Wednesday, September 4, 2024

My Predictions for the 2024 Emmys, Week 3, Part 3: Outstanding Lead Actress in A Limited Series

 

First I must express my gratitude to the Emmys (and so far every other awards show this year) for having the good sense to ignore completely both Kate Winslet and The Regime. Considering the Emmys history with Winslet in regards to HBO I thought a nomination inevitable regardless of the poor quality of this series. It was the kind of show that screams Emmy bait and I’m grateful the Academy didn’t take it.

Now on to the actual nominees which, while not as impressive as the Outstanding Lead Actor nominees still represent some of the best performances in the past year. Three extraordinary film actress and two of the greatest actresses in TV in recent years led the way in what has been a historically strong category even before Peak Limited Series began. Who will join the ranks of Regina King, Nicole Kidman and Michelle Williams? Let’s look at the nominees.

 

Jodie Foster, True Detective. Odds: 16-5. For Playing: Chief Danvers, the lead investigator on a mysterious group of killings that take on a life of their own. Pro: Foster is one of the greatest actresses of all time, full stop. She won two Academy Awards before she was thirty and has created some of the most iconic roles in the history of film. It has been half a century since she has had a major role in a TV series and she picked a hell of a show and role to come back on. In a series that has even at its best rarely had much to do with subtlety or nuance in its characterization, Foster’s work as Chief Danvers was one of grounded rationalism, trying to find reason in a situation that increasingly seemed to defying, looking for logic in a situation that wasn’t there. Lopez gave Foster more to work with then the male protagonists in the previous incarnations and certainly the women: Danvers was someone who was trying to deal with so many of the traumas in her past and was handling all of them by not handling them: she’d failed as a wife, was failing as a mother and barely holding it together as a sheriff. Foster hasn’t played a character this broken by trauma since her work in the very different film The Brave One and whenever this series seemed in danger of going off tilt (which being True Detective, happened a lot) Foster was there to anchor it. She’s been the favorite in this category since the show debuted in January and few actresses are more worthy of it then her. Con: We all know True Detective’s track record when it comes not just to the Emmys but acting awards; what it seems to do more frequently is enable its leads to win Oscars just by showing their range during the series. It didn’t work in Foster’s case this past year; does it mean she’s doubly certain to lose?

 

Brie Larson, Lessons in Chemistry. Odds: 4-1. For Playing: Elizabeth Zott, a female scientist whose life takes one dramatic turn after she finds herself in the most unlikely romance. Pro: In almost every major awards show at the end of the year Larson was in the hunt for Best Actress, and she was more than up to the challenge. Few performers have been more liberated by being freed from the yoke of the MCU then Larson who was given a chance to play a character who was far more heroic and human than Carol Danvers ever was and far more deserving of the title of feminist icon. Elizabeth Zott had to deal with a toxic masculinity that never went away when she was alive and infiltrated every aspect of her professional life. She had a scientific detachment that made her unable to make connections easily and she resisted them. And then she became – even more astonishing to herself  - a lover, a mother, a pioneering TV star, and someone who built a community around her without realizing it.  Larson’s work was the most rewarding I’ve seen any of the performers in this category gave and the most fulfilling. And when you consider all the hate she’s had to take on just for choosing to be Captain Marvel, she’s earned this Emmy. Con: Larson spent all of the awards season losing to Ali Wong in Beef and its been nearly a year since the series debuted on Apple. She has been rising in the standings but will that be enough to beat Foster.

 

Juno Temple, Fargo. Odds: 4-1. For Playing: Dot Lyon, a Minnesota housewife whose past comes back to violently confront her. Pro: Somehow Juno Temple’s Keeley was the only person who walked away from Ted Lasso without any awards. (Though since its coming back for a Season 4…) In Fargo she got to sink her teeth into a completely different kind of independent woman: someone who embraced the title of demure wife and mother so thoroughly that it wasn’t until the episode began that so many people began to realize that she was a tiger. As we learned the long and very dark backstory behind Dot and all of the obstacles she was facing in the present on all sides Temple got to show an inventiveness and a steel in her spine that shocked everybody who somehow kept underestimated her. And it came as a shock that when all was said and done, she managed to deal with the biggest monster in the season through kindness and humanity. This is one of the most layered performances in a brilliant season full of them. And Temple is more than overdue recognition from the Emmys. Con: Temple basically fell victim to Beef during the awards at the start of the year. And her momentum has similarly dropped. Her work was far more interesting then the other female lead from an anthology mystery series but they’re more likely to honor Foster.

 

Sofia Vergara, Griselda. Odds: 9-2. For Playing: Griselda Blanco, the head of one of the most ruthless drug cartels in history. Pro: Vergara’s presence in this category was a shock to many (she was the only nominee I didn’t foresee in my predictions for the nominations) but her work was certainly a revelation for those who know her only for her outstanding comedy work on Modern Family. In this role Vergara got to embrace her inner darkness by playing a character that is unlike any we’ve seen in the multitude of dramas about drug cartels we’ve seen over the last quarter of a century and is all the more astonishing for being real. Vergara got to sink her teeth into a role (and speak Spanish in a way that is practically unheard of in American series) playing a character so dark and bloody that the Avon Barksdale’s and Gus Frings of the world would think twice before trying to cross her. And considering how few female villains there have been in the era of Peak TV and fewer still are allowed their own series Vergara deserves enormous credit for taking on this role. Throw in the fact she never took a single Emmy for Modern Family and she’s crying out for recognition. Con: But the fact remains she is the outlier in this category. Many were certain that Kate Winslet or other contenders like Annette Bening or Julianne Moore would come in ahead of her in nominations. The nomination will probably have to be enough.

 

Naomi Watts, Capote Vs. The Swans. Odds: 9-2.For Playing: Babe Paley, the cancer ridden wife of Bill Paley on whom the war with Truman Capote takes the most emotional toll. Pro: Ever since she burst on to the scene in Mullholland Drive Naomi Watts has been one of the greatest actresses working – and one of the least recognized for her efforts. Her work in Feud isn’t her first major role in a TV series but it’s one of the most arresting. As Babe Paley, Truman’s closest friend among his swans she takes his revealing of a critical secret in his excerpt from Answered Prayers the most personally but is also the one who is the most inclined to forgive him. She also has a far more tragic path, diagnosed with cancer halfway through the series and facing her mortality – and failings – as a wife, mother and friend. The saddest moment comes in the penultimate episode when Babe finally succumbs to her illness and goes through a dream with Truman – and in his final moments we see him undergo a similar fantasy before death. We also saw that Babe was betrayed more by her closest friends and family then any one else among the Swans and her loss of Truman must have come as a greater blow. Watts work moved me more than anyone else in this category. It was a profound performance. Con: Watts’s work involved a fragility that is an outlier of the nominees in this category. Babe was a strong woman but not in the way the other characters are. That used to be the kind of thing that won Emmys. It’s not any more, certainly not in this category.

Prediction: Foster will probably prevail but don’t rule out an upset by Larson.

 

Tomorrow I deal with Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Limited Series. This one is going to be very tricky.

Tuesday, September 3, 2024

My Predictions for the 2024 Emmys, Week 3, Day 2: Outstanding Lead Actor in a Limited Series

 

(We can forego the TV Movie part of this because none of the acting nominees were nominated for one.)

I would like to take this opportunity to toot my own horn slightly. I predicted all five of these men would be nominated. (I also predicted Kiefer Sutherland would be, but that was due to bad math.) All five nominees have given brilliant performances and in four of them we got very different views of homosexuality in a way few categories in TV history ever have. Even more interesting, three of those performances looked to the distant past to show a different world and all three of them ranged from morally ambiguous to downright villainous.

So who is likely to win? Well, we actually have some intriguing possibilities which I’ll relate below.

Matt Bomer, Fellow Travelers. Odds: 9-2. For Playing: Hawkins Fuller, a 1950s State department official  who hides his sexuality in the shadows in the midst of the Lavender Scare. Pro: Bomer received every nomination in the book leading up to the Emmys and is actually the only nominee to have won an award in this category – the Dorian for Best Dramatic Performance in which he was contended against many of the nominees in this category. And having watched his work in what was one of the best shows of 2023, it is impossible to argue with that. Bomer has been one of the most undervalued actors in the era of Peak TV but he was a revelation as Hawk, a man who has no problem flaunting his homosexuality in private but puts up a face of heterosexual bravado in public. We traveled with Bomer backwards and forwards through nearly forty years as he met Tim, an intern for Joe McCarthy. For much of their relationship he would use him for information and sexual purposes, while protecting himself by wooing and marrying the daughter of his patron. We watched him raise a family and endure tragedy, all while the public face was in place. And in the final episode he finally confronted who he was, what it was cost him and with the last sign of the series, one of the most moving moments in all of 2023. Bomer is long overdue an Emmy and this performance deserves it. Con: Bomer couldn’t break against the tide for Steven Yeun at the start of 2024 and now it looks very much like his chances will be thwarted by another star of a Netflix series.

Richard Gadd,  Baby Reindeer. Odds: 82-25. For Playing: Donny, a struggling comic who befriends the wrong woman at his job bartending and whose life becomes a nightmare he may not escape alive. Pro: At this time last year, no one knew who Richard Gadd was. Now no one will ever forget him. His retelling of the series of horrors he endured when he accidentally befriended a woman named Martha would have been more than enough to astound us. But when we learned what he had been burying in the fourth episode -  a horrifying relationship that had essentially destroyed him as a human being –  it became one of the great episodes of 2024. Almost every element of Gadd’s performance was incredible, both incredibly dark, funny and an exploration of so much of sexuality that somehow this horrible experience with Martha forced him to confront. Any single moment of his performance could be for consideration. It’s likely that it will be his performance at a comedy showcase where he finally completely unravels and falls into darkness. But I’m just as impressed by his work in the series finale as what is initially a job to listen Martha’s recordings for an overt threat becomes what amounts to a soundtrack of his life that he can’t escape – and at the end of the series, it’s unclear if he’s unable to. This was one of the most moving performances of all of 2024, and he more than deserves to be the favorite for the Emmy. Con: There has since been a backlash against Baby Reindeer, from the original subjects of the article and while none of this is Gadd’s fault or responsibility, he better than anyone knows how the world can turn into one of scapegoating and blaming the victim. It could very well cost him the prize.

Jon Hamm, Fargo. Odds: 9-2. For Playing: Sheriff Roy Tillman, a North Dakota sheriff determined to find his former wife no matter what laws need to be destroyed to do so. Pro: Somehow Jon Hamm, despite playing one of the most iconic characters in TV history, has one of the worst track records of any major performer at the Emmys. He has returned to the awards front in great glory as Roy Tillman, the major force of evil at the center of Fargo’s incredible fifth season. It says something that in five seasons we’ve never had a villain quite like Roy Tillman yet somehow there’s something instantly recognizable about him. A sheriff who believes in right and wrong, but whose law is God’s not man’s. Who believes it his duty to both interpret and execute the law as he sees fit. Who claims to be a family fan but treats his children like dirt, engages in horrible sexual practices with his wife, and who has been a groomer to two previous wives and may well be to a third. Throughout the series he remains convinced of his own righteousness and while he faces a sort of justice at the end, he still remains a monster and alive – and we know all too well that the world he lives in not only tolerates but forgives men like him. Hamm has played morally ambiguous characters all his career but he’s never gotten to play a villain like this. He’s been nominated for Golden Globe and SAG awards and he’s more than due. Con: It’s not just Hamm that has a bad track record with the Emmys; in four seasons not a single actor has ever won an Emmy for Fargo. Granted there have been extenuating circumstances and this group of nominees is just as strong as any of them. All of which means bad things for Hamm. I don’t know if this is right or if it’s wrong but it’s a fact.

Tom Hollander, Capote Vs. The Swans. Odds: 9-2. For Playing: Truman Capote, a brilliant writer trying to  decide whether he can finish a book or whether it will finish him. Pro: Somehow Hollander managed to be the only performer on The White Lotus not to get an Emmy nomination last year. There’s a very clear parallel between the character he plays – Capote is another gay man who is trying to murder rich white women here (and is accused at the start of the series of doing just that). But there are critical differences. Truman Capote was one of the most well-known men in America when he was alive and prevalent in high society – something that was unheard of for a person as openly gay as he was. He has been portrayed in multiple films but not like Hollander shows him: a man who spends the first half of the series apparently the vicious destroyer of the circle he was invited into and in the second half, we see the darker side of his Swans and our views are flipped as to who the true victims are. In both cases we see a man who is being starved of his friendship to so many women he truly loved and who dies tragically and alone, absent from the lives of his women. This is one of the powerhouse performances of 2024 and considering Hollander was one of the few people from The White Lotus who can say he was ignobly passed over; he could argue for a win. Con: Unlike so many of the lead contenders Capote Vs. The Swans didn’t get nominated for Best Limited Series. Ever since this era began it has been rare for a lead to win in this category without their show being nominated: the last was Mark Ruffalo for I Know This Much is True and that was a much weaker category then this year. It’s likely to work against Hollander.

Andrew Scott, Ripley. Odds: 19-5. For Playing: Tom Ripley, a low-level New York con man who takes a case of mistaken identity to reinvent himself in Europe. Pro: Scott was bold when he took a role that has been played  by such master craftsman as Alain Delon, Matt Damon and John Malkovich to perfection. And like everything he’s done in his career, you can’t imagine anyone else doing it. Scott’s work was unlike the other performers in this category, almost an anomaly in the Emmys in recent year. Tom’s skill was guarding himself and choosing his words carefully so Scott best known as a vibrantly expressive actor in his most well-known roles as Moriarty and Hot Priest, chose to underplay everything he did and say as little as possible. I haven’t seen a show in so long do so much with its pauses and Scott was perfect at this: choosing his words carefully, working backwards to think over old stories, completely silent for large sections of individual episodes. Much of what we heard Scott say was in fact in voiceover from so many of the letters ‘Dickie’ wrote. Even when you knew what he had done Tom’s utter calmness made you doubt yourself when he told other people the opposite. And the two shocking acts of violence he committed were so sudden that the viewer was genuinely surprised – and then the episodes would focus on his calmness as he did everything he could to get away with it. We’ve seen series with murderers and psychopaths at the center of them over the past decade but it says a lot that I’ve never seen anything like Tom Ripley in all this time. It’s the first limited series that deserves a sequel and Scott deserves an Emmy. (Also the Emmys really owes him for ignoring him for Fleabag. We all know it.) Con: The question is can Scott overcome the momentum that Richard Gadd has had for the last six months. There are signs that might happen – Scott has been rising in Emmy predictions the last few weeks – but it might be too late.

Prediction: It comes down to Gadd or Scott. I want to see Scott prevail but I think Gadd wins by an eyelash.

 

Tomorrow I take on Outstanding Lead Actress in a Limited Series. Not quite as good as Outstanding Lead Actor but a fascinating collection anyway.

Monday, September 2, 2024

My Predictions for the 2024 Emmys Week 3, Part 1: Outstanding Limited Series

 

 

Before we get started in earnest on the third and final week of my predictions, two personal observations. Aside from the now standard complaint that the Emmys has to start nominated more than five contenders in the majority of these categories, this is by far the best field of contenders in Best Limited Series since, in my opinion, the era of Peak Limited Series began back in 2016. Even with the reclassification of Shogun in the Drama category the five leading contenders as well as the majority of the nominated performers are among the best I’ve ever seen in my history of reviewing. The Emmys will obviously really need to revisit this in the following year but aside from my prejudice to one of the major contenders I can’t fault almost any of the nominated series or actors. And for me that’s nearly unheard of.

So here are my predictions starting at the top.

OUTSTANDING LIMITED SERIES

 

Baby Reindeer (Netflix). Odds: 31-10. Pro: This is one of the most revered productions of all of 2024, perhaps second only to Shogun. It has already taken the Television Critics Association prize for Best Limited Series and from the moment Shogun decided to contend in Best Drama has become the unquestioned frontrunner. With good reason. Richard Gadd has created one of the most stunning, human and humorous – yes, humorous –  TV events of the year based on an experience which he has written and bravely starred in. I’ve already written an incredible among about this work of TV and it is one that I personally relate to and has the same ability to find common ground that the phenomena Beef did last year. Gadd puts himself at the center of an only slightly fictionalized series of events that befell him when he was working in a pub that led to him becoming acquainted, then befriending a convicted stalker who over the course of a short time became determined to destroy his life. He does so revealing a dark story of a horrible sexual experience that led to his befriending her, and then a narrative on sexuality that is one of the bravest things in a year where sexuality was at the center of limited series in a way it hasn’t been before. And it ends on a note of despair for all involved. This is one of the phenomena of 2024. It deserves to win everything it gets. Con: Almost the moment it premiered there has been a series of controversies involving the real-life subjects of the story as well as potential lawsuits and (perhaps inevitably) online stalking of the people at the center.) That could very well work against it.

Fargo (FX). Odds: 9-2. Pro: Nearly four years after what we were told was going to be the final season Noah Hawley brought us back to the world of criminals and lawmen he has inhabited so brilliantly for more than a decade. This time he came far closer to the original source material then ever before (we could count all the Easter eggs) but added newer and more wonderful wrinkles. We followed the story of Dot, a young Minnesota housewife who escapes an abduction that reveals the story of a North Dakota sheriff who is there to be the difference between ‘what is right and what is wrong’, a group of good-hearted lawmen and very corrupt ones, a five-hundred year old soul-eater, and the head of one of the biggest debt collection agencies in America plus Dave Foley with an eyepatch. Essentially set in current times Hawley doesn’t even have to try to draw parallels with today’s society the way he has before – the themes of toxic masculinity, grooming, wealth and poverty were put amidst series where more than ever, the good ending up paying as much as the bad. The series dominated the Golden Globe and Critics Choice nominations, though they were buried by Beef. After a polarizing fourth season, it was good to be back in the world of Minnesota nice. Con: Fargo has never done as well in the Emmys as it immense quality would suggest (as I said, Peak Limited Series) and of the nominees in this category, it stretches back the farthest in premiere date.  I have a feeling it’s not going to prevail.

Lessons in Chemistry (Apple TV) Odds: 9-2. Pro: This adaptation of Bonnie Garrus’s best-seller was one of the most incredible works of 2023 (even though I only finished it last week). Using the story of Elizabeth Zott, a 1950s scientist whose brilliant mind is frozen because of the sexism of the era, the writers tell a story of some of the deepest themes – science and faith, racism and sexism, finding family when you don’t expect it, realizing that community is what you build and showing how relationships can be spinning around you without you knowing them. It does so against the world of early television, racism seen through the world of freeways and some of the most inventive storytelling in this category (one episode took place entirely from the perspective of Elizabeth’s dog) Brie Larson led a cast of incredible performers to show a world that is in the relative past and more relevant then ever. Lessons was one of the major contenders for every award show at the end of 2023 and leading up to the nominations. It has already won awards for direction and music. In a normal year, it would be a heavy front-runner. Con: Even before Shogun dropped out, this was always going to be a difficult year for Lessons. The contenders were among the most formidably acted, written and imaginatively framed works of 2024. This is the most traditional (if such a word could apply) nominee in the category/

Ripley (Netflix) Odds: 9-2. Pro: I have seen my share of mystery series and I genuinely didn’t think I was capable of being surprised by it anymore. Believe it or not, that’s exactly what Ripley did. Going off one of the most famous villains in the history of fiction Steven Zaillian took an incredibly different approach. In a world where dialogue seems to matter more than anything he would let Andrew Scott’s Tom be incredible by what he doesn’t say. How much of the limited series was silent will have to be calculated but it’s clear this one has the least dialogue, letting so much of what works be revealed by what Ripley says – or doesn’t say – when his lies called on. And in two masterworks we see Tom go through the kinds of sequence most mystery tend to just ignore – watching him cover up the murder in two bravura sequence in two different episodes. In the first there is no dialogue at all, in the second, the suspense involves an elevator that hasn’t functioned until now  and countless shots of a cat that seem pointless – until the last minute. This is by far the best director and technical masterpiece in the category, perhaps in all of 2024. Zaillian and Scott have taken a story that has been remade in five movies to date and turned into something unique. Never have  I hoped more for a second season. Con: The biggest problem Ripley has is the other nominee from Netflix in this category which deals with similar themes when it comes to both to darkness and sexual ambiguity. It will be tough for Ripley to overcome it.

True Detective (HBO) Odds: 4-1. Pro: This was, as my  readers well know, the only nominee in this category I couldn’t willingly endorse in my original nominations. I knew Night Country was going to be a major contender but after two episodes I found it somehow even more pretentious then the previous versions and just threw up my hands. That doesn’t mean it isn’t more than deserving to win. It’s been a decade since the first season debuted and due to a horrible misclassification of it in the Best Drama category (why HBO?) it never got the Emmys it should have. Now a full decade later, completely reinvented with two brilliant female leads and an extraordinary female showrunner it has returned True Detectives to the front of the Emmy standings since the first season. It is led by a towering cast of performers from Jodie Foster and Kali Reis to exceptional character actors like Christopher Eccleston and John Hawkes. It moves away from the desert and sunny landscapes into the bitter cold of the Arctic circle. And it is written and directed by Issa Lopez who has quickly become one of the great talents in television. It has been picking up nominations right and left and is now the second show. It’s overdue. Con: From the moment it debuted Night Country was somehow more polarizing because of all of the Easter eggs that were thrown in from Season 1 that made many wonder about its connection to the first season. (There were none.) Nic Pollozatto, the now departed showrunner, spent a fair amount of time denouncing this as part of his universe. And the usual complaints about every version – particularly the supernatural overtones that never pay out – were here in force. Some of the cast may win Emmys; the show’s chances are still low.

Predictions: While I have a soft spot in my heart for Ripley, I suspect Baby Reindeer will win this easily and it deserves too.

 

Tomorrow I deal with Outstanding Lead Actor in a Limited Series. I will have a blast with this one.

 

Sunday, September 1, 2024

Lost Rewatch On VHS: What They Died For

 

In her review of this episode for Finding Lost Nikki Stafford talks about the return of the old Ben as well as the fact that of the three major conflicts in the series – Jack vs. Locke, Ben vs. Widmore and Jacob vs. The Man In Black – Ben resolved all of them by killing one of the figures involved. That’s a brusque statement because as we all know Ben didn’t resolve the first one by killing Locke, the third is still playing out even though both the protagonists are dead and its hard to argue about the second. And as to the fact whether the old Ben is back, I have a hard time seeing it that way.

All three conflicts are still in play in this episode and I think the best way to explain them is through the Barracks. Since the third season they’ve played a critical role in every aspect of the action on Lost and in what will be their final appearance on the series it’s worth talking about them as how they relent to Ben, who has been using them the longest.

When Ben was just a boy he came to the island with his father as part of the Dharma Initiative. The island would become the most important thing in the world to him and the Barracks would be too but at the time they were a symbol of his drunken and abusive father. We remember how he fled them in The Man Behind The Curtain, chasing the white rabbit and running into Richard. At a moment of despair he told Richard he hated it there, and he told him he could leave “but he’d have to be very patient.”

The next time (chronologically) we saw the Barracks was when the Losties ended up in the Dharma Initiative. Sawyer and his group knew Ben was there but even knowing who he’d grow up to be they seemed fine living with him. He was ‘a sweet kid’ and he brought Sayid a sandwich thinking he was ‘one of them’ and wanted to break him out so that he could go back to his people. In a diversion he sent a burning bus into the Barracks an action that showed how little he cared for the people he lived with. He freed Sayid thinking he was his salvation – and Sayid shot him and left him for dead.

Jin brought him back to the Barracks and in desperation Kate and Sawyer took him out to go with the Others. After he was healed (it’s not clear whether that was after the Incident or not) he returned to the Barracks but was allied with the Others. It was there he first met Widmore who saw him as a threat to his power.

At some point Ben learned of Jacob’s existence but like everyone else never saw him. He lived in the jungle with the Others awhile but eventually led the Purge that wiped out the Dharma Initiative. When he walked into the Barracks among all the people he’d lived with but killed, we saw the Others walk in. At some point Ben repurposed for the Others (it seems to have been his idea) and he forced Widmore into exile. He thought he was home and safe.

But then problems set in. The biggest one came two days before the crash when Juliet confronted him in his home and told him he had a tumor on his spine. In addition to being terrified he would die, he was also afraid for other reasons: if this was a place where you came to get better, how could he get sick? Then two days later Oceanic 815 fell from the sky and Ben redirected his energy, sending people from the Barracks to spy on the survivors, beginning a campaign to make the next two months as miserable as possible.

Eventually Ben learned there was a spinal surgeon on the plane – and a man who had been in a wheelchair before the crash who could now walk. He ended up in Rousseau’s net, took on the persona of Henry Gale, and became part of the conflict between Jack and Locke. It was easier for him to manipulate Locke on the island then it was Jack, ironically because Jack’s personality was closer to his in key ways. Jack was the leader, and he was also a control freak, both of which you applied to Ben. Ben commanded loyalty better than Jack did but that was mainly because he claimed to be the mouthpiece of Jacob, which was a lie.

Eventually Ben manipulated events and arranged for Jack, Sawyer and Kate to be brought to Hydra Island to convince Jack to operate on him. It didn’t work out as he’d planned – Jack was willing to let him die in order for his friends to escape – but because of Juliet he managed to keep Jack in check. He went back to the Barracks to recover  - and wait for Locke to show up to blow up the sub. He was counting on his manipulations of Locke to handle his leadership problems. But it’s telling the moment Locke returned to the Barracks, Ben’s problems accelerated.

Ben tried to regain his leadership, trying to manipulate Locke. In order to force his hand he took him to Jacob’s cabin and put on a show – but Locke actually heard ‘Jacob’, even though it was the Man In Black. He tried to solve his problem by shooting Locke and leaving him for dead, but then he learned the freighter was coming and he knew Widmore was coming back. He still thought he could control thing but he ended up Jack’s prisoner – and the freighter was called.

When the divide in the camp came, Locke decided to go back to the Barracks. Ironically he’d said Ben’s using them was cheating but now he could see the benefits. Ben ‘asked’ to come with John – and Jack was glad to be rid of him. When they ended up in the Barracks Ben was held prisoner – in his own house. At the start of ‘Eggtown’ Ben said: “Here we are, just like old times.” And while he was using it to manipulate John, the irony must not have escaped him that he was back in the home he’d been a prisoner in and where he’d lost his power.

He continued to obfuscate and refuse to reveal all he knew about the threat, even though it might very well have saved more lives. Because he was in the Barracks Ben thought he was still in charge and could control things and he sent Alex – the one person he cared about more than anything  - out of the Barracks for their safety. And by doing so, he doomed her.

When Keamy and the mercenaries stormed the Barracks, they laid waste to it before demanding to talk to Ben. He refused – until he learned his daughter was being held at gunpoint. Even then, he still thought he could control things and did what he did best: lie. But the lie backfired as Alex was killed in front of his eyes – and died thinking he hated her. Ben’s reaction was to summon the Smoke Monster – the incarnation of the Man in Black – to seek out revenge on the mercenaries and lay waste to the place he called home.

When he left he knew he was no longer chosen Locke could see ‘Jacob’ in a way he couldn’t. He moved the island, thinking he was following Jacob’s directive, believing he was banished for life. His last words before he left – “I hope you’re happy, Jacob” – were a cry of despair of a man who’d served the island for thirty years and now was leaving, not knowing this was a manipulation of its own.

When he traveled through time and space, he sought out Sayid to take revenge on the man he held responsible: Charles Widmore. He used Sayid to kill Widmore’s people and threatened to kill Widmore’s daughter. Then when John Locke appeared and allied with Widmore, Ben found out. He tracked Locke down and stopped him from killing himself – only to murder him two minutes later when he learned information to obtain his one goal: to return to the island.

He then sought out Jack who was now an emotional wreck and much easier to manipulate. Jack and the rest of the Oceanics got on Ajira 316; a flight Ben made but was late for because he’d tried to carry out his goal of revenge. He’d called Widmore and said he was going back to the island and going to kill Penny. But he lowered his guard and Desmond beat him to a pulp, showing him how low he’d fallen. As an added insult – one he never learns about – Jacob, the man who never deigned to be in his presence, comes to Hurley and tells him about Ajira 316.

Ben ended up back on the island, sure his problems with over – until he woke up face to face with the man he killed. He said he was going back to the main island to be judged by the Monster – not knowing he was actually looking at it. He went back to the Barracks to find Sun and Frank there and tried to summon the monster. He did, but he didn’t know it. The new and improved Locke now knew where to find it and took him there. There he was judged by his real sin – killing Alex. ‘Alex’ confronted him and he apologized – and then she told him not to kill John Locke and do what he told him. He did exactly what Locke asked – to kill Jacob. The moment afterwards, he learned that Locke was still dead, he killed Jacob and he’d been the pawn of the Man In Black.

There’s a reason I’m bringing up all of Ben’s past actions: when he, Miles and Richard return to the Barracks on their mission to blow up the plane he is reminded directly and inadvertently (often by Miles, who doesn’t know the whole story behind him) of every single bad decision he’s ever made and that all of them keep coming back to the Barracks. The Barracks are the incarnation of everything he’s done wrong and all the people who’ve died as a result.

And then what happens when he and his group are leaving? Charles Widmore, the man who was his nemesis for more than thirteen years on the island and just as long off it,  the man he unseated as leader but who left telling him his exact fate, the man who sent a freighter whose men killed his daughter, the man who’s daughter he promised to kill and then couldn’t do that, the man who hadn’t been able to find the island and who he didn’t even know was back – strides into his house with the words: “Hello Benjamin. May I come in?”

It is as if no time has passed. Widmore may not know that his team is dead or that his only way off the island has been destroyed but the moment he sees Ben he becomes the same bully he was for all the time they knew each other. He mocks Ben for his ideas, tells him he’s smarter than him, and that his plans are useless. And worst of all, when asks how he got here Widmore says that Jacob sent him. Ben is broken all over again. When we see him walk outside saying he’s tired of hiding you feel he almost wishes the monster would kill him, if only to spare him the memory of being reminded of all his failures.

Much has been said about how after spending so much time building Charles Widmore up as a character his death comes as an extreme anticlimax. Paradoxically I think that’s because the writers were too good at building Widmore up and up until the final season, each layer seemed natural to the character but added dimension to him.

When we first met him at the end of Season 2, he seems merely an obstacle to the love story of Des and Penny. However when in the final scene is was clear that Penny knew about the island, the question was how did she know? When we first learned about the freighter in Season 3 and believed it was Penny until she told us, it was theorized that the freighter was from her father which made sense: the early theories were that he’d maneuvered Desmond into crashing there because it was the one place his daughter couldn’t find him. In Season 4, we got confirmation the freighter was Widmore’s and that he’d staged the Oceanic 815 crash site in order to make sure people would stop looking for the island.

Then we learned that Ben knew of his existence and that the freighter was sent for the sole purpose of getting Ben off the island. This set up the idea of how these two men knew each other and when Ben left the island, it was clear that they had a dark backstory. The last line of Widmore in their memorable encounter was: “I guess the hunt’s on for the both of us.” That gave the strong implication that everything involving Lost had to do with the battle between Ben and Widmore, which led us to wonder: how did Widmore know about the island in the first place?

In Season 5 everything about Widmore’s character was fully realized. We learned he’d grown up on the island, that he’d lived there more than twenty years and that he’d been the leader of the Others until Ben forced his exile. Widmore fudged some of the details (Eloise Hawking had been the leader for much of the period) but everything we saw when the island blooped verified what he told us. Much of Season 5 felt like it was about the battle between Ben and Widmore, and considering that Ben did send him into exile, it made sense why all of this was happening. And when we learned he had one family on the island as well as one off it – and that his son Dan had been killed before he even met him  - the context seemed far greater.

The problem came when we learned about not only Jacob but the Man in Black in The Incident. Compared to that, the battle between Jack & Locke and Ben & Widmore understandably seemed like small potatoes. It didn’t help matters that Season 5 ended with Ben on the island and Widmore off it. When we last saw him he didn’t even seem interested in going to the island and there was no major change in his behavior.

So when he tells Ben that Jacob came to see him and that he’s seen the error of his ways (something that we have nothing more than a musical cue to believe is true) it immediately strikes the viewer as tonally off. There’s been nothing in Alan Dale’s performance in Season 6 to suggest that Widmore has had the scales fall from his eyes. When Sawyer meets him on the submarine he refuses to acknowledge any part in sending the freighter that nearly killed all of them and gives no really sign that he knows more about the Man in Black then he’s telling. His scenes with Ben before UnLocke arrives shows him with the arrogance and coldness we’ve come to expect of him since we met him. We believe in Ben’s transition not only because we’ve seen everything he’s lost but because we can tell it in the performance that Michael Emerson has given in the second half of the series. Everything we know about Widmore before gave us no real reason to sympathize with him and we know him just well enough that it is nearly impossible to take his 180 seriously. Widmore never lied the way Ben did but he never took responsibility for his actions. It may be disappointing how he dies but the way the series handled him throughout the final season didn’t make his last days any more redemptive.

That’s also why I don’t think the ‘old Ben’ is back. There’s a sign of him going back to the Barracks but the moment Richard tells him that he came back to after Ben left to bury Alex that light is dimmed. All he can focus on is the mission ahead, trying to blow up the plane. The moment Widmore shows up he deflates again. He may be trying to plan when he asks Widmore for his walkie-talkies but when he goes outside saying: “Then I guess this is goodbye,” I really think he means it. Even more so when Richard whose clearly offering to sacrifice himself is for all intents and purposes thrown aside. Ben goes back to the chair on his porch and meekly sits down.

When UnLocke sits next to Ben he makes the same offer he did back in Dr. Linus and there’s no real sign that Ben believes him any more then he did before. Just as when he sat down outside ‘Jacob’s’ cabin he knows his time is over. He saw what happened to Ilana, then Richard so he thinks the island is done with him. The only think he wants to see before he goes is Widmore cowering before UnLocke the way he did. And when Widmore refuses to talk to in front of Ben but caves to save his daughter, it reminds Ben of his own failure. After he kills Widmore and says: “He doesn’t get to save his daughter”, there’s no real menace to it. Ben kills Widmore not merely out of revenge but because he’s not going to give Widmore the chance to redeem himself.

In the flash-sideways the writers lighten the mood by having Ben get beat up. I know that seems a little harsh but isn’t it fun to see everybody say, “Why would anyone want to hurt you?” in incredulity when they see that Ben got beat up. Of course there’s a deeper sadness to this which is clear by what Ben sees when Desmond beats him up. Unlike everyone else who saw the flash of the real world and got to see a sign of their true love, Ben is reminded of when Desmond beat him to a pulp after he shot him and tried to kill Penny. We are reminded that before Ben went in to be judged he asked Sun to say to find Desmond Hume ‘and tell him I’m sorry.” It seems strange that of all the horrible things Ben did in his life, this is the one he feels the most pain for but considering Desmond did it, well, it probably cuts both ways.

One of the more moving parts of the episode comes when ‘Dr. Linus’ tries to go home and Alex tracks him down. (Ben is using a cane the way we saw him do so when he was recovering from his surgery.) Ben is clearly reeling from everything he remembers about who he was and it has to cut deeper because Alex is talking to him with the love we never saw her show when he was ‘really’ her father.

And its doubly moving to see that, yes, Rousseau is raising Alex the way she never got a chance to in real life and that she thanks Ben for everything he did for her as a teacher. Ben isn’t the only one who was concerned about onions, that seen moves me every time I see it.

And we need this lightness because things are grim on the surface. Jack, Kate, Hurley and Sawyer are still reeling from the loss of their friends. Kate tells Jack about Jin and Sun’s daughter, and that must cut deep because there’s an excellent chance Jack never even knew the gender of the child Sun was pregnant with when they left the island. Sawyer had forward momentum as long as he was trying to leave the island, and now because of the fact he didn’t trust Jack the people he tried to save are dead. He clearly forgives Jack for his role in Juliet’s death because he knows what it feels like now.

And while everyone goes to find Desmond Jacob makes a reappearance at last and calls on Hurley to bring them to the fire. Now that his time is all but over he finally makes himself visible to the candidates and is willing to explain himself.

Except…he doesn’t. Not really. It’s very telling that death really has done nothing to fundamentally change Jacob. He has only made himself visible to Hurley given instruction without really telling him why he was doing so and disappearing when he was most needed. The only reason he made himself visible to Hurley was no doubt so he could get his ashes and destroy them. Its pretty clear they were the only thing keeping him attached to the island and it’s also clear he wanted them destroyed so that he could finally rest. Given what we saw in the last episode we can’t exactly blame him for wanting that but given what we saw in the last episode we probably should.

In Jacob’s ‘explanation’ to the candidates he is finally honest about why they are all here but just as with all his other explanations he says only what he needs too. He calls killing his brother and creating the smoke monster ‘a mistake’ and even without knowing the context I can tell that both Kate and Sawyer really want to punch Jacob as hard as they can. And he deserves it, no question. Jacob has spent thousands of year creating his own game and making everybody play by his rules, and he never bothered to explain to anybody what they were. He has been as terrible a leader as almost everyone else on the island, except he’s never felt he had to justify it.

When he tells those who are left “I didn’t take any of you out of a happy existence…you were all flawed,” that’s true…but it leaves out a lot. Setting aside all of the people who died just so that the candidates could get on the plane there’s a question that’s never answered: did Jacob pick them because they were flawed or were they flawed because he picked them? UnLocke told Sawyer and Jack as much and based on his interactions with so many of the candidates, there’s an argument to that effect. The fact that he says he wants all of them to have the one thing he didn’t have – a choice – is negating by the fact that the reason they came to the island was because he took many of their choices from them. And he immediately negates that by telling Kate if none of them do this, it all ends very badly which means that one of them really doesn’t have a choice.

The one person who says nothing during all of this is Jack. He just listens. In a way Jacob doesn’t have to make much of a pitch you can tell given the expression on Jack’s face that he’s going to do this. It may seem a bit obvious given how Jack has been the center of the story since the Pilot, and the fact the episode opens on his eye in the flash sideways reminds of that.

But it makes perfect sense when you consider that the major story in the flash-sideways involves Locke making his way back to Jack’s office. When Locke tells the story about how he got here and even ends it with a variation on his old phrase: “What if all of this were happening for a reason?” we are reminded of all the arguments Jack and Locke had when they were on the island about this very subject. That Jack listens to this without objection and doesn’t judge is a reflection of how he’s changed over the course of the series. In the flash-sideway it shows that Jack is willing to do this because he wants to fix Locke, something that has seemed what the entire flash-sideways has been leading up to for those two since they met in the lost and found claim.

And since Jack came back to the island he has more or less embraced Locke’s way of thinking. In Season 5, this caused him to be the subject of derision by Kate and Sawyer beat him to a pulp. He thought they had come back to stop all of this happening but when it didn’t work, Jack was confronted of all his failures. Jack has been following during all of Season 6 because he has been confronted with all his failures but he still believes that they have a destiny.

In the last few episode UnLocke has berated Locke’s way of thinking to Jack’s face and Sawyer practically threw him off the boat when he said he wanted to stay. But Jack was right that UnLocke wanted them to stay on the island and he was right when he said UnLocke couldn’t kill the candidates. And while he might very well be doing this out of a motivation for vengeance – UnLocke has killed his friends and now he’s been told the only way to protect the island is find a way to kill UnLocke – he has every reason to believe he’s supposed to do this. The fact that he has been given a choice may be enough to confirm much of his way of thinking: he’s found a way to balance fate and science in a way Locke never could.

It’s telling that even as he passes the torch – literally – Jacob still doesn’t tell him anything. He tells him where the light is and that he can find it, but he doesn’t tell him how to stop the Man In Black. We learned in Across the Sea that Jacob didn’t know how to lie as a child and while he’s gotten better at over the millennia, it’s clear that the way he lies is by not telling the whole truth. When Jack asks how long do I have to do this job, Jacob gives a non-answer: “As long as you can.” Jacob was clearly self-aware about how things would play out when he was alive as well as when he was dead, so he may very well know how they’re going to play out in the final act.

But maybe he just doesn’t care. Moments after he makes Jack the guardian of the island Jacob disappears from the story. He may finally be at peace having done his job but I really hope that whatever ending we see in the finale doesn’t happen for him. Because nothing I saw of him in life or death makes me believes he deserves it.

And it’s not clear that he’s done his job. Because as UnLocke and Ben go to the well and find Desmond gone UnLocke doesn’t seem the least bit bothered. None of the candidates know what they have to do, Jack may not. But UnLocke does have a course of action. And the way he’s smiling when he says he’s finally going to be able to do the one thing he couldn’t – destroy the island – makes you hope some kind of wisdom got passed on to Jack when he took the job.

 

IF YOU BELIEVE THE ENDING: There’s just something kind of cruel about how Ana Lucia seems to be there to facilitate everyone escaping but the way Desmond tells Hurley dismissively that she’s not ready to come with us. Ana Lucia doesn’t seem any different than when we saw her in real life, which actually makes this doubly worse: with the exception of Sayid, everybody in the flash-sideways had a better life or at least perception of themselves. Ana Lucia is the same contentious cop we saw when she was alive, or for that matter when she was a ghost helping Hurley. Like with quite a few other characters, this seems like an Easter Egg for the sake of being an Easter Egg. And given that Rodriguez’s personal history with Lost involved the same kind of problematic backstory we saw with Harold Perrineau, who also apparently has a fate just as bad,  it really seems like the writers only keep bringing these characters as a kind of revenge on the actors for being outspoken. I’ll be raising these issues when we get to the finale but in these two cases in particular there does seem to be something vindictive.

I Hate-Watched TV Before The Word Existed. The People Who Do It Today Are Amateurs.

 

 

I’ve been baffled by the ongoing trend of hate-watching – watching an entire series for a prolonged period of time for reasons that don’t even fit the ‘so bad it’s good model’ – but I wasn’t sure why until recently. And I think it’s because, based on what I’ve heard, they don’t seem to hate-watch the way they did when I was doing it.

I realize what I sound like by saying this, and I know it may sound like I’m being the worst model of everything I despise about nostalgia in every format. But hear me out.

I didn’t realize when I was doing it during the 2000s and well into the 2010s that it was ‘hate-watching’. I knew I was watching series like The Closer and Ray Donovan for reasons that I wasn’t watching Mad Men or 24 but I didn’t call it hate-watching. For me, it was about morality. If you’ve read my articles on these series (and I’ve covered both of them a bit if you want to dive deep in my columns) the reason I kept watching all of these shows was out of a sense of misguided morality. In my opinion Kyra Sedgwick and Live Schreiber were engaging in just morally contemptible behavior week after week and being rewarded for it that I spent far too much time watching these shows hoping against hope that there would eventually be some kind of consequences for these loathsome characters. (In the case of the latter, I was rewarded but not until the series was officially over.)

It shouldn’t come as a shock to my long-time (and in this case, long suffering) readers that the biggest target of this kind of wrath was Shondaland. And I have to tell you I was committed to that to an extent that might baffle so many of these so-called hate-watchers who seem to do so more out of laziness than any real hatred. Because when it came many of Shonda Rhimes shows I committed to this.

During the first five seasons of Grey’s Anatomy in the era when there was no streaming and not much in syndication I would record episodes of Grey’s Anatomy. On videotapes. I did the same for the first three seasons of Scandal much of which ran against series I actually liked, most significantly Parenthood. I did the same for the first three seasons of How to Get Away With Murder and though I kept telling myself I would stop, much of the fourth season. And just to tell you of my commitment, I wrote a Scandal fanfic which basically had all of the characters being punished for the actions they took when they stole the election that started everything out for Olivia Pope and Fitzgerald Grant. Not only does that show how much I hate the series, it also shows that I basically was violating one of the tenets of fanfic which is that you like the series you’re writing about.

But after a while as seasons went by and all of the characters in these series kept doing horrible things and never getting punished I had an epiphany. This was a waste of my time. Meredith Grey and the staff at Seattle Grace were never going to actually follow anything remotely resembling medical ethics. Olivia Pope and her gladiators were never going to be punished for covering up the imbroglios of the Grant administration and they certainly weren’t go to make any changes for the better. Annalyse Keating was going to help the Keating Five get away with murder even if it meant innocent people had to go to jail or die. Hoping that was ever going to change was a waste of time.

And with so much other good Tv around why would I want to expend so much time and energy on shows that appalled me? It defeated the logic of being both a critic and a fan of television, which is you’re supposed to get some pleasure out of what you’re doing. Considering that watching network TV becomes a habit so ingrained that breaking out of your routine takes an extra bit of effort that people raised on streaming can’t comprehend, this was a big effort for me.

But I did it. And there was something fundamentally freeing of this. One of the descriptors of hate-watching, according to a recent article in the Times, is that you are watching a series that the world thinks is great but you don’t. If you’ve read my columns you know that I’ve done a variation of this over the years in what I call the Overrated series. But the key difference is, in large part because of having spent the last decade dealing with this is Shondaland, I never felt compelled to do more than the bare minimum with these series. I never watched more than the first season of Ozark, gave the first and half of Season 2 of Westworld a try before throwing in the towel and after just two episodes of Euphoria would be more than happy if the series never comes back from hiatus. I hated all of these shows but not enough to spend time and energy doing so.

And over the last few years as streaming has taken over more and more of our viewing lives I’ve basically taken the same approach. I will give a series a certain amount of my time but if I don’t like it, barring extraordinary circumstances I will not return to it. (One exception was Fleishmann is in Trouble which in hindsight didn’t give value for its time.) I have more free time then I imagine most hate-watchers do – I’ve been out of work the past three years -  but I have enough trouble keeping up with series I actually like.  And frankly I don’t have enough time for even some of the series I should be watching. The Morning Show is in a way Schrodinger’s TV: it might be outstanding; it might be deserving of hate-watching. I’ll never know because I missed the first season and at this point I’m not going to spend time and energy trying to get through three seasons just to find out I hate it.

That’s the part of this I don’t follow. I spend a lot of time watching streaming TV but I am far from a slave to the algorithm. On the contrary, I chose my shows regardless of what my viewing history tells me I might like. Hard it is may be for Gen Z or people younger than thirty to comprehend, I like to make up my own mind as to what I’m going to watch and I have little to no faith in any streaming service will no better than I.

And honestly, if you’re so lazy that if a series like Emily in Paris pops up on Netflix and you don’t have the energy to go away from it after five minutes even though you hate it and you keep watching it for three seasons well, then I truly have no hope for the next generation of TV watchers. When I hate watched Shameless or Agents of Shield its because I cared enough to put the time and energy in to make the effort to watch it. I had better things to be watching, many better things. But I was willing to use recordings and spend time and energy to actually watch it either on the air or in reruns. That’s commitment. Not being too slothful to stop watching a series because you don’t have to energy to fight the power of what Netflix tells you to watch.

As I’ve gotten older I’ve increasingly decided I haven’t got time to find series just to spend hours hate-watching them. And I can’t understand this generation’s desire to spend all its time and energy watching something they don’t like, even apparently as background noise. I get not wanting to give a show you love full attention while you’re checking your email or some trivial tasks but there are so many syndicated shows on the air from the 1990s. Hell, half the channels on my cable service show Law and Order reruns twenty four hours a day and that’s the definition of a series you don’t need to pay attention to in order to follow. Oh that’s right, your generation doesn’t want to pay for cable. Well, then find it on a streaming service you like.

And just speaking for myself to you twenty-somethings or younger: how can we trust you to solve any of the problems of solving the global crises if the algorithm of your favorite series is so sacred to you that if Netflix tells you to watch Emily in Paris, you can’t spare three second to type it no or move away from it? Is your everyday life that vital that moving a button is to much of an effort?

It isn’t for me. Over the years I’ve been told by Netflix to watch Ozark, Hulu to watch Handmaid’s Tale, Apple to watch Servant and so many other shows I’ve lost count. It takes me three seconds on a remote for television to move away from it to a show I like. Are your metrics for television as fragile as your egos so often seem to be online?

As for me I learned my lesson. Two years ago when Bridgerton was up for multiple Emmys I watched the first three episodes, found them utterly distasteful, and have never bothered to even look at it again. I’m not going to give power to Shonda Rhimes or any of the other shows I initially find terrible when there are so many other series out there I love or might reward me with their energy. You want to spend your time hate-watching And Just Like That or so many other series, it’s your funeral. You have a commitment to your attitude towards these shows that is incomprehensible to a man who realized two seasons in how ridiculous Riverdale was and decided he was better off never watching another episode. For the record I also recorded a few episodes of it, but I never had the time and energy to watch them. Those of you who apparently watched every episode: was it really worth it? It didn’t seem that way when I saw it but what do I know? Maybe it got better after Archie ran into the bear.

 

Saturday, August 31, 2024

Are Horror Movies Scary From A Philosophical Perspective?

 

While I don’t have a fundamental opinion about a higher power, I do have one about a similar philosophical issue. I have to believe we all have free will. The idea of predestination – that all our decisions have been mapped out in advance before we were born by some higher power – is something I can’t bring myself to endorse. And if we ever found out otherwise, I think humanity as we know it would stop functioning.

I’ve mentioned this subject before in a few of my other articles, not all of them in this series. But realizing this I think that may be a major reason I’ve had a lot of difficulty with the majority of all horror films. To be sure the blood and gore is a big factor – I’ve never had the strongest of stomachs and I don’t believe in the body horror genre – but even some of the less outwardly gory films in the genre I’ve found troubling. It wasn’t until fairly recently that I realized that my problems may be of a philosophical nature.

Over the course of my viewing experience, I’ve found that far too many horror films are deterministic. I don’t mean the evidence of certain supernatural entities such as God or the Devil, as we see in The Exorcist and so many of its ilk. And I’m not just talking about the often formulaic nature of it: most studio and franchise films have formulas and while I have issues with some of them, it has nothing to do with the formula. It’s that more than any other genre, horror has a very dark philosophical undertone that is almost entirely deterministic.

Perhaps the most obvious version of this is the teenage slasher films of the 1980s and 1990s. In all of these films – Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Texas Chainsaw Massacre -  all of the characters in these movies were basically irrelevant to the boogeyman: Freddy, Jason, Leatherface, et al. There is a cliché that character is destiny and if you were anyone other than the monster in these movies, your character’s destiny was already written. The details – the when, where and how – were all that mattered.

Almost none of the slasher movies in the 1980s or 1990s and indeed very few of the later versions – I speak mainly of the Saw franchise – are in a sense the worst kind of horror because their presence in the film only means we’re going to witness them die horribly sometime later in the film. Wes Craven would actually visit the archetype he’d helped create in Scream and if that movie hadn’t become a franchise it would have been clever.

(Interestingly a few years earlier he attempted what was a far more intriguing meta version of this in Wes Craven’s New Nightmare. Featuring Heather Langenkamp, Robert Englund and Craven all playing themselves he actually argued that he as a filmmaker had summoned Freddy Krueger by writing the first movie after a new series of killings began. Craven then actually began to write a script in which he told Langenkamp that the only way to stop Freddy was to make another movie. The script itself eventually seemed to foretell the events in the movie word for word. The film was well received critically but bombed at the box office perhaps because it was too serious. When Craven revisited the subject matter in Scream, he used an original story and developed a humorous tone.)

I find these movies troubling in more recent years because frequently whatever the nature of the monster, there’s often a darker tone that the people he’s targeting deserve to die for other reasons. I recently saw a version of this called Student Body which was barely had the energy to be a teenage slasher film. It didn’t even truly have the energy of a plot: a math teacher at a boarding school harassed a high school student, she conspires with a friend to get him fired, they sneak into the school and he kills them one by one. None of the characters are more than stick figures and when the truth is reveal the teacher expects the survivor to be grateful for a ‘character building exercise’. Somehow this is worse than the slasher movies: at least Jason Vorhees didn’t lecture the final girl about why she should be grateful he spared her.

I actually find The Cabin in the Woods Joss Whedon’s horror comedy that satirizes the genre even more deterministic. It’s not just that the cliché argues that these characters have no purpose other than to be sacrificed or even that its being bet on. It’s that the ‘happy ending’ of the movie implies that it is better for the human race to be exterminated rather than carry on with these slaughters. Joss Whedon’s series have frequently taken dark tones (I recently read an article that essentially calls him a deeply existential TV writer and I agree with that) but even the series finale of Angel argues that even if everything is meaningless, the fight still matters. The end of Cabin in the Woods essentially gives lie to that entire argument and its more upsetting than any of the blood and gore in the film.

My problems with determinism almost certainly explain why I have such a huge problem with found footage films. The very description of the genre tells you exactly what you need to know about the whole movie. Everything you really need to know about any of these films whether it is Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield or Paranormal Activity is basically told in the opening subtitle. It doesn’t really matter what happens to the cameraperson at the end of Blair Witch .or the camera men in Cloverfield: we just know they’re not there to tell the tale.

I am reminded of Hitchcock’s definition of the difference between horror and suspense and in that sense there’s absolutely no real suspense as we watch these movies. We’re seeing the film knowing the bomb has gone off; the fact the characters don’t know that they’re fighting a ticking clock is kind of irrelevant in that matter. In my opinion it’s why The Last Broadcast is a brilliant horror film and The Blair Witch Project is just a bunch of kids running around with cameras. In the former film,  the found footage is the ticking clock and the bomb doesn’t go off until the final shot.

Other variations on this that work as horror are Chronicle (which I talked about in the 2012 films series) and M. Night Shyamalan’s The Visit. In that film the biggest twist is that we think were watching a found footage movie and the reason the camera is dropped at the end is because it’s a happy ending. (I won’t give it a way because I highly recommend this one.) Both of these movies do play tricks on the genre but that actually works to its benefit. Almost every other found footage films plays into the idea – basically telling you what you’re going to get, the only question is the details.

But the version of this I find the most offensive actually has threads online. “Films where the characters do everything right but the bad guy wins anyway.” This isn’t exclusive to horror but I find it most intolerable in that genre no matter how well done the movie is. The most recent example of it – at least that I saw  - was Smile. To be clear I acknowledge that it worked on every other level I like in horror: it’s opening sequence was extraordinary, the use of the force sneaking up Sosie Bacon’s character over the course of the film, driving her closer and closer to the edge, all of the fake outs and traumatizing moments. But the final reveal at the end – which was just another variation of the hero seeming to triumph over the villain just to have turned out to be beaten by the monster – negated the whole movie.

I have a similar problem with this in horror novels as well: when after all the violence and bloodshed, the characters have either beaten the monster or at least escaped only for the fact that evil has triumphed anyway. (Nick Cutter, author of The Troup, is the most recent abuser of his trope.) Every time I read a novel like this I tend to wonder: why did we have bother with this? I almost prefer when everyone is killed at the end to this.

Now to be fair I am a huge fan of The Twilight Zone in its original version and quite a few episodes of the first two remakes. (I haven’t seen the most recent one.) But the major difference was that at the end of so many of the episode Rod Serling and his fellow writers were skilled enough with their writing and character development to make it feel like a sense of tragedy. When Burgess Meredith breaks his eyeglasses at the end of ‘Time Enough To Last’ or we realize the horror the people in It’s A Good Life will never be able to escape, the writing makes you feel a sense of pathos and sadness.

Contrast this with a series that may be the quintessential version of this kind of determinism: the 1990s remake of The Outer Limits that aired on Showtime and in syndication. Originally taking on a trope similar to the original series, it eventually began to write the stories where the twists at the end increasingly gave rise to the heroes apparent triumph being a twist to show them defeated but where those endings were just the start of mankind being doomed as a result of the heroes actions. The clearest example of this was ‘The Light Brigade’ an episode where an Earth that is losing a war against aliens sends a troop of six hundred ships to fight one battle with a ship carrying a bomb that will destroy an alien planet to turn the tide. Naturally the aliens surprise the brigade and only a single ship with the bomb and a few survivors are left, all of whom are dying of radiation poisoning.

The survivors realize the aliens have infiltrated them and are determined to complete their mission before they die. Eventually the alien is reveal and the sole human remaining kills him. He walks towards the bomb bay doors with, knowing his death is imminent. Reciting Tennyson’s famous poem, he makes it to the bomb and begins to input the code. As he does so, a blowtorch begins to burn its way in. He finished the code and the countdown begins. A figure walks in.

It's a human. While everyone was unconscious the alien turned the ship around. The survivor has dropped his bomb on Earth.

By my count there were at least twenty to thirty similar stories that led to Earth being destroyed over the course of the more than seven seasons on the air. In each of them the actions of the selfishness, terror or just misguided thinking of the characters let to this destruction.  It’s a good point – but Rod Serling only needed to make it once in five years and knew enough to let the story play out in other fashion. The writers of The Outer Limits just seemed to be telling the same story over and over again.

Now I suppose some people – maybe those philosophically inclined  - could argue that so much of this writing, at least in the third trope, is making the argument that no matter what we do, we can not escape death. No serious person would stand by it after five Final Destination movies. It’s just lazy writing.

And that is no doubt why the horror films I like will be those of Jordan Peele, who mixes his doom with both humor and social commentary or the works of Ari Aster, who build slow dread where the characters don’t realize the situation they’re in until it’s too late or the movies in A Quiet Place which show sets of characters who refuse to give into fate and are determined to fight back. That is, for the record, why I was a fan of Day One which focused its story on a character who was already doomed before the invasion even began and who looked on what was happening a chance to make her own fate. The journey Lupita Nyong’o took towards Patsy was a triumph not because she survived making it there but because it allowed her to choose how to live and die on her own terms. Her fate was pre-ordained but she managed to still defeat on her own terms. No Final Girl has ever triumphed as thoroughly in such as a way as the final moment of that film. That was a victory of free will over destiny.