It seems to me one of the major themes that Falling Skies is pursuing this season is the disintegration of the family unit and the desperate attempts by Earth's survivors to preserve this fragile entity. Yet, at times, Earth's human inhabitants are their own worst enemies. Witness last Sunday night's brain puzzler. Fresh after the events of "Young Bloods" where Capt. Weaver is reunited with his long missing daughter, he confronts Tom Mason in, "Love and Other Acts of Courage" and basically tells Tom that his son Ben is a liability and should be put down.
Huh?
Didn't Weaver learn anything about the cost of war, the pain of separation, bittersweet reunion and the agony of being separated again? I guess not. Weaver even went so far as to threaten Mason with mutiny and death not long after saying he couldn't do without his number Two just a few episodes ago. Maybe Weaver isn't cut out for command. He certainly doesn't portray much of a father figure. (Also after realizing he wasn't much of one to his daughter.)
Weaver isn't the only one bent on destroying the nuclear family. Take the case of Maggie and Hal. I think we all know that future lies with the children and what better way to produce children than to, well, couple! After some serious cuddle time with Hal in a damaged car Maggie flashes her best bedroom eyes and then spends the rest of the episode pushing him away. Good grief. Granted, Maggie's is a bit damaged. What with Pope's entrapment and servitude not to mention her bouts with cancer. But, really, Hal's old girlfriend, Rita, may have had Jazz pants but the way Hal looks at Maggie she is Jazz all over! C'mon Maggie I thought you were made of finer steel.
Here's another way that Falling Skies has contradicted itself. Another one of the children (the future, remember?) returns to the fold in the form of Ricky and by episodes end he is dead. It wasn't that long ago that Jimmy met a similar fate (Another lesson lost on Weaver) in the episode "Compass". Maybe that's the point, these people have no compass and they have lost their way. They can't even preserve and protect their future.
It could be that the writers want to beef up the maturity of the show and do without so many "child" story lines. I can understand that. Jimmy wasn't much of a character anyway. I was thinking it would be interesting to introduce a pregnancy into the show and replicate some sort of "Flight to Egypt" type of biblical analogy as they flee their oppressors. Then again we had a pregnancy in season one and we haven't heard from that again!
Strikingly, the Overlords and the skitters seem to understand the value of children. If it wasn't for the harnessing of the children the Overlords would have no one to impress into slavery. So do you see what I mean by a contradictory message delivered by Falling Skies?
OK, one last example. Tom Mason, as in Masons being the founding fathers of our country and our aptly named Tom as the new leader of a new world? Nope, children are dying all around him. What are we to think Falling Skies, should Matt be watching his back?
I think I've made my point no matter how fractured my presentation. Perhaps the first half of the season is all about the splintering of the family unit and the second half will be about it's re-integration and preservation. One can only hope. At least Tom and Anne have the right idea, judging by their off camera "room exploration". Remember you two, the children are our future!!!
Next up: A skitter call to prayer?
Interesting Dave.
ReplyDeleteI find Weaver to be one of the more frustrating characters on this show. He's very flawed and inconsistent. I did like the mutual respect lines between he and Tom at the end of the show. Between the 2 of them there is good leadership balance. Tom imparts the fatherly care and compassion while Weaver makes the more military/managerial tactical decisions. It is not completely black and white, they both have a bit of the other side as well. They temper each other.
In terms of family I think the show is certainly testing what that bond means. How far do you trust someone you love? Does that family bond blind you to reason? When do you let your child go and accept that they are their own person and may perhaps know more than you about some things? Does allowing yourself to love in a time of war make you stronger or weaker? In any rag-tag group of survivor stories like this there is always the sense of the whole group forming a sort of family. The instincts to form those sorts of bonds remain. The skitters nurturing the harnessed kids even makes bit more sense now in that respect. They were all likely ripped from their families at some point too. And then there is Pope, the prodigal son? Is he truly a loner? Is his rage based on an abusive childhood? Did the skitters take his family from him?
Matt, clearly he's on a Carl Grimes sort of arc. Perhaps not quite as grim and certainly slower.
On Maggie. There are so many reasons why she'd keep that wall up and not start a romantic relationship with Hal. Karen, previous sexual abuse in Pope's group, Hal could die tomorrow, Hal could put himself in danger trying to protect her, getting pregnant while on the run for your life is impractical, etc. What if the doctors told her that because of her cancer therapy she is likely infertile? If having babies is going to save humanity she may think it selfish to sideline Hal in a relationship that will never result in children. Of course you see the next plot twist, they get to a place of relative safety, they do give in and miracle of miracles she does get pregnant.
On kids literally being the future. We've seen some interesting hints about them being the key to winning the war. The group in Youngbloods found it easier to survive without adults. Last season Hal attached the fake harness and infiltrated the skitter/harnessed kids encampment to get Ben out. Ben and Ricky understanding the big picture better than any of the adults. It's rather Spielberg that the kids have a better understanding of the aliens than the adults even if these aliens are quantum leaps more terrifying than ET.
Yay for season 3!
-Lynne (duckyislost)
Lynne, What a wonderful response. Thanks so much for your insight. It's just another example on how the feedback is better than the original post. I'm afraid I'm going to have to reply in the context of the most recent episode and what we've learned from it. (Is that cheating?)
DeleteWeaver is a frustrating character isn't he? I don't even think Tom knows what to make of him. As I said earlier, Weaver tells Tom how much he needs him and then threatens to shoot him over Ben and his Skitter connection. When Weaver falls ill over his Skitter bite, Tom goes into a panic over his condition and holds up the evacuation because of it. Earth to Tom, Weaver is the guy that nearly got the 2nd Mass wiped out near Leominster. (Or was it Fitchburg?) You know what the real problem is with these two? They can appreciate what the other does for the group but they don't appreciate what they contribute themselves! Seriously, they seem to have no idea what their own place is and how it effects the dynamic of each other or the group as a whole. Perhaps the show would be better served if the 2nd Mass picked up a Psychologist as a straggler in the near future.
I like your thoughts on the family dynamic and the "bonds" that are forged. It seems to me that Hal gets it more than the rest do. His willingness to stand by his brother despite all he has seen from Ben attests to the strength of this bond. You spoke of love in time of war. In the most recent episode, "Homecoming" the stress of war tested two relationships. When Tom and Anne were at odds, Tom reverted to his old self and called Anne, "Rebecca". When Karen was discovered in the woods, Hal's compassion for her was more than evident much to the apparent dismay of Maggie. Does that mean "Falling Skies" is telling us the bonds forged before war are stronger than those forged amidst the fire of war?
I can't argue with your thoughts concerning Maggie. I think Hal has matured more than anyone on this show but perhaps your right in that Maggie is more level headed. Maybe she understands the tenuous strength of wartime bonds better than Hal.
Nice catch about the "Spielbergian" take on kids. He does like to empower them doesn't he? I guess kids are more of a "Tabula rasa" than the adults and it works in their favor. I guess the adults are too conflicted and set in their ways to explore the world of wonderment whether for good or bad.
Oh, by the way, thanks for the chuckle for comparing Matt to Carl Grimes. (Not a compliment Matt!)
Nice work Lynne and thanks!