tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post7809395908694437633..comments2024-03-29T06:56:12.797-04:00Comments on Doux Reviews: Chuck: Chuck versus the Final ExamBillie Douxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17141769005175631213noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-6904601802351854652013-12-16T22:17:31.934-05:002013-12-16T22:17:31.934-05:00Ditto what Remco said. The analysis and comments ...Ditto what Remco said. The analysis and comments on this episode were better than the episode itself. Very interesting takes on the show.ChrisBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10843864158239536750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-32897393147759309092011-04-10T18:06:49.701-04:002011-04-10T18:06:49.701-04:00Wow, your analyses are so much smarter than the sh...Wow, your analyses are so much smarter than the show! :D<br /><br />It's been a theme for a while now that Chuck dreams of becoming a "real spy". That makes me think about the story of Pinocchio. Actually, that's probably intentional. ;)<br /><br />So Pinocchio wants to become a real boy, but the real prize is to be reunited with his father Gepetto. In the same way, Chuck wants to become a real spy, superficially to serve his country. But subconsciously to earn his rightful place beside Sarah. In the process of fixing this inferiority complex, he ironically rejects Sarah in Prague when she clearly considers him an equal.<br /><br />And now he's finally become the real spy he always wanted to be, but that actually pushed Sarah away. Chuck will now finally realize that becoming a spy was not what he really wanted in the first place, and will now have to work on getting Sarah back.<br /><br />So what does that say about Sarah? Well, not much. She, like Gepetto, is not a real character. She's the prize Chuck will get after learning from his mistakes. That's not necessarily bad. The show chooses to focus on the story of Chuck, not Sarah.Remcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18355810571884915463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-3685566787386574042010-03-29T18:37:02.226-04:002010-03-29T18:37:02.226-04:00Josie, your new comment has the word "alacrit...Josie, your new comment has the word "alacrity" in it. That makes it more than pretty enough for me.<br /><br />That's an interesting thought, Daniel. I think you and Josie are right about Sarah feeling like she had to be certain Chuck's actions were genuine and not based on her opinions. But that's sort of what bothers me.<br /><br />It's a test, and if she truly believes Chuck would lose his soul if he killed someone, wouldn't it make more sense for her to try to save his soul before it's too late than to let the man go down a path of self-destruction just to judge whether he's good enough for her? I mean, she is supposed to care about him, isn't she?<br /><br />I like the whole counter-purpose morphing take on the two characters though. I'll definitely be keeping all these different thoughts in mind when I'll be watching tonight, so thank you for that. It really does make TV so much more fun!Dimitri A.C. Lyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15261471534976480158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-34430357353145178822010-03-29T16:52:12.664-04:002010-03-29T16:52:12.664-04:00I've only recently gotten into Chuck. What st...I've only recently gotten into Chuck. What strikes me as odd is that we have two completely opposite characters trying to morph into each other. If you look at Sarah as someone who desperately wants to be Chuck, she has latched onto his innocence as a reflection of her own choices. Now in that light her actions make a lot more sense. The truly ironic thing is that Chuck is doing the exact same thing.<br /><br />They seem to be laboring under the false assumption that that aren't right for each other as they are. Not that Sarah is trying to change as actively as Chuck. But she is looking at things through a moral lens, even if that lens doesn't apply to her own actions. This final act, his selling his soul for his goals, is the final straw. She can no longer look at him in the same way. I think she had to be certain that his actions were genuine and not based on her opinions (which would've affected his choice).<br /><br />I think the problem with this season is that they have lost that divergence in personality between the two leads. As Chuck grows closer to becoming like Sarah, their natural chemistry is slowly ebbing away. Perhaps that is why they are drifting apart.Samantha M. Quinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02340568293992559934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-72908326361698633332010-03-28T16:24:53.925-04:002010-03-28T16:24:53.925-04:00I swear I responded to you comment with alacrity a...I swear I responded to you comment with alacrity and good grace, Dimitri. You've made a really good point, and I think you've convinced me. (The original comment was much prettier.)Josie Kafkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17892717530356699008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-59598945960868982652010-03-26T16:24:51.969-04:002010-03-26T16:24:51.969-04:00Fair point. It is definitely worth mentioning that...Fair point. It is definitely worth mentioning that not every female character in the world of fiction is meant to represent Womanhood as a whole, though, to be fair, that's not exactly what I was trying to communicate regarding Sarah.<br /><br />To clarify a bit, my frustrations comes from the fact that she is written this season the way women have been written in bad Hollywood movies for half a century, and I'd hoped we'd moved on from that. No, we can't take each female character and impose on her the responsibilities of a role model--you’re 100% right and thank you for clarifying a bit that I had clumsily glossed over--but at the same time if we isolated every character from their wider cultural context, we'd just blind ourselves from destructive cultural trends.<br /><br />More importantly (for me anyway), this passive-whiney version of Sarah is inconsistent with the character I loved in previous seasons, and she's making it impossible for me to root for the couple. I like Chuck. I want Chuck to be with a good woman who's capable of saying what she feels and going after what she wants, who will help Chuck in his time of need instead of going, "Oh, when he was doing well he was my kind of man, but now that he has problems he's not even worth the courtesy of returning his calls".<br /><br />If you reversed the sexes, there's no doubt that male-Sarah would be perceived as a turnip. Why is she still considered Chuck's puppy-dog Holy Grail here? I'm not suggesting Sarah should still want to be with Chuck if she thinks he's a killer, but the fact she won't even talk to him or be his friend at a time like this because he didn't pass her secret personality test... I mean, how far are we from irrational moth-hating Astrid?<br /><br />As an aside, I actually do perceive Casey as a symbol for manhood, or rather for ridiculously outdated ideals of manhood that Chuck (and any man his age) may have naively clung to in his childhood or outright rejected as something of the past. He’s definitely meant to represent a vision of man that is no more. It’s sort of what makes him so funny. By the same token, I think Awesome is supposed to represent the great modern man that Chuck felt he could never be. The entire Chuck universe, for me, is populated with symbols about the modern transition to manhood.<br /><br />Which is why, I think, I hold Sarah at a higher standard than that of a normal female character. As the ideal woman for Chuck the Everyman, she’s meant to represent the ideal woman for a lot of guys (not a role model for ladies though). That she would lose interest in Chuck as she did in previous episodes meant something for Chuck’s journey. I really dug where it was going. Her behaviour in this episode, though, is a completely different matter. It feels like the show runners are setting it up for Chuck to have to *EARN* Sarah, and I think that’s wrong.<br /><br />Of course, I could just be insane. I’ve accepted that a long time ago.<br /><br />Crazy moth-hating Astrid... Ah, good times.Dimitri A.C. Lyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15261471534976480158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-39178463374411615422010-03-26T13:11:24.368-04:002010-03-26T13:11:24.368-04:00That's an interesting idea, Dimitri. But I'...That's an interesting idea, Dimitri. But I'm not sure I entirely agree. <br /><br />One the one hand, you're right about Sarah. She's dragging things down, and part of that is the result of her having little-to-no life outside of Chuckville. We're forced to see her only in her interactions with our hero, and right now, she's not doing much for him, which makes her suffer, which makes him suffer...vicious circle and all that.<br /><br />On the other hand, I'm not sure we need to see Sarah as standing for all women. Is Casey's hyper-macho stiff-upper-lip gun-toting cruelty setting back the small strides that have been made in understanding the complexity of masculinity? I don't think all female characters need to stand for all women, any more than any male character stands for all men.<br /><br />Because Sarah is so underwritten, we can read a lot onto her character. The way I see it, she's not sitting back as a trophy, but sitting back as a teacher watching her student strike out on his own--and screw it up. She's also conflicted: she wants Chuck to be who he is, not who *she* is. Her love for Chuck is probably unconditional, but her willingness to be his girlfriend does have some conditions: no murderous impulses, for one. <br /><br />I love the "idiot plot" designation. That's just perfect: props to you and to Mr. Ebert.Josie Kafkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17892717530356699008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-91282747097890635442010-03-26T09:10:12.341-04:002010-03-26T09:10:12.341-04:00My problem with this episode of Chuck is the same ...My problem with this episode of Chuck is the same as the one I had with the two-hour season premiere: the portrayal of Sarah, for whom my hatred now burns like a thousand suns.<br /><br />The character, once so much fun, is dragging feminism twenty years back Dawson’s Creek style. Here we have a competent, strong-minded super-spy, but because she’s a woman, she apparently can’t take an active role in her own personal life. Instead she places herself as a helpless judge of Chuck’s own personal growth. How hard would it be for Sarah to simply TELL Chuck that she doesn’t think his killing someone is a good idea for him? How hard would it be to say, “Chuck, I’m afraid you’re turning into someone lesser than who you used to be, and I’m worried about you”?<br /><br />Instead she quietly puts Chuck to the test, sitting back as some sort of trophy that the man is to earn by making the moral choice. And now that she thinks he’s made the wrong one, instead of helping him through the trauma, as I would have thought someone who loves him would do, she abandons him because, you see, he failed to win her as a prize, and that’s more important than being a much needed friend to him. With a true love like that, who needs enemies?<br /><br />It’s what Roger Ebert calls an “idiot plot”, a story that relies on two characters having a simple misunderstanding that could be resolved if one would just accept to talk to the other, but because one character (usually the female lead) is a judgmental idiot it’s going to take forever. I thought that ten years into the new millennium, we’d be past this downright reprehensible image of women as helpless trophies who can’t play an integral part in the main character’s personal growth.<br /><br />It’s also intriguing that Casey (as well as Morgan in previous weeks) has a better understanding of who Chuck is as a person. He always knew Chuck never had it in him to go dark (furthering my theory that this season is more about the impression of losing one’s way than actually losing it). In fact, this season, all the men understand Chuck better than the women do, and it doesn’t feel like we’re celebrating male bonding here. It feels like we’re unconsciously denigrating women as empowered characters. Are the writers going through post-breakup bitterness?<br /><br />Gah. Just gah.Dimitri A.C. Lyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15261471534976480158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-70495628841768928012010-03-25T11:56:12.864-04:002010-03-25T11:56:12.864-04:00Nice review, Josie. And I completely agree. There...Nice review, Josie. And I completely agree. There's something off about this season. Maybe they've left their comfort zone.<br /><br />I loved the "thoughtful felony" line. And I loved the focus on Casey.Billie Douxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17141769005175631213noreply@blogger.com