It is noteable that Stephen never apologises to Martin for the death of his father. Maybe this is all it would have taken. It is also noteable that Stephen never considers himself as an option, after he accepts that a member of his family will need to die.

@pathetic2399

2 ай бұрын

I get what you’re trying to imply, but I don’t agree with it. In the first place, Stephen never considering himself an option makes sense in context because Martin pretty much explained that that’s not how the curse works. It’s an eye for an eye. He took someone Martin loves, so Martin will take someone he loves. Even if he loved himself before all of his family members, him offering himself up wouldn’t end the curse. I also disagree with the implication that he accepted that he had to kill his family because he cares about himself more. It’s pretty clear that Stephen does feel something for his family. Maybe not his wife, but definitely his children, especially the daughter who he gave preferential treatment over his son. He was freaking out as he watched them succumb to the curse, had a breakdown over it, and in the end couldn’t choose who he had to kill so he left it up to chance. It’s not like he wanted to kill his family, and the movie ends with him visibly broken over having lost his son..

@vpapako

2 ай бұрын

@@pathetic2399 I really am not sure if you 're correct or if the film implies that Stephen didn't want to lose his family while, at the same time, not loving any of his family members in particular. That he wanted to protect the family as a construct, because that is what defined him.

This isn't the first time one of your videos made me realise some piece of media I enjoyed is even better than I thought. Really great explanation.

Awesome job covering this Lanthimos film. It's one that could be analyzed for days and still uncover details in its unsolvable puzzle of the upper class American Dream. I've been wanting to make a video myself explaining as much as I can to justify it being maybe my #1 film of all time (besides being biased in loving horror, black comedy, and Lanthimos' voice in particular). You voice so many of the points of the movie and wrapping it around the 'default family' angle worked well. I know this movie gets overlooked a lot by people--there is a difficulty barrier to it; but calling it this decade's The Shining isn't an empty comparison. Lanthimos manages to evoke that level of dread and horror in an environment that by all appearances should be normal, even banal, and for that I praise the hell out of him. Add to that I come from an American medical family and work in the healthcare field with a medical education.... I don't know how Lanthimos, a Greek who's early life did not seem to include sciences--more basketball actually--NAILS this often-tried critique far and beyond others. The encroachment of soullessness and performance you describe is very real. There are deified positions in society that lose their magic to those who've been in it for extended periods. But there's so much more in Killing like moral greys and how they act as foundations for societal cognitive dissonances; looking at the film from each character's pov and seeing their unique approach to the curse; that individualism actually defines a lot of this American psyche and their isolation from each other, yet like you say actually loses them independence and a means to better react to their situation. I think videos could just keep on being made about this film and will have plenty of their own to say. It's not a blank recreation of a Greek myth people! Every aspect of this film is saying something about the lives we're in today. P.S.: watch Dogtooth. It's 2nd place Lanthimos for me. If you see Killing as unmasking family unit ideology in a patriarchal democracy, Dogtooth is the way more demented and further down rabbithole of family unit in cult and dictatorship, and is a blueprint for Lanthimos' themes going on.

Literally watching this as my mom is in the same unit they filmed the hospital scenes. Felt super liminal as soon as we pulled in.

Loved this film when I first saw it on a big screen and really enjoyed this analysis. I'm always fascinated by Lanthimos' work, it's so beautiful and unnerving. Thank you for expanding my appreciation with your thoughts. A couple things, I noted that the film begins with a close-up view of a beating heart in the operating room and a mournful choir singing the Stabat Mater (hymn to Mary's suffering when confronting Jesus' crucifixion). The very first scene establishes interesting associations - Jesus is hanging on the cross, Mary is grieving, and Martin's father has died. With this in mind, later when the mother bargains for her own life with her childrens', is the most jarring juxtaposition of motherly devotion and callousness. I seem to remember there being religious references throughout the movie. Washing one's hands of the blood/death is an unavoidable biblical reference - Steven literally takes off his bloodied gown and gloves and disposes of them. It's almost like a sterile second skin that he can shed at the end of the day, along with any moral doubt and responsibility (similar to blinding himself and his family). Martin seems unperturbed, even stoic in the way he handles himself, as if he knows something no-one else does. He turns the other cheek and endures torture and abuse. He is certain his cause is just, whereas the family is conflicted and torn. Something like martyrdom is present in the characters, especially the children after they become sick/cursed. Maybe just me, but Martin seemed at times to be almost a messianic figure - precocious, wise beyond his years, solitary, speaks in prophetic tones, come to disturb a fixed established order - but instead of salvation (for the upper-class nuclear family) it's a methodical exposition of a 'curse'. I'm going to rewatch The Killing... with your video in mind, it's going to be a ride. Also, I recently watched Lanthimos' short-film Nimic (recommend! free on Vimeo), would be interested to know what you think of it.

I think the sadded part of the film is that ypu hoped hed off himself since it would break the curse(im sure), thus ridding the world of a crappy doctor and also saving his family. But no his offs Bob which was seen a mile away. 1 hes the youngest, Kim already proved herself to Steven and is compliant to him. And his wife is his wife, itd be weird if she ends up dead. Its rid him of a life long partner that is already established but like she said they can always make another. 2. Bob was shown to not do as Steven says, Bob breaks promises and is defiant. Its sad, Bob is just doing what children do and Kim already went through that phase. Bob had no chance he had no value to Steven other than being a male, but with his wife he can always have another so thats irrelevant. I always saw Steven valuing the women anyways because they are more like objects to him. His wife is smart, beautiful and does what he says. She know who she is to him, same with the daughter. Shes smart beautiful, he dotes on her and she has a beautiful voice. He can use them for his benefit as not only a "great father" but a "great husband". Him and his lively wife made a lovely daughter that doesnt go out of line. Then theres Bob defiant, joksster, ya know a child. Hes gonna mess up the most out of the family and possibly already "embarrassed" them in the past. Uf he was allowed to grow up I think he would be that much in line just because his personality doesnt allow it Just like Steven. At the end of the day, logically, Bob is the Sacred Deer even though his family doesn't view him as so. He never truly had a chance.🫤🙁

@pathetic2399

2 ай бұрын

I’m not getting how y’all don’t understand the curse in the movie when it was so clearly explained. Stephen killing himself would not have broken the curse because that’s not how it works. It’s an eye for eye, meaning that because he killed someone Martin loved, he would have to kill someone he loved to make it even. Killing himself wouldn’t make Martin feel better or restore balance because he would not feel the pain he caused Martin by taking his father away from him. His family would, but Stephen, the one who killed Martin’s father in the first place, wouldn’t, and therefore there would be no point. It’s not about Stephen’s selfishness, it’s about Martin forcing Steven to feel what he felt in the worst way possible.

This is a great analysis! Especially since the heart of the plot surrounds the simple premise of a Greek tragedy, i.e. when a protagonist makes an error due to his own hubris and then must face the repercussions, revealing the tragic reality of what it means to be human.

It is also on purpose that Stephen is paralled with king Agamemnon from the Iliad. A powerful patriarch that is asked to literally sacrifice one of his family members as payment for a sin he commited and complies.

Really great work. I subscribed, really keen to see more from you!

Killer, thorough analysis. I have avoided watching this movie because I have a terrible time sitting through drawn out depictions of dysfunction within intimate relationships (I was the perfect audience for Midsommar), and I’m glad to have come across somebody’s comprehensive interpretation of its themes.

19:33 the scene where she berates him reminded me so much of Alice from Eyes Wide Shut

@MalmroseProjects

5 ай бұрын

yea i definitely feel like kidman's casting calls back to eyes wide shut, there's kubrick all over this movie for sure

Really good review!

This was such a good analysis

One thing I would like to add, is that I think Steven choosing who to kill in the way he did was the most moral way possible, because then it wasn’t personal or against anyone in particular, it was completely random, because he couldn’t choose as he knew no one in his family deserved to die. however, I have to agree with the rest of your analysis. Also, am I wrong or was Steven able to lift the curse by admitting he was in the wrong? I can’t remember.

This was a great breakdown. I’d love to see an analysis of Moral Orel

I've been putting off watching this since it came out, permanent fixtures of my I k.ow I'll love it but haven't seen it yet list, so thanks for the reminder and I'll be back when I see it, it's at least now downloaded cause if this. I am curious, any plans yo keep going with the David Lynch stuff? I was a huge fan, you were on to some good shit there and I'd love to see it concluded.

@MalmroseProjects

5 ай бұрын

yea, my intention is to cover Lost Highway, ive been putting it off so that i dont half-ass the video, i expect it to be my next big project after i finish a video about half-life 2 which is in the editing phase. i'd say a LH video will be out in march probably, but i cant be certain on the exact time

ive been waiting for someone to make a review about this like how you did. its interesting how you went into depth about the family construct and the image of roles within a family. if you're reading this, im curious to kn ow your thoughts on Martin at all? just curious, loved this :)

@MalmroseProjects

5 ай бұрын

Martin's a fairly complex character, given that he has a lot of history that we don't see. He reads as neurodivergent or possibly having some kind of physical disability, and when you combine that with a clearly not-well mother and a father who died by Steven's actions, there's a sense of sadness to his character. Martin embodies a lot of toxic masculine traits, such as narratives of retributive justice/vengeance that become the basis of his decision to place a curse on Steven's family. Martin clearly has three traits that distinguish him from Steven: 1 - he's a teenager and in many ways still a kid (same as all people around that age), 2 - he's genuinely traumatized by the loss of his father, and the difficulties that has caused for his family, and 3 - he reads as more "pathetic" and isn't able to hide this from others. Martin's actions read as unjustifiably cruel, but what's interesting about Martin is that most things you could say bad about Martin apply to Steven just as easily. Even the curse itself, placed by Martin, is a curse that Steven holds over the rest of his family by refusing to communicate. There's this sense that Steven feels like everything has to go his way, and he has to do everything *his way*. This ends up being why his family suffers through the curse for much longer than they would have had to otherwise. It doesn't justify Martin's actions, but it reveals Steven to be no better than Martin. For me, Martin is an interesting mirror to Steven in this respect. But looking at him independently of Steven, I read him as effectively the film's equivalent to a school shooter, embodying both sympathetic traits (narratives of being pathetic/victims of bullying or of being of a general lower social status) and reprehensible traits (being hyperviolent and misanthropic). The interesting thing about real world examples of these kinds of people is that the sympathetic traits are often used to justify or overlook the reprehensible traits, to see a teenager who got bullied (when often, they didn't in reality) and think that that makes it more sympathetic when they then kill random people who did not have anything to do with the bullying. If we look at Martin in that way, Steven's family had *nothing to do* with Steven's actions as a heart surgeon. Martin *perceives* this to be justice, that Steven's family must suffer because Martin's family suffered at the hands of Steven. But this is all manufactured to justify Martin's rage and a similar sense of entitlement. The situation of the curse reveals Steven to be an abusive, self-centered, narcissistic person with very little sense of compassion or understanding of the needs of others beyond how they serve him. But this doesn't make Martin's actions okay. If anything, Martin's actions reveal how much toxic masculinity in our world affords white men and boys a degree of freedom in violence under the understanding that sympathetic motives make violence okay. Ultimately, Martin does what he does to make himself feel better. My guess is that it doesn't work. At the end of the film, Steven and Martin are estranged. Martin was getting to know Steven's family, and even though they all seem like pretty miserable people even before the curse, Martin's life was going in a direction that could be seen as "better" in the opening parts of the film. So by the end of the film, this estrangement is a sad consequence of Martin and Steven's actions both. Lanthimos reminds me a lot of Kubrick because both filmmakers have a distant look at human stories from the perspective of broader social systems. Like how racism and misogyny inform Jack's actions in The Shining, or how misogyny, violence and opportunism are ingrained into the society that Alex belongs to in A Clockwork Orange well-prior to his horrible actions as an individual, there's a whole world present in The Killing of a Sacred Deer that is marked by social image, wealth, masculinity and possessiveness over one's family as a white man. Lanthimos deconstructs this social order by revealing what happens when it is endangered through a device of magical realism. Martin (and his curse) is that device. But the outcome of this story *for him* is just as sad and pathetic as it is for Steven. And much like The Lobster (and like several Kubrick films), we see how assimilation *into* this norm that has produced such violent effects on Martin and Steven's families has left them both sad, pathetic, and lost the same as they were before any of this happened. I could go on about this movie! I'll hopefully cover The Lobster at some point too.

brilliant analysis

I loved this take on the movie, definitly watching it again with this ideas on mind! You should totally check dogtooth, is less subtle in its critique of family dynamics and has a lot of weird stuff just for shock value (in my opinion) but its still a solid movie.

I loved this movie, Ive been recommending this to everyone who has been hyping Saltburn as its another weird, strange, disturbing bizarre gorgeously shot movie where Keoghan kills in his role.

I watched this for the first time on a plane and felt very weird about it.

This is an odd question but how do you go about performing an analysis like this? Was the criticism of traditional patriarchal society and nuclear family dynamics apparent to you immediately or did you have to watch it again through a different lens?

@MalmroseProjects

4 ай бұрын

Basically, I already had studied the history of the nuclear family and the sociology of the nuclear family well prior to seeing the film, so when I already knew the details of how the nuclear family came to be and its impact on American society in the 20th century and into the 21st, I was able to draw a lot of connections between what was going on in this film's story and what academic literature has said on the matter. The main book that I remember being really informative for me was The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz. I didn't read the whole book, but I read significant portions of it for a Sociology class back in community college. Typically, if you research topics which surround the content of a piece of media, the actual reading of that piece of media becomes a lot easier to do. I've done a lot of studying of 20th century history, which helps for doing videos about 20th and 21st century media.

@emma-xt5iy

4 ай бұрын

@@MalmroseProjects thank you for the reply!

i love this film and am so impressed with your analysis! you should watch dogtooth! i think you would like it. i also think you would like the A24 movie Saint Maud if you haven’t seen it already. looking forward to your next video :)

@MalmroseProjects

5 ай бұрын

ive wanted to see dogtooth for like 10+ years now but never had access to it. im sure ill see it p soon tho, it looks like a film i'd rly enjoy!

Hey! This video rocks and you’re able to put a lot of the themes of the film into really precise language. You really should watch dogtooth, because if you think the killing of a sacred deer is a hateful takedown of nuclear family structures, you’re in for a real treat with dogtooth, which I feel plays with the idea just as well if not better than this film. I also want to recommend stoker, which I think plays with the sickness at the heart of a nuclear family as well, albeit with more explicit incestious themes that this movie kinda only dances around. One more thing, the screenplay for this film is such an interesting read for me for two scenes. The first one is that in the screenplay, Martin actually asks for a kiss from Steven after he’s given the watch as a gift, which Steven says yes to, very obviously putting front this idea of grooming that i feel is still present even with that scene cut (‘I’m going to fuck you and your mother just like you wanted’). I see why this was cut, as it would turn the audience against Steven way too quickly (who lets a 16 year old boy kiss them?) but it’s still such an interesting look into the thought process that went into that relationship. Secondly I like a scene in the screenplay where Steven kisses Kim and it’s described as ‘almost on the mouth’ coming back to the incest theme that was played with in the hospital. Incest, just like in dogtooth, is utilized in the killing of a sacred deer to show how parents have control over their children and how the nuclear family inevitably devolves into incest as its baked at the core of a system that asks you to only view your family as ‘real’ ‘trustworthy’ people. Wonderful analysis by the way, just wanted to drop my own two cents! I cant wait to see what you make next!

I would love to hear your take on Madoka Magica, Whos Lila?, and Fallout:New Vegas.

I love your breakdown of the film! You did a great job explaining the strained and strange family dynamic and how it results from patriarchal control. Also, when I watched this movie, I went in blind and had no idea it was a horror movie - this is actually where I found out it is! In hindsight, it makes a lot of sense lol

Of course he made the lobster

I’d really like to see your take on Dogtooth. it’s definitely another family is pain story and is also known for being an intense allegory for fascism

@lilaclunablossom

Ай бұрын

Except it's not. Lanthimos wrote off that interpretation a long time ago as "what the French think the film is about"

dang i need to watch this movie first. i'll be back though

this is not a spoiler from the movie, its from "The Family"...

I hate this movie but it made me think about alcoholism and the attempt to sweep the effects under the rug.

Damn, gotta stop this video and watch the movie tonight. Ive been putting it off.

I feel like you pushed too much that Stephen didn’t actually care about his family and only saw them as a means to an end too much when it was very clear that he did. He agonized over what was happening to them, and in the end couldn’t choose who to kill and left it up to chance. Kim also told Bob(?) that he loves him and their dad at one point in the film. The family is dysfunctional, and very cold, but imo, there was definitely love there, which is why it was a hard choice for Stephen, and the family is shown broken by their experiences in the end. Besides, if Stephen didn’t love his family to some degree, the curse, which was effectively to get even with Stephen by forcing him to feel what Martin felt, would be pointless. Martin lost someone he loved, so he wanted to take someone Stephen loved as well so that he could empathize with what he felt. If Martin felt Stephen didn’t feel value in his family, he wouldn’t have put him in the position to make the incredibly difficult decision to sacrifice one of them at all. Like I’m not understanding the “he didn’t love his family” angle at all. It feels like we watched two different movies.

@MalmroseProjects

2 ай бұрын

there's just a lot in the film to suggest he's motivated by self-interest and has no regard for their well-being or personhood. he tries to force feed bob, tries to manipulate bob into admitting that his illness is fake, he actively insults his wife, he forces kim to come back after she tries to literally escape the family. at no point does he give second thoughts towards his actions or communicate a sense of failure or even struggle to them. he also said that deaths during heart surgery can never be the surgeon's fault, suggesting he considers himself blameless in his impact on martin's life, and thus blameless in the curse on his own family. i dont see much in the way of love from him in this film. there's a scene where he cries after bob shows him his new haircut, but that crying to my recollection is left ambiguous. there's ways you can choose to read him as loving but there aren't really examples of him showcasing love for his family in his actions. im going off of what he does in the film, which is continuously a bunch of selfish, hostile and abusive behaviors towards everyone in his life, including his family. like, you could argue that there's love in the family at some points, but that's not what the film is about. the film is about the dysfunction

I want to see this video of yours but i trust your judgement that its best to go in fresh

@MalmroseProjects

5 ай бұрын

i found it streaming on kanopy and there are likely other streaming sites for it. if you like the sort of tense psychological horror of smth like The Shining, it's absolutely worth going in with as little info as you can!

Never have I heard or considered this film a comedy in any way. I've always seen it as a horror film, maybe a drama, but that's it and I checked on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes and no mention of comedy at all. 🤷‍♂️

How many times did use the word “patriarchy” almost like you’re pushing biased narrative. Not balanced analysis in my opinion.

@MalmroseProjects

4 ай бұрын

"bias is when you use a word i dont like" isnt really a good approach to life

@pathetic2399

2 ай бұрын

I agree that the essay does seem a little biased. They did have a point in a few areas, especially in regard to the criticism of the nuclear family since that seems to be a recurring theme in Lathimos’ movies, but others, it felt very biased and like they didn’t understand the movie beyond how they inserted their societal views into it.

This is about the sickest and most morally depraved argument I've ever heard in my life. I am actually disgusted at the corruption of the image and role of a doctor. My grandfather was a doctor, and he served his patients as best he could until he was 99 years old, and he never retired. He dedicated his life to helping people just like this surgeon, and the person who said it was never the doctor's fault for trying to help was right. it is wholly unethical to hold a doctor personally responsible for a failed surgery meant to save someone's life. It is an utter perversion of morality itself to equate that with an act of callous murder. I'm sorry, but this is an unsubscribe moment for me.

@MalmroseProjects

5 ай бұрын

the doctor in the film was performing the surgery while drunk, unambiguously it was his fault that the patient died. if you missed that detail i'd understand your perspective but performing a surgery while drunk is medical malpractice, and malpractice *is* an ethical failure on the part of doctors

@meltdownremix1996

5 ай бұрын

Yes, a doctor's duty is to serve their patients as best as they can, and sometimes unfortunate things happen and people's deaths aren't on their hands. That said, there are many, MANY doctors that have little interest in their patients, many doctors who are apathetic or even malicious towards them. If your grandfather was a wonderful doctor, that's great, and he's not who this movie is about. But medical malpractice is a very real thing that costs the lives of many patients who put their health on their hands, only to be betrayed. Shutting down the conversation of medical malpractice because it's not YOUR personal experience and pretending it doesn't happen ever is kind of sickening of you, ignoring those of us who have been at the mercy of a doctor that did not have our best interests at heart.

@fusionspace175

5 ай бұрын

@@MalmroseProjects Okay, and that justifies the harm done to his innocent family members how exactly? I don't think you grasp the actual morality of the situation because you're too obsessed with what the writer wants to say about the family unit. With a moral structure like that, I could not care less what he has to say about it. A drunken mistake is in no way equitable to what this monster is doing with his curse, which is cruel and intentional and done to the innocent.

@s_zriii5378

5 ай бұрын

no one is saying that your grandpa was evil. I'm sure your grandpa was a great guy, but not all of his colleagues were. yes, the role of the doctor is to try to save lives and help people, which your grandpa did. but the criticism isn't about doctors who fulfil their duty, but instead, doctors who have no regard for human lives. hope this helps.

@MalmroseProjects

5 ай бұрын

going in during a surgery while drunk is medical malpractice, which is akin to manslaughter. It's like driving while drunk. You're still responsible for someone's death. I don't see the harm done to the family as justified whatsoever! That's not the point of this video. The video isn't a defense of Martin's actions, it's an examination of the themes of the story of the film, and the story is about a curse that Martin believes to be the only form of justice for what he believes to be Steven's murder of his father. I hope you understand that I don't *agree* with Martin's actions, but it's important to understand his perspective on the matter if you want to make sense of what is going on in the film. The reality is, I don't *care* about the "actual morality of the situation" because curses aren't real, and the film is a work of fiction. I don't believe that films are required to portray all topics in a way that suggests that righteousness will always prevail. As far as my video is concerned, I'm looking at how a narrative communicates meaning, and in this case, the narrative communicates a meaning about Steven as an *individual* and as part of a family. The film isn't, on the whole, about the medical industry or surgeons in particular. But his role as a surgeon is important to the story, in that he has great power and responsibility where his actions can result in the death of another person. He chose actions which were reckless at best and criminally negligent at worst. If he were a police officer, the story could still function in a relatively similar way because the core of the story is about how Steven deals with the fact that he has been "cursed" as a form of what Martin *believes* to be justice. Personally, I think Martin is being a really horrible person, but Steven's actions towards his own family reflect Steven's own selfishness and stubborn refusal to admit that he had engaged in an act of medical malpractice. I respect that you have a lot of admiration for your grandfather. This film, and this video with it, are not about your grandfather. It's about Steven, a man who, through the course of the film, is revealed to be engaging in medical malpractice and who eventually begins holding his family hostage to avoid having to make a tough decision about who in his family should live or die. It's a disturbing situation, and the disturbing situation is used to communicate meaning. Does Steven deserve the curse? No! But films aren't always about people getting what they deserve, and some great stories can be told when exploring darker themes, which is what makes horror such a great genre. This film may just not be for you, or maybe horror isn't something you really get much out of, idk.