In Conversation with Writer Gordon Smith: Unraveling the Layers of “Pluribus” – Apple TV’s Must Watch Series

The thing with a TV series like Pluribus, created by Vince Gilligan, the mind behind Breaking Bad, is defining its genre, tone, them and plot. Let’s break it down.

Carol Sturka (Rhea Seehorn), who is one of only thirteen people in the world immune to the effects of the “Joining”, an event in which an extraterrestrial virus transformed the rest of humanity into a peaceful and content hive mind known as the “Others”. The hive mind happily accommodates the wishes of those who remain unaffected, but admits that it will ultimately seek to assimilate them when it figures out how to do so. Carol is adamantly against their efforts as she searches for a way to reverse the Joining.

Need more information?

The title of the series, Pluribus, is a nod to the motto of the United States “E pluribus unum,” which translates to “Out of many, one,” and serves as clue to the central theme of the series. Taking a closer look at the concept of happiness and how it relates to ideas of oppression, conformity and hive-mentality, this series is a complex exploration of the importance of relationships.

Writer/ director Gordon Smith (who also worked on Breaking Bad and its spinoff Better Call Saul) offers his insights on what makes this television series work.

How was Pluribus pitched around town?

I think this is one of those shows that highlights some of the difficulties of “pitching a show” versus “watching a show.” Vince pitched this show by having two scripts written and bringing them to Sony, our studio. He still had to distill it to explain what the show is about. It’s a show that kind of unfolds by teaching you how to watch it.

Gordon Smith

If you distill it down to too much, it starts to dilute and it starts to deceive in the process. It’s very tricky to explain what this show is about. But hopefully that doesn’t mean that it’s incomprehensible. It just means that you need to be patient as it unfolds.

Originally, Vince thought this might be a limited series. And the studio asked what would it be like if he did it as an ongoing series. That’s when I got involved and started talking about what what is the difference between a limited and ongoing series. What are the constraints that make the premise burn out faster? What are the things that would make it a little bit more elastic? We had a mini room with some writers from from Better Call Saul team and talked about that in the summer of 2022.

How did Vince Gilligan describe his intent for the series to you?

I think it was a culmination of how he was feeling at the time. He had two thoughts. He wanted to write something for Ray Seehorn.

He was also just walking around and meditating on some of the problems of the world today. How the divisions, the problems of of communication, the promise that Internet held 30 years ago that everyone will be connected and share our common strengths.

He’s such a good dramatist. Vince thinks in terms of the what’s the emotional core of something and what’s the story core of it. Not the theory of it.

How would you describe the genre of Pluribus?

Obviously, there’s some outbreak science fictionin there. There’s some body snatchery science fiction core. There’s there’s the Borg from from Star Trek.

There’s a lot of those anxieties of collectivism that emerged in the Cold War and those tensions between East and West that emerged then. This is revisiting that genre, not specifically by by reinterpreting it, but by saying some of those anxieties still present themselves in a different way.  I think some of those thick tensions about the individual and good and bad are rife in here.

There’s a lot of Western in there as well. To me, there’s a lot of the rugged individual versus an unforgiving nature and where things break down.

There’s also some comedy. The tone is awfully funny.

John Cena (as assimilated versionof himself) Photo courtesy of Apple TV

What are the main themes you’re examining?

As screenwriters, we tend to not worry about theme, or try and see how the theme emerges from the story. I think there’s a danger for writers to think too much about telling a story that connects the theme to the story one to one. Then you don’t need to watch the show because you already know how you feel about that theme. I think it can work in movies where there’s a shorter runtime.

There’s stuff in Pluribus about grief and loss.

Vince described it at one point as being a show about how to accept change. The world changed fundamentally and sometimes you feel like there’s a shift that left you behind and you don’t understand it.

It’s not even just the Internet, but politics and the structure of being feels so different. The series also asks whether being an individual is worth it. Being yourself is the most important thing, but it doesn’t mean being happy. What’s more important?

It’s inscribed in some of the foundational documents of our country here in America, that the pursuit of happiness becomes this thing. You have to sometimes ask yourself, is that what life is about or is it about doing the right thing? Is it about what moral questions emerge from that? There’s a huge stew of things.

Discuss the world building without confusing the audience.

Peter Gould (who also wrote on Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul) used to say that the two poles that you need to dance between are confusion and boredom for an audience. Those are the electrified rails you have to skate between, because if you go too far in one direction, you’re going to fall over. And if you go too far in the other direction, then everyone knows what’s up. I don’t think it’s one point to steer towards. You want to veer back and forth. Sometimes you’re giving people exactly what they expect and then changing that expectation. Sometimes you just want to weave.

Manousos Oviedo (Carlos-Manuel Vesga) Photo courtesy of Apple TV

Discuss your approach to writing characters.

We ask, “What is our strongest point of view character feeling at this moment?” If you’re with Carol’s fear, Carol’s sadness, you can start to use that to illuminate what this premise shows about the human condition, about the rest of us. You can see yourself in her. Sadness is not a monolith. Grieving over the death of a spouse comes and goes in waves. It emerges in weird ways and does strange things to your psychology. So we try and go slowly and carefully through the character like that.

You ask the questions when you need to. Sometimes we talk about a story bifurcating. Some questions take you off on a journey that goes over here and then you want to come back to this other part of the conversation. We sometimes refer to it as separating your obstacles. You deal with one obstacle first. Once that’s dealt with, you have time to deal with the next one. Hopefully you feel energized by new information when you get it. What does that new piece of information do now we’ve twisted it, you’ve sat with it, and you’ve changed it? Hopefully that will springboard to the next set of questions. It’s a just pure dramatic structure, scene structure, writ large.

You have two characters. They want something. One wants something from the other. The scene ends with frustration. You either learn that there’s a problem and they’ve reached an impasse, and that’s when the scene ends. And it’s unbreakable. Or one character comes up with another solution. It’s basic scene writing.

Who is Carol Sturka?

She’s an interesting character. She’s clearly she’s filled with a certain degree of self-loathing. She’s a very well-respected romance fantasy novelist, but she doesn’t particularly like her own work, or she doesn’t respect some of the things that she does, which puts her in a certain precarious state within herself. Also, she isn’t fully comfortable with embracing her sexuality.

There are layers within her. Everyone knows everything about everything that’s ever been known to know. And Carol is not comfortable with that. She is not at home with herself. I think that’s what makes this challenging for her as a hero.

How does the mystery unfold?

I don’t think this is a mystery box show per se, where the point is to you solve one mystery and then you add two more mysteries. I think that this is slightly different structurally. It’s not a detective show, but it is a show where Carol has certain times where she has to play detective.

She has a lot of heroic moulds that she’s trying on through the course of the show. What does she know? What doesn’t she know? How does she parse those when she’s a single person against the Others. How do you start chewing on that? Where’s the first bite of the elephant that you take? It’s just figuring out what part of elephant we can bite. And the skin’s a bit tough.

by Staff Writer

From our in-house editorial team.