Rob Thomas gave an interview on the finale and some Season 3 developments at tvguide.

Don't read if you want to be completely pure. It answers a couple of the "cliffhangers" from last night and talks about casting for next season.

No further legal justice was possible, where Aaron/Lilly was concerned. That was not the case with Thumper/Felix, which is why Weevil had less of a right than Duncan did. Not "no right" just less of one.

Does the possibility of further legal justice figure in, in terms of being noir? (That's a real question, not snark.) I never got that sense.

That TV Guide interview was interesting. It sure does help us narrow down the guesses of what generally is in the briefcase.

I was thinking Kendall was offering Keith a case full iof money - enough money to send V to Stanford. It made me think that Kendall has been after cash all season not as an end in itself, but because she needed it to pursue some other goal. I'm intensely interested in finding out what she's up to.

I love Weevil's predicament - arrested for a murder he didn't exactly commit but that he isn't exactly innocent of, where defending himself with the truth could get him worse penalties than not. It's a nice problem that he's made for himself.

Does the possibility of further legal justice figure in, in terms of being noir? (That's a real question, not snark.) I never got that sense.

I'm no noir expert. I'm sorry if I was putting myself forth as one. These are some basics as I understand them: The world view is pessimistic. It's not a hero's world, where if you do the right thing the right way, justice will triumph.

That said, noir is also strongly moral in its twisted little way. The moral framework is relative, not objective, but it is moral. Everyone is a little bad, and every one pays. Characters have fatal flaws. Weevil has every reason to believe justice will fail, but not waiting for that was his fatal flaw in this case. Where he went wrong is that he didn't wait for justice to fail all the way, before he sought the end which would justify his means.

I'm afraid that makes more sense in my head.

Here's the thing. If Weevil had waited, and Veronica had gotten the evidence she did end up getting (she got the real witness to tell Lamb what he saw about the stabbing), and then Lamb either failed to arrest Thumper, or Lamb arrested Thumper, and Thumper went to trial or was acquitted, then Weevil would have a similar level of right to vengeance that Duncan had. Similarly, if there was no evidence to be found, or if Veronica or someone else kept the evidence from Weevil, he would have been more justified. He satisfied his vengeance before it was his turn.

That said, in noir, characters also get punished for doing the right thing. It's a hard world. Life on the hellmouth is a little easier, I think.

Of course, the real problem is that noir only makes sense in a world of social stricture. There has to be that thing people can't say, that direction people won't go. It worked, in the 40s, because it counterbalanced all that WWII can-do hype, and because that period was socially very conservative. (Another WWII "counterpoint" is the way that noir women are all very sexualized, slapped down, and physically helpless, unlike, say, Rosie the Riveter.)

I'm not convinced that noir works, in the present tense. I'm really not convinced it works serially in the same universe. Once you've shattered the dominant culture's pretty picture of itself, what assumptions are there to overturn? If a movie star can be a cheerful murderer, why can't the mayor be a pederast and your classmate be a nutbar? All of the shockers stop being existential signposts and become more along the lines of "How can we beat down our hero?"

le nubian - tv guide interview? Link please.

All of the shockers stop being existential signposts and become more along the lines of "How can we beat down our hero?"

Even the stealthy obscene hand gestures?

sumi, it's in Narrator "Veronica Mars: Annoy, Tiny Blonde One. Annoy Like the Wind." May 10, 2006 7:54:53 am PDT

Thanks!