Another Round - Why You Might Become an Alcoholic

So, you've had an exhausting week and you decide to pour yourself a drink. You deserve it, don't you?! Next Friday you feel tired again. And that's why you pour yourself a drink. Again. Next Friday you are completely exhausted. So, you decide to drink sweet, sweet again. This time, however, in the middle of a sip, a disturbing thought enters your conscience: Am I becoming an alcoholic? With the analysis of the movie "One More Time", this video will help you answer the question. According to the hypothesis of the Norwegian philosopher Finn Skorderud, people are born with a deficit of 0.5 ppm of alcohol in their blood. In other words, people need about two glasses of wine to feel better and to increase their creativity, their courage and their openness to the world. Rather than testing this hypothesis, One More Uses it to depict the alcoholic bridge between how alcohol can enhance one life but destroy another. The film follows the boring lives of four teachers - the main character Martin and his three best friends: Tommy, Nikolai and Peter. Director Thomas Vinterberg contrasts their midlife crisis with their lives after they start drinking. During the expositional scenes with families, teachers and parents, barely the moving camera is in tune with the sharp sounds. However, when the friends get a little tipsy, they start dancing as the camera flies around them. In other words, the smoothness of being "spiritual" neutralizes the awkwardness of being sober and lifeless. As the characters begin to test Skorderud's hypothesis, which initially enlivens them, the viewer inevitably begins to wonder if the little experiment will ultimately destroy them. Since there can't be any thematic progression if the characters just maintain 0.5‰ and never go higher, the only logical progression is this: they start drinking, have fun, but end up going too far. And that's exactly what happens during the middle part of the movie. However, screenwriters Vinterberg and Lindholm carefully interweave another thematic line within the predictable everything-goes-to-hell line. After Peter drinks during his music lesson, his students can be expected to find out or that he won't be able to finish the lesson because he will get drunk. However, his students begin to sing better than ever. The same is true of Martin, who, after taking a small amount of alcohol, the students listen to his teaching in awe. From here, the four friends decide to increase the mileage, aware of the potential problems, and everything runs smoothly for a while. As expected, however, everyone gets wildly drunk one night and aborts the experiment. It also turns out that the experiment fueled Tommy's alcoholism, causing the friends to regret starting the experiment. . . but is it really so? As mentioned, the film illuminates the "alcoholic" bridge between freedom and oblivion - alcohol can either give you wings or destroy you. but the main character Martin is not on the bridge. Due to the development of Tommy's alcoholism, he may think he is on it, but the historical examples in the film and the juxtaposition of the characters' traits indicate otherwise. During the history lesson, Martin talked about Hemingway and Churchill. Despite his success, the American writer died (more or less) of his heavy drinking, and the hedonist Churchill - who smoked around 200,000 cigars and drank copious amounts of spirits in his lifetime - lived to be 90. During the film's press conference at the San Sebastian Film Festival, Vinterberg shared his thoughts on whether Churchill would have been as successful as a leader during World War II if he hadn't been drinking so much. We'll never know, but his film elegantly shows why people like Churchill were "allowed" to live long enough to become famous. According to the DSM-IV criteria for alcohol use and dependence, Hemingway could be considered an alcoholic; Churchill can't. The first criterion that most clearly expresses potential alcoholism is spending a lot of time drinking; something that both Hemingway and Churchill were famous for. However, to define someone as an alcoholic, one must also examine the impact of consumption on a person's health and life. So let's compare Hemingway and Churchill using the following criteria. To deal with his depression and physical pain after various unfortunate experiences, Hemingway gradually increased his drinking. If you are curious about his background, I can inform you that during his life Hemingway suffered from malaria, dysentery, skin cancer and was almost killed in two plane crashes that tore apart most of his organs and caused first degree burns to most of his body. from his body. On the other hand, Churchill's consumption remained constant throughout his life. Since most of his persistent illnesses could be explained by alcohol intoxication, Hemingway's doctors urged him to stop drinking. But he never succeeded. On the other hand, in 1936 Churchill wins a bass that challenges him to abstain from drinking alcohol for a year. After the death of his father, Hemingway not only began to drink more, but his behavior became self-destructive - his biographers are convinced that his predisposition to an accident was not accidental. By contrast, Churchill never had any social or professional problems due to his drinking: he wrote more than fifty books in eighty volumes, painted over 500 paintings, was the world's highest-paid journalist at one point, and, of course, , had led Britain to victory in World War II. Also, biographers argue that there is no evidence that Churchill consumed alcohol to avoid withdrawal symptoms, and indeed it is not documented that Churchill ever suffered from withdrawal. After this comparison, it can be assumed that Hemingway's life partially collapsed due to alcoholism; Churchill's does not. However, Hemingway was able to refrain from drinking when he wrote, or as the DSM-IV criteria indicate, he never gave up important or interesting activities to drink. That's because during his most successful creative years, Hemingway's purpose in life was not to get drunk, but to write, and write, and write. He was convinced that drinking and writing were not a good combination. He writes in the morning and starts drinking only in the afternoon. But after six untreated concussions, mostly due to his self-destructive behavior, he was consumed by depression and paranoia. And despite his treatment after that, his purpose in life changed permanently; he did not want to write anymore, but to kill himself. Let's talk about genetics. Seven members of Hemingway's family committed suicide, including his father, sister, and brother. From a scientific point of view, the inability to heal mental problems and the effect of physical ailments on a person's psyche as a result of alcohol abuse lead to suicide. There is no evidence that Hemingway's father was an alcoholic; however, after a severe development of diabetes and heart disease and his severe losses in real estate investments, he developed depression and then committed suicide. It seems that something forced the members of the Hemingway family to end things. According to psychologists, part of the huge impact of suicide on families is that relatives fear that it runs in the family. They identify with the suicide as their relative, long to be with him, and after so much grief, an unconscious fantasy of reconnecting with him is ignited, which can lead to an overwhelming urge to take their own life. It 's no surprise, then, that after his father's suicide, Hemingway wrote, "I'll probably go the same way." Suppose one is looking for possible genetic explanations for why heavy drinking does not always lead to alcoholism. In this case, it should be considered that specific genes change the way alcohol-metabolizing enzymes work, which changes the way alcohol affects a person's brain. Enzymes in our liver - the so-called alcohol dehydrogenases break down toxic alcohols, so our brain is less affected by alcohol consumption. A study shows that people with better functioning enzymes drink less and are at lower risk of alcoholism than people with slower functioning enzymes. So what if Churchill's and Martin's enzymes were very fast and Hemingway's and Tommy's were very slow? This may be so, but in addition to genetic causes, environmental ones must also be considered. According to Darwin's theory of natural selection, some individuals have specific characteristics that make them more likely to survive and reproduce. By doing this, they will avoid starvation compared to others and have offspring that are faster and weaker, allowing this process to be repeated. In other words, natural selection determines the winners - those who have some advantage over others to survive and reproduce, however slight the advantage. But not only physical features are vital, but also the adaptation of a person to the environment. Natural selection also occurs among humans, where it not only affects a person's survival, but also changes their "status". For example, the stereotypical "zouber" - myopic introverts, obsessed with numbers, devoid of social skills and muscle development, used to be the quintessence of a sad life. After the birth of technology, the characteristics of the "zoura" began to be extremely valuable. Therefore, people do not change now, or at least too slowly to matter, but the ever-changing environment prompts people to adapt. And those who can't are broken. Our biology saddles us with many habits that were reasonable when they evolved—for example, habits around food, sex, anxiety, and spirituality— but now hinder our effectiveness in the modern world. For example, it is difficult for us not to overeat. Centuries ago, food supplies were scarce, but now supermarkets abound with numerous food brands. Or it is difficult to distinguish between real threats and unfounded worries. When people raise awareness about illnesses, it's good for many reasons, but it also makes us worry more about being sick ourselves. And as stress increases, people drink more alcohol. A study shows that besides economic growth, stress is another important variable leading to higher alcohol consumption and more cases of alcoholism; something that has been clearly demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. More and more people are coping with the health and economic impact of the disease by drinking. Due to global uncertainty, we can assume that almost everyone is worried about their future and may have started alcohol therapy. But why haven't we all become alcoholics? Darwin argued that changes in the environment can dramatically change which members of a species will thrive in it. When this is contextualized within the context of COVID-19, one concludes that more people are becoming alcoholics, which is a statistical fact, but some people will be able to resist. "One more" offers us a glimpse of Darwin's natural selection, highlighting the traits of Martin, who manages to adapt to the new "alcoholic" environment, and Tommy, who develops alcoholism and therefore becomes broken. Both Martin and Tommy are bored with their jobs and after getting drunk, they become more confident and thrive in their classroom. However, Tommy's life takes a turn for the worse; Martin's did not. Why? Martin is a savvy problem solver by nature, while Tommy is careless, sloppy and passive. After realizing that he has lost the strong relationship with his wife, Martin faces the problem and tries to revive his marriage. He asks his wife if he has become bored and discusses with her ways to help each other. For example, they go on a canoeing vacation where they refresh their sex life. Also, when the parents of his students are confronted with their children's low grades, he is willing to improve the situation at any cost even if it means hiring a new teacher. In contrast, Tommy never seems to have tried to get back together with his ex-wife, even though he still carries her in his heart. Also, after every night of heavy drinking, Martin cleans the houses, even Tommy's, of all the bottles and any extra junk, while Tommy, before a night out, mentions that no one will notice if he doesn't change his raggedy socks. Although Martin is the one who suggests his friends turn up the numbers, he drinks while dancing with his friends or enjoying a lively tune by himself. On the other hand, it seems that Tommy only wants the increase in consumption for the sake of the increase itself. For example, his facial expressions show that he is not interested in the classical music that Martin, Nikolai and Peter are enjoying while drinking. Also, Tommy is pretty sloppy. He hides several bottles of alcohol in the school sports department so clumsily that the hygienist finds them immediately. All these differences in the personality of the two friends suggest the following result. Tommy goes to school drunk, feels affected when Martin warns him about the possibility of self-destructive behavior, and his first thought upon waking is to open the fridge and grab the bottle. Still, Martin remains the sane problem-solver the viewer has come to know from the start. For example, according to the hypothesis, one should not drink after 8:00 PM, so when Martin sees that it is 8:11 PM, he starts drinking water. And when his family members find out about his drinking experiment, he confesses and humbly reflects on his actions. This does not sound like the behavior of an alcoholic because an alcoholic would rarely admit what they are doing and why it is wrong. Following DSM-IV criteria, both spent a lot of time with the bottle and gradually increased their drinking; however, only Tommy never manages to stop drinking, has problems at work and with his friends, and gives up activities that are important or interesting to him. For example, the children's soccer team he coaches. Put in a Darwinian context, "One More" asserts that being a savvy problem-solver gives you an advantage over sloppy, sloppy, passive people when the environment turns "alcoholic." With the Martin-Tommy comparison, director Thomas Vinterberg gives the audience the "eyes" of nature so that one observes the miniaturized alcoholic world, where natural selection decides who becomes an alcoholic and who uses the good qualities of alcohol. In reality, however, humans do not have the eyes of nature. And it remains unknown whether someone is not destined to be an alcoholic or not. So people often have to examine the side of the bridge they are approaching. Checking to see if you meet the DSM-IV criteria is a good start. In conclusion. Enjoy your drink, but respect yourself.