alcibiades: (Dean/Sam)
[personal profile] alcibiades
So here's the paradox in the series finale:

On the one hand, we have been told for years that Dean has no self, that he needs to get a life other than Sam, that he and his love are overbearing, that he needs his own core and can't just glom onto Sam, that he has no self esteem or self respect, that this is all wrong, yada, yada, yawn.

Sam even wants him to go out and live a normal life after his sacrifice, so Dean can finally have a sense of self, live for himself, not for and through Sam.

And then it turns out that this overbearing, selfless love is what arrests Lucifer in mid kill, that allows Sam to re-emerge from lurkdom and strengthen him enough to overcome Lucifer and jump into the hole. In particular, Samifer lingers on the image of Dean hugging him after he sacrifices himself with one year to live and Sam returns to life, and that's the thing that causes the change that accelerates into full on control by Sam.

So this very quality of Dean which is so often ridiculed and is brought up again and again to give Dean incentive to move beyond it is the very thing that Sam needs to connect to in order to play the role he wants to and end the apocalypse, as opposed to jump starting it into further havoc by remaining Lucifer.

Talk about a conflicting message.

Date: 2010-05-18 01:03 am (UTC)
fajrdrako: (Default)
From: [personal profile] fajrdrako
Yep, paradox. And I like that aspect of it. I saw other levels of paradox - that 'family' was the most important thing, but Adam rejected all the other Winchesters, and was still Michael's vessel; that Dean got the future (or potential future) that Sam wanted; that the Horsemen were the vehicle of Lucifer's fall.

It also strikes me as odd that in the Michael-Lucifer talk, the older/younger brother balance was reverse, Adam being younger than Sam.

Date: 2010-05-20 12:09 pm (UTC)
fajrdrako: ([Supernatural] - Dean)
From: [personal profile] fajrdrako
I finally came around to your sense about Lucifer - that the way he was being played by Mark Pellegrino was less than fully engaging.

I had hoped he was building to a climax - that he'd become more menacing, or more charismatic, as the story progressed. I didn't see a change. He was persuasive, but only just. Never riveting. Best in conversation with his brothers, who tended to be stronger actors (till the end).

I think Mark Sheppard was terrific as Crowley. It's the kind of role he does best.

And Death was amazing. Perfect.

I think they were trying to cast against expectations for Lucifer, and it backfired.

The moral the of the story: don't mess with those Horsemen!

Date: 2010-05-20 01:23 pm (UTC)
fajrdrako: (Default)
From: [personal profile] fajrdrako
Too diffident for my sense of Lucifer.

Too mild, I'd say. The same dialogue with more of a sense of menace might have worked.

Too aggrieved in what seemed like a trivial manner.

Especially when it was played as sibling rivalry. I know the point was that to the Angels, human suffering was irrelevant - or was that the point? In any case, it came across as weak. Banal, yes. But the point of the banality of evil has been contradicted over and over by the high drama of many situations we've seen in the series, with lesser powers (presumably) than Lucifer's. Can't help thinking: Was this what all Lilith's plotting was about? To free a resentful little brother taking advantage of his father's absence to cause some chaos?


alcibiades: (Default)

May 2010

16 171819202122

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 06:27 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios