Odyssey & Abroad

Higher than Our Ways

8/6/2021

Episode Description:
"Olivia Parker and Zoe Grant are excited when money mysteriously shows up for a ski trip, but Jason Whittaker and Wilson Knox worry that the trip to be connected to a premonition of danger." - AIO

Episode Review:
“Higher than Our Ways” is the highly anticipated follow-up to “The Christmas Bells” in which it is finally revealed which of three principal characters -- Olivia, Emily or Zoe -- would “fall”. The answer to this question probably surprised many fans who had assumed that this storyline would be related to the Rydell Saga, and who, therefore, erroneously concluded that it would be Emily Jones -- and not Olivia -- that would be the one to fall. I myself initially thought it’d be Emily. After all, out of the three characters listed, Emily Jones was the only one going through a situation that might test someone's faith. Although, if I had all actually spent more time thinking about it, I probably would have noticed that “The Rydell Revelations” never seems to have any interest in showing the effects of one’s actions on other people’s personal and spiritual well-being. But enough about that storyline.

Not only is today’s reveal a little surprising, the storyline itself has some real, and interesting, ramifications for future albums. First, the episode guarantees that the entire Parker family isn’t actually being phased out of the show (as many thought they would be). Secondly, it ensures a portion of episodes going forward will have a more serious and contemplative tone. Thirdly, it allows us to assume that fan-favourites Jason and Wilson will be heavily involved (it’s always nice when these two characters are given more to do). And, finally, it promises a topic that the show hasn’t really delved into that much on AIO; in a time where it seems quite trendy for younger people to post “spiritual deconstruction videos”, here we have the privilege of following someone losing their faith and will learn how exactly Christians should respond to them.

Although it’s one of the better episodes of the year, not everything about it totally worked for me. I wonder, for instance, if there were one too many instances that robbed it of some authenticity. As referenced in my review of “The Christmas Bells”, the fact that this entire storyline is based on Wilson hearing the somewhat mystical-sounding phrase “One of Three will fall” -- the sort of ominous words that a Wizard in a fantasy novel might say -- makes every event in this storyline feel a little less rooted in believability (simple “she will fall” would have worked fine). There is also a strange mixture of tones here. Having Wilson bumbling around and goofily trying to prevent characters from falling in the first half, followed by a couple of rather unnecessarily morbid scenes where, in one case, the dead teacher’s son tries to go talk to his own father lying in a casket, just didn’t seem to fit together in the same episode. Because of its inconsistent tones, the episode didn’t end up resonating with me as much as it could have.

Robbing it also, I think, of some authenticity is the fact that the AIO team decided that the “inciting incident” would be the death of a teacher the audience never even saw Olivia interact with. I’m not sure if this was the right decision. On the one hand, the fact that the audience has never heard of this teacher keeps the audience less emotionally invested in as they otherwise might have been. On the other hand, I understand that “killing off” a character that had appeared on the show before, then putting all of the focus on Olivia, would have probably felt tonally off as well. We’ve seen the former situation work well in “A Lesson From Mike”, and we’ve also heard the latter work well in episodes like “Karen” or “The Very Best of Friends”. In my mind, what they settled on works well-enough, but I can’t help but wonder if the latter option might have helped me feel the impact of his death a little more. To reiterate, I don’t know what the best decision would have been, but I think simply including the teacher’s voice in one of the early classroom scenes might have humanized him a little more.

After finishing the episode, I sorta wished Olivia’s struggles had happened after her experiences in “The Ties that Bind”. In those episodes, if you’ll remember, she was questioning the teachings of the Bible and was shown to be confused as to why Mr. Whittaker wasn’t being “tolerant” or “loving” enough in those episodes. While people commonly fall away from the faith after witnessing a tragedy, I wonder if I’m witnessing the younger generation rejecting Christianity much more because it’s seen as “hateful” and “intolerant”, and less because they wonder “why does God let bad things happen?” (although, mind you, this is still a common question that people have). Her scenes in “The Ties that Bind” might have seemed like a more organic and fitting jumping-off point than the overly-tragic event in this album. Alas, AIO doesn’t have a time machine and can’t place this particular storyline after that album, but it’s certainly interesting to reflect on those episodes in light of this new storyline.

I’ll say this: after listening to “Higher than Our Ways”, I already find myself much more intrigued by this new storyline than I am with the Rydell Saga. The difference between the sagas, of course, is clear: instead of trying to keep listeners invested with a vague “what is going on?” question, this saga reveals its central question right away: “Will Olivia reject Christianity, or won't she?”. We can be sure that it won’t be a storyline that will cop out halfway with a “Surprise! -- it was actually the mysterious nanny who rejected Christianity!” Oh wait, how did I get back to talking about the Rydell saga, again? Oh well. Despite its imperfections, “Higher than Our Ways” is a very solid episode that makes me excited to hear more episodes.

Writer: Marshal Younger
Director: Marshal Younger
Executive Producer: Dave Arnold
Post-Production: Nathan Jones
Music: John Campbell
Theme: Grief
Original Release Date: 07.27.2021
Episode Review Date: 07.06.2021

1 Comment

Millstones

4/5/2021

0 Comments

Episode Description:
Renee learns that ethical choices take practice, while Connie's campaign to help a friend creates a moral dilemma.

Episode Review:
Along with “Cars, Trains and Motorcycles” and “The Rydell Revelations”, fans were met with another controversial episode during the summer of 2020: “Millstones”. I must say, with all due respect to the creators of AIO, that this is certainly one of the most bonkers episodes I’ve heard in quite some time. Really bonkers. I mean, it’s at the same level of “Fences” bonkers. Unsurprisingly, it’s an episode that seems to either have upset one half of the AIO fanbase and downright confused the other half. Their reactions are certainly justified. Throughout its 25 minute airtime, “Millstones” makes fascinating head-scratching decision after fascinating head-scratching decision.

The episode opens with Connie speaking to a Wednesday night bible study about her friend Pamela -- a character who the audience hasn’t heard from in over 25 years and who, from all indications, Connie’s Bible study class hasn’t heard much from either. But, there Connie is, requesting money for her friend with as much forwardness as one of Focus on the Family’s emails. Now, you may wonder, couldn’t the millionaire that Connie works for who has a personal connection to Pamela have been able to help raise the relatively modest sum of 5000 dollars? (Or, perhaps, the multi-millionaire mailman?) No, in this scene, and also throughout the rest of the episode, Connie seems overly concerned with whether teenagers in the Wednesday night bible study class will help her friend through her difficulty.

Connie’s behavior goes from strange to stranger. In fact, you could say that Connie starts to behave a little un-Connie-ish. Twenty four hours later, we hear her writing a passive aggressive email about how they “can do better”, and including the line “prayers are great but sometimes money is also needed”. Then, shortly afterwards, we hear Connie go as far as making a deal with the devil -- Jay Smouse, that is -- to help raise the funds. Without notifying Whit that she’s even considering forgiving Jay’s tab, and without asking Jay exactly how he’ll raise the funds (as you and I might have done), Connie happily accepts his offer to go find money. And, as a result, Jay Smouse soon ends up handing her a box with 90 dollars in it and Connie (rather uncharacteristically) accepts the money without any questions.

Such moments of irregularity could be excused, if it weren’t for what happens next. Connie has a temper tantrum. She yells at the bible study class using a series of curious sentences such as: “I’d like to thank everyone for your help with the fundraiser for Pamela. I’d like to, but I can’t. It’s been two days [...] and [Jay] raised more than double what all of you raise combined! This is UNACCEPTABLE! What is going on with you all? We have an opportunity to show Christ’s love to my dear friend, and so far your response has been PATHETIC.” Woah. My first thought was: what do you mean it’s been “two days”? How many Wednesday Night Bible studies are there in a week? And secondly...WHAT?! Pastor Knox, of course, echoes the listeners’ confusion, telling Connie that hurting people “even if what you want them to do is a good thing, undoes all the goodness you’re trying to do for Pamela. Doing wrong, in the name of right, is still doing wrong.” Sounds logical right? Does Connie come to her senses? Does she apologize, fall to her knees, and repent of her sins? Nope. Her reply, to our astonishment, is: “Well, I’m sorry Pastor. I disagree”. Which part of what Pastor Knox is saying are you disagreeing with, Connie?

Making matters worse, Connie later learns that Jay was helping by taking unflattering pictures of people and threatening to post them online. This, of course, would make any sensible person horrified. It certainly made listeners horrified. But Connie, as we’ve learned so far throughout this episode, is no sensible person. No, instead of acting repulsed by Jay’s actions, she grows upset that Whit and Pastor Knox won’t actually let her use the money that she raised for Pamela. She doesn’t admit any wrongdoing, and says: “I need to get back to work...” adding, in a very childish tone, “If I still have a job here?” Time and time again, the episode shows Connie in a rather unflattering light, making decision after decision that doesn't seem to fit with the growth we’ve seen from her in the past decade. Would Connie really be behaving this way after so much growth?

It all doesn’t seem to quite make sense, does it? So why on earth is she being portrayed this way? After all, it’s not as if writer and director, Phil Lollar, is completely unaware of how he’s portraying Connie in these scenes. Whit and Wilson themselves highlight how uncharacteristic Connie’s behavior is, telling her “you’ve lost perspective”. No, the problem with “Millstones” isn’t that the writer doesn’t know how to write for Connie, but, rather, that the writer seems to be deliberately “rewinding the clock” to match the way Connie sounded when he last wrote on the show. Think about it. This is the first episode that Phil Lollar has written since returning to Odyssey that centers around Connie as a principal character. Could it be that he wrote Connie this way because this is the iteration he simply finds the most interesting? Unless I’m told otherwise, that’s my assumption.

To the episode’s credit, by showing Connie in such a negative light, Millstones highlights a problem with her character in recent years; namely, she’s just not as interesting as she used to be. That’s not entirely the writers’ fault, of course. As much as the show has had its ups and downs over the past two decades, Connie has, throughout these same decades, been part of its most dramatic and earth-shattering storylines -- from being in a crazy relationship with Robert Mitchell, to losing her mother. Such life-changing storylines would naturally shape a character towards greater maturity. But the problem with a character gaining maturity is that they eventually, well, become mature. And there’s only so much you can do with a completely mature character. Most AIO characters fall into two categories: those who make mistakes and those who help others learn from their mistakes. In recent years, Connie has been the latter.

That’s the main reason why, despite all of my criticisms about the ridiculousness of the episode, I actually kinda liked Millstones. Things aren’t just happening to Connie, or to one of her friends like Penny or Jules. She’s the one making mistakes. She’s the one showing poor judgment. For a full 25 minutes, she sounded like the Connie that I listened to in the 90s. And isn’t that the Connie fans liked the most? We can argue about character logic all we want, but, sometimes, we can spend so much time complaining about logic that we forget that an episode should have something else: pathos. And this episode has it. Overall, with Connie sounding like old Connie, and with the inclusion of Pamela, if you had just replaced Renee with, say, pre-converted Eugene, and then replaced Jay with, say, Curt Stevens, this episode would have fit so well as an early 90s episode.

It’s interesting to compare my reviews for “Cars, Trains and Motorcycles”, “The Rydell Revelations”, and “Millstones”. These three, in my mind, act as a trilogy of sorts. They each present an iteration of a central character that many audiences find too difficult to accept. So, if all were controversial, why did I respond so differently, then? Well, I gave “Cars, Trains, and Motorcycles” a lower grade (2 ½ stars) because I hadn’t seen Whit act that “delusional” way before. I gave “Rydell Revelations” an OK grade (3 ½ stars) because I felt an argument could be made for why Whit behaved the way he was acting. Meanwhile, I’m giving “Millstones” a higher grade (4 stars) because, at the end of the day, we have seen Connie act this way. There’s precedent. Anyone who has listened to the show for a long time knows that this behavior is nothing new. The behavior just makes its appearance at the completely wrong era of the show. That, of course, is why “Millstones” feels utterly bonkers -- but a nice sort of bonkers!

Writer: Phil Lollar
Director: Phil Lollar
Executive Producer: Dave Arnold
Post-Production: Jonathan Crowe
Music: John Campbell
Scripture: 1st Peter, 5-8
Release Date: 01/07/88
Date Reviewed: 05/04/21

0 Comments

Cars, Trains, and Motorcycles

3/20/2021

0 Comments

Episode Description:
Friendships get tested during a wild, wacky road trip to Chicago to visit Penny's art exhibit. Detours ahead!

Episode Review:
Summer 2020 was an interesting time to be a fan of Adventures in Odyssey. In one of its most long-awaited episodes, “The Rydell Revelations”, the show presented a rather controversial depiction of its central character, John Avery Whittaker. Many were bothered by how uncaring he sounded. Many had even thought he’d abandoned his biblical principles. Many thought that the episode ruined Whit’s character. While I touched upon many of these issues in my own review, I did not end up fuming over this depiction like many other fans did. No, to be honest, I was much more bothered by his depiction in an episode that was released a few weeks earlier -- the episode titled “Cars, Trains, and Motorcycles”.

Before I get into all of my reasons for why I was annoyed, I’d like to say that I’m not the biggest believer that an AIO episode can be “objectively good”. At the end of the day, a “good” episode will always boil down, one way or another, to your personal tastes. The reasons you may decide an episode is “good” may be backed up by certain storytelling rules (related to story logic, pacing, and character development), but, many of which are often influenced by storytelling trends that are shaped by society and which often change from year to year. I prefer not to tell people they’re wrong for liking or disliking an episode -- arguing that is like arguing whether pineapple on pizza is considered “good food”. After someone yells “it’s delicious!” and the other person yells “it’s gross!”, it’s often impossible to present any facts to prove your point.

Similarly, arguing for why I personally don’t like how Whit is depicted in “Cars, Trains, and Motorcycles'' is much like trying to persuade someone that pineapple on pizza tastes good -- just like you like your pizza a certain way, you probably like your Whit a certain way. And, personally, I don’t like it when Whit is being laughed at or is made to look foolish. This depiction doesn’t suit my palate, so to speak. It doesn’t matter if Whit was given a perfectly natural reason for acting the way he did (in this case, taking painkillers after dental surgery). Whit, in my view, should always be in on the joke (although there are some pleasant exceptions like in “Naturally I assumed”). The show has done such a good job of making Andre Stojka feel like “old Whit” over the years by giving him dialogue that emphasized the warmth of his voice, but the dialogue given to the actor here makes the character sound far too cartoonish. People who take painkillers do not act like this.

I think I would have liked this episode if they had just replaced Whit with someone who’s dignity wasn’t so heavily tied to the character. If Bernard was around, he would have been perfect in this part. Tom Riley might have worked too. But because it’s Whit, I’m too distracted by how much they’re disrespecting the character to enjoy any of the positives of the episodes. I can’t seem to quite enjoy the fact that our four main characters are interacting again, or that Eugene and Connie are bickering for the first time in I-don’t-know-how-long (although why do they care if they’re in the same league if one of them is, well, married?), or that Wooton’s providing some solid comedic lines, or that John Campbell has churned out some very interesting music (very Seinfeld-ish, isn’t it?). The experience of listening to this episode is like going out to dinner with someone who has spinach in their teeth -- you’d be far too distracted by that one problem to enjoy anything else about the evening. Similarly, any nice elements this episode has are ruined by how they decided to portray Whit.

You may disagree, and that’s fine. In fact, I’ve always been fascinated with how fans can all listen to the same show, but all react differently when a character is depicted a certain way. Why does one portrayal feel “out of character” to one listener but totally acceptable to another? I suppose it may be because we’ve all begun listening to the series at different times. Those who entered the show during Hal Smith’s reign were far more likely to judge every following iteration to that early portrayal. Those who began listening during Paul Herlinger’s reign, in contrast, probably can’t quite as easily spot when the character’s portrayal veers from Hal’s version, and, likewise, those who are entering the show during Stojka’s reign are less likely to notice -- or to even become bothered -- when he’s depicted in a way that we haven’t seen from the earlier two versions.

For better or for worse, the character of Whit is a constantly evolving creature. At the end of the day, I just didn’t much like the depiction I heard in the “Cars, Trains, and Motorcycles''. But I suppose I’m always free to go listen to the iteration of Whit that I like best -- you know, the one who had said stuff like “The best is yet to come'' -- and not the one who yells “Let’s get this hog moving!” Unfortunately, that line will stick in my head for a while

Writer: Marshal Younger
Director: Kathy Buchanan
Producer: Nathan Hoobler
Executive Producer: Dave Arnold
Post-Production: Jonathan Crowe
Music: John Campbell
Original Airdate: June 1st, 2020 (Club)
Date Reviewed: 03/20/2021

0 Comments

Let's Call the Whole Thing Off

1/29/2021

2 Comments

Episode Description:
"Emily Jones is pulled into another case when she gets in trouble for having a cell phone in class that she insists is not her own. Upon reaching detention, she finds that Morrie and Suzu Rydell have also been falsely accused." -AIO

Episode Review:
After reviewing “The Rydell Revelations”, I was surprised to discover just how many listeners disliked that episode. I mean, really disliked it. It’s been over six months since it aired, and fans are still sharing their frustration all over social media -- complaining about Whit’s behavior, the fact that Morrie and Suzu had no grand plan, or how the plot seemingly had more holes than a slice of swiss cheese. Their harshness has, at times, made me feel embarrassed to be an AIO fan -- when did the AIO community decide to turn into an angry mob?

Criticism is natural and can be a healthy exercise. But whatever happened to criticism that’s respectful, well-thought out, and bolstered by well-constructed prose? My reviews are not always shining examples of these qualities, I know. I, too, can find myself writing angrily if the series does not meet my high standards. I, too, have moments where I think I know more, and speak with more authority than I have. That said, I do always try to spend time reflecting upon the good parts of each final product (but never ignoring its weaknesses!). Ultimately, I encourage all readers to be slow to brand each episode as “good” or “bad” and to spend more time grappling with your own creative biases, to consider the writer’s intent, and, most of all, consider the positives.

Despite my own rather mixed review, I enjoyed “The Rydell Revelations'' as entertainment and was ready to accept many of its creative decisions as cannon and move on. Part of the reason “The Rydell Revelations'' didn’t frustrate me for long was because 1) Odyssey has created some truly great episodes since then and 2) I knew that several of these problematic elements (such as Whit’s rather laissez-faire behavior) could easily be fixed with a few smartly written episodes in the future. I know that the show -- and Focus on the Family especially -- would take any “messaging” concerns seriously and would take the necessary steps to clarify those messages in future episodes. So is “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off'' one of those episodes? Does it, even a little bit, make the developments of The Rydell Revelations feel slightly less frustrating?

Well, not in the ways you might expect. To be fair, “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off '' was written quite some time before the three parter aired and thus could not have predicted the tidal wave of negative fan feedback. If it had, I suspect (though I can’t be positive) that the episode might have switched focus from Emily Jones to Whit and had answered more urgent questions such as: “Is it OK for Morrie to manipulate others in order to see the good in people?”, “Does Whit have any regrets for not stepping in sooner?”, “Will Whit face any repercussions from the parents of Odyssey for his behavior?”, and, finally, “What consequences will the Rydells face for what they did?”. For those listeners who wanted those questions addressed, I’m afraid you might need to wait for future episodes. Once provided, those clarifications will certainly help fix fans' confidence in the Rydell Saga.

But, that said, I was pleased to discover that “Let’s Call the Whole thing Off” does help that infamous three parter. It does so by acknowledging that Whit’s actions were intended to be questioned by listeners. That’s an important fact, because so many listeners left “The Rydell Revelations” believing that AIO was telling listeners that Whit’s actions were perfectly OK -- that him allowing Morrie to emotionally manipulate others is the sort of behavior that you, listeners at home, should try to imitate. But in this episode, we now see at least one repercussion of Whit’s actions -- Emily got hurt. Really hurt. And that revelation confirms that Whit’s actions are not being swept under the rug -- that he’s not blameless. And though I still think several “revelations” in that infamous three-parter will always feel a little underwhelming, this is a story thread that does make me see that three-parter in a new and better light.

Unfortunately, this interesting continuation of the saga is part of a standalone story that -- like a handful of other mysteries from the past few years -- needed some heavy polishing. Let’s look at what happens in today’s episode: our three main characters (Emily, Suzu and Morrie) each receive a mysterious phone that lands them in detention. They leave detention, enter the hallway, then ask each other, “did you see anything suspicious?” Suzu then remembers that Jay was acting suspicious around Principal Vogler’s office, so they break into it, log onto a computer, read some emails, and, “oh look!” the culprit (Buck) enters only a few seconds later. Our detectives’ journey towards solving the mystery seems surprisingly simple. I mean, I’d certainly write more mysteries if I could just have my detectives simply remembering something suspicious at the beginning of the episode and having their first guess turn out to be right.

Their simple journey feels especially strange considering the convoluted scheme that’s given to us at the end. Piles of information are, in rather disorganized fashion, thrown at us, making us wish it had been more carefully spread out throughout the episode. For one thing, it’s never fully explained how Buck could have guaranteed that Principal Vogler, Mrs. Mays, Vice Principal Morris, wouldn’t have talked to each about their lost phones (requesting them to leave the office at slightly different times wouldn’t have stopped them from talking to each other). Secondly, it’s never explained why any of our main characters needed to be involved in Buck’s scheme in the first place. (It was the end of the day. Why did you need to make sure they’d “be out of the way” if they were just going to go home anyway?). And, finally, it’s never really explained why Jules couldn’t have just asked for the diary back. Yes, Emily mentions this point -- but, here’s the thing, just because you have your character mention the giant plot hole in your story doesn’t make the giant plot hole magically disappear.

Then there’s the problem with Chris’ wrap-up. I’m not a fan of Odyssey episodes, like this one, that seemingly have a theme at the end just to have a theme. You might as well not have Chris say anything and just cut immediately to her usual “Adventures in Odyssey is a presentation of Focus on the Family'' line. But this theme of embarrassment feels so shoe-horned in that the character who actually felt embarrassment doesn’t even appear in the episode. Has that ever happened before? I like when the episode has a strong moral and lesson, but Chris’s wrap-up needs to feel logical to the story, or the inclusion of a biblical verse feels disingenuous.

But aside from the muddled theme, the muddled motivations, and a few muddled explanations, I can’t say I was overly bothered by the episode. Hearing Jay and Buck enter -- if for only a brief moment -- into the Rydell saga was quite fun. And the music, like its three-part predecessor, was wonderfully moody. And, as mentioned, the way it continues some of the elements of the Rydell Saga is quite welcomed. But let’s face it. This is a transition episode. It’s meant to leave the events of the Rydell Saga far behind and take these characters onto a new adventure by, once again, providing more questions than answers. After waiting four years to hear (somewhat underwhelming) answers in “The Rydell Revelations”, am I really going to get excited about another cliffhanger?

You bet.

Writer: Bob Hoose
Director: Phil Lollar
Producer: Nathan Hoobler
Post Production: Luke Guenot
Music: Jared DePasquale
Original Air-date: 01.19.2021
Review Published: 01.29.2021

2 Comments

Unrelatable

1/16/2021

0 Comments

Episode Description:
After a caller calls to say that her on-radio advice is unrealistic, Connie puts Wooton's scheduled show on hold to convince her audience that she can, in fact, relate to her listeners.

Episode Review:
There’s a moment in “Unrelatable” when every listener’s jaw drops. You know which moment I’m talking about. It’s that moment you hear the fire alarm go off on Spencer’s side of the phone. You’re at first, confused, then disoriented, then, before you realize it, you find yourself yelling: “Oh no! He’s in your house!”. In the span of seconds, millions of questions go through your mind: “What’s Spencer doing there? Is he a stalker? How long has he been stalking Connie for? Who is in the house with him? Is he going to murder Jillian? Is he hiding there to murder Connie when she got home? WHAT IS HAPPENING?”

The answers provided, of course, are less terrifying and dramatic than any of those listed. The audience discovers, in time, that the escaped convict who’s been having a heartfelt conversation with Connie for the past hour simply broke into her house to shave and have a mango. Is this a disappointing answer? Not in the slightest. The best thrillers aren’t thrilling because of the answers they ultimately provide, but rather, the information they leave out throughout the course of the story. And for those listeners whose minds drifted towards the worst case scenario -- i.e. most grownups -- this is one very creepy episode to listen to for the first time! Seriously -- I was pretty stressed out.

For that reason alone, Adventures in Odyssey will probably receive letters. The letter won’t actually be able to point out anything objectionable in the episode (for there is nothing objectionable, really), but they’ll blame the show -- misguidedly, perhaps -- for the worst-case-scenarios they did think. That said, I have no doubt that the AIO Team wanted you to think the worst. I can’t help but wonder how much writer Marshall Younger was chuckling behind the scenes as he injected just enough information to make us think -- in those few traumatic seconds -- that Odyssey was veering towards very unsettling content. For a few seconds, we were all Donna Barclay thinking that an axe murderer was going to murder them.

Every so often I hear an episode that makes me think: “I wish I had written that''. This is one of those episodes. I’m a big fan of storytelling that treats the midway point as the episode’s most important part, rather than revealing the episode’s central conflict within the first minutes or two. This midway twist is a staple of many Hitchcock stories, from Vertigo, to Psycho, to Shadow of a Doubt -- where we suddenly see everything that’s come before in a new light. Marshall Younger, likewise, gives us one conflict at the beginning (Connie feels unrelatable), but holds off on revealing the more dramatic one (Spencer is a fugitive) until later -- allowing us, for those first ten minutes, to feel at ease and to think the episode is just another lighthearted comedy where Connie has an existential crisis over the radio. But in these precious minutes, he is both setting us up for, and distracting us from, the subsequent change in tone (and then, brilliantly, does it all over again for that “he’s in your house!” reveal).

What also makes this episode work so well is that it’s using listeners’ favorite characters in exactly the ways we like them. We see Connie, at the beginning, struggle with her own immaturity and then, by the end, showing the wisdom we know she’s gained over the years. We see Wooton once again playing the side-kick whose dialogue isn’t solely a series of “asides” or “digressions” (though, there’s a little of that), giving some of the episode’s funniest lines: “He was in your house! [...] He ate a mango!” And we see Jason being the Jason everybody loves, once again, using his background in the National Security Agency to help solve illegal activity (although I wish he had more meaningful struggles on the show, don’t you?). It makes me wonder why, when looking back at all the episodes that have aired, we don’t actually see fan favourite grownup characters inundate episodes more often. Even when I was the target audience, episodes that were heavier in grownup characters, like Connie, Eugene, and Whit, were simply more popular. That fact alone bumps up my rating of “Unrelatable” and episodes like it

To top it all off, “Unrelatable” contains a rather important theme, too. While I don’t necessarily agree with those who say that Odyssey isn’t tackling hard-truths like they used to, it's always eye opening to hear an episode that feels so thematically blunt/forthright. You see, I felt bad for Spencer, and I almost felt as though the right thing for Connie to do at the end was to help Spencer escape. Crazy right? Maybe it’s because Spencer showed such strong remorse throughout the episode. Maybe it’s because we see how the justice system isn’t always helpful in people’s rehabilitation. But I appreciate the episode's bluntness in saying “Regardless of what you think of this situation: right is right, wrong is wrong, and -- yes tragically -- there are real consequences for doing what’s wrong.” To its benefit, the episode leaves out any ambiguity it could have injected into Spencer’s situation, and I think that alone will make this message feel sobering for some to hear (even to some Christians!).

In the end, “Unrelatable” is a terrific episode. It ventures into a genre we haven’t encountered in some time, resulting in an entertaining thrill ride with not one but two solid twists. It’s scary, too. Sort of. Granted, there is only so much scariness that Adventures in Odyssey can inject into their episodes. We have yet to get an episode quite like “The Case of the Secret Room'' or “The Mysterious Stranger” or “The Black Veil” that had some genuinely bone-chilling moments -- and it’s doubtful we’ll ever be frightened in that way again. I’ll gladly accept “Unrelatable” as the next best thing.

Writer: Marshall Younger
Director: Marshall Younger
Executive Producer: Dave Arnold
Post-Production: Christopher Diehl
Music: John Campbell
Original Air-date: 01.05.2021
Episode Reviewed: 01.16.2021

0 Comments

The Christmas Bells

1/9/2021

0 Comments

Episode Description:
"Jason and Wilson tell Zoe the story of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, the author of a famous Christmas carol. It’s a story filled with joy, tragedy, and ultimately truth about God’s role in difficult circumstances." -AIO

Episode Review:
Like many of you, I spent a considerable amount of time this Christmas listening to Adventures in Odyssey. My playlist included classic episodes like “Peace On Earth”, “Back to Bethlehem” and “Unto Us a Child is Born”, but, admittedly, didn’t include more recent episodes such as “All By Myself”, “Grandma’s Christmas Visit” or “Untech the Halls. Judging by the number of listening parties that also featured almost exclusively older episodes, I assume this may have been the case for other fans as well. I wonder: could the reason why we keep returning to old classics be the same reason we return to old movies like “Miracle on 34th Street” and “It’s a Wonderful Life” -- they give us that feeling of nostalgia that we so heavily crave during the holiday season? Or is the reason we don’t seek out those newer AIO Christmas episodes during the holiday season because...well...they just aren’t as good?

When I speak to fans who listened to AIO decades ago, they always cite Christmas episodes as being the best. Christmas episodes, for a while, were never not good. But in recent years, it seems as if the show hasn’t felt as committed to crafting Christmas stories dedicated to capturing that magical feeling of the holiday, but rather, use the holiday as a backdrop for a story that could be told at any time of the year. In fact, a few of the ones produced in recent years only really end up qualifying for a Christmas episode because a character said “Christmas” once and John Campbell jingled a few bells during the transition music. But, today’s episode, “The Christmas Bells” feels like a return to form for Odyssey -- or at least a very strong step in the right direction.

With respect to the solid “Beyond Repair”, “The Christmas Bells” is easily my favourite Christmas episode of the last 15 years (since “Silent Night”, at least). It will certainly be included in my playlist next year. Though it’s unclear if the events at Triple J’s even occur around Christmas, “The Christmas Bells” has everything that I like in a Christmas episode: it has the distinct Christmas-y tone, where much of the pacing is gentle and tranquil. It has a classic hymn you can’t help humming once the episode is over. It has both a bit of romance, and more than a bit of tragedy -- and it has a story that, by the end, makes you hug your loved ones and thank God for your many blessings.

There are, of course, plenty of similarities between “The Christmas Bells''’ and the classic episode “It is Well” -- but faulting it for its similarity to that episode would be silly! Yes, both episodes are written by longtime Odyssey writer Phil Lollar. And yes, both are about hymn writers. And yes, both have been divided into three primary sections depicting three main tragedies -- the son dying, the house-fire, and the shipwreck for Spafford...and the miscarriage, the death of his wives, and the near-death of his son for Longfellow. But are we really going to fault episodes because they depict the real-life tragedies of real people that have inspired their writings? If so, then Odyssey should stop dramatizing the lives of writers altogether. No, I say we hear more stories of how God used tragedies for good, not fewer.

But, as similar as they may be, “It is Well” and “The Christmas Bells” approach their literary subject matter in significant ways. While “It is Well” uses the events of Spafford’s life to explain what led to the creation of the hymn, “The Christmas Bells” uses the hymn to explain the events of Longfellow’s life. The result is twofold -- a condensed summary of Longfellow’s life and a rather educational 25 minute exploration of a single poem. As a former English major, I appreciated how the episode managed to not only take the time to recite the entirety of the poem, but to analyze its meaning stanza by stanza, then connect it to other Longfellow poetry. Most all all, I was amazed by how they made it all sound engaging. This episode could have been a boring mess, but the way the script juggles Wilson’s singing, Longfellow’s other pieces of poetry, and the multiple flashback scenes, is impressively done.

But not only is the writer at his best here, every other team member shines too. The way the sound designers made Longfellow’s voice feel “closer” to the audience during his writings, how they made the nighttime “visit” from Mary Potter feel so haunting, or how they made that heart-stopping match scene feel so horrifying. And what performances! The fact that Gregory Jbara played both Wilson and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow is remarkable. (I always assumed that for a voice actor to make two roles in an episode sound distinct enough, he would need to make one of them overly cartoonish.) And what about the fact that Monica Stone actress Melissa Disney played both Mary Potter and Fanny Longfollow? I’m not sure if I should congratulate the actors for their vocal talents or Focus on the Family for being so economical.

The fact that “The Christmas Bells'' is such a strong, self-contained story makes it a little disappointing that it includes an ending that feels so unnecessary. While I do wish there was more cohesion between episodes, there are episodes like this one, that need to be their own thing. Let’s not turn AIO into Marvel studios that regularly tacks on unrelated scenes to whet one’s appetite for future stories. I’ve seen some fans point to “Unto Us a Child is Born'' as an example of a Christmas episode that also advances larger storylines, but the difference is that those characters played part of the events of the episode -- two of the characters mentioned at the end “The Christmas Bells” have absolutely nothing to do with the events of the episode. And that simple detail makes this episode much less shareable to casual or non-Odyssey listeners.

And although I’ve already gotten used to the presence of this disjointed cliffhanger, I’m still not sure what to think about the contents of the scene. If Pastor Knox had simply had “an overwhelming feeling” from God that something bad would happen to one of the three girls, I wouldn’t have found anything strange. But the fact that God used the phrase “one of three will fall” doesn’t sit well with me. Now I don’t pretend to know exactly what God would and wouldn’t say -- and He may say anything anyway He pleases! -- but the line “One of Three will Fall” sounded more like a line that might exit the mouth of a wizard or a palm reader than from the creator of the universe. Sure, Jesus spoke in parables and Joseph’s dreams were, by today’s standards, somewhat goofy puzzles, but I couldn’t shake the feeling that those words felt slightly out of place.

But, if I were to be honest, I think I only reacted negatively to this scene because of what, in my mind I assumed -- or feared -- these lines imply for the future of the series. If these lines are tied to the Rydell Saga (I assume this because of the inclusion of Emily Jones) then I’m somewhat disappointed because I think that saga has overstayed its welcome. If this has to do with the rumor that a main character will lose their faith, then I’m disappointed too because I would expect that storyline to be much more realistic and poignant if a grownup character had lost their faith. I think my hope, at the moment, would be a third option -- that this “one of three’ will fall'' is referring to something else entirely. Whatever it’s referring to, I just hope it’s good.

But it certainly isn’t fair to negatively grade an episode based on what I only think the ending implies for the future of the series. Christmas Bells is so much more than its ending. There are so many great scenes. So many great performances. And so many great choices. I’ve listened to this episode 6 times already, and I think this is one of my favorite episodes in quite some time. It deserves every Seneca Award nomination it will undoubtedly get.

Writer: Phil Lollar
Director: Phil Lollar
Producer: Nathan Hoobler
Executive Producer: Dave Arnold
Music: John Campbell
Post-Production: Nathan Jones/Christopher Diehl
Original Club Release Date: 12.22.2020
Date Reviewed: 01.09.2021

0 Comments

California Dreams 1-2

11/3/2020

0 Comments

Episode Description:
"Jules’s mother suddenly arrives in Odyssey to take Jules back to California. Despite protests from Connie and Buck, Jules decides to leave town … maybe for good." -AIO

Episode Review:
For a show whose cast is made up largely of Californians, Adventures in Odyssey doesn’t portray the state of California as a very idyllic place. Its earliest mention can be found in “Connie Comes to Town”, where Bobby longs for the excitement of California but quickly learns that small towns like Odyssey are better (a theme revisited in “Stormy Weather” and “Second Thoughts”). The episode “Connie 1+2” depicts California as the land of partying and discontentment. And “Fifth House on the Left'' -- most critical of all -- depicts California as a place where everyone uses each other to become famous. “California Dreams” revisits these three main depictions of California, showing 1) small-town life is better, 2) there’s much more discontentment in California, and 3) everyone there just uses one another to become famous.

“California Dreams” features a story that feels reminiscent of several Disney channel movies/tv shows about people chasing musical fame. They all follow roughly the same storyline -- a character leaves their small town, gets an agent, ends up on several magazine covers, finds a famous boyfriend, and, by the end, becomes famous enough to sing in front of an adoring audience. Quite a lot usually happens in a short amount of time. Jules’ story arc, likewise, feels strangely fast, over-the-top, and somewhat fairy-tale-ish. In fact, it seemed so unbelievable that I briefly wondered whether it would all turn out to be set inside the Room of Consequence. One’s enjoyment of this episode will certainly depend on how realistic you felt it was for Jules to have become as famous as she did in such a short amount of time.

Personally, I didn’t mind it. One of my biggest annoyances with television shows is when they introduce a storyline where the main character is in the position to become rich (by discovering buried treasure, or winning the lottery), but because they know a sharp increase of wealth would change the character entirely, the writer never actually allows to the character to achieve any fame/success at all. The same thing happens on Odyssey all the time; everyone who had the opportunity to become “big stars” in “A Day in the Life” got recast, Connie’s potentially best-selling book is destroyed in “The Chosen One”, and riches are never found for Dwayne in “No Bones about it”, Isaac in “The Scales of Justice”, or Eugene and Bernard in “It happened at Four Corners.” In the end, I wasn’t bothered by how uncharacteristically over-the-top its premise was because we at least got to experience the satisfaction of hearing Jules become successful for a much lengthier period of time than any other character on Odyssey (much longer than Alex Jefferson’s 15 minutes, at least) -- even though, yes, she too ends up in the same place that she first started (i.e. penniless and back in Odyssey).

The episode’s audaciousness is what ultimately makes it soar. And because it took such a big chance, the audience is entertained by so many fresh and interesting gags. The way that Jules’ simple song morphs into an autotune nightmare. The way that part 1 ends with that hilarious “”you’re dating him” cliffhanger. The way Buck shows up out of nowhere on stage as a cool roadie. The number of new and interesting-sounding characters like Coyote (his casting reminded me of a young Ben Shepherd). Additionally, the way it pokes fun at people’s clothing (“recyclable fashion”), their passions (“endangered species”), and their foods (“avocado toast”), you can tell that the show really had its claws out for a certain demographic: millennials. I’m sure there was something for everyone to be at least mildly offended by.

That said, despite the fact that I laughed out loud every time the episode “roasted” vegans, I also think it goes back to that well a little too often. While I’ll agree there’s a certain pretentiousness to the vegan movement, the dialogue in this episode makes both vegans, and their products, seem much more niche than they really are. For one thing, almond milk -- which is referenced -- has become a pretty normal staple and is used all the time by plenty of non-vegans. The episode also uses confusing terms like “vegan tofu”. I mean, tofu is just vegan. That’s like someone saying they want to eat a “vegan apple”. Look, I’m not vegan -- but can we all admit it was a little funny how the episode seemed pretty confident that zero percent of its listeners were?

“California Dreams'' also addresses the topic of fame in a much more interesting way than its preceding episode, “For a Song”. In addition to covering the usual “fame is folly'' theme, it’s adding in an interesting message about “individuality” -- how one’s definition of one’s “true self”, ironically, is oftentimes shaped and morphed by society’s expectations. My only real complaint about this episode is that, since the “be yourself” message has been overly-done in every other secular show, Connie’s mention of “God’s definition of yourself” isn’t explored nearly enough. That really should have been the main point of the episode -- but the episode treats the theme as a footnote. With the “The Rydell Revelations” and “Millstones” choosing ambiguous messages, and “For Song” leaving out any biblical tie-in at all, I’m finding myself wanting Odyssey to be more overt with its themes.

“California Dreams” certainly wasn’t what I expected. After reading the episode’s description, I thought it might mirror the tone and severity of “Connie 1+2” -- an episode that would lead Jules to becoming a Christian. But I was pleasantly surprised with the light, fast-paced, and energetic episode that was offered instead. Overall, I think “California Dreams” acts as a nice change-of-pace in the Jules and Buck saga. With its foot-tapping music, colourful/eccentric characters, and a few unexpected twists, I definitely could have listened to Jules’ adventures in California for much longer.

Writer: Kathy Buchanan
Director: Dave Arnold
Producer: Nathan Hoobler
Executive Producer: Dave Arnold
Post-Production: Nathan Jones, Luke Guenot, Christopher Diehl
Songs: Warren Sellers
Music: John Campbell
Original Air-Date: 10.31.2020
Episode Reviewed: 10.03.2020

0 Comments

For a Song

10/26/2020

4 Comments

Episode Description:
"After seeing the popularity of Valerie’s homespun music, Jules decides to start writing her own songs about what’s going on at her school. Soon a musical battle heats up between the two girls, catching friends in the crossfire."

Episode Review:
When I was young, I was known as the person who always had a story to tell as soon as I entered the front-door. According to others, I was able to observe something interesting happening throughout the day and turn that observation into a good story. In recent years, however, I started noticing a lot of my stories stopped being about my real-world experiences, but started to reflect what I was experiencing online -- about news articles I’d read, or youtube videos I’d seen. As a result, I’ve started to feel like a bit less of an interesting person. That’s sorta how I feel about what’s been happening on Adventures in Odyssey: in turning its attention from making observations about everyday life to making observations about online lives, they’re creating episodes that are far less interesting.

Sadly, “For a Song” is one of those uninteresting episodes. For much of its running time, characters are jabbering about their desires to post songs on “facespace”, about “clicks” and “growing viewership”, and about stolen smartphones and passwords. The episode even has its central conflict resolved by having Buck summarize Facespace’s terms and condition page. This isn’t exactly the sort of content I hope to hear when I turn on an Adventures in Odyssey episode. And while it could be argued that Jules and Valeries’ pursuit of “views” is a struggle that “everyday people” experience these days -- and is, therefore, “more relatable” -- it can also be argued that huge segments of the population aren’t wrapped up in the online world and those people will think -- as I do -- “this is all pretty boring stuff.”

This stories’ heavy reliance on social media might not have bothered me so much if it didn’t also feel like everyone on Odyssey is talking about the internet all the time -- in one episode, Jay has a food blog, in the next, Connie is worried about her crowd-funding campaign, and in the next, Olivia is trying to increase her video views. Remember how the show preached against over-relying on technology in “Time of Our Lives”, “My Girl Hallie”, and “Gloobers”? And whatever happened to characters -- like Tom, Bernard, and Connie -- who couldn't even turn on a computer? In the same way that The Andy Griffith Show was a contemporary show in the 1960s that evoked life from the 1930s, Adventures in Odyssey, in its early days, also evoked a small town from an earlier decade -- and I think it’s quickly losing that old-town charm by having so many of its characters becoming increasingly, episode after episode, wrapped up in these digital-heavy storylines.

The show just can’t have it both ways. It can’t make social media such a large part of episodes, then, every so often, throw in an episode that says “your social media goals shouldn’t overshadow your friends”. If it truly wants younger people to turn off its screens, then it should lead by example and 1) provide us with fewer storylines that involve social media, and 2) provide us with fewer parent-characters that seem so oblivious to their kids' uses of it . Think about it. Parents -- or any grownups for that matter -- are totally absent in “For a Song”. This doesn’t reflect reality -- where a large reason parents encourage their kids to listen to Odyssey is because they don’t want their kids to be glued to screens all the time.

But in its attempt to craft an episode that feels “au courant”, it fails to even create characters that remotely feel true-to-life. One of the most unrealistic moments happens when a character named Savannah talks about her experiences listening to Jules’ music. “I played it over and over [...] I feel like you played it just for me. Thank you for writing that song [...] I felt like I wasn’t the only one [...] I was afraid to let anyone know [...] But I feel like I can trust you.” Really? Does anyone in real life actually talk that way? Was Jules’ song that good? The show wasn’t even poking fun at Savannah -- we’re actually supposed to believe this is the way she felt. But all Jules did was write a song that contained the lyrics “The best you’ll get is another “C”. Perhaps I’m just cynical, but there were several times where the dialogue felt too hyperbolic and introspective for AIO.

From its unrealistic-sounding characters, to its musical fame-centered plot, “For A Song” felt like this was a recycled script from some other show. In fact, you could’ve taken this script word-for-word, changed the characters’ names, and it would have fit in seamlessly within any of the dozens of already existing kids shows on Disney+ or Netflix. There was very little about it, both regarding substance and worldview, that felt distinctly Odyssey-like. There weren’t even any self-proclaimed Christian characters in this episode (perhaps a first for Odyssey). It all felt rather hollow and without meaningful substance.

I was once told that there was an unwritten rule in Hollywood that big budget studio films should try to keep the presence of cellphones/smartphones to a minimum. The reason for this is because studios know that people are so glued to their phones in real life that, deep down, they don’t want to be reminded of their own addictions during -- what should be -- a time of escapism. I think Adventures in Odyssey should follow a similar rule when writing their own scripts. No matter how “common” or “relatable” storylines about “social media feuds” may seem to today’s youth, they won’t provide them with any semblance of joy when hearing about it. Rather, it’s just a reminder of how their favorite characters’ lives have become as uneventful as their own.

Writer: Abigail Geiger
Director: Nathan Hoobler
Producer: Dave Arnold
Post-Production: Nathan Jones
Music: John Campbell
Scripture: Philippians 2:3
Original Air-date: 10/24/2020
Date Reviewed: 10/26/2020

4 Comments

The Rydell Revelations 1-3

8/5/2020

4 Comments

Episode Description:
"Emily Jones begins her exhaustive investigation into the mastermind behind a number of mysterious occurrences in Odyssey, including the student council election, the opened lockers, the escape room, and more."

Episode Review:
My feelings towards “The Rydell Saga” have been complicated. I felt indifferent after “Parker for President,” intrigued after “The Key Suspect,” underwhelmed after “The Secret of the Writer’s Ruse,” curious after “The Good in People,” excited after “A Sacrificial Escape,” and frustrated after “Further from the Truth”. After such an array of different experiences, I had no clue what to expect from “The Rydell Revelations”. Now, four years after it began, the ability to judge this saga once and for all has arrived. And, after listening to these episodes a couple times, after thinking and pondering a great deal, I’ve concluded that “The Rydell Revelations” is emblematic of the entire saga's unevenness. Simply put, this episode has some of the series’ most exciting moments as well as some of its most head-scratching.

One of the most peculiar qualities of “The Rydell Revelations'' is that, by the end, it doesn't feel like a natural continuation of this Rydell saga. While part one gives us the impression that those previous Morrie episodes will have some great significance to the events in this episode (in the way that it spends the entire time rather ploddingly recapping those events), we discover about half-way that the Odyssey Team is, in fact, much more interested in dismissing those events and setting up a brand new story, with a brand new conflict and villain. While there are no rules against switching up primary antagonists late in a saga (see Star Wars’ Return of the Jedi for a time when this worked), the fact that this saga so abruptly veers its attention from Morrie’s actions towards the land of spies, international intrigue, and Tasha Forbes, might be a change that feels too jarring for some to accept.

Even though this switch in focus provides the saga with a much-needed jolt of energy, the fact that the “The Rydell Revelations” purposefully downplay the significance of those earlier episodes for the sake of setting up said “new story” is a little frustrating. Within the span of two minutes, the writer has Morrie ramble off a series of explanations for each of his actions; we’re told that Suzu opened the school lockers in “The Key Suspect” because she’s a kleptomaniac, that Morrie carried out the events in “The Good in People” to test people’s good choices, that the events in “The Sacrificial Escape” were Suzu’s idea to give Morrie and herself “a new challenge,” and that the events in “Further from the Truth” were set into motion in order to give Morrie’s “programming skills a workout”. Disappointingly, these answers reveal that there was very little connective tissue between these episodes -- that Morrie actually had no overarching plan that the listener could have figured out. This begs the question: if Morrie and Suzu had no dastardly grand plan, why on earth were their motivations kept secret from listeners to begin with?

Another way “The Rydell Revelations” seemingly rewrites past events for the sake of this “new story” is in its attempt to persuade us that Whit actually knew everything. And while it could be argued that Whit knowing everything all along aligns more with his character than him not knowing (and that it actually explains why he was under-reacting in those episode), I didn’t buy this reveal based on several key lines of dialogue: “There was something about that moment that wasn’t right,” Whit says at the end of “Writer’s Ruse”. “Morrie said that he wanted to make Emily and Matthew feel better. There’s more to it than that. There’s a secret here that feels unsettling...”.

Just the fact that “The Rydell Revelations” spends the remainder of its running time explaining how "Whit knowing" makes sense causes me to suspect that this wasn't part of the plan since the beginning. Suddenly, the episode finds itself needing to answer all sorts of questions: What exactly did Whit know and when? Why wouldn’t Whit have prevented the events in “The Sacrificial Escape” from happening if he knew they were going to happen? Did he know Morrie was going to trick Emily into the portable Imagination Station, and if so, why did he let him? Why did he never reach out to Morrie and Suzu at any point to prevent them from emotionally hurting other kids? Why did he never bother to tell them that he knew their father, or that he'd been tasked with looking out for them?

And, unfortunately, the answers provided (if they even are provided) are quite poor. In fact, the attempts made to justify Whit’s inaction in those episodes is somewhat comical. Whit argues that he didn’t say anything to Emily because “she asked me not to” -- which certainly doesn’t explain why he never said anything before “Further From the Truth.” He also says that he “would have stopped [Morrie and Suzu] if they had gone too far” -- which makes little sense given how serious certain moments got for Matthew, Emily and Olivia throughout the course of this saga. Then Whit explains that he didn’t intervene because Morrie, Emily and Suzu are “special” (poor Matthew!) and that they should be treated differently because they remind him of himself (huh?). The entire episode is made up of an illogical series of justifications -- almost as if the Odyssey team was brainstorming various excuses for Whit’s past inaction, then, after not being able to land on a 100% logically sound one, simply allowed each of those excuses to exit Whit’s mouth.

I think Whit acts contrary to how the show has depicted him in the past. Sure, someone can point to episodes as old as “The New Kid in Town” and as recent as “Angels in Horsehair” to argue how Whit could advocate for using deceptive-means to find "the good in people". The problem is that, based on what the show has also told me so far, Whit doesn’t let kids emotionally torment other kids. He cares for their safety, as shown in “Breaking Point”, when he showed up to Mr. Jefferson’s door feeling terrible about what happened to Alex in the Imagination Station. He wants kids to learn in controlled atmospheres, as shown in "Another Man’s Shoes”, when he tells Jared “the transmuter allows you to experience someone else’s life [...] in a controlled atmosphere -- I wouldn’t allow anyone to use it otherwise”. And he doesn’t believe that people should tempt others to sin in order to test their own personal theories, as shown in “The Bad Guy”, where he asks Nick not to play the role of Satan in someone’s life. It’d be one thing if Whit acknowledged that he was wrong (as he did so clearly at the ending of “The Mortal Coil”), but he admits no wrongdoing except for one brief moment of regret: “maybe I should have stepped in sooner.:

And because Whit doesn’t clearly state “I was wrong”, and because the episode has Morrie turn from a “villain” into "hero”, I didn’t really know what the episode was trying to say. Was Morrie right, or wasn’t he? While I’m not against AIO episodes incorporating some “moral ambiguity” once in a while, I’m only a proponent of moral ambiguity in storytelling when there’s a good reason for it. And, looking back, I don’t think this episode has a very good reason to try and justify Morrie’s actions. In fact, I suspect the only reason they had Morrie transform from “bad” to “less bad” was because the Odyssey team decided, at the very last second, that they wanted to keep his character around a little while longer. Think about it: nearly every minute of this episode is dedicated to persuading the audience that Morrie’s not as bad as we first thought -- whether it's by introducing us to an even worse villain, or by telling us that Morrie didn’t always know what Suzu was doing, or by telling us that he made sure his actions weren’t “illegal” (they were!), or by portraying Morrie and Whit as alike in their quest to find “the good in people”. Strangely, the episode spends far less time pointing out how alarming and “messed up” Morrie’s behavior was, offering a rather confusing lesson to younger listeners.

Honestly, this episode just makes Morrie look pathetic. He and Suzu turned out to be spoiled brats with zero empathy for others who just did whatever they wanted without any consequences. How underwhelming! The original draw of this saga was that they introduced a Moriarty-like villain who enjoyed psychologically tormenting people for the sake of some greater plan. Even Chris, at the end of the “Writer’s Ruse” hints at this: “It’s clear that Morrie’s up to something”. Guess what, he wasn't. By attributing Morrie’s motivations to a cacophony of underwhelming explanations -- from “just games” to “working out skills” to “that was Suzu” -- Morrie ends up looking like a much less powerful character. I didn’t really need Morrie to stick around for longer or to be redeemed -- I was much more interested in hearing him get defeated.

Look, “The Rydell Revelations” isn’t bad. I think there are actually a lot of great moments in it. It feels fresh and original and very different from the many multi-part mysteries that have aired in the past decade. I particularly liked its serious tone and numerous scenes of intensity (much credit, I think, should be given DePasquale’s unique score). I liked the dynamic between certain characters -- Morrie and Whit, especially. I liked how the portable technology “introduced” in “Further From the Truth'' was incorporated into the grand finale (making that episode feel much more relevant). I liked various structural choices (keeping us exclusively at Whit/Morrie’s perspective for the first 2 episodes) and how the episodes slowly peel back information till the very end, keeping us hooked. I liked Morrie and Suzu’s connection to Tasha (the new actress does a phenomenal job mimicking the performance of the original actress). Finally, I liked how the mystery grew bigger and more global, leading us to an ending that felt epic in scale.

And while I didn’t really like how Whit was depicted, I know I’ll accept it someday. Listeners who heard “The Mortal Coil” for the first time probably said: “this doesn’t sound like Whit! ” But that particular episode wasn’t interested in following a list of preset rules about the character, it was interested in creating new rules. Who’s to say that Whit isn’t actually a huge fan of free-range parenting and believes that “special” kids ought to be allowed to run around emotionally manipulating each other up until -- gasp! -- one of them accuses another of kidnapping? Joking aside -- who’s to say that the Odyssey Team can’t challenge us on who Whit is at episode 900? Sure, I may not particularly like these new shadings on the character, but it’s canon now. (and, before I forget -- it’s an awfully good Stojka performance).

Here’s the thing. No matter how many criticisms fans end up throwing at “The Rydell Revelations”, one thing’s for sure: it isn’t boring. Throughout all three parts, I was glued to the speaker. This means that a lot of my initial disappointment will wash away in time, and Whit’s so-called inconsistencies will become permanent character traits that will be used to justify all sorts of future Whit behavior (or misbehavior). I can see this episode being seen on the same level as “Blackgaard’s Revenge”, a once promising episode that “didn't always work” but that has, twenty years later, been accepted by fans because it checks that one very important box: it’s entertaining. And, indeed, so is this one.

PS: So Eugene is raising Buck, Connie is raising Jules, and Whit will be raising Morrie and Suzu? Having a main character taking care of a problematic foster child is really how Odyssey decides to mix things up these days, eh?

PPS: Apparently whatever reason Whit had for not taking in Tony and Brianna in "Chains" doesn't apply to Morrie and Suzu.

Writer: Phil Lollar
Director; Phil Lollar
Executive Producer: Dave Arnold
Post Production: Luke Guenot
Sound Engineer: Jonathan Crowe
Music: Jared DePasquale
Scripture: Hebrews: 4-13
Theme: Faith, God's Protection
Original Airdate: 10.03.2020
Review published: 08.05.2020

4 Comments

Bridget Redefined

6/28/2020

0 Comments

Episode Description:
"It seems everyone in Odyssey is being extra gracious toward the Perkins family ... and Bridget has had all she can stand." -AIO

Episode Review:
Marshal Younger is known for writing episodes that provide realistic snapshots of the fears, worries, and struggles of everyday life. He’s penned “A Call for Reverend Jimmy”, where Jimmy felt the pressure to be like his dad...“Preacher’s Kid”, where Donna felt the pressure to be perfect...and “Letting Go!”, where Zachary Sellers had trouble with his mother dating again. Compare each of these episodes and you’ll notice that they do not start with over-the-top inciting incidents, or take place in flashy settings, or even feature main characters with very clear goals -- instead, for much of the episode’s running time, we’re shown contemplative and somewhat melancholic characters internally wrestling with the pressures brought about by their previously-established life circumstances.

The recent series of Perkins family episodes follow this same pattern, depicting a group of characters attempting to navigate their rather challenging life circumstance-- in this case, they’re struggling to adjust to having a father in the military. Whether Wyatt is feeling the need to be the man of the house in “Man of the House”, or Bridget is missing her Dad in “Always Home”, or Bridget is sick of being treated differently in “Bridget Redefined”, each episode’s dilemma stems from this singular problem that was introduced to us in the family’s first episode. And much like those other older Marshall Younger episodes, the characters’ difficulties are not miraculously resolved by having the central problem resolved -- i.e. the father returning permanently from the military -- but by the characters learning to adjust to their circumstance and, by the end, gaining new, fresh perspective.

This format/style of episode may not necessarily be the most dramatic or exciting to listeners, but they are certainly relatable and have a lot of heart -- more heart, in my opinion, than what I’ve heard from the Washington and Parker family episodes of the past 15 years (that said, those family-centric episodes had their own strengths). In “Bridget Redefined”, specifically, I connected with Bridget’s feelings of not knowing quite how to act when other people know you’re going through a tough time. Like Bridget, I often find myself having difficulty accepting gifts, or can often feel guilty if someone is being too nice, or get irritated if I feel like I'm a burden. And, like Bridget, I’d also likely react the same way if someone bought me an ice-cream sundae without asking, or roll my eyes about being given casseroles, or feel quite uncomfortable if I was being given good grades that I don’t deserve. Although the way Bridget ultimately “blows up” on stage seems a tad bit overdramatic (and crazy!), it also feels logical given her reaction to the preceding events (Wyatt’s comical history blunders nearly stole this amusing scene, however). Overall, these episodes are written with more emotional awareness and sensitivity than other family-centric episodes.

Sadly, the most recent crop of Marshal Younger episodes would be rated much higher if they weren’t so bogged down by head-scratching casting decisions. How much better would “The Sandwich Initiative” and “Man of the House” have been if audiences weren’t so distracted by the recasting of Mr. Parker? How much more involved would “Between Camp and Hard Place” had been if all of its female characters had not sounded so similar? And, likewise, here in “Bridget Redefined”, I’m flabbergasted how no one noticed how similar Zoe and Bridgett sounded together in their scenes. (There was a Whit’s End scene towards the beginning of this episode where I thought Bridgett was speaking until Whit called her Zoe). Whoever is currently in charge of AIO casting seems to think only one type of female voice is ideal for radio. Where’s the variety? Where’s the distinctiveness and realism? But this recent AIO trend of casting the same kind of voice is really weighing down perfectly decent episodes. The conversations between Zoe and Bridgett never feels as involving as it might have because the characters just don’t sound distinct enough (also, not too sure why “sheeple” got so much air-time)

By the end of the year, “Bridget Redefined” probably won’t be remembered as the year’s most memorable episode. Far more entertaining episodes have aired, and probably have yet to air this year. But, along with “Home Again”, “Bridget Redefined” does manage to feel surprisingly honest and real, and those are the sorts of episodes, in the long run, that end up benefiting the show’s characters the most. I certainly look forward to hearing more Perkins family episodes for many more years in future -- but, I beg you, Odyssey, please refrain from following in the footsteps of the Parker family and regularly recasting these characters.

Writer: Marshal Younger
Director: Marshal Younger
Sound Designer: Jonathan Crowe
Music: John Campbell
Scripture: Galatians 6:2
Theme: Bearing One Another's Burdens
Original Air-date: May 1st, 2020
Episode Reviewed: June 28th, 2020

0 Comments

<<Previous