Just me crying in the bathroom so I don’t wake my partners with this, fuck.
So to sum up: CT and DC have passed laws making it illegal to extradite someone to another state if they are being charged in that other state for crimes pertaining to abortion or trans health care, and makes it legal to sue and get your money back if you are targeted by a TX-style “bounty” law. DC also includes “crimes” of consensual adult sex, gay and interracial marriage and cohabitation and providing or using contraception.
This is, as the thread explains, basically legal interstate warfare. CT and DC’s laws bar compliance with such laws.
This is, on one hand, kind of terrifying, because this is where we are now. It’s going to get worse long before it gets better.
On the other hand… holy shit, someone fucking did something.
Okay… I was kind of content to be lazy and not go into a whole thing about all this. but i keep seeing more and more reviews and reactions and such of Everything Everywhere All At Once, and so far not a one has touched on the film having distinctly Buddhist philosophies and symbolism at its roots. So I guess I’m just going to have to do this…
To start, with only lite spoilers and rearranging of film events to fit their chronological in-world order, let me first give a run down of the film’s basic shtick…
Evelynn Wang is a middle aged first generation Chinese American immigrant running a laundromat with her husband, a mousey but extremely big hearted and quirky man named Waymond. When they were young, and fell in love while living in China, Waymond convinced her to move to America with him and out of disapproval of Waymond and the move in general, Evelynn’s father(unnamed) disowned her. That same father, now in poor health and apprently with no other family or support left in China, has recently flown to America from China to live out the rest of his life with the daughter he disowned and the husband he disapproved of.
So, as Evelynn gets ready for both a Chinese New Years party, and a dire appointment with an IRS auditor, her (not exactly clear on age? 20s?) college dropout daughter, Joy, is also discussing introducing her girlfriend, Becky, to her grandfather —something Evelynn does not really approve of. Also, although she is not yet aware of it, her husband, Waymond, is also attempting(and thus far failing) to approach her about the subject of divorce; not to actually divorce her, but to use the possibility of a divorce to force a frank conversation about the state of their marriage, and what Waymond sees as Evelynn’s long standing and growing dissatisfaction with their life together.
(Oh, and although it was technically clipped from the final script as a concrete detail, all indications from how they are characterized inicate that Evelynn and Joy struggle with undiagnosed ADHD.)
With that as the set up for the story, this overwhelming stress in her life aligns with(or perhaps in a sort of cosmic destiny sense, triggers…) her awakening to the existence of infinite parallel universes. And she is faced with the choice to either continue her mundane life as planned, or accept this call to adventure as the savior of multiple realities.
The the threat to all existence that she is the many worlds’ savior from is a kind of ascendent form of her own daughter, Joy, who in another reality was pushed to excel at reality hopping by her mother to the point where she was overwhelmed by the pressure to succeed and by the infinite possibilities of the multiverse. To escape the anxiety of an all seeing existance, this villainous Joy, dubbed Jobu Tupaki, has created a kind of blackhole as a nexus of multiple realities all collapsing onto themselves.
And, finally, to avert this world ending crisis, Evelynn must learn to channel into herself, the knowledge, experience, and skills of her many other selves. She does this at first to match and challenge Jobu Tupaki, and later to understand and potentially negotiate with her.
So what does this have to do with Buddhism?
The mytho-historical origins of Buddhism are in the life and teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, generally presented as a story of a young man living an inordinately sheltered and privileged life who has an encounter with the old, the sickly, the dead, and then an ascetic.(someone in the, often but not exclusively spiritual act of self-denial; living while refusing luxury in an act of self-discipline.) These experiences are referred to as The Four Sights.
This isn’t in and of itself particularly important in the context of the film, but the first 3 sights make Siddhartha for the first time aware of the difficulties of being alive; to lose youth, to lose health, and to lose life. And he becomes aware that all living things share in these experiences, and subsequently that the individual and ego driven experience is not unique. But the 4th sight, of the man in self-denial makes him aware that people can live without attachment to those things in the first place. And this begins his spiritual journey in search of Nirvana thru, among other things, meditation. And via said mediation he becomes Bodhi:“Awakened.” (from which the epithet Buddha:“Awakened One” is derived.)
Okay… so without letting this spiral too out of control… What is Nirvana? Apart from an iconic Gen X rock band fronted by Kurt Cobain?
Nirvana is the state of being of having escaped from those worldly sufferings. In some, perhaps more supernatural, perspectives it can be interpreted as literal immortality, but more practically it means freedom, not from the experience of aging, but the fear of aging; If you don’t value something like vanity, you don’t fear its loss, and if you don’t fear losing it, your life is not governed by navigating around that potential loss.
It also involves an escape from the endless cycle of death and rebirth implicit to Buddhism as a religion rooted in its preceding Hindu theology. (This same root in Hinduism is where the idea of karma comes from: the idea that what you do in one life incurs consequences in the next life, for good and for ill.) And part of the Buddha’s role as an all-seeing and all-knowing figure is that he can also see his other(past) lives. This escape and the prerequisite ability to see and to understand and to empathize with all living things through your own awakening to your infinite experiences in many lives, and the universal suffering that comes with living and aging and dying, is the goal of Buddhist teaching and study; To understand your place in a much MUCH bigger picture and find peace in a life free of the push and pull of expectation and external societal pressures. That’s Nirvana.
Now… In relation to Nirvana is the concept of Anatta: “The Non-self.” The concept that there is no such thing as a “true self” or a “false self” and that individual identity is mutable; nothing exists in a singular finite state, least of all people. (This btw is a point of conflict for a lot of would be Buddhist scholars in the west, where it conflicts heavily with the insistence on trying to preserve or otherwise find in Buddhist philosophy some trace of the Christian “immortal soul.”) And adjacent to this, the concept of Sunyata: “Emptyness”/“Nothingness.”
And Sunyata is where the black circle symbolism comes from. Sunyata is literally composed of the sanskrit word for “empty/vacant/void/nothing/hollow/zero” etc… and the suffix indicating a state of being, often translated as “-like” or “as (if) __” or “-ism.” In fact, the circle itself actually old enough that it shares its origins with the arabic numeral zero; It is one of the oldest and most basic human concepts of visualizing “nothing.”
And it is of course the reference at the core of the Everything Bagel in Everything Everywhere All At Once. (that’s right, I’m actually still talking about the movie!)
So, this is where the film actually starts its Buddhism crash course, more or less… Evelynn is caught in the endless wheel of life and suffering, or as she summarizes it, “Laundry and taxes and laundry and taxes…” And this life is disrupted by the appearance of the Sunyata, the menacing black circle Deirdre draws on one of the disputed receipts, which threatens to end everything. And indeed “Everything” is embodied in the daunting pile of receipts, in the many events taking place on this one single day, by the unspoken ADHD sensory overload, and by the existence of the multiverse itself.
Like the Buddha, Evelynn becomes aware of her other lives. But while the Buddha’s understanding of the cycle of reincarnation is about past lives and their sequence, Evelynn’s induction into the multiverse is the understanding of parallel lives and of alternate potentiala. This in turn manifests as what is called FOMO*(Fear Of Missing Out) a kind of jealousy and envy and anxiety that comes from feeling like you’ve missed your opportunities, most often triggered by seeing other people fulfilling the potentials you haven’t.
*Stick a pin in this, because we’ll come back to it…
So, Evelynn’s path to enlightenment starts with her experiencing her other lives, but what helps move her forward is not some critical accumulation of her own experiences, it’s when she realizes that the life she wants to experience, to see and understand, is her daughter’s: the villain, Jobu Tupaki’s experience. And she endeavors to find in that empathy some kind of peaceful resolution.
And in Buddhist art this state of heightened awareness is illustrated as the opening of the 3rd eye: The Eye of Consciousness. And the cultivation of this third eye is a core tenet of Zen Buddhism in particular; a sect of Buddhism that emphasizes self reflection thru meditation, and the contemplation and application of the Sunyata.
(There’s actually a whole tangent I’m cutting here about the bodhisattva, Guanyin/Avalokiteśvara: An Indian god turned Chinese goddess, characterized as one who sees everything, who displays infinite mercy, and who has 108 different forms(including, according to the tibetan sect that revere him, the dalai lama). I think there’s a definite through line here, from the Buddhist figure to Waymond to Evelynn, but it’s a but much and honestly not as concrete as the rest of the symbolism at play, so I’m just tabling it…)
And it’s a little less overt but the scene with the rocks over the canyon in the movie also directly evokes a meditative exercise of imagining yourself as a stone. You are stable and immobile and of sufficient size, functionally immovable; you exist in nature, as a part of nature, and in opposition to nature. You can be navigated around and over and under, and both do not disturb the scenery around you, nor are you disturbed by it, and while you may be unlike much of what is alive around you, you are none the less a part of the scene.
The emulation of a stone-like demeanor in relation to the stressors of life emphasizes that you needn’t give in to the push and pull of the world around you; you don’t need to capitulate to the pressures others put on you, nor do you have to assert your control over them to avoid being victimized. You can simply exist as a part of the larger picture without disturbing others or being disturbed.
And finally the concept of Mudita: defined as joy felt on behalf of others for their own wellbeing. Opposite of things like schadenfreude and FOMO.
So, here’s our return to FOMO…. I’m not sure the exact relation but the term showed up a surprising amount in interviews surrounding the film, particularly in regards to Ke Huy Quan’s long absence from acting, but I get the impression this was a keyword that Daniels used during writing that spread into the way the cast talk about the film as a result. And it makes sense both in regards to the ADHD themes, the midlife crisis, and of course the resolution of the film’s grappling with self-destructive nihilism.
But also, obviously, I’m sure you notice, this specific kind of “joy” is embodied directly in the character, Joy, Evelynn’s estranged daughter. Because not only is the solution to Evelynn’s restlessness and sense of unaccomplished life something she can overcome through the legacy of her daughter; not by her daughter’s “success” in conventional means(which all context implies she has pushed her towards in the pass to the point of breakdown) but by her joy in living a self-fulfilled life. Evelynn can be happy by knowing she can allow Joy to be happy.
But also this works metaphorically, in that reconnecting with Joy means reconnecting with (sympathetic)joy. She forgot what being happy was, for herself but also for others, and by rediscovering that concept she can overcome her own dissatisfactions. And indeed the ultimate form Evelynn attains in the final fight is one of sympathetic joy, and of mercy.(see: that Guanyin theme I only briefly touched on) See used her opened 3rd eye to see the lives of other people and to grant them the joy she herself lacked and longed for, and in turn found that joy for herself. “Be kind” Waymond says, and in that kindness, that selflessness, Evelynn finds her salvation from the endless cycle of suffering of life. She becomes enlightened. She reaches Nirvana.
And this is, btw, why the film DOESN’T end with optimism and hope and individualist concepts of self-actualization and overwhleming positivity being some kind of solution to negativity and depression. And why the nihilism is non treated as synonymous with some western concept of “evil” in direct opposition to “good.” Because the innately Buddhist philosophy at the roots of it is all about personal balance and being at peace with reality rather than at odds with it. And that means embracing the bigger picture, rather than trying to force it and one’s self into some limited perspective of what “should” be, rather than simply what is.
Anyway that’s my hectic, halfbaked rant about the specifically Buddhist backbone to this film. It is such a fascinatingly secular approach to a crash course in Buddhist philosophy, despite being so blatantly and AGRESSIVELY Buddhist in how the film embodies its philosophies.
that some people respond to any well-foreshadowed reveal with “ugh that plot twist was so predictable” proves bad faith criticism has rotted their brains to the point they think it’s bad writing if they can correctly identify information the writers were intentionally giving them
like you do realise that the entire point of set up and pay off is that you’re supposed to pick up on the clues the writers give you right? you do understand that plot twists only work when they retroactively make sense bc there were hints building up to the reveal right??
Have you pre-ordered your copy of A Strange and Stubborn Endurance by Foz Meadows yet? Submit your receipt for the hardcover, ebook, or audiobook by 7/25 to guarantee this STUNNING print, designed by @nicoledealart!
genuinely so fucking tired of people leveraging the “groomer” argument against people who support sex ed because scientific literature over decades shows that comprehensive sex education starting around kindergarten actually prevents children from being sexually abused and groomed because it teaches children the correct words for their body parts and also teaches them concepts of privacy, personal space, bodily autonomy, the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching, and the fact that sex is something that only adults do. children with this knowledge are not only better equipped to identify abuse and predatory behavior and communicate that its happening to a trusted adult, but also prevent it from happening in the first place by recognizing when something is happening that shouldn’t.
sex education does not sexualize children, it prevents children from being sexualized. anyone who is against early foundational sex education and claims they are doing it to protect children is a fucking liar.
@blueblazeselco i actually spoke in broad strokes so as to make the post easy to read and digest. i also literallylinkeda study that was a review by two doctors (dr. lisa lieberman, phd in health behavior and health education with a specialization in adolescent health, and dr. eva goldfarb, phd in human sexuality education) of 30 years of published scientific literature on school-based sex education programs, and thus didn’t feel the need to go into excruciating detail, because i assumed people would take the initiative and at least read the abstract that’s less than 300 words, or at the very bare minimum, the paragraph very clearly labeled “results” that mentions prevention of child sexual abuse as a positive outcome of comprehensive sex education, alongside partner violence prevention, media literacy, social/emotional learning, appreciation of diversity, and healthy relationship development. the data is right there you pompous fucking dickbag.
but here are a couple of key points, since you couldn’t be assed to even skim it:
This review found strong evidence for the effectiveness of child sex abuse prevention efforts in elementary school. […] They teach about body ownership and children’s right to control their bodies and about communication and self-protection. A strong meta-analysis of 27 preschool through Grade 5 programs and a systematic review of 24 K-5 programs demonstrate significant effects on a wide range of outcomes, including behaviors in simulated at-risk situations. Another large systematic review concluded that, in general, parental involvement, opportunities for practice, repeated exposure, and sensitivity to developmental level were key characteristics of effective child sex abuse programs. […] Studies in the U.S. and Canada reported positive effects on sense of control and safety felt by children, including, in one, more positive feelings about their genitals (e.g., it’s okay to touch one’s own private parts). (Sources: xxx) (age groups: 3-12 years, 2nd & 5th grade, kindergation-5th grade)
A strong randomized study in 21 urban U.S. schools found gains were maintained at 1 year, with no increase in anxiety, concluding that it is safe to discuss sensitive subjects with young children, and demonstrating the value of early education. (x) (age group: 3rd & 4th graders)
but if you don’t want to take my word for it, or the word of two award-winning doctors and authors, then take the word of the sexuality information and education council of the united states, or the united nations (yes, that united nations) education, scientific, and cultural organization, who both have publishedguidelines for comprehensive sexuality education and both recommend starting this education in kindergarten and maintaining it through 12th grade for a range of positive outcomes including but not limited to what i have previously mentioned. as a fun side note one of the doctors who authored the review i linked in the original post (the review you didn’t read) is credited as a member of the taskforce that contributed to SIECUS’ guidelines.
Tatiana Maslany was literally insane for playing like 12 different people with the same face and then interacting with multiple versions of herself for five whole seasons
she really Did That™ and we are all incredibly grateful
No! No, but here’s the important thing! She did it so flawlessly, that you would actually forget these characters are the same actress.
I found myself feeling bad for the actor who plays Alison’s husband, because “he never gets to work with Maslany,” because in my head I kept equating her with Sarah, when literally he only worked with Maslany!
The special effects were so seemless, and her performances were so flawless that we have never seen this gimmick done this effectively, this naturally. And I don’t think we ever will again.
She deserved that emmy.
It’s impossible to describe how phenomenally good a job Maslany did with these characters. Like, it wasn’t just that she played every one of these characters so genuinely and distinctly that you forgot they were the same actress. It was also that the characters, being clones, would deceive people by playing each other.
Alison would be on the screen, and you’d be like, “that’s Alison”. Then Sarah would be on the screen, and you’d be like, “that’s Sarah”. Then someone who looked exactly like Sarah would be on the screen, and you’d be like, “Oh, Alison is pretending to be Sarah.” And some of the clones were better at pretending to be each other than other clones were. And you could always tell who you were looking at and who they were trying to imitate.
back in 2014, I got to speak very briefly to the showrunners at the Hugo Awards afterparty, and they said that, even on set, it was easy to forget that Tatiana was playing all the different clones. they’d finish a take with her as Sarah and then turn around asking, “All right, where’s Rachel?” because she inhabited them all so distinctly that you’d instinctively look for the other actress
