Huh? NY Times Ran Spoilers For The Killing Finale (But Wrote About An Ending That Didn’t Actually Happen)

by Jon Bershad | 7:06 am, June 20th, 2011

» 14 comments

Well, that’s odd. Last night, the AMC murder mystery, The Killing, ended its first season with an episode critics are calling an “absolute trainwreck” (and that’s much nicer than what the Internet commenters are saying). That’s not the odd thing. In fact, it would be lovely if we lived in a world where a crappy TV show was considered “odd” and not, y’know, the norm. No, what’s odd is that the New York Times wrote up a review of the season and the finale that provided spoilers for the ending…and they spoil an ending that didn’t actually happen. (UPDATE at bottom)

First off, if you haven’t seen the show or the finale yet and plan on doing so (I wouldn’t recommend either), don’t read any further because I’m going to touch on how the show ended (although I won’t be revealing the murderer).

Got it? All potential viewers gone?

Ok. The reason I’m not going to reveal the killer is because the show didn’t reveal the killer. Despite that being what everyone expected (and a marketing campaign based entirely around the question “Who killed Rosie Larsen?”), the season ended with the murderer still on the large. All the audience got was a fake out and a lame 24-esque conspiracy. However, the New York Times somehow didn’t get the memo.

From Ginia Bellafante‘s article entitled “Murder and Melodrama: An Obsessive Killer Is Revealed in a Stylish Whodunit”:

“Initially the series was advertised with the tag line ‘Who Killed Rosie Larsen?,’ a question it answers by the penultimate episode. (Read no further if you haven’t made it there.) The murderer is, on the face of things, a patrician do-gooder, a Seattle city councilman running for mayor. But grief over his wife’s death long ago, presumably, has driven him to all kinds of baroque depravities. The Larsen story line, in its original iteration in ‘Forbrydelsen’ on Danish television, spanned 20 episodes. The American version lasted only 13, and the primary casualty of truncation is an insufficient look at the psychologies of murderer and victim.

How Councilman Darren Richmond (Billy Campbell), of Connecticut and Dartmouth, became the kind of widower for whom scotch was an inadequate solace, is left entirely to speculation. Instead we are asked to buy wholesale the notion that as Richmond maintained an impeccable public image, he was threatening (and ultimately drowning) young prostitutes who vaguely resembled his wife. Politicians manage secret lives all the time, as the news and ‘The Good Wife’ remind us. But it is fair to say that it is one thing to be concealing a mistress in Argentina and it is quite another to be running a campaign while simultaneously conducting an alternative life as Jack the Ripper.”

Um…huh? This is a review criticizing a show for an ending they didn’t use. There are plenty of things to attack The Killing for. There’s no need to make some up.

Did someone at the Times review the episode without actually watching it? Did they get a screener with a different ending? What the heck happened?

Oh well, at least the Game of Thrones finale ruled.

Side note: For anyone who watched, how dumb was that scene where Mr. Larsen talked to the teacher’s wife? How did she not know him? He’s been all over the news! Partly for beating her husband half to death! That’s why he’s in the hospital in the first place!!

Second side note: Ever since the pilot, my guess for the killer has been the police chief. Since I’m officially quitting the show (I would have weeks ago but my roommates and I made a fun drinking game for it), can someone let me know if I’m right a year from now? Thanks.

Third side note: Isn’t it cool that I found a picture from the only scene in this show that didn’t take place during a torrential downpour?

UPDATE: Gina Bellafante, the critic who wrote the piece in question for The New York Times, has responded to criticism of her piece and none of my guesses were accurate. She didn’t receive a different ending, she just interpreted the ending differently than every other person who watched it.

While dissenting opinions are always good, especially in analyzing a piece of art (and say what you will about the quality of this specific piece, a TV show is still art), it should be noted that this isn’t the first time Bellafante has stated an interpretation that got some harsh attention. As has been pointed out in the comments, Bellafante is the writer whose take down of the Game of Thrones infuriated fantasy fans (particularly female ones like our friends at The Mary Sue) resulting in a similar chain of outrage and then response.

Amc, The Killing, The New York Times

fallenchicken

The Killing essentially killed any future it had, in my view. After a pilot which I thought was promising, there was a season of red herrings and characters I couldn’t find a way to root for, as hard as I tried.

There were two characters that I kept watching for: Holder and Linden. They were great, and I kept watching for them.

And after a bad season and a terrible ending I wont even have that.

Also, the NYT TV reviewers are consistently terrible. Go back and read their Game of Thrones review. The reviewer trashes the show without mentioning a single character or plot line. She instead decides to voice her disdain for fantasy, and how she thinks no respectable woman could ever read or watch anything from the genre.
SlipperyPete

Sounds like the writer bought the tease at the end of last week’s episode that it was Richmond. There was no alternate ending with Richmond as the killer because it’s not him, hence the ridiculous spoiler where (spoiler) turns out to be (spoiler) and tries to frame him.
Jon Bershad

I’ve got to imagine that the NY Times got a screener that cut off the last minute (isn’t it nice when it only takes 60 seconds to undo everything that’s come before it?). But why did no other reviewer get that screener. Every other critic wrote about the ending as was.

Did they write this article without watching the last episode? That seems like a pretty dumb idea when you’re reviewing a gosh darn murder mystery.

And, yeah, FC, that GoT review became quickly infamous, inspiring harsh shoot downs from a lot of other TV critics, something you don’t see too often. When you’re critiquing something on the basis that it added a bunch of naked female breasts to entice FEMALE viewers, you should probably take another look at your notes.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Gary-Taylor/541599148 Gary Taylor

So you’re telling me that ending of GoT with those [SPOILER REMOVED] was more satisfying? That was nearly a “jump the shark” moment for me. Yes, the killer is still “on the large” (whatever that means) and now that we know the male detective is up to something with a mystery person (a plot twist that’s ignored here), there’s something to bring me back next year. I could have done without the Jack Ruby/Oswald-esque scene though.
LOGICandREASON

The Gray Old Lady will be history soon; she goes down with print journalism despite being online
Jon Bershad

Honestly, it wasn’t the lack of resolution that’s turned me off The Killing. The show lost me a long time ago. I, like a large amount of viewers, was only still watching out of a masochistic curiosity in seeing how it ended. I think that’s why so many people are furious.

This was a show that insulted the audience’s intelligence repeatedly. We’re supposed to respect these detectives but, only in the last two episodes did they do anything in the way of detecting. What was their big break here? That they looked for the path the murderer drove his car in? Why the flying f**k didn’t they do that day one?!? It was three episodes ago (AKA the tenth day in the investigation) where they finally said, “Gee, we should probably find out what the victim was up to that night she was killed, huh?” How can I care about following the progress of people this terrible at their job?

More importantly though, there were so many things that completely flew in the face of logic. My mind is still blown by the complete insanity of that hospital scene. Can you imagine for a second that the father of a murder victim in one of the biggest cases around (as it was shone in the first few episodes) tried to kill the lead suspect? That crap would be on every TV network nonstop. His face would be plastered absolutely everywhere. Yet this show asks us to believe that Bennett’s wife doesn’t know who Stan is? That’s not just stupid, it’s insulting. And every single episode had at least one scene like that. Wasn’t anyone on the set thinking about things like this? Were they all just so rushed to get out of the ridiculous fake rain that they decided to push through even the most deranged plot holes and hope no one notices? That’s just terrible writing.

As for GoT, you’re talking to a guy who hates fantasy. I see news stories about casting notices for the upcoming Hobbit movie that proudly proclaim who will be playing “Gorkin the Goblin King” and other nonsense like that and I have to fight not to start laughing loudly in my chair. How moronic, right? Therefore, GoT must be doing something incredible to make me give a crap about [SPOILER REMOVED] because I really do. And I don’t think it’s just because of Emilia Clarke’s breasts.
Dave Splash

I was unhappy with the ending, too. Ever since the over-hyped (and inaccurate) comparisons to Twin Peaks were made, I found myself disappointed that the show was hardly like TP at all. Besides being set in the Northwest and there is a dead girl, there were no similarities. I stuck with it to see if my initial choice of the killer was right. Since it was left unresolved, I guess I still don’t know. How “Rubicon” was canceled after one season, yet The Killing gets a second season is beyond me. C’mon AMC!
http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Burszan/1019886974 David Burszan

Fun fact: The Game of Thrones “non”-review was written by the same person who reviewed an episode of The Killing that apparently no one else saw.
http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Burszan/1019886974 David Burszan

And a request; please don’t post spoilers for GoT here! I didn’t get to watch it yet because The Killing is on at the same time and I’m an idiot.
Jon Bershad

David Burszan said:
And a request; please don’t post spoilers for GoT here! I didn’t get to watch it yet because The Killing is on at the same time and I’m an idiot.

Good point. I’ll edit any comments that spoil a show that isn’t the topic of discussion. Apologies.
http://TheDividedStatesBlog.com Publius219

This show sucks. Couldn’t have been a worse ending. I certainly won’t watch season 2. And yeah, the NYT article was ridiculous. Who killed Rosie Larsen? I still don’t know, after an entire slow/boring season, and now I don’t give a shlt. Hopefully AMC will un-renew this piece of crap.

By the way, if you haven’t read Alan Sepinwall’s interview with the show’s creator, you should. It’ll make you want to punch a woman in the face. And you shouldn’t feel bad about feeling that way, because she deserves it. Oh well, at least Breaking Bad starts in less than a month.

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/whats-alan-watching/posts/interview-the-killing-showrunner-veena-sud-on-the-season-finale
Terry Ott

I don’t watch much TV, just sports, history and documentaries basically. I was pulled in to this one because I read about it before episode #1 and thought, “maybe I should give something like this a try, to make up for not watching Sopranos or Tudors or any of another dozen or so series that people have pointed out to me. I think “Band of Brothers” is the only one I actually took in.

By about episode 5/6/7 of The Killing I was frustrated by all the loose ends and improbabilities, and considered just cutting my losses. Why didn’t I just come in out of the (ridiculous) rain? Here’s why:
(1) Billed as a sequel to a very successful European series, I thought that might save it from crashing and burning eventually. Hollywood wouldn’t be able to pull that off, but I hoped this would turn out fine. (Nope)
(2) I liked the acting of several characters. (But even that fell off as things got so ridiculous in the script)
(3) I got curious about who really did the crime. (Will someone just tell me some day?)

I will know better from now on, and remember: “Just read the reviews and decide whether you want to watch the reruns or maybe even rent the DVDs.” And by that point, I probably will have lost interest anyway, so I won’t be wasting my time even if it IS a good production with critical acclaim. I can then do a better job of organizing my sock drawer, paging through all the old mags sitting here waiting to be read, and scraping the green slimy moss off my shaded deck. Might even go back to regular exercise. Ahhhh, well, on second thought maybe not that last part.
Todd_76

Watching The Killing reminded me of another one season who done it that actually lasted one season, Harpers Island, with people attending a wedding on the island being killed one by one with the killer(s?) revealed in the final episode. It was also set in the Pacific Northwest.
I enjoy these types of shows or movies, even if they are a little campy, so I am looking forward to season 2 that I heard (read) they plan on making. In the end I think it will be someone from the mayoral campaign, either side, or someone close to Rosie.
Republitarian

Dave Splash said:
How “Rubicon” was canceled after one season, yet The Killing gets a second season is beyond me. C’mon AMC!

I agree. Rubicon was at least as good as the Killing, and arguably much better.

Still, I don’t think The Killing is bad, by any means. It’s still better than anything on broadcast television (since Lost went off the air). And, I think it could have a salvageable second season. The show is interesting because you can easily discern the female influence in the character development. The dialogue is believable and pretty compelling as well. But, they have completely lost their focus on the bigger picture and (as Bershad speaks to and explores), they can’t quite figure out how to tell a compelling murder mystery.

Since some other people have mentioned it, I’m absolutely in awe of Game of Thrones. It has been wildly spectacular – tremendous writing, great direction and production values and the acting has been terrific.

What is so strange about television today is the fact that such quality television is being produced – I would argue some of the best television ever – and some horrible television is being produced – I would argue the worst television ever. Sadly, all the watchable and compelling shows are on cable, and most of them are on premium cable.