Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Revolution 1.13 "The Song Remains the Same" Review: Doesn't Hit All the High Notes


    Enable Dark Mode!

  • What's HOT
  • Premiere Calendar
  • Ratings News
  • Movies
  • YouTube Channel
  • Submit Scoop
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • Privacy Policy
Support SpoilerTV
SpoilerTV.com is now available ad-free to for all premium subscribers. Thank you for considering becoming a SpoilerTV premium member!

SpoilerTV - TV Spoilers

Revolution 1.13 "The Song Remains the Same" Review: Doesn't Hit All the High Notes

9 Apr 2013

Share on Reddit
     This week’s episode of Revolution, “The Song Remains the Same,” was written by the team of Monica Owusu-Breen and Matt Pitts and directed by John F. Showalter. I found the episode was somewhat uneven, and I particularly found the usually strong female leads were not written as well or as consistently as I’ve come to expect. This was surprising coming from the same writing team who gave us the strong fall finale episode, “Nobody’s Fault But Mine.” The episode did contain some major reveals, however, and another very strong performance from Giancarlo Esposito. Showalter does his usual great job with both the action sequences and emotional scenes, resulting in a number of exceptional performances.
     Esposito gets to showcase almost every facet of Tom Neville in the course of the episode. The opening scene between Flynn (Colm Feore) and Neville is a tour de force as they jockey for top dog position with Monroe (David Lyons). Lyons deserves high praise for his very subtle reactions to the salvos exchanged between his two men. Flynn, of course, is every one of Neville’s flashbacks to the boss who fired and humiliated him before the blackout. He even says to Flynn, “You’re just a civilian with a smug smile and a cheap suit.” Flynn is quick to establish his own superiority by pointing out that he’s actually wearing a very expensive suit, exposing Neville’s position as a poser of status.
    The scene between Neville and Jason (J.D. Pardo) is another great scene. Jason wants an explanation from his father, and Neville tells him, “It’s a hard world, and if you’re weak, you’re dead.” He didn’t want his son to be like he was. He was hard on his son, so that he would survive. He wanted him to become brutal. Neville uses Julia (Kim Raver) against Jason because he knows that Jason isn’t the brutal killer he wanted him to be. Jason proves his loyalty to the rebels by deceiving Neville into revealing his plan. While it is easily believable that Neville would deceive Jason, I think it is also very likely that he was sincere about why he was so hard on Jason.
    The episode also shows Neville’s more brutal side as he baits and finally kills Nicholas. He has come a long way from the browbeaten civil servant, however. He knows that he has to get Julia away from Monroe. He knows Monroe won’t hesitate to punish the both of them for his own failure to return with the nukes. I’ve very much enjoyed Raver’s performance of Julia, but her first scene in the episode seems completely at odds with her previous appearances as the calm, strong woman behind the man. Her breakdown over having to keep up appearances in the face of lying about Jason seemed out of character to me. She was much more the character I’d come to expect when she calmly tells the women she’s entertaining to “Get out of my house” when Neville suddenly shows up. She’s suddenly more willing to try to maintain their status even in the face of Neville telling her that it’s over. That was the Lady Macbeth I’d come to enjoy. I can only anticipate that Julia’s days are numbered, however, as Raver has the lead in an NCIS spinoff pilot that will almost certainly go to series.
    Elizabeth Mitchell also gives an outstanding performance in the episode, but her character seemed to be all over the map emotionally. It does seem that Rachel is clearly working against Monroe, but it didn’t seem at all consistent for her to put the best interests of the group – to get information from Neville – behind revenge. Once again, Charlie (Tracy Spiridakos) is forced to be the adult and take her mother to task. The relationship between Charlie and Rachel makes an interesting parallel to the Jason/Neville dynamic. Rachel is distraught that Charlie has more in common with the more brutal Miles (Billy Burke) than herself, interpreting Charlie’s prioritizing the needs of the group ahead of revenge for her family as a failing. But in both cases, Rachel and Neville fail to really understand that their children have grown up in an entirely different world, and interestingly, both Jason and Charlie seem to have reached the same place. Both are fighting for the greater good.
    There’s a nice little moment that illustrates the gulf between the generations and is also a quintessential Kripke moment. When Miles warns Jason not to go near his father, he tells him that if he does he’ll “bash his little ‘boy band’ face in.” Tellingly, Jason turns to Charlie to ask what a “boy band” is. He knows that Miles means it as an insult – as Kripke, the huge Zepplin fan would – but Jason has no context to know what a boy band even is. This is a nice contrast to Neville’s having been enjoying listening to Lionel Ritchie earlier in the episode and promising to educate the soldier with him about music – something denied to his own son. Boy bands would be a part of the safe childhood of before the blackout, before children had to be soldiers first.
    Miles tells Rachel that there are no “good” guys. And in many ways, he could be talking about all the characters we’ve met so far. All of them have done what they need to do – or think they need to do to survive.
    The big reveal of the episode is a huge payoff in the mytharc of the story, however. We learn that the power went out because of a nano-technology that Rachel helped develop and that somehow malfunctioned. Aaron (Zac Orth) is determined that they can fix it. The computer chips are the size of a virus and were only designed to absorb electricity and replicate. Of course, none of this explains what could have gone wrong – because that seems to be what they are doing – and it doesn’t explain why the pendants allow the electricity to work.
    My biggest issue with the episode, however, is with the end. Why are Rachel and Aaron going off to the Tower alone? Why can’t any of the others go? Why is it necessarily a suicide mission as Rachel seems to think by telling Charlie there is no hope they will see each other again? None of this makes any sense. It does make sense to try to get the power back on, so why not send a small group – one that includes all of our principle characters? And what happened to Miles assembling his old team? Is Hudson to be the only one? After being patient through such a long hiatus, I feel like we need to be rewarded with tighter story-telling. What did you think of the episode? Let me know in the comments.

4 comments:

  1. I'd have to agree that this episode was weak, for many of the reasons you mention, but mostly because the show seems to think that it needs an irritating female character, and since Charlie's not irritating any more, it's time for Rachel to don that mantle. It's utterly unbelievable to me that this flighty basket case is either the genius or the tough as nails prisoner we're being asked to believe she was in the past. If we're supposed to be seeing her finally cracking under the pressure, it's not reading well. And you're right about the bone-headed Tower suicide mission.

    Nice to get some sort of explanation for why the power went out, but as you note, it's an explanation that doesn't really explain things. If all the nanobots do is absorb electricity and replicate, then the pendants deactivating them (which is, I assume, what they do) does not explain where the power to run things comes from or how stuff magically turns on. At the very least, the nanobots would presumably have to RELEASE the electricity they've absorbed in the presence of the amplifier, so that there's some sort of power to amplify.

    More troubling, though, is that this explanation fails to address--indeed, it exacerbates--the problem of why the electricity damper doesn't kill people. If these things absorb electricity and are being breathed in in the millions by everyone, why do they not absorb the human electromagnetic field that keep us alive, thereby killing everyone?



    But yes, there was some dynamite acting, especially from Esposito, who seems fair to becoming the most interesting character in the show.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the point might be to see an "array" from these women, so that they are not stereo-typed to be "this" or "that" all of the time. It's also possible that Rachel and Charlie trading roles is an intentional juxtaposition. The thing with Rachel is, she's only tough when cornered to be, and right now her past has come back to haunt her full force, as she has to wrestle with the deal(s) she has made, the possible lies she has told/been told, and the fact that she couldn't save her son (she actually helped able his death), let alone whatever was hidden inside of him.

    Bad Robot is known to use one plot vise (and it's opening premise) to open doors to bigger one's. So although we have the physical reason/explanation why, we're still learning about the emotional reasons, which also provide a segway to other technology game changers which makes the blackout complicated and gives us more story to tell.

    "why do they not absorb the human electromagnetic field that keep us alive, thereby killing everyone?'



    Good question! I hope we get an answer. Obviously we don't understand how these particles really work, but since it's science fiction, they might be able to come up with something strange, but what I'm wondering is if this virus/particles "change" physiological/biochemical composition of the average human being...if it creates behavior changes? It might explain Charlie's ability as this particle may dub as a second kind of metaphorical "God Particle"...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I hope the intent is complexity of characterization as opposed to creating drama or convenient plot moments.For me, right now, the jury is out on that one. I'm not seeing what I would call an underlying consistency beneath the swings. For Charlie, perhaps--arguably, she's matured over the season so far. Maybe with Rachel we just don't know her well enough yet, but I'm having difficulty buying someone with the strength to walk away from her kids to go to Monroe, endure torture (I think it`s suggested she`s been tortured, though I see little physicla evidence to support that) to keep the secret, etc. then turning into this ... well, basket case.
    I also hope there's more of an answer about the nanobots. If, as Rachel says, they were programmed only to absorb electricity and to replicate, that's a problem. But it's more than likely Randall and group were doing more with them than Rachel knew. But I have to say it seems odd to me that none of the characters who ought to know a bit about science--Rachel herself, for instance, or Aaron, whom she told about the bots--haven't said, "wait a minute" about this sort of question. Heck, I'm no scientist, but I didn't have to think very long or hard to see some of the inherent problems in the concept; having characters who OUGHT to know better than me not raising the questions is either evidence of an imperfectly worked through device or the sacrifice of palusibility on the altar of holding back secrets for later. To me, anyway.
    BTW, fond as I have been of many Bad Robot shows, I have not generally found the ever-opening windows of new mysteries to be a salutary plot device--satisfactory payoff becomes exponentially more difficult the longer it goes on--as with Lost and especially Fringe (when your strategy becomes literally erasing the reality of previous seasons, well...)--though so far at least Person of Interest is balancing that issue well. I call it the X-Files Syndrome: at a certain point, the mysteries become so convoluted and internally inconsistent--or at any rate difficult to keep track of short of keeping your own OCD flow-charts--that one (ok, I) simply loses interest. I'm not predicting this for Revolution or even saying it's anywhere near that point yet--and Eric Kripke's pretty good sense of how to maintain consistency over seasons as demonstrated in Supernatural bodes well--but when I find questions keep nagging at me week after week--and when the answers provided don't really seem to resolve the core questions, the pleasure of suspense gradually gives way, for me, to irritation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It might be that Rachel and Aaron don't need to answer that, because they already know the answer, as the writers are bating the audience with just a little bit of information at a time, We as viewers also don't get to see the whole notebook, which most likely would give "us" key insight.


    Bad Robot's style is always piecemeal, because other wise once we know, we know, as the company heads seem to feel a good story revolves around strings of mystery.


    IMO LOST or Fringe does not negate or eliminate reality, but instead adds onto reality with the realization of macro cosmic existences (multiple universe with special dynamics = fate).


    It's true that there are always more questions to ask, but that is true to life.

    ReplyDelete

NOTE: Name-calling, personal attacks, spamming, excessive self-promotion, condescending pomposity, general assiness, racism, sexism, any-other-ism, homophobia, acrophobia, and destructive (versus constructive) criticism will get you BANNED from the party.