Upon its release in 1986, Manhunter received mixed reviews, and fizzled at the box office, earning only $8.6 million domestic gross. Fans of Thomas Harris’s New York Times bestselling novel, Red Dragon, would seem to be a built-in audience, but they didn’t show up; perhaps word of mouth about the modifications to the story kept those fans away. Or perhaps it was confusion about the title. The production team changed the title from the slightly inscrutable Red Dragon to the more direct and accessible Manhunter. Ironically, it didn’t help.

However, over the years, Manhunter gained a loyal following on home video and cable TV, and received further attention when the 1991 release of The Silence of the Lambs rocketed Hannibal Lecter into the zeitgeist. With the benefit of hindsight, critics are almost uniformly positive—the film has a 90% critics rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Viewers are also positive, with ratings of 7.2 on IMDB and 77% on Rotten Tomatoes. But the gap between the critics and audience tells a story: Manhunter seems to resonate more with those who think about cinema seriously, but it has never really garnered widespread affection.

So, if Manhunter was a commercial flop and only a mild success in the intervening years, how can it possibly be the most influential film of the 1980s? CSI: Crime Scene Investigation is the simple answer. At its peak, it was the number one show in the world and spawned three spin-offs (CSI: Miami, CSI: NY, CSI: Cyber), a reboot (CSI: Vegas), as well as a cottage industry of similar police procedurals. If you trace the origin of CSI back, you end up at Manhunter. The connection is obvious, as both Manhunter and CSI feature William Petersen in the lead, playing a similar sounding character: Will Graham vs. Gil Grissom. In addition, the characters themselves are extremely similar. Grissom can be seen as a calmer, more detached, and scientific version of Will Graham. In other words, a character more suited to the format of a weekly procedural. If that were the only connection, this could be seen as a coincidence. But the lineage runs deeper than casting alone. The more direct influence is in how Manhunter brings the viewer behind the scenes into the investigation and, most importantly, into the lab. This puts forensics at the heart of the drama, with science and reason shown in opposition to the chaos unleashed by the killer.

Another core idea that Manhunter dramatizes is the idea of profiling—understanding how serial killers think so that they can be stopped. Manhunter was one of the first films to put profiling at the center of the story. This fascination with serial killer psychology has only deepened in the subsequent decades, spawning Criminal Minds, a franchise that survived two failed spin-offs and is currently in its 20th season on Paramount+.

A third influence that Manhunter presented was the humanized monster. Specifically, taking a serial killer and presenting them as both genuinely monstrous and deeply tragic. Mann interrupts the investigation at the beginning of the third act to focus on Dollarhyde and his life, and has the audience, for a few moments, actually pulling for the serial killer. While not an entirely new tradition, this was rare for a 1980s studio film and has come to be a common approach and, in the realm of prestige TV, the dominant storytelling mode.

In a very real sense, Manhunter, when viewed retroactively, is a victim of its own success. Other shows took what it started and became television juggernauts, running for 15 or 20 years and became part of pop-culture. Ironically, when viewed by a modern audience, all of the new elements that Manhunter introduced appear less revolutionary and more familiar, and perhaps even mundane. And because Manhunter failed to cement a legacy early on, it is penalized for this familiarity instead of being celebrated for its innovation.

Of course, there is a giant shadow being cast over Manhunter, and it’s almost impossible to write about the film without bringing up Jonathan Demme’s The Silence of the Lambs. For the vast majority of viewers, this is how they first saw Hannibal Lecter (and it’s probably true to this day). Anthony Hopkins delivers a memorable, Oscar-winning, performance that for almost every viewer instantly cemented himself as the Hannibal Lecter. If viewers come to Brian Cox’s Lecktor performance (Manhunter changes the name of the character), this earlier portrayal appears as a poor copy of Hopkins’. And Cox’s Lecktor, as well as Mann’s film, have an entirely different tone, which is almost the polar opposite of Demme’s film. The Silence of the Lambs delivers everything an audience wants in a serial killer thriller: gothic feel, dark humor, quotable menace, and catharsis. It's a masterpiece of conventional satisfaction. Manhunter provides almost none of those moments: it refuses easy pleasures, offers nothing quotable, and keeps applying pressure with no clear catharsis. So any viewer expecting The Silence of the Lambs gets something that feels like an unfinished sketch in comparison.

But The Silence of the Lambs was still five years away. To understand why Manhunter struggled out of the gate, we need to go back to 1986 and look at what audiences were actually watching.

The top 4 box office films for 1986 are very informative. (My apologies for excluding Aliens, which was #5.)

Top Gun leads the pack and embodies the 1980s aesthetic and zeitgeist: a Navy recruitment ad dressed as an MTV music video. But even more interesting, Crocodile Dundee, The Karate Kid Part II, and Back to School are all basically the same story. The fish out of water formula is one of the most reassuring narrative structures in cinema: outsider enters unfamiliar world, struggles, adapts, and eventually triumphs, restoring order. Top Gun even fits this same pattern with Maverick as an outsider. Not only did 1986 audiences want to find comfort in their entertainment, but they wanted a very specific comfort. If these were the films that 1986 audiences embraced, then what were some of the films audiences ignored?

Skipping Crimes of the Heart—a December release that found its audience the following year—the above list is genuinely shocking. Manhunter, Blue Velvet, and Something Wild, all rated over 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, directed by respected auteurs, regarded today as great films of the decade, all sat in the middle of the pack within $300,000 of each other.

If that was how the general public was voting with their wallets, what about the critics of the time? They're supposed to see past popular taste. Is there a reason for their divided response to Manhunter?

One reason might be Miami Vice fatigue. In 1985-1986, Mann’s (as executive producer) Miami Vice exploded as a top TV show. But even more impressive than the ratings climb was the hype and impact it had on the culture. Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas, the show’s two leads, were everywhere, along with their signature looks and fashion. The show was also trendy because of its combination of 1980s MTV aesthetic with neo-noir material (a combination so visually distinctive it earned its own descriptor: neon-noir). This is the exact same combination that Mann uses in Manhunter. In addition, in 1986, the television-to-film hierarchy was real and rigid; some critics would look at a film as suspect merely for emulating the hot stylistic television trend of the moment.

Besides this, the 1980s also suffered from an actual seriousness problem. This became more apparent as what today we think of as 1980s style evolved. Serious films of the 1970s immersed themselves in accepted forms: grit, decay, shades of gray (colors and morals) but a 1980s aesthetic of saturated colors, sleekness, and synths became coded as superficial emptiness. And this view is not without merit. So many 1980s films are style-first with a lack of depth. But Mann was making one of the most morally serious films of the decade in precisely the visual language critics had learned to distrust.

What specifically were the critics of the time saying? A Los Angeles Times review by Sheila Benson1 is informative:

From the first image, a young family pinpointed by the flashlight beam of a murderous intruder, “Manhunter” works like a chokehold. It’s only later, safely out of its grasp, that you begin to notice that for all its perverse fascination, and save for two superlative performances, “Manhunter” has delivered very little. Like the mirrors that dot it, “Manhunter” is all flat, brilliant, reflective surfaces.

And Benson’s final verdict:

With “Manhunter,” there seems to be some danger that style has overrun content, leaving behind a vast, chic, well-cast wasteland.

So while Benson has a variety of critiques (the score, Petersen’s charisma, alignment with the book), the main criticism is that style and form are given primacy over meaning and depth.

Paul Attanasio of The Washington Post watched the same film and came to almost the opposite conclusion2:

As written and directed by Michael (“Miami Vice”) Mann from the novel “Red Dragon” (by Thomas Harris), “Manhunter” is a gory and gorgeous cop thriller — you’ll forgive it almost anything, so full is your eye with the beauties of its design and photography, and your ear with its supercool electronic music. For all its faults, it’s one of the most sensually thrilling movies of the year.

Both reviewers see the same visuals. One finds a beautiful design. The other finds a stylish wasteland.

Even more interesting than Benson’s initial review is a subsequent analysis nine days later. Here the author digs deeper into Manhunter, sounds more charitable, demonstrates an understanding of Mann’s work, all without backing down from the initial, overall critique3.

What a ferocious movie “Manhunter” is. In the hands of director Michael Mann, it’s a dark locomotive of a film, roaring straight ahead, dragging its audience with it.

This follow-up analysis suggests that even a professional critic required some time to process the film (and felt compelled to express this in a follow-up article).

While critics seemed to be evenly divided, even the detractors admit that Manhunter is a great-looking film with the core question being: to what end? Is it just style over substance bordering on self-parody, as Benson contends, or is it used in service of something deeper and more meaningful? It’s my contention that in Manhunter, Mann has used 1980s style (that he helped define) in service of his story. Every formal element—color, light, blocking, costume, camera—is carefully chosen and deployed. These elements come to form a masterful cinematic grammar that infuses every frame.

Let’s take a look at an early scene from Act I.

Will Graham is in his hotel room viewing video tape of the deceased families. The television forms a black void taking up fully half the frame. It’s isolating Graham from the audience—a theme that continues throughout the film. Also, the darkness in the frame is oppressive; even alone in his hotel there is no escape for Graham as the darkness presses into his space, an internal shadow that he refuses to outrun. Graham is usually framed as physically separate from other characters, but even here, alone in his room, he is still separate. The isolation isn’t social or situational—it’s metaphysical.

This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the cinematic grammar that Mann uses—other scenes use multiple design elements as symbols to indicate psychological state or unspoken relationships.

However, despite Manhunter being a masterpiece of layered visual grammar, it’s not a perfect film. And the main shortcoming is in the finale. The showdown withholds catharsis—deliberately, I believe—and because of that, Graham’s quick reconciliation with his family is too compressed to provide a satisfying emotional coda. The scene with Graham’s wife, Molly, feels too short and wraps up a bit too conveniently, given the stress the relationship was under for most of the film. And the ending matters because it disproportionately shapes the viewer’s memory of the film; how a film makes you feel in its final moments colors everything that came before.

But the ending is not the only source of audience resistance. The film is calm but unrelenting, Mann builds tension with almost no release. Manhunter prioritizes conceptual and formal coherence over catharsis or resolution. And the film presents its message subtly, it doesn’t explain itself, but instead plants seeds in the viewer’s mind. Seeds that germinate over time, making Manhunter worthy of repeated viewings and reflection.

Yes, Manhunter lost the cultural battle of the Lecters. But while we couldn’t take our eyes off Hopkins, it was Mann's measured vision that quietly seeped into the world we've been viewing ever since.

Explore more cinematic deep dives with free Cinemyth essays.

Subscribe now

Arthur’s sword, Excalibur, is most prominently known through two stories: “the sword in the stone” and where The Lady of the Lake gifts Arthur the sword. Both of these stories share the same features: Excalibur is bestowed to Arthur, it comes from outside the normal world, and it confers legitimacy (in this case, indicating Arthur’s kingship).

Is Excalibur, like so many other aspects of Pretty Woman, hidden in plain sight? What object could fulfill the Excalibur role in the film?

One of the iconic scenes is the shopping spree and the dresses and other clothes that are purchased. But these don't fit the Excalibur criteria for a simple reason: Vivian is the one receiving them, not Edward. Excalibur needs to be bestowed by the Lady of the Lake, not to her.

What about the umbrella at the end of the film when Edward rescues Vivian? This is promising because the umbrella maps directly to the knight’s sword in the fairy tale ending that Vivian named. Edward even treats it like a sword, raising it up as a knight would. It’s a nice visual rhyme, but it doesn’t actually offer any additional meaning; it’s not bestowed upon Edward (we don’t even know where it came from), and he actually abandons it as he climbs the fire escape to reach Vivian. It’s more a prop in the fairy tale than a meaningful symbol.

The only thing Vivian really gives to Edward is a single tie. However, the scene is designed to be a playful, sexy, fantasy rather than carry meaning.

But what if the absence of a physical Excalibur is not a flaw but part of the structure of the film? The film’s central theme is non-transactional connection. So the gifting of Excalibur cannot be a transactional exchange—which aligns with the Excalibur story itself. One difference between the Lady of the Lake Excalibur story and Pretty Woman is that in the classic tale, the Lady of the Lake is a liminal, magical being outside of the world, but in Pretty Woman, Vivian’s Lady of the Lake role is most decidedly a character that lives in the story itself. This constraint makes it very difficult for Vivian to bestow a physical object without it reading as transactional. Also, a publicly bestowed object that confers legitimacy is too narratively on the nose for a modern rom-com; it’s too explicit. The film works on subtext and internal transformation that are mostly invisible to everyone but Vivian and Edward.

Let’s take a second look at the tie because, although it seems innocuous at first glance, there is a recurring appearance of ties in the film that is revealing. There’s the earlier scene where Vivian adjusts Edward’s tie and makes a joke about having sex with the debate team, the amusing back-and-forth banter when she acquires the tie in the store, and, finally, where Vivian waits for Edward in the penthouse wearing only the tie.

Vivian: How was your day, dear?
Edward: Nice tie.
Vivian: I got it for you.

Garry Marshall’s signature technique that permeates Pretty Woman once again makes appearances in all these tie scenes: a joke is used to hide symbols and significant commentary so that the audience feels like they are watching something light and breezy while the hidden meaning and emotional core resonates undetected.

One very interesting aspect that is easy to gloss over is that Vivian doesn’t actually purchase the tie—she asks for the personal tie worn by one of the salesmen and he gives it to her. Notice her specific words, “I got it for you.” Not “I bought it for you.” It wasn’t acquired through a normal business transaction. She then wears it herself in an intimate fashion and gifts it to Edward. Then later, at the polo match, Stuckey notices the tie as a sign of Edward’s transformation.

So on closer examination, the tie is actually a good candidate, but is it really an Excalibur proxy? It’s bestowed by Vivian, The Lady of the Lake, and is a non-transactional gift, but it lacks the one feature Excalibur requires: it doesn't confer legitimacy or kingship—it's just a tie with a more modern design. In addition, the tie is given before Edward’s scene in the tub with Vivian where she witnesses his wound.

While the tie is not Excalibur, it does establish a pattern that Vivian’s gifts signify transformation. This reaches its culmination in a private moment of meaning that does involve the recognition of kingship: The Kiss. A kiss on the lips was the one thing Vivian withheld from Edward (narratively because it's too personal). When Vivian kisses Edward on the lips, this is a purely non-transactional gift—it's the one thing Edward's wealth and power could not buy in their relationship—so this kiss is where Vivian recognizes and confers kingship on Edward.

Ultimately, the missing Excalibur isn't missing at all—it's been internalized. The sword has become a kiss, a private moment invisible to everyone but Vivian and Edward. And even though the world in the film never witnesses it, we experience that mythic catharsis while the film maintains its surface realism.

Explore more hidden mythologies in cinema with free Cinemyth essays.

Subscribe now

Produced by Stanley Kramer, directed by Fred Zinnemann, and featuring an incredible screenplay by Carl Foreman, High Noon (1952) is an all-time classic Western film. Today, it is also almost universally understood as a political allegory for the 1950s blacklist and the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) pressure. Many argue that this allegorical reading is the reason for the film’s importance and its enduring popularity.

High Noon has become so thoroughly associated with political allegory that it's nearly impossible to separate the film from this reading. However, on its release, there was no commentary on its connection to HUAC, the blacklist, or the political subtext1. Furthermore, the production team and cast were apparently not thinking about this at the time, either. The behind-the-scenes featurette, “Oscars and Ulcers: The Production History of High Noon” from a recent home media release commented:

Back in Hollywood, it was business as usual. If anyone in the cast of High Noon noticed they seemed to be reenacting Foreman’s nightmare, abandonment, and persecution, none of them remarked on it.

So, it seems that the allegorical reading did not appear immediately but emerged in the years following the film’s release and picked up cultural steam during the early 1970s. Perhaps it was John Wayne’s Playboy Interview in May 1971 that brought this topic to a wider audience:

Everybody says High Noon is a great picture because Tiomkin wrote some great music for it and because Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly were in it…It's the most un-American thing I've ever seen in my whole life. The last thing in the picture is ole Coop putting the United States marshal's badge under his foot and stepping on it.

Wayne slightly misremembers the exact ending—Coop (Gary Cooper playing Will Kane) doesn’t step on the badge—but the symbolic gesture is on point.

Fred Zinnemann, in 1973, discusses2 “that Howard Hawks has said on various occasions that he made Rio Bravo as a kind of answer to High Noon,” while in a 1974 interview Howard Hawks outlines his main objection3 :

I made Rio Bravo because I didn’t like High Noon. Neither did Duke. I didn’t think a good town marshal was going to run around town like a chicken with his head cut off asking everyone to help. And who saves him? His Quaker wife. That isn’t my idea of a good Western.

Wayne’s objection is not rooted in the allegorical interpretation, and Hawks’ dislike for the film is rooted in the narrative and whether it’s a good Western or not. It is also interesting that Wayne and Hawks have different (but similar) objections, and that none of them explicitly involve the allegorical interpretation.

High Noon provoked objections from Hawks, dismissal from Wayne, and later became canonical blacklist allegory—three entirely different readings with almost nothing in common. What quality in the film permits such divergent interpretations? What is High Noon actually about? To answer that, we need to set aside the opinions, critical discourse, and conjecture, and watch the film itself.

We first meet Will Kane at his wedding to Amy Fowler. It’s a typical ceremony in front of a justice of the peace. Immediately afterwards, in a quiet one-on-one moment, Kane says, “I'm going to try, Amy. I'll do my best,” to which Amy responds, “I will, too.” It's sincere, but it lacks the confidence you'd expect between newlyweds. In the moment, it’s not fully explained what this line means, but it suggests that Kane and Amy are not exactly on the same page, and there is some real chance that this marriage will require work, and perhaps even luck, to survive and flourish. The film initially suggests that the incompatibility is about lifestyle: Kane as lawman versus Kane as domestic store owner. However, this is a red herring. As we will soon find out, the real fracture is more serious—a fundamental disagreement about values that runs deeper than mere profession.

Upon hearing the news of recently released outlaw Frank Miller’s imminent arrival on the noon train, all of the wedding guests convince a hesitant Kane to keep to his original honeymoon plan of leaving town for his new life. However, traveling on the dusty road gives Kane some time to think, and he realizes that he can’t leave. Amy doesn’t understand, and Will, in a motif that Foreman uses throughout the screenplay, doesn’t have the time or inclination to explain it to her before they head back to town:

Amy: I don’t understand any of this.
Will: Well, I haven’t got time to tell you.

Amy: Then don’t go back, Will.
Will: I’ve got to. That’s the whole thing.

Kane and Amy’s potential incompatibility is now revealing itself further. She doesn’t understand why he has to go back, and Kane can’t explain it to her.

So far, High Noon is comfortable operating within the realm of the classic Western genre tropes. A peaceful town, a vicious gang arriving to unleash chaos and seek their revenge on the man who put them away. The marshal is the conventional Western hero: laconic and duty-bound; an archetypal strong and silent type who acts without explanation.

Once back in town, Kane and Amy have a confrontation where their relationship ultimately cracks. Kane is steadfast in his belief that he has to stay while Amy won’t back down from her Quaker belief in pacifism, which eventually culminates in Amy’s refusal to stand by her husband: “You're asking me to wait an hour to find out if I'm going to be a wife or a widow. I say it's too long to wait. I won't do it.” Amy pleads with him to leave with her and avoid this conflict, but Kane maintains his steadfast resolve: “I can't.”

This marks the first point in the film where Western tropes are subverted, and it is through Kane’s refusal to embrace the mantle of hero:

I'm not trying to be a hero. If you think I like this, you're crazy.

It is also the first hint of motivation for Kane and it goes against type and suggests the fundamental conflict the film will explore. Kane is not returning to be a hero or even to save the town—he’s returning because he must.

Kane next encounters the justice of the peace, Percy, who is busy packing his things. Percy explains why he thinks the community will be of little help, planting the seeds in the viewer for the townspeople’s later refusals. It also contrasts Kane with the other side of the law in the town. Kane listens to Percy’s practical arguments, which basically amount to “live to fight another day.” Kane listens, doesn’t argue, and eventually watches Percy leave.

Following this is Kane’s interaction with Deputy Marshal Harvey Pell. Kane is happy to see him and makes a slightly insulting joke about Harvey’s character that is the type that close friends might make. But if Harvey is Kane’s good friend, then why didn’t he attend Kane’s wedding? Harvey is aggrieved that he wasn’t selected to succeed Kane as marshal and tries to use this emergency to his advantage by offering his support on the condition that Kane gets him the permanent marshal’s job. Kane flat out refuses, “Sure, I want you to stick. But I'm not buying it. It's got to be up to you.”

Kane then tries to raise a posse in the saloon, but with no luck. When Kane is asked about why Harvey quit, he responds, “That’s between the two of us.”

After failing at the saloon, Kane heads to Sam’s house. Sam, who was present at the wedding, hides in a backroom while his wife unconvincingly lies to Kane about Sam’s whereabouts. Importantly, Kane knows she’s lying.

The next stop for Kane is at the church. It starts out promising, with many men willing to help, but eventually, the townsfolk talk themselves out of volunteering for one reason or another. It’s a disappointing turn for both Kane and the audience.

The final stop is Kane’s idol, mentor, and friend, Martin. He refuses to help because he’s too old and broken down and advises Kane to “get out.” In all of Kane’s interactions with the townsfolk, he’s been quiet and accepting of their decision but with his friend Martin, he asks directly for help and is still rebuffed. This rejection hits Kane hard.

On his way back to his office, Kane stops at the stables and momentarily contemplates grabbing a horse and getting out of town. And when Harvey arrives and saddles a horse up for Kane, he still refuses to flee, which leads to a drop-down fist fight between the two of them.

Looking back at all of these scenes, we can see the themes emerge. Kane asks for help and is constantly rejected. At every turn he’s told that he should leave, that he should “get out.” But that’s exactly the one thing Kane can’t do. Kane can’t leave because it would violate his values and, in High Noon, Kane is a Mythic Constant Character representing the principle of integrity. Kane resists the hero’s role, but cannot abandon fidelity to his integrity. His specific values—honor, duty, community—matter less than the structure they create; Kane simply cannot betray who he is. This manifests itself through temptation that tests whether integrity can endure under constant, systemic pressure. Kane isn’t making a difficult choice—he is revealing that, for him, there is no choice at all.

Kane’s integrity is also tested in other ways besides the strict refusal help. One I mentioned above is Kane refusing to be blackmailed by Harvey in return for his assistance. Another is the small but noticeable gesture of keeping that interaction with Harvey private. And others, such as Kane refusing the help of a young boy and Kane refusing the help of Jimmy—a one-eyed, broken down man who perhaps drinks too much. To Kane, his integrity is his ultimate value, more important than his marriage and, even, his life.

Now that we know the underlying value that drives everything that Kane does, we can contemplate what makes the story tick. The obvious answer is time: the ever-present clock that imposes constant pressure within the story. No doubt it’s an important part of the structure that makes the film work but what really makes the story work, is not the near real-time narrative but a character. And it’s not Kane’s wife Amy or any of the other characters we’ve already encountered. Surprisingly, it’s a character we don’t meet until over halfway through the first act: Helen Ramirez.

We’re first introduced to Helen Ramirez in a brief scene with Harvey Pell, her current beau. Later, in a follow-up scene, Helen and Harvey are still together, eating in her room:

Helen: Harvey, don't you think Kane will be looking for you right now? You're really sore at him.
Harvey: Wouldn't you be if you were me?
Helen: I suppose...if I were you.

This scene hints at Helen’s function within the story and why she is so important. She functions as a Greek chorus, articulating truths that clarify what others cannot see. Not only can she see and understand everyone’s motives, she names them for the viewer. Although, we’ll see the one exception later.

Helen’s chorus function is more readily apparent in another scene with Harvey, where she explains clearly how Harvey doesn’t measure up to Kane as a man (and probably never will) as well as setting the stakes for the upcoming showdown:

Kane will be dead in half an hour.
And nobody's going to do anything about it.
And when he dies, this town dies too.

In another important scene, Kane comes to warn Helen about Miller’s imminent arrival.

Helen: Kane...If you’re smart, you will get out, too.
Kane: I can’t.
Helen: I know.

Here, Helen reveals the truth, confirming Kane’s nature; it’s not that Kane refuses to leave, it’s that he is unable because that would violate his core value of integrity—something he cannot do no matter the amount of pressure. And Helen’s resigned response of, “I know” shows how she understands the motivations of everyone involved in the story. With one exception.

The one blind spot Helen Ramirez has is with Kane’s bride, Amy. Structurally, this is perhaps the key moment of the film. It’s the moment when Helen becomes both chorus and a catalyst for transformation.

Helen’s next scene following her breakup with Harvey is with Amy. In that scene, she explains to Amy that Kane is not staying for her sake, and as Amy turns to leave, Helen can’t hold back any longer. She accusingly asks, “What kind of woman are you?” In this scene and Helen’s previous scene with Harvey, Helen acts as chorus and the scenes even have slight mirroring. In Harvey’s scene she explains what will happen to the town and in the scene with Amy, she explains that Kane isn’t staying for her—though, she can’t explain why he is staying either. Helen also questions both Harvey’s and Amy’s roles: Harvey’s manliness despite his broad shoulders and Amy’s loyalty as wife. But there is a difference: Helen understands Harvey perfectly and doesn’t really understand Amy at all. Helen only softens after Amy reveals her trauma: she witnessed her father and brother gunned down despite being in the right. From that incident, she became a Quaker, embracing nonviolence as protection. The scene concludes after this admission, and it appears to the audience that these scenes are true mirrors of each other but the screenplay has a trick up its sleeve. After cutting away to scenes of Harvey and Kane, a quick 30-second coda to Helen and Amy’s scene occurs. It’s become clear to Helen that Amy’s pacifism is a response to her previous trauma, and that she is acting not from a deep-seated character flaw but from a false principle. This is when Helen becomes the catalyst for Amy’s eventual transformation by showing Amy what it means to fully choose Kane:

Helen: If Kane was my man, I’d never leave him. I’d get a gun. I’d fight
Amy: Why don’t you?
Helen: He’s not my man. He’s yours.

It’s also worth noting that Helen doesn't entirely abandon her chorus function when she becomes catalyst. She continues to articulate truth. But now that articulation is directed at Amy's transformation rather than purely at the audience's understanding.

As the impending showdown begins between Kane and Miller’s gang, Amy sits on the train awaiting her departure. But when she hears the sound of gunfire, she realizes she can no longer abandon Kane; she runs back to town and into Kane’s office. Amy sits at Kane’s desk with her head resting in her hands, on his Last Will and Testament. It’s here that Amy finally grasps what Helen didn’t fully explain: that her pacifism applied to Kane is a false principle—it doesn’t spare the righteous but can lead to their death. This realization enables Amy to overcome her absolute pacifist principle, allowing her to act in Kane’s defense.

By the end, Kane is alone—isolated by his constancy. For those willing to witness it, Kane functions as pure symbolic force: integrity embodied without compromise allows us to experience that value before intellectual judgment takes hold. In the moment, we don’t debate whether Kane should stay; we feel his constancy as an archetypal truth. That felt experience is part of what makes the journey edifying. Yes, the ending is bleak because Kane loses the entire community; the town that should have shared his values abandons him. But it’s not devastating because Kane wins the one person who matters most. Amy's transformation shows that integrity, though isolating, can create genuine connection with those willing to understand it. We witness Kane's constancy, and we see it transform someone else.

High Noon inspired objections from Hawks (on narrative grounds), dismissal from Wayne (on patriotic grounds), and adoption as political allegory, which eventually became critical orthodoxy. But if High Noon's power derived solely from its HUAC allegory, the film's relevance should fade as the historical moment recedes. Instead, it remains as urgent and resonant as ever. This suggests the film's real strength lies not in political commentary, but in mythic structure that transcends historical moment.

But a question still remains: What makes High Noon inspire such different readings?

Once again, we look to the film itself. Zinnemann directs High Noon with an almost documentary style, which, with the addition of the perpetually ticking clock, grounds the movie in a dusty, sweaty realism. This naturalistic sheen obscures the mythic qualities of the story that are operating underneath. It’s this gap between form and content—realism and myth—that leaves a vacuum that invites alternate interpretations.

Another factor is the film’s refusal to explicitly name its themes or answer the big questions. Foreman’s use of this motif can be found in a variety of scenes:

Kane: I don’t have time to tell you.

Helen: If you don’t know, I can’t explain it to you.

Kane: I can’t do it [leave].
Harvey: Why?
Kane: I don’t know.

This is very mythic but also invites allegorical interpretations.

In a very real sense, High Noon is a myth in naturalistic clothing: that’s why the film endures. But also why its meaning can be so elusive.

Every Cinemyth essay is free, unlocking the symbolic structures behind classic films.

Subscribe now

Leone’s glacial pacing infuses his mythic characters with symbolic weight. But what about High Noon (1952)? It’s another iconic western but one where the use of time is even more explicit. In High Noon the ticking clock is integral to the narrative but it raises the question about whether or not High Noon employs Mythic Time?

The story of High Noon certainly qualifies as mythic; Kane is an archetypal character. But does High Noon’s use of time signal a departure from the real world? No. In fact, instead of signaling a departure from the real world the ticking clock of High Noon serves to ground the film firmly in reality. This isn’t Mythic Time—it’s the opposite. We might call it Anti-mythic Time.

Yet this tension isn’t a flaw. The real-time structure serves to sharpen the contrast between the mythic characters and the anti-mythic use of time. But that is a subject for another day.

At least that’s how this essay may have started in a slightly different timeline—with apologies for the clickbait opening.

GoldenEye marks Pierce Brosnan’s long-delayed introduction as James Bond. It is undoubtedly his best Bond film and is widely regarded as one of the stronger entries in the series, currently sitting at number ten on Rotten Tomatoes’ ranking of Bond films.

None of this should be surprising since GoldenEye has so many things working in its favor.

From the stars to the recognizable character actors, the cast delivers. Brosnan reinvigorates the franchise with the look, bearing, charm, and physicality demanded of the role. Sean Bean brings a personal gravitas to the antagonist, Famke Janssen is just delightfully unhinged, Judi Dench’s M provides Bond with an internal obstacle he has to navigate, and “Bond girl” Izabella Scorupco is one of the most unique in the canon.

The action set pieces are iconic and visceral: the opening dam jump, the tank chase, and the final showdown all linger in the memory.

Most importantly, the script is one of the strongest in the entire series, particularly given everything it is asked to accomplish. After a six-year absence, GoldenEye has to bring Bond into the 1990s and integrate him into a world that reflects changing allegiances brought on by the collapse of the Iron Curtain. It succeeds through smart writing that combines Cold War symbolism and strong characters. General Ourumov and arms dealer Janus keep the Cold War mythology intact while acknowledging its disintegration; this is Bond proving that he is still relevant in this transitional world.

The screenplay also finds a way to incorporate the franchise’s camp without spilling over into the entire film. The campy excesses are isolated almost entirely within the wonderfully cartoonish Xenia character. It’s a brilliant decision that allows the film to indulge in the over-the-top fun while keeping the rest of the movie grounded and credible.

And there is Natalya Simonova, who may be the most fully realized character in the series. She is never objectified, consistently challenges Bond, and possesses genuine agency. Her relationship with Bond is not that of seductress or prey but is instead something reciprocal, meaningful, and earned.

And because the casting and screenplay’s sophisticated reinvention are done so well, the film’s one failure matters. And that failure is the score.

Éric Serra’s industrial euro-thriller score has been polarizing since the film’s release, and as an admirer of film music, it pains me to identify this as GoldenEye’s one crucial flaw.

This isn’t a direct commentary on the music as music but is indicative that, on the whole, Serra’s music is ill-suited to the needs of the film.

The score begins with promise, with the opening cues over the infiltration of the weapon’s plant working extremely well. Starting with delicate percussion, heavier synth, and echoes of the Bond theme played on timpani. Multiple layers of synth and percussion move in and out while some bluesy synth sounds make an appearance from time to time. The rhythmic mechanical sound reflects the operational precision of the mission while providing an underlying and escalating tension. This works very well.

As Bond makes his escape, we get forceful percussion with fragments of the Bond theme played on different synths and registers, some of them suggesting the brassy Bond sound but again augmented for synth. As the scene progresses and Bond’s predicament worsens, the intensity doesn’t increase, with the exception of the addition of a Russian-sounding male chorus. 007 pulls the plane out of a dive and flies by the exploding weapons factory as Bono and The Edge’s retro-sounding GoldenEye song starts, and, notably, the emotional intensity immediately increases.

The next musical cue is “Ladies First,” where Bond and Xenia push their cars to the limit (and beyond!) on winding roads while engaging in a flirtatious game of cat and mouse. The scene demands playful danger and seductive energy, but what Serra delivers here can best be described as a very 1990s combination of DJ scratching, jazzy hip hop, and avant-garde pop. Even defenders of Serra’s score are hard-pressed to put a positive spin on this cue.

The very next scene is the (obligatory?) casino sequence—a moment that functions as a deliberate mirror of Bond’s introduction in Dr. No. In Dr. No, Bond is the dealer and rises from the table first, while in GoldenEye, Xenia deals the cards while deciding to leave the table ahead of Bond. Even the camera work is similar, following the woman until Bond eventually rejoins the frame.

This mirroring of the scenes is extended to the music, but the reversal removes what made the original scene effective. In Dr. No, the casino scene plays entirely without score until Bond delivers the now famous line, “Bond. James Bond.” The music comes in at just the right moment to emphasize Connery’s swagger and confidence. In GoldenEye, Éric Serra’s romantic theme begins even as Bond drives up to the casino and continues through the scene itself.

The romantic theme might seem to be a bit too much given that there hasn’t been any romance shown (or even hinted at), but my objection is not about the music per se but that its very presence undermines the scene’s purpose. The scene is built around sexual tension, witty dialogue, and verbal sparring. All of which are enhanced by the relative silence, the rhythm of the dialogue, and the murmur of the crowd. A side-by-side comparison demonstrates how Dr. No’s less-is-more approach can make for a better scene. GoldenEye, however, instead opts for a denser, more modern scoring approach. Whether this was a directorial choice, a producer's input, or Serra's instinct, the result is what matters—and what's on screen undermines what the scene requires.

There’s one more category of music that reappears throughout the film: action music. In most instances, Serra falls back to variations of the style he used in the opening scene but with more obvious Bond stylizations layered on. These cues are not bad, but they lack the energy and excitement that a more direct orchestral approach would provide. And we don’t have to guess about this because the tank chase provides all of the evidence. The tank chase is the big set piece of the film and probably its most memorable moment. Sure, the image of a tank destroying St. Petersburg leaves an impression, but the bigger impact hits from the replacement cue written by John Altman. This is the moment where GoldenEye truly comes alive and proves how good it can be. The traditional Bond scoring elements are there—the brass, the strings, and the vocabulary—but Serra-influenced percussion and pounding low piano are still included, showing how well a hybrid approach could have worked throughout.

At the end of the 1980s, it appeared that the Bond franchise may have run its course. Competition from 1980s action movies and the emergence of other action stars had cut into Bond’s cultural cachet as well as box office; 1987’s The Living Daylights and 1989’s Licence to Kill are, to this day, the lowest-grossing Bond films after adjusting for inflation. Production was delayed due to lawsuits involving the sale of rights, contributing to the six-year delay between Bond films. In the meantime, the global political landscape underwent massive changes: the fall of the Berlin Wall followed by German reunification and the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent end of the Cold War.

With this context, it’s easy to imagine what happened. The series of lower box office results made it obvious that whatever the Bond series was doing wasn’t working and that a reinvention was necessary. This started with an entirely new actor to play Bond, but the theme of change reflecting this new era informs the entire script: the new M being a woman—an obstacle character that even names Bond as a “dinosaur,” a villain named Janus, the god of thresholds and transitions, and a Russia that is internally out of control.

Although the job of scoring GoldenEye was originally offered to John Barry (who declined), it was clear that the production team wanted a new direction. And what was the hot, modern sound of the early to mid-1990s? It was Éric Serra, the composer of choice of Luc Besson.

Serra in 1995 was not a new commodity—he had been scoring films since the early 1980s—and, with one exception, Luc Besson directed all of those films. Although not commonly recognized, this is arguably one of the longest and most successful director/composer pairings in cinema history.

No doubt the main scores that brought Serra to the producers’ attention were La Femme Nikita (1990) and Léon: The Professional (1994), Besson’s English-language debut. Both films are stylish thrillers with assassins, and Serra received nominations for Best Music Césars (France’s equivalent of the Oscar) in both of them. Both films also showcase a European flair and modern musical style that seems like a perfect fit for what the producers might hope to replicate in GoldenEye.

The titular characters in Nikita and Léon are both broken people. The former, a drug-addled murderer with anger issues, is repurposed as a cold-blooded government assassin, while the latter is a simple, naive man who, despite being a violent killer, possesses a childlike innocence. Both scores tend to have two broad approaches: cold percussion and synths for the thriller scenes and tragic strings underscoring the emotional moments. It’s a cold soundscape, with even the strings not revealing excessive warmth. It works perfectly, reflecting the isolation and tragic story of the characters while enhancing the on-screen action and tension. Overall, it’s a fairly straightforward approach, with the music generally reflecting what’s on screen; the main variation is to dial back the tension in order to emphasize the tragedy (e.g., less percussion and more strings).

The mismatch here is that Brosnan’s Bond is not cold; yes, he’s calculating and composed, but he’s also witty and passionate. Serra’s score never addresses or enhances these aspects of the character. The deeper limitation, however, is systemic: Serra’s default mode is to address what is directly on the screen rather than performing the more important functions in a Bond film—serving the characters, enhancing subtext, and supporting the overall themes.

Take, for example, the beginning of the final showdown. Bond and Natalya escape out of the lair and back outside to the satellite dish. As Bond runs off to disable the transmitter, Serra contributes a short synth pad before fading out. The next scene of Alec and Boris dealing with the aftermath of the earlier explosion plays completely unscored. As a thought experiment, let's examine what this scene becomes when we introduce part of the Bond theme.

This version instantly builds excitement and also signals to the audience that Bond is coming, he’s reasserting control, and that order is about to be restored. After cutting to the control center, the music continues, adding Bond’s presence and reframing the entire moment into a personal confrontation rather than general chaos; Alec’s mounting dread is no longer about the fire and failing satellite—it’s now about Bond. This is mythic alignment, where the music provides pure emotion while communicating more than the visuals alone ever could.

All of this isn’t to simply criticize Serra—sometimes the score works. For example, the style is ideal for moments of isolation and defeat. After escaping Alec, alone on the beach with Natalya, when Bond is at his nadir, Serra’s score perfectly captures the character’s internal fracture. The love theme here is tender, wistful, full of heartache and regret, and perfectly matched to the scene. However, Bond as a character also needs the score to demonstrate resilience, humor, romance, and power—something Serra fails to do consistently.

The story of GoldenEye isn't unique. Nearly thirty years earlier, another artist creating a classic spy story made a strikingly similar choice: prioritize fashionable aesthetics over what their material actually required. That artist was Patrick McGoohan, and his project was The Prisoner (1967).

McGoohan’s The Prisoner is a cult classic that initially presents itself as a 1960s spy thriller—perhaps a continuation of Danger Man. But as the series plays out, it reveals itself to also be a Kafkaesque philosophical inquiry into the relationship between the individual and society. The beauty is that it can be enjoyed on multiple levels: pure spy thriller or allegorical commentary. It may sound hyperbolic, but television had never seen anything quite like The Prisoner.

The typical tone of The Prisoner involves light surrealism, a dose of paranoia, and (bureaucratic, social, and individual) pressure, all in service of breaking Number Six. The show is deadly serious even when invoking strange mind control or other sci-fi psychological oddities. However, the final episode, Fall Out, abandons this entirely and switches to a very 1960s surrealistic and psychedelic style. It’s not an escalation; it’s a full seismic tonal shift: Beatles songs, a mod character spouting 1960s slang and chanting “Dem Bones,” and a trial that is more farce than mythic confrontation (among other chaos). To be honest, it’s hard to give the anarchy visible on screen justice using the written word.

This sudden tonal shift is not necessarily a bad thing. The pertinent question is, does it serve the underlying themes and the intended message of the show? And, yes, The Prisoner has some important ideas to convey: the nature of freedom and the nature of the prison—a person, place, or state of mind? The reveal of Number Six as Number One is a bold and subversive idea. The cavern as the location for most of the episode can work as a symbol of the descent into the underworld (of the self). A trial with a chorus could be an interesting exploration of the individual versus the group. These aren’t problems. And the problem isn’t that the show has dated itself to the 1960s, either. The root problem is that the execution and tone of Fall Out are so at odds with the rest of the series that the ideas in the show are overwhelmed. The style and form are so distracting that the substance is lost; instead of processing the message, the audience is processing the form.

To me, it appears that when Patrick McGoohan was writing the finale, he wanted to incorporate the ideas of revolt and rebellion. On a deadline, he reached for the current representation of those ideas: 1960s counterculture and its dominant aesthetic of surrealism and psychedelia. On some level, this makes perfect sense, but The Prisoner didn’t need to cloak the finale in 1960s visual rebellion to communicate actual rebellion—that was already part of the show’s DNA.

Here we have GoldenEye and The Prisoner, a movie and a television show made over a quarter of a century apart, making similar decisions. Both are successful in achieving their vision but are held back by one major issue: when reaching for something new, both of them embraced the fashion of the day without considering or questioning whether that was the right aesthetic for their specific project. Hindsight is twenty-twenty, of course, and perhaps they did consider this, but in the moment, and under time pressure, they couldn’t see the issues immediately. Although in the case of GoldenEye, the issue was at least attempted to be corrected with the replacement of the cue for the tank chase. The composer of that cue, John Altman, has said that the producers told him, “We’d have given you the whole film to re-score if we’d known you were that quick,” which, if true, is very telling about their opinion of Serra’s score. McGoohan, on the other hand, never, to my knowledge, indicated any regret about the ending that he wrote. It’s possible that he genuinely thought it worked well, or maybe he valued confounding the audience more than serving the material to the highest degree possible.

But there’s another factor to consider as well. We all like to imagine the auteur, the lone creator with the singular vision, as a driving force, but maybe this force needs to be tamed occasionally? Part of the issue with GoldenEye is that Serra had only ever worked with Besson in a very specific way: Besson would come up with the emotion of the scene he wanted, Serra would write the music, and Besson would have daily check-ins. However, with GoldenEye, it sounds like Serra, working on his first Hollywood movie at the same time as working with new people using a different process, was given free rein with little supervision. He may have been getting so many notes from different parties (according to Altman) that he insulated himself from this feedback as much as possible. Some institutional oversight may have worked wonders for Serra’s score. Likewise, McGoohan could probably have used some pushback from someone (perhaps George Markstein, the series' script editor and disputed co-creator) to challenge his script ideas.

Because their foundations are so strong, both GoldenEye and The Prisoner survive their missteps and remain iconic despite their flaws. They also serve as cautionary tales: fashion is seductive precisely because it feels contemporary and right in the moment. But recognizing the gap between what the material requires versus what seems exciting and new may be the hardest part of the creative process.

Not all great films are equally great. Subscribe to Cinemyth to understand the structural and mythic principles that separate masterpieces from near-misses.

Subscribe now

So how does the film end up so much less than the sum of its parts? It isn’t Barry Levinson’s direction, nor the production design, both of which are impeccable. And the story itself is one of the most mythically discussed in popular cinema—variously described as a parable, a fairy tale, or an Arthurian legend. But myth demands coherence. It must deliver the meaning it promises, or else even the brightest spectacle rings hollow.

And that is The Natural’s central issue: it reaches for myth but never commits to a coherent mythic structure.

The film definitely puts its best foot forward with the potent duo of Deschanel and Newman. The opening is almost a montage, with Randy Newman’s Americana-infused melodies enhancing the images of nostalgic golden fields while Roy’s father imparts life lessons. The cinematography, the music, and the direction all lend these opening scenes a warm sense of nostalgia. It’s backstory, yes, but it feels infused with meaning even if it’s not apparent what that meaning is yet. But one thing is for sure: the film is really playing up the feeling of halcyon days past: simpler times, better times.

Later Roy leaves the farm on his way to a tryout in Chicago. He strikes out The Whammer and attracts the attention of Harriet Bird, a literal woman in black, who talks with Roy alone in the dining car. She questions Roy about myths, asking about Homer and specifically about Arthurian myth:

It was just like watching Sir Lancelot jousting Sir Turquine. Or was it Maldamor?

Roy’s response of “I’m not sure” reveals him to be unfamiliar with Arthurian legend and the mythic knowledge the film suggests should matter. Roy expresses his desire to have people say, “There goes Roy Hobbs, the best there ever was,” to which Harriet responds, “Is that all?” It’s easy to miss, but when Harriet grabs Roy’s hand and the lights of the train flicker, it looks like Roy moves in for a kiss. But once the lights come up, the moment is lost, and nothing further comes of it. Was this Roy symbolically being drawn into the darkness by the woman in black? Roy asks Harriet if she’ll come watch him play, to which she responds, “Roy, you are priceless,” almost marveling at his innocence. In this scene, Roy doesn’t understand the myths that Harriet mentions, and all of the subtext of their conversation is completely lost on him. He does seem slightly tempted by her, but later, in Chicago, Roy goes alone to Harriet’s room and is equally bemused. He enters her room full of questions: “How’d you know I was staying here? What’s going on here?” before eventually being shot. It seems odd in the early 20th century for a man to go up to a single woman’s hotel room without knowing how that might look or what the reason for the invitation might be. From this we gather that Roy is a simple man who is naive in the ways of the world.

After the shooting, we fade in from black sixteen years later at Knights Field in New York City. Pop Fisher is lamenting his partner, referred to only as the Judge. He’s described as a “snake,” and whose arrival he calls “one of the darkest days of my life.” Roy Hobbs emerges out of a dark tunnel carrying nothing but a contract and a case containing his bat, Wonderboy. Soon we learn the stakes: if the Knights win the pennant, Pop Fisher can buy out the Judge. But if they fail, the Judge seizes Pop’s shares and takes full control of the team.

Narratively, this brings us into the middle of the second act, where the myth the film has been quietly constructing finally comes into focus. The fatherless Roy Hobbs leaves home as a young man to chase a dream of baseball glory. On the way he meets a myth-quoting lady in black who challenges his ambitions, tempts him, and ultimately shoots him. This test and fall ends Hobbs’ dream. Sixteen years later he returns with his hand-carved bat sealed in a case to join a team literally called the Knights, managed by a man named Pop Fisher, and eventually aided by a wise feminine character.

The Arthurian parallels are unmistakable: the direct Lancelot reference, the quest for glory, the sexual temptation, the failed test, Wonderboy as an Excalibur proxy (even housed in a scabbard-like case), Pop Fisher as a version of the Fisher King, and Iris as a healing woman.

In the opening scene, Roy’s father even names the core element of the quest:

You got a gift, Roy. But it’s not enough. 
You gotta develop yourself.
Rely too much on your own gift and you’ll fail.

But this never happens: Roy Hobbs cannot complete the myth the film sets up, because the story never allows him to fall, struggle, choose, or change.

Roy’s internal development is almost nonexistent. The biggest problem is that Roy is written and portrayed by Robert Redford as not just simple and naive but almost unaware of what is really going on around him. He doesn’t understand the myths Harriet mentions, and when he fails his initial test, he is not sure what is happening or why. And even after his return, he doesn’t seem to have processed why he failed. In fact, he falls for Memo, who is a mirror of Harriet—even frequently wearing black. Hobbs acknowledges this later in the movie, recognizing the pattern when he tells her, “You were right, Memo. We have met before.” But he never grapples with what this actually means or what it says about him as a person. The film never shows him struggle with that realization or deal with the consequences.

Another oddity for the character who should be the protagonist is that he’s almost entirely reactive, rarely initiating any of the events of the film. Instead of being the knight on a quest, he feels more like a pawn: in the Harriet Bird encounter, she chooses him; with the Knights, he just sits on the bench, only getting a chance to play when another player is removed from the game; with Memo, he’s interested but doesn’t pursue her, and later he seems to stay with her simply due to inertia.

Maybe this passivity is the result of the film being terrified of showing Roy’s moral failure. Moments of sin are minimized or only suggested, framed as misunderstandings, or excused outright. One of the reasons why Roy never transforms is because he never truly falls. Some might argue that Roy’s fall is the shooting itself, but a mythic fall is never something that simply happens to the hero. A true fall emerges from flaw, choice, or blindness. Roy’s shooting reveals nothing about his interior life—it comes across as random and spiritually weightless. A hero cannot heal from a wound he doesn’t understand and never reflects on.

The script overall has quite a few nice touches and some good lines, with many earlier scenes mirrored later on that expand on the original ideas. For example, Gus the gambler echoes Roy’s father’s words, “You had a great gift, a talent. But it’s not enough.” If we could distill all of the issues in the film down to one scene or set of scenes, it would be when Roy falls ill and is recovering in the hospital. Roy isn’t being cared for in a regular hospital; it’s a maternity hospital, which, symbolically, is the perfect place for a rebirth. This is what the film is setting us up for. Hobbs has been stricken down and can’t play, Pops may lose the team; surely this is the moment where Roy confronts his past, heals his (literal and spiritual) wound, and is truly reborn. But instead, nothing happens.

Well, not quite nothing. During the scene in the hospital between Iris and Roy there are so many mythic doors that are opened during the conversation and never walked through that it’s actually quite astonishing. Roy starts by admitting that he’s still paying for his old mistakes, but he deflects about the girl on the train by saying he “didn’t even know her,” shutting down this line of questioning. Roy then admits that he liked her, but it seems like his main regret is that he “didn’t see it coming.” Roy now ignores contemplating the nature of his temptation or sin and focuses on not being able to avoid the consequences of his action. This time it’s Iris who lets him off the hook by excusing him: “How could you know she’d hurt you?” Finally Roy asks an important question about not seeing it coming: “Why didn’t I?” This is the question that should be the catalyst for introspection and, perhaps, even a transformation, but Iris again makes an excuse for Roy: “You were so young.” Next Roy laments that he could have broken every record, and Iris explicitly echoes Harriet’s earlier question, “And then?” which is the perfect opportunity for us to see what Hobbs has learned. But he literally repeats the exact same line he told Harriet earlier: “There goes Roy Hobbs, the best there ever was.” Iris then tries to guide Roy and takes the opportunity to explain the rebirth that could take place:

You know, I believe we have two lives.
...
The life we learn with and
the life we live with after that.

It’s a great line but one that has not been demonstrated in the film at all. And Roy’s response is classic Roy Hobbs: “How? What do you mean?” He just doesn’t get it. Finally it’s Iris who gives him a higher purpose: “Think of all those young boys you’ve influenced. There are so many of them.” But Roy just changes the subject, “That day in Chicago, why did you stand up?” derailing a potentially important understanding. And again, Roy starts to hit on a deep and important topic:

I wish Dad could’ve...
God, I love baseball.

But he cuts himself off, changing the subject. This is one of the key scenes in the film, and during this one conversation there were six chances to begin a transformative rebirth, but every time the film gets close to the door, it backs off.

And his pivot back to baseball right when he is on the verge of something deeper is very telling. It signals the film’s retreat from the Arthurian myth and its turn toward a second, competing myth that has been present all along, a myth that the film ultimately finds more comfortable.

This second myth is a longing for the uncomplicated moral backbone of early-20th-century America, with baseball serving as its mirror. In this myth, Roy Hobbs is less a person and more a symbol of purity, integrity, decency, and honor. The film’s oddities suddenly make sense when viewed through this lens. It explains why Roy doesn’t have a fall and why he leads a life without self-examination. It explains why Roy’s moral compass seems childish because childish innocence is the point. It explains the lack of tension around his “corruption” because he’s uncorruptible. Finally, it explains why Roy can’t grow, because if he grew, he would stop being the symbol the myth demands.

This is not a flaw in principle. It’s a perfectly valid approach to storytelling, and many iconic characters thrive in this role, with classic examples being James Bond or, more recently, John Wick. The issue in The Natural is that the film is telling two myths simultaneously and that these two myths are fundamentally incompatible. Each of these myths demands the complete opposite from the protagonist. The Arthurian legend demands that Roy fall, confront his wound, and transform into something worthy. The baseball-as-America myth demands that Roy not change so that the myth works. These contradictory demands are inversely opposed and contribute to the mythical incoherence; it’s a film laced with Arthurian symbols but deprived of true meaning. And when these two myths clash, the baseball-as-America myth always triumphs.

This disconnect originates in the adaptation from novel to film. The film inherited the Arthurian myth from Bernard Malamud’s novel but overlaid it with a baseball-as-American-virtue narrative designed for a happier ending, never reconciling the two. The irony is that Arthurian myth doesn’t demand bleakness—a redemptive, even triumphant ending is entirely compatible with the mythic structure, if the filmmakers had committed to it.

Nowhere is this disconnect more apparent than in the climactic scene. The imagery is magnificent, the music transcendent, and the emotional swell undeniable. But mythically, what is happening? Roy has been struggling all game because of his injury, and moments before his last at bat, he receives a note informing him that Iris’s son is also his son. And somehow this revelation grants him the power to win the game, save Pop Fisher’s legacy, and banish the Judge. But why? What changes? There’s no conversation, no internal conflict, and no resolution.

The moment is oddly muted. A policeman (a third party!) delivers a letter that Roy reads silently with a slight reaction. It’s perhaps the least mythic way to deliver the most mythic news. But these aren’t just execution failures; they’re consistent with the film’s refusal to show Roy’s internal reckoning. Any satisfying resolution would require Roy to take responsibility for his past and to make a choice and not just pace up and down the dugout looking around. But every path toward arriving at genuine meaning would force Roy to break the baseball-as-America archetype, and the film simply refuses to let him do it.

Rewatching the scene also reveals another problem: even if the performance had been flawless, there is simply not enough linear time for this revelation to mean anything. Learning that you have a son cannot be digested in a few seconds or even a few minutes. Bad news can crush a character instantly—it’s why the “I am your father” moment in Empire Strikes Back works. It takes time and struggle for meaning to form, for responsibility to take root, and for a person to change. The Natural tries to deliver a full mythic rebirth in the span of a breath, and the result borders on mythic parody: “I have a son? One-one-thousand, two-one-thousand… home run!” Destruction can be immediate; transformation cannot. Myth knows this. The film does not.

I’ve spent the last several paragraphs dissecting why the ending fails mythically. But the truth is that the scene itself is still great. It’s iconic for a reason. It’s one of the most perfectly crafted combinations of direction, cinematography, and music in 1980s cinema. And that is part of the paradox of The Natural: it’s a film built out of extraordinary set pieces—especially the baseball scenes—strung together with an emotional power the script never fully earns. Its images endure, even as the film proves that meaning can’t be conjured through aesthetics alone.

Ready for more insights? Every Cinemyth essay is free, unlocking the symbolic structures behind your favorite films. Subscribe now.

Subscribe now

This essay examines how the mythic architecture flowing beneath the surface of Pretty Woman forms a current that enhances the emotion of the transformations at the heart of the film, eventually revealing how value is reclaimed and meaning restored.

Vivian Ward

Julia Roberts’s embodiment of Vivian was a star-making performance that still leaps off the screen. Besides her joyous energy, one of the first things I noticed was that almost everybody looks at her—I mean, they literally turn their heads and stare as she simply moves through the world. It seems obvious why. Throughout the film she’s either dressed inappropriately, looking out of place, or dressed elegantly, beauty personified.

As the Loathly Lady

In the first scene of Vivian, a neighbor stares at her as she descends the fire escape to avoid the landlord collecting rent. And the looks continue throughout the first act, tapering off as the movie unfolds.

These glances, plus the outsize effect that Vivian has on others, made me start to wonder if she was some sort of muse character. But on closer examination, her effect on Edward was inspiring, but Barney’s interactions varied from doting to almost worshipful, while others even had negative reactions. So the muse pattern didn’t quite hold.

That’s when it started to click: she’s less of an inspirational figure and more a mirror, reflecting the underlying values of other characters, which began to resemble the archetype of the Loathly Lady from medieval romances.

S. Elizabeth Passmore defines the Loathly Lady as “a literary trope of a shapeshifting female who transforms from great beauty to intense ugliness in relation to a character test of the male protagonist.” In the Arthurian version, such as Chaucer’s The Wife of Bath’s Tale, this also involves some aspect of sovereignty (e.g., a woman’s right to choose for herself).

Pretty Woman uses a modern variation of this archetype where the test is not limited to any specific character. Virtually every character that Vivian interacts with is subjected to a simple test: how do they treat her. When dressed as a prostitute, can they look past the social judgment and see her genuine worth? What makes Vivian “loathly” in the modern sense isn’t her appearance but her social position as a sex worker. She’s attractive, but her clothing and manner mark her as improper within respectable society. This looks like the obvious answer. But what about all the situations where she’s dressed elegantly, looking beautiful, fitting in, and still testing those around her? And we also have a similar lingering issue about the glances, looks, and stares Vivian receives in the first half of the film, and why do they diminish as the story progresses?

We can answer all of those questions if the attention, the glances, and the tests are not because of Vivian’s station in society, or her profession, or her appearance. It’s the dissonance between her inner fragmentation and her outer vitality. This contradiction creates a kind of spiritual disturbance that draws the eye or causes a positive or negative reaction. It’s like people can sense something is off, even if they can’t articulate it. That fragmentation is visible even when it shouldn’t be. The glances vanish not because she becomes invisible, but because the dissonance resolves. As she heals, she becomes integrated. And when her outside and inside finally match? She’s an integrated whole that doesn’t attract attention like when she was broken.

So, what happens when people encounter this spiritual disturbance? How do they respond? The answers are illuminating.

The Shopkeepers

The shopkeepers encounter someone who doesn’t fit their narrow world, and their reaction is immediate, dismissive, and intentionally humiliating. It reads as simple cruelty. But it can be seen as a spectacular failure of recognition.

Stuckey

Philip Stuckey, on the other hand, manages to fail in a way that outdoes even the cruel shopkeepers. Stuckey first meets Vivian at the polo match. On his first interaction he is cordial, offering Vivian a glass of champagne. But over the course of the day, Stuckey grows perplexed. Something about her bothers him. He confronts Edward about her and pries long enough for Edward to share the secret that Vivian is a prostitute. Stuckey immediately goes over to Vivian, who is standing alone. He approaches her, slowly brushing her arm with his sunglasses and then resting his hand on her shoulder, rubbing it with his thumb until his wife calls him away. In Stuckey’s mind, learning that she’s a prostitute strips away her personhood, and she becomes an object. His touch isn’t violent, but it’s invasive: a violation of kindness and propriety that foreshadows Stuckey’s later aggression. More importantly, it exposes Stuckey’s spiritual bankruptcy in every aspect of his life, including his marriage.

Barney

The hotel manager, Barnard “Barney” Thompson, offers a starkly different response. Barney appears out of the wings as Vivian returns from her shopping trip and immediately intercepts her. It’s telling that Barney’s first interaction with the interloper is not to accuse or judge: all he does is ask questions and mirror her responses back. She moves into the elevator, and Barney escorts her out and back to his office for a little chat. Vivian plays her trickster game when asked her name (“What do you want it to be?”), which Barney puts a stop to immediately (“Don’t play games with me”). He reads her a polite version of the riot act and tap dances around the fact that she is a sex worker. This is played for comedic effect but also shows his care and discretion in not acknowledging impropriety and, since they are alone, this act of saving face is purely for Vivian’s benefit. Barney then encourages Vivian to dress more appropriately. This is where Vivian pulls out wads of cash and breaks down and cries over how she wasn’t able to buy a dress. Barney is taken aback. His eyes soften, his head tilts ever so slightly, and he looks down at the money and then back up—the effect is like a double take (mirroring his initial double take when Vivian walked past him in the lobby earlier in the day). It’s a tour de force of minimalistic expression. It’s all in the eyes: concern, gentleness, recognition. He extends a handkerchief and returns the money. When Vivian drops her guard—when the mask falls away—Barney sees her completely for the first time. Vivian thinks he’s calling the police, and we, the audience, still sense Vivian could be in trouble. But in a surprise reversal of expectations, it turns out that Barney is actually calling in a favor to help Vivian buy a dress. When confronted with genuine vulnerability, Barney’s response is recognition and grace. Once he finally sees Vivian, he acts with compassion and assistance.

The Morses

James Morse and his grandson, David, provide an encounter that quietly shifts everything. Their response is understated, almost easy to miss—nothing dramatic, profane, or revelatory like the previous encounters with the shopkeepers, Stuckey, or Barney. On the surface this scene is simple: eating dinner while talking about business, with Vivian providing some fish-out-of-water humor.

When introduced, the Morses likely notice her overenthusiastic handshakes but give no indication anything is amiss. Immediately after sitting, Vivian needs to visit the ladies’ room, forcing the rest of the table to stand again while she leaves. The Morses smile politely; these trivial things don’t bother them. Later, Vivian’s worst fears are realized when canapés are delivered as an appetizer in lieu of the expected salad. How to eat a canapé was not an eventuality that Vivian had studied for, so she asks when the salad is coming because “that’s the fork I know.” David smiles—not mockingly, not with derision, but because he’s genuinely charmed. Vivian continues looking at her fork, trying to decipher what she should do. James Morse sees her struggles and jumps in to save her, addressing her directly: “I don’t know about you, but I’ve never been able to figure which goes with what!” He then picks up the canapé in his fingers and looks Vivian right in the eye while showing her how he eats it. Edward nods his head approvingly with a slight smile.

Vivian’s next faux pas is accidentally flinging her escargot off her plate and into a waiter’s hands. James Morse has a light smile and a single quiet chuckle. David has a bit more of a chuckle and covers his mouth and turns his head away in deference. The chaos of it all, with those “slippery little suckers” flying off her plate, amuses them. But they’re laughing at the situation, not at her. David, in particular, tries to hide his amusement just in case it could be construed in an offensive manner. And when the business dealings break down in a bit of acrimony, the Morses are still kind to Vivian. David still tells her that it was “a great pleasure to meet you,” while James Morse wishes Vivian good luck (although admittedly a bit gruffly).

The interpretation here is straightforward: the Morses are decent and kind people even when trying to fend off hostile business advances. Looking back we can see the undercurrents here that will start a rippling effect that changes the course of the story. Back at the hotel Vivian comments to Edward, “The problem is, I think you liked Mr. Morse.” And this turns out to be true—but why? All of the talk was business-focused, and the meeting ended with the Morses storming out before dinner, with James’ last words being, “Watch out, Lewis. I’m gonna tear you apart.” Edward’s approval isn’t about the business or the conversation. It’s that he watched the Morses pass the test. He witnessed their character revealed—kindness without transaction, humor without cruelty. Something he’s rarely seen in the boardroom. In fact, we can look back to that short shot of Edward nodding approvingly as James Morse helps Vivian fit into their world as maybe the moment where Edward started questioning not just this business deal but perhaps his life’s work.

As the Lady of the Lake

The Lady of the Lake is iconic, one of the central characters of Arthurian legend, yet one of the most elusive. She goes by different names (sometimes even as Viviane) and appears as separate characters that serve multiple overlapping functions: a guide, a benefactor, a trickster, a guardian, a healer, and a sovereign power. The archetype is difficult to define, which is appropriate for an enigmatic figure who works in liminal places and with secret knowledge. The commonality among all of these functions is that the Lady of the Lake appears at times when transformation is required, frequently providing assistance without regard for payment or reward.

But how does a Celtic water fairy relate to a Hollywood streetwalker? The film starts to plant a water motif early on. In Vivian’s first scene we see her checking her toilet water tank for money inside a hidden box. Then, during Vivian and Edward’s first encounter, Vivian washes her hands, and after their evening together, there’s a short shot of Edward showering. Finally, the next morning, Vivian takes a bath.

The big set piece here is the bathtub scene, but it’s important to not skip over those almost incidental appearances of water in the film. The second appearance of water has Vivian washing her hands, then Edward comes in and confronts her about what she’s hiding in her hand (it’s dental floss, not drugs). The next appearance has Edward washing his hair for a few seconds, then it cuts to him looking at Vivian’s things, including her discarded wig. He turns to see her asleep and vulnerable without the trappings of her sex worker persona. The pattern we see in all of these sequences is: water, something hidden, which is then revealed.

Edward enters the bathroom. Vivian is singing in the tub, her eyes closed, headphones on so she doesn’t notice his arrival. Edward eventually lays out his offer for her to stay with him for the week. She agrees, sliding into the water and emerging a few seconds later to laughingly say, “Yes.” This first bathtub scene has many aspects we could dive into: Prince’s song Kiss being sung by Vivian, the transaction being conducted in a liminal space, Edward’s enchantment, and how Vivian is the light to Edward’s darkness.

But the one symbol that is being leaned on most heavily here is the water motif where something is hidden and then eventually revealed. First, Edward enters and is hidden from Vivian because her eyes are closed. Then, after Vivian agrees to the offer she is hidden from Edward under the water. Each of them being hidden from the other at one point in the scene is a small, but brilliant, piece of staging that adds another layer of meaning: at this point, neither truly sees the other for who they are. It also hints at Edward’s wound—hidden for now, but soon to be revealed through Vivian’s presence as the Lady of the Lake.

Edward Lewis: Wounded King

Similar to the Lady of the Lake (and most of Arthurian legend, truth be told), the Wounded King stories exhibit a wide variation with differing names (Maimed King, Fisher King) and story elements. But the story is typically some variation on: The king is wounded (usually in the thigh or groin), and his injury renders his kingdom a wasteland. As keeper of the Holy Grail, he waits for a destined seeker whose compassion or right question can heal both king and land. The healing occurs not through power but through empathy.

Edward Lewis has everything society says he should want: success, wealth, respect, and power. He commands rooms. He closes deals. He’s in demand. But beneath the surface lies profound emptiness. He can’t sleep. He’s always working. And what consumes his energy? He buys companies and extracts “value” by selling them off piece by piece. Transaction by transaction, he takes something whole and breaks it apart. And it’s this mindset that has rendered Edward’s life an emotional wasteland.

From the very opening scene, Edward’s transactional logic is on display. When he needs a girlfriend for the week, he calls his secretary to arrange it. “I need you here,” he tells his girlfriend—not “I want to see you,” but “I need you to serve this function.” On the surface, the argument is about the short notice, but in reality, it’s a much deeper issue: an inability to recognize sovereignty in others.

But how did this wound come to be? We learn that Edward’s extremely wealthy father divorced his mother, who was a music teacher, to be with another woman, taking his money with him. Later, Edward’s mother died. A simple story with a deep wound and far-reaching impact.

From his father’s abandonment, Edward learned love is conditional, love is transactional, and the only way to avoid abandonment is to always be the “best”—the wealthiest and most powerful. So he climbs. He stays in penthouses despite his fear of heights. He sits in opera boxes. He accumulates, commands, and dominates. Always the best alternative.

The screenplay releases information about Edward’s father in a perfectly measured fashion, only referencing him four times. He’s never seen, but his presence looms like a large shadow over Edward. Our introduction to Carter is in the first scene by an old girlfriend of Edward’s. He brushes off the mention of “Carter,” momentarily acknowledging but then continuing with the conversation. The second time is by James Morse, where we find out that Carter is Carter Lewis, Edward’s father, and that he passed away. After the Morse dinner, Vivian follows up, asking Edward two questions about his father, and then finishes with, “Do you want to talk about this?” Edward has a simple response: “No.” It’s a great progression. First we hear about the character, then we learn who he is and that he died, and Vivian’s questions let us know that Edward and his father were estranged. The Wounded King can be healed by asking the right question, but Edward rejects the opportunity for healing.

Edward has spent his life destroying. But as a child, he loved to build. In his office, he remembers this. Later, in the bathtub with Vivian, he finally admits to himself what he’s become. Edward is talking while Vivian cradles him in her arms. This is where we hear the backstory about Edward’s mother and father. Edward reveals that he was angry with his father and went to therapy to resolve the issue. When Edward bought out his father’s company and sold it off piece by piece, his therapist told him he was cured. But Edward hasn’t healed from his father’s wound. He’s inherited it. He’s become his father. On the business side he destroys companies like Edward’s father destroyed the family, and in his personal life he emotionally abandons all of his close relationships while always trying to be the best so that no one could choose anyone over him.

As Edward confesses his wound—the abandonment, the anger, the revenge—Vivian washes him. She’s literally cleansing him while he reveals what’s been rotting inside. It’s baptismal. Rebirth through confession and grace.

This spiritual cleansing is taking place in water, the liminal home of the Lady of the Lake. This is the threshold between the mortal and the divine, the conscious and the unconscious—the perfect place to be cleansed and healed.

And then, after Edward finishes his story of being “cured” through destroying his father’s company, Vivian asks a simple question: “That must’ve made you happy.” Edward pauses. He doesn’t answer. He places his hands around one of hers and holds the pose.

The gesture that follows is unmistakable: it’s the classic pose of prayer and spirituality. Look at Edward’s face—it’s serene, with eyes closed and body relaxed. This is pure surrender, acceptance, and gratitude. From an Arthurian perspective, Vivian asked the question that heals the king.

After a pregnant pause, Vivian changes the topic before the scene fades out:

VIVIAN
    Did I mention my leg is 44 inches from hip to toe, so, basically, we’re talking about 88 inches of therapy...wrapped around you for the bargain price     of...

EDWARD & VIVIAN (together)
...three thousands dollars.

Like so many times before, the film deceives us with charm. What seems like a sensual deflection, played for humor, is, once again, literally true. Her presence, her touch, her witnessing of his wound—that is the therapy his actual therapist never provided. Once again Garry Marshall hides the truth in plain sight. The “three thousand dollars” line is the final sarcastic beat of the scene, said by Edward and Vivian together, a throwaway humorous accent that is the exact form used to close out so many of the previous scenes.

The Lady of the Lake reveals Edward’s hidden wound in this water scene, which also echoes the “hidden to revealed” motif of the other water scenes we have already seen. And through her asking the right question, being a witness to the wound, and offering acceptance and grace, she allows Edward to begin healing himself.

Barnard “Barney” Thompson: Priestly Guardian

In Arthurian legend, the Grail Castle is the location where the Grail is kept. It’s a threshold space, a symbolic crossroads where the ordinary world falls away, transformation becomes possible, and the king can be healed. In the earliest versions the guardian of the Grail is the king himself, but as the tradition develops (the Vulgate Cycle, Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur) a new element to the Grail quest emerges: priests and hermits that guard the path to the Grail, offering the quester spiritual guidance.

If, in the myth of Pretty Woman, the Regent Beverly Wilshire hotel functions as a modern Grail Castle, then the priestly guardian of this sacred space is Barney, the hotel’s manager. He protects the sanctity of the space and acts as a guide and facilitator for those who enter.

In the role of guardian, Barney protects through vigilance. He intercepts Vivian when she tries to return, questions her, and bars her entry when she tries to bypass him; he discerns who belongs in his sacred hall and who does not. In his office he comes to see Vivian’s true nature as a queen (long before she understands this herself) and, in the role of priest, proceeds to guide and facilitate Vivian’s transformation. Later, he plants the seed that leads Edward back to Vivian.

Barney’s guardian role is an active one, used to protect the sacred space, but in his priestly role, he does the opposite—he’s a facilitator. He guides through wisdom, suggestion, and implication rather than authority. Aside from teaching Vivian etiquette, he gives no orders. Everything else is gentle prompting, creating the conditions for others to see what they need to see.

The use of striking imagery supports Barney’s role. During Barney’s office scene with Vivian, he raises his hand and moves it down and to the right. It’s ostensibly showing Vivian the way out to the lobby, but the gesture distinctly resembles a priest performing a blessing. This ceremonial gesture occurs before Barney has consciously understood Vivian’s nature, so it’s either a subconscious movement on his behalf or it’s intended as mythic reinforcement for the audience. Or perhaps both.

Later, Vivian thanks Barney for helping her buy a dress. As she walks away, he gives a short bow. It’s easy to miss but rich in meaning. At the moment Barney bows, Vivian has already turned away, so the bow is not for anyone’s specific benefit—it is simply the recognition of the divine.

Healing the Wounds

My original formulation talked about Vivian as the Loathly Lady and the Lady of the Lake. But you may have noticed I’ve also referred to her as a queen—circling around an idea I’ve been skirting. I’m forced to admit that, like Pretty Woman itself, I may have told a lie. A lie of omission. Vivian functions as the Loathly Lady and the Lady of the Lake, yes. But her true end state is that of queen.

So far we have seen how Vivian, as the Lady of the Lake, has helped to start healing Edward, the Wounded King. But what about Vivian’s transformation? How does that occur? The answer, unsurprisingly, uses the same crafty method we’ve seen throughout: hiding the obvious in plain sight, visual symbolism, and subtext.

Vivian’s Confession

The third act begins with Vivian and Edward lying in bed talking.

This scene is almost the opposite of the earlier bathtub scene with Edward and Vivian as the Lady of the Lake: water vs. bed, light vs. dark, closely touching vs. isolated, even the primary speaker is reversed. But the one similarity is that in both scenes each character is confessing their wound. Vivian reveals she’s always been a “bum magnet.” “Bum magnet” is such a casual, diminutive phrase that its true meaning is obscured. It’s an indirect revelation—she’s attracted to men who are “a total nothing” because she feels that is all she is worthy of. Later she voices what she has internalized: “People put you down enough, you start to believe it.” Her profession becomes the external manifestation of that wound. She’s literally selling herself to men she perceives as broken or unworthy because that’s all she thinks she deserves to attract.

In terms of visual composition, Vivian and Edward are positioned symmetrically in the frame, mirroring each other, which aligns with the functioning of the scene. Vivian confesses her wound, and Edward mirrors back to her how he sees her—as someone “very bright, very special.” And Vivian’s response: “The bad stuff is easier to believe. You ever notice that?” Vivian in this scene functions as a Loathly Lady to herself! She voices her inner wound (“bum magnet”—her loathsomeness in this context), she receives back from Edward his positive reflection of her wound, and she rejects this view of herself. She fails this test, but the naming of her wound marks the beginning of her ascension.

A Night at the Opera

Next up is the opera sequence. It’s one of the most memorable in the film, a callback to classic fairy tales such as the ball from Cinderella. The opera they attend, La Traviata, mirrors Vivian’s arc, but even with that added subtext, the key scenes don’t occur at the opera at all. The most important scenes are the ones that bookend the entire sequence: the wearing of the jewels and the post-opera chess game.

Vivian emerges from the bedroom resplendent in a red, form-fitting dress with elegant white gloves covering her arms up to and over her elbows. It’s one of the most iconic looks from the film, with the rich color and formal elegance giving Vivian the appearance of royalty.

The final item to finish the outfit is an expensive matching necklace. Edward places it around Vivian’s neck. It feels like a coronation, with the necklace representing Vivian’s crown. This is the moment when Vivian truly looks like a queen, Edward treats her like a queen, and the world sees her as a queen. But it’s a false coronation. The jewels are actually on loan; the borrowed crown is a false Grail because Vivian can’t receive a crown from Edward. She has to claim her own—because in Arthurian romance a true coronation can’t be bestowed from above; it has to arise from within, whether that is purity, spiritual enlightenment, or, in this story, the recognition of one’s own worth.

The Queen

After the night at the opera, we cut to the limo arriving back at the hotel. We hear the following in voice-over:

EDWARD
    No, don’t touch..
                         
VIVIAN
    I moved the queen. I like the queen.

EDWARD
    You can’t move the queen.

Edward is telling her not to touch the queen, but Vivian ignores this and moves the queen anyway. The queen represents Vivian, and this is her way of declaring her own agency and developing her internal sovereignty. Edward’s response seems to defy chess logic—the queen is the most powerful piece. But perhaps Edward isn’t speaking about chess at all. Perhaps he’s speaking to himself: “I can’t move the queen. The queen has to move herself.”

The scene cuts to them playing chess. It’s one of the most mythically charged images in the film.

We see that Edward’s jacket and Vivian’s gloves have been removed. They are relaxing after the formal opera but also revealing more of themselves. The chess pieces are positively medieval in style, invoking the Arthurian period—the very era when chess first arrived in Europe. The board reflects on the glass table, which also mirrors Vivian and Edward, while a glass of water sits next to Edward. The tabletop resembles the surface of a calm lake and, combined with the glass of water, echoes the earlier healing scene in the bathtub. The shot is canted, tilting the world horizontally so that Vivian appears slightly higher in the frame. This symbolizes her ascension as well as reminds us that, despite the symmetrical composition, they are not yet equals.

As the scene unfolds, Vivian proceeds to convince Edward to take a day off work. We later discover that this is virtually unprecedented. And all this time Vivian has been holding a captured white knight in her hands. In the fairy tale Vivian will later describe, Edward becomes the knight on a white horse. In this scene she literally holds his symbol in her hands, further demonstrating her developing agency. Looking back, outside of her earlier Lady of the Lake moments—when she guided or healed Edward through water—this is the first time she exerts real control in the world. Consider the sequence: humiliated by the shopkeepers, aided by Barney (via Bridget), taught dining etiquette by Barney, taken shopping and to polo by Edward, propositioned by Stuckey, and taken to the opera. Here, finally, she acts rather than reacts. She’s the one who now guides and moves the queen.

The Mythic Montage

Edward does take the day off. And the first shot of the scene tells us exactly where each of the characters is in their journey so we can explicitly see where they are and where they end up.

Edward, on his day off, has decided to bring along his briefcase. So even though he’s taken the step of not going to work, he’s still in the transactional business mindset. Vivian is walking on the low fountain wall. She’s starting the day still in her Lady of the Lake function: close to the water fountain, above Edward as a guide. Vivian then jumps down, simultaneously leaving the fountain and uniting with Edward on the same level. She’s abandoning her Lady of the Lake role as they both walk away from the fountain. Vivian is directing the action, informing Edward that “you’ll buy a snap dog. We’ll cop a squat under a tree.” Some dialogue ages better than others, unfortunately. Vivian then removes Edward’s shoes and socks and literally plants his feet into the earth and then takes away his cell phone and hangs it up. Vivian cuts the line to Edward’s transactional world, and she literally grounds him. The next two shots show Edward reading poetry and both of them talking while sharing cups of coffee in a small diner. It’s a far cry from the upscale dining with the Morses, but these last two interactions are pure connection, devoid of transaction. Just two people enjoying each other’s company for the sheer joy of it. This entire montage is not even one minute long, but it manages to show that the healing for both Vivian and Edward has taken place. But, wait, you might ask: you can’t possibly know that. I’ll admit that’s true. Not until we get a more definitive sign.

The Sleeping King

After the montage, we fade in to the penthouse. Vivian is in the bathroom getting ready for bed. She leaves the bathroom and sees Edward sitting up in bed, his eyes closed. Quietly she says,

The mere act of acknowledgment shows that not only have we, the audience, never seen Edward sleeping, but Vivian herself has also never seen him sleeping. This is the moment of Edward’s transformation. He doesn’t have to worry about abandonment or trying to be the best; he can relax, and the Wounded King can finally rest. Now Vivian moves to the bed, smiles at him with joy, savors the moment of decision, and intentionally decides to break her rule of no kissing on the lips. It’s a sovereign decision, one that’s not taken lightly and is totally non-transactional. In an inversion of the classic fairy tale, her kiss wakes Edward up. A tender love scene ensues, and it’s the first one where they are truly equals. On the first night it’s Vivian tending to Edward. And in the lounge on the piano, it’s Edward trying to extract a kiss on the lips from Vivian while she manages to avoid intimacy. But now, as they are healed, they can truly be open and connected with each other.

The scene ends with a sleeping Edward holding Vivian in his arms while she caresses him. She says, “I love you.” Her eyes close while Edward’s open. Vivian confesses her love for Edward. It’s easy to write this off as the standard rom-com trope of the overheard confession. But since this is Pretty Woman, I think there’s an alternate interpretation. Edward is sleeping, and she’s facing away from him, so it’s possible that she’s not speaking to, or even about, Edward. Perhaps, at this moment, Vivian is actually speaking to herself. The “I love you” whispered aloud is not a confession of love but a declaration of self-worth, the realization of sovereignty, and the full ascension of the queen.

An Offensive Offer

The next scene cuts to Edward at the table eating breakfast in a callback to the breakfast scene after Edward and Vivian’s first night together. The difference is that at that time, Edward sat at a table full of food, focused entirely on his newspaper. Now, the newspaper is still there, but Edward is eating. Even with the Morse meeting taking place entirely over dinner, this is the first time we’ve seen Edward eat. First the king rests, and now he rebuilds his strength. The previous two scenes of symbolic transformation, along with this new behavior, prime us to witness Edward’s internal change manifest in the world. Edward starts strong, “I’d really like to see you again,” much to Vivian’s delight. But the newspaper still in the picture should maybe have triggered some alarm bells because Edward slips back into his transactional thinking, uttering the tone-deaf remark, “I’ve arranged for you to have an apartment, to have a car…” Vivian’s face drops, and she appears more offended than disappointed. The discussion moves to the balcony, where Edward, in another first, comes fully out onto the balcony. On their first night he wouldn’t go out there, then after the Morse meeting he was “halfway out,” and now, he’s out but close to the doors. Edward’s behavior has changed; he’s moving forward, reflecting the real psychological change underneath, but he hasn’t fully been able to let go of his transactional ways. Vivian then lays out her fairy tale with the knight on a white horse rescuing her from the tower. The phone rings—it’s Stuckey announcing Morse is ripe for the picking, and Edward is more than happy to leave this uncomfortable conversation.

This is where Vivian’s transformation becomes undeniable. Vivian’s deep wound was that her low self-worth caused her to be attracted to and follow bums (or what I called broken men). That’s how she ended up in Hollywood—by following bum number three. Now Edward, a healing but still broken man, makes her an offer that still treats her transactionally, and she rejects the offer immediately. Actually, it’s more than rejection; she is emotionally hurt at being treated as an object that can be purchased. Vivian’s newly discovered self-worth allows her to reject both the offer and the broken man behind it, assert her sovereignty, and become the queen that Barney has seen all along.

Edward Lewis: Builder

We cut to the boardroom where Morse and Edward’s team are meeting to finalize the deal. Everyone is sitting except Edward, who is pacing back and forth near the head of the table, looking slightly on edge. James Morse explains that he has “reconsidered” his position but has one condition:

I’m not so concerned about me, but the people who are working for me.

Stuckey brushes it aside instantly: “It’s not a problem. They’ll be taken care of. Well, then, gentlemen.” Stuckey doesn’t give it a second thought; a few dollars will solve the problem. The contrast is stark. Morse has only one condition—protect his people. Stuckey dismisses the entire human cost with a shrug.

Edward shakes his head, as if finally processing the real-world consequences of his actions. Then he interrupts Stuckey: he wants to speak to Morse alone. Edward clears the room because transformation is inherently private. It requires vulnerability and the shedding of defenses. Alone with Morse, Edward can drop his tough business exterior and, for the first time in a boardroom, allow himself a moment of grace.

Edward dotes on Morse, closing the blinds to soften the glare and pouring him a cup of coffee. They’re small gestures, but in mirroring Morse’s innate kindness, Edward quietly reveals his own transformation. He does like Mr. Morse, as Vivian intuited earlier, and Edward’s actions aren’t motivated by a desire to close the deal. They are purely non-transactional: acts of kindness for a man he respects. This is the moment where Edward decides. Decides to heal his wound. Decides to build instead of destroy, serve instead of command, and be kind instead of ruthless. And the culmination of Edward’s journey occurs when James Morse puts his hand on his shoulder and says, “I find this hard to say without sounding condescending, but... I’m proud of you.” There’s a pregnant pause where you can insert the unspoken word yourself: “son.” Edward bows his head emotionally and accepts this blessing from Morse. In a way, James Morse has now become Edward’s surrogate father. Notice that David Morse, the protégé being groomed to take over the company, isn’t James Morse’s son—he’s his grandson. Which leaves room for Edward to symbolically fill that missing place.

Later Edward violently severs his relationship with Stuckey, closing that chapter and rejecting his previous transactional life.

The Fairy Tale Ending

The film ends with Edward enacting Vivian’s fairy tale. Edward arrives in a white limousine instead of on a white horse, he carries an umbrella instead of a sword, and he climbs the “tower” to rescue her. When he gets as high up as he can, he asks, “So what happened after he climbed up the tower and rescued her?” Vivian delivers her famous line, “She rescues him right back,” and they kiss. Once again it’s an inversion of the traditional fairy tale, and we’re hitting all the happy-ending rom-com beats. I’d always thought this was more of an epilogue and not necessary to the story; nothing but an ornamental bow to wrap up the film. But I was wrong.

Yes, Vivian and Edward’s arcs were completed earlier: Vivian was already rescued the moment she said “I love you” in the darkness and reclaimed her self-worth, and Edward was already rescued when he chose to build instead of destroy, breaking his father’s cycle and receiving Morse’s blessing as a son. Since their arcs were complete, I thought this ending wasn’t adding anything meaningful to the story. But now I think it actually ties into the Grail quest. In its medieval form, the Grail symbolizes potentially many things: spiritual perfection, healing, or salvation. But in a modern Grail story, the external object is removed and replaced with direct internal psychological meaning. In this sense, when Edward is healed, he has found the Grail.

This ending scene echoes the Arthurian Sarras episode, where the knight that achieves the Grail is directed by a messenger to bring the Grail to Sarras (a mystical island), and, once there, the knight becomes a king. In Pretty Woman, the messenger is Barney, providing the information for finding the way: “You know, Darryl also drove Miss Vivian home yesterday.” Edward goes to Vivian because he passed the test and found the Grail, and now he must present it to her using the correct ritual. Vivian names the ritual she demands—a knight climbs the tower and rescues the princess. But what the fairy tale doesn’t say out loud is the crucial part: the knight must already be worthy. The rescue isn’t the test; it’s the final act that reveals the knight has passed the real trial. When Edward ascends, the king and queen are united, and the fairy-tale ending marks the true completion of the quest, where Edward’s wasteland is finally made whole.

It’s a satisfying ending, but there is one more inversion hiding in plain sight. Vivian once described her wound as being a “bum magnet.” Now that she has discovered her self-worth, claimed her sovereignty, and stepped fully into her queenly role, she no longer attracts—or is drawn to—“bums.” She attracts a king.

The Lie Revisited

In this essay I’ve looked at Pretty Woman through an Arthurian lens and revealed its surprising depth, but with mythic roots this strong, I suspect alternate readings could also be rewarding. What’s remarkable about Pretty Woman is that some of the scenes people remember most—the “revenge” on the shopkeepers, the “Pretty Woman” montage, even the opera—are not the mythically essential ones. They’re mostly ornamental, the glossy sheen that helps make the film beloved. The actual transformations happen quietly: in water, in vulnerability, in moments of genuine connection. Marshall’s genius is making us feel the depth through comic irony and visual symbols. Other directors shine a bright light on their themes with kinetic camera work or epic music. Marshall hides his quietly in plain sight. The foundational mythic architecture supports and enhances the emotional experience without showing itself. And that truth is the beautiful lie at the heart of Pretty Woman.

Ready for more insights? Every Cinemyth essay is free, unlocking the symbolic structures behind your favorite films. Subscribe now.

Subscribe now

But what if the story above is just a beautiful lie?
An illusion. A smokescreen.
What if the glossy sheen of this classic rom-com is pure misdirection?
What if beneath the fantasy lies a rich symbolic myth far older than Rodeo Drive?

At every turn, the film masterfully distracts us from what it’s really doing, even naming Cinderella within the story. And yes, the parallels are there: Vivian suffers humiliation (shopkeepers instead of stepsisters), keeps her dignity, and wins her prince. And, in a case of mythic foreshadowing hiding in plain sight, she even sings along to Prince's song “Kiss”.

The Magician’s Trick

As the credits roll against black we hear a voice declare, “No matter what they say, it’s all about money.” The image fades in to an extreme close-up of a magician’s hands performing coin tricks. And really, we should know better than to trust a magician.

The film literally begins with a lie — a kind of audacious metaphysical irony. The magician’s patter echoes familiar, easy-to-accept clichés like “money makes the world go ’round”. Yet the story that follows will quietly prove the opposite: that some things are beyond money, that appearances deceive, and that not everything of value is transactional.

In its first twenty-five seconds, the film both announces its theme and reveals the meta-blueprint for how it will achieve it: through cinematic sleight of hand that hides the truth until its final reveal.

Scene 1: The Party

The camera pans, revealing a crowded party. We meet Philip Stuckey and hear talk of Edward Lewis, his client and friend. Stuckey doesn’t know where Edward is but assumes he’s “probably off in a corner somewhere charming a very pretty lady.” Not so much, actually; Edward is in another room arguing on the phone with his girlfriend, who resents being at his “beck and call.” They break up — efficiently. Moments later he bumps into a former girlfriend who reminds him that he was just as unavailable when they were dating, noting that his secretary was one of her bridesmaids. With calm authority, Edward instructs a colleague to check how the Morse stock opened on the Nikkei.

Night is falling. Edward borrows Stuckey’s car, a Lotus Esprit, intending to drive himself back to his hotel. This small decision sets the myth in motion.

At the start, like many films, we’re dropped right into the middle of the action, with information coming fast. Here’s what we learn about Edward:

• He’s popular, in demand, and a successful businessman who others are eager to be around.

• Edward is still focused on work while attending a large party (even if it does involve business networking).

• Edward seems direct and calm and treats people with respect even when in a position of power or engaging in conflict.

• Edward has had many relationships. We meet two of them in quick succession, while Stuckey casually implies that Edward wouldn’t hesitate to charm another woman even while attached (though we never see evidence of infidelity).

• He treated his breakup more like a business meeting than the end of a romance.

• His in-person conversation with his ex-girlfriend is polite and friendly. Edward slightly hesitates when his penchant for communicating with his girlfriends through his secretary is confirmed but he seems to brush this aside quickly.

• We hear mention of Carter and watch how effortlessly Edward evades the topic. Later we find out that Carter is Edward’s recently deceased father.

This is solid writing and gives us sharp character insights and plot points without relying on clunky exposition.

Scene 2: The Drive Home

Edward heads out in Stuckey’s car but quickly takes a few wrong turns, eventually ending up on Hollywood Boulevard instead of in Beverly Hills. He finally pulls over, flustered and searching for the right gear (“First is here somewhere”).
Vivian and Kit spot the car pulling over and Vivian approaches. Edward, clearly lost, asks for directions. Vivian tells him directions cost five dollars; when he balks, she doubles the price to ten. Since Edward only has a twenty, Vivian offers to show him the way herself.

Edward keeps trying to drive, grinding gears and fumbling with the stick shift. Vivian, impressed by the car, remarks:

Man, this baby must corner like it’s on rails!
Doesn’t it blow your mind? This is only four cylinders.

Edward doesn’t quite understand. Vivian goes on to explain that he’s not shifting right because it’s a standard H-pattern, and he replies flatly, “Like I know what that means.” Finally, he gives up and tells her she’s going to drive.

Vivian takes the wheel and drives off, effortlessly and confidently guiding Edward through the city’s darkened streets toward the Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel.

The Symbolic Subtext

A quiet shift happens during Edward and Vivian’s interaction in the car. In a moment that adds little to the plot, Edward realizes Vivian understands the car better than he does and he cedes control, elevating Vivian from navigator to driver. Before this, we’ve only seen Edward in command: telling his associate to check the Nikkei, forcing Stuckey to loan him the car, even insisting on having the last word in a breakup after his girlfriend has already hung up.

It’s a small gesture, played with a light touch, and maybe it’s just efficient delegation, but symbolically it’s telling. The man who commands companies and conversations yields to someone he’s only just met; someone the world considers both profane and beneath him. The dynamic reverses and he surrenders the wheel of the Lotus to her. It’s a subtle foreshadowing of the mythic dynamic that fully develops later where Vivian guides Edward and drives the moral arc of the story.

And then there is the car itself: a Lotus Esprit. The Lotus flower has long been associated with enlightenment and rebirth, and Esprit in French means “spirit”, so the name Lotus Esprit quite literally suggests spiritual enlightenment.

Coincidence? In this case…probably. Ferrari and Porsche reportedly declined to feature their cars in a movie about a prostitute, but there were other options that might have been possible: Aston Martin, Lamborghini, Jaguar, and even American convertibles. Yet, somehow, the producers landed on a car where the symbolism is so on-the-nose that when pointed out it almost feels like parody: a car named spiritual enlightenment, driven by man who doesn’t know the way or even how to shift gears.

What’s next, a close-up of the princess in slippers?

Oh, wait. They actually do that later on.

Both Stuckey and Edward have the wealth to purchase the trappings of enlightenment, but they lack the direction, skill, and insight to attain it.

Edward doesn’t even grasp Vivian’s description of how the car should drive. Later, he repeats it to Stuckey — “It corners like it’s on rails” — and Stuckey is equally baffled. It’s played for laughs, and it is funny, but the underlying truth is that neither Stuckey nor Edward (at least yet) understands the language of enlightenment.

The Myth of Pretty Woman

During this examination of two of the opening scenes we’ve glimpsed some of their hidden meanings and symbols. It’s impossible to know whether these touches were intentional or simply “felt right” to the filmmakers, but hopefully it’s convinced you that Pretty Woman might be more than just a glossy rom-com. And if you’ve come this far, maybe you’re willing to come a little further to see what myth it leads us to.

But what myth does it lead us to? In this case, it’s a modern take on a centuries-old myth: the story of a wounded king, a lady from the water, and the healing of the wasteland.

Writing this essay, I’m amazed by two things: how these thousand-year-old Arthurian legends, despite their age, still find ways to speak to us, and how director Garry Marshall pulled off the biggest trick of all by weaving those archetypes into a little 1990s romantic comedy without ever letting the seams show.

In Part 2 we take a deep dive beneath the surface to discover the Mythic Architecture of Pretty Woman.

Ready for more insights? Every Cinemyth essay is free, unlocking the symbolic structures behind your favorite films. Subscribe now.

Subscribe now

The finale to the original Dexter series was famously divisive. Some may even say reviled by the fan base as evidenced by its 4.8/10 rating on IMDB. Dexter: New Blood gave show runner Clyde Phillips (yes, we are naming names) the almost unprecedented chance to correct course and deliver a satisfying ending. The sequel show was both popular and well received. However, in a mind boggling turn of events, once again the finale was botched with the final episode somehow being even lower rated than the original Dexter finale this time garnering a 4.7/10 rating on IMDB.

Let's take a look at how and why a show managed to twice fail so spectacularly in attempting to satisfactorily wrap up its storyline. But instead of focusing on the narrative and dissecting the plot piece by piece let's step back and see what myth Dexter is telling and why it resonates.

Dexter As Mythic Constant Hero

Dexter, as a character, is driven by his urge to kill. This so-called Dark Passenger was instrumental in Harry and Dr. Vogel's creation of the Code — a framework for channeling Dexter's desires into some potential good. This duality of murder as virtue sets Dexter up as one of the foremost anti-heroes in TV history. But why did audiences embrace this murderous character and even cheer for him week to week? Because Dexter isn’t just a flawed anti-hero, he's a Mythic Constant Hero who embodies ritual judgment.

The Mythic Constant

In order to help frame and understand the functioning of Dexter, I propose the concept of a Mythic Constant Character.

They enter the story fully formed with fixed values, and their behavior is shaped by adherence to these constant values. Other characters may change, react, or collapse in response to them, but the Mythic Constant either endures unchanged or is destroyed by their lack of change.

This idea is informed by archetypal literary criticism (e.g. Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, and others) and, at first glance, may sound similar to the concept of a flat-arc protagonist. K. M. Weiland defines it like this: "the flat arc is about a character who does not change. He already has the Truth figured out in the beginning of the story, and he uses that Truth to help him overcome various external tests." So, yes, there is a similarity in that both characters have no arc and they both possess values or Truth but the main difference is one of function: the flat-arc character has a truth while the Mythic Constant Character embodies a more mythic principle or force.

Another interesting distinction between Mythic Constant Characters and more traditional characters is that with traditional characters we typically want to know more about them. We want to know their backstory, motivations, internal conflicts, and even delve into their psychology. But Mythic Constant Characters are almost pure symbol: the less we know about them the purer they function in the story as a symbol. In fact, excessive backstory or complexity can dilute the impact they have in embodying their timeless principle within the narrative. For a Mythic Constant Characters less is more.

Dexter's Code

Dexter's compulsion to kill is his driving force. It's an animalistic desire that needs to be managed. But this is not what makes the myth. The myth and it's meaning only take shape when this need is bound to a code. Harry's Code gives form and meaning to Dexter's urges. Of all the rules of the Code two stand out above all:

1. Targets must be killers who have evaded the justice system

2. Killing must serve a purpose, otherwise, it's just plain murder

It's these two rules that frame Dexter's actions and the myth not as revenge or even retribution but as judgment. Dexter seeks out the unpunished who slip through the cracks in the system. The Code calls for death to balance the scales but it's the addition of Dexter's ritual that elevates this death to a reckoning.

Ritual and Last Rights

As mentioned, the Code dictates certain boundaries and procedures (such as who and why to kill, verification of the crime, etc.). This part of the code forms part of the ritual but it's Dexter himself who added other ritualistic aspects such as the plastic sheeting, the layout of the tools, the choice of clothing, the confrontation with the victim. In the narrative these details serve to satisfy Dexter's compulsions and keep him in control. However, mythically these ceremonies add a deeper symbolic meaning.

At the core of virtually every episode is the kill room. It's a makeshift room sheathed in plastic, a temporary cathedral for exacting karmic judgment. The kill room's precise dressing shows us that this is a sacred, separate space, set outside of normal reality. It's here that Dexter assumes the role of judge, jury, and executioner. The room is typically set up with a sacrificial altar at the center, the tools laid out ceremonially, and the space adorned with photos (or other items) illustrating the sins of the guilty. As Dexter presides over this ritual sacrifice, his simple clothes and apron are symbolically transformed into priest's vestments. But by far the most important aspect of this ritual is the final reckoning. This is where Dexter confronts the accused with their crimes, gives them the opportunity to confess and/or repent, and, most importantly for the myth, to make them aware of why they are being judged.

The genius of the show is that it operates on a few different levels. On one level it appeals to our deeply ingrained sense of justice and retribution. On another, the Code allows us to consciously accept this baser instinct because it acts as a covenant and safeguard to stem the chaos, return order, and hopefully improve society. Dexter's repetitive ritual is befitting a Mythic Constant Hero and, in this role, Dexter acts as an ancient force of judgment outside of modern morality. And he's utterly compelling for it.

The Code's Cosmic Affirmation

It's also worth examining what happens when Dexter violates the Code as these instances often underscore its cosmic significance. Two aspects of the Code that are most frequently violated, and with the clearest consequences, are:

1. Don't make things personal because it clouds judgment

2. Don’t get emotionally involved

Notice that these two elements of the Code are not life lessons; they are specific rules intended and useful for guiding a judge.

Over the course of the series, there are many examples of these violations, but the most striking and memorable is Dexter's pursuit of The Trinity Killer. Dexter allowed himself to become emotionally involved — seeing Trinity as a mentor he could learn from (to appear more human). This delay in carrying out the Code led directly to Rita's death. What becomes evident is that frequently when Dexter violates the Code (but not always) it leads to negative, sometimes catastrophic, consequences. Unfortunately, the show doesn't always connect these dots with clarity leaving the consequences often as implicit or incidental rather than ritualized. Even so, these moments serve as a kind of cosmic affirmation that the Code is not a random collection of rules, but a necessary framework that allows Dexter to bring order to the world.

Other Layers of Appeal

While Dexter's mythic role as judge forms the foundation of his appeal, it's also worth acknowledging other elements that contributed to the show's enduring popularity. First and foremost is the excellent cast, which almost goes without saying. Michael C. Hall's portrayal is so iconic that there's a good chance he never emerges from its shadow. From a production perspective the music, cinematography, and editing are also uniformly outstanding, befitting the prestige TV label.

Dexter as Serial Killer is (hopefully!) not relatable to the audience but the show adds enough character seasoning to make Dexter as a whole more relatable. Dexter is forced to present a normal mask to the world in order to fit into society and everyone can relate to hiding part of yourself away from the world in order to belong. Also hidden away is the shadow self, which is another point of relatability. Dexter embodies an almost pure example of the Jungian shadow but instead of wrestling with or trying to overcome it he embraces it. In a way, this makes it easier for the viewer to accept their own shadow self.

But let's not forget the humor. The show is consistently infused with a dry, darkly humorous wit, punctuated by an occasional macabre sense of humor that provides both levity and a unique tone. The show is sensationalistic but it is also trying to smartly entertain.

Yet other layers of appeal include the "B" plots. Frequently these stories revolve around Dexter's attempts at becoming more human (and failing) sometimes with awkward humor thrown in (the awkward failures were especially common in the more successful earlier seasons). These subplots do show some growth so Dexter, even as a Mythic Constant Hero, does change in some small ways. However, this change is not fundamental and doesn't affect his core mythic values.

The Finales of Failure

The irony with both Dexter and Dexter: New Blood is that they failed in the same way: both misunderstood the character and the myth. One more catastrophically than the other.

Since a Mythic Constant doesn’t have an arc, there are two possible ends for this type of character: they endure unchanged, or they are destroyed because they didn't change or because they failed to embody their core principle.

Dexter Finale

In Dexter, he fakes his death and is presumed lost at sea. But in the final scene, he’s revealed alive in Oregon, working as a lumberjack under a new identity.

Narratively, the writers aimed to surprise the audience with Dexter’s supposed motivation of protecting his son. But this ending had nothing to do with the myth the series had built over eight seasons. The ultimate irony? In the end, Dexter’s emptiness mirrored the audience’s.

Dexter: New Blood Finale

In Dexter: New Blood, Dexter kills Sergeant Logan and his crimes and past are revealed to Harrison. Dexter has quick flashbacks to those whose deaths he was involved in (Rita, Deb, LaGuerta, Doakes, Lundy) and demands that Harrison shoot him. Harrison pulls the trigger and Dexter bleeds out.

The good news: New Blood is objectively stronger from a mythic standpoint. It inserts nods to legacy and reckoning. The bad news: it rushes the execution, skips the ritual, and devolves into a father-son therapy session.

Dexter's killing of Sergeant Logan is a clear violation of the code (Never kill an innocent) and can be seen as justification for Dexter’s death. The biggest problem with this is that there is only 13 minutes of screen time between Logan's death and Dexter's death. This doesn't give the audience enough time to assimilate and weigh the consequences of Dexter's actions. The rushed pace prevents us from feeling the mythic weight pressing down. If anything the pressure we feel is the police net closing in around Dexter. This prioritizes narrative pressure over mythic pressure which blunts any impact caused by the mythic crack.

Secondly, we never get a fully complete ritual. They try to invoke Dexter’s ritual with Harrison’s "Open your eyes and see what you've done” line and try to simulate the pictures Dexter places in the kill room by showing quick clips of dead characters where Dexter had some involvement in their deaths. But it’s a pale imitation of the ritual that only lasts a few short moments.

From there the scene pivots into a father-son therapy session. And, while, they're perfectly valid emotional beats, they are the wrong conversation to have at the threshold of judgment. What is demanded is a ritualized reckoning. Dexter, who as a Mythic Constant Character embodies judgment, must be judged through ritual.

Worse still, having Dexter insist that Harrison shoot him is a cop-out that undercuts the ritual. If Dexter is judging himself, then demanding someone else to execute that judgment is mythically incoherent and morally dubious. If Harrison is the judge then he must perform the ritual and perform the judgment. Instead, we get neither.

Finally

With the new series Dexter: Resurrection I'm hopeful that the writers can learn from some of the missteps of Dexter and Dexter: New Blood and deliver a compelling story that honors the mythic bones of the original series. But after two finales that missed the mark, I'm not overly optimistic.

Please, Clyde Phillips, prove me wrong and honor the myth.

Ready for more insights? Every Cinemyth essay is free, unlocking the symbolic structures behind your favorite films. Subscribe now.

Subscribe now

The Narrative of Shame

I may have actually understated the case above. Narratively, the first act barely holds together. Scene by scene, it’s a cascade of “cinema sins” stacked so high that, in the cold light of day, it becomes almost laughable. But that view misses the point entirely. Stargate isn’t trying and failing to make narrative sense. Like Tommy Lee Jones’ Marshall Gerard in The Fugitive, it just doesn’t care. As long as the myth is intact and the story keeps moving, logic can be left behind.

The Minimum Viable Myth (MVM) provides the essential, bare-bones mythic energy that propels a story forward. It's less concerned with logical coherence than with raw narrative momentum. Let's see how Stargate masterfully employs this.

Minimum Viable Myth in Action

For these next sections, I’ll be referencing the theatrical version of Stargate, which omits an opening spaceship scene and a subplot involving fossils. If you're curious, Reddit has plenty of comparisons. But for our purposes, the theatrical version is the purest form of the MVM in action.

Let’s dive into a few key scenes from Act I to show how they succeed despite (or because of) their disregard for realism. This is where narrative nonsense becomes mythic propulsion.

Giza, Egypt 1928

Why it doesn’t make sense

In a scene that visually echoes The Ten Commandments’ “Obelisk Raising,” workers hoist the stargate ring upright with ropes — a move that would recklessly risk damaging a priceless, one-of-a-kind artifact. Meanwhile, a young Catherine Langford casually pockets a gold pendant from a dig table, with no adult or archaeologist so much as flinching.

Why it makes perfect sense

Raising the gate is an act of revelation allowing us to behold it as a mirror or doorway. As for the pendant, Catherine’s act links her to the gate and marks her as the steward of the mystery.

Why it really works

The scene is sprawling, layered, and filled with hundreds of extras, giving an immediate sense of scope and drawing us in. The light is golden, and the tone is reverent. A 37-second Steadicam one-shot follows the characters through the bustling excavation, immersing us directly into the lived-in world of 1928 Giza. It feels real, tactile, and grounded.

The next major shot follows Catherine up a ramp, cresting a ridge. The camera cranes with her, rising to reveal the stargate in full. David Arnold’s score fills us with awe and wonder at the mysterious object. It’s a classic reveal that channels Spielberg or Leone. These two reverent, prestige shots add cinematic weight and signal that this matters.

Little did we know that the rest of Act I would gleefully squander that earned trust by tossing narrative logic out the window in service of the Minimum Viable Myth.

Present Day Lecture

Why it doesn’t make sense

If Jackson is a disgraced academic, then why is his lecture fully attended by about 100 serious academics (at least judging by the sweaters, tweed, and glasses on display) who collectively decide to walk out en-masse?

Why it makes perfect sense

This lecture is actually a trial by fire and a public humiliation. Jackson must be ritually shamed, rejected, and cast out so that he can be reborn from a mythic journey.

Strange Job Interview in a Car

Why it doesn’t make sense

The improbabilities mount:

• How does the weather go from bright sunshine to a torrential downpour in the time it takes Jackson to gather his things and leave the hotel?

• Why does Catherine return to the car to wait for Jackson when she was just in the same (empty) room with him?

• Why does she ask Jackson if the photo she is holding is of his parents?

• Was Jackson really evicted that day? Does he really only own two bags worth of stuff? And how does Catherine know those two bags are everything he owns?

Why it makes perfect sense

The hard cut to the rain is almost comical — think Young Frankenstein (“It could be worse. It could be raining”). But the storm mirrors Jackson’s emotional state even if it breaks meteorological logic.

Catherine waiting in the car feels like a theatrical ritual and frames the meeting as mysterious and secretive. The invitation into the car and her inner circle offers Jackson a mythic lifeline.

The family photo reveal establishes Jackson’s archetype: the orphan who is disconnected from family and belonging. Humiliated, shunned, homeless, and without deep ties, he's the perfect character to heed the call.

Why it really works

It nails the Hero’s Journey beat. Daniel is summoned and momentarily refuses the call. And then, faster than you can say “Joseph Campbell,” he accepts. It may be the quickest rejection-acceptance combo in cinematic history — but with MVM, box-checking is often “good enough.” The propulsion matters more than the time spent. And in a clever twist, the film delays showing his acceptance until he’s already en route to Colorado.

The Wounded Warrior

Why it doesn’t make sense

Why does General West’s office need to send two officers to Colonel O’Neil’s house just to say, “You’ve been reactivated”? Maybe a phone call or courier wouldn’t be sufficient for military protocol — but if it’s so serious, why only a single line of dialogue? And why two men? One to speak, and the other to hold the official-looking folder?

Why it makes perfect sense

This scene introduces O’Neil as the Wounded Warrior — a broken or tragic hero called back into duty. And two officers are required to deliver the exposition that re-frames everything we’ve seen: "His kid died — accidentally shot himself."

Why it really works

1. Beginning the scene, the car drives straight at the camera, adding a sense of kinetic momentum.

2. It’s autumn and the streets are covered with leaves; the seasonal death mirroring O’Neil’s grief.

3. The cut to inside the O’Neil home is a long shot down the hallway, reinforcing the family’s emotional isolation.

4. O’Neil’s wife lights a cigarette and delivers a single line: “You can try.” In just three words and one gesture, we see how far gone she is.

5. The child’s room, frozen in time, sets up the eventual reveal: O’Neil is a grief-stricken, potentially suicidal father.

6. O’Neil’s long hair subtly signals how long he's been suffering and withdrawn.

7. O’Neil remains completely silent throughout the scene, his distant, haunted eyes conveying the depth of his suffering.

8. And the final line the officers’ comment as they leave? It quietly reframes everything we’ve just seen.

The scene wastes no time on transitional movement; characters are simply cut to their necessary positions (e.g., inside O'Neil's house, outside the bedroom, then back in the car), ensuring pure narrative propulsion.

It’s a quiet scene, almost throwaway on first watch, but it's so perfectly constructed that any addition or subtraction would make the scene worse. And the emotional seeds it plants blossom later in O’Neil’s eventual redemption.

Cracking the Code

Why it doesn’t make sense

Deciphering the symbols, Jackson's breakthrough somehow merits an emergency meeting of top military brass, including General West, who is in full curmudgeon mode. The setting? A boardroom straight out of sci-fi central casting, with blinking lights and analog controls better suited to a Cold War launch center than a classified 1994 military facility.

And instead of telling Catherine (the person who recruited him) or even briefing the team, Jackson keeps it all to himself until the full high-ranking cast has assembled. Only then does he unveil his breakthrough in real time like the dorkiest TED Talk ever.

Why it makes perfect sense

This is ritual revelation and one of the highlights of Act I. The scene is structured around emotional rhythm and cinematic ceremony. Plot logic is a distant afterthought.

Why it really works

Jackson has completed a 12-minute mini-arc: from disgraced academic to Priest-Scholar, performing a revelation of truth. “He did it,” Catherine whispers with awe.

We learn the truth at the same moment the characters do. We are in the boardroom, too. That shared moment of discovery turns exposition into participatory revelation.

Seen in a theater, that effect multiplies. Dozens or hundreds of people share the same emotional beat, the same unfolding of understanding. That’s cinema as ritual. That’s why it works.

Threshold Crossing

Why it doesn’t make sense

In a baffling bit of mission planning, Daniel, the only person who can get the team home, is the last to go through the stargate.

Why it makes perfect sense

Plot logic is sacrificed (again) for maximum drama and tension. Daniel is the audience’s surrogate, so delaying his jump lets us focus on him to experience the wonder and terror of the stargate.

Why it really works

This is the literal threshold crossing of the Hero’s Journey. The hero steps into the unknown alone, and we're right there beside him.

Minimum Viable Myth Revisited

We've now seen how Stargate leverages the Minimum Viable Myth to create propulsion and intrigue in its first act. Now, let's take a closer look at the MVM itself.

The Minimum Viable Myth is the smallest functional amount of mythic coherence required to propel the story forward and maintain the ritual experience. Plot holes? Character contradictions? All acceptable collateral damage, provided the mythic current remains unbroken. Feeling is the true currency of its success.

And let’s be clear: I’m not using MVM as a pejorative. In a two-hour film, you have limited time to introduce a world, raise the stakes, and land the emotional beats. Practically and pragmatically, MVM makes that possible. But there’s more to it than mechanics.

There’s something inherently thrilling about the MVM. When a film commits to this approach, it sheds everything that doesn’t drive forward motion. What’s left is a distilled cinematic velocity: pure propulsion wrapped in mythic energy.

Why is this thrilling? Because it taps into our most primal narrative instincts. MVM bypasses logic and speaks directly to the emotional brain. It creates the sensation that something larger is unfolding, and that we’re being carried along with it.

But this is also the wager of the MVM: if the myth doesn’t land, if the ritual doesn’t resonate, then everything collapses. You’ve sacrificed coherence and plausibility, and if the mythic core fails to take hold, all you’re left with is noise. Sound and fury signifying nothing. Think late-franchise bloat (names withheld to protect the guilty), where hollow symbols and loud music try to paper over the lack of meaning. Without myth, the MVM is not actually viable.

Scratching the Surface

This deep dive into six major scenes barely scratches the surface of the wild, illogical brilliance that defines Stargate’s first act. From cars breezing past military gates without a check-in, to an omnipresent fog machine blanketing every corridor, to rifle-wielding soldiers casually wheeling cases and luggage around like it’s an airport baggage claim, the absurdities never end.

But in the world of the Minimum Viable Myth, they all serve a purpose.

Every oddity either ramps up mood, tension, or pace, or fulfills an even deeper function, like the examples above. This isn’t about realism. It’s about riding the wave, surrendering to ritual, and watching meaning emerge from myth.

Ready for more insights? Every Cinemyth essay is free, unlocking the symbolic structures behind your favorite films. Subscribe now.

Subscribe now

Mythic Time

The myth in Once Upon a Time in the West unfolds not in narrative time, but in mythic time.

Mythic time isn’t measured in hours or days. It’s a time outside of time. It echoes geologic scale, but is infused with symbolic weight. It’s the tempo of ritual, of fate, of stories etched into collective memory. In Once Upon a Time in the West, these rituals manifest as repetitive, stylized actions and visual motifs that transcend mere plot points, acting instead as solemn guideposts to the underlying myth.

From the very beginning, Leone pulls us into that rhythm. The film opens with an eleven-minute sequence in which almost nothing “happens.” The dominant sounds are elemental and repetitive: the squeak of a windmill, the drip of water, the buzz of a fly. There is no music — only the ritual of waiting. It’s as if the myth cannot begin until time itself has slowed to the proper tempo.

Throughout the film, Leone powerfully reinforces this feeling of time dilation through the repeated appearances of clock faces — especially empty or non-functional ones. Often displayed prominently in the frame, these images reflect not only the "Once Upon a Time…" aspect of the title but also the very tempo of mythic time.

Just as we need a geologic frame to perceive the movement of stone, in this story we need mythic time to truly see the myth unfold.

The Landscape as Mirror

The slow dilation of mythic time finds its perfect counterpart in a vast, enduring landscape. It’s no accident that Leone’s most mythic film draws upon the iconic geography of Monument Valley, a terrain already immortalized by John Ford as the cinematic embodiment of the American West.

Ford’s Monument Valley films embody heroism, patriotism, loyalty, and resilience in the face of a harsh land. He uses the frontier to give scale and contrast while the landscape provides a backdrop against which human values shine.

Leone inverts this. He uses the land not as contrast, but as mirror.

Monument Valley’s towering buttes are unmoving, unblinking, unyielding. They are ancient, shaped by primeval forces, and, like the central figures of Harmonica and Frank, enduring.

Harmonica doesn’t change. He doesn’t grow, or evolve, or question himself. He isn’t a character in the usual sense — he’s a ghost, a whisper of vengeance given form, arriving not with urgency but with inevitability.

And Frank is also a constant. A titan outlaw who tried to outrun the old world only to be judged by something older still.

Both of Leone’s central figures arrive already forged. They don’t arc. They aren’t transformed. They collide. And through that clash the meaning of the myth emerges from who remains, and what values endure.

Sedimentary Meaning

In Leone’s mythic frame, meaning is sedimentary:

• What begins as surface: a man, a gun, a train — reveals its layers slowly.

• Each swelling Morricone phrase is another stratum: not merely score, but music elevated to mythic structure.

• Leone’s visual language does the same: framing, entrances, even slight camera tilts carry symbolic weight.

Music and Harmonica’s Theme

Once Upon a Time in the West is scored operatically with each major character introduced with their own leitmotif, an identifying musical phrase that returns again and again. Beyond functioning as mere emotional cues, the leitmotifs' unwavering repetition serves to reinforce the immutable essence of these mythic constant characters.

Nowhere is this more striking than in Harmonica’s theme, which begins diegetically from the instrument he plays. Sparse and ghostly, it arrives before he does, and haunts the scene long before we understand who he is. This operatic technique, where the theme precedes the character, is also used for Cheyenne, but with lighter touch and less existential gravity.

But there’s a deeper resonance: Frank and Harmonica are the only characters to share a musical theme. This musical intertwining directly reflects their mythically linked destinies. In the aftermath of the McBain massacre, when Frank is revealed we hear the wailing of the harmonica in the score even though Harmonica isn’t physically present.

The music is telling us what the story hasn’t yet: these two characters are bound by fate.

Visual Entrances as Ritual

Just as Morricone’s themes announce the presence of characters through sound, Leone crafts visual motifs that transform their entrances into recurring rituals. From Frank's first introduction to the way Harmonica enters the frame, these visual ceremonies consistently reveal the film's deeper mythic truths.

In virtually every scene, Harmonica’s appearance is revealed rather than shown:

• Emerging from behind an object (a train, a post).

• Moving from shadow into light (in the tavern, the McBain barn, Wobbles’).

• Sliding silently into frame like a phantom.

These entrances form a recurring visual ritual. At first, you may not even notice. But the cumulative effect is unmistakable: Harmonica begins to feel less like a man, and more like a mythic force sent to pronounce judgment.

Frank gets, arguably, one of the most iconic (and most shocking) character introductions in cinematic history. After gunning down a father, son, and daughter, Frank and his men emerge from the brush and the frame itself is tilted slightly off axis. Not enough to be blatant but just enough to feel off-kilter. Frank's presence causes a disturbance that we can feel before we even know who he is (and who is playing him). This off-kilter framing, the brutal introduction, the sadistic joy as Frank guns down a child, and the musical bond he unknowingly shares with Harmonica conspire to tell us what is mythically due: a reckoning, ritualized.

And the reckoning is already in motion before the full reveal. Harmonica could have killed Frank at any time. But that would’ve been pure revenge. Instead, he waits. He speaks the names of the dead. He makes Frank see the face beneath the myth. Because in myth, it’s not enough for the reckoning to arrive — to complete the ritual the condemned must know why.

This is Leone’s genius: he's not an archaeologist, digging through layers to explain them. He's more akin to an alchemist — compressing them, pressurizing them into a mythic form so you feel their weight. Through this meticulous compression, Leone orchestrates the ritual, making it a visceral experience for the viewer. The film's very structure becomes a ritual, inviting us not just to observe, but to participate in its solemn unfolding. It may not be rationally understood on first viewing but it doesn't need to be. By the time of the final and inevitable showdown, you feel the ritualized reckoning.

Tropes as Scaffolding

Once Upon a Time in the West presents itself as prototypically Western. It achieves this by drawing on a fistful of tropes from both classic Westerns and Leone’s own body of work: the lone gunslinger, the man with no name, the outlaw, the railroad baron, the dusty frontier town. But these tropes, though familiar, are not the source of the film’s meaning. Leone uses them as the visible structure beneath which the real meaning is layered, unseen. What looks like pure genre is actually myth in disguise.

More than just Leone’s last take on the Western, it serves as a solemn hymn, and perhaps a eulogy to the form. He pares away not only the conventions of the American Western, but even some of his own cinematic signature.

By drawing on familiar tropes, stripping them of momentum, and letting them breathe in mythic time, Leone creates space for something older to surface. The myth isn’t explained: it’s felt.

Once Upon a Time…

If you’ve ever loved this film without quite knowing why or felt something mythic beneath the dust, it’s because Leone is summoning an ancient myth in the guise of a Western. A myth resting on two pillars: judgment and reckoning, ritualized by characters as eternal and immovable as the desert stone.

If this resonated or sparked something familiar then consider subscribing to Cinemyth. All essays are free, and each one explores the symbolic structure behind the stories we love.

Subscribe Now

Cinemyth isn’t a film theory.

It’s not a ranking system.
It’s not about deciding which movies matter more than others.
It’s not academic.
It’s not about “right” interpretations.

It’s that feeling when a movie stops behaving like entertainment and starts to feel profound on a deeper level.

A moment where silence, music, timing, framing, or color carries more weight than dialogue. Where a character doesn’t arc—they endure.

It’s hard to explain what that feels like until you’ve felt it.

For me, Star Wars—the original trilogy—was that first mythic hit. And it wasn’t just the special effects. It wasn’t the dialogue or the acting. It was something else. Something in the music, the structure, and the way the story felt inevitable. The way it echoed a truth that we didn’t know we knew.

The Flags I’m Planting

• Not all great films are mythic—and not all mythic stories are great. But when both line up, something almost spiritual happens.

• The best stories don’t always give us character arcs. Sometimes they give us mythic constants—fixed points around which the world turns.

• Genre doesn’t matter. Myth hides in westerns, rom-coms, detective shows, and sports movies alike.

• This won’t be academic. It will be symbolic, entertaining, and hopefully enlightening.

• You don’t need to agree with everything here—this is an exploration, a view through a particular lens.

I don’t have a fixed schedule—these essays take time. They live somewhere between film appreciation, film criticism and archetypal reflection. Some will come quickly. Others will arrive when they’re ready.

All content will be free. Always. But if the work resonates with you and you’d like to support it, paid subscriptions are open as a gesture of thanks.

Who Am I?

I’m not a critic. I’m not film school trained. I don’t pretend to be definitive. But I am serious about tracking how meaning works in cinema—not just on the surface, but in its bones. I’m just someone who kept watching movies and eventually realized that some of them are more than just stories; they’re something deep and fundamental.

If that sounds like something you’ve felt too—then welcome to The Rock Cinemyth.

If this resonated or sparked something familiar consider subscribing to Cinemyth.
All essays are free, and each one explores the symbolic structure behind the stories we love.

Subscribe now