Spoilers Legion season 2

[crookeddy]

Does David understand, or is he even capable of understanding, that what he's done is wrong? The implication seems to be that David has always been a monster, just hiding under the veneer of naive, good David for the sake of wooing Syd. Now that the romance is over, the real David has emerged. In essence, Farouk gave him a get out of jail free card, via the trauma of possession and exploitation, that has now been revoked. Be interesting to see where the show goes now that David has gone full on villain.



I'm going to disagree with your assessment on the grounds of this final episode. Where there was very little surreal. Honestly, the head of the minotaur, and the psyblocker being a giant tuning fork was pretty much it (and Fukiyama, I suppose). Because the cast has finally seen through David. The bizarre and the surreal were a visual metaphor for the characters buying into David's world, accepting what they saw there no matter how off it might be. As the placard brought up in the finale, what is true is merely what is accepted by the masses and what they can enforce on others.

For the bulk of the season, what nine out of ten wise men could agree on was that David was a hero, and the world was increasingly bizarre and weird. But when Syd emerged from the shadows with the head of the last particular bit of weird, "normal" was reestablished. Note that even the giant tuning fork was only visually relevant for Lenny, who is, like David, mentally unstable (and also high). The characters no longer followed David into his world, into his madness. What was "sane" changed. Even the green pointy hands outside the Division 3 headquarters were missing in this episode. David is now an outsider again, and the others don't follow him into his skewed reality.

I think the whole season was surreal because the characters were embracing David and ignoring the indications of his instability.

That would be cool, but I don't buy it. The whole trial was surreal - why is there even a court room there? Who is the judge? Why is the trial just a day after Farooq was captured? Fukiyama's mere presence with a gosh darn basket on his head and digital voice that has't existed since the 80s is purely surreal. If this show had every scene without David presented in a "normal" way that would be one thing, but obviously the "insanity" is this show's style.

 

[Jayson1]

I have to say I'm surprised and disappointed by the lack of discussion about what David did to Syd and how that effects the nature of the show and his character. He raped Syd. He robbed her of her agency by suppressing her memories of her terror she felt about him and, as she said, he drugged her and had sex with her. There may have not been any screaming, but there was unequivocally no consent.

The A.V. Club's Alex McLevy best expresses why this is so damaging for the show and the character of David:

If you’re halfway through watching Out Of Africa, you know you’re not going to have a sudden smash cut to a pornographic, throbbing sex scene between Robert Redford, Meryl Streep, and another person, because that would violate a basic understanding of the world that’s been established, what a mainstream movie provides, and also how these characters would behave. Similarly, Legion has established that there are many facets to David, but despite the depictions of a malevolent David, or a homeless crazy David, or even the fears of our primary David about the violence he’s capable of inflicting (something that wasn’t even introduced until the last couple of episodes), we had been given a fundamentally good person. Naive, even, in his sincere belief in true love, admirable in his loyalty to his friends, and—above all—steadfast in his refusal to accept evil or unhappiness as the outcome. When Syd brooded over their likely unhappy ending, David was the one to say he believed in a better one. Even when he was torturing Oliver last week, we may not have liked it, but we understood doing something bad to achieve something good. He was trying to save Syd.

Transforming David from a fundamentally decent person with a troubled mind into someone capable of committing sexual assault in the course of a single episode is the needle scratch on the record player. It’s the porn scene in the middle of Out Of Africa. It’s edgy and unpredictable, but that doesn’t make it good. It changes the show on a fundamental level—and more than that, it pulls the rug out from under its viewers, scorning them for thinking they were watching one kind of show when in fact they were watching a very different one. It’s one thing to have a show’s characters lie to us. It’s quite another when a show lies to its audience.
​

Like I said in my own review, I hope the show doesn't shy away what David did to Syd in the next season and properly analysis what happened.

In the real world you couldn't forgive David but in fiction the rules are always different. I do think it means they can't ever become a couple. "Buffy" made that mistake with Buffy and Spike in it's final season but the Spike character seperate from that was basically saved by first giving him a soul and then later his actions once again on "Angel." Pretty much everything they did with Angel worked except having Buffy develop some romantic feelings for him.

I am guessing they will have to redeem him somewhat because the character is the shows main lead. Which means at some point he might really become a hero. Then again he might go down as being a character like Walter White and Tony Soprano as people who are simply not nice people but you still kind of root for them simple because the story is being told from their perspective.

Jason

 

[Christopher]

In the real world you couldn't forgive David but in fiction the rules are always different.

That's the thing -- they shouldn't be. A lot of fiction is misogynistic, or at best clueless and insensitive to the impact it has on female audiences. A great deal of fiction in our culture tells women that their rights are less important than men's, that they exist to serve men's emotional needs and agendas, that their victimization by men should be excused because the men had good reasons or because it was the women's fault somehow, etc. All of that collectively is quite alienating and hurtful. We shouldn't excuse it just because it's always been that way.

I do think it means they can't ever become a couple.

It means far more than that. He didn't just cheat on her or commit some relationship faux pas. He raped her. That is a criminal assault and an abusive act, as much as his torture of Oliver last week, even if the damage isn't as obvious on the surface. And at least with Oliver he had the surface excuse that he was doing it to find Syd. This was something he did to use Syd, to subjugate her own rights and personhood to his own narcissistic fantasy of being the hero who gets the girl as a trophy. The person he claimed to love most, and he denied her very humanity to satisfy himself. That's the act of a pure villain.

I am guessing they will have to redeem him somewhat because the character is the shows main lead. Which means at some point he might really become a hero. Then again he might go down as being a character like Walter White and Tony Soprano as people who are simply not nice people but you still kind of root for them simple because the story is being told from their perspective.

Noah Hawley has cited Walter White as one of his touchstones for David's character arc, so I don't think he's coming back. And if you want the audience to be able to root for a character, you don't make him a rapist.

 

[Jayson1]

That's the thing -- they shouldn't be. A lot of fiction is misogynistic, or at best clueless and insensitive to the impact it has on female audiences. A great deal of fiction in our culture tells women that their rights are less important than men's, that they exist to serve men's emotional needs and agendas, that their victimization by men should be excused because the men had good reasons or because it was the women's fault somehow, etc. All of that collectively is quite alienating and hurtful. We shouldn't excuse it just because it's always been that way.




It means far more than that. He didn't just cheat on her or commit some relationship faux pas. He raped her. That is a criminal assault and an abusive act, as much as his torture of Oliver last week, even if the damage isn't as obvious on the surface. And at least with Oliver he had the surface excuse that he was doing it to find Syd. This was something he did to use Syd, to subjugate her own rights and personhood to his own narcissistic fantasy of being the hero who gets the girl as a trophy. The person he claimed to love most, and he denied her very humanity to satisfy himself. That's the act of a pure villain.




Noah Hawley has cited Walter White as one of his touchstones for David's character arc, so I don't think he's coming back. And if you want the audience to be able to root for a character, you don't make him a rapist.

We have rooted for serial killers,mobsters and all sort of people who would be vile in the real world. Heck we even got a somewhat sympathetic Hitler on "Preacher." We even have had a movie with Kevin Bacon where he plays a child molester. Their is no limits to what type of characters might be interested in. That's because we are watching them from the safety of our tv's and not actually having to interact with them. Heck even been angry or uncomfortable with a character at times are good things because it means they are creating real human emotions out of the audience. I think I might be using a different idea of what "rooting" means.
I think the proper terms are people are more interested in following a character and seeing where he or she goes next. Sometimes you kind of cheer them on because if you understand their motives you can't help but feel something for them no matter how horrible they are. PLus you got that thing about how people love to see people who are good at their jobs. It David has to fight or deal with some type of dangerous threat people are going to want to see him beat it. That was always one of the biggest drawls about Walter White. He was not just good at his job but he was the very best at it, even though the job he was doing was terrible and not that moral.

Jason

 

[Christopher]

^I suggest you talk to the women in your life and ask them if they'd ever be okay with rooting for a rapist. Rape in fiction is a very different thing from murder in fiction, because there aren't a lot of people in the audience who've been murdered.

As I already said, what fiction has done in the past is not an absolute license for what it should do in the present or future. Fiction in the past has tended to consider only the male audience's perspective and be dismissive or actively hostile to the female audience's perspective. We as a society should not merely accept that status quo.

 

[Jayson1]

^I suggest you talk to the women in your life and ask them if they'd ever be okay with rooting for a rapist. Rape in fiction is a very different thing from murder in fiction, because there aren't a lot of people in the audience who've been murdered.

As I already said, what fiction has done in the past is not an absolute license for what it should do in the present or future. Fiction in the past has tended to consider only the male audience's perspective and be dismissive or actively hostile to the female audience's perspective. We as a society should not merely accept that status quo.

Nobody has been murdered but everyone knows what that means by simply having a natural fear of death. I understand some issue's are more sensitve to people than others but following immoral characters is not the same thing as condoning it in real life. I think you underestimate people's ability to separate fiction from reality. David basically stops meaning anything to you once the episode ends and you don't start being interested in him again until the next one starts. Nobody even in these shows that have terrible people ever condone the actions of the characters. They want you to be a little unsettled with them. That's what gives them a edge and makes people interested. David isn't even the first character to cross over the line in terms of sexual abuse on the show. What Syd did when she took over her mom's body and had sex with her boyfriend was pretty awful on one of the few times I have been shocked this year from a tv show. People don't give this stuff a pass so much as say "I understand why the character did that" and sort of go from their. If you understand a character's motivation then that's all you really need to know. If they want to make him more of a hero then he will basically have to earn it on some kind of dramatic level. Which means some kind of punishment or penace or suffering. I think that might be what they do. Faurk goes back inside him or he ends up being a villian at some point but then his final fate is the homeless man we saw in that one world.

 

[Christopher]

Nobody has been murdered but everyone knows what that means by simply having a natural fear of death.

You don't get to speak for "everyone." Each of us has only a finite perspective, and the way we expand beyond that is by listening to other people's opinions, rather than just assuming their opinions would align with our own. And most of all, men in our society need to make a special effort to listen to what women have to say, because too many of us have been conditioned to ignore their voices without even noticing we're doing it. I've read plenty of reviews, from both male and female reviewers but particularly the latter, sharing a consensus that making David a rapist crosses a line that can never be walked back from.

 

[Jayson1]

You don't get to speak for "everyone." Each of us has only a finite perspective, and the way we expand beyond that is by listening to other people's opinions, rather than just assuming their opinions would align with our own. And most of all, men in our society need to make a special effort to listen to what women have to say, because too many of us have been conditioned to ignore their voices without even noticing we're doing it. I've read plenty of reviews, from both male and female reviewers but particularly the latter, sharing a consensus that making David a rapist crosses a line that can never be walked back from.

Well I can only speak form my perspective. Since I see it mostly from a story angle since I don't much care about a tv show or movie on any other level than that. I'm more interested in seeing how the story is crafted than whether people respond favorable to it or not. Well that and the behind the scene's stuff that talk about why they choose to do what they do and things of that nature. I do think certain standards are okay. I wouldn't want more family oriented stuff to do this kind of stuff. I'm not exactly expecting to see "Fuller House" tackle the MeTo movement anytime soon and even stuff above that like "Supergirl" it makes sense to be more conservative in how much edge you have. It's a show that clearly has a young demographic and especially young girls.
I've still not so sure why people want to put any restrictions on more adult level shows. I mean the show's aimed at people who in theory are suppose to be able to handle more graphic stuff. It didn't feel like they were doing it to sexualize the situation. As far as I can tell they handled it pretty much on par with how I would expect a show like this to handle it. Mature and kind of graphic but still one smidge bellow HBO which of course nobody touches when it comes to pushing the envelope. Show does come from the world of comics so that is something that you always have to know but it clearly wants to aim higher at that next level.
The other thing is it's hard to figure out if it's a good or bad choice when the story isn't even over just as yet. If you trust the shows creators up until this point why one shouldn't you have trust they will do finish the story right. Everyone who might be upset might not be when next season roles around and how the David character is written. If tv has proven anything the fans should be ignored when it comes making creative choices and they should follow their own instincts. If this is a turning point for him I expect him to go even deeper. I expect at some point he will want redemption and want to fix what he did which will either completely fail or it will be only half successful but either way he still looses on a personal level.

Jason

 

[Set Harth]

Ultimately he didn't do anything we haven't seen Chris Reeve do up on the silver screen. It's almost like he had a portable time travel device like Cable in Deadpool.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Is it just the act itself that makes it irredeemable or because David did it to Syd? Because Syd committed the same type of rape and people were able to let it go. Granted they made it easier by having Syd be young and the guy a bit of a creep but she destroyed that man's life. Also, I'm sure the writers would be slammed if they gave David an "out" like that for his actions. I'm not proposing a whataboutism that it makes what David did OK but trying to understand the contrast in reactions.

 

[Christopher]

Well I can only speak form my perspective.

No, you can also try listening when other people speak. Your reaction isn't the one that really matters here, because you're obviously not one of the viewers who'd be most affected by the use of rape as a story device. We can't go through life thinking only of how things affect us. We have to consider others as well.

Is it just the act itself that makes it irredeemable or because David did it to Syd? Because Syd committed the same type of rape and people were able to let it go.

It's not really about the characters' actions, though, is it? The characters don't exist. Their actions are stories told by Noah Hawley and his writing staff. It's the writers' decisions to tell the story in a certain way that are being criticized here. And the writers chose to use rape as a story device with both Syd and David. Those aren't two different issues, they're the same issue, because it's the same writers making the decisions. The question isn't what the characters are responsible for, because it's the writers who bear the actual responsibility for what they choose to have the characters do.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

It's not really about the characters' actions, though, is it? The characters don't exist. Their actions are stories told by Noah Hawley and his writing staff. It's the writers' decisions to tell the story in a certain way that are being criticized here. And the writers chose to use rape as a story device with both Syd and David. Those aren't two different issues, they're the same issue, because it's the same writers making the decisions. The question isn't what the characters are responsible for, because it's the writers who bear the actual responsibility for what they choose to have the characters do.

That doesn't explain why David's actions are being seen through a harsher lens than Syd's. I don't want to be accused of not listening but it seems to me your comments have been about David's actions and not that the writers have gone beyond the pale.

 

[crookeddy]

I think the writers have Syd as the character on a redemption arc - she was an awful person before, and now she is not. Is what she did to that man with the shower stunt at all forgivable?

Meanwhile what David did is at least just as bad, but he's clearly the villain of the show now. This was his heel turn, to quote a WWE term. Syd did not forgive him.

 

[crookeddy]

That doesn't explain why David's actions are being seen through a harsher lens than Syd's. I don't want to be accused of not listening but it seems to me your comments have been about David's actions and not that the writers have gone beyond the pale.

He thinks that this scene makes David irredeemable. I accept that. Syd might also be irredeemable, but I think she has a full understanding that what she did was entirely wrong and is trying to atone.

 

[Christopher]

That doesn't explain why David's actions are being seen through a harsher lens than Syd's. I don't want to be accused of not listening but it seems to me your comments have been about David's actions and not that the writers have gone beyond the pale.

They're the same thing. David is merely a construct created by the writers. His "actions" are the writers' story choices.

However, I think the difference is pretty obvious. What Syd did was the action of a child, an adolescent who didn't understand consent issues and was in many ways as much a victim of the situation as were the adults involved. The power dynamic is more ambiguous there, and nobody was really the villain. There's no such ambiguity in what David did to Syd. It's like the difference between a kid playing with a gun that accidentally goes off and an adult deliberately shooting someone. The harm done is the same, but there's a significant difference in culpability.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Well, I rewatched this and it is definitely unsavory at times though that does seem to be the point.

I'm not sure what is to be made of Shadow King speaking to Syd through the rat before the trial. That seems to serve no purpose but to undermine the power of the revelations that follow which seems an odd way to go dramatically. Like how can we be sure about how Syd feels about what happened when SK is whispering in her sleep. (I don't know if SK bursting from a projection of Syd during their battle could be some sort of hint/foreshadow as well)

In rewatching, it's sinister to hear David assure Lenny that "God" has plans for her knowing he absconds with her at the end.
"It's, uh, straight to the electric chair for me, kid."
"No, God has plans for you."
"I don't believe in God."
"I think you do."

And, damn there's a lot to unpack in David and Syd's conversation in the desert. Also, the lyrics to "Behind Blue Eyes" are quite remarkable, aren't they?

Interesting that just before he breaks out he stops hearing the voices. Is he now the actual sum of his parts, good and bad, that were once distributed through his voices and personalities?

 

[Set Harth]

an adolescent who didn't understand consent issues

She's sketched as a pretty intelligent character, you'd think she could understand the concept of consent by that age.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not sure what is to be made of Shadow King speaking to Syd through the rat before the trial. That seems to serve no purpose but to undermine the power of the revelations that follow which seems an odd way to go dramatically. Like how can we be sure about how Syd feels about what happened when SK is whispering in her sleep.

I took it as Farouk telling Syd the truth that David had erased from her mind. (And it was a mouse, not a rat. Rats are bigger.)

 

[Snaploud]

I think Syd's actions as a fifteen-year-old were roughly equivalent to David's actions as an adult. Both of them committed rape. Syd even went so far as to let her victim be arrested on life-destroying charges.

 

[Christopher]

I think Syd's actions as a fifteen-year-old were roughly equivalent to David's actions as an adult.

The law generally sees a difference between the two in terms of their expected ability to understand and take responsibility for their actions. That's why juveniles aren't subject to penalties as harsh as adults for equivalent crimes.