Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Cranberry

S04.E03: Crocodile

Recommended Posts

I'm having a hard time suspending disbelief that memory is that reliable. They showed that the dentist got the color of the jacket wrong, and eyewitness testimony irl is highly unreliable. Not to mention the egregious violation of civil rights in compelling people to use the device.

I know the insurance woman said she had to report to the police that she refused the test, but so what? That buys you time. I know they were going for Mia panicking, and that's the point of the episode, but at the same time she was collected enough to make an alibi and dump the body. So which is it? 

If you're telling me she's going to be arrested because of a guinea pig, that's just inane. There's no way the device works with a tiny-brained animal as it does with humans. What if the animal couldn't see her face well enough? Or it was too dark? Or how do people process 'animal memories?'

I feel like TPTBs are trading off the Black Mirror name for the sake of tighter storytelling. 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

Too many holes in this one. For one, Mia left the memory device on Shazia when she beat her to death; I assumed that was going to be what undid her. Also, if you just killed somebody and you hear a baby crying and you're trying to avoid racking up and/or having to kill witnesses, try not going in the room where the baby is.

(Could have easily been avoided by having her kill the seated husband from the back while he was watching TV and then notice the kid was snuggling up next to him unseen, but then I guess you miss 10 minutes of horrifying tension. Still, indicative of sloppy writing.)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, LittleIggy said:

Re: the memory technology, it’s really extreme to compel someone to undergo something so intrusive over a private insurance matter. Would you want your brain probed just because you were walking down the street and may or may not have seen something? 

Didn't they say it was the law now to use that tech? Was she lying to complete her job? Or was that really true? It seemed like Mia understood it to be factually legal and required. But I'm not really sure. I wouldn't agree to it that's for sure. LOL

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Didn't they say it was the law now to use that tech? Was she lying to complete her job? Or was that really true? It seemed like Mia understood it to be factually legal and required. But I'm not really sure. I wouldn't agree to it that's for sure. LOL

I wouldn't agree, either. You aren't legally required to talk to an insurance adjuster/agent IRL, so I'm not sure why it'd be required in this ep's world. Especially when you aren't even involved in the claim. They're going to go to the police because someone didn't want their privacy invaded over a self-driving car accident where nobody got seriously hurt? I don't buy it. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Shazia did say it was the law. Hell of an insurance lobby to get that passed. Wonder if Mia could be compelled to undergo the memory probe after arrest or if there was still a right against self-incrimination.

Edited by LittleIggy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, cmfran said:

hey're going to go to the police because someone didn't want their privacy invaded over a self-driving car accident where nobody got seriously hurt? I don't buy it. 

Wait it was self driving car? I thought the boyfriend was driving?

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Didn't they say it was the law now to use that tech?

She said she'd have to report Mia if she refused and that it was the law if the person actually saw something relevant to the claim. I'd refuse and let a judge decide on the relevancy. 

Of course, I'm looking through a USA pov and basing it on civil rights here.

14 minutes ago, LittleIggy said:

Wonder if Mia could be compelled to undergo the memory probe after arrest or if there was still a right against self-incrimination.

Or, if the memories can be admissible in a criminal case at all. If they can only allow 'footage' directly relevant to the claim. This would so be tied up in the courts irl. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, cmfran said:

I wouldn't agree, either. You aren't legally required to talk to an insurance adjuster/agent IRL, so I'm not sure why it'd be required in this ep's world. Especially when you aren't even involved in the claim. They're going to go to the police because someone didn't want their privacy invaded over a self-driving car accident where nobody got seriously hurt? I don't buy it. 

I think Mia felt like if she waited for the warrant then the police would have arrested her for the other two deaths.

 

She was able to block out a part of her memory in the beginning, but it all went haywire. If she had waited and continued to lie to herself about what happened, then she would have been safe. But I guess that particular memory would have continued eating up at her.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

If she refused before they hooked up the machine, no one would know about the killing though. Then she has time to lawyer up and challenge those legal questions. 

Share this post


Link to post

On 1/1/2018 at 9:29 PM, Cheezwiz said:

Good point! I'm assuming that sort of technology wouldn't just be limited to insurance claims. I don't recall them saying anything about it in the episode, but perhaps the tech can only access memories that are fairly recent, like within a couple of years? The accident happened more than a decade earlier, so perhaps harvesting the memories wouldn't have worked as well. But you're right - it is a plot hole - no explanation was offered.

I could have sworn she explained to one of the users before Mia that the police weren't allowed to use the technology anymore. Did I hear that incorrectly?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, guilfoyleatpp said:

I could have sworn she explained to one of the users before Mia that the police weren't allowed to use the technology anymore. Did I hear that incorrectly?

Either you heard it incorrectly, or she was flatout lying. As the end showed, the tech can be used to prosecute someone, even off the memories of a pet.

What you may have heard was the insurance claim trying to soothe the guy who was checking out the naked guy and reassuring him that memory would not be reflected in her report and that there was some degree of privacy to people's memories.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I found the idea of her being forced do go through this over an insurance claim, especially with no death involved, to be dubious at best.  Plus, I don't know how reliable this tech can be.  Strange things go through a person's mind.  That's unavoidable and people can struggle to remember what happened to them just the previous day.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

What you may have heard was the insurance claim trying to soothe the guy who was checking out the naked guy and reassuring him that memory would not be reflected in her report and that there was some degree of privacy to people's memories.

No, I heard that part. I believe it was when she was talking to the first man (the injured one) and he said something like "oh yes, I've heard of that for the police." She replied "They're not allowed to use it anymore."

I will do a quick review when I get a chance. She was likely talking about something else. 

Share this post


Link to post

That seems contradictory to when she tells Mia that she has to notify the police if she refuses to submit to the memory scan.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, guilfoyleatpp said:

No, I heard that part. I believe it was when she was talking to the first man (the injured one) and he said something like "oh yes, I've heard of that for the police." She replied "They're not allowed to use it anymore."

I will do a quick review when I get a chance. She was likely talking about something else. 

No, it was actually the other way round. They guy asked if the memory gadget was a police thing and she answered: "Not since last year. We all have them now." So, only the police could use it before (and still do) and now other people can too.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

22 hours ago, ganesh said:

If you're telling me she's going to be arrested because of a guinea pig, that's just inane. There's no way the device works with a tiny-brained animal as it does with humans. What if the animal couldn't see her face well enough? Or it was too dark? Or how do people process 'animal memories?'

This was my problem with the story as well.  They showed how difficult it could be to get an adult human to focus & remember an exact time & place they were being told to focus on.  And they still made errors.  How do you even get a guinea pig to recall what happened "5 hours ago" or "last Tuesday at 3:30" or even "3 minutes ago"?  Plus there's no distinct beer smell or song to help trigger the memory.  I also question how they would get a baby to recall a specific time & place.

Putting the ability to call up the memory aside, the show wants me to believe a guinea pig saw a human clearly enough to identify?  From 5-6 feet away?  In a dimly lit room?  From the side?  Beyond a reasonable doubt?  Isn't one human eyewitness not even enough to convict someone if that's all you've got?  I was enjoying the story up until the Guinea Pig Gotcha moment, but then I was just like "oh come, on! that's just stupid."

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Cattie said:

No, it was actually the other way round. They guy asked if the memory gadget was a police thing and she answered: "Not since last year. We all have them now." So, only the police could use it before (and still do) and now other people can too.

Thank you! That must have been it!

Share this post


Link to post

It didn't even occur to me that the guinea pig was going to be used as a witness until I came here. I was like, "oh at least she didn't kill the pet" when I saw them taking it away. Because it's absurd to think that it could be used as a material witness. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I assumed the police got enough from the guinea pig to identify her, which would allow them to question her, not necessarily place her under arrest. In her state of mind, though, I’m sure she cracked immediately and confessed, so that part worked for me.

Beyond a few things that bugged me (like, how she was able to move his dead body around, much less lift it into her car, or how she was able to overtake the insurance investigator), things I chose to look past, I thought this was a compelling-if-horrific story: a warning to Everyman, if you will.  I was able to imagine why she went along with her mate initially, even though it was wrong, as well as why she broke and killed him and then kept killing to try to cover each previous crime in a delusional effort to hang on to her life. 

Iceland seems much less appealing to me now, as are Suzuki vehicles. (That was a Suzuki that wouldn’t start, right?)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I'm having a hard time swallowing that a guinea pig provided anything of substance, let alone be admissible in court. You could get the best person ever and in a dark room is a coin flip at best that they could ID someone. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

It seems horrifying that such technology exists, and can be legally used on people against their will if they've been a witness, even having to hand their memories over to private insurance companies for civil disputes. Was it unrealistic? I'd hope so - but I can see Governments trying to pass such laws, and even if it was kept to requiring a search warrant there would be enormous privacy implications. You'd also have employers trying to make it mandatory for an interview, or it being used at customs/border checks. Unusually for Black Mirror we were shown a positive aspect rather than the many negative possibilities for the most part (though there is the point that she wouldn't have committed three of the murders if the technology and associated law didn't exist - and the dentist having to come clean).

Even memories from before the technology existed might not be safe. In some ways I think the story would have been more interesting if it had ending up unearthing the crime from 15 years ago - the Leela-style kill-every-witness seemed a bit hard to believe, and unless she confesses it all there's no reason to think they'd find out about the initial crime.

On 02/01/2018 at 9:18 PM, ganesh said:

I'm having a hard time suspending disbelief that memory is that reliable. They showed that the dentist got the color of the jacket wrong, and eyewitness testimony irl is highly unreliable. Not to mention the egregious violation of civil rights in compelling people to use the device. 

I don't know if they claimed it was reliable - eyewitness testimony is unreliable, but it's still often allowed in court, and I can imagine people arguing that the device is therefore no more unreliable (with perhaps the advantage that it eliminates the factor of people lying). Though I think there are still reasons to challenge it - one problem might be that seeing the images might make a jury more likely to accept it, even though it may still be unreliable.
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I can't stand stories where babies or children are hurt; just hate it and I hated Mia. I find it hard to believe that this professional woman who was also a caring wife and mother could just start murdering people, especially by beating them to death. The scene where she killed her former boyfriend just looked strange for some reason-how could she have so much force? Also, not sure a guinea pigs brain could transmit memories. I found the title a bit odd too: I know what crocodile tears are, but that usually relates to someone pretending to be sad or hurt when they are not. In this case, Mia cared only about herself and until the end when the police arrived, there was no one she was trying to fool with her tears. Most disliked episode for me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, ganesh said:

I'm having a hard time swallowing that a guinea pig provided anything of substance, let alone be admissible in court. You could get the best person ever and in a dark room is a coin flip at best that they could ID someone. 

This is my only hang up with the episode too. I’m not totally up to speed with rodents’ brains but their memories don’t work the same way as humans, do they?

Side note: I now want a guinea pig. Those are adorable. 

Otherwise I really enjoyed this dark, depressing episode. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/1/2018 at 10:36 AM, iMonrey said:

I guess one thing that bugged me was that they have this super high-tech thing that can actually read peoples' minds, but the device itself - the one with the little view screen - looks super low-tech. Like a prop from the original 1960s Star Trek show, or Lost in Space. 

The device is used by an investigator for an insurance company, a company probably more likely to buy a cheaper device that works but is bulkier and doesn't look like a sexy new toy. At least that was my take on it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, ganesh said:

I'm having a hard time swallowing that a guinea pig provided anything of substance, let alone be admissible in court. You could get the best person ever and in a dark room is a coin flip at best that they could ID someone. 

The guinea pig doesn't need to provide anything admissible in court - it just needs to provide a face that they can search using facial recognition. Then they go to question the person it saw. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, that's my point. Splitting that hair a little thin. It's ridiculous that the pet could provide enough of a credible ID in the first place, and even if there was enough, any lawyer would shred the use of a *guinea pig* to a grand jury on an indictment. 

I mean, "you're questioning me about a murder because the guinea pig?" Give me a break. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm still not buying that it saw Mia well enough to provide an identification in a dark room where she was wearing a hood, and that doesn't address anything about legalities, which I think this is a valid point and has been brought up as part of the larger discussion of the episode. Not to mention that you have to accept the machine is as effective on animals and humans equally.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

While I like the idea of an alternate solution to "detective guinea pig" I think that interpretation @17wheatthins would mean the narrative cheated us. It's cheap to lead with one overt idea if your intent as a writer was the opposite. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Here's the thing, and this is a larger context: I watched the show carefully and came to my own conclusions based on what I saw. All these articles after the fact trying to explain what I saw are just wrong on principle. Sure, they can say what they think, but I don't need other people telling me what they think I should have seen. It's condescending and it implies that my viewing experience is somehow invalid. It doesn't matter what show it is, but it's frankly insulting to me. 

The bottom line is that the room was dark, and a human much less a tiny animal would have been hard pressed to produce an actionable image of Mia. The show already brought up the legal issues that we've been discussing here that are apt to the case of a guinea pig being a material witness to a murder. 

It never occurred to me until I came here that they were going to use the pet's 'memories'. It's preposterous. Mia got away with it and clearly it killed her inside. One could reasonably speculate that it leads to the breakdown of her family and she ends up alone and miserable. That's the story I saw. 

Edited by ganesh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I guess one thing that bugged me was that they have this super high-tech thing that can actually read peoples' minds, but the device itself - the one with the little view screen - looks super low-tech. Like a prop from the original 1960s Star Trek show, or Lost in Space. 

It reminded me of the Voight Kampff machine from Blade Runner.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, ganesh said:

It never occurred to me until I came here that they were going to use the pet's 'memories'. It's preposterous. Mia got away with it and clearly it killed her inside. One could reasonably speculate that it leads to the breakdown of her family and she ends up alone and miserable. That's the story I saw. 

I don't mean any disrespect here, but it's possible you missed something? It happens to me all the time with Black Mirror since it can be a deep show, and in the case of Crocodile, the episode felt like it had ended sooner than it did (I very nearly skipped to the next episode thinking it was over before the last two scenes and I wonder if that's what you did because that's where the guinea pig info was). Here's what happened:

The lead detective at the scene of the crime says to an officer "I don't have any idea who we're looking for, but it's a good thing you're not asking me." She nods at the guinea pig. "Now let's get out of here and let the recall team do their work." They show cops powering up the memory device right next to the guinea pig's cage and they take it out of the cage. Then there's a cut to the police showing up at the recital where Mia is and someone pointing out to the police where Mia is sitting.

If the show didn't want to lead us to the assumption that the GP's memories led them to Mia then why put this as the ending of the episode? 

Edited by PatternRec · Reason: typos
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

Guinea Pig or no guinea pig, Mia was going to be caught. The police would work on the initial assumption that Shazia had killed her husband and child. They would, as a matter of course investigate her internet search history, interview everyone she had recent dealings with and check her car's GPS signal. They'd know she went to visit Mia due to her reverse image search, her car's GPS and her discussions with the dentist and hotel receptionist. They'd interview Mia and check her memories of the meeting with Shazia.  At a bare minimum, Mia would undoubtedly let something enough slip to justify a warrant to search her property. Shazia's DNA would almost certainly be there somewhere, as would Mia's be at Shazia's home. They might even search her hotel room and find dna associated with a missing person. One who had internet searches relating to another missing person, who went missing when he and Mia were in a relationship. There is no way she's getting away with it, regardless of guinea pig recall and eyesight. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/2/2018 at 2:39 PM, Chaos Theory said:

You are thinking to logically often like someone after the fact who has been told a harrowing story.  Why didn’t you just do this? 

She was terrified that her life would be destroyed by something that happened a decade earlier.  If she had taken a step back and maybe took a day to think about it she might have done all that.  However with her ex saying he was going to leave and pretty much mail the letter the minute he walked out the door.  She panicked.   If she hadn’t panicked in that one moment we’d have an entirely different story.

The episode was entirely Mia in panic self survival mode.  

I was coming here to say something like this, but you conveyed my sentiments perfectly. I'm surprised that many of the posters here aren't relating to Mia at all, and are calling her completely unsympathetic. Going to prison for years is probably one of the worst things I can think of, and I'm not someone who has a kid, or a high-profile career to lose. I'm not saying that anything she did was right, but I feel that I can relate to the way she was feeling.  I often wonder how far I would go to protect myself if I was in similar situations...(hitting someone with my car, being threatened by someone who would rat me out for something, etc).

Edited by Zima
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

32 minutes ago, Zima said:

I was coming here to say something like this, but you conveyed my sentiments perfectly. I'm surprised that many of the posters here aren't relating to Mia at all, and are calling her completely unsympathetic. Going to prison for years is probably one of the worst things I can think of, and I'm not someone who has a kid, or a high-profile career to lose. I'm not saying that anything she did was right, but I feel that I can relate to the way she was feeling.  I often wonder how far I would go to protect myself if I was in similar situations...(hitting someone with my car, being threatened by someone who would rat me out for something, etc).

Exactly.  

None of us know what we are going to do in an instant.  We all like to think we would do the right thing but when our life or our lifestyle is threatened none of us know for sure.  More of us would do exactly what Mia did then is comfortable to admit.  Which is why the story is so relatable to me.  I can see why she acted the way she did.  I am not saying she was right because she wasn't.  She reacted violently in a moment of panic.  But I can understand why.  

Mia's story is so tragic because I can see it happening so very easily and to so very many of us.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/1/2018 at 9:17 PM, catrox14 said:

For me there is a big plot hole from the get go, and that is why, once the ex showed up to tell her of his plans, why didn't she just contact the authorities to have them use the memory thing on him to prove her innocence and his guilt from the get go.  And then she could have been under their protection, right? That bugged me throughout the whole thing. Or did they address why she didn't do that?

I'm with you, this is my quibble with the episode. Structurally, the memory tech was introduced to the story after she's killed the boyfriend. If we'd known about it before, and her knowledge of it, it would have changed her motivation for killing him, and it might not have made sense for her character. The writers cheated a little. Her killing the boyfriend to stop her from potentially being exposed made sense. But the tech could prove she was only involved after the fact. She was young, drunk, dumb, and in love. That mistake could easily have been played off and she probably wasn't looking at as harsh a penalty as would justify killing him... IF the police were even able to track it back to him. To me, they writers took a cop out by structuring the reveal of the tech they way they did. She's killed the only person who could have proved she wasn't responsible for the bikers death, only partially the cover up. Had we known of the tech from the start of the story, her motivation to kill her old boyfriend is tougher to understand, at least to me. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I liked this one, reminded me of Fargo.  I even thought she might throw the lady in a wood chipper out in the middle of nowhere. 

There really was not enough in her memory though that she gave the woman to convict her of anything or prove anything she did.  It might even be enough to start an investigation.  It was just vague, fleeting, but disturbing, images.  Some were from the TV, some where images of the past, some happened that night

The problem of course is she did not know any of that or what had been collected. 

Also don't know why the name of the episode was crocodile.  Just to throw us off?  I watched until the very end trying to figure that out, never did. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/4/2018 at 7:52 PM, ganesh said:

It never occurred to me until I came here that they were going to use the pet's 'memories'. It's preposterous.

I'm still trying to figure out how they prompted the guinea pig to remember.  Did they just stand there and watch random images until something relevant appeared?  Meh.

Share this post


Link to post

I assume the device was tested on animals (rodents, etc) before being used on humans.

I have no idea of the laws of Iceland in this futuristic setting and so I interpret the story ending with her going to jail for the rest of her life.

I love all Black Mirror episodes. This wasn't my favorite episode but I still enjoyed this episode.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Another of the "5 minutes in the future" as far as the tech: this type of technology does almost actually exist. I've even heard of it being used in criminal cases, though I'm not sure if it's actually accepted as evidence or just used as a version of a lie detector. FMRI, or, Functional MRI brain scans. Basically, it's a 'live' picture of the brain in operation in an MRI machine. Doctors can see what areas of the brain light up when stimulated in the MRI machine.

So, the "suspect" is placed in an MRI, and shown pictures of the crime scene. Different parts of the brain light up depending on whether you're viewing an image for the first time and trying to process it, or, whether you're seeing something you're familiar with. It's like the first time you visit someone in a new house... that strange feeling of unfamiliarity that eventually goes away as you imprint how the rooms are laid out, where the bathroom is, where that hallway goes and what's behind that door... is it a closet or the stairs to the basement? Once you're familiar with a place, your brain looks at it differently. So, the theory goes, if you showed someone a picture of a crime scene and the parts of their brain that recognize familiar settings light up, you've got your guy. If that weird unfamiliar feeling lights up instead, you know he's never been there before. Or, the same with faces, you can tell if someone really recognizes someone or not.

Anyway, it's interesting to me how Black Mirror keeps finding these things then tweaking them up just a little bit to extract the story.

 

EDIT: Also, is it just me, or, does Toyota's new self-driving pizza delivery van pretty much look exactly like the one in this episode?

Edited by Charlesman
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

I'm with you, this is my quibble with the episode. Structurally, the memory tech was introduced to the story after she's killed the boyfriend. If we'd known about it before, and her knowledge of it, it would have changed her motivation for killing him, and it might not have made sense for her character. The writers cheated a little. Her killing the boyfriend to stop her from potentially being exposed made sense. But the tech could prove she was only involved after the fact. She was young, drunk, dumb, and in love. That mistake could easily have been played off and she probably wasn't looking at as harsh a penalty as would justify killing him... IF the police were even able to track it back to him. To me, they writers took a cop out by structuring the reveal of the tech they way they did. She's killed the only person who could have proved she wasn't responsible for the bikers death, only partially the cover up. Had we known of the tech from the start of the story, her motivation to kill her old boyfriend is tougher to understand, at least to me.

It seems to me that the debate on this board about Mia choosing to use the tech or not when the boyfriend came to the hotel is really about everyone's opinions of the legal system and what her punishment would be for her initial crimes. Some seem to think she would get a slap on the wrist since she's turning in the boyfriend, and therefore choosing to go to the cops and have them use the tech makes sense. Others think being an accessory to murder and participating in the whole coverup would result in significant jail time, so Mia killing the boyfriend seems like a better option for her (within the context of the show, of course).

Edited by Jsage
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/5/2018 at 7:02 PM, AllyB said:

Guinea Pig or no guinea pig, Mia was going to be caught. The police would work on the initial assumption that Shazia had killed her husband and child. They would, as a matter of course investigate her internet search history, interview everyone she had recent dealings with and check her car's GPS signal. They'd know she went to visit Mia due to her reverse image search, her car's GPS and her discussions with the dentist and hotel receptionist. They'd interview Mia and check her memories of the meeting with Shazia.  At a bare minimum, Mia would undoubtedly let something enough slip to justify a warrant to search her property. Shazia's DNA would almost certainly be there somewhere, as would Mia's be at Shazia's home. They might even search her hotel room and find dna associated with a missing person. One who had internet searches relating to another missing person, who went missing when he and Mia were in a relationship. There is no way she's getting away with it, regardless of guinea pig recall and eyesight. 

Yes, this is what bothered me about the guinea pig as crime solver. Up to that point the events made sense as something that could happen even in our world (not just within the Black Mirror universe) with just a small advance in technology. But when I realized they were going to retrieve guinea pig's "memories" it seemed ridiculous and also unnecessary. All through her present-day crime spree I thought "How is she not leaving evidence (especially with the hotel room murder) or being seen on surveillance cameras that are likely to exist in a universe that has the memory recall technology?" Then with the murders of Shazia and her family I thought that as part of Shazia's standard work procedure (or the way such advanced technology should work) she should have notes about who she interviews, and there should be backup copies of all the recall interviews; in other words, even if the individual device is lost or destroyed, the company should still have a record. 

But, of course, that logical way of solving the crime would take away the "drama" of our realizing the guinea pig will be the one to take Mia down.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Definitely one of the darkest episodes this show has ever done.  On the positive side, the cinematography was hauntingly beautiful (I had to look up where it was filmed, Iceland...thought it was Norway or something) and their depiction of the technology was very simple and elegant like in many other black mirror episodes.  And it follows the major theme of the show in showing how technology can lead to bad things (like someone leaving a trail of bodies to cover up their crime).

The bad part has to do with Mia herself.  First of all, she is the one who wanted to do the right thing when her boyfriend hit the cyclist.  Now 15 years later she turns serial killer to cover up the truth?  The second has to do with her ability to overpower and kill two grown men.  This is a very slight woman who looks like she's 90 pounds soaking wet, yet she managed to choke her ex-boyfriend to death.  Then she kills Shazia's husband in the bathtub with two swings of a hammer.  He could easily have blocked the swing with his hand, and even if she connected, with her strength at best she cuts him and pisses him off.  As far as solving the crime goes, like was said above, the trail of evidence Mia left would have gotten her nabbed anyway, just not as quickly as with the guinea pig.  I also think that if this technology was ever realized and used in this way, for saftey's sake the procedure would only ever be done at a facility with at least two people present, for obvious reasons.

So not a big fan of this one.  I liked the concept and the way the story progressed, but it was was undermined by the motives and abilities of the main character.

Edited by Dobian
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think it holds up well if it take it apart to look for logic - especially the fact that she is so much more petite than the men she kills. However, it did work in terms of classical horror. It was very different from other shows about violent individuals. I could (almost) excuse killing Rob because it was instinctual and she seemed almost as horrified as me. Until she called room service and booked the porn. Then everything she did was more and more extreme. I think the cold setting worked well for this story though, because we never really saw anything other than ice cold fear and ruthless reactions from her. She never struck me as particularly warm or loving with her own family. I think they were trying to say this is what she really was - a cold and methodical person. I don't think her circumstances brought this out in her - she was always a violent creature and almost anything could have set her off. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I enjoyed the episode. 

However the pizza van had no human driver and the victim wasn’t badly hurt.  So right from the start, the need to find witnesses seemed a bit overwrought (to me, anyway).  Surely the insurance company had more important cases to investigate?

It could have made more sense...

She kills the guy. She’s startled by a sound outside and looks out the window down at the accident. The pizza van has a human driver and the victim is fatally wounded and rushed to hospital.  This gives some gravity to this insurance probe.  Before he dies the accident victim is hooked up to the memory machine. They watch his dying memory visions and there in the background is the woman looking down from the hotel room. He dies.

Now the insurance probe to locate her begins in earnest. The pizza driver faces manslaughter.  It was an icy empty street. The woman in the window is the only witness.

I agree the ending was left open to interpretation.  The police were there for another reason surely.  This was only a short time later.  How could they read a guinea pig’s jumbled memories and then locate where she was so quickly.  

Thank goodness most humans are equipped with a conscience. Otherwise we’d never have survived as a species.

Killing someone and hiding the body – you’re in a prison whether the police catch you or not.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's fair. The company would be liable for the injury, and if the state of self-driving vehicles is still nascent, finding them at fault would be a big deal. A self driving car got into an accident irl and it was big news.

Also, if the guy was drunk, for example, and crossed the street illegally, which he did, he may have just slipped and fell and is blaming it on the self driving vehicle. So they needed to confirm his story, which is reasonable. I'd argue whether they're relying too much on the memory machine for what is admittedly a simple case.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/15/2018 at 2:11 PM, Ivydoom said:

Not one of my favourites. I have zero patience for scenes where an accident happens and then otherwise perfectly innocent people try to hide it to get away with it. It always goes from bad to worse and never ends well.

The guinea pig in the end made me literally laugh out loud and made the episode worth watching for me.

And to think poor Shiza didn't want the guinea pig and it somehow solved her impending murder.    Also how convenient for her car not to start when trying to get away from Mia (I don't recall Mia doctoring the car).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size