The Killing: "Super 8"

Season 1, Episode 5

Some clichés derail what could have been a great episode

The Facts of The Case Are These:

·         Bennet was having a relationship with Rosie, though he claims it was purely intellectual

·         Yet at his house, which he shares with his wife who is a former student of his, there was Ammonia Hydroxide, which can be used to cover up a murder - and was found under Rosie’s fingernails

·         On the night in Rosie murder, Bennett called his wife from his cell phone to let her know he was home, while he sent her to her sister’s house and dismissed the workers that were installing the new floor

·         Bennet still involved with Seattle All-Stars, as is Richmond; Bennet had access to Richmond’s campaign cars

·         Bennet hands Sarah a Super 8 Film that Rosie shot; Sarah starts mining it for clues.

Well, at least Bennet’s innocence wasn’t proven within the span of this episode. To its credit, the show has the evidence stacked up pretty good against him here. Yet, I still don’t think he’s the killer, both because it’s still fairly early in the season, and because it’s such a trope to have the creepy teacher be the killer, and I really hope that the show doesn’t fall back on something so lazy. Even more annoyingly, it seems the show wants us to return once again to the idea that Richmond in the killer – another theory I can’t buy – as the closing shots of Richmond and Bennett side by side seem to imply. (You know, in case you didn’t pick up on the fact that they knew another at the end of last week’s episode. Or the when they said it at the beginning of this one.)

Yet luckily, two more promising clues cropped up tonight. The first is that Bennet – or more likely someone else – who “is a pro” (i.e. serial killer) used the Ammonia on Rosie. The second is the Super 8 film. Personally, I’m more excited about the latter over the former, as I think Sarah et. al. going over the tape actually has more mileage in it, and I like the idea that Rosie was killed because she caught something on tape that she shouldn’t have. It could possibly open up the show’s universe just a bit more, depending on what the incriminating evidence was. Plus, the serial killer angle is, much like the creepy teacher, extremely tired, and I’m not exactly sure how the show could realistically time in someone like that. But at least it’s a new direction.

Meanwhile, in the Campaign Trail Less Traveled:

So Nathan was the mole, and he was there to report to Cantaneaz, so she could reap the benefits of making Richmond sweat in the polls? Sure, okay. Since I’m not really invested in this storyline, I guess I shouldn’t complain too much, but….now what? Though Gwen may not have been the mole, the other things we learned about her tonight – she recently slept with the ad director in order to retain his services, she used to work for Cantaneaz – don’t exactly paint her in the positive light, and neither does her weird working relationship with her father. (Though this does lead me to believe that she might be the killer, as outlined below.)

Elsewhere, we saw at lot of Jamie’s wheeling and dealing with Mayor Adams tonight, in what may be either a giant waste of time or a bigger give-away than the show needs at this point. While I still hold that the odds are good that this campaign plotline will more or less lead us to the killer, it seems a bit ridiculous that we’re spending so much time here. And then if the killer isn’t a politician or one of his lackeys, then what? We just spend a lot of time watching Jamie bouncing back and forth between campaigns? I don’t know about anybody else, but I get the feeling that Jamie will soon return to the Richmond campaign, making his exit almost entirely useless. (You just know the show could have found another way to wrap up the mole mystery.)

And In the Land of the Forlorn: 

Once again, the Larsens were the most powerful thing on the screen tonight, and the show seems smart enough to start moving them in new directions, after a time span that is both long enough for the shock to have worn enough, yet not so long that we got bored watching them grieve. I especially like the idea of Stan – whose back is against the wall with clients cancelling and repairs being needed for the new house – being slowly dragged back into his former criminal ways by Belko. And we can most certainly look forward to watching as his private investigation brings down a shit storm on some innocent person’s head.

Mitch’s plot was a little less interesting, mostly because it seems to be following about the same lines as before, but I like the idea of watching her struggle to get back to normal. I was especially moved by her encounter with Richmond in the grocery store, as Billy Campbell finally got something good to play with out of his role. But why lie to Gwen about the encounter? I can’t possibly buy Richmond as the killer – he seemed way too remorseful with Mitch – but is he planning on dropping in on the Larsens again? If so, what would be the point?

And then there are the actions of Denny the Theif and Tommy the Bed-Wetter. I get that they are supposed to represent how much the family is falling apart, what with Stan and Mitch not really able to take care of them, but this plot still asks in part us to care about them, and between the child acting and the size of their roles so far, they’re not really developed enough as characters for us as an audience to be able to connect with them on an emotional level.

Worst of all this week was the emotional plight of out two detectives. Sarah continues to grow apart from Rick (meh) and the show keeps making references to a past case that she got too caught up in (blah). I get that the show is trying to show us just how DEDICATED she is, but unless that past case is going to someone link up with Rosie’s (and god I hope it doesn’t), then what’s the point really? We can see how dedicated she is with this case. Plus, the overly dedicated cop is yet another lazy cliché, just like….

…the cop with the estranged family. Is this Holder’s big secret? Because that’s a bit lame. Now, he could still be into drugs or something equally nefarious, what with the envelope full of money and his pledge of celibacy, but it still seems like the family is what this show will focus on, and I’ve seen so many iterations of this plot, that I honestly can’t be bothered to care.

Yet despite all of these clichés, the episode as a whole worked really well. The show was actually able to layer on multiple possibilities within the mystery, and though this episode was perhaps the slowest of those aired so far, it worked well as a table-setter, especially with the Stan storyline. I am still interested in what’s going to happen week to week, but sometime the stuff that happened within an episode can drag just a bit.

Any other opinions?

Quotes, Etc.:

Killer Theories of the Week: A) Belko. That dude seems way too interested in trying to find Rosie’s killer. OR B)Gwen, who is covering up for whatever Rosie caught on camera, which most likely has to do with her dad. OR C) It was Adams, because there has to be some reason the show keeps subjecting us to the campaign plot.

Tonight in Twin Peaks references: Rosie was possibly the victim of a serial killer, just like Laura Palmer was.

“My ball hairs are freezing.”

“Get him drunk, he open ups like a flower.”

In my opinion, going to the Del Taco drive-thru totally counts as ‘eating.’

“There’s plenty of women with poor judgment, I’m sure you’ll get lucky.”

“Got somewhere to be?” “Don’t you? Starts with an ‘s’ ends with an ‘a’? Sonoma?”

“Spreading your legs just doesn’t buy a girl anything these days.”