Kinds of Kindness: Philosophical Analysis (spoilers)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 сен 2024
- Kinds of kindness, is the latest film by Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos, starring Emma Stone and Eillem Dafoe. Today I’d like to offer a brief philosophical analysis of the film with some thoughts on Kant and Lagan.
Thanks for watching,
Julian
#movies #kindsofkindness #emmastone #philosophy
I’d like to add that the thumbnail is a still from the movie; and I believe it perfectly summarizes/illustrates Lanthimos’ mock-transcendental style. Emma Stone is seen dancing exuberantly after kidnapping a woman she believes to be the messiah, who we see in the background unconscious in a wheelchair. Arguably the car (as id -machine)signifies the enjoyment the subject experiences in the destructive embrace of the other.
For me this film was full of psychological metaphores. I interpreted the land to which Liz got lost in to be actually methaphorically depression, where dogs are humans and humans are dogs. I’ve been through a long depression of several years and this is what it feels like. And the whole second part is about codependency of two beings who have been abused in the past, and can’t trust each other, with the woman being slightly more abused in this relationship as she ends up giving him his liver.
Another thing I interpreted throughout the whole film is actually a connexion between the three parts as an evolution. The first part represents a dynamic of child abuse, the second one romantic relationship abuse and depression (so ptsd - because we can see the man seems to have got his shit together when he becomes a cop after being a criminal in the first part so he evolves) and the last part is after depression, ptsd in love relationships, a woman who breaks up and again becomes independent but is still tied up in unhealthy patterns although the figure of the woman also evolved after seeing an abused woman in the second part. Now she is self sufficient, has her rituals, coping mechanisms including addictions, which make her fall back into the loop of her past traumas translated in the scene where she gets raped by her ex.
And ultimately this film is all about healing for me, with the contamination test in the third part symbolizing the ultimate test which life puts us through when we’re close to freeing ourselves from our traumas (which started in childhood) and that’s why the same characters playing the superior affective authority in the first part are the ones who put her through the test. And the people watching for me are not a cult but rather society, watching her too, representing her anxiety.
And throughout the whole film which is basically about perversion and narcissism the acts of sex and kissing are a representation of the perversion lying behind these unhealthy relationships which are in a way incestuous.
The final scene where she tries to steal a woman (the woman symbolizing who she craves to become and the boat representing the idealisation of her future self) to revive another man is a representation of the prison in which she lives through her intense anxiety and ptsd which, despite her efforts to become better, is perpetuated by the fact that she’s seeking to fill a void by jealousing others who seem perfect to her (she measures the woman and clearly envies her) and which is ultimately only benefiting a man (which is representing her abuser but is a random man because he’s in reality so far behind in her past and so her ptsd is only giving power to this man eating a sandwich and living his best life at the end. And when she has an accident in the final scene, the fact that the woman dies and she doesn’t die aims to convey the message that again she’s still stuck in this loophole.
So the movie ends on this idea of being stuck, after the three phases childhood - romantic relationship - addiction and freedom
And the message I got from it is an incentive to stop seeking love elsewhere and looking at herself, in order to heal. She was so obsessed with bringing life to this man that she almost killed herself, but she’s still alive, so the aim is to make the audience question themselves about their unhealthy patterns which is super interesting
I think RMF only represents an abstract image of the person who is metaphorically the winner in this game while the others are suffering.
That’s my analysis as an addict and child abuse trauma survivor. But overall this movie is a masterpiece. Let me know if you can relate
I personally found this movie as a fascinating take on affection and how far people are willing to achieve it
Yes!
I think that’s why it’s so fascinating!
Love most of this analaysis but calling the third story “the easiest to watch” when it has that legitimately upsetting ex-marital rape is wild
Fair point. 😅
I think he meant it was the easiest to watch as in it was the most normal of the three
It’s not as dry or complex
It was the easiest for viewers to follow
Also it was the most enjoyable- I think the second part was the most difficult to watch
Yea that was easily the most difficult scene I'm the movie for me as well. I was quite concerned when it didn't seem to phase the 3 other people in my theater who were all guys.
@@judahjaquith6854I'm very glad to hear someone else say this. I couldn't find any enjoyment in the movie after that scene...
And then to tell the child she abandoned to run away from the only family she has left due to that abandonment is pretty effed up as well
Just now completed watching your video, really enjoyed it, But my request for you is to do a full part video by breaking down all the 3 stories more in detail, the movie is hard to wrap my head around..
Great analysis! Glad i stumbled on this because i was desperate to hear others opinions about the film 😃👍🏻
Great stories all of them . I will focus on the second which for me it was the easiest to digest . For me it’s a fine example of codependency relationships.
Jesse as the dominant partner and Emma as the submissive partner . There are many metaphors and scenes which indicates that Emma was far more submissive and obedient before she was gone missing and far more dominant and confident after .
Jesse represents the partner that starts feel threatened by this change , he has no control any more . We can actually say that he loves more having control over Emma rather Emma herself .
From the other hand Emma’s gone missing can be interpreted in many ways but for me seems like a mental breakthrough . She started have confidence and be more independent.
But on the other hand , while it seems Emma care for Jesse truly I tend to believe that she loves more being submissive to Jesse rather Jesse himself .
And while she took control for a bit , as soon as Jesse started to feel threatened and told her to leave , or started to be distant to her and eventually going to extremes asking her to literally die then she gave up the control again .
Last scence is just a metaphor that Jesse finally got what he wanted . Control , and a proof that Jesse is still the same … obedient partner .
On another note Emma seems to represent also those people that are in a denial . Emma saying to Dafoe not to speak about Jesse bad again and that Jesse had done a lot for her despite Jesse going paranoid , shooting a random guy and making her life miserable .
Classic example of people that feel to have moral obligation to their partners who provides to them AS SOON AS the partner is obedient .
i discovered everything everywhere all at once because of you. thank you
One thing I’m unclear of. In the third story they’re seeking identical twins. There’s the woman who first presents herself as having survived a head injury. I assume her twin is the vet? The other twin sacrifices herself, the other twin becomes the messiah to bring the dead back to life and is supposed to live in the luxury boat. I think the boat is a reference to L Ron Hubbard of Scientology who lived in exile on boats (the SeaOrg) with other cult members.
Have to say that the liver scene sent 15 people in the theater walking out. Only me and two other people were left. I think they were just average middle age movie viewers who never saw another of his films, and probably rarely if ever saw challenging art films in their entire lives. The closet to a walkout was 1989’s The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover by Peter Greenway.
Having seen 1/2 of Pasolini’s Salo on DVD a few years ago, I’ve seen much stronger stuff in over 50 years of seeing difficult art films.
sounds to me like you understood the plot about the twins, the twins she saw in her dream were the girl in the bar, and the vet.
Funnily enough, the end of the liver scene, paired with the end credits of that short, were what sold me on the film as a whole. I saw it with a friend and only another group of 2 at the back; I wonder what they thought of it
Saw the movie yesterday. This was an amazing review. First time watcher. I love these movies that make people THINK. Our brains are meant to be flexed!
When did Lanthimos make another film with Emma Stone? Will watch the film and be back afterwards to see Julian's take on it. Regardless, I'll leave a like for the algorithm
The Favorite, and Poor Things.
At the end of the film, I like to think that “the savior” was simply still under the affects of the drug Emily used to subdue her, explaining her paralysis, and consequently fine after the crash. Happy Ending.
Great analysis! Couldn’t agree more with the psychoanalytical references. Thank you!
I still got many questions
Like at the scene they cry into a tub which provides their water
Or they're claiming you get contaminated by exchange of body fluid yet they lick it and do not concider themselves contaminated. And so many other questions for sure..
It's refreshing seeing thought provoking movies like this, when compared to the propaganda Hollyweird has been releasing.
Good video. Saw it earlier today and really loved it
Notice that the choice of lighting slyly obscures this guy’s absolutely crazy-person hair from view.
#analysis #deep
@@TheSamthaman24 Two words which do not describe the analysis in the video.
The great depth of the philosophy in this film is phenomenal, beside which category what the subjective destitution are we talking about in this film? Is it the lacanian one?
Just now completed watching Kinds of kindness, for some reason lacan came to my mind and here you are quoting Lacan... Can't appreciate myself enough to have understood some of lacan's work although it's very hard😅
the third one was the hardest to watch for me due to a couple topics brought up. even though it’s a triptych, it somehow felt there was a gradually increasing heaviness overall
I agree with this
Cute the man resurrected at the end is the man killed by the circular ‘death drive’ sacrificed to repair the break with the ‘father’ … then his healer who then who must be sacrificed (again to the drive) to keep in equilibrium… or restore its horizon. Also couldn’t help but think of the orchestrated accidents from Ballard’s crash, sex as repetition compulsion…
with all of the feigned or self inflicted injuries deployed to produce perverse results…
Great film you analyzed it perfectly some will enjoy it and some will hate it I loved it
I just watched the movie and enjoyed it. Thank you for your perspective on it. :)
good job pal
Enjoying these takes on movies, don't really have an ear for whats interesting and yours recs have been fun. Especially with some of the cognitive framing.
I think they were all the same character but a graduated version of that character through each film . Willem Dafoe's character was the same through and through in the entire film . And also R.M.F. Even though it's broken up into 3 parts , it's one film .
Thank you for the analysis ♥️
I would love if you did an analysis of Hit Man
What is there to analyse.😅
I really don’t know if it’s all that deep just feels like meta critique of Hollywood and the shallow nature of American society and identity
going to see this film next week, so gotta bookmark this badboy for later.
Sounds like Hegel rather than Kant.
Same remarque
A masterpiece of review
Really a bizarre film, but this video helped me understand it a bit more!
Nice video man!
lanthimos has a new movie already??
Poor things got a delayed release by a few months because of the writers strike. it was schedule to come out earlier in 2023 than it did so that's why the films are very close release dates.
It was shot in 2022.
@@Lukesmithbrfc that makes sense thx
Not sure I agree with the interpretation but thanks for opening up the conversation. I understood the second tale to be very different, I sided with the husband, believing that she wasn’t the same wife he’d known before, the larger feet and chocolate eating were both clues. I had strong vibes she was planning on killing him. This movie is certainly about power and control but people aren’t necessarily desiring submission, they’re just doing what best suits them at that moment in their life. Remember, some of the people are playing the role of master in this movie. People are just playing parts, whichever happens to fall in their lap. For me, the larger theme was the desire for perfection and the way that humans inevitably fuck that up.
See this is dangerous rhetoric. If you understand what it means for people to fulfill certain roles in a marriage, in interpersonal relationships, you should see how the idea of someone and the reality of someone, are two different things
@@benjiesalazar9562 yeah agree with that sure that’s true. Not sure how that changes anything.
@@benjiesalazar9562Im curious what you mean by this, can you elaborate?
That's what I thought at the begining of the story, but as it developed I understood that it narrated how the woman had changed because of a great event in her life and how his husband could't accept that change. He wanted her wife to be the same Liz, forever. He's abusing her, she is even pregnant. How is he the victim? He's paranoid. That's not how life goes, people change. She is not the ideal Liz he has in his mind, the one that he has missed, so she ends killing herself, her one true self, to continue to be his perfect ideal woman, to please him.
i thought the 3rd movie to be the hardest and most boring to watch
The unifying theme of all these films that stood out most to me is the “restoration of normalcy at the expense of others”.
The three stories imply that this form of enjoyment universally constitutes our subjectivity today, which is false and perverse.
Would you be able to elaborate on that theme in connection with the third story?
@@esther3237 Emma stone’s character killed someone while kidnapping them to get back into a cult
Yes, let's talk about this more. The promise of happiness, the good life, the desires that our society promises us and how innately perverse they are, in an absurd form, in its truth
i love you, bro
This movie is about ostracism, and the lengths humans go to avoid it. It felt cut and dry that this was the overarching theme.
Suffice it to say that a movie this vague and abstract is susceptible to multiple interpretations.
@@elliottcovert3796 oh definitely.. lot’s of things happening in this. I just felt “ostracism” was front and center.
@@jamesgriffin2169 That's an interesting interpretation. It was certainly an important theme in each of the three stories, but it's not one I would have thought of right away. But you're right, there's no story to be told in any of the three components of the film if the central characters aren't afraid of being ostracized.
Also, on a possibly unrelated side note, Yorgos Lanthimos obviously hails from Greece. Ancient Athens gave us the English word "ostracism" from a practice whereby anybody in Athens could be exiled by a popular vote. The voters would cast their votes on pieces of broken pottery, which is called "Ostra" in Greek, and that's where we get the word "ostracism" in English. Probably a coincidence but a fun one!
@@elliottcovert3796 Ah.. I didn’t even think about Yorgos and the Greek connection. I did know the history of the term though. Ostracism is probably one of the most effective forms of social/behavioral conditioning when used as a deterrent, because it exploits an innate evolutionary adaptation.. Exclusion from “the group” meant certain death, so it’s hardwired into us. There’s also several issues the ostracized person is immediately confronted with.. sense of identity/identity crisis, and the sunk cost fallacy come to mind. I can see this at play in my own life regarding political affiliation. There’s a pressure to conform (at least publicly) to EVERY emerging talking point/stance that my “group” deems pertinent. Doesn’t matter if I necessarily agree or not, I’m supposed give the appearance of agreement, or else I’m “off the team.” It’s such an effective manipulation tool, that even though I’m fully conscious of the tactic being used, it’s a challenge not to confirm.
I mean that is the obvious connection, but if that was the only point it would have ended after the first story. The three films show characters who take entirely different actions in order to seek acceptance. The first film - Jessie Plemons sacrifices someone's life. The second film - Emma Stone sacrifices her own life. The third film - Emma Stone resurrects one life only to die along with the person who did it. Also with the third film it is unclear if this would have earned the acceptance like the first two films did. Why? I dont know, but dont be quick to assume there isnt more that the film is trying to communicate here.
Watch the film again. Your comments are not accurate.
Awesome breakdown
The third one is NOT the easiest to watch XDDD
So much nudity and the SA scene
First part was more "boring" but definitely easier to watch
I la
It's a movie about shitty characters doing stupid and shitty things. This movie has absolutely nothing to do with love. If you think anything in this movie resembles love than I feel bad for you. Really bad for you
This seems like a retelling the movie, not an analysis
Smart review. Smart guy Pat, you can't pronounce words like macabre and prodigal. Joe, that's kind of lol
You might want to put your script in front of you. The looking down is insanely distacting.. I'm out.