When you have a pair of scissors, there’s two blades and each blade is connected to the other by a pivot or fulcrum. As you rotate either of the blades around that pivot point, the blades rub against each other, staying in contact with each other to create friction throughout the entire rotation.
Edwards blade-fingers, in contrast, have independent motion and are not connected by a fulcrum. They all rotate independently, via their own knuckles like normal human fingers, and as they rotate they do not maintain contact and friction with their neighbouring blades.
If you take apart a “pair of scissors”, is each blade separately still called a scissor, even when in isolation? I suppose you could argue that on its own, an individual blade is a “scissor”, but I personally don’t think so - I think scissors only become scissors when connected by that fulcrum, and when independent and disconnected, they’re simply blades.
A “man with scissors” can be seen as an adult version of the child who breaks toys. Just like a child, who breaks a toy to understand how it works, an adult might metaphorically “cut” or “break” something to gain insight or control. The scissors symbolize the act of division, of separating or dissecting the whole to understand its parts. In this case, it’s not just about curiosity but also the need for control or the desire to dismantle complex systems or ideas.
Just as the child may destroy a toy out of sheer curiosity, the “man with scissors” could be someone who, in their search for understanding or power, disrupts things — be it ideas, structures, or relationships — to see how they function or to assert dominance over them. The allegory reflects the progression from a child’s innocent curiosity to an adult’s more deliberate, sometimes destructive, actions.
There was such a Jewish bastard Lenin and here are his quotes about cinema: “Cinema is the best school for educating the masses.”, “For us, cinema is the most important tool of propaganda.”, “Cinema should be useful for the masses, it should help the revolution.”
There was this old codger named Socrates who wanted to ban the sophist poets from the Republic (a collaborative thought experiment you should not interpret him as “owning”)… all the while using sophistry and poetry. He was being intentionally ironic.
As long as the truth is there in it, use it. To say not to use it is basically affirming a morose ethics.
Which, by the way, Kant did not affirm. There are some subtleties that people, even to this day, struggle with. Don’t even say anything about my grammar. I don’t agree with Kant on everything, but he is severely misrepresented on this note. I bet it’s out of spite because he is a Christian. Just a hunch. Sophists.
And what the heck does that even have to do with Edward Scissorhands?
In Russian, the expression “hooked hands” ( руки-крюки “hook-hands”) is used. That is, they talk about unskilled and clumsy hands. The English language is pathetic and straightforward. I had to come up with “scissor hands”.
OK, Tim Burton, American, for whom the keyword Russian does not seem to bring up anything relevant, please explain to me why the Russian even matters here. I don’t mean that in a racist sense. Or perhaps you are claiming to be Caroline Thompson? Same deal with Russian keyword.
You should just always speak in Russian because you would make just as much sense.
Thanks to communication on this forum, a unique theory about governing the world with the help of language appeared. That is, more advanced nations and peoples received a primitive language in order to slow down their development. But the backward “subhumans” speak a more perfect language in order to speed up the process of humanization. And yes. Chinese and Russian are definitely more dignified languages than degenerate English.
