BuzzFeed: "The Midseason Finale Of Mad Men Is One Giant Leap Forward"

Don’t be fooled: Matthew Weiner’s period drama has always been about the future. Warning: contains spoilers for “Waterloo.”

At BuzzFeed, you can read my latest feature, "The Midseason Finale Of Mad Men Is One Giant Leap Forward," in which I review the midseason finale of AMC's Mad Men ("Waterloo"), which represents a giant leap forward for the characters and for the show itself.

For a show about the past, Mad Men has always been about the desperate pressing of the future against the figurative glass. In looking back to the 1960s, the show has held up a tarnished mirror to our own society, our own failings, our own future. A moon landing is full of promise; an old man lives just long enough to see the impossible made possible. Old ways — and the literal old guard — slip away. Companies perish and new ones are formed. Alliances, once fractured, are renewed.

This dance is eternal, the combustive pressure between the past and the future, between cynicism and hope. That embrace that occurs towards the end of the episode, between Don (Jon Hamm) and Peggy (Elisabeth Moss), is more than just a hug: it’s a willing and proud acceptance of a new order.

The midseason finale of Mad Men (“Waterloo”), written by Carly Wray and Matthew Weiner and directed by Weiner, potentially revealed the series’ endgame as the countdown to the show’s finale began. (Unfortunately for us, Mad Men’s seven final episodes won’t air until sometime in 2015.) It is a superlative piece of television that captures the hope and beauty (and awe) of the 1969 moon landing and juxtaposes against the potential collapse of Sterling Cooper and Partners, as the struggle between disintegration and cohesion takes place behind the scenes.
Much discussion is made of how people react to the future, whether it’s with cynicism (Sally, initially) or fear (Ginsberg, alarmed to the point of insanity by the IMB 360 computer), resignation (Kevin Rahm’s Ted Chaough) or acceptance. Influenced by a cute boy, Sally (Kiernan Shipka) initially recoils against the possibilities that the future offers, seeing only a cynical view of the cost of the moon landing, rather than what it means for mankind, sitting on the shoulders of giants. The cost of all things weighs heavily on the show; the characters after all are always selling something: a product, the false lure of a happy life, the emblems of happy hearths and childhoods. (Christina Hendricks’ Joan even sold herself at one point.) And the moon landing was an expensive, if seismic, moment in the history of humankind: As we’re reminded, it cost $25 billion, though that seems a small amount for such a monumental leap forward.

Continue reading at BuzzFeed...

BuzzFeed: "53 Possible Ways Season 3 Of Scandal Could End"

Shonda Rhimes’ political thriller always leaves you guessing, but entertainment editorial director Jace Lacob and staff writer Emily Orley take a stab as to what might happen by the end of the third season. Let the wild speculation begin!

At BuzzFeed, you can read my latest feature, "53 Possible Ways Season 3 Of Scandal Could End," in which Emily Orley and I come up with, yes, 53 ways that this season of Scandal could end, from the possible to the highly absurd.

1. Maya’s bomb explodes on the campaign trail, leaving the fates of several characters — including Fitz — unclear as the show goes on its summer hiatus. CLIFF-HANGER!

2. Fitz is killed when the bomb goes off, widowing Mellie in the process. Olivia is understandably distraught, as her actions lead to Maya being able to plant the bomb.

3. Fitz is killed when the bomb goes off and Cyrus runs in his spot on the Republican ticket. He becomes the first openly gay man to win the presidency.

4. Adnan turns on Maya and traps her in a room with the bomb. Adnan becomes a member of Olivia Pope & Associates and Harrison’s girlfriend.

5. Andrew nobly saves Fitz from death, but is himself killed in the process. This gives Mellie even more reason to hate her husband and to feel like he has “taken everything” from her.

6. Fitz is killed when the bomb goes off. Because Sally is the sitting vice president, she ascends to the Oval Office as Fitz’s successor. Olivia is distraught and vows to get Sally kicked out of office.

7. Realizing that she failed to stop Maya when she had the chance, Quinn sacrifices herself to stop Maya’s plot and is killed in the process. Charlie kills Maya in an act of vengeance and ends up joining Olivia Pope & Associates.

8. Maya plants a bomb in the White House. Fitz, Andrew, and Mellie are taken to the secret bunker in the basement, but since Olivia already used her clearance to get down there once, she is left upstairs and thrown against the wall in the bomb blast. Everything goes black.

9. Charlie dies saving Quinn from the blast. Quinn rejoins OPA, though her passion for Olivia’s mission has been tempered from her time with B613 and with Charlie. She wants nothing to do with Huck.

10. Quinn attempts to sacrifice herself in order to stop Maya’s plot, but Huck saves her at the last moment.

11. Feeling betrayed, Charlie attempts to kill Quinn when he realizes that she has been plotting against him and B613. She is saved by Huck.

12. Charlie attempts to kill Huck, believing him responsible for Quinn’s loyalty issues. Quinn kills Charlie in order to save Huck.

Continue reading at BuzzFeed...

BuzzFeed: "Where Can Homeland Go From Here?"

Showtime’s espionage thriller wrapped up its third season and much of its overall narrative. So where can the show possibly go in Season 4? WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD.

At BuzzFeed, you can read my latest feature, "Where Can Homeland Go From Here?" in which I look at the third season finale of Showtime's Homeland and where the show could possibly go from here. (Answer: wherever it does, I likely won't be watching as I'm fatigued with this show at this point.)

With Sunday’s season finale of Homeland (“The Star”), Showtime’s espionage thriller seemed to fold inwards upon itself, offering up a 20-minute epilogue that felt very much like a conclusion for the series, an alternately intelligent and deeply frustrating drama, depending where in its overall narrative you were at any given time. (It was, however, renewed for a fourth season earlier this year.)

In its often maddening and meandering third season, Homeland found Carrie (Claire Danes) pretending to be on the outs with the CIA while actually on a covert operation under the watchful eye of an even-more-gruff-than-usual Saul (Mandy Patinkin). Saul, meanwhile, hatched a truly mind-boggling plot to insert a high-level asset in the Iranian government… and get Brody (Damian Lewis) — himself the subject of an international manhunt for a bombing at the CIA that killed 100-plus people — to assassinate a high-ranking Iranian official in order to put the rogue nation under U.S. control.

“The Star” managed to tie up many of the narrative’s loose ends and capped off the Carrie/Brody dynamic, offering up a season finale that may have worked more effectively as a series finale. (Seriously, stop reading right now if you haven’t yet watched “The Star.” SPOILERS!) Brody’s death — ordered by Javadi (Shaun Toub) in an effort to secure his role in this power play — is meant to be a pyrrhic victory; it’s meant to be a gut-wrenching ordeal both for Carrie — who is carrying his baby — and for the audience at large. And there is a brief moment, when Brody is raised on a crane by his neck at a public execution and he stares outwards with terror in his eyes, where his death has some actual emotional weight and consequence. And then Carrie climbs the fence and shouts his name and I remember I’m watching Homeland, which ultimately stumbles into some melodramatic excess every five minutes or so.

Brody: “So what happens next?”
Carrie: “What do you mean?”
Brody: “When we get home, what happens next?”
Carrie: “I don’t know. What do you want to happen?”
Brody: “Honestly, I never expected to get this far, so I try not to think about it.”

Continue reading at BuzzFeed...

The Daily Beast: "Mad Men Creator Matthew Weiner on the Season Finale"

The AMC series’ season ender offered upheaval in the lives of SC&P’s employees. I speak with Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner about the finale and what’s next. Warning: Spoilers ahead!

At The Daily Beast, you can read my latest feature, "Mad Men Creator Matthew Weiner on the Season Finale," in which I speak with Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner about the sixth season finale, going overboard, that look, California, and much more.

Not since the end of Season 3 has AMC’s Mad Men—created by Matthew Weiner—ended a season with as much physical, emotional, and psychological upheaval as it did in Sunday night’s episode (“In Care Of”), which closed out the period drama’s sixth and penultimate season.

Written by Weiner and Carly Wray, the final episode restructured some of the show’s key underpinnings: Don Draper (Jon Hamm) spilled the truth about his awful childhood in front of his partners and clients; Megan (Jessica Paré), Pete (Vincent Kartheiser), and Ted Chaough (Kevin Rahm) decamped to California; Don was told to take a break from the agency; Betty (January Jones) pondered the consequences of “a broken home” on her children; Joan (Christina Hendricks) allowed Roger (John Slattery) to form a relationship with their shared son; Peggy (Elisabeth Moss) sat in Don’s office, cleaning up his mess; and Don took Sally (Kiernan Shipka) and her brothers to see the house in which he grew up.

Alternately shocking and elegiac, it could have been a series finale, but instead set up compelling and invigorating new possibilities for Season 7 of Mad Men, the show’s final outing. There is a deep and tangible sense that the characters’ relationships (or lack thereof) with their children are hugely significant, as several storylines examine the ramifications of our actions upon our offspring and the cost of remaining silent. Given our workaholic contemporary society, there would seem to be enormous implications at play here for those who prioritize their professional lives ahead of their familial ones.

The Daily Beast spoke with Weiner about the season finale, Don’s unforeseen departure from SC&P, the murder of Pete’s mother, whether Megan and Pete will be back next season, and much more. What follows is an edited transcript of the conversation.

At the start of Season 6, you said that the opener was about “how [Don is] seen by the outside world, and how we all are seen by the outside world.” How does the finale complete that exploration?

Matthew Weiner: This season was about the identity crisis going on in the culture, the chaos that’s being brought on the United States, the revolution that’s underway, and the turning inwards that happens that, for Don, is hopefully the beginning of kind of a reconciliation with who he is. He says, “I don’t want to keep doing this,” and we see him acting impulsively, struggling through—with worse consequences than ever—his demons. And what I wanted to do was show, at the end of 1968, the revolution is stopped, mostly by force and by votes and people turning to what they hope is a gentler time. Which we know it isn’t. Don, Pete, Roger, and Peggy to some degree, all of them are facing what they can control in their life and what’s good in their life, which is their children. And the children were a big part of the season.

Continue reading at The Daily Beast...

The Daily Beast: "The Good Wife: Creators Robert and Michelle King on the Season Finale, Alicia and Kalinda, and More"

The season finale of The Good Wife was full of dramatic bombshells. I talk to creators Robert and Michelle King about rebooting the show, the start of a ‘civil war,’ Alicia and Kalinda’s dynamic, and what’s next. WARNING: Spoilers galore.

Over at The Daily Beast, you can read my latest feature, "The Good Wife Creators Tell All," an exclusive Season 4 postmortem interview with The Good Wife husband-and-wife creators Robert and Michelle King, in which we discuss the Alicia (Julianna Margulies)/Kalinda (Archie Panjabi) dynamic (or lack thereof), what really happened between Kalinda and Nick (Marc Warren), the year of Cary (Matt Czuchry), Robyn Burdine (Jess Weixler), and much more. (Seriously, it's a long interview and I had to cut a lot for space.)

With two simple words (“I’m in”) the fantastic fourth season of CBS legal drama The Good Wife came to a staggering conclusion on Sunday evening with the revelation that Alicia Florrick (Julianna Margulies), Illinois’s newly minted first lady, would be leaving Lockhart/Gardner to join the startup firm captained by former rival Cary Agos (Matt Czuchry).

The move effectively reboots the show, which will return for a fifth season in the fall. What will Alicia’s decision mean for her star-crossed romance with Will Gardner (Josh Charles) once he gets wind of her betrayal? And what does it mean for The Good Wife that its main characters are being split up and established as potential adversaries?

The Daily Beast caught up with The Good Wife creators Robert and Michelle King to discuss the love triangle between Alicia, Will, and Peter; the shifting dynamic between Alicia and legal snoop Kalinda Sharma (Archie Panjabi); new investigator Robyn Burdine (Jess Weixler); whether Kalinda is a murderer; audience backlash to the Nick (Marc Warren) storyline; and much more. What follows is an edited transcript of the conversation.

The Good Wife has mined the pull between idealism and ambition throughout its run. How does Alicia's “I'm in” represent the outcome of that battle?

Robert King: Alicia could have fought her way to the top of Lockhart/Gardner, given that she had been made partner. To us, it was a little bit more of a personal decision, because of the feeling that she could not control her sexual attraction to Will; their proximity was a problem. Yes, there's an element of what Cary is saying, which is, “We could be the new Diane and Will,” and there is ambition there. But it's joined together with the fact that she feels the only way to stop from being adulterous would be to leave Lockhart/Gardner. That sweet spot for the show that we enjoy so much is where the personal and professional combine.

Should it matter that it's Colin Sweeney's involvement that sways her? Has she in some ways made a deal with the devil?

Robert King: I was about to say yes. I can see on Michelle's face she was about to say no.

Michelle King: Apparently, there's a difference of opinion in the King household. I don't think it's relevant. She would have done it either way. It didn't matter that Sweeney was pushing her to do it.

Robert King: In many ways, Alicia wants to feel that she can do Lockhart/Gardner right. And yet, when you start with Colin Sweeney and Bishop and Chum Hum as clients, you are already starting off with a step in the wrong direction.

Continue reading at The Daily Beast...

The Daily Beast: "Downton Abbey Crashes" (Or My Thoughts on the Controversial Season Finale)

My take on the frustrating finale of Downton Abbey, which ended its spectacular third season with heartbreak. WARNING: Spoilers ahead if you haven’t seen Sunday’s episode.

At The Daily Beast, you can read my latest feature, "Downton Abbey: Why Last Night’s Season Finale Has Fans Seeing Red," in which I offer my thoughts about the controversial Season 3 finale, which aired last night on PBS's Masterpiece Classic.

He had to die.

There was no other way for Dan Steven’s Matthew Crawley to leave Downton Abbey other than in a body bag. As the heir to the grand estate and the title, it would have been impossible for sensible, responsible Matthew to shirk his responsibilities and head to America to start a career on the New York stage, or—to borrow from Monarch of the Glen, a Scottish Highlands-set drama that featured Downton Abbey creator Julian Fellowes as part of its cast—to go climb a mountain somewhere.

No, Matthew Crawley was not only wedded to Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery) but to the great house itself, and there was no getting around the fact that, in order to accommodate actor Dan Steven’s desire to leave the show, Matthew had to be killed off in some fashion.

It’s the means in which Matthew was unceremoniously dispatched that I take some umbrage with, however. I raised this point in a vague fashion in my advance review of Season 3 of Downton Abbey back in January, giving the season a glowing recommendation while criticizing the heavy-handed finale.

After a season that was particularly top-heavy with death—the gutting demise of beloved Sybil (Jessica Brown Findlay)—and disappointment, Matthew’s death threatens to topple the entire show with its melodramatic weight. And, let’s be honest, the minute that Lady Mary gave birth to a son, ensuring the continuation of the dynasty and a rightful succession (lest we be plunged right back into another entail drama like Season 1), Matthew was a goner. He had served his purpose, ensuring that the Crawley line would continue and that Downton Abbey—which he had absolutely and completely saved by dragging it and Robert Crawley (Hugh Bonneville) into the 20th century—would not only remain in the family, but also turn a profit.

Matthew was, in essence, a stud bull. His only purpose was to father a son. With that act completed and Downton saved, what was Matthew’s future importance within the narrative? Other than potential squabbles with Mary—serving again to prove how headstrong she is—where would the drama have come from? His plots were tied up way too neatly for him to survive, in other words.

The rabid fans of Downton Abbey wouldn’t accept another actor playing the dashing and modern Matthew, nor would they have accepted a flimsy excuse for why Matthew had decamped to other climes. But what I found frustrating was how Fellowes orchestrated his demise, having Matthew run off the road by an errant milk truck after joyfully greeting his baby boy for the first time. It was maudlin and too predictable, especially compared to the way in which Sybil had just been sent out of the world a few episodes earlier. Sybil’s death rocked both the audience and the show itself, a brutal reminder of how far medicine and childbirth have come in the last 100 years and also how wealth and privilege don’t always insulate families from loss and harm.

Continue reading at The Daily Beast...

The Daily Beast: "Parenthood: In Praise of Season 4, Monica Potter, and More"

Following the conclusion of the show’s fourth season, I examine NBC’s underrated Parenthood and offer why television needs a fifth season of this remarkable drama.

Over at The Daily Beast, you can read my latest feature, "Parenthood: In Praise of Season 4, Monica Potter, and More," in which I sum up my feelings about the fourth season of NBC's Parenthood and praise the show's subtlety and bravery.

Dry your eyes: it’s time to celebrate this season of NBC’s Parenthood, not to mourn it.

The show’s fourth season, which concluded Tuesday night, was arguably its best to date, one that captured the emotional highs and lows of family life with bravery, subtlety, and realism. Overall, Season 4 was both somber and uplifting—often at the same time—depicting and playing with the notion of change, as seen through the adults and children of the sprawling Braverman family. Change, as we know, comes in many forms: from the pangs of puberty and the leap into adulthood to the inexorable idea of death, one that hovered over the season.

This was a brilliant 13-episode run on a drama that only gets better with age, one that gave each member of the Braverman clan some substantive and emotional plots to work through, from the cancer diagnosis faced by Kristina (Monica Potter) and the struggle between Julia (Erika Christensen) and adopted son Victor (Xolo Mariduena) to the romantic tug-of-war between Sarah (Lauren Graham), Mark (Jason Ritter), and Hank (Ray Romano), and the tumultuous relationship between Amber (Mae Whitman) and Afghan-war vet Ryan (Matt Lauria).

It is no easy feat to balance the emotional needs of so many characters, but creator Jason Katims and his talented writing staff manage to do just that. Multiple subplots are woven through each episode, resulting in unexpected character configurations and pairings. (Who would have thought that a Crosby/Julia scene would carry such weight, as it did last week?) Yet, despite the presence of a cancer story line, the season never meandered into the territory of the saccharine but lightened any semblance of sentimentality with humor and wit. If you need proof of that, you need look no further than the puberty discussion enacted by Max (Max Burkholder); where other shows would have turned toward the after-school-special approach, Parenthood embraced both Max’s Asperger’s and a frank discussion of the changes the male teenager undergoes during that transformation.

In fact, it’s Kristina and Max’s relationship that yields some of the greatest rewards this season, delivering some stunning scenes between mother and son. Here, the writing staff is wise to depict the slightest movement of Max’s emotional life as something triumphant and huge; a scene in which he asks his ailing mother to teach him how to dance is as huge as a gravity-free space jump.

Continue reading at The Daily Beast...

Before All Else, Be Armed: How Borgen Gets Everything Right (Or What Aaron Sorkin's Newsroom Could Learn From Borgen)

"A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise." - Niccolo Machiavelli

Machiavelli's words continue to hold power today, though in the current era, it's context is limited not to royalty but to those who hold elected office as well: the leaders of dominant world powers, the prime ministers and presidents whose decisions echo through the lives of ordinary folk. Promises are made and broken, alliances tested, enemies courted and appeased. This is felt most keenly within the stellar Danish political drama Borgen (or, literally, "The Castle"), from creator Adam Price.

Borgen wrapped up its second season run last night on U.S. cable/satellite network LinkTV following a 20-episode run that asked tough questions about policy makers, mothers, and citizens. I've been writing and tweeting almost incessantly about the show for the last few months, having fallen under its intelligent, incisive, and gut-wrenching spell. (Missed the series? No worries: LinkTV will be offering a marathon of Borgen's first two seasons beginning August 20th, both on the linear network and streaming online.)

As I've discussed in previous stories, the show revolves around Birgitte Nyborg (the incandescent Sidse Babett Knudsen), the fictional first female prime minister of Denmark, who inadvertently comes to power following a scandal involving her predecessor, Lars Hesselboe (Søren Spanning), taken down by a snafu involving his wife, a credit card statement, and a hasty decision in London. Hesselboe's fall becomes a cautionary tale, not just for Birgitte, but for the audience as well: it represents the perils of political office, the decisions to favor work over family, and the unexpected minutiae that can end a promising career. Birgitte's coalition gains majority within the government, and she's set up as a voice of moderation even as she's expected to fail at the grand game of power before her.

It's only to be expected that Birgitte, who begins the series as a wife and mother to two children, should find it difficult to juggle her new responsibilities with that of her more traditional role as mother and wife; the series masterfully fuses together concerns of both the political and domestic spheres, painting Birgitte as tough but fair, strong yet racked with guilt about how her focus has shifted away from her family. Her relationships with her husband Philip (Mikael Birkkjær) and her children--troubled Laura (Freja Riemann) and sunny Magnus (Emil Poulsen)--are further tested as the series goes on, as Birgitte herself transforms from political naif to steely ruler, tragically losing everyone around her in the process.

That isolation shows the viewer the true price of power: with enemies plotting your demise and a sense that no one can be trusted, even those in the inner circle--avuncular advisor Bent Sejrø (Lars Knutzon), guileless assistant Sanne (Iben Dorner), her once-charming husband--are pushed away, her relationships reconfigured in the wake of near-constant attacks and demands from those she believed to be allies. While Birgitte's armor may harden as the series goes on, several Season Two plots serve to remind Birgitte of why she started this job in the first place, her priorities, and her purpose.

Heartbreaking though the series may be, Knudsen's Birgitte bears her onus with grace and dignity, and more than a few mistakes along the way. They only serve to make her appear more human than less; she is as much an imperfect leader as she is a imperfect mother and wife. Even as she seeks to inspire the Danish people to strive towards being better, she too faces this struggle herself in her personal life. But where American television shows would make Birgitte either a shrewish ice queen or a weak-willed apologist, Borgen refuses both paths, instead rendering Birgitte as wholly sympathetic and under pressure, attempting to embody perfection and coming short. (It's a lesson many of us watching at home could learn from: none of us will ever be entirely perfect, but the pressure to be just that can often destroy us.)

Birgitte's struggles--to retain her power, to rule a nation, to create peace and prosperity--may be globally-minded ones but these same instincts apply at home as well, even as she faces tragedy and loss. Birgitte may be a mother, but she's also a mother to a nation, she may be a ruler, but she's also running her household. No matter where she turns, people need her. The demands of this constant need are seen in the subtle shifts within Knudsen's performance; the early ease and laughter of Birgitte, that domestic bliss glimpsed within her household, are erased as the series continues. But, as she proves, they can be found again. Happiness isn't an idealized nexus, but can be found in small doses hidden in plain sight: the smile of a child, the return of a friend, a concord between rivals.

But Borgen is about more than simply the story of Birgitte and her advisors, including her gifted and haunted spin doctor Kaspar Juul (Pilou Asbæk), whose own two-season storyline about his past is spun into revelations about identity, secrets, and childhood trauma. Where Borgen truly shines is in its seemingly effortless balancing of numerous characters and storylines. Not content to focus on the mechanics of Danish rule, the show keeps its focus on several subjects: the conflation of the public and the private, the almost child-like skirmishes between elected officials, and the role of the media.

Within Borgen, the media is represented in several ways and in several forms: there's the news department of national network TV1 overseen by Torben Friis (Forbrydelsen's Søren Malling), the tabloid newspaper Expres run by Birgitte's former rival, Michael Laugesen (Peter Mygind), and the omnipresence of reporters of all kinds within The Castle, the governmental offices that house the prime minister, the Danish supreme court, and Parliament. They gather in the halls seeking comment, their cameras and microphones simply a part of the surroundings; press conferences are held in the Hall of Mirrors, itself an eerie metaphor for the press coverage of governmental action.

When we first meet reporter Katrine Fønsmark (Birgitte Hjort Sørensen), she's a TV1 presenter working for Torben who is herself romantically involved with one of Hesselboe's advisors. When her lover turns up dead (and she's pregnant with his child), she turns to Birgitte's spin doctor Kaspar--with whom she was also previously intimate--in order to bail her out of the situation. She ends up, for her part, unknowingly toppling the government in the process. Over the course of two seasons, Katrine moves from television to print, a series of incidents requiring her to take a job with Laugesen's right-wing rag, even as she is forced to swallow both her pride and her journalistic integrity in the process.

She's reunited at the paper with her one-time editor, the canny Hanne Holm (Benedikte Hansen), a drunk loner whose own struggles with her personal life are themselves echoed through Katrine: this is a possible future for herself, one of loneliness and despair, a figure of mockery and derision. Both women, however, are sympathetically flawed, even as they make mistakes. What keeps them from being tragic figures is their unerring sense of what makes a good story... and an insistence upon holding up the truth as something that is sacred and holy in this profession.

As Katrine and Hanne veer from one crisis to the next, one story to the next, one job to the next, the quest for truth is their eternal roadmap, their never-wavering compass. But it never feels like pandering or pedantry, something that Aaron Sorkin's HBO drama The Newsroom hasn't been able to pull off. Within Price's Borgen, however, the exploration of the newsroom as a living, breathing thing--a battlefield of ideas, conscience, and truth--is magnificently realized, depicting the differences of working under a crusader like Torben Friis or a conniving manipulator like Laugesen, determined to take down those he views as enemies.

In this case, ephemera such as deadlines, story angles, and technology--as well as modes of interviewing and reporting--take on new power and intrigue. There's nothing tedious about seeing Hanne and Katrine at their job, whether that's them breaking a story, sitting in front of a computer, or engaging in a bureau meeting to discuss the day's events. Rather than depict a "mission to civilize," Katrine and her colleagues go about their jobs, attempting to shed light on important news, the public interest always paramount.

This often puts the ambitious Katrine at cross-purposes with the other characters: sometimes her employers, and very often with Kasper and Birgitte. The need to serve that public interest is, after all, an issue when viewed through the lens of national security, or government policy, or a need to conceal a personal, rather than political scandal. It's strongly felt in the second season storyline involving Birgitte's daughter Laura, as paparazzi photographers and tabloid reporters explode a domestic concern into a national one.

But for all of Katrine's flaws and the mistakes that she makes along the way, the character never feels weak or secondary. Rather than be seen as less than her male colleagues, her perseverance and determination position her well above them, particularly as it's only too clear the threat she poses to the male hegemony within her workplace.

In this respect, Birgitte and Katrine are thematically linked throughout Borgen, their similar concerns of career and family, workplace success and personal loss positioning them within the sisterhood of the working woman. The second season finale, in fact, brought these very questions to the fore. With Birgitte returning to her role as statsminister after a leave of absence, her adversaries and the media force her to answer whether a woman can ever actually truly govern, and Birgitte and Katrine each weigh the demands of motherhood on professional ambitions. Can one be a good mother AND a good leader? Are the two mutually exclusive? Or is it that family can give us strength in times of adversity? To soften the sharp edges we need to employ in our professional lives?

These are both modern and eternal questions, perpetually asked and answered by the female characters within the series in ways that their male counterparts are not required to do so. The very heart of the series, in fact, is contained within these internal struggles. Can we be good parents, good spouses, and be good at our jobs? Can we have it all when our professional duties require 24-hour attention? How can one care for an ailing child when an ailing country demands your rapt focus?

One doesn't need Bigfoot or a Great White Savior whose indictment of women's concerns (reality television, gossip columns, Real Housewives, etc.) through which to view the prism of truth and reporting, the collision of the private and the public, or any of the concerns that Borgen raises. Its beating heart is the quest of two women--and those around them--to do good work (in both senses of the words), to honor the public interest that they serve, and to not apologize for the ambition that they have.

With Borgen, television has finally found its heartbreaking and intelligent political series, one that asks tough questions of its characters and its audience, and mines issues of personal, governmental, and journalistic integrity for human drama. Within its corridors of power and in its fast-paced modern newsroom, the show raises questions that relate to each of our lives. And within Borgen we find not a castle with its walls raised and guarded, but rather an opportunity to discuss, dissect, and deconstruct the institutions of power and those who work within them. It overflows with triumph and heartbreak, intrigue and wit. Long after the credits have rolled, Borgen is a show that remains firmly embedded within both heart and brain, the figurative castle's crenelations and foundations taking root within our collective imagination.

Seasons One and Two of Borgen will be repeated beginning August 20th on LinkTV and online for two weeks following the linear broadcast on LinkTV.com. Check your cable and satellite provider for channel details. Season Three of Borgen is expected to air in Spring 2013 on Danish broadcaster DR1.

The Phantom: Thoughts on the Season Finale of Mad Men

"Are you alone?"

I had a feeling that there would be some discontent among the viewers of Mad Men when faced with the finale of Season Five, after such a breathtaking and momentous episode as last week's "Commissions and Fees," which saw the death of one character and featured startling and concrete change. Airing directly after, the season finale ("The Phantom"), written by Jonathan Igla and Matthew Weiner and directed by Matthew Weiner, could feel a bit anti-climactic.

To me, however, "The Phantom" offers a necessary coda for the fifth season, paying off the season's diverse themes and allowing the viewer to see the after-effects of the suicide of Lane Pryce (Jared Harris) on both Don Draper (Jon Hamm) and the firm as a whole, exploring the ways in which we seek out what we believe will offer us happiness--however temporary or fleeting--in order to assuage the rot inside us. Once we achieve the thing that we dreamed about and wanted so desperately, it's only then that we realize that it doesn't make us happy... or whole.

(Aside: A few weeks back, I discussed the notion that this season of Mad Men was less about a subtle manipulation of themes than it was a detour into outright symbolism. Where before the series had delved into subtext, Season Five was about making it part and parcel of the text itself. No longer would one need to take a deep dive in order to explore the hidden themes of a particular episode; they were there on the surface, sometimes spelled out without need of a critical compass or magnifying glass. Of course, some had complained that previously the show was too inscrutable, proving that you can't please everyone always. Thanks to Netflix, many new viewers came to the series during the long hiatus, and there's a sense that Season Five perhaps tried to be more generally accessible in ways that the previous seasons weren't. While I loved the first four seasons, I didn't hate Season Five and I don't think that the current season was somehow flawed for its efforts to shift the thematic underpinnings.)

As a whole, Season Five depicts the journey of Don Draper from his "love leave" and his honeymoon period to his return to form at the end of the season, the gathering darkness that has permeated the fifth season taking root inside his soul once more. Don's storyline in the episode revolves largely around the painfulness of life, symbolized by a "hot tooth" with which he is avoiding a confrontation. It's when he finally goes to see a dentist that he learns that he has an abscess. The tooth is rotten, threatening to overtake his jaw. He's rotting from the inside out and the only way to stave off the infection is to extract.

"It’s not your tooth that’s rotten." The notion of extraction lingers throughout the episode, from Don's surgical visit to the dentist--which leaves a single bloody tooth sitting next to him--to the temporary erasure of memory after electroshock therapy. There's a falseness to the determination of Beth Dawes (Alexis Bledel) when she believes that electroconvulsive therapy is a panacea for all of her problems. By extracting Pete Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser), she may be able to temporarily hold the dark clouds at bay, but her mental illness will return. She will remember again. Pete speaks of putting a bandage on an old wound, but he doesn't speak of the festering rot that can occur under the white expanse of a surgical band-aid. His idealized notion of escape--that they can somehow be happy together--separates him instantly from Beth, something he can't see before or after their hotel room tryst. Beth is trying to hold onto a piece of happiness; Pete is trying to recreate a fantasy that's separate from the own idyllic nature of his family life.

The "doom and gloom" that Trudy (Alison Brie) recalls has infected them all this season and Pete's visit to Beth in the hospital is a reminder once more of just how alone he truly is. He saw Beth as an escape hatch from his own personal troubles and is shocked when she doesn't even remember him in the hospital. He's become a stranger, a phantom who has materialized in her hospital room, unknown and unknowable. The possibility of happiness between them is as rotten as Don's tooth, a realization that the fantasy he concocted in his head--of Beth somehow rescuing him from the mundane routine of his existence--is as impossible to attain as a fairy tale. Like Don and Megan (Jessica Paré), he's Beast to her Beauty, but there is no happy ending here for either of them. Even the moment of happiness he had attained with Beth in the hotel room turns to ash when Howard (Jeff Clarke) tells him that she "spreads her legs" for anyone. That memory too becomes rotten to the core.

But just as we can't extract the pieces of ourselves that we don't like, rejecting that within us that turns to darkness and decay, we also can't fill the void within us. That dark, hungry maw is always craving another sacrifice, and the things that once sated us and kept that figurative darkness at bay can't fill the emptiness. Don looked into the void when he chased after Megan, coming face to face with a vast darkness as deep and dangerous as an elevator shaft. One misstep and you go plunging into the emptiness, loosing yourself and your life. But his decision to help Megan with her career, landing her the Beauty and the Beast shoe commercial, has the same effect in the end. When he sees her, surrounded by a production crew and almost glowing from within, Don leaves the light of the fabricated set to return to the darkness, stepping off the set, past the lights and the cameras, into the blank space of the studio and then directly into the hungry embrace of the darkness itself.

The honeymoon is most definitely over. Don is on his own again, and we get the sense that each of the characters in their own way is cast adrift in exile: Peggy (Elisabeth Moss) sits not in Paris, but in a shabby motel, gazing out not at a dramatic city view but something sordid and pedestrian; Roger (John Slattery) stands naked at his hotel window, high on LSD, without a guide to hold his hand or point the way; Pete cuts himself off from the world by silencing it, putting on his HiFi headphones and withdrawing into himself. And Don enters a darkened bar, where he's asked the same question that each of the characters ask themselves: "Are you alone?" His reply is unspoken, but the question itself also doesn't require an answer. We know that he and the others are alone. They attempt to establish some sort of emotional equilibrium by feeling "alive" for fleeting moments of joy through their respective vices: women, wine, work. But these things don't fill the emptiness within; "a temporary bandage on a permanent wound" that conceals rather than heals the true wound beneath the surface. Even Don attempts to dull his pain with alcohol, turning to a cotton ball soaked in whisky to treat his toothache. But the rot continues to fester in the darkness.

It's Don who wanders through the darkness of the night, a stranger appearing at a bar, a wanderer, a hungry ghost. He's one of the titular phantoms who turn up in the episode unannounced, bringing dark tidings. Even a chance encounter with Peggy at the cinema results in Don feeling solitary once again, remarking on her success and how proud he is of her, but acknowledging that he didn't know her advancement would come "without" him. Pete haunts Beth's life after her treatment, while Lane's empty chair at the partners' meeting contains not his ghost but an emptiness. Don's arrival to deliver a check to Lane's widow, Rebecca (Embeth Davidtz), is another haunting. Don's dead brother, Adam (Jay Paulson), is yet another, turning up unexpectedly wherever Don travels in the finale, a constant reminder of his failings to save both Lane and Adam from their respective suicides. Both die from hanging themselves, and both could have been saved if Don had read the clues they presented him. There is guilt there, eating away at Don from the inside, a darkness that can't be extracted with a tooth. It's fitting that it was Don who cut down Lane from his place of death last week, and who placed him on the couch, but it doesn't absolve him of a sense of culpability that may be nagging him as much as a physical toothache. (In losing his tooth, does Don also lose his bite?)

Joan (Christina Hendricks) feels some sense of guilt as well, wondering whether Lane would still be alive if she had given him what she believed he desired: herself. That too would have been a temporary bandage. Lane carried around a picture of someone else's girlfriend in his wallet, which Rebecca discovers after her husband's death and believes her to be his mistress, demanding her identity from Don. Likewise, Joan represented an oasis from Lane's life, but any sense that she would somehow make him feel complete is illusory. These things are distractions--Roger's entire existence is best summed up as the distraction of sex between reality--but they don't fix the problem, don't save any of them from the true issues at hand. They are alone in the darkness and those brief points of light may remind them that they are alive, but they also remind them afterwards of just how painful it is in the first place.

Megan is "an ungrateful little bitch" in the eyes of her mother, Marie (Julia Ormond), who also refuses to "care for" Roger when he asks her to do LSD with him, clearly looking for someone to share the experience. Marie's withholding nature has doomed her relationship to her husband, but also to Megan as well, and her advice to Don that he "nurse her though this defeat and [he] shall have the life" he desires is false guidance. If he lets Megan truly fail, there's a sense that she'll turn out to be Betty (January Jones), a failed model in a world filled with failed "ballerinas" as twisted and bitter as Marie herself, who transfers her own sense of failure onto her daughter. ("Not every little girl gets to do what they want," Marie says. "The world could not support that many ballerinas.") But in choosing to help Megan, Don also sees how easy it to get lost in the darkness. He chooses to cut himself off from Megan than remain by her side, basking in her reflected light. "Beauty" it seems is not enough, not anymore. The happiness he thought he could attain by marrying Megan hasn't resulted in the life Don envisioned.

There's a sense that the final scene of the season is a return to the Don that has been held at bay all season: someone who loses himself in sex and booze and who stays away from the wife at home in order to avoid confronting the pain. But running from a toothache doesn't negate it. Avoid it for too long and you risk losing an even bigger piece of yourself in the process.

Mad Men will return for a sixth season to AMC in 2013.

Valar Morghulis: Thoughts on the Season Finale of Game of Thrones

Everything ends.

Life, love, and even dynasties: nothing lasts forever. They all turn to dust, a charnel cloud of smoke, reducing even the stones of a fortress that has stood for thousands of years to ash. Everything crumbles, everything rots, and everything eventually ends.

And even this, Season Two of Game of Thrones.

The season finale ("Valar Morgulis"), written by David Benioff and D. B. Weiss and directed by Alan Taylor, concluded the second season of Game of Thrones with a powerful episode that built up on the magnificent set piece of the Battle of the Blackwater that last week's episode provided. Despite the fact that, after such a momentous event, the final episode could have felt more like a denouement than a riveting installment in itself, "Valar Morgulis" instead further teased out more tension, drama, and dread, offering an ending to the season that was flooded with possibility, both of life and and of death... but ultimately of change.

While there was no drought of action, this week's episode also offered a reflection upon about perception, deception, and illusion, diving deep into the way in which we perceive ourselves, our surroundings, our failures and our strengths. Providing a strong throughline for the season finale is the notion of the difference between looking and truly seeing, peeling away the artifice to reveal the truth below.

It's a theme that plays out in all of the many storylines embedded within the installment, from the realization of Sansa Stark (Sophie Turner) that she will never be free and the quest of Daenerys (Emilia Clarke) within the House of the Undying, to the seeming betrayal that Jon Snow (Kit Harington) metes out to Qhorin (Simon Armstrong) in order to prove that he is a turncloak and therefore of interest to the King-Beyond-the-Wall. Hell, it's spelled out in the opening images of the episode, a close-up of an eye, belonging to the wounded Tyrion Lannister (Peter Dinklage), as we see shadows moving in the reflection of his iris. Gorgeously filmed, it depicts the life that clings to Tyrion: watching but unable to act, as shadows dance around him, first of battle and then of those who manage to save his life.

But just when it seems as though he's made it through the battle unscathed, the sword dangling above his head drops unceremoniously: he's grievously scarred, a red wound across his face, and he's been removed from office. His deeds--the fact that he saved King's Landing--will go unrewarded, his name absent from the history books, no glory affixed to his chest. He's survived, but he's no hero, a fact that Grand Maester Pycelle (Julian Glover) takes no qualms about throwing in his face, giving him a mere coin for his troubles. It's a shameful act towards a man who only days earlier stopped the barbarians at the gate, who stood on the front line and held his ground, who refused to bow in the face of terror. The coin renders Tyrion as next to nothing, a half-man with a cheap tip. There is no hero's welcome for the Imp, no songs written in his name, no honor to be had despite the heroism he performed. (It's Conleth Hill's Varys, as usual, who speaks the truth: like the viewer, he too knows of the true deeds that Tyrion performed during the battle. Whereas others might see a "monster," he sees the hero of Blackwater.)

But, in a continent gripped by fear and war, every experience is somehow rendered bleak and tawdry. A ceremony in the throne room of King's Landing, intended to announce that Tywin Lannister (Charles Dance) is the savior of the city and the new Hand of the King, is filled with as much pomp and circumstance as you might expect, but what the viewer sees--and which the attendant lords and ladies of the royal court do not--is the horse shit that piles up on the ornate rug outside those throne room doors. Not everything can be controlled or ordered, and there's always, it seems, that reminder of mortal imperfection: of the bodily functions that render each of us less than godly. Interestingly, the episode is bookended by such ephemera: Tywin's horse lets loose a mighty volley of excrement, while the men of the Night's Watch search desperately for waste to burn for fuel, digging in the icy tundra for the very thing that means the difference between life and death. An intentional juxtaposition? Absolutely.

Likewise, the juxtaposition between truth and artifice is enacted within the beautiful and somber scene between Tyrion and Shae (Sibel Kekilli), in which he pretends that their relationship is nothing more than a customer/whore dynamic. But she is not at his side for payment; whereas Pycelle offers Tyrion money, Shae offers him the redemptive power of love. He may see himself as a monster, but Shae sees him for his true beauty, his kind heart, his quick wit. She sees them as bound together, belonging to one another; the embrace that they share is a tearful one unlike that of Robb (Richard Madden) and Talisa (Oona Chaplin) who commit themselves to one another in front of the gods. There is no wedding for Tyrion and Shae and there never will be. Though they may consecrate themselves to one another in the dark of a cramped bedchamber, there is to be no marital union. The tears that Tyrion expresses in that moment is heartbreaking all the more because the viewer can see the futility of their situation: this will not end well. There are forces that want Tyrion dead and they will try again and, as much as he might love Shae, she is a weakness, a flaw in his armor. She can be used to get to him. And, as much as he wants to flee to Pentos with her, the only thing he is good at is political intrigue.

Robb Stark sees Talisa as his true love, pledging himself to her for the rest of their lives. What he doesn't see is perhaps his undoing, trading one oath for another, breaking the word he gave to the Freys. His decision reveals both the depth of his feelings for Talisa (or, perhaps his sense of honor after he had his way with her) and also his own immaturity. He sees himself as immortal or as being able to shrug off the consequences of his actions. But oaths are more than mere words, and the breaking of a sworn oath is a serious crime. Their marriage begins with the seeds of those consequences, their marriage consecrated with a broken promise and the loss of some honor.

Even Joffrey (Jack Gleeson) considers the import of such oaths, weighing the promise of betrothal he made to Sansa Stark when he is presented with a more suitable bride in the form of Margaery Tyrell (Natalie Dormer) now that Highgarden has pledged itself allies to the Lannisters. Appearing before the court, Margaery offers herself up as a new bride for the child-king, more suitable than the daughter of a "traitor" to the crown. Despite her, er, proclivities, she is presented as being "innocent" as she and Renly never consummated their marriage, a fact that Ser Loras (Finn Jones) is forced to offer up before the entire court. While Joffrey vacillates about what he is to do (whereas Robb merely acts without thought of repercussion), he does relent, casting off Sansa in favor of Margaery. But while Sansa gleefully laughs, seeing herself as free from Joffrey, it's Petyr Baelish (Aidan Gillen) who forces her to see the truth: severed legally from Joffrey, he is now free to use her even more cruelly. Her illusions are shattered, even as Littlefinger seemingly offers her the possibility of escape...

In order to survive, Jon is forced to murder Qhorin in front of the wildlings that had taken them prisoner. Goading Jon into fighting him, Qhorin knows that unless Jon is seen as a turncloak and an oathbreaker, he won't survive the day once they reach the Frostfangs and he knows that his death can save his brother from a certain death. It's a noble sacrifice that Qhorin makes, giving up his own body so that Jon can survive and come face to face with Mance Rayder, the King-Beyond-the-Wall. But it's also telling that Qhorin's last words--"We are the watchers on the wall..."--are that of the sworn oath of the Night's Watch. Its usage of the inclusive "we" is a signal, a reminder to Jon to not forget who and what he is, a lone raven in a land of ice and snow. Among by wildlings, he is not one of them, but a sworn protector of the realm. While the "free folk" might see Jon as an oathbreaker, the man who killed Qhorin Halfhand, those final words are a symbol of unity, strength, and commitment to their shared oath. His death will not be in vain.

Stannis (Stephen Dillane), meanwhile, sees his defeat at Blackwater as the end of his righteous campaign, blaming not only himself for the death of thousands of men in his army--who perished at the "seventh realm of Hell" amid chemical dragonfire--but also the red priestess, Melisandre (Carice van Houten), whose prophecies of victory failed to come through when he needed them most. I was surprised by his attempt to strangle the life out of Melisandre, and even more so when he relented when she said that her red god lives in him. She is gripped by a dangerous fanaticism, one borne out of the idea that Stannis is the reincarnation of mythical hero Azor Ahai, one that has infected Stannis as well. For a split-second, he sees the price of victory and acknowledges his crimes: the murder of his brother carried out by his and Melisandre's hands, the death of so many around him. But Melisandre offers Stannis two things: another prophecy, in which she tells him that he will betray everything and everyone he holds dear and that his ultimate victory will be worth the cost of perhaps his own soul... and she allows him to look into the flames to see what she sees. Whether this is the truth of what's to come or another dangerous illusion remains unclear, but as the flames burn in Stannis' eyes (there is the episode's eye motif again!), it's absolutely clear that he believes wholly and completely in what she's saying. A little belief can be a very dangerous thing indeed.

Arya Stark (Maisie Williams) comes face to face with some magic, as Jaqen H'ghar (Tom Wlaschiha) reveals himself outside of the gates of Harrenhal. Jaqen gives Arya several things: freedom from her servitude and her false identity, a coin which she is to give to a resident of Braavos if she finds herself in trouble, and the answer to his own nature. Jaqen is a Faceless Man, a member of a fabled guild of assassins who can change their faces as one might a set of clothes. Having repaid his debt to Arya, he sets her on a path of her own choosing, telling her that she can be anyone she wishes to be. She can go with him and learn the secrets of his trade, and enact vengeance on the litany of names she sings to herself before sleep, or she can go her own way in search of her missing family. Here, it's Arya who uses duty and honor above self-interest, opting to reunite with her clan rather than take the path of revenge.

Jaqen's final words to her--the instructions she is to use when she is again in search of him--are significant here: "Valar Morghulis." I'm tempted to reveal just what they mean, but because they weren't translated within the episode, I'm leaving that for you to puzzle out on your own, though the clues are indeed embedded deeply within the series as a whole. It is, in many ways, the underlying theme of George R.R. Martin's grand work as a whole.

While it comprised just a little scene, but I loved the interaction between Esme Bianco's Ros and Hill's Varys, in which he offers her a new opportunity. While Littlefinger sees her as nothing more than a common whore, with "a profitable collection of holes" that he can financially take advantage of, Varys sees the true skills Ros has, soliciting her not for her body but for her mind... and more importantly her ability to ferret out what men are thinking. She's ideally suited to such subterfuge and espionage, another little bird to be added to Varys' flock, a whisperer of secrets gleaned from unsuspecting men. Men, who it should be said, undervalue both Ros and Varys for the organ they lack.

Likewise, I loved that we got to see Brienne (Gwendolyn Christie) cut loose in this week's episode, showing the Stark soldiers and Jaime Lannister (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) the stern stuff that she is truly made of. While they see her as nothing more than a woman, or alternately, a freak, she proves herself more than adept at handling a sword, taking down three armed men without breaking a sweat and dishing out her own unique form of justice, giving two a "quick death" and killing the third slowly for the way in which they killed the women they had come upon. It is eye-opening both to the audience and to Jaime, his look of shock and surprise palpably etched on his face. While we only get this sequence with the two of them, it's a big step in developing their own dynamic going forward. If he believed that he could easily escape his jailor, he would be entirely wrong.

The one sequence I wasn't that crazy about was actually that of Daenerys at the House of the Undying, which I thought was not handled as well as in "A Clash of Kings." While I was happy to see Daenerys take more of an active role within her own story, there was a shabbiness to some of the House of the Undying sequence that was unexpected. I absolutely loved the illusions that she encountered on her quest to rescue her dragons--a walk through a snow-filled throne room in a destroyed King's Landing (her hand nearly touching the Iron Throne), a walk beyond the Wall in the brutal winds and ice, and a fleeting glimpse of paradise in the arms of her lost love, Khal Drogo (Jason Momoa), and the child they never had. Here, Daenerys is faced with the choice between sweet illusion and its false promise of eternal happiness or a return to the mortal realm, to the harsh truths of what she has lost, an acknowledgement of the failures and losses she has endured. This I thought was handled beautifully without the need for overt exposition.

But it was the showdown between Daenerys and Pyat Pree (Ian Hanmore) that I felt was lacking. While it made sense for her dragons to attack him, the final showdown felt more like a whiff of smoke than a full-blown fire. While Daenerys gives the order to her dragons to unleash their fire, the little trickle of flames should have been something that Pyat Pree could have easily countered. Their fire doesn't envelop the room or even, really, the warlock himself, whose magicks should have been capable of putting out such a meagre flame. What I wanted to see, if the writers were going to stray away from how the sequence plays out in the novel, was Daenerys once again surrounded by fire, the dragons' breaths cocooning around her, filling her with flame, reinforcing her own "magic," singing her hair and burning off of her in a magnificent arc of fire and rage, exploding outward at Pyat Pree. What we get instead is a mere flicker (Seriously: stop, drop, and roll surely would have saved him.) and some singed clothes before the warlock succumbs to the flames.

And Daenerys learns the episode's central lesson as well: few things are as they seem, the difference between appearing and being a vast chasm. Xaro Xhoan Daxos (Nonso Anozie) claimed that wealth beyond imagination was inside his vault, accessible only by a key he wore around his neck at all times. But once Daenerys opens it, she discovers the truth: Xaro's jewels and gold the only wealth he owns. The vault is empty, the illusion shattered. His control of Qarth founded on nothing besides smoke and mirrors, lies that enforced the image he wanted to put out to the world.

Poor Theon (Alfie Allen) is himself caught between the man is pretending to be and the man he truly is, something that Maester Luwin (Donald Sumpter) tries to teach him before it's not too late. But instead of casting off the shackles of false identity, Theon is condemned by the choices he's made, betrayed by his own men who are under siege by 500 Northerners at the gates of Winterfell, a bag placed over his head, a symbolic reminder of the fluidity of identity: prisoner, guest, family member, hostage. Lord or lickspittle. Theon's speech is him at his best, a symbol of Iron Island independence and a clarion call to arms, but it results in nothing but the destruction of Winterfell and the end of his reign as its lord. What happens to Theon remains unclear at the end of the second season. Is he taken by Ramsay Snow and the Northerners? Is he taken back to Pyke? We're given no clue, though it's clear that someone destroyed Winterfell.

(Poor Maester Luwin, meanwhile, gets the saddest death on the series since that of Ned Stark. I found myself weepy both when he was impaled on a spear and when he begs Natalia Tena's Osha to end his suffering. His death scene in the godswood, in front of the heart tree, was beautiful and elegiac. His goodbyes to the Stark lords both somber and heartfelt. In a series overflowing with death and destruction, Maester Luwin's passing is a true tragedy, reminding us that the death of a good man is always a crime, always felt, and always grievous.)

Finally, there were the three horns sounded on the Fist of the First Men, a signal that the White Walkers were upon the Night's Watch. And that they were, seemingly hundreds of wights heading straight for their encampment, lead by several of the legendary ghouls astride white mares, their glass swords gleaming in the frost, calling their hordes to battle. It's a reminder of the true battle at hand, one that goes beyond the mere game of power: it's that between good and evil, day and night, fire and ice. And those horns signal the start of the real war to come.

Season Three of Game of Thrones will begin in 2013 on HBO.

The Unopened Door: Thoughts on the Season Finale of The Good Wife

Auteur Hal Hartley once said, "A family is like a gun. You point it in the wrong direction and you could kill someone."

The message therein, and the parallels between the potential explosive energy of a family and that of a loaded gun, was keenly felt in this week's outstanding season finale of CBS' The Good Wife ("The Dream Team"), written by Corinne Brinkerhoff and Meredith Averill and directed by Robert King, which posited two parallel situations between Alicia Florrick (Julianna Margulies) and Kalinda Sharma (Archie Panjabi) that will fuel our imagination during the long summer.

The Good Wife is one of a very small handful of television shows that can take innately simple moments--those that may seem quotidian or mundane, such as a knock at the door or a look through an open window--and make them transformative. This has been the case in the past as well: look at Alicia and Will (Josh Charles) opening a hotel door at the end of last season. While the choice was apparent there (they enter the room, therefore committing to consummating their romance), here we instead find both Alicia and Kalinda at their own respective crossroads, each of which offers the same binary choice: do you stay or do you go? And each must make an ultimate choice, one that will likely have resounding consequences within their lives: do you open that door, knowing that your life will change?

That fantastic parallel (leaving/staying) plays out magnificently here, leaving both characters in a limbo state until the fall. By either choosing or not choosing to confront what's behind their respective doors, both characters become themselves the catalysts for change. There's a real sense here that every knock on the door has been like this for Kalinda since 2007 or thereabout, but that her choice is to stop running and face down the very real, very possibly fatal consequences of her actions.

I'm glad that she didn't initially take this step, instead seeing the brush of contact between Alicia and her mysterious and very dangerous husband as a harbinger of doom. There's a clear parallel between the sledgehammer scene and that of the Season Two baseball bat incident with Kalinda, but in one case her actions were punitive and vengeful. In the other, it was a matter of self-preservation as she smashed open the wall, revealing a hidden cache of guns and cash, so she could run: a rabbit in the wind, outrunning the fox.

Kalinda, clearly, has been running away her entire life, and Brinkerhoff and Averill set up the audience's expectations so that we're meant to believe that she's run again, failing to turn up for work, walking out on her life, her job, and her constructed identity, burning the framework of Kalinda just as she did previously with Leela. (Alicia even voices this aloud, pondering where Kalinda is.) But rather than set up a fall arc in which Kalinda is on the run or seeking revenge, we're instead given a scene where she's late for work, her choice perfectly clear: she's holding her ground. This is in turn echoed by her final scene at her spartan apartment (where even a mirror--a manifestation of identity and self--conceals instruments of violence) where she drags a chair in front of the door, loads a gun, and waits. She's waiting for that inevitable knock at the door and we're given that at the episode's end. Whether it belongs to friend or foe remains to be seen.

Likewise, Alicia herself wields the power in her final scene, standing on the welcome mat outside the house she once shared with her family. The house now belongs to Peter (Chris Noth) and Zach (Graham Philips) and Grace (Makenzie Vega) prepare a simple dinner of pizza, asking her to stay. It's an echo of the half-joking messages conveyed earlier by both kids, in which Alicia is subtly prodded to have them all live together again, even if she and Peter aren't really married anymore. But does a house make a family? If she goes back inside, attempts to grasp at the idyllic scene that she witnesses through the open window, she very likely won't be able to leave. The door here once again becomes emblematic of transformative change, a beginning and an ending, a literal Janus looking both ways.

If Alicia's inner question this season has been about whether you can ever go back, she's on the precipice of discovering whether you can or can't. There's something so warm and inviting about walking back in the door, joining her family for dinner, and allowing herself to be transported to a simpler time, a time before the scandal, the tragedy, the media circus. A time when the most important time was that spent around the table as a family. But Alicia has changed: we've seen her transformation over the last three seasons, from dutiful politician's wife to independent career woman, one whose morals have had to become decidedly more flexible than the simple black-or-white duality that she had in the pilot.

Personally, I believe that Alicia did go back inside and that we find her, at the beginning of Season Four, living with not only Zach and Grace, but also with Peter and Jackie (Mary Beth Peil) in the house that she went to war over, that she fought to regain in order to reclaim a piece of her past, a piece of her self. But in changing, we can't ever really go back. The Alicia that (potentially) moves into that old house isn't the same woman who once lived there, just as her family isn't the innocent clan that one walked its halls. They've been changed by their experiences, shaped by infidelity and betrayal, but they're also older and wiser now in their individual ways. Perhaps what's important then is that they're making a choice to be there, armed with the knowledge of what they had lost.

It's knowledge that also fuels the barroom conversation between Alicia and Kalinda, in which the latter answers a question that had been hovering in the air for two years, telling Alicia that she's "not gay," but instead sexually "flexible." These two women, once friends and now something else entirely, have been through a lot in the last three years but there's something welcoming and healing about seeing them knock back tequila shots again, something that it's (wisely) taken the characters--and therefore the writers--an entire season to get back to again. This moment feels earned, a confession of truth, as Kalinda opens that figurative door to Alicia just a crack. Alicia is far more wary of her drinking partner than she had been in the past, but that's okay: she once said that Kalinda gave her nothing in return for her own confessions. Here, Kalinda finally lets Alicia in an inch, sharing with her a detail of her identity, a sign that she wants Alicia to know her better, to understand her. It's a sign of friendship, as much as the elegiac "goodnight" she offers her when they part ways. Kalinda might not be one for grand gestures of emotion, but she's trying and while we've seen some thawing between the two women, this episode brought us an intense crack in the ice, as it were.

I'm intrigued by the notion of Kalinda's dangerous husband, one who is only too willing to harass and frighten Alicia at home. His laughter on the line when Alicia said the check was made out to cash was eerie and threatening, signifiers here of just why Kalinda has gone to such lengths to escape him. (Which of course connects back to Peter and her affair, making everything interconnected and circular.) I can't wait to see just who Robert and Michelle King cast as Leela's husband, and what his potential return to her life means for our favorite legal snoop. Hmmm...

A few other stray thoughts: I loved the handling of Jackie here, both in terms of the visit from Eli Gold (Alan Cumming) in the hospital but also by dint of her recent stroke. As soon as Eli was warily looking between Jackie and the television set--which was playing an old black and white film depicting a murder by shooting (there's that gun again!)--I had a feeling that the television was off and that Jackie had suffered some brain damage from her stroke (or was slipping into dementia), imagining a film that wasn't there. Once the same film played on the television during Alicia's visit, I knew I was correct, and we're given a confirmation of the fact that the television isn't even on. That she's witnessing a murder, playing out on a loop, while dreaming of her own death is a worrying sign for Jackie Florrick. I wouldn't count this hellraiser out of the game just yet, but clearly we're moving towards a Florrick clan that's going to be living in tighter quarters than before.

One of my favorite scenes in the episode was the masterful use of escalation in the Peter/Will elevator scene, in which the two are forced to undergo an awkward trip up to the 28th floor and into the waiting area, which becomes increasingly uncomfortable: the doors won't close, the buzzing, Alicia waiting there, the appearance of Cary (Matt Czuchry), the little girl in the musical car (a hilarious callback throughout the episode), Eli, and finally the reappearance of Kalinda ("We're throwing you a surprise party!"). This should be required viewing for screenwriters and film students, demonstrating how to pay off tension and escalation with deftness. Genius, as was Diane (Christine Baranski), Will, and Alicia learning of the threat to the firm... only to have the light above them flicker and then go out.

(Aside: I might be the only one, but I'm still curious about that eleventh hour phone call between Peter and Cary last week, which wasn't mentioned here at all.)

Kudos to Martha Plimpton and Michael J. Fox for reprising their roles as Patty Nyholm and Louis Canning respectively, who unite against Lockhart Gardner as the "dream team." And what a dream team they are: Plimpton and Fox are always fantastic separately but together the screen crackles under the intensity of their malevolence and trickery. And this season finale visit has massive consequences for Will and Diane and the firm itself. The lawsuit they engineer is all smoke and mirrors, distracting the partners from their true objective: ensnaring the firm's top client, Patrick Edelstein, which they do with ease.

Considering Edelstein accounts for twenty percent of the firm's monthly billings, this is a huge blow to the stability of Lockhart Gardner, which is already limping after Will's suspension. Add to this the balloon payment that's due on the firm's offices and we have a major crisis here, one that's aggressively threatening the long term viability of the firm itself. Whether they rebuild or crumble is up to them, but I can't imagine that we'll find the firm on sounder footing when we reconnect with them in the fall.

Change is afoot for all of the characters, it seems. Whether they open that door or keep it closed is up to them. But sometimes the knock on the door is insistent and demanding, and sometimes transformation occurs whether you want it to or not.

Season Four of The Good Wife will begin this fall on CBS.

Our Own Worst Enemy is Ourselves: Quick Thoughts on the Homeland Season Finale

I'm puzzled by how polarizing the season finale ("Marine One") of Showtime's Homeland ended up being, with viewers on one side or the other about just how effective--and believable--the climax of the espionage drama was last night.

Personally, I thought it was powerful, heartbreaking, and superlative, filled with emotional resonance and an aura of tragedy hovering uneasily over everyone, particularly the now-tragic figure of Cassandra-like Carrie Mathison (Claire Danes), whose portents of doom fell onto deaf ears. It's Carrie who saves the lives of the Vice President and his cabinet as well as that of Nicholas Brody (Damian Lewis), but her instability is used as a weapon against her. In essence, she saves the world, but is denied the knowledge that she's done so.

Her breakdown in the final third of the episode isn't just a mental one, but that of communication as well as self-worth. Carrie's entire persona is based on a laser-like precision of the facts, collating information, and projecting possible scenarios. Her guilt over missing some valuable clue that led to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11 have shaped the person she is today, one who is determined to dig at the truth regardless of the personal cost to herself. Which is why Carrie's decision at the end of the episode is all the more tragic.

In voluntarily opting to undergo electroshock therapy, Carrie is choosing to forget, to wipe clean the slate of her memory, and start fresh. Her tabula rasa is the result of weeks of being correct but not knowing so, of falling under the thrall of Brody and falling in love with him, of not being trusted by those in charge, and by being exposed in the eleventh hour by someone she trusted. Carrie began the season a disgraced CIA officer; she ends it a disgraced woman, full stop.

What makes her decision all the more tragic--and the implications all the more severe--is that in that moment of clarity before she slips under the anesthesia, Carrie finally slips together the final missing puzzle piece in her color spectrum of clues, remembering that Brody spoke of Issa in his sleep and that Abu Nazir's son was named Issa. The missing part of the spectrum is finally in full view, the rainbow complete, the puzzle solved, the meaning of Nazir's silence finally clear.

But Carrie has doomed herself to forget, to wipe away the events of the last few weeks, her painful time with Brody, her ouster from the CIA, her injuries in the blast and the subsequent psychological freefall that followed. Carrie won't remember that she made the connection, that she unmasked Brody's involvement, that she Solved It All. Instead, her words are once more misheard, misunderstood, disregarded. Her Cassandra cries are ignored, and cast off as meaningless gibberish, the white noise that arrives before the long sleep.

Brody, meanwhile, has his own life saved in the wake of Carrie's crusading. He--and his family--owe her a debt of gratitude, but it's one that he'll never repay. In reaching out to Dana (smartly, the only member of the Brody family who saw anything about their pater familias' behavior as irrational, bizarre, or troubling), Carrie follows through on Saul's advice vis-a-vis Aileen: she seeks out not what made Brody an extremist (Issa) but what makes him human (his family), hoping that Dana's voice on the line can, in essence, "talk him down" from detonating himself, the Veep, and a slew of government officials in that underground Cheney-esque bunker. It's a masterful payoff to a plant from several episodes ago. In trying to get to Dana, Carrie tries to stab at Brody's Achilles heel: his family.

And it's not until Brody hears Dana's voice on the phone that he begins to rethink this turn of events and weighs what the true collateral damage would be: his own loved ones. It's in that moment that Brody himself decides where his true allegiance lies. Can he rip open a psychic wound in his family through his sins? Can he fail to fulfill a promise to his daughter? On the roof later, it's as though Brody is seeing things clearly for the first time, acknowledging that they do in fact have "views," which he never noticed. Carrie may be forgetting, but for Brody, it's an acknowledgement that he chooses to remember, something that connects to the opening sequence as he videotapes his final confession.

It's a masterful turn of events, once more setting up Carrie and Brody as ideological opposites, defined by their choices and the way in which they process their damage. Which isn't to say that there weren't some missteps along the way here. I agree with the dissenting opinion that Brody's decision to not detonate the VP but instead assume a position of power within the government and do more damage there--while it made sense within the context of Brody's mind--should not have come as a surprising development to Nazir.

After all, surely a turned politico with a grudge against the administration and a fervent Islamist is more of an asset that killing the VP. Brody is right when he says that if he cuts off one head, like a Hydra, another will rise up to take its place. This is all very true, but the way it's handled within the context of the show makes it seem as though this brainstorm of Brody's is news to Nazir, that the leader wouldn't have anticipated this potential turn of events in advance and that it takes Brody failing to follow orders to get him to see a different path for his so-called "Marine One."

But that's a minor quibble in a season finale that brought tension, emotional depth, and gripping suspense to the mix, as well as some unexpected humor (Walker mussing the old woman's hair as he walked out of her apartment, the VP's disgusting use of Elizabeth's death to declare his presidential intentions, Brody's gut-punch of words to Carrie in the police station parking lot, and Carrie's insistence that she go to the hospital). While I suspected that Carrie would figure it out in the end--just in time to forget it all--that moment carried more than its fair share of intellectual and emotional weight (particularly the beautiful scenes between Danes and Mandy Patinkin), rendering Carrie a far more tragic figure than we previously believed her to be.

I'm curious just how far into the future Season Two of Homeland will be set, and just how Carrie will be drawn back into the mix when her security clearance has been revoked permanently. (The sadness with which Saul tells her that there's no way her termination will be reversed was palpable.) Having forgotten what she knew about Brody, Carrie will be forced to start back at square one again, but, considering her dogged determination thus far, I think it's safe to say that Carrie will once again be in pursuit of Brody--and the Truth--before too long.

As for me, I'm anxious to see what that means and how it unfolds. The America of Homeland--and the larger one of the real world--need Carrie Mathison and it needs shows like Homeland that ask uncomfortable questions about the greater good, morality, and governmental malfeasance. I just hope that Season Two lives up to the very large expectations created in the wake of this fantastic and thoughtful finale.

What did you think of the season finale? Are you dying to see Season Two of Homeland as soon as possible? Head to the comments section to discuss and debate.

Season Two of Homeland will air in 2012 on Showtime.

Day of the Dead: Thoughts on the Season Finale of HBO's True Blood

"I'll always be with you."

I've been quiet about the last few episodes of True Blood, partly because I've had a massive amount of deadlines at work and am in the process of moving house (and taking time off as a result), but also because my enthusiasm for the series has waned considerably during the final few installments of Season Four. After a series of strong episodes, I felt the quality drop considerably out of the final third of the season.

I will say, however, that I did quite enjoy the season finale ("And When I Die"), written by Raelle Tucker and directed by Scott Winant, which is a head-scratcher as I typically don't love the True Blood season finales as a rule, as they tend to be more about setting up the next season than wrapping up storylines. (I tend to think of them more as epilogues or codas than anything else.) Given how little I've liked the rally massacre/standoff at Moon Goddess storylines, I was surprised by how much pleasure I was able to take in the final episode of the season, which paid homage to past relationships, past friends, and the ghosts of the past, and still managed to set up some intriguing twists for Season Five.

Perhaps it was the opening sequence, which gave us a Sookie-Tara scene that was laden with emotion for a change. Far too often, True Blood relishes in the rollercoaster ride of plot twists and shocking developments, but the series tends to become far too operatic and out there when it loses sight of the baseline of normalcy that has to exist in these characters' lives, given just how compact the timeline tends to be. Yes, life in Bon Temps is scary, brutish, and short, which is why we need to see our characters find pleasure when they can, whether that's in a romantic sense or just kicking back with friends. We need to feel that there's a reason people stay in this not-so-quiet burg, rather than running for the hills (or the big city). Sookie used to sunbath and eat ice cream with Tara and put on a movie every now and then, but she's been so consumed with issues of survival, of vampire-human relations, of massacre-hungry witches, maenads, shifters, werewolves, faeries, etc. that she--and the show, really--have lost focus on humanity in a way.

Which is why I was so glad to see Tara and Sookie just sit in the kitchen and have a heart-to-heart, and talk for a change about what they were feeling, to unburden themselves, and remind the audience that these two really are friends, though the writers seem to relish pitting them against one another time and time again. Of course, this being True Blood, I figured that the fact that Sookie and Tara grabbed a quiet moment together meant that it would likely signal the demise of one Tara Thornton...

It's fitting, really, that an episode about the lifting of the veil between life and death should feature so much death and despair. In just a single episode, we witnessed the demise of Jesus (which depresses me more than anything), Nan, Debbie, and possibly Tara. (As well as seeing the "return" of Adele, Rene, Steve Newlin, and Russell Edgington, but we'll discuss that in a bit.) I'm not at all convinced that Tara is dead, for several reasons: (1) It would be a piss-poor end to a character who hasn't really gotten much of a fair shot and has been--in my opinion--battered around far too much by the writers, (2) Sookie's cry for help at the end, given how many vampires she's shared blood with who are in the nearby vicinity, (3) the dangling plot thread with Sookie seeing faeries rushing at her when she's reunited with Tara earlier in the season, and (4) Alan Ball told me he has an incredible plotline for Tara in Season Five.

Of course that plotline could be that she's deader than a doornail (or Alan was just lying to me in order to conceal Tara's fate), but I think that we haven't seen the last of Tara: she'll either be saved by a vampire (and possibly turned in the process) or Sookie will be forced to bargain with the faeries in order to save the life of her best friend. It's the latter that's the most likely, I think, given that the faeries stayed largely off camera after the incident with Claudine and Eric (save for Andy's forest tryst) and Tara has some sort of connection to them, given Sookie's vision. But whatever happens, I hope it's a new beginning for Tara, who has largely been thrust into two roles: angry black woman or victim. And it's time that we see her moving forward and not back, both in terms of character and plot. More than any other character--even Sookie, really--she's been put through the ringer and had her insides scooped out and replaced by hate and rage. But I want to see Rutina Wesley get something more to do than play the victim. (And, if she is turned, I hope it's actually poor Pam who does the turning. I loved her scene with Ginger at Fangtasia as she cries and then is hugged by Ginger. Aw.)

If this is the end of Tara, however, she at least went out trying to save the life of her best friend in a moment of self-sacrifice, as she jumps in front of Sookie to protect her from Debbie's shotgun blast, taking a shot to the head in the process. It's an act of love and friendship that connects to that opening scene and to the bond that Tara has with Sookie. In those moments, it's not about the suffering she's experienced, the things she's lost, the places she's had to go, but it's about putting the life of someone she loves before her own, of risking death in order to ensure Sookie lives.

As for Sookie, she uses Tara's sacrifice to get the jump on Debbie, wrest the shotgun from her, and then SHOT HER IN THE FACE AT POINT-BLANK RANGE. I don't think I ever expected that from lil' Sookie Stackhouse, who has grown up considerably in the last four seasons. I also think that the location of the attack--in her kitchen, where Adele died in a puddle of her own blood--played a role in her righteous vengeance upon Debbie Pelt. Throughout the episode, Sookie is haunted by flashbacks to discovering her gran's corpse in the kitchen, experiencing a sensation that Adele is nearby, hovering around her. While Adele wouldn't counsel murder, Sookie's gran is clearly on her mind, her kitchen once again turned into an abattoir, the body of a loved one pooling in crimson. In that precise moment, Sookie makes a break from her own humanity, her morality, and her sense of reason: she becomes as monstrous as Debbie or the vampires, pulling the trigger and relishing in the satisfaction that comes from destroying her enemy. It's brutal and nasty, bloody and personal.

Elsewhere, the body count ratcheted up in unexpected ways. While I was intrigued by Nan's rebellion against the AVL and the Authority (whom we'll learn more about next season), I was bloody shocked that Eric and Bill partnered up to turn Nan into a puddle of goo after she called them lovelorn puppy dogs. (They must really not like puppies.) In choosing neither Eric or Bill, Sookie seemed to bring the two of them closer together, each on the receiving end of an emotional evisceration from the faerie object of their affection. In killing Nan, the two are further bonded still, operating as a single entity in their efforts to contain the secret of Sookie's identity from other vampires. Once Nan let that gem fall from her lips, her fate was sealed in their eyes. No one is going to use Sookie for their own ends...

While I was shocked by Nan's death (and stunned by Debbie's), the one that I was most upset about was Jesus', especially as it came at the hand of the possessed Lafayette, who likely won't soon recover from dispatching his boyfriend, even if it was Marnie who pushed the blade into his chest. And, yes, we're given a glimpse of Jesus on the other side of the veil, having cast off his mortal coil, able to speak to Lafayette, and promising that he'll still see him, given that he's dead and Lafayette is a medium. Which is true, but all I could think about was that Kevin Alejandro left Southland so he could play a ghost that turns up every now and then? Sigh. Jesus and Lafayette were a fantastic couple, which in True Blood parlance meant that their happiness had to be short-lived. I'm curious whether Lafayette retained any of Jesus' brujo magic or whether that evaporated after Adele plucked Marnie out of him and she went off with the dead. But I'm sad to see Jesus go, really. Alejandro added a certain something to the series that will be missed.

I'm bored to tears with Sam and Luna and the predictability of that wolf turning up at Sam's place, just as he makes a pact to be happy with Luna. (Yawn.) I did like the scene with Sam and Sookie at the bar, with his confusion about "firing" Sookie and their embrace, and the sequence at Tommy's grave with Maxine, but I feel like Sam is getting short shrift these days; he needs an interesting storyline, preferably one with out Emma. (UGH.)

Matching bathrobes? Creepy. That should have been a sign to Sookie to run to Alcide...

I really loved all of the Jason/Jessica scenes. I thought their love scene was provocative and sensual and their interesting dynamic will gladly play out beyond this season, with Jason okay with Jessica looking elsewhere for sustenance, and Jessica gladly taking a walk on the dark side with the far more sexually experienced Jason Stackhouse. As for Hoyt, I think it will be a while before he's able to accept their relationship and not beat on Jason whenever he sees him. But I see why Jessica would need to experience something beyond the safety and predictability of Hoyt, why she would crave the taste of something different, something darker, and something that's not predictable or safe. (Plus, her Little Red Riding Hood costume? Woof.)

And just when Jason thought he had found the perfect woman, he opened up his door to discover... Reverend Steve Newlin. With fangs. This was a great--if expected twist--after a season of hints and subplots about the missing Fellowship of the Sun leader. Given that Jason hasn't invited him in, I don't think that Jason is in any danger, no matter how much tension they might try to create here. I am curious to see how Steve fits into the Russell Edgington plot, and whether it was Steve who helped release Russell from his concrete prison and glamoured the security guard. Is there to be a takeover of The Authority? A mutiny? A vampire rebellion? I'm very curious about all of this... and just who managed to turn the vampire-hating Newlin. Who is his maker? Hmmm...

Finally, there was the introduction of Patrick (Scott Foley), who brought with him some long-buried secrets involving Terry Bellefleur, which the spirit of Rene warns Arlene about. I'm curious just what experience(s) Terry has blocked from his memory and just how dangerous Patrick is. What did these two get up to during the war and how nasty was it? What has Terry forgotten and what memories has he repressed in order to function? Just how many people did Terry kill? "I've met the ghosts of his past," Rene told Arlene. "They ain't gonna rest forever." Looks like trouble will find Terry next year...

Ultimately, I thought that "And When I Die" managed to capture the poignancy and humanity that True Blood can excel at when it tries, as well as the unexpected and shocking reveals that the show loves to throw at the audience. I'm also happy that it has me intrigued enough to want to watch Season Five, as my loyalty to the show was severely tested earlier this season. But it's safe to say that I'll be back next summer, though I do wish the writers would try to better plot out the season-long arcs, keep an eye on tonal consistency, and try to be as organic as possible with the numerous, sprawling subplots.

But I'm curious to know: what did you think of the season finale? And Season Four as a whole? Was I too harsh with my evaluation? Was your patience tested as mine was? Will you be watching next season? Head to the comments section to discuss.

Season Five of True Blood will air next summer on HBO.

Underworld: Orpheus Descending on the Season Finale of The Killing

I'll admit that I was completely unprepared for the level of vitriol directed at last night's season finale of The Killing ("Orpheus Descending"), written by Veena Sud and Nic Pizzolatto and directed by Brad Anderson.

It wasn't a perfect season finale (it was woefully clunky and odd at times), but I also don't think that the series ender--or the first season itself--are worthy of the amount of gasoline that is being poured on it. For some, it's one match away from becoming an incendiary, because it failed to answer the series' central question: Who killed Rosie Larsen?

Which is where I feel as though I have been watching a completely different series than other viewers. I'm not going to try to convince anybody that they were wrong to hate the finale, because this level of anger doesn't vanish thanks to some talking points. Television is a hugely subjective medium and our personal experiences with shows are just that: personal. What I will say is that what I've most enjoyed about The Killing is the nuanced character study that it's provided: the way that murder rips open everyone, a black hole that threatens to suck in the victim's family, the suspects, anyone who once crossed paths with her. And, as we see here, even the detectives attempting to solve the case.

To me, the heart of the show has been watching a family struggle at the brink of madness, of dissolution, of anguish and rage and grief. The Larsens have provided an unusual throughline for the season, attempting to cope with the death of Rosie, even as their individual lives threatened to further unravel. What set all of this in motion, was of course the murder of teenager Rosie Larsen, whose frozen-in-amber smile hid all manner of secrets, much like Laura Palmer's did on Twin Peaks. (Interestingly, I keep thinking back to showrunner Veena Sud's insistence that she had never seen Twin Peaks, when I mentioned certain similarities between the two shows. I'm not sure which is worse: that she lied about it, or that she hadn't actually ever watched it.)

Yes, in order for The Killing to function as a narrative, Rosie's killer does need to be unmasked, even if justice isn't ultimately served. But that moment needn't have come at the end of the first season, which is what many viewers were expecting and anticipating. If you had stuck with The Killing for this sole reason, then the finale may have been interminable and frustrating. But, as soon as AMC renewed The Killing for a second season, I knew that there wouldn't be any easy answers, nor potentially any answers at all.

Why? Because Rosie's murder is the plot engine that keeps the show humming along, and I would have been amazed to see Sud and AMC shut it down at the end of the first season when it can still generate a whole slew of potentially interesting developments.

Now, I will say there was one thing about the finale that did irk me, as it did many, and that was the seemingly about-face with Joel Kinnaman's Stephen Holder, who was revealed to be in league with an as-yet-unseen puppet master (Leslie Adams?) and had forged the bridge surveillance footage that linked Darren Richmond to the night of Rosie's murder. Until that point, there was a lot of circumstantial evidence (there still is, in fact) that indicated that Richmond was behind the murder: the use of the Orpheus alias, his frequenting of online prostitutes, Aleena's identification of Darren as the man who lured her to the water, Gwen's assertion that Darren came back early that morning soaking wet.

None of which conclusively point to Darren Richmond having killed Rosie Larsen. He wasn't identified by the gas station attendant (he seemed to assume it was a man driving the car) and we now know that Holder faked the photo that placed him on the bridge. Linden knows this too, even as she prepares to finally leave Seattle for her new life in Sonoma, but it's likely too late for Richmond, as Belko strides up to him, gun in his hand, ready to enact some Biblical vengeance. (Didn't he see how this turned out for Stan?)

Which means that Richmond is another red herring, a liar and a cheat who has broken Gwen's heart yet again, but who may not be the killer after all. Holder's boss--whoever that may be--wants Richmond out of the race, and he may have just gotten Richmond removed from his earthly existence as well.

But I'm troubled by Holder's villainy here. Kinnaman infused Holder with street smarts, an armor of sarcasm and hoodies attempting to deflect any insight into his messed up personal life. I'm sure there's a reason WHY Holder did what he did, one that will be revealed next season naturally. Likely Sud and Co. will find a way to make what he did less troubling in the long run, despite the glee that Holder seemed to have in that scene.

After all, he betrayed Linden outright, jeopardized the case, and broke the vows he pledged to serve the city. It's a slap in the face after their goodbye scene and her begrudging admission that he is a good cop, after all. But it also makes it a little more clear why the episode "Missing" aired when it did. Just as these two finally buried the hatchet and opened up to each other, Holder turns around two days later and stabs her in the back.

Which, on an intellectual level, makes sense, but on an emotional level, the realization that Holder is just as crooked as the other baddies in The Killing doesn't quite hit home. In a series that's overflowing with venal politicians and apathetic cops, shouldn't Linden have someone else on the side of the white hats? Or has Holder (and, consequently one imagines, Kinnaman as well) just done a really good job of pulling the wool over our eyes? After all, he has been willing to share information about the investigation from the start, but is he really just nothing more than a dirty cop?

But in an episode where we finally see crusader Darren Richmond for what he is: a serial cheater and an unrepentant john who has a thing for brunettes, shouldn't there be some male character who isn't a letch, a liar, or a pathetic failure in some way? I had grown to care about Holder in a fashion over the course of these thirteen episodes, and it makes me more concerned that his villainy is the real deal and not a red herring to be eliminated at the start of Season Two.

That will have to wait, however. Despite some of the convolution of the episode and the question marks thrown up around the action (Wait, the cops never searched that part of the park for clues? What does Rosie's shoe prove? Won't Holder get caught the second Linden picks up the phone and tells Oakes about the bridge camera outage? Why doesn't Stan tell Mitch about the other house or the stack of cash in the drawer? Why is Sarah suddenly okay with Jack spending time with his dad?), there were moments of beauty and grace here, of the small kind that The Killing has traded in throughout the season's run.

Stan's scene in the break room with Amber Ahmed being one, a tiny fragment in a larger story that saw these two--united by their sense of loss and pain--have a small moment, unaware of the identity of the other. Stan's palpable grief when he's asked how many children he has sank into my very bones; it's a real quandary of a question. How do you honestly answer that, especially when the asker is a stranger? Mitch's departure from the family and the momentos of anguish that her home represents. Michelle Forbes' performance is once again breathtaking here (Forbes didn't lie when she told me she was done with The Killing), as Mitch comes to terms with the fact that she can't stay with her family. Terry's horror when she realizes that Mitch has left her and the kids to pick up the pieces of their lives. (I had actually wondered whether Mitch would take a more permanent exit from her life.)

In a way, she escapes, which is something no other character on the show manages to do in this week's season finale. Sarah and Jack might be on that plane, but it's still parked on the tarmac, and I don't see Sarah remaining in Sonoma, if she even stays on the plane. She's connected to the dead girl and this case, she's haunted by it as much as Richmond is by Lily's death. Her rage at the councilman indicates her own anguish, her own self-anger, her own insecurities. (Why Linden would confront him in that way is beyond me, however.) As for Richmond, he might be innocent of Rosie's murder but he admits to Linden that he's done some terrible, terrible things. Things we'll likely be finding more about next season, for those of us who will continue to watch.

I count myself among that number. While "Orpheus Descending" was far from perfect, it didn't awaken any such holy anger within me. I'm still wondering who killed Rosie Larsen--and, in their own way, so are those who reacted with such hostility to the lack of resolution on that front--and I still do care about these characters enough to want to see what happens next. The original Danish series split its first season into two parts of ten episodes, and that's more or less what Sud and her writing staff attempted to do here. But I didn't for a second think that there wouldn't be another twist, another red herring, another brutal revelation in the final minutes of the season, nor that Linden would catch Rosie's killer. Season Two of the original found Linden attempting to unravel a vast conspiracy, so why shouldn't that apply here as well, as she tries to uncover the real masters who are pulling Holder's and everyone else's strings? Hmmm...

But that's just me. What did you think about the season finale of The Killing? Did it make you want to hurl your television out of your window? Were you puzzled by the levels of outrage unfolding last night on Twitter? Will you watch a second season? Head to the comments section to discuss.

Season Two of The Killing will air next year on AMC.

Throne of Iron, Throne of Dust: Thoughts on the Season Finale of HBO's Game of Thrones

When all we have in life is stripped away from us, what do we have left? What is life worth then?

These questions hover over the breathtaking finale of HBO's Game of Thrones ("Fire and Blood"), written by David Benioff and D. B. Weiss and directed by Alan Taylor, which depicts transformative moments in the lives of several characters, who must come to terms with not only palpable grief but also the realization that a brutal new status quo is upon them. It's a somber throughline that links the separate story threads of Daenerys, Arya, Sansa, and Catelyn, each of whom suffers a grievous loss and who must find their inner strength to face the day again.

For a series that engendered some criticism at its outset from critics and viewers about its depiction of women, particularly the lead female characters at its center, it's a remarkable turning point. Each of these women has suffered at the hands of their enemies, losing the men in their lives, until they must stand alone against those who would do them harm. And we see he literal stripping down of each of these characters--as Arya's hair is cut off and she loses the last vestiges of her identity as Arya Stark of Winterfell, and as Dany walks into the funeral pyre to burn off everything she once held dear--there are clear parallels.

(Also of note: there's a potential suicide beat for both Sansa and Daenerys; Sansa seems as though she is going to jump from the Red Keep's walkway, though it's then revealed she wants to push Joffrey. Likewise, Ser Jorah worries that Dany will leap upon the pyre, but she has other, darker plans of survival.)

In fact, it's the female characters we're left with primarily in the season finale, which shows the aftermath of the death of Ned Stark at the hands of Joffrey, who seems well on his way to being just as cruel and merciless as the Mad King himself. It's through their eyes that we see the true sense of what has changed, as Sansa is led to view the heads of her father and her septa, as Catelyn contemplates murdering Jaime in an act of vengeance against the Lannisters, as Daenerys bids farewell to Drogo and learns of her true nature.

Yes, dragons exist once more.

It's only natural that Daenerys Stormborn of House Targaryen should be the one to bring them back into the world once more. Having lost her husband, her unborn son, and her entire khalassar, Daenerys is once more alone in the world, her kindness to the maegi being repaid with death. Throughout the season, we've seen the signs that have led us to this moment: her seeming imperviousness to fire; her obsession with those dragon eggs. She is the blood of the dragon and while her womb may be emptied as a result of the maegi's treachery, she gives birth to a new race of dragons. Life springing from death, from the ashes of her beloved's funeral pyre.

Stripped of everything--including her clothing--she sits at the middle of the remains of that fire, those three dragons entwined around her, the mother of destruction incarnate. The Dany we see here is vastly different to the one we met back in the pilot episode: a naive pawn in a man's game of thrones. Now we see her as she accepts her destiny, the heir to the House Targaryen, the mother of three dragons. She is the terrible vengeance only dreamt of by civilized Catelyn Stark. It's the perfect way to leave the season, as dragons--and one, imagines--magic itself returns to Westeros and Essos. The girl that King Robert sought to have assassinated has been transformed into a powerful enemy. And people are at their most dangerous when they have nothing left to lose.

So where do we go from here? That would be telling, and I won't spoil what's to come for Daenerys within George R.R. Martin's novels. But what we do see is a war being waged on multiple fronts: while the Starks' rebellion against the Lannisters seems to be the primary thrust, there are other battles being waged elsewhere. Littlefinger remains the most dangerous man in Westeros, and also one of the most powerful as well. His conversation with Varys in this week's episode remains one of my favorite moments: two tacticians weighing each other up, each trying to find the other's weak spot. (And, lest we forget, spiders are hard to kill. They manage to see all and sneak away through the cracks in the firmament.) Daenerys may have lost her army but gained the only three dragons in all of the world. And, beyond the Wall, the wildlings and the most dangerous enemy of them all, the White Walkers, who have roused from their slumber of millennia. While the Night's Watch prepares to go beyond the Wall, the shield that guards the realm of men is at its weakest, made up of rapists, thieves, and cowards. Will the Wall stand if the White Walkers turn their sights on the south? Can the sworn brotherhood be both shield and sword when winter comes?

Mortals may play at the game of thrones, but there are darker forces at play, greater battles than just who sits upon the Iron Throne. The Starks are always right in the end: Winter--and death--comes for us all in turn. Summer knights may play at the game of kings, but they too will be frozen and blue when the true winter descends on Westeros...

And Joffrey may be the very definition of a summer knight, a boy-king who is ill-suited to the job of leadership, a spiteful brat who relishes the opportunity to make his betrothed stare at the disembodied face of her dead father, who tells her that he will get her with child as soon as she bleeds, who won't beat her himself but has one of his Kingsguard do it for him. Sansa sees the true face of her blonde "prince." Like Daenerys, she too must tap into inner reserves of strength she never knew she had, if she hopes to survive. We also see the continued oddness in her dynamic with the Hound, who offers her a handkerchief to wipe away the blood on her face, and bids her to keep it, as she'll soon need it again. Dogs and wolves together, perhaps?

We also see here that Sansa has lost the innocence and naivete that once defined her character; she's grown harder in just a matter of days, a callus over her soul. The old Sansa would never have attempted to murder her king, yet she doesn't hesitate to step out onto that walkway. And I believe she would have pushed Joffrey, if Clegane hadn't have intervened. She might still be a child, but Sansa has proven (at least to the audience) that she's been dangerously underestimated and that in her blood is that of the Starks. Just as dragons are born here, so too is a true wolf.

Speaking of wolves, we finally get to see Rickon's direwolf, Shaggydog, this week... as the continued subplot of the Stark children and their wolves continues apace. Both Bran and Rickon are led to the crypts beneath Winterfell, where they both saw their father in dreams. Both children seem to be having vastly prophetic dreams that are coming true, as the boys are aware of Ned's death before word of his murder arrives at Winterfell by raven. Just what does it mean exactly? How do they know that their father is dead? And how is this knowledge connected to the three-eyed crow in Bran's dreams?

(Kudos too to Natalia Tena for her jaw-dropping performance as Osha. While I imagined Osha extremely differently within the novels, I am now finding it impossible to separate Tena and Osha in my mind. Her scene with Bran here as she resists going down into the crypts was vibrant and three-dimensional, poignant and profound. Whenever she is on screen, it is impossible to look away, her wild nature at stark--heh--contrast with the highborn civility of Bran.)

Elsewhere, Tyrion found himself suddenly in his father's good graces, promoted to serve as the Hand of the King in King's Landing, removing him from the front line of the war and installing him in the comfortable luxury of the Hand's Tower. (Nevermind that the last two men who served that role both ended up dead.) And, despite Tywin's strict instructions that he leave his "whore" behind, Tyrion makes plans to bring Shae to King's Landing. (I'll say that this depiction of Shae is growing on me; she's less of a camp follower and more of a cunning courtesan, a mirror in some ways of Tyrion's own innate intellect.)

Jon Snow debated whether to forsake his vows and meet up with Robb on the field of engagement or remain at the Wall with the Night's Watch. While he does ride off, it's Sam and his friends who bring Jon back to the Wall. Honor before family, it seems. In losing Ned, Jon has lost not only his father but the only connection to his own past, to the truth about his parentage. Ned and Jon never do get to have that conversation about Jon's birth mother, and Ned takes this secret to his grave. In losing Ned, Jon therefore loses a piece of himself as well, another figurative loss to match the others.

Catelyn is driven to bash Jaime's head in with a stone, but she knows that Jaime is worth more to them alive than dead, and she still has hopes of getting her daughters back from the Lannisters. They need a bargaining chip and the Kingslayer is the best one that they could have hoped for. But if the Joffrey believed that killing Ned would serve as a lesson to the Starks, he was dead wrong: it provokes Robb into strengthening his attack and leads the Greatjon to proclaim Robb "The King in the North," and his bannerman to lay down their swords at his feet in fealty.

Not only then do Renly and Stannis pose a threat to Joffrey's reign but so too does Robb Stark... and that's to say nothing of Robert's bastard children who are in the wind. It's no coincidence that Arya--her hair shorn and now calling herself Arry at Yoren's insistence--meets up with Gendry, who is himself heading to the Wall to become a sworn brother. And, just like Dany and Sansa, Arya is not afraid to act any longer. After stabbing a stableboy in last week's episode, Arya isn't likely to lie down and allow anyone to take Needle from her. She can take care of herself now, a lady turned gutter rat, a wolf with a claw.

And this wouldn't be an episode of Game of Thrones without some sexposition in the mix as well. This week that went yet again to Ros, who washed herself and dressed while Grand Maester Pycelle pontificated about his role as the advisor to many, many kings before losing the thread of the conversation altogether. Eye candy to distract from the speech of an old man, one imagines.

Still, I thought that the finale brought together a number of disparate threads (Jon Snow's attempted desertion, Catelyn's fury, Arya's transformation into Arry, Dany's dragons) into a tense and provocative climax for the season. Like Martin's novels, there's an underlying momentum here, a deadly undertow, that keeps the story throttling along at high speed; it's a true serialized narrative, rather than an episodic one, building and building to a final reveal, one that will keep fans of the show anxious until Game of Thrones returns in 2012. (Or propels them to pick up "A Clash of Kings" anyway.)

A reader commented last week that the season began with a beheading and Episode Nine concluded Ned's storyline with a beheading as well. I'd agree with this thought: there's a beautiful broken symmetry here with the two beheadings: Ned swings the sword and kills a boy--who broke his vow of station--despite the fact that he's telling the truth. Ned is killed with the same sword after breaking his vow to serve the king, and whose final words are lies constructed to save his family. Joffrey, of course, doesn't carry out his execution, but gives Ned's sword (Ice, which has been in the Stark family for centuries) to Ser Ilyn to swing.

All it takes, in the end, is one swing of the blade for everything to change. One step into the flames, one foot on the causeway, one step into the darkness. War may have gripped Westeros, but the true threat to the Seven Kingdoms is the one no one believes in anymore. Ice in the north and fire across the Narrow Sea; white walkers and dragons walk once more. And this is only the beginning...

Game of Thrones will return with its second season in 2012.

Paintball Battle Royale: Thoughts on the Season Finale of Community

If there's a show that knows how to throw a curveball (or a paintball), that seems to relish deflecting your expectations, it's NBC's Community.

The delightfully absurdist comedy wrapped up its season tonight with the second half of a two-part episode ("For A Few Paintballs Or More") that continued the paintball assassin-exploits of last week's Sergio Leone-style spaghetti Western. In looking to top last season's jaw-dropping paintball-themed "Modern Warfare," executive producer Dan Harmon and Company have delivered an astonishing combination of Westerns and Star Wars, paintball and mind games, Stormtroopers, Black Riders, and, er, saloon dancers. (Yes, Vicki, I'm looking at you.)

Tonight's season finale firmly embraces the gonzo style of those previous episodes, creating an episode that is both an absurdist adventure plot and the culmination of the entire season's overarching plotlines: Jeff's need to control the group, the Problem with Pierce, the inter-college rivalry, and the Community gang's obsession with Cougar Town. (Yes, that *was* Busy Phillips and Dan Byrd cheering on the Greendale "Human Beings" near the paintball Gatling gun.)Not to mention the surprising tryst between Annie and Abed... or at least Abed channeling Star Wars' immature hero, Han Solo. But it's not this liplock--its spell broken by the orange paint raining down from the sprinkler systems (courtesy of plumbing enthusiast Troy)--that ends the season; it's a singular moment between the characters. While Annie seems to cling to the unexpected pleasure she gets from that kiss, Abed has already moved on, casting off his latest character to return to the relative reality of the scene.

It's the departure of Pierce--and his decision to walk out on the study group--that actually brings to a close the second season. (Apart, that is, from the tag with Abed and the poor Greendale janitor.) It's interesting that Harmon et al would choose this moment to signify the end of the sophomore year, given the way in which these past twenty-odd episodes have held up a prism to the character of Pierce. Is he redeemed by his decision to sabotage the enemy and then hand over the $100K to Greendale rather than keep it for himself? Is it enough that he commits an act of generosity and altruism? Is it a moment of truth for this character when he turns his back on Jeff and the others and walks out of the study room?

We're told--rather surprisingly--that Pierce has been at Greendale for 12 years, and that this is the first time he actually made friends with any of his fellow students. It's a twist that I didn't see coming, particularly given the spotlight that has been shone on Pierce throughout the season.

Let's be clear: Chevy Chase isn't going anywhere... so neither is Pierce Hawthorne, the group's resident, well, thorn in their side. However, I think that this turn of events will manage to set up a new dynamic between Pierce and the study group when they return in the fall. After being excluded and playing the "villain" all season, he's decided to exile himself from the group altogether, subverting Jeff's own expectations that he would come crawling back at the last second after making a dramatic exit. (This is a man, let's remember, who fakes a heart attack twice during one game of paintball... and has also faked a heart attack out of giving Abed a piece of gum.) Just what does this mean for Season Three and for Pierce's connection to the central characters? Will the series follow Pierce as he forms a new group separate to this group of misfit outsiders? (Perhaps with Starburns and Leonard? Or Fat Neil and Garrett, named for executive producers Neil Goldman and Garrett Donovan? Kendra with a "q-u"?)

Putting aside those far-reaching effects, this was a pretty amazing episode that not only wove together those aforementioned story strands but also served as another installment in a long line of ambitious high-concept plots over the last two seasons, albeit retaining Community's emphasis on emotional truth. In looking at the two halves as a single one-hour episode, the plot veers from the spaghetti Western to the intergalactic wars of, er, the stars. Gatling guns, paintball sprinklers, menacing ice cream company mascots (Pistol Patty, you were Dean Spreck all along?!?!), Han Solo leather vests, and mysterious gunmen all converge into one explosive plot, which culminates in the final study group meeting of the year.

With Pierce's self-expulsion, Annie's curious interest in Abed, and Jeff's self-assuredness returned, the unity that the group had experienced just minutes earlier--as all of Greendale (and a few Cougar Town cast members) celebrated the defeat of their bitter rivals--evaporates into thin air. For a show that's been about communal experiences, about the common goals and shared experiences, it's interesting that the season ends on such a note of fractured friendships: of the group not staying together, of one of its members willingly walking out on the others.

There are no card-based voting systems here, no cries for help, no crawling back to get into others' good graces. Jeff is, for a change, wrong. He's unable to predict what Pierce would do; he's a "father figure" out of touch with his flock. And as that piece of the ceiling plummets to the ground, there's the real sense that the group isn't falling together, but falling apart. And I couldn't be more excited to see what happens next.

What did you think of the season finale, both as an installment on its own and as a full one-hour offering? Head to the comments section to discuss and debate.

Season Three of Community will begin this fall on NBC.

Bridge to Nowhere: Quick Thoughts on the Third Season Finale of Fringe

It's no secret that I love Fringe. I've written numerous features and posts celebrating the way in which it blends science fiction with nuanced emotional drama, positioning the fractured characters of the Bishops and Olivia Dunham as a makeshift family studying the mysteries of the universe... and the human heart.

Which might be why I was so monumentally disappointed with the Season Three finale ("The Day We Died"), which aired on Friday evening. After a season that was so tremendously emotional, which delivered a series of staggering performances from John Noble, Anna Torv, and Joshua Jackson in two separate, parallel universes, my expectations were extremely high indeed. But what I found with the future-set finale was that I didn't care about "these" versions of Olivia, Walter, and Peter and that the drama here felt entirely manufactured and without emotional weight, destroying the intense momentum established within the last few episodes.

It was clear from the start that the future timeline of 2016 Fringe was a mere detour on the road to the season finale (I had anticipated the Days of Future Past-style storyline earlier in the week), which erased all sense of narrative stakes from the story unfolding here: End of Dayers, the "death" of Olivia Dunham, the grief of Peter Bishop, all of it would be wiped clean before the final credits rolled.

And it's true: they were. While I didn't anticipate that Peter himself would be erased from the timeline (more on that in a second), the future-set storyline attempted to set up some tantalizing storylines (just what happened to Broyles' eye? Ella is now a Fringe agent! Astrid has a kick-ass new hairstyle), but it paled in comparison to the depth and scope of Over There's characters, which we had a real sense of from the beginning. In the hands of Noble and Co., those performances were incredibly nuanced, using more than wigs or funny-colored contact lenses to give us a sense of the underlying differences between the versions of these now-familiar characters.

In the future, there was a lot of shorthand going on: things that we weren't privy to happened off-screen in between the last episode and the 15 years that have gone by. But whereas the subtle differences within the characters was explored organically Over There, in the future world of Fringe, we're not given much depth, but rather just a hell of a lot of exposition. (Heck, Walter Bishop was more or less the Exposition Fairy throughout this episode.) Olivia and Peter are married; Olivia wants a kid but is unsure (her internal dilemma summed up by a refrigerator drawing of an unknown and unseen child neighbor) of whether or not they should, given the crazy world they live in; Ella has grown up and followed her aunt into the Fringe Division; Walternate somehow crossed over from his world before his universe was wiped out by Peter Bishop; and Walter is in jail, imprisoned for his vast crimes against humanity. (Interestingly, Astrid still doesn't have much of a storyline, even 15 years down the line.)

The Walter bits got under my skin in a major way. We saw in the pilot episode, clearly intended to be referenced here, what the effects were of his incarceration at St. Clare's. But here, there's no real sense of what the difference was between those two imprisonments or how his mental state further deteriorated. Or if it did. If you're going to attempt to come full circle and use that scene in St. Clare's as a callback of sorts, it needs to pay off better than it did here.

(Broyles' bionic eye grated in a way I didn't expect. Surely, if William Bell could create a bionic arm for Nina that looked extremely real, surely way in the future, a bionic eye could match Broyles' natural eye color? As for Nina, she got reduced to being a funeral guest in the future. A major missed opportunity for story there.)

We're shown scenes that are clearly meant to tug at the audience's heartstrings--Peter brings Walter licorice and calls him dad, Walter embraces Olivia as he might a daughter, Olivia is shot to death before our eyes--but these moments don't carry much weight because (A) the Peter/Walter dynamic has already played out far more convincingly within the main narrative where that same moment ("dad") had a lot more impact than it did here and (B) because these characters and situations would likely not exist by the time the final credits rolled... as Fringe would not suddenly jump ahead 15 years within its main narrative. (Sorry, but even for a show as unpredictable as this one, aging up the actors is just not going to happen on a weekly basis.)

I thought it was interesting that the producers would opt for a sort of Days of Future Past storyline here in order to undo Peter's decision at the end of the last episode by sending Peter's consciousness to inhabit his future self and see the error of his ways. But I also think that Joel Wyman and Jeff Pinkner missed a trick here by having Peter's subconscious subsume his "younger" self. Other than a throwaway line of dialogue from Ella about Peter rambling about the machine, it was 2026's Peter Bishop who was running things, rather than vice-versa.

While it meant that Peter didn't have to play catch-up within this new "reality," it also meant that the narrative stakes were eliminated for him as well. No longer on a mission, having conveniently "forgotten" that he had come forward in time, it was the status quo for Peter Bishop, able to remember what he cooked for Olivia for breakfast and containing the sum of his experiences from the last 15 years. He wasn't a fish-out-of-water, he wasn't his younger self traveling to the future; he was just a middle-aged guy that looked like our Peter Bishop who had inexplicably become a government agent and who wore a wedding band.

So much of Season Three has focused on the familial tensions between Peter and Walter and the romantic ones between Peter and Olivia, so it suddenly felt incredibly trite to see them as a married couple for a little bit here, albeit a marriage that comes to an end with Olivia's sudden (and very predictable) death. Given how much I love the character, I was shocked how little I cared about her demise here, as I knew instantly that it wouldn't "stick" and that the producers would not be getting rid of Torv (or of Jackson) any time soon.

The lack of real emotion carried through to Peter's eulogy at Olivia's watery funeral ceremony, where the cameras pulled back from Peter's speech to offer a musical montage set to Michael Giacchino's score. Lost pulled this trick before (we don't need to hear the words to get the sense of the scene and its tone), but that device only works when there is genuine emotion underneath and I didn't feel that for a second here. Rather, it felt lazy, a shorthand way of getting around having to write the eulogy without it seeming hokey or cliche.

The episode got bogged down first in a dull case of the week (End of Dayers, who weren't given any real development, and despite using Brad Dourif as their putative leader, he was an incredibly flat character) and then in a discussion of paradox, explained rather clunkily by Noble's Walter, that ends up bogging down science fiction-based time-travel dramas. The machine wasn't created by the First People but by Walter himself, sent back to prehistoric times by a wormhole that was created by the machine that they assembled. The First People were, in fact, our Fringe team: Walter, Ella, and possibly Astrid, traveling through the wormhole to hide the pieces of the machine so that they could one day assemble it and Peter could one day use it. But while Walter couldn't not build the machine (it had already been built), Peter could change his decision within the machine. He could opt to create, rather than destroy, to save, rather than damn.

And so he does, his subconscious drifting back to his body in 2011, encased within the machine, which he uses to create a bridge between the two universes, bringing Walter and Olivia face-to-face with Walternate and Fauxlivia, two halves of the same people mirroring one another within Liberty Island, two universes folding over each other at this point in time and space.

And then just when Peter declares that both sides will have to work together, to coexist (to live together or die alone, to quote another show) and that he had created in this space a bridge between the two worlds, he blinks out of existence and we're told by the Observers that, having served his purpose, Peter Bishop never existed.

It's this final moment that gives the episode some heft, a brain puzzle of a reveal that changes the status quo of the show because it means that everything has changed as a result of Peter not existing. We've still gotten to this point--to the two Walters and Olivias staring across a room at each other--but the events that lead them here have been different. Walter had to have crossed Over There but not to save his son, because he NEVER had a son, never suffered the loss of a child, never lost his mind or his moral compass because he acted out of love. Was Walter ever in St Clare's? Was his mind ever compromised? Did Olivia ever step outside the armor she'd constructed for herself? Did they skate out of some tough cases because Peter "knew a guy" that could help them? (Nope.) Did she ever love? Did Walter ever lose his wife, his family?

Peter's disappearance from reality not only changes the status quo of the two universes, but it closes the door to the 2026 divergent reality we saw in "The Day We Died." Because Peter never existed, that world never existed because Walter and Walternate never fought over a stolen son; Olivia never married Peter; Olivia never died. There's a sense of course-correction here, of the facts being true but in slightly different ways, of Walter and Olivia's lives changing as a result of the absence of Peter Bishop from them. Which is definitely interesting and thought-provoking. I just wish we could have gotten to that moment without the hokum and water-treading of the majority of this installment.

I'm still a Fringe fan and I'm sticking with the show when it returns in the fall, but it doesn't diminish the head-scratching, disappointing qualities of the season finale... and of my frustration that a show that has so consistently gotten it right lately had gotten it so terribly wrong.

What did you make of the season finale? Did you love it or hate it or did you fall somewhere in between? Agree with my assessment or disagree. Head to the comments section to discuss "The Day We Died."

Season Four of Fringe will begin this fall on FOX.

Put an End to My Troubles: Getting to Know the Mystery on the Season Finale of Justified

If there is any justice in the world--our world, that is, and not the rough-and-tumble Harlan County--Margo Martindale will walk away with an Emmy nomination (and, one imagines, a win) for her jaw-dropping performance as Mags Bennett this season. Tough-as-nails and quick with her rapier wit, Mags was a top-notch schemer with the brutality to match her Machiavellian machinations, and Martindale brought her to life with all of the grit and dust of the Kentucky mountains intact.

And if there was a highlight of the second season of FX's sensational and atmospheric lawman drama Justified, a season overflowing with dramatic highs and serpentine plot twists galore, it was Martindale's accomplished turn as the head of the Bennetts, a pot-growing clan that has been enmeshed in a feud with the Givens for seventy years. Would Mags and Raylan bury the hatchet? Or bury it in each other's backs? That was the question swirling around the season finale, one populated by several other compelling strands: the quest of vengeance enacted by poor Loretta McCready, the wily plots carried out by bad boy Boyd Crowder, and the future happiness between Raylan and ex-wife Winona.

In the end, Season Two came to a close with much bloodshed, violence, and enmity, much in the same way that it began: with two people sitting across from one another, over a bottle of Mags Bennett's infamous apple pie.

There was a sense of coming full-circle here in the terrific and taut season finale ("Bloody Harlan"), written by Fred Golan and directed by Michael Dinner (who helmed the pilot and second episodes of the series), as Mags poured out another dram of apple pie.

Once more, the poison, we're told, was in the glass and not the jar. I didn't think that dear old Mags would try to kill Raylan, but as soon as she grabbed two separate glasses--one from above and one from below--I knew that Mags had made her choice. That she died, her stomach wrenching from the very same poison that killed Loretta's daddy as she made her peace, both with the world and with Raylan Givens, shuffling off this mortal coil and clutching Raylan's hand was profound and perfect. Was it the only way to end a bitter feud that began seventy years earlier? Was Mags going to see her dead sons--Coover and Doyle--once more and "get to know the mystery" that she spoke of so fondly in her final moments?

Loretta did get one shot off at Mags, shooting her in the leg, but rather than become a killer and enact her revenge on the woman who killed her father--becoming, in essence, Mags herself--Loretta is given a second chance at life. It's Raylan who talks her down, which is ironic as Raylan knows a thing or two about vengeance and about killing. And it's interesting that it's Mags herself who serves as the conduit for Loretta's new life twice: first in killing her father (an effort to transform Loretta's existence and take her away from a life of crime) and here in the final showdown. But is Mag's suicide an escape from punishment--both Loretta's and the law's--or a balancing of the scales? A life for a life? Hers for Loretta's? Hmmm...

I do mourn the loss of the Bennetts, though interestingly Dickie--the one man whom everyone wanted dead--managed to survive everything this season, including what seemed like a pretty certain execution from Boyd. The man with a limp ended up being the last man standing. Which means that in the world of Justified, the story of the Bennetts might not be over quite yet. With Dickie still kicking and the identity of the mysterious old woman who got him out of jail last week still unclear, there are still quite a few story threads to be picked up down the line. And that's a Good Thing Indeed, though I will miss the wrathful leadership of Mags herself.

The season finale also left more than a few storylines dangling in the wind: would Ava survive Dickie's gunshot, falling to the ground in her own kitchen much like Helen a few episodes ago? Would a pregnant Winona face the future with Raylan... or without him? And would Raylan stay in Kentucky or get the hell out?

We at least learn that Art hasn't completely written off Raylan as a lost cause. He and the Marshal Service do come to Raylan's rescue, just as Doyle is about to end Raylan for good. (As soon as Doyle took the gunshot to the head, it was clear that the bullet had been fired by marksman Tim.) We've not spent much time in Lexington these past few episodes, though the relationship between Raylan and Art did get some depth this season.

However, I'm still of the mindset that we desperately need some development of Tim and Rachel, who got seriously shafted this season (even more than in Season One) when it came to storylines. But this is a quibble that I hope is addressed when the writers begin to break stories for Season Three; these two need some more screen time and some additional shading, which is difficult when much of the action takes place not in the offices of Lexington but on the dirt roads of Harlan.

As for Boyd, he proved himself to be just as--if not more--crafty than old Mags Bennett, envisioning that the Bennetts would attempt to gain the upper-hand during their parley and take out his compatriots. (I loved the shot of Johnny Crowder wheeling out of the barn after he blew up his own house, with two of the Bennett's goons inside.) While the finale once again came down to white hat Raylan working together with black hat Boyd, there was the sense here that Raylan may have been willing to cross a moral line and allow Boyd to murder Dickie... until he realized that he needed his old adversary alive.

But it was the sight of Boyd, literally handing Raylan's white hat back to him, that made me think that Raylan's moral compass wasn't quite as haywire as it appeared. Was it a moment of weakness or of the realization that he and/or Boyd couldn't enact justice upon Dickie Bennett? Or was it something far more pragmatic?

Ultimately, I thought that "Bloody Harlan" was the perfect ending to a sensational season of Justified, one that masterfully balanced individual, character-based plotlines (Winona/Raylan, the salvation of Boyd Crowder, Loretta McCready) with episodic plots... and one hell of an overarching, serialized narrative, one that took the strengths of the series and exploded them sky-high. While I was a huge fan of the first season, it's this second season that demonstrated the real depth and scope of Justified... and has given the writers some mighty big shoes to fill when it comes to Season Three.

What did you think of the season finale of Justified? Did it meet your expectations? What will happen to Raylan, Ava, Winona, Boyd, and Dickie? Who was that mysterious old woman from last week? And how on earth will we be able to stand the long wait for Season Three? Head to the comments section to discuss.

Season Three of Justified is set to air next year.

Tongue & Cheek: Fois Gras Ice Cream and Pepperoni Sauce on the Season Finale of Top Chef

"One cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well." - Virginia Woolf

Is it just me or was that a Top Chef season finale showdown for the ages?

Last night's finale was so tense, so filled with suspense and anticipation, nerves and anxiety, that I actually found myself nauseous from stress watching it. After dozens of Quickfire Challenges and Eliminations, broken dreams and chances of redemption, which of the final two chefs would walk away $200,000 richer and be crowned the winner of the first all-stars edition of Top Chef?

Would it be visionary Richard Blais, whose expansive skill set, precise palate, and dazzling creativity are the stuff of Top Chef legend? Or would it be dark horse Mike Isabella, who returned to the competition energized, refreshed, and determined? I don't think many of us thought that Mike would make it this far or offer such a huge obstacle for Richard to overcome, but he's managed to surprise throughout this season, and particularly in the last few rounds in the Bahamas.

Both of these talented chefs brought their A-game last night as they faced off in a challenge designed to test their creativity, consistency, stamina, and leadership abilities. Given free rein over two restaurants, they were challenged to come up with the restaurant of their dreams and cook a four course menu that would highlight their strengths.

There would be no eleventh hour trickery, no curve balls, no producer-sanctioned shenanigans here. The objective was to cook their hearts out and produce the best dinner and the best experience that they could for the judges and the diners.

So how did they do? Let's take a look.

I dare say that you couldn't have picked two more different chefs than Richard and Mike to go into the final round. Both have very different styles of cooking, but both pushed themselves into new directions here: Richard created a rustic dish, while Mike delivered a stunning haute cuisine plate. Surprised? You bet, but both of these chefs wanted to win so badly that each was more than willing to challenge themselves to step outside of their comfort zones and upend the judges' preconceptions of what type of food they would produce.

Richard's food, at the aptly named Tongue & Cheek, was whimsical and playful, but also showed restraint when it needed to, and he was able to course-correct, rather than "choke" under pressure when a dish didn't quite work the way he had intended. Mike's food was far more rustic, but also showed refinement and thought in the presentation, the flavor profiles, and the overall composition than we've seen from him previously. This was not an easy challenge and, after seeing the performance of both men, the judges would definitely have a difficult time choosing one to crown the winner.

But let's get down to the finer points and take a look at the menu that Richard and Mike prepared...

Richard Blais:
  • Amuse Bouche: Raw oyster with lemon-horseradish ice cream "pearls" and salsa verde
  • First Course: Raw hamachi with fried veal sweetbreads, Asian pear, pickled radish, and garlic-Sriracha mayonnaise
  • Second Course: Pork belly with a black cod cutlet, bone marrow, beets, Brussels sprouts, and kumquat
  • Third Course: Beef short rib with mushrooms, red cabbage marmalade, and celery root-horseradish puree
  • Fourth Course: Cornbread with foie gras ice cream and whipped mango

Richard took a risk with adding an extra dish to the already complicated lineup, but it was a calculated risk that played off. Adding the amuse here was a stroke of genius as much as the dish itself, beautifully played and setting a playful note to the courses to come. The coolness of those "pearls" was perfect for the raw oysters and established the tone and range of the food ahead. That hamachi dish had my mouth watering as Richard combined the silkiness of the fish with the exterior crunch of those velvety sweetbreads (yum), the sweetness of the Asian pear, the sourness of the radish, and the heat from the mayonnaise. Beautifully presented, artfully executed, it was a stuninng dish that was quickly followed by the meat course, a genius combination of disparate items--pork belly, black cod, bone barrow, and beets--that harmonized elegantly. Just... wow. While the judges seemed a little less than taken by his third course, an intensely rustic dish of beef short ribs, they were beautifully glazed and everything was executed perfectly, the real feat with tackling something that's inherently less refined. And, while he struggled with the fois gras ice cream (first doing it as freeze-dried powder and later as more of creamy ice cream), Richard proved that he was able to course-correct and adjust based on reactions from the first serving. All in all, just a gorgeous, staggering menu that showed off Richard's strengths as a chef, his creative spark, and his range. Well done.

Mike Isabella:
  • First Course: Spiced beets with mozzarella, chocolate and truffle vinaigrette
  • Second Course: Halibut with kumquat marmalade, cauliflower puree, and pancetta crumbs
  • Third Course: Braised pork shoulder with pepperoni sauce, roasted cabbage, and turnips
  • Fourth Course: Rosemary caramel custard with pine nuts, citrus, cherry, and apple

While Mike did dazzle me with some of his later dishes, I was hugely disappointed by that first course salad. With $200K on the line, you make a salad of mozzarella, some leaves, and a chocolate vinaigrette? I get where Mike was coming from at Restaurant Iz, with his nonna's culinary influence and childhood flavors, but this was an extremely underwhelming start to the evening, especially compared to Richard's amuse and the hamachi that followed. Mike regained some momentum with his perfectly steamed halibut, which Tom Colicchio hailed as the best fish ever on the competition and that he had ever eaten (however, he quickly changed his opinion later after tasting Richard's hamachi). Still, this was an elegant dish that showed refinement and thought, as well as restraint, a perfectly executed plate that was different than we would normally expect from Mike I. It was the third course that truly showed off his mischievous streak, combining pork shoulder with a pepperoni sauce. (I'll let that hang in the air for a bit.) An ingenious combination of high and low cuisines, it was creative, unexpected, and playful. But while the judges seemed to like Mike's dessert at judges' table, they all seemed less than pleased while eating it. The caramel custard was cooked too quickly at too high of a temperature, creating air bubbles within the custard. It was also a little too simple, compared to the "wow factor" of Richard's fois gras ice cream (which was originally going to be Captain Crunch ice cream, in fact).

You can't fault either of them overall. While certain courses went to one or the other, they both delivered amazing experiences for the judges and the dinners and some of the best food ever on Top Chef. This, really more than any other season to date, would be the closest of close calls, a case of splitting hairs at judges' table to determine whether it was Richard or Mike who had the better dinner overall.

I loved what both of them said when asked about why they should be named Top Chef, particularly Richard's tearful admission that, as a chef, he's had to do things and make choices that were financially-motivated in order to survive, in order to care for his family. (Tom seemed particularly moved by this as well.)

As I mentioned earlier, I spent the final minutes of the finale almost throwing up from tension, before it was revealed that the winner of Top Chef: All-Stars and the owner of $200,000 cash prize would be... Richard Blais.

Fitting? You bet. No one has cooked as consistently, as thoroughly, or as creatively as Richard throughout this competition and he more than redeemed himself from the last time he made it to the finale. I'm more than chuffed that Richard won and I'll admit that I got a little emotional, to boot.

What did you think of the finale? Did Richard Blais deserve to win? Would you have given the win to Mike? And which restaurant would you have rather eaten at? Head to the comments section to discuss.

Next week on Top Chef, it's the reunion episode, where the all-star competitors come together one last time to share their memories and reflect back on this tough season.

White Collar Season Finale: There's Nothing Sadder Than a Con Man Conning Himself

Just when it seemed as though the Vincent Adler/Kate/Nazi treasure storyline had all but wrapped up, last night's season finale of White Collar ("Under the Radar") threw us for another loop with that cliffhanger ending.

Throughout the series' run over the last two seasons, the relationship between Neal Caffrey and Peter Burke has grown into something resembling an actual partnership based on mutual trust, respect, and, well, friendship. Which is why the innate tension and suspicion of the "prove it" scene at the very end of this week's installment threatens to alter the delicate balance that has existed between the two for some time now.

Neal has proven himself a staunch ally to the White Collar Crime Division of the FBI, willing to lend his expertise to catching some crooks, but he's always had his feet in two worlds: the criminality that he's sworn to give up and the path of redemption that Peter has put him on. Is it possible to remain within both? And does the ending of the season seem to indicate that Neal has made a choice about which path he's choosing? Hmmm...

The White Collar writers went to some great lengths to plant that painting of the Chrysler Building at the beginning of the episode, showing the audience Neal's latest work in his flat, establishing that he had painted said painting, but also inserting the fact that he has a storeroom filled with such works. Not only did the audience notice the painting, but so did Peter.

Which made the ending cast more than a little suspicion on Neal: When the warehouse containing the U-Boat's billion-dollar treasure trove went up in smoke (thanks to a convenient explosion that killed no one), Peter spied a tell-tale piece of Neal's painting among the rubble. So did Neal engineer the explosion as part of a master plan of vengeance against Vincent Adler, as Vincent believed?

Nope, though the writers initially wanted us to consider that as a possibility, that Neal would take what Adler loved most since he had taken Kate from him. And that scrap of canvas is awfully incriminating. But while we know that Neal's not the mastermind (he wasn't aware of Adler's location nor that of the treasure), what the scene does is explode the relationship between Neal and Peter, casting Neal in a suddenly untrustworthy light. And Peter's suspicions have the same effect on Neal, making him distrust his partner. Hence, all the posturing and "prove it" machismo at the episode's conclusion. It seems as though the music box's tune has gone sour...

But if Neal's not the culprit than who is? Who left that little anonymous calling card for Neal signaling him to that storage facility? Just who is this mysterious "friend" that leads Neal to the location of the Nazi treasure?

Let's take a look at the possible suspects...

(1) Alex Hunter. We know Alex is a master thief and she has a personal connection to both the treasure (via her grandfather, who was the signalman who heard the last SOS transmission that the sub made) and to Neal. She's made it her life's work to find the music box and solve the riddle that her grandfather had told her about Midas.

She's also extremely helpful (almost obviously so) during the kidnapping and safe-cracking expedition and the kiss she shares with Neal shows that she (A) still has feelings for him, and (B) is willing to drive a wedge between Neal and Sara. Plus, she's no fan of the feds, so anything that puts Neal off-balance there and pulls him back into the world of criminality is a good thing in her book. She's also no fan of Adler, so the heist means getting one over on him as well.

So why would she give it over to Neal? A peace offering? A gift? The promise of more unimaginable wealth to come? And just how would Alex have been able to pull off such a grand design on her own? Hmmm....

(2) Mozzie. The fact that the anonymous note was typed rather than handwritten would seem to indicate that Neal would have recognized the handwriting in question. Which means that the perpetrator is likely someone Neal knows only too well. And Mozzie was there when Neal's painting was glimpsed by Peter.

But surely Mozzie would only be too willing to take credit for pulling off such a feat right underneath the FBI's noses? And why would he seek to incriminate Neal? I think Mozzie's actually in the clear on this one.

(3) Sara Ellis. Our insurance investigator friend did get awfully close to Neal in those library stacks last week, though her feelings were noticeably bruised by seeing Neal and Alex kiss at the dry dock after their near-death experience. Could it be that there's more to Sara than meets the eye and that she likes to walk on the dark side a little bit? We've seen nothing to that effect so far, so I don't think she's suddenly started stealing huge amounts of treasure on a whim.

Other theory: She's been in Neal's apartment and has access to some shady individuals (as well as a nice amount of capital) from her line of work. So, it is possible that she also had a vested interest in the recovery of that Nazi treasure? Could her insurance company be behind the theft in an effort to recover the stolen merchandise and profit from its "disappearance" in that warehouse fire? And that the anonymous note to Neal was her way of scoring one on him? Hmmm...

(4) Unknown Admirer. Neal has a secret admirer, another criminal who is hoping to impress him with this stunning feat that s/he pulled off without him even realizing it. Neal's just as surprised as we are that the collection didn't go up in flames, which could be mission accomplished for this perpetrator. Whoever s/he is, they've certainly got Neal's attention now, which could have been the point in the first place. Can it be that Neal has some competition in the thieving world, someone who is looking to engage in a cat-and-mouse game of oneupsmanship with Neal Caffrey? Otherwise, why lead him to the treasure in the first place? Unless..

(5) Kate. Unless the perpetrator is Kate herself. We never actually saw Kate die, just saw the the plane explode and we assumed Kate was one there. Given that Kate has some powerful friends and access to some shady individuals with specialized skill sets, it's possible that she was able to fake her own death and then take revenge on Vincent Adler. (Though, if I'm being honest, I hope it ISN'T Kate.) What if she's been keeping an eye on Neal and sees this as her opportunity to win her man back and get her revenge at the same time. The warehouse incident leaves Adler dead (thanks to Peter), the relationship between Neal and Peter fractured, and is the perfect opportunity to end the music box-led quest for this treasure that's now gone forever.

Kate and Neal's history does include an incident in a storage facility--when Peter catches him the first time--so isn't it keeping with tradition that the anonymous note would lead Neal to another storage facility? Hmmm... And it would be a twist that throws further tension into the Alex-Neal-Sara love triangle, the working relationship between Neal and Peter, and might be the thing to push Neal back into a life of crime.

So what will Neal do next? While we see him smiling amid the haul of a lifetime, will he tell Peter and the FBI about the stash? Will he keep it for himself? And will he attempt to unravel the mystery of who this anonymous "friend" is?

What do you think? Who is behind the heist? And what do you predict that Season Three of White Collar has in store for Neal Caffrey? Head to the comments section to discuss.

Season Three of White Collar is set to launch in June on USA.