Station Eleven

[therewillbeblus]

The first three episodes of Station Eleven dropped today on HBO Max, a miniseries being described as reminiscent of The Leftovers, created by Patrick Somerville who wrote for that series and then created the underappreciated miniseries Maniac, and directed by Atlanta's Hiro Murai. I'm still deciding whether to watch this in chunks or wait to view it as a long movie, but fans of those three masterworks might want to tune in as well

[therewillbeblus]

The first three episodes of Station Eleven dropped today on HBO Max, a miniseries being described as reminiscent of The Leftovers, created by Patrick Somerville who wrote for that series and then created the underappreciated miniseries Maniac, and directed by Atlanta's Hiro Murai. I'm still deciding whether to watch this in chunks or wait to view it as a long movie, but fans of those three masterworks might want to tune in as well

The first three episodes are very promising, delivering earnest human drama all the more compelling for its timeliness. I expected the show to be far more downbeat- which is not to say there aren't heartbreaking components- but it's also incredibly life-affirming regarding the value of the connections we make while we're still here

[therewillbeblus]

Anybody else watching Station Eleven? It's a presumptuous declaration to make, but the fifth episode may be one of the best segments of TV I've seen. Absolutely captivating, and a refreshing balance of devastation and resilience, without deviating to the contrived fall-back in portraying an ease of fight/flight devolution of psychology into an antisocial Hobbesian nature. The show continues to be surprisingly optimistic regarding our capacity for adaptability while remaining firmly grounded in the emotional influences plaguing humanity, individualized traumas present in all children and adults divorced from the pandemic event at the center of the story. I do have one issue/question:

SpoilerShow

Did I miss something or was Clark's convictions about Tyler's tendencies for destruction premature? I feel like a scene or two were omitted and left on the cutting room floor, between the time where he is released from quarantine and Clark's fear and subsequent confidence in the boy's diagnosis as a harmful person.. We see Clark affectionate and supportive of the boy, then witness evidence of Tyler's seemingly naive compassion for a survivor on the plane, and then we jump to him released, but there is no information between then and Clark's firm declaration- not even a progression of suspicion or reason for these "destructive" personality traits. I could see an interesting reading where Clark's own complicated feelings of slight ego-driven empowerment, duties as a leader, and guilt in actualizing Tyler's brief imprisonment to skew a reactive and delusional prognosis out of self-protection of his own fragile morality, but none of this is fleshed out or believable either. I rewound this part of the episode and couldn't find a connective tissue- what am I missing?

[flyonthewall2983]

SpoilerShow

my interpretation is that he was really in love with Arthur, and maybe the jealousy of Tyler and his mother is spilling over now they have to be all together. But is also having to deal with being a leader. Both of these create an illusion of him at a certain point, as someone completely without a clue as to what he’s really doing, but his ego prevents him from realizing the truth because he has taken on this responsibility, while also feeding his ego at the same time.

No wonder the kid ran away

[therewillbeblus]

I can get all that, but

SpoilerShow

I still don't think those astute psychological elisions elicit fair play at drawing what the filmmakers clearly believe is a lucid connective tissue between points A and B in Clarke's prognosis of Tyler. Nothing about the way the episode plays out indicates there's supposed to be ambiguity pertaining to why Arthur would be afraid of Tyler being "destructive," even if he does subconsciously resent him for various personal reasons. We've witnessed hints of Tyler's antisocial mannerisms, seen foreshadowing of Tyler's reclusive 'revenge', and so we've been spoonfed material to know something is wrong. But what 'actions' would drive Clarke from defending the boy to declaring him hopeless and unwanted and innately "destructive"?

[flyonthewall2983]

SpoilerShow

All he has watched Tyler do is fiddle around on his phone and not be engaged with everything unfolding beyond the isolation he has set up for himself. There is no overt show of emotion, even at the suggestion of his father’s death. Clarke spends a lot of time in America but is clearly not from here, where the walls drawn up by its children is maybe all the more potent over here then maybe he saw in his native land.

The distrust in Tyler is initially hidden by his maturity and social grace, but is fundamentally based in his jealousy of the life Arthur made with this family that didn’t include him in part of the process (and you know damn sure this would have been the case if Arthur stayed with his first wife, who he laments openly anyway). He gives up on Tyler, when he is seen not to be grateful (or as before, any emotions really) for the banishment of quarantine Clarke put upon them.

He wanted Tyler to come out and see him as the new father figure. But what made the difference is that he finally sees that he has been treated this way all along. The same as Arthur, the man who Clarke reveres above everyone else living, at this point. I can only presume that after the fire claimed all those lives, and to him certainly the last remnant of the man he secretly loved, his maturity and social grace would soon dry up for everyone else too.

I decided after that episode that I am not going to watch any more of it until I finish the novel. The buzz around this show is mostly that this deviates from the original source, which people swear by. Only seeing more of this has made me more interested in the book.

[therewillbeblus]

Well I hope you find a clearer answer in the book and come back to share it. I must say again, your reading is one I wholly subscribe to, however

SpoilerShow

the earnest, intimate confession to Arthur on the radio with the phrasing “but you were never destructive, he is” or something like that, clearly indicates a specific trigger linking up who Tyler will become for the audience; yet without evidence of such destructiveness in the present. If Clarke had just expressed a broader hostile attitude towards Tyler like he did in the previous scene with Elizabeth, I’d accept that response, but in allowing Clarke a private and vulnerable moment to share his fears of Tyler, a) those fears should be founded in information we’re privy to, and the show seems to want to have its cake and eat it too by foreshadowing Tyler’s destructive behavior without conscientiously exemplifying it beyond “observable antisocial traits” that kids who grow up to be school shooters have exhibited in fictional media since Columbine, b) it doesn’t seem to be the delusions of an egomaniac as it’s purposely juxtaposed with the scene before that does operate on resentment, and is planted here to demonstrate evolution of character.

So I agree with your assessment of Clarke’s psychology. My question is about the evidence for A, which the program is asking us to take a leap of faith on, not as a Trojan horse for Clarke’s delusions of grandeur- after all, he’s right!

[flyonthewall2983]

SpoilerShow

This morning I considered the possibility that it was David Cross’ character who was responsible for the bombing from inside his house in episode four.

[therewillbeblus]

SpoilerShow

This morning I considered the possibility that it was David Cross’ character who was responsible for the bombing from inside his house in episode four.

Can you explain?

SpoilerShow

So far, out of all the narrative arcs, the "current" theatre troupe timeline is the one I'm least invested in. However, the philosophical anomaly regarding the Prophet's ostensible dissonance in valuing the next generation of children above all else and using them as kamikaze sacrifices like this is intriguing. I really hope it's not ultimately formulated as a cut-and-dry "of course, he's crazy!" explanation for hypocrisy, and part of something more unsettling in its comprehensible internal logic.. but we'll see. While I generally appreciate keeping content as enigmatic mysteries to serve a function, since the Prophet captivates and collects followers based on tangible communication like stories, it would be ideal to get a sense of what is being said to allure so many, though this might be too tall of an order.

[flyonthewall2983]

SpoilerShow

A great big house like his is the perfect place in a dystopia like this to come up with such villainy, or who knows maybe it’s the Symphony itself that turns out to be the major negative force at work here.

Basically I do not know what to expect from this show, and I haven’t felt this genuinely curious about where a show goes next like this since Breaking Bad, for what that praise is worth here. But I’m definitely more interested in where the book goes. The simple passion displayed for the book in some of what I have read was enough to convince me.

[Black Hat]

SpoilerShow

It's not just that Tyler's a disturbed kid capable of acting impulsively in a manner that puts others at risk, but he specifically places Clark, who he sees right thru, in danger. Remember, as well, that the kid's destructive through Clark's eyes, which is all that matters, and doesn't need to be explained to the audience, tho it most certainly is.

Station Eleven is sure to be a little on the slow side for some — not to mention the pandemic ptsd (stick with it past the first episode) — but it's executed so damn well. The run times for each episode, considering how much they get thru, is shockingly short, chalking in at a very manageable 46, 47 minutes. Think Lost/Leftovers infused with Bergman and Fellini. Top marks and my default setting for television is trash.

[flyonthewall2983]

SpoilerShow

The really devastating moment for that whole episode, is when Tyler brings back the man from the plane. Specifically in juxtaposition when Clarke kisses the security guy. By being immediately treated as a pariah for bringing in a sick man, he also has the seeds of racism and homophobia which is close to justified if you look at it from the perspective of a child who is nowhere close to being a mature and rational person as it is, due to his mother’s isolation (the sexism ship already braving the waves in the stormy sea of this kids life) and wealth.

It’s the whole problem with the virtues to being “woke”, but what happens when you intentionally isolate yourself with people who think the same as you. Someone in that group does become ostracized eventually, and even more immediately so in the kind of massive life-or-death situation happening. The fact it is a young boy in this instance, makes what is purely on the surface a party of relief and a scene of unity, look like the most visceral child abuse one can imagine.

That’s kind of why this show pisses me off within it’s brilliance, because I can see so immediately deep into the subtext as presented to me. It would make immediate logic sense that he is the Prophet, but in collision with my emotional understanding of what happened it is all the more tragic. I’m reminded of William Peterson’s line in Manhunter when Will Graham says he empathizes with the Tooth Fairy’s pain but has no problem blowing him out of his socks. Such is my feeling about men who abuse children, to which degree the Prophet (whoever he/she/they are/is) is shown to use them as suicide bombers for the cause.

[therewillbeblus]

SpoilerShow

It's not just that Tyler's a disturbed kid capable of acting impulsively in a manner that puts others at risk, but he specifically places Clark, who he sees right thru, in danger. Remember, as well, that the kid's destructive through Clark's eyes, which is all that matters, and doesn't need to be explained to the audience, tho it most certainly is.

I see your point, and that’s probably the best explanation yet, though while I agree that this is “all that matters” to prompt Clark to make his statement, the tone of that scene seems intended to connect with the audience

SpoilerShow

otherwise it’d be a double dose of aloofly watching Clark-only spews of his perspective- the first one was heated and pointed as potentially-skewed, the second one using “destructive” is sentimental and feels like it’s trying to make a somewhat objective and foreboding point. I like your reading of Tyler bringing the man into the airport being perceived as “destructive” by the adults, but since it’s ostensibly empathy-driven, like Flyonthewall I’m still a bit frustrated with how the information is being presented to us.

I suppose where I land is that the boy had empathy, and this empathy was extinguished through negative punishment, reinforcing his antisocial and angry tendencies. But I wish this was shown without that second Clark-spotlight scene of worry about the boy’s destructiveness because it positions Clark as the wise and empathetic one, and doesn’t give us the connective tissue for this destructiveness that the show clearly intends us to buy into, nor does it leave us with ambiguity regarding Clark’s warped subjectivity, which is also likely true yet not being communicated with film language.

[RIP Film]

I bought it though it did raise an eyebrow.

SpoilerShow

What makes me okay with it is the elliptical nature of the episode; by the time Clarke speaks on the radio it’s day 100, and we’ve had some examples of the kid’s gravitation toward the morbid, like downloading wikipedia then saying “what if I deleted it?”. I do think there’s deliberate ambiguity, a wedge thrown in there to question your sympathies for the boy versus the opportunistic adults.

If I had any problem with the show it’s more the Hollywood treatment of the contagion, contrasted with how grounded everything else is. We just had a front row seat in how pandemics play out, and here everyone in the world seems to be getting it at the same time; you would think something that deadly would prompt immediate lockdowns and travel bans— but I get that it’s more of a narrative device.

[therewillbeblus]

SpoilerShow

What makes me okay with it is the elliptical nature of the episode; by the time Clarke speaks on the radio it’s day 100, and we’ve had some examples of the kid’s gravitation toward the morbid, like downloading wikipedia then saying “what if I deleted it?”. I do think there’s deliberate ambiguity, a wedge thrown in there to question your sympathies for the boy versus the opportunistic adults.

SpoilerShow

That's a good point about it being "Day 100" - I hadn't recognized that time jump. Still, my problem isn't about the deliberate ambiguity for placing sympathies, or the planted winks for the audience that the boy has warning signs for antisocial personality disorder, but that there seems to be an omission of evidence that would allow for the transfer of our viewpoint from distanced observations of Clark's clearly-reactive declarations (in the scene with Elizabeth) to a more surrogate alignment over concern (in the scene where he's taking alone into the radio): concern that has evidence from the "current" timeline. The way this scene is shot suggests development of character, confidence in his diagnosis, and deserved pathos, and I don't think any of that is earned. The ambiguity is there, but the actual film language isn't communicating it well, and I'm questioning whether it's actually interested in exploring or issuing that ambiguity over serving the larger story in a rushed fashion- After all, we only have ten eps to get this all in.

SpoilerShow

If I had any problem with the show it’s more the Hollywood treatment of the contagion, contrasted with how grounded everything else is. We just had a front row seat in how pandemics play out, and here everyone in the world seems to be getting it at the same time; you would think something that deadly would prompt immediate lockdowns and travel bans— but I get that it’s more of a narrative device.

SpoilerShow

I dunno, I don't think we- at least in the U.S.- took Covid seriously right away. There were plenty of people in the grocery store stocking up on products on their phones talking to people asking, "Is this real?" in a confused but relaxed state, without too much personal concern, over the course of the week before everything shut down. I thought this show played it out pretty accurately to how our skepticism and resilience in keeping composed worked in friction with observable signals of when to react. Plus, it all struck so quickly in the series, there was no time to implement pragmatic protocols. A totally different animal.

[Black Hat]

You guys are making the mistake of placing more emphasis on the guy still alive on the plane than all the people, including his mother and dead father’s best friend, he’d been living with for weeks, who were protecting (and trusting) him as the world ended, thanks to whatever was going on inside that plane, he so casually strolled toward. The kid’s clearly a little psycho.

fly - I read your post a few times, the part where you mentioned the word “woke”, plus the paragraph after, and couldn’t make any sense of if. What, pray tell, are you talking about?

[RIP Film]

SpoilerShow

I thought this show played it out pretty accurately to how our skepticism and resilience in keeping composed worked in friction with observable signals of when to react. Plus, it all struck so quickly in the series, there was no time to implement pragmatic protocols. A totally different animal.

SpoilerShow

Yeah my comment was more directed at the speed it traveled than the psychology. You had people coughing then dying not long after, and this was happening simultaneously in different countries. Along with the almost instant symptom onset, it just seemed a little convenient/fantastical. But again, who cares it’s a TV show.

[brundlefly]

Finally caught up with this -- wow, Danielle Deadwyler -- and though it's with the benefit of a couple added episodes, I think flyonthewall and Black Hat's reads were the correct ones in that

SpoilerShow

Tyler wasn't obviously destructive, or displaying any destructive behavior until he set fire to a plane full of dead people to cover his tracks. He may have been antisocial, especially toward Clark -- a friend of his selfish, estranged father who's clearly resentful of being excluded from a certain level of privilege and power. Tyler exhibits something Clark does not at the airport: Selfless generosity. He has sympathy for the plane survivor, he has sympathy for all the children who've lost people and sets up a relief mechanism for them. Clark, otoh, is only interested in manipulation and power. He doesn't call out the deceptive Homeland Security guy until he figures out a way to use that story to put himself into power. He's angry about the Dead Messaging Surface -- before using it himself -- because Tyler did it without asking him/telling him.Tyler's been supposedly included in the new self-designed power structure the adults set up ("a triumverate -- but with four") but that's just Clark's attempt to family-build/ingratiate/whatever. Tyler is destructive to Clark's own self-imposed power structure.

And now Tyler is destructive, extending his issues with the adults in his life to the adults in all the world and looking to rescue a new generation from their power structure. A good chuckle that, when he offers to delete the Wikipedia it's the page for capitalism, and his mother says they'd just build it back anyway.

If what we learn about Tyler in the episode six is true (a big if), his Big Bad was an effective Red Herring. And it's a legitimate world in which to toy with trust issues.

I'm liking the structure it's settled into, how the even episodes move everything forward and the odd episodes go back and fill in. And the odd episodes have been ace.

[flyonthewall2983]

fly - I read your post a few times, the part where you mentioned the word “woke”, plus the paragraph after, and couldn’t make any sense of if. What, pray tell, are you talking about?

SpoilerShow

What I felt happening at the airport was this sort of hive mind, with Clarke taking responsibility initially and maybe letting things go to his head. Not really sure what being “woke” has anything to do with it per se, I honestly was stoned when I wrote it and maybe thinking too much with the sort of hive mind of people I’m around, that don’t share the same values as I but try to reach common ground with. Maybe that’s what was more or less happening by the time of the party, and me envisioning the whole experiment of the survivors in the airport becoming this sort of community going to hell after the fire. That essentially the best intentions of a trophy wife and a self-righteous manager were as good for the people in that building as a cup of water would be to those on the plane.

[therewillbeblus]

Finally caught up with this -- wow, Danielle Deadwyler -- and though it's with the benefit of a couple added episodes, I think flyonthewall and Black Hat's reads were the correct ones in that

SpoilerShow

Tyler wasn't obviously destructive, or displaying any destructive behavior until he set fire to a plane full of dead people to cover his tracks. He may have been antisocial, especially toward Clark -- a friend of his selfish, estranged father who's clearly resentful of being excluded from a certain level of privilege and power. Tyler exhibits something Clark does not at the airport: Selfless generosity. He has sympathy for the plane survivor, he has sympathy for all the children who've lost people and sets up a relief mechanism for them. Clark, otoh, is only interested in manipulation and power. He doesn't call out the deceptive Homeland Security guy until he figures out a way to use that story to put himself into power. He's angry about the Dead Messaging Surface -- before using it himself -- because Tyler did it without asking him/telling him.Tyler's been supposedly included in the new self-designed power structure the adults set up ("a triumverate -- but with four") but that's just Clark's attempt to family-build/ingratiate/whatever. Tyler is destructive to Clark's own self-imposed power structure.

And now Tyler is destructive, extending his issues with the adults in his life to the adults in all the world and looking to rescue a new generation from their power structure. A good chuckle that, when he offers to delete the Wikipedia it's the page for capitalism, and his mother says they'd just build it back anyway.

If what we learn about Tyler in the episode six is true (a big if), his Big Bad was an effective Red Herring. And it's a legitimate world in which to toy with trust issues.

I'm liking the structure it's settled into, how the even episodes move everything forward and the odd episodes go back and fill in. And the odd episodes have been ace.

Great post, brundlefly

SpoilerShow

I'm sympathetic to Clark, who I think is still doing the best he can under the conditions, even if heavily flawed in execution. It's powerfully honest to show him feeling empowered (in a positive way) in bringing his empathetic strengths (let's not forget he was the only one who gave a shit to comfort Miranda at the party) to create this safe space for people in the airport in his big speech, only to show how difficult things really get once a single challenge arises that threatens the soft ease of this community-building. It's a sobering revelation that mixes Hobbesian possibilities in with the Lockeian parts of humanity held hand in hand.

This is such a tremendously humanistic show, and so I too love how Tyler/the Prophet is revealed to be potentially good in the modern world- imperfect as well, but the information we got regarding him claiming Kirsten's friends would all die was only threatening from her traumatized hypervigilant and untrusting perspective. Now that we know that he is not part of the group that wanted/forced them to come perform, it all clicks. That was a deliberate and appropriate red herring that allows us to realize the information we were fed wasn't to "trick" the audience so much as reveal how we all bring our own baggage to any interaction- with Kirsten's understandable reactiveness misplaced and yet also empathized with despite being objectively wrong.

[RIP Film]

I’d like to believe your take blus but there’s still the question of

SpoilerShow

who sent the suicide bomber children to the director, and who dug the mock graves. The show would have us believe there’s only one child indoctrinating cult leader, and if the director is to be believed, has a history of kidnapping. Though Tyler did say to Kirsten “we don’t force things here” or something to that effect. I’m a little perplexed as to why she didn’t immediately ask him about the bombing, and even more confused why she pushed him out of the way of the darts. I do think his character is a red herring but wouldn’t be surprised if the show lands on a moral grey area in regard to these groups. He called the society of civilization evil, which is obviously Clark’s community, it will be interesting to see if their initial violence to that survivor on the plane hasn’t extended and rationalized with a much broader scope.

[brundlefly]

I'll be satisfied to see there's no villain beyond everyone working in different ways toward what they see as everyone's best interests -- just as the flu in the show (as stated so far) has no source beyond "mutation." It jibes with the humanism, and often with life. Especially when everyone's in fractured parties. The Prophet spent a whole month locked away doing nothing but reading that comic book and still never thought to see it the same way Kirsten did.

As to the

SpoilerShow

David Cross murder -- thank goodness, right? it's like Odenkirk got all the dramatic chops in the Mr. Show divorce -- it's both tough to accept that the kids went so drastically violent in the Prophet's absence and... sort of practically and poetically appropriate in a love/hate way that David Cross' kids (who would be the ones who knew where the land mines were, anyway) would be the ones who would want to hug Dad to death. And if the Prophet sees adults as ultimately corrupt and untrustworthy, Pied Pipering the children away is the right and correct action in that worldview. Which doesn't make it right, of course, but at least suggests he's not some predatory or abusive presence.

Kirsten's got issues and is a survivalist and an also actress within the show, and I think that away from her family her actions can't be taken as simple ones. She may have only saved The Prophet as he wasn't the immediate aggressor, or because she doesn't want to lose control of all his followers, or because she's still wait-and-see on him while having had proven interactions with the RB's in the past.

[therewillbeblus]

I’d like to believe your take blus but there’s still the question of

SpoilerShow

who sent the suicide bomber children to the director, and who dug the mock graves. The show would have us believe there’s only one child indoctrinating cult leader, and if the director is to be believed, has a history of kidnapping. Though Tyler did say to Kirsten “we don’t force things here” or something to that effect. I’m a little perplexed as to why she didn’t immediately ask him about the bombing, and even more confused why she pushed him out of the way of the darts. I do think his character is a red herring but wouldn’t be surprised if the show lands on a moral grey area in regard to these groups. He called the society of civilization evil, which is obviously Clark’s community, it will be interesting to see if their initial violence to that survivor on the plane hasn’t extended and rationalized with a much broader scope.

Interesting thoughts, yes more will be revealed. I didn't even think that the 'other' group may be led by him- which would cast everything into a more defined light and definitely prompt me to revisit ep 5 again!

[therewillbeblus]

I'll be satisfied to see there's no villain beyond everyone working in different ways toward what they see as everyone's best interests -- just as the flu in the show (as stated so far) has no source beyond "mutation." It jibes with the humanism, and often with life. Especially when everyone's in fractured parties. The Prophet spent a whole month locked away doing nothing but reading that comic book and still never thought to see it the same way Kirsten did.

This is how I see the ethos of the show, wise words. It's so in step with my own philosophy I can't wait to see how the series continues to elevate the material towards unconditional humanism. I can't recall a new series affecting me as strongly as this since The Leftovers, which has enough similarities in content and artistic voices for this to be no surprise.

[flyonthewall2983]

Interesting to me how the tone shifts from one episode to the next. Not necessarily something as simple as light and dark but that varies in between but is still somewhat opposed to the previous bit of the puzzle this so surely is.

SpoilerShow

And by the time you see first see Jeevan with the mothers I almost felt kind of punch drunk by just the momentum of tragedy, that it took a little bit to realize their purity in direct opposition to what you start to see as the Museum’s pretentiousness disguised as this desperate attempt to hold onto the security of the past as Clark sees it. Tyler clearly sees it as something more inherently destructive, developed out of the simple kindness he tried to give that poor bastard in the plane whose fate is ultimately glimpsed upon in the eighth episode.

In that vein it makes it all the more interesting to me how they have released these episodes, each a contrasting piece to the one laid down before as the show has come along. The fact there is only one left now makes you wonder not just how it all comes together but how these contrasting strands of the story coalesce. I expect the finale to be quite a ride.