Skip to main content

They said they are sending somebody to help you.

The Leftovers
Season One: Part 1

(SPOILERS for Episodes 1-5) I’m a sucker for punishment, I guess. I can’t resist the Lindelof Lure, that now renowned storytelling style in which a screenwriter (first name Damon) entices viewers to watch his TV shows (or movies) by dropping in choice mysteries, and themes and ideas of a phenomenally and spiritually nebulous order. The weekly fix is addictive, while the promise of an ultimate hit, the pay-off to it all, never arrives. I should have learnt after Lost, of course. All those promises of a planned-out story came to nothing, unless the plan was just straight up bollocks; the naysayers were right all along. I wont blame him for Prometheus, although many do; that’s Ridley Scott not knowing his plot demands from a horse’s arse. The Leftovers derives from a novel by Tom Perrotta so it’s immediately ripe for disparaging comparisons from those who read it and rated it. And blow me, if I haven’t fallen for the Lindelof Lure again. Five episodes in and he’s got me, hook, line and sinker. And naturally he’s utilising all the same devices as ever he does, just now with a dollop of HBO graphicness sprinkled on top. I’m a hopeless case.


Conceptually, this is right up Lindelof’s street. I think it’s fair to say that if you don’t like what he does (and I’m afraid I do, right up to the moment he pulls a fast one; that’s the problem) then you’re not doing yourself any favours by tuning in. This is him to a tee. There’s a Rapture-ish event, and no one knows how or why. I understand that, in the novel, you don’t get to know how or why either (so like The Walking Dead minus the zombies?) The problem is, and one Lindelof will repeatedly face given his penchant for posing the big questions that no one has the big answers to, that if you condense mystery storytelling into a serial and you haven’t come up with a means to resolve it, you’re cheating the audience. If the unanswered questions are the whole point, that’s maybe something, but you owe it to your audience not to pretend it’s otherwise. Lost claimed there were answers but, when it came down to it, it would have been better off not even going there. Frustration over there being possible answers (and most of the conjecture by fans was much more intriguing than what we got) is in some ways less damaging than underwhelming revelations. At least with the former one can nurse a favoured possibility and argue for it (more the David Lynch approach). With The Leftovers, there is I suppose the forearmed approach; if one goes in expecting no solutions then at least expectations are set low. It can be enjoyed for what it is, for better or worse. I’m doubtful he will win any new fans by continuing with his favoured course, though.


A few series at the moment seem to be tempting disparaging reviews on account of their titles (see Penny Dreadful, which kind of is). This one's big event should really have taken place on December 26th, rather than October 18th. It conjures images of unwanted remnants of turkey and slightly distressed stuffing.  Set three years after the Sudden Departure, in which 2% of the World’s population vanished instantaneously, Lindelof and Perrotta have a winning if well-worn premise. What would such an event do to the 98% left behind? How would it change belief and lifestyle if something as monumentally baffling as this were to occur? Particularly when, as Christopher Ecclestons (former) Reverend Matt Jamison is keen to point out to bruising effect from those he pesters with the harsh truths, many of those “taken” were not such nice people really. If it was an act of God, it was a particularly random one. So belief systems crumble, and others rise in their place. And the effect on most, those who have lost or know someone who has, or those who just want to keep on going regardless, is more subtle. People keep on with the routine, but there’s no avoiding that something has fundamentally changed.


Those such as The Guilty Remnant, a white-clothed chain-smoking doom merchant cult who claim (silently; they make much use of pen and paper, to the glee of stationers everywhere) favour forsaking all emoptional attachments and embracing the meaninglessness of it all; if there are pockets of these groups in every community, then regaining a semblance of normality will prove understandably difficult. Their motivation is the most intriguing of those we see, since beyond the basic cult apparatus of indoctrination of followers through trials and punishments and love and abuse, their ultimate goals remain opaque. By the fifth episode, where it’s fairly evident they have stoned one of their own to death (at least, if it proves otherwise it will go against all the visual cues; the victim taking a meeting with the leader before the particular horrible event, and one of the cultees, who apparently only discovers the scene later, having a flashback to it), we’re not buying that Patti (Ann Dowd, superlative as always, and someone with steel in her eyes when called upon) has any truly high-minded goals; all are a means to whatever end her ego has dictated is the true path. On that level it looks like fairly standard sect business, but we know from Lostthat Lindelof had a tendency to pull the rug from under expectations and operate reversals of sympathy and reveals that foster a whole different perspective. I’d be surprised if that isn’t coming here at some point.


Besides Patti, we meet Laurie (Amy Brennerman, who I probably recognise best from Heatrather than her extensive TV work), the ex of the police chief, who upped and left her family not for reasons of loss but just… because. As with Lost, Lindelof indulges his penchant for one person-devoted instalments, and we’re yet to be privy to fuller insights into the tug between the local family she has left behind and the new austere/fruitcake life she has chosen. The fifth episode is crucial, though, for both her and new recruit Megan (Liv Tyler). Both show new resolve for their cause. While the latter “takes vows”, Laurie has one of the most stunning moments of the series so far as she aurally slaps Matt in the face by blowing her whistle to disrupt his impromptu remembrance service for the stonee.


The third episode gives Eccleston, the man who wishes he hadn’t been Who, pretty much a one-hander (so to speak). We witness his frankly antic devotion to getting others to acknowledge the negatives of those who went away; he sees it as his duty to separate the innocent from the guilty. As noted this is the clearest evidence yet of Lindelof Lost DNA poking through, with single character-centric, how-did-he-come-to-this flashbacks and strange portents signalling the way to progress for someone who is lost (shades of John Locke). His faith is humorously undercut, however; thinking his prayer that morning must have roused a coma case, he is told, “Well, she woke up last night”. And, in the end, just as he thinks God is showing him what to do, the Remnant snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (one of his numbers at the roulette table is, of course, 23). Eccleston’s American accent is as ropey as ever (and I say that as someone who is generally tone deaf enough not to be generally bothered by fellow Shallow Graver Ewan McGregor’s attempts) but he’s otherwise very good, a mixture of the earnest, crazed and deluded; it’s the type of slightly dangerous role he can pull off with aplomb.


Less successful, at least so far, is the other cult plotline, this one more Waco-style, featuring Patterson Joseph, the man who would have been Who but wasn’t, as Holy Wayne. He’s a bald, grinning nutter. And the most unlikely guru ever, just by dint of being played by Patterson Joseph. It’s the sort of role Joseph should give a wide berth, as he has a tendency to ham and this only indulges that bent. Wayne can apparently instil profound meaning and insight on anyone who spends a mere few minutes in his company, but has a penchant for teenage Asian girls (shades of Sai Baba-type scandals?) Right now Wayne’s on the periphery, with the main attention on Laurie’s son Tom (Chris Zylka) and his protection of one of Wayne’s chosen Christine (Annie Q). That said, the storming of the “compound” that opens the second episode is suitably dramatic, and a world in which this sort of thing is nothing to get worked up about is telling; so too in the fifth episode, when police chief Kevin (Justin Theroux) is told by a blasé FBI guy that he can put in a call and have the Guilty Remnant disappeared just like that if Kevin gives the word.


The fourth instalment, with its (purposefully, but it’s still a damp squib) uninspiring Christmas setting and focus on various teenage travails, is probably the weakest so far. Part of that is down to the Tom plot, which tries to be full of weirdness but ends up rather tepid. Part of it is the focus on Laurie’s other offspring, daughter Jill (Margaret Qualley). Both Qualley and Emily Meade as Jill’s friend Amy offer strong performances, but this is standard issue teen angst with a not yet engaging twist. In general, Lindelof is failing big time in sustaining interest in the show’s younger element (notably, there was very little of this is in Lost, and we all know what happened to Waaaaaaaaalt… well, no we don’t actually, not very clearly).


Most of the high strangeness surrounds the main character, Police Chief Kevin Garvey. Even though he refuses to acknowledge the swirling hyper real fog. He’s like Jack off Lostlike that. The difference being that Justin Theroux is a much more engaging performer than Matthew Fox. I’ve got to admit; Theroux’s really impressed me here as I thought he stunk in the last thing I saw him in (Wanderlust; maybe it was just the movie). Of late I’m familiar with his name more through script work (Tropic Thunder, Iron Man 2, although I won’t hold the latter against him) than the distant past of Mulholland Dr. This is a “straight” relatively macho role; the comedy comes from deadpan responses rather than mining for yuks. This is the straightforward, meat-and-potatoes guy beset by events beyond his ken and, perhaps because Theroux is naturally off-kilter, the part brings him down to earth in a good way.


Like Jack in Lost, Kevin just cant stop encountering oddness. He’s also a pisshead; the only way he knows to deal with the wife who has left him (he was unfaithful at an earlier point in their marriage), the son who has upped and fled, and the father (Scott Glenn; I want to see more of him!) who has lost his marbles. Or has he? Why do waffles go missing in the waffle maker, then resurface? Why do Kevin’s shirts disappear from the rack and end up at the dry cleaners (do they? Did the guy just take any shirts down?) Why are feral dogs on the loose, and why is it down to Michael Gaston’s Dean to shoot them down like, er, dogs? Why are his men such idiots (“Jesus, I never should have told you to watch The fucking Wire”)? Why does he keep having semi-erotic dreams about Amy (to be fair, she is very forward)? And what will happen between him and Matt’s sister Nora (Carrie Coon; still only in a bit part so far, but making a strong impression)?


Gaston’s character is particularly intriguing, rough and ready with apparent tells-it-like-he-sees-it insight (“How do you know they didn’t do this to themselves?” he asks the baffled Chief regarding the stoning; it’s particularly obvious when Matt follows it up with “Killing these people is pointless. They don’t care because they’re already dead”). His best moment comes when asking for his gun back, as a witness to the scene of the stoning; “It doesn’t shoot rocks”.


I hope The Leftoversisn’t a one-season fizzle. The last time HBO did something of this nature was the considerably wackier but equally unforthcoming John from Cincinnati, and look how long that lasted (but would HBO make that mistake now?) The Leftoversisn’t the second coming of TV shows but it exerts a strong hold; just as long as the Lindelof Lure doesn’t upset you. It perhaps needs to know when to lighten up, as the sombre self-seriousness needs more balance at times. Such as being told that Gary Busey was one of those taken. That’s just classy.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.