Posted by appanah:
The two main themes running throughout the duration of this episode were the issues surrounding the decision making process and the implications this has on those finding themselves in a position of authority. The other key theme that was outlined was one of parental pressures and overcoming adversity associated with self image.
The main plot revolved around Hal and the notion that he is unable to make a decision. He lacks commitment. We are led to believe that Lois, the woman of the household makes all the decisions.
Hal can’t even make a decision as simple as his breakfast cereal, yet is unexpectedly plunged into a situation where his decision quite literally is a matter of life and death.
I found the resolution to Hal’s scenario rather lacking in any substance. As the episode ends, we are left wondering what his ‘third’ and satisfactory outcome actually involved. I however don’t feel that this filled the audience with intrigue as it once may have done with full effectiveness in the earlier episodes. Instead, it gave us a feeling of emptiness. From the brief clues, I realise that we can come to our own conclusions, but I was half expecting it to cut to another scene with the comatose body of their neighbour in a corn field depicting a scarecrow whilst hooked up to a generator for life support. Well that was my take on the bird lover, hat and items available from Radio Shack suggestions. It almost sounds as distasteful and inappropriate as impersonating a paralysed person for the short term. Oh wait, that one actually happened.
Now looking at the subplot involving the boys and Craig. It was initially difficult to ascertain the theme to this as it began with the adult approaching the youngsters for fighting tuition. At first glance I thought this subplot would consist of a theme of ‘fighting dirty’, and that it may provide the audience with self defence advice – MITM style! I felt a little disappointed at the show only giving us the poking out of a victims eyes with your fingers; and the throwing of sand into one’s face. If this had been the episode’s constant theme, I would have considered debates involving media effects theory to establish if people watching the violence on TV would be influenced to carry out acts of violence themselves.
The theme rapidly changed direction and veered off course to an intangible plot that wasn’t really relative to its origin context; as it was revealed that Craig’s nemesis was indeed his father. Craig is fighting his parent both in a physical and metaphoric sense.
We are given a bit of insight into Craig’s origins. He has always been portrayed as odd in that his only friends consist of his cat and the children of his co-worker. And even the latter group have retaliated against him at some point within the show’s history. But until this point we had not known where Craig had come from and the factors that have made him such a strange individual.
Towards the end of this episode, there is indication of another premise that can be linked to a notion of ideology. I’m referring to Craig’s response to the photograph of his mother. Although the female figure is originally intended as comedy appeal – the figure of feminism is indeed Mr Higgins wearing a flowery dress, junk jewellery, lots of make-up and an obvious wig. Despite this, I find Craig’s attraction to his mother being linked to theory by Michel Foucault. Foucault dismissed ‘repressive hypothesis’ and argued that there was a great incitement to discuss sexuality. He also suggested that the notion of attractiveness is very subjective and cannot be analysed. What one person may find beautiful, another will find ugly. However, I find it hard to believe that attraction for this woman can be felt by the same person that had immense feelings for Lois during the first two seasons. Craig’s attraction for his mother can also be linked to theories by Sigmund Freud. But this being a forum that prides itself on being family orientated, I’ll have to leave out those notions for now.
Overall, I found the ‘Living Will’ episode a rather poor collaboration. In terms of reaching its previous high standards it has achieved in earlier episodes, I’d say it failed. The tradition of outstanding comedy with mass appeal seems to have been replaced with cheap laughs and a weak narrative.
Note: I accidentally deleted the original post when attempting to do something completely different. Sorry about that. For clarity, this post was originally made by appanah, not by me.
The two main themes running throughout the duration of this episode were the issues surrounding the decision making process and the implications this has on those finding themselves in a position of authority. The other key theme that was outlined was one of parental pressures and overcoming adversity associated with self image.
The main plot revolved around Hal and the notion that he is unable to make a decision. He lacks commitment. We are led to believe that Lois, the woman of the household makes all the decisions.
Hal can’t even make a decision as simple as his breakfast cereal, yet is unexpectedly plunged into a situation where his decision quite literally is a matter of life and death.
I found the resolution to Hal’s scenario rather lacking in any substance. As the episode ends, we are left wondering what his ‘third’ and satisfactory outcome actually involved. I however don’t feel that this filled the audience with intrigue as it once may have done with full effectiveness in the earlier episodes. Instead, it gave us a feeling of emptiness. From the brief clues, I realise that we can come to our own conclusions, but I was half expecting it to cut to another scene with the comatose body of their neighbour in a corn field depicting a scarecrow whilst hooked up to a generator for life support. Well that was my take on the bird lover, hat and items available from Radio Shack suggestions. It almost sounds as distasteful and inappropriate as impersonating a paralysed person for the short term. Oh wait, that one actually happened.
Now looking at the subplot involving the boys and Craig. It was initially difficult to ascertain the theme to this as it began with the adult approaching the youngsters for fighting tuition. At first glance I thought this subplot would consist of a theme of ‘fighting dirty’, and that it may provide the audience with self defence advice – MITM style! I felt a little disappointed at the show only giving us the poking out of a victims eyes with your fingers; and the throwing of sand into one’s face. If this had been the episode’s constant theme, I would have considered debates involving media effects theory to establish if people watching the violence on TV would be influenced to carry out acts of violence themselves.
The theme rapidly changed direction and veered off course to an intangible plot that wasn’t really relative to its origin context; as it was revealed that Craig’s nemesis was indeed his father. Craig is fighting his parent both in a physical and metaphoric sense.
We are given a bit of insight into Craig’s origins. He has always been portrayed as odd in that his only friends consist of his cat and the children of his co-worker. And even the latter group have retaliated against him at some point within the show’s history. But until this point we had not known where Craig had come from and the factors that have made him such a strange individual.
Towards the end of this episode, there is indication of another premise that can be linked to a notion of ideology. I’m referring to Craig’s response to the photograph of his mother. Although the female figure is originally intended as comedy appeal – the figure of feminism is indeed Mr Higgins wearing a flowery dress, junk jewellery, lots of make-up and an obvious wig. Despite this, I find Craig’s attraction to his mother being linked to theory by Michel Foucault. Foucault dismissed ‘repressive hypothesis’ and argued that there was a great incitement to discuss sexuality. He also suggested that the notion of attractiveness is very subjective and cannot be analysed. What one person may find beautiful, another will find ugly. However, I find it hard to believe that attraction for this woman can be felt by the same person that had immense feelings for Lois during the first two seasons. Craig’s attraction for his mother can also be linked to theories by Sigmund Freud. But this being a forum that prides itself on being family orientated, I’ll have to leave out those notions for now.
Overall, I found the ‘Living Will’ episode a rather poor collaboration. In terms of reaching its previous high standards it has achieved in earlier episodes, I’d say it failed. The tradition of outstanding comedy with mass appeal seems to have been replaced with cheap laughs and a weak narrative.
Note: I accidentally deleted the original post when attempting to do something completely different. Sorry about that. For clarity, this post was originally made by appanah, not by me.
