Skip to main content

Laser eyes? Who said I have laser eyes?

Jessica Jones
Season One

(SPOILERS) I felt no great urgency to investigate Jessica Jones. I’d been underwhelmed by the first season of Daredevil and, despite a common refrain that Jessica got it right where Daredevil had faltered, I really needed to be convinced. I eventually was convinced, but it took about seven episodes to get there.


Does that make up for the rather listless, Daredevil-but-with-better-characters pace and content during the first half of the season? Well, kind of, since it’s what ends up sticking in the mind that counts. The strange part is, even though Jessica Jones mostly rather flounders until David Tennant’s Kilgrave shows up proper and starts doing really nasty things repeatedly, I wasn’t overly taken with the ex-Doctor Who’s performance. I mean, he’s obviously doing something right, because Kilgrave’s a winner on the page and works well on screen, and Tennant’s more than capable of turning the charm on and off at will. Too frequently, though, he summoned the casual patter (but minus the mockney) that made his Doctor so aggravating. I guess it just helps that here you’re supposed to want to punch him.


The dread regarding Kilgrave is intended to grow steadily during the opening tranche of episodes, yet it doesn’t quite come together that way thanks to the languid pace. That, and when we do meet him he’s just David Tennant in a purple suit; it’s only several further episodes down the line that he begins to have some bite.


Add in some annoying filler characters (Eka Darville’s Malcom is a perpetual source of irritation, particularly when he sobers up and starts a victim support group; Colby Minifie’s Robyn is an arresting presence but not in a good way, a junior Sandra Bernhard when it comes to frightening facial contortions) and a selection of identikit ones (it takes a while to distinguish between the triumvirate of blondes that are Rachael Taylor’s Trish, Susie Abromeit’s Pam and Erin Moriarty’s Hope) and you begin to worry that/wonder if Netflix/Marvel are going to stick to the same wholly unremarkable template for each of its Defenders. Coming after Daredevil, there’s a clear feeling of formula (get to a certain point in the run, reveal the villain, reveal the hero’s backstory, etc.) As with Daredevil, it’s evident that pruning the show to three quarters, or a third, of its length would make all the difference.


Krysten Ritter’s an instant hit as Jessica, though, in a way Charlie Cox’s more measured characterisation couldn’t hope to be. Occasionally there’s a bit too much Buffy to her quips, but at least she doesn’t go all meta on us. Mike Colter and Carrie-Anne Moss are similarly strong as Luke Cage and Jessica’s ethics-free legal contact Jeri Hogarth respectively (I have to admit; I didn’t even recognise Rebecca De Mornay as Trish’s mum). Less successful is the TV budget psycho-Captain America meets pill-popping-Bourne Legacy Will Simpson (Wil Traval), who quickly becomes tiresome with his perma-hopped up/hyped up/looney tunes act.


I wasn’t so convinced by the quality of the direction on the show, either. Generally, there was a noticeable lack of panache when it came to the action (or did they just want the action to appear non-spectacular, to emphasis the grittiness of the proceedings? If so, it backfired, as the uninspired camerawork and editing sometimes made it seem plain cheap) and atmosphere (at least until the later stages). There’s a scene in the fourth episode where a Kilgrave-controlled kid starts insulting Jessica on the street. It’s supposed to be creepy, but it’s merely flat.


However, despite my reservations regarding Tennant, Kilgrave is a suitably unfettered, no-holds-barred villain, one at home in this down-and dirty-locale, and the writers find interesting things to do with a character who can have anything he wants simply by demanding it, unlimited by any annoying morals or pesky scruples. Being unsure how far he will go at any moment keeps the season edgy and intriguing, and it begins to raise its game in the sixth episode when we see him “winning” at poker and buying a (Jessica’s parents’) house. Come the seventh, and there’s a terrific confrontation in a police station with officers’ guns placed at members of both each other’s and the public’s heads under threat of mass slaughter at Kilgrave’s command. Jessica Jones hits pretty much an uncompromising home run from there on. It’s certainly a show that doesn’t stint on the blood, gore and general grue.


The twistiness did remind me of a Whedon series at times, but, considering showrunner Melissa Rosenberg was one of Dexter’s guiding hands, the through line with the playing on sympathies, loyalties and sides is readily apparent, from flirting with whether Kilgrave has good reason for being so deranged (abuser/abused) to turning the same on its head when we meet his parents (a particularly fine performance from Michael Siberry as Albert Thompson, who I know best as Bingo Little in the Fry and Laurie Jeeves and Wooster). The ninth and tenth episodes are the highlights, with Kilgrave right where Jessica wants him until he inevitably turns the tables. After that the energy couldn’t help but peter off somewhat, although it still maintained a much stronger draw than in the first half.


Some of the themes in the show are rather laboured (Jessica doesn’t think she’s a good person, but she’s trying to be, and the dialogue goes round and round on whether to kill Kilgrave to the point of cerebral fatigue; the Kilgrave as psycho-ex metaphor mostly works, although occasionally it slips into consciously leading by the nose, such that the commentary on rape/consensual sex – “How am I supposed to know?” – is so far from finessed, it conjures memories of Buffy/Spike in Season Six of that show). 


It also suffers the same malaise as Daredevil in failing to hide its lack of interest in the non-hero/villain characters (thus it’s down to the actors to drag something memorable from such roles, which a few, notably Robin Weigert and Clarke Peters, do). That leads to the circularity of, in particular, Malcolm repeating exactly the same inanities whenever he pops up during the course of any given episode (and what, he’s going to be Jessica’s secretary now? Say it’s not so. I guess at least he isn’t Foggy Nelson, so small mercies and all that).


Based on the first half of the season, Jessica Jones looked to be fairly middling fare, but during the last half there were times it bordered on must-see event TV; as such, it definitely speaks to the need to have a motivated, distinct and pro-active Big Bad dictating the course of events. It also helps not to dress your heroes and heroines in silly costumes if you’re hell-bent on emphasising a real-world milieu.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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…

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…

You're waterboarding me.

The Upside (2017)
(SPOILERS) The list of US remakes of foreign-language films really ought to be considered a hiding to nothing, given the ratio of flops to unqualified successes. There’s always that chance, though, of a proven property (elsewhere) hitting the jackpot, and every exec hopes, in the case of French originals, for another The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby, True Lies or Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Even a Nine Months, Sommersby or Unfaithful will do. Rather than EdTV. Or Sorcerer. Or Eye of the Beholder. Or Brick Mansions. Or Chloe. Or Intersection (Richard Gere is clearly a Francophile). Or Just Visiting. Or The Man with One Red Shoe. Or Mixed Nuts. Or Original Sin. Or Oscar. Or Point of No Return. Or Quick Change. Or Return to Paradise. Or Under Suspicion. Or Wicker Park. Or Father’s Day.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his …

Would you like Smiley Sauce with that?

American Beauty (1999)
(SPOILERS) As is often the case with the Best Picture Oscar, a backlash against a deemed undeserved reward has grown steadily in the years since American Beauty’s win. The film is now often identified as symptomatic of a strain of cinematic indulgence focussing on the affluent middle classes’ first world problems. Worse, it showcases a problematic protagonist with a Lolita-fixation towards his daughter’s best friend (imagine its chances of getting made, let alone getting near the podium in the #MeToo era). Some have even suggested it “mercifully” represents a world that no longer exists (as a pre-9/11 movie), as if such hyperbole has any bearing other than as gormless clickbait; you’d have to believe its world of carefully manicured caricatures existed in the first place to swallow such a notion. American Beauty must own up to some of these charges, but they don’t prevent it from retaining a flawed allure. It’s a satirical take on Americana that, if it pulls its p…

Kindly behove me no ill behoves!

The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
(SPOILERS) It’s often the case that industry-shaking flops aren’t nearly the travesties they appeared to be before the dust had settled, and so it is with The Bonfire of the Vanities. The adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s ultra-cynical bestseller is still the largely toothless, apologetically broad-brush comedy – I’d hesitate to call it a satire in its reconfigured form – it was when first savaged by critics nearly thirty years ago, but taken for what it is, that is, removed from the long shadow of Wolfe’s novel, it’s actually fairly serviceable star-stuffed affair that doesn’t seem so woefully different to any number of rather blunt-edged comedies of the era.

Is CBS Corporate telling CBS News "Do not air this story"?

The Insider (1999)
(SPOILERS) The Insider was the 1999 Best Picture Oscar nominee that didn’t. Do any business, that is. Which is, more often than not, a major mark against it getting the big prize. It can happen (2009, and there was a string of them from 2014-2016), but aside from brief, self-congratulatory “we care about art first” vibes, it generally does nothing for the ceremony’s profile, or the confidence of the industry that is its bread and butter. The Insider lacked the easy accessibility of the other nominees – supernatural affairs, wafer-thin melodramas or middle-class suburbanite satires. It didn’t even brandish a truly headlines-shattering nail-biter in its conspiracy-related true story, as earlier contenders All the President’s Men and JFK could boast. But none of those black marks prevented The Insider from being the cream of the year’s crop.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.