Saturday, February 28, 2015

In Memory of Leonard Nimoy

Leonard Nimoy, 1931 - 2015
To my fellow Trek fans - there's no biographical blurb or factoid that I can offer that we don't all already know. The simple truth that we all share is this: we all love you, Leonard. It's so sad to know you've left us after all these years. That being said, this is how I shall remember Leonard Nimoy.

He was sometimes ambivalent about his identity as, 'Mr. Spock', but he always seemed to return to the character. While best known for his acting, Nimoy was an accomplished author, director and photographer; but I, like many others, am first and foremost a fan of his portrayal as Spock. Nimoy took an active hand in shaping the character, genuinely cared about developing Spock in the right direction, and was one of the actors most involved with making Star Trek the enduring classic that it is. Much of what makes that series great was carried by Nimoy's character. He manages no small feat in portraying a man who is alien - both literally and figuratively - and yet totally relatable. He is logical and emotionless, and yet likeable.

I have to admit that, usually, when an actor, musician or anyone else famous dies, even those whom I'd call myself a fan of, I still don't feel too much of a sense of loss. Occasionally, someone is taken from us very young, and we wonder what they might have created, had they been given time - but deep down, losing an artist whose work you enjoyed isn't always the same feeling as losing someone you cared about. But in this case, I've found myself feeling an immediate weight upon learning of Nimoy's passing. I suppose this is a first for me, and, I suspect, for a lot of Trek fans who are around my age - an artist with whose I works I've deeply connected has died within my lifetime. And it hurts.

So, this evening, as I'm sure many other fans will be doing, I'm going to marathon a bunch of Spock-centric episodes from The Original Series. The only way I feel qualified to eulogize Nimoy is by posting this list of ten episodes where Spock was featured in some important way. These are some of the performances that made me love the character.

1. The Naked Time (Season 1, Episode 4)


It's hard to avoid picking The Naked Time when you're thinking of episodes about several characters from TOS. Everyone's inhibitions are wiped away by a form of 'space madness' as Spock calls it - and thus, every actor gets to portray a hyperbolized version of their character. But this episode is particularly notable for Spock, because we get the first inklings of an attraction between himself and Nurse Chapel. Additionally, the central conflict within the character of Spock - between his human and Vulcan halves - rises to the forefront. A classic episode overall, and the first major bit of characterization for Spock.

2. The Menagerie, pt. 1 & 2 (Season 1, Episodes 11 & 12)


The Menagerie doesn't focus solely on Spock. It is the only TOS two-parter, after all, and there's a lot going on in this story-within-a-story. But we get an insight into Spock's human half from a perspective we hadn't seen before. At it's core, The Menagerie is a story about Spock's relationship with his former captain. Spock's actions at the beginning are shocking and inexplicable, but we're soon swept up in the story of Captain Pike on Talos. So we don't really notice as Spock's motivations unfold for us on the screen; but by the end of the episode, it suddenly dawns on us that Spock's actions have been motivated by his loyalty, and friendship with Captain Pike. When challenged by Kirk, Spock counters at the end of the episode that he has been "completely logical about the whole affair."

3. The Balance of Terror (Season 1, Episode 14)


Much of the reason why the Romulans were created to resemble the Vulcans was as a plot element designed for this specific episode. A young officer, Lt. Stiles, has it out for the Romulans - his family fought in the Earth-Romulan War. However, no one had ever seen a Romulan at this point in the continuity, due to the technological limitations of yesteryear, and the Romulans' tendency for reclusiveness. So when it is revealed that the Romulans are biologically related to Vulcans, and even alleged that the Romulans may have spies aboard the Enterprise, Stiles is quick to suspect Spock. In retrospect, given what we know of the Federation, it would seem almost absurd to jump to this conclusion; but in the episode's context, it works. Spock faces and overcomes prejudice, it's our first look at the Romulans, and it's got a tense, back-and-forth Starship duel. A perennial fan favorite.

4. The Galileo Seven (Season 1, Episode 16)


Though it's just a shuttlecraft, McCoy remarks that the Galileo Seven is Spock's 'first command'. As the executive officer, Spock takes charge of the away team when their shuttlecraft crash lands on an alien world. The native inhabitants are technologically in the stone ages, but they're twelve-foot tall giants who throw proportionately large spears. Kirk and the Enterprise ineffectually search for Spock and the Galileo away team, all the while being badgered by a Federation Ambassador (who were always huge jerks in TOS), so it's all up to the landing party. Spock's leadership skills are called into question as he applies all his logical prowess to solving their predicament. Whether or not a good leader can be made of a man like Spock, who looks at every decision rationally and with emotional detachment, is the central question of the episode - and the answer is a bit ambivalent.

5. This Side of Paradise (Season 1, Episode 24)


Spock falls in love in this episode. Granted, it's while under the influence of alien spores, but the feelings Spock experiences are genuine, and they represent, in his words, the first time he's ever known true happiness. This is possibly my favorite Spock episode of the bunch - I already talked about it in the article "Paradise", where we examined the concept of utopia in Star Trek, and I think I said most of what needs to be said on the episode from a critical perspective. But speaking strictly about Spock's relationship to Leila: once again Nimoy manages to convincingly sell us the idea of a character who, by his very nature, suppresses his emotions... and yet, even when freed from the spores, we get the sense that (in some kind of subtle, Vulcan way) Spock is a bit heartbroken as he ends things with Leila.

6. Amok Time (Season 2, Episode 1)


This is the episode that expanded the Vulcan mythos like no other episode had. Spock returns to Vulcan to engage in a mating ritual, and one which he is instinctually compelled to take part in. Spock is implied to be a somewhat private character, and we learn much about him and Vulcan that neither we nor his fellow crewmen knew before. Many casual fans and hardcore trekkers alike will talk about the legendary battle scene with Captain Kirk. But for me, the best moment in this episode is Spock's reaction when he realizes that Kirk is alive and well. It's the only time when Spock, without being under the influence of alien spores, mind control, magic or 'space madness', breaks out into a huge smile. It's a great moment, and we're also starting to get a good idea of why Spock felt the need to undertake the kolinahr and purge all emotion in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Being around the Enterprise crew and their human feelings does seem to have made Spock more emotional after all.

7. Mirror Mirror (Season 2, Episode 4)


In pop culture, the trope of the bearded 'evil version' of a character all began with Mr. Spock. In the mirror universe, the Federation is replaced with the evil Terran Empire, and this sinister version of Mr. Spock sports a goatee. Of course, in the episode's context, most of the alternate versions of characters were a little bit different - the uniforms were flashier, and Mr. Sulu had a disfiguring scar. Kirk jokes that he always knew Spock had a bit of 'pirate' in him. But setting the novelty of the episode aside - Spock's character is once again central, as the only one implied to make a sincere change for the better as a result of Kirk visiting the mirror universe. Indeed, when Deep Space Nine revisited the mirror universe in the 1990s, we learn that Mirror Spock was responsible for instituting reforms to the Terran Empire. Unfortunately, like most things that happen in the mirror universe, it didn't turn out well.

8. Journey to Babel (Season 2, Episode 10)


We get to meet Spock's family for the first and only time in Journey to Babel - although Sarek would later appear in the films, in TNG, and of course we would get to see a rebooted version Spock's family in Star Trek 2009. We learn that Spock's father, Sarek, was actually quite disapproving of his son's decision to join Starfleet, and this tension between father and son is central to the episode. It is interesting to see what kind of people Spock's parents would have to be to make such a marriage work, considering the wide gulf in social norms between humans and Vulcans. Ultimately, the episode doesn't disappoint. It all feels very human. This episode is also a lot of fun in that we get to see a bunch of Federation aliens have a cocktail party, introducing us to the Tellarites and Andorians.

9. The Enterprise Incident (Season 3, Episode 2)


Spock got a lot more romance in season three, and this time it was with a Romulan commander. It's worth noting that Spock essentially seduces this woman, and the scenes of the serious Romulan and the logical Mr. Spock courting one another waver somewhere between silly and hilarious (in a good way). This episode is generally seen as one of the better offerings of season three, and it's a lot of fun. We get to see Kirk as a Romulan, the Enterprise installs a cloaking device and uses it, and the plot is basically a tense, political thriller set in space. William Shatner really chews the scenery in this episode, taking Kirk over the top in some places. The Balance of Terror was a beloved episode for many reasons, but we never get to see the Vulcan Spock directly interact with Romulans in that one; here, when it finally happens, we aren't disappointed.

10. All Our Yesterdays (Season 3, Episode 23)


All Our Yesterdays is a flawed episode - it aired around the end of season three, when the series was winding down. However, Kirk got his tragic love story in the form of City On the Edge of Forever, and now Spock gets his in the form of All Our Yesterdays. While trapped in a planet's ice age period - having been accidentally sent back in time on an alien world - Spock's mental faculties are compromised by the cold, something which adversely affects Vulcans. In this state, he falls for a woman who was banished to the time period, forced to live alone as a hunter/gatherer in the frozen wastes. In the end, Spock's duties and responsibilities require that he return to the Enterprise; that, and he realizes that the cold is changing who he is as a person. Thus, Spock must depart from his newfound love interest, leaving us to wonder whether an actual romantic relationship will ever be attainable by Mr. Spock.

Well, that's it. Those are my favorite Spock episodes, and I couldn't help but notice that many of them are also fan favorites, easily standing alongside the best episodes of TOS. As I said at the beginning of this list, Nimoy made the show what it was, and whenever he was centrally featured, the episode shined.

Rest in peace, Leonard Nimoy. Live long and prosper, Mr. Spock.


Additional watching:

Seen all those? Well, there are other notable Spock moments in the series.

Dagger of the Mind (season 1, episode 9) features the very first mind-meld, which was a major aspect of the show and character that Nimoy collaborated on.

The mind-meld developed a lot throughout the show, and Devil in the Dark (season 1, episode 25) contains what I'd call the best mind-meld scene in the franchise. Spock goes so far as to meld with a totally alien being - a silicon-based lifeform - and Nimoy gives an over-the-top performance that completely works for the episode.

In the Immunity Syndrome (season 2, episode 18), Spock telepathically senses the destruction of a ship full of Vulcans. He then pilots a shuttle into a giant space amoeba in order to stop it from consuming our galaxy.

Spock's Brain (season 3, episode 1) is widely derided as one of the most ridiculous in TOS, and rightfully so. But Spock is central to the episode yet again. If you like the campy elements of TOS, all of them are turned up to 11 in this episode.

Spock found a love interest again in The Cloud Minders (season 3, episode 21). The learned, cultured 'work of art' named Droxine falls for Spock; this becomes a point of tension because her culture is socially stratified between an affluent class and a caste of laborers.

Finally, in The Savage Curtain (season 3, episode 22) Spock gets to meet Surak, the founder of the Vulcan way of life... or at lest an image of him created by aliens in order to help them understand morality. But this was the first episode to introduce Surak as a historical figure in the Trek mythos.

And, while you're at it, you might as well go watch TNG's excellent two-parter, Unification, with Nimoy reprising his role as Spock.

The torch has been passed to Mr. Quinto, but the classic Mr. Spock as played by Leonard Nimoy will live forever.

Friday, February 27, 2015

Why Octopussy is the Worst EON James Bond film

(Never Say Never Again is still worse)


Octopussy (1983)

Directed by: John Glen

Written by: George MacDonald Fraser, Michael G. Wilson, Richard Maibaum


Starring: Roger Moore, Maud Adams, Robert Jordan

IMDB Ranking (as of publication): 6.6/10

1. Introduction.


First thing's first: when a James Bond fan tells you which Bond film he or she thinks is the worst, that doesn't necessarily mean that the fan in question 'hates' that movie. James Bond movies & their fans are kind of unique in that way - no matter how bad a Bond film manages to be, there will always be some fans who love it, or have a love-hate relationship with it. And the general consensus is that a Bond film gets a pass for cliches, plot holes, and temporary suspensions of the laws of physics as we know them.

Well, I'm no exception to the rule. I love all James Bond movies, and I like them for different reasons. But that doesn't mean, as a fan, that I don't like to complain about various parts of the franchise. And when I see lists of the worst Bond movies, or even just general rankings, I'm always surprised by where Octopussy lands. For one, there doesn't seem to be as much of a universal consensus on Octopussy as on some other films. It's no Die Another Day - almost universally hated by critics and the fandom - but it's definitely no Casino Royale, either (ironically, the two films which are most reviled and praised came one after the other). And it's definitely no Goldfinger, even though the entire film is basically an attempt to remake Goldfinger. For some reason, some people think this movie isn't that bad, and I'm here to tell them that their opinion is wrong (of course, that's just my opinion).

"The Battle of the Bonds"
But let's start from the beginning. It was 1983, and Kevin McClory had won the rights to make his own James Bond film, separate from the established franchise by EON Productions that we all know and love. The events leading up to this are complicated and have been talked about extensively elsewhere (read about it here, if you're interested). We'll just leave it at the fact that a competing studio had managed to land the rights to make a remake of Thunderball, one of the most successful James Bond films ever made. EON was obviously nervous; more so when Sean Connery was reeled in by McClory to reprise his role as Bond.

What many people don't know, however, if that Roger Moore is actually older than Sean Connery, and this fact was definitely brought up by the media. The "Battle of the Bonds", as they so christened it, saw Octopussy as the first official Bond film to have to compete with a rival franchise. Never Say Never Again ended up being so terrible that the producers at EON never really had anything to worry about. Nevertheless, you can see their thought-process, looking back. They'd gone so over the top with Moonraker - taking the series to space, no less - and brought things back down to Earth with For Your Eyes Only. Where to go from here? How to compete with Sean Connery in a remake of one of their most lucrative adaptations?

Well, they decided to steal the plot of another incredibly successful Bond film: Goldfinger. And this is why Octopussy is the worst Bond film ever. Because they took the plot of Goldfinger and basically grafted it on to a new set of exotic locations and characters. And, in the course of this process, the details of the plot became utterly nonsensical.

2. The Rip-Off.

For those of you who aren't familiar with Goldfinger (I'm sure you're out there somewhere?), here's a run-down of the plot (which you should probably read even if you are familiar with Goldfinger, because of the point I'm trying to make):

Goldfinger is a movie that begins with James Bond undertaking a mission unrelated to the main plot where he foils the plans of the communists by blowing up a drug-smuggling facility in a Latin American country, establishing him as a super-spy in a Cold War setting.

Then, M gives Bond a mission to investigate the smuggling activities of a mysterious, wealthy industrialist - Auric Goldfinger. Bond meets him formally, and discovers that Goldfinger has a penchant for cheating at the games he plays. Bond foils Goldfinger's cheating, and in response, Goldfinger's strong, silent, stereotypical henchman - Oddjob - crushes a golf ball with his bare hands. Eventually, after being captured, Bond discovers that Goldfinger is working with a representative of an eastern communist power, and is planning to detonate an atomic bomb inside a U.S. base in order to cripple the west economically and pave the way for communist dominance. Oh, and Goldfinger gets to make a lot of money.

Oddjob is menacing.
However, Goldfinger employs a young woman named Pussy Galore, who leads a flying circus staffed by beautiful women. She sleeps with Bond, and ultimately realizes, in part as a result of this, that Goldfinger's goals are evil. Because of her intervention, they are able to stop the atomic device from detonating - although it is actually disarmed by a nuclear specialist, since it would be absurd for Bond to suddenly know how to disarm an atomic bomb. Goldfinger escapes, only to have a final confrontation with Bond on an aircraft - which Bond wins, crashing the aircraft. The day is saved.

But we're here to talk about Octopussy.

Octopussy is a movie that begins with James Bond undertaking a mission unrelated to the main plot where he foils the plans of the communists by blowing  up a military facility in a Latin American country, establishing him as a super-spy in a Cold War setting.

Then, M gives Bond a mission to investigate the smuggling activities of a mysterious, wealthy prince - Kamal Khan. Bond meets him formally, and discovers that Khan has a penchant for cheating at the games he plays. Bond foils Khan's cheating, and in response, Khan's strong, silent, stereotypical henchman - Gobinda - crushes a pair of dice with his bare hands. Eventually, after being captured, Bond discovers that Khan is working with a rogue faction of an eastern communist power, and is planning to detonate an atomic bomb inside a U.S. base in order to cripple the west militarily and pave the way for communist dominance. Oh, and Khan gets to make a lot of money.

Gobinda is menacing
However, Khan employs a young woman named Octopussy, who leads a circus staffed by beautiful women. She sleeps with Bond, and ultimately realizes, in part as a result of this, that Khan's goals are evil. Because of her intervention, they are able to stop the atomic device from detonating - and Bond disarms it while dressed as a clown. Khan escapes, only to have a final confrontation with Bond on an aircraft - which Bond wins, crashing the aircraft. The day is saved.

As you can see, I've only had to change a few proper names. Wherever a plot element is significantly different from Goldfinger, it's almost universally a change in the wrong direction.

Yep.
I have no problem with a respectful amount of tasteful plagiarism. How many great works of cinema have been conceived as homages to past styles and landmark classics? On the other hand, while stealing from the greats is understandable, cannibalizing your own past material seems unforgivable. And really, one or two plot elements being re-used is one thing - but when you start to notice that Octopussy steals every last detail, down to the finest points, such as Gobinda crushing the dice, or Octopussy's circus, you start to suspect that this had to have been outright theft. The whole project comes off as so cynical to me, an attempt to appeal to the widest audience possible and make the safest possible decisions in order to compete with McClory's film. Instead of writing interesting characters - such as allies you grow to love before they get killed off, or villains you love to hate, or Bond girls that actually have a bit of personality and a real relationship with Bond - the writers seem to have focused on cramming as many set-pieces, stunts and formulaic chase scenes and assassination attempts as possible into the story.


3. The Plot.

Almost every driving plot point from the beginning of the main storyline onward makes absolutely no sense. We're treated to a scene of a man in a clown costume running from knife-throwing assassins - admittedly, the filmmakers succeed in creating genuinely surreal and unsettling visuals, like something out of a David Lynch movie, and the victim seems truly terrified. He's killed, and a Faberge Egg is found on his body. But then we learn that this guy was... 009? Would a double-0 agent being chased by assassins really act like such a total coward? After M shows Bond the egg, Bond gives us a lecture on the history of Ferberge Eggs, reminding us that Moore's Bond is an obnoxious  know-it-all. Except - the egg is fake.

But more importantly, they conclude his briefing by revealing that they found it on 009's body... and they have "very little to go on". What? Why wouldn't MI6 know what their own agent was doing, who he was investigating and what mission he was assigned to? Didn't he report in, even once? Even the fact that he's dressed as a clown should clue you in to something. It's sloppy writing like this that plagues the film. But whatever, we're told the egg is priceless, and several others have come up on the market recently. Since the fake has appeared, British Intelligence suspects a Soviet plot to raise funds.

Soviet Intelligence puts SPECTRE's HQ to shame.

We learn that General Gogol, a radical in the Russian military command, is presiding over some kind of smuggling operation involving the Russian treasury. One of the knife-men reports to him that the fake egg was lost, and because they have a surprise inventory check, they need the real egg back. Okay, so the Russians are making fake eggs to replace the real ones in the treasury, then selling the real eggs for a profit, got it.

So Bond goes to bid on the egg; I personally would have assigned him to follow up on whatever 009 was doing. In any case, at the auction, we learn from the supposed expert that anything more than 300,000 pounds would be 'crazy' - even though we were just told the egg was priceless. To further complicate this, Bond suspects Kamal Khan as involved in this hypothetical Soviet scheme, because no matter how much Bond bids for the egg, in his own words, "[Khan] had to buy it." The only information he bases this on is that Khan is normally a seller, not a buyer. How does he know that Khan isn't just a really passionate art collector who loves Faberge Eggs? And why does Khan look so pissed off while he's bidding for the egg? If he's part of the smuggling organization which is selling the egg, isn't he just taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other? And if it is costing Khan money, why would Khan even agree to spend his own money to save Orlov's ass? Isn't he in this to make money?

Based on this dubious evidence, M sends Bond to India. There he meets Vijay, who is playing the James Bond theme on a flute whilst charming a snake. Bond recognizes his contact, and Vijay ditches the basket, leaving with Bond. "I think I chose the wrong cover," he muses. "I hate snakes." Isn't the whole point of a cover to avoid any attention from the opposition, on the assumption that they may be watching? Why would MI6 suspect this in this case? Also, what exactly would an enemy agent think if he observed that exchange? A random tourist approaches a snake charmer, who then kicks over his basket and walks off with the guy? What? Consider Quarrel Jr.'s cover in Live and Let Die - he takes the guise of a local fisherman, so that when Bond leaves with him in his boat, it wouldn't arouse suspicion. And given the number of incidents they'd had with the enemy surveying them in that movie, it was understandable. Furthermore, Bond and Vijay walk up to their ride - which is furnished by... the head of the Indian Intelligence Station. So he doesn't need a cover?

Khan then proves what an idiot he is by ordering his men to chase Bond down and kill him, as Bond is leaving from Khan's private property in broad daylight, on a crowded street. If anything, this only confirms Bond's otherwise-dubious suspicions about Khan.

Kamal Khan. Not the brightest Bond villain.

As a side-note, I've never understood why certain villains just take to trying to kill Bond in front of a bunch of witnesses. Remember the days of Dr. No, where gunmen crouched in the shadows, hesitating to fire even as a car drove by? But here, these bloodthirsty psychopaths have no sense of discretion and are willing to just try and murder James Bond where everyone can see them. Maybe Bond should have acted like the coward 009 was, and started running around and screaming for help. That guy had the right idea.

4. The Scheme


Things start to get really confusing at around this point. See, my problem with this movie is that it wants to distract you with the outlandish 'Indian-themed' Q-gadgets and the spectacle of the chase sequence so you don't think about the fact that almost everything everyone does should make you think, "Huh?" Once Bond is captured and witnesses Orlov meeting with Khan, listening in to part of their plan, then the plot starts to get really confusing - why does Khan try and deceive Orlov about the eggs, switching the fake one for the real one? Why does Orlov smash the supposedly fake egg? Why doesn't Magda intervene?

Is Khan really keeping Bond alive under the assumption that he's some kind of 'mercenary' that he needs to pump for information? I'm not sure why he didn't just take the egg and leave things be, or kill Bond and be done with it. But whatever - at least Khan has a justification for his reasoning. But I can't help but wonder if the entire reason why Bond is captured only to overhear Khan and Orlov talking about their plan is because that's exactly the way it unfolded in Goldfinger.

This doesn't even touch the byzantine complexities of Khan's organization, or his agreement with Orlov. While it was clear what Goldfinger brought to the table in his deal with Mr. Ling, and vice versa, as well as what each party stood to gain, I have no idea what the nature of the deal between Orlov and Khan is. It's never explained how smuggling jewels relates to blowing up a U.S. base. You might think that the gems were to pay Khan for providing the bomb - but in fact, Orlov's men provide the bomb, and the knowledge of how to use it. If Khan is getting money out of this deal, why is he constantly spending his own money for the sake of the plan, literally throwing bags of gold around to get it done?

But Khan is the smuggler, right? No, Octopussy's circus does all the work when it comes to smuggling. And besides, Orlov just flies up to Khan's palace in a helicopter and takes the egg with him back to Russia, so I'm not even sure why they needed to smuggle anything. Well I guess Khan just was a Russian sympathizer, working for Orlov's common goal of bringing down the west? Aside from the fact that this is never stated, why smuggle the gems, then? Isn't that a capitalist ambition? What exactly did they tell Octopussy about this arrangement? What did she think Orlov and the Russians were getting out of the deal, since they didn't tell her about the bomb?

Further, I have no idea who's working for who, or who's in charge. Octopussy runs the circus... but Magda seems to be Khan's woman, and the knife twins seem to answer to Orlov, even though they work for the circus. Did Orlov insert his own agents into Octopussy's ranks? Meanwhile, Khan alternates between apparent deference towards Octopussy and antagonism. Really, Orlov is the only villain who has a clear motivation, and seems to be the architect behind the plan (even though he tries to escape with the jewels at the end of his arc, which seems out of character). But, tonally, Khan is presented as the 'main villain'. I don't know what function Khan serves in this villainous alliance, however - he seems to just be a middle-man between Orlov and Octopussy. Since Orlov and Khan planned on eventually killing Octopussy (I guess so they didn't have to pay her?), why didn't Orlov just approach Octopussy directly and avoid bringing Khan into the deal, seeing as how he's just the middle-man?

This crazy fucker would have been a better main villain.
5. The Characters.

But all this only underscores the real problems with this movie. I don't even know why Khan wants money, when he's already rich enough to own a palace and a private club. This is because he's possibly the blandest villain in the series. He get nothing for a background, except that he's an "exiled Afghan prince". We don't know what he wants, or what drives him. He has no distinguishing characteristics from any of the other villains in the series.

Compare him with Goldfinger - Goldfinger was filthy rich, but we learn that it isn't money that drives Goldfinger, but the literal acquisition of gold itself. Goldfinger is a man obsessed, and so megalomaniacal that he's willing to kill whoever he needs to kill to achieve his goal. It's these character traits that create the conflict in Goldfinger and make the struggle between the villain and Bond interesting. In the case of Khan, I'm not sure what sets him against Bond, what his motivation is. I don't even know what he's good at, what skills he brings to the table, or where he really stands within the 'organization' of which he's a part. They're just the 'bad guys'. Bond's gotta get 'em.

Kamal Khan: the most threatening Bond villain.
Eventually Bond learns of Octopussy's circus and comes to suspect that this the method by which the villains smuggling operations are being carried out. You could've probably figured that out by following up on 009's activities, but I guess swinging from the vines and shouting like Tarzan was more fun than all that. Vijay is killed off in a horrific manner, which is just fine because we know very little about him and Bond's allies were just basically redshirts at this point in the series whose job it was to give Bond something to get pissed about. I could talk about Bond dressing up in an ape costume or changing into clown make-up in less than thirty seconds, but these are only symptoms of the core problem underlying this movie, not the problem itself.

The thing is, the action sequence on the moving train is actually fairly exciting, as is Bond's race to disarm the bomb. It's utterly ridiculous for Bond to do this himself, but whatever. Despite the film's many problems, John Glen always was a good director of action, and when you compare stunts performed by real people and vehicles to the CGI nightmare our eyeballs are subjected to in modern cinema, the classic Bond films are a delight to watch. When you realize that real people actually did a lot of these stunts, it makes it more enjoyable and engaging - when it comes down to it, it's fun to watch people perform impressive feats of driving, fighting and physical prowess. But if you don't care about the characters who are fighting atop the moving train, however impressive the stunt may be, it doesn't stir us on an emotional level.

Having said all this, it's important to bring up that Khan is bland until the very end. He rarely makes any facial expressions, or has any outbursts or idiosyncrasies, except to look disapproving now and then - which I thought was Roger Moore's job. Those two compete for most boring character throughout the film, and Orlov - easily one of the more compelling secondary characters in the series - is pushed to the side. And given that the movie is called Octopussy, the character of Octopussy is underused. She ends up just being a clone of Pussy Galore. The film only draws attention to the opportunities the filmmakers missed by having Bond and Octopussy recount the plot of the Flemming short story for which the film is named, basically turning it into exposition. I would've preferred to see those events unfold, maybe in a pre-credits sequence. Having Bond and Octopussy just talk about more interesting events and characters than what we're seeing on the screen reminds us of just that - how uninteresting everyone is in this movie.

"Remember that time when I forced your father to kill himself?"
6. The Formula.

I would argue that the reason for most of these nonsensical plot elements and boring clone-characters with confusing motivations is because of the slavish adherence to copying plot elements from Goldfinger. Wouldn't it be more compelling to show the backstory of Octopussy rather than tell? I'm sure the thought never crossed their minds - merely the thought of how to force the character of Octopussy into the role of the similarly-named Pussy Galore. How does the smuggling of gemstones relate to blowing up a U.S. base? Well... Goldfinger wanted to smuggle gold and blow up a U.S. base, so Khan should too! I suspect that they didn't examine the details of the plot of Goldfinger that explain how these two plot elements relate, and when they were crammed into a new narrative, the details stopped making sense.

Ultimately, Octopussy ends up being a 'series of things that happen' rather than a film with a narrative structure, where one event unfolds into the next one. Whenever the plot is talked about, it's a bit rushed and confused, as if the filmmakers are eager to get it out of the way and onto some action. In truth, they lazily cobbled together the shell of a storyline proven to be successful, and inserted flashy setpieces and action sequences, not based on what the plot required, but in order to plug in all the right elements of a formula.

And that's the main reason why I argue that Octopussy is the worst Bond movie: the plot and even the characters are ultimately unimportant to this movie. It's all just window-dressing for the first Bond film that was formulaic, down to the very core. Even among some of the shittier previous entries in the franchise, you can usually point to one or two elements that are creative, or at least suggest that the filmmakers were taking a risk or pushing the envelope in some way, for better or worse. Octopussy took no risks at all, the end product is a movie with no plot and characters who are boring. It's a movie that's all style, but no substance.

Rating:

Not gonna stop me from re-watching it and every other Bond film
approximately 800 more times before I die, though.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

The Dark Westerns of the Twilight Zone

Five Twilight Zone episodes that exemplify Rod Serling's dark take on the western genre.


A western is a tale about nothing less than life and death. However fictitious our notions of 'the wild west' may be, the genre itself represents a narrative style wherein the setting is inherently lawless, bordering on anarchic. Yes, there is always a lawman, and usually some semblance of order on the many dusty, windy main streets that feature centrally in almost every western. But the nature of the genre is such that an individual with sufficient strength could overthrow the governing powers at any time and make himself the lawman. In a western, the rules of the game are: might makes right.

This is why the heroes of westerns are so admirable - they hold to their principles even when there is no law to back them up. When there is conflict in a western, the only thing keeping both sides from violence is a strict code of honor and the estimation of equal strength on both sides. But if honor is violated, or one side believes itself to be the stronger, violence is almost assured.

Though he was a purveyor of surreal, dark and supernatural tales, Rod Serling seemed to have a thing for westerns. If you include the episodes that deal with the civil war, The Twilight Zone had around a dozen episodes set in the old west, arguably more. But Serling & company weave tales that, while archetypically western in many ways, deal with the darker aspects of life, tend to eschew a traditional moral center, and usually include elements of the supernatural, or horror. For the purposes of this post, I've avoided episodes which include time travel (The Execution, Back There) and episodes which are too 'light' or absurdist (Mr. Denton on Doomsday, Showdown with Rance McGrew). From the remaining episodes, I chose these five as what I would consider to be the best representatives for the Twilight Zone's unique 'dark western' genre.

1. Dust (Season 2, Episode 12)
Written by: Rod Serling



"There was a village - built of crumbling clay and rotting wood. And it squatted ugly under a broiling sun like a sick and mangy animal wanting to die. This village had a virus, shared by its people. It was the germ of squalor, of hopelessness, of a loss of faith. For the faithless, the hopeless, the misery-laden, there is time, ample time to engage in one of the other pursuits of men. The begin to destroy themselves."

The episode 'Dust' sells a tone that is cynical as can be, to the point of mean-spiritedness at times. The opening shots reveal a desolate town - the quintessential dusty, desert town of the wild west, and one that is particularly poor and run-down. A few moments later, we see the gallows, being tested.

We're then introduced to Peter Sykes, a traveling salesman. Variations on this type of character were popular in westerns, and the Twilight Zone is no exception to this. However, in contrast to the benign merchant in Mr. Denton on Doomsday, or the likable Mr. Garrity in a subsequent episode, Peter Sykes is a boorish, unscrupulous low-life. Returning from St. Louis, he comes to peddle his wares, and he's more than a little excited that Sheriff Koch is scheduled to hang a local named Gallegos. He visits the jail both to offer to sell the sheriff rope for the hanging, and to taunt the condemned man - by morally chastising him and by gleefully speaking of his coming execution.

"You talk big behind a badge, Koch."
"It just sounds big to you because you're a midget, Sykes."
-Sykes to Sheriff Koch


Gallegos was driven to alcoholism by the destitution of the village, and killed a young girl with his wagon in a drunk driving accident. It's implied that distrust of foreigners is at least partially responsible for the unduly harsh sentence Gallegos has received for manslaughter. Even though the sheriff agrees that Gallegos is culpable, it clearly doesn't sit right with him to hang the man. Meanwhile, Gallegos' family are distraught, begging the forgiveness and understanding of the town, who rebuke them. Sykes remains morally certain about his behavior; he walks alongside the funeral procession, trying to stir up vindictiveness in the mother and father of the dead child - he promises that things will be 'cheerier' tomorrow when Gallegos is hanged. Everyone else in the village seems to think so - locals begin arriving, some with their children, to watch the event.

"They're tired of hating this place. The sun. The ground that is dead under your feet. They must go out and find something else to hate."
-Luis Gallegos


While some of the characters and acting sometimes seem exaggerated, the episode does manage to set a genuinely dreary atmosphere and tone. The sheriff has huge circles under his eyes - the man looks tired, fed up, exhausted with Sykes and the climate of negativity around him more than anything else. Gallegos seems repentant, but gloomy - resigned to his fate, but pained by the knowledge of what his death will do to his family. And it is almost embarrassing to watch Gallegos' father beg for his son's life; he seems to be more 'at the end of his rope' than his son. Absolution seems nigh on impossible. Then, things get worse. When Sykes sees how superstitious Gallegos' father is - he tries to give Gallegos a 'lucky coin' - he hatches a plan to con the old man and humiliate him all at once. He offers him a 'magic dust' that will turn hatred into love for one hundred pesos. The notion seems almost too cruel, and Thomas Gomez as Sykes hams it up as the episode's petty villain, cackling maniacally.


One might have expected the twist to be something along the lines of the dust working after all, but the episode manages to surprise a little by avoiding the obvious twist. Because the dust is obviously not really magical, a hint of pity comes into the eyes of Mr. and Mrs. Canfield, as they watch Gallegos' father futilely plead for his son's life. And in the end, it turns out that nothing Sykes sells is worth the price - not even his rope. Finally, Mrs. Canfield pleads with her husband, "No more."

Dust speaks to man's antagonism to man as a past-time; when a person has nothing else to live for, and is overwhelmed by sorrow and hatred, focusing that hatred can alleviate such a man's pain. In the lawlessness of the old west, this cruelty can easily be made manifest into law - in the form of swift, summary executions. We see the gamut of cruelty in Dust, from the cheerful maliciousness of Sykes; to the Canfield's steely determination to pass judgment; to the base sadism of the townspeople. The redemption of love and compassion doesn't even seem possible in such an environment - but the tonal shift is surprisingly effective because, once mercy is enacted, positive changes seem almost inevitable. Gallegos - who was irredeemable to the villagers - is spared. Then, even Sykes - who was irredeemable in our eyes, the eyes of the audience - redeems himself a little.

2. The Grave (Season 3, Episode 7)

Written by: Montgomery Pittman


"Some men of legend and folk tale have been known to continue having their way even after death. The outlaw and killer Pinto Sykes was such a person, and shortly we'll see how he introduces the town and a man named Conny Miller, in particular, to the Twilight Zone."

While definitely the creepiest episode on this list, The Grave also has the distinction of also being one of the creepiest Twilight Zone episodes, period. The narrative structure works very much like a 'scary story' that one might tell around a campfire, and it includes many of the tropes of the kind of stories you might find in a book like Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (remember those, kids?) - the main character is a sort of 'flawed innocent', a character with obvious and tragic faults, but which do not morally compromise him to the point that we think he 'deserves' what happens to him. In other words, we can still sympathize with the character, even as his own actions doom him. In this sense, this episode could also be said to contain a dash of dramatic tragedy.

Coincidentally, there's also a character named Sykes in The Grave - but this character, named Pinto Sykes, is gunned down almost immediately in this episode. Surrounded by townsfolk with six-shooters on a bleak, windy evening, Sykes is shot dead. His father and sister, Ione, are called to his side as Sykes dies.

Lee Marvin portrays the main character: Conny Miller, a mercenary. Conny was hired to track down Sykes, who was hated by all as a bully who treated the town as "his own personal property". However, Sykes eluded Conny's pursuit across the west, and eventually returned to the town. As the townspeople recount to Conny, they eventually gathered the courage to gang up on Sykes. A few seem curious about Conny's timing in returning, and things start to get really interesting once we hear what Sykes had to say about Conny on his deathbed - and to him.

"What'd he say about me?"
"He got really riled when he mentioned you. He said the slower he ran away, the slower you chased him. He said he waited for you in Albuquerque. He even sent word where he was. You never showed up. He said you oughtta be able to catch him now. But that if you ever come anyways close to his grave, he'll reach up and grab yah!"
"He lied. Even on his deathbed."
-Conny Miller and Mothershed


Pinto Sykes swore that Conny Miller was just a coward, and given that Conny spent four months chasing Sykes with no results, the townsfolk seem to have a certain animosity towards him for failing - and this inclines them to believe Sykes' deathbed accusation of cowardice. And even though Conny counters, claiming that Sykes was never in Albuquerque more than a night, the townspeople in the tavern don't quite believe him... and neither do we. When the door suddenly opens, Conny draws his pistol, as if startled - however, it's only Sykes' sister, Ione. She seems to be taking her brother's death a little too well; her demeanor could almost be described as whimsically sinister.

As the speculation continues into the night, eventually Johnny Rob, the town blabbermouth, bets Conny twenty dollars - which he spent twenty weeks saving - that he won't go alone to Pinto Sykes' grave that night. It isn't long before a businessman named Steinhart -  portrayed by Lee Van Cleef - also bets against Conny; even the calculating, unemotional capitalist is willing to wager against him. At this point, Conny can't turn down the bet. Sticking to his guns and with his reputation at stake, Conny goes over the rules with the others: he is to stab a knife into the earth near Sykes' grave, as proof that he actually approached the grave. Conny is increasingly irritated as the townspeople go on doubting him - first his courage, then his honesty. Eventually, determined to prove his nerve, he leaves with little hesitation.


The sight of Ione descending from her brother's grave, cloaked in black, is truly unsettling; the shadows and wind in the bleak-looking cemetery are equally unnerving. As Conny continues with the wager, there are so many indications that he is actually afraid, and we can't help but suspect that must be some truth to Ione's claims that she's be in communion with her dead brother. It seems so worthless for Conny to have to prove himself, or for Sykes to want to antagonize Conny from beyond the grave. The right answer seems to have been to let things be. The honor in bravery is in its necessity - in overcoming dangers that must be tackled. If there is a moral to be found, we might consider that Conny is punished for striving to prove himself - for the sake of bragging rights, money, to shut up his critics, for his reputation. Bravery can't be bravery without actual danger involved, after all. Is it really worth risking a man's life - merely to convince others that he isn't afraid?

3. Still Valley (Season 3, Episode 11)
Written by: Rod Serling (Adapted from the story, "The Valley Was Still" by Manly Wade Wellman)


 

"The time is 1863, the place the state of Virginia. The event is a mass blood-letting known as the Civil War, a tragic moment in time when a nation was split into two fragments, each fragment deeming itself a nation. This is Joseph Paradine, Confederate cavalry, as he heads down toward a small town in the middle of a valley. But very shortly, Joseph Paradine will make contact with the enemy. He will also make contact with an outpost not found on a military map - an outpost called the Twilight Zone."

Still Valley is possibly the clumsiest episode included here. It has some campy elements as well as eerie, but I've included it as a representative of the many Twilight Zone episodes that dealt with the Civil War, and among those it is the most sufficiently dark and 'western' entry. This episode creates a solemn, dreary atmosphere fairly well, which is maintained even the story gives way to what is essentially a pulp, B-movie-esque premise.

There is a feeling of resignation in this episode, as Sergeant Joseph Paradine, a Confederate army scout, prepares for a mission to spy on Union troops who have just come to a nearby town. His companion, a fellow Confederate named Dauger, has lost all heart to fight, and first suggests that they flee, then that they should surrender, opining that the fall of the Confederacy is a foregone conclusion. Paradine is disgusted.

"So far, you and me pledged nothing to the Confederacy, except a lack of sleep and empty bellies. But there's a couple hundred thousand others who pledged a lot more. You're making it appear like they did it for nothing."
-Paradine, to Dauger

Paradine rides down to the town alone, puzzled that sound can no longer be heard issuing from the valley, when he'd only just spotted a Union regiment entering the town. At first he is stealthy, but it quickly becomes clear that Union soldiers are frozen in place, their expressions blank and their bodies seemingly paralyzed. This is the weakest part of the episode - Paradine spends waaayyy too much time running around, shouting at the 'yanks' to move, wondering out loud about what's happening, and finally yelling for the entire regiment to surrender to him. Of course, the troops remain fixed and unmoving, and the theatrical style of screenwriting that was very influential on The Twilight Zone (and that era of television in general) begins to work against the pacing of the story as the main character continues his unrealistic, over-the-top monologue. Things don't pick up until Paradine catches the attention of Teague, an elderly man who seems to be the only one unaffected by the 'stillness'.

Spouting notably silly lines with a matter-of-fact delivery, Teague declares things such as, "I'm a witch-man!" or, "This is conjure-stuff!" He has a book that is literally only marked with the word, "Witchcraft", in a font that belongs on a doom metal album.

Not making this up.
Teague uses magic to freeze Paradine, and reveals that he is a Confederate sympathizer. He claims that with the powers of the book, one could freeze the entire Union army and pave the way for a Confederate victory. Unfortunately, he is dying - so it's awfully convenient for him that a Confederate soldier turned up for him to pass the power on to. Paradine is excited by the prospect, but he is a bit suspicious by Teague's constant invokations to the 'prince of darkness'. Teague finally admits that, yes, the powers of book kind of put you in league with Satan.

When Paradine returns to camp, he demonstrates the power for the other Confederate officers who have arrived. However, as he begins to chant a spell powerful enough to win the war, he realizes that the spell demands that they all renounce God. Even if you're not religious, it's hard to imagine not getting something of a chill as Paradine begins to uncomfortably call on Satan for the use of black magic - something about the trope of making a deal with the devil carries with it a sense of finality,  and burning a bridge with all that's good and right.

"It's that book or it's the end!"
"Then it let it be the end! If it must come, let it come. If this cause is to be buried, let it be put in hallowed ground."
-Dauger and Paradine


Perhaps the views on the Confederacy put forward here are a bit outdated: the notion of the south as essentially noble, fighting valiantly for their lost cause. Nevertheless, the mutual brutality of the Civil War was something to be lamented, and despite the tyrannies of the south, the average soldier fighting for the Confederacy was not the devil himself. Most on both sides were ordinary and lower-class, and many soldiers on both sides had family in the opposing army. While it may now be distasteful to honor the Confederacy as a noble enemy, we can at least reflect on the unfortunate conflict called the Civil War, and lament that most of those who fought and died for their respective causes were decent men, pushed into conflict by convictions that made such a confrontation inevitable. And, in the end, we can be thankful for the mercies enacted over the course of the Civil War, wherever they can be found in history.

4. Mr. Garrity and the Graves (Season 5, Episode 32)
Written by: Rod Serling (From a story by Mike Korologos)



"Introducing Mr. Jared Garrity, a gentleman of commerce, who in the latter half of the 19th century plied his trade in the wiled and wooly hinterlands of the American West."

The traveling salesman pops up again in Mr. Garrity and the Graves, this time as a more central figure; not to mention the fact that once again the title of the episode involves graves. The common threads of Serling's 'dark western' tales are beginning to coalesce. However, this is the least serious of all the 'dark western' stories, with its tongue planted firmly in cheek.

The setting of this tale is Happiness, Arizona, although it wasn't always known as Happiness. Not ten months before the beginning of the story, the town was known by various other names: Satan's Stagestop, Dead Man's Junction, Boothill Village - that last one named for the nearby Boothill Town Cemetery, in which 128 people are buried, all shot dead (except for one, who died of natural causes). When Mr. Garrity, a mysterious salesman, rolls into town, the bartender explains that the town was able to 'take stock' of itself and hire some good lawmen to actually enforce the laws and maintain the peace. Now, the town has transitioned into a fit place to live. Garrity is impressed and toasts to the good fortune of the town; the bartender casually asks him what his trade is. "I bring back the dead," Garrity nonchalantly tells us.

John Dehner's Garrity starts to sound like a con-man very quickly to the audience, almost as quickly as he mollifies the leaders of the town of Happiness and gains their trust. The thing is, Dehner plays a thoroughly likeable con-man. The only comparison I might draw could be to crime dramas where the protagonist is the criminal, but one that you root for - like The Sting, or Jackie Brown. In a way, this episode almost seduces you to a sort of con artist's logic: the people of the town are so foolish with their money that it almost seems like they don't deserve to hold on to it. Because Garrity's con plays into the selfishness of the people of Happiness, we don't feel so bad about him bleeding them dry. And in the end, everyone acts of their own free will. The people have only themselves and their prioritization of their own self-interest to blame.

After promising to revive all the dead of Boothill Cemetery, Garrity manipulates the townspeople, one by one, into thinking better of bringing back all the dead, which includes ex-wives and husbands, violent criminals, and their obnoxious neighbors and creditors - better to leave one or two still in ground, especially if part of why Happiness has been such a better place is that some of its worst citizens are now dead and buried. But since the resurrection has already been initiated, he requires payment to not bring this or that person back. Eventually, everyone who was set to be restored to life has had someone happily give Garrity a wad of money to keep them in the grave.

"Real sorry, friends. Real sorry that I actually couldn't perform what I laid claim to. So rest in peace, all of you."
-Garrity, to the graves


The best part of this episode is the ending, which I'm not going to spoil for you if you haven't already seen it. Needless to say, it changes the tone of the entire episode into more of a dark comedy, from the previously light-hearted comedy it was at the beginning. I'd even go so far as to say that a touch of horror raises its head here, if only for a moment. In my humble opinion, this is the best variation on the trope of the traveling salesman, whose tonics, wares and spells are all of questionable potency.

5. Come Wander With Me, Season 5, Episode 34
Written by: Anthony Wilson



"Mr. Floyd Burney, a gentleman songster in search of song, is about to answer the age-old question of whether a man can be in two places at the same time. As far as his folk song is concerned, we can assure Mr. Burney he'll find everything he's looking for, although the lyrics may not be all to his liking. But that's sometimes the case - when the words and music are recorded in the Twilight Zone."

The Twilight Zone is among the most 'literary' of television series, and Come Wander With Me is among the most literary of Twilight Zone episodes. It warrants comparison to the metaphor-laden southern short stories of the likes of Flannery O'Conner, and is famously cryptic, which has led some to puzzle over the episode for many years, but most others simply to dismiss the episode as nonsense, or overly surreal. I'll admit, it took me awhile to warm up to this episode. That being said - this episode was truly haunting, and it stuck with me for a long time before I understood why it made such a strong impression on me. Maybe its partially because I'm a musician, maybe its because the featured song is striking and beautiful, or maybe something else, more elusive.

This is arguably the least 'western' of all the episodes involved; I'd argue that it emulates aspects of that genre, albeit in a different rural setting. The key elements are there in this episode: the character enters a hostile territory, a lawless wilderness where different rules apply, and conflicts can easily escalate into violence if honor is not satisfied. Our protagonist, Floyd Burney, begins the episode by literally crossing a bridge into what seems to be strange, almost unreal-seeming world. The characters often seem to talk past one another; Burney is clueless, but inexorably driven by something within; the events of the episode seem to unfold unavoidably, as if they were preordained. Burney's a musician, who has jumped on the bandwagon of making 'authentic', 'backwoods' folk music, and he's seeking a song to record and make into a hit.

"Come wander with me, love,
come wander with me,
away from this sad world,
come wander with me."


Burney initially pulls up to the storefront of the local 'musicman', but he soon hears a melody in the woods and wanders off to find its singer - eventually he finds her, and her name is Mary Rachel. She speaks in oblique references to future events, though in the past tense; she eventually says things like, "Don't run this time," leaving us with the impression that this has all happened before, and will happen again, a possibility made all the more likely by Serling's opening narration and the reveal that Burney's gravestone is already etched and in the ground. Meanwhile, a doppelganger of Mary looks on from just out of sight, dressed in what looks like a mourning shawl. We wonder if this is just part of an ever-repeating song - a story told in the song's many verses, which Mary Rachel is doomed to sing. She wishes that the words could be different, but the song is always the same. It has to be.

"He came from the sunset.
He came from the sea.
He came from my sorrow,
and can love only me."



The Nietzschean concept of eternal return comes to mind - the thought experiment about the possibility that one's life will be repeated, exactly the same as it has been every time, ad infinitum. It's worth noting that Nietzsche saw reality as inherently musical; the nature of the dilemma put forward in Birth of a Tragedy could be described as a decision between dancing 'with the music', or dancing to one's own rhythm. Does one try to stand out and take command of their own destiny, or go with the flow, give in to one's nature and learn to love fate? The answer is, according to Nietzsche that one shall inevitably follow the course set by their essential nature and its drives. Even one who tries to stand out is just giving in to his nature as an independent, creative spirit. Even one who tries to give in is taking charge and deciding for himself what he wants to become. Because one always ends up "becoming who one is", Nietzsche did not believe in the concept of free will - everything human is therefore the product of measurable, biological drives.

"Oh where is the wanderer,
Who wandered this way.
He's passed on his wandering,
And will never go away."


If we entertain the possibility that Wilson intended Come Wander With Me to touch on these themes, then it can be understood as a song about an episode more than an episode about a song. Mary Rachel wants Floyd to go against the flow of the music, hoping that one of these times he'll make something different of himself. But that simply isn't who he is; his role in the song is ultimately to fail to act differently, or even to comprehend the nature of his situation. Hers is to forever beg him to change, knowing that he can't. The tides of fate have set Floyd Burney on a certain course which he must follow; after all, his grave has already been dug, he's already in it, and she's already mourning for him. The song is, by its very nature, bittersweet - as such, the narrative the verses weave is tragic. When Burney finally wishes to relinquish the song, begging Mary Rachel to "take it back," he still misunderstands the depth of the situation - in truth, the song was always his. She can't take it back.

"He sang of a sweet love,
Of dreams that would be.
But I was sworn to another,
And could never be free."


The central conflict in the episode stems from the fact that Mary Rachel is bespoke (engaged) to Billy Rayford, the youngest of four brothers who live nearby. As such, she begins the episode by insisting that the song is not for Floyd, but for Billy. Floyd can't understand this - he is bound and determined to 'discover' a song to purchase, or even steal, so that he can make it big. The fact that something might not be for sale is foreign to him, as are the conservative standards of chastity and behavior in this part of rural America. Its Burney's foolhardy disrespect for the song which is his undoing. He doesn't realize that the price of claiming such a song is not paid in dollars - his actions were nothing less than tempting fate.

Floyd Burney ends up being a somewhat unlikable character, and its partially for this reason that I puzzled for so long over why this episode stuck with me. Maybe its because, like Conny Miller, he's a flawed innocent - he's arrogant, rude, stubborn and reckless, but we don't think Burney deserves to die. And we can feel Mary Rachel's pain over being caught in the middle. The inevitability of it all seems to ultimately make Come Wander With Us a fatalist tragedy; if things could have been just a little different, it all might have turned out for the better, for everyone involved. Alas, we end exactly where we began - at Floyd Burney's grave, knowing full well that it won't be long before he walks over it, unwittingly, yet again.

Conclusion:


The Western is a dramatic genre, and one that typically deals with serious subject matter. As I asserted at the beginning of this article, westerns are basically stories about life and death. The western confronts a period of American history that was marked by occasional brutality and lawlessness by mythologizing it into a more primitive setting; a battleground where morality plays can unfold, and one can see the true nature of good and evil when the ordering influence of the state and its laws are absent.

But if the westerns made famous by the likes of John Wayne were black & white in their moral outlook, Serling & company's 'dark western' tales exist in shades of gray. The traditional virtues of western heroes - manliness, bravery, tenacity, patriotism - are of no help in the Twilight Zone, and can even serve to undo the protagonist, given the circumstance. Like many episodes of the series, these dark westerns border on magical realism given how the world itself sometimes behaves unpredictably, to mirror the conditions of their protagonists. Above all, the dark western retains the genre element of the hero confronting a lawless territory, but his morality is no guarantee of his success, for there is no clear moral order at the end of most of these tales. The character may do the nothing but the right thing, or at least the understandable thing, and still end up dead and buried.

Still, the genre is not totally cynical. At the end of the day, optimism is possible, if one commits to solid action and hard work. Even though the dark western includes supernatural elements that are absent from traditional westerns, it is the grittier of the two genres. The good guys can win in the end, but there is nothing ensuring this. And that's assuming there's a good guy, or that everyone doesn't lose. Both very real possibilities, so long as your western takes place... in the Twilight Zone.