# Lovecraft Country S01E05 "Strange Case" OAD 09/13/2020



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Here's this week's spoiler thread!

Official episode description:


> After making a devil's bargain with William, Ruby steps into the charmed shoes of a white woman, but her transformation only fortifies her resentment of the racial divide. A betrayal by Montrose unleashes Atticus' pent up rage, leaving Leti deeply disturbed and sending Montrose into the comforting arms of his secret lover.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

The "surprise ending" was pretty thoroughly foreshadowed...once Ruby made her transformation, it seemed pretty obvious that William would be making his own.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

I think they need to work on their magic technique until they can get a metamorphosis that doesn't end with the skin falling off in squishy, bloody clumps.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

trainman said:


> I think they need to work on their magic technique until they can get a metamorphosis that doesn't end with the skin falling off in squishy, bloody clumps.


Still, as a beta it has a lot of promise!


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

I'm a bit confused by the notion that Ruby's metamorphosis meant she could do whatever she wanted without repercussions, and yes she was able to (insert 'well *that* happened' here), but since she turned into the same white woman every time, wouldn't she only be able to get away with it - once?

(I also didn't see the twist at the end coming until it was happening - but I loved Ruby's straightforward reaction, because it's pretty much the same thing I was thinking in my head)


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Who did (not good with names) call on the phone at the very end?


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

trainman said:


> I think they need to work on their magic technique until they can get a metamorphosis that doesn't end with the skin falling off in squishy, bloody clumps.


I still don't understand what William was doing with the big knife during Ruby's first transformation. They blurred the image to make it quite ambiguous and it looked like he was just butchering Ruby. I think the special effects guys just wanted to have some fun with a little gore fest. The shedding of the skin was a bit excessive and over the top, but at least it wasn't one of those cheesy CGI transformations that so many filmmakers use. I would think that after one of those sessions the person would be ravenous and want to eat everything in sight to replenish themselves.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jamesbobo said:


> Who did (not good with names) call on the phone at the very end?


My son and I speculate that it's Tic's Korean girlfriend.

If I wasn't so curious about the mystery and that there were some really good episodes, I would have quit after this one. It was disgusting, gross, totally over the top with gore and sex. That's the kind of thing that generally turns me off of the modern horror genre. It's not scary in the least, just gross. I still think the racial inequality story is much better than the horror story.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

I agree with Steveknj's speculation about who's on the phone. Just a couple minutes earlier he told Leti that his relationship with the girlfriend ended under strange circumstances, so I think it's her. Or at least someone connected to those strange circumstances.

This was indeed an extra-gory episode, but that doesn't bother me. Nor does the sex. The whole show is so over-the-top that all of it somehow seems fitting. Honestly, I'm not even sure what "the mystery" is, to use Steve's phrase, but everything about this whole show is so insanely wackadoo I can't wait to see what's next.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Thanks for the answer. I'm going to have to look up cast members because, since I'm not good with names, I don't know who Tic is. 
I just looked it up. Tic is Atticus.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

jamesbobo said:


> Thanks for the answer. I'm going to have to look up cast members because, since I'm not good with names, I don't know who Tic is.


Tic is the main male lead. The young black man who was on the phone call you're asking about.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Dawghows said:


> Tic is the main male lead. The young black man who was on the phone call you're asking about.


The one that everybody on the show calls "Tic."


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Dawghows said:


> I agree with Steveknj's speculation about who's on the phone. Just a couple minutes earlier he told Leti that his relationship with the girlfriend ended under strange circumstances, so I think it's her. Or at least someone connected to those strange circumstances.
> 
> This was indeed an extra-gory episode, but that doesn't bother me. Nor does the sex. The whole show is so over-the-top that all of it somehow seems fitting. Honestly, I'm not even sure what "the mystery" is, to use Steve's phrase, but everything about this whole show is so insanely wackadoo I can't wait to see what's next.


I still wish they'd avoid using the Hip-Hop music for a 1950s based show. It really takes me out of the scene.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I still don't understand what William was doing with the big knife during Ruby's first transformation. They blurred the image to make it quite ambiguous and it looked like he was just butchering Ruby. I think the special effects guys just wanted to have some fun with a little gore fest. The shedding of the skin was a bit excessive and over the top, but at least it wasn't one of those cheesy CGI transformations that so many filmmakers use. I would think that after one of those sessions the person would be ravenous and want to eat everything in sight to replenish themselves.


I think he was just speeding along Ruby's shedding of her skin. They made it seem like it was an attack of some sort at first, but then you realized he was just cutting her open.



Steveknj said:


> I still wish they'd avoid using the Hip-Hop music for a 1950s based show. It really takes me out of the scene.


At this point, I'm pretty sure they do it just to annoy you .


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

As soon as Christina appeared in this episode I immediately guesed she would turn out to be William. Now my question is: was she always William, even in the first two episodes? I don't see how that would be possible since clearly her father would have to know. I can't remember whether we ever saw the two of them together back then. So, then did William die in the collapse of the mansion (which is what I thought) and Christina just took over? And/or, was her story to Ruby about the police captain shooting William true and that's how he died, or was that just a lie to get Ruby to finish the job? And what the heck was that entire scene hiding that totem in the office about, it had zero payoff. I guess we'll find out later.

I didn't mind the sex (never do! ) and was OK with the gore. I don't like slasher shows either but this wasn't a gore filled slasher: I wouldn't even say that the plot was really a horror plot (OK, a little bit). I liked this episode much better than the last one for example.

Agree with astrohip: apparently the first time you go through the transformation things are "tougher" and you need a little help. As William told Ruby, it gets easier.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

madscientist said:


> Agree with astrohip: apparently the first time you go through the transformation things are "tougher" and you need a little help. As William told Ruby, it gets easier.


Yah, even if there's no 'technical' difference, the first time she had no idea what was happening, and was just... trapped in a sack? - so William had to help cut her out. By the end, she knew exactly what she was doing, how to efficiently break free, get her head and arms out, and peel the rest away like a disintegrating wet-suit.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

It was gory but I have my trusty fast forward button to get me through things I would rather not see.

Maybe I had the fast forward button pressed for too long but it didn't seem like the main plot moved much with this episode.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

The music doesn't bother me at all. If they were listening to the radio and there was modern music playing it might seem weird, but as theme music I don't really see the disconnect. Lots of shows do that. For expample, we recently started watching Peaky Blinders, and most of the theme music in that is modern, too. To me it's about fitting the mood of the scene, not the time period of the story. Not to mention the fact that shows/movies use old music in modern stories all the time.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

cheesesteak said:


> It was gory but I have my trusty fast forward button to get me through things I would rather not see.
> 
> Maybe I had the fast forward button pressed for too long but it didn't seem like the main plot moved much with this episode.


Ff'd a lot this ep


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Dawghows said:


> The music doesn't bother me at all. If they were listening to the radio and there was modern music playing it might seem weird, but as theme music I don't really see the disconnect. Lots of shows do that. For expample, we recently started watching Peaky Blinders, and most of the theme music in that is modern, too. To me it's about fitting the mood of the scene, not the time period of the story. Not to mention the fact that shows/movies use old music in modern stories all the time.


I guess we perceived it differently. For background instrumental soundtrack, it doesn't bother me as much. But it takes me out of a show when they play something modern and on the screen it's clearly a different era. It's just weird to me. Especially when there's PLENTY of music from that era that could be used much more effectively. I find it one of two things, laziness by the writers to actually find something that fits from that era, or, they just wanting to use a song they liked in the soundtrack.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> I guess we perceived it differently. For background instrumental soundtrack, it doesn't bother me as much. But it takes me out of a show when they play something modern and on the screen it's clearly a different era. It's just weird to me. Especially when there's PLENTY of music from that era that could be used much more effectively. I find it one of two things, laziness by the writers to actually find something that fits from that era, or, they just wanting to use a song they liked in the soundtrack.


Well, that kind of music didn't exist in that era. They're trying to capture the inner feelings of Black Americans. 50s music avoided that like the plague.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, that kind of music didn't exist in that era. They're trying to capture the inner feelings of Black Americans. 50s music avoided that like the plague.


Huh? Sure it did. It existed back in the times of slavery, it existed through Jim Crow, and it existed in the 1950s. There was plenty of R&B singers singing about their plight. Takes a little digging to find them probably, but I'm sure they were pretty well known among the black community of those times. It just strikes me as lazy. Just looking at this list:

15 Essential Songs you Must Listen to for African-American Music Appreciation Month | Blog | American Masters | PBS

Strange Fruit and Mannish Boy would fit the sentiment of this show, both are from that or before the era of the show. There are probably hundreds of classic jazz or R&B songs from the 1930s on up to that would fit.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

The only song I specifically remember from this episode is the Pat Boone version of "Tutti Frutti," which the white Marshall Field's salesladies were dancing to -- that one was both appropriate for the era and appropriate for the message being conveyed by that scene.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

trainman said:


> The only song I specifically remember from this episode is the Pat Boone version of "Tutti Frutti," which the white Marshall Field's salesladies were dancing to -- that one was both appropriate for the era and appropriate for the message being conveyed by that scene.


That one was DEAD ON accurate, although I had to explain the significance of playing the Pat Boone version to my wife. She'd never heard it and thought it was weird that they didn't play Little Richard.

White singers paid the fees, but black singers didn't get the money


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

gchance said:


> That one was DEAD ON accurate, although I had to explain the significance of playing the Pat Boone version to my wife. She'd never heard it and thought it was weird that they didn't play Little Richard.
> 
> White singers paid the fees, but black singers didn't get the money


Exactly. This is the kind of thing that fits in perfectly with the show's message. White people exploiting black people. Luckily we evolved to the point that we don't need white artists to redo songs by black artists because the black version is a race record and won't appeal to white America (well we have country music for that now!). But that was very common in the early days of rock and roll.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

'Lovecraft Country' Music Supervisor Shares Her Exclusive Playlist

The show's music supervisor talks about... the show's music. Turns out she's a huge fan of spoken-word, plus she never misses an opportunity to drive @Steveknj nuts.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

astrohip said:


> 'Lovecraft Country' Music Supervisor Shares Her Exclusive Playlist
> 
> The show's music supervisor talks about... the show's music. Turns out she's a huge fan of spoken-word, plus she never misses an opportunity to drive @Steveknj nuts.


Really it's exactly what I figured. She liked some modern stuff so she threw it in, never mind it really doesn't belong. It's funny that she says this"



> But it's the 1950s-era music that is at its heart. "I love the music of this period. I can't even tell you what a great collection I have," Richardson admits, adding that a lot of that music she discovered did not make it into the show. Then she had an idea: "I should probably do a playlist of just _Lovecraft_-inspired music. I could do a Fifties playlist of some of those cool discoveries I found."


She admits to there being plenty of 1950s music that would fit. And there is plenty. So why take us out of the mood with modern stuff. It really makes such little sense considering the material is there. But I guess this is similar to what Sci Fi nerds see when something in a Sci Fi show shouldn't work "that way". I guess if you aren't a music nerd, or a history nerd and they play Cardi B or the Jeffersons theme, it wouldn't bother you.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> Really it's exactly what I figured. She liked some modern stuff so she threw it in, never mind it really doesn't belong. It's funny that she says this"


Except it DOES belong. I think everything she's used has been PERFECT for the moment.

Then again, I don't expect Lovecraft Country to be a documentary about 50s music...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Except it DOES belong. I think everything she's used has been PERFECT for the moment.
> 
> Then again, I don't expect Lovecraft Country to be a documentary about 50s music...


2020 music BELONGS in a show that takes place in the 1950s? Maybe in an alternate reality show. I haven't heard that this is an alternate reality show. Maybe we should have light sabres in a show about the Civil War. Atomic Bombs dropping on Ancient Rome?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> 2020 music BELONGS in a show that takes place in the 1950s? Maybe in an alternate reality show. I haven't heard that this is an alternate reality show. Maybe we should have light sabres in a show about the Civil War. Atomic Bombs dropping on Ancient Rome?


2020 music belongs in a show made in 2020. When it's perfect for the scene. Which, in this case, it always is.

But I understand that this is not a factual argument, but rather a religious one, and you will never convert to the One True Faith, so there's no point in continuing...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> 2020 music belongs in a show made in 2020. When it's perfect for the scene. Which, in this case, it always is.
> 
> But I understand that this is not a factual argument, but rather a religious one, and you will never convert to the One True Faith, so there's no point in continuing...


That is only a recent phenomenon, unless the show is a farce or some sort of comedy / musical (Oklahoma? Hamilton?) I don't buy the argument that 2020 music (in the style of 2020, not current music written in the style of the era in which it's taking place).

But yeah, point beaten to a bloody pulp by now....carry on


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> She admits to there being plenty of 1950s music that would fit. And there is plenty. So why take us out of the mood with modern stuff. It really makes such little sense considering the material is there.


Because she's picking the best song that fits the mood and theme of the scene whether it be a modern song or one from the era. I can't think of a better choice for the scene that '****** on the Moon' was used for, for example. It was absolutely perfect.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

David Platt said:


> Because she's picking the best song that fits the mood and theme of the scene whether it be a modern song or one from the era. I can't think of a better choice for the scene that '****** on the Moon' was used for, for example. It was absolutely perfect.


You can't tell me that there isn't an equivalent song pre-1960 that would work just as well. You think it's perfect because that's what she used, but what is she used a different song? Maybe that would have been perfect too.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> You can't tell me that there isn't an equivalent song pre-1960 that would work just as well. You think it's perfect because that's what she used, but what is she used a different song? Maybe that would have been perfect too.


An equivalent song from pre-1960 that talks about race in such an explicit manner? I'm pretty sure I can tell you that there isn't an equivalent song.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

David Platt said:


> An equivalent song from pre-1960 that talks about race in such an explicit manner? I'm pretty sure I can tell you that there isn't an equivalent song.


And I'm sure there is one. Not in mainstream white music but on what was called "race" records.

For example:

Strange Fruit (Billie Holiday)


> Southern trees bear a strange fruit
> Blood on the leaves and blood at the root
> Black bodies swingin' in the Southern breeze
> Strange fruit hangin' from the poplar trees
> ...


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> And I'm sure there is one. Not in mainstream white music but on what was called "race" records.
> 
> For example:
> 
> Strange Fruit (Billie Holiday)


To my mind, ****** on the Moon is much more explicit about race than Strange Fruit. Strange Fruit goes out of its way to NOT be explicit, for the most part couching itself in metaphors.

One's observational and metaphorical without ever mentioning white people at all; the other not only puts white people right in the title but also encourages rebellion and by some interpretations reparations.

i get where you're coming from; I really do. I'm of the school of thought that the artist should make the artistic choices that seem right to him or her rather than impose restrictions on their choices. An anachronistic song can provoke some real thought and introspection about why they made the choice they did.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

David Platt said:


> To my mind, ****** on the Moon is much more explicit about race than Strange Fruit. Strange Fruit goes out of its way to NOT be explicit, for the most part couching itself in metaphors.
> 
> One's observational and metaphorical without ever mentioning white people at all; the other not only puts white people right in the title but also encourages rebellion and by some interpretations reparations.


I think it's as clear as day what Strange Fruit is about, especially in a 1950s (the period this takes place in) kind of way. "Black bodies swinging in trees" is pretty darn clear. ****** on the Moon, sounds and feels like a song from the era it took place, late 1960s, early 1970s. It doesn't fit the era.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> It doesn't fit the era.


You're wishing for a particular aesthetic choice, and she's making a different aesthetic choice. But they are both just that: aesthetic choices. They are not right and wrong choices; they are different choices. It is abundantly clear that she's very _deliberately not_ trying to "fit the era." We hear that's what you want, but that's purposely not what she's driving at.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> It doesn't fit the era.


You could take a film about gladiators and have them battle to modern rock music and it would be just fine.

Music is intended for 2020 viewers, not 1950 viewers.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Dawghows said:


> You're wishing for a particular aesthetic choice, and she's making a different aesthetic choice. But they are both just that: aesthetic choices. They are not right and wrong choices; they are different choices. It is abundantly clear that she's very _deliberately not_ trying to "fit the era." We hear that's what you want, but that's purposely not what she's driving at.


To each there own I guess. I disagree. Especially in an era of such rich music that fits the tone she's trying to reach. The 1950s was in essence the dawn of the civil rights era. There's no real reason to deviate from that. It's absolutely the show runners choice on what she wants to use. For me, it doesn't work as well as a period piece of music. But this isn't my show. It's the one thing I most dislike about the show, but that's my opinion.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

smbaker said:


> You could take a film about gladiators and have them battle to modern rock music and it would be just fine.
> 
> Music is intended for 2020 viewers, not 1950 viewers.


Do have any inkling of what music was like in Roman times? That's the difference between the two.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Do have any inkling of what music was like in Roman times?


I have absolutely no idea. Maybe they would have fought to Queen's _Another _One_ Bites The Dust_, or in the worst case _Survivor's Eye Of The Tiger _if they couldn't secure the rights to the former_._

Maybe @Rob Helmerichs would know.

This reminds me, I wouldn't mind rewatching HBO's Rome series again. Some aspects of that series did have an aura of authenticity to them; maybe they paid attention to the music too.



Steveknj said:


> That's the difference between the two.


Not really. I'm 97% sure there were no actual Lovecraftian monsters back running around in the 50s, yet I would probably enjoy the TV show far less if they were absent. Period accuracy is neither a requirement, nor even necessarily a desired feature. The series doesn't even need literal accuracy to the Lovecraft source material, simply being inspired by it is sufficient.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> 2020 music belongs in a show made in 2020. When it's perfect for the scene. Which, in this case, it always is.


Yeah. Crappy music for a crappy year.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

smbaker said:


> Not really. I'm 97% sure there were no actual Lovecraftian monsters back running around in the 50s, yet I would probably enjoy the TV show far less if they were absent. Period accuracy is neither a requirement, nor even necessarily a desired feature. The series doesn't even need literal accuracy to the Lovecraft source material, simply being inspired by it is sufficient.


There is no Lovecraft source material. The show is an adaptation of Matt Ruff's novel of the same name.


----------

