With many still attempting to unpack the multitude of events and different timelines that transpired during Westworld’s recent season 2 finale, it is clear that despite having fans talking, the episode has proven to be polarizing to say the least. Reviews run the gamut from many stating that the ending was overly convoluted with others praising this complexity and unwillingness from the creators to dumb the material down for fans. It’s interesting to note that many fans who provided the finale with a mixed to negative review were in fact raving about the majority of episodes that preceded the final episode. This disparity raises the question, is a television season that is comprised of well-received episodes, but a lackluster finale a success or a failure? Should the preceding episode scores be retroactively impacted, and should television seasons be reviewed and given a score evaluation on an episodic weekly basis?
***Spoilers for The Handmaid’s Tale and Game of Thrones follow in this article:
Argument 1: Each Episode is One Piece of a Larger Storyline and is not Worth Reviewing Out of Context
On one hand, reviewing a new episode each week could be argued as being short-sighted, as unlike a feature-length film, each episode is building on an overarching storyline. Take for instance the recent season of Hulu’s The Handmaid’s Tale. Season 2 boldly commenced with June seemingly on track to escape from the totalitarian Gilead government and beginning to become reacquainted with her identity prior to the takeover. In essence, it appeared as though the original premise of the series was radically shifting away from depicting June’s hardships as a Handmaid living with the oppressive Waterford family. Personally, while initially excited at the possibility of changing to a new story, I was finding this departure from the central conflict between the Waterfords and June dull. If I had reviewed episodes 2 and 3, I would have produced negative assessments as I was disappointed in the series moving away from what initially hooked me.
However, by episode 4 the status quo had largely been restored with June recaptured and living again with the Waterfords, and in hindsight the previous two episodes now seemed brilliant, as they created a sense of false hope, making it all the more crushing when June was brought back to her original circumstance. This example demonstrates how the validity of a poor review for episode 2 and 3 without watching the remainder of the season can be faulty at best. The same holds true of the recent season of Westworld, wherein many critics seemed to enjoy the bulk of the episodes, but found the conclusion divisive. Is it fair to hold some of the prior episodes with unanimous praise as they were highly engaging hours of television, or should they be tainted for being instrumental in steering the season to an arguably disappointing conclusion? Had critics viewed the entire season and then scored each episode, it would be interesting to see if the scores changed much.
Argument 2: Certain Episodes are Isolated Stories or so Distinctive That They Can Stand on Their Own
At the other side of the debate, one can make a case that some episodes provide mostly self-contained stories that can be evaluated outside of their relevance to the overarching story of that season. The ubiquitous series Game of Thrones comes to mind, as despite each season having many moving parts for several distinct stories, there are often isolated episodes devoted to a single event, with classics such as Season 2’s Blackwater and Season 6’s Battle of the Bastards being prime examples. While the aftermath for each of these episodes carried over into the subsequent entry, each episode provides a definitive beginning and end for certain characters, as the episodes were devoted to depicting a straightforward battle between two forces. Although not nearly as rewarding without the context from prior and future episodes, theoretically a new viewer could jump in and watch this single episode and walk away having witnessed a complete story that could arguably be fairly judged on its own.
Additionally, each episode of a season almost always has a different set of writers as well as directors, which can sometimes set an episode apart from the rest. Continuing with the Game of Thrones example, it is evident which episodes were directed by Miguel Sapochnik, as his fingerprints were all over episodes such as Hardhome and The Winds of Winter. From the emphasis on visual storytelling and the unique application of Ramin Djawadi’s musical score, it is clear to vigilant fans which episodes were directed by Sapochnik. This distinction supports the case that each episode is a unique auteur’s vision and therefore deserves to be analyzed on its own without requiring the exact context and knowledge of what this particular hour of television will ultimately culminate into.
Conclusion
As is evident by each opposing argument, this isn’t a black and white issue and it seems that whether episodes should be reviewed weekly can differ on a case by case basis. Personally, I am a fan of recapping and reviewing the episode, but not providing a score at this point and waiting until the season concludes to provide a score. I believe it is also imperative that critics keep in mind when reviewing a single entry that this is but one part building on a bigger story and consider that an episode may have been slower as a means of providing a better payoff in the back end of a season.
What are your thoughts on whether it is optimal to review episodes on a weekly basis? Feel free to leave your comments and sound off below.
