Fringe

Lee Berman · 06 Apr 2012, 12:01 · from 2012-April.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: severiansola at hotmail.com (Lee Berman)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 08:01:58 -0400
Subject: (urth) Fringe
Message-ID: <SNT123-W601AB0A5EF8CD3CC4A0515CF300 at phx.gbl>

>Jeff Wilson: ...but they said in the first season that the resolution 
>would not be "it was all a dream" and again later.

I'm interested in whether that information was volunteered or elicited
as a response to a question by in interviewer. Either way I could go so far 
as to say that was a lie or at least misleading (which is what I expect was 
the intention). The final 60 seconds of the six year series duplicates the very 
first 60 seconds and we end with a POV going into the main character's eye. Not 
the most subtle way to suggest it was "all a dream". Also the show spent years 
peppering us with allusions to Wizard of Oz and Mulholland Dr. and The Occurence 
At Owl Creek Bridge and similar fictional dream depictions.

Personally, I could understand them wanting to mislead us on this issue
and leaving it vague. "It was all a dream" is an easy way to shrug off 
the entire series, even if that's what it was. I think the human subconscious
is an underexplored area in the arts (considering that 1/3 of our lives are 
spent dreaming) and such explorations are often unfairly dismissed.

>>Why keep "Samuel" unamed? For this reason I hesitate to
>>completely discard "Esau".          

>They said it was because it was more interesting to keep him unnamed.

Which is a way of saying nothing. They could have left lots of characters
unnamed. Why is it more interesting to not name THAT one? The writers might not
be at Gene Wolfe's level, but like him they understand the power of not revealing
the name of an important character, like the old boatman or Seawrack. It is 
a clearly presented puzzle to an actively thinking audience member and if we are 
given the means to figure it out, we are invited to do so.

I should mention that my suspicion that Jacob and his brother are meant to symbolize
the eternal fraternal conflict between Judaism and Islam is bolstered by the
significant amount of time the cast spends in that Church Of All Faiths in the finale.
There isn't much else in the 6 year history of the show which would explain that
religious emphasis.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net