I decided to talk about these two new programs at the same time, since narratively-speaking, both deal with displacement, albeit in entirely different ways.
The first show, Outlander, follows the adventures of a woman from the 1940's thrown back in time to the Scottish highlands of the 1700s. The second series, Intruders, follows a secret society in the present day who defeat death by jumping into the bodies of unwilling victims.
Outlander is an interesting experiment, in terms of trying to market what is, at heart, a romance, to a broader audience. The problem was always going to be selling the show, based on a book series, beyond its primarily female readership.
There's a stigma attached to romance, but by comparing it to Game of Thrones, and upping the graphic sex and violence, Starz is making a serious play for a larger market. The science fiction aspect (ie time travel) has also been highlighted over the romantic elements.
I think it has a mixed success rate. The pilot was shaky, but by the third episode I'm enjoying the story. Rather than Game of Thrones level intrigue, think an intelligent soapie set in the past - it doesn't have the scope of GoT, but I'm enjoying the relatively straightforward narrative. Most of all, I like the characterisation.
The lead actress is probably the weakest link, but that impression was more from the pilot. By later episodes she's relaxed into the role. I think the problem is the 1940's scenes remind me of Poirot, and it's hard to come off well when compared to that level of masterful television production.
(On a side note, I will say I think the pilot included some of the worst sex scenes I've ever seen. I get that cable wants to spice it up, but figure out how to do it well first!)
The move to the highlands/past couldn't happen fast enough, and the supporting cast is magnificent. Seriously, they're scene stealers. The sets are stunning, the lighting beautiful, the attention to historical detail impressive... I love all of these elements.
But at heart, Outlander is a romance, and the casting of the lead love interest is where the program gains strength (no pun intended). Sam Heugan is the perfect foil for actress Catriona Balfe. Fans of the book are happy, from what I've seen online. Having never read the novels I can't make a comparison, but I often forget that he's acting, which is basically the highest compliment.
Still, something about the lead character Claire rings empty - I don't feel her emotional turmoil as much I do the other characters. She is displaced, yes, but unfortunately, she also feels less real.
I think this is partly a combination of the actress's performance, and an occasionally clunky script that has her narrating inner turmoil more often than not, rather than communicating these emotions through well written scenes. (The explanatory voiceovers drive me crazy. Stop hitting the audience over the head with an emotive hammer!)
Maybe this kink will be worked out over time (almost punning), but at present I care more about what is happening to the housekeeper, and Jamie (or even the laird and the town healer), than I do about the lead's problems, and I'm pretty sure that's not the empathic reaction the show intended to evoke.
Maybe the displacement at the core is the problem? In 1945 the character was already displaced, adrift, so her struggles to return to that time don't feel... as a viewer, they don't feel important to me, somehow. And I think that may be a large part of the apathy I feel toward her plight.
Cinematically, the best scene so far was when Claire was describing the sensation of falling through time, likening it to a car accident at night, which was displayed in slow motion, with disorienting angles and beautiful lighting.
Incredibly sophisticated, reminding me for a moment of the Sherlock series, before returning to more traditional and formulaic filming styles. Hopefully in future they'll mix it up a little, because the Outlander team's obviously capable of stunning visuals that really communicate complex ideas. Most of all, it worked in sync with the voiceover (one of the only times the V.O. didn't jar.)
In summary, Outlander is interesting viewing, with a generally stellar cast and an eye for historic detail, but the script is not on par with Game of Thrones, and the lead not quite as easy to engage with as you'd hope. That said, the show is really enjoyable, and more entertaining than a lot of programs currently on television - already laying the groundwork for future storylines that look set to deliver drama/adventure/intrigue.
On the other hand we have Intruders, an odd little eight episode spooky outing that I quite like. It has some clunky script moments, but overall, I'm enjoying the weird atmosphere they're working to create.
Once again, the lead is the weak point. (What's that about?) John Simm is a great actor, but he's just not believable as the retired cop. Not at all, so that's a bit jarring (especially his faux American accent). Likewise, James Frain is a real talent, and he plays his part well, but I just wouldn't have cast him as the hitman. I guess it comes down to that old conundrum - do you cast people because they're amazing actors, regardless of the part, or do you cast less impressive talents more suited to the roles?
BBC America, as part of the BBC, is fine with backing these moody, strange, dramatic philosophical outings in recent years, and I've really enjoyed them. They can be jarring and occasionally unbelievable, but at the same time, they possess an intensity that's often smoothed out of more formulaic commercial offerings.
Intruders makes you feel disturbed. Even when you can see some plot points coming a mile away and are forced to watch associated scenes stretched out for minutes too long, the show still evokes a response. (And I won't lie - when the kid killed the cat, I nearly had a heart attack.)
I've only seen two episodes so far, but I'm looking forward to watching the story unravel. I love disjoined narrative, so I don't have an issue with not starting at the "beginning' of the tale, in a sense; I like to piece the plot together myself over time, but this kind of storytelling can alienate audience members with more traditional linear tastes.
I like that the show is washed out and cold; filmically, I mean. But even the characters are that way, too. Everyone feels isolated. Everyone is alone. Except, of course, those forced to carry other people inside them (but even they are alone, within the boundaries of a horror genre-style internal conflict). There are occasional borderline hammy gothic kind of lines, but they suit the mood.
Love, death, secrets, mortality; these are not simple or light themes, so it makes sense that such a heavy, almost ominous energy permeates the series. And once again, displacement is a central theme. Even the innocents, the ones who haven't had their bodies invaded, even the ones who have no idea what is going on, seem just as displaced in their everyday lives (especially in terms of marriage and family). I kind of like that.
And of course, like many tv shows these days, the consequences of one choice drives the narrative. (Outlander is the same - one choice, and she falls through time).
Heavy.
No comments:
Post a Comment