being a jerk, but there’s nothing you can do – I’m the boss. Similarly, a teacher or professor might make a sarcastic comment about a student’s performance — though, arguably, they shouldn’t — in order to highlight its poor quality or to put the student “in their place.” Similarly, a parent might chose sarcasm, over, say, yelling or punishment — as a form of discipline.
My point was that Hook is an adult, so he is already in a position of power in relation to Henry. However, he is not Henry’s parent — or teacher, or boss, or, really, mentor. He’s there on Emma’s behalf, and on the sufferance of everyone else. Notice, for example, that Hook is the only non-parent in the group. When I say that Hook acts like a frat boy, I mean to say that out of the entire room of assorted heroes and villains, he is the only one who is essentially a 20-something entitled white dude, who’s so far only lived for himself. He doesn’t have children, he doesn’t seem to have a goal or a sense of direction beyond what’s so far been dictated by his hormones, he has never had to sacrifice his own goals/interests/desires for the sake of someone else. He’s self-absorbed and preoccupied with his own sense of identity. Most of the other main characters on the show have by and large grown out of this phase.
I think there are a couple of things that make Hook’s comment particularly jarring.
– Hook sarcastically calls the story about Snow and Charming trying to deal — however ineffectually — with abandoning their son a “riveting tale”. However silly that plot line about the haunting, I actually feel for the two dummies (maybe because I’m a parent myself).
– The hierarchy of it — Henry is a kid, and NOT Hook’s child. He shouldn’t be disciplining him, period, especially not over something like this. Add to this that Henry is clearly freaked out by this weird thing happening to him, and Hook comes across like even more of an egotistical jerk.
More generally, that scene to me felt really striking because Hook just felt like someone with the emotional sensitivity and intellectual maturity of a frat boy.
