TV, SCI-FI

Alex Garland Messes With Our Mind Again in ‘Devs’

Should we let him?

Alex Garland has chosen no smaller subject to his latest existential lamentation than determinism against free will.

Determinism is defined as:

“The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.”

As always before, Garland backs his interpretation with futuristic high technology. In Devs, this is used by the show’s villain, Forest (Nick Offerman), and his team to justify God-like acts and bold explorations.

“Lily is a computer programmer working at a cutting edge Silicon Valley tech startup called Amaya with her boyfriend Sergei (Karl Glusman) until he gets promoted to the company’s mysterious “Devs” team and turns up dead in an apparent suicide the very next day.” — Haleigh Foutch (Collider)

I’m not a tech nor a science guy, and I shouldn’t need to be to enjoy the mind-bending material Garland cooked up this time. It helps if you have some knowledge in these fields, but it was needless to appreciate his previous feature films (Ex Machina and Annihilation) and the same can be said here.

It’s no secret that Garland has a raw attitude and mindset towards filmmaking. With today’s franchise-oriented filmmakers, it’s kind of a gift we have a few auteurs like him. Even if their opinions are harsh sometimes.

“You could call something science fiction, which could range from ‘Star Wars’ to ‘2001.’ They are terribly different kinds of films, there’s something problematic embedded in that.What is “Annihilation”? I don’t give a shit. It’s sort of science fiction and horror. It’s itself as much as possible. Argh.” — Alex Garland

However, this time I don’t think he nails it with Devs. After four episodes, it’s still unclear what Garland’s intentions are. He presents mind-provoking existential issues, but instead of trying to widen the perspective on them, he shifts everything into a personal drama and conspiracy thriller. That’s kind of problematic. Genre-bending is not necessarily a bad attempt to create something more complex and exciting, but when it can’t hold up a coherent story, that will raise eyebrows.

Devs starts at a slow pace, heading in one direction, then suddenly changes course and diverts our attention. Mystery strikes in every new episode, raising more questions without answering former ones — and we all know how that worked out for Damon Lindelof before. Although it seems Garland succeeds at first, once the lack of information sneaks back into our mind, he fails to deliver. So far.

Garland pulls tricks that take up almost entire episodes without pushing the story forward. I mean, yeah, we all appreciate plot twists and magic tricks, but if you hide the white rabbit in a barn two miles away, nobody will walk the distance to find out whether it’s there or not.

“Somewhere in Devs, there are relevant lessons to be learned about the misuse of technology and the age-old conflict between predestiny and free will, subjects that have been explored in cautionary sci-fi tales since the genre was invented.” — Jen Chaney (Vulture)

While he was able to capture our full attention before, now he puts up a curtain and pushes everything behind it, without allowing us to have a peek at it. Sure, we’ll be curious for a while, but then we might lose interest and leave before he has a chance to reveal whatever he worked on so meticulously.

What we can do is immerse ourselves in this disturbing atmosphere backed by illuminative music and uniquely directed long shots, and wait to see if he reveals what’s behind the curtain.

Will that be enough, though?

Sources: Collider, Vulture, and Indiewire.

Read next: Dreams Mean Something, Don’t They?

If you’d like to read more from me, sign up for my monthly newsletter here.