In Which I Review Once Upon a Time (6x7)

Since the beginning, Once Upon a Time has told its audience that the most powerful magic in the world--indeed, in all the worlds--is True Love. The show opens with one of the most iconic images in all of fairy tale lore, Prince Charming wakes up Snow White with True Love's Kiss. This powerful magic can break any curse, stop any evil, and can vanquish the darkness. Emma, the much lauded Savior, is True Love personified and her strength and magic come from the love born between her two parents, the truest of all true loves. But what happens when True Love isn't enough? Or when it's not strong enough to outsmart villainy? Can True Love really be the end all, be all when evil gets the upper hand and manages to outflank you? This week's episode, "Heartless," was easily the best episode of the season so far because it felt deeply rooted in the show's overarching thesis about family and love but with the added twist of examining the limitations on its universe's most powerful magic. Snow White and Prince Charming stories can get a bad reputation because of how remedial they often feel, but my hat goes off for this outing. Grab a magic baby tree thing and let's go!

You Must Remember This...

I tend toward the harsh end of the spectrum whenever Snowing centrics come my way. We're long past the point where these two feel relevant; the original paring of the show now come across as doddering grandparents who's main purpose is to randomly give a speech about hope and the show has moved on to shiner and more interesting toys, like Regina, Hook, and their villain-of-the-arc style of storytelling. But, almost without fail, every year the writers trot out a Snowing flashback that somehow, inexplicably, ties the two back to the plot of the moment without pausing even for a second to think if it contradicts previous storylines or themes. Hence, the baby snatchers of season four. What the writers should focus on is taking the themes already laid heavy in Snowing's story--like the truest love to ever exist, the unstoppable belief they have in each other, and the concept of always finding one another--and run, pell mell, with that. And that, my dear readers, is exactly what this episode did. Now, it wasn't quite as elegant as a season one story and there are some glaring magical errors along the way, but it really did feel like the heart of Snowing (no pun intended) was laid bare tonight (seriously, no pun here!). These are two souls who somehow, as if through fate, manage to find their way to each other; who are always there for one another, even if they don't know that their soul mate is on the other side of a door. Going into this episode, I had a real sense of dread that the show would magically retcon the wonderful season one episode "Snow Falls." That episode stands out as one that pushed the idea that we don't know the stories we think we know. Snow was a bandit and the two love struck outcasts snarked at each other more than they swooned. While this secret-meeting-without-really-meeting is fairly cheesy and slightly improbable (you mean to tell me that these two soul mates didn't recognize each other's voices when they met later on?) the themes that centered around the heretofore unmentioned meeting felt perfectly in the Snowing wheelhouse. Snow's naive and precious belief in the goodness in people, Charming's eagerness to help, and that the union between the two could yield something miraculous is very in line with the earliest seasons of OUAT. I also appreciate that, so far this season, the show has been trying very hard to make connections from the past to the present day storylines in terms of more than just plot and plot devices. Snow's sacrificial streak comes through on both ends; she's unwilling to put Charming's life in danger, just from seeing her face, in the Enchanted Forest and she's unwilling to put her entire town (which, in this case, equates to her entire kingdom) in danger from a foe whom Snow knows all to well the depths of villainy can sink.

A Hearty Twist

Well, I didn't see that one coming. It's not too often that this show can shock me but the Evil Queen managing to put the split heart itself under a sleeping curse and thus cursing Snowing to be awake/asleep in opposite turns was quite an eyebrow raising twist. I'm going to ignore the mechanics of how this happened (no apple, no spinning wheel, no nothing) and instead speculate on how this feeds into some of the themes on the show. Again, as I already stated, the show has driven home the point that True Love is the most powerful magic of all and with Snow and Charming, it exists in spades as the single most powerful True Love Couple. So how exactly does this new curse not break when true love's kiss is exchanged? It feels like it should, right? Snowing's love is supposed to be strong enough to break any curse, save the Dark One that Emma broke by virtue of Saviorhood and being True Love Incarnate thanks to Snow and Charming. If the show is going to keep with their much often quoted emphasis on true love then how does one go about breaking this curse? This isn't actually a problem the Savior can solve--unless Emma kisses her mother/father awake and come to think of it, that wouldn't be a terrible solution. But I'm not sure what this says about the show as a whole if the truest of true love couples can be put under such an evil curse that not even their go-to True Love's Kiss can solve. Are we supposed to believe, then, that true love has restrictions (Rumbelle can write novels on that topic)? Are we supposed to buy that sometimes evil does win and can defeat good? This new curse is a good twist and one I actually quite like, but I'm not sure how it stacks up against the show's biggest hitting motifs of true love being the strongest magic in the realm(s). To play devil's advocate and to show just how torn I am over this, you can argue that True Love's Kiss is working--Snow or David do in fact wake up--it's just that there's a new element in play that allows the Evil Queen to see their suffering in a new and interesting way. Being unable to wake someone up versus being able to wake them up but not be with them....which is worse? I have no fear that Snow and Charming are doomed forever, but it'll be quite unique to see where the show goes with this new development.

Miscellaneous Notes on Heartless

--This review wasn't intended to be less in-depth or less analytical. Honestly, this episode was a good character study and I enjoyed it, but with characters as old and well known as Snow and Charming, it's hard to say something new.

--“Sleeping Snow is my favorite Snow”

--The water in the bottle is not too bad of a MacGuffin; It’s a continuation of last year’s plot as the water is from the River of Lost Souls!

--“You can overcome anything. Remember who you are: the product of True Love.” That was a nice Emma/Hook moment.

--Did we know that Blue Fairy could bigify herself in the Enchanted Forest?

--The chemistry that might exist between Rumple and Regina is less a byproduct of the story and more because of Bobby and Lana, two actors who would have chemistry with rocks. Their relationship was always mentor/mentee with huge overtones of father/daughter hence why so many people thought Rumple was Regina’s father for a long time. This “romance”/ powerplay really horrifies me.

--Speaking of Rumple, I am going to pass over the scenes with him this week until we get a firmer hold on where this particular story is headed.

--Longbourne is the home of Lizzie Bennett from Pride and Prejudice. Please leave Jane Austen alone, Adam and Eddy.

-- I still feel like this season is aimless; what’s the goal here? Is it just to let Lana act her heart out? Fabulous, but there has to be a point somewhere, right? The Savior storyline is going nowhere and as fun as it is to watch the EQ sass everyone, I don’t get where the show is going with this.

In Which I Review Westworld (1x4 and 1x5)

Mysteries upon mysteries and layers upon layers but at the heart of it all, I think Westworld might be telling a very old story. It's a story of heroes and villains and the blurred line between them. It's the story of humans caught in between the cosmic forces trying to survive when gods and devils play. It's a story of how we imagine ourselves and how the world imagines us. The humans are machines, the gods are men and the villain is a nihilistic savior, but it's an old story. The last two episodes "Dissonance Theory" and "Contrapasso" has a lot to say about how our characters view themeselves in light of their experiences in Westworld, either as a guest or as a host, help inform our identity. It's a bit of a confusing jumble and if you're not cautious, you'll lost your path. So imagine yourself as something other a damsel in narrative distress and it will be so. Hold on tight and let's go!

Let's start with a just a bit of a negative. I have a lot of questions and not enough answers. Westworld does a fabulous job at creating mystery but so far it’s lacking in the “solving the mystery” department. Now, that can be a good thing because the mystery is multifaceted, layered, and less about an actual mystery and more about a philosophical pondering on existence and consciousness; but at the same time, there’s only so many times you can add questions on top of questions and keep expecting me to follow you down this rabbit hole. I think there might be…too many stories right now. The main ones are Dolores and her awakening/unraveling; Dr Ford and his increasingly menacing God complex; the Man in Black fulfilling a hole in the narrative as a suitable antagonist while trying to discover the answer to his own journey into selfhood; and the story of Arnold and the park's past which will, I suppose, tie all the other stories together. But along the way we get Teddy, William, Logan, Mauve, the politics of the park staff, and several park-run stories like Wyatt, the Confederados, the new Black hat who set up William and Logan, ect. It’s a bit much because the story needs to be a bit tighter and not go down tracks that only confuse me more. This isn't to say that the story is bad or that all characters are lacking in motivation. We can haphazardly guess at Dr. Ford's motivation, for instance.  I think this is all about control. Every episode so far has brought up the Board that oversees Westworld and it’s pretty clear Ford does not have a good relationship with them (I suspect they are of the fat-lazy-cat variety and care more for profit than they do for whatever Ford’s original intentions were in creating the park, like tackling and unlocking human consciousness). He obviously has a huge ego–one that sees himself as a God in his own world, a God that is now being trodden upon by said Board. His new storyline and what he’s building will establish him as the sole ruler of Westworld, the Board be damned. That's a fascinating motivation and will hopefully become increasingly apparent instead of talked about in riddles.

Our Man in Black figure comes across as a villain but is he really?  I actually think he’s the most honest of all the characters. The MiB made several references to the fact that he’s “here to set people free” because they are all in prison. It’s sort of…Savior language. He’s still a nasty piece of work, but what he’s trying to figure out, the story he wants to discover, is akin to what Dolores is trying find: freedom. While the MiB probably does not have altruistic intentions, his efforts could help the Hosts gain consciousness and freedom. It’s a nihilistic type of honesty, but it’s honesty. He’s bored. He’s read the same book day after day for 30 years; he knows every sub plot, every twist and turn, except the ultimate one. It’s like…a classic mystery novel? Think Agatha Christie. The reveal of the murderer and their entire explanation happens in one swell swoop typically at the very very end. What if you had a book like that but the last page, the one that revealed the murderer and why he did everything he did, was missing? Wouldn’t it drive you somewhat nuts? (There’s a great episode of M*A*S*H that actually follows this exact plotline come to think about it.) The MiB doesn’t even try to hide what he’s after or how different he is from the rest of the world. He straight up tells Hector that he, Hector, is “market tested” and that’s why Hector exists. The MiB also goes around telling people that they are prisoners and he’s trying to find freedom. I don’t think he cares about them, but is so bored and nihilistic that he’s looking for the only escape left and if it means the Hosts get freed then so be it. As a sidenote, what does freedom actually mean here? The more I think about it, the more I think that the Maze and freedom aren’t literal but figurative. The Maze is more about unlocking human consciousness and freedom is less about leaving the Park–we know the guests can leave after all–and more about freedom from something less tangible. I am looking forward to puzzle out the rest of the show as we move into the second half. It's a confusing jumble right now, but an enjoyable one.

Miscellaneous Notes on Dissonance Theory and Contrapasso

--We get the idea that the Natives have turned their memories or their past recollections of the game workers into Gods. Shades, men who walk between worlds, are part of their religion because that’s the only way their mind can conceive of these memories. It must be otherworldly because their world does not have “science” and “technology” the likes of which the extremely modern world of Ford and Bernard has. But is this an organic development for the Natives or was it implanted in them by the park-runners?

--Therese says that the Board has already sent in their representative—is it Logan? I think so. His “family” keeps getting teased and he clearly knows his way around the Park. Plus his line “it’s always business” was a bit on the nose.

--This show is stunning to just look at. The brothel scene with William, Logan and Dolores was like something out of a Renaissance painting depicting the lowest bowels of Hell.

--Arnold sought consciousness but then wanted to destroy his park? Was it because he felt like he had enslaved a people OR did Dr. Ford lie to us about what Arnold wanted and it was really him who sought these higher ideals.

In Which I Review Once Upon a Time (6x6)

The overarching, series long story of Once Upon a Time is the tale of multiple people (who happen to be Fairy Tale Characters) searching for a home and a family. They go through curses, deaths, marriages, children, and more Disney Big Bads than you can shake a stick at, but while the lyrics change, the song remains the same: everyone needs a community. This family can be bound by blood or by affection or, far more likely in this case, by both; at the end of the day, our families and our communities inform our identity and give us a sense of purpose, security, and belonging. It's not surprising, then, that the biggest theme of this episode "Dark Waters" was all about people accepting their families, making peace with their often hard to reason with communities, and uniting against common foes to protect what they've worked so hard to build. What's that? A Hook episode that actually has thematic importance to the show and doesn't make my insides twitch? Progress! Grab the knife with which you killed your papa and let's go!

Spoiler Alert: The Giant Squid Is Also Part Of The Family

Hook's never had an outstanding family life, which really means next to nothing since every single character on this show is required to have a broken family life, at least one dead relative (bonus points if two!) and a broken spirit because of it. Where Hook differs in some regards is that quite a few of the reasons why he has had a poor family life is because of his own actions. Hook attempted to cure Liam (the first one!) and it resulted in his brother's death; now, granted, Hook did not realize the extent to which Pan was telling the truth and the extent to which staying in Neverland was actually vital for Liam, but this action is absolutely something that would weigh on Killian Jones. Going along with that common theme, Hook murdered his own father and abandoned his little brother, Liam (the second!). He also lost Milah to Rumple and sold Baelfire to Peter Pan in fit of anger. Hook's own actions have caused him to lose his family so it should follow that it needs to be his own actions that grant him a family once more. This has been a rather sore sticking point for me; it has often come across that Hook is simply gifted everything--Emma, a place in the community, respect, admiration, hero status--and never had to truly earn those things by his deeds and sacrifices, unlike other black hats turned morally grey anti-heroes (ie: Regina). What this episode did, in a rather nice fashion, was have Hook be confronted by the fact that those he considers family might not be likewise inclined because, like I stated a moment ago, he hasn't exactly earned his place in this never ending Greek tragedy. When Henry lashes out and tells Hook that the one handed pirate isn't his father and that he's not even a part of this family, Hook must face the music that he's done precious little to prove to Henry (and not just to Emma) that he cares for more than the Blonde Savior. Think about it; has Hook actually demonstrated a genuine affection for anyone other than Emma? There's a bit of a geniality between Hook and Charming nowadays but Hook and Snow? Hook and Regina? Hook and the town at large? All of these facets--Charming, Snow, Regina, the town of Storybrooke itself--are all part of Emma Swan's collective family as well as part of the OUAT family; while Hook might have helped save those individuals when Emma goes on a Savior-quest, it's never been out of the goodness of his heart or even because he wants to belong and feels a kinship with this collective brood. It's only because he has to follow Emma wherever she goes. I think my readers know, pretty clearly, that I've never liked Hook and indeed will probably never like him, but the moment when he told Henry to get to safety because it's more important that Emma not lose her child, I had an honest moment of appreciation for the pirate I've so maligned in the past. This is not a question of if Emma loves Hook and would be devastated by his loss; we know the answer to that--it's called season five. It's about Hook realizing that to be a part of this family, you have to put it first above your own desires. It's about Hook acknowledging his past mistakes and trying like hell not to make the same ones he did in the past. Last week was a step back when Hook lied to Emma about the shears, but this week he bared his soul about his selfish need to keep the family he's claimed but never been apart of or given anyone reason to consider him apart of. I don't often say this but good job, Hook.

And now for something different: does anyone else feel like the present day story is seriously lacking in momentum? What is the point? Yes, the themes of the past are carried over with Belle trying to decide if Rumple is apart of her family, with Liam and Nemo reuniting and making their own little family, and with Aladdin and Jasmine coming together to try and work out their problems, but outside of that--looking at just plot--what's the point of any of this? I'm having such a hard time seeing this story gel together.  Tiny scenes are good, even tiny story arcs are good. But the overall picture is messy and aimless. I don’t get what the end game is. What’s the point of this season besides visiting the characters from Forgotten Character Island and watching the Evil Queen have a sass-off? A lot of this has to do with the poor world building in terms of what a Savior does; the other part has to do with the writers needing to kill time before a winter finale but everything going on in Storybrooke feels so remedial and like such a time waste. Shouldn't we be exploring Saviorhood and what exactly dictates it? Shouldn't the Evil Queen be doing more than strutting around and saying funny quips? Shouldn't there be a sense of urgency and an actual threat? We're heading into the home stretch of this first half and none of this year feels particularly interesting or meaningful (with the exception of a few flashbacks). The themes I touched on are nice vignettes but the overall picture is too befuddled to have this season be anything other than mediocre so far. Pick up the pace, OUAT. Time's a tickin; we got a Savior to kill.

Miscellaneous Notes on Dark Waters

--So, the shears of destiny work on anyone? At least they’re more than the MacGuffin of the week, then! But what exactly will they do to Belle/the baby? Is this a magical abortion or does it just change Morpheus’s personality/view on Rumple? And how can Belle have a solid line of destiny? While destiny has always played a big role in the show, so has free will. We see Belle exhibit it every single week as she ping-pongs back and forth about Rumple.

--What is up with Emma's red dress? It's not only just ugly but very not in line with Emma's normal wardrobe. Her clothing is usually symbolic so what am I supposed to read from this dress?

--Aladdin's accent is going to drive me bonkers.

--The underwater scenes were well done and I like that the only fish we see swimming by the Nautilus are Blue Tang (Dory). It fits with us (and Hook) finding Nemo.

--Snowing rescued Archie and baby Pistachio seems quiet upset by that. Once again, Snowing make an enemy by sheer dumb luck.

--I am not even going to comment on the disgusting display of Rumple and the Evil Queen.

In Which I Review Once Upon a Time (6x5)

Is Once Upon a Time a diamond in the rough? It feels strange to ask that question six seasons in; either it's a good program or not at this stage. To extend the metaphor, it either shines brilliantly after much polishing and care, or, it is simply a lump of coal, past the time when it could be something to truly behold. I suppose I'm asking because the Pilot of OUAT premiered 5 years ago and since then so much has changed; what once was a diamond in the rough has become a pile of ashes that was precious but barely resembles that which came before. Harsh? Yeah, maybe, but honestly this week's episode, "Street Rats" felt like more filler than it needed to be given the big build up to the much anticipated 
(and promoted) Aladdin and Jasmine. We gleaned almost nothing about Saviors and their mythology apart from a handy dandy magical MacGuffin (because of course!) that can cut the line of destiny that surrounds all Saviors. Any pertinent information about the Savior is either being left for another day or the writers are simply unconcerned with exploring why the universe they created makes Saviors and what criteria makes up that title. In other words, was there a point to this episode? What did we learn, if anything? Maybe we should all go hang out in the Cave of Wonders for a bit until we've figured it out. Grab your magic pair of scissors and let's go!

Honestly did you learn anything from this episode? New information doesn't even need to focus on the plot at large--the role of the Saviors, the identity of the Saviors, the makeup of the Saviors, ect. The audience can spend an hour of their lives learning more about their core characters, about how they interact with their ever changing world given the over the top magical circumstances they encounter weekly. Tonight, Emma's entire family learns that she believes her death is nigh and instead of having a character driven episode revolving around that rather weighty bit of information and how it affects everyone from Hook to Snow to Henry to Regina, we have our characters chasing after a magical object (Aladdin, or Diamond in the Rough if you want his MacGuffin name) only to obtain, not enlightenment and resolution to something internal, but yet another heretofore unmentioned magical object! The only information the audience received was either known in advance--Aladdin was a Savior and believed that all Saviors would die, just like the situation Emma is currently facing--or does little to expand the universe the story is taking place in. Sure, there are shears that can cut the Savior's line of destiny, but that does nothing to answer the big mythological questions about the Saviors themselves. In fact, it complicates it more, and not in a good way! Thus far, we've met two Saviors and their reasons for being Saviors are not even remotely identical. Emma is the Savior through birth and circumstance; she is the product of the Truest Love and because the essence of that love was placed onto the Dark Curse before it was cast. Her Saviorhood is dependent upon certain factors, namely parents and Rumplestiltskin. Aladdin is the Savior because he's the "diamond in the rough," whatever that vague title even means outside of being important to the Disney universe. He's a thief with a heart of gold, but is that what determines his Saviorhood? Aladdin cannot possibly be the only good-hearted thief in Agrabah (or anywhere) so is everyone who shares his philosophy, that starvation and cruelty are bad, equally Saviors? There must have been other factors that led Jasmine to seek out Aladdin specifically but they are not divulged to us here tonight. The reasons for Aladdin's Saviorhood are all fanservice callbacks to the much beloved Disney movie instead of actually helping the narrative about our main Savior, Emma. In fact, there appears to be no commonalities between Ms Swan and the thief of Agrabah, leaving me frustrated to the nature of Saviorhood in the Onceiverse. If that concept--the Saviors--is supposed to be so important this season that it takes central stage, then why do I feel as though nothing new is being said? If I sound angry, it's because I don't like it when this show wastes my time. If you're going to explore the nature of the Savior, then actually explore it. Doing anything else feels like a waste of an hour, the writers just trying to kill time before some big climatic winter finale; and even if the episode doesn't advance the main plot of the Saviors, at least give us something to digest and ponder about! Last week's episode has little to say about Saviorhood, but it had an interesting philosophical, cultural, and moral bent. In sum, don't waste my time, OUAT. I'm out of patience.

Miscellaneous Notes on Street Rats

--This is probably my shortest review for OUAT ever but honestly I can't be bothered to waste your time and mine after this episode offered up nothing interesting.

--Karen David looked amazing in the blue outfit.

--Aladdin calling Jasmine out on only caring about the welfare of the Kingdom once her own family was affected was great and I wish it would translate to other monarchs. The myopic vision of the royals is an ongoing issue on this show (poor peasants)

--"If the baby dies, you die!” Seems fair.

--“It made me a mother. It gave me a family. I have actual magic in my life. I have you.” That’s it. That’s what this show is supposed to be; the idea that your community is your family and everyone needs one to be a self-actualized person. It’s nice when Emma remembers this instead of focusing on one aspect.

--Is this Deniz Akdeniz’s natural accent? Or is he doing a (bad) Cockney accent to demonstrate that Aladdin is poorer compared to Jasmine’s posh British accent?

--Emma lies to Hook. And Hook lies to Emma. Such a healthy relationship. Obviously the shears will come back into play but we'll just have to wait and see if Emma uses them or someone uses them on her.

--“Why does magic always have to be so literal?” This line pleases me.

In Which I Review Class (1x1 and 1x2)

Imagine if Pretty Little Liars had aliens. You'd get all the teenage angst of school, family, friends and coming of age stories mixed in with the edge-of-your-seat science fiction action that pushes ordinary boys and girls to grow up just a little bit faster to becomes heroes and saviors. This heady mix of real and other worldly is what the new BBC Doctor Who spinoff "Class" strives to achieve in its first two episodes, "For Tonight We Might Die" and "The Coach With The Dragon Tattoo." If the BBC is going to keep my beloved Time Lord from me for another few months, then we might as all pack our trusty screwdrivers into our backpacks and go back to Coal Hill; goodness knows there are corridors aplenty to run down inside its locker-lined halls. Doctor Who spinoffs can be hit or miss; I never got into the Sarah Jane Adventures but Torchwood churned out some pretty impressive and grown up science fiction. Class feels like it sits right in the middle; it's more adult than the former with an almost surprising amount of gore and blood for a show aimed at the YA audience, but less mature than the latter. It's a surprisingly decent outing that grounds itself in the knowledge that its audience already had a firm footing in its universe because of Doctor Who. We can easily accept that Coal Hill, the seat of so much Who history and lore, would suddenly have a rip in the fabric of space time (sorry, Tanya. We're not calling it a bunghole). If I can access your world without the writing have to do any somersaults, then we're well on our way to a good bit of narrative. Turn on the lights and check for shadows! Let's go!

At first glance, the characters in class might appear to be walking cliches. You have the outsider who can't quite relate to his peers (Charlie); the jock who has everyone in awe (Ram); the brainiac who just wants a friend (Tanya); the too-nice, big hearted but lonely outcast (April) and the tough as nails teacher whom you suspect became a teacher on a whim because they clearly hate their job and the students (Miss Quill). But like so much in Doctor Who, and in good TV, once the characters are faced with something outside their normal day to day lives, they show us their true colors. We get glimpses of what lies behind the cliches, of who Charlie, Ram, April, Tanya and Miss Quill really are. April has a heroic and self-sacrificial streak; Ram is under too much pressure from his father to perform well; Tanya really just wants to be normal in spite of her mother's own demands that she be extraordinary. Oh and Charlie and Miss Quill are actually aliens on the run from a Tolkien-esque monster, carrying the souls of millions in a box, and are telepathically linked because of a bug-brain. See. Layers! Like any show that hinges on the adventures of people only thrown together because of circumstance, the first few episodes are about trust and how hard it can be to work together with people you had never regarded before, but that doesn't make it unwatchable. The student characters are funny and there's a tangible ethos in some, especially Ram who struggles with the loss of his girlfriend (at prom of all places!) and his abilities as a footballer. The big themes are of the universal kind--the ordinary becoming extraordinary, the different talents each individual brings to a collective whole, the perils of growing up with danger all around. Like Doctor Who, Class is about individuals thrown into a whirlwind and finding the best of themselves (there's even a snarky, grumpy, yet somehow comical mentor along for the ride, though Miss Quill would probably shirk at being compared to the Doctor). Charlie, April, Ram, and Tanya have to "figure out how to make this new reality work," probably on a week-to-week episodic basis and it's a fun ride to go on. Plus, if it means we get to see the Doctor every now and then, I'm all for it!

Miscellaneous Notes on For Tonight We Might Die and The Coach With The Dragon Tattoo

--Class is spearheaded by Patrick Ness, a Young Adult author. If the characters on screen are less annoying than other attempts at teenagedom, this is why.

--The show deserves some credit for the wide diversity both racially and with regards to sexual orientation, though I wonder if making the sole LGBT representative an alien was a good idea.

--The CGI effects are surprisingly great; the dragon of the second episode was quite good to look at.

--Miss Quill will undoubtedly go on to be the fan favorite for lines like "you ludicrous Care Bear!"

--"We're not superheroes." On the nose commentary from one of the future "superheroes" of Coal Hill.

--The Doctor notices Clara's name on the school wall while explaining that "time never forgets"; a nice touch to remind the audience what happened to the Doctor at the end of last season.

--"You are the Great Destruction of the universe..." "Yeah, but most people just call me the Doctor."

In Which I Review Westworld (1x3)

Are you a complex person? I don't mean complexity in the sense of being challenging to your peers, but rather are you sophisticated enough to be introspective, to understand your own self-awareness? Do you have the complex, metaphorical language needed to engage with the world around you in a meaningful way? If your answer is yes, then congratulation you're probably a real person. Last week, we opened with a wide view of what makes a person real--your memories, your biological responses to stimuli, your cognitive abilities to reason, argue think, understand. In this week's episode, "The Stray," we move past what it means to be real and focus on what it means to be complex and whether or not your complexity is derived from experience or manufactured by those around you. Expositions galore this week, but there's so much to unpack in the show's almost meta examination of reality and scripted narratives that I'll take it! Grab your thinking cap and let's go

I do hope no one thinks me uncomplex if my review is a bit all over the place but this show has opened a flood gate of deep philosophical questions and that excites me! The search for consciousness is at the heart of the human experience, that which we are always searching for even when we don't know it. If the first two episodes were essentially about being real, then this episode is tackling the idea of “are you complex?” For clarity's sake, I will be using the word "uncomplex" in place of the more proper uncomplicated. Yes, the latter is more grammatically correct, but the world complex and complicated have two different connotations and the show is playing with complexity over complicated, so I want to follow suit. Onwards! The two ideas--being real and being complex--feed into one another but not in any sort of direct cause and effect clear line. For example, you might say that you can be real but be uncomplex–a newborn baby is certainly real and perhaps physically complex, but he is not complex in an emotional, internal way. He has no self awareness, no complex language or ideas to be able to express who he is, how he feels, how he interacts with the world around him and how it in turn interacts with him. The baby has no ability to create metaphors, discuss or even think about higher order concepts like art, life, religion, politics, aesthetics. We wouldn’t say the baby is un-real, merely new and untrained in the ways of complex thinking. He must be introduced to complexity through growth and interaction. But is our realness dependent on our complexity?What if this newborn baby grows up and still doesn’t have the ability to think and discuss complexity, either because of a biological reason or because he was untrained or kept in seclusion. Is he any less real because he doesn’t posses metaphorical language which leads to introspection which leads to self awareness? Can you be real and uncomplex or does your lack of emotional and internal complexity mean you aren’t real? Teddy isn’t real in the same way a birthed human is real, but he was also really uncomplex for the first two episodes–in fact his character was pretty cliche and flat. But then he’s given complexity by Dr. Ford and suddenly his character has more stakes in the game (the game of life, not just the Westworld game). He’s given a backstory which “anchors” his character and gives him depth to perceive right from wrong and good from evil not only with those around him (his hatred for Wyatt is more than just some vague past encounter). But, can you really be complex if complexity is GIVEN to you? It wasn’t learned. It wasn’t born upon years of interacting with his world, developing a better code by way of life. This better code which leads to complexity was literally uploaded to him! So is he still uncomplex because his complexity exists only at the whims of another?! What happens if Ford decides to take away his complexity?

And then there’s Dolores! While she was obviously having some memory flashes in episode 1 and 2, her responses to Bernard at the beginning of the current hour demonstrate a LACK of complexity. “It’s about change. It seems to be a common theme” is about as uncomplex an answer as one can give when discussing narrative. All stories are, at the end of the day, about change. The story of humanity? About change. The story of Earth? About change. Any story you've literally ever read? About change. That statement–that stories are about change–is as commonplace as it gets and any English teacher worth their salt wouldn’t accept it as a response. Dolores gives the appearance of complexity, hence why Bernard keeps pushing her, but she’s not actually complex until she fires that gun, seemingly coming into some self-awareness that she can control her own story and do that which she was previously unable to do. So, her complexity isn’t manufactured in the same way Teddy's was, so is she more real than Teddy? Can you be more real than another person. A problem that is compounded when we remember that Teddy is not a "person" but a Host---or is he now a person because of his newfound complexity that isn't even natural complexity but designed and manufactured! See. This show is giving me fits; the good kind though.

I’m not overly familiar with the concept of the bicameral mind so I had to do some reading up, but it doesn’t actually sound like it’s been debunked but rather ignored and forgotten and I think this is where Westworld is headed, into the of idea of not only can technology mimic people but it can become consciousness to the point of there being no distinction between a birthed human and a engineered one. The pyramid Ford draws is the basis for distinguishing complex from uncomplex and we have to question if the Hosts of Westworld exhibit these traits? Memory: the hosts have memories but they are buried and deleted during each reset. But these things DID happen and they ARE starting to remember. Improvisation: Bernard commands Dolores to turn off scripted answers and instead use improvisation during their conversations because Bernard is hoping he’ll find consciousness inside Dolores. But is improvisation in the Hosts already? I think it is. Look at the titular “Stray” host Elsie and Ashley went after. Elsie even says it best: “it’s like he had an idea!” Yes, he had an idea that wasn’t part of his script and he went to follow it. I mean it ended badly for him, but that’s part of being a real complex individual. Self interest: Aren’t all the Hosts self-interested? They all want to stay alive, to eat, to drink, to sleep with someone, to go about their day. It’s manufactured self-interest though. So is it…real? Also, there is a running theme throughout all the Hosts so far: the self-interest of freedom. The desire to move past their current circumstance (circumstances of which they aren't even really aware!) and see the world, escape their lives and find themselves "out there" wherever that may be. Finally the bicameral mind; I think what Ford is getting at, and what Arnold died trying to find, was metaphorical language. That you are sophisticated enough to speak complexly and become an introspective self aware individual. And I think that’s what happening to Dolores. But that raises the question of how did this happen? It’s not a glitch or a virus. I thought it came from Dr. Ford’s reveries, but in this episode he seems pretty emphatic that the Hosts are NOT real–he even slices up a face of one to prove his point. But is he lying to himself? Ford also spends a lot of time looking at his creation and marveling at it. He seems sad when one has to be taken out of the park and put into cold storage; he’s the one trying to build an overly complex, brand new narrative instead of letting the head writer create his overly cliche tropes! Complex stories and interactions lead to complexity. How could they not! Whatever Ford is planning in his narrative, isn’t it going to exacerbate the problem his Hosts are having? Isn’t he also chasing consciousness? Is this, to quote another science fiction classic, his final frontier? What's at the center of his Maze? Is it the answer to creating consciousness or harnessing it? Maybe the answer is too complex for me to see right now; but that doesn't mean I'm any less real, right?

Miscellaneous Notes on The Stray

--There is a very popular theory a floating around the internet that my friend sent my way. The Gunslinger/Man in Black is really William, the White Hat. When we see William and Logan, we are seeing the park many years ago when the Future Man in Black was introduced to this park. I think it makes a lot of sense, except that I’m wondering how Dolores stumbling into their campsite fits because if it’s long ago, she shouldn’t be running away from the bandits at her house, right? Unless this same story (Dolores running away after the bandits kill her mother and father) has happened before?

--Bernard is chasing consciousness because his son died.

-- Soooo…who’s voice was that at the end? Who told Dolores to kill the bandit? Was it “God” (Arnold, who I’m gonna go ahead and say is NOT dead); was it Ford; was it Dolores’s own internal self (but why imagine the voice as male? Is it because of her interactions with Bernard? Did her mind make Bernard into God because of their conversations?)

--Something to keep on the back burner, but where does religion come into play with complexity? Are you less complex if you believe in a higher power and think you can hear God's voice? Or are you more complex if you're willing to have faith in something that you can't see and touch?

In Which I Review Once Upon a Time (6x4)

What makes a man a man? Or, perhaps even more on the nose after this week's episode, "Strange Case," what makes a man real? If you read my review of Westworld, published last week, then you know that show is also currently grappling with the notion of real and identity. There were a few markers I set forth as dictating "real." Memory, senses, biological responses, emotional responses, cognitive ability; all of these make up part of our identity and let us know that we are real. We have conscience thought, have the ability to reason and make decisions; likewise, we fear the end of this moral coil and thus count ourselves as part of the "real" and not part of the imaginary or "fake." Is Hyde any less real than Jekyll? Is his being hinged only on the existence of Jekyll? If Jekyll would cease to be, to evaporate into nothing more than ephemera, would Hyde cease to exist? The answer is yes, but the reverse should also be true. If Hyde were to die or be destroyed by any sort of force, Jekyll likewise should die. Why? Because they are two sides of the same coin. Jekyll is Hyde and Hyde is Jekyll. This, obviously, causes a bit of problem when we look at how certain plot points play out this week. Oh, and just for kicks, women are wanton whores! Fun, right? Grab yours tails and your top hat and let's go!

Not Truly One But Truly Two?

One of the cruxes of Robert Louis Stevenson's novella, Strange Case of Jekyll and Hyde, is Dr. Jekyll's revelation that man is not truly one being but rather truly two diametrically opposed foes (Hamilton lyric? Yes; yes it is). Lurking inside the heart of every good, upright, noble, and generous man is a beast; an evil, shady, self absorbed, and selfish animal who has more in common with the ancestors of the past than with the enlightened and forward thinking gentleman of today. In OUAT, Jekyll's own desire to squash his inner Hyde (as Rumple clumsily names him) is his haphazard attempt to quell his own self-loathing and the fact that Hyde represents a side to Jekyll he'd rather not share with the world for fear of being ostracized, laughed at, or maligned. His solution, however is fairly problematic. Hyde is Jekyll, never forget. They share the same memories, the same biological responses. They even love the same woman. They are both equally real--in the way that we define real--but they are opposite sides of a coin. Jekyll is all poise and propriety. Hyde gives the appearance of elegance but under his fancy dress lies a cunning, passionate, and resourceful heart. Super-ego and Id. The issue comes not in the show's depiction of each individual half---Jekyll is staunchly repressed, going so far as to harangue his fiancee for not conforming to societies expectations about proper femininity (oh, more on that in a bit...) and refusing to indulge or give in to his own desires; Hyde is all lust and power and potency. No, the issue comes with the notion that because Jekyll is the original, he is more real than his inner "beast." This rings as wholly antithetical to what the show has been setting up if not just this season then all series long. You cannot escape who you are. You are both proper and not; you are strong and weak; you are potent and impotent. Jekyll isn't the original anything; he's the face presented to the world because his world and its views dictate that a man must be a certain thing; you cannot be both, even though we have ample evidence that men in his world are leading double lives, hence the little tangent about Dr. Lydgate and the pretty assistant. Men (and women as with Mary, torn between her desire to be a good daughter in a Victorian society and her desire to be a sexually fulfilled being) are both; neither is original, neither is more real and neither has claim to being over the other.

When, in Storybrooke, Jekyll is impaled and Hyde also dies as a result, it's hard not to feel like the show is missing its own themes in favor of drumming up some manufactured drama and tension for the much beloved Mayor Regina Mills. In order to kill the Evil Queen, Regina must die! But, like with Jekyll and Hyde, that fails to take into consideration the fact that Regina is the Evil Queen, will always be the Evil Queen, and she--the person she is now--does not have primacy on identity. This is doubly true when you consider that the Regina we know now isn't even really "original Regina" who was a stable princess, scared of her mother, a passive agent under a tyrant who simply wanted to be free. The Regina we see now, the one claiming she has to die, has been through a life time's worth of heartache, drama, and conflict--most of which happened during her tenure as the Evil Queen! Sticking with Regina, she's a multi-facited, multi-personality person. She is a mother and a queen and a step mother and a witch and a mayor and a daughter and a sister. Regina is all of these things and neither of them take the lead over the other. For example: if Henry were in danger and Regina had to use magic to save him, is that her mother side or her witch side? Or is she both while being all the other aspects in my list? The real solution to Jekyll and Hyde, and likewise to Regina and the Evil Queen, is not that one is more real and thus capable of destruction; it's integration. It's about temperament and finding the courage within yourself to be all your aspects, not just one over the other. I have no doubt that the writers will find some not-so-clever way to save Regina from death but by going this route they are really missing out on the opportunity to delve into the inner psyche of their characters while they learn to accept who they all, warts (and occasional murders) and all!

Whores, The Lot Of Ya!

This show has a problem with women. My saying this likely comes as no shock given how I've discussed Emma Swan in the recent past but this week's excursion to (Fictional) Victorian England and Mary's plight of whore vs Madonna makes it all the more apparent that there are some truly old school thoughts about the "fairer sex" going on here. If you were to take pause and consider evil women on OUAT--whether through a curse or through their own making--what sort of characteristics and deeds come to mind? Regina, when she was in full Evil Queen mode, raped Graham both in the Enchanted Forest and for 28 years in Storybrooke under the guise of cursed feelings inflicted on an unwilling participant. Lacey (Belle) wore even shorter skirts, drank, swore and lusted after the dark side of Mr. Gold; Zelena raped Robin; Alternate Universe Snow was heavily sexualized in the same manner as Regina; Dark One Emma Swan all but jumped Hook's bones the first chance she got. Do you see a common theme here? Fallen women are loose women. When women go "bad" their villainy or evil is seen in their aggressive sexual desires and open displays of sexual conquering. Now this isn't to say that those acts weren't evil and they didn't do their job of demonstrating villainy; of course they did. The issue is that when the writers need to demonstrate women as villains or, in Mary's case, give the woman a reason to be turned upon and die, they turn to the old trick of making them aggressively sexual beings. Let's look at Mary, who is not a villain but who's actions are in the same vein and, because of which, meets much the same fate as the villain personalities of our core characters (ie: they all get resolved in favor of a more passive, less sexual type). The basic sum is that Mary wanted a man who would show her passion and desire and overthrow societies conventions. For these thoughts and her acting upon them, Mary died. She was, essentially, punished for her sexual feelings; Hyde even makes pretty clear that he is displeased to have discovered that Mary is a creature of desire. While it's equally clear that Jekyll hates this aspect in Mary because he also hates it in himself, and while I guess you can argue that Jekyll (and Hyde) were punished in the long run, it was not for expressing their sexual feelings–Hyde is basically a walking talking id–but instead punished for Jekyll repressing these same desires. Double standards, anyone? There were a lot of sexual overtones this episode with a binary that men should be virile and women passive. Jekyll is the real villain because he’s weak and, basically, impotent. Hyde isn't exactly a hero but his take change, lust driven mindset is presented as far more sympathetic than Jekyll's impotent weakness. After the past two weeks in America and the current alarming election cycle, these sorts of backwards old school gender dynamics really rubbed me the wrong way. You can say I am biased and skewed because I've always been heavily bent toward reading texts through a feminist and rape culture lens, but there is something so squicky about the fact that as soon as Mary takes agency and, more importantly, sexual agency, she dies. Food for thought, as always.

Miscellaneous Notes on Strange Case

--If ever there was any doubt that I was done with Rumbelle and Rumple, this episode sealed the deal. This was the first time where the two felt like they loathed each other, not just that were having a marital spat. It was hard to watch, especially as Rumple is devolving into an emotionally abusive spouse.

--I enjoyed Snow teaching this episode. These lighter, character moments are a welcome relief from some of the darker, more confusing plot driven aspects. With that said, did she go from Newtonian Physics to Algebra with one breath?

--"All science needs is a little magic."

--Oh hey look. It's Princess Jasmine. More on her next week, I guess.

--Violet showed up to give Henry a smooch and then vanished into the nothingness! Character development, it needs work.

--Goodbye to Jekyll and Hyde. It turns out that they were a little more entertaining than I originally envisioned, especially Mr. Hyde. On to the next part of this arc. Aladdin and Jasmine...that's your cue.