New LP: Uncanny

“Uncanny”: a little 8-track LP I’ve recorded this September-October, pulling exclusively from tunes completed this past year. It’s been a year for some big themes: a little death, a little birth. I had just over the statutory limit of LP playtime in tunes written since last November, and a free copy of Ableton Lite I’d been putting off learning anything about. As I polished off the last tune for this package — and it was a Halloween tune, because that should be a bigger genre — the title “Uncanny” felt fitting with all the reflection on life itself, on its limits, and what we make of it.

A little note for Halloween, because that’s today: Who Goes There is our little haunting psycho-sexual closer here. I’ve always been a Halloweenhead. The supernatural, to me, poses all the same existential questions that religion does — what’s after this body, what’s there in the invisible world, who’s pulling the unseen strings — but presented as a mystery, not an answer. In that sense, it’s both delightfully anti-authoritarian, and an invitation to take these irreducible fears and approach them with a spirit of play, to make them somehow lighter and shared. That we do this as a community, that we do this with children, just seems like a really undersold tradition.

The album is now on my youtube, and will be on all streaming services within whatever technobureaucratic lag time they each impose. Listen and share, and come see me play a little hole in the wall sometime.

“He hates me, but he caught me”

I know I’m ten years late to the party, but the season 1, episode 9 storyline in Community where Jeff and Annie compete in a school debate is one of the best pieces of television writing I’ve ever seen. It is an economical, dramatic, ironic lynchpin that, in a few words, stages the show’s thesis.

Jeff is a sleazeball disbarred lawyer in his thirties whose exploits in the series to this point are mostly shallow sexual pursuits. His major crises — losing his condo and sleeping out of his car — have not really forced him to grow in the expected ways. Seeing that Jeff won’t necessarily use this humbling experience to become a more sympathetic or less materialistic person, his friends conspire to steal his beloved sink fixtures out of his repossessed condo in order to inspire him to regain his former position in life, shallow as it may be.

Annie is an 18-year old wallflower with a huge sexual confidence problem. In the very previous episode, she is so incapable of confessing her feelings for a boy that she fakes appendicitis to get his attention — a Freudian degree of repression. She later runs out of the hospital pantsless intending to stop a romantic encounter, only to falter and demand that the boy merely return her grandmother’s quilt before making out with another woman on it. It is painful to watch. Her sexual repression perhaps maps onto a larger failure of self-confidence that has inhibited her in school and life.

Jeff gets roped into joining Annie on the school’s team for a debate competition, where they’re huge underdogs. The community college they represent is, from the series’ first words, the refuge of every type of deeply flawed person. Bringing these characters into the light of self-acceptance and then growth is the show’s mandate.

Jeff and Annie compete against City College, a way better school that represents a kind of elitist purity in the world of the show. Their star debater is an almost obnoxiously sympathetic fellow in a wheelchair, and our characters despise him. The debate topic is literally whether man is good or evil. The elitist goody-goodys must argue that man is good, and the oddball fuckups must argue that man is evil. The stakes are already dramatically aligned.

In the process of preparing for the debate, Annie and Jeff both grow in surprising ways. Annie, it turns out, has some serious confident energy the moment she steps into the debate arena. This in turn attracts her to Jeff, who has a native, if somewhat repugnant, confidence in bamboozling people from his lawyer days. The age difference between the two is seriously problematic, but at the same time, that this attraction is rooted in a kinship on the debate stage, rather than childish crushes or objectification, represents real growth for both of them. It is also, because of the real moral complexity of the age difference, an unexpected match to the audience.

The debate itself is an impressive little moral survey in quick sound bites. Where the episode knocks it out of the park, though, is in the debate’s last moments.

The wheelchair-bound star debate for City College has one final rebuttal, and he knows he’s losing. In a fit of inspiration, he tears up his notes, pushes his wheelchair as fast as it will go at Jeff, and throws himself across the stage in a moment of visual absurdism that sees him almost graze the auditorium rafters in slow motion. The room is breathless.

Jeff catches him. The boy, still in Jeff’s arms, turns to the judges and says, “He hates me, but he caught me! Man is good!”

Following stunner with stunner, Annie grabs Jeff to kiss him. Jeff spins on his heels, drops the boy, and reciprocates the passionate embrace. Annie then lets go of Jeff, turns to the judges and points at the cripple lying face-down on the stage, saying, “He’s horny, so he dropped him! Man is evil!”

The underdogs win.

It is such a tight, expressive, loaded sequence, I’m still in awe. At this point, the debate takes expression not through man in the abstract, but these characters in particular, and the series uses them to punch its philosophic thesis: Jeff is not a good man, but he will catch the cripple. Jeff will kiss an eighteen-year-old, but when he does it is out of the most pure sense of respect that he’s shown for anyone in the series so far. Annie sees with full clarity that Jeff is not a good man, but she loves him in that moment in part because she sees in him a kinship through the same pursuits that are now liberating her character. She knows that tempting Jeff to drop the cripple in order to win a competition is, in a way, sharing in his callousness. But still she seizes that connection, not with fully liberated libido, but with a liberated spirit that can begin, at least, to access its libido. The moment is a repudiation of the moral dichotomy altogether, as the victors celebrate over the defeated binary still lying face-down on the stage before them.

They are each, in short, neither good nor evil, but in engaging their flaws they find their noblest moments. I think “engagement” is the correct word here — Helene Cixous lamented once that English does not have a word with the same with/against connotation as the French “contre”, but I think “engage” comes close, as we engage in war and we engage in marriage. We embrace and reorient, we dance with our flaws, we find a way to acknowledge the evils in our character that have led us to some low position in life, and then use them in a more constructive way. Every characteristic can be deployed in healthy or unhealthy ways, and we can choose between them if we first understand and accept that characteristic. We cannot simply renounce our flaws, but must, rather, engage them.

It is, in a few words, both a satisfying philosophic statement of the show’s thesis, a breakthrough moment of character growth, a dramatic seesaw confrontation on the stage, and an excellent bit of verbal and physical comedy. I marvel at what stars aligned in that writer’s mind to make it so tight and synchronous. It sits in my mind as perhaps the best bit of television writing I can remember, in either drama or comedy.

In this way, Community is a much more morally complex show than its close cousin, Schitt’s Creek — for while both are about flawed people getting better through their engagement in a community, Community doesn’t offer us any binaries to see its world through. In Schitt’s Creek, the bad people essentially get better by going and staying among the good people and unlearning their badnesses. That’s it, pretty much. The good people are slouchy and silly, but they code as morally good in all the important ways. In Community, the show takes the bold posture that the community college is, well, kind of full of bad people. It doesn’t romanticize or sanctify the hoi polloi. To be in this community college, they have probably failed themselves in life in some serious way. They must become better. But, the show insists, their growth will not be through rejecting the traits that brought them here. When Jeff tries to live in poverty, it doesn’t enlighten him. He must learn to engage with his materialism in ways that inspire him to live a better life. If he’s a sleazy bamboozler at heart, maybe he can use that to find a wholesome respect and kinship with a young woman in need of that trait in her life.

And that’s the posture of the show itself, dramatized in a little bit of debate competition, expressed through its characters’ growth in that moment, and underwritten by a tight bit of physical comedy. He hates me, but he caught me. He’s horny, so he dropped him. Thirteen words. Leap, drop, embrace, engage, reveal.

On N.K. Jemisin’s Worldbuilding

I really loved this recent podcast with NK Jemisin and Ezra Klein wherein they do an abridged world building exercise – and while I’m loathe to just summarize someone else’s great ideas, I think I’d like to try and synthesize a point that they make here, or orbit around and perhaps don’t say quite explicitly.

Part of Jemisin’s world-building gifts is a really acute internal model of how the real world works – so that every time, in this world-building exercise, that Klein proposes a queer little quirk in the imagined world, Jemisin has an inference for it. If you have a people with tails, it’s because they must have lived in trees once. If you have people in a desert, part of their economy is going to be really advanced water-efficiency technologies. If, however, you have oppositional societies both in some degree of water scarcity, the society will face a lot of pressure to flaunt their abundance of water, using water gratuitous ways to tell the social story of how they’re superior to their neighbors.

Klein, coming from the world of journalism, hears all this inference and notes that his profession and Jemisin’s are perhaps more similar than he’d thought – that she must be a real student of human societies to develop the kind of sharp mental model of how the world works that she has, that she uses to inform her fantasy.

To which I’d just like to add the following implication – perhaps gratuitous but I felt underemphasized – that this implies something fascinating about how speculative literature functions as social critique, even when it doesn’t appear to be speaking to the real world at all. In building a world, one asks the question(s), “What would our world look like if we changed just X, Y, Z” – and we’re not making the answer up from whole cloth. We’re using a mental model we have of how this world works to predict the answer. If your mental model of the world is deeply Darwinist, you would make very different predictions about how a world with two advanced intelligent species might function than if you come from a Creationist kind of spiritual worldview, e.g.. In that sense, every speculative fiction is an implicit argument FOR the mental model that the author has of the real world. It’s all political in the sense that its predictions are based on a set of real-world political precepts.

Lots of other pearls in this podcast, and worth listening to if you like thinking about fiction or just how societies work.

Buster Scruggs: Fatalism, Formalistically

The Coens have a career-long theme of fatalism in their work (I love A.O. Scott’s remark, that they treat “whimsy and fatalism like two sides of the same coin”) – that despite the frenzied preoccupations of their protagonists, something larger than them is always at work, always guiding their stars, so that whatever their wants or desires or actions or negligences, they will find themselves someplace they did not intend to be, and probably didn’t anticipate. It will be the massive tornado closing out A Serious Man. It will be the invulnerable death march of the killer in No Country for Old Men. It will be the inefficacy of every laid plan to disrupt the moral order in Fargo. It will be, even, The Dude doing everything he can to fuck up the case, and arriving inevitably at its solution.

So, in Buster Scruggs, I think the anthology film works so well for them, because part of what’s at work in an anthology is the audience’s search for a hidden thread between the stories. It helps, obviously, that death is waiting in every story to overtake the protagonist or his rival, pounding home a theme at the micro level. It helps, obviously, that there’s an element of the supernatural or the fated in so many of the stories, individually. But what comes from seeing these works in anthology is how the audience searches for the thread between these characters who never meet each other. Which is to say, we suspect that some larger force is at work not just in, but between the stories. And maybe that work feels like The West, or maybe it feels like Death, or maybe it feels like Nihilism, but one thing’s for certain, it’s not a character. It’s not an individual whose actions/wants/desires are actually central to the story. It’s a setting, or it’s a climate, or it’s a moral (dis)order, or it’s something in the water that must make all of these stories cohere, and it’s searching for that something that guides the viewer above/beyond/between the stories, and closer to the sense of fatalism that the Coens are always preoccupied with. It’s using the form to advance the theme.

And, since the pieces assembled organically without conscious design as an anthology piece until they were almost all assembled, I suppose it’s fair to say the Coens were also a little bound up in fate.

Roma

It takes me about six months after all the Best Picture nominees are out digitally to watch them all, which is always a good length of time after the Academy Awards are over. I will say this, though: Roma is a stronger picture than anything I saw from last year’s nominees.

Roma (named after a region, not gypsies) is the story of a live-in housekeeper struggling with an unwanted pregnancy, at the same moment as the family she takes care of is falling apart. It’s a beautifully-shot period piece, taking pains to recreate the Mexico City of 1971 (director Alfonso Cuarón’s birthplace), including brief flashes of the political upheaval rocking the country at the time.

The direction is loud and beautiful. Cuarón eschews quick cuts and closeups for long, patient shots that incorporate the whole room, emphasizing the relations between characters and allowing the viewer to really savor the milieu of the city, its households, its countryside, which are all beautifully constructed. This is most notable at the film’s climax (or, at least, one moment of climax), when a trip shopping for a new bassinet is interrupted by the unfolding of a government shooting in the street below, as the camera pans slowly from the second floor shopping center, past the frightened faces of onlookers, to the reconstructed image of carnage taking place across the block. Throughout, the camera takes the perspective of being in the room with the characters, adopting a single vantage from which it will take in a scene, and slowly, smoothly panning from one side to the other almost as if one is watching from the perspective of an otherworldly presence, a ghost or an angel, silently witnessing. The repetition of certain visual cues give one the sense of the story being endless, recursive, and the restoration of a new thematic equilibrium at the the end complements these cues. We feel, at the end, as though we’ve given witness to one revolution of an interminable struggle. Cuarón’s choice to set his film in the midst of a brief moment of political upheaval, which nevertheless yields to the continued dominance of the ruling party for another twenty years (the things you wikipedia after the film is over), also serves the theme.

The story is beautiful, loaded, complex, understated. The bonds between housekeeper and what’s left of the family she serves are surprising and poignant, giving a conflicted moral weight to the master-employee relationship. Nothing is too foreseeable, and so the tension is never cheapened. When a gun is held up at our lead, we really don’t know if it will go off. Yalita Aparicio’s star turn is gently understated — the blankness of her expression is just fragile enough to see her struggling to confront her fears, turn by turn, and the script (wisely) never asks her to play a loudly emotive outburst (that is, right up until the end, when her one great sob of the movie takes place, fittingly, enveloped in the arms of several other people who obscure her from the camera, in that shot that Netflix has used in all the posters).

In the end, we don’t know what will become of this woman, just as we don’t know what will become of her family, or her country. We have the sense that her part in history is bracketed in the midst of one long, unsustainable arc. Eventually the farmers must revolt, eventually the children must confront their father, eventually the family will have to grapple with its finances, eventually this housekeeper will either return to her family in the countryside or have to find a better life than this one.

But sometimes a brief period in the midst of mounting social tension is the life we are given. We don’t always live to see the glorious revolution. Things endure that ought to end. The unsustainable sometimes lasts far longer than it should. And we live under its shadow, and try to make meaning of our little interim.

Economic Value Is a Story

I recently listened to Yuval Harari’s interview on the Ezra Klein show, which (in a super-paraphrased, condensed version that I did not even refer back to the original audio to create) featured this delightful sequence of argument:

YH: The world is soon to be overtaken by some form of AI, not because it will necessarily physically overwhelm us, but because humanity’s increasing uselessness in the face of technological progress will just continue spiraling until we no longer value human beings as such — until we stop investing in their development or economic utility. The machines don’t have to become all-knowing, or conscious, or even particularly powerful, just good enough to push our human value off the economic margins until we dwindle in the market and give way to them, eventually, by rather natural capitalist forces.
EK: But supposing humanity’s value isn’t the same as its utility? What if we just continue fabricating purposes for ourselves after machines price us out of all the industries they can? After all, everything we do is a story — religion is a story, the Constitution is a story, human rights are a story, the economy is a story, money itself is a story, the value of a bottle of wine is a story — so what’s to keep us from inventing a story that attributes value to ourselves that machines can’t take away? We simply invent a need for people that only people can fill, and keep the economy going forward at the speed of our imaginations.

Which Yuval Harari hemmed and hawed on a bit, and didn’t have a particularly satisfying answer for, by my estimation.

***
Which is to say nothing about the theory that machines grow intelligent enough to eat us alive with giant robot jaws (!) — but just keeping the focus on collapsing human utility for a moment.

***
The truly terrific thing implied at the bottom of this is a coming creative crisis. When we have stripped human beings of their traditional values in favor of machines, we might only be at the threshold of a massive revision of our moral, economic, philosophic playbook. When economics no longer compels us to value each other by the traditional metrics, when we have to invent new purposes for ourselves to continue justifying our existence, what might we ascribe as the non-displaceable value of human activity? As we lose our comparative mechanistic utility, how will we define our anti-mechanical values?

As a moral relativist, figures to me that we can make anything holy we put our minds to.

***
Sex. Ayahuasca trips. Biological byproducts. Performative pain. Extracted sections of the genetic script. Unconscious thoughts. Speaking in tongues. [Post-edit: there’s usually an SMBC on point]

Dollah, dollah bills.

At some point, even, maybe — funding for the arts!

Aronofsky and Recasting Creation in the Anthropocene

Before Mother! was a critical darling, I think you can find seeds of Aronofsky recasting creationism from a darker perspective — informed by the extra-humanism of the Anthropocene (a perspective I live inside of a lot) — in, of all things, Noah. Which is a testament both to his vision as a writer and a stunning exposure of how the film industry operates, seeing as this interpretive rebuke got funded as a faith-based inspirational.

The visionary subversion at the heart of Aronofsky’s treatment of the Biblical flood is the conceit that God did not intend for humanity to survive. That He chose Noah because He needed someone to build the Ark, and intended that Noah’s offspring not be able to reproduce thereafter. This is pretty sharp stuff. Aronofsky interrogates the creation myth, and uncovers lurking in it a wholly alternate reading, one that exposes how nakedly we have privileged ourselves in the dominant interpretation of the story.

Aronosky’s interpretation instead privileges nature. Noah is deeply invested in calling back to the Garden of Eden, invoking its perfection (man in the Garden is central to the recurrent visions that tell him to build the Ark), and interpreting the task of saving two of every creature as recreating that perfection. In that reading, man is a pollution on the garden. Man’s survival through the flood therefore becomes our history’s formative error. In the film, God commands Noah to kill the newborn daughters of his assumed-infertile daughter-in-law while they are still on the Ark. Noah is morally incapable of carrying out this command. In some service to the dominant myth, Emma Watson gives us a pat explanation that this was God’s way of seeing whether man deserved to live or die – if Noah, uniquely situated to judge his fellow man after fighting to survive them all, could see it in his heart to exterminate the species, the choice would be self-justifying (we do get a bit of commentary from the avatar of man’s immorality in the film, a local warlord descended from Cain, that man’s defining quality is the ability to kill, which Noah cannot here). If not, then it would be because man deserved to live on.

But Noah doesn’t seem too assured of his own (purportedly) divinely-endorsed wisdom. Noah interprets his choice as a moral failure (and hell, Noah stabbed plenty of guys fending them off from the Ark earlier, didn’t he?). In a call-back to the Eden motif, the Biblical account of Noah later falling drunk and naked and being seen by Ham, who was therefore exiled, becomes an expression of Noah’s depression at dooming creation to suffer man’s evils again. Noah’s dipso mindless state, his nakedness, evokes a subconscious appeal to the Garden perfection he was attempting to revive, and Ham’s sin of knowledge of his father’s nakedness perpetuates the cycle of the fall (the genetic determinism theme here is also well-played – the film focuses on exterminating the spawn of Cain, who have become dominant, in the flood. The spawn of Ham, similarly, have been posited as a cursed line in some racist Biblical interpretive history).

The significance of Noah’s agency in even making the choice, though, is key to the moral doubt we are left with as an audience. The creator leaves it to Noah to interpret man’s worthiness in the world, effectively ceding the role of creator. Noah’s moral uncertainty suits the moment. The creator has expressed a kind of divine indifference to man’s fate, and so man lives on regretfully. When God exits stage right, it is almost as if to say that we have inherited the earth now, and tough luck, jerks. He will not wipe us out again because He has left us responsible for our own moral failings. Noah is drunk on the beach in a blinding depression because in violating God’s directive, he has asserted himself over the creator, and the creator is content to concede that authority to us. Noah cannot bear the responsibility he has claimed (which is a pretty resonant theme for us here in the Anthropocene, acting as gods over our planet).

The fact that this got marketed as a faith-based inspirational shows how stunningly little respect the studio has for that market. A quick CGI of the strobe-light rainbow at the end is basically all the service their reading of the myth gets here.

In the Anthropocene, we’ve broken down certain conceptual barriers between us and, well — everything that isn’t us — the animals (Darwin), the climate, the sum of natural resources on the planet. We have the means to understand our role in creation in a radically different way than we did in the year 1800, and culture (again, I posit) is still trying to react, break open its models of storytelling from explaining everything in terms of man’s relation to man to interrogating man’s relation to anything/everything extra-human.

One of the most pointed ways we can mark this shift in perspective is not the creation of new myth, though. It’s showing the marginal shift in old myth to stay relevant. It’s reinterpreting the myths that define our species in a way that specifically marks the evolution in our thinking. That’s what I really appreciate about this recent tear that Aronofsky’s on, he’s invested in documenting that evolution.

Ice Sings

The Washington Post reports that vibrations in ice sheets can be recorded and condensed to capture the sound of a melting event. Thus manipulated, one can hear the pattern of melt in the tones day by day, and the shifting pitch is likened to song.

***

In semiotic theory, what composes a sign and a signified is subject to your school of thought. Charles Pierce, who developed triadic sign theory, opined that signs are not limited to artificial symbols we consciously create to refer to things outside of the system of language. Rather, that there is no outside to the system of language. “All this universe is perfused with signs, if not composed exclusively of signs,” he proclaimed. He coined the term representamen for the natural object which exists in such a relation to its environment to effectively act as a sign on its environment. “Thus, if a sunflower, in turning towards the sun, becomes by that very act fully capable, without further condition, of reproducing a sunflower which turns in precisely corresponding ways toward the sun, and of doing so with the same reproductive power, the sunflower would become a Representamen of the sun.”

***

Semiotics asks us to listen to the environment and find relations and patterns which can aid us in creating a mental reality that reflects or expands on the physical. Art asks us to find the aesthetic in those patterns. Traditionally, the former leads the dance. What’s beautiful and a little stunning is when we require that sense of the aesthetic in order to find the semiotic sense of a thing. We understand that the ice sheet is speaking because it is already mirroring song.

Annihilation, Translated

The new (-ish, as in, this year, but I don’t buy movie tickets anymore) Annihilation movie is a beautiful adaptation that really does mutate the source material – see Emily Hughes, who so smartly put it, “How much can you change something before it’s a different creature? The novel asks that question, and the movie embodies it” – but the most significant level at which the material changes has less to do with whether or not we get the Wall-Creeper or any other particular plot point – it’s that it changes the central themes around what Area X means to us.

In Jeff VanderMeer’s text, Area X’s origin or purpose are never explained. The source of its power remains numinous and alternatively alluring and terrifying throughout the entire trilogy, and our characters are therefore drawn more into an existential crisis than a discrete conflict with it. The books do for sci-fi, in a way, what Paul Auster does for mystery, where it’s less of a who-dun-it and more of a did-anyone-do-it, was-it-even-dun, and who-are-we-in-light-of-the-ambiguity-surrounding-the-dunning-of-it. The questions are never answered in Area X, we just watch the characters change and question themselves and their world as they cope with something too strange and powerful for them to understand. It’s got an almost religious dimension that begs us to imagine ourselves vulnerable to its higher power. It’s a delicious subversion of genre in this way.

There are, of course, elements of that world left in Alex Garland’s adaptation – and I have such respect for this writer/director going back to Ex Machina that I’m inclined to go along for any warped journey he wants to take me on – but it’s a very different beast. We are given a rather straightforward, if incomplete, explanation of what Area X is from the first moments of the film. The Area is destroyed in a somewhat pat and unsatisfying way by the end of the running time, letting our mutated heroine and the eerie, Area-X generated clone of her husband meet again on the other side. But in a supremely satisfying payoff, the last frame of a film features our two leads finding each other both so profoundly changed by Area X that they really don’t identify as Kane and Lena anymore – are, in fact, so deeply mutated that they crave each other all the more for being the last living tokens of Area X left in this world, as Lena embraces the disturbing clone that has taken the place of her husband, and we cut to black.

It’s a revolutionary set of changes to the themes of the book, and frankly just as satisfying in a completely different way. I can’t help but wonder at how this metamorphosis took place, and I’m tempted to guess that it might be more than simple disregard/ambition on the part of the adaptation artist, and more a case study in the difference between film and text. That is, I’m wont to believe that Garland didn’t just read the book and say, this could’ve been cooler if we changed all these plot points. Part of the buzz around this movie at the outset was how potentially unfilmable the book was, spending so much time in a kaleidoscopically shifting subjective perspective just to impress on the reader how the characters were changing as a result of their exposure to Area X. And while I don’t think that makes the book strictly unfilmable – obviously, every drug usage sequence in modern film has figured out the tricks of distorting perspective, sound, light, color to let the viewer know that we’re in someone’s tripped-out head – this movie would have had to live in those kinds of shots for such a dominant portion of its length as to become pretty overwhelming, and to potentially lose a lot of viewers around basic questions of what’s happening, what timeline are we watching, real or imagined, and from what perspective. It may have been too much for a director (or his studio, likely) to handle.

So instead Garland imagines a way to convey the profundity of the changes consuming these characters while keeping the camera’s perspective objective throughout. That’s the tradeoff. And that meant putting these characters in a position where they could make a choice that so perfectly expressed their inner evolution (which is another great example of what it really means to show-don’t-tell at a high level) as to say as much as any amount of subjective perspective could have given you behind the lens. We know exactly how profound the changes affecting Lena are when we watch her embrace her monster-of-a-clone-husband. If we don’t get the payoff of that sequence, we have no idea how much of her is different as we watch Natalie Portman keep looking pretty much like Natalie Portman from objective perspective throughout. It’s an ambitious set of choices on Garland’s part, and one can really imagine how the pressure to translate the text into film gave him the mandate to subvert some central themes of the book in order to serve others.

It’s how he manages that tension – in both serving and subverting the text in order to translate it – that deserves respect and attention. I love this guy, definitely on my short list of high-concept filmmakers who give you something to chew on after the credits roll.

Never Waste a Crisis

Because the final season is around the corner —

If you’re in a writer’s room on House of Cards after your star is forced out of the series, this is the greatest creative blessing you’ve ever received. You are now mandated to reinterpret your entire work through the lens of another character, and do so in a way that suggests it is the appropriate thematic conclusion to a story your audience didn’t even fully realize they were watching.

Pray that they don’t choose the easy spineless way. There are myriad ways one could try and distract, paper over his absence by telling the audience that all the supporting characters are just as interesting, give some credible but inessential plot device to explain where he went and then try to get people to focus elsewhere until you can wrap things up. But how much more fun — and what are the stakes, really, when no one expects this season to be anything more than a whimpering apology — to use his absence as a mandate for a major revolution, ask the audience to actually be obsessed with his absence, because it reinterprets the whole series for them. Swing for the fences.

E.g., Claire had Frank killed. This was always the plan. Every step along the way was her using him to get there. When all Frank’s sins are bared to the press at last, she can even admit to it while remaining the hero. Savior of the Republic. People buy it, evil ascendant.

Or, e.g., Frank was a suicide. Power and conscience unexpectedly overwhelmed him. Claire is shocked. But in the aftermath, as all his sins come out, she is overwhelmed by what she has been complicit in and resigns. Dedicates the rest of her life to healing the wounds that Frank caused, in part on her behalf.

Or literally whatever, as long as it’s revolutionary. If you’re stuck in this unsavory position of having to end something half-heartedly or do something bold and hope people forgive you for your transgressions, go bold. No half-assed hand-waving as you wrestle under your casting constraints. Embrace them, make them a gift.