Voice of Reason: Season Five: Fanatic

Fanatic

Overall

At a recent screenwriting workshop, a lunch-project was working on retelling a popular myth. The exercise aptly demonstrated what dangerous territory retellings are - and this week's episode succumbed to all the popular pitfalls.

The great danger of retellings is that, with so much plot and setting to cover - creating a world, fixing on a genre, deciding what years of a myth to cover, translating old stories into a modern world - there is a tendency to forget the actual characters. The story and plot are tackled and worked out so energetically that the characters end up being transplanted, used like useless statues to serve the story. Symbols on the diagram. Pieces on the gameboard. I felt, in watching this episode, that I was watching a plot.

Part of the characters' hollowness came through because the writers evidently hadn't predetermined what the characters' issues were; so having the characters spell it out to each other was like "Attack of the Clone Wars: Revisited". ("Lex, why is some state senate seat so important to you?" "It's a stepping stone." Never is life that simple.)

Part of it was because the issues everyone had were recycled. Jonathan worked through his parental deficiencies in Season Three (notably "Legacy," when Jonathan stood at his father's grave and had a talk with Clark about his own insecurity). He also kept a much bigger life-changing secret. Clark went through his fear of hurting Lana in the end of Season Two/beginning of Season Three, and handled it much more earnestly and self-sacrificingly than he did in this episode. In Season One, Lex introduced Someone into an activity involving the Kents and their secrets, but was horrified when Someone took it to a serious, life-changing level. ("I would never hurt the Kents." Deja vu.) The emotions this episode evoked (excluding disbelief) were on so much simpler a plane that comparisons had to be unfavorable. Jonathan offered to give up his life, not to appear at a rally, but to save his son from Jor-El. How can I feel moved now, by his reasonless obstinacy? Lionel has been suspected of having people killed before (the doctors who crossed him, etc.), so that by the end of Season Three a mere glimpse of him was bone-chilling. I can't bring myself to feel disturbed by Lex's "Griff is dead" line. This episode consisted of borrowed plot points and situations, each unable to stand next to the original.

But the greatest reason the characters did not live was because all of them - Jonathan, Clark, Lex, and Martha - were defined by their moods. "Do as I say, not as I do," as Clark suggests, barely covers it. The more accurate rule would be, "Do as I say now, not as I said yesterday." And it all goes back to the Rule. When Clark wants something more, Jonathan wants him to stay away from the spotlight. When Clark is content, Jonathan walks into the spotlight himself, inviting danger. When Martha and Lionel were working together, she felt discomfort and fear mixed in with the attraction, and told him that the gift-giving was inappropriate. Now that he's a proven murderer who had Clark experimented on, she's willing to borrow money from him behind Jonathan's back. Lex's moods dictate whether he gives the public a life-shattering piece of information about Jonathan or earnestly defends the Kents (within 48 hours).

The clearest example of this came in the hospital Jonathan/Clark conversation. At the beginning, Clark is surprised that Jonathan thinks Lex would go so far as to have him beaten. (And, put into plain English, it looks as absurd as it is.) Jonathan tells him that there is no limit to what Lex would do and, instead of defending him as he always used to, Clark immediately gets a set angry look on his face, and his first words to Lex are, "Trust me, this is as close to my father as you want to get right now." Clark is a pawn in the game between Jonathan and Lex – convinced by either one or the other, never defining a place where he stands in the issue. It's time for Clark to get a personality and a stance for himself, instead of just reacting to the personalities of everyone else.

Finally, for a plot-based episode, very little happened beyond the logline - "Jonathan receives threats and Clark finds him beaten." A lot of screentime was activity, unrelated bustling about - for example, having Sosnik inadequate and Lois as campaign manager didn't really change anything.

A filler episode here or there is to be expected, I know; but I prefer filler along the line of "Thirst" - even with a dubious main plot, "Thirst" had moments that defined and characters that grew.

Verdict: 3.4

Good/Bad Moments

What did the opening recap have to do with anything? Usually they recap the events of the season if they are leading to some sort of climax, with everything coming together…but nothing came together in this episode. It was as if they were preparing new viewers for the episodes two weeks down the road.
John Schneider did a good job walking out onto the platform, slightly awkward – looking out of place without being embarrassing.
The smile Jonathan gave to Martha was somewhat sickly.
Nice camera shot, showing Jonathan and then descending into the gun's point of view as he says, "But the truth is actually…"
Nice close shot of the female eye. On watching it a second time, it looked like Samantha's, but on the first viewing it passed for Lois's.
"Dad, are you sure this guy knows what he's doing?" The guy was standing in the same room with them, and they're surrounded by the workers he's hired – that was strangely discourteous. Not that Clark hasn't gotten into the habit of being rude lately, but usually one of the parents would shush him, instead of explaining calmly.
"What do I know about being a campaign manager?" "What do I know about being a state senator?" This line should have been taken out, as it immediately makes you wonder (again), "What does either one know?" In some ways, "Jonathan as Senator" is this season's "Clark as Football Player/Jock". It makes a little arc, some friction, fills up an episode here and there…but it stands out, glaringly out of place.
"I told you not to call here again." Jonathan quickly hangs up, then opens the case of pills and takes a red pill. Dark music. I think they should have gone into this more fully: as it is, he might just be taking an aspirin. If he is, they should have shown that it was an aspirin by putting it in a normal medicine bottle. If he isn't, they should have shown a little more – where he got it, or that he didn't want someone to see him taking it, or something else suspicious.
The whole scene of confrontation between Lois and Samantha could have been cut. Although it was fun to see the girls pitted against each other, making it personal for the climax, the only action was Lois's twit and Samantha's horrified reaction. As a result, it looked too much like Samantha was moved to her actions by Lois saying, "Mr. Kent is neck and neck with your fascist environmental annihilator." (She leaves muttering that defeat is not an option, etc., then the next time you see her she is engaged in her plot.) That's a very weak catalyst for something so drastic. The writers needed to come up with a stronger trigger, and if they wanted the Lois-Samantha confrontation they could have slid it in during the scene.
"Leave it to Lex to treat this like a hostile takeover." This was actually an insightful remark. We've seen Lex treat life like a business many times, applying his maxims and proverbs diligently, and this remark brought it all together. Now if only his actions coincided.
"Maybe I'll never understand what you went through, but you're still the same person, aren't you?" I didn't like the delivery of this line. Lana sounded offended and challenging, instead of compassionate, like she was reaching out to him, reaching for something she remembered.
"It feels like you're afraid to touch me anymore. Did something happen?" Unusual insight and consideration for Lana, which made Clark's reaction all the more unbelievable.
The whole Clark-Lana "secrets" scene was very season four-ish. In no other season would Clark turn Lana's questions into an accusation about Lana's secrets…although, of course, in no other season did Lana keep weird, obscure secrets or throw drama-queen accusations at him, either. As I said above, he went through the exact same thing at the end of Season Two and very early Season Three – fear that whoever he came into contact with would get hurt. Brushing near a relationship, then something happening and leaping away to protect her from his presence. But he never tried to pin it on her. Sometimes Superman seems farther away than ever.
"I got to go get some air." She said it so pettishly. The drama queen in Lana isn't entirely gone from season four, and scenes like this remind us of it.
They should have shown Clark's reflection on the mirror when Lana closed the door, Clark looking vulnerable. They often use the shot with Clark facing to the side of the camera, one of the girls standing behind him, his face vulnerable, like he's hiding something from them that we aren't meant to see. This would be another shot where we've stumbled upon his vulnerability and are quieted.
As Martha looked at the poster of Jonathan, then turned and had her conversation with Lionel, peculiarly out-of-place, aimless music played in the background. Every scene she had with Lionel was plagued by the same problem, the music not matching the emotion. As a result my emotions were torn into two different directions, and I couldn't keep them up: eventually I was just an onlooker again.
Aggravating the problem, Martha's acting was very weird, smiling the whole time, even while rolling her eyes. I'm sure it was meant to indicate that she enjoyed the attention while she tried to convince herself and Lionel that she was off-limits, but I found her acting more convincing in "Memoria" and "Insurgence".
"I thought you knew me better than that, Lionel. I would never give up on my husband." The first line negates the second, implying an intimate knowledge of her character. That was hard for me to believe, as Lionel has never been attracted to (or interested in) anyone's character, but only specific qualities he considered valuable, like her business savvy. I couldn't imagine any offscreen scenes between them from Season Two when he actually got to know her, as this line implied.
"Ooh," as if she really wants to thank him and is still irritated because he's making this hard. Pause. Then, as if saying something she's supposed to say, "We've run the campaign on his beliefs, and that's what's going to win him the election. Jonathan would never accept this." This time, the last line negates the first. It deliberately separates her from Jonathan. This line was well-written in its subtle messages, but perhaps over-acted.
The music reached its worst as Lionel said, "I know, I fully expected Jonathan to barrel his way through the campaign fueled by blind idealism…"
"I think I got used to lying to Lana when we were friends…" But he never got used to it. He hated it, it tormented him. The writers inadvertently pinpointed a problem here – now Clark's adjusted to lying. That should be Lex's problem, not Clark's: instead, we rarely see Lex lie. Their reversal of roles was very clear in this episode.
"I think you're in denial territory about what Lana knows. I mean, she's studying astronomy." (good music here) "The meteors, the fact that the undead topic comes up daily…" "But I can't just tell her, it's too risky." "Okay, fine, Clark, then don't tell her about it; but you need to switch your game from defense to offense, because sooner or later, Lana's going to start asking all the wrong people all the right questions." This dialogue could have made an entire episode. I wish the writers had explored the substance behind the words - made it visual instead of verbal. Shown Lana bringing it up more than once, making curiously accurate observations (instead of the generic, safe "It's not coincidence" line), created that dangerous atmosphere and depicted Clark's struggle, instead of going the safe and well-travelled "argument/hiatus/reunion" road. I like the dialogue, but it should have been the turning point of a journey, not the whole journey.
They should have shown Clark rescuing Jonathan, instead of standing there staring.
Jonathan's insistence on "seeing it through" hearkened back to his driven, obstinate, passionate Season Three days…and the comparison put this episode at a disadvantage.
"'Do as I say, not as I do,' huh, Dad?" "I never taught you to buckle under pressure, especially not from Lex Luthor." "Lex? You think he'd go this far?"

"There's no limit to what Lex Luthor would do, son."

Clark leaves, immediately angered and convinced.
He is as pliant as a reed. He had a much stronger character – and a much stronger calling – in the first season, sharing Cassandra's vision, standing up naively for Lex. Lex was the dark, experienced one. It needs to be Clark reaching out to Lex and being rejected.
"Clark. I heard what happened, I just wanted to make sure your father's okay." Which is the right thing to do. The Kents and Lex have been through a lot together. "Trust me, this is about as close to my father as you want to get right now." If he had said this in a low tone, as if tipping Lex off to leave, that would be one thing. But the whole delivery of this dialogue was resentful and hostile. I really don't like Tom Welling's interpretation of this relationship right now. "He thinks I was behind it, doesn't he?" "What do you expect him to believe?" This was another strange deflection, as if Lex's actions toward them made the far-fetched idea believable, when Lex is constantly reaching out to them. "Maybe the truth. I issued a press release denouncing the attack and offering a reward for any information leading to the assailant's capture. I need you to believe me." Lex is appealing to Clark to fulfill a need, wanting Clark's friendship. Clark rejects him. Lex waits, then shakes his head and walks away, having been let down once again.
"Lex, why is some state senate seat so important to you?" It really gets to me that after indicating that he won't believe anything Lex says, Clark asks him a personal question. Why does he want to know? Is it because he cares about Lex? No, obviously not, since he just concluded that dialogue. He can't have any faith in the Lex of the past, the old friend Lex, living on, if he didn't have the most elemental faith in his word that he didn't beat up Jonathan. So why does he ask, if not from civilian curiosity? What I find really hard to believe is that Lex actually answers, not with a rebuff or even a proverb, but with complete vulnerable honesty. "It's a stepping stone." "To what?" "That's like Apollo asking Icarus why he's building wings. Look, Clark, you have everything you've ever wanted. I'm sorry if I'm still searching." That appeal should have moved Clark if anything could. And for a moment Clark seemed almost, well, human again. "What if you don't win? What if you get to the Capitol and realize that you still haven't found what you're looking for?" "Well, there's always the White House. Look, I promise you, we're going to find out who did this to your dad." Again, Clark looks at him blankly and Lex walks away.
Lex did everything right in that conversation. His motives were perfectly clear. Clark's were inexplicable. We knew what was going on in Lex's head. We had no idea what was going on in Clark's. I find it truly hard to believe that Clark could treat Lex as if he were no longer Lex, as if he had nothing of the old friend in him, as if they did not have a history together. Clark treats him without basic respect, sometimes with such disrespect as to be notably insulting. This Clark is incomprehensible, a self-contradictory idea without any substance. If the writers want to restore Clark's old, endearing, pre-Superman person, they need to stop bending the character to serve the story, and let the story serve the character. Clark used to seek out Lex and was slow to understand when Lex was, in self-deceiving, self-justifiable ways, taking advantage of him. Now Lex is seeking Clark out and quickly understanding as Clark spurns him. It should be the other way around. Clark's impulse should be to save people, not reject them. And Lex's impulse should be that he takes Clark's support so much for granted that he takes advantage more and more, until he crosses the line.
"Please tell me you weren't responsible for that attack." "You may have read everything about me, but don't assume you know me. I would never hurt the Kents." This was strongly reminiscent of Season One, when Nixon threatened to release the information they had on Clark, and Lex very strongly protected the Kents. Which makes it all the stranger that Lex is simultaneously working at overthrowing Jonathan with scandal.
"You're losing your edge, Lex." "And you've clearly gone over it." I loved that line.
She knocks him out with a loud crash and nobody bothers to come check on him? In the old days he's had several bodyguards waiting within hearing.
"Lex Luthor going 'Godfather' on your dad? I don't know, Clark, Lex seems like the kind of guy who lives for the fight as much as the victory." It was good to have Chloe's good sense to counteract Jonathan's vivid imagination and Clark's feet of clay.
"You know, it's not like your dad to keep something like this a secret." Season Three: he made a devil's bargain with Jor-El and kept the secret all season. "He's kind of turned into a different person lately, like he's got something to prove to everyone." Again, we are reliving Season Three. "Or maybe just his son." "What does running for senator have to do with me?" "…It must be kind of hard trying to be a role model for a guy who pulls people out of burning buildings and stops nuclear missiles all between chores and dinner." We saw all this in Season Three, in particular "Legacy". And then we didn't need an outside character to tell us, but saw it working from the inside, as Jonathan struggled with his insufficiency and inadvertently referred to Jor-El as "your real father".
"They're Martha's words, not mine." That was a nice realistic touch.
Cute, startling moment when Lois drinks the coffee after Jonathan.
"Look, magna-cum-laude psycho…" They've established that Lois has a talent for calling people names – they could actually use this verbal creativity to make her more Lois Lane-ish, if they chose.
My favorite moment of the episode – Clark landing with the bullet in his hand, and Jonathan doing his double-take.
As they hurried Jonathan off the stage, they should have had Jonathan looking back, and had his and Clark's eyes meet.
"You know, you really don't have to quote 'The Art of War' to me, Dad. I read it cover to cover three times before I finished high school. Although, I still would have preferred a bike for my fourteenth birthday." That wasn't the way Lex would inform his father of things. In fact, Lex probably wouldn't inform him of those things at all. He doesn't expose himself to Lionel; the closest he gets is still evasive. ("What is it you want from me?" "Doesn't really matter, Dad. I'm never going to get it.") This yelling out for attention was far too direct and childish - Lex doesn't angle for attention unless it's through business.
"How does it feel, Lex, to have people worship you?" "Being the idol for a cult of psychopaths isn't exactly a power trip, Dad." "Oh, but I suppose being a state senator would be. Isn't that why you're running for office?" I wish they would stop having Lionel sharing his insights about Lex. It was one thing when he was deliberately trying to cast confusion, stating things that we knew to be untrue or exaggerated in order to impress on him a sense of weakness. Talking about his illness and incompetence, etc. But what's the point of these pronouncements? We don't know if they're true or not, so they tell us nothing about Lex or Lionel.
"You want to know the truth? I'm running because it's something I actually have to work for." "Yes, and your noble efforts include employing hired guns to dig up information about the Kents that could destroy them." "Well, so much for your fatherly pride and support in this campaign, huh, Dad?" This conveniently illustrates the chaos of this conversation. We don't know if Lex's first statement is true, just as we don't know if Lionel's first statement is true. It tells us nothing about Lex or Lionel. Lionel's second observation points out the schizophrenic nature of Lex's behavior (which we'd noticed), but instead of going anywhere with the idea, the topic halts. Lex turns it around on Lionel, as if he deserved some support he wasn't receiving - which, considering Lionel's accusation a line earlier, is startlingly illogical. The three consecutive statements didn't seem to have anything to do with each other, on the surface or underneath.
"Griff's dead. His body turned up in the back of Suicide Slums this morning and, somehow, I don't think the Kents did it." The irony of his comment made me laugh.
Lionel slaps book on Lex's chest the way he slapped Lionel with it, walking past. Although I appreciated the meaningful parallel and underlying competition, I thought slapping them in that manner was a bit too familiar, especially for Lionel.
"Good news. You're up ten points in the polls after the rally yesterday." They could have started the scene with a newspaper clipping being added to a scrapbook tracking progress, someone announcing it on local news, etc. Somehow saying it outright seems contrived, although it isn't a major plot point.
"What do you mean?" Martha looks so serene as she asks. "There is…one other option…but you have to promise me never to tell Jonathan." Again, she doesn't seem guilty or worried, just peaceful. I thought that delivery was very unlike Martha. She would be worried, like any wife, knowing how Jonathan feels (or felt) about Lionel, not wanting to toss a match amidst the dynamite.
The Depeche Mode music, unlike their music in "Arrival," definitely didn't fit the conclusion. It was like hearing an abstract painting. Few people want to watch abstract television, and personally I didn't want to hear abstract music, especially during scenes that were key. The music is what sets the atmosphere and cements the scene, and this music scattered the scenes into little fragments.
It's a nice touch to have Lana looking through the telescope now...but it seems like that should draw Clark and Lana together, not the opposite. They are both searchers, asking why they are here, and what plans destiny has for them; and they're both looking for the answers in the past, their history. (At least, that used to be Clark's role, though now he is always running from who he is and trying to fit in.) It seems like moments like these should be the key to their relationship, instead of the wedge between them. If they could get Clark's role right, they would be.
"I freak out, I screw up, and I blame everything on you, and you forgive me, no questions asked." "Maybe that's because it's not all your fault. What you said about me running off to Met U and getting all caught up in my homework...wasn't entirely false. Clark, I've been studying the meteor showers." Why is this a confession? I found this moment strange, as if she's guiltily admitting something. Why shouldn't she study them? Under what guise can Clark really reproach her? This is the odd kink in their relationship - this and the dramatic wide-eyed whisper of "Secrets!"
"It, um…well, it kind of lands." She's trying not to grin. "Clark, what if something came down in that first meteor shower as well, and whoever was in it has been with us this entire time?" Her eyes glowing with weird energy and excitement. I still don't understand her Isobel-ish enthusiasm. The girl with abandonment issues is one thing - the girl who touches a spaceship like it's a ritual and whispers like she's chanting rites is entirely different. This isn't a search for answers about herself, it's more like a mystic quest.
"Clark, what if something came down in that first meteor shower as well, and whoever was in it has been with us this entire time?" This would have been the perfect time for Clark to delve into it - ask her what she would think about that, as he did with Chloe in "Visitor" (on the proposition of a seemingly human kid being extraterrestrial). It was strange that they cut short this conversation.
"Thank you for coming." She looks around, hoping no one sees her, Lionel gazing at her, "I'm always here for you, Martha." First Martha's line implies that she is the one who contacted Lionel, then Lionel's line and look were so pointed that, in "Insurgence", she would have become disconcerted. Yet now she sails on happily. Martha's boldness in enjoying Lionel's advances was uncharacteristic in this episode.

Details

Another try with the "Zero" and "Spirit" format, introducing with the present, then flashing back to explain it all. This worked better here than it did for "Spirit," because it didn't tell the whole story. Unfortunately, there wasn't much more to tell anyway. We knew from this intro that the climax would be Clark rushing to stop the bullet, but we still didn't know why Lois was behind the gun. Personally I prefer not to know the climax beforehand, but it wasn't a heart-racing climax to begin with, and it did introduce the question of "Why Lois" in an intriguing way. My favorite episode with this layout is still "Zero," though.
"I don't think they really understood why I want to run, or why this is so very important to me. But the truth is actually, it's actually very simple. The courage to help all Kansans, whether they're rich, or whether they're poor, and do my very best to put the heart back in the heartland." For one thing, that makes no sense, even during the second showing when they added more. It still says "This is why I want to run. The courage to help all Kansans." For another, why does Jonathan want to run? With the doubts he's had about his adequacy, his extreme protectiveness of Clark and his secret, his strict "stay out of the spotlight" mantra, what could make him do this? Chloe's perhaps-too-apt explanation seems the most reasonable, but if so, there were a thousand little ways they could have handled this issue of inadequacy better. The writers need to take a look back at Season Three's haunted, broken Jonathan with a fierce love for his son.
Why "48 hours earlier" instead of "two days earlier"?
It's interesting, the difference between Jonathan's slogan and Lex's. Jonathan's: "Bringing Kansas back." Lex's: "Looking to the Future." Personally, I think Lex's is the more practical slogan, but Jonathan's, based in the past, will get the kind of voters he wants, those with values considered to be "old-fashioned".
"Thucydides said, 'We are either kings among men, or the pawns of kings.'" Wouldn't that make the college kids pawns? Lex tells them, "The fact that you're here demonstrates that you strive for the former," but the way they're lined up in front of him conveys something very different from kingship. In terms of a chessboard, they look like pawns, and Lex is certainly the king. I'm not sure if this was supposed to show the irony of Lex's flattery, or if the contradiction was unintentional.
"You want a grenade to throw in the Kent camp? I got an atomic bomb." I suppose one of the purposes of this episode was to raise the question, "What's the evidence?" Perhaps I wasn't paying close enough attention, but it seemed to me that this question wasn't stressed enough – after one viewing, the question for me was not, "What's the evidence?" but "Did anything happen?" Part of it is the law of diminishing returns – they've so often shown ambiguous evidence in Lionel's hands that I'm inured to it – plus after seeing Clark strapped to a table being experimented on under Lionel's orders, a piece of paper doesn't seem nearly so intimidating. I have to know exactly what's at stake in order to get worried.
"Perhaps you have your own personal reasons for wanting Jonathan not to win." Was this a reference to the destroyed evidence? Meaning that she feared the spotlight would reveal something about Clark? That was the only meaning I could find, but she seemed to know what he was talking about. Bewildering moment.
"It's like you're afraid to touch me now." Strange, I didn't notice Clark having any problems with the suntan lotion or flirty kiss in "Aqua".
"Everything was fine between Lana and I when I was human." Grammar alert. It should be "Lana and me". "Everything was fine with me/Everything was fine between Lana and me," not "Everything was fine with I/Everything was fine between Lana and I."
Why does Samantha slap herself before shaving? Is it self-discipline because she hesitates, self-inspiration that she can stand anything including shaving her head?
Speaking of which, what relevance does Samantha's head-shaving have? She could have kept her hair and there wouldn't have been any difference in the plot. It seemed like a gimmick for effect, but useless to the plot.
"I waited at the dropoff, but Griff never showed. Find out what happened to him." They should have shown Lex standing outside the telephone booth in the rain, waiting, maybe catching sight of a drop of blood and following the trail, or maybe cutting straight to him entering the study, talking on the phone. As it was, there was a noticeable gap in timing. This incident is presumably a few hours before Jonathan's speech; but a little under "48 hours earlier" than Jonathan's speech was when Griff originally called Lex and told him to met him there. (Lex had just finished speaking to the students – his first scene.) It's been almost two days since he missed Griff at the dropoff, but he's only looking into it now? Of course, Griff could have meant "meet me in two days," or "meet me tomorrow," but it's unlike Lex to be willing to wait, especially two days. Also, if this were the day after Griff called, Samantha would have had to pack in a lot of action in twenty-four hours…and then there would be a long space of no action before the speech. This timing needed correcting, and the incident needed something more visual.
"Don't they always say never use your birthday as your security code? Or, more specifically, your brother's?" I liked it that they explained how she got in by her obsessive knowledge about his family. Incidentally, brother or half-brother – Julian or Lucas?
Why was the "Open, Come In" sign at the campaign room on the inside of the door?
Clark finds two masked bodies, and the first thing he does is look at the hair? Why doesn't he check to see who's been killed, instead of tampering with evidence?
"They're Martha's words, not mine. I just hope she shows up in time to hear me say them." What does he mean? Where was Martha?
Why did Clark show up late, and wearing his street clothing? He goes to the Daily Planet in Metropolis, then stops by the college and finds the bodies, then goes to the rally and arrives in the middle? I guess if I had the ability to speed like that, I would tend to plan things for the last minute too; but if, as Pete said in "Truth," it takes about ten minutes for Clark to get to Metropolis and back – and he's picked up speed since then – then Clark must have left the house to go to the Daily Planet about thirty minutes before the speech started, at the most. Probably less. Why would he put off asking about the phone number until a half hour before the speech was starting? This should have been done hours before.
As Clark runs through the crowd in slow motion, all of the people definitely look computer-generated, not frozen.
Nice effect, the balloon popping. My favorite effect of the episode.




Fanatic Overall At a recent screenwriting workshop, a lunch-project was working on retelling a popular myth. The exercise aptly demonstrated what dangerous territory retellings are - and this week's episode succumbed to all the popular pitfalls. The great danger of retellings is that, with so much plot and setting to cover - creating a world, fixing on a genre, deciding what years of a myth to cover, translating old stories into a modern world - there is a tendency to forget the actual characters. The story and plot are tackled and worked out so energetically that the characters end up being transplanted, used like useless statues to serve the story. Symbols on the diagram. Pieces on the gameboard. I felt, in watching this episode, that I was watching a plot. Part of the characters' hollowness came through because the writers evidently hadn't predetermined what the characters' issues were; so having the characters spell it out to each other was like "Attack of the Clone Wars: Revisited". ("Lex, why is some state senate seat so important to you?" "It's a stepping stone." Never is life that simple.) Part of it was because the issues everyone had were recycled. Jonathan worked through his parental deficiencies in Season Three (notably "Legacy," when Jonathan stood at his father's grave and had a talk with Clark about his own insecurity). He also kept a much bigger life-changing secret. Clark went through his fear of hurting Lana in the end of Season Two/beginning of Season Three, and handled it much more earnestly and self-sacrificingly than he did in this episode. In Season One, Lex introduced Someone into an activity involving the Kents and their secrets, but was horrified when Someone took it to a serious, life-changing level. ("I would never hurt the Kents." Deja vu.) The emotions this episode evoked (excluding disbelief) were on so much simpler a plane that comparisons had to be unfavorable. Jonathan offered to give up his life, not to appear at a rally, but to save his son from Jor-El. How can I feel moved now, by his reasonless obstinacy? Lionel has been suspected of having people killed before (the doctors who crossed him, etc.), so that by the end of Season Three a mere glimpse of him was bone-chilling. I can't bring myself to feel disturbed by Lex's "Griff is dead" line. This episode consisted of borrowed plot points and situations, each unable to stand next to the original. But the greatest reason the characters did not live was because all of them - Jonathan, Clark, Lex, and Martha - were defined by their moods. "Do as I say, not as I do," as Clark suggests, barely covers it. The more accurate rule would be, "Do as I say now, not as I said yesterday." And it all goes back to the Rule. When Clark wants something more, Jonathan wants him to stay away from the spotlight. When Clark is content, Jonathan walks into the spotlight himself, inviting danger. When Martha and Lionel were working together, she felt discomfort and fear mixed in with the attraction, and told him that the gift-giving was inappropriate. Now that he's a proven murderer who had Clark experimented on, she's willing to borrow money from him behind Jonathan's back. Lex's moods dictate whether he gives the public a life-shattering piece of information about Jonathan or earnestly defends the Kents (within 48 hours). The clearest example of this came in the hospital Jonathan/Clark conversation. At the beginning, Clark is surprised that Jonathan thinks Lex would go so far as to have him beaten. (And, put into plain English, it looks as absurd as it is.) Jonathan tells him that there is no limit to what Lex would do and, instead of defending him as he always used to, Clark immediately gets a set angry look on his face, and his first words to Lex are, "Trust me, this is as close to my father as you want to get right now." Clark is a pawn in the game between Jonathan and Lex – convinced by either one or the other, never defining a place where he stands in the issue. It's time for Clark to get a personality and a stance for himself, instead of just reacting to the personalities of everyone else. Finally, for a plot-based episode, very little happened beyond the logline - "Jonathan receives threats and Clark finds him beaten." A lot of screentime was activity, unrelated bustling about - for example, having Sosnik inadequate and Lois as campaign manager didn't really change anything. A filler episode here or there is to be expected, I know; but I prefer filler along the line of "Thirst" - even with a dubious main plot, "Thirst" had moments that defined and characters that grew. Verdict: 3.4 Good/Bad Moments What did the opening recap have to do with anything? Usually they recap the events of the season if they are leading to some sort of climax, with everything coming together…but nothing came together in this episode. It was as if they were preparing new viewers for the episodes two weeks down the road. John Schneider did a good job walking out onto the platform, slightly awkward – looking out of place without being embarrassing. The smile Jonathan gave to Martha was somewhat sickly. Nice camera shot, showing Jonathan and then descending into the gun's point of view as he says, "But the truth is actually…" Nice close shot of the female eye. On watching it a second time, it looked like Samantha's, but on the first viewing it passed for Lois's. "Dad, are you sure this guy knows what he's doing?" The guy was standing in the same room with them, and they're surrounded by the workers he's hired – that was strangely discourteous. Not that Clark hasn't gotten into the habit of being rude lately, but usually one of the parents would shush him, instead of explaining calmly. "What do I know about being a campaign manager?" "What do I know about being a state senator?" This line should have been taken out, as it immediately makes you wonder (again), "What does either one know?" In some ways, "Jonathan as Senator" is this season's "Clark as Football Player/Jock". It makes a little arc, some friction, fills up an episode here and there…but it stands out, glaringly out of place. "I told you not to call here again." Jonathan quickly hangs up, then opens the case of pills and takes a red pill. Dark music. I think they should have gone into this more fully: as it is, he might just be taking an aspirin. If he is, they should have shown that it was an aspirin by putting it in a normal medicine bottle. If he isn't, they should have shown a little more – where he got it, or that he didn't want someone to see him taking it, or something else suspicious. The whole scene of confrontation between Lois and Samantha could have been cut. Although it was fun to see the girls pitted against each other, making it personal for the climax, the only action was Lois's twit and Samantha's horrified reaction. As a result, it looked too much like Samantha was moved to her actions by Lois saying, "Mr. Kent is neck and neck with your fascist environmental annihilator." (She leaves muttering that defeat is not an option, etc., then the next time you see her she is engaged in her plot.) That's a very weak catalyst for something so drastic. The writers needed to come up with a stronger trigger, and if they wanted the Lois-Samantha confrontation they could have slid it in during the scene. "Leave it to Lex to treat this like a hostile takeover." This was actually an insightful remark. We've seen Lex treat life like a business many times, applying his maxims and proverbs diligently, and this remark brought it all together. Now if only his actions coincided. "Maybe I'll never understand what you went through, but you're still the same person, aren't you?" I didn't like the delivery of this line. Lana sounded offended and challenging, instead of compassionate, like she was reaching out to him, reaching for something she remembered. "It feels like you're afraid to touch me anymore. Did something happen?" Unusual insight and consideration for Lana, which made Clark's reaction all the more unbelievable. The whole Clark-Lana "secrets" scene was very season four-ish. In no other season would Clark turn Lana's questions into an accusation about Lana's secrets…although, of course, in no other season did Lana keep weird, obscure secrets or throw drama-queen accusations at him, either. As I said above, he went through the exact same thing at the end of Season Two and very early Season Three – fear that whoever he came into contact with would get hurt. Brushing near a relationship, then something happening and leaping away to protect her from his presence. But he never tried to pin it on her. Sometimes Superman seems farther away than ever. "I got to go get some air." She said it so pettishly. The drama queen in Lana isn't entirely gone from season four, and scenes like this remind us of it. They should have shown Clark's reflection on the mirror when Lana closed the door, Clark looking vulnerable. They often use the shot with Clark facing to the side of the camera, one of the girls standing behind him, his face vulnerable, like he's hiding something from them that we aren't meant to see. This would be another shot where we've stumbled upon his vulnerability and are quieted. As Martha looked at the poster of Jonathan, then turned and had her conversation with Lionel, peculiarly out-of-place, aimless music played in the background. Every scene she had with Lionel was plagued by the same problem, the music not matching the emotion. As a result my emotions were torn into two different directions, and I couldn't keep them up: eventually I was just an onlooker again. Aggravating the problem, Martha's acting was very weird, smiling the whole time, even while rolling her eyes. I'm sure it was meant to indicate that she enjoyed the attention while she tried to convince herself and Lionel that she was off-limits, but I found her acting more convincing in "Memoria" and "Insurgence". "I thought you knew me better than that, Lionel. I would never give up on my husband." The first line negates the second, implying an intimate knowledge of her character. That was hard for me to believe, as Lionel has never been attracted to (or interested in) anyone's character, but only specific qualities he considered valuable, like her business savvy. I couldn't imagine any offscreen scenes between them from Season Two when he actually got to know her, as this line implied. "Ooh," as if she really wants to thank him and is still irritated because he's making this hard. Pause. Then, as if saying something she's supposed to say, "We've run the campaign on his beliefs, and that's what's going to win him the election. Jonathan would never accept this." This time, the last line negates the first. It deliberately separates her from Jonathan. This line was well-written in its subtle messages, but perhaps over-acted. The music reached its worst as Lionel said, "I know, I fully expected Jonathan to barrel his way through the campaign fueled by blind idealism…" "I think I got used to lying to Lana when we were friends…" But he never got used to it. He hated it, it tormented him. The writers inadvertently pinpointed a problem here – now Clark's adjusted to lying. That should be Lex's problem, not Clark's: instead, we rarely see Lex lie. Their reversal of roles was very clear in this episode. "I think you're in denial territory about what Lana knows. I mean, she's studying astronomy." (good music here) "The meteors, the fact that the undead topic comes up daily…" "But I can't just tell her, it's too risky." "Okay, fine, Clark, then don't tell her about it; but you need to switch your game from defense to offense, because sooner or later, Lana's going to start asking all the wrong people all the right questions." This dialogue could have made an entire episode. I wish the writers had explored the substance behind the words - made it visual instead of verbal. Shown Lana bringing it up more than once, making curiously accurate observations (instead of the generic, safe "It's not coincidence" line), created that dangerous atmosphere and depicted Clark's struggle, instead of going the safe and well-travelled "argument/hiatus/reunion" road. I like the dialogue, but it should have been the turning point of a journey, not the whole journey. They should have shown Clark rescuing Jonathan, instead of standing there staring. Jonathan's insistence on "seeing it through" hearkened back to his driven, obstinate, passionate Season Three days…and the comparison put this episode at a disadvantage. "'Do as I say, not as I do,' huh, Dad?" "I never taught you to buckle under pressure, especially not from Lex Luthor." "Lex? You think he'd go this far?" "There's no limit to what Lex Luthor would do, son." Clark leaves, immediately angered and convinced. He is as pliant as a reed. He had a much stronger character – and a much stronger calling – in the first season, sharing Cassandra's vision, standing up naively for Lex. Lex was the dark, experienced one. It needs to be Clark reaching out to Lex and being rejected. "Clark. I heard what happened, I just wanted to make sure your father's okay." Which is the right thing to do. The Kents and Lex have been through a lot together. "Trust me, this is about as close to my father as you want to get right now." If he had said this in a low tone, as if tipping Lex off to leave, that would be one thing. But the whole delivery of this dialogue was resentful and hostile. I really don't like Tom Welling's interpretation of this relationship right now. "He thinks I was behind it, doesn't he?" "What do you expect him to believe?" This was another strange deflection, as if Lex's actions toward them made the far-fetched idea believable, when Lex is constantly reaching out to them. "Maybe the truth. I issued a press release denouncing the attack and offering a reward for any information leading to the assailant's capture. I need you to believe me." Lex is appealing to Clark to fulfill a need, wanting Clark's friendship. Clark rejects him. Lex waits, then shakes his head and walks away, having been let down once again. "Lex, why is some state senate seat so important to you?" It really gets to me that after indicating that he won't believe anything Lex says, Clark asks him a personal question. Why does he want to know? Is it because he cares about Lex? No, obviously not, since he just concluded that dialogue. He can't have any faith in the Lex of the past, the old friend Lex, living on, if he didn't have the most elemental faith in his word that he didn't beat up Jonathan. So why does he ask, if not from civilian curiosity? What I find really hard to believe is that Lex actually answers, not with a rebuff or even a proverb, but with complete vulnerable honesty. "It's a stepping stone." "To what?" "That's like Apollo asking Icarus why he's building wings. Look, Clark, you have everything you've ever wanted. I'm sorry if I'm still searching." That appeal should have moved Clark if anything could. And for a moment Clark seemed almost, well, human again. "What if you don't win? What if you get to the Capitol and realize that you still haven't found what you're looking for?" "Well, there's always the White House. Look, I promise you, we're going to find out who did this to your dad." Again, Clark looks at him blankly and Lex walks away. Lex did everything right in that conversation. His motives were perfectly clear. Clark's were inexplicable. We knew what was going on in Lex's head. We had no idea what was going on in Clark's. I find it truly hard to believe that Clark could treat Lex as if he were no longer Lex, as if he had nothing of the old friend in him, as if they did not have a history together. Clark treats him without basic respect, sometimes with such disrespect as to be notably insulting. This Clark is incomprehensible, a self-contradictory idea without any substance. If the writers want to restore Clark's old, endearing, pre-Superman person, they need to stop bending the character to serve the story, and let the story serve the character. Clark used to seek out Lex and was slow to understand when Lex was, in self-deceiving, self-justifiable ways, taking advantage of him. Now Lex is seeking Clark out and quickly understanding as Clark spurns him. It should be the other way around. Clark's impulse should be to save people, not reject them. And Lex's impulse should be that he takes Clark's support so much for granted that he takes advantage more and more, until he crosses the line. "Please tell me you weren't responsible for that attack." "You may have read everything about me, but don't assume you know me. I would never hurt the Kents." This was strongly reminiscent of Season One, when Nixon threatened to release the information they had on Clark, and Lex very strongly protected the Kents. Which makes it all the stranger that Lex is simultaneously working at overthrowing Jonathan with scandal. "You're losing your edge, Lex." "And you've clearly gone over it." I loved that line. She knocks him out with a loud crash and nobody bothers to come check on him? In the old days he's had several bodyguards waiting within hearing. "Lex Luthor going 'Godfather' on your dad? I don't know, Clark, Lex seems like the kind of guy who lives for the fight as much as the victory." It was good to have Chloe's good sense to counteract Jonathan's vivid imagination and Clark's feet of clay. "You know, it's not like your dad to keep something like this a secret." Season Three: he made a devil's bargain with Jor-El and kept the secret all season. "He's kind of turned into a different person lately, like he's got something to prove to everyone." Again, we are reliving Season Three. "Or maybe just his son." "What does running for senator have to do with me?" "…It must be kind of hard trying to be a role model for a guy who pulls people out of burning buildings and stops nuclear missiles all between chores and dinner." We saw all this in Season Three, in particular "Legacy". And then we didn't need an outside character to tell us, but saw it working from the inside, as Jonathan struggled with his insufficiency and inadvertently referred to Jor-El as "your real father". "They're Martha's words, not mine." That was a nice realistic touch. Cute, startling moment when Lois drinks the coffee after Jonathan. "Look, magna-cum-laude psycho…" They've established that Lois has a talent for calling people names – they could actually use this verbal creativity to make her more Lois Lane-ish, if they chose. My favorite moment of the episode – Clark landing with the bullet in his hand, and Jonathan doing his double-take. As they hurried Jonathan off the stage, they should have had Jonathan looking back, and had his and Clark's eyes meet. "You know, you really don't have to quote 'The Art of War' to me, Dad. I read it cover to cover three times before I finished high school. Although, I still would have preferred a bike for my fourteenth birthday." That wasn't the way Lex would inform his father of things. In fact, Lex probably wouldn't inform him of those things at all. He doesn't expose himself to Lionel; the closest he gets is still evasive. ("What is it you want from me?" "Doesn't really matter, Dad. I'm never going to get it.") This yelling out for attention was far too direct and childish - Lex doesn't angle for attention unless it's through business. "How does it feel, Lex, to have people worship you?" "Being the idol for a cult of psychopaths isn't exactly a power trip, Dad." "Oh, but I suppose being a state senator would be. Isn't that why you're running for office?" I wish they would stop having Lionel sharing his insights about Lex. It was one thing when he was deliberately trying to cast confusion, stating things that we knew to be untrue or exaggerated in order to impress on him a sense of weakness. Talking about his illness and incompetence, etc. But what's the point of these pronouncements? We don't know if they're true or not, so they tell us nothing about Lex or Lionel. "You want to know the truth? I'm running because it's something I actually have to work for." "Yes, and your noble efforts include employing hired guns to dig up information about the Kents that could destroy them." "Well, so much for your fatherly pride and support in this campaign, huh, Dad?" This conveniently illustrates the chaos of this conversation. We don't know if Lex's first statement is true, just as we don't know if Lionel's first statement is true. It tells us nothing about Lex or Lionel. Lionel's second observation points out the schizophrenic nature of Lex's behavior (which we'd noticed), but instead of going anywhere with the idea, the topic halts. Lex turns it around on Lionel, as if he deserved some support he wasn't receiving - which, considering Lionel's accusation a line earlier, is startlingly illogical. The three consecutive statements didn't seem to have anything to do with each other, on the surface or underneath. "Griff's dead. His body turned up in the back of Suicide Slums this morning and, somehow, I don't think the Kents did it." The irony of his comment made me laugh. Lionel slaps book on Lex's chest the way he slapped Lionel with it, walking past. Although I appreciated the meaningful parallel and underlying competition, I thought slapping them in that manner was a bit too familiar, especially for Lionel. "Good news. You're up ten points in the polls after the rally yesterday." They could have started the scene with a newspaper clipping being added to a scrapbook tracking progress, someone announcing it on local news, etc. Somehow saying it outright seems contrived, although it isn't a major plot point. "What do you mean?" Martha looks so serene as she asks. "There is…one other option…but you have to promise me never to tell Jonathan." Again, she doesn't seem guilty or worried, just peaceful. I thought that delivery was very unlike Martha. She would be worried, like any wife, knowing how Jonathan feels (or felt) about Lionel, not wanting to toss a match amidst the dynamite. The Depeche Mode music, unlike their music in "Arrival," definitely didn't fit the conclusion. It was like hearing an abstract painting. Few people want to watch abstract television, and personally I didn't want to hear abstract music, especially during scenes that were key. The music is what sets the atmosphere and cements the scene, and this music scattered the scenes into little fragments. It's a nice touch to have Lana looking through the telescope now...but it seems like that should draw Clark and Lana together, not the opposite. They are both searchers, asking why they are here, and what plans destiny has for them; and they're both looking for the answers in the past, their history. (At least, that used to be Clark's role, though now he is always running from who he is and trying to fit in.) It seems like moments like these should be the key to their relationship, instead of the wedge between them. If they could get Clark's role right, they would be. "I freak out, I screw up, and I blame everything on you, and you forgive me, no questions asked." "Maybe that's because it's not all your fault. What you said about me running off to Met U and getting all caught up in my homework...wasn't entirely false. Clark, I've been studying the meteor showers." Why is this a confession? I found this moment strange, as if she's guiltily admitting something. Why shouldn't she study them? Under what guise can Clark really reproach her? This is the odd kink in their relationship - this and the dramatic wide-eyed whisper of "Secrets!" "It, um…well, it kind of lands." She's trying not to grin. "Clark, what if something came down in that first meteor shower as well, and whoever was in it has been with us this entire time?" Her eyes glowing with weird energy and excitement. I still don't understand her Isobel-ish enthusiasm. The girl with abandonment issues is one thing - the girl who touches a spaceship like it's a ritual and whispers like she's chanting rites is entirely different. This isn't a search for answers about herself, it's more like a mystic quest. "Clark, what if something came down in that first meteor shower as well, and whoever was in it has been with us this entire time?" This would have been the perfect time for Clark to delve into it - ask her what she would think about that, as he did with Chloe in "Visitor" (on the proposition of a seemingly human kid being extraterrestrial). It was strange that they cut short this conversation. "Thank you for coming." She looks around, hoping no one sees her, Lionel gazing at her, "I'm always here for you, Martha." First Martha's line implies that she is the one who contacted Lionel, then Lionel's line and look were so pointed that, in "Insurgence", she would have become disconcerted. Yet now she sails on happily. Martha's boldness in enjoying Lionel's advances was uncharacteristic in this episode. Details Another try with the "Zero" and "Spirit" format, introducing with the present, then flashing back to explain it all. This worked better here than it did for "Spirit," because it didn't tell the whole story. Unfortunately, there wasn't much more to tell anyway. We knew from this intro that the climax would be Clark rushing to stop the bullet, but we still didn't know why Lois was behind the gun. Personally I prefer not to know the climax beforehand, but it wasn't a heart-racing climax to begin with, and it did introduce the question of "Why Lois" in an intriguing way. My favorite episode with this layout is still "Zero," though. "I don't think they really understood why I want to run, or why this is so very important to me. But the truth is actually, it's actually very simple. The courage to help all Kansans, whether they're rich, or whether they're poor, and do my very best to put the heart back in the heartland." For one thing, that makes no sense, even during the second showing when they added more. It still says "This is why I want to run. The courage to help all Kansans." For another, why does Jonathan want to run? With the doubts he's had about his adequacy, his extreme protectiveness of Clark and his secret, his strict "stay out of the spotlight" mantra, what could make him do this? Chloe's perhaps-too-apt explanation seems the most reasonable, but if so, there were a thousand little ways they could have handled this issue of inadequacy better. The writers need to take a look back at Season Three's haunted, broken Jonathan with a fierce love for his son. Why "48 hours earlier" instead of "two days earlier"? It's interesting, the difference between Jonathan's slogan and Lex's. Jonathan's: "Bringing Kansas back." Lex's: "Looking to the Future." Personally, I think Lex's is the more practical slogan, but Jonathan's, based in the past, will get the kind of voters he wants, those with values considered to be "old-fashioned". "Thucydides said, 'We are either kings among men, or the pawns of kings.'" Wouldn't that make the college kids pawns? Lex tells them, "The fact that you're here demonstrates that you strive for the former," but the way they're lined up in front of him conveys something very different from kingship. In terms of a chessboard, they look like pawns, and Lex is certainly the king. I'm not sure if this was supposed to show the irony of Lex's flattery, or if the contradiction was unintentional. "You want a grenade to throw in the Kent camp? I got an atomic bomb." I suppose one of the purposes of this episode was to raise the question, "What's the evidence?" Perhaps I wasn't paying close enough attention, but it seemed to me that this question wasn't stressed enough – after one viewing, the question for me was not, "What's the evidence?" but "Did anything happen?" Part of it is the law of diminishing returns – they've so often shown ambiguous evidence in Lionel's hands that I'm inured to it – plus after seeing Clark strapped to a table being experimented on under Lionel's orders, a piece of paper doesn't seem nearly so intimidating. I have to know exactly what's at stake in order to get worried. "Perhaps you have your own personal reasons for wanting Jonathan not to win." Was this a reference to the destroyed evidence? Meaning that she feared the spotlight would reveal something about Clark? That was the only meaning I could find, but she seemed to know what he was talking about. Bewildering moment. "It's like you're afraid to touch me now." Strange, I didn't notice Clark having any problems with the suntan lotion or flirty kiss in "Aqua". "Everything was fine between Lana and I when I was human." Grammar alert. It should be "Lana and me". "Everything was fine with me/Everything was fine between Lana and me," not "Everything was fine with I/Everything was fine between Lana and I." Why does Samantha slap herself before shaving? Is it self-discipline because she hesitates, self-inspiration that she can stand anything including shaving her head? Speaking of which, what relevance does Samantha's head-shaving have? She could have kept her hair and there wouldn't have been any difference in the plot. It seemed like a gimmick for effect, but useless to the plot. "I waited at the dropoff, but Griff never showed. Find out what happened to him." They should have shown Lex standing outside the telephone booth in the rain, waiting, maybe catching sight of a drop of blood and following the trail, or maybe cutting straight to him entering the study, talking on the phone. As it was, there was a noticeable gap in timing. This incident is presumably a few hours before Jonathan's speech; but a little under "48 hours earlier" than Jonathan's speech was when Griff originally called Lex and told him to met him there. (Lex had just finished speaking to the students – his first scene.) It's been almost two days since he missed Griff at the dropoff, but he's only looking into it now? Of course, Griff could have meant "meet me in two days," or "meet me tomorrow," but it's unlike Lex to be willing to wait, especially two days. Also, if this were the day after Griff called, Samantha would have had to pack in a lot of action in twenty-four hours…and then there would be a long space of no action before the speech. This timing needed correcting, and the incident needed something more visual. "Don't they always say never use your birthday as your security code? Or, more specifically, your brother's?" I liked it that they explained how she got in by her obsessive knowledge about his family. Incidentally, brother or half-brother – Julian or Lucas? Why was the "Open, Come In" sign at the campaign room on the inside of the door? Clark finds two masked bodies, and the first thing he does is look at the hair? Why doesn't he check to see who's been killed, instead of tampering with evidence? "They're Martha's words, not mine. I just hope she shows up in time to hear me say them." What does he mean? Where was Martha? Why did Clark show up late, and wearing his street clothing? He goes to the Daily Planet in Metropolis, then stops by the college and finds the bodies, then goes to the rally and arrives in the middle? I guess if I had the ability to speed like that, I would tend to plan things for the last minute too; but if, as Pete said in "Truth," it takes about ten minutes for Clark to get to Metropolis and back – and he's picked up speed since then – then Clark must have left the house to go to the Daily Planet about thirty minutes before the speech started, at the most. Probably less. Why would he put off asking about the phone number until a half hour before the speech was starting? This should have been done hours before. As Clark runs through the crowd in slow motion, all of the people definitely look computer-generated, not frozen. Nice effect, the balloon popping. My favorite effect of the episode. © Voice of Reason, 2007