So I was sick this weekend, barely able to breath, sweating my own body weight about once every 12 hours, when the doorbell rang. I threw on some pants and staggered down to the front door, to find that my season 2 DVD's had arrived, and figured, well, I'm sure as shit not going to get any work done about now, so let's just suck down some cough syrup and go through these bad boys.
A few thangs on S1 & S2
Trivial:
Giebelhouse could totally kick Sipowicz's ass, but that really is so obvious that I don't feel that I need to belabour the point.
Henrikson is such a talented actor, why, Oh Lord, why has he been relegated to so many sub-B films?
A couple probs:
With the group being as powerful/influential as it is, why the hell do they end up sequestering Lara in what is essentially a Motel 6? Surely this isn't the first time that they've had a newly initiated member freak? They could at least put her in a Days Inn...
I'm really not clear on how the Owls could develop from the tradition that is suggested in the background/mythology of the group. Help me out on this one, Stoatie.
Less trivial:
Having watched it about eighteen times in the last couple of days, the end of S2 with Lara still is stunning, but in a context where I'm used to seeing movies as opposed to TV it seems less so. I think that to get the full impact you need to see it sandwiched between the utter banality of commercials for SUVs and toilet paper. 'still damn near blew the eyes out of my head, though.
I actually think S1 holds up surprisingly well in comparison (having watched that over Christmas, because what better way to celebrate the Nativity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ than to sit through 14 hours of extreme psychosis?). The "serial killer of the week" bit seems like it's been overplayed. I'm only really seeing it in less than half of the episodes of s1. The basic story of Covenant could have been played as an episode of [insert series name] without losing much (except of course, Lance). I'd really recalled S2 as superior to S1, but I'd seen them rather spottingly, and looking at them now I can only say that they are different, but really can't say that one is out and out "better" than the other. Of course some of this probably is due to the departure of Morgan and Wong, and resulting lack of continuity/closure in S3.
I think Frank Black may very well be one of the most fully developed characters I've ever seen, in his melancholy, his love for his family, his anger. All of it feels completely natural, and I really can't seem to think of another character than has been so well used the meduium of the long (c. 14 hrs/season) to delve into the character, and certainly not without feeling like it was a ham-handed "let's explore the depths of the character" gimmick.
Beyond the series, itself, and possibly threadworthy, but I'm still fried:
Okay, here's my thing - I don't think anyone can doubt that it was an innovative show. My question arises when thinking about going to people who didn't see it the first time 'round. In a certain sense it seems dated, but that is probably because it was groundbreaking and pieces of it have been mimicked by others. Anytime I see CSI with the double beat coming back from commercial, I have to choke back a cry of "thieves!" I think it ages better that some other expamples of the same phenomenon (Clerks had influence but really doesn't feel to me like it stands up over time at all), but given it's relative obscurity, does the influence it seems to have had detract from the long term of appreciation of the series? |
