Skip to main content

Never jump the fence if you're not willing to face what's on the other side.


Dexter 
Season Seven

I came a bit late to Dexter. Season Two had gone by, and the raves I was hearing didn’t really sway me towards investigatin in a series that had a serial killer as its protagonist. Surely it would be relentlessly grim and unsavoury? I’m glad I took the plunge because, while it isgarnished with the prerequisite tits, violence and swearing of a US cable show, it is possessed of an enduring wit and intelligence that have made it remarkably durable; despite of a formula that should have worn very thin very quickly.

While it’s surely a coincidence, the fact that both this and Breaking Badfeature covertly criminal lead characters closely affiliated with the police is a significant pointer to the heightened milieu both have created. There’s never any mistaking either for something approximating the real world but, by keeping the “reality” of its characters emotional journeys close to its chest, each series has exerted a vice-like grip on its plotlines and ensured a dedicate audience. The issue both now face is sustainability of premise. No one is mistaking the events depicted for something that might happen in the real world, but there needs to be internal consistency in order to maintain audience suspension of disbelief. Dexter has gone on for longer, and has sailed much closer to the wind with its succession of kills and killers. The further it drifts from resolution, the more problematic become the repetitions and the closer it sails to formula and away from the originality that so marked it out in the first place.

Ideally, Dexter would probably have told its story in three or four seasons. Most fans would tell you the first couple of runs were the best, although there’s a strong argument for Season Four being the series’ peak (its certainly the strongest in my view). It seemed as if the series let the cat out of the bag far too early, with the front-ended drama of Dexter’s past and his brother in the first season and the tightening of the screws as Doakes doggedly pursues his man during the second.

As a consequence, the third run felt merely solid (with Jimmy Smits as the guest nemesis). Then the ante was upped again with John Lithgow as the ultimate serial killer reflection of Dexter the following year. It was a series-changer, with the departure of Julie Benz (admittedly, I never found Rita an especially compelling character, but the series finale is a gut-puncher). It was also the last year with Clyde Phillips as showrunner, and the perceived drop in quality of the subsequent seasons has been attributed to his absence.

I went into Season Five with lowered expectations but, after a patchy start, it proved to be one of my favourite runs; if Johnny Lee Miller couldn’t compete with arch-villains of previous years, the plotline and character of Lumen (Julia Stiles) seemed like a perfect way to expand Dexter’s dimensionality. But Season Six really did turn out as a soggy dog’s dinner; even with the amount of forewarning I’d received. The “big bad” may have had a half-decent twist, but the character was slightly silly and underwhelming (Colin Hanks – the casting may be a signpost, but Dexter needs someone of equal presence to square off against). Worse, Debra’s discovery of her “true” feelings for her adopted brother seemed like the most unwise of Scully/Mulder developments, particularly as it wasn’t something anyone was clamouring for (was it a result of the real life relationship between Michael C. Hall and Jennifer Carpenter?) It left the series struggling for dramatic integrity, and it was only Debra’s final moments discovery of Dexter’s true identity that saved it from being something of a write-off. A number of the previous seasons had resolved major plot threads in the penultimate episode, or the early section of the final one, allowing something of an epilogue to take place. Four and Six stand out for ending with series-changing high drama.

Season Seven is certainly a massive improvement on Six. Structurally, I don’t think the whole is as well integrated as some of the past efforts and occasionally the liberal spattering of villainy comes across as slightly piecemeal. Some interesting choices are made with Ray Stevenson's character, who at first sight appears to be the major antagonist of the season but turns out to be all about perceived threat. As ever, the series uses its bad guys to mirror Dexter, and Isaac Sirko’s acts are motivated by passion. He isn’t fuelled by a demon, and doesn’t conform to the typical template of the series (he leaves a minimal body count and he is very far from being a serial killer). Indeed, he turns out to be surprisingly sympathetic, and Stevenson makes the most of a much more urbane role than his usual typecasting; Dexter’s discovery of love is verbalised by Isaac’s insight into it. But the knock-on of his slightly less dynamic behaviour is that this plot thread drifts out of view as early as the 10th episode, pulling into focus the relationship dramas that have been at the core of this run. It means that filler such as the arrival of Hannah’s father (Jim Beaver) is obviously just that.

Yvonne Strahovski makes an instant impression as Hannah McKay, whom Dexter finds himself simpatico with when he realises he doesn’t have to hide his true nature from her. She’s a killer too (just not a serial one), and accepts his dark passenger (albeit disputing his label and pointing to it as an aspect of him, which goes towards a general interrogation of the principals by which he has survived). Strahovski makes Hannah an equal whereas, for example, Dexter was very much the mentor figure to Lumen.

One of the main features of the season is that Dexter is exposed like never before; Hannah knows who he is, LaGuerta is actively investigating him, and most of all he has to contend with Debs. Jennifer Carpenter seems to incite a fair bit of criticism from series fans, but I love her expletive-ridden performance. There are occasions during the first half of this season when she struggles with the character beats that the writers are clearly struggling with; how do they get Debs to a position where she accepts Dexter and the audience is convinced of the process she has gone through? I don’t think they were wholly successful while on the road, although I do buy into the destination.

The trouble is that, after the first couple of episodes, the mid-ground of the season flounders on her repeatedly getting furious with Dexter and asking what sort of person he is/covering up for him etc. Manouevring her to a point where she wants Dexter to “do his thing” is telegraphed at best and outright clumsy at worst (killer for a couple of episodes Ray Speltzer). Thanks to Carpenter you do buy that she takes the course of action she does because she loves her brother.
But there’s a definite feeling of, midway through the run when she admits to Dexter that she is in love with him, the writers apologetically admitting that, yes, they really went there with that last season didn’t they. They’d clearly rather forget about it but know they can’t sweep it under the carpet. At least, that’s my explanation of their reticence with the subject (no doubt partly steered by audience reaction to it). Debs doesn’t need the excuse of being besotted with her brother to justify not shopping him; the tie of them only having each other as siblings is much stronger than that (as Dexter expresses at one point). At least they didn’t encourage Dexter to reciprocate; indeed the relationship with Hannah couldn’t be a more effective kibosh on such a possibility.

Her antagonism towards Hannah makes sense, even if it weren’t based on amorous feelings for her brother, so I was half expecting the revelation that she had poisoned herself in order to induce Dexter to turn in Hannah. I can see why they didn’t do that (but I bet they considered it) given the final sequence of the season, as it would have unnecessarily doubled-up her dabbling with the dark side.

Reigniting the Bay Harbor Butcher inquiry on LaGuerta’s part initially seemed to be a bit of a tired move, but as the plotline progresses it more than justifies itself (I liked how what appears to be a terrible example of convenience from the scripters – the release of Hector Estrada – is nothing of the sort). It adds to the feeling that Dexter can no longer hide (it is only the sure-toned voice over of Hall that encourages any sense of comfort as tensions escalate) and builds to a point where Debs chooses Dexter over what is morally right. The final tracking shot as they arrive at Batista’s party sets the mood for the final act rather than leaves you on the edge of your seat. Will Debs go to pieces, or be able to live with what she has done?

Lauren Vélez has been saddled with the most unsympathetic of characters throughout the run, such that even in her final scene you aren’t coming down on her side (one of the best tricks the writers know – as with Breaking Bad – is pushing the buttons of the audience so that you root for the bad guy). At least she gets a strong plot thread for her final appearance in the series (nice to see Eric King back for some flashbacks in the last episode too). Desmond Harrington (Quinn) and David Zayas (Batista) aren’t nearly as well served. Indeed, although Quinn’s continuing storyline of an infatuation with a stripper is a sizeable one, it’s almost entirely clichéd and one-note.

I wouldn’t like to speculate on the closing stages of the series, but I expect the writers will rise to the challenge of finishing the Dexter on an appropriate note. I’d have been far less sure of that following Season Six. Hannah McKay will definitely be back (in the last half of the run) and I’m looking forward to seeing how Charlotte Rampling (as a shrink) fits in. A series’ reputation hinges on how it finishes, no matter what peaks it achieves on the way (just look at Lostand The X-Files to see how it can all fall apart) so I don’t think anyone will be resting on their laurels.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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…

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.