Feb. 7, 2017 "Let's all root for an amoral- anti-heroine": Today I found this article by John Doyle in the Globe and Mail:
“Sometimes people fall out of love and do dramatic things. Especially Europeans,” says the nice American blond lady. She’s talking about Ava, the Belgian beauty who just walked on her husband, nice guy Ezra.
The nice American lady is trying to make sense of the breakup. Thing is, Ezra is coming to a major realization: Ava is probably a con artist who dupes, marries and fleeces nice guys like him. He’s correct. But is she all bad, this strange woman?
These days, you know, a lot of people would enjoy seeing a strong, manipulative heroine, perhaps having had a sufficiency of brooding male anti-heroes.
Imposters (Tuesday, W Network, 10 p.m.) provides just that – an amoral, streetwise anti-heroine who is very complicated. Do you root for her or for the guys she’s fleeced? That’s an intriguing question and it’s what propels this captivating new black comedy/drama series.
One of the few dramas made for the U.S. Bravo channel (it mostly airs those Real Housewives shows these days), Imposters had the catchy title “My So-Called Wife” while it was in production.
For reasons unclear, it is now simply called Imposters and, in fairness, it’s more apt. It’s not just Ava (Inbar Lavi) who is making things up – the people who are her victims are not quite what they seem, or claim to be.
The series follows Ava, who is actually named Maddie, as she does her thing. She’s a persona-shifting genius who can seem very benign. Interestingly, most of the personalities she embodies as a con artist are very smart and articulate. It’s not just her looks that charm men.
It’s that fierce intelligence. As one of her victims says, wistfully, “She was beautiful, smart, she used all these words … ”
It is easy to read a subtext into the basic plot line – these men are not really victims. They were seduced by their own vanity, believing that this wondrous, exotic and super smart woman could actually fall for them.
As pure entertainment, Imposters is a trim, well-paced chase drama. The first 10 minutes will get you hooked. Ezra’s realization that he’s been rooked comes in the usual manner.
His credit cards are maxed out, and his wife is gone. Then comes a slow realization that Ava/Maddie had her fingers in the family company he works for. There’s a terrific bit of dark-comedy business when his brother Josh (Canadian Adam Korson from Seed) encounters Ava/Maddie as she flees.
But it seems Ava/Maddie isn’t working alone. She’s part of a group doing the bidding of a mysterious figure who gives the orders. As she sets out to seduce and fleece her next target, Ezra hears from one of her previous victims, Richard (Parker Young), who is furious, whereas Ezra is merely sad about the whole thing.
They team up to find the woman who fooled, fleeced and bruised their egos. But, maybe, she didn’t just fleece guys? This creature is mercurial, with many faces and, maybe, there are many sides to her sexual allure.
The whole concoction is no masterpiece of serious-minded drama. But it is fresh and addictive. The comedy is sometimes dark, sometimes cynical. And it is emphatically about the foolishness of men. As Ava/Maddie sizes up her next potential victim, she says, “This guy would fall for a slug if it was wearing a dress and push-up bra.” And you root for her.
Also airing Thursday
Detroiters (MuchMusic, 10:30 p.m.) is a new Comedy Central show that mysteriously turns up on MuchMusic here. The Detroit Free Press calls it “The first sitcom to be fully immersed in Motor City culture” and, indeed, it is steeped in contemporary, busted-up Detroit.
But it amounts to a so-so comedy. Sam Richardson (who was excellent on HBO’s Veep) and Tim Robinson (from Saturday Night Live) star as small-time advertising guys looking to hit the big score in the ad racket. In Detroit these days, opportunities are limited.
In the first episode, they work on an ad for the “hot tub king of Detroit,” while nourishing a fantasy that they can get the Chrysler account. The humour is dry, occasionally manic and for all the Detroit authenticity, it’s an old-school, buddy-buddy comedy.
FreshAndLoud
9 days ago
I have to say that at this point I start to long for normal heroes who have normal family lives. I think that the whole "misanthropic antihero with personal mental issues and history of substance abuse" shtick went too far.
It was OK when such series were in minority, but at this point it feels like "normal people" are endangered species among TV series heroes.
happytalk
4 days ago
This show captured me. About time we had a strong and interesting woman in a juicy role. The show is funny and intriguing. Thanks John Doyle for alerting us!
Feb. 10, 2018 "Must we remember this?": Today I found this article by John Doyle about TV reboots and nostalgia TV. This article even mentions Donald Trump and how he was elected as the President, this makes people want to watch TV shows with familiar characters in present time:
The list of TV reboots keeps growing – The X-Files, Roseanne, Will & Grace, Murphy Brown, American Idol and Charmed. And that's just a few from U.S. network TV.
Anyone who flaunts the phrase "Don't look back" is not going to get a job in the mainstream TV racket. It's all about looking back. The X-Files has been back for more than one season. Will & Grace has bounced back on NBC, a hit show again. Roseanne is returning to ABC in March. Charmed is being revived by the CW. NBC is hoping to reboot Miami Vice and, most recently CBS says it's bringing back Murphy Brown.
American Idol is also coming back next month. You might think it never went away, but it did. After 15 seasons on Fox, the network cancelled it in the spring of 2016. It was fatigued, this once-powerful show, and it was getting expensive to make.
It returns on March 11 to take over Sunday nights on ABC. Simon Cowell won't be on it, but Ryan Seacrest returns as host and the format is much the same, with the judges now Katy Perry, country star Luke Bryan and Lionel Richie.
What the heck happened? Why did Fox cancel it and allow ABC to revive it? Gary Newman, the chairman of Fox Television Group, was asked these questions in January by one of the assembled TV critics at the midseason media tour.
"The economics of it simply weren't working any more. We couldn't really get to a place with the producers where we could make changes to the format to make the show more economical and heighten the intensity of the series.
And we were competing against not only the other broadcast networks, but a greater amount of content than ever before. And not only the more current productions. You're competing against every show that was ever made through all of these various video-on-demand platforms. So we're really fine with the show continuing, and I wish them a little bit of luck, not too much, and we will see what they can do."
The important part of his answer is "you're competing against every show that was ever made." It is so true. The vast resources of Netflix and other streaming services mean that extensive libraries of existing TV are there to be consumed and to compete against every new show being made. It makes sense, then, to simply revive what already exists.
While there are sound business reasons for the reboot fad – audience familiarity with the title, the premise and the cast – during the media tour, one phrase kept being muttered by writers who cover TV. It wasn't "Don't look back." It was "nostalgia porn."
It's a plausible take but it's complicated. The networks pine for a return to the 1980s and 90s, when a handful of main, over-the-air channels and a small cluster of cable channels dominated everything. Hit shows ran for years, getting the attention of a vast portion of the available audience. Money was made easily with the right recipe and the resulting advertising dollars. Even middling-hit series ran for 20 to 26 episodes a season. There was an order to things.
Now, a series often has a mere 10 episodes and its end creates a fraught empty space in the schedule. They fetishize those old days, the networks, even as they try to cope with a vastly disrupted landscape.
There is also a growing belief among some TV critics that the ceaseless restoration of old shows is a form of populism that cannot be separated from the form of populism that elected Donald Trump.
That is, a misguided nostalgia for a recent past in which the public was certain of the United States' greatness and mainstream TV provided a comforting picture of the country as mostly white, mostly heterosexual; minorities were mostly absent and divisiveness never reared its ugly head.
For viewers, too, there is a complex emotional relationship with revived series. It's a form of retreat from the frightening, out-of-shape present and it's about luxuriating in simpler times. The impulse to wallow in the past and old favourites is a kind of narcissism and there's an almost masturbatory quality to the glee in re-experiencing a series that was lovingly reminisced about.
There's no doubt that some reboots are intended to place familiar characters emphatically in the present and put an old premise in the context of now. Certainly, that's the hope many have for the CBS revival of Murphy Brown with Candice Bergen back in the lead role. (CBS is also hoping to revive Cagney & Lacey and Magnum, P.I.)
Both viewers and some critics want to see Murphy, the TV journalist and single mother, in the new ambience of the #MeToo and Time's Up movements. They want to see Murphy in the context of heightened awareness of glass ceilings and sexual harassment in the media.
"Don't screw this up," was the response of one fellow TV writer, a woman, after the CBS announcement. It's possible that CBS, which always goes for the safe path, will use the contemporary culture to give Murphy Brown a new sharp edge. Even during its initial run from 1988 to 98, it was controversial, with several politicians decrying Murphy's decision to have a child alone and leave the father out of the situation.
What's happening with the rebooted Roseanne is fascinating. While critics cannot give full reviews yet, it is certainly far from the train wreck many expected. It's actually a form of didactic comedy, avoiding any illusion that it is family comedy escapism, and has a kind of calculated analysis, argument and documentation of its Conner family in the Trump era. With Roseanne Barr herself a vocal Trump supporter, the revival is going to be polarizing. But there is merit in the revival of a series that presented blue-collar Americans when few others did.
No comments:
Post a Comment