#OFMD meta

[asneakyfox]

if i'm reading you right, you're pointing out four reasons the scenes aren't the same:

ed doesn't choke izzy in the exact same way

the lighthouses don't look like the same lighthouse

the blocking for the two scenes is mirrored rather than identical, with ed on the left side in the izzy scene and on the right side in the scene with his dad

the lighthouse symbolizes stede, and stede isn't important to the first scene

i have to say the first three honestly strike me as entirely irrelevant. i would not generally expect tv to indicate that two scenes are similar by making them as close to literally identical as you're suggesting, although there's exceptions like a situation where it's meant as a very overt comedy beat. you could also point out other differences, like the fact that one takes place on a sunny day and the other on a rainy night, or that one is set in a cabin on a ship and the other outdoors on land, or that if you look closely con o'neill and damien gerard are technically two different guys. if the show could only indicate parallels between two scenes by making the second scene an exact beat-for-beat shot-for-shot recreation of the first it would rapidly become extremely boring. you could just as well argue that if the 2x05 moonlight scene had been intended as a parallel to the one from 1x05 they would have made the moon full instead of gibbous, and since they didn't do that it must mean all the similarities that are present are just coincidence. (that's a scene that is making its parallels unusually on-the-nose for cutsey romcom reasons and there's still major differences!)

#4 is puzzling to me because you've answered it yourself - the show has never treated lighthouses as a symbol of just one thing, we are told explicitly that it means multiple things, both a guide and a warning. and if a warning is what it means in the patricide scene then very obviously that's at least part of what it means in the izzy scene! that scene is very overtly the start of ed going down a path we don't want him to take, he's about to crack up on the rocks!

in fact he's about to crack up on the same rocks, which is kind of the whole point of this. like the real meat of the parallel here would be there even without any visual reinforcement - the only reason we're talking about the visuals is that they're what make it clear the creators were conscious of the parallel and considered it an important thing to reinforce. the heart of it is in both scenes:

ed is dealing with an angry older white man who is a significant part of his life, who has been threatening to both ed himself and other people ed loves (and, if you include the cut lines from his dad, both men have been trying to pressure ed himself to perform masculinity in specific ways). after putting up with it for a long time, ed is pushed too far and reacts with defensive physical violence. although he succeeds in the immediate act of self-defense, the scene leaves ed traumatized, believing that his own act of violence proves he is an unlovable monster.

there are also some significant differences between the two scenarios, like the fact that izzy is doing all this on purpose, while there's no suggestion that ed's dad intended to provoke his son to violence. the presence of those differences don't change the core parallel though. the scenes are variations on the same theme, and the variation does matter, but the theme is consistent.

this is central to ed's character arc. it's the center of ed's character arc in season 1, the thing it pivots on. the reason ed becomes the kraken is because the scene with izzy triggered the exact same trauma he's carried from the act that defined his childhood, that's the throughline. if the two scenes weren't striking the same trauma then ed wouldn't react the way he does to the second one.

(that didn't have to mean q.e.d. izzy is ed's father figure for all time and that had to be the main theme of their relationship. it just means there's one scene in which izzy played a role that paralleled ed's dad - but it's a pretty important scene. the show could have played that as a thing that happened only once. but it still would have happened, it would have been something that was there at least in one pivotal scene whether or not they chose to expand on the theme in s2.)

anyway back to what lighthouses symbolize. i would suggest that while the lighthouse definitely signifies a warning signal in both scenes, it's an entirely plausible read that it symbolizes stede in both scenes in addition to that. this show is a romance, and it's the kind of romance where people turn into hallucinatory mermaids and call their lovers back from the land of the dead. it is not at all surprising to me that in a scene set long before ed and stede meet, there would be a symbolic reminder that even in this darkest moment of ed's life the love of his life was already out there waiting for him, warning him away from the path he was on, calling him back to land. that kind of soulmate stuff, portraying the two lovers' stories as having been intertwined before they ever met, that's totally in-genre here.

finally i did say i thought points 1-3 were irrelevant, so i don't think this matters, but i want to point out that #3 is also not quite right; you've got the wrong flashback there. as you noted earlier, we see two versions of ed's father's death, and no lighthouse is visible in the "real" one, because the camera is always facing either inland or down. (the fact that the lighthouse is only clearly even there in ed's imagination probably says something interesting about the symbolism - there might not be a lighthouse at all in the real scene, it's unclear in that version if the flashing could be just lightning - but that's kind of outside the scope of this.) if you positioned the camera behind them facing the sea, so that the lighthouse (if it exists) were in frame like it is in the other scene, the way they're positioned would of course put ed on the left.

but the version of the scene where you do see the lighthouse is the one where ed is supposedly only present as a watcher; ed's actions in this scene are displaced onto the literal kraken, the kraken is symbolically replacing ed himself. you'll never guess which side of the screen the kraken is on.

ed's dad is even positioned here directly in front of the lighthouse, blocking our (and young ed's) view of it, like you pointed out that izzy walks forward into the center of the frame to block our view of the painting, while ed is still positioned on the left.

like i said i don't think the blocking is an element that needs to be exactly the same for the scenes to work as parallels, so personally i wouldn't count this as a particularly important part of the whole visual parallel situation. but if you're concerned about it, that's something there.

So I’m up to episode 10 of my most recent rewatch and I noticed something interesting in the scene where Izzy confronts Ed. At the beginning of the conversation the camera tends to stay with Ed in the left side of the frame and Izzy on the right, with the space between them in center. We do get some shots of just Ed where he’s in center (not included) but any shots that focus on Izzy still keep Ed in the frame with Izzy staying right of center.

So I am not a cinematographer by any stretch, but this seems all pretty straight forward to me? Like, we’ve got these two people having an argument so we’re showing them on literal opposite sides, and our shots are biasing toward whoever is speaking at the moment, but with an overall bias toward Ed, who we’re supposed to sympathize with.

But where it gets interesting is when Izzy makes his namby-pamby comment, and Ed pushes Izzy up against the wall. Izzy is still right of center, but take a closer look at what is now in the center of the frame.

The lighthouse painting. The lighthouse which represents both Stede and Stede & Ed together. In this moment while Ed briefly appears to have control of the conversation, this painting representing many of the things Ed wants and wants to be is prominently in the shot even while we’re supposed to be focused on Izzy. And as an added bonus just as Ed is consistently on the left side of the frame in this argument, the lighthouse is on the left side of the painting.

But then Izzy takes back control over the conversation. He reaches out and strokes Ed’s face, causing Ed to jerk back and let go of Izzy.

Izzy takes advantage of this to step closer to Ed, bringing him to center frame.

And even then he continues to get closer and closer.

And as Izzy whispers his threat to Ed we’re left with this: Izzy filling the center of the frame, with Ed only barely visible at the very edge, and the lighthouse missing from the painting, completely blocked out by Izzy.

[crimson-and-clover-1717]

This is one of my favourite scenes. I think it showcases their characters so well.

How tender Stede is with Ed’s absolute chaos of a breakfast

Stede’s confident body language - he ‘did good’ last night

Ed’s calmness and vulnerability in sharing one of the darkest moments of his life, and how his belief in Stede’s love helped him live again.

I hurt a little that Ed is desperately and poignantly trying to tell Stede he wants to give up the violent way of life, but doesn’t quite have the words… but this will sort itself later.

But the little moment that gets me is the toast.

S: ‘Toast… with a bite already taken’

E: ‘… that was me.’

That was me.

First, it’s Taika’s delivery of the line. It’s so light and subtly funny. Ed’s almost pleased with himself. You don’t make someone breakfast and hand it over with your own teethmarks in it, Ed! But also, thanks for clarifying. In case it was Roach or Archie instead. Like, obviously it was Ed!

That was me.

But it got me thinking about life on ships, and Ed’s Hornighost memories in the gravy basket about Felix stealing food, and the severe punishment for that. Food on a ship would be tightly controlled. And the idea, you would take a bite out of another person’s breakfast, especially your Captain’s! It’s almost an act of insubordination.

Now of course Stede doesn’t run that sort of ship, and Stede and Ed are in an intimate relationship; but fear is long-lived, and Ed has grown up and lived within punitive cultures. I mean, imagine if he’d taken a bite out of his dad’s food!

To be so relaxed that he wanders down to the kitchens, gets food for his lover, but also his Captain, and eats some of it on the way. And openly admits to it with no bother… they’ve rekindled their previous domesticity, and more.

I think it tells much about their intimacy, but also how much Ed is healing from his past. They are just going to be that sort of annoying restaurant couple that constantly eat off each other’s plates.

Perhaps that’s a lot of overthinking about a piece of toast. But I love finding meaning in the minutiae. The little details that tell us so much about the character growth of these two.

There’s a bite in my toast!

That was me

That was me 💕

[asneakyfox]

i've seen this from a couple different people but i really think it's a misread to think the character arc of gentlebeard in the djenks holiday special is actually that ed is just being lazy and doesn't want to do hard stuff and he needs to be managed. i mean, he could probably help stede out more, but that doesn't look to me like the core of the actual problem at all?

it seems to me like what's going on is that stede is determined to Not Run Away. "i'm not changing my life again." stede abandoned his first marriage, and then he abandoned ed, and then he abandoned his first marriage AGAIN, and then he abandoned piracy, and now! now he's supposed to have things figured out! now he's not going to be a guy who runs anymore! now is when he shows that he can commit to things! he's committed to his life with ed and part of his life with ed is being innkeepers so THE INN HAS TO SUCCEED AT ALL COSTS.

he cannot admit even inside his own mind that he just fucking hates innkeeping, because that would mean admitting failure. innkeeping was ed's dream! how could he be selfish enough to give up on ed's dream? he's gotten his brain into a state where the success of the inn equals the success of his relationship with ed, and he's gotten so obsessed with that he's not paying attention to their actual relationship. and at the same time he's miserable so it comes out as frustration with ed because it can't be that he doesn't like innkeeping and he's working so hard he can't do any more so surely it must be that ed's the one who needs to be more committed?

(plus what would he do instead? he doesn't want to go back to piracy because he doesn't want to die anymore, or see ed die, and what other options are there? if he admits he hates the inn then he'd have to admit he doesn't actually KNOW what he wants to do and that would be terrible because maybe the problem is him, maybe he'll always feel like this wherever he goes, maybe he just doesn't know how to be happy)

what he needs to say is "i want to be with you but i don't want to be innkeepers, can we figure out something else?" but he cannot say that, he can't even think that, and it comes out as "why aren't you helping with cakes more?" it's not about the cakes.

[amuseoffyre]

In addition, it's worth remembering Stede has been forced into a relationship where intimacy and contact were pressed on him (and Mary). They had to fulfil marital obligations and expectations with no personal desire of their own.

He's had the choice taken from him in the past so he will absolutely not take that choice away from Ed. As with all things, Stede tries to offer to people what he wishes had been offered to him.

The occasions when Stede offers touch in S1 are a few key moments:

touching Ed's elbow on the party ship to reassure him when they go in (1x5)

touching his shoulder in the bathtub after they have talked things through and Ed pressing his cheek to Stede's hand immediately (1x6)

inviting him closer to remove scraps from his beard and waiting for Ed to close the gap (1x7)

returning the foot touch (1x8)

It's about him getting used to the intimacy of touch, welcoming it and having it welcomed, compared to the awkward, stiff way he was obligated to touch Mary on their wedding day and for their portrait.

I've broken down aspects of the Gentlebeard relationship dynamic before, but this time I'd like to focus on consent/boundaries.

In most of their interactions, Stede will wait for Ed to initiate or give some physical sign that touching is okay. If Stede initiates (i.e. the hand holding in S2 Episode 5) he asks if it's okay with the implication he will stop if Ed is uncomfortable. In this way Stede gives Ed control over the interaction, allowing Ed to decide when/if he is touched, how much touching is okay, and when touching is no longer okay. Instead of asking "Is it alright if I touch you?" he either extends physical affection and waits (putting his hand on the tub in the bathtub scene, offering but not asking) or asks something like "Is this okay?" (the hand-holding).

Importantly, Ed does not like being touched without his consent (i.e. Izzy stroking his face, the lady at the fancy party trying to touch his beard, etc.). OFMD is not a "race blind" narrative. The show acknowledges that Ed is a brown man moving through a primarily white society and how others feel entitled to invade his physical space and touch him without consent. This is a form of dehumanization.

"Fun and Games" is a study in communication (or lack thereof), but also an implicit study of how well Stede adheres to Ed's personal boundaries. He does not try to initiate or offer touch, but initiates and offers gentle verbal affection after testing the waters to see how Ed responds (i.e. complimenting Ed on his beard). And when Ed curtails that verbal affection (interjecting when Stede tries to say "I love you") Stede thoughtfully redirects ("I love everything about you").

We joke about Ed being a sub or whatever, but this is actually a very helpful concept. In a mutually healthy sub/dom dynamic, it is actually the sub (submissive) who has all or most of the power. The sub can give up some measure of control to the dom, but only if the sub consents and they can revoke that consent at any point during the scene. Rules must be set and agreed upon by both the dom and sub prior to the scene (BDSM contracts exist for a reason) and there must be a foundation of trust between sub and dom. If the sub does not trust the dom, the scene doesn't happen. The scene can only be initiated if the sub consents prior in some way or another. Obv subs can abuse their doms and abuse in general can happen, which is why I specified a mutually healthy sub/dom dynamic.

Importantly, even when Stede is initiating in some way, he stops and waits for physical confirmation (a nod) from Ed. Ed gets to decide if physical intimacy (the kiss) is happening. The implication (that so many people glossed over apparently) is that if Ed had given any indication (physically or verbally) he did not want this to be happening, Stede would have backed off and apologized. Ed and Stede deeply understand each others body language and know which cues to watch for.

Ed is not used to having his boundaries and desires respected. He is not used to being seen as a full faceted human being whose wants and needs can be put first. The bar is six feet deep and Stede soars above it with simple easy kindness.

[chocolatepot]

Definitely no shade intended to anyone who likes DJenks's fic, but it does annoy me so much ... It's not that I don't think Ed and Stede will ever have any more conflict, or even that I don't want them to have any more conflict (I love conflict), but the specific setup of Ed not wanting to work hard and Stede being annoyed about it because The Inn Is Our Life Now just doesn't strike me as at all where they'd go post-s2!

If I were to plot out the emotional conflict of a potential s3, it would make way more sense to me to go in the totally opposite direction -- Stede went through figuring out what was most important to him in the back half of s2, and realized that being really successful at work was just not remotely as important as being with Ed; where I see him having a problem is that he still hasn't internalized "talk it through" and isn't going to speak up about problems or past trauma because he doesn't want to rock the boat. On the other hand, Ed seems chill at the end of s2 but I could easily see him coming to doubt whether this is enough for Stede without actually asking Stede how he's feeling about it. A similar lack of communication plot, but instead of them both being cranky with each other they'd both be overly conciliatory and tiptoe around each other unnecessarily, so they're both kind of bored and uncomfortable but unwilling to address it in the open. The big adventure plot intruding on their inn could up the pressure until they're shouting at each other in a thunderstorm about how they both want to do something else.

[o-wild-west-wind]

ofmd is like not comedy as in sitcom but comedy as in shakespearean where it’s psychological trauma and conflicts of violence but with dick jokes and the promise of marriage in the end

[ourflagmeansgayrights]

"killing off izzy after he went through all this growth and finally got to be happy means all that healing was for nothing"

goddamn that is a bleak way to look at life. we all die, man. healing is still worth the effort.

[ulgapodatkowa]

I have so many thoughts but I at least want to address the "for the new unicorn" note. because first of all it's so incredibly gratifying for izzy to finally be accepted into a community. it was shown before that the crew cares for him in some way but it was the first time he really saw that. that he isn't useless and alone, that he still has a place on the ship. even more so the crew WANTS HIM to be on the ship. and also that they want him to embrace his disability which doesn't make them think any less of him.

but also the choice of words. because inherently it rings queer, unicorn as a symbol of queerness. and even if it may have a negative sound when you use it differently here it is extremely positive. izzy is not only accepted to the crew, he's also accepted to the queer community, to the family. the unicorn on the revenge was also the one that was leading the ship, so one can argue that they want him to take that role in their dynamic.

and you can see that he does so immediately. he puts himself together and starts helping the crew. he's still bitchy but no longer violent and cruel. he helps stede and lucius immensely because that is what he does now. he's part of the family. twat.

[lightbluetown]

i just love that ed asked for stede to stop

i love that stede was finally able to tell ed that their first kiss happened too fast and that he panicked. i love that when they kissed again, when ed leaned in for a quick peck but stede got passionate, ed was able to break the kiss and say "hey man, let's take this slow". i love that stede, of course, immediately stopped. i love that it didn't feel weird and they kept playing with each other's fingers and talking about their day

that was the most healthy, natural, realistic kiss i've seen. it wasn't romanticized for tv, it wasn't forced to be something it didn't have to be. it happened under a moon that wasn't full, on the deck of a messy ship, after ed complimented a piece of fine clothing that had lost most of its charm. it was as awkward as it was graceful

[edscuntyeyeshadow]

thinking about how ofmd took blackbeard, a historical (almost mythical) figure that has pretty much always been depicted in media as a super hypermasculine white cishet man, and turned him into a gay man of color who wears crop tops and silk gowns, paints his nails and pines for his boyfriend

[crimson-and-clover-1717]

‘I didn’t mean to upset you…’

The first time I heard Stede say this to Ed, before I’d even understood the nature of their relationship, it sounded such an intimate thing to say.

They’ve only just met. Stede’s shown Ed an alleged illustration of himself as Blackbeard, and Ed’s reacted with disappointment and some annoyance. Not at Stede, he makes that very clear, but at his perceived depiction.

Now Stede could’ve said, ‘Sorry, mate, didn’t think,’ or ‘Oh, I’ll just put it away then.’ But Stede takes direct responsibility for the picture and the upset it caused. It’s such a moment of empathy. He then listens as to why Ed is upset by it.

And Stede’s tone. It’s not fear. It’s not ‘I’ve upset Blackbeard and he might hurt me,’; it’s ‘I’ve hurt Ed and I need to apologise.’

The fact Ed can show his upset as well. He’s cultivated a brand, and it’s taken root. But he doesn’t say to Stede, ‘Yeah, that’s me, so watch out!’ He immediately undermines the whole performance and facade, ‘That isn’t me, and it hurts that people - that you, man I have just met, but who has piqued my interest greatly - thinks that. Because it’s that Stede might think this is him that is bothering Ed most even if he might not fully realise yet.

And has anyone, ever, said a line like that to Ed his whole life: ‘I didn’t mean to upset you’… ? And meant it as Stede does? It’s entirely genuine. It recognises that Ed is a person. When was the last time that happened?

Just the immediacy of the intimacy and connection…

Please don’t think of me that way!

I’m sorry I’ve hurt you by even suggesting it, but I never saw you like that anyway.

[thetardigrape]

I wanna take a minute to talk about the Looks of the entire cast of OFMD S2.

I think we're all pretty familiar with the male gaze. Lots of skin, tits and ass, that sort of thing.

The female gaze has been debated, but it looks something like a sexy college professor or himbo househusband.

What OFMD S2 absolutely nails is the queer gaze.

Look at this man.

An absolutely beautiful man. Who wears crop tops and leather pants. Long hair up in a messy bun. He's wearing eyeliner. And pearls.

And here.

Drawn on facial hair. Spaulders. Bracers. Fishnet sleeves. A MOTHERFUCKING MULLET.

These badasses.

The teeth and chains. SO MUCH MAKEUP. Big fancy coat with nothing underneath. Glam met goth and fucked out these looks.

And THE SWEDE!

Cropped jacket. Ponytail. Asymmetrical button fly. Decorative chains (again).

All of this screams queer. If I saw any of these people in a bar I'd be like "Yep, one of us." The gender fuckery of it all. The feminine and the masculine all thrown in together in perfect combinations. Decoration for its own sake. Jewelry and flashy adornment and gorgeous peacockery.

And we love it. The fandom is going absolutely feral over these looks, these actors, as we very well should. There is not a single member of this cast who has not had beautiful art lovingly made depicting them.

Fuck the male gaze, fuck the female gaze. Give me the queer gaze. Give me queer creators making queer media for queer audiences and absolutely nailing it. These people are not at all what Hollywood usually thinks sexy looks like, yet we want to devour every one of them. This is what queer beauty looks like. What queer sex appeal looks like. What queer desire looks like.

Fuck yes. It's about time.

[stedebonnit]

Can I also say how touching it is that Stede said he believed Ed would he happier without him, who, even in his fantasies, could only picture Ed wanting him as a picture of masculinity with a beard and no hesitation to kill. Stede still, deep down, doesn't understand why Ed would ever want him as he is.

But who did Ed see coming down to rescue him? It wasn't a manly recreation of Stede with a beard, masculine style and a killing spirit, it was a merman. Someone bright, colourful, by all accounts a rather feminine perception of Stede.

That was who rescued Ed. It wasn't who Stede thought he needed to be, it was someone soft, and bright, and graceful, and expressive. Someone feminine, someone queer.

I just think that's beautiful.

[three--rings]

One thing I haven't seen a lot of talk about in the fandom so far is about the financials of this season.

It took us two whole months to get a confirmation of renewal from Max, and I talked at the time that I think there was probably a lot of heated negotiations going on at the time with contracts and that's why it took as long as it did.

I think we see a huge number of indications of the compromises that were made in order for S2 to be made. One obvious one that has been talked about is being making in in NZ instead of LA, to save $.

But there's also the eight episodes instead of ten. And then the cast aspect. One downside of moving overseas was having to fly out and house the cast, not just pay day wages.

We knew immediately about Guz Khan not coming back, losing Ivan as a character. At the time I was sad but I thought it had the air of a pretty harshly practical call. If you went through the main recurring cast and said okay which character will affect the fewest things, has the least character interactions of anyone? It would be Ivan. (With the only competition being The Swede IMO, but he's Stede's crew and therefore a little more central.)

And then this season started and we got first The Swede sidelined and taken out of major scenes. And then I noticed that different members of the crew were simply absent for long stretches, like Wee John isn't around for ep 5 at all. And then Buttons takes flight.

Lucius and Pete aren't at the party for most of it. Fang isn't in the torture scene. Roach and Fang aren't in the bar. Etc. SCHEDULING IS HAPPENING.

The new characters are almost entirely played by NZ local actors, which is great, but also...cheaper.

In other words there are big signs that they did everything possible to give us a giant cast of almost everyone we love from S1, and cool new characters, in the most economical way possible.

And I'm grateful for it. I'm grateful we got S2, and it looks great, and it's well written, I'm having a blast, and we get to spend more time with this awesome cast.

But I also kinda think it needs to be said that the cost-cutting shows. That it shouldn't have been only 8 episodes, the pacing is off. That we miss every time someone from the ensemble isn't on screen.

That despite what they've put on screen looking very good, there's far less costuming budget, there's less elaborate sets, and it's a little disappointing. And it's clear it's not a lack of will or talent or vision but blatantly lack of money.

Look, streaming networks want brilliant shows that people love (that will get them to subscribe) but they very don't want to pay anyone to make them. That's like, the whole moment we're having right now.

Max puts out promos about how great it is to not have unions messing shit up in NZ. Well I have friends who are union costumers in LA and guess what union costumers did amazing last season. This season, well, I guess Stede got three whole shirts, so that's cool.

So I dunno. It's just stuff I think about. I'm not trying to be negative about the show in any way. I'm extremely happy with this season; I love it more than well, possibly any show I've ever been in fandom for.

But I see you, Max. You're cheap. You weren't that cheap when you were called HBO.

[teeny-tiny-revenge]

Really so much respect for David Jenkins. He really went "historical accuracy"? "Realism"? "Laws of physics"? Nope, we don't need those here, everything in this story is Vibes. Dinghies can travel huge distances if necessary, except sometimes not, injuries heal immediately or slowly fester, whichever the plot demands for comedy or drama respectively, a character spends several days dead/in a coma/in purgatory and then just comes back to life when his beloved shows up. Nothing is too over the top for this story, cringe doesn't exist, we'll dial all those feelings up to eleven, and we're gonna play everything with 100% earnestness, and we're gonna have a merman and it's going to be so fucking romantic. And he's right about all of it! Really the best way to do fiction.

[blakbonnet]

Ed baiting Ned Low </3 oh i get it. the tally marks, ‘we’ve got a record to break.’ ed was baiting ned low deliberately. he had to know low would come after him: low was ed’s original passive suicide plan - @forpiratereasons