Subject Review: The Walking Dead, AMC, Season 1

6/27/13

Subject Review: The Walking Dead, AMC, Season 1

This show is old news to many (sorry just let me catch up since I'm new around these parts!). But in a way, it's ironically fitting that I'm just getting to this now as the zombie fiction genre have always had this weird tug-a-war between stagnation and celebration. Arguably, what makes zombie stuff "fun" and "cool" isn't the same as what makes fiction thought-provoking. To be more specific, character and plot development tend to give way to shooting dead people in the face. It's cool, it's badass, it's fun, but it also can be boring to those who look for more in fiction than casual enjoyment. So as a result, hearing about any new piece of zombie media has almost always resulted in me being less interested. So you can imagine my enthusiasm going into Season 1 of The Walking Dead (this part will only cover the first season)... it's another piece of zombie fiction. On top of that called "The Walking Dead". Could this be an omen of creative bankruptcy?

Yup, my reaction too... except with less enthusiasm

The answer to that question is complicated.  Right from the start the show doesn't seem too worried about retreading old ground.  In fact, it starts off like 28 Days Later and practically every other apocalyptic stories (remember that zombies are a sub-set of these types of fiction).  So, already a little bored by the first Act, I grabbed my potato chips and braced for another zombie story as vanilla and uninteresting as Enterprise was to science fiction.  But, by the time the character of Morgan Jones started grieved over his sniper rifle at the sight of his dead (or walking dead) wife, I had stopped eating and was drooling into the bowl.

This show's different... and it's different in a way that I've always wanted in a zombie story.  Morgan (and his son by extension) is a character that represents the human costs of survival and a desperate struggle between the good decision and the right decision.  Is it frighteningly strange that it's rare to see characters like this in zombie stories?  Characters that symbolizes and develop a deeper meaning to societal breakdowns?  Oh sure we sometimes get banter about similar subjects in other zombie stuff, but to see Morgan personally struggle with it for basically, most of the episode, gives it a true dramatic weight to the story when many other zombie writing throw in philosophy as a token effort to not be stupid.

But with Morgan we're also not just given symbolism.  It is also developed.  That's not common for many fiction let alone zombie genre fiction.

The rest of Season 1 was a little more disappointing.  Episode 2 introduced a wider range of characters that began as stereotypes and, for the most part, remained as stereotypes.  However, the more irritating stereotypes of the casts (such as the borderline racist Merle and his brother Daryl) are the ones that are most softened up towards the end of the show. Characters like Daryl gradually showed a wider range of reactions and emotions and that kept some of these stereotypes at least believable.  The plot development also seemed to have been written with more care as cliche pitfalls that a lot of other zombie stuff sometimes can't help themselves jumping into are mostly avoided. The inner city gangbanger episode had a fairly nice twist, despite its credibility a little stretched.  But it was nice to see that the writers didn't get lazier with their development.  Copy and paste template zombie plot is one of the best ways to ruin your story into a generic gore fantasy.

Sorry folks, but it's been a while since we've had a twist!

The finale is probably the weakest part of the show.  The addition of a self-destructing scientist in the form of Dr. Jenner was a potentially interesting addition, but the entire episode seemed to be more concerned with exposition than character development.  That is not to say that character development is absent throughout the episode; elements that made the early part of the season great are still present in the finale.  Yet, the finale is the first time where the writing felt content with exposition when what made The Walking Dead great was how it explored humanity's reactions to hopeless situations.  I wanted to learn more from Jenner and Jacqui but all I got was just a plot twist.

At the end of the day, The Walking Dead soars over many other zombie fictions.  It's truly an achievement when it can make some of Romero's weaker works completely forgettable.  Yet, as the series goes on, you gradually get a sense that the writers were quickly running out of ideas on how to handle the adaptation.  Which might be a concern considering that season 1 is very short (only 6 episodes).  I can't say if that's an omen... after all, the first omen I thought I saw turned out to be inaccurate.

 

 
Rating: The Walking Dead is a show that isn't afraid to retread old ground but it also isn't afraid to let it's characters and plot breathe.  It assumes that it's audience aren't just here for a quick thrill ride and that's really what gives The Walking Dead a lot of depth. NOTE: It must be noted that I have not read the original comics. I've played through the games but the games are not closely related to the TV show. Thus, as an adaptation, my review lacks this dimension. This is a review of someone who has only watched the show.

Tweet

Subject Review: The Tudors, Showtime, Seasons 1-3

Subject Review: The Tudors, Showtime, Seasons 1-3

I had a dorky friend who used a very bad pun to describe his experience with the show.  He said that he was "tutored on the tudors."  Yeah.  This is what happens when you spend all your time underground and cut off from society...  Anyways.  Really this title is more than just a bad joke.  It's actually somewhat inaccurate to the show because there isn't much to be learned from King Henry VIII from Showtime's historical drama.  Right from the start, Michael Hirst was quoted to say "Showtime commissioned me to write an entertainment, a soap opera, and not history ... And we wanted people to watch it."  So it's a very similar problem with The Social Network or The Hurt Locker; both of which were criticized for being inaccurate to it's respective subject material.  I've always been a firm believer in research and accuracy in writing.  It might not always matter to the dramatic arc of the story, but spotting environmental or historical inaccuracies take me out of the fiction quite strongly.  Even if I didn't spot stuff like that right off the bat, a piece of fiction that doesn't stand up to later scrutiny can also greatly depreciate the value.  It's a bit of a personal preference.  But it's an ideal that I've always believed in as I always encourage writers to achieve greatness in every aspect of fiction, even in elements that some, or many, wouldn't consider "important".

So really, despite my obvious love for the show (it's intro is in my featured intro section after all), this is a difficult review to write because every instinct in me tells me that the historical inaccuracies do not matter.  But, unfortunately, it does and that's one thing I have to note.  There isn't very much educational value to The Tudors.  The accuracy of the character's personalities to their historical figures is one thing that's praised about the show, but the events of the plot differed greatly and some character relationships were completely fictional.

Well, on to the writing itself.  I must note that this review will only cover the first two seasons of The Tudors and a part two will come later.  But the dramatic writing of the first two seasons is masterful.  It's honestly one of the best shows I've seen on modern TV.  Really what it comes down to is a thorough but respectful examination of a medieval royal court.  In a world where religious hypocrisy and rampant narcissism is almost rewarded, it's very hard to not judge.  In the hands of a lesser writer, we would have gotten the view of King Henry's count from a modern progressive lens.  That would have been a very cheap way of writing since it doesn't provide us with any real insight and reinforce modern western ideals that we all understand well already.  Michael Hirst and his writing staff marvelously avoids that pitfall and gives us a world within it's own context.  That sounds rudimentary but it's actually something that's very hard to achieve in historical fiction.  At the same time, the show isn't just an idle re-enactment.   It still carries a theme, and the story still serves a dramatic purpose.  It's a very fine balance and what it mainly comes down to is how it gets you to feel for the characters without excusing their actions.

I hated Anne Bolyn for how immature she is but, by the time of her execution, I grew to understand how her environment doomed her from the start.  I hate King Henry for being a tyrant, but I see his human insecurities that translated into a ruthless royal brat.  I hate Cardinal Woolsey for embodying corruption of the Catholic church but I'm sorry about his eventual fate.  (And honestly one of the best redemption scenes I've ever seen).

Sometimes the motivation to be respectful holds other historical shows back from becoming a worthwhile story.  Hatfield & McCoy suffers due to this very specific issue.  The Tudors circumvent this is by focusing on it's characters and bringing out as much dimensions as naturally possible.  Michael Hirst grabs you and says, hey look, these people you're watching are absolutely horrible people.  But there's more to them than just that.  You don't need to sympathize to understand and that's an approach that The Tudors took to heart from the first episode to the last.

However, if there is one complaint I have about the writing is that not all characters get equal treatment.  I'm not referring to the amount of screen time, I'm referring to the development.  Throughout the first season, some within of Henry's court were uninteresting characters and their plight were a little boring to sit through.  The character of Thomas Tallis also feels tacked on as he merely served as a "normal" person in the court only to disappear when the writer loses interest in the character.  It seems unfair to complain about boring characters in a historical fiction but it is very possible to have boring characters be or become interesting.  So if there is one flaw in the writing, it'd be that Michael Hirst didn't give enough attention to some of his side characters.  Who, fortunately, were either written out or actually developed in Season 2. The amount of sex in the show can also get a little annoying to those who want to watch for the writing, but it doesn't get to Game of Throne's level as most of the sex fits in with the character and story.  This helps give a greater purpose to these scenes while most other shows are just content on having them as filler (Littlefinger's prostitute scene anyone?...).

In conclusion, The Tudors is very close to a perfect show.  It would have been nice to sit through a show that's more accurate than inaccurate with it's plot, but the drama is definitely compelling and some of the best downfall and redemption scenes in modern TV history can be experienced within just the first two seasons.  I would highly recommend this to anyone interested in quality writing.



Rating: Great characters. Great scenes. And a show that doesn't judge but still has a point. The only thing that stops this show from being perfect is the historical inaccuracies with might not matter to many but is a blemish nonetheless.

Tweet

Subject Review: Fringe, FOX, Seasons 1-2

Subject Review: Fringe, FOX, Seasons 1-2

Well, JJ Abram's love-letter to supernatural investigation shows have ended this year with FOX pulling the plug on Fringe with the final season coming to a close just a few weeks ago. I suppose it's strange to review a show now instead of earlier when the show's still running but I see this as an opportunity to talk about what will and won't be missed with the show. Those of you who aren't familiar with the primetime drama, Fringe is a JJ Abrams TV show that can be best described as a "Hollywood" approach to the X-Files. Early in its inception, JJ Abrams cited the decade long running drama show and The Twilight Zone as his inspirations. Hiring Roberto Orci and Robert Kurtzman as co-writers (whose writing quality range from the Transformers films to Star Trek 2009), a Fringe was promised as a different and more "exciting" take on the X-Files. The fact that audiences have grown lukewarm about the series after all this time probably shows that the writers under delivered on the initial hype and not much has changed from that. For now, I'll just talk about the first few seasons and post a part two when I can fully digest the last two seasons. Right off the bat, the premise is typical. Fringe follows an FBI agent named Olivia Dunham who gets recruited into a newly formed taskforce called the "Fringe Divisions" (i.e. The X-Files) after a failed assignment that got her partner and lover killed in the line of duty. Olivia learns that the Fringe division focuses on investigating "case work related to Fringe sciences" (i.e. paranormal activities). Without me saying anymore, many of you might have caught the similarities between Fringe and Warehouse 13. Indeed, Olivia Dunham is essentially a drama version of Myka Bering from Warehouse 13. Both are very capable and talented agents, and both are have the same "tragic" backstory that kicks off the show. Let me just say that the cavalier career agent women in TV is a little boring at this point. They are still used to good effect but by the time that both Fringe and Warehouse 13 appeared, it's a fairly standard trope for the female protagonist.

I WARN YOU!  I HAVE A TRAGIC BACKSTORY!

As the pilot of the series continues, Olivia tracks down a Dr. Walter Bishop, a mad scientist who is responsible for many of the Fringe technology that is causing chaos throughout the world.  Bishop is locked away in an insane asylum and Olivia forces his estranged son, Peter Bishop, to release his father.   When the pilot ends, the three becomes the main cast. The character of Peter Bishop is probably the series' most uninteresting character at the early stage of the show.  A "bad boy with Daddy issues that has a soft heart", Peter's development throughout the first two seasons strikes me as the most formulaic.  A cynical and sarcastic but resourceful civilian, Peter starts off as the audience's eyes as he's often one to comment about how weird everything is or slow to understand FBI protocol.  This is fine at first, but as the first season develops he doesn't turn into anything more than a bad boy version of Mulder.

 Ok Peter...

Ironically, Dr. Walter Bishop is one of the best characters I've seen in recent TV.  The mad scientist character is nothing new to fiction, especially high concept fiction.  However, what makes Dr. Walter Bishop spectacular to watch is his execution.  The writers consistently put Walter in a position where he has to directly face the consequences of his experiments.  He's consistently charged with cleaning up his own mess and that also includes trying to make amends to his son Peter.  That's a rare angle to take on the mad scientist character and it was fascinating to see how the character dealt with the consequences of his former actions.  It's very reminiscent of the 1 episode character of Joe Ridley from the X-Files, who voluntarily helped Mulder and Scully out of a hinted remorse of past mad experiments.  So, essentially, Walter Bishop is just an extended and developed version of Dr. Ridley, but I don't judge this as a negative aspect since the development for Bishop is so sound.

 Truly a Beautiful Mind...

So really that's what we have to deal with, two standard borderline uninteresting characters but one amazing character.  The episodic plots of each case were interesting enough but there are times where the violence got a little over the top.  In the X-Files, the writers weren't afraid to let the mystery be a little more non-violent and it helped grounded the series.  Fringe tried to do that but also made every case as violent as possible and that stretched the credibility of the world at times.  Furthermore, the serial story elements ranged from ok to annoying to sit through. Early in the show, the writers likes to use a lot of cliffhangers; which I can forgive as it's a way to try to keep the audience's interest.  But it gradually became fairly consistent and that got pretty annoying to sit through.  The key to writing effective cliffhangers is to have external elements hanging while fully developing the characters.  If the episode relies solely on plot then it tends to be a good idea to stay away from cliffhangers as the audience always needs some sense of closure or else you basically have an incomplete story.  There were occasional episodes where character development wasn't a focus and the plot ended with a cliffhanger anyway.  That really got silly to sit through as it starts to feel contrived.

All in all, when it comes to paranormal investigation shows, you could do a lot worse than Fringe.  A lot of that is owed to Dr. Walter Bishop and his actor, John Noble.  The occasional mysteries are interesting but doesn't get much beyond that when better shows use their mysteries to give insight into the human condition (part of what makes X-Files amazing), and some of the cliffhangers were really cheap (the cliffhanger at the end of season 3 made me stop watching).  If watching a well developed mad scientist means a lot to you then I would recommend checking out the show since there's a clear end due to it's cancellation.  But, at the end of the day, not much will be missed from the show.  


Rating: Some cool mysteries here and there if you don't mind the over the top violence. Characters can range from normal to boring but Dr. Walter Bishop really saves this show from being completely forgettable.

Tweet

Subject Review: Hatfields & McCoy, History Channel, Season 1

Subject Review: Hatfields & McCoy, History Channel, Season 1

With Showtime and AMC's recent success at topping HBO at the Emmys (Mad Men and Homeland), it seems that the History Channel wants to join the fight and throw some rocks at the big boys in terms of drama.  After all, the History Channel's documentaries have been losing some steam especially with their recent disasters like Ancient Aliens blemishing the reputation of a once respected Documentary channel.

Yeah...

For those who are unfamiliar with the American network, The History Channel is a historical documentary channel that was once associated with high standards of factual documentaries.  While the early part of the channel's history was criticized for focusing too much of the military aspects of US history, programs such as Modern Marvels have always been praised for presenting factual information in an entertaining way without compromising the former for the ladder.  Once the channel started to steer away from their WWII military documentaries, the trouble with the channel's credibility started.  Most notably The Man Who Killed Kennedy in 2003, which was eventually disavowed after severe criticisms.  Towards the later half of the 2000s, shows such as Ice Road Truckers, Ax Men, and Pawn Stars started appearing and the network received further criticism that the channel's historical nature was being soiled.  Maybe it was about time that History Channel started creating drama series.  After all, historical documentaries were starting to get stale with the American audience and reality shows (with little to no relations to history) were the only thing really giving the channel their ratings. So Hatfields & McCoy became the channel's first scripted drama series (The Kennedy's was actually their first but the series was such a disaster that the History Channel decided against airing it).

On paper the series didn't seem to fair too bad (especially after what happened with The Kennedys).  It gathered 5 Emmy nominations and 2 wins for Outstanding Actor in a Miniseries with Kevin Costner and Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Miniseries with Tom Berenger.  In truth, the cast was one of the stronger aspects of the show.  Kevin Costner is a great casting choice for the role as he always seem the most comfortable in a period pieces. Yet, the entire miniseries as an overall seemed to lack something.  There's just an edge that HBO have had for ages and both Showtime and AMC have figured out recently to TV dramas that the History Channel hasn't gotten yet with this show.  It's understandable, Hatfields & McCoy is their first venture into this kind of TV and it's a bit of a tall order to be beating channels with a successful history in Primetime TV on your first try.  But as a TV consumer (and self-appointed critic), that's still little consolation at the fact that Hatfields & McCoy was just a rather mundane product.  Admittedly, there may not be anything specifically horrible with the show.  Yet, quality TV has probably never been better with Primetime heavy hitters competing even for nominations at the Emmys let alone the grand prize and Hatfields & McCoy is an easily forgettable footnote in this year's TV.

The biggest problem is probably the show's writing.  After 2 episodes (the series only ran for 3), a lot has happened but there doesn't seem to be very much movement in terms of character.  For those who don't know about the historical event, the show chronicles a bloody feud that broke out between two Southern families right at the end of the civil war.  The feud lasted for decades and claimed 37 family members and friends, almost putting the state of Kentucky and West Virginia in a civil war at one point.  The accuracy of the events and character are admirable, but the dramatic story leaves a lot to be desired.  This brings be back to a comment I made earlier about this show lacking a certain edge.  Let me elaborate. Serious drama shows, especially modern and current shows, have a certain dramatic weight.  What happens in the writing and on screen isn't just impactful, it's life changing to both the characters and the viewers.  This isn't necessarily specific to TV fiction but it's one things that really separates TV from many other mediums.  TV, in regards to it's modern drama section, isn't just there to entertain anymore it's there to enlighten and awaken.  Drama shows need to be emotionally poignant and intellectually challenging if they want to be pushing for the Emmys and, generally speaking, many networks have developed the attitude that quality sells on TV.  Hence why Daytime TV is now in a decline and even mainstream network procedurals have stepped up their game (Elementary, Criminal Minds, Monk, and even 24). Hatfields & McCoy is lacking this inner philosophical core.  I suppose a part of being a good writer is understanding what and when to explore and not be too overly ambitious to push a point.  However, the entire dramatic arc of Hatfields & McCoy seems so subdued it's almost non-existent.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for every TV series to be like In Treatment or Game of Thrones where insights and witty remarks about life and moral etiquette (or if there's really such a thing as one) are uttered in a soft but determined whisper.  But there's plenty of ways to show a dramatic wisdom without having the characters be that intellectually aware.  Hell on Wheels is an amazing example of how the show's inner core is smarter than its characters; who are also very similar to the characters in Hatfields & McCoy.

Really what makes serious dramatic stories worthwhile is what we learn about the human condition.  Most dramatic TV series fully understands that and explores it as much as possible, even sacrificing plot or action for it (Battlestar Galactica).  It's the characters and their moral and internal struggles that we need to see as well as what the situations our characters find themselves in say about them as people.  The characters of Hatfields & McCoy seem oddly one dimensional and the situations seem to say little about them as people except that they are not very bright and all too quick to use their guns.  Honestly? That doesn't enlighten us enough to make it worthwhile to sit through.  One almost feels as if the History Channel only used this series to test the waters. At the end of the day, Hatfields & McCoy seem little more than a better made re-enactment for a historical documentary.  I see a lot of potential for the network as an overall.  There may not be an audience for everything, but there's always an audience for quality.  Downton Abbey and Mad Men both proved that.  If the History Channel can just internalize that attitude then we can start seeing shows that will really be a talking point in the Emmys.  Remember, historical accuracy is important and will get you some satisfied nods.  But that as well as a strong, bold, and intellectually challenging dramatic arc will get you all the way, just look at The Tudors... oh... wait...

I'M SORRY KING HENRY I'M SO SORRY!  YOU DESERVE 20 EMMYS!

Rating: It's a shame that such an interesting and potentially intellectually challenging material is distilled into a boring plot point by plot point re-enactment.

Tweet