Revolution, “The Children’s
Crusade,” was another finely crafted episode, written by Matt Pitts and
directed by Charles Beeson. The aspect that I liked best about the episode was
the way in which the various plots all carried the same theme forward. The
thing I continue to like best about this show is that is manages to answer
questions and still ask enough new ones to keep the plot moving and keep my
interest well and truly piqued.
This week’s theme was children, and
it ran through the Charlie and company plot, the Rachel plot, and the flashback
plot. Given that the show is strongly about family, it was completely
consistent to focus an episode on what people were willing to do to protect
their kids and their family.
Charlie is motivated to help
Michael, played by Supernatural alum
Colin Ford, free his brother Peter from the soldiers who are conscripting
children into the militia. Ford is a solid actor and delivers an excellent
performance. Hopefully, we’ll see him again. At first, Miles is reluctant to
help the band of orphans until he realizes that they were orphaned when the
militia killed all their parents seven years ago – when Miles would have been
the one in charge of the militia. I have to admit that when the band of kids
takes Charlie and company prisoner, I flashed to Lord of the Flies, the lost boys/girls of Peter Pan and then to an old Star
Trek episode in which only the children are left on a planet. Turns out
that when they reach a certain age, they would catch a disease and die. The
parallel here is unmistakeable. When these kids are old enough, they are
conscripted into the militia to die.
Aaron, we learn, is not comfortable
around kids and references Children of
the Corn and then calls them “a pack of hairless Ewoks” – another Star Wars shout out. I suspect that
Aaron doesn’t like kids because he was probably bullied as a kid. Nora points
out that it’s a bit ironic that he was the teacher in the settlement. In the
end, we get to see Aaron be a hero and save the kids.
Rachel would seem to be all about
saving her own children in this episode. In the present she is motivated to
save Danny from Sebastian torturing or killing him and to that end, she tries
to get her old friend Bradley to reveal where he’s hidden his pendant. He was
only brought to Monroe’s attention when she turned him in. Interestingly,
Bradley isn’t fooled when Rachel suddenly turns up in the cell next to him and
refuses to give up the location of the pendant. Given some of the other stupid
actions by other characters in this episode – more on that shortly – it makes
me wonder if Bradley isn’t suspicious of Rachel because he knows something
about her that we don’t - yet. It seems ridiculous, for instance, that it doesn’t
occur to Rachel that Monroe would have had his men pick up Bradley’s daughter
to use against him.
The flashbacks in this episode fill
in some significant information. We learn that the Department of Defense, in
the form of Assistant Director Flynn, wanted to buy into Ben’s company to
obtain the technology he and his team – including Bradley and Grace – were developing.
We also learn that they were trying to develop a cheap, efficient energy source
and the power off switch was simply an interesting accident. Rachel wants
nothing to do with the DOD until there is a complication with her pregnancy and
it looks like she will lose the baby boy she is carrying. This is three years
before the blackout, so no doubt, she is carrying Danny. Flynn offers to help
her get into a medical program at Columbia if she simply agrees to be his
friend. We don’t see her answer, but considering Danny is alive, it’s fairly
easy to assume that she said yes. In a nice parallel in the present, Randall is
revealed to be none other than Flynn. He’s holding Grace captive and tells her
he only wants to be her friend.
I read an interesting article this
week that posited that our only real evidence that the militia is bad is that
Charlie doesn’t like them. I’d have to say I think that argument is weak given
that we’ve seen Neville and Strauss torturing people, but we’ve also seen that
the general populace was out of control after the blackout and needed some form
of governmental control. It will be interesting to see if the militia or
whoever Randall Flynn works for ends up being the real bad guy. I’m also
interested to see who Rachel is ultimately working for. Even Danny is
suspicious about why she isn’t doing anything to get away. Is it possible she’s
a plant for Flynn in the Monroe camp, or that she’s actually working with Sebastian?
I’ll be interested to see how much Elizabeth Mitchell knows about Rachel’s
motivations at this point, or whether she was kept in the dark. She is giving a
nuanced performance in this episode, and I’ll be really interested to know if
she’s leaving room for possible scenarios or if she knows which side Rachel
really is on.
A quick shout out to both Giancarlo
Esposito and Colm Feore. We got very little Neville in this episode but
Esposito was just so creepy in the scene when Monroe tells Rachel about having
had Bradley for three weeks. A simple smirk and raised eyebrow from Esposito is
an entire scene unto itself. Likewise Feore didn’t have a great deal to do, but
he is a wonderful actor and is able to very subtly convey that there is more to
this character than his desire to befriend everyone and “help” them.
Tracy Spiridakos is slowly winning
me over. I enjoyed Michael subjecting her to some of her own medicine when he
kept refusing to do as he was asked, resulting in everyone being in more
danger. Charlie was less whiney in this episode, and there’s no question that
the character is physically brave. This episode sees her step up to help
someone else save their brother and it seems she is starting to see more of the
bigger picture of what’s going on in the world.
Having covered most of what I really
liked in this episode, I do have some quibbles with the episode as well. If
Rachel isn’t working undercover for somebody, she is making some fairly stupid
mistakes. Why wouldn’t she know that Monroe would go for Bradley’s daughter?
That’s how he got to her after all. I’m still annoyed that any adult is letting
a child call the shots. Miles allowing Charlie to dictate what the group does
is ludicrous given that he used to be in charge of the militia. While Michael
looks like he can handle himself and proves to be a good shot with the bow, why
would anyone agree to take an eight year old – or possibly younger – child on a
rescue mission? Why did Charlie have to infiltrate the ship if it was possible
to storm it at night to rescue her?
My
biggest complaint in this episode is Miles suddenly being consumed with guilt
over what he’s done. The discussion between Nora and Aaron is a bit of an
awkward way to explain this to the audience as Miles feeling responsible for
the kids being orphaned. He also feels responsible for the conscription boat
and what happens on it. Yet, when we first saw him in the series, he’d simply
retreated from what he’d done. I know that we are supposed to see his character
softening due to Charlie’s influence, just as she is becoming more worldly due
to proximity to Miles, but Miles’ attitude seemed a bit too much too soon. If I
didn’t like the show so much, I wouldn’t be worried that they may be rushing
the character development a little bit.
The episode ends with Aaron finally
revealing the pendant and Ben’s last words to both Miles and Charlie. Miles
wants to destroy the pendant immediately, and strategically, that would
probably be the most sensible thing to do. I still think Aaron is right to want
to protect it, however. I’m also curious about what is turning the pendant on.
It seems to actually be attuned to Aaron’s emotional state and turns on when he
is upset.
There were lots of interesting plot
developments in this episode, and more great acting from both the core cast and
the guest stars. Once again the episode felt tightly written and directed,
nicely weaving several storylines together. What did you think of this week’s
episode? Can we trust Rachel? Who is most likely to turn out to be the real
enemy or is there room for two? Let me know in the comments below.
This is the first episode in which Charlie has managed (mostly) not to be irritating, which is a nice development. But having another kid taking up the banner for doing dumb stuff that endangers everybody isn't really progress! I like your observations about how the plotlines in this episode reflect variations on the "what would I do for children" theme. But I'm getting ready to do more than quibble about some of the bonehead actions characters take.
ReplyDeleteX
I think there's definitely room for more than one villainous force in this world. My guess is that both the militia and Randall will be big bads of different kinds. Nice to see Colm Feore, who can do creepy with a flex of an eyebrow; I assume we'll be seeing a fair bit mor eof hims in subsequent episodes. As for Rachel, I think we're supposed to be able to trust her, but it's hard given how dumb on the face of it some of what she does is. But clearly there's more to learn about why she's there and what she's up to.
You seem to devote an awful lot of thought to a show you don't like very much....
ReplyDeleteI wonder why you continue to watch a show you dislike so much and take so much time responding to a review that your opinion deems "wrong". We will simply have to agree to disagree.
ReplyDeleteI happen to agree with many of your opinions but there is no call to be rude to the person who posted the article. All that will happen with this approach is more people than just me will flag your posts as inappropriate. If you don't like her reviews, write your own. Andy put a call out just a few weeks ago asking for people who wanted to write for the site. You obviously put a lot of thought into this show. Why not put yourself out there in an article?
ReplyDeletei believe in reviewing critics mostly...
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should get up the courage to write a review before blasting a volunteer. No one who writes for this site is a professional critic. They don't get paid for contributing either.
ReplyDeleteTrust me-- I have the courage to write reviews... I know no one is professional here. That is part of my fascination with the blogosphere actually. How does one classify this work here-- is it purely fan-based or is it objective critical analysis of the material? I'm pretty objective actually. I find it all so interesting.
ReplyDeleteGreat. I look forward to reading your review of next week's episode.
ReplyDeleteYou know big words but not quite what they mean. A straw man argument would require Lisa to ascribe a position to you that is not in fact your position and then refute that position as if she were refuting your real position. That's not what she did. You then proceed to draw far less valid conclusions about her position from her response to you than she drew from your response to her, which seems more than a little pot-kettlish. Where is your evidence that she wants simple praise and repetition of her own views? (Hint: the answer is "nowhere.")
ReplyDeleteX
As for the rest of your post, well ... lots of clever speculation that might be borne out in the coming weeks, but really not much more. It's far from the case that "Clearly, parents are analogous to child's world view as the government is to the adults world view," for instance. This may well be, but it's not at all clearly the case--we saw literally nothing of whatever social order these children have, nor did we hear a word of political philosophy from them, so to reach the sort of elaborate conclusions drawn about it here is all very interesting and creative, but that's all it is; it's far from a definitive interpretation. The "only reason" Peter is conscripted is the one you give? On the meta level, perhaps, but I doubt the Republic of Monroe decided, "hey, let's give the rebels an object level in the importance of the macro over the micro by conscripting kids!" On the narrative level, conscription--even brutal conscription--has a long and storied history, and while it may well not be the best way to recruit soldiers for real (a debateable point), it's not at all surprising as a strategy from a force represented as militaristic and dictatorial. You need to differentiate between what the show IS doing and what you think it SHOULD be boing.
X
Indeed (and at the risk of thowing in another straw man--or maybe you'll dredge up ad hominem this time?), it seems that what you're doing here is writing the show you wish this was rather than the show that it is--not that there's anything wrong with that, but that's also not what a review is meant to do. There's a whole "what did you think of this week's episode?" thread for that sort of thing.
And oh yeah, ditto with Dahne on the whole rudeness thing. Try not to be a troll. (There--now you CAN tag me for ad hominem.)
ReplyDeleteNo, actually,it's not that broad/general: a straw man argument is when you misrepresent your opponent's position (either implictly or explicitly) and then base your response on that misrepresented version. Are you claiming that it's a misrepresentation of your position to say that you don't like the show? Because, if you DO like it, you have a strange way of showing it; I hope you don't have kids, because if you do, your version of expressing affection for something probably has them suicidal. Or, are you claiming that it's a misrepresentation of your position to say that you see the review as wrong? Again, since you explicitly contradict several of its statements, that would seem to be an odd position to take.
ReplyDeleteX
Clearly, and in fact (to use terms you seem to be fond of to describe speculations), you are a troll, not really interested in civil discussion but rather in deliberately antagonizing people.
Not exactly... What is the capital X 's between paragraph's? Why not just use a space like standard block paragraphing requires? Why the extra X? I'm curious about this.
ReplyDeleteNow, as for your statement about logic not exactly... Straw men arguments are broad because they run into the Red Herring. Do they misrepresent necessarily? Not always-- an effective straw men can just a weaker form of an opponent's argument. Now there is some debate as to whether or not weakening an opponents' argument is misrepresentation or merely altering it. And how explicit this weakening of the argument often makes the difference in many interpretations of the straw man v. red herring debate. But that is not the point either.
See, I state her exact straw man: she basically implies that I putting forth a simple form of opinion so since all opinions are of the same relative weight hers is just as valid and poof conclusion no resolution can occur.
Now, your argument against me is the same almost. Instead of saying what I've written is opinion you call it speculation. It is not speculation at all. What I've done is simply deconstruct the show's elements and put them into a cultural context and literary theory.
There is no speculation as you claim this is a misrepresentation of my argument completely. I put forth no claims of what the show will do or what I would like them to do as say I do. Instead I merely give the actions a cultural subtext for greater understanding.
So, the problem isn't that I'm troll the problem is that you just don't like what I have to say. And that you're wrong with some things. Just like the original reviewer's position that Children were merely their to be conscripted into the Army-- no the foil was about the two possible societies that developed out a similar scenario of a power vacuum.
Ah, of course. You're a deconstructionist. (You simply deconstructed the show; you're hilarious.) Well,that answers a lot of questions, not least of which why debate with you is a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteWhat have you debated? Not much that I can see... I'm not much of a follower of Derrida I'm more of a Carnap man myself. But getting back to your point you say we know nothing about political and social organization of the Children-- which is not really true-- what know for sure is this: "Nicholas
ReplyDeletepreached to all who approached, holding up the metal cross in
the form of Tau. But he did not preach the slaughter of Muslims,
saying that the holy word of God would illuminate their lives,
would convert them, would cause them to abhor the wicked faith
of Mahomet and worship Jesus." 1212 chroniclers. THe very nature of the name of the episode is the clue to the society. Now, I'm picking the more peaceful Nicolas of Germany over that of the more violent Stephen of France both of whom commanded legions of children in hopes of freeing the Holy Land in direct opposition to their respective governments and so on. The point is that Children are supposed succeed where the Adults couldn't-- in the case of revolution I think the simply foil is creating a viable post-blackout society that doesn't brutalize the weaker members. So, maybe all one needs to understand my position is to know the historical references that writers are working with.
I didn't think I needed to go into it before but if you know anything about the Children's Crusade many end up in slavery on ships hint hint... I didn't think I needed to point that out at first. But then I read that wunderkind at TV.com Tim Surretta (some name spelled something like that) who called the show Peter Panish! That was cute, but, again wrong.
As for Peter's conscripting it was a MacGuffin actually. It was merely a device to put party A (Charlie and gang) in the same story line as party B (Matthew and gang) so that we see a foiling between the two paths. Classic literary technique on the part of the writer. However, in this case it was just sort of over shadowed by the needlessly boring parts of Charlie's capture....
Uh-huh. In your first response your point about the boat was this: "Also why the militia train on a ship? If you're going to train an infantry unit you're not going to do it on a ship. It is too small. It is the wrong environment. It is just absurd. You train infantry on land because that is where they fight... And so you need to give them skills they need to fight on land by teaching them in the proper environment." Now your point is this: "I didn't think I needed to go into it before but if you know anything about the Children's Crusade many end up in slavery on ships hint hint... I didn't think I needed to point that out at first."
ReplyDeleteBut no, you're not a troll at all.
Actually, a straw man is any time you put an argument that is weaker than your opponents' argument and defeat that one. There is some question as to where the line between Straw man and Straw man she used is implied and not overtly stated... All Reviews are opinions and therefore my opinion is as good as yours so I will agree to disagree.... That is the straw man in this case. Where as I put forth specific points to be refuted. Perhaps, you should look closer at her argument.
ReplyDeleteI will refute the rest of your statements later....