Untitled

On the other hand, it's not like Lucas himself is uninteresting. He's a meta-textual underdog, once reviled by the audience for being skeptical of the suspicious little white girl. Lucas was known as the "aggressive" one, despite his character's S1 motivations being laid out clearly, not breaking limbs or making eyes bleed, or getting into more than one physical fight. When people reappraised the show after S4, Lucas (especially Caleb) garnered greater appreciation. How much of that being genuine is another topic, relating to performance in fandom and online spaces.

Outside of his valuable contributions to the group, Lucas has numerous qualities that make him an excellent brother, friend, and boyfriend. He's got a keen mind, always prepared with a retort (but less so than Erica). He's skeptical, balancing out the idealists, theorists, and dreamers in his friend group. He's pragmatic, providing common sense solutions for average to larger than life problems. He's bold, willing to pursue independent action despite the danger. He's got grit, an unwavering determination in himself and his judgment. He's stubborn to the core, making him a fierce protector. He's self aware, graciously accepting his mistakes and take immediate action to do better.

It's not just those personality traits that make him endearing but his perfectly imperfect contradictions. He's one verbal blunder away from a permanent break-up with Max, however he charms his way into her good graces time and time again. He's the Hawkins High's MVP, shooting a championship winning basket during his freshman year. Meanwhile, just a year ago, he used to get a thrill through karate kicking his way through Hawkins Middle classroom doors (then getting caught). No matter how "cool" he gets, Lucas Charles Sinclair is, and will always be, a dork.

It's difficult for people to parse out these aspects of Lucas, when their primary understanding of a character is derived from said character's relationships. It's one reason why shippers struggle with grasping a character's identity and motivations. They can't see the forest for the trees.

The sub-fandom's fixation on romance is a given but, per their self-appointed high level of "media literacy," it's worth noting for hypocrisy alone. "Media literacy" apparently only applies to a single, white queer, lens of interpretation. When you have a character like Lucas, who doesn't adhere to this limited scope of skill and interest, people will either disregard him or make him conform to the their expectations.

Look at how bloggers analyzed Lucas on the Line, when they weren't making it about Mike. People had a fundamental issues understanding Lucas' relationship with his Black peer mentor, Jermaine. What they thought was sexual attraction was actually admiration. He's in awe of Jermaine, who is a cool and confident Black upperclassman in a predominantly white community. That is why he becomes Lucas' role model, giving Lucas something to aspire towards.

This isn't me saying these bloggers are racist. This is me pointing out that race wasn't even a factor on their identity issue radar. To be frank, it isn't on the Duffers' radar either.

Ultimately, fandoms are places of habit. If people can't utilize Lucas as a means to resolve Mike's issues, such as his fandom-minted trauma or romantic angst, then Lucas is relegated as set dressing. The type of set dressing includes but isn't exclusive to: a plug-and-play dynamic with Max, the queer ally relationship counselor/therapist, or the scapegoat for an intra-party conflict.

While the first two are dull but harmless, the latter leads to some insidious scenarios, such as Lucas being cast as the homophobic party member. Lucas being homophobic is founded on assumption, not text! If you need to look for a homophobe-in-training, please look at repressed Mike Wheeler.

Lucas can't even catch a break when he's not being depicted as a homophobe. In an effort to minimize the collateral of Mike and El's break-up, as well as appease El stans, shippers paired up Max and El. Ironically, Lucas becomes a form of collateral himself. The only difference is that, unlike a single El, shippers can live with the fallout of him third wheeling his throuple or rationalizing Max's "amicable" break up with Lucas after the events of S4 and S5.

The filming follows a very strict & consistent pattern... however, the Will/Mike shot is the ONLY exception to their rules:

1. Every time we focus on a character, we are also shown a corresponding POV shot of what they're looking at through the window. Elements in the foreground (e.g. window frames, etc) are kept consistent. EXCEPT for the Mike/Will shot! It's the ONLY time we are NOT shown what the character is looking at! 2. All close-up shots were filmed from outside the van, through the windows, with added reflections showing what the character is seeing (either a practical effect, or likely VFX added in post-production). POV shots also show their view through the window. This is cinematic language to signal the characters are looking outside. EXCEPT for the Mike/Will shot! It's the ONLY close-up shot filmed inside the van, NOT through a window! There is no window between Mike and the camera!

What does this cinematic language mean?

It's meant to convey that Mike is not necessarily focused on the destruction of Hawkins outside the windows in this particular shot. Or at least, the purpose of the shot is not to show where the characters are looking, but how they are feeling. My interpretation: Hawkins is devastated, and yet Mike is still thinking about Will.

This is the only time the showrunners intentionally avoid showing what the character was looking at, creating ambiguity to give Mike the benefit of the doubt. The next shot, from Jonathan's POV of the burning library, misleads us into thinking that’s what Mike was watching—but it isn’t!

This misdirect is enough to make the viewer wonder what Mike is looking at and what he and Will are feeling, but not enough to make it glaringly obvious. It leaves the door open to interpretation.

See for yourself!

Establishing shots - Driving into Hawkins

Caveat: these close-ups don't have POV shots, since they showed us a bird's eye view of Hawkins instead.

*Note: All the following shots are shown chronologically! Some POV shots don’t have matching close-ups to avoid repetition, but the character's perspective is still clear.

Neighborhood Evacuations

Jonathan: Close-up (not included) → POV

Will: Close-up → POV (and the infamous Phineas Gage imagery)

Hawkins High School

Mike: Close-up → POV

Unknown location

Two-shot with rack focus and pan from Will to Mike (close-up → POV not included). A rack focus (focal point switching from Will to Mike) is a storytelling device here. Why not just start the shot with both characters in frame and in focus? The purpose is to emotionally link the two and hint at an unspoken dynamic or tension, and/or signal a POV shift from Will to Mike.

But we are not shown what Will or Mike were looking at! This is also the only shot not filmed through a window, so there are no reflections to serve as visual cues to show us the van's location. It could still be by the high school (and Mike's staring ahead at Will just cuz), it could be en route downtown, or it could be downtown approaching the library.

NOTE: The editing is also sneaky! From this point on, the sequence shifts from close-up → POV to POV → close-up. Reversing the sequence of shots was likely intentional with the purpose of allowing Jonathan’s POV to follow Mike’s close-up, therefore misleading the audience (since both he and Mike are looking forward) and subtly covering the absence of a matching Mike POV close-up. But they filmed Jonathan through the front windshield (you can tell by the reflections), or otherwise applied the VFX window or reflections for him, but they did NOT do this for Mike!

Just imagine how much more cramped the camera crew had to be to film Mike from inside the van, OR they had to remove the glass windshield entirely OR if the windows and reflections are VFX, they intentionally didn't add it to this shot. All I'm saying is, this shot took effort and intention!

Downtown Hawkins - Hawkins Library on fire

Jonathan: POV → Close-up. You can see the windshield wipers, dash, hood antenna, and corner of driver's side window frame in his POV shot.

El's POV → El Close-up → pan over to Mike (technically we don't get Mike's POV shot here, but that's just to avoid redundancy since he and El are looking at the same view). More cinematic language: note how the camera pans across the window frame to split up two characters within the same two-shot. This signals emotional separation and distance between El and Mike.

The church

El: POV → Close-up

The church (cont.)

Mike's POV (that looks like El's head's silhoutte) → Mike's Close-up (missing) → back to El's Close-up (zoomed in)

To conclude... the Mike/Will shot was purposefully filmed and edited differently from all the other shots in this sequence. :)

PART 2 Follow-up: feedback from a film student/cinematographer on the unique purpose of the Will/Mike van shot

this is a close up shot on Will and as it dollys away from him, it pulls closer to Mike to maintain the same up close and personal framing, despite him being in the backseat, farther from the camera’s initial position. this gives both Mike and Will’s feelings equal weight in the shot. it’s to break the fourth wall, to reveal their inner feelings. they’re staring through US, the audience. they’re baring their hearts to us i have a very similar sentiment i shared on another blog about the last scene between Mike and Will on the couch in Hopper’s cabin. a lot of people think it is Mike’s POV and down to show that he sees Will as light. but, that shot is 2-subject. the point of Mike being in the shadows and reaching out to Will who is cascaded with light is to contrast their internal states after concluding their arcs for the season. Mike is in the shadows because he is hiding something from himself. his conclusion was unfulfilling; something is wrong. but this something is an internal conflict. meanwhile, Will has finally reached clarity and acceptance. he no longer is hiding from himself. Mike reaching into the light is to show that he wants to uncover the truth and is ready to step out of the metaphorical shadow. sorry for yapping, i love talking about shot composition. also want to note that i am not a shipper and these are objective shot analyses that someone who has not seen ST or even knows the context would tell you. however, when factoring in the context of their s4 arcs, it is objectively pointing towards the resolution that Mike and Will end up together. but a lot of people view these kinds of shots solely in the context of each other, which is the shipping lens. it’s about themselves first and foremost and their coming of age. i view the natural plot that exists within ST as a queer coming of age of someone who is visibly queer and someone who is invisibly queer, not a queer love story. while the resolution may be the same, the focus is on the internal journey. and the cinematography reflects that :]

Beautifully said and I completely agree :) Whatever it is that Mike and Will are looking at is irrelevant--for the first time in this sequence, that's not the emphasis here. It's not a "reaction" shot of Hawkins anymore (that would be redundant, since we already get one of Mike looking at the library on fire later on); it instead points to the characters' internal conflict, thoughts, or emotions.

In my opinion, the fact that we only get this kind of "internal" shot for Mike and Will and not any of the other characters goes further to suggest that Mike and Will specifically are ruminating about something that the other characters are not, something outside of the context of the Hawkins destruction that everyone else is reacting to. And the rack focus from Will to Mike suggests to me that Mike's rumination is related to Will in some way. Just my interpretation!

Additional insights about cinematography and shot composition that are relevant to this scene:

but yeah, it’s about how the camera lingers on their faces and emotions, and how the shot is the only one from inside of the car. it makes it appear like they’re in their head and detached from what exists outside of the car. the “world” of the shot doesn’t contain the outside. so it is a bit tricky the world of a shot exists in its frame, which is what makes cinema so cool, because you can shape the story of a film by changing what is visible in that little rectangular box. it’s the same in photography and painting, so that concept is probably familiar to you. in this scene, the van exists within hawkins. the emphasis is on the damage. so the camera is outside of the van, looking inward to show the frame of the “world” being shown. when it’s the opposite, the world becomes the van. what they see outside only exists in the frame of the car window, which detaches them from what is happening outside (also for continuity purposes, either both the CU and POV are done from within the van or outside of it). all of the POV shots so far in that scene were done from outside, so when it switches, they are trying to isolate the characters from the surroundings. kind of like when someone in an action shot gets tinnitus and all of a sudden everything is muffled and their ears start ringing and all of a sudden the action feels very far even though they’re still right in the middle of it so to me that shot was done to purposefully contrast the rest. they also each already got a shot of them reacting to the damage, so there isn’t a need for them to have another. the shot has to reveal something different. and because it’s a close up, it’s framed within the van, and it shifts focus from one subject to another without allowing for both of them to exist in the same frame, it makes me believe there is some sort of inner turmoil or conflict; a metaphorical “tinnitus”. but also art is subjective and everyone has their own vision so i could be wrong. but i do these kind of shots (close up on the protagonists face at the beginning of a scene while they exhibit some complex emotion, not because of a reaction to something happening in that current moment, but to reflect some inner turmoil from the previous scene) all the time so i may be bias because it is a stylistic choice that i use and then, from a storytelling perspective which is why the shot exists in the first place: all scenes experience some value or tonal shift. and that value has to go from -/+ or +/-. if it doesn’t change, the scene is redundant and should be tossed out. so the shot bridges the previous scene and establishes the starting value for the current scene