Midnight Mass 1x03 Reaction
Added 2023-05-24 23:27:19 +0000 UTC
Comments
I watched MM blindly the first time and found it boring. The second time I did behind the scenes research and discovered some pretty cute facts. Is Riley a self-insert of the author? Yes. The author himself admitted to this. Is Riley the main protagonist and presented in a positive light? Yes. Both of you are defending him even from my critique. Is Riley a representation of how the author wants to be seen? Yes. The author admitted to this as well. Does Riley hold all of the thoughts and opinions of the author? Yes. Because, again, he admitted to this as well. Here's my basis: https://collider.com/midnight-mass-mike-flanagan-trevor-macy-interview/ And here's why I'm saying it's a vanity project: Name me ONE character flaw of Riley's that the show points out? And no, it's not alcoholism because even with that Riley is presented as having completely conquered his addiction by himself and the AA meetings are just a requirement for his release. (Such amazing self-control. Is there anything this guy can't do?) Riley being a covert Mary Sue which everyone bought into is key to the show's appeal. People saying "the show resonated with me on a personal level" translates to "I'm just like Riley". Let's assume we're watching a Marvel movie and a friend of yours says "I relate to Tony Stark a lot", then adds "after I die Iron Man is the type of character I want to be remembered as". Would your reaction be different to bursting out laughing?
Orr Malus
2023-05-26 19:08:07 +0000 UTC@Mo yeah, this is my read too. Riley is dripping with guilt in basically every scene he is in. It’s so clearly something he is always carrying with him, and that’s very clearly being paralleled with Joe. I honestly can’t fathom reading Riley has acting selfishly here.
cosmotron
2023-05-26 18:05:31 +0000 UTC@ Orr Malus Its a hell of a leap to hear Riley talking about how he knows the road ahead of him will be hard and he doesn’t have the future he’d always imagined for himself, as him complaining? And he always makes it very clear how much personal responsibility he takes for what happened. It really feels like you’re clinging to a personal interpretation that’s just not supported by what has actually been in the text. Hell, his conversation with Paul isn’t him revealing his opinions about a God that exists - it’s Riley saying if God *did* exist, then the idea that He lets all this suffering happen in the name of a nebulous greater purpose makes him monstrous. But again, Riley doesn’t believe in God. He isn’t saying he hates God, but that his experiences and his own research have made him conclude that God doesn’t exist, at least not in any way that religion states God to exist. And having that conversation doesn’t at all imply he still believes or resents this idea of God - again, he *does not believe in God*. And that lack of belief is part of what underscores his personal responsibility. God does not exist, and there is no one to blame for what happened but himself. Like…that’s literally what he’s saying. I seriously don’t get how you’re getting something entirely different out of that. But then I also don’t get why you think the show portrays Joe as “some dumb hick” when the show has clearly been doing a lot in this episode especially to humanize and make us empathetic toward Joe, and see that he can also make the effort to be better. In no small part thanks to *Riley’s* words of encouragement and experience with alcohol. You really seem to have a weird hangup about Flannigan. You can dislike his work or writing all you want, but the guy has been very open about how personal this story is, rooted in his experience with Catholicism. And that doesn’t mean it’s going to resonate or be “true” (in a literal or emotional way) for everyone, but it is for a lot of people. Many of the show’s fans grew up deeply religious have also been able to relate to characters like Riley as well as the overall themes very deeply. Like, there are lots of video essays form people who were once Catholic or some other form of Christian that talk about how much they feel Flannigan gets right about the trauma you get from growing up in a very religious environment. You don’t have to agree with his takes, but getting on a high horse and making this out to be a vanity project is you projecting your pre-formed opinions on him and the story he is telling without any actual basis.
cosmotron
2023-05-26 17:45:45 +0000 UTCA lot of Riley's dialogue is also him expressing the same feelings of guilt and shame as Joe, It plays out differently, but I don't find him selfish. The worries about prospects and being back where he started seem more like worries about being a burden on his family. And not knowing what to do with yourself and feeling purposeless is super common while in recover and just getting out of prison. You don't care for Flanigan or his work, that's fine. You are free to however you want about it. But I do think it's important to engage with the work in good faith and not make assumptions about the author.
Mo
2023-05-26 17:30:20 +0000 UTCIn Riley's first dialogue with Erin he complains about his own prospects => he's selfish. Joe never once complained and accepted his fate, he also isolated himself from everyone else because he felt unworthy => feels guilt. In the dialogue with Paul he flat out blames God. There's little room for interpretation: Riley thinks it's God's duty to stop bad things from happening. This is what blaming God means. He became an atheist because he couldn't understand why God let him kill a person even though he read "all the books" while in prison. He was searching for justification in "all religions" for why God didn't stop him from sinning, in other words he was looking everywhere for something to blame except himself. My argument here is not that the show is making Riley out to be a bad person. My argument is that realistically speaking (from a Christian perspective) Joe repented whereas Riley barely even begun to do so, but the show sells Riley as being the superior "deep-thinking" person, and Joe some dumb hick. The reason the show is blind to this fact is because the author himself is also blind to it. And the reason Mike Flanagan is blind to it has to do with Roman Catholicism itself and my whole spiel about renaissance/technology/culture/etc. Riley represents the author's self-insert as admitted to in interviews. That's how Flanagan wants others to think of him which is why Riley is presented in a positive light: well-read, handsome, deep-thinker, understands every religion, very humble, (formerly) successful, even his real-life wife wants to bang him. The more I look into the making of this show the more I see at as a vanity project. It's like watching a cinematographically sophisticated Steven Seagal movie.
Orr Malus
2023-05-26 14:47:00 +0000 UTC@cosmotron That's the same reading I got from him, yeah. And it's a huge part of AA. And while it doesn't absolve him of driving drunk, addiction is a disease, not a matter of weakness or moral failing
Mo
2023-05-26 11:44:21 +0000 UTCI mean, we can't really know anything about Flanigan's personal worldview or intentions from his work. We can make guesses, but it's not very useful from an analysis standpoint. We're not mind readers, we can only read what the work is saying (albeit with context from where and when it was made) Riley did a bad thing, but I don't think that makes him a bad person (in so far as anyone can be good or bad) He did acknowledge what he did, and changed his behavior. Terra-Beth's family may never forgive him, but that's their right. He is trying to do right by Erin and his family (not always succeeding, but that's how it goes) Again, there are many different contradicting and contrasting philosophical traditions. I personally don't like Utilitarianism very much. It has been used to justify atrocity against people like me in the name of efficiency, so I've got a personal stake in it. It's a good thing to want to be more rational, but humans aren't rational creatures, and to pretend all our decisions are, or even can be rational is foolish.
Mo
2023-05-26 11:38:33 +0000 UTC@Orr Malus I can’t comment on any of the religious stuff (there are a lot of video essays out there from people who do relate to how the show explores religion because of their own experiences, and from what I’ve seen Hassan is in fact considered very good Muslim representation by actual Muslims). However, I’m truly not sure why you think Riley blames God and not himself? Like his whole speech was about him taking personal responsibility, that’s why he prefers RR over AA. “I killed someone” he said. And yeah he adds that “god let it happen” but that’s clearly not meant to be him saying that’s what he believes. He’s just talking about it in terms of what Paul is saying - that if God were to exist it would mean that God just let it happen. Riley is an atheist. He doesn’t believe in God, let alone blame him for what happened. Like, his whole journey is all about him taking responsibility and owning up to what he did, and I’m genuinely confused as to how you’re interpreting it the way you are.
cosmotron
2023-05-26 11:22:31 +0000 UTCThe Great Schism was a theological split above all because theology/religion dictates the politics. Yes, Roman Catholicism has a lot in common with Orthodox Christianity but the differences are seen as minor in the West and completely irreconcilable in the East. On my second watch I'm trying to analyze this show not by its own merits but through the eyes of the creator/writer himself. His ignorance of his own faith not only makes the Catholic characters behave in a nonsensical manner but his muslim character(s) as well. I still see Riley as a very selfish character but I do think Mike Flanagan intended for him to be seen like you see him. The difference between him and Joe is that Joe blames himself whereas Riley blamed God. This makes Joe a far more sympathetic and moral character by any metric and I don't think the creator of the show realizes this. I blame the lack of insight on the same aspects of American society which are, from my perspective, completely anathema like Calvinism and prosperity gospel. I'm not saying that the dogma of Roman Catholicism makes God to be out some sort of technology, I was arguing that this whole utilitarian/technological view on everything in the West can trace its roots back to the Enlightenment, Renaissance, and the Great Schism. Roman Catholicism is influenced like all Protestant denominations by the culture around it. By the way, have you seen the movie Apostle (from 2018)? It has the same technology-centric philosophy of religion like Midnight Mass yet it's a much better story because it has better internal consistency. I do recommend the movie. Even though I don't agree with its core message it does a great job in presenting it because it's self-aware (unlike MM).
Orr Malus
2023-05-26 06:50:04 +0000 UTCThe Great Schism was arguably more of a political split that evolved into a cultural one, and Catholics aren't supposed to treat God as a wish-granting machine either (Even Bev gets this right, when people come looking for miracle healing) And to Paul's credit, I don't think he's looking for a moral cookie either. It's in the confession: "for fear of hell and want of heaven, but above all because they offend You." And Joe isn't either, he's looking for help to stop drinking and to forgive himself so he can live a better life. Even during the height of indulgences in the 15th century, people were often paying them for deceased relatives, to get them out of Purgatory. The corruption isn't unique to any one religion, it's the nature of large institutions, and the Catholic Church was *the* institution of Europe at the time. The part where it gets thorny in real life is that this is American Catholicism, highly influenced by Calvinism (predestination) and prosperity gospel(where God is a wish granter, mostly in that fortunate people should be seen as favored by God), but again, I don't think that's what Erin or Riley is doing. (Bev does act more like a Calvinist, from time to time). Riley didn't "want" anything, he just couldn't reconcile the suffering that he caused and that he now endures as part of his faith, so he left. It's his choice. Most branches of Christianity are pretty big on the faith by your own free will. That's not always how it plays out in the world though. Eastern and Western Christianity are way more alike than they are different, and just because the theology is there, doesn't mean that's how it plays out. We're all human, with very human wants, needs and flaws. Pruitt believes he's doing a good thing for the island by giving the congregation the vampire blood, but as we've seen, all the good intentions in the world don't stop the harm being rendered (the cats, Bowl being eaten by the Angel, other spoilery things)
Mo
2023-05-26 01:09:55 +0000 UTCSt. Augustine is key to the West's view of Christianity, mainly Roman Catholicism. In the East, Orthodox Christianity, St. Augustine is still a saint but it is well understood that he had several errors. He's not a major philosopher due to these errors but the Orthodox Church places emphasis on the fact that in spite of that he's still a saint. St. Augustine himself said that he couldn't read Greek and he might be wrong on some things, and that his writings should be ignored if corrected by the Church. Roman Catholics like to forget this last bit and hold his teaching as fully inerrant. Like you pointed out with the example of Kant, in the West Aristotle became the de facto philosopher. Everything in the West is judged through the prism of Aristotle, including Plato. In the East however it's the other way around: first Plato then Aristotle, or Aristotelianism through the lens of Platonism. This is the correct perspective of things because Aristotle cannot explain his starting point: scientism/empiricism cannot be explained through scientism/empiricism. I disagree with most of what Terrence McKenna says but he's right on the money when he explained: “Modern science is based on the principle 'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest." Only Plato's "world of perfect forms" offers a starting point (or foundation) for scientism/empiricism. Even in antiquity they had the Plato vs. Aristotle divide and only after Christianity came did the two philosophies unite into one coherent belief structure. The Great Schism is a major event in Christendom because now we have two different perspective on the Christian faith: the original one (Orthodox Christianity) and the new one (Roman Catholicism plus all its wacky protestant fruits). I think your criticism of Christianity is valid but only in regards to the West. For instance in the East intent is the metric by which faith and works are measured. Let's take the action of "giving money to the poor". In Roman Catholicism if you donate to a charity in the hopes (faith) that you will get something in return from God then this is treating God as a technology or a merchant (which is a big no, no from an Orthodox Christian perspective). This is why Roman Catholicism is an atheism factory. When someone like Riley has one of these "transactions" with an invisible merchant and (a) receives nothing in return or (b) maybe even something worse in return, then they will start to suspect that the merchant is either (a) non-existent or (b) malicious. In Orthodox Christianity it's completely different. If you donate to charity and for example you get something worse in return then that means you're being tested by God to see if you really meant to just help the poor for their own sake or you just wanted to get something in return for your own selfish reasons. Passing the test means continuing to donate to charity in spite of all the bad things happening to you. And once this hurdle is passed good things will happen either internally (peace of mind) or externally (luck in your endeavors) or both. In regards to prayer. I think your view of it is again valid but only in the Western Christendom. There they view prayer as transactional, like prayer is this thing we give to God so God might help others or ourselves. In Orthodoxy it's more similar to how you view it. Prayer was created for man and it's meant to ask God to help us to help others. Everything comes back to one's intention.
Orr Malus
2023-05-25 15:36:59 +0000 UTCSo now I can mention that the box from the beginning of the show is a reference to Dracula. I don't how Pruitt got on the road to Damascus; there's a demilitarized zone between the occupied Golan Heights and the border, and checkpoints all around Jerusalem. But it makes for really good parallels to the conversion of Paul, so I'll allow it, Michael Trucco (Leeza's dad) got a miracle like this in real life. He survived a really bad car accident and was paralyzed from the neck down (which necessitated some hasty rewriting of Anders plot in s4 of BSG) and he eventually healed with luck and a ton of rehab. I love the Holly Holy montage so much, it manages to be a good times montage, while inducing a feeling of dread. And how easy it is to fall into the routine of worship without really thinking about it. Of course the church is full now, Biblical literalism is usually more of a Protestant thing, but one of the things that separates Catholicism and most (but not all) Protestants is transubstantiation, that the bread and wine is literally becomes the body and blood of Jesus. Ironically, this is where the blood libel stems from. Christians turned it around on Jews after they became the socially dominant religion. Bev is really really good abusing social rules, playing the victim, and shifting the goalposts of the conversation. It's a general problem with moderates: Extremism is bad, but confronting extremism would be rude. Also, I see your supersessionism there, Bev. The 4th Step is rough on a lot of people. The fearless moral inventory of all your faults. That kind of "I'm a coward" brutal honestly is common in AA, to keep you from minimizing the impact of your actions on others (that, and the program thinks addicts have to suffer to get better. Bleh, not my thing) Joe is an example of the positive impact of belief, it wasn't the miracle that brought him to the meeting. It was Leeza confronting him, expressing her anger (that the narrative doesn't judge her for) and her forgiveness, and Paul's teachings that helps him start to recover. Hassan's faith is also presented as a good thing, even if he is projecting a little in forbidding Ali from going to church, but he does agree to talk about it as opposed to outright keeping from going. The implication that Bev poisoned Paul is accidental per Flanigan. it does look the same as when she poisoned Pike though. I think he died from too much of the vampire blood. The priest drinks the leftover wine, and he's obviously starting to crave it.
Mo
2023-05-25 13:52:24 +0000 UTCSt. Augustine used Plato extensively and he's one of the main philosophers of both Eastern and Western Christianity. Less so in the East, tbf. But his interpterion of the writings of Paul are foundational. I wouldn't put Hobbs in the good feels good category. Kant argues that morality comes from reason, and Kierkegaard was very critical of worship without understanding (objective and subjective truth of God) There's a lot of different writing about how to be a good person in a religious and secular context. I think you're being a little overly broad about "The West" Speaking from a Jewish perspective, Islam and Judaism focus a little more on correct action (what God commands and what He forbids), while Christianity is more concerned with faith and belief. Either hard solo fide or faith and good works. If you want to get into what I actually find flawed about Enlightenment belief it's the philosophy that action follows belief. Humans are very good at justifying and sanctifying our own actions (or inaction). Something that that Midnight Mass shows us a lot of (and not just with Bev either). For me, prayer does not affect the world, people do, and prayer affects me, to reflect and judge myself. and yes, tradition does come into it, but not without understanding. Religious and philosophical debate are an extremely important part of that tradition, not simply faith and obedience. I'm not actually trying to change anyone's mind. It's the principle of the thing. That, and I just enjoy learning and conversing about these things.
Mo
2023-05-25 12:37:36 +0000 UTCI want to also put this show in contrast with Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. In FMA:B we are shown both sides of Plato and Aristotle so to speak. We have Father (Dwarf in the Flask) which introduced alchemy as a scientific technology alone which in turn was used to create a technologically advanced and militarily strong society. Hohenheim introduced alchemy in the far East as a spiritual technology meant to help/heal people. In both cases the elite wanted to use alchemy for their own personal goals hence the conflict. Ishvala rejected alchemy altogether on religious grounds because they understood that they will fall under the same temptations. Ed starts off as a scientist: do X -> expect Y (equivalent exchange), and ends up as a believer: has faith in the idea of sacrificing yourself for others.
Orr Malus
2023-05-25 11:28:49 +0000 UTCThis show (unintentionally) showcases the almost polar opposite views of Eastern and Western Christianity. [wall of text warning] Before and After the Great Schism Western Christendom was left in the dark for several centuries from a theological and philosophical point of view. They refer to this period as the "Dark Ages" for a reason. Eastern Christendom, e.g. the Byzantine Empire, continued as usual. After a series of Crusades, a post-Schism phenomenon, the teachings of Aristotle and Plato were reintroduced in the West which spurred a period of rediscovery now referenced as "the Renaissance". Because they lacked the complex understanding of Eastern theologians of Plato and Aristotle (they're 2 sides of the same coin) we see in the West a philosophical schism. Every movement (philosophical/political/cultural/religious/militarily) during and after the Renaissance can be reduced to Plato vs. Aristotle, with Aristotle being the clear favorite. Plato's philosophy didn't die out and unfortunately its bastardized form sprouted in the West a lot of cults (protestants) some more hardcore than others. The end effect was to widen the gap between Aristotle and Plato in the mind of the Western man, which in turn further spurred the conflict between the adherents of each philosophy. The victor was the favorite, Aristotle: cue the Enlightenment period. Why is this important? The philosophical movements in the Enlightenment boil down to: feels good = good. This idea (or starting point) infected everything from religion to science. Everything in the West has to have technological value, i.e. it has to make you feel good, to make your life easier, to cater to your personal preferences. Now back to Midnight Mass. I'm guessing the creator thought he was doing some clever atheists vs. believers type of character dynamics. I would argue that every single character in this show is an atheist because they're all written under the presumption that religion itself is a technology, Mike Flanagan being raised Catholic. In other words, the religious characters are religious because religion makes them feel good, and the atheist characters are atheist because religion doesn't make them feel good. Of course with some characters it goes the other way around: when religion stops making them feel good they seek out something else (Pruitt), and when being an atheist starts making them feel bad they seek out religion (Erin). It's all very animalistic, like how we train dogs: do X -> get reward, do opposite of X -> get punishment/nothing. The show is revelatory in showcasing the Western view on religion and revealing the creator's blindness to his own prejudices. If we look back at his previous works we see the same dynamic play out, maybe not with religion specifically but with that which cannot be explained through the scientific method. For instance the ghosts in Bly Manor are a series of memories/events which loop endlessly throughout time. They're like a glitch in the Matrix apropo of having a technology-centric view of the world.
Orr Malus
2023-05-25 11:16:44 +0000 UTCOmar Sharif was a huge Arab actor, he was in things like Lawrence of Arabia, so it adds an extra layer of bitchy to her racism
Wanda Did Nothing Wrong
2023-05-25 02:57:56 +0000 UTCYour discussion about how Pruitt sees this creature as an angel because of his own world views is really interesting. He was preaching about how we humans are afraid of mysteries and try to find meaning or some type of understanding of things we can't explain. So he sees this imposible being and labels him as an angel to give this encounter some purpose, and him being the man of God that he is, has no other choice than to believe this
HenryM
2023-05-25 01:44:41 +0000 UTCWhen I saw the scene between Joe and Leeza for the first time, my first words were just "wow"... The writing is simply incredible, and the only thing that outshines it might be the performances from both of them delivering those lines. The emotions jumped right off the screen.
ODIS
2023-05-25 01:38:56 +0000 UTCokay, i'm too tired now to leave a proper comment (don't worry, even if no one asks for it/read it i'´ll leave a long one tomorrow. but now that you've seen the creature let me tell you something funny that happened to me a few months ago. back when i was still working on the gym i was wearing my awsome midnight mass tshit ( https://www.dtgcustomtees.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Midnight-Mass-Vampire-Angel-Demon-Devil-T-Shirt.jpg ) when an old lady came to the desk and said to me something like "it's good to see young people still interested in church". can't remember exactly her words, but omg, i had to contain my laugh. like, that woman probably needed new glasses.
sand_fl
2023-05-25 01:10:50 +0000 UTCHonestly that editing process could be a reaction video in and of itself lmao
HenryM
2023-05-25 01:08:57 +0000 UTClol, if i were milena i'd use that as an excuse
sand_fl
2023-05-25 01:05:10 +0000 UTCsorry, it was just too funny. the angel might as well just be aang and you saw the hair. next time the angel is onscreen https://twitter.com/findareaction/status/1615811349803634717
sand_fl
2023-05-25 00:49:12 +0000 UTCOhh Milena edits these too? I thought it would be be just Lola, you know, because of the jumpscares lol
HenryM
2023-05-25 00:48:19 +0000 UTCstooppp 😂😂
LM Reactions
2023-05-25 00:43:56 +0000 UTCOkay okay, final comment, just to further illustrate how terrible Bev is. She doesn’t even know Hassan’s name. In every scene she refers to him only as “sheriff”, and back in episode 1 when she thought she was talking to an old Pruitt she said that the Sheriff was named “Omar Shariff or something”. Like, there have been plenty of racist micro aggressions from other people on the island toward Hassan, but Bev Keene is so racist she can’t be bothered to learn his fucking name.
cosmotron
2023-05-25 00:36:45 +0000 UTCAlso, I’m glad you guys have started to view it as a kind of vampire thing. When I did my first watch as soon as they said in the last one that the cats were “drained of blood” i was thinking vampires, but I totally get being stuck in the idea of ghosts lol. Also, I think it’s an interesting idea conceptually. Considering the whole ‘drinking the blood of Christ” thing.
cosmotron
2023-05-25 00:29:03 +0000 UTClola: "i feel like i saw the hair" the creature: https://www.nacionflix.com/__export/1632851970394/sites/debate/img/2021/09/28/midnight-mass-netflix-angel.jpg_976912859.jpg
sand_fl
2023-05-25 00:25:10 +0000 UTCAlso, Bev called Paul “Monsignor” at the end, not Father. 👀 Last episode she stared at an old photo of Pruitt that was hanging on the wall for a really long time. And with the shot of her putting the rat poison back again in this episode I always wondered if she was poisoning him to “prove” his miracles or something. And yeah, that scene with Leeza and Joe always makes me cry, the acting there is so good. Edit: ahhh I can see you have the same Bev thoughts! She’s truly the worst
cosmotron
2023-05-25 00:08:11 +0000 UTCjust finished the full and it looks like it's one with a long discussion. this is how i win.
sand_fl
2023-05-25 00:06:41 +0000 UTCOh wow that’s a lengthy discussion. Not that i can blame you, there’s a lot to talk about. Looking forward to hearing it.
cosmotron
2023-05-24 23:29:34 +0000 UTC
