jonathan and will bickering = healthy siblingism = downfall of jonathan parentification = jonathan feels comfortable to prioritize himself = NYU LONNIE HES WANTED TO GO TO NYU SINCE HE WAS SIX YEARS OLD
Sorry if this has already been discussed but its so interesting to me how lucas is seen and portrayed through the lense of the fandom. It feels like in a lot of fandom works he either has to be the antagonist or the "perfect" one and he isn't allowed to be complex, fleshed out or built upon like other characters. In some works he's either the one who's homophobic, says something wrong/hurtful or he's antagonized for his plotline and wanting to conform (for good reason) in s4. In others he's max's "perfect boyfriend", a supporting character for mike who's just there to give advice, or just a character who's there to comfort and build up others in general. These choices definitely reflect the duffers writing of lucas but it's interesting that in so many fanworks that can build upon what's given in canon and expand on existing characters he's left so flat and is either the person who does something wrong or the person that can do no wrong ever and in both cases it's usually used to uplift a different character in some way.
Despite the sub-fandom's loud proclamations of all encompassing love for Stranger Things, analyses and fanfiction highlight this love's true limit. The limit being characterization outside of facilitating or validating the desired plot point. These characters frequently end up being depicted as shallow tools for individual fantasies.
Bylr, mainly Mike, is the center of many of these fantasies. You see this in how people write Max as Mike's therapist, treating her as an expository device for Mike's trauma. You see this in how people write Will as Mike's doormat, demurely soiled by Mike's foul behavior and happy to serve again. And, you see this in how people write Lucas as the malleable everyman.
On the one hand, this behavior is a reflection of the Duffers writing. Lucas is usually kept in the periphery, supporting but not centered. The writers focus on Lucas as an individual more during his S4 conformity plot line. The issue is that his character development is due to external force rather than introspection. Instead of fleshing out Lucas' understanding of the world, the writers reiterate what we already know about Lucas. Outside of basketball, there's no new information presented about his life, his interests, his family, or himself.
What we do get is a one liner with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, a reaffirmation of his love for Max, and a violently temporary resolution to the multi-functional Jason v. Hellfire conflict. Rather than address race, the Duffers prioritize geekdom. While it maintains the show's "sensibilities," the Duffers' cowardice proves their unwillingness to challenge the status quo, whether that be creating uncomfortable situations amongst the ensemble or compelling the audience to question their own assumptions about Lucas. Of which, they have many.
On the other hand, it's not like Lucas himself is uninteresting. He's a meta-textual underdog, once reviled by the audience for being skeptical of the suspicious little white girl. Lucas was known as the "aggressive" one, despite his character's S1 motivations being laid out clearly, not breaking limbs or making eyes bleed, or getting into more than one physical fight. When people reappraised the show after S4, Lucas (especially Caleb) garnered greater appreciation. How much of that being genuine is another topic, relating to performance in fandom and online spaces.
Outside of his valuable contributions to the group, Lucas has numerous qualities that make him an excellent brother, friend, and boyfriend. He's got a keen mind, always prepared with a retort (but less so than Erica). He's skeptical, balancing out the idealists, theorists, and dreamers in his friend group. He's pragmatic, providing common sense solutions for average to larger than life problems. He's bold, willing to pursue independent action despite the danger. He's got grit, an unwavering determination in himself and his judgment. He's stubborn to the core, making him a fierce protector. He's self aware, graciously accepting his mistakes and take immediate action to do better.
It's not just those personality traits that make him endearing but his perfectly imperfect contradictions. He's one verbal blunder away from a permanent break-up with Max, however he charms his way into her good graces time and time again. He's the Hawkins High's MVP, shooting a championship winning basket during his freshman year. Meanwhile, just a year ago, he used to get a thrill through karate kicking his way through Hawkins Middle classroom doors (then getting caught). No matter how "cool" he gets, Lucas Charles Sinclair is, and will always be, a dork.
It's difficult for people to parse out these aspects of Lucas, when their primary understanding of a character is derived from said character's relationships. It's one reason why shippers struggle with grasping a character's identity and motivations. They can't see the forest for the trees.
The sub-fandom's fixation on romance is a given but, per their self-appointed high level of "media literacy," it's worth noting for hypocrisy alone. "Media literacy" apparently only applies to a single, white queer, lens of interpretation. When you have a character like Lucas, who doesn't adhere to this limited scope of skill and interest, people will either disregard him or make him conform to the their expectations.
Look at how bloggers analyzed Lucas on the Line, when they weren't making it about Mike. People had a fundamental issues understanding Lucas' relationship with his Black peer mentor, Jermaine. What they thought was sexual attraction was actually admiration. He's in awe of Jermaine, who is a cool and confident Black upperclassman in a predominantly white community. That is why he becomes Lucas' role model, giving Lucas something to aspire towards.
This isn't me saying these bloggers are racist. This is me pointing out that race wasn't even a factor on their identity issue radar. To be frank, it isn't on the Duffers' radar either.
Ultimately, fandoms are places of habit. If people can't utilize Lucas as a means to resolve Mike's issues, such as his fandom-minted trauma or romantic angst, then Lucas is relegated as set dressing. The type of set dressing includes but isn't exclusive to: a plug-and-play dynamic with Max, the queer ally relationship counselor/therapist, or the scapegoat for an intra-party conflict.
While the first two are dull but harmless, the latter leads to some insidious scenarios, such as Lucas being cast as the homophobic party member. Lucas being homophobic is founded on assumption, not text! If you need to look for a homophobe-in-training, please look at repressed Mike Wheeler.
Lucas can't even catch a break when he's not being depicted as a homophobe. In an effort to minimize the collateral of Mike and El's break-up, as well as appease El stans, shippers paired up Max and El. Ironically, Lucas becomes a form of collateral himself. The only difference is that, unlike a single El, shippers can live with the fallout of him third wheeling his throuple or rationalizing Max's "amicable" break up with Lucas after the events of S4 and S5.
As I said in another post, it's never about Lucas. It's about what he can do for you.
I ASKED MY SISTER TO RECORD THIS SCENE FOR ME SO I COULD POST IT AND SHE TURNED IT INTO A FULL EDIT YOU GOTTA WATCH THIS IT'S SO FUNNY I SCREAMEDD VERY LOUDLY
PLEASE WATCH THIS
it's byler x new girl and it's the best thing ive ever seen
“byler isn’t gonna happen byler isn’t gonna happen” well here’s a quote from ross duffer’s ex wife of 8 years, leigh janiak, about making the fear street trilogy into a queer love story.
An interview with director Leigh Janiak about her Netflix trilogy Fear Street, based on the books by R.L. Stine.
“byler isn’t gonna happen byler isn’t gonna happen” well here’s a quote from ross duffer’s ex wife of 8 years, leigh janiak, about making the fear street trilogy into a queer love story.
An interview with director Leigh Janiak about her Netflix trilogy Fear Street, based on the books by R.L. Stine.
Cinematography analysis: This was NOT Mike's POV looking at the library, it was Jonathan's. What is Mike actually looking at, and what makes this shot different from all the rest?
I've seen a lot of people question this and wonder if Mike is looking at Will, or at the destruction of Hawkins. I'm a film/photography nerd, and I come bearing cinematographic evidence to prove my point of what makes this shot different from all the rest in this sequence!
Remember: the camera also tells a story. And a sequence like this takes a lot of planning, effort, and coordination behind the scenes.
When you break down the sequence, you can actually pinpoint exactly which POV belongs to who, and where they are looking. The cinematography is that particular about the details here. It's seriously so cool!
Note: The purpose of this entire sequence is to show us the characters' reactions to what they are seeing out the window. However, this is distinctly not the case with the Mike/Will shot in particular. It is filmed differently and therefore serves a different purpose. For a follow-up exploring the unique purpose of this shot and possible interpretations with feedback from a film student/cienmatographer, read part 2!
The filming follows a very strict & consistent pattern... however, the Will/Mike shot is the ONLY exception to their rules:
1. Every time we focus on a character, we are also shown a corresponding POV shot of what they're looking at through the window. Elements in the foreground (e.g. window frames, etc) are kept consistent. EXCEPT for the Mike/Will shot! It's the ONLY time we are NOT shown what the character is looking at!
2. All close-up shots were filmed from outside the van, through the windows, with added reflections showing what the character is seeing (either a practical effect, or likely VFX added in post-production). POV shots also show their view through the window. This is cinematic language to signal the characters are looking outside. EXCEPT for the Mike/Will shot! It's the ONLY close-up shot filmed inside the van, NOT through a window! There is no window between Mike and the camera!
What does this cinematic language mean?
It's meant to convey that Mike is not necessarily focused on the destruction of Hawkins outside the windows in this particular shot. Or at least, the purpose of the shot is not to show where the characters are looking, but how they are feeling. My interpretation: Hawkins is devastated, and yet Mike is still thinking about Will.
This is the only time the showrunners intentionally avoid showing what the character was looking at, creating ambiguity to give Mike the benefit of the doubt. The next shot, from Jonathan's POV of the burning library, misleads us into thinking that’s what Mike was watching—but it isn’t!
This misdirect is enough to make the viewer wonder what Mike is looking at and what he and Will are feeling, but not enough to make it glaringly obvious. It leaves the door open to interpretation.
See for yourself!
Establishing shots - Driving into Hawkins
Caveat: these close-ups don't have POV shots, since they showed us a bird's eye view of Hawkins instead.
*Note: All the following shots are shown chronologically! Some POV shots don’t have matching close-ups to avoid repetition, but the character's perspective is still clear.
Neighborhood Evacuations
Jonathan: Close-up (not included) → POV
Will: Close-up → POV (and the infamous Phineas Gage imagery)
Hawkins High School
Mike: Close-up → POV
Unknown location
Two-shot with rack focus and pan from Will to Mike (close-up → POV not included). A rack focus (focal point switching from Will to Mike) is a storytelling device here. Why not just start the shot with both characters in frame and in focus? The purpose is to emotionally link the two and hint at an unspoken dynamic or tension, and/or signal a POV shift from Will to Mike.
But we are not shown what Will or Mike were looking at! This is also the only shot not filmed through a window, so there are no reflections to serve as visual cues to show us the van's location. It could still be by the high school (and Mike's staring ahead at Will just cuz), it could be en route downtown, or it could be downtown approaching the library.
NOTE: The editing is also sneaky! From this point on, the sequence shifts from close-up → POV to POV → close-up. Reversing the sequence of shots was likely intentional with the purpose of allowing Jonathan’s POV to follow Mike’s close-up, therefore misleading the audience (since both he and Mike are looking forward) and subtly covering the absence of a matching Mike POV close-up. But they filmed Jonathan through the front windshield (you can tell by the reflections), or otherwise applied the VFX window or reflections for him, but they did NOT do this for Mike!
Just imagine how much more cramped the camera crew had to be to film Mike from inside the van, OR they had to remove the glass windshield entirely OR if the windows and reflections are VFX, they intentionally didn't add it to this shot. All I'm saying is, this shot took effort and intention!
Downtown Hawkins - Hawkins Library on fire
Jonathan: POV → Close-up. You can see the windshield wipers, dash, hood antenna, and corner of driver's side window frame in his POV shot.
El's POV → El Close-up → pan over to Mike (technically we don't get Mike's POV shot here, but that's just to avoid redundancy since he and El are looking at the same view). More cinematic language: note how the camera pans across the window frame to split up two characters within the same two-shot. This signals emotional separation and distance between El and Mike.
The church
El: POV → Close-up
The church (cont.)
Mike's POV (that looks like El's head's silhoutte) → Mike's Close-up (missing) → back to El's Close-up (zoomed in)
To conclude... the Mike/Will shot was purposefully filmed and edited differently from all the other shots in this sequence. :)
PART 2 Follow-up: feedback from a film student/cinematographer on the unique purpose of the Will/Mike van shot
💬 0 🔁 0 ❤️ 0 · Follow-up: feedback from a film student/cinematographer on the unique purpose of the Will/Mike van shot · I showed in my la
Follow-up: feedback from a film student/cinematographer on the unique purpose of the Will/Mike van shot
I showed in my last post why this shot is unique and filmed differently from all the rest within that sequence. The purpose of all the other shots is to show the characters' reactions to what's going on outside the van (the destruction in Hawkins).
But this shot is different, it’s not meant to show you their reaction to whatever’s going on outside the van. So, if every shot has a storytelling purpose, what does this one serve? Why this separate focus on them? If they’re not reacting to the destruction of Hawkins, then what could be running through their heads? Are they still thinking about Hawkins, or about something more internal, or the events leading up to their arrival? What's the purpose of the rack focus from Will to Mike, and what is that transition conveying? And why are Will and Mike the only characters to get a shot inside the van like this?
Consider this… Why didn’t they choose to do this kind of shot with Mike and El after they just had such an emotional scene together?
I got a really cool and incredibly insightful anonymous ask that digs a little deeper on this and I wanted to share their perspective!:
hi! i am a film student and cinematographer and i also wanted to input my thoughts on that Mike & Will shot, because i think it gets misinterpreted a lot. i agree with you that it is different from the other shots
but, here is where we differ: Mike isn’t looking at Will. they’re both looking directly ahead of themselves and seemingly very distraught, but the point of the shot isn’t about where they’re looking. it’s telling the audience that their reactions are not motivated by what they’re looking at (hence why there’s no eyeline match). often times, this is used to show an internal conflict, or ruminating emotions from a previous scene, not what is currently happening in front of them. Will is (still) upset because of Mike’s love confession. which makes sense: he sacrificed his own happiness and desires for someone else’s and he is experiencing heartbreak. but… why is Mike upset? they’re being mirrored here, they have similar expressions, but mike confessed to the love of his life? he said The Thing! so why is he acting just like Will? he didn’t sacrifice his own happiness and desires. in fact, he got everything he wanted… right?
this is a close up shot on Will and as it dollys away from him, it pulls closer to Mike to maintain the same up close and personal framing, despite him being in the backseat, farther from the camera’s initial position. this gives both Mike and Will’s feelings equal weight in the shot. it’s to break the fourth wall, to reveal their inner feelings. they’re staring through US, the audience. they’re baring their hearts to us
i have a very similar sentiment i shared on another blog about the last scene between Mike and Will on the couch in Hopper’s cabin. a lot of people think it is Mike’s POV and down to show that he sees Will as light. but, that shot is 2-subject. the point of Mike being in the shadows and reaching out to Will who is cascaded with light is to contrast their internal states after concluding their arcs for the season. Mike is in the shadows because he is hiding something from himself. his conclusion was unfulfilling; something is wrong. but this something is an internal conflict. meanwhile, Will has finally reached clarity and acceptance. he no longer is hiding from himself. Mike reaching into the light is to show that he wants to uncover the truth and is ready to step out of the metaphorical shadow.
sorry for yapping, i love talking about shot composition. also want to note that i am not a shipper and these are objective shot analyses that someone who has not seen ST or even knows the context would tell you. however, when factoring in the context of their s4 arcs, it is objectively pointing towards the resolution that Mike and Will end up together. but a lot of people view these kinds of shots solely in the context of each other, which is the shipping lens. it’s about themselves first and foremost and their coming of age. i view the natural plot that exists within ST as a queer coming of age of someone who is visibly queer and someone who is invisibly queer, not a queer love story. while the resolution may be the same, the focus is on the internal journey. and the cinematography reflects that :]
Beautifully said and I completely agree :) Whatever it is that Mike and Will are looking at is irrelevant--for the first time in this sequence, that's not the emphasis here. It's not a "reaction" shot of Hawkins anymore (that would be redundant, since we already get one of Mike looking at the library on fire later on); it instead points to the characters' internal conflict, thoughts, or emotions.
In my opinion, the fact that we only get this kind of "internal" shot for Mike and Will and not any of the other characters goes further to suggest that Mike and Will specifically are ruminating about something that the other characters are not, something outside of the context of the Hawkins destruction that everyone else is reacting to. And the rack focus from Will to Mike suggests to me that Mike's rumination is related to Will in some way. Just my interpretation!
Additional insights about cinematography and shot composition that are relevant to this scene:
but yeah, it’s about how the camera lingers on their faces and emotions, and how the shot is the only one from inside of the car. it makes it appear like they’re in their head and detached from what exists outside of the car. the “world” of the shot doesn’t contain the outside. so it is a bit tricky
the world of a shot exists in its frame, which is what makes cinema so cool, because you can shape the story of a film by changing what is visible in that little rectangular box. it’s the same in photography and painting, so that concept is probably familiar to you. in this scene, the van exists within hawkins. the emphasis is on the damage. so the camera is outside of the van, looking inward to show the frame of the “world” being shown. when it’s the opposite, the world becomes the van. what they see outside only exists in the frame of the car window, which detaches them from what is happening outside (also for continuity purposes, either both the CU and POV are done from within the van or outside of it). all of the POV shots so far in that scene were done from outside, so when it switches, they are trying to isolate the characters from the surroundings. kind of like when someone in an action shot gets tinnitus and all of a sudden everything is muffled and their ears start ringing and all of a sudden the action feels very far even though they’re still right in the middle of it
so to me that shot was done to purposefully contrast the rest. they also each already got a shot of them reacting to the damage, so there isn’t a need for them to have another. the shot has to reveal something different. and because it’s a close up, it’s framed within the van, and it shifts focus from one subject to another without allowing for both of them to exist in the same frame, it makes me believe there is some sort of inner turmoil or conflict; a metaphorical “tinnitus”. but also art is subjective and everyone has their own vision so i could be wrong. but i do these kind of shots (close up on the protagonists face at the beginning of a scene while they exhibit some complex emotion, not because of a reaction to something happening in that current moment, but to reflect some inner turmoil from the previous scene) all the time so i may be bias because it is a stylistic choice that i use
and then, from a storytelling perspective which is why the shot exists in the first place: all scenes experience some value or tonal shift. and that value has to go from -/+ or +/-. if it doesn’t change, the scene is redundant and should be tossed out. so the shot bridges the previous scene and establishes the starting value for the current scene
i think there is a very particular lens you have to look at cinematography and composition from that is less about the story as a whole and more about the story that exists in that frame like it’s an isolated snapshot in time which a lot of people gloss over because of how abstract it is. but when you analyze a shot like you’re analyzing art instead of a literary work, you uncover a lot more, because film intertwines art and narrative to tell story.
but yeah! i so agree. there’s a reason for racking to mike after will, there’s a reason for the shot feeling so personal. even just watching that scene in passing, the shot just carries a weight to it that is noticeable, even if you can’t find the words or explain why. and it is trying to emphasize that defeat and internal conflict and some kind of muddiness
turnnoffyourmind
jacobvanloon
dededos
andulkaphoto
theartofmadeline
