Skip to main content

Everything will fall apart. In this world, just as in yours. Again. And again. Because of you. And because of me.

Dark 
Season Three

(SPOILERS) Early reaction to the conclusion of the German time-travel saga appears overwhelmingly positive, but I’m less convinced of its merits. On the plus side, a resolution was hatched for the interminable loop. On the minus, Dark’s Season Three plot mechanics felt a little underwhelming, hasty even, just as the resolution for Jonas and Martha proved quite touching.

It’s just as well Baran bo Odar and Jantje Friese restricted themselves to three seasons, as you can just see its potential to snowball into the Damon Lindelof/Lost approach of throwing curveballs each season on an ever-upping, ever-more-absurd ante. Season One ended with the Jonas being thrown into the future, while Two announced an alt-Winden/world. Now we discover that Jonas doesn’t exist there, and that, rather than Claudia Tiedemann being pitched against Adam/Jonas (although, she is), Adam’s main opponent is Eva, actually the elderly alt-Martha.

In the first instance, Season Three settles in by re-introducing us to familiar faces in slightly skewed roles/relationships, just as it continues with a number of previously established threads. As someone who has a difficult enough time remembering the characters’ names, let alone their multiple time-period interrelationships, this meant having to refer back to the Wiki page constantly (only slightly updated for Season Three at time of viewing). Which I didn’t mind per se; a series that demands your keen attention (and invariably rewards it) is quite a rare thing.

But I could well imagine Harry Enfield doing a piss-take of this level of complexity the way he did with The Killing’s tropes; and particularly that ominous rumbling music cue thrown in every thirty seconds or so to let you know this person is really important in some way or you’ve just been shown or told something hugely revelatory and you should know that, even though you’re scratching your head trying to work out just what it could be. Eventually, you decide to sacrifice yourself to going with the flow until something seemingly really fundamental has you seeking clarity before you move on. And then the loop begins again.

While that makes for an amusement more than an annoyance, the season did begin to aggravate me, and only more so as it progressed, with its unfailing and recurring device of someone – usually an older and mistaken Adam or Martha – persuading someone else – usually a younger Adam or Martha – to carry out an action despite their having been repeatedly shown that doing anything they are told by the person in question is suspect or a lie. Mostly, this also involves the older Adam or Martha telling a younger version “Everything Adam/Eva told you was a lie”. I’m assuming mileage for this crutch varies, given the raves the season is getting, but I was already beginning to find it slightly irksome in Season Two. In Season Three, it reaches farcical proportions, with Martha being exposed to extreme full-reversals repeatedly over the space of a few scenes (especially so during the final two or three episodes).

I’m sure there’ll be any number of cogently argued explanations for every choice made by Odar and Friese, but some of them seemed especially errant in terms of internal logic. Elder Jonas not remembering alt-Martha makes sense when you realise that the younger Jonas being killed was a different version of Jonas. But the conceit of the end of 3.5: Truths, whereby Jonas is murdered and then a magic wand is waved to say “No, don’t worry, there is another” is plain annoying. There’s an attempt to justify the “logic” with a Schrodinger’s Cat prologue at beginning of 3.7: Crossroads (simultaneous life and death applied to the macro worlds) but it’s unsuccessful – for me –as a piece of coherent plotting; instead, it suggests the makers are quite willing to play fast and loose with their carefully devised rules as it suits them. I’m presuming the same is the case for old Claudia (unless the old Claudia scene in 3.10: Alpha and Omega where she meets Adam, who is aghast she is somehow still alive, takes place before she is killed in Season Two).

Connecting to that, there’s the scene in Crossroads where Noah explains to Jonas that “You can’t take your own life because your older self already exists. Time won’t allow it”. Odar and Friese prove this with a gun full of bullets, but it seems like an odd time to include a definitive law in a show run through with core temporal paradoxes; time just did, after all, allow a split Jonas to get killed on the whim of the writers.

Added to which, I’m still not entirely sold on this “You’ve seen something happen that an older you did, now you have to actually do that thing yourself” time-travel-narrative device, which I discussed in relation to Timecrimes with Season Two; the very act of re-enacting will surely make it different to doing or saying it the first (or whichever numbered) time. Since much of Season Three is predicated on this, though, it’s something you’re forced to go with or give up on the whole shebang. There’s a thin line between this kind of conceit allowing one to suspend one’s disbelief and it becoming quite ridiculous, and Season Three sails dangerously close to the latter at times. Perhaps the daftest example finds Eva slashing a massive scar across Martha’s face for the frankly batshit reason that she’ll always remember whose side she is on (rather than as an entirely spurious visual identifier Odar and Friese then had to devise a half-assed reason for).

But motivation has always been iffy territory for the series. It’s the same with the steeliness of Adam/Jonas and Eva/Martha to see their missions through come hell or high water; if there’s one thing Dark never really pulls off for me, it’s the formulation of their eldest versions’ uncompromising positions. I think this may be because we only ever encounter them in bite-size chunks. The weariness overtaking Adam that elicits a wish for total destruction – or that will enable him to ruthlessly kill his mother – or Eva’s desire to preserve the knot represented by her progeny only ever pass muster as ideas. They lack the emotional weight that would make them believable obsessions.

As for the crucial Origin – you never knew it was important until you were told it was crucial – I don’t think it really succeeds as… I was going to say a MacGuffin, but it wants to be much more than that. It wants to have significance, but it’s a significance in both instances that has only been introduced this season, and neither has an emotional or plot-reveal impact. The Origin as Martha’s offspring – “It’s born of both worlds” – sounds pretty good in concept, but entirely falls over with his realisation as the three hair-lipped killers (well, only in-betweeny seems to do the actual garrotting). They’re unnerving and sinister, but there’s no substance to their relationship with Eva. Besides which, the conceit of the three in one seemingly never leaving each other’s sides is never explained. But then, that’s exactly the same issue; they are entirely and only designed as a visual motif.

The second Origin, the “real world” one, has in its favour a means to move beyond the pervading misery of the sodden dual Windens… by visiting the sodden original Winden. Again, there’s a lot here you just have to go with. Like the host of assumptions Claudia has authoritatively made about the Origin and its source, not to mention quite how Jonas and Martha are able to get a fix on where and when they have to go so precisely (I’d suggest the inter-space enables them to choose by mental projection, but Jonas needs to use the device to get there).

Even going with that, though, we’re still saddled with the fate of the universe resting on the survival of minor characters, who have only appeared hitherto in a photo. In and of itself, it makes a nice enough vignette, but again, it rather reminded me of the way Lost’s final season added another layer that didn’t amount to much. As I said, though, the final departure of Jonas and Martha is quite sweet (“Or is that what we are? A dream?”), even if the coda’s choice of real-world individuals/variant couples seemed slightly spurious.

As ever, while the dourness of Dark is perhaps its primary signature – when you’re left with a particularly ferocious fire extinguisher-skull interface as a cathartic release, you know you’re in grim territory – the performances are never less than excellent, and the casting of different faces always seems highly attuned to both believable aging and good actors. There is a lot of grisliness this season, though, besides having to see Ulrich try to kill Helge again. The murder of relatives is rife, from Adam killing Hannah in 1911, to the protracted nastiness of Katharina’s mother bludgeoning her in 1987. And then there’s Tronte smothering Regina in 2020 (okay, not actually her father, but he could have been).

While Dark is built on portentousness, the eternal loop element felt inevitable and appropriate. Again, one questions how Claudia actually worked this out (since presumably she can’t carry knowledge on through loops, and she can’t get outside it and look in, so as to determine the precise details of Tannhaus as the real-world locus). Or how this is the last one or, that no variations from the exact path were available (“Every step had to be taken as before, until this moment… This has happened an infinite number of times”). The infinite repetition put me in mind of some of the gnostic false/corrupt universe ideas and particularly projects guy Z’s suggestion that we are currently on the last cycle of our own stuck-on-repeat experience. Albeit, the idea is that we’ll only become nothing if we fail.

I came away from Season Three feeling that, while Dark found an appealing emotional conclusion for its main characters, it detrimentally doubled down on the “You must do as I say because it’s plotted this way and I must do as I say because it’s plotted that way”, as well as introducing several incidents of unjustified “magic” into the mix. Who knows, I may feel differently if/when I revisit the show, but the rigorous determinism coded into the writers’ premise may ultimately have let to the weakness of obsessing over it through the characters ad nauseum. Even as a slight disappointment, however, this is absolutely the kind of TV Netflix should be making more of. It’s one of the very few disciplined and artistically coherent productions from their frequently sloppy and unfocussed stable.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

The protocol actually says that most Tersies will say this has to be a dream.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)
(SPOILERS) The Wachowski siblings’ wildly patchy career continues apace. They bespoiled a great thing with The Matrix sequels (I liked the first, not the second), misfired with Speed Racer (bubble-gum visuals aside, hijinks and comedy ain’t their forte) and recently delivered the Marmite Sense8 for Netflix (I was somewhere in between on it). Their only slam-dunk since The Matrix put them on the movie map is Cloud Atlas, and even that’s a case of rising above its limitations (mostly prosthetic-based). Jupiter Ascending, their latest cinema outing and first stab at space opera, elevates their lesser works by default, however. It manages to be tone deaf in all the areas that count, and sadly fetches up at the bottom of their filmography pile.

This is a case where the roundly damning verdicts have sadly been largely on the ball. What’s most baffling about the picture is that, after a reasonably engaging set-up, it determinedly bores the pants off you. I haven’t enco…

Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (2010)
(SPOILERS) What’s good in the first part of the dubiously split (of course it was done for the art) final instalment in the Harry Potter saga is very good, let down somewhat by decisions to include material that would otherwise have been rightly excised and the sometimes-meandering travelogue. Even there, aspects of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I can be quite rewarding, taking on the tone of an apocalyptic ‘70s aftermath movie or episode of Survivors (the original version), as our teenage heroes (some now twentysomethings) sleep rough, squabble, and try to salvage a plan. The main problem is that the frequently strong material requires a robust structure to get the best from it.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his…

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).