![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatThe season finale of Being Human surprised me. Better than I expected. [I state this while half-watching a cringe-worthy episode of Brothers and Sisters - which is so being canceled after this episode it isn't even funny. Cliche after cliche after cliche. Ugh. Example of when melodrama does not work. And before you state you never watch melodrama...if you watched Whedon and love Whedon - you watched melodrama. *cough*Amends*cough* and ahem, Hole in the World? There just happens to be "good" melodrama and really bad cliche ridden melodrama.]
Being Human, and I probably should mention just so there's no confusion - I'm referring to the British series not the Syfy remake. If you don't like the Brit series, it's highly unlikely you will like the Syfy version - if you do like the Brit series, the Syfy version will irritate you. It irritated me. So why bother? I tried watching the pilot for 20 minutes and gave up. Yes, it was that bad. And I watch a lot of cringeworthy tv, so I know whereof I speak. Once again we got a remake that has all the flaws but none of the strengths of the original. This is not always the case by the way - AMC remade a Norweigian mystery series entitled The Killing which is actually pretty good.
The British version while definitely flawed - has some fine dramatic moments that stick with you long after it is over. It also manages to do something that I haven't seen an American series do and I'm willing to bet the remake won't attempt. American television writers tend to be wimps - in part because they are so dependent on advertising dollars. It's not that they don't take risks, on occasion, but rarely to the degree Being Human did. Whedon certainly never did. Sure he killed off his leads, but only to bring them back the next season somewhat shaken, maybe a little nutty, but overall intact. That's not risk, folks, that's a cliche. Soap operas, comic books, and gothic horror serials have been doing that for the past twenty years. I should know, I've certainly watched and read enough of them.
This whole season of Being Human actually had moments that stick with you. And unlike most series in its genre, actually does examine the difficult question of what is unforgivable act and the degree to which we have choices regarding it, how we handle the consequences, do we forgive the person, is the person redeemable, and what addiction means. Or ...as I asked a few weeks ago, in this journal - "when does the drunk driver stop driving drunk and begin to take responsibility for his or her actions? And even more important - when does forgiving them over and over again become enabling and not well merely providing a chance for redemption?"
It's very hard to write this review without comparing to Angel, and the missed opportunities. But I will try.;-)
From the very beginning of the season - Lia, one of the passengers on the Box Tunnel Car that Mitchell massacred with his pal Daisy (whom we're told in another episode was killed by Graheam McNair), tells Mitchell that he is doomed to be killed by a werewolf - a wolf shaped bullet. Later in the finale, she confesses to Annie in purgatory that she really doesn't have prophetic powers, or control over what happens or doesn't happen. She merely told Mitchell something, planted a seed in his head, and it became over time a self-fulling prophecy. Mitchell so desperately wanted to be punished, that he grabbed Lia's suggestion as the ultimate form of punishment. What better way - than to be killed by a werewolf - the same way Herrick was killed in the first season.
But as Lia relates to Annie, it didn't quite work the way she'd hoped. She meant it to drive a wedge between Mitchell, Nina and George - but instead he became obsessed with McNair and Tom. Who - don't really kill anyone, except the Herrick look-alike. There's a Mitchell look-a-like and a Herrick - both foreshadowing. And both weak versions of the originals. Play-acting. And Mitchell ends up killing both or aiding in the death of both.
The plot is flawed in places and there are bits and pieces that don't quite hold together. But this genre isn't known for its flawless plotting. So, I sort of give it a pass.
One of the flaws is how Lia is holding Annie in Purgatory and how she got her there to begin with. Like some avenging angel or spirit. But it is certainly convenient and provides the writer with an excellent opportunity to discuss the topic of revenge. A topic that has been explored in previous episodes. And, I rather like the exchange and adore the actress who plays Annie's understated performance. But, I'm not sure it totally works from a plot standpoint or is necessary. I would have preferred that Lia be left out of this episode. But driving home the fact that everything that happens - Mitchell himself propels into motion - may be important. It underlines the overall theme that we are responsible for our own path in life, our own fate. There's no such thing as destiny.
This was a theme that was also explored in Angel and to a degree in Buffy, but never fully enough to be truly satisfying. I always felt the writer chickening out at the last second. Flirting with the topic, then quickly shying away. Like a tease. Over time it began to irritate me. No more so than in the comics - an arena where I'd hoped the writer would be free to examine it without the restraint of having to please networks and advertisers. But instead, he shies away again.
Angel like Mitchell like most Addicts, is a pathological liar, lying to no one more than himself. Wishing to believe he has a higher purpose that he is destiny's child. That his path is shaped by a power greater than himself. Mitchell feels the same way - it takes the responsibility away from him. He's so afraid of the wolf-shaped bullet, so intent in avoiding the "prophecy" that he brings it to pass, just as Angel brings every prophecy he reads to pass. They become "self-fulfilling" prophecies. Lia laughs when Annie brings it up - I made it up. I wanted him to believe it. I came up with the worst thing I could think of - to torture him and then let him run with it. Mitchell is his own worst enemy.
Revenge...is what turns Herrick from the harmless monster in the attic, a ticking and at times cruel time-bomb, to a major threat. Graheam McNair who has made his life about revenge finds Herrick, and ends up dying as a result. In a letter to his son - he asks that the boy not avenge his death, let it go. Do not go down the path I have. Be human instead. This in turn - sets up Herrick's final arc. He kills the DCI Nancy - who Mitchell kept sending up to Herrick's room, kept tempting him with - in hopes of getting Herrick to reveal his secret.
As Herrick states to Mitchell - "you make me dizzy, I've no idea whose side you are on? One moment you are done with the vampires and for the humans, next killing the humans on a wild spree, then the next with them again, then you are feeding me DCI's...what's your game? I don't trust what you tell me - you'll say anything to get out of this cage."
Mitchell responds, as Annie watches on a close circuit television set in purgatory - "Now, you finally get it. It's taken 90 years for you to figure it out. I'll do or say anything to survive. I'm opportunistic. I go with what works best for me at the time. And will use anyone or anything to make it work to my advantage." Like most addicts do. Whatever will get me that drug, that drink, that kick.
And Annie turns to Lia and asks why she's still here? To torture Mitchell? Mitchell certainly won't grieve her loss that much. Not this Mitchell. Not the one they are watching. And what about George and Nina. Do we wait here for Nina, and become three murdered girls chatting in purgatory on child's bed in a room filed with toys? Revenge and Grief are holes that you get lost in, you can become addicted to them. But ...what is gained? Are you happy now? Did it work out the way you wanted it to or expected? Lia shakes her head. Revenge she states isn't what it was cracked up to be, who knew? She wanted justice, something big and bad and powerful...but, it felt empty at the end of the day. Reminds me a little of Anyanka in Whedon's Buffy, who more or less gives the same speech.
No, Mitchell's the main attraction here and the final act is about to play itself out. They don't kill Nina off as expected. American television series would have. Whedon certainly did. The old cliche - let's kill off the beloved girlfriend of the lead character's best friend, so said best friend will hate him forever. Or something to that effect. I rather expected that to happen here. Really pleased it didn't, since Nina is my favorite character. No, instead, they do something entirely different.
Mitchell first, kills Herrick. And before he does, they have a rather intriguing little exchange. Herrick finally tells Mitchell how he survived - that the only reason he survived George's attack was his was taken off. If George had staked him - that would have been a different story. No coming back from that. It's an important set-up, the writer makes it clear to the audience that when a vampire is staked he is gone for good and to drive it home shows us more than one vampire killed in this method this season. You sort of have to do this in Supernatural Fantasy serials - because otherwise the audience won't believe you when you kill people off. They'll think, oh come on, that character will pop up alive next season unless you make crystal clear they can't. Mitchell has taken Herrick to see the sunset. And it is a glorious sunset. Herrick stares at it and thanks him, stating :"Just think, soon, all of this will be ours!" To which, Mitchell responds shortly before he stakes Herrick, ending his existence for good - "It always was."
Then Mitchell goes, hat in hand so to speak, to beg George to end his life. Not forgive him. Kill him. This results in a repeat of the debate three episodes earlier regarding whether they should kill Herrick. Except now, they know the consequences of keeping someone like Mitchell or Herrick alive - and the chances these characters can be redeemed. "Vampires," Annie states, "they are like bacteria...". She loved Mitchell, but she doesn't love what he is.
"I'll kill again," Mitchell states. "It will find a way, sooner or later. Or someone will use me, push me to kill, it will happen. You know that."
But they don't want to be the one's to do it. "Why me?" asks George.
"Because, it has to be you - it's your journey. You enabled me. Your complicit in my acts. I've corrupted you. This is your redemption."
Nina wants to stop it. Because she doesn't want to live with George's guilt. But they discuss it and go around and around in the same circle. It's not our problem. We'll let him go and just never see him again. We'll ignore him. Maybe he will change - although we know he can't. We can't take that risk. What if he kills again? Is that on us? That we could have stopped it? Are we to blame for every time he kills someone? Did we enable it? What do we do?
It's not really a question of forgiveness. You can't forgive someone - that well can't stop repeating the crime and while remorseful, never takes action to stop. Says whatever is necessary to keep on trucking. It's not hard to say I'm sorry, it is hard to mean it. That was always my problem with Angel. I never got the feeling he meant it. He didn't search for a way to keep his soul intact. And when it got removed, he was quite pleased to go back to his killing ways. Nor did the soul truly prevent him from killing or from following whatever higher power came along and asked him to do its bidding, in exchange for having a destiney. He saw himself as the lead figure, the most important player - much as Mitchell does. It's all about me. Protagonist privilege. But unlike Being Human, the protagonist privilege remains intact - Angel gets away with murder, gets forgiven, gets a chance to fight another day. He really never pays for what he's done. Instead everyone around him does - Wes, Cordelia, Fred and Gunn all get corrupted and all die by story's end, the only one's not killed are Spike, his vampire with a soul comrade in arms and Connor, the erstwhile son with super-powers.
Shift to Being Human - which does a completely different tact, making me wonder if this is a cultural difference? In Being Human - the head-honcho pops up. Wyndman (the name made me laugh, because I immediately wondered if it was a shout out to Angel's Wesley Wyndam-Price, maybe they are related?) - a thousand year vampire who fires everyone at the police headquarters for not doing their jobs regarding the Box Tunnel killer. Then neatly sets someone else up for the crime - not a vampire this round. Because vampires can't be caught. Next stop is our comrades little home, where Wyndman tells them that he's the boss now. Mitchell is going to be his attack dog, he'll keep Nina around to see what pops out of her belly, George around to keep Mitchell in line - if he steps out, he kills George, and Annie - because she has more power than she knows and well Mitchell cares about her. Wyndam shows up in the nick of time - because Mitchell and George were having this long-drawn out angst-filled moment of mutual matyrdom. So, I'm thinking - typical, next season is going to be about everyone angsting over Mitchell being the new bad-guys henchman. But, this is not what happened. That's what would have happened if we were watching Angel, actually it was what happened on Angel more or less. And it certainly is what would have happened on Forever Knight, Moonlight, Vampire Diaries, etc. Well either that, or they'd have killed the bad guy and saved Mitchell. But...that's not what happened.
Wyndam: "Vampires are now in charge. Vampires finally rule!"
George pulls a stake.
Wyndam: "George, really???" Thinking that George is going to do something stupid and try to stake him, a 1000 year old vampire.
Instead George turns around and shocks Wyndam and everyone else, by staking, Mitchell. Mitchell with a half-smile crumbles to ash at his feet. Then Mitchell turns to Wyndam and says, with Nina and Annie flanking him - "bring it on."
This surprised me. An American writer would have killed off Nina or maybe George, but never the sexy Mitchell. And not in a way that you can't bring him back. He's not coming back by the way. The writers made sure to hammer that home. That was the whole point of the Herrick/Mitchell scene - it set the stage for Mitchell's death - which also was not set up as redemptive. Mitchell didn't kill himself, he made George do it. All Mitchell did was stop fighting.
(Don't worry about the actor - he's off playing one of the Dwarves in the Hobbit, which may explain why they killed off his character. Unavailability. Although I'm guessing he got cast after they killed him off not before?)
Mitchell's death is a satisfying conclusion to his arc. My difficulty with redemptive story arcs involving brooding vampires is well, they are vampires. We aren't talking about a human being here who is definitely going to die at some point. We are talking about a vampire who feeds off life, is living death - their whole purpose is to feed off the living. The only way they can redeem themselves is to die. To end their life for the good of the living. Granted you could have them just be addicts trying to refrain from drinking human blood - but they still have to drink blood.
The only vampire redemptive tale that I found interesting or halfway convincing was Spike's in Buffy - and I'll tell you why - it's because it played with the idea of behavior modification in all its forms. It really wasn't JUST an addiction story or a redemptive story, so much as a psychological and philosophical deconstruction of a monster. I personally find that fascinating. As well as an examination of the tricky emotions surrounding it. Plus, it helped a great deal that Spike was witty. Brooding vampires aren't witty. It's apparently a rule somewhere that if you brood you can't be witty. Because Spike wasn't the "protagonist" or lead character - the writers took more risks with his character, played with him more, and did not just flirt or tease then shy away. As a result, he remains the most interesting of the vampire characters and the least cliche.
Mitchell - unlike Spike or Angel - actually dies. The ghosts that haunt Mitchell are not comical or one-dimensional representations of the First Evil. Their vengeance and calls for justice rendered in black and white terms. Lia is a full-fledged and human. Her desire for justice, for vengeance not a reflection of evil, so much as a
reflection of her pain, grief and suffering.
It's not so simple.
And Mitchell's need to end his cravings, his constant pursuit of blood, and his knowledge that no matter what happens, somehow, someway, the monster inside will find a way out - is equally not turned into a pathetic cry for suicide or matyrdom. When people state - well yes Mitchell, or Spike or Angel should be redeemed. Everyone should be redeemed. I think, well no, you just want them to continue because you enjoy the character - completely get that. But we are talking about 100+ year old vampires here. Monsters who kill because that's what they do, like bacteria or a virus on humanity - as Annie states. Angel lived 247 years and he's still causing mayhem, he's still killing lots of people. Kill him already. The time for redemption is long past. How many times are we going to forgive him, how many chances does he get, until well, we start having to figure out a way to forgive ourselves for enabling him to continue doing what he does? When does forgiveness turn into another way of looking away, ignoring, enabling what occurs?
That's the question Being Human asks - where do you draw that line, between enabling and forgiveness? George, Nina, and Annie ask it - first with Herrick - who Nina prevents Mitchell from killing, much to her own chagrin. And then latter with Mitchell. "We know he'll kill again," Annie states. "If we let him go...we can't guarantee he won't." He's certainly proven that he will. Whether as someone else's puppet or of his own free will or merely to get revenge. How many times can you let a drunk driver drive drunk before you put a stop to it? Or a serial killer take a life, before you scream stop? And then take measures to ensure it doesn't happen again?
I rather like this ending. I like how it opens up the series, changes the dynamic. It was a satisfying ending. And those are few and far between. I'd hasten to add, it may well be the most satisfying ending that I've seen to a series in quite some time.
Being Human, and I probably should mention just so there's no confusion - I'm referring to the British series not the Syfy remake. If you don't like the Brit series, it's highly unlikely you will like the Syfy version - if you do like the Brit series, the Syfy version will irritate you. It irritated me. So why bother? I tried watching the pilot for 20 minutes and gave up. Yes, it was that bad. And I watch a lot of cringeworthy tv, so I know whereof I speak. Once again we got a remake that has all the flaws but none of the strengths of the original. This is not always the case by the way - AMC remade a Norweigian mystery series entitled The Killing which is actually pretty good.
The British version while definitely flawed - has some fine dramatic moments that stick with you long after it is over. It also manages to do something that I haven't seen an American series do and I'm willing to bet the remake won't attempt. American television writers tend to be wimps - in part because they are so dependent on advertising dollars. It's not that they don't take risks, on occasion, but rarely to the degree Being Human did. Whedon certainly never did. Sure he killed off his leads, but only to bring them back the next season somewhat shaken, maybe a little nutty, but overall intact. That's not risk, folks, that's a cliche. Soap operas, comic books, and gothic horror serials have been doing that for the past twenty years. I should know, I've certainly watched and read enough of them.
This whole season of Being Human actually had moments that stick with you. And unlike most series in its genre, actually does examine the difficult question of what is unforgivable act and the degree to which we have choices regarding it, how we handle the consequences, do we forgive the person, is the person redeemable, and what addiction means. Or ...as I asked a few weeks ago, in this journal - "when does the drunk driver stop driving drunk and begin to take responsibility for his or her actions? And even more important - when does forgiving them over and over again become enabling and not well merely providing a chance for redemption?"
It's very hard to write this review without comparing to Angel, and the missed opportunities. But I will try.;-)
From the very beginning of the season - Lia, one of the passengers on the Box Tunnel Car that Mitchell massacred with his pal Daisy (whom we're told in another episode was killed by Graheam McNair), tells Mitchell that he is doomed to be killed by a werewolf - a wolf shaped bullet. Later in the finale, she confesses to Annie in purgatory that she really doesn't have prophetic powers, or control over what happens or doesn't happen. She merely told Mitchell something, planted a seed in his head, and it became over time a self-fulling prophecy. Mitchell so desperately wanted to be punished, that he grabbed Lia's suggestion as the ultimate form of punishment. What better way - than to be killed by a werewolf - the same way Herrick was killed in the first season.
But as Lia relates to Annie, it didn't quite work the way she'd hoped. She meant it to drive a wedge between Mitchell, Nina and George - but instead he became obsessed with McNair and Tom. Who - don't really kill anyone, except the Herrick look-alike. There's a Mitchell look-a-like and a Herrick - both foreshadowing. And both weak versions of the originals. Play-acting. And Mitchell ends up killing both or aiding in the death of both.
The plot is flawed in places and there are bits and pieces that don't quite hold together. But this genre isn't known for its flawless plotting. So, I sort of give it a pass.
One of the flaws is how Lia is holding Annie in Purgatory and how she got her there to begin with. Like some avenging angel or spirit. But it is certainly convenient and provides the writer with an excellent opportunity to discuss the topic of revenge. A topic that has been explored in previous episodes. And, I rather like the exchange and adore the actress who plays Annie's understated performance. But, I'm not sure it totally works from a plot standpoint or is necessary. I would have preferred that Lia be left out of this episode. But driving home the fact that everything that happens - Mitchell himself propels into motion - may be important. It underlines the overall theme that we are responsible for our own path in life, our own fate. There's no such thing as destiny.
This was a theme that was also explored in Angel and to a degree in Buffy, but never fully enough to be truly satisfying. I always felt the writer chickening out at the last second. Flirting with the topic, then quickly shying away. Like a tease. Over time it began to irritate me. No more so than in the comics - an arena where I'd hoped the writer would be free to examine it without the restraint of having to please networks and advertisers. But instead, he shies away again.
Angel like Mitchell like most Addicts, is a pathological liar, lying to no one more than himself. Wishing to believe he has a higher purpose that he is destiny's child. That his path is shaped by a power greater than himself. Mitchell feels the same way - it takes the responsibility away from him. He's so afraid of the wolf-shaped bullet, so intent in avoiding the "prophecy" that he brings it to pass, just as Angel brings every prophecy he reads to pass. They become "self-fulfilling" prophecies. Lia laughs when Annie brings it up - I made it up. I wanted him to believe it. I came up with the worst thing I could think of - to torture him and then let him run with it. Mitchell is his own worst enemy.
Revenge...is what turns Herrick from the harmless monster in the attic, a ticking and at times cruel time-bomb, to a major threat. Graheam McNair who has made his life about revenge finds Herrick, and ends up dying as a result. In a letter to his son - he asks that the boy not avenge his death, let it go. Do not go down the path I have. Be human instead. This in turn - sets up Herrick's final arc. He kills the DCI Nancy - who Mitchell kept sending up to Herrick's room, kept tempting him with - in hopes of getting Herrick to reveal his secret.
As Herrick states to Mitchell - "you make me dizzy, I've no idea whose side you are on? One moment you are done with the vampires and for the humans, next killing the humans on a wild spree, then the next with them again, then you are feeding me DCI's...what's your game? I don't trust what you tell me - you'll say anything to get out of this cage."
Mitchell responds, as Annie watches on a close circuit television set in purgatory - "Now, you finally get it. It's taken 90 years for you to figure it out. I'll do or say anything to survive. I'm opportunistic. I go with what works best for me at the time. And will use anyone or anything to make it work to my advantage." Like most addicts do. Whatever will get me that drug, that drink, that kick.
And Annie turns to Lia and asks why she's still here? To torture Mitchell? Mitchell certainly won't grieve her loss that much. Not this Mitchell. Not the one they are watching. And what about George and Nina. Do we wait here for Nina, and become three murdered girls chatting in purgatory on child's bed in a room filed with toys? Revenge and Grief are holes that you get lost in, you can become addicted to them. But ...what is gained? Are you happy now? Did it work out the way you wanted it to or expected? Lia shakes her head. Revenge she states isn't what it was cracked up to be, who knew? She wanted justice, something big and bad and powerful...but, it felt empty at the end of the day. Reminds me a little of Anyanka in Whedon's Buffy, who more or less gives the same speech.
No, Mitchell's the main attraction here and the final act is about to play itself out. They don't kill Nina off as expected. American television series would have. Whedon certainly did. The old cliche - let's kill off the beloved girlfriend of the lead character's best friend, so said best friend will hate him forever. Or something to that effect. I rather expected that to happen here. Really pleased it didn't, since Nina is my favorite character. No, instead, they do something entirely different.
Mitchell first, kills Herrick. And before he does, they have a rather intriguing little exchange. Herrick finally tells Mitchell how he survived - that the only reason he survived George's attack was his was taken off. If George had staked him - that would have been a different story. No coming back from that. It's an important set-up, the writer makes it clear to the audience that when a vampire is staked he is gone for good and to drive it home shows us more than one vampire killed in this method this season. You sort of have to do this in Supernatural Fantasy serials - because otherwise the audience won't believe you when you kill people off. They'll think, oh come on, that character will pop up alive next season unless you make crystal clear they can't. Mitchell has taken Herrick to see the sunset. And it is a glorious sunset. Herrick stares at it and thanks him, stating :"Just think, soon, all of this will be ours!" To which, Mitchell responds shortly before he stakes Herrick, ending his existence for good - "It always was."
Then Mitchell goes, hat in hand so to speak, to beg George to end his life. Not forgive him. Kill him. This results in a repeat of the debate three episodes earlier regarding whether they should kill Herrick. Except now, they know the consequences of keeping someone like Mitchell or Herrick alive - and the chances these characters can be redeemed. "Vampires," Annie states, "they are like bacteria...". She loved Mitchell, but she doesn't love what he is.
"I'll kill again," Mitchell states. "It will find a way, sooner or later. Or someone will use me, push me to kill, it will happen. You know that."
But they don't want to be the one's to do it. "Why me?" asks George.
"Because, it has to be you - it's your journey. You enabled me. Your complicit in my acts. I've corrupted you. This is your redemption."
Nina wants to stop it. Because she doesn't want to live with George's guilt. But they discuss it and go around and around in the same circle. It's not our problem. We'll let him go and just never see him again. We'll ignore him. Maybe he will change - although we know he can't. We can't take that risk. What if he kills again? Is that on us? That we could have stopped it? Are we to blame for every time he kills someone? Did we enable it? What do we do?
It's not really a question of forgiveness. You can't forgive someone - that well can't stop repeating the crime and while remorseful, never takes action to stop. Says whatever is necessary to keep on trucking. It's not hard to say I'm sorry, it is hard to mean it. That was always my problem with Angel. I never got the feeling he meant it. He didn't search for a way to keep his soul intact. And when it got removed, he was quite pleased to go back to his killing ways. Nor did the soul truly prevent him from killing or from following whatever higher power came along and asked him to do its bidding, in exchange for having a destiney. He saw himself as the lead figure, the most important player - much as Mitchell does. It's all about me. Protagonist privilege. But unlike Being Human, the protagonist privilege remains intact - Angel gets away with murder, gets forgiven, gets a chance to fight another day. He really never pays for what he's done. Instead everyone around him does - Wes, Cordelia, Fred and Gunn all get corrupted and all die by story's end, the only one's not killed are Spike, his vampire with a soul comrade in arms and Connor, the erstwhile son with super-powers.
Shift to Being Human - which does a completely different tact, making me wonder if this is a cultural difference? In Being Human - the head-honcho pops up. Wyndman (the name made me laugh, because I immediately wondered if it was a shout out to Angel's Wesley Wyndam-Price, maybe they are related?) - a thousand year vampire who fires everyone at the police headquarters for not doing their jobs regarding the Box Tunnel killer. Then neatly sets someone else up for the crime - not a vampire this round. Because vampires can't be caught. Next stop is our comrades little home, where Wyndman tells them that he's the boss now. Mitchell is going to be his attack dog, he'll keep Nina around to see what pops out of her belly, George around to keep Mitchell in line - if he steps out, he kills George, and Annie - because she has more power than she knows and well Mitchell cares about her. Wyndam shows up in the nick of time - because Mitchell and George were having this long-drawn out angst-filled moment of mutual matyrdom. So, I'm thinking - typical, next season is going to be about everyone angsting over Mitchell being the new bad-guys henchman. But, this is not what happened. That's what would have happened if we were watching Angel, actually it was what happened on Angel more or less. And it certainly is what would have happened on Forever Knight, Moonlight, Vampire Diaries, etc. Well either that, or they'd have killed the bad guy and saved Mitchell. But...that's not what happened.
Wyndam: "Vampires are now in charge. Vampires finally rule!"
George pulls a stake.
Wyndam: "George, really???" Thinking that George is going to do something stupid and try to stake him, a 1000 year old vampire.
Instead George turns around and shocks Wyndam and everyone else, by staking, Mitchell. Mitchell with a half-smile crumbles to ash at his feet. Then Mitchell turns to Wyndam and says, with Nina and Annie flanking him - "bring it on."
This surprised me. An American writer would have killed off Nina or maybe George, but never the sexy Mitchell. And not in a way that you can't bring him back. He's not coming back by the way. The writers made sure to hammer that home. That was the whole point of the Herrick/Mitchell scene - it set the stage for Mitchell's death - which also was not set up as redemptive. Mitchell didn't kill himself, he made George do it. All Mitchell did was stop fighting.
(Don't worry about the actor - he's off playing one of the Dwarves in the Hobbit, which may explain why they killed off his character. Unavailability. Although I'm guessing he got cast after they killed him off not before?)
Mitchell's death is a satisfying conclusion to his arc. My difficulty with redemptive story arcs involving brooding vampires is well, they are vampires. We aren't talking about a human being here who is definitely going to die at some point. We are talking about a vampire who feeds off life, is living death - their whole purpose is to feed off the living. The only way they can redeem themselves is to die. To end their life for the good of the living. Granted you could have them just be addicts trying to refrain from drinking human blood - but they still have to drink blood.
The only vampire redemptive tale that I found interesting or halfway convincing was Spike's in Buffy - and I'll tell you why - it's because it played with the idea of behavior modification in all its forms. It really wasn't JUST an addiction story or a redemptive story, so much as a psychological and philosophical deconstruction of a monster. I personally find that fascinating. As well as an examination of the tricky emotions surrounding it. Plus, it helped a great deal that Spike was witty. Brooding vampires aren't witty. It's apparently a rule somewhere that if you brood you can't be witty. Because Spike wasn't the "protagonist" or lead character - the writers took more risks with his character, played with him more, and did not just flirt or tease then shy away. As a result, he remains the most interesting of the vampire characters and the least cliche.
Mitchell - unlike Spike or Angel - actually dies. The ghosts that haunt Mitchell are not comical or one-dimensional representations of the First Evil. Their vengeance and calls for justice rendered in black and white terms. Lia is a full-fledged and human. Her desire for justice, for vengeance not a reflection of evil, so much as a
reflection of her pain, grief and suffering.
It's not so simple.
And Mitchell's need to end his cravings, his constant pursuit of blood, and his knowledge that no matter what happens, somehow, someway, the monster inside will find a way out - is equally not turned into a pathetic cry for suicide or matyrdom. When people state - well yes Mitchell, or Spike or Angel should be redeemed. Everyone should be redeemed. I think, well no, you just want them to continue because you enjoy the character - completely get that. But we are talking about 100+ year old vampires here. Monsters who kill because that's what they do, like bacteria or a virus on humanity - as Annie states. Angel lived 247 years and he's still causing mayhem, he's still killing lots of people. Kill him already. The time for redemption is long past. How many times are we going to forgive him, how many chances does he get, until well, we start having to figure out a way to forgive ourselves for enabling him to continue doing what he does? When does forgiveness turn into another way of looking away, ignoring, enabling what occurs?
That's the question Being Human asks - where do you draw that line, between enabling and forgiveness? George, Nina, and Annie ask it - first with Herrick - who Nina prevents Mitchell from killing, much to her own chagrin. And then latter with Mitchell. "We know he'll kill again," Annie states. "If we let him go...we can't guarantee he won't." He's certainly proven that he will. Whether as someone else's puppet or of his own free will or merely to get revenge. How many times can you let a drunk driver drive drunk before you put a stop to it? Or a serial killer take a life, before you scream stop? And then take measures to ensure it doesn't happen again?
I rather like this ending. I like how it opens up the series, changes the dynamic. It was a satisfying ending. And those are few and far between. I'd hasten to add, it may well be the most satisfying ending that I've seen to a series in quite some time.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-04-12 05:04 pm (UTC)Wonder if it's doing well? The Brit version has a cult following in the US and garnered BBCAmerica high ratings - so high, it helped get the series renewed in Britian. That's probably why Syfy tried to remake it.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-12 05:19 pm (UTC)Heck no! :)
I was just bored the othernight and watched the rerun of the season finale... and they destroyed everything!
I really have issues with the changes they made and why I suspect they made them.
It's been renewed for a second season though and I saw on someone's LJ the other day that it basically nearly doubled Stargate Universe's numbers, so I suspect given the SyFy expectations measure, it's realtively successful... for them.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-12 10:38 pm (UTC)I'm afraid to ask. But I'm guessing they probably played up the melodrama and went for the easy sexy conclusion? Probably a female villain. etc.
It's been renewed for a second season though and I saw on someone's LJ the other day that it basically nearly doubled Stargate Universe's numbers, so I suspect given the SyFy expectations measure, it's realtively successful... for them.
Well Stargate Universe had really low ratings apparently - it's dead in the water. So...
Was sort of hoping it wouldn't make it to another season, because it's confusing to have two series with the same name - I had to be very specific to find the British version's episode 3.8 season finale. Went to Hula and found the American version.
They couldn't change it's name at least? They changed all the characters names, how hard can it be to come up with a new title?
no subject
Date: 2011-04-13 02:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-13 04:41 pm (UTC)But mileage does vary...I mean people like Two and a Half Men, a tv series I've never understood the appeal of. (no offense if you love it.)