Skip to main content

Maybe there’s something to this religion after all.


True Blood 
Season Five

Watching True Blood is akin to consuming junk food at a classy eating establishment. It’s expensive, beautifully presented and provides instant gratification. But half an hour later you’re hard-pressed to remember anything about it.

It is perhaps appropriate that this is consistently HBO’s current biggest hit show, as it points up the unsubtlety of cable network prerequisites; gallons of blood and acres of flesh. In other series these elements are blended in such a way as to make them seem sort-of appropriate to the subject matter. With True Blood, the writing is typically as crude and overt as the visual content. But packaged very, very nicely.

A big point about True Blood is its disproportionately impassioned (female) fanbase. It’s not something you’ll take much notice of if you consume the show over a few evenings once a year, when the season sets are released, then forget about it for another 12 months. But it seems the characters, their trajectories and onscreen domination (or not), provoke strong responses. In particular, the nominal leading man status of Stephen Moyer as Bill Compton is not to the taste of the multitude who swoon for Alexander Skarsgård’s Eric Northman. There’s no question that Skarsgård is the more charismatic performer in a much more obviously “cool” role, but I must profess ignorance of the emotions stirred up over who Sookie (Anna Paquin) should be with (Bill, Eric or Joe Manganiello’s werewolf Alcide) until relatively recently. This series has never really inspired me to read up much on its background or following and, while I can get with the general complaint that Season Four wasn’t all that, I couldn’t agree that the last two seasons have been outright terrible. It would be more of a case that, like Dexter (although never as good as that series at its peak), that more recent runs of True Blood have simply failed to maintain the consistency of its early stages.

True Blood may foster a following for its central love triangle (or, at times, quartet if you include Alcide) to rival Twilight, but its natural antecedent is Buffy. I’m sure devotees of TB deride any comparisons, but it can’t help but invite them. Joss Whedon’s series may not feature the graphic elements of the cable show, and is replete with the kind of smart dialogue Alan Ball’s series’ couldn’t (wouldn’t?) dream of, but both feature a young, blonde, “chosen” female protagonist in love with a brooding, dark haired vampire; in both series their relationship is supplanted by a scene-stealing blonde vampire who quickly becomes firmly entrenched as the audience’s favourite character.

True Blood gradually broadens its scope to include more magical phenomena and creatures, whereas Buffywas in there from the start, but both series overtly apply the supernatural as a metaphor for the challenges of life and the changing experiences and growth or setbacks it brings. Buffy’s canvas is younger and, as a Whedon series, it has a self-conscious tone absent from True Blood. Levelling the playing field somewhat is that True Blood’s commentary is sometimes so on-the-nose as to pluck it from the face. The series’ storylines address religion, sex, race, and equality as running themes, but with such scant regard for finesse they could hardly be categorised as subtext. In particular, the religious content of the series (even given the Louisiana setting) doesn’t so much nudge gently as attempt to throttle the life out of you.

Hindsight is likely to label the third season as the series’ peak. If some of the new elements and characters didn’t live up to their potential (werewolves and werepanthers, the intriguing but ultimately damp squib of the fairie realm), it introduced the season-stealing Russell Edgington (Denis O’Hare), who was quite understandably brought back for the fifth, and Evan Rachel Wood’s vampire queen became another central anatagonist. The fourth year struggled uncertainly during its first half, with Eric unwisely rendered amnesiac and the witches plotline taking an awfully long time to justify itself. The best thread by far was the development of the medium skills of Lafayette (Nelsan Ellis) and his relationship with Jesus (Kevin Alejandro); there was an emotional wallop there that exposed most of the other plotlines as merely going through the motions.

And, to an extent, Season Five also leaves that impression. At times the need to serve the entire cast and characters, or posing the question of what can we do with them this season rather than having a strong idea going in, is clearly leading the writers’ choices.

Some of the resultant character shifts work better than others. The decision to make Tara (Rutina Wesley) a vampire is a good one in that it makes Tara more engaging and the writers less prone to spinning her in ever decreasing doomed circles. But it’s a symptom of Buffy syndrome where, by the end of the run, the only non-fantastically gifted character is Xander. Unlike many of the fanbase, it seems, I like Tara and Wesley’s performance, but it’s difficult not to come to the conclusion that vamping her up is a cop-out for not being able to find her something positive or different to do as a human; an admission of defeat.

With Bill, one wonders how much the decision to turn him bad is down to Moyer’s influence (he also directed an episode this season). My problem with the change isn’t that we’ve seen it all before (Angel, in both Buffy and Angel on a number of occasions; and it has to be said that, for all of David Boreanaz’s limitations compared to Moyer, the former makes a better fist of it) but that I never really believed in the transformation. Something is missing in terms of selling it to the audience; no matter how much the writers talk this up as being a dramatically powerful change in motivation, of being “born again” (this is the extent of the subtlety on this show), it doesn’t fly. And, again, there’s déjà vu with the final season of Angel, where Spike comes into focus as the more sympathetic “human” character when previously it was the titular protagonist. Perhaps Moyer fails to convey the change, or perhaps it’s that his acceptance of Lilith needs to be conveyed by the writers as strongly as Eric’s rejection.

Elsewhere, the werewolf storyline continues to be at best half as interesting as it should (I’ve always liked werewolf mythology, but it’s curious how consistently movies and TV make them rather banal), although it’s nice to see Robert Patrick as Alcide’s wayward dad. I’ve never found Jason Stackhouse the classic character the writers regard him as (it’s difficult to make stupid interesting), despite Ryan Kwanten’s performance. Likewise the rather drippy, earnest Sam; Sam Trammell is thrown the bone of an episode where Luna shifts into the form of Sam Merlotte, but the extended business concerning Luna’s daughter is a bit of a chore. Sookie takes a bit of a backseat during this run (because she is only defined by the absent men she loves?) and she considers draining off her powers; reasonable, as she and Jason are being set up for a stronger arc in Six concerning the murder of their parents and her being promised to vampire Warlow.

Terry’s (Todd Lowe) Iraq backstory is not only clumsily handled but weakly thought out (although the fire demon effects are rather good). And, great as Chris Bauer is playing Andy Bellefleur, I can’t see his fairy quadruplet babies being anything other than a crappy comedy running gag for Season Six.

In contrast, the flashbacks to Pam’s (Kristin Bauer van Straten) human life, and her relationship with Tara allow for some fine nuanced playing from van Straten (as I’ve said, subdued is not the show’s strong suit). And, while I’m not sorry to see the departure of the series’ dullest character Hoyt (Jim Parrack), every scene featuring his one-time belle Jessica (Deborah Ann Woll) is a joy. If I was to single out the characters that leave me wanting more, they’re Jessica and Lafayette; in other words, not the nominal leads.

Crucially, even though the Lilith “true believer” concept is repetitive and somewhat witless, the central storyline concerning the Vampire Authority is a solid one. Upping the ante with the conflict between mainstreamers and true believers escalating into a vampire-human war has a lot of potential, even if the danger is that we'll only see the localised Bon Temps evidence of it during Season Six. Teaming Bill and Eric, and keeping them removed from Bon Temps and Sookie for most of the season, is a smart move and ensures the over-explored romance is put on the backburner. I’m not sure the Authority is ever quite as impressive or threatening as it should be, but there are enough new characters and twists and turns to make it consistently engaging. Christopher Meloni’s Roman, the dedicated mainstreamer, Christiopher Heyerdahl as Dieter Braun and Lucy Griffiths’ Nora (Eric’s sister) are probably the standouts. But Michael McMillian is given a new lease of life as evangelist turned vampire Steve Newlin; his scenes with Denis O’Hare are frequently hilarious, and he’s even gifted the chance to play Sam in the season finale.

So, always very watchable but never essential viewing. I can’t escape the feeling I’ve seen this all before. There’s nothing all that dramatic about Bill-as-Lilith when you’re familiar with Angelus or Jasmine (Season Four of Angel). Is this a show that will finish at the end of its seventh year, or will HBO seek to extend it due ratings success? I don’t doubt there are sufficient stories to keep it on air, but it would be symptomatic of the show’s main problem. This is a series that rambles around somewhat aimlessly, dictated too much by soap opera elements. I never get the sense that there’s a long-term plan for the characters. Each season works on its own terms, but perhaps a bit more focus is in order.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

Remember, you're fighting for this woman's honour – which is probably more than she ever did.

Duck Soup (1933)
(SPOILERS) Not for nothing is Duck Soup acclaimed as one of the greatest comedies ever, and while you’d never hold it against Marx Brothers movies for having little in the way of coherent plotting in – indeed, it’s pretty much essential to their approach – the presence of actual thematic content this time helps sharpen the edges of both their slapstick and their satire.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

On account of you, I nearly heard the opera.

A Night at the Opera (1935)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers head over to MGM, minus one Zeppo, and despite their variably citing A Night at the Opera as their best film, you can see – well, perhaps not instantly, but by about the half-hour mark – that something was undoubtedly lost along the way. It isn’t that there’s an absence of very funny material – there’s a strong contender for their best scene in the mix – but that there’s a lot else too. Added to which, the best of the very funny material can be found during the first half of the picture.

I still think it’s a terrible play, but it makes a wonderful rehearsal.

Room Service (1938)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers step away from MGM for a solitary RKO outing, and a scarcely disguised adaption of a play to boot. Room Service lacks the requisite sense of anarchy and inventiveness of their better (earlier) pictures – even Groucho’s name, Gordon Miller, is disappointingly everyday – but it’s nevertheless an inoffensive time passer.

This better not be some 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea shit, man.

Underwater (2020)
(SPOILERS) There’s no shame in a quality B-movie, or in an Alien rip-off done well. But it’s nevertheless going to need that something extra to make it truly memorable in its own right. Underwater, despite being scuppered at the box office, is an entirely respectable entry in both those arenas from director William Eubank, but like the recent Life (which, in fairness, had an ending that very nearly elevated it to the truly memorable), it can’t quite go that extra mile, or summon that much needed sliver of inspiration to set it apart.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Goodbye, Mr Chimps.

At the Circus (1939)
(SPOILERS) This is where the brothers sink into their stretch of middling MGM movies, now absent the presence of their major supporter Irving Thalberg; it’s probably for the best this wasn’t called A Day at the Circus, as it would instantly have drawn unflattering comparisons with the earlier MGM pair that gave them their biggest hits. Nevertheless, there’s enough decent material to keep At the Circus fairly sprightly (rather than “fairly ponderous”, as Pauline Kael put it).