AMERICAN HORROR STORY SEASON 1, EP. 5: SHOW OR TELL

Simon Abrams wraps up our discussion of the "Piggy, Piggy" episode of American Horror Story in fine fashion and gets us ready for next week's discussion of episode 6, "Open House." Take it away, Simon.

******************************************

Hey, hey, my, my how time flies. Been busy, but happy in work, so I cannot complain.

I wanted to start by agreeing with you that the Piggyman urban legend does not seem to jibe with the rest of the episode's concept of, as you put it, predestined violence. But, and I readily concede I might be going out on a limb here, I feel this is a deliberately contrapuntal example of the seeming randomness of the killing in "Piggy Piggy" and elsewhere in the show's narrative up 'til now. 

Regardless of how events resolve later in season one, we are right now ostensibly grappling with the question of whether there is a coherent design to the events we've seen, or if shit just happens and Whoever's in charge is just letting it happen. I think we're meant to seesaw between an agnostic, cynical certainty that God does not care (because at this point we cannot deny that somebody is pulling the strings, not after the end of "Halloween, Part 2" or the persistent recurrence of violence in the Murder House) and the idea that He and the Devil exist and They are simply working in some seriously screwy, mysterious ways. 

Like you, I consider myself more of an agnostic than a (frustrated) man of faith, though that really depends on the day of the week. So, it is, as you said, easy to accept the notion that the Piggyman story means nothing beyond the meaning Derek gives it. But in that sense, I feel it more than serves its purpose. It's the counterpoint to all of the maddeningly vague hints at an invisible design guiding our characters' lives, one that funnily enough reminds me of the struggle between choice and design in the Matrix movies, though that admittedly could just be because I've been thinking about them because of an interview I just conducted with the Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer. Yes, I'll gladly brag about that upcoming piece, and no, I won't be humble about it. 

Anyway! So I think once again, Falchuk and Murphy's aims exceed their means. They've got the right idea in juxtaposing the Piggyman story with Constance and Billie's seance. Remember: we don't see Addy during this seance, not even as a projection of her bereaved mother's imagination. And that's because we have to see Constance's plea to her daughter and Addy's proxy reply as a matter of belief. It's striking to note that Constance's seance happens before Derek's death however, so maybe, like the trickle of pee in the Columbine-esque shoot-out, we are just meant to momentarily worry that everything doesn't happen for a reason.



And speaking of that scene, I also don't think that it's enough to pointedly not show any explicit violence this episode after preemptively showing the aftermath of this massacre in the last two episodes. This tack is disingenuous on a number of levels. First, the serial narrative nature of this episode allows for a level of compartmentalization of events. And as we've seen repeatedly in the way that Falchuk and Murphy and their show's writer emphatically spell out how characters feel every step of the way in declamatory dialogue, you can easily dismiss the impact of something that happened last episode if it's not explicitly shown again this episode. That's the show's official M.O., Dennis: tell and show whenever you can't just organically develop your loftier ideas. 

Likewise, don't you think the lack of immediate repercussions in this scene deprives it of some amount of weight? I don't want to come across as a frustrated gore-hound, but I feel like again, there is a line being crossed here and Falchuk and Murphy need to own up to it, and not just with a piss take. Yes, this killing is like Columbine, and that's because Tate has to have an Evil act of inexplicable violence to define his past. The way he practically dares the SWAT team that surrounds him to shoot him is enigmatic and spooky because there is no clear-cut reason for his actions (yet; for all I know, we may very well get one in the next episode!). 

I feel that cutting away before each staccato shot bloodlessly sounds out is a cheat. It allows you to comfortably feel a faint echo of the event in question without getting closer to feeling any of the actual horror of it. What was "Elephant" if not a haunting immersion into the emotions of being in that specific place before and during that terrible event? With the help of the late cinematographer Harris Savides, Gus Van Sant gave viewers a new way to consider a tragic and senseless act of violence. 

I'm not asking for Falchuk and Murphy to have achieved the same thoughtfulness. But when they signed off on not showing any violence in this scene, they shrank back for no good reason. These events happened, and it's not just a matter of belief anymore. 

So yeah, be back soon with my introductory post on the next episode, Dennis. Gotta get my blog up to speed before I can post on Extended Cut again however. Stand by, amigo.

*****************************************


Catch up on the American Horror Story conversation between Simon and me by clicking on the following links:

"PIGGY, PIGGY" POST #3
"PIGGY, PIGGY" POST #2
"PIGGY, PIGGY" POST #1

"HALLOWEEN, PT. 2" POST #1
"HALLOWEEN, PT. 2" POST #2
"HALLOWEEN, PT. 2" POST #3
"HALLOWEEN, PT. 2 POST #4

"HALLOWEEN, PT. 1" POST #1
"HALLOWEEN, PT. 1" POST #2
"HALLOWEEN, PT. 1" POST #3
"HALLOWEEN, PT. 1" POST #4

"MURDER HOUSE" POST #1
"MURDER HOUSE" POST #2

"HOME INVASION" POST #1
"HOME INVASION" POST #2
"HOME INVASION" POST #3
"HOME INVASION" POST #4

PILOT EPISODE POST #1
PILOT EPISODE POST #2
PILOT EPISODE POST #3
PILOT EPISODE POST #4
PILOT EPISODE POST #5
PILOT EPISODE POST #6

*****************************************