Life on Mars 2.08

[selenak]

Um. This one really has me in two minds. I can see why most people on lj squeed about the finale, but I'm afraid I'm more with hmpf who articulated in a brilliant post why I think the show took the easy way out, and fell short of what it could have been.



In a comment to hmpf's post, someone uses that Joss Whedon quote which make people either hate or adore The Artist Known As Numfar, about giving the audience not what they want but what they need, and adds that Matthew Graham, on the other hand, gave the audience what they wanted, not what they needed. hmpf called it a fanfiction ending. And that's it. Why I'm simultanously glad and dissappointed. Of course I, along everyone else, am much more invested in the 1973 reality and its people and want Sam to bicker with Gene and drive off in the sunset with his mates etc. - but what I wanted even more from the series finale is something that feels like the end of a quest to me, instead of "2006/7 sucks, 1973 yay!". Reading a Matthew Graham interview where he says he couldn't bear leaving Sam in 2007 just clinched it. Because you should have, mate, you should have. It would have been the harder, more difficult choice; he - and we - would have felt the loss of 1973, but he could have achieved a union of his two worlds, using what he had learned then, and live in the present. What I'd like to have seen as an ending, for example: Sam goes to the Railway Arms in 2007, and there's an old, vaguely familiar man. Of course it's Gene Hunt. And he buys him a pint, and they start to get to know each other again. The end.

I remember Salman Rushdie writing, in his essay about the Wizard of Oz, that he couldn't understand why Dorothy wanted to get back to Kansas. Kansas being so dull and oppressive. Why she didn't stay in Oz. Apparantly, Matthew Graham agreed and decided to let Dorothy stay in Oz forever and ever. In my last review, I also mentioned Normal Again, which is a season 6 of BTVS episode, and sure enough, the LoM follows its pattern - leading character gets told by "doctor" that she/he has to destroy the friend(s) keeping her/him in one reality in order to wake up in another, at first he/she (almost) does, returns to alternate reality, takes his/her leave there for good and then goes back to reality with friends, saving their lives, and stays in that reality for good. But you know the two crucial differences: 1) Normal Again wasn't the series finale, and 2) Buffy actually chose the harsher world. Sunnydale, especially as presented in season 6, was hell on earth at times, it was at that point depression and broken relationships and a lot of work to do. Meanwhile, the other reality offered to her, the one in which she wasn't the Slayer, had her mother (who was dead in the other one) and father restored to her, a loving couple, no crushing responsibilities. The easy one. So Buffy and Sam, despite both going back for their friends, made in fact opposite choices emotionally, and in the way the show presented it.

I like the BTVS version better. Let me put it this way: the LoM finale is fluffy candy to Normal Again's spicy meal that occasionally burns the throat but really nourishes.

Announced spin-off: sounds suspiciously like a remake, only with Sam replaced by a female character so they can play out a romance with Gene. No interest.

On the other hand, I'm looking forward more than ever to seeing John Simm this season on Dr. Who. Never mind what I said about the script, his acting was fabulous.

Comments

[abigail-n.livejournal.com]

I have to say, I find very little consolation in the notion that, in the aftermath of his ordeal, Sam was so miserable and alienated in his real life that he chose suicide, chose to live out his life in a fantasy world, with figments of his own imagination to keep him company, rather than try to make a real life for himself in 2006. Far from consoling, I'd call this ending bleak. I'm especially surprised to learn that Matthew Graham thinks he's done Sam a favor.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

See, the way you describe it is the way I saw it, too, but it's not the way the episode tells it - I think what they're clearly going for is a "Sam stays with his buddies and Annie, together forever, yay!" effect... which jettisons the logic of the narrative in the process.

Have you read the interview? If not, it's here:

http://blogs.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ianwylie/2007/04/life_on_mars_the_answers.html

And well... pity.

[abigail-n.livejournal.com]

I've read the interview, but I have my own reading of the episode that I prefer to Graham's and that is, I think, consistent with what shows up on screen. I think the episode asks us to choose between two endings - either Sam was in a coma in 2006 or he was mad and 2006 was a hallucination. Both are valid readings and neither is absolutely supported.

[faroutgal.livejournal.com]

I was very disappointed because, as you said, Sam chose the easy way out. To live in his catonic state (I hope that's what the end implies, that he's not dead but back at hospital).

He chose the illusion, he couldn't make his real world work. It makes Sam, who I adore, a coward. I think the choice betrays the character, who was presented as a man who was concerned with responsibility and doing the right thing. What happened to all those feelings for his family and for what he had achieved professionally?

I really wanted the ending you described. It would have felt like what was needed (oh Joss Whedon how I miss you).

Very disappointed that I got fanfic (bad fanfic) instead.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I suppose there is always fanfic to fix the fanfic, but still. Oh, the pity of it.

[faroutgal.livejournal.com]

I anxiously await the good fanfic.

It seems that John Simm and others believe that Sam never woke up in the present. Its a nice theory.

But the sequel blasts that notion away since the modern character has read Sam's account, the account he was recording before he went on the roof.

The suicide, therefore, is canon. It's just awful.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

You could think of it as a more of a spin-off than a sequel. As Angel is to Buffy and Torchwood is to DW, the universes don't completely overlap.

[katesutton.livejournal.com]

I did love the end, riding off into the sunset, but if I think at ALL about what it means...I get very upset. Sam killed himself because he didn't feel alive in 2007 and I'm supposed to be happy about that? I was completely open to whatever ending the writers gave me. I could have accepted Sam staying in 1973. But not that way. No.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

I think the problem is we never saw enough of Sam’s life in 2007 to earn his feeling suicidal about it so jumping off that roof did have self-indulgent aftertaste. I like John Simms version that he never woke up and the whole series was the dream of a dying man. To my mind that gives the series a bittersweet edge without being too nihilistic, no quest, no redemption, just a final coming to terms with his memories of the lost intensity of childhood.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I like John Simms version that he never woke up and the whole series was the dream of a dying man.

Hm, I can live with that, too, and you're right, it takes the self indulgent fanfiction-feeling of the ending.

[kathyh]

What I'd like to have seen as an ending, for example: Sam goes to the Railway Arms in 2007, and there's an old, vaguely familiar man.

And that was what I was expecting to see so I'm actually glad they didn't go that route. I found it more interesting that Sam chose his fantasy over reality because he felt more alive there even if he had to kill himself to do it (assuming he woke up at all which I'm not totally sure about). We always have it so drummed in to us that we must face reality that I liked the fact the show stood up for the value of fantasy.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

See, I didn't see it as "standing up for the value of fantasy" but "taking the easy way out", which always is less interesting to me. A matter of perception, perhaps. To make a comparison: Pan's Labyrinth gave us a beautiful if scary fantasy world and a horrible real one. It definitely stood up for the value of fantasy. But it never made me feel like I was reading pat, tipping to bad fanfic; if Ofelia, in the end, is with the fantasy world, we see her loss in the real world, we see Mercedes mourn for her.

If Life on Mars had given us a scene with Sam's mother being told her son committed suicide, and breaking down in horrible grief, perhaps with her sister, and asking "Why, Sam, why", I think it would have felt like balance - bittersweet instead of feel-good-ask-no-questions-this-is-liberation-dammit.

But they didn't want to go there. They wanted us to feel nothing but happy. The easy way out.

[kathyh]

Yes, but I don't think I saw it as unequivocally happy. When Sam jumped off that roof he was going back to rescue his friends, who had rejected him, from almost certain death and could have been killed himself. Yes, the ending appeared eventually to be a happy one but he paid for it with his life and the strongest image I have from the finale is of him jumping.

I haven't seen Pan's Labyrinth yet though it's on my list of films to go to when they turn up at the indie cinema at a time I can actually get to see them!

"feel-good-ask-no-questions-this-is-liberation-dammit"

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

I am *so* going to turn that into an animated icon once I'm back home... with your permission. Icon snark! *g*

The sad thing is, my disgust for the ending is beginning to tinge my feelings for Sam in general, and for the show in general. I'm fighting that really hard, but it's difficult. :-(

Re: "feel-good-ask-no-questions-this-is-liberation-dammit"

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Go ahead, icon away.

*hugs*

That happened to me with Carnivale, but in that case I hated most of the second season, whereas here I did like most of it.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

I think you've talked me round to accepting the ending as broadcast. My reservation at the time was that it was predictable: the solution preferred by several hundred fanfics. But if writers were to go for the morally edifying solution every time, that would be the predictable one, and I would be irritated, because I'm a big girl and I don't need television to tell me how to come to terms with my life.

That doesn't mean that I dislike the dramas where the protagonist chooses to struggle on; it can be a very good ending. It means I want suspense as the protagonist approaches the decision - for the choice to matter - and the writer to come down in favour of whatever he or she feels is true to the story. I do not want (for instance) a convincingly tragic ending, in which a devoted family man suffers the anguish of being separated from his wife and children for ever, rewritten because the actor is afraid some viewers may think it's a negative message about absent Afro-American fathers.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

It means I want suspense as the protagonist approaches the decision - for the choice to matter


But see, the problem is that they never gave us suspense. Or even a difficulty for Sam to make that choice. Because 2007 was presented as unrelentingly disconnected and not worth living in. Which is one of many reasons why I admire Normal Again - the alternative was presented with genuine advantages, not as something we could easily see our protagonist decline.

Also? As I said to Kathy above: If Life on Mars had given us a scene with Sam's mother being told her son committed suicide, and breaking down in horrible grief, perhaps with her sister, and asking "Why, Sam, why", I think it would have felt like balance - bittersweet instead of feel-good-ask-no-questions-this-is-liberation-dammit.

But they didn't want to go there. They didn't want us to think about Sam's mother, or any other people who care about him in 2007. They wanted us to feel nothing but happy. The easy way out.

I do not want (for instance) a convincingly tragic ending, in which a devoted family man suffers the anguish of being separated from his wife and children for ever, rewritten because the actor is afraid some viewers may think it's a negative message about absent Afro-American fathers.

*g* Ah, the DS9 ending... yes, that one is problematic as well, though I tend to rant more about the stupid fisticuffs...

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

But see, the problem is that they never gave us suspense.

I think if the suspense was lost it happened in episode six, which was clearly written to resolve his relationship with Maya and to clear the way for his relationship with Annie. That's the one I'd have rewritten: I'd have preferred him to be on the point of committing to Annie when he starts hearing Maya, which renews his hope of returning home and pulls him back from Annie, making her bewildered and angry.

I haven't seen Normal Again (somehow I never could get into Buffy), and I'm sure it was an excellent episode, but I don't see how there could have been genuine suspense if it occurred mid-season; if Buffy had accepted a normal life, wouldn't the show have come to a stop? It's only in a finale, particularly in the last season finale, that you've got carte blanche.

Re Ruth Tyler: I thought there were many missing scenes, but that one would have broken the rule of the entire story being seen from Sam's PoV. They could have broken the rule, in order to prove that 2006 was reality, but I'm glad they didn't; whatever Matthew Graham says, I think the final episode left the possibilities open. And... I didn't think we needed Ruth's reaction spelled out to us. She's been present in Sam's mind throughout the story, we've just seen her with him, of course she's going to be heartbroken. The scene that's missing isn't her reaction, it's Sam's regret that he has to leave her.

In my DS9 ending, there are no stupid fisticuffs. The loss of his family is integral to saving the galaxy.

[wemblee.livejournal.com]

This is going to be an incredibly annoying comment, so I apologize in advance:

I've only watched the pilot, and couldn't quite get into the show (felt a little too bleak for me; I'm hooked on BSG and that's all the bleak I can handle), but I did think it was fascinating, and I was interested enough in the premise/mystery/etc. that I read people's spoilery recaps and reactions to the finale, as well as the Matthew Graham interview and the press release on the spin-off.

So, that said: If 1973 isn't real and Sam's dead... does that mean... everyone there is dead? And it's the afterlife? Or is it all in his head and if so, how does the spin-off work, if Sam isn't there? Does that mean that the poor woman in the spin-off is going to have to die if she wants to consumate this "Moonlighting"-esque relationship they're planning for her and Gene?

I'm confused.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Actually, I guess we're meant to assume that 1973 is real and Sam literary jumps there both during the original coma incident and later when he commits suicide.... but I could be wrong.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

As I understand Matthew Graham's comments, he believes that the entire story between the original accident and Sam's wakening in Hyde 2612 was the fantasy of a man in a coma, and by implication 1973 wasn't real; Sam committed suicide because he preferred his fantasy to reality.

Others, including John Simm, believe that Sam remained in a coma from which he never woke, and only dreamed that he did; his apparent return to the present was merely an interlude in which he decided how to act in 1973.

That works within the framework of the series, but is apparently undermined by our knowledge of Ashes to Ashes, in which we are told that Alex will have read the account Sam left after waking from his coma. I knew it wouldn't take long for a fan to come up with a solution to that, and somebody has: Sam does wake up, returns to work, and composes his account, but Frank Morgan was wrong. The tumour isn't benign, Sam collapses during the meeting on ethical policing, and everything from the moment he realises he can't feel the cut is back in coma-dream-land.

I thought that nearly all the episodes pushed the coma explanation very hard, with occasional nods to madness (I wish they'd done more with that) and virtually nothing on time-travel, but I believe that the final episode opened up all possibilities again and (pace the spin-off) offered no final solution.

[bitterbyrden.livejournal.com]

I've just re-read this now that I've seen the finale. I appreciate and agree with your comparison to (and the contrast between) Normal Again. How I choose to see it is that Sam never really came back to 2007 (as evidenced by the fact that he couldn't/wouldn't/didn't feel). I like the idea that however it happened, that he really WAS back in the '70s, that whatever happened in 2006 really did knock him back in time, where he found that life was neither harder or easier... it was just life. But he felt something, whereas his feeling life ended in 2006 when he was hit by a car.

I loved the series, so this really didn't ruin it for me. I'm glad they didn't just end it at the rooftop jump, because that would have been a little like ending Buffy at S5. I believe Sam's leap was metaphorical and his life in 1973 was literal, at that point.

Very interesting series, though! I'm so sad for the lack of truly innovative TV coming out of the States. So much of what we make is just derivative, manipulative cud. So, I fear for the "remake"/spin-off/whatever. The real draw of this show was the originality of the premise.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Definitely an interesting and inovative show, and with great actors. I can live with Sam never having made it back and 2007 being a dream/hallucination, but then where did Frank Morgan go off to, and all the problems he brought? Is Gene no longer under investigation? Etc.

...ah, well. Perhaps with a little more distance I'll make my peace with the finale...

[frankymole.livejournal.com]

"Because you should have, mate, you should have. It would have been the harder, more difficult choice"

Yes - but then I would hjave been denied posts like this, which are more rewarding even than the series...

Maybe the talking-point is "what it's for" in the final equation. :)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Anything that makes you think, that's true....

[jazzymegster.livejournal.com]

Hey, ruuger referred me here, so I hope you don't mind me making a comment?

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say - I especially like the comparison to Normal Again - I loved that episode, thought it was great, and now, on reflection, am happy that Buffy chose the harsher world in which to continue her existence. As you say, and I noticed for myself, Sam's choice is a cop-out. So 2007 is shit and he can't cope. What does he do? He commits suicide (it's the thing that makes me most angry about the final episode - I've been meaning to write something about it for a year now, but can't because I can't stomach rewatching the final ep to see why it makes me so angry). I hate that the suicide is glorified in such a manner. That is emphatically not A Cool Thing To Do.

I like your ending much better :). If only they'd had the guts to go with that kind of thing, huh?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

It's been a year, but I haven't changed my mind on this - yes, I still think it was a cop-out. And a real pity, because it was a good show, but I'll never reconcile myself to the ending.

[jazzymegster.livejournal.com]

*nodnod* I know exactly what you mean. And it makes me so furious when people bounce about saying how awesome Ashes to Ashes is when it's come from the cop-out ending of LoM and has no actual reason to exist.