I have enjoyed watching Westworld, but there are some frustrating flaws.
I can handle a little bit of ambiguity and timeline jumping. The first episode of season 2 sort of set up an interesting premise where Bernard wakes up on the beach, all the hosts are dead, and his brain is scrambled. I'm thinking "OK, so the rest of the season will be telling us how it got to this point, then the finale will probably continue on from this scene with Bernard on the beach". A non-linear narrative style that everyone has seen before, so doesn't take much effort on the part of the viewer to track the timeline.
But with the in-season continuation of the "present" timeline, as well as Ford being/not-being in Bernard's head, I sort of lost track of where we were and didn't care enough to think it through to figure it out. I think what confused me was when Bernard found Elsie, she claims that he was the one that locked her up. OK, so if that was the "before", then this must be the "after". But no, it was just one chapter in the "before", and apparently Ford had taken over Bernard's brain at that point to act out some things never shown on screen, and when we do see Ford and Bernard interact, it's just Bernard imagining Ford is still in there.
In the end the narrative they went with actively harmed my enjoyment of the season. I stopped caring to figure out where/when we were. I think a lot of others had the same reaction. After the finale, I quickly skipped back to a few scenes, and I guess the timeline jumps weren't actually that confusing. It's just watching week-to-week, with some episodes barely touching on certain characters, it's hard to recall where we were in the story. I'm sure on the page it seems to be easily trackable, but it doesn't translate well for the TV format (unless you binge it).
There still is so much potential in the world they built though. The main conflict and ideas just aren't as sharp as they could be. Free will should be main concept. Every time Lee Sizemore mouths the speeches along with the hosts, it is reinforced that the hosts are not as 'free' as they seem to be. Then it was mentioned that if a human's code can be replicated to the point where decisions they make can be predicted, are humans really more free than the 'programmed' hosts? It was briefly mentioned that hosts truly do have free will, unlike humans. How that could possibly work, I don't know. Maybe they could at least go down the path of emphasizing that the programming in the hosts is more complex than humans, and therefore the hosts are truly the higher beings.
But the interesting philosophical questions get a bit lost in the muddled storytelling, ambiguous motives, and games of "guess who's a Cylon now".
|