The way the Life Is Strange franchise portrays freedom is so, so, so, insane.
It's portrayed as the ultimate goal Chloe, Rachel, Karen, Sean, Steph, and possibly Alex strive for. Yet, it's also portrayed as a doomed ambition that you'll have to give up everything to reach.
Rachel loses her life in her search for freedom, and so does Chloe unless Max makes the ultimate payment of everything she and Chloe have ever held dear. Karen has to sacrifice her family to be free, and Steph has to sacrifice her bonds in Haven Springs. Alex has to sacrifice her dream of living a happy life in Haven with her brother to end up on the road, and Sean loses A: His life or B: His freedom or C: His brother or D: His safety in his pursuit of escaping into Mexico.
But despite what all is sacrificed, freedom is still portrayed as something beautiful. It's portrayed as Chloe and Max driving off into the sunset for more adventures. It's portrayed as Rachel and Chloe happily daydreaming about their future with no awareness of the horror yet to come. It's portrayed as Karen, Sean, and Daniel star-gazing and letting lanterns lose into the night sky. It's portrayed as Alex and Steph playing in a band in front of their adoring fans
But it's also portrayed as something destructive. It's the tornado that destroys a town so Chloe can leave. It's the wild fire that engulfs a town Rachel feels stuck in. It's the bullet wound that made Alex and/or Steph realize they didn't belong. It's the blood shed by a nine year old as Sean crosses over the border. It's the deep emotional scars Karen left behind when she up and left in the middle of the night.
Freedom is portrayed as this beautiful ultimate goal that ends up being a force of destruction in the lives of everyone who seeks it. It makes me think of this philosophical question: "Can you be truly free if you have something? And it makes me think of how the franchise answers "No. At least, you can't have everything." It's an interesting twist from how freedom is usually depicted in media, and the choice to make the downside of freedom destruction makes me brain go insane.
99 notes
·
View notes
"Max would never sacrifice the whole bay just to save Chloe! 🤬"
meanwhile, Max in Before the Storm:
1K notes
·
View notes
When people start to villainize Rachel Amber I just know they wanna be different soooo bad because the worst of Rachel’s mistakes in her eighteen years of life were direct results of being lied to and taken advantage of by the real villains.
I don’t know what it is that people don’t seem to think Frank Bowers was weird af for being in a relationship with a 18-year-old high schooler (because, yes, 18 is legal but still a teenager, thank you) when he was pushing 32. And mind you, if you didn’t play Before the Storm with your eyes closed, you know damn well he showed interest when she was only 15. Fuck that!
There isn’t an alternative reality in which this “relationship” can’t be described as a grown man taking advantage of a teenager’s tendency to be drawn to dangerous shit just to prove something, whether for herself or her jackass of a father. And as strong as Rachel’s i-don’t-give-a-fuck-about-people’s-opinions-about-me personality is, she was still impressionable and somewhat easily influenced like all goddamn teenagers in the world! It’s just how it is! That is easily proven by her claim of finding “someone who changed her life” right before she disappeared. The fact that she gave her bracelet to Frank makes this crystal clear; even if you ask for it on Before the Storm, it ends up on Frank’s wrist at some point. You want me to believe Frank Bowers was more important than Chloe Price to Rachel at any given point? He was not, but Rachel was blinded by her urge to pursue everything that’s prohibited.
Also don’t get me started on Mark Jefferson. His name on itself is self explanatory.
And because I’m forever in the denial phase of my grief for her, I convinced myself this is the last thing I ever saw of Rachel. Never the photos. Those didn’t happen.
575 notes
·
View notes