By Thomas H Cullen (UK)
For the 2004 movie, Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events, the struggle of truth possibly surrounds the distinction between a pointlessness that’s beautiful and a pointless beauty. Pointlessness is a waste of time; an effort which is wrong. This turns the struggle into a distinction between an immoral effort that’s beautiful and a beauty that’s an immoral effort.
The beauty of an immoral effort vs. a beauty which is an immoral effort. An immoral effort which is visually pleasing vs. a visual pleasure which is wrong to be experienced. The visual pleasure of immoral work vs. the immorality of watching a visual pleasure. Immorality which is a visual pleasure vs. a visual pleasure which shouldn’t exist.
Immorality being beauty, and beauty which is immoral. Immorality, which is beautiful, and the immorality of beauty. The pleasure of seeing immorality, and the immorality of seeing pleasure.
Seeing immorality which is enjoyable, and the immorality of seeing enjoyability. The joy of seeing wickedness, and the wickedness of seeing joy.
To put things into perspective: over the course of Brad Silberling’s eerie and satirical drama, the wicked events that occur are designed to promote humour, and the events that occur that relate to sentimentality and to warmth and kindness are to the effect of pain and sorrow. However, the pain and the sorrow isn’t part of a cause and effect reality; the wicked events would seem to cause the pain of the events that are warm and kind, but in actuality the pain is independent.
The pain of the kindness ought to be due to the humour of the wickedness, but the subversion of the wickedness isn’t connected to why the kindness is its own subversiveness. The dysfunctionality of the kindness isn’t connected to satire. The dysfunctionality of dysfunctionality is functional.
Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events is a product where sanity is the sanity of insanity. It isn’t enough, that insanity is right, but balance only comes about when the righteousness of insanity is treated as righteousness. From another perspective, balance is meant to be correct despite being a separate force to the judge. The judge is distinct to balance, and yet the judge is expected to understand the balance as moral – the same as Alien Covenant!
Alien: Covenant and the 2004 film Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events are the same type of intelligence. Both films portray the same dilemma, of a judge being expected to be alone and value their predicament of being alone.
And even then, the exact nature of A Series of Unfortunate Events doesn’t quite feel covered: as ironic as this is to point out, but the 2004 children’s film is arguably the very embodiment of the shortcoming of argument. By this, what I mean is that the 2004 film feels like a force of nature which is meant to promote the experience of failing to explain.
The opposite to balance is imbalance. Imbalance is injustice. Imbalance includes a victim. The victim is also distinct to the balance, and yet the balance is meant to be distinct.
The 2004 film is presenting the ideology that peace is right to be separate to a victim.