See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348576255

Another Round: A Darwinian Study of Alcohol

Preprint · January 2021

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32252.56966

CITATIONS READS

0 3,102

1 author:

Martin Velev
University of Westminster
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Gender and Racial Fluidity in Hollywood Movies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Velev on 18 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Another Round: A Darwinian Study of Alcohol
According to Norwegian philosopher Finn Skårderud’s hypothesis, human beings are born
with a deficit of 0.5‰ of alcohol in their blood. In other words, humans need about two glasses
of wine to feel better and get their creativity, courage and open-mindedness boosted. The
Danish Oscar contender Another Round – rather than testing it – employs the hypothesis to
perpetuate the “alcoholistic” bridge between how alcohol can open up a life, but also demolish
another.

The film follows the mundane existence of four teachers – the leading character Martin (Mads
Mikkelsen) and his three best friends Tommy (Thomas Bo Larsen), Nikolaj (Magnus Millang)
and Peter (Lars Ranthe). With style resembling the Dogme 95 customs (e.g. handheld camera,
diegetic music), the director Thomas Vinterberg contrasts the stodgy people having the
midlife blues and the same people after getting juiced up. During the “boring” expositional
scenes with families, teachers and parents, the barely moving camera is set in unison with the
edgy diegetic sounds. However, when the friends get (mildly) inebriated, they start dancing
while the flying camera raves around them. Put differently, the smoothness of being
“spirited” neutralises the awkwardness of being sober and lifeless. As the characters start
testing Skårderud’s hypothesis, which initially vivifies their souls, the viewer inevitably
begins to wonder whether the little experiment will come to grief in the end. Since there can’t
be any thematic progression if the characters simply maintain the 0.5‰ and never go higher,
the only logical development is this: they start drinking, they have fun, but ultimately, they
take it too far. And that is precisely what happens during the film’s developmental middle.
Nonetheless, writers Vinterberg and Lindholm carefully intertwine another thematic concept
within the predictable “everything-goes-bonkers” narrative line.

After Peter drinks during his music class, one expects that his students will find out or that he
won’t be able to finish the lesson. However, his students start singing better than ever. The
same goes for Martin who, after liquoring up, gains better control of his classroom and, for
the first time, his students listen to him teach in awe. Consequently, the four mates decide to
increase the permilles, being cognisant of the trade-offs, and it is all fun and games for a while.
Though, as expected, they all wreck themselves one night, and they discontinue the
experiment. It turns out, however, that the experiment has enkindled Tommy’s alcoholism,
which engenders the friends’ deploration to have launched the experiment . . . but does it
actually?

Another Round illuminates the “alcoholistic” bridge between freedom and oblivion – alcohol
can either give you wings or can squelch you – but the main character Martin isn’t on the
bridge. Because of the development of Tommy’s alcoholism, he might be thinking he’s
thereon, but the film’s historical examples and the juxtaposition of character traits denote
otherwise. During his history class, Martin talks about Hemingway and Churchill. However
successful, the American writer died (more or less) due to his heavy drinking, and the
hedonist Churchill – having smoked around 200,000 cigars and drunk copious amounts of
spirits during his lifetime – lived until he was 90. During the film’s press conference at
SSIFF, Vinterberg pondered whether Churchill would’ve been that successful as a leader
during WWII if he wasn’t drinking so much. One will never know, but his film elegantly
indicates why people like Churchill were “allowed” to live long enough to accomplish glory.
According to the DSM-IV criteria for alcohol use and dependence (NIAAA, 2020),
Hemingway can be deemed an alcoholic; Churchill cannot (single criteria written in italic).
The first criterion, manifesting potential alcoholism the clearest, is spending a lot of time
drinking; something that both Hemingway and Churchill were famous for. Though, to label
somebody an alcoholic, one should also examine the consumption’s effects on their health and
life. To cope with his depression and the physical pain following various unlucky experiences
– throughout his life, Hemingway suffered from malaria, dysentery, skin cancer, and was
almost killed in two back-to-back plane crashes rupturing most of his organs and leaving first
degree burns over much of his body – he gradually increased the heaviness of his drinking.

On the other hand, Churchill’s consumption remained pretty much constant during his
lifetime. Since most of his permanent maladies were explained by alcohol consumption,
Hemingway’s doctors dragooned him to stop drinking. Though he never stopped drinking for a
long time. In 1936, Churchill won a bet with a mate who challenged him to abstain from
drinking hard liquor for a year. Following his father’s death, Hemingway not only started to
drink more heavily, but his behaviour shifted to excessively violent and self-destructive – some
of his biographers are sanguine that his accident-prone behaviour might not have been
coincidental (Blazeski, 2017). In contrast, Churchill never seemed to
have social or occupational troubles owing to his drinking: he wrote more than fifty books in
eighty volumes, painted over 500 paintings, was the highest-paid journalist in the world at
some point, and, of course, led Britain to victory in WWII.

Moreover, there is no evidence of Churchill consuming alcohol to avoid symptoms of

withdrawal, and frankly, it is not documented whether Churchill ever suffered withdrawal
(McMenamin, 2018). Consequently, one can assume that Hemingway’s life partly plummeted
due to alcoholism; Churchill’s didn’t. Nonetheless, Hemingway managed to abstain from
drinking when writing, or put differently; he never gave up on activities important or
interesting to him to drink alcohol. Because during his most creatively successful years,
Hemingway’s life goal wasn’t to get drunk, but to write, and write, and write. He was
confident that drinking and writing were not an optimal combo. He wrote in the morning and
did not start drinking until the afternoon (DeVries, 2018). Nonetheless, after suffering six
untreated concussions, owing mostly to his self-destructive behaviour, he was engulfed in
depression and paranoia – at some point, Hemingway’s mental issues started to prevent him
from writing – and despite the psychological treatments afterwards, his life goal altered
permanently; he wanted to commit suicide (J, 2014).

Seven of Hemingway’s close family relations died by suicide, including his father, sister and
brother. Scientifically speaking, the failure to treat mental health issues and the effect of the
physical maladies on one’s mentality compounded by substance abuse lead to suicide (Martin,
2006). There’s no record that Hemingway’s father was also an alcoholic; however, seriously
sick with diabetes and heart disease and suffering losses from investments in real estate, he
developed depression and then committed suicide (Peschel, 2014). It seems
that something coerced the Hemingway family members to end things. According
to psychologists, part of the resounding impact of suicide on families is that relatives fear it
runs in the family. They identify with the “committer” as their relative, yearn to be with them,
and after grieving so hard, the unconscious fantasy to reconnect with them is enkindled,
which might lead to the irresistible urge to take their own lives. Hence, it is not a surprise that
after his father’s suicide, Hemingway wrote: “I’ll probably go the same way”. Moreover,
suppose one searches for possible genetic explanations to why heavy drinking does not
always lead to alcoholism. In that case, one should consider that specific genes alter how
alcohol-metabolising enzymes work, which changes how alcohol affects one’s brain. Some
people have genes that make the enzymes in the liver – the so-called alcohol dehydrogenases
converting alcohol into acetaldehyde, which makes sure our brain is less affected – faster at
their job than other variants of those genes. People with faster-working enzymes tend not to
drink as much and are at a lower risk of alcoholism, and vice versa. So, what if Churchill’s
and Martin’s enzymes were like a bat out of hell, and Hemingway’s and Tommy’s were snail-
like? In this case, however, one should consider both genetic and environmental reasons.

According to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, some individuals have specific

characteristics making them more likely to survive and reproduce. He argues that, for
example, wolves with long legs are allowed to run more quickly and hence, catch prey and
thereby avoid starvation and so produce offspring having long legs allowing to repeat this
process (Gildenhuys, 2019). In other words, natural selection sorts out the winners – those
who have any advantage, however slight, over others to survive and procreate – though not
only physical traits are vital, but also one’s adaptation to the environment. Natural selection
also happens in the human world where it doesn’t affect only reproductive potential
(e.g. women seem to use the “shoulder width to waist width” ratio to select men, and men –
the “waist width to hip width” to select women) but also changes one’s “status” due to non-
physical endurance, corresponding with the environment. For instance, the “nerd” – short-
sighted, timid, short on social skills, obsessed with numbers or abstract processes, and having
barely any muscular development – used to be the quintessence of a miserable life. Then
again, with the nascency of technology, “nerd” characteristics began to be extremely valuable
(TheSchoolofLife, 2016). Therefore, humans aren’t evolving now, or at least too slowly to
matter, but the ever-changing environment dragoons people to adapt. And those who cannot
fall defeated.

Their biology burdens human beings with a plethora of cognitive habits that were sensible
when they evolved – e.g. habits around food, sex, anxiety and excitement – but now hinder
our effectiveness in the modern world. For example, we find it hard not to overeat (back in
the day the food supply was scarce, now supermarkets abound with myriad brands of
foodstuffs), or to be monogamous and not to think about sex all the time (partly due to the
normalisation of contraception, pornography, masturbation, etc. following the sexual
revolution), or to distinguish real threats from baseless anxieties (e.g. talking about diseases,
however raising awareness, makes us more worried about us having a disease). And with the
increase in stress, in general, people drink more alcohol.

A study shows that apart from economic growth, stress leads to higher alcohol consumption
and more cases of alcoholism (Manthey et al., 2019). Something that is clearly manifested
during the COVID-19 pandemic – more and more people tend to cope with the health and
economic influences of the disease by drinking more than ever (Michael, 2020). Because of the
global uncertainty, we can assume that almost every person is anxious about their future, and
might have begun a liquor therapy. But why have not we all become alcoholics? Darwin
asserts that changes to the environment can dramatically alter which members of a species
will thrive within it. When one contextualises this thought within the COVID-19 frame, one
infers that more people are believed to become alcohol use abusers, which is a statistical fact,
but some people will be able to endure. And Another Round offers us a glimpse into Darwin’s
natural selection by illuminating the traits of Martin, who manages to adapt to the new
“alcoholic” environment, and Tommy, who develops alcoholism and hence, falls defeated.

Both Martin and Tommy are bored by their jobs, and after getting juiced up, they become
more confident and thriving in the classroom. Nonetheless, Tommy’s life changes for the
worse; Martin’s does not. Why? Martin is innately a sensible problem-solver whereas Tommy
is sloppy, grubby and passive. After realising he has lost the connection with his wife, Martin
faces the issue and attempts to rejuvenate his marriage: he asks his wife whether he has
become boring and discusses ways with her to enliven their marriage (e.g. they go on a
canoeing holiday where they jazz up their sex life). Also, when his students’ parents confront
him about their children’s low grades, he’s willing to improve the situation at any cost, even
if that means the assignment of a new teacher. In contrast, Tommy seems to have never
attempted to reunite with his ex, even though he still bears her in his heart. After every night
of heavy drinking, Martin cleans the houses, even Tommy’s, from all the bottles whereas
Tommy, before a night out, mentions that nobody will notice if he doesn’t change his decrepit
socks. Even though Martin offers the friends to go higher than 0.5‰, he quaffs while dancing
with his mates or enjoying a vivifying tune by himself. On the other hand, Tommy seems only
to desire an increase in consumption just for the sake of it; e.g. his facial expressions denote
that he is not interested in the classical music piece Martin, Nikolaj and Peter are enjoying
when becoming inebriated. Moreover, Tommy is quite sloppy – he stashes a half-dozen liquor
bottles in the school’s sports equipment area so clumsily that the janitor finds them
immediately.

All these differences in the friends’ personality – or from a Darwinian perspective “in their
genes” – presupposes the following outcome. Tommy appears drunk in school, feels
intimidated when Martin warns him about the possibility of self-destructive behaviour, and
his first thought after waking up is to open the fridge and grab the bottle. Yet Martin remains
the sensible problem-solver the viewer has known from the start. For example, according to
Skårderud’s hypothesis, one must not drink after 8pm, so when Martin sees it’s 8:14, he begins
to sip water. And when his family members find out about the drinking experiment, he admits
it and humbly addresses his actions. This does not sound like an alcoholic’s behaviour because
an alcoholic would rarely admit what they are doing and why it is wrong. Thus, following the
DSM-IV criteria, both of them gradually increased the heaviness of their drinking and spent a lot of
time drinking; however, only Tommy could never stop himself from drinking, had job
troubles, continued to drink even though it was causing trouble with friends, had given up on activities
that were important or interesting to him (e.g. the football team he coached). And in a Darwinian
context, Another Round claims that being a sensible problem-solver gives you an advantage
over sloppy and passive people when the environment becomes “alcoholic”.

With the Martin-Tommy comparison, Vinterberg lends the viewers the “eyes” of the nature
so one can observe the miniaturised alcoholic world where natural selection decides who
becomes an alcoholic (also Hemingway) and who gets to exploit the liquor’s good qualities
(also Churchill). In reality, however, humans do not have the eyes of the nature. And it
remains unknown whether one is destined to be an alcoholic or not. So, people should often
examine the side of the bridge they are approaching—checking if you cover the DSM-IV
criteria is a good start.

Enjoy your beverage, but respect yourself.

 Bibliography
Blazeski, G. (2017, July 24). After his father committed suicide, Ernest Hemingway wrote: "I'll
probably go the same way". The Vintage News. Retrieved January 18, 2021, from
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/07/25/after-his-father-committed-suicide-ernest-
hemingway-wrote-ill-probably-go-the-same-way/

DeVries, H. (2018, December 12). Ernest Hemingway's “Write Drunk, Edit Sober” Great
Marketing Advice. Forbes. Retrieved January 18, 2021, from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/henrydevries/2018/12/11/ernest-hemingways-write-
drunk-edit-sober-great-marketing-advice/

Gildenhuys, P. (2019). Natural Selection. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Winter
ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/natural-selection/

J, C. (2014, August 23). Mariel Hemingway believes "Running from Crazy" is everybody's
story. Star Tribune. Retrieved January 18, 2021, from https://www.startribune.com/c-j-
mariel-hemingway-believes-running-from-crazy-is-everybody-s-story/272346491/

Manthey, J., Shield, K. D., Rylett, M., Hasan, O., Probst, C., & Rehm, J. (2019). Global alcohol
exposure between 1990 and 2017 and forecasts until 2030: a modelling
study. Lancet, 393(10190), 2493–2502. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32744-2

Martin, C. D. (2006). Ernest Hemingway: a psychological autopsy of a

suicide. Psychiatry, 69(4), 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1521/psyc.2006.69.4.351

Michael, E. (2020, October 1). Survey shows increase in alcohol use during COVID-19
pandemic. Healio. Retrieved January 18, 2021, from https://www.healio.com/news/primary-
care/20201001/survey-shows-increase-in-alcohol-use-during-covid19-pandemic

McMenamin, M. (2018, May 18). The Myth of Churchill and Alcohol: A Distortion of the
Record. Hillsdale. Retrieved January 18, 2021, from
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/myth-churchill-alcohol/

NIAAA. (2020). Alcohol Use Disorder: A Comparison Between DSM–IV and DSM–5.
Retrieved January 18, 2021, from https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-
fact-sheets/alcohol-use-disorder-comparison-between-dsm

Peschel, B. (2014, February 06). Like Father, Like Son: Ernest Hemingway's Father Kills
Himself (1928). Planet Peschel Blog. Retrieved January 18, 2021, from
https://planetpeschel.com/2012/12/like-father-like-son-ernest-hemingways-father-kills-
himself-1928/

Roan, S. (1996, August 22). Is There a Gene Behind Suicide? LA Times. Retrieved January 18,
2021, from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-08-22-ls-36416-story.html

TheSchoolofLife. (2016, March 14). 14.03.2016. Retrieved January 18, 2021, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USlJm-2qT2w&ab_channel=TheSchoolofLife

View publication stats