Episode 814 - Requiem Review




"Requiem" Review

Written by Babaluwee

DISCLAIMER - Please remember that this review does not represent the opinions/viewpoints of everyone; it is the personal opinions of the reviewer only. Thank you.

"Requiem" was a failed attempt to resolve the storyline of Clark and Lana's relationship. It seemed almost to go back in time to the first three seasons of Smallville, reprise the earlier Clark and Lana characters, and make them tragic, star-crossed lovers and martyrs to a higher cause. Regrettably, the relationship is not resolved, evolved, or ended. In this "Requiem," no one and nothing rests in peace.

The episode did not literally go back in time. There were references to events and characters of the last five years, but the episode was suggestive of the earlier versions of the four main characters: There was Clark, who simply wants to help people and who represents justice and moral goodness; the original Lana, the love interest who was sweet, good, and confident-before her character became warped and twisted; Chloe, the investigating computer whiz and unrepentant hacker; and once again the villain of the story, Lex, who was behind a secret evil plot, as usual. Appropriately absent (from the early years) were Lois and Jimmy. Was Jimmy still in the hospital? His wife Chloe made no mention of him.

There were reminders of the early SV days such as the life-size portraits of Lionel and Lex at Luthorcorp, Lana's now depleted kryptonite necklace, references to Jonathan and Martha's values and to the cemetery scene in the Pilot episode, and finally, the requisite emotional scene between Clark and Lana in front of the window of the barn's loft. Oh, and the kissing scenes were great; Tom and Kristin still have unmistakable chemistry!

The Good:

Moral Values: The moral discussions between Clark and Chloe, and between Chloe and Oliver, on whether it's right to kill Lex were well done. The argument is a familiar and strong one: killing an undeterred murderer like Lex will prevent the murder and suffering of many innocent people in the future, including Clark. Clark makes it clear that his morality does not consist of "Do it unto the other before he can do it unto you." He did not kill Chloe who was controlled by Brainiac in order to prevent potential human deaths. Pre-emptive homicide is not the moral equivalent to killing an aggressor who is posing an immediate threat to a person's life. I'd like to take a moment to mention that this may seem like an obvious moral principle, even if it is articulated by a fictional character in a fantasy action series, but the truth is that there are millions of people in the world today who do not share such a basic humanistic morality, who instead believe that violence, brutality, terror, and murder are legitimate, if not divinely sanctioned, means to their ends.

Although they may have arrived at different moral decisions, Clark, Chloe, and Oliver all adhere to the same basic moral principle of the sanctity of human life. What is important in this episode is not only the moral question of whether it would be right to kill one undeniably dangerous person in order to prevent his murdering many people, but also to portray the characters struggling to be faithful to that moral principle, given a unique and extreme case (like Lex), or given it's the only way, it seems, to protect the greater good and someone they love, or given the situation in which the only choice is between the lesser of two evils. It is good to present, discuss, and reaffirm our humanistic moral values, especially through our popular culture's heroes.

Tom: Tom gave us a strong and convincing performance, particularly in the scenes involving moral arguments. He delivered his lines with conviction and certitude. Tom's TV character may be fictional, but Clark Kent is also a symbol of some of the most important values of our civilization. He does not intentionally take human life; he represents the untainted ideal of moral goodness. Tom Welling's portrayal does the iconic character justice.

Tom's performance was convincing even in the romantic scenes with Lana. His warm and loving eyes, his irresistible smile, every aspect of his sublime countenance compelled me to suspend disbelief at their historically dysfunctional relationship for the duration of the scene.

The Bad:

Lana: On the one hand, I can honestly put part of these remarks in "The Good" Section, because it was just wonderful to see the original Lana for a while, and to see her and Clark happy together and in love. She wanted to help and save people side by side with Clark (just like the Kents) because human life is "precious and beautiful." On the other hand, I can't shake off the incongruity and lack of continuity with the last five years of Lana's unexplainably unfair behavior toward Clark, the unfounded and unremitting angst, the detour into wedlock with Lex, the captivity of Lionel, and many other peccadilloes... Maybe Lana's heroic act to save potential victims of the bomb was the writers' attempt to redeem her character? Was her kryptonite absorption supposed to be the "far, far better thing she does, than she has ever done before"? I don't think it works as a plot device because of the incalculably painful effect it will have on Clark. The writers may think this was Lana's parting sacrifice, but they never considered the price their main character would have to pay.

The "End" of the Relationship??: Clark and Lana's relationship has not ended; its nature has only changed: they cannot be in close proximity to each other. Now the relationship can never really end, because it was torn asunder at a time when it was presented at its very best, when Clark and Lana were never more in love and of one heart and mind. Now, it seems, they are likely only to long and pine for each other. How does one "move on" after something like this, neither death, nor desertion, nor break-up? This relationship is at an absolute standstill; it can neither grow and deepen (into a lifelong happy marriage), nor can it go wrong and fail. Nor can the couple even "stay together," literally, as friends. This plot development is so unsatisfying, it defies words! But why should I find any of the scripts regarding Clana satisfying? Clark and Lana were always unable to "stay together." Lana had always been poison to him. Their happy time together was always fleeting. The writers simply made the Clana predicament an actual physical condition.

Plot Incongruities: If Lex's plan was to make Lana lethal to Clark, how did he know that Lana and Clark would even discover that Lana had the power to absorb kryptonite, so that she'd know what to do when she found the bomb? She seemed to have discovered her kryptonite-absorbing ability completely by accident.

If Lex's plan was to get Clark and Lana to the bomb on the roof of the DP, why did he make the trail to so difficult and indirect? It involved tracking down Toyboy Shot, for example, a lead that only Oliver could provide. What if Oliver hadn't survived the blast at Luthorcorp or given the information to Chloe who gave the info to Clark against Oliver's wishes?

Rating: I give "Requiem" 2 and 1/2 stars out of 5.

Please join in the discussion of "Requiem" by clicking HERE