From that I have already gathered, Alfonso Cuarón is setting the audience up to assume the cliché, when in fact, we will eventually discover in the final episode that the actuality is completely not what we expected things to be. I believe in the last episode we are going to be whiplashed by something that comes as a complete surprise.
the overarching message the author and Cuarón are getting across is: be hyper aware that we develop our own narratives (both the characters and the audience) in the absence of detailed context, hard facts and, most importantly, in the absence of presence at an occurrence. Which brings us to Disclaimer’s opening words by Christiane Amanpour: “Beware of narrative and form. Their power can bring us closer to the truth, but they can also be a weapon with a great power to manipulate.” Cancel culture has an energy of vengeance and has the power to vilify the innocent. I have a feeling (prediction since episode 4), that the conclusion in the last episode will reveal that - because she and her husband were needing to reignite their sexual chemistry with each other - she hired this young man Jonathan to take photos of her, as she wanted to eventually give them to her husband to spice up their relationship. (A lot of women have naked photos of themselves taken by photographers as a gift for their husbands / partners). But she never had a chance to ever retrieve the photos from the negatives as he never had a chance to develop them as he died before they got to that point. Then they landed into the hands of the parents, the mother discovered the content of the negatives, then her imagination started racing trying to fill in the blanks and her narrative was completely not what actually happened. (Or something else to that effect that is rather innocent, compared to the narrative in « The Perfect Stranger ») Since episode 4 I have suspected that something grave will happen to Nicholas. He is cannon fodder for Stephen’s ugly game. Stephen will learn in the last episode that his wife’s imagination-constructed narrative is the opposite of what actually happened between Jonathan and Catherine - he will find that their encounter was an innocent act of a risqué photo shoot as a gift for her husband, and in return, aspiring photographer Jonathan makes some $$. He will realize how awry things have gone, but it will be too late. Nicholas passes away as a result of Stephen causing chaos based on a false narrative, which triggers addict Jonathan to overdose. But that’s MY imagination deducing a future narrative. Will my narrative above be fairly accurate? I do not know, I don’t have the hard facts of what is about to occur. Those hard facts will come in the form of the final episode (Chapter). One more thing to consider: this entire novel and series is a narrative. We - as viewers/readers - need to understand that we play an active role in this. The author and director’s aim is to point out to us that we need to be self-reflective on how our thoughts, opinions, judgements, actions, what we say to others while talking about the characters in this show is exactly (a form of gossip about these fictional characters) makes us guilty as charged for what Christiane Amanpour warned us about in the first few sentences of the show. Mic drop.
love your videos! have you ever considered doing film reviews?
I have, and I've done some. The problem is that I can't really take notes in the theater so it's difficult for me to do a good review after.
I don’t do potlucks either!😂
The director and cast reeled me in. I hope it doesn’t disappoint.
Potlucks are so untrustworthy!
From that I have already gathered, Alfonso
Cuarón is setting the audience up to assume the cliché, when in fact, we will eventually discover in the final episode that the actuality is completely not what we expected things to be. I believe in the last episode we are going to be whiplashed by something that comes as a complete surprise.
I believe that, too. I just wonder if it was a wise decision to play it one way for 6 episodes then go "AHA! Gotcha!" in the last one.
the overarching message the author and Cuarón are getting across is: be hyper aware that we develop our own narratives (both the characters and the audience) in the absence of detailed context, hard facts and, most importantly, in the absence of presence at an occurrence. Which brings us to Disclaimer’s opening words by Christiane Amanpour: “Beware of narrative and form. Their power can bring us closer to the truth, but they can also be a weapon with a great power to manipulate.”
Cancel culture has an energy of vengeance and has the power to vilify the innocent.
I have a feeling (prediction since episode 4), that the conclusion in the last episode will reveal that - because she and her husband were needing to reignite their sexual chemistry with each other - she hired this young man Jonathan to take photos of her, as she wanted to eventually give them to her husband to spice up their relationship. (A lot of women have naked photos of themselves taken by photographers as a gift for their husbands / partners).
But she never had a chance to ever retrieve the photos from the negatives as he never had a chance to develop them as he died before they got to that point. Then they landed into the hands of the parents, the mother discovered the content of the negatives, then her imagination started racing trying to fill in the blanks and her narrative was completely not what actually happened.
(Or something else to that effect that is rather innocent, compared to the narrative in « The Perfect Stranger »)
Since episode 4 I have suspected that something grave will happen to Nicholas. He is cannon fodder for Stephen’s ugly game. Stephen will learn in the last episode that his wife’s imagination-constructed narrative is the opposite of what actually happened between Jonathan and Catherine - he will find that their encounter was an innocent act of a risqué photo shoot as a gift for her husband, and in return, aspiring photographer Jonathan makes some $$. He will realize how awry things have gone, but it will be too late. Nicholas passes away as a result of Stephen causing chaos based on a false narrative, which triggers addict Jonathan to overdose.
But that’s MY imagination deducing a future narrative. Will my narrative above be fairly accurate? I do not know, I don’t have the hard facts of what is about to occur. Those hard facts will come in the form of the final episode (Chapter).
One more thing to consider: this entire novel and series is a narrative. We - as viewers/readers - need to understand that we play an active role in this. The author and director’s aim is to point out to us that we need to be self-reflective on how our thoughts, opinions, judgements, actions, what we say to others while talking about the characters in this show is exactly (a form of gossip about these fictional characters) makes us guilty as charged for what Christiane Amanpour warned us about in the first few sentences of the show.
Mic drop.