Skip to main content

We needed your help. We knew you could be manipulated.

The X-Files
2.17: End Game

I’d hazard you can count the number of X-Files two parters where the conclusion lives up to the opener on the thumbs of one hand. That’s certainly the case with Colony/End Game. I doubt anyone honest on the production team would deny they came up with the Arctic circle for reasons of an Ice Station Zebra style set alone and then worked backwards to “integrate” it. It shows.

Mulder: After twenty-two years, why come back?
Samantha: I've explained to you...
Mulder: No, no, you've explained only what you had to! I know next to nothing about these people you call your parents or about the man who wants to kill them.

Frank Spotnitz – his credited TV debut – is tasked with picking up Carter’s loose ends, although he’s the one who cops the blame for bringing back Samantha. Actually, the Samantha plotline is by far the best idea here, but because there’s so much else going on, it never has the time to develop in a rounded or plausible way. Like the sub plot (ahem), Mulder’s behaviour in the episode reflects that they (the producers) know she’s not really his sister, rather than in any way reflecting how a brother would respond to his sister being returned at long last (swapping her for Scully). Unless he’s an absolute tool (…) he’d know how iffy the exchange would be, yet he goes ahead anyway. As Rob Shearman notes, the sequence as played lacks any weight, when it ought to be the mother of all deals to deal with.

Scully: Are you sure that it's your sister?
Mulder: Why would you even question me on that?
Scully: Because back at the motel, Mulder, it was you but, but it wasn't you.
Mulder: Well, it was her.

Mulder is given cause to question his sister’s story, but not nearly enough, such that, after the exchange goes south (who’d have thunk it), he’s back to railing uselessly against any suggestion that things weren’t as they appeared. And then, of course, he has to eat crow. Hybrid clone sis is quite upfront about the deceit: “We needed your help. We knew you could be manipulated”. I always felt it was a mistake to close off the Samantha threads the way they are here, in part because Leitch’s performance is so good and could have offered much more meat in future episodes. But no, the Bounty Hunter dispatches them all and we’re left with a couple of token appearances (5.2: Redux II and 7.2: The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati), the option taken instead to go with Samantha Jr clones.

Scully: Did you find what you were looking for?
Mulder: No. No. But I... I found something I thought I'd lost. Faith to keep looking.

Less satisfying still is the half-baked validation for the frankly risible notion that Mulder would manage to get out there to that sub and then elicit a confirmation: “She’s alive. Can you die now?” After all the episode’s deceit, he chooses to clutch hold of this. And, as it turns out, it is yet another lie. Likewise, “We know where your sister is” from Samantha is the last thing anyone should believe at that point.

X: I’ve killed men for less.

I submit (ahem) you’ll have a bit of trouble remembering the plot of End Game, aside from the sub bit at the end, because it resolutely fails to go anyplace interesting with the luxury of double the time to tell the whole story. I’ve mentioned that the cliffhanger doesn’t cop out, perhaps because Carter et al (including Rob Bowman on his fifth episode and bringing the necessary polish) couldn’t resist the thought of Mulder beating up Scully. Which he duly does. The exchange, as I’ve also mentioned, leaves much to be desired, although it does lead to Skinner becoming invested in the proceedings and thus his altercation with X (I rather felt this wasn’t as satisfying as it should have been, and that Skinner shouldn’t have “won out”).

The episode picks up on 1.24: The Erlenmeyer Flask’s alien virus lore (which will later feed in to the black oil). There, Scully gives a concise lecture on gene therapy, whereby a virus is cloned inside a bacteria “in order to inject it into something living”. Gene therapy makes use of retroviruses, as namechecked here: “a type of virus that inserts a copy of its RNA genome into the DNA of a host cell that it invades, thus changing the genome of that cell”. This DNA altering method is, of course, of the ilk we are currently facing on a global scale. Just not necessarily with the immediately adverse effects Mulder experiences here.

In End Game, exposure to the Bounty Hunter’s toxic blood triggers this, as we saw with Agent Weiss in Colony, whereby his blood “curdled like jelly” due to the retrovirus triggering a “massive production of red blood cells”. Luckily for Mulder, when he’s exposed in icy climes, it is “inhibited by cold”. This quality does rather leave some questions hanging, though. It’s evident that similar processes are at work with clone-hybrid Samantha, as it’s her decomposing corpse that inspires Scully’s cold thesis. But one has to presume “Their blood is toxic, human exposure to it is fatal” does not apply to alien-human clone hybrids, or indeed just straight alien-human hybrids, or Mulder would have suffered more than nasty burns in The Erlenmeyer Flask.

If all of this sounds like an insurmountable poser once someone is infected, don’t worry: “Transfusions and an aggressive treatment with antiviral agents have resulted in a steady but gradual improvement in Agent Mulder's condition”. Yeah, I’ll buy that gobbledegook as meaning “it was science that saved Agent Mulder's life”. You go, Scully.

If I wanted to, I could have killed you many times before” is the story of Mulder’s arc mythology life for always tenuous reasons, and if the “showdown” on the sub is entirely inane in reasoning and unsatisfying in terms of character and motivation, Bowman does deliver the proceedings superbly. It’s a great set, and the claustrophobia of the interior scenes is palpable. End Game doesn’t deliver anything satisfying in terms of theme and character, but it nevertheless ticks over very serviceably. In that sense, as a first-foray into the movie format proper (remember those arc VHS releases?), it’s entirely adherent to its cinematic influences.










Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.