Annihilation and Decoding Metaphor
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 ноя 2024
- Clickbait Title: The Ending of Annihilation Actually Explained For Real
There was a lot of anxiety in the final stretch of this one, I got really worried that the front half was too mean. I wondered what Mikey would think of me. I always admire his commitment to optimism, but I also envy it, because I am an envious person. So you'll have to forgive me for my weakness.
Written and performed by Dan Olson
Twitter: / foldablehuman
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
"I hate metaphors. That's why my favourite book is Moby Dick. No fru fru symbolism, just a good simple tale about a man who hates an animal."
W reference
@@OfficialROZWBRAZEL I haven't watched more than a few episodes of Parks & Rec, but this sounds like a Ron Swanson quote.
😂 I love that you obviously hate irony too.
@yahoodotcom5321 I do not. But the irony of the quote is so obvious, that I couldn't help but see it. Hence my sarcastic comment about hate of irony when the OP is anything but.
Remember the reason that quote is funny is bc Moby Dick is a metaphor.
I hate how I’ll look up a movie analysis and all I’ll get is “movies ending explained”
And the video is literally just someone poorly summarizing what happened, but not INTERPRETING it.
(i know I'm replying to a year old comment..)
Good lord....those "analysis" videos up front were nauseating.... Simpletons explaining complexity to simpletons.
I loved the movie...and it lead me to read the trilogy of books, which is.....let's just say, NOT obvious. And that's the point. There's some deep stuff going on in the books....and it left me very frustrated and confused at times. But then I couldn't stop thinking about it...and kept reading. And then....I finally finally "got" it. It all made sense. But I can't tell you what it was that I got it. I know it. But I somehow can't communicate it to anyone else. And the fact a few books could do that to me....is pretty damn cool.
I actually think the movie does an excellent job of distilling the flavor of the books. Mostly the first one of course....but it was able to visually show the mental world of the text very well.
@@thomasmaagaard They’re literally just for people who don’t want to watch the movie.
@@avedic I relate to this.. Even though I might know what something is about and might 'get it', i usually find it hard to put into words and explain to others.. I would love to know what some professionals like psychologists would say about it. I struggle with this with general things as well. I truly believe that I get it and am able to think about it on a deeper level, but find it very hard to convey these thoughts to others with words.. Makes me think if I'm just pretending and using a fake mental image of understanding and trying to convince myself I understand when in reality I really don't understand it.. It is quite frustrating
@@WhiteKnuckleRide512 I don't think that's usually the case. A lot of videos about movies (e.g. the much derided CinemaSins ones) are mostly watched by people who haven't seen the movies the videos are talking about. However, Ending Explained videos are specifically for people who watched a movie, didn't get it, and are now looking for someone else to explain it to them.
maybe the real annihilation was the friends we made along the way.
Close: the real annihilation was the friends we BECAME
*HAH* Loser! Jokes on you, I don't _have_ any friends!
The real meaning of annihilation was inside us all along.
Close enough.
Storing the incorporeal essence of every living human inside a giant supernatural robot, letting the Earth get destroyed, then using one tortured boy as the lever to reincorporate every human back into reality.
"why is that everything we lives for dies while our pain gets to be immortal" okay Dan cool I guess, I have work to do today but this existential terror is fun too
Pretty much the human condition in a sentence.
My Daughters are asleep in the other room. I dont want to think about this quote lol
Am I the only one who thinks this quote is where Dan's analysis falls down a little? Pain isn't immortal. "Time heals all wounds." "This too shall pass."
Those are nice sentiments but having been alive for some time now I find them to be generally untrue. They imply that the pain we experience ceases and suddenly it is as if it was never present. Pain provokes a response to change. This movie for me was about that moment when such a change is profound enough to effectively be called annihilation. We don't always recognize it in real time but often realize later that we are not who we were before. There is a terror in that realization, at least for me.
@@ravecrab hahaha, he's not referring to individual pain but our collective and constant state of suffering as in, humanity as a whole. Even if your particular situation improves, another will eventually emerge to take its place
Two years later, and I'm still howling about "Annihilation 2: Rennihilation"
there still could be a sequel lol, the movie is an adaptation of the first book of a trilogy, probably won't happen though
I mean, he sold me with Butler
@@cameronclaypool9133 with the way this movie ended? no fucking way lmao
@@andrewblain5202 I read the first book but I've yet to read the other two, but from what I understand they are not direct sequels. They just all take place in the "Southern Reach".
But also, the point of the movie was the message. I don't quite see what a sequel would do.
@@russkiishpion8892 The books are definitely a complete 3-part story. Each is quite distinct in tone and approach, but each picks up where the prior left off.
Can't wait for Annihilation 2: Annihilate Again
GentleBaguette
And then the closing chapter in the trilogy.
Annihilation nation
Or, Alien Anihalation.
Or #3 Annihalation At a Later Time, In Comparison to the First Two Movies
Annihilate HARDER
lostintechnicolor Then Annhialation FASTER. Then Annhialation STRONGER.
A bit of a tangent, but I actually used to work for Looper and its sister channels as a script editor. Really nice people, very accommodating, but channels like that are common denominator factories, they have a massive videos-per-week quota that doesn't allow for anything beyond the most shallow content. It's an ad revenue mill, basically, keeping up to date by getting videos out quickly and regularly. Ain't got time to *THINK* about Annihilation, not when you have to break down the newest superhero film trailer, from script to finished video in six hours, and then someone in the royal family is pregnant and you got to get that hot scoop, and then the WWE decides it doesn't want to allow you footage so you have to pull a video and reedit it and I'm sorry what's Annihilation again?
That's not an excuse, just the methods of one specific brand of RUclips videos, and I think in contrast to individual RUclipsrs like Let Me Explain and BryceMakesFilms, who don't have those time limits and try to appeal to a more specific, film-going audience. I don't know what their excuse is.
I think they're just people who only see metaphor in movies as a direct reference. Not ragging on them, I've been heavy into films since my early teens and it took me until my 30s to make those kinds of reads on movies. Especially on existential subjects. As, in my opinion, you can understand those concepts as a younger person, but you don't really fear them until you're closer to them.
Honestly, I don't think it's on them. It's on the viewers.
You can't explain the success of CinemaSins by excusing their process of making videos. People watch this shallow bullshit because they're more easily entertained by the shallow bullshit than by deeper, interesting, and well supported readings.
Why? If I were to guess, it's because that's how the internet works. They offer bite-size bits of amusement that are entertaining now, and forgotten tomorrow, just like your twitter feed, reddit browsing, and memes. Sitting down to actually think about how a piece of media affected you, ain't nobody got time for that.
And if that's what sells, then sell it.
A lot of youtube "criticism" seems to completely dissolve into plot discussion and it's a plague. Positive videos are nothing but explanations (which at its deepest are an analogy). Negative videos are nothing but plothole nitpicking. Anything about politics dissolves into thermian arguments.
The big issue is that when this will blow up, films will react to it, and movies will get terrible because of it.
Yeah, I always got the vibe from sites like Looper and WatchMojo that they were more concerned about meeting a deadline and getting clicks than making quality content. The individuals don't have much of an excuse unless they're just trying to garner clicks themselves.
By the way, I love your video on Moral Orel.
@@PauLtus_B I think it just comes from the fact that anyone can post video's about any topic and while that is in principal a wonderful thing, it also means that there is no vetting people for basic knowledge let alone any level of expertise. There is also the fact that many movies do lend themselves well to more surface level analysis and people try to apply the same formula to every film they talk about.
Hm. So I was writing a witty comment about finally understanding why my English teacher's were so frustrated with our (plot heavy and surface level) literary analysis in highschool. But I scrolled down a bit afterwords and found my own comment from 3 years prior and my opinion was *quite* different. I only returned to this video on accident after finally reading Lovecraft and wanting to explore more existential/cosmic horror. This video popped up. And I guess seeing a fragment of myself through an opiniom that's changed so much in 3 years... its like accidentally thematically relevant.
That's amazing. What did you say in the comment?
@@APaleDot "(In referance to the first part of the video) There are *many* different types of ways to digest and explore a film. To suggest that there has to be an artistic exploration of a film is kind of... restricting. At least in my opinion. If the plot is engaging and the events are exciting enough, people will be drawn to the questions the set of events pose. I get that this movie is dense in metaphor and symbolism and all that good sfuff. BUT, to suggest that *deciding* not to focus on that particular aspect of the movie is somehow a worse apprach to digesting it... I dunno... It just rubs me the wrong way. I posit that the immense interest in the plot by other movie reveiwers isn't always a rejection of other more "intelectual" analyses of the given media, but rather exactly as it appears on the surface. A reveiw of the engaging plot. Which in my opinion is no lessar than a deeper dive. They're two different types of anlyses and should be treated as such.
Also I really want another 50 shades reveiw, get on that Dan."
@@Black_pearl_adrift and yet I still see some truth in your original opinion
Yeah. 100% I'm vibing that with you.
What does your opinion look like now?
This was so good. Thank you man
It is amazing how tightknit youtube really is.
So weird seeing this
i subscribed to this channel because of this.
Dear @Philosophy Tube
I cannot take you seriously as an intellectual if you continue your support of antifa and their actions.
@@calebl6609 lol.
"I love being a marine! Hoorah"
Yeah, got it! You got what Jarhead was about!
My favorite part is that it's Oorah that Marines say and not the very clearly pronounced Hoorah with an H that's in the trailer.
Next time I get truly bored, I'm going to have to google what Swoffard made of the sequel.
I had to google "jarhead 2" and watch the trailer because I thought maybe this was some elaborate skit that Dan put together as a joke. lmao unbelievable...
funniest part. didn't even think it was real.
deliciousjammusic Just wait until you see Jarhead 3: The Siege
"Why is it that everything we live for dies while our pain gets to be immortal" _ holy shit that's a great summary of the theme
That's pretentious bullshit is what it is. Your "pain" is not immortal, just as neither the "everything we live for" is. That statement is as deep as a 14 year old who has cutting problems.
@@Sartoris69 What's your deal?
@@Sartoris69 I completely disagree. My life is basically just one trauma after another with moments of happiness sprinkles in there. My pain from those experiences never leave me while I don't even remember a third of the good times or the things that caused the happiness died.
The things that make me keep going die while I will have to cope with my traumas forever. I will never be cured and act like a version of myself without trauma. That is impossible.
I will always have to treat and cope with my anxiety, depression, and PTSD.
Everything I love and cherish will die or fade awag while my pain lives on inside of me forever.
@@Sartoris69 then you missed the entire point, which makes you sound like a 16 year old who thinks being cynical, mean, and rejecting philosophy makes you smart and rational.
This isn't even controversial. "Pain" and trauma change you. They can stick to you far longer than any regular or even joyful event can. Abused people can become like their abusers against their will.
It's as old as the stories about revenge and rage consuming you. About the cyclical nature of violence. About how not letting go will only posion you.
Have you ever felt the horror of having lashed out in anger because of your pain, only to realise that you've hurt innocent people around you?
@@sitabita262 well then what do you live for? THAT is still with you and will be with you forever (actually no cuz ur not gonna live forever anyways so your pain is not gonna live forever either)
"The purpose of ambiguity is to frustrate the audience, to deny a clean sense of diegetic closure and thusly force engagement with the metaphorical."
This quote has quite literally changed my life and how I look at art.
I remember first watching annihilation and being blown away, immediately seeking out the types of videos mentioned in the beginning of this one, and feeling disappointed and unfulfilled in a way I couldn't quite put my finger on just then. Like he said, the literal plot explanation is not and never was satisfactory to me, and it was only after watching this video that I realized *why*. I only felt a sense of closure and satisfaction after understanding the thematic elements of this story.
One of my favorite shows ended recently. Its ending was very ambiguous, and I was frustrated for a hot second before I stopped looking at the story literally and looking at it thematically instead. I built my own thesis statement about the show and came to my own conclusion about the ending and not only was it satisfying, it meant *so* much more to me now. As a college student studying stem, I don't know how long it would have taken me to rediscover my love for thematic analysis and finding meaning in art if it weren't for this video. I've legitimately started writing essays for fun about the themes of stories that compel me. I've started working themes into my own writing/art. And it is so, so fulfilling -- the sense of joy at discovering how the pieces of a story fit together, or of working the last clue into place in a piece of art I'm making, is unmatched by anything I've ever experienced. All because I watched this video.
So, thank you. I think this is legitimately my favorite video on youtube.
Same. I was so disappointed with the commentary I found, I basically tucked the movie away in a corner of my mind and stopped thinking about it, because I didn't want to further damage that feeling I had when I watched. And so I completely denied myself that very engagement, and I just watched this video like a real-time puzzle "oooh, that's right, THAT'S what I saw! I didn't even realize! But it's no wonder it resonated with me so much... ^.^;
So much this. Dan is one of the handful of youtubers that plucked out my obsession with "objective" thematic analysis and helped me enjoy art a lot more.
I think I'm right there with you. Logged into my gmail just to leave, I believe, my first youtube reply here just to acknowledge it and log it somehow as a point of clarity and a-ha in my life. I've *enjoyed* ambiguous endings previously, but struggled to explain the appeal to others who didn't quite catch on. The single sentence from Dan gave me chills. Like, that's it. Ding.
Anyway, thanks for putting that into your own words too here.
Out of curiosity, what was the show? I know all too well the void that I feel when a favorite tv show ends
@@khazz33 twas actually a fiction podcast lol, the magnus archives
Dan, you just have such a way with words. I had to transcribe this bit.
"There is an existential horror to the nature of intimate relationships. That opening ourselves to others - allowing them in - brings with it an annihilation of our singular self. We merge, we reshape, we combine and replicate, and mirror. And, on a level that is terrifying, to be with someone is to sacrifice something of who you are. But it's also beautiful." - Dan Olson
That was my favorite part too.
Yeah, but do the aliens fu-
I see your Annihilation and I raise you one Neon Genesis Evangelion
oh so "Being Alive" from Company?
@@belegl.7721 i call your neon genesis with one roadside picnic
Your point about rejecting the ambiguous endings when the ambiguity is the point reminded me of all the people trying to decide what "really happened" at the end of Inception, when the point was that it didn't matter whether it was real or not, which was clearly shown by Cobb not waiting to see the top fall and running to his kids
"all the people trying to decide what 'really happened' at the end of Inception, when the point was that it didn't matter whether it was real or not"
Whether it mattered to the character is one thing.
Whether it is real or not is an unknown, and by that virtue alone matters.
Mysteries exist to be explained.
Problems exist to be solve.
Questions exist to be answered.
The unknown exists to be made known.
Inception's main thing is that you're not allowed to know whether a scene is a dream or reality. Characters come out of nowhere and are where they need to be; scenes in the film just start from anywhere - just like a dream.
This means that the spinning top, loaded dice, and any of the character's totems are irrelevant, since the ambiguity begins from the first scene, not just the ending!
Ambiguity is the language of Inception!
@@jliller There is no correct answer to this question because it a question about the "facts" of a fictional plot. It was deliberately made ambiguous by the creator. The fictional world of Inception does not exist apart from the movie, so if the movie itself doesn't answer a question then the answer does not exist. You can make up an answer for yourself but that "solves" nothing.
@@jliller That only applies to real life. For instance, the whole plot of The Turn of the Screw (book) is purposefully made ambiguous by the unreliable narrator created by the author. The author wrote the book so it's impossible to know whether the ghosts exist or not. There IS no right answer, because the ambiguity is the goal, so as to expand the story's possibility of generating meaning. Same with Inception. You can't solve a mystery when there is no mystery to be solved, when it was created ambiguous.
And here I thought the top was running for so long that it meant that it was a dream. Have you ever known a top to spin for that long?
"They're bound to have a kid eventually who will be even more shimmer-like" is one of the worst phrases I've heard or read this year, and goddamn that is saying a lot.
chcuc Let me explain is ok at times and downright terrible sometimes
Though oddly enough accidentally accurate. Like if their eyes indicate this new codependency forged in their shared trauma their kid probably ain't growing up free of that baggage.
Why?
On the, uh, diegetic level, it IS a reasonable assumption -- but as Dan so brilliantly points out, that isn't what the the movie was "about."
Meanwhile, showing a scene from months and months ago in movie time as if it adds credence, because showing the actual ending wouldnt be supportive enough that theyre gonna 'bone
I am SO SICK of seeing people talk about that damn water glass! NO, that's not "water mutating", water doesn't even _have_ DNA to mutate, ffs....sigh. No, that's just how water moves. It's called surface tension. You see it literally every single day. They only focus in on the glass to show the theme of _refraction._ You know, the thing the characters LITERALLY TALK ABOUT AT SEVERAL POINTS OF THE FILM.
Plus, most of the movie you are fed scenes of cells dividing. The refraction and flow of the water on the glass is the only time it looks like two cells meeting and joining together as one. Also happens to be right before she reunites with Kane at the end.
But the aliens...
😂
Wait people really don't know that water does that? How do they not see that every time they drink from a glass? I literally just sloshed my water bottle around and the water moved like that
Also I noticed a theme of surfaces refracting light over people who came back from the shimmer. At the beginning with Kane's glass and the plastic tarp we see him through when he gets sick, and then at the end with Lena. I thought that was interesting
Excuse me, but Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs told me that water DOES in fact have DNA. Are you telling me that a children's movie is scientifically inaccurate?
Trauma changes you. After my mother got cancer my physical chemistry changed, food tasted different, textures felt different i started liking different kinds of films and music than i used to. Thank you for this analysis, i was very personally touched by this movie and now i realize why.
Same. Thank you for your comment. I lost my partner and everything changed in so many layers and ways I hadn't expected . The film is beautiful and weird and amazing but it touched me so deeply and I couldn't put my finger on why either. Much love internet stranger, your comment meant something to me
Agreed, I lost my sister to suicide, and it's almost like the world I live in is a SPLIT version of the one I used to. As if I have to experience it all over again and relearn things I already knew. I like new things, am excited by different things, have different impressions and values in life. Its inexplicable, but this movie actually does a good job of explaining it from a science fiction perspective believe it or not.
I wasn't close to my father growing up. But things changed after my freshman year and he saw i was cutting myself. He became one of my biggest supporters. After he had a stroke and basically died, I starting using his "-isms", stuff he used to say, phrases. I wear one of his belts now. I want to learn about the things he loved. I wish I could have appreciated them, appreciated him, sooner.
My mom got cancer while my marriage was falling apart. In the course of one month, literally everything in my life was unrecognizable. I became unrecognizable in the face of the trauma. I took a long time to "come back", but even then I was very changed. Grief is powerful, and being changed by it isn't an indicator of weakness, it's a signal of being human.
@@lockekappa500 I am so, so sorry you lost your sister. I lost my brother to suicide. I already see that I can never re-become the person I was before his death, all I can do is change the way I need to keep my soul alive. sending love, stranger.
I've been waiting on someone to make this video for years.
Nyx Fears nyx fears!!!
time to rewatch annihilation and sob at one of the best and last great scifi stories of this century. how much no money did it make again?
well, the studio made money, the real question is: was it worth it for netflix? i hope so.
Hey girl!
it...came out last year. unless you’re talking about the subject of his introduction
.... ok so sorry to go off topic but I want to thank you for FINALLY giving me the context to express my frustration with how the vast majority of fandom tends to interpret Neon Genesis Evangelion.
Yeah, the NGE video is great. I've run into too many people that don't understand NGE beyond a surface level and I get frustrated like Dan is here in regards to others and Annihilation.
OST Talk can you elaborate on that ?
@@restingsadface People tend to see evangelion as just a cool story about a boy destroying the world robots. Nobody seems to see how Shinji is a deconstruction-at his core-of toxic ideas of self loathing that can ruin the world around us and isolate us from people who genuinely care about or want to get close to us.
There are many other ways to interpret Eva than this, but this I feel is the interpretation that most people tend to ignore.
To be fair, a lot of that ignorance has to do with people getting caught up in the religious symbolism and focusing on the Christ allegory and rapture story.
@@assuming9735 *actually ending the series on an episode of character exploration that explicitly talks about how human interaction shapes us and teaches us about ourselves. *
"Oh wow, cool robots!"
Probably because if they accepted the explicit point of the show - that avoiding pain and personal growth for a life of obsession and fantasy will destroy you - it would require self-reflection for the anime fandom as a whole.
"I have nothing against these people... I just have a deep, seething hate for them coming from my very core."
- Dan, paraphrased.
It do be like that sometimes.
The Critical Drinker's Annihilation video got recommended to me after I watched Dan's video. I would love to see Dan's reaction to that video, his head might explode.
Superior asshat.
@@robertshay8609 something something women bad *burp*
@@robertshay8609 Is it crazy that I like this channel AND Critical Drinker at the same time?
"I know writers who use subtext, they're all cowards."
Amazing line
Blood. Blood. Blood.
Blood.
"I fear the subtext is rapidly becoming - text"
@@bengoodwin2988 and bits of sick
You and he were... buddies, weren't you?
I wish you had mentioned one of my favorite lines at the end. It certainly spoke to the bluntness you had mentioned, but in my opinion, it also helped crystallize the theme and even allude to the best way I have found to handle trauma:
Lomax: It came here for a reason. It mutated our environment, it was destroying everything.
Lena: It wasn't destroying. It was changing everything. It was making something new.
I was going to say that same thing. I felt like that was the movie at it's most blunt, hitting the viewer over the head with the fact that our self-destruction doesn't have some deep purpose, it simply happens and changes us, and we still have to face what it creates. Like cancer. It's pretty much the film dropping its thesis statement.
I did NOT need to know that there are THREE Jarhead sequels.
I know right? You'd think that the message and themes of the pointlessness of war would be remembered but... Yeah. They weren't. At all. CUZ GUNS!!!
I didn’t even know there was one sequel. I wish I didn’t know.
Keith Ballard
Next you where going to tell me you did not need to know there are Scorpion King sequels.
I didn't even know there was ONE sequel.... ugggh....
Get me off this planet
Everytime i see the thumbnail i remember the "but do the aliens fu-" joke at the end and watch through all the analysis again and am satisfied by the little comedic chaser for dessert
Something like this happened to me with the movie Hereditary. I thought that it was a lot more than just a spooky demon story and more of a metaphor of hereditary illnesses, mental illnesses in specific and the horror of seeing relatives suffer from it and the paranoia of one day having it yourself. But I went on RUclips and the only explanations of the movie were about the demon so it discouraged me on even thinking beyond what's literal on movies 🤷
That’s because art is open to interpretation. It shouldn’t be spoon fed to us. If that’s what it means to you then that’s what it means to YOU. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong.
José Diaz Yes but not all interpretations are equal. Some are based more on the text/subtext of the work than others. While there is no way to definitively say which interpretation is right, there is nothing wrong with seeking out someone who may have better understanding of the text then you do. Thats how I found this video and I’m very grateful for it.
You're not alone though as of late there's many many video essays I've found on this exact point, if you have the ability to see deeper into things past surface value you can easily see the true meanings. And I doubt Ari aster would make a shallow film about a spooky demon
When it comes to interpretations, like everyone has their own, and not one is necessarily right/wrong. Reminds me of that Robert Frost poem, think it had to do with walking in the snowy woods or something. But everyone was trying to find it's "hidden" meaning, saying it meant one thing or another. When Frost was asked what was it's meaning. He said that there was no hidden meaning. It's just a poem about walking in the snowy woods. Take that as you will but I always found that kinda funny.
Search for Ryan Hollinger. He makes analysis on horror films and is one of the few horror fans who actually takes the time to interpret movies as more than "monster A kills person B with C skills, cool right?"
As someone w a chronic medical condition that involves a significant amount of pretty heavy unexpected periods of pain that arise without warning, Ive never heard a more accurate, eloquent, disturbing, honest, and beautiful description of what ongoing physical pain is like and can do to an individual and one’s humanity and sense of self.
You describe it more accurately than anyone I’ve known who has lived it can. Which leaves me wondering: have you lived it? Or has someone very close to you lived it?
If not, you display a staggering amount of emotional empathy that leaves me fairly speechless. I can’t even begin to process how someone who has not had to face it head on could come to such a deep understanding of what it does, and can do, to a person.
The true terror of a pain condition, over time, becomes not the pain but how it can alter a person and the self we were once so proud of and could rely on and believe in. The fight becomes not how to make it through the pain but how to make it through the pain being a person we still want to be.
I thank you for your truly lovely and deeply insightful description. I’m not one to say this lightly: you moved me.
"The fight becomes not how to make it through the pain but how to make it through the pain being a person we still want to be." That's a wonderful way of phrasing a very personal experience, thank you.
Your comment moved me. I guess like the film, every interaction we have shapes us and reforms us in some way.
This was a darkly beautiful comment, & even kind of recontextualized that part of this video (a video which recontextualized a movie 😅) I also have 2 neurological pain disorders, & I don't know if it's affected me the same way. Maybe it's because my 1st condition means that I've been in a significant amount of pain every second of every day for over a decade, & have by necessity forgotten what it was like to be a child whose pain was entirely emotional. I didn't just change because of pain; I literally grew from a teenager into an adult. & while I would give anything to undo the spinal cord injury that disabled me, I'm also a better, stronger, happier person now than I was at 16. I've always had a really strong sense of self, even as a small child, & it feels like the pain takes things away from me externally more than internally. But maybe I just haven't considered how losing those external physical abilities/experiences/social life affects me as a person.
I wish I could talk to you about it. You seem incredibly insightful, & there are aspects of pain disorders that even the kindest outsiders can never fully empathize with. You'll probably never read this comment, but I'm @Lailette_Art on Twitter if you ever want to talk about pain with someone else who feels it.
Dalaila Rose - Ha! I read your comment! The internet surprises us all yet again. I don’t do the twitting, so I can’t find you there. But I’m sure we can find a way to connect. Though keep your expectations low, I have little energy for those closest to me let alone for internet strangers no matter how endearing.
I think perhaps a difference between us is that my condition, though it was always present at a low background level, only came on so strong I could no longer ignore it and pretend everything was fine in my early 30s....a couple of years after I had married. I had a bevy of close friends and active hobbies and insane side adventures (summer fun with a fake blood slip and slide, anyone?). I loved my job. I was fit and all was well with my world until it wasn’t. And eventually nothing was.
My daughter was very young as my condition worsened. That was a terrible situation, and is heartbreaking near daily still.
I am not the wife, mother, friend, woman, human I wanted - still want - to be and I don’t know if I ever will be able to be her - to be ME again. Sometimes I have a good day and for an hour or two I feel a glimmer of the real me twinkle at me from somewhere deep inside, too buried to shake off the dirt and show myself. But mostly I don’t even feel the me I was and was becoming inside of myself anymore. But I keep up hope. I need that hope. I really effing liked me. This person is kinda crap.
I’m fortunate to have a husband that remains by my side. Most men would have divorced their wives with what I have put him through. Not just the fear and torment, but our savings is gone, retirement gone, all hope of travel gone, all ability to look toward a future gone bc nothing in my world has any stability. My condition has such range from sorta half a person to little more than a breathing potato that we can’t even plan for the weekend. I can rarely leave the house. I am a very lucky woman he stays by my side and finds a way to continue to love me through all of this.
Well shit. I didn’t mean to ramble so damned much. I think I was trying to point out my situation is complex and more than just pain. That plus the life stage it hit at may have created an interesting difference in my pain experience vs your pain experience. I’m open to finding a way to chat if you are wanting to, though be patient w my frequent disappearing acts....it comes w my situation.
K Killjoy this may be an odd comparison, and I by no means what to trivialise your chronic pain experience. But it reminds me so much of my mental health struggles. Feeling like you’re losing yourself. Not liking who you’ve become. Feeling powerless to do what you once took for granted. Having good days and bad. I cannot even imagine on top of this struggle having the physical pain on top of everything. Thank you for the moving comment, I hope you have more good days
"Despite Everything, It's Still You"
My life keeps finding ways back to Undertale, I swear.
@@littlefieryone2825 Same. Can't say i'm complaining tho ! 😊
NGL, seeing "It's me." was chilling.
Ffs, it’s not that good of a game. It’s a pretty good game, sure.
@WhiteKnuckleRide512 who asked you? 🤔
This movie fascinates me. When I first saw the scene where Josie chooses to merge with the Shimmer, I had this very strange and intense feeling of 'Yes, this is what I would do'. And somehow it felt very important to know this about me, though I'm still not sure what to make of it exactly.
When I was younger I had reoccurring nightmares of a thing, a monster, chasing me. In my dreams I would run in various ways knowing I couldn't really escape. For a decade I had this thing in my dreams.
I went to a dream interpreter who said I was running from parts of myself.
In a time filled with therapy and soul searching I had the dream again. I instinctively started to run.
But then I thought I shouldn't run. The thing will eventually catch up to me anyway. I should accept it.
In the woods, among bare trees and fallen leaves, the thing came. It ripped me apart with claws and teeth. But I wasn't scared. It didn't hurt. I was happy. I was relieved. I was fulfilled.
I woke up and haven't had the dream of the thing chasing me again. And I don't think it's because I let the dream thing get me. I think it's because in my waking life I had finally learned to accept and embrace the parts of myself that I didn't like.
Metaphor is a powerful thing to us humans. It's alarming how much I related to this movie. But then I think it universally applies to the human experience... It's your relationship to the metaphor that determines how much you take from it.
I think what you've described here is the exact cultural war that lives all over our modern world. Some people openly embrace change as growth while others reject it as surrender. The way we value and approach uncomfortable realities says everything about who we are. Look at the pandemic - half of us said I'll go with the flow and do what I'm told is safe, while the other half of us fought even the slightest adjustment every step of the way as to appear strong and independent in the face of adversity. The right response is probably somewhere in between the two, with my personal leaning being more towards transformation than resistance. But rapid, unskeptical assimilation is a huge danger as well. I think it's very impressive that you were able to have this realization about yourself.
I love Josie. I think i'd die like her. I hope I will. As someone with severe, chronic (probably incurable) pain, I hope that when the time comes, I'll be calm & at peace with my decision. Each month, my pain grows and so too does the depression that accompanies it. It destroys whomever you thought you were, you can't work, can't leave the house, can't even talk about it because it increases the pain. Sometimes, even breathing is hell. Yet still, even now, id prefer the pain to the severe depression (& body dysmorphia) I had from age 15-25. Despite how much closer I am to death, I still want to live & I know I have worth, though I recognise it may be untenable at some point. I no longer fear death as I once did. I couldn't imagine dying without scars.
Came here to say I feel the exact same way. The scene struck me as incredibly beautiful and exactly how I would want to die if I got a choice. Not so much for the fate of any of the rest of the cast
Watching this movie and particularly that scene for the first time in theaters was a surreal experience. I relate to this comment.
these are the folks who complain about high school literature classes as adults.
Hey, that was me in high school and now I can't get enough of this type of analysis. People can change :), thankfully.
@@Zarex10101 hell yeah dude, rock on
@@thesejoots My issue in high school is that we were tested on interpretations as if they were fact.
@@LimabeanStudios Yes. I have always enjoyed this kind of analysis, but it can be so subjective. For example, I remember going over "Waiting for Godot" in high school and it was given a completely religious interpretation. Then I watched Philosophy Tube explain how it is almost a stage version of the Myth of Sisyphus and I was like "Oh... OH!" I know I would have gotten a horrid grade if I had not regurgitated what my teacher had told us in class, but it remains the least satisfying interpretation of the work that I have heard.
The problem is when you get a class/teacher that does so bad that you are left with an eternally bad taste in your mouth--that leads to the anti-intellectualism as mentioned in this video.
I wish we wouldn't write as much as we do in my Literature classes - I have a hard time processing what the teacher is saying since I also have to keep up with her (she barely leaves people enough time to catch up) and my fingers sometimes hurt by the end of class.
15:09 this so strongly resonates with a line from Josie about Shepard's fate, "I think as she was dying part of her mind became part of the creature that was killing her. Imagine dying frightened and in pain and having that as the only part of you which survived. I wouldn't like that at all."
But it wasn't the only part of Sheppard that survived - their memory of her did too. Her empathy, thoughtfulness & courage. She may have died screaming, but that isn't how I remember her. They say people die twice: first, when your heart stops beating and second, when someone utters or thinks your name for the last time.
@@uncletyrone Thanks, though I don't read books, I'll look it up for a summary.
@@skullsaintdead Not to mention it is very very strongly implied that the white deer mother and child the surviving members see is a kind of reincarnation of Sheppard and her child.
@@chrisbarnett5303 Interesting, never thought of that, thanks!
I just watched the movie, as it was on RUclips Movies, the other day, and hadn't thought about it much, but as soon as I saw this video, I knew I had to watch it. I recognize time and time again that I am a very literal person, and that nuance is lost on me, and I'm grateful that people like Dan take the time to help in cases like these. I'm not very media literate, and I worry about the problem of assuming "the blue curtains represent depression", if you know what I mean.
Sometimes you come back changed, but the same person. Sometimes you come back a colossal semi-aquatic behemoth that smashes a lighthouse and your husband is a dolphin.
The books made _way less sense._ They were more like "The Rapture as Scripted by an Eco-Terrorist" than anything as metaphorical as this movie.
*owl (?)
It was an owl not a dolphin
hoo boy does anti intellectualism hit differently post covid. annihilation is one of my favorite sci fi films of all time because of it's surrealism, the artistry in the body horror, soundtrack, and performances. i draw a lot of similarities with slaughterhouse 5; the aliens are a metaphor!
thank you for making this video. just sorry i found it 4 years late
i was also just thinking how this video hits so much more 6 years later, where folk can't even read basic broad metaphors in a film like Barbie. The refusal to take anything but the most literal reads of media seems worse now than it has been in a very long time.
(I'm sure Annihilation would also be blasted for being 'woke' seeing as it's an almost entirely women cast too.)
Your comment about the tragedy of pain becoming immortal reminded me very specifically of the nonfiction book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, which Lena is seen reading in a flashback and is alluded to in her lecture. Henrietta, and everything she was, died as a result of cancerous cells, but those same cells became a medical miracle for their immortality. Very interesting that there was yet another visual clue to emphasize this theme’s relevance and play into the general importance of the bio-immortality narrative.
Yes! I was thinking this too - I was shocked that it wasn't brought up around the 15min mark when he was talking about cancerous cells living forever. Such a good bread crumb in the movie (I happened to have just finished the book before watching Annihilation).
One thing I have not yet heard is the idea that surrender can be beautiful. The woman who surrendered painlessly became a flower, as did apparently several others. Like the black rabbit of death in Watership Down it can be horrifying and monstrous or it can be a warm comforting friend. The growth of The shimmer was like cancer AND like coral. At times it truly looked like coral. The deer was mimicked by a slightly frightening doppelgänger but the original dear itself had become more beautiful in its acceptance of this. I have observed this but I do not exactly understand this when we are comparing it to cancer alone. I think it is a comparison to death. Also, something about birth?
If you enjoy that theme, I highly recommend the book.
That scene stuck with me because of her last words, transcribed from my memory:
"Imagine being afraid and in pain, and those are the only parts of you to survive. I wouldn't like that, not at all."
Going with the themes talked about in this video, this might be analogous to great trauma, "annihilating" most of you, only leaving a damaged part of you, that in the worst case will affect and hurt others around you, like when the rest of the group realised the bear absorbed part of the killed woman.
In that context, her surrender could be an opt out by literal suicide, or metaphorical for using her life to instead leave something beautiful behind.
That way, she chooses to avoid not only the trauma, but to also avoid having that trauma and pain refracted and spread.
I see Lena's journey as the best, if not ideal, outcome for confronting pain and trauma. You accept it for what it is, but *then* work through it. With Josie when she surrendered, I would argue that maybe surrender can be beautiful, but only if you are willing to continue on with the next step of working through it. Josie only surrendered, and then it consumed and ultimately defined everything that she was.
france be like:
If you look at death and rebirth simply as CHANGES, they can be beautiful indeed. Surrender to change instead of resisting it. We're all constantly changing through our experiences and it's just the way life/nature works :)
I went through the death of my partner and everything changed, myself, my place in the world, the texture of the world, reality itself.. I nearly self annihilated, lost some people along the way, saw others cope in completely different ways.. it was almost too hard for me to handle.
Eventually I started healing and almost lost myself again trying to find meaning and closure and significance. After getting past the fresh bereavement and annihilation attempt and into the long path of healing and chronic grief, it was almost harder. I had no idea how to deal with all the loss and how to find my new self within the knowledge that the world is not what I thought it was and I don't fit into it like I thought I did.
This film spoke to me so, so much. It was beautiful and weird and awesome but it touched me deeply and I couldn't quite articulate why. This helped me so much, thank you
I knew there were Jarhead sequels, but the line "I love being a marine"
I just
I can't
How
... Somebody clearly literally never read the fucking book
Now we need a sequel to "all quiet on the western front" with the same treatment lmao, im sure someone can convince one of the suit to fund it.
I didn't even noticed the oroboros tattoo. What a great detail.
Luan Something Neither did I, it is great detail, but I can’t help but feel that this thematic subtlety does the film a disservice. I'll be honest, I enjoyed the film and enjoyed talking about is meaning with a friend, but I missed a lot of this detail that could've been more informative for me as a viewer. Without wanting to hate on the film, the expectation the film has of people's ability to pick up subtle film language does encourage the misreadings that this video fairly criticizes.
I noticed it, but never on Anya.
It's funny, because spotting that detail made me feel real clever, like yes movie I see your obvious telegraphing of a bog-standard sci-fi horror "twist" ending - right up until I saw this video and realised I had completely failed to spot everything the movie was actually telegraphing.
@@RichardMinkley I see your point, but I think it's good that a film this challenging got made. I'll be the first to say, I didn't get *any* of the metaphor when I watched Annihilation. But in reading up on it I now have a better understanding of storytelling as a whole.
It can be upsetting to feel out of your depth, but if you never are then you won't grow. I think as I've grown older I find myself less and less willing to give films more than one watch. Annihilation really demands you think about it and maybe rewatch it to pick up on small details and callbacks. And it's one of the most thought-provoking things I've seen in a long time.
Also it didn't test well and as a result didn't get a cinema release outside of US, Canada and China. So we might not get something this subtle again for a long time.
I noticed it.
Richard Minkley saying a movie does a disservice to itself by assuming its audience its people interested and intelligent enough to pick on the details it’s like saying that studying is a waste of time.
I think hbomberguy said it best in his Q&A video (on the topic of videogames instead of movies) there's a problem with this obsession of "canon", take Undertale for example, to get a satisfying understanding of who sans is, all you needed to do was play the game, the reason for his laziness and secrecy is revealed to be because of his sad awareness of the fourth wall, that the world and people are all a game made to be reset over and over to satisfy the player's obsession. (to the point where sans personally tells the player "if we're really friends, you won't come back.") it's a clear message about what we do to express fandom for a game, and at what cost? to have characters reset and do-over their struggles over and over again instead of concluding peacefully? all to satisfy our perverted sentimentality. it's a brilliant subtext and narrative AND character explanation to boot, but the attitude as you express in your video cares more about looking for the painstakingly literal "canon" explanations, without much regard for the message, there are countless fan explanations the sans boss fight, how he knows about the fourth wall to begin with, what his backstory is, all obsessing over the technicalities and trivia, when really all you need to do is understand him as a good piece of writing, not a science report
ignoring the metaphor makes them feel smart because it gets them talking about all the science they research on google for 20 minutes and all those Vsauce Michael here videos where they learned more than at school or something. r/iamverysmart
So Sans was meant as a commentary on a fandom phenomenon that swallowed him whole anyway? Huh. That is wrapped in so many levels of meta that I have a headache now. Thanks.
@@KookiesNolly And if you're MauLer, spending 5+ hours obsessing over literal meaning and canon while deliberately ignoring or dismissing theme or metaphor and insulting those who bring it up makes you a giga-brained human supercomputer.
I'm very late to this comment, but this is essentially the message of homestuck, the webcomic that toby fox wrote music for in the past. It's not about the literal events of the comic but what they represent and how the reader affects the story.
bruh i feel this hard in the context of undertale fandom specifically. not just in the way the audience and fandom treat sans (although that's a big and annoying deal), but in the way the audience and fandom treat "chara." "chara" is a proxy for the player to interact with the game world from our side of the fourth wall. that's it. this is explicit in the game's text, from the fact that you literally name them at the start of the game ("chara" is not their name. their name is YOUR name. it's you.) to their meta-referential monologue at the end of a genocide run. the interaction of a player from outside the gameworld with the gameworld is actually the single thing that makes the narrative of undertale coherent. literally, without a player, undertale has no story. but that doesn't stop people from projecting their weird fan-speculatory personalities, backstories and motivations on both frisk and "chara," who are basically like collective original characters at this point.
& i think people who are into these characters in a fandom way benefit from superimposing a literal, less symbolic narrative onto these characters, because a literal narrative lends itself better to fandom interaction and derivative/transformative content (fanfiction and other fan media). i don't think that's an incorrect or bad way to interact with these characters _in_ the context of fandom. the problem is (again driving back to the point of the video) when you let these very literal interpretations not only color but supersede your critical analysis.
I'm embarassed to admit that this video changed how I view movies. I was exactly that person, looking up those "x explained" videos or articles or forum threads because my reading of media was painfully literal and so often I'd get lost and confused. It's so exciting to have that switch turned and ponder the color of the curtains in earnest. I'm still worried that I'll get it "wrong" and look stupid, but I try to just enjoy my own interpretation of things and only then look at what other people have to say.
Thanks Dan :)
I learnt the same lession too late in my life, but you know what? Just being able to open oneself to new ideas and let them change you makes you a Jedi in terms of intelligence. Lots of people are and remain closed to that. We are still going to get "wrong" or miss many metaphores but that's not the main point. It doesn't matter if we get them wrong, the point is to be open to them.
you should read the book the movie is based on. its very different in many ways, and it might be a fun and interesting exercise for you to see familiar events echoed and changed. also, in my opinion, its just a really good book. the start of a trilogy thats good beginning to end.
I love reading this comment on this video cuz it demonstrates exactly both what the movie and Dan are saying. Watching the thing, taking in what it says, applying it to the way you absorb media, and changing the way you see things. Like--- that's literally it, man. :)
Nothing to be embarrassed about at all. ;)
This demonstrates why I hate that "lol the color of the curtains!!" English class meme. Not because I think it's bad that some people don't want that from the media they consume. But because I think a lot of people shy away from thematic interpretations of their own or works that encourage them make their own conclusions because they have a fear that they'll do it wrong or that they're not smart enough and "will mess it up" somehow. And I feel like that meme is saying "you are as dumb as you think, don't even try, just laugh at the people who tried before you"
It's like "don't try laugh at people who try"
@@medes5597 I keep hearing that "media literacy wasn't taught in schools" and like... it was? you were busy making fun of the teacher for trying to tell you there was a reason that the author chose to make the curtains blue.
Sorry for commenting years later… but as a former Marine who was active duty when Jarhead came out AND liked it for the fact that the movie actually "accurately" captured what my service was really about, I must tell you that I laughed so hard I started coughing when you said "that’s how we get Jarhead sequels!". Well done, ooh-rah yut-yut
I watched a fair amount of these explanation videos after watching the movie, and they never satisfactorily answered what annihilation was about. This video does.
I'm pretty not good at themes and metaphors in media, so the hand holding was appreciated
It's nothing to be ashamed of if you aren't great with metaphor, I'm not usually good myself either, just don't ignore it or deliberately go out of your way to pretend it doesn't exist. I love this channel, renegade cut, kylekallgrenbhh (though he sadly rarely uploads anymore), and various other video essayists for helping me understand metaphors and messages in media I would otherwise miss or completely ignore the media itself. Also, note that any discussion about metaphor is almost always open-ended and, so long as you have a compelling reason, you are free to disagree or even outright reject someone else's interpretation.
Same
The problem with metaphors is that unskilled folks can use them as well and completely undermine their own effectiveness. It takes good art to successfully land a metaphor.
I agree wholeheartedly. I usually reach out for analysis videos to handhold me through the metaphors that I miss, especially when I 'feel' there is something there that I just can't connect myself. It's satisfying to get that confirmation "Yes, there was something here."
Everyone starts out with film as a pure literalist. Criticism, the engagement and argument of a critic as opposed to observing negative things - is a learned skill not an inherent trait. All the best critics were once someone in the audience who suddenly caught onto the actual meaning behind literal words. We all start noticing things that are bad as we see enough in a medium to develop our bar of quality, then begin to formulate ideas of what makes something good, then notice the trends and dynamics at work. There you can sit comfortably, absorb concepts and tools casually from watching/reading the essays of more developed critics, or go whole-hog and take a formal course of study.
The only way to fail at media literacy is to refuse to learn - it's very easy to sit there making safe nitpicks and ironic digs CinemaSins style without the burden of having to make any positive claims, but you'll never grow from that position.
Oh no, all of these ending explanations. I'm so sorry.
Michael Meinberg it could be scarier... it could be CinemaSins
I say before I saw Dan actually use a CinemaSins clip
That scream at the beginning... Has Dan Olsen absorbed part of Lindsay Ellis or is it the other way around?
They may not be the same Lindsay Ellis and Dan Olsen, but they are *A* Lindsay Ellis and Dan Olsen
Yeah, but do they fu-
This comment thread is on point. Bravo, everyone, bravo!
“Are you Dan?”
“...I don’t think so...are you...Lindsay?”
Welp guess I ship this now.
I was having a discussion once about the movie Cabin in the woods, and I brought up the idea that the movie had a much more meta level that was really fascinating and someone said "don't you think you're reaching a bit there?" These are those people.
I've never been really great at picking apart movies, I've always kind of had to pick up on what others had discovered. Annihilation was the first movie where I really felt inspired to pick it apart myself. I loved it. It's one of my favorite movies now.
Couldn't agree more with this
I'm literally checking movies out for the simple reason of hearing and seeing how they approach story lines. If a story line makes sense for me, no matter how mad the acting and visuals are, I can watch it from beginning to end. But give me a movie with a poor story line or incoherent plot elements - I find it quite a chore to finish said movie.
I relate a lot to not being able to pick movies (or any part of art) apart, in general :v but especially here. I saw this video in my feed, decided I should probably watch the movie first, didn’t get anything beside the plot and came back here hoping for an explanation : D which is why I don’t agree with “wilfully ignorant” part, because that ending was the only thing I felt I had figured out (which is to say I took the “shimmer lives on” route) and turns out - I did not, at all :v and I really hope I’m not alone.
But then I don’t get modern art (makes me quite angry) and well, art at all, so maybe it’s just me and my (quite autistic) brain :v I’m just glad explain-me-a-piece-of-media youtube/blogs are a thing, bc otherwise I’d be missing out on so much context...
If anything, the front half of the video wasn't mean enough.
Though the stab at CinemaSins was great.
Speaking of, I highly recommend CinemaWins to anyone looking for a much more positive take on the formula.
@@elise3323 I've seen a few videos that specifically call out CinemaSins, but they are certainly in the minority. The issue at play is that most people find thinking to be an inconvenience, so "entertainment" aimed at the lowest common denominator will always attract a sizeable audience. As is often attributed to George Carlin: "If viewers had discretion, most television shows would not be on the air."
@@elise3323 a lot of these "critics" barely understand the plot of the movies they watch, let alone the concept of themes. They're too pre-occupied with trying to come up with a recurring catchphrase to compete with the "Scene does not contain a lap dance *DING*" of the RUclips world.
@@someguynamedrob581
Oh Georgin Carlin.
Sometimes insightful, sometimes complains about the "newfangled" term pasta.
At least, I think.
Having watched Annihilation a few times, I just wanna say all these "reviewers" failed to read even the literal events of the movie - there is no "aliens" or "duplicates" in the movie. All The Shimmer, which might as well just be a new kind of radiation, does, is make things take on properties of things in their vicinity. The flower bush deer, the human-voiced bear monster, the rock formation that decided to be a person...etc
And even with this literal reading, the obvious metaphor at the end is that Lena and Kane have become more like each other through their ordeals, gaining a mutual understanding and some sort of reconciliation
It's been a long time since I saw this movie, and this review suddenly showed up in my replies. Do you think the reviewers that don't understand, in a way mirror the people interviewing Lena?
"failed to read the literal events... there are no duplicates"
what is the thing that is "taking on the properties of" Kane? the thing that came out of the core, replicated Kane's appearance, watched Kane immolate himself, and then came back alone in his place?
if your contention is that the literal events are showing that pre existing matter is just taking on aspects of other pre existing matter, like a tree acting like a deer - what pre existing matter is taking on Kane?
"there is no aliens or duplicates in the movie" - what a dumb comment. The film literally explicitly shows you that it's alien. It literally explicitly shows you duplication.
And it might as well be a new kind of radiation? You obviously have no understanding of what radiation is or does, like absolutely zero.
@@AexisRai I don't know how the original commenter meant it but the video frames it as 'the being' were already a part of every person in the shimmer. The shimmer just allows it to seep out and recollect in its own form. I'm not as strong at analysis as Folding Ideas but I hope I have some not too fan-fictiony thoughts. I think the point is pretty much about the continious experience of self contrasting with accepting a past self as the same person or not. Maybe Ship of Theseus applied to your own psyche or physical body. Maybe the new Kane are the parts of kane that were left in Lena or others in the shimmer being given a form again while one form of kane died. A theme from different media I like is how we aren't just the story we tell ourselves but the collective impressions we left on others. Like the burden/experience with the tattoo transfered to Lena maybe a part of Kane transfered in and out of her as well. There are many creatures/flora absorbed into the shimmer already amalgamating but societal conciousness also contains amalgamations of monster stories, 'devils' and other personifications of things that should be feared. So instead of seeing it as an alien lifeform impersonating humanoid or other lifeforms its our shared ideas of fear taking metaphyiscal shape in the special threshold and reflecting everyones trauma in themselves back at them.
@@jnbsp3512i dont remember if it was in the movie, but in the book lena's/ biologist's husband calls her "ghost bird" because she 'disappears' so much, and eventually the biologist and ghost bird become two similar but distinct characters when exposed to the shimmer. i think youre totally right that it allows our borders to change-either by melting away or solidifying completely. what separates our selves from the world, and what keeps that self a single cohesive unit, can change.
This video single-handedly made me open my heart to not just reading and examining text but the art of it.
I come back to this every so often. To remind myself. I’m never the same person who comes back but it’s still me. I’m unsure if there will ever be a moment where I don’t come back.
You helped me love art again.
Thank you so much for this. I grew up with latin american literature, where threre is plenty of magical realism. I have been here long enough that I have been unsatisfyingly sucked into the bubble of literal interpretation. Once I asked an english teacher about this and what she said opened an angle about the reason for this: North America has its roots on puritanism, which killed all symbolism and imagery, along with the natives and it’s mystical traditions. However South America was rooted on catholicism, and despite the terrible anihilation agains the native population it didn’t separated it as much, and mixed with it much more, keeping and fusing many of its native traditional cultures and myths. North America and it’s interpretation as a collective consciousness is a byproduct of people whose life was based on a philosophy of a literal god and work. It’s streets are named after businessmen not artists or poets!
I wish you would use this platform to introduce less popular films of Kurosawa, Tarkovsky and great masters and relate them somehow to popular culture, I guess it’d be the reverse idea of this channel, but I love your analysis and hope my grammar was sufficient to convey what I was trying to say. This video made me appreciate this movie because you pulled me of my surrounding bubble and it was a very much needed freshness for my mind and spirit!
from the perspective of a slav, we share many commonalities in how catholicism affected our cultures. its a sort of unspoken common knowledge that slavic mysticism endured and fused with catholicism almost everywhere that wasnt a major metropolitan area. it was literally called basically doublethink - having a "double faith" even though the two contradict each other. native beliefs can endure in strange and tenacious ways.
before i watched annihilation I actually looked up the definition of the word. Not because i didn't have an idea of what it means, but my idea was not very specific. I thought it meant something like destruction. But, as i suspected, it's not the same thing. Science very rarely has exactly synonymous words. Annihilation is the change of matter completely into energy. As we know, the golden rule of science is that nothing is created or destroyed, it only changes. I'm really glad i looked this up before i watched the movie because i think it really helped me understand the theme a bit better. Which i think is 'destruction is really just change'
OHMYGOD THANK YOU FOR THIS VIDEO! This was what I needed today. I LOVED this movie. I’m prepared to say it was my favorite film of 2018. It affected me very personally, and I was SO ANNOYED when I got home and all of the videos on this movie were dumb plot deconstructions about the shimmer. It’s like, do movies not affect people anymore? Why do people seem to go into movies nowadays looking to decode them into meaninglessness? And I’m not just talking prestige movies or anything. When I came out of avengers infinity war, the FIRST thing I wanted to talk about were the themes like fate vs freewill, not “how is captain marvel gonna come into the story? what happened to Hawkeye?” Etc. I’m not saying every average joe needs to read dense film theory, but we all took english in high school. We’ve all had experiences that are echoed in film. Idk but to me there’s nothing cathartic about trying to piece apart the plot of a giant metaphor like annihilation, or any other movie tbh. It’s so sad that so many people aren’t connecting with film in those ways, or if they are, they aren’t reflecting on it or talking about it anymore.
It's 2018 and you are only cool if you watch movies to nitpick the plot looking for anything and everything you can call a plothole so you can show how smart you are.
It should come as no surprise to you that people tend to gravitate towards the literal and to "solve the plot like a puzzle" when they're presented with an ambiguous ending seeing as people have been doing that shit since The Shining, which closed on a shot of Jack Torrance in a photograph from the 1920s, or the fact that people kept trying to deduce whether Cobb's spinner totem did topple over in the end of Inception, after the credits started rolling.
I think having a very personal experience with a movie is harder to relate outside of friends and family. I have watched certain things at just the right time and had a really unique watching experience but it's not something easily replicated when sharing. Coming across something completely cold is different to your hyping/warning someone about it before recommending. I used to be on the animation festival circuit and meet and talk to directors and crew and get to know them more and the context of their films, then watch the work bad or good and get a lot more from that experience.
Natalie Rogers A video about how much a movie personally affected one person would never get the amount of views that matter sadly.
@@vivena9 Regarding how poorly some movies are written these days, it doesn't take a genius to find plot holes (or lack of coherency for that matter) any more? ;) :P
I have been, am currently, and will probably always be, very bad at intellectually analyzing art (I am much more of a science and math person). My limited understanding of this field had lead me to have that anti-intellectual perspective for a long time. However, I have now watched numerous video essays about art, mostly tv and movies, that have fascinated me. The format has really broken through to me and shown me a side of art that I am mostly blind to. I'm still not an art critic, but now, I love listening to what critics and reviewers have to say about art and the messages it sends. It really is amazing to me how my appreciation for art has blossomed from watching content like this.
@@KickinRadTopHat Dan (& art critics) morphed us by injecting a piece of themselves into us
@@KickinRadTopHat Dan's problem is that art can be interpreted on many levels. The people he berates aren't wrong because they interpret it as a science fiction horror story. That's what it is ffs. The themes he sees in it are there for him but there are different themes that the film maker ignored from the novels that the film was adapted from. So which themes are from the author and which from the film maker and why are those themes any more valid than the themes the movie goers saw in the film? If the films sole concern was the transformation journey of a cancer patient a documentary would have been a better vehicle. That theme may be there but it is first and foremost a commercial piece of mass entertainment and to pretend that it's more than that primarily is not to understand how important it is to have a good story. The brothers Karamazov has large themes too but it's first a work of fiction not a metaphor. Dan isn't overthinking it but he is being overly judgemental about those who just want to see a good horror movie. Dracula had a lot of themes in it but it's also a good story. The people who see this as a good story are just as right as Dan is. I. Fact I think the author would be glad to see that the story is itself compellinh
Being science-oriented is exactly the paradigm from which one should analyze art. You just have to think of things like a statistician.
@@benjiusofficial I doubt there is a single way to analyze art that is more correct than any other. Art says to you whatever you think it says to you whether the artist intended that or not. That said I'd be interested to learn how one analyzes the Mona Lisa statistically.
@@jlrinc1420 The people he berates are wrong because they ignore a fundemental aspect of the movie and reduce everything down to the most literal interpretation. It is bad critique.
Sometimes I watch movies with my family and they'll point out "plot-holes" while we're watching and I swear I can hear a little bell ring every time.
I can see someone getting one of those countertop bells to hit whenever that happens
when it gets annoying enough for the other party, you can go "oh we weren't doing a Cinema Sins episode?"
I swear, this video is a monthly cleanse I have to put myself through to stay sane on youtube
* looks up Jarhead 2 *
Wow. That really happened... I was hoping it was a spoof with really high production values.
Another example of pain being immortalized is the bear mutation that kills Anya. It lured her out by mocking Cass’ pain/agony (screams during death). Josie brings it up after Anya’s death, literally explaining the “pain lives on forever” theme
It wasn't "mocking" her screams, it _was_ her, still screaming. That's part of why Josie intentionally decides on how she's going to become part of the landscape instead of fighting it--the metaphorical difference between fighting and just ending up suffering longer vs. accepting a different form.
I needed that puppet at the end.
Dan knows how to do an ending.
but do they fucc tho?
Me too. Me too.
It's actually a reference to a specific youtuber (maybe two, only one of which I'm aware of) who has also produced a video on the film in a way that doesn't pay much attention to the metaphorical aspects. I still quite enjoy his videos, though, so I'll leave him anon.
I need someone on RUclips to explain that ending.
Another good example of this overanalysis problem is people asking whether or not the top at the end of Inception will fall over, missing the point that it no longer matters to Cobb. He's no longer waiting for a train to take him home. He is home.
I'm surprised you didn't mention it being a homage to Tarkovsky's Stalker. Where Annihilation deconstructs suffering, Stalker deconstructs desire. Oroborous man from the previous expedition looks suspiciously similar to the eponymous Stalker. It's also often pointed out that the Zone from Stalker / Roadside Picknic / S.T.A.L.K.E.R. has no women in it.
Agreed! Stalker is all over the place in this movie, from the entire setup to individual shots (the shot of the water with the fish-things was perhaps the most reminiscent of Tarkovsky). But thematically, the movies are explorations of very different topics. I feel Stalker is not so much an exploration of desire itself, but how one's faith (or lack thereof) shapes the way desire manifests and is accepted or denied. The Stalker himself is the image of a man who doubts his own faith, but who cannot bring himself to face his own doubts for fear of accepting that one's life has been meaningless. This is why he takes others to the room, but never sets foot inside it himself: he relies in the belief of others to justify his own existence. Thus, when the professor tries to destroy the room the Stalker breaks down, as the professor in his efforts to abolish faith becomes a personal enemy, the one who would bring an end to his life.
Yeah, Stalker might be one of my favorite movies ever.
Wow so its actually kinda similar to Man From Earth. Never noticed that before.
A friend was convinced that the ending of Inception was an "obvious setup for a sequel". I didn't even know where to start.
the idea that he could still be dreaming is a question asked but never answered - it's incepted in the viewers mind, made to change the way you thought about the movie the entire time
so it's super appropriate
I get that whether it's a dream or not no longer matters to Cobb. To me, however, the visual language of that scene says that it should matter to us, the audience. That's because we don't just catch a glimpse of the spinning totem and follow Cobb to his kids; we let Cobb do his thing and stay with the totem. What i get from this is that the final shot engages the viewer directly by asking whether it's a dream or not.
I feel it also had another point about the pain and suffering of existence: We think that things are "Annihilated" yet something always remains. People and animals die, plants grow from them. A species vanishes, because it evolves into something else. Even if ALL life vanishes, the planet falls into the sun, then explodes into stardust to become new worlds, or remains stardust drifting through space. It's the Law of conservation of mass and energy; things change form, but something can not become nothing.
In other words, nothing EVER ends, and never has. The Shimmer(the circumstances of our pain and suffering) wasn't destroying anything, it was just changing and rearranging them. Such is our life, relationships, selves, existence, everything; It is in the *perception* of Annihilation, that our suffering occurs.
Great comment!
What? This is such a dumb comment. The only reason that things here can turn into other things, is because the earth isn't a closed system. Actually the laws of physics dictate that over time everything MUST become disordered and the same. This is what entropy is. Eventually the universe will become more and more unchanging, until eventually it's just a sparse void where no area can be determined from any other area.
It can't turn into anything new, it's an impossibility to reverse. Matter and energy equivalence will remain the same - but it's structure will be so disordered that there cannot be life, eventually you won't even be able to create chemical reactions, because these require gradients. And gradients require order.
Maybe something cannot become nothing (although that's not even clear - black holes might do this, there's zero evidence for Hawking radiation or similar mechanisms), but that doesn't mean that something can become anything. Quite the contrary, eventually it must all be equal to nothing in terms of function.
@@lost4468yt You have a lot to learn.
@@nothingineternityterms Thanks for such an insightful comment. Instead of actually replying to my points just imply you know better.
@@lost4468yt Cosmological entropy is, like a lot of cosmological phenomena, slow. _Really_ slow. It's such an incredibly, *unfathomably* long-lasting process that it's *_meaningless_* to humans like you or me, because even our great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren, if humanity's still around by then, will *still* not be observing the effects of entropy on a cosmological scale. Heck, even on the scale of our singular star system, entropy is marching on at a fraction of a fraction of a snail's pace.
If you take into consideration the _meaninglessness_ of the inevitability of entropy (which is as factual as Hawking radiation) when accounting for the human experience, then it becomes pretty clear why the first law of thermodynamics is *so* much more relevant to that commenter, who commented on an analysis of a cinematic statement of the _human experience,_ yes?
I’ve gotta tell you, I have cancer and I tend to hate every piece of content that uses society’s cancer phobia to evoke hollow emotions and a couple of cheap tears. Basically I hate it when people who don’t suffer get to use my personal tragedy to push their shitty tv shows and books.
I don’t hate this movie though because it’s the only one who talks about it in a meaningful way. There are no cute teenagers dying and no dumb speeches at the support group meetings. Simply fantastic.
@@kemp10 I can't believe you only made this comment five hours ago on a comment that's two months old.
Bad behaviour on a comment forum to leave such a reply so long after the original comment.
@@RobertJW I haven't actually seen that etiquette on RUclips at all. This just isn't a forum after all. I see comment gaps spanning months and months, sometimes years, all the time. Notifications are cheap and quick to pass. There is no 'top of the forum' here. There is no bumping.
Hey so thank you for sharing your perspective as it’s one I haven’t thought of before! If I may, I’d love to share my own perspective on this. I do not have cancer as far as I know. My father died of cancer when I was very young, and recently my mom was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer as well. To me, themes like this have helped me work through the trauma of feeling helpless as those who were meant to care for me have been slowly consumed by their own bodies and I was powerless to do anything about it while always fearing it’ll return in me or those I love (and then seeing it return in my mom). For me personally, being able to think of my personal trauma with cancer in abstract ways helps me grapple with the existential horror I’ve experienced with it.
I can’t imagine the visceral pain and horror of experiencing cancer though, and I can understand being frustrated when seeing it as a narrative device. Idk. And if someone who hasn’t suffered that tragedy tries to portray it, yeah it can be frustrating, but it can also help me think about it from a new perspective when I’m stuck?
Hopefully this makes sense, I realize it was kinda rambly lol
@@RobertJW If you think of RUclips like a forum, I feel sorry for you. Edit: Also, if you comment back, I'll never read it. I don't even know where you see notifications. You speak into the void and then walk away. That is RUclips comments.
@@RobertJW I've come eight months later to join the tiny chorus of voices disagreeing with you.
Thank you for this, Dan - honestly it's why I'm getting so irritated with the general obsession with world building as the basis of so much media, rather than on narrative or themes
lil recycle bin Are you sure it isn’t resentment of being taught that the primary value of a narrative lies in its ability to convey metaphor to the audience, implying that metaphor in itself is intrinsically valuable, and that the coherence of the story is immaterial so long as it serves to convey the subjective emotional message of the author, because somehow that author’s emotional message is more necessarily more important than people exercising reason?
The problem with the world-building in franchises is that they tend to building out. An example of good world-building would be something like Blade Runner 2049, which not only added new characters and complications but deepened the world thematically, philosophically and visually.
@@NarfiRef How did you get from metaphor to emotion?
Harry Stoddard In my experience, metaphors usually are about emotion in some form or fashion. In this case the metaphor is about the psychological effects of trauma, and interpersonal relationships, which are largely emotional in nature.
@lil recycle bin Sometimes the curtains are blue, but other times the curtains are blue with specific metaphorical meaning. As a dabbler in creative writing, I can tell you that if an author mentions a flower, it's a good idea to look up that flower's symbolic meaning because nine outta ten they choose the flower for that meaning (it's one of my favorite motifs only because there's so much reading available and it's typically got an easily searched concrete answer).
Purple geraniums symbolize foolishness, and the meaning is compounded by the mention that their annually planted (since geraniums are typically perennials, but when you plant them too far north they act like annuals). Now, I'm not the best writer and I've no illusions of ever being high school reading list popular, but I'll be damned if those tens of google searches and half hours of time I spent on that go wasted because someone gets in their head that I meant "the flowers were purple."
Anger Anger. Rage Rage.
Really wonderful analysis! My personal take on the film was similar, however, I digested it as trauma/pain that is specific to women seeing as how in socio-psychological terms, women tend to withdraw into their pain and analyze it more thoroughly than men. Hence Lana and co. being able to explore the shimmer moreso than other teams. Additionally, their understanding of navigating the shimmer in contrast to their male counterparts symbolized to me the way women navigate emotional complexities and overt expectations of them more fluidly.
Having said that, it would be a lie if - after having watched your video- I didn't say I had not realized how gendered my perspective on the film was. I now feel I was a bit on the heavy side with my take on Annihilation and incorporating your essay into my point of view has really broadened my understanding of the movie. Thanks!
Empressive a year late but... i thik your initial reading isn’t wrong :) it can be incorporated to the analysis dan presented, because the gendered experience in the context of the time this film was made is an established and valid field of inquiry ❤️
@@sophiapatricerodriguez8639 Agreed. Her initial reading still has legitimacy, even within Dan's wider interpretation.
So late to this but - mind blown! Didnt think at all about gender factoring into the metaphor so well.
This interpretation works just as well. Lina in the film even directly brings up that they are all women.
"At the end of the day, we are all a roll of the dice away from disaster."
There's a cheery thought for my Friday night!
WTFPr0m This really hits different now
@@cosmicmist2020 Agreed 2020 is the no no one is rolling a 20 year.
Dungeons and Dragons is my memento mori.
No one will see this so it's just for me, but tonight I came out of this movie bawling. I watched it alone in my room, and I could not stop crying. I had no clue what aspect was making me so emotional, usually in movies there is one thing that I keep thinking about that makes me cry, but for this? Nothing. After watching a few analysis videos, ones by Spikma and Acolytes Of Horror, I started to understand why, but it was not until this video did I fully put it together. When Kane asks, "Are you Lena?" and she say nothing, then they both embrace, that connection, that relationship was what had affected me so deeply. The reassurance that even though both of them were completely different they still had some undefeatable, unchanging connection of love and acceptance was so powerful. Perhaps that comes from how my own very specific trauma caused relationships to disintegrate with no warning and no way back, perhaps it comes from my desire for such an emotional connection but my fear of, as you put it, "opening ourselves to others - allowing them in - brings with it an annihilation of our singular self. We merge, we reshape, we combine and replicate, and mirror." perhaps it comes from nothing and that part just meant a lot for some deeper unknown reason. Regardless of what the "cause" for my reaction was, the acceptance that, "no it wasn't just one scene, it was the build up from all of these scenes with this relationship and how it concluded, ambiguous or not, that had affected me," was beautiful. Something I have never experienced from a movie before. I have no chronic illness to relate to this movie, I have no Guilt I feel a need to resolve, but still I can find beauty in this story. It will be strange to try and feel these emotions again, since anytime I do that with a movie there is one specific part that gets me, but I am thankful for the ones I have felt tonight.
Thanks for sharing man!
Thanks for your comment, I wanted to say that reading this gave me the most vivid feeling of sonder that ive ever felt.
When I was looking for "annihilation ending explained" I was looking for a video like this. I didn't totally "get" the metaphor. I know, I'm not smart.
Edited to add: did not expect this self deprecating comment to get highly voted. Just that this video makes it seem like the metaphor is blindingly obvious, made me feel dumb because I didn't wrap my mind around this interpretation on a first viewing.
Todd C Dw I know what you mean, I’m always like that :)
dude me neither. i didn’t even think the movie was good until i saw analysis like this
I think that the problem isn't "being smart" per se, the problem is that the regular viewer isn't trained to view and analize a movie the same way a lot of film students are.
@@TheBigYC good point
TheBigYC I just graduated from NYU and I still didn't get it lol. But I think it was because I got too caught up in the fantasy and mystery of the Shimmer.
NEW DAN CONTENT!! Ugh all those "ending explained" videos are a crime
Thsnk you, this is the Video I wanted to watch after watching Annihilation, but I didn't found it. I was pretty frustrated, because all the "Ending Explained" and "How to survivve the Shimmer" Videos seemed so hollow to me, that I did not dare to search for more videos about Annihilation.
I was just lucky that your video popped up two years later in my recommended Videos
I hate that I tried to share this amazing movie with my parents and the best I got out of them after it ended was "that movie was weird."
who tha heck has a steam profile picture? you cool mang
Same. I showed it to my best friend and all she could say was “I really didn’t understand that.” It was disappointing to say the least.
@@njribto be fair, both statements are reasonable. It is weird and also kind of esoteric. That's not necessarily a bad thing though. I also missed basically all of this when I watched it but I still thoroughly enjoyed it, even knowing there was a lot I was missing.
Yeah, some people just cannot consume art lol
@@EmeraldLavigneOr, they have different art they can consume.
Hey everyone, I found the elitist that wants to define how to consume media!!!
"I'm not a huge fan of 'The Hero with a Thousand Faces'" omg THANK YOU
You'll probably love Polygon's own deconstruction of the Hero's Journey monomyth courtesy of Brian David Gilbert. Search for "Unraveled Kingdom Hearts"
Ironically, I feel like too many people miss the point of the Hero with a Thousand Faces - and all of Campbell’s work. He’s not trying to “flatten” culture, but draw lines of similarities between wildly different cultures (and, since he was writing in the 40s and 50s, in a SERIOUSLY separatist America) to demonstrate that there are core concepts in human nature, psychology, and spirituality that are universal, regardless of the superficial differences.
In other words, people who call it oversimplified are doing the same as the “solve the ending” crowd.
@@romxxii okay it’s a funny video but calling it a deconstruction is just pretentious.
What problem do you have with Hero with a Thousand Faces? I feel like its a more or less perfect and, at the time, groundbreaking deconstruction of a specific type of story.
@@phastinemoon I think hero with a thousand faces does it, but goes a little too far if that makes sense. If it's a looser framework, then I'd perfectly agree, but it seems like he's trying to apply too much to his framework.
This kind of frustration is exactly what makes me so frustrated when trying to engage with other fans of Undertale. I appreciate the community’s ability to find cool hidden details, but the popularity of ~theorist~ videos out there has absolutely drowned out the handful of people who’re even trying to engage with Undertale on a metaphorical level. Which is *wild* bc Undertale’s appeal is that it is *mostly* metaphor via mechanics
This brought me back to how the Homestuck fandom had this exact same problem (among others). Which hurts especially bad because it didn't fucking relent in beating you over the head with how it's a story about stories.
If you talk to one of the secret NPCs, he'll say something along the lines of "they say Dr. Gaster created the Core, but one day he fell into his creation and disappeared."
There are several theories based around the idea that 'his creation' is a seperate invention, but anyone with basic reading comprehension would realize that those two sentences are referring to the same thing. There is nothing that implies the NPC is talking about 2 seperate events. It annoys me so much.
@@kevinm5940 Embarassingly, it took me a few reads to realise the point that was being challenged was that "the Core" and "his creation" were the things that were separate. I thought you meant that "created the Core" and "fell into his creation" were the same event- because the former thing is so damn obvious that it didn't even occur to me anyone would assume otherwise.
To be fair, half the joke of Undertale is also that it very much literalises stuff that is normally non-diegetic. Namely, saving and loading as a game feature. A large part of the thesis is wrapped up in the fact that Frisk is operating on the same level the player is: They, too, can save and reload, go back and try something different. And one of Undertale's core questions is "what kind of monstrous asshole would willingly kill all their friends just to see what happens"? Which is a major part of the theme: How far are you willing to go just to get 100% completion? Which, in turn, ties into another level of "what would you do in a world where your actions no longer have consequence?" There's also other themes like the concept of determination, and growing past bias. It's easy to resort to violence when dealing with something new and intimidating, but it's an unfulfilling cycle: kindness and mercy will give us the opportunity to learn, grow, change and build bridges with each other. This theme applies to Undyne's racism towards humans, Flowey's "kill or be killed" view of the world, even, to go into metaphor via mechanics, the player themselves on a genocide run, which is all about treating Undertale like a typical kill-all-the-monsters RPG rather than a unique experience, even when it deliberately ceases to even be fun anymore.
i think a great example of this in action is fight club - it's pretty hilarious how many disenfranchised young men will come out of watching that movie and their only takeaway from it is "wow tyler durden is a really cool dude, i wish i was just like him!"
I don't think that is all on meatheads. It also falls on the director and editors, who are arguably meatheads.
Scarface, too.
@@TheSugarRayYeah, I've definitely heard arguments that while Fight Club blatantly isn't intending to endorse Durden, the way the film presents Durden makes him too seductive and fails to really convince the audience he's bad.
Rorschach is also similar in that aspect (not even Zack Snyder got that)
@@MrAristocrates if you weren't seduced by tyler durden, the movie would have been a failure. It's explicitly about being a gay, working class guy in the 90's.
Clicked on this video and immediately loved your frustration over people understanding things literally. That's what Hideaki Anno must have felt, when the last episode of NGE aired and the fans were like... "wtf is this... what about the aliens?!".
I don’t know if you know, but Dan actually has a video (from back his puppet days) that’s about The End of Evangelion and how it’s Anno’s reaction to backlash to the finale.
@@AaronAnaya Really? Wow, I didn't know... I'm gonna look it up now. Thank you!
Also I get a lot of these comments saying that there’s “not just one way to analyze or discuss film,” and that’s true, you’re allowed to analyze a film however you want. But other people have the right to point out that your analysis is dumb and that’s its missing the point.
It only misses the point if analyzing the plot and world design isn't the point. Which would require that metaphorical analysis IS the point and therefore the only correct way to watch the movie.
@@Viperzka I mean that's true, like I said, I can't stop anyone from analyzing a movie how they want. Its just that a lot of artists in all sorts of media embed meaning into their work beyond the surface level, thats why themes exist
@@Viperzka The point isn't that metaphorical analysis is the only way but that we shouldn't ignore it and be too literal.
@@Viperzka The issue is not about watching, but about discussing the movie. Everyone is free to watch it and form their own ideas. The problem is that ideas aren't all equally true. Many can be tested against the text and seen if they match up. The quoted interpretations leave out a substantial amount of the text, which makes them less applicable than a broader interpretation that does.
RUclips film critics are a cancer. They know nothing about film. It’s all mindless gut reaction from morons.
4:37 I had friends like this up until recently. The anti intellectualism around art and popular culture along with some social undermining became too much for me. For all the way people like them puff and blow about disliking talking about art or films they don't realise how bloody irritating their position is.
What do you mean by "social undermining?" That your former friends would undermine you personally in social situations?
@@coyotefoxtrot2832 yeah it's a social thing that humans do where people that feel jealous or threatened will bring themselves up by putting the threat down by insulting them and downplaying thier achievements. It was gradually getting worse and its not the basis of a healthy friendship.
I live in the environment in Eastern Europe where there's a blatant anti-intellectualism to the point where it's a cultural thing to make fun of intellectuals or intellectual ideas. They'll literally say stuff like, that bitch is too smart, so annoying, stfu. And then they start literally defending their right to be stupid and see things in a stupid way 'cause intellectuals are annoying anyway, let us enjoy stuff in a basic way~ etc.
It's because most of the time they don't want to feel "less than" their peers or those around them. So they downplay the intellectual value of anything that comes forward to them to bring it down to their low low stupid low level's and you with it. I had a friend who would downplay everything I did even down to my dreams and aspirations because he was jealous that I had them to begin with, and even more so that I had the courage and determination to go through with what I said, his more or less final words to me were calling me "egotistical" because I enjoyed doing what I was doing, loved it and enjoyed it; for the most part he despised that I was an "intellectual" that wasn't hindered by negative emotion and sought to move past problems and learn rather than let them hammer me down. Ditch people like that they're bad for mental health and the personal improvement of oneself, I'm a pretty firm believer that you are as good as the people you surround yourself with. If you surround yourself with idiots then you too will become an idiot, if you surround yourself with individuals that have a strong sense of determination then you too will begin to show the gradual signs of determination, the same goes for worldly outlooks as well; it's pretty powerful stuff I resonated with this comment as I don't see many speak about this issue enough, my guess is that generally no one is okay with thinking the idea that their friend group isn't for them as a result of simply being afraid to start over again or the social stipulations behind it. It's a sad thing that happens unfortunately.
I used to say that I didn't like sci-fi because I could never connect with the spaceships and other distant technologies and tribulations in a film like Star Wars. I asked my film maker friends what it was symbolic of so that I might feel less alienated from it and understand the hype, but I was given one of those "oh just enjoy the entertainment" responses. Very disappointing when that was precisely my problem to begin with.
I was surprised by this whole analysis. I wasn't aware that Annihilation was so metaphorical. You actually got me interested and I'll watch it in the near future. You know why I didn't know this? Because the trailer sells you a complete different deal. I just thought it was a generic action movie (which I have nothing against, everyone enjoys some explosions every now and then, I just didn't put it high on my to-watch list). The youtube phenomenon you described is pretty damn real, but it's probably bothering you with this movie even more because I'm getting the feeling lots of people that watched this movie were the wrong audience for it and started the need for all those videos. People watched it expecting just some alien fights and didn't get that, so they need plot analysis videos for "closure". It's Brave all over again tbh. You could probably make a whole video about how trailers impact our viewing (and marketing, the summaries on the back of oxes/books, etc).
This is something that happened with Arrival, too, imo. The trailers did not interest me one bit because they went for an action/sci-fi angle so I didn't bother to go see it, but instead the film was nothing like that.
This is my problem with both Ex Machina & Annihilation - the trailers I saw combined with the budget made them look like dumb action movies I could put on in the background - so I was thrown off by the art house plot.
Just want to mention that it is never the director & editor of the movie that make the trailer for the movie. That is usually outsourced to specific editing houses that specialize in trailers. In some cases the production company has nothing to do with the trailer if they have sold the distribution rights wholesale to one major distributor. Case in point suicide squad, which Folding Ideas has made a really good e8 min analysis of.
chris vighagen Well not never. Sometimes they have can veto a trailer, or even edit one themselves. But thats usually only in independent films, or when directors have enough clout to demand that. But yes most of the time the studio outsources it to marketing company’s who specialize in getting as much people as possible to see it. Which usually results in lame trailers that make the movie look generic.
You missed one Ouroboros. The one when she passes the bomb to her copy. Their hands crossing each other resemble the tattoo. I think this movie really can be summed up in one sentence. We are or own means of creation and destruction.
Okay but why does that first reviewer mispronounce Lena’s name? You’re reviewing a movie where it was pronounced for you multiple times
and he sounded american too and the film is american, english people like to read E as I so it's very odd indeed. The author of the book, Jeff VanderMeer, is also american and I assume he likes to read E as I as well. It's a mistery bigger than the shimmer. XD
Emma C ... Cynical Me would say that they're mispronouncing because they never saw the actual movie and are just reading a script ...
That's an spanish pronounciation and the youtuber from that clip is latino.... it's completely normal that even if the name is american he may say it in his accent or pronounced in spanish
@@edenp3268 I mean, maybe? I can't speak for other people, but personally, I try to replicate the sound I hear, regardless of mine or their origin.
That’s because these channels are just ad revenue making machines, he probably didn’t even see the movie but read about it and made a video.
I remember leaving the theater, not entirely understanding the complexities of the plot. I had picked up on symbols of duplication/mirrors, evolution/change, transference, trauma/pain, etc... but I didn't quite put it all together until now. I remember watching the videos you referenced and feeling disappointed that they never addressed the thematic elements and that I would likely be stuck not understanding the film. I am now at peace. Thanks.
Wow, man. I've always thought Annihilation defied objective meaning, but I'm a big fan of your interpretation. Seen it more than 10 times and have been violently resisting watching any videos on it for fear that they were anything like those you showed.
The sheer unstoppable force that is change and how we attempt to refute it also came up a lot for me. Being a recovering addict myself, I've seen the beauty and nightmarishness that change can bring. Maybe that's why I love it so much. Anyway, thanks for giving such a valuable take on a movie I hold very dear, and doing it with obvious love.
The cancer metaphor was definitely the thing that stuck out to me the most. We see a contradiction between both cancer (immortal, mutated cells) and regular cells (with Lena explicitly calling the Hayflick limit "a fault in our genes"). There is the obvious existential dread we feel as mortal beings observing fragile, vulnerable people cope with the deterioration of their forms from cancer and loss. There is also an existential dread with immortality, with the animals and plantlife in the shimmer often looking diseased and off-putting, animals like the alligator and bear seem to not require food or water and don't die without extreme ordinance.
There isn't a clear message that one or the other is "wrong", it feels like both are, it feels like a problem only meant to be experienced and not solved. There's no way out in the end.
Y'know, it's a very minor point, but it was kinda gratifying seeing Fallout used as an example of thematic and complex (ish) storytelling the way it was there. Feels nice to have it acknowledged.
Inception is another movie that suffered from this same fixation on the surface meaning of the ending, rather than the thematic meaning, perhaps to an even greater degree. Sure it's fun to rewatch a movie trying to decode the ending and look for subtle clues, but ultimately that matters less than understanding what the movie is trying to say.
It was SO BAD with inception! Dream or reality!?!?! When the WHOLE POINT was that it didn't *matter* because he didn't *care* any longer. Ahhhhhh!
the power of looove XD 🎵🎵🎵
Kyle Kallgren has a great metatexual analysis of Inception, I thoroughly recommend it.
HANDS UP IF YOU THOUGHT LOST IN TRANSLATION WAS ACTUALLY A PRETTY DECENT MOVIE
And then you end up with fascust undertones
8:21, Thankyou, I cannot overstate how fed up I am of “intellectuals” touting the Hero with a Thousand faces as if all media being, at its core, the same is true or even desirable.
if i recall, Cj The X talks a little bit in their “The Dialectics of Rick and Morty” video and about Campbell’s actual utility versus how it’s often misused by media critics
I work in healthcare. I empathize with absorbing the pain and trauma of suffering. I have years of patients I carry with me. Their pain but ultimately memory is something I carry. This is both haunting and beautiful. Some of my favorite people I've ever met went through immense suffering and ultimately death. This movie and Dan nail these themes on the head. Great work.
Videos like this are why I love your channel. I have difficulty with themes and metaphor in fiction, either because of a lack of education or because of how my brain is wired, and videos explaining and laying out things like Annihilation’s meanings are a godsend.
12:40 Damn, now I really want to see this movie.
16:00 Damn, now I really don't.
@ThisIsMyRealName Same, and the books really stuck with me. I got that sort of melancholy that you're losing something when you finish them.
It's not too bad. It's not shot for scares, there's no screaming or anything. It's more surreal, more wtf am I looking at?! But they do cut his belly open like Beeker's mouth from the Muppets.
definitely give it a try, but yeah if you can't stomach surreal body horror then you might wanna close your eyes during that scene. but its a great, great film.
I feel the same way but I'm still on the see it side.
Just wait for the bear scene, that one will haunt you, but it’s more the concept than the visuals, and that’s the real art to it. No jump scares, no cheap gore, just a terrifying concept fleshed out in slow motion. They also made it look creepy as hell. Enjoy! (I honestly recommend it though, fantastic movie)
There's this RUclips artist/animator called Plague of Gripes, and he sometimes does Let's Plays on certain games; not in the same way as Game Grumps or Pewdiepie, but because he has some actual commentary to make on that game, as a whole and on its particulars.
He played Dark Souls and came at it from a more critical perspective, trying to counter the popular notion that the game's lore was brilliantly mapped out and that the whole picture is hidden from us, but the pieces are there. He suggested that much of the game's environmental storytelling didn't intend to be a glimpse at a cohesive, greater world; he thought it was meant to create an emotional moment that wasnt concerned with the greater implications with the general worldbuilding or story.
At the Moonlight Butterfly, he brought up a claim that western storytelling is more rooted in concrete events that progress as a result of eachother: A happened, then B happened l, which resulted in C (see MrBtongue's video on Shandification in games). Eastern storytelling, like the Japanese Dark Souls, is not as concerned with logical progression but events that occur to incite an emotional response. It reminds me of David Lynch and his own interest in eastern philosophy. The Moonlight butterfly just comes out of nowhere, and it just gives way to an upgrade unlock and a dead end. It's kinda optional and there's not much of an explanation to what it was or what it was doing there. But when you fought that otherworldly being with wings like luminous fog, glowing with magic, a spinning wheel at its center, floating around you casting strange spells unfamiliar to you at this point, while a haunting aria is being sung; you feel you are beholding something beautiful and divine, but also dangerous and malevolent. A sense of tragedy hangs as you are forced to kill this angelic beauty.
I dont entirely back all of Plague's critiques. He can sometimes be stubborn in being a contrarian, but my mind came back to that moment when watching this video.
you should watch tb skyen
Thanks for writing this, that’s really insightful man.
That’s really interesting. Do you know what specific video it was?
ruclips.net/video/GOGru_4z1Vc/видео.html
@@BoomDoop ruclips.net/video/Y1gXl-pcD0Y/видео.html
This is the best video on this platform and it's writing makes me despair at the idea of attempting to write something as good.
I never understood why there were so many "ending explained" videos for an ending that, I felt, was pretty clear cut. In fact the whole movie was, as you said in a different context, pretty blunt with what was literally happening on screen. The shimmer was directly stated to be refracting everything, Kane was clearly shown to be a doppelganger, Lena was explicitly shown giving the hand grenade to the alien copy, thus killing it, and so the Lena at the end was still her, but altered. There isn't a whole lot of ambiguity, plot wise.
That's not the point of this video, though, and if you're reading this ending on 'plot' alone, then, obviously, it wasn't very clear cut. The point of this video is that all of these plot things - the 'Shimmer', the doppelgangers, the alien itself - are all metaphors, about the nature of our sense of self and identity and other things like that.
@Christopher Hayden Doesn't matter now. "Alive" Lena has alien AIDS. The world is doomed.
"directly", "clearly", "explicitly"... none of this looks like confidence in what you're saying or in its importance. It looks like you're making flat, shallow statements and trying to convince any skeptics by adding adverbs that all mean the same thing.
@@alexsahel8126 I think what he's talking about is that a lot of these people making "literal reading" videos about Annihilation, who Dan riffs on at the beginning, seem to be under the belief that a literal reading of the ending was ambiguous in some way, despite the fact that it's not.
For example, a ending that wanted to be ambiguous would not have shown Kane's death, would probably have made it more unclear which Lena is the "original" one, and wouldn't have shown Lena and Kane both being affected by the Shimmer in their eyes at the end with an extreme close-up. But the film chooses to very explicitly to show all of these things. You'd have have fallen asleep during the film to not understand that everyone else died, original Lena survived, the Kane who is alive is a duplicate, and the survivors were all changed by the Shimmer.
Which is why a lot of these "Ending Explained" videos seem superfluous, because they never dig deeper than what is already understood by a casual moviegoer who paid attention to the plot.
@@jjj7790 you are expecting people to put attention. That's your first error.
YES! Thank you! That was incredibly gratifying to watch. I found the film really engaging and inspiring, yet in all the other critiques I found (both IRL and online), people seemed to dismiss the film as uninteresting or even just pointless. And I was really disappointed, not because people didn't like the film like I did, but because everyone seemed to have missed the point: that the film is about (ahem) The Transformative Nature of Trauma. And it delivers on that incredibly. I'm so glad that I'm not alone in being moved by the film's underlying theme.
My first thought when Lena handed her mimic the bomb was a very alarmed "What did it give her though?!"
"the purpose of ambiguity...is to force engagement with the metaphorical" is such a wonderful and succinct summation, and the concept has stuck with me over several years as a reminder to myself with thinking about books and movies.
Solid snake put it best:
“Listen, don't obsess over words so much. Find the meaning behind the words, then decide.”
Always saw the ending as involving the Ship of Theseus in terms of the question "Are you Lena?"
I did not notice the oroborus tattoo and I thank you for pointing it out to me (I'm bad at noticing costume stuff). The exploration of self and self destruction and how we respond to it in different ways is what so makes me love this movie. The aliens are just kinda...a framing device. But the whole idea of leaving imprints on our world and the world leaving imprints on us is both frightening and fascinating and this movie captured this strange feeling perfectly.
This might be my favorite video on youtube. it's not perfect; i've seen far more well-realized or impressively researched videos since, but this one stays with me. It came at an important turning point in how I thought about the world, opening my eyes to some things and verbalizing others that i've experienced my whole life in a way that is succinct and powerful. It doesn't have everything i want out of a video, but because of that it is short and accessible and filled with an impromptu passion and humor that makes it feel real. even the way it's written (which I've since learned is mostly just dan's voice) contributes to the thesis-- casually grazing over topics that could take a lifetime to truly understand makes it feel as if there is an ocean of information and meaning just beneath the text of the video, all of which you could explore, if only you're willing to go out and look for it. I come here just to sit with it sometimes.
I really liked this movie and I struggled to articulate why I vibed with it so much when it seemed widely but not critically panned, and like, Oh right, my wife who loved the Aliens franchise and wanted to see this based on the trailer passed away expectedly and never got to. Huh.
Really succinct stuff here
Please do a symbolic/metaphoric reading of Donnie Darko! That's one that kills me when people try to do a diagetic narrative reading of it, I don't think it's intended to be read as verisimilitudinous for a number of reasons.
Ironically, you mention how ridiculous and fanficcy it is to imagine the shimmer taking over the planet, but in the full book series that actually is what it does. It makes more sense in the context of the books, and the title of the final book, “Acceptance,” is emblematic of its unique take on the apocalypse. Not an epic war of worlds, just a calm and quiet conversion, with characters understanding their attempts at understanding the alien threat have been fruitless and their failure inevitable.
That's why it's important to see the book and movie separately. Movies should be their own thing and not just viewed through the lens of the book they're based on.
Missed it completely
@@Fragenzeichenplatte You say that but they aren't. Movies, and particularly, adaptions, aren't made in a vacuum. Being an adaption is part of the context it is published in which includes the work it was based on. In the case of annihilation, a lot of the videos points and arguments only hold water if there were no original plans to adapt the other books in the series. Because otherwise, the later books still have an untold and unseen influence on how they've filmed the first movie.
Apparently the director only read the first book. Meaning they are irrelevant to this film(of course the first book was probably written with the sequels in mind, but Garland apparently changed a lot of things from the film, probably partially to make the film stand alone).
@@ideljenny Garland meant for this movie to be a stand alone film without any sequels. I think this is very clear in the film itself, despite its ambiguous ending. As another commenter already mentioned, Garland actually refused to read the full trilogy -- he was only interested in adapting the first book in the series, and made several large changes to the plot and themes of the novel to do so. Actually, I think when that when he was adapting the screenplay the second and third books weren't even published. So although I think it could be useful to compare and contrast the larger themes of trilogy with those of the movie to see how they differ, I don't think that the existence of latter books in the series (which have a different ending than the film version) negates the metaphorical reading of the film Dan lays out here.
I like to come and rewatch this video every couple of months, and it never fails to give me goosebumps. The movie, and Dan's formulation of it's themes are soul shatteringly beautiful