mariekevanderleij

I love this captivating episode!

The writers have stepped back into the fold and bought back the quality of series 1 and 2 of Discovery.

This episode brandishes a beautiful plot build up, excellent acting, wonderful scenes, cinematography and graphics (don't forget the glam squad!). The traditional values of TOS shine through.

The writers have elegantly catapulted a current environmental issue into the future without bashing the audience with global warming doctrine.

But why is Book still hanging around? He betrayed and endangered the entire galaxy and should be flushed out of an airlock asap!

Actually, I like this episode! It reminds me of the quality in the first two seasons.

There's less baby talk, Burning isn't whispering as much and the dialogues in general are stronger.

The maturity in the 'argument' between Saru and the president T'Rina is reminiscent of proper Vulcan logic and typical relationship tension. Subtly and beautifully acted!

Also, the writers made a long overdue choice about splitting up Adira and Tall without getting all soppy about it - an elegant display.

I love the character switch in Culber - very strong portrayal, almost unrecognizable.

There's something to be said for the slow build up of the plotline to create suspension. Let's hope it leads to a sizzling finale!

In the first two seasons of Discovery I handed out 8 or 9 stars for almost every episode.

Since season 4 my scores barely scratch a 6.

Exemplary characters are downgraded to cry babies, the dialogues are boring and Burnham is still whispering.

Try speeding through a sandy dessert and audibly shouting orders at each other - partially without protective eye masks and not 1 single grain of sand on their faces? Details matter!

Where did Michael's wounds come from and why didn't she wipe the blood off - or be instantly healed by a fancy gadget like a skin regenerator - like all the other series had??

The original Star Trek formula is lost in space.

The writers improve but can they please cut out the mushy mumbo jumbo?

Discovery goes where no one has gone before and some captivating space jargon is thrown in like the galaxy's edge being made out of air bubbles which can travel between atmospheres without being burnt up in the process.

But the improved acting and plotlines falls flat on its belly by psychological reassurances between crew members fit for a Kindergarden. Scientists holding hands, really?!

In the meantime I keep wondering what's up with Burnham's vocal cords. Is she the intergalactic whisperer? Please send her to linguistic therapy!

Excellent episode for the first 95%!

Unfortunately the writers chickened out with feeble claptrap at the end. Destroying Book and his chum for endangering the lives of the whole galaxy would have been a painful, but realistic choice, leaving a lasting impression.

The adagio: "The needs of the many out way the needs of the few" has been blown out of an airlock. Instead, captain 'Whisperer' Burnham allows her feelings for Book to preside over the safety of the entire galaxy. What a pushover of a captain and bad example for emancipation!

Where is the reprimande, the court martial for failing to stop Book, the heat from the top brass? Such a waste of actor potential, costumes, make up and visual effects.

And why does Burnham always whisper? Doesn't the woman have a normal voice? It's gotten on my nerves.

We live in a dangerous world and showing kindness in a (terroristic) war can be a deadly flaw, as professor Libby teaches her students.

Warlords in human history either endure by imposing a reign of terror on their subjects and victims - or bow to more overwhelming aggression and end up dead (or in prison). Happy endings are reserved for Disneyland.

The movie almost closes when the wicked genius is revealed. It should have stopped there and I would have cranked up the score to a jubilant 9.

I found the closing scene to be a real bummer and contradictory to the content - ruining the message.

Beautiful scenes, acting, great plot and musical score.

Silly little detours like the kids becoming sick, the son buying a snake and the daughter fancying an older lover, empathize how the parent's behavior reflect on their offspring.

Twenty years ago the parents fell deeply in love but were basically kids themselves. In their marriage they both sway to temptations. No wonder really, seeing that the protagonist's mother has her own fling on the side which caused deep animosity from the daughter. "Are you really telling me we're the same?" she exclaims in disgust.

Now husband and wife have to face the music. Divorce - or have they matured enough to forgive, carry responsibility and save their marriage, children and dreams?

Notable quote: "Like Brahms piano music, at the same time tender yet hard, like parenting."

A lackluster philosophy professor finds a zest for life by - ironically - killing someone. He has no beef with the corrupt judge other than that he overhears a mother in the midst of a custody battle fear that the he will unjustly give the children to her ex-husband.

In his illusional mind the professor justifies his act as moral & heroic.

A flashlight won at a fun fair is pivotal and is interpreted as luck suddenly being on his side. But the 'light' is misleading and ultimately literally causes his downfall.

Brilliant plot and double symbolism in a typically mauve Woody Allen cinematography with excellent character portrayals.

A surprising western containing interesting symbolism to Biblical morality and modern day emancipation.

The main character, paranoid by the prophecy of a Cheyenne indian, tries to escape fate of being killed by his 'seed'. So he starts offing his own children.

Whoring, stealing, killing and lying are business as usual in this slow movie. Even the prostitute mother misleads her bastard son into believing she's some coincidental benevolent benefactor whom he has fallen in love with.

The son can't even kill his father with a sophisticated machine gun. Overpowering masculinity is made redundant in this Western in which the men are mainly bloodthirsty and the women are either victims, insightful or outwittingly clever. An emancipated single gunshot from a plain rifle fired by his daughter, saves the day.

The film ends with an ominous musical underscore of the daughter retreating to a quiet life and begetting two daughters and ... a son.

The last word spells disaster: evil begets evil and is passed down through the generations like the Bible says 'to the seventh son of the seventh son'. In other words, it will continue forever as long as there is male offspring...

After his father is killed and his mother is incarcerated, the oldest child Harley (18) is left with the responsibility of raising his 3 younger sisters but lacks the desire, skills and maturity to do so, despite his love and loyalty for them.

The mother took the fall for daughter Misty whom dad had sexually abused, when she shot her father dead. A noble act of the mother, right? But why does the son repeatedly accuse his mom of liking prison life?

Initially we blame the abusive father as the culprit for the dysfunctional family but this movie is psychologically much deeper than that.

Like, why did the father only abuse the children and not the mother? Was mom really an innocent bystander or did she, perhaps motivated by jealousy and inabilities, manipulate her husband into beating the kids?

By 'escaping' to prison, she diverted the focus of her inadequacies and was released of her responsibilities for them.

This excellently acted and set up movie exposes how mentally unfit parents can breed catastrophically dysfunctional children.

Harley can't stop fate already set in motion. Like his mother he realizes life's chaos is better managed from within the confinement of four prison walls.

A disturbing, excellently acted and brave piece of cinematography, touching upon complex family dynamics rarely addressed in other works.

Stylish in a sense. I liked the music and rythme to the exploding social media comments - well done! Two kids from a broken, violent upbringing trying to out run their bleak prospects. Sure, the universe may have plotted out an exciting new destiny for them, but could it really be so different to the slippery slope they've been on since birth?

Cutting out the irritating ff'ing in almost every line would have made a better, less boring script. But the movie is spot on with the addiction to social media - even to the point where it zeniths logic when one's life and that of others is in jeopardy.

For me this movie is more about becoming who you want to be than about transitioning to another gender. Laura's desire to become the person she wants to be triumphs over all other life's ordinary, extraordinary and pubertal difficulties. This lady is pretty determined! Often her hurt and inabilities to voice them are oppressively painful to witness - yes, the director has succesfully transferred her inner world into the mind of the viewer. I often felt as if I was intruding into her life... Very convincing acting from the main character, father and son. The climax was rather shocking - even though the undertone was present from the first scenes. I take slight solace from the last shot.

I love this movie because it's so unconventional, pure and reminiscent of our spiritual connection to the natural world. The main character Clara, mentally and physically handicapped, communicates deeply with animals, plants, soil and water. When nature is hurt Clara manifests it through convulsions. The opposite also happens: when Clara is upset, nature replies with an earthquake.

Her freedom is reigned in by purple banners set by her mother who believes her twisted spine was a gift from God by which she can heal humans through the holy mother Mary. But Clara hates being treated as a trophy and it's a struggle to get her dressed up for healing sessions.

Clara wants to break the bonds to experience freedom and sexuality, spurred on by romance on TV and her niece's first love. She befriends a beetle and her mother's beautiful white horse who is to be sold off, which gravely upsets Clara. When the beetle almost dies even Clara's breath cannot revive it. Clara decides the only way to protect the white horse (innocence) is by releasing it into the wild.

In the meantime she's experienced her first physical connection with her niece's lover who likes her but doesn't take her serious as relationship material.

At her niece's birthday party an acquaintance tells her the horse has been found dead by the river. At this moment Clara unleases her repressed sexual desire on the man she covets. He rebukes her, she flies into a rage, thrashes the party and an earthquake ensues.

After this she sets fire to the shrine and flees into the woods.

In the final scene Clara is one with nature again. Now she's broken the restricted confinement set by humans the river magically cures her twisted spine. She's also able to revive the beetle. The camera swings through the trees to see the white horse is alive and well.

I love this movie because it's so well rounded. An excellent reflection of families and societal intricacies.

The viewer quickly develops sympathy towards the eccentric old professor Shkolnik because life treats him unfair. Thirty years of painstaking research and no prize to show for it. He's outperformed by his much acclaimed, sociable son who's also a professor in Talmud studies. Then, miraculously, the father receives a phone call informing him he's won a national academic prize! But there's a mix up, the prize is intended for his son...

The director lets the viewer guess about the reason why - a reflection on (mis)communication which both characters study? After playing squash the son finds his sports bag including his mobile phone missing. Later it is hastily mentioned he could not be reached, so the assistant probably mixed up phone numbers. Was the bag taken on purpose? The prize committee offers a little clue: the publication in the newspaper is in rather odd wording... An outsider has leaked it to the press. Could this assistant be the gray haired lady who seems to play a pivotal role?

The only occasion the old professor steps outside of his autistic character is when he's in the garden with her. Accentuating the fact when people are treated with respect, they behave normal. A stark contrast to his own family whom's interaction is poisoned by his bitterness for being overlooked all these years. Even his corpse-like wife defrosts slightly when she learns of the prize and for once crawls into bed with him. Emphasizing the importance people attach to prestige.

The director touches on a taboo: the father's envy and rivalry for his son's achievements. In his greed for academic recognition he cheats on his own integrity which he claims to hold in the highest esteem. He publicly humiliates his son in an interview proving he is the better scientist of them, and does so again in private when he discovers the letter of recommendation was written by his son.

But the son is empathetic and loyal towards him (honor thy father). He let's prize pass him by. "To take the prize away from him, would kill him," he says. He even thinks his father is 'courageous' for having an extra marital affair with the mysterious lady, risking his whole reputation. Although, if the father was truly courageous, he would reject the prize. And how cowardly can the son be if he stood up to chairman Grossman (the name!), risking his own career and reputation?

However, the condemnation by the father for the son is something both are guilty of, because the younger professor treats his own son with disdain when he aggressively pushes him to choose an education before he can only loathe him (like his own father loathes him).

In a hysterical 'backroom lobby'-situation the marionette members of the esteemed prize committee are crammed together in a tiny office and everyone has to stand up to get the door closed. But when the chairman leaves, the door magically has enough space to open. Indicating that whatever the chairman wants, he gets. Prestige will only befall those whom he likes. Sound, painstaking research is surpassed over favoritism. Is the mysterious lady the reason the chairman holds a grudge against the old professor?

At the ceremony, we see the son looking down at her. The significance is not clear to me. Has the son involved this woman in a conspiracy to get esteem for his father so he can look up to him? After all, he did mention he was unable to admire his father's profession as a mere teacher. Or does he see her as the (mistaken) hallmark of courage?

Well depicted symbolism: old professor Shkolnik walks down a white hallway (towards the light, finally going to heaven!) at the prize ceremony. But the peristaltic shape resembles the inside of an intestine (inside dirty world of the elite). He's given instructions, sit here, stand up, shake hands, etc. The university institution as a dirty beast where one gets rewarded if one kisses behinds and does as one is told. But if you stay true to your own, wayward principles, your accomplishments are ignored, or at best you might be mentioned in a footnote.

The prize is a trap for the ego, a travesty to integrity, complete with smoke screens and 'commedia dell'arte'-actors. The old professor realizes this as he stands in line to receive the prize. The enlightenment he hoped to receive is a farce and thus in the very last screen shot blue light shines on his face.

The film contains an abundance of symbolism, but you might need a second viewing to catch it all.