This week, Team Experience members Lynn Lee and Kieran Scarlett have tackled the first two episodes of new HBO sci-fi drama, "Westworld," which has captured the interest, fascination (or ire, depending on who you talk to) of audiences. Here's Part 1 of the 2 part discussion...
Warning: Spoilers Ahead
KIERAN: Watching the “Westworld” pilot and then the second episode, my immediate reaction—even in thinking that the pilot was relatively strong and an intriguing opening statement to the show—was that these two episodes should be reversed. I might even go so far as to say that the pilot, with all of its beautifully creepy, world-establishing glory (more on this later) is missable when held up against the power (both narratively and stylistically) of the second episode...
I’ll admit right off the bat that I’ve never seen the original 1973 sci-fi film on which the series is based. My main frame of reference for anything “Westworld” related (as is the case with many people my age) is “The Simpsons”. Specifically, the brilliant “Itchy and Scratchy Land” episode which borrows heavily from Westworld. On that token, I wasn’t sure what to expect and found myself immediately struck by how the show front-ends establishing the environment of the artificial Western environment, following some kind of vague romance between Teddy (James Marsden) and Dolores (Evan Rachel Wood), both AIs. To do this rather than starting from a place where the conceit is clear is an interesting approach. I of course say this not to imply that in this world of pre-premiere coverage and trailers where it’s impossible to truly conceal a project’s narrative thrust that I was unaware of the conceit. It’s a bold choice, one that immediately shows that the series is not looking to coddle its viewers, which I appreciated. I did find myself questioning how potent (or not) it was to begin with delving deep into the ins and outs, politically and personally, of this artificial world.
Evan Rachel Wood and James Marsden in "Westworld"
This is perhaps a charitable way of saying that, divorced from how it interacts from the creepy, antiseptic and seemingly infinite world of the facility that houses the virtual reality “Westworld,” the actual environment in the game isn’t nearly as compelling. And charming as winning as they are as actors, I longed for performances more adept at internal psychology to guide us along in the pilot rather than Marsden and Wood. That’s why the second episode worked so much better for me than the pilot ever could. The story of Western sex worker Maeve Millay (a fabulously unhinged Thandie Newton) served as a much more intriguing entry point into this world. The sexual and ageist politics (Maeve is apparently having more and more trouble attracting Westworld visitors into her boudoir) are so rich and play beautifully against what’s going on in the outside world. Like Nathaniel stated, it’s when the show hooked me and I found myself wondering when that moment was for other viewers for this new series that has obviously captured audience imagination.
Thandie Newton and Rodrigo Santoro
LYNN: You know, after watching episode 2 the same thought crossed my mind – that perhaps it should have been the premiere. Not because it was better, but because it seemed better constructed to draw in the casual viewer. For one thing, it starts from the perspective of a first-time “guest,” a natural proxy for the TV audience as he’s introduced to this new world, its attractions and its slippery moral politics. For another, it moves much more quickly towards breaking down the wall that separates the AI “hosts”’ consciousness from their creators; it flushes out the existential terror that the first episode only hints at. (I have to say, though, that while the lab/control center scenes are chilling, they remind me of a mash-up of Jurassic Park and The Hunger Games.)
Jeffrey Wright and Anthony Hopkins
But on the whole, I like the slow build-up; I like that we get immersed right from the get-go in Westworld as it’s experienced by the “hosts.” It’s obviously important to the show’s ultimate goal for us to be able to empathize with them before plunging into the mindset of the gamers (guests), and the first episode did that effectively, laying the groundwork for Maeve’s harrowing ordeal in the second. Also, while Thandie is terrific, I disagree that Evan Rachel Wood and James Marsden were less effective as the AI lead-ins. There was something at once compelling and slightly “off” about their initial romantic cues – and the sweeping-Western-pastiche surrounding them – that I found intriguing. If there’s a certain blankness to their performances, I think it’s a very deliberate choice, at least on Wood’s part – I’ve no doubt her affect will develop deeper layers as her character slowly becomes more sentient.
I haven’t seen the 1973 movie either, but from what I understand, it’s much less sympathetic to the AI and much more along the lines of Crichton’s Jurassic Park: the hosts function mainly as scary adversaries who terrorize the guests, with the “man in black” (Yul Brynner) as the scariest host of them all. On the show, by contrast, the man in black (Ed Harris) appears to be a particularly sadistic guest with VIP privileges. Gotta say I don’t remotely enjoy watching him exercise them, even if the point is to get us to ponder the usual questions about whether it’s morally wrong to abuse an AI (isn’t the answer always “yes”?) and the more show-specific questions about who the man in black really is and what the end game is that he’s so obsessed with winning. I’d rather not expend too much energy trying to figure out the latter, or whether the human characters are actually robots or whether the “real” world embodied in the Westworld design lab is just another simulated reality, etc. I’m content to wait and see how the mysteries unfold.
Ed Harris as "The Man in Black"
I do wonder, though, if “Westworld”’s premise is the kind that can be sustained more than a season or two. I mean, we have to be building towards an AI uprising, right? (All those “retired” hosts in the basement are like a whole array of Chekhov’s guns.) How long can that possibly be drawn out? Also, Is the constant skewering of the park's over-the-top "narrative" director a meta-joke about the creative process for the show?
Tomorrow in Part 2, we discuss racial politics, gender politics and address Lynn's question about the possible life of the series.