I have to say that I really enjoyed the finale and I thought the writers were very clever in putting the audience and Sam in the same existential dilemma. You get to decide how it ended, you get to choose the reality that suits you, just as Sam did. Aside from that, Sam is an exploration of an idea, not someone to mimic. You could even say he is a cautionary tale, an illustration as to why we need to find a balance between fact and emotion
( ... )
Actually, I agree that art does not need to be moral. However, it needs to make a coherent statement (unless its point is something else entirely, which of course also happens; hey, I went to art college for three years, and I'm studying literature now, among other things - I'm not entirely ignorant about what art does/can do/is allowed to do ;-) - but we're in the realm of tv here, so forgive me if I judge it by tv rules to some degree) - and Life On Mars failed to do that for me
( ... )
Re: Art and morals.candogirlApril 12 2007, 07:55:04 UTC
Hmm, we disagree about what the jump back to 73 meant. I never felt like it was a happy ending and I think at most it could be considered bitter sweet. I'm sure some people are all "Aww, Annie and Sam together 4evah!!!" but I thought the darkest moment of the show was when she said stay forever and he said he would. It was his death knell
( ... )
Re: Art and morals.echo_voiceApril 12 2007, 10:29:07 UTC
"I thought the darkest moment of the show was when she said stay forever and he said he would. It was his death knell." THAT is very interesting. It didn't occur to me in the slightest, and I'm not entirely sure that I agree, but I like it nonetheless
( ... )
Arrgh. Just typed out an epic-length reply to this and then hit the wrong key (working on a foreign laptop *g*) and it was gone. Grrrrrrrrr. So.... *again
( ... )
Re: Reply, part threehmpfApril 12 2007, 23:40:28 UTC
>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
( ... )
Re: Reply, part threecandogirlApril 13 2007, 01:00:02 UTC
This is emphatically not what I said. Sorry. I was responding at 3AM so I just misinterpreted what you were saying. I thought you meant TV didn't have to meet any artistic criteria.
He didn't even try. Unless we are to assume he did and 2007 was just so terribly stifling that it was completely impossible to fight for a better life there. You are right, 2007 got the shaft because the writer wanted him back in 1973. I think they tried to show the struggle in the lack of an anchor for him, though. Sam says to the woman, "It helps to talk about it." but he's only been talking into a tape recorder and the woman he is really speaking to doesn't seem to want him to talk about it any more. His mom basically offers up a platitude. Talking to Annie is what made 1973 real. There was no one talking him out of his delusion in 2006, no one telling him there was a purpose or a point in him being there. No one telling him to believe in and trust the world around him. He is unable to fight without those two things.
Re: Reply, part one acandogirlApril 13 2007, 00:11:16 UTC
Arrgh. Just typed out an epic-length reply to this and then hit the wrong key (working on a foreign laptop *g*) and it was gone. Grrrrrrrrr. So.... *again*: Stupid keyboards ☺
Oh, I never felt it was a happy ending, either! That's the problem! It was so very clearly a tragedy to any rationally thinking person (IMO), yet they *dressed it up* as a happy ending. So many kinds of wrong.
I think the reason for the dichotomy between what was going on and what we as audience members were seeing, is that for Sam it is a happy ending- it is the life he wanted. We are the ones who realize the world is fake, not him.
How the bloody hell can jumping to your death be taking a chance on living? Is it taking the 'better to burn out than to fade away' idea to an absolute extreme? Three seconds of fun and that's it? ;-)… . I may be tragically inflexible or something, but I can't see that as any kind of positive choice 'for' life. It’s a chance because, imo, Sam doesn’t think he’s going to die. He thinks he is going to live. He is choosing his
( ... )
Re: Reply, part one acandogirlApril 13 2007, 00:14:55 UTC
Sorry that last bit should have read:
I had thought so until 2.07, too, but 2.07 did a very thorough job of showing us that 2007 is really just a cold, grey-blue, lifeless place full of soulless automatons, with the possible exception of his mum. They *could* have portrayed 2007 in a different way; they could have showed us the conflict. They chose not to…there was a lot of love to be felt in the communications from the present that we heard this series, and a palpable sense of loss very often - except in 2.07 where suddenly 2007 is completely dead.I agree wholeheartedly with this. I was expecting someone to show up on that rooftop to try and stop him. They were definitely showing us that someone in 1973 noticed he was on the roof but in 2007 no one did. It wasn’t fair that we didn’t get Maya or more of his mother. I thought it was interesting that his mother inadvertently gives him permission to go. She validates his need to keep his promises instead of telling him that those were promises he made to imaginary people. Annie (who
( ... )
Re: Reply, part one ahmpfApril 15 2007, 12:59:00 UTC
>She validates his need to keep his promises instead of telling him that those were promises he made to imaginary people.
I don't think she knew what he was talking about. I don't believe he told her about 1973. I'm pretty sure that if he'd actually told her, she would *not* have affirmed his need to keep that promise.
>Annie (who in the end is the wrong person to listen to, she’s quite the villain really)
Heh, glad you agree with me! I've felt from the first there was something sinister about her - she was the one who kept trying to convince him that 1973 was real and that he should stay, after all. Back when we were trying to discover meaning in names people kept identifying her as 'anima', but maybe she's 'annihilation'...
(I actually sort of like the Sam/Annie ship, but I've always felt there was this weird, unhealthy edge to it.)
Re: Reply, part one acandogirlApril 15 2007, 18:59:29 UTC
I don't think she knew what he was talking about. I don't believe he told her about 1973. I'm pretty sure that if he'd actually told her, she would *not* have affirmed his need to keep that promise.
Agreed. I meant it was interesting that the writers chose to keep her in the dark. Maybe interesting isn't what I mean. It's more like, I thought it was curious that the ending wasn't balanced between the two worlds. I thought we should have had someone up on that roof trying to stop him (Maya), or that his mom should have been more, "You didn't go somewhere, you were in a coma. You don't owe anyone anything." I was trying to say that I agree they were sloppy with their storytelling there. If there were people telling him to stay, it would have made his struggle more difficult and his decision even darker.
(I actually sort of like the Sam/Annie ship, but I've always felt there was this weird, unhealthy edge to it.)I like Sam/Annie too, but aside from the fact that she repeatedly keeps him in 1973, it's strange to ship Sam/his own mind.
( ... )
Re: Reply, part one bcandogirlApril 13 2007, 00:12:09 UTC
Sorry! I wrote too much to fit in one reply. Here's the rest...
Is reality *that* relative?
Existentially, yes. Actually, even un-existentially the answer is yes. My truth is not your truth. The way I see the world may not be the way you do. People fight and die every day trying to mold the world into what they want it to be. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it is. Even the basic facts of life are disputed- I believe in evolution, but there are people who believe in Adam and Eve and think my belief in dinosaurs is lunacy. A person’s reality is not always true.
Should we cheer on crazy sect members who think that killing themselves will get them picked up by aliens from Sirius, or suicide bombers who think killing dozens alongside themselves will get them straight into paradise, because after all, that's *their* ideal reality, the world they would like to live in, and they're taking a positive step to achieving their goals?Of course not, but this isn’t the real world, it’s a story- it’s an idea, a warning. In real life
( ... )
But why the *heck* couldn't he decide to live in the Real World?
Oh, I give up. I don't think I'm ever going to 'get' it. I mean, I totally get that it was Sam's worldview and so on - but that doesn't make it *any* bit less wrong. Ultimately, it comes down to a deep gut-feeling of nausea when I think about the ending, and there's no philosophical spin I can put on it that makes it less nausea-inducing.
Re: Decision to livecandogirlApril 13 2007, 01:07:01 UTC
But why the *heck* couldn't he decide to live in the Real World? I can only say that in Sam's mind he *does* decide to live in the real world.
At least that's my opinion. I do feel your frustration, I feel immensely sad that he died. The agreement to stay and the turning off of the radio, along with the girl turning off the story is so sad. I wrote in reply to someone else that, "the reason the show is over is because there is no longer someone left to imagine it. Which is sad, because it means that Sam couldn't have the life he wanted either way."
It's very depressing, but I really like it from a story telling perspective.
Well, as I sort of said before...hmpfApril 15 2007, 12:52:07 UTC
I *would* like this ending from a story telling perspective (I can handle sad or bittersweet endings better than happy ones, in most cases, because they violate my sense of reality less), if I didn't have to read the final ep so strongly against the grain and ignore so much textual evidence to 'see' this ending in it. To me, the authorial intention in this case is so blatant that I just can't ignore it, and the authorial intention that's written all over the ep in big bold letters says - to quote selenak - "Be-happy-Ask-no-questions-tThis-is-liberation-dammit!" Which drains all the meaning from the ending and the entire show.
Re: Well, as I sort of said before...candogirlApril 15 2007, 18:45:29 UTC
This is probably why I try not to find out what the people who make the shows I watch think and feel about their endeavors until they are over. Come to think about it, it's probably why I don't really get involved in fandom too. I like to be able to watch and have my own feelings about it before I find out the writers/actors/directors were mostly stupid.
:)
You're in Germany, yes? If you follow footie, did you see what Michael Ballack did today?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Sorry. I was responding at 3AM so I just misinterpreted what you were saying. I thought you meant TV didn't have to meet any artistic criteria.
He didn't even try. Unless we are to assume he did and 2007 was just so terribly stifling that it was completely impossible to fight for a better life there.
You are right, 2007 got the shaft because the writer wanted him back in 1973. I think they tried to show the struggle in the lack of an anchor for him, though. Sam says to the woman, "It helps to talk about it." but he's only been talking into a tape recorder and the woman he is really speaking to doesn't seem to want him to talk about it any more. His mom basically offers up a platitude. Talking to Annie is what made 1973 real. There was no one talking him out of his delusion in 2006, no one telling him there was a purpose or a point in him being there. No one telling him to believe in and trust the world around him. He is unable to fight without those two things.
how boring would discussions be if ( ... )
Reply
Stupid keyboards ☺
Oh, I never felt it was a happy ending, either! That's the problem! It was so very clearly a tragedy to any rationally thinking person (IMO), yet they *dressed it up* as a happy ending. So many kinds of wrong.
I think the reason for the dichotomy between what was going on and what we as audience members were seeing, is that for Sam it is a happy ending- it is the life he wanted. We are the ones who realize the world is fake, not him.
How the bloody hell can jumping to your death be taking a chance on living? Is it taking the 'better to burn out than to fade away' idea to an absolute extreme? Three seconds of fun and that's it? ;-)… . I may be tragically inflexible or something, but I can't see that as any kind of positive choice 'for' life.
It’s a chance because, imo, Sam doesn’t think he’s going to die. He thinks he is going to live. He is choosing his ( ... )
Reply
I had thought so until 2.07, too, but 2.07 did a very thorough job of showing us that 2007 is really just a cold, grey-blue, lifeless place full of soulless automatons, with the possible exception of his mum. They *could* have portrayed 2007 in a different way; they could have showed us the conflict. They chose not to…there was a lot of love to be felt in the communications from the present that we heard this series, and a palpable sense of loss very often - except in 2.07 where suddenly 2007 is completely dead.I agree wholeheartedly with this. I was expecting someone to show up on that rooftop to try and stop him. They were definitely showing us that someone in 1973 noticed he was on the roof but in 2007 no one did. It wasn’t fair that we didn’t get Maya or more of his mother. I thought it was interesting that his mother inadvertently gives him permission to go. She validates his need to keep his promises instead of telling him that those were promises he made to imaginary people. Annie (who ( ... )
Reply
I don't think she knew what he was talking about. I don't believe he told her about 1973. I'm pretty sure that if he'd actually told her, she would *not* have affirmed his need to keep that promise.
>Annie (who in the end is the wrong person to listen to, she’s quite the villain really)
Heh, glad you agree with me! I've felt from the first there was something sinister about her - she was the one who kept trying to convince him that 1973 was real and that he should stay, after all. Back when we were trying to discover meaning in names people kept identifying her as 'anima', but maybe she's 'annihilation'...
(I actually sort of like the Sam/Annie ship, but I've always felt there was this weird, unhealthy edge to it.)
Reply
Agreed. I meant it was interesting that the writers chose to keep her in the dark. Maybe interesting isn't what I mean. It's more like, I thought it was curious that the ending wasn't balanced between the two worlds. I thought we should have had someone up on that roof trying to stop him (Maya), or that his mom should have been more, "You didn't go somewhere, you were in a coma. You don't owe anyone anything." I was trying to say that I agree they were sloppy with their storytelling there. If there were people telling him to stay, it would have made his struggle more difficult and his decision even darker.
(I actually sort of like the Sam/Annie ship, but I've always felt there was this weird, unhealthy edge to it.)I like Sam/Annie too, but aside from the fact that she repeatedly keeps him in 1973, it's strange to ship Sam/his own mind. ( ... )
Reply
Is reality *that* relative?
Existentially, yes. Actually, even un-existentially the answer is yes. My truth is not your truth. The way I see the world may not be the way you do. People fight and die every day trying to mold the world into what they want it to be. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it is. Even the basic facts of life are disputed- I believe in evolution, but there are people who believe in Adam and Eve and think my belief in dinosaurs is lunacy. A person’s reality is not always true.
Should we cheer on crazy sect members who think that killing themselves will get them picked up by aliens from Sirius, or suicide bombers who think killing dozens alongside themselves will get them straight into paradise, because after all, that's *their* ideal reality, the world they would like to live in, and they're taking a positive step to achieving their goals?Of course not, but this isn’t the real world, it’s a story- it’s an idea, a warning. In real life ( ... )
Reply
Oh, I give up. I don't think I'm ever going to 'get' it. I mean, I totally get that it was Sam's worldview and so on - but that doesn't make it *any* bit less wrong. Ultimately, it comes down to a deep gut-feeling of nausea when I think about the ending, and there's no philosophical spin I can put on it that makes it less nausea-inducing.
Reply
I can only say that in Sam's mind he *does* decide to live in the real world.
At least that's my opinion. I do feel your frustration, I feel immensely sad that he died. The agreement to stay and the turning off of the radio, along with the girl turning off the story is so sad. I wrote in reply to someone else that, "the reason the show is over is because there is no longer someone left to imagine it. Which is sad, because it means that Sam couldn't have the life he wanted either way."
It's very depressing, but I really like it from a story telling perspective.
Reply
Reply
:)
You're in Germany, yes? If you follow footie, did you see what Michael Ballack did today?
Reply
Leave a comment