Episode 818 - Eternal Review




"Eternal" 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.

The Good

Plot Contrivance: Unlike last season's inane attempt to insert anachronistically the Veritas families' cabal back into the original SV storyline, this episode's storyline in which two boys fell to earth was better contrived. There were too many inconsistencies, complexities, and unanswered questions last season about Lionel's knowing all along about the Traveler, Dr. Swann's role, and the murders of Veritas members. This season's revision of history is much smoother, complete with a visual re-working of the Pilot episode: two Kryptonian boys arrived in Smallville on the day of the meteor shower. One was Clark; the other was General Zod and Faora's genetically engineered Ultimate Destroyer who was attached to Clark's spaceship. (This is similar to the Comics' version of Doomsday who arrived on Earth attached to the outside of a ship.) The episode explained that it was no accident that Lionel was in Smallville on the day of the meteor shower (although he did have a mansion there). It also explained why Lionel would falsify adoption records for the Kents. Moreover, it also made a good argument that the Kryptonian Doomsday (and not a Luthor) is Sageeth in the two-headed symbol of good and evil in the Kawatche Caves.

The Bad

Tess the Theologian: Rarely does Smallville use direct religious and biblical references, but never has the writing been so off the mark as when Tess compared the two Kryptonians with Christ and Judas. So please forgive the extended theological analysis, but I'm impelled to put a lid on the messy can of worms the writers opened up. Tess' casting Davis in the role of Judas simply doesn't make sense. Davis said it himself, "I haven't betrayed anyone," let alone a good and innocent friend. She should have stopped there, but her objective was to portray Judas' betrayal as necessary and predetermined, thereby diminishing his responsibility for his choice, even to the point of making him a pawn in the grand plan. That's how she sees Davis. If he is to be merely the instrument who causes Clark to fulfill his pre-determined destiny, Tess is seriously underestimating how dangerous Davis is.

"Who would Christ have been if Judas had not betrayed him?" Wrongdoers tend to think like this; they identify with Judas' diminished culpability. They cast Judas as a tragic contributor to Jesus' work of redemption. Judas was a tragic figure, but only because of his subsequent remorse and despair over what he had done. Besides, had Judas not betrayed Jesus, there is no reason to believe that Jesus would not have been killed at a later time. The Gospels make it clear that Judas was used by individuals who had been seeking Jesus' death for a while. These same individuals would have probably continued to seek his death.

"Maybe we would have remembered Jesus as only a teacher roaming the desert. Without Judas Jesus would have never risen from the dead." She makes it sound as though Jesus' itinerant preaching was aimless; as if he were "merely" another teacher. It is precisely because of Jesus' powerful teaching that both believers and non-believers alike remember him. His teaching, both through his public preaching and in the very example of his life, is what was intended to be divinely validated, confirmed, and given full credibility by his death and resurrection. I do not mean to detract from Christ's voluntary sacrifice, but without the revelation of his divine nature, his transformative message and ministry, Jesus' death would have been just another one among the thousands of crucified victims under Roman occupation. And his resurrection would have been construed as an anomaly, a mere resuscitation. For Tess Christ's death and resurrection are a means to play up the role of Judas, or by analogy, the role of Davis in compelling Clark to some predetermined destiny.

And of course, she claims a role for herself in this cosmic drama when she says, "I finally realized that until you fulfill your destiny, he won't have his great challenge to overcome. He cannot become the world's savior without triumphing over the world's destroyer." (She also repeated this much to Clark in the barn.) Christ is more of an existential and spiritual Savior, the Savior of our souls. Clark physically rescues people from injury and death, and inspires them by his example. My point is that Clark has already chosen his own destiny; he is already a savior. It's already an ongoing process, a lifelong journey. He doesn't need a "great challenge" of any kind (certainly not one brought about by Tess' machinations) to fulfill some predetermined destiny imposed on him. But the writers seem hell-bent on going in this direction, in order for Clark to don the tights and cape, and assume dual identities.

"Without Judas Jesus would have never risen from the dead to come back and face his greatest challenge, saving humanity." Needless to say, Jesus' greatest "challenge" and his work of salvation were not after his resurrection.

"There's a savior here among us. You are here to betray him." The analogy doesn't work, Tess. Give it up. Besides, how can Tess assert that Clark "can't become the world's savior," when she just said that this "savior is [already] here among us"? Btw, this is the same savior whom Tess pointedly accused of hiding, what is rightfully his private life, behind "a web of lies" at the beginning of the episode.

Clark: When Davis was about to sacrifice his own life, as the only way to stop his alter ego from killing, Clark, once again, blamed himself for something that was entirely out of his control: "Everything that's happened to you is because of me." The SV writers have always given Clark a distorted sense of responsibility, and an unhealthy sense of guilt. They seem think, as some people do today, that blaming yourself (or your country) first, last, thoroughly, and always, is virtuous and makes you a "good" person. On the contrary, it is a false consciousness, and it makes it difficult for you to perceive reality accurately and thereby to act reasonably.

Clark thinks he's the reason that Lionel abandoned Davis as a child, and caused Davis to turn out the way he did. The fact is that, in spite of his sad background, Davis did grow up to be a good, caring person, an EMT who helps and saves people (he helped save Oliver's life in "Toxic"), and who was willing to sacrifice his own life. It is not Davis who kills; it is Doomsday within him who kills because he was genetically engineered to do so, which has nothing to do with who raised him or how he was raised. Davis is an exceedingly sad and tragic figure.

Knock, Knock: In this episode (and all season) Clark barged into Chloe's apartment without knocking yet again, not once, but twice. The first time he walked in on Chloe and Davis while they were preparing dinner; it made for a mildly awkward moment. Instead of Chloe's response of, "Call much?" she should have asked, "Knock much?" It is simply more courteous and respectful to be admitted to someone's home, especially when it's an open studio apartment. Are the writers setting us up for Clark to walk in on something he shouldn't?

Clark and Chloe: Chloe insinuated that Clark could have been more available and supportive while she is going through what is ostensibly the break-up of her brief marriage. She explained why she spent so much time with Davis: because he offered a "strong shoulder" to cry on. Davis was fulfilling a need that Clark should have fulfilled. Even her remark of "Call much?" to Clark implied that he simply wasn't there for her. Furthermore, the only reason Clark went to see her was to have her help him investigate the recent series of missing persons in Metropolis. This kind of behavior is simply out of character for Clark.

Jimmy: By Chloe's description of Jimmy's harsh tirades in his emails to her, the writers made him sound quite peevish, petulant, and unreasonable. Are they trying to justify Chloe's giving up on her marriage? Jimmy is making the marriage completely unsalvageable, so Chloe has no choice but to move on?

The Mixed:

Never has SV employed religious beliefs, practices, and symbols so overtly as in the Davis/Doomsday storyline. Besides Tess' inaccurate analogy with Christ and Judas, it was disturbing to watch Davis kiss the crucifix on a rosary, a specifically Catholic symbol, right after he buried his latest murder victim. (Granted, he was asking for forgiveness.) "Eternal" was the second episode in which the symbol of a rosary was connected with his murder victim; the last time it was in his ambulance. The episode "Turbulence" opened with Davis in a confessional and confiding in a Catholic priest. What is the meaning of associating Davis with a religion? It would not be disturbing to associate Christianity or faith in God with Clark (which has never been so specifically and explicitly done) because he is good. But in Davis' case, is it meant to show that he is genuinely striving to be good and overcome evil? That he's seeking divine help? Is religion supposed to represent his last hope of subduing the murderous beast within? And is the message ultimately supposed to be that he is grasping at straws? Because to associate a religion, faith in general, or God with Davis is ultimately to show them all to be impotent up against the evil of Doomsday.

Other religious references in the episode were indirect and more of a continuity with the first couple of seasons, such as the references to St. George who fought the evil dragon, or Warrior Angel who is reminiscent of the archangel Michael.

Rating: I give "Eternal" 2 stars out of 5.

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