So, a little introductory. All of the following is nothing more than a stream of consciousness and a kind of invitation to dialogue, but in no way a completed and clearly formulated thought. Why did this boil break out? Now – who the hell knows. But this resulted in two things: firstly, the following canvas, and secondly, a spontaneous podcast that we recorded with Yan Gribovich. I recommend consuming it in combination, but, of course, only you, dear reader-listener, can decide whether it’s worth it)
Unfortunately, we live in a world of extremes and tend to constantly elevate everything to an absolute, as if the True Truth is hidden in our own subjective opinion and must be protected from the encroachments of people who dare to think differently.
I could spend a few hours now giving examples of this that I have been observing for more than 10 years in local blogs and in comments – here, on the main page, on YouTube and in simple communication, but let’s skip this sad fact and come closer to the essence.
But the point is, in general, simple: I want to talk a little about the notorious “blue curtains”.
So, first of all, I’ll explain for those who are not in the know what kind of curtains are and where they hang: this means, as you probably remember from literature lessons, in the novel “War and Peace” Prince Bolkonsky (Bolkonsky? I won’t google it, because I want to talk like a human being, and not make a fuss) I regularly rode past an oak tree, which somehow along with him either grew old or became stale – in general, it reflected the inner state of the hero with its literal state.
This is a simple example.
And there is a complex example when a conventional film critic, based on the fact that in the first scene of the film there are blue curtains hanging on the window, concludes that the entire film is just a hallucination of the hero who is in a mental hospital, because the color blue in the director’s culture means depression and hallucinations if it is applied to windows or doors.
And there are two opposing camps:
in one there are intellectuals who are poking around at all these curtains and their shades and endlessly arguing about whether the curtains are blue, blue or turquoise, and what exactly that means;
in the other camp there are individuals who, with a tenacity worthy of better use, hammer on the table shouting “Blue curtains are just blue curtains.”!»
And the war of these comrades has been going on for decades. As usual, I’m all very special, so I try to sit quietly in the third camp, trying to sift out meaningful grains from the words of both.
And I want to share my reasoning with the respected public!
The curtains are blue, warm, sour and saggy
So, first of all, let’s try to figure out where such daring thoughts come from that, they say, blue curtains can mean something besides the fact that the hero loves the color blue. Or because there were no other curtains in the store, but some had to be bought!
After all, this is quite logical for our reality, so? No one will hang new curtains on the windows in honor of a change of mood! (yes, perhaps someone will, but I’m talking about the general rule, not exceptions)
But there is a difference between the curtains on your window and the curtains in a movie/game/book: your curtains are real, you chose them, you have some kind of story associated with them (even if it’s a simple one). Curtains in a film/game/book exist within the framework of artistic reality.
The architect of this artistic reality is the author of the work. And he has the power to adjust this reality to the needs of an emotional message, an ideological charge, a moral lesson, or anything else for which he sat down to write/draw/shoot/game design his creation.
For example: is it logical that in the world of The Last of Us, all people have lost their minds and turned into aggressive, psychotic, completely crazy bastards who just want to gnaw each other’s throats?? (this is also in the conditions of a zombie, motherfucking apocalypse, ooh)
No, because the policy of looting and killing everyone they come across will very quickly lead to hyperactive individuals killing each other, and individuals capable of dialogue and cooperation will slowly begin to rebuild and start their own farms.
And, yes, okay, I say “total”, but I mean “most” people, because both the first and second parts still show those who are trying to lead a peaceful life, but are headless aggressors, in whom only one thought is pulsating in their heads: “KILLKILLKILLKILL!" – orders of magnitude more. In both parts. And this is stupid.
But who and what is The Last of Us about?? This is a discussion on the topic of society in the world after the zombie apocalypse? No.
This is the personal story of a man, cut, battered and beaten by life, to discover that in a world in which there is absolutely no one to save, where everyone he meets wants to stab him in the back, exactly 27 times, because he will act for sure, because he does not want to give Joel a chance to survive; in a world where everything is destroyed and mangled, and only memories of the past feel beautiful and alive – in this world he finds a ray of light that connects him to life. And he refuses to lose it for the sake of some illusory hope for some bright future.
(here we will omit the long run with the reasoning that in fact the Cicadas would not have saved anyone and blah blah blah, including for the reason that it seems that recently there was already a topic on blogs dedicated to this)
In this case, the question of the “curtains” is whether Comrade Druckman deliberately made people so aggressively stupid or is this still an artistic assumption, because if Joel and Ellie had overcome natural obstacles all the way – fighting off wolves, climbing mountains, looking for food and other resources for survival (as in the episode when Joel was lying unconscious) – the story would have turned out to be something else. And the human background would not be so important (or not important at all).
Because otherwise the fork in the road is quite simple: either we assume that Neil Druckman is a misanthrope and is not afraid to show it in projects that are financed by huge sums of money (and then even more is spent on their promotion), or that he is stupid (and everyone who is “above” him is also stupid) and has absolutely no idea what the world will look like after the end of the world.
Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder, but for me (despite the fact that I am not the main fan and connoisseur of The Last of Us and beyond stupid people I have complaints about it) – the choice in favor of the fact that the author has an artistic vision and pursues it enriches the interaction with the object of study, because the questions “Why .. ?» normal, clear answers arise.
L – Logic
And pay attention – https://flagman-casino.co.uk not logical answers, from the point of view of the real world, but understandable in terms of the artistry of the game.
The world of The Last of Us needs Cordyceps zombies not because it’s such a fucking brilliant idea that fits so well and logically into all the pervasive holes of the concept of viral zombies and ALL MANKIND should be warned about the dangers of Cordyceps, but simply because it’s cool and fresh.
Cars in GTA explode if they turn over for exactly the same reason – it’s cool and fun, and also punishes the player for making a mistake (and now he needs to quickly get out of the car and run to a safe distance).
For the same reason, the police in the series did and will not care about car offenses – otherwise the pace would have slowed down greatly. And in the Mafia – in a gangster story, where everything lies in “rules”, “duty” and other similar categories, on the contrary – a very vigilant police.
Speaking of GTA, I also made quite a “curtain” observation that in the fourth part there is such a slow and inert physics for everything (cars, fences), exactly in order to emphasize one of the main themes of the game itself: the fact that your past and your luggage are inseparable from you, no matter what end of the world you run to.
Or, on the contrary, stamina in Diablo II, which only the lazy didn’t kick. Is it logical that the hero should get tired from constant running?? Yes, the market is zero, in real life we don’t gallop around the shops either, but calmly walk. But is this strip annoying at the first levels?? Incredible. Does it give at least some bonuses and goodies?? No. Either walk slowly and she won’t waste money, or run and watch her carefully.
Well, this is still more a question of game design, but my thought is that the logic of the existence of the real world and any artistic one are different. Reality is impartial, detached, tasteless and colorless, in which millions of stories happen simultaneously, intersect and curl like sticky spaghetti, and we, at best, manage to at least somehow observe at least a couple of them.
While the art world has an artistic intent. And the assumptions thanks to which it can exist, and the story can be told, they are inevitable and necessary, both for the storyteller and for us, viewers/listeners/players/readers/contemplatives.
That’s why I’m always sad when people appeal to logic in such cases.
"Well, it’s NOT-LO-GI-CHN to get separated when you’re exploring an abandoned mansion!»
“It’s NOT-LO-GI-CHN to go check who’s rattling the stand with knives in your kitchen.”
“It’s NOT-LO-GI-CHNO that the hero, the hardened detective, was seduced by the attention of a fidgety girl in a red dress!»
"It’s NO-LO-GI-CHN that cars explode after being shot at with a pistol a couple of times!»
“It’s NOT-LO-GI-CHN that the hero, after the blow, flew across the entire room, hit his back into a column and continued to fight as if nothing had happened, his back should have broken!»
Well, yes, it’s illogical, because this is a work of art whose purpose is to poke at the emotional points of its viewer. And lay them out as openly as possible in front of your viewer, so that he doesn’t have to engage in archaeological excavations of meanings and everything else later.
BUT/\HE IS GENE
But then art house comes onto the stage under heavy artillery fire, embracing all sorts of avant-garde and other scary terms. And it ruins everything. Because it is an art house – (in the broad sense) that’s exactly what it’s about – about the fact that why the hell will you understand what’s happening on the screen and why if you haven’t read 10 textbooks on film studies, the director’s biography and his five favorite books.
(of course, not all arthouse is structured this way, I’m talking about its most avant-garde and shocking representatives; among the creative arts there are a huge number of glorious directors and game makers who are not trying to blow anyone’s minds)
Here I will say simply and briefly: I don’t like this, I don’t appreciate it.
Perhaps this makes me a redneck who does not want to strive for the light of knowledge, perhaps, on the contrary, it makes me so enlightened and spiritual that I simply do not fall for cheap provocations, but I don’t know.
The trick is this: I am for art (I will use a strong word in the meaning of “creativity”, because I can!) was "for the people". T.e. when, in order to hear Nolan’s dialogues, I need to go to Imax, and even some expensive one, because only there is an audio system of sufficient power and detail – this is bad (although Nolan’s dialogues are still rotten).
Although pretentious audio systems have nothing to do with it, as they say, because the conversation is a little different: when understanding the context of the notorious “blue curtains” separates me from understanding the work as a whole, and in order to get this context, some specific and not very publicly available knowledge is required from me, this is not cool and not correct.
Apparently, this is why I love clearly expressed works of authorship, and mostly small ones, because as long as there is only one author (or a small but powerful group of them) he has power over the work, over how things happen, why and why. Above him there is rarely any Board of Directors or other people who think not in terms of creative ideas and flights of fancy, but in Excel spreadsheets and metrics of popular queries. So, to the question “Why were the curtains blue?"most likely you can find the answer, just ask this question.
And returning to the same Nolan and others – perhaps someone gets pleasure from solving such formalist mysteries (perhaps even the majority of such people, given the director’s high-tech nature) and there is nothing wrong with that. Just in case, let me remind you that I write my own thoughts on my own behalf, without claiming to be the Truth in any instance, this is just how I feel and formulate.
But I love, for example, jazz. I really gravitate towards bop (and not at all for the reason that Cowboy Bebop is perhaps the best anime in history). And there is avant-garde jazz. Here’s the last one – I practically can’t listen, because behind the complex rhythmic and melodic exercises I don’t hear anything except, in fact, the exercise.
I have exactly the same difficulty with metal – this is music of deliberately overloaded complexity, when looking at the fingers of a guitarist playing a solo, you realize that you don’t understand at all how he moves it so quickly along the neck and frets. And often this leads to the fact that in this uber-technicality the melody, the dynamic, excuse me, range is lost, when the whole song is complex riffs, complex cuts, complex vocal parts, and the song is simply about the fact that a gallant knight is going to strike the face of a dragon.
But somehow I’m moving away from the topic, because in order to listen to metal you don’t need either education or expensive equipment. In this regard, rather, it is necessary to bring up the classics, which, in fact, began to play for me ONLY at the moment when I sat down to audiophile and discovered that orchestral music may not turn into mush in the ears when you listen to it on something more normal and adequate. And you begin to hear the many instruments in the orchestra, and how they combine and complement each other, rather than fighting in your ear for limited attention, trying to pull the blanket over themselves.
Trust the author
Here, of course, we need to discuss something else.
Blue curtains will be “just a blue rag on the window” until the viewer/reader/player begins to trust the author, to believe that he thought about what he was doing, and did not just pat on the paper like a chicken with its paw, saying “And soooo they will eat!»
Because on the one hand, of course, even in a small and extremely original work it is impossible to make each “blue curtain” mean something. In fact, it is not necessary, because then, firstly, we return to the avant-garde and all sorts of meta-works, when the literality of what is happening goes to waste, and we can talk about something intelligible only if we substitute the “iron curtain” in place of the “blue curtains”, and the main character fights and fights in them and cannot get out, because all this is a metaphor for the Cold War and a dude who is trying to get out of the USSR.
But again, this is a rather simple and understandable metaphor through which it is quite possible to decompose a conventional story without unnecessary knowledge (and the fact that the hero is a beetle that hits the curtain will certainly contribute to this).
But on the other hand, the artistic space works to enhance the thought/emotion that the author puts there. And the same blue curtain that turned out to be in front of the hero’s face on the train when he was going home, for example, to bury his mother – well, it could easily simply emphasize his moral state at that moment, because the blue color is really associated with sadness.
Or Scorn, about which many once said in unison, they say, “a piece of shit-pie, a stupid carbon copy of Giger, the dudes didn’t come up with anything of their own, they didn’t even bother to put in a plot”.
Again, on the one hand, on the simple side, yes. In both Giger and Scorn we have a unification of the “biological body” and the “mechanical machine”.
But on the other hand – (yes, I repeat with my own thesis) – Giger devoted himself to a much greater extent to the mechanization of biological processes, making the most sacred parts of the human body part of the mechanism, and turning the processes of interaction of human bodies into machine interaction.
And in Scorn the style is reversed: everything around has become as physical and tactile as the body of the main protagonist, and the cars already look like some unknown organs of the giant creature in which we find ourselves. And the whole game is a journey through a world-organism that is slowly dying.
And this journey does not need a protagonist with a complex character, a complex history of the world around him, because he alone is enough to awaken feelings in the player. It’s just that he [the player] needs to open his blue curtains to let the light in, let it reflect from different surfaces inside. And don’t expect to be dragged through fun rides, and you just have time to laugh.
Who are the judges??
Well, of course, I don’t want to say that “the author is always right”. No way, no way.
We started with The Last of Us, let’s top it all off with The Last of Us: Part 2.
Again, more than once, not twice, not even ten times, I have heard and read that, they say, this is a work about revenge – because the game begins with a shocking scene of revenge, for more than 20 hours it drags the heroes through a story in which everyone is trying to take revenge on someone, and comes to an ending in which, it seems, it turns out that “revenge is not the answer”.
And most of these people were not satisfied with the ending, they say, Ellie crushed SO MANY people to get to Abby that such a feint with the ears is generally unjustified.
And here I personally stumble again into a very complex iceberg: Druckman hasn’t seen, heard or read stories about revenge? There is a carriage and a small cart of them and they organize a twenty-hour massacre with characters who live in a world where everyone is still trying to stab you and take away your liver so that they can dine on it while it’s still hot. Yes, it’s unlikely, the historical context of origin also fuels it well.
But the puzzle more or less comes together if you start putting it together just the opposite way. After all, the ending doesn’t say that “Revenge is not the answer, sorry.”?"For such a banal conclusion, the eyeliner is too thick, long and monotonous. The ending says that “It’s never too late to stop and break the cycle of violence.”. Even if you first killed dozens of people, some of whom you tortured. Even if you were previously “forgiven”. And there are intentionally a lot of these “even if”, because Druckman says in this way (globally and generally): “People, be kinder”.
And here things turn out normally for me, such an injection of darkness and gloom is necessary precisely so that the ray of light that appears at the end has the most powerful effect.
But here I get in and say: “No, well, this is some kind of bucket!“Not in the sense that I’m in favor of people killing each other for nothing, but in the fact that Druckman organizes emotional terror, forcing the player to watch how malice and anger dull the characters, turning them into single-celled, fixated on the same thing, fanatics. And loading into the player (not Ellie, the player) a huge amount of that same negativity – in the end he taxis to the thesis about “Be kinder”.
Hare Bo did this too at one time – he went out into the street with a poster “Stop fighting!" and fired a pistol into the air. But at least it’s a comedy.
And here – well, it’s not noticeable that TLoU: P2 made someone kinder, on the contrary – still (and especially now, in connection with the upcoming series) at any mention, individuals come out who toxically spit poison in the direction of the stick, in the direction of the “agenda”, in the direction of the fact that when the game forcibly drags the player to the other side of the conflict, people abandoned it because “Abby must die”.
But Abby’s muscles are not a body-positive agenda (or whatever), these are still the same “blue curtains”, because they are needed to reflect how her inner world was distorted by the desire to take revenge on Joel.
Conclusions.
In fact, all this verbiage (in which, I have a feeling, I am repeating the same thesis, simply shifting it from one plate to another, rearranging the word order and that’s it) is not an attempt to give a definite answer about the meaning of the blue color of the abstract curtains that you see in the game.
It’s just that, apparently, it’s sad for me, as a person who has been studying all kinds of artistic material for more than 10 years on a professional basis (in the sense that I get money for it, I don’t have and never will have any art history degrees or titles), it’s sad to see how superficially and consumeristly people around me look at the things that they let into their lives, on which they spend their own time, and then knock on the table “NOT-LO-GICH-BUT! In reality it wouldn’t be like this!»
And I (I don’t know how successfully) I’m trying to encourage you: if for you games, films, books, comics, music – in general, works of art – are not just “filler” on which you can spend some free time just to take your mind off everyday life, sometimes try to conduct a dialogue with the author and ask: “Why are the curtains blue? Why did the camera make this movement?? Why does the hero in the story constantly repeat his words??“It seems to me that this can really enrich the experience of communicating with good works (good not in the objective sense, but good and interesting for you personally). Yes, and understand what exactly you don’t like in those works that you don’t like.
Because often we don’t like things because they don’t fit our expectations. But any kind of creativity should not fit into our ideas. If the author wrote a tragedy, and the viewer was expecting a comedy, then this is a problem for the viewer (well, or marketing, but this is generally a separate thick layer of modern problems in the relationship between creator and viewer).
In short, try to ask questions more often and make harsh value judgments less often.
Recent Comments