HBO The Leftovers

[GavestonPS]

Will ya'll indulge one stupid question?

I am right that the "departed" simply disappeared, yes? The opening credits with the painting of a traditional "Rapture" where bodies float toward a light in the heavens puzzles me. I keep thinking I misunderstood Episode 1.

[darquegk]

Yes. The mural in the opening is metaphorical, mixing iconography of the Christian Rapture with suffering, fear and sex.

[Auggie27]

I'm glad to read the mural referenced, because I've had to defend the show to a couple of friends who fear it's got a quasi religious vibe. Though a major character is connected to a church, the show itself is about an event treated almost as an anti-Rapture. The cults are secular in practice, i.e. not about inspiring devotion or faith but a narrow type of remembrance (GR) or emotional healing (Holy Wayne, who is far from holy). Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but if the show were religious, even indirectly, would HBO take it on? It's about the random nature of loss, a sustained examination of the cultural obsession with "closure." Religion is more plot-specific in its use (a church figures) than thematic.

[darquegk]

I had read an article a few years ago that leads me to believe "The Leftovers" we are seeing is not the show HBO had originally intended. They had been in development of a dark comedy involving survivors after the Christian Rapture. Perhaps it was deemed too controversial or button-pushing, but they liked the idea and have loosely adapted the novel "The Leftovers" instead because of the things it shares with the concept, without some of the political and religious baggage that a decidedly anti-Christian comedy would have had.

[BudFrump23]

What did everyone think of last weeks episode, with the flashbacks? I liked it. It reminded me of Lost in a way and made me 'feel' a bit more. It also makes me want to re-watch the first episodes. I haven't read the book, so I'm watching as a newbie.

[ErikJ972]

I gave up on the show after episode 6. I find it overwrought, melodramatic, filled with annoying characters with absolutely nothing moving the story forward.

[Auggie27]

I, too loved Episode 9. The timing was ideal, right after the dark events of #5 and #8. And seeing Laurie and Patti in their prior dynamic was a stunning bit of revelation. But everything in #9 last week was fascinating. I'm besotted with the show, and find it smart and wisely focused on human behavior, not attenuated sci-fi twists. It's entirely character-driven, a show about our cultural obsession with grief and our manic belief in "closure" at any cost. It's really the first thing I've seen to take on those subjects. Both the pilot and #9 feature a specific sort of referencing of 9/11 -- clearly the defining event of this era and this story -- the "where were you when the world turned?" aspect. Beautifully done. I'm hoping for less explanation, not more. But I did love the car full of women who drove by Kevin... Their temporary beautific expressions and cryptic
query.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

It feels like (to me anyway) they are laying the groundwork for more explanation as it goes on. All the stuff about premonitions, those weird people in the car, even the dog stuff are all stuff that seem to speak to something bigger (and are all things that weren't in the book). I'm still not sure how I feel about the series. I thought the explanation of the son having a different father was going to explain why he looked so old (one of my favorite review lines about the show said it was a show "about a 42 year-old man with a 32 year-old son"), but I guess not. It was nice to see Laurie have more facial reactions other than looking like she smells something terrible, though.

[darquegk]

If I recall, it has been definitively stated that nothing will be explained, and that the show will offer only questions, never answers.

For some people that works well. For others, I'm guessing not so much.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

OK

[Auggie27]

Rather than a cheat, I feel it's the anti-LOST, a story that deals with the random, capricious nature of the universe. It takes that principle and heightens it and basically says: everyone will approach such an event as a Rorshach test, onto which different aspects of our culture can project "meaning." That's what makes it more HBO, less network to me. It's not about traditional sci-fi tropes. If it doesn't fully deconstruct the cliches of the genres (and it certainly does dip into David Lynch, especially TWIN PEAKS, at times) -- yes, the women in the car, the animals, including the pigeons in the church saving episode -- it avoids a lot of the pitfalls that many such series do not. It's very human in scale. By daring to stay mostly focused on one town, it's more like a favorite movie of mine, TESTAMENT, with Jane Alexander, about the aftermath of nuclear war. Its small(er) canvas size is its strength. By not going global, it seems to know how to stay within its own ambitions. Of course, I know it could fall apart in the next season of episodes. Wouldn't be the first. But it's grabbed me, and I'm weary of most sci-fi at this point.

[broadway86]

I adore this show. Love or hate it, it incites some very fascinating discussions.

[VeraCharles3]

Late to this thread. Until now I had just assumed this was some new cookery show on HBO. So I never looked in.

Just saw the trailer and it looks quite promising.

[EricMontreal22]

Auggie said: "Rather than a cheat, I feel it's the anti-LOST, a story that deals with the random, capricious nature of the universe. "

I agree completely. I think the Lost viewers who did get tired of the lack of explanation or disliked the ending are more than justified because, frankly that show (both the show itself and the way ABC marketed,) was that it was on on some level a puzzle show with clues for viewers to figure out. Leftovers doesn't feel like that to me... and I am glad of it.

[GavestonPS]

Well, I'm still with it and I loved the flashback episode. I enjoyed many of the "twists" (e.g., the reversed power dynamic between Ann Dowd and Amy Brenneman) and didn't need that exposition dribbled out over 10 or 12 episodes.

And now that Darque has explained I'm not crazy when I see the opening sequence, I can relax and enjoy the show. Thanks, as always, Darque, for answering my question.