Tag: Netflix

Lu-Tze and the Tao of Non-Engagement

Leave a comment

A Radical Simplicity

Terry Pratchett’s Lu-Tze, the humble sweeper-monk, embodies a philosophy that transcends the binaries of control and chaos, order and entropy. His approach echoes the Taoist principle of wu wei—effortless action—where effectiveness arises not from force or rigid doctrine, but from alignment with the natural flow of things. In a world where systems demand either compliance or rebellion, Lu-Tze’s quiet labor becomes a subversion of both. He sweeps floors, tends gardens, and occasionally nudges history with a well-timed proverb, all while maintaining an almost Zen-like detachment. This isn’t apathy; it’s a deliberate refusal to be ensnared by the narratives that trap others.

Where Jeremy Clockson is a being of precision, of engineered inevitability, Lu-Tze is improvisation wearing a broom. He acts, but never hurries. He intervenes, but rarely directly. He knows when to do nothing—not out of laziness, but because doing nothing is sometimes the most powerful move on the board. This is wu wei: not passivity, but attunement. Not resistance, but redirection.

Lu-Tze’s true rebellion is his refusal to play the game on the game’s terms. In a monastery of time-obsessed monks and obsessive administrators, he becomes a kind of counter-temporal agent. His toolkit isn’t quantum precision—it’s tea, footnotes, and aphorisms. He smuggles agency into a world obsessed with schedules. He practices radical patience in an age of urgency.

Importantly, wu wei does not mean disengagement from the world. On the contrary: it demands deep presence. But presence without domination. Lu-Tze notices—and this makes him dangerous. He is underestimated precisely because he refuses to self-mythologize. He does not posture. He sweeps. And in that sweeping, he rewrites the future.

Lu-Tze’s simplicity isn’t just spiritual—it’s political. In a world increasingly obsessed with spectacle and optimization, he embodies a slow refusal. His sweeping is a practice of soft power, a kind of monkish mutual aid. It doesn’t scale. It doesn’t trend. But it works. And that’s why the Auditors hate him. He cannot be predicted. He cannot be optimized. He is the chaotic good of quiet maintenance.

And while characters like Lobsang enact the tension between order and soul, Lu-Tze offers a third path: the invisible art of keeping things just functional enough not to collapse. He’s not the hero. He’s the janitor of the sacred. The clock ticks because he keeps the dust off the gears.

In terms of art and meaning-making, Lu-Tze is the analog craftsperson in the back room. The slow artist who whittles spoons. The poet who doesn’t publish. He doesn’t need applause. He just needs the floor to be clean.

Marx, Zen, and the Clock as Capital

When the Abbot instructs Lu‑Tze to “stop the clock,” the order resonates beyond plot. The clock—especially the perfect one Jeremy Clockson builds under the Auditors’ influence—isn’t just a timepiece; it’s the fantasy of total control. In Marxist terms, it’s capital’s dream object: pure quantification, the commodification of time itself. No deviation, no subjective experience, just value measured in ticks and tocks.

Lu‑Tze is the anti-capitalist, anti-bureaucratic Zen Marxist janitor. He doesn’t wage war against the machine—he sweeps around it, confounds it, slips through its gears. His proverbs, riddles, and broom are more subversive than any manifesto. Like a Zen koan, he can’t be neatly interpreted, and that’s the point. He’s not here to solve the system; he’s here to remind us it was never sacred to begin with.

Marx wrote that under capitalism, even time becomes alienated—we no longer live in it, we sell it. Lu‑Tze refuses that paradigm. Ask his job, and he says, “I’m just the sweeper.” Which is to say: I exist outside your categories. He’s the embodiment of kairos—opportune time—against the capitalist worship of chronos—measurable time.

Lobsang and the Split Self

Lobsang Ludd, apprentice monk and living incarnation of Time itself, is where the grand cosmic argument becomes achingly personal. His story is not just the tension between past and future, or between chaos and order—it’s the fracture at the heart of the modern self. Lobsang is a contradiction made flesh: half-human, half-myth, half-clock. His very existence is a split screen—on one side, the warm, impulsive, half-smiling boy who steals apples and tells jokes; on the other, Jeremy Clockson, the ultra-competent craftsman of inevitability, built to measure, built to obey.

This isn’t just narrative cleverness—it’s a diagnosis. Lobsang is the embodiment of the contemporary condition: a being caught between the speed of machines and the slowness of meaning. Between the spreadsheet and the dream. He is what happens when the soul tries to survive under metrics. When intuition is pressed into a uniform and told to meet deadlines.

Lu-Tze, the sweeper monk, sees this. And crucially, he doesn’t try to resolve it with doctrine or logic. He doesn’t lecture. He doesn’t offer a syllabus. Instead, he teaches Lobsang with confusion. With humor. With badly-timed jokes and inexplicable errands. His method is methodlessness: pedagogy by surprise. He introduces Lobsang to the art of the sidelong glance, the subtextual lesson, the broomstroke that changes history.

This is not revolution in the industrial sense—there are no manifestos, no barricades. It’s resistance by living otherwise. To take joy in something unmeasurable. To make tea slowly. To laugh at a pun. These are not small things. In a world obsessed with precision, a bowl of noodles can be an act of defiance. A quiet joke can derail a deterministic future.

Lu-Tze teaches Lobsang that time is not a prison to be maintained but a river to be floated on, or sometimes stepped out of entirely. In doing so, he reframes the problem. The question is no longer how to perfect time, but how to inhabit it. How to dwell in it, care for it, misuse it even—and in doing so, reclaim it.

Lobsang’s journey, then, is not to choose between Jeremy and himself, but to integrate the two. To become both clock and cloud. Both structure and soul. This synthesis—impossible, absurd, necessary—is the real victory. Because the enemy is not order, nor even chaos, but the idea that one must erase the other to function.

In a culture that demands specialization and speed, Lobsang learns instead to be whole. Not perfect, not optimized—just whole. That, in the end, is what saves the world: not stopping time, not preserving it, but allowing it to contain multitudes.

Stopping the clock isn’t about breaking time—it’s about restoring it. Thief of Time argues that history isn’t a riddle to be solved or a path to be completed. It’s a garden. Messy, uneven, and alive. And someone, quietly, has to sweep the paths.

THE AUDITORS

The Auditors in Thief of Time are terrifying from central casting not because they’re evil in the traditional sense, but because they’re pure function. They’re obsessed with eliminating chaos, optimizing everything, and making the universe neat, clean, and predictable. In that way, they’re like a cosmic version of the “paperclip maximizer” thought experiment—an AI that pursues its goal with such blind efficiency that it destroys everything else in the process.

They don’t hate humanity. They just see people as messy. Irrational. Inefficient. Too unpredictable to fit into a perfectly ordered system. So their solution is to remove the mess entirely—by removing us.

This is what makes them funny. They’re not monsters in jackboots. They’re not driven by hatred. They’re driven by logic—cold, bloodless logic. They’re what happens when you take the tools of technocratic liberalism—optimization, system design, rational planning—and strip away any empathy, humility, or tolerance for contradiction. What’s left is a mindset that wants the world to be smooth, silent, and sterile.

In that sense, the Auditors are like the evil twin of the liberal world order: not violent tyrants, but clean managers of doom. They don’t scream. They just delete.

Now contrast that with the monks. They’re flawed, yes—but they still tolerate mess. They try to keep time flowing properly, understanding it’s a balancing act, not a solved equation. They’re like caretakers of a delicate ecosystem rather than engineers of a perfect machine.

But even they fall short. Because they, too, come from a worldview that believes in managing history—as if history were something you could balance forever. And when time begins to break apart, their calm detachment becomes paralysis.

Only Lu-Tze can respond—not because he’s stronger, but because he’s freer. He doesn’t buy into the idea that the world can be perfected. He doesn’t try to control history. He just shows up, broom in hand, and starts sweeping. He accepts the chaos. He works within it. He does the job, with humility and humor.

In an age where both authoritarian systems and well-meaning managerial ones are failing—where optimization itself becomes a form of violence—Lu-Tze represents something radically different. Not a new system. Not a better theory. Just a person doing honest work without illusions of control.

 In refusing the ego’s demand to be seen, branded, optimized. He chooses simple labor over a life of performance. He holds on to his mind, even as he gives his body to the work.

Because in Lu-Tze’s quiet refusal to turn his soul into a product, there’s a radical dignity—one that many in modern, “creative” industries have traded away in exchange for LinkedIn clout or “personal branding.” In this light, sweeping isn’t just a job. It’s a form of resistance. A refusal to be consumed by the economy of self-exploitation.

This continues in a sort of, you know, Machiavellian way—like somewhere back in the boardrooms of capitalism in the 1950s, someone realized a terrible truth: if we only work them physically, they still have their minds to themselves. They can think. They can dissent. They can dream. But if we own their minds—if we capture their attention, their imagination, their very sense of self—we won’t need to police them. They’ll police themselves.

So the strategy shifts. The new labor isn’t just lifting or building; it’s aligning yourself with corporate values, being “passionate” about KPIs, injecting your personality into your emails. The worker becomes the product. The sellable thing is no longer what you do, but who you are—or at least, who you pretend to be.

And here, again, Lu-Tze sweeps in—not as a guru, but as a quiet rebuke. He sweeps the floor, not his soul. He gives the world his labor, but never his mind. In this age where rebellion looks like burnout and docility looks like ambition, the old monk with a broom might be the last revolutionary.

The strategy doesn’t just shape the workplace, it colonizes the imagination. It bleeds directly into our storytelling, especially in Hollywood and Netflix-era content, where the protagonist has subtly shifted. The old hero archetypes—the farmer called to greatness, the dreamer resisting the empire—have been replaced by agents, analysts, special forces vets, or start-up founders. These are people who already belong to systems of control. They’re not breaking out—they’re maintaining order, upholding protocol, or innovating inside frameworks that already exist.

Even when they “rebel,” it’s within limits that flatter the machine: the FBI agent who goes rogue to save the world still proves the FBI was right to hire her. The ex-military man haunted by war trauma still resolves it through more violence, but now “on his own terms.” The tech bro turned savior doesn’t overthrow the system—he just upgrades it. These characters don’t escape the algorithm—they are the algorithm’s fantasy of rebellion. Branded authenticity.

It’s all part of that same Machiavellian realization: don’t just command people—make them want it. Don’t suppress their individuality—monetize it. The contemporary protagonist is no longer a mirror to our struggles; he’s a recruiting poster. He performs freedom while embodying control. And in that sense, these narratives are the cultural arm of the same logic that gave us the corporate wellness seminar, the “personal brand,” and the company Slack channel that feels like a dystopian high school.

This is why someone like Lu-Tze matters so much. He isn’t optimized. He isn’t curated. He’s not a brand. He’s just a guy doing what needs doing, outside the spectacle. And that’s why he’s radical.

What we’re seeing is the deep saturation of ideology—not in the old sense of state propaganda or brute censorship, but in a much more insidious form: narrative capture. Capital doesn’t want to stop stories—it wants to own them. And what better way than to write the protagonist as someone whose only real power is to work better within the system?

So rebellion becomes a product feature. The hacker is now a start-up founder. The punk is an influencer. The rogue cop is the best cop. The spy questions authority, but only to save the world on its terms. It’s not that culture stopped telling stories of resistance—it’s that resistance got turned into a genre with a three-act structure and a Disney+ spin-off.

In this environment, every main character is either trauma-forged or professionally competent. They have to be broken, but in a narratively useful way. And most importantly, they must be redeemable by the system. Their inner conflict resolves when they get their badge back, their startup funded, or their team reassembled. 

Catharsis becomes compliance.

Now contrast that with Lu-Tze: the sweeper monk who doesn’t seek attention, who dodges the spotlight, who doesn’t want to be the main character. He refuses the call—not out of fear, but out of understanding. He knows that history is made by people who don’t try to control it. He sweeps. He listens. He waits. And when he acts, he does so without drama.

In a world that’s turned “authenticity” into a monetizable trait and main characters into brand extensions, Lu-Tze is dangerous. He’s not “off the grid” in a performative way—he’s simply free. Free in the oldest and strangest sense: detached, modest, impossible to incentivize. He’s immune to optimization.

This is why Pratchett’s world hits harder now than it did when he wrote it. He saw what was coming—not just the collapse of systems, but the rise of counterfeit freedom, scripted rebellion, and algorithmic individuality. And he offered something better: humility, absurdity, action without ego.

What Pratchett sketches in Thief of Time is not just a witty fantasy about monks tinkering with clocks—it’s a profound meditation on history, time, and agency. If Fukuyama’s “End of History” imagines a world where liberal democracy and capitalism have resolved all major ideological conflicts, then time, in that schema, becomes flat and singular: we’ve arrived, the story is over, and all that remains is management.

This is the world the Auditors dream of. They abhor the messiness of human narratives and long to impose an eternal present, scrubbed clean of desire, error, and surprise. In a way, they are the spiritual children of the End of History thesis—believers in order for its own sake, where time is reduced to quantifiable ticks, a perfect loop with no deviation.

But Pratchett gives us another vision in the Monks of Time. Unlike the Auditors, the Monks understand that time is not a monolith. It is lived unevenly across the world. A grieving village needs more time. A battlefield needs to pause. A moment of epiphany must stretch beyond the confines of the clock. Their work is to redistribute time, not in the cold logic of administration, but in the spirit of care and responsiveness. They are not trying to stop history, nor complete it—they’re trying to keep it humane.

And that is why Lu‑Tze, the humble sweeper, who operates in the cracks of the grand system, understands that the world is not governed by doctrines or end-states, but by small acts of compassion, disruption, and patience. While the Abbot contemplates the eternal in infant form, Lu‑Tze walks the earth, subtly correcting course, never seeking credit. He embodies an ancient truth found in both Zen koans and Marxist critique: that true understanding isn’t about controlling history, but about living rightly within it—even if that means sweeping floors and defying fate in small, absurd, very human ways.

In this framework, Thief of Time becomes a powerful rebuttal to any notion of temporal finality. It’s not just that history hasn’t ended—it’s that history, like time itself, must remain alive, messy, and open to revision.

Diary of a Streamer

Leave a comment

Watching The Hound of the Baskervilles with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Absolutely baffling how they made movies back then with zero fucks given for modern streaming necessities. No bathroom breaks, no snack intermissions, no “Are you still watching?” judgment pop-ups. Just a relentless, uninterrupted story unfolding at a steady pace, as if people were actually expected to just… sit and watch. It’s like they thought people could handle a movie without doing other stuff. Truly barbaric. 😵‍💫

A list of its glaring deficiencies follows:

1. No Repetitive Recaps Every Ten Minutes – Astonishingly, the film expected me to remember what had already happened. At no point did a character turn to the camera and say, “As you may recall…” before summarizing the entire first act. Unforgivable.

2. No On-Screen Text Explaining the Obvious – No pop-up stating “London, 1889” when we were clearly in London, in 1889. No ominous subtitle declaring “The Hound” when the enormous, glowing-eyed dog lunged at the screen. Just trusted the audience to infer things. Barbaric.

3. No Overcompensating Sound Design – When something important was revealed, it was done through mere dialogue and acting. No swelling orchestra, no aggressive bass rumble, no ear-shattering “BWAAAH” to alert me that This Is A Big Moment. Reckless and irresponsible.

4. No Artificially Inserted Cliffhangers – Scenes flowed into one another with distressing smoothness, rather than cutting off mid-sentence to force me into watching the next part. I was left to decide of my own free will whether to keep watching. Disorienting.

5. No Excessive Exposition – At no point did a minor character enter solely to deliver two paragraphs of backstory, exit, and never return. If you wanted to know something, you had to listen or, heaven forbid, piece things together yourself. Who has time for that?

6. No Forced Reactions to Ensure I Knew How to Feel – After a dramatic reveal, the camera did not cut to every single character so I could gauge their emotional state. Some of them simply reacted naturally, and the movie moved on. I found this offensive.

7. No Time-Wasting Fake-Outs – When a shadow loomed ominously, it turned out to be an actual threat, rather than the butler carrying a tray. Every scene contained forward motion. I grew suspicious.

8. No “Dumb Character to Ask Obvious Questions” Trope – No one said, “Wait, so you’re telling me that the mysterious deaths and the giant paw prints could be connected?” The film seemed to think I could follow along without a designated idiot to spell things out. Upsetting.

9. No Algorithmically Inserted Diversity of Tone – The film committed to its atmosphere. No quippy side character deflating the tension. No random slapstick moment to balance out the “heaviness.” Just a persistent, deliberate mood. Reckless disregard for emotional variety.

10. No Sudden Flashbacks to Explain Something Already Understood – At no point did the screen fade to black-and-white and replay an earlier moment just in case I had become distracted by my phone. The film relied entirely on me paying attention the first time. Monstrous.

By the time the credits rolled (without automatically minimizing into the corner of the screen), I was left shaken. The sheer nerve of these filmmakers, crafting something meant to be absorbed in a single, uninterrupted sitting. The sheer audacity of it all.

Had I… just watched a movie? The questions swirled. Had I truly understood the plot without redundant exposition? Had my brain… filled in gaps on its own? Worse still—had I experienced suspense not force-fed by aggressive musical cues, but simply by allowing events to unfold?

I felt changed, and not for the better. My faith in the natural order of things had been shaken to its core.

I glanced at my streaming app, desperate for reassurance. But now, the endless rows of thumbnails, all promising easily digestible. I staggered to my feet, lightheaded, my worldview unraveling. In the distance, my phone buzzed, beckoning me back to the comfort of fragmented attention. I had endured 87 whole minutes of pure, uninterrupted storytelling?

God help me.

A Mythology for the Distracted Age

Netflix and Amazon walk into a bar. Netflix orders a cocktail called The Cliffhanger, garnished with a hastily-scribbled napkin that says “Season 2 Coming Soon.” Amazon, meanwhile, demands the bartender blend every book on the shelf into a smoothie, then pours it over their own head while shouting, “This is what the people want!”

Netflix’s algorithm seems to operate on the principle of “quantity over coherence.” They’ll greenlight an 8-part series based on a tweet they misread, insist the protagonist must overcome trauma via quirky dance montages, and wrap it all up with a finale so ambiguous it could double as an AI hallucination. “Don’t worry,” they whisper, “we’ll fix it with spinoffs no one asked for.”

Amazon, on the other hand, approaches storytelling like a toddler with a new set of crayons. They take beloved books—your Lord of the Rings, Her Dark Materials —and cram them into a “one-size-fits-all” corporate PowerPoint presentation. Entire character arcs vanish, plots are replaced with slow-motion fight scenes, and they stretch out the runtime just long enough to sell you a subscription to Audible. It’s like they think the soul of literature lies in its prime shipping potential.

Both platforms, in their way, prove the same point: If you give an algorithm a paintbrush, you’ll get a Picasso drawn by a toaster.

The modern hero’s journey no longer revolves around the hero’s choices—it bends to the rhythms of an audience whose greatest trial is staying engaged for longer than 30 minutes. Algorithms don’t care about Campbell’s archetypes; they only care about “engagement metrics.” The Ordinary World isn’t a village to leave behind; it’s your sofa. The Final Reward isn’t wisdom—it’s the vague satisfaction of seeing “You Might Also Like” recommendations you’ll never click. In this new mythology, the hero doesn’t just fight monsters. They fight the greatest enemy of all: the viewer’s attention span.

The modern hero’s journey, in its current iteration, is no longer a tale of self-discovery, transcendence, or triumph over external forces. Instead, it is an algorithmic feedback loop designed to accommodate the fragmented rhythms of a distracted audience. The narrative no longer revolves around the hero’s choices or challenges but around the neurotic pacing dictated by a viewer’s capacity to withstand their own boredom. In this way, the mythological structure becomes something far darker: a calculated negotiation between storytelling and the fractured temporality of attention economy.

What we observe is a profound disintegration of the hero’s agency. The algorithm, that silent demiurge of the distracted age, has replaced the divine intervention of myth. Where gods once tested heroes with fire and prophecy, the algorithm now tweaks pacing, edits cliffhangers, and inserts redundant flashbacks—its primary concern not the coherence of the narrative, but the statistical retention of the viewer. The sofa, not the call to adventure, is now the “Ordinary World,” a space of stasis masquerading as comfort. The hero, instead of leaving this stasis, is forced to contend with an audience that refuses to leave theirs.

The journey itself becomes warped by the rituals of the couch-bound viewer. The traditional arc—departure, trials, revelation, return—splinters into a series of disjointed scenes engineered to survive bathroom breaks, snack-fetching interludes, and the ever-present distraction of the smartphone. Every line of dialogue must be exposition-heavy, every event must reorient the viewer to the stakes, lest they lose the thread entirely while doomscrolling Twitter. Thus, the journey is not the hero’s alone—it is yoked to the banal domestic interruptions of the audience, rendering the story a kind of co-dependent limbo.

This new paradigm reveals a deeper counterfeit at play: the hero’s journey is no longer a communal myth meant to connect us to universal truths or shared humanity. Instead, it has devolved into a solipsistic performance, designed to pander to the solitary, fragmented viewer. The hero is no longer a stand-in for the collective psyche; they are a desperate, algorithmically optimized reflection of the individual viewer’s habits, anxieties, and fleeting whims. The streaming platforms, in their cynical genius, have realized that the hero doesn’t need to transcend—it canyon be counterfeit to keep the viewer watching.

This solipsism is not an accident; it is a design feature. The viewer, sitting at home with their snacks and their phone, is no longer a passive recipient of the story but its gravitational center. Netflix and Amazon exploit this dynamic by tailoring the journey to flatter the viewer’s every interruption and indulgence. The pacing of the narrative bends to their attention span; the emotional beats sync with their scrolling habits. The hero’s struggles are less about confronting universal archetypes and more about mirroring the viewer’s petty frustrations: boredom, distraction, and the need for instant gratification. The hero, in essence, has become a tool for the viewer’s self-soothing, a vessel for their fragmented, solipsistic engagement with the world.

Take, for example, the way plot arcs are now structured to cater to this dynamic. The classic “belly of the whale” moment, where the hero confronts the abyss and their own existential fears, has been replaced by strategically timed cliffhangers and reveals. These moments aren’t designed to challenge the viewer or provoke introspection—they exist solely to prevent them from clicking away. Emotional depth is sacrificed for continuity, tension flattened into easily digestible morsels of plot that can be consumed between bites of takeout or during bathroom breaks. The hero doesn’t descend into the underworld to emerge transformed—they descend because the viewer demands constant stimulation, and the algorithm mandates it.

What we are witnessing is the collapse of narrative as a loosely structured, rule-bound system into a kind of chaotic more or to put evening clocks, where the very principles that once gave stories their coherence are pulled out from under us—like a chair disappearing as we sit. The hero’s journey, once the backbone of mythic storytelling, no longer stands as a map for transformation but as a casualty of its own commodification. It is not that the rules have evolved; it is that they have dissolved, replaced by the infinite pliability of algorithmic tailoring, which bends the story into whatever shape is necessary to hold a viewer’s fractured attention.

This anomie—the disintegration of any external logic governing narratives—reveals a deeper malaise. Stories used to promise a kind of loop, a structure that reflected the rhythms of life and the resolution of chaos into meaning or sometimes absurdity. But now, in the age of streaming platforms, this promise has been reduced to a cynical bait-and-switch: instead of meaning or absurdity, we are offered endless circadian mirroring; instead of catharsis, a dopamine drip of cliffhangers and cheap resolutions. The narrative doesn’t guide us to confront life’s mysteries or complexities; it merely keeps us sitting, scrolling, consuming, suspended in a state of perpetual distraction.

What replaces the old rules is not liberation, but a hollow parody of freedom. The narrative no longer obeys the rules of myth or structure because it has a new master: the viewer’s whims, as interpreted by the cold calculus of the algorithm. In the absence of shared archetypes or universal truths, stories become untethered from any external purpose. They exist only to serve an immediate function—to keep the viewer watching, to ensure the metrics stay green. This is why narratives today feel both bloated and empty: they stretch endlessly, packed with filler and redundant twists, because they no longer end when the story demands it—they end when the viewer’s attention gives out.

It is a parody of freedom because what appears to be boundless choice and liberation is, in fact, a carefully engineered illusion. Streaming platforms offer an endless array of options and narratives, claiming to liberate us from the supposed tyranny of traditional storytelling structures. Yet this abundance does not empower us; it overwhelms and pacifies us. The more choices we are given, the less meaningful those choices become, and the more we find ourselves locked into an experience that feels curated not for us, but against us.

True freedom involves the ability to engage with something larger than ourselves—a story, a world, or a meaning that challenges us, changes us, or connects us to others. But in this parody, the hero’s journey is stripped of its capacity to provoke or transform. Instead, it reflects back the viewer’s own trivial habits and fleeting whims, flattering them into complacency. The platforms don’t ask us to rise to meet the story; they lower the story to meet us where we are, in our inertia, our distraction, our solipsism.

Consider the constant nudges embedded in the interface: autoplay features, personalized recommendations, the endless scroll. These mechanisms masquerade as tools of empowerment—“You choose what you watch, when you watch it!”—but in reality, they close the loop, ensuring we never escape the gravitational pull of the algorithm. We are free, but only to pick from a menu designed to keep us trapped in a state of perpetual consumption.

This is why it is a parody. It mimics the outward appearance of freedom—choice, abundance, control—while hollowing out its substance. We do not shape the narrative; the narrative is shaped around us, our decisions anticipated and exploited before we even make them. The freedom we are offered is not to transcend or grow, but merely to linger, to scroll, to consume. It is freedom as an anesthetic, freedom as a form of control.

The true irony lies in how this parody undermines itself. The more the platforms bend the hero’s journey to our whims, the less satisfying it becomes. We sense, deep down, that this endless customization diminishes the story’s power. By removing friction, challenge, or contradiction, the narrative becomes lifeless, a bland echo of our own shallow impulses. This is not freedom; it is an elaborate cage, decorated to look like a limitless horizon.

And this is the true horror: the disappearance of rules does not liberate us in a modernist Virginia Woolf or post modernist Thomas Pynchon but folds the narrative back onto itself, under its own weight, into a self-referential void. Without structure, the hero’s journey becomes a meaningless procession of events designed to accommodate snack breaks and bathroom trips, where every story is both too much and not enough, where we are endlessly teased with the promise of meaning but never allowed to grasp it.

This is an anomie not of absence, but of excess: too much content, too much pandering, too many “choices,” all leading to a paralyzed, anesthetized audience incapable of demanding more. The rules don’t disappear into freedom; they disappear under the weight of their own exploitation, leaving us with stories that serve no higher purpose than to fill the void in our own overstimulated, underfulfilled lives. The narrative, like the viewer, collapses into itself, a hollow echo of what it once promised to be.

This is the ultimate exploitation: the platforms present themselves as delivering a grand narrative, while in reality, they deliver a mirror. The viewer, in their isolation, becomes the sole arbiter of the hero’s relevance, the sole judge of their journey. But this illusion of control only deepens the solipsism. The hero exists not to confront universal truths or transcend their world, but to validate the viewer’s immediate emotional state. Their struggles must be relatable but not too challenging, their triumphs satisfying but not too complex—always calibrated to the viewer’s fragmented attention and shallow engagement.

And so, the hero becomes a hollow figure, trapped in a loop of pandering and performance. Their journey, once a testament to human resilience and transformation, is now a product designed to sustain the viewer’s solipsism. The streaming platforms exploit this relationship with surgical precision, feeding the viewer endless variations of the same solipsistic fantasy. The hero doesn’t change the world—they simply reflect the viewer’s fleeting, distracted gaze back at them. In this way, the platforms don’t just monetize the hero’s journey; they hollow it out, leaving behind a simulacrum that exists solely to keep the viewer trapped in their own comfortable, isolating orbit.

And what of the reward? Here lies the most tragic inversion. The promise of wisdom, transformation, or catharsis has been reduced to the fleeting satisfaction of an ending that queues up the next binge-worthy offering. The “Return with the Elixir” is not a moment of revelation—it’s an autoplay feature. The algorithm whispers: “You might also like this,” not to broaden your horizons, but to keep you ensnared. The viewer, like Sisyphus, is condemned to an eternal cycle of scrolling and selecting, their engagement driven not by genuine desire, but by the dread of facing an empty screen.

The hero’s ultimate battle, then, is no longer with monsters, villains, or the self, but with the fragmented attention span of the audience. This is the counterfeit logic of our age: the heroic journey subsumed by the banality of distraction, where epic trials are subordinated to snack breaks and bathroom trips, and the great elixir of wisdom is traded for the anesthetic of endless content. The question is no longer whether the hero will succeed, but whether the viewer will still be watching when they do.

That Netflix Look

Leave a comment

A cinematic style that effortlessly delivers the experience of wandering aimlessly through the set on a weekday morning and catching the cast standing around eating baby carrots from craft services.

The phrase “That Netflix Look” playfully refers to a specific aesthetic or visual style often associated with certain productions on the Netflix streaming platform. The description “effortlessly delivers the experience of wandering aimlessly through the set on a weekday morning” evokes a sense of casualness and lack of purpose. It paints a picture of a lackadaisical atmosphere where the actors and crew members are meandering around the set, perhaps with a sense of idleness or disengagement.

Cast members are not fully immersed in their roles or the production itself. This imagery contrasts with the traditional notion of intense dedication and professionalism associated with the filmmaking process.

Overall, the perceived lack of cinematic depth or immersive storytelling suggests that the film may convey a sense of detachment or a casual approach, akin to a behind-the-scenes glimpse of a production rather than a fully realized cinematic experience.

Here are 10 reasons why “That Netflix Look” can be perceived as a pejorative description:

  1. Lack of Visual Distinction: The term implies that many Netflix productions have a generic or formulaic visual style, lacking unique or distinctive cinematography.
  2. Assembly Line Approach: It suggests that Netflix prioritizes quantity over quality, leading to a production line mentality where films and shows are churned out without much artistic care or attention.
  3. Lack of Artistic Risk: The description hints at a tendency for Netflix to play it safe with their visual choices, avoiding experimental or daring filmmaking techniques in favor of a more predictable and mainstream approach.
  4. Overreliance on Templates: It implies that Netflix may rely on pre-existing visual templates or templates established by successful shows, resulting in a lack of innovation and originality.
  5. Diminished Production Values: The term suggests that Netflix productions may appear visually cheap or low-budget, lacking the high production values associated with traditional cinematic experiences.
  6. Homogeneity: It conveys a sense that many Netflix productions blend together visually, with a sameness that fails to make each film or show visually distinctive or memorable.
  7. Lack of Artistic Vision: The description implies that there may be a dearth of strong directorial vision or visual storytelling choices, resulting in a visually unremarkable viewing experience.
  8. Emphasis on Quantity Over Quality: It suggests that Netflix may prioritize releasing a high volume of content, potentially leading to a sacrifice in the overall quality of the visuals.
  9. Formulaic Approach: The term implies that Netflix follows a specific visual formula or recipe for their productions, resulting in a lack of originality and a predictable viewing experience.
  10. Loss of Cinematic Essence: It suggests that the Netflix style may deviate from the traditional cinematic experience, diluting the immersive and transformative power that comes with well-crafted visuals.