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

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.