Six Feet Under: So glad it's over! (SPOILER)

[manitou]

I gotta say, though, that last fifteen minutes of the show almost
redeemed all the time I spent on it this season. I can't remember a
series finale that choked me up like that... especially the (late)
realization that the flash-forwards of Claire while driving were not
flash-forwards at all, but flashbacks of the 102 year-old Claire
remembering her life.

Implying that the entire series took place in her mind?

WOW...:

great idea -- especially since Lisa was nowhere to be seen.











C.

[Gary]

Implying that the entire series took place in her mind?

I give you points for original thinking.

But that is a hard sell considering that there
are many things that happened in the series
that Claire was not privy to. That could be
explained by the entire thing being in her
imagination...but that idea takes away from
the meaning of it for me. I like it more if I
can consider it "real" ficiton and not just
one characters weird death-dream.

Still, interesting idea / observation.

[tigercat]

wow, you're smoking better stuff than me. you make a very interesting point
about whether claire is having flash-forwards or flash-backs, but I tend to
see it as flash-forwards (although again, it's an intriguing observation on
your part). about the whole series taking place in her mind, you're killing
me, my mind was blown enough by watching the finale and now you're trying to
blow it some more.

Post by manitou

I gotta say, though, that last fifteen minutes of the show almost
redeemed all the time I spent on it this season. I can't remember a
series finale that choked me up like that... especially the (late)
realization that the flash-forwards of Claire while driving were not
flash-forwards at all, but flashbacks of the 102 year-old Claire
remembering her life.

Implying that the entire series took place in her mind?

great idea -- especially since Lisa was nowhere to be seen.
C.

[manitou]

Post by tigercat
wow, you're smoking better stuff than me. you make a very interesting point
about whether claire is having flash-forwards or flash-backs, but I tend to
see it as flash-forwards (although again, it's an intriguing observation on
your part). about the whole series taking place in her mind, you're killing
me, my mind was blown enough by watching the finale and now you're trying to
blow it some more.

I didn't frankly see any connection between Claire's consciousness while
driving from LA, and the final death snippets.

It was a juxtaposition to keep things moving (the ep was much faster
paced than usual).

If you rewatch past eps of "6FU", and many other TV shows, you'll
realize that concurrent scenes are often intercut -- sometimes to
underscore parallel developments, but often just to avoid alienating
viewers who may not like longish/talky scenes.









C.

[tigercat]

i give you credit for interpreting the ending in a very deep and creative
way. while i understand your points, and find them very interesting, i
still tend to accept the more traditional view that as we watch claire drive
into her future, we're also seeing the future unfold in rapid sequence. i
think the way the camera goes from the dying claire's eyes to the present
day living claire ends the flash-forward and adds deep meaning and intensity
that we're watching her drive into a future we've already seen.

Post by manitou

Post by tigercat
wow, you're smoking better stuff than me. you make a very interesting
point about whether claire is having flash-forwards or flash-backs, but I
tend to see it as flash-forwards (although again, it's an intriguing
observation on your part). about the whole series taking place in her
mind, you're killing me, my mind was blown enough by watching the finale
and now you're trying to blow it some more.

I didn't frankly see any connection between Claire's consciousness while
driving from LA, and the final death snippets.
It was a juxtaposition to keep things moving (the ep was much faster paced
than usual).
If you rewatch past eps of "6FU", and many other TV shows, you'll realize
that concurrent scenes are often intercut -- sometimes to underscore
parallel developments, but often just to avoid alienating viewers who may
not like longish/talky scenes.
C.

[Ken from Chicago]

Post by tigercat
i give you credit for interpreting the ending in a very deep and creative
way. while i understand your points, and find them very interesting, i
still tend to accept the more traditional view that as we watch claire
drive into her future, we're also seeing the future unfold in rapid
sequence. i think the way the camera goes from the dying claire's eyes to
the present day living claire ends the flash-forward and adds deep meaning
and intensity that we're watching her drive into a future we've already
seen.

Post by manitou

Post by tigercat
wow, you're smoking better stuff than me. you make a very interesting
point about whether claire is having flash-forwards or flash-backs, but
I tend to see it as flash-forwards (although again, it's an intriguing
observation on your part). about the whole series taking place in her
mind, you're killing me, my mind was blown enough by watching the finale
and now you're trying to blow it some more.

I didn't frankly see any connection between Claire's consciousness while
driving from LA, and the final death snippets.
It was a juxtaposition to keep things moving (the ep was much faster
paced than usual).
If you rewatch past eps of "6FU", and many other TV shows, you'll realize
that concurrent scenes are often intercut -- sometimes to underscore
parallel developments, but often just to avoid alienating viewers who may
not like longish/talky scenes.

I agree it was merely flash-forwards of the future not merely old Claire's
memories, altho as the youngest of the original Fishers, and the one to die
last, she would KNOW of the deaths of the other characters, but certainly
not something like what David was thinking when he keeled over at that
picnic. Also the final juxtaposition of old Claire's eyes with young
Claire's eyes seemed more of a editing technique of going full circle from
the flash-forwards to the present day.

Kinda like how the music video for Semisonic's "Closing Time" which opens
with a split screen of two people trying to meet for a date and ends with
the final shot where the left half of the screen finally syncs up with the
right half to form one scene.

-- Ken from Chicago

[tigercat]

yes, i agree, i think if alan ball wanted to portray flashback instead of
flashforward, he could have eliminated the whole driving scene with claire
and just showed the sequences of everyone dying and then end it thru old
claire's dying eyes. then i could accept the very cool theory of manitou
that the whole show took place in claire's mind, on her deathbed. but of
course, this is just my opinion.

great show, fantastic ending regardless of interpretation.

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by tigercat
i give you credit for interpreting the ending in a very deep and creative
way. while i understand your points, and find them very interesting, i
still tend to accept the more traditional view that as we watch claire
drive into her future, we're also seeing the future unfold in rapid
sequence. i think the way the camera goes from the dying claire's eyes to
the present day living claire ends the flash-forward and adds deep meaning
and intensity that we're watching her drive into a future we've already
seen.

Post by manitou

Post by tigercat
wow, you're smoking better stuff than me. you make a very interesting
point about whether claire is having flash-forwards or flash-backs, but
I tend to see it as flash-forwards (although again, it's an intriguing
observation on your part). about the whole series taking place in her
mind, you're killing me, my mind was blown enough by watching the
finale and now you're trying to blow it some more.

I didn't frankly see any connection between Claire's consciousness while
driving from LA, and the final death snippets.
It was a juxtaposition to keep things moving (the ep was much faster
paced than usual).
If you rewatch past eps of "6FU", and many other TV shows, you'll
realize that concurrent scenes are often intercut -- sometimes to
underscore parallel developments, but often just to avoid alienating
viewers who may not like longish/talky scenes.

I agree it was merely flash-forwards of the future not merely old Claire's
memories, altho as the youngest of the original Fishers, and the one to
die last, she would KNOW of the deaths of the other characters, but
certainly not something like what David was thinking when he keeled over
at that picnic. Also the final juxtaposition of old Claire's eyes with
young Claire's eyes seemed more of a editing technique of going full
circle from the flash-forwards to the present day.
Kinda like how the music video for Semisonic's "Closing Time" which opens
with a split screen of two people trying to meet for a date and ends with
the final shot where the left half of the screen finally syncs up with the
right half to form one scene.
-- Ken from Chicago

[Sparky Spartacus]

Post by tigercat
yes, i agree, i think if alan ball wanted to portray flashback instead of
flashforward, he could have eliminated the whole driving scene with claire
and just showed the sequences of everyone dying and then end it thru old
claire's dying eyes. then i could accept the very cool theory of manitou
that the whole show took place in claire's mind, on her deathbed. but of
course, this is just my opinion.
great show, fantastic ending regardless of interpretation.

A friend reports that one of Alan Ball's goals with the 6FU finale was
to eliminate any possible reunions, spin offs, "Six Feet Under 2010",
"Six Feet Under The Reality Show", etc., so I guess mission accomplished.

[manitou]

Post by Sparky Spartacus

Post by tigercat
yes, i agree, i think if alan ball wanted to portray flashback instead
of flashforward, he could have eliminated the whole driving scene with
claire and just showed the sequences of everyone dying and then end it
thru old claire's dying eyes. then i could accept the very cool
theory of manitou that the whole show took place in claire's mind, on
her deathbed. but of course, this is just my opinion.
great show, fantastic ending regardless of interpretation.

A friend reports that one of Alan Ball's goals with the 6FU finale was
to eliminate any possible reunions, spin offs, "Six Feet Under 2010",
"Six Feet Under The Reality Show", etc., so I guess mission accomplished.

If TPTB want it, there's always some kind of workaround.

Stanley Kubrick struck not only the sets, but also the related designs
for "2001", but this didn't prevent MGM from doing a sequel some years
later: they had designers create designs from watching the original movie.

Similarly, the sets for "Dynasty" had been struck but even this didn't
prevent ABC from doing a ludicrous one-shot reunion -- even with
different actors in certain roles (one played by the original who had
been replaced).

Let's see: a 2015 'reunion' for "6FU" with David and Keith presiding
over the biz in a new hi-tech locale in Malibu. Brenda is now being
played by Lili Taylor; David, by Ben Affleck; Claire, by Michele
Pfeiffer; Vanessa, by JLo!









C. <g>

[ANIM8Rfsk]

Post by manitou

Post by Sparky Spartacus

Post by tigercat
yes, i agree, i think if alan ball wanted to portray flashback instead
of flashforward, he could have eliminated the whole driving scene with
claire and just showed the sequences of everyone dying and then end it
thru old claire's dying eyes. then i could accept the very cool
theory of manitou that the whole show took place in claire's mind, on
her deathbed. but of course, this is just my opinion.
great show, fantastic ending regardless of interpretation.

A friend reports that one of Alan Ball's goals with the 6FU finale was
to eliminate any possible reunions, spin offs, "Six Feet Under 2010",
"Six Feet Under The Reality Show", etc., so I guess mission accomplished.

If TPTB want it, there's always some kind of workaround.
Stanley Kubrick struck not only the sets, but also the related designs
for "2001", but this didn't prevent MGM from doing a sequel some years
later: they had designers create designs from watching the original movie.
Similarly, the sets for "Dynasty" had been struck but even this didn't
prevent ABC from doing a ludicrous one-shot reunion -- even with
different actors in certain roles (one played by the original who had
been replaced).

With the grand staircase reversed, because it was the real place, and they'd
flopped the staircase when they built the set. I thought they should have
reversed the footage to match. :-)

And let's not forget Michael Landon blowing up Little House.

Post by manitou
Let's see: a 2015 'reunion' for "6FU" with David and Keith presiding
over the biz in a new hi-tech locale in Malibu. Brenda is now being
played by Lili Taylor; David, by Ben Affleck; Claire, by Michele
Pfeiffer; Vanessa, by JLo!
C. <g>

[Ken from Chicago]

Post by tigercat
yes, i agree, i think if alan ball wanted to portray flashback instead of
flashforward, he could have eliminated the whole driving scene with
claire and just showed the sequences of everyone dying and then end it
thru old claire's dying eyes. then i could accept the very cool theory
of manitou that the whole show took place in claire's mind, on her
deathbed. but of course, this is just my opinion.
great show, fantastic ending regardless of interpretation.

A friend reports that one of Alan Ball's goals with the 6FU finale was to
eliminate any possible reunions, spin offs, "Six Feet Under 2010", "Six
Feet Under The Reality Show", etc., so I guess mission accomplished.

Mission: IMPOSSIBLE:

SIX FEET UNDER: EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM BODY.

SIX FEET UNDER: EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CORPSES.

SIX FEET UNDER: EPISODE III: REVENGE OF THE UNDERTAKERS

You can always have prequels--and spin-offs:

SEIS FEET UNDER: LE DIAZES

THE LAUREN TYLER AMBROSE SHOW

FISHERS: THE NEXT GENERATION

SIX FEET GALACTICA: The Re-Imagining.
"So now you're, um, you're telling me you're a corpse?"
"I'm a woman."
"You're a corpse. You're a dead woman, a body?"
"I've said it three times now."

-- Ken from Chicago

[manitou]

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by tigercat
yes, i agree, i think if alan ball wanted to portray flashback instead of
flashforward, he could have eliminated the whole driving scene with
claire and just showed the sequences of everyone dying and then end it
thru old claire's dying eyes. then i could accept the very cool theory
of manitou that the whole show took place in claire's mind, on her
deathbed. but of course, this is just my opinion.
great show, fantastic ending regardless of interpretation.

A friend reports that one of Alan Ball's goals with the 6FU finale was to
eliminate any possible reunions, spin offs, "Six Feet Under 2010", "Six
Feet Under The Reality Show", etc., so I guess mission accomplished.

SIX FEET UNDER: EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM BODY.
SIX FEET UNDER: EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CORPSES.
SIX FEET UNDER: EPISODE III: REVENGE OF THE UNDERTAKERS

Can't wait for Mitzi Dalton Huntley to return!!!

Post by Ken from Chicago
SEIS FEET UNDER: LE DIAZES
THE LAUREN TYLER AMBROSE SHOW
FISHERS: THE NEXT GENERATION
SIX FEET GALACTICA: The Re-Imagining.
"So now you're, um, you're telling me you're a corpse?"
"I'm a woman."
"You're a corpse. You're a dead woman, a body?"
"I've said it three times now."

At least she's not a 'chance'......


Also:

"JEERS" --- the funeral home where _every_ _body_ knows your name.









C.

[CliffB]

Post by Sparky Spartacus

Post by tigercat
yes, i agree, i think if alan ball wanted to portray flashback instead of
flashforward, he could have eliminated the whole driving scene with claire
and just showed the sequences of everyone dying and then end it thru old
claire's dying eyes. then i could accept the very cool theory of manitou
that the whole show took place in claire's mind, on her deathbed. but of
course, this is just my opinion.
great show, fantastic ending regardless of interpretation.

A friend reports that one of Alan Ball's goals with the 6FU finale was
to eliminate any possible reunions, spin offs, "Six Feet Under 2010",
"Six Feet Under The Reality Show", etc., so I guess mission accomplished.

What an egotist he must be. SFU had turned to real crap awhile ago.
Gimmicky, arbitrary, boring, filled with pompous junk philosophizing
and lazy, ill conceived faux-surrealism.

And so what if people know how the characters eventually die (I mean
randomly keel over for the most par); it's not as if in this series
especially (concerned in its obtuse manner with the way of death) it's
a shock that the characters would eventually kick off the mortal coil.
No secret spoiler in this fact. Also, as we've seen with this season's
dead brother for instance, the dead are always coming back to try
(futilely) and wax eloquent and be general pains in the ass (at which
they succeed). The HBO suits could still fill many hours with more
incoherently structured and boring tales from this extended family of
whiners, dead or alive. Let's pray they don't. OK, end of rant.

R.I.P. SFU......please!



Also, the beside the point, self-indulgent and cheap-shotting political
hay-making re:Iraq further shows the spent nature of the show. Ball
should just mosey down to Crawford now that he's back out of work and
join up with the other Sheehanites. He should have saved the
grandstanding for his personal time instead of crappy lecturing to the
HBO audience and the wasting of their time.

[manitou]

Post by tigercat
yes, i agree, i think if alan ball wanted to portray flashback instead of
flashforward, he could have eliminated the whole driving scene with claire
and just showed the sequences of everyone dying and then end it thru old
claire's dying eyes. then i could accept the very cool theory of manitou
that the whole show took place in claire's mind, on her deathbed. but of
course, this is just my opinion.
great show, fantastic ending regardless of interpretation.

No matter how people interpret it, the ending was the episode's triumph IMO.

It enabled closure re the main characters for viewers in a way that was
telescoped, but not trivialized.

BTW, I felt Keith's shooting demise was likely meant as some kind of
subtle comment on the reality that he had once shot someone (while still
working as a cop). As others have noted, working even as a security
guard significantly increases the risk of a violent death.

I also loved the scene toward the end (after the house renovation) when
everyone was reminiscing about Nate in a non-grieving manner.

It showed that, when we start to get past initial grief and shock, loved
ones who have passed on do remain with us. Especially, during happy
times we recall how they would have enjoyed these.








C.

[tigercat]

i agree. one thing that puzzles me a little, is that you'd think if Keith
reached a stage in his life at 61 years of age, where he owned his own
security business, what's he doing unloading the money bags? you'd think
once he reached that stage in his life, he'd be relaxing and enjoying life
with David and paying to have someone else take the risk of handling the
money bags.

Post by manitou

Post by tigercat
yes, i agree, i think if alan ball wanted to portray flashback instead of
flashforward, he could have eliminated the whole driving scene with
claire and just showed the sequences of everyone dying and then end it
thru old claire's dying eyes. then i could accept the very cool theory
of manitou that the whole show took place in claire's mind, on her
deathbed. but of course, this is just my opinion.
great show, fantastic ending regardless of interpretation.

No matter how people interpret it, the ending was the episode's triumph IMO.
It enabled closure re the main characters for viewers in a way that was
telescoped, but not trivialized.
BTW, I felt Keith's shooting demise was likely meant as some kind of
subtle comment on the reality that he had once shot someone (while still
working as a cop). As others have noted, working even as a security guard
significantly increases the risk of a violent death.
I also loved the scene toward the end (after the house renovation) when
everyone was reminiscing about Nate in a non-grieving manner.
It showed that, when we start to get past initial grief and shock, loved
ones who have passed on do remain with us. Especially, during happy times
we recall how they would have enjoyed these.
C.

[h***@aol.com]

Post by tigercat
i agree. one thing that puzzles me a little, is that you'd think if Keith
reached a stage in his life at 61 years of age, where he owned his own
security business, what's he doing unloading the money bags? you'd think
once he reached that stage in his life, he'd be relaxing and enjoying life
with David and paying to have someone else take the risk of handling the
money bags.

Post by manitou

Post by tigercat
yes, i agree, i think if alan ball wanted to portray flashback instead of
flashforward, he could have eliminated the whole driving scene with
claire and just showed the sequences of everyone dying and then end it
thru old claire's dying eyes. then i could accept the very cool theory
of manitou that the whole show took place in claire's mind, on her
deathbed. but of course, this is just my opinion.

i agree. that scene didn't work for me at all. keith owned the
business...the truck said "charles security", yet he was still doing
the grunt work at age 61? nah.

Hudson

Post by tigercat

Post by manitou

Post by tigercat
great show, fantastic ending regardless of interpretation.

No matter how people interpret it, the ending was the episode's triumph IMO.
It enabled closure re the main characters for viewers in a way that was
telescoped, but not trivialized.
BTW, I felt Keith's shooting demise was likely meant as some kind of
subtle comment on the reality that he had once shot someone (while still
working as a cop). As others have noted, working even as a security guard
significantly increases the risk of a violent death.
I also loved the scene toward the end (after the house renovation) when
everyone was reminiscing about Nate in a non-grieving manner.
It showed that, when we start to get past initial grief and shock, loved
ones who have passed on do remain with us. Especially, during happy times
we recall how they would have enjoyed these.
C.

[Patrick]

Post by h***@aol.com
i agree. that scene didn't work for me at all. keith owned the
business...the truck said "charles security", yet he was still doing
the grunt work at age 61? nah.

Not just that he was doing the grunt work, but he was doing a pretty
careless job at it. When I see armored cars moving money, I usually see at
least guys - including one whose job is to hang out in the back of the
truck with a shotgun. Poor Keith looked like he was working alone; the bad
guys probably had him staked out because he looked like easy pickin's.

[Patricia Butler]

Post by Patrick

Post by h***@aol.com
i agree. that scene didn't work for me at all. keith owned the
business...the truck said "charles security", yet he was still doing
the grunt work at age 61? nah.

Not just that he was doing the grunt work, but he was doing a pretty
careless job at it. When I see armored cars moving money, I usually see at
least guys - including one whose job is to hang out in the back of the
truck with a shotgun. Poor Keith looked like he was working alone; the bad
guys probably had him staked out because he looked like easy pickin's.

The thing is, no one savvy enough to own their own security company
would have done what they had Keith do. I'm no expert, but I've
certainly seen plenty of Brink's trucks unloading in my life. There
are ALWAYS two people, and I've NEVER seen anyone come out of the back.
Both people stand at the back, one keeping watch while the other one
opens the doors. It really doesn't make sense that Keith would be all
on his own and would be exiting the truck from the back.

[notherenow]

Post by Patricia Butler

Post by Patrick

Post by h***@aol.com
i agree. that scene didn't work for me at all. keith owned the
business...the truck said "charles security", yet he was still doing
the grunt work at age 61? nah.

Not just that he was doing the grunt work, but he was doing a pretty
careless job at it. When I see armored cars moving money, I usually see at
least guys - including one whose job is to hang out in the back of the
truck with a shotgun. Poor Keith looked like he was working alone; the bad
guys probably had him staked out because he looked like easy pickin's.

The thing is, no one savvy enough to own their own security company
would have done what they had Keith do. I'm no expert, but I've
certainly seen plenty of Brink's trucks unloading in my life. There
are ALWAYS two people, and I've NEVER seen anyone come out of the back.
Both people stand at the back, one keeping watch while the other one
opens the doors. It really doesn't make sense that Keith would be all
on his own and would be exiting the truck from the back.

It was a device, a set up. Maybe it asks for a small suspension of
disbelief in favor of the overall effect. Each death took what 30 - 45
seconds? I don't know, someone here probably timed them. There are
unanswered questions about the whys and hows for each death. Basically
there is only so much that can be done in half a minute, but I believe
the each death was intended to do no more than show (a) that the
character died and (b) what the moment of death looked like. Keith died
at the hands of robbers by way of having been shot. We don't know if he
personally was the target of the shooting or whether he was simply in
the way of the heist. We don't know if he was just opening up for the
day's work, coming back to his own place of business at the end of the
day, or at a customer's location delivering/collecting cash. Apparently
Ball and his team didn't set out to fill in the details, it seems they
just wanted to bring closure to the characters. As Ball told Terry
Gross on Fresh Air, he wanted to avoid seeing spin-offs.

[manitou]

Post by notherenow
It was a device, a set up. Maybe it asks for a small suspension of
disbelief in favor of the overall effect. Each death took what 30 - 45
seconds? I don't know, someone here probably timed them. There are
unanswered questions about the whys and hows for each death. Basically
there is only so much that can be done in half a minute, but I believe
the each death was intended to do no more than show (a) that the
character died and (b) what the moment of death looked like. Keith died
at the hands of robbers by way of having been shot. We don't know if he
personally was the target of the shooting or whether he was simply in
the way of the heist. We don't know if he was just opening up for the
day's work, coming back to his own place of business at the end of the
day, or at a customer's location delivering/collecting cash. Apparently
Ball and his team didn't set out to fill in the details, it seems they
just wanted to bring closure to the characters. As Ball told Terry
Gross on Fresh Air, he wanted to avoid seeing spin-offs.

Just think...,

Had Keith only been shot in the hip, we could have a blaxploitation
spinoff a la FRASIER:

Keith would have to move in with Durrell, just dumped by his
nutbar/headshrinker wife (eventually revealed as Maya or Willa), and
cope with Anthony, now a professional grief counsellor, and Anthony's
eccentric, billionaire spouse 'Harris', who we never see in person but
hear about constantly.

David Hyde Pierce could make occasional guest appearances as Keith's
psychiatrist, Dr. Miles Crank.








C.

[Anthony Cerrato]

In article

Post by Patricia Butler

Post by Patrick

Post by h***@aol.com
i agree. that scene didn't work for me at all. keith

owned the

Post by Patricia Butler

Post by Patrick

Post by h***@aol.com
business...the truck said "charles security", yet he

was still doing

Post by Patricia Butler

Post by Patrick

Post by h***@aol.com
the grunt work at age 61? nah.

Not just that he was doing the grunt work, but he was

doing a pretty

Post by Patricia Butler

Post by Patrick
careless job at it. When I see armored cars moving

money, I usually see at

Post by Patricia Butler

Post by Patrick
least guys - including one whose job is to hang out in

the back of the

Post by Patricia Butler

Post by Patrick
truck with a shotgun. Poor Keith looked like he was

working alone; the bad

Post by Patricia Butler

Post by Patrick
guys probably had him staked out because he looked

like easy pickin's.

Post by Patricia Butler
The thing is, no one savvy enough to own their own

security company

Post by Patricia Butler
would have done what they had Keith do. I'm no expert,

but I've

Post by Patricia Butler
certainly seen plenty of Brink's trucks unloading in my

life. There

Post by Patricia Butler
are ALWAYS two people, and I've NEVER seen anyone come

out of the back.

Post by Patricia Butler
Both people stand at the back, one keeping watch while

the other one

Post by Patricia Butler
opens the doors. It really doesn't make sense that

Keith would be all

Post by Patricia Butler
on his own and would be exiting the truck from the back.

It was a device, a set up. Maybe it asks for a small

suspension of

disbelief in favor of the overall effect. Each death took

what 30 - 45

seconds? I don't know, someone here probably timed them.

There are

unanswered questions about the whys and hows for each

death. Basically

there is only so much that can be done in half a minute,

but I believe

the each death was intended to do no more than show (a)

that the

character died and (b) what the moment of death looked

like. Keith died

at the hands of robbers by way of having been shot. We

don't know if he

personally was the target of the shooting or whether he

was simply in

the way of the heist. We don't know if he was just

opening up for the

day's work, coming back to his own place of business at

the end of the

day, or at a customer's location delivering/collecting

cash.


I think a simple explanation would be, it's a small company
with few employees, and probably one got suddenly sick that
morning, or didn't show up for whatever reason, and Keith
just filled in for him--doesn't explain why there wasn't a
second person in the truck...or maybe there was, i.e., the
driver, which means Keith just jumped the gun getting out
before the other man joined him(Keith was pretty old at this
point.) ...tonyC

Apparently
Ball and his team didn't set out to fill in the details,

it seems they

just wanted to bring closure to the characters. As Ball

told Terry

Gross on Fresh Air, he wanted to avoid seeing spin-offs.

[Sparky Spartacus]

Post by tigercat
i agree. one thing that puzzles me a little, is that you'd think if Keith
reached a stage in his life at 61 years of age, where he owned his own
security business, what's he doing unloading the money bags? you'd think
once he reached that stage in his life, he'd be relaxing and enjoying life
with David and paying to have someone else take the risk of handling the
money bags.

Right, it was an obvious put down of the black man resulting in his
violent death far younger than the Fishers. I'm surprised the rest of
the writing staff let Ball get away with this.

[FatKat]

Post by manitou

Post by tigercat
yes, i agree, i think if alan ball wanted to portray flashback instead of
flashforward, he could have eliminated the whole driving scene with claire
and just showed the sequences of everyone dying and then end it thru old
claire's dying eyes. then i could accept the very cool theory of manitou
that the whole show took place in claire's mind, on her deathbed. but of
course, this is just my opinion.
great show, fantastic ending regardless of interpretation.

I also loved the scene toward the end (after the house renovation) when
everyone was reminiscing about Nate in a non-grieving manner.

I think I might have missed something because when I saw the house, I
didn't recognize it at all. I thought the ep. coverd just a few days
in the lives of teh Fishers. Just how much time passes over the course
of the episode?

Post by manitou
It showed that, when we start to get past initial grief and shock, loved
ones who have passed on do remain with us. Especially, during happy
times we recall how they would have enjoyed these.

Granted that that's an important lesson, but it's one that's made in
every other show that has ever dealt with death. It seemed gratuitous
here, and would have (IMO) sunk the finale if they hadn't ended with
the obits.

[Ken from Chicago]

Post by FatKat

Post by manitou

Post by tigercat
yes, i agree, i think if alan ball wanted to portray flashback instead of
flashforward, he could have eliminated the whole driving scene with claire
and just showed the sequences of everyone dying and then end it thru old
claire's dying eyes. then i could accept the very cool theory of manitou
that the whole show took place in claire's mind, on her deathbed. but of
course, this is just my opinion.
great show, fantastic ending regardless of interpretation.

I also loved the scene toward the end (after the house renovation) when
everyone was reminiscing about Nate in a non-grieving manner.

I think I might have missed something because when I saw the house, I
didn't recognize it at all. I thought the ep. coverd just a few days
in the lives of teh Fishers. Just how much time passes over the course
of the episode?

Post by manitou
It showed that, when we start to get past initial grief and shock, loved
ones who have passed on do remain with us. Especially, during happy
times we recall how they would have enjoyed these.

Granted that that's an important lesson, but it's one that's made in
every other show that has ever dealt with death. It seemed gratuitous
here, and would have (IMO) sunk the finale if they hadn't ended with
the obits.

No, it HAD to. It's the only episode that did NOT begin with a death, but
rather a new life.

DEATH WILL NOT BE IGNORED!

It's coming for you--and your little dog, Toto, too.

Muwahahahaaha!

-- Ken from Chicago

[Fragile Warrior]

Post by manitou

Post by tigercat
wow, you're smoking better stuff than me. you make a very interesting
point about whether claire is having flash-forwards or flash-backs, but I
tend to see it as flash-forwards (although again, it's an intriguing
observation on your part). about the whole series taking place in her
mind, you're killing me, my mind was blown enough by watching the finale
and now you're trying to blow it some more.

I didn't frankly see any connection between Claire's consciousness while
driving from LA, and the final death snippets.

Does "the road of life" mean anything to you?

[jcoulter]

Post by Fragile Warrior

Post by manitou

Post by tigercat
wow, you're smoking better stuff than me. you make a very
interesting point about whether claire is having flash-forwards or
flash-backs, but I tend to see it as flash-forwards (although again,
it's an intriguing observation on your part). about the whole
series taking place in her mind, you're killing me, my mind was
blown enough by watching the finale and now you're trying to blow it
some more.

I didn't frankly see any connection between Claire's consciousness
while driving from LA, and the final death snippets.

Does "the road of life" mean anything to you?

perhpas they haven't ridden the horse with no name into the desert which
is like you know and ocean with the sand up side down or some such
thing.

Deserts are made for these story of life things, it is where the monks
went in the early church history, Mosis and the children of Israel, the
desert, the ultimate symbolic place, Jesus, mohamed they all had their
desert moments

[h***@aol.com]

Post by tigercat
wow, you're smoking better stuff than me. you make a very interesting point
about whether claire is having flash-forwards or flash-backs, but I tend to
see it as flash-forwards (although again, it's an intriguing observation on
your part). about the whole series taking place in her mind, you're killing
me, my mind was blown enough by watching the finale and now you're trying to
blow it some more.

you can obviously interpret it however you wish, but general consensus
on 6FU forums is it was Claire's death bed flash-back...not a flash
forward. I don't think the whole series took place in her mind...though
I'd like that ending better than the one we got! I always thought the
whole series was taking place in the mind of Nate Sr., who wasn't
really dead, but in a coma state from his bus accident.

Hudson

[tigercat]

wow, it's interesting that you say it's the general consensus that it was a
flashback, eventhough i didn't interpret it this way, both versions are
pretty cool anyway. however, if the consensus is that the scene was a
flashback, than it's not a big stretch to say the whole series took place in
her mind "within the flashback".

for some reason, i think i like the flashforward theory better, but that's
just me.

perhaps manitou was right.

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
wow, you're smoking better stuff than me. you make a very interesting point
about whether claire is having flash-forwards or flash-backs, but I tend to
see it as flash-forwards (although again, it's an intriguing observation on
your part). about the whole series taking place in her mind, you're killing
me, my mind was blown enough by watching the finale and now you're trying to
blow it some more.

you can obviously interpret it however you wish, but general consensus
on 6FU forums is it was Claire's death bed flash-back...not a flash
forward. I don't think the whole series took place in her mind...though
I'd like that ending better than the one we got! I always thought the
whole series was taking place in the mind of Nate Sr., who wasn't
really dead, but in a coma state from his bus accident.
Hudson

[h***@aol.com]

Post by tigercat
wow, it's interesting that you say it's the general consensus that it was a
flashback, eventhough i didn't interpret it this way, both versions are
pretty cool anyway. however, if the consensus is that the scene was a
flashback, than it's not a big stretch to say the whole series took place in
her mind "within the flashback".
for some reason, i think i like the flashforward theory better, but that's
just me.
perhaps manitou was right.

really i think you have to interpret it whatever way makes sense to
you. But, I was just making the point that many seem to think it was
"flash-back" not flash-forward". I did consider the possibility that
the whole thing took place in her mind within the flashback as well,
but I don't really think so...though I do find it interesting. Maybe
Alan Ball will tell us something definitively at some point?

Hudson

[bradkz]

On the subject of flashback-or-flashforward, here's the interpretation
that I buy into: Following the dinner where they toast Nate, there's
that jarring music-video sequence of Nate singing (what, "Celebrate"? I
forget). Claire wakes up with that on the clock alarm to find Nate in
her room. He says, "Everybody's waiting," meaning, it's time to cross
to the other side. (This ties in nicely to Nate's "swimming in the
ocean" scene with David and his father, when he died.) At this point, I
think that we are in old Claire's deathbed memories, supported by
Nate's other line, "You can't take a picture of this. It's already
happened." Young Claire's journey across the desert was, in a way, the
beginning of her life, a natural place for old Claire's flashbacks to
center. The other evidence for the flashback interpretation is the
stylized, subjective way that those sequences were shot; they were lit
and shot in almost a fantasy style. When we get the closeup on old
Claire's cloudy, cataract eyes, it kind of provides the justification
for the dreamy visual stylization... her life is passing before her
eyes, surrounded by the photos she took.

If they are flash-forwards, it implies that Claire was imagining a
possible future. And I don't buy that they are her future-fantasies
because I don't think the writers would cop out that way in a show with
the underlying theme, "Everybody dies". I think that within the show's
context, these futures of the characters are "facts." (AND the HBO
website shows the characters' obituaries as though they were "fact"
within the show.)

I don't like the theory that the whole series took place within her
mind; it's just not supported by anything else in the show. I think it
was just those last subjective ten minutes.

You're right, it doesn't really matter how you interpret it; the finale
packed an emotional wallop after what I thought was an excruciating
season. But it's intriguing to debate the clues that Alan Ball left us.

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
wow, it's interesting that you say it's the general consensus that it was a
flashback, eventhough i didn't interpret it this way, both versions are
pretty cool anyway. however, if the consensus is that the scene was a
flashback, than it's not a big stretch to say the whole series took place in
her mind "within the flashback".
for some reason, i think i like the flashforward theory better, but that's
just me.
perhaps manitou was right.

really i think you have to interpret it whatever way makes sense to
you. But, I was just making the point that many seem to think it was
"flash-back" not flash-forward". I did consider the possibility that
the whole thing took place in her mind within the flashback as well,
but I don't really think so...though I do find it interesting. Maybe
Alan Ball will tell us something definitively at some point?
Hudson

[tigercat]

cool ideas, really, but i don't think it's necessary to conclude that "the
driving claire" is personally having the flash-forwards, rather Alan Ball is
foreshadowing for his viewers and we happen to be seeing this while watching
Claire drive into her future, which I think is pretty darn cool. but that's
just my opinion and i love how various interpretations have emerged all of
which are fascinating.

Regarding the Nate line, I could be wrong, but I thought he said something
like, "You can't take a picture... they're already
gone".

Post by bradkz
On the subject of flashback-or-flashforward, here's the interpretation
that I buy into: Following the dinner where they toast Nate, there's
that jarring music-video sequence of Nate singing (what, "Celebrate"? I
forget). Claire wakes up with that on the clock alarm to find Nate in
her room. He says, "Everybody's waiting," meaning, it's time to cross
to the other side. (This ties in nicely to Nate's "swimming in the
ocean" scene with David and his father, when he died.) At this point, I
think that we are in old Claire's deathbed memories, supported by
Nate's other line, "You can't take a picture of this. It's already
happened." Young Claire's journey across the desert was, in a way, the
beginning of her life, a natural place for old Claire's flashbacks to
center. The other evidence for the flashback interpretation is the
stylized, subjective way that those sequences were shot; they were lit
and shot in almost a fantasy style. When we get the closeup on old
Claire's cloudy, cataract eyes, it kind of provides the justification
for the dreamy visual stylization... her life is passing before her
eyes, surrounded by the photos she took.
If they are flash-forwards, it implies that Claire was imagining a
possible future. And I don't buy that they are her future-fantasies
because I don't think the writers would cop out that way in a show with
the underlying theme, "Everybody dies". I think that within the show's
context, these futures of the characters are "facts." (AND the HBO
website shows the characters' obituaries as though they were "fact"
within the show.)
I don't like the theory that the whole series took place within her
mind; it's just not supported by anything else in the show. I think it
was just those last subjective ten minutes.
You're right, it doesn't really matter how you interpret it; the finale
packed an emotional wallop after what I thought was an excruciating
season. But it's intriguing to debate the clues that Alan Ball left us.

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
wow, it's interesting that you say it's the general consensus that it was a
flashback, eventhough i didn't interpret it this way, both versions are
pretty cool anyway. however, if the consensus is that the scene was a
flashback, than it's not a big stretch to say the whole series took place in
her mind "within the flashback".
for some reason, i think i like the flashforward theory better, but that's
just me.
perhaps manitou was right.

really i think you have to interpret it whatever way makes sense to
you. But, I was just making the point that many seem to think it was
"flash-back" not flash-forward". I did consider the possibility that
the whole thing took place in her mind within the flashback as well,
but I don't really think so...though I do find it interesting. Maybe
Alan Ball will tell us something definitively at some point?
Hudson

[h***@aol.com]

Post by bradkz
On the subject of flashback-or-flashforward, here's the interpretation
that I buy into: Following the dinner where they toast Nate, there's
that jarring music-video sequence of Nate singing (what, "Celebrate"? I
forget). Claire wakes up with that on the clock alarm to find Nate in
her room. He says, "Everybody's waiting," meaning, it's time to cross
to the other side. (This ties in nicely to Nate's "swimming in the
ocean" scene with David and his father, when he died.) At this point, I
think that we are in old Claire's deathbed memories, supported by
Nate's other line, "You can't take a picture of this. It's already
happened." Young Claire's journey across the desert was, in a way, the
beginning of her life, a natural place for old Claire's flashbacks to
center.

exactly. You explained this perfectly! The old Claire's flashbacks are
centered on the young Claire's beginning journey to NYC.

The other evidence for the flashback interpretation is the

Post by bradkz
stylized, subjective way that those sequences were shot; they were lit
and shot in almost a fantasy style. When we get the closeup on old
Claire's cloudy, cataract eyes, it kind of provides the justification
for the dreamy visual stylization... her life is passing before her
eyes, surrounded by the photos she took.

again perfect. and I'm beginning to think maybe the poor make-up in the
death montage was purposeful...again in that fantasy style. I think
this because, the make-up on all the corpses was always so perfect
after Rico worked his magic.You just know our main characters could
have looked more realistically "aged" had Ball chosen to.

Post by bradkz
If they are flash-forwards, it implies that Claire was imagining a
possible future. And I don't buy that they are her future-fantasies
because I don't think the writers would cop out that way in a show with
the underlying theme, "Everybody dies". I think that within the show's
context, these futures of the characters are "facts." (AND the HBO
website shows the characters' obituaries as though they were "fact"
within the show.)

yes, absolutely.

Post by bradkz
I don't like the theory that the whole series took place within her
mind; it's just not supported by anything else in the show. I think it
was just those last subjective ten minutes.

yep, done as flashback through "old Claire".

Post by bradkz
You're right, it doesn't really matter how you interpret it; the finale
packed an emotional wallop after what I thought was an excruciating
season. But it's intriguing to debate the clues that Alan Ball left us.
Hudson

[Anthony Cerrato]

Post by bradkz
On the subject of flashback-or-flashforward, here's the

interpretation

Post by bradkz
that I buy into: Following the dinner where they toast

Nate, there's

Post by bradkz
that jarring music-video sequence of Nate singing (what,

"Celebrate"? I

Post by bradkz
forget). Claire wakes up with that on the clock alarm to

find Nate in

Post by bradkz
her room. He says, "Everybody's waiting," meaning, it's

time to cross

Post by bradkz
to the other side. (This ties in nicely to Nate's

"swimming in the

Post by bradkz
ocean" scene with David and his father, when he died.) At

this point, I

Post by bradkz
think that we are in old Claire's deathbed memories,

supported by

Post by bradkz
Nate's other line, "You can't take a picture of this. It's

already

Post by bradkz
happened." Young Claire's journey across the desert was,

in a way, the

Post by bradkz
beginning of her life, a natural place for old Claire's

flashbacks to

Post by bradkz
center. The other evidence for the flashback

interpretation is the

Post by bradkz
stylized, subjective way that those sequences were shot;

they were lit

Post by bradkz
and shot in almost a fantasy style. When we get the

closeup on old

Post by bradkz
Claire's cloudy, cataract eyes, it kind of provides the

justification

Post by bradkz
for the dreamy visual stylization... her life is passing

before her

Post by bradkz
eyes, surrounded by the photos she took.
If they are flash-forwards, it implies that Claire was

imagining a

Post by bradkz
possible future. And I don't buy that they are her

future-fantasies

Post by bradkz
because I don't think the writers would cop out that way

in a show with

Post by bradkz
the underlying theme, "Everybody dies". I think that

within the show's

Post by bradkz
context, these futures of the characters are "facts." (AND

the HBO

Post by bradkz
website shows the characters' obituaries as though they

were "fact"

Post by bradkz
within the show.)
I don't like the theory that the whole series took place

within her

Post by bradkz
mind; it's just not supported by anything else in the

show. I think it

Post by bradkz
was just those last subjective ten minutes.
You're right, it doesn't really matter how you interpret

it; the finale

Post by bradkz
packed an emotional wallop after what I thought was an

excruciating

Post by bradkz
season. But it's intriguing to debate the clues that Alan

Ball left us.

Hmmm...very cogent points, all of the them! Now I think
maybe I'm wrong and you're right--it just all fits!
Actually, I did find the alarm clock/singing scene very
jarring and out of place...and this, and what he says really
makes sense...also the fantasy lighting of the last scenes
jibes with aged Clair's cataracts. Of course we could
disregard all this and just chalk the flash cuts up to just
the author/narrator telling the story, i.e., it's not
necessary for them to imply that Claire was imagining a
possible future in flash forewords.

The bottom line is we need Ball to give us more input on
this (maybe he even wanted multiple possible
interpretations), but I am liking your theory more and more.
...tonyC

Post by bradkz

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
wow, it's interesting that you say it's the general

consensus that it was a

Post by bradkz

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
flashback, eventhough i didn't interpret it this way,

both versions are

Post by bradkz

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
pretty cool anyway. however, if the consensus is that

the scene was a

Post by bradkz

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
flashback, than it's not a big stretch to say the

whole series took place in

Post by bradkz

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
her mind "within the flashback".
for some reason, i think i like the flashforward

theory better, but that's

Post by bradkz

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
just me.
perhaps manitou was right.

really i think you have to interpret it whatever way

makes sense to

Post by bradkz

Post by h***@aol.com
you. But, I was just making the point that many seem to

think it was

Post by bradkz

Post by h***@aol.com
"flash-back" not flash-forward". I did consider the

possibility that

Post by bradkz

Post by h***@aol.com
the whole thing took place in her mind within the

flashback as well,

Post by bradkz

Post by h***@aol.com
but I don't really think so...though I do find it

interesting. Maybe

Post by bradkz

Post by h***@aol.com
Alan Ball will tell us something definitively at some

point?

Post by bradkz

Post by h***@aol.com
Hudson

[bob smith]

Thematically, it doesnt make any sense if its flashbacks. The whole point of
the road trip 'scene' was about the future and possibilities.

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
wow, it's interesting that you say it's the general consensus that it was a
flashback, eventhough i didn't interpret it this way, both versions are
pretty cool anyway. however, if the consensus is that the scene was a
flashback, than it's not a big stretch to say the whole series took place in
her mind "within the flashback".
for some reason, i think i like the flashforward theory better, but that's
just me.
perhaps manitou was right.

really i think you have to interpret it whatever way makes sense to
you. But, I was just making the point that many seem to think it was
"flash-back" not flash-forward". I did consider the possibility that
the whole thing took place in her mind within the flashback as well,
but I don't really think so...though I do find it interesting. Maybe
Alan Ball will tell us something definitively at some point?
Hudson

[h***@aol.com]

Post by bob smith
Thematically, it doesnt make any sense if its flashbacks. The whole point of
the road trip 'scene' was about the future and possibilities.

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
wow, it's interesting that you say it's the general consensus that it was a
flashback, eventhough i didn't interpret it this way, both versions are
pretty cool anyway. however, if the consensus is that the scene was a
flashback, than it's not a big stretch to say the whole series took place in
her mind "within the flashback".
for some reason, i think i like the flashforward theory better, but that's
just me.
perhaps manitou was right.

really i think you have to interpret it whatever way makes sense to
you. But, I was just making the point that many seem to think it was
"flash-back" not flash-forward". I did consider the possibility that
the whole thing took place in her mind within the flashback as well,
but I don't really think so...though I do find it interesting. Maybe
Alan Ball will tell us something definitively at some point?
Hudson

Sure it makes perfect sense. We see old Claire reminiscing on her death bed thru flashbacks, superimposed while young Claire is driving forward into the future. Since Ball gives us actual obituaries and chronological dates, it makes no sense for Claire to have "imagined" the deaths of everyone she knows and loves, as well as her own death. What 22 year old girl embarking on an adventure does that? But for old Claire, now 102, the only one left, to reflect on her past, by flashing back thru all those years makes perfect sense.

Hudson

[b or t k-c]

Post by h***@aol.com

... for old Claire, now 102, the only one left, to reflect on her past,
by flashing back thru all those years makes perfect sense.

Flash-back seems, to me, to be the only interpretation that makes sense at
all... but who are we to say?
If it works better as a flash-forward for other folks, that's what works for
them.
It's one of those things that makes writing interesting... don't you think?


...................

Post by h***@aol.com

Thematically, it doesnt make any sense if its flashbacks. The whole point of
the road trip 'scene' was about the future and possibilities.

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
wow, it's interesting that you say it's the general consensus that it
was
a
flashback, eventhough i didn't interpret it this way, both versions are
pretty cool anyway. however, if the consensus is that the scene was a
flashback, than it's not a big stretch to say the whole series took
place
in
her mind "within the flashback".
for some reason, i think i like the flashforward theory better, but that's
just me.
perhaps manitou was right.

really i think you have to interpret it whatever way makes sense to
you. But, I was just making the point that many seem to think it was
"flash-back" not flash-forward". I did consider the possibility that
the whole thing took place in her mind within the flashback as well,
but I don't really think so...though I do find it interesting. Maybe
Alan Ball will tell us something definitively at some point?
Hudson

Sure it makes perfect sense. We see old Claire reminiscing on her death
bed thru flashbacks, superimposed while young Claire is driving forward
into the future. Since Ball gives us actual obituaries and chronological
dates, it makes no sense for Claire to have "imagined" the deaths of
everyone she knows and loves, as well as her own death. What 22 year old
girl embarking on an adventure does that? But for old Claire, now 102,
the only one left, to reflect on her past, by flashing back thru all
those years makes perfect sense.

Hudson

[manitou]

Post by b or t k-c
Flash-back seems, to me, to be the only interpretation that makes sense at
all... but who are we to say?
If it works better as a flash-forward for other folks, that's what works for
them.
It's one of those things that makes writing interesting... don't you think?

I don't think it was either.

It was an editing juxtaposition of Claire's departure, in tandem with
glimpses of the other main characters' eventual deaths.

Perhaps we could expect 'old Claire' to look back on her mother's death,
and her other brother's, but it's unlikely she'd have the same intense
memories of Brenda's or Keith's -- especially since it appears she
settled in New York while everyone else stayed in Los Angeles.










C.

[manitou]

Post by manitou
I don't think it was either.
It was an editing juxtaposition of Claire's departure, in tandem with
glimpses of the other main characters' eventual deaths.
Perhaps we could expect 'old Claire' to look back on her mother's death,
and her other brother's, but it's unlikely she'd have the same intense
memories of Brenda's or Keith's

or Rico's, as another poster astutely noted.














C.

[b or t k-c]

Post by manitou
or Rico's, as another poster astutely noted.

He was part of her everyday life for a lot of her "formative years", wasn't
he?


...................

Post by manitou

Post by manitou
I don't think it was either.
It was an editing juxtaposition of Claire's departure, in tandem with
glimpses of the other main characters' eventual deaths.
Perhaps we could expect 'old Claire' to look back on her mother's death,
and her other brother's, but it's unlikely she'd have the same intense
memories of Brenda's or Keith's

or Rico's, as another poster astutely noted.
C.

[manitou]

Post by b or t k-c

Post by manitou
or Rico's, as another poster astutely noted.

He was part of her everyday life for a lot of her "formative years", wasn't
he?

Perhaps, though this was never a part of the series' ongoing story and
the reality is Claire would have beein school while Rico was working at
the home, so I doubt there was much interaction between them.













C.

[notherenow]

Post by manitou

Post by b or t k-c

Post by manitou
or Rico's, as another poster astutely noted.

He was part of her everyday life for a lot of her "formative years", wasn't
he?

Perhaps, though this was never a part of the series' ongoing story and
the reality is Claire would have beein school while Rico was working at
the home, so I doubt there was much interaction between them.

Seem to remember a very early episode that gave the back story
on Rico's relationship with the Fisher Mortuary (before Fisher & Son
(Nathaniel and David)).

Post by manitou
C.

[manitou]

Post by notherenow

Post by manitou

Post by b or t k-c
He was part of her everyday life for a lot of her "formative years", wasn't
he?

Perhaps, though this was never a part of the series' ongoing story and
the reality is Claire would have beein school while Rico was working at
the home, so I doubt there was much interaction between them.

Seem to remember a very early episode that gave the back story
on Rico's relationship with the Fisher Mortuary (before Fisher & Son
(Nathaniel and David)).

Yes --- and there was nothing about Claire!













C.

[notherenow]

Post by manitou

Post by notherenow

Post by manitou

Post by b or t k-c
He was part of her everyday life for a lot of her "formative years", wasn't
he?

Perhaps, though this was never a part of the series' ongoing story and
the reality is Claire would have beein school while Rico was working at
the home, so I doubt there was much interaction between them.

Seem to remember a very early episode that gave the back story
on Rico's relationship with the Fisher Mortuary (before Fisher & Son
(Nathaniel and David)).

Yes --- and there was nothing about Claire!

Except that Claire was the youngest child in the house where the
mortuary was located and he was working for her father. As her father's
employee Rico would have been in contact with Claire at least during her
high school years, and that time period is well within the bounds of
"formative years". As a long-time employee in a home-based business
would hardly be a stranger to the children of the family.

Post by manitou
C.

[b or t k-c]

Post by manitou
Perhaps we could expect 'old Claire' to look back on her mother's death,
and her other brother's, but it's unlikely she'd have the same intense
memories of Brenda's or Keith's

Really? I, personally, have clearer memories of some late friends than I do
of my parents.


...................

Post by manitou

Post by b or t k-c
Flash-back seems, to me, to be the only interpretation that makes sense
at all... but who are we to say?
If it works better as a flash-forward for other folks, that's what works
for them.
It's one of those things that makes writing interesting... don't you think?

I don't think it was either.
It was an editing juxtaposition of Claire's departure, in tandem with
glimpses of the other main characters' eventual deaths.
Perhaps we could expect 'old Claire' to look back on her mother's death,
and her other brother's, but it's unlikely she'd have the same intense
memories of Brenda's or Keith's -- especially since it appears she settled
in New York while everyone else stayed in Los Angeles.
C.

[manitou]

Post by b or t k-c

Post by manitou
Perhaps we could expect 'old Claire' to look back on her mother's death,
and her other brother's, but it's unlikely she'd have the same intense
memories of Brenda's or Keith's

Really? I, personally, have clearer memories of some late friends than I do
of my parents.

I was refering to what we were shown during the series.














C.

[b or t k-c]

Post by manitou
I was refering to what we were shown during the series.

Well, so was I. My point was that memory, and the intensity of recollection,
varies from person to person, and even from time to time for most people.
It's often a bit irrational, unpredictable and inexplicable. We might
"expect" Claire to remember her mother's and brother's deaths with greater
clarity and intensity than Brenda's or Keith's, and we may be right... or
Claire's memory might "throw us a curve", with her recalling things
differently from how we'd projected she might, and we'd be wrong. "Young"
Claire, especially, was one of the less predictable characters of the
series... there's no reason to believe that quality had disappeared with
time. In fact, my experience is many people become less predictable with
age.


...................

Post by manitou

Post by b or t k-c

Post by manitou
Perhaps we could expect 'old Claire' to look back on her mother's death,
and her other brother's, but it's unlikely she'd have the same intense
memories of Brenda's or Keith's

Really? I, personally, have clearer memories of some late friends than I
do of my parents.

I was refering to what we were shown during the series.
C.

[Kurt Ridder]

Post by manitou

Post by b or t k-c
Flash-back seems, to me, to be the only interpretation that makes sense
at all... but who are we to say? If it works better as a flash-forward
for other folks, that's what works for them. It's one of those things
that makes writing interesting... don't you think?

I don't think it was either.
It was an editing juxtaposition of Claire's departure, in tandem with
glimpses of the other main characters' eventual deaths.

Bingo.

Kurt Ridder

[h***@aol.com]

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

... for old Claire, now 102, the only one left, to reflect on her past,
by flashing back thru all those years makes perfect sense.

Flash-back seems, to me, to be the only interpretation that makes sense at
all... but who are we to say?
If it works better as a flash-forward for other folks, that's what works for
them.
It's one of those things that makes writing interesting... don't you think?

yes, and knowing how quirky Ball's style is, he probably meant to leave
it ambiguous.

Hudson

Post by b or t k-c
...................

Post by h***@aol.com

Thematically, it doesnt make any sense if its flashbacks. The whole point of
the road trip 'scene' was about the future and possibilities.

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
wow, it's interesting that you say it's the general consensus that it
was
a
flashback, eventhough i didn't interpret it this way, both versions are
pretty cool anyway. however, if the consensus is that the scene was a
flashback, than it's not a big stretch to say the whole series took
place
in
her mind "within the flashback".
for some reason, i think i like the flashforward theory better, but that's
just me.
perhaps manitou was right.

really i think you have to interpret it whatever way makes sense to
you. But, I was just making the point that many seem to think it was
"flash-back" not flash-forward". I did consider the possibility that
the whole thing took place in her mind within the flashback as well,
but I don't really think so...though I do find it interesting. Maybe
Alan Ball will tell us something definitively at some point?
Hudson

Sure it makes perfect sense. We see old Claire reminiscing on her death
bed thru flashbacks, superimposed while young Claire is driving forward
into the future. Since Ball gives us actual obituaries and chronological
dates, it makes no sense for Claire to have "imagined" the deaths of
everyone she knows and loves, as well as her own death. What 22 year old
girl embarking on an adventure does that? But for old Claire, now 102,
the only one left, to reflect on her past, by flashing back thru all
those years makes perfect sense.

Hudson

[CliffB]

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

... for old Claire, now 102, the only one left, to reflect on her past,
by flashing back thru all those years makes perfect sense.

Flash-back seems, to me, to be the only interpretation that makes sense at
all... but who are we to say?
If it works better as a flash-forward for other folks, that's what works for
them.
It's one of those things that makes writing interesting... don't you think?

yes, and knowing how quirky Ball's style is, he probably meant to leave
it ambiguous.

Ha. That's a good one. How about this alternate interpretation: the
show was very busy going nowhere and he needed to arbitrarily wrap it
up and fill the last 7 or 8 minutes. So kill 'em all off to a moody
song. yeah, that's the ticket. Ball: "Maybe they'll think I've been
deliberately ambiguous all along and in a stylistic flourish of genius
(if I don't say so myself) have wrapped up the entire enigma of life ,
death, and the show. Gotta find a good moody song though......and I'm
home free"

Post by h***@aol.com
Hudson

Post by b or t k-c
...................

Post by h***@aol.com

Thematically, it doesnt make any sense if its flashbacks. The whole point of
the road trip 'scene' was about the future and possibilities.

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
wow, it's interesting that you say it's the general consensus that it
was
a
flashback, eventhough i didn't interpret it this way, both versions are
pretty cool anyway. however, if the consensus is that the scene was a
flashback, than it's not a big stretch to say the whole series took
place
in
her mind "within the flashback".
for some reason, i think i like the flashforward theory better, but that's
just me.
perhaps manitou was right.

really i think you have to interpret it whatever way makes sense to
you. But, I was just making the point that many seem to think it was
"flash-back" not flash-forward". I did consider the possibility that
the whole thing took place in her mind within the flashback as well,
but I don't really think so...though I do find it interesting. Maybe
Alan Ball will tell us something definitively at some point?
Hudson

Sure it makes perfect sense. We see old Claire reminiscing on her death
bed thru flashbacks, superimposed while young Claire is driving forward
into the future. Since Ball gives us actual obituaries and chronological
dates, it makes no sense for Claire to have "imagined" the deaths of
everyone she knows and loves, as well as her own death. What 22 year old
girl embarking on an adventure does that? But for old Claire, now 102,
the only one left, to reflect on her past, by flashing back thru all
those years makes perfect sense.

Hudson

[h***@aol.com]

Post by CliffB

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

... for old Claire, now 102, the only one left, to reflect on her past,
by flashing back thru all those years makes perfect sense.

Flash-back seems, to me, to be the only interpretation that makes sense at
all... but who are we to say?
If it works better as a flash-forward for other folks, that's what works for
them.
It's one of those things that makes writing interesting... don't you think?

yes, and knowing how quirky Ball's style is, he probably meant to leave
it ambiguous.

Ha. That's a good one. How about this alternate interpretation: the
show was very busy going nowhere and he needed to arbitrarily wrap it
up and fill the last 7 or 8 minutes. So kill 'em all off to a moody
song. yeah, that's the ticket. Ball: "Maybe they'll think I've been
deliberately ambiguous all along and in a stylistic flourish of genius
(if I don't say so myself) have wrapped up the entire enigma of life ,
death, and the show. Gotta find a good moody song though......and I'm
home free"

well, to be honest Cliff, what you posted above was my actual first
impression. I really hated the ending. Having thought about it some
more, I came to see it "could" hold more meaning. Now, I'm thinking,
maybe my original appraisal was right after all ;-)

Hudson

Post by CliffB

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c
...................

Post by h***@aol.com

Thematically, it doesnt make any sense if its flashbacks. The whole point of
the road trip 'scene' was about the future and possibilities.

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
wow, it's interesting that you say it's the general consensus that it
was
a
flashback, eventhough i didn't interpret it this way, both versions are
pretty cool anyway. however, if the consensus is that the scene was a
flashback, than it's not a big stretch to say the whole series took
place
in
her mind "within the flashback".
for some reason, i think i like the flashforward theory better, but
that's
just me.
perhaps manitou was right.

really i think you have to interpret it whatever way makes sense to
you. But, I was just making the point that many seem to think it was
"flash-back" not flash-forward". I did consider the possibility that
the whole thing took place in her mind within the flashback as well,
but I don't really think so...though I do find it interesting. Maybe
Alan Ball will tell us something definitively at some point?
Hudson

Sure it makes perfect sense. We see old Claire reminiscing on her death
bed thru flashbacks, superimposed while young Claire is driving forward
into the future. Since Ball gives us actual obituaries and chronological
dates, it makes no sense for Claire to have "imagined" the deaths of
everyone she knows and loves, as well as her own death. What 22 year old
girl embarking on an adventure does that? But for old Claire, now 102,
the only one left, to reflect on her past, by flashing back thru all
those years makes perfect sense.

Hudson

[Anthony Cerrato]

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

... for old Claire, now 102, the only one left, to

reflect on her past,

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

by flashing back thru all those years makes perfect

sense.

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c
Flash-back seems, to me, to be the only interpretation

that makes sense at

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c
all... but who are we to say?
If it works better as a flash-forward for other folks,

that's what works for

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c
them.
It's one of those things that makes writing

interesting... don't you think?

Post by h***@aol.com
yes, and knowing how quirky Ball's style is, he probably

meant to leave

Post by h***@aol.com
it ambiguous.

Exactly right! I think that is what he wanted, even if he
had a preferred interpretation--and that's the way I'm gonna
think of it.
I do know one thing though: since the first showing, I must
have rewatched that final montage nearly a half dozen plus
times, and each time, it is still one of the most moving
sequences I've ever seen on TV...not in small part due to
that wonderful song and the perfect editing/pacing etc. It's
something I won't ever forget I think.
...tonyC

Post by h***@aol.com
Hudson

Post by b or t k-c
...................

Post by h***@aol.com

Thematically, it doesnt make any sense if its

flashbacks. The whole point

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

of
the road trip 'scene' was about the future and

possibilities.

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
wow, it's interesting that you say it's the

general consensus that it

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
was
a
flashback, eventhough i didn't interpret it this

way, both versions

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
are
pretty cool anyway. however, if the consensus is

that the scene was a

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
flashback, than it's not a big stretch to say the

whole series took

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
place
in
her mind "within the flashback".
for some reason, i think i like the flashforward

theory better, but

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
that's
just me.
perhaps manitou was right.

really i think you have to interpret it whatever

way makes sense to

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by h***@aol.com
you. But, I was just making the point that many

seem to think it was

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by h***@aol.com
"flash-back" not flash-forward". I did consider the

possibility that

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by h***@aol.com
the whole thing took place in her mind within the

flashback as well,

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by h***@aol.com
but I don't really think so...though I do find it

interesting. Maybe

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by h***@aol.com
Alan Ball will tell us something definitively at

some point?

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by h***@aol.com
Hudson

Sure it makes perfect sense. We see old Claire

reminiscing on her death

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

bed thru flashbacks, superimposed while young Claire

is driving forward

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

into the future. Since Ball gives us actual

obituaries and chronological

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

dates, it makes no sense for Claire to have

"imagined" the deaths of

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

everyone she knows and loves, as well as her own

death. What 22 year old

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

girl embarking on an adventure does that? But for old

Claire, now 102,

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

the only one left, to reflect on her past, by

flashing back thru all

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by b or t k-c

Post by h***@aol.com

those years makes perfect sense.

Hudson

[Anthony Cerrato]

Post by tigercat
wow, it's interesting that you say it's the general

consensus that it was a

Post by tigercat
flashback, eventhough i didn't interpret it this way, both

versions are

Post by tigercat
pretty cool anyway. however, if the consensus is that the

scene was a

Post by tigercat
flashback, than it's not a big stretch to say the whole

series took place in

Post by tigercat
her mind "within the flashback".
for some reason, i think i like the flashforward theory

better, but that's

Post by tigercat
just me.

No, I agree--it was definitely a flash-forward...just an
editing trick to compress time. The 102 old Claire closing
her eyes was full closure with the jumps back and forth from
her driving were just symbolic of much time passing from
that point. This traditional interpretation is also the most
effective one, and I'm sure what Ball was going for to show
the universality of death (also shown by the ep title,
alluding to "everyone waiting," i.e. for death.)

I still like my idea though that the whole thing was all a
coma dream from Nate Jr.'s first brain attack--and,
actually, we are still free to believe that's what occurred.
:)) ...tonyC

Post by tigercat
perhaps manitou was right.

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
wow, you're smoking better stuff than me. you make a

very interesting

Post by tigercat

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
point
about whether claire is having flash-forwards or

flash-backs, but I tend

Post by tigercat

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
to
see it as flash-forwards (although again, it's an

intriguing observation

Post by tigercat

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
on
your part). about the whole series taking place in her

mind, you're

Post by tigercat

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
killing
me, my mind was blown enough by watching the finale and

now you're trying

Post by tigercat

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
to
blow it some more.

you can obviously interpret it however you wish, but

general consensus

Post by tigercat

Post by h***@aol.com
on 6FU forums is it was Claire's death bed

flash-back...not a flash

Post by tigercat

Post by h***@aol.com
forward. I don't think the whole series took place in

her mind...though

Post by tigercat

Post by h***@aol.com
I'd like that ending better than the one we got! I

always thought the

Post by tigercat

Post by h***@aol.com
whole series was taking place in the mind of Nate Sr.,

who wasn't

Post by tigercat

Post by h***@aol.com
really dead, but in a coma state from his bus accident.
Hudson

[Patrick]

Post by Anthony Cerrato
the universality of death (also shown by the ep title,
alluding to "everyone waiting," i.e. for death.)

Ah, see now I took that as everyboody's on the other side, and they're all
waiting for you (Claire) to join them. Afterall, not only was she the
youngest of the 'core' Fishers, but she also lived a long, long time. She
kept everyone waiting a long time.

[Anthony Cerrato]

news:c2NOe.4390$_7.3436

Post by Patrick

Post by Anthony Cerrato
the universality of death (also shown by the ep title,
alluding to "everyone waiting," i.e. for death.)

Ah, see now I took that as everyboody's on the other side,

and they're all

Post by Patrick
waiting for you (Claire) to join them. Afterall, not only

was she the

Post by Patrick
youngest of the 'core' Fishers, but she also lived a long,

long time. She

Post by Patrick
kept everyone waiting a long time.

Yes that's a much better interpretation, I think--or maybe
both interpretations apply (clever authors.) I agree though,
your idea applies to Claire, she kept 'em waiting the
longest--in fact, the whole ep devolves on being all about
Claire...hmmm. ...tonyC

[h***@aol.com]

Post by Patrick

Post by Anthony Cerrato
the universality of death (also shown by the ep title,
alluding to "everyone waiting," i.e. for death.)

Ah, see now I took that as everyboody's on the other side, and they're all
waiting for you (Claire) to join them. Afterall, not only was she the
youngest of the 'core' Fishers, but she also lived a long, long time. She
kept everyone waiting a long time.

exactly. "Everybody's Waiting" for Claire to pass and join them in the
afterlife.

Hudson

[Tina]

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by Anthony Cerrato
news:c2NOe.4390$_7.3436

Post by Anthony Cerrato
the universality of death (also shown by the ep title,
alluding to "everyone waiting," i.e. for death.)

Ah, see now I took that as everyboody's on the other side, and they're all
waiting for you (Claire) to join them. Afterall, not only was she the
youngest of the 'core' Fishers, but she also lived a long, long time.
She
kept everyone waiting a long time.

exactly. "Everybody's Waiting" for Claire to pass and join them in the
afterlife.

How would she *see* all the deaths when she wasn't there...like Rico's. I'm
a "Flashforward-ist".

Tina

[notherenow]

Post by Tina

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by Anthony Cerrato
news:c2NOe.4390$_7.3436

Post by Anthony Cerrato
the universality of death (also shown by the ep title,
alluding to "everyone waiting," i.e. for death.)

Ah, see now I took that as everyboody's on the other side, and they're all
waiting for you (Claire) to join them. Afterall, not only was she the
youngest of the 'core' Fishers, but she also lived a long, long time.
She
kept everyone waiting a long time.

exactly. "Everybody's Waiting" for Claire to pass and join them in the
afterlife.

How would she *see* all the deaths when she wasn't there...like Rico's. I'm
a "Flashforward-ist".
Tina

In my book she didn't *see* the deaths... her drive was a device for
Ball, et. al. to show us, the audience what each character's death would
look like against the symbolism of Claire's drive. Whether she saw or
foresaw those deaths was immaterial. jmho.

[Patricia Butler]

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
wow, you're smoking better stuff than me. you make a very interesting point
about whether claire is having flash-forwards or flash-backs, but I tend to
see it as flash-forwards (although again, it's an intriguing observation on
your part). about the whole series taking place in her mind, you're killing
me, my mind was blown enough by watching the finale and now you're trying to
blow it some more.

you can obviously interpret it however you wish, but general consensus
on 6FU forums is it was Claire's death bed flash-back...not a flash
forward. I don't think the whole series took place in her mind...though
I'd like that ending better than the one we got! I always thought the
whole series was taking place in the mind of Nate Sr., who wasn't
really dead, but in a coma state from his bus accident.

Where did you get that this was "general consensus"?? Most of the
response to that theory I've seen has been that it was not Claire
remembering (since many of the things we see are things for which
Claire wasn't present and wouldn't know) but was flash forwards.

[tigercat]

he mentioned a SFU Forum, not sure which website though.

Post by Patricia Butler

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
wow, you're smoking better stuff than me. you make a very interesting point
about whether claire is having flash-forwards or flash-backs, but I tend to
see it as flash-forwards (although again, it's an intriguing observation on
your part). about the whole series taking place in her mind, you're killing
me, my mind was blown enough by watching the finale and now you're trying to
blow it some more.

you can obviously interpret it however you wish, but general consensus
on 6FU forums is it was Claire's death bed flash-back...not a flash
forward. I don't think the whole series took place in her mind...though
I'd like that ending better than the one we got! I always thought the
whole series was taking place in the mind of Nate Sr., who wasn't
really dead, but in a coma state from his bus accident.

Where did you get that this was "general consensus"?? Most of the
response to that theory I've seen has been that it was not Claire
remembering (since many of the things we see are things for which
Claire wasn't present and wouldn't know) but was flash forwards.

[h***@aol.com]

Post by Patricia Butler

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by tigercat
wow, you're smoking better stuff than me. you make a very interesting point
about whether claire is having flash-forwards or flash-backs, but I tend to
see it as flash-forwards (although again, it's an intriguing observation on
your part). about the whole series taking place in her mind, you're killing
me, my mind was blown enough by watching the finale and now you're trying to
blow it some more.

you can obviously interpret it however you wish, but general consensus
on 6FU forums is it was Claire's death bed flash-back...not a flash
forward. I don't think the whole series took place in her mind...though
I'd like that ending better than the one we got! I always thought the
whole series was taking place in the mind of Nate Sr., who wasn't
really dead, but in a coma state from his bus accident.

Where did you get that this was "general consensus"?? Most of the
response to that theory I've seen has been that it was not Claire
remembering (since many of the things we see are things for which
Claire wasn't present and wouldn't know) but was flash forwards.

check out some of the bulletin boards on the 6FU website. There are
lots of posts there. Plus, since i'm on AOL, they have message fan
boards for 6 FU, and the majority of those folks are promoting the
"flashback" theory. As I said I think whatever feels right to you is
how you should interpret it!

Hudson