Fargo

[CBStew]

I thoroughly enjoyed the ending.  As is the pattern these days, the penultimate episode was better than the finale, but that's a pretty tall measuring stick.

I see some noise on the internets about people being dissatisfied with Gus taking down Malvo, but it made sense to me.  As much as Malvo's influence set Lester on the path from sadsack to sociopath, Molly was responsible for Gus' transformation. In the pilot, he lets Malvo go thinking he's protecting his daughter. In the end he realizes the only way he can protect his loved ones is by stopping Malvo.  

Also, it surprised me at how relieved I was that Bill's just a decent guy who is in over his head as sheriff.  With all the good actors on this show, I think Odenkirk's turn gets overlooked a bit. He was excellent.

Also somebody pointed me to this:

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2014/06/23/140623crte_television_nussbaum

It certainly juices the story, by giving "Fargo" 's antihero, Lester, a motive and a history, and amplifying the evil he embraces, dramatizing it in the human (or possibly superhuman) form of Malvo.

I would think the television critic for the New Yorker would know the difference between an antihero and a goddamned antagonist.

From Wikipedia:
"The antihero[1] or antiheroine[2] is a leading character in a film, book or play who lacks the traditional heroic qualities[3][4] such as idealism,[5] courage,[5] nobility,[6] fortitude,[7] moral goodness,[8] and altruism.[citation needed]

Whereas the classical hero is larger than life, antiheroes are typically inferior to the reader in intelligence, dynamism or social purpose,[9] giving rise to what Robbe-Grillet called "these heroes without naturalness as without identity"."

Cut the New Yorker some slack.  By this definition Lester is clearly an "antihero".

If "Sherlock" returns to PBS it is going to be difficult to watch Martin Freeman is the stalwart Dr. Watson.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Also, it surprised me at how relieved I was that Bill's just a decent guy who is in over his head as sheriff.  With all the good actors on this show, I think Odenkirk's turn gets overlooked a bit. He was excellent.

I was thinking the same thing last night.

I was also thinking that whoever styled his hair deserves an Emmy nod.

[CT III]

I thoroughly enjoyed the ending.  As is the pattern these days, the penultimate episode was better than the finale, but that's a pretty tall measuring stick.

I see some noise on the internets about people being dissatisfied with Gus taking down Malvo, but it made sense to me.  As much as Malvo's influence set Lester on the path from sadsack to sociopath, Molly was responsible for Gus' transformation. In the pilot, he lets Malvo go thinking he's protecting his daughter. In the end he realizes the only way he can protect his loved ones is by stopping Malvo.  

Also, it surprised me at how relieved I was that Bill's just a decent guy who is in over his head as sheriff.  With all the good actors on this show, I think Odenkirk's turn gets overlooked a bit. He was excellent.

Also somebody pointed me to this:

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2014/06/23/140623crte_television_nussbaum

It certainly juices the story, by giving "Fargo" 's antihero, Lester, a motive and a history, and amplifying the evil he embraces, dramatizing it in the human (or possibly superhuman) form of Malvo.

I would think the television critic for the New Yorker would know the difference between an antihero and a goddamned antagonist.

From Wikipedia:
"The antihero[1] or antiheroine[2] is a leading character in a film, book or play who lacks the traditional heroic qualities[3][4] such as idealism,[5] courage,[5] nobility,[6] fortitude,[7] moral goodness,[8] and altruism.[citation needed]

Whereas the classical hero is larger than life, antiheroes are typically inferior to the reader in intelligence, dynamism or social purpose,[9] giving rise to what Robbe-Grillet called "these heroes without naturalness as without identity"."

Cut the New Yorker some slack.  By this definition Lester is clearly an "antihero".

If "Sherlock" returns to PBS it is going to be difficult to watch Martin Freeman is the stalwart Dr. Watson.

Except he's the antagonist. The antihero still has to be the hero of his own story. Lester doesn't manage that.  Molly's the hero of this piece and by that definition I'd say Gus is the closest thing to an antihero that Fargo has.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

I've also found myself wondering how a second season of this show would work.

From Sepinwall's exit interview with Noah Hawley:

Again, we'll get more into the idea of possible future seasons below, but he said he loved that the ending of the movie suggests that Marge's life goes back to normal after the Lundegaard case, and that it's only interesting if this is the only case of its kind she deals with in her career, rather than her becoming a magnet for violence and bizarre criminality. So he'd be inclined to make any sequel season involve a new set of characters; when I jokingly asked if he might just spin off a different Coen brothers movie like "The Big Lebowski," he said he had a lot of ideas for the universe of "Ladykillers." (Apparently, this is a running gag with him; when Fienberg asked him a similar question on the set in Calgary, Hawley said he wanted to do "A Serious Man: The Series.")

...

The Sioux Falls case comes up a bunch of times in the series. Is that a story you're itching to tell at some point? Is that a possibility for a "Fargo" season 2: a period piece centered around a young Lou Solverson?

Noah Hawley: I really liked the idea — and you see it through the season — of a story within a story. Whether it's the parable sequence, or Molly telling the story of the gloves, or the fox and the rabbit and the cabbage, this idea that we has human beings learn by telling each other stories. It's why when you're learning math, you say "Johnny has three apples, and Billy has one apple." The idea that your story would be full of stories is important. The Sioux Falls idea was introduced in episode 2 as a way for Lou to tell Molly that he was worried about her, but he's a man of the region and he can't say, "Molly, I'm worried about you," so he basically told her a story and let her draw her own conclusion from it. And then over the course of the series, it became a more important idea, I think, that when Lou does come face to face with Malvo, he gets a sense of something he hasn't seen in a long time. I like to think that there's some leather-bound book with hand-drawn illustrations that's the history of true crime in the Midwest, and these are all stories that are taken from it.

(After the interview, I emailed Hawley to ask if he meant to imply that Malvo was the Sioux Falls killer, which had been speculated about. His reply: "Nope.")

As someone who in the past has written for ongoing series that were designed to continue for years, what was it like to do something this close-ended? Could you have set this up as the ongoing story of Molly Solverson, or would that have just watered it down too much?

Noah Hawley: I think you could have. Obviously, if you have the skill and the actors and you're telling a story that is free to digress, certainly "Mad Men" has been navigating without a traditional road map for all those years. Some of it works better for some people than others, but there's still a firm hand guiding it. But at the same time, the fact that this was designed as a close-ended story allowed me to plan it out from beginning to end. The first scene of the first episode is the first step toward the end, and everything that happens is a concrete step in that direction, and I'm able to kill off characters, or make huge dramatic moves like Lester framing his brother for murder. All of that is a step because I know where the end is. It gets a lot harder when you don't know where you're going, or you know where you're going, but you're not exactly sure how you'll get there. My fear when I spoke to FX the first time, "I said that if we turn this into a TV series where it's the continuing adventures of Molly or Marge or whoever, ultimately, it's going to feel like 'Picket Fences,' where it's just quirky and cute, and no one can ever really change, and small-town decency versus evil, no one's ever going to believe that there are real stakes.

What conversations, if any, have there been about the idea of doing a season 2, given how well this one has been perceived?

Noah Hawley: What's rewarding to me about working with FX is that while we all know it's a business, at the same time, I think we all recognize that the response to this season has been so positive because I had the time to really come up with a great story and map it out and write it all. I think we would all be more than happy to take that ride again, as long as we are confident that we can tell a story that's as good or better. And that's on me to come up with. I'm going to lay flat for a bit, and recover from this first season whirlwind, and I'm going to think about that, definitely.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

More on what a Season Two might look like...

Here's one thing we do know: a hypothetical second season will definitely NOT be a continuation of this year's plot. The convoluted case of Lester Nygaard and Lorne Malvo will come to its irrefutable conclusion Tuesday, and these characters will not be back for more. But will a second season feature any of the same characters at all? It's not likely.

Although some had theorized that detective Molly Solverson would be the single thread that tied the disparate seasons of Fargo together, it doesn't look like our can-do cop will be back for more. But why not bring back such a beloved character, especially when she could help ground a new story? Realism, Hawley says:

We're saying it's a true story, which it isn't, but it's following a certain true story logic, and it would strain credulity I think to have the continuing adventures of Molly and Gus with [a new storyline of] 'What crazy Coen Brother case are they going to catch next time?'

...

Just because Molly, Lester, and Lorne won't be coming back for more shenanigans doesn't mean that there will be zero familiar faces if or when Fargo returns for a second season. While nothing has been set in stone at this point, it's possible that some actors will return for the new season, albeit in new roles — a la FX's other popular anthology series, American Horror Story.

There are a few actors we know won't be returning: Billy Bob Thornton only signed a one-season contract, and Bob Odenkirk is heading over to AMC to star in their Breaking Bad spinoff Better Call Saul. But that doesn't mean that no one will return. One definite possibility? Molly's portrayer Allison Tolman:

I know that they're discussing it, and discussing if they do have a second season, or a second installment in the anthology, which actors might make it through to another season. [...] I'm just kind of sitting tight until they let me know exactly what's actually happening.

...

One intriguing possibility that has been mentioned is the idea of Season 2 being a period piece. When discussing what a second season would look like, Hawley responded:

It doesn't have to be contemporary. The sky's the limit as far as the history of true crime in Minnesota.

...

Just because next year will feature a new story with new characters doesn't mean there would be zero connection between the two seasons. Hawley has mentioned that Season 2 will likely be tangentially related to the original film in the same way that Season 1 was, which would firmly place both outings in the same world.

[CT III]

I think what Hawley says makes sense.  Bemidji, MN isn't Gotham City, there aren't going to be psychopathic criminals dropping into town every 8 months or so.  The Malvo/Nygaard case is likely to be the most interesting/worst thing that Molly and the rest of those cops ever see in their careers.  It's their own "Sioux Falls" and the case they'll never really want to talk about but lurks there in the back of their minds.

But they definitely left enough loose threads hanging to establish at least a tenuous tie to season 1. Between Stavros' money buried in the snow or a flashback to Sioux Falls in '79 there's a lot of interesting material. Hell, I'm still kind of curious about the office worker that froze to death in the woods in the opener.  And Mr. Wrench is still out there somewhere.

[CBStew]

I think what Hawley says makes sense.  Bemidji, MN isn't Gotham City, there aren't going to be psychopathic criminals dropping into town every 8 months or so.  The Malvo/Nygaard case is likely to be the most interesting/worst thing that Molly and the rest of those cops ever see in their careers.  It's their own "Sioux Falls" and the case they'll never really want to talk about but lurks there in the back of their minds.

But they definitely left enough loose threads hanging to establish at least a tenuous tie to season 1. Between Stavros' money buried in the snow or a flashback to Sioux Falls in '79 there's a lot of interesting material. Hell, I'm still kind of curious about the office worker that froze to death in the woods in the opener.  And Mr. Wrench is still out there somewhere.

I know that it is silly, but at the end of the finale I found myself wondering, "What are they going to do about Lester now?"  Obviously they aren't going to walk out onto the lake to retrieve the body.  Lester demonstrated that that is not a good idea.  Are they therefore going to wait until the thaw?  That body isn't going to be in the same place when that happens.  I suppose that they could hover over it in a helicopter with a guy in a wet suit and life jacket suspended from a rope, but isn't that a lot of trouble and expense to go through for the likes of Lester?

[ChuckD]

I think what Hawley says makes sense.  Bemidji, MN isn't Gotham City, there aren't going to be psychopathic criminals dropping into town every 8 months or so.  The Malvo/Nygaard case is likely to be the most interesting/worst thing that Molly and the rest of those cops ever see in their careers.  It's their own "Sioux Falls" and the case they'll never really want to talk about but lurks there in the back of their minds.

But they definitely left enough loose threads hanging to establish at least a tenuous tie to season 1. Between Stavros' money buried in the snow or a flashback to Sioux Falls in '79 there's a lot of interesting material. Hell, I'm still kind of curious about the office worker that froze to death in the woods in the opener.  And Mr. Wrench is still out there somewhere.

I know that it is silly, but at the end of the finale I found myself wondering, "What are they going to do about Lester now?"  Obviously they aren't going to walk out onto the lake to retrieve the body.  Lester demonstrated that that is not a good idea.  Are they therefore going to wait until the thaw?  That body isn't going to be in the same place when that happens.  I suppose that they could hover over it in a helicopter with a guy in a wet suit and life jacket suspended from a rope, but isn't that a lot of trouble and expense to go through for the likes of Lester?

Molly had mentioned on the phone "Let me know what the divers find" (or something to that effect).

I'm no diver, but I don't see why they couldn't just cut a hole in the ice close to shore and dive under the ice to retrieve the body. No need to walk out there if you're going in the water anyway.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

I think what Hawley says makes sense.  Bemidji, MN isn't Gotham City, there aren't going to be psychopathic criminals dropping into town every 8 months or so.

I absolutely agree, which is why I found myself curious what a new season would look like.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

I think what Hawley says makes sense.  Bemidji, MN isn't Gotham City, there aren't going to be psychopathic criminals dropping into town every 8 months or so.  The Malvo/Nygaard case is likely to be the most interesting/worst thing that Molly and the rest of those cops ever see in their careers.  It's their own "Sioux Falls" and the case they'll never really want to talk about but lurks there in the back of their minds.

But they definitely left enough loose threads hanging to establish at least a tenuous tie to season 1. Between Stavros' money buried in the snow or a flashback to Sioux Falls in '79 there's a lot of interesting material. Hell, I'm still kind of curious about the office worker that froze to death in the woods in the opener.  And Mr. Wrench is still out there somewhere.

I know that it is silly, but at the end of the finale I found myself wondering, "What are they going to do about Lester now?"  Obviously they aren't going to walk out onto the lake to retrieve the body.  Lester demonstrated that that is not a good idea.  Are they therefore going to wait until the thaw?  That body isn't going to be in the same place when that happens.  I suppose that they could hover over it in a helicopter with a guy in a wet suit and life jacket suspended from a rope, but isn't that a lot of trouble and expense to go through for the likes of Lester?

Molly had mentioned on the phone "Let me know what the divers find" (or something to that effect).

I'm no diver, but I don't see why they couldn't just cut a hole in the ice close to shore and dive under the ice to retrieve the body. No need to walk out there if you're going in the water anyway.

Potentially relevant.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

DPD...

Also potentially relevant.

[InternetApex]

I feel like I just lost two close friends.

Agents Rosencrantz and Guildenstern?

YES!

[Bort]

I feel like I just lost two close friends.

Agents Rosencrantz and Guildenstern?

YES!

Finally caught up with the show to read this and this is Truth.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

http://tv.blog.imdb.net/2014/07/21/tca-more-details-on-fargos-second-season/

Days before FX brought casts and producers from its shows before the critics assembled at the Television Critics Association's Summer Press Tour, there was word of a super-secret "surprise" panel that, as many correctly guessed, ended up being for "Fargo." FX announced Monday morning that it had picked up the critically-acclaimed limited series for a second season run consisting of ten episodes, which was probably shocking to absolutely nobody.

But it was a nice to have executive producer and writer Noah Hawley, and fellow executive producer Warren Littlefield, on hand to share details about the second season. Here's what Hawley told us: Season two will be set in 1979 and follow Keith Carradine's character Lou Solverson, Molly Solverson's doting father, says Hawley.  We'll also meet Molly's mom, and Molly (played in season one by Allison Tolman) will be four years old.

Hawley pointed out that during season one there were a lot of references to Sioux Falls. "That is not an accident," he said. Indeed, the action will take place in and around mostly Laverne, Minn., Sioux Falls and, naturally, Fargo. Though the crimes will be different from year to year, Hawley insists that Fargo, the locale, must always be a main character. "The word itself is so evocative," he said. "It's a state of mind."

As it currently stands, nobody from the season one cast is returning. Season two will introduce an entirely new cast.

According to Hawley, the story begins with 33-year-old Lou having freshly returned from Vietnam and wrestling with living in the pre-Reagan era, in a time the writer characterizes as "the best of America versus the worst of America." In this past era, Lou Solverson is a state police officer and his father-in-law is Laverne's chief lawman. As for the nature of the new "true crime" to be explored in season two, Hawley hinted, "The Vietnam War came home with people, and Lou Solverson thought he'd left the war behind only to find out that it has come home with him."

[InternetApex]

http://tv.blog.imdb.net/2014/07/21/tca-more-details-on-fargos-second-season/

Days before FX brought casts and producers from its shows before the critics assembled at the Television Critics Association's Summer Press Tour, there was word of a super-secret "surprise" panel that, as many correctly guessed, ended up being for "Fargo." FX announced Monday morning that it had picked up the critically-acclaimed limited series for a second season run consisting of ten episodes, which was probably shocking to absolutely nobody.

But it was a nice to have executive producer and writer Noah Hawley, and fellow executive producer Warren Littlefield, on hand to share details about the second season. Here's what Hawley told us: Season two will be set in 1979 and follow Keith Carradine's character Lou Solverson, Molly Solverson's doting father, says Hawley.  We'll also meet Molly's mom, and Molly (played in season one by Allison Tolman) will be four years old.

Hawley pointed out that during season one there were a lot of references to Sioux Falls. "That is not an accident," he said. Indeed, the action will take place in and around mostly Laverne, Minn., Sioux Falls and, naturally, Fargo. Though the crimes will be different from year to year, Hawley insists that Fargo, the locale, must always be a main character. "The word itself is so evocative," he said. "It's a state of mind."

As it currently stands, nobody from the season one cast is returning. Season two will introduce an entirely new cast.

According to Hawley, the story begins with 33-year-old Lou having freshly returned from Vietnam and wrestling with living in the pre-Reagan era, in a time the writer characterizes as "the best of America versus the worst of America." In this past era, Lou Solverson is a state police officer and his father-in-law is Laverne's chief lawman. As for the nature of the new "true crime" to be explored in season two, Hawley hinted, "The Vietnam War came home with people, and Lou Solverson thought he'd left the war behind only to find out that it has come home with him."

At first I was like, "Nah." But after reading that synopsis, I'm totally in.