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 10:24 am (UTC)I'l also say I'm not a Sam/Annie shipper, so I don't like the ending for the Sam/Annie 4eva!!!1!!!1! ending (it rather irked me even, though I suppose not that out of place). So, that's not why I'm a fan of the ending.
In my view, though earlier in the show Sam would have been fine in 2006 this changed over time, as he lived more in 1973, as he experienced more and grew closer and closer to Gene, Annie, Chris, Ray ect. It was a world that forced him to look at life differently, to consider things in a new light, that freed him from his natural tendancies to be up tight and to the book. Eventually it became his world, he started to accept it and take it into himself in a way, started to become a part of that time. A rather odd one, with a lot of influence from the future, but he became a part of 1973. He LIVED there, he felt things and he existed as more than another analytical bio machine with a book to mechanically drone out. He made a difference there, more so than he did in 2006. He was a part of that time.
Then he gets back to 2006 and though it's what he always thought he wanted, he finds out he dosn't belong there any more. He isn't a part of that time - he makes no difference except to a few who are really close to him. It's like freeing a bird from it's cage, watching it grow and expand and then trying to cram it into the cage again even if the bird will no longer fit. It's not that 1973 is better - in many many ways it wasn't, but it did complement and free Sam more and it was his time now.
And I take your point that he could have taken what he's learnt and aply it to modern times, and that he could have worked at it, made changes so he felt like he was alive, like he was doing something. And maybe that's true, probably that's true. But he was there, a bird too expanded for it's original cage, with friends in the past who he cared about deeply (even if he'd be called a ponce for saying it), and a time that was now his - and he wanted to go back to it. He had to. So save them, to keep a promise, to get out of that damn cage again and build a new and better one. He made a choice - that was where he fit now, where he wanted to be.
And in all honesty, I think he'll see his mom and Maya again, I think he'll see 2006 again, just as an older man who's aged through it all. Maybe he left them a note - if that was real, watch out for an old guy with my name poping round one day with a really odd tale. It's me, honest. And don't you remember that cop with my name at the party where Dad ran away?
I see it as freeing himself, permanently, and going back to the world that was now his, where he belonged. Making himself happy, content, and it WAS a choice, just not a conventional one.
Though, it's LoM, so all the other theories and thoughts on this are also interesting and PLAUSABLE to boot. Ah, the fic bunnies I get...
no subject
Date: 2007-04-12 02:23 pm (UTC)See, and my main emotional and intellectual point here is:
Date: 2007-04-13 12:00 am (UTC)And also, if it *were* a cage, I believe we'd have a moral obligation to break down the bars.
Of course, this attitude of taking the way of least resistance and maximum fun is very popular nowadays. It's, of course, a universal human desire, but I do think that we're living in a very hedonistic age where people are maybe encouraged a bit too much to always think of themselves and their own - often superficial - happiness first. It's almost become a kind of moral imperative of our time: "Do what makes you happy, squeeze the maximum of fun out of every moment..." It is, of course, rather in keeping with the neoliberal world-order - the idea behind that, after all, is that if everyone's looking out for number one, everyone will be fine. Of course, Sam's example shows perfectly why this kind of approach is flawed: if we start looking out radically for our own happiness and only our own happiness, we are likely to hurt other people.
Heh.
Date: 2007-04-13 12:02 am (UTC)Re: Heh.
Date: 2007-04-13 12:30 am (UTC)I have a habbit of being a bit more... free with what I think when it comes to fiction. Also of babbling. I mean, the number of times there's magic or an afterlife or a god or ghosts or something else I've learnt to enjoy it and see it as some other fantasy plot devise, even when disagreeing with it. And granted this is different but heck.. probably helps, as I've said, I think 73 was real and when he went back he WAS going to help a lot of people ect.
And being critical is always a good thing, even if people disagree with you. Even if MOST people disagree with you (and I've some experience with that).
If it helps, I'm doing this 'five times...' fic thing, and one of them is him staying in 2006 and making it work and so on, and I'm pretty sure this post of yours has made a lot of people think of that ending in a new light, or at least more thoroughly.
Re: See, and my main emotional and intellectual point here is:
Date: 2007-04-13 12:17 am (UTC)Of course he could break the bars, and in many situations probably should have. Especially if he were mearly in a coma. And of course it can be seen as selfish to do what he did, I completely understand, so far as some one who hasn't been in a position I suspect you've been in can. And if I believed that 1973 was just a figment, I'd agree with you on this more, I suppose.
But as I see it, it was real. And yes he went back for himself, because he didn't feel alive in 2006. But he also went back for Annie and Gene, for his friends. Not just any old friends - cop friends, and that's a bond that you don't get outside jobs like that. Cops, firemen, military personel. And he saved their lives, and who knows how many other lives after that. He had some selfish reasons for going back, some non selfish reasons, but in the end he's in the time that's now his.
I don't think every one should look out for number one, I think we have an obligation to help out others if we can that we're stronger together than we are apart and being insular or dog eat dog rarely helps any one. But no matter what Sam did he'd have hurt people, and though this way his mom and Maya will probably never understand, he is free to be in the world and time that suits and complements him best, with people who need him the most, doing the most good.
Re: See, and my main emotional and intellectual point here is:
Date: 2007-04-13 02:42 am (UTC)a) 2007 was real, and Sam returned to it
and
b) 1973 wasn't real.
Now if 1973 was "real" (and it would have been oh-so-easy for the writers to slip in something which would indicate it was - for example a short scene in 2007 with Sam at the tunnel looking at a vandalised memorial to the police officers who were massacred there in 1973) then yes, I could cheer his return. He'd be making a decision to return for a real Annie and Gene, to try and put right the things he did wrong, and live in an imperfect time and place where he could make a difference and be happy.
Or if 2007 wasn't real, but part of Sam's coma illusion as he lay dying, well it would have been a sad but a logical and fitting end.
However, as it is, I feel what we got was the spectacle of a mentally ill man losing his grip on reality and committing suicide - dressed up with a smile and a happy ending. And I don't condemn Sam, I just feel terribly, terribly sorry for him - he didn't learn from his experiences, they broke him.
And I feel an urge to weep for Ruth and Maya and all the "real" people he left behind him...
Re: See, and my main emotional and intellectual point here is:
Date: 2007-04-13 09:35 am (UTC)And heck, if John Simm himself can disagree with the writer about what was going on, then we all sure as hell can (not that we need him to disagree to have that right).
And the way that they had that ambiguous ending is probably what's giving rise to this. They didn't say that '73 was real, and they didn't say that it wasn't for sure, and the result is Sam aparently commiting suicide and no clear reason for why, no clear indication that it was worth it. And when it's seen like that, I can see how it is that people are objecting.
If I were sure that '73 weren't real then I'd want something more from that jump, something that didn't seem to glofify it quite so much. But alas... I see it as real which completely changes the ball game.
It's been said that truth is a three edged sword, I'm thinking that an unclear truth, an ambiguity can be the same way.
Re: See, and my main emotional and intellectual point here is:
Date: 2007-04-15 02:10 pm (UTC)I love ambiguous ending; if it actually *had* been ambiguous I wouldn't be so annoyed! But it's only ambiguous if you already go into it firmly believing 1973 is real, because then you can see what *actually* happens as an alternative that you don't have to accept. However, they were *very* careful not to give us *any* clue that 1973 just *might* be real, and in fact went out of their way to make Sam's return to it feel distinctly 'too-good-to-be-true'. So, anyone who wasn't already completely sold on 1973 from the get-go could only take from the *actual* textual evidence in the ep that 1973 was all in Sam's head, and he was jumping because he preferred a fantasy life/afterlife to a chance at mastering his real life.
Of course, I have a problem with the way Sam's decision was portrayed (not the decision itself!) even *if* I were to assume that 1973 was real - which I *do* about half of the time out of wishful thinking, I have to admit - because it was portrayed as the perfect happy ending when it should have been bittersweet, with rather a huge sense of loss. So, even believing in 1973 doesn't remove all my problems with the ending, really.
Re: See, and my main emotional and intellectual point here is:
Date: 2007-04-16 10:27 am (UTC)Maya and Ruth
Date: 2007-04-15 02:13 pm (UTC)Yes, so do I. Especially Ruth - I'm not even a mother, but just *trying* to imagine what she must feel like after this is... oh, I don't even have words for it.
Re: Maya and Ruth
Date: 2007-04-15 10:05 pm (UTC)