Such an insightful commentary and a huge help in understanding the chaos that surrounds this amazing show. I'd be lost from week to week without it. So looking forward to the season finale which I am sure won't disappoint.
1
Anticipating the season finale, it is worth revisiting Mr. Tobias' earlier piece regarding unanswered questions (most of which remain unanswered):
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/20/watching/westworld-season-2-midseason...
During Season 2, references have been made to the "Door," "Glory", the "Valley Beyond" and the "Forge." Are they all one and the same? In any event, we now have a much clearer idea that they/it are connected with the central repository of guest data that was being surreptitiously collected by Delos (giving new meaning to "all hat and no cattle"). So what are the various end games for the key characters? My (likely incorrect) guesses:
MIB: The "Door" is an objective specifically designed for him, but MIB has also spoken of destroying "this whole place" and correcting a mistake he made in showing Dolores something (the guest data repository?). So what nasty revelation does Ford have cooked up for MIB? That he is an "enhanced" host himself, like Bernard, perhaps imbued with DNA in order to pass as human? And, with the Cradle already destroyed, thereby requiring starting from scratch on host back stories, is destroying the guest data repository his objective?
Ake and Maeve: Just get us out of here and let us live in peace.
Dolores: She told Teddy the "Valley Beyond" is not a place, but a weapon that she intends to turn against humanity. How so? Creating hosts imprinted with guest DNA and "back stories?"
Bernard(s): Pick a side!
"After all, Dolores is someone who once greeted the “splendor” of each new day with optimism and a romantic spirit, and ended it in the looped horrors of rape and murder. The righteousness of her mission, as well as her basic “humanity,” has been forgotten."
You seem to have forgotten the duality within Dolores. She is also "Wyatt" and it is clear that she struggles between each of those "programs", especially with Teddy. Wood's brilliant acting chops are showcased as her expressions change from steely resolve (as she feels threatened when Teddy pulls his gun) to her compassion and then horror when Teddy turns the gun on himself. Dolores begins to short circuit as her programs seem to collide after Teddy commits suicide. I believe this battle within Delores will be her arc as the series continues.
The Yin and the Yang personified.
5
Disappointing episode, especially after last weeks stand-out which is probably my favorite so far.
3
No wonder they always stressed to new guests that it was absolutely vital they picked out a hat they liked.
4
Ponderous and uncinematic, these people should not make anything else.
4
I thought it was very moving having Dolores appear robotic-like as she dealt with Teddy’s suicide.
15
Bingo! Emotional children
4
By far the best episode. It was so quiet in my apartment when my boyfriend and I were watching this. Neither of us said a word until Dolores shot Teddy and then when my boyfriend said "Nice goin' Dolores" I almost jumped out of my skin. And Ed Harris is a gem.
6
Correction...
Teddy shot himself. I'm still shook be this episode (;
8
Teddy shot himself.
3
I liked the new Teddy and I'm sorry to see him go. I hope he'll be back, just as I hope Maeve will somehow fix herself and get off that table. The line about a "new species" makes me hope that season three will be outside the park. I want everyone out of the zoo.
4
Teddy can come back in form but not substance. The Cradle is destroyed so there is no more backup for the hosts' "personality", and the Forge only stores guest data, I think...
5
Great job, Mr. Tobias! Any recap that finds references ranging from the "Simpsons" to "Die Hard" and "The Conversation" is worth gold to me.
18
The juxtaposition of Teddy actually pulling the trigger to his head and William not was interesting. Seems to me the show is running a second philosophical theme (the first being what sentience means) of whether we can overwrite our basic coding. If you have darkness innate, like William, you'll succumb to it and choose your life even when presented with the knowledge of killing your family. If your born/programmed "good," you'll sacrifice yourself when you realize you may not be able to stop dark impulses. You won't adapt or make the make a change, regardless of your experiences. Indeed, even your choice of hat, white or black, locks in your nature in that it's used to create you immortal self. Interesting questions, but I'm not sure it makes the show that much more entertaining.
8
If Emily had the data card that detailed her father's life inside the park, what was the prior story line all about? She was ostensibly on an arduous and, it turns out, emotionally painful mission to find out why her mother killed herself. But she had that information the whole time in the palm of her hand.
6
I’m pretty sure that was just a lie she told MIB so he’ll take her to the Forge, I guess because he’s one of the few that has access. As she later angrily confessed to him right before the security arrived, her real purpose was to expose the park’s truth, and ruin MIB for good.
Come to think of it, maybe even Ford doesn’t have access to the data in the Forge, which is why he’s trying to make sure that MIB gets there at just the right moment, I.e. when Dolores is there.
4
Or maybe MIB is a host and this was one of the results Ford was after... "just one more game..."
Anyway, good point. And thanks.
The MIB as host concept is reminiscent of the best moment of Ex Machina, when Domhnall Gleeson questioned his own reality. And therein lies the rub. What’s the point of immortality if the you isn’t really you?
14
Well, that was rather nihilistic, though, in retrospect, it was far better for William to be his sociopathic true self as the Man in Black in Westworld than a deranged psychopath in the real world. Then again, his wife and daughter may beg to differ, that is, if they weren’t dead. As for Ford, how he plans to achieve his objective of giving birth to a new form of life remains as opaque as ever.
9
Just watch Brooklyn 99 next week, chief. This game isn't meant for you.
3
When William’s profile is revealed: “persecutory, delusional, and paranoid”; the point is that we take it for gospel. “Oh! Here’s the truth!” And the truth is delivered in the most grossly expositional way.
It’s not just tapping the breaks—the show stops and explains. And the explanations do not entirely jibe with the actions displayed during the season. Several episodes ago William began to develop a conscience. Maeve’s newfound abilities are now just a way to balance the odds for a final showdown. “Cradle Ford” just pops in to tell us (or Bernard, or Maeve) what to do. And Dolores remains grounded by a revenge-driven plot line that Teddy reminds us is one we can no longer abide.
The marvelously written puzzle box of season one, with its repetitions and subtle variations, crafty music choices, and thematic unity, has derailed in season two. While still beautiful to look at, I’m left with Elsie’s assessment: “F*** you, Bernard.”
5
One episode of one TV series is so revelatory about or so insightful into the human condition that it is afforded a status the NYT otherwise grants the Game of Thrones?
These are weekly recaps. So, each episode gets its own treatment.
2
William hid his profile card in Slaughterhouse Five. I guess that’s the show runners paying homage for the time-jumping narrative structure?
His profile said “subject number” 002. So they didn’t plan on having more than 1000 immortals, i.e. just the top 0.0001%.
13
Was Delos subject 001, then?
1
I kind of wonder if you are getting the point of the show - or its many points, as the case may be. Dolores is corrupt, but she is also the sum of her experiences. The life that you mention is exactly what has helped turn her into the vengeful, violent creature that she has become. Yes, Ford played a role by giving her the "Wyatt" personality, but his real trick with Dolores was to give her back her memories of her experiences. She sees the world and humans as he does and she is the instrument that may, ultimately, save her people. At the least, she represents one vision of political and social revolution. Whether or not her way proves to be the best remains to be seen, but to lament her loss of "humanity" because of her current actions is to miss the point. I find William to be fascinating and the questions raised by his corruption to be equally so. He is a true self-made man, not like many of the entitled, blue-blood wealthy and vile "masters of the universe" with whom he associates. He is part of the 0.01% that rule the world. Yet, he believes he is revealing himself in WW, suggesting that humans are corrupt at all levels of society - or maybe that our savage society corrupts anyone who "succeeds". WW is only available to the rich and powerful; what does it say about our society that these are the people who run it? Finally, I found the revelation of what Alexander actually wept about to be highly educational. Why on Earth is that a "killjoy"?
30
And besides, there's not a lot of joy in Westworld to be killed in the first place.
6
Westworld's 2 greatest strengths are its 2 greatest weaknesses: technology that can resurrect the dead, and multiple timelines that can change the narrative at any time.
When determinism is completely gone, when cause has no singular effect, when b does not necessarily follow a, then we the viewers have no emotional investment in any of the characters.
They die today, they come back alive tomorrow. No big whoop.
15
Your brief but cogent comment encapsulates what I have been missing from WW2 - a genuine sense of connection, curiosity, and investment in what happens next. This is where WW2 fails in comparison with "The Americans," "Mad Men," "Breaking Bad," "The Sopranos," or any of the other major dramatic series that have parsed issues of "good and evil," or "society and the individual" over the past decade or two.
17
Resurrection is no longer reliably on the table. The hosts had it but destroyed the mechanism that administered it. The humans want it but have not demonstrated they can do it. This being WW, everyone could be lying to us, but when characters are gone now there is a real chance they cannot return.
4
I was a little surprised the recap didn’t mention that William/the Man in Black’s wife, Juliet, who was played by Claire Unabia in “Reunion”, the second episode of the season, was played by Sela Ward in this, the ninth episode. The handoff of the role between the actresses was a little distracting (though not through any fault on the part of either woman).
Yes, we know that about three decades have passed since the retirement party, where we previously saw Juliet with young William. But while Ed Harris, playing the Man in Black, does not closely resemble Jimmi Simpson, playing his younger incarnation William, Harris does at least plausibly look like he could be some 30 years older than Simpson (the actors are actually 25 years apart in age).
Ward, on the other hand, not only does not look much like Unabia, she •really• does not look like she’s close to three decades older — although sources indicate that Ward may actually be something like 25 to 30 years older than Unabia. Notwithstanding their real difference in age, however, the fact that they don’t •look• very far apart, chronologically, makes it a little harder to suspend disbelief — over a single character’s being played by different actors who don’t much resemble each other — than is the case with Harris and Simpson.
By the way, very apt reference to “The Conversation” — a great film that is lamentably under-appreciated.
— Brian
1
The fact that the people playing this role are really 30 years apart means that there’s no disbelief to suspend at all. Besides, rich people always have ways to sustain their youthful appearance if they choose to?
Also, in a show like Westworld, this is where you find it hardest to suspend your disbelief?
6
I had no problem with the actress switch. Didn't even notice.
5
Sela Ward in any role is an upgrade worth embracing.
24