pastaparty1983 - Tumblr blog

pastaparty1983 · 3 days ago

Text

So… does byler subtext exist?

I am ridiculously excited to get to the subtext chapter in my screenwriting craft book, Story by Robert McKee. Robert you are thrilling me here!

I’ve always had a soft spot for subtext, and I think you’ll soon see why. This post was galvanized by a pro-mileven comment I recently saw while celebrating the beauty of the s5 teaser (that neon WSQK sign illuminating the night? Divine.)

The pro-mileven comment in question:

Good stories do have subtext, but good critical thinking skills are still needed to understand which are real and which you’re just thinking or hoping are there. These skills are also needed to understand when characters do something so obviously black and white that there’s no deep subtext needed to understand it. These skills take time, especially for younger people, but falling down the rabbit hole of “Byler evidence” or “Mike is queer” evidence isn’t honing those skills, it’s drowning them. I guess the question you'll need to answer is when Mike & El are still a couple in season 5, were all your analyses wrong?

Now, since I joined in 2022, a big part of my fandom experience has been navigating the different ways people use language. I love language. I'm fascinated by it. And never since art school have I encountered so many different ways people try to communicate their ideas. It's why mileven fans fascinate me so much! I used to root for Mike and El, and I think we were supposed to. And there is some truth in this commenter's statement: good stories do have subtext, and yes, critical thinking is often needed to understand it. Also, yes, Mike and El being a couple in s5 is likely, but it does not mean byler won't happen.

But most prominently, their use of language reveals a subtext: their dogmatic belief that their own understanding of the show is infallible. This one intrigues me most, because it tells us more about mileven fans than it does about the show itself. Are they really so certain of the show's outcome?

I want to look at this bit:

"Skills are needed to understand when characters do something so black and white that there's no deep subtext needed to understand it."

My main man Robbie McKee is shaking his head right now. He ain't got time for nonsense like this, because:

1 - Subtext does not exist to help the viewer 'understand' a surface action that is otherwise nonsensical. It is not a communication aid - rather, it is an aspect of cinematic language that adds to the meaning of the story.

2 - (and Robert is very adamant on this one) There is always, ALWAYS, subtext. The only time there might not be intentional subtext is at the very end, when characters have been 'taken to the limit of human experience' and the writer has exposed the true meaning of the story - but even then, a deeper symbolic meaning may be interpreted.

The reason for this is simple:

Stories are metaphors for life, and life is full of subtext.

Those who don't agree are simply unaware of the subtext that exists all around us constantly, both intentional and unintentional. In fact, its a reason for so much miscommunication in life - which is a major theme of Stranger Things. There's even subtext for why I'm creating this post - maybe you can figure out what it is as you read :)

Now, as we go on, I'll be quoting direct passages from Robert McKee's wonderful book on screenwriting, Story. They'll be in italics and quotations, but bear in mind this book was written in the 90s so any wording should be taken as contextually appropriate. For example, Rob substitutes ‘he’ for ‘any gender’ when referring to the writer, but he explains why he does so in a foreword. Spoiler: it’s for ease. Being economical is typical Robert - and you'll see why later!)

Let’s crack on!

‘Just as a personality structure can be disclosed through psychoanalysis, the shape of a scene’s inner life can be uncovered through a similar inquiry. If we ask the right questions, a scene that speeds past in the reading and hides its flaws brakes into ultra-slow motion, opens up, and reveals its secrets.’

PAUSE.

Already, Robert is letting us know that it’s great and good and wonderful and important to analyse your media if indeed you are interested in the craft of storytelling. He probably didn’t think he had to write that one down for us, but sorry Rob, the internet can influence a bitch sometimes.

I mean...

Many pro-milevens are happy to explain away any byler fan as someone who just has a prior agenda to see a gay romance on screen at any cost, which is not only wildly presumptuous but also shows a complete lack of curiosity.

And so few people understand the concept of Mike and Will's romance being latent. That it has future potential, that it is coming into being - and therefore any hints and clues are just that: hints and clues that could support a later reveal, not incontrovertible signs that are supposed to be THE things that show an audience byler is already happening. And some bylers do indeed speak like Mike and Will is inevitable, but honestly, Stranger Things is not a completed work, so anyone who says they know how it will end...

Well. What would Robert think of that? His advice to writers is as follows:

'The audience is not only amazingly sensitive, but as it settles into a darkened theatre its collective IQ jumps 25 points. When you go to the movies, don't you often feel like you're more intelligent than what you're watching? That you know what characters are going to do before they do it? That you see the ending coming long before it arrives? The audience is not only smart, its smarter than most films, and its all a writer can do, using every bit of craft he's mastered, to keep ahead of the sharp perceptions of a focused audience.'

In short, what screenwriter wants their audience to know how their story will end?

And why should you, as a viewer, even want to know?

It's a violation of the story ritual; the pleasure of sitting in 'a darkened room' and watching something play out from beginning to end. I think its worthwhile, in fandom, examining exactly why fans on both sides might need so desperately to speak for Stranger Things when it hasn't finished speaking for itself.

Looking to see where the story might go, however, is part of the joy of being a viewer. The writer wants to keep you hooked; they do everything to peak your curiosity.

But takes like this one confuse the heck outta me:

Do you find them confusing? Do they have you scratching your head, wondering what exactly it is that this person is railing against? Is it subtext itself? Do they think symbolism and subtext truly doesn't exist, that art really is shallow?

That's sad. Clearly my man Robert over here is just a joke to them.

But maybe they simply deny anything that is used as a hint towards byler, for whatever reason. I'm more interested in that, so let's have a closer look.

There's lots to unpack here!

New language! 'Supertext'.

The One Way sign means one thing only

Who Mike loves has been clearly shown both in action and dialogue

First, 'supertext.'

Chill out Officer Callahan, it could be a real term. Let me just consult Robert McKee's book while I loudly sing ‘supertext’ to the tune of 80s funk classic Super Freak by Rick James.

("That girl’s a super text, she’s pretty textyyyyyyy")

Ok, I'm being facetious; they clearly mean the 'text', as opposed to the 'subtext'. I’m all for inventing new prefixes and suffixes, but I just think that if you're going to discuss the craft of writing, especially in such condescending terms, you should probably use the right words.

So, what's the text?

‘Text means the sensory surface of a work of art. In film, it’s the images onscreen and the soundtrack of dialogue, music, and sound effects. What we see. What we hear. What people say. What people do.

'But subtext is the life under the surface - thoughts and feelings both known and unknown, hidden by behaviour.

Nothing is what it seems. An old Hollywood expression goes: If the scene is about what the scene is about, you’re in deep shit.'

Oh my god.

Does Robert even know how hot and bothered I am right now? My mind is 95% Mike Wheeler and 5% the pressing need to plunge my head into a bucket of ice-cold water.

Second point of contention: 'The One Way sign is just a One Way sign.'

Knowing what we now know about scenes never being what they appear, that doesn't seem very likely. But maybe that commenter thinks other subtext exists, but that the sign itself is not one of them.

Is the sign even subtext?

The text is that Mike is in his bedroom, late for school and needing to get dressed because Nancy is waiting for him.

The subtext is that Nancy and Mike have a fraught relationship, and that Mike's going through a difficult period in his life, signified by the state of his room, his lack of care for personal hygiene (wearing yesterday's clothes), and his tardiness. Oh, and that the letter from El has him preoccupied in a way that for some inexplicable reason contributes to his overall disorganisation and foul mood.

Some people may disagree with this subtext. They may say this understanding is just subjective, that Mike is just a teenage boy so of course he's messy, and it means nothing.

But nothing ever means nothing in a story, because all artists have is subjectivity. Emotion, implication and connotation is their very currency. As Robert McKee's book will show us later, facts and objectivity have no place in a story. Instead, writers work with signifiers that they believe their audience will understand, able to infer reasonable meaning about what is going on.

The other option is bad exposition: telling an audience exactly what is happening in a way that feels contrived. That's bad storytelling; lazy, easy, and undisciplined.

It's reasonable to infer that the state of Mike's bedroom tells us something about him, because not every teenager in this show has a messy bedroom. But Mike does.

Why?

And why does he have that One Way sign on his wall?

I mean, sure, it could just have been a gift or something cool he saw, but it also appears right where Mike's head just was when he bends down, drawing momentary focus to it, and it forms a tongue-in-cheek metaphor for diving straight into the closet. So if that's a coincidence, it's a hilarious one. I would also say this is symbolism rather than subtext.

'Symbolism is very compelling. Like images in our dreams, it invades the unconscious mind and touches us deeply - as long as we're unaware of its presence. If, in a heavy-handed way, we label images as 'symbolic', their effect is destroyed. But if they are slipped quietly, gradually, and unassumingly into the telling, they move us profoundly.'

Don't forget that Robert is speaking to people who want to write screenplays. If you want to write subtext and symbolism, he says, you must be subtle. This alone validates the One Way's sign's potential importance as a symbol of Mike's queerness, despite only being on screen for milliseconds. Perhaps the fact it's only seen briefly is part of its subliminal power.

Another example of symbolic imagery in the show could be El hanging cruciform in Vecna's hellish red lair and the field of flowers dying at the end of s4; things that enrich the telling rather than carry it.

Now for the trickiest and most prevalent take against byler: 'Who Mike loves has been shown in both action and dialogue.'

Let's get into the weeds of what subtext is. Here's a worthy scene to analyse.

Robert McKee says...

‘Often a first draft [of a scene] falls flat or feels forced… the problem won’t be in the scene’s activity, but in its action; not in how characters are talking or behaving on the surface, but in what they’re doing behind their masks.’

‘Nothing is what it seems. This principle calls for the screenwriter’s constant awareness of the duplicity of life, his recognition that everything exists on at least two levels, and that, therefore, he must write a simultaneous duality: first, he must create a verbal description of the sensory surface of life… second, he must create the inner world of conscious and unconscious desire, action and reaction. As in reality, so in fiction: the writer must veil the truth with a living mask, the actual thoughts and feelings of characters behind what they're saying and doing.'

It's time to talk about facts vs. truth, baby.

First, here's some of Robert McKee's Essentials of Being a Good Fiction Writer.

The love of duality - a feel for life’s hidden contradictions and a healthy suspicion that things are not as they seem The love of uniqueness - the thrill of audacity and a stone-faced calm when it is met by ridicule The love of beauty - an innate sense that treasures good writing, hates bad writing, and knows the difference.

Construct a story in a way no one has ever dreamed, says Robert, including fresh insights into society and human nature coupled with in-depth knowledge of your characters and their world.

In-depth knowledge of your characters and their world.

Sorry to interrupt Robert, but I think I just heard someone say that the Duffers genuinely forgot the date of Will Byers’ birthday despite it being included in the text of the show - in dialogue during a major climactic moment, no less - and that the date of said birthday just coincidentally happened to also be the very same day that Mike Wheeler arrived in Lenora to celebrate spring break, after which a season’s worth of chaos ensued, but that the writers just forgot all of this, or didn’t once think to check. 🎉 🥳 🎁

But sorry Robert, please continue, by telling us what makes a bad fiction writer.

'The writer of spectacle mistakes kinesis for entertainment, creating an assault on the senses that bears no resemblance to life whatsoever.

Meanwhile the portraiture writer believes that the more precise his observation of day-to-day facts, the more truth he tells. But because this writer sees only what is visible and factual, he is blind to the truth of life. Fact, no matter how minutely observed, is neutral. It is truth with a small ‘t’. Big ‘T’ Truth is located behind, beyond, inside, and below the surface of things, and cannot be directly observed.

The weakest possible excuse to include something in a story is ‘but it actually happened!’ Everything imaginable happens. Indeed, unimaginable things happen. Mere occurrence brings us nowhere near the truth. What happens is fact, not truth. Truth is what [the writer] thinks about what happens.’

So.

It kind of looks like all those arguments about Mike and Will ending up together being unrealistic are moot, doesn't it? Not because the show is about supernatural monsters and a girl who flings stuff in the air with her mind, though. Emotional groundedness is still important, even in fantastical sci-fi.

Stranger Things, however it turns out, will be the Duffers’ views on life and the world, dramatized. If the Duffers want to express a view of the world that includes a teenage gay romance in smalltown 80s America, then they will find a way to do that. What people are saying when they say that byler is 'unrealistic' is that 'The Duffers would never want to tell that story.'

To which I say... really, bro? That's the impression you're getting?

So far, I don’t find the Duffs to be overly concerned with making something just to appease a certain subset of conservative audience members, do you? If so, would they really have chosen to make a show with overt anti-conformity, anti-authority themes that dramatizes a real and declassified US government program involving illegal human experimentation? Seems kind of like asking for trouble if you want plain sailing, don’t you think?

But what about Mike's actual actions and words? He said he loved El NINE TIMES!!!! AND COUNTING!!!!!!!!

Welp, looks like we've got to look at the meaning of dialogue. Robert, help me out.

‘Text means the sensory surface of a work of art. In film, it’s the images onscreen and the soundtrack of dialogue, music, and sound effects.

Dialogue is not conversation. Eavesdrop on any coffee shop conversation and you’ll realise that you’d never put that slush onscreen. Real conversation is full of awkward pauses and poor word choices, while dialogue requires compression and economy. It must say the maximum in the fewest possible words.’

This makes Stranger Things very interesting, because the conversations themselves are often self-referential, with the narrative acknowledging how the things people say are often different to what they mean. Do you remember when Robert said this:

'An old Hollywood expression goes: If the scene is about what the scene is about, you’re in deep shit.'

‘This means writing on the nose; writing dialogue and activity in which a character’s deepest thoughts and feelings are expressed by what the character says and does, a.k.a writing the subtext into the text.’

I love that he said ‘on the nose’ - who else said that in Stranger Things?

Our boy Will :)

Oh, Will is well aware of subtext and implication. Did we really think that, as a young gay boy in small town America, he wouldn't be well-versed in what things might mean?

He even downplays the implication he knows his painting holds, by drawing Mike's attention to the heart, not away from it, yet changing the meaning of that heart into something else. Will is a master at hiding in plain sight.

Now for an example of some bad dialogue with no subtext.

Robert McKee considers the following to be bad, 'on the nose' screenwriting:

‘Two attractive people sit opposite each other at a candlelit table, the light glinting off the crystal wine glasses and the dewy eyes of the lovers. Soft breezes billow the curtains. A Chopin nocturne plays in the background. The lovers reach across the table, touch hands, look longingly in each others’ eyes, say ‘I love you, I love you’ … and actually mean it.

'This is an un-actable scene and will die like a rat in the road.’

Lmaooooooooo Robert!!

Ok, hackles might be raised now, because I’m sure there’s plenty who want a love confession between Mike and Will where they tell each other their truth. But...

'Actors are not marionettes to mime gestures and mouth words. They’re artists who create with material from the subtext, not the text. An actor brings a character to life from the inside out, from the unspoken, even unconscious thoughts and feelings out to a surface of behaviour.

The candlelit dinner scene is un-actable because it has no inner life, no subtext. It’s un-actable because there’s nothing to act. Self-explanatory dialogue convinces no-one.'

This is what is so interesting about Mike's monologue. Do some fans really believe what he is saying? Are they really happy with the lighting, visuals, mood, tone, music for such a grand - as they think - declaration of love?

Eh, maybe not, but this isn't as important to them as words. For some reason that is beyond me, they think words are superior to other cinematic language, like mood:

Listen, Mike's insecurity is a perfectly valid artistic reason to be unable to say 'I love you'. In fact, it is likely a huge part of his entire struggle - I'm sure we'll return to the Wheeler Family Values in s5.

But the Duffers just had to go and ruin mileven, didn't they, by 'resolving' this storyline with an entire season to go.

If Mike's monologue is genuine, it means they've done that big no-no: they've written the subtext into the text and created an un-actable scene. No wonder people said poor Finn did a terrible job. It also means this scene is 'the end of the line' for Mike and El's romantic arc, making it a subplot that resolved itself long before the story is over.

But we can reasonably infer that Mike and El as a romantic pair will indeed be a part of s5. Obviously they will not just be happily fighting evil side by side, because - and Robert says this in his book - that would be boring as fuck.

Ok, he doesn't actually say boring as fuck.

But he does say that such fantasy would be boring. 'Stories are not daydreams', he says. Mike and El with zero conflict and a perfect relationship throughout s5 is, indeed, a daydream. And a boring one at that. They will have a storyline in s5, and there will be conflict. Therefore this scene is not a resolution, and must contain subtext.

Another big reason why there is clearly more at play here is because these shots form a part of the text:

Will is one thing, but Jon, bro? Get the fuck outta here if this is just a romantic Mike and El moment! Makes no god damn sense.

Some people think the Duffers are totally inept and somehow accidentally included some meaningless shots in the climax of this arc. Some people really think that. I despair for art itself.

But others think 'It's just to let you know that Will is still sad that Mike doesn't love him'.

Let's combine it with this take for maximum impact:

'Mike saying his life started the day he found El in the woods has nothing to do with Will, because it was the day after Will went missing.'

Robert has something to say about this, too:

‘Designing story tests the maturity and insight of the writer, his knowledge of society, nature, and the human heart. Wittingly or unwittingly, all stories faithfully mirror their maker, exposing his humanity… or lack of it.’

Ouch!

Stranger Things is unfinished. Therefore, by theorising, we are writing our own version of what we think this story will be. Anyone who writes Will out of this narrative reveals their humanity - or lack of it.

Now, Robert elaborates on the subtext-free, un-actable dinner scene.

‘Why have this couple gone out of their way to create this romantic scene? What’s with the candlelight, soft music, billowing curtains? Why don’t they just take their pasta to the TV like normal people? What’s wrong with this relationship?’

Because isn’t that life? When do the candles come out? When everything’s fine? No. When everything’s fine, we take our pasta to the TV like normal people.

So from this insight, the actor will create a subtext. And when we watch, we think: He says he loves her and maybe he does, but look, he’s scared he’s losing her. He’s desperate.'

But wait... how does a writer reveal character to an audience, if we cannot trust their words?

'The character must be tested by an ultimate event, a pressure-filled choice and resulting action.’

This is called a dilemma: either the choice between two good things when they can only have one, or a choice between two bad things where they must choose the lesser of two evils.

'Human nature dictates that each of us will always choose the ‘good’ or the ‘right’ as we perceive it. If a character has an easy choice, where the ‘right’ thing to do is clear, the audience will know in advance what he will choose.'

And no screenwriter wants their audience to be ahead of the game.

Clearly this is a 'lesser of two evils' moment for Mike. But what higher stakes could there be than El's life? What makes this a dilemma at all? Shouldn't the choice be easy, Mike?

So why did you hesitate?

Maybe Mike's choice was a little more complex than his own vulnerability vs. El's life, as mileven fans believe, hmm?

So what do you think Mike’s actual choice is?

Did he see through Will’s veiled confession, and is now choosing to lie to both El and Will, pretending he loves El to save her life while accepting he will hurt Will in the process?

Or is he still in the dark about Will's feelings, and is lamenting the loss of being able to tell Will he loves him, sacrificing that in order to save El instead - the one in more dire need?

I'm not even sure we're supposed to know yet. It's all a big cliffhanger mystery, left unresolved to keep us on our toes going into the final season. But no matter which theory you believe, it's clear that any lie Mike told was a white one - a lie with good intentions.

'Subtext doesn't make people insincere. It’s a common sense recognition that we all wear a public mask. We say and do what we feel we should, while we think and feel something else altogether. As we must. We realise we can’t go around saying and doing what we’re actually thinking and feeling.'

Robert acknowledges that humans typically choose not to express how they truly feel, sometimes out of self-preservation - especially the things that we fear society might not accept - but usually because so few of us truly even know ourselves.

Either way, Mike is ever the paladin. He sacrifices, in some way, himself - always.

Now, if you’ve got the energy, here’s a final exercise. I’m so excited about this, and I hope you’ll stay for this last piece.

In Story, Robert McKee includes a method of analysis to break scenes apart and make them give up their subtextual secrets. He also shows you how to write a love scene that is filled with subtext, to contrast that monologue un-actable candlelit dinner.

‘Picture two people changing the tire on a car. It’s a virtual textbook on how to change a flat. All dialogue is about wrenches, spanners and jacks.

“Hand me that, would ya?” “Watch out.” “Don’t get dirty.” “Let me just… whoops.”

Beneath the text, the actors will interpret the real action of the scene, so leave room for them to bring romance to life wholly from the inside. As their eyes meet and sparks fly, we’ll know what’s happening because it’s in the unspoken thoughts and emotions of the actors. As we see through the surface, we’ll lean back and smile:

‘Look what happened. They’re not just changing the tire on a car. He thinks she’s hot and she knows it. Boy has met girl.’

Oof! Boy meets girl, a tale as old as time. But what about boy meets boy, hmm? Could two boys lock eyes while changing a tire?

Or, perhaps, while packing to escape the military?

Are locked eyes and flying sparks exclusive to heterosexual people?

I don’t think so.

So, to finish, we’re going to do Robert’s subtext analysis on the infamous Dear Billy heart to heart.

Step 1: Define conflict.

Who drives the scene, motivates it, makes it happen? I think it’s Mike. He comes to Will’s room. Therefore we must ask:

What’s the subtext of Mike’s actions here? What does he want?

Desire is always the key, or as it’s called by actors, the scene objective.

So what does Mike want? To reconcile with Will?

Now look at which forces of antagonism are blocking Mike’s desire. Is it the military, come to capture everyone?

Nope, no military are here yet.

The force of antagonism is, instead, Will.

How interesting. This lil guy, with his utter surprise that Mike is even talking to him?

An antagonistic force isn't always a villain - instead, just the force that prevents a protagonist getting what they want.

What does Will want at the start of this scene?

To keep packing? On the surface, perhaps - in the text. But the subtext of that is… what? To find out, we must find the opening value of the scene. What Will wants should be in direct opposition to what Mike wants.

Step 2: Find the opening value of the scene.

If anyone saw my previous post about the potential values of Stranger Things, I theorised they are Truth/Lies or Freedom/Slavery. But what’s the value at stake here in this scene specifically, when Mike enters Will’s room?

I think it’s Self Preservation/Openness, or Peace/Conflict - because Mike and Will have been arguing. The protagonist who actively drives the scene (Mike) is in the negative of this value; he has been surly and dishonest with Will, and they have unresolved conflict after their Rink-O-Mania fight.

So what does Will want, in direct contrast to Mike?

To keep the peace. To protect himself. To not let Mike in. He isn’t ready.

(An alternative view would be that Mike himself is also his own antagonist. You could do this exercise by viewing Mike as battling against himself, too.)

Step 3: break the scene into beats

A beat is an exchange of behaviour between characters, action -> reaction. Look at what they are literally doing, and also what they are actually doing beneath the surface with emotion attached to it. Name this subtextual action with an active phrase, such as ‘pleading’.

Action -> reaction.

Mike -> Will.

Text and subtext.

And keep in mind the value of peace vs. conflict.

Beat 1:

Mike comes into Will’s room, readying to leave.

Mike’s subtextual action: approaching Will.

Will: ‘Packed already?’

Will’s subtextual reaction: diffusing potential tension with small talk.

Mike: ‘I never really unpacked’. Mike sits down on Will’s bed.

Mike’s subtextual action: making himself at home + a further hidden symbolic subtext within the dialogue that suggests he is keeping secrets.

Will keeps packing, facing away from Mike.

Will’s subtextual reaction: refusing to further acknowledge him.

Beat 2:

Mike thanks Will for giving him a reality check.

Mike’s action: trying to get Will’s attention.

Will - ‘I didn’t say it.’

Will’s reaction: playfully teasing.

Mike - ‘You didn’t have to.’

Mike’s action: reciprocating the teasing.

Will smiles and turns away, speechless.

Will’s reaction: protecting himself.

Mike smiles at Will’s turned head, then shakes himself.

Mike’s action: redirecting his tactics.

Beat 3:

Mike: ‘Hey also, erm, about the other day...’

Mike’s action: apologizing.

Will: ‘You don’t have to say anything…’

Will’s reaction: resisting.

Mike: 'No, no, you didn’t do anything…'

Mike’s action: insisting.

Will turns to him in surprise.

Will’s reaction: paying attention.

Beat 4:

Mike starts explaining himself and how he has felt over their time apart.

Mike’s action: humbling himself.

Will sits and listens.

Will’s reaction: listening.

Mike tells Will that he sets him apart from their other friends.

Mike’s action: confessing.

Will keeps listening.

Will’s reaction: considering him.

Mike asks if he is making any sense.

Mike’s action: wanting to be understood.

Will nods.

Will’s reaction: understanding him.

Beat 5:

Mike: ‘I have no idea what’s going to happen next.’ Glances away and back.

Mike’s action: making himself vulnerable.

Will listens still.

Will’s reaction: anticipating.

Mike asks Will if they can be a team, friends once again.

Mike’s action: supplicating/pleading.

Will nods.

Will’s reaction: yielding.

Mike pauses, then says that he wants to be best friends again.

Mike’s action: showing Will that he listens to him.

Will: ‘Cool.’

Will’s reaction: making himself vulnerable.

Mike smirks and repeats Will’s ‘Cool’.

Mike’s action: solidifying his reconnection with Will.

Well well well.

Do you remember what we said about the value of the scene being Conflict/Peace or Self-Preservation/Openness? What value did we start on?

Negative.

And what value are we ending on?

Positive. It looks like Mike got his desire: he reconciled with Will. No wonder the boy looks so smug.

But what of Will, as the antagonist here? He did not get his way: to keep protecting himself from Mike.

If we look at the overall pattern of action -> reaction in this scene, the theme is of Mike approaching and Will resisting, over and over again until finally, Will succumbs. Maybe what Will wanted for himself was not something that would actually have benefitted him in the long run. As so often, Will is his own worst enemy.

But this scene is a favourite for a reason - there is more than one layer of subtext here.

We have the text of what Mike and Will are saying and doing - coming into a bedroom, packing, having a conversation.

We have the context: They've been fighting. There's tension. El is missing, and it is the first time in many months that Mike and Will have been properly alone. What will happen?

We have dramatic irony: the audience knows Will is gay and attracted to Mike, but Mike doesn't. You might reasonably infer a subtext that Will both enjoys and is self-conscious about Mike looking at his body. The camera is certainly not shy about including Will's ass prominently in frame, showing us exactly what Mike can see.

And now we have the first subtext: Mike and Will don't need words to understand each other. And isn’t it fascinating that, despite Will being on his knees, it is Mike, in the end, who is the one pleading?

But look! Good friends can understand each other without words, too. It might not mean anything!

But remember - the good writer must stay two steps ahead. And because good stories well told are not just about the what, they are about the how... they use elements of both the text and subtext together to create yet another layer of meaning that rises slowly to the surface.

That meaning? Tentative romantic interest.

We have a tender melody: 'On the Bus.'

We have a slow tempo and warm lighting, creating comfort and safety.

We have camerawork that pans in slowly, creating a mood of intimacy and curiosity and asking us to look closely at their faces and question their inner thoughts.

We have the acting itself: facial expressions and body language that convey a mood of tentative physical interest and flirtation.

What would Robert say?

As their eyes meet and sparks fly, we know what’s happening because it’s in the unspoken thoughts and emotions of the actors. As we see through the surface, we’ll lean back and smile: ‘Look what happened. They’re not just packing, or talking about their friendship. He thinks he’s hot, and he knows it.'

Listen, there may well be plenty of people who genuinely don't see this as flirtatious for whatever reason. Seeing as Stranger Things is unfinished, it doesn't really matter. No one should rob those viewers of the pleasure of having their own insights while watching the rest of the story themselves. We all came to byler at our own pace.

But there will also be people who deny this could be romantic for other reasons. They might say:

'Mike wouldn't be flirting with Will, because he's not gay / in love with Eleven / doesn't fancy Will.'

There are two approaches to life: adapt new data into your understanding and work from there, whether you like it or not, or alter new data to fit your existing worldview. It doesn't matter that you don't think Mike is gay, or that he'd never like Will, or he still loves Eleven, because a good storyteller parses out exposition little by little, and we are being shown, not only in subtext but in the text, that Mike Wheeler is smiling flirtatiously at Will Byers - so now what?

Well, they might say:

2. 'This isn't flirting, he is just smiling at Will.'

Give me a break. This is not a smile. This is a smirk.

But, what is the thing we must acknowledge? Art is subjective. And because Stranger Things is still unfinished, both byler and mileven are reasonably inferred outcomes right now. You could make a case for them both.

The question instead becomes: do you think the Duffers are writing a good story, well told?

Have the Duffers chosen to write bad exposition, un-actable scenes with no subtext and a simpler plot? Have they brushed off their own mistakes and neglected to know their characters inside out?

Or do they instead have a mastery of their craft, a comprehensive understanding of their characters that goes beyond anything the audience can yet imagine, and the ability to lay depths of subtextual groundwork and show empathy for all kinds of characters?

I've seen milevens openly say that the editing in the monologue was shoddy and that the epilogue of s4 should be redone, but that they are happy to accept what they even they see as a badly written story as long as it's the outcome they want.

Me? Not so much. Remember what Robert said?

The love of beauty - an innate sense that treasures good writing, hates bad writing, and knows the difference.

I'm a byler fan because all signs, from my man Robert McKee and beyond, point to byler being the better story - not just in content or theme, but in craft.

Not just a good story - a good story, well told.

252 notes · View notes