#this is relatively unimportant and unneeded but this my shit

[thesherrinfordfacility]

take me up / cast me away

so this is going to be a veritable word vomit but this is actually so exciting to me; we obviously affiliate aziraphale with the flaming sword and both its biblical and GO narrative implications, but the catch that @frog-person made on this particular shot has got every synapse firing.

(and therefore this is a meta for @frog-person and them only, mwah✨💕)

not only is the sword going through their hands, but it's one sword of many in a particularly fiendish magic trick (or at least an earlier version of one made popular by the morettis in the 70s), and the box itself with all of its swords is relatively prominent in most of the scene, as background props go (more on this later).

now, i don't know enough about magic tricks or illusions to understand the significance that this aspect may have, if any - possibly the element of trust, sure, but also the sheer ability to hoodwink the audience into accepting that there is no way that whatever is inside could possibly survive such a trick. however, i simply want to just talk about the sword in general.

let's start with connotations and symbolism behind the image of the sword. first of all, it's a phallic symbol and is largely used in the context of knighthood, chivalry, and sovereignty. it symbolises justice, and truth, and righteous and merciful power. to hold the meter of life and death in your hands, and to be trusted to use it in conscience and clemency.

in alchemy, the sword was shown as a symbol of purification, between life and death. similar connotations in other histories, literature, and customs read the sword as being the key to balance between truth and enlightenment. later into history, especially in the middle ages, swords of discernible quality were understandably resource-intensive to make and therefore came to symbolise wealth, but moreso in the context of strength and glory, and further then a symbol of protection and shelter. traditionally, oaths and pledges would be made to the sword (literally, sworn-sword), and in turn swords were - and continue to be - used to elevate you to a higher station (eg. use of a knighting sword).

the imagery of the sword in the box is evocative of the sword excalibur, probably one of the most famous swords in literature and legend. cliff notes: excalibur was the believed magical sword of king arthur, and was written in some accounts (specifically in this case in the poem Merlin by robert de boron) to have lodged in an anvil, sat atop a stone, and that whoever could pull it from the anvil would be proof of rightful lineage of uther pendragon - and therefore, by divine right, king of the britons. obviously, arthur was said to have pulled the sword from the stone.

excalibur's symbolism can be interpreted somewhat as being as i said above; tennyson wrote that the words inscribed on excalibur as being (paraphrased): "take me up" / "cast me away"; to indicate that the sword is a weapon that should be used sparingly, only when necessary, and never without mercy or fair judgement. it is a power that can destroy, and should be safeguarded from turning that power to insidiousness. a call-to-arms when taken up, and a grace and peace when cast away.

(im a whore for arthurian legend ok, im from southwest uk) (and have a tattoo on my arm of those words, im a basic cornish legend bitch)

now, i realise that excalibur is not literally a part of the GO story (that we know of, notwithstanding the flashback in s1), and the sword we know in GO has a rather different narrative importance (or does it?). so, we know that in genesis the flaming sword was given to the cherubim in eden to guard adam and eve, and this is pretty much transposed to GO right up until aziraphale does the Cool Thing and gives it away, meant as a means of protection.

however, given that it ends up in the hands of humanity's personification of war, it bears a rather vivid mirror to the intention of excalibur; that in casting it away, aziraphale inadvertently introduces the concept of destruction to humanity.

but im now going to move away from the symbolism of the sword itself (i promise im trying to organise this meta into some semblance of order), and instead look at it in terms of when aziraphale actually holds it. we start with him giving it to adam and eve:

and then when he takes it up at the airfield:

and in the time bubble with adam and crowley:

now this is really obvious, i realise, but it does have some bearing for me on the image we see in the 40s minisode. sword up: ready to fight. sword down: ready to rest. it's a reasonably common occurrence to see in heraldry (by extension in logos/emblems and even on gravestones) two crossed swords pointing up or pointing down. usually, for the former, that the prospective wielder is ready to battle, is prepared and willing, and is or always has been braced for the onslaught.

the latter however indicates that either the fighting is done, or that no threat is meant - and that this can be in death, in surrender or defeat, or out of conscientious choice. that the wielder may have chosen mercy, and to act with peace and without conflict. one step further - sheathed sword goes on to symbolise that a fight is not anticipated; not necessarily in the sense that the wielder is unprepared, but instead that they are not turning to violence as an option.

this is where i think the presence of the sword in the shots from the minisode, with all of the connotations of it from eden (and its similar, in my eyes, likeness to excalibur) come into play. as i said before, the sword/s are notable visually in the whole magic shop scene. its in primary focus along with the desk as they enter, its the first display aziraphale goes towards, and it oscillates in the background from to aziraphale's right, to between him and crowley, and latterly back again:

summarised thoughts on this, because it will otherwise be a truly garbled mess:

the sheer presence of it reminds the audience that a fight may be imminent, even if the scene/story is currently at peace

that whilst the narrative is not currently in full combat, it pays heed to not only the events of ep4 being somewhat of a fight, but the events that precipitate in ep5 and ep6, and leading into s3

that where it is currently cast in the figurative stone, it may be called upon to take up arms, and confer suggestions of sovereignty, divine power, and strength

that victory (however that may conclude) may only be possible with the right person in power; aziraphale as the new supreme archangel and prince of heaven

it also confers the necessity of protection, of justice, and of mercy, being elevated to a position where you have the power to make that judgement

all things which aziraphale intended by giving away his own sword, and is what he indicates in ep6 that he intends to deliver to heaven once he ascends

that this fight, whenever it may come, may literally divide him and crowley in the story that lies ahead

...you don't need me to explain this bit contextually, right?

the last thing that stumped me, however, is that there ought to have been something in ep6 that almost bookended all of this imagery (at least temporarily, until we have a s3), or at least indicated whether or not aziraphale chooses to take up the sword again like he does at the end of s1. that shows him prepared for a fight, to defend the weak, and uphold judgement in mercy... and then it hit me:

of course there bloody is.

[adventseven]

MORBIUS FILM REVIEW          

Today, I risk my reputation by writing a mildly positive review of a flawed but entertaining movie. Did I like it? Morbiyes I did.

          Morbius stars Jared Leto as Dr. Michael Morbius, Matt Smith as Milo, Adria Arjona as Martine Bancroft, Jared Harris as Dr. Emil Nicholas, and Tyrese Gibson as Simon Stroud.

          Before I go into the pluses and minuses, what I enjoyed, and the misfires I noticed, I want to address the elephant in the room. The second end credits scene is as dumb and nonsensical as everyone says it is. It raises unneeded questions and is a complete character shift for Morbius. Even though the first one is silly, it at least kind of makes sense, and if that would've been the only end credits scene then I think there would be one less problem with Morbius.

          Morbius is nowhere close to the best comic book movie of all time. None of Sony's recent Marvel films have been. One thing Morbius isn't is an unwatchable shit show. Is the script imperfect? Yes. Is every performance great? No. Were the references to other Marvel characters a little corny? Absolutely. Did I enjoy watching the movie? Yes I did, quite a bit at times.

          The core performances of Morbius and Milo were the highlights of the film. Jared Leto's performance as Morbius was better than his performance as The Joker in Suicide Squad. It was still cool to see him do vampire stuff and learn how to hone his powers. The theme of all of Sony's Marvel films is that each hero has a dark side and Morbius fits that theme about as well as you'd want.

          Matt Smith stole just about every scene he was in. His character was basically Morbius if he turned off his morals and boosted his ego. The personal connection between Morbius and Milo did help with the story. Does it follow the trope of a hero's first villain basically being an evil version of himself to a T? Yeah, you bet, but it didn't detract from the film in my opinion.

          The secondary characters in this film, are relatively unremarkable but are not unimportant to the plot. Gibson's Simon Stroud and his partner Alberto Rodriguez, played by Al Madrigal (who is a really good stand up comedian–check him out sometime) are pretty one dimensional. They're your usual FBI guys trying to figure out what's going on with Morbius. They also know about what happened in the Venom movies, so I'll bet they'll be showing up in future Sony Marvel films like the next Venom movie and/or Kraven the Hunter. Dr. Nicholas exists to be the father figure who dies. Dr. Bancroft is the Betty Ross to Morbius's Incredible Hulk. These characters aren’t useless, but are about as interesting as a freshly sharpened pencil.

          It's films like Morbius that point out what I dislike about Rotten Tomatoes. Morbius is not a really bad movie like RT implies with its score. I'd say the C+ CinemaScore is a more apt rating than a 16% splat. To be even more defensive, I'd say that the effects are cool, only some of the performances are mechanical, and the plot is more by the books than nonsensical. Morbius happens in a just-fine way, and a film about a man cursed with vampirism should be a little dark and depressing. I might make some people mad by saying Morbius is of the same quality as 2008's The Incredible Hulk, which has a fresh Tomatometer score, but damn it, I'm gonna stand by what I think.

          To bounce off of that thought into the conclusion of this article, I'd give Morbius a 7/10. It's flawed but fine and definitely not unwatchable. I would rent this film from Amazon when it comes out and not feel bad about it. I still want to see where this franchise goes and what will become of Sony's Spiderman Universe. The only direction the Morbius series can go is up, and–thanks to his power set–he isn't vertically challenged. Just no more end credit scenes please, especially ones that are really stupid.

SCORE: 7/10

By Julian Hayden

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Advent_Seven Subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/AdventSevenMedia Join our Subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AdventSeven/ Find Us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AdventSevenMedia/