TV Review: The Strain (2014-)

Non-network television continues to score really great series that show the extraordinary power of television compared to movies. The latest example is The Strain. I can’t say that The Strain is the equivalent of The Sopranos or Game of Thrones, but it is one heck of a series and I’ve enjoyed it very much.

The Strain is a television horror series that premiered on F/X this year and it’s now completed its first season. You can still catch it on demand, however, and I believe Hulu has the whole thing at the moment. Created by Guillermo del Toro and based on a trilogy of novels of the same name, The Strain follows a CDC doctor named Dr. Ephraim “Eph” Goodweather. Eph is extremely talented, but not the best team player. He tends to take his job very seriously and he doesn’t care much about things like the economic effects of shutting down an entire airport, so his boss don't care much for him.

As the story opens, Eph and his team are called to JFK Airport in New York City because an airplane has landed and it’s sitting on the tarmac with no signs of life aboard. A disease of some sort is suspected. When Eph and his team board the plane, they discover four survivors who are only asleep whereas the rest are all dead. They isolate the survivors and send the bodies to the morgue.

At this point, the show feels a lot like the opening of a zombie movie... a high quality zombie movie, but a zombie movie. It’s not, however.

Eph is soon distressed to learn that the CDC has chosen to blame the airline for negligently allowing a gas leak on the plane to kill everyone and they release the four survivors from quarantine. Meanwhile, some key cargo from the plane is stolen, i.e. a massive carved box filled with soil.

The next few episodes follow Eph as his personal life falls apart (fortunately, this ends quickly in the series) and as he continues to fight with the CDC and continues to try to solve what really happened. In the meantime, we follow the four survivors as they become increasingly sick. Specifically, they begin to crave blood and their bodies begin to change in ugly ways. We also learn that the cargo was stolen by a rich man who is working for a German who is the agent of someone called “the Master.” These men have corrupted a great many people and in the first few episodes you see them call in favors. For example, they contact the CDC and get the investigation stopped. They hire someone to shut down the internet. And they have someone on Eph’s team under their control.

Soon enough, you discover that the four survivors are turning into vampire-like creatures. Moreover, the bodies in the morgue all come to life and vanish. Soon, this vampirism is spreading around New York City like a plague.

All told, this is an excellent series. It has high production values, solid writing, surprising twists, and great effects. The characters are compelling. Eph is a very likable hero. Prof. Abraham Setrakian, a Holocaust survivor turned pawn-shop owner, is fascinating, and his backstory (told in flashbacks) really adds to the story – something flashbacks often don’t do. The German villain, Thomas Eichhorst, a Nazi commander turned undead servant of the Master, is an excellent, creepy villain. And many of the minor characters have the kinds of moments that make the story feel rich and realistic, such as when henchmen realize they’ve made a mistake and they turn against their bosses.

The show isn’t afraid to kill main characters either, which is much appreciated in a show like this. The show takes its time too, which is also appreciated. In shows like this, there seems to be an impulse to get to the full on plague as quickly as possible, but that sucks the life out of those shows as it rushes all the high points and leaves little left to do except engage in fights. This show has resisted that and is building very slowly... steadily, but slowly. That leaves it lots of room to tell stories.

I highly recommend this one. It’s not Shakespeare. It doesn’t break all that much new ground, except the viral take on vampirism is pretty fascinating. What the show does do, however, is engross you with great characters and compelling storylines that will make you wish each episode was much longer than it is.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

TV Review: Once Upon A Time (2011 - ???)

Once Upon A Time is a television series beginning its fourth season on ABC. The first three seasons are currently available for binge-watching on Netflix. I’m actually not 100% sure I should recommend Once to you. Let’s put it this way, while I do enjoy the series a great deal, it has all the weaknesses that are typical of broadcast network productions and those rob the show of its punch. In effect, they prevent the show from feeling real enough to grab you or fantastic enough to be a wild ride.

The premise of the show is genius. Imagine if every storybook character you can think of, from Snow White to Captain Hook to some major surprises in between lived in the same enchanted forest and basically knew each other. Now imagine if all those characters were suddenly transported to our world, to live in a town named Storybrooke in Maine. Only, none of these characters has any memory of who they really are. The one exception is the evil Queen who cast the curse which brought them all to Storybrooke. She's made herself the mayor.

That has serious potential.

The story is largely presented through the eyes of Emma Swan (Jennifer Morrison), who is the daughter of Snow White and Prince Charming. She was sent to our world to avoid the curse and save the rest of them. She, however, has no idea about any of this, nor does she believe it when she is told. Her only concern is Henry. Henry is the son she abandoned when she was young, and he lives in Storybrooke. He tells Emma about her destiny and shows her a book of fairy tales as proof that everyone in Storybrooke is from a fairy tale. Incidentally, he has been adopted by the evil Queen, who is raising him as her adopted son.

The episodes themselves involve Henry’s attempts to get his real mother to help him break the curse and free the people of Storybrooke so they can return to the enchanted forest. Each episode typically involves two stories being told simultaneously. The first is the advancement of the story in Storybrooke. The second involves the telling of some character’s backstory. If this sounds like Lost, that’s because Once was created by Lost writers Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz.

The backstories are interesting for several reasons. First, they tell you who the characters in Storybrooke really are. Secondly, they tend to take the stories we all know and twist them around. For example, we learn that Red Riding Hood is really a werewolf. We learn how Hook lost his hand. We get the story of who Prince Charming really is and how he came to marry Snow White, and we learn the sad fate of Stealthy the Dwarf... the eighth dwarf. Moreover, these stories are all intertwined and that intertwined thread is largely told backwards as we discover how Rumpelstiltskin manipulated each of their histories for his particular purpose. This makes for some nice twists.

All told, each episode is entertaining, though some are better than others. Several of the characters are really quite excellent as well. In particular, the evil Queen (Lana Parrilla) is excellent. She’s complex and interesting and you never quite know when she will be evil or when she will try to be good. Parrilla does a great job too of portraying a woman who is simultaneously wildly out of control and incapable of taking NO for an answer, and yet a woman who desperately seeks affirmation from other people. Even better, noted actor Robert Carlyle (Trainspotting) plays Rumpelstiltskin, who is the heart of this show. Rumpelstiltskin is the evil force behind everything that has happened. He is a joy to watch as he manipulates everyone and demonstrates an utter lack of conscience. Minor characters like Grumpy the Dwarf and Hook are excellent as well, as is young Henry (Jared Gilmore).

Unfortunately, the show does have some problems. Some of the actors simply aren’t strong enough to carry the roles they are given. For example, the actor playing Prince Charming (Josh Dallas) is a lightweight who doesn’t come across as a capable leader. Emma, the lead, isn’t all that interesting either. She’s largely a placeholder to let the other characters do their thing. Snow White (Ginnifer Goodwin), another lightweight, is hard to believe too the way they present her.

Even worse, the show suffers from being produced for broadcast network television. Because it is being made for ABC, the production values are low. The CGI looks horrible on a big screen. Most of the sets feel like television sets rather than real places. Little in the show feels like it actually exists. Further, the show still panders to the broadcast view that each show must be broken up into acts, which are then separated by television commercial breaks. Thus, the demands of the story often feel like they are subsumed to the medium and each commercial break ends on a phony cliffhanger.

If you compare this to the better network productions, like those made by HBO or AMC, you will be struck immediately by the higher production values on cable. The film quality on those shows is that of film stock rather than the made-for-TV video like Once uses. This makes a huge difference in the “real” feel of the productions. Further, the cable networks rarely let commercial breaks dictate the pace of the story, and they will simply stop for a break rather than forcing in an unnatural cliffhanger. The result is that the cable shows feel more realistic, like they involve real people rather than actors. Moreover, the other networks aren’t afraid to interject more complexity. People die every episode on HBO. Lovers have sex and betray each other. Evil people do evil things which hurt people. And good characters are routinely presented with complex and difficult moral choices that rarely offer easy solutions.

Once has none of that. To the contrary, Once plays by network rules which tell you that main characters cannot die, evil must be cartoonish and incompetent, moral questions need to be obvious with easy solutions, and life’s underside has no place on screen. At times, I really wonder what HBO would have done with this amazing idea.

So ultimately, I would say that Once is an entertaining show that leaves a ton of potential on the table. It’s still worth watching, but it could have been awesome if it had been freed from the restrictions that still seem to haunt network broadcast television.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

TV Review: Justified (2010-present)

I hate cop shows. Seriously hate them. They’re lowest common denominator crap which feed you the impossible idea that a computer can predict crime or neon-laced crime labs that work in the dark can solve crimes with a carpet fiber and sexy banter. Might as well use pixie dust. What these shows really are is soaps where the characters carry guns and fence with stylized serial killers destined to lose by the script. Even worse, they’re all the same. There are a couple that stand out however, and Justified is the best of those. In fact, this is an awesome series.

Justified centers around United States Deputy Marshal Raylan Givens (Tim Olyphant). Raylan is a Kentucky boy who got the hell out there and now has been sent back by the Marshal Service as punishment for what many think was the murder of a hitman in Miami. Justified is the story of Raylan doing his job back in Kentucky as he finds himself wrapped up in the tangled nest of hillbillies who inhabit that part of the country. And as you'll note right away, this no normal cop show. There are no crime of the weeks to be solved. There are no glitzy labs, no melodramatic races against the clock, no attempt to wow you with the soundtrack.

The hillbillies Raylan faces include several clans, including his own family. His father Arlo is a turd, a liar and a petty criminal. His childhood rival Boyd Crowder (Walton Goggins) is... well, Boyd Crowder, and he is part of the Crowder clan. There are a clan of Bennetts also who are at war with the Crowders. There are some black folks hidden in one of the valleys too. His ex-wife Winona (Natalie Zea), works at the court and her husband attracts the Dixie Mafia into Raylan's life -- they are from Lexington and they are connected to the Detroit Mafia. Each of these groups engages in a sort of low-intensity war for control over the region, particularly Harlan County, as they ply their trade of bank robberies, murders, benefits fraud, drug dealing and general mayhem.

Interestingly, Justified strives for a more realistic presentation, so it's filmed in Washington, PA and Pittsburgh rather than Hollywood, and it presents genuine hillbillies. They aren't the cleaned up "salt of the earth" types Hollywood normally shows. These people don't dress like supermodels, they aren't sexy or slick. None of them will ever be mistaken for Prof. Moriarty. What they are is white trash... white trash who don't shower or change their clothes, white trash who are hooked on drugs and crime as a way of life, white trash who think nothing of hurting other people because it suits them. Good luck finding that on CSI, even though that's what our jails are packed with.

Justified is rather realistic when it comes to gun play too. The cops don't shoot to kill without a reason, but when they do, people die. The bad guys kill people too. This isn't one of those shows where the main characters are all safe and each gets to spend an episode in a fake coma as the others come in and tell them how they feel about them.

The dialog is realistic too. When you watch CSI or NCSI or SUV or whatever, you hear dialog that is written for a television show. The characters say things normal people don’t, they express things that normally would not be expressed, and they dramatize everything. Justified doesn’t do that. To the contrary, the office banter, the relationship talks, the verbal combat with thugs and crooks is spot on. Nobody here says, “Should you continue your present course of conduct, I’ll need to take action against you,” when they could instead say, “Raylan, you’re pissing me off.” Well, except for Boyd. The dialog here is actually some of the best I’ve seen. It’s punchy, funny and on point. Each character is different and speaks their own language.

The real strength of this show, however, is the characters. One of the problems with most shows (especially cop shows) is that all the characters eventually drift into the same stereotype. Every actor wants to become the silent hero with the secret pain. Barf. That doesn’t happen here. These characters are written as real people and they act according to their characters. If a guy is an amoral idiot, then he will act like an amoral idiot. If a guy is a barely controlled thug, then that is how he will act. Yet, the characters are all deeply complex. You will see each character put into “no win” situations on a regular basis and watch how they respond. You will learn a good deal about what motivates each and what their strengths and weaknesses are. And in doing so, you will be amazed at how rich and fantastic is the picture they present. These people aren't cardboard. More than that, they are all fascinating. Raylan is a good cop with a low tolerance for procedure. Arlo is a skunk. Boyd is a philosopher turned conman. Maggs is a pirate. Wynn Duffy is survivor. Etc. You will constantly be surprised by what happens. This is the kind of show where you know what the characters would normally say if they were on another show, but you have no idea what they’re going to do or say here. That’s quality writing.

Interestingly, Justified comes from two novels (“Pronto”, “Riding the Rap”) and a short story (“Fire in the Hole”) by Elmore Leonard, whose other books have been turned into excellent movies: Out of Sight, Jackie Brown, Get Shorty, 3:10 to Yuma just to name a few. He’s known for his dialog and it shows here.

The acting is fantastic too. You will recognize many of the actors who make their way through this series, but you’ll never doubt they aren’t really who they claim to be. Olyphant in particular is Raylan and he plays the part so well that it may typecast him. Nick Searcy plays his boss Art. You have to love Art. Art is hilarious as the put-upon boss who has much more control over his office than people think and who is much wittier than he wants people to believe. Walton Goggins, who was in another great cop show – The Shield – is Boyd Crowder, a fake neo-Nazi turned preacher turned back into a hardcore criminal. He’s psychotic, menacing and yet bizarrely likable. Then there are characters like Dickie Bennett, a coward who needs to be killed. His mother Mags is a fascinating character. Stephen Root plays the crazy, yet realistic Judge Reardon. Jere Burns plays Wynn Duffy, a nut job who is surrounded by even bigger psychos in the Dixie Mafia. He and Raylan cross paths because of Raylan’s ex-wife’s husband, who is basically a conman. And so on. There isn't really an uninteresting character or a poor actor in the mix.

All told, this is one heck of an entertaining and addictive show. You will not regret watching this one. Start at the beginning though because there is a huge learning curve.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

TV Review: seaQuest DSV (1993-1996)

by ScottDS

One thing on Netflix kept me company during finals week: seaQuest, the ill-fated mid-90s sci-fi show that premiered on NBC in September, 1993. It was re-cast several times and even went through a name change in its final season. Watching it now proved to be a fun and interesting exercise, what with the “gritty,” arc-based, post-Lost, post-Breaking Bad world we live in today.

seaQuest was created by Rockne S. O’Bannon, who would later go on to create Farscape. The show chronicles the adventures of the high-tech submarine seaQuest DSV (“Deep Submergence Vehicle”). The seaQuest is operated by the United Earth Oceans Organization (UEO), a world-wide coalition of countries and undersea groups. (Yes, it’s very much like Star Trek’s United Federation of Planets and yes, there will be more Trek comparisons!) The show takes place in what used to be considered the far future: 2018. Humans have exhausted all the natural resources in the ground and have now begun mining the ocean floor. The UEO is tasked with patrolling these new colonies, as well as defending their interests from hostile nations. In the pilot, we learn that the UEO has also started to engage in heavy scientific research. Early episodes stress the science/military conflict but it’s mostly much ado about nothing.

Roy Scheider is Captain Nathan Bridger, original designer of the seaQuest. In the pilot, he’s cajoled into assuming command after the ship’s previous captain (played by Shelley Hack) was relieved for disobeying orders... and over-acting. Stephanie Beacham plays Doctor Kristin Westphalen. She and Bridger share a brief romance near the end of the season (yes, not unlike Captain Picard and Doctor Crusher). Jonathan Brandis plays teenage genius Lucas Wolenczak (yes, not unlike Wesley Crusher). The rest of the senior staff consists of sensor officer Ortiz (Marco Sanchez), comm officer O’Neill (Ted Raimi, brother of Sam), engineer Hitchcock (Stacy Haiduk), supply officer/comic relief Krieg (John D’Aquino, a.k.a. Seinfeld’s “Todd Gack”), security chief Crocker (Royce D. Applegate), and first officer Ford (Don Franklin).

They give it their all but the three that get most of the attention are Bridger, Lucas, and Westphalen. Scheider’s presence was always appreciated and he comes across as a believable naval officer-slash-father figure. Lucas wasn’t quite as annoying as Wesley Crusher was in early TNG, but “teenage genius” is such a tired trope – hell, it was a tired trope 20 years ago! In the pilot, Lucas demonstrates the vocoder technology that allows the ship’s resident dolphin (Darwin) to talk. This is the one element of the show that most people remember. Technically, the dolphin didn’t “talk” – the vocoder simply translated the noises into language, most of it cryptic. On one hand, it could be a bit of a crutch; on the other hand, Darwin actually came in handy sometimes. TV shows tend to either re-use an idea till it’s no longer dramatic (cough, holodeck)… or they introduce an interesting idea only to forget about it.

As a production of the early 1990s, the show isn’t serialized. A few characters show up more than once and a couple of plotlines are followed up on, but this show was written back in that prehistoric age when a new viewer could randomly tune in and not miss anything. Nowadays, if you were to miss one episode of Lost or Battlestar Galactica, you might as well not tune in again! As critic Daniel Carlson wrote in a recent defense of episodic television: “[…] this isn’t about which type of show is better. There is no inherent ‘better,’ because that assumes that one form automatically trumps the other. But TV doesn’t have to look like any one thing to be great, or even good.” This show is also refreshingly light, for the most part. Things get a little heavy later on but you won’t find any rape scenes or bloody beheadings. It’s not a kids’ show per se, but it’s mostly “safe.” 10-year old ScottDS watched it from day 1!

Also, some of their 21st century predictions were, shall we say, off. This was back when virtual reality was considered the next big thing. Even Michael Crichton suggested (in Disclosure) that we’d read our e-mail, not on a small phone, but while wearing bulky goggles and gloves, manipulating a virtual mailbox or some such retro-futuristic weirdness. Hitchcock operates the ship’s external sensors via virtual reality and it looks quite ridiculous today. Also ridiculous: some characters still have early-90s mullets. As with most depictions of the future (at least on TV), popular culture apparently ended the year the show was made, so all the references are current ones - apparently, no new songs or books or movies exist. The Internet is mentioned (along with it’s dated “information superhighway” moniker) but the idea of social networking and streaming entertainment is nowhere to be found. Oh, and meat is banned, there’s an aircraft carried named the H.R. Clinton, and Colin Powell was president at some point. None of this has happened (yet).

At the end of the first season, the seaQuest is destroyed. The show relocated to Orlando for season 2 and most of the actors over 35 were fired. No more Westphalen, Hitchcock, Krieg, or Crocker. Krieg would return for one episode but none of the other characters were mentioned again, and even the Bridger/Westphalen romance was forgotten. The “younger, sexier” characters brought on board the new seaQuest were security chief Brody (Edward Kerr), chief medical officer Smith (Rosalind Allen), and helm chick Henderson (Kathy Evison, who bears a slight resemblance to an old crush). I think nearly every male character develops a crush on Henderson at some point. Smith, on the other hand, has no chemistry with anyone. Oh, and she’s a telepath (yes, like Counselor Troi).

We also meet two more new characters, both freaks in their own way. Michael DeLuise plays Seaman Piccolo, an ex-con who rebels at first but later tries to better himself. Oh, and he has gills! Michael’s brother Peter DeLuise plays Dagwood, a genetically-engineered life form (GELF, or “dagger”). He serves as the Data character, in which other crewmembers help him make sense of humanity. It was about this point when Scheider started voicing his displeasure at the direction of the show. No more stories of scientific exploration or current events (they even did eco-terrorism); in the second season, we had time travel, aliens, telepaths, killer plants, a killer crocodile, and even an encounter with the Roman god Neptune. I’m not joking! In the season finale, the ship is taken millions of lightyears away to another planet where the crew becomes involved in an alien civil war. Only Lucas, Dagood, and Darwin survive…

…until the third season when the seaQuest and most of her crew mysteriously reappear on Earth… several years later. For this season, the show was re-titled seaQuest 2032 and Michael Ironside was cast as Captain Oliver Hudson, a strict military man. Scheider, who had wanted out, was contractually obligated to guest star in a few episodes. Smith and Ortiz were out, as was Brody half-way through. We find out that, with seaQuest out of the picture for a decade, the bad guys were able to extend their influence, giving rise to the evil “Macronesian Alliance,” presided over by a mustache-twirling Michael York. The Alliance is in bed with the world’s largest evil megacorporation, Deon International, presided over by a mustache-twirling Tim DeKay (White Collar). No more aliens; this season emphasized action, geopolitics, and especially cronyism. (It did NOT emphasize subtlety.) We get one time-travel episode involving the Cuban Missile Crisis. It’s kinda like “Yesterday’s Enterprise” but without the nuance, the sense of dread, or the quotable dialogue!

The show was cancelled mid-season after 13 episodes. Watching it today, I think it could’ve kept going, at least one more year. Ironside certainly had presence and there were no doubt plenty of stories that could’ve been told. This show is a classic example of “executive meddling” – taking an intelligent premise and throwing it away for explosions; firing a perfectly good cast to replace them with “young, hipper” characters… the list goes on. The show ranged from mediocre to good, but was rarely, if ever, great. Howard Hawks once said that a good movie consists of "three great scenes, no bad ones." No doubt a similar rule exists for TV. The humor was rarely funny, the ideas rarely thought-provoking in that “wake up at 3:00 in the morning and slap your forehead” kind of way. They never did their “Best of Both Worlds” or their “Nightmare at 20,000 Feet” – classic sci-fi television that’s still remembered today. Speaking of “Nightmare,” this brings me to…

The Shatner Episode

The only reason seaQuest reappeared on my radar after 15 years was because a friend of mine – who had never watched the show – decided he wanted to check out the episode “Hide and Seek” because it guest starred William Shatner. Needless to say, this episode needs to be talked about. I’d love to host a panel at Comic-Con dedicated to it! Shatner plays Milos Tezlov, an ousted Serbo-Croat dictator (!), recently escaped from UEO custody. Shatner doesn’t speak with any kind of accent, but we know he’s evil because he has a mustache. At the same time, Darwin the dolphin starts appearing in everyone’s dreams, including Teslov’s. Teslov has visions of seaQuest and it turns out Darwin can help his mute son talk again. Or something.

I’ve watched this episode three times now and it makes no sense!! To paraphrase Ed Wood, it’s “stupid, stupid, stupid!” We never find out why Darwin appears in dreams at this particular time and it’s never mentioned again. Shatner gets around way too easily, considering he’s public enemy #1. (Imagine bin Laden just showing up in your backyard one day.) Westphalen is held hostage along with a scientist, Malcolm Lansdowne. Lansdowne is played, not by an actor, but by the writer of this episode. I’m sure he’s talented, and they try setting up a love triangle between them and Bridger, but: a.) this guy isn’t that good an actor, and b.) he’s just a… schlub!! And I kid you not, Shatner delivers the following three lines of dialogue with a straight face:

“Bloodshed follows me like a wedding train.”
“I am a direct descendant of Vlad the Impaler.”
“I want your dolphin!” (he later refers to Darwin as “My dear mammal”)

Yeah, that happened. At the end of the day, my friend and I had a lot of laughs. Like I said above, the show could be good but just wasn’t great. I don’t see seaQuest ever coming back in any form and, unlike other 90s sci-fi shows like Babylon 5 or The X-Files, there doesn’t seem to be any kind of thriving fanbase. Despite a line of action figures, a couple of video games, and model kits, history will most likely consider seaQuest a footnote next to Earth 2 and M.A.N.T.I.S.

And now, the unfortunate epilogue: Roy Scheider died of natural causes in 2008. Jonathan Brandis committed suicide in 2003. He was only 27. Royce D. Applegate (Crocker) died in a house fire in 2003. He was only 63.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

TV Review: Face Off (2011-????)

I despise “Reality TV.” Not only is “Reality TV” not real, it is highly manipulated and sometimes even scripted, but it demonstrates the worst elements of our culture. It shows a group of contestants as they engage in cat fights and backstabbing all in the name of trying to grab a few moments of celebrity. So why am I enjoying Face Off?

For those who don’t know, Face Off is a series on the Sci-Fi Channel (yes, I still refuse to call it SyFy) which involves a group of aspiring makeup artists competing against each other in weekly challenges. They are judged by a panel of three expert makeup artists with extremely impressive track records and one guest judge who is often a Hollywood big shot.

The challenges this season have been things like designing a character for the Star Wars cantina or a Chinese dragon or a character from Alice in Wonderland who has become infected by a zombie virus. And the way these challenges work is that each artist is given a specific characteristic they must use, such as being assigned a character from Alice in Wonderland or given something nautical when they are asked to design a pirate. They sketch out their designs and set about creating molds and costumes for real life models who will wear the finished designs. Then each is judged with the loser being sent home each week.

There are several things I truly appreciate about this series which you just don’t normally see in “Reality TV”:

● First, this show is about talent, not personality. The contestants must produce incredibly high quality makeup and costumes and they are judged on their work, not on how well they get along with the others. They cannot form teams to manipulate events. Neither the contestants nor the audience vote, so this isn’t about popularity. And they never ask the contestants to rate each other, so there’s no sniping. The absence of all of this is very welcome and makes this show rise head and shoulders above other “Reality TV.”

● Secondly, the judges are experts. They know their craft and that comes across in each evaluation as they point out things the untrained eye never would have noticed. Indeed, they are excellent at telling you exactly where each artist went right or wrong, how it could have been fixed, and just how ambitious each person was. They also don’t sugarcoat their reviews which makes this show feel much more educational and much more realistic.

● Third, you actually get to see the process from start to finish. This isn’t the standard “Reality TV” show which wastes time on backstabbing, fighting and watching the contestants engage in personal conflicts in the home they share. Instead, this show is entirely about the work. Nor does this show waste time in needlessly repeating the last several minutes from different perspectives. This show is efficient and substantive in its presentation.

● Finally, you get to see some amazing work. There have been moments where my jaw dropped at what one or more of these people achieved, especially given that they only have a couple days for each project.

This is how “Reality TV” should be. This is the kind of show which gives you a look at some amazing talent and lets you see that talent at work, and it does so with only a bare minimum of personality. This is a show that looks to wow you with their achievements rather than manipulate you with the contestant’s personalities. It is the kind of show which could inspire someone looking for a career or just impress those of us who enjoy the magic of Hollywood but have never seen how it’s done.

It’s rare that I recommend a television show and unheard of that I would recommend a “Reality TV” show, but this is an exception. I recommend checking this one out.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

TV Review: The Newsroom (1996-1997, 2003-2005)

By ScottDS
While HBO is getting ready to premiere Aaron Sorkin’s new TV series, titled The Newsroom, I thought now might be a good time to take a look back at another TV series with the same name. This series is a Canadian production that aired on the CBC. Originally intended as a one-season show, the network eventually brought it back as a TV movie and later produced two more seasons. While it would be considered a dark comedy, many of the episodes take a turn for the surreal.

Series creator/writer/director Ken Finkleman plays George Findlay, the news director at an unnamed TV news station. Finkleman had toiled in Hollywood on such unremarkable films as Grease II and Head Office before returning to his native Canada where he found success producing multiple TV shows featuring Findlay as a linking character. Findlay is egotistical, vain, petty, and his sole concern seems to be his place within the network bureaucracy. He’s afraid of his mother, might be constipated (early episodes feature bran muffins as a running gag), and compares the employees at his BMW dealer to Nazis. He refuses to hire a black anchor (for arbitrary economic reasons), he asks a Middle Eastern intern if he’s a terrorist (after going through his web browser history), and is constantly trying to hit on female guests and other network employees. Findlay/Finkleman has been compared to Larry David on more than one occasion.

The two constant supporting characters are news anchor Jim Walcott (Peter Keleghan) and segment producer Karen Mitchell (Karen Hines). Walcott is an idiot and has been accused of sexual harassment multiple times. He refuses to read or watch the news and admits he might’ve been the last person to know about 9/11. In one episode, he’s reporting in the Middle East, gets kidnapped, and annoys his captors so much that they lower the ransom demand from two million US$ to 1700 C$. Karen is a hard-working intellectual who refuses to dumb herself down for her co-workers. She appears to be the only one to take the news seriously and Findlay believes she’s a lesbian.

I know this is common today but one element of the show I don’t like is the lack of formal character introductions. People show up for a few episodes, then leave. Rarely is this ever pointed out. I don’t even know all of the characters’ last names. Findlay has a couple of interns throughout the show – the most interesting being Audrey, played by Tanya Allen – as well as a handful of yes-men segment producers. Some of them get good moments while others are complete non-entities. Early episodes feature an insecure weatherman (Bruce, played by David Hubband) while we also meet a few of Findlay’s superiors at the network – all strong, intimidating women. The show also features many guest appearances by public figures, though I only recognized David Cronenberg.

I mentioned above that the show takes a turn for the surreal. While many episodes feature your standard workplace sitcom tropes (budget problems, romantic mix-ups, etc.), other episodes do the complete opposite, specifically the three season finales. Personally, I find these episodes rather pretentious, the same way I find Woody Allen’s melodramas somewhat pretentious, though I can’t fault a guy for trying to branch out and do something different. The season 1 finale is a three-part episode about a potential nuclear disaster. Findlay doesn’t think it’s a big enough story and instead goes about casting actresses who look like Jane Fonda so he can present it just like The China Syndrome. (A highlight is Findlay coming up with an animated intro for the story.) Several characters tell Findlay that he’s afraid of confronting his own mortality and the third episode finds him dressed in black just like Marcello Mastroianni in 8 ½ as he encounters all the women from his past who tell him what they really think of him.

The season 2 finale features segment producer Alex, played by Jody Racicot, feeling suicidal after being dumped by a woman (George’s reply: “You sure this can't wait until tomorrow?”). He fabricates a news story and George tries to make a book deal about the entire incident. Meanwhile, a crowd has gathered at a Taco Bell where they believe they see the image of the Virgin Mary on a wall. At one point, George is smoking pot and an angel (or the Virgin Mary?) appears to tell him his liberal politics are all wrong. At the episode’s end, Findlay is convinced his politics are correct but that network news might be the most destructive thing of all. The season 3 finale is even weirder: an animated tale narrated by Findlay about a movie director who encounters a mysterious woman who can fly. I still don’t completely understand this one, though it is pretty to look at.

The second season features a death in almost every episode. One thing I like about the show is that they don’t worry about the execution of certain gags. For example, in the span of one scene, we’ll cut from “So here’s what’s happening tonight...” to “So, about last night…” with nothing in between. We hear ridiculous events described only in dialogue and our imaginations fill in the rest. There’s also a bizarre sense of self-awareness on display. The best example would be the episode “One Dumb Idea” where they do a news story on the obscene amounts of money made by TV producers so Findlay and his yes-men decide to create a TV show – all they need is one dumb idea. One producer suggests a TV series about a group of newsmen who try coming up with an idea for a TV show, only to see it fail as everyone tries to claim credit. By episode’s end, this is exactly what happens. Another episode leaves a subplot hanging and we see backstage as Finkleman and his producers wonder what to do next.

While I believe the show is ahead of its time (it predates both Curb Your Enthusiasm and The Office), it’s not for everyone. The politics might be a little off-putting (they are in Canada, after all) but they usually take a backseat to the neuroses and insecurities that are simply part and parcel of the newsroom. Some characters are more likeable than others and even Findlay is interesting in his own way. I have no interest in watching Sorkin’s show but I get the feeling he’ll portray network news as a noble enterprise (“We’re the truth tellers,” etc.) whereas Finkleman’s show is more like Network in that regard, portraying the news as a corrupt operation populated with egotistical fools who are only looking out for themselves. As for Finkleman, I guess I’m a fan though I wonder about the thought process that led to him inserting himself into his TV shows, as the same character no less. Is this an artist who’s interested in exploring the human condition in a seriocomic way, or a hack using the medium of TV as his own therapy session?

As of 2012, George Findlay has returned, this time as the news director at a conservative network. The title is, appropriately, Good God.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

TV Review: Game of Thrones (revised) (2011-????)

This article posted at Big Hollywood (LINK).

With Season Two of HBO’s Game of Thrones starting on April 1st, this is a good time to review the series to give you a chance to catch up. You may also recall that I reviewed this before and didn’t like how it had started. Well, I’ve changed my mind. To bottom line it, Thrones is a gripping series, but you have to give it time to grow on you.

Game of Thrones is based on the book of the same name by George R.R. Martin. This is part of his epic fantasy series called “A Song of Ice and Fire.” First published in 1996, Thrones won lots of awards in 1997 and has since been turned into several games. But it wasn’t until January 2011, after HBO announced the series that the book finally hit the New York Times bestseller list.

The series stars Sean Bean (Ronin, LOTR) as Lord Eddard “Ned” Stark, and it revolves around the political intrigue which surrounds his family and several rival families, most notably the Lannister family. One of the producers has jokingly described the series as “The Sopranos in Middle Earth,” and in some ways that’s a good way to describe it. Indeed, the show involves murders, plots, betrayals and family rivalries. And like The Sopranos, the show is highly unpredictable. People you don’t expect will get killed. People you trust will betray their friends. And your opinion of the characters will change over time.

Nobody highlights this better than Tyrion Lannister (Peter Dinklage), the dwarf brother of Queen Cersei Lannister (Lena Headey from 300). Dinklage plays Tyrion as a vile, arrogant monster of a human being. He’s also a bit of a joke. But as the series progresses, Tyrion becomes much more sympathetic and, strangely, he earns your respect despite his evil behavior. In fact, Dinklage steals the show and Tyrion easily becomes the most compelling character.

The plot is Sopranos-like too. It is complex, nuanced, and there are a great many characters. This is why I cautioned you above that you need to give this show time. There are several major storylines and then a half dozen additional minor storylines, and it takes a couple episodes before the show develops a rhythm. Once it does however, the show does an excellent job of keeping all these different stories moving and gives you lots to care about.

I would not, however, compare Thrones to Middle Earth for several reasons. For one thing, the sets, while excellent, are not fantasy sets. You will not see incredible castles and stunning landscapes. Instead, you get a more “historically accurate” feel from this show, i.e. lots of wood construction, furs, torches, and a “brooding ‘til ye can’t brood nay more” atmosphere. There are fantasy elements, but up to this point they have been rather few and far between. In the east, where the last survivors of the albino Targaryen family have fled, there is the prospect of a dragon. The Targaryens are seeking the help of the Dothraki, a group of barbarians led by Khal Drogo (Jason Momoa of Stargate Atlantis and Conan), and have in their possession dragon eggs. In the north, you have an incredibly large wall, guarded by the Night’s Watch, who are tasked with keeping supernatural creatures out of the realm. These creatures apparently thrive in winter, and winter in this world can last for an indeterminate number of years and is extraordinarily cold.

I also wouldn’t compare this to The Lord of the Rings because Thrones is cruder. For one thing, the dialog in Thrones has a more modern cadence to it than LOTR. Also, there is a lot of swearing in Thrones. I’m not averse to swearing by any means, but it feels anachronistic and unneeded here, and the show could have been stronger without it. The same is true of the sex. There is a good deal of sex in Thrones, and while I have no problem with sex on film or television, it feels gratuitous here as few of these scenes add anything to the plot and they go on far too long. It feels at times like the writer/director wasn’t sure the audience would entirely buy into the story and wanted to give the audience something else to keep them tuning in. And that’s too bad because I think the time could have been better spent dealing with the complex plot.

So, to sum it all up. The sex and swearing may turn some people off. The lack of fantasy elements so far may turn others off. The difficulty in getting into the show may also stop some people. BUT.... I recommend looking past all of that. This is a solid show with fascinating characters. It builds suspense very well. It will surprise you repeatedly. And it holds a lot of promise that it will just keep getting better and better.

Finally, let me make one point. This show is truly innovative in a way. Up to now, most fantasy films have been of the “farm boy goes on quest” variety. This is one of the first to reject that formula and instead present a more complete fantasy world, where you delve into political and familial relationships. These aren’t cardboard characters playing pre-determined roles on a specific quest. These are complete people struggling to make the best of the world around them and overcome whatever challenges they face. This approach feels much more original, offers more to work with as a series, and I would venture to say, this is the future of fantasy.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

TV Review: Hell On Wheels (2011-????)

I hate predicting how a series will turn out after only two episodes. But only two episodes into AMC’s new show Hell on Wheels, I’m having serious problems with the show and I think it’s only going to get worse because the problems lie within the writer’s liberal worldview and dishonest motives.

Hell on Wheels is the story of Cullen Bohannon (Anson Mount), an ex-confederate soldier seeking revenge for the killing of his wife. He takes a job working for Thomas Durant (Colm Meaney), who is building the transcontinental railroad through Nebraska in 1865. Bohannon takes this job because the man he wants to kill works for the railroad as a foreman. Bohannon gets the job and then goes to kill the foreman. But the foreman throws him for a loop when he mentions another murderer Bohannon knows nothing about. But just as the foreman is about to reveal the man’s identity, the foreman is killed by Elam Ferguson (racist rapper turned actor Common). Hilarity ensues.

My problems with Hell on Wheels actually started from the first word. For weeks before the show premiered, AMC ran ads implying this would be more than just a Western. Specifically, they used a line of dialog which implied something supernatural was taking place. But in the opening twenty seconds, we discover that "line" was in reality two separate lines spliced together to create a misleading impression. Rather than referencing some supernatural force they unleashed, the character was only whining about how evil he and the rest of the Union Army were in the Civil War. Boo fricken hoo.

And it doesn’t stop there. Soon we get blasted by characters whining about how evilly the South treated Union prisoners of war. . . how evilly the Union treated the South’s soldiers. . . how evilly the Southerners treated the slaves. . . how evilly whitey treated the Indians. . . how evilly the Irish were treated. . . how evilly whitey treated the Chinese. . . how evilly corporate America treated its workers. . . etc. etc. etc. Every racial, ethnic, religious, political or economic grievance you can conjure up about the era gets crammed into the first two episodes. That’s whiny liberalism at its worst.

Even worse, the characters accept the modern liberal worldview. Hence, they all lament how evil they are and almost every scene involves characters whining about some group-based grievance. And even worse, standard liberal hypocrisies apply. Thus, they are all hopelessly conflicted and dearly apologetic about all the evils done by their own people and they reject evils like racism and violence. . . unless you're black or an Indian, then it’s hunky dory. This is ridiculous. This show seems to be written from the worst end of the racial identity politics regime. If we swapped the characters’ races, you’d swear this was written by the Klan.

And it doesn't stop there. Our hero Bohannon is a cliché, being a cold-blooded killer in the tradition of Clint Eastwood’s spaghetti westerns. But he's also noble because he freed his own slaves before the war because he knew slavery was wrong. Really? This is ex post facto liberal false courage masturbatory disease. This is all those liberals who tell you proudly how THEY would have stood up to Hitler if THEY’d lived in Germany, or THEY would have led the Civil Rights Movement, or THEY would have ended slavery, or THEY would have been the first to [fill in the blank]. . . when the reality is they are abject cowards with a complete blindspot for the intersection of personal responsibility and morality. The Bohannon character is an attempt by liberal writers to feel morally superior by criticizing a long gone era using modern sensibilities knowing that they risk nothing by being so "brave."

The villain, Thomas Durant, is the ultimate liberal boogeyman, by the way. Not only is he entirely corrupt, as we’re told all businessmen apparently were at that time, but he’s murderous, gratuitously racist, he beats his underlings and needlessly humiliates people he bribes. He openly bribes and threatens Senators, tells the press his evil plans because he knows they would never go against him, and he laughs maniacally at all of his own evil doings. He actually sees himself as evil and revels in it. Indeed, Colm Meaney plays Durant so rottenly that Ebenezer Scrooge would cry foul.

But even beyond the politics, this story is full of inexplicable actions and plot conveniences. Why does Bohannon bother joining the railroad when he could have just rode up and shot his nemesis? Why stick around after the murder except to get caught -- he wasn’t told until later that Elam knows who the other killer might be. Why would Durant not hang Bohannon (he framed him for the foreman’s murder) just because Bohannon says he knows how to handle blacks? And what are the chances Elam would kill the foreman just as he was about to spill the beans, and then actually know the foreman’s secret when the foreman clearly never confided in blacks and when Elam wouldn’t even have any way to connect the dots? Or are we to believe the foreman liked to brag about the same murder that supposedly haunted him?

Almost every moment in this show feels manufactured. It is manufactured in the sense that the characters’ actions make no sense, they espouse beliefs that are anachronistic and inconsistent, and each scene feels set up just to let them espouse those beliefs. The actions binding the character together are nonsense and the characters themselves are laughably cardboard and seem drawn to act as liberal archetypes.

Even beyond that, there are problems. Is the show fast paced? Sure. But the acting is weak and the accents are horrid. The costumes are good, except Common looks too clean and modern to be a railroad worker from 1865. . . he looks more like a model. Does the plot twist and turn? Sure. But it’s not surprising.

But in the end, the real problem is that I keep feeling in scene after scene that I’m being fed propaganda. I keep being told revisionist history. I keep seeing extreme liberal boogeymen and I can’t help but see a sad liberal writer proudly telling himself, "that would have been me!" Yeah, sure. This show is dishonest and that’s the problem.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

TV Review: Boardwalk Empire (2010-????)

HBO has another hit on its hands: Boardwalk Empire. It’s a really good drama with a lot to love. It does have flaws, but they’re easy to overlook -- except they do hold the series back from being truly addictive. Interestingly, most people compare this to Sopranos, but it’s actually very different in some key ways, and I think that’s where the flaws lie.

The Story

Created by Terrence Winter, who wrote 25 episodes of The Sopranos. Boardwalk Empire is an hour-long series on HBO centered around historical crime kingpin Enoch “Nucky” Johnson (renamed “Thompson” for the series). Nucky (Steve Buscemi) is the boss of Atlantic City when Prohibition becomes the law of the land. He controls the local government. He controls the police. And now he control the liquor industry in the city.

As of the middle of season two, the story has been primarily about the struggle between Nucky and a group led by “the Commodore” (Dabney Coleman), who are fighting to wrestle control of Atlantic City from Nucky. Meanwhile, Nucky is fending off outside gangsters including a young Al Capone, Lucky Luciano, Arnold Rothstein and more, while dodging Federal Prohibition Agents led by religious extremist Nelson Van Alden (Michael Shannon). Interestingly, neither Lucky nor the Commodore’s group had resorted to violence until recently, so this isn’t a traditional mob story.

Where Empire Fails

I’m enjoying Empire a lot, but I do have some criticisms. For one thing, there are too many characters. There are 16 characters listed in the cast and another 13 listed as recurring characters, with more coming all the time. In and of itself, a large number of characters isn’t a problem, but Empire tries to touch upon each of these characters at least once per episode. That means too much is tossed at you in any one episode and it’s typically treated too shallowly because there just isn’t enough time to go into depth with that much competing for screen time. Also, some of these subplots add little to the story. Often, minor characters get lengthy contemplative scenes, such as disfigured WWI sniper Harrow spending five minutes getting his picture painted and later spending another ten minutes contemplating suicide. But these add nothing to the plot and the characters are too minor for us to care about their inner thoughts.

At the same time, this many-short-scenes approach leaves us with too little insight in Nucky himself. This is where the Sopranos comparison comes in. It’s clear that Empire is structured like Sopranos. But there are key differences and it’s those key differences that keep Empire from being as addictive as Sopranos. For one thing, you liked Tony Soprano. You couldn’t help but like him. He was a bumbler who wasn’t well-equipped to handle the problems he encountered. He desperately wanted to be the good guy but he didn’t know how. His decisions, while made from his heart, always came across as dictatorial and stupid and blew up in his face time and again. But you liked him because you knew how hard he struggled to be good, even when he ordered the murder of close friends.

Nucky is not Tony. Like Tony, Nucky has serious flaws which blind him to what is going on around him and his decision-making process is flawed. But unlike Tony, Nucky is cocky, arrogant and competent. Tony’s failures came from not knowing how to act, Nucky’s failures come from being a jerk. That makes him hard to like.

Also, whereas the Sopranos was really the story of how Tony dealt with his family, Empire all but ignores this part of Nucky. Yes, we see his home life in each episode, but he never leaves the office, so to speak. Indeed, the only times we see him at home is when he rushes home to explain what he’s doing before he rushes off to another meeting. Moreover, even though Nucky is in most scenes, we are never privy to his thoughts. So we never really get a chance to know Nucky the person.

To me, these are significant flaws which keep the story from reaching its potential. Nucky is too hard to like. Thus, it’s hard to care about what happens to him. There are too many subplots and characters to give us the chance to care about anyone else either. Also, the plot itself is pretty obvious and the surprises are not surprising. At the same time, too much remains vague and goes unexplained.

Where Empire Succeeds

With all that being said, I am really enjoying this show very much. The sets and costumes are great. The acting is stellar. The story is solid and unpredictable enough scene-to-scene to keep your interest. The characters are interesting, if not likable, and there’s a real sense the story is building to something much more interesting with each passing episode. The writing is fantastic too. Each line is beautifully written and the show is packed with great lines, yet these lines never feel forced. Also, the characters are all unique and deep. This isn’t simply Goodfellas or The Godfather or The Untouchables transferred to the 1920s.

Finally, the story is historically smart. Most shows like this give you one or two cliché moments to let you know they looked up the era on Wikipedia, e.g. they introduce a famous boxer from the period. This show goes way beyond that. You meet famous entertainers, sports figures and politicians, some of whom get wrapped into the plot. Historical events like Prohibition, World War I, and the influx of the Irish are constantly in the background. Even day to day life is portrayed accurately. Indeed, every scene is deeply ensconced in things that make you believe this is really the 1920s.

All in all, I highly recommend Boardwalk Empire. It might take a couple episodes to get you interested, but when it does, it’s well worth the time.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

TV Review: The Killing (2011- )

By T-Rav

The Killing is an interesting show, though not a great one. It started strong and I give it credit for breaking with the typical format of today’s crime procedurals. But it does have serious flaws, which can be attributed partly to sloppy writing and partly to the limitations of reflecting reality too closely in TV programming.

The Killing’s debut was promising. Rather than being a crime-of-the-week show, its first season focused on a single homicide—the murder of Rosie Larsen, a Seattle teen—and how it affects the people caught up in her death. This was an effective choice as it made the show stand out from other crime dramas, such as CIS, which I think have grown tired.

I actually liked CSI for a long time; it had interesting stories and a good cast. But there were always a few things that troubled me, such as the tendency to elevate these glorified lab rats to detective status, or the increasingly predictable murder-of-the-week plots. My main problem, though, is how glib the CSIs are about their line of work. Now I realize that given the line of work, you might need some gallows humor to avoid a mental breakdown, but the characters exude too much hip trendiness for the subject matter of these shows -- especially when the show is heartrending. I surely don’t need to reference David Caruso’s witticisms-while-playing-with-his-sunglasses to make this point. It just seems like they treat murder and suffering too lightly sometimes. The Killing doesn’t do that and, in many ways, seem to offer itself as the anti-CSI.

The Killing gave us the chance to meet characters you normally don’t meet. The central characters are still the law enforcement people, such as lead investigator Detective Sarah Linden (Mireille Enos), who is simultaneously training her new partner, Stephen Holder (Joel Kinnaman), so she can hand the case off to him and leave for a new life in California. But we also meet the girl’s grieving parents, Stan (Brent Sexton) and Mitch (Michelle Forbes), and a candidate for Seattle mayor, Darren Richmond (Billy Campbell), who gets sucked into the case after Rosie’s body is discovered in one of his campaign’s vehicles. This worked really well.

The show works in other ways too. First, there is some really great acting by pretty much everybody. Enos does a good job of portraying how Detective Linden begins to lose control of her life and her future as she becomes obsessed with the case. Kinnaman is excellent as a cop with a question mark over his morality. Sexton and Forbes wonderfully convey not only the shattering sense of loss that comes from having a child murdered but also the feeling of being lost, of not knowing how — or even whether — to move on. Secondly, the story is much broader than just the investigation. We see the Larsens struggling to break the news to their other children, the Richmond campaign running for cover from the political fallout of the discovery, and several other threads from the event. I like how these subplots are constructed, and the fact they receive their fair share of attention. It’s actually very fitting this show is called “The Killing,” and not something like “Seattle P.D.” as it goes far beyond being just another tiresome crime-of-the-week story.

That said, there are several aspects of this show which are problematic. One is the writing. It may not be fair to describe the writing as “sloppy,” but “overextended” would be a good way to describe it. The Killing has too many unexplored avenues, especially where its characters’ backstories are concerned. For example, we learn that Linden has had problems obsessing over past cases; she even did time in a psych ward once. But we’re never given the full story — we don’t know why this matters, or what bearing it has on the present case. In fact, we mostly learn about her past in a single episode that ignores the current investigation entirely. Similarly, we find out that Stan Larsen, Rosie’s father, used to work for the mob. Does this have anything to do with her death? Don’t know that either. Once the information is thrown out, it’s ignored for several episodes and thereafter brought up only briefly. This is true of several other subplots, and it makes the overall story feel uneven. In fact, this may be partly a function of not having a clear central character(s). The downside of looking at all aspects of the murder is that attention gets dispersed among too many people. We don’t have a main character we feel we can or should root for.

In the same way, The Killing’s attempt to maintain a strictly realistic portrayal of crime and law enforcement has its weaknesses as well as its strengths. When reviewing The Walking Dead, I argued that one of its key strengths was its ability to tell a realistic story more accurately and convincingly than most members of the zombie genre had been able to do. AMC has really stood out in this respect with its foray into TV programming; Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and TWD have all earned reputations for gritty, no-frills storylines and multi-dimensional characters, things the networks have regularly failed to deliver. As much as I like this approach, though, when telling a story, you have to strike a balance between plausible material and necessary artistic license, and this series has occasionally neglected the latter for the sake of the former.

There are a few examples of this, but one which was frequently commented on by critics was the position of the Larsen parents. The Killing moves at roughly one day per episode, so that the season finale is set about two weeks after the murder. During this two-week period, Stan and Mitch Larsen are generally in shock over their daughter’s death: especially the mother, who shows the classic stages of grief, such as undirected anger, social withdrawal, suicidal thoughts, etc. Now, if I had a daughter who’d just been murdered, this is probably what I’d be going through, so you can’t say there’s anything really wrong with this depiction. But the truth is, her character’s not really interesting while she’s going through this; she’s too withdrawn and bitter for the audience to feel invested in her. It’s not pretty, but there you go. Viewers get bored when they see you in the same grieving mood all season.

Now I certainly won’t tell the show’s writers how to do their job, but it seems to me that when you’re trying to revolutionize the crime drama genre as The Killing is doing, you have a delicate balancing act on your hands. Providing an extensive look at one murder is daring, but you also need to provide the audience with some central characters if you have long-term plans in mind. So is conveying the acute sense of loss, but the characters must show some emotional or character development to keep viewers interested in them. Balancing these tensions properly can result in a truly great television series. But this one hasn’t figured the trick out yet, and they’ve only got so much time to pull it off.

So what to make of The Killing? Personally, I like it in spite of its problems; I watched every episode this season, and I’ll at least start the second season whenever it premieres. But I don’t think this show knows exactly what kind of drama it wants to be yet. I would recommend watching it, but you might find it frustrating.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...