I think the trailer gives you the general gist... a group of terrorists escaping execution use a device to travel back in time, and a female enforcement officer is caught in the shockwave. I think the plan was to jump back six years, but they accidentally end up travelling sixty. (Apparently, like me, maths isn't their forte).
So many friends recommended Continuum to me. As a result, I felt compelled to avoid it. Truth is, nothing's worse than loathing a program everyone's raving about. (Here's looking at you, Mad Men!).
Finally, I gave in and resigned myself to another dose of entertainment alienation. (Seriously, this should be a real thing. Nothing creates conversational chasms like polar opposite opinions on a tv show).
Generally, I love science fiction, but genre classification doesn't always guarantee quality. (Who can forget the travesty that was Stargate Universe? I wish I could). The good news is, Continuum's now on my Top 5 of 2012 list.
The show is entertaining for myriad reasons, but I'm going to try and encapsulate why it's worth watching in just half a dozen points! Very concise of me...
Finding investers for tv scifi can be a bit tricky. Getting investors for a cop show is like shooting fish in a barrel. Hence, Continuum uses a procedural structure in the present day scenes. This also pulls in higher audience numbers because those who are wary of the futuristic aspects can still relate to the familiar 'cop show' elements.
The good news is, the cop angle is just a narrative prop, not the central focus. It allows the protagonist to move freely in the present day. Her partner and boss also humanise present day society in the protagonist's mind, anchoring her, in a sense... but without interfering with the core chase element between our hero and the terrorist group.
Thematically, the show is off the wall. Like the best scifi, there's so much social commentary going on. I would need pages to go into it... a taste? Think the growth of corporate monopolies and their spread beyond the private sector, how bureaucracy in government could be its downfall, morality versus ideological fanaticism, parental love, trust, the many facets of intense relationships between the sexes, the repercussions of free will, the ethical responsibilities attached to technological advancements... the list goes on! Good times for the writing team and a lot more interesting than a generic cop show.
2. The Black and White Themes Are Apparently Colour Blind
The program starts with the audience following Keira, our lead, a 'goodie' because her Protector job is the future version of a police detective. She was on the team that brought in the leader of the terrorist group Liber8. He engineered the assassination of twenty prominent world leaders. Unfortunately, the collateral damage included hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
As the story unfolds, we begin to realise the future is a little colder than we imagined. It doesn't seem dystopian at first... Keira's friends looks relatively happy. Life isn't that dissimilar to current first world society (albeit with more tech developments).
Then we start noticing the cracks. The loss of civil liberties, for one. The 1984 style surveillance. The indentured citizens, who sell decades of their lives to a corporation. The casual acceptance of human rights abuses. All part of the controlling society our 'hero' helps maintain.
So... I guess we're on the side of the terrorists, then?
No. They remain the primary "baddies" due to a disregard for the suffering they cause. People are disposable pawns, not valued individuals. There's a casual cruelty to their ethos, because their focus is so blinkered. All they see is the primary goal. So while some of their sentiments have merit, their actions are deplorable.
Which leaves the audience kind of for, kind of against... everyone? (I hate that you can no longer use the term shades of grey without infantile sniggering). To make things interesting, character perspectives undergo constant change when transported back to the present day (which has the added benefit of making shocking about-faces during the season appear entirely credible).
This is due in part to reveals throughout the season. Because we didn't get under the skin of the characters in the future-set opener, their myriad motivations weren't clear.
At first, the audience is running on Keira's perspective, which is (trained to be) black and white. As we learn more about the actions of those in the future that lead to this scenario in the (new) past, then follow that up with character choices in the present day, everything begins to shift.
One of my favourite unfolding relationships is between Keira and Kellog, who starts out as an (albeit oddball) baddy, and becomes one of the more interesting characters. Originally an escaped terrorist, through a series of flashback reveals we see how he ended up in this scenario. Thanks to unexpected happenings and resulting (present day) choices, his relationship with Keira changes drastically.
I also like that her relationship with her present day police partner Carlos is never as close as the audience expects it to be. I like that he is intuitive enough to realise something is wrong and that Keira remains unusually circumspect with him from the outset. It's not quite how opposite sex procedural partnerships onscreen generally unfold, which makes it interesting.
I also like that her relationship with her present day police partner Carlos is never as close as the audience expects it to be. I like that he is intuitive enough to realise something is wrong and that Keira remains unusually circumspect with him from the outset. It's not quite how opposite sex procedural partnerships onscreen generally unfold, which makes it interesting.
4. The Time Travel Aspect Doesn't Suck.
Ah, time travel. A writer's bane. Just ask anyone who ever worked on one of the Star Trek tv shows. PARADOXICAL pretty much sums it up. (And by paradoxical, read PAIN IN THE @#$).
Rather than clearly defining the rules of time travel, Continuum has the audience attempting to discover the boundaries and repercussions along with the characters. It's a nice touch.
One episode sees the characters attempting to knock off their enemies ancestors in the present day. Theoretically it seems like it should work. If your grandparent dies, you should just fade, right? (Although in terms of narrative, it would be a mess. The entire series would become one long manhunt for nan 'n pop in the past).
One episode sees the characters attempting to knock off their enemies ancestors in the present day. Theoretically it seems like it should work. If your grandparent dies, you should just fade, right? (Although in terms of narrative, it would be a mess. The entire series would become one long manhunt for nan 'n pop in the past).
This problem was overcome when one of the character's ancestors (in the present day) is killed... and, DRUM ROLL... nothing happens to the character who has travelled back from the future. He doesn't cease to exist, even though he technically will never be born now that his bloodline has been annihilated.
That's right. It's a PARADOX.
Instead, there are very different repercussions. The logically possible 'what if?' domino effects of changing the past, come to nothing. Instead, future changes occur because of the emotional repercussions of this act.
Watching a beloved grandmother die in front of him (albeit as a teenager), alters a character's behaviour drastically. So yes, killing an ancestor in the present day changes the future, but in an entirely unexpected way, one that has nothing to do with science or genetics.
That's right. It's a PARADOX.
Instead, there are very different repercussions. The logically possible 'what if?' domino effects of changing the past, come to nothing. Instead, future changes occur because of the emotional repercussions of this act.
Watching a beloved grandmother die in front of him (albeit as a teenager), alters a character's behaviour drastically. So yes, killing an ancestor in the present day changes the future, but in an entirely unexpected way, one that has nothing to do with science or genetics.
Nice writing.
5. The Lead Works.
Firstly, actress Rachel Nichols played Uhura's green roommate in the Star trek movie reboot. (For some reason I always get a kick out of this fact). She's great here because, frankly, she's a good actress. She's also quite solid for a female tv lead (and by solid, I mean there are whole parts of her body where her bones aren't sticking out). Basically, whenever she's onscreen, she owns it.
Nowadays, so many shows seem to have brilliant supporting cast and a wishy-washy lead. Continuum has a brilliant supporting cast and a great lead, so it's a double whammy. (Also very happy to see Victor Webster get a lead role. He was Phoebe's love interest in Charmed back in the day, and more recently, Beckett's love interest in Castle. A lead role is long overdue).
Frankly, I don't know what they're feeding them thespians over in Canada. Is it something in the water? The talent quotient in the acting community is phenomenal.
Back on point... the character of Keira seems like a real person. You see a number of reviewers online complaining about how contradictory some of her actions are, but that is what makes people human. She's traumatised, vulnerable and in shock. Basically, she's written 3D. (I also appreciate the flashbacks that deal with turning points in her life, they're very humanising).
Notably, this show is also one of the only times that tv writers have managed to make motherhood seem relevant, rather than annoying. (Can anyone say, The Good Wife?).
One of the plot problems is the conflict between the terrorists' need to change the future, and Keira's desire to both get back there AND keep it intact. Flashbacks show us the character Keira's marriage was a tad dodgy. Since her ethical perspective is starting to reluctantly shift (in that she's beginning to see problems with the political situation in the future), there needs to be an overwhelming drive to maintain that status quo, even though she's beginning to no longer believe in it... otherwise, the series would lose its primary conflict! Hence, the child.
Changing history could mean her son is never born. Now there's a serious moral and ethical internal struggle for the lead character as the series continues. Can she choose to help the world become a better place, if it simultaneously means ensuring her beloved only son ceases to exist?
Nowadays, so many shows seem to have brilliant supporting cast and a wishy-washy lead. Continuum has a brilliant supporting cast and a great lead, so it's a double whammy. (Also very happy to see Victor Webster get a lead role. He was Phoebe's love interest in Charmed back in the day, and more recently, Beckett's love interest in Castle. A lead role is long overdue).
Frankly, I don't know what they're feeding them thespians over in Canada. Is it something in the water? The talent quotient in the acting community is phenomenal.
Back on point... the character of Keira seems like a real person. You see a number of reviewers online complaining about how contradictory some of her actions are, but that is what makes people human. She's traumatised, vulnerable and in shock. Basically, she's written 3D. (I also appreciate the flashbacks that deal with turning points in her life, they're very humanising).
Notably, this show is also one of the only times that tv writers have managed to make motherhood seem relevant, rather than annoying. (Can anyone say, The Good Wife?).
One of the plot problems is the conflict between the terrorists' need to change the future, and Keira's desire to both get back there AND keep it intact. Flashbacks show us the character Keira's marriage was a tad dodgy. Since her ethical perspective is starting to reluctantly shift (in that she's beginning to see problems with the political situation in the future), there needs to be an overwhelming drive to maintain that status quo, even though she's beginning to no longer believe in it... otherwise, the series would lose its primary conflict! Hence, the child.
Changing history could mean her son is never born. Now there's a serious moral and ethical internal struggle for the lead character as the series continues. Can she choose to help the world become a better place, if it simultaneously means ensuring her beloved only son ceases to exist?
Oh, does this show love to load up expected (and unexpected) consequences.
Bringing characters back from the past and dropping them in the present is riveting, because these individuals know firsthand how small decisions in today's world have a snowball effect on the future. They're displaced, literally out of time, and see change as both friend and foe.
They're also disconnected from the present day world because they see it as their past (even though they now live in it). They're not really emotionally attached to society in any way. Only our heroine Keira has formed some connections, but even those were made reluctantly, and more from necessity than choice.
The closest person to Keira in the present day is Alec, the teen tech genius who pretty much (kind of) rules the world in the future. His motivations (as an old man) remain a mystery. Bringing his (future) actions into question as the series unravels means even the one person who is Keira's present day safety net can't be completely trusted.
All the characters are living in a constant state of unimaginable pressure. The choices they make are never really flippant or off the cuff, because CONSEQUENCE is a leading theme here. A deceptively simple action can truly change the world. The whole concept is kind of mindboggling.
AND FINALLY, the season finale is pretty kickass.
No comments:
Post a Comment