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

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

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…

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam! (2019)
(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.