Essay (Ep.1 Homeland)

How does Episode 1 Season 1 of Homelands follow or disrupt Todorov's narrative theory?

The first episode of season one of Homeland instantly disrupts Todorov's narrative theory, by placing a leading character on a desert land trying to bribe people to be able to talk to a prisoner. This is in before she gets taken away by the guards and the title sequence opens. This then cuts to black and a "Ten Years Later" sign appears to give the audience a timeline of the events taken place. This would suggest that the start of the episode one gets off on a disruption before cutting to, ten years later, the equilibrium. Todorov's theory states that all engaging films and series follow the order of Equilibrium, then disruption, formerly the attempt to repair the damage, and finally a new equilibrium. Something not followed by start of episode one of Homeland.



The disruptions start in this episode right at the beginning with the bribery and the confrontation in the prison. The equilibrium starts after the "ten years later" graphic. And then the disruption is when Carrie finds out about how a missing soldier has been found, the disruption toward Carrie is clear from a visual point of view with how everyone else acted happy and joyful upon hearing the news that a soldier, tortured and hurt, has finally been found. Otherwise, Carrie had almost a concerned look on her face when hearing the same news before rushing out of the initial briefing, we find out later why. The disruption could also be the wife of Sargent Brody, Jessica, finding out her husband is not dead after having an affair with Brody's best friend. In relation to the first episode as a whole, there was no resolution or new equilibrium when it ended. It seems like in relation to Carrie, her resolution is the fact that she was able to spot a tick whenever Sargent Brody was on camera and used this as evidence aimed toward Saul that he was a double agent trying to send a message out there to someone, and therefore getting Saul on board with the situation.

The episode involves a smaller plot twists that may not continue throughout the series and may not be all that important toward the end of the series. The episode comes up with disruptions right the way through and don't really come to a resolution all the time. This would suggest the first episode disrupts Todorov's narrative theory by having the episode end without a resolution or new equilibrium.

TV drama series compare drastically in relation to films. Whilst a TV drama will throw plot twists into a series and try to confuse their audience until the very last episode where they make sense of it all, a film will come to some level of closure and most ordinarily a new equilibrium. When you watch a film there are no real plot twists toward the end, because the writers know they would have to covey the new equilibrium in a shortened space of time and would have to have it all make sense. This TV drama and many more will probably have two or three major plot twists toward the end of the series before the new equilibrium. Rarely TV dramas will follow the theory due to the way that the functions of dramas differ from those of mainstream cinema. The series doesn't have to end on a new equilibrium, if the producers are confident in having another season commissioned they could end on a disruption right at the end and leave the audience wanting more, again this would disrupt Todorov's narrative theory.

In conclusion, I feel like Todorov's narrative theory doesn't apply toward the first episode of Homeland and I predict that episode two won't follow Todorov's narrative theory either due to the fact that this is a drama series and its meant to be disruptive toward throwing the audience off the sent of the truth.