While I do agree that at this point the question about "who the mole is" is completely irrelevant (Chris Brody was always irrelevant, if we're honest), it could've been a big deal, had the writers chosen to develop that storyline and made one of the regular or recurrent characters the mole, for example. And they kind of made it a big deal, on season 2, when they decided to include that exact question in one of the teaser trailers, as one of the "burning questions" for the season....
(cont.) … So, even if it was never the writers’ intention to follow up on it, the fact is that at some point it was presented as a important storyline, so I figure that’s where the people that keep asking come from. The last time it was mentioned, if I recall correctly, was 2x11, so I’m not surprised that even on s3 people kept wondering. Now it’s probably too late for that.
The writers don’t develop, produce, or write the promo materials as far as I know. That’s Showtime.
A few weeks after S1, in January 2012, Alex Gansa did a complete walk through of the season with the AV Club and had this to say about the mole (bold in his answer mine):
AVC: The mole is such a staple of 24, and toward the end of the season you did confirm there was a mole somewhere, but you never revealed who it was. How did you come to the decision to reuse that story device?
AG: Well, we had some narrative holes that we had to fill. There obviously is this trope that goes back to John le Carré, and probably before that. I guess there’s some Graham Greene novel there was also a mole in place. And certainly that whole Guy Burgess stuff that happened in real life in England. This is a trope of the intelligence thriller.
Now, 24 did it to death. It became something of a joke on staff: “Okay, who’s going to be the mole? Is it this?” And, truthfully, we didn’t know a lot of the time on 24 who the mole was until we came to an episode where we had to reveal it, or something had to happen, so we would pick the person and would wonder, “Well, did all the things that he or she has done up until this point make sense if she’s the mole, or he’s the mole?” I’m thinking of the character that Katee Sackhoff played in the last season of 24. So we knew that there would be a mole, but we always knew we weren’t going to reveal who the mole was, for the very reason that we were not 24. It was an anti-24 choice. And truthfully, the majority of moles, from our research, tend not to be revealed ever. They hang out, they do their business, and they retire. There’s a certain verisimilitude to the fact that some moles are never uncovered.
There are no wrong details, there are no wrong plot lines. Every plot line should mean something and not always to be a cliché like Homeland does many times. And by details I don’t mean Isa or moving a bomb – these thing are big by itselves. So we have to make a difference between details and a major storyline. I’m not projecting anything, I’m trying to make a picture whole. Cause for now there are just some pieces and we have to admit that Homeland producers make it that way purposely.
(cont.) Can’t deny it but also can’t accept it as a good way to introduce a new kind of point of view.
From the time that Brody mentioned Issa’s name in “The Weekend” to the time that it was revealed he was actually Nazir’s son, it was very much a small detail that I’m sure no one thought would be important. (For that matter, how about “Yorkshire Gold”?) It became a big detail, but the fact that it at first seemed so inconsequential is proof enough that the writers do feel that details are important.
If you want to differentiate between details and major storylines, why are you so fixated on Mike and Chris and the mole. These are not major storylines and were never presented as such.
You are focusing on the wrong things if you care about the mole. Critic Andy Greenwald said once that if you’re watching Homeland to figure out who the mole is then you’re watching it the wrong way. I fully believe this. It’s dumb to treat Homeland like a procedural where the big case is wrapped up in one episode/season and/or there is a Perry Mason-type moment each week or season.
semi-relevant, but you might find my "you just don’t get it" post from last year interesting/hate it
Obviously Homeland tries to teach us that details are not important and to deny the basic thesis which claims that details make the story completed. This is not necessarily something bad but it does bother people like me who have a lot of experience in criminal shows. I see the problem in that the showrunners are investing so much in characters development that they don't see the need of plot lines which are finished. The only true finished storyline is Brody's. Still love the show anyway ;)
I disagree. Homeland teaches (or, rather, shows…) us that details are VERY important.
Detail: “Issa. Nazir’s son. Brody knew him.” Carrie only knew that Brody knew him from a single utterance of his name during “The Weekend.”
Detail: “That’s weird. Somebody moved my car.”
Detail: Saul hiding the copy of Brody’s suicide tape in a tiny compartment of his briefcase.
And many, many more. Without these details being incorporated into the story, Homeland would be very, very different. The characters’ stories would be very, very different if they hadn’t noticed/failed to notice these details.
I just think you may be focusing on the wrong details and the wrong plotlines. I can’t deny that the writers pick up and drop plotlines sometimes, and some questions do go unanswered, but this is true of literally every show I have ever watched. I think it’s a product of the Internet and blogs just like this that go so in-depth and assign meaning (without proof/support) to stories or characters or details that ultimately are meaningless simply because we can. Every conspiracy theory you’ve ever read about Lost, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, or Homeland (read Emily Nussbaum’s rabbit hole conspiracy theory here) is a result of this.
Honestly it sounds like you are projecting your own expectations on the show regardless of the clear motives/objectives of the central narratives of the show.
so Showtime just casually put this key art on their website //posted from the afterlife
Wow, this is pretty.
Shame I have zero interest in Homeland now.
For me, that show died when Brody did.
What bothers you more –That all the secrets from the previous seasons (like – does anyone else who knows that the VP was killed because of her, that Brody killed him? Does anyone else knows that Quinn was supposed to kill Brody but he didn't? Who is the mole anyway?) won’t be released at all or that there are so many plot lines which leads to nowhere (like – Chris Brody, the bomber, the mole again, Mike’s story, e.t.c)? Do you think we have to be more patient or we never gonna find the truth?
As a general rule I don’t let this stuff bother me. It feels very nitpicky to me, on the whole. I don’t understand people who watch television shows like Homeland for plot. It seems like that would not be satisfying at all.
However, it feels premature to me to say that ALL the secrets will NEVER be revealed at all. And addressing your clear annoyances, point by point:
- Does anyone else knows that the VP was killed because of Carrie?
The VP was not killed because of Carrie, not really. The VP was killed because Brody wanted him dead. Gansa says that Saul suspects Brody was involved, but I don’t really buy that. It does bother me that Carrie didn’t feel guiltier in S3 about her role in that, as she did in 2.11.
- Does anyone else know that Quinn was supposed to kill Brody but didn’t?
This could still be addressed.
- Who is the mole anyway?Who gives a shit who the mole is. Homeland is not about the mole. Gansa said the mole will likely never be revealed (and “the mole” from S1 probably died in 2.12 anyway…). Stop worrying. Moles are commonplace in the intelligence world.
- Plotlines that lead to nowhere…Who cares about Chris Brody? Who cares about Mike? (And saying they had plotlines that led to nowhere implies they had their own storylines, when they really didn’t, at least not after S1.) Who cares about the mole? The bomber was addressed.
I don’t waste my time worrying about plot details (and yes, they are details — you have no one else to blame but yourself if you get all caught up in WHO THE MOLE IS). I don’t waste my time wondering what happened to Chris, or to Mike, because the writers clearly don’t care.
Things I do worry/wonder/care about: Carrie’s journey, Carrie and Saul’s relationship, Peter’s crisis of conscience. These are all things that are narratively important. When these things are screwed with, it bothers me. (Not just these things, but these are good examples.)
To answer your actual question: important plotlines that lead to nowhere bother me more than wondering if Person X will ever find out about Thing Y.
so Showtime just casually put this key art on their website //posted from the afterlife
Claire is on the cover of Marie Claire South Africa this month as she films the fourth season of Homeland in Cape Town. The photoshoot is (sadly) recycled from her 2012 ASOS shoot, but the interview is new, and—as always—she gives some really great answers. (click the photos for larger copies)
"Her arc is that she needs to find a way to feel these terribly painful feelings, so she can accept her role as a mother and accept and embrace her child." - i wonder if quinn's gonna play a part in this... i think they're both gonna have a soul searching moment (or moments) together. Is that what the weekend episode is for? anyways in the s3 finale, carrie was "kinda" opening up to quinn at the end there...i hope we'll get more this season.
Hmmm… idk maybe, could be.
I’m very anxious to see how her grief (or lack thereof) manifests itself.