Why do you like 'The Hand of Saint Sebastian'?

[Guest A Stranger]

I disagree most strongly that S2 is more humane; the 'Human element' is most in evidence here and teaches us that this is what it is to be human. Good people are swallowed up by grief and hopelessness, evil often exists in the hearts of otherwise decent people who simply didn't have any luck.  S2 loses this impact by clearly defining this good and evil in my opinion. It all but dismisses the actions of people and society as being inevitable and therefore of secondary concern to 'the Big Picture'. It dispels the notion throughout Season One that the answer lies within us, that we have the power to change things. Season One prizes the individual and shows how fragile harmony is, how any of us could become the monsters under the right circumstances. S2 promotes the notion that only certain extraordinary people can change things and that this evil can be fought and it can be beaten. This is oversimplication to the point of absolute absurdity and ignores the reality of the human condition and the social body politic. Season Three returned the focus back to the core principals of S1. I do very firmly believe that a Season like S3 unpolluted with the poor choices of S2 (evil MLM group being the big offender) would have ensured the continued survival of the show.

I agree.

In season two characters are born evil for the most part. This idea is introduced very early on (Monster) and no explanation is given becuase there is on explanation as the deamon says in "Somehow Satan..." the serial killer became a serial killer "just because." I do think this is interesting. But is a very different stance, in fact the complete opposite of what we get in season one. "Killer aren't born killers" is the lesson of "Wide Open." Reasons are given for the actions in season one and three much more than in two, which is much more realistic (determinsit).

But... That does mean that the approach in season two has no validity or "human element." To me, as I may have stated before, MM delt with the same themes throughout the series run but in different ways. When I look at the show in broad strokes, taking out the biggest, most simple values or "lessons" lessons it is consistent. That's what I would call the "emotional element." What I mean is I've never had anything to do with serial killers, I'm not religous, I have very little in common with what the characters do on the show but was still affected by them and could relate to them. So what I would try to find out is why that is.

In season one we are introduced to the "real world" but it's pretty obvious that it's not really the real world, it's distorted in order to make a point. The same thing is happening in seasont two but it is distorted in a different way in order to make the same point, which is key. The same goes for season three.

The over all theme is that one man trying to come to grips with himself and make the world a better place. It's that simple.

[Guest ModernDayMoriarty]

They do indeed all focus on the journey of Frank Black but I felt that S2 didn't properly address some of the better ideas that it had. There are very few episodes that even come close to explaining how devastating his seperation from Catherine and Jordan must be. After watching S1 it is hard to credit that he could live anything like a normal life without them. But this doesn't really come through and it needed to. The Millennium Group make great advances to Frank in S2 because he is emtionally vulnerable and ripe for the picking; the forces of evil also do this. As it is the core of the Season, I felt that we needed to see how much pain Frank was in, to inform these acts of seduction. But quite frankly, I see Frank as actually seemingly happier than he did in S1 and that can't be right! The separation just seems like 'one of those things'.

Season Three is a far better portrayal of how I imagined Frank to be after losing part of his family. The beauty of Season Three is seeing how Frank slowly cleanses himself of the dark stain on his soul left by the Poloroid Stalker, Legion and the Millennium Group. When S3 starts, Frank has joined the FBI looking for revenge against the Group for all they have done. He ends the episode by saying 'I won't let them win'. His father-in-law whilst assigning blame has told him of the need to find and punish those responsible. The season shows us a darker, more driven Frank Black than previously. This Frank has no bones about telling Emma Hollis straight that there was no reason for her sister's death, this Frank can refuse to help a girl in trouble because her father works for the Millennium Group, this Frank will snipe and criticise people like Barry Baldwin just because they don't know what he knows.

The Polaroid Stalker's aim was always (I think) to drag Frank down to where he was; a man torn to pieces by what he had been shown by the Millennium Group, with a void where his soul was and hungry to make everyone else feel his pain. After all, he could have killed Frank and his family any time, he certainly seemed to have no fear of death so killing them and then facing consequences wouldn't have been a concern. By extending Frank's dread and allowing his rage to grow he tried to make sure that even after he was dead, Frank would be ruined by what he had done. With the MLM Group, Frank was able to survive this but S3 sees that the final victory of the Stalker is at hand. Frank is close to living only for revenge, he will soon become the next Polaroid Stalker (or something similar). To the Group, he already is; an ex-member who has gone insane and is now arrayed against them - how is that any different from the original Stalker?

The difference is that Frank ISN'T the Polaroid Stalker and (perhaps more importantly) he has Jordan. Through her simple actions she reminds Frank of the need for humanity, to ignore the cries for vengence from his father in law and his own mind. Her setting of the table for Catherine every night, first seen in 'The Innocents' lets us know right away that Jordan has the right idea. She grieves for her mother whereas Frank and his father-in-law (have to look up his name!), are more concerned with finding reparations, getting their pound of flesh from the Millennium Group. Without Jordan, Frank would probably have kicked in Peter Watt's door in the first episode of the season (and thus ensureing S3 would consist of one short episode). But Frank is a decent man and despite all that has happened he remains essentially a good man. He initially refuses to help Taylor Watts but he can't let her die to satisfy his rage; his actions in the season show a genuine desire to keep Hollis away from the Group for her own safety rather than simply defying the Group. He even tells Hollis that he believes Watts can be saved, that no-one is beyond hope. This is towards the end of the Season when Frank is realising (in Seven and One for instance) that hatred and revenge are not the way forward. His duty to Jordan and to build a new future are more important. He doesn't need to destroy the Millennium Group because he accepts that the answer is inside him. People have the freedom and power to make their own way, when they realise this, the Group no longer has any power over them. By seeking to destroy them he was simply playing their game again, promoting their importance whilst ignoring the things he should have been looking at.

We are all Shepherds. I.e, no-one has control over the flock, we all do. As a portrait of a man struggling with inner darkness and turmoil I found S3 to be VASTLY superior to S2. I could go on about the portrayal of evil etc and how it feels of a kindred spirit to Frank in much of the Season but I think I'll have to end this now.

Thanks to all readers!

[Guest Pencil Machine Operator]

First of all I have to say Wow, you're scholarship is pretty amazing (and intimidating and overwhelming!).but enough of the flattery...

I dont think i said that s2 was more humane, just that it was equally so. I think we both agree that, on the surface at least, there is a move from humane determinism to a more problematic essentialism. This essentialism is, as you said, most obvious in Monster. This isnt one of my fave eps, but what i found most effective about it, was the fact that there was no abuse backstory to explain away the child's 'evil'. I'll have to wtch it again, but couldn't it be said that her evil (and all the evil in the season) is informed by the general, pre-millenial sickness of society?( and if i remember rightly, there are quite a few digs at closed, conservative society in the ep) And therefore couldn't it be argued that season 2 isn't so essentialist after all?

In the Mikado aswell, i think there was a brief dig, when a police officer, asked if he could help find a killer who was supposedly dead, says something along the lines of "...oh, that b******* is dead!" (my memory is vague,is this how it hppened?), ie. they were attributing society's evil to just a handful of violent criminals...and failing to address or acknowledge the real problems.

I think what I'm saying is that season 2 had an implicit, assumed determinism; which was developed into a kind of theology (which, as i said before, can be just as grounded as an atheistic view of the world.) Season 1 had an EXplicit determinism.

I'll qualify everything by saying I'm equally a fan of seasons 1 and 2 and tht I like the last few s3 eps for the reasons you outlined already. And I'll also say that generally, im a determinist.

This is going to sound pretentious and paradoxical, but I think I've just argued that season 2 is essentialist-determinist.{slaps forehead in confusion}oh yeah, I've intentionally avoided the arguments about how each season dealt with Frank's journey because, as i've said before, I really need to watch the whole series again (yippeee!)

[Guest ModernDayMoriarty]

Season Two does indeed take the idea that 'certain people are evil and that is what evil is' to be a false statement. Like in 'Beware of the Dog' where the Old Man teaches Frank that killing a dog/catching a murderer is pointless because there will always be another dog/murderer. To win overall, true evil must be faced. That is the whole point of 'Beware...' - Big picture versus little picture. The wise, learned Old Man versus the ignorant townsfolk. To me, Season Two seems preoccupied with showing the MLM Group idea that Good and Evil exist and must be addressed whereas Frank struggles to assert some basic humanity into this. Take 'Luminary' for instance where Frank defies the Group because he doesn't think like they do, that any case which doesn't involve this conflict is not something the Group should waste their time on.

My problem with S2 is, as I have stated, that it doesn't do enough to show this. Frank's basic humanity and his insistence on focusing on people and their concerns (so essentially being of a humane disposition) isn't played up enough against the Group's mandate that people don't matter next to Greater forces (i.e they would refuse to help one person in danger if their resources could be used to combat a greater evil, no matter if those resources were not really needed). This is all explained in 'Beware of the Dog' and is partly the reason that I think it the keystone to the whole Season. The people view Frank as the sherrif despite him telling them endlessly that he isn't. Why? Because he IS the town sherrif for every town everywhere. He wants to protect PEOPLE in a way the Old Man (and the Group) doesn't. The Old Man will let the townspeople die and Micheal of course, if they interfere with the balance of power (they believe for the Greater Good), wheras Frank won't stand for it; he is the conscience of the MLM Group. Also, I was very interested in the statement that they are looking for equillibrium - does that mean that in a place with an excess of Goodness, the Group would introduce evil to redress the balance? The Old Man certainly allows the dogs (a representation of evil) to take their 'pound of flesh'. The big problem I have with this episode is that I don't think Frank would go along with that (of course, he doesn't here because he helps micheal and persuades the Old Man to help too but I mean in a larger context). My eventual take is that Frank resolves to help but in his own way (hence his humanity throughout the Season that jars with the Group's methods).

Because in the end, I don't think Frank ever lets go of the human element; he knows that the Group is misguided in discarding any concern for people and crime. The most interesting of 'Monster' for me is the conversation with Peter and Catherine where they display again the opposite sides of the argument (it happens again in Amanesis - or however it's spelt!) The human side, i.e why does Frank have to reject his family and consume himself in his work versus the Group's martyrdom - that he must because certain people have a role that they MUST play for the good of everyone. I have no problems with the themes of S2, just the execution. I find most of the episodes to be badly realised with an excess of unfunny humour and to be too distant from reality to make much impact. It may be trying to show the Group's detachment but a little more reality and feeling from Frank would have been nice. It isn't totally absent but I was pretty starved for it after a while.

To try and explain I will briefly group the S2 episodes into what I thought of them.

Good entertaining episodes that had a clear message well delivered:

Beware of the Dog, The Curse of Frank Black, A Room with no View, The Mikado, Jose Chung's 'Doomsday Defence', In Arcadia Ego.

Episodes that were interesting but sabotaged by poor humour/badly realised ideas.

The Beginning and the End, Sense and AntiSense, The Hand of Saint Sebastian, GoodBye Charlie, Owls, Luminary.

Episodes that just didn't entertain or work because of bad ideas/inconsistency.

Roosters, The Fourth Horseman, The Time is Now, Monster, 19:19, A Single blade of Grass, Midnight of the Century, Amanesis, Somehow Satan..., The Pest House, Siren.

That is very roughly how I view Season Two. Of course I have views on all the episodes but largely I think they failed to deliver on the (largely interesting) ideas that Morgan and Wong had for the Season. And as always I just wish someone had stopped them from turning the MLM Group into something that evil (the final two episodes are cancers that should be destroyed from everyone's collection!)

Thanks again.

[Guest A Stranger]

I don't have as much time to into this as I'd like but I agree there might have been problems of the juxtoposing ideals of the Frank and the Group in season two. I got the impression a lot of the time that the Group was right, they were controling, and there were negative aspects but most important: they were right. This is a big focus of "Owls/Roosters." Frank is simply not aware of this great knowledge they have is at odds with the examples mentioned above. Season three took a look at the Group from outside of being involved with them almost. Whereas in S2, we are with them and caught up in what they are doing and told they are right. For instance, we arn't concerned that the two Group factions are possibly an insane cult of international purportions because we have seen the power the Cross has and therefore we (or at least I did as a viewer) went witht them.

[Guest chrisnu]

ModernDayMoriarity: I guess I have a similar view of S3. I thought it tried to steer the show in a new direction, but didn't do the best job of doing so. For the entire earlier portion of the series, the spiritual themes of both Seasons 1 and 2 were ignored entirely. The season as a whole chose a Group conspiracy arc not consistent with Seasons 1 or 2 in the least, and proved to be more of an irritant than entertaining. Using a similar grouping to help explain my opinion of the season:

Good, entertaining episodes that had a clear message that was well delivered:

"Through A Glass, Darkly", "Borrowed Time"

Episodes that were interesting, but tainted by poorly realised ideas:

"TEOTWAWKI", "Omerta", "Collateral Damage", "The Sound Of Snow", "Antipas", "Matryoshka", "Forcing The End", "Saturn Dreaming Of Mercury", "Darwin's Eye", "Bardo Thodol", "Seven And One", "Via Dolorosa"/"Goodbye To All That"

Episodes that just didn't entertain or work because of bad ideas and/or inconsistencies:

"The Innocents"/"Exegesis", "Closure", "...Thirteen Years Later", "Skull and Bones", "Human Essence", "Nostalgia"

[Guest ModernDayMoriarty]

I don't really have a problem with the juxtaposition, I just would have appreciated a few more high-grade episodes in which to explore that.

Not much time to write now but on Season Three... Chrisnu, I must say that I disagree with some of your choices (but each to his own right?) Just as S2 ignored S1, S3 ignored S2, that's just how it went. The mystic elements were not handled very well on many occasions so I wasn't too bothered to see them go. As to the conspiracy angle... yes, I agree that was a rather odd choice but I think not out of the realms of believeability; it is very possible the Group would use what influence it had to keep stability in place but I do think they go a bit far. The treatment of Frank's redemption and the return to the kind of Law and Chaos that was seen in S1 was much better. From my point of view I view S3 thus:

Good... (you know the drill).

The Innocents, Collateral Damage, The Sound of Snow, Saturn Dreaming of Mercury, Seven and One, Via Dolorosa.

Good but tainted...

Exegesis, TEOTWAWKI, Closure, Skull and Bones, Omerta, Matryoshka, Forcing the End, Thardo Bardol, Goodbye to All That.

Episodes that didn't work...

Thirteen Years Later..., Antipas, Darwin's Eye, Nostalgia.

And I haven't seen 'Through a Glass Darkly', 'Human Essence' or 'Borrowed Time'. From the transcripts I have seen and what people have said though, I strongly suspect 'Through a Glass...' and 'Borrowed Time' to be my kind of episodes. I must stick up for 'The Innocents' as I think they did a remarkable job, not least in explaining the supposed end of the world of the previous season, plus it introduces one of my favourite characters: Barry Baldwin (I was annoyed that more was not done with him). I also think Closure is quite good and I think I may explain that in a thread sometime. Antipas was easily the worst episode with Lucy Butler in; it was gratutious and poorly realised, a lazy extension of the Butler mytharc. Darwin's Eye had promise but was quite poor in the end. Did anyone else think that Frank and Hollis were quite insufferable really in this episode making all their snide little comments about Baldwin? They came across as gossiping schoolchildren!

Anyway, must dash!

[Guest Pencil Machine Operator]

To be brutally honest (which everyone in this thread seems to be!), I felt that The Innocents was just a lame excuse to blow stuff up, with some godawful remote viewer guff to fill in the talky bits. It seemed conceived entirely for the appeasement of FOX execs.

And I really have to stick up for s2's final 2 eps. The way I see it is: M&W were expecting the show to be axed, so they felt free to do whatever they wanted with those two episodes. This resulted in a barely comprehensible, semi avant-garde headf*** ... which i found intoxicating and ultimately distressing.

[Lara's visions were a bit bargain-bin, though]

It may not appeal to people with a rational, well- adjusted conception of what art should be (no offence intended, all I'm saying is that it boils down to personal aesthetic sensibility); but for fans, like myself, of directors like Lynch, Haneke, Aronofsky (yes, I wear glasses, and yes, I occasionally stroke my chin ), it was just the best. [note childish enthusiasm].

but whats this? We agree on something: Antipas was a shameful treatment of one of the series' best characters.

rant over.

[Guest ModernDayMoriarty]

It should be noted that the remote viewers storyline was not mentioned heavily at all in 'The Innocents' - that crops up in 'Exegesis' and that is an episode I like considerably less. To my view 'The Innocents' does what it sets out to do well; it introduces Barry Baldwin, Emma Hollis and Andy Maclaren, it explains what has been happening to Frank since S2 and is very sensitive in showing how Catherine's death has affected Frank and Jordan. This is much less evident in 'Exegesis' and as a result I don't really rate that episode at all. (However it isn't really that bad, Antipas is much worse being just a 'The turn of the Screw' rip-off).

[Guest Pencil Machine Operator]

Well, it's good that we agree on SOMETHING, MDM!

anyway, I'm just realising that while I know which eps I like and don't like, I have yet to fit them into the context of the overall workings of the show. And as such I haven't really decided what the show was 'about'.

I have to admit, I often find it easier to say why i dislike something than why i like something. I suppose it's a good thing; I can re-watch episodes again and again without being bored: if I knew why i liked it, perhaps it would be less, you know, mysterious, magical, or whatever. [groan]

As regards The Innocents, I was probably blinded with rage... I just could'nt accept the new Mulder/Scully/Spender dynamic as anything more than pandering to dumbass fox execs and lazy viewers who couldn't empathise with or comprehend any complexity or ambiguity (that's a dig at the people who tuned out after the first few s1 eps; not the people who disliked s2).

Personally, I think Hollis and Baldwin didn't become anything more than 'scriptwriting-for-dummies' archetypes until after the seasons half-way mark.

see you,

PMO