'Rubicon' - 'The Truth Will Out': Along came poly

Secrets emerge when the FBI targets API

<p>James Badge Dale in &quot;Rubicon.&quot;</p>

James Badge Dale in "Rubicon."

Credit: AMC

Are you a fan of Rubicon?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

A holiday weekend review of tonight's "Rubicon" coming up just as soon as I find a cardboard box on my doorstep...

"Who are we working for?" -Will

"Everyone has secrets, Will." -Maggie


"The Truth Will Out" was a bottle episode, where everything but the brief (and here, frankly unnecessary) Katherine Rhumor scenes and the coda at Will's apartment took place inside the pre-existing API sets. As I mentioned when "Breaking Bad" did its memorable "Fly" episode, TV series often turn to bottle episodes as a way of saving money that can then be earmarked towards later hours. But if done right - and "The Truth Will Out" was done very, very right - a bottle episode is a reminder of how a good-to-great series doesn't big guest stars, location shooting, fancy new sets, VFX and all the other things that cost extra. All they need are their regular characters, the conflicts they have with each other (and with themselves) and the world that they live in.

The FBI's decision to lock down API for a day to hunt for a leak gave Will the opportunity to realize Spangler is the likely villain of his story, and to go snooping in Spangler's office while the big man was downstairs getting polygraphed. But it also gave us opportunities to learn more about the characters, or in some cases to have them confront things we knew about them.

Miles finally admits out loud to someone that his marriage has been over for months, and it seems like the weight has lifted enough that he might tell Julia (and here gets interrupted by the feds coming to arrest the leak). The erratic readings on her own polygraph force Tanya to confess to her drug use, and yet the experience of being trapped with these people all day seems to finally get her engaged in the hunt for George and associates. Grant's polygraph scene leaves things ambiguous as to whether he has cheated or is planning to cheat on his wife(*), but either way it's clear Miles isn't the only team member with deep marital problems. And Kale is, of course, cool enough that his polygraph test is a waste of everyone's time (other than those of us who got to watch Kale be awesome and hilarious throughout that sequence).

(*) I don't know enough about polygraphy - other than the frequent e-mail rants from a friend of mine who works in government and is offended that he and his colleagues are frequently being judged on the basis of what he considers to be junk science that is easy to fool - to say whether it's possible the machine could get triggered by thoughts of a future event. How did you interpret that scene? Has Grant cheated, or does he just carry lust in his heart?

We didn't get to see Spangler's polygraph test, interestingly enough. And given what little we know about what he's up to, the lack of such a scene suggests one of two things: 1)Spangler, like Kale, knows how to beat the machine (his monologue about how "this country implodes" if he's the leak suggests he is firmly convinced of the rightness of his actions), or 2)Spangler is powerful enough to have the polygrapher in his pocket, and the test was rigged. But now that Will knows Spangler is connected to Atlas McDowell, and that he was investigating David in the days leading up to David's death - and also that Ed knew more than he was letting on when the two of them first met - we're going to have to get to know our arrogant boss a whole lot better in the season's home stretch.

One possible concern: the show is stumbling along the fine line between showing that Will is an amateur spy learning as he goes, and between this man who was introduced as such a genius acting so often like, as Kale describes it, "the stupidest sonuvabitch in this place." How many times does Kale need to warn Will about what he can and can't do and say inside the API offices before Will actually grasps it? Again, Will is new at this, and he's not a robot, and I can sympathize to a degree with the idea that each new revelation is freaking him out far more than it would if he were analyzing it from the outside, but I fear we're one or two episodes away from him acting like the girl in the slasher film who runs up the stairs instead of getting outside the house, you know?

Still, "Rubicon" has showed an impressive growth curve over this last batch of episodes. The ratings have been poor, so we'll see what it is that AMC decides on as the benchmark for renewal. But either way, I hope Henry Bromell has a plan for explaining most of this by the end of season one. We've seen enough throughout the season - including in this episode's scenes involving Will's team - that there's a very strong show here with or without the conspiracy. So giving us resolution to that by the season finale wouldn't automatically spell creative doom for a potential season two.

What did everybody else think?

Everything: Rubicon

Latest news, photos, reviews, interviews, videos and more.

Alan-sepinwall-sm
Alan Sepinwall
Sr. Editor, What's Alan Watching
Alan Sepinwall has been reviewing television since the mid-'90s, first for Tony Soprano's hometown paper, The Star-Ledger, and now for HitFix. His new book, "The Revolution Was Televised," about the last 15 years of TV drama, is for sale at Amazon. He can be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com
Related Searches: Rubicon, Alan Sepinwall

Alan Sepinwall Recaps & Reviews

View By Show »

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • 1
  • 2
Next 52 Comments


  • I really really hope AMC renews this show. The slow pacing, interesting characters and overall feeling of the show is so different and entertaining to watch that I look forward to the next Sunday the instant that 10:01 PM EST hits.

    September 5, 2010 at 10:09PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    MMS

    I love it more each week. Crossing fingers for a renewal.

    September 5, 2010 at 10:31PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Ed W

    Will was acting too dumb for my taste but other than that, I liked his character this episode. Maggie was very good in her short scenes, and the same old solid work by Spangler and Kale.

    The recurring problem for me with liking this series more is the three underlings. They don't really seem intelligent enough to be doing that job, and they come across as so undisciplined in thought and action that it's hard to imagine them being given responsibility like that. I would be very afraid if our intelligence analysts were really like them.

    In general I just wish those three got half as much screentime as they currently do.

    The positive revelation for me the past two weeks is the actress who plays Julia, very believable and charming in a low key realistic way.

    A watchable episode, I'm not sure I'd call the series good yet but it definitely has some characters and some actors who are good.

    September 5, 2010 at 10:40PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Justified-fixer-4_talkback_profile

    conrad

    please don't be one and done. please don't be one and done. please don't be...

    September 5, 2010 at 10:46PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    blingbling

    Once again. Anyone who is bright enough to hire Arliss Howard and give him a part like this absolutely deserves a second season.

    To be honest, I wonder how they're going to walk the line with API's troubled employees. Everyone seems such a mess -- almost to the point where you don't WANT them safeguarding the country. I guess it's comforting that geek-spies have lives as screwed up as the rest of us, but on the other hand, the drama seems a bit too much like...drama.

    But this show continues to have such a marvelous, rich feel to it that I want to keep riding along. I do hope AMC gives it a second year.

    September 6, 2010 at 12:17AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Melissa "Everyone seems such a mess -- almost to the point where you don't WANT them safeguarding the country."

      I've never thought of it like that but you make an excellent point.

      September 7, 2010 at 6:10PM EST


  • Write a comment...

    September 6, 2010 at 12:26AM EST Reply to Comment


  • I took Grant's answer about cheating on his wife to mean that he either has/had lust in his heart, or that he hit on a woman once but didn't succeed.

    September 6, 2010 at 12:28AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      webdiva Ditto. It looked like he'd been on the verge, but there hadn't been any follow-through, or success.

      September 9, 2010 at 7:41PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    rmadugula

    Hi Guys-

    I love this show and am totally hooked. I've probably watched the "tie speech" about a dozen times and marveled at how brilliant both the speech and Michael Cristofer's portrayal of Spangler are. A few thought about this episode in no particular order:

    1. Ed W. - I totally agree with you about the 3 underlings and their twitchy, undisciplined thoughts and actions. I get the feeling that the Powers That Be are writing these characters to be different from the typical "intelligence analysts" on network TV shows that perfectly connect the dots near instantly, punch a few keys on a supercomputer and magically get the answer, and issue decisions about lethal force in a cheery, heroic way without having any real tangible angst about killing potential baddies. I appreciate that these API folks have faults, struggle with putting the puzzle pieces together as well as struggling with making life and death decisions with imperfect data and collateral damage of innocents. I just wish they were less twitchy and I agree with you that I hope our real intelligence analysts have their sh*t more together.

    - Kale...Brilliant and just chewed up the polygraph scene!

    - Much like how Matt Weiner has little throwbacks to previous Mad Men episodes, I like how we got to see everyones suboptimal briefcase solutions (another classic speech). Grant with standard briefcase with spring loaded snaps and combination lock definitely did not allow for one handed operation (a big Spangler No-No!). Miles with satchel of chaos (no handle for security tether, no clasps, not hard-sided, no security at all). Tanya with her big purse o' doom with a zipper (also a Spangler No-No).

    - I have resolved in mind not to think of API as a super spy James Bond intel facility because it just doesn't fit into that archetype. When Spangler has all the team leaders in his office at the beginning of the lockdown, it occurred to me to think of API akin to a University Think Tank, where everyone is super academic, intellectual and eccentric. Will is like the young professor just realizing that universities are more interested in pursuing grant money and corporate research projects and less about pure intellectual research (always jarring to university academics when they first come to that realization). Spangler is like the scary Dean of the School who understands the big picture of how the world works and knows both how to manage smart eccentric employees and to glad hand wealthy donors for $$$ to pay the bills (kinda a fiery demi-god!)

    I really really hope AMC renews Rubicon and the Showrunners have a big picture where they are taking us.

    RMad

    September 6, 2010 at 12:53AM EST Reply to Comment
    • IIRC the original premise of the show was just as you said -- Will worked at a think tank, not at an intelligence agency.

      September 6, 2010 at 8:30PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Austin I took Spangler's visit to the poly room to simply be a sham, for show, and that the polygrapher didn't actually ask him any questions. Just gave him his coffee and let him sit in the room long enough to give the impression to everyone else that he was given the test, too.

      September 14, 2010 at 3:42PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    rmadugula

    Alan-

    Regarding your Polygraph question, a bit of anecdotal insight. About a year ago, I got a chance to talk to a top goverment polygrapher and volunteered to be polygraphed to see the results. The expert polygrapher had performed over 4000 polygraphs and it was really interesting as my only knowledge was from TV and movies. He had me submit a bunch of sample questions and answers to him ahead of time and he mixed in some curve balls of his own. His explanation of the basic approach was to create a framework of questions to build an response model of person being polygraphed and then watch for aberrations on both ends of the spectrum (jumpy needles as well as super calm when they shouldn't be given the question). A lot of what he said about personality types was accurately portrayed by the various API folks in their tests:

    - He said that there might be pros like in the movies who can beat polygraphs, but it's more a legend and a good tester can figure out if people are using simple countermeasures (i.e. thumbtack in the shoe to jab your toe against to spike the needles on every single question). They can then look for these countermeasures and also ask the people questions about cheating the test and watch how they answer the questions since their brains know if they are trying to cheat.

    - Kale being a professional special-ops guy with the super low heart rate isn't flustered by the question about male lovers and the tester can't get a rise outta him. I also love his response to a poorly worded question about is a person working for him could be capable of running a covert operation. His answer (and facial expression) is pretty hilarious since he KNOWS that Will is trying to run a covert operation BUT he accurately also doesn't believe Will is CAPABLE of running the operation, which was the actual question asked. Pretty Funny.

    - Will is super honest and would come thru clean since he analyzes the assumptions and implications of questions (i.e. his contemplation of whether he has friends). The Expert I chatted with said really honest peope analyze questions and their deeper meaning and the pros peg these folks as super honest pretty easily.

    - Miles with his nicotine withdrawl would indeed have been super twitchy and thrown the baseline off.

    - About Grant, the question about infidelity hit a sensitive spot in the response model and he tries to protest loudly that he has been faithful. His polygrapher is probably right on the mark that even if he hasn't actually been unfaithful, something is going on inside of his mind around that locus of questioning. My bet, he has not actually cheated, but he's thought about, probably with someone very close and could really fall into a particular temptation.

    - Spangler, probably just went thru the motions of getting tested but the Tester probably has no juice on him. As Fienberg's interview of Michael Cristofer showed, if Spangler is Channeling Dick Cheney.....it's probably pretty freaking scary to have to be the guy doing the polygraph on Cheney!

    As an aside, the Expert I spoke with said sociopaths, arsonists, serial killers are all really easy to figure out for a trained professional polygrapher. He said these people will have super flat responses to every question, but all you have to do is ask them theoretical questions on how they would potential do a crime and they'll blurt out exactly how they do it and incriminate themselves. I guess it's because they lack the same moral filters that normal people have and use the opportunity to calmly explain Dexter-Style how smart and well thought out their technique would be. By contrast, regular folks, in that situation, would spike the needles with stress because they are freaked out by the line of questioning and want to show that they are not criminal.

    To sum up, Grant's probably been a good boy......but's he's had thoughts and temptations!!!!

    Mole in the Box

    September 6, 2010 at 1:32AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Awesome post! Very informative.

      September 6, 2010 at 12:25PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    keg

    I really, really wanted to like this show. But the glacial pace of the plot, and the inconsistent characterizations ("Now I've got your picture, good luck breaking that to your boss" one week to "Dude, your home and office is bugged STFU" Me, out loud to the TV while watching tonight's show)make it impossible for me to care anymore. I have crossed the Rubicon and won't be looking back at this mess...

    September 6, 2010 at 2:27AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      ben we'll miss u kegger godspeed

      September 8, 2010 at 9:31AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    cgeye

    I think that they were confused from the beginning about Will's skillz -- is he a genius analyst, or a death-wishing 9/11 survivor? Able player in the great game of spycraft, or a nervous doofus just lucky to stay alive? They've wavered on these definitions because I think they wanted us to identify with him, and they thought we wouldn't do that if his smarts were unapologetic and he played the game at a Draper level.

    Frankly, I don't like any one of the characters, not because of their geekness, but because they're arrogant bitches and sons of bitches who are part of the problem. They're like NCIS with charleyhorses and bad breath, and their eccentricities aren't made up for by their brillance.

    And as for the FBI investigation, I was prepared for the agents to all be part of the Conspiracy (damn, shouldn't RUBICON be paying the SubGenii royalties?), and the polys simple social control. Keep the analysts in fear, and they won't look up. I was broken of that idea once Will, again implausibly, broke security and ransacked the headman's office. Gee, at a security level where people who read those folders can be taken out into the parking garage and shot, keyrings can be left in unlocked drawers? The headman's office has absolutely no surveillance recorders? And the drama of the entire hour was whether a bug stayed in a brass owl?

    Q: Back when a series called THE PRISONER was good, No. 6 was clever enough to drive his observers insane by letting them see nothing but disinfo. But in RUBICON, Will's still at the "oh, noes, they're BUGGING ME" stage, like he couldn't expect that in any office location save the john. They bug everyone else, right? So why hasn't he decided to feed disinfo back to the Con, so he can create space for him to really hunt for the truth?

    Oh, honey, if it weren't for the fact it lies in between MM repeats, I'd steer around this narrative roadkill. I'm for every friend and partner of these workers giving them summary justice through divorce. Will has to get naked very, very soon, for me to even care by season's end.

    September 6, 2010 at 4:24AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Plinthy the Middling

    rmadugula - Which is pretty much what you should expect from someone who gets paid to administer polygraph tests.

    The courts treat it as junk science, and it is not a close question. That is quite a remarkable consensus to be reached in a country so rife with ignorance and superstitition, it periodically revisits whether bibilical literalism and its various analogs should be accorded the same sort of legitimacy as Darwinian evolution theory.

    The basis problem is that we do not understand enough about how the human brain works. That problem is not overcome by a mechanism that is predicated on treating all human brains the same; indeed, such a mechanism simply jumps the shark.

    Among the many, many problems with it, here are two that I have found helpful in getting people to understand it as junk science:

    First (and you should go back and ask your friend about this), in order to be considered complete, the protocol of polygraph testing requires that following the part of the protocol that involves monitoring blood pressure and rate of heartbeat etc, the subject must be confronted with the assertion that he or she failed (regardless the truly-held views of the examiner, which, if stated at all to the subject, are used as a tool in that last process). Again, this confrontation part is not a follow-up, but rather an element that must be integrated into the protocol.

    In actual practice (which I expect your friend will also confirm), the confrontation gets left out ... a lot. And it has been left out so often over the years, on the discretionary judgment of examiners as to how best to serve the investigation, that it has taken on the appearance of orthodoxy. And that has what has led to the mythology about it being a truth machine, when all it is, really, is a tool in the arsenal of investigators which they can use in their discretionary judgment as to how to proceed further in their investigations.

    Which really comes down to this: the polygraph test procedure is really nothing more than an opinion on credibility, not materially different from calling a witness to say: I have known this person for X years in Y situations, and in my experience he is not the sort of person who would lie about a thing like this.

    Second, what I think could be called the regression-to-the-mean conceptual problem.

    Assume that a massive amount of data has been produced from a whole bunch of controlled experiments using a standard polygraph testing protocol (though in fact, there is no such big hoard of expository data, the history of experiments with it have been mostly unsatisfactory on the issue of testimonial and reporting reliability, and the idea of a standard protocol has been honored mostly in the breach.)

    Assume further that a consensus has been achieved among experts that most -- oh hell, the decided majority -- of persons cannot beat the polygraph, as it were. The fact is -- and this is not just in reality world but within the supposition as well -- the consensus among experts (even among those that believe in it as science) is that it simply does not work for some unknown, unverifiable percentage of subjects (This is different from the idea that some people are actually able to exert conscious control over their autonomic functions to beat the machine, as it were.), the members of which cannot be reliably predicted in advance of the test, or at any point in the administration of the protocol, or even necessarily after -- or ever, at all.)

    Bottom line: if you do not know whether the subject falls within the large part of the bell curve that is amenable to being discovered by the protocol to have lied -- and you simply cannot know this -- then you cannot ever say that the protocol has proved someone to have lied.

    Finally (and further in this vein), to the case: This show is a narrative, with gaps, the idea being that we are to be intrigued by the process of filling in those gaps. What Alan has offered in the selected tidbit on Grant is two possibilities; but there are many, many more. What if Grant is concerned that his wife has been cheating on HIM; or that she has, or does, to his certain knowledge; or that he had a summer job accident as a student in which he lost his capacity for intercourse; or that he had some abusive upbringing which implanted and reinforced a severe reaction of fear or guilt in thinking about sex; or on and on and on ad infinitum. None of those are normal, I would think; but they are all possible, and possible in reality world as well as fiction.

    September 6, 2010 at 6:00AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      rmadugula Plinthy-

      I agree with you completely. I was writing/rambling my post late last night and could have tightened my logic and thesis:

      - I agree with you that it is a type of Junk Science and the guy on the street probably believes polygraphs can tell when you are lying when it is simply not the case. It is merely a biofeedback tool and its output is highly subjective and open to interpretation based upon the person giving the test.

      - The Expert I spoke with was also basically agreement with your position as well, both with the failed assertion/confortation setup as well as the regression to the mean idea. His position was that the polygraph was biofeedback machine and its pop culture image as "truth detector" is false, but it's handy in TV Shows and Movies as plot device. The typical gotcha situations TV shows use it in are not correct. He likened the polygraph situation to a poker game with several players, some who are expert players and some who are newbies. The poker game/polygraph exam is a stress situation, and the individuals betting pattern/poker tells are subjectively analyzed by the pros (Whats the old poker adage? "You play the players, not the cards).

      - He would also be in agreement with your statement that is nothing more than a credibility opinion that is discretionary. He explained that regular folks would naturally be freaked out and nervous during the polygraph because it is a stressful situation and they want to prove their honesty, so their jumpy responses would be normal and not indicative of dishonesty (i.e. Miles just blurting out that he took the classified file home even though the polygrapher wasn't asking that question because at his core, Miles is a really honest guy who is distraught over misplacing the file). So, jumpy needles are not indicative of dishonesty (as lazy TV shows are won't to rely on that trope), just nervousness. It was pretty funny in the episode with Tanya spiking the needles when answering about her name, and the polygrapher asking her to calm down. We all know that repeatedly telling a freaked out person to calm down does not actually calm them down :)

      - In the sociopath example, he explained that the completely shark like dead calm needle responses would indicate to the polygraoher to abandon the biofeedback stress situation and switch to an ego stroking standard interrogation technique. The machine is useless at this point, but a skilled interrogator would get the sociopath to talk about their cleverness and get the person talking about how they would commit the crime(i.e. Dexter/Hannibal Lechter.....didn't OJ Simpson publish a book about where he creepily explained how he would do it).

      - I wish we had seen Maggie's polygraph and her "secrets" :)

      - Kale, once again was AWESOME. As an ops guy, he could have beaten the machine outright if he wanted to. I just think it was hilarious because he precisely parses the question about convert operations, because he truthfully believes that Will is a bumbling operative and is INCAPABLE of running a covert operation (which was the actual question that was asked).

      - In Grant's case, I also agree with your assertion. There could be a variety of factors that could realistically influence Grant and make his biofeedback response jumpy that might be related to a locus of questions about sex/marriage/fidelity. To mix my AMC shows, Bert Cooper would probably have made the needles jump on the same question not because he was unfaithful, but rather he had an accident and has no testes and probably is sensitive about the whole subject.

      Love the discourse on these boards and love Alan's analysis!

      September 6, 2010 at 8:51AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    mojohand

    If you like the unusual and offbeat, (e.g. F&G, Firefly or Rubicon) a medium that defines success in mass audiences is always going to break your heart. You just have to appreciate the bits of goodness the powers that be give you by accident, and not despair over the inevitable cancellations.

    September 6, 2010 at 9:00AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    JanieJones

    I need to re-watch but I did catch Kale's scene with the polygraph-I love Arliss Howard in this role.
    The comments in this discussion are interesting and well-put.

    I hope AMC renews this show. I will be greatly disappointed if it's not.

    September 6, 2010 at 9:50AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Adam

    I'm still enjoying Rubicon a lot, but there's one aspect that consistently makes me want to leap into the set and shake the writers:

    Bug-monitoring guy 1: "Jeez, there's that noise again!"

    Bug-monitoring guy 2: "What noise?"

    Bug-monitoring guy 1: "I dunno, it's almost like, maybe, somebody clumsily prying the base off a metal owl statue with, um, a house key, maybe?"

    Bug-monitoring guy 2: "Weird. I had one of those a couple of days ago. Sounded like somebody banging on an electrical outlet cover with a Philips-head screwdriver. What do you think that was?"

    Bug-monitoring guy 1: "Well it's definitely NOT our target discovering the listening devices, THAT'S for sure!"

    BOTH: (Hearty laughing)...

    September 6, 2010 at 12:49PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      rmadugula Reply to comment...

      September 6, 2010 at 1:50PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      rmadugula Adam-

      I was thinking the same thing :)

      Wouldn't the guys notice all that metallic tinkering sound.

      Also, to the posters above...it is frustrating that he doesn't stop talking about sensitive things around bugged places and STFU :)

      September 6, 2010 at 1:54PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      no cease fires I don't think people doing audio surveillance monitor 24 hours a day. Most likely they skip to the conversations.

      September 6, 2010 at 6:12PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      FatBallet Elevators, apparently, can't be bugged.

      September 8, 2010 at 12:48AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Plinthy the Middling

    rmadugula - As a plot device, exactly. And as a means to place unresolvable stress on the characters, I agree with that, too. Plus all in all, I think the folks who put this show together appreciate both.

    But here is where it was lost -- on me, anyway: First, each and every one of the people portrayed as being submitted to it fall precisely within the category of people who would be most likely to know these things as well, and so treat it as nonsense. Second, though there are undoubtedly large swaths of the FBI that contain dunderheads, the FBI detail assigned to this task would realize that -- that is, would know, and would know that the subjects know, and so on (I understand this sort of analysis goes to 5 levels before redundancy appears.). Support staff, possibly, and possibly therefore the professional staff would be required to APPEAR to submit to it; but that is not how it was portrayed.

    A more effective device would be to introduce a George Smiley type. I am thinking of the scene in Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy where Smiley sweats the field operative, Ricky. Each member of the staff, management included, would be required to submit to standardized questions going to the issue of opportunity, which would be analysed and then used by the interrogator in the manner of a cross-examination without benefit of interrupting counsel. These folks would have sworn an oath the imposes the same sort of obligations and gives up the same sort of protections as Ricky had and gave up respectively.

    I have a third problem: this would not be an FBI detail, not with what API does. It could be some sort of joint liaison detail, filled by professionals from several agencies, all responsible to the executive through the office of the National Security Advisor, or a special detail of that office; but the FBI would only come in if at some earlier stage(s) there was a distinct possibility of a prosecution. I do grant that once the production team settled on using the polygraph as a plot device, using the FBI in tandem with it follows. But of course, I disagree with using the polygraph as the best choice, or even a likely one, so there we are.

    September 6, 2010 at 1:11PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Justified-fixer-4_talkback_profile

    conrad

    still don't trust kale. why did he go up to spangler's office when he went in for his poly?

    there is too much pointing towards spangler as will's nemesis for me to bite. we didn't see who put the bugs in will's home or office. i'm still leaning kale on this one.

    September 6, 2010 at 2:25PM EST Reply to Comment
    • I believe in the episode prior to this, the pre-credits sequence showed Kale breaking into Will's apartment. I believe he planted the bugs to convince Will of his trustworthiness. I don't think any of them ever really worked.

      September 6, 2010 at 8:36PM EST
    • Justified-fixer-4_talkback_profile

      conrad they didn't actually show him planting any bugs. yes, he broke in. yes, he found will's covert op all over the floor by his couch.

      they left it vague enough that he could have either planted the bugs or just snooped around enough to find them. he tells will he knows that the apartment is under surveillance but it's "not important" how he knows.

      September 7, 2010 at 9:43AM EST
  • Justified-fixer-4_talkback_profile

    conrad

    did some googling of atlas mcdowell and other names/players from rubicon. was sorry to see nothing pop up that would would serve as leads on what's happening with rubicon.

    the show is so engrossing it would have been fun for devout followers to do some online discovery of elements from the show.

    September 6, 2010 at 2:35PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Community_talkback_profile

    Ace

    Does anyone know the name of the actor who played the man giving the polygraph? He seems so familiar and it is bothering me that I can't figure it out.

    September 6, 2010 at 4:08PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Crow3711 His name is James Saito, and I think the most likely place you saw him was on the (unfortunately) cancelled Eli Stone as the acupuncture/teacher guy.

      September 6, 2010 at 5:32PM EST
    • Community_talkback_profile

      Ace Yes! Thank you, Crow. :) Man that was bugging me.

      September 7, 2010 at 2:53PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      jennifer It has bothered me that I can't recall. Thanks croow3711!

      March 17, 2011 at 5:53AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    karaokequeen

    Question: how/why does "Atlas McDowell" have significance for Will at this point? I remember how it ties in with Katherine Rhumor's side of the story, but I can't remember Will coming across it before.

    This was a pretty good ep, but I, too, rolled my eyes at Will's continued blundering. Also at his being able to infiltrate Spengler's office without FBI noticing. And yes, you'd think the buggers would be able to hear Will messing around with that brass owl.

    Ingram is the best thing about this show. Rock on, Arliss Howard.

    September 6, 2010 at 4:57PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      rmadugula I think one of the guys following Will or the guy Kale said was in the car with Bloom (gave Will a police report at the dinner) pointed Will to Atlas McDowell.

      I could be mis-remembering, but I thought that was the connection.

      September 6, 2010 at 6:06PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Crow3711

    I'm becoming obsessed with this show. It's so incredibly well done and interesting to watch. Real, actual smart person television. I desperately need them to renew it. Stick it to the huddled, confused masses and keep a show on for smart people!

    September 6, 2010 at 5:25PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Justified-fixer-4_talkback_profile

    conrad

    could the fourth branch of power that will is looking for be the bohemian club? the owl on will's desk is the symbol of the organization that so many rich and powerful attend each year.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCDs9Vs2iYM

    maybe spangler is a member.

    September 6, 2010 at 8:07PM EST Reply to Comment


  • Again I find this show watchable, but glacial. The Miranda Richardson plot is very annoying, get it moving! It is hard to care a lot about these characters, but it is interesting enough to watch now. In 3 weeks it will likely be driven off my Tivo by other shows, but maybe it is done by then.

    September 7, 2010 at 6:54AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    berkowit28

    Alan, have you previously written about, or interviewed anyone about, the "creative differences" that led to the creator of this show quitting or being dismissed from it just after the pilot? I would be very interested to know what these were, and whether or not he had the whole plot for the season mapped out already (it would surely be virtually impossible not to have mapped out the main plot points and resolution - I mean, you don't create a complex mystery with only a first glimpse) and whether any of the changes made affected the main plot or only the many, many other things which a showrunner controls or wants to control. I would be very eager to learn more about this. Is there any chance you'd ever be able to interview Jason Horwitch about his side of it? Has anyone said whether he signed some non-disclosure agreement(is that customary when paying someone off, which I imagine they had to do?)?

    I'm guessing that there hasn't been anything anywhere about this. FWIW, the Wikipedia bare bones article says nothing about it.

    September 7, 2010 at 1:09PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      leviramsey I think the biggest change that Bromell made is moving the setting of the story to the present.

      The pilot (shot a year or so before the other episodes, as, for instance, the change in Maggie's apartment makes clear) appears to be set somewhere between 2002 and 2006.

      The Will-9/11 loss aspect hasn't really been touched after the pilot, and I think it's because it makes sense if it's less than 5 or so years since 9/11, but not nearly a decade later: the grief cycle generally runs a lot shorter than that, and (as a critic pointed out), the chronology of Will being married with a kid doesn't work that well if the series is set in the present.

      Will's in his early 30s; say he's 33, so he's born in 1976, considering the springtime setting. His daughter was 2 so we'll say she was born in 1999, when Will was 22 or 23. Will appears to have a graduate degree from an Ivy-level institution (his fashion sense is consistent with that): how many 20-something, white Ivy League grad students are married with kids?

      The car parked a few spaces from David's at the train station is a c. 2000 Oldsmobile Aurora. That car makes a lot more sense, IMO, being parked in a Westchester MetroNorth lot in the middle of this decade, not today, and I can't think of any cars much newer than that in the pilot.

      As to why the change was made, my guess is that Bromell realized that making a recent-period piece is a lot of pain for a little gain, compared to further-back period pieces.

      There are other minor things that indicate a time-change: the pilot episode makes it clear that this in April, while the second episode refers to Prime Minister Cameron (presumably the UK prime minister who wasn't PM until May!). If, as I suspect, the Atlas-McDowell plot is to assassinate the president near Houston in May or June, then that fits better with Bush than Obama (and provides another reason for the change: one thinks that if it was revealed that Atlas-McDowell's plot was to kill Bush, then there's many in the audience who would view them as the good guys!).

      September 8, 2010 at 2:56AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Lionel Essrog Ooo, good thoughts on a possible time shift, leviramsey! Very intriguing. I'll remember that.

      Here's James Badge Dale on how he understands Will's age vis a vis 9/11: http://tinyurl.com/258blq5

      September 8, 2010 at 5:33AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      berkowit28 Thanks for your speculations and insights, LeviRamsey. I wouldn't have thought that setting a show in 2010 vs. 2005 would really make much difference (so far, there hasn't been anything topical that really matters, aside of course from being post-2001) but I can see that it would make a big difference to production costs if you were trying to get all the details right. I can't see this mattering a great deal to Horwitch, though, not enough to quit the show, though I could easily be wrong. ("We're going to set this in 2010 instead of 2005 to save money making sure no car is later than 2005." "OK, that's it. I'm out!") Loss of control in decision-making, even of something this small, and as precursor of other decisions to come, could be the issue, I suppose. I'd like to know some day. When Aaron Sorkin left The West Wing, we did hear all about it.

      September 8, 2010 at 1:08PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      no cease fires At the AV Club, they speculated that Bromell was arguing for characters first, while Horwitch wanted the show to be heavier on the conspiracy.

      It makes sense, since we've now had two episodes since Horwitch left where the conspiracy plotline was put on the back burner. Plus Bromell has historically been a writer of character-based drama (Homicide, Brotherhood).

      September 8, 2010 at 3:33PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    SlowFame

    This was a realyl good episode and had me hooked all the way through. I like Will in experience and it comes through that these people make huge decisions for the world but know little about the agency they work for or if there could be bugs in the office.

    September 7, 2010 at 1:47PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Sareeta

    Loved this episode. They packed a ton of suspense in this one, especially in the scene where Will was snooping through Spangler's office and the final scene where we hear David's conversation with Ed. I also enjoyed the polygraph scenes of each character. With Grant's poly, since he showed signs of stress when asked if he had cheated it would indicate he has either done the deed or has considered doing it. I'm just surprised the woman pointed out to him that she believed he would do it. Miles' scenes were acted so well, from his guilt and fear that he might be the leak to blurting out during his test that he lost the white paper. It's interesting that we didn't get to see any of Maggie's polygraph test and nothing significant of Spangler's. I want to trust Maggie, but as she said, they all have secrets.

    Ingram is slowly becoming a favorite. I love how cool he was while being questioned. I want to believe he is helping Will, but I still don't completely trust him yet. After all, he could be the one who removed and replaced Will's bugs. He's already broken into Will's apartment once.

    I agree that Will is acting very stupid and I understand Ingram's anger with him. I do think he is a genius when it comes to finding patterns, but now that he himself is part of the conspiracy it has thrown him off. That may be why he's having such a hard time handling being spied on.

    I love every aspect of the show, but I worry about the ratings. Hopefully AMC has as much faith in this one as I do and will renew it.

    September 7, 2010 at 3:17PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Lionel Essrog

    I'm willing to give the show and the characters some leeway on both the Katherine Rhumor scenes and the Will Acting Stoopid/Dangerous scenes:

    1) My sense is that the show is using the Katherine Rhumor scenes to comment on and parallel the main action---she's the older, female version of Will. I mean, she ALSO is a fan of the spread-all-the-papers-on-the-floor method of analysis, on an Oriental rug, no less!

    But one pointed difference between K & W in this episode is that after *her successful bug hut, she is rich enough and "disconnected" enough to be able to throw her house keys in the bushes and drive off to continue any investigation more freely. Whereas Will has to stay put, now with the gathering knowledge that all eyes (and ears) are upon him.

    2) My sense of Will, based on the first few episodes, is that because of his history, he may not care as much about the personal risks of his behavior as you'd expect---he barely batted an eyelash when he almost got run over by that cab. He takes a step forward on the API roof ledge that could be deliberate and could be subconscious (because James Badge Dale is SO awesome, I can't tell).

    And his (hilarious) repeated ignorings of the rants of his sources about how much hell they're going catch for helping him struck me as the reactions of a guy who carries a kind of quiet Rudy Guiliani trump card---he literally can't imagine anything happening to you that's as bad as what happened to him.

    Also in general I think he's so bent on solving puzzles that thoughts of personal safety can be pretty distant. I think finding the bugs in his apartment was terrifying more because it blew apart his treasured solitude rather than because he felt he was suddenly in mortal danger.

    Ironically, in untangling the conspiracy, he may have finally found something to live for. So my penny-ante psychobabble opinion is that his personal safety and "careful spy smarts" are going to be important to him only inasmuch as they're necessary to solving the conspiracy (which I'm sure they will be---that I'm not denying).

    September 7, 2010 at 7:31PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    kabak

    i wouldnt be so sure of spanglers guilt here. remember he did pull all the surveillance off of Will. and the next thing we see is Kale in Wills place and then letting him know about bugs

    September 8, 2010 at 9:35AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    JerseyHoosier

    Regarding Grant's polygraph: if the polygraph measures changes in physical response to the question (stimuli) I would think his exasperation about missing his daughter's school play and his arguing with his wife over it would generate a physical response when he is asked the question under the stressful conditons. I believe he has been faithful.

    September 8, 2010 at 10:59AM EST Reply to Comment


  • The show has certainly improved. This week's episode was excellent at creating at atmosphere of paranoia. I particularly liked the disappearing/reappearing bug in Will's office. That has to really make you crazy.

    Nice job. The series is still a bit too leisurely in pace, but I want to watch it!

    September 8, 2010 at 11:25AM EST Reply to Comment
  • 1
  • 2
Next 52 Comments

Get Instant Alerts on What's Alan Watching

Around the Web

News From Our Partners