Reviews

Russell T Davis has certainly come up with some new ideas in the 13 years since he was last showrunner on Doctor Who. And why not? It is the most flexible format for a TV show ever conceived, outside anthology shows. Every episode this season has been very different. And this episode is different from just about every episode of Doctor Who going back to 1963. The series, in common with many British TV shows, is not reluctant to kill off characters. It raises the stakes. But usually the Doctor is able to save some characters. In "The Fires of Pompeii" where even the Doctor expected everyone in the city to die, he does save one family at the urging of his companion. In "The Doctor Dances" the Doctor is exuberant when he figures out a way to save everyone. "Give me this! Just this once: everybody lives!" This episode is different not only from that episode but practically all of them in that, in the end, the Doctor is not able to save anyone! Because they do not believe him or trust him. And because he is different from the people he wants to save. And we see the emotional toll it takes on him. Ncuti's 15th Doctor, the most emotional incarnation so far, goes through just about every possible reaction when the pampered, totally unprepared survivors decide to go into the unknown wilds rather than let him resettle them on a better planet. It's a strong and unexpected ending to an episode that starts out as a satire of our present addiction to and dependence on social media.

Any film buff should know what a McGuffin is. It's the name Alfred Hitchcock gave to the thing that everyone is pursuing in a thriller. It can be a fabulous gem, or military secrets, or a deadly weapon. Many of the Sherlock Holmes stories revolves around a McGuffin. All of the Indiana Jones stories revolve around an ancient mystical McGuffin. The Maltese Falcon is named after its McGuffin. Hitchcock famously said it didn't matter what it was. But he meant it doesn't matter which of the possible McGuffins the writer chose. It must matter to the characters and therefore to some extent to the reader or viewer because we have to be invested in the characters' motivation. Now the Maltese Falcon subverts this because Sam Spade doesn't ultimately care about the falcon as much as who killed his partner. Perhaps that was what the writer of this series thought they were doing. Harry only cares about whether his brother is alive. But, no, he and Gina care about the reasons why people were killed and as viewers we also care about why we are being subjected to all this political maneuvering and what the organization behind it was trying to accomplish. We don't learn any of that. While it may not ultimately matter what form the McGuffin takes, there has to be one at the center of the thriller/mystery, like there has to be a hub for a bicycle wheel or the bike doesn't go anywhere. BTW how can Gina be Harry's lawyer when his assistant couldn't find evidence that she even existed? Don't the British have some kind of bar association?

This is not a whodunnit. We know very early in the film what the main story is: a small town business man wants to get rid of his wife. So this is a "how-catch-him." Like an episode of Columbo, the suspense is generated by watching how the detective (Jon Hamm) puts together the clues. It's a tad more complex for him because there are two victims with the same name and thus twice as many suspects, red herrings and a neat Chekov's gun. But since we know who is behind the plot (which goes a lot farther than he intended), the real attraction, as in the movie Fargo, is the characters. Hamm is wonderful as the down-to-earth but very observant police chief, supported by his odd deputy. Tina Fey gives her best acting performance ever by going against type as the self-defacing but nosy neighbor who starts out as a witness and becomes the object of a rather sweet romantic subplot. Like Fargo, there is some violence but it is not graphic by today's standards. A very enjoyable film that will not give you nightmares if you watch it just before bed.

The episode begins with a very good definition of what an ethical breach is and then shows how, having taught this, Keith Reniere violates universally accepted ethics and forces his harem ("sister wives" is used at one point, and not ironically) to violate them as well. What is shocking is how low he is willing to go to manipulate these women.(Spoiler: he promises to father their babies.) We do get audio of Keith discussing branding and the nature of the vows required, which refutes his pleas he knew nothing about it. And we get some of the remaining true believers justifying the branding. Nancy learns just how deep Keith's deceptions went and has to reckon with what this has done to her daughters. Lauren's testimony is devastating.

With the glut of true crime documentaries, what distinguishes this one is what it lacks: a really dramatic narrative with major plot twists, a trial where the police or prosecutors have played dirty to convict someone, or a person in prison who may or may not be guilty. And the reason is this case lacks anything that can be called an adequate preliminary investigation. Major suspects were not really interviewed, and at least 3 merited-- I would say a closer look except they didn't receive anything but a cursory glance. So more than 3 decades later, it appears that the filmmakers are the first to do in-depth interviews and piece long-standing rumors together with the help of a detective who was 3 when the victim disappeared. Unfortunately this case lacks a solution, which is true of 40% of homicides in the US. This documentary series shows is how difficult it is to solve a seemingly straight-forward case.

This documentary starts out looking at a weird contradiction: an organized event for anarchists. At first it looks like it will primarily examine the tensions between people who are trying to forge a community based on extreme individual freedom. As it goes on though, a second story begins to develop: a murder. As we explore the tragic backgrounds of the people involved, it seems like the series is following two tangentially connected stories. But then they come together towards the end, exposing the weakness of an ideology that rejects authority and government when it has to deal with fraud, cartels, murder and people with untreated mental illness. And this becomes apparent even to some of the most ardent believers in anarchy. Questions are also raised about whether the only people who can indulge in anarchy are the rich. Very insightful if you give it time.