Life On Mars 2.08 rant
Apr. 12th, 2007 02:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hmpfSam Tyler, you are a selfish, cowardly, weak, *terminally stupid* (heh - literally!) little prick. You've managed to lose all my sympathy in one single mad moment. Up to now, I felt a bit guilty when I hurt you in fic; no more. You deserve what you get, you idiot. Clearly, you are completely resistant to any kind of deeper insight into your life.
(ETA, a couple of hours later: Don't let that tirade fool you, dear readers. I still love him.)
Of course, you are not entirely to blame. You're only a character; you were written this way. More's the shame, because so far, the writers' track record with this show (and with your characterisation and development) has been very nearly impeccable. But a show as focused on a central 'quest' stands or falls with its resolution, and, well, I'm afraid this one fell. Hard. You might as well have jumped a shark as jumped from the top of that building, Sam.
It's not just a matter of personal preference, either. There are right endings and wrong endings for stories. There's a certain amount of variation possible, but it's not infinite. There are things that work, and things that don't. This doesn't, plain and simple.
Oh, I'm sure it was *satisfying* on the wish-fulfilment scale, if you manage to switch off the parts of your brain that deal with things like narrative logic, character development and ethics... but it didn't make sense. This was not an ending to the story that eps 1.01-2.07 told us; it was fan fiction. Fanfic with a very high degree of verisimilitude, perhaps, but nevertheless fanfiction. Fanfiction gives us the endings we want, but which don't necessarily make sense within the logic of the source material; the endings we would like to see, but don't usually get, because in 99.9% of the cases they'd rob the source material of its power and/or its meaning.
Fan fiction gives us a happily ever after for Romeo and Juliet; fan fiction has Frodo Baggins find happiness with a sassy hobbit lass; fan fiction says „I want characters A and B together, and to hell with the consequences. Who cares about the moral of the story or what's the 'right' conclusion to a dramatic arc, anyway? They're cute together, and they'd be happy together, and that's all we need.“
I see people in this thread calling Sam's jump a 'leap of faith'. I see people seeing a message here that is 'you're alive if you feel alive'. Well, nice message.
The thing is... sometimes you have to work for happiness, sometimes you have to work at getting to the point where you 'feel alive'. Sometimes the right way to live your life isn't presented to you on a silver platter. Sometimes, when it seems like it *is* presented to you on a silver platter (even if you have to jump off a building for it), it's cheap and ultimately false, and also, morally wrong.
And, most of all, the 'right life' isn't in a certain place or time or constellation of people. It's something you have to *make* yourself, every bloody day of your life, and yes, it's hard and there are no guarantees.
I thought 1973 had taught Sam some things about life; *general*, universal things about life, not things like 'if I'm honest with myself, this way of policing is unexpectedly fun, and I like Gene and Annie and Chris... and possibly even Ray, sort of. And the music's better here, too.'
Sam's jump is anything but a leap of faith. It's a declaration of bankruptcy. It's escapism, of the worst kind: the kind we as fans often get accused of, and maybe that is why I'm taking it personally. Yes, we all want to disappear into a better place sometimes, be that Manchester in 1973 or Middle-earth, or the United Federation of Planets in the 24th century. But ultimately, we have to realise that trying to escape from our reality isn't the answer. Oh, I'm with Tolkien all right in defending escapism against the bad press it's been getting – escapism is an extremely important psychological mechanism, a need we all have and nobody should feel embarrassed about indulging. I routinely spend at least half my day indulging in it, myself – writing, planning fics, idly speculating, reading, watching stuff... I can totally see the appeal of spending your life in a dream. But when it gets to the point where you give up on your Real Life, it gets dangerous. See exhibit A: remains of one Sam Tyler, dead of terminal avoidance of reality.
Sam's 2007 life sucked? Well, tough luck, Sammy-boy. So does mine, at the moment. So do something about it. 1973 gave you a chance to find out a lot of stuff about what makes life worth living for you... so apply that to your life in 2007. What's stopping you? Your job sucks? Quit. Yes, I know that's a scary prospect – in some ways, perhaps, scarier than jumping off a building. But, you know, change is one thing that can make you feel alive. Believe me, I've tried it. Sometimes, doing something scary (but perhaps not quite as final as killing yourself) is the best way to kick your life into gear again.
Mind you, even if we assume that 1973 was *real*, the ending is still wrong, on a moral level and on a 'story logic' level, too. Let's take a closer look.
So, if 1973 is real... then Sam really had an obligation of sorts to get his colleagues and friends there out of the pickle he got them into. I admit that. And I would *even* have been fine with him jumping and all - if it hadn't been presented to us as a perfectly happy ending. Because it isn't, and it never can be. Because, veiled hints in a conversation or no, his mum's never going to understand why he did it. Maya's never going to understand it. His aunt is never going to understand it. And who knows who else there is that we haven't heard of – I doubt these really were the only three people of importance in Sam's life. In all of these people's lives, there's now always going to be a dark spot of grief and unanswered questions. Possibly guilt, too – 'Was there anything we could have done to stop him?'
Oh, I'm sure he left them a letter or something. Fat lot of good that's gonna do.
Assuming 1973 is real and Gene and Annie and co were in mortal danger there, should consideration for his family and friends have kept him from jumping to save the 1973 crowd? No, probably not – there were lives at stake. But there should have been a sense of loss about it, instead of simply and only a sense of liberation. But liberation is what they went for with how they portrayed the jump and Sam's return to 1973; we're meant to feel simply and uncritically happy there (and most people did). There is no sense of loss – 2007 wasn't 'a proper life', anyway, he was as good as dead there, just a cog in a cold, heartless machine, yadda yadda yadda. Life's so much better when you're dead, err, in 1973!
So that's why the ending rang wrong for me on the moral side. Now for the story's internal logic (not just the last ep's, but the entire show's):
This show has been largely about Sam's psychological development. It's been about him relaxing, learning to see life from a different side, learning to open up to people and rely on them, and about him rediscovering fun, quite simply. Or at least that's what I thought it was about. Apparently I was wrong, and it was really all about 'Life in 1973 with Gene and Annie and Chris and Ray is just so much more fun than the present, wheeeeeeee!' Apparently, there are no people worthy of Sam's friendship in the present; apparently, there is no way of having fun or a fulfilled life in the present. Apparently, Life On Mars was *not* about Sam Tyler learning something about himself, but about Sam Tyler running away from himself after all.
Which, you know, *would* be satisfying in its own harsh, frustrating, tragic way if this was how it was *meant* to be read. I could live with LoM as a tragedy about a reality-avoiding, burnt-out career-driven guy who never learns how to face up to the real problems in his life and ultimately takes a desperately stupid step. The friend with whom I watched the ep chose to interpret it like that – until we both read the interview with Matthew Graham, that is.
There were other things that annoyed me a bit, too, but nothing serious – a few clunky lines from Annie and Nelson. The impression that we got that basically, Sam apparently just got up and put on his suit and walked out of hospital after his coma. (Yes, I get that there was probably some time between the waking up itself and that scene. But it looked very 'seamless'.) None of that would have 'killed' the episode for me like the ending did, really.
What did I like about this ep? The 'FRUSTRATION' box in the Lost & Found. Sam's insane grin when he very pointedly said 'I'm in a coma, *Frank*.' Every single expression on John Simm's face, especially during the graveyard scene.
And now I'll go and explain again why the ending was all wrong, only this time in the form of novel-length, excruciatingly slowly written fanfic.
But first I'll go and construct at least five different alternative explanations of the ending that are less frustrating for me personally. (At the moment, I feel like I could use a FRUSTRATION box in my room, too. *g*)
Here's one to start with: It wasn't Gene who's the tumour, and the tumour isn't benign, either. It was Frank Morgan all along, and Frank Morgan/the cancer is killing Sam. It's certainly suspicious that the 'real world' surgeon was called after the actor who played the wizard of Oz, isn't it?! Sam only thought he woke up, but was essentially only on another level of his coma fantasies. Perhaps slightly closer to the surface, but certainly not out. The tumour is inoperable and Sam really is dying and will never wake up again; his '2007' experiences were a veiled way of his subconscious telling him that. His jump signifies his acceptance of that fact even as he is dying (in hospital, in his coma, not in a puddle of blood on the ground); Annie's plea to stay with them forever is to be taken literally and he's now in the afterlife. The end.
Oh, I think I like that interpretation. I think I'll make that my official truth now.
BTW; anyone wanna adopt a plot bunny about Annie as a fallen angel who's built 1973 to trap Sam's soul and keep it to herself forever?
Addendum: I've also posted the same rant/review/thing in the ep 2.08 thread at the Railway Arms, and I've also posted some more stuff there, and gotten some interesting replies, too. So, if you're interested in this angle: http://domeofstars.com/forum/index.php?topic=1011.360
(I've sort of vowed to stay away from there, mostly, in the next few weeks, though, because I just realised that it's just making myself *and* everybody else unhappy.)
(ETA, a couple of hours later: Don't let that tirade fool you, dear readers. I still love him.)
Of course, you are not entirely to blame. You're only a character; you were written this way. More's the shame, because so far, the writers' track record with this show (and with your characterisation and development) has been very nearly impeccable. But a show as focused on a central 'quest' stands or falls with its resolution, and, well, I'm afraid this one fell. Hard. You might as well have jumped a shark as jumped from the top of that building, Sam.
It's not just a matter of personal preference, either. There are right endings and wrong endings for stories. There's a certain amount of variation possible, but it's not infinite. There are things that work, and things that don't. This doesn't, plain and simple.
Oh, I'm sure it was *satisfying* on the wish-fulfilment scale, if you manage to switch off the parts of your brain that deal with things like narrative logic, character development and ethics... but it didn't make sense. This was not an ending to the story that eps 1.01-2.07 told us; it was fan fiction. Fanfic with a very high degree of verisimilitude, perhaps, but nevertheless fanfiction. Fanfiction gives us the endings we want, but which don't necessarily make sense within the logic of the source material; the endings we would like to see, but don't usually get, because in 99.9% of the cases they'd rob the source material of its power and/or its meaning.
Fan fiction gives us a happily ever after for Romeo and Juliet; fan fiction has Frodo Baggins find happiness with a sassy hobbit lass; fan fiction says „I want characters A and B together, and to hell with the consequences. Who cares about the moral of the story or what's the 'right' conclusion to a dramatic arc, anyway? They're cute together, and they'd be happy together, and that's all we need.“
I see people in this thread calling Sam's jump a 'leap of faith'. I see people seeing a message here that is 'you're alive if you feel alive'. Well, nice message.
The thing is... sometimes you have to work for happiness, sometimes you have to work at getting to the point where you 'feel alive'. Sometimes the right way to live your life isn't presented to you on a silver platter. Sometimes, when it seems like it *is* presented to you on a silver platter (even if you have to jump off a building for it), it's cheap and ultimately false, and also, morally wrong.
And, most of all, the 'right life' isn't in a certain place or time or constellation of people. It's something you have to *make* yourself, every bloody day of your life, and yes, it's hard and there are no guarantees.
I thought 1973 had taught Sam some things about life; *general*, universal things about life, not things like 'if I'm honest with myself, this way of policing is unexpectedly fun, and I like Gene and Annie and Chris... and possibly even Ray, sort of. And the music's better here, too.'
Sam's jump is anything but a leap of faith. It's a declaration of bankruptcy. It's escapism, of the worst kind: the kind we as fans often get accused of, and maybe that is why I'm taking it personally. Yes, we all want to disappear into a better place sometimes, be that Manchester in 1973 or Middle-earth, or the United Federation of Planets in the 24th century. But ultimately, we have to realise that trying to escape from our reality isn't the answer. Oh, I'm with Tolkien all right in defending escapism against the bad press it's been getting – escapism is an extremely important psychological mechanism, a need we all have and nobody should feel embarrassed about indulging. I routinely spend at least half my day indulging in it, myself – writing, planning fics, idly speculating, reading, watching stuff... I can totally see the appeal of spending your life in a dream. But when it gets to the point where you give up on your Real Life, it gets dangerous. See exhibit A: remains of one Sam Tyler, dead of terminal avoidance of reality.
Sam's 2007 life sucked? Well, tough luck, Sammy-boy. So does mine, at the moment. So do something about it. 1973 gave you a chance to find out a lot of stuff about what makes life worth living for you... so apply that to your life in 2007. What's stopping you? Your job sucks? Quit. Yes, I know that's a scary prospect – in some ways, perhaps, scarier than jumping off a building. But, you know, change is one thing that can make you feel alive. Believe me, I've tried it. Sometimes, doing something scary (but perhaps not quite as final as killing yourself) is the best way to kick your life into gear again.
Mind you, even if we assume that 1973 was *real*, the ending is still wrong, on a moral level and on a 'story logic' level, too. Let's take a closer look.
So, if 1973 is real... then Sam really had an obligation of sorts to get his colleagues and friends there out of the pickle he got them into. I admit that. And I would *even* have been fine with him jumping and all - if it hadn't been presented to us as a perfectly happy ending. Because it isn't, and it never can be. Because, veiled hints in a conversation or no, his mum's never going to understand why he did it. Maya's never going to understand it. His aunt is never going to understand it. And who knows who else there is that we haven't heard of – I doubt these really were the only three people of importance in Sam's life. In all of these people's lives, there's now always going to be a dark spot of grief and unanswered questions. Possibly guilt, too – 'Was there anything we could have done to stop him?'
Oh, I'm sure he left them a letter or something. Fat lot of good that's gonna do.
Assuming 1973 is real and Gene and Annie and co were in mortal danger there, should consideration for his family and friends have kept him from jumping to save the 1973 crowd? No, probably not – there were lives at stake. But there should have been a sense of loss about it, instead of simply and only a sense of liberation. But liberation is what they went for with how they portrayed the jump and Sam's return to 1973; we're meant to feel simply and uncritically happy there (and most people did). There is no sense of loss – 2007 wasn't 'a proper life', anyway, he was as good as dead there, just a cog in a cold, heartless machine, yadda yadda yadda. Life's so much better when you're dead, err, in 1973!
So that's why the ending rang wrong for me on the moral side. Now for the story's internal logic (not just the last ep's, but the entire show's):
This show has been largely about Sam's psychological development. It's been about him relaxing, learning to see life from a different side, learning to open up to people and rely on them, and about him rediscovering fun, quite simply. Or at least that's what I thought it was about. Apparently I was wrong, and it was really all about 'Life in 1973 with Gene and Annie and Chris and Ray is just so much more fun than the present, wheeeeeeee!' Apparently, there are no people worthy of Sam's friendship in the present; apparently, there is no way of having fun or a fulfilled life in the present. Apparently, Life On Mars was *not* about Sam Tyler learning something about himself, but about Sam Tyler running away from himself after all.
Which, you know, *would* be satisfying in its own harsh, frustrating, tragic way if this was how it was *meant* to be read. I could live with LoM as a tragedy about a reality-avoiding, burnt-out career-driven guy who never learns how to face up to the real problems in his life and ultimately takes a desperately stupid step. The friend with whom I watched the ep chose to interpret it like that – until we both read the interview with Matthew Graham, that is.
There were other things that annoyed me a bit, too, but nothing serious – a few clunky lines from Annie and Nelson. The impression that we got that basically, Sam apparently just got up and put on his suit and walked out of hospital after his coma. (Yes, I get that there was probably some time between the waking up itself and that scene. But it looked very 'seamless'.) None of that would have 'killed' the episode for me like the ending did, really.
What did I like about this ep? The 'FRUSTRATION' box in the Lost & Found. Sam's insane grin when he very pointedly said 'I'm in a coma, *Frank*.' Every single expression on John Simm's face, especially during the graveyard scene.
And now I'll go and explain again why the ending was all wrong, only this time in the form of novel-length, excruciatingly slowly written fanfic.
But first I'll go and construct at least five different alternative explanations of the ending that are less frustrating for me personally. (At the moment, I feel like I could use a FRUSTRATION box in my room, too. *g*)
Here's one to start with: It wasn't Gene who's the tumour, and the tumour isn't benign, either. It was Frank Morgan all along, and Frank Morgan/the cancer is killing Sam. It's certainly suspicious that the 'real world' surgeon was called after the actor who played the wizard of Oz, isn't it?! Sam only thought he woke up, but was essentially only on another level of his coma fantasies. Perhaps slightly closer to the surface, but certainly not out. The tumour is inoperable and Sam really is dying and will never wake up again; his '2007' experiences were a veiled way of his subconscious telling him that. His jump signifies his acceptance of that fact even as he is dying (in hospital, in his coma, not in a puddle of blood on the ground); Annie's plea to stay with them forever is to be taken literally and he's now in the afterlife. The end.
Oh, I think I like that interpretation. I think I'll make that my official truth now.
BTW; anyone wanna adopt a plot bunny about Annie as a fallen angel who's built 1973 to trap Sam's soul and keep it to herself forever?
Addendum: I've also posted the same rant/review/thing in the ep 2.08 thread at the Railway Arms, and I've also posted some more stuff there, and gotten some interesting replies, too. So, if you're interested in this angle: http://domeofstars.com/forum/index.php?topic=1011.360
(I've sort of vowed to stay away from there, mostly, in the next few weeks, though, because I just realised that it's just making myself *and* everybody else unhappy.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-12 06:41 am (UTC)If you take the show as an exploration of existentialism, which it surely is, then there is no "real" world. Your reality is created in your mind. I feel the show set that jump up from the very first episode. When we first meet Sam he is a rationalist, everything is about facts and evidence. I think he even says a line in the pilot about there being no room for emotion in a squad room. Then he goes into 1973 where he is told he needs to trust what he sees and to believe in the people that surround him, even though he has the "facts" of his life in 2006. Sam has to find faith/trust in his world. It's all gut, it's all what feels right or wrong. In last night’s episode, he rejects rationalism for the existential view that man defines his own reality. He goes to that roof, because this reality is no longer real for him-not because his life is miserable and, imo, not because 1973 is more fun. 1973 is the harder life really. He makes a choice, just as he was going to do in the pilot, to go back to his real life, to the place where he was really alive. Without an Annie to stop him he does make a leap of faith. He believes that he went some where, he tells his mom that and the jump is the illustration of his belief that there is a life waiting for him to return to. Not a cowardly cop out. Did he make the wrong choice? Society says yes, but some could argue that for Sam, dying in one reality was the only way to live.
Now I view that 2007 was real and Sam either dies when he he tells Annie he’ll stay forever or when the car drives off. Both are sad and dark, but I like the idea of the eternal second. I have also considered that Sam never wakes up in 2007, but I think the strangeness of those scenes is just to show how un-real the "real" world is for him.
As for morality, I'm not of the opinion that art has to be moral. The best art, imo, is thought provoking and this certainly was that.
Art and morals.
Date: 2007-04-12 06:58 am (UTC)By 'coherent statement' I do not mean 'a single and definite explanation for Sam's state', btw. I've always been a fan of the openness of the show to many different interpretations, and I'm glad they kept at least *some* degree of that, although they were far too clear about the main interpretation for my taste (that main interpretation that is heavily suggested by the way the ending was written and filmed being "2007 baaaaad. 1973 goooood. Screw reality!")
What I mean when I say that LoM did not make a coherent statement for me, and when I complain about the morals of Sam's decision, is ultimately that the ending did not make sense to me in the context of what the show had seemed to say before those last few minutes; and it did not make sense in the context of Sam's character as I saw it by 2.07.
My problem is not that I'm afraid that people will start jumping off roofs in droves now, not at all; my problem is that I can't see Sam doing what he did, not without a serious violation of his character and *his* morals. And if he did, I can't make myself see it as the happy ending it was obviously intended to be.
I'd be happy if I got the impression that they *wanted* to make us think about all the contradictions and stuff here. But the impression I get, both from internal and external evidence (the Matthew Graham interview etc.) is that really, all they wanted was to have a 'happy ending' where Sam got to stay in the 'better world', and we're all supposed to be really happy about that and disregard all the consequences and implications.
I really wish I could believe they wanted us to think about Deep Things, but I'm afraid they didn't.
Re: Art and morals.
Date: 2007-04-12 07:55 am (UTC)I thought the jump was about taking a chance on living, really living, more than it was about giving up. I didn't think they were trying to say that 1973 was a better world or a better time than 2007. Imo, they were saying he was more alive then or that he felt more alive then. Again, maybe the popular interpretation is that 2007 is bad and 1973 is good but that doesn't mean it's the right one.
I have a hard time seeing how there is no cohesion. In the first episode Sam is ready to jump off a building in order to get back to his world. I agree that Sam in ep 1 would not have jumped back into 1973 once he had gotten to 2006, but I think the character arc was always heading in this direction. Morally, for Sam, he promised Annie that he wouldn't leave her. Morally, Sam could not let his friends die because of his actions. The facts told him that these people were in his mind, his emotions told him they were real and waiting for him. In his mind, his moral obligation was to the people he'd abandoned to die. I don't think he seemed overly enthused about it, as he spoke to his mom, it actually seemed like he was trying to lay out a rational argument. As for leaving people behind, well I have to say it was a cop out not to have Maya, I was waiting for her to show up, but I think that the tragedy of the whole situation was that each world was a viable option for Sam- each place had people that loved him and that he loved. It wasn't the world that drove him to his decision. I hate to harp on this, but it was, imo, an existential choice. Sam decides what world he would really be alive in. And it is his perspective on the situation, not ours that matters.
As to what the writers intended, well I can not believe they didn't intentionally gray the ending up so that the audience could interpret it however they wanted. But I will say that I generally don't care what a writer, painter, or actor set out intending to do. As you know, art work has a life of it's own and once it is made it no longer belongs to the people that created it. Therefore their wants shouldn't effect your enjoyment. As someone studying literature, I'm sure you are used to finding meaning in a text and seeing a common theme that the author most likely didn't intend to create. We find our own meanings to fit our own tastes. We subconsciously lay the framework of an idea into the things we do.
As for it being TV and not art, well Shakespeare was no more than a brilliant television writer in his day and we interpret the hell out of his scripts. Just because it's shown on a small box doesn't mean it doesn't have artistic integrity.
Sorry I'm jumping a bit here, but in the pilot on the roof Annie says to Sam that we all feel like jumping sometimes, but we don't. I think the moral of the story is that we need to jump. Not, obviously, to our deaths- the jump means doing something you are unsure of, doing something you are afraid of, doing something that takes you to a new place. I felt the jump was saying that we accept the world and reality all to easily. We should question and fight and try to really live our lives instead of just going with the flow and settling into apathy. If you look at the situation rationally, Sam should have jumped in the pilot, but he was too afraid. This time he had the courage to fight for the life he wanted, even if it meant dying.
This is weird, I think you have a valid argument, I'm not trying to sway you over to my side. I'm just trying to clarify why I enjoyed the episode. Plus I like a good discussion and none of my friends have watched the ep yet.
:)
Re: Art and morals.
Date: 2007-04-12 10:29 am (UTC)I also very much like this: "If you look at the situation rationally, Sam should have jumped in the pilot, but he was too afraid. This time he had the courage to fight for the life he wanted, even if it meant dying." I don't think Sam's jump is cowardly, though I do partially agree with the original comment that Sam should theoretically have stayed in 2007 and translated his lessons to that life there. Yet...an interview with Matthew had him saying that he couldn't bear for Sam to be in 2007 and I agree with that. If he had, I would have been devastated! I see it as a choice, and Sam chose 1973, like I wanted him to.
As for the morality of the show, I don't think the jump was a deviation from morality for Sam. To me personally, Life on Mars was distinctly amoral the whole way through: I do not believe that it tried to show that anything was the right way of doing things. We see that from the Sam/Gene arguments. Gene's methods seem immoral to Sam, but the morality behind them (protect the citizens above everything else) is surely at least partially valid? The ethical questions the show brought up were part of why I loved it - it challenged my opinions.
Oh, and I love your exploration of the existential aspects of the series. "In last night’s episode, he rejects rationalism for the existential view that man defines his own reality." Oh yes. I LOVE this interpretation.
Reply, part one
Date: 2007-04-12 11:08 pm (UTC)>Hmm, we disagree about what the jump back to 73 meant. I never felt like it was a happy ending and I think at most it could be considered bitter sweet. I'm sure some people are all "Aww, Annie and Sam together 4evah!!!" but I thought the darkest moment of the show was when she said stay forever and he said he would. It was his death knell.
Oh, I never felt it was a happy ending, either! That's the problem! It was so very clearly a tragedy to any rationally thinking person (IMO), yet they *dressed it up* as a happy ending. So many kinds of wrong.
>I thought the jump was about taking a chance on living, really living, more than it was about giving up. I didn't think they were trying to say that 1973 was a better world or a better time than 2007. Imo, they were saying he was more alive then or that he felt more alive then. Again, maybe the popular interpretation is that 2007 is bad and 1973 is good but that doesn't mean it's the right one.
How the bloody hell can jumping to your death be taking a chance on living? Is it taking the 'better to burn out than to fade away' idea to an absolute extreme? Three seconds of fun and that's it? ;-)
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fantasy, fantasy worlds, parallel universes, time travel and the likes - I come to LoM very much from an SF background. But the show was pretty clear about it all being inside Sam's head, so he really made a decision to withdraw into his own head and leave reality entirely. I may be tragically inflexible or something, but I can't see that as any kind of positive choice 'for' life.
>I have a hard time seeing how there is no cohesion. In the first episode Sam is ready to jump off a building in order to get back to his world. I agree that Sam in ep 1 would not have jumped back into 1973 once he had gotten to 2006, but I think the character arc was always heading in this direction. Morally, for Sam, he promised Annie that he wouldn't leave her. Morally, Sam could not let his friends die because of his actions. The facts told him that these people were in his mind, his emotions told him they were real and waiting for him.
Hmm... I should try that excuse in my life sometime. "Sorry, I couldn't call you because I had a moral obligation to save John Crichton from certain death in my daydreams. Oh, and I got Sam into a really bad pickle, I need to save him, too, so I'm afraid I'll have to cancel our date for next week, too. Need more quality time with my fictional favourites. You know, they're real to me..." ;-)
>I think that the tragedy of the whole situation was that each world was a viable option for Sam- each place had people that loved him and that he loved.
I had thought so until 2.07, too, but 2.07 did a very thorough job of showing us that 2007 is really just a cold, grey-blue, lifeless place full of soulless automatons, with the possible exception of his mum. They *could* have portrayed 2007 in a different way; they could have showed us the conflict. They chose not to.
Which, among other reasons, is especially annoying because they did such a good job, *especially* in series two, of really making us feel the appeal of 2007 for Sam, too - there was a lot of love to be felt in the communications from the present that we heard this series, and a palpable sense of loss very often - except in 2.07 where suddenly 2007 is completely dead.
>It wasn't the world that drove him to his decision. I hate to harp on this, but it was, imo, an existential choice. Sam decides what world he would really be alive in. And it is his perspective on the situation, not ours that matters.
Is it, *really*? Is reality *that* relative? Should we cheer on crazy sect members who think that killing themselves will get them picked up by aliens from Sirius, or suicide bombers who think killing dozens alongside themselves will get them straight into paradise, because after all, that's *their* ideal reality, the world they would like to live in, and they're taking a positive step to achieving their goals?
Re: Reply, part three
Date: 2007-04-12 11:40 pm (UTC)This is emphatically not what I said. TV, if you ask me, is one of the greatest and most underappreciated art forms of our time. I was not setting it apart from 'art', but from 'art that does not try to make a coherent statement', and even there I did neither mean to imply that 'art that does not try to make a coherent statement' was superior to other, less ambiguous kinds of art, nor that this kind of 'deliberately confusing and unsettling' art could not happen on tv - stuff like Twin Peaks clearly proves that it can. I was speaking about LOM; when I said I was judging it according to the rules of tv, that means that I think there are rules for storytelling in any medium; serial storytelling on tv, like any other medium, has its rules, and these are what my verdict about LOM is based on.
>Sorry I'm jumping a bit here, but in the pilot on the roof Annie says to Sam that we all feel like jumping sometimes, but we don't. I think the moral of the story is that we need to jump. Not, obviously, to our deaths- the jump means doing something you are unsure of, doing something you are afraid of, doing something that takes you to a new place. I felt the jump was saying that we accept the world and reality all to easily. We should question and fight and try to really live our lives instead of just going with the flow and settling into apathy.
Yes, of *course* we should fight! That's my entire point! But. Sam. Was. Not. Fighting. He didn't even try. Unless we are to assume he did and 2007 was just so terribly stifling that it was completely impossible to fight for a better life there.
>This is weird, I think you have a valid argument, I'm not trying to sway you over to my side. I'm just trying to clarify why I enjoyed the episode. Plus I like a good discussion and none of my friends have watched the ep yet.
:)
It's okay, I like a good discussion, too, and how boring would discussions be if we all agreed on everything all the time?! ;-)
Re: Reply, part three
Date: 2007-04-13 01:00 am (UTC)Sorry. I was responding at 3AM so I just misinterpreted what you were saying. I thought you meant TV didn't have to meet any artistic criteria.
He didn't even try. Unless we are to assume he did and 2007 was just so terribly stifling that it was completely impossible to fight for a better life there.
You are right, 2007 got the shaft because the writer wanted him back in 1973. I think they tried to show the struggle in the lack of an anchor for him, though. Sam says to the woman, "It helps to talk about it." but he's only been talking into a tape recorder and the woman he is really speaking to doesn't seem to want him to talk about it any more. His mom basically offers up a platitude. Talking to Annie is what made 1973 real. There was no one talking him out of his delusion in 2006, no one telling him there was a purpose or a point in him being there. No one telling him to believe in and trust the world around him. He is unable to fight without those two things.
how boring would discussions be if we all agreed on everything all the time?! ;-)
Ridiculously boring! I'm so happy you're indulging me like this, I rarely comment in lj's because people get offended and/or rude when there is a disagreement.
Re: Reply, part one a
Date: 2007-04-13 12:11 am (UTC)Stupid keyboards ☺
Oh, I never felt it was a happy ending, either! That's the problem! It was so very clearly a tragedy to any rationally thinking person (IMO), yet they *dressed it up* as a happy ending. So many kinds of wrong.
I think the reason for the dichotomy between what was going on and what we as audience members were seeing, is that for Sam it is a happy ending- it is the life he wanted. We are the ones who realize the world is fake, not him.
How the bloody hell can jumping to your death be taking a chance on living? Is it taking the 'better to burn out than to fade away' idea to an absolute extreme? Three seconds of fun and that's it? ;-)… . I may be tragically inflexible or something, but I can't see that as any kind of positive choice 'for' life.
It’s a chance because, imo, Sam doesn’t think he’s going to die. He thinks he is going to live. He is choosing his reality. We believe that 1973 was in his mind, he doesn’t.
Hmm... I should try that excuse in my life sometime. "Sorry, I couldn't call you because I had a moral obligation to save John Crichton from certain death in my daydreams.
Well, I’d accept it. Who could resist saving a man who wears leather pants so well?
Seriously though, the difference between you and Sam is that you only have one world in your mind. You have a definite boundary for reality and fantasy. Sam does not. It’s gone from the moment he takes Annie’s hand in the pilot.
“See, why would I imagine that? Why would I bother to put that kind of detail in it? “
“You wouldn’t?”
“What should I do, Annie?
“Stay.”
The thing that pulls him back from the edge is a little piece of detail that he can feel. He begins to believe in this world. The thing that pushes him over the edge in the finale is that he can not feel the metal thing stabbing him. Reality and fantasy are completely mixed up in his mind. Actually in the end, I may be contradicting myself. I was saying that he learned to trust feelings and emotions, but in that moment Sam weighs the evidence and the evidence leads him to believe 2007 is not real. In that moment his irrationality is highly rational.
I had thought so until 2.07, too, but 2.07 did a very thorough job of showing us that 2007 is really just a cold, grey-blue, lifeless place full of soulless automatons, with the possible exception of his mum. They *could* have portrayed 2007 in a different way; they could have showed us the conflict. They chose not to…there was a lot of love to be felt in the communications from the present that we heard this series, and a palpable sense of loss very often - except in 2.07 where suddenly 2007 is completely dead.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. I was expecting someone to show up on that rooftop to try and stop him. They were definitely showing us that someone in 1973 noticed he was on the roof but in 2007 no one did. It wasn’t fair that we didn’t get Maya or more of his mother. I thought it was interesting that his mother inadvertently gives him permission to go. She validates his need to keep his promises instead of telling him that those were promises he made to imaginary people. Annie (who in the end is the wrong person to listen to, she’s quite the villain really) makes every effort to make him believe in his surroundings. He has no one telling him that 2007 is real. As for the blue-grey coloring, well I thought it was more about how he saw it than how it was. He feels lifeless in this place.
Re: Reply, part one a
Date: 2007-04-13 12:14 am (UTC)I had thought so until 2.07, too, but 2.07 did a very thorough job of showing us that 2007 is really just a cold, grey-blue, lifeless place full of soulless automatons, with the possible exception of his mum. They *could* have portrayed 2007 in a different way; they could have showed us the conflict. They chose not to…there was a lot of love to be felt in the communications from the present that we heard this series, and a palpable sense of loss very often - except in 2.07 where suddenly 2007 is completely dead.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. I was expecting someone to show up on that rooftop to try and stop him. They were definitely showing us that someone in 1973 noticed he was on the roof but in 2007 no one did. It wasn’t fair that we didn’t get Maya or more of his mother. I thought it was interesting that his mother inadvertently gives him permission to go. She validates his need to keep his promises instead of telling him that those were promises he made to imaginary people. Annie (who in the end is the wrong person to listen to, she’s quite the villain really) makes every effort to make him believe in his surroundings. He has no one telling him that 2007 is real. As for the blue-grey coloring, well I thought it was more about how he saw it than how it was. He feels lifeless in this place.
Re: Reply, part one a
From:Re: Reply, part one a
From:Re: Reply, part one b
Date: 2007-04-13 12:12 am (UTC)Is reality *that* relative?
Existentially, yes. Actually, even un-existentially the answer is yes. My truth is not your truth. The way I see the world may not be the way you do. People fight and die every day trying to mold the world into what they want it to be. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it is. Even the basic facts of life are disputed- I believe in evolution, but there are people who believe in Adam and Eve and think my belief in dinosaurs is lunacy. A person’s reality is not always true.
Should we cheer on crazy sect members who think that killing themselves will get them picked up by aliens from Sirius, or suicide bombers who think killing dozens alongside themselves will get them straight into paradise, because after all, that's *their* ideal reality, the world they would like to live in, and they're taking a positive step to achieving their goals?
Of course not, but this isn’t the real world, it’s a story- it’s an idea, a warning. In real life you’d hope he’d have therapy and people to anchor him and medications. But that’s not the story Life on Mars is trying to tell. They aren’t telling people to jump off a building. They aren’t telling people to believe in imaginary worlds. They are telling people to live and to feel. Nelson is the spiritual guide, the moral, and the truth of the show. The way Sam interprets his words is not the way real people should interpret them. Imo, the ending isn’t meant to be so literal. It’s not the suicide that should be applauded; it’s the decision to live.
Decision to live
Date: 2007-04-13 12:18 am (UTC)Oh, I give up. I don't think I'm ever going to 'get' it. I mean, I totally get that it was Sam's worldview and so on - but that doesn't make it *any* bit less wrong. Ultimately, it comes down to a deep gut-feeling of nausea when I think about the ending, and there's no philosophical spin I can put on it that makes it less nausea-inducing.
Re: Decision to live
From:Well, as I sort of said before...
From:Re: Well, as I sort of said before...
From:Re: Well, as I sort of said before...
From:Re: Well, as I sort of said before...
From:Reality
Date: 2007-04-15 01:40 pm (UTC)Well, obviously, yes. But does that *really* mean that every way to see the world is equally valid, and that we should make no difference between them? How do we organise society if that is the case? What *do* we do about people whose idea of happiness consists of killing or hurting other people, people whose idea of the world involves a God whose rule should be absolute, people who think they'll be happier if they throw themselves off buildings, etc. etc.?
I actually completely 'get' what you mean about reality being relative, I know that it's ultimately created in our heads and that it's unreliable and individual and so on. But even if it's a neurological and ontological fact, it's a fact that's incompatible with life in a society. As soon as there is even just one other person with needs and feelings of their own in the world, you have a potential ethical problem if you only accept your own interpretation of the world. And if you say that any view of the world is equally valid, this is the logical consequence.
The nature of reality is a compromise, really. We can afford divergent realities as long as and insofar as they do not cause harm to others. Now, Sam's divergent reality caused the *most* harm to himself, which I suppose *could* make it an acceptable one, if we want to be radical and say that everyone has a right to do *anything* with their own life - and I guess I even believe that, to some degree. I imagine his decision did considerable harm to his mum and possibly quite a few other people, though, so this is where it gets difficult... Of course, we hurt other people all the time; every time we end a relationship, for example; you can't live without hurting people. I'm not saying it's easy to draw lines here; but I think some lines *do* need to be drawn.
Anyway... even if we agreed unequivocally that someone's alternate worldview was ['good'/'valid'/worthy of respect/protection/not to be condemned/criticised] even *though* it drove him to kill himself, a case could be made for Sam actually being traumatised and possibly even *physically* ill. Which opens another can of worms - how do we decide if someone is making 'a lifestyle choice' by believing in something bizarre or if they are actually ill and in need of treatment?
And so on and so on... this is an incredibly sticky subject, and I'm sure we could discuss it for months and not come to any conclusion.
What happened in Life On Mars, I think, is the writers and the majority of the audience getting thoroughly charmed by a 'mad' perspective - so charmed that in the end, they sort of moved collectively to the 'mad' character's alternate reality with him and lost any chance at an outside perspective. So, in a way, this is a case of mass delusion. I would have liked it and called it very clever and all kinds of positive adjectives if I got a sense from the ep that this had happened with *any* kind of awareness on behalf of the writers.
(Sorry, the last paragraph doesn't tie in very well with the rest of this post. My brain is mush today.)
Re: Reality
From:Reply, part two
Date: 2007-04-12 11:39 pm (UTC)Well, you're presenting only one side of an eternal debate in literary criticism here. ;-) I happen to be an adherent of the other side, at least to some degree. I 'get' the whole 'death of the author' thing, of course, and it's an appealing idea. We all make our own meanings, no doubt about that. Fanfiction is all about that, and that is one of the reasons I love fanfic.
There is a qualitative difference between legitimate personal meanings and legitimate *interpretations*, though. A story can have a thousand different meanings to a thousand different people. But, unless perhaps if it's by Philip K. Dick or David Lynch ;-), there *is* a limit to the amount of legitimate interpretations. Meaning is unlimitied because it is ultimately personal. But a proper interpretation *is* limited by the framework laid by the author. (Yes, I know this is a bit of an unfashionable idea in modern criticism. I guess I'm a bit of a traditionalist here. It's okay, though - I'm fairly avant-garde and radical in other areas. ;-)) There is a certain amount of leeway to 'what it all can mean', but it's not infinite. A legitimate interpretation needs to be supported by evidence; if I'm personally convinced that the universe is ruled by Flying Green Elephants, I'm perfectly free to interpret the plot of Life On Mars as portraying the mysterious workings of the Flying Green Elephants. That would be my personal meaning. But it would not be a legitimate interpretation.
Ideally, a viable interpretation needs to be based on strong internal evidence. The stronger the evidence we can present in support of our interpretation, the likelier it is we have found the primary intended 'meaning' of a work of art. And yes, that meaning *is* privileged over other meanings insofar as it's the one that most people are going to at least *partially* come away with from the work of art (though they will add their own meanings.) It's the framework for all the meaning-making on the part of the audience that's going to happen.
That doesn't mean that we aren't free to imagine alternative meanings galore, but they're never going to be the primary meaning.
To get back to LOM - I unfortunately find a lot of internal evidence that the rather stupid interpretation I am criticising and you are rejecting is indeed the intended primary interpretation. And the predominant audience reactions confirm this, as apparently the majority of the audience came away from the show with the same main impression as I, the only difference being that they agree with the morals and sentiment of the ending whereas I do not.
Re: Reply, part two
Date: 2007-04-13 12:44 am (UTC)Indeed I am. But I wasn't trying to say an author's intention should have no bearing on the work. I'm simply saying that, for me, it is not definitive.
But a proper interpretation *is* limited by the framework laid by the author. (Yes, I know this is a bit of an unfashionable idea in modern criticism. I guess I'm a bit of a traditionalist here. It's okay, though - I'm fairly avant-garde and radical in other areas. ;-)) There is a certain amount of leeway to 'what it all can mean', but it's not infinite.
I think that is pretty commonly accepted actually. The scope of the framework laid down is where the wiggle room comes in, and I feel the finale was very broadly drawn.
Matthew Graham made a choice to send Sam back to 1973, he didn't say it was a happy ending or the right ending. He said it emotionally satisfied him. His reasoning for why Sam wanted to go back was a bit shit. I don't think it had anything to do with Sam wanting his mom to stay young and I don't feel that was ever presented in canon. So I disregard it. His interpretation of an eternal second, well that has to be dealt with, because it's there. The interview says, "It depends on what you want to believe. 'I think it does,' agrees Matthew. 'The truth is, when I wrote it, what I was trying to say is that’s he’s died, and that for however long that last second of life is going to be, it will stretch out for an age, as an eternity for him. And so when he drives off in that car, he’s really driving off into the afterlife.'" He doesn't say that is how everyone needs to see it, he says that is how he perceived it.
To get back to LOM - I unfortunately find a lot of internal evidence that the rather stupid interpretation I am criticising and you are rejecting is indeed the intended primary interpretation. And the predominant audience reactions confirm this, as apparently the majority of the audience came away from the show with the same main impression as I, the only difference being that they agree with the morals and sentiment of the ending whereas I do not.
I haven't read most online reviews of the show, my friends and I did not find the show to have a happy ending or to be condoning suicide. I only responded to yours because it caught my eye as I was scrolling through my flist. It was so very different from what I walked away with that I wanted to explore alternate meanings. I know that a lot of people aren't walking away thinking about layered meanings, about the brilliance of the foils, or about Annie really being the one to lead Sam to his death, but I think they pick up on the primary message that I got, that sometimes you have to risk everything in order to really live. I doubt that many people thought that the suicide was the right solution for a real person, but for a character in a story, in a fantasy, at least for me, it works.
Authorial intention and LOM
Date: 2007-04-15 01:52 pm (UTC)Neither is it for me. (Hey! Fanfic writer! *g*) It's just damn hard to ignore if it's so blatant.
>Matthew Graham made a choice to send Sam back to 1973, he didn't say it was a happy ending or the right ending.
But he did. I'm not talking about extratextual evidence like interviews, I'm talking about the actual episode. The ending had "be happy, dammit!" written all over it - and most of the audience responded as intended.
>'The truth is, when I wrote it, what I was trying to say is that’s he’s died, and that for however long that last second of life is going to be, it will stretch out for an age, as an eternity for him. And so when he drives off in that car, he’s really driving off into the afterlife.'" He doesn't say that is how everyone needs to see it, he says that is how he perceived it.
And I'd say that comes over pretty strongly in the actual ep - from the to-good-to-be-true-ness of everyone's reactions to Sam's return to Annie's 'forever' and the rainbow in the background. And, to reiterate that once again, I would not have minded Sam jumping and 1973 being his afterlife at all if it had not been presented as a totally happy ending. But it is, and it's the windowdressing I have a problem with.
>I haven't read most online reviews of the show, my friends and I did not find the show to have a happy ending or to be condoning suicide.
I don't think it actually is condoning suicide. Or rather, it does so accidentally, not on purpose, because the writers themselves were completely lost in Sam's reality.
>but I think they pick up on the primary message that I got, that sometimes you have to risk everything in order to really live.
Which would be a message I'd totally 'get' and support if the metaphor they chose to express it wasn't so muddled and badly thought-through.
Re: Authorial intention and LOM
From:Re: Authorial intention and LOM
From:Poor Sam.
Date: 2010-12-07 02:06 pm (UTC)I loved it too. Hethought everything would be better once he got home, but it wasn’t. (I also always think the grass is greener on the other side.) Hethought everyone would be waiting for him like they were for
Dorothy) but they weren’t. He was ill but nobody seemed bothered (that’s what got to me the most) I’d have thought they would be, even if he was just a colleague, even if they didn’t actually like him that much (& he wasn’t really that likeable)
He misses his other colleagues, but there’s nobody for him to miss. He made them all up.
I expected it to end the way it did, but I still bawled my eyes out. I’d guessed what Gene Hunt was. When you still enjoy something, when you’ve guessed what’s going to happen, that to me means it’s good.
There’s something really wrong in your life if you want to copy Sam. I still can’t listen to ‘Life On Mars ?’
I think if art – books, paintings, music, anything -- doesn’t affect you, in a good or a bad way, it’s probably not worth seeing.
Whoops
Date: 2010-12-07 05:29 pm (UTC)Okay, teal deer, part one:
Date: 2010-12-07 06:24 pm (UTC)I'm actually a fan of dark endings; I sort of lobbied from day one for the show to end with Sam dying. Granted, I wanted his arc to be about acceptance of inevitable death (i.e., I would have liked it if the show had made it clear, over time, that he just wouldn't ever be able to wake up, and would have liked him make his peace with that, eventually), rather than about brining about his own death willfully and pointlessly. But, still, what I wanted wouldn't have been a "happy happy, joy joy" ending.
What I take issue with, aside from the fandom's overwhelmingly creepy reaction to the ending, was that the ending didn't fit what most of the rest of the show before it had said. I.e. it has all the marks of being hastily tacked on, without too much thought on the part of the writers. The writers just couldn't *bear* to leave Sam in the present, without his imaginary friends, without the fun that is Gene Hunt. That's the motivation for the ending; it's not motivated by any internal necessity of the story.
There are all kinds of ways in which the ending doesn't make sense, but I haven't rewatched the ep since then, nor most of the show, so I'll just focus on the things that have stayed with me most, namely, everything most directly related to Sam.
1.) It doesn't make sense for Sam to have no friends and family who care for him in the present.
We've heard Ruth's and Heather's voices. Even Maya, while she did eventually give up on him, stuck around well into series 2, and what we heard from her doesn't sound like she just didn't care about Sam; in fact, she probably cared too much - if she didn't, I think she would have left him years ago, their relationship seems so broken. (Take note that a broken relationship does not imply a lack of love. From what little we've seen of Sam and Maya, it's obvious there was real love there, on both sides. But Sam was too messed up, psychologically, to be able to have a real relationship.)
And we've heard and seen Sam warmly reminisce about his family and speak with palpable longing about them. Of course, you can *always* claim, afterwards, that Sam only ever imagined his friends and family cared about him, and that he longed for a human connection he'd never actually possessed. But, IMO, it isn't warranted by the text. After 15 eps in which there was a believable emotional connection between Sam and people in the present-day, a mere absence of such in the last ten minutes of the last ep isn't enough to support that interpretation.
Teal deer, part two:
Date: 2010-12-07 06:25 pm (UTC)On the surface, the two scenes on the roof - the one from the first ep, and the one from the last, look like nice bookends for the show; there's a nice visual symmetry there. If you look at it more closely, though, the WTF? begins to creep in. Because why exactly does Sam have to jump, from a story perspective? What exactly is the arc the writers are trying to end with this scene?
Based on the first scene's "moral" - "we don't jump, because we're not cowards" - there's roughly two possible arcs for the hero (four, if you count sub-varieties) for the entire show if we want to end it in another roof scene in which our hero actually does jump, and still preserve its internal coherence:
Option A: In which the meaning of the first roof scene is preserved and the hero remains "not a coward":
A1) The show continues to show the hero as a hero; the hero eventually ends up in a situation in which he has to jump *because* he's not a coward. That's the traditional heroic version.
A2) Same as A, except here the hero only *believes* that he is in such a situation; that would be the tragically heroic version.
Option B: In which the hero is shown as a "coward", or the meaning of the first roof scene is subverted in other ways.
B1) The show shows us how the hero struggles, and fails. When he eventually jumps it is essentially because he can't cope with his continued failure etc. Another tragic version, but not quite so heroic (though there can be a sad heroism in losing, too, as long as you *did* struggle).
B2) The hero learns over the course of the show that "not being a coward" really doesn't matter, so he may as well jump. That's the existentialist version. Or maybe the nihilist version. Most certainly it is a solipsist version.
Teal deer, part the last:
Date: 2010-12-07 06:26 pm (UTC)If you choose option A), you have to create a believable situation in which the hero's brave and honourable option is (or seems to be) to jump. There are plenty of situations like that, it's not that difficult. Look to every other tragedy for examples.
If you choose option B), you have to show us the hero struggling and failing, you have to make us feel the mounting despair, the walls closing in. (For B2), you have to show us how the hero gets to the realisation that nothing really matters.)
LoM followed neither of these possible arcs, or maybe, a little bit of all of these, thus making an awful mess of Sam's character development.
A1) doesn't work for LoM because the situation Sam's in isn't *actually* one in which the brave and honourable choice is to jump. If the writers had wanted more or less the classic heroic arc for Sam (which, until 2.08, actually seemed very likely!), and his jump as an heroic act, well, they would have had to come up with a non-imaginary, not so horribly contrived dilemma for Sam.
A2) doesn't work because we're not shown convincingly that Sam has lost his grip on reality sufficiently to believe that the jump is his only/best option. There's some indication of it in the conversation with Ruth, but I'd say it's inconclusive. He's held onto his belief in the reality of the present too tenaciously until then to make such a sudden change believable; there's not enough of a foundation for it in the story so far. (Still, A1 is the scenario that most nearly makes sense, out of all of these, I'll grant that.)
B1) doesn't work because we don't actually see Sam struggle and fail much. We mostly see him struggle and kind of succeed. For most of the show, Sam seems to be making all kinds of progress - getting more in touch with his feelings, getting a bit better at relating to people, learning to make the best of things, etc. And then, of course, in the last ten minutes, we do see him fail, but not struggle at all, which is odd, because until then he's been all about the fight. You can counter that with a cry of "Depression! It happens!" - to which I reply, yes, of course - but in a story you need to motivate things like that in a way that makes sense in the context of what you're trying to say. You need some coherence. Showing your hero making progress for such a long time, and then all of a sudden doing a u-turn on that - well, it may happen in RL all the time, but if that's your entire motivation for it to also happen in your story, then the only message you're sending with that story is, "well, shit happens." Which, granted, is a valid message - but is it *really* what you were trying to say? For most of LoM, it didn't feel like that was what the show as trying to say; it only started to say that in the last ten minutes. And then it didn't say it very clearly. Case in point: most viewers got "this is a beautiful leap of faith" from the ending, not "this is a sad example of shit happening".
B2) doesn't work because the show never showed us that Sam stopped believing in meaning as such.
Oh god I've exhausted myself. I could go on, but... I have to preserve a tiny bit of energy for writing cover letters today. ;-)
Re: Teal deer, part the last:
Date: 2010-12-07 07:34 pm (UTC)I mean, it's on par with the first and second brother who always eat the food offered to them by the fairy queen. They knowingly choose to doom themselves for gratification. They're no heroes. The third brother, the brother who choses the high road, who rejects fantasy, is the hero.
Now, if the thought behind the writers here was "I don't agree that choosing fantasy is weakness" then it has to be signposted. But the whole way through the series, Sam's acceptance of the fantasy is grudging and temporary. It wasn't signposted well enough to make sense to me.
Furthermore, in Ashes to Ashes - we know that Sam could have lived. He could have been a great copper, taking what he'd learned from Gene, but he did what Alex and Annie and Ray and Chris and Shaz would never do. He chose the fantasy, and killed himself. For someone like Shaz, that's a slap in the face. Life is precious, Sam, and you threw it away.
It was a cop out.
Re: Teal deer, part the last:
From:Re: Teal deer, part the last:
From:Excellent analysis ...
Date: 2010-12-08 08:04 am (UTC)Re: Okay, teal deer, part one:
Date: 2010-12-11 05:56 pm (UTC)Let’s forget his coma for a sec -- people lose touch in RL all the time. They don’t want to, but they just do – their own lives get in the way, sheer distance, etc. That’s hard enough, but his situation was worse than that, because he was so looking forward to going home, so sure they’d all be there for him -- you expect your family to be there, even if your friends leave.
I was gutted for him at the end, I couldn’t stop crying, & I doubt I’ll ever be able to listen to ‘Life On Mars?’ ever again.
Re: Poor Sam.
Date: 2010-12-07 06:33 pm (UTC)Here, have a neckporn icon for putting up with my bitter rambling.
Re: Poor Sam.
Date: 2010-12-07 06:34 pm (UTC)