Sense8 - Netflix, Wachowskis, and social issue sci-fi

Is 11 the one with the orchestra? If so I agree with peacedog. Other than that part I loved the show.

Yeah the orchestra bit was the only bit that felt gratuitous to me. But it was real damn gratuitous.

Wolfgang is the worst. Well, at least his story line is (how he interacts with the other characters is useful at least).

LOL, that’s funny, it didn’t even register with me as particularly OTT, in fact it I found it emotionally moving.

Again, the show is large and over the top generally, and it touches on big topics - birth and life is a big topic, and the good stuff doesn’t come without the messy stuff. shrugs

I assume he’s referring to the orgy scene.

I wasn’t talking about the violence.

I was talking about the footage that interspersed that episodes “shared wonder” vignette, when Riley was at the concert. That was awful and served no purpose.

My response to that is #64 above.

Which has made me consider: are my standards too low and will I accept any old crap?

No, I don’t think so - I mean, for example, I’d call the mass dance/orgy scene in the second or third Matrix movie (can’t remember which, I’ve blissfully forgotten both) horribly self-indulgent and gratuitous.

But no, nothing in ep 11 seemed gratuitous in that way to me, including the birthing stuff.

Oh well, horses for courses :)

It did serve a purpose. The memory of those other births is what pushed Riley over the edge. It just was a bit over the top.

Well, you had to have all the birth scenes for that purpose. Riley’s memory triggers the others’ memories, and their memories feed back to her, causing her breakdown.

And you had to have it in the context of a sublime human product like the Beethoven piano concerto.

Perhaps the birth scenes didn’t need to be so … graphic? But I think part of the point was the juxtaposition of the sublimity of human potential with its rather icky roots - the intention was to make you feel disgust and ecstasy at the same time.

My only complaint would be that with sex, there’s the same potential juxtaposition of the sublime and the ridiculous/disgusting, but the Wachowskis tend to avoid that. From the inside sex is utterly sublime, a symphony of the most subtle, unnameable feelings, but from the outside, under the unforgiving glare of fluorescent lights (as it were) sex can also look like a rather disgusting and embarrassing animal act (think of when you see animals rutting and you see the whites of their eyes).

But the Wachowskis tend to glamorize the sex act so it’s a writhing mass of bronzed, oiled supermodels at just the right angle so you see their best bits. Which is cool and all, but doesn’t reach the same heights of truth-telling that the juxtaposition of the sublime symphony and the gross birthing stuff does.

Nice post. Just wanted to point out that the romantic (and onwards) use or sublime in aesthetics is that which is grotesque and beautiful at the same time, or that that is repulsive and yet attractive. Sublimity already implies juxtaposition…

/pedantic rant

I have never heard, nor can I find anything to back that one up, Juan - Are you sure? While English is my second language, I do think I have a decent grasp on its vocabulary, and I’ve never heard that sublime implies juxtaposition before. Its existence in Danish (Sublimt) contains no such meanings either.

The scene was a bit too long, imo.

Wikipedia Sublime (philosophy) - Wikipedia

It’s an aesthetics/philosophy term, with the juxtaposition added in the romantic period. The term mutated from there, but most times its used in an aesthetic context still implies some sort of juxtaposition between extremes of experience.

Obviously, the common language meaning of sublime does not indeed necessarily imply juxtaposition, as you point out, only it’s use as a philosophical term. I just mentioned it because gurugeorge’s clearly was talking about this aesthetic of juxtaposition, and using the word several times without realising it can mean exactly what he was talking about.

I just though, knowing gurugeorge a little, that he might enjoy knowing this :)

Thanks Juan - I like words, so I appreciate your taking the time to explain this.

I do, although in my stock of haphazardly-built pseudo-knowledge, the romantic concept of the sublime was more to do with the juxtaposition of the terrifying with the beautiful, usually in scenes of nature, but also mythological, religious, etc.

In my Scottish home town of Kirkcaldy, we were lucky to have a rather fine and well-stocked library/art gallery endowed by the Carnegies (who originally hailed from Kirkcaldy, as did Adam Smith - a fact of which I am irrationally proud :) ), in the art gallery there were a couple of absolutely gigantic paintings by John Martin. As a small child, those paintings really got me into art - from there I moved to less “loud” art, and my interest spread and diversified :)

That was a great post, thanks gurugeorge.

I agree, and I absolutely get the purpose of the scene. I just found it unpleasant, which I’m sure was perfectly in line with the authors’ intent. But I’ve been in the maternity ward. I don’t particularly feel a need to relive it in my entertainment.

Wow, originals? I would love to see those.

So I guess I should watch this series then… (came here to see what it was all about, saw your post and got sidetracked).

Say what? I didn’t write that!

Oh wow, I have no idea what happened.was obviously quoting gurugeorge here…

Was it that bad lol