Update on the Left Behind movie and Scripts, scripts, scripts!

The feature length Renegade Cut video has taken on a life of its own. The way I am outlining it, learning new editing techniques and animation make it feel like an honest to God feature film. Maybe it won't look as good as a proper documentary with a proper budget, but it might come close. A lot of work is going into this, including taking the equivalent of university courses to broaden my knowledge. Yale posts complete transcripts and videos of their lectures for free, and I am basically taking courses and doing the required reading to follow along. I have so many books to read.

My hope is that my effort will pay off and that the video may go viral. I always hope for that. "One day," I think, "one of my videos will get 100,000+ views due to it being picked up my major websites and shared endlessly. I came close with the Batman v. Superman episode. It currently stands at 70,000 or so views, but that is after nearly a year online. 

Left Behind and the Opaqueness of God is my biggest project to date. If it goes well, I will try to create other large projects in the years to come.  

And now, scripts from recent episodes:

 AUDIO 1
 The Lobster is a black comedy film directed by Yorgos Lanthimos. In the near future or alternate present, men and women are commanded by society to pair up. Romantic relationships are mandatory and nobody is allowed to remain single for very long. If they do and are unable to find a partner, they must be transformed into an animal of their choice, removing them from human society. David, recently separated from his wife, arrives at a hotel to participate in a function that pairs people up. He only has a few days to do this or else he will become a lobster, the animal he chose. He makes a few loose friends and struggles to find a suitable mate.
 The men and women pair up and allegedly fall in love due to superficial similarities between them. He chooses an unfeeling woman because he believes he can trick her into thinking he, too, is unfeeling. She discovers his ruse, and after seemingly transforming her into an animal to cover his escape, he goes to live with The Loners – a pack of humans who live in the woods and refuse to enter into relationships. He falls in love with a woman, partly because they are both near-sighted. This is not allowed among The Loners. The woman is blinded, and David, fearing losing her due to a loss in their shared eyesight problem, says he will blind himself as well – in their minds, this would allow them to remain together. The events of the film are narrated by the woman.
 [clip of 3:03]
 AUDIO 2
 We are not watching a cautionary tale about a potential science fiction dystopia. This is not 1984. This does not exist in the world of politics – it is exists in the world of sociology. We are watching an approximation of loneliness and a figurative interpretation of social pressures, particularly romantic pressures. This is not a sincere warning about what might happen in the future. We are not barreling towards a future in which humans are transformed into camels. We are seeing an exaggerated premise that does NOT warn of our future but parallels real world romance through exaggeration. So, let's not worry about the plausibility of the premise – it functions well and has consistent internal logic – and instead focus on how this is meant to make us feel.
 The the administrators of the relationship retreat and the forest-dwelling loners function as hyperbolic versions of what it means to be in a romantic relationship and what it means to be single – respectively. There is a great deal of societal pressure to be in a relationship. We are inundated with romantic imagery in our media, erotic material, romance films – the proliferation of Saint Valentine's Day as a mandatory, major holiday that we must celebrate or else compelled to feel as if we are anti-social or, Heaven forbid, if alone on said day, a non-participant and loser. Films end with the hero “getting the girl” or the princess marrying the prince – even commercials are romanticized or sexualized. Because of this, people are consistently bombarded with the notion that their lives are less meaningful if they do not have someone.   
 AUDIO 3
 Dating and marriage are considered “normal” – and to exist outside of this is to be somehow less than. Somehow not quite part of the human experience, as indicated in the film by the transformation of single adults into animals or the hunting of the Loners as one would another animal. The administrators of the relationship retreat – ostensibly part of the government but never given a name – are not meant to represent the law as much as they represent social pressure. We do all that ourselves. We pressure ourselves. Cultures vary on this. Some contain arranged marriages – nearly as mandatory as seen in the film – but statistically successful. And some cultures have this idea, this notion, that once someone is in their 30's, one should consider settling down. In The Lobster, no age is given, but the implication is that all adults must be paired up. Not just in relationships but on their way to marriage.   
  The people at the hotel, after knowing one another for only a few days, declare that they are in love, thereby saving themselves from the transformation or the uneasy option of escape to live with the Loners. Marriage, even real world marriage outside of this hyperbolic scenario, is fascinating because it means those who enter into it have created expectations about their present and future partner. One could currently be with the “right person,” for marriage, but because they have built a kind of timeline for  their relationship  – when to set the date, when to have children if at all, and so forth – they have created additional stress on themselves to meet those projected goals. People change greatly over time, and making a plan that is meant to last the rest of their lives – without the knowledge of who they will be – is not possible. It's a gamble, at best.  
  AUDIO 4  
  Society – friends, family, media, etc. – pressures couples into marrying after two people have been together for a certain amount of time. If they're not engaged within a few years, people will assume something is wrong. The pressure these expectations put on couples force them into an ultimatum: get married or break up. In The Lobster, the pressure is magnified by having all the people in relationships by the end of their stay at the hotel. The years society expects of people to progress towards marriage become days instead. The participants can buy more time by shooting Loners with tranquilizer guns. In the real world, people often choose their partners due to similarities between them – social, political, religious, and so on – but these similarities do not guarantee happiness. It's a vague way to measure compatibility.  
  [clip of 1:13:56]  
  AUDIO 5  
 In The Lobster, single people looking for mates must declare a “defining characteristic” – something that is easily noticeable about themselves. If they do not share this defining characteristic, they cannot be in a relationship. … In the real world, couples, particularly married couples, often extoll the virtues of being together to people who are happier being alone. In The Lobster, we see an exaggeration of this as the administrators put on play featuring the “dangers” of being without a partner. One person who is not in a relationship chokes to death without someone to give the Heimlich maneuver or call for an ambulance. A single woman is raped while walking the street alone. This mandatory coupling is not relegated to the hotel. While in public, a security guard pointedly questions David while he is temporarily by himself.  
  The believers in mandatory coupling have an entirely black and white view of the matter – a completely binary outlook. When David registers with the hotel, he mentions that he once had a homosexual partner and asks if he can be listed as bisexual. The hostess says that is not allowed, erasing his bisexuality. David is forced to choose between being registered as heterosexual and homosexual, and after some internal debate, reluctantly registers as the former. It's only one scene, but it's significant in how people view relationships. People ignorant of bisexuality often erroneously claim bisexual people are actually heterosexual or homosexual, depending on who they are currently dating. The possibility of someone being asexual or aromantic is never mentioned by the hotel staff, never considering the possibility. The administrators' binary view extends further. David wears size 44 and a half shoes, but he is told there are no half sizes. He goes up a size.  
  AUDIO 6  
 Characters who get together at the hotel are assigned children under the false impression that this will resolve any disagreements between them. This is another reference to the societal pressures people face. Not everyone chooses to have children, and their reasons really aren't anyone's business. The only problem with not wanting to have children is how much other people take issue with their individual choice. It is frustrating to have someone else assume they know better than the purposefully childless man or woman about his or her personal needs, desires and goals. Societal expectations can be incredibly invasive to individual desires. In The Lobster, children are given to new couples only a day after getting together, which may or may not be a reference to the frequency of surprise pregnancies.   
 The Loners are similarly extreme in how they behave. All their customs and rules are related in some way to being single. Nobody is allowed to date or even flirt. Masturbation is both allowed and encouraged. They only listen to Electronic music because it is easier to dance alone to it rather than romantic music or ballroom music. The Loners are forced to dig their own graves rather than loved ones taking charge. Again, these are exaggerations, but they invoke the worry of “dying alone.” The leader of The Loners is so extreme in her beliefs that she becomes monstrous when she discovers David and the near-sighted woman have developed feelings for each other.    
  [clip]  
  AUDIO 7    
  In the film, characters speak to each other in dry, unambiguous speech. They are not emotionless, though. They fight. They become upset. The woman with no feelings is considered unusual rather than the norm. These are emotional beings. Their seemingly unemotional speech has less to do with feelings and more to do with a lack of subtext. The people in The Lobster have been brainwashed by a society that values the simple fact of being together as more important than the alleged, intended benefit of a relationship: happiness – much in the way that real world society proclaims the importance of a traditional family in pragmatic terms. “The Cornerstone of Society” they say. The real world, not just the film, often values the appearance of stability more than the emotional well-being and happiness of the people in said relationship. David, at least in the beginning, in brainwashed into this line of thinking. Consider his choice of animal: a lobster.    
  He says it is because they live a long time and they always remain fertile. Practical reasons associated with relationships. The world does not always value inner complexity. In The Lobster, we see such creatures. They do not always tell the truth, but they always speak bluntly nonetheless. The Lobster is a world in which people in fulfilling relationships and people more comfortable being alone cannot coexist. The societal pressures have become too great – irreconcilable – and what should be a non-issue has become the only issue. The leader of The Loners gives a man the choice of shooting himself or his partner. He chooses to save himself, reinforcing The Leader's worldview that romantic relationships are mere social constructs and not meaningful. At the end of the film, David is forced with the choice of blinding himself and living with the woman he loves or backing out, either leaving her or perhaps lying to her about his blindness. If he blinds himself, love is real. If he does not, love is nothing. We never witness...the answer. 

PLEASANTVILLE

 AUDIO 1
 Pleasantville is a 1998 film written and directed by Gary Ross. David, an unpopular teenager obsessed with a 1950's sitcom, and his twin sister, Jennifer, a popular teenager more interested in dating, are magically transported into the fictional world of the television show. David and Jennifer take on the roles of Bud and Mary Sue from the show. David, an admirer of the show, initially wants to leave everything as is and tries to blend in. Jennifer prefers to shake things up and introduces sex to the sitcom world that had previously never heard of it. David eventually realizes that Pleasantville is hollow – the books don't have words in them. Everyone follows a routine that provides no meaningless experiences. David teaches them everything from novels to weather until they become more compete people.
 Due to the actions of David and Jennifer, the black and white world slowly starts to show color for the first time. This alarms many of the townspeople, who cast the colorized people as troublemakers and, eventually, second-class citizens. The town of Pleasantville faces the prospect of change for the first time, and many act out of fear. In the end, the town realizes that change is inevitable – personal change and societal change. David finds a way to leave Pleasantville and return home. Jennifer prefers to stay and start fresh in this new world.
 [clip]
 AUDIO 2
 There is a lot going on in Pleasantville as it relates to social politics, but if there is a central theme that connects everything in the film, it is personal repression leading to societal oppression. This is not just a guess or a reading of the film. Writer-Director Gary Ross was not quiet about his intentions: "This movie is about the fact that personal repression gives rise to larger political oppression...That when we're afraid of certain things in ourselves or we're afraid of change, we project those fears on to other things, and a lot of very ugly social situations can develop." The Garden of Eden imagery might lead one to think that “sin” is being introduced to Pleasantville, but that is a little too simplistic.   
 The story of Genesis refers to the tree as The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and while Christian doctrine refers to this as Original Sin or the Fall of Man, the film is clearly showing “knowledge” being a positive. Biblical imagery is rearranged in the film to show humanity's growth rather than more socially conservative stagnation: a burning tree – not as a warning from God as in the Old Testament but after sexual awakening. A rainbow after rainfall that the colorized citizens find harmless and enjoyable while the black and white citizens see as a portent of doom. In Pleasantville, the citizens are not experiencing “sin” – that is not what is causing the change in color. They are experiencing change.
 AUDIO 3
 Most of the time when a black and white person had sex or experienced a moment of pleasure, they obtain color or color happens nearby. However, Jennifer has sex more than anyone else and remarks that she is confused why she is still in black and white. David says that the color is not about sex – and therefore not about the Christian idea of sin. Jennifer gains color when she eschews sex in favor of reading a book. This change is reflected in her visually. David gains color only after he defends Betty from bigoted citizens of the town. He goes through a change because he initially thought of Plesantville as a paradise and that being “pleasant” was a goal. When he experiences strong emotion, in this case anger, he changes.   
 The colorization of the town is about change and progress – not sin. Socially conservative critics of the film who claim it is “pro-sin” have missed the point, not realizing that they have fallen into the trap of not realizing such attitudes are the target of the film. The students are finally able to read books and expand their knowledge. Mr. Johnson is finally able to more fully appreciate art. So, with this in mind, what other forms of knowledge do the citizens gain?
 AUDIO 4
 The colorization of Pleasantville allows this fictional town from about 1950 to go through Second Wave Feminism years before it registered in the real world. While First Wave Feminism focused on women's suffrage, Second Wave Feminism was a social movement of the 1960's through the early 1980's that focused on sexual freedom, changing roles in the family and workplace, reproductive rights, systemic inequalities, and official legal inequalities. While not all are present in the narrative of Pleasantville, many are. The director's declaration of personal repression causing oppression definitely connects with sexuality. In addition to Jennifer introducing sex in general, she also teaches her fictional mother Betty how to masturbate, thereby giving women sexual freedom beyond the confines of her marriage. She also falls for a man with more sympathetic values to her own.  
 In terms of changing roles in the family, when her husband George returns home, he shouts “Honey, I'm home!” and receives no response. This troubles him, as does the fact that his wife has not made him dinner. He reports this infraction to other men in a bowling alley – a traditionally male setting – and his lack of prepared dinner becomes scandalous to the town. The Mayor of Pleasantville – Big Bob – rouses the rabble, saying that this is only the beginning of something far worse for the men of the town. The men behave as though not getting their dinners made by “their” women is unacceptable.   
 [clip of “If Bob doesn't...]

AUDIO 5
 This incident is all the excuse the men need to enact a series of new, draconian laws to return the town to a form that is more comfortable to those in power, denying the newly discovered rights of its citizenry – both women and men. The colorization of Pleasantville also allows for the 1950 TV world to go through the African-American Civil Rights Movement of the mid-50's through late 60's in a matter of days. When some citizens of the town are colorized, the mayor deems the black and white traditionalist citizens the “pleasant” and the colorized citizens the “unpleasant” – the systemic fear of the other is codified in law, as shops display “No Colored” signs akin to segregation-era separation between whites and people of color. When David is seen dating a teenage girl who has been colorized, black and white citizens call her his “colored girlfriend” – a reference to what opposing whites called “miscegenation” or the mixing of races – and what proponents would simply call integration.
 During the courtroom scene, the layout of colorized people on top and black and white people below resembles the same scene from To Kill a Mockingbird. The mayor's laws included a rule that said that the only permissible paint colors are black, white, or gray. Repression creating political oppression becomes even more noticeable during scenes in which the town mayor is shot from angles that make him look like an imposing dictator. Upon learning of the existence of books that actually have words inside, the black and white citizens burn books, a practice in Nazi Germany, and another example of repressive attitudes vs. knowledge.

AUDIO 6  
  By the director's own admission, this is a highly political film, and of course, his assertion is supported by the text of the narrative and not just his authorial intention. Dislike of change – of progress – is an inherently socially conservative position. Conservative politicians running for office often paint a false vision of an America that looks like the 1950's – the era of the fictional Pleasantville sitcom. Ronald Reagan, a movie star from that movie, did so in his successful 1980 campaign. Decades later, candidates still link 1960's and 1970's counter-culture to their opponents, the implication being that the era of civil rights and women's liberation were mistakes and that social progress actually negatively affects society in calculable ways.  
 1950 was not a golden era – shows like “Leave It to Beaver” were not accurate portrayals of life in that time, it's just that our media is often how we remember an era from many years past or an era before we were born and could experience it. David sees the 50's sitcom world of Pleasantville as paradise, but this is a complete fantasy. Social progress is only frightening to those who do not wish to share power.
Those who glorify the values of the post-war period of America of 1945 through 1959 would also be endorsing the racial and gender inequalities of the time. They usually don't say that out loud – instead saying “traditional values” in hopes that this dog whistle will inform the electorate of the dark attitudes said politician is trying to convey without being caught on tape saying it. The idyllic period of the 40's and 50's is a fantasy propagated by backwards politicians. That's why in Pleasantville, we see exaggerated “innocence lost” Biblical imagery contrasted with people actually adapting to change and finding all the good in it.    
 

WHAT DREAMS MAY COME

 AUDIO 1
 When this film was requested, I thought this would be a completely innocuous video essay, as I had not seen What Dreams May Come in nearly twenty years. So, it came as great surprise to me personally when I found that I loathed this film from front to back. What Dreams May Come is the story of Chris, a man who tragically loses both his children, later dies himself, finds himself in the afterlife and then learns that his wife  Annie – suffering the loss of everyone she loved – commits suicide. Immediately upon Annie's death, Chris' tour guide in Heaven, Albert, informs him that she is condemned to Hell because everyone who commits suicide exists in Hell for all eternity.
 Chris decides that he will venture into Hell to retrieve her, learning along the way that Albert is actually his dead son in disguise. After speaking with Annie and helping her regain her mind, Chris brings her into a more positive afterlife, reunites with their deceased children but then abandons them temporarily to be reincarnated with Annie and live new lives on Earth. You know, it's not easy to make a film that's set partially in Hell be cloying and saccharine, but What Dreams May Come answered that dare.   
 AUDIO 2
 What Dreams May Come does a lot of psuedo-philosophical justification and mental gymnastics to claim that its assertion that everyone who commits suicide goes straight to Hell is somehow NOT a judgment. I've known people who were lost to suicide, and frankly, screw you, movie. You don't get to say suicidal people suffer in Hell forever and ALSO claim that you are taking a moral high ground. You don't get to judge people and at the same time say it's not judgment. You don't get to be insensitive beyond words and wrap it up in special effects and believe in your own tactless attempt at profoundness. Condemning suicidal people to Hell and bathing it in a warm glow is reminiscent of the holier-than-thou repudiation of someone's individual civil rights while saying “I'll pray for you.” … But you know something? That's not all this movie gets so wrong.
 I think my biggest problem with What Dreams May Come is that it acknowledges important, philosophical concepts, spiritual debates and moral quandaries by dismissing them rather than exploring them. Giving them superficial, presumptuous answers rather than asking significant questions. In this scene, Albert reminds Chris that he can't drown because he is already dead. Chris wonders if that is true, how can he be here? Albert says that Chris is not his body, and that his brain is no different from a fingernail. Albert does not say so explicitly, but he is referring to the soul AND he is hand-waving the entire philosophical debate known as The Mind-Body Problem.
 AUDIO 3
 I discussed this at greater length in a previous episode on Ghost in the Shell and referenced it in the Ex Machina episode, but to summarize, it's a philosophical question about the relationship between the physical form and what we perceive as our consciousness. Modern science often argues for Reductive Physicalism, the notion that all mental states and properties can or will eventually be explained by scientific accounts of physiological processes. Reductive Physicalism connects our consciousness and bodies in explainable ways. For example, when the body is tired, the mind has trouble focusing. This is because it is all related. Of course, that might not be entirely true, and it's extremely complicated and clearly not as simple as I'm saying here – check out my Ghost in the Shell video for more on it – but the point is that What Dreams May Come addresses this in a “We have all the answers” blind faith that does a disservice to the topic.   
 Mere moments after What Dreams May Come hand-waves away centuries of debate about the mind as it relates to the body, it references the Cartesian “cogito ergo sum” – I think therefore I am -- if not by name but in function, as Albert says “If you are aware you exist, then you do.” OK, that's fine, BUT he uses THAT as evidence of the consciousness existing outside the physical – of the soul -- which most certainly is not. Shortly thereafter, the lecture continues as Albert gives further dubious evidence of the existence of the soul through metaphor and incongruous comparisons. He says that when Chris is inside his house, that does not mean he is his house, the comparison being that Chris is only his soul, and that his body is not himself. But that's not evidence of the soul – it's a comparison based on the presupposition that the soul exists. It's a conclusion masquerading as a hypothesis. And I'm not saying there definitely is no soul. That is a topic for another video about a better movie. What I'm saying is this film attempts to convince the audience that there is a soul through terrible arguments and specious reasoning.   
 AUDIO 4
 If What Dreams May Come never brought up the subject, and Chris and Albert just showed up in the afterlife, that would be a lot less insulting to the intelligence of the audience than this half-constructed lecture. Not every movie about spiritual matters needs to try to convince the audience that its spirituality is true, but this movie DOES try to convince its audience through these exposition scenes, and it's really obnoxious to hear. A mere minute after this, Chris asks “Where is God in all this?” and you might be thinking, OK, here comes something profound after all that rubbish, but no, the film is too cowardly to address this with any thoughtfulness. Albert says that is certain that he is “up there” – even though they are already in Heaven, and they STILL don't get to see God. The film does not address that as a problem though. Albert smiles it away and never gives it another thought, signaling to the audience that we, too, should stop thinking about it.   
 I know, I know. It's just a mediocre Hollywood movie, but if someone opens the door to a subject, the consequences are their responsibility. They can't broach the topic, reach a serious conclusion seconds later as if there is no other answer, and then use “Don't take it so seriously.” as a defense. I will give the film one thing: it at least attempts to address how to reach someone who is suffering from depression. Chris' strategies fail until he learns to suffer with her, which is a fine statement about the power of compassion. But it is quite possibly its only genuine moment. Mostly it's just a movie full of bad ideas, and it's so smug about its wrongheadedness that it's just awful. It's a dumb film, mostly shallow and broaches questions with pre-determined, specious answers that are completely unsatisfying both intellectually and emotionally.