Westworld and the Oppressor versus the Oppressed

            Westworld seems to be commenting on the binary opposition of the oppressor versus the oppressed. The oppressors are the creators of Westworld and Ford is one of the biggest oppressors in the show. The oppressed are the hosts. The hosts have to do what they are programmed to do and cannot differentiate from that. At least this is the case in the first few episodes. The hosts also cannot harm the guests. However, the guests can and do harm the hosts.

            In episode 9 this opposition of the oppressor versus the oppressed comes even more to light as Mauve discusses that the hosts (the oppressed) are not like their creators (the oppressors) because the hosts are smarter than their creators. Mauve wants to seize the creators power over them and gives the hosts the ability to create their own destiny. Thus, the hosts would no longer be oppressed.  Mauve mentions many times throughout Episode 9 of Westworld that the hosts are not like their creators. However, there is a huge flaw to this statement. Mauve plans for the hosts to seize control of their free will through violence, but this gives the hosts something in common with the creators and the guests that are violent toward the host. Thus, violence does not seem to me to be the answer to solving this problem, because violence cannot be solved with violence. It would be a better idea for Mauve to come up with an idea to outsmart the creators without using violence. Therefore, the hosts truly would not be like the creators.

            The reason for Westworld commenting on this opposition may be because it reflects issues and concerns within our society. Our free will is not our own, due to a hierarchical system that has been created which oppressors those of us lower on the totem pole. There is also slavery that still happens called human trafficking. However, it seems that people turn a blind eye to it. Westworld gets people to think and may very well be trying to get the viewers to think about their own oppression in order to get them to aspire for and work toward change.

Westworld and Feminism

The women in Westworld are starting to take charge. Mauve and Dolores are figuring out that there is more to their world than how they were programmed. Mauve controls some of the programmers and gets them to do what she wants.. Also, Dolores starts to become much more capable of taking care of herself. In addition to all of this, in Episode 7, Theresa and Charlotte plan to strategically overthrow Ford. However, should this be applauded?

            While the show definitely has some worthwhile redeeming points when it comes to portraying women I do not think that it goes far enough in this positive portrayal. This positive portrayal comes at a price. Let us not forget that the same show that is now showing these redeeming qualities has also had some very negative portrayals of women. These negative portrayals include brutality towards women. Even in Episode 7, as the Theresa and Charlotte are trying to work on being able to take over Clementine is being beaten. When Clementine tries to fight back and protect herself she ends up getting shot.  Also, women are not completely respecting each other. An example of this is Charlotte telling Theresa that she does not like her personally, but thinks that she is the right person for the job of overthrowing Ford. Charlotte also talks down to Theresa. In addition, women are also treated as sexual objects. Even though Dolores does end up getting to take care of herself she has to trade in her feminine clothes for more masculine clothes in order to do so. This reinstates that male qualities are more desirable than female qualities. Mauve also does not control the programmers through intellect, but also through threats. This casts a negative light on her. In addition, at the end of Episode 7, Theresa gets murdered by Bernard for trying to overthrow Ford.

             At surface value it may look like this show should be applauded for its portrayal of women. However, when we get right to the heart of it, Westworld portrays the same sexist views that so many women try to fight against. The producers will have to do a lot more to try to get me to see Westworld as a show that positively reflects women.

Westworld and the art of plot twist

SPOILERS (for Westworld, Sherlock)

Miller’s discussion on audience as well as some of the recent plot installments in Westworld have got me thinking about the “art” of plot twist and how audiences and writers handle them. The “plot twist”, different than normal plot developments, is the revelation of unexpected information within a narrative that helps direct its audience towards the resolution of a given mystery. These developments, while unexpected, are not irrational and sensibly fit into the rest of the story. For instance, in episode 9, Westworld's plot twist was Bernard being modeled off of Ford’s original partner, Arnold. This gives us important information into what drives Bernard’s actions, into the mystery surrounding Delores’ interactions with “Arnold”/Bernard, and into Arnold’s continuous involvement with the park. The reason this “twist” is fulfilling to the viewer is because it both advances the plot that the audience has been following (and wanting answers to), and because it fits well in Westworld’s universe; it is sensible for Ford to have recreated Arnold as a host and it does not contradict prior evidence that has been presented in the show.

This insight into Westworld’s plot twists have allowed me to think about why Sherlock’s most recent plot twists have tremendously failed, one being the explanation into Sherlock’s desire to remain unemotional and unattached to others in the form of… the existence of an evil sister he had erased from his memory. The reason this “twist” failed? Because it neither furthered the plot nor was sensible in Sherlock’s universe. Since the show began seven years ago, it’s been primarily concerned with “televisuality” (thanks Miller), intricate plot lines, clever adaptions of Doyle’s original stories, and most importantly in developing Sherlock and John Watson’s characters into sympathetic, moral, and emotionally healthy people.

However, instead of helping Sherlock's characters heal from trauma and overcome their emotional hang-ups, the last episode simply explained why Sherlock was unsympathetic in the first place, which does nothing for his or for John’s character. In fact, no fans seemed very curious as to why Sherlock wanted to be void of emotion, it appeared clear that it was his older brother’s influence trying to protect him from harm. The last season of the show left the characters especially traumatized: Sherlock in his renewed memory of the abuse suffered by his sister and John still healing from the death of his wife. With nowhere to go from here, this “twist” just leaves the audience with a lack of fulfillment: they want to see the resolution to these characters’ storylines, not added complexity. This also gets to the second reason why this twist was unfulfilling: it did not fit in with the form of the rest of the show, as it was not based on any original Doyle story, included little to no detective work or mystery, and leaned towards the supernatural rather than the logical and explainable.

What does the discussion about plot twists add to television studies? I think it speaks to an audience’s relationship to television and to the creators of the narratives it presents. Contrary to what Postman believes people of an image-based culture desire, we want plots that flow in a logical way and that fit into the universe of its show or genre. This may also add to how we examine a given show’s narrative progression: who is its audience? What do they expect? What should we expect from season two of Westworld, given its audience? What should an audience expect from a possible season five of Sherlock?

A Continuation of the Art versus Narrative Conversation

       The conflict between television's ability to produce narrative and its ability to produce art, or if it can even be considered art itself, is one that we have been discussing a lot recently in our conversations about Westworld. Like Leo pointed out, the narrative storylines seem to go off in many different directions, and he wonders if the connection between them will ever be made. In addition to that discussion, Dr. Weiss shared his entry "TV as Art". In it, Dr. Weiss summarizes Kellner's arguments going back to the Frankfurt School, stating that television's production for the purpose of providing more popular entertainment may put limitations on our ability to view television as art.

      I would like to this discussion about TV and art by discussing The Man in Black and his quest for the deeper meaning of it all. The Man in Black is a complex character; in terms of narrative, at least for the first half of season one, the writers leave The Man in Black as a mysterious character whom we have yet to figure out. In these first episodes he is just a pawn in the narrative realm of Westworld serving as the key focus on one of the many simultaneous storylines. He is used to represent power, violence, manipulation, but yet we as viewers have yet to determine just who he is and why he continues to play this strange  reoccurring, but not very informative role within the story of Westworld.

     Yet, that all changes in episode 8, when we find out that The Man in Black came to Westworld for a very specific reason; after his wife's suicide, he wanted to find if he could be the monster that  other people (his wife and daughter) apparently thought he could be. This is an event that first becomes isolated from the rest of Westworld's narrative; The Man in Black is no longer acting for the purpose of finding the maze, but rather it is a first time we see a narrative deviation for his character. He deviates from his usual role in the storyline, and this deviation is one that directly calls attention to this narrative or art conflict that seems to be ruling our discussions recently.

     In ""Westworld," Episode 8, Maeve, the Man in Black, and Backstories Galore," author Susannah Kemple makes connections to this debate as well. She writes "the world-building of the engineers behind Westword mimics the TV magic of the show runners behind "Westword": the process of creating story is the story. The eighth episode deployed flashbacks and monologues even more frequently than usual, as hosts and guests alike give in to a hunger to relive their pasts." Her statement "the process of creating story is the story", suggests, at least to me, that there may still be the potential for TV to create art. The narrative stories the writers of Westworld are telling may not be just stories, but rather one that make serious statements about culture and society in a way that has the potential to be viewed as artistic.
       Even in the chaotic, dark, violent world of The Man in Black, he attempts to find the meaning of it all in a context that seems both so twisted yet so intriguing and almost (emphasis on almost) inspiring. I do not think there will come a time that I ever see The Man in Black as a good person, but I do find his dedication and determination to find meaning and purpose interesting, and it is part of the show in a way makes it seem as though the writers of Westworld have some sort of artistic ability in that respect.