“Every day I ask myself the same question: How can this be happening in America? How can people like these be in charge of our country? If I didn’t see it with my own eyes, I’d think I was having a hallucination.” — The Plot Against America: A Novel by Philip Roth
Throughout The Plot Against America, the parallels between novelist Philip Roth’s alternate history of the early 1940s and our increasingly authoritarian modern world have been unmistakable. In the finale, the miniseries’ co-creators David Simon and Ed Burns go even further than Roth in imagining a United States where the distinctions between “fascist” and “free” are almost negligible. In both the book and its TV adaptation, the U.S. president’s election itself represents old prejudices that run deep and long. But the HBO adaptation suggests those divisions may become unbridgeable—and perhaps permanently—when the man in charge of the country tacitly approves of them.
I’ll get to Simon and Burns’ gut-punch of an ending in a moment, and to Zoe Kazan’s knockout performance in two scenes that justify this show’s entire existence. But first let’s talk about a few comparatively calmer moments, which represent The Plot Against America at its most optimistic—albeit just barely.
By the time this finale wraps, so much has happened that it’s easy to forget about the scene where Herman Levin is loading trucks on his brother’s dock, jovially ribbing one of his Italian co-workers. “What were your people doing when mine were building the pyramids?” Herman boasts. “Stealing chickens in Palermo,” his buddy jokes. This, in a way, is America at its best: a couple of guys who get along and work side by side, whatever their differences.
We see something similar later when Herman’s new Italian neighbors offers him the use of a pistol, after Democratic presidential candidate Walter Winchell has been assassinated in Kentucky. And we see it again when the Levins enlist Sandy’s old Kentucky hosts, the Mawhinneys, to help them bring Seldon Wishnow safely home as riots spread across the country. In both cases, simple, decent neighborliness wins out over distrust.
Still, it’s worth noting that while this miniseries began with Herman Levin asserting his Americanness above all, by the end circumstances have forced him into acknowledging—and to some extent even embracing—his status as an “other.” While living under an administration that seems to want either to assimilate or to annihilate him, his ethnicity’s no longer just something he can just joke about with the boys at work. He has to declare himself.
This is something Sandy learns too before this episode is over—and that his Lindbergh-loving patrons Aunt Evelyn and Rabbi Lionel Bengelsdorf grasp perhaps too late. After Winchell’s death, the Bengelsdorf faction tries to lean on their power and their self-righteousness, to little avail. The rabbi places urgent calls to his cohorts in Washington, but has trouble getting any reassurances that his people will be protected. Evelyn suggests Winchell’s to blame for his death, because he provoked the audiences at his rallies by insulting “a good man.”
But when the couple gathers around the radio with Sandy to hear what they’re sure will be a unifying Lindbergh speech from Kentucky, they’re disappointed that the president reverts to his usual stump points: The country is prosperous, and safe from the war raging overseas. Lindbergh apparently refuses to consider—let alone profess—the possibility that something’s rotting in America, just barely below the surface.
Ultimately, Lindbergh never has to confront his failures. Just as in Roth’s novel, the Lindbergh presidency ends abruptly once his plane disappears, shortly after leaving Kentucky. (Unlike in the novel, we see what appears to be an overt conspiracy to mess with Lindy’s navigation… with Alvin as a recruit to the cause.) The vice president, Burton Wheeler, assumes command, and becomes the dictator the Levins feared Lindbergh would be. Political enemies? Lock ‘em up! Even supposed political allies—like Bengelsdorf, dubbed “a Jewish Rasputin” by Wheeler’s minions—become suspect.
Aunt Evelyn, naturally, is confused and mortified by these turns of events. She was so sure her brother-in-law and sister were small-minded and unduly paranoid. But when she comes to their house and asks for their protection, Bess shuts her down, mercilessly. “Why don’t you call von Ribbentrop?” she snaps.
This is one of those jaw-droppingly great Zoe Kazan finale moments I alluded to earlier. Bess tells her sister she will always love her, but that family ties can’t be a free pass when Evelyn’s just helped facilitate what amounts to a war crime against American Jews. Bess’ anger is absolute and relatable. It’s the rapidly simmering rage many feel today when forced to share a holiday meal with a relative who didn’t vote the same way. (Give credit here to to Winona Ryder, so perfectly cast as the gullible, sweet-natured Evelyn.)
Kazan’s other bravura scene comes earlier, when during the Kentucky riots Bess speaks by phone with Seldon Wishnow, trying to keep him from panicking over the fact his mother hasn’t come home. While Bess hears gunshots on her own streets, she crouches on the floor of her kitchen and calmly coaxes Seldon into making a meal out of whatever his mom left in the house—Rice Krispies, milk, bread and orange juice—while she arranges to have the Mawhinneys come get him. If there’s one scene that exemplifies The Plot Against America, it could be this: An ordinary, terrified American, keeping a child from becoming overwhelmed by the enormity of the situation by emphasizing the mundane and unchanging. Even when everything’s falling apart, we still have Rice Krispies.
Because the book’s from Philip’s perspective, the details about Herman and Sandy’s trip to Kentucky to rescue Seldon are mostly new to the TV version—and powerful. We see Sandy staring at the burned-out car that belonged to Seldon’s mother, before an emboldened Ku Klux Klan killed her. We see the Levins endure an anxious moment in a grocery store, where a Klansman conducts some business while Seldon’s in the bathroom. We see Herman jokingly grumble about the baloney and mayo on white bread sandwiches the goyim foist on them, saying, “They’re trying to kill us.” (Sandy, comfortable anew with his Jewish identity, finds this hilarious.)
Much of the rest of the finale follows Roth, albeit in a more condensed fashion. Alvin irritates Herman by marrying a fatcat’s daughter, acting like he’s exempt from political struggles because he fought in the war and because he now has money and influence. Alvin mocks Herman for letting Winchell fight his battles on the radio rather than picking up a gun and killing Nazis. (“When the fuck do you people ever act? When it’s too late. All you people ever do is talk,” Alvin hisses. Then Herman socks him.) Evelyn and Rabbi Bengelsdorf, meanwhile, become like the 1940s version of QAnon, insisting that Charles Lindbergh was never an anti-semitic demagogue, but that all along he was secretly working to protect his child, who’d been kidnapped by German agents and raised as a Nazi.
The Bengelsdorf faction gets some cover from Anne Lindbergh, who after her husband’s disappearance is shut away in an asylum, then escapes and makes a speech to the nation declaring acting president Wheeler’s sweeping reforms illegal. She calls for new elections for the fall of 1942.
It’s here where Simon and Burns make a major departure from Roth. In the novel, Franklin Delano Roosevelt is reelected, and the timeline essentially restarts, with the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entering the war not long after FDR’s reinstatement. The two-year nightmare for Philip’s family almost immediately fades.
The TV version of The Plot Against America opts for ambiguity. As Frank Sinatra sings, “That’s America To Me,” we see multiple instances of election-rigging, with ballots burned and voters turned away at the polls. The miniseries ends with the outcome of the special presidential election of 1942 still in doubt. If you’re looking for a direct connection to 2020, here you go. There will be no definitive ending until the votes are counted this November.
This is a very David Simon way to wrap up this story: with the powerful exploiting every advantage available, and in the process making a mockery of what’s supposed to be a democratic system of governance. But this is also an apt dramatization of Roth, who in The Plot Against America wrote about the turning point in his youth, when he realized, “How the shameless vanity of utter fools can so strongly determine the fate of others.”
Stray observations
- “That’s America To Me” is famous for its inclusion in the Oscar-winning 1945 short film “The House I Live In,” which was made to shame bigots (and anti-semites in particular) in the wake of World War II.
- Thanks for reading these reviews, which were a pleasure to write even when—or perhaps especially when—this miniseries became painful and difficult to watch. If nothing else, David Simon’s shows effectively make audiences uncomfortable, forcing us to think through the complexities of any situation. And no matter what Alvin Levin may believe, thinking is always a good first step, before acting.
- Stay safe out there, everybody. May God bless the United States of America.
107 Comments
I’m kinda glad Simon didn’t let us off the hook with a happy ending. You know, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. That saying is being recognized more and more. Not many people are familiar with that one.
It’s amazing how this show has been overlooked so much. It should’ve had the same amount of buzz and acclaim as Chernobyl, but it’s almost like it doesn’t exist.
I had to think about Chernobyl a lot while watching this show, but for different reasons. I’ve watched Chernobyl a year ago and it still impresses me, but for some reason I didn’t care about this show. Can’t really say why. I started reading the book, but didn’t like it that much, which is why I thought I might as well watch the show and save some time. The buildup is too slow, the sense of dread not imminent enough (I like slow shows, but if you have only 6 episodes you’ve got to pick up the pace) and then there is one tense hour and then Lindbergh disappears in the most subtle way, then all hell breaks loose and then the first lady tells everyone to be civil and that’s it?
Actually Alvin got to sock Herman, which was good because Herman was smug and insufferable quite often, as well as never seemed to have ever experienced anti-semitism or knew what it was in his entire life. Then Herman suplexed Alvin, I was hoping it would reconcile the two of them and not the country but it just sort of left it as Herman won. I wish instead Alvin had told Herman about the operation (which was handled quite well).Zoe Kazan deserves an Emmy and Winona Ryder at least a nomination. This review says she was perfectly cast…she’s also perfectly cast as a salty single mom in Stranger Things, she’s like famed character actress Margo Martindale, perfectly cast in many things.I was very glad for the ending. They knew you can’t wrap it up with happily ever after. Resetting the timeline, after all, would still lead here.interesting interview here, although Ed Burns joins the chorus of everybody in the world who just uses “neoliberal” to use any fucking thing at all: https://slate.com/culture/2020/04/the-plot-against-america-finale-david-simon-ed-burns-interview.html
Yeah, that was definitely an odd choice of words – it’s totally fine to hate on neoliberals, but that is the precise subset of the Reagan coalition that has abandoned the GOP as a result of Trump.Trump’s key to victory was by racializing the grievances of the white working class, while Hillary was such a hated figure among GOP neoliberals that many stayed home rather than voting against Trump.
that’s the definition of “neoliberals”? like the primary one? so confusing. So George Conway is a neoliberal? Are you certain?And you can’t leave out “sexercizing” those grievances to the degree Bernie Sanders thought the white working class in Michigan were secret socialists lol because they wouldn’t admit to pollsters that they hated Clinton because of her chromosomes.
The precise definition of neoliberalism refers to the economic ideology that displaced the postwar consensus in the Reagan/Thatcher period and promoted deregulation and privatization of services compared to what existed in the 1940s-1970s.As is inevitable with most precise terms, it has become a catch-all to describe anything they don’t agree with (and also applied in areas outside of economics to which it had no application).
so…now that regulation is a liberal cause can we retire that phrase and move on to something else? I mean…I don’t quite get it because Carter was a liberal and blamed for over-regulation…but ?
It’s a reference to the classical liberalism of the late 19th century, not the modern left.
It’s because in Europe liberal means right wing free market and in the USA it means the opposite (the European definition is the older and right one by the way). So it’s confusing. Most right wing parties in Europe call themselves “liberal” while in the left liberal is an insult. So it’s always confusing when you come from european politics to understand the american ones.
Yeah, I’d even describe it as the post-stagflation consensus.HW, Clinton, Dubya, and Obama differed on the particulars of how to maximize American economic growth, and the efficacy of a social safety net in doing so, but that was the shared goal.
I was thinking about throwing in the anti-Clinton vote! Didn’t want to open that can of worms though, haha!It’s not the definition per se – but folks like George Conway, Max Boot, and Jen Rubin are resolute neoliberals who likely don’t even view it as a dirty word. A quick and dirty definition boils down to the idea that the job of the government is to promote economic growth in the aggregate. Different neoliberal parties may disagree about the particulars of how to do so, but they agree on the overall goal.
I mainly know it as something Bernie Bros call absolutely everybody, so yeah I’m aware of the sexist part also
That’s because the consensus of current American politics in both parties is pretty neoliberal. Look at post-Cold War political history if you don’t believe me.
Clinton rolled into industrial states saying point-blank she was going to make it more expensive for the companies there to do business (when she wasn’t promising to shut them down entirely, e.g. coal). People vote their best interests, and didn’t think she had them at heart. And guess what – she lost those states.
Clinton rolled into industrial states saying point-blank she was going to make it more expensive for the companies there to do business (when she wasn’t promising to shut them down entirely, e.g. coal).Uh, no, Clinton did not say she was going to shut down the coal industry. She acknowledged that coal is withering away and talked about making plans to transition areas that rely on that industry to other forms of employment.In other words, she told people the truth; they preferred to listen to Trump’s lies and fantasies about reviving the coal industry, at which he has (as everyone predicted) resoundingly failed.
So neoliberalism isn’t any one thing, but it’s basically the idea that markets are the only legitimate way to order society and essentially reveal the “truth” about human needs. Neo-liberalism dislikes, or in its more extremely forms, despises any non-market (i.e. governmental) intervention into consumer market activity, again, the market is the only legitimate way to order society.So, how is that different from classical liberalism of libertarianism? The average neoliberal will say “it isn’t.” In fact, almost nobody calls themselves a neoliberal.However, there is a really important distinction. Whereas a classical liberal wants as little government as possible full stop, a neoliberal does not oppose government programs which prop up and support markets or protect existing stocks of capital.So, in its progressive iteration, neo-liberalism tries to create markets to correct social issues like a “cap and trade” system. In its more regressive iterations, neoliberals will support government bailouts or loan programs that are aimed at extremely large companies to lock in institutional advantage. A libertarian will tend to oppose both, usually by implying that the market will natural “correct” some behavior it clearly won’t.Today, leftists use neoliberal as a slur that essentially amounts to “political ideas I don’t like.” This has watered down the term to the point that its not very useful anymore. But, yes, I think George Conway is a reasonable example of a neoliberal.
Ascribing the deep hatred and grievances felt by a very large number of American voters for Hillary Clinton, one of the most deeply polarizing political figures in a generation, to the power of sexism to sway modern American voters, is a dismissive insult to the American voter. It also flies in the face of the reality of the number of women who win contested elections. Ascribing her electoral defeats to sexism would be akin to ascribing Lindbergh’s victory in the 1940 election in the show to anti-semitism. Reductively painting one’s political opponents as sexists or racists—why else could they possibly disagree with your obviously correct political views?—may make one feel morally superior, but it prevents one from even considering that they may actually have rational and morally defensible reasons they do not vote the way you wanted them to.
Nope, the difference in the election was sexism. Nice try, though.
Responding with smug dismissiveness to a critique that your position is smugly dismissive. Thanks for making my point.
Your confirmation bias is showing; try statistics, polls, facts. Best of luck.
Uh… That’s a pretty bizarre line of argument given that you originally wrote “because they wouldn’t admit to pollsters that they hated Clinton because of her chromosomes.” So, wait, are we supposed to use polls as evidence or not?
But okay, let’s go, as you suggest, with some stats, polls and facts. Fact-Michigan elected a Democrat female governor in 2018, Gretchen Whitmer, just two years after Clinton lost the primary there to Sanders.What’s your contrary evidence that to show that sexism so dominated Democratic voter behavior that this somehow explains why they did not favor Clinton in 2016… yet just two years later still picked a female candidate over two male candidates in a statewide primary, and then carried her to victory over a male Republican in the general election? Polls and statistics are publicly available showing Whitmer’s clear victory over male candidates by significant margins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Michigan_gubernatorial_election So, what’s your explanation using facts, statistics and polls that show secret sexism is why Clinton lost the Michigan 2016 Democratic primary?
You know, I wrote a response and you’re not worth continuing to talk to so I deleted it. (you should have that unwarranted self-regard checked out)
I am puzzled as to what in my comments could be taken as “unwarranted self-regard” and what is so terrible about the points I have raised that could make me “not worth continuing to talk to.” I am neither a political expert nor as a font of unique knowledge, nor have I claimed to be. My comments focused on the idea that smugly crediting sexism or racism as explaining opposition to Hillary Clinton in 2016 is inaccurate and unhelpful… and would be akin to believing that rising anti-semitism was the cause, rather than than the result, of Lindbergh’s electoral victory in this show. I think America could use a bit more self-reflection and humility about what has really led us here to this political moment and a bit less demonizing of anyone who has different political views or favors a different candidate. Politically, painting people with different views from one’s own as sexists, racists (or now in this discussion as having “excessive self-regard”) provides one with self-justification to dismiss the legitimacy of their positions out of hand—without engaging with what they have to say on the sort of rational and civil basis that is necessary for a public discourse in a healthy democracy. So, I remain open to the idea I could be incorrect on this specific matter, but I still have yet to hear from you on your reasoning.
it’s hilarious that you think I’d read that, smell ya later!
You noted I am “not worth continuing to talk to”, so I actually did not expect you to read, much less respond, but I wanted to offer you another opportunity to share your reasoning, as civil people should in public discourse. You clearly thought some sort of reply was worth your time, so why not write one that engages on substance rather than is dismissive? I remain open to hearing the reasoning behind your clearly strongly held views, and even if you do not believe so, perhaps others would benefit from reading them.
…
I will take your series of five brief, evasive and dismissive replies as your tacit admission that you cannot make an effective case that supports your contention of voter sexism as the cause of Hillary Clinton’s defeat in Michigan, yet still do not wish to concede the point because it remains a strongly held belief. Does that summarize your position?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Make that six evasive and dismissive replies. Still willing to take the time to reply, in the form of cutting and pasting some pseudo-latin placeholder text… but yet not to actually even attempt to engage on the justification behind your argument?
Fame! I’m gonna live foreverrrr I’m gonna learn how to fly (hiiigh)
The personal plots about the family I thought wrapped up pretty well, with everything around the drive to Kentucky and back being particularly strong.The overarching political plot is a mess, though, which is what I was worried about. The novel doesn’t end well, and Simon and co. can’t quite corral this to feel remotely satisfying; the character of Mrs. Lindbergh, on whom so much hinges, is utterly inscrutable, I have no idea why she did any of the things she did. And then after all of this creeping fascism with seemingly zero pushback anywhere in the political system, suddenly Congress authorizes an emergency election?
Agreed about the first lady. She seemed so underdeveloped when compared to the nuanced characters in her orbit. At the very least, she could have hinted at a crack in her facade, had an evil twinkle in her eye, *anything*, when giving that radio speech. But beyond that, an absolutely beautiful and devastating episode. Also, where’s Sheldon in 1942? Did they find his aunt in Brooklyn?
Young Seldon, coming this fall!
They did have her be genuinely nice to Evelyn several times, which in the end is shown to have actually been genuine. I think they may have been leaving the conspiracy theory door actually open, which I think kind of sucks: Lindbergh was supposed to go against the Jews in the speech in Louisville, maybe was taken out by his own people for not going far enough, they were being held hostage as the rabbi said. I really hope that isn’t it.
“I think they may have been leaving the conspiracy theory door actually open, which I think kind of sucks”This was your takeaway? Because they were clearly not doing this.
then explain why Lindy’s wife was suddenly Michelle Obama.
No thanks – your response illuminates your sensibilities, so there’s no chance for a good-faith discussion.
I don’t understand your response to my response. Explain why Lindy’s wife was suddenly a conscientious and intelligent American instead of the wife of a Nazi shitbag.
I think Mrs. Lindbergh makes an incredible amount of sense. She was a woman in power, perfectly happy to be there and to discriminate against those she didn’t see as valuable as herself, while also paying lip service to people like Bengelsdorf so that she’d look like she wasn’t a “bad person”, but when her husband disappeared and she was shuttered away by Wheeler, she suddenly realized “But wait, I’m a wealthy white Protestant woman. I’M not supposed to be the kind of person the system lets down. There must be something suddenly wrong with the system.” And that’s why she finally spoke out.
Yeah, that’s what I didn’t buy. I understand it didn’t resolve everything perfectly, but the darkest hour ending because of a magical white woman (who was a rabid fascist IRL) being listened to by white guys in the 40’s didn’t sit with me.
It was rather troubling to me that Herman and Alvin’s feud wasn’t really resolved at the end. Alvin became an overly verbose ass. But no lesson seemed to have been learned there. Also, I love that the Rabbi and Evelyn never seem to learn. Just like the Trumpers, they find conspiracy to right-size their twisted beliefs rather than realize they’ve been taken and betrayed. So sad and pathetic.
right after Michael Che’s grandmother died he posted stuff about conspiracy theories. As if to do so would make her death less meaningless…instead of more meaningless.I agree, I don’t know why they had to make Alvin a jerk, or underline that Herman has been an ass throughout most of the show. Even Evelyn had a much better arc than the Rabbi, it’s rare to see a show that does so much better by the female characters.
Alvin was a jerk in the book too, possibly more of one than he is in the show since Philip is able to look at things from the future and see what becomes of Alvin eventually.
The division between Alvin and Herman is fundamental to who they are. Both of them arced back around to a magnified version of their starting point.Alvin is the disillusioned outcast who tried being the hero and suffered for it, so now he fully embraces being the bad guy (who’ll probably be telling mafia goons whispered stories of How They Did Lindbergh over cigars for decades).Herman is the everyman who has seen his worst fears come true and been offered every temptation to run and surrender his dignity, but refuses to, so now he’s prestiged up to the Noble Everyman, whose son sketches pictures of him.So of course their fundamental conflicr magnified too. It’s a bone-deep spiritual thing. Stubborn hope vs justifiable cynicism. “Stand up for your community/ideals” vs “it’s all horseshit, look out for yourself”. It explodes, tragically, in violence between them—when their real enemy is external—because that’s what happens.It’s always been a story about how a family is riven by politics in a world that wants to destroy them, so the natural apotheosis of that is: the darkness reaches into your house and you have a violent confrontation with your asshole nephew/uncle at the holiday dinner table.
It’s a microcosm for the whole show, and for the experience of oppressed minorities under fascism. I actually really appreciate that the characters are allowed to end in an organic place that lets them feel very differently about the events they’ve all experienced, and lets us understand each of their worldviews. I feel like the alternative where they reconcile and come to some homogenous point of view about The Plight of Us Jews would be tying things up too neatly with a bow.The painful, poignant ambiguity of the ending is the whole point. The future of the family (like the country) could be reconciliation…or it could be ruin. Too soon to say. The ballots are still being tallied, forver. “Some conflicting results early on.”
Alvin was always a bit of a show boating hot head, but he had secrets he couldn’t tell, and felt Herman had no right to speak to him that way.
That trip to Kentucky takes 11 1/2 to 13 hours on today’s interstates, one-way. But the roads in the ’40’s weren’t nearly as good nor as direct as what we have today — especially if the Levins were avoiding the “main road.”
I mean the show takes place in an alternate universe but okay
*timeline, not universe, smartass.
Do you really think that’s a distinction? An alternate timeline is an alternate universe. you must be fun during the trailers at the start of movies: IN A WORLD WHERE–Liam: TECHNICALLY IT TAKES PLACE IN SEVERAL MUNICIPALITIES
I don’t think there was anything in those scenes to suggest that the round-trip couldn’t have taken 3 days or so.
Seldon had already been picked up by that other family in Kentucky they didn’t really touch on how long it took them to get there. When they left it was getting dark when they came across the burnt car so they probably only got there later in the afternoon.
Sandy had a throw-away line that said the farm was about 20 minutes from Danville.
But there’s nothing that says it was all a single day there and back. Could have driven overnight and into most of the afternoon to arrive (about 18+ hours), then driven back overnight and most of the day, to arrive back the following evening. A total of two days to do that trip seems possible.
It’s long time to stay awake on baloney sandwiches, but not impossible, especially if Sandy could take the wheel from time to time to let the dad catch a quick nap in the passenger seat, or if they pulled over for a few hours (once they got to slightly safer parts of the country).
It was said some 20 min between towns.
There were many great things in this series finale, as Noel Murray pointed out everything Zoe Kazan, the slow revelation and disillusionment of the Bengelsdorfs, details like the callous prying off a mezuzah, the tightening dread of the Klan presence; it was all there.But it still left me disappointed and it’s hard to point to why. Reading Murray’s reveal how the book “reset” the timeline just prior to Pearl Harbor with Roosevelt winning to me was inspired. I understand the ambiguity chosen, but it didn’t not give me the aha moment that is evidently in the book.Further Alvin’s audacious and brutal declaration at the dining table about “When the fuck do you people ever act?” was so goddamn powerful only to be upended by a preposterous house crashing brawl. Zoe Kazan’s Bess would never have allowed a scratch on the table, roughhousing in the living room. That is simply a bridge too far for a proud Jewish woman, mother and steely matriarch. Trust me on this.
I felt Alvin’s turn to prompous ass (I did find it hilarious that, in introducing his fiance, he lists all his opportunities for windfall before her name) kind of off. I guess a lot happened in the time jump between the Kentucky trip and ‘42, but if that entire fight was a set up for Herman’s working the polls and/or a critique of armchair activists, I think as much could’ve been accomplished without Alvin becoming such a putz and kibbitzer.100% Bess the Balabusta would have stepped in the minute glass was broken. We just saw her stress scrubbing the floors in a previous scene ffs!
Wasn’t Herman actively campaigning for FDR in the 1940 election, anyway?
I haven’t read the book, so maybe it’s handled better than I’m picturing, but a timeline reset just feels like a copout to me. From the perspective of the main characters, that’s basically a happy ending. Maybe it played differently in 2004, but nothing about the narrative itself or especially as an allegory for our current political situation suggests that’s earned.
Agreed- even if Roosevelt won and everything else reset, the racism mad dog has escaped it’s cage and it’s not going back in easily or completely.
Closing on an un-called election feels just about right.
I was surprised Mrs Wishnow didn’t take the mezuzah with her, but she probably assumed another Jewish family would move in. I don’t think the other family meant disrespect, and the father did give it to Phillip.
Proud Jewish mother or not, what was she supposed to do? No one in that house would have been capable of pulling those two men apart!Would just like to second the Zoe Kazan for all the awards hype (her and Paul Dano are now part of my favourite acting couples group, FWIW the others are Rachel Weisz/Daniel Craig, and Keri Russell/Matthew Rhys).
If Zoe Kazan doesn’t walk away with an Emmy nom, at least, something is wrong. She’s been great throughout the entire series.
I’ve had a big crush on her since her Ruby Spark days
If Zoe Kazan doesn’t walk away with an Emmy nom, at least, something is wrong. She’s been great throughout the entire series.
Even her silent stare of sadness and wisdom is devastating ..
that’s because they do drills:Knowing stare of loss and sorrow go!
Gaze that means you won’t truly understand the depth of the loss until later possibly years go!
You have a secret but that secret is the knowledge of loss and sorrow go!
You just reminded me of how much I miss Barry.
Yes! I hadn’t seen her in anything before, but this performance has rapidly become a new favorite of mine. The way her character teeters on that edge of “visibly freaking out but trying not to freak out visibly enough to freak out my kids” felt so honest and earned.
She was in the Big Sick with Kumail Nanjiani, she had a small role in The Deuce, she played the mother in The Monster.
Who did she play in “The Deuce”?
She plays James Franco’s character’s wife, Andrea. She basically leaves him in the first episode and then pops up throughout the season. I think she reappears in season 2 and tries to reconcile with him but he’s hooking up with Abby by then.
They never completely break up. It’s a fairly realistic (if backgrounded) depiction of a marriage.
She’s fantastic in Buster Scruggs.
Nomination? They should just engrave the statuette now. She talks about her grandfather Elia Kazan on an episode of Fresh Air, and a bit about his involvement with the Hollywood Blacklist.
You won’t get an argument from me.
Guuurl, you do not cross Bess Levin!Jesus that was gutting- trying to calm a hysterical boy hundreds of miles away and those scenes with her sister.
Brilliant wtiting & directing, brilliant acting.
Sadly, no dice.
I recognize the intent of the book and the show was to focus on domestic events in the US in this dark alternate reality, but this final episode completely glosses over the truly dire global consequences of an isolationist US that appeases the Nazis during a pivotal two-year period of World War II. By November 1942, the critical battles that determined the direction (and eventual outcome) of the actual war either were already over or well underway. These Allied victories would not realistically had been possible without the vast amounts of US war material and then direct US military support that had flowed to the Allies in increasing amounts from November 1940 to November 1942—support which it is clear the Lindbergh administration would have prevented. With no US support for two years, it is hard to see how Britain wins the battle of the Atlantic and manages not to be choked into submission… and then how do the Soviets manage to hang on, much less launch the fateful counterattack at Stalingrad (which began in November 1942)? The idea that the “timeline essentially restarts, with the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entering the war not long after FDR’s reinstatement” should be little comfort. For Britain and the Soviet Union, “restarting” two years later would be like “restarting” two patients’ hearts after they died. At best, you probably have a world where the US, without much help from whatever is left of the British Empire and USSR if anything, has to win the war by using a lot more than just two nuclear weapons—in both Europe and in Asia… while the Nazis have a much longer time to conduct the holocaust over a much larger portion of the earth than they did in our timeline. Even alluding to the ongoing global march of fascism thanks to Lindbergh’s isolationism would have added to, not distracted from, the story of what was happening in America and put it in a larger context.
I came here just to see if the ending had been changed. I thought the book’s conclusion was a bit too pat. Everything in America is going to be okay? Sure, if you’re not of Japanese descent.
It doesn’t seem like there is a war in the Pacific on the show therefore no Japanese persecution.
There definitely isn’t – Pearl Harbor isn’t until after FDR wins the emergency election. But the speed with which things snapped back to normal is like the boys breaking down in tears when the adults show up at the end of Lord of the Flies. Reading the book the first time I was amazes that Roth let everyone off so easily. Not typically his style.
I haven’t read the book I was just going by what they give us on the show. Does Roth explain it in the book because Japan didn’t really care about the US they went to war because of FDR’s oil embargo. If Lindbergh did nothing to stop Japan from 40-42 then Japan invades Southeast Asia and doesn’t need US oil anymore so they would have no reason to bomb Pearl Harbor. Without Pearl Harbor FDR doesn’t get to declare war.
It’s been so long since I read it that I honestly don’t recall what kind of alternate history Roth used. But IRL the public was far less fixated on the war in Asia prior to Pearl Harbor so I can see how it might be sidelined with respect to the story Roth is telling about antisemitism and Nazi sympathizing. I might need to break the book back out, it’s pretty short.
I can’t remember the last time I watched a scene as emotionally affecting as Bess talking Seldon through his panic on the phone. Recalling it makes my eyes tear up anew.
As a fan of the book, I was anxious to see how they’d wrap up the show. The Alvin conspiracy to assassinate Lindy plotline surprised me. Since that doesn’t happen in the book, I figured for sure it was an FBI sting operation. I was shocked that he seemed to actually participate in the actual assassination, but I though that was a thrilling addition.I also prefer this ending to Roth’s. I appreciate Roth’s, where some found his ending to be deflating, for emphasizing the banality of evil. America goes from the verge of Nazism in the book to normalcy with gentiles acting as if it was a hiccup and not the near-annihilation of their Jewish neighbors. In the show, the ending is a better one for our times. It’s decidedly less optimistic, and while it made for difficult quarantine viewing, it was an important reminder of how much we still have to lose if we don’t make changes in November.
Any opinions on the Nazi kidnap plot being true? I’m kind of leaning that way I don’t think the British and Canadians would have put together an assasination if he was just an anti semite.
The Nazi kidnapping thing is, even by the generous standards of conspiracy fiction, a big stretch. Charles Jr. disappeared in March of 1932; Hitler did not become Chancellor of Germany until January of 1933.The Anglo-Canadian targeting of Lindbergh wasn’t because he was an anti-Semite, it was because they wanted to clear the way for a pro-Allied government to take the US into the war.
Charles Jr. didn’t die. He’s trapped in the Upside Down. Just like Evelyn’s grandson was stuck there for a few days in the early 80s. Baby Lindbergh will actually be a major character in the fourth season of Stranger Things.
This was a tense hour of television to watch, and that’s having read the book. This has been a terrific miniseries. Everyone was so good in this, Zoe Kazan especially, but everyone, really. I hope it wins lots of awards. The only part I’m not sure about is the inserting of the plot against Lindberg, but even that played out well.
Excellent reviews, Noel – thanks for returning.However, in your excited watching, you bobbled some details, including:- Bengelsdorf had been dubbed a “Jewish Rasputin” not by “Wheeler’s minions”, but by ‘Secretary of the Interior Henry Ford”, another fine historical anti-semite;- The ‘call von Ribbentrop’ line was when Evelyn called her on the phone, not when they were face to face (and this was an odd -and oddly Catholic- redundancy in the episode, with Bess denying Evelyn help *3 times* in 3 scenes); and, – the Anne Lindbergh was being detained at Walter Reed Medical Center, where Presidents get treated, not ‘an asylum’.Was also surprised it wasn’t mentioned that the closing montage’s “That’s America To Me” was written by Earl Robinson, an African-American, and Abe Meeropol, a Jew – and, in keeping with Simon’s meta-commentaries, Earl was later blacklisted by the McCarthyites, and Abe later adopted the Rosenberg children after the state execution. God bless.
I think Ford may be one of Wheeler’s minions.
The industry-titan-turned-Cabinet-Secretary? Not very likely a word usage from the exacting Mr. Simon.
Of all the sad stark mirroring of the events of the story to our lives today, I think the most apt was that all it took for people to finally wake up to something being wrong was the administration harming one white WASP woman.
Except IRL, she’d have been fine with it so that wouldn’t have been needed.
Fantastic series, and holy hell, Zoe Kazan. I’d only seen her in a couple of things before, but now, I’m in love. Bess trying to comfort Seldon is one of the most memorable and harrowing parts of the book. The filmmakers and the actress did incredible justice to it here.But my immediate reaction to this finale was that it was a little overstuffed and they could have used one more episode. I don’t remember Herman and Alvin’s fight in the book (it’s been ages since I read it), so I’m kind of wondering what the purpose was, and especially in its placement, when the danger had seemingly passed and our characters look like they’re going to have a happy endings. Was it that Alvin and Herman will always fight, like they did at the beginning of the series, and this is a sign of things getting back to normal? I thought Alvin, under attack for being a bad Jew, would slip and reveal his part in the assassination attempt to Herman. Is there a larger political allegory to that fight that relates to us?That ambiguous, cliffhanger ending is working on me. Yes, Simon and Burns are saying: if we didn’t make this show have its Trump echoes subtext at all, then this more than anything else should really make it damn obvious that we’re talking about America now. I wonder if Roth would have liked it. I’d have to find the interview but I think Simon could have talked about the new ending with Roth when he went to get his blessing.
This was a drastically underrated production. Zoe Kazan and Winona Ryder were perfectly cast and handled the roles with aplomb. The odd contrast was that the writing for the male characters was more ham-handed, seemingly out of that era of movies, compared to the women characters who seemed written out of a contemporary perspective. It left me feeling Herman and Alvin were chewing a lot of scenery – but I think that was done on purpose, for better or worse. You half expected to hear them say “You dirty rat” or “Hey kids, let’s put on a show!”. But that ham-handedness seemed to fit that era, as cheesy as it actually played.
I’m pretty picky about these HBO series, but I hardly had a single quibble with anything in this entire show – until the last 8 minutes or so when it went off the rails. Alvin blowing in as a completely different bombastic character and Herman going after him – AFTER ALVIN LOST A LEG FIGHTING. Then the ridiculous WWF fight scene and subsequent hanging around scene, which was supposed to impart some message of peace? Who hangs around after that mania helping clean up the dinner plates? That was the only complete fail in the entire show – but it came at a really important time and clouded the entire resolution to the series. The political resolution was forced. Suddenly Mrs. Lindbergh Aryan Nazi is the national mother figure? The rest of the problems just miraculously went away except for vote-rigging? Not likely. That just did not work after all the other build up.But other than those final forced minutes it was a great series.
The quick shift back to an almost-normal timeline after the Pearl Harbor attack, Roosevelt’s re-election, and the inevitable military victory surprised me a bit in the novel, but I put that down to the story being seen through the eyes of a small boy. At that age, as long as things are more or less OK at home and school, the big issues of the day can seem pretty remote. And the book suggested that America is resilient enough to shrug off a flirtation with fascism without lasting harm. The ending of the series—seen through adult eyes, and with the pointedly topical addition of vote-tampering and an undecided election—is much, much darker.
Who does FDR run against? Does Wheeler switch parties and run as a R?
Henry Ford.
When the Italian neighbor goes in the booth at the end it looks like Ford is the R nominee, with Robert Taft as VP. Which struck me as odd given the presumption here is that Congress (which at least has an effective Republican bloc after the 1940 elections) removed Wheeler and called a special election, and Ford would have been closely associated with him. Presumably they would have wanted someone other than the most anti-Semitic member of the previous nightmare admin, but who knows.
I made a well thought out and detailed comment at 11:44 on 4/20 which is still pending approval for some reason. So, let me give you the short version: It was a mistake for the show (and apparently the book) to be written as though just the history of America, not of the entire world, would have been different, if an isolationist fascist sympathizer appeased the Nazis from November 1940 to November 1942… the period when the most pivotal battles that changed the course of World War II took place.
It would be interesting to see an alternative time line past the show’s conclusion. I mean FDR would probably be dying soon and whomever the VP was would be taking over to help end the war in Europe, the Pacific. It would be interesting to see if the war lasted longer in this universe. Was Truman a war president longer?, ect.
No one has mentioned the scene of Herman and the boys driving back to NJ- The the druve-by of the burned out car was plenty disturbing, but the drive through the KKK town was just plain harrowing.
Good episode, although more entertaining than rest of show. Plot also is a bit fast and loose with historical context of reality. Wheeler was a critic of martial law in Montana, where he had started his political career. Meanwhile, Anne Morrow Lindbergh was even more rabidly fascist than Charles, calling Hitler, “a very great man”.
No one’s going to read this but whatever (being a Brit I have only just had the chance to watch this but I’ve somehow managed to binge the whole thing despite the subject matter!).What a brilliant piece of television. I went into it with some trepidation; the whole fascist alternative history thing has been pretty heavily covered and not entirely successfully. I was a little concerned that the whole ‘telling it through a single family’ element would really stretch credulity, but in spite of Alvin’s vague action in the eponymous ‘plot,’ this was mostly just the story of how powerless a single family can be during escalating chaos, and I was really concerned it would go full on avenging-angel revenge tragedy like The Handmaid’s Tale. I’m assuming there will be no second series of this to go down this route (I really hope not). I’m aware Philip Roth can claim most of the credit in regards to story but I still think this show should get a lot of credit on a storytelling front.Speaking as someone who talks to a lot of people in very difficult circumstances on the phone (I’m a mental health support worker currently in self-isolation) I thought Zoe Kazan conveyed that sense of utter helplessness but also complete commitment absolutely superbly. I think both her and Winona Ryder were the standouts in some cracking performances (the kids were good too) and the fact that they were so distant from the physical action (as 1940s’ women were wont to do) made those performances more challenging. That final scene was utterly chilling (does anyone else think it suggests that being how Lindbergh won in the first place) as it shows just how fragile democracy and voting really is. Anne Lindbergh’s speech could also have gone both ways (was it her attempting to legitimise Wheeler, clearly the Mike Pence of this piece, by winning an election, or alternatively had she heard about her husband’s secret German families and just wanted his legacy ended. Maybe he’s more like Boris Johnson really)! This show has not exactly been subtle about its comparisons to the present day, but I think it has really shown by how having leaders with such misguided and weak convictions (I’m counting my own country here too) that racists, fascists etc. are given free reign to do as they please. I don’t think I’ve ever wanted a tonal shift into brutal violence as much as when the Levin men encounter those klansmen.
I’m reading this now three years later when I’ve finally had a chance to sit and watch this incredible piece of television.Now, knowing what happened in America on January 6 the following year with Trumps supporters, this series is incredibly prescient and even more powerful.
Writing from the future to say thanks for the recaps…everything feels only more timely/harrowing as our national failure saga moves into the autumn and the election feels more and more urgent. I enjoyed the show, and the ambiguous ending feels appropriate. I read the book a long time ago and don’t really remember it…my one overarching criticism of the show is that it didn’t seem like they ever explained where the antisemitism came from, or even how Lindbergh specifically fanned it other than his accommodation of the Germans. Maybe that was to convey that this kind of scapegoating hatred is always irrational and hard to trace, or maybe it’s like horror movies not bothering to explain where the monster came from because that’s not the point, but it left me somewhat unsatisfied on a plot level. Still glad to have watched. I went to college with Zoe Kazan and saw her in a bunch of plays – she was obviously gifted, just luminous onstage in a way that her screen roles haven’t always brought out but this one did. Nice, too – glad to see her doing well.