Glass Onion Spoilers - Foreshadowing and Among Us
I’ve seen a few posts dunking on glass onion for being “cringe” because of the Among Us scene and a few praising it for accurately reflecting the fact that this is all everyone was playing in 2020, but I haven’t seen anyone really talk about how brilliantly Among Us works as a foreshadowing/storytelling device.
On the surface - as the film itself points out! - the game is a neat little parallel of the island: one murderer hidden among us, with the objective being to find them out. But this comparison goes far deeper than the basic premise of the film.
Firstly, Benoit appears as the game’s imposter, and then, it is later revealed, is literally an imposter, arriving on the island uninvited under false pretences - one of the first major twists of the film spelled out to the audience in the opening act. And he isn’t alone - just as two imposters generally work together to deceive the other players, so Benoit and Helen work together to infiltrate the group.
BUT, and this is the bit that really drives me wild, the endgame format of Among Us perfectly reflects the endgame of the film. The way to win Among Us isn’t necessarily a case of killing everyone or surviving every round - the way to win is by convincing your fellow players to believe you, and to vote accordingly.
During the trial Andi loses because the imposter - the billionaire impersonating a genius - convinces the other players that she should be voted out; she is as effectively thrown out of the airlock as she is the business, and then literally killed to protect the [fortune of] the “crew.”
But, Andi was not the imposter, and so the game continues.
The imposter kills again, and when Miles confesses to causing the lights to go out, this is another excellent hint - only the imposter can sabotage the lights!
Then, with all the characters assembled much like an “Emergency Meeting,” we reach the climax of the film: Miles burns the napkin evidence, and immediately the ensemble is back to the voting booth as Helen, like her sister, fights for the players’ support in voting out the imposter. Any Among Us player will recognise the infuriating feeling when you literally just saw them vent for the love of god you were all there vote them OFF- and that frustration - of speaking the truth and not being believed - is evident in this scene.
But these players don’t care about the truth; they care about surviving (ie staying rich), and so they will vote off an innocent person to placate the shark. Which is absolutely not how you win the game.
Then, then, the game’s final round: the imposter has lost his tools, is revealed for the useless fraud he is, and it’s when he has nothing left to offer the other players that one more vote is held - the characters literally raise their hands as they pledge their support to Helen, in part to give the appearance of swearing in upon the witness stand, but also in part to give the visual of a literal vote... such as that of an Among Us emergency meeting vote.
And it’s when Miles is finally, rightfully ejected that at last, the game is won.
Among Us is a game of social engineering, of lying and convincing others of your lies to prolong your survival, deception, and the malleability of truth. Presenting this game in the opening of the film is more than a gimmick or scene-setter: it illustrates the social structures at the heart of the story.
TLDR: Among Us foreshadows the film’s premise, but also plot twists, character choices, and significantly the film’s resolution by way of group vote.
7K notes
·
View notes
One of my biggest pet peeves is the assumption that something has to be sad for it to be tragic.
I've always been a big believer of the 'Apollo has an awful love life'/'Apollo is plain unlucky with love' line of thinking but it does bother me that the general reasoning for that statement is given to the concept of 'Apollo is somehow undesireable and thus rejected' (Cassandra/Daphne/Marpessa) or 'his lovers die young and thus their love is unfulfilled' (Cyparissus/Hyacinthus/Coronis). I personally think that's a very unfortunate way of looking at things - not only because it neglects the many perfectly cordial entanglements and affairs Apollo has had, both mortal and divine - but because it presents a very shallow interpretation of the concepts of love and loss and how loss affects people.
Apollo can still grieve lovers that have a long, healthy life. The inherent tragedy of an immortal who knows his lovers and children will die and cannot stop it does not stop being tragic simply because those lovers and children live long, fulfilled lives. The inherent tragedy of loss does not stop being tragic simply because someone knows better than to mourn something that was always going to end.
What is tragic is not that Apollo loves and loses but that loss itself follows him. Apollo does not love with the distance of an immortal, he does not have affairs and then leaves never to listen to their prayers again. He does not have offspring and then abandon them to their trials only to appear when it is time to lead them to their destinies. He raises his young, he protects the mothers of his children, he blesses the households that have his favour and multiplies their flocks that they may never go hungry. He educates his sons, he adorns his daughters and even in wrath he is quick to come to his senses and regret the punishments he doles out.
Apollo loves. And like mortals, there will always be some part of him that wishes to protect the objects of his affections. Apollo, however, is also an emissary of Fate. He knows that the fate of all mortal things is death. He knows that to love a mortal is to accept that eventually he will have to bury them. There is no illusion of forever, there is no fantasy where he fights against the nature of living things and shields his beloveds from death. Apollo loves and because of that love, he also accepts.
And that, while beautiful, is also tragic.
84 notes
·
View notes