#screenwriting analysis

[liliyawnas]

seo yul and the art of screenwriting

alternative title: seo yul and why he is so bland in s1

before any of you come for me, i love this pure boy who only wants to be good for songrim and be the bestest mage; but like, he was just so boring in season one, i couldn't bring myself to care about him and didn't really feel the chemistry between him and naksu...

and now that part two is out i actually feel attached to him, and feel the need to pour out all my analysis as to why upon you all using my screenwriting knowledge and stuff

Part one. Function of a secondary character

Who is Seo Yul, when you just casually explain the plot of Alchemy of Souls?

Well, Seo Yul is one of the friend group of the mages of Jeonjinggak trainees that are nicknamed the Four Seasons, nicknamed "Autumn" the hope of the Seo family, strongest of the mages there, teacher's pet, Jang Uk's closest friend and confidante, and the teenage love of Naksu the assasin. Which basically makes him the Second Lead, competing for Naksu's affections when he recongnizes her in Mu-deok and starts developping feelings again.

And in purely functional screenwriting terms, he is Jang Uk's Ally, and also his Rival in the competition for Naksu's affections.

No matter how loveable a character is, they never are included "just for fun" in a dramatic work of fiction, they always have to bring something to the development of the plot, development of the characters, development of the story's themes, and basically to move the story forward. A long-form piece of ficion like this has a lot of ground to cover in terms of story development, and characters that we follow. If you add a character "just 'cause", not only it's harder to make the audience care about them, but also it is going to hinder the rhythm of the story, taking up precious screen time.

Before I actually started thinking about what he does for the story, it really felt like he floated in and out of the plot just when the writers needed him to do something or to add tension... Which is very annoying to see. I am not saying he serves no function whatsoever, in fact, when you start thinking about the show's themes, the reason he is there becomes very obvious. However, his character, throughout season one, had been horridly underdevelopped and underutilised, so

Part two. The problem with Seo Yul

The real problem with Seo Yul is that he was included for thematic purposes, but his character was not sufficiently developped for us to feel like he fits into the story organically, instead of hovering around the edges. Let me explain.

The reason I absolutely adore Seo Yul is that his Very Good Boy persona, a guy who cannot choose the woman he loves over his principles and his devotion to a cause, contrasts deliciously with Jang Uk's "fuck everything, I am getting what I want or dying in the process" attitude. Jang Uk is selfish, spoiled and lazy, Seo Yul is hard-working, shy and selfless, and they make great mirrors. And the contrast between the two just highlights why Seo Yul cannot be the one to help Naksu find redemption. Naksu and Jang Uk almost complete each other. Both are a little bit unhinged in the way they pursue what they want, both are very temperamental, and each one has strengths that compensate for another one's weakness. Seo Yul is there just to highlight the beauty of how these two very flawed characters find redemption and succes through each other.

By the way, I am not saying that the Seo Yul x Naksu dynamic couldn't make for a compelling enemies to lovers story, on the contrary, the pure difference of their characters could create a whole different kind of tension that would make people ship them even more than Jang Uk x Naksu. So why is that not the case?

A compelling Second Lead would make the viewer actually fear that the Protagonist is going to choose them over the First Lead; and ideally, also feel conflicted as to whom they want the Protagonist to end up with. A compelling Second Lead needs to have everything necessary for them to almost be the First Lead. And there are two key things that Seo Yul is missing in season one.

Number one is a motivation and a goal, really. I considered putting this as number two, but this is essential for a character, really, and part of the reason it's hard to care about Seo Yul. What the fuck does Seo Yul want? What is the huge desire that he Does Not Have? There is no such thing that is even eluded to in the show. Naksu is not what he wants, mind you, because when she theatened him with her sword he was like "oh well, guess it's not meant to be🤷‍♂️" and then sort of proceeded to not even try to figure out who she was or why she reacted the way she did.

Number two is stakes. What does he stand to lose? We, as the audience, don't really feel afraid for him, because, well... He is good at spells, he inherits the Seoho fortress so his future is chill, we know nothing of his family, and it's hard to tell why exactly he can't really do anything about his feelings for Naksu. He doesn't stand to lose his powers, his standing, his title, or anything, so like... It's hard to consider him as a real Rival for Jang Uk, because he just doesn't seem that driven. The most I can come up with is that he doesn't want to ruing his friendhip with Uk, but like... It's not as if Uk hasn't done shit to put that friendship in danger; and also in order for characters to grow they absolutely have to fuck up and do bad things to their Allies.

And, well, all that brings me to my sort of final point. If the reason Yul exists in the plot is to be Jang Uk's Rival, Ally, and his Mirror, but doesn't get much of a character arc outside of that (except for the rushed bit in the end of season one when he decided he was taking Naksu to Seoho fortress, and then ended up plagued by guilt)... He becomes a character that is kind of not necessary as himself, and he would do best fused with the character of Park Dang-gu. Hear me out, okay?

If Yul is to be Uk's Rival, why make him his Rival only for Naksu's heart? Dang-gu is the person who is to inherit the leadership of Songrim (it is what he does after season one!), and Jang Uk wants to be the leader of Songrim like his father. Dang-gu is in love with Jin Cho-yeon, and Uk is the one who has been engaged to her, twice! Just those two things would make the tension between Uk and this hypothetical Yul-Dang-gu character double what it is between Uk and Yul, or Uk and Dang-gu, and the stakes would be way higher. I like the contrast between Yul's Stoic vibe and Dang-gu's Soft vibe but it's not enough to keep you invested in both characters. And, arguably, throughout season one Dang-gu has had way more of a character arc than Yul, despite being significantly less important than him narratively...

Or, well, the other way to fix Yul's character is to give him stakes and Something To Do, which is what they did! Finally!

Part three. The Final One. I like Yul!!!😭

If he gets killed this season I am going to be so upset! Just as I started getting invested in him! Please don't boo me but I even like his and So-i romance, because that would be a great narrative arc! Like at first he wasn't willing to fight for love, and didn't think it worthwile to invest his energy into redeeming somebody and offering them a better future, and him flipping to be the opposite - that would work pretty fucking great, in my opinion😭🥰.

This season his character actually works and it's kind of great. He has stakes: poor man is dying😭, he has a (potential) romance, he has Horrible Regrets about not saving Naksu and Uk and he is very sad, instead of just being Slightly Nostalgic in season one. (Side note: I saw some fans complaining about Hwang Min Hyun's acting because of that, because we saw him with basically the same expression... I didn't really share that opinion at the time, it's not like his acting came off as specifically fake, it's just how he was written. Nostalgia is just... not a very strong emotion. And now it's clear that it was not the problem, lol.)

I am still not sure if Yul's arc really includes a Desire, or a Goal, but he is definitely more complex this season and more compelling to root for. And there are things that he Kind Of Wants, which I guess is helping Uk grieve Naksu properly before he dies, and reconciling Uk and Dang-gu after the whole problem of Jin U-tak's death, unlike of "I guess I want to catch some soulshifters" and that being his his job.

TL;DR. In season 1 of Alchemy of Souls, Seo Yul was underdevelopped and underutilised as a character, and seemed superficial to the plot, because he lacked a motivation, a goal, and stakes. This season he is actually way more interesting and compelling as a character, specifically because he got all those things, and I can't wait to see where the plot takes him next!!! (Also Hong sisters don't kil Seo Yul, please??? Pretty please? After you did all this work to make his character interesting😭)

[bitchcakegreen]

As a director, I honestly can’t understand why this shot wasn’t the one included in the Final Cut of the episode.

[david-talks-sw]

Okay so I watched Inside Man on Netflix. It's interesting. More importantly, it's a masterclass in crafting likeable characters and how the POV we follow in a scene affects the way we see a character. Also, this somehow relates to the Star Wars Prequels, I promise! 😆

The moral of the series is that "everyone is a murderer, all it takes is a good reason and a bad day." The main characters are:

A vicar who - through a huge misunderstanding - has now locked his son's tutor in his basement and doesn't know how to get out of this situation, played by David Tennant.

A convicted murderer and ex-criminal psychology professor who solves crimes from his cell, as he waits for his execution, played by Stanley Tucci.

So a man who locked a woman in his cellar and a guy who murdered his wife. In any other movie, these guys are the villains. Yet, both of these characters are extremely likeable!

This is achieved through how relatably they behave in their relationships (kind, humble, humorous)...

... and through the emotion and/or charisma brought by the actors playing them (it's THE DOCTOR/CROWLEY and Stanley Friggin' Tucci)... but also through the amount of screen time they get.

We're with them for most of the show. There's other characters (the journalist, the trapped tutor and the vicar's wife) and subplots, of course, but they're our two anchors.

So when I'm watching David Tennant lock his son's tutor in his cellar and consider if he should free her - only to see him and his wife make things worse - I'm not thinking "you monster" like I do when I see Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs for example.

No, I'm thinking "goddammit vicar you're making things worse, it'll come back to haunt you, there's still a chance to turn back, please!" I'm rooting for him to make the right choice because I'm seeing him struggle and despair and hesitate throughout many scenes.

When I'm watching Stanley Tucci guiltily say he deserves death, after being so darn charming, humble and in clear possession of a moral compass, my instinct as a viewer isn't to go "he's right".

It's to go "aaaw, no it's fine, everyone makes mistakes."

And these characters remain likeable and/or relatable for a huge chunk of time... until, every once in a while, the show reminds you that, "remember, these guys are criminals."

"One of them's killed his wife then decapitated her, and the other one is contemplating murder, so they did/are doing evil stuff, they're the villains and you shouldn't grow fond of them."

Then it goes back to making you empathize with them again.

It's quite the emotional roller-coaster, very intriguing yet frustrating, which I have to guess is exactly what the show is going for.

But the point is: the amount of time we spend with these characters is partially what elicits this emotional reaction out of us.

If we consider the tutor's character:

For all intents and purposes, we should feel sorry for her, or full-on fucking love her. Objectively-speaking, she's:

smart but obviously scared,

we establish early on that she has a brave heart and stands up for oppressed women,

she thinks she's trapped by a pedophile or a man defending a pedophile, figures he'll inevitably try to murder her, yet manages to stay resourceful, determined and cool-headed despite it all.

She's an absolute superhero.

But that's not how the narrative frames her.

She's framed as an antagonistic force, in the vicar's subplot.

She may be the one tied up in a basement, but she's in control and the vicar is not. She's almost framed as being in a position of power (when she's really not), which leads the audience to view Tenant's vicar as an underdog.

When the vicar is trying to look for alternatives to end this situation so that he doesn't have to kill her, she's unhelpful,

and even starts pitting the vicar and his wife against each other.

Again, in-universe, she's scared shitless and in "fight-or-flight" mode. She's putting up a front because she's just trying to get outta this alive. She's the victim, here, not the vicar who captured her.

But as a viewer, you don't feel that, despite objectively knowing that. Why and how?

Because we barely see this character, compared to Tenant's vicar. So we have more time to grow to feel for him. There's "why".

Also 90% of what we do see of the tutor is her being aggressive, manipulative, sometimes downright merciless and we're seeing her from the POV of the vicar or the vicar's wife. There's "how".

Result: the viewer feels sorry for the captor and frustrated towards the captive.

This isn't a rational reaction, it's an emotional one (the goal of any visual artform being to get an emotional reaction out of the viewer).

Which means the series and Stephen Moffat effectively did their job.

How does this relate to the Prequels?

Well, a lot of people see the Jedi in a negative light in the Prequels, and Anakin in a more sympathetic one.

Even though the Prequels are about how a good man becomes bad, and even though the Jedi embody one of the major Star Wars themes (selflesness) as opposed to Anakin who clearly displays the anti-theme (selfish)... a majority of fans feels more for the latter than the former. Why?

Because the Prequels unintentionally do what Inside Man does purposefully. You react to Anakin like you react to the vicar. You react to the Jedi like you react to the tutor.

Simply put: Anakin has more screen time than the Jedi. And we don't just see him more, we see him struggle, we see him about what he knows to be morally right vs what he really wants, we see him be overtaken by his own fear...

... and just by contrast, that makes him more relatable than the Jedi, who have already overcome their character arcs and mostly all learned to keep their flaws in check.

The narrative doesn't intend to frame them as antagonistic. We do see them talk about how worried they are, we do see them emote.

And if you think about it, it's easy to see why:

their entire way of life is going to crap,

their values are being corrupted as they're forced to fight and die, alongside their clone brothers, in a war they wanted no part of,

they sense that the Force is close to the breaking point and that the galaxy's inhabitants are suffering on the daily.

But, for example, when Mace or Ki-Adi Mundi are shown expressing concern in the Prequels... as worried as they are, in-universe... out-of-universe, their measured reactions doesn't emotionally impact a viewer as much as Anakin's intense ones do.

So a big chunk of the audience will sympathize more with him than them. But like the tutor in Inside Man, the Jedi are objectively the victims and Anakin is objectively an unstable space-nazi who betrayed and destroyed them.

Just because we're not shown these characters be worried beyond just monotonously saying "I'm worried" doesn't mean they're not actually worried as Anakin is in Revenge of the Sith (if not more).

However we don't see it.

Because these three films aren't about the Jedi Order, they're about the Republic and about Anakin and about how each of these two beautiful things were corrupted (by Palpatine and by themselves) into becoming the very thing they stood against.

The Jedi aren't a factor in either of those two themes set up by George Lucas.

They became a factor when fans - who despite not liking the Prequels, still admirably chose to engage with the material - made the Jedi be more important to the narrative of the Prequels by re-framing these films as "The Failure of the Jedi".

Now, should Lucas have recognized that most fans wouldn't give two shits about why a Republic falls or the "matinee serial" format, and would've rather he focused on the Jedi, and developed them accordingly? Probably.

But good luck telling an indie filmmaker with a bunch of money how to tell the story he wants to tell.

Could Lucas have done more with the Prequels to highlight the fact that the Jedi are the underdogs of the story, not Anakin's oppressors? Yes.

But, firstly, he probably didn't think that was a point that needed explaining. And secondly, as he explained at Cannes, in 2002, feature films are a very limiting format to tell a story, especially one of the Prequels' scale. If it doesn't directly contribute to the story you're telling... it's gotta go.

A limited show would've been better to cover every aspect of the Prequels more in detail and avoid confusing the audience re: who they should be rooting for.

Which is why it's interesting, to me, that Stephen Moffat used his limited show to INTENTIONALLY confuse the audience! 😃

[csolarstorm]

Marvel should definitely give Jac Schaeffer more projects. I didn't know she helped write Captain Marvel and Black Widow. In retrospect it makes a lot of sense; both of these movies are personal journeys where the protagonist processes the trauma of heir past.

Still, in my opinion neither movie reaches the level of Wandavision or Agatha All Along. I don't know whether that's due to Marvel not trusting Schaeffer enough to write them by herself (sounds about right, especially as the first female solo movies, Marvel would get weird about it) or maybe it turns out Schaeffer is better at writing TV shows with mysteries that gradually unravel.

It also could be that Schaeffer and/or Marvel figured out how to balance her trauma narratives within a more lighthearted fantasy setting where she can couch it in more digestible metaphor. Black Widow was about human trafficking - no amount of funny Russian fake dad jokes could make that go down easier. Although now that I say it, that movie did involve an artificial TV family like Wandavision - I guess this is a hallmark of Schaeffer's writing?

Captain Marvel on the other hand had maybe too many allegories. Yeah it was about breaking away from patriarchal gaslighting, but then there was PTSD from war, or maybe even recovery from brain damage? It's a bit hard to tell at times, there's just a lot. I suppose there's a contrast between the artificial Supreme Intelligence and the very real female captain Mar-Vell that might serve as the recurring "TV versus real life" motif in Schaeffer's other projects. Captain Marvel was made as a 90's alien invasion movie after all.

Meanwhile something both Wandavision and Agatha All Along share is that they use tropes from TV and other media to express trauma in a fun, and unsettling, discordant way. Wandavision will be having a genuinely great time indulging in 60's sitcom when, oh no, it's actually escapism, and Wanda cannot escape the fact that Vision is dead. Horror ensues. Agatha will be in a crime drama where she's solving a case, only it turns out that the case is a metaphor for her barely lucid attempt to piece together the fragments of her memory after the cruel and unusual punishment Wanda inflicted on her. Horror returns. And the crime drama atmosphere will both fit the vibe of her tragedy and at the same time be a genuinely fun crime drama parody. Escapism is both fun and heartbreaking.

So I hope Jac Schaeffer does more of this kind of show, because she's nailing it. And give her another chance at more movies and this time trust her. It's a shame Schaeffer couldn't fit Vision In A White Void Vision Quest into her schedule.

[lemonavocado]

i have many many thoughts about the portrayal of elizabeth (and henry) in adaptations of frankenstein and they need to be broadcasted immediately. feverish incoherent raving about this subject under the cut. tw for very brief mention of SA

so. elizabeth lavenza. by the time of the wedding, elizabeth is rather obviously portrayed to be just as morose and brooding as victor is, she just isn't as susceptible to episodes of mania and psychosis so it doesn't seem nearly as dramatic compared to victor's trauma. she's been through the gutter herself, being an orphan for starters, then being adopted into a family and having to assume the role of caregiver in the frankenstein family because of the coercion of her dead mother to not only take her place as the maternal figure in the family but also marry her surrogate brother (or literal cousin, depending on which version you read). then her surrogate younger brother william dies, and the within weeks she has to watch her closest heterosexual life partner justine be unjustly hung by a corrupt justice system. and she vocalizes, actively, her pessimism and hopelessness in light of these many tragedies. tldr she's fucked up and rightfully so, and while she's a little less crippled by depression than victor, she still has the distinct appearance of being rather ill, listless, and tired, especially towards the end of the novel. anyways my point is in the novel, the most important thing about elizabeth is not that she's a woman and victor's bride. yes, that's obviously the purpose she was created for, but shelley went out of her way to give elizabeth an extremely definite and unique character. she's gentle and maternal like most woman in early 19th century literature, but she's also introspective, intelligent, and perceptive. she displays agency and self-awareness repeatedly (her guilt over the locket, going to the execution of justine even when alphonse tells her not to, waxing poetic on the failures of the justice system, asking repeatedly and rather pointedly if victor actually wants to go through with the marriage, obvious anxiety and solemnity concerning the wedding) we also have to take into account that elizabeth's personality is being relayed to us BY VICTOR, and he wants to see elizabeth as docile and femininely passive, even if a lot of her actions themselves in the novel actually seem to contradict that. also, i am peppering in that many people can (and have) made a genuine and convincing argument that victor and elizabeth are not in love and were groomed to accept their union by their weirdo parents - that they care for each other, but the text includes important nuances that make it evident that victor doesn't feel anything for elizabeth like that. it is a legitimate interpretation of the book - dare i say it's the correct interpretation of the relationship between victor and elizabeth. but that's another essay for another day and it's not SUPER integral to my rant here today. it just highlights the complexity of elizabeth as a character.

so. for some fucking reason, writers do not understand this when they are adapting the novel, and do not want to apply more than eight seconds of critical thinking and the absolute shallowest 3rd grader levels of reading comprehension to this character, so they simplify her from what she was in the original novel, freshly complex, opinionated, and introspective to boring useless incest lady. victor is never portrayed with the same amount of nuance he deserves in any adaptation (also another essay for another day), because adaptations also have a very surface level reading of him as "guy who was ambitious and played god which immediately cements him as an irredeemable self-aggrandizing asshole and/or a raging insufferable narcissist who's a dick to everyone around him EXCEPT for elizabeth" but at least SOME adaptations are able to kiiinnnddaaaa capture the sympathy meant to be felt for the character in the novel. not so for elizabeth. her character in basically every adaptation can be boiled down to this: "omg victor my brother let me hammer in that you are my brother. im just going to stand here and look clueless and annoyingly naive for the entire time im on screen/stage. im just a little girl and idk what's going on victor but im gonna stay blindly devoted to you and ask numerous but completely useless questions 🥺 let me stare at you with tender worry in my eyes and treat you like a child even though we have absolutely no romantic chemistry and you're an objectifying dick towards me and we have nothing in common and the audience is actively dry heaving as we sensually make out for no other reason than to have characters in this movie sensually make out. im basically a carbon copy of original-novel-henry expect super boring and super useless because im a woman which means the doylist explanation for why im here HAS TO BE ONLY for the main character to fuck me and to hold the attention of the male viewership. now time for me to get SA'd by the creechur for basically no reason" we can observe something approximating this in basically every frankenstein adaptation i've ever seen: kenneth branagh's (my enemy) 1994 film, the 2004 hallmark miniseries, the musical, and the ballet. also in the 1931 film, but that one isn't really trying to be book-accurate so it doesn't really count for this rant.

with this understanding of elizabeth, writers then attempt to artificially generate more romance between these characters, mostly by, yes, replacing a lot of henry's role in the novel with elizabeth, hence why we see so many adaptations (1994, 2004, ballet) make elizabeth nurse victor back to health in ingolstadt instead of henry, which generates... so many problems. one problem with this is that it just sorta ruins henry's original role in the novel in one go. writers recognize that henry is supposed to be victor's character foil, but now they don't have much for him to do so he can demonstrate that role in the story since they gave all of the romantic tension moments to elizabeth. meaning that in adaptations you can tell the writers didn't really know what to do with henry because he's reduced to a comic relief bumbling idiot (1994, ballet, 2004 to an extent) with his only personality traits being "random xd" and "morals good playing god wrong!!!! 😠" (2004, musical, several independent stage adaptations). they keep him as a character foil, but just replace all of his compassion, tenderness, and devotion with elizabeth, while effectively draining henry of all of his original appeal and charm and stamping those traits onto their already stripped-of-all-nuance elizabeth. so now both henry and elizabeth are not only extremely different from their original roles in the novel but extremely, woefully less charming and complex. this especially pisses me off because it's explicitly stated in the book that henry was victor's only friend precisely because he was victor's intellectual equal, so seeing henry reduced to a smiley idiot and/or stupid generic male side character with Morals fills me with a visceral rage. writers will also sometimes make victor and henry meet in college (ballet, 1994) and try to strengthen the bond between victor and elizabeth by making it appear as though she was victor's ONLY childhood friend and companion. other times, victor and henry will be friends pre-ingolstadt (2004, musical) but most of the relationship development will be between elizabeth and victor. those two have all of the tender bonding moments while henry is just kinda inexplicably there sometimes. but i digress. this post is supposed to be about elizabeth. but IF YOU NEED A CHARACTER TO BE A SUNSHINE SOFT OPTIMISTIC LOVER FOR VICTOR IN A FRANKENSTEIN ADAPTATION, HENRY IS ABLE AND WILLING ARE YOU STEPPING ON MY BALLS

clervalstein is true. anyway

elizabeth is somehow more complex and powerful as a female character than the literal adaptations produced almost 200 years later. in adaptations, the most important thing about her is somebody else. the development of all of her character traits (which usually never go beyond standing around and looking helpless) are solely dependant on victor. she feels more like an appendage of the protagonist than an individual with thoughts and experiences separate from victor, and her character is loosely defined and flimsy so the writers can have her conform to her actions in the book whenever it's convenient and then change things up entirely that completely contradict her characterization in the book whenever it's convenient. i have no idea why the fuck this keeps happening with frankenstein adaptations (it's misogyny) and because it isn't looking like guillermo del toro's film (from what ive heard) is going to be super book accurate, i dont foresee too much of a shift in frankenstein adaptations.

look i get it. it's a movie/play/ballet which lasts like 2 hours and you have a lot to do and not a lot of time to do it. i understand you have to make sacrifices for brevity and these characters are, frankly, a lot less interesting and exciting than victor and creechur. people didn't come to see john hughes levels of charm and complexity in the side characters, they came to watch the creechur do scary shit and for victor to say IT'S ALIVE 😱 and be an evil mad scientist you love to hate. they came for their values of "it's wrong to play god!!!" and "too much ambition bad!!!" to be re-cemented even though that's not even the original point of the novel. which is why imo if you're going to adapt frankenstein in a manner that does justice to the beautiful and sublime subtlety of the original novel, it needs to be either a miniseries or a REALLY LONG film. it's a short book, but it's very eventful, and imo for an adaptation to work you have to let the audience sit with it. which is why you all need to donate to my gofundme so i can produce an honest to god frankenstein adaptation. in fact, im running for president in this year's primaries :3

just a disclaimer: im not an academic or a scholar or anything. i just like the book. i probably have no idea what the fuck im talking about. but im a very very passionate little guy and this has been my rant

[boulboultalks]

There is much debate about the "fell first fell harder" arrangement between crowley and aziraphale. The main opinions are that 1.crowley had fallen from the start and aziraphale fell for him in 1941 when crowley saved his books 2.that aziraphale fell first when they met as angels.

Now i do believe that aziraphale showed quite an interest in angel crowley but in my opinion aziraphale truly *started* falling for crowley(as his love for Crowley was accretive through the decades and not just a sudden moment) when they met in the garden of eden(the same goes for crowley). I disagree with the first opinion as aziraphale has shown interest in crowley way before 1941. My problem with the second opinion is that angel crowley was fundamentally a different entity than demon crowley. Even though they might have shared some characteristics as one is the evolution of the other, they are two completely different personalities and for aziraphale to fall in love with the former doesn't automatically means falling in love with the latter.

Nonetheless the fact that aziraphale liked angel crowley might have been the reason he even approached him in his demon form(Which would only work if aziraphale actually realised that he had met crowley before which i'm not sure about).

Now about 1941, I believe his face of realization was not about him realising his love for crowley but him realising crowley's love for him after seeing a demon do something as selfless just for him.

[the-cat-and-the-birdie]

Sidebar while I'm here -

The reason I'm so enthusiastic about analysis and breaking down ATSV and dialogue and stuff especially now is because it's one of the best ways to highlight and stress the work and experience of screenwriters, which is something super dear to me

for context, I work in film and live in New York, and I can say that the WGA strike is something very real and very tangible, everywhere in the city.

Writers are not the only ones affected. Family vendors that feed sets are out of work, PAs are out of work, Directors won't shoot without their writers and Assistant Directors won't come on without a director.

These CEOs are starving dozens of industries everywhere. Prop houses are even closing down.

It's really bizarre to work on these big wig sets, and then see your bosses picketing and protesting in Chinatown and Lower Manhattan. But they really are out there.

And they're still out there. Working class people who use to work 10+ hours a day, 5 days a week (or more).

All I'm really saying is please keep the WGA, the actors, and the film industry as a whole in your thoughts.

The film industry is like the culinary industry. These people are doing this work out of passion - not money - me included. They're doing this because they want their work protected and their name on credits. This is about rights and AI.

Hollywood, run them their checks. End the WGA Strike.

GODDAMN.

[blkgirlsreadfanfic2]

hello, gorgeous

for black girls, by black girls

stranger things

series

who you gon' call? (steve harrington x black!fem!oc)

headcanons

dating jonathan byers headcanons

[karmaalwayswins]

Schnee "When a Deep Character Pretends to be Shallow - Hobie Brown" (2023)

[cosmoseinfeld]

don't you all miss shows like this. where the homosexuality is in the subtext? hidden in the editing and blocking and mirroring and the music choices and

[gwenyn28]

Debunking the „Invisible Strings“ Theory and more

Invisible strings – who hasn’t heard about that in any fandom? The true love. Faith. Soulmates. A forever kind of anything. This is what every fan wants for their favorite ship, right? Especially when it is two characters who have a built up. Share a story.

And if this theory turns into more, into the aforementioned “soulmatism” after these two characters got together, who wouldn’t be head over heels for it?

In my former post I explained some basic screenwriting rules, especially the “Show don’t tell” one. You can read it here if you want to.

Because there was and still is a big discourse in the fandom about the “They are made for each other and they are their endgame” I want to look at a few things concerning these theories and what happened on screen through the lens of the “Show don’t tell” rule.

Let’s start with the biggest part and what is mentioned in the post’s title.

The Invisible String Theory

To understand what I am talking about I will give you a short summary what this theory is about.

“Buck and Tommy are connected through invisible strings. Tommy left the 118 and Buck joined, taking his place metaphorically speaking and also literally speaking because he now sits at Tommy’s former seat at the 118’s dinner table. Later on, on a call where there was a big gas leak and a house was almost exploding (Eddie was inside with a kid, hiding in a bathtub) Chimney who was off duty at that time called Tommy to help. Tommy flew past that call to spill water all over the place and Buck looked up, watching his future boyfriend. There is also a connection through the episode “Buck actually” where Buck met Thomas and Mitchell, an older gay couple, who died together. Mitchell and Buck talked a bit about love and Mitchell said the famous phrase “You don’t find it, son, you make it.” Connecting this to Tommy due to the name of Mitchell’s love (Thomas) and because Tommy’s favorite movie is “Love actually” (said in one of the ‘Begins’ episodes).”

So, these are the main points for the theory. If I forgot any detail, I apologize. But it wouldn’t change that much about my interpretation if the summary had more details.

First of all: I could quite easily debunk and kind of nip this whole theory in the bud with one big point. Tommy coming back for season 7 was a last-minute decision. He was not the first choice so this thing between him and Buck being planned years ago? The seed being planted back then? Doesn’t fit.

Tommy (as a love interest for Buck) was kind of plan c (?) if I recall it correctly.

First idea was to bring back Lucy Donato. She can fly a helicopter (we saw that in the bridge rescue in season 6). Her not being available due to the actress’ new show was a last-minute thing. It can be seen on the form Hen submitted at Harbor. In the form the name of the requested pilot is “Lucy Donato” and not “Tommy Kinard”. That shows that the switch was not planned early and kind of made last-minute. If Lucy would have been brought back as an old new love interest for Buck, we will never know.

Second problem was that Natalia’s actress was also unavailable. Her character and Buck were in a relationship at the end of season 6 and this would have lasted into season 7. But instead, due to the lack of availability, they broke up over hiatus and she was never mentioned again. Therefore, Buck was without a big storyline and without a love interest. Because Tim, the showrunner, had it already in mind that Buck would and should realize some things about his sexuality (Buck has always been queer/bi-coded and Oliver has played and/or decided to play him like that) they decided now would be the right time. Buck’s story arc wouldn’t need that much time and so it could fit into the shortened season.

To get Buck to this realization that he could be attracted to men as well as women, there was a catalyst needed. Tim said in one of his interviews early on in season 7 that he didn’t want to invent a completely new character for that. Therefore he “recycled” an old one – Tommy. To give Buck an entry-level relationship that he can explore this new side of him a bit. But he also said that it wouldn’t be anything more than that. Even Lou, Tommy’s actor, stated the same in an interview he gave that Tommy was kind of the practice round for Buck.

And don’t mind that Lou mentioned in the same interview that Tommy was first brought back to be a love interest for Eddie but then they switched it to Buck, probably because to the reasons above.

To sum this part up:

Tommy being Buck’s soulmate and this being the plan in the long run doesn’t make sense when you look at the way of decision making.

But okay, benefit of the doubt. Let’s still look at the theory in detail.

Buck joining the 118 and sitting in Tommy’s seat

Mitchell’s husbands name

Episode title vs. “Love, actually”

I admit that these three things could be interpreted as something with a deeper meaning. But it could be also interpreted as nothing. Let’s dive into the screenwriting for a moment.

Like I said before it is quite essential to “Show don’t tell”. These three points might be big in the part of that ship’s fandom but the casual viewer doesn’t remember any of that. If it had been important and the show had wanted to lean into the theory they would have used some narrative devices. Like flashbacks. For example:

The moment Buck learns that Tommy’s name is Thomas we could see a short flashback to Mitchell and Thomas and the conversation Buck had with the former. Or another flashback where Tommy sits at the table and then fades and Buck sits down in the same spot. So that the general audience would make this connection. That they would have their “oh” moment, realizing that Tommy and Buck are really connected on a deeper level and made for each other. Or at least that there is something more to their relationship.

But we don’t see any of that. Just the hardcore fans remember the episode “Buck, actually” actually. Because for us these moments with Mitchell are so important and a valid part in a lot of fanfics on both sides. The casual viewer? They probably won’t even remember the episodes they watched three weeks ago. An episode that aired in 2018? Well… just no.

Buck looked up at the plane

For this point I will take off the screenwriter’s hat again because I can explain it without any screenwriting rules.

We know that Tommy is a helicopter pilot who works at Harbor. He also was a pilot in the army. I am sure that not many people know that but if you are a pilot doesn’t mean that you can fly anything that goes up into the air.

Imagine the same with a driver’s license. Just because you got your license for a normal car you are not automatically able to drive a truck, a tank, a motorbike, a bus etc. Most vehicles need special licenses so that you are able to drive them.

And the same goes for anything that flies. Tommy is able to fly a helicopter and he has a license for that. But being able to fly a plane? Okay, screenwriter’s hat on again because I noticed that I need this for the next few sentences. It is possible that a person has more than one license. And Tommy could be one of them, being able to fly a helicopter AND a plane. But again. We don’t know and nobody told us that he can. We know him as the helicopter pilot. Connecting him to the plane? To make this connection someone would have to mention it on the show that the audience can see “Oh, Tommy flew that plane and saved them all”. And screenwriter’s hat off.

Chimey said that he called Tommy for help and I totally believe he did that. Because Tommy is connected to people who can help with air support. So, it was Chimney’s obvious choice to ask him. But it makes more sense that Tommy asked someone else to fly that plane to help instead of flying it himself due to the aforementioned license thing.

And if we now think that it’s more likely that someone else flew that plane, the theory that Buck looked up to see his future boyfriend flying in to save him (and others) makes no sense anymore. (And yes, I ignore the point that kind of everyone was looking up because there was a damn fucking plane coming to the rescue and nobody says that the pilot is Bobby’s soulmate… or Hen’s… or any of the other people who were around back then.)

I think I properly explained why the “Invisible String Theory” might be a nice fandom created idea but it makes no sense in the long run, realistically speaking on a tv show level. Too many things don’t add up and make no sense storytelling wise.

Let’s hop on to other things in that context.

2. The whole “Evan” thing

Fans and the general audience alike know what kind of relationship Buck has with his given name. He never says he hates it. But he shows it more than once or it is shown that his chosen name holds a special place in his heart, and not his given name.

Buck talks with his parents as they visit him at the station. When his father calls him “Evan” Buck interrupts him and tells him that his name is Buck. People who know him call him “Buck”.

When Buck is down after the I think the warehouse fire Athena talks to him and cheers him up. She gives him a pep talk and ends it with “That’s what being Buck means to me.”

In the coma episode coma!Bobby and coma!Buck talk before Buck realizes that he should escape this coma dream. It is about his name as well. That he is Buck. And not Evan.

There are a few other examples, I just listed the three most obvious ones, I think.

In conclusion we can say that Buck prefers this chosen name over his given name for several reasons. He accepted being Buck and not just Evan.

Now Tommy comes in and calls Buck Evan all the time. We even know that Lou has been told to just call Buck Evan as Tommy and not Buck. Why could that be?

People are saying that Buck reclaims his name, being called Evan is him being more mature. Or even that it is something special because only Tommy is allowed to call him Evan. But are these really the reasons? I doubt it.

We know that Buck has a complicated relationship with his name as stated earlier (family issues etc.). Why would he all of a sudden want to reclaim this name, to show him being more grown up? After the lightning strike and the follow up coma we saw him already grown up. Grown into the name, being comfortable with being Buck. Because being Buck is enough. Why would he all of a sudden decide that now he wants to be called Evan again after the audience has already experienced his growth in season 6 where he feels good as Buck, not Evan? And even if he wanted to be called Evan now for reasons, why would he not tell everyone to switch the name?

From a screenwriter’s perspective it is quite simple. Tommy being the only one calling him Evan is important. But not in the way people think it is. Not because it shows a special connection or because of a deep bond. On the contrary. Remember the phrase Buck said to his father. “People who know me…” It is more of a “Tommy doesn’t know Buck” thing. With this simple action the general audience notices that something is off between Tommy and Buck. Because the audience knows Buck’s preference and some might even remember all the reasons why (most might remember that it has something to do with his family).

“Language” is a very effective narrative device. Using certain words or how characters talk to each other can deliver a message for the audience. Screenwriters use this device so that they don’t have to actively say something but the audience will still get it. In this case: Nobody has to say that Tommy ignores Buck’s chosen name and that something feels off about it, the audience sees that he does and that it is.

Now people might say “But Buck hasn’t stopped him” and yes, I agree. Buck has not stopped him with the whole “Evan” thing. It could be simply because he still has to get used to his first relationship with a man, exploring stuff etc. Or it could be deeper and be rooted in his abandonment issues, unconsciously scared that if he tells Tommy to change the name that Tommy will leave. And Buck failed another relationship.

There could have been some possibilities to explain this name thing. Like Buck telling Tommy explicitly that he wants to be called Evan. Or Tommy asks Buck about it because he notices that he’s the only one calling him Evan and Buck states that he is okay with it because he likes it when Tommy does (this could have given a nice little look into their relationship and could have been a sweet moment.)

But nothing like that happened. We just hear Tommy call Buck Evan every time he appears on screen. And this is intentional, the intention behind even backed up through the instruction for Lou not to say Buck.

“Show, don’t tell”. Tommy uses the “wrong” name for Buck while the audience knows what Buck prefers. So, it feels off for people who watch the show and we get to see a relationship where both parts aren’t really on the same level.

3. Buck’s big “coming out”

There are people who complain about the way it was shown on screen. They argue that Tommy could have told Buck how he looked. And they are mad at him for that. That it was a forced coming out and that it was a shitty move from Tommy etc.

I don’t agree with that. Because I wouldn’t look that deep into it. In the end this scene had just one purpose - a subtle coming out for Buck. We know that they were already running low on time that episode, cutting of scenes almost worth one complete episode. So, Buck coming out to everyone else besides Maddie and Eddie? Would have taken too much time. The “soot face” scene was more effective and delivered the message to Buck’s friends and the audience. That Buck is out now.

I want to focus more on another part of the hospital scenes. The one when Buck and Tommy kissed. (And no, I don’t want to talk about that it was kind of out of character for Buck to leave Maddie’s wedding to go see Tommy because that is something else to discuss at another time maybe.)

Hardcore fans were happy about this scene and yes, I get it. Tommy promised to be at the wedding and he was. And they kissed. Great. Your ship sailed at that moment. But the moment people went deeper in and romanticized it that Tommy came to see Buck even after he fought a fire, I have to put my foot in.

Let’s put off the shipper’s googles for a second.

Tommy being at the hospital was just for one purpose. That Buck could come out to his friends and that the audience knows that he is out now to everyone and doesn’t have to hide anymore. Nothing else.

Because if we look deeper into it, there are some questions. Tommy works at Harbor. They usually do the air support. Why would he arrive at the hospital with a fire engine in full turn out? If you are on-call duty you usually aren’t for a different job. Compare it to a doctor maybe. If you are on call as an eye doctor you wouldn’t be called in to do a brain surgery. Especially such an expert like Tommy, a pilot, wouldn’t be used for normal fire-fighting that could keep him occupied when an emergency occurs that needs a pilot.

Therefore, him coming in with a turnout full of soot, having just fought a fire, was solely for getting the soot on Buck’s face. Their kiss was to remind the audience that they were still seeing each other even after their failed date and the coffee-date to get out the invite for the wedding.

There was no deeper meaning behind it and the writers used that scene to deliver a subtle coming out without Buck telling everyone.

Interpreting it as “Tommy came to see Buck even if he worked so hard in these past hours” and “he didn’t even go home to clean up himself because he wanted to rush to Buck” is looking too deep into this. (And just to mention, even Buck cleaned up and switched clothes although his sister’s wedding had to be cancelled because the groom was missing and Maddie was going crazy about it. But Buck went and cleaned himself up.)

4. The Bachelor Party

Yes, I know. There is a big controversy about it, especially Tommy’s reaction. Let’s analyze this.

Tommy didn’t dress up even though Buck told him that the party was 80s themed. Instead of just saying that he didn’t have much time and couldn’t find a fitting outfit, he stated “They had Henley’s in the 80s” in a very condescending tone and made somehow fun of Buck and Eddie for their Miami Vice costumes. “What are you, the Wedding singers?” (reference to a movie where the two people who are meant for each other are with the wrong people but that is not the point here).

The point is that Tommy did not put any effort in it. The audience knows how Buck can get with these things. Remember Clipboard!Buck and him being Firemarshal. The audience even saw in the previous scenes how important this party was for Buck. He really wanted to throw it for Chimney and was totally into it.

Tommy reacting so poorly was a mood dampener and we could see that in Buck’s (and Eddie’s) reaction.

Now, people explained that he was on call and that this was why he didn’t dress up. Usually, if you are on call, even as a First Responder (or especially as one), you have to switch into a uniform to work. Doctors, nurses throw on their scrubs, police officers wear their uniform, firefighters theirs etc. He could have easily worn something different. Tommy did not know if he would be called in or not. But he decided against it, wore a Henley and made a joke about Buck (and Eddie) being dressed up.

How can you analyze this from a screenwriter’s point of view?

If they had wanted to establish the relationship between Buck and Tommy further, we would have been shown stuff that would let the audience have another “Oh, they are into each other” moment.

For example: Tommy could have worn something colorful or fun, just a shirt or something and they could have had a sweet little exchange about it. Or he could have explained to Buck in a normal way why he decided to go with the Henley. Or, and that is a major point, he could not have been on call in the first place and could have partied the whole night with Buck (and Eddie, or even without Eddie to give us more couple time). But he did neither of that.

It was an intentional choice to not dress him up and let him even act kind of condescending towards Buck concerning the outfit. It was also an intentional choice to make him leave. Him staying could have shown the two of them in a more relationship way, how they act around each other, how much fun they have together. But the writers refrained from this to a. show the disconnect between Tommy and Buck and b. not to dive deeper into their relationship and to show it to the general audience.

The bachelor party was the fifth scene we saw Buck and Tommy together – the first one at Harbor when they were interrupted by Eddie, the kiss in Buck’s kitchen, their failed date, the coffee date and now the bachelor party.

In none of these scenes the writer’s focus was to establish their relationship. For the audience it is still not really shown what kind of relationship these two have, especially not that it is such a lovely one like some fans claim it to be.

While I mentioned all their scenes until now, I want to go back to one and talk about this one as a last point.

5. Their first date

In episode 7x04 which is completely from Buck’s (unreliable) point of view we got the kissing scene when Tommy asked Buck out for a date. Ignore the “My attention? – I guess.” for a moment even though it probably is important. Remember, anything is intentional and not just because they had no clue what else to write. But this is not what I want to focus on here.

The whole episode was from Buck’s point of view and the audience learnt that Tommy is a lot like Eddie. They have so much in common – the military, Muay Thai, repairing cars etc. The audience learns that Buck seems to like Tommy who is similar to Eddie and that they kind of click.

Now we jump to the next episode and Buck’s and Tommy’s first date and the writer’s intentions switch. While thinking that Buck and Tommy would be a good fit after the last episode the audience now learns that there are differences between the two of them.

I don’t want to excuse Buck’s reaction, the “hot chicks” comment was misplaced. But thinking about it you could at least understand it. He is not out yet, just noticing his attraction to guys a few days prior and is now on a date with a man for the first time… and bumps into his best friend. It is just human that he panics and says something stupid. Still, it was needed that he apologized for that.

Tommy’s actions on the other hand were more than just a bit misplaced. His “closet” comment could have outed Buck in front of his best friend. Luckily, Eddie (and Marisol) was oblivious enough that the comment flew past their heads. Immediately after, Tommy ended the date and ordered himself an uber.

Again. Until then I could explain this by “he is mad at the comment Buck made, feeling like being shoved back into the closet” etc. I would agree. I wouldn’t be on that level myself because I think rudeness shouldn’t be countered with rudeness but okay. Everybody acts differently.

Now, to really end the date, the writers made another intentional choice. They could have shown that Tommy still cares about Buck, that Buck is important to him. They could have made him say something like that Buck isn’t ready and that he understands him but doesn’t want to go back into the closet. Something like that. He could have shown some empathy. He could have explained his want to end the date so that the viewer could relate and understand him.

But instead, the writers chose Tommy not to talk to Buck. Until the moment the uber stopped at the curb, Buck (and the audience) is still thinking that they are going to the movies. Then Tommy abruptly ends the date and drives away while Buck stands alone at the curb, staring at the leaving car. (Concerning his abandonment issues this is kind of heartbreaking.)

Every message, every action Tommy did after Buck’s comment could be explainable on its own. But sum everything up and it leaves the viewer with another off feeling – the closet comment, ending the date without saying so, leaving Buck on the curb.

Even later on when Buck met up with Tommy again at the coffee shop, Tommy did not apologize. I wouldn’t go that far and say that Tommy is gaslighting Buck. But he explains his actions with “You are not ready”. He probably doesn’t see that he did something wrong or that he could have handled the situation better.

The viewer starts to think about that relationship and that they maybe did not click that much like everyone thought at first. Nobody probably thinks that Tommy is a villain here. Just that he is probably the wrong fit for Buck.

There are a few more other scenes between Buck and Tommy and each one of them can be analyzed through the screenwriter’s lens. But probably there won’t be anything new that hasn’t been stated already. So, just a short summary of three scenes that are worth a comment.

During the medal ceremony when Buck is happy about the award (it is obviously his first) Tommy makes a comment – “Enjoy it while it lasts.” This shows another time that they are not on the same level and they don’t really match. Tommy just sees himself and cannot be happy for Buck. Therefore, he makes that slightly deprecative comment and Buck face falls.

While Bobby is in the hospital, being dead for 14 minutes and now in a coma afterwards, Buck is worried sick. Everyone knows that Bobby is his surrogate father. He wants to share this with Tommy who turns it into a joke, not really taking Buck seriously and listening to his concerns and fears. And Buck’s face falls again.

While Hen and Karen try to interrogate Tommy about his intentions with Buck (kind of a shovel talk), he deflects and makes jokes that are misplaced.

If you look at all of these things mentioned above - from the name calling, comments and certain scenes - from a writing perspective you can see that these were deliberate choices. There were enough moments to really establish the blooming relationship. To make Tommy likable.

First, he could have been on screen more so that the audience would see their relationship like we do with all the other couples. For example, like Athena and Bobby dancing together on the cruise ship. Did it add to the storyline per se? No. But it showed them being a couple and in love. There could have been small little scenes like that with Buck and Tommy. But the writers and the showrunner decided not to show any.

And remember. For the general audience things have to be shown that they will be able to relate to the characters and accept things into the narrative. So, if there are no e.g. domestic scenes between Buck and Tommy, nobody will believe they have a sweet little domestic relationship.

Second, the few scenes they had Tommy could have been written differently. Except in 7x04 where we saw the whole story through Buck’s eyes, he was always stiff and condescending, making misplaced comments and jokes. The writers could have given him lines where he e.g. supports Buck after he is worried about Bobby. Or an apology at the coffee date where they both decide to start over. There were many chances to make him a fit for Buck, to give him scenes and lines for the audience to relate to. So that we can see him as the fit for Buck people claim him to be.

But, the show did neither. There was just a limited number of scenes and the lines Tommy had were never really supportive or sweet towards Buck. All in all, the writers went full in with the “Show don’t tell”. They painted a certain picture of Tommy for the audience to understand that Tommy might not be a bad guy but just not a fit for Buck.

And in the end, this is what counts. What is shown on screen and the writer’s intentions with this.

Not what someone comes up with as a headcanon or what people assume happened off screen.

Disclaimer in the end: I just want to say that this post isn’t about the casual part of the fandom. The people who just watch the show, enjoy the ship and are happy about anything. As long as they are respectful and live the “ship and let ship” lifestyle, I am completely fine with it.

This post is more about the hardcore five people who try to shove down these theories and “canon” events as a given we have to believe and accept and “how dare you ship something else???”. People who act superior and think they can be dismissive and condescending and whenever you don’t agree with their point of views you are called names, slurs and a lot of different other things.

[suavis-nook]

T H E G L O R Y 2022 || directed by Ahn Gil-ho

ah Yeo-jeong ! what a mystery you still are! starting off at the hospital, which still hasn't been fully explained. golden retriever energy and yet not really.

[bitchcakegreen]

I’m going to do a trailer dissection post this afternoon.

Ya’ll been warned.

[thrilling-oneway]

i forgot i had "character analysis is my passion" in my bio because i probably put it there in late 2022..? and at that point the only serious character analysis i'd done outside media class and posted online was for sth so it was kinda just me being obnoxious but i guess it fits now since prsk character analysis is the only real thing i contribute lol. foreshadowing but not intentionally

[psychoblush]

Andor - S1E1 "Kassa" - Structural Analysis

This is a written analysis of the plotting and structure of Andor from a screen/TV writing perspective. I'm an aspiring screenwriter studying TV, film, and theater writing in college and this is my pet-project: to examine the way Andor constructs story in order to achieve certain dramaturgical effects. I hope to do similar analyses for the rest of the season as well. Thank you for reading!

This will contain spoilers for all of episode 1, spoilers for the first arc (E1-E3) and mild spoilers for the rest of the season.

Show premise

Petty-thief Cassian Andor is hunted by the Empire while a revolutionary movement coalesces across the galaxy.

Ferrix Arc (S1E1-S1E3)

Stories (Arc-wide)

A-story: When a pursuit for information regarding the whereabouts of his long-lost sister leads to him being a wanted man, petty-thief Cassian Andor is forced to do anything he can to remove himself from the attentions of corporate security, but the ensuing confrontation leads to death and destruction within his community.

B-story: (in flashback) When a mysterious starship de-orbits over Kenari, young Kassa embarks on a quest to prove himself as a capable member of his community, but the confrontation results in the destruction of his community and his abduction by off-world scavengers, never to see his family or his sister again.

C-story: Deputy inspector Syril Karn seeks to prove himself as a capable officer and a force for justice by apprehending the killer, but does so by disregarding his orders and endangering the lives of his comrades.

D-story: When Timm gets jealous of Cassian’s reentry into Bix’s life, the relationship is strained by mutual secrecy and miscommunication, leading to Timm’s death at the hands of a corporate cop.

S1E1 - “Kassa”

dir. Toby Haynes, wri. Tony Gilroy

streamed September 21st, 2022

Stories

A-story: Petty-thief Cassian Andor seeks to lay low and cover his tracks after a fatal shake-down with two corrupt cops leaves him a wanted man, but finds that his community distrusts him after overdrawing one too many favors.

This A-story is very central to the entire episode and with the exception of the B-story, all other stories causally spring from this story and end up relating to it in some way by the end of the arc.

B-story: In flashbacks, young Kassa wants to prove his worth by embarking on a scouting mission with the other “adults”, but abandons his sister in doing so.

The B-story serves both in the arc and the episode as a way to provide an elegate symmetrical structure. There’s a scene in the beginning of the primary action of Cassian’s pursuit after the opening sequence, one in the middle, and one in the very end. At the same time, the flashback serves to articulate some of the internal dysfunctions of the character, even though it takes a few episodes for it to fully manifest.

C-story: Security deputy Syril Karn wants to solve the murder of the two cops to fulfill his vision of justice, but finds that nobody in his organization, especially his boss, wants to help with his pursuit of the killer.

Here, Tony starts to flex his muscles in devising institutional drama and plotting. The main antagonistic force in the story does not operate unimpeded; he instead is faced with his own antagonism that articulates two key themes: 1) the empire stifles the freedom of those that serve it, and 2) fascist societies generate fanaticism regardless of whether or not it advances their cause or helps to maintain the preferred status quo.

D-story: Cassian’s reentry into Bix’s life prompts friction and secrecy between Bix and her romantic/business partner, Timm.

This almost functions as an addendum to the A-story, but gets its own special attention in how it chooses to articulate the Bix/Timm relationship. But it comes to have a direct causal effect on the A-story in subsequent episodes. Infact, the way causality transcends the stories becomes extremely intricate in its own right. Dramatic action becomes an emergent property of these interactions.

Scene sequences

OPENING/CLOSING IMAGES

OPENING IMAGE: Streetlights moving rapidly in the rain; Cassian in pursuit of his sister.

CLOSING IMAGE: After Kassa leaves his sister for the last time, she watches him as he runs away.

1: I./E. BROTHEL, MORLANA ONE - NIGHT (A-STORY)

Cassian enters an upscale brothel in search of his sister. When he receives special attention from the hostess, two on-duty corporate cops start antagonizing him. Cassian gets too pushy in getting information from the hostess, prompting him to get kicked out of the club and his pursuit thwarted.

2: EXT. MORLANA ONE - NIGHT (A-STORY)

Cassian tries to exit discreetly, but is held at gunpoint and shaken down by the two offended corporate cops. They attempt to rob him, but Cassian is able to outwit them, inadvertently killing one of them in the scuffle, and recovering the gun. With the tables now turned, the remaining cop tries to persuade Cassian to spare him, but Cassian kills him to make his escape.

Let’s talk about these two scenes as a sequence, because they function as one discrete unit of storytelling. Andor doesn’t do cold opens - though this sequence could very easily serve as a riveting cold open if they moved the title card to right after this scene. Being a streaming exclusive without commercial breaks, Andor also doesn’t use hard act structure with distinct act outs, even though we’ll come to see Andor as employing techniques similar to traditional TV act structure at times.

In TV writing, we sometimes encounter this idea of cold opens or opening sequences serving as story microcosms. In the sense that the structure and action of the sequence is representative, in a small way, of the way the world we see in the episode, season, and series functions. Andor’s opening sequence has him engage in a seemingly innocuous pursuit, enter a highly dangerous yet extremely familiar situation of power-tripping LEO, and leads him to make a difficult choice to escape the dangerous situation. It’s telling us that this is a world where good people have to make hard choices to survive because of the danger of the society they live in, which we will come to see in subsequent story units, is a racist, fascist, imperialistic, and capitalist society.

3: I./E. FERRIX / MAARVA’S SHIP - MORNING (A-STORY)

An extremely quick scene introducing us to Ferrix before work-hours, B2’s winning personality, and establishes the pretenses for Cassian’s flashbacks in the B-story. 

This isn’t really a real scene because it doesn’t have conflict, it doesn’t have antagonism, and it doesn’t have pursuit. But it serves as a good framing device and orients us to where we are on Ferrix.

4: EXT. KENARI VILLAGE - DAY (B-STORY)

This scene introduces us to Kenari, Cassian’s sister, and Kassa (the young uncontacted version of Cassian). We don’t get much action or context in this scene, but discerning viewers are able to pick up on the fact that this is a society populated solely by children and teenagers wearing and using old industrial equipment. Something very bad clearly happened here. We also see the mysterious ship de-orbiting, and the reaction the community has tells us this isn’t something they’re used to.

The decision to completely eschew subtitles is a pretty fascinating directorial choice and one that has gotten a lot of attention online. But It does a lot to ground the movement solely on the acting and visual language, as opposed to dialogue construction - though arguably it makes the plotting of this story a bit more sparse.

5: INT. MAARVA’S SHIP - DAY (A-STORY)

We get a short scene with Cassian where he starts to formulate a plan. We also get some indication that Cassian has a community on this planet with Bee mentioning Maarva and Brasso. In some ways, Maarva’s the antagonist in this scene because she’s besmirching Cassian to the others, even though she’s not there and it’s coming from Bee.

“Spectral” antagonist: A representation of the antagonistic force in the story by a character who isn’t that main antagonistic force. Bee’s just passing on information from someone else, but in doing so, he’s softly acting as the antagonist for the moment. We see this technique employed a lot in this episode and this show, especially since shows operating in the prestige mode often go entire episodes without main oppositional characters meeting (i.e. Cass and Dedra still haven’t met).

6: EXT. RIX ROAD - DAY (A-STORY)

Cassian convinces Brasso to spin a lie for him, but in doing so, it becomes apparent that Cassian’s sleaziness has overstayed its welcome in the community.

This is when the main sense of antagonism in the episode starts to crystalize for Cassian. Maybe once, his petty crime and hustler antics were overlooked in the community, but those days are coming to an end as Cassian’s options dwindle. That’s the source of danger, more than the possibility that he’ll be caught for the time being.

7: INT. PRE-MOR SECURITY CHIEF’S OFFICE - DAY (C-STORY)

Syril delivers the report of the double-homicide to Chief Hyne - keen on making a good impression and presenting himself as a dutiful officer, but Hyne sees through the bullshit and orders him not to investigate the murder in an effort to sanitize Pre-Mor’s crime reports under Imperial jurisdiction, leading Syril to be incredulous.

This is a great scene. It works wonderfully schematically, the scripting is stellar, and the acting is spot-on. This is the scene where I was truly convinced of what Andor’s storytelling was capable of. Syril comes in with a pursuit (deliver a report) with a deeper motivation (pursuit of justice) which is fueled by dysfunction (he is deeply insecure about his position as an officer and is desperate to please). The pursuit is met with opposition (Hyne has a completely different perspective on justice, being a pragmatist and someone who doesn’t want to rock the ship) and reversal (Hyne orders him to drop the matter and implies he wants to fire him), which leads us with a clear emotional context from Syril (anger and disbelief) which propels him into action (go behind Hyne’s back) for the rest of the story arc. It’s Emmy-worthy writing in a single scene. And it all happens in 3 minutes.

8: I./E. TIMM AND BIX’S SALVAGE SHOP - DAY (A-STORY) / (D-STORY)

Cassian comes in to convince Bix to contact his black-market dealer so he can sell his Starpath unit for a premium, but it generates friction between him and Bix because Bix assumes he’s been undercutting him. When Bix offers to buy it off him, Cassian refuses and convinces her to make the call. Timm expresses resentment for Cassian’s past with Bix - when Cass tries to dissuade his concerns, Timm gets more jealous of the two of them.

This scene’s also a banger. It has a complex shape - the danger is threefold: Cass doesn’t want Bix to know what trouble he’s in, he’s externally threatened by the sense of fear he has over being caught, and neither Bix nor Cass want Timm to discover the extent of their black market side-hustle. Bix is an antagonist to Cass, Timm is an unknowing antagonist to both Cass and Bix, and Timm thinks Cass is his antagonist. It’s great, and from here the causality gets pretty wild.

9. EXT. KENARI VILLAGE - DAY (B-STORY)

Kassa tries to go on the war march by joining in on the face-painting, even though he knows it means abandoning his sister. An older boy tries to stop him from participating, but the older female leader lets him join, prompting him to paint his face the same way she did.

This is a good scene with sparse plotting befitting the style of this story. The antagonistic force is the sense that Kassa should stay with the community and be with his sister, while the pursuit is that Kassa thinks he’s of more service if he leaves with the war party. The two antagonists are his sister and the older boy. Kassa gets what he wants in this scene, like he does in all the scenes this episode. This is because this story functions on an inverted sense of danger: the closer Kassa gets to what he wants, the more dangerous things will be for him. So the stakes are actually higher if his actions aren’t opposed very firmly. His dysfunction drives the story forward, with opposition deferred until it gets extremely bad in the third episode.

10. INT. PRE-MOR CORRIDOR / AIR TRAFFIC OFFICE - DAY (C-STORY)

Two security workers laugh and greet Syril in the hallway - Syril’s awkward response causes him to feel isolated. Syril corners the air traffic controller into reviewing the logs for him, but when the controller expresses apathy over the matter, Syril threatens him into compliance by invoking his authority.

GREAT LITTLE SCENE. It illustrates dysfunction: Syril is lonely, all he has is his job and a black-and-white view of morality and justice. It shows him acting transgressive to get what he wants, specifically by abusing his power over others. And it articulates the antagonism the same as the previous scene with him: what he perceives as laziness and apathy is what keeps him from getting what he wants.

11: EXT. FERRIX BACKALLEY - DAY (A-STORY)

Cassian is cornered and hustled by Nurchi, a local to whom he’s greatly indebted. Nurchi attempts to intimidate him with the help of Vetch, but Cassian is able call Nurchi’s bluff and escape from the situation.

It’s a good scene, really short and sparse. Thing to track here is that the town is becoming increasingly hostile to him and he’s generally unliked by folks.

12: I./E. TIMM AND BIX’S SALVAGE SHOP / FERRIX STREETS - DAY (D-STORY)

Bix is cagey about where she’s headed when Timm asks. Bix leaves, Timm attempts following her but quickly loses her trail when it’s clear Bix knows the streets better than he does.

13: I./E. PAAK WORKSHOP / RADIO TOWER - DAY (A-STORY)

Bix goes to Salman and Wilmon Paak’s workshop, asking to use the radio. Bix radios the buyer to come to Ferrix.

I put this as A-story because this scene has more to do than the previous one with Cass’ situation than the friction emerging between Timm and Bix.

What’s important about this scene is that it clues us into a larger underground network on Ferrix - Salman, Bix, Cass. It's a community where folks otherwise look the other way at this kind of stuff. Otherwise it’s sparse, no conflict, no antagonism.

14. INT. PRE-MOR SECURITY HQ - DAY (C-STORY)

Syril recruits the main security IT staff to help him apprehend the killer, but the staff express a general unwillingness to help him - both because they don’t care and because Syril doesn’t actually possess the authority to sanction an operation like this. Syril bullies the staff into compliance, telling them to put out a notice for the killer on Ferrix, despite the lack of authority Pre-Mor has there.

I like this scene, it plays slightly double-beaty because Syril is employing the same tactics as before on different staffers, but it also establishes it as a pattern. Syril advances unopposed in this story - especially in the context of later events, we know this is because we need to see him get into danger faster. It's another example of inverted danger.

15: EXT. PEGLA’S JUNKYARD - DAY (A-STORY)

Cassian tries rewire the ship he borrowed’s transponder codes, but in trying to justify his actions, pisses off Pegla and tells him he’s no longer welcome to take out favors from him.

This is a pretty lowkey scene, but it’s the closest we get to a crisis/climax moment for Cass in this episode. I’ll talk more about why that is later; it refers specifically to the way Andor modulates story in ways that work distinctly from other TV shows. Still, it has everything a scene should. A pursuit/tactic, opposition, reversal. And those elements push the story forward in more dangerous ways, as we’ll come to see in the next two episodes.

16: EXT. KENARI VILLAGE - DAY (B-STORY)

His sister tries to plead with him to stay, but Kassa leaves with the other war party members - promising to return for his sister.

Yeah, this bookends the episode. The episode begins with Cass in pursuit of his sister, the episode ends with Cass leaving his sister, never to return for her.

What do we hear Bix say of Cass in the last episode? “Cass always comes back.” It’s a gut-punch.

GENERAL NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS

Andor is a show that functions in a strange and specific way compared to a lot of serialized long-form narrative TV. Andor uses episode as building units to articulate larger discrete units of story within the season. In this sense, Andor’s “pilot episode” (I put this in quotes because most streaming dramas don’t have pilots) isn’t really the first episode, but all three of the episodes in its first season story-arc.

The way I was taught TV, is that all three-act narrative hinges on the elements of set up, play out, and pay off. Andor’s three tri-episode story arcs - which I will call the Ferrix Arc (S1E1-S1E3), the Aldhani Arc (S1E4-S1E6), and the Narkina Arc (S1E8-S1E10) - all hinge on this principle of modular three-act structure. Kassa doesn’t have a typical hard crisis/climax because it isn’t really a complete self-contained episode of TV. I suspect that’s also why the Ferrix Arc was ultimately aired all at one, as opposed to one episode at a time.

Still, Kassa is a strong and capable episode of TV because it demonstrates the strengths of Andor’s storytelling: the principles of causality, dysfunction, and institutional characterization.

causality: the chain of events in story that facilitate and heighten dramatic action in a linear manner. Andor shows us the investigation of the murders that happened in the first sequence - having the action of earlier scenes spiral into increasingly dramatic and complex action in subsequent scenes. The way the D-story with Bix and Timm loops into stuff that happens in the next two episodes is absolutely exquisitely done. Later in the show, the fallout of the Aldhani Arc is central to all of the action that happens in the second half of the season.

dysfunction: a character’s internal dilemma, ideology, or experiential understanding of themselves and the world that makes them operate transgressively within the world of the narrative. This is sometimes a character flaw, but can also be a sense of righteousness that puts them against unjust actors within the narrative. Cassian’s dysfunctions have to do with his desire for self-preservation and an easy payday, Syril’s dysfunctions relate to his inability to live up to his idealized notions of justice, and Timm’s dysfunctions come from the feeling that he can’t be as close to Bix as someone like Cassian can appear to be.

institution: the man-made structures that characters navigate within the story world and define the shape of the narrative. These institutions function as characters in their own right; Pre-Mor has as much of an effect on the narrative as a character like Cassian, as does Ferrix’s tightly knit working class community. And in subsequent episodes, we’ll look closely at how the empire’s administrations and power structures have material effects on the world. This principle is why Syril and Dedra spend much more time fighting their own institutions than fighting Cassian or the rebels. It’s a story about how highly-motivated actors navigate the challenges of their environments; dramaturgical complexity is almost an inevitable emergent property of this paradigm.

This episode and the one following it are among the least-tightly plotted of the season, but there’s still some intricate stuff. There are little moments in scenes where a single line provides an oppositional reversal that redirects the character’s trajectory for the rest of the episode. This isn’t a testament to Kassa’s weakness, it’s an appraisal of how Andor as a whole is a narrative that benefits from emergent complexity. When things go on for longer, more moving parts are in play, the story can move in unpredictable and highly dynamic ways. It’s a staple of prestige TV as a mode and Andor’s first season executes it exquisitely. With that being said, a lot of fans tend to underwrite the first arc of this season. And while I agree that it is personally my least favorite, it’s still really well-done. In the same way Andor has three tri-episode arcs, this is the “set up” one, and it does a lot of heavy lifting that allows the show to play uninhibited in future episodes. Don’t underwrite this one.

Thanks for reading! Let me know if there are any questions about terminology, theory, or just about the show in general, or my interests as a fan and writer.

[leisplayhouse]

watching dementia the musical instead of doing my screenwriter responsibilities