There was once this show, back in like 2004, that hooked me from the start and held the promise of mysteries and character development and twisty plots we all dream will have a massive payoff at the end. But for reasons I won't get into, the payoff was not there. Instead we got a swerve at the end that demonstrated that all the stuff in between was just mental masturbation leading to this ending that the writers somehow thought was much more poignant than it was. And, if you criticized any of this you were called a nitpicker or worse by fans and the writers themselves. Well, that show was Lost and among my circle of bruhs (the new band), it was the birth of "Fuck Lindelof" (Executive Producer, Damon Lindelof, who for some reason it just made sense to single out). And he would prove himself time and time again, or maybe just time, with such "gems" as Star Trek Into Darkness (Fuck Lindelof) and Prometheus (No, really, FUCK THAT GUY!).
But, it's meant with love. Because writing is hard and writing in the world of mainstream network TV is probably a nightmare for anyone with any sort of vision. Plus, I liked Tomorrowland. So, when HBO announced a series created by Lindelof, that dealt (possibly) with the rapture, I was at the very least curious, but I wasn't sure if I was going to do it. I'm a sucker for the subject matter, but was I going to go through another Lost? At least this time, he was saying up front we'd never get answers to the central mystery. So when The Leftovers came out, I gave it a shot. And from the very beginning I was unsure but intrigued. This was one of the most depressing shows I'd ever seen but that was a good thing. And the show has only gotten better. The second season has really amped things up with unfolding layers to a world where it's just a fact of life that several years ago a bunch of people just vanished and nobody understands why or how. Yet life goes on and humans still do the shitty and sometimes wonderful things humans do to each other while trying to make sense of the world.
It's a show about faith, and not in a disparaging way, which is weird for me to be into as a hardcore antitheist, but here we are. The thing is, ultimately, it's about these people's lives and how they deal with reality. Yes, the mysteries are intriguing and there are bizarre things that happen all the time. And even though these supernatural incidents move the story forward, you never get the sense that they're the point of everything the way you did with Lost. It's not about the island. It's not about the polar bear. It's about the Dharma Initiative, it's about the Dharma of life. So maybe it's not so much about faith as it is about getting past faith and just believing in humanity somehow. I don't know and not knowing is why it works so well.
Make no mistake, the show is a lot like Lost so it could go south in a bad way. I'm sure it's not going to end up being a favorite show for me or even close, but it so far is allowing me to be focused on the journey and not the destination. There are moments and episodes that are gut wrenching and real and creepy and beautiful. It really is worth a shot. So, maybe fuck Lindelof a little less now.
When The Sopranos finale ended, I immediately hated it and everyone involved with it. It felt out of place and pretentious and a slap in the face. Over the next few months, and after catching a few random episodes on re-runs, I came to love that ending. I think I had gotten too caught up in the plot of the show and forgot that it was working a more subtle game of character development that really did make sense to end in a more open way. Yeah, there were many fan theories about whether or not Tony got whacked, but that's all nonsense. That sort of thing misses the point entirely. Having now seen the Mad Men finale, it makes perfect sense that Matthew Weiner worked on the last two seasons of The Sopranos, even if he didn't have a direct hand on the finale.
The Donlightenment?
I don't hate the finale of Mad Men. This ambiguity doesn't feel like it comes from left field. I even hoped it would end ambiguously and at one point, during the last episode I had a sense of what the last thing would be and I'm not even sure why. And really, it may not even be that ambiguous. It's good I never realized until today that there were all these fan theories floating around about who the falling man in the credits was and whether Don would turn out to be D.B. Cooper and whatever else. That's exactly the type of thing that means you wasted your time on this show. It's exactly what Lost did wrong by playing up that whole angle throughout the series, building the entire show on it, only to later tell us all we were being stupid. Fuck Lost. But I digress.
Good times were rare.
No, Mad Men has been about characters from the very first second and I've already talked about it being the most literary thing every put on TV. This ending does have multiple interpretations, but unlike the ending to Lost (fuck that show) the interpretations really are about character. Did Don create that ad? Did Peggy create it? Did Don just dream it in that moment? And what does it mean for Don's arc if he did eventually go back and create that ad? Did he learn anything at all? Is he doomed to be stuck selling false fulfillment? Or is that ad a marked difference in how he sees things? Maybe, the fact that instead of selling something to people, the ad is about buying them something, giving a gift, means something? I don't know. It's one of those things that I think merits discussion and thought and that alone is a sign that it's the right ending.
Who the fuck knows?
Regardless, Don had a catharsis and came to terms with himself. Whether that ends up being someone we like or not, is completely irrelevant. And the more I think about it, I think I agree with Ryan in that Don essentially just ends up being comfortable with who has been all along, rather than changing into some enlightened hippie. So, yeah, he does just end up using this catharsis as and advertising ploy, selling us more crap, no matter how good that classic ad may make us feel. Too often, I think, audiences believe stories are only successful if you feel good about the characters. The whole criticism of The Wolf of Wall Street as glamorizing the horrendous behavior of the protagonists I think came from the false idea that "protagonist" means the same as "hero." It's a confusion of content and context. And I see a little bit of that in this week's controversy over the latest episode of Game of Thrones, too (I tried to write in depth about this, but it really is too much of a hot button and I do see the other side's points). But, again, I digress, which is a direct result of the thought this finale sparks.
Loaded image, Sally sees all.
But what about the other characters? With Betty dying, Sally has stepped up to take care of her brothers and dying mother. Somehow, though, I don't think this ends there for her. I think Sally has more self awareness than Don can ever hope to find. As for Betty, she at least gets to die on her own terms, even if she apparently never learned anything. Her whole concern with how she will look at the end is who she was brought up to be. Her resignation to her fate just as she had started to go back to school is like she's stared into the abyss and said fuck it. She's unmoved because she sees her prison and how fate just keeps her in it. While this is certainly a sad note to end on for them, I think Sally has more story ahead of her and as much as I hate the idea of spin offs and not letting things end, she is the one character that it would make sense to catch up with again in a few years.
Roger would have played on the Titanic.
Joan and Roger's scene discussing the future of their "rich bastard" was perfection. Roger was always Roger, though he did seem to find some kind of comfort with his own mortality, which was always his biggest fear. Joan went from being the bombshell not seen for anything else to being the most adamantly feminist, empowered character on the show. That's how you do it. Pete wanted to be Don more than anything and early on found out Don wasn't Don. Little by little, he learned nothing was anything until it all fell apart and he found some kind of redemption, after a time where I was sure he'd blow his brains out. In a way, his ending is frustrating because he's the rich boy that got to destroy lives and then gets his life put back together, but as bad as the things he did along the way were, the thing about Pete is he always had a good heart. He was as much a victim of expectations as anyone and now he's decided to hell with the expectations. So I do think he deserves some happiness, even if he never fully makes amends for his wrongs, but again, that's the tension and complexity of these things. Ultimately, whether he deserves it or not, he's getting something that is likely more complex than he realizes. That's life.
This is how I'll always remember them.
Then there's Peggy. Her ending could be seen as cheesy and that's because it is in a way. But let's think about this. She turns down Joan's offer to go be badass female producers, running their own business. That's not her thing. If Joan is the most adamantly feminist character, Peggy is the most adamantly human. Peggy wants to succeed in her way, not because she is a woman and wants to defy expectations and show them what she is made of. She wants it because it's what she wants. There's no agenda for her beyond wanting to create. And I don't say that to diminish Joan's agenda either. But there is a very big difference in motivation between these two awesome women. Peggy's talent has never really been in question and because she wasn't the bombshell, she was able to overcome societies views of her gender and sexuality in a way that Joan never could. But if we're being honest, Joan's looks did provide an advantage for her to a point, where Peggy never had that. She had the luck to come across Don and have him give her a chance, but other than that, she worked for what she has and was never afraid of it. And if her ending includes a cheesy romantic revelation, seemingly out of the blue, what better character to have that happen to? And, by the way, if you look back at this series moment by moment, I'm willing to bet you'll realize Elisabeth Moss is a HIGHLY underrated actress with a range that boggles the mind. Everyone on the show was great, but to me, she stands out. And that's saying something when you consider the caliber of the entire cast.
Mad Women.
Anyway, I don't know what I'll think of this show after a re-watch. I'm sure I'll uncover things I missed and I look forward to it, soon. To answer the question, yes. This is definitely now in my top 5 shows of all time. I'm still not sure where I place this ending, but then I'm not sure this is the type of thing where you can single out the ending that way. It's not Six Feet Under or even Breaking Bad. It's not even The Sopranos, really. This was a much more subdued and subtle finale and that's OK.
I'll just start with my idiot moment. I was reading the first part and was not sure if I liked it or not because I was mostly confused. "Maybe it's a cultural thing," I thought. "Could be the translation," I pondered. But overall, I was interested in the story. So I get to part two and the following page when it hits me why I'm so confused.
I was reading it backwards! Didn't realize I was supposed to be reading left to right. So that was my facepalm moment. Now, on with what I actually thought of it.
So far, I am intrigued by the story. A brief synopsis, if you haven't read it. Two boys jump onto subway tracks to save a man who has fallen. The train comes but they don't get out in time. They then appear in a room with several other people and a mysterious black ball. Are they dead? Eventually, the ball gives them instructions that make them believe they are on some bizarre reality TV show about hunting aliens. Basically, it's a little bit like Lost, but before Lost and hopefully with a real ending instead of some ridiculous copout where they reveal they've been lying to the audience all this time and wasted my time on this damn show and never really answered any questions and. . . . ok, I'm back. Sorry. Back to Gantz.
There are moments of pure cinematic poetry in this. Unlike most Western comics, I get the sense that Manga writers, or at least the writer of Gantz, Hiroya Oku, take their time telling a story and are not afraid to linger on moments. Much like Asian cinema, scenes of long pauses or slow motion action (in a comic!?) are a great way to get you into the scene and set up atmosphere and emotional resonance. I like this.
On the other hand, HAHH, and this could be a translation issue, HAHH, there is one glaring annoyance, HAHH. It gets a liitle, HAHH, tiresome and takes me out of the, HAHH, story when every little "HAHH," which I guess is supposed to be heavy breathing, is spelled out.
Reminds me of something. . .
Art wise, I like the clean lines. There's nothing that really stands out, which is not a bad thing. The art is there to tell the story, which is acceptable. There aren't any big splashpages for the hell of it.
All in all, I look forward to reading on. I believe there's a movie of this, which should be interesting to see later. In the meantime, yesterday was new comics day. Among them, Sweet Tooth #19, by Jeff Lemire, who also takes his time setting up atmosphere and emotion in his stories. Check it out.
