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 12:47 am (UTC):D
You know, I agree with you on many levels, but ultimately --- I don't have the same (dis)regard for fan fiction as you do.
I believe it was Joss Whedon who said "you don't give the audience what they want, you give them what they need" - and Matthew didn't do that. It was very, very cheeky of him. And as you said, narratively, it was suspect. Very suspect.
Have I ever told you I'm a morally suspect person?
Oh, don't get me wrong - I love fanfic.
Date: 2007-04-12 01:11 am (UTC)I just don't want fanfic logic in my canon. (Actually... there's even only so much fanfic logic I'm willing to bear in fanfic - wishfulfilment is nice, but it has to be *really* well motivated within the story to work for me. I guess I'm a bourgeois really - I want my bourgeois art to follow nice, established bourgeois rules of how it all should develop and end.
And of course...
Date: 2007-04-12 01:14 am (UTC)Re: And of course...
Date: 2007-04-12 02:07 am (UTC)I also wrote the alternative one, as you know.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-12 02:13 am (UTC)But if we'd been given more of him trying to make 2007 work and seeing more of how it didn't, perhaps it would have been more understandable. He's up on that roof, but no one is there with him, asking him to stay . . .
In any event, I'm not unhappy with the ending, and I'm certainly not unhappy with assuming 2007 was just a lesser-level of the coma. I like that the ending is so ambiguous in that you can sort of interpret it however you want. I'm glad that the ending didn't make you completely hate the show.
LOM = love
Date: 2007-04-12 02:40 am (UTC)Oh, don't worry - nothing could manage that. It caters too well to too many of my obsessions. *g*
And I can already feel my anger turning into fic... or rather, morphing one of my already existing works in progress into something quite different, and far more interesting, so... yay! *g*
no subject
Date: 2007-04-12 03:12 am (UTC)I am also one of the extreme few who did not like the ending of the series, though I never even considered some of the moral aspects that you speak of, and you bring up some excellent points on that.
The illogic and diversion from the initial theme of the show were what got me, and more specifically the fact that Sam chose the illusion over reality in the end, just coz it "felt" right (which I guess is really treading on moral ground now that I think about it more). I felt like we got no closure or real "resolution," and it really frustrated me that Sam ended up staying in 1973 - the alternate reality - instead of coming back to 2007 (and bringing what he learned with him).
I also think it's interesting that there is supposed to be some big connection between LOM and The Wizard of Oz, when the ending of the show is so far removed from that of the movie, and really quite negates the theme (if that's what they were going for) that "there's no place like home." Maybe TPTB thought they were being clever, trying to say that Sam's "true home" is really the imaginary one? But to me that's not fair, really, because as you mention, the show is set up from the very beginning as the story of a trapped man's quest to get home (much like Dorothy's). And then in the end he just stays where he is...
Ach, I could ramble on and on... but I just wanted to say I agree with you, and you also brought up some things here that I hadn't thought of in my initial reaction to the ending. So thanks! :)
Yeah, I know. :-)
Date: 2007-04-12 03:14 am (UTC)Fandom's all about emotional fetishes or something like that, anyway - mine are just a bit unusual in that they are so very compatible (or even identical) with elements of 'bourgeois narrative logic'. ;-)
Thank you.
Date: 2007-04-12 03:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-12 04:58 am (UTC)If Sam is dead, and the final scene is his final second of life stretching out to a subjective eternity: then how on earth can Ashes to Ashes feature the detective he sent his tape to in 2007 recognising the characters he describes? And if Sam is "in" A2A because it's all taking place in his imagination, as the BBC Wales site says, then how on earth is he dead? Some one suggested to me that in the final "eternal second" Sam could imagine the story of the sequel, but I think that's unlikely if 1973 really is just Sam's imagination. Sam could certainly be imagining her story in that last second - but we've already effectively been told Sam's in Heaven, so why is he imaging someone else he's never met meeting his dearest friends ten years down the line - and his friends are without him. It's a bit weird. It's not that I don't want to see more of Gene doing his magnificent monster act, but if he really has no existence except as part of Sam's unlikely perfect world, then what is he doing away from Sam?
I think the writer wants it both ways; to have a cool story about someone who gets the fantasy he wants - and it's real! He's in big-H Heaven! - and to be simultaneously too cool to have written something like that and throw in a dig about fans overanalysing something that's "just tv" (with the test card girl being a joke to - or on - the viewer along the lines of "we all know we've been only wacthing tv, now do something else, here, I'll turn the tv off for you").
no subject
Date: 2007-04-12 05:34 am (UTC)I think I would be happiest if John Simm's theory was the correct one - that Sam had never woken up, and that 2007 was part of his coma dream. If nothing else it's more credible - from what I've read it sounds as if Sam recovered from major brain surgery with no external injuries, and was back to work within a scene or two. Whereas in real life I'd expect months of physical therapy and counselling before he was back on his feet - let alone put in a stressful and responsible position.
(And would no one, really, on the 2007 police force notice that there was something wrong with Sam, and take steps to deal with it? After all, we're not living in Gene Hunt's world, where "let's get a drink in you!" is the answer to all problems.)
And emotionally ... if Sam was in fact dying on the operating table, then his leap off the building would represent him overcoming his fear and embracing his fate, which is a far more positive ending than committing suicide because you can't cope with reality any more. Poor Sam.
Though once again, a lot of the comments I've been reading highlight how unreal Sam's 2007 seems. Which I suppose is another argument in favour of Mr Simm's theory.
I'm also shaking my head a bit about what this means in terms of Sam's character - maybe his brain injury causes some major personality changes! - because if there was one thing I thought I knew about Sam from watching the other episodes, it was that emotionally repressed or not, Sam cared. Passionately. About the people around him, about being a good policeman, about justice and fairness. Even when he thought the people around him were totally imaginary.
Now if something had caused Sam to realise that the people in 1973 were real and he had to go back and save them - that I would have loved as ending. Or, as above, he never made it back to 2007, and the last 15 minutes of 2:08 were his dying moments - well that would satisfy me too, especially as I'd been slowly becoming more convinced by the coma theory all through series 2. (I liked the idea that the "gang" were in fact necessary facets of Sam's own psyche.) However, from what Matthew Graham has to say about Ashes to Ashes, neither alternative is true.
Meep.
(My opinions, of course, are subject to change upon actually viewing the episode!)
Heh.
Date: 2007-04-12 06:03 am (UTC)I was spoiled before I watched it, too - and glad I was, because otherwise, this ending would have devastated me even more than it did anyway. *g*
>I think I would be happiest if John Simm's theory was the correct one - that Sam had never woken up, and that 2007 was part of his coma dream.
Yes, me too - see my variation of that theory above. It's the only semi-happy ending I can see that makes narrative and psychological sense to me.
>If nothing else it's more credible - from what I've read it sounds as if Sam recovered from major brain surgery with no external injuries, and was back to work within a scene or two. Whereas in real life I'd expect months of physical therapy and counselling before he was back on his feet - let alone put in a stressful and responsible position.
Yes, I agree that the depiction of 2007 wasn't particularly credible. Unfortunately it sort of ties in with the medically not very believable coma info we've had so far - in the sense that over the course of the series I've gained the strong impression that they never really cared much about how believable the medical side of it all was and the coma was essentially a plot device they didn't put much thought into. So, I tend to believe that while they do not exactly go out of their way to make us *believe* in 2007, they don't exactly give us big clues that it isn't real either.
>And emotionally ... if Sam was in fact dying on the operating table, then his leap off the building would represent him overcoming his fear and embracing his fate, which is a far more positive ending than committing suicide because you can't cope with reality any more. Poor Sam.
Yeah. I would have *liked* that ending - of him accepting death. Unfortunately, while not being completely invalidated by what's on the screen, it's not particularly strongly suggested, either, IMO. The main impression I get from the ending is that it really is a tragedy being dressed up as a happy ending.
>I'm also shaking my head a bit about what this means in terms of Sam's character - maybe his brain injury causes some major personality changes! - because if there was one thing I thought I knew about Sam from watching the other episodes, it was that emotionally repressed or not, Sam cared. Passionately. About the people around him, about being a good policeman, about justice and fairness. Even when he thought the people around him were totally imaginary.
I'm totally with you on this, too. It seems out of character to me, too.
I'm totally amazed by how absolute the majority of people who loved the ending is. I've been reading reviews on LJ and in the forum, and so far I've found less than ten people who aren't completely thrilled with it.
Failure
Date: 2007-04-12 06:14 am (UTC)I don't think the genre was the problem here. They could have kept 1973 on exactly the same level of reality/unreality *and* even kept Sam there permanently, thus giving all the "OMG Sam can't leave Gene/Annie!!!!11" people the happy ending they wanted, with only a few minor changes to what they actually did. No outright sf stuff would have been needed. It could all still have been exactly what it seems to be now, a dream in between life and death or a version of the afterlife. All they would have needed to do was to have Sam die 'properly' (instead of by
stupiditysuicide). See my suggestion for an alternative interpretation near the end of my rant. They could have achieved that without *any* changes to the storyline at all - they just would have needed to emphasise a few things slightly differently than they chose to do.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: Heh.
Date: 2007-04-12 07:36 am (UTC)(Of course the whole A2A project had me worried from the start - because I like my "art", or at least my entertainment, to make intellectual as well as emotional sense. At the moment it looks partly like a LOM ripoff, and partly like a complete muddle. How can a third person interact with someone else's imaginary friends - it boggles the mind!)
Re: Failure
Date: 2007-04-12 07:41 am (UTC)Where I see the disjunct is that the writer is disingenuous enough to praise simms acting in that scene, to mention his interpretation of "2007", and then to stress that Sam really did go back to 2007, but chose 1973. I think the writers want to hjave their cake and eat it; they've repeatedly gone on record as saying they wanted to make a police show like The Sweeney, and regretting that they couldn't do that, as such a sexist and racist show would never be aired today. Life on Mars is a self-referential and self-critical Sweeney - and it's brilliant, don't get me wrong, I love it. But it does depend on a fairly standard science-fiction cliche, and I think the writers are backing away from that in the final scene, for whatever reason. (And the reason I've most frequently seen in writers for backing away from science-fiction is so they can claim they were writing a more "acceptable" genre).
The final scene is different in feel, I think, to the other 1973 scenes. 1973 was always idealised in the other episodes - when Sam runs up against prejudices he sorts them out in some way: he usually manages to change at least some people's mind, or he gets to punch racist thugs, and so on. It's incredible sunny in a lot of episodes. Manchester is weirdly clean, for a city filled with industry and vehicles running on leaded petrol. Everyone smokes and nobody coughs. It's an idealised remembered child's-eye view of 1973, in a lot of ways. The final scene takes all of that and ramps it up - now apparently many of the division can be off-duty at the same time, drinking in the middle of the afternoon. Ray forgives Sam . . . Ray forgives Sam! Sam leaves the pub looking for Annie . . . and bumps into her almost immediately. No one seems to hold the "undercover from Hyde" thing against Sam - in fact, it seems to have been forgotten. The team's injuries are apparently no reason for them to take any time off work, and off they go, following a rainbow, on another mission, while the streets fill with innocent children in their wake.
That's different, I think, to what came before. That's the dying fantasy of a character with depression and possibly brain/neural injury following brain surgery. And I think the change in tone is - in part - a result of the cool 1970s cop show the writers wanted to do hinging on its sfnal elements, when they'd have preferred it done straight if they could. The writer even backs away from the ending by saying that while Sam is driving off into the afterlife, it's a subjective one that in reality lasts only a second. And then the wonderful final appearance of the test card girl, which makes the story more open ended and allows interpretive room for 1973 to possibly have a reality outside Sam's head - she's backed away from as well, with the explanation that she was just a joke for/on the viewers to stress that it was all just TV.
I wonder why the BBC originally objected to the suicide? Bad things can and do happen to major characters in British TV, after all.
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.
:)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-12 08:33 am (UTC)I choose to disregard whatever the writers wanted us to think, and believe that Sam never actually woke up, he only thought he had. Fantasy within fantasy. He either died on the table, or remains in his coma.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-12 08:56 am (UTC)I was wondering how I'd approach explaining my reaction to the finale - now I can just point them at your post.
The two best explanations I have are: 1) Very similar to your "he never woke up" theory - the tumour wasn't as benign as they thought (odd thing for a doctor to miss but you know, could happen), it metastasized (sp?) and he went, well, literally insane.
2) Which Adrian came up with and is due entirely to his mind's over-saturation with Anime, but in this instance it works sort of well. I would note that the fact the explanation I find "best" requires an actual reinterpretation of the entire world says something. But anyway, onwards:
1973 is reality. As Morgan suggested, Sam really was in a coach crash at 12. He died and ended up in 2007 which is heaven. The whole of the story can now be viewed in an uplifting light about Sam falling out of heaven and struggling to learn how to actually live. Ultimately, he is either shot in the crossfire at the train, or is too afraid to continue in 1973 and returns to heaven. Which finally gives him the courage to make a deliberate leap back into the real world of 1973.
Meaning that we are, all of us, dead and in heaven. Joy.
Which, yes, as I said am aware is an interpretation that is almost entirely the inverse of the actual one, and also makes not so much sense plotwise, but which I find to be oddly compelling in the face of the nonsensical "Leap of Fear" that was the ending.
Gah.
It's a shame because this was the first episode in a long time where I actually felt the relationship between Sam and Annie wasn't being deliberately dragged out but was organically tragic and beautiful. The way he needed her to stay for one night, no questions, and she answered, "I can't, Sam. I can't stay for just one night." Their realtionfriendship falling apart during this episode was gorgeous. You know, until the very end with the sugarsweet kiss.
I still maintain that Annie is his coma. So I approve of your plot!bunny. :)
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...
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.
Re: Yeah, I know. :-)
Date: 2007-04-12 11:03 am (UTC)I agree totally with everything you've said in this review. I would have ended it in very different ways. There are ways that could have been a 'happy ending' without losing the integrity of the show:
Sam's escaping into the tunnel, Morgan gives him his spiel, Morgan walks into the light at the end of the tunnel - this is Sam's only way home. He hears Annie/Gene/Chris/Ray screaming in pain, he's torn, but he turns back to his friends.
That way there would always be a road not taken. This episode goes down every single road it can as quickly as possible, which is the wrong way to do it (IMO - I've never yet produced anything like Life on Mars, so I suppose my opinion counts for shit)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-12 02:11 pm (UTC)Just want to say YES to everything you wrote. I just feel betrayed, the idea of who I thought Sam was...now some of your wonderful commentators bring up the point that Sam may not have ever woken up in 2007 and that we are witnessing his end...it makes me feel better this interpretation.
But its not really what we saw on screen.
I had written in a comment to selenak that I wanted that Wizard of Oz ending. Afterall, they had been feeding us a steady stream of Oz references. But Sam isn't as strong as Dorothy or as Buffy (BtVS Normal Again). This leaves such a bad taste....and they used that wonderful version of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow".
Ach!
Now I have to wait for some talented fic writer to write the ending that we needed not wanted. Shame on you LoM writers for tripping at the finish line.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-12 02:23 pm (UTC)